{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_30132/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_30132","id":"gutenberg_30132","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/30132","summary":null,"tags":["Bible -- Canon","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"The Canon of the Bible:\n\n                 Its Formation, History, And Fluctuations\n\n                                    By\n\n                          Samuel Davidson, D.D.\n\n                           Of Halle, And LL.D.\n\n               From the Third Revised and Enlarged Edition.\n\n                                 New York\n\n                       Peter Eckler Publishing Co.\n\n                                   1877\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nPreface.\nChapter I. Introductory.\nChapter II. The Old Testament Canon From Its Beginning To Its Close.\nChapter III. The Samaritan And Alexandrian Canons.\nChapter IV. Number And Order Of The Separate Books.\nChapter V. Use Of The Old Testament By The First Christian Writers, And By\nThe Fathers Till The Time Of Origen.\nChapter VI. The New Testament Canon In The First Three Centuries.\nChapter VII. The Bible Canon From The Fourth Century To The Reformation.\nChapter VIII. Order Of The New Testament Books.\nChapter IX. Summary Of The Subject.\nChapter X. The Canon In The Confession Of Different Churches.\nChapter XI. The Canon From Semler To The Present Time, With Reflections On\nIts Readjustment.\nFootnotes\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nThe substance of the present work was written toward the close of the year\n1875 for the new edition of the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_. Having been\nabridged and mutilated, contrary to the author\u2019s wishes, before its\npublication there, he resolved to print it entire. With that view it has\nundergone repeated revision with enlargement in different parts, and been\nmade as complete as the limits of an essay appeared to allow. As nothing\nof importance has been knowingly omitted, the writer hopes it will be\nfound a comprehensive summary of all that concerns the formation and\nhistory of the Bible canon. The place occupied by it was vacant. No\nEnglish book reflecting the processes of results of recent criticism,\ngives an account of the canon in both Testaments. Articles and essays upon\nthe subject there are; but their standpoint is usually apologetic not\nscientific, traditional rather than impartial, unreasonably conservative\nwithout being critical. The topic is weighty, involving the consideration\nof great questions, such as the inspiration, authenticity, authority, and\nage of the Scriptures. The author has tried to handle it fairly, founding\nhis statements on such evidence as seemed convincing, and condensing them\ninto a moderate compass. If the reader wishes to know the evidence, he may\nfind it in the writer\u2019s _Introductions to the Old and New Testaments_,\nwhere the separate books of Scripture are discussed; and in the late\ntreatises of other critics. While his expositions are capable of\nexpansion, it is believed that they will not be easily shaken. He commends\nthe work to the attention of all who have an interest in the progress of\ntheology, and are seeking a foundation for their faith less precarious\nthan books however venerable.\n\nIt has not been the writer\u2019s purpose to chronicle phases of opinion, or to\nrefute what he believes to be error in the newest hypotheses about the\nage, authority, and composition of the books. His aim has been rather to\nset forth the most correct view of the questions involved in a history of\nthe canon, whether it be more or less recent. Some may think that the\nlatest or most current account of such questions is the best; but that is\nnot his opinion. Hence, the fashionable belief that much of the\nPentateuch, the Book of Leviticus wholly, with large parts of Exodus and\nNumbers, in a word, that all the laws relating to divine worship, with\nmost of the chronological tables or statistics, belong to Ezra, who is\nmetamorphosed in fact into the first Elohist, is unnoticed. Hence, also,\nthe earliest gospel is not declared to be Mark\u2019s. Neither has the author\nventured to place the fourth gospel at the end of the first century, as\nEwald and Weitzs\u00e4cker do, after the manner of the old critics; or with\nKeim so early as 110-115 A.D.\n\nMany evince a restless anxiety to find something novel; and to depart from\nwell-established conclusions for the sake of originality. This shows a\nmorbid state of mind. Amid the feverish outlook for discoveries and the\nslight regard for what is safe, conservatism is a commendable thing. Some\nagain desire to return, as far as they can, to orthodoxy, finding between\nthat extreme and rationalism a middle way which offers a resting-place to\nfaith. The numerous changes which criticism presents are not a symptom of\nsoundness. The writer is far indeed from thinking that every question\nconnected with the books of Scripture is finally settled; but the majority\nundoubtedly are, though several already fixed by great scholars continue\nto be opened up afresh. He does not profess to adopt the phase of\ncriticism which is fashionable at the moment; it is enough to state what\napproves itself to his judgment, and to hold it fast amid the\ncontrarieties of conjecture or the cravings of curiosity. Present\nexcrescences or aberrations of belief will have their day and disappear.\nLarge portions of the Pentateuch will cease to be consigned to a\npost-exile time, and the gospels of Matthew and Luke will again be counted\nthe chief sources of Mark\u2019s. It will also be acknowledged that the first\nas it now exists, is of much later origin than the fall of Jerusalem. Nor\nwill there be so great anxiety to show that Justin Martyr was acquainted\nwith the fourth gospel, and owed his Logos-doctrine chiefly to it. The\ndifference of ten or twenty years in the date of a gospel will not be\nconsidered of essential importance in estimating its character.\n\nThe present edition has been revised throughout and several parts\nre-written. The author hopes that it will be found still more worthy of\nthe favor with which the first was received.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY.\n\n\nAs introductory to the following dissertation, I shall explain and define\ncertain terms that frequently occur in it, especially _canon_,\n_apocryphal_, _ecclesiastical_, and the like. A right apprehension of\nthese will make the observations advanced respecting the canon and its\nformation plainer. The words have not been taken in the same sense by all,\na fact that obscures their sense. They have been employed more or less\nvaguely by different writers. Varying ideas have been attached to them.\n\nThe Greek original of _canon_(1) means primarily a straight rod or pole;\nand metaphorically, what serves to keep a thing upright or straight, a\n_rule_. In the New Testament it occurs in Gal. vi. 16 and 2 Cor. x. 13,\n15, 16, signifying in the former, a measure; in the latter, what is\nmeasured, a _district_. But we have now to do with its ecclesiastical use.\nThere are three opinions as to the origin of its application to the\nwritings used by the church. According to Toland, Whiston, Semler, Baur,\nand others, the word had originally the sense of _list_ or _catalogue_ of\nbooks publicly read in Christian assemblies. Others, as Steiner, suppose\nthat since the Alexandrian grammarians applied it to collections of Old\nGreek authors as _models_ of excellence or _classics_, it meant\n_classical_ (canonical) _writings_. According to a third opinion, the term\nincluded from the first the idea of a regulating principle. This is the\nmore probable, because the same idea lies in the New Testament use of the\nnoun, and pervades its applications in the language of the early Fathers\ndown to the time of Constantine, as Credner has shown.(2) The \u201ccanon of\nthe church\u201d in the Clementine homilies;(3) the \u201cecclesiastical canon,\u201d(4)\nand \u201cthe canon of the truth,\u201d in Clement and Iren\u00e6us;(5) the \u201ccanon\u201d of\nthe faith in Polycrates,(6) the _regula fidei_ of Tertullian,(7) and the\n_libri regulares_ of Origen,(8) imply a _normative principle_. But we\ncannot assent to Credner\u2019s view of the Greek word for _canon_ being an\nabbreviation of \u201cScriptures of canon,\u201d(9) equivalent to _Scriptur\u00e6 legis_\nin Diocletian\u2019s Act(10)\u2014a view too artificial, and unsanctioned by usage.\n\nIt is true that the word _canon_ was employed by Greek writers in the\nsense of a mere _list_; but when it was transferred to the Scripture\nbooks, it included the idea of a regulative and normal power\u2014a list of\nbooks forming a rule or law, because the newly-formed Catholic Church\nrequired a standard of appeal in opposition to the Gnostics with their\narbitrary use of sacred writings. There is a lack of evidence on behalf of\nits use before the books of the New Testament had been paralleled with\nthose of the Old in authority and inspiration.\n\nThe earliest example of its application to a catalogue of the Old or New\nTestament books occurs in the Latin translation of Origen\u2019s homily on\nJoshua, where the original seems to have been \u201ccanon.\u201d(11) The word itself\nis certainly in Amphilochius,(12) as well as in Jerome,(13) and\nRufinus.(14) As the Latin translation of Origen has _canonicus_ and\n_canonizatus_, we infer that he used \u201ccanonical,\u201d(15) opposed as it is to\n_apocryphus_ or _secretus_. The first occurrence of \u201ccanonical\u201d is in the\nfifty-ninth canon of the Council of Laodicea, where it is contrasted with\ntwo other Greek words.(16) \u201c_Canonized_ books,\u201d(17) is first used in\nAthanasius\u2019s 39th festal epistle. The kind of rule which the earliest\nfathers attributed to the Scriptures can only be conjectured; it is\ncertain that they believed the Old Testament books to be a _divine_ and\n_infallible guide_. But the New Testament was not so considered till\ntowards the close of the second century when the conception of a Catholic\nChurch was realized. The latter collection was not called _Scripture_, or\nput on a par with the Old Testament as _sacred_ and _inspired_, till the\ntime of Theophilus of Antioch (about 180 A.D.) Hence, Iren\u00e6us applies the\nepithets _divine_ and _perfect_ to the Scriptures; and Clement of\nAlexandria calls them _inspired_.\n\nWhen distinctions were made among the Biblical writings other words(18)\nwere employed, synonymous with \u201ccanonized.\u201d(19) The canon was thus a\ncatalogue of writings forming a rule of truth, sacred, divine, revealed by\nGod for the instruction of men. The rule was perfect for its purpose.\n\nThe word apocryphal(20) is used in various senses, which it is difficult\nto trace chronologically. Apocryphal books are,\u2014\n\n1st, Such as contain _secret_ or _mysterious_ things, books of the higher\nwisdom. It is thus applied to the Apocalypse by Gregory of Nyssa.(21) Akin\nto this is the second meaning.\n\n2nd, Such as were _kept secret_ or withdrawn from public use. In this\nsense the word corresponds to the Hebrew _ganuz_.(22) So Origen speaking\nof the story of Susanna. The opposite of this is _read in public_,(23) a\nword employed by Eusebius.(24)\n\n3rd, It was used of the secret books of the heretics by Clement(25) and\nOrigen,(26) with the accessory idea of _spurious_,\n_pseudepigraphical_,(27) in opposition to the canonical writings of the\nCatholic Church. The book of Enoch and similar productions were so\ncharacterized.(28)\n\n4th, Jerome applied it to the books in the Septuagint which are absent\nfrom the Hebrew canon, _i.e._, to the books which were _read_ in the\nchurch, the _ecclesiastical_ ones(29) occupying a rank next to the\ncanonical. In doing so he had respect to the corresponding Hebrew epithet.\nThis was a misuse of the word _apocryphal_, which had a prejudicial effect\non the character of the books in after-times.(30) The word, which he did\nnot employ in an injurious sense, was adopted from him by Protestants\nafter the Reformation, who gave it perhaps a sharper distinction than he\nintended, so as to imply a contrast somewhat disparaging to writings which\nwere publicly read in many churches and put beside the canonical ones by\ndistinguished fathers. The Lutherans have adhered to Jerome\u2019s meaning\nlonger than the Reformed; but the decree of the Council of Trent had some\neffect on both. The contrast between the canonical and apocryphal writings\nwas carried to its utmost length by the Westminster divines, who asserted\nthat the former are inspired, the latter not.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II. THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON FROM ITS BEGINNING TO ITS CLOSE.\n\n\nThe first important part of the Old Testament put together as a whole was\nthe Pentateuch, or rather, the five books of Moses and Joshua. This was\npreceded by smaller documents, which one or more redactors embodied in it.\nThe earliest things committed to writing were probably _the ten words_\nproceeding from Moses himself, afterwards enlarged into the ten\ncommandments which exist at present in two recensions (Exod. xx., Deut.\nv.) It is true that we have the oldest form of the decalogue from the\nJehovist not the Elohist; but that is no valid objection against the\nantiquity of the nucleus, out of which it arose. It is also probable that\nseveral legal and ceremonial enactments belong, if not to Moses himself,\nat least to his time; as also the Elohistic list of stations in Numbers\nxxxiii. To the same time belongs the song of Miriam in Exodus xv.,\nprobably consisting of a few lines at first, and subsequently enlarged;\nwith a triumphal ode over the fall of Heshbon (Numbers xxi. 27-30). The\nlittle poetical piece in Numbers xxi. 17, 18, afterwards misunderstood and\nso taken literally, is post-Mosaic.\n\nDuring the unsettled times of Joshua and the Judges there could have been\ncomparatively little writing. The song of Deborah appeared, full of poetic\nforce and fire. The period of the early kings was characterized not only\nby a remarkable development of the Hebrew people and their consolidation\ninto a national state, but by fresh literary activity. Laws were written\nout for the guidance of priests and people; and the political organization\nof the rapidly growing nation was promoted by poetical productions in\nwhich spiritual life expressed its aspirations. Schools of prophets were\ninstituted by Samuel, whose literary efforts tended to purify the worship.\nDavid was an accomplished poet, whose psalms are composed in lofty\nstrains; and Solomon may have written a few odes. The building of the\ntemple, and the arrangements connected with its worship, contributed\nmaterially to a written legislation.\n\nDuring this early and flourishing period appeared the book of the Wars of\nJehovah,(31) a heroic anthology, celebrating warlike deeds; and the book\nof Jashar,(32) also poetical. Jehoshaphat is mentioned as court-annalist\nto David and Solomon.(33) Above all, the Elohists now appeared, the first\nof whom, in the reign of Saul, was author of annals, beginning at the\nearliest time which were distinguished by genealogical and chronological\ndetails as well as systematic minuteness, by archaic simplicity, and by\nlegal prescriptions more theoretical than practical. The long genealogical\nregisters with an artificial chronology and a statement of the years of\nmen\u2019s lives, the dry narratives, the precise accounts of the gradual\nenlargement of divine laws, the copious description of the tabernacle and\nthe institution of divine worship, are wearisome, though pervaded by a\ntheoretic interest which looks at everything from a legal point of view. A\nsecond or junior Elohist was less methodical and more fragmentary,\nsupplying additional information, furnishing new theocratic details, and\nsetting forth the relation of Israel to heathen nations and to God. In\ncontrast with his predecessor, he has great beauty of description, which\nis exemplified in the account of Isaac\u2019s sacrifice and the history of\nJoseph; in picturesque and graphic narratives interspersed with few\nreflections. His parallels to the later writer commonly called the\nJehovist, are numerous. The third author, who lived in the time of Uzziah,\nthough more mythological than the Elohists, was less formal. His\nstand-point is prophetic. The third document incorporated with the\nElohistic ones formed an important part of the whole, exhibiting a\nvividness which the first lacked; with descriptions of persons and things\nfrom another stand-point. The Jehovist belonged to the northern kingdom;\nthe Elohists were of Judah.\n\nThe state of the nation after Rehoboam was unfavorable to literature. When\nthe people were threatened and attacked by other nations, divided among\nthemselves in worship and all higher interests, rent by conflicting\nparties, the theocratic principle which was the true bond of union could\nnot assert itself with effect. The people were corrupt; their religious\nlife debased. The example of the kings was usually prejudicial to\npolitical healthiness. Contact with foreigners as well as with the older\ninhabitants of the land, hindered progress. In these circumstances the\nprophets were the true reformers, the advocates of political liberty,\nexpositors of the principles that give life and stability to a nation. In\nJudah, Joel wrote prophetic discourses; in Israel, Amos and Hosea. Now,\ntoo, a redactor put together the Elohistic and Jehovistic documents,\nmaking various changes in them, adding throughout sentences or words that\nseemed desirable, and suppressing what was unsuited to his taste. Several\npsalm-writers enriched the national literature after David. Learned men at\nthe court of Hezekiah recast and enlarged (Proverbs xxv.-xxix.) the\nnational proverbs, which bore Solomon\u2019s name because the nucleus of an\nolder collection belonged to that monarch. These literary courtiers were\nnot prophets, but rather scribes. The book of Job was written, with the\nexception of Elihu\u2019s later discourses, which were not inserted in it till\nafter the return from Babylon; and Deuteronomy, with Joshua, was added to\nthe preceding collection in the reign of Manasseh. The gifted author of\nDeuteronomy, who was evidently imbued with the prophetic spirit, completed\nthe Pentateuch, _i.e._, the five books of Moses and Joshua, revising the\nElohist-Jehovistic work, and making various additions and alterations. He\ndid the same thing to the historical books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings;\nwhich received from him their present form. Immediately before and during\nthe exile there were numerous authors and compilers. New psalms appeared,\nmore or less national in spirit. Ezekiel, Jeremiah and others prophesied;\nespecially an unknown seer who described the present condition of the\npeople, predicting their coming glories and renovated worship in strains\nof far-reaching import.(34) This great prophet expected the regeneration\nof the nation from the pious portion of it, the prophets in particular,\nnot from a kingly Messiah as Isaiah did; for the hopes resting on rulers\nout of David\u2019s house had been disappointed. His aspirations turned to\nspiritual means. He was not merely an enthusiastic seer with comprehensive\nglance, but also a practical philosopher who set forth the doctrine of the\ninnocent suffering for the guilty; differing therein from Ezekiel\u2019s theory\nof individual reward and punishment in the present world\u2014a theory out of\nharmony with the circumstances of actual life. The very misfortunes of the\nnation, and the signs of their return, excited within the nobler spirits\nhopes of a brighter future, in which the flourishing reign of David should\nbe surpassed by the universal worship of Jehovah. In consequence of their\noutward condition, the prophets of the exile were usually writers, like\nEzekiel, not public speakers; and their announcement of glad tidings could\nonly be transmitted privately from person to person. This explains in part\nthe oblivion into which their names fell; so that the author or redactor\nof Jeremiah l., li.; the author of chapters xiii.-xiv. 23, xxi. 1-10,\nxxiv.-xxvii., xxxiv., xxxv., inserted in Isaiah; and, above all, the\nBabylonian Isaiah, whom Hitzig improbably identifies with the high-priest\nJoshua, are unknown. After the return from Babylon the literary spirit\nmanifested itself in the prophets of the restoration\u2014Haggai, Zechariah,\nand Malachi\u2014who wrote to recall their countrymen to a sense of religious\nduties; though their ideas were borrowed in part from older prophets of\nmore original genius. The book of Esther appeared, to make the observance\nof the purim feast, which was of Persian origin, more general in\nPalestine. The large historical work comprising the books of Ezra,\nNehemiah, and Chronicles, was compiled partly out of materials written by\nEzra and Nehemiah, partly out of older historical records which formed a\nportion of the national literature. Several temple-psalms were also\ncomposed; a part of the present book of Proverbs; Ecclesiastes, whose tone\nand language betray its late origin; and Jonah, whose diction puts its\ndate after the Babylonian captivity. The Maccabean age called forth the\nbook of Daniel and various psalms. In addition to new productions there\nwas an inclination to collect former documents. To Zechariah\u2019s authentic\nprophecies were added the earlier ones contained in chapters ix.-xiv.; and\nthe Psalms were gradually brought together, being made up into divisions\nat different times; the first and second divisions proceeding from one\nredactor, the third from another, the fourth and fifth from a still later.\nVarious writings besides their own were grouped around the names of\nearlier prophets, as was the case with Isaiah and Jeremiah.\n\nThe literature is more indebted for its best constituents to the prophetic\nthan to the priestly order, because the prophets were preachers of\nrepentance and righteousness whose great aim was to make Israel a\nJehovah-worshipping nation to the exclusion of other gods. Their\nutterances were essentially ethical and religious; their pictures of the\nfuture subjective and ideal. There was silently elaborated in their\nschools a spiritual monotheism, over against the crude polytheism of the\npeople generally\u2014a theocratic ideal inadequately apprehended by gross and\nsensuous Israel\u2014Jehovism simple and sublime amid a sacerdotal worship\nwhich left the heart impure while cleansing the hands. Instead of taking\ntheir stand upon the law, with its rules of worship, its ceremonial\nprecepts and penalties against transgressors, the prophets set themselves\nabove it, speaking slightingly of the forms and customs which the people\ntook for the whole of religion. To the view of such as were prepared to\nreceive a faith that looked for its realization to the future, they helped\nto create a millennium, in which the worship of Jehovah alone should\nbecome the basis of a universal religion for humanity. In addition to the\nprophetic literature proper, they wrote historical works also. How\nsuperior this literature is to the priestly, appears from a comparison of\nthe Kings and Chronicles. The subjective underlies the one; the objective\ndistinguishes the other. Faith in Jehovah, clothed, it may be in sensible\nor historical forms, characterizes the one; reference of an outward order\nto a divine source, the other. The sanctity of a people under the\ngovernment of a righteous God, is the object of the one; the sanctity of\ninstitutions, that of the other. Even when the prophets wrote history,\n_the facts_ are subordinate to _the belief_. Subjective purposes colored\ntheir representation of real events.\n\nTo them we are indebted for the Messianic idea, the hope of a better time\nin which their high ideal of the theocracy should be realized. With such\nbelief in the future, with pious aspirations enlivening their patriotism,\ndid they comfort and encourage their countrymen. The hope, general or\nindefinite at first, was afterwards attached to the house of David, out of\nwhich a restorer of the theocracy was expected, a king pre-eminent in\nrighteousness, and marvelously gifted. It was not merely a political but a\nreligious hope, implying the thorough purification of the nation, the\nextinction of idolatry, the general spread and triumph of true religion.\nThe pious wishes of the prophets, often repeated, became a sort of\ndoctrine, and contributed to sustain the failing spirit of the people. The\nindefinite idea of a golden age was commoner than that of a personal\nprince who should reign in equity and peace. Neither was part of the\nnational faith, like the law, or the doctrine of sacrifice; and but a few\nof the prophets portrayed a king, in their description of the period of\nideal prosperity.\n\nThe man who first gave public sanction to a portion of the national\nliterature was Ezra, who laid the foundation of a canon. He was the leader\nin restoring the theocracy after the exile, \u201ca ready scribe in the law of\nMoses, who had prepared his heart to seek the law of the Lord and to teach\nin Israel statutes and judgments.\u201d As we are told that he brought the book\nof the law of Moses before the congregation and read it publicly, the idea\nnaturally arises that he was the final redactor of the Pentateuch,\nseparating it from the historical work consisting of Joshua and the\nsubsequent writings, of which it formed the commencement. Such was the\nfirst canon given to the Jewish Church after its reconstruction\u2014ready for\ntemple service as well as synagogue use. Henceforward the Mosaic book\nbecame an authoritative guide in spiritual, ecclesiastical, and civil\nmatters, as we infer from various passages in Ezra and Nehemiah and from\nthe chronicler\u2019s own statements in the book bearing his name. The doings\nof Ezra with regard to the Scriptures are deduced not only from what we\nread of him in the Biblical book that bears his name, but also from the\nlegend in the fourth book of Ezdras,(35) where it is related that he\ndictated by inspiration to five ready writers ninety-four books; the first\ntwenty-four of which he was ordered to publish openly that the worthy and\nunworthy might read, but reserved the last seventy for the wise. Though\nthe twenty-four books of the Old Testament cannot be attributed to him,\nthe fact that he copied and wrote portions need not be questioned. He\nedited _the law_, making the first canon or collection of books, and\ngiving it an authority which it had not before. Talmudic accounts\nassociate with him the men of the great synagogue. It is true that they\nare legendary, but there is a foundation of fact beneath the fanciful\nsuperstructure. As to Ezra\u2019s treatment of the Pentateuch, or his specific\nmode of redaction, we are left for the most part to conjecture. Yet it is\nsafe to affirm that he added;\u2014making new precepts and practices either in\nplace of or beside older ones. Some things he removed as unsuited to the\naltered circumstances of the people; others he modified. He threw back\nlater enactments into earlier times. It is difficult to discover all the\nparts that betray his hand. Some elaborate priestly details show his\nauthorship most clearly. If his hand be not visible in Leviticus, chap.\nxvii.-xxvi.; a writer not far removed from his time is observable; Ezekiel\nor some other. It is clear that some of the portion (xxv. 19-22; xxvi.\n3-45) is much later than the Elohists, and belongs to the exile or\npost-exile period. But great difficulty attaches to the separation of the\nsources here used; even after Kayser\u2019s acute handling of them. It is also\nperceptible from Ezekiel xx. 25, 26, that the clause in Exodus xiii. 15,\n\u201cbut all the first-born of my children I redeem,\u201d was added after the\nexile, since the prophet shows his unacquaintance with it. The statute\nthat all which openeth the womb should be burnt in sacrifice to Jehovah,\nappeared inhuman not only to Ezekiel, but to Ezra or his associates in\nre-editing the law; and therefore the clause about the redemption of every\nfirst-born male was subjoined. Ezra, a second Moses in the eyes of the\nlater Jews, did not scruple to refer to Moses what was of recent origin,\nand to deal freely with the national literature. Such was the first\ncanon\u2014that of Ezra the priest and scribe.\n\nThe origin of the great synagogue is noticed in Ezra x. 16, and described\nmore particularly in Nehemiah viii.-x., the members being apparently\nenumerated in x. 1-27; at least the Megila Jer. (i. 5) and Midrash Ruth (\u00a7\n3) speak of an assembly of eighty-five elders, who are probably found in\nthe last passage. One name, however, is wanting, for only eighty-four are\ngiven; and as Ezra is not mentioned among them, the conjecture of Krochmal\nthat it has dropped out of x. 9, may be allowed. Another tradition gives\nthe number as one hundred and twenty, which may be got by adding the\n\u201cchief of the fathers\u201d enumerated in Ezra viii. 1-14 to the hundred and\ntwo heads of families in Ezra ii. 2-58. Whether the number was the same at\nthe commencement as afterwards is uncertain. Late Jewish writers, however,\nsuch as Abarbanel, Abraham ben David, Ben Maimun, &c., speak as if it\nconsisted of the larger number at the beginning; and have no scruple in\npronouncing Ezra president, rather than Nehemiah.(36)\n\nThe oldest extra-biblical mention of the synagogue, is in the Mishnic\ntreatise _Pirke Aboth_, where it is said, \u201cMoses received the laws from\nMount Sinai, and delivered it to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, the elders\nto the prophets, and the prophets delivered it to the men of the great\nsynagogue. These last spake these words: \u2018Be slow in judgment; appoint\nmany disciples; make a hedge for the law.\u2019 \u201d(37) In the Talmudic _Baba\nBathra_, their biblical doings are described: \u201cMoses wrote his book, the\nsection about Balaam and job. Joshua wrote his book and eight verses of\nthe law. Samuel wrote his book and judges and Ruth. David wrote the book\nof Psalms _by_ (?)(38) ten elders, by Adam the first man, by Melchizedek,\nby Abraham, by Moses, by Heman, by Jeduthun, by Asaph, and the three sons\nof Korah. Jeremiah wrote his book, the books of Kings and Lamentations.\nHezekiah and his friends wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, Canticles, and Coheleth;\nthe men of the great synagogue, Ezekiel, the twelve prophets, Daniel and\nEsther. Ezra wrote his own book and the genealogies of Chronicles down to\nhimself.\u201d(39) This passage has its obscurities. What is meant by the verb\n_write_!(40) Does it mean _composition_ and then something else; the\nformer in the first part of the passage, and _editing_ in the second?\nRashi explains it of _composition_ throughout, which introduces absurdity.\nThe most obvious interpretation is that which understands the verb of\n_writing_ in one place, and _editing_ in the second. But it is improbable\nthat the author should have used the same word in different senses, in one\nand the same passage. Bloch(41) understands it of _copying_ or _writing\nout_, a sense that suits the procedure of the men of the great synagogue\nin regard to Ezekiel, the twelve prophets, &c., but is inapplicable to\nMoses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Jeremiah, &c. It is probable enough that the\nsynagogue scribes put into their present form and made the first\nauthorized copies of the works specified. The Boraitha, however, is not\nclear, and may only express the opinion of a private individual in a\nconfused way. Simon the Just is said to have belonged to the remnants of\nthe synagogue. As Ezra is called \u201ca ready scribe,\u201d and his labors in\nconnection with the law were important, he may have organized a body of\nliterary men who should work in harmony, attending, among other things, to\nthe collection and preservation of the national literature; or they may\nhave been an association of patriotic men who voluntarily rallied round\nthe heads of the new state, to support them in their fundamental reforms.\nThe company of scribes mentioned in 1 Maccabees does not probably relate\nto it.(42) A succession of priests and scribes, excited at first by the\nreforming zeal of one whom later Jews looked upon as a second Moses,\nlabored in one department of literary work till the corporation ceased to\nexist soon after, if not in the time of Simon, _i.e._, from about 445 B.C.\ntill about 200; for we identify the Simon celebrated in Sirach l. 1-26\nwith Simon II., son of the high-priest Onias II., B.C. 221-202; not with\nSimon I., son and successor of the high-priest Onias I., B.C. 310-291.\nJosephus\u2019s opinion, indeed, is contrary; but leading Jewish scholars, such\nas Zunz, Herzfeld, Krochmal, Derenbourg, Jost, and Bloch differ from him.\n\nTo the great synagogue must be referred the compilation of the second\ncanon, containing Joshua, Judges with Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah,\nJeremiah with Lamentations, Ezekiel and the twelve minor prophets. It was\nnot completed prior to 300 B.C., because the book of Jonah was not written\nbefore. This work may be called a historical parable composed for a\ndidactic purpose, giving a milder, larger view of Jehovah\u2019s favor than the\northodox one, that excluded the Gentiles. Ruth, containing an idyllic\nstory with an unfinished genealogy attached, meant to glorify the house of\nDavid, and presenting a kindred spirit towards a people uniformly hated,\nwas appended to Judges; but was subsequently transferred to the third\ncanon. It was written immediately after the return from the Babylonian\ncaptivity; for the Chaldaising language points to this date,\nnotwithstanding the supposed archaisms discovered in it by some. In like\nmanner, the Lamentations, originally added to Jeremiah, were afterwards\nput into the later or third canon. Joshua, which had been separated from\nthe five books of Moses with which it was closely joined at first, formed,\nwith the other historical portion (Judges, Samuel, Kings), the proper\ncontinuation of Ezra\u2019s canon. The prophets included the three greater and\ntwelve minor. With Isaiah\u2019s authentic oracles were incorporated the last\ntwenty-seven chapters, belonging for the most part to an anonymous prophet\nof the exile, besides several late pieces inserted in the first\nthirty-nine chapters. Men of prophetic gifts wrote in the name of\ndistinguished prophets, and put their productions with those of the\nlatter, or adapted and wrote them over after their own fashion. The\nfiftieth and fifty-first chapters of Jeremiah show such over-writing. To\nZechariah\u2019s authentic oracles were attached chapters ix.-xiv., themselves\nmade up of two parts (ix.-xi., xii.-xiv.) belonging to different times and\nauthors prior to the destruction of the Jewish state by the Babylonians.\n\nThe character of the synagogue\u2019s proceedings in regard to the books of\nScripture can only be deduced from the conduct of Ezra himself, as well as\nthe prevailing views and wants of the times. The scribes who began with\nEzra, seeing how he acted, would naturally follow his example, not\nhesitating to revise the text _in substance_ as well as form.(43) They did\nnot refrain from changing what had been written, or from inserting fresh\nmatter. Some of their novelties can be discerned even in the Pentateuch.\nTheir chief work, however, related to the _form_ of the text. They put\ninto a proper form and state the text of the writings they studied,\nperceiving less need for revising the _matter_. What they did was in good\nfaith, with honest intention.\n\nThe prophetic canon ended with Malachi\u2019s oracles. And it was made sometime\nafter he prophesied, because the general consciousness that the function\nceased with him required a considerable period for its growth. The fact\nthat it included Jonah and Ruth brings the completion after 300 B.C., as\nalready stated. There are no definite allusions to it till the second\ncentury B.C. Daniel speaks of a passage in Jeremiah being in \u201cthe books\u201d\nor \u201cwritings;\u201d(44) and the prologue of Jesus Sirach presupposes its\nformation. Such was the second canon, which had been made up gradually\n(444-290 B.C.)\n\nAnother view of the collection in question has been taken by various\nscholars. According to a passage in the second book of Maccabees, the\nsecond canon originated with Nehemiah, who \u201cgathered together the acts of\nthe kings and the prophets and (psalms) of David, and the epistles of the\nkings concerning the holy gifts.\u201d(45) These words are obscure. They occur\nin a letter purporting to be sent by the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem to the\nJews in Egypt, which contains apocryphal things; a letter which assigns to\nNehemiah the merit of various arrangements rather belonging to Ezra. It is\ndifficult to understand the meaning of \u201cthe epistles of the kings\nconcerning the offerings.\u201d If they were the documents of heathen or\nPersian kings favorable to the rebuilding of Jerusalem and its temple,\nwould they not have been rejected from a collection of sacred books\nbelonging to the chosen people? They might perhaps have been adopted had\nthey been interwoven with the holy books themselves, like portions of Ezra\nand Nehemiah; but they could not have formed a distinct part of the\nnational literature, because they were foreign and heathen. Again, \u201cthe\npsalms of David\u201d cannot have existed in the time of Nehemiah, if the\nphrase includes the whole collection. It may perhaps refer to the first\nthree divisions of the book, as Herzfeld thinks; but these contain many\nodes which are not David\u2019s; while earlier ones belong to the last two\ndivisions of the Psalm-book. In like manner, \u201cthe prophets\u201d could not all\nhave belonged to this canon; neither Malachi, who was later, nor Jonah.\nThe account will not bear strict examination, and must be pronounced\napocryphal. Nehemiah was a statesman, not a priest or scribe; a\npolitician, not a literary man. It is true that he may have had\nassistants, or committed the work to competent hands; but this is\nconjectural. The account of his supposed canon hardly commends itself by\ninherent truthfulness or probability, though it is accepted by Ewald and\nBleek.\n\nWhen the great synagogue ceased, there was an interval during which it is\nnot clear whether the sacred books were neglected, except by private\nindividuals; or whether they were studied, copied, and collected by a body\nof scribes. Perhaps the scribes and elders of the Hasmon\u00e6an time were\nactive at intervals in this department. The institution of a senate by\nJudas Maccabaeus is supposed to be favored by 2 Maccabees (chapter i.\n10-ii. 18); but the passage furnishes poor evidence of the thing. Judas is\nthere made to write to Egypt in the year of the Seleucidae 188, though he\ndied thirty-six years before, _i.e._, 152. Other places have been added as\ncorroborative, viz., 2 Maccab. iv. 44, xi. 27; 1 Maccab. vii. 33. Some go\nso far as to state that Jose ben Joeser was appointed its first president\nat that time. The Midrash in Bereshith Rabba (\u00a7 65) makes him one of the\nsixty Hassidim who were treacherously murdered by Alcimus; but this is\nneither in the first book of the Maccabees (chapter vii.) nor in\nJosephus,(46) and must be pronounced conjectural. It is impossible to fix\nthe exact date of Jose ben Joeser in the Hasmonean period. Pirke Aboth\nleaves it indefinite. Jonathan, Judas Maccabaeus\u2019s successor, when writing\nto the Lacedaemonians, speaks of the _gerusia_ or senate as well as _the\npeople_ of the Jews; whence we learn that the body existed as early as the\ntime of Judas.(47) Again, Demetrius writes to Simon, as also to _the\nelders_ and _nation_ of the Jews.(48) After Jonathan and Simon, it may\nhave been suspended for a while, in consequence of the persecution and\nanarchy prevailing in Judea; till the great Sanhedrim at Jerusalem\nsucceeded it, under Hyrcanus I. Though the traces of a senate in the\nMaccabaean epoch are slight, the Talmud countenances its existence.(49) We\nbelieve that it was earlier than Judas Maccabaeus. Of its constitution\nnothing is known; but it was probably aristocratic. The Hasmonean prince\nwould naturally exert a commanding influence over it. The great synagogue\nhad been a kind of democratic council, consisting of scribes, doctors or\nteachers, and priests.(50) Like their predecessors of the great synagogue,\nthe Hasmon\u00e6an elders revised the text freely, putting into it explanatory\nor corrective additions, which were not always improvements. The way in\nwhich they used the book of Esther, employing it as a medium of Halachite\nprescription, shows a treatment involving little idea of sacredness\nattaching to the Hagiographa.\n\nWe are aware that the existence of this body is liable to doubt, and that\nthe expressions belonging to it in Jewish books, whether elders or\n_gerusia_, have been applied to the great synagogue or to the Sanhedrim at\nJerusalem, or even to the elders of any little town or hamlet; but it is\ndifficult to explain all on that hypothesis, without attributing confusion\nto the places where they occur. If the body in question be not allowed, an\ninterval of about sixty years elapsed between the great synagogue and the\nSanhedrim, during which the hagiographical writings were comparatively\nneglected, though literary activity did not cease. No authoritative\nassociation, at least, dealt with them. This is improbable. It is true\nthat we read of no distinguished teachers in the interval, except\nAntigonus of Socho, disciple of Simon the Just; but the silence can hardly\nweigh against a reasonable presumption. One thing is clear, viz., that\nAntigonus did not reach down to the time of the first pair that presided\nover the Sanhedrim.\n\nThe contents of the third canon, _i.e._, Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Canticles,\nEcclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles, the formation of\nwhich we assign to the Hasmon\u00e6an gerusia, were multifarious, differing\nwidely from one another in age, character, and value\u2014poetical, prophetic,\ndidactic, historical. Such as seemed worthy of preservation, though they\nhad not been included in the second canon, were gathered together during\nthe space of an hundred and fifty years. The oldest part consisted of\npsalms supposed to belong to David. The first psalm, which contains within\nitself traces of late authorship, was prefixed as an introduction to the\nwhole collection now put into the third canon. Next to the Psalms were\nProverbs, Job, Canticles, which, though non-prophetic and probably\nexcluded on that account from the second canon, must have existed before\nthe exile. Enriched with the latest additions, they survived the national\ndisasters, and claimed a place next to the Psalms. They were but a portion\nof the literature current in and after the 5th century B.C., as may be\ninferred from the epilogue to Ecclesiastes, and the Wisdom of Sirach. The\nhistorical work compiled by the chronicle-writer was separated, Ezra being\nput first as the most important part, and referring also to the church of\nthe 6th and 5th centuries whose history had not been written. The\nChronicles themselves were placed last, being considered of less value\nthan the first part, as they contained the summary of a period already\ndescribed, though with numerous adaptations to post-exile times. The\nyoungest portion consisted of the book of Daniel, not written till the\nMaccabean period (between 170 and 160 B.C.);(51) and probably of several\nPsalms (44, 60, 74, 75, 76, 79, 80, 83, 89, 110, 118) which were inserted\nin different places of the collection to make the whole number 150. These\nlate odes savor of the Maccabean time; and are fitly illustrated by the\nhistory given in the first book of Maccabees. The list continued open;\ndominated by no stringent principle of selection, and with a character\nsomewhat indefinite. It was called _c\u2019tubim_, _i.e._, writings(52) a\ngeneral epithet suited to the contents.\n\nSeveral books put into the third canon,\u2014as Job, Proverbs, the greater\nnumber of the Psalms, &c.,\u2014existed when the second was made. But the\nlatter collection was pre-eminently _prophetic_; and it was that idea of\nthe origin and contents of the books in it which regulated its extent.\nBloch\u2019s supposition that the parts of the third collection then existing\nwere not looked upon as holy, but merely as productions embodying human\nwisdom, and were therefore excluded, is improbable. We do not think that\nan alteration of opinion about them in the course of a century or more, by\nwhich they became divine and holy instead of human, is a satisfactory\nexplanation. The Psalms of David and the book of Job must have been as\nhighly esteemed in the period of the great synagogue\u2019s existence as they\nwere at a later time. Other considerations besides the divinity and\nholiness of books contributed to their introduction into a canon.\nEcclesiastes was taken into the third collection because it was attributed\nto Solomon. The Song of Songs was understood allegorically,\u2014a fact which,\nin addition to its supposed Solomonic authorship, determined its adoption.\nAnd even after their canonical reception, whether by the great synagogue\nor another body, the character of books was canvassed. It was so with\nEcclesiastes, in spite of the _supposed_ sanction it got from the great\nsynagogue contained in the epilogue, added, as some think, by that body to\nattest the sacredness of the book.(53)\n\nWhile the third canon was being made, the soferim, as the successors of\nthe prophets, were active as before; and though interpretation was their\nchief duty, they must have revised and corrected the sacred books to some\nextent. We need not hesitate to allow that they sometimes arranged parts,\nand even added matter of their own. In the time of the canon\u2019s entire\npreparation, they and the priests, with writers and scholars generally,\nredacted the national literature, excluding or sanctioning such portions\nof it as they thought fit.\n\nAt this time appeared the present five-fold partition of the Psalms,\npreceded as it had been by other divisions, the last of which was very\nsimilar to the one that became final. Several inscriptions and historical\nnotices were prefixed. The inscriptions, however, belong to very different\ntimes, their historical parts being usually older than the musical; and\ndate from the first collection to the period of the Hasmonean college,\nwhen the final redaction of the entire Psalter took place. Those in the\nfirst three books existed at the time when the latter were made up; those\nin the last two were prefixed partly at the time when the collections\nthemselves were made, and partly in the Maccabean age. How often they are\nout of harmony with the poems themselves, needs no remark. They are both\ntraditional and conjectural.\n\nThe earliest attestation of the third canon is that of the prologue to\nJesus Sirach (130 B.C.), where not only _the law and the prophets_ are\nspecified, but \u201cthe other books of the fathers,\u201d or \u201cthe rest of the\nbooks.\u201d(54) No information is given as to its extent, or the particular\nbooks included. They may have been for the most part the same as the\npresent ones. The passage does not show that the third list was closed.\nThe better writings of the fathers, such as tended to learning and wisdom,\nare not excluded by the definite article. In like manner, neither Philo\nnor the New Testament gives exact information as to the contents of the\ndivision in question. Indeed, several books, Canticles, Esther,\nEcclesiastes, are unnoticed in the latter. The argument drawn from Matthew\nxxiii. 35, that the Chronicles were then the last book of the canon, is\ninconclusive; as the Zechariah there named was probably different from the\nZechariah in 2 Chronicles xxiv. None of these witnesses proves that the\nthird canon was finally closed.\n\nA more definite testimony respecting the canon is given by Josephus\ntowards the end of the first century A.D. \u201cFor we have not an innumerable\nmultitude of books among us, ... but only twenty-two books, which contain\nthe records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine.\nAnd of them five belong to Moses.... But as to the time from the death of\nMoses till the reign of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, the prophets who were\nafter Moses wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The\nremaining four books contain hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of\nhuman life. It is true our history has been written since Artaxerxes very\nparticularly, but has not been esteemed of the like authority with the\nformer by our forefathers, because there has not been an exact succession\nof prophets since that time: and how firmly we have given credit to these\nbooks of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages\nas have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything\nto them, to take anything from them, or to make any change in them; but it\nhas become natural to all Jews immediately and from their very birth, to\nesteem these books to contain divine doctrines, and to persist in them,\nand if occasion be, willingly to die for them.\u201d(55) This list agrees with\nour present canon, showing that the Palestinian Jews were tolerably\nunanimous as to the extent of the collection. The thirteen prophets\ninclude Job; the four lyric and moral books are Psalms, Proverbs,\nEcclesiastes and Canticles.\n\nIt is not likely that the Hasmon\u00e6an senate had a long existence. It was\nreplaced by the Sanhedrim, a more definite and state institution, intended\nas a counter-balance to the influence of the Hasmon\u00e6an princes. The\nnotices of the latter reach no further back than Hyrcanus I., _i.e._,\nabout 135 B.C.(56) Josephus speaks of it under Hyrcanus II.(57) It cannot\nbe referred to an earlier period than Hyrcanus I. Frankel(58) indeed,\nfinds a notice of it in 2 Chronicles xix. 8, 11; but the account there is\nindistinct, and refers to the great synagogue. The compiler having no\ncertain information about what was long past, transfers the origin of the\ncourt he speaks of to Jehoshaphat, in order to glorify the house of David.\nIt is impossible to date the Sanhedrim, with Frankel, in the Grecian era,\nin which case it must have been dissolved during the Maccabean\ninsurrection, and afterwards reconstructed; it was not constituted till\nabout 130 B.C. Whether it was modeled after the great synagogue or the\nHasmon\u00e6an senate, is uncertain. The idea of it may have been suggested by\nthe latter rather than the former, for its basis was aristocratic. The\nHasmon\u00e6an _gerusia_ must have been less formal and definite than the\nSanhedrim; though the latter arose before the family ceased to be in\npower, and differed materially from its predecessor. It continued from 130\nB.C. till A.D. 180, surviving the terrible disasters of the nation.(59)\n\nThe closing of the third canon cannot be assigned, with Bloch, to the\ngreat synagogue. If the college ceased with or before Simon, _i.e._, about\n200-192, and the work of Daniel did not appear till about 170 B.C., twenty\nyears at least intervened between the extinction of the great synagogue\nand Daniel\u2019s book. This holds good, whether we assume, with Krochmal, the\nsynagogue\u2019s _redaction_ of the work,\u2014more correctly the putting together\nof the independent parts of which _it is said_ to be composed; or equally\nso, if the taking of it into the canon as a book already completed, be\nattributed to the same body. But we are unable to see that Krochmal\u2019s\nreasoning about the synagogue putting Daniel\u2019s work together and one of\nthe members writing the book of Esther is probable.\n\nIn like manner, Maccabean psalms are adverse to the hypothesis that the\ngreat synagogue completed the third canon. In consequence of these late\nproductions, it is impossible to assert that the men of the synagogue were\nthe redactors of the Psalter as it is. It is true that the collection was\nmade before the Chronicles and many other books of the hagiographical\ncanon; but the _complete_ Psalter did not appear till the Maccabean\nperiod. The canon, however, was not considered to be finally closed in the\nfirst century before and the next after Christ. There were doubts about\nsome portions. The book of Ezekiel gave offence, because some of its\nstatements seemed to contradict the law. Doubts about others were of a\nmore serious nature; about Ecclesiastes, the Canticles, Esther, and the\nProverbs. The first was impugned because it had contradictory passages and\na heretical tendency; the second, because of its worldly and sensual tone;\nEsther for its want of religiousness; and Proverbs on account of\ninconsistencies. This scepticism went far to procure the exclusion of the\nsuspected works from the canon, and their relegation to the class of the\n_genuzim_.(60) But it did not prevail. Hananiah, son of Hezekiah, son of\nGaron, about 32 B.C., is said to have reconciled the contradictions and\nquieted the doubts.(61) But these traces of resistance to the fixity of\nthe canon were not the last. They reappeared about A.D. 65, as we learn\nfrom the Talmud,(62) when the controversy turned mainly upon the\ncanonicity of Ecclesiastes, which the school of Shammai, who had the\nmajority, opposed; so that the book was probably excluded.(63) The\nquestion emerged again at a later synod at Jabneh or Jamnia, when R.\nEleasar ben Asaria was chosen patriarch, and Gamaliel the second, deposed.\nHere it was decided, not unanimously however, but by a majority of\nHillelites, that Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs \u201cpollute the hands,\u201d\n_i.e._, belong properly to the Hagiographa.(64) This was about 90 A.D.(65)\nThus the question of the canonicity of certain books was discussed at two\nsynods.\n\nPassages in the Talmud have been adduced to show that the Shammaite\nobjections to the canonicity of Ecclesiastes \u201cwere overruled by the\npositive declaration from the 72 elders, _being a testimony anterior to\nthe Christian era_ that Coheleth is canonical; but they do not support the\nopinion.\u201d(66)\n\n\u201cThe sages\u201d referred to in the treatise Sabbat and elsewhere is a vague\nexpression, resting apparently on no historic tradition\u2014a mere opinion of\ncomparatively late date. If it refer to the Jerusalem synod A.D. 65, the\nHillelites were simply outnumbered there by the Shammaites. The matter was\ndebated hastily, and determined for the time by a majority. But the synod\nat Jamnia consisted of 72 persons; and a passage in the treatise Yadayim\nrefers to it.(67) The testimony of the 72 elders to whom R. Simeon ben\nAsai here alludes, so far from belonging to an anti-christian era, belongs\nto a date about 90 A.D. And the fact that the synod at Jamnia took up\nagain a question already debated at Jerusalem A.D. 65, proves that no\nfinal settlement of the canon had taken place before. The canon was\nvirtually settled at Jamnia, where was confirmed what R. Akiba said of the\nCanticles in his usual extravagant way: \u201cNo day in the whole history of\nthe world is of so much worth as the one in which the Song of Songs was\ngiven to Israel; for all the Scriptures are holy; but the Song of Songs is\nmost holy.\u201d(68) As the Hagiographa were not read in public, with the\nexception of Esther, opinions of the Jewish rabbins might still differ\nabout Canticles and Ecclesiastes, even after the synod of Jamnia.\n\nIn opposition to these remarks, it is strenuously argued by Bloch that\nneither the passage in the Mishnic treatise Yadayim, nor any other, refers\nto the _canonical character_ of the books to which Jewish elders raised\nseveral objections. But his arguments are more vehement than valid.\nAnxious to assign the final settlement of the entire canon to an\nauthoritative body like the great synagogue, he affirms that all parties\nwere united in opinion about the time of Christ,\u2014Assiim, Perushim, and\nZeddukim; Shammaites and Hillelites. But it requires more than his\ningenuity to explain away the meaning of Yadayim 3, 5, Adoyot v. 3, Sabbat\n1. To what did such diversity of opinion relate, if not to the canonical\ncharacter of the books? A specific answer to the question is not given by\nthe learned writer,(69) who is too eager in his endeavor to attribute the\nsettlement of the third canon to the great synagogue, and to smooth away\nall diversities of opinion about several books, after that time, as if\nnone could afterwards question the authoritative settlement by that body.\nHe will not even allow a wider canon to the Alexandrian Jews than that of\ntheir Palestinian brethren, though he cannot but admit that the former\nread and highly esteemed various apocryphal books because of their\n_theocratic_ character. Surely the practical use of writings is an\nevidence of their canonicity as strong as theoretical opinions.\n\nThe doubts about several books to which we have alluded, some of which\nHananiah is said to have resolved in his old age, imply a diligent study\nof the national literature, if not a revision of the text; and the\nTannaite college at Jabneh must have cared for the same things, as it had\nto deal with similar objections. After the last canon was made more than a\ncentury anterior to the Christian era, the text was not considered\ninviolate by the learned Jews; it received subsequent modifications and\ninterpolations. The process of redaction had not ceased before the time of\nChrist. This was owing, among other causes, to the state of parties among\nthe Jews, as well as the intrusion of Greek literature and culture, whose\ninfluence the Palestinian Jews themselves were not able altogether to\nwithstand. When Jeremiah accused the Scribes of falsifying the law by\ntheir lying pen (viii. 8), it may be inferred that the same process took\nplace afterwards; that offensive things were removed, and alterations made\ncontinuously down to the close of the canon, and even after. The\ncorrections consisted of additions and changes of letters, being indicated\nin part by the most ancient versions and the traditions of the Jews\nthemselves who often knew what stood in the text at first, and why it was\naltered. They are also indicated by the nature of the passage itself\nviewed in the light of the state of religion at the time. Here, sober\njudgment must guard against unnecessary conjectures. Some changes are\napparent, as the plural _oaks_ in Genesis xiii. 18, xiv. 13, xviii. 1,\nDeuteronomy xi. 30, for the singular _oak_; and the plural _gods_ in\nExodus xxxii. 4, for the singular _god_. So 2 Sam. Vii. 23, (comp. 1\nChron. xvii. 21, and LXX);(70) and Deuteronomy xxxii. 8,(71) have been\naltered. Popper and Geiger have probably assumed too much correction on\nthe part of the Scribes and others; though they have drawn attention to\nthe subject in the spirit of original criticism.\n\nJewish literature began to degenerate after the captivity, and it\ncontinued to do so. It leaned upon the past more and more, having an\nexternal and formal character with little of the living soul. The\nindependence of their religious literature disappeared with the national\nindependence of the Jews; and the genius of the people was too exclusive\nto receive much expansion from the spirit of nations with whom they came\nin contact. In such circumstances, amid the general consciousness of\npresent misfortune which the hope of a brighter future could not dispel,\nand regretful retrospects of the past tinged with ideal splendor, the\nexact time of drawing a line between books that might be included in the\nthird division of the canon must have been arbitrary. In the absence of a\nnormal principle to determine selection, the productions were arbitrarily\nseparated. Not that they were badly adjusted. On the contrary, the canon\nas a whole was settled wisely. Yet the critical spirit of learned Jews in\nthe future could not be extinguished by anticipation. The canon was not\nreally settled for all time by a synodical gathering at Jamnia; for Sirach\nwas added to the Hagiographa by some rabbins about the beginning of the\n4th century;(72) while Baruch circulated long in Hebrew, and was publicly\nread on the day of atonement in the third century, according to the\nApostolic constitutions.(73) These two books were in high repute for a\nconsiderable time, possessing a kind of canonical credit even among the\nlearned Jews of Palestine. Rab, Jochanan, Elasar, Rabba bar Mare,\noccasionally refer to Sirach in the way in which the _c\u2019tubim_ were\nquoted: the writer of Daniel used Baruch; and the translator of Jeremiah\nput it into Greek.\n\nIf it be asked on what principle books were admitted into the canon, a\nsingle answer does not suffice. One and the same criterion did not\ndetermine the process at all times. The leading principle with which the\nfirst canon-makers set out was to collect all the documents of Hebrew\nantiquity. This seems to have guided Ezra, if not the great synagogue\nafter him. The nation, early imbued with the theocratic spirit and\nbelieving itself the chosen of God, was favorably inclined towards\ndocuments in which that standpoint was assumed. The legal and ethical were\nspecially valued. The prophetic claimed a divine origin; the lyric or\npoetic touched and elevated the ideal faculty on which religion acts. But\nthe leading principle which actuated Ezra and the great synagogue was\ngradually modified, amid the growing compass of the national literature\nand the consciousness that prophecy ceased with Malachi. When the latest\npart of the canon had to be selected from a literature almost\ncontemporaneous, regard was had to such productions as resembled the old\nin spirit. Orthodoxy of contents was the dominant criterion. But this was\na difficult thing, for various works really anonymous, though wearing the\ngarb of old names and histories, were in existence, so that the boundary\nof the third part became uncertain and fluctuating.\n\nThe principle that actuated Ezra in making the first canon was a religious\nand patriotic one. From his treatment of the oldest law books we infer\nthat he did not look upon them as inviolable. Venerable they were, and so\nfar sacred; but neither perfect nor complete for all time. In his view\nthey were not unconditionally authoritative. Doubtless they had a high\nvalue as the productions of inspired lawgivers and men of a prophetic\nspirit; but the redaction to which he submitted them shows no\nsuperstitious reverence. With him _canonical_ and _holy_ were not\nidentical. Nor does the idea of an _immediate, divine_ authority appear to\nhave dominated the mind of the great synagogue in the selection of books.\nLike Ezra, these scholars reverenced the productions of the prophets,\npoets, and historians to whom their countrymen were indebted in the past\nfor religious or political progress; but they did not look upon them as\nthe offspring of unerring wisdom. How could they, while witnessing\nrepetitions and minor contradictions in the books collected?\n\nThe same remarks apply to the third canon. _Direct divinity_ of origin was\nnot the criterion which determined the reception of a book into it; but\nthe character and authorship of the book. Did it breathe the old spirit,\nor proceed from one venerated for his wisdom? Was it like the old orthodox\nproductions; or did it bear the name of one renowned for his piety and\nknowledge of divine things? The stamp of antiquity was necessary in a\ncertain sense; but the theocratic spirit was the leading consideration.\nEcclesiastes was admitted because it bore the name of Solomon; and\nDaniel\u2019s apocalyptic writings, because veiled under the name of an old\nprophet. New psalms were taken in because of their association with much\nolder ones in the temple service. Yet the first book of Maccabees was\nexcluded, though written in Hebrew. It is still more remarkable that\nSirach was put among the external productions; but this was owing not so\nmuch to its recent origin, for it is older than the book of Daniel, as to\nits being an apparent echo of the Proverbs, and therefore unnecessary. Yet\nit was long after assigned to the Hagiographa, and quoted as such by\nseveral rabbis. Baruch was also left out, though it is as old as Daniel,\nif not older; and professes to have been written by Jeremiah\u2019s friend, in\nBabylon.\n\nThat redactors dealt freely with the text of the second and third canons\nespecially, without a superstitious belief in its sacredness, is apparent\nfrom the double recension which existed when the Egyptian Jews translated\nthe books into Greek. If the one that formed the basis of the Alexandrian\nversion be less correct than the Palestinian in the majority of instances,\nit is still superior in many. The differences between them, often\nremarkable, prove that those who had most to do with the books did not\nguard them as they would have done had they thought them infallibly\ninspired. Palestinians and Alexandrians subjected the text to redaction;\nor had suffered it to fall into a state inconsistent with the assumption\nof its supernatural origin. At a much later period, the Masoretes reduced\nto one type all existing copies of their Scriptures, introducing an\nuniformity imperatively demanded in their opinion by multiplied\ndiscrepancies.\n\nWhatever divine character the reflecting attributed to the canonical\nbooks, it must have amounted to the same thing as that assigned to human\nattributes and physical phenomena\u2014a divinity resulting from the\nover-leaping of second causes, in the absence of inductive philosophy.\nHere the imperfection conditioned by the nature of the created cannot be\nhid. Yet the books may be truly said to have contained the word of God.\n\nOf the three divisions, _the Law_ or Pentateuch was most highly venerated\nby the Jews. It was the first translated into Greek; and in Philo\u2019s view\nwas inspired in a way peculiar to itself. _The Prophets_, or second\ndivision, occupied a somewhat lower place in their estimation, but were\nread in the public services as the law had been before. The _c\u2019tubim_, or\nthird division, was not looked upon as equal to the Prophets in\nimportance: only the five Megiloth were publicly read. The three parts of\nthe collection present the three gradations of sanctity which the books\nassumed successively in Israelite estimation. A certain reverence was\nattached to all as soon as they were made canonical; but the reverence was\nnot of equal height, and the supposed authority was proportionally\nvaried.(74) The consciousness of prophetism being extinct soon after the\nreturn from Babylon, was a genuine instinct. With the extinction of the\nJewish state the religious spirit almost evaporated. The idealism which\nthe old prophets proclaimed in contrast with the symbolic religion of the\nstate gave place to the forms and an attachment to the _written_ law.\nReligion came to be a thing of the understanding, the subject of learned\ntreatment; and its essence was reduced to dogmas or precepts. Thus it\nceased to be a spiritual element in which the heart had free scope for its\nhighest aspirations. In addition to all, a foreign metaphysical theology,\nthe Persian doctrine of spirits, was introduced, which seemed to enlarge\nthe sphere of speculation, but really retarded the free exercise of the\nmind. As the external side of religion had been previously directed to the\nperformance of good works, this externality was now determined by a\nwritten law. Even the prophetism that appeared after the restoration was\nlittle more than an echo of the past, falling in with an outward and\nwritten legalism. The literature of the people deteriorated in quality,\nand prophecy became _apocalypse_. In such circumstances the advent of a\nnew man was needed to restore the free life of religion in higher power.\nChrist appeared in the fullness of time to do this effectually by\nproclaiming the divine Fatherhood, and founding a worship _in spirit and\nin truth_. Rising above the symbolic wrappings of the Mosaic religion, and\nrelying upon the native power of the spirit itself, he showed how man may\nmount up to the throne of God, adoring the Supreme without the\nintervention of temple, sacrifice, or ceremony.\n\nWhen the three divisions were united, the ecclesiastical respect which had\ngathered round the law and the prophets from ancient times began to be\ntransferred to the _c\u2019tubim_. A belief in their sanctity increased apace\nin the 1st century before the Christian era, so that _sacredness_ and\n_canonicity_ were almost identical. The doubts of individuals, it is true,\nwere still expressed respecting certain books of the _c\u2019tubim_, but they\nhad no perceptible effect upon the current opinion. The sanctity attaching\nto the last division as well as the others did not permit the total\ndisplacement of any part.\n\nThe passage in Josephus already quoted shows the state of the canon about\nA.D. 100. According to it, he considered it to have been closed at the\ntime of Artaxerxes Longimanus, whom he identifies with the Ahasuerus of\nEsther, 464-424 B.C. The books were divine, so that none dared to add to,\nsubtract from, or alter them. To him the canon was something belonging to\nthe venerable past, and inviolable. In other words, all the books were\npeculiarly sacred. Although we call scarcely think this to be his private\nopinion merely, it is probably expressed in exaggerated terms, and hardly\ntallies with his use of the third Esdras in preference to the canonical\ntexts.(75) His authority, however, is small. Bloch\u2019s estimate of it is too\nhigh. It is utterly improbable that Josephus\u2019s opinion was universally\nheld by the Jews in his day. His division of the books is peculiar: five\nMosaic, thirteen historical, four containing religious songs and rules of\nlife. It appears, indeed, that as he had the same twenty-two books we now\nhave, Ruth was still attached to Judges, and Lamentations to Jeremiah; but\nhis credit is not on a par with that of a Jew who adhered to his\ncountrymen in the time of their calamity. He wrote for the Romans. One who\nbelieved that Esther was the youngest book in the canon, who looked upon\nEcclesiastes as Solomon\u2019s, and Daniel as an exile production, cannot be a\ncompetent judge. In his time the historical sense of the book of Daniel\nwas misapprehended; for after the Grecian dynasty had fallen without the\nfulfillment of the Messianic prophecy connected with it, the Roman empire\nwas put into its place. Hence various allusions in _The History of the\nJewish Wars_.(76) The passage in the _Antiquities_,(77) about Alexander\nthe Great and the priests in the Temple at Jerusalem is apocryphal. In any\ncase, Josephus does not furnish a genuine list of the canonical books any\nmore than Philo. The Pharisaic view of his time is undoubtedly given, that\nthe canon was then complete and sacred. The decision proceeded from that\npart of the nation who ruled both over school and people, and regained\nsupremacy after the destruction of the temple; _i.e._, from the\nPharisee-sect to which Josephus belonged. It was a conclusion of orthodox\nJudaism. With true critical instinct, Spinoza says that the canon was the\nwork of the Pharisees. The third collection was undoubtedly made under\ntheir influence.\n\nThe origin of the _threefold_ division of the canon is not, as Oehler\nsupposes,(78) a reflection of the different stages of religious\ndevelopment through which the nation passed, as if the foundation were the\nLaw, the ulterior tendency in its objective aspect the Prophets, and its\nsubjective aspect the Hagiographa. The books of Chronicles and others\nrefute this arbitrary conception. The triplicity lies in the manner in\nwhich the books were collected. Men who belonged to different periods and\npossessed different degrees of culture, worked successively in the\nformation of the canon; which arose out of the circumstances of the times,\nand the subjective ideas of those who made it.\n\nThe places of the separate books within the first division or _Torah_,\nwere determined by the succession of the historical events narrated. The\nsecond division naturally begins with Moses\u2019s successor, Joshua. Judges,\nSamuel, and Kings follow according to the regular chronology. To the\nformer prophets, as Joshua\u2014Kings were called, the latter were attached,\nIsaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel; succeeded by the twelve minor prophets,\narranged for the most part according to their times, though the length of\nindividual prophecies and similarity of contents also influenced their\nposition.\n\nThe arrangement of books in the third division depended on their age,\ncharacter, and authors. The Psalms were put first, because David was\nsupposed to be the author of many, and on account of their intrinsic value\nin promoting the religious life of the people. After the Psalms came the\nthree poetical works attributed to Solomon, with the book of Job among\nthem,\u2014Proverbs, Job, Canticles, Ecclesiastes.\n\nThe book of Esther followed, since it was intended to further the\nobservance of the Purim feast; with the late book of Daniel. The position\nof Daniel among the _c\u2019tubim_ arises solely from the fact of its posterior\norigin to the prophetic writings, not excepting the book of Jonah itself;\nand the attempt to account for its place in the third division on the\nground of its predominant subjectivity is based on the unfounded\nassumption that the objective state of religion is represented in the\nsecond division and the subjective in the third. Had the book existed\nbefore 400 B.C., it would doubtless have stood in the second division. But\nthe contents themselves demonstrate its date; contemporary history being\nwrapped in a prophetic form. Having some affinity to Esther as regards\nheathenism and Greek life, the book was put next to the latter. To Ezra\nand Nehemiah, which were adopted before the other part of the Chronicle\nbook and separated from it, were added the so-called Chronicles. Such was\nthe original succession of the third division or _c\u2019tubim_; but it did not\nremain unaltered. For the use of the synagogue, the five Megiloth were put\ntogether; so that Ruth, which was originally appended to Judges, and the\nLamentations affixed at first to Jeremiah\u2019s prophecies, were taken out of\nthe second and put into the third canon. This caused a separation of\nCanticles and Ecclesiastes. The new arrangement was made for liturgical\npurposes.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III. THE SAMARITAN AND ALEXANDRIAN CANONS.\n\n\nThe Samaritan canon consists of the Pentateuch alone. This restricted\ncollection is owing to the fact, that when the Samaritans separated from\nthe Jews and began their worship on Gerizim, no more than the Mosaic\nwritings had been invested by Ezra with canonical dignity. The hostile\nfeeling between the rivals hindered the reception of books subsequently\ncanonized. The idea of their having the oldest and most sacred part in its\nentirety satisfied their spiritual wants. Some have thought that the\nSadducees, who already existed as a party before the Maccabean period,\nagreed with the Samaritans in rejecting all but the Pentateuch; yet this\nis doubtful. It is true that the Samaritans themselves say so;(79) and\nthat some of the church fathers, Origen, Jerome, and others agree; but\nlittle reliance can be put on the statement. The latter, perhaps,\nconfounded the Samaritans and Sadducces. It is also noteworthy that Christ\nin refuting the Sadducees appeals to the Pentateuch alone; yet the\nconclusion, that he did so because of their admitting no more than that\nportion does not follow.\n\nThe Alexandrian canon differed from the Palestinian. The Greek translation\ncommonly called the Septuagint contains some later productions which the\nPalestinian Jews did not adopt, not only from their aversion to Greek\nliterature generally, but also from the recent origin of the books,\nperhaps also their want of prophetic sanction. The closing line of the\nthird part in the Alexandrian canon was more or less fluctuating\u2014capable\nof admitting recent writings appearing under the garb of old names and\nhistories, of embracing religious subjects; while the Palestinian\ncollection was pretty well determined, and all but finally settled. The\njudgment of the Alexandrians was freer than that of their brethren in the\nmother country. They had even separated in a measure from the latter, by\nerecting a temple at Leontopolis; and their enlargement of the canon was\nanother step of divergence. Nor had they the criterion of language for the\nseparation of canonical and uncanonical; both classes were before them in\nthe same tongue. The enlarged canon was not formally sanctioned; it had\nnot the approval of the Sanhedrim; yet it was to the Alexandrians what the\nPalestinian one was to the Palestinians. If Jews who were not well\nacquainted with Hebrew, used the apocryphal and canonical books alike, it\nwas a matter of feeling and custom; and if those who knew the old language\nbetter, adhered to the canonical more closely, it was a matter of\ntradition and language. The former set little value on the prevalent\nconsciousness of the race that the spirit of prophecy was extinct; their\nview of the Spirit\u2019s operation was larger. The latter clung to the past\nwith all the more tenacity that the old life of the nation had\ndegenerated.\n\nThe Alexandrian Jews opened their minds to Greek culture and philosophy,\nappropriating new ideas, and explaining their Scriptures in accordance\nwith wider conceptions of the divine presence; though such adaptation\nturned aside the original sense. Consciously or unconsciously they were\npreparing Judaism in some degree to be the religion of humanity. But the\nRabbins shut out those enlarging influences, confining their religion\nwithin the narrow traditions of one people. The process by which they\nconserved the old belief helped to quench its spirit, so that it became an\nantique skeleton, powerless beside the new civilization which had followed\nthe wake of Alexander\u2019s conquests. Rabbinical Judaism proved its\nincapacity for regenerating the world; having no affinity for the\nphilosophy of second causes, or for the exercise of reason beneath the\nlove of a Father who sees with equal eye as God of all. Its isolation\nnourished a sectarian tendency. Tradition, having no creative power like\nrevelation, had taken the place of it; and it could not ward off the\nsenility of Judaism; for its creations are but feeble echoes of prophetic\nutterances, weak imitations of poetic inspiration or of fresh wisdom. They\nare of the understanding rather than the reason. The tradition which\nGeiger describes as the life-giving soul of Judaism\u2014the daughter of\nrevelation, enjoying the same rights with her mother\u2014a spiritual power\nthat continues ever to work\u2014an emanation from the divine Spirit\u2014is not,\nindeed, the thing which has stiffened Judaism into Rabbinism; but neither\nis it tradition proper; it is reason working upon revelation, and moulding\nit into a new system. _Such tradition_ serves but to show the inability of\ngenuine Judaism to assimilate philosophic thought. _Rationalizing_ should\nnot be styled the operation of tradition.\n\nThe truth of these remarks is evident from a comparison of two books,\nexemplifying Alexandrian and Palestinian Judaism respectively. The Wisdom\nof Solomon shows the enlarging effect of Greek philosophy. Overpassing\nJewish particularism, it often approaches Christianity in doctrine and\nspirit, so that some(80) have even assumed a Christian origin for it. The\nWisdom of Jesus, son of Sirach has not the doctrine of immortality. Death\nis there an eternal sleep, and retribution takes place in this life. The\nJewish theocracy is the centre of history; Israel the elect people; and\nall wisdom is embodied in the law. The writer is shut up within the old\nnational ideas, and leans upon the writings in which they are expressed.\nThus the Hagiographical canon of Judea, conservative as it is, and purer\nin a sense, presents a narrower type than the best specimens of the\nAlexandrian one. The genial breath of Aryan culture had not expanded its\nSemitism.\n\nThe identity of the Palestinian and Alexandrian canons must be abandoned,\nnotwithstanding the contrary arguments of Eichhorn and Movers. It is said,\nindeed, that Philo neither mentions nor quotes the Greek additions; but\nneither does he quote several canonical books. According to Eichhorn, no\nfewer than eight of the latter are unnoticed by him.(81) Besides, he had\npeculiar views of inspiration, and quoted loosely from memory. Believing\nas he did in the inspiration of the Greek version as a whole, it is\ndifficult to think that he made a distinction between the different parts\nof it. In one passage he refers to the sacred books of the Therapeutae, a\nfanatical sect of Jews in Egypt, as \u201c_laws_, oracles _of prophets, hymns_\nand _other books_ by which knowledge and piety are increased and\nperfected,\u201d(82) but this presents little information as to the canon of\nthe Egyptian Jews generally; for it is precarious argumentation to say\nwith Herbst that they prove a twofold canon. Even if the Alexandrian and\nPalestinian canons be identical, we cannot be sure that _the other books_\nwhich the Therapeutae read as holy besides the law, _the prophets and\nhymns_, differed from the hagiographa, and so constituted another canon\nthan the general Egyptian one. It is quite possible that the _hymns_ mean\nthe Psalms; and _the other books_, the rest of the hagiographa. The\nargument for the identity of the two canons deduced from 4 Esdras xiv. 44,\n&c., as if the twenty-four open books were distinguished from the other\nwritings dictated to Ezra, is of no force, because verisimilitude required\nthat an Egyptian Jew himself must make Ezra conform to the old Palestinian\ncanon. It is also alleged that the grandson of Jesus Sirach, who\ntranslated his grandfather\u2019s work during his abode in Egypt, knew no\ndifference between the Hebrew and Greek canon, though he speaks of the\nGreek version; but he speaks as a Palestinian, without having occasion to\nallude to the difference between the canonical books of the Palestinian\nand Egyptian Jews. The latter may have reckoned the apocryphal writings in\nthe third division; and therefore the translator of Jesus Sirach could\nrecognize them in the ordinary classification. The mention of _three_\nclasses is not opposed to their presence in the third. The general use of\nan enlarged canon in Egypt cannot be denied, though it was somewhat loose,\nnot regarded as a completed collection, and without express rabbinical\nsanction. If they did not _formally_ recognize a canon of their own, as De\nWette says of them, they had and used one larger than the Palestinian,\nwithout troubling themselves about a _formal_ sanction for it by a body of\nRabbis at Jerusalem or elsewhere. Their canon was not identical with that\nof the Palestinians, and all the argumentation founded upon Philo\u2019s\nnon-quotation of the apocryphal books, fails to prove the contrary. The\nvery way in which apocryphal are inserted among canonical books in the\nAlexandrian canon, shows the equal rank assigned to both. Esdras first and\nsecond succeed the Chronicles; Tobit and Judith are between Nehemiah and\nEsther; the Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach follow Canticles; Baruch succeeds\nJeremiah; Daniel is followed by Susanna and other productions of the same\nclass; and the whole closes with the three books of Maccabees. Such is the\norder in the Vatican MS.\n\nThe threefold division of the canon, indicating three stages in its\nformation, has continued. Josephus, indeed, gives another, based on the\nnature of the separate books, not on MSS. We learn nothing from him of its\nhistory, which is somewhat remarkable, considering that he did not live\ntwo centuries after the last work had been added. The account of the\ncanon\u2019s final arrangement was evidently unknown to him.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV. NUMBER AND ORDER OF THE SEPARATE BOOKS.\n\n\nThe number of the books was variously estimated. Josephus gives\ntwenty-two, which was the usual number among Christian writers in the\nsecond, third, and fourth centuries, having been derived perhaps from the\nletters of the Hebrew alphabet. Origen, Jerome, and others have it. It\ncontinued longest among the teachers of the Greek Church, and is even in\nNicephorus\u2019s stichometry.(83) The enumeration in question has Ruth with\nJudges, and Lamentations with Jeremiah. In Epiphanius(84) the number\ntwenty-seven is found, made by taking the alphabet enlarged with the five\nfinal letters, and dividing Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles into two books\neach. This is probably an ingenious combination belonging to the father\nhimself. The Talmud has twenty-four,(85) a number which did not originate\nin the Greek alphabet, else the Palestinian Jews would not have adopted\nit. The synagogue did not fix it officially. After the Pentateuch and the\nformer prophets, which are in the usual order, it gives Jeremiah as the\nfirst of the later, succeeded by Ezekiel and Isaiah with the twelve minor\nprophets. The Talmud knows no other reason for such an order than that it\nwas made according to the contents of the prophetic books, not according\nto the times of the writers. This solution is unsatisfactory. It is more\nprobable that chronology had to do with the arrangement.(86) After the\nanonymous collection or second part of Isaiah had been joined to the first\nor authentic prophecies, the lateness of these oracles brought Isaiah into\nthe third place among the greater prophets. The Talmudic order of the\nHagiographa is Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles,\nLamentations, Daniel, Esther, Ezra, Chronicles. Here Ruth precedes the\nPsalter, coming as near the former prophets as possible; for it properly\nbelongs to them, the contents associating it with the Judges\u2019 time. The\nTalmudic order is that usually adopted in German MSS. What is the true\nestimate of it? Is it a proper Talmudic regulation? Perhaps not, else the\nHebrew MSS. of the French and Spanish Jews would not so readily have\ndeparted from it. Bloch supposes that Baba Bathra, which gives the\narrangement of the books, is one of the apocryphal Boraithas that\nproceeded from an individual teacher and had no binding authority.(87)\n\nThe Masoretic arrangement differs from the Talmudic in putting Isaiah\nbefore Jeremiah and Ezekiel. The Hagiographa are, Psalms, Proverbs, Job,\nCanticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra (with\nNehemiah), Chronicles.(88) This is usually adopted in Spanish MSS. But\nMSS. often differ arbitrarily, because transcribers did not consider\nthemselves bound to any one arrangement.(89) According to some, a very old\ntestimony to the commencing and concluding books of the third division is\ngiven by the New Testament (Luke xxiv. 44; Matthew xxiii. 35), agreeably\nto which the Psalms were first and the Chronicles last; but this is\ninconclusive.\n\nThe Alexandrian translators, as we have seen already, placed the books\ndifferently from the Palestinian Jews. In their version Daniel comes after\nEzekiel, so that it is put beside the greater prophets. Was this done by\nJews or Christians? Perhaps by the latter, who put it between the greater\nand lesser prophets, or in other words, out of the third into the second\ndivision, because of dogmatic grounds, and so effaced a trace of the\ncorrect chronology. Little importance, however, can be attached to the\norder of the books in the Septuagint; because the work was done at\ndifferent times by different persons. But whatever may have been the\narrangement of the parts when the whole was complete, we know that it was\ndisturbed by Protestants separating the apocryphal writings and putting\nthem all together.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V. USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT BY THE FIRST CHRISTIAN WRITERS, AND BY\nTHE FATHERS TILL THE TIME OF ORIGEN.\n\n\nThe writings of the New Testament show the authors\u2019 acquaintance with the\napocryphal books. They have expressions and ideas derived from them. Stier\ncollected one hundred and two passages which bear some resemblance to\nothers in the Apocrypha;(90) but they needed sifting, and were cut down to\na much smaller number by Bleek. They are James i. 19, from Sirach v. 11\nand iv. 29; 1 Peter i. 6, 7, from Wisdom iii. 3-7; Hebrews xi. 34, 35,\nfrom 2 Maccabees vi. 18-vii. 42; Hebrews i. 3, from Wisdom vii. 26, &c.;\nRomans i. 20-32, from Wisdom xiii.-xv.; Romans ix. 21, from Wisdom xv. 7;\nEph. vi. 13-17, from Wisdom v. 18-20; 1 Cor. ii. 10, &c., from Judith\nviii. 14. Others are less probable.(91) When Bishop Cosin says, that \u201cin\nall the New Testament we find not any one passage of the apocryphal books\nto have been alleged either by Christ or His apostles for the confirmation\nof their doctrine,\u201d(92) the argument, though based on fact, is scarcely\nconclusive; else Esther, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, and other works might be\nequally discredited. Yet it is probable that the New Testament writers,\nthough quoting the Septuagint much more than the original, were\ndisinclined to the additional parts of the Alexandrian canon. They were\nPalestinian themselves, or had in view Judaisers of a narrow creed.\nPrudential motives, no less than a predisposition in favor of the old\nnational canon, may have hindered them from expressly citing any\napocryphal production. The apostle Paul and probably the other writers of\nthe New Testament, believed in the literal inspiration of the Biblical\nbooks, for he uses an argument in the Galatian epistle which turns upon\nthe singular or plural of a noun.(93) And as the inspiration of the\nSeptuagint translation was commonly held by the Christians of the early\ncenturies, it may be that the apostles and evangelists made no distinction\nbetween its parts. Jude quotes Enoch, an apocryphal work not in the\nAlexandrian canon; so that he at least had no rigid notions about the\ndifference of canonical and uncanonical writings. Still we know that the\ncompass of the Old Testament canon was somewhat unsettled to the\nChristians of the first century, as it was to the Hellenist Jews\nthemselves. It is true that the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms were\nuniversally recognized as authoritative; but the extent of the third\ndivision was indefinite, so that the non-citation of the three books\nrespecting which there was a difference of opinion among the Jews may not\nhave been accidental. Inasmuch, however, as the Greek-speaking Jews\nreceived more books than their Palestinian brethren, the apostles and\ntheir immediate successors were not wholly disinclined to the use of the\napocryphal productions. The undefined boundary of the canon facilitated\nalso the recognition of all primitive records of the new Revelation.\n\nThe early fathers, who wrote in Greek, used the Greek Bible, as almost all\nof them were ignorant of Hebrew. Thus restricted; they naturally\nconsidered its parts alike, citing apocryphal and canonical in the same\nway. Accordingly, Iren\u00e6us(94) quotes Baruch under the name of \u201cJeremiah\nthe prophet;\u201d(95) and the additions to Daniel as \u201cDaniel the prophet.\u201d(96)\nClement of Alexandria(97) uses the apocryphal books like the canonical\nones, for explanation and proof indiscriminately. He is fond of referring\nto Baruch, which he cites upwards of twenty-four times in the second book\nof his _P\u00e6dagogus_, and in a manner to show that he esteemed it as highly\nas many other parts of the Old Testament. A passage from Baruch is\nintroduced by the phrase,(98) \u201cthe divine Scripture says;\u201d and another\nfrom Tobit by(99) \u201cScripture has briefly signified this, saying.\u201d Assuming\nthat Wisdom was written by Solomon, he uses it as canonical and inspired,\ndesignating it _divine_.(100) Judith he cites with other books of the Old\nTestament(101); and the Song of the three children in the furnace is used\nas Scripture.(102) Ecclesiasticus also is so treated.(103) Dionysius of\nAlexandria(104) cites Ecclesiasticus (xvi. 26), introducing the passage\nwith \u201chear divine oracles.\u201d(105) The same book is elsewhere cited,\nchapters xliii. 29, 30(106) and i. 8. 9.(107) So is Wisdom, vii. 15(108)\nand 25.(109) Baruch (iii. 12-15) is also quoted.(110) The fathers who\nwrote in Latin used some of the old Latin versions of which Augustine\nspeaks; one of them, and that the oldest probably dating soon after the\nmiddle of the second century, being known to us as the _Itala_. As this\nwas made from the Septuagint, it had the usual apocryphal books. Jerome\u2019s\ncritical revision or new version did not supplant the old Latin till some\ntime after his death. Tertullian(111) quotes the Wisdom of Solomon\nexpressly as Solomon\u2019s;(112) and introduces Sirach by \u201cas it is\nwritten.\u201d(113) He cites Baruch as Jeremiah.(114) He also believes in the\nauthenticity of the book of Enoch, and defends it as _Scripture_ at some\nlength.(115) Cyprian often cites the Greek additions to the Palestinian\ncanon. He introduces Tobit with the words \u201cas it is written,\u201d(116) or\n\u201cdivine Scripture teaches, saying;\u201d(117) and Wisdom with, \u201cthe Holy Spirit\nshows by Solomon.\u201d(118) Ecclesiasticus is introduced with, \u201cit is\nwritten;\u201d(119) and Baruch with, \u201cthe Holy Spirit teaches by\nJeremiah.\u201d(120) 1 and 2 Maccabees are used as Scripture;(121) as are the\nadditions to Daniel.(122) The African fathers follow the Alexandrian canon\nwithout scruple. Hippolytus of Rome (about A.D. 220), who wrote in Greek,\nquotes Baruch as Scripture;(123) and interprets the additions to Daniel,\nsuch as Susanna, as Scripture likewise.(124)\n\nMelito of Sardis(125) made it his special business to inquire among the\nPalestinian Jews about the number and names of their canonical books; and\nthe result was the following list:\u2014the five books of Moses, Joshua,\nJudges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Chronicles, the Psalms of David,\nthe Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job, Isaiah,\nJeremiah, the twelve in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra.(126) Here Ezra\nincludes Nehemiah; and Esther is absent, because the Jews whom he\nconsulted did not consider it canonical.\n\nOrigen\u2019s(127) list does not differ much from the Palestinian one. After\nthe Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Kings first and second, Samuel,\nChronicles, come Ezra first and second, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes,\nCanticles, Isaiah, Jeremiah with Lamentations and the epistle, Daniel,\nEzekiel, Job, Esther. Besides these there are the Maccabees, which are\ninscribed _Sarbeth Sarbane el_.(128) The twelve prophets are omitted in\nthe Greek; but the mistake is rectified in Rufinus\u2019s Latin version, where\nthey follow Canticles, as in Hilary and Cyril of Jerusalem. It is\nremarkable that Baruch is given, and why? Because Origen took it from the\nMSS. of the Septuagint he had before him, in which the epistle is\nattributed to Jeremiah. But the catalogue had no influence upon his\npractice. He followed the prevailing view of the extended canon. Sirach is\nintroduced by \u201cfor this also _is written_\u201d;(129) the book of Wisdom is\ncited as a _divine word_;(130) the writer is called a _prophet_;(131)\n_Christ_ is represented as speaking in it _through Solomon_;(132) and\nWisdom vii. 17 is adduced as _the word of Christ himself_.(133) Tobit is\ncited as _Scripture_.(134) His view of the additions to the books of\nDaniel and Esther, as well as his opinion about Tobit, are sufficiently\nexpressed in the epistle to Africanus, so that scattered quotations from\nthese parts of Scripture can be properly estimated. Of the history of\nSusanna he ventures to say that the Jews withdrew it on purpose from the\npeople.(135) He seems to argue in favor of books used and read in the\nchurches, though they may be put out of the canon by the Jews. As divine\nProvidence had preserved the sacred Scriptures, no alteration should be\nmade in the ecclesiastical tradition respecting books sanctioned by the\nchurches though they be external to the Hebrew canon.\n\nMost of the writings of Methodius, Bishop of Tyre(136) are lost, so that\nwe know little of his opinions respecting the books of Scripture. But it\nis certain that he employed the Apocrypha like the other writings of the\nOld Testament. Thus Sirach (xviii. 30 and xix. 2) is quoted in the same\nway as the Proverbs.(137) Wisdom (iv. 1-3) is cited,(138) and Baruch (iii.\n14).(139)\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI. THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES.\n\n\nThe first Christians relied on the Old Testament as their chief religious\nbook. To them it was of divine origin and authority. The New Testament\nwritings came into gradual use, by the side of the older Jewish documents,\naccording to the times in which they appeared and the names of their\nreputed authors. The Epistles of Paul were the earliest written; after\nwhich came the Apocalypse, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and other\ndocuments, all in the first century. After the first gospel had undergone\na process of translation, re-writing, and interpolation, from the Aramaic\nbasis, _the discourses_,(140) of which Papias of Hierapolis speaks, until\nthe traces of another original than the Greek were all but effaced; it\nappeared in its present form early in the second century. Soon after, that\nof Luke was composed, whose prevailing Pauline tendency was not allowed to\nsuppress various features of a Jewish Essene type. The second gospel,\nwhich bears evidences of its derivation from the other synoptists, was\nfollowed by the fourth. The last document was the so-called second Epistle\nof Peter. It is manifest that tradition assumed various forms after the\ndeath of Jesus; that legend and myth speedily surrounded His sacred\nperson; that the unknown writers were influenced by the peculiar\ncircumstances in which they stood with respect to Jewish and Gentile\nChristianity; and that their uncritical age dealt considerably in the\nmarvelous. That the life of the great Founder should be overlaid with\nextraneous materials, is special matter for regret. However conscientious\nand truth-loving they may have been, the reporters were unequal to their\nwork. It is also remarkable that so many of them should be unknown;\nproductions being attached to names of repute to give them greater\ncurrency.\n\nWhen Marcion came from Pontus to Rome (144 A.D.,) he brought with him a\nScripture-collection consisting of ten Pauline epistles. With true\ncritical instinct he did not include those addressed to Timothy and Titus,\nas also the epistle to the Hebrews. The gospel of Marcion was Luke\u2019s in an\naltered state. From this and other facts we conclude that external parties\nwere the first who carried out the idea of collecting Christian writings,\nand of putting them either beside or over against the sacred books of the\nOld Testament, in support of their systems. As to Basilides (125 A.D.),\nhis supposed quotations from the New Testament in Hippolytus are too\nprecarious to be trusted.(141) Testimonies to the \u201cacknowledged\u201d books of\nthe New Testament as Scripture have been transferred from his followers to\nhimself; so that his early witness to the canon breaks down. It is\ninferred from statements in Origen and Jerome that he had a gospel of his\nown somewhat like St. Luke\u2019s, but extra-canonical. His son Isidore and\nsucceeding disciples used Matthew\u2019s gospel. Jerome says that Marcion and\nBasilides denied the Pauline authorship of the epistle to the Hebrews and\nthe pastoral ones.(142) It is also doubtful whether Valentinus\u2019s (140-166\nA.D.) alleged citations from the New Testament can be relied upon. The\npassages of this kind ascribed to him by the fathers belong in a great\nmeasure to his disciples. The fragment of a letter preserved by Clement of\nAlexandria in the second book of the Stromata, has been thought to contain\nreferences to the gospels of Matthew and Luke; but the fact is doubtful.\nNor has Henrici proved that Valentinus used John\u2019s gospel.(143) But his\nfollowers, including Ptolemy (180 A.D.) and Heracleon (185-200 A.D.),\nquote the Gospels and other portions of the New Testament.(144) From\nHippolytus\u2019s account of the Ophites, Perat\u00e6, and Sethians, we infer that\nthe Christian writings were much employed by them. They rarely cite an\napocryphal work. More than one hundred and sixty citations from the New\nTestament have been gathered out of their writings.(145) We may admit that\nthese Ophites and Perat\u00e6 were of early origin, the former being the oldest\nknown of the Gnostic parties; but there is no proof that the acquaintance\nwith the New Testament which Hippolytus attributes to them belongs to the\nfirst rather than the second half of the second century. The early\nexistence of the sect does not show an early citation of the Christian\nbooks by it, especially of John\u2019s gospel; unless its primary were its last\nstage. Later and earlier Ophites are not distinguished in the\n_Philosophumena_. Hence there is a presumption that the author had the\nformer in view, which is favored by no mention of them occurring in the\n\u201cAdversus omnes H\u00e6reses\u201d usually appended to Tertullian\u2019s _Pr\u00e6scriptiones\nH\u00e6reticorum_, and by Iren\u00e6us\u2019s derivation of their heresy from that of\nValentinus. The latter father does not even speak of the Perat\u00e6. Clement\nof Alexandria is the first who alludes to them. The early heretics were\ndesirous of confirming their peculiar opinions by the writings current\namong Catholic Christians, so that the formation of a canon by them began\nsoon after the commencement of the second century, and continued till the\nend of it; contemporaneously with the development of a Catholic Church and\nits necessary adjunct a Catholic canon.\n\nNo New Testament canon, except a partial and unauthoritative one, existed\ntill the latter half of the second century, that is, till the idea of a\nCatholic church began to be entertained. The living power of Christianity\nin its early stages had no need of books for its nurture. But in the\ndevelopment of a church organization the internal rule of consciousness\nwas changed into an external one of faith. The Ebionites or Jewish\nChristians had their favorite Gospels and Acts. The gospel of Matthew was\nhighly prized by them, existing as it did in various recensions, of which\nthe gospel according to the Hebrews was one. Other documents, such as the\nRevelation of John; and the preaching of Peter, a Jewish-Christian history\nsubsequently re-written and employed in the Clementine Recognitions and\nHomilies, were also in esteem. Even so late as 175-180 A.D., Hegesippus, a\nJewish Christian, does not seem to have had a canon consisting of the four\ngospels and Paul\u2019s Epistles, but appeals to \u201cthe law and the prophets and\n_the Lord_,\u201d so that his leading principle was, the identity of Jesus\u2019s\nwords with the Old Testament; agreeably to the tenets of the party he\nbelonged to. The source whence he drew the words of Jesus was probably the\nGospel according to the Hebrews, a document which we know he used, on the\nauthority of Eusebius. He does not refer to Paul except by implication in\na passage given in Photius from Stephen Gobar,(146) where he says that\nsuch as used the words \u201cEye hath not seen, nor ear heard,\u201d &c., falsified\nthe Divine Scriptures and the Lord\u2019s words, \u201cBlessed are your eyes for\nthey see,\u201d &c. As Paul quoted the condemned language, he is blamed.(147)\nThough he knew Paul\u2019s epistles, he does not look upon them as\n_authoritative_. He betrays no acquaintance with the fourth gospel; for\nthe question, \u201cWhat is the door to Jesus?\u201d does not presuppose the\nknowledge of John x. 2, 7, 9. N\u00f6sgen has failed to prove Hegesippus\u2019s\nJewish descent; and Holtzmann\u2019s mediating view of him is incorrect.(148)\n\nThe Clementine Homilies (161-180 A.D.) used the four canonical gospels\neven the fourth (which is somewhat singular in a writer who denies the\ndeity of Christ), and assigned it to the apostle John. The gospel\naccording to the Egyptians was also employed. Paul\u2019s epistles were\nrejected of course, as well as the Acts; since the apostle of the Gentiles\nwas pointed at in Simon Magus, whom Peter refutes. It is, therefore,\nobvious that a collection of the New Testament writings could make little\nprogress among the Ebionites of the second century. Their reverence for\nthe law and the prophets hindered another canon. Among the Gentile\nChristians the formation of a canon took place more rapidly, though Judaic\ninfluences retarded it even there. After Paul\u2019s epistles were interchanged\nbetween churches, a few of them would soon be put together. A collection\nof this kind is implied in 2 Peter iii. 16. The pastoral epistles, which\nshow their dependence on the authentic Pauline ones, with those of Peter,\npresuppose a similar collection; which along with the Synoptists, existed\nbefore the fourth gospel. The Apocalypse and the epistle to the Hebrews\nwere obnoxious to the Pauline churches, as Paul\u2019s letters were to the\nJewish-Christian ones. Hence the former were outside the Pauline\ncollections.\n\nThe apostolic fathers quote from the Old Testament, which was sacred and\ninspired to them. They have scarcely any express citations from the New\nTestament. _Allusions_ occur, especially to the epistles.\n\nThe first Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (about 120 A.D.), implies\nacquaintance with several of the epistles, with those to the Corinthians,\nRomans, Hebrews, and perhaps others. Two passages have also been adduced\nas derived from the gospels of Matthew and Luke, viz., in chapters xiii. 2\nand xlvi. 8; but probably some other source supplied them, such as oral\ntradition. It has also been argued that the quotation in the fifteenth\nchapter, \u201cThe Scripture says somewhere, This people honoreth me with their\nlips, but their heart is far from me,\u201d comes from Mark vii. 6 in which it\nvaries from the Hebrew of Isaiah xxix. 13, as well as the Septuagint\nversion. Clement therefore, so it is said, quotes the Old Testament\nthrough the medium of the gospels (Matthew xv. 8, Mark vii. 6). But the\nargument is inconclusive because the words agree closely enough with the\nSeptuagint to render the supposition very probable that they are a\nmemorized citation from it. As they stand, they coincide exactly neither\nwith Mark nor the Septuagint.(149) Thus we dissent from the opinion of\nGebhardt and Harnack. Wherever \u201cScripture\u201d is cited, or the expression \u201cit\nis written\u201d occurs, the Old Testament is meant.\n\nHermas (about 140 A.D.) seems to have used the epistle to the Ephesians\nand perhaps that to the Hebrews, as well as the epistle of James; but\nthere is great uncertainty about the matter, for there is no _express_ or\ncertain quotation from any part of the New Testament. The writer often\nalludes to words of Jesus, found in Matthew\u2019s gospel, so that he may have\nbeen acquainted with it. Keim(150) and others have discovered references\nto the fourth gospel; but they are invalid. There is no allusion to the\nActs in vis. iv. 2, 4. The only _Scripture_ cited is the apocryphal book\n_Eldat and Modat_, now lost.(151) The writer seems to have known several\nJewish Apocalypses.(152)\n\nBarnabas (about 119 A.D.) has but one quotation from the New Testament,\nif, indeed, it be such. Apparently, Matthew xx. 16 or xxii. 14 is\nintroduced by \u201cas it is written,\u201d showing that the gospel was considered\n_Scripture_.(153) This is the earliest trace of canonical authority being\ntransferred from the Old Testament to Christian writings. But the citation\nis not certain. The original may be 4 Esdras, viii. 3; and even if the\nwriter took the words from Matthew\u2019s gospel, it is possible that he used\n\u201cit is written\u201d with reference to their prototype in the Old Testament. Of\nsuch interchanges, examples occur in writers of the second century; and it\nis the more probable that this is one, from the fact that 4 Esdras is\nelsewhere considered a prophet and referred to in the same way as\nEzekiel.(154) Barnabas\u2019s citation of a gospel as canonical is wholly\nimprobable, since even Justin, thirty years after, never quotes the New\nTestament writings as _Scripture_. The thing would be anomalous and\nopposed to the history of the first half of the second century. When these\npost-apostolic productions appeared, the New Testament writings did not\nstand on the same level with the Old, and were not yet esteemed _sacred_\nand _inspired_ like the Jewish Scriptures. The Holy Spirit was thought to\ndwell in all Christians, without being confined to a few writers; and his\ninfluence was the common heritage of believers. There are evidences of\nBarnabas\u2019s acquaintance with the Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians;\nnor is it improbable that he knew the canonical gospel of Matthew, though\none passage _appears_ to contradict Matthew xxviii. 10, &c., without\nnecessarily implying ignorance of what lies in it, viz., that the\nascension of Jesus took place on the day of his resurrection.(155)\nStrangely enough, Keim thinks that the writer had John\u2019s gospel before\nhim; but this opinion is refuted by the end of Barnabas\u2019s fifth\nchapter.(156) Holtzmann has ably disposed of the considerations adduced by\nKeim.(157) Barnabas quotes the book of Enoch as _Scripture_;(158) and an\napocryphal prophecy is introduced with, \u201canother prophet says.\u201d(159)\n\nAs far as we can judge from Eusebius\u2019s account of Papias(160) (about 150\nA.D.), that writer knew nothing of a New Testament canon. He speaks of\nMatthew and Mark; but it is most probable that he had documents which\neither formed the basis of our present Matthew and Mark, or were taken\ninto them and written over.(161) According to Andreas of C\u00e6sarea he was\nacquainted with the Apocalypse of John; while Eusebius testifies to his\nknowledge of 1 Peter and 1 John. But he had no conception of canonical\nauthority attaching to any part of the New Testament. His language implies\nthe opposite, in that he prefers unwritten tradition to the gospel he\nspeaks of. He neither felt the want nor knew the existence of _inspired_\ngospels.\n\nWe need not notice the three short Syriac epistles attributed to Ignatius,\nas we do not believe them to be his, but of later origin. Traces of later\nideas about the canonicity of the New Testament appear in the shorter\nGreek recension of the Ignatian epistles (about 175 A.D.) There _the\nGospel_ and _the Apostles_ are recognized as the constituents of the\nbook.(162) The writer also used the Gospel according to the Hebrews, for\nthere is a quotation from it in the epistle to the Smyrnians.(163) The\nsecond part of the collection seems to have wanted the epistle to the\nEphesians.(164) The two leading parties, long antagonistic, had now become\nunited; the apostles Peter and Paul being mentioned together.(165) In the\nTestaments of the twelve patriarchs (about 170 A.D.), Paul\u2019s life is said\nto be described in \u201choly books,\u201d _i.e._, his own epistles and the\nActs.(166)\n\nJustin Martyr (150 A.D.) knew the first and third of the synoptic gospels.\nHis use of Mark\u2019s does not appear. His knowledge of the fourth is denied\nby many, and zealously defended by others. Thoma finds proofs that Justin\nknew it well, and used it freely as a text-book of gnosis, without\nrecognizing it as the historical work of an apostle; an hypothesis\nencumbered with difficulties.(167) Whatever be said about Justin\u2019s\nacquaintance with this gospel; its existence before 140 A.D. is incapable\neither of decisive or probable proof; and this father\u2019s Logos-doctrine is\nless developed than the Johannine, because it is encumbered with the\nnotion of miraculous birth by a virgin. The Johannine authorship has\nreceded before the tide of modern criticism; and though this tide is\narbitrary at times, it is here irresistible. Apologists should abstain\nfrom strong assertions on a point so difficult, as that each \u201cgospel is\ndistinctly recognized by him;\u201d for the noted passage in the dialogue with\nTrypho does not support them.(168) It is pretty certain that he employed\nan extra-canonical gospel, the so-called gospel of the Hebrews. This\nPetrine document may be referred to in a passage which is unfortunately\ncapable of a double interpretation.(169) He had also the older Acts of\nPilate. Paul\u2019s epistles are never mentioned, though he doubtless knew\nthem. Having little sympathy with Paulinism he attached his belief much\nmore to the primitive apostles. The Apocalypse, 1 Peter, and 1 John he\nesteemed highly; the epistle to the Hebrews and the Acts he treated in the\nsame way as the Pauline writings. Justin\u2019s canon, as far as divine\nauthority and inspiration are concerned, was the Old Testament. He was\nmerely on the threshold of a divine canon made up of primitive Christian\nwritings, and attributed no exclusive sanctity to those he used because\nthey were not to him the only source of doctrine. Even of the Apocalypse\nhe says, \u201cA man among us named John, &c., wrote it.\u201d(170) In his time none\nof the gospels had been canonized, not even the synoptists, if, indeed, he\nknew them all. Oral tradition was the chief fountain of Christian\nknowledge, as it had been for a century. In his opinion this tradition was\nembodied in writing; but the documents in which he looked for all that\nrelated to Christ were not the gospels alone. He used others freely, not\nlooking upon any as _inspired_, for that idea could arise only when a\nselection was made among the current documents. He regarded them all as\nhaving been written down from memory, and judged them by criteria of\nevidence conformable to the Old Testament Scriptures. Though lessons out\nof Gospels (some of our present ones and others), as also out of the\nprophets, were read in assemblies on the first day of the week,(171) the\nact of converting the Christian writings into _Scripture_ was posterior;\nfor the mere reading of a gospel in churches on Sunday does not prove that\nit was considered divinely authoritative; and the use of the epistles,\nwhich formed the second and less valued part of the collection, must still\nhave been limited.\n\nJustin\u2019s disciple, Tatian (160-180 A.D.), wrote a _Diatessaron_ or harmony\nof the gospels, which began, according to Ephrem Syrus, with John i. 1;\nbut our knowledge of it is uncertain. The author omitted the genealogies\nof Jesus and everything belonging to His Davidic descent. He seems also to\nhave put into it particulars derived from extra-canonical sources such as\nthe Gospel according to the Hebrews. Doubtless he was acquainted with\nPaul\u2019s writings, as statements made in them are quoted; but he dealt\nfreely with them according to Eusebius, and even rejected several\nepistles, probably first and second Timothy.(172)\n\nIn Polycarp\u2019s epistle (about 160 A.D.), which is liable to strong\nsuspicions of having been written after the death of the bishop,(173)\nthere are reminiscences of the synoptic gospels; and most of Paul\u2019s\nepistles as well as I Peter were used by the writer. But the idea of\ncanonical authority, or a peculiar inspiration belonging to these\nwritings, is absent.\n\nThe author of the second Clementine epistle (about 150-160) had not a New\nTestament canon made up of the four gospels and epistles. His _Scripture_\nwas the Old Testament, to which is applied the epithet \u201cthe Books\u201d or \u201cthe\nBible;\u201d and the words of Christ. \u201cThe Apostles\u201d immediately subjoined to\n\u201cthe Books,\u201d does not mean the New Testament, or a special collection of\nthe apostolic epistles, as has been supposed.(174) The preacher employed a\ngospel or gospels as _Scripture_; perhaps those of Matthew and Luke, not\nthe whole documents, but the parts containing the words of Christ.(175) He\nalso used the Gospel of the Egyptians as an authoritative document, and\nquoted his sources freely. With the Johannine writings he seems to have\nbeen unacquainted.(176)\n\nAthenagoras of Athens wrote an apology addressed to Marcus Aurelius (176\nA.D.). In it he uses written and unwritten tradition, testing all by the\nOld Testament which was his only authoritative canon. He makes no\nreference to the Christian documents, but adduces words of Jesus with the\nverb \u201che says.\u201d It is not clear whether he quoted from the Synoptics;\nperhaps the passages which are parallel to Matthew v. 44, 45, 46,(177) and\nMark x. 6,(178) were taken from these; but the matter is somewhat\nuncertain. His treatise on the resurrection appeals to a passage in one of\nPaul\u2019s epistles.(179)\n\nDionysius of Corinth ( 170 A.D.) complains of the falsification of his\nwritings, but consoles himself with the fact that the same is done to the\n\u201cScriptures of the Lord,\u201d _i.e._, the gospels containing the Lord\u2019s words;\nor rather the two parts of the early collection, \u201cthe gospel\u201d and \u201cthe\napostle\u201d together; which agrees best with the age and tenor of his\nletters.(180) If such be the meaning, the collection is put on a par with\nthe Old Testament, and regarded as inspired.\n\nIn the second epistle of Peter (about A.D. 170) Paul\u2019s epistles are\nregarded as Scripture (iii. 16.) This seems to be the earliest example of\nthe canonizing of any New Testament portion. Here a brotherly recognition\nof the Gentile apostle and his productions takes the place of former\nopposition. A false interpretation of his epistles is even supposed to\nhave induced a departure from primitive apostolic Christianity.\n\nThe letter of the churches at Vienne and Lyons (177 A.D.) has quotations\nfrom the epistles to the Romans, Philippians, 1 Timothy, 1 Peter, Acts,\nthe gospels of Luke and John, the Apocalypse. The last is expressly called\n_Scripture_.(181) This shows a fusion of the two original tendencies, the\nPetrine and Pauline; and the formation of a Catholic church with a common\ncanon of authority. Accordingly, the two apostles, Peter and Paul, are\nmentioned together.\n\nTheophilus of Antioch (180 A.D.) was familiar with the gospels and most of\nPaul\u2019s epistles, as also the Apocalypse. Passages are cited from Paul as\n\u201cthe divine word.\u201d(182) He ascribes the fourth gospel to John, calling him\nan inspired man, like the Old Testament prophets.(183) We also learn from\nJerome that he commented on the gospels put together by way of\nharmony.(184)\n\nThe author of the epistle to Diognetus (about 200 A.D.) shows his\nacquaintance with the gospels and Paul\u2019s epistles; but he never cites the\nNew Testament by way of proof. Words are introduced into his discourse, in\npassing and from memory.(185)\n\nThe conception of a Catholic _canon_ was realized about the same time as\nthat of a Catholic _church_. One hundred and seventy years from the coming\nof Christ elapsed before the collection assumed a form that carried with\nit the idea of _holy_ and _inspired_.(186) The way in which it was done\nwas by raising the apostolic writings higher and higher till they were of\nequal authority with the Old Testament, so that the church might have a\nrule of appeal. But by lifting the Christian productions up to the level\nof the old Jewish ones, injury was done to that living consciousness which\nfeels the opposition between spirit and letter; the latter writings\ntacitly assuming or keeping the character of a perfect rule even as to\nform. The Old Testament was not brought down to the New; the New was\nraised to the Old. It is clear that the earliest church fathers did not\nuse the books of the New Testament as sacred documents clothed with divine\nauthority, but followed for the most part, at least till the middle of the\nsecond century, apostolic tradition orally transmitted. They were not\nsolicitous about a canon circumscribed within certain limits.\n\nIn the second half, then, of the second century there was a canon of the\nNew Testament consisting of two parts called _the gospel_(187) and _the\napostle_.(188) The first was complete, containing the four gospels alone;\nthe second, which was incomplete, contained the Acts of the Apostles and\nepistles, _i.e._, thirteen letters of Paul, one of Peter, one of John, and\nthe Revelation. How and where this canon originated is uncertain. Its\nbirthplace may have been Asia Minor, like Marcion\u2019s; but it may have grown\nabout the same time in Asia Minor, Alexandria, and Western Africa. At all\nevents, Iren\u00e6us, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian agree in\nrecognizing its existence.\n\nIren\u00e6us had a canon which he adopted as apostolic. In his view it was of\nbinding force and authoritative. This contained the four gospels, the\nActs, thirteen epistles of Paul, the first epistle of John, and the\nRevelation. He had also a sort of appendix or deutero-canon, which he\nhighly esteemed without putting it on a par with the received collection,\nconsisting of John\u2019s second epistle, the first of Peter, and the Shepherd\nof Hermas. The last he calls _Scripture_.(189) The epistle to the Hebrews,\nthat of Jude, James\u2019s, second Peter, and third John he ignored.\n\nClement\u2019s collection was more extended than Iren\u00e6us\u2019. His appendix or\ndeutero-canon included the epistle to the Hebrews, 2 John, Jude, the\nApocalypse of Peter, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistles of Clement and\nBarnabas. He recognized no obligatory canon, distinct and of paramount\nauthority. But he separated the New Testament writings by their\ntraditionally apostolic character and the degree of importance attached to\nthem. He did not attach the modern idea of _canonical_ in opposition to\n_non-canonical_, either to the four gospels or any other part of the New\nTestament. Barnabas is cited as an apostle.(190) So is the Roman\nClement.(191) The Shepherd of Hermas is spoken of as _divine_.(192) Thus\nthe line of the Homologoumena is not marked off even to the same extent as\nin Iren\u00e6us.\n\nTertullian\u2019s canon consisted of the gospels, Acts, thirteen epistles of\nPaul, the Apocalypse, and 1 John. As an appendix he had the epistle to the\nHebrews, that of Jude, the Shepherd of Hermas, 2 John probably, and 1\nPeter. This deutero-canon was not regarded as authoritative. No trace\noccurs in his works of James\u2019 epistle, 2 Peter, and 3 John. He used the\nShepherd, calling it _Scripture_,(193) without implying, however, that he\nput it on a par with the usually acknowledged canonical writings; but\nafter he became a Montanist, he repudiated it as the apocryphal Shepherd\nof adulterers, \u201cput among the apocryphal and false, by every council of\nthe churches.\u201d(194) It was _not_, however, reckoned among the spurious and\nfalse writings, either at Rome or Carthage, in the time of Tertullian. It\nwas merely placed outside the universally received works by the western\nchurches of that day.\n\nThese three fathers did not fix the canon absolutely. Its limits were\nstill unsettled. But they sanctioned most of the books now accepted as\ndivine, putting some extra-canonical productions almost on the same level\nwith the rest, if not in theory, at least in practice.\n\nThe canon of Muratori is a fragmentary list which was made towards the end\nof the second century (170 A.D.). Its birthplace is uncertain, though\nthere are traces of Roman origin. Its translation from the Greek is\nassumed, but that is uncertain. It begins with the four gospels in the\nusual order, and proceeds to the Acts, thirteen epistles of Paul, the\nepistles of John, that of Jude, and the Apocalypse. The epistle to the\nHebrews, 1 and 2 Peter, 1 John and James are not named. The Apocalypse of\nPeter is also mentioned, but as not universally received. Of the Shepherd\nof Hermas, it is stated that it may be read in the Church. The epistle \u201cto\nthe Laodiceans\u201d may either be that to the Ephesians, which had such\nsuperscription in Marcion\u2019s canon, or less probably the supposititious\nepistle mentioned in the codex Boernerianus,(195) after that to Philemon,\nand often referred to in the middle ages.(196) That \u201cto the Alexandrians\u201d\nis probably the epistle to the Hebrews; though this has been denied\nwithout sufficient reason. According to the usual punctuation, both are\nsaid to have been forged in Paul\u2019s name, an opinion which may have been\nentertained among Roman Christians about 170 A.D. The Epistle to the\nHebrews was rejected in the west, and may have been thought a\nsupposititious work in the interests of Paulinism, with some reason\nbecause of its internal character,(197) which is at least semi-Pauline,\nthough its Judaistic basis is apparent. The story about the origin of the\nfourth gospel with its apostolic and episcopal attestation, evinces a\ndesire to establish the authenticity of a work which had not obtained\nuniversal acceptance at the time.(198) It is difficult to make out the\nmeaning in various places; and there is considerable diversity of opinion\namong expositors of the document.(199) In accord with these facts we find\nSerapion bishop of the church at Rhossus, in Cilicia,(200) allowing the\npublic use of the gospel of Peter;(201) which shows that there was no\nexclusive gospel-canon at the end of the second century, at least in\nSyria. The present canon had not then pervaded the churches in general.\n\nWhat is the result of an examination of the Christian literature belonging\nto the second century? Is it that a canon was then fixed, separating some\nbooks from others by a line so clear, that those on one side of it were\nalone reckoned inspired, authoritative, of apostolic origin or sanction;\nwhile those on the other were considered uninspired, unauthoritative,\nwithout claim to apostolicity, unauthentic? Was the separation between\nthem made on any clear principle or demarcation? It cannot be said so. The\ncentury witnessed no such fact, but merely the incipient efforts to bring\nit about. The discriminating process was begun, not completed. It was\npartly forced upon the prominent advocates of a policy which sought to\nconsolidate the Jewish and Gentile-Christian parties, after the decline of\ntheir mutual antagonism, into a united church. They were glad to transfer\nthe current belief in the infallible inspiration of the Old Testament, to\nselected Christian writings, as an effective means of defence against\nthose whom they considered outside a new organization\u2014the Catholic Church.\n\nThe stichometrical list of the Old and New Testament Scriptures in the\nLatin of the Clermont MS. (D), was that _read_ in the African Church in\nthe third century. It is peculiar. After the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges,\nRuth, and the historical books, follow Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes,\nCanticles, Wisdom, Sirach, the twelve minor prophets, the four greater;\nthree books of the Maccabees, Judith, Esdras, Esther, Job, and Tobit. In\nthe New Testament, the four gospels, Matthew, John, Mark, Luke, are\nsucceeded by ten epistles of Paul, two of Peter, the epistle of James,\nthree of John, and that of Jude. The epistle to the Hebrews (characterized\nas that of Barnabas), the Revelation of John, Acts of the Apostles, the\nShepherd of Hermas, the Acts of Paul, the Revelation of Peter, follow. The\nlast three constitute a sort of appendix; and the number of their verses\nis given. It is possible that the carelessness of a transcriber may have\ncaused some of the singularities observable in this list; such as the\nomission of the epistles to the Philippians and Thessalonians; but the end\nshows a freer idea of books fit for reading than what was usual even at\nthat early time in the African Church.(202)\n\nIn Syria a version of the New Testament for the use of the church was made\nearly in the third century. This work, commonly called the Peshito, wants\n2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and the Apocalypse. It has, however, all the\nother books, including the epistle of James and that to the Hebrews. The\nlast two were received as apostolic.\n\nTowards the middle of the third century, Origen\u2019s(203) testimony\nrespecting the Canon is of great value. He seems to have distinguished\nthree classes of books\u2014authentic ones, whose apostolic origin was\ngenerally admitted, those not authentic, and a middle-class not generally\nrecognized or in regard to which his own opinion wavered. The first\ncontained those already adopted at the beginning of the century both in\nthe East and West, with the Apocalypse, and the epistle to the Hebrews _so\nfar as it contains Pauline ideas_;(204) to the second belongs the Shepherd\nof Hermas, though he sometimes hesitated a little about it,(205) the\nepistle of Barnabas, the Acts of Paul, the gospel according to the\nHebrews, the gospel of the Egyptians, and the preaching of Peter;(206) to\nthe third, the epistle of James, that of Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John.(207)\nThe separation of the various writings is not formally made, nor does\nOrigen give a list of them. His classification is gathered from his works;\nand though its application admitted of considerable latitude, he is\ncautious enough, appealing to the tradition of the church, and throwing in\nqualifying expressions.(208)\n\nThe Canon of Eusebius(209) is given at length in his _Ecclesiastical\nHistory_.(210) He divides the books into three classes, containing those\nwritings _generally received_,(211) those _controverted_,(212) and the\n_heretical_.(213) The first has the four gospels, the Acts, thirteen\nepistles of Paul, 1 John, 1 Peter, the Apocalypse.(214) The second class\nis subdivided into two, the first corresponding to Origen\u2019s _mixed_(215)\nor _intermediate_ writings, the second to his _spurious_(216) ones. The\nformer subdivision contains the epistle of James, 2 Peter, Jude, 2 and 3\nJohn; the latter, the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd, the Revelation of Peter,\nthe epistle of Barnabas, the Doctrines of the Apostles, the Apocalypse of\nJohn, the gospel according to the Hebrews. The third class has the gospels\nof Peter, of Thomas, the traditions of Matthias, the Acts of Peter,\nAndrew, and John. The subdivisions of the second class are indefinite. The\nonly distinction which Eusebius puts between them is that of\necclesiastical use. Though he classes as _spurious_ the Acts of Paul, the\nShepherd, the Revelation of Peter, the epistle of Barnabas, the doctrines\nof the Apostles, the Apocalypse of John, the gospel according to the\nHebrews, and does not apply the epithet to the epistle of James, the 2 of\nPeter, 2 and 3 John; he uses of James\u2019s in one place the verb _to be\ncounted spurious_.(217) In like manner he speaks of the Apocalypse of\nPeter and the epistle of Barnabas as _controverted_.(218) The _mixed_ or\n_spurious_ of Origen are vaguely separated by Eusebius; both come under\nthe general head of the _controverted_; for after specifying them\nseparately he sums up, \u201call these will belong to the class of the\n_controverted_,\u201d the very class already described as containing \u201cbooks\nwell known and recognized by most,\u201d implying also that they were read in\nthe churches.(219)\n\nIt is somewhat remarkable that Eusebius does not mention the Epistle of\nClement to the Corinthians in this list. But he speaks of it in another\nplace as a production whose authenticity was generally acknowledged,(220)\nand of its public use in most churches both formerly and in his own time.\nThis wide-spread reading of it did not _necessarily_ imply canonicity; but\nthe mode in which Eusebius characterizes it, and its extensive use in\npublic, favor the idea that in many churches it was almost put on equality\nwith the productions commonly regarded as authoritative. The canonical\nlist was not fixed immovably in the time of Eusebius. Opinions about books\nvaried, as they had done before.\n\nThe testimony of Eusebius regarding the canon, important as it is, has\nless weight because of the historian\u2019s credulity. One who believed in the\nauthenticity of Abgar\u2019s letters to Christ, and in the canon of the four\ngospels at the time of Trajan, cannot take rank as a judicious collector\nor sifter of facts.\n\nAbout 332 A.D. the Emperor Constantine entrusted Eusebius with the\ncommission to make out a complete collection of the sacred Christian\nwritings for the use of the Catholic Church. How this order was executed\nwe are not told. But Credner is probably correct in saying that the code\nconsisted of all that is now in the New Testament except the Revelation.\nThe fifty copies which were made must have supplied Constantinople and the\nGreek Church for a considerable time with an authoritative canon.\n\nEusebius\u2019s catalogue agrees in substance with that of Origen\u2019s. The\nhistorian followed ecclesiastical tradition. He inquired diligently into\nthe prevailing opinions of the Christian churches and writers, with the\nviews held by others before and contemporaneously with himself, but could\nnot attain to a decided result. His hesitation stood in the way of a\nclear, firm, view of the question. The tradition respecting certain books\nwas still wavering, and he was unable to fix it. Authority fettered his\nindependent judgment. That he was inconsistent and confused does not need\nto be shown.\n\nThe exact principles that guided the formation of a canon in the earliest\ncenturies cannot be discovered. Strictly speaking there were none.\nDefinite grounds for the reception or rejection of books were not\napprehended. The choice was determined by various circumstances, of which\napostolic origin was the chief, though this itself was insufficiently\nattested; for if it be asked whether all the New Testament writings\nproceeded from the authors whose names they bear, criticism cannot reply\nin the affirmative. The example and influence of churches to which the\nwritings had been first addressed must have acted upon the reception of\nbooks. Above all, individual teachers here and there saw the necessity of\nmeeting heretics with their own weapons, in their own way, with _apostolic\nrecords_ instead of oral tradition. The circumstances in which the\northodox were placed led to this step, effecting a bond of union whose\nneed must have been felt while each church was isolated under its own\nbishop and the collective body could not take measures in common. Writings\nof more recent origin would be received with greater facility than such as\nhad been in circulation for many years, especially if they professed to\ncome from a prominent apostle. A code of apostolic writings, divine and\nperfect like the Old Testament, had to be presented as soon as possible\nagainst Gnostic and Manich\u00e6an heretics whose doctrines were injurious to\nobjective Christianity; while the multiplication of apocryphal works\nthreatened to overwhelm genuine tradition with a heap of superstition. The\nPetrine and Pauline Christians, now amalgamated to a great extent, agreed\nin hastening the canon-process.\n\nThe infancy of the canon was cradled in an uncritical age, and rocked with\ntraditional ease. Conscientious care was not directed from the first to\nthe well-authenticated testimony of eye-witnesses. Of the three fathers\nwho contributed most to its early growth, Iren\u00e6us was credulous and\nblundering; Tertullian passionate and one-sided; and Clement of\nAlexandria, imbued with the treasures of Greek wisdom, was mainly occupied\nwith ecclesiastical ethics. Iren\u00e6us argues that the gospels should be four\nin number, neither more nor less, because there are four universal winds\nand four quarters of the world. The Word or Architect of all things gave\nthe gospel in a fourfold shape. According to this father, the apostles\nwere fully informed concerning all things, and had a perfect knowledge,\nafter their Lord\u2019s ascension. Matthew wrote his gospel while Peter and\nPaul were preaching in Rome and founding the church.(221) Such assertions\nshow both ignorance and exaggeration.\n\nTertullian affirms that the _tradition of the apostolic churches_\nguarantees the four gospels,(222) and refers his readers to the churches\nof Corinth, Philippi, Ephesus, &c., for the _authentic epistles_ of\nPaul.(223) What is this but the rhetoric of an enthusiast? In like manner\nhe states that bishops were appointed by the apostles, and that they\nexisted from that time downward, the succession originating so early.(224)\n\nClement contradicts himself in making Peter authorize Mark\u2019s gospel to be\nread in the churches; while in another place he says that the apostle\nneither \u201cforbad nor encouraged it.\u201d(225)\n\nThe three fathers of whom we are speaking, had neither the ability nor the\ninclination to examine the genesis of documents surrounded with an\napostolic halo. No analysis of their authenticity and genuineness was\nseriously attempted either by them or by the men of their time. In its\nabsence, custom, accident, taste, practical needs directed the tendency of\ntradition. All the rhetoric employed to throw the value of their testimony\nas far back as possible, even up to or at least very near the apostle John\nis of the vaguest sort. Appeals to the continuity of tradition and of\nchurch doctrine, to the exceptional veneration of these fathers for the\ngospels, to their opinions being formed earlier than the composition of\nthe works in which they are expressed, possess no force. The ends which\nthe fathers in question had in view, their polemic motives, their\nuncritical, inconsistent assertions, their want of sure data, detract from\ntheir testimony. Their decisions were much more the result of pious\nfeeling biased by the theological speculations of the times, than the\nconclusions of a sound judgment. The very arguments they use to establish\ncertain conclusions show weakness of perception. What are the\nmanifestations of spiritual feeling, compared with the results of logical\nreasoning? Are they more trustworthy than the latter? Certainly not, at\nleast in relation to questions of evidence. It is true that their\ntestimony has a value; but it is one proportionate to the degree of\ncredibility attaching to witnesses circumstanced as they were, whose\nseparation of canonical from uncanonical gospels, or rather their\ncanonizing of certain writings apart from others, and their claiming of\ninspiration for the authors of the former, must be judged by the\nreasonableness of the thing itself, in connection with men of their type.\nThe second century abounded in pseudonymous literature; and the early\nfathers, as well as the churches, were occupied with other things than the\nsifting of evidence connected with writings considerably prior to their\nown time. The increase of such apocryphal productions, gospels, acts, and\napocalypses among the heretical parties stimulated the orthodox bishops\nand churches to make an authentic collection; but it increased the\ndifficulties of the task.\n\nTextual criticism has been employed to discredit the true dates of the\npresent gospels; and the most exaggerated descriptions have been given of\nthe frequent transcription of the text and its great corruption in the\nsecond century. The process of corruption in the course of frequent\ntranscription has been transferred even to the first century. It is true\nthat the gospels at the end of that century exhibited a text which bears\nmarks of transcription, interpolation, and addition; but they were not the\ncomplete works as we have them now, being then but in progress, except the\nfourth. The assumption that \u201cadvanced corruption\u201d existed in the present\ntext of the synoptists as early as the first century is gratuitous; unless\nthe process by which they were gradually built up is so called. No attempt\nto get a long history behind the canonical gospels at the close of the\nfirst century out of \u201cadvanced corruption\u201d can be successful. It is\nattested by no Christian writer of the century; and those in the first\nhalf of the second, both heretical and orthodox, did themselves treat the\ntext in a manner far short of its implied infallibility. The various\nreadings with which they had to do, do not carry up _the canonical\ngospels_ far into the first century. The transcription, enlargement, and\ninterpolation of the materials which make up the body of them, must not be\nidentified with the corruption of their _completed texts_, in order that\nthe latter may be relegated to an early period; for the synoptists did not\ncome forth full-blown, each from the hand of a single person. The old\nLatin version or versions used by Tertullian and the interpreter of\nIren\u00e6us, have been pressed into the same service, but in vain.\n\nIn like manner the Curetonian Syriac version of the gospels has been put\nas early as possible into the second century, though it can hardly have\nbeen prior to the very close of it, or rather to the beginning of the\nthird. Here the strong assertions of apologetic writers have been freely\nscattered abroad. But the evidence in favor of the authors traditionally\nassigned to the gospels and some of the epistles, is still uncertain. A\nwide gap intervenes between eye-witnesses of the apostles or apostolic men\nthat wrote the sacred books, and the earliest fathers who assert such\nauthorship. The traditional bridge between them is a precarious one. As\nthe chasm cannot be filled by adequate external evidence, we are thrown\nback on the internal character of the works themselves. One thing appears\nfrom the early corruption of the sacred records spoken of by Iren\u00e6us,\nOrigen, and others, that they were not regarded with the veneration\nnecessarily attaching to infallible documents. Their being freely handled\nexcludes the idea of rigid canonization. The men who first canonized them\nhad no certain knowledge of their authors. To them, that knowledge had\nbeen obscured or lost; though a sagacious criticism might have arrived at\nthe true state of the question even in their day.\n\nIn the sub-apostolic age Ebionitism passed into Catholicism, Jewish into\nPauline Christianity, the mythical and marvelous into the dogmatic, the\ntraditional into the historic, the legendary into the literary. The\nconflict of parties within the sphere of Christianity gave rise to\nproductions of various tendencies which reflected the circumstances out of\nwhich they arose. These were accepted or rejected by the churches\naccording to the prevailing opinions of the persons composing the\nchurches. Common usage led to the authorization of some; others were\nneglected. The state of the second century in its beliefs, credulity,\nidiosyncracies of prominent teachers, antagonistic opinions and mystic\nspeculations, throws a light upon the New Testament writings and\nespecially on the formation of the canon, which explains their genesis.\nTwo things stand out most clearly, the comparatively late idea of a\n_canonical_ New Testament literature; and the absence of critical\nprinciples in determining it. The former was not entertained till the\nlatter part of the second century. The conception of canonicity and\ninspiration attaching to New Testament books did not exist till the time\nof Iren\u00e6us.\n\nWhen it is asked, to whom do we owe the canon? the usual answer is, to the\nChurch. This is true only in a sense. The unity attributed to Christians\nbefore Iren\u00e6us and Tertullian, consisted in their religious consciousness.\nIt was subjective. The idea of _the church_ was that of inward\nfellowship\u2014the fellowship of the spirit rather than an outward organism.\nThe preservation of the early Christian writings was owing, in the first\ninstance, to the congregations to whom they were sent, and the neighboring\nones with whom such congregations had friendly connection. The care of\nthem devolved on the most influential teachers,\u2014on those who occupied\nleading positions in the chief cities, or were most interested in\napostolic writings as a source of instruction. The Christian books were\nmostly in the hands of the bishops. In process of time the canon was the\ncare of assemblies or councils. But it had been made before the first\ngeneral council by a few leading fathers towards the end of the second\ncentury in different countries. The formation of a Catholic Church and of\na canon was simultaneous. The circumstances in which the collection\noriginated were unfavorable to the authenticity of its materials, for\ntradition had been busy over them and their authors. Instead of\nattributing the formation of the canon to the Church, it would be more\ncorrect to say that the important stage in it was due to three teachers,\neach working separately and in his own way, who were intent upon the\ncreation of a Christian society which did not appear in the apostolic\nage,\u2014a visible organization united in faith,\u2014where the discordant opinions\nof apostolic and sub-apostolic times should be finally merged. The canon\nwas not the work of the Christian Church so much as of the men who were\nstriving to form that Church, and could not get beyond the mould received\nby primitive Christian literature. The first mention of a _Catholic\nChurch_ occurs in _The Martyrdom of Polycarp_, an epistle that cannot be\ndated earlier than 160 A.D., and may perhaps be ten years later. But\nthough the idea is there, its established use is due to Iren\u00e6us,\nTertullian, and Cyprian. The expression has a different and narrow sense\nin the seven Ignatian epistles which we believe to be supposititious and\nlater than Justin. Neither the three epistles published in Syriac by\nCureton, nor the seven Greek ones enumerated by Eusebius are authentic;\nthough Zahn has tried to prove the latter such, dating them A.D. 144. His\narguments, however, are far from convincing; and the whole story of(226)\nIgnatius\u2019s martyrdom at Rome rather than Antioch is still doubtful; for\nthe circumstances under which he is said to have been dragged to Rome, and\nhis writing letters to the churches by the way, are highly improbable. The\ntestimony of Malalas that Ignatius suffered at Antioch in December, 115,\nin the presence of Trajan, may be quite as good as that of Chrysostom and\nthe Syriac monthly calendar on which Zahn relies so confidently. The fact\nof the priority of the last two to Malalas is of little weight as\nevidence. The main point is _the locality_ in which Ignatius suffered;\nwhich Malalas, himself a native of Antioch and a historian, ought to have\nknown better than Chrysostom, because he copied preceding historians.\n\nIt is necessary to be precise on this subject because some speak of _the\nchurch_ as though it were contemporary with the apostles themselves, or at\nleast with their immediate disciples; and proceed to argue that\ndissensions arose soon after \u201cwithin the church\u201d rendering an appeal to\nthe written word necessary. When the authority of _traditional teaching_\ngave way to that of _a written rule_, a change came over the condition of\n_the church_. Such a view tends to mislead. There were dissensions among\nthe earliest Christians. The apostles themselves were by no means\nunanimous. Important differences of belief divided the Jewish and Gentile\nChristians from the beginning. The types of Christian truth existing from\nthe first gradually coalesced about the middle of the second century; when\nheretics, especially the Gnostics, appeared so formidable that a catholic\nchurch was developed. Along with this process, and as an important element\nin it, the writings of apostles and apostolic men were uncritically taken\nfrom tradition and elevated to the rank of divine documents. It was not\nthe rise of new dissensions \u201cwithin the church\u201d which led to the first\nformation of a Christian canon; rather did the new idea of \u201ca catholic\nchurch\u201d require a standard of appeal in apostolic writings, which were now\ninvested with an authority that did not belong to them from the beginning.\n\nOrigen was the first who took a somewhat scientific view of the relative\nvalue belonging to the different parts of the biblical collection. His\nexamination of the canon was critical. Before him the leading books had\nbeen regarded as divine and sacred, the source of doctrinal and historic\ntruth. From this stand-point he did not depart. With him ecclesiastical\ntradition was a prevailing principle in the recognition of books belonging\nof right to the New Testament collection. He was also guided by the\ninspiration of the authors; a criterion arbitrary in its application, as\nhis own statements show. In his time, however, the collection was being\ngradually enlarged; his third class. _i.e._, _the mixed_, approaching\nreception into the first. But amid all the fluctuations of opinion to\nwhich certain portions of the New Testament were subject, and the\nunscientific procedure both of fathers and churches in the matter, though\ncouncils had not met to discuss it, and vague tradition had strengthened\nwith time, a certain spiritual consciousness manifested itself throughout\nthe East and West in the matter of the canon. Tolerable unanimity ensued.\nThe result was a remarkable one, and calls for our gratitude,\nnotwithstanding its defects. Though the development was pervaded by no\ncritical or definite principle, it ended in a canon which has maintained\nits validity for centuries.\n\nIt is sometimes said that the history of the canon should be sought from\ndefinite catalogues, not from isolated quotations. The latter are supposed\nto be of slight value, the former to be the result of deliberate judgment.\nThis remark is more specious than solid. In relation to the Old Testament,\nthe catalogues given by the fathers, as by Melito and Origen, rest solely\non the tradition of the Jews; apart from which they have no independent\nauthority. As none except Jerome and Origen knew Hebrew, their lists of\nthe Old Testament books are simply a reflection of what they learned from\nothers. If they deviate in practice from their masters by quoting as\nScripture other than the canonical books, they show their judgment\nover-riding an external theory. The very men who give a list of the Jewish\nbooks evince an inclination to the Christian and enlarged canon. So Origen\nsays, in his _Epistle to Africanus_, that \u201cthe churches use Tobit.\u201d In\nexplaining the prophet Isaiah, Jerome employs Sirach vi. 6, in proof of\nhis view, remarking that the apocryphal work is in the Christian\ncatalogue.\n\nIn like manner Epiphanius, in a passage against Aetius, after referring to\nthe books of Scripture, adds, \u201cas well as the books of Wisdom, _i.e._, the\nWisdom of Solomon and of Jesus, son of Sirach; finally, all the other\nbooks of Scripture.\u201d In another place he gives the canon of the Jews\nhistorically, and excludes the apocryphal Greek books; here he includes\nsome of the latter. We also learn from Jerome that Judith was in the\nnumber of the books reckoned up by the Nicene Council. Thus the fathers\nwho give catalogues of the Old Testament show the existence of a Jewish\nand a Christian canon in relation to the Old Testament; the latter wider\nthan the former; their private opinion being more favorable to the one,\nthough the other was historically transmitted. In relation to the New\nTestament, the synods which drew up lists of the sacred books show the\nview of some leading father like Augustine, along with what custom had\nsanctioned. In this department no member of the synod exercised his\ncritical faculty; a number together would decide such questions summarily.\nBishops proceed in the track of tradition or authority.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII. THE BIBLE CANON FROM THE FOURTH CENTURY TO THE REFORMATION.\n\n\nIt will now be convenient to treat of the two Testaments together, _i.e._,\n_the canon of the Bible_. The canons of both have been considered\nseparately to the end of the third century; they may be henceforward\ndiscussed together. We proceed, therefore, to the Bible-canon of the\nfourth century, first in the Greek Church and then in the Latin. The\nCouncil of Laodicea (A.D. 363), at which there was a predominant semiarian\ninfluence, forbad the reading of all _non-canonical_ books. The 59th canon\nenacts, that \u201cprivate psalms must not be read in the Church, nor\nuncanonized books; but only the canonical ones of the New and Old\nTestament.\u201d The 60th canon proceeds to give a list of such. All the books\nof the Old Testament are enumerated, but in a peculiar order, somewhat\nlike the Septuagint one. With Jeremiah is specified _Baruch_, then the\nLamentations and _Epistle_. The prophets are last; first the minor, next\nthe major and Daniel. In the New Testament list are the usual seven\nCatholic epistles, and fourteen of Paul, including that to the Hebrews.\nThe Apocalypse alone is wanting. Credner has proved that this 60th canon\nis not original, and of much later date.(227)\n\nThe Apostolic Constitutions give a kind of canon like that in the 59th of\nLaodicea. After speaking of the books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, Kings,\nChronicles, those belonging to the return from the captivity, those of\nJob, Solomon, the sixteen prophets, and the Psalms of David; our Acts, the\nepistles of Paul, and the four gospels are mentioned. It is remarkable\nthat the Catholic epistles are not given. That they are indicated under\nActs is altogether improbable. The Antiochian Church of that time doubted\nor denied the apostolicity of these letters, as is seen from Theodore,\nCosmas, and others. Hence, their absence from these Constitutions, which\nare a collection belonging to different times; the oldest portion not\nearlier perhaps than the third century.(228)\n\nCyril of Jerusalem, who took part in the Council of Laodicea,(229) gives a\nlist \u201cof the divine Scriptures.\u201d The books of the Old Testament are\ntwenty-two, and the arrangement is nearly that which is in the English\nBible. With Jeremiah is associated \u201cBaruch and the Epistle.\u201d All the New\nTestament books are given except the Apocalypse. The list agrees very\nnearly with that of Eusebius, by taking the latter\u2019s \u201ccontroverted\u201d\nwritings into the class of the \u201cgenerally received.\u201d(230) The writer\ninsists on the necessity of unity in the Church upon the subject, and\nforbids the reading of writings not _generally received_. None but these\nare allowed. Yet he refers to Baruch (iii. 36-38) as _the prophet;_(231)\nand in adducing the testimonies of the prophets for the existence of the\nHoly Spirit, the last he gives is Daniel xiii. 41, 45. Sirach iii. 21, 22\nis cited;(232) Wisdom is quoted as Solomon\u2019s (xiii. 5);(233) the song of\nthe three children is used (verse 55)(234) with verses 27, 29;(235) and\nDaniel (xiii. 22, 45) is quoted.(236)\n\nIn Athanasius\u2019s festal epistle (365 A.D.) the archbishop undertakes \u201cto\nset forth in order, the books that are canonical and handed down and\nbelieved to be divine.\u201d His list of the Old Testament nearly agrees with\nCyril\u2019s, except that Esther is omitted and Ruth counted separately, to\nmake out the twenty-two books. He adds, \u201cthere are other books not\ncanonical, designed by the fathers to be read by those just joining us and\nwishing to be instructed in the doctrine of piety;\u201d _i.e._, the Wisdom of\nSolomon and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther and Judith and Tobit, and the\nDoctrine of the Apostles so called, and the Shepherd; \u201cthose being\n_canonical_, and these being _read_, let there be no mention of apocryphal\nwritings,\u201d &c. The New Testament list is the same as Cyril\u2019s, with the\naddition of the Apocalypse.(237) He quotes several of the apocryphal books\nin the same way as he does the canonical. Thus he introduces Judith (viii.\n16) with \u201cthe Scripture said;\u201d(238) and Baruch (iii. 12) is cited as if it\nwere Scripture.(239) Wisdom (vi. 26) has the epithet Scripture applied to\nit.(240) Sirach (xv. 9) is introduced with \u201cwhat is said by the Holy\nSpirit.\u201d(241) Baruch (iv. 20, 22) and Daniel (xiii. 42) are referred to in\nthe same way as Isaiah.(242) Tobit (ii. 7) has \u201cit is written\u201d prefixed to\nit.(243) Canonical and apocryphal are mentioned together; and similar\nlanguage applied to them.\n\nEusebius of Caesarea cites Wisdom as a _divine oracle_;(244) and after\nadducing several passages from Proverbs, subjoining to them others from\nthe same book with the introductory formula \u201cthese are also said to be the\nsame writers,\u201d he concludes with \u201csuch is the scripture.\u201d(245) Sirach is\ncited as Solomon\u2019s along with various passages from Proverbs.(246) After\nquoting Baruch, he says, \u201cthere is no need to appeal to the divine voices,\nwhich clearly confirm our proposition.\u201d(247) The additions to Daniel are\nalso treated as Scripture.(248)\n\nBasil of Caesarea(249) had a canon agreeing with that of Athanasius. Along\nwith the usual books reckoned as belonging to the canon, he used the\napocryphal productions of the Old Testament. Thus the book of Wisdom (i.\n4)(250) is quoted by him. So are Sirach (xx. 2);(251) Baruch, (iii.\n36)(252) called Jeremiah\u2019s; Judith (ix. 4);(253) and Daniel (xiii.\n50).(254)\n\nGregory of Nazianzus(255) puts his list into a poetical form. In the Old\nTestament it agrees with Athanasius\u2019s exactly, except that he mentions\nnone but the canonical books. Like Athanasius, he omits Esther. In the New\nTestament he deviates from Athanasius, by leaving out the Apocalypse,\nwhich he puts among the spurious.(256) He does not ignore the apocryphal\nbooks of the Old Testament, but quotes Daniel xiii. 5.(257)\n\nAmphilochius of Iconium(258) gives a metrical catalogue of the Biblical\nbooks. The canon of the Old Testament is the usual one, except that he\nsays of Esther at the end, \u201csome judge that Esther should be added to the\nforegoing.\u201d He notices none of the apocryphal books. His New Testament\ncanon agrees with the present, only he excludes the Apocalypse as\n_spurious_; which is given as the judgment of the majority. He alludes to\nthe doubts that existed as to the epistle to the Hebrews, but regards it\nas Pauline; and to the number of the catholic epistles (seven or\nthree).(259) The concluding words show that no list was universally\nreceived at that time.\n\nEpiphanius(260) follows Athanasius in his canon. As to the number of the\nOld Testament books, he hesitates between twenty-two and twenty-seven; but\nthe contents are the same. At the end of the twenty-seven books of the New\nTestament, Wisdom and Sirach are mentioned as \u201cdivine writings;\u201d elsewhere\nthey are characterized as \u201cdoubtful.\u201d(261) His practice shows his\nsentiments clearly enough, when Sirach (vii. 1) is introduced with \u201cthe\nScripture\u201d testifies(262); vii. 9 is elsewhere quoted(263); Wisdom (i. 4)\nis cited as Solomon\u2019s;(264) Baruch (iii. 36) is introduced with, \u201cas the\nScripture says,\u201d(265) and Daniel (xiii. 42) is quoted with, \u201cas it is\nwritten.\u201d(266) He mentions the fact that the epistles of Clement of Rome\nwere read in the churches.(267)\n\nDidymus of Alexandria(268) speaks against 2 Peter that it is not in the\ncanons.(269)\n\nChrysostom(270) does not speak of the canon; but in the New Testament he\nnever quotes the last four catholic epistles or the Apocalypse. All the\nother parts he uses throughout his numerous works,(271) including the\nApocrypha. Thus he introduces Wisdom (xvi. 28) with \u201cScripture says.\u201d(272)\nHe quotes Baruch (iii. 36, 38);(273) and Sirach (iv. 1.).(274)\n\nDidymus of Alexandria(275) cites Baruch (iii. 35) as Jeremiah,(276) and\ntreats it like the Psalms.(277) Daniel (xiii. 45) is also quoted.(278) He\nsays of Peter\u2019s Second Epistle that it is not in the canon.\n\nTheodore of Mopsuestia(279) was much freer than his contemporaries in\ndealing with the books of Scripture. It seems that he rejected Job,\nCanticles, Chronicles, and the Psalm-inscriptions; in the New Testament\nthe epistle of James, and others of the catholic ones. But Leontius\u2019s\naccount of his opinions cannot be adopted without suspicion.(280)\n\nThe canon of Cyril of Alexandria(281) does not differ from Athanasius\u2019s.\nLike other writers of the Greek Church in his day he uses along with the\ncanonical the apocryphal books of the Old Testament. He quotes 1 (iii.)\nEsdras (iv. 36) with \u201cinspired Scripture says.\u201d(282) Wisdom (vii. 6) is\nintroduced with, \u201caccording to that which is written.\u201d(283) In another\nplace it has the prefix \u201cfor it is written\u201d (i. 7);(284) and is treated as\nScripture (ii. 12).(285) Sirach (i. 1) is cited.(286) Baruch also (iii.\n35-37) is introduced with, \u201canother of the holy prophets said.\u201d(287)\n\nThe catalogues of the Old Testament contained in the manuscripts B, C, and\n\u05d0 need not be given, as they are merely codices of the Septuagint, and\nhave or had the books canonical and apocryphal belonging to that version.\nThe list of the New Testament books in B is like that of Athanasius.\nImperfect at the end, the MS. must have had at first the Epistles to\nTimothy, Titus, Philemon, and the Apocalypse. C (cod. Ephraemi rescriptus)\nhas fragments of the New Testaments, which show that it had originally all\nthe present books in the same order as Athanasius\u2019s. \u05d0 or the Sinaitic\nmanuscript has the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, in\naddition to the New Testament.\n\nThe progress made by the Greek Church of the fourth and former part of the\nfifth century, in its conception of the canon seems to be, that the idea\nof ecclesiastical settlement, or public, legal, definitive establishment\nwas attached to the original one. A writing was considered canonical when\na well-attested tradition put it among those composed by inspired men,\napostles or others; and it had on that account a determining authority in\nmatters of faith. Books which served as a rule of faith and were\ndefinitively set forth by the Church as divinely authoritative, were now\ntermed _canonical_. The canon consisted of writings settled or determined\nby ecclesiastical law.(288) Such was the idea added to the original\nacceptation of canon. To canonical were opposed apocryphal writings,\n_i.e._, _heretical_ and _fabricated_ ones; while an intermediate class\nconsisted of those read in the churches, which were useful, but not\ndecisive in matters of belief. Another advance in the matter of the canon\nat this period was the general adoption of the Hebrew canon, with a\nrelegation of the Greek additions in the Septuagint to the class _publicly\nread_.(289) Yet doubts about the reception of Esther into the number of\nthe canonical books were still entertained, though it was one of the\nJewish canon; doubtless on account of its want of harmony with Christian\nconsciousness. And the catholic epistles which had been doubted before,\nJude, James, Second Peter, were now generally received. But there was a\ndivision of opinion about the Apocalypse.\n\nWe come to the period of the Latin, corresponding to that of the Greek\nChurch which has just been noticed. Augustine(290) gave great attention to\nthe subject, laboring to establish a complete canon, the necessity of\nwhich was generally felt. According to him the Scriptures which were\nreceived and acknowledged by all the churches of the day should be\ncanonical. Of those not universally adopted, such as are received by the\nmajority and the weightier of the churches should be preferred to those\nreceived by the fewer and less important churches. In his enumeration of\nthe forty-four books of the Old Testament, he gives, after Chronicles,\nother histories \u201cwhich are neither connected with the order\u201d specified in\nthe preceding context, \u201cnor with one another,\u201d _i.e._, Job, Tobit, Esther,\nJudith, the two books of the Maccabees, and Esdras. Wisdom and\nEcclesiasticus, he thinks, should be numbered among the prophets, as\ndeserving of authority and having a certain likeness to Solomon\u2019s\nwritings.(291) He says of the Maccabees that this \u201cScripture has been\nreceived by the Church not uselessly, if it be read or heard\nsoberly.\u201d(292) The famous passage in the treatise on Christian doctrine,\nwhere he enumerates the whole canon, is qualified by no other; for though\nhe knew the distinction between the canonical books of the Palestinian\nJews and the so-called apocryphal ones, as well as the fact of some New\nTestament writings not being received universally, he thought\n_church-reception_ a sufficient warrant for canonical authority. Hence, he\nconsidered the books of the Maccabees canonical, because so received by\nthe Church; while he says of Wisdom and Sirach that they merited\n_authoritative_ reception and numbering among the _prophetic_\nScriptures.(293) Of the former in particular he speaks strongly in one\nplace, asserting that it is worthy to be venerated by all Christians as of\ndivine authority.(294) But he afterwards retracted his opinion of the\ncanonical authority of Sirach.(295) He raises, not lowers, the authority\nof the so-called apocryphal books which he mentions. He enumerates all the\nNew Testament books, specifying the Pauline epistles as fourteen, and so\nreckoning that to the Hebrews as the apostle\u2019s; but he speaks of it\nelsewhere as an epistle about which some were uncertain, professing that\nhe was influenced to admit it as canonical by the authority of the\nOriental churches.(296) In various places he speaks hesitatingly about its\nPauline authorship.\n\nIn 393, the African bishops held a council at Hippo where the canon was\ndiscussed. The list of the canonical Scripture given includes, besides the\nPalestinian one, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, and the two books\nof Maccabees. The New Testament canon seems to have agreed exactly with\nour present one.(297) The Council of Carthage (397) repeated the statute\nof its predecessor, enumerating the same books of the Bible as\ncanonical.(298) Augustine was the animating spirit of both councils, so\nthat they may be taken as expressing his views on the subject.\n\nJerome(299) gives a list of the twenty-two canonical books of the Old\nTestament, the same as that of the Palestinian Jews, remarking that some\nput Ruth and Lamentations among the Hagiographa, so making twenty-four\nbooks. All besides should be put among the Apocrypha. Wisdom, Sirach,\nJudith, Tobit, the Shepherd are not in the canon. The two books of\nMaccabees he regarded in the same light.(300) But though Jerome\u2019s words\nimply the apocryphal position of these extra-canonical books, he allows of\ntheir being read in public for the edification of the people, not to\nconfirm the authority of doctrines; _i.e._, they belong to \u201cthe\necclesiastical books\u201d of Athanasius. His idea of \u201capocryphal\u201d is wider and\nmilder than that of some others in the Latin Church. It has been\nconjectured by Welte,(301) that the conclusions of the African councils in\n393 and 397 influenced Jerome\u2019s views of the canon, so that his later\nwritings allude to the apocryphal works in a more favorable manner than\nthat of the _Prologus galeatus_ or the preface to Solomon\u2019s books. One\nthing is clear, that he quotes different passages from the Apocrypha along\nwith others from the Hebrew canon. In his letter to Eustochius, Sirach\niii. 33 (Latin) comes between citations from Matthew and Luke; and is\nintroduced by _which is written_, in a letter to Pammachius; and xxii. 6\nhas _divine Scripture_ applied to it.(302) Ruth, Esther, and Judith are\nspoken of as _holy volumes_. The practice of Jerome differed from his\ntheory; or rather he became less positive, and altered his views somewhat\nwith the progress of time and knowledge. As to the New Testament, he gives\na catalogue of all that now belongs to it, remarking of the epistle to the\nHebrews and of the Apocalypse that he adopts both on the authority of\nancient writers, not of present custom. His opinion about them was not\ndecided.(303) In another work he gives the Epistle of Barnabas at the end\nof the canonical list. He also states the doubts of many respecting the\nEpistle to Philemon, and about 2 Peter, Jude, 2 and 3 John. According to\nhim the first Epistle of Clement of Rome was publicly read in some\nchurches.(304)\n\nHilary of Poitiers(305) seems to have followed Origen\u2019s catalogue. He\ngives twenty-two books, specifying \u201cthe epistle\u201d of Jeremiah; and remarks\nthat some added Tobit and Judith, making twenty-four, after the letters of\nthe Greek alphabet. He cites Wisdom and Sirach as \u201cprophets.\u201d(306) In the\nNew Testament he never quotes James, Jude, 2 and 3 John, nor 2 Peter. 2\nMaccabees (vii. 28) is introduced with \u201caccording to the prophet;\u201d(307)\nSirach (xxxi. 1) is introduced with \u201cnor do they hear the Lord\nsaying;\u201d(308) Wisdom is cited as Solomon\u2019s (viii. 2);(309) Judith (xvi. 3)\nis cited;(310) so is Baruch (iii. 36);(311) and Daniel xiii. 42.(312)\n\nOptatus of Mela(313) has the usual canonical books, but omits the epistle\nto the Hebrews. He uses the apocrypha without scruple, introducing Sirach\n(iii. 30) with \u201cit is written;\u201d(314) and Wisdom (i. 13) with \u201cit is\nwritten in Solomon.\u201d(315)\n\nLucifer of Cagliari(316) uses the apocrypha equally with the canonical\nbooks. Thus 1 Maccabees (i. 43) is quoted as \u201choly Scripture.\u201d(317) So is\n2 Maccab. (vi. 1).(318) Judith (ix. 2) is cited,(319) as are also Wisdom\n(xvii. 1, 2);(320) Tobit (iv. 6);(321) and Daniel (xiii. 20).(322)\n\nAmbrose of Milan(323) had the same canon as most of the Westerns in his\ntime. With some others, he considered the Epistle to the Hebrews to have\nbeen written by St. Paul. In the Old Testament he used the apocryphal\nbooks pretty freely. Wisdom (vii. 22) is cited as authoritative\nScripture.(324) Sirach (xi. 30) is also cited as Scripture.(325) Baruch\n(iv. 19) is quoted;(326) Daniel (xiii. 44, 45) is treated as Scripture and\nprophetic;(327) and Tobit is expounded like any other book of\nScripture.(328)\n\nRufinus(329) enumerates the books of the Old and New Testaments which \u201care\nbelieved to be inspired by the Holy Spirit itself, according to the\ntradition of our ancestors, and have been handed down by the Churches of\nChrist.\u201d All the books of the Hebrew canon and of the New Testament are\nspecified. After the list he says, \u201cthese are they which the fathers\nincluded in the canon, by which they wished to establish the assertion of\nour faith.\u201d He adds that there are other books not _canonical_, but\n_ecclesiastical_\u2014the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, and the\nbooks of the Maccabees. Besides the usual New Testament works, he speaks\nof the Shepherd of Hermas, and the \u201cJudgment of Peter\u201d as read in the\nchurches, but not as authoritative in matters of faith.(330)\n\nPhilastrius(331) of Brescia gives some account of the Scriptures and their\ncontents in his time. The canonical Scriptures, which alone should be read\nin the Catholic Church, are said to be the law and the prophets, the\ngospels, Acts, thirteen epistles of Paul, and seven others, _i.e._, two of\nPeter, three of John, one of Jude, and one of James. Of the Old Testament\napocrypha he asserts that they ought to be read for the sake of morals by\nthe perfect, but not by all. He speaks of _heretics_ who reject John\u2019s\ngospel and the Apocalypse. Respecting the Epistle to the Hebrews which is\nomitted in his canon, he speaks at large, but not very decidedly,\naffirming that some attributed its authorship to Barnabas, or Clement of\nRome, or Luke. \u201cThey wish to read the writings of the blessed apostle, and\nnot rightly perceiving some things in the epistle, it is not therefore\nread by them in the church. Though read by some, it is not read to the\npeople in the church; nothing but Paul\u2019s thirteen epistles, and that to\nthe Hebrews sometimes.\u201d(332) The influence of the East upon the West\nappears in the statements of this father upon the subject. He had several\ncanonical lists before him; one at least from an Oriental-Arian source,\nwhich explains some assertions, particularly his omission of the\nApocalypse.\n\nInnocent I. of Rome wrote to Exsuperius (405 A.D.), bishop of Toulouse,\ngiving a list of the canonical books. Besides the Hebrew canon, he has\nWisdom and Sirach; Tobit, Judith, the two Maccabees. The New Testament\nlist is identical with the present. He also refers to pseudepigraphical\nwritings which ought not only to be rejected but condemned.(333)\n\nA canonical list appears in three different forms bearing the names of\nDamasus (366-384), Gelasius I. (492-496), and Hormisdas (514-523).\nAccording to the first, the books of the Old Testament are arranged in\nthree orders. In the first are the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four\nKings, two Chronicles, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Wisdom,\nand Ecclesiasticus; in the second, all the prophets, including Baruch; in\nthe third, Job, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Esdras, two Maccabees. The New\nTestament books are the four gospels, fourteen epistles of Paul, the\nApocalypse, and Acts, with seven Catholic epistles.\n\nThat which is called the Decree of Gelasius is almost identical with the\npreceding. It wants Baruch and Lamentations. It has also two Esdrases\ninstead of one. In the New Testament the epistle to the Hebrews is absent.\n\nThe Hormisdas-form has the Lamentations of Jeremiah: and in the New\nTestament the Epistle to the Hebrews.\n\nThe MSS. of these lists present some diversity; and Credner supposes the\nDamasus-list a fiction. But Thiel has vindicated its authenticity. It is\npossible that some interpolations may exist in the last two; the first,\nwhich is the shortest, may well belong to the time of Damasus.(334)\n\nIn 419 A.D. another council at Carthage, at which Augustine was present,\nrepeated the former list of books with a single alteration, viz., fourteen\nepistles of Paul (instead of thirteen).(335)\n\nThe preceding notices and catalogues show a general desire in the Western\nChurch to settle the canon. The two most influential men of the period\nwere Augustine and Jerome, who did not entirely agree. Both were unfitted\nfor a critical examination of the topic. The former was a gifted spiritual\nman, lacking learning and independence. Tradition dominated all his ideas\nabout the difficult or disputed books. He did not enter upon the question\nscientifically, on the basis of certain principles; but was content to\ntake refuge in authority\u2014the prevailing authority of leading churches. His\njudgment was weak, his sagacity moderate, and his want of many-sidedness\nhindered a critical result. Jerome, again, was learned but timid, lacking\nthe courage to face the question fairly or fundamentally; and the\nindependence necessary to its right investigation. Belonging as he did to\nboth churches, he recommended the practice of the one to the other. He,\ntoo, was chiefly influenced by tradition; by Jewish teachers in respect to\nthe Old Testament, and by general custom as to the New. The question was\nnot susceptible of advancement under such manipulation; nor could it be\nsettled on a legitimate basis. Compared with the eastern Church, the\nwestern accepted a wider canon of the Old Testament, taking some books\ninto the class of the _canonical_ which the former put among those _to be\nread_. In regard to the New Testament, _all_ the Catholic epistles and\neven the Apocalypse were received. The African churches and councils\ngenerally adopted this larger canon, because the old Latin version or\nversions of the Bible current in Africa were daughters of the Septuagint.\nIf the Latins apparently looked upon the Greek as the original itself, the\napocryphal books would soon get rank with the canonical. Yet the more\nlearned fathers, Jerome, Rufinus and others, favored the Hebrew canon in\ndistinguishing between _canonical_ and _ecclesiastical_ books. The\ninfluence of the Eastern upon the Western Church is still visible, though\nit could not extinguish the prevailing desire to include the disputed\nbooks. The Greek view was to receive nothing which had not apparently a\ngood attestation of divine origin and apostolic authority; the Latin was\nto exclude nothing hallowed by descent and proved by custom. The former\nChurch looked more to the sources of doctrine; the latter to those of\nedification. The one desired to contract those sources, so as not to be\ntoo rich; the other to enlarge the springs of edification, not to be too\npoor. Neither had the proper resources for the work, nor a right\nperception of the way in which it should be set about; and therefore they\nwere not fortunate in their conclusions, differing as they did in regard\nto points which affect the foundation of a satisfactory solution.\n\nNotwithstanding the numerous endeavors both in the East and West to settle\nthe canon during the 4th and 5th centuries, it was not finally closed. The\ndoubts of individuals were still expressed; and succeeding ages testified\nto the want of universal agreement respecting several books. The question,\nhowever, was _practically_ determined. No material change occurred again\nin the absolute rejection or admission of books. With some fluctuations,\nthe canon remained very much as it was in the 4th and 5th centuries.\nTradition shaped and established its character. General usage gave it a\npermanency which it was not easy to disturb. No definite principles guided\nthe course of its formation, or fixed its present state. It was dominated\nfirst and last by circumstances and ideas which philosophy did not\nactuate. Its history is mainly objective. Uncritical at its commencement,\nit was equally so in the two centuries which have just been considered.\n\nThe history of the canon in the Syrian church cannot be traced with much\nexactness. The Peshito version had only the Hebrew canonical books at\nfirst; most of the apocryphal were rendered from the Greek and added in\nthe Nestorian recension. In the New Testament it wanted four of the\ncatholic epistles and the Apocalypse. Ephrem (A.D. 378) uses all the books\nin our canon, the apocryphal as well as the canonical. The former are\ncited by him in the same way as the latter. Sirach ii. 1 is quoted with\n_as the Scripture says_;(336) and Wisdom iv. 7 with _it is written_.(337)\nDaniel xiii. 9, belonging to the Greek additions, is also cited with _as\nit is written_.(338) It should be observed that the quotations given are\nall from Ephrem\u2019s Greek, not Syriac, works; and that suspicions have been\nraised about the former being tampered with. The Syrian version of the New\nTestament made by Polycarp at the request of Philoxenus of Mabug, had the\nfour catholic epistles wanting in the Peshito. It had also the two\nepistles of Clement to the Corinthians, if we may judge by the Harclean\nrecension, A.D. 616; for a MS. in the Cambridge University Library\ncontains those epistles immediately after the Catholic ones, and before\nthose of St. Paul; so that they are put on an equality with the canonical\nwritings. The Apocalypse is wanting. Junilius, (though an African bishop\nabout 550 A.D.), says that he got his knowledge from a Persian of the name\nof Paulus who received his education in the school of Nisibis. He may,\ntherefore, be considered a witness of the opinions of the Syrian church at\nthe beginning of the 6th century. Dividing the biblical books into those\nof _perfect_, those of _intermediate_, and those of _no authority_, he\nmakes the first the canonical; the second, those added to them by many\n(plures); the third, all the rest. In the first list he puts\nEcclesiasticus. Among the second he puts 1 and 2 Chronicles, Job, Ezra and\nNehemiah, Judith, Esther, 1 and 2 Maccabees; and in the New Testament,\nJames, 2 Peter, Jude, 2 and 3 John. He also says that the Apocalypse of\nJohn is much doubted by the Orientals. In the third list _i.e._, books of\nno authority added by some (quidam) to the canonical, are put Wisdom and\nCanticles.(339) The catalogue is confused, and erroneous at least in one\nrespect, that Jerome is referred to, as sanctioning the division given of\nthe Old Testament books; for neither he nor the Jews agree with it.\n\nThe canon of the Abyssinian church seems to have had at first all the\nbooks in the Septuagint, canonical and apocryphal together, little\ndistinction being made between them. Along with the contents of the Greek\nBible there were Enoch, 4 Esdras, the Ascension of Isaiah, the Jubilees,\nAsseneth, &c. That of the New Testament agrees with the present Greek one.\nAt a later period in the Arabic age a list was made and constituted the\nlegal one for the use of the church, having been derived from the Jacobite\ncanons of the apostles. This gives, in the Old Testament, the Pentateuch,\nJoshua, Judges, Ruth, Judith, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah,\nEsther, Tobit, two books of Maccabees, Job, Psalms, five books of Solomon,\nminor and greater prophets. The Wisdom of Sirach (for teaching children)\nand the book of Joseph ben Gorion, _i.e._, that of the Maccabees, are\nexternal. The New Testament has four gospels, Acts, seven apostolic\nepistles, fourteen of Paul, and the Revelation of John. Later catalogues\nvary much, and are often enlarged with the book of Enoch, 4 Esdras, the\nApocalypse of Isaiah, &c. The canon of the Ethiopic church was\nfluctuating.(340)\n\nThe canon of the Armenians had at first the Palestinian books of the Old\nTestament, twenty-two in number, and the usual New Testament ones, except\nthe Apocalypse. It was made from the Syriac in the fifth century by Sahak\nand Mesrob. The deutero-canonical books and additions were appended, after\nthe disciples of those two men who had been sent by them into different\nplaces, brought back authentic copies of the Greek Bible from the\npatriarch Maximian, by which the version already made was interpolated and\ncorrected; as it was subsequently corrected by others despatched to\nAlexandria and Athens, who, however, did not return till their teachers\nwere dead. The MSS. of this version were afterwards interpolated from the\nVulgate; Oskan himself translating for his edition (which was the first\nprinted one, A.D. 1666), Sirach, 4 Esdras and the Epistle of Jeremiah from\nthe Latin. The book of Revelation does not seem to have been translated\ntill the eighth century. Zohrab\u2019s critical edition (1805) has Judith,\nTobit, the three books of Maccabees, Wisdom, and the Epistle of Baruch\namong the canonical books; and in an appendix, the fourth book of Esdras,\nthe prayer of Manasseh, the Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul and his\nanswer, the Rest (end) of the apostle and evangelist John, the prayer of\nEuthalius. Like the edition of Oskan, this has all the deutero-canonical\nbooks, which were derived from the Septuagint, and incorporated by the\nfirst translators with their original version. Another edition published\nat St. Petersburgh (1817), for the use of the Jacobite Church, has the\nprayer of Manasses and 4 Esdras after the Apocalypse.\n\nThe Georgian version consisted of the books and additions in the Greek\ntranslation from which it was made. The New Testament has the canonical\nbooks in the usual order. Jesus Sirach and two books of the Maccabees (2d\nand 3d) were not in the Georgian MS. used by Prince Arcil for the edition\nof 1743, but were rendered out of the Russian. The Moscow Bible printed\nunder the direction and at the cost of Arcil, Bacchar and Wakuset, is the\nauthorized edition of the Georgian Christians.\n\nThe Bible canon of the Eastern church in the middle ages shows no real\nadvance. Endeavors were made to remove the uncertainty arising from the\nexistence of numerous lists; but former decisions and decrees of councils\nwere repeated instead of a new, independent canon. Here belongs the\ncatalogue in the Alexandrian MS., of the fifth century, which is peculiar.\nAfter the prophets come Esther, Tobit, Judith, Ezra and Nehemiah, 4\nMaccabees, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, the\nall-virtuous Wisdom, the Wisdom of Jesus of Sirach. In the New Testament,\nthe Apocalypse is followed by two epistles of Clement. The list was\nprobably made in Egypt. That of Anastasius Sinaita,(341) patriarch of\nAntioch, is similar to Nicephorus\u2019s Stichometry, which we shall mention\nafterwards. Baruch is among the canonical books; Esther among the\nantilegomena. The Apocalypse is unnoticed. The 85th of the Apostolic\ncanons gives a list of the Old and New Testament books, in which the usual\ncanonical ones of the former are supplemented by Judith and 3 Maccabees;\nthose of the latter by the two epistles of Clement, with the Apostolic\nconstitutions. This catalogue cannot be put earlier than the fifth or\nsixth century, and is subject to the suspicion of having been\ninterpolated. We have also Nicephorus\u2019s _Stichometry_ (806-815;)(342) of\nwhich we may remark that Baruch is among the canonical books of the Old\nTestament; while the Revelation is put with the Apocalypse of Peter, the\nepistle of Barnabas and the Gospel according to the Hebrews, among the\nantilegomena of the New Testament. It is also surprising that the\nApocalypse of Peter and the Gospel according to the Hebrews are not among\nthe Apocrypha, where Clement\u2019s epistles with the productions of Ignatius,\nPolycarp, and Hermas appear. The list is probably older than that of the\nAntioch patriarch Anastasius Sinaita. Cosmas Indicopleustes (535) never\nmentions the seven Catholic epistles of the New Testament or the\nApocalypse. The Trullan council (A.D. 692) adopts the eighty-five\nApostolic canons, rejecting, however, the Apostolic Constitutions.\nPhotius, patriarch of Constantinople,(343) follows the eighty-fifth\nApostolical canon of the Trullan Council.(344) But in his Bibliotheca(345)\nhe speaks differently regarding the epistles of Clement, and does not\ntreat them as canonical. Though the first was thought worthy to be read in\npublic, the second was rejected as spurious; and his own opinion was not\naltogether favorable to them. John of Damascus;(346) the second Nicene\ncouncil (787); the Synopsis divin\u00e6 Scriptur\u00e6 Vet. et Novi Test. (about\n1000); Zonaras (about 1120); Alexius Aristenus (about 1160); and\nNicephorus Callistus (1330), call for no remark.\n\nIn the Western church of the Middle Ages, diversity of opinion respecting\ncertain books continued. Though the views of Augustine were generally\nfollowed, the stricter ones of Jerome found many adherents. The canon was\nfluctuating, and the practice of the churches in regard to it somewhat\nlax. Here belong Cassiodorus (about 550); the list in the Codex Amiatinus\n(about 550); Isidore of Seville(347) who, after enumerating three classes\nof Old Testament books gives a fourth not in the Hebrew canon. Here he\nspecifies Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, saying\nthat the church of Christ puts them among the divine books, honors and\nhighly esteems them.(348) There are also the fourth council of Toledo\n(632); Gregory the Great(349) Notker Labeo;(350) Ivo (about 1092);\nBede;(351) Alcuin;(352) Rabanus Maurus;(353) Hugo de St Victor;(354) Peter\nof Clugny;(355) John of Salisbury;(356) Thomas Aquinas;(357) Hugo de St\nCher;(358) Wycliffe;(359) Nicolaus of Lyra,(360) &c., &c. Several of\nthese, as Hugo de St Victor, John of Salisbury, Hugo de St Cher, and\nNicolaus of Lyra, followed Jerome in separating the canonical and\napocryphal books of the Old Testament.(361)\n\nThe Reformers generally returned to the Hebrew canon, dividing off the\nadditional books of the Septuagint or those attached to the Vulgate. These\nthey called _apocryphal_, after Jerome\u2019s example. Though considered of no\nauthority in matters of doctrine, they were pronounced useful and\nedifying. The principal reason that weighed with the Reformers was, that\nChrist and the apostles testified to none of the Septuagint additions.\n\nBesides the canonical books of the Old Testament, Luther translated\nJudith, Wisdom, Tobit, Sirach, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, the Greek\nadditions to Esther and Daniel, with the Prayer of Manasseh. His judgment\nrespecting several of these is expressed in the prefaces to them. With\nregard to 1 Maccabees, he thinks it almost equal to the other books of\nHoly Scripture, and not unworthy to be reckoned among them. Of Wisdom, he\nsays, he was long in doubt whether it should be numbered among the\ncanonical books; and of Sirach that it is a right good book proceeding\nfrom a wise man. But he speaks unfavorably of several other apocryphal\nproductions, as of Baruch and 2 Maccabees. It is evident, however, that he\nconsidered all he translated of _some_ use to the Christian Church. He\nthought that the book of Esther should not belong to the canon.\n\nLuther\u2019s judgment respecting some of the New Testament books was freer\nthan most Protestants now are disposed to approve. He thought the epistle\nto the Hebrews was neither Paul\u2019s nor an apostle\u2019s, but proceeded from an\nexcellent and learned man who may have been the disciple of apostles. He\ndid not put it on an equality with the epistles written by apostles\nthemselves. The Apocalypse he considered neither apostolic nor prophetic,\nbut put it almost on the same level with the 4th book of Esdras, which he\nspoke elsewhere of tossing into the Elbe. This judgment was afterwards\nmodified, not retracted. James\u2019s epistle he pronounced unapostolic, \u201ca\nright strawy epistle.\u201d In like manner, he did not believe that Jude\u2019s\nepistle proceeded from an apostle. Considering it to have been taken from\n2 Peter, and not well extracted either, he put it lower than the supposed\noriginal. The Reformer, as also his successors, made a distinction between\nthe books of the New Testament similar to that of the Old; the _generally\nreceived_ (homologoumena) and _controverted_ books (antilegomena); but the\nCalvinists afterwards obliterated it, as the Roman Catholics at the\nCouncil of Trent did with the old Testament.(362) The epistle to the\nHebrews, those of Jude and James, with the Apocalypse, belong to the\nlatter class. The distinction in question proceeded from genuine critical\ntact on the part of the early Lutheran Church which had canonical and\ndeutero-canonical writings even in the New Testament collection. Nor did\nthe Reformers consider it a dangerous thing to bring the fact before the\npeople. To make it palpable, Luther attached continuous numbers to the\nfirst twenty-three books of his version, bringing the four antilegomena\nafter these, without numbers; and this mode of marking the difference\ncontinued till the middle of the 17th century.(363) Luther was right in\nassigning a greater or less value to the separate writings of the New\nTestament, and in leaving every one to do the same. He relied on their\ninternal value more than tradition; taking the _word of God_ in a deeper\nand wider sense than its coincidence with the Bible.\n\nBodenstein of Carlstad examined the question of canonicity more thoroughly\nthan any of his contemporaries, and followed out the principle of private\njudgment in regard to it. He divides the biblical books into three\nclasses\u20141. Books of the highest dignity, viz., the Pentateuch and the\nGospels; 2. Books of the second dignity, _i.e._, the works termed\nprophetic by the Jews, and the fifteen epistles universally received; 3.\nBooks of the third and lowest authority, _i.e._, the Jewish Hagiographa\nand the seven Antilegomena epistles of the New Testament. Among the\nApocrypha he makes two classes\u2014such as are out of the canon to the Hebrews\nyet hagiographical (Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobit, the two\nMaccabees), and those that are clearly apocryphal and to be rejected\n(third and fourth Esdras, Baruch, Prayer of Manasseh, a good part of the\nthird chapter of Daniel, and the last two chapters of Daniel.)(364)\n\nZwingli asserts that the Apocalypse is not a biblical book.(365)\n\nOecolampadius says\u2014\u201cWe do not despise Judith, Tobit, Ecclesiasticus,\nBaruch, the last two Esdras, the three Maccabees, the last two chapters of\nDaniel, but we do not attribute to them divine authority with those\nothers.\u201d(366) As to the books of the New Testament he would not compare\nthe Apocalypse, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John with the rest.(367)\n\nCalvin did not think that Paul was the author of the epistle to the\nHebrews, or that 2 Peter was written by the apostle himself; but both in\nhis opinion are canonical.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII. ORDER OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS.\n\n\nI. The arrangement of the various parts comprising the New Testament was\nfluctuating in the second century; less so in the third. In the fourth\ncentury the order which the books had commonly assumed in Greek MSS. and\nwriters was; the Gospels, the Acts, the Catholic Epistles, the Pauline,\nand the Apocalypse. This sequence appears in the Vatican, Sinaitic,\nAlexandrian and Ephrem (C) MSS.; Cyril of Jerusalem, in the 60th Canon of\nthe Laodicean Council, Athanasius, Leontius of Byzantium, &c.\n\nII. Another order prevailed in the Latin Church, viz., the Gospels, the\nActs, the Epistles of Paul, the Catholic Epistles, and the Apocalypse.\nThis appears in Melito, Iren\u00e6us, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Augustine,\nJerome, the Vulgate, the Councils of Carthage, held in A.D. 397 and 419;\nand is now the usual arrangement.\n\nWithin the limits of the two general arrangements just mentioned, there\nwere many variations. Thus we find in relation to _the gospels_.\n\nIII. (_a_) Matthew, John, Luke, Mark; in the MSS. of the old Italic marked\n_a_, _b_, _d_, _e_, _ff_, and in the cod. argenteus of Ulfila\u2019s Gothic\nversion.\n\n(_b_) Matthew, John, Mark, Luke; in the council of Ephesus A.D. 431, Cyril\nof Alexandria, Theodoret, the stichometry of the Clermont MS. Such was the\nusual order in the Greek Church of the fifth century.\n\n(_c_) Mark is put first, followed by Matthew; in the fragment of a Bobbian\nMS. of the Itala at Turin marked _k_.\n\n(_d_) Matthew, Mark, John, Luke; in the Curetonian Syriac gospels. They\nare mentioned in the same order in Origen\u2019s I. Homily on Luke.\n\nThe reason of the order in, (_a_) and (_b_) lies in apostleship. The works\nof apostles precede those of evangelists. The established sequence, which\nis already sanctioned by Iren\u00e6us and Origen, has respect to the supposed\ndates of the gospels. Clement of Alexandria says that ancient tradition\nsupposed those gospels having the genealogies to have been written before\nthe others.\n\nIV. As to the _Acts of the Apostles_, not only is this work put\nimmediately after the gospels, which is the order in the Muratorian canon,\nbut we find it in other positions.\n\n(_a_) Gospels, Pauline Epistles, Acts; in the Sinaitic MS., the\nPeshito,(368) Jerome,(369) and Epiphanius.\n\n(_b_) Gospels, Pauline Epistles, Catholic Epistles, Acts; in Augustine,\nthe third council of Toledo, Isidore, Innocent I., Eugenius IV., and the\nSpanish Church generally.\n\n(_c_) Gospels, Pauline, Catholic Epistles, Apocalypse, Acts; in the\nstichometry of the Clermont MS.\n\nV. As to _the Epistles of Paul_, besides the place they now occupy in our\nBibles, they sometimes follow the gospels immediately.\n\n(_a_) Gospels, Pauline Epistles; the Sinaitic MS., Jerome, Epiphanius,\nAugustine, the third council of Toledo, Isidore, Innocent I., Eugenius\nIV., the stichometry of the Clermont MS.\n\n(_b_) The usual order of the Greek Church is, Gospels, Acts, Catholic\nEpistles, Pauline, &c., as in Cyril of Jerusalem, the Laodicean Council\n(60), Athanasius, Leontius of Byzantium, the MSS. A. B., but not \u05d0. The\ncritical Greek Testaments of Lachmann and Tischendorf adopt this order.\n\n(_c_) They are placed last of all in a homily attributed to Origen, but\nthis does not necessarily show that father\u2019s opinion.(370)\n\n(_d_) They stand first of all in a Gallican _Sacramentarium_ cited by\nHody.(371)\n\nVI. With respect to the order of the individual epistles, the current one\nhas been thought as old as Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria. But the\nproof of this is precarious. It appears in the fourth century, and may\nhave been prior to that. It is in Epiphanius, who supposes that the\narrangement was the apostle\u2019s own. Not only was it the prevalent one in\nthe Greek Church, but also in the Latin as we see from the codex\nAmiatinus, and the Vulgate MSS. generally. It rests upon the extent of the\nepistles and the relative importance of the localities in which the\nbelievers addressed resided.\n\n(_a_) Marcion had but ten Pauline epistles in the following order:\nGalatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, the\nLaodiceans, (Ephesians), Colossians, Philemon, Philippians.\n\n(_b_) 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Galatians,\n1 and 2 Thessalonians, Romans, Philemon, Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy, to the\nLaodiceans, the Alexandrians (the Epistle to the Hebrews); in the\nMuratorian canon.\n\n(_c_) Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians,\nThessalonians, Colossians, Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews; in\nAugustine, and several MSS. of the Vulgate in England.(372)\n\n(_d_) Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Thessalonians, Ephesians,\nPhilippians, Colossians, Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews; in the\nso-called decree of Gelasius in the name of Hormisdas, in Labbe\u2019s text.\nBut here different MSS. vary in regard to the position of the Thessalonian\nepistles.\n\nVII. The Laodicean letter was inserted either before the pastoral\nepistles, as in several MSS. of the Vulgate in England; or before the\nThessalonian epistles preceding them; or at the end of the Epistle to the\nHebrews, as in a MS. of the Latin Bible at Lembeth. Its insertion in\ncopies of the Vulgate was owing to the authority of Gregory the Great, who\nlooked upon it as authentic.\n\nVIII. The position of the Epistle to the Hebrews usually was either before\nthe pastoral epistles, _i.e._, immediately after those to the\nThessalonians; or after the pastoral ones and Philemon. The former method\nwas generally adopted in the Greek Church from the fourth century. The\nlatter prevailed in the Latin Church from Augustine onward.\n\n(_a_) Pauline epistles to churches (the last being the second to the\nThessalonians), Hebrews, Timothy, Titus, Philemon; in the MSS. \u05d0, A. B. C.\nH., Athanasius, Epiphanius; Euthalius,(373) Theodoret. Jerome mentions it\nafter the epistles of Paul to the seven churches as an eighth excluded by\nthe majority, and proceeds to specify the pastoral ones. But Amphilochius\nand Ebedjesu the Syrian have the western order, viz., the following\u2014\n\n(_b_) Pauline Epistles, Hebrews (following immediately that to Philemon);\nin Augustine and the Vulgate version generally. It is so in the canons of\nthe councils at Hippo and Carthage (A.D. 393 and 397), and in the MSS. D.\nand G., in Isidore of Spain, and the council of Trent.\n\nIX. With respect to the order of the _Catholic Epistles_, which were not\n_all_ adopted into the canon till the end of the fourth century; Eusebius\nputting all except 1 John and 1 Peter among the _antilegomena_; while\nJerome, and the council of Carthage (A.D. 397) admit them unreservedly;\nthe usual order, viz., James, 1 and 2 Peter, John, Jude, prevailed in the\nEastern Church. It is in the Peshito or old Syriac version, Eusebius,\nCyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, the 60th of the Laodicean canons,\nAthanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Amphilochius, the stichometry of\nNicephorus, the MSS. \u05d0. A. B. C., and most Greek MS. But the 76th of the\nApostolic canons has Peter, John, James and Jude. The canon, however, is\ncomparatively late.\n\n(_a_) Peter, John, Jude, James; in Philastrius of Brescia. If we may rely\non Cassiodorus\u2019s account of Augustine, the African father followed the\nsame arrangement.\n\n(_b_) Peter, James, Jude, John; in Rufinus.\n\n(_c_) Peter, John, James, Jude; in the councils of Carthage, A.D. 397,\n419, Cassiodorus, and a Gallican Sacramentarium. The Vulgate and council\nof Trent follow this arrangement.\n\n(_d_) John, Peter, Jude, James; in the list given by Innocent I., and the\nthird council of Toledo.\n\nThe Eastern church naturally set the Epistle of James, who was Bishop of\nJerusalem, at the head of the others; while the Western put Peter, the\nBishop of Rome, in the same place.\n\nX. The Revelation varied little in position.\n\n(_a_) In the decree of Galasius, according to its three recensions, the\nRevelation follows Paul\u2019s epistles, preceding those of John and the other\nCatholic ones.\n\n(_b_) In D or the Clermont MS. it follows the _Catholic_ epistles, and\nprecedes the Acts; which last is thrown to the end of all the books, as if\nit were an appendix to the writings of the apostles.(374)\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX. SUMMARY OF THE SUBJECT.\n\n\n(_a_) In relation to the Old Testament, the prevailing tendency in the\nGreek Church was to follow the Palestinian canon. Different lists appeared\nfrom time to time in which the endeavor there to exclude apocryphal,\n_i.e._, spurious works, was apparent. In addition to the _canonical_, a\nclass of _ecclesiastical_ books was judged fit for reading in the\nChurch,\u2014a class intermediate between the canonical and apocryphal. The\ndistinction between the canonical and ecclesiastical writings appears in\nCyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Epiphanius, &c. The Latin Church showed a\ndisposition to elevate the ecclesiastical books of the Greek Church to the\nrank of the canonical, making the line between the two indistinct; as we\nsee from the acts of the councils at Hippo and Carthage, in the end of the\nfourth and beginning of the fifth century, where Augustine\u2019s, influence\nwas predominant. But notwithstanding this deviation from the stricter\nmethod of the Greeks, learned men like Jerome adhered to the Palestinian\ncanon, and even styled the ecclesiastical books _apocryphal_, transferring\nthe epithet from one class to another. Hilary and Rufinus also followed\nthe Greek usage.\n\nDuring the sixth and following centuries, it cannot be said that the canon\nof the Greek Church was definitely closed, notwithstanding the decrees of\ncouncils and references to older authorities. Opinions still varied about\ncertain books, such as Esther; though the Palestinian list was commonly\nfollowed. During the same period, the enlarged canon of the Alexandrian\nJews, which went far to abolish the distinction between the canonical and\ndeutero-canonical books, prevailed in the West, at least in practice;\nthough some followed the shorter one, sanctioned as it had been by Jerome.\nAs both lists existed, no complete or final settlement of the question was\nreached in the Latin Church. Neither in the East nor in the West was the\ncanon of the Old Testament really closed; for though the stricter\nprinciple of separation prevailed in theory, it was not carried out in\npractice consistently or universally. The two men most influential about\nthe canon were Jerome and Augustine; the one representing its Palestinian,\nthe other its Alexandrian type. After them no legal or commanding voice\nfixed either, to the absolute exclusion of its rival.\n\n(_b_) The charge of Constantine to Eusebius to make out a list of writings\nfor the use of the Church and its performance may be considered as that\nwhich first put the subject on a broad and permanent basis. Its\nconsequences were important. If it cannot be called the completion or\nclose of the New Testament canon, it determined it largely. Eusebius made\na Greek Bible containing the usual books, except the Revelation. Though\nthe historian of the church was not well fitted for the task, being\ndeficient in critical ability and trammeled by tradition, he doubtless\nused his best judgment. Hence, about the year 337, the Constantinian\nChurch received a Bible which had an influential origin. No binding\nauthority indeed attached to the list of the Christian books it presented;\nbut it had weight in the Greek Church. It did not prevent different\nopinions, nor deter individuals from dissent. Thus Athanasius, who\ndisliked Eusebius and his party, issued a list of the sacred writings\nwhich included the Revelation. The canon of the Laodicean Council (A.D.\n363) agreed with the Constantine one.\n\nThat variations still existed in the Eastern Church is shown by the lists\nwhich vied with one another in precedence. The apostolic canons adopted\nthe seven general epistles, while the apostolic constitutions excluded\nthem. The Alexandrian MS. added to the ordinary books of the New\nTestament, Clement\u2019s two epistles; and Cosmas Indicopleustes omitted the\ngeneral epistles as well as the Apocalypse. At length the Council of\nConstantinople, usually called the _Trullan_ (A.D. 692), laid down\npositions that fixed the canon for the Greek Church. The endeavor in it\nwas to attain to a conclusion which should unite East and West. This\ncouncil did not enumerate the separate books, but referred to older\nauthorities, to the eighty-five canons of the apostles, the decrees of the\nsynods of Laodicea, Ephesus, Carthage, and others; to Athanasius, Gregory\nof Nazianzus, Amphliochius of Iconium, Cyril of Alexandria, Gennadius, &c.\nAfter the fourth century there was a general desire to fall back on\napostolic times, to appeal to the Church, to ascertain the opinion of\nsynods or assemblies; in a word, to rely on authority.\n\nLess discrepancy and activity were manifested about the canon in the\nWestern Church. Here the chief doubts were directed to the epistle to the\nHebrews and the seven general ones. The former was early excluded, and\ncontinued to be so even in the time of Jerome. The latter were adopted\nmuch sooner. The impulse given by Constantine to determine the books of\nScripture re-acted on the West, where the Church considered it its own\nprivilege. Augustine\u2019s influence contributed much to the settlement of the\nquestion. The synods of Hippo (A.D. 393) and of Carthage (A.D. 397)\nreceived the epistle to the Hebrews and the seven general ones, thus\nfixing the New Testament canon as it now is. In 419 the African bishops,\nin the presence of a Papal delegate, repeated their former decision. After\nthe West Goths joined the Catholic Church in the sixth century, the Romish\nand Spanish Churches gave prominence to the fact of accepting both the\nApocalypse and the epistle to the Hebrews. The canon of the West was now\nvirtually closed; the fourth Council of Toledo (A.D. 632) at which Isidore\nwas present, agreeing with the Augustinian list, ratified as that list had\nbeen by Innocent the First. The reception of the epistle to the Hebrews\nwas facilitated by the objections of the Arians and Semiarians; while\nopposition to the Priscillianists in Spain strengthened adherence to the\ntraditional canon. Augustine and the Trullan Council fixed the number of\nthe New Testament books as they are now.\n\nWith regard to the Bible canon in general, we see that councils had weight\nwhen they enumerated the sacred books; that prominent teachers delivered\ntheir opinion on the subject with effect, and that tradition contributed\nto one result; but no general council closed the canon once for all, till\nthat of Trent promulgated its decrees. This body, however, could only\nsettle the subject for Romanists, since, while the right of private\njudgment is exercised, no corporation can declare some books inspired and\nothers not, some authoritative in matters of faith, others not, without\npresumption. Though the present Bible canon rests upon the judgment of\ngood and learned men of different times, it can never be finally or\ninfallibly settled, because the critical powers of readers differ, and all\ndo not accept church authority with unhesitating assent.\n\nIt is the way of men to defer unduly to the opinions expressed by synods\nand councils, especially if they be propounded dogmatically; to acquiesce\nin their decisions with facility rather than institute independent\ninquiry. This is exemplified in the history of the canon, where the\nfallibility of such bodies in determining canonicity is conspicuous. It is\nso in the general reception of the book of Esther, while the old poem, the\nSong of Songs, was called in question at the synod of Jamnia; in the\nomission of the Revelation from the canonical list by many belonging to\nthe Greek Church, while the epistles to Timothy and Titus were received as\nSt. Paul\u2019s from the beginning almost universally.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X. THE CANON IN THE CONFESSION OF DIFFERENT CHURCHES.\n\n\nThe second Helvetic Confession (A.D. 1566) speaks of the apocryphal books\nof the Old Testament as those which the ancients wished to be read in the\nchurches, but not as authoritative in matters of faith.(375)\n\nThe Gallic Confession (A.D. 1559) makes a distinction between canonical\nand other books, the former being the rule and norm of faith, not only by\nthe consent of the Church, but much more by the testimony and intrinsic\npersuasion of the Spirit, by whose suggestions we are taught to\ndistinguish them from other ecclesiastical books, which, though useful,\nare not of the kind that any article of faith can be constituted by\nthem.(376)\n\nThe Belgic Confession (A.D. 1561) makes a distinction between the sacred\nand apocryphal books. The latter may be read by the Church, but no\ndoctrine can be derived from them. In the list of New Testament books\ngiven there are _fourteen_ epistles of Paul.(377)\n\nThe canon of the Waldenses must have coincided at first with that of the\nRoman Church; for the Dublin MS. containing the New Testament has attached\nto it the Book of Wisdom and the first twenty-three chapters of Sirach;\nwhile the Zurich codex of the New Testament has marginal references to the\nApocrypha; to Judith, Tobit, 4 Esdras, Wisdom, Sirach, and Susanna. The\n_Nobla Leyczon_ containing a brief narration of the contents of the Old\nand New Testaments confirms this opinion. It opposes, however, the old law\nto the new, making them antagonistic. The historical document containing\nthe articles of \u201cThe Union of the Valleys,\u201d A.D. 1571, separates indeed\nthe canonical and apocryphal books, purporting to be founded on a\nConfession of Faith as old as A.D. 1120; but the latter is mythical, as\nappears from a comparison of it with the epistle which the legates of the\nWaldensians gave to \u0152colampadius. The articles of that \u201cUnion\u201d are copied\nfrom Morel\u2019s account of his transactions with \u0152colampadius and Bucer in\n1530. The literature of this people was altered by Hussite influences and\nthe Reformation; so that though differing little from the Romanists at\nfirst except in ecclesiastical discipline, they diverged widely afterwards\nby adopting the Protestant canon and doctrines.(378) Hence, the Confession\nissued in 1655 enumerates as Holy Scripture nothing but the Jewish\nPalestinian canon, and the usual books of the New Testament.(379)\n\nThe canon of the Anglican Church (1562), given in the sixth article of\nreligion, defines holy Scripture to be \u201cthose canonical books of the Old\nand New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.\u201d\nAfter giving the names and number of the canonical books, the article\nprefaces the apocryphal ones with, \u201cAnd the other books (as Hierome saith)\nthe Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but\nyet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine? Such are these\nfollowing,\u201d &c., &c. At the end it is stated that \u201call the books of the\nNew Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive and account\nthem canonical.\u201d The article is ambiguous. If the canonical books\nenumerated are those meant in the phrase \u201cof whose authority was never any\ndoubt in the Church,\u201d the statement is incorrect. If a distinction is\nimplied between the canonical books and such canonical ones as have never\nbeen doubted in the Church, the meaning is obscure. In either case the\nlanguage is not explicit.\n\nThe Scottish or Westminster Confession of Faith gives a list of all the\nbooks of the Old and New Testaments as the Word of God written; adding\nthat those called the apocrypha are not of divine inspiration, and no part\nof the canon,\u2014of no authority in the Church, nor to be approved or made\nuse of otherwise than human writings.\n\nThe Roman Catholic canon was finally determined at the Council of Trent\n(1546), which adopted all the books in the Vulgate as sacred and\ncanonical, without distinction. Third and fourth Esdras, third Maccabees,\nand the prayer of Manasseh were not included; though the first and last\nappeared in the original Clementine edition of 1592, but apart from the\ncanonical books. They are not in the Sixtine edition of 1590.(380) A\ncouncil at Florence in 1441 had set the example which was followed at\nTrent. But this stringent decree did not prevent individual Catholics from\nmaking a distinction between the books, in assuming a first and second\ncanon or proto-canonical and deutero-canonical books; as did Sixtis\nSenensis, B. Lamy, Anton a matre Dei, Jahn, and others; though it is\nhardly consistent with orthodox Catholicism or the view of those who\npassed the decree. When the writings are said to be of different\nauthority\u2014some more, others less\u2014the intent of the council is violated.\nThe Vatican council (1870) confirmed the Tridentine decree respecting the\ncanon.\n\nThe Greek Church, after several ineffectual attempts to uphold the old\ndistinction between the canonical and ecclesiastical books by Metrophanes\nCritopulus patriarch of Alexandria in 1625, and Cyril Lucaris patriarch of\nConstantinople (1638 A.D.),(381) came to the same decision with the\nRomish, and canonized all the apocrypha. This was done at a Jerusalem\nsynod under Dositheus in 1672.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI. THE CANON FROM SEMLER TO THE PRESENT TIME, WITH REFLECTIONS ON\nITS READJUSTMENT.\n\n\nSemler(382) was the most conspicuous scholar after the Reformation who\nundertook to correct the prevailing ideas respecting the canon. Acquainted\nwith the works of Toland and Morgan, he adopted some of their views, and\nprosecuted his inquiries on their lines chiefly in relation to the New\nTestament. He had no definite principles to guide him, but judged books\nchiefly by their christian value and use to the Church. Though his views\nare sometimes one-sided and his essays ill-digested, he placed the subject\nin new lights, and rendered a service to truth which bore abundant fruit\nin after years.(383) He dealt tradition severe blows, and freed theology\nfrom the yoke of the letter. He was followed by his disciple Corrodi, by\nG. L. Oeder, J. D. Michaelis, Herder, Lessing, and Eichhorn,\u2014most of whom\nrecommended their views by a freshness of style which Semler did not\ncommand. The more recent works of Gesenius, De Wette, Zunz, Ewald, Hitzig,\nGeiger and Herzfeld have contributed to form a juster opinion of the true\nposition which the books of the Bible occupy.\n\nIn the New Testament, the writings of F. C. Baur have opened up a new\nmethod of investigating the canon, which promises important and lasting\nresults. Proceeding in the track of Semler, he prosecuted his researches\ninto primitive Christianity with great acuteness and singular power of\ncombination. Though his separation of Petrine and Pauline christianity is\nnot new, he has applied it in ways which neither Toland nor Morgan was\ncompetent to manage. These writers perceived the difference between the\nleading principle of the twelve and that of Paul, they had some far-seeing\nglimpses of the origin and differences of the New Testament writings,(384)\nbut they propounded them in an unsystematic way along with untenable\nconjectures. It was reserved for the T\u00fcbingen professor to elaborate the\nhypothesis of an Ebionite or primitive christianity in contra-distinction\nfrom a Pauline, applying it to the origin and constitution of christian\nliterature; in a word, to use a _tendenz-kritik_ for opening up the genius\nof the sacred writings as well as the stages of early christianity out of\nwhich they arose. The head of the T\u00fcbingen school, it is true, has carried\nout the antagonism between the Petrine and Pauline christians too\nrigorously, and invaded the authenticity of the sacred writings to excess;\nfor it is hazardous to make a theory extremely stringent to the\ncomparative neglect of modifying circumstances, which, though increasing\nthe difficulty of criticism, contribute to the security of its processes.\nYet he has properly emphasized internal evidence; and many of his\nconclusions about the books will stand. He has thrown much light on the\noriginal relations of parties immediately after the origin of\nChristianity, and disturbed an organic unity of the New Testament which\nhad been merely _assumed_ by traditionalists. The best Introductions to\nthe New Testament must accept them to some extent. The chief\ncharacteristic of the school is the application of historic criticism to\nthe genesis of the New Testament writings, irrespective of tradition\u2014a\nstriving to discover the circumstances or tendencies out of which the\nbooks originated. Baur\u2019s _tendenz_-principle judiciously applied cannot\nbut produce good results.\n\nWe have seen that sound critical considerations did not regulate the\nformation of the three collections which made up the entire canon of the\nOld Testament. Had it been so, the Pentateuch would not have been\nattributed to Moses. Neither would a number of latter prophecies have been\naccepted as Isaiah\u2019s and incorporated with the prophet\u2019s authentic\nproductions. All the Proverbs, the book of Ecclesiastes, and the Song of\nSongs would not have been assigned to Solomon; Jonah would have been\nseparated from the prophets, and Daniel must have had a later position in\nthe Hagiographa. We cannot, therefore, credit the collectors or editors of\nthe books with great critical sagacity. But they did their best in the\ncircumstances, preserving invaluable records of the Hebrew people. In like\nmanner, it has appeared, that the ecclesiastics to whom we owe the New\nTestament collection were not sharp-sighted in the literature with which\nthey had to do. It is true that well-founded doubts were entertained by\nthe early Christians about several portions, such as the second Epistle of\nPeter, the Epistle to the Hebrews, &c., but the Revelation was needlessly\ndiscredited. They accepted without hesitation the pastoral epistles as\nPauline, but doubted some of the Catholic Epistles, which bear the impress\nof authenticity more strongly, such as James. It is therefore incorrect to\nsay that 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James, Jude, Epistle to the Hebrews, and\nthe Apocalypse \u201chave been received into the canon on evidence less\ncomplete\u201d than that belonging to the others. The very general admission of\nthe fourth gospel as the apostle John\u2019s, is a curious example of facile\ntraditionalism. Biblical criticism, however, scarcely existed in the first\nthree centuries. It is for us to set the subject in another light, because\nour means of judging are superior. If the resources of the early fathers\nwere inadequate to the proper sifting of a copious literature, they should\nbe mildly judged.\n\nThe question of the canon is not settled. It is probably the work of\nsuccessive inquirers to set it on a right basis, and adjust the various\nparts in a manner consistent with historic criticism, sound reason, and\nreligion. The absolute and relative worth of books; the degrees in which\nthey regulate ethics and conduct; their varying values at the times of\ntheir first appearance and our own; their places in the general history of\nhuman progress\u2014all these must be determined before the documents of\nJudaism and Christianity be classified aright. Their present arrangement\nis external. Based on no interior principle, it furnishes little help\ntoward a thorough investigation of the whole. Those who look upon the\nquestion as historical and literary take a one-sided view. It has a\ntheological character also. It needs the application, not only of historic\ncriticism, but the immediate consciousness belonging to every Christian.\nThe two Testaments should be separated, and their respective positions\nassigned to each\u2014the Old having been preparatory to the New. Should it be\nsaid bluntly, as it is in the 7th Article of the Anglican Church, that the\nOld is not contrary to the New Testament? Luther at least expressed his\nopinion of the difference between them pretty clearly;(385) though the\ntheologians of Germany after him evinced a desire to minimise the\ndifference.(386) Should the general opinion of the Protestant Church that\nthe authority of the Old Testament is not subordinate to that of the New,\nbe rigidly upheld? According to one aspect of the former it may be so,\nviz., its prophetic and theological aspect, that in which it is brought\ninto close union with the latter; the essence of the one being\nforeshadowed or implied in the other, as Justin Martyr supposed. And this\nview has never lost supporters, who by the help of double senses, types,\nand symbols, with assumed prediction of the definite and distant future,\ntransform the old dispensation into an outline picture of the new; taking\ninto it a body of divinity which is alien from its nature. According to\nanother aspect, viz., the moral and historical, the equality can scarcely\nbe allowed. Schleiermacher is right in saying that the Old Testament seems\nto be nothing but a superfluous authority for doctrine; an opinion\ncoinciding with that of the early Socinians, who held that it has a\nhistorical, not a dogmatic, value. Only such of our pious emotions as are\nof a general nature are accurately reflected in the Old Testament; and all\nthat is most decidedly Jewish is of least value to christians. The alleged\ncoincidence of the Old Testament with the New must be modified by the\ndoctrine of development. It has been fostered by types and prophecies\nsupposed to refer to christian times; by the assumed _dictation_ of all\nScripture by the Holy Spirit; by fancied references of the one\ndispensation to the other; by the confounding of a Jewish Messiah sketched\nin various prophets, with Jesus Christ, as if the latter had not changed,\nexalted and purified the Messianic idea to suit his sublime purposes of\nhuman regeneration. The times and circumstances in which the Old Testament\nScriptures appeared, the manners, usages, civilization, intellectual and\nmoral stage of the Semitic race combine to give them a lower position than\nthat of the New Testament books which arose out of a more developed\nperception of the relations between God and men. Spiritual apprehension\nhad got beyond Jewish particularism, especially in the case of the apostle\nPaul, who gave the new religion a distinct vitality by severing it from\nits Jewish predecessor.\n\nThe agreement of the New Testament books with themselves must be modified\nby the same doctrine of development. Jewish and Pauline christianity\nappear in different works, necessarily imparting a difference of views and\nexpression; or they are blended in various degrees, as in the epistles to\nthe Hebrews and the first of Peter. Hence, absolute harmony cannot be\nlooked for. If the standpoints of the writers were so diverse, how can\ntheir productions coincide? The alleged coincidence can only be\nintersected with varieties proportioned to the measures in which the\nauthors possessed the Spirit of God. These varieties affect the matter as\nwell as the manner of the writings. It is therefore unphilosophical to\ntreat the Bible as a whole which was dictated by the Spirit and directed\nto one end. Its uniformity is chequered with variety; its harmony with\ndisagreement. It is a bundle of books; a selection from a wider\nliterature, reflecting many diversities of religious apprehension. After\nthe two Testaments have been rightly estimated according to their\nrespective merits, the contents of each should be duly\napportioned\u2014internal evidence being the test of their relative importance,\nirrespective of _a priori_ assumptions. Their traditional origin and\nauthority must be subordinated to the inherent value they bear, or the\nconformity of the ideas to the will of God. The gradual formation of both\ncanons suggests an analysis of the classes into which they came to be put;\nfor the same canonical dignity was not attributed by the Jews to the books\ncontained in the three divisions; and the controverted writings of the New\nTestament found gradual recognition very slowly. Luther made important\ndistinctions between the canonical books;(387) and Carlstadt put the\nAntilegomena of the New Testament on a par with the Hagiographa of the\nOld.\n\nIn the Old Testament the three classes or canons have been generally\nestimated by the Jews according to their respective antiquity; though the\nsacrificial worship enjoined in the Pentateuch never formed an essential\npart of the Jewish religion; the best prophets having set small value upon\nit. The pure monotheistic doctrine of these last writers, chiefly\ncontained in the second canon, lifts that class up to the highest rank;\nyet the Decalogue in the Pentateuch is sufficient to stamp the first canon\nwith great worth. It must be confessed, however, that the Mosaic law was\nmeagre, in the domain of pure ethics; and that it promoted among the\npeople a slavish spirit of positivism by laying more stress on acts than\ndispositions, and insisting on small regulations. For this reason, the\nprophets combated its narrow externality. The three canons were regarded\nwith a degree of veneration corresponding to the order in which they\nstand. To apportion their respective values to the individual parts of\nthem is a difficult task.\n\nAs to the New Testament writings, we think that some of them might\nconveniently occupy the position of _deutero-canonical_, equivalent to\nthose of the Old Testament having that title. We allude to 2 and 3 John,\nJude, James, 2 Peter, the Revelation. It is true that a few of these were\nprior in time to some of the universally-received gospels or epistles; but\ntime is not an important factor in a good classification. Among the\nPauline epistles themselves, classification might be adopted; for the\npastoral letters are undoubtedly post-Pauline, and inferior to the\nauthentic ones. In classifying the New Testament writings, three things\nmight be considered\u2014the reception they met with from the first, their\nauthenticity, above all, their internal excellence. The subject is not\neasy, because critics are not universally agreed about the proper rank and\nauthenticity of a few documents. The Epistle to the Colossians, for\nexample, creates perplexity; that to the Ephesians is less embarrassing,\nits post-Pauline origin being tolerably clear.\n\nWhat is wanted is a rational historic criticism to moderate the\ntheological hypothesis with which the older Protestants set out, the\nsupernatural inspiration of the books, their internal inseparability, and\ntheir direct reference to the work of salvation. It must be allowed that\nmany points are independent of dogmatics; and that the right decision in\nthings historical may be reached apart from any ecclesiastical standpoint.\n\nAgain, should the distinction between the apocryphal and canonical books\nof the Old Testament be emphasized as it is by many? Should a sharp line\nbe put between the two, as though the one class, with the period it\nbelonged to, were characterized by the errors and anachronisms of its\nhistory; the other by simplicity and accuracy; the one, by books written\nunder fictitious names; the other, by the power to distinguish truth from\nfalsehood or by honesty of purpose? Should the one be a sign of the want\nof truthfulness and discernment; the other, of religious simplicity? Can\nthis aggregation of the Apocrypha over against the Hagiographa, serve the\npurpose of a just estimate? Hardly so; for some of the latter, such as\nEsther and Ecclesiastes, cannot be put above Wisdom, 1st Maccabees,\nJudith, Baruch, or Ecclesiasticus. The doctrine of immortality, clearly\nexpressed in the Book of Wisdom, is not in Ecclesiastes; neither is God\nonce named in the Book of Esther as author of the marvelous deliverances\nwhich the chosen people are said to have experienced. The history narrated\nin 1st Maccabees is more credible than that in Esther. It is therefore\nmisleading to mark off all the apocryphal works as _human_ and all the\ncanonical ones as _divine_. The divine and the human elements in man are\ntoo intimately blended to admit of such separation. The best which he\nproduces partakes of both. The human element still permeates them as long\nas God speaks through man; and He neither dictates nor speaks otherwise.\nIn the attributes claimed for the canonical books no rigid line can be\ndrawn. It may be that the inspiration of their authors differed in degree;\nthat the writer of Ecclesiastes, for example, was more philosophical than\nJesus, son of Sirach; but different degrees of inspiration belong to the\ncanonical writers themselves. Undue exaltation of the Hebrew canon does\ninjustice to the wider Alexandrian one. Yet some still speak of \u201cthe pure\nHebrew canon,\u201d identifying it with that of the Church of England. We admit\nthat history had become legendary, that it was written in an oratorical\nstyle by the Alexandrian Jews, and was used for didactic purposes as in\nTobit and Judith. Gnomic poetry had survived in the book of Sirach;\nprophecy, in Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah, though here the language\nis already prosaic. Imitation is too observable in the matter and manner\nof the Apocrypha. They have parallels, however, among the Hagiographa,\nwhich originated in an age when the genuine breath of prophetic\ninspiration had ceased; when history and prophecy had degenerated; so that\nthe transition from Esther and Malachi to Judith and Baruch, as also from\nProverbs to Wisdom, is not great.\n\nThe _Talmudic_ canon is generally adopted at the present day. It was not,\nhowever, universally received even by the Jews; for Esther was omitted out\nof it by those from whom Melito got his catalogue in Palestine; while\nSirach was annexed to it as late as the beginning of the 4th century.\nBaruch was also added in several Jewish circles, doubtless on account of\nits supposed authorship. Thus \u201cthe pure Hebrew canon\u201d was not one and the\nsame among all Jews; and therefore the phrase is misleading. Neither is it\ncorrect to say that it is the only canon distinctly recognized during the\nfirst four centuries, unless the usage of the early fathers be set over\nagainst their _assumed_ contrary judgment; nor can all who followed the\nAlexandrian canon be pronounced uncritical, including Origen himself. A\nstereotyped canon of the Old Testament, either among Jews or Christians of\nthe first four centuries, which excluded all the apocryphal books and\nincluded all the canonical ones, cannot be shown. And in regard to \u201cthe\ncritical judgment\u201d of Jews and Christians in that period it is arbitrary\nto suppose that such as adopted the present canonical books alone were\nmore discerning than others. They were more traditional and conservative;\ntheir discriminating faculty not corresponding to the degree of their\nreliance on the past.\n\nThe aim of the inquirer should be to find from competent witnesses\u2014from\ncontemporaneous or succeeding writers of trustworthy character\u2014the authors\nand ages of the biblical books. When evidence of this kind is not\navailable as often happens, the only resource is the internal. The\nexternal evidence in favor of the canon is all but exhausted, and nothing\nof importance can be added to it now. Its strength has been brought out;\nits weakness has not been equally exhibited. The problem resolves itself\ninto an examination of internal characteristics, which may be strong\nenough to modify or counterbalance the external. The latter have had an\nartificial preponderance in the past; henceforward they must be regulated\nby the internal. The main conclusion should be drawn from the contents of\nthe books themselves. And the example of Jews and Christians, to whom we\nowe the Bible canon, shows that _classification_ is necessary. This is\nadmitted both by Roman Catholic writers and orthodox Protestants. A\ngloss-writer on what is usually called the \u201cdecree of Gratian,\u201d _i.e._,\nthe Bolognese canonist of the 12th century, remarks about the canonical\nbooks, \u201call may be received but may not be held in the same estimation.\u201d\nJohn Gerhard speaks of a _second order_, containing the books of the New\nTestament, about whose authors there were some doubts in the Church;(388)\nand Quenstedt similarly specifies _proto-canonical_ and\n_deutero-canonical_ New Testament books, or those of the first and second\norder.(389) What are degrees or kinds of inspiration assumed by many, but\na tacit acknowledgment of the fact that books vary in intrinsic value as\nthey are more or less impregnated with divine truth or differ in the\nproportion of the eternal and temporal elements which commingle in every\nrevealed religion? Doubtless the authors from whom the separate books\nproceeded, if discoverable, should be regarded; the inspiration of an\nIsaiah is higher than that of a Malachi, and an apostle is more\nauthoritative than an evangelist; but the authors are often unknown.\nBesides, the process of redaction through which many of the writings\npassed, hinders an exact knowledge of authorship. In these circumstances\nthe books themselves must determine the position they should occupy in the\nestimation of those who are looking at records of the past to help their\nspiritual life. And if it be asked, What principle should lie at the basis\nof a thorough classification? the answer is, the _normative element_\ncontained in the sacred books. This is the characteristic which should\nregulate classification. The time when a book appeared, its author, the\nsurrounding circumstances that influenced him, are of less consequence\nthan its bearing upon the spiritual education of mankind. The extent of\nits adequacy to promote this end determines the rank. Such books as embody\nthe indestructible essence of religion with the fewest accidents of time,\nplace and nature\u2014which present conditions not easily disengaged from the\nimperishable life of the soul, deserve the first rank. Whatever Scriptures\nexpress ideas consonant with the nature of God as a holy, loving, just and\ngood Being\u2014as a benevolent Father not willing the destruction of any of\nhis children; the Scriptures presenting ideas of Him consistent with pure\nreason and man\u2019s highest instincts, besides such as set forth our sense of\ndependence on the infinite; the books, in short, that contain a revelation\nfrom God with least admixture of the human conditions under which it is\ntransmitted\u2014these belong to the highest class. If they lead the reader\naway from opinion to practice, from dogma to life, from non-doing to\nobedience to the law of moral duty, from the notion that everything in\nsalvation has been done for him to the keeping of the commandments, from\nparticularist conceptions about the divine mercy to the widest belief of\nits overshadowing presence\u2014such books of Scripture are in that same\nproportion to be ranked among the best. In regard to the Old Testament,\nconformity to Christ\u2019s teaching will determine rank; or, which is\ntantamount, conformity to that pure reason which is God\u2019s natural\nrevelation in man; a criterion which assigns various ranks to such\nScriptures as appeared among a Semite race at a certain stage of its\ndevelopment. In the New Testament, the words and precepts of Jesus have a\ncharacter of their own, though it is very difficult to select them from\nthe gospels. The supposition that the apostles\u2019 productions possess a\nhigher authority than those of their disciples, is natural. But the\nimmediate followers of Christ did not all stand on one platform. Differing\nfrom one another even in important principles, it is possible, if not\ncertain, that some of their disciples\u2019 composition may be of higher value.\nThe spirit of God may have wrought within the apostles generally with\ngreater power and clearness than in other teachers; but its operation is\nconditioned not merely by outward factors but by individual idiosyncrasy;\nso that one who had not seen the Lord and was therefore not an apostle\nproper, may have apprehended his mind better than an immediate disciple.\nPaul stood above the primitive apostles in the extent to which he fathomed\nthe pregnant sayings of Jesus and developed their latent germs. Thus the\nnormative element\u2014that which determines the varying degrees of authority\nbelonging to the New Testament\u2014does not lie in apostolic authorship but\ninternal worth; in the clearness and power with which the divine Spirit\nenabled men to grasp the truth. By distinguishing the _temporal_ and the\n_eternal_ in christianity, the writings necessarily rise or sink in\nproportion to these elements. The _eternal_ is the essence and gem of\nrevealed truth. Perfectibility belongs only to the _temporal_; it cannot\nbe predicated of the _eternal_.\n\nThe multitudinous collection of books contained in the Bible is not\npervaded by unity of purpose or plan, so as to make a good classification\neasy. Least of all is it dominated by such substantial unity as has been\nconnected with one man; for the conception of a Messiah was never the\nnational belief of Judaism, but a notion projected by prophets into the\nfuture to comfort the people in times of disaster; the forecasting of\naspirations doomed to disappointment. From the collection presenting\nvarious degrees of intellectual and moral development, it is difficult to\nsee a sufficient reason for some being canonized to the exclusion of\nbetter works which were relegated to the class of the _apocryphal_.\n\nMr. Jones\u2019s(390) statement that the primitive Christians are proper judges\nto determine what book is canonical, requires great modification, being\ntoo vague to be serviceable; for \u201cprimitive Christians\u201d is a phrase that\nneeds to be defined. How far do they extend? How much of the first and\nsecond centuries do they cover? Were not the primitive Christians divided\nin their beliefs? Did the Jewish and the Pauline ones unite in accepting\nthe same writings? Not for a considerable time, until the means of\nascertaining the real authors of the books and the ability to do so were\nlacking.\n\nAs to the Old Testament, the Palestinian Jews determined the canonical\nbooks by gradually contracting the list and stopping it at a time when\ntheir calamities throwing them back on the past for springs of hope, had\nstiffened them within a narrow traditionalism; but their brethren in\nEgypt, touched by Alexandrian culture and Greek philosophy, received later\nproductions into their canon, some of which at least are of equal value\nwith Palestinian ones. In any case, the degree of authority attaching to\nthe Biblical books grew from less to greater, till it culminated in a\ndivine character, a sacredness rising even to infallibility. Doubtless the\nJews of Palestine distinguished the canonical from the apocryphal or\ndeutero-canonical books on grounds satisfactory to themselves; but their\njudgment was not infallible. A senate of Rabbis under the old dispensation\nmight err, as easily as a synod of priests under the new. Though they may\nhave been _generally_ correct, it must not be assumed that they were\n_always_ so. Their discernment may be commended without being magnified.\nThe general feeling of leaning upon the past was a sound one, for the best\ntimes of Judaism had departed, and with them the most original effusions;\nyet the wave of Platonism that passed over Alexandria could not but\nquicken even the conservative mind of the Jew. Greek thought blended with\nechoes of the past, though in dulled form. Still a line had to be drawn in\nthe national literature; and it was well drawn on the whole. The feeling\nexisted that the collection must be closed with works of a certain period\nand a certain character; and it was closed accordingly, without preventing\nindividuals from putting their private opinions over against authority,\nand dissenting.\n\nAt the present day a new arrangement is necessary; but where is the\necclesiastical body bold enough to undertake it? And if it were attempted\nor carried out by non-ecclesiastical parties, would the churches approve\nor adopt the proceeding? We venture to say, that if some books be\nseparated from the collection and others put in their place\u2014if the\nclassification of some be altered, and their authority raised or\nlowered\u2014good will be done; the Bible will have a fairer degree of normal\npower in doctrine and morals, and continue to promote spiritual life.\nFaith in Christ precedes faith in books. Unless criticism be needlessly\nnegative it cannot remove this time-honored legacy from the position it is\nentitled to, else the spiritual consciousness of humanity will rebel.\nWhile the subject is treated reverently, and the love of truth overrides\ndogmatic prejudices, the canon will come forth in a different form from\nthat which it has had for centuries\u2014a form on which faith may rest without\nmisgiving.\n\nThe canon was a work of divine providence, because history, in a religious\nview, necessarily implies the fact. It was a work of inspiration, because\nthe agency of the Holy Spirit has always been with the people of God as a\nprinciple influencing their life. It was not, however, the result of a\n_special_ or _peculiar_ act of divine inspiration at any one time, but of\na gradual illuminating process, shaped by influences more or less active\nin the divine economy.\n\nThe canonical authority of Scripture does not depend on any church or\ncouncil. The early church may be cited as a _witness_ for it; that is all.\nCanonical authority lies in Scripture itself, and is inherent in the books\nso far as they contain a declaration of the divine will. Hence, there is\ntruth in the statement of old theologians that the authority of Scripture\nis from God alone. It was the early church indeed that made the canon,\nselecting the books which appeared to have been written by apostles or\napostolic men, and carrying over to them authority from alleged\nauthenticity more than internal value. But the latter is the real index of\nauthority; and God is the fountain from whom spiritual endowments\nproceed.(391) The _canonicity_ of the books is a distinct question from\nthat of their _authenticity_. The latter is a thing of historic criticism;\nthe former of doctrinal belief. Their ecclesiastical authority rests on\noutward attestation; their normal, on faith and feeling.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n    1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03ce\u03bd.\n\n_    2 Zur Geschichte des Kanons_, pp 3-68.\n\n    3 Clement. Hom. _ap. Coteler_, vol. i. p. 608.\n\n_    4 Stromata_, vi. 15, p. 803, ed. Potter.\n\n_    5 Adv. H\u00e6res._, i. 95.\n\n_    6 Ap._ Euseb. H. E., v. 24.\n\n_    7 De pr\u00e6script. H\u00e6reticorum_, chs. 12, 13.\n\n_    8 Comment._ in _Mat._ iii. p. 916; ed. Delarue.\n\n    9 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n_   10 Monumenta vetera ad Donatistarum historiam petinentia_, ed. Dupin,\n      p. 168.\n\n   11 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03ce\u03bd.\n\n   12 At the end of the _Iambi ad Seleucum_, on the books of the New\n      Testament, he adds, \u03bf\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c8\u03b5\u03c5\u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd \u03b5\u1f34\u03b7 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n      \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd.\n\n_   13 Prologus galeatus_ in ii. Reg.\n\n_   14 Expos. in Symb. Apost._, 37, p. 374, ed. Migne.\n\n   15 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2.\n\n   16 \u1f30\u03b4\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 and \u1f00\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n   17 \u039a\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1.\n\n   18 Such as \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b1, \u1f61\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1.\n\n   19 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 or \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1.\n\n   20 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n_   21 Orat. de Ordin._, vol. ii. p. 44.\n\n   22 \u05d2\u05e0\u05d6. The Jews applied the word _genuzim_ to books withdrawn from\n      public use, whose contents were thought to be out of harmony with\n      the doctrinal or moral views of Judaism when the canon was closed.\n      See F\u00fcrst\u2019s _Der Kanon des alten Testaments_, p. 127, note; and\n      Geiger\u2019s _Urschrift_, p. 201.\n\n   23 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1.\n\n   24 H. E. Il. 23, III. 3-16.\n\n_   25 Stromata_, lib. iii. p. 1134, ed. Migne.\n\n_   26 Prolog. ad Cant., opp._, vol. iii. p. 36.\n\n   27 \u03bd\u03cc\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c8\u03b5\u03c5\u03b4\u03b5\u03c0\u03af\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n   28 See Suicer\u2019s _Thesaurus_, _s.v._\n\n   29 \u0392\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1, libri ecclesiastici.\n\n   30 In his epistle to Laeta he uses the epithet in its customary sense,\n      of books unauthentic, not proceeding from the authors whose names\n      they bear. _Opp._ vol. i. p. 877, ed. Migne.\n\n   31 Num. xxi. 14.\n\n   32 Joshua x. 12, 13; 2 Sam. i. 18.\n\n   33 2 Sam. viii. 16; 1 Kings iv. 3.\n\n   34 Isaiah, xl.-lxvi.\n\n   35 Chap. xiv. 23-50, &c. See Hilgenfeld\u2019s _Messias Jud\u00e6rorum_, p. 107.\n\n   36 See Buxtorf\u2019s _Tiberias_, chap. x., p. 88, &c.; and Herzfeld\u2019s\n      _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, vol. i. p. 380, &c. Zw\u00f6lfter\n      Excursus.\n\n   37 Chapter i.\n\n   38 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d9\u05d3\u05d9. Does this mean _for, instead of_, as Bloch understands it?\n      Waehner inserts, to fill up the sense, \u201csome of which, however, were\n      composed by;\u201d but this is far-fetched. See _Antiquitates Ebr\u00e6orum_,\n      p. 13.\n\n   39 Fol. 15, 1.\n\n   40 \u05e4\u05d7\u05db.\n\n_   41 Studien zur Geschichte der Sammlung der althebr\u00e4ischen Literatur_,\n      p. 127, &c.\n\n   42 vii. 12, \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u1f74 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd, not \u1f21 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03ae.\n\n   43 That the Scribes always adhered to the prohibition to write no\n      religious laws and ordinances cannot be held, even in the face of\n      the Talmudic saying, \u05db\u05d5\u05d7\u05db \u05d4\u05d9\u05dc\u05db\u05d5\u05d4 \u05db\u05e9\u05d5\u05e8\u05e3 \u05d7\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 (writers of Halacoth are\n      like a burner of the law). This may apply to the late scribes or\n      bookmen, not to the earlier. The greater part of Geiger\u2019s\n      _Urschrift_ is based on the opposite idea. As the reverence for\n      former scholars increased, the Talmudic saying might be accepted.\n      See _Temura_, 14 b.\n\n   44 Chapter ix. 2.\n\n   45 Chapter ii. 13.\n\n   46 Antiq. xii. 10, 1.\n\n   47 Josephus\u2019s Antiq., xiii. 5, 8; 1 Maccab., xii. 35.\n\n   48 1 Maccab., xiii. 36.\n\n   49 Sota, 24 a.\n\n   50 \u05de\u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd, Nehemiah viii. 3.\n\n   51 Talmudic tradition, which attributes the redaction of the book to\n      the men of the great synagogue who are said to have acted under the\n      influence of the divine spirit, separates the three apocryphal\n      pieces from the rest; but this arose from the desire of\n      discountenancing the idea that the work consists of romance and\n      legend. Such later tradition took curious ways of justifying the\n      canonicity of Daniel and the redaction of it by the great synagogue,\n      _ex gr._, the assumption that the second part arose out of a series\n      of unconnected _Megiloth_ which were not reduced to chronological\n      order. Still the Midrash maintains that Daniel, or the person\n      writing in his name, was no prophet, like Haggai, Zechariah, and\n      Malachi, but a man of visions, an _apocalyptist_. It was a general\n      belief, that _visions_ had come into the place of _prophecy_ when\n      the book appeared. The Greek translation could not have been long\n      after the original, because it is used in the First Book of\n      Maccabees. The interval between the Hebrew and the Greek was\n      inconsiderable. The translator not only departed from, but added to,\n      the original, inserting such important pieces as the Prayer of\n      Azarias, the Song of the Three Children, the history of Susanna, and\n      that of Bel and the Dragon. Whether any of these had been written\n      before is uncertain. Most of the traditions they embody were\n      probably reduced to writing by the translator, and presented in his\n      peculiar style. The assertion, that Josephus was unacquainted with\n      these additions is hazardous, since the way in which he speaks of\n      Daniel\u2019s fame (Antiq. x. 11, 7), and especially of _the books_ he\n      wrote (\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03b1), supposes some relation to them. Elsewhere he\n      speaks of _one book_ (x. 10, 4; xi. 8, 5), where he may have thought\n      of the canonical part.\n\n   52 \u05e4\u05ea\u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05e1, translated by the Greek \u1f01\u03b3\u03b9\u03cc\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1, hagiographa.\n\n   53 It has been thought that the phrase \u05e4\u05e2\u05dc\u05d9 \u05d0\u05de\u05e4\u05d5\u05ea in the ninth verse\n      alludes to the great council or synagogue. This conjecture is\n      plausible on various grounds. The reasons for attributing the\n      epilogue to a later time than the writer of the book appear to be\n      stronger than those assigning it to the original author. The 13th\n      and 14th verses in particular, are unlike Coheleth.\n\n   54 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03b1; \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03c9\u03bd. The younger Sirach does\n      not use \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1\u1f76, which would have been a proper translation of\n      _c\u2019tubim_. Does not this \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 imply the non-application of the\n      specific title _c\u2019tubim_ to the hagiographa at that time, and\n      therefore the idea that the third canon was still open?\n\n_   55 Contra Apion_, i. 8.\n\n   56 In Maaser Sheni, Sota 24. 1, the duumvirate or suggoth, consisting\n      of the president, Nasi, and vice-president, Ab-beth-din, are\n      referred to Hyrcanus\u2019s creation. Zunz affirms that it originated in\n      the time of Simon, son of Mattathias, 142 B.C.\n\n   57 Antiq., xiv., 9.\n\n_   58 Der gerichtliche Beweis_, p. 68.\n\n   59 The Sanhedrim _properly so called_ ceased under R. Judah I.,\n      Ha-Nasi, when the council of seventy members which sat at Sepphoris\n      before his patriarchate, transferred its privileges to him, on his\n      removal to that place. The court was then merged in the patriarch.\n\n   60 \u05e0\u05e0\u05d5\u05d6\u05d9\u05dd literally concealed, withdrawn from public use.\n\n   61 See F\u00fcrst\u2019s _Der Kanon des alten Testaments, u.s.w._ pp. 147, 148.\n\n_   62 Tract. Sabbat._ ch. i.\n\n   63 Because of its profane spirit and Epicurean ideas; see Adoyot v. 3.\n\n   64 Yadayim v. 3.\n\n   65 See Graetz\u2019s _Kohelet_, pp. 162, 163.\n\n   66 The sages wished to pronounce Coheleth apocryphal, because its\n      statements are contradictory. And why have they not declared it\n      apocryphal? Because it begins with words of the law, and ends with\n      words of the law, for it opens with the words \u201cWhat advantage has\n      man in all his labor wherewith he labors under the sun?\u201d &c.,\n      &c.\u2014Sabbat. 30 b.\n\n      So also in the Midrash: \u201cThe sages wished to pronounce Coheleth\n      apocryphal,\u201d &c., &c.\u2014Vayyikra rabba 161 b.\n\n   67 R. Simeon ben Asai said, \u201cI have received it from the mouth of the\n      72 elders in the day that R. Eleasar ben Asaria was appointed elder,\n      that the Song of Songs and Coheleth pollute the hands.\u201d\u2014Yadayim v.\n      3.\n\n   68 This language was based on a figurative interpretation of the Song.\n      One who said, \u201cWhoever reads such writings as Sirach and the later\n      books loses all part in everlasting life,\u201d can have no weight. He\n      outheroded the Palestinian tradition respecting the Jewish\n      productions of later origin, which merely affirms that they \u201cdo not\n      pollute the hands.\u201d\u2014(_Toss. Yadayim_, c. 2)\n\n_   69 Studien zur Geschichte, u. s. w._, p. 150, &c.\n\n   70 Geiger\u2019s _Urschrift_, p. 288.\n\n   71 See De Goeje in the _Theologisch Tijdschriff Jaargang II._ (1868) p.\n      179, &c.\n\n   72 Zunz\u2019s _Die gottesdienstlichen Vortr\u00e4ge_, pp. 101, 102.\n\n   73 V. 20, p. 124, ed. Ueltzen.\n\n   74 Dillmann, in the _Jahrb\u00fccher f\u00fcr deutsche Theologie, dritter Band_,\n      p. 422.\n\n   75 In his _Antiq._, x. 4, 5, and xi. 1-5.\n\n   76 iv. 6, sec. 3, and vi. 2, sec. 1.\n\n   77 xi. 8, sec. 5.\n\n   78 Article \u201cKanon\u201d in Herzog\u2019s _Encyklop\u00e6die_, vol. vii., p. 253; and\n      the same author\u2019s _Prolegomena zur Theologie des alt. Test._, pp.\n      91, 92.\n\n   79 See Abulfatach\u2019s _Annal. Samar._, p. 102, 9, &c.\n\n   80 Kirschbaum, Weisse, and Noack.\n\n_   81 Einleitung in das alte Testament_, vol. i. p. 133.\n\n_   82 De vita contemplativa_, Opp. Tom. ii., P. 475, ed. Mangey.\n\n   83 See Credner\u2019s _Zur Geschichte des Kanons_, p. 124.\n\n_   84 De mens. et pond._, chapters 22, 23, vol. ii. p. 180, ed. Petav.\n\n_   85 Baba Bathra_, fol. 14, 2.\n\n   86 See _F\u00fcrst, Der Kanon u. s. w. p._ 14, &c.\n\n_   87 Studien zur Geschichte der alttestamentliche Literatur, u. s. w._,\n      p. 18, etc.\n\n   88 Hody _De Bibliorum textibus originalibus_, p. 644.\n\n   89 Hody gives lists of the order in which the books stand in some early\n      printed editions and in a few MSS., p. 645.\n\n_   90 Die Apokryphen, u. s. w._, p. 14, &c.\n\n_   91 Studien und Kritiken_ for 1853, p. 267, &c.\n\n_   92 A Scholastical History of the Canon_, p. 22.\n\n   93 See Rothe, _Zur Dogmatik, Studien u. Kritiken_ for 1860, p. 67, &c.\n      The apostle\u2019s argument rests on the occurrence of the singular\n      (_seed_, \u03c3\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1) in Genesis xvii. 8 (LXX.), not the plural (_seeds_,\n      \u03c3\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1); though the plural of the corresponding Hebrew word could\n      not have been used, because it has a different signification.\n      Grammatical inaccuracy is made the basis of a certain theological\n      interpretation. Those who wish to see a specimen of labored\n      ingenuity unsuccessfully applied to the justification of St. Paul\u2019s\n      argument in this passage, may consult Tholuck\u2019s _Das alte Testament\n      in neuem Testament_, p. 63, etc. Vierte Auflage. (Epist. to the\n      Galatians iii. 16.)\n\n   94 Died 202 A.D.\n\n_   95 Advers. Hares._, v. 35, referring to Baruch iv. 36, and v. p. 335,\n      ed. Massuet.\n\n_   96 Ibid._, iv., 26, referring to Daniel xiii. 20 in the Septuagint.\n\n   97 Died 220A.D.\n\n_   98 P\u00e6dagog._ vi. 3.\n\n_   99 Stromata_, ii. 23.\n\n_  100 Stromata_, iv. 16.\n\n_  101 Ibid._, ii. 7.\n\n_  102 Ex Script. prophet. eclogae_, c. 1.\n\n_  103 Stromateis_, ii. 15.\n\n  104 Died 264 A.D.\n\n_  105 De Natura; Routh\u2019s Reliquiae Sacrae_, vol. iv. p. 356.\n\n_  106 Fragment. Nicet._, in _Reliq. Sacrae_, vol. ii. p. 404.\n\n_  107 Ibid._, p. 407.\n\n_  108 Ibid._, p. 406.\n\n_  109 Epistola ad. Dionys. Roman_, in _Reliq. Sacr._, vol. iii. p. 195.\n\n_  110 Reliq. Sacr._, vol. ii. p. 408.\n\n  111 Died 220 A.D.\n\n_  112 Advers. Valentinianos._ ch. 2.\n\n_  113 De Exhortatione Castitatis_, ch. 2.\n\n_  114 Contra Gnosticos_, ch. 8.\n\n_  115 De Habitu Muliebri_, ch. 3.\n\n_  116 Epist._ 55, p. 110, ed. Fell.\n\n_  117 De Orat. Domin._ p. 153.\n\n_  118 De Exhortat. Martyrii_, ch. 12, p. 182.\n\n_  119 De Mortal_, p. 161.\n\n_  120 De Orat. Domin._, p. 141.\n\n_  121 Testim._ iii. 4, p. 62.\n\n_  122 De Lapsis_, p. 133, &c.\n\n_  123 Adv. Noel._ v.\n\n  124 See Migne\u2019s edition, p. 689, &c.\n\n  125 Died after 171.\n\n_  126 Ap._ Euseb. H. E., lib. iv. ch. 26.\n\n  127 Died 254, A.D.\n\n_  128 Ap._ Euseb. H. E., lib. iv. ch. 25.\n\n_  129 Comment. in Joann._ tom. xxxii. ch. 14, ed. Huet. p, 409.\n\n_  130 Contra Cels._ iii. 72; vol. i. p. 494, ed. Delarue.\n\n_  131 In Exodus_, Hom. vi. i; Levit. Hom. v. 2.\n\n_  132 In Levit._, Hom. xii. 4.\n\n_  133 In Lukam_, Hom. 21.\n\n_  134 De Oratione_, ii. p. 215.\n\n_  135 Opp. ed_ Delarue, vol. i. p. 12.\n\n  136 Died 311.\n\n_  137 Convivium decem virginum_, in Combefis\u2019s Auctarium bibliothecae\n      Graecorum patrum, p. 69.\n\n_  138 Ibid._, p. 69.\n\n_  139 Ibid._, p. 109.\n\n  140 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1. _Ap._ Euseb. H. E. iii. 39.\n\n  141 Davidson\u2019s _Introduction to the Study of the N. Testam._ vol. x. p.\n      388.\n\n_  142 Explanatio in Epist. ad Titum_, vol. iv. p. 407, ed. Benedict.\n\n_  143 Die Valentinianische Gnosis und die heilige Schrift_, p. 75.\n\n  144 A good deal of manipulation has been needlessly employed for the\n      purpose of placing these heretics as early as possible; but nothing\n      definite can be extracted from Iren\u00e6us\u2019s notices of them.\n      Hippolytus\u2019s use of the present tense, in speaking of them, renders\n      it probable that they were nearly his contemporaries.\n\n  145 See the Indexes to Duncker and Schneidewin\u2019s edition.\n\n_  146 Bibliotheca_, cod. 232.\n\n  147 It is an unfounded assumption that Paul cited the passage by \u201cmere\n      accident;\u201d on the contrary, he gives it as canonical, with \u201cas it is\n      written\u201d (1 Corinth. ii. 9). It may be that the Gnostics are\n      referred to as using the objectionable passage; but it is special\n      pleading _to limit_ it to them, when Paul has expressly used the\n      same, deriving it either from Isaiah lxiv. 4, or some unknown\n      document; just as it is special pleading to identify \u1f41 \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2\n      standing beside \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, with _the New Testament_. The\n      word excludes Paul\u2019s Epistles from the canon; nor is there any\n      evidence to the contrary, as has been alleged, in the two Syriac\n      epistles attributed to Clement, which Wetstein published. Comp.\n      _Eusebius\u2019s H. E._ iv. 22, _Photius\u2019s Bibliotheca_, 232. Apologists\n      have labored to prove Hegesippus an orthodox Catholic Christian,\n      like Iren\u00e6us; but in vain. He was a Jewish Christian of moderate\n      type, holding intercourse with Pauline Christians at the time when\n      the Catholic Church was being formed.\n\n  148 See _Hilgenfeld\u2019s Zeitschrift_ for 1875-1878.\n\n  149 There is \u1f04\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd instead of the Septuagint\u2019s and Mark\u2019s (Tischend.)\n      \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9.\n\n_  150 Geschichte Jesu von Nazara_, vol. 1, p. 144.\n\n  151 See Vision ii, 3, 4, with the prolegomena of De Gebhardt: and\n      Harnack, p. lxxiii.\n\n  152 See Holtzmann in Hilgenfeld\u2019s _Zeitschrift_ for 1875, p. 40, &c.\n\n  153 Epist. ch. iv.\n\n  154 Chapter xii. pp. 30, 31, ed. 2, Hilgenfeld.\n\n  155 See Chapter xv. end, with Hilgenfeld\u2019s note, _Barnabae epistula ed._\n      _altera_, pp. 118, 119.\n\n_  156 Epis._ p. 13 ed. Hilgenfeld.\n\n_  157 Zeitschrift f\u00fcr wissenschaftliche Theologie_, 1871, P. 336, etc.\n\n  158 Chapters xvi. and iv. In the former the reference is to Enoch\n      lxxxix. 56, 66, 67, but the latter is not in the present book of\n      Enoch, though Hilgenfeld thinks he has discovered it in lxxxix.\n      61-64 and xc. 17. (_Dillmann\u2019s Das Buch Henoch_, pp. 61, 63). Was\n      another apocryphal Jewish book current in the time of Barnabas,\n      under the name of Enoch; or did he confound one document with\n      another, misled by the Greek translation of an apocalyptic work\n      which had fallen into discredit? See Hilgenfeld\u2019s _Barnabae\n      Epistula_, ed. 2 pp. 77, 78.\n\n  159 Chapter xi.\n\n_  160 Hist. Eccles._ iii. 39.\n\n  161 A small body of literature originating in the fragment of Papias\n      preserved by Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. iii, 39, 1-4) has appeared;\n      though it is difficult to obtain satisfactory conclusions. Not only\n      have Weiffenbach and Leimbach written treatises on the subject, but\n      other scholars have entered into it more or less fully,\u2014Zahn,\n      Steitz, Riggenbach, Hilgenfeld, Lipsius, Keim, Martens, Loman,\n      Holtzmann, Hausrath, Tietz, and Lightfoot. The fragment is not of\n      great weight in settling the authenticity of the four gospels.\n      Indirectly indeed it throws some light on the connection of two\n      evangelists with written memoirs of the life of Jesus; but it rather\n      suggests than solves various matters of importance. It is tolerably\n      clear that the gospels, if such they may be called, of which he\n      speaks as written by Matthew and Mark, were not identical with the\n      works now existing under the names of these evangelists; and that no\n      safe conclusion can be drawn from Papias\u2019s silence about John\u2019s and\n      Luke\u2019s as not then in existence. Neither the present gospels nor any\n      other had been converted into _Scripture_; since he regarded oral\n      traditions as more credible than written memoirs. Those who hold\n      that the presbyter John was none other than the apostle, Eusebius\n      having misunderstood the fragment and made a different John from the\n      apostle, as well as the critics who deduce from the fragment the\n      fact that John suffered martyrdom in Palestine, have not established\n      these conclusions. Papias refers to the material he got for\n      explaining the \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1, rather than the source whence they were drawn.\n      But whether he learnt directly from the elders, or indirectly as the\n      preposition (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70) would seem to indicate, and whether the sentence\n      beginning with \u201cWhat Andrew,\u201d &c., (\u03c4\u03af \u1f08\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03ad\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba. \u03c4. \u03bb.) stands in\n      apposition to the \u201cwords of the elders,\u201d (\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\n      \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2) or not, are things uncertain.\n\n_  162 Epist. ad Philadelph._, ch. 5 See Hefele\u2019s note on the passage. The\n      other well-known passage in chapter viii. is too uncertain in\n      reading and meaning to be adduced here.\n\n  163 Chapter iii.\n\n  164 To the Ephesians, chapter xii.\n\n_  165 Epist. ad Romanos_, iv.\n\n_  166 Testam. Benj._ 11, p. 201, ed. Sinker.\n\n_  167 Zeitschrift f\u00fcr wissenschaftliche Theologie_, 1875, p. 490, _et\n      seq._\n\n  168 \u1f18\u03bd \u03c4\u03cc\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03ad\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f04 \u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n      \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03c7\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9. Sec. 103. Here \u201cthe\n      apostles\u201d are not necessarily Matthew and John. Apocryphal gospels\n      then current bore the name of apostles or their attendants,\u2014of\n      Peter, James, Nicodemus, Matthias, &c.\n\n  169 \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a0\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n      \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf, \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76, \u03ba. \u03c4. \u03bb.\n      Dial. cum Tryph., 106. Here the pronoun \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 probably refers to\n      Peter. And the expression \u201chis memoirs\u201d can hardly mean Mark\u2019s\n      gospel, since Jerome is the first that calls it such.\n\n_  170 Dialogus_, part ii., p. 315, ed. Thirlby. Comp. on Justin,\n      Tjeenk-Willink\u2019s _Justinus Martyr in zijne Verhouding tot Paulus_.\n\n_  171 Apolog._ i. 97, ed. Thirlby.\n\n_  172 Hieronymi Prooem._ in _Epist. ad Titum._\n\n  173 Comp. chap. xii., where \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1\u03af is applied to the apostolic epistles;\n      a title they did not receive so early as the age of Polycarp. Zahn\n      himself admits this.\n\n  174 Chapter xiv. 2.\n\n  175 Chapter ii. 4.\n\n  176 See _Clementis Romani ad Corinthios quae discuntur epistulae, ed. de\n      Gebhardt et Harnack_, 2., sec. 10, Prolegomena.\n\n_  177 Legat. pro Christ._ II, 12.\n\n_  178 Ibid._ 33.\n\n  179 Chapter xviii.\n\n_  180 Ap._ Euseb. H. E., iv. 23.\n\n_  181 Ap_. Euseb. H. E., v. 1, p. 144, ed. Bright.\n\n  182 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2. _Ad Autolycum_, iii. 14, p. 1141, ed Migne.\n\n_  183 Ibid._, ii. 22.\n\n  184 Epist. 151, ad Algasiam.\n\n  185 See Overbeck\u2019s _Studien zur Geschichte der alten Kirche, Abhandlung_\n      I., in which the date of the letter is brought down till after\n      Constantine. Surely this is too late.\n\n  186 Davidson\u2019s _Introduction to the Study of the New Testament_, vol.\n      ii. p. 508, &c.\n\n  187 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n  188 \u1f41 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n_  189 Adves. H\u00e6res._, iv. 20, 2.\n\n_  190 Stromateis_, ii. 6, p. 965, ed. Migne.\n\n_  191 Ibid._, iv. 17, p. 1312.\n\n_  192 Ibid._, i. 29, p. 928.\n\n_  193 De Oratione_, cap. 12.\n\n_  194 De Pudicitia_, cap. 10-20.\n\n  195 G. of St. Paul\u2019s epistles, a MS. of the ninth century according to\n      Tischendorf.\n\n  196 See Anger\u2019s _Ueber den Laodicener Brief_, 1843.\n\n_  197 Fertur etiam ad Laudecences alia ad Alexandrinos Pauli nomine\n      fincte ad hesem Marcionis el alia plura qu\u00e6 in Catholicam ecclesiam\n      recepi non potest._ Perhaps a comma should be put after _nomine_,\n      and _fincte_ joined to what follows, to the _alia plura_ said to be\n      forged in the interest of Marcion.\n\n_  198 Quarti evangeliorum Johannis ex discipulis cohortantibus\n      condiscipulis et episcopis suis dixit conjejunate mihi odie triduo\n      el quid cuique fuerit revelatum alterutrum nobis ennarremus eadem\n      nocte revelatum Andre\u00e6 ex apostolis ut recogniscentibus cunctis\n      Johannis suo nomine cuncta discriberet._\n\n  199 It is printed and largely commented on by Credner in his _Geschichte\n      des neutestamentlichen Kanon_ edited by Volkmar, p. 141, &c., and by\n      Westcott _On the Canon_, Appendix C, p. 466, 2d edition. Many others\n      have explained it; especially Hilgenfeld.\n\n  200 About A.D. 190.\n\n_  201 Euseb._ H. E. vi. 12.\n\n  202 Tischendorf edited the Pauline epistles from this MS. Lipsi\u00e6, 1852.\n\n  203 Died 254 A.D.\n\n  204 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b7 \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03b1, \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b1, \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1.\n\n  205 In one place, however, he calls it _very useful and divinely\n      inspired_. _Comment. in ep. ad Roman._, xvi. 14.\n\n  206 \u03bd\u03cc\u03b8\u03b1.\n\n  207 Ap. Euseb, _Hist. Eccles._, vi. 25; iii. 25, \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1.\n\n  208 See Euseb. _H. E._ vi. 25. _Comment. in Malth._, iii. p. 463;\n      _Ibid._, p. 814; _Comment. in ep. ad Roman._, iv. p. 683; _in\n      Matth._, iii. p. 644; _Homil._ viii. _in Numb._, ii. p. 294; _Contra\n      Cels._, i. 63, p. 378; _De Principiis pr\u00e6f._, i. p. 49. _Opp._, ed.\n      Delarue.\n\n  209 Died 340 A.D.\n\n_  210 Hist. Eccles._, iii. 25; also 31, 39; vi. 13, 14.\n\n  211 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1, \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b1, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03c1\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1.\n\n  212 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1, \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2\n      \u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1, \u03bd\u03cc\u03b8\u03b1.\n\n  213 \u1f04\u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u1fc6; \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03bd\u03cc\u03b8\u03b1 (iii. 31).\n\n  214 This last with the qualification \u03b5\u1f34\u03b3\u03b5 \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b7. In another place he\n      states that it was rejected by some, and therefore it is also along\n      with the \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 or \u03bd\u03cc\u03b8\u03b1.\n\n  215 \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c4\u03ac.\n\n  216 \u03bd\u03cc\u03b8\u03b1.\n\n  217 \u03bd\u03bf\u03b8\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9. _Hist. Eccles._, ii. 23. Christophorson, Schmid, and Hug\n      think that Eusebius gave the opinion of others in this word: but it\n      is more likely that he gave his own, as Valesius thinks. See the\n      note in Schmid\u2019s _Historia antiqua et vindicatio Canonis, &c._, p.\n      358.\n\n_  218 Ibid._, vi. 14.\n\n  219 See Weber\u2019s _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons_,\n      p. 142, &c.\n\n  220 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7. _Hist. Eccles._, iii. 16.\n\n_  221 Adversus H\u00e6res_, iii., II, 8.\n\n_  222 Adv. Marc._ iv. 5.\n\n_  223 De pr\u00e6script. h\u00e6ret._ c. 36.\n\n_  224 De pr\u00e6script. h\u00e6ret._ c. 32.\n\n_  225 Ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccles._ ii. 15 and vi. 14.\n\n_  226 Ignatius von Antiochien_, 1873; and Prolegomena to the _Patrum\n      Apostolicorum opera_, by de Gebhardt, Harnack, and Zahn, Fasciculus,\n      ii.\n\n_  227 Geschichte des neutest. Kanon_, p. 217, &c.\n\n  228 See _Constit. Apostol._, p. 67, ed Ueltzen.\n\n  229 Died 386 A.D.\n\n_  230 Catech._, iv. 22, pp. 66, 67, ed. Milles.\n\n_  231 Ibid._, xi. p. 142.\n\n_  232 Ibid._, vi. p. 80.\n\n_  233 Ibid._, ix. pp. 115, 122.\n\n_  234 Ibid._, ix. p. 115.\n\n_  235 Ibid._, ii. p. 31.\n\n_  236 Ibid._, xvi. p. 239.\n\n  237 Athanasii _Opp._ ed. Benedict. i. 2, pp. 962, 963.\n\n_  238 Orat. contra Arianos_, ii. 35, vol. i. 503, ed. Benedict.\n\n_  239 Ibid._, ii. 42, i. p. 510.\n\n_  240 Ibid._, ii. 79, i. p. 546.\n\n_  241 Epist. ad episcop. \u00c6gypt._, &c., i. 1, p. 272.\n\n_  242 Contra Arian._, i. 12, i. p. 416.\n\n_  243 Apolog. contra Arianos_, ii. vol. i. p. 133.\n\n_  244 Praepar Evan._, i. 9.\n\n_  245 Ibid._, xi. 14.\n\n_  246 Ibid._, xii. 18.\n\n_  247 Ibid._, vi. 11.\n\n_  248 Demon. Evang._, vi. 19.\n\n  249 Died 379 A.D.\n\n_  250 Homil. in princip. proverb. Opp._ ed. Garnier altera, vol. ii. p.\n      140.\n\n_  251 Constitutiones Monast._, c. iii. 2. _Ibid._, p. 779.\n\n_  252 Adv. Eunom_, vol. i. p. 417.\n\n_  253 De Spiritu Sancto_, c. viii. vol. iii. p. 23.\n\n_  254 In Princip. Proverb_, vol. ii. p. 152.\n\n  255 Died 389 A.D.\n\n_  256 Opp._ ed. Migne, vol. iii. pp. 473, 474.\n\n  257 Gregorii Nazianzeni, _Opp._ ed. Migne, vol. iii. pp. 473, 474.\n\n  258 Died 395 A.D.\n\n  259 Iambi ad Seleucum; in Greg. Naz. _Opp._ ii. p. 194.\n\n  260 Died 403 A.D.\n\n  261 \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1. _Adv. H\u00e6res_, i. p. 19. See _H\u00e6res_, iii. tom. i. p. 941.\n      De ponder. et mensur. 23.\n\n_  262 Advers. H\u00e6res_, lib. i., tom. 2 ed. Petav. Paris, 1662, p. 72.\n\n_  263 Ibid._, lib. ii. tom. ii. p. 781.\n\n_  264 Ibid._, lib. ii. tom. i. p. 580.\n\n_  265 Ibid._, lib, ii. tom. i. p. 481.\n\n_  266 Ibid._, lib. i. tom. ii. p. 157.\n\n_  267 H\u00e6res_, xxx. 15.\n\n  268 Died 392 A.D.\n\n  269 Enarrat. in ep. S. Petri secundam, p. 1774 ed Migne.\n\n  270 Died  407 A.D.\n\n  271 See Montfaucon in his edition of Chrysostom\u2019s Works, vol. vi. pp.\n      364, 365, ed. Paris, 1835.\n\n  272 Expos. in Psalm cix. 7. See also xi. 1 in Genes, where Wisdom xiv. 3\n      is cited.\n\n  273 Expos. in Psalm xlix. 3.\n\n  274 De Lazaro, ii. 4.\n\n  275 Died 392 A.D.\n\n_  276 De Trinitate_, iii. 2. p. 792 ed. Migne.\n\n  277 Fragmenta in Epist. 2 ad Corinthios, when Baruch, iii. 3, is quoted\n      like Psalm 101, p. 1697.\n\n  278 De Spirit. sanct. i. p. 1033.\n\n  279 Died 428 A.D.\n\n  280 See Leontius Byzantinus contra Nestorianos et Eutychianos, lib. iii.\n      in _Gallandi Bibliotheca_, xii. p. 690. Comp. Fritzsche _De Theodori\n      Mopsuesteni vita et scriptis_, Hal\u00e6, 1836.\n\n  281 Died 444 A.D.\n\n  282 Contra Julian, i. p. 541, ed. Migne.\n\n_  283 Ibid._, p. 815.\n\n_  284 Ibid._, p. 921.\n\n  285 In Isaim, ed. Migne, p. 93.\n\n  286 P. 859, vol. i.\n\n  287 P. 910, vol. i., ed. Migne.\n\n  288 \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac, \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1, \u1f61\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1.\n\n  289 \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1.\n\n  290 Died 430 A.D.\n\n  291 The forty-four books are, 5 of Moses, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 4 Kings,\n      2 Chronicles, Job, Tobit, Esther, Judith, 2 Maccabees, Ezra,\n      Nehemiah, Psalms, 3 of Solomon, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, 12 Prophets,\n      4 greater do. _De Doctrina Christiana_ ii. 8.\n\n_  292 Contra Gaudent._ i. 38. _Opp._ Paris, 1837, vol. ix. p. 1006.\n\n_  293 De Doctr. Christ._ ii. 8. _Civitat. Dei._ xviii. 20, 1.\n\n_  294 De Praesdest. Sanct._ i. 11.\n\n_  295 Retractt._ i. 10.\n\n_  296 De Peccat. merit._ i. 50; _Opp._ vol. x. p. 137, ed. Migne.\n\n_  297 Mansi_, tom. iii. p. 924.\n\n_  298 Ibid._, p. 891.\n\n  299 Died 420 A.D.\n\n_  300 Prologus galeatus in Libros Regum. Epist. ad Paulinum._\n\n  301 In Herbst\u2019s _Einleit._, _erster Theil_, p. 37.\n\n_  302 Opp._ ed. Benedict., Vol. IV., pp. 679, 684, 750.\n\n  303 Ep. ad Dardan. _Opp._ vol. i. P. 1103, ed. Migne.\n\n  304 See _Onomastica Sacra_; Comment. in Ep. ad Philem; De Viris illustr.\n\n  305 Died 368 A.D.\n\n  306 Prolog. in Psalm., _Opp._ ed. Migne, vol. i. p. 241.\n\n_  307 De Trinitate_ iv. 16.\n\n_  308 Ex. Op. Hist. Fragmentum_, iii. vol. ii. p. 672 ed. Migne.\n\n  309 In cxxvii. Psalm.\n\n  310 In Psalm cxxvi. 6.\n\n  311 In Psalm lxviii. 19, and _De Trinitate_, iv. 42.\n\n_  312 Ibid._, iv. 8.\n\n  313 Died about 370 A.D.\n\n_  314 De Schismate Donatist_, iii. 3.\n\n_  315 Ibid._, ii. 25.\n\n  316 Died about 370 A.D.\n\n_  317 De non parcendo_, &c., ed. Coleti, p. 190.\n\n_  318 Ibid._, p. 236.\n\n_  319 Ibid._, p. 187.\n\n_  320 Pro Athanasio_, lib. i. p. 98.\n\n_  321 Ibid._, p. 105.\n\n_  322 Ibid._, lib. ii. pp. 127, 128.\n\n  323 Died 397 A.D.\n\n_  324 De Spiritu Sancto_ iii. 18.\n\n_  325 De bono mortis_ viii.\n\n  326 In Psalm cxviii., Sermo. 118, 2.\n\n_  327 De Spirit. Sancto._ iii., vi. 39.\n\n_  328 Liber de Tobia_.\n\n  329 Died 410 A.D.\n\n_  330 Expos. in Symbol. Apostol._, pp. 373, 374, ed. Migne.\n\n  331 Died about 387 A.D.\n\n  332 De H\u00e6res. chs. 60 and 61, in Galland, vii. pp. 424, 425.\n\n  333 Apud Mansi, iii. pp. 1040, 1041.\n\n  334 Credner\u2019s _Zur Geschichte des Kanons_, p. 151, &c., and Thiel\u2019s\n      _Epistol\u00e6 Romanorum Pontificum genuinae_, tom. i.\n\n  335 Mansi iv. p. 430.\n\n_  336 Opp. Gr\u00e6c._, tom. ii. P. 327, ed. Rom. 1746.\n\n_  337 Ibid._, tom. i. p. 101.\n\n  338 Tom. iii. p. 60.\n\n  339 Galland, xii. p. 79, &c.\n\n  340 See Dillmann in Ewald\u2019s _Jahrb\u00fccher_, v. p. 144, &c.\n\n  341 Died 599 A.D.\n\n  342 See Credner\u2019s _Zur Gesch. des Kanons_, p. 97, &c.\n\n  343 Died 891 A.D.\n\n_  344 Nomocanon, Titulus III._, cap. 2, vol. iv. pp. 1050, 1051 ed.\n      Migne.\n\n  345 See Codd. 113, 126.\n\n  346 Died 754 A.D.\n\n  347 Died 636 A.D.\n\n_  348 Etymolog._ vi. 1.\n\n  349 Died  604 A.D.\n\n  350 Died 912 A.D.\n\n  351 Died 735 A.D.\n\n  352 Died 804 A.D.\n\n  353 Died 856 A.D.\n\n  354 Died 1141 A.D.\n\n  355 Died 1156 A.D.\n\n  356 Died 1182 A.D.\n\n  357 1270 A.D.\n\n  358 Died 1263 A.D.\n\n  359 Died 1384 A.D.\n\n  360 Died 1340 A.D.\n\n  361 See Hody, p. 648, &c.\n\n  362 Chemnitz calls seven books of the New Testament _apocryphos_,\n      because of their uncertain authorship (see _Examen Concilii\n      Tridentini_, p. 45, &c.)\n\n  363 See Tholuck\u2019s _Kommentar zum Briefe an die Hebr\u00e4er, zweite Auflage_,\n      pp. 55, 86.\n\n  364 Carlstadt\u2019s treatise is reprinted in Credner\u2019s _Zur Geschichte des\n      Kanons_.\n\n  365 Werke, edited by Schuler and Schulthess, vol. ii. p. 169.\n\n_  366 Ep. ad. Valdenses_, 1530, _apud. Sculteti annal. evang. renovat\n      decas secunda_, pp. 313, 314.\n\n_  367 Ibid._\n\n  368 Hug says that his copy of Widmanstad\u2019s edition had the Acts\n      immediately following the Gospels.\n\n  369 Epist. ad Paulinum.\n\n  370 Hom. vii. in Josua.\n\n  371 De Bibliorum textibus originalibus, &c., p. 654.\n\n_  372 Ibid._, p. 664.\n\n  373 See Zacagni\u2019s _Collectanea monumentorum veterum Praefat_, p. lxxi.,\n      &c.\n\n  374 See Volkmar\u2019s _Anhang_ to _Crednet\u2019s Geschichte des N. T. Kanon_, p.\n      341, &c.; and Hody _De Bibliorum textibus originalibus_, p. 644, &c.\n\n_  375 Niemeyer\u2019s Collectio Confessionum_, p. 468.\n\n_  376 Ibid._, p. 330.\n\n_  377 Ibid._, pp. 361, 362.\n\n  378 See Herzog\u2019s _Die Romanischen Waldenser_, p. 55, &c.; and his\n      programm _De origine et pristino statu Waldensium_, &c., pp. 17, 40,\n      41.\n\n  379 Leger\u2019s _Histoire des Eglises Vaudoises_, vol. i., p. 112, &c.\n\n  380 The reason given for their being added as a separate appendix is\n      that they are cited by some fathers and found in some Latin Bibles.\n\n  381 Kimmel\u2019s _Monumenta fidei eccles. orient_, part i. p. 467.\n\n  382 Died 791 A.D.\n\n_  383 Abhandlung von freier Untersuchung des Canons_, 4 parts, Halle,\n      1771-1775.\n\n  384 See Toland\u2019s _Nazarenus_, p. 25, &c., second edition; and Morgan\u2019s\n      _Moral Philosopher_, vol. i. p. 56, &c.\n\n  385 For example, \u201cMoses is dead; his rule went out when Christ came\u2014he\n      is of no further service here.... We are willing to regard him as a\n      teacher, but we will not regard him as our lawgiver, _unless he\n      agree with the New Testament and the law of nature_.\u201d _S\u00e4mmtliche\n      Schriften_, ed. Walch. dritter Theil., pp. 7, 8.\n\n  386 Such as Calovius, Chemnitz, John Gerhard, W. Lyser, Quenstedt,\n      Brochmand, Hollaz, &c. Melancthon also makes no important\n      distinction between the two Testaments in his _Loci theologici_.\n      Calvin\u2019s theology was derived from the Old Testament more than the\n      New.\n\n  387 His full sayings are collected in Bretschneider\u2019s _Luther an unsere\n      Zeit_, pp. 186-224; and in Krause\u2019s _Opuscula theologica_, pp.\n      205-241.\n\n_  388 Loci Theologici_ Tom. i. pp. 186, 187, ed. Cotta, 1762.\n\n_  389 Theologia Didactico-polemica_, p. 340.\n\n  390 See Jones\u2019s new and full method of settling the canonical authority\n      of the New Testament, Vol. I., Part i., chap. 5. page 52, ed. 1726.\n\n  391 Ecclesia sua autoritate nullum librum facit canonicum, quippe\n      canonica scripturae autoritas est a solo Deo, &c. Gerhard\u2019s _Loci\n      Theologici_, tom. i. p. 4, ed. Cotta. Autoritas scriptur\u00e6 quoad nos\n      nihil allud est, quam manifestatio et cognitio unic\u00e6 illius divin\u00e6\n      et summ\u00e6 autoritatis, qu\u00e6 scriptum est interna et insita. Ecclesia\n      igitur non confert scriptur\u00e6 novam aliquam autoritatem quoad nos,\n      sed testificatione sua ad agnitionem illius; veritatis nos deducit.\n      Concedimus, ecclesiam esse scriptur\u00e6 sacr\u00e6 _testem, custodem,\n      vindicem, praeconem, et interpretem_; sed negarnus, ex eo effici,\n      quod autoritas scriptur\u00e6 sive simpliciter sive quoad nos ab ecclesia\n      pendeat et quidem unice, pendeat.\u2014_Ibid._, tomus secundus, p. 39,\n      ed. Cotta.","title":"The Canon of the Bible","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":44385}