Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2008 with funding from
IVIicrosoft Corporation
http://www.archive.org/details/canonofbibleitsfOOdavirich
THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
BY THE SAME AUTHOR.
THE NEW TESTAMENT,
TRANSLATED FROM THE LATEST GREEK TEXT OF
TISCHENDORF.
A New and thoroughly Revised Edition.
Post Svo, Cloth, Price los 6d.
" Of high and distinctive value." — Saturday Review.
"Will prove a very useful book to almost any student of the New
Testament." — A thenteum.
"A noble monument of wide reading and sober criticism. . . .
Dr Davidson has done the translation with fidelity, vigour, and
elegance." — Watchman.
"We heartily welcome the volume as a help to the more accurate
study of the New Testament." — Freeman.
"A welcome addition to the library. We should be glad if this
book should attain a wide circulation." — Nonconformist.
London :
G. Kegan Paul & Co., i Paternoster Square.
THE
CANON OF THE BIBLE
ITS FORMATION, HISTORY,
AND FLUCTUATIONS.
BY
SAMUEL DAVIDSON, D.D.
OF HALLE, AND LL.D.
THIRD EDITION, REVISED AND ENLARGED.
London :
C. Kegan Paul & Co., i Paternoster Square.
1878.
Kr«i:
» T.ifc
JiiSTOfin
15'
( 7)4^ rights of Translation and of Reproduction are reset ved.]
/Of ,
PREFACE.
The substance of the present work was written
towards the close of the year 1875 for the
new edition of the " Encyclopaedia Britannica."
Having been abridged and mutilated, contrary
to the author's wishes, before its publication
there, he resolved to print it entire. With that
view it has undergone repeated revision with en-
largement in different parts, and been made as
complete as the limits of an essay appeared
to allow. As nothing of importance has been
knowingly omitted, the writer hopes it will
be found a comprehensive summary of all that
concerns the formation and history of the
Bible canon. The place occupied by it was
a
2^5^40
vi PREFACE.
vacant. No English book reflecting the pro-
cesses or results of recent criticism, gives an
account of the canon in both Testaments,
Articles and essays upon the subject there are ;
but their standpoint is usually apologetic not
scientific, traditional rather than impartial,
unreasonably conservative without being critical.
The topic is weighty, involving the considera-
tion of great questions, such as the inspiration,
authenticity, authority, and age of the Scriptures.
The author has tried to handle it fairly, founding
his statements on such evidence as seemed
convincing, and condensing them into a moder-
ate compass. If the reader wishes to know the
evidence, he may find it in the writer's Intro-
ductions to the Old and New Testaments,
where the separate books of Scripture are
discussed ; and in the late treatises of other
critics. While his expositions are capable of
expansion, it is believed that they will not be
easily shaken. He commends the work to the
PREFACE.
attention of all who have an interest in the
progress of theology, and are seeking a founda-
tion for their faith less precarious than books
however venerable.
It has not been the writer's purpose to
chronicle phases of opinion, or to refute what he
believes to be error in the newest hypotheses
about the age, authority, and composition of the
books. His aim has been rather to set forth the
most correct view of the questions involved in a
history of the canon, whether it be more or less
recent. Some may think that the latest or most
current account of such questions is the best ;
but that is not his opinion. Hence the fashion-
able belief that much of the Pentateuch, the
Book of Leviticus wholly, with large parts of
Exodus and Numbers, in a word, that all the
laws relating to divine worship with most of
the chronological tables or statistics, belong to
Ezra, who is metamorphosed in fact into the first
Elohist, is unnoticed. Hence also the earliest
PREFACE.
gospel is not declared to be Mark's. Neither
has the author ventured to place the fourth
gospel at the end of the first century, as
Ewald and Weitzsacker do, after the man-
ner of the old critics ; or with Keim so early as
110-115 A.D.
Many evince a restless anxiety to find some-
thing novel ; and to depart from well-established
conclusions for the sake of originality. This
shews a morbid state of mind. Amid the
feverish outlook for discoveries and the slight
regard for what is safe, conservatism is a com-
mendable thing. Some again desire to return,
as far as they can, to orthodoxy, finding be-
tween that extreme and rationalism a middle
way which offers a resting-place to faith. The
numerous changes which criticism presents are
not a symptom of soundness. The writer is far
indeed from thinking that every question con-
nected with the books of Scripture is finally
settled ; but the majority undoubtedly are,
PREFACE.
though several already fixed by great scholars
continue to be opened up afresh. He does not
profess to adopt the phase of criticism which is
fashionable at the moment; it is enough to state
what approves itself to his judgment, and to
hold it fast amid the contrarieties of conjecture
or the cravings of curiosity. Present excres-
cences or aberrations of belief will have their
day and disappear. Large portions of the
Pentateuch will cease to be consigned to a post-
exile time, and the gospels of Matthew and
Luke will again be counted the chief sources of
Mark's. It will also be acknowledged that the
first as it now exists, is of much later origin
than the fall of Jerusalem. Nor will there be so
great anxiety to show that Justin Martyr was
acquainted with the fourth gospel, and owed his
Logos-doctrine chiefly to it. The difference of
ten or twenty years in the date of a gospel will
not be considered of essential importance in
estimating its character.
PREFACE.
The present edition has been revised through-
out and several parts re-written. The author
hopes that it will be found still more worthy of
the favour with which the first was received.
May 1878.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY, ..... I
CHAPTER n.
THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON FROM ITS BEGINNING TO
ITS CLOSE, . . . . .ID
CHAPTER HI.
THE SAMARITAN AND ALEXANDRIAN CANONS, . 8 1
CHAPTER IV.
NUMBER AND ORDER OF THE SEPARATE BOOKS, . 92
CHAPTER V.
USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT BY THE FIRST CHRISTIAN
WRITERS, AND THE FATHERS TILL THE TIME OF
ORIGEN, ...... 97
CHAPTER VI.
THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON IN THE FIRST THREE
CENTURIES, ..... 108
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER VII.
THE BIBLE CANON FROM THE FOURTH CENTURY TO
THE REFORMATION, . . . • 173
CHAPTER VIII.
ORDER OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS, . . 221
CHAPTER IX.
SUMMARY OF THE SUBJECT, . . . . 23I
CHAPTER X.
THE CANON IN THE CONFESSIONS OF DIFFERENT
CHURCHES, ..... 240
CHAPTER XI.
THE CANON FROM SEMLER TO THE PRESENT TIME,
WITH REFLECTIONS ON ITS READJUSTMENT, . 247
THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY.
As introductory to the following dissertation,
I shall explain and define certain terms that
frequently occur in it, especially caiton, apocry-
phal^ ecclesiastical^ and the like. A right appre-
hension of these will make the observations
advanced respecting the canon and its formation
plainer. The words have not been taken in the
same sense by all, a fact that obscures their
sense. They have been employed more or less
vaguely by different writers. Varying ideas
have been attached to them.
The Greek original of canon^ means primarily
a straight rod or pole; and metaphorically, what
^ Kavibv.
A
' V •' ' •*'•' '''TffE'ekSm2^k)F THE BIBLE.
serves to keep a thing upright or straight, a rule.
In the New Testament it occurs in Gal. vi. i6
and 2 Cor. x. 13, 15, 16, signifying in the former,
a measure ; in the latter, what is measured, a dis-
trict. But we have now to do with its ecclesiasti-
cal use. There are three opinions as to the origin
of its application to the writings used by the
church. According to Toland, Whiston, Semler,
Baur, and others, the word had originally the
sense of list or catalogue of books publicly read
in Christian assemblies. Others, as Steiner, sup-
pose that since the Alexandrian grammarians
applied it to collections of Old Gk-eek authors
as models of excellence or classics, it meant
classical (canonical) writings. According to a
third opinion, the term included from the first
the idea of a regulating principle. This is the
more probable, because the same idea lies in the
New Testament use of the noun, and pervades
its applications in the language of the early
Fathers down to the time of Constantine, as
INTRODUCTORY.
Credner has shown.^ The " canon of the church"
in the Clementine homilies ;2 the "ecclesiastical
canon," ^ and "the canon of the truth," in
Clement and Irenaeus;* the "canon" of the
faith in Polycrates,^ the regula fidei of Ter-
tullian,^ and the libri regular es of Origen,^ imply
a normative principle. But we cannot assent to
Credner's view of the Greek word for canon
being an abbreviation of "Scriptures of canon,"^
equivalent to Scriptures legis in Diocletian's
Act^ — a view too artificial, and unsanctioned
by usage.
It is true that the word canon was employed
by Greek writers in the sense of a mere list ;
^ Zur Geschichte des Kanons^ pp. 3-68.
^ Clement. Horn. ap. Coteler.y vol. i. p. 608.
^ Stromata, vi. 15, p. 803, ed. Potter.
* Adv. Hczres., i. 95.
5 ^;>. Euseb. H. E., v. 24.
^ De prczscript. Hareticorum, chs. 12, 13.
^ Comment, in Mat. iii. p. 916 ; ed. Delarue.
8 ypa<pal KavSvos.
^ Monumenta Vetera ad Donaiistarum hisioriam pertinentia,
ed. Dupin, p. 168.
THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
but when it was transferred to the Scripture
books, it included the idea of a regulative and
normal power — a list of books forming a rule or
law, because the newly-formed Catholic Church
required a standard of appeal in opposition to
the Gnostics with their arbitrary use of sacred
writings. There is a lack of evidence on behalf
of its use before the books of the New Testa-
ment had been paralleled with those of the Old
in authority and inspiration.
The earliest example of its application to a
catalogue of the Old or New Testament books
occurs in the Latin translation of Origen's homily
on Joshua, where the original seems to have
been " canon.''^ The word itself is certainly in
Amphilochius,2 as well as in Jerome,^ and
Rufinus.* As the Latin translation of Origen
^ KOWWK
' At the end of the Iambi ad Seleucum^ on the books of the
New Testament, he adds, oDtoj dipei/S^oTaTOS Ko.v\av hv ttrj rSov
d€0True6ffT(i)v ypa<pwv.
* Prologus galeatus in ii. Reg.
< Expos, in Symb. Apost., 37, p. 374, ed. Migne.
INTRODUCTORY.
has canonicus and canonizatus, we infer that he
used " canonical,"^ opposed as it is to apocrypJms
or secretus. The first occurrence of "canonical"
is in the fifty-ninth canon of the Council of
Laodicea, where it is contrasted with two other
Greek words.2 " Canonized books,"^ is first used
in Athanasius's 39th festal epistle.* The kind
of rule which the earliest fathers attributed to
the Scriptures can only be conjectured ; it is
certain that they believed the Old Testament
books to be a divine and infallible guide. But
the New Testament was not so considered till
towards the close of the second century when
the conception of a Catholic Church was realized.
The latter collection was not called Scripture,
or put on a par with the Old Testament as
^ KavouLKds. 2 tStwrt/cds and aKavdvLaros. ^ Kavovi^6/ji.€va.
* After the word is added, Kal Trapadodivra, irLarevdivTa rk
6eia etvai. 0pp., vol. i. p. 962, ed. Benedict. The festal or
passover letters of the Alexandrian bishops were pastorals ad-
dressed to the church in Egypt, at the approach of the yearly
festival of Easter. It was natural that they should have some
authority there.
THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
sacred and inspired, till the time of Theophilus
of Antioch (about i8o A.D.) Hence Irenaeus
applies the epithets divine and perfect to the
Scriptures; and Clement of Alexandria calls
them inspired.
When distinctions were made among the
Biblical writings other words ^ were employed,
synonymous with "canonised." ^ The canon was
thus a catalogue of writings forming a rule of
truth, sacred, divine, revealed by God for the
instruction of men. The rule was perfect for its
purpose.
The word apocryphal ^ is used in various senses,
which it is difficult to trace chronologically.
Apocryphal books are, —
1st, Such as contain secret or mysterious things,
books of the higher wisdom. It is thus applied
to the Apocalypse by Gregory of Nyssa.* Akin
to this is the second meaning.
* Such as ivSi6^r}Kaj iipifftih/a. • Kauopito'fiepa or KCKavouia-fiiva.
' d7ro'/c/)i/0oj. * Orat. de Ordin., vol. ii. p. 44.
INTRODUCTORY.
2nd, Such as were kept secret or withdrawn
from public use. In this sense the word cor-
responds to the Hebrew gaimz?- So Origen
speaking of the story of Susanna. The oppo-
site of this is read in ptibliCy'^ a word em-
ployed by Eusebius.^
3rd, It was used of the secret books of the
heretics by Clement* and Origen,^ with the
accessory idea of spurious, pseudepigraphical^
in opposition to the canonical writings of the
Catholic Church. The book of Enoch and
similar productions were so characterized.^
4th, Jerome applied it to the books in the
^ T132. The Jews applied the word genuzim to books with-
drawn from public use, whose contents were thought to be out of
harmony with the doctrinal or moral views of Judaism when the
canon was closed. See Fiirst's Der Kanon des alien Testaments,
p. 127, note; and Geiger's Urschrift, p. 201.
^ dedrj/xoa-tevixiva.
3 H. E. II. 23, III. 3-16.
* Stromata, lib. iii. p. 1134, ed. Migne.
^ Prolog, ad Cant., dpp., vol. iii. p. 36.
^ See Suicer's Thesaurus, s. v.
THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
Septuagint which are absent from the Hebrew
canon, i.e., to the books which were read in the
church, the ecclesiastical ones^ occupying a rank
next to the canonical. In doing so he had
respect to the corresponding Hebrew epithet.
This was a misuse of the word apocryphal,
which had a prejudicial effect on the character
of the books in after-times.^ The word, which
he did not employ in an injurious sense, was
adopted from him by Protestants after the
Reformation, who gave it perhaps a sharper
distinction than he intended, so as to imply a
contrast somewhat disparaging to writings
which were publicly read in many churches and
put beside the canonical ones by distinguished
fathers. The Lutherans have adhered to
Jerome's meaning longer than the Reformed ;
but the decree of the Council of Trent had
^ Bt/3\(a iLvayivuxTKOfieva, libri ecclesiastici.
2 In his epistle to Laeta he uses the epithet in its customary
sense, of books unauthentic, not proceeding from the authors
whose names they bear. 0pp., vol. i. p. 877, ed. Migne.
INTR OD UCTOR V.
some effect on both. The contrast between
the canonical and apocryphal writings was
carried to its utmost length by the Westminster
divines, who asserted that the former are in-
spired, the latter not.
CHAPTER II.
THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON FROM ITS
BEGINNING TO ITS CLOSE.
The first important part of the Old Testament
put together as a whole was the Pentateuch,
or rather, the five books of Moses and Joshua.
This was preceded by smaller documents,
which one or more redactors embodied in it.
The earliest things committed to writing were
probably the ten words proceeding from Moses
himself, afterwards enlarged into the ten com-
mandments which exist at present in two
recensions (Exod. xx., Deut. v.) It is true
that we have the oldest form of the decalogue
from the Jehovist not the Elohist; but that
is no valid objection against the antiquity of
the nucleus out of which it arose. It is also
THE OLD TESTAMENT.
probable that several legal and ceremonial
enactments belong, if not to Moses himself,
at least to his time ; as also the Elohistic list
of stations in Numbers xxxiii. To the same
time belongs the song of Miriam in Exodus
XV., probably consisting of a few lines at first,
and subsequently enlarged ; with a triumphal
ode over the fall of Heshbon (Numbers xxi. 27-
30). The little poetical piece in Numbers
xxi. 17, 18, afterwards misunderstood and so
taken literally, is post-Mosaic.
During the unsettled times of Joshua and the
Judges there could have been comparatively
little writing. The song of Deborah appeared,
full of poetic force and fire. The period of
the early kings was characterized not only by
a remarkable development of the Hebrew
people and their consolidation into a national
state, but by fresh literary activity. Laws were
written out for the guidance of priests and
people ; and the political organization of the
12 THE CANON OF 7 HE BIBLE.
rapidly growing nation was promoted by-
poetical productions in which spiritual life
expressed its aspirations. Schools of prophets
were instituted by Samuel, whose literary efforts
tended to purify the worship. David was an
accomplished poet, whose psalms are composed
in lofty strains ; and Solomon may have
written a few odes. The building of the
temple, and the arrangements connected with
its worship, contributed materially to a written
legislation.
During this early and flourishing period ap-
peared the book of the Wars of Jehovah,^ a
heroic anthology, celebrating warlike deeds; and
the book of Jashar,^ also poetical. Jehoshaphat
is mentioned as court-annalist to David and
Solomon.' Above all, the Elohists now ap-
peared, the first of whom, in the reign of Saul,
was author of annals beginning at the earliest
* Num. xxi. 14. ^ Joshua x. 12, 13 ; 2 Sam. i. 18.
* 2 Sam. viii. i6 ; i Kings iv. 3.
THE OLD TESTAMENT.
time which were distinguished by genealogical
and chronological details as well as systematic
minuteness, by archaic simplicity, and by legal
prescriptions more theoretical than practical.
The long genealogical registers with an artificial
chronology and a statement of the years of
men's lives, the dry narratives, the precise ac-
counts of the gradual enlargement of divine
laws, the copious description of the tabernacle
and the institution of divine worship, are weari-
some, though pervaded by a theoretic interest
which looks at every thing from a legal point
of view. A second or junior Elohist was less
methodical and more fragmentary, supplying
additional information, furnishing new theo-
cratic details, and setting forth the relation of
Israel to heathen nations and to God. In con-
trast with his predecessor, he has great beauty
of description, which is exemplified in the ac-
count of Isaac's sacrifice and the history of
Joseph ; in picturesque and graphic narratives
14 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
interspersed with few reflections. His parallels
to the later writer commonly called the Jehovist,
are numerous. The third author, who lived in
the time of Uzziah, though more mythological
than the Elohists, was less formal. His stand-
point is prophetic. The third document in-
corporated with the Elohistic ones formed an
important part of the whole, exhibiting a vivid-
ness which the first lacked ; with descriptions
of persons and things from another stand-point.
The Jehovist belonged to the northern kingdom;
the Elohists were of Judah.
The state of the nation after Rehoboam was
unfavourable to literature. When the people
were threatened and attacked by other nations,
divided among themselves in worship and all
higher interests, rent by conflicting parties, the
theocratic principle which was the true bond of
union could not assert itself with efiect. The
people were corrupt ; their religious life debased.
The example of the kings was usually prejudicial
THE OLD TESTAMENT.
to political healthiness. Contact with foreigners
as well as with the older inhabitants of the land,
hindered progress. In these circumstances the
prophets were the true reformers, the advocates
of political liberty, expositors of the principles
that give life and stability to a nation. In
Judah, Joel wrote prophetic discourses ; in
Israel, Amos and Hosea. Now, too, a redactor
put together the EJohistic and Jehovistic docu-
ments, making various changes in them, adding
throughout sentences and words that seemed
desirable, and suppressing what was unsuited to
his taste. Several psalm-writers enriched the
national literature after David. Learned men
at the court of Hezekiah recast and enlarged
(Proverbs xxv. — xxix.) the national proverbs,
which bore Solomon's name because the nucleus
of an older collection belonged to that monarch.
These literary courtiers were not prophets, but
rather scribes. The book of Job was written,
with the exception of Elihu's later discourses
I6 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
which were not inserted in it till after the
return from Babylon ; and Deuteronomy, with
Joshua, was added to the preceding collec-
tion in the reign of Manasseh. The gifted
author of Deuteronomy, who was evidently
imbued with the prophetic spirit, completed the
Pentateuch, i.e., the five books of Moses and
Joshua, revising the Elohist-Jehovistic work,
and making various additions or alterations.
He did the same thing to the historical books
of Judges, Samuel, and Kings ; which received
from him their present form. Immediately
before and during the exile there were numer-
ous authors and compilers. New psalms
appeared, more or less national in spirit.
Ezekiel, Jeremiah and others prophesied ;
especially an unknown seer who described the
present condition of the people, predicting their
coming glories and renovated worship in strains
of far-reaching import.^ This great prophet
^ Isaiah xl. -Ixvi.
THE OLD TESTAMENT. 17
expected the regeneration of the nation from
the pious portion of it, the prophets in particular,
not from a kingly Messiah as Isaiah did ; for
the hopes resting on rulers out of David's house
had been disappointed. His aspirations turned
to spiritual means. He was not merely an en-
thusiastic seer with comprehensive glance, but
also a practical philosopher who set forth the
doctrine of the innocent suffering for the guilty ;
differing therein from Ezekiel's theory of indi-
vidual reward and punishment in the present
world — a theory out of harmony with the cir-
cumstances of actual life. The very misfortunes
of the nation, and the signs of their return,
excited within the nobler spirits hopes of a
brighter future, in which the flourishing reign of
David should be surpassed by the universal
worship of Jehovah. In consequence of their
outward condition, the prophets of the exile
were usually writers, like Ezekiel, not public
speakers ; and their announcement of glad
l8 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
tidings could only be transmitted privately from
person to person. This explains in part the
oblivion into which their names fell ; so that
the author or redactor of Jeremiah 1., li. ; the
authors of chapters xiii.-xiv. 23, xxi. i-io,
xxiv.-xxvii., xxxiv., xxxv., inserted in Isaiah ;
and, above all, the Babylonian Isaiah, whom
Hitzig improbably identifies with the high-
priest Joshua, are unknown. After the return
from Babylon the literary spirit manifested
itself in the prophets of the restoration —
Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi — who wrote to
recall their countrymen to a sense of religious
duties; though their ideas were borrowed in
part from older prophets of more original
genius. The book of Esther appeared, to make
•the observance of the purim feast, which was of
Persian origin, more general in Palestine. The
large historical work comprising the books of
Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles, was compiled
partly out of materials written by Ezra and
THE OLD TESTAMENT.
Nehemiah, partly out of older historical records
which formed a portion of the national litera-
ture. Several temple-psalms were also com-
posed ; a part of the present book of Proverbs ;
Ecclesiastes, whose tone and language betray
its late origin ; and Jonah, whose diction puts
its date after the Babylonian captivity. The
Maccabean age called forth the book of Daniel
and various psalms. In addition to new pro-
ductions there was an inclination to collect
former documents. To Zechariah's authentic
prophecies were added the earlier ones con-
tained in chapters ix. — xiv. ; and the Psalms
were gradually brought together, being made up
into divisions at different times ; the first and
second divisions proceeding from one redactor,
the third from another, the fourth and fifth from
a still later. Various writings besides their own
were grouped around the names of earlier pro-
phets, as was the case with Isaiah and Jeremiah.
The literature is more indebted for its best
20 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
constituents to the prophetic than to the
priestly order, because the prophets were
preachers of repentance and righteousness
whose great aim was to make Israel a Jehovah-
worshipping nation to the exclusion of other
gods. Their utterances were essentially ethical
and religious ; their pictures of the future
subjective and ideal. There was silently
elaborated in^their schools a spiritual mono-
theism, over against the crude polytheism of
the people generally — a theocratic ideal inade-
quately apprehended by gross and sensuous
Israel — Jehovism simple and sublime amid a
sacerdotal worship which left the heart impure
while cleansing the hands. Instead of taking
their stand upon the law, with its rules of
worship, its ceremonial precepts and penalties
against transgressors, the prophets set them-
selves above it, speaking slightingly of the
forms and customs which the people took for
the whole of religion. To the view of such as
THE OLD TESTAMENT. 21
were prepared to receive a faith that looked for
its realisation to the future, they helped to
create a millennium, in which the worship of
Jehovah alone should become the basis of a uni-
versal religion for humanity. In addition to the
prophetic literature proper, they wrote historical
works also. How superior this literature is to
the priestly appears from a comparison of the
Kings and Chronicles. The subjective under-
lies the one; the objective distinguishes the
other. Faith in Jehovah, clothed, it may be
in sensible or historical forms, characterises the
one ; reference of an outward order to a divine
source, the other. The sanctity of a people
under the government of a righteous God, is
the object of the one ; the sanctity of institu-
tions, that of the other. Even when the
prophets wrote history, the facts are subordinate
to the belief. Subjective purposes coloured
their representation of real events.
To them we are indebted for the Messianic
22 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
idea, the hope of a better time in which their high
ideal of the theocracy should be realised. With
such belief in the future, with pious aspirations
enlivening their patriotism, did they comfort
and encourage their countrymen. The hope,
general or indefinite at first, was afterwards
attached to the house of David, out of which a
restorer of the theocracy was expected, a king
pre-eminent in righteousness, and marvellously
gifted. It was not merely a political but a
religious hope, implying the thorough purifica-
tion of the nation, the extinction of idolatry,
the general spread and triumph of true religion.
The pious wishes of the prophets, often repeated,
became a sort of doctrine, and contributed to
sustain the failing spirit of the people. The
indefinite idea of a golden age was commoner
than that of a personal prince who should reign
in equity and peace. Neither was part of the
national faith, like the law, or the doctrine of
sacrifice; and but a few of the prophets por-
THE OLD TESTAMENT. 23
trayed a king in their description of the period
of ideal prosperity.
The man who first gave public sanction
to a portion of the national literature was Ezra,
who laid the foundation of a canon. He was
the leader in restoring the theocracy after the
exile, " a ready scribe in the law of Moses, who
had prepared his heart to seek the law of the
Lord and to teach in Israel statutes and judg-
ments." As we are told that he brought the
book of the law of Moses before the congrega-
tion and read it publicly, the idea naturally arises
that he was the final redactor of the Pentateuch,
separating it from the historical work consisting
of Joshua and the subsequent writings, of which
it formed the commencement. Such was the
first canon given to the Jewish Church after its
reconstruction — ready for temple service as well
as synagogue use. Henceforward the Mosaic
book became an authoritative guide in spiritual,
ecclesiastical, and civil matters, as we infer from
24 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
various passages in Ezra and Nehemiah and
from the chronicler's own statements in the
book bearing his name. The doings of Ezra
with regard to the Scriptures are deduced not
only from what we read of him in the Biblical
book that bears his name, but also from the
legend in the fourth book of Esdras,^ where it
is related that he dictated by inspiration to five
ready writers ninety-four books ; the first twenty-
four of which he was ordered to publish openly
that the worthy and unworthy might read, but
reserved the last seventy for the wise. Though
the twenty-four books of the Old Testament
cannot be attributed to him, the fact that he
copied and wrote portions need not be ques-
tioned. He edited the law, making the first
canon or collection of books, and giving it an
authority which it had not before. Talmudic ac-
counts associate with him the men of the great
1 Chap. xiv. 23.50, &c. Sec Hilgenfeld's Messias Jtidaorum,
p. 107.
THE OLD TESTAMENT. 25
synagogue. It is true that they are legen-
dary, but there is a foundation of fact beneath
the fanciful superstructure. As to Ezra's treat-
ment of the Pentateuch, or his specific mode of
redaction, we are left for the most part to
conjecture. Yet it is safe to affirm that he
added ; — making new precepts and practices
either in place of or beside older ones. Some
things he removed as unsuited to the altered
circumstances of the people ; others he modi-
fied. He threw back later enactments into
earlier times. It is difficult to discover all
the parts that betray his hand. Some elabor-
ate priestly details show his authorship most
clearly. If his hand be not visible in Leviticus
chap. xvii. — xxvi. ; a writer not far removed
from his time is observable ; Ezekiel or some
other. It is clear that some of the portion (xxv.
19 — 22 ; xxvi. 3 — 45) is much later than the
Elohists, and belongs to the exile or post-exile
period. But great difficulty attaches to the
26 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE,
separation of the sources here used ; even after
Kayser's acute handling of them. It is also
perceptible from Ezekiel xx. 25, 26, that the
clause in Exodus xiii. 15, "but all the firstborn
of my children I redeem," was added after the
exile, since the prophet shews his unacquaint-
ance with it. The statute that all which
openeth the womb should be burnt in sacrifice
to Jehovah, appeared inhuman not only to
Ezekiel, but to Ezra or his associates in re-
editing the law ; and therefore the clause about
the redemption of every firstborn male was sub-
joined. Ezra, a second Moses in the eyes of
the later Jews, did not scruple to refer to Moses
what was of recent origin, and to deal freely
with the national literature. Such was the first
canon — that of Ezra the priest and scribe.
The origin of the great synagogue is noticed
in Ezra x. 16, and described more particularly
in Nehemiah viii.-x., the members being appar-
ently enumerated in x. 1-27 ; at least the
THE OLD TESTAMENT. 27
Megila Jen (i. 5) and Midrash Ruth (§ 3)
speak of an assembly of eighty-five elders,
who are probably found in the last passage.
One name, however, is wanting, for only eighty-
four are given ; and as Ezra is not mentioned
among them, the conjecture of Krochmal that
it has dropped out of x. 9 may be allowed.
Another tradition gives the number as one
hundred and twenty, which may be got by
adding the " chief of the fathers " enumerated
in Ezra viii. 1-14 to the hundred and two heads
of families in Ezra ii. 2-58. Whether the num-
ber was the same at the commencement as
afterwards is uncertain. Late Jewish writers,
however, such as Abarbanel, Abraham ben
David, Ben Maimun, &c., speak as if it con-
sisted of the larger number at the beginning;
and have no scruple in pronouncing Ezra pre-
sident, rather than Nehemiah.^
1 See Buxtorf's Tiberias^ chap, x., p. 88, &c.; and Herz-
feld's Geschichte des Volkes Israel^ vol. i. p. 380, &c. Zwolfter
Excursus.
28 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
The oldest extra-biblical mention of the
synagogue is in the Mishnic treatise Pirke
Abothy where it is said, "Moses received the
law from Mount Sinai, and delivered it to
Joshua, Joshua to the elders, the elders to the
prophets, and the prophets delivered it to the
men of the great synagogue. These last
spake these words: "Be slow in judgment;
appoint many disciples ; make a hedge for
the law"i In the Talmudic Baba Bathra,
their biblical doings are described : " Moses
wrote his book, the section about Balaam and
Job. Joshua wrote his book and eight verses
of the law. Samuel wrote his book and Judges
and Ruth. David wrote the book of Psalms
by (?)2 ten elders, by Adam the first man, by
Melchizedek, by Abraham, by Moses, by He-
1 Chapter i.
» n* ^y. I^ocs this mean for^ instead of^ as Bloch vmder-
stands it? Waehner inserts, to fill up the sense, "some of
which, however, were composed by;" but this is far-fetched.
See AntiquUates Ebraorum, p. i^.
THE OLD TESTAMENT. 29
man, by Jeduthun, by Asaph, and the three
sons of Korah. Jeremiah wrote his book, the
books of Kings and Lamentations. Hezekiah
and his friends wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, Can-
ticles, and Coheleth ; the men of the great syn-
agogue, Ezekiel, the twelve prophets, Daniel
and Esther. Ezra wrote his own book and
the genealogies of Chronicles down to himself "^
This passage has its obscurities. What is
meant by the verb write ? ^ Does it mean com-
position and then something else ; the former
in the first part of the passage, and editing in
the second } Rashi explains it of composition
throughout, which introduces absurdity. The
most obvious interpretation is that which un-
derstands the verb of writing in one place, and
editing in the second. But it is improbable
that the author should have used the same
word in different senses, in one and the same
iFol. 15, I. "3n2.
30 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
passage, Bloch ^ understands it of copying or
writing outy a sense that suits the procedure of
the men of the great synagogue in regard to
Ezekiel, the twelve prophets, &c., but is inap-
plicable to Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David,
Jeremiah, &c. It is probable enough that the
synagogue scribes put into their present form
and made the first authorised copies of the
works specified. The Boraitha, however, is
not clear, and may only express the opinion
of a private individual in a confused way.
Simon the Just is said to have belonged to
the remnants of the synagogue. As Ezra is
called " a ready scribe," and his labours in con-
nection with the law were important, he may
have organised a body of literary men who
should work in harmony, attending, among
other things, to the collection and preservation
of the national literature ; or they may have
* SiudUn zur GeschichU cUr Sammlun^ dcr althebraiscJwn
Literature p. 127, &c.
THE OLD TESTAMENT. 31
been an association of patriotic men who
voluntarily rallied round the heads of the new-
state, to support them in their fundamental
reforms. The company of scribes mentioned
in I Maccabees does not probably relate to it.^
A succession of priests and scribes, excited at
first by the reforming zeal of one whom later
Jews looked upon as a second Moses, laboured
in one department of literary work till the cor-
poration ceased to exist soon after if not in
the time of Simon, i.e., from about 445 B.C. till
about 200 ; for we identify the Simon cele-
brated in Sirach 1. 1-26 with Simon II., son
of the high-priest Onias II., B.C. 221-202; not
with Simon I., son and successor of the high-
priest Onias I., B.C. 310-291. Josephus's
opinion, indeed, is contrary ; but leading
Jewish scholars, such as Zunz, Herzfeld,
Krochmal, Derenbourg, Jost, and Bloch differ
from him.
^ vii. 12, (Tvva'^ui^T] ypaix[iaTio)V, not ^ (jwayuiyi].
32 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
To the great synagogue must be referred the
compilation of the second canon, containing
Joshua, Judges with Ruth, Samuel, Kings,
Isaiah, Jeremiah with Lamentations, Ezekiel
and the twelve minor prophets. It was not
completed prior to 300 B.C., because the book of
Jonah was not written before. This work may-
be called a historical parable composed for a
didactic purpose, giving a milder, larger view
of Jehovah's favour than the orthodox one that
excluded the Gentiles. Ruth, containing an
idyllic story with an unfinished genealogy
attached meant to glorify the house of David,
and presenting a kindred spirit towards a
people uniformly hated, was appended to
Judges ; but was subsequently transferred to
the third canon. It was written immediately
after the return from the Babylonian captivity ;
for the Chaldaising language points to this
date, notwithstanding the supposed archaisms
discovered in it by some. In like manner, the
THE OLD TESTAMENT. 33
Lamentations, originally added to Jeremiah,
were afterwards put into the later or third canon.
Joshua, which had been separated from the
five books of Moses with which it was closely-
joined at first, formed, with the other historical
portion (Judges, Samuel, Kings), the proper
continuation of Ezra's canon. The prophets,
included the three greater and twelve minor.
With Isaiah's authentic oracles were incorpor-
ated the last twenty-seven chapters, belonging
for the most part to an anonymous prophet of
the exile, besides several late pieces inserted
in the first thirty-nine chapters. Men of pro-
phetic gifts wrote in the name of distinguished
prophets, and put their productions with those
of the latter, or adapted and wrote them over
after their own fashion. The fiftieth and fifty-
first chapters of Jeremiah shew such over-writing.
To Zechariah's authentic oracles were attached
chapters ix.-xiv., themselves made up of two
parts (ix.-xi., xii.-xiv.) belonging to different
C
34 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
times and authors prior to the destruction of
the Jewish state by the Babylonians.
The character of the synagogue's proceedings
in regard to the books of Scripture can only be
deduced from the conduct of Ezra himself, as
well as the prevailing views and wants of the
times. The scribes who began with Ezra, see-
ing how he acted, would naturally follow his
example, not hesitating to revise the text in
substance as well as form.^ They did not re-
frain from changing what had been written, or
from inserting fresh matter. Some of their
novelties can be discerned even in the Penta-
teuch. Their chief work, however, related to
the form of the text. They put into a proper
* That the Scribes always adhered to the prohibition to write
no religious laws and ordinances cannot be held, even in the
face of the Talmudic saying, niin 51"11C^D T\\:h''\\ 3ni3 (writers
of Halacoth are like a burner of the law). This may apply to
the late scribes or bookmen, not to the earlier. The greater
part of Geiger's Urschrift is based on the opposite idea. As
the reverence for former scholars increased, the Talmudic say-
ing might be accepted. See Temura^ 14 b.
THE OLD TESTAMENT. 35
form and state the text of the writings they
studied, perceiving less need for revising the
matter. What they did was in good faith,
with honest intention.
The prophetic canon ended with Malachi's
oracles. And it was made sometime after he
prophesied, because the general consciousness
that the function ceased with him required a
considerable period for its growth. The fact
that it included Jonah and Ruth brings the
completion after 300 B.C., as already stated.
There are no definite allusions to it till the
second century B.C. Daniel speaks of a
passage in Jeremiah being in "the books" or
" writings ; " ^ and the prologue of Jesus Sirach
presupposes its formation. Such was the
second canon, which had been made up
gradually (444-290 B.C.)
Another view of the collection in question
has been taken by various scholars. Accord-
^ Chapter ix. 2.
36 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
ing to a passage in the second book of
Maccabees, the second canon originated with
Nehemiah, who " gathered together the acts of
the kings and the prophets and (psalms) of
David, and the epistles of the kings con-
cerning the holy gifts." ^ These words are
obscure. They occur in a letter purporting
to be sent by the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem
to the Jews in Egypt, which contains apo-
cryphal things ; a letter which assigns to
Nehemiah the merit of various arrangements
rather belonging to Ezra. It is difficult to
understand the meaning of "the epistles of
the kings concerning the offerings." If they
were the documents of heathen or Persian
kings favourable to the rebuilding of Jeru-
salem and its temple, would they not have
been rejected from a collection of sacred
books belonging to the chosen people.? They
might perhaps have been adopted had they
* Chapter ii. 13.
THE OLD TESTAMENT. 37
been interwoven with the holy books them-
selves, like portions of Ezra and Nehemiah ;
but they could not have formed a distinct part
of the national literature, because they were
foreign and heathen. Again, "the psalms of
David " cannot have existed in the time of
Nehemiah, if the phrase includes the whole
collection. It may perhaps refer to the first
three divisions of the book, as Herzfeld thinks ;
but these contain many odes which are not
David's ; while earHer ones belong to the last
two divisions of the Psalm-book. In like
manner, "the prophets" could not all have
belonged to this canon ; neither Malachi, who
was later, nor Jonah. The account will not
bear strict examination, and must be pro-
nounced apocryphal. Nehemiah was a states-
man, not a priest or scribe ; a politician, not
a literary man. It is true that he may have
had assistants, or committed the work to com-
petent hands ; but this is conjectural. The
38 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
account of his supposed canon hardly com-
mends itself by inherent truthfulness or pro-
bability, though it is accepted by Ewald and
Bleek.
When the great synagogue ceased, there was
an interval during which it is not clear whether
the sacred books were neglected, except by
private individuals ; or whether they were
studied, copied, and collected by a body of
scribes. Perhaps the scribes and elders of the
Hasmonaean time were active at intervals in this
department. The institution of a senate by
Judas Maccabaeus is supposed to be favoured
by 2 Maccabees (chapter i. lO — ii. i8); but the
passage furnishes poor evidence of the thing.
Judas is there made to write to Egypt in the
year of the Seleucidae i88, though he died
thirty- six years before, z>., 152. Other places
have been added as corroborative, viz., 2
Maccab. iv. 44, xi. 27 ; i Maccab. vii. 33.
Some go so far as to state that Jose ben Joeser
THE OLD TESTAMENT. 39
was appointed its first president at that time.
The Midrash in Bereshith Rabba (§ 65)
makes him one of the sixty Hassidim who
were treacherously murdered by Alcimus ; but
this is neither in the first book of the Maccabees
(chapter vii.) nor in Josephus,^ and must be
pronounced conjectural. It is impossible to
fix the exact date of Jose ben Joeser in the
Hasmonean period. Pirke Aboth leaves it
indefinite. Jonathan, Judas Maccabaeus's suc-
cessor, when writing to the Lacedaemonians,
speaks of the gertisia or senate as well as the
people of the Jews ; whence we learn that the
body existed as early as the time of Judas.^
Again, Demetrius writes to Simon, as also to
the elders and natiojt of the Jews.^ After Jona-
than and Simon, it may have been suspended
for a while, in consequence of the persecution
^ Antiq., xii. 10, i.
2 Josephus's Antiq., xiii. 5, 8 ; i Maccab., xii. 35.
I Maccab., xiii. 36.
40 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
and anarchy prevailing in Judea ; till the great
Sanhedrim at Jerusalem succeeded it, under
Hyrcanus I. Though the traces of a senate
in the Maccabaean epoch are slight, the Talmud
countenances its existence.^ We believe that
it was earlier than Judas Maccabaeus. Of its
constitution nothing is known ; but it was pro-
bably aristocratic. The Hasmonean- prince
would naturally exert a commanding influence
over it. The great synagogue had been a kind
of democratic council, consisting of scribes,
doctors or teachers, and priests.^ Like their
predecessors of the great synagogue, the Has-
monaean elders revised the text freely, putting
into it explanatory or corrective additions,
which were not always improvements. The
way in which they used the book of Esther,
employing it as a medium of Halachite pre-
scription, shews a treatment involving little
» Sota, 24 a. >» D^mO, Nehemiah viii. 3.
THE OLD TESTAMENT. 41
idea of sacredness attaching to the Hagio-
grapha.
We are aware that the existence of this body-
is liable to doubt, and that the expressions
belonging to it in Jewish books, whether elders
or gerusia, have been applied to the great
synagogue or to the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem,
or even to the elders of any little town or
hamlet; but it is difficult to explain all on
that hypothesis, without attributing confusion
to the places where they occur. If the body
in question be not allowed, an interval of about
sixty years elapsed between the great syna-
gogue and the Sanhedrim, during which the
hagiographical writings were comparatively
neglected, though literary activity did not
cease. No authoritative association, at least,
dealt with them. This is improbable. It is
true that we read of no distinguished teachers
in the interval, except Antigonus of Socho,
disciple of Simon the Just ; but the silence can
42 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE,
hardly weigh against a reasonable presumption.
One thing is clear, viz., that Antigonus did not
reach down to the time of the first pair that
presided over the Sanhedrim.
The contents of the third canon, i.e.y Psalms,
Proverbs, Job, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, Esther,
Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles, the for-
mation of which we assign to the Hasmonaean
genisia, were multifarious, differing widely from
one another in age, character, and value — poeti-
cal, prophetic, didactic, historical. Such as
seemed worthy of preservation, though they
had not been included in the second canon,
were gathered together during the space of an
hundred and fifty years. The oldest part con-
sisted of psalms supposed to belong to David.
The first psalm, which contains within itself
traces of late authorship, was prefixed as an in-
troduction to the whole collection now put into
the third canon. Next to the Psalms were
Proverbs, Job, Canticles, which, though non-
THE OLD TESTAMENT. 43
prophetic and probably excluded on that
account from the second canon, must have
existed before the exile. Enriched with the
latest additions, they survived the national
disasters, and claimed a place next to the
Psalms. They were but a portion of the
literature current in and after the 5 th century
B.C., as may be inferred from the epilogue to
Ecclesiastes, and the Wisdom of Sirach. The
historical work compiled by the chronicle-
writer was separated, Ezra being put first
as the most important part and referring also
to the church of the 6th and 5th centuries
whose history had not been written. The
Chronicles themselves were placed last, being
considered of less value than the first part,
as they contained the summary of a period
already described, though with numerous
adaptations to post-exile times. The youngest
portion consisted of the book of Daniel, not
written till the Maccabean period (between 170
44 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
and 1 60 B.C.);^ and probably of several
Psalms (44, 60, 74, 75, ^6, 79, 80, 83, 89, no,
118) which were inserted in different places
of the collection to make the whole number
150. These late odes savour of the Maccabean
time; and are fitly illustrated by the history
given in the first book of Maccabees. The list
continued open ; dominated by no stringent
principle of selection, and with a character
somewhat indefinite. It was called dtiibim,
^ Talmudic tradition, which attributes the redaction of the
book to the men of the great synagogue who are said to have
acted under the influence of the divine spirit, separates the
three apocryphal pieces from the rest ; but this arose from the
desire of discountenancing the idea that the work consists of
romance and legend. Such later tradition took curious ways of
justifying the canonicity of Daniel and the redaction of it by
the great synagogue, ex gr., the assumption that the second
part arose out of a series of unconnected MegUoth which were
not reduced to chronological order. Still the Midrash main-
tains that Daniel, or the person writing in his name, was no
prophet, like Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, but a man of
visions, an apocalyptist. It was a general belief, that visiom
had come into the place of prophecy when the book appeared.
The Greek translation could not have been long after the
original, because it is used in the First Book of Maccabees.
THE OLD TESTAMENT. 45
i.e.^ writings ; ^ a general epithet suited to the
contents.
Several books put into the third canon, — as
Job, Proverbs, the greater number of the Psalms,
&c., — existed when the second was made. But
the latter collection was pre-eminently /;'^//^^//^/
and it was that idea of the origin and contents
of the books in it which regulated its extent.
Bloch's supposition that the parts of the third
collection then existing were not looked upon as
The interval between the Hebrew and the Greek was incon-
siderable. The translator not only departed from, but added
to, the original, inserting such important pieces as the Prayer
of Azarias, the Song of the Three Children, the History of
Susanna, and that of Bel and the Dragon. Whether any of
these had been written before is uncertain. Most of the tradi-
tions they embody were probably reduced to writing by the
translator, and presented in his peculiar style. The assertion,
that Josephus was unacquainted with these additions is hazard-
ous, since the way in which he speaks of Daniel's fame (Antiq.
X. 1 1, 7)> and especially of the books he wrote (rd ^i^Xia), sup-
poses some relation to them. Elsewhere he speaks of ofie book
(x. 10, 4 ; xi. 8, 5), where he may have thought of the canoni-
cal part.
^ D''Ilin3j translated by the Greek ayt.bypa(l>a, hagiographa.
46 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
holy, but merely as productions embodying
human wisdom, and were therefore excluded,
is improbable. We do not think that an alter-
ation of opinion about them in the course of a
century or more, by which they became divine
and holy instead of human, is a satisfactory
explanation. The Psalms of David and the
book of Job must have been as highly esteemed
in the period of the great synagogue's existence
as they were at a later time. Other considera-
tions besides the divinity and holiness of books
contributed to their introduction into a canon.
Ecclesiastes was taken into the third collection
because it was attributed to Solomon. The
Song of Songs was understood allegorically, —
a fact which, in addition to its supposed Solo-
monic authorship, determined its adoption.
And even after their canonical reception,
whether by the great synagogue or another
body, the character of books was canvassed.
It was so with Ecclesiastes, in spite of the
THE OLD TESTAMENT. 47
supposed sanction it got from the great syna-
gogue contained in the epilogue, added, as
some think, by that body to attest the sacred-
ness of the book.^
While the third canon was being made, the
soferim, as the successors of the prophets, were
active as before ; and though interpretation was
their chief duty, they must have revised and
corrected the sacred books to some extent.
We need not hesitate to allow that they some-
times arranged parts, and even added matter
of their own. In the time of the canon's
entire preparation, they and the priests, with
writers and scholars generally, redacted the
national literature, excluding or sanctioning
such portions of it as they thought fit.
1 It has been thought that the phrase DISDi^ v^S i^ the
ninth verse alludes to the great council or synagogue. This
conjecture is plausible on various grounds. The reasons for
attributing the epilogue to a later time than the writer of the
book appear to be stronger than those assigning it to the
original author. The 13th and 14th verses in particular, are
unlike Coheleth.
48 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
At this time appeared the present five-fold
partition of the Psalms, preceded as it had been
by other divisions, the last of which was very-
similar to the one that became final. Several
inscriptions and historical notices were prefixed.
The inscriptions, however, belong to ver>^ dif-
ferent times, their historical parts being usually
older than the musical ; and date from the first
collection to the period of the Hasmonean
college, when the final redaction of the entire
Psalter took place. Those in the first three
books existed at the time when the latter were
made up ; those in the last two were prefixed
partly at the time when the collections them-
selves were made, and partly in the Maccabean
age. How often they are out of harmony with
the poems themselves, needs no remark. They
are both traditional and conjectural.
The earliest attestation of the third canon is
that of the prologue to Jesus Sirach (130 B.C.),
where not only the law and the prophets are
THE OLD TESTAMENT. 49
specified, but "the other books of the fathers,"
or " the rest of the books.''^ No information is
given as to its extent, or the particular books
included. They may have been for the most
part the same as the present ones. The passage
does not show that the third list was closed. The
better writings of the fathers, such as tended to
learning and wisdom, are not excluded by the
definite article. In like manner, neither Philo
nor the New Testament gives exact information
as to the contents of the division in question.
Indeed, several books. Canticles, Esther, Ecclesi-
astes, are unnoticed in the latter. The argu-
ment drawn from Matthew xxiii. 35, that the
Chronicles were then the last book of the canon,
is inconclusive ; as the Zecharlah there named
was probably different from the Zechariah in
•^ TO. &X\a Trdrpia ^i^Xia ; to. \onra tQiv ^t^Xiuy. The younger
Sirach does not use ypacpal, which would have been a proper
translation of c'tubim. Does not this dXXa imply the non-appli-
cation of the specific title c'tubim to the hagiographa at that
time, and therefore the idea that the third canon was still open ?
D
so THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
2 Chronicles xxiv. None of these witnesses
proves that the third canon was finally closed.
A more definite testimony respecting the
canon is given by Josephus towards the end of
the first century A.D. "For we have not an
innumerable multitude of books among us,
. . . . but only twenty-two books, which
contain the records of all the past times ;
which are justly believed to be divine. And
of them five belong to Moses But as
to the time from the death of Moses till the
reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, the pro-
phets who were after Moses wrote down what
was done in their times in thirteen books.
The remaining four books contain hymns to
God and precepts for the conduct of human
life. It is true our history has been written
since Artaxerxes very particularly, but has not
been esteemed of the like authority with the
former by our forefathers, because there has not
been an exact succession of prophets since that
THE OLD TESTAMENT. 51
time : and how firmly we have given credit to
these books of our own nation is evident by
what we do ; for during so many ages as have
already passed, no one has been so bold as
either to add anything to them, to take any-
thing from them, or to make any change in
them ; but it has become natural to all Jews
immediately and from their very birth, to
esteem these books to contain divine doctrines,
and to persist in them, and if occasion be,
willingly to die for them."^ This list agrees
with our present canon, showing that the
Palestinian Jews were tolerably unanimous as
to the extent of the collection. The thirteen
prophets include Job ; the four lyric and moral
books are Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and
Canticles.
It is not likely that the Hasmonaean senate
had a long existence. It was replaced by the
Sanhedrim, a more definite and state institution,
^ Contra Apion, i. 8,
52 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
intended as a counter-balance to the influence
of the Hasmonaean princes. The notices of the
latter reach no further back than Hyrcanus I.,
i.e.y about 135 B.C.^ Josephus speaks of it under
Hyrcanus II.^ It cannot be referred to an
earlier period than Hyrcanus I. Frankel ^ in-
deed finds a notice of it in 2 Chronicles xix.
8, 1 1 ; but the account there is indistinct, and
refers to the great synagogue. The compiler
having no certain information about what was
long past, transfers the origin of the court he
speaks of to Jehoshaphat, in order to glorify
the house of David. It is impossible to date
the Sanhedrim, with Frankel, in the Grecian
era, in which case it must have been dissolved
during the Maccabean insurrection, and after-
' In Maaser Sheni, Sola 24. i, the duumvirate or suggoth,
consisting of the president, Nasi, and vice-president, Ab-beth-
din, are referred to Hyrcanus's creation. Zunz affirms that it
originated in the time of Simon, son of Mattathias, 142 B.C.
" Antiq., xiv., 9.
• Der gerUhtlkJu Beweis^ p. 68.
THE OLD TESTAMENT. 53
wards reconstructed ; it was not constituted till
about 130 B.C. Whether it was modelled after
the great synagogue or the Hasmonaean senate,
is uncertain. The idea of it may have been
suggested by the latter rather than the former,
for its basis was aristocratic. The Hasmonaean
genisia must have been less formal and definite
than the Sanhedrim ; though the latter arose
before the family ceased to be in power, and
differed materially from its predecessor. It
continued from 130 B.C. till A.D. 180, surviving
the terrible disasters of the nation.^
The closing of the third canon cannot be
assigned, with Bloch, to the great synagogue.
If the college ceased with or before Simon, i.e.^
about 200-192, and the work of Daniel did not
appear till about 170 B.C., twenty years at
1 The ^zx^^^xvax properly so called ceased under R. Judah I.,
Ha-Nasi, when the council of seventy members which sat at
Sepphoris before his patriarchate, transferred its privileges to
him, on his removal to that place. The court was then merged
in the patriarch.
54 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
least intervened between the extinction of the
great synagogue and Daniel's book. This holds
good, whether we assume, with Krochmal, the
synagogue's redaction of the work, — more cor-
rectly the putting together of the independent
parts of which it is said to be composed ; or
equally so, if the taking of it into the canon as
a book already completed be attributed to the
same body. But we are unable to see that
Krochmal's reasoning about the synagogue put-
ting Daniel's work together and one of the
members writing the book of Esther is pro-
bable.
In like manner, Maccabean psalms are ad-
verse to the hypothesis that the great syna-
gogue completed the third canon. In conse-
quence of these late productions, it is impossible
to assert that the men of the synagogue were
the redactors of the Psalter as it is. It is
true that the collection was made before the
Chronicles and many other books of the hagio-
THE OLD TESTAMENT. 55
graphical canon ; but the complete Psalter did
not appear till the Maccabean period. The
canon, however, was not considered to be fin-
ally closed in the first century before and the
next after Christ. There were doubts about
some portions. The book of Ezekiel gave
offence, because some of its statements seemed
to contradict the law. Doubts about others
were of a more serious nature ; about Ecclesi-
astes, the Canticles, Esther, and the Proverbs.
The first was impugned because it had contra-
dictory passages and a heretical tendency ; the
second, because of its worldly and sensual tone ;
Esther for its want of religiousness ; and Pro-
verbs on account of inconsistencies. This
scepticism went far to procure the exclusion
of the suspected works from the canon, and
their relegation to the class of the geimzim>
But it did not prevail. Hananiah, son of
1 DH^22 literally concealed^ ivithdrawn from public use.
56 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE,
Hezekiah, son of Garon, about 32 B.C., is said to
have reconciled the contradictions and quieted
the doubts.^ But these traces of resistance to
the fixity of the canon were not the last. They
reappeared about A.D. 65, as we learn from the
Talmud,^ when the controversy turned mainly
upon the canonicity of Ecclesiastes, which the
school of Shammai, who had the majority,
opposed ; so that the book was probably ex-
cluded.^ The question emerged again at a
later synod at Jabneh or Jamnia, when R.
Eleasar ben Asaria was chosen patriarch, and
Gamaliel the second deposed. Here it was
decided, not unanimously however, but by a
majority of Hillelites, that Ecclesiastes and the
Song of Songs " pollute the hands," i.e., belong
properly to the Hagiographa.* This was about
' See Fiirst's Der Kanon des alien Testaments, u.s.7v. pp. 147,
148. ' Tract. Sabbat, ch. i.
' Because of its profane spirit and Epicurean ideas ; see
Adoyot V. 3. * Yadayim v. 3.
7 HE OLD TESTAMENT. 57
90 A.D.i Thus the question of the canonicity
of certain books was discussed at two
synods.
Passages in the Talmud have been adduced
to shew that the Shammaite objections to the
canonicity of Ecclesiastes " were overruled by
the positive declaration from the 72 elders,
being a testimony anterior to the Christian era
that Coheleth is canonical ; " but they do not
support the opinion.^ " The sages " referred
to in the treatise Sabbat and elsewhere is a
vague expression, resting apparently on no
historic tradition — a mere opinion of compara-
tively late date. If it refer to the Jerusalem
' See Graetz's Kohelet^ pp. 162, 163.
2 The sages wished to pronounce Coheleth apocryphal, be-
cause its statements are contradictory. And why have they not
declared it apocryphal ? Because it begins with words of the
law, and ends with words of the law, for it opens with the words
"What advantage has man in all his labour wherewith he
labours under the sun?" &c., &c. — Sabbat. 30b.
So also in the Midrash : "The sages wished to pronounce
Coheleth apocryphal," &c,, &c.— Vayyikra rabba 161 b.
58 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
synod A.D. 65, the Hillelites were simply
outnumbered there by the Shammaites. The
matter was debated hastily, and determined for
the time by a majority. But the synod at
Jamnia consisted of 72 persons ; and a passage
in the treatise Yadayim refers to it.^ The
testimony of the 72 elders to whom R. Simeon
ben Asai here alludes, so far from belonging to
an ante-christian era, belongs to a date about
90 iV.D. And the fact that the synod at Jamnia
took up again a question already debated at
Jerusalem a.d. 65, proves that no final settle-
ment of the canon had taken place before.
The canon was virtually settled at Jamnia,
where was confirmed what R. Akiba said of the
Canticles in his usual extravagant way : " No
day in the whole history of the world is of so
* R. Simeon ben Asai said, ** I have received it from the
mouth of the 72 elders in the day that R. Eleasar ben Asaria
was appointed elder, that the Song of Songs and Coheleth
pollute the hands." — Yadayim v. 3.
THE OLD TESTAMENT. 59
much worth as the one in which the Song of
Songs was given to Israel ; for all the Scriptures
are holy ; but the Song of Songs is most holy.''^
As the Hagiographa were not read in public,
with the exception of Esther, opinions of the
Jewish rabbins might still differ about Canticles
and Ecclesiastes, even after the synod of Jamnia.
In opposition to these remarks, it is stren-
uously argued by Bloch that neither the pas-
sage in the Mishnic treatise Yadayim, nor any
other, refers to the canonical character of the
books to which Jewish elders raised several
objections. But his arguments are more vehe-
ment than valid. Anxious to assign the final
settlement of the entire canon to an authorita-
tive body like the great synagogue, he affirms
that all parties were united in opinion about
^ This language was based on a figurative interpretation of the
Song. One who said, " Whoever reads such writings as Sirach
and the later books loses all part in everlasting hfe," can have
no weight. He outheroded the Palestinian tradition respecting
the Jewish productions of later origin, which merely affirms that
they "do not pollute the hands." — {^Toss. Yadayim^ c 2.)
6o THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
the time of Christ, — Assiim, Perushim, and
Zeddukim ; Shammaites and Hillelites. But
it requires more than his ingenuity to explain
away the meaning of Yadayim 3, 5, Adoyot v.
3, Sabbat I. To what did such diversity of
opinion relate, if not to the canonical character
of the books ? A specific answer to the ques-
tion is not given by the learned writer,^ who is
too eager in his endeavour to attribute the
settlement of the third canon to the great
synagogue, and to smooth away all diversities
of opinion about several books, after that time,
as if none could afterwards question the autho-
ritative settlement by that body. He will not
even allow a wider canon to the Alexandrian
Jews than that of their Palestinian brethren,
though he cannot but admit that the former
read and highly esteemed various apocryphal
books because of their theocratic character.
Surely the practical use of writings is an evi-
' Siudien zur GeschichU^ u, s. 7v., p. 150, &c.
THE OLD TESTAMENT. 6i
dence of their canonicity as strong as theoretical
opinions.
The doubts about several books to which we
have alluded, some of which Hananiah is said
to have resolved in his old age, imply a diligent
study of the national literature, if not a revision
of the text ; and the Tannaite college at Jabneh
must have cared for the same things, as it had to
deal with similar objections. After the last canon
was made more than a century anterior to the
Christian era, the text was not considered
inviolate by the learned Jews; it received
subsequent modifications and interpolations.
The process of redaction had not ceased before
the time of Christ. This was owing, among
other causes, to the state of parties among the
Jews, as well as the intrusion of Greek
literature and culture, whose influence the
Palestinian Jews themselves were not able al-
together to withstand. When Jeremiah accused
the Scribes of falsifying the law by their lying
62 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
pen (viii. 8), it may be inferred that the same
process took place afterwards ; that offensive
things were removed, and alterations made
continuously down to the close of the canon,
and even after. The corrections consisted of
additions and changes of letters, being indicated
in part by the most ancient versions and the
traditions of the Jews themselves who often
knew what stood in the text at first, and why
it was altered. They are also indicated by the
nature of the passage itself viewed in the light
of the state of religion at the time. Here
sober judgment must guard against unnecessary
conjectures. Some changes are apparent, as
the plural oaks in Genesis xiii. i8, xiv. 13,
xviii. I, Deuteronomy xi. 30, for the singular
oak ; and the plural gods in Exodus xxxii. 4
for the singular god. So 2 Sam. vii. 23, (comp.
I Chron. xvii. 21, and LXX.) \^ and Deuterono-
» Geiger's Urschrifi, p. 288.
THE OLD TESTAMENT. 63
my xxxii. 8,^ have been altered. Popper and
Geiger have probably assumed too much cor-
rection on the part of the Scribes and others ;
though they have drawn attention to the
subject in the spirit of original criticism.
Jewish literature began to degenerate after
the captivity, and it continued to do so. It
leant upon the past more and more, having an
external and formal character with little of the
living soul. The independence of their reli-
gious literature disappeared with the national
independence of the Jews ; and the genius of
the people was too exclusive to receive much
expansion from the spirit of nations with whom
they came in contact. In such circumstances,
amid the general consciousness of present
misfortune which the hope of a brighter future
could not dispel, and regretful retrospects of
the past tinged with ideal splendour, the exact
^ See De Goeje in the Theologisch Tijdschriff Jaargang IL
(1868) p. 179, &c.
64 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
time of drawing a line between books that
might be included in the third division of the
canon must have been arbitrary. In the
absence of a normal principle to determine
selection, the productions were arbitrarily separ-
ated. Not that they were badly adjusted.
On the contrary, the canon as a whole was
settled wisely. Yet the critical spirit of learned
Jews in the future could not be extinguished
by anticipation. The canon was not really
settled for all time by a synodical gathering at
Jamnia ; for Sirach was added to the Hagio-
grapha by some rabbins about the beginning
of the 4th century;^ while Baruch circulated
long in Hebrew, and was publicly read on the
day of atonement in the third century, accord-
ing to the Apostolic constitutions.^ These two
books were in high repute for a considerable
time, possessing a kind of canonical credit
* Zunz's Dit gottesdienstlichen Vortragty pp. loi, 102.
' V. 20, p. 124, ed. Ucllzcn.
THE OLD TESTAMENT. 65
even among the learned Jews of Palestine.
Rab, Jochanan, Elasar, Rabba bar Mare,
occasionally refer to Sirach in the way in
which the c'tubim were quoted ; the writer of
Daniel used Baruch ; and the translator of
Jeremiah put it into Greek.
If it be asked on what principle books were
admitted into the canon, a single answer does
not suffice. One and the same criterion did not
determine the process at all times. The lead-
ing principle with which the first canon-makers
set out was to collect all the documents of
Hebrew antiquity. This seems to have guided
Ezra, if not the great synagogue after him.
The nation, early imbued with the theocratic
spirit and believing itself the chosen of God,
was favourably inclined towards documents in
which that standpoint was assumed. The legal
and ethical were specially valued. The pro-
phetic claimed a divine origin ; the lyric or
poetic touched and elevated the ideal faculty
E
66 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE,
on which religion acts. But the leading prin-
ciple which actuated Ezra and the great syna-
gogue was gradually modified, amid the growing
compass of the national literature and the con-
sciousness that prophecy ceased with Malachi.
When the latest part of the canon had to
be selected from a literature almost contem-
poraneous, regard was had to such produc-
tions as resembled the old in spirit. Ortho-
doxy of contents was the dominant criterion.
But this was a difficult thing, for various works
really anonymous, though wearing the garb of
old names and histories, were in existence, so
that the boundary of the third part became
uncertain and fluctuating.
The principle that actuated Ezra in making
the first canon was a religious and patriotic one.
From his treatment of the oldest law books we
infer that he did not look upon them as inviol-
able. Venerable they were, and so far sacred ;
but neither perfect nor complete for all time.
THE OLD TESTAMENT. 67
In his view they were not unconditionally-
authoritative. Doubtless they had a high value
as the productions of inspired lawgivers and
men of a prophetic spirit ; but the redaction
to which he submitted them shows no super-
stitious reverence. With him canonical and
holy were not identical. Nor does the idea of
an immediate, divine authority appear to have
dominated the mind of the great synagogue
in the selection of books. Like Ezra, these
scholars reverenced the productions of the
prophets, poets, and historians to whom their
countrymen were indebted in the past for re-
ligious or political progress ; but they did not
look upon them as the offspring of unerring
wisdom. How could they, while witnessing
repetitions and minor contradictions in the
books collected ?
The same remarks apply to the third canon.
Direct divinity of origin was not the criterion
which determined the reception of a book into
68 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
it; but the character and authorship of the
book. Did it breathe the old spirit, or
proceed from one venerated for his wisdom ?
Was it like the old orthodox productions ; or
did it bear the name of one renowned for his
piety and knowledge of divine things ? The
stamp of antiquity was necessary in a certain
sense ; but the theocratic spirit was the leading
consideration. Ecclesiastes was admitted be-
cause it bore the name of Solomon ; and
Daniel's apocalyptic writings, because veiled
under the name of an old prophet. New
psalms were taken in because of their asso-
ciation with much older ones in the temple
service. Yet the first book of Maccabees
was excluded, though written in Hebrew. It
is still more remarkable that Sirach was put
among the external productions ; but this was
owing not so much to its recent origin, for it is
older than the book of Daniel, as to its being an
apparent echo of the Proverbs, and therefore
THE OLD TESTAMENT. 69
unnecessary. Yet it was long after assigned to
the Hagiographa, and quoted as such by several
rabbis. Baruch was also left out, though it is
as old as Daniel, if not older; and professes
to have been written by Jeremiah's friend, in
Babylon.
That redactors dealt freely with the text of
the second and third canons especially, without
a superstitious belief in its sacredness, is appar-
ent from the double recension which existed
when the Egyptian Jews translated the books
into Greek. If the one that formed the basis
of the Alexandrian version be less correct than
the Palestinian in the majority of instances, it is
still superior in many. The differences between
them, often remarkable, prove that those who
had most to do with the books did not guard
them as they would have done had they thought
them infallibly inspired. Palestinians and Alex-
andrians subjected the text to redaction ; or had
suffered it to fall into a state inconsistent with
70 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
the assumption of its supernatural origin. At a
much later period, the Masoretes reduced to one
type all existing copies of their Scriptures, in-
troducing an uniformity imperatively demanded
in their opinion by multiplied discrepancies.
Whatever divine character the reflecting at-
tributed to the canonical books, it must have
amounted to the same thing as that assigned
to human attributes and physical phenomena —
a divinity resulting from the over-leaping of
second causes, in the absence of inductive
philosophy. Here the imperfection conditioned
by the nature of the created cannot be hid.
Yet the books may be truly said to have con-
tained the word of God.
Of the three divisions, the Law or Pentateuch
was most highly venerated by the Jews. It
was the first translated into Greek; and in
Philo's view was inspired in a way peculiar to
itself. The Prophets^ or second division, occu-
pied a somewhat lower place in their estimation.
THE OLD TESTAMENT. 71
but were read in the public services as the law-
had been before. The c'ttibim, or third
division, was not looked upon as equal to the
Prophets in importance : only the five Megiloth
were publicly read. The three parts of the
collection present the three gradations of
sanctity which the books assumed successively
in Israelite estimation. A certain reverence
was attached to all as soon as they were made
canonical ; but the reverence was not of equal
height, and the supposed authority was pro-
portionally varied.^ The consciousness of pro-
phetism being extinct soon after the return
from Babylon, was a genuine instinct. With
the extinction of the Jewish state the religious
spirit almost evaporated. The idealism which
the old prophets proclaimed in contrast with
the symbolic religion of the state gave place to
forms and an attachment to the written law.
^ Dillmann, in the yahrbucher fur deutsche Theologie, drittcr
Band, p. 422.
72 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
Religion came to be a thing of the understand-
ing, the subject of learned treatment; and its
essence was reduced to dogmas or precepts.
Thus it ceased to be a spiritual element in
which the heart had free scope for its highest
aspirations. In addition to all, a foreign meta-
physical theology, the Persian doctrine of spirits,
was introduced, which seemed to enlarge the
sphere of speculation, but really retarded the
free exercise of the mind. As the external
side of religion had been previously directed to
the performance of good works, this externality
was now determined by a written law. Even
the prophetism that appeared after the restora-
tion was little more than an echo of the past,
falling in with an outward and written legalism.
The literature of the people deteriorated in
quality, and prophecy became apocalypse. In
such circumstances the advent of a new man
was needed to restore the free life of religion in
higher power. Christ appeared in the fulness
THE OLD TESTAMENT. 73
of time to do this effectually by proclaiming- the
divine Fatherhood, and founding a worship in
spirit and hi truth. Rising above the symbolic
wrappings of the Mosaic religion, and relying
upon the native power of the spirit itself, he
shewed how man may mount up to the throne
of God, adoring the Supreme without the inter-
vention of temple, sacrifice, or ceremony.
When the three divisions were united, the
ecclesiastical respect which had gathered round
the law and the prophets from ancient times
began to be transferred to the dtubim. A
belief in their sanctity increased apace in the
1st century before the Christian era, so that
sacredness and canonicity were almost identical.
The doubts of individuals, it is true, were still
expressed respecting certain books of the
c'tubim, but they had no perceptible effect
upon the current opinion. The sanctity attach-
ing to the last division as well as the others did
not permit the total displacement of any part.
74 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
The passage in Josephus already quoted
shows the state of the canon about A.D. loo.
According to it, he considered it to have been
closed at the time of Artaxerxes Longimanus,
whom he identifies with the Ahasuerus of
Esther, 464-424 B.C. The books were divine,
so that none dared to add to, substract from,
or alter them. To him the canon was some-
thing belonging to the venerable past, and
inviolable. In other words, all the books were
peculiarly sacred. Although we can scarcely
think this to be his private opinion merely,
it is probably expressed in exaggerated terms,
and hardly tallies with his use of the third
Esdras in preference to the canonical texts.^
His authority, however, is small. Bloch*s
estimate of it is too high. It is utterly impro-
bable that Josephus's opinion was universally
held by the Jews in his day. His division of
the books is peculiar: five Mosaic, thirteen
* In his Antiq,^ x. 4, 5, and xi. 1-5.
THE OLD TESTAMENT. 75
historical, four containing religious songs and
rules of life. It appears, indeed, that as he had
the same twenty- two books we now have, Ruth
was still attached to Judges, and Lamentations
to Jeremiah ; but his credit is not on a par with
that of a Jew who adhered to his countrymen
in the time of their calamity. He wrote for the
Romans. One who believed that Esther was
the youngest book in the canon, who looked
upon Ecclesiastes as Solomon's, and Daniel as
an exile production, cannot be a competent
judge. In his time the historical sense of the
book of Daniel was misapprehended ; for after
the Grecian dynasty had fallen without the
fulfilment of the Messianic prophecy connected
with it, the Roman empire was put into its
place. Hence various allusions in The History
of the Jewish Wars.^ The passage in the
Antiquities,^ about Alexander the Great and
' iv. 6, sec. 3, and vi, 2, sec. i.
^ xi. 8, sec. $.
76 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
the priests in the Temple at Jerusalem is apoc-
ryphal. In any case, Josephus does not furnish
a genuine list of the canonical books any more
than Philo. The Pharisaic view of his time is
undoubtedly given, that the canon was then
complete and sacred. The decision proceeded
from that part of the nation who ruled both
over school and people, and regained supremacy
after the destruction of the temple ; i.e., from
the Pharisee-sect to which Josephus belonged.
It was a conclusion of orthodox Judaism.
With true critical instinct, Spinoza says that
the canon was the work of the Pharisees. The
third collection was undoubtedly made under
their influence.
The origin of the threefold division of the
canon is not, as Oehler supposes,^ a reflection
of the different stages of religious development
* Article "Kanon" in Herzog's Encyklopadie, vol. vii., p.
253; and the same author's Prolegomena zur Theologie des alt.
Test., pp. 91, 92.
THE OLD TESTAMENT. 77
through which the nation passed, as if the
foundation were the Law, the ulterior tendency
in its objective aspect the Prophets, and its
subjective aspect the Hagiographa. The
books of Chronicles and others refute this
arbitrary conception. The triplicity lies in
the manner in which the books were collected.
Men who belonged to different periods and
possessed different degrees of culture worked
successively in the formation of the canon;
which arose out of the circumstances of the
times, and the subjective ideas of those who
made it.
The places of the separate books within the
first division or Torah, were determined by
the succession of the historical events narrated.
The second division naturally begins with
Moses's successor, Joshua. Judges, Samuel,
and Kings follow according to the regular
chronology. To the former prophets, as Joshua
— Kings were called, the latter were attached.
78 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel ; succeeded by
the twelve minor prophets, arranged for the
most part according to their times, though
the length of individual prophecies and simi-
larity of contents also influenced their position.
The arrangement of books in the third division
depended on their age, character, and authors.
The Psalms were put first, because David was
supposed to be the author of many, and on
account of their intrinsic value in promoting
the religious life of the people. After the
Psalms came the three poetical works attri-
buted to Solomon, with the book of Job among
them, — Proverbs, Job, Canticles, Ecclesiastes.
The book of Esther followed, since it was in-
tended to further the observance of the Purim
feast ; with the late book of Daniel. The
position of Daniel among the ciubim arises
solely from the fact of its posterior origin to
the prophetic writings, not excepting the book
of Jonah itself ; and the attempt to account for
THE OLD TESTAMENT. 79
its place in the third division on the ground of
its predominant subjectivity is based on the
unfounded assumption that the objective state
of religion is represented in the second division
and the subjective in the third. Had the book
existed before 400 B.C., it would doubtless have
stood in the second division. But the contents
themselves demonstrate its date ; contemporary
history being wrapped in a prophetic form.
Having some affinity to Esther as regards
heathenism and Greek life, the book was put
next to the latter. To Ezra and Nehemiah,
which were adopted before the other part of
the Chronicle-book and separated from it,
were added the so-called Chronicles. Such
was the original succession of the third division
or dtubim; but it did not remain unaltered.
For the use of the synagogue the five Megiloth
were put together; so that Ruth, which was
originally appended to Judges, and the
Lamentations affixed at first to Jeremiah's
8o THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
prophecies, were taken out of the second
and put into the third canon. This caused
a separation of Canticles and Ecclesiastes.
The new arrangement was made for liturgical
purposes.
CHAPTER HI.
THE SAMARITAN AND ALEXANDRIAN
CANONS.
The Samaritan canon consists of the
Pentateuch alone. This restricted collection
is owing to the fact, that when the Samaritans
separated from the Jews and began their
worship on Gerizim, no more than the Mosaic
writings had been invested by Ezra with
canonical dignity. The hostile feeling be-
tween the rivals hindered the reception of
books subsequently canonized. The idea of
their having the oldest and most sacred part
in its entirety satisfied their spiritual wants.
Some have thought that the Sadducees, who
already existed as a party before the Maccabean
period, agreed with the Samaritans in rejecting
F
82 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
all but the Pentateuch ; yet this is doubtful. It
is true that the Samaritans themselves say so ;^
and that some of the church fathers, Crigen,
Jerome, and others agree; but little reliance
can be put on the statement. The latter,
perhaps, confounded the Samaritans and Sad-
ducees. It is also noteworthy that Christ in
refuting the Sadducees appeals to the Penta-
teuch alone ; yet the conclusion, that he did so
because of their admitting no more than that
portion does not follow.
The Alexandrian canon differed from the
Palestinian. The Greek translation commonly
called the Septuagint contains some later pro-
ductions which the Palestinian Jews did not
adopt, not only from their aversion to Greek
literature generally, but also from the recent
origin of the books, perhaps also their want of
prophetic sanction. The closing line of the third
part in the Alexandrian canon was more or less
' See Abulfatach's Annal, Samar.^ p. 102, 9, &c.
SAMARITAN &- ALEXANDRIAN CANONS. 83
fluctuating — capable of admitting recent writ-
ings appearing under the garb of old names and
histories, or embracing religious subjects ; while
the Palestinian collection was pretty well
determined, and all but finally settled. The
judgment of the Alexandrians was freer than
that of their brethren in the mother country.
They had even separated in a measure from
the latter, by erecting a temple at Leontopolis ;
and their enlargement of the canon was
another step of divergence. Nor had they the
criterion of language for the separation of
canonical and uncanonical ; both classes were
before them in the same tongue. The enlarged
canon was not formally sanctioned ; it had not
the approval of the Sanhedrim ; yet it was to
the Alexandrians what the Palestinian one was
to the Palestinians. If Jews who were not well
acquainted with Hebrew used the apocryphal
and canonical books alike, it was a matter of
feeling and custom ; and if those who knew the
84 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
old language better adhered to the canonical
more closely, it was a matter of tradition
and language. The former set little value on
the prevalent consciousness of the race that the
spirit of prophecy was extinct; their view of
the Spirit's operation was larger. The latter
clung to the past with all the more tenacity
that the old life of the nation had degenerated.
The Alexandrian Jews opened their minds to
Greek culture and philosophy, appropriating
new ideas, and explaining their Scriptures in
accordance with wider conceptions of the divine
presence ; though such adaptation turned aside
the original sense. Consciously or unconsciously
they were preparing Judaism in some degree to
be the religion of humanity. But the Rabbins
shut out those enlarging influences, confinihg
their religion within the narrow traditions of
one people. The process by which they con-
served the old belief helped to quench its spirit,
so that it became an antique skeleton, powerless
SAMARITAN &- ALEXANDRIAN CANONS. 85
beside the new civilisation which had followed
the wake of Alexander's conquests. Rabbinical
Judaism proved its incapacity for regenerating
the world ; having no affinity for the philosophy
of second causes, or for the exercise of reason
beneath the love of a Father who sees with equal
eye as God of all. Its isolation nourished a
sectarian tendency. Tradition, having no crea-
tive power like revelation, had taken the place
of it ; and it could not ward off the senility of
Judaism ; for its creations are but feeble echoes
of prophetic utterances, weak imitations of poetic
inspiration or of fresh wisdom. They are of the
understanding rather than the reason. The tra-
dition which Geiger describes as the life-giving
soul of Judaism — the daughter of revelation,
enjoying the same rights with her mother — a
spiritual power that continues ever to work — an
emanation from the divine Spirit — is not, indeed,
the thing which has stiffened Judaism into Rab-
binism ; but neither is it tradition proper ; it is
86 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
reason working upon revelation, and moulding
it into a new system. Such traditio7t serves but
to show the inability of genuine Judaism to
assimilate philosophic thought. Rationalising
should not be styled the operation of tradition.
The truth of these remarks is evident from a
comparison of two books, exemplifying Alexan-
drian and Palestinian Judaism respectively.
The Wisdom of Solomon shows the enlarging
effect of Greek philosophy. Overpassing Jew-
ish particularism, it often approaches Christi-
anity in doctrine and spirit, so that some^ have
even assumed a Christian origin for it. The
Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach has not the doc-
trine of immortality. Death is there an eternal
sleep, and retribution takes place in this life. The
Jewish theocracy is the centre of history ; Israel
the elect people ; and all wisdom is embodied in
the law. The writer is shut up within the old
national ideas, and leans upon the writings in
Kirschbaum, Weisse, and Noack.
SAMARITAN ^ ALEXANDRIAN CANONS. 87
which they are expressed. Thus the H agio-
graphical canon of Judea, conservative as it is,
and purer in a sense, presents a narrower type
than the best specimens of the Alexandrian one.
The genial breath of Aryan culture had not ex-
panded its Semitism.
The identity of the Palestinian and Alexan-
drian canons must be abandoned, notwithstand-
ing the contrary arguments of Eichhorn and
Movers. It is said, indeed, that Philo neither
mentions nor quotes the Greek additions; but
neither does he quote several canonical books.
According to Eichhorn, no fewer than eight
of the latter are unnoticed by him.^ Besides,
he had peculiar views of inspiration, and quoted
loosely from memory. Believing as he did in
the inspiration of the Greek version as a
whole, it is difficult to think that he made
a distinction between the different parts of
it. In one passage he refers to the sacred
1 Einleiiung in das alte Testament, vol. i. p. 133.
THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
books of the Therapeutae, a fanatical sect of
Jews in Egypt, as ^^ laws^ oracles of prophets y
hymns and other books by which knowledge and
piety are increased and perfected,"^ but this
presents little information as to the canon of
the Egyptian Jews generally ; for it is precari-
ous argumentation to say with Herbst that they
prove a twofold canon. Even if the Alex-
andrian and Palestinian canons be identical, we
cannot be sure that the otiier books which the
Therapeutae read as holy besides the law, the
propliets and hymns, differed from the hagio-
grapha, and so constituted another canon than
the general Egyptian one. It is quite possible
that the hymns mean the Psalms ; and the
other books, the rest of the hagiographa.
The argument for the identity of the two
canons deduced from 4 Esdras xiv. 44, &c.,
as if the twenty-four open books were dis-
tinguished from the other writings dictated to
1 De vita contemplativa, 0pp. Tom. ii., p. 475, ed. Mangey.
SAMARITAN &= ALEXANDRIAN CANONS. 89
Ezra, is of no force, because verisimilitude
required that an Egyptian Jew himself must
make Ezra conform to the old Palestinian
canon. It is also alleged that the grandson of
Jesus Sirach, who translated his grandfather's
work during his abode in Egypt, knew no
difference between the Hebrew and Greek
canon, though he speaks of the Greek version ;
but he speaks as a Palestinian, without having
occasion to allude to the difference between the
canonical books of the Palestinian and Egyptian
Jews. The latter may have reckoned the
apocryphal writings in the third division ; and
therefore the translator of Jesus Sirach could
recognise them in the ordinary classification.
The mention of three classes is not opposed to
their presence in the third. The general use
of an enlarged canon in Egypt cannot be
denied, though it was somewhat loose, not re-
garded as a completed collection, and without
express rabbinical sanction. If they did not
90 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
formally recognise a canon of their own, as De
Wette says of them, they had and used one
larger than the Palestinian, without troubling
themselves about a y^r;«^/ sanction for it by a
body of Rabbis at Jerusalem or elsewhere.
Their canon was not identical with that of the
Palestinians, and all the argumentation founded
upon Philo's non-quotation of the apocryphal
books fails to prove the contrary. The very way
in which apocryphal are inserted among canonical
books in the Alexandrian canon, shows the equal
rank assigned to both. Esdras first and second
succeed the Chronicles ; Tobit and Judith are
between Nehemiah and Esther ; the Wisdom of
Solomon and Sirach follow Canticles ; Baruch
succeeds Jeremiah ; Daniel is followed by Sus-
anna and other productions of the same class ;
and the whole closes with the three books of Mac-
cabees. Such is the order in the Vatican MS.
The threefold division of the canon, in-
dicating three stages in its formation, has
SAMARITAN &- ALEXANDRIAN CANONS. gt
continued. Josephus, indeed, gives another,
based on the nature of the separate books,
not on MSS. We learn nothing from him
of its history, which is somewhat remark-
able, considering that he did not live two
centuries after the last work had been added.
The account of the canon's final arrangement
was evidently unknown to him.
CHAPTER IV.
NUMBER AND ORDER OF THE SEPARATE
BOOKS.
The number of the books was variously es-
timated. Josephus gives twenty-two, which was
the usual number among Christian writers in the
second, third, and fourth centuries, having been
derived perhaps from the letters of the Hebrew
alphabet. Origen, Jerome, and others have it.
It continued longest among the teachers of the
Greek Church, and is even in Nicephorus's
stichometry.^ The enumeration in question
has Ruth with Judges, and Lamentations with
Jeremiah. In Epiphanius^ the number twenty-
seven is found, made by taking the alphabet
* See Credner's Zur Geschichte des Kanons^ p. 124.
* De mens, et pond.^ chapters 22, 23, vol. ii. p. 180, ed.
Petav.
ORDER OF THE SEPARATE BOOKS. 93
enlarged with the five final letters, and dividing
Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles into two books
each. This is probably an ingenious combina-
tion belonging to the father himself. The
Talmud has twenty-four,^ a number which did
not originate in the Greek alphabet, else the
Palestinian Jews would not have adopted it.
The synagogue did not fix it officially. After the
Pentateuch and the former prophets, which are
in the usual order, it gives Jeremiah as the first of
the later, succeeded by Ezekiel and Isaiah with
the twelve minor prophets. The Talmud knows
no other reason for such an order than that it was
made according to the contents of the prophetic
books, not according to the times of the writers.
This solution is unsatisfactory. It is more
probable that chronology had to do with the
arrangement.2 After the anonymous collection
or second part of Isaiah had been joined to the
1 Baba Batkra, fol. 14, 2.
^ See Furst, Der Kanon u. s. w. p. 14, &c.
94 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
first or authentic prophecies, the lateness of
these oracles brought Isaiah into the third place
among the greater prophets. The Talmudic
order of the Hagiographa is Ruth, Psalms, Job,
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Lamentations,
Daniel, Esther, Ezra, Chronicles. Here Ruth
precedes the Psalter, coming as near the former
prophets as possible ; for it properly belongs to
them, the contents associating it with the
Judges' time. The Talmudic order is that
usually adopted in German MSS. What is the
true estimate of it .-* Is it a proper Talmudic
regulation t Perhaps not, else the Hebrew MSS.
of the French and Spanish Jews would not so
readily have departed from it. Bloch supposes
that Baba Bathra, which gives the arrangement
of the books, is one of the apocryphal Boraithas
that proceeded from an individual teacher and
had no binding authority.^
* Studien sur Geschuhte der alttestamentliche Literatur, u. s.
jv.t p. 1 8, etc.
ORDER OF THE SEPARATE BOOKS. 95
The Masoretic arrangement differs from the
Talmudic in putting Isaiah before Jeremiah and
Ezekiel. The Hagiographa are, Psalms, Pro-
verbs, Job, Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations,
Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra (with Nehe-
miah), Chronicles.^ This is usually adopted in
Spanish MSS. But MSS. often differ arbi-
trarily, because transcribers did not consider
themselves bound to any one arrangement.^
According to some, a very old testimony to the
commencing and concluding books of the
third division is given by the New Testa-
ment (Luke xxiv. 44; Matthew xxiii. 35),
agreeably to which the Psalms were first
and the Chronicles last; but this is incon-
clusive.
The Alexandrian translators, as we have
seen already, placed the books differently from
^ Hody, De Bibliorum iexiibus originalibuSf p. 644.
^ Hody gives lists of the order in which the books stand in
some early printed editions and in a few MSS., p. 645.
96 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
the Palestinian Jews. In their version Daniel
comes after Ezekiel, so that it is put beside the
greater prophets. Was this done by Jews or
Christians } Perhaps by the latter, who put it
between the greater and lesser prophets, or in
other words, out of the third into the second
division, because of dogmatic grounds, and so
effaced a trace of the correct chronology.
Little importance, however, can be attached to
the order of the books in the Septuagint ;
because the work was done at different times
by different persons. But whatever may have
been the arrangement of the parts when
the whole was complete, we know that it
was disturbed by Protestants separating the
apocryphal writings and putting them all
together.
CHAPTER V.
USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT BY THE FIRST
CHRISTIAN WRITERS, AND BY THE FATHERS
• TILL THE TIME OF ORIGEN.
The writings of the New Testament show
the authors' acquaintance with the apocryphal
books. They have expressions and ideas
derived from them. Stier collected one hundred
and two passages which bear some resemblance
to others in the Apocrypha;^ but they needed
sifting, and were cut down to a much smaller
number by Bleek. They are James i. 19, from
Sirach v. 11 and iv. 29; i Peter i. 6, 7, from
Wisdom iii. 3-7 ; Hebrews xi. 34, 35, from
2 Maccabees vi. 18 — vii. 42; Hebrews i. 3, from
Wisdom vii. 26, &c. ; Romans i. 20-32, from
^ Die Apokryphen^ u. s. lu,, p. 14, &c.
G
98 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
Wisdom xiii.-xv. ; Romans ix. 21, from Wisdom
XV. 7; Eph. vi. 13-17, from Wisdom v. 18-20;
I Cor. ii. 10, &c., from Judith viii. 14. Others
are less probable.^ When Bishop Cosin says,
that " in all the New Testament we find not
any one passage of the apocryphal books to
have been alleged either by Christ or His
apostles for the confirmation of their doctrine,"^
the argument, though based on fact, is scarcely
conclusive; else Esther, Canticles, Ecclesiastes,
and other works might be equally discredited.
Yet it is probable that the New Testament
writers, though quoting the Septuagint much
more than the original, were disinclined to the
additional parts of the Alexandrian canon.
They were Palestinian themselves, or had in
view Judaisers of a narrow creed. Prudential
motives, no less than a predisposition in favour
of the old national canon, may have hindered
» Siudtm und Kritiknt for 1853, p. 267, &c.
• A Scholasiicol History of lh( Canotty p. 22.
CHRISTIAN USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 99
them from expressly citing any apocryphal
production. The apostle Paul and probably
the other writers of the New Testament,
believed in the literal inspiration of the
Biblical books, for he uses an argument in
the Galatian epistle which turns upon the
singular or plural of a noun.^ And as the
inspiration of the Septuagint translation was
commonly held by the Christians of the early
centuries, it may be that the apostles and
evangelists made no distinction between its
parts. Jude quotes Enoch, an apocryphal work
not in the Alexandrian canon ; so that he at
^ See Rothe, Zur Doginatik, Studien u. Kritiken for i860,
p. 67, &c. The apostle's argument rests on the occurrence of
the singular {seed, <nripiia) in Genesis xvii. 8 (LXX.), not the
plural {seeds, o-jripixaTa) ; though the plural of the corresponding
Hebrew word could not have been used, because it has a dif-
ferent signification. Grammatical inaccuracy is made the basis
of a certain theological interpretation. Those who wish to see
a specimen of laboured ingenuity unsuccessfully applied to the
justification of St Paul's argument in this passage, may consult
Tholuck's Das alte Testament in neuem Testament, p. 63, etc,
Vierte Auflage. (Epist. to the GaUtians iii. 16.)
loo THE CANON OF THE BIBLE,
least had no rigid notions about the difference
of canonical and uncanonical writings. Still
we know that the compass of the Old Testa-
ment canon was somewhat unsettled to the
Christians of the first century, as it was to the
Hellenist Jews themselves. It is true that the
Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms were
universally recognized as authoritative; but
the extent of the third division was indefinite,
so that the non-citation of the three books
respecting which there was a difference of
opinion among the Jews may not have been
accidental. Inasmuch, however, as the Greek-
speaking Jews received more books than their
Palestinian brethren, the apostles and their
immediate successors were not wholly disin-
clined to the use of the apocryphal productions.
The undefined boundary of the canon facilitated
also the recognition of all primitive records of
the new Revelation.
The early fathers, who wrote in Greek, used the
CHRISTIAN USE OF THRyet^D '-'f'^SJ:ji1!^FJjn X6i
Greek Bible, as almost all of them were ignorant
of Hebrew. Thus restricted, they naturally con-
sidered its parts alike, citing apocryphal and
canonical in the same way. Accordingly, Iren-
aeus^ quotes Baruch under the name of "Jere-
miah the prophet; "2 and the additions to
Daniel as " Daniel the prophet."^ Clement
of Alexandria^ uses the apocryphal books
like the canonical ones, for explanation
and proof indiscriminately. He is fond of
referring to Baruch, which he cites upwards of
twenty-four times in the second book of his
PcedagoguSy and in a manner to show that he
esteemed it as highly as many other parts of
the Old Testament. A passage from Baruch
is introduced by the phrase,^ "the divine
Scripture says ; " and another from Tobit
^ t 202 A.D.
^ Advers. Hares. ^ v. 35, referring to Barach iv. 36; and v. p.
335, ed. Massuet.
3 Ibid, iv., 26, referring to Daniel xiii. 20 in the Septuagint.
•* t 220 A.D. * Pixdagog. ii. 3.
lik* : :•* ; l''TH£ 'CA^k^'QP ^^^ BIBLE.
by 1 " Scripture has briefly signified this,
saying." Assuming that Wisdom was written by
Solomon, he uses it as canonical and inspired,
designating it divine? Judith he cites with other
books of the Old Testament^ ; and the Song of
the three children in the furnace is used as
Scripture.4 Ecclesiasticus also is so treated.^
Dionysius of Alexandria^ cites Ecclesiasticus
(xvi. 26), introducing the passage with "hear
divine oracles." '^ The same book is elsewhere
cited, chapters xliii. 29, 30® and i. 8. 9.^ So is
Wisdom, vii. 15^® and 25." Baruch (iii. 12-15) is
also quoted.^2 -p^g fathers who wrote in Latin
used some of the old Latin versions of which
Augustine speaks ; one of them, and that the
' Stromata, ii. 23. * Stromata, iv. 16. ^ Ibid^ ii. 7.
* Ex Script, prophet, eclogae^ c. i.
' Stromateis, ii. 15. • t 264 A. D.
^ De Natura ; RoutH's Reliquicu Sacraey vol. iv. p. 356.
* Fragmtnt. Nicet.^ in Reliq. Sacrae^ vol. ii. p. 404.
» Ibid., p. 407. JO Ibid., p. 406.
*J Epiitola ad. Dionys. Roman^ in Reliq. Sacr.^ vol. iii. p. 195.
J*- Reliq. SJcr., vol. ii. p. 408.
CHRISTIAN USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 103
oldest, probably dating soon after the middle of
the second century, being known to us as the
Itala. As this was made from the Septuagint,
it had the usual apocryphal books. Jerome's
critical revision or new version did not sup-
plant the old Latin till some time after his
death. Tertullian^ quotes the Wisdom of
Solomon expressly as Solomon's ;^ and intro-
duces Sirach by "as it is written."^ He cites
Baruch as Jeremiah.* He also believes in the
authenticity of the book of Enoch, and defends
it as Scripture at some length.^ Cyprian often
cites the Greek additions to the Palestinian
canon. He introduces Tobit with the words
"as it is written,"*^ or "divine Scripture teaches,
saying ;"^ and Wisdom with, " the Holy Spirit
shows by Solomon."^ Ecclesiasticus is intro-
' t 220 A.D. 2 Advtrs. Valentinianos, ch. 2.
^ De Exhortatione Castitatis^ ch. 2.
■* Contra GnosHcos, ch. 8. ^ De Habitu Muliebri, ch. 3.
« Epist. 55, p. no, ed. Fell. "< De Orat. Domin., p. 153.
^ De Exhortat. Martyrii, ch. 12, p. 182.
104 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
duced with, " it is written;"^ and Baruch with,
" the Holy Spirit teaches by Jeremiah."^ i and
2 Maccabees are used as Scripture;^ as are the
additions to Daniel."^ The African fathers fol-
low the Alexandrian canon without scruple.
Hippolytus of Rome (about A.D. 220), who
wrote in Greek, quotes Baruch as Scripture;^
and interprets the additions to Daniel, such as
Susanna, as Scripture likewise.
Melito of Sardis^ made it his special
business to inquire among the Palestinian
Jews about the number and names of their
canonical books; and the result was the
following list : — the five books of Moses, Joshua,
Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of
Chronicles, the Psalms of David, the Proverbs
of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs,
Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, the twelve in one book,
» De Mortal, p. i6i. ^ De Orat. Dovim., p. 141.
3 Testim. iii. 4, p. 62. ■* De Lapsis, p. 133, &c.
» Adv. Noet. V. « See Migne's edition, p. 689, &c.
' t After 171.
CHRISTIAN USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 105
Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra.^ Here Ezra includes
Nehemiah; and Esther is absent, because the
Jews whom he consulted did not consider it
canonical.
Origen's2 list does not differ much from the
Palestinian one. After the Pentateuch, Joshua,
Judges, Ruth, Kings first and second, Samuel,
Chronicles, come Ezra first and second. Psalms,
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Isaiah, Jere-
miah with Lamentations and the epistle, Daniel,
Ezekiel, Job, Esther. Besides these there are
the Maccabees, which are inscribed Sar'beth
Sarbane el? The twelve prophets are omitted
in the Greek ; but the mistake is rectified in
Rufinus's Latin version, where they follow
Canticles, as in Hilary and Cyril of Jerusalem.
It is remarkable that Baruch is given, and why ?
Because Origen took it from the MSS. of the
Septuagint he had before him, in which the
^ Ap. Euseb. H. E., lib. iv. ch. 26, - f 254 a.u.
3 Ap. Euseb. H. E., ]ib. vi. ch. 25.
io6 THE CANON OP THE BIBLE.
epistle is attributed to Jeremiah. But the
catalogue had no influence upon his practice.
He followed the prevailing view of the extended
canon. Sirach is introduced by "for this also
is written'' ;^ the book of Wisdom is cited as a
divine word ;^ the writer is called a prophet ;^
Christ is represented as speaking in it throtigh
Solomon;^ and Wisdom vii. 17 is adduced as
the words of Christ Himself > Tobit is cited as
Scripture!" His view of the additions to the
books of Daniel and Esther, as well as his
opinion about Tobit, are sufficiently expressed
in the epistle to Africanus, so that scattered
quotations from these parts of Scripture can
be properly estimated. Of the history of
Susanna he ventures to say that the Jews
* Comment, in ydann., torn, xxxii. ch. 14, ed. Huet. p. 409.
* Contra Cels. iii. 72 ; vol. i. p. 494, ed. Delarue.
' In Exodus^ Horn. vi. i ; Levit. Horn. v. 2.
* In Levit. y Horn. xii. 4.
* In Lukam, Horn. 2 1 .
" De Oraiione^ ii. p. 215.
CHRISTIAN USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 107
withdrew it on purpose from the people.^ He
seems to argue in favour of books used and
read in the churches, though they may be put
out of the canon by the Jews. As divine
Providence had preserved the sacred Scriptures,
no alteration should be made in the ecclesi-
astical tradition respecting books sanctioned by
the churches though they be external to the
Hebrew canon.
Most of the writings of Methodius Bishop of
Tyre^ are lost, so that we know little of his
opinions respecting the books of Scripture.
But it is certain that he employed the Apo-
crypha like the other writings of the Old Testa-
ment. Thus Sirach (xviii. 30 and xix. 2) is
quoted in the same way as the Proverbs.^
Wisdom (iv. 1-3) is cited,^ and Baruch (iii. 14).^
^ 0pp. ed. Delarue, vol. i. p. 12.
= t3ii.
^ Convivium decent vii'ginum, in Combefis's Auctarium bib-
liothecae Grsecorum patrum, p. 69.
^ Ibid., p. 69. ^ Ibid., p. 109.
CHAPTER VI.
THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON IN THE FIRST
THREE CENTURIES.
The first Christians relied on the Old Testa-
ment as their chief religious book. To them it
was of divine origin and authority. The New
Testament writings came into gradual use, by
the side of the older Jewish documents, accord-
ing to the times in which they appeared and the
names of their reputed authors. The Epistles of
Paul were the earliest written ; after which came
the Apocalypse, the Epistle to the Hebrews,
and other documents, all in the first century.
After the first gospel had undergone a process
of translation, re-writing, and interpolation, from
the Aramaic basis, the discoiirses^ of which
^ tA X67£a. Ap. Euseb. II. E. iii. 39.
THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. 109
Papias of Hierapolis speaks, until the traces of
another original than the Greek were all but
effaced ; it appeared in its present form early
in the second century. Soon after that of Luke
was composed, whose prevailing Pauline tend-
ency was not allowed to suppress various features
of a Jewish Essene type. The second gospel,
which bears evidences of its derivation from the
other synoptists, was followed by the fourth.
The last document was the so-called second
Epistle of Peter. It is manifest that tradition
assumed various forms after the death of Jesus;
that legend and myth speedily surrounded His
sacred person; that the unknown writers were
influenced by the peculiar circumstances in
which they stood with respect to Jewish and
Gentile Christianity ; and that their uncritical
age dealt considerably in the marvellous. That
the life of the great Founder should be overlaid
with extraneous materials, is special matter for
regret. However conscientious and truth-lov-
no THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
ing they may have been, the reporters were un-
equal to their work. It is also remarkable that
so many of them should be unknown ; produc-
tions being attached to names of repute to give
them greater currency.
When Marcion came from Pontus to Rome
(144 A.D.,) he brought with him a Scripture-
collection consisting of ten Pauline epistles.
With true critical instinct he did not include
those addressed to Timothy and Titus, as also
the epistle to the Hebrews. The gospel of
Marcion was Luke's in an altered state. From
this and other facts we conclude that external
parties were the first who carried out the idea
of collecting Christian writings, and of putting
them either beside or over against the sacred
books of the Old Testament, in support of
their systems. As to Basilides (125 A.D.), his
supposed quotations from the New Testament
in Hippolytus are too precarious to be trusted.^
' Davidson's Introduction to the Study of the N, Testam.t vol,
X. p. 388.
THE NE W TES TA ME NT CANON. 1 1 1
Testimonies to the "acknowledged" books of
the New Testament as Scripture have been
transferred from his followers to himself; so
that his early witness to the canon breaks
down. It is inferred from statements in Origen
and Jerome that he had a gospel of his
own somewhat like St Luke's, but extra -
canonical. His son Isidore and succeeding
disciples used Matthew's gospel. Jerome says
that Marcion and Basilides denied the Pauline
authorship of the epistle to the Hebrews
and the pastoral ones.^ It is also doubtful
whether Valentinus's (140-166 A.D.) alleged
citations from the New Testament can be relied
upon. The passages of this kind ascribed to
him by the fathers belong in a great measure
to his disciples. The fragment of a letter pre-
served by Clement of Alexandria in the second
book of tlie Stromata, has been thought to
contain references to the gospels of Matthew
' Explanatio in Epist. ad Titum^ vol. iv. p. 407, ed. Benedict.
112 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
and Luke; but the fact is doubtful. Nor has
Henrici proved that Valentinus used John's
gospel.^ But his followers, including Ptolemy
(180A.D.) and Heracleon (185-200 A.D.), quote
the Gospels and other portions of the New
Testament.^ From Hippolytus's account of
the Ophites, Peratae, and Sethians, we infer
that the Christian writings were much employed
by them. They rarely cite an apocryphal
work. More than one hundred and sixty
citations from the New Testament have been
gathered out of their writings.^ We may admit
that these Ophites and Peratae were of early
origin, the former being the oldest known of
the Gnostic parties ; but there is no proof that
the acquaintance with the New Testament
* Die Valentinianische Gnosis und die halite Schrift, p. 75.
• A good deal of manipulation has been needlessly employed
for the purpose of placing these heretics as early as possible ;
but nothing definite can be extracted from Irenceus's notices of
them. Hippolytus's use of the present tense, in speaking of them,
renders it probable that they were nearly his contemporaries.
^ See the Indexes to Duncker and Schneidewin's edition.
THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. 113
which Hippolytus attributes to them belongs
to the first rather than the second half of the
second century. The early existence of the
sect does not show an early citation of the
Christian books by it, especially of John's
gospel; unless its primary were its last stage.
Later and earlier Ophites are not distinguished
in the Philosophumena. Hence there is a pre-
sumption that the author had the former in
view, which is favoured by no mention of them
occurring in the " Adversus omnes Hsereses"
usually appended to Tertullian's PrcBscriptiones
Hcereticorum, and by Irenaeus's derivation of
their heresy from that of Valentinus. The
latter father does not even speak of the Peratae.
Clement of Alexandria is the first who alludes
to them. The early heretics were desirous of
confirming their peculiar opinions by the
writings current among Catholic Christians, so
that the formation of a canon by them began
soon after the commencement of the second
H
114 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE,
century, and continued till the end of it ; con-
temporaneously with the development of a
Catholic Church and its necessary adjunct a
Catholic canon.
No New Testament canon, except a partial
and unauthoritative one, existed till the latter
half of the second century, that is, till the idea
of a Catholic church began to be entertained.
The living power of Christianity in its early
stages had no need of books for its nurture.
But in the development of a church organiza-
tion the internal rule of consciousness was
changed into an external one of faith. The
Ebionites or Jewish Christians had their
favourite Gospels and Acts. The gospel of
Matthew was highly prized by them, existing
as It did in various recensions, of which the
gospel according to the Hebrews was one.
Other documents, such as the Revelation of
John ; and the preaching of Peter, a Jewish-
Christian history subsequently re-written and
THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. 115
employed in the Clementine Recognitions and
Homilies, were also in esteem. Even so late
as 175-180 A.D., Hegesippus, a Jewish Christian,
does not seem to have had a canon consisting
of the four gospels and Paul's Epistles, but
appeals to " the law and the prophets and l/ic'
Lord!' so that his leading principle was,
the identity of Jesus's words with the Old
Testament ; agreeably to the tenets of the
party he belonged to. The source whence
he drew the words of Jesus was probably
the Gospel according to the Hebrews, a
document which we know he used, on the
authority of Eusebius. He does not refer to
Paul except by implication in a passage
given in Photius from Stephen Gobar,^ where
he says that such as used the words " Eye
hath not seen, nor ear heard," &c., falsi-
fied the Divine Scriptures and the Lord's
words, " Blessed are your eyes for they see,"
^ Bibliotheca, cod. 232.
116 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
&c. As Paul quoted the condemned language,
he is blamed.^ Though he knew Paul's epistles,
he does not look upon them as authoritative.
He betrays no acquaintance with the fourth
gospel ; for the question, " What is the door
to Jesus ? " does not presuppose the knowledge
of John X. 2, 7, 9. Nosgen has failed to prove
Hegesippus's Jewish descent ; and Holtzmann's
mediating view of him is incorrect.2
^ It is an unfounded assumption that Paul cited the passage
by ** mere accident " ; on the contrary, he gives it as canonical,
with "as it is written " (i Corinth, ii. 9). It may be that the
Gnostics are referred to as using the objectionable passage ; but
it is special pleading to limit it to them, when I'aul has ex-
pressly used the same, deriving it either from Isaiah Ixiv. 4, or
some unknown document ; just as it is special pleading to iden-
tify 6 KjJ/)io5 standing beside vbixo% koX Trpo<pT]Tai, with t/ie N^cw
Testament. The word excludes Paul's Epistles from the canon ;
nor is there any evidence to the contrary, as has been alleged,
in the two Syriac epistles attributed to Clement, which Wet-
stein published. Comp. Eusebius's H. E. iv. 22, Photius's
Bibliotheca^ 232. Apologists have laboured to prove Hegesip-
pus an orthodox Catholic Christian, like Irenaeus j but in vain.
He was a Jewish Christian of moderate type, holding inter-
course with Pauline Christians at the time when the Catholic
Church was being formed.
« Sec HilgenfeWs Zdtschrift for 1875-1878,
THE NE W TESTAMENT CANON. 1 1 7
The Clementine Homilies (161-180 A.-D.
used the four canonical gospels even the
fourth (which is somewhat singular in a
writer who denies the deity of Christ), and
assigned it to the apostle John. The gospel
according to the Egyptians was also em-
ployed. Paul's epistles were rejected of course,
as well as the Acts ; since the apostle of
the Gentiles was pointed at in Simon Magus,
whom Peter refutes. It is, therefore, obvious
that a collection of the New Testament
writings could make little progress among the
Ebionites of the second century. Their rever-
ence for the law and the prophets hindered
another canon. Among the Gentile Christians
the formation of a canon took place more
rapidly, though Judaic influences retarded it
even there. After Paul's epistles were inter-
changed between churches a few of them would
soon be put together. A collection of this kind
is implied in 2 Peter iii. 16. The pastoral
iiS THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
epistles, which show their dependence on the
authentic Pauline ones, with those of Peter,
presuppose a similar collection ; which, along
with the Synoptists, existed before the fourth
gospel. The Apocalypse and the epistle to the
Hebrews were obnoxious to the Pauline
churches, as Paul's letters were to the Jewish-
Christian ones. Hence the former were outside
the Pauline collections.
The apostolic fathers quote from the Old
Testament, which was sacred and inspired to
them. They have scarcely any express cita-
tions from the New Testament. Alhismis
occur, especially to the epistles.
The first Epistle of Clement to the Corin-
thians (about 120 A.D.), implies acquaintance
with several of the epistles, with those to the Cor-
inthians, Romans, Hebrews, and perhaps others.
Two passages have also been adduced as de-
rived from the gospels of Matthew and Luke,
viz.,' in chapters xiii. 2 and xlvi. 8 ; but pro-
THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. 119
bably some other source supplied them, such as
oral tradition. It has also been argued
that the quotation in the fifteenth chapter,
"The Scripture says somewhere, This people
honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is
far from me," comes from Mark vii. 6 in which
it varies from the Hebrew of Isaiah xxix. 13,
as well as the Septuagint version. Clement
therefore, so it is said, quotes the Old Testa-
ment through the medium of the gospels
(Matthew xv. 8, Mark vii. 6). But the argu-
ment is inconclusive because the words agree
closely enough with the Septuagint to render
the supposition very probable that they are a
memoriter citation from it. As they stand,
they coincide exactly neither with Mark nor
the Septuagint.^ Thus we dissent from the
opinion of Gebhardt and Harnack. Wher-
ever " Scripture " is cited, or the expres-
^ There is SiTreaTLv instead of the Septuagint's and Mark's
(Tischend.) dfrex^i.
120 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
sion "it is written" occurs, the Old Testa-
ment is meant.
Hermas (about 140 a.d.) seems to have used
the epistle to the Ephesians and perhaps that
to the Hebrews, as well as the epistle of James;
but there is great uncertainty about the matter,
for there is no express or certain quotation from
any part of the New Testament. The writer
often alludes to words of Jesus, found in
Matthew's gospel, so that he may have been
acquainted with it. Keim^ and others have dis-
covered ;-eferences to the fourth gospel; but they
are invalid. There is no allusion to the Acts in
vis. iv. 2, 4. The only Scripture cited is the
apocryphal book Eldat and Modat, now lost.^
The writer seems to have known several Jewish
Apocalypses.3
» Gesckichte Jesu von Nazara, vol. i, p. 144.
=' See Vision 11. 3, 4, with the prolegomena of De Gebhardt
and Hamack, p. Ixxiii.
' See Iloltzmann in Hilgenfeld's Zdtschrift for 1875, P- 40»
&c.
THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON 121
Barnabas (about 119 A.D.) has but one quota-
tion from the New Testament, if, indeed, it be
such. Apparently, Matthew xx. 16 or xxii.
14 is introduced by "as it is written," showing
that the gospel was considered Scriptiire> This
is the earliest trace of canonical authority being
transferred from the Old Testament to Christian
writings. But the citation is not certain. The
original may be 4 Esdras viii. 3 ; and even if
the writer took the words from Matthew's
gospel, it is possible that he used " it is
written " with reference to their prototype in
the Old Testament. Of such interchanges
examples occur in writers of the second
century ; and it is the more probable that this
is one, from the fact that 4 Esdras is elsewhere
considered a prophet and referred to in the same
way as Ezekiel.^ Barnabas's citation of a
gospel as canonical is wholly improbable, since
^ Epist. ch. iv.
^ Chapter xii. pp. 30, 31, ed. 2, Hilgenfeld.
THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
even Justin, thirty years after, never quotes the
New Testament writings as Scripture. The
thing would be anomalous and opposed to the
history of the first half of the second centur>^
When these post-apostolic productions appeared,
the New Testament writings did not stand on
the same level with the Old, and were not
yet esteemed sacred and inspired like the Jewish
Scriptures. The Holy Spirit was thought to
dwell in all Christians, without being confined
to a few writers ; and his influence was the
common heritage of believers. There are evi-
dences of Barnabas's acquaintance with the
Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians ; nor
is it improbable that he knew the canonical
gospel of Matthew, though one passage appears
to contradict Matthew xxviii. lo, &c., without
necessarily implying ignorance of what lies in
it, viz., that the ascension of Jesus took place on
the day of his resurrection.^ Strangely enough,
^ .Sec Chapter xv. end, with Tlilgenfcld's note, Barnabac cpis-
tula ed. altera ^ pp. Ii8, 119.
THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON, 123
Keim thinks that the writer had John's gospel
before him ; but this opinion is refuted by the
end of Barnabas's fifth chapter.^ Holtzmann
has ably disposed of the considerations ad-
duced by Keim.^ Barnabas quotes the book
of Enoch as Scripture;'^ and an apocryphal
prophecy is introduced with, " another pro-
phet says." 4
As far as we can judge from Eusebius's account
of Papias ^ (about 150 A.D.), that writer knew noth-
ing of a New Testament canon. He speaks
^ Epis. p. 13 ed. Hilgenfeld.
2 Zeitschrift fur wisscnschaftlichc Thcologic, 1871, p. 336,
etc.
3 Chapters xvi. and iv. In the former the reference is to
Enoch Ixxxix. 56, 66, 67, but the latter is not in the present
book of Enoch, though Hilgenfeld thinks he has discovered it
in Ixxxix. 61-64 and xc. 17. {Dillmann's Das Buck Henoch, pp.
61, 63). Was another apocryphal Jewish book current in the
time of Barnabas, under the name of Enoch ; or did he con-
found one document with another, misled by the Greek trans-
lation of an apocalyptic work which had fallen into discredit ?
See Hilgenfeld's Barnabae Epistula, ed. 2 pp. 77, 78.
'* Chapter xi.
5 Hist. Eccles. iii. 39.
124 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
of Matthew and Mark ; but it is most pro-
bable that he had documents which either
formed the basis of our present Matthew and
Mark, or were taken into them and written
over/ According to Andreas of Caesarea he
was acquainted with the Apocalypse of John ;
while Eusebius testifies to his knowledge of
I Peter and i John. But he had no conception
of canonical authority attaching to any part of
the New Testament. His language implies
* A small body of literature originating in the fragment of
Papias preserved by Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. iii., 39, 1-4) has
appeared ; though it is difficult to obtain satisfactory conclusions.
Not only have Weiffenbach and Leimbach written treatises on
the subject, but other scholars have entered into it more or less
fully, — Zahn, Steitz, Riggenbach, Hilgenfeld, Lipsius, Keim,
Martens, Loman, Holtzmann, Hausrath, Tietz, and Lightfoot.
The fragment is not of great weight in settling the authenticity
of the four gospels. Indirectly indeed it throws some light on
the connection of two evangelists with written memoirs of the
life of Jesus ; but it rather suggests than solves various matters
of importance. It is tolerably clear that the gospels, if such they
may be called, of which he speaks as written by Matthew and
Mark, were not identical with the works now existing under the
names of these evangelists ; and that no safe conclusion can be
drawn from Papias's silence about John's and Luke's as not
THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. 125
the opposite, in that he prefers unwritten tra-
dition to the gospel he speaks of. He neither
felt the want nor knew the existence of inspired
gospels.
We need not notice the three short Syriac
epistles attributed to Ignatius, as we do not
believe them to be his, but of later origin.
Traces of later ideas about the canonicity of
the New Testament appear in the shorter Greek
recension of the Ignatian epistles (about 175
then in existence. Neither the present gospels nor any other
had been converted into Scripture ; since he regarded oral tradi-
tions as more credible than written memoirs. Those who hold
that the presbyter John was none other than the apostle, Euse-
bius having misunderstood the fragment and made a different
John from the apostle, as well as the critics who deduce from
the fragment the fact that John suffered martyrdom in Palestine,
have not established these conclusions. Papias refers to the
material he got for explaining the \oyia, rather than the source
whence they were drawn. But whether he learnt directly from
the elders, or indirectly as the preposition (Trapa) would seem
to indicate, and whether the sentence beginning with ' ' What
Andrew," &c., {rt 'Avdpiai k. t. X.) stands in apposition to the
"words of the elders," (roiis rCov Trpea^vTipuvXdyovs) or not, are
things uncertain.
126 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
A.D.) There tJie Gospel and the Apostles are
recognized as the constituents of the book.^
The writer also used the Gospel according to
the Hebrews, for there is a quotation from it in
the epistle to the Smyrnians.^ The second part
of the collection seems to have wanted the
epistle to the Ephesians.^ The two leading
parties, long antagonistic, had now become
united ; the apostles Peter and Paul being
mentioned together.-* In the Testaments of
the twelve patriarchs (about 170 AD.), Paul's
life is said to be described in " holy books," i.e.,
his own epistles and the Acts.^
Justin Martyr (150 A.D.) knew the first and
third of the synoptic gospels. His use of
Mark's does not appear. His knowledge of
' Epist. ad Philadelph., ch. 5. See Hefele's note on the pas-
sage. The other well-known passage in chapter viii. is too
uncertain in reading and meaning to be adduced here.
* Chapter iii. * To the Ephesians, chapter xii.
■• Epist. ad Romanosy iv.
^ Testam. Bcnj. 11, p. 201, ed. Sinker.
THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. 127
the fourth is denied by many, and zealously
defended by others. Thoma finds proofs
that Justin knew it well, and used it freely
as a text-book of gnosis, without recognizing
it as the historical work of an apostle ; an
hypothesis encumbered with difficulties.^ What-
ever be said about Justin's acquaintance with
this gospel ; its existence before 140 A.D. is
incapable either of decisive or probable proof ;
and this father's Logos-doctrine is less de-
veloped than the Johannine, because it is en-
cumbered with the notion of miraculous birth
by a virgin. The Johannine authorship has
receded before the tide of modern criticism ;
and though this tide is arbitrary at times, it is
here irresistible. Apologists should abstain
from strong assertions on a point so difficult, as
that each "gospel is distinctly recognized by
him ;" for the noted passage in the dialogue
^ Zeitschfift fur wissenschafiliche Theologie, 1875, p. 490,
ft seq.
128 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
with Trypho does not support them.^ It is
pretty certain that he employed an extra-
canonical gospel, the so-called gospel of the
Hebrews. This Petrine document may be re-
ferred to in a passage which is unfortunately
capable of a double interpretation.^ He had
also the older Acts of Pilate. Paul's epistles
are never mentioned, though he doubtless knew
them. Having little sympathy with Paulinism
he attached his belief much more to the primi-
tive apostles. The Apocalypse, i Peter, and
I John he esteemed highly ; the epistle to the
Hebrews and the Acts he treated in the same
' 'Ev Toij &iroixvr}fxove{>ixa(Ti, & tp'OI^'' '^"'i tQv dToarSXujv airroO
Kal tQu iKeivois irapaKokovd-qadvTUiv <TvvT€TdxOai. Sec 1 03.
Here "the apostles" are not necessarily Matthew and John.
Apocryphal gospels then current bore the name of apostles or
their attendants, — of Peter, James, Nicodemus, Matthias, &c.
' Kai t6 clireiv /xeTjupo/xaKivai airrbv U^rpop Kal yeypdtpOai
iu Toty dirOfjLi>TjfjLOueOjj.a(Ti avrou yeyevrjixhov Kal toOto, fierd toO
Kal, K.T.X. Dial, cum Tryph., 106. Here the pronoun airroG
probably refers to Peter. And the expression "his memoirs"
can hardly mean Mark's gospel, since Jerome is the first that
calls it such.
THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. 129
way as the Pauline writings. Justin's canon, as
far as divine authority and inspiration are con-
cerned, was the Old Testament. He was
merely on the threshold of a divine canon
made up of primitive Christian writings, and
attributed no exclusive sanctity to those he used
because they were not to him the only source of
doctrine. Even of the Apocalypse he says, " A
man among us named John, &c., wrote it."^ In
his time none of the gospels had been canonized,
not even the synoptists, if, indeed, he knew
them all. Oral tradition was the chief fountain
of Christian knowledge, as it had been for a
century. In his opinion this tradition was
embodied in writing ; but the documents in
which he looked for all that related to Christ
were not the gospels alone. He used others
freely, not looking upon any as inspired;
for that idea could arise only when a selection
1 Dialogus, part ii., p. 315, ed. Thirlby. Comp, on Justin,
Tjeenk-Willink's yustinus Martyr in zijne Verhouding tot
Paulus,
I
130 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
was made among the current documents. He
regarded them all as having been written down
from memory, and judged them by criteria of
evidence conformable to the Old Testament
Scriptures. Though lessons out of Gospels
(some of our present ones and others), as also
out of the prophets, were read in assemblies on
the first day of the week,^ the act of converting
the Christian writings into Scripture was pos-
terior ; for the mere reading of a gospel in
churches on Sunday does not prove that it was
considered divinely authoritative; and the use
of the epistles, which formed the second and
less valued part of the collection, must still
have been limited.
Justin's disciple, Tatian (i 60- 1 80 A.D.), wrote
a Diatessaron or harmony of the gospels, which
began, according to Ephrem Syrus, with John
i. I ; but our knowledge of it is uncertain. The
author omitted the genealogies of Jesus and
* Apolog, i. 97, cd. Thirlby.
THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. 131
everything belonging to His Davidic descent.
He seems also to have put into it particu-
lars derived from extra-canonical sources such
as the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
Doubtless he was acquainted with Paul's
writings, as statements made in them are
quoted ; but he dealt freely with them ac-
cording to Eusebius, and even rejected
several epistles, probably first and second
Timothy.^
In Polycarp's epistle (about 160 A.D.), which
is liable to strong suspicions of having been
written after the death of the bishop,^ there are
reminiscences of the synoptic gospels ; and
most of Paul's epistles as well as i Peter were
used by the writer. But the idea of canonical
authority, or a peculiar inspiration belonging to
these writings, is absent.
^ Hieronymi Prooem. in Epist. ad Tiium.
2 Comp. chap, xii., where ypa(f}al is applied to the apostolic
epistles ; a title they did fnot receive so early as the age of
Polycarp. Zahn himself admits this.
132 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE,
The author of the second Clementine epistle
(about 150-160) had not a New Testament canon
made up of the four gospels and epistles. His
Scripture was the Old Testament, to which is
applied the epithet "the Books" or "the Bible;"
and the words of Christ. " The Apostles " imme-
diately subjoined to " the Books," does not mean
the New Testament, or a special collection of the
apostolic epistles, as has been supposed.^ The
preacher employed a gospel or gospels as Scrip-
ture ; perhaps those of Matthew and Luke, not
the whole documents, but the parts containing
the words of Christ.^ He also used the Gospel
of the Egyptians as an authoritative document,
and quoted his sources freely. With the
Johannine writings he seems to have been
unacquainted.^
Athenagoras of Athens wrote an apology
addressed to Marcus Aurelius (176 A.D.) In it
* Chapter xiv. 2. ' Chapter ii. 4.
• See dementis Romani ad Corinthios quae dicuntur epis-
tulacy ed, de CMardt (t Harnack 2., sec. 10, Prolegomena,
THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON 133
he uses written and unwritten tradition, testing
all by the Old Testament which was his only-
authoritative canon. He makes no reference to
the Christian documents, but adduces words of
Jesus with the verb " he says." It is not clear
whether he quoted from the Synoptics ; perhaps
the passages which are parallel to Matthew v.
44, 45, 46,^ and Mark x. 6,^ were taken from
these ; but the matter is somewhat uncertain.
His treatise on the resurrection appeals to a
passage in one of Paul's epistles.^
Dionysius of Corinth (170 A.D.) complains of
the falsification of his writings, but consoles
himself with the fact that the same is done to
the "Scriptures of the Lord," i.e., the gospels
containing the Lord's words ; or rather the two
parts of the early collection, " the gospel " and
" the apostle " together ; which agrees best with
the age and tenor of his letters.* If such be
^ Legal, pro Christ. 11, 12. '^ Ibid. 33.
3 Chapter xviii. ^ Ap. Euseb. H.E., iv. 23.
134 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
the meaning, the collection is put on a par with
the Old Testament, and regarded as inspired.
In the second epistle of Peter (about A.D. 170)
Paul's epistles are regarded as Scripture (iii. 16.)
This seems to be the earliest example of the
canonising of any New Testament portion.
Here a brotherly recognition of the Gentile
apostle and his productions takes the place of
former opposition. A false interpretation of
his epistles is even supposed to have induced
a departure from primitive apostolic Christianity.
The letter of the churches at Vienne and
Lyons (177 A.D.) has quotations from the epistles
to the Romans, Philippians, I Timothy, i Peter,
Acts, the gospels of Luke and John, the
Apocalypse. The last is expressly called
Scripture} This shows a fusion of the two
original tendencies, the Petrine and Pauline ;
and the formation of a Catholic church with a
common canon of authority. Accordingly, the
' Ap. Euseb. H.E., v. i, p. 144, ed. Bright.
THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. 135
two apostles, Peter and Paul, are mentioned
together.
Theophilus of Antioch (180 A.D.) was familiar
with the gospels and most of Paul's epistles,
as also the Apocalypse. Passages are cited
from Paul as " the divine word."^ He ascribes
the fourth gospel to John, calling him an inspired
man, like the Old Testament prophets.^ We
also learn from Jerome that he commented
on the gospels put together by way of
harmony.^
The author of the epistle to Diognetus (about
200 A.D.) shows his acquaintance with the
gospels and Paul's epistles ; but he never cites
the New Testament by way of proof. Words
are introduced into his discourse, in passing and
from memory."*
^ ^6105X6705. Ad Atitolycum, iii. 14, p. 1141, eel Migne.
2 Ibid., ii. 22. 3 Epist. 151, ad Algasiam.
^ See Overbeck's Studien zur Geschichte der alien Kirche,
Abhandlung I., in which the date of the letter is brought down
till after Constantine. Sm^ely this is too late.
136 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
The conception of a Catholic canon was
realized about the same time as that of a
Catholic church. One hundred and seventy
years from the coming of Christ elapsed before
the collection assumed a form that carried with
it the idea of holy and inspired} The way in
which it was done was by raising the apostolic
writings higher and higher till they were of
equal authority with the Old Testament, so
that the church might have a rule of appeal.
But by lifting the Christian productions up to
the level of the old Jewish ones, injury was
done to that living consciousness which feels
the opposition between spirit and letter; the
latter writings tacitly assuming or keeping the
character of a perfect rule even as to form.
The Old Testament was not brought down to
the New ; the New was raised to the Old. It
is clear that the earliest church fathers did not
^ Davidson's Introduction to the Study of the New Testa-
ment, vol. ii. p. 508, &c.
THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. 137
use the books of the New Testament as sacred
documents clothed with divine authority, but
followed for the most part, at least till the
middle of the second century, apostolic tradition
orally transmitted. They were not solicitous
about a canon circumscribed within certain
limits.
In the second half, then, of the second
century there was a canon of the New Testa-
ment consisting of two parts called the gospel^
and the apostle? The first was complete, con-
taining the four gospels alone ; the second, which
was incomplete, contained the Acts of the
Apostles and epistles, i.e.y thirteen letters of Paul^
one of Peter, one of John, and the Revelation.
How and where this canon originated is un-
certain. Its birthplace may have been Asia
Minor, like Marcion's; but it may have grown
about the same time in Asia Minor, Alexandria,
and Western Africa. At all events, Irenseus,
138 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian agree
in recognizing its existence.
Irenaeus had a canon which he adopted as
apostolic. In his view it was of binding force
and authoritative. This contained the four
gospels, the Acts, thirteen epistles of Paul, the
first epistle of John, and the Revelation. He
had also a sort of appendix or deutero-canon,
which he highly esteemed without putting it
on a par with the received collection, consisting
of John's second epistle, the first of Peter, and
the Shepherd of Hermas. The last he calls
Scripture} The epistle to the Hebrews, that
of Jude, James's, second Peter, and third John
he ignored.
Clement's collection was more extended than
Irenaeus*. His appendix or deutero-canon
included the epistle to the Hebrews, 2 John,
Jude, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Shepherd
of Hermas, the Epistles of Clement and Barna-
^ Advers. Hcres.y iv. 20, 2.
THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON 139
bas. He recognised no obligatory canon, dis-
tinct and of paramount authority. But he
separated the New Testament writings by their
traditionally apostolic character and the degree
of importance attached to them. He did not
attach the modern idea of canonical in opposi-
tion to non-canonical^ either to the four gospels
or any other part of the New Testament.
Barnabas is cited as an apostle.^ So is the
Roman Clement.^ The Shepherd of Hermas is
spoken of as divine? Thus the line of the Homo-
logoumena is not marked off even to the same
extent as in Irenaeus.
Tertullian's canon consisted of the gospels,
Acts, thirteen epistles of Paul, the Apocalypse,
and I John. As an appendix he had the
epistle to the Hebrews, that ofjude, the
Shepherd of Hermas, 2 Jolm probably, and i
Peter. This deutero-canon was not regarded
1 Stromateis, ii. 6, p. 965, ed. Migne.
- Ibid., iv. 17, p. 1 31 2. 3 Ibid., i. 29, p. 928.
I40 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE,
as authoritative. No trace occurs in his works
of James' epistle, 2 Peter, and 3 John. He
used the Shepherd, calling it Scripture} without
implying, however, that he put it on a par
with the usually acknowledged canonical writ-
ings ; but after he became a Montanist, he re-
pudiated it as the apocryphal Shepherd of
adulterers, "put among the apocryphal and
false by every council of the churches." 2 It
was not J however, reckoned among the spurious
and false writings, either at Rome or Carthage,
in the time of Tertullian. It was merely placed
outside the universally received works by the
western churches of that day.
These three fathers did not fix the canon
absolutely. Its limits were still unsettled.
But they sanctioned most of the books now
accepted as divine, putting some extra-canonical
productions almost on the same level with the
rest, if not in theory at least in practice.
^ Dc Oratioftf, cap. 12. * De Fudtcitia, cap. 10-20.
THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON 141
The canon of Muratori is a fragmentary list
which was made towards the end of the 2d
century (170 A.D.) Its birthplace is uncertain,
though there are traces of Roman origin. Its
translation from the Greek is assumed, but that
is uncertain. It begins with the four gospels in
the usual order, and proceeds to the Acts,
thirteen epistles of Paul, the epistles of John,
that of Jude, and the Apocalypse. The epistle
to the Hebrews, I and 2 Peter, i John and
James are not named. The Apocalypse of
Peter is also mentioned, but as not universally
received. Of the Shepherd of Hermas, it is
stated that it may be read in the Church. The
epistle " to the Laodiceans " may either be that
to the Ephesians, which had such superscription
in Marcion's canon, or less probably the sup-
posititious epistle mentioned in the codex Boer-
nerianus,^ after that to Philemon, and often re-
1 G. of St Paul's epistles, a MS, of the ninth century ac-
cording to Tischendorf.
142 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
ferred to in the middle ages.^ That " to the
Alexandrians " is probably the epistle to the
Hebrews ; though this has been denied with-
out sufficient reason. According to the usual
punctuation, both are said to have been forged
in Paul's name, an opinion which may have
been entertained among Roman Christians
about 170 A.D. The Epistle to the Hebrews
was rejected in the west, and may have
been thought a supposititious work in the in-
terests of Paulinism, with some reason because
of its internal character,^ which is at least semi-
Pauline, though its Judaistic basis is apparent.
The story about the origin of the fourth gospel
with its apostolic and episcopal attestation,
evinces a desire to establish the authenticity of
' See Anger's Ueber den Laodicener Brief, 1843.
' Fertur etiavi ad Latuiecetices alia ad Alexandrinos Fault
mmitte fincte ad hesem Marcionis et alia plura gtta in Catholi-
cam ecclesiam recepi mn poteU. Perhaps a comma should be
put after nomine, and Jinde joined to what follows, to the alia
plura said to be forged in the interest of Marcion.
THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON 143
a work which had not obtained universal ac-
ceptance at the time.i It is difficult to make out
the meaning in various places; and there is con-
siderable diversity of opinion among expositors
of the document.2 In accord with these facts we
find Serapion bishop of the church at Rhossus,
in Cilicia,^ allowing the public use of the gospel
of Peter;* which shews that there was no ex-
clusive gospel-canon at the end of the second
century, at least in Syria. The present canon
had not then pervaded the churches in general.
What is the result of an examination
of the Christian literature belonging to the
^ Quarti evangelioruvi yohannis ex discipiilis cohortantibus
condiscipulis et episcopis stiis dixit conjejutiate mihi odie triduo
et quid cuique fuerit revelatum alterutrum nobis ennarremus
eadem node revelatum Andrece ex apostolis ut recogniscentibus
cunctis Johannis suo nomine cuticta discriberet.
2 It is printed and largely commented on by Credner in his
Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanon edited by Volkmar, p.
141, &c., and by Westcott On the Canon, Appendix C, p. 466.
2d edition. Many others have explained it ; especially Hilgen-
feld.
3 About A.D. 190. < Euseb. H. E. vi. 12.
144 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
second century ? Is it that a canon was then
fixed, separating some books from others by a
line so clear, that those on one side of it were
alone reckoned inspired, authoritative, of apos-
tolic origin or sanction ; while those on the other
were considered uninspired, unauthoritative,
without claim to apostolicity, unauthentic ?
Was the separation between them made on any
clear principle of demarcation ? It cannot be
said so. The century witnessed no such fact,
but merely the incipient efforts to bring it about.
The discriminating process was begun, not
completed. It was partly forced upon the
prominent advocates of a policy which sought
to consolidate the Jewish and Gentile-Christian
parties, after the decline of their mutual anta-
gonism, into a united church. They were glad
to transfer the current belief in the infallible
inspiration of the Old Testament, to selected
Christian writings, as an effective means of
defence against those whom they considered
THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. 145
outside a new organisation — the Catholic
Church.
The stichometrical list of the Old and New
Testament Scriptures in the Latin of the
Clermont MS. (D), was that read in the African
Church in the 3rd century. It is peculiar.
After the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth,
and the historical books, follow Psalms, Proverbs,
Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Wisdom, Sirach, the
twelve minor prophets, the four greater ; three
books of the Macabbees, Judith, Esdras, Esther,
Job, and Tobit. In the New Testament, the
four gospels, Matthew, John, Mark, Luke, are
succeeded by ten epistles of Paul, two of Peter,
the epistle of James, three of John, and that of
Jude. The epistle to the Hebrews (character-
ized as that of Barnabas), the Revelation of
John, Acts of the Apostles ; the Shepherd of
Hermas, the Acts of Paul, the Revelation of
Peter, follow. The last three constitute a sort
of appendix ; and the number of their verses is
K
146 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
given. It IS possible that the carelessness of a
transcriber may have caused some of the
singularities observable in this list ; such as the
omission of the epistles to the Philippians and
Thessalonians ; but the end shows a freer idea of
books fit for reading than what was usual even
at that early time in the African Church.^
In Syria a version of the New Testament for
the use of the church was made early in the 3d
century. This work, commonly called the Pe-
shito, wants 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and the
Apocalypse. It has, however, all the other books,
including the epistle of James and that to the
Hebrews. The last two were received as apostolic.
Towards the middle of the 3rd century
Origen's^ testimony respecting the Canon is of
great value. He seems to have distinguished
three classes of books — authentic ones, whose
apostolic origin was generally admitted, those
» Tischendorf edited the Pauline epistles from this MS.
Lipsiae, 1852. «t254A.D.
THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. 147
not authentic, and a middle-class not generally-
recognised or in regard to which his own
opinion wavered. The first contained those
already adopted at the beginning of the century
both in the East and West, with the Apocalypse,
and the epistle to the Hebrews so far as it
contains Pauline ideas ;^ to the second belongs
the Shepherd of Hermas, though he sometimes
hesitated a little about it,^ the epistle of Bar-
nabas, the Acts of Paul, the gospel according to
the Hebrews, the gospel of the Egyptians, and
the preaching of Peter ;^ to the third, the epistle
of James, that of Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John.*
The separation of the various writings is not
formally made, nor does Origen give a list of
them. His classification is gathered from his
works ; and though its application admitted of
considerable latitude, he is cautious enough,
^ TO. ev Ty SiadriKTi §L^\la, ivdtddrjKa, b[x6\oyoifieva.
^ In one place, however, he calls it very useful and divinely
inspired. Comment, in ep. ad Roman., xvi. 14. ^ pSda.
* Ap. Euseb. /fisl. Eccles., vi. 25 ; iii, 25, avTikeyhixeva.
148 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
appealing to the tradition of the church, and
throwing in quahfying expressions.^
The Canon of Eusebius^ is given at length in
his Ecclesiastical History? He divides the
books into three classes, containing those
writings getterally received,^ those controverted^
and the heretical? The first has the four
gospels, the Acts, thirteen epistles of Paul,
I John, I Peter, the Apocalypse/ The second
class is subdivided into two, the first corre-
sponding to Origen's mixed^ or intermediate
* See Euseb., //. E.^ vi. 25. Comment, in Matth.y iii. p. 463 ;
Ibid.y p. 814; Comment, in ep. ad Roman, y iv. p. 683; in
Maitk.^ iii. p. 644; Homil. viii. in Numb.y \\. p. 294; Contra
Cels.y i. 63, p. 378 ; De Frincipiis prce/., i. p. 49. 0pp. ^ ed.
Delarue.
2t340A.D.
* Hist. Ecdes., iii. 25 ; also 31, 39 ; vi. 13, 14.
* bp.o\oyoifievay ivdiddrjKa, dvafXiplXcKTa, &vavTi^l)7]Ta.
* &vTi\ey6ixeva, yvupifia 5^ rots ttoWoU, iu irXeloTais iKKXtjcrlais
BedTj/Mcxricvfi^va, vbda,
* ironra irdvr-q koL 8v(r<r€^rj; 7ra»^e\wy p6da (iii. 31).
' This last with the qualification etye <f>apelr}. In another
place he states that it was rejected by some, and therefore it is
THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. 149
writings, the second to his spurious^ ones. The
former subdivision contains the epistle of
James, 2 Peter, Jude, 2 and 3 John ; the latter,
the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd, the Revelation
of Peter, the epistle of Barnabas, the Doctrines
of the Apostles, the Apocalypse of John, the
gospel according to the Hebrews. The third;*
class has the gospels of Peter, of Thomas, the
traditions of Matthias, the Acts of Peter,
Andrew, and John. The subdivisions of the
second class are indefinite. The only distinc-
tion which Eusebius puts between them is that
of ecclesiastical use. Though he classes as
spurious the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd, the
Revelation of Peter, the epistle of Barnabas, the
doctrines of the Apostles, the Apocalypse of
John, the gospel according to the Hebrews, and
does not apply the epithet to the epistle of
James, the 2 of Peter, 2 and 3 John ; he uses of
James's in one place the verb to be counted spuri-
1 voBoL.
ISO THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
Otis} In like manner he speaks of the Apo-
calypse of Peter and the epistle of Barnabas as
C07ttr over ted. The mixed or spurious of Origen
are vaguely separated by Eusebius ; both come
under the general head of the controverted ; for
after specifying them separately he sums up,
" all these will belong to the class of the contro-
verted'^^ the very class already described as con-
taining " books well known and recognized by
most," implying also that they were read in the
churches.^
It is somewhat remarkable that Eusebius
does not mention the Epistle of Clement to the
Corinthians in this list. But he speaks of it in
another place as a production whose authen-
1 vodetjo/xai. Hist. Eccles.^ ii. 23. Christophorson, Schmid,
and Hug think that Eusebius gave the opinion of others in this
word ; but it is more likely that he gave his own, as Valesius
thinks. See the note in Schmid's Historia antiqua et vindicatio
Canonist &^c., p. 358.
^ Hid., vi. 14.
* See Weber's Bdtrdge zur Geschichte des nmtestammtlichen
Kanons, p. 142, &c.
THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON ■ 151
ticity was generally acknowledged/ and of its
public use in most churches both formerly and
in his own time. This wide-spread reading of
it did not necessarily imply canonicity ; but the
mode in which Eusebius characterises it, and
its extensive use in public, favour the idea that
in many churches it was almost put on equality
with the productions commonly regarded as
authoritative. The canonical list was not fixed
immovably in the time of Eusebius. Opinions
about books varied, as they had done before.
The testimony of Eusebius regarding the
canon, important as it is, has less weight be-
cause of the historian's credulity. One who
believed in the authenticity of Abgar's letters
to Christ, and in the canon of the four gospels
at the time of Trajan, cannot take rank as a
judicious collector or sifter of facts.
About 332 A.D. the Emperor Constantine
entrusted Eusebius with the commission to
1 blxoKoyoviJiivq. Hist. Ecdes., iii. 16.
152 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
make out a complete collection of the sacred
Christian writings for the use of the Catholic
Church. How this order was executed we are
not told. But Credner is probably correct in
saying that the code consisted of all that is now
in the New Testament except the Revelation.
The fifty copies which were made must have
supplied Constantinople and the Greek Church
for a considerable time with an authoritative
canon.
Eusebius's catalogue agrees in substance with
that of Origen. The historian followed eccles-
iastical tradition. He inquired diligently into
the prevailing opinions of the Christian churches
and writers, with the views held by others before
and contemporaneously with himself, but could
not attain to a decided result. His hesitation
stood in the way of a clear, firm, view of the
question. The tradition respecting certain
books was still wavering, and he was unable
to fix it. Authority fettered his independent
THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. 153
judgment. That he was inconsistent and con-
fused does not need to be shown.
The exact principles that guided the forma-
tion of a canon in the earliest centuries cannot
be discovered. Strictly speaking there were,
none. Definite grounds for the reception or
rejection of books were not apprehended. The
choice was determined by various circumstances,
of which apostolic origin was the chief, though
this itself was insufficiently attested ; for if it be
asked whether all the New Testament writings
proceeded from the authors whose names they
bear, criticism cannot reply in the affirmative.
The example and influence of churches to which
the writings had been first addressed must have
acted upon the reception of books. Above all,
individual teachers here and there saw the
necessity of meeting heretics with their own
weapons, in their own way, with apostolic records
instead of oral tradition. The circumstances in
which the orthodox were placed led to this
154 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
step, effecting a bond of union whose need must
have been felt while each church was isolated
under its own bishop and the collective body
could not take measures in common. Writings
pf more recent origin would be received with
greater facility than such as had been in circula-
tion for many years, especially if they professed
to come from a prominent apostle. A code of
apostolic writings, divine and perfect like the
Old Testament, had to be presented as soon as
possible against Gnostic and Manichaean here-
tics whose doctrines were injurious to objective
Christianity; while the multiplication of apocry-
phal works threatened to overwhelm genuine
tradition with a heap of superstition. The
Petrine and Pauline Christians, now amalgam-
ated to a great extent, agreed in hastening
the canon-process.
The infancy of the canon was cradled in
an uncritical age, and rocked with traditional
ease. Conscientious care was not directed from
THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. 155
the first to the well-authenticated testimony of
eye-witnesses. Of the three fathers who con-
tributed most to its early growth, Irenseus was
credulous and blundering ; Tertullian passionate
and one-sided ; and Clement of Alexandria,
imbued with the treasures of Greek wisdom,
was mainly occupied with ecclesiastical ethics.
Irenaeus argues that the gospels should be four
in number, neither more nor less, because there
are four universal winds and four quarters of
the world. The Word or Architect of all things
gave the gospel in a fourfold shape. Accord-
ing to this father, the apostles were fully
informed concerning all things, and had a
perfect knowledge, after their Lord's ascension.
Matthew wrote his gospel while Peter and Paul
were preaching in Rome and founding the
church.^ Such assertions shew both ignorance
and exaggeration.
Tertullian affirms that the tradition of the
1 Adverms Hares ^ iii., 11, 8.
156 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
apostolic churches guarantees the four gospels,^
and refers his readers to the churches of
Corinth, Philippi, Ephesus, &c., for the
authentic epistles of Paul.^ What is this but
the rhetoric of an enthusiast ? In like manner
he states that bishops were appointed by the
apostles, and that they existed from that
time downward, the succession originating so
early.3
Clement contradicts himself in making Peter
authorise Mark's gospel to be read in the
churches ; while in another place he says that
the apostle neither "forbad nor encouraged it."^
The three fathers of whom we are speaking,
had neither the ability nor the inclination to
examine the genesis of documents surrounded
with an apostolic halo. No analysis of their
authenticity and genuineness was seriously
* Adv. Marc. iv. 5. - De pvirscript. hirret. c. 36.
^ De praescript. hafrct. c. 32.
* Ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccha. ii. 15 ami vi. 14.
THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. 157
attempted either by them or by the men of
their time. In its absence custom, accident,
taste, practical needs directed the tendency of
tradition. All the rhetoric employed to throw
the value of their testimony as far back as
possible, even up to or at least very near the
apostle John is of the vaguest sort. Appeals
to the continuity of tradition and of church
doctrine, to the exceptional veneration of these
fathers for the gospels, to their opinions being
formed earlier than the composition of the
works in which they are expressed, possess no
force. The ends which the fathers in question
had in view, their polemic motives, their un-
critical, inconsistent assertions, their want of
sure data, detract from their testimony. Their
decisions were much more the result of pious
feeling biassed by the theological speculations
of the times, than the conclusions of a sound
judgment. The very arguments they use to
establish certain conclusions shew weakness of
158 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE,
perception. What are the manifestations of
spiritual feeling, compared with the results of
logical reasoning? Are they more trustworthy
than the latter? Certainly not, at least in rela-
tion to questions of evidence. It is true that
their testimony has a value ; but it is one pro-
portionate to the degree of credibility attach-
ing to witnesses circumstanced as they were,
whose separation of canonical from uncanonical
gospels, or rather their canonising of certain
writings apart from others, and their claiming
of inspiration for the authors of the former,
must be judged by the reasonableness of the
thing itself, in connexion with men of their
type. The second century abounded in pseud-
onymous literature; and the early fathers,
as well as the churches, were occupied with
other things than the sifting of evidence con-
nected with writings considerably prior to their
own time. The increase of such apocryphal
productions, gospels, acts, and apocalypses
THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. 159
among the heretical parties stimulated the
orthodox bishops and churches to make an
authentic collection ; but it increased the diffi-
culties of the task.
Textual criticism has been employed to dis-
credit the true dates of the present gospels ; and
the most exaggerated descriptions have been
given of the frequent transcription of the text
and its great corruption in the second century.
The process of corruption in the course of
frequent transcription has been transferred even
to the first century. It is true that the gospels
at the end of that century exhibited a text
which bears marks of transcription, interpola-
tion, and addition ; but they were not the com-
plete works as we have them now, being then but
in progress, except the fourth. The assumption
that '* advanced corruption " existed in the pre-
sent text of the synoptists as early as the first
century is gratuitous ; unless the process by
which they were gradually built up is so called.
i6o THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
No attempt to get a long history behind the
canonical gospels at the close of the first cen-
tury out of " advanced corruption " can be
successful. It is attested by no Christian
writer of the century ; and those in the first
half of the second, both heretical and orthodox,
did themselves treat the text in a manner
far short of its implied infallibility. The
various readings with which they had to do,
do not carry up the canonical gospels far into
the first century. The transcription, enlarge-
ment, and interpolation of the materials which
make up the body of them, must not be
identified with the corruption of their completed
textSy in order that the latter may be relegated
to an early period ; for the synoptists did not
come forth full-blown, each from the hand of a
single person. The old Latin version or
versions used by Tertullian and the interpreter
of Irenaeus, have been pressed into the same
service, but in vain.
THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON i6i
In like manner the Curetonian Syriac ver-
sion of the gospels has been put as early as
possible into the second century, though it can
hardly have been prior to the very close of
it, or rather to the beginning of the third.
Here the strong assertions of apologetic writers
have been freely scattered abroad. But the
evidence in favour of the authors tradition-
ally assigned to the gospels and some of the
epistles, is still uncertain. A wide gap inter-
venes between eye-witnesses of the apostles
or apostolic men that wrote the sacred books,
and the earliest fathers who assert such author-
ship. The traditional bridge between them is
a precarious one. As the chasm cannot be
filled by adequate external evidence, we are
thrown back on the internal character of the
works themselves. One thing appears from
the early corruption of the sacred records
spoken of by Irenseus, Origen, and others, that
they were not regarded with the veneration
I.
1 62 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
necessarily attaching to infallible documents.
Their being freely handled excludes the idea
of rigid canonisation. The men who first
canonised them had no certain knowledge of
their authors. To them, that knowledge had
been obscured or lost ; though a sagacious
criticism might have arrived at the true state
of the question even in their day.
In the sub-apostolic age Ebionitism passed
into Catholicism, Jewish into Pauline Chris-
tianity, the mythical and marvellous into the
dogmatic, the traditional into the historic, the
legendary into the literary. The conflict
of parties within the sphere of Christianity
gave rise to productions of various tendencies
which reflected the circumstances out of which
they arose. These were accepted or rejected
by the churches according to the prevailing
opinions of the persons composing the churches.
Common usage led to the authorisation of
some ; others were neglected. The state of the
THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. 163
second century in its beliefs, credulity, idio-
syncracies of prominent teachers, antagonistic
opinions and mystic speculations, throws a
light upon the New Testament writings and
especially on the formation of the canon, which
explains their genesis. Two things stand out
most clearly, the comparatively late idea of a
canonical New Testament literature ; and the
absence of critical principles in determining it.
The former was not entertained till the latter
part of the second century. The conception of
canonicity and inspiration attaching to New
Testament books did not exist till the time
of Irenaeus.
When it is asked, to whom do we owe the
canon ? the usual answer is, to the Church.
This is true only in a sense. The unity
attributed to Christians before Irenaeus and
Tertullian, consisted in their religious con-
sciousness. It was subjective. The idea of
the church was that of inward fellowship — the
i64 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
fellowship of the spirit rather than an outward
organism. The preservation of the early Chris-
tian writings was owing, in the first instance, to
the congregations to whom they were sent, and
the neighbouring ones with whom such con-
gregations had friendly connection. The care
of them devolved on the most influential
teachers, — on those who occupied leading
positions in the chief cities, or were most
interested in apostolic writings as a source
of instruction. The Christian books were
mostly in the hands of the bishops. In
process of time the canon was the care of
assemblies or councils. But it had been made
before the first general council by a few leading
fathers towards the end of the second century
in different countries. The formation of a
Catholic Church and of a canon was simul-
taneous. The circumstances in which the
collection originated were unfavourable to
the authenticity of its materials, for tradition
THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. 165
had been busy over them and their authors.
Instead of attributing the formation of the
canon to the Church, it would be more correct
to say that the important stage in it was due to
three teachers, each working separately and in
his own way, who were intent upon the creation
of a Christian society which did not appear in
the apostolic age, — a visible organisation united
in faith, — where the discordant opinions of
apostolic and sub-apostolic times should be
finally merged. The canon was not the work
of the Christian Church so much as of the men
who were striving to form that Church, and
could not get beyond the mould received by
primitive Christian literature. The first men-
tion of a Catholic Church occurs in The
Martyrdom of Polycarp^ an epistle that can-
not be dated earlier than 160 A.D., and may
perhaps be ten years later. But though the
idea is there, its established use is due to
Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian. The expres-
i66 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
sion has a different and narrow sense in the
seven Ignatian epistles which we believe to be
supposititious and later than Justin. Neither the
three epistles published in Syriac by Cureton,
nor the seven Greek ones enumerated by
Eusebius are authentic ; though Zahn has tried
to prove the latter such, dating them A.D. 144.
His arguments, however, are far from convinc-
ing ; and the whole story of ^ Ignatius's martyr-
dom at Rome rather than Antioch is still
doubtful ; for the circumstances under which he
is said to have been dragged to Rome, and his
writing letters to the churches by the way, are
highly improbable. The testimony of Malalas
that Ignatius suffered at Antioch in December
115 in the presence of Trajan, may be quite as
good as that of Chrysostom and the Syriac
monthly calendar on which Zahn relies so con-
' Ignatius von Antiochien, 1873 ; and Prolegomena to the
Patrttm Apostolicomvi opera^ by de Gebhardt, Harnack, and
Zahn, Fasciculus, ii.
THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. 167
fidently. The fact of the priority of the last
two to Malalas is of little weight as evidence.
The main point is the locality in which Ignatius
suffered ; which Malalas, himself a native of
Antioch and a historian, ought to have known
better than Chrysostom, because he copied
preceding historians.
It is necessary to be precise on this sub-
ject because some speak of the church as
though it were contemporary with the apostles
themselves, or at least with their immediate
disciples ; and proceed to argue that dissensions
arose soon after "within the church " rendering
an appeal to the written word necessary. When
the authority of traditional teaching gave way to
that of a written rnle, a change came over the
condition of the church. Such a view tends to
mislead. There were dissensions among the
earliest Christians. The apostles themselves
were by no means unanimous. Important
differences of belief divided the Jewish and
168 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE,
Gentile Christians from the beginning. The
types of Christian truth existing from the first
gradually coalesced about the middle of the
.second century; when heretics, especially the
Gnostics, appeared so formidable that a catholic
church was developed. Along with this process,
and as an important element in it, the writings
of apostles and apostolic men were uncritically
taken from tradition and elevated to the rank
of divine documents. It was not the rise of
new dissensions "within the church" which
led to the first formation of a Christian canon ;
rather did the new idea of " a catholic church "
require a standard of appeal in apostolic writ-
ings, which were now invested with an autho-
rity that did not belong to them from the
beginning.
Origen was the first who took a somewhat
scientific view of the relative value belonging
to the different parts of the biblical collection.
His examination of the canon was critical.
THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. 169
Before him the leading books had been regarded
as divine and sacred, the source of doctrinal
and historic truth. From this stand-point he
did not depart. With him ecclesiastical tradi-
tion was a prevailing principle in the recognition
of books belonging of right to the New Testa-
ment collection. He was also guided by the
inspiration of the authors ; a criterion arbitrary
in its application, as his own statements show.
In his time, however, the collection was being
gradually enlarged ; his third class, i.e., the
mixedy approaching reception into the first.
But amid all the fluctuations of opinion to
which certain portions of the New Testament
were subject, and the unscientific procedure
both of fathers and churches in the matter,
though councils had not met to discuss it, and
vague tradition had strengthened with time, a
certain spiritual consciousness manifested itself
throughout the East and West in the matter
of the canon. Tolerable unanimity ensued.
I70 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
The result was a remarkable one, and calls
for our gratitude, notwithstanding its defects.
Though the development was pervaded by no
critical or definite principle, it ended in a canon
which has maintained its validity for centuries.
It is sometimes said that the history of the
canon should be sought from definite cata-
logues, not from isolated quotations. The
latter are supposed to be of slight value, the
former to be the result of deliberate judgment.
This remark is more specious than solid. In
relation to the Old Testament, the catalogues
given by the fathers, as by Melito and Origen,
rest solely on the tradition of the Jews ; apart
from which they have no independent authority.
As none except Jerome and Origen knew
Hebrew, their lists of the Old Testament books
are simply a reflexion of what they learned
from others. If they deviate in practice from
their masters by quoting as Scripture other
than the canonical books, they show their
THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. 171
judgment over-riding an external theory. The
very men who give a list of the Jewish books
evince an inclination to the Christian and
enlarged canon. So Origen says, in his Epistle
to Africanus, that "the churches use Tobit."
In explaining the prophet Isaiah, Jerome
employs Sirach vi. 6, in proof of his view,
remarking that the apocryphal work is in the
Christian catalogue. In like manner Epipha-
nius, in a passage against Aetius, after referring
to the books of Scripture, adds, " as well as the
books of Wisdom, i.e.^ the Wisdom of Solomon
and of Jesus son of Sirach ; finally, all the other
books of Scripture." In another place he gives
the canon of the Jews historically, and ex-
cludes the apocryphal Greek books ; here he
includes some of the latter. We also learn
from Jerome that Judith was in the number of
the books reckoned up by the Nicene Council.
Thus the fathers who give catalogues of the
Old Testament shew the existence of a Jewish
172 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
and a Christian canon in relation to the Old
Testament ; the latter wider than the former ;
their private opinion being more favourable to
the one, though the other was historically trans-
mitted. In relation to the New Testament, the
synods which drew up lists of the sacred books
show the view of some leading father like
Augustine, along with what custom had sanc-
tioned. In this department no member of the
synod exercised his critical faculty ; a number
together would decide such questions summarily.
Bishops proceed in the track of tradition or
authority.
CHAPTER VII.
THE BIBLE CANON FROM THE FOURTH CEN-
TURY TO THE REFORMATION.
It will now be convenient to treat of the two
Testaments together, i.e., the canon of the Bible.
The canons of both have been considered
separately to the end of the third century ; they
may be henceforward discussed together. We
proceed, therefore, to the Bible-canon of the
fourth* century, first in the Greek Church and
then in the Latin. The Council of Laodicea
(A.D. 363), at which there was a predominant
semiarian influence, forbad the reading of all
non-canonical books. The 59th canon enacts,
that "private psalms must not be read in the
Church, nor uncanonized books ; but only the
174 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
canonical ones of the New and Old Testament."
The 6oth canon proceeds to give a list of such.
All the books of the Old Testament are
enumerated, but in a peculiar order, somewhat
like the Septuagint one. With Jeremiah is
specified Bartcch, then the Lamentations and
Epistle. The prophets are last ; first the minor,
next the major and Daniel. In the New
Testament list are the usual seven Catholic
epistles, and fourteen of Paul including that to
the Hebrews. The Apocalypse alone is wanting.
Credner has proved that this 6oth canon is
not original, and of much later date.^
The Apostolic Constitutions give a kind of
canon like that in the 59th of Laodicea. After
speaking of the books of Moses, Joshua, Judges
Kings, Chronicles, those belonging to the
return from the captivity, those of Job, Solomon,
the sixteen prophets, and the Psalms of David ;
our Acts, the epistles of Paul, and the four
* Geschichte des neutest. Kanotty p. 217, &c.
FROM THE FOURTH CENTURY. 175
gospels are mentioned. It is remarkable that
the Catholic epistles are not given. That
they are indicated under Acts is altogether
improbable. The Antiochian Church of that
time doubted or denied the apostolicity of
these letters, as is seen from Theodore, Cosmas,
and others. Hence their absence from these
Constitutions, which are a collection belonging
to different times ; the oldest portion not earlier
perhaps than the third century.^
Cyril of Jerusalem, who took part in the
Council of Laodicea,^ gives a list " of the divine
Scriptures." The books of the Old Testament
are twenty-two, and the arrangement is nearly
that which is in the English Bible. With
Jeremiah is associated "Baruch and the Epistle."
All the New Testament books are given except
the Apocalypse. The list agrees very nearly
with that of Eusebius, by taking the latter's
" controverted " writings into the class of the
^ See Constit. Apostol.^ p. 67, ed. Ueltzen. ^ | ^86 A.D.
176 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
" generally received."^ The writer insists on the
necessity of unity in the Church upon the sub-
ject, and forbids the reading of writings not
generally received. None but these are allowed.
Yet he refers to Baruch (iii. 36-38) as the pro-
phet ;'^ and in adducing the testimonies of the
prophets for the existence of the Holy Spirit,
the last he gives is Daniel xiii. 41, 45. Sirach
iii. 21, 22 is cited ;3 Wisdom is quoted as Solo-
mon's (xiii. 5);* the song of the three children
is used (verse 55)^ with verses 27, 29;^ and
Daniel (xiii. 22, 45) is quoted.^
In Athanasius's festal epistle (365 A.D.) the
archbishop undertakes "to set forth in order
the books that are canonical and handed
down and believed to be divine." His list
of the Old Testament nearly agrees with
Cyril's, except that Esther is omitted and Ruth
^ Catech., iv. 22, pp. 66, 67, ed. Milles.
" Ibid., xi. p. 142. * Ibid.y vi. p. 80.
* Ibid.^ ix. pp. 115, 122. * IHd.^ ix. p. 115.
« Ihid., ii. p. 31. 'Ibid., xvi. p. 239.
FROM THE FOURTH CENTURY. 177
counted separately, to make out the twenty-two
books. He adds, "there are other books not
canonical, designed by the fathers to be read
by those just joining us and wishing to be in-
structed in the doctrine of piety;" i.e., the
Wisdom of Solomon and the Wisdom of Sirach,
and Esther and Judith and Tobit, and the Doc-
trine of the Apostles so called, and the Shepherd ;
" those being canonical^ and these being read, let
there be no mention of apocryphal writings," &c.
The New Testament list is the same as Cyril's,
with the addition of the Apocalypse.^ He
quotes several of the apocryphal books in the
same way as he does the canonical. Thus he
introduces Judith (viii. 16) with "the Scripture
said; "2 and Baruch (iii. 12) is cited as if it were
Scripture.'^ Wisdom (vi. 26) has the epithet
Scripture applied to it.* Sirach (xv. 9) is intro-
^ Athanasii 0pp. ed. Benedict, i. 2, pp. 962, 963.
" Orat. contra Arianos, ii. 35, vol. i. 503, ed. Benedicl.
3 Ibid., ii. 42, i. p. 510. ■* Ibid., ii. 79, i. p. 546.
M
178 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
duced with "what is said by the Holy Spirit."
Baruch (iv. 20, 22) and Daniel (xiii. 42) are re-
ferred to in the same way as Isaiah.^ Tobit
(ii. 7) has " it is written " prefixed to it.^ Can-
onical and apocryphal are mentioned together ;
and similar language applied to them.
Eusebius of Caesarea cites Wisdom as a divine
oracle;^ and after adducing several passages from
Proverbs, subjoining to them others from the
same book with the introductory formula " these
are also said to be the same writers," he con-
cludes with " such is the scripture."'^ Sirach is
cited as Solomon's along with various passages
from Proverbs.^ After quoting Baruch, he says,
" there is no need to appeal to the divine voices,
which clearly confirm our proposition."^ The ad-
ditions to Daniel are also treated as Scripture."
» Epist. adepiscop. ^gypt., &c., i. I, p. 272.
' Contra Arian.y i. 12, i. p. 416.
* Apolog. contra ArianoSy ii., vol. i. p. 133.
* Praepar. Evan., i. 9. ' Ibid., xi. 14. * Ibid., xii. 18.
'Ibid,, vi. II, * Demon. Evang., vi. 19,
FROM THE FOURTH CENTURY. 179
Basil of Caesarea^ had a canon agreeing with
that of Athanasius. Along with the usual
books reckoned as belonging to the canon, he
used the apocryphal productions of the Old
Testament. Thus the book of Wisdom (i. 4)2 is
quoted by him. So are Sirach (xx. 2);3 Baruch,
(iii. 36)* called Jeremiah's; Judith (ix. 4) ;&
and Daniel (xiii. 50).^
Gregory of Nazianzus'' puts his list into a
poetical form. In the Old Testament it agrees
with Athanasius's exactly, except that he men-
tions none but the canonical books. Like
Athanasius, he omits Esther. In the New Tes-
tament he deviates from Athanasius, by leaving
out the Apocalypse, which he puts among the
spurious.^ He does not ignore the apocryphal
^ t 379 A.D.
^ Homil. in princip. proverb. 0pp. ed. Gamier altera, vol. ii.
p. 140. ^ Constitutiones Monast.^ c. iii. 2. Ibid., p. 779.
* Adv. Eunom^ vol. i. p. 417.
° De Spiritu Sancto, c. viii. vol. iii. p. 23.
^ In Princip. Proverb, vol. ii. p. 152. '' f 389 A.D.
^ 0pp. ed. Migne, vol. iii. pp. 473, 474.
i8o THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
books of the Old Testament, but quotes Daniel
xiii. 5.^
Amphilochius of Iconium^ gives a metri-
cal catalogue of the Biblical books. The
canon of the old Testament is the usual one,
except that he says of Esther at the end, "some
judge that Esther should be added to the fore-
going." He notices none of the apocryphal
books. His New Testament canon agrees with
the present, only he excludes the Apocalypse
as spurious ; which is given as the judgment of
the majority. He alludes to the doubts
that existed as to the epistle to the
Hebrews, but regards it as Pauline ; and to
the number of the catholic epistles (seven or
three).-^ The concluding words show that no
list was universally received at that time.
Epiphanius* follows Athanasius in his canon.
' Grcgorii Nazianzeni, 0pp. ed. Migne, vol. iii. pp. 473, 474.
't39S A.D.
' Iambi ad Seleucum ; in Gr^. Naz. 0pp. ii. p. 194.
<t403A.D.
FROM THE FOURTH CENTURY. i8i
As to the number of the Old Testament books,
he hesitates between twenty-two and twenty-
seven ; but the contents are the same. At the
end of the twenty-seven books of the New
Testament, Wisdom and Sirach are mentioned
as " divine writings ; " elsewhere they are
characterized as "doubtful."^ His practice
shows his sentiments clearly enough, when
Sirach (vii. i) is introduced with " the Scrip-
ture " testifies^ ; vii. 9 is elsewhere quoted ^ ;
Wisdom (i. 4) is cited as Solomon's * ; Baruch
(iii. 36) is introduced with, "as the Scripture
says,^" and Daniel (xiii. 42) is quoted with, "as
it is written."^ He mentions the fact that the
epistles of Clement of Rome were read in the
churches.'
1 d/A0tX^/fTa. Adv, Hceres^ i. p. 19. See Hcsres, iii. torn. i.
p. 941. De ponder, et mensur. 23.
2 Advers. Hceres, lib. i., torn. 2 ed. Petav. Paris, 1662, p. 72.
^ Ibid.y lib. ii. torn. ii. p. 781. * Ibid.^ lib. ii. torn. i. p. 580.
5 Ibid.y lib. ii. torn. i. p. 481. ^ Ibid.^ lib. i. torn. ii. p. 157.
" Hares, XXX. 15.
i82 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
Didymus of Alexandria^ speaks against 2
Peter that it is not in the canons.^
Chrysostom^ does not speak of the canon;
but in the New Testament he never quotes
the last four catholic epistles or the Apocalypse.
All the other parts he uses throughout his
numerous works/ including the Apocrypha.
Thus he introduces Wisdom (xvi. 28) with
" Scripture says.^" He quotes Baruch (iii. 36,
38)8; and Sirach (iv. i)J
Didymus of Alexandria « cites Baruch (iii.
35) as Jeremiah,^ and treats it like the Psalms. ^*^
*+392 A.D.
* Enarrat. in ep. S. Petri secundam, p. 1774 ed. Mignc
» t 407 A.D.
* See Montfaucon in his edition of Chrysostom's Works, vol.
vi. pp. 364, 365, ed. Paris, 1835.
* Expos, in Psalm cix. 7. See also xi. i in Genes, where
Wisdom xiv. 3 is cited.
* Expos, in Psalm xlix. 3.
' De Lazaro, ii. 4. ^ t 392 A.D.
* De Triniiaie, iii. 2. p. 792 ed. Migne.
"^^ Fragmenta in Epist. 2 ad Corinthios, when Baruch, iii. 3,
is quoted like Psalm loi, p. 1697.
FROM THE FOURTH CENTURY. 183
Daniel (xiii. 45) is also quoted.^ He says of
Peter's Second Epistle that it is not in the canon.
Theodore of Mopsuestia^ was much freer
than his contemporaries in dealing with the
books of Scripture. It seems that he rejected
Job, Canticles, Chronicles, and the Psalm-inscrip-
tions ; in the New Testament the epistle of
James, and others of the catholic ones. But
Leontius's account of his opinions cannot be
adopted without suspicion.^
The canon of Cyril of Alexandria * does not
differ from Athanasius's. Like other writers of
the Greek Church in his day he uses along with
the canonical the apocryphal books of the Old
Testament. He quotes i (iii.) Edras (iv. 36)
with " inspired Scripture says."^ Wisdom (vii.
6) is introduced with, " according to that which
1 De Spirit, sanct. i. p. 1033. 2 .j. ^28 a.d.
^ See Leontius Byzantinus contra Nestorianos et Eutychianos,
lib. iii. in Gallandi Bibliotheca, xii. p. 690, Comp. Fritzsche De
Theodori Mopsiiesteni vita et scriptis, Halas, 1836.
^ f 444 A.D. ^ Contra Julian, i. p. 541, ed. Migne.
1 84 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE,
is written." ^ In another place it has the prefix
"for it is written" (i. 7) ;2 and is treated as
Scripture (ii. I2).3 Sirach (i. i) is cited.''
Baruch also (iii. 35-37) is introduced with,
" another of the holy prophets said."*
The catalogues of the Old Testament con-
tained in the manuscripts B, C, and « need not
be given, as they are merely codices of the
Septuagint, and have or had the books canonical
and apocryphal belonging to that version. The
list of the New Testament books in B is like that
of Athanasius. Imperfect at the end, the MS.
must have had at first the Epistles to Timothy,
Titus, Philemon, and the Apocalypse. C (cod.
Ephraemi rescriptus) has fragments of the New
Testament, which show that it had originally
all the present books in the same order as
Athanasius's. &< or the Sinaitic manuscript has
» Ibid., p, 815. ^ Ibid., p. 921.
' In Isaim, ed. Migne, p. 93. * P. 859, vol. i.
® P. 910, vol. i., eel. Mignc.
FROM THE FOURTH CENTURY, 185
the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of
Hermas, in addition to the New Testament.
The progress made by the Greek Church of
the fourth and former part of the fifth century,
in its conception of the canon seems to be, that
the idea of ecclesiastical settlement, or public,
legal, definitive establishment was attached to
the original one. A writing was considered
canonical when a well-attested tradition put it
among those composed by inspired men,
apostles or others ; and it had on that account
a determining authority in matters of faith.
Books which served as a rule of faith and were
definitively set forth by the Church as divinely
authoritative, were now termed canonical. The
canon consisted of writings settled or determined
by ecclesiastical law.^ Such was the idea added
to the original acceptation of canon. To
canonical were opposed apocryphal writings,
i.e.^ heretical and fabricated ones ; while an
1 86 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
intermediate class consisted of those read in
the churches, which were useful, but not de-
cisive in matters of belief. Another advance in
the matter of the canon at this period was the
general adoption of the Hebrew canon, with a
relegation of the Greek additions in the Septu-
agint to the class publicly read} Yet doubts
about the reception of Esther into the number
of the canonical books were still entertained,
though it was one of the Jewish canon ; doubt-
less on account of its want of harmony with
Christian consciousness. And the catholic
epistles which had been doubted before, Jude,
James, Second Peter, were now generally re-
ceived. But there was a division of opinion
about the Apocalypse.
We come to the period of the Latin corre-
sponding to that of the Greek Church which
has just been noticed. Augustine' gave great
attention to the subject, labouring to establish a
^ /9tj9Xfa iivay iv(i}aK6^xiva. " +430 A.D.
FROM THE FOURTH CENTURY. 187
complete canon, the necessity of which was
generally felt. According to him the Scriptures
which were received and acknowledged by all
the churches of the day should be canonical,
Of those not universally adopted, such as are
received by the majority and the weightier of
the churches, should be preferred to those
received by the fewer and less important
churches. In his enumeration of the forty-
four books of the Old Testament, he gives,
after Chronicles, other histories " which are
neither connected with the order " specified in
the preceding context, " nor with one another,"
i.e.y Job, Tobit, Esther, Judith, the two books of
the Maccabees, and Esdras. Wisdom and
Ecclesiasticus, he thinks, should be numbered
among the prophets, as deserving of authority
and having a certain likeness to Solomon's
writings.i He says of the Maccabees that this
1 The forty-four books are, 5 of Moses, Joshua, Judges, Ruth,
4 Kings, 2 Chronicles, Job, Tobit, Esther, Judith, 2 Maccabees,
i88 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
"Scripture has been received by the Church
not uselessly, if it be read or heard soberly."*
The famous passage in the treatise on Christian
doctrine, where he enumerates the whole
canon, is qualified by no other ; for though he
knew the distinction between the canonical
books of the Palestinian Jews and the so-called
apocryphal ones, as well as the fact of some
New Testament writings not being received
universally, he thought church-reception a
sufficient warrant for canonical authority.
Hence he considered the books of the Macca-
bees canonical, because so received by the
Church ; while he says of Wisdom and Sirach
that they merited authoritative reception and
numbering among the prophetic Scriptures.^
Of the former in particular he speaks strongly
in one place, asserting that it is worthy to be
Ezra, Nehemiah, Psalms, 3 of Solomon, Wisdom, Ecclesiasti-
cus, 12 Prophets, 4 greater do. De Doctrina Christiana ii. 8.
1 Contra Gaudent. i. 38 ; 0pp. Paris, 1837, vol. ix. p. 1006.
- De Doctr. Christ, ii. 8. Civitat. Dei. xviii. 20, i.
FROM THE FOURTH CENTURY. 189
venerated by all Christians as of divine
authority.! But he afterwards retracted his
opinion of the canonical authority of Sirach.^
He raises, not lowers, the authority of the so-
called apocryphal books which he mentions.
He enumerates all the New Testament books,
specifying the Pauline epistles as fourteen, and
so reckoning that to the Hebrews as the
apostle's ; but he speaks of it elsewhere as an
epistle about which some were uncertain, pro-
fessing that he was influenced to admit it as
canonical by the authority of the Oriental
churches.^ In various places he speaks hesita-
tingly about its Pauline authorship.
In 393 the African bishops held a council at
Hippo where the canon was discussed. The
list of the canonical Scriptures given includes,
besides the Palestinian one, Wisdom, Ecclesi-
asticus, Tobit, Judith, and the two books of
1 De Praedest. Sanct. i. 11. 2 Retractt. i. 10.
' Depeccat. merit, i. 50; 0pp. vol. x. p. 137, ed. Migne.
I90 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE,
Maccabees. The New Testament canon seems
to have agreed exactly with our present one.^
The Council of Carthage (397) repeated the
statute of its predecessor, enumerating the same
books of the Bible as canonical.^ Augustine
was the animating spirit of both councils, so
that they may be taken as expressing his views
on the subject.
Jerome^ gives a list of the twenty- two
canonical books of the Old Testament, the
same as that of the Palestinian Jews, remarking
that some put Ruth and Lamentations among
the Hagiographa, so making twenty-four books.
All besides should be put among the Apoc-
rypha. Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Tobit, the
Shepherd are not in the canon. The two books
of Maccabees he regarded in the same light*
But though Jerome's words imply the apocry-
^ Mansiy torn. iii. p. 924. * Ibid.y p. 891.
3 t420 A.D.
^ Prologus galeatus in Libras Regum. Epist. ad Paulinum,
FROM THE FOURTH CENTURY, 191
phal position of these extra-canonical books,
he allows of their being read in public for the
edification of the people, not to confirm the
authority of doctrines ; i.e.^ they belong to
" the ecclesiastical books " of Athanasius. His
idea of " apocryphal " is wider and milder than
that of some others in the Latin Church. It
has been conjectured by Welte,^ that the con-
clusions of the African councils in 393 and 397
influenced Jerome's views of the canon, so that
his later writings allude to the apocryphal
works in a more favourable manner than that
of the Prologns galeatus or the preface to
Solomon's books. One thing is clear, that he
quotes different passages from the Apocrypha
along with others from the Hebrew canon.
In his letter to Eustochius, Sirach iii. 33 (Latin)
comes between citations from Matthew and
Luke ; and is introduced by which is written, in
a letter to Pammachius ; and xxii. 6 has divine
'^ In Herbst's Einleit., astei- Theil, p, 37.
192 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE,
Scripture applied to it.^ Ruth, Esther, and
Judith are spoken of as holy volumes. The
practice of Jerome differed from his theory ;
or rather he became less positive, and altered
his views somewhat with the progress of time
and knowledge. As to the New Testament, he
gives a catalogue of all that now belongs to it,
remarking of the epistle to the Hebrews and
of the Apocalypse that he adopts both on the
authority of ancient writers, not of present
custom. His opinion about them was not
decided.^ In another work he gives the Epistle
of Barnabas at the end of the canonical list.
He also states the doubts of many respecting
the Epistle to Philemon, and about 2 Peter,
Jude, 2 and 3 John. According to him the first
Epistle of Clement of Rome was publicly read
in some churches.^
* 0pp. ed. Benedict., VoL IV., pp. 679, 584, 750.
' Ep. ad Dardan. 0pp. vol. i. p. 1 103, ed. Migne.
* See Onomastka Sacra ; Comment, in Ep. ad Philem ; De
N'iris illustr.
FROM THE FOURTH CENTURY. 193
Hilary of Poitiers^ seems to have followed Ori-
gen's catalogue. He gives twenty-two books,
specifying "the epistle" of Jeremiah; and re-
marks that some added Tobit and Judith, mak-
ing twenty-four, after the letters of the Greek
alphabet. He cites Wisdom and Sirach as
"prophets." 2 In the New Testament he never
quotes James, Jude, 2 and 3 John, nor 2 Peter.
2 Maccabees (vii. 28) is introduced with "ac-
cording to the prophet;"^ Sirach (xxxi. i) is
introduced with "nor do they hear the Lord
saying;" 4 Wisdom is cited as Solomon's (viii.
2) \^ Judith (xvi. 3) is cited \^ so is Baruch (iii.
36) ; ' and Daniel xiii. 42.^
Optatus of Mela^ has the usual canonical
books, but omits the epistle to the Hebrews.
If 368 A. D.
2 Prolog, in Psalm., 0pp. ed. Migne, vol. i. p. 241.
^ De Trinitate iv. 16.
* Ex. Op. Hist. Fragmentum, iii. vol. ii. p. 672, ed. Migne.
'^ In cxxvii. Psalm. ^ In Psalm cxxvi. 6.
^ In Psalm Ixviii. 19, and De Trinitate, iv. 42.
8 Jbid.y iv. 8, ^ t About 370 A.D.
N
194 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE,
He uses the apocrypha without scruple, in-
troducing Sirach (iii. 30) with "it is written;"^
and Wisdom (i. 13) with "it is written in
Solomon." 2
Lucifer of Cagliari^ uses the apocrypha
equally with the canonical books. Thus i Mac-
cabees (i. 43) is quoted as " holy Scripture."* So
is 2 Maccab. (vi. i).^ Judith (ix. 2) is cited,^ as
are also Wisdom (xvii. i, 2)^; Tobit (iv. 6);^
and Daniel (xiii. 20).^
Ambrose of Milan ^^ had the same canon as
most of the Westerns in his time. With some
others, he considered the Epistle to the
Hebrews to have been written by St Paul. In
the Old Testament he used the apocryphal
books pretty freely. Wisdom (vii. 22) is cited
* De Schismate Donatist. iii. 3.
3 Ibid., ii. 25 » t about 370., A.D.
* De non parcetuio, &c., ed. Coleti, p. 190.
» Ibid., p. 236. • Ibid., p. 187.
^ Pro Athanasio, lib. i. p. 98. * Ibid., p. 105.
» Ibid., lib. ii. pp. 1 27, 128. *« t 397 A.D.
FROM THE FOURTH CENTURY. I95
as authoritative Scripture/ Sirach (xi. 30) is
also cited as Scripture.^ Baruch (iv. 19) is
quoted ;' Daniel (xiii. 44, 45) is treated as
Scripture and prophetic ; * and Tobit is ex-
pounded like any other book of Scripture.^
Rufinus^ enumerates the books of the Old
and New Testaments which "are believed to
be inspired by the Holy Spirit itself, according
to the tradition of our ancestors, and have been
handed down by the Churches of Christ." All
the books of the Hebrew canon and of the New
Testament are specified. After the list he says,
" these are they which the fathers included in
the canon, by which they wished to establish
the assertion of our faith." He adds that there
are other books not canonical^ but ecclesiastical
— the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Tobit,
Judith, and the books of the Maccabees.
^ De Spiritu Sancto iii. 18. ^ De bono 7)iortis viii.
^ In Psalm cxviii., Sermo. 118, 2.
* De Spirit. Sanct. iii., vi. 39.
" Liber de Tobia. ^ +410 A.D.
196 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE
Besides the usual New Testament works, he
speaks of the Shepherd of Hernias, and the
" Judgment of Peter " as read in the churches,
but not as authoritative in matters of faith.^
Philastrius^ of Brescia gives some account of
the Scriptures and their contents in his time.
The canonical Scriptures, which alone should
be read in the Catholic Church, are said to be
the law and the prophets, the gospels, Acts,
thirteen epistles of Paul, and seven others, i.e.^
two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude, and
one of James. Of the Old Testament apocrypha
he asserts that they ought to be read for the
sake of morals by the perfect, but not by all.
He speaks of heretics who reject John's gospel
and the Apocalypse. Respecting the Epistle
to the Hebrews which is omitted in his canon,
he speaks at large, but not very decidedly,
affirming that some attributed its authorship to
* Expos, in Symbol. Apostol.^ pp. 373, 374, ed. Migne.
« tAbout 387 A.D.
FROM THE FOURTH CENTURY. 197
Barnabas, or Clement of Rome, or Luke.
" They wish to read the writings of the blessed
apostle, and not rightly perceiving some things
in the epistle, it is not therefore read by them
in the church. Though read by some, it is not
read to the people in the church ; nothing but
Paul's thirteen epistles, and that to the Hebrews
sometimes."^ The influence of the East upon
the West appears in the statements of this
father upon the subject. He had several
canonical lists before him ; one at least from
an Oriental-Arian source, which explains some
assertions, particularly his omission of the
Apocalypse.
Innocent I. of Rome wrote to Exsuperius
(405 A.D.), bishop of Toulouse, giving a list of
the canonical books. Besides the Hebrew canon,
he has Wisdom and Sirach ; Tobit, Judith, the
two Maccabees. The New Testament list is
identical with the present. He also refers to
^ De Haeres. chs. 60 and 61, in Galland, vii. pp. 424, 425.
I9S THE CANON OF THE BIBLE
pseudepigraphical writings which ought not only
to be rejected but condemned.^
A canonical list appears in three different
forms bearing the names of Damasus (366-384),
Gelasius I. (492-496), and Hormisdas (514-523).
According to the first, the books of the Old
Testament are arranged in three orders. In
the first are the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges,
Ruth, four Kings, two Chronicles, Psalms,
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Wisdom, and
Ecclesiasticus ; in the second, all the prophets,
including Baruch ; in the third. Job, Tobit,
Judith, Esther, Esdras, two Maccabees. The
New Testament books are the four gospels,
fourteen epistles of Paul, the Apocalypse, and
Acts, with seven Catholic epistles.
That which is called the Decree of Gelasius
is almost identical with the preceding. It
wants Baruch and Lamentations. It has also
two Esdrases instead of one. In the New
^ Apud Mansi, iii. pp. 1040, 1041.
FROM THE FOURTH CENTURY. 199
Testament the epistle to the Hebrews is ab-
sent.
The Hormisdas-form has the Lamentations
of Jeremiah : and in the New Testament the
Epistle to the Hebrews.
The MSS. of these lists present some diver-
sity ; and Credner supposes the Damasus-list a
fiction. But Thiel has vindicated its authen-
ticity. It is possible that some interpolations
may exist in the last two ; the first, which is
the shortest, may well belong to the time of
Damasus.^
In 419 A.D. another council at Carthage, at
which Augustine was present, repeated the
former list of books with a single alteration,
viz., fourteen epistles of Paul (instead of
(thirteen).^
The preceding notices and catalogues show a
general desire in the Western Church to settle
1 Credner's Zur Geschichte des Kanoits, p. 151, &c., and
Thiel's Epistolce Romanorum Pontificum genuinae, torn. i.
^ Mansi iv. p. 430.
200 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE
the canon. The two most influential men of
the period were Augustine and Jerome, who did
not entirely agree. Both were unfitted for a
critical examination of the topic. The former
was a gifted spiritual man, lacking learning and
independence. Tradition dominated all his
ideas about the difficult or disputed books. He
did not enter upon the question scientifically,
on the basis of certain principles ; but was
content to take refuge in authority — the
prevailing authority of leading churches. His
judgment was weak, his sagacity moderate,
and his want of many-sidedness hindered a
critical result. Jerome, again, was learned but
timid, lacking the courage to face the question
fairly or fundamentally ; and the independence
necessary to its right investigation. Belonging
as he did to both churches, he recommended the
practice of the one to the other. He, too, was
chiefly influenced by tradition ; by Jewish
teachers in respect to the Old Testament, and
FROM THE FOURTH CENTURY. 201
by general custom as to the New. The question
was not susceptible of advancement under such
manipulation ; nor could it be settled on a
legitimate basis. Compared with the eastern
Church, the western accepted a wider canon of
the Old Testament, taking some books into the
class of the canonical which the former put
among those to be read. In regard to the New
Testament, all the Catholic epistles and even
the Apocalypse were received. The African
churches and councils generally adopted this
larger canon, because the old Latin version
or versions of the Bible current in Africa
were daughters of the Septuagint. If the
Latins apparently looked upon the Greek
as the original itself, the apocryphal books
would soon get rank with the canonical. Yet
the more learned fathers, Jerome, Rufinus and
others, favoured the Hebrew canon in dis-
tinguishing between canonical and ecclesiastical
books. The influence of the Eastern upon the
202 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE
Western Church is still visible, though it could
not extinguish the prevailing desire to include
the disputed books. The Greek view was to
receive nothing which had not apparently a
good attestation of divine origin and apostolic
authority ; the Latin was to exclude nothing
hallowed by descent and proved by custom.
The former Church looked more to the sources
of doctrine ; the latter to those of edification.
The one desired to contract those sources, so as
not to be too rich ; the other to enlarge the
springs of edification, not to be too poor.
Neither had the proper resources for the work,
nor a right perception of the way in which it
should be set about ; and therefore they were
not fortunate in their conclusions, differing as
they did in regard to points which afifect the
foundation of a satisfactory solution.
Notwithstanding the numerous endeavours
both in the East and West to settle the canon
during the 4th and 5th centuries, it was not
I^ROM THE FOURTH CENTURY. 203
finally closed. The doubts of individuals were
still expressed ; and succeeding ages testified to
the want of universal agreement respecting
several books. The question, however, was
practically determined. No material change
occurred again in the absolute rejection or
admission of books. With some fluctuations,
the canon remained very much as it was in
the 4th and 5th centuries. Tradition shaped
and established its character. General usage
gave it a permanency which it was not easy to
disturb. No definite principles guided the
course of its formation, or fixed its present
state. It was dominated first and last by cir-
cumstances and ideas which philosophy did
not actuate. Its history is mainly objective.
Uncritical at its commencement, it was equally
so in the two centuries which have just been
considered.
The history of the canon in the Syrian
church cannot be traced with much exactness.
204 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE
The Peshito version had only the Hebrew
canonical books at first ; most of the apocryphal
were rendered from the Greek and added in the
Nestorian recension. In the New Testament it
wanted four of the catholic epistles and the
Apocalypse. Ephrem (a.d. 378) uses all the
books in our canon, the apocryphal as well as
the canonical. The former are cited by him
in the same way as the latter. Sirach ii. i is
quoted with as the Scnpture saysp- and Wisdom
iv. 7 with it is writteii?- Daniel xiii. 9, belong-
ing to the Greek additions, is also cited with
as it is written^ It should be observed that
the quotations given are all from Ephrem's
Greek, not Syriac, works ; and that suspicions
have been raised about the former being
tampered with. The Syrian version of the
New Testament made by Polycarp at the re-
quest of Philoxenus of Mabug, had the four
1 0pp. Gricc, torn. ii. p. 327, ed. Rom. 1746.
* Ibid.y torn. i. p. loi ' Tom. iil p. 60.
FROM THE FOURTH CENTURY. 205
catholic epistles wanting in the Peshito. It
had also the two epistles of Clement to the
Corinthians, if we may judge by the Harclean
recension, A.D. 616 ; for a MS. in the Cambridge
University Library contains those epistles
immediately after the Catholic ones, and before
those of St Paul ; so that they are put on an
equality with the canonical writings. The
Apocalypse is wanting. Junilius, (though an
African bishop about 550 A.D.), says that he got
his knowledge from a Persian of the name of
Paulus who received his education in the school
of Nisibis. He may, therefore, be considered a
witness of the opinions of the Syrian church at
the beginning of the 6th century. Dividing
the biblical books into those of perfect, those
of intermediate, and those of no authority, he
makes the first the canonical ; the second,
those added to them by many (plures) ; the
third, all the rest. In the first list he puts
Ecclesiasticus. Among the second he puts
2o6 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE
I and 2 Chronicles, Job, Ezra and Nehemiah,
Judith, Esther, I and 2 Maccabees; and
in the New Testament, James, 2 Peter,
Jude, 2 and 3 John. He also says
that the Apocalypse of John is much doubted
by the Orientals. In the third list, i.e.^ books
of no authority added by some (quidam) to
the canonical, are put Wisdom and Canticles.^
The catalogue is confused, and erroneous at
least in one respect, that Jerome is referred
to, as sanctioning the division given of the Old
Testament books ; for neither he nor the Jews
agree with it.
The canon of the Abyssinian church seems to
have had at first all the books in the Septu-
agint, canonical and apocryphal together, little
distinction being made between them. Along
with the contents of the Greek Bible there were
Enoch, 4 Esdras, the Ascension of Isaiah, the
Jubilees, Asseneth, &c. That of the New Testa-
* Galland, xii. p. 79, &c
FROM THE FOURTH CENTURY. 207
ment agrees with the present Greek one. At a
later period in the Arabic age a list was made
and constituted the legal one for the use of the
church, having been derived from the Jacobite
canons of the apostles. This gives, in the Old
Testament, the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges,
Ruth, Judith, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra and
Nehemiah, Esther, Tobit, two books of
Maccabees, Job, Psalms, five books of
Solomon, minor and greater prophets. The
Wisdom of Sirach (for teaching children) and
the book of Joseph ben Gorion, i.e.^ that of the
Maccabees, are external. The new Testament
has four gospels, Acts, seven apostolic epistles,
fourteen of Paul, and the Revelation of John.
Later catalogues vary much, and are often
enlarged with the book of Enoch, 4 Esdras,
the Apocalypse of Isaiah, &c. The canon of
the Ethiopic church was fluctuating.^
The canon of the Armenians had at first
^ See Dillmann in Ewald's Jahrbixcher^ v. p. 144, &c.
2o8 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE
the Palestinian books of the Old Testament,
twenty-two in number, and the usual New
Testament ones, except the Apocalypse. It
was made from the Syriac in the fifth century
by Sahak and Mesrob. The deutero-canonical
books and additions were appended, after the
disciples of those two men who had been sent
by them into different places, brought back
authentic copies of the Greek Bible from the
patriarch Maximian, by which the version
already made was interpolated and corrected ;
as it was subsequently corrected by others
despatched to Alexandria and Athens, who,
however, did not return till their teachers
were dead. The MSS. of this version were
afterwards interpolated from the Vulgate ; Oskan
himself translating for his edition (which was
the first printed one, A.D. 1666), Sirach 4
Esdras and the Epistle of Jeremiah from the
Latin. The book of Revelation does not
seem to have been translated till the eighth
FROM THE FOURTH CENTURY. 209
century. Zohrab's critical edition (1805) has
Judith, Tobit, the three books of Maccabees,
Wisdom, and the Epistle of Baruch among
the canonical books ; and in an appendix,
the fourth book of Esdras, the prayer of
Manasseh, the Epistle of the Corinthians to
Paul and his answer, the Rest (end) of the
apostle and evangelist John, the prayer of
Euthalius. Like the edition of Oskan, this
has all the deutero-canonical books, which
were derived from the Septuagint, and in-
corporated by the first translators with their
original version. Another edition published
at St Petersburgh (18 17), for the use of the
Jacobite Church, has the prayer of Manasses
and 4 Esdras after the Apocalypse.
The Georgian version consisted of the books
and additions in the Greek translation from
which it was made. The New Testament has
the canonical books in the usual order. Jesus
Sirach and two books of the Maccabees (2d
O
2IO THE CANON OF THE BIBLE,
and 3d) were not in the Georgian MS. used
by Prince Arcil for the edition of 1743, but
were rendered out of the Russian. The
Moscow Bible printed under the direction and
at the cost of Arcil, Bacchar and Wakuset,
is the authorised edition of the Georgian
Christians.
The Bible canon of the Eastern church in the
middle ages shows no real advance. Endea-
vours were made to remove the uncertainty
arising from the existence of numerous lists ;
but former decisions and decrees of councils
were repeated instead of a new, independent
canon. Here belongs the catalogue in the
Alexandrian MS., of the fifth century, which is
peculiar. After the prophets come Esther,
Tobit, Judith, Ezra and Nehemiah, 4 Mac-
cabees, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes,
Canticles, the all-virtuous Wisdom, the Wisdom
of Jesus of Sirach. In the New Testament, the
Apocalypse is followed by two epistles of
FROM THE FO UR TH CENTUR V. 211
Clement The list was probably made in
Egypt. That of Anastasius Sinaita/ patriarch
of Antioch, is similar to Nicephorus's Sticho-
metry, which we shall mention afterwards.
Baruch is among the canonical books ; Esther
among the antilegomena. The Apocalypse is
unnoticed. The 85th of the Apostolic canons
gives a list of the Old and New Testament
books, in which the usual canonical ones of the
former are supplemented by Judith and 3 Mac-
cabees ; those of the latter by the two epistles
of Clement, with the Apostolic constitutions.
This catalogue cannot be put earlier than the
fifth or sixth century, and is subject to the sus-
picion of having been interpolated. We have
also Nicephorus's Stichometry (806-815 ;)^ o^
which we may remark that Baruch is among
the canonical books of the O. T. ; while the
Revelation is put with the Apocalypse of Peter,
1 t 599 A.D.
' See Credner's Zur. Gesch, des Kanons, p. 97, &c.
212 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
the epistle of Barnabas and the Gospel accord-
ing to the Hebrews, among the antilegomena
of the N. T. It is also surprising that the
Apocalypse of Peter and the Gospel according
to the Hebrews are not among the Apocrypha,
where Clement's epistles with the productions
of Ignatius, Polycarp, and Hermas appear. The
list is probably older than that of the Antioch
patriarch Anastasius Sinaita. Cosmas Indico-
pleustes (535) never mentions the seven Catholic
epistles of the New Testament or the Apo-
calypse. The Trullan council (A.D. 692)
adopts the eighty-five Apostolic canons, re-
jecting, however, the Apostolic Constitutions.
Photius, patriarch of Constantinople,^ follows
the eighty-fifth Apostolical canon of the
Trullan Council.^ But in his Bibliotheca^ he
speaks differently regarding the epistles of
1 1 891.
\^ NoinocanoHt Titulus I 11,^ cap. 2, vol. iv., pp. 1050,
1051 cd. Migne. ' See Codd. 113, 126.
FROM THE FOURTH CENTURY. 21^
Clement, and does not treat them as canonical.
Though the first was thought worthy to be read
in public, the second was rejected as spurious ;
and his own opinion was not altogether favour-
able to them. John of Damascus; ^ the second
Nicene council (ySy) ; the Synopsis divinae
Scripturae Vet. et Novi Test, (about 1000) ;
Zonaras (about 1 120) ; Alexius Aristenus (about
1 160); and Nicephorus Callistus (1330), call
for no remark.
In the Western church of the Middle Ages,
diversity of opinion respecting certain books
continued. Though the views of Augustine
were generally followed, the stricter ones of
Jerome found many adherents. The canon was
fluctuating, and the practice of the churches in
regard to it somewhat lax. Here belong
Cassiodorus (about 550) ; the list in the Codex
Amiatinus (about 550) ; Isidore of Seville^ who,
after enumerating three classes of Old Testa-
^ +754 A.D. 2 ^636 A.D.
214 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
ment books gives a fourth not in the Hebrew
canon. Here he specifies Wisdom, Ecclesi-
asticus, Tobit, Judith, i and 2 Maccabees,
saying that the church of Christ puts them
among the divine books, honours and highly
esteems them.^ There are also the fourth
council of Toledo (632); Gregory the Great ;^
Notker Labeo ; ^ Ivo (about 1092) ; Bede ;*
Alcuin;^ Rabanus Maurusf Hugo de St Victor ; ^
Peter of Clugny ;^ John of Salisbury ;^ Thomas
Aquinas;^^ Hugo de St Cher; ^^ Wycliffe;^^ Nico-
laus of Lyra,^^ &c., &c. Several of these, as Hugo
de St Victor, John of Salisbury, Hugo de St
Cher, and Nicolaus of Lyra, followed Jerome in
separating the canonical and apocryphal books
of the Old Testament.^*
The Reformers generally returned to the
• Etymolog. vi. i. ^ t6o4 a.d. * t9i2 a.1).
*t735A.D. » +804 A.D. »+856a.d.
'+II4IA.D. 8+II56A.D. »tll82A.D.
1<'I270A.D. "tl263A.D. " + 1384 A.D.
w 1 1340 A.D. 1* See Hody, p. 648, &c.
FROM THE FOURTH CENTURY, 215
Hebrew canon, dividing off the additional
books of the Septuagint or those attached to
the Vulgate. These they called apocryphal^
after Jerome's example. Though considered of
no authority in matters of doctrine, they were
pronounced useful and edifying. The principal
reason that weighed with the Reformers was,
that Christ and the apostles testified to none of
the Septuagint additions.
Besides the canonical books of the Old
Testament, Luther translated Judith, Wisdom,
Tobit, Sirach, Baruch, i and 2 Maccabees, the
Greek additions to Esther and Daniel, with the
Prayer of Manasseh. His judgment respecting
several of these is expressed in the prefaces to
them. With regard to I Maccabees he thinks
it almost equal to the other books of Holy
Scripture, and not unworthy to be reckoned
among them. Of Wisdom, he says, he was
long in doubt whether it should be numbered
among the canonical books ; and of Sirach that
2i6 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE
it is a right good book proceeding from a wise
man. But he speaks unfavourably of several
other apocryphal productions, as of Baruch and
2 Maccabees. It is evident, however, that he
considered all he translated of some use to the
Christian Church. He thought that the book
of Esther should not belong to the canon.
Luther's judgment respecting some of the
New Testament books was freer than most
Protestants now are disposed to approve. He
thought the epistle to the Hebrews was neither
Paul's nor an apostle's, but proceeded from an
excellent and learned man who may have been
the disciple of apostles. He did not put it on
an equality with the epistles written by apostles
themselves. The Apocalypse he considered
neither apostolic nor prophetic, but put it
almost on the same level with the 4th book of
Esdras, which he spoke elsewhere of tossing
into the Elbe. This judgment was afterwards
modified, not retracted. James's epistle he
FROM THE FOURTH CENTURY, 217
pronounced unapostolic, " a right strawy epistle."
In like manner, he did not believe that Jude's
epistle proceeded from an apostle. Consider-
ing it to have been taken from 2 Peter, and not
well extracted either, he put it lower than the
supposed original. The Reformer, as also his
successors, made a distinction between the
books of the New Testament similar to that of
the Old ; Xh.^ generally r^^^zW^^f (homologoumena)
and controverted books (antilegomena) ; but the
Calvinists afterwards obliterated it, as the
Roman Catholics at the Council of Trent did
with the old Testament.^ The epistle to the
Hebrews, those of Jude and James, with the Apo-
calypse, belong to the latter class. The distinc-
tion in question proceeded from genuine critical
tact on the part of the early Lutheran Church
which had canonical and deutero - canonical
^ Chemnitz calls seven books of the New Testament apocryphos^
because of their uncertain authorship (see Examen Concilii
Tridentini, p. 45, &c.)
2i8 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE
writings even in the New Testament collection.
Nor did the Reformers consider it a dangerous
thing to bring the fact before the people. To
make it palpable, Luther attached continuous
numbers to the first twenty-three books of his
version, bringing the four antilegomena after
these, without numbers ; and this mode of
marking the difference continued till the middle
of the 17th century.i Luther was right in
assigning a greater or less value to the
separate writings of the New Testament, and
in leaving every one to do the same. He relied
on their internal value more than tradition ;
taking the word of God in a deeper and
wider sense than its coincidence with the Bible.
Bodenstein of Carlstad examined the question
of canonicity more thoroughly than any of his
contemporaries, and followed out the principle
of private judgment in regard to it. He divides
1 See Tholuck's Kommentar zum Briefe an die Hebrdtr^
vweite Auflage^ pp. 55, 86.
PROM THE FOURTH CENTURY. ±\^
the biblical books into three classes — i. Books
of the highest dignity, viz., the Pentateuch and
the Gospels ; 2. Books of the second dignity,
i.e.^ the works termed prophetic by the Jews,
and the fifteen epistles universally received ; 3.
Books of the third and lowest authority, i.e.y the
Jewish Hagiographa and the seven Anti-
legomena epistles of the New Testament.
Among the Apocrypha he makes two classes —
sUch as are out of the canon to the Hebrews
yet hagiographical (Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus,
Judith, Tobit, the two Maccabees), and those
that are clearly apocryphal and to be rejected
(third and fourth Esdras, Baruch, Prayer of
Manasseh, a good part of the third chapter of
Daniel, and the last two chapters of Daniel.^
Zwingli asserts that the Apocalypse is not a
biblical book.^
' Carlstadt's treatise is reprinted in Credner's Zur Geschichte
des Kanons.
2 Werke^ edited by Schuler and Schulthess, vol. ii. p. 169.
220 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
Oecolampadius says — " We do not despise
Judith, Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the last
two Esdras, the three Maccabees, the last two
chapters of Daniel, but we do not attribute to
them divine authority with those others."^ As
to the books of the New Testament he would
not compare the Apocalypse, James, Jude, 2
Peter, 2 and 3 John with the rest.^
Calvin did not think that Paul was the author
of the epistle to the Hebrews, or that 2 Peter
was written by the apostle himself; but both in
his opinion are canonical.
^ Ep. ad. Valdenses 1530, aptui Scidteti annal. evang. re-
no7>at decas secunda, pp. 313, 314.
2 Ibid.
CHAPTER VIII.
ORDER OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS.
I. The arrangement of the various parts com-
prising the New Testament was fluctuating in
the second century ; less so in the third. In
the fourth century the order which the books
had commonly assumed in Greek MSS. and
writers was : the Gospels, the Acts, the Catholic
Epistles, the Pauline, and the Apocalypse.
This sequence appears in the Vatican, Sinaitic,
Alexandrian and Ephrem (C) MSS.; Cyril of
Jerusalem, in the 6oth Canon of the Laodicean
Council, Athanasius, Leontius of Byzantium,
&c.
II. Another order prevailed in the Latin
Church, viz., the Gospels, the Acts, the Epistles
of Paul, the Catholic Epistles, and the Apoca-
222 7 HE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
lypse. This appears in Melito, Irenaeus,
Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Augustine,
Jerome, the Vulgate, the Councils of Carthage
held in A.D. 397 and 419 ; and is now the usual
arrangement.
Within the limits of the two general arrange-
ments just mentioned, there were many varia-
tions. Thus we find in relation to the gospels.
III. {a) Matthew, John, Luke, Mark ; in the
MSS. of the old Italic marked ^, 3, d, e, f, ff,
and in the cod. argenteus of Ulfila's Gothic
version.
{b) Matthew, John, Mark, Luke ; in the
council of Ephesus A.D. 431, Cyril of Alexan-
dria, Theodoret, the stichometry of the Cler-
mont MS. Such was the usual order in the
Greek Church of the fifth century.
{c) Mark is put first, followed by Matthew ;
in the fragment of a Bobbian MS. of the Itala
at Turin marked k.
{d) Matthew, Mark, John, Luke ; in the
ORDER OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. 223
Curetonian Syriac gospels. They are men-
tioned in the same order in Origen's I. Homily
on Luke.
The reason of the order in {a) and {b) lies in
apostleship. The works of apostles precede
those of evangelists. The established sequence,
which is already sanctioned by Irenaeus and
Origen, has respect to the supposed dates of
the gospels. Clement of Alexandria says that
ancient tradition supposed those gospels having
the genealogies to have been written before the
others.
IV. As to the Acts of the Apostles ^ not only
is this work put immediately after the gospels,
which is the order in the Muratorian canon,
but we find it in other positions.
{a) Gospels, Pauline Epistles, Acts ; in the
Sinaitic MS., the Peshito,i Jerome,2 and Epi-
phanius.
1 Hug says that his copy of Widmanstad's edition had the
Acts immediately following the Gospels.
' Epist. ad Paulinum.
224 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
ip) Gospels, Pauline Epistles, Catholic Epis-
tles, Acts ; in Augustine, the third council of
Toledo, Isidore, Innocent I., Eugenius IV., and
the Spanish Church generally.
{c) Gospels, Pauline, Catholic Epistles,
Apocalypse, Acts ; in the stichometry of the
Clermont MS.
V. As to the Epistles of Paid, besides the
place they now occupy in our Bibles, they
sometimes follow the gospels immediately.
{a) Gospels, Pauline Epistles ; the Sinaitic
MS., Jerome, Epiphanius, Augustine, the third
council of Toledo, Isidore, Innocent I., Euge-
nius IV., the stichometry of the Clermont MS.
(p) The usual order of the Gfeek Church is,
Gospels, Acts, Catholic Epistles, Pauline, &c.,
as in Cyril of Jerusalem, the Laodicean Council
(60), Athanasius, Leontius of Byzantium, the
MSS. A. B., but not «. The critical Greek
Testaments of Lachmann and Tischendorf
adopt this order.
ORDER OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. 225
(c) They are placed last of all in a homily
attributed to Origen, but this does not neces-
sarily shew that father's opinion.^
{d) They stand first of all in a Gallican
Sacramentarium cited by Hody.^
VI. With respect to the order of the indivi-
dual epistles, the current one has been thought
as old as Tertullian and Clement of Alex-
andria. But the proof of this is precarious.
It appears in the fourth century, and may
have been prior to that. It is in Epiphanius,
who supposes that the arrangement was the
apostle's own. Not only was it the prevalent
one in the Greek Church, but also in the Latin,
as we see from the codex Amiatinus, and the
Vulgate MSS. generally. It rests upon the
extent of the epistles and the relative impor-
tance of the localities in which the believers
addressed resided.
^ Horn. vii. in Josua.
'^ De Bibliorum textibus originalibus, &c., p. 654.
P
226 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
{a) Marcion had but ten Pauline epistles in
the following order : Galatians, i and 2 Corin-
thians, Romans, i and 2 Thessalonians, the
Laodiceans (Ephesians), Colossians, Philemon,
Philippians.
{b) I and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philip-
pians, Colossians, Galatians, I and 2 Thessa-
lonians, Romans, Philemon, Titus, I and 2
Timothy, to the Laodiceans, the Alexandrians
(the Epistle to the Hebrews); in the Muratorian
canon.
(c) Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephe-
sians, Philippians, Thessalonians, Colossians,
Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews ; in
Augustine, and several MSS. of the Vulgate
in England.^
{d) Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Thessa-
lonians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians,
Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews; in the
so-called decree of Gelasius in the name of
» /bui., p. 664.
ORDER OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. 227
Hormisdas, in Labbe's text. But here different
MSS. vary in regard to the position of the
Thessalonian epistles.
VI I. The Laodicean letter was inserted
either before the pastoral epistles, as in several
MSS. of the Vulgate in England ; or before
the Thessalonian epistles preceding them ; or
at the end of the Epistle to the Hebrews, as in
a MS. of the Latin Bible at Lambeth. Its
insertion in copies of the Vulgate was owing to
the authority of Gregory the Great, who looked
upon it as authentic.
VIII. The position of the Epistle to the
Hebrews usually was either before the pastoral
epistles, i.e., immediately after those to the
Thessalonians ; or after the pastoral ones and
Philemon. The former method was generally
adopted in the Greek Church from the fourth
century. The latter prevailed in the Latin
Church from Augustine onward.
(a) Pauline epistles to churches (the last
228 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
being the second to the Thessalonians),
Hebrews, Timothy, Titus, Philemon ; in the
MSS. N, A. B. C. H., Athanasius, Epip-
hanius, Euthalius,^ Theodoret. Jerome men-
tions it after the epistles of Paul to the
seven churches as an eighth excluded by the
majority, and proceeds to specify the pastoral
ones. But Amphilochius and Ebedjesu the
Syrian have the western order, viz., the follow-
ing—-
if)) Pauline Epistles, Hebrews (following im-
mediately that to Philemon) ; in Augustine and
the Vulgate version generally. It is so in the
canons of the councils at Hippo and Carthage
(A.D. 393 and 397), and in the MSS. D. and
G., in Isidore of Spain, and the council of Trent.
IX. With respect to the order of the Catholic
Epistles ^ which were not all adopted into the
canon till the end of the fourth century ; Euse-
* See Zacagni's Collectanea monumentorum veteruni Praefat^
p. Ixxi., &.C.
ORDER OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. 229
bius putting all except i John and i Peter
among the antilegomena ; while Jerome, and the
council of Carthage (a.d. 397) admit them
unreservedly ; the usual order, viz., James, i
and 2 Peter, John, Jude, prevailed in the
Eastern Church. It is in the Peshito or old
Syriac version, Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem,
Epiphanius, the 60th of the Laodicean canons,
Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Amphi-
lochius, the stichometry of Nicephorus, the
MSS. K. A. B. C, and most Greek MS. But
the 76th of the Apostolic canons has Peter,
John, James and Jude. The canon, however,
is comparatively late.
ici) Peter, John, Jude, James ; in Philastrius
of Brescia. If we may rely on Cassiodorus's
account of Augustine, the African father
followed the same arrangement.
{p) Peter, James, Jude, John ; in Rufinus.
(c) Peter, John, James, Jude ; in the councils
of Carthage, A.D. 397, 419, Cassiodorus, and
230 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE,
a Gallican Sacramentarium. The Vulgate and
council of Trent follow this arrangement.
{d) John, Peter, Jude, James ; in the list
given by Innocent L, and the third council
of Toledo.
The Eastern church naturally set the Epistle
of James, who was Bishop of Jerusalem, at the
head of the others ; while the Western put
Peter, the Bishop of Rome, in the same place.
X. The Revelation varied little in position.
{a) In the decree of Gelasius, according to
its three recensions, the Revelation follows
Paul's epistles, preceding those of John and
the other Catholic ones.
if)) In D or the Clermont MS. it follows the
Catholic epistles, and precedes the Acts ; which
last is thrown to the end of all the books, as if
it were an appendix to the writings of the
apostles.^
1 See Volkmar's Anhang to Cred tier's Geschichte des N. T.
A'anoHy p. 341, &c. ; and Hody Dc Bibliorum textibus
originalibus, p. 644, &c.
CHAPTER IX.
SUMMARY OF THE SUBJECT.
{a.) In relation to the Old Testament, the
prevailing tendency in the Greek Church was
to follow the Palestinian canon. Different lists
appeared from time to time in which the en-
deavour there to exclude apocryphal, 2>., spurious
works, was apparent. In addition to the
canonical, a class of ecclesiastical books was
judged fit for reading in the Church, — a
class intermediate between the canonical and
apocryphal. The distinction between the
canonical and ecclesiastical writings appears in
Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Epiphanius, &c.
The Latin Church showed a disposition to
elevate the ecclesiastical books of the Greek
Church to the rank of the canonical, making
232 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
the line between the two indistinct ; as we see
from the acts of the councils at Hippo and
Carthage, in the end of the fourth and beginning
of the fifth century, where Augustine's influence
was predominant. But notwithstanding this
deviation froni the stricter method of the Greeks,
learned men like Jerome adhered to the Pales-
tinian canon, and even styled the ecclesias-
tical books apocryphal^ transferring the epithet
from one class to another. Hilary and Rufinus
also followed the Greek usage.
During the sixth and following centuries, it
cannot be said that the canon of the Greek
Church was definitely closed, notwithstanding
the decrees of councils and references to older
authorities. Opinions still varied about certain
books, such as Esther ; though the Palestinian
list was commonly followed. During the same
period, the enlarged canon of the Alexandrian
Jews, which went far to abolish the distinction
between the canonical and deutero-canonical
. SUMMARY OF THE SUBJECT. 233
books, prevailed in the West, at least in practice ;
though some followed the shorter one, sanctioned
as it had been by Jerome. As both lists existed,
no complete or final settlement of the question
was reached in the Latin Church. Neither in
the East nor in the West was the canon of the
Old Testament really closed; for though the
stricter principle of separation prevailed in
theory, it was not carried out in practice con-
sistently or universally. The two men most
influential about the canon were Jerome and
Augustine; the one representing its Palestinian,
the other its Alexandrian type. After them no
legal or commanding voice fixed either, to the
absolute exclusion of its rival.
(^.) The charge of Constantine to Eusebius
to make out a list of writings for the use of the
Church and its performance may be considered
as that which first put the subject on a broad
and permanent basis. Its consequences were
important. If it cannot be called the completion
234 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
or close of the New Testament canon, it de-
termined it largely. Eusebius made a Greek
Bible containing the usual books, except the
Revelation. Though the historian of the church
was not well fitted for the task, being deficient
in critical ability and trammelled by tradition,
he doubtless used his best judgment. Hence,
about the year 337, the Constantinian Church
received a Bible which had an influential origin.
No binding authority indeed attached to the
list of the Christian books it presented ; but it
had weight in the Greek Church. It did not
prevent different opinions, nor deter individuals
from dissent. Thus Athanasius, who disliked
Eusebius and his party, issued a list of the
sacred writings which included the Revelation.
The canon of the Laodicean Council (a.d. 363)
agreed with the Constantine one.
That variations still existed in the Eastern
Church is shewn by the lists which vied with
one another in precedence. The apostolic canons
SUMMARY OF THE SUBJECT. 235
adopted the seven general epistles, while the
apostolic constitutions excluded them. The
Alexandrian MS. added to the ordinary books
of the New Testament Clement's two epistles ;
and Cosmas Indicopleustes omitted the general
epistles as well as the Apocalypse. At length
the Council of Constantinople, usually called
the Trullaii (a.d. 692), laid down positions that
fixed the canon for the Greek Church. The
endeavour in it was to attain to a conclusion
which should unite East and West. This
council did not enumerate the separate books,
but referred to older authorities, to the
eighty -five canons of the apostles, the de-
crees of the synods of Laodicea, Ephesus,
Carthage, and others; to Athanasius, Gregory
of Nazianzus, Amphliochius of Iconium, Cyril
of Alexandria, Gennadius, &c. After the
fourth century there was a general desire to
fall back on apostolic times, to appeal to
the Church, to ascertain the opinion of
236 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
synods or assemblies ; in a word, to rely on
authority.
Less discrepancy and activity were manifested
about the canon in the Western Church. Here
the chief doubts were directed to the epistle to
the Hebrews and the seven general ones. The
former was early excluded, and continued to be
so even in the time of Jerome. The latter were
adopted much sooner. The impulse given by
Constantine to determine the books of Scripture
re-acted on the West, where the Church con-
sidered it its own privilege. Augustine's in-
fluence contributed much to the settlement of
the question. The synods of Hippo (A.D. 393)
and of Carthage (a.d. 397) received the epistle
to the Hebrews and the seven general ones, thus
fixing the New Testament canon as it now is.
In 419 the African bishops, in the presence of a
Papal delegate, repeated their former decision.
After the West Goths joined the Catholic
Church in the sixth century, the Romish and
SUMMARY OF THE SUBJECT. 237
Spanish Churches gave prominence to the fact
of accepting both the Apocalypse and the epistle
to the Hebrews. The canon of the West was
now virtually closed ; the fourth Council of
Toledo (a.d. 632) at which Isidore was present,
agreeing with the Augustinian list, ratified as
that list had been by Innocent the First. The
reception of the epistle to the Hebrews was
facilitated by the objections of the Arians and
Semiarians; while opposition to the Priscil-
lianists in Spain strengthened adherence to the
traditional canon. Augustine and the Trullan
Council fixed the number of the New Testament
books as they are now.
With regard to the Bible canon in general,
we see that councils had weight when they
enumerated the sacred books ; that prominent
teachers delivered their opinion on the subject
with effect, and that tradition contributed to one
result ; but no general council closed the canon
once for all, till that of Trent promulgated its
238 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
decrees. This body, however, could only settle
the subject for Romanists, since, while the right
of private judgment is exercised, no corporation
can declare some books inspired and others not,
some authoritative in matters of faith, others
not, without presumption. Though the present
Bible canon rests upon the judgment of good
and learned men of different times, it can never
be finally or infallibly settled, because the critical
powers of readers differ, and all do not accept
church authority with unhesitating assent.
It is the way of men to defer unduly to the
opinions expressed by synods and councils,
especially if they be propounded dogmatically ;
to acquiesce in their decisions with facility rather
than institute independent inquiry. This is ex-
emplified in the history of the canon, where the
fallibility of such bodies in determining canon-
icity is conspicuous. It is so in the general re-
ception of the book of Esther, while the old
poem, the Song of Songs, was called in question
SUMMARY OF THE SUBJECT, 239
at the synod of Jamnia ; in the omission of the
Revelation from the canonical list by many be-
longing to the Greek Church, while the epistles
to Timothy and Titus were received as St Paul's
from the beginning almost universally.
CHAPTER X.
THE CANON IN THE CONFESSIONS OF
DIFFERENT CHURCHES.
The second Helvetic Confession (A.D. 1566)
speaks of the apocryphal books of the Old
Testament as those which the ancients wished
to be read in the churches, but not as authorita-
tive in matters of faith.^
The Gallic Confession (A.D. 1559) makes a
distinction between canonical and other books,
the former being the rule and norm of faith,
not only by the consent of the Church, but much
more by the testimony and intrinsic persuasion
of the Spirit, by whose suggestions we are taught
to distinguish them from other ecclesiastical
books which, though useful, are not of the kind
^ Niemeyer, Colledio Con/essionum, p. 468.
IN THE CONFESSIONS. 241
that any article of faith can be constituted by
them.^
The Belgic Confession (A.D. 1561) niakes a
distinction between the sacred and apocryphal
books. The latter may be read by the Church,
but no doctrine can be derived from them.
In the list of New Testament books given there
diXQ fourteen epistles of Paul.^
The canon of the Waldenses must have
coincided at first with that of the Roman
Church ; for the Dublin MS. containing the
New Testament has attached to it the Book
of Wisdom and the first twenty-three chapters
of Sirach ; while the Zurich codex of the New
Testament has marginal references to the Apoc-
rypha ; to Judith, Tobit, 4 Esdras, Wisdom,
Sirach, and Susanna. The Nobla Leyczo7i con-
taining a brief narration of the contents of the
Old and New Testaments confirms this opinion.
* Niemeyer's Collectio Confessionuniy p. 330.
2 Ibid., pp. 361, 362,
Q
242 'IHE CANON OF THE BIBLE
It opposes, however, the old law to the new,
making them antagonistic. The historical
document containing the articles of " The
Union of the Valleys," A.D. 1571, separates
indeed the canonical and apocryphal books,
purporting to be founded on a Confession of
Faith as old as A.D. 11 20; but the latter is
mythical, as appears from a comparison of it
with the epistle which the legates of the Wal-
densians gave to CEcolampadius. The articles
of that " Union " are copied from Morel's
account of his transactions with CEcolampadius
and Bucer in 1530. The literature of this
people was altered by Hussite influences and
the Reformation ; so that though differing
little from the Romanists at first except in
ecclesiastical discipline, they diverged widely
afterwards by adopting the Protestant canon
and doctrines.^ Hence the Confession issued
* See Herzog's Die Romanischen Waldenser^ p. 55, &c. ; and
his programm De originc et pristitio statu Waldcnsium^ &c.,
pp. 17, 40, 41.
IN THE CONFESSIONS. 243
in 1655 enumerates as Holy Scripture nothing
but the Jewish Palestinian canon, and the
usual books of the New Testament.^
The canon of the Anglican Church (1562),
given in the sixth article of religion, defines
holy Scripture to be " those canonical books of
the Old and New Testament, of whose authority
was never any doubt in the Church." After
giving the names and number of the canonical
books, the article prefaces the apocryphal ones
with, " And the other books (as Hierome saith)
the Church doth read for example of life and
instruction of manners ; but yet doth it not
apply them to establish any doctrine. Such are
these following," &c., &c. At the end it is stated
that " all the books of the New Testament, as
they are commonly received, we do receive and
account them canonical." The article is ambi-
guous. If the canonical books enumerated are
those meant in the phrase " of whose authority
^ Leger's Histoire des Egliscs Vaudoises^ vol. i., p. 112, &c.
244 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE
was never any doubt in the Church," the state-
ment is incorrect If a distinction is implied
between the canonical books and such canonical
ones as have never been doubted in the Church,
the meaning is obscure. In either case the
language is not explicit.
The Scottish or Westminster Confession of
Faith gives a list of all the books of the Old
and New Testaments as the Word of God
written; adding that those called the apoc-
rypha are not of divine inspiration, and no
part of the canon, — of no authority in the
Church, nor to be approved or made use of
otherwise than human writings.
The Roman Catholic canon was finally
determined at the Council of Trent (1546),
which adopted all the books in the Vulgate
as sacred and canonical, without distinction.
Third and fourth Esdras, third Maccabees, and
the prayer of Manasseh were not included ;
though the first and last appeared in the original
IN THE CONFESSIONS. 245
Clementine edition of 1 592, but apart from the
canonical books. They are not in the Sixtine
edition of 1590.^ A council at Florence in
1441 had set the example which was followed
at Trent. But this stringent decree did not
prevent individual Catholics from making a
distinction between the books, in assuming
a first and second canon or proto- canonical
and deutero-canonical books ; as did Sixtus
Senensis, B. Lamy, Anton a matre Dei, Jahn,
and others ; though it is hardly consistent
with orthodox Catholicism or the view of those
who passed the decree. When the writings are
said to be of different authority — some more,
others less — the intent of the council is violated.
The Vatican council (1870) confirmed the
Tridentine decree respecting the canon.
The Greek Church, after several ineffectual
^ The reason given for their being added as a separate
appendix is that they are cited by some fathers and found in
some Latin Bibles.
246 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
attempts to uphold the old distinction between
the canonical and ecclesiastical books by Metro-
phanes Critopulus patriarch of Alexandria in
1625, and Cyril Lucaris patriarch of Constan-
tinople (1638 A.D.),^ came to the same decision
with the Romish, and canonized all the apoc-
rypha. This was done at a Jerusalem synod
under Dositheus in 1672.
1 Kimmel's Monumenta fidei eccles. orient y part i. p. 467.
CHAPTER XI.
THE CANON FROM SEMLER TO THE PRESENT
TIME, WITH REFLECTIONS ON ITS READ-
JUSTMENT.
Semler ^ was the most conspicuous scholar
after the Reformation who undertook to correct
the prevailing ideas respecting the canon.
Acquainted with the works of Toland and
Morgan, he adopted some of their views, and
prosecuted his inquiries on their lines chiefly in
relation to the New Testament. He had no
definite principles to guide him, but judged
books chiefly by their christian value and use to
the Church. Though his views are sometimes
one-sided and his essays ill-digested, he placed
the subject in new lights, and rendered a service
^ +I79I AD.
248 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE
to truth which bore abundant fruit in after years.^
He dealt tradition severe blows, and freed
theolog>' from the yoke of the letter. He was
followed by his disciple Corrodi, by G. L. Oeder,
J. D. Michaelis, Herder, Lessing, and Eichhorn,
— most of whom recommended their views by
a freshness of style which Semler did not
command. The more recent works of Gesenius,
De Wette, Zunz, Ewald, Hitzig, Geiger and
Herzfeld have contributed to form a juster
opinion of the true position which the books of
the Bible occupy.
In the New Testament, the writings of F. C.
Baur have opened up a new method of investi-
gating the canon, which promises important
and lasting results. Proceeding in the track of
Semler, he prosecuted his researches into primi-
tive Christianity with great acuteness and
singular power of combination. Though his
* Abhandlung von frcier Untersuchung des Canon, 4 parts,
Halle, 1771-1775.
SINCE SEMLER. 249
separation of Petrine and Pauline Christianity is
not new, he has applied it in ways which neither
Toland nor Morgan was competent to manage.
These writers perceived the difference between
the leading principle of the twelve and that of
Paul, they had some far-seeing glimpses of the
origin and differences of the New Testament
writings,^ but they propounded them in an un-
systematic way along with untenable conjec-
tures. It was reserved for the Tubingen pro-
fessor to elaborate the hypothesis of an Ebionite
or primitive Christianity in contra-distinction
from a Pauline, applying it to the origin and
constitution of christian literature; in a word,
to use a tendenz-kritik for opening up the
genius of the sacred writings as well as the
stages of early Christianity out of which they
arose. The head of the Tubingen school, it is
true, has carried out the antagonism between
1 See Toland's Nazarejtus, p. 25, &c., second edition ; and
Morgan's Moral Philosopher, vol. i. p. 56, &c.
250 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE
the Petrine and Pauline christians too rigorously,
and invaded the authenticity of the sacred
writings to excess ; for it is hazardous to make
a theory extremely stringent to the comparative
neglect of modifying circumstances, which,
though increasing the difficulty of criticism,
contribute to the security of its processes. Yet
he has properly emphasized internal evidence ;
and many of his conclusions about the books
will stand. He has thrown much light on the
original relations of parties immediately after
the origin of Christianity, and disturbed an
organic unity of the New Testament which had
been merely asstmted by traditionalists. The
best Introductions to the New Testament must
accept them to some extent. The chief char-
acteristic of the school is the application of
historic criticism to the genesis of the New
Testament writings, irrespective of tradition —
a striving to discover the circumstances or
tendencies out of which the books originated.
SINCE SEMLER. 251
Baur's tendenz - principle judiciously applied
cannot but produce good results.
We have seen that sound critical considera-
tions did not regulate the formation of the
three collections which make up the entire
canon of the Old Testament. Had it been
so, the Pentateuch would not have been
attributed to Moses. Neither would a number
of latter prophecies have been accepted as
Isaiah's and incorporated with the prophet's
authentic productions. All the Proverbs, the
book of Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs
would not have been assigned to Solomon ;
Jonah would have been separated from the
prophets, and Daniel must have had a later
position in the Hagiographa. We cannot,
therefore, credit the collectors or editors of
the books with great critical sagacity. But
they did their best in the circumstances, pre-
serving invaluable records of the Hebrew
people. In like manner, it has appeared, that
252 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE
the ecclesiastics to whom we owe the New
Testament collection were not sharp-sighted
in the literature with which they had to do.
It is true that well-founded doubts were
entertained by the early Christians about
several portions, such as the second Epistle of
Peter, the Epistle to the Hebrews, &c., but
the Revelation was needlessly discredited.
They accepted without hesitation the pastoral
epistles as Pauline, but doubted some of the
Catholic Epistles, whch bear the impress of
authenticity more strongly, such as James.
It is therefore incorrect to say that 2 Peter,
2 and 3 John, James, Jude, Epistle to the
Hebrews, and the Apocalypse " have been
received into the canon on evidence less
complete " than that belonging to the
others. The very general admission of the
fourth gospel as the apostle John's, is a curious
example of facile traditionalism. Biblical criti-
cism, however, scarcely existed in the first three
ITS READJUSTMENT. 253
centuries. It is for us to set the subject in
another light, because our means of judging
are superior. If the resources of the early fathers
were inadequate to the proper sifting of a co-
pious literature, they should be mildly judged.
The question of the canon is not settled. It
is probably the work of successive inquirers to
set it on a right basis, and adjust the various
parts in a manner consistent with historic
criticism, sound reason, and religion. The
absolute and relative worth of books ; the
degrees in which they regulate ethics and
conduct ; their varying values at the times of
their first appearance and our own ; their places
in the general history of human progress — all
these must be determined before the documents
of Judaism and Christianity be classified aright.
Their present arrangement is external. Based
on no interior principle, it furnishes little help
toward a thorough investigation of the whole.
Those who look upon the question as historical
254 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE
and literary take a one-sided view. It has a
theological character also. It needs the applica-
tion, not only of historic criticism, but the
immediate consciousness belonging to every
Christian. The two Testaments should be
separated, and their respective positions
assigned to each — the Old having been
preparatory to the New. Should it be said
bluntly, as it is in the 7th Article of the
Anglican Church, that the Old is not contrary
to the New Testament } Luther at least ex-
pressed his opinion of the difference between
them pretty clearly ; ^ though the theologians of
Germany after him evinced a desire to minimise
the difference.^ Should the general opinion of
^ For example, "Moses is dead; his rule went out when
Christ came — he is of no further service here. . . . We
are willing to regard him as a teacher, but we will not regard
him as our lawgiver, unless he agree ivith the New Testament
and the law of nature." Sdmmtliche Schriften, ed. "Walch.
dritter Theil., pp. 7, 8.
' Such as Calovius, Chemnitz, John Gerhard, W. Lyser,
Quenstedt, Brochmand, HoUaz, &c. Mclancthon also makes
ITS READJUSTMENT. 255
the Protestant Church that the authority of the
Old Testament is not subordinate to that of the
New be rigidly upheld? According to one aspect
of the former it may be so, viz., its prophetic
and theological aspect, that in which it is
brought into close union with the latter ; the
essence of the one being foreshadowed or
implied in the other, as Justin Martyr supposed.
And this view has never lost supporters, who
by the help of double senses, types, and
symbols, with assumed prediction of the definite
and distant future, transform the old dispensa-
tion into an outline picture of the new ; taking
into it a body of divinity which is alien from its
nature. According to another aspect, viz., the
moral and historical, the equality can scarcely
be allowed. Schleiermacher is right in saying
that the Old Testament seems to be nothing
but a superfluous authority for doctrine ; an
no important distinction between the two Testaments in his Loci
theologici. Calvin's theology was derived from the Old Testa-
ment more than the New.
2S6 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
opinion coinciding with that of the early
Socinians, who held that it has a historical, not
a dogmatic, value. Only such of our pious
emotions as are of a general nature are accu-
rately reflected in the Old Testament ; and all
that is most decidedly Jewish is of least value
to christians. The alleged coincidence of the
Old Testament with the New must be modified
by the doctrine of development. It has been
fostered by types and prophecies supposed to
refer to christian times ; by the assumed dicta-
tion of all Scripture by the Holy Spirit; by
fancied references of the one dispensation to the
other; by the confounding of a Jewish Messiah
sketched in various prophets, with Jesus Christ,
as if the latter had not changed, exalted and
purified the Messianic idea to suit his sublime
purposes of human regeneration. The times
and circumstances in which the Old Testament
Scriptures appeared, the manners, usages, civil-
isation, intellectual and moral stage of the
ITS READJUSTMENT. 257
Semitic race combine to give them a lower
position than that of the New Testament books
which arose out of a more developed perception
of the relations between God and men. Spiri-
tual apprehension had got beyond Jewish par-
ticularism, especially in the case of the apostle
Paul, who gave the new religion a distinct
vitality by severing it from its Jewish pre-
decessor.
The agreement of the New Testament books
with themselves must be modified by the same
doctrine of development. Jewish and Pauline
Christianity appear in different works, necessarily
imparting a difference of views and expression ;
or they are blended in various degrees, as in the
epistles to the Hebrews and the first of Peter.
Hence absolute harmony cannot be looked for.
If the standpoints of the writers were so diverse,
how can their productions coincide.? The
alleged coincidence can only be intersected with
varieties proportioned to the measures in which
R
2S8 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
the authors possessed the Spirit of God. These
varieties affect the matter as well as the manner
of the writings. It is therefore unphilosophical
to treat the Bible as a whole which was dictated
by the Spirit and directed to one end. Its
uniformity is chequered with variety; its har-
mony with disagreement. It is a bundle of
books ; a selection from a wider literature,
reflecting many diversities of religious appre-
hension. After the two Testaments have been
rightly estimated according to their respective
merits, the contents of each should be duly
apportioned — internal evidence being the test of
their relative importance, irrespective of a priori
assumptions. Their traditional origin and
authority must be subordinated to the inherent
value they bear, or the conformity of the ideas
to the will of God. The gradual formation of
both canons suggests an analysis of the classes
into which they came to be put ; for the same
canonical dignity was not attributed by the
ITS READJUSTMENT. ' 259
Jews to the books contained in the three
divisions ; and the controverted writings of
the New Testament found gradual recog-
nition very slowly. Luther made important
distinctions between the canonical books 1 ; and
Carlstadt put the Antilegomena of the New
Testament on a par with the Hagiographa of
the Old.
In the Old Testament the three classes or
canons have been generally estimated by the Jews
according to their respective antiquity ; though
the sacrificial worship enjoined in the Penta-
teuch never formed an essential part of the
Jewish religion ; the best prophets having set
small value upon it. The pure monotheistic
doctrine of these last writers, chiefly contained
in the second canon, lifts that class up to the
highest rank ; yet the Decalogue in the Penta-
^ His full sayings are collected in Bretschneider's Luther an
unsere Zeity pp. 186-224 j and in Krause's Opuscula theologica,
pp. 205-241,
26o THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
teuch is sufficient to stamp the first canon with
great worth. It must be confessed, however, that
the Mosaic law was meagre, in the domain of
pure ethics ; and that it promoted among the
people a slavish spirit of positivism by laying
more stress on acts than dispositions, and insist-
ing on small regulations. For this reason, the
prophets combated its narrow externality. The
three canons were regarded with a degree of
veneration corresponding to the order in which
they stand. To apportion their respective
values to the individual parts of them is a
difficult task.
As to the New Testament writings, we think
that some of them might conveniently occupy
the position of duetero-canonical, equivalent to
those of the Old Testament having that title.
We allude to 2 and 3 John, Jude, James, 2
Peter, the Revelation. It is true that a few of
these were prior in time to some of the univer-
sally-received gospels or epistles ; but time is
riS READJUSTMENT. 261
not an important factor in a good classification.
Among the Pauline epistles themselves, classifi-
cation might be adopted ; for the pastoral
letters are undoubtedly post-Pauline, and in-
ferior to the authentic ones. In classifying the
New Testament writings, three things might be
considered — the reception they met with from the
first, their authenticity, above all, their internal
excellence. The subject is not easy, because
critics are not universally agreed about the
proper rank and authenticity of a few docu-
ments. The Epistle to the Colossians, for
example, creates perplexity ; that to the
Ephesians is less embarrassing, its post-Pauline
origin being tolerably clear.
What is wanted is a rational historic criti-
cism to moderate the theological hypotheses
with which the older Protestants set out, the
supernatural inspiration of the books, their
internal inseparability, and their direct reference
to the work'of salvation. It must be allowed that
262 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
many points are independent of dogmatics ;
and that the right decision in things historical
may be reached apart from any ecclesiastical
standpoint.
Again, should the distinction between the
apocryphal and canonical books of the Old
Testament be emphasized as it is by many?
Should a sharp line be put between the two,
as though the one class, with the period it
belonged to, were characterized by the errors
and anachronisms of its history ; the other by
simplicity and accuracy ; the one, by books
written under fictitious names; the other, by
the power to distinguish truth from falsehood
or by honesty of purpose ? Should the one
be a sign of the want of truthfulness and
discernment ; the other, of religious simplicity ?
Can this aggregation of the Apocrypha over
against the Hagiographa, serve the purpose
of a just estimate ? Hardly so ; for some of
the latter, such as Esther and Ecclesiastes,
ITS READJUSTMENT. 263
cannot be put above Wisdom, ist Maccabees,
Judith, Baruch, or Ecclesiasticus. The doctrine
of immortahty, clearly expressed in the Book of
Wisdom, is not in Ecclesiastes ; neither is God
once named in the Book of Esther as author of
the marvellous deliverances which the chosen
people are said to have experienced. The his-
tory narrated in ist Maccabees is more credible
than that in Esther. It is therefore misleading
to mark off all the apocryphal works as human
and all the canonical ones as divine. The divine
and the human elements in man are too inti-
mately blended to admit of such separation.
The best which he produces partakes of both.
The human element still permeates them as
long as God speaks through man ; and He
neither dictates nor speaks otherwise. In the
attributes claimed for the canonical books no
rigid line can be drawn. It may be that
the inspiration of their authors differed in
degree; that the writer of Ecclesiastes, for
264 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
example, was more philosophical than Jesus
son of Sirach ; but different degrees of in-
spiration belong to the canonical writers them-
selves. Undue exaltation of the Hebrew
canon does injustice to the wider Alexandrian
one. Yet some still speak of "the pure Hebrew
canon," identifying it with that of the Church
of England. We admit that history had be-
come legendary, that it was written in an ora-
torical style by the Alexandrian Jews, and was
used for didactic purposes as in Tobit and
Judith. Gnomic poetry had survived in the
book of Sirach ; prophecy, in Baruch and the
Epistle of Jeremiah, though here the language
is already prosaic. Imitation is too observable
in the matter and manner of the Apocrypha.
They have parallels, however, among the Hagio-
grapha, which originated in an age when the
genuine breath of prophetic inspiration had
ceased; when history and prophecy had degene-
rated ; so that the transition from Esther and
ITS READJUSTMENT. 265
Malachi to Judith and Baruch, as also from
Proverbs to Wisdom, is not great.
The Talnmdic canon is generally adopted
at the present day. It was not, however,
universally received even by the Jews; for
Esther was omitted out of it by those from
whom Melito got his catalogue in Palestine ;
while Sirach was annexed to it as late as the
beginning of the 4th century. Baruch was
also added in several Jewish circles, doubtless
on account of its supposed authorship. Thus
" the pure Hebrew canon " was not one and the
same among all Jews ; and therefore the phrase
is misleading. Neither is it correct to say that
it is the only canon distinctly recognized during
the first four centuries, unless the usage of the
early fathers be set over against their assumed
contrary judgment ; nor can all who followed
the Alexandrian canon be pronounced uncritical,
including Origen himself. A stereotyped canon
of the Old Testament, either among Jews or
266 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
Christians of the first four centuries, which
excluded all the apocryphal books and in-
cluded all the canonical ones, cannot be
shown. And in regard to "the critical judg-
ment " of Jews and Christians in that period
it is arbitrary to suppose that such as adopted
the present canonical books alone were more
discerning than others. They were more
traditional and conservative ; their discriminat-
ing faculty not corresponding to the degree of
their reliance on the past.
The aim of the inquirer should be to find
from competent witnesses — from contempor-
aneous or succeeding writers of trustworthy
character — the authors and ages of the biblical
books. When evidence of this kind is not
available as often happens, the only resource
is the internal. The external evidence in
favour of the canon is all but exhausted, and
nothing of importance can be added to it now.
Its strength has been brought out ; its weakness
TTS READJUSTMENT. 267
has not been equally exhibited. The problem
resolves itself into an examination of internal
characteristics, which may be strong enough to
modify or counterbalance the external. The
latter have had an artificial preponderance in the
past; henceforward they must be regulated by the
internal. The main conclusion should be drawn
from the contents of the books themselves.
And the example of Jews and Christians, to
whom we owe the Bible canon, shows that
classification is necessary. This is admitted both
by Roman Catholic writers and orthodox Pro-
testants. A gloss-writer on what is usually
called the " decree of Gratian," i.e., the Bolog-
nese canonist of the 12th century, remarks
about the canonical books, "all may be received
but may not be held in the same estimation."
John Gerhard speaks of a second or der, containing
the books of the New Testament, about whose
authors there were some doubts in the Church;^
1} Loci Theologici, Tom. i. pp. 186, 187, ed. Cotta, 1762.
268 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
and Quenstedt similarly specifies proto-canonical
and deiitero-canonical New Testament books, or
those of the first and second order/ What are
degrees or kinds of inspiration assumed by
many, but a tacit acknowledgment of the fact
that books vary in intrinsic value as they
are more or less impregnated with divine
truth or differ in the proportion of the eter-
nal and temporal elements which commingle
in every revealed religion ? Doubtless the
authors from whom the separate books pro-
ceeded, if discoverable, should be regarded ;
the inspiration of an Isaiah is higher than that
of a Malachi, and an apostle is more authorita-
tive than an evangelist ; but the authors are
often unknown. Besides, the process of redaction
through which many of the writings passed
hinders an exact knowledge of authorship.
In these circumstances the books themselves
must determine the position they should occupy
^ Theologia Didactico-polemica, p. 340.
ITS READJUSTMENT. 269
in the estimation of those who are looking at
records of the past to help their spiritual life.
And if it be asked, What principle should lie at
the basis of a thorough classification ? the
answer is, the normative element contained in the
sacred books. This is the characteristic which
should regulate classification. The time when
a book appeared, its author, the surrounding
circumstances that influenced him, are of less
consequence than its bearing upon the spiri-
tual education of mankind. The extent of
its adequacy to promote this end determines
the rank. Such books as embody the in-
destructible essence of religion with the fewest
accidents of time, place and nature — which
present conditions not easily disengaged from
the imperishable life of the soul, deserve
the first rank. Whatever Scriptures express
ideas consonant with the nature of God as
a holy, loving, just and good Being — as a bene-
volent Father not willing the destruction of any
270 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
of his children ; the Scriptures presenting ideas
of Him consistent with pure reason and man's
highest instincts, besides such as set forth our
sense of dependence on the infinite ; the books,
in short, that contain a revelation from God with
least admixture of the human conditions under
which it is transmitted — these belong to the
highest class. If they lead the reader away
from opinion to practice, from dogma to life,
from non-doing to obedience to the law of moral
duty, from the notion that everything in salva-
tion has been done for him to the keeping of
the commandments, from particularist concep-
tions about the divine mercy to the widest
belief of its overshadowing presence — such
books of Scripture are in that same proportion
to be ranked among the best. In regard to the
Old Testament, conformity to Christ's teaching
will determine rank; or, which is tantamount,
conformity to that pure reason which is God's
natural revelation in man ; a criterion which
ITS READJUSTMENT, 271
assigns various ranks to such Scriptures as ap-
peared among a Semite race at a certain stage
of its development. In the New Testament, the
words and precepts of Jesus have a character
of their own, though it is very difficult to select
them from the gospels. The supposition that
the apostles' productions possess a higher
authority than those of their disciples, is natural.
But the immediate followers of Christ did not
all stand on one platform. Differing from one
another even in important principles, it is
possible, if not certain, that some of their dis-
ciples' composition may be of higher value.
The spirit of God may have wrought within the
apostles generally with greater power and clear-
ness than in other teachers ; but its operation is
conditioned not merely by outward factors but
by individual idiosyncracy ; so that one who
had not seen the Lord and was therefore not an
apostle proper, may have apprehended his mind
better than an immediate disciple. Paul stood
272 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
above the primitive apostles in the extent to
which he fathomed the pregnant sayings of
Jesus and developed their latent germs. Thus
the normative element — that which determines
the varying degrees of authority belonging to
the New Testament — does not lie in apostolic
authorship but internal worth ; in the clearness
and power with which the divine Spirit enabled
men to grasp the truth. By distinguishing the
temporal and the eternal in Christianity, the
writings necessarily rise or sink in proportion to
these elements. The eternal is the essence and
gem of revealed truth. Perfectibility belongs
only to the temporal ; it cannot be predicated of
the eternal.
The multitudinous collection of books con-
tained in the Bible is not pervaded by unity of
purpose or plan, so as to make a good classifica-
tion easy. Least of all is it dominated by such
substantial unity as has been connected with one
man ; for the conception of a Messiah was
ITS READJUSTMENT. 373
never the national belief of Judaism, but a notion
projected by prophets into the future to comfort
the people in times of disaster ; the forecasting
of aspirations doomed to disappointment.
From the collection presenting various degrees
of intellectual and moral development, it is
difficult to see a sufficient reason for some
being canonised to the exclusion of better
works which were relegated to the class of the
apocryphal.
Mr Jones's^ statement that the primitive
Christians are proper judges to determine what
book is canonical, requires great modification,
being too vague to be serviceable ; for " primi-
tive Christians" is a phrase that needs to be
defined. How far do they extend } How
much of the first and second centuries do they
cover.!* Were not the primitive Christians
^ See Jones's new and full method of settling the canonical
authority of the New Testament, Vol. I., Part i., chap. 5, page
52, ed. 1736.
S
274 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
divided in their beliefs ? Did the Jewish
and the Pauline ones unite in accepting the
same writings ? Not for a considerable time,
until the means of ascertaining the real authors
of the books and the ability to do so were
lacking.
As to the Old Testament, the Palestinian
Jews determined the canonical books by
gradually contracting the list and stopping it
at a time when their calamities throwing
them back on the past for springs of hope, had
stiffened them within a narrow traditionalism ;
but their brethren in Egypt, touched by
Alexandrian culture and Greek philosophy,
received later productions into their canon,
some of which at least are of equal value with
Palestinian ones. In any case, the degree of
authority attaching to the Biblical books grew
from"' less to greater, till it culminated in a
divine character, a sacredness rising even to in-
fallibility. Doubtless the Jews of Palestine dis-
ITS READJUSTMENT. . 275
tinguished the canonical from the apocryphal
or deutero-canonical books on grounds satis-
factory to themselves ; but their judgment was
not infallible. A senate of Rabbis under the
old dispensation might err, as easily as a synod
of priests under the new. Though they may
have been generally correct, it must not be
assumed that they were always so. Their dis-
cernment may be commended without being
magnified. The general feeling of leaning upon
the past was a sound one, for the best times of
Judaism had departed, and with them the most
original effusions ; yet the wave of Platonism
that passed over Alexandria could not but
quicken even the conservative mind of the Jew.
Greek thought blended with echoes of the past,
though in dulled form. Still a line had to be
drawn in the national literature; and it was
well drawn on the whole. The feeling existed
that the collection must be closed with works of
a certain period and a certain character ; and it
276 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE :
was closed accordingly, without preventing
individuals from putting their private opinions
over against authority, and dissenting.
At the present day a new arrangement is
necessary ; but where is the ecclesiastical body
bold enough to undertake it ? And if it were
attempted or carried out by non-ecclesiastical
parties, would the churches approve or adopt
the proceeding? We venture to say, that if
some books be separated from the collection
and others put in their place — if the classifica-
tion of some be altered, and their authority
raised or lowered — good will be done ; the
Bible will have a fairer degree of normal power
in doctrine and morals, and continue to promote
spiritual life. Faith in Christ precedes faith in
books. Unless criticism be needlessly nega-
tive it cannot remove this time-honoured legacy
from the position it is entitled to, else the
spiritual consciousness of humanity will rebel.
While the subject is treated reverently, and the
ITS READJUSTMENT. 277
love of truth overrides dogmatic prejudices,
the canon will come forth in a different
form from that which it has had for cen-
turies— a form on which faith may rest with-
out misgiving.
The canon was a work of divine providence,
because history, in a religious view, necessarily
implies the fact. It was a work of inspiration,
because the agency of the Holy Spirit has
always been with the people of God as a
principle influencing their life. It was not,
however, the result of a special or peculiar act
of divine inspiration at any one time, but of a
gradual illuminating process, shaped by in-
fluences more or less active in the divine
economy.
The canonical authority of Scripture does
not depend on any church or council. The
early church may be cited as a witness for it ;
that is all. Canonical authority lies in Scripture
itself, and is inherent in the books so far as
278 THE CANON OF THE BIBLE.
they contain a declaration of the divine will.
Hence there is truth in the statement of old
theologians that the authority of Scripture is
from God alone. It was the early church indeed
that made the canon, selecting the books which
appeared to have been written by apostles or
apostolic men, and carrying over to them
authority from alleged authenticity more than
internal value. But the latter is the real index
of authority ; and God is the fountain from
whom spiritual endowments proceed.^ The
canonicity of the books is a distinct question
^ Ecclesia sua autoritate nullum librum facit canonicum,
quippe canonica scripturae autoritas est a solo Deo, &c.
Gerhard's Loci Theologici^ torn. i. p. 4, ed. Cotta. Autoritas
scripturae quoad nos nihil aliud est, quam manifestatio et
cognitio unicDe illius divinoe et summce autoritatis, quae scripturae
est interna et insita. Ecclesia igitur non confert scripturce
novam aliquam autoritatem quoad nos, sed testificatione sua ad
agnitionem illius veritatis nos deducit. Concedimus, ecclesiam
esse scripturae sacrae testem, custodevi, vindueniy praeconefn, et
interpretem ; sed negamus, ex eo efifici, quod autoritas scripturae
sive simpliciter sive quoad nos ab ecclesia pendeat et quidem
unice, pendeat.— /^V/., tomus secundus, p. 39, ed. Cotta.
ITS READJUSTMENT. 279
from that of their authenticity. The latter is a
thing of historic criticism ; the former of
doctrinal belief Their ecclesiastical authority
rests on outward attestation ; their normal, on
faith and feeling.
TurnbuU cr-> Spears, Printers,
18
RETURN CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT
TO— ^ 202 AAoin Library
LOAN PERIOD 1
HOME USE
2 :
3
4
5 (
s
ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS
RENEWALS AND RECHARGES MAY 8E MADE 4 DAYS PRIOR TO DUE DATE.
LOAN PERIODS ARE 1-MONTH. 3-MONTHS. AND 1-YEAR.
RENEWALS; CALL (415) 642-3405
DUE AS STAMPED BELOW
fvlAY 'A - w<-
WIKC MAY 9 4 lyy
\
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
FORM NO. DD6, 60m, 1/83 BERKELEY, CA 94720
U.C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES
CDEED33Dfla
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11