Chapter 14

ITS READJUSTMENT.

Semler(382) 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 to truth which bore abundant fruit in after years.(383) He dealt tradition severe blows, and freed theology 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 investigating the canon, which promises important and lasting results. Proceeding in the track of Semler, he prosecuted his researches into primitive Christianity with great acuteness and singular power of combination. Though his 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,(384) but they propounded them in an unsystematic way along with untenable conjectures. It was reserved for the Tübingen professor 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 Tübingen school, it is true, has carried out the antagonism between 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 _assumed_ by traditionalists. The best Introductions to the New Testament must accept them to some extent. The chief characteristic 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. Baur’s _tendenz_-principle judiciously applied cannot but produce good results.

We have seen that sound critical considerations did not regulate the formation of the three collections which made 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, preserving invaluable records of the Hebrew people. In like manner, it has appeared, that 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, which 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 criticism, however, scarcely existed in the first three 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 copious 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 and literary take a one-sided view. It has a theological character also. It needs the application, 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 expressed his opinion of the difference between them pretty clearly;(385) though the theologians of Germany after him evinced a desire to minimise the difference.(386) Should the general opinion of 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 dispensation 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 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 accurately 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 _dictation_ 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, civilization, intellectual and moral stage of the 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. Spiritual apprehension had got beyond Jewish particularism, especially in the case of the apostle Paul, who gave the new religion a distinct vitality by severing it from its Jewish predecessor.

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 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 harmony with disagreement. It is a bundle of books; a selection from a wider literature, reflecting many diversities of religious apprehension. 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 Jews to the books contained in the three divisions; and the controverted writings of the New Testament found gradual recognition very slowly. Luther made important distinctions between the canonical books;(387) 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 Pentateuch 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 Pentateuch 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 insisting 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 _deutero-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 universally-received gospels or epistles; but time is not an important factor in a good classification. Among the Pauline epistles themselves, classification might be adopted; for the pastoral letters are undoubtedly post-Pauline, and inferior 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 documents. 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 criticism to moderate the theological hypothesis 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 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, cannot be put above Wisdom, 1st Maccabees, Judith, Baruch, or Ecclesiasticus. The doctrine of immortality, 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 marvelous deliverances which the chosen people are said to have experienced. The history narrated in 1st 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 intimately 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 example, was more philosophical than Jesus, son of Sirach; but different degrees of inspiration belong to the canonical writers themselves. 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 become legendary, that it was written in an oratorical 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 Hagiographa, which originated in an age when the genuine breath of prophetic inspiration had ceased; when history and prophecy had degenerated; so that the transition from Esther and Malachi to Judith and Baruch, as also from Proverbs to Wisdom, is not great.

The _Talmudic_ 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 Christians of the first four centuries, which excluded all the apocryphal books and included all the canonical ones, cannot be shown. And in regard to “the critical judgment” 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 discriminating 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 contemporaneous 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 favor 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 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 Protestants. A gloss-writer on what is usually called the “decree of Gratian,” _i.e._, the Bolognese 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 order_, containing the books of the New Testament, about whose authors there were some doubts in the Church;(388) and Quenstedt similarly specifies _proto-canonical_ and _deutero-canonical_ New Testament books, or those of the first and second order.(389) 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 eternal and temporal elements which commingle in every revealed religion? Doubtless the authors from whom the separate books proceeded, if discoverable, should be regarded; the inspiration of an Isaiah is higher than that of a Malachi, and an apostle is more authoritative 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 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 spiritual education of mankind. The extent of its adequacy to promote this end determines the rank. Such books as embody the indestructible 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 benevolent Father not willing the destruction of any 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 salvation has been done for him to the keeping of the commandments, from particularist conceptions 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 assigns various ranks to such Scriptures as appeared 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 disciples’ composition may be of higher value. The spirit of God may have wrought within the apostles generally with greater power and clearness than in other teachers; but its operation is conditioned not merely by outward factors but by individual idiosyncrasy; 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 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 contained in the Bible is not pervaded by unity of purpose or plan, so as to make a good classification 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 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 canonized to the exclusion of better works which were relegated to the class of the _apocryphal_.

Mr. Jones’s(390) statement that the primitive Christians are proper judges to determine what book is canonical, requires great modification, being too vague to be serviceable; for “primitive 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 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 infallibility. Doubtless the Jews of Palestine distinguished the canonical from the apocryphal or deutero-canonical books on grounds satisfactory 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 discernment 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 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 classification 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 negative it cannot remove this time-honored legacy from the position it is entitled to, else the spiritual consciousness of humanity will rebel. While the subject is treated reverently, and the love of truth overrides dogmatic prejudices, the canon will come forth in a different form from that which it has had for centuries—a form on which faith may rest without 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 influences 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 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.(391) The _canonicity_ of the books is a distinct question 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.

FOOTNOTES

1 κανών.

_ 2 Zur Geschichte des Kanons_, pp 3-68.

3 Clement. Hom. _ap. Coteler_, vol. i. p. 608.

_ 4 Stromata_, vi. 15, p. 803, ed. Potter.

_ 5 Adv. Hæres._, i. 95.

_ 6 Ap._ Euseb. H. E., v. 24.

_ 7 De præscript. Hæreticorum_, chs. 12, 13.

_ 8 Comment._ in _Mat._ iii. p. 916; ed. Delarue.

9 γραφαὶ κανόνος.

_ 10 Monumenta vetera ad Donatistarum historiam petinentia_, ed. Dupin, p. 168.

11 κανών.

12 At the end of the _Iambi ad Seleucum_, on the books of the New Testament, he adds, οὐτος ἀψευδέστατος κανὼν ἄν εἴη τῶν θεοπνεύστων γραφῶν.

_ 13 Prologus galeatus_ in ii. Reg.

_ 14 Expos. in Symb. Apost._, 37, p. 374, ed. Migne.

15 κανονικός.

16 ἰδιωτικός and ἀκανόνιστος.

17 Κανονιζόμενα.

18 Such as ἐνδιάθηκα, ὡρισμένα.

19 κανονιζόμενα or κεκανονισμένα.

20 ἀπόκρυφος.

_ 21 Orat. de Ordin._, vol. ii. p. 44.

22 גנז. The Jews applied the word _genuzim_ to books withdrawn 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 Fürst’s _Der Kanon des alten Testaments_, p. 127, note; and Geiger’s _Urschrift_, p. 201.

23 δεδημοσιευμένα.

24 H. E. Il. 23, III. 3-16.

_ 25 Stromata_, lib. iii. p. 1134, ed. Migne.

_ 26 Prolog. ad Cant., opp._, vol. iii. p. 36.

27 νόθος, ψευδεπίγραφος.

28 See Suicer’s _Thesaurus_, _s.v._

29 Βιβλία ἀναγινωσκόμενα, libri ecclesiastici.

30 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. _Opp._ vol. i. p. 877, ed. Migne.

31 Num. xxi. 14.

32 Joshua x. 12, 13; 2 Sam. i. 18.

33 2 Sam. viii. 16; 1 Kings iv. 3.

34 Isaiah, xl.-lxvi.

35 Chap. xiv. 23-50, &c. See Hilgenfeld’s _Messias Judærorum_, p. 107.

36 See Buxtorf’s _Tiberias_, chap. x., p. 88, &c.; and Herzfeld’s _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, vol. i. p. 380, &c. Zwölfter Excursus.

37 Chapter i.

38 על ידי. Does this mean _for, instead of_, as Bloch understands it? Waehner inserts, to fill up the sense, “some of which, however, were composed by;” but this is far-fetched. See _Antiquitates Ebræorum_, p. 13.

39 Fol. 15, 1.

40 פחכ.

_ 41 Studien zur Geschichte der Sammlung der althebräischen Literatur_, p. 127, &c.

42 vii. 12, συναγωγὴ γραμματέων, not ἡ συναγωγή.

43 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, כוחכ הילכוה כשורף חורה (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 saying might be accepted. See _Temura_, 14 b.

44 Chapter ix. 2.

45 Chapter ii. 13.

46 Antiq. xii. 10, 1.

47 Josephus’s Antiq., xiii. 5, 8; 1 Maccab., xii. 35.

48 1 Maccab., xiii. 36.

49 Sota, 24 a.

50 מבינים, Nehemiah viii. 3.

51 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 _Megiloth_ which were not reduced to chronological order. Still the Midrash maintains 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 _visions_ 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 interval between the Hebrew and the Greek was inconsiderable. 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 traditions 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 hazardous, since the way in which he speaks of Daniel’s fame (Antiq. x. 11, 7), and especially of _the books_ he wrote (τὰ βιβλία), supposes some relation to them. Elsewhere he speaks of _one book_ (x. 10, 4; xi. 8, 5), where he may have thought of the canonical part.

52 פתוביס, translated by the Greek ἁγιόγραφα, hagiographa.

53 It has been thought that the phrase פעלי אמפות in 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.

54 τὰ ἀλλα πάτρια βιβλία; τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν βιβλίων. The younger Sirach does not use γραφαὶ, which would have been a proper translation of _c’tubim_. Does not this ἀλλα imply the non-application of the specific title _c’tubim_ to the hagiographa at that time, and therefore the idea that the third canon was still open?

_ 55 Contra Apion_, i. 8.

56 In Maaser Sheni, Sota 24. 1, 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.

57 Antiq., xiv., 9.

_ 58 Der gerichtliche Beweis_, p. 68.

59 The Sanhedrim _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.

60 ננוזים literally concealed, withdrawn from public use.

61 See Fürst’s _Der Kanon des alten Testaments, u.s.w._ pp. 147, 148.

_ 62 Tract. Sabbat._ ch. i.

63 Because of its profane spirit and Epicurean ideas; see Adoyot v. 3.

64 Yadayim v. 3.

65 See Graetz’s _Kohelet_, pp. 162, 163.

66 The sages wished to pronounce Coheleth apocryphal, because 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 labor wherewith he labors under the sun?” &c., &c.—Sabbat. 30 b.

So also in the Midrash: “The sages wished to pronounce Coheleth apocryphal,” &c., &c.—Vayyikra rabba 161 b.

67 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.

68 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 life,” 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)

_ 69 Studien zur Geschichte, u. s. w._, p. 150, &c.

70 Geiger’s _Urschrift_, p. 288.

71 See De Goeje in the _Theologisch Tijdschriff Jaargang II._ (1868) p. 179, &c.

72 Zunz’s _Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge_, pp. 101, 102.

73 V. 20, p. 124, ed. Ueltzen.

74 Dillmann, in the _Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie, dritter Band_, p. 422.

75 In his _Antiq._, x. 4, 5, and xi. 1-5.

76 iv. 6, sec. 3, and vi. 2, sec. 1.

77 xi. 8, sec. 5.

78 Article “Kanon” in Herzog’s _Encyklopædie_, vol. vii., p. 253; and the same author’s _Prolegomena zur Theologie des alt. Test._, pp. 91, 92.

79 See Abulfatach’s _Annal. Samar._, p. 102, 9, &c.

80 Kirschbaum, Weisse, and Noack.

_ 81 Einleitung in das alte Testament_, vol. i. p. 133.

_ 82 De vita contemplativa_, Opp. Tom. ii., P. 475, ed. Mangey.

83 See Credner’s _Zur Geschichte des Kanons_, p. 124.

_ 84 De mens. et pond._, chapters 22, 23, vol. ii. p. 180, ed. Petav.

_ 85 Baba Bathra_, fol. 14, 2.

86 See _Fürst, Der Kanon u. s. w. p._ 14, &c.

_ 87 Studien zur Geschichte der alttestamentliche Literatur, u. s. w._, p. 18, etc.

88 Hody _De Bibliorum textibus originalibus_, p. 644.

89 Hody gives lists of the order in which the books stand in some early printed editions and in a few MSS., p. 645.

_ 90 Die Apokryphen, u. s. w._, p. 14, &c.

_ 91 Studien und Kritiken_ for 1853, p. 267, &c.

_ 92 A Scholastical History of the Canon_, p. 22.

93 See Rothe, _Zur Dogmatik, Studien u. Kritiken_ for 1860, p. 67, &c. The apostle’s argument rests on the occurrence of the singular (_seed_, σπέρμα) in Genesis xvii. 8 (LXX.), not the plural (_seeds_, σπέρματα); though the plural of the corresponding Hebrew word could not have been used, because it has a different signification. Grammatical inaccuracy is made the basis of a certain theological interpretation. Those who wish to see a specimen of labored 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 Galatians iii. 16.)

94 Died 202 A.D.

_ 95 Advers. Hares._, v. 35, referring to Baruch iv. 36, and v. p. 335, ed. Massuet.

_ 96 Ibid._, iv., 26, referring to Daniel xiii. 20 in the Septuagint.

97 Died 220A.D.

_ 98 Pædagog._ vi. 3.

_ 99 Stromata_, ii. 23.

_ 100 Stromata_, iv. 16.

_ 101 Ibid._, ii. 7.

_ 102 Ex Script. prophet. eclogae_, c. 1.

_ 103 Stromateis_, ii. 15.

104 Died 264 A.D.

_ 105 De Natura; Routh’s Reliquiae Sacrae_, vol. iv. p. 356.

_ 106 Fragment. Nicet._, in _Reliq. Sacrae_, vol. ii. p. 404.

_ 107 Ibid._, p. 407.

_ 108 Ibid._, p. 406.

_ 109 Epistola ad. Dionys. Roman_, in _Reliq. Sacr._, vol. iii. p. 195.

_ 110 Reliq. Sacr._, vol. ii. p. 408.

111 Died 220 A.D.

_ 112 Advers. Valentinianos._ ch. 2.

_ 113 De Exhortatione Castitatis_, ch. 2.

_ 114 Contra Gnosticos_, ch. 8.

_ 115 De Habitu Muliebri_, ch. 3.

_ 116 Epist._ 55, p. 110, ed. Fell.

_ 117 De Orat. Domin._ p. 153.

_ 118 De Exhortat. Martyrii_, ch. 12, p. 182.

_ 119 De Mortal_, p. 161.

_ 120 De Orat. Domin._, p. 141.

_ 121 Testim._ iii. 4, p. 62.

_ 122 De Lapsis_, p. 133, &c.

_ 123 Adv. Noel._ v.

124 See Migne’s edition, p. 689, &c.

125 Died after 171.

_ 126 Ap._ Euseb. H. E., lib. iv. ch. 26.

127 Died 254, A.D.

_ 128 Ap._ Euseb. H. E., lib. iv. ch. 25.

_ 129 Comment. in Joann._ tom. xxxii. ch. 14, ed. Huet. p, 409.

_ 130 Contra Cels._ iii. 72; vol. i. p. 494, ed. Delarue.

_ 131 In Exodus_, Hom. vi. i; Levit. Hom. v. 2.

_ 132 In Levit._, Hom. xii. 4.

_ 133 In Lukam_, Hom. 21.

_ 134 De Oratione_, ii. p. 215.

_ 135 Opp. ed_ Delarue, vol. i. p. 12.

136 Died 311.

_ 137 Convivium decem virginum_, in Combefis’s Auctarium bibliothecae Graecorum patrum, p. 69.

_ 138 Ibid._, p. 69.

_ 139 Ibid._, p. 109.

140 τὰ λόγια. _Ap._ Euseb. H. E. iii. 39.

141 Davidson’s _Introduction to the Study of the N. Testam._ vol. x. p. 388.

_ 142 Explanatio in Epist. ad Titum_, vol. iv. p. 407, ed. Benedict.

_ 143 Die Valentinianische Gnosis und die heilige Schrift_, p. 75.

144 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 Irenæus’s notices of them. Hippolytus’s use of the present tense, in speaking of them, renders it probable that they were nearly his contemporaries.

145 See the Indexes to Duncker and Schneidewin’s edition.

_ 146 Bibliotheca_, cod. 232.

147 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” (1 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 Paul has expressly used the same, deriving it either from Isaiah lxiv. 4, or some unknown document; just as it is special pleading to identify ὁ κύριος standing beside νόμος καὶ προφῆται, with _the New 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 Wetstein published. Comp. _Eusebius’s H. E._ iv. 22, _Photius’s Bibliotheca_, 232. Apologists have labored to prove Hegesippus an orthodox Catholic Christian, like Irenæus; but in vain. He was a Jewish Christian of moderate type, holding intercourse with Pauline Christians at the time when the Catholic Church was being formed.

148 See _Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschrift_ for 1875-1878.

149 There is ἄπεστιν instead of the Septuagint’s and Mark’s (Tischend.) ἀπέχει.

_ 150 Geschichte Jesu von Nazara_, vol. 1, p. 144.

151 See Vision ii, 3, 4, with the prolegomena of De Gebhardt: and Harnack, p. lxxiii.

152 See Holtzmann in Hilgenfeld’s _Zeitschrift_ for 1875, p. 40, &c.

153 Epist. ch. iv.

154 Chapter xii. pp. 30, 31, ed. 2, Hilgenfeld.

155 See Chapter xv. end, with Hilgenfeld’s note, _Barnabae epistula ed._ _altera_, pp. 118, 119.

_ 156 Epis._ p. 13 ed. Hilgenfeld.

_ 157 Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie_, 1871, P. 336, etc.

158 Chapters xvi. and iv. In the former the reference is to Enoch