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
lxxxix. 56, 66, 67, but the latter is not in the present book of
Enoch, though Hilgenfeld thinks he has discovered it in lxxxix.
61-64 and xc. 17. (_Dillmann’s Das Buch Henoch_, pp. 61, 63). Was
another apocryphal Jewish book current in the time of Barnabas,
under the name of Enoch; or did he confound one document with
another, misled by the Greek translation of an apocalyptic work
which had fallen into discredit? See Hilgenfeld’s _Barnabae
Epistula_, ed. 2 pp. 77, 78.
159 Chapter xi.
_ 160 Hist. Eccles._ iii. 39.
161 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 then in existence. Neither the present gospels nor any
other had been converted into _Scripture_; since he regarded oral
traditions as more credible than written memoirs. Those who hold
that the presbyter John was none other than the apostle, Eusebius
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 λογία, rather than the source whence they were drawn.
But whether he learnt directly from the elders, or indirectly as the
preposition (παρὰ) would seem to indicate, and whether the sentence
beginning with “What Andrew,” &c., (τί Ἀνδρέας κ. τ. λ.) stands in
apposition to the “words of the elders,” (τούς τῶν πρεσβυτέρων
λόγους) or not, are things uncertain.
_ 162 Epist. ad Philadelph._, ch. 5 See Hefele’s note on the passage. The
other well-known passage in chapter viii. is too uncertain in
reading and meaning to be adduced here.
163 Chapter iii.
164 To the Ephesians, chapter xii.
_ 165 Epist. ad Romanos_, iv.
_ 166 Testam. Benj._ 11, p. 201, ed. Sinker.
_ 167 Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie_, 1875, p. 490, _et
seq._
168 Ἐν τόις ἀπομνημονέυμασαι, ἄ φημι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν
ἐκείνοις παρακολουθησάντων συντετάχθαι. Sec. 103. 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.
169 Καὶ τὸ εἰπεῖν μετωνομακέναι αὐτὸν Πέτρον καὶ γεγράφθαι ἐν τοῖς
ἀπομνημονεύμασαι αὐτοῦ γεγενημένον καὶ τοῦτο, μετὰ τοῦ καὶ, κ. τ. λ.
Dial. cum Tryph., 106. Here the pronoun αὐτοῦ probably refers to
Peter. And the expression “his memoirs” can hardly mean Mark’s
gospel, since Jerome is the first that calls it such.
_ 170 Dialogus_, part ii., p. 315, ed. Thirlby. Comp. on Justin,
Tjeenk-Willink’s _Justinus Martyr in zijne Verhouding tot Paulus_.
_ 171 Apolog._ i. 97, ed. Thirlby.
_ 172 Hieronymi Prooem._ in _Epist. ad Titum._
173 Comp. chap. xii., where γραφαί is applied to the apostolic epistles;
a title they did not receive so early as the age of Polycarp. Zahn
himself admits this.
174 Chapter xiv. 2.
175 Chapter ii. 4.
176 See _Clementis Romani ad Corinthios quae discuntur epistulae, ed. de
Gebhardt et Harnack_, 2., sec. 10, Prolegomena.
_ 177 Legat. pro Christ._ II, 12.
_ 178 Ibid._ 33.
179 Chapter xviii.
_ 180 Ap._ Euseb. H. E., iv. 23.
_ 181 Ap_. Euseb. H. E., v. 1, p. 144, ed. Bright.
182 θεῖος λόγος. _Ad Autolycum_, iii. 14, p. 1141, ed Migne.
_ 183 Ibid._, ii. 22.
184 Epist. 151, ad Algasiam.
185 See Overbeck’s _Studien zur Geschichte der alten Kirche, Abhandlung_
I., in which the date of the letter is brought down till after
Constantine. Surely this is too late.
186 Davidson’s _Introduction to the Study of the New Testament_, vol.
ii. p. 508, &c.
187 τὸ εὐαγγέλιον.
188 ὁ ἀπόστολος.
_ 189 Adves. Hæres._, iv. 20, 2.
_ 190 Stromateis_, ii. 6, p. 965, ed. Migne.
_ 191 Ibid._, iv. 17, p. 1312.
_ 192 Ibid._, i. 29, p. 928.
_ 193 De Oratione_, cap. 12.
_ 194 De Pudicitia_, cap. 10-20.
195 G. of St. Paul’s epistles, a MS. of the ninth century according to
Tischendorf.
196 See Anger’s _Ueber den Laodicener Brief_, 1843.
_ 197 Fertur etiam ad Laudecences alia ad Alexandrinos Pauli nomine
fincte ad hesem Marcionis el alia plura quæ in Catholicam ecclesiam
recepi non potest._ Perhaps a comma should be put after _nomine_,
and _fincte_ joined to what follows, to the _alia plura_ said to be
forged in the interest of Marcion.
_ 198 Quarti evangeliorum Johannis ex discipulis cohortantibus
condiscipulis et episcopis suis dixit conjejunate mihi odie triduo
el quid cuique fuerit revelatum alterutrum nobis ennarremus eadem
nocte revelatum Andreæ ex apostolis ut recogniscentibus cunctis
Johannis suo nomine cuncta discriberet._
199 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 Hilgenfeld.
200 About A.D. 190.
_ 201 Euseb._ H. E. vi. 12.
202 Tischendorf edited the Pauline epistles from this MS. Lipsiæ, 1852.
203 Died 254 A.D.
204 τὰ ἐν τῇ διαθήκη βιβλία, ἐνδιάθηκα, ὁμολογούμενα.
205 In one place, however, he calls it _very useful and divinely
inspired_. _Comment. in ep. ad Roman._, xvi. 14.
206 νόθα.
207 Ap. Euseb, _Hist. Eccles._, vi. 25; iii. 25, ἀντιλεγόμενα.
208 See Euseb. _H. E._ vi. 25. _Comment. in Malth._, iii. p. 463;
_Ibid._, p. 814; _Comment. in ep. ad Roman._, iv. p. 683; _in
Matth._, iii. p. 644; _Homil._ viii. _in Numb._, ii. p. 294; _Contra
Cels._, i. 63, p. 378; _De Principiis præf._, i. p. 49. _Opp._, ed.
Delarue.
209 Died 340 A.D.
_ 210 Hist. Eccles._, iii. 25; also 31, 39; vi. 13, 14.
211 ὁμολογούμενα, ἐνδιάθηκα, ἀναμφίλεκτα, ἀναντίρρητα.
212 ἀντιλεγόμενα, γνώριμα δὲ τοῖς πολλοῖς, ἐν πλείσταις ἐκκλησίαις
δεδημοσιευμένα, νόθα.
213 ἄτοπα πάντη καὶ δυσσεβῆ; παντελῶς νόθα (iii. 31).
214 This last with the qualification εἴγε φανείη. In another place he
states that it was rejected by some, and therefore it is also along
with the ἀντιλεγόμενα or νόθα.
215 μικτά.
216 νόθα.
217 νοθεύομαι. _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 Canonis, &c._, p.
358.
_ 218 Ibid._, vi. 14.
219 See Weber’s _Beiträge zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons_,
p. 142, &c.
220 ὁμολογουμένη. _Hist. Eccles._, iii. 16.
_ 221 Adversus Hæres_, iii., II, 8.
_ 222 Adv. Marc._ iv. 5.
_ 223 De præscript. hæret._ c. 36.
_ 224 De præscript. hæret._ c. 32.
_ 225 Ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccles._ ii. 15 and vi. 14.
_ 226 Ignatius von Antiochien_, 1873; and Prolegomena to the _Patrum
Apostolicorum opera_, by de Gebhardt, Harnack, and Zahn, Fasciculus,
ii.
_ 227 Geschichte des neutest. Kanon_, p. 217, &c.
228 See _Constit. Apostol._, p. 67, ed Ueltzen.
229 Died 386 A.D.
_ 230 Catech._, iv. 22, pp. 66, 67, ed. Milles.
_ 231 Ibid._, xi. p. 142.
_ 232 Ibid._, vi. p. 80.
_ 233 Ibid._, ix. pp. 115, 122.
_ 234 Ibid._, ix. p. 115.
_ 235 Ibid._, ii. p. 31.
_ 236 Ibid._, xvi. p. 239.
237 Athanasii _Opp._ ed. Benedict. i. 2, pp. 962, 963.
_ 238 Orat. contra Arianos_, ii. 35, vol. i. 503, ed. Benedict.
_ 239 Ibid._, ii. 42, i. p. 510.
_ 240 Ibid._, ii. 79, i. p. 546.
_ 241 Epist. ad episcop. Ægypt._, &c., i. 1, p. 272.
_ 242 Contra Arian._, i. 12, i. p. 416.
_ 243 Apolog. contra Arianos_, ii. vol. i. p. 133.
_ 244 Praepar Evan._, i. 9.
_ 245 Ibid._, xi. 14.
_ 246 Ibid._, xii. 18.
_ 247 Ibid._, vi. 11.
_ 248 Demon. Evang._, vi. 19.
249 Died 379 A.D.
_ 250 Homil. in princip. proverb. Opp._ ed. Garnier altera, vol. ii. p.
140.
_ 251 Constitutiones Monast._, c. iii. 2. _Ibid._, p. 779.
_ 252 Adv. Eunom_, vol. i. p. 417.
_ 253 De Spiritu Sancto_, c. viii. vol. iii. p. 23.
_ 254 In Princip. Proverb_, vol. ii. p. 152.
255 Died 389 A.D.
_ 256 Opp._ ed. Migne, vol. iii. pp. 473, 474.
257 Gregorii Nazianzeni, _Opp._ ed. Migne, vol. iii. pp. 473, 474.
258 Died 395 A.D.
259 Iambi ad Seleucum; in Greg. Naz. _Opp._ ii. p. 194.
260 Died 403 A.D.
261 ἀμφιλέκτα. _Adv. Hæres_, i. p. 19. See _Hæres_, iii. tom. i. p. 941.
De ponder. et mensur. 23.
_ 262 Advers. Hæres_, lib. i., tom. 2 ed. Petav. Paris, 1662, p. 72.
_ 263 Ibid._, lib. ii. tom. ii. p. 781.
_ 264 Ibid._, lib. ii. tom. i. p. 580.
_ 265 Ibid._, lib, ii. tom. i. p. 481.
_ 266 Ibid._, lib. i. tom. ii. p. 157.
_ 267 Hæres_, xxx. 15.
268 Died 392 A.D.
269 Enarrat. in ep. S. Petri secundam, p. 1774 ed Migne.
270 Died 407 A.D.
271 See Montfaucon in his edition of Chrysostom’s Works, vol. vi. pp.
364, 365, ed. Paris, 1835.
272 Expos. in Psalm cix. 7. See also xi. 1 in Genes, where Wisdom xiv. 3
is cited.
273 Expos. in Psalm xlix. 3.
274 De Lazaro, ii. 4.
275 Died 392 A.D.
_ 276 De Trinitate_, iii. 2. p. 792 ed. Migne.
277 Fragmenta in Epist. 2 ad Corinthios, when Baruch, iii. 3, is quoted
like Psalm 101, p. 1697.
278 De Spirit. sanct. i. p. 1033.
279 Died 428 A.D.
280 See Leontius Byzantinus contra Nestorianos et Eutychianos, lib. iii.
in _Gallandi Bibliotheca_, xii. p. 690. Comp. Fritzsche _De Theodori
Mopsuesteni vita et scriptis_, Halæ, 1836.
281 Died 444 A.D.
282 Contra Julian, i. p. 541, ed. Migne.
_ 283 Ibid._, p. 815.
_ 284 Ibid._, p. 921.
285 In Isaim, ed. Migne, p. 93.
286 P. 859, vol. i.
287 P. 910, vol. i., ed. Migne.
288 βιβλία κανονιζόμενα, κανονικά, κεκανονισμένα, ὡρισμένα.
289 βιβλία ἀναγινωσκόμενα.
290 Died 430 A.D.
291 The forty-four books are, 5 of Moses, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 4 Kings,
2 Chronicles, Job, Tobit, Esther, Judith, 2 Maccabees, Ezra,
Nehemiah, Psalms, 3 of Solomon, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, 12 Prophets,
4 greater do. _De Doctrina Christiana_ ii. 8.
_ 292 Contra Gaudent._ i. 38. _Opp._ Paris, 1837, vol. ix. p. 1006.
_ 293 De Doctr. Christ._ ii. 8. _Civitat. Dei._ xviii. 20, 1.
_ 294 De Praesdest. Sanct._ i. 11.
_ 295 Retractt._ i. 10.
_ 296 De Peccat. merit._ i. 50; _Opp._ vol. x. p. 137, ed. Migne.
_ 297 Mansi_, tom. iii. p. 924.
_ 298 Ibid._, p. 891.
299 Died 420 A.D.
_ 300 Prologus galeatus in Libros Regum. Epist. ad Paulinum._
301 In Herbst’s _Einleit._, _erster Theil_, p. 37.
_ 302 Opp._ ed. Benedict., Vol. IV., pp. 679, 684, 750.
303 Ep. ad Dardan. _Opp._ vol. i. P. 1103, ed. Migne.
304 See _Onomastica Sacra_; Comment. in Ep. ad Philem; De Viris illustr.
305 Died 368 A.D.
306 Prolog. in Psalm., _Opp._ ed. Migne, vol. i. p. 241.
_ 307 De Trinitate_ iv. 16.
_ 308 Ex. Op. Hist. Fragmentum_, iii. vol. ii. p. 672 ed. Migne.
309 In cxxvii. Psalm.
310 In Psalm cxxvi. 6.
311 In Psalm lxviii. 19, and _De Trinitate_, iv. 42.
_ 312 Ibid._, iv. 8.
313 Died about 370 A.D.
_ 314 De Schismate Donatist_, iii. 3.
_ 315 Ibid._, ii. 25.
316 Died about 370 A.D.
_ 317 De non parcendo_, &c., ed. Coleti, p. 190.
_ 318 Ibid._, p. 236.
_ 319 Ibid._, p. 187.
_ 320 Pro Athanasio_, lib. i. p. 98.
_ 321 Ibid._, p. 105.
_ 322 Ibid._, lib. ii. pp. 127, 128.
323 Died 397 A.D.
_ 324 De Spiritu Sancto_ iii. 18.
_ 325 De bono mortis_ viii.
326 In Psalm cxviii., Sermo. 118, 2.
_ 327 De Spirit. Sancto._ iii., vi. 39.
_ 328 Liber de Tobia_.
329 Died 410 A.D.
_ 330 Expos. in Symbol. Apostol._, pp. 373, 374, ed. Migne.
331 Died about 387 A.D.
332 De Hæres. chs. 60 and 61, in Galland, vii. pp. 424, 425.
333 Apud Mansi, iii. pp. 1040, 1041.
334 Credner’s _Zur Geschichte des Kanons_, p. 151, &c., and Thiel’s
_Epistolæ Romanorum Pontificum genuinae_, tom. i.
335 Mansi iv. p. 430.
_ 336 Opp. Græc._, tom. ii. P. 327, ed. Rom. 1746.
_ 337 Ibid._, tom. i. p. 101.
338 Tom. iii. p. 60.
339 Galland, xii. p. 79, &c.
340 See Dillmann in Ewald’s _Jahrbücher_, v. p. 144, &c.
341 Died 599 A.D.
342 See Credner’s _Zur Gesch. des Kanons_, p. 97, &c.
343 Died 891 A.D.
_ 344 Nomocanon, Titulus III._, cap. 2, vol. iv. pp. 1050, 1051 ed.
Migne.
345 See Codd. 113, 126.
346 Died 754 A.D.
347 Died 636 A.D.
_ 348 Etymolog._ vi. 1.
349 Died 604 A.D.
350 Died 912 A.D.
351 Died 735 A.D.
352 Died 804 A.D.
353 Died 856 A.D.
354 Died 1141 A.D.
355 Died 1156 A.D.
356 Died 1182 A.D.
357 1270 A.D.
358 Died 1263 A.D.
359 Died 1384 A.D.
360 Died 1340 A.D.
361 See Hody, p. 648, &c.
362 Chemnitz calls seven books of the New Testament _apocryphos_,
because of their uncertain authorship (see _Examen Concilii
Tridentini_, p. 45, &c.)
363 See Tholuck’s _Kommentar zum Briefe an die Hebräer, zweite Auflage_,
pp. 55, 86.
364 Carlstadt’s treatise is reprinted in Credner’s _Zur Geschichte des
Kanons_.
365 Werke, edited by Schuler and Schulthess, vol. ii. p. 169.
_ 366 Ep. ad. Valdenses_, 1530, _apud. Sculteti annal. evang. renovat
decas secunda_, pp. 313, 314.
_ 367 Ibid._
368 Hug says that his copy of Widmanstad’s edition had the Acts
immediately following the Gospels.
369 Epist. ad Paulinum.
370 Hom. vii. in Josua.
371 De Bibliorum textibus originalibus, &c., p. 654.
_ 372 Ibid._, p. 664.
373 See Zacagni’s _Collectanea monumentorum veterum Praefat_, p. lxxi.,
&c.
374 See Volkmar’s _Anhang_ to _Crednet’s Geschichte des N. T. Kanon_, p.
341, &c.; and Hody _De Bibliorum textibus originalibus_, p. 644, &c.
_ 375 Niemeyer’s Collectio Confessionum_, p. 468.
_ 376 Ibid._, p. 330.
_ 377 Ibid._, pp. 361, 362.
378 See Herzog’s _Die Romanischen Waldenser_, p. 55, &c.; and his
programm _De origine et pristino statu Waldensium_, &c., pp. 17, 40,
41.
379 Leger’s _Histoire des Eglises Vaudoises_, vol. i., p. 112, &c.
380 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.
381 Kimmel’s _Monumenta fidei eccles. orient_, part i. p. 467.
382 Died 791 A.D.
_ 383 Abhandlung von freier Untersuchung des Canons_, 4 parts, Halle,
1771-1775.
384 See Toland’s _Nazarenus_, p. 25, &c., second edition; and Morgan’s
_Moral Philosopher_, vol. i. p. 56, &c.
385 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 with the New Testament and the law of nature_.” _Sämmtliche
Schriften_, ed. Walch. dritter Theil., pp. 7, 8.
386 Such as Calovius, Chemnitz, John Gerhard, W. Lyser, Quenstedt,
Brochmand, Hollaz, &c. Melancthon also makes no important
distinction between the two Testaments in his _Loci theologici_.
Calvin’s theology was derived from the Old Testament more than the
New.
387 His full sayings are collected in Bretschneider’s _Luther an unsere
Zeit_, pp. 186-224; and in Krause’s _Opuscula theologica_, pp.
205-241.
_ 388 Loci Theologici_ Tom. i. pp. 186, 187, ed. Cotta, 1762.
_ 389 Theologia Didactico-polemica_, p. 340.
390 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. 1726.
391 Ecclesia sua autoritate nullum librum facit canonicum, quippe
canonica scripturae autoritas est a solo Deo, &c. Gerhard’s _Loci
Theologici_, tom. i. p. 4, ed. Cotta. Autoritas scripturæ quoad nos
nihil allud est, quam manifestatio et cognitio unicæ illius divinæ
et summæ autoritatis, quæ scriptum est interna et insita. Ecclesia
igitur non confert scripturæ novam aliquam autoritatem quoad nos,
sed testificatione sua ad agnitionem illius; veritatis nos deducit.
Concedimus, ecclesiam esse scripturæ sacræ _testem, custodem,
vindicem, praeconem, et interpretem_; sed negarnus, ex eo effici,
quod autoritas scripturæ sive simpliciter sive quoad nos ab ecclesia
pendeat et quidem unice, pendeat.—_Ibid._, tomus secundus, p. 39,
ed. Cotta.