CANAN^AN OR CANAANITE

however, those resident in the high lands who had not been absorbed into the Israelitish tribes (of. Iskabl, §§ 3, 11), were reduced to tasl£-work. The coming of the Philistines pushed the Ganaanites out of the mari-time plain south of Mt. Carmel, so that ultimately the Phoenicians were the only pure Canaanites left. The leading Phoenician cities were such commercial centres that 'Canaanite' afterwards became equivalent to 'trader' (cf. Hos. 12*, Is 238, zeph 1", Ezk 17*, Pr 31«). George A. Baeton.

CANAN^AN or CANAANITE occurs in Mt 10' and Mli 3" as a designation of Simon, one of the disciples of Jesus. The first is the correct reading, the Gr. Kananaios being the transliteration of kan'anayyS (a late Heb. derivative from i;anna' = ' jealous'). It is rendered in Lk 6" and Ac I's by ZUOOs (zealot). The Canansans or Zealots were a sect founded by Judas of Gamala, who headed the opposition to the census of Quirinius (a.d. 6 or 7). They bitterly resented the domination of Rome, and would fain have hastened by the sword the fulfilment of the Messianic hope. During the great rebellion and the siege of Jerusalem, which ended in its destruction (a.d. 70), their fanaticism made them terrible opponents, not only to the Romans, but to other tactioiLS amongst their own countrymen.

C ANDACE . — Queen of Ethiopia. A eunuch belonging to her, in charge of her treasure, was baptized by Philip (Ac 8"). The name was borne by more than one queen of Ethiopia. The Candace who invaded Egypt In B.C. 22 (Strabo) is, of course, earlier than this. A Candace is perhaps named on one of the pyramids of Meroe. See Gush. F. Ll. Griffith.

CANDLE, CANDLESTICK.— See Lamp.

CANE. — See Reed.

CANKEBWORM.— See Locust.

C ANNEH . — A town named with Haran and Eden (Ezk 27"), not identified. Mez (Gesch. der Stadt Harran, 34) suggests that it may be a clerical error for bene. I.e. bene Bden, 'sons of Eden' (see Guthe, Bibdwbrterbucli, s.v.).

W. EWING.

CANON OFTHE OLD TESTAMENT.— 1 . Explanation

of terms. — The word 'Testament' is the Eng. tr. Of the Gr. DiathekS, which in its turn represents the Heb. Berith or 'Covenant.' The epithet 'Old' was intro-duced by Christians after the NT had come into being. Jews recognize no NT, and have a polemic interest in avoiding this designation of their Holy Scripture. The Gr. word kanon, meaning primarily a measuring-rod, a rule, a catalogue, was applied by Christian authors of the 4th cent, to the list of books which the Church acknowledged to be authoritative as the source of doctrine and ethics. In investigating how the Hebrew race formed their Bible, these later appellations of their sacred books have to be used with the reservations Indicated.

2. The three periods of formation. — Briefly stated, the process of forming the OT Canon includes three main stages. Under the infiuence of Ezra and Nehemiah, the Law (,Torah) as in the Pentateuch was set apart as Holy Scripture; at some date prior to b.c. 200, the Prophets (.NebUm) , including the prophetic interpretati on of history in the four books — Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings — had been constituted into a second canonical group ; by B.C. 132, most, though not all, of the remaining books ranked as Scripture. This third group was defined, and the OT Canon finally fixed, by the Synod of Palestinian Jews held at Jamnia, near Joppa, about the year a.d. 90.

3. Pre-canonical conditions. — (a) The art of writing. The formation of language and the Invention of writing must precede the adoption of a sacred book. An illiterate race can have no Scripture. Israel's language was in its main features an inheritance from the common ancestors of the Semites; even its religious vocabulary

CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

was only in part its own creation. As to writing, the Semites in Babylonia had used the cuneiform syllabic script, and Egypt had invented the hieroglyphs before the Hebrews had arisen as a separate race. But, happily for the Canon, an alphabet had become the possession of some of the Semitic family before the Hebrews had anything to put on record. The provincial governors of Canaan about B.C. 1400 sent their reports to Egypt in Babylonian cuneiform; whereas Mesha, king of Moab, and Panammu, king of Ya'di in North Syria, in extant Inscriptions from about b.c. 900, make use of an Aramaic alphabet. After b.c. 1400, and some time before b.c. 900, must therefore be placed the genesis of the Hebrew alphabet.

(6) Absence of any precedent. — In the case of other sacred books, the influence of a historical precedent has contributed to their adoption. Recognizing the OT, Christians were predisposed to use a literary record in preserving the revelation they had received. Simi-larly Islam admitted the superiority of 'the people of a book ' (Jews and Christians), and were easily induced to accord like sanctity to their own Koran. But such a precedent did not come into operation in the early religion of Israel. It is true that the Code of Hammu-rabi (c. B.C. 2200) was recorded on stone, and publicly set forth as the rule of civU hfe in Babylonia. But this method of regulating communal life can hardly have affected the earliest legislators In Israel. The relation of the Code of Hammurabi to the Mosaic Laws appears to be correctly indicated by Mr. Johns: 'The co-existing likenesses and differences argue for an inde-pendent retension of ancient custom deeply influenced by Babylonian law.' Egypt also had literature before Moses, but the Hebrews appear to have acted on an independent initiative in producing and collecting their religious Uterature. The OT Canon is thus peculiar in being formed as the first of its kind.

(c) Religious experience. — Other conditions of a less general kind have also to be noted. The religious leaders of the people must have had definite convictions as to the attributes of Jehovah before they could judge whether any given prophet or document were true or false. The life depicted in the book of Genesis reveals a non-writing age, when reUgious experience and unwritten tradition were the sole guides to duty. The Sinaitic legislation, although it formed the basis of national life, did not till late in the monarchy pene-trate the popular consciousness. Mosaic Law provided that Divine guidance would be given through the voice of prophets and of priests (Dt IS's 19" 21* 24«); with these living sources of direction, it would be less easy to feel dependence on a book. The symbolism of a sacrificial system compensated for the want of literature. It was only after books of various kinds had become prevalent that the utility of writing began to be appre-ciated. Isaiah (30*), about b.c. 740, perceives that what is inscribed in a book will be permanent and indisputable. On the other hand, Hosea (8'^), about B.C. 745, sees a limit to the efficacy of a copious litera-ture. The exponents of the traditional Law appear to have applied it with arbitrary freedom. Even a high priest in Josiah's reign had apparently had no occasion to consult the Law-book for a long period. Variations appear in the reasons annexed even to the Decalogue; and the priests who offered incense to the brazen serpent in the Temple in the days of Hezeklah cannot have regarded the Tables of the Law in the light of canonical Scripture.

4. Josiah's reformation. — The first trace of a Canon is to be found in the reign of King Josiah about B.C. 621. By this time the Northern Kingdom had disappeared with the Fall of Samaria (b.c. 722). It had left behind, as its contribution to the future Bible, at least the works of Hosea and the Elohist historian. The prophets, Isaiah i., Amos, and Micah, had delivered their message a century ago, and their words were

111