CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

able in an age when the Priestly Code was the dominant influence. The book about Daniel, published during the Maccabaean persecutions (b.c. 165), quickly won recognition and proved its religious worth.

(o) Disputed books. — A hesitating approval was extended to Esther, Canticles, and Eccleslastes, owing to the nature of their contents. Other books, apocalyptic and apocryphal, were competing for a place in the religious library. There is no means of showing how or when the third group was separated from other books. The conjecture is probable that the effort of Antiochus Epiphanes to destroy the copies of the Law may have evoked the determination to preserve the later reUgious literature by giving it a place in the Canon.

(6) Prologue to Sirach. — The earliest testimony to the existence of sacred books in addition to the Law and the Prophets is given in the Prologue to Ecclesi-asticus. The grandson of ben-Sira wrote in Egypt about B.C. 132, and made a Greek translation of his kinsman's 'Wisdom.' In the preface he refers three times to ' the Law, the Prophets, and the other books of our fathers.' He speaks of Greek versions of these books. But this statement does not say that the third group was definitely completed. In the 1st cent. A.D., the schools of Hillel and Shammai differed as to whether Ecclesiastes was in the Canon or not.

(c) New Testament. — The NT expresses a doctrine of Holy Scripture; it acknowledges a threefold division (Lk 24"); it implies that Chronicles was the last book in the roU of the OT (Mt 233», Lk 11"); but it does not quote Esther, Cant., Eccl., and leaves undecided the question whether these disputed books were as yet admitted to the Canon.

(d) PhUo. — Philo of Alexandria (d. a.d. 40) acknowl-edges the inspiration of Scripture (the Mosaic Law pre-eminently), and quotes many of, but not nearly all, the OT books. His use of the Greek Apocrypha for information only, suggests, however, that he did know of a Palestinian limit to the third group.

(e) Josephus. — Josephus (a.d. 100), defending his earlier books against adverse reviews, maintains that Jewish records had been made by trained historians. The elegant Inconsistencies of Greek narratives had no place in his authorities.

'It is not the case with us,' he says (c. Apian, i. 8), 'to have vast numbers of books disagreeing and conflicting with one another. We have buttwo-and-twenty , containing thehistoryofalltime.booksthatarejustlybelievedin, . . . Though so great an interval of tinae baa passed, no one has ventured either to add orto renioveortoalterasyllable:and it is the instinct of every Jew from the day of his birth to consider these books as the teacning of God, to abide by them, and, if need be, cheerfully to lay down life in their behalf.'

The number 22 is probably due to his reckoning, with the LXX, Ruth and Judges as one, and Lamenta-tions and Jeremiah as one. It is less likely that he refused to count Cant, and Eccl. as Scripture. His words reveal the profound reverence now entertained for the OT &a a whole, although individuals may still have cherished objections to particular books.

(f ) Synod of Jamnia. — The completion of the Hebrew Canon must be associated with a synod held at Jamnia, near Joppa, where the Sanhedrin settled after Jerusalem was taken by Titus (a.d. 70). The popularity of the Alexandrian OT, including Apocrypha, and the growing influence of NT books caused the Rabbinical teachers to remove aU doubt as to the limits of their Scripture. 'All Holy Scriptures defile the hands (the Hebrew phrase for 'are canonical'): Canticles and Ecclesiastes defile the hands.' Such was the dictum at Jamnia (c. A.D. 90) to which Rabbi ' Akiba (d. a.d. 135) appealed in dismissing the possibility of reopening discussion on the limits of the Canon.

9. 'Text. — The Hebrew Bible was now complete. Elaborate precautions were taken to secure an un-

CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

changeable text; and a system of vowel-signs was invented some centuries later to preserve the old pro-nunciation. It has been considered strange that the oldest dated MS of the OT should be so recent as A.D. 916, whereas the Greek Bible and NT are found in MSS of the 4th and 5th centuries. This may be due to the requirement of the Synagogue that the copy in use should be perfect, and that any roll deficient in a word or letter should be suppressed, if not destroyed. The vigilant care of copies in use lessened the interest in superseded MSS.

10. Relation of the Church to the OT.— The NT freely acknowledges Divine inspiration in the OT. Such a formula as ' All this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet ' (Mt 122), Implies that the Supreme Disposer of events had Intimated His purpose through the prophets. Posterity, therefore, rightly apprehends any occurrence when it has detected its place in the scheme of things foretold by the prophets. But it is also recognized that Scripture may be misapplied, and that therefore criticism Is essential. The interpretation of the OT must differ among Jews and Christians. The logic of events cannot be ignored, and the Advent of the Messiah cannot be treated as a negligible accident. The attitude of our Lord has the effect of making the OT a subordinate standard as compared with His own words and the teaching of the Apostles. He did not report the word of the Lord as received by vision or prophecy; in His own name He supplied what was wanting in Law and Prophets. He did not pronounce any book in itself adequate to determine the communion between the Living God and living men; all Scripture must be illuminated by the testimonium Spiritus Sancti. The 24 Hebrew books are valid for the Church only in so far as their authority is sanctioned by the NT. But, subject to this limitation, the OT remains 'profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness' (2 Ti 3"). D. M. Kat.

CANON OFTHENEWTESTAMENT.—l. Title.— The Greek word 'canon,' meaning originally a 'rod' and so a 'rule for measuring,' is used in a variety of senses by the Patristic writers, among the most familiar instances being the expressions 'rule of truth' and 'rule of faith' for the doctrinal teaching officially recognized by the bishops. Hence, since we meet with the phrase 'canonical books' in Origen, as rendered by Rufinus' translation, before we see the substantive 'canon' applied to the hst of NT books, it has been argued that the adjective was first used in the sense of 'regulative,' so that the phrase means 'the books that regulate faith or morals.' But the sub-stantive must mean the ' list ' of books, and in Athanasius we have a passive participle in the phrase 'canonized books,' -i.e. books belonging to the Canon; soon after which the actual word 'canon' is applied to the books of the NT by Amphilochlus, the bishop of Iconium (end of 4th cent. a.d.). The NT Canon, then, is the Ust of NT books, and this simple meaning, rather than ' the regula-tive books,' is the more Ukely interpretation of the ex-pression to have occurred to people who were in the habit of using the term for lists of officials, lists of festivals, etc. The question of the Canon differs from questions of the authenticity, genuineness, historicity, inspiration, value, and authority of the several NT books in concern-ing itself simply with their acceptance in the Church. Primarily the question was as to what books were read in the churches at public worship. Those so used became in course of time the Christian Scriptures. Then, having the value of Scripture gradually associated with them, they came to be treated as authoritative. The first stage is that of use in the form of Church lessons; the second that of a standard of authority to be employed as the basis of instruction, and to be appealed to in disputed cases of doctrine or discipUne.

113