Deuteronomy 1-in the reign of Josiah (circ. B.C. 624). The High Priest Hilkiah found it in the Temple, and said to Shaphan the Scribe, 'I have found the Book of the Law in the House of the Lord.' 'Hilkiah the Priest hath "delivered me a book," said the cautious scribe. When the scribe read the book to Josiah, the king was astonished and horrified to find himself unacquainted with the most essential and elementary rules which Moses was there said to have ordained. So completely had they fallen into desuetude that the people knew nothing about them, and seem never to have heard of them. Neither the Passover nor the Sabbatical year had been kept, and there is not an allusion in the whole Old Testament-after the Pentateuch -not even in the Levitic ideal of Ezekiel, not even in Zech. v. or viii., not even in Nehem. viii.-x., nor until Ecclus. 1. 1-5-to the Day of Atonement. There is no 'evidence that 'the Book of the Law' was co-extensive with the Pentateuch, nor is there any proof of the existence of a collected Pentateuch earlier than the days of Ezra (B.C. 444). The Bible and the reading of the Bible as an instrument of instruction,' says Dean Stanley, 'may be said to have begun on the sunrise of that day when Ezra unrolled the parchment scroll of the Law.'2 From that era till the days of John the Baptist prophecy ceased. Scribes and Pharisees more and more substituted the dead letter for the living voice of God, and soon they elevated the dead letter upon an idol-pedestal, and paid to it a new and no less perilous idolatry.

The sacred writings were not referred to as 'the Book'

1 As even some of the Fathers thought: Jer. Adv. Jovin. i. 5; Chrys. Hom. in Matt. p. 9.

2 October, B.C. 444. Nehem. viii.-x.; Deut. xxxi. 11. See Cornill, Einleit. in d. A. T. pp. 62-67; Kuenen, Hexateuch, § 15.

'A DIVINE LIBRARY'

27

till a late epoch. The particular name 'Bible' dates from the fourth century. St. Jerome (d. 420) called the Scriptures 'a Divine Library. St. Chrysostom called them 'the Books.' The neuter plural 'biblia' was mistaken in the Western Church, in the thirteenth century, for a feminine singular, and from it is derived our familiar name 'the Bible.'1 2. The multiform elements of which the Bible is composed will appear if we glance at the history of the Canon.

The Canon of the Old Testament-that is, the list of those books which were finally accepted by the Jewish Church as authoritative-was arrived at by slow and uncertain degrees. It had, however, been agreed upon in its general outline before the time of Christ. The books of the Old Testament which we now receive are in great measure the same as those which were regarded as canonical by Philo (A.D. 30)2 and Josephus (A.D. 93).3 Both

1 See Bishop Westcott, The Bible in the Church, p. 5.

2 In a treatise attributed to Philo, On the Contemplative Life, there is a general classification of Old Testament writings. The book is regarded as a forgery of the third century (Kuenen, Rel. of Israel, ii. 204), but Mr. F. Conybeare has urged strong reasons for holding it to be genuine. Philo quotes all the books of the Old Testament except Nehemiah, Ruth, Esther, Chronicles, Ezekiel, Lamentations, Daniel, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles. On the other hand he quotes from the Pentateuch ten times more frequently than from the other books, and seems to attach to it an immeasurably higher importance and authority. The Sadducees did the same. The Samaritans accepted no Scriptures except the Pentateuch.

3 Josephus (c. Ap. i. 7, 9) says that his Canon consisted of twentytwo books (the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet). It is not possible to assert with certainty how he arranged the books. He refers to all the books except Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, and Job. On the other hand the Essenes extended the Canon, including many books which are not regarded as canonical. See Bishop Westcott, The Bible in the Church, pp. 25-30.

were competent witnesses; both (perhaps) were of priestly descent; one represented the cultivation of Alexandria, the other the traditions of Palestine. Analogous proof is furnished by the Jews of Babylon in a passage of the Talmud, which gives additional testimony to the late editing of many of the books.1

The writings which we call 'the Apocrypha' were not placed by the Jewish Church on the same footing as the rest; and although the New Testament has quotations from every book of the Old Testament except twelve, it has no direct quotation from, nor many certain references to, any book of the Apocrypha.2 It recognises the classification of the Old Testament into three broad divisions -the Law, the Prophets, and Psalms.3

3. The Canon of the New Testament was formed in the same gradual and tentative manner, by the exercise of the enlightened reason. In the first two centuries many Gospels, Epistles, and Apocalypses were current, to some of

1 In the Gemara Baba Bathra, 14. b. In 2 Esdr. xiv. 44 we read of ninety-four books, but seventy of these are reserved for 'the wise' (ver. 46). The Talmudic passages which bear on the Canon are collected by Wildeboer, p. 63.

2 St. Jude, however, quotes the Book of Enoch (which is not in our Apocrypha), and there are traces in the Epistle of St. James of some use of the Book of Wisdom. Rom. i. 20-32, ix. 21; Eph. vi. 13-17; Heb. i. 3; 1 Pet. i. 6, 7; Jas. v. 6, are thought to be suggested by the Book of Wisdom; and 1 Cor. vi. 13, Jas. i. 6, 19, by Ecclesiasticus. Some suspect allusions to lost books in 2 Tim. iii. 8; Heb. xi. 37; Jude 9. In Heb. xi. 34, 35, 37 are references to 2 Macc. vi. 18, 7, 42. See, for an account of apocryphal Jewish literature, Schürer, Hist. of the Jewish People, Div. iii. 1-155. Wildeboer (p. 51) says 'that the New Testament writers quote from apocryphal books can only be denied by dogmatic prejudice.' But see also Bishop Westcott, The Bible in the Church, pp. 46–49.

3 Luke xxiv. 44.

THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON

29

which St. Luke refers without formal reprobation, and some of these obtained in the Church a brief and limited acceptance. Other books, such as the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistles of Clement and Barnabas, were so highly regarded that they too were quoted as sacred books, and read aloud in some Christian churches.1 There were also certain books undoubtedly spurious which were quoted by early Christian writers as possessing 'inspired' authority, such as the prophecies of Hystaspes and the Sibyl.2 None of these long held their ground, nor were they ever placed on exactly the same level as the books now regarded as canonical. Most of the New Testament books were universally received and were called 'Acknowledged Books' (Homologoumena). Seven of them, however-the Second Epistle of St. Peter, the Second and Third Epistles of St. John, the Epistle to the Hebrews, those of St. James and St. Jude, and the Revelation-were classed together as 'Disputed Books' (Antilegomena).3 There was no final test of their canonicity except the verifying faculty of the Christian consciousness. In the Lutheran Church some of these disputed books, and especially the Revelation of

1 Just as the Apocrypha is found, without any distinction between it and the canonical Old Testament, in the Septuagint, so in two of the oldest MSS. we find early Christian writings-the two Epistles of Clement added to the Alexandrian MS. (about A.D. 430), and the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas to the Sinaitic MS. (about A.D. 331).

2 See Just. Mart. Apol. i. 20, 44; Clem. Alex. Strom. vi. 5, p. 761; Lact. Instt. Div. vii. 15, 18.

3 Many of the books of the New Testament were but little known to the mass of Christians even in the fifth century. St. Chrysostom preached on the Acts of the Apostles because he tells us that many of the Christians at Constantinople were hardly aware of its existence (Comm. in Act. Apost. i. 1, Opp. ix. 1).

St. John, have never been admitted as more than Deuterocanonical; that is, they have been regarded as of inferior value and authority to the rest. Luther, relying on the promised guidance of the Spirit of God, 'sought for the Canon in the Canon;' and, though his judgments were not always sound, he shows true faith by the masculine independence with which he felt himself at liberty to speak of some books of the Bible as inferior to others in essential value. He did not value the historic accuracy of the Books of Chronicles; he regarded Ecclesiastes as pseudonymous, and rejects Esther from the Canon.

His prefaces to the various books, as originally printed, furnish a noble specimen of the attitude which approaches Scripture with reverence, and yet with the knowledge that the vivifying spirit of the Christian is quite as sacred as the printed letter of the book.2 His test of the books of Scripture (der rechte Prüfestein) was whether they did or did not testify to Christ.

4. The formation then of the Canon alike of the Old

1 It must, however, be admitted that he showed a defective discrimination in his rash language about the Epistle of St. James, which he metaphorically tossed aside as 'a right strawy Epistle' (recht strohern) which lacked all evangelical character. He also held the Apocalypse in small esteem, Preface to New Testament; Seventh Thesis against Eck; De Captiv. Bab.; Dorner, Hist. of Prot. Theol. (E.T.) i. 241-245; Luther's Werke (Walch), viii. 2138. 'If any one should press thee with phrases which speak of works and which thou canst not bring into concord with the others, thou oughtest to say, Since Christ is the treasure whereby I am bought, not the slightest jot for all such phrases of Scripture. same time it is impossible that the Scriptures should contradict themselves. . . . Hear thou well, thou art almost a bully with the Scriptures, which are nevertheless under Christ as a servant.'

. I care At the

2 For an account of Luther's views of Scripture see my History of Interpretation, pp. 324–340; Köstlin, Luthers Theologie, ii. 258–285.