The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Canon of the Bible by

Samuel Davidson

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost

and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy
it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project
Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
http://www.gutenberg.org/license

Title: The Canon of the Bible

Author: Samuel Davidson

Release Date: September 29, 2009 [Ebook 30132]

Language: English

***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK

THE CANON OF THE BIBLE***
 The Canon of the Bible:
Its Formation, History, And Fluctuations
By
Samuel Davidson, D.D.
Of Halle, And LL.D.
From the Third Revised and Enlarged Edition.
New York
Peter Eckler Publishing Co.
1877
Contents
Preface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Chapter I. Introductory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Chapter II. The Old Testament Canon From Its Beginning
To Its Close. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Chapter III. The Samaritan And Alexandrian Canons. . . . 43
Chapter IV. Number And Order Of The Separate Books. . 48
Chapter V. Use Of The Old Testament By The First
Christian Writers, And By The Fathers Till The Time
Of Origen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Chapter VI. The New Testament Canon In The First Three
Centuries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Chapter VII. The Bible Canon From The Fourth Century
To The Reformation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Chapter VIII. Order Of The New Testament Books. . . . . 112
Chapter IX. Summary Of The Subject. . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Chapter X. The Canon In The Confession Of Different
Churches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Chapter XI. The Canon From Semler To The Present Time,
With Reflections On Its Readjustment. . . . . . . . . . 125
Footnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
[iii]
Preface.

The substance of the present work was written toward the close
of the year 1875 for the new edition of the Encyclopaedia
Britannica. Having been abridged and mutilated, contrary to
the author's wishes, before its publication there, he resolved to
print it entire. With that view it has undergone repeated revision
with enlargement in different parts, and been made as complete
as the limits of an essay appeared to allow. As nothing of
importance has been knowingly omitted, the writer hopes it will
be found a comprehensive summary of all that concerns the
formation and history of the Bible canon. The place occupied
by it was vacant. No English book reflecting the processes of
results of recent criticism, gives an account of the canon in both
Testaments. Articles and essays upon the subject there are; but
their standpoint is usually apologetic not scientific, traditional
rather than impartial, unreasonably conservative without being
critical. The topic is weighty, involving the consideration of
great questions, such as the inspiration, authenticity, authority,
and age of the Scriptures. The author has tried to handle it fairly,
founding his statements on such evidence as seemed convincing,
and condensing them into a moderate compass. If the reader
wishes to know the evidence, he may find it in the writer's
Introductions to the Old and New Testaments, where the separate
books of Scripture are discussed; and in the late treatises of other
critics. While his expositions are capable of expansion, it is
believed that they will not be easily shaken. He commends the
work to the attention of all who have an interest in the progress
of theology, and are seeking a foundation for their faith less
precarious than books however venerable.
Preface. 3

It has not been the writer's purpose to chronicle phases of

opinion, or to refute what he believes to be error in the newest
hypotheses about the age, authority, and composition of the
books. His aim has been rather to set forth the most correct view
of the questions involved in a history of the canon, whether it be
more or less recent. Some may think that the latest or most current
account of such questions is the best; but that is not his opinion.
Hence, the fashionable belief that much of the Pentateuch, [iv]
the Book of Leviticus wholly, with large parts of Exodus and
Numbers, in a word, that all the laws relating to divine worship,
with most of the chronological tables or statistics, belong to Ezra,
who is metamorphosed in fact into the first Elohist, is unnoticed.
Hence, also, the earliest gospel is not declared to be Mark's.
Neither has the author ventured to place the fourth gospel at the
end of the first century, as Ewald and Weitzsäcker do, after the
manner of the old critics; or with Keim so early as 110-115 A.D.
Many evince a restless anxiety to find something novel;
and to depart from well-established conclusions for the sake
of originality. This shows a morbid state of mind. Amid the
feverish outlook for discoveries and the slight regard for what is
safe, conservatism is a commendable thing. Some again desire
to return, as far as they can, to orthodoxy, finding between that
extreme and rationalism a middle way which offers a resting-
place to faith. The numerous changes which criticism presents
are not a symptom of soundness. The writer is far indeed
from thinking that every question connected with the books of
Scripture is finally settled; but the majority undoubtedly are,
though several already fixed by great scholars continue to be
opened up afresh. He does not profess to adopt the phase of
criticism which is fashionable at the moment; it is enough to
state what approves itself to his judgment, and to hold it fast
amid the contrarieties of conjecture or the cravings of curiosity.
Present excrescences or aberrations of belief will have their day
and disappear. Large portions of the Pentateuch will cease to
 4 The Canon of the Bible

be consigned to a post-exile time, and the gospels of Matthew

and Luke will again be counted the chief sources of Mark's. It
will also be acknowledged that the first as it now exists, is of
much later origin than the fall of Jerusalem. Nor will there be
so great anxiety to show that Justin Martyr was acquainted with
the fourth gospel, and owed his Logos-doctrine chiefly to it. The
difference of ten or twenty years in the date of a gospel will not
be considered of essential importance in estimating its character.
The present edition has been revised throughout and several
parts re-written. The author hopes that it will be found still more
worthy of the favor with which the first was received.

[009]
Chapter I. Introductory.

As introductory to the following dissertation, I shall explain and

define certain terms that frequently occur in it, especially canon,
apocryphal, ecclesiastical, and the like. A right apprehension of
these will make the observations advanced respecting the canon
and its formation plainer. The words have not been taken in
the same sense by all, a fact that obscures their sense. They
have been employed more or less vaguely by different writers.
Varying ideas have been attached to them.
The Greek original of canon1 means primarily a straight rod or
pole; and metaphorically, what serves to keep a thing upright or
straight, a rule. In the New Testament it occurs in Gal. vi. 16 and
2 Cor. x. 13, 15, 16, signifying in the former, a measure; in the
latter, what is measured, a district. But we have now to do with
its ecclesiastical use. There are three opinions as to the origin
of its application to the writings used by the church. According
to Toland, Whiston, Semler, Baur, and others, the word had
originally the sense of list or catalogue of books publicly read in
Christian assemblies. Others, as Steiner, suppose that since the
Alexandrian grammarians applied it to collections of Old Greek
authors as models of excellence or classics, it meant classical
(canonical) writings. According to a third opinion, the term [010]
included from the first the idea of a regulating principle. This
is the more probable, because the same idea lies in the New
Testament use of the noun, and pervades its applications in the
language of the early Fathers down to the time of Constantine,
as Credner has shown.2 The “canon of the church” in the
1
º±½}½.
2
Zur Geschichte des Kanons, pp 3-68.
 6 The Canon of the Bible

Clementine homilies;3 the “ecclesiastical canon,”4 and “the

canon of the truth,” in Clement and Irenæus;5 the “canon” of
the faith in Polycrates,6 the regula fidei of Tertullian,7 and the
libri regulares of Origen,8 imply a normative principle. But we
cannot assent to Credner's view of the Greek word for canon
being an abbreviation of “Scriptures of canon,”9 equivalent to
Scripturæ legis in Diocletian's Act10 —a view too artificial, and
unsanctioned by usage.
It is true that the word canon was employed by Greek writers
in the sense of a mere list; but when it was transferred to
the Scripture books, it included the idea of a regulative and
normal power—a list of books forming a rule or law, because
the newly-formed Catholic Church required a standard of appeal
in opposition to the Gnostics with their arbitrary use of sacred
writings. There is a lack of evidence on behalf of its use before
the books of the New Testament had been paralleled with those
of the Old in authority and inspiration.
The earliest example of its application to a catalogue of the
Old or New Testament books occurs in the Latin translation of
Origen's homily on Joshua, where the original seems to have
[011] been “canon.”11 The word itself is certainly in Amphilochius,12
as well as in Jerome,13 and Rufinus.14 As the Latin translation
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
³Á±Æ±v º±½y½¿Â.
10
Monumenta vetera ad Donatistarum historiam petinentia, ed. Dupin, p.
168.
11
º±½}½.
12
At the end of the Iambi ad Seleucum, on the books of the New Testament,
he adds, ¿PĿ ȵŴsÃıĿ º±½|½ ½ µ4· Äö½ ¸µ¿À½µ{ÃÄɽ ³Á±Æö½.
13
Prologus galeatus in ii. Reg.
14
Expos. in Symb. Apost., 37, p. 374, ed. Migne.
Chapter I. Introductory. 7

of Origen has canonicus and canonizatus, we infer that he used

“canonical,”15 opposed as it is to apocryphus or secretus. The
first occurrence of “canonical” is in the fifty-ninth canon of the
Council of Laodicea, where it is contrasted with two other Greek
words.16 “Canonized books,”17 is first used in Athanasius's
39th festal epistle. The kind of rule which the earliest fathers
attributed to the Scriptures can only be conjectured; it is certain
that they believed the Old Testament books to be a divine and
infallible guide. But the New Testament was not so considered
till towards the close of the second century when the conception
of a Catholic Church was realized. The latter collection was not
called Scripture, or put on a par with the Old Testament as sacred
and inspired, till the time of Theophilus of Antioch (about 180
A.D.) Hence, Irenæus applies the epithets divine and perfect to
the Scriptures; and Clement of Alexandria calls them inspired.
When distinctions were made among the Biblical writings
other words18 were employed, synonymous with “canonized.”19
The canon was thus a catalogue of writings forming a rule of
truth, sacred, divine, revealed by God for the instruction of men.
The rule was perfect for its purpose.
The word apocryphal20 is used in various senses, which it is
difficult to trace chronologically. Apocryphal books are,—
1st, Such as contain secret or mysterious things, books of the
higher wisdom. It is thus applied to the Apocalypse by Gregory
of Nyssa.21 Akin to this is the second meaning. [012]
2nd, Such as were kept secret or withdrawn from public use.
In this sense the word corresponds to the Hebrew ganuz.22 So
15
º±½¿½¹ºyÂ.
16
0´¹ÉĹºy and º±½y½¹ÃÄ¿Â.
17
š±½¿½¹¶y¼µ½±.
18
Such as ½´¹q¸·º±, aÁ¹Ã¼s½±.
19
º±½¿½¹¶y¼µ½± or ºµº±½¿½¹Ã¼s½±.
20
ÀyºÁÅÆ¿Â.
21
Orat. de Ordin., vol. ii. p. 44.
22
. The Jews applied the word genuzim to books withdrawn from
8 The Canon of the Bible

Origen speaking of the story of Susanna. The opposite of this is

read in public,23 a word employed by Eusebius.24
3rd, It was used of the secret books of the heretics by
Clement25 and Origen,26 with the accessory idea of spurious,
pseudepigraphical,27 in opposition to the canonical writings of
the Catholic Church. The book of Enoch and similar productions
were so characterized.28
4th, Jerome applied it to the books in the Septuagint which
are absent from the Hebrew canon, i.e., to the books which
were read in the church, the ecclesiastical ones29 occupying a
rank next to the canonical. In doing so he had respect to the
corresponding Hebrew epithet. This was a misuse of the word
apocryphal, which had a prejudicial effect on the character of
the books in after-times.30 The word, which he did not employ
in an injurious sense, was adopted from him by Protestants after
the Reformation, who gave it perhaps a sharper distinction than
he intended, so as to imply a contrast somewhat disparaging
to writings which were publicly read in many churches and put
beside the canonical ones by distinguished fathers. The Lutherans
have adhered to Jerome's meaning longer than the Reformed; but
the decree of the Council of Trent had some effect on both.
The contrast between the canonical and apocryphal writings was
carried to its utmost length by the Westminster divines, who
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
´µ´·¼¿Ã¹µÅ¼s½±.
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
½y¸¿Â, ȵŴµÀw³Á±Æ¿Â.
28
See Suicer's Thesaurus, s.v.
29
’¹²»w± ½±³¹½Éúy¼µ½±, 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.
Chapter I. Introductory. 9

asserted that the former are inspired, the latter not.

[013]
 Chapter II. The Old Testament
Canon From Its Beginning To Its
Close.
The first important part of the Old Testament put together as a
whole was the Pentateuch, or rather, the five books of Moses and
Joshua. This was preceded by smaller documents, which one or
more redactors embodied in it. The earliest things committed
to writing were probably the ten words proceeding from Moses
himself, afterwards enlarged into the ten commandments which
exist at present in two recensions (Exod. xx., Deut. v.) It is
true that we have the oldest form of the decalogue from the
Jehovist not the Elohist; but that is no valid objection against the
antiquity of the nucleus, out of which it arose. It is also probable
that several legal and ceremonial enactments belong, if not to
Moses himself, at least to his time; as also the Elohistic list of
stations in Numbers xxxiii. To the same time belongs the song
of Miriam in Exodus xv., probably consisting of a few lines at
first, and subsequently enlarged; with a triumphal ode over the
fall of Heshbon (Numbers xxi. 27-30). The little poetical piece
in Numbers xxi. 17, 18, afterwards misunderstood and so taken
literally, is post-Mosaic.
During the unsettled times of Joshua and the Judges there
could have been comparatively little writing. The song of
Deborah appeared, full of poetic force and fire. The period
of the early kings was characterized not only by a remarkable
development of the Hebrew people and their consolidation into
[014] a national state, but by fresh literary activity. Laws were
written out for the guidance of priests and people; and the
 11

political organization of the rapidly growing nation was promoted

by poetical productions in which spiritual life expressed its
aspirations. Schools of prophets were instituted by Samuel,
whose literary efforts tended to purify the worship. David was an
accomplished poet, whose psalms are composed in lofty strains;
and Solomon may have written a few odes. The building of
the temple, and the arrangements connected with its worship,
contributed materially to a written legislation.
During this early and flourishing period appeared the book of
the Wars of Jehovah,31 a heroic anthology, celebrating warlike
deeds; and the book of Jashar,32 also poetical. Jehoshaphat is
mentioned as court-annalist to David and Solomon.33 Above
all, the Elohists now appeared, the first of whom, in the reign
of Saul, was author of annals, beginning at the earliest time
which were distinguished by genealogical and chronological
details as well as systematic minuteness, by archaic simplicity,
and by legal prescriptions more theoretical than practical. The
long genealogical registers with an artificial chronology and a
statement of the years of men's lives, the dry narratives, the
precise accounts of the gradual enlargement of divine laws, the
copious description of the tabernacle and the institution of divine
worship, are wearisome, though pervaded by a theoretic interest
which looks at everything from a legal point of view. A second
or junior Elohist was less methodical and more fragmentary,
supplying additional information, furnishing new theocratic
details, and setting forth the relation of Israel to heathen nations
and to God. In contrast with his predecessor, he has great beauty
of description, which is exemplified in the account of Isaac's
sacrifice and the history of Joseph; in picturesque and graphic
narratives interspersed with few reflections. His parallels to
the later writer commonly called the Jehovist, are numerous. [015]

31
Num. xxi. 14.
32
Joshua x. 12, 13; 2 Sam. i. 18.
33
2 Sam. viii. 16; 1 Kings iv. 3.
 12 The Canon of the Bible

The third author, who lived in the time of Uzziah, though more
mythological than the Elohists, was less formal. His stand-
point is prophetic. The third document incorporated with the
Elohistic ones formed an important part of the whole, exhibiting
a vividness which the first lacked; with descriptions of persons
and things from another stand-point. The Jehovist belonged to
the northern kingdom; the Elohists were of Judah.
The state of the nation after Rehoboam was unfavorable
to literature. When the people were threatened and attacked
by other nations, divided among themselves in worship and
all higher interests, rent by conflicting parties, the theocratic
principle which was the true bond of union could not assert itself
with effect. The people were corrupt; their religious life debased.
The example of the kings was usually prejudicial to political
healthiness. Contact with foreigners as well as with the older
inhabitants of the land, hindered progress. In these circumstances
the prophets were the true reformers, the advocates of political
liberty, expositors of the principles that give life and stability to
a nation. In Judah, Joel wrote prophetic discourses; in Israel,
Amos and Hosea. Now, too, a redactor put together the Elohistic
and Jehovistic documents, making various changes in them,
adding throughout sentences or words that seemed desirable, and
suppressing what was unsuited to his taste. Several psalm-writers
enriched the national literature after David. Learned men at the
court of Hezekiah recast and enlarged (Proverbs xxv.-xxix.)
the national proverbs, which bore Solomon's name because the
nucleus of an older collection belonged to that monarch. These
literary courtiers were not prophets, but rather scribes. The book
of Job was written, with the exception of Elihu's later discourses,
which were not inserted in it till after the return from Babylon;
and Deuteronomy, with Joshua, was added to the preceding
[016] collection in the reign of Manasseh. The gifted author of
Deuteronomy, who was evidently imbued with the prophetic
spirit, completed the Pentateuch, i.e., the five books of Moses
 13

and Joshua, revising the Elohist-Jehovistic work, and making

various additions and alterations. He did the same thing to the
historical books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings; which received
from him their present form. Immediately before and during the
exile there were numerous authors and compilers. New psalms
appeared, more or less national in spirit. Ezekiel, Jeremiah and
others prophesied; especially an unknown seer who described the
present condition of the people, predicting their coming glories
and renovated worship in strains of far-reaching import.34 This
great prophet expected the regeneration of the nation from the
pious portion of it, the prophets in particular, not from a kingly
Messiah as Isaiah did; for the hopes resting on rulers out of
David's house had been disappointed. His aspirations turned
to spiritual means. He was not merely an enthusiastic seer
with comprehensive glance, but also a practical philosopher who
set forth the doctrine of the innocent suffering for the guilty;
differing therein from Ezekiel's theory of individual reward and
punishment in the present world—a theory out of harmony with
the circumstances of actual life. The very misfortunes of the
nation, and the signs of their return, excited within the nobler
spirits hopes of a brighter future, in which the flourishing reign of
David should be surpassed by the universal worship of Jehovah.
In consequence of their outward condition, the prophets of the
exile were usually writers, like Ezekiel, not public speakers;
and their announcement of glad tidings could only be transmitted
privately from person to person. This explains in part the oblivion
into which their names fell; so that the author or redactor of
Jeremiah l., li.; the author of chapters xiii.-xiv. 23, xxi. 1-10,
xxiv.-xxvii., xxxiv., xxxv., inserted in Isaiah; and, above all,
the Babylonian Isaiah, whom Hitzig improbably identifies with [017]
the high-priest Joshua, are unknown. After the return from
Babylon the literary spirit manifested itself in the prophets of

34
Isaiah, xl.-lxvi.
 14 The Canon of the Bible

the restoration—Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi—who wrote

to recall their countrymen to a sense of religious duties; though
their ideas were borrowed in part from older prophets of more
original genius. The book of Esther appeared, to make the
observance of the purim feast, which was of Persian origin, more
general in Palestine. The large historical work comprising the
books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles, was compiled partly
out of materials written by Ezra and Nehemiah, partly out of
older historical records which formed a portion of the national
literature. Several temple-psalms were also composed; a part
of the present book of Proverbs; Ecclesiastes, whose tone and
language betray its late origin; and Jonah, whose diction puts its
date after the Babylonian captivity. The Maccabean age called
forth the book of Daniel and various psalms. In addition to new
productions there was an inclination to collect former documents.
To Zechariah's authentic prophecies were added the earlier ones
contained in chapters ix.-xiv.; and the Psalms were gradually
brought together, being made up into divisions at different times;
the first and second divisions proceeding from one redactor, the
third from another, the fourth and fifth from a still later. Various
writings besides their own were grouped around the names of
earlier prophets, as was the case with Isaiah and Jeremiah.
The literature is more indebted for its best constituents to the
prophetic than to the priestly order, because the prophets were
preachers of repentance and righteousness whose great aim was
to make Israel a Jehovah-worshipping nation to the exclusion
of other gods. Their utterances were essentially ethical and
religious; their pictures of the future subjective and ideal. There
was silently elaborated in their schools a spiritual monotheism,
over against the crude polytheism of the people generally—a
[018] theocratic ideal inadequately apprehended by gross and sensuous
Israel—Jehovism simple and sublime amid a sacerdotal worship
which left the heart impure while cleansing the hands. Instead
of taking their stand upon the law, with its rules of worship,
 15

its ceremonial precepts and penalties against transgressors, the

prophets set themselves above it, speaking slightingly of the
forms and customs which the people took for the whole of
religion. To the view of such as were prepared to receive a
faith that looked for its realization to the future, they helped
to create a millennium, in which the worship of Jehovah alone
should become the basis of a universal religion for humanity. In
addition to the prophetic literature proper, they wrote historical
works also. How superior this literature is to the priestly, appears
from a comparison of the Kings and Chronicles. The subjective
underlies the one; the objective distinguishes the other. Faith
in Jehovah, clothed, it may be in sensible or historical forms,
characterizes the one; reference of an outward order to a divine
source, the other. The sanctity of a people under the government
of a righteous God, is the object of the one; the sanctity of
institutions, that of the other. Even when the prophets wrote
history, the facts are subordinate to the belief. Subjective
purposes colored their representation of real events.
To them we are indebted for the Messianic idea, the hope
of a better time in which their high ideal of the theocracy
should be realized. With such belief in the future, with pious
aspirations enlivening their patriotism, did they comfort and
encourage their countrymen. The hope, general or indefinite at
first, was afterwards attached to the house of David, out of which
a restorer of the theocracy was expected, a king pre-eminent
in righteousness, and marvelously gifted. It was not merely a
political but a religious hope, implying the thorough purification
of the nation, the extinction of idolatry, the general spread and
triumph of true religion. The pious wishes of the prophets, often
repeated, became a sort of doctrine, and contributed to sustain [019]
the failing spirit of the people. The indefinite idea of a golden
age was commoner than that of a personal prince who should
reign in equity and peace. Neither was part of the national faith,
like the law, or the doctrine of sacrifice; and but a few of the
 16 The Canon of the Bible

prophets portrayed a king, in their description of the period of

ideal prosperity.
The man who first gave public sanction to a portion of the
national literature was Ezra, who laid the foundation of a canon.
He was the leader in restoring the theocracy after the exile, “a
ready scribe in the law of Moses, who had prepared his heart
to seek the law of the Lord and to teach in Israel statutes and
judgments.” As we are told that he brought the book of the law
of Moses before the congregation and read it publicly, the idea
naturally arises that he was the final redactor of the Pentateuch,
separating it from the historical work consisting of Joshua and
the subsequent writings, of which it formed the commencement.
Such was the first canon given to the Jewish Church after its
reconstruction—ready for temple service as well as synagogue
use. Henceforward the Mosaic book became an authoritative
guide in spiritual, ecclesiastical, and civil matters, as we infer
from various passages in Ezra and Nehemiah and from the
chronicler's own statements in the book bearing his name. The
doings of Ezra with regard to the Scriptures are deduced not only
from what we read of him in the Biblical book that bears his
name, but also from the legend in the fourth book of Ezdras,35
where it is related that he dictated by inspiration to five ready
writers ninety-four books; the first twenty-four of which he was
ordered to publish openly that the worthy and unworthy might
read, but reserved the last seventy for the wise. Though the
twenty-four books of the Old Testament cannot be attributed
to him, the fact that he copied and wrote portions need not
[020] be questioned. He edited the law, making the first canon or
collection of books, and giving it an authority which it had not
before. Talmudic accounts associate with him the men of the
great synagogue. It is true that they are legendary, but there
is a foundation of fact beneath the fanciful superstructure. As

35
Chap. xiv. 23-50, &c. See Hilgenfeld's Messias Judærorum, p. 107.
 17

to Ezra's treatment of the Pentateuch, or his specific mode of

redaction, we are left for the most part to conjecture. Yet it is
safe to affirm that he added;—making new precepts and practices
either in place of or beside older ones. Some things he removed
as unsuited to the altered circumstances of the people; others he
modified. He threw back later enactments into earlier times. It
is difficult to discover all the parts that betray his hand. Some
elaborate priestly details show his authorship most clearly. If
his hand be not visible in Leviticus, chap. xvii.-xxvi.; a writer
not far removed from his time is observable; Ezekiel or some
other. It is clear that some of the portion (xxv. 19-22; xxvi.
3-45) is much later than the Elohists, and belongs to the exile or
post-exile period. But great difficulty attaches to the separation
of the sources here used; even after Kayser's acute handling of
them. It is also perceptible from Ezekiel xx. 25, 26, that the
clause in Exodus xiii. 15, “but all the first-born of my children I
redeem,” was added after the exile, since the prophet shows his
unacquaintance with it. The statute that all which openeth the
womb should be burnt in sacrifice to Jehovah, appeared inhuman
not only to Ezekiel, but to Ezra or his associates in re-editing
the law; and therefore the clause about the redemption of every
first-born male was subjoined. Ezra, a second Moses in the eyes
of the later Jews, did not scruple to refer to Moses what was of
recent origin, and to deal freely with the national literature. Such
was the first canon—that of Ezra the priest and scribe.
The origin of the great synagogue is noticed in Ezra x. 16, and
described more particularly in Nehemiah viii.-x., the members
being apparently enumerated in x. 1-27; at least the Megila Jer.
(i. 5) and Midrash Ruth (§ 3) speak of an assembly of eighty-five [021]
elders, who are probably found in the last passage. One name,
however, is wanting, for only eighty-four are given; and as Ezra
is not mentioned among them, the conjecture of Krochmal that it
has dropped out of x. 9, may be allowed. Another tradition gives
the number as one hundred and twenty, which may be got by
 18 The Canon of the Bible

adding the “chief of the fathers” enumerated in Ezra viii. 1-14 to

the hundred and two heads of families in Ezra ii. 2-58. Whether
the number was the same at the commencement as afterwards
is uncertain. Late Jewish writers, however, such as Abarbanel,
Abraham ben David, Ben Maimun, &c., speak as if it consisted
of the larger number at the beginning; and have no scruple in
pronouncing Ezra president, rather than Nehemiah.36
The oldest extra-biblical mention of the synagogue, is in the
Mishnic treatise Pirke Aboth, where it is said, “Moses received
the laws from Mount Sinai, and delivered it to Joshua, Joshua to
the elders, the elders to the prophets, and the prophets delivered it
to the men of the great synagogue. These last spake these words:
‘Be slow in judgment; appoint many disciples; make a hedge for
the law.’ ”37 In the Talmudic Baba Bathra, their biblical doings
are described: “Moses wrote his book, the section about Balaam
and job. Joshua wrote his book and eight verses of the law.
Samuel wrote his book and judges and Ruth. David wrote the
book of Psalms by (?)38 ten elders, by Adam the first man, by
Melchizedek, by Abraham, by Moses, by Heman, by Jeduthun,
by Asaph, and the three sons of Korah. Jeremiah wrote his book,
the books of Kings and Lamentations. Hezekiah and his friends
wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, Canticles, and Coheleth; the men of the
[022] great synagogue, Ezekiel, the twelve prophets, Daniel and Esther.
Ezra wrote his own book and the genealogies of Chronicles down
to himself.”39 This passage has its obscurities. What is meant by
the verb write!40 Does it mean composition and then something
else; the former in the first part of the passage, and editing in
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
. 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
.
 19

the second? Rashi explains it of composition throughout, which

introduces absurdity. The most obvious interpretation is that
which understands the verb of writing in one place, and editing
in the second. But it is improbable that the author should have
used the same word in different senses, in one and the same
passage. Bloch41 understands it of copying or writing out, a
sense that suits the procedure of the men of the great synagogue
in regard to Ezekiel, the twelve prophets, &c., but is inapplicable
to Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Jeremiah, &c. It is probable
enough that the synagogue scribes put into their present form
and made the first authorized copies of the works specified. The
Boraitha, however, is not clear, and may only express the opinion
of a private individual in a confused way. Simon the Just is said
to have belonged to the remnants of the synagogue. As Ezra is
called “a ready scribe,” and his labors in connection with the law
were important, he may have organized a body of literary men
who should work in harmony, attending, among other things, to
the collection and preservation of the national literature; or they
may have been an association of patriotic men who voluntarily
rallied round the heads of the new state, to support them in their
fundamental reforms. The company of scribes mentioned in 1
Maccabees does not probably relate to it.42 A succession of
priests and scribes, excited at first by the reforming zeal of one
whom later Jews looked upon as a second Moses, labored in one
department of literary work till the corporation ceased to exist
soon after, if not in the time of Simon, i.e., from about 445 B.C. [023]
till about 200; for we identify the Simon celebrated in Sirach
l. 1-26 with Simon II., son of the high-priest Onias II., B.C.
221-202; not with Simon I., son and successor of the high-priest
Onias I., B.C. 310-291. Josephus's opinion, indeed, is contrary;
but leading Jewish scholars, such as Zunz, Herzfeld, Krochmal,
41
Studien zur Geschichte der Sammlung der althebräischen Literatur, p. 127,
&c.
42
vii. 12, ÃŽ±³É³t ³Á±¼¼±Äsɽ, not ! ÃŽ±³É³u.
 20 The Canon of the Bible

Derenbourg, Jost, and Bloch differ from him.

To the great synagogue must be referred the compilation of
the second canon, containing Joshua, Judges with Ruth, Samuel,
Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah with Lamentations, Ezekiel and the
twelve minor prophets. It was not completed prior to 300
B.C., because the book of Jonah was not written before. This
work may be called a historical parable composed for a didactic
purpose, giving a milder, larger view of Jehovah's favor than
the orthodox one, that excluded the Gentiles. Ruth, containing
an idyllic story with an unfinished genealogy attached, meant
to glorify the house of David, and presenting a kindred spirit
towards a people uniformly hated, was appended to Judges; but
was subsequently transferred to the third canon. It was written
immediately after the return from the Babylonian captivity; for
the Chaldaising language points to this date, notwithstanding the
supposed archaisms discovered in it by some. In like manner,
the Lamentations, originally added to Jeremiah, were afterwards
put into the later or third canon. Joshua, which had been
separated from the five books of Moses with which it was closely
joined at first, formed, with the other historical portion (Judges,
Samuel, Kings), the proper continuation of Ezra's canon. The
prophets included the three greater and twelve minor. With
Isaiah's authentic oracles were incorporated the last twenty-
seven chapters, belonging for the most part to an anonymous
prophet of the exile, besides several late pieces inserted in the
first thirty-nine chapters. Men of prophetic gifts wrote in the
name of distinguished prophets, and put their productions with
those of the latter, or adapted and wrote them over after their
[024] own fashion. The fiftieth and fifty-first chapters of Jeremiah
show such over-writing. To Zechariah's authentic oracles were
attached chapters ix.-xiv., themselves made up of two parts (ix.-
xi., xii.-xiv.) belonging to different times and authors prior to the
destruction of the Jewish state by the Babylonians.
The character of the synagogue's proceedings in regard to the
 21

books of Scripture can only be deduced from the conduct of Ezra

himself, as well as the prevailing views and wants of the times.
The scribes who began with Ezra, seeing how he acted, would
naturally follow his example, not hesitating to revise the text in
substance as well as form.43 They did not refrain from changing
what had been written, or from inserting fresh matter. Some of
their novelties can be discerned even in the Pentateuch. Their
chief work, however, related to the form of the text. They put
into a proper form and state the text of the writings they studied,
perceiving less need for revising the matter. What they did was
in good faith, with honest intention.
The prophetic canon ended with Malachi's oracles. And it
was made sometime after he prophesied, because the general
consciousness that the function ceased with him required a
considerable period for its growth. The fact that it included Jonah
and Ruth brings the completion after 300 B.C., as already stated.
There are no definite allusions to it till the second century B.C.
Daniel speaks of a passage in Jeremiah being in “the books” or
“writings;”44 and the prologue of Jesus Sirach presupposes its
formation. Such was the second canon, which had been made up
gradually (444-290 B.C.) [025]

Another view of the collection in question has been taken by

various scholars. According to a passage in the second book of
Maccabees, the second canon originated with Nehemiah, who
“gathered together the acts of the kings and the prophets and
(psalms) of David, and the epistles of the kings concerning

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,
(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.
 22 The Canon of the Bible

the holy gifts.”45 These words are obscure. They occur in a

letter purporting to be sent by the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem to
the Jews in Egypt, which contains apocryphal things; a letter
which assigns to Nehemiah the merit of various arrangements
rather belonging to Ezra. It is difficult to understand the meaning
of “the epistles of the kings concerning the offerings.” If they
were the documents of heathen or Persian kings favorable to
the rebuilding of Jerusalem and its temple, would they not have
been rejected from a collection of sacred books belonging to the
chosen people? They might perhaps have been adopted had they
been interwoven with the holy books themselves, like portions
of Ezra and Nehemiah; but they could not have formed a distinct
part of the national literature, because they were foreign and
heathen. Again, “the psalms of David” cannot have existed in the
time of Nehemiah, if the phrase includes the whole collection.
It may perhaps refer to the first three divisions of the book,
as Herzfeld thinks; but these contain many odes which are not
David's; while earlier ones belong to the last two divisions of
the Psalm-book. In like manner, “the prophets” could not all
have belonged to this canon; neither Malachi, who was later, nor
Jonah. The account will not bear strict examination, and must be
pronounced apocryphal. Nehemiah was a statesman, not a priest
or scribe; a politician, not a literary man. It is true that he may
have had assistants, or committed the work to competent hands;
but this is conjectural. The account of his supposed canon hardly
commends itself by inherent truthfulness or probability, though
[026] it is accepted by Ewald and Bleek.
When the great synagogue ceased, there was an interval during
which it is not clear whether the sacred books were neglected,
except by private individuals; or whether they were studied,
copied, and collected by a body of scribes. Perhaps the scribes
and elders of the Hasmonæan time were active at intervals in this

45
Chapter ii. 13.
 23

department. The institution of a senate by Judas Maccabaeus is

supposed to be favored by 2 Maccabees (chapter i. 10-ii. 18);
but the passage furnishes poor evidence of the thing. Judas is
there made to write to Egypt in the year of the Seleucidae 188,
though he died thirty-six years before, i.e., 152. Other places
have been added as corroborative, viz., 2 Maccab. iv. 44, xi.
27; 1 Maccab. vii. 33. Some go so far as to state that Jose
ben Joeser was appointed its first president at that time. The
Midrash in Bereshith Rabba (§ 65) makes him one of the sixty
Hassidim who were treacherously murdered by Alcimus; but this
is neither in the first book of the Maccabees (chapter vii.) nor in
Josephus,46 and must be pronounced conjectural. It is impossible
to fix the exact date of Jose ben Joeser in the Hasmonean period.
Pirke Aboth leaves it indefinite. Jonathan, Judas Maccabaeus's
successor, when writing to the Lacedaemonians, speaks of the
gerusia or senate as well as the people of the Jews; whence
we learn that the body existed as early as the time of Judas.47
Again, Demetrius writes to Simon, as also to the elders and
nation of the Jews.48 After Jonathan and Simon, it may have
been suspended for a while, in consequence of the persecution
and anarchy prevailing in Judea; till the great Sanhedrim at
Jerusalem succeeded it, under Hyrcanus I. Though the traces
of a senate in the Maccabaean epoch are slight, the Talmud
countenances its existence.49 We believe that it was earlier than
Judas Maccabaeus. Of its constitution nothing is known; but
it was probably aristocratic. The Hasmonean prince would [027]
naturally exert a commanding influence over it. The great
synagogue had been a kind of democratic council, consisting of
scribes, doctors or teachers, and priests.50 Like their predecessors

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
, Nehemiah viii. 3.
 24 The Canon of the Bible

of the great synagogue, the Hasmonæan elders revised the text

freely, putting into it explanatory or corrective additions, which
were not always improvements. The way in which they used
the book of Esther, employing it as a medium of Halachite
prescription, shows a treatment involving little idea of sacredness
attaching to the Hagiographa.
We are aware that the existence of this body is liable to doubt,
and that the expressions belonging to it in Jewish books, whether
elders or gerusia, have been applied to the great synagogue or
to the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem, or even to the elders of any little
town or hamlet; but it is difficult to explain all on that hypothesis,
without attributing confusion to the places where they occur. If
the body in question be not allowed, an interval of about sixty
years elapsed between the great synagogue and the Sanhedrim,
during which the hagiographical writings were comparatively
neglected, though literary activity did not cease. No authoritative
association, at least, dealt with them. This is improbable. It is
true that we read of no distinguished teachers in the interval,
except Antigonus of Socho, disciple of Simon the Just; but the
silence can hardly weigh against a reasonable presumption. One
thing is clear, viz., that Antigonus did not reach down to the time
of the first pair that presided over the Sanhedrim.
The contents of the third canon, i.e., Psalms, Proverbs,
Job, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah,
Chronicles, the formation of which we assign to the Hasmonæan
gerusia, were multifarious, differing widely from one another
in age, character, and value—poetical, prophetic, didactic,
historical. Such as seemed worthy of preservation, though
[028] they had not been included in the second canon, were gathered
together during the space of an hundred and fifty years. The
oldest part consisted of psalms supposed to belong to David. The
first psalm, which contains within itself traces of late authorship,
was prefixed as an introduction to the whole collection now put
into the third canon. Next to the Psalms were Proverbs, Job,
 25

Canticles, which, though non-prophetic and probably excluded

on that account from the second canon, must have existed before
the exile. Enriched with the latest additions, they survived
the national disasters, and claimed a place next to the Psalms.
They were but a portion of the literature current in and after
the 5th century B.C., as may be inferred from the epilogue to
Ecclesiastes, and the Wisdom of Sirach. The historical work
compiled by the chronicle-writer was separated, Ezra being put
first as the most important part, and referring also to the church
of the 6th and 5th centuries whose history had not been written.
The Chronicles themselves were placed last, being considered of
less value than the first part, as they contained the summary of
a period already described, though with numerous adaptations
to post-exile times. The youngest portion consisted of the book
of Daniel, not written till the Maccabean period (between 170
and 160 B.C.);51 and probably of several Psalms (44, 60, 74, 75, [029]

8, 5), where he may have thought of the canonical part.

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
 26 The Canon of the Bible

76, 79, 80, 83, 89, 110, 118) which were inserted in different
places of the collection to make the whole number 150. These
late odes savor of the Maccabean time; and are fitly illustrated
by the history given in the first book of Maccabees. The list
continued open; dominated by no stringent principle of selection,
and with a character somewhat indefinite. It was called c'tubim,
i.e., writings52 a general epithet suited to the contents.
Several books put into the third canon,—as Job, Proverbs, the
greater number of the Psalms, &c.,—existed when the second
was made. But the latter collection was pre-eminently prophetic;
and it was that idea of the origin and contents of the books
in it which regulated its extent. Bloch's supposition that the
parts of the third collection then existing were not looked upon
as holy, but merely as productions embodying human wisdom,
and were therefore excluded, is improbable. We do not think
that an alteration of opinion about them in the course of a
century or more, by which they became divine and holy instead
of human, is a satisfactory explanation. The Psalms of David
and the book of Job must have been as highly esteemed in the
period of the great synagogue's existence as they were at a later
time. Other considerations besides the divinity and holiness of
books contributed to their introduction into a canon. Ecclesiastes
was taken into the third collection because it was attributed to
Solomon. The Song of Songs was understood allegorically,—a
fact which, in addition to its supposed Solomonic authorship,
determined its adoption. And even after their canonical reception,
whether by the great synagogue or another body, the character
[030] of books was canvassed. It was so with Ecclesiastes, in spite of
the supposed sanction it got from the great synagogue contained
in the epilogue, added, as some think, by that body to attest the

fame (Antiq. x. 11, 7), and especially of the books he wrote (Äp ²¹²»w±),
supposes some relation to them. Elsewhere he speaks of one book (x. 10, 4; xi.
52
, translated by the Greek ³¹y³Á±Æ±, hagiographa.
 27

sacredness of the book.53

While the third canon was being made, the soferim, as the
successors of the prophets, were active as before; and though
interpretation was their chief duty, they must have revised and
corrected the sacred books to some extent. We need not hesitate
to allow that they sometimes arranged parts, and even added
matter of their own. In the time of the canon's entire preparation,
they and the priests, with writers and scholars generally, redacted
the national literature, excluding or sanctioning such portions of
it as they thought fit.
At this time appeared the present five-fold partition of
the Psalms, preceded as it had been by other divisions, the
last of which was very similar to the one that became final.
Several inscriptions and historical notices were prefixed. The
inscriptions, however, belong to very different times, their
historical parts being usually older than the musical; and date
from the first collection to the period of the Hasmonean college,
when the final redaction of the entire Psalter took place. Those
in the first three books existed at the time when the latter were
made up; those in the last two were prefixed partly at the time
when the collections themselves were made, and partly in the
Maccabean age. How often they are out of harmony with the
poems themselves, needs no remark. They are both traditional
and conjectural.
The earliest attestation of the third canon is that of the prologue
to Jesus Sirach (130 B.C.), where not only the law and the prophets
are specified, but “the other books of the fathers,” or “the rest [031]
of the books.”54 No information is given as to its extent, or
53
It has been thought that the phrase 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
Äp »»± ÀqÄÁ¹± ²¹²»w±; Äp »¿¹Àp Äö½ ²¹²»wɽ. The younger Sirach does
 28 The Canon of the Bible

the particular books included. They may have been for the
most part the same as the present ones. The passage does not
show that the third list was closed. The better writings of the
fathers, such as tended to learning and wisdom, are not excluded
by the definite article. In like manner, neither Philo nor the
New Testament gives exact information as to the contents of the
division in question. Indeed, several books, Canticles, Esther,
Ecclesiastes, are unnoticed in the latter. The argument drawn
from Matthew xxiii. 35, that the Chronicles were then the last
book of the canon, is inconclusive; as the Zechariah there named
was probably different from the Zechariah in 2 Chronicles xxiv.
None of these witnesses proves that the third canon was finally
closed.
A more definite testimony respecting the canon is given by
Josephus towards the end of the first century A.D. “For we have
not an innumerable multitude of books among us, ... but only
twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times;
which are justly believed to be divine. And of them five belong to
Moses.... But as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign
of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, the prophets who were after Moses
wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The
remaining four books contain hymns to God and precepts for the
conduct of human life. It is true our history has been written since
Artaxerxes very particularly, but has not been esteemed of the
like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there
has not been an exact succession of prophets since that time:
and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own
[032] nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have
already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything
to them, to take anything from them, or to make any change

not use ³Á±Æ±v, which would have been a proper translation of c'tubim. Does
not this »»± 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?
 29

in them; but it has become natural to all Jews immediately and

from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain divine
doctrines, and to persist in them, and if occasion be, willingly to
die for them.”55 This list agrees with our present canon, showing
that the Palestinian Jews were tolerably unanimous as to the
extent of the collection. The thirteen prophets include Job; the
four lyric and moral books are Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes
and Canticles.
It is not likely that the Hasmonæan senate had a long existence.
It was replaced by the Sanhedrim, a more definite and state
institution, intended as a counter-balance to the influence of the
Hasmonæan princes. The notices of the latter reach no further
back than Hyrcanus I., i.e., about 135 B.C.56 Josephus speaks
of it under Hyrcanus II.57 It cannot be referred to an earlier
period than Hyrcanus I. Frankel58 indeed, finds a notice of it in
2 Chronicles xix. 8, 11; but the account there is indistinct, and
refers to the great synagogue. The compiler having no certain
information about what was long past, transfers the origin of the
court he speaks of to Jehoshaphat, in order to glorify the house of
David. It is impossible to date the Sanhedrim, with Frankel, in the
Grecian era, in which case it must have been dissolved during the
Maccabean insurrection, and afterwards reconstructed; it was not
constituted till about 130 B.C. Whether it was modeled after the
great synagogue or the Hasmonæan senate, is uncertain. The idea
of it may have been suggested by the latter rather than the former,
for its basis was aristocratic. The Hasmonæan gerusia must have [033]
been less formal and definite than the Sanhedrim; though the
latter arose before the family ceased to be in power, and differed
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.{FNS
57
Antiq., xiv., 9.
58
Der gerichtliche Beweis, p. 68.
 30 The Canon of the Bible

materially from its predecessor. It continued from 130 B.C. till

A.D. 180, surviving the terrible disasters of the nation.59
The closing of the third canon cannot be assigned, with Bloch,
to the great synagogue. If the college ceased with or before
Simon, i.e., about 200-192, and the work of Daniel did not appear
till about 170 B.C., twenty years at least intervened between the
extinction of the great synagogue and Daniel's book. This holds
good, whether we assume, with Krochmal, the synagogue's
redaction of the work,—more correctly the putting together of
the independent parts of which it is said to be composed; or
equally so, if the taking of it into the canon as a book already
completed, be attributed to the same body. But we are unable
to see that Krochmal's reasoning about the synagogue putting
Daniel's work together and one of the members writing the book
of Esther is probable.
In like manner, Maccabean psalms are adverse to the
hypothesis that the great synagogue completed the third canon.
In consequence of these late productions, it is impossible to
assert that the men of the synagogue were the redactors of the
Psalter as it is. It is true that the collection was made before
the Chronicles and many other books of the hagiographical
canon; but the complete Psalter did not appear till the Maccabean
period. The canon, however, was not considered to be finally
closed in the first century before and the next after Christ. There
were doubts about some portions. The book of Ezekiel gave
offence, because some of its statements seemed to contradict
the law. Doubts about others were of a more serious nature;
about Ecclesiastes, the Canticles, Esther, and the Proverbs. The
[034] first was impugned because it had contradictory passages and
a heretical tendency; the second, because of its worldly and
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.
 31

sensual tone; Esther for its want of religiousness; and Proverbs

on account of inconsistencies. This scepticism went far to
procure the exclusion of the suspected works from the canon,
and their relegation to the class of the genuzim.60 But it did
not prevail. Hananiah, son of Hezekiah, son of Garon, about
32 B.C., is said to have reconciled the contradictions and quieted
the doubts.61 But these traces of resistance to the fixity of
the canon were not the last. They reappeared about A.D. 65,
as we learn from the Talmud,62 when the controversy turned
mainly upon the canonicity of Ecclesiastes, which the school
of Shammai, who had the majority, opposed; so that the book
was probably excluded.63 The question emerged again at a later
synod at Jabneh or Jamnia, when R. Eleasar ben Asaria was
chosen patriarch, and Gamaliel the second, deposed. Here it
was decided, not unanimously however, but by a majority of
Hillelites, that Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs “pollute the
hands,” i.e., belong properly to the Hagiographa.64 This was
about 90 A.D.65 Thus the question of the canonicity of certain
books was discussed at two synods.
Passages in the Talmud have been adduced to show that the
Shammaite objections to the canonicity of Ecclesiastes “were
overruled by the positive declaration from the 72 elders, being a
testimony anterior to the Christian era that Coheleth is canonical;
but they do not support the opinion.”66 [035]

60
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.
32 The Canon of the Bible

“The sages” referred to in the treatise Sabbat and elsewhere is a

vague expression, resting apparently on no historic tradition—a
mere opinion of comparatively late date. If it refer to the
Jerusalem synod A.D. 65, the Hillelites were simply outnumbered
there by the Shammaites. The matter was debated hastily, and
determined for the time by a majority. But the synod at Jamnia
consisted of 72 persons; and a passage in the treatise Yadayim
refers to it.67 The testimony of the 72 elders to whom R. Simeon
ben Asai here alludes, so far from belonging to an anti-christian
era, belongs to a date about 90 A.D. And the fact that the synod
at Jamnia took up again a question already debated at Jerusalem
A.D. 65, proves that no final settlement of the canon had taken
place before. The canon was virtually settled at Jamnia, where
was confirmed what R. Akiba said of the Canticles in his usual
extravagant way: “No day in the whole history of the world is of
so much worth as the one in which the Song of Songs was given
to Israel; for all the Scriptures are holy; but the Song of Songs is
most holy.”68 As the Hagiographa were not read in public, with
the exception of Esther, opinions of the Jewish rabbins might
still differ about Canticles and Ecclesiastes, even after the synod
of Jamnia.
In opposition to these remarks, it is strenuously argued by
Bloch that neither the passage in the Mishnic treatise Yadayim,
nor any other, refers to the canonical character of the books to
which Jewish elders raised several objections. But his arguments

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)
 33

are more vehement than valid. Anxious to assign the final

settlement of the entire canon to an authoritative body like [036]
the great synagogue, he affirms that all parties were united
in opinion about the time of Christ,—Assiim, Perushim, and
Zeddukim; Shammaites and Hillelites. But it requires more than
his ingenuity to explain away the meaning of Yadayim 3, 5,
Adoyot v. 3, Sabbat 1. To what did such diversity of opinion
relate, if not to the canonical character of the books? A specific
answer to the question is not given by the learned writer,69 who
is too eager in his endeavor to attribute the settlement of the third
canon to the great synagogue, and to smooth away all diversities
of opinion about several books, after that time, as if none could
afterwards question the authoritative settlement by that body. He
will not even allow a wider canon to the Alexandrian Jews than
that of their Palestinian brethren, though he cannot but admit that
the former read and highly esteemed various apocryphal books
because of their theocratic character. Surely the practical use of
writings is an evidence of their canonicity as strong as theoretical
opinions.
The doubts about several books to which we have alluded,
some of which Hananiah is said to have resolved in his old age,
imply a diligent study of the national literature, if not a revision
of the text; and the Tannaite college at Jabneh must have cared
for the same things, as it had to deal with similar objections.
After the last canon was made more than a century anterior to the
Christian era, the text was not considered inviolate by the learned
Jews; it received subsequent modifications and interpolations.
The process of redaction had not ceased before the time of Christ.
This was owing, among other causes, to the state of parties among
the Jews, as well as the intrusion of Greek literature and culture,
whose influence the Palestinian Jews themselves were not able
altogether to withstand. When Jeremiah accused the Scribes of

69
Studien zur Geschichte, u. s. w., p. 150, &c.
 34 The Canon of the Bible

falsifying the law by their lying pen (viii. 8), it may be inferred
that the same process took place afterwards; that offensive things
[037] were removed, and alterations made continuously down to the
close of the canon, and even after. The corrections consisted of
additions and changes of letters, being indicated in part by the
most ancient versions and the traditions of the Jews themselves
who often knew what stood in the text at first, and why it was
altered. They are also indicated by the nature of the passage itself
viewed in the light of the state of religion at the time. Here, sober
judgment must guard against unnecessary conjectures. Some
changes are apparent, as the plural oaks in Genesis xiii. 18,
xiv. 13, xviii. 1, Deuteronomy xi. 30, for the singular oak;
and the plural gods in Exodus xxxii. 4, for the singular god.
So 2 Sam. Vii. 23, (comp. 1 Chron. xvii. 21, and LXX);70
and Deuteronomy xxxii. 8,71 have been altered. Popper and
Geiger have probably assumed too much correction on the part
of the Scribes and others; though they have drawn attention to
the subject in the spirit of original criticism.
Jewish literature began to degenerate after the captivity, and it
continued to do so. It leaned upon the past more and more, having
an external and formal character with little of the living soul. The
independence of their religious literature disappeared with the
national independence of the Jews; and the genius of the people
was too exclusive to receive much expansion from the spirit of
nations with whom they came in contact. In such circumstances,
amid the general consciousness of present misfortune which the
hope of a brighter future could not dispel, and regretful retrospects
of the past tinged with ideal splendor, the exact time of drawing
a line between books that might be included in the third division
of the canon must have been arbitrary. In the absence of a
normal principle to determine selection, the productions were
70
Geiger's Urschrift, p. 288.
71
See De Goeje in the Theologisch Tijdschriff Jaargang II. (1868) p. 179,
&c.
 35

arbitrarily separated. Not that they were badly adjusted. On

the contrary, the canon as a whole was settled wisely. Yet [038]
the critical spirit of learned Jews in the future could not be
extinguished by anticipation. The canon was not really settled
for all time by a synodical gathering at Jamnia; for Sirach was
added to the Hagiographa by some rabbins about the beginning
of the 4th century;72 while Baruch circulated long in Hebrew, and
was publicly read on the day of atonement in the third century,
according to the Apostolic constitutions.73 These two books
were in high repute for a considerable time, possessing a kind of
canonical credit even among the learned Jews of Palestine. Rab,
Jochanan, Elasar, Rabba bar Mare, occasionally refer to Sirach
in the way in which the c'tubim were quoted: the writer of Daniel
used Baruch; and the translator of Jeremiah put it into Greek.
If it be asked on what principle books were admitted into
the canon, a single answer does not suffice. One and the same
criterion did not determine the process at all times. The leading
principle with which the first canon-makers set out was to collect
all the documents of Hebrew antiquity. This seems to have
guided Ezra, if not the great synagogue after him. The nation,
early imbued with the theocratic spirit and believing itself the
chosen of God, was favorably inclined towards documents in
which that standpoint was assumed. The legal and ethical were
specially valued. The prophetic claimed a divine origin; the lyric
or poetic touched and elevated the ideal faculty on which religion
acts. But the leading principle which actuated Ezra and the great
synagogue was gradually modified, amid the growing compass
of the national literature and the consciousness that prophecy
ceased with Malachi. When the latest part of the canon had to be
selected from a literature almost contemporaneous, regard was
had to such productions as resembled the old in spirit. Orthodoxy
of contents was the dominant criterion. But this was a difficult
72
Zunz's Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, pp. 101, 102.
73
V. 20, p. 124, ed. Ueltzen.
 36 The Canon of the Bible

[039] thing, for various works really anonymous, though wearing the
garb of old names and histories, were in existence, so that the
boundary of the third part became uncertain and fluctuating.
The principle that actuated Ezra in making the first canon
was a religious and patriotic one. From his treatment of the
oldest law books we infer that he did not look upon them as
inviolable. Venerable they were, and so far sacred; but neither
perfect nor complete for all time. In his view they were not
unconditionally authoritative. Doubtless they had a high value
as the productions of inspired lawgivers and men of a prophetic
spirit; but the redaction to which he submitted them shows no
superstitious reverence. With him canonical and holy were not
identical. Nor does the idea of an immediate, divine authority
appear to have dominated the mind of the great synagogue in
the selection of books. Like Ezra, these scholars reverenced the
productions of the prophets, poets, and historians to whom their
countrymen were indebted in the past for religious or political
progress; but they did not look upon them as the offspring of
unerring wisdom. How could they, while witnessing repetitions
and minor contradictions in the books collected?
The same remarks apply to the third canon. Direct divinity
of origin was not the criterion which determined the reception
of a book into it; but the character and authorship of the book.
Did it breathe the old spirit, or proceed from one venerated for
his wisdom? Was it like the old orthodox productions; or did it
bear the name of one renowned for his piety and knowledge of
divine things? The stamp of antiquity was necessary in a certain
sense; but the theocratic spirit was the leading consideration.
Ecclesiastes was admitted because it bore the name of Solomon;
and Daniel's apocalyptic writings, because veiled under the name
of an old prophet. New psalms were taken in because of their
association with much older ones in the temple service. Yet
[040] the first book of Maccabees was excluded, though written in
Hebrew. It is still more remarkable that Sirach was put among
 37

the external productions; but this was owing not so much to its
recent origin, for it is older than the book of Daniel, as to its being
an apparent echo of the Proverbs, and therefore unnecessary. Yet
it was long after assigned to the Hagiographa, and quoted as such
by several rabbis. Baruch was also left out, though it is as old
as Daniel, if not older; and professes to have been written by
Jeremiah's friend, in Babylon.
That redactors dealt freely with the text of the second and third
canons especially, without a superstitious belief in its sacredness,
is apparent from the double recension which existed when the
Egyptian Jews translated the books into Greek. If the one that
formed the basis of the Alexandrian version be less correct than
the Palestinian in the majority of instances, it is still superior in
many. The differences between them, often remarkable, prove
that those who had most to do with the books did not guard
them as they would have done had they thought them infallibly
inspired. Palestinians and Alexandrians subjected the text to
redaction; or had suffered it to fall into a state inconsistent with
the assumption of its supernatural origin. At a much later period,
the Masoretes reduced to one type all existing copies of their
Scriptures, introducing an uniformity imperatively demanded in
their opinion by multiplied discrepancies.
Whatever divine character the reflecting attributed to the
canonical books, it must have amounted to the same thing as
that assigned to human attributes and physical phenomena—a
divinity resulting from the over-leaping of second causes, in
the absence of inductive philosophy. Here the imperfection
conditioned by the nature of the created cannot be hid. Yet the
books may be truly said to have contained the word of God.
Of the three divisions, the Law or Pentateuch was most highly
venerated by the Jews. It was the first translated into Greek; [041]
and in Philo's view was inspired in a way peculiar to itself. The
Prophets, or second division, occupied a somewhat lower place
in their estimation, but were read in the public services as the
 38 The Canon of the Bible

law had been before. The c'tubim, or third division, was not
looked upon as equal to the Prophets in importance: only the five
Megiloth were publicly read. The three parts of the collection
present the three gradations of sanctity which the books assumed
successively in Israelite estimation. A certain reverence was
attached to all as soon as they were made canonical; but the
reverence was not of equal height, and the supposed authority
was proportionally varied.74 The consciousness of prophetism
being extinct soon after the return from Babylon, was a genuine
instinct. With the extinction of the Jewish state the religious
spirit almost evaporated. The idealism which the old prophets
proclaimed in contrast with the symbolic religion of the state
gave place to the forms and an attachment to the written law.
Religion came to be a thing of the understanding, the subject
of learned treatment; and its essence was reduced to dogmas
or precepts. Thus it ceased to be a spiritual element in which
the heart had free scope for its highest aspirations. In addition
to all, a foreign metaphysical theology, the Persian doctrine of
spirits, was introduced, which seemed to enlarge the sphere of
speculation, but really retarded the free exercise of the mind. As
the external side of religion had been previously directed to the
performance of good works, this externality was now determined
by a written law. Even the prophetism that appeared after the
restoration was little more than an echo of the past, falling in
with an outward and written legalism. The literature of the
people deteriorated in quality, and prophecy became apocalypse.
In such circumstances the advent of a new man was needed to
restore the free life of religion in higher power. Christ appeared
[042] in the fullness of time to do this effectually by proclaiming the
divine Fatherhood, and founding a worship in spirit and in truth.
Rising above the symbolic wrappings of the Mosaic religion, and
relying upon the native power of the spirit itself, he showed how

74
Dillmann, in the Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie, dritter Band, p. 422.
 39

man may mount up to the throne of God, adoring the Supreme

without the intervention of temple, sacrifice, or ceremony.
When the three divisions were united, the ecclesiastical respect
which had gathered round the law and the prophets from ancient
times began to be transferred to the c'tubim. A belief in their
sanctity increased apace in the 1st century before the Christian
era, so that sacredness and canonicity were almost identical. The
doubts of individuals, it is true, were still expressed respecting
certain books of the c'tubim, but they had no perceptible effect
upon the current opinion. The sanctity attaching to the last
division as well as the others did not permit the total displacement
of any part.
The passage in Josephus already quoted shows the state of
the canon about A.D. 100. According to it, he considered it to
have been closed at the time of Artaxerxes Longimanus, whom
he identifies with the Ahasuerus of Esther, 464-424 B.C. The
books were divine, so that none dared to add to, subtract from,
or alter them. To him the canon was something belonging to the
venerable past, and inviolable. In other words, all the books were
peculiarly sacred. Although we call scarcely think this to be his
private opinion merely, it is probably expressed in exaggerated
terms, and hardly tallies with his use of the third Esdras in
preference to the canonical texts.75 His authority, however, is
small. Bloch's estimate of it is too high. It is utterly improbable
that Josephus's opinion was universally held by the Jews in his
day. His division of the books is peculiar: five Mosaic, thirteen
historical, four containing religious songs and rules of life. It
appears, indeed, that as he had the same twenty-two books we
now have, Ruth was still attached to Judges, and Lamentations [043]
to Jeremiah; but his credit is not on a par with that of a Jew
who adhered to his countrymen in the time of their calamity.
He wrote for the Romans. One who believed that Esther was
75
In his Antiq., x. 4, 5, and xi. 1-5.
 40 The Canon of the Bible

the youngest book in the canon, who looked upon Ecclesiastes

as Solomon's, and Daniel as an exile production, cannot be a
competent judge. In his time the historical sense of the book
of Daniel was misapprehended; for after the Grecian dynasty
had fallen without the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecy
connected with it, the Roman empire was put into its place.
Hence various allusions in The History of the Jewish Wars.76
The passage in the Antiquities,77 about Alexander the Great and
the priests in the Temple at Jerusalem is apocryphal. In any
case, Josephus does not furnish a genuine list of the canonical
books any more than Philo. The Pharisaic view of his time is
undoubtedly given, that the canon was then complete and sacred.
The decision proceeded from that part of the nation who ruled
both over school and people, and regained supremacy after the
destruction of the temple; i.e., from the Pharisee-sect to which
Josephus belonged. It was a conclusion of orthodox Judaism.
With true critical instinct, Spinoza says that the canon was the
work of the Pharisees. The third collection was undoubtedly
made under their influence.
The origin of the threefold division of the canon is not,
as Oehler supposes,78 a reflection of the different stages of
religious development through which the nation passed, as
if the foundation were the Law, the ulterior tendency in its
objective aspect the Prophets, and its subjective aspect the
Hagiographa. The books of Chronicles and others refute this
arbitrary conception. The triplicity lies in the manner in which the
books were collected. Men who belonged to different periods and
possessed different degrees of culture, worked successively in
[044] the formation of the canon; which arose out of the circumstances
of the times, and the subjective ideas of those who made it.
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.
 41

The places of the separate books within the first division

or Torah, were determined by the succession of the historical
events narrated. The second division naturally begins with
Moses's successor, Joshua. Judges, Samuel, and Kings follow
according to the regular chronology. To the former prophets,
as Joshua—Kings were called, the latter were attached, Isaiah,
Jeremiah, and Ezekiel; succeeded by the twelve minor prophets,
arranged for the most part according to their times, though the
length of individual prophecies and similarity of contents also
influenced their position.
The arrangement of books in the third division depended on
their age, character, and authors. The Psalms were put first,
because David was supposed to be the author of many, and
on account of their intrinsic value in promoting the religious
life of the people. After the Psalms came the three poetical
works attributed to Solomon, with the book of Job among
them,—Proverbs, Job, Canticles, Ecclesiastes.
The book of Esther followed, since it was intended to further
the observance of the Purim feast; with the late book of Daniel.
The position of Daniel among the c'tubim arises solely from the
fact of its posterior origin to the prophetic writings, not excepting
the book of Jonah itself; and the attempt to account for its place
in the third division on the ground of its predominant subjectivity
is based on the unfounded assumption that the objective state of
religion is represented in the second division and the subjective
in the third. Had the book existed before 400 B.C., it would
doubtless have stood in the second division. But the contents
themselves demonstrate its date; contemporary history being
wrapped in a prophetic form. Having some affinity to Esther
as regards heathenism and Greek life, the book was put next to
the latter. To Ezra and Nehemiah, which were adopted before [045]
the other part of the Chronicle book and separated from it, were
added the so-called Chronicles. Such was the original succession
of the third division or c'tubim; but it did not remain unaltered.
 42 The Canon of the Bible

For the use of the synagogue, the five Megiloth were put together;
so that Ruth, which was originally appended to Judges, and the
Lamentations affixed at first to Jeremiah's prophecies, were taken
out of the second and put into the third canon. This caused a
separation of Canticles and Ecclesiastes. The new arrangement
was made for liturgical purposes.

[046]
Chapter III. The Samaritan And
Alexandrian Canons.

The Samaritan canon consists of the Pentateuch alone. This

restricted collection is owing to the fact, that when the Samaritans
separated from the Jews and began their worship on Gerizim, no
more than the Mosaic writings had been invested by Ezra with
canonical dignity. The hostile feeling between the rivals hindered
the reception of books subsequently canonized. The idea of their
having the oldest and most sacred part in its entirety satisfied
their spiritual wants. Some have thought that the Sadducees, who
already existed as a party before the Maccabean period, agreed
with the Samaritans in rejecting all but the Pentateuch; yet this
is doubtful. It is true that the Samaritans themselves say so;79
and that some of the church fathers, Origen, Jerome, and others
agree; but little reliance can be put on the statement. The latter,
perhaps, confounded the Samaritans and Sadducces. It is also
noteworthy that Christ in refuting the Sadducees appeals to the
Pentateuch alone; yet the conclusion, that he did so because of
their admitting no more than that portion does not follow.
The Alexandrian canon differed from the Palestinian. The
Greek translation commonly called the Septuagint contains some
later productions which the Palestinian Jews did not adopt, not
only from their aversion to Greek literature generally, but also
from the recent origin of the books, perhaps also their want
of prophetic sanction. The closing line of the third part in
the Alexandrian canon was more or less fluctuating—capable
of admitting recent writings appearing under the garb of old [047]

79
See Abulfatach's Annal. Samar., p. 102, 9, &c.
 44 The Canon of the Bible

names and histories, of embracing religious subjects; while the

Palestinian collection was pretty well determined, and all but
finally settled. The judgment of the Alexandrians was freer than
that of their brethren in the mother country. They had even
separated in a measure from the latter, by erecting a temple at
Leontopolis; and their enlargement of the canon was another
step of divergence. Nor had they the criterion of language for
the separation of canonical and uncanonical; both classes were
before them in the same tongue. The enlarged canon was not
formally sanctioned; it had not the approval of the Sanhedrim;
yet it was to the Alexandrians what the Palestinian one was to
the Palestinians. If Jews who were not well acquainted with
Hebrew, used the apocryphal and canonical books alike, it was
a matter of feeling and custom; and if those who knew the old
language better, adhered to the canonical more closely, it was a
matter of tradition and language. The former set little value on
the prevalent consciousness of the race that the spirit of prophecy
was extinct; their view of the Spirit's operation was larger. The
latter clung to the past with all the more tenacity that the old life
of the nation had degenerated.
The Alexandrian Jews opened their minds to Greek culture
and philosophy, appropriating new ideas, and explaining their
Scriptures in accordance with wider conceptions of the divine
presence; though such adaptation turned aside the original sense.
Consciously or unconsciously they were preparing Judaism in
some degree to be the religion of humanity. But the Rabbins
shut out those enlarging influences, confining their religion
within the narrow traditions of one people. The process
by which they conserved the old belief helped to quench
its spirit, so that it became an antique skeleton, powerless
beside the new civilization which had followed the wake of
Alexander's conquests. Rabbinical Judaism proved its incapacity
for regenerating the world; having no affinity for the philosophy
[048] of second causes, or for the exercise of reason beneath the love
Chapter III. The Samaritan And Alexandrian Canons. 45

of a Father who sees with equal eye as God of all. Its isolation
nourished a sectarian tendency. Tradition, having no creative
power like revelation, had taken the place of it; and it could
not ward off the senility of Judaism; for its creations are but
feeble echoes of prophetic utterances, weak imitations of poetic
inspiration or of fresh wisdom. They are of the understanding
rather than the reason. The tradition which Geiger describes
as the life-giving soul of Judaism—the daughter of revelation,
enjoying the same rights with her mother—a spiritual power
that continues ever to work—an emanation from the divine
Spirit—is not, indeed, the thing which has stiffened Judaism
into Rabbinism; but neither is it tradition proper; it is reason
working upon revelation, and moulding it into a new system.
Such tradition serves but to show the inability of genuine Judaism
to assimilate philosophic thought. Rationalizing should not be
styled the operation of tradition.
The truth of these remarks is evident from a comparison of
two books, exemplifying Alexandrian and Palestinian Judaism
respectively. The Wisdom of Solomon shows the enlarging effect
of Greek philosophy. Overpassing Jewish particularism, it often
approaches Christianity in doctrine and spirit, so that some80
have even assumed a Christian origin for it. The Wisdom of
Jesus, son of Sirach has not the doctrine of immortality. Death is
there an eternal sleep, and retribution takes place in this life. The
Jewish theocracy is the centre of history; Israel the elect people;
and all wisdom is embodied in the law. The writer is shut up
within the old national ideas, and leans upon the writings in which
they are expressed. Thus the Hagiographical canon of Judea,
conservative as it is, and purer in a sense, presents a narrower
type than the best specimens of the Alexandrian one. The genial
breath of Aryan culture had not expanded its Semitism. [049]

The identity of the Palestinian and Alexandrian canons must be

80
Kirschbaum, Weisse, and Noack.
 46 The Canon of the Bible

abandoned, notwithstanding the contrary arguments of Eichhorn

and Movers. It is said, indeed, that Philo neither mentions nor
quotes the Greek additions; but neither does he quote several
canonical books. According to Eichhorn, no fewer than eight of
the latter are unnoticed by him.81 Besides, he had peculiar views
of inspiration, and quoted loosely from memory. Believing as
he did in the inspiration of the Greek version as a whole, it is
difficult to think that he made a distinction between the different
parts of it. In one passage he refers to the sacred books of the
Therapeutae, a fanatical sect of Jews in Egypt, as “laws, oracles of
prophets, hymns and other books by which knowledge and piety
are increased and perfected,”82 but this presents little information
as to the canon of the Egyptian Jews generally; for it is precarious
argumentation to say with Herbst that they prove a twofold canon.
Even if the Alexandrian and Palestinian canons be identical, we
cannot be sure that the other books which the Therapeutae read as
holy besides the law, the prophets and hymns, differed from the
hagiographa, and so constituted another canon than the general
Egyptian one. It is quite possible that the hymns mean the Psalms;
and the other books, the rest of the hagiographa. The argument
for the identity of the two canons deduced from 4 Esdras xiv.
44, &c., as if the twenty-four open books were distinguished
from the other writings dictated to Ezra, is of no force, because
verisimilitude required that an Egyptian Jew himself must make
Ezra conform to the old Palestinian canon. It is also alleged that
the grandson of Jesus Sirach, who translated his grandfather's
work during his abode in Egypt, knew no difference between the
Hebrew and Greek canon, though he speaks of the Greek version;
but he speaks as a Palestinian, without having occasion to allude
[050] to the difference between the canonical books of the Palestinian
and Egyptian Jews. The latter may have reckoned the apocryphal
writings in the third division; and therefore the translator of Jesus
81
Einleitung in das alte Testament, vol. i. p. 133.
82
De vita contemplativa, Opp. Tom. ii., P. 475, ed. Mangey.
Chapter III. The Samaritan And Alexandrian Canons. 47

Sirach could recognize them in the ordinary classification. The

mention of three classes is not opposed to their presence in the
third. The general use of an enlarged canon in Egypt cannot
be denied, though it was somewhat loose, not regarded as a
completed collection, and without express rabbinical sanction. If
they did not formally recognize a canon of their own, as De Wette
says of them, they had and used one larger than the Palestinian,
without troubling themselves about a formal sanction for it by a
body of Rabbis at Jerusalem or elsewhere. Their canon was not
identical with that of the Palestinians, and all the argumentation
founded upon Philo's non-quotation of the apocryphal books,
fails to prove the contrary. The very way in which apocryphal
are inserted among canonical books in the Alexandrian canon,
shows the equal rank assigned to both. Esdras first and second
succeed the Chronicles; Tobit and Judith are between Nehemiah
and Esther; the Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach follow Canticles;
Baruch succeeds Jeremiah; Daniel is followed by Susanna and
other productions of the same class; and the whole closes with
the three books of Maccabees. Such is the order in the Vatican
MS.
The threefold division of the canon, indicating three stages in
its formation, has continued. Josephus, indeed, gives another,
based on the nature of the separate books, not on MSS. We learn
nothing from him of its history, which is somewhat remarkable,
considering that he did not live two centuries after the last work
had been added. The account of the canon's final arrangement
was evidently unknown to him.

[051]
Chapter IV. Number And Order Of
The Separate Books.
The number of the books was variously estimated. Josephus gives
twenty-two, which was the usual number among Christian writers
in the second, third, and fourth centuries, having been derived
perhaps from the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Origen, Jerome,
and others have it. It continued longest among the teachers of the
Greek Church, and is even in Nicephorus's stichometry.83 The
enumeration in question has Ruth with Judges, and Lamentations
with Jeremiah. In Epiphanius84 the number twenty-seven is
found, made by taking the alphabet enlarged with the five
final letters, and dividing Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles into
two books each. This is probably an ingenious combination
belonging to the father himself. The Talmud has twenty-four,85
a number which did not originate in the Greek alphabet, else the
Palestinian Jews would not have adopted it. The synagogue did
not fix it officially. After the Pentateuch and the former prophets,
which are in the usual order, it gives Jeremiah as the first of
the later, succeeded by Ezekiel and Isaiah with the twelve minor
prophets. The Talmud knows no other reason for such an order
than that it was made according to the contents of the prophetic
books, not according to the times of the writers. This solution
is unsatisfactory. It is more probable that chronology had to
do with the arrangement.86 After the anonymous collection or
second part of Isaiah had been joined to the first or authentic
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.
Chapter IV. Number And Order Of The Separate Books. 49

prophecies, the lateness of these oracles brought Isaiah into the [052]
third place among the greater prophets. The Talmudic order of
the Hagiographa is Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes,
Canticles, Lamentations, Daniel, Esther, Ezra, Chronicles. Here
Ruth precedes the Psalter, coming as near the former prophets as
possible; for it properly belongs to them, the contents associating
it with the Judges' time. The Talmudic order is that usually
adopted in German MSS. What is the true estimate of it? Is
it a proper Talmudic regulation? Perhaps not, else the Hebrew
MSS. of the French and Spanish Jews would not so readily have
departed from it. Bloch supposes that Baba Bathra, which gives
the arrangement of the books, is one of the apocryphal Boraithas
that proceeded from an individual teacher and had no binding
authority.87
The Masoretic arrangement differs from the Talmudic
in putting Isaiah before Jeremiah and Ezekiel. The
Hagiographa are, Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Canticles, Ruth,
Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra (with
Nehemiah), Chronicles.88 This is usually adopted in Spanish
MSS. But MSS. often differ arbitrarily, because transcribers
did not consider themselves bound to any one arrangement.89
According to some, a very old testimony to the commencing
and concluding books of the third division is given by the New
Testament (Luke xxiv. 44; Matthew xxiii. 35), agreeably to
which the Psalms were first and the Chronicles last; but this is
inconclusive.
The Alexandrian translators, as we have seen already, placed
the books differently from the Palestinian Jews. In their version
Daniel comes after Ezekiel, so that it is put beside the greater
prophets. Was this done by Jews or Christians? Perhaps by
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.
 50 The Canon of the Bible

[053] the latter, who put it between the greater and lesser prophets,
or in other words, out of the third into the second division,
because of dogmatic grounds, and so effaced a trace of the
correct chronology. Little importance, however, can be attached
to the order of the books in the Septuagint; because the work
was done at different times by different persons. But whatever
may have been the arrangement of the parts when the whole
was complete, we know that it was disturbed by Protestants
separating the apocryphal writings and putting them all together.

[054]
Chapter V. Use Of The Old
Testament By The First Christian
Writers, And By The Fathers Till
The Time Of Origen.

The writings of the New Testament show the authors'

acquaintance with the apocryphal books. They have expressions
and ideas derived from them. Stier collected one hundred and
two passages which bear some resemblance to others in the
Apocrypha;90 but they needed sifting, and were cut down to a
much smaller number by Bleek. They are James i. 19, from
Sirach v. 11 and iv. 29; 1 Peter i. 6, 7, from Wisdom iii.
3-7; Hebrews xi. 34, 35, from 2 Maccabees vi. 18-vii. 42;
Hebrews i. 3, from Wisdom vii. 26, &c.; Romans i. 20-32,
from Wisdom xiii.-xv.; Romans ix. 21, from Wisdom xv. 7;
Eph. vi. 13-17, from Wisdom v. 18-20; 1 Cor. ii. 10, &c.,
from Judith viii. 14. Others are less probable.91 When Bishop
Cosin says, that “in all the New Testament we find not any one
passage of the apocryphal books to have been alleged either by
Christ or His apostles for the confirmation of their doctrine,”92
the argument, though based on fact, is scarcely conclusive; else
Esther, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, and other works might be equally
discredited. Yet it is probable that the New Testament writers,
though quoting the Septuagint much more than the original, were
disinclined to the additional parts of the Alexandrian canon.
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.
 52 The Canon of the Bible

They were Palestinian themselves, or had in view Judaisers of a

[055] narrow creed. Prudential motives, no less than a predisposition
in favor of the old national canon, may have hindered them from
expressly citing any apocryphal production. The apostle Paul and
probably the other writers of the New Testament, believed in the
literal inspiration of the Biblical books, for he uses an argument
in the Galatian epistle which turns upon the singular or plural
of a noun.93 And as the inspiration of the Septuagint translation
was commonly held by the Christians of the early centuries, it
may be that the apostles and evangelists made no distinction
between its parts. Jude quotes Enoch, an apocryphal work not in
the Alexandrian canon; so that he at least had no rigid notions
about the difference of canonical and uncanonical writings. Still
we know that the compass of the Old Testament canon was
somewhat unsettled to the Christians of the first century, as it
was to the Hellenist Jews themselves. It is true that the Law,
the Prophets, and the Psalms were universally recognized as
authoritative; but the extent of the third division was indefinite,
so that the non-citation of the three books respecting which there
was a difference of opinion among the Jews may not have been
accidental. Inasmuch, however, as the Greek-speaking Jews
received more books than their Palestinian brethren, the apostles
and their immediate successors were not wholly disinclined to the
use of the apocryphal productions. The undefined boundary of
the canon facilitated also the recognition of all primitive records
of the new Revelation.

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, ÃÀsÁ¼±) in
Genesis xvii. 8 (LXX.), not the plural (seeds, ÃÀsÁ¼±Ä±); 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.)
 53

The early fathers, who wrote in Greek, used the Greek Bible, as
almost all of them were ignorant of Hebrew. Thus restricted; they [056]
naturally considered its parts alike, citing apocryphal and canon-
ical in the same way. Accordingly, Irenæus94 quotes Baruch
under the name of “Jeremiah the prophet;”95 and the additions to
Daniel as “Daniel the prophet.”96 Clement of Alexandria97 uses
the apocryphal books like the canonical ones, for explanation
and proof indiscriminately. He is fond of referring to Baruch,
which he cites upwards of twenty-four times in the second book
of his Pædagogus, and in a manner to show that he esteemed it as
highly as many other parts of the Old Testament. A passage from
Baruch is introduced by the phrase,98 “the divine Scripture says;”
and another from Tobit by99 “Scripture has briefly signified this,
saying.” Assuming that Wisdom was written by Solomon, he
uses it as canonical and inspired, designating it divine.100 Ju-
dith he cites with other books of the Old Testament101 ; and the
Song of the three children in the furnace is used as Scripture.102
Ecclesiasticus also is so treated.103 Dionysius of Alexandria104
cites Ecclesiasticus (xvi. 26), introducing the passage with “hear
divine oracles.”105 The same book is elsewhere cited, chapters
xliii. 29, 30106 and i. 8. 9.107 So is Wisdom, vii. 15108 and
94
Died 202 A.D.{FNS
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.{FNS
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.{FNS
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.
 54 The Canon of the Bible

25.109 Baruch (iii. 12-15) is also quoted.110 The fathers who

wrote in Latin used some of the old Latin versions of which
Augustine speaks; one of them, and that the oldest probably
dating soon after the middle of the second century, being known
to us as the Itala. As this was made from the Septuagint, it had
[057] the usual apocryphal books. Jerome's critical revision or new
version did not supplant the old Latin till some time after his
death. Tertullian111 quotes the Wisdom of Solomon expressly
as Solomon's;112 and introduces Sirach by “as it is written.”113
He cites Baruch as Jeremiah.114 He also believes in the au-
thenticity of the book of Enoch, and defends it as Scripture at
some length.115 Cyprian often cites the Greek additions to the
Palestinian canon. He introduces Tobit with the words “as it is
written,”116 or “divine Scripture teaches, saying;”117 and Wis-
dom with, “the Holy Spirit shows by Solomon.”118 Ecclesiasticus
is introduced with, “it is written;”119 and Baruch with, “the Holy
Spirit teaches by Jeremiah.”120 1 and 2 Maccabees are used as
Scripture;121 as are the additions to Daniel.122 The African fa-
thers follow the Alexandrian canon without scruple. Hippolytus
of Rome (about A.D. 220), who wrote in Greek, quotes Baruch
as Scripture;123 and interprets the additions to Daniel, such as
109
Epistola ad. Dionys. Roman, in Reliq. Sacr., vol. iii. p. 195.
110
Reliq. Sacr., vol. ii. p. 408.
111
Died 220 A.D.{FNS
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.
 55

Susanna, as Scripture likewise.124

Melito of Sardis125 made it his special business to inquire
among the Palestinian Jews about the number and names of their
canonical books; and the result was the following list:—the five
books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two
of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon,
Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, the
twelve in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra.126 Here Ezra includes
Nehemiah; and Esther is absent, because the Jews whom he
consulted did not consider it canonical.
Origen's127 list does not differ much from the Palestinian
one. After the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Kings first [058]
and second, Samuel, Chronicles, come Ezra first and second,
Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Isaiah, Jeremiah with
Lamentations and the epistle, Daniel, Ezekiel, Job, Esther.
Besides these there are the Maccabees, which are inscribed
Sarbeth Sarbane el.128 The twelve prophets are omitted in the
Greek; but the mistake is rectified in Rufinus's Latin version,
where they follow Canticles, as in Hilary and Cyril of Jerusalem.
It is remarkable that Baruch is given, and why? Because Origen
took it from the MSS. of the Septuagint he had before him, in
which the epistle is attributed to Jeremiah. But the catalogue had
no influence upon his practice. He followed the prevailing view
of the extended canon. Sirach is introduced by “for this also is
written”;129 the book of Wisdom is cited as a divine word;130 the
writer is called a prophet;131 Christ is represented as speaking

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.{FNS
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.
 56 The Canon of the Bible

in it through Solomon;132 and Wisdom vii. 17 is adduced as

the word of Christ himself.133 Tobit is cited as Scripture.134
His view of the additions to the books of Daniel and Esther, as
well as his opinion about Tobit, are sufficiently expressed in the
epistle to Africanus, so that scattered quotations from these parts
of Scripture can be properly estimated. Of the history of Susanna
he ventures to say that the Jews withdrew it on purpose from
the people.135 He seems to argue in favor of books used and
read in the churches, though they may be put out of the canon
by the Jews. As divine Providence had preserved the sacred
Scriptures, no alteration should be made in the ecclesiastical
tradition respecting books sanctioned by the churches though
they be external to the Hebrew canon.
[059] Most of the writings of Methodius, Bishop of Tyre136 are
lost, so that we know little of his opinions respecting the books
of Scripture. But it is certain that he employed the Apocrypha
like the other writings of the Old Testament. Thus Sirach (xviii.
30 and xix. 2) is quoted in the same way as the Proverbs.137
Wisdom (iv. 1-3) is cited,138 and Baruch (iii. 14).139

[060]

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.
Chapter VI. The New Testament
Canon In The First Three Centuries.

The first Christians relied on the Old Testament as their chief

religious book. To them it was of divine origin and authority.
The New Testament writings came into gradual use, by the side
of the older Jewish documents, according to the times in which
they appeared and the names of their reputed authors. The
Epistles of Paul were the earliest written; after which came the
Apocalypse, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and other documents,
all in the first century. After the first gospel had undergone
a process of translation, re-writing, and interpolation, from the
Aramaic basis, the discourses,140 of which Papias of Hierapolis
speaks, until the traces of another original than the Greek were
all but effaced; it appeared in its present form early in the
second century. Soon after, that of Luke was composed, whose
prevailing Pauline tendency was not allowed to suppress various
features of a Jewish Essene type. The second gospel, which
bears evidences of its derivation from the other synoptists, was
followed by the fourth. The last document was the so-called
second Epistle of Peter. It is manifest that tradition assumed
various forms after the death of Jesus; that legend and myth
speedily surrounded His sacred person; that the unknown writers
were influenced by the peculiar circumstances in which they
stood with respect to Jewish and Gentile Christianity; and that
their uncritical age dealt considerably in the marvelous. That
the life of the great Founder should be overlaid with extraneous [061]
materials, is special matter for regret. However conscientious
140
Äp »y³¹±. Ap. Euseb. H. E. iii. 39.
 58 The Canon of the Bible

and truth-loving they may have been, the reporters were unequal
to their work. It is also remarkable that so many of them should
be unknown; productions being attached to names of repute to
give them greater currency.
When Marcion came from Pontus to Rome (144 A.D.,) he
brought with him a Scripture-collection consisting of ten Pauline
epistles. With true critical instinct he did not include those
addressed to Timothy and Titus, as also the epistle to the
Hebrews. The gospel of Marcion was Luke's in an altered state.
From this and other facts we conclude that external parties were
the first who carried out the idea of collecting Christian writings,
and of putting them either beside or over against the sacred books
of the Old Testament, in support of their systems. As to Basilides
(125 A.D.), his supposed quotations from the New Testament in
Hippolytus are too precarious to be trusted.141 Testimonies to
the “acknowledged” books of the New Testament as Scripture
have been transferred from his followers to himself; so that his
early witness to the canon breaks down. It is inferred from
statements in Origen and Jerome that he had a gospel of his
own somewhat like St. Luke's, but extra-canonical. His son
Isidore and succeeding disciples used Matthew's gospel. Jerome
says that Marcion and Basilides denied the Pauline authorship
of the epistle to the Hebrews and the pastoral ones.142 It is also
doubtful whether Valentinus's (140-166 A.D.) alleged citations
from the New Testament can be relied upon. The passages
of this kind ascribed to him by the fathers belong in a great
measure to his disciples. The fragment of a letter preserved by
Clement of Alexandria in the second book of the Stromata, has
been thought to contain references to the gospels of Matthew
[062] and Luke; but the fact is doubtful. Nor has Henrici proved that
Valentinus used John's gospel.143 But his followers, including
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.
 59

Ptolemy (180 A.D.) and Heracleon (185-200 A.D.), quote the

Gospels and other portions of the New Testament.144 From
Hippolytus's account of the Ophites, Peratæ, and Sethians, we
infer that the Christian writings were much employed by them.
They rarely cite an apocryphal work. More than one hundred
and sixty citations from the New Testament have been gathered
out of their writings.145 We may admit that these Ophites and
Peratæ were of early origin, the former being the oldest known
of the Gnostic parties; but there is no proof that the acquaintance
with the New Testament which Hippolytus attributes to them
belongs to the first rather than the second half of the second
century. The early existence of the sect does not show an early
citation of the Christian books by it, especially of John's gospel;
unless its primary were its last stage. Later and earlier Ophites
are not distinguished in the Philosophumena. Hence there is
a presumption that the author had the former in view, which
is favored by no mention of them occurring in the “Adversus
omnes Hæreses” usually appended to Tertullian's Præscriptiones
Hæreticorum, and by Irenæus's derivation of their heresy from
that of Valentinus. The latter father does not even speak of the
Peratæ. Clement of Alexandria is the first who alludes to them.
The early heretics were desirous of confirming their peculiar
opinions by the writings current among Catholic Christians, so
that the formation of a canon by them began soon after the
commencement of the second century, and continued till the end
of it; contemporaneously with the development of a Catholic
Church and its necessary adjunct a Catholic canon.
No New Testament canon, except a partial and unauthoritative

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.
 60 The Canon of the Bible

[063] one, existed till the latter half of the second century, that is, till
the idea of a Catholic church began to be entertained. The living
power of Christianity in its early stages had no need of books for
its nurture. But in the development of a church organization the
internal rule of consciousness was changed into an external one
of faith. The Ebionites or Jewish Christians had their favorite
Gospels and Acts. The gospel of Matthew was highly prized by
them, existing as it did in various recensions, of which the gospel
according to the Hebrews was one. Other documents, such as
the Revelation of John; and the preaching of Peter, a Jewish-
Christian history subsequently re-written and employed in the
Clementine Recognitions and Homilies, were also in esteem.
Even so late as 175-180 A.D., Hegesippus, a Jewish Christian,
does not seem to have had a canon consisting of the four gospels
and Paul's Epistles, but appeals to “the law and the prophets
and the Lord,” so that his leading principle was, the identity of
Jesus's words with the Old Testament; agreeably to the tenets of
the party he belonged to. The source whence he drew the words
of Jesus was probably the Gospel according to the Hebrews, a
document which we know he used, on the authority of Eusebius.
He does not refer to Paul except by implication in a passage given
in Photius from Stephen Gobar,146 where he says that such as
used the words “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard,” &c., falsified
the Divine Scriptures and the Lord's words, “Blessed are your
eyes for they see,” &c. As Paul quoted the condemned language,
[064] he is blamed.147 Though he knew Paul's epistles, he does not
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 A º{Á¹¿Â standing beside ½y¼¿Â º±v ÀÁ¿ÆÆı¹,
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
 61

look upon them as authoritative. He betrays no acquaintance

with the fourth gospel; for the question, “What is the door to
Jesus?” does not presuppose the knowledge of John x. 2, 7, 9.
Nösgen has failed to prove Hegesippus's Jewish descent; and
Holtzmann's mediating view of him is incorrect.148
The Clementine Homilies (161-180 A.D.) used the four
canonical gospels even the fourth (which is somewhat singular
in a writer who denies the deity of Christ), and assigned it to
the apostle John. The gospel according to the Egyptians was
also employed. Paul's epistles were rejected of course, as well
as the Acts; since the apostle of the Gentiles was pointed at
in Simon Magus, whom Peter refutes. It is, therefore, obvious
that a collection of the New Testament writings could make
little progress among the Ebionites of the second century. Their
reverence for the law and the prophets hindered another canon.
Among the Gentile Christians the formation of a canon took place
more rapidly, though Judaic influences retarded it even there.
After Paul's epistles were interchanged between churches, a few
of them would soon be put together. A collection of this kind is
implied in 2 Peter iii. 16. The pastoral epistles, which show their
dependence on the authentic Pauline ones, with those of Peter,
presuppose a similar collection; which along with the Synoptists,
existed before the fourth gospel. The Apocalypse and the epistle
to the Hebrews were obnoxious to the Pauline churches, as Paul's
letters were to the Jewish-Christian ones. Hence the former were
outside the Pauline collections.
The apostolic fathers quote from the Old Testament, which
was sacred and inspired to them. They have scarcely any express

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.
 62 The Canon of the Bible

citations from the New Testament. Allusions occur, especially to

[065] the epistles.
The first Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (about 120
A.D.), implies acquaintance with several of the epistles, with
those to the Corinthians, Romans, Hebrews, and perhaps others.
Two passages have also been adduced as derived from the gospels
of Matthew and Luke, viz., in chapters xiii. 2 and xlvi. 8; but
probably some other source supplied them, such as oral tradition.
It has also been argued that the quotation in the fifteenth chapter,
“The Scripture says somewhere, This people honoreth me with
their lips, but their heart is far from me,” comes from Mark vii.
6 in which it varies from the Hebrew of Isaiah xxix. 13, as
well as the Septuagint version. Clement therefore, so it is said,
quotes the Old Testament through the medium of the gospels
(Matthew xv. 8, Mark vii. 6). But the argument is inconclusive
because the words agree closely enough with the Septuagint to
render the supposition very probable that they are a memorized
citation from it. As they stand, they coincide exactly neither with
Mark nor the Septuagint.149 Thus we dissent from the opinion
of Gebhardt and Harnack. Wherever “Scripture” is cited, or the
expression “it is written” occurs, the Old Testament is meant.
Hermas (about 140 A.D.) seems to have used the epistle to the
Ephesians and perhaps that to the Hebrews, as well as the epistle
of James; but there is great uncertainty about the matter, for
there is no express or certain quotation from any part of the New
Testament. The writer often alludes to words of Jesus, found
in Matthew's gospel, so that he may have been acquainted with
it. Keim150 and others have discovered references to the fourth
gospel; but they are invalid. There is no allusion to the Acts in
vis. iv. 2, 4. The only Scripture cited is the apocryphal book
Eldat and Modat, now lost.151 The writer seems to have known
149
There is ÀµÃĹ½ instead of the Septuagint's and Mark's (Tischend.) Àsǵ¹.
150
Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, vol. 1, p. 144.
151
See Vision ii, 3, 4, with the prolegomena of De Gebhardt: and Harnack, p.
 63

several Jewish Apocalypses.152 [066]

Barnabas (about 119 A.D.) has but one quotation from the New
Testament, if, indeed, it be such. Apparently, Matthew xx. 16
or xxii. 14 is introduced by “as it is written,” showing that the
gospel was considered Scripture.153 This is the earliest trace of
canonical authority being transferred from the Old Testament to
Christian writings. But the citation is not certain. The original
may be 4 Esdras, viii. 3; and even if the writer took the words
from Matthew's gospel, it is possible that he used “it is written”
with reference to their prototype in the Old Testament. Of such
interchanges, examples occur in writers of the second century;
and it is the more probable that this is one, from the fact that
4 Esdras is elsewhere considered a prophet and referred to in
the same way as Ezekiel.154 Barnabas's citation of a gospel as
canonical is wholly improbable, since even Justin, thirty years
after, never quotes the New Testament writings as Scripture.
The thing would be anomalous and opposed to the history of
the first half of the second century. When these post-apostolic
productions appeared, the New Testament writings did not stand
on the same level with the Old, and were not yet esteemed sacred
and inspired like the Jewish Scriptures. The Holy Spirit was
thought to dwell in all Christians, without being confined to a few
writers; and his influence was the common heritage of believers.
There are evidences of Barnabas's acquaintance with the Epistles
to the Romans and Corinthians; nor is it improbable that he knew
the canonical gospel of Matthew, though one passage appears to
contradict Matthew xxviii. 10, &c., without necessarily implying
ignorance of what lies in it, viz., that the ascension of Jesus
took place on the day of his resurrection.155 Strangely enough,

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,
 64 The Canon of the Bible

Keim thinks that the writer had John's gospel before him; but
this opinion is refuted by the end of Barnabas's fifth chapter.156
[067] Holtzmann has ably disposed of the considerations adduced by
Keim.157 Barnabas quotes the book of Enoch as Scripture;158
and an apocryphal prophecy is introduced with, “another prophet
says.”159
As far as we can judge from Eusebius's account of Papias160
(about 150 A.D.), that writer knew nothing of a New Testament
canon. He speaks of Matthew and Mark; but it is most probable
that he had documents which either formed the basis of our
present Matthew and Mark, or were taken into them and written
over.161 According to Andreas of Cæsarea he was acquainted
with the Apocalypse of John; while Eusebius testifies to his
[068] knowledge of 1 Peter and 1 John. But he had no conception of
canonical authority attaching to any part of the New Testament.
His language implies the opposite, in that he prefers unwritten

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 »¿³w±, rather than the source whence
they were drawn. But whether he learnt directly from the elders, or indirectly
as the preposition (À±Áp) would seem to indicate, and whether the sentence
beginning with “What Andrew,” &c., (Äw ½´Ás±Â º. Ä. ».) stands in apposition
to the “words of the elders,” (Ä¿{ Äö½ ÀÁµÃ²ÅÄsÁɽ »y³¿ÅÂ) or not, are things
uncertain.
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
 65

tradition to the gospel he speaks of. He neither felt the want nor
knew the existence of inspired gospels.
We need not notice the three short Syriac epistles attributed
to Ignatius, as we do not believe them to be his, but of later
origin. Traces of later ideas about the canonicity of the New
Testament appear in the shorter Greek recension of the Ignatian
epistles (about 175 A.D.) There the Gospel and the Apostles are
recognized as the constituents of the book.162 The writer also
used the Gospel according to the Hebrews, for there is a quotation
from it in the epistle to the Smyrnians.163 The second part of the
collection seems to have wanted the epistle to the Ephesians.164
The two leading parties, long antagonistic, had now become
united; the apostles Peter and Paul being mentioned together.165
In the Testaments of the twelve patriarchs (about 170 A.D.), Paul's
life is said to be described in “holy books,” i.e., his own epistles

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
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.
 66 The Canon of the Bible

and the Acts.166

Justin Martyr (150 A.D.) knew the first and third of the synoptic
gospels. His use of Mark's does not appear. His knowledge of
the fourth is denied by many, and zealously defended by others.
Thoma finds proofs that Justin knew it well, and used it freely as a
text-book of gnosis, without recognizing it as the historical work
of an apostle; an hypothesis encumbered with difficulties.167
Whatever be said about Justin's acquaintance with this gospel;
its existence before 140 A.D. is incapable either of decisive or
probable proof; and this father's Logos-doctrine is less developed
than the Johannine, because it is encumbered with the notion of
[069] miraculous birth by a virgin. The Johannine authorship has
receded before the tide of modern criticism; and though this tide
is arbitrary at times, it is here irresistible. Apologists should
abstain from strong assertions on a point so difficult, as that each
“gospel is distinctly recognized by him;” for the noted passage
in the dialogue with Trypho does not support them.168 It is
pretty certain that he employed an extra-canonical gospel, the
so-called gospel of the Hebrews. This Petrine document may
be referred to in a passage which is unfortunately capable of a
double interpretation.169 He had also the older Acts of Pilate.
Paul's epistles are never mentioned, though he doubtless knew
them. Having little sympathy with Paulinism he attached his
belief much more to the primitive apostles. The Apocalypse,
166
Testam. Benj. 11, p. 201, ed. Sinker.
167
Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1875, p. 490, et seq.
168
½ Äy¹Â À¿¼½·¼¿½sż±Ã±¹, Æ·¼¹ QÀx Äö½ À¿ÃÄy»É½ ±PÄ¿æ º±v Äö½
ºµw½¿¹Â À±Á±º¿»¿Å¸·Ãq½Äɽ ÃŽĵÄqǸ±¹. 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
š±v Äx µ0ÀµÖ½ ¼µÄɽ¿¼±ºs½±¹ ±PÄx½ sÄÁ¿½ º±v ³µ³ÁqƸ±¹ ½ Ä¿ÖÂ
À¿¼½·¼¿½µ{¼±Ã±¹ ±PÄ¿æ ³µ³µ½·¼s½¿½ º±v Ä¿æÄ¿, ¼µÄp Ä¿æ º±v, º. Ä. ».
Dial. cum Tryph., 106. Here the pronoun ±PÄ¿æ probably refers to Peter. And
the expression “his memoirs” can hardly mean Mark's gospel, since Jerome is
the first that calls it such.
 67

1 Peter, and 1 John he esteemed highly; the epistle to the

Hebrews and the Acts he treated in the same way as the Pauline
writings. Justin's canon, as far as divine authority and inspiration
are concerned, was the Old Testament. He was merely on
the threshold of a divine canon made up of primitive Christian
writings, and attributed no exclusive sanctity to those he used
because they were not to him the only source of doctrine. Even
of the Apocalypse he says, “A man among us named John, &c.,
wrote it.”170 In his time none of the gospels had been canonized,
not even the synoptists, if, indeed, he knew them all. Oral
tradition was the chief fountain of Christian knowledge, as it had
been for a century. In his opinion this tradition was embodied in
writing; but the documents in which he looked for all that related
to Christ were not the gospels alone. He used others freely, [070]
not looking upon any as inspired, for that idea could arise only
when a selection was made among the current documents. He
regarded them all as having been written down from memory,
and judged them by criteria of evidence conformable to the Old
Testament Scriptures. Though lessons out of Gospels (some of
our present ones and others), as also out of the prophets, were
read in assemblies on the first day of the week,171 the act of
converting the Christian writings into Scripture was posterior;
for the mere reading of a gospel in churches on Sunday does not
prove that it was considered divinely authoritative; and the use
of the epistles, which formed the second and less valued part of
the collection, must still have been limited.
Justin's disciple, Tatian (160-180 A.D.), wrote a Diatessaron
or harmony of the gospels, which began, according to Ephrem
Syrus, with John i. 1; but our knowledge of it is uncertain.
The author omitted the genealogies of Jesus and everything
belonging to His Davidic descent. He seems also to have put into
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.
 68 The Canon of the Bible

it particulars derived from extra-canonical sources such as the

Gospel according to the Hebrews. Doubtless he was acquainted
with Paul's writings, as statements made in them are quoted;
but he dealt freely with them according to Eusebius, and even
rejected several epistles, probably first and second Timothy.172
In Polycarp's epistle (about 160 A.D.), which is liable to
strong suspicions of having been written after the death of the
bishop,173 there are reminiscences of the synoptic gospels; and
most of Paul's epistles as well as I Peter were used by the writer.
But the idea of canonical authority, or a peculiar inspiration
belonging to these writings, is absent.
The author of the second Clementine epistle (about 150-160)
[071] had not a New Testament canon made up of the four gospels and
epistles. His Scripture was the Old Testament, to which is applied
the epithet “the Books” or “the Bible;” and the words of Christ.
“The Apostles” immediately subjoined to “the Books,” does not
mean the New Testament, or a special collection of the apostolic
epistles, as has been supposed.174 The preacher employed a
gospel or gospels as Scripture; perhaps those of Matthew and
Luke, not the whole documents, but the parts containing the
words of Christ.175 He also used the Gospel of the Egyptians as
an authoritative document, and quoted his sources freely. With
the Johannine writings he seems to have been unacquainted.176
Athenagoras of Athens wrote an apology addressed to Marcus
Aurelius (176 A.D.). In it he uses written and unwritten tradition,
testing all by the Old Testament which was his only authoritative
canon. He makes no reference to the Christian documents, but
adduces words of Jesus with the verb “he says.” It is not clear
172
Hieronymi Prooem. in Epist. ad Titum.
173
Comp. chap. xii., where ³Á±Æ±w 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.
 69

whether he quoted from the Synoptics; perhaps the passages

which are parallel to Matthew v. 44, 45, 46,177 and Mark x. 6,178
were taken from these; but the matter is somewhat uncertain. His
treatise on the resurrection appeals to a passage in one of Paul's
epistles.179
Dionysius of Corinth ( 170 A.D.) complains of the falsification
of his writings, but consoles himself with the fact that the same is
done to the “Scriptures of the Lord,” i.e., the gospels containing
the Lord's words; or rather the two parts of the early collection,
“the gospel” and “the apostle” together; which agrees best with
the age and tenor of his letters.180 If such be the meaning, the
collection is put on a par with the Old Testament, and regarded
as inspired.
In the second epistle of Peter (about A.D. 170) Paul's epistles
are regarded as Scripture (iii. 16.) This seems to be the earliest [072]
example of the canonizing of any New Testament portion. Here
a brotherly recognition of the Gentile apostle and his productions
takes the place of former opposition. A false interpretation of
his epistles is even supposed to have induced a departure from
primitive apostolic Christianity.
The letter of the churches at Vienne and Lyons (177 A.D.)
has quotations from the epistles to the Romans, Philippians,
1 Timothy, 1 Peter, Acts, the gospels of Luke and John, the
Apocalypse. The last is expressly called Scripture.181 This
shows a fusion of the two original tendencies, the Petrine and
Pauline; and the formation of a Catholic church with a common
canon of authority. Accordingly, the two apostles, Peter and
Paul, are mentioned together.
Theophilus of Antioch (180 A.D.) was familiar with the gospels
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.
 70 The Canon of the Bible

and most of Paul's epistles, as also the Apocalypse. Passages

are cited from Paul as “the divine word.”182 He ascribes the
fourth gospel to John, calling him an inspired man, like the
Old Testament prophets.183 We also learn from Jerome that he
commented on the gospels put together by way of harmony.184
The author of the epistle to Diognetus (about 200 A.D.) shows
his acquaintance with the gospels and Paul's epistles; but he never
cites the New Testament by way of proof. Words are introduced
into his discourse, in passing and from memory.185
The conception of a Catholic canon was realized about the
same time as that of a Catholic church. One hundred and
seventy years from the coming of Christ elapsed before the
collection assumed a form that carried with it the idea of holy
[073] and inspired.186 The way in which it was done was by raising
the apostolic writings higher and higher till they were of equal
authority with the Old Testament, so that the church might have
a rule of appeal. But by lifting the Christian productions up
to the level of the old Jewish ones, injury was done to that
living consciousness which feels the opposition between spirit
and letter; the latter writings tacitly assuming or keeping the
character of a perfect rule even as to form. The Old Testament
was not brought down to the New; the New was raised to the Old.
It is clear that the earliest church fathers did not use the books
of the New Testament as sacred documents clothed with divine
authority, but followed for the most part, at least till the middle of
the second century, apostolic tradition orally transmitted. They
were not solicitous about a canon circumscribed within certain
182
¸µÖ¿Â »y³¿Â. 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.
 71

limits.
In the second half, then, of the second century there was a
canon of the New Testament consisting of two parts called the
gospel187 and the apostle.188 The first was complete, containing
the four gospels alone; the second, which was incomplete,
contained the Acts of the Apostles and epistles, i.e., thirteen
letters of Paul, one of Peter, one of John, and the Revelation.
How and where this canon originated is uncertain. Its birthplace
may have been Asia Minor, like Marcion's; but it may have
grown about the same time in Asia Minor, Alexandria, and
Western Africa. At all events, Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria,
and Tertullian agree in recognizing its existence.
Irenæus had a canon which he adopted as apostolic. In his
view it was of binding force and authoritative. This contained the
four gospels, the Acts, thirteen epistles of Paul, the first epistle
of John, and the Revelation. He had also a sort of appendix or
deutero-canon, which he highly esteemed without putting it on
a par with the received collection, consisting of John's second
epistle, the first of Peter, and the Shepherd of Hermas. The last
he calls Scripture.189 The epistle to the Hebrews, that of Jude, [074]
James's, second Peter, and third John he ignored.
Clement's collection was more extended than Irenæus'. His
appendix or deutero-canon included the epistle to the Hebrews, 2
John, Jude, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Shepherd of Hermas, the
Epistles of Clement and Barnabas. He recognized no obligatory
canon, distinct and of paramount authority. But he separated the
New Testament writings by their traditionally apostolic character
and the degree of importance attached to them. He did not attach
the modern idea of canonical in opposition to non-canonical,
either to the four gospels or any other part of the New Testament.
187
Äx µP±³³s»¹¿½.
188
A ÀyÃÄ¿»¿Â.
189
Adves. Hæres., iv. 20, 2.
 72 The Canon of the Bible

Barnabas is cited as an apostle.190 So is the Roman Clement.191

The Shepherd of Hermas is spoken of as divine.192 Thus the line
of the Homologoumena is not marked off even to the same extent
as in Irenæus.
Tertullian's canon consisted of the gospels, Acts, thirteen
epistles of Paul, the Apocalypse, and 1 John. As an appendix
he had the epistle to the Hebrews, that of Jude, the Shepherd
of Hermas, 2 John probably, and 1 Peter. This deutero-canon
was not regarded as authoritative. No trace occurs in his works
of James' epistle, 2 Peter, and 3 John. He used the Shepherd,
calling it Scripture,193 without implying, however, that he put it
on a par with the usually acknowledged canonical writings; but
after he became a Montanist, he repudiated it as the apocryphal
Shepherd of adulterers, “put among the apocryphal and false,
by every council of the churches.”194 It was not, however,
reckoned among the spurious and false writings, either at Rome
or Carthage, in the time of Tertullian. It was merely placed
outside the universally received works by the western churches
of that day.
These three fathers did not fix the canon absolutely. Its limits
[075] were still unsettled. But they sanctioned most of the books now
accepted as divine, putting some extra-canonical productions
almost on the same level with the rest, if not in theory, at least in
practice.
The canon of Muratori is a fragmentary list which was made
towards the end of the second century (170 A.D.). Its birthplace is
uncertain, though there are traces of Roman origin. Its translation
from the Greek is assumed, but that is uncertain. It begins with
the four gospels in the usual order, and proceeds to the Acts,
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.
 73

thirteen epistles of Paul, the epistles of John, that of Jude, and

the Apocalypse. The epistle to the Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter, 1
John and James are not named. The Apocalypse of Peter is also
mentioned, but as not universally received. Of the Shepherd of
Hermas, it is stated that it may be read in the Church. The epistle
“to the Laodiceans” may either be that to the Ephesians, which
had such superscription in Marcion's canon, or less probably the
supposititious epistle mentioned in the codex Boernerianus,195
after that to Philemon, and often referred to in the middle ages.196
That “to the Alexandrians” is probably the epistle to the Hebrews;
though this has been denied without sufficient reason. According
to the usual punctuation, both are said to have been forged in
Paul's name, an opinion which may have been entertained among
Roman Christians about 170 A.D. The Epistle to the Hebrews was
rejected in the west, and may have been thought a supposititious
work in the interests of Paulinism, with some reason because of
its internal character,197 which is at least semi-Pauline, though
its Judaistic basis is apparent. The story about the origin of the
fourth gospel with its apostolic and episcopal attestation, evinces
a desire to establish the authenticity of a work which had not [076]
obtained universal acceptance at the time.198 It is difficult to
make out the meaning in various places; and there is considerable
diversity of opinion among expositors of the document.199 In
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;
 74 The Canon of the Bible

accord with these facts we find Serapion bishop of the church at

Rhossus, in Cilicia,200 allowing the public use of the gospel of
Peter;201 which shows that there was no exclusive gospel-canon
at the end of the second century, at least in Syria. The present
canon had not then pervaded the churches in general.
What is the result of an examination of the Christian literature
belonging to the second century? Is it that a canon was then
fixed, separating some books from others by a line so clear,
that those on one side of it were alone reckoned inspired,
authoritative, of apostolic origin or sanction; while those on the
other were considered uninspired, unauthoritative, without claim
to apostolicity, unauthentic? Was the separation between them
made on any clear principle or demarcation? It cannot be said
so. The century witnessed no such fact, but merely the incipient
efforts to bring it about. The discriminating process was begun,
not completed. It was partly forced upon the prominent advocates
of a policy which sought to consolidate the Jewish and Gentile-
Christian parties, after the decline of their mutual antagonism,
into a united church. They were glad to transfer the current belief
in the infallible inspiration of the Old Testament, to selected
Christian writings, as an effective means of defence against those
whom they considered outside a new organization—the Catholic
Church.
[077] The stichometrical list of the Old and New Testament
Scriptures in the Latin of the Clermont MS. (D), was that read in
the African Church in the third century. It is peculiar. After the
Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, and the historical books, follow
Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Wisdom, Sirach, the
twelve minor prophets, the four greater; three books of the
Maccabees, Judith, Esdras, Esther, Job, and Tobit. In the New
Testament, the four gospels, Matthew, John, Mark, Luke, are
especially Hilgenfeld.
200
About A.D.{FNS 190.
201
Euseb. H. E. vi. 12.
 75

succeeded by ten epistles of Paul, two of Peter, the epistle of

James, three of John, and that of Jude. The epistle to the Hebrews
(characterized as that of Barnabas), the Revelation of John, Acts
of the Apostles, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Acts of Paul, the
Revelation of Peter, follow. The last three constitute a sort of
appendix; and the number of their verses is given. It is possible
that the carelessness of a transcriber may have caused some of
the singularities observable in this list; such as the omission of
the epistles to the Philippians and Thessalonians; but the end
shows a freer idea of books fit for reading than what was usual
even at that early time in the African Church.202
In Syria a version of the New Testament for the use of the
church was made early in the third century. This work, commonly
called the Peshito, wants 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and the
Apocalypse. It has, however, all the other books, including the
epistle of James and that to the Hebrews. The last two were
received as apostolic.
Towards the middle of the third century, Origen's203 testimony
respecting the Canon is of great value. He seems to have
distinguished three classes of books—authentic ones, whose
apostolic origin was generally admitted, those not authentic, and
a middle-class not generally recognized or in regard to which his
own opinion wavered. The first contained those already adopted
at the beginning of the century both in the East and West, with the
Apocalypse, and the epistle to the Hebrews so far as it contains [078]
Pauline ideas;204 to the second belongs the Shepherd of Hermas,
though he sometimes hesitated a little about it,205 the epistle of
Barnabas, the Acts of Paul, the gospel according to the Hebrews,

202
Tischendorf edited the Pauline epistles from this MS. Lipsiæ, 1852.
203
Died 254 A.D.{FNS
204
Äp ½ ÄÇ ´¹±¸uº· ²¹²»w±, ½´¹q¸·º±, A¼¿»¿³¿{¼µ½±.
205
In one place, however, he calls it very useful and divinely inspired.
Comment. in ep. ad Roman., xvi. 14.
76 The Canon of the Bible

the gospel of the Egyptians, and the preaching of Peter;206 to the

third, the epistle of James, that of Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John.207
The separation of the various writings is not formally made, nor
does Origen give a list of them. His classification is gathered from
his works; and though its application admitted of considerable
latitude, he is cautious enough, appealing to the tradition of the
church, and throwing in qualifying expressions.208
The Canon of Eusebius209 is given at length in his Ecclesiasti-
cal History.210 He divides the books into three classes, containing
those writings generally received,211 those controverted,212 and
the heretical.213 The first has the four gospels, the Acts, thirteen
epistles of Paul, 1 John, 1 Peter, the Apocalypse.214 The second
class is subdivided into two, the first corresponding to Origen's
mixed215 or intermediate writings, the second to his spurious216
ones. The former subdivision contains the epistle of James, 2 Pe-
ter, Jude, 2 and 3 John; the latter, the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd,
the Revelation of Peter, the epistle of Barnabas, the Doctrines
of the Apostles, the Apocalypse of John, the gospel according
to the Hebrews. The third class has the gospels of Peter, of

206
½y¸±.
207
Ap. Euseb, Hist. Eccles., vi. 25; iii. 25, ½Ä¹»µ³y¼µ½±.
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.{FNS
210
Hist. Eccles., iii. 25; also 31, 39; vi. 13, 14.
211
A¼¿»¿³¿{¼µ½±, ½´¹q¸·º±, ½±¼Æw»µºÄ±, ½±½ÄwÁÁ·Ä±.
212
½Ä¹»µ³y¼µ½±, ³½}Á¹¼± ´r Ä¿Ö À¿»»¿ÖÂ, ½ À»µwÃı¹Â ºº»·Ãw±¹Â
´µ´·¼¿Ã¹µÅ¼s½±, ½y¸±.
213
Ä¿À± Àq½Ä· º±v ´ÅÃõ²Æ; À±½Äµ»ö ½y¸± (iii. 31).
214
This last with the qualification µ4³µ Ʊ½µw·. In another place he states that
it was rejected by some, and therefore it is also along with the ½Ä¹»µ³y¼µ½±
or ½y¸±.
215
¼¹ºÄq.
216
½y¸±.
 77

Thomas, the traditions of Matthias, the Acts of Peter, Andrew, [079]

and John. The subdivisions of the second class are indefinite.
The only distinction which Eusebius puts between them is that of
ecclesiastical use. Though he classes as spurious the Acts of Paul,
the Shepherd, the Revelation of Peter, the epistle of Barnabas,
the doctrines of the Apostles, the Apocalypse of John, the gospel
according to the Hebrews, and does not apply the epithet to the
epistle of James, the 2 of Peter, 2 and 3 John; he uses of James's
in one place the verb to be counted spurious.217 In like manner
he speaks of the Apocalypse of Peter and the epistle of Barnabas
as controverted.218 The mixed or spurious of Origen are vaguely
separated by Eusebius; both come under the general head of the
controverted; for after specifying them separately he sums up,
“all these will belong to the class of the controverted,” the very
class already described as containing “books well known and
recognized by most,” implying also that they were read in the
churches.219
It is somewhat remarkable that Eusebius does not mention
the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians in this list. But he
speaks of it in another place as a production whose authenticity
was generally acknowledged,220 and of its public use in most
churches both formerly and in his own time. This wide-spread
reading of it did not necessarily imply canonicity; but the mode
in which Eusebius characterizes it, and its extensive use in public,
favor the idea that in many churches it was almost put on equality
with the productions commonly regarded as authoritative. The
canonical list was not fixed immovably in the time of Eusebius.
217
½¿¸µ{¿¼±¹. 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
A¼¿»¿³¿Å¼s½·. Hist. Eccles., iii. 16.
 78 The Canon of the Bible

Opinions about books varied, as they had done before.

[080] The testimony of Eusebius regarding the canon, important as
it is, has less weight because of the historian's credulity. One
who believed in the authenticity of Abgar's letters to Christ, and
in the canon of the four gospels at the time of Trajan, cannot take
rank as a judicious collector or sifter of facts.
About 332 A.D. the Emperor Constantine entrusted Eusebius
with the commission to make out a complete collection of the
sacred Christian writings for the use of the Catholic Church. How
this order was executed we are not told. But Credner is probably
correct in saying that the code consisted of all that is now in the
New Testament except the Revelation. The fifty copies which
were made must have supplied Constantinople and the Greek
Church for a considerable time with an authoritative canon.
Eusebius's catalogue agrees in substance with that of Origen's.
The historian followed ecclesiastical tradition. He inquired
diligently into the prevailing opinions of the Christian churches
and writers, with the views held by others before and
contemporaneously with himself, but could not attain to a decided
result. His hesitation stood in the way of a clear, firm, view
of the question. The tradition respecting certain books was still
wavering, and he was unable to fix it. Authority fettered his
independent judgment. That he was inconsistent and confused
does not need to be shown.
The exact principles that guided the formation of a canon in
the earliest centuries cannot be discovered. Strictly speaking
there were none. Definite grounds for the reception or rejection
of books were not apprehended. The choice was determined by
various circumstances, of which apostolic origin was the chief,
though this itself was insufficiently attested; for if it be asked
whether all the New Testament writings proceeded from the
authors whose names they bear, criticism cannot reply in the
affirmative. The example and influence of churches to which
the writings had been first addressed must have acted upon
 79

the reception of books. Above all, individual teachers here [081]

and there saw the necessity of meeting heretics with their own
weapons, in their own way, with apostolic records instead of
oral tradition. The circumstances in which the orthodox were
placed led to this step, effecting a bond of union whose need
must have been felt while each church was isolated under its
own bishop and the collective body could not take measures in
common. Writings of more recent origin would be received with
greater facility than such as had been in circulation for many
years, especially if they professed to come from a prominent
apostle. A code of apostolic writings, divine and perfect like
the Old Testament, had to be presented as soon as possible
against Gnostic and Manichæan heretics whose doctrines were
injurious to objective Christianity; while the multiplication of
apocryphal works threatened to overwhelm genuine tradition
with a heap of superstition. The Petrine and Pauline Christians,
now amalgamated to a great extent, agreed in hastening the
canon-process.

The infancy of the canon was cradled in an uncritical age,

and rocked with traditional ease. Conscientious care was not
directed from the first to the well-authenticated testimony of
eye-witnesses. Of the three fathers who contributed most to its
early growth, Irenæus was credulous and blundering; Tertullian
passionate and one-sided; and Clement of Alexandria, imbued
with the treasures of Greek wisdom, was mainly occupied with
ecclesiastical ethics. Irenæus argues that the gospels should
be four in number, neither more nor less, because there are
four universal winds and four quarters of the world. The
Word or Architect of all things gave the gospel in a fourfold
shape. According to this father, the apostles were fully informed
concerning all things, and had a perfect knowledge, after their
Lord's ascension. Matthew wrote his gospel while Peter and
 80 The Canon of the Bible

Paul were preaching in Rome and founding the church.221 Such

[082] assertions show both ignorance and exaggeration.
Tertullian affirms that the tradition of the apostolic churches
guarantees the four gospels,222 and refers his readers to the
churches of Corinth, Philippi, Ephesus, &c., for the authentic
epistles of Paul.223 What is this but the rhetoric of an enthusiast?
In like manner he states that bishops were appointed by the
apostles, and that they existed from that time downward, the
succession originating so early.224
Clement contradicts himself in making Peter authorize Mark's
gospel to be read in the churches; while in another place he says
that the apostle neither “forbad nor encouraged it.”225
The three fathers of whom we are speaking, had neither the
ability nor the inclination to examine the genesis of documents
surrounded with an apostolic halo. No analysis of their
authenticity and genuineness was seriously attempted either by
them or by the men of their time. In its absence, custom, accident,
taste, practical needs directed the tendency of tradition. All the
rhetoric employed to throw the value of their testimony as far
back as possible, even up to or at least very near the apostle John
is of the vaguest sort. Appeals to the continuity of tradition and
of church doctrine, to the exceptional veneration of these fathers
for the gospels, to their opinions being formed earlier than the
composition of the works in which they are expressed, possess
no force. The ends which the fathers in question had in view,
their polemic motives, their uncritical, inconsistent assertions,
their want of sure data, detract from their testimony. Their
decisions were much more the result of pious feeling biased by
the theological speculations of the times, than the conclusions
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.
 81

of a sound judgment. The very arguments they use to establish

certain conclusions show weakness of perception. What are the
manifestations of spiritual feeling, compared with the results of
logical reasoning? Are they more trustworthy than the latter?
Certainly not, at least in relation to questions of evidence. It is [083]
true that their testimony has a value; but it is one proportionate
to the degree of credibility attaching to witnesses circumstanced
as they were, whose separation of canonical from uncanonical
gospels, or rather their canonizing of certain writings apart from
others, and their claiming of inspiration for the authors of the
former, must be judged by the reasonableness of the thing itself, in
connection with men of their type. The second century abounded
in pseudonymous literature; and the early fathers, as well as
the churches, were occupied with other things than the sifting
of evidence connected with writings considerably prior to their
own time. The increase of such apocryphal productions, gospels,
acts, and apocalypses among the heretical parties stimulated the
orthodox bishops and churches to make an authentic collection;
but it increased the difficulties of the task.
Textual criticism has been employed to discredit the true dates
of the present gospels; and the most exaggerated descriptions
have been given of the frequent transcription of the text and its
great corruption in the second century. The process of corruption
in the course of frequent transcription has been transferred even
to the first century. It is true that the gospels at the end of
that century exhibited a text which bears marks of transcription,
interpolation, and addition; but they were not the complete works
as we have them now, being then but in progress, except the
fourth. The assumption that “advanced corruption” existed in
the present text of the synoptists as early as the first century
is gratuitous; unless the process by which they were gradually
built up is so called. No attempt to get a long history behind
the canonical gospels at the close of the first century out of
“advanced corruption” can be successful. It is attested by no
 82 The Canon of the Bible

Christian writer of the century; and those in the first half of

the second, both heretical and orthodox, did themselves treat
the text in a manner far short of its implied infallibility. The
[084] various readings with which they had to do, do not carry up the
canonical gospels far into the first century. The transcription,
enlargement, and interpolation of the materials which make up
the body of them, must not be identified with the corruption of
their completed texts, in order that the latter may be relegated to
an early period; for the synoptists did not come forth full-blown,
each from the hand of a single person. The old Latin version or
versions used by Tertullian and the interpreter of Irenæus, have
been pressed into the same service, but in vain.
In like manner the Curetonian Syriac version of the gospels
has been put as early as possible into the second century, though
it can hardly have been prior to the very close of it, or rather to the
beginning of the third. Here the strong assertions of apologetic
writers have been freely scattered abroad. But the evidence in
favor of the authors traditionally assigned to the gospels and some
of the epistles, is still uncertain. A wide gap intervenes between
eye-witnesses of the apostles or apostolic men that wrote the
sacred books, and the earliest fathers who assert such authorship.
The traditional bridge between them is a precarious one. As the
chasm cannot be filled by adequate external evidence, we are
thrown back on the internal character of the works themselves.
One thing appears from the early corruption of the sacred records
spoken of by Irenæus, Origen, and others, that they were not
regarded with the veneration necessarily attaching to infallible
documents. Their being freely handled excludes the idea of rigid
canonization. The men who first canonized them had no certain
knowledge of their authors. To them, that knowledge had been
obscured or lost; though a sagacious criticism might have arrived
at the true state of the question even in their day.
In the sub-apostolic age Ebionitism passed into Catholicism,
Jewish into Pauline Christianity, the mythical and marvelous
 83

into the dogmatic, the traditional into the historic, the legendary
into the literary. The conflict of parties within the sphere [085]
of Christianity gave rise to productions of various tendencies
which reflected the circumstances out of which they arose.
These were accepted or rejected by the churches according to
the prevailing opinions of the persons composing the churches.
Common usage led to the authorization of some; others were
neglected. The state of the second century in its beliefs, credulity,
idiosyncracies of prominent teachers, antagonistic opinions and
mystic speculations, throws a light upon the New Testament
writings and especially on the formation of the canon, which
explains their genesis. Two things stand out most clearly, the
comparatively late idea of a canonical New Testament literature;
and the absence of critical principles in determining it. The
former was not entertained till the latter part of the second
century. The conception of canonicity and inspiration attaching
to New Testament books did not exist till the time of Irenæus.
When it is asked, to whom do we owe the canon? the usual
answer is, to the Church. This is true only in a sense. The unity
attributed to Christians before Irenæus and Tertullian, consisted
in their religious consciousness. It was subjective. The idea
of the church was that of inward fellowship—the fellowship of
the spirit rather than an outward organism. The preservation of
the early Christian writings was owing, in the first instance, to
the congregations to whom they were sent, and the neighboring
ones with whom such congregations had friendly connection.
The care of them devolved on the most influential teachers,—on
those who occupied leading positions in the chief cities, or were
most interested in apostolic writings as a source of instruction.
The Christian books were mostly in the hands of the bishops.
In process of time the canon was the care of assemblies or
councils. But it had been made before the first general council
by a few leading fathers towards the end of the second century
in different countries. The formation of a Catholic Church and
 84 The Canon of the Bible

[086] of a canon was simultaneous. The circumstances in which

the collection originated were unfavorable to the authenticity of
its materials, for tradition had been busy over them and their
authors. Instead of attributing the formation of the canon to the
Church, it would be more correct to say that the important stage
in it was due to three teachers, each working separately and in
his own way, who were intent upon the creation of a Christian
society which did not appear in the apostolic age,—a visible
organization united in faith,—where the discordant opinions of
apostolic and sub-apostolic times should be finally merged. The
canon was not the work of the Christian Church so much as of
the men who were striving to form that Church, and could not
get beyond the mould received by primitive Christian literature.
The first mention of a Catholic Church occurs in The Martyrdom
of Polycarp, an epistle that cannot be dated earlier than 160
A.D., and may perhaps be ten years later. But though the idea
is there, its established use is due to Irenæus, Tertullian, and
Cyprian. The expression has a different and narrow sense in the
seven Ignatian epistles which we believe to be supposititious and
later than Justin. Neither the three epistles published in Syriac
by Cureton, nor the seven Greek ones enumerated by Eusebius
are authentic; though Zahn has tried to prove the latter such,
dating them A.D. 144. His arguments, however, are far from
convincing; and the whole story of226 Ignatius's martyrdom at
Rome rather than Antioch is still doubtful; for the circumstances
under which he is said to have been dragged to Rome, and his
writing letters to the churches by the way, are highly improbable.
The testimony of Malalas that Ignatius suffered at Antioch in
December, 115, in the presence of Trajan, may be quite as good
as that of Chrysostom and the Syriac monthly calendar on which
[087] Zahn relies so confidently. The fact of the priority of the last
two to Malalas is of little weight as evidence. The main point is
226
Ignatius von Antiochien, 1873; and Prolegomena to the Patrum
Apostolicorum opera, by de Gebhardt, Harnack, and Zahn, Fasciculus, ii.
 85

the locality in which Ignatius suffered; which Malalas, himself

a native of Antioch and a historian, ought to have known better
than Chrysostom, because he copied preceding historians.
It is necessary to be precise on this subject because some
speak of the church as though it were contemporary with the
apostles themselves, or at least with their immediate disciples;
and proceed to argue that dissensions arose soon after “within
the church” rendering an appeal to the written word necessary.
When the authority of traditional teaching gave way to that of
a written rule, a change came over the condition of the church.
Such a view tends to mislead. There were dissensions among the
earliest Christians. The apostles themselves were by no means
unanimous. Important differences of belief divided the Jewish
and Gentile Christians from the beginning. The types of Christian
truth existing from the first gradually coalesced about the middle
of the second century; when heretics, especially the Gnostics,
appeared so formidable that a catholic church was developed.
Along with this process, and as an important element in it, the
writings of apostles and apostolic men were uncritically taken
from tradition and elevated to the rank of divine documents. It
was not the rise of new dissensions “within the church” which
led to the first formation of a Christian canon; rather did the
new idea of “a catholic church” require a standard of appeal in
apostolic writings, which were now invested with an authority
that did not belong to them from the beginning.
Origen was the first who took a somewhat scientific view of
the relative value belonging to the different parts of the biblical
collection. His examination of the canon was critical. Before him
the leading books had been regarded as divine and sacred, the
source of doctrinal and historic truth. From this stand-point he
did not depart. With him ecclesiastical tradition was a prevailing
principle in the recognition of books belonging of right to the [088]
New Testament collection. He was also guided by the inspiration
of the authors; a criterion arbitrary in its application, as his own
 86 The Canon of the Bible

statements show. In his time, however, the collection was being

gradually enlarged; his third class. i.e., the mixed, approaching
reception into the first. But amid all the fluctuations of opinion
to which certain portions of the New Testament were subject,
and the unscientific procedure both of fathers and churches
in the matter, though councils had not met to discuss it, and
vague tradition had strengthened with time, a certain spiritual
consciousness manifested itself throughout the East and West in
the matter of the canon. Tolerable unanimity ensued. The result
was a remarkable one, and calls for our gratitude, notwithstanding
its defects. Though the development was pervaded by no critical
or definite principle, it ended in a canon which has maintained
its validity for centuries.
It is sometimes said that the history of the canon should be
sought from definite catalogues, not from isolated quotations.
The latter are supposed to be of slight value, the former to be the
result of deliberate judgment. This remark is more specious than
solid. In relation to the Old Testament, the catalogues given by
the fathers, as by Melito and Origen, rest solely on the tradition of
the Jews; apart from which they have no independent authority.
As none except Jerome and Origen knew Hebrew, their lists of
the Old Testament books are simply a reflection of what they
learned from others. If they deviate in practice from their masters
by quoting as Scripture other than the canonical books, they
show their judgment over-riding an external theory. The very
men who give a list of the Jewish books evince an inclination to
the Christian and enlarged canon. So Origen says, in his Epistle
to Africanus, that “the churches use Tobit.” In explaining the
prophet Isaiah, Jerome employs Sirach vi. 6, in proof of his view,
[089] remarking that the apocryphal work is in the Christian catalogue.
In like manner Epiphanius, in a passage against Aetius, after
referring to the books of Scripture, adds, “as well as the books of
Wisdom, i.e., the Wisdom of Solomon and of Jesus, son of Sirach;
finally, all the other books of Scripture.” In another place he gives
 87

the canon of the Jews historically, and excludes the apocryphal

Greek books; here he includes some of the latter. We also learn
from Jerome that Judith was in the number of the books reckoned
up by the Nicene Council. Thus the fathers who give catalogues
of the Old Testament show the existence of a Jewish and a
Christian canon in relation to the Old Testament; the latter wider
than the former; their private opinion being more favorable to the
one, though the other was historically transmitted. In relation to
the New Testament, the synods which drew up lists of the sacred
books show the view of some leading father like Augustine, along
with what custom had sanctioned. In this department no member
of the synod exercised his critical faculty; a number together
would decide such questions summarily. Bishops proceed in the
track of tradition or authority.

[090]
 Chapter VII. The Bible Canon From
The Fourth Century To The
Reformation.
It will now be convenient to treat of the two Testaments together,
i.e., the canon of the Bible. The canons of both have been
considered separately to the end of the third century; they may be
henceforward discussed together. We proceed, therefore, to the
Bible-canon of the fourth century, first in the Greek Church and
then in the Latin. The Council of Laodicea (A.D. 363), at which
there was a predominant semiarian influence, forbad the reading
of all non-canonical books. The 59th canon enacts, that “private
psalms must not be read in the Church, nor uncanonized books;
but only the canonical ones of the New and Old Testament.” The
60th canon proceeds to give a list of such. All the books of the
Old Testament are enumerated, but in a peculiar order, somewhat
like the Septuagint one. With Jeremiah is specified Baruch, then
the Lamentations and Epistle. The prophets are last; first the
minor, next the major and Daniel. In the New Testament list are
the usual seven Catholic epistles, and fourteen of Paul, including
that to the Hebrews. The Apocalypse alone is wanting. Credner
has proved that this 60th canon is not original, and of much later
date.227
The Apostolic Constitutions give a kind of canon like that in
the 59th of Laodicea. After speaking of the books of Moses,
Joshua, Judges, Kings, Chronicles, those belonging to the return
[091] from the captivity, those of Job, Solomon, the sixteen prophets,
and the Psalms of David; our Acts, the epistles of Paul, and the
227
Geschichte des neutest. Kanon, p. 217, &c.
 89

four gospels are mentioned. It is remarkable that the Catholic

epistles are not given. That they are indicated under Acts is
altogether improbable. The Antiochian Church of that time
doubted or denied the apostolicity of these letters, as is seen from
Theodore, Cosmas, and others. Hence, their absence from these
Constitutions, which are a collection belonging to different times;
the oldest portion not earlier perhaps than the third century.228
Cyril of Jerusalem, who took part in the Council of
Laodicea,229 gives a list “of the divine Scriptures.” The books of
the Old Testament are twenty-two, and the arrangement is nearly
that which is in the English Bible. With Jeremiah is associated
“Baruch and the Epistle.” All the New Testament books are given
except the Apocalypse. The list agrees very nearly with that of
Eusebius, by taking the latter's “controverted” writings into the
class of the “generally received.”230 The writer insists on the
necessity of unity in the Church upon the subject, and forbids the
reading of writings not generally received. None but these are
allowed. Yet he refers to Baruch (iii. 36-38) as the prophet;231
and in adducing the testimonies of the prophets for the existence
of the Holy Spirit, the last he gives is Daniel xiii. 41, 45. Sirach
iii. 21, 22 is cited;232 Wisdom is quoted as Solomon's (xiii. 5);233
the song of the three children is used (verse 55)234 with verses
27, 29;235 and Daniel (xiii. 22, 45) is quoted.236
In Athanasius's festal epistle (365 A.D.) the archbishop
undertakes “to set forth in order, the books that are canonical
and handed down and believed to be divine.” His list of the
228
See Constit. Apostol., p. 67, ed Ueltzen.
229
Died 386 A.D.{FNS
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.
 90 The Canon of the Bible

Old Testament nearly agrees with Cyril's, except that Esther is

[092] omitted and Ruth counted separately, to make out the twenty-two
books. He adds, “there are other books not canonical, designed
by the fathers to be read by those just joining us and wishing to be
instructed in the doctrine of piety;” i.e., the Wisdom of Solomon
and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther and Judith and Tobit, and
the Doctrine of the Apostles so called, and the Shepherd; “those
being canonical, and these being read, let there be no mention of
apocryphal writings,” &c. The New Testament list is the same
as Cyril's, with the addition of the Apocalypse.237 He quotes
several of the apocryphal books in the same way as he does the
canonical. Thus he introduces Judith (viii. 16) with “the Scripture
said;”238 and Baruch (iii. 12) is cited as if it were Scripture.239
Wisdom (vi. 26) has the epithet Scripture applied to it.240 Sirach
(xv. 9) is introduced with “what is said by the Holy Spirit.”241
Baruch (iv. 20, 22) and Daniel (xiii. 42) are referred to in the
same way as Isaiah.242 Tobit (ii. 7) has “it is written” prefixed
to it.243 Canonical and apocryphal are mentioned together; and
similar language applied to them.
Eusebius of Caesarea cites Wisdom as a divine oracle;244 and
after adducing several passages from Proverbs, subjoining to
them others from the same book with the introductory formula
“these are also said to be the same writers,” he concludes with
“such is the scripture.”245 Sirach is cited as Solomon's along
with various passages from Proverbs.246 After quoting Baruch,
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.
 91

he says, “there is no need to appeal to the divine voices, which

clearly confirm our proposition.”247 The additions to Daniel are
also treated as Scripture.248
Basil of Caesarea249 had a canon agreeing with that of [093]
Athanasius. Along with the usual books reckoned as belonging
to the canon, he used the apocryphal productions of the Old
Testament. Thus the book of Wisdom (i. 4)250 is quoted by him.
So are Sirach (xx. 2);251 Baruch, (iii. 36)252 called Jeremiah's;
Judith (ix. 4);253 and Daniel (xiii. 50).254
Gregory of Nazianzus255 puts his list into a poetical form. In
the Old Testament it agrees with Athanasius's exactly, except
that he mentions none but the canonical books. Like Athanasius,
he omits Esther. In the New Testament he deviates from
Athanasius, by leaving out the Apocalypse, which he puts among
the spurious.256 He does not ignore the apocryphal books of the
Old Testament, but quotes Daniel xiii. 5.257
Amphilochius of Iconium258 gives a metrical catalogue of the
Biblical books. The canon of the Old Testament is the usual
one, except that he says of Esther at the end, “some judge that
Esther should be added to the foregoing.” He notices none of
the apocryphal books. His New Testament canon agrees with
the present, only he excludes the Apocalypse as spurious; which
is given as the judgment of the majority. He alludes to the
247
Ibid., vi. 11.
248
Demon. Evang., vi. 19.
249
Died 379 A.D.{FNS
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.{FNS
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.{FNS
 92 The Canon of the Bible

doubts that existed as to the epistle to the Hebrews, but regards

it as Pauline; and to the number of the catholic epistles (seven or
three).259 The concluding words show that no list was universally
received at that time.
Epiphanius260 follows Athanasius in his canon. As to the
number of the Old Testament books, he hesitates between twenty-
two and twenty-seven; but the contents are the same. At the end
[094] of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, Wisdom and
Sirach are mentioned as “divine writings;” elsewhere they are
characterized as “doubtful.”261 His practice shows his sentiments
clearly enough, when Sirach (vii. 1) is introduced with “the
Scripture” testifies262 ; vii. 9 is elsewhere quoted263 ; Wisdom (i.
4) is cited as Solomon's;264 Baruch (iii. 36) is introduced with,
“as the Scripture says,”265 and Daniel (xiii. 42) is quoted with,
“as it is written.”266 He mentions the fact that the epistles of
Clement of Rome were read in the churches.267
Didymus of Alexandria268 speaks against 2 Peter that it is not
in the canons.269
Chrysostom270 does not speak of the canon; but in the New
Testament he never quotes the last four catholic epistles or the
Apocalypse. All the other parts he uses throughout his numerous
works,271 including the Apocrypha. Thus he introduces Wisdom
259
Iambi ad Seleucum; in Greg. Naz. Opp. ii. p. 194.
260
Died 403 A.D.{FNS
261
¼Æ¹»sºÄ±. 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.{FNS
269
Enarrat. in ep. S. Petri secundam, p. 1774 ed Migne.
270
Died 407 A.D.{FNS
271
See Montfaucon in his edition of Chrysostom's Works, vol. vi. pp. 364,
 93

(xvi. 28) with “Scripture says.”272 He quotes Baruch (iii. 36,

38);273 and Sirach (iv. 1.).274
Didymus of Alexandria275 cites Baruch (iii. 35) as
Jeremiah,276 and treats it like the Psalms.277 Daniel (xiii. 45) is
also quoted.278 He says of Peter's Second Epistle that it is not in
the canon.
Theodore of Mopsuestia279 was much freer than his contem-
poraries in dealing with the books of Scripture. It seems that he
rejected Job, Canticles, Chronicles, and the Psalm-inscriptions;
in the New Testament the epistle of James, and others of the [095]
catholic ones. But Leontius's account of his opinions cannot be
adopted without suspicion.280
The canon of Cyril of Alexandria281 does not differ from
Athanasius's. Like other writers of the Greek Church in his
day he uses along with the canonical the apocryphal books of
the Old Testament. He quotes 1 (iii.) Esdras (iv. 36) with
“inspired Scripture says.”282 Wisdom (vii. 6) is introduced with,
“according to that which is written.”283 In another place it has
the prefix “for it is written” (i. 7);284 and is treated as Scripture
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.{FNS
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.{FNS
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.{FNS
282
Contra Julian, i. p. 541, ed. Migne.
283
Ibid., p. 815.
284
Ibid., p. 921.
 94 The Canon of the Bible

(ii. 12).285 Sirach (i. 1) is cited.286 Baruch also (iii. 35-37) is

introduced with, “another of the holy prophets said.”287
The catalogues of the Old Testament contained in the
manuscripts B, C, and need not be given, as they are merely
codices of the Septuagint, and have or had the books canonical
and apocryphal belonging to that version. The list of the New
Testament books in B is like that of Athanasius. Imperfect at the
end, the MS. must have had at first the Epistles to Timothy, Titus,
Philemon, and the Apocalypse. C (cod. Ephraemi rescriptus)
has fragments of the New Testaments, which show that it had
originally all the present books in the same order as Athanasius's.
or the Sinaitic manuscript has the Epistle of Barnabas and the
Shepherd of Hermas, in addition to the New Testament.
The progress made by the Greek Church of the fourth and
former part of the fifth century, in its conception of the canon
seems to be, that the idea of ecclesiastical settlement, or public,
legal, definitive establishment was attached to the original one. A
writing was considered canonical when a well-attested tradition
put it among those composed by inspired men, apostles or others;
[096] and it had on that account a determining authority in matters of
faith. Books which served as a rule of faith and were definitively
set forth by the Church as divinely authoritative, were now
termed canonical. The canon consisted of writings settled or
determined by ecclesiastical law.288 Such was the idea added to
the original acceptation of canon. To canonical were opposed
apocryphal writings, i.e., heretical and fabricated ones; while
an intermediate class consisted of those read in the churches,
which were useful, but not decisive in matters of belief. Another
advance in the matter of the canon at this period was the general
adoption of the Hebrew canon, with a relegation of the Greek
285
In Isaim, ed. Migne, p. 93.
286
P. 859, vol. i.
287
P. 910, vol. i., ed. Migne.
288
²¹²»w± º±½¿½¹¶y¼µ½±, º±½¿½¹ºq, ºµº±½¿½¹Ã¼s½±, aÁ¹Ã¼s½±.
 95

additions in the Septuagint to the class publicly read.289 Yet

doubts about the reception of Esther into the number of the
canonical books were still entertained, though it was one of
the Jewish canon; doubtless on account of its want of harmony
with Christian consciousness. And the catholic epistles which
had been doubted before, Jude, James, Second Peter, were now
generally received. But there was a division of opinion about the
Apocalypse.
We come to the period of the Latin, corresponding to that of
the Greek Church which has just been noticed. Augustine290 gave
great attention to the subject, laboring to establish a complete
canon, the necessity of which was generally felt. According to
him the Scriptures which were received and acknowledged by
all the churches of the day should be canonical. Of those not
universally adopted, such as are received by the majority and the
weightier of the churches should be preferred to those received
by the fewer and less important churches. In his enumeration
of the forty-four books of the Old Testament, he gives, after
Chronicles, other histories “which are neither connected with the
order” specified in the preceding context, “nor with one another,”
i.e., Job, Tobit, Esther, Judith, the two books of the Maccabees,
and Esdras. Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, he thinks, should be [097]
numbered among the prophets, as deserving of authority and
having a certain likeness to Solomon's writings.291 He says of the
Maccabees that this “Scripture has been received by the Church
not uselessly, if it be read or heard soberly.”292 The famous
passage in the treatise on Christian doctrine, where he enumerates
the whole canon, is qualified by no other; for though he knew
289
²¹²»w± ½±³¹½Éúy¼µ½±.
290
Died 430 A.D.{FNS
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.
 96 The Canon of the Bible

the distinction between the canonical books of the Palestinian

Jews and the so-called apocryphal ones, as well as the fact of
some New Testament writings not being received universally,
he thought church-reception a sufficient warrant for canonical
authority. Hence, he considered the books of the Maccabees
canonical, because so received by the Church; while he says of
Wisdom and Sirach that they merited authoritative reception and
numbering among the prophetic Scriptures.293 Of the former
in particular he speaks strongly in one place, asserting that it is
worthy to be venerated by all Christians as of divine authority.294
But he afterwards retracted his opinion of the canonical authority
of Sirach.295 He raises, not lowers, the authority of the so-called
apocryphal books which he mentions. He enumerates all the New
Testament books, specifying the Pauline epistles as fourteen, and
so reckoning that to the Hebrews as the apostle's; but he speaks
of it elsewhere as an epistle about which some were uncertain,
professing that he was influenced to admit it as canonical by the
authority of the Oriental churches.296 In various places he speaks
[098] hesitatingly about its Pauline authorship.
In 393, the African bishops held a council at Hippo where the
canon was discussed. The list of the canonical Scripture given
includes, besides the Palestinian one, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus,
Tobit, Judith, and the two books of Maccabees. The New
Testament canon seems to have agreed exactly with our present
one.297 The Council of Carthage (397) repeated the statute
of its predecessor, enumerating the same books of the Bible
as canonical.298 Augustine was the animating spirit of both
councils, so that they may be taken as expressing his views on

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.
 97

the subject.
Jerome299 gives a list of the twenty-two canonical books of
the Old Testament, the same as that of the Palestinian Jews,
remarking that some put Ruth and Lamentations among the
Hagiographa, so making twenty-four books. All besides should
be put among the Apocrypha. Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Tobit, the
Shepherd are not in the canon. The two books of Maccabees he
regarded in the same light.300 But though Jerome's words imply
the apocryphal position of these extra-canonical books, he allows
of their being read in public for the edification of the people, not
to confirm the authority of doctrines; i.e., they belong to “the
ecclesiastical books” of Athanasius. His idea of “apocryphal” is
wider and milder than that of some others in the Latin Church.
It has been conjectured by Welte,301 that the conclusions of the
African councils in 393 and 397 influenced Jerome's views of the
canon, so that his later writings allude to the apocryphal works
in a more favorable manner than that of the Prologus galeatus
or the preface to Solomon's books. One thing is clear, that he
quotes different passages from the Apocrypha along with others
from the Hebrew canon. In his letter to Eustochius, Sirach iii. 33
(Latin) comes between citations from Matthew and Luke; and is
introduced by which is written, in a letter to Pammachius; and
xxii. 6 has divine Scripture applied to it.302 Ruth, Esther, and [099]
Judith are spoken of as holy volumes. The practice of Jerome
differed from his theory; or rather he became less positive,
and altered his views somewhat with the progress of time and
knowledge. As to the New Testament, he gives a catalogue of all
that now belongs to it, remarking of the epistle to the Hebrews
and of the Apocalypse that he adopts both on the authority of
ancient writers, not of present custom. His opinion about them
299
Died 420 A.D.{FNS
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.
 98 The Canon of the Bible

was not decided.303 In another work he gives the Epistle of

Barnabas at the end of the canonical list. He also states the
doubts of many respecting the Epistle to Philemon, and about 2
Peter, Jude, 2 and 3 John. According to him the first Epistle of
Clement of Rome was publicly read in some churches.304
Hilary of Poitiers305 seems to have followed Origen's cata-
logue. He gives twenty-two books, specifying “the epistle” of
Jeremiah; and remarks that some added Tobit and Judith, making
twenty-four, after the letters of the Greek alphabet. He cites
Wisdom and Sirach as “prophets.”306 In the New Testament he
never quotes James, Jude, 2 and 3 John, nor 2 Peter. 2 Maccabees
(vii. 28) is introduced with “according to the prophet;”307 Sirach
(xxxi. 1) is introduced with “nor do they hear the Lord say-
ing;”308 Wisdom is cited as Solomon's (viii. 2);309 Judith (xvi.
3) is cited;310 so is Baruch (iii. 36);311 and Daniel xiii. 42.312
Optatus of Mela313 has the usual canonical books, but omits
the epistle to the Hebrews. He uses the apocrypha without
[100] scruple, introducing Sirach (iii. 30) with “it is written;”314 and
Wisdom (i. 13) with “it is written in Solomon.”315
Lucifer of Cagliari316 uses the apocrypha equally with the
canonical books. Thus 1 Maccabees (i. 43) is quoted as “holy
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.{FNS
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.{FNS
314
De Schismate Donatist, iii. 3.
315
Ibid., ii. 25.
316
Died about 370 A.D.{FNS
 99

Scripture.”317 So is 2 Maccab. (vi. 1).318 Judith (ix. 2) is cited,319

as are also Wisdom (xvii. 1, 2);320 Tobit (iv. 6);321 and Daniel
(xiii. 20).322
Ambrose of Milan323 had the same canon as most of the
Westerns in his time. With some others, he considered the
Epistle to the Hebrews to have been written by St. Paul. In
the Old Testament he used the apocryphal books pretty freely.
Wisdom (vii. 22) is cited as authoritative Scripture.324 Sirach
(xi. 30) is also cited as Scripture.325 Baruch (iv. 19) is quoted;326
Daniel (xiii. 44, 45) is treated as Scripture and prophetic;327 and
Tobit is expounded like any other book of Scripture.328
Rufinus329 enumerates the books of the Old and New Testa-
ments which “are believed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit itself,
according to the tradition of our ancestors, and have been handed
down by the Churches of Christ.” All the books of the Hebrew
canon and of the New Testament are specified. After the list he
says, “these are they which the fathers included in the canon, by
which they wished to establish the assertion of our faith.” He adds
that there are other books not canonical, but ecclesiastical—the
Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, and the books of the
Maccabees. Besides the usual New Testament works, he speaks
of the Shepherd of Hermas, and the “Judgment of Peter” as read

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.{FNS
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.{FNS
 100 The Canon of the Bible

[101] in the churches, but not as authoritative in matters of faith.330

Philastrius331 of Brescia gives some account of the Scriptures
and their contents in his time. The canonical Scriptures, which
alone should be read in the Catholic Church, are said to be the
law and the prophets, the gospels, Acts, thirteen epistles of Paul,
and seven others, i.e., two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude,
and one of James. Of the Old Testament apocrypha he asserts
that they ought to be read for the sake of morals by the perfect,
but not by all. He speaks of heretics who reject John's gospel and
the Apocalypse. Respecting the Epistle to the Hebrews which is
omitted in his canon, he speaks at large, but not very decidedly,
affirming that some attributed its authorship to Barnabas, or
Clement of Rome, or Luke. “They wish to read the writings
of the blessed apostle, and not rightly perceiving some things
in the epistle, it is not therefore read by them in the church.
Though read by some, it is not read to the people in the church;
nothing but Paul's thirteen epistles, and that to the Hebrews
sometimes.”332 The influence of the East upon the West appears
in the statements of this father upon the subject. He had several
canonical lists before him; one at least from an Oriental-Arian
source, which explains some assertions, particularly his omission
of the Apocalypse.
Innocent I. of Rome wrote to Exsuperius (405 A.D.), bishop
of Toulouse, giving a list of the canonical books. Besides the
Hebrew canon, he has Wisdom and Sirach; Tobit, Judith, the two
Maccabees. The New Testament list is identical with the present.
He also refers to pseudepigraphical writings which ought not
only to be rejected but condemned.333
A canonical list appears in three different forms bearing
the names of Damasus (366-384), Gelasius I. (492-496), and
330
Expos. in Symbol. Apostol., pp. 373, 374, ed. Migne.
331
Died about 387 A.D.{FNS
332
De Hæres. chs. 60 and 61, in Galland, vii. pp. 424, 425.
333
Apud Mansi, iii. pp. 1040, 1041.
 101

Hormisdas (514-523). According to the first, the books of [102]

the Old Testament are arranged in three orders. In the first
are the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four Kings, two
Chronicles, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Wisdom,
and Ecclesiasticus; in the second, all the prophets, including
Baruch; in the third, Job, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Esdras, two
Maccabees. The New Testament books are the four gospels,
fourteen epistles of Paul, the Apocalypse, and Acts, with seven
Catholic epistles.
That which is called the Decree of Gelasius is almost identical
with the preceding. It wants Baruch and Lamentations. It has
also two Esdrases instead of one. In the New Testament the
epistle to the Hebrews is absent.
The Hormisdas-form has the Lamentations of Jeremiah: and
in the New Testament the Epistle to the Hebrews.
The MSS. of these lists present some diversity; and Credner
supposes the Damasus-list a fiction. But Thiel has vindicated its
authenticity. It is possible that some interpolations may exist in
the last two; the first, which is the shortest, may well belong to
the time of Damasus.334
In 419 A.D. another council at Carthage, at which Augustine
was present, repeated the former list of books with a single
alteration, viz., fourteen epistles of Paul (instead of thirteen).335
The preceding notices and catalogues show a general desire in
the Western Church to settle the canon. The two most influential
men of the period were Augustine and Jerome, who did not
entirely agree. Both were unfitted for a critical examination of
the topic. The former was a gifted spiritual man, lacking learning
and independence. Tradition dominated all his ideas about the
difficult or disputed books. He did not enter upon the question
scientifically, on the basis of certain principles; but was content
334
Credner's Zur Geschichte des Kanons, p. 151, &c., and Thiel's Epistolæ
Romanorum Pontificum genuinae, tom. i.
335
Mansi iv. p. 430.
 102 The Canon of the Bible

to take refuge in authority—the prevailing authority of leading

[103] churches. His judgment was weak, his sagacity moderate, and his
want of many-sidedness hindered a critical result. Jerome, again,
was learned but timid, lacking the courage to face the question
fairly or fundamentally; and the independence necessary to its
right investigation. Belonging as he did to both churches, he
recommended the practice of the one to the other. He, too, was
chiefly influenced by tradition; by Jewish teachers in respect
to the Old Testament, and by general custom as to the New.
The question was not susceptible of advancement under such
manipulation; nor could it be settled on a legitimate basis.
Compared with the eastern Church, the western accepted a wider
canon of the Old Testament, taking some books into the class
of the canonical which the former put among those to be read.
In regard to the New Testament, all the Catholic epistles and
even the Apocalypse were received. The African churches and
councils generally adopted this larger canon, because the old
Latin version or versions of the Bible current in Africa were
daughters of the Septuagint. If the Latins apparently looked upon
the Greek as the original itself, the apocryphal books would soon
get rank with the canonical. Yet the more learned fathers, Jerome,
Rufinus and others, favored the Hebrew canon in distinguishing
between canonical and ecclesiastical books. The influence of the
Eastern upon the Western Church is still visible, though it could
not extinguish the prevailing desire to include the disputed books.
The Greek view was to receive nothing which had not apparently
a good attestation of divine origin and apostolic authority; the
Latin was to exclude nothing hallowed by descent and proved
by custom. The former Church looked more to the sources of
doctrine; the latter to those of edification. The one desired to
contract those sources, so as not to be too rich; the other to
enlarge the springs of edification, not to be too poor. Neither had
the proper resources for the work, nor a right perception of the
way in which it should be set about; and therefore they were not
 103

fortunate in their conclusions, differing as they did in regard to [104]

points which affect the foundation of a satisfactory solution.
Notwithstanding the numerous endeavors both in the East and
West to settle the canon during the 4th and 5th centuries, it was
not finally closed. The doubts of individuals were still expressed;
and succeeding ages testified to the want of universal agreement
respecting several books. The question, however, was practically
determined. No material change occurred again in the absolute
rejection or admission of books. With some fluctuations, the
canon remained very much as it was in the 4th and 5th centuries.
Tradition shaped and established its character. General usage
gave it a permanency which it was not easy to disturb. No
definite principles guided the course of its formation, or fixed its
present state. It was dominated first and last by circumstances
and ideas which philosophy did not actuate. Its history is mainly
objective. Uncritical at its commencement, it was equally so in
the two centuries which have just been considered.
The history of the canon in the Syrian church cannot be traced
with much exactness. The Peshito version had only the Hebrew
canonical books at first; most of the apocryphal were rendered
from the Greek and added in the Nestorian recension. In the
New Testament it wanted four of the catholic epistles and the
Apocalypse. Ephrem (A.D. 378) uses all the books in our canon,
the apocryphal as well as the canonical. The former are cited
by him in the same way as the latter. Sirach ii. 1 is quoted
with as the Scripture says;336 and Wisdom iv. 7 with it is
written.337 Daniel xiii. 9, belonging to the Greek additions, is
also cited with as it is written.338 It should be observed that
the quotations given are all from Ephrem's Greek, not Syriac,
works; and that suspicions have been raised about the former
being tampered with. The Syrian version of the New Testament
336
Opp. Græc., tom. ii. P. 327, ed. Rom. 1746.
337
Ibid., tom. i. p. 101.
338
Tom. iii. p. 60.
 104 The Canon of the Bible

[105] made by Polycarp at the request of Philoxenus of Mabug, had

the four catholic epistles wanting in the Peshito. It had also the
two epistles of Clement to the Corinthians, if we may judge by
the Harclean recension, A.D. 616; for a MS. in the Cambridge
University Library contains those epistles immediately after the
Catholic ones, and before those of St. Paul; so that they are put
on an equality with the canonical writings. The Apocalypse is
wanting. Junilius, (though an African bishop about 550 A.D.),
says that he got his knowledge from a Persian of the name of
Paulus who received his education in the school of Nisibis. He
may, therefore, be considered a witness of the opinions of the
Syrian church at the beginning of the 6th century. Dividing
the biblical books into those of perfect, those of intermediate,
and those of no authority, he makes the first the canonical; the
second, those added to them by many (plures); the third, all the
rest. In the first list he puts Ecclesiasticus. Among the second he
puts 1 and 2 Chronicles, Job, Ezra and Nehemiah, Judith, Esther,
1 and 2 Maccabees; and in the New Testament, James, 2 Peter,
Jude, 2 and 3 John. He also says that the Apocalypse of John
is much doubted by the Orientals. In the third list i.e., books
of no authority added by some (quidam) to the canonical, are
put Wisdom and Canticles.339 The catalogue is confused, and
erroneous at least in one respect, that Jerome is referred to, as
sanctioning the division given of the Old Testament books; for
neither he nor the Jews agree with it.
The canon of the Abyssinian church seems to have had at
first all the books in the Septuagint, canonical and apocryphal
together, little distinction being made between them. Along with
the contents of the Greek Bible there were Enoch, 4 Esdras, the
Ascension of Isaiah, the Jubilees, Asseneth, &c. That of the
[106] New Testament agrees with the present Greek one. At a later
period in the Arabic age a list was made and constituted the

339
Galland, xii. p. 79, &c.
 105

legal one for the use of the church, having been derived from the
Jacobite canons of the apostles. This gives, in the Old Testament,
the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Judith, Kings, Chronicles,
Ezra and Nehemiah, Esther, Tobit, two books of Maccabees,
Job, Psalms, five books of Solomon, minor and greater prophets.
The Wisdom of Sirach (for teaching children) and the book of
Joseph ben Gorion, i.e., that of the Maccabees, are external. The
New Testament has four gospels, Acts, seven apostolic epistles,
fourteen of Paul, and the Revelation of John. Later catalogues
vary much, and are often enlarged with the book of Enoch, 4
Esdras, the Apocalypse of Isaiah, &c. The canon of the Ethiopic
church was fluctuating.340
The canon of the Armenians had at first the Palestinian books
of the Old Testament, twenty-two in number, and the usual New
Testament ones, except the Apocalypse. It was made from the
Syriac in the fifth century by Sahak and Mesrob. The deutero-
canonical books and additions were appended, after the disciples
of those two men who had been sent by them into different
places, brought back authentic copies of the Greek Bible from
the patriarch Maximian, by which the version already made was
interpolated and corrected; as it was subsequently corrected by
others despatched to Alexandria and Athens, who, however, did
not return till their teachers were dead. The MSS. of this version
were afterwards interpolated from the Vulgate; Oskan himself
translating for his edition (which was the first printed one, A.D.
1666), Sirach, 4 Esdras and the Epistle of Jeremiah from the
Latin. The book of Revelation does not seem to have been
translated till the eighth century. Zohrab's critical edition (1805)
has Judith, Tobit, the three books of Maccabees, Wisdom, and
the Epistle of Baruch among the canonical books; and in an [107]
appendix, the fourth book of Esdras, the prayer of Manasseh, the
Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul and his answer, the Rest (end) of

340
See Dillmann in Ewald's Jahrbücher, v. p. 144, &c.
 106 The Canon of the Bible

the apostle and evangelist John, the prayer of Euthalius. Like the
edition of Oskan, this has all the deutero-canonical books, which
were derived from the Septuagint, and incorporated by the first
translators with their original version. Another edition published
at St. Petersburgh (1817), for the use of the Jacobite Church, has
the prayer of Manasses and 4 Esdras after the Apocalypse.
The Georgian version consisted of the books and additions
in the Greek translation from which it was made. The New
Testament has the canonical books in the usual order. Jesus
Sirach and two books of the Maccabees (2d and 3d) were not in
the Georgian MS. used by Prince Arcil for the edition of 1743,
but were rendered out of the Russian. The Moscow Bible printed
under the direction and at the cost of Arcil, Bacchar and Wakuset,
is the authorized edition of the Georgian Christians.
The Bible canon of the Eastern church in the middle ages
shows no real advance. Endeavors were made to remove the
uncertainty arising from the existence of numerous lists; but
former decisions and decrees of councils were repeated instead
of a new, independent canon. Here belongs the catalogue in the
Alexandrian MS., of the fifth century, which is peculiar. After
the prophets come Esther, Tobit, Judith, Ezra and Nehemiah, 4
Maccabees, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, the
all-virtuous Wisdom, the Wisdom of Jesus of Sirach. In the
New Testament, the Apocalypse is followed by two epistles of
Clement. The list was probably made in Egypt. That of Anasta-
sius Sinaita,341 patriarch of Antioch, is similar to Nicephorus's
Stichometry, which we shall mention afterwards. Baruch is
[108] among the canonical books; Esther among the antilegomena.
The Apocalypse is unnoticed. The 85th of the Apostolic canons
gives a list of the Old and New Testament books, in which the
usual canonical ones of the former are supplemented by Judith
and 3 Maccabees; those of the latter by the two epistles of
341
Died 599 A.D.{FNS
 107

Clement, with the Apostolic constitutions. This catalogue cannot

be put earlier than the fifth or sixth century, and is subject to the
suspicion of having been interpolated. We have also Nicephorus's
Stichometry (806-815;)342 of which we may remark that Baruch
is among the canonical books of the Old Testament; while the
Revelation is put with the Apocalypse of Peter, the epistle of
Barnabas and the Gospel according to the Hebrews, among the
antilegomena of the New Testament. It is also surprising that the
Apocalypse of Peter and the Gospel according to the Hebrews
are not among the Apocrypha, where Clement's epistles with
the productions of Ignatius, Polycarp, and Hermas appear. The
list is probably older than that of the Antioch patriarch Anas-
tasius Sinaita. Cosmas Indicopleustes (535) never mentions the
seven Catholic epistles of the New Testament or the Apocalypse.
The Trullan council (A.D. 692) adopts the eighty-five Apostolic
canons, rejecting, however, the Apostolic Constitutions. Photius,
patriarch of Constantinople,343 follows the eighty-fifth Apostoli-
cal canon of the Trullan Council.344 But in his Bibliotheca345
he speaks differently regarding the epistles of Clement, and does
not treat them as canonical. Though the first was thought worthy
to be read in public, the second was rejected as spurious; and
his own opinion was not altogether favorable to them. John of
Damascus;346 the second Nicene council (787); the Synopsis
divinæ Scripturæ Vet. et Novi Test. (about 1000); Zonaras
(about 1120); Alexius Aristenus (about 1160); and Nicephorus
Callistus (1330), call for no remark. [109]

In the Western church of the Middle Ages, diversity of

opinion respecting certain books continued. Though the views of
Augustine were generally followed, the stricter ones of Jerome
342
See Credner's Zur Gesch. des Kanons, p. 97, &c.
343
Died 891 A.D.{FNS
344
Nomocanon, Titulus III., cap. 2, vol. iv. pp. 1050, 1051 ed. Migne.
345
See Codd. 113, 126.
346
Died 754 A.D.{FNS
108 The Canon of the Bible

found many adherents. The canon was fluctuating, and the

practice of the churches in regard to it somewhat lax. Here
belong Cassiodorus (about 550); the list in the Codex Amiatinus
(about 550); Isidore of Seville347 who, after enumerating three
classes of Old Testament books gives a fourth not in the Hebrew
canon. Here he specifies Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith,
1 and 2 Maccabees, saying that the church of Christ puts them
among the divine books, honors and highly esteems them.348
There are also the fourth council of Toledo (632); Gregory the
Great349 Notker Labeo;350 Ivo (about 1092); Bede;351 Alcuin;352
Rabanus Maurus;353 Hugo de St Victor;354 Peter of Clugny;355
John of Salisbury;356 Thomas Aquinas;357 Hugo de St Cher;358
Wycliffe;359 Nicolaus of Lyra,360 &c., &c. Several of these, as
Hugo de St Victor, John of Salisbury, Hugo de St Cher, and
Nicolaus of Lyra, followed Jerome in separating the canonical
and apocryphal books of the Old Testament.361
The Reformers generally returned to the Hebrew canon,
dividing off the additional books of the Septuagint or those
attached to the Vulgate. These they called apocryphal, after
Jerome's example. Though considered of no authority in matters
of doctrine, they were pronounced useful and edifying. The
347
Died 636 A.D.{FNS
348
Etymolog. vi. 1.
349
Died 604 A.D.{FNS
350
Died 912 A.D.{FNS
351
Died 735 A.D.{FNS
352
Died 804 A.D.{FNS
353
Died 856 A.D.{FNS
354
Died 1141 A.D.{FNS
355
Died 1156 A.D.{FNS
356
Died 1182 A.D.{FNS
357
1270 A.D.{FNS
358
Died 1263 A.D.{FNS
359
Died 1384 A.D.{FNS
360
Died 1340 A.D.{FNS
361
See Hody, p. 648, &c.
 109

principal reason that weighed with the Reformers was, that Christ
and the apostles testified to none of the Septuagint additions.
Besides the canonical books of the Old Testament, Luther
translated Judith, Wisdom, Tobit, Sirach, Baruch, 1 and 2
Maccabees, the Greek additions to Esther and Daniel, with the [110]
Prayer of Manasseh. His judgment respecting several of these is
expressed in the prefaces to them. With regard to 1 Maccabees,
he thinks it almost equal to the other books of Holy Scripture,
and not unworthy to be reckoned among them. Of Wisdom,
he says, he was long in doubt whether it should be numbered
among the canonical books; and of Sirach that it is a right good
book proceeding from a wise man. But he speaks unfavorably
of several other apocryphal productions, as of Baruch and 2
Maccabees. It is evident, however, that he considered all he
translated of some use to the Christian Church. He thought that
the book of Esther should not belong to the canon.
Luther's judgment respecting some of the New Testament
books was freer than most Protestants now are disposed to
approve. He thought the epistle to the Hebrews was neither
Paul's nor an apostle's, but proceeded from an excellent and
learned man who may have been the disciple of apostles. He
did not put it on an equality with the epistles written by apostles
themselves. The Apocalypse he considered neither apostolic nor
prophetic, but put it almost on the same level with the 4th book
of Esdras, which he spoke elsewhere of tossing into the Elbe.
This judgment was afterwards modified, not retracted. James's
epistle he pronounced unapostolic, “a right strawy epistle.” In
like manner, he did not believe that Jude's epistle proceeded
from an apostle. Considering it to have been taken from 2 Peter,
and not well extracted either, he put it lower than the supposed
original. The Reformer, as also his successors, made a distinction
between the books of the New Testament similar to that of the
Old; the generally received (homologoumena) and controverted
books (antilegomena); but the Calvinists afterwards obliterated
 110 The Canon of the Bible

it, as the Roman Catholics at the Council of Trent did with the
[111] old Testament.362 The epistle to the Hebrews, those of Jude
and James, with the Apocalypse, belong to the latter class. The
distinction in question proceeded from genuine critical tact on
the part of the early Lutheran Church which had canonical and
deutero-canonical writings even in the New Testament collection.
Nor did the Reformers consider it a dangerous thing to bring
the fact before the people. To make it palpable, Luther attached
continuous numbers to the first twenty-three books of his version,
bringing the four antilegomena after these, without numbers; and
this mode of marking the difference continued till the middle of
the 17th century.363 Luther was right in assigning a greater or
less value to the separate writings of the New Testament, and
in leaving every one to do the same. He relied on their internal
value more than tradition; taking the word of God in a deeper
and wider sense than its coincidence with the Bible.
Bodenstein of Carlstad examined the question of canonicity
more thoroughly than any of his contemporaries, and followed
out the principle of private judgment in regard to it. He divides
the biblical books into three classes—1. Books of the highest
dignity, viz., the Pentateuch and the Gospels; 2. Books of the
second dignity, i.e., the works termed prophetic by the Jews,
and the fifteen epistles universally received; 3. Books of the
third and lowest authority, i.e., the Jewish Hagiographa and the
seven Antilegomena epistles of the New Testament. Among the
Apocrypha he makes two classes—such as are out of the canon to
the Hebrews yet hagiographical (Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith,
Tobit, the two Maccabees), and those that are clearly apocryphal
and to be rejected (third and fourth Esdras, Baruch, Prayer of
Manasseh, a good part of the third chapter of Daniel, and the last
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.
 111

two chapters of Daniel.)364 [112]

Zwingli asserts that the Apocalypse is not a biblical book.365
Oecolampadius says—“We do not despise Judith, Tobit,
Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the last two Esdras, the three Maccabees,
the last two chapters of Daniel, but we do not attribute to them
divine authority with those others.”366 As to the books of the
New Testament he would not compare the Apocalypse, James,
Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John with the rest.367
Calvin did not think that Paul was the author of the epistle to
the Hebrews, or that 2 Peter was written by the apostle himself;
but both in his opinion are canonical.

[113]

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.
 Chapter VIII. Order Of The New
Testament Books.

I. The arrangement of the various parts comprising the New

Testament was fluctuating in the second century; less so in
the third. In the fourth century the order which the books had
commonly assumed in Greek MSS. and writers was; the Gospels,
the Acts, the Catholic Epistles, the Pauline, and the Apocalypse.
This sequence appears in the Vatican, Sinaitic, Alexandrian and
Ephrem (C) MSS.; Cyril of Jerusalem, in the 60th Canon of the
Laodicean Council, Athanasius, Leontius of Byzantium, &c.
II. Another order prevailed in the Latin Church, viz., the
Gospels, the Acts, the Epistles of Paul, the Catholic Epistles,
and the Apocalypse. This appears in Melito, Irenæus, Clement
of Alexandria, Origen, Augustine, Jerome, the Vulgate, the
Councils of Carthage, held in A.D. 397 and 419; and is now the
usual arrangement.
Within the limits of the two general arrangements just
mentioned, there were many variations. Thus we find in relation
to the gospels.
III. (a) Matthew, John, Luke, Mark; in the MSS. of the old
Italic marked a, b, d, e, ff, and in the cod. argenteus of Ulfila's
Gothic version.
(b) Matthew, John, Mark, Luke; in the council of Ephesus
A.D. 431, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, the stichometry of the
Clermont MS. Such was the usual order in the Greek Church of
the fifth century.
(c) Mark is put first, followed by Matthew; in the fragment of
[114] a Bobbian MS. of the Itala at Turin marked k.
Chapter VIII. Order Of The New Testament Books. 113

(d) Matthew, Mark, John, Luke; in the Curetonian Syriac

gospels. They are mentioned in the same order in Origen's I.
Homily on Luke.
The reason of the order in, (a) and (b) lies in apostleship. The
works of apostles precede those of evangelists. The established
sequence, which is already sanctioned by Irenæus and Origen,
has respect to the supposed dates of the gospels. Clement of
Alexandria says that ancient tradition supposed those gospels
having the genealogies to have been written before the others.
IV. As to the Acts of the Apostles, not only is this work
put immediately after the gospels, which is the order in the
Muratorian canon, but we find it in other positions.
(a) Gospels, Pauline Epistles, Acts; in the Sinaitic MS., the
Peshito,368 Jerome,369 and Epiphanius.
(b) Gospels, Pauline Epistles, Catholic Epistles, Acts; in
Augustine, the third council of Toledo, Isidore, Innocent I.,
Eugenius IV., and the Spanish Church generally.
(c) Gospels, Pauline, Catholic Epistles, Apocalypse, Acts; in
the stichometry of the Clermont MS.
V. As to the Epistles of Paul, besides the place they now occupy
in our Bibles, they sometimes follow the gospels immediately.
(a) Gospels, Pauline Epistles; the Sinaitic MS., Jerome,
Epiphanius, Augustine, the third council of Toledo, Isidore,
Innocent I., Eugenius IV., the stichometry of the Clermont MS.
(b) The usual order of the Greek Church is, Gospels, Acts,
Catholic Epistles, Pauline, &c., as in Cyril of Jerusalem, the
Laodicean Council (60), Athanasius, Leontius of Byzantium,
the MSS. A. B., but not . The critical Greek Testaments of
Lachmann and Tischendorf adopt this order. [115]

368
Hug says that his copy of Widmanstad's edition had the Acts immediately
following the Gospels.
369
Epist. ad Paulinum.
 114 The Canon of the Bible

(c) They are placed last of all in a homily attributed to Origen,

but this does not necessarily show that father's opinion.370
(d) They stand first of all in a Gallican Sacramentarium cited
by Hody.371
VI. With respect to the order of the individual epistles, the
current one has been thought as old as Tertullian and Clement
of Alexandria. But the proof of this is precarious. It appears
in the fourth century, and may have been prior to that. It is in
Epiphanius, who supposes that the arrangement was the apostle's
own. Not only was it the prevalent one in the Greek Church, but
also in the Latin as we see from the codex Amiatinus, and the
Vulgate MSS. generally. It rests upon the extent of the epistles
and the relative importance of the localities in which the believers
addressed resided.
(a) Marcion had but ten Pauline epistles in the following order:
Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, 1 and 2 Thessalonians,
the Laodiceans, (Ephesians), Colossians, Philemon, Philippians.
(b) 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians,
Galatians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Romans, Philemon, Titus, 1
and 2 Timothy, to the Laodiceans, the Alexandrians (the Epistle
to the Hebrews); in the Muratorian canon.
(c) Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians,
Thessalonians, Colossians, Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews;
in Augustine, and several MSS. of the Vulgate in England.372
(d) Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Thessalonians,
Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Timothy, Titus, Philemon,
Hebrews; in the so-called decree of Gelasius in the name of
[116] Hormisdas, in Labbe's text. But here different MSS. vary in
regard to the position of the Thessalonian epistles.
VII. The Laodicean letter was inserted either before the
pastoral epistles, as in several MSS. of the Vulgate in England;
370
Hom. vii. in Josua.
371
De Bibliorum textibus originalibus, &c., p. 654.
372
Ibid., p. 664.
Chapter VIII. Order Of The New Testament Books. 115

or before the Thessalonian epistles preceding them; or at the end

of the Epistle to the Hebrews, as in a MS. of the Latin Bible at
Lembeth. Its insertion in copies of the Vulgate was owing to the
authority of Gregory the Great, who looked upon it as authentic.
VIII. The position of the Epistle to the Hebrews usually was
either before the pastoral epistles, i.e., immediately after those to
the Thessalonians; or after the pastoral ones and Philemon. The
former method was generally adopted in the Greek Church from
the fourth century. The latter prevailed in the Latin Church from
Augustine onward.
(a) Pauline epistles to churches (the last being the second to
the Thessalonians), Hebrews, Timothy, Titus, Philemon; in the
MSS. , A. B. C. H., Athanasius, Epiphanius; Euthalius,373
Theodoret. Jerome mentions it after the epistles of Paul to
the seven churches as an eighth excluded by the majority, and
proceeds to specify the pastoral ones. But Amphilochius and
Ebedjesu the Syrian have the western order, viz., the following—
(b) Pauline Epistles, Hebrews (following immediately that to
Philemon); in Augustine and the Vulgate version generally. It is
so in the canons of the councils at Hippo and Carthage (A.D. 393
and 397), and in the MSS. D. and G., in Isidore of Spain, and the
council of Trent.
IX. With respect to the order of the Catholic Epistles, which
were not all adopted into the canon till the end of the fourth
century; Eusebius putting all except 1 John and 1 Peter among
the antilegomena; while Jerome, and the council of Carthage
(A.D. 397) admit them unreservedly; the usual order, viz.,
James, 1 and 2 Peter, John, Jude, prevailed in the Eastern [117]
Church. It is in the Peshito or old Syriac version, Eusebius,
Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, the 60th of the Laodicean
canons, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Amphilochius, the
stichometry of Nicephorus, the MSS. . A. B. C., and most
373
See Zacagni's Collectanea monumentorum veterum Praefat, p. lxxi., &c.
 116 The Canon of the Bible

Greek MS. But the 76th of the Apostolic canons has Peter, John,
James and Jude. The canon, however, is comparatively late.
(a) Peter, John, Jude, James; in Philastrius of Brescia. If we
may rely on Cassiodorus's account of Augustine, the African
father followed the same arrangement.
(b) Peter, James, Jude, John; in Rufinus.
(c) Peter, John, James, Jude; in the councils of Carthage, A.D.
397, 419, Cassiodorus, and a Gallican Sacramentarium. The
Vulgate and council of Trent follow this arrangement.
(d) John, Peter, Jude, James; in the list given by Innocent I.,
and the third council of Toledo.
The Eastern church naturally set the Epistle of James, who
was Bishop of Jerusalem, at the head of the others; while the
Western put Peter, the Bishop of Rome, in the same place.
X. The Revelation varied little in position.
(a) In the decree of Galasius, according to its three recensions,
the Revelation follows Paul's epistles, preceding those of John
and the other Catholic ones.
(b) In D or the Clermont MS. it follows the Catholic epistles,
and precedes the Acts; which last is thrown to the end of all the
books, as if it were an appendix to the writings of the apostles.374

[118]

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.
Chapter IX. Summary Of The
Subject.
(a) In relation to the Old Testament, the prevailing tendency in
the Greek Church was to follow the Palestinian canon. Different
lists appeared from time to time in which the endeavor there
to exclude apocryphal, i.e., spurious works, was apparent. In
addition to the canonical, a class of ecclesiastical books was
judged fit for reading in the Church,—a class intermediate
between the canonical and apocryphal. The distinction between
the canonical and ecclesiastical writings appears in Cyril of
Jerusalem, Athanasius, Epiphanius, &c. The Latin Church
showed a disposition to elevate the ecclesiastical books of the
Greek Church to the rank of the canonical, making the line
between the two indistinct; as we see from the acts of the
councils at Hippo and Carthage, in the end of the fourth and
beginning of the fifth century, where Augustine's, influence
was predominant. But notwithstanding this deviation from the
stricter method of the Greeks, learned men like Jerome adhered
to the Palestinian canon, and even styled the ecclesiastical books
apocryphal, transferring the epithet from one class to another.
Hilary and Rufinus also followed the Greek usage.
During the sixth and following centuries, it cannot be said
that the canon of the Greek Church was definitely closed,
notwithstanding the decrees of councils and references to older
authorities. Opinions still varied about certain books, such as
Esther; though the Palestinian list was commonly followed.
During the same period, the enlarged canon of the Alexandrian
Jews, which went far to abolish the distinction between the [119]
canonical and deutero-canonical books, prevailed in the West,
 118 The Canon of the Bible

at least in practice; though some followed the shorter one,

sanctioned as it had been by Jerome. As both lists existed,
no complete or final settlement of the question was reached in
the Latin Church. Neither in the East nor in the West was the
canon of the Old Testament really closed; for though the stricter
principle of separation prevailed in theory, it was not carried
out in practice consistently or universally. The two men most
influential about the canon were Jerome and Augustine; the one
representing its Palestinian, the other its Alexandrian type. After
them no legal or commanding voice fixed either, to the absolute
exclusion of its rival.
(b) The charge of Constantine to Eusebius to make out a list
of writings for the use of the Church and its performance may
be considered as that which first put the subject on a broad and
permanent basis. Its consequences were important. If it cannot
be called the completion or close of the New Testament canon, it
determined it largely. Eusebius made a Greek Bible containing
the usual books, except the Revelation. Though the historian
of the church was not well fitted for the task, being deficient
in critical ability and trammeled by tradition, he doubtless used
his best judgment. Hence, about the year 337, the Constantinian
Church received a Bible which had an influential origin. No
binding authority indeed attached to the list of the Christian
books it presented; but it had weight in the Greek Church. It
did not prevent different opinions, nor deter individuals from
dissent. Thus Athanasius, who disliked Eusebius and his party,
issued a list of the sacred writings which included the Revelation.
The canon of the Laodicean Council (A.D. 363) agreed with the
Constantine one.
That variations still existed in the Eastern Church is shown by
the lists which vied with one another in precedence. The apostolic
[120] canons adopted the seven general epistles, while the apostolic
constitutions excluded them. The Alexandrian MS. added to the
ordinary books of the New Testament, Clement's two epistles;
Chapter IX. Summary Of The Subject. 119

and Cosmas Indicopleustes omitted the general epistles as well

as the Apocalypse. At length the Council of Constantinople,
usually called the Trullan (A.D. 692), laid down positions that
fixed the canon for the Greek Church. The endeavor in it was
to attain to a conclusion which should unite East and West.
This council did not enumerate the separate books, but referred
to older authorities, to the eighty-five canons of the apostles,
the decrees of the synods of Laodicea, Ephesus, Carthage, and
others; to Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Amphliochius of
Iconium, Cyril of Alexandria, Gennadius, &c. After the fourth
century there was a general desire to fall back on apostolic times,
to appeal to the Church, to ascertain the opinion of synods or
assemblies; in a word, to rely on authority.
Less discrepancy and activity were manifested about the canon
in the Western Church. Here the chief doubts were directed to the
epistle to the Hebrews and the seven general ones. The former
was early excluded, and continued to be so even in the time
of Jerome. The latter were adopted much sooner. The impulse
given by Constantine to determine the books of Scripture re-acted
on the West, where the Church considered it its own privilege.
Augustine's influence contributed much to the settlement of the
question. The synods of Hippo (A.D. 393) and of Carthage (A.D.
397) received the epistle to the Hebrews and the seven general
ones, thus fixing the New Testament canon as it now is. In 419
the African bishops, in the presence of a Papal delegate, repeated
their former decision. After the West Goths joined the Catholic
Church in the sixth century, the Romish and Spanish Churches
gave prominence to the fact of accepting both the Apocalypse
and the epistle to the Hebrews. The canon of the West was now
virtually closed; the fourth Council of Toledo (A.D. 632) at which [121]
Isidore was present, agreeing with the Augustinian list, ratified
as that list had been by Innocent the First. The reception of the
epistle to the Hebrews was facilitated by the objections of the
Arians and Semiarians; while opposition to the Priscillianists in
 120 The Canon of the Bible

Spain strengthened adherence to the traditional canon. Augustine

and the Trullan Council fixed the number of the New Testament
books as they are now.
With regard to the Bible canon in general, we see that
councils had weight when they enumerated the sacred books;
that prominent teachers delivered their opinion on the subject
with effect, and that tradition contributed to one result; but
no general council closed the canon once for all, till that of
Trent promulgated its decrees. This body, however, could only
settle the subject for Romanists, since, while the right of private
judgment is exercised, no corporation can declare some books
inspired and others not, some authoritative in matters of faith,
others not, without presumption. Though the present Bible canon
rests upon the judgment of good and learned men of different
times, it can never be finally or infallibly settled, because the
critical powers of readers differ, and all do not accept church
authority with unhesitating assent.
It is the way of men to defer unduly to the opinions expressed
by synods and councils, especially if they be propounded
dogmatically; to acquiesce in their decisions with facility rather
than institute independent inquiry. This is exemplified in the
history of the canon, where the fallibility of such bodies in
determining canonicity is conspicuous. It is so in the general
reception of the book of Esther, while the old poem, the Song
of Songs, was called in question at the synod of Jamnia; in
the omission of the Revelation from the canonical list by many
belonging to the Greek Church, while the epistles to Timothy
and Titus were received as St. Paul's from the beginning almost
universally.

[122]
Chapter X. The Canon In The
Confession Of Different Churches.
The second Helvetic Confession (A.D. 1566) speaks of the
apocryphal books of the Old Testament as those which the
ancients wished to be read in the churches, but not as authoritative
in matters of faith.375
The Gallic Confession (A.D. 1559) makes a distinction between
canonical and other books, the former being the rule and norm
of faith, not only by the consent of the Church, but much
more by the testimony and intrinsic persuasion of the Spirit, by
whose suggestions we are taught to distinguish them from other
ecclesiastical books, which, though useful, are not of the kind
that any article of faith can be constituted by them.376
The Belgic Confession (A.D. 1561) makes a distinction
between the sacred and apocryphal books. The latter may
be read by the Church, but no doctrine can be derived from them.
In the list of New Testament books given there are fourteen
epistles of Paul.377
The canon of the Waldenses must have coincided at first with
that of the Roman Church; for the Dublin MS. containing the
New Testament has attached to it the Book of Wisdom and the
first twenty-three chapters of Sirach; while the Zurich codex of
the New Testament has marginal references to the Apocrypha;
to Judith, Tobit, 4 Esdras, Wisdom, Sirach, and Susanna. The
Nobla Leyczon containing a brief narration of the contents of
the Old and New Testaments confirms this opinion. It opposes,
375
Niemeyer's Collectio Confessionum, p. 468.
376
Ibid., p. 330.
377
Ibid., pp. 361, 362.
 122 The Canon of the Bible

however, the old law to the new, making them antagonistic.

[123] The historical document containing the articles of “The Union
of the Valleys,” A.D. 1571, separates indeed the canonical and
apocryphal books, purporting to be founded on a Confession of
Faith as old as A.D. 1120; but the latter is mythical, as appears
from a comparison of it with the epistle which the legates of
the Waldensians gave to Œcolampadius. The articles of that
“Union” are copied from Morel's account of his transactions
with Œcolampadius and Bucer in 1530. The literature of this
people was altered by Hussite influences and the Reformation;
so that though differing little from the Romanists at first except
in ecclesiastical discipline, they diverged widely afterwards by
adopting the Protestant canon and doctrines.378 Hence, the
Confession issued in 1655 enumerates as Holy Scripture nothing
but the Jewish Palestinian canon, and the usual books of the New
Testament.379
The canon of the Anglican Church (1562), given in the sixth
article of religion, defines holy Scripture to be “those canonical
books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was
never any doubt in the Church.” After giving the names and
number of the canonical books, the article prefaces the apocryphal
ones with, “And the other books (as Hierome saith) the Church
doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet
doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine? Such are these
following,” &c., &c. At the end it is stated that “all the books
of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do
receive and account them canonical.” The article is ambiguous.
If the canonical books enumerated are those meant in the phrase
“of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church,” the
statement is incorrect. If a distinction is implied between the
canonical books and such canonical ones as have never been
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.
 123

doubted in the Church, the meaning is obscure. In either case the

language is not explicit. [124]
The Scottish or Westminster Confession of Faith gives a list
of all the books of the Old and New Testaments as the Word of
God written; adding that those called the apocrypha are not of
divine inspiration, and no part of the canon,—of no authority in
the Church, nor to be approved or made use of otherwise than
human writings.
The Roman Catholic canon was finally determined at the
Council of Trent (1546), which adopted all the books in the
Vulgate as sacred and canonical, without distinction. Third and
fourth Esdras, third Maccabees, and the prayer of Manasseh
were not included; though the first and last appeared in the
original Clementine edition of 1592, but apart from the canonical
books. They are not in the Sixtine edition of 1590.380 A council
at Florence in 1441 had set the example which was followed
at Trent. But this stringent decree did not prevent individual
Catholics from making a distinction between the books, in
assuming a first and second canon or proto-canonical and deutero-
canonical books; as did Sixtis Senensis, B. Lamy, Anton a matre
Dei, Jahn, and others; though it is hardly consistent with orthodox
Catholicism or the view of those who passed the decree. When
the writings are said to be of different authority—some more,
others less—the intent of the council is violated. The Vatican
council (1870) confirmed the Tridentine decree respecting the
canon.
The Greek Church, after several ineffectual attempts to uphold
the old distinction between the canonical and ecclesiastical books
by Metrophanes Critopulus patriarch of Alexandria in 1625, and
Cyril Lucaris patriarch of Constantinople (1638 A.D.),381 came
to the same decision with the Romish, and canonized all the
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.
 124 The Canon of the Bible

apocrypha. This was done at a Jerusalem synod under Dositheus

in 1672.

[125]
Chapter XI. The Canon From Semler
To The Present Time, With
Reflections On Its Readjustment.
Semler382 was the most conspicuous scholar after the Reforma-
tion 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 com-
mand. 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
382
Died 791 A.D.{FNS
383
Abhandlung von freier Untersuchung des Canons, 4 parts, Halle, 1771-
1775.
 126 The Canon of the Bible

great acuteness and singular power of combination. Though his

[126] 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.
384
See Toland's Nazarenus, p. 25, &c., second edition; and Morgan's Moral
Philosopher, vol. i. p. 56, &c.
 127

We have seen that sound critical considerations did not [127]

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 [128]
the various parts in a manner consistent with historic criticism,
 128 The Canon of the Bible

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
[129] has never lost supporters, who by the help of double senses,
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.
 129

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 [130]
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
 130 The Canon of the Bible

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
[131] 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
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.
 131

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 [132]
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
 132 The Canon of the Bible

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
[133] 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.
 133

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 [134]
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
 134 The Canon of the Bible

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
[135] 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
388
Loci Theologici Tom. i. pp. 186, 187, ed. Cotta, 1762.
389
Theologia Didactico-polemica, p. 340.
 135

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 [136]
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
 136 The Canon of the Bible

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.

[137] 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.
 137

Mr. Jones's390 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 [138]
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
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.
 138 The Canon of the Bible

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
[139] 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
 139

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.

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.
Footnotes
***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE
CANON OF THE BIBLE***
Credits
September 29, 2009
Project Gutenberg TEI edition 1
Produced by David King, and the Online Distributed Proof-
reading Team at <http://www.pgdp.net/>.
A Word from Project Gutenberg
This file should be named 30132-pdf.pdf or 30132-pdf.zip.
This and all associated files of various formats will be found
in:

http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/3/0/1/3/30132/

Updated editions will replace the previous one — the old

editions will be renamed.
Creating the works from public domain print editions means
that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the
Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright royalties.
Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this
license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works to protect the Project Gutenberg™ concept and
trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may
not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive
specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies
of this eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You
may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of
derivative works, reports, performances and research. They may
be modified and printed and given away — you may do practically
anything with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is subject
to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
The Full Project Gutenberg License
Please read this before you distribute or use this work.
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the
free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this
work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase
“Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of
the Full Project Gutenberg™ License (available with this file or
online at http://www.gutenberg.org/license).

Section 1.

General Terms of Use & Redistributing Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works

1.A.
By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand,
agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual
property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree
to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using
and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic
works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy
of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do
not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may
obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the
fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
The Full Project Gutenberg License 149

1.B.

“Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be

used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by
people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.
There are a few things that you can do with most Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the
full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are
a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic
works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve
free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See
paragraph 1.E below.

1.C.

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the

Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all
the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in
the United States. If an individual work is in the public domain
in the United States and you are located in the United States, we
do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing,
performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the
work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed.
Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely
sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms
of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms
of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with
its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it
without charge with others.
150 The Canon of the Bible

1.D.

The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside
the United States, check the laws of your country in addition
to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying,
displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works
based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The
Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright
status of any work in any country outside the United States.

1.E.

Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1.

The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate

access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work
(any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears,
or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is
accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost

and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy
it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project
Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
http://www.gutenberg.org

1.E.2.
The Full Project Gutenberg License 151

If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived

from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that
it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can
be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without
paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing
access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated
with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with
the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain
permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3.

If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted

with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and
distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder.
Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™
License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright
holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4.

Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™

License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of
this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5.

Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this

electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
152 The Canon of the Bible

with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the

Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6.

You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,

compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However,
if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project
Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII”
or other format used in the official version posted on the official
Project Gutenberg™ web site (http://www.gutenberg.org), you
must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide
a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining
a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla
ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full
Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7.

Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™
works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8.

You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing

access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive
from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using
the method you already use to calculate your applicable
taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project
The Full Project Gutenberg License 153

Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate

royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must
be paid within 60 days following each date on which
you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly
marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section
4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user
who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days
of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full
Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user
to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a
physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access
to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.
You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full
refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy,
if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported
to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.
You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9.

If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™

electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and
Michael Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark.
Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
154 The Canon of the Bible

1.F.

1.F.1.

Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on,
transcribe and proofread public domain works in creating the
Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they
may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited
to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a
copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective
or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2.

LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES —

Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described
in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability
to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES
FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF
WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT
THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE
THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER,
AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT
WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL,
DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
The Full Project Gutenberg License 155

INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE

OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3.

LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND — If

you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days
of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any)
you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person
you received the work from. If you received the work on a
physical medium, you must return the medium with your written
explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu
of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.
If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund
in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4.

Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set

forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-
IS,' WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED
TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS
FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5.

Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties

or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
156 The Canon of the Bible

violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the

agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer
or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity
or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not
void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6.

INDEMNITY — You agree to indemnify and hold the

Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of
the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless
from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that
arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you
do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project
Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or
deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect
you cause.

Section 2.

Information about the Mission of Project

Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution

of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety
of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new
computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of
volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.
The Full Project Gutenberg License 157

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™'s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to
provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™
and future generations. To learn more about the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts
and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation
web page at http://www.pglaf.org.

Section 3.

Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary

Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non

profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws
of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the
Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax
identification number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted
at http://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/pglaf. Contributions
to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax
deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and
your state's laws.
The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr.
S. Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are
scattered throughout numerous locations. Its business office is
located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801)
596-1887, email [email protected]. Email contact links and up
158 The Canon of the Bible

to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web

site and official page at http://www.pglaf.org
For additional contact information:

Dr. Gregory B. Newby

Chief Executive and Director
[email protected]

Section 4.

Information about Donations to the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
wide spread public support and donations to carry out its mission
of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works
that can be freely distributed in machine readable form accessible
by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment.
Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important
to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws
regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of
the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform
and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many
fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do
not solicit donations in locations where we have not received
written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or
determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit
http://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/donate
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states
where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know
The Full Project Gutenberg License 159

of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from

donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot
make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations
received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp
our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current
donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in
a number of other ways including checks, online payments
and credit card donations. To donate, please visit:
http://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/donate

Section 5.

General Information About Project Gutenberg™

electronic works.

Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project

Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could
be freely shared with anyone. For thirty years, he produced
and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose
network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several
printed editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Each eBook is in a subdirectory of the same number as the
eBook's eBook number, often in several formats including plain
vanilla ASCII, compressed (zipped), HTML and others.
160 The Canon of the Bible

Corrected editions of our eBooks replace the old file and take
over the old filename and etext number. The replaced older file
is renamed. Versions based on separate sources are treated as
new eBooks receiving new filenames and etext numbers.
Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG
search facility:

http://www.gutenberg.org

This Web site includes information about Project

Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce
our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to
hear about new eBooks.