the Fourth Week after Easter
free while helping to build churches and support pastors in Uganda.
Click here to learn more!
Bible Encyclopedias
Bible, the
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
or I. The Names
1. Bible
2. Other Designations
3. Old Testament and New Testament
II. Languages
III. Compass and Divisions
1. The Jewish Bible
Josephus, etc.
2. The Septuagint
The Apocrypha
3. The Vulgate (Old Testament)
4. The New Testament
(1) Acknowledged Books
(2) Disputed Books
IV. Literary Growth and Origin
1. The Old Testament
(1) Indications of Old Testament Itself
(a) Patriarchal Age
(b) Mosaic Age
(c) Judges
(d) Monarchy
(e) Wisdom Literature
(f) Prophecy
(i) Assyrian Age
(ii) Chaldean Age
(g) Josiah's Reformation
(h) Exilian and Post-Exilian
(i) Daniel, etc.
(j) Pre-exilic Bible
(2) Critical Views
(a) The Pentateuch
(b) Histories
(c) Psalms and Prophets
(3) Formation of the Canon
(a) Critical Theory
(b) More Positive View
(c) Close of Canon
2. The New Testament
(1) Historical Books
(a) The Synoptics
(b) Fourth Gospel
(c) Acts
(2) The Epistles
(a) Pauline
(b) Epistle to the Hebrews
(c) Catholic Epistles
(3) Prophecy: Book of Revelation
(4) New Testament Canon
V. Unity and Spiritual Purpose
1. Scripture a Unity
2. The Purpose of Grace
3. Inspiration
4. Historical Influence
VI. Addenda
1. Chapters and Verses
2. The King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American)
3. Helps to Study
Literature
General Designation
This word designates the collection of the Scriptures of the Old Testament and New Testament recognized and in use in the Christian churches. Different religions (such as the Zoroastrian, Hindu, Buddhist, Mohammedan) have their collections of sacred writings, sometimes spoken of as their "Bibles." The Jews acknowledge only the Scriptures of the Old Testament. Christians add the writings contained in the New Testament. The present article deals with the origin, character, contents and purpose of the Christian Scriptures, regarded as the depository and authoritative record of God's revelations of Himself and of His will to the fathers by the prophets, and through His Son to the church of a later age (Hebrews 1:1 , Hebrews 1:2 ). Reference is made throughout to the articles in which the several topics are more fully treated.
I. The Names
1. Bible
The word "Bible" is the equivalent of the Greek word
2. Other Designations
There is naturally no name in the New Testament for the complete body of Scripture; the only Scriptures then known being those of the Old Testament. In 2 Peter 3:16 , however, Paul's epistles seem brought under this category. The common designations for the Old Testament books by our Lord and His apostles were "the scriptures" (writings) (Matthew 21:42; Mark 14:49; Luke 24:32; John 5:39; Acts 18:24; Romans 15:4 , etc.), "the holy, scriptures" (Romans 1:2 ); once "the sacred writings" (2 Timothy 3:15 ). The Jewish technical division (see below) into "the law," the "prophets," and the "(holy) writings" is recognized in the expression "in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms" (Luke 24:44 ). More briefly the whole is summed up under "the law and the; prophets" (Matthew 5:17 , Matthew 11:13; Acts 13:15 ). Occasionally even the term "law" is extended to include the other divisions (John 10:34; John 12:34; John 15:25; 1 Corinthians 14:21 ). Paul uses the phrase "the oracles of God" as a name for the Old Testament Scriptures (Romans 3:2; compare Acts 7:38; Hebrews 5:12; 1 Peter 4:11 ).
3. Old Testament and New Testament
Special interest attaches to the names "Old" and "New Testament," now and since the close of the 2nd century in common use to distinguish the Jewish and the Christian Scriptures. "Testament" (literally "a will") is used in the New Testament (the King James Version) to represent the Greek word
II. Languages
The Old Testament, it is well known, is written mostly in Hebrew; the New Testament is written wholly in Greek, the parts of the Old Testament not in Hebrew, namely, Ezr 4:8 through 6:18; Ezra 7:12-26; Jeremiah 10:11; Dan 2:4 through 7:28, are in Aramaic (the so-called Chaldee), a related dialect, which, after the Exile, gradually displaced Hebrew as the spoken language of the Jews (see
The Greek of the New Testament, on which so much light has recently been thrown by the labors of Deissmann and others from the Egyptian papyri, showing it to be a form of the "common" (Hellenistic) speech of the time (see
III. Compass and Divisions
The story of the origin, collection, and final stamping with canonical authority of the books which compose our present Bible involves many points still keenly in dispute. Before touching on these debatable matters, certain more external facts fall to be noticed relating to the general structure and compass of the Bible, and the main divisions of its contents.
1. Jewish Bible
Josephus, Etc
A first step is to ascertain the character and contents of the Jewish Bible - the Bible in use by Christ and His apostles. Apart from references in the New Testament itself, an important aid is here afforded by a passage in Josephus ( Apion , I, 8), which may be taken to represent the current belief of the Jews in the 1st century ad. After speaking of the prophets as writing their histories "through the inspiration of God," Josephus says: "For we have not myriads of discordant and conflicting books, but 22 only, comprising the record of all time, and justly accredited as Divine. Of these, 5 are books of Moses, which embrace the laws and the traditions of mankind until his own death, a period of almost 3,000 years. From the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes, the successor of Xerxes, king of Persia, the prophets who followed Moses narrated the events of their time in 13 books. The remaining 4 books consist of hymns to God, and maxims of conduct for men. From Artaxerxes to our own age, the history has been written in detail, but it is not esteemed worthy of the same credit, on account of the exact succession of the prophets having been no longer maintained." He goes on to declare that, in this long interval, "no one has dared either to add anything to (the writings), or to take anything from them, or to alter anything," and speaks of them as "the decrees (dogmata) of God," for which the Jews would willingly die. Philo (20 bc-circa 50 ad) uses similar strong language about the law of Moses (in Eusebius, Pr. Ev ., VIII, 6).
In this enumeration of Josephus, it will be seen that the Jewish sacred books - 39 in our Bible - are reckoned as 22 (after the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet), namely, 5 of the law, 13 of the prophets and 4 remaining books. These last are Ps, Prov, Song and Eccl. The middle class includes all the historical and prophetical books, likewise Job, and the reduction in the number from 30 to 13 is explained by Jgs-Ruth, 1 and 2 S, 1 and 2 K, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezr-Neh, Jer-Lam and the 12 minor prophets, each being counted as one book. In his 22 books, therefore, Josephus includes all those in the present Hebrew canon, and none besides - not the books known as the APOCRYPHA , though he was acquainted with and used some of these.
Other Lists and Divisions
The statement of Josephus as to the 22 books acknowledged by the Jews is confirmed, with some variation of enumeration, by the lists preserved by Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica , vi.26) from Melito of Sardis (circa 172 ad) and Origen (186-254 ad), and by Jerome (Pref to Old Testament , circa 400) - all following Jewish authorities. Jerome knew also of a rabbinical division into 24 books. The celebrated passage from the Talmud (
New Testament References
It may be concluded that the above lists, excluding the Apocrypha, represent the Hebrew Bible as it existed in the time of our Lord (the opinion, held by some, that the Sadducees received only the 5 books of the law rests on no sufficient evidence). This result is borne out by the evidence of quotations in Josephus and Philo (compare Westcott, op. cit.). Still more is it confirmed by an examination of Old Testament quotations and references in the New Testament. It was seen above that the main divisions of the Old Testament are recognized in the New Testament, and that, under the name "Scriptures," a Divine authority is ascribed to them. It is therefore highly significant that, although the writers of the New Testament were familiar with the Septuagint, which contained the Apocrypha (see below), no quotation from any book of the Apocrypha occurs in their pages, One or two allusions, at most, suggest acquaintance with the Book of Wisdom (e.g. The Wisdom of Solomon 5:18-21 parallel Ephesians 6:13-17 ). On the other hand, "every book in the Hebrew Bible is distinctly quoted in the New Testament with the exception of Josh, Jgs, Chronicles, Cant, Eccl, Ezr, Neh, Esther, Ob, Zeph and Nah" (Westcott). Enumerations differ, but about 178 direct quotations may be reckoned in the Gospels, Acts and Epistles; if references are included, the number is raised to about 700 (see
2. The Septuagint
Hitherto we have been dealing with the Hebrew Old Testament; marked changes are apparent when we turn to the Septuagint , or Greek version of the Septuagint current in the Greek-speaking world at the commencement of the Christian era. The importance of this version lies in the fact that it was practically the Old Testament of the early church. It was used by the apostles and their converts, and is freely quoted in the New Testament, sometimes even when its renderings vary considerably from the Hebrew. Its influence was necessarily, therefore, very great.
Origin
The special problems connected with origin, text and literary relations of the Septuagint are dealt with elsewhere (see SEPTUAGINT ). The version took its rise, under one of the early Ptolemies, from the needs of the Jews in Egypt, before the middle of the 2nd century bc; was gradually executed, and completed hardly later than circa 100 bc; thereafter spread into all parts. Its renderings reveal frequent divergence in manuscripts from the present Massoretic Text, but show also that the translators permitted themselves considerable liberties in enlarging, abbreviating, transposing and otherwise modifying the texts they had, and in the insertion of materials borrowed from other sources.
The Apocrypha
The most noteworthy differences are in the departure from Jewish tradition in the arrangement of the books (this varies greatly; compare Swete, Introduction to Old Testament in Greek , II, chapter i), and in the inclusion in the list of the other books, unknown to the Hebrew canon, now grouped as the Apocrypha. These form an extensive addition. They include the whole of the existing Apocrypha, with the exception of 2 Esdras and Pr Man. All are of late date, and are in Greek, though Sirach had a Hebrew original which has been partly recovered. They are not collected, but are interspersed among the Old Testament books in what are taken to be their appropriate places. The Greek fragments of Esther, e.g. are incorporated in that book; Susanna and Bel and the Dragon form part of Daniel; Baruch is joined with Jeremiah, etc. The most important books are Wisdom, Sirach and 1 Maccabees (circa 100 bc). The fact that Sirach, originally in Hebrew (circa 200 bc), and of high repute, was not included in the Hebrew canon, has a weighty bearing on the period of the closing of the latter.
Ecclesiastical Use
It is, as already remarked, singular that, notwithstanding this extensive enlargement of the canon by the Septuagint, the books just named obtained no Scriptural recognition from the writers of the New Testament. The more scholarly of the Fathers, likewise (Melito, Origen, Athanasius, Cyprian, Jerome, etc.), adhere to the Hebrew list, and most draw a sharp distinction between the canonical books, and the Greek additions, the reading of which is, however, admitted for edification (compare Westcott, op. cit., 135-136, 168, 180, 182-183). Where slight divergencies occur (e.g. Est is omitted by Melito and placed by Athanasius among the Apocrypha; Origen and Athanasius add Baruch to Jer), these are readily explained by doubts as to canonicity or by imperfect knowledge. On the other hand, familiarity with the Septuagint in writers ignorant of Hebrew could not but tend to break down the limits of the Jewish canon, and to lend a Scriptural sanction to the additions to that canon. This was aided in the West by the fact that the Old Latin versions (2nd century) based on the Septuagint, included these additions (the Syriac Peshitta followed the Hebrew). In many quarters, therefore, the distinction is found broken down, and ecclesiastical writers (Clement, Barnabas, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Basil, etc.) quote freely from books like Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, Tobit, 2 Esdras, as from parts of the Old Testament.
3. The Vulgate (Old Testament)
An important landmark is reached in the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible , 390-405 ad) or Latin version of Jerome. Jerome, on grounds explained in his Preface, recognized only the Hebrew Scriptures as canonical; under pressure he executed later a hasty translation of Tobit and Judith. Feeling ran strong, however, in favor of the other books, and ere long these were added to Jerome's version from the Old Latin (see VULGATE ). It is this enlarged Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible , 390-405 ad) which received official recognition, under anathema, at the Council of Trent (1543), and, with revision, from Clement
4. The New Testament
From this survey of the course of opinion on the compass of the Old Testament, we come to the New Testament. This admits of being more briefly treated. It has been seen that a Christian New Testament did not, in the strict sense, arise till after the middle of the 2nd century. Gospels and Epistles had long existed, collections had begun to be made, the Gospels, at least, were weekly read in the assemblies of the Christians (Justin, 1 Apol ., 67), before the attempt was made to bring together, and take formal account of, all the books which enjoyed apostolic authority (see
(1) Acknowledged Books
The "acknowledged" books present little difficulty. They are enumerated by Eusebius, whose statements are confirmed by early lists (e.g. that of Muratori, circa 170 ad), quotations, versions and patristic use. At the head stand the Four Gospels and the Acts, then come the 13 epistles of Paul, then 1 Peter and 1 John. These, Westcott says, toward the close of the 2nd century, "were universally received in every church, without doubt or limitation, as part of the written rule of Christian faith, equal in authority with the Old Scriptures, and ratified (as it seemed) by a tradition reaching back to the date of their composition" (op. cit., 133). With them may almost be placed Revelation (as by Eusebius) and He, the doubts regarding the latter relating more to Pauline authority than to genuineness (e.g. Origen).
(2) Disputed Books
The "disputed" books were the epistles of James, Jude, 2 John and 3 John and 2 Peter. These, however, do not all stand in the same rank as regards authentication. A chief difficulty is the silence of the western Fathers regarding James, 2 Peter and 3 John. On the other hand, James is known to Origen and is included in the Syriac Peshitta; the Muratorian Fragment attests Jude and 2 John as "held in the Catholic church" (Jude also in Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen); none of the books are treated as spurious. The weakest in attestation is 2 Pet, which is not distinctly traceable before the 3rd century (See
The complete acceptance of all the books in our present New Testament canon may be dated from the Councils of Laodicea (circa 363 ad) and of Carthage (397 ad), confirming the lists of Cyril of Jerusalem, Jerome and Augustine.
IV. Literary Growth and Origin - C anonicity
Thus far the books of the Old Testament and New Testament have been taken simply as given, and no attempt has been made to inquire how or when they were written or compiled, or how they came to acquire the dignity and authority implied in their reception into a sacred canon. The field here entered is one bristling with controversy, and it is necessary to choose one's steps with caution to find a safe way through it. Details in the survey are left, as before, to the special articles.
1. The Old Testament
Attention here is naturally directed, first, to the Old Testament. This, it is obvious, and is on all sides admitted, has a long literary history prior to its final settlement in a canon. As to the course of that history traditional and modern critical views very widely differ. It may possibly turn out that the truth lies somewhere midway between them.
(1) Indications of Old Testament Itself
If the indications furnished by the Old Testament itself be accepted, the results are something like the following:
(A) Patriarchal Age
No mention is made of writing in the patriarchal age, though it is now known that a high literary culture then prevailed in Babylonia, Egypt and Palestine, and it is not improbable, indeed seems likely, that records in some form came down from that age, and are, in parts, incorporated in the early history of the Bible.
(B) Mosaic Age
In Mosaic times writing was in use, and Moses himself was trained in the learning of the Egyptians (Exodus 2:10; Acts 7:22 ). In no place is the composition of the whole Pentateuch (as traditionally believed) ascribed to Moses, but no inconsiderable amount of written matter is directly attributed to him, creating the presumption that there was more, even when the fact is not stated. Moses wrote "all the words of Yahweh" in the "book of the covenant" (Ex 21 through 23; Exodus 24:4 , Exodus 24:7 ). He wrote "the words of this law" of Deuteronomy at Moab, "in a book, until they were finished" (Deuteronomy 31:9 , Deuteronomy 31:24 , Deuteronomy 31:26 ). This was given to the priests to be put by the side of the ark for preservation (Deuteronomy 31:25 , Deuteronomy 31:26 ). Other notices occur of the writing of Moses (Exodus 17:14; Numbers 33:2; Deuteronomy 31:19 , Deuteronomy 31:22; compare Numbers 11:26 ). The song of Miriam, and the snatches of song in Nu 21, the first (perhaps all) quoted from the "book of the Wars of Yahweh" (Numbers 21:14 ), plainly belong to Mosaic times. In this connection it should be noticed that the discourses and law of Dt imply the history and legislation of the critical
(C) Judges
The song of Deborah (Jdg 5) is an indubitably authentic monument of the age of the Judges, and the older parts of Jgs, at least, must have been nearly contemporary with the events which they record. A knowledge of writing among the common people seems implied in Judges 8:14 (American Revised Version, margin). Samuel, like Joshua, wrote "in a book" ( 1 Samuel 10:25 ), and laid it up, evidently among other writings, "before Yahweh."
(D) Monarchy
The age of David and Solomon was one of high development in poetical and historical composition: witness the elegies of David (2 Samuel 1:17; 2 Samuel 3:33 , 2 Samuel 3:34 ), and the finely-finished narrative of David's reign (2 Sam 9 through 20), the so-called "Jerusalem-Source," admitted to date "from a period very little later than that of the events related" (Driver, LOT , 183). There were court scribes and chroniclers.
David and the Monarchy: David, as befits his piety and poetical and musical gifts (compare on this POT , 440ff), is credited with laying the foundations of a sacred psalmody (2 Samuel 23:1; see
(E) Wisdom Literature
Solomon is renowned as founder of the Wisdom literature and the author of Proverbs (1 Kings 4:32; Proverbs 1:1; Proverbs 10:1; Ecclesiastes 12:9; Eccl itself appears to be late), and of the Song (Song of Solomon 1:1 ). The "men of Hezekiah" are said to have copied put a collection of his proverbs (Proverbs 25:1; see
(F) Prophecy
(i) Assyrian Age
With the rise of written prophecy a new form of literature enters, called forth by, and vividly mirroring, the religious and political conditions of the closing periods of the monarchy in Israel and Judah (see
(ii) Chaldean Age
The prophets Zephaniah (under Josiah, circa 630 bc) and Habakkuk (circa 606) may be regarded as forming the transition to the next - the Chaldean - period. The Chaldeans (unnamed in Zephaniah) are advancing but are not yet come (Habakkuk 1:6 ). The great prophetic figure here, however, is Jeremiah, whose sorrowful ministry, beginning in the 13th year of Josiah (626 bc), extended through the succeeding reigns till after the fall of Jerusalem (586 bc). The prophet elected to remain with the remnant in the land, and shortly after, troubles having arisen, was forcibly carried into Egypt (Jeremiah 43:1-13 ). Here also he prophesied (Jeremiah 43:1-13; 44). From the reign of Jehoiakim, Jeremiah consistently declared the success of the Chaldean arms, and foretold the 70 years' captivity (Jeremiah 25:12-14 ). Baruch acted as his secretary in writing out and editing his prophecies (Jer 36; Jeremiah 45:1-5 ).
(G) Josiah's Reformation
A highly important event in this period was Josiah's reformation in his 18th year (621 bc), and the discovery, during repairs of the temple, of "the book of the law," called also "the book of the covenant" and "the law of Moses" (2 Kings 22:8; 2 Kings 23:2 , 2 Kings 23:24 , 2 Kings 23:25 ). The finding of this book, identified by most authorities with the Book of Deuteronomy, produced an extraordinary sensation. On no side was there the least question that it was a genuine ancient work. Jeremiah, strangely, makes no allusion to this discovery, but his prophecies are deeply saturated with the ideas and style of Deuteronomy.
(H) Exilian and Post-Exilian
The bulk of Isa 40 through 66 belongs, at least in spirit, to the Exile, but the one prophet of the Exile known to us by name is the priestly Ezekiel. Carried captive under Jehoiachin (597 bc), Ezekiel labored among his fellow-exiles for at least 22 years (Ezekiel 1:2; Ezekiel 29:17 ). A man of the strongest moral courage, his symbolic visions on the banks of the Chebar alternated with the most direct expostulation, exhortation, warning and promise. In the description of an ideal temple and its worship with which his book closes (chapters 40 through 48), critics think they discern the suggestion of the Levitical code.
(I) Daniel, Etc
After Ezekiel the voice of prophecy is silent till it revives in Daniel, in Babylon, under Nebuchadnezzar and his successors. Deported in 605 bc, Daniel rose to power, and "continued" until the 1st year of Cyrus (536 bc; Daniel 1:21 ). Criticism will have it that his prophecies are product of the Maccabean age, but powerful considerations on the other side are ignored (see DANIEL ). Jonah may have been written about this time, though the prophet's mission itself was pre-Assyrian (9th century). The rebuilding of the temple after the return, under Zerubbabel, furnished the occasion for the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah (520 bc). Scholars are disposed to regard only Zec 1 through 8 as belonging to this period - the remainder being placed earlier or later. Malachi, nearly century after (circa 430), brings up the rear of prophecy, rebuking unfaithfulness, and predicting the advent of the "messenger of the covenant" (Malachi 3:1 , Malachi 3:2 ). To this period, or later, belong, besides post-exilian psalms (e.g. Psalm 124:1-8; Psalm 126:1-6 ), the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronciles, Esther and apparently Ecclesiastes.
(J) Preëxilic Bible
If, in this rapid sketch, the facts are correctly represented, it will be apparent that, in opposition to prevalent views, large body of sacred literature existed (laws, histories, psalms, wisdom-books, prophecies), and was recognized long before the Exile. God's ancient people had "Scriptures" - had a Bible - if not yet in collected form. This is strikingly borne out by the numerous Old Testament passages referring to what appears to be a code of sacred writings in the hands of the pious in Israel. Such are the references to, and praises of, the "law" and "word" of God in many of the Psalms (e.g. 1; 19; 119; Psalm 12:6; Psalm 17:4; Psalm 18:21 , Psalm 18:22 ), with the references to God's known "words," "ways," "commandments," "statutes," in other books of the Old Testament (Job 8:8; Hosea 8:12; Daniel 9:2 ). In brief, Scriptures, which must have contained records of God's dealings with His people, a knowledge of which is constantly presupposed, "laws" of God for the regulation of the heart and conduct, "statutes," "ordinances," "words" of God, are postulate of a great part of the Old Testament.
(2) Critical Views
The account of the origin and growth of the Old Testament above presented is in marked contrast with that given in the textbooks of the newer critical schools . The main features of these critical views are sketched in the article
(A) The Pentateuch
Our present Pentateuch (enlarged to a "Hexateuch," including Josh) consists of 4 main strands (themselves composite), the oldest of which (called Jahwist (Jahwist), from its use of the name Yahweh) goes back to about 850 bc. This was Judean. A parallel history book (called E, from its use of the name Elohim, God) was produced in the Northern kingdom about a century later (circa 750). Later still these two were united (JE). These histories, "prophetic" in spirit, were originally attributed to individual authors, distinguished by minute criteria of style: the more recent fashion is to regard them as the work of "schools." Hitherto the only laws known were those of the (post-Mosaic) Book of the Covenant (Ex 20 through 23). Later, in Josiah's reign, the desire for centralization of worship led to the composition of the Book of Deuteronomy. This, secreted in the temple, was found by Hilkiah (2 Ki 22), and brought about the reformation of Josiah formerly mentioned. Deuteronomy (D), Thus produced, is the third stra nd in the Pentateuchal compilation. With the destruction of the city and temple, under the impulse of Ezekiel, began a new period of law-construction, now priestly in spirit. Old laws and usages were codified; new laws were invented; the history of institutions was recast; finally, the extensive complex of Levitical legislation was brought into being, clothed with a wilderness dress, and ascribed to Moses. This elaborate Priestly Code (PC), with its accompanying history, was brought from Babylon by Ezra, and, united with the already existing
(B) Histories
In its theory of the Pentateuch the newer criticism lays down the determinative positions for its criticism of all the remaining books of the Old Testament. The historical books show but a continuation of the processes of literary construction exemplified in the books ascribed to Moses. The Deuteronomic element, e.g. in Josh, Jgs, 1, 2 Sam, 1, 2 Ki, proves them, in these parts, to be later than Josiah, and historically untrustworthy. The Levitical element in 1, 2 Ch demonstrates its pictures of David and his successors to be distorted and false. The same canon applies to the prophets. Joel, e.g. must be post-exilian, because it presupposes the priestly law. The patriarchal and Mosaic histories being subverted, it is not permitted to assume any high religious ideas in early Israel. David, therefore, could not have written the Psalms. Most, if not practically all, of these are post-exilian.
(C) Psalms and Prophets
Monotheism came in - at least first obtained recognition - through Amos and Hosea. The prophets could not have the foresight and far-reaching hopes seen in their writings: these passages, therefore, must be removed. Generally the tendency is to put dates as low as possible and very many books, regarded before as preexilian, are carried down in whole or part, to exilian, post-exilian, and even late Greek times (Priestly Code, Psalter, Job, Proverbs, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, Second Isaiah, Joel, Lamentations). Daniel is Maccabean and unhistorical (circa 168-167 bc).
It is not proposed here to discuss this theory, which is not accepted in the present article, and is considered elsewhere (see
(3) Formation of the Canon
The general lines of the completed Jewish canon have already been sketched, and some light has now been thrown on the process by which the several books obtained a sacred authority. As to the actual stages in the formation of the canon opinions again widely diverge (see CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT ).
(A) Critical Theory
On theory at present in favor, no collections of sacred books were made prior to the return from Babylon. The only books that had authority before the Exile were, perhaps, the old Book of the Covenant, and, from Josiah's time, the Book of Deuteronomy. Both, after the return, were, on this theory, embodied, with the
(B) More Positive View
It will appear from the foregoing that this theory is not here accepted without considerable modification. If the question be asked, What constituted a right to a place in the canon? the answer can hardly be other than that suggested by Josephus in the passage formerly quoted - a real or supposed inspiration in the author of the book. Books were received if men had the prophetic spirit (in higher or lower degree: that, e.g. of wisdom); they ceased to be received when the succession of prophets was thought to fail (after Malachi). In any case the writings of truly inspired men (Moses, the prophets, psalmists) were accepted as of authority. It was sought, however, to be shown above, that such books, many of them, already existed from Moses down, long before the Exile (the law, collections of psalms, of proverbs, written prophecies: to what end did the prophets write, if they did not mean their prophecies to be circulated and preserved?); and such writings, to the godly who knew and used them, had the full value of Scripture. A canon began with the first laying up of the "book of the law" before Yahweh (Deuteronomy 31:25 , Deuteronomy 31:26; Joshua 24:26 ). The age of Ezra and Nehemiah, therefore, is not that of the beginning, but, as Jewish tradition rightly held (Josephus; 2 Macc 2:13; Talmud), rather that of the completion, systematic delimitation, acknowledgment and formal close of the canon. The divisions of "law, prophets, and holy writings" would Thus have their place from the beginning, and be nearly contemporaneous. The Samaritans accepted only the 5 books of the law, with apparently Joshua (see
(C) Close of Canon
There is no need for dogmatism as to an absolute date for the close of the canon. If inspired voices continued to be heard, their utterances were entitled to recognition. Books duly authenticated might be added, but the non-inclusion of such as a book as Sirach (Ecclesiasticus: in Hebrew, circa 200 bc) shows that the limits of the canon were jealously guarded, and the onus of proof rests on those who affirm that there were such books. Calvin, e.g. held that there were Maccabean Psalms. Many modern scholars do the same, but it is doubtful if they are right. Ecclesiastes is thought on linguistic grounds to be late, but it and other books need not be so late as critics make them. Daniel is confidently declared to be Maccabean, but there are weighty reasons for maintaining a Persian date (see DANIEL ). As formerly noticed, the threefold division into "the law, the prophets, and the rest (
2. The New Testament
Critical controversy, long occupied with the Old Testament, has again keenly attached itself to the New Testament, with similar disturbing results (see
(1) Historical Books
The main facts about the origin of the Gospels can perhaps be distinguished from the complicated literary theories which scholars are still discussing (see
(A) The Synoptics
The former - the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) - fall in date well within the apostolic age, and are, in the 2nd century, uniformly connected with the authors whose names they bear, Mark is spoken of as "the interpreter of Peter" (Papias, in HE iii.39); Luke is the well-known companion of Paul. A difficulty arises about Matthew, whose Gospel is stated to have been written in Aramaic (Papias, ut supra, etc.), while the gospel bearing his name is in Greek. The Greek gospel seems at least to have been sufficiently identified with the apostle to admit of the early church always treating it as his.
The older theory of origin assumed an oral basis for all 3 Gospels. The tendency in recent criticism is to distinguish two main sources: (1) Mk, the earliest gospel, a record of the preaching of Peter; (2) a collection of the sayings and discourses of Jesus, attributed to Matthew (the Eusebian Logia , now called Q); with (3) a source used by Luke in the sections peculiar to himself - the result of his own investigations (Luke 1:1-4 ). Mt and Lk are supposed to be based on Mk and the Logia (Q); in Luke's case with the addition of his special material. Oral tradition furnished what remains. A simpler theory may be to substitute for (1) a Petrine tradition already firmly fixed while yet the apostles were working together in Jerusalem. Peter, as foremost spokesman, would naturally stamp his own type upon the oral narratives of Christ's sayings and doings (the Mark type), while Matthew's stories, in part written, would be the chief source for the longer discourses. The instruction imparted by the apostles and those taught by them would everywhere be made the basis of careful catechetical teaching, and records of all this, more or less fragmentary, would be early in circulation (Luke 1:1-4 ). This would explain the Petrine type of narrative, and the seeming dependence of Matthew and Luke, without the necessity of supposing a direct use of Mark. So important a gospel could hardly be included in the "attempts" of Luke 1:1 .
(B) Fourth Gospel
The Fourth Gospel (Jn), the genuineness of which is assumed (see
(C) Acts
The Acts narrates the origin and early fortunes of the church, with, as its special motive (compare Acts 1:8 ), the extension of the gospel to the Gentiles through the labors of Paul. Its author is Luke, Paul's companion, whose gospel it continues (Acts 1:1 ). Certain sections - the so-called "we-sections" (Luke 16:10-17; Luke 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1 through 28:16) - are transcribed directly from Luke's journal of Paul's travels. The book closes abruptly with Paul's 2 years' imprisonment at Rome (Acts 28:30 , Acts 28:31; 60-61 ad), and not a hint is given of the issue of the imprisonment - trial, liberation or death. Does this mean that a 3rd "treatise" was contemplated? Or that the book was written while the imprisonment still continued? (Thus now Harnack). If the latter, the Third Gospel must be very early.
(2) The Epistles
(A) Pauline
Doubt never rested in the early church on the 13 epistles of Paul. Following upon the rejection by the "Tübingen" school of all the epistles but 4 (Rom, 1, 2 Cor, Gal), the tide of opinion has again turned strongly in favor of their genuineness. An exception is the Pastoral epistles (1, 2 Tim, Tit), still questioned by some on insufficient grounds (see
The earliest epistles, in point of date, are generally held to be those to the Thessalonians, written from Corinth (52, 53 ad). The church, newly-founded, had passed through much affliction (1 Thessalonians 1:6; 1 Thessalonians 2:14; 1 Thessalonians 3:3 , 1 Thessalonians 3:4 , etc.), and Paul writes to comfort and exhort it. His words about the Second Coming (1 Thessalonians 4:13 ) led to mistaken expectations and some disorders. His second epistle was written to correct these problems (2 Thessalonians 2:1-3; 2 Thessalonians 3:6 , etc.).
Corinth itself received the next epistles - the 1st called forth by reports received at Ephesus of grave divisions and irregularities 1 Cor (
These files are public domain and were generously provided by the folks at WordSearch Software.
