Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 5.djvu/20

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.
10
CANON

canon was simultaneous. The circumstances in which the collection originated were unfavourable 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 organisation 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 be there and in the Ignatian epistles, its established use is due to Irenaeus, Tertullian,

and Cyprian.

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 ; and 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 New Testament collection. He was also guided by the inspiration of the authors, a criterion arbitrary in its application, as his own 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. 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 v/ho give a list of the Jewish books evince an inclination to the Christian and enlarged canon. So Origen says, in his Epistle to Afri- camis, that " the churches use Tobit." In explaining the prophet Isaiah, Jerome employs Sirach vi. 6, in proof of his view, remarking that the apocryphal work is in the Christian catalogue. In like manner Epiphanius, in a pas sage against Aetius, after referring to the books of Scrip ture, 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 the canon of the Jews historically, and excludes the apocryphal Greek books ; but 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 more favourable 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 opinion 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.


The Canon from the Fourth Century.


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 aud then in the Latin.


The Council of Laodicea, at which there was a predominant semi- Arian influence, forbade 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, <md fourteen of Paul, including that to the Hebrews. The Apoca lypse alone is wanting. Credner has proved that this 60th canon is not original. It is of much later date.[1] The Council was held in the year 363 A.D. 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 from the captivity, those of Job, Solomon, the sixteen prophets, and the Psalms of David, our Acts, the epistles of Paul, and the four gospels are mentioned. It is remarkable that the catholic epistles are not mentioned. 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.[2]

Cyril of Jerusalem, who took part in the Council of Laodicea, and died 386 A.D., gives a list of "the divine Scriptures." The books of the Old Testament are twenty-two, and the arrangement is usually that which is in the English Bible. With Jeremiah are 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" writ ings into the- class of the "generally received."[3] The writer insists on the necessity of unity in the Church upon the subject, and forbids the reading of writings not generally received. Yet he refers to Baruch (iii. 36-38) as " the prophet" ; and in adducing the tes timonies of the prophets for the existence of the Holy Spirit, the last is Daniel xiii. 41, 45.

In Athanasius s festal epistle (365) the Alexandrian arch bishop undertakes " to set forth in order the books that are cano nical and handed down and believed to be divine." His list of the Old Testament nearly agrees with Cyril s, except that Esther is 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 Solo mon 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 men tion of apocryphal writings," &c. The New Testament list is the same as Cyril s, with the addition of the Apocalypse.[4] He quotes several of the apocryphal books in the same way as he does the




  1. Geschichte dcs neutest. Kanon, p. 217, &c.
  2. See Constit. Apostol., p. 67, ed. Ueltzen.
  3. Catech., iv. 22, pp. 66, 67, ed. Milles.
  4. Athanasii Opp. ed. Benedict, i. 2, pp. 962, 963.