canonical. Thus he cites Tobit xii. 7 with "as it is written,"[1] and Sirach xxx. 4 with as sacred Scripture somewhere says. "[2] Elsewhere he applies to the latter (ii. 33) "the divine Spirit says ;"[3] and Daniel xiii. 45 is cited under the name of "the Scripture."[4] Canonical and apocryphal are mentioned together, and similar language applied to them.
Gregory of Nazianzus (t 389) puts his list into a poetical form. In the Old Testament it agrees with Athanasius s exactly, only he mentions none but the canonical books ; in the New, he leaves out the Apocalypse, and so deviates from Athanasius.[5]
Atnphilochius of Icouium (f 395) gives a long catalogue of the Biblical books in verse. 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 doubts that existed as to the epistle to the Hebrews, and to the number of the catholic epistles (seven or three).[6] The concluding words show that no list was universally received at that time.
Epiphanius (t 403) 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 of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, Wisdom and Sirach are mentioned as "divine writings;" elsewhere they are characterized as doubtful."[7] His practice shows his sentiments clearly enough, when ho refers to the Book of Wisdom in such phrases as "Scripture," "as Solomon the most blessed of the pro phets says;"[8] and cites Sirach (vii. 1) as well as Baruch as "Scrip ture."[9] He mentions the fact that the epistles of Clemens Ro- manus were read in the churches.[10]
Didymua of Alexandria (f 392) speaks against 2 Peter that it is not in the canons.[11]
Chrysostom (f 407) does not speak of the canon ; but in the New Testament he never quotes the four last catholic epistles or the Apocalypse. All the other parts he uses throughout his numerous works.[12]
Theodore of Mopsuestia (t 428) was much freer than his con temporaries in dealing with the books of Scripture. It seems that he rejected Job, Canticles, Chronicles, and the Psalm-inscrip tions in the New Testament, the epistle of James, and others of the catholic ones. But Loontius s account of his opinions cannot be adopted without suspicion.[13]
The catalogues of the Old Testament contained in the manu- Bcripts-B, C, and S 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 Testa ment books in B is like that of Athanasius. Imperfect at the end, it must have had at first the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and the Apocalypse. C (cod. Ephraemi rescriptus) has fragments of the New Testament, which show that it had originally all the present books in the same order as Athanasius s. X or the Sinaitic manuscript has in addition to the New Testament the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hernias. 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 ecclesi astical 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 ; 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 con sisted of writings settled or determined by ecclesiastical law.[14] Such was the idea added to the original acceptation of canon. To canonical were opposed apocryphal writings, i.e., heretical and fabri cated ones ; Avhile 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 additions in the Septuagint to the class "publicly read."[15] 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. 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. Augustine (f 430) gave great attention to the subject, labouring to establish a com plete 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 of the churches and the weightier should be preferred to those received by the fewer and less important churches.[16] 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 numbered among the prophets, as deserving of authority and having a certain likeness to Solomon s writings. He says of the Maccabees that this "Scripture has been received by the Church not uselessly, if it be read or heard soberly. "[17] The famous passage in the treatise on Christian, doctrine, where Augustine enumerates the whole canon, is qualified by no other ; for though he knew 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 considered 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 Scrip tures. 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 SG 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.[18] He speaks hesitatingly in various places about its Pauline authorship.
In 393 the African bishops held a council at Hippo, where the canon was discussed. The list of the canonical Scriptures 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.[19] The Council of Carthage (397) repeated the statute of its predecessor, enumerating the same books of the Bible as canonical.[20] Augustine was the animating spirit of both councils, so that they may be taken as expressing his views on the subject.
Jerome( 1 420) 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.[21] But though Jerome s words imply the apocryphal posi tion 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,[22] 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 favourable manner than that of the Froloyus 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 comes between cita tions from Matthew and Luke with the phrase " as it is written ; " and xi. 30 has "holy Scripture" applied to it. Ruth, Esther, and 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 ail that now belong 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 pre sent custom. His opinion about them was not decided.[23] In another work he gives the Epistle of Barnabas at the end of the canonical
- ↑ ii. 1, p. 305.
- ↑ i. 1, p. 183.
- ↑ ii. p. 283.
- ↑ ii. p. 9.
- ↑ Gregorii Nazianzeni Opp. ed. Migiie, vol. iii. pp. 473, 474.
- ↑ Jambi ad Seleucum, in Greg. Naz. Opp. ii. p. 194.
- ↑ ap.(f>ifKTa. Adv. Ilceres., i. p. 19. See Ilceres., iii. torn, i; p. 941. De ponder, et mensur. 23.
- ↑ Tom. i. pp. 573, 607, 713, ed. Petav.
- ↑ Pp. 481, 755.
- ↑ Hceres. xxx. 15.
- ↑ Enarrat. in Ep. S. Petri Secundam, p. 1774, ed. Migne.
- ↑ See Montfaucon in his edition of Chrysostom s Works, vol. vi. pp. 364, 365, ed. Paris, 1835.
- ↑ See Leontius Byzantinus contra Nestorianos et Eutychianos, lib. Iii. in Gallandi Bibliotheca, xii. p. 690. Comp. Fritzsche De Theodori Mopsuest. vita et scriptis, Halse, 1836.
- ↑ &if3la Kavovi^Aufva, KavoviKii, KfKa.vovifffj.eva, upiffUfva,
- ↑ $ip(a. a.vayiPaiKO/j.eva
- ↑ De Doctrina Christiana, ii. 8.
- ↑ Contra Gaudent. i. 38 ; Opp. Paris, 1837, vol. ix. p. 1006.
- ↑ De peccat. merit, i. 50 ; Opp. vol. x. p. 137, ed. Migne.
- ↑ Mansi, torn. iii. p. 924.
- ↑ Ibid. p. 891.
- ↑ Prologiis galeatus in Libros Regum ; Epist. ad Paulinwm.
- ↑ In Herbst s Einleit., erster Theil, p. 37.
- ↑ Ep. ad Dardan.; Opp. vol. i. p. 1103, ed. Migne.
