'a.e no n.ce to be disposed of by a gen-l^appeal
answered by the q--^",?'"'-" ^,,'=^,feu, [^ the n ' God made tlie rocks, He nuide the *' ells in v
Ki, tat .A fc>i'~" »;,,?",;•'. ^S 5
•■"'Ts. 1.'". r.sr£.'';..!. ^- v«
wa^iBdependently developed Vl-^'''''^" h Praf
ffi'Ilisis ..r,w .1.™ to «;. '.£«/2°J
le^ibiaMou Vaftfi iraDossible
the
)een khowu cm" ^^^^- — . .*i,„t
Winning. It seemed t« Vat^e impossible that
awhoTeSation should suddenly sink from a high
ttle of religious development to a lower one as
s asserted to have been fo o.f ten, the case m^he
kno^-n or non-existent. Again, when t'le Uiree Known " examined, each was
Prfvenant (Ex "O-iS), while the most complex and Sre presumably tbe latest, was that of t.^
^-?.^exc^r^^s:^Ss^^
St^Uf:^?!ri%roL^\t^r- -i: i-^^^^^^^^^ each ts memorial deposit of legislation, w-as due t^ the prophets, who, V "'ew impassioned appeals ^„d denunciations of abuses, -ere the means o
s&:t^rrc'i^:^trSrS^
not the antecedent, of the P'-0Pj'«t\'= <"i?^ir,f7„'e^ To separafe the law trom the history was the with tlie verdict pronounced "P°° the tlieory by
sr.t^Tt''srn^gtrrofthe\X^'|B ^ iS^rss^Sb^^a^t's^^^^i
SS^iij^iSiSSt^'^tS^^^
to\ts case that the ancient histoncal>ooks have 't^en edtted from a Deuteronomistic point of view The followin, chronologic., sohem^o. OT U«-ture {ouode,!
'''S-ih i!^i.o.'tontofsLlllm: source. incorporated in Judges and Samuel: J and L 746-7S4 ; Zechariah
R^t'SrN^lhuiS-CeO^oT/l'le^^aniah (earUer year, 0. Josiah,
Woverbs (partly before and ,»rtl> after the ) . ^^^ ^^
l},rl^TaVd>yn'^rE"vUe"^Sl;^!r«-t.a,;W^i(620se<,,.); Zechariah (chaps. 1-8, MO seqq). . . 7,ecn2-14); Malachl
(p^ssr-ahijit'^r =;^i^-"^-^^^ *-
^^^'jc'^r^E^li-.^Jefog^Uert^^^
rule., ending 332) ^ Esther (ear^J^rs,^;';^^.^,^^^^^^.,^ j„
Prn! ffr^ (sho'r^fy ^^'t^VotST^^^'t these pe^^??n'cluSrnre'ven\^h\rSh':TV^^^^^^^
later ones (ex. and post-ex.)
ii NT Canon.--Vhe Jewish Scriptures became *!, K nf the earlv Christian Church. Kound
was ultimately ascribed But as in u^
OT the process was gradual. There w M cm y
no deliberate intention on the part of NT ^ite ,^
^^«Sesj;t^^^^-^e^S such thought arising. Jha^ ^ l^no
ri^lTeln ' Keen^crracreri e"l by Westc.tt tional leuin "'^^ . j overwhelming dignitv.
^,;w;i^i'::ry.a.t,yc.ued^^^
authority^ In order of <^°™V»Jlt'°" „the f p.sUes to a.ssume a fixed t^»''^'"on.u ^^^
jKr=«'S"iWSS=^*"''"'
BIBLE
BIBLE
291
that the end of the world was near, would also tend to discourage any etlort of this kind. With the extension of the Church, the rising doubts as to the impending catastrophe, and the removal of the apostles, the need for a permanent record ■would be felt and supplied. That small collec- tions of memorabilia, notes of apostolic preaching, were made and circulated we know on the testi- mony of St. Luke, whose object is expressly declared to be the displacement of tliese by a more trust- worthy account (Lk l'*-)- Meanwhile the ai)osllos had supideniented their personal activity by epis- tolary communications, and tlius the material for a new (Christian) Canon was accumulated. It is probable that all the books composing our NT were written by the end of the 1st cent, of our era. This, indeed, is generally acknowledged, except where, as in the case of Baurand the early Tiibingen school, a speculative reconstruction of early Church History necessitates the ascription of later dates to certain of the books. The recognition, however, of NT books by the Church as of apostolic author- ship and authority was a matter of much longer time. It is not until the 4th cent, that all the books of the present Canon are found included in any list. The Didachi, or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, an early treatise, the MS of which was discovered so recently as 1873, makes it clear that in the quarter whence it emanated in the end of the 1st or beginning of the 2nd cent, only a few of them were known. It was only to be expected, however, that certain books, or small collections of books, should be known and received within comparatively limited areas, from which they grauuallv passed into the use of the Church at large. Though there was no formal attempt to create a Canon, and for long no formal decree authorising it, a certain Christian wisdom and discretion is seen at work in the acknowledgment of writings both individually and collectively. The criterion was from the Rrst apostolicity, immediate, or all but immediate, connexion with the ai^stles. Only those Iraoks were admitted which could be regarded as the most faithful records of the work of Christ and His ajiostles, and as the suitable foundation of Christian preaching. The need which was so soon felt, of^ exhibiting the truths characteristic of Christianity in op[)osition to the paganising mysticisms of the gnostics and the fanatical develojiments of Montanism, hastened the process, by driving men to the study of the primi- tive re<^oras of the faith. Kor this purpose the oral teaching, which still continueil, was insulhcient, as gnosticism itself appealed to the written records. These accordingly ceased to be regarded as mere private and occasional writings ; they became more than l>ook8 which might be publicly read for edification ; they were the recognised arbiters in a great doctrinal contest ; to them both siiles appealed, and the foundations of NT were laid.
The chief sources for the histori' of NT Canon in the period of Its formation are the Christian writers, e«p. tiiose who took ]»art In the ffreat controversies with heretics (ivirinij the 2nd and :ird centuries, the fraj.Tnents of the iieretical writing's tlieniselves, the ancient versions, and snndr>' lists of reco[;nihcd Imoks wtiich have come down to us. Westrnlt (Canon Q^ thf .Vy) divides the history of this neriwl as follows : — I. a.d. 70-170, durinir which time, though tne eviden<;e ailducible is fm^ientarv, it is of wide ranffo, direct, unifonn, and comprehensive ; a margin still remalneffof twoks whoso authority wiis riisputed or at least un- ncognlsed, and the idea of a Canon was implied rather than expressed. Its ' formation ' may have been gradual, but it was certainly undisturbed. It wiw a growth and not a series of contests. II. A.D. 170-.S0.?, during which the available evidence Is largely augment«d and the consciousness of a collection of ■ftcrcii tsK>ks i)eoomes more <listinct. Still its work is • to con- ■tnic-t and not to define,' the age 'was an age of research and thought, but at the same time it was an age of free<iom.' * Even controversy failed to create a spirit of liistorical inquiry,' anrl thus the evidence gathered from writers of the SnI cent. * differs from that of earlier date in fulness rather than in kind.' III. A.n. 3113-397, during whii* the Canon formed the >-nl.)ect of deliberation and decree at great Councils of the Chiin;b, at