one of wliich, the third Council of Carthage, held in the yeai 397, the books of NT recognised 'are exactly those which arc generally received at present.*
Some of the chief points of this development can alone be indicated here ; further information will be found in the special article (New Testa ■ MENT Canon). Justin Martyr, the apologist about A.D. 150, records the fact that certain apostolic writin"s were read along witli the projihets on the Lord's Day in the churches both in city and country. Among these writings he especially refers to what he calls ' The Memoirs of the Apostles,' which almost without doubt were the Canonical Gospels. He refers to the Apocalypse l)y name, and evinces an acquaintance with several of St. Paul's Ejiistles. The list known as the Muratorian Fra<jment, from Muratori, who pub- lished it at Milan in 1740, whidi probably repre- sents the view of the Koman Cliurch towards the end of the 2nd cent., refers to the Gospels, to the Acts as the work of St. Luke, enumerates 13 Epp of St. Paul, acknowledges St. Jude, 2 Ei)p. of St. John (probably the 2nd and 3rd), and the Ajioc. The fragment is somewhat mutilated, and in this way the incompleteness of its reference to the Gospels, and its omi.ssion of I P and 1 Jn are possibly to be accounted for. It adds the Apoc. of St. Peter, though with an indication of doulit, and expressly excludes two Epistles which had been circulated under St. Paul's name — one to the Laodicu-ans, and the other to the Alexandrians. The Pesliitta or Syriac Version of NT was the B. of the Syrian Christians of a period not later than the end of the 2nd cent. It included all the books of our Canon except 2 and 3 Jn, 2 P, Judo, and Rev. The old Lat. Version, also of tlie 2nd cent., omitted only He, Ja, and 2 P. The heretic Marcion, about the middle of the same cent., com- posed a Canon of his own in accordance with his peculiar views. This embraced the greater part of the Pauline Epp. and a modification of St. Luke. Tatian's Dintessaron, or 'Harmony of the Four Gospels,' which, as has recently benn con- clusively proved, were the tour CJospels of our Canon, not only testities to the existence of these, but signalises by this treatment of them their peculiar position and authority, which was similarly emphasized a little later by the fanciful analogy by which Irena-us sought to show that there could be only four Gospels. By A.D. 250 we have the evidence of Irenwus as representing the iliiirches in Gaul, Clement of Alexandria and Origen representing the Egyptian churches, and Tertullian representing the churches of North Africa, practically concurring in their testimony to the contents of that body of Scripture which, with increasing distinctness, was taking its place as the authoritative Canon. Doubt still aflected only Ja, 2 P, 2 and 3 Jn, and Kev, while Hebrews was in the clmrches of Koine and Africa not recognised as Paulino. Eusebius in his Ecdes. History, comjiosed about A.D. 325, gives valuable information anil testimony as to the state of the question in his time. He ilistinguishes the hooks which claimed to be .authoritative as Homo- lofjoumrnri, or universally acknowledged books ; Anti/i;r/omena, or disputed books; ana Nothn, or sjiurious books. The Antilcgoiiiena included Ja, Jude, 2 P, 2 and 3 Jn, also Hebrews and Rev. Eusebius hazards the opinicm that Hebrews may be a (ireek tr. of a Heb. Pauline original. St. Jerome, towards the close of the 4th cent., gives much the same account of the state of opinion in his time, while he himself accepts all the books of our present Canon. St. Augustine likewise accepts the Canon in itsjiresent form, and was present nt thiit Council of ( artlmge {,'i97) at which, as already stated, ecclesiastical sanction was given to it. Tt
•292
BIBLE
BIBLE
must be admitted that this conclusion was reached ratlicr on popular and consuetudinary than critical grounds, and it is no matter for surprise that the
Question of cajionicity was reopened at the Re- bnnation, and again within the last half century. Nothing, however, has been proved w'hich affects the claim of the large majority of NT books, and those of chief interest and value, to be the record of the faith once delivered to the saints. The wisdom with which, on the whole, the line has been drawn is only made more apparent on a con- sideration of those books, such as the Epp. of Clement, the Ep. of Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas, which long maintained a position on the very borders of Scripture, and are given at the (lonclusion of NT in certain very ancient MSS. It only remains to mention the lar^e number of apocryphal Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypses (the "Sot/ia of Eusebius), of which some, as the Gospel of Nicodemus, the Acts of Paul and Thekla, have long been known, while of others, as the Gospel and Apocalypse of St. Peter, fragments have only recently (1886) been discovered.
V. Text. — i. Hebrew. — Until the invention of printing, in the 15th cent., the only mode of trans- mitting ancient books was by ths slow and labori- ous method of copying one MS from another. Hand-copying, like typography itself, is subject to special tendencies to error. Since any mistake may be confined to a single MS, though almost certain to be continued in any copies made from it, it is obvious that the work of tracing out the original text by a comparison of MSS is a difficult ana delicate one. It forms the subject of a special study, called Textual Criticism, and demands no little ability, patience, and tact. For many centuries the rolls WTitten for use in the synagogue liave been prepared >vith scrupulous care, and the texts which they represent have been preserved, it may be said, free from variation. This applies to the books of the Law, the Haphtaroth or lessons from the Prophets, and the Megilloth, the five books (Ca, Ru, La, Ec, Est) read on the great festivals. It applies, however, only to the con- sonantal characters, since these rolls were written without points and accents, and does not apply to the period before the scribes of the Jewish tradi- tion took the rolls under their special care, nor so strictly to the MSS intended for private use, which had the vowel points together with the Massoretic notes and commentary. It is said that the earliest Heb. MS of which tne age is kno\vn dates from A.D. 916, but few are extant which have come down from an earlier period than the 12th cent., and these, as will readily be understood from what has been said, represent a single tradition, and are of no use for comparative purposes. The work, first of the Talmuaists between the Ist and 5th centuries, and then of the Massoretes from the 6th to the 11th centuries, has fixed the Heb. text (hence called the Massoretic) to the utmost attain- able degree of exactness. But that prior to the labours of the scribes the Heb. Scriptures bad been subject to the ordinary conditions of MS copying, is evident from the numerous and important varia- tions found in the Samaritan Pent, and the LXX. These agree tocether in many readings in regard to which both differ from the Ileb. text, and they are comparatively independent witnes-ses — the one to the state of the text in possibly the 5th cent. D.C., the other to that in the 3rd.