There was no exact equivalent for the word r.mong tlie Jews in respect to OT, but we have the idea clearly implied in the expression ' the Scrip- tures' as emjiloyed by Jews addressing Jews in N f (e.jr. Mt 21«, Jn 5^, Ac IS^) ; and the word ' Scrii>ture,' as used in the singular for a par- ticular passage, also involves it, since each passage so named derived the binding force which is attri- buted to it from being contained in the body of sacred writings. So again, where Jos. (c. Ajj. i. 8) makes a formal statement concerning these books and their number, the recognition of a C. is implied. And we have it also in the collective words used in the Talm. for the Di\'ine Scriptures, such as Kipp ('reading,' from their being read publicly in the synagogue) and r;?n 'jrj (' the noly writings ').
'Ihe Christian Church adopted the Scriptures of the Jews as her own. She also in process of time extended the idea of ' Scripture ' to another body of writings, which in one or more groujis were named along with those of OT. I'seuJo-Clement of Rome's •2nd Ep. (c. A.D. 150) speaks of to /ii^\/a xai oi oirrfffToXoi (i.e. the OT and the apostolic writings). Fresh names, also, were introduced expressive of the fact that she possessed two such collections, or such a collection in two parts. Melito, bp. of Sardis, circ. A.D. 170, speaks of rd T^» iroXaiit Jio(?>i(fi;! /3i^\(a (ap. Euseb. HE iv. 20), ' the books of the Old Covenant ' (or Testament). And we have evidence about the end of the same cent., in the writings of Clement of Alexandria and Tcrtullian, that the names x-aXaict 5ia0iJKri (vetns testamentum) and yia itaOrJKri (novum testaraentum), the names that have become the most prevalent of all, had been transferred to the actual writings of the two dispensations. Ter- tullian himself preferred (see c. Marc. iv. 1) the term lyi.itriiincntum (of legal associations = ' docu- mentary record or proof '). He frequently emploj's it, applying it sometimes to particular books, and sometimes separately to OT or to NT, but also to the Scriptures as a whole. From StaB-^Ki) the adj. tySidOriKo! was formed ; it occurs repeatedly in the writings of Origen and Eu.sebius, in a sense closely corresponding to ' canonical ' {c.if. Philocal., iii. and Euseb. HE iii. cc. ."?, 9, 25, vi. c". 14).
Another description, ScSrifuxrieviUfat ypaipal, 'writ- ings which have been made public,' used by Origen and others, needs somewhat fuller consideration. A certain vagueness attaches to it owing to the fact that these writings are contrasted with such as are 'apocryphal ' ; and while this word is common in the Fathers of the 2nd and 3rd cent., it does not seem ever to occur at this time with the precise connotation which it has since acquired. The original and fundamental signilication of ' apocry- phal ' was that of something withheld from general knowledge. But there mifjht be various reasons for so treating difl'erent writings. There were some among the Jews, as there were also some Christians, esp. in the Church of Alexandria, who were inclined to value highly lore which they considered to be unfit to be communicated even to all the faithful, and suited only for the study of the wise. But this tendency was never strong enough either among Jews or Christians to lead to the establish- ment of a class of ■writings regarded as authoritative and yet not imparted to all ; and the si)irit of Chris- tianity in particular was wholly opposed to such reservation. All writings regarded as insjiired were naturallj' included among the SfS-Qfio/nev/Mfai — those ' made the public property of the whole Church.' We have still, however, to ask what was meant by and implied in this ' publication,' and, as a further point, whether it could really serve to mark oil the writings regarded as, in the full sense, authoritative from all others. The chief means of the publishing in question was the regular readinf; in the con- gregation. And no doubt this solemn reading served to impress upon the people generally the idea of the special authority of the books which they heard in this way ; while the need of a rule for directing it may have been one influence which promoted the formation of the C. of OT, as it was certainly of NT. But it seems too narrow a view of the words S-inuxTifveaOat, or mtblicari, to regard them (as Zahn does, Gesch. d. Kamms, i. p. 13-1) as meanin" little or nothing more than ' to be read in church. If the publication connoted by these terms was closely associated with the public readin", it was so because that act was the chief symbol of the general reception and acknowledg- ment of the boolcs by the Church, which had been informally arrived at, and which found expression in various habits of speech and practice. It must, however, further be observed tliat the fact of par- ticular books being publicly read would seem to be often too inconsiderately taken as evidence that they were regarded as Scripture in the full sense of the terra. It is not to be supposed that the public reading would necessarily be regarded as havin^' ; the same significance, or that the rules for it woulJ be conceive<l in the same spirit, everywhere and always. There might be, and in point of fact there were, varieties of custom ace. to dill'erenccs of circumstances and of theological temper. At some times and places there would be comparativi; laxity, at others special strictness. The Mur.i- torian C. {circ. A.D. 200, written at Rome or in the neighbourhood) reveals a disposition to exclude from public reading all worKs of secondary or doubtful authority. This might be due to the special genius of tlie Rom. Church, or to a sense of tlie need of watchfulness which the recent sprcnd of Gnosticism and Montanism and the circulation of the writings of these sects had created. On the other hand, at the very same epoch, we lincl Seraiiion, b|). of Antioch, (irst allowing the public reading of the Gnspcl of Peter at a place within his diocese, though he knew very little of the work and held it in no particular esteem, and then afterwards forbidding it, when he became niort fully acquainted with its contents, and found tliat it was doing harm (Euseb. HE vi. 12). Again, to