had a bearing on the subject of the Canon of NT. Aiming as they did at a complete reconstruction of Christian history, they subjected the ks of NT and the remains generally of early Christian literature to a criticism which was compre- hensive and penetrating, though seriously biassed. At the same time, their attack upon opinions commonly received stimulated fresh research on the part of those who were unable to accept thelr theorles. It would be unsuitable to attempt here to enumerate even the principal writings in which during these controversies particular documents, portions of the evidence relating to the books of the NT, or the true conception of the early history of the Church, were discussed. As an important work, however, specifically on the Canon, we must not omit to mention Die Geschichte der Heiligen Schriften Neuen Testa- ments, by Ἐς Reuss, a writer holding a middle Nata (Ist ed. 1842, Eng. tr. from 5th revised and enlarged German edition, 1514, by E. L. Houghton). The most eminent of the later mem- bers of the Tiibingen school, A. Hilgenfeld, modified in some important respects the views before put forward; see esp. his Historisch-kritische Einleitung indas Neue Testament, 1875. The views of this school have been represented in England in a comparatively moderate form by 8. Davidson in his Introduc- tion to the Study of the New Testament of 1868 (21882, 31894), and in their most extreme form in the work entitled Super- natural Religion (1st ed. 1874, complete ed. 1879). . B. Lightfoot examined the latter work in a series of Essays (col- lected and repub. 1889).
The chief recent advances in the subject have been due to the colossal labours of J. B. Lightfoot in his works on /gnatius of Antioch (1585) and Clement of Rome (2nd ed., pub. 1890, shortly after his death), and of Th. Zahn in his Geschichte des Neutest. Kanons (1838), preceded by his Forschungen zur Geschichte des Neutest. Kanons, and the brilliant review of the actual state of knowledge in regard to early Christian docu- ments by A, Harnack in his Chronologie der Altchristlichen Litteratur (vol. i. 1897), with which his brochure Das N Tum das Jahr 200 (1889), a critique of the first part of Zahn’s History of the Canon, may be compared. The last-named writer has made some important concessions to those who, like the two before mentioned, have defended the orthodox position, though he has approached the subject with different prepossessions from theirs. This approximation to a common judgment, at least on certain points, is a sign of solid progress. The weighing of the differences which still remain, with a view to taking account of whatever truth there is in the arguments urged on each side, may be suggested to the student as a path which promises further advance.
To turn to less voluminous works: Westcott’sGeneral Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (1st ed. 1855, 7th ed. 1896) continues to be the most complete work on the subject, which is at the same time compendious. With it may be read Sanday on Jnspiration (1893). The various Introduc- tions to the NT deal with the subject; the treatment of it in B. Weiss’ Manual of Introduction (1886, Eng. tr. 1887) may be specially recommended. V. H. STANTON.
NEW TESTAMENT LANGUAGE. —See LAN- GUAGE OF NEW TESTAMENT.
NEW TESTAMENT TEXT.—See TEXT OF NEW TESTAMENT.
NEW TESTAMENT TIMES.—See ΤΙΜῈΒ 0¥ NEW TESTAMENT.
NEW YEAR. —‘See TIME.
NEZIAE (73}).— The name of a family of Ne- thinim, Ezr2°*(B Νασούς, A Νεθίε) =Neh 7 (B’Aced, A Newed); called in 1 Es 58 Nasi(B Nagel) or Nasith (so AV and RVm, following A Νασίθ).
NEZIB (272; B Νασείβ, A Νεσίβ, Luc. Nece/8).— A town in the Shephélah of Judah, noticed next to Keilah, Jos 15%, It is the present Bett Nusib. mentioned in the Onomasticon (Lagarde, 283. 142) as 7 Roman miles from Eleutheropolis on the road to Hebron. It lies to the south of Keilah.
Lrrerature.—S WP vol. iii. sheet xxi.; Robinson, BRP? ii. 17, δὲ, 221; Buhl, GAP 193; Guérin, Judée, tii. 343 ff. All these accept of the above identification, against which, however, Dillm. (Jos. ad loc.) argues. Cc. R. CONDER.
NIBHAZ (1732. also in some MSS 1922 and '922; B *EBdafép, A ᾿Αβααζὲρ καὶ Ναιβάς [a doublet], Luc. *ES\acéfep). — An idol of the Avvites, which they wor- shipped with Tartak, and introduced into Samaria, whither they had been transported by the Assyrian king Sargon (2 K 1781), To all appearance, the
|
| | |
544 NICODEMUS, GOSPEL OF
‘He that doeth the truth cometh to the light, that 1is works may be made manifest that they have been wrought in God’ (Jn 3%), Nicodemus dis- appears from the NT at Jn 19”; but in an apocry- i narrative of the Passion and Resurrection of Christ, which has come down to us from very early times in different forms (Greek, Latin, Coptic, not to speak of Irish and other secondary versions), and variously entitled the Gospel of Nicodemus or the Acts of Pilate, his history is carried further. See next article. » Other legends represent Nicodemus as having being baptized by Peter and John, and as being deprived of his office and banished from Jerusalem through the hostility of the Jews. Gamaliel is described as burying him near St. Stephen, and a later story tells of the finding of the bodies of Stephen, Gamaliel, and Nicodemus in a common tomb (3rd August 415, according to the Western Martyrologies). Further Christian legends re- garding Nicodemus, particularly his alleged acti- vity as a sculptor, are discussed by von Dobschiitz in his Christusbilder (‘Texte u. Untersuch.’ 1899, pp. 280*°*-292**). J. H. BERNARD.