Lireraturs.—Introductions to the OT by Bleek (revised by Wellhausen, 1893, and tr. by Venables, 1869), Cornill 4 (1896), S. Davidson (1862), de Wette 8 (revised by Schrader) (1869) (special), Driver® (1897) special), Eichhorn 4 (1823-24), Holzinger (1893) (Hexstou. Keil3 (1869), Kénig (1893), Kuenen? (1885-89)
ecial), Kautzsch (tr. 1899) (History of Growth), Reuss 2 (1890), Riehm?' (Brandt) (1890), Strack δ (1898), Wildeboer (Germ. tr.j (894) (special), Wright (1890). For works on the Canon an Text see literature under OT Oanoy, and on OT History see literature under ΒΆΛΕΙ,
For OT Theology see Dillmann (Kittel) 1895, Marti8 1899, Schultz 1896 (Eng. tr. 1895], Smend 3 1899.
History of Interpretation and Criticism. Briggs, General Introduction to a Study of the Holy Scripture, N.Y., 1899; Diestel, Geschichte des Alten Testamentes in der Christlichen Kirche, Jena, 1869; Farrar, History of I ation (Bampton Lecture), 1885; Samuel Davidson, Sacred Hermeneutics, Edin. 1843 ; Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics (pt. iii.), N.Y. 1885; Ladd, Doctrine of the Sacred Scripture, 2 vols. N.Y. 1883; W. R. Smith, O7JC2, 1892; Cheyne, Founders of OT Criticism, London, 1893.
With reference to the OT (Inspiration, etc.), in the light of Modern Criticism, cf. Bruce, Apologetics (1892), Bk. ii. pp. 164- 886; Horton, Revelation and the Bible, 1892 ; Kirkpatrick, The Divine Library of the OT, 1891; Ottley, Aspects of the OT
pton Lecture), 1897; Sanday, Oracles of God, 1891, and
ns~ration (Bampton Lecture), 1893; Simon, The Bible an
Outgrowth of Theocratic Life, 1896; A. B. Davidson, ‘The Uses of the OT for Edification,’ in Expositor, Jan. 1900.
E. L. Curtis. OLD TESTAMENT CANON,.—
i. Definition of the term ‘Canon.’ i ΞΟ ἘΦ Se on of the Reformed Churches and the Ro: Church compared. ats iv. Jewish origin of OT Canon. y. Divisions of Hebrew Bible—their significance. vi. Evidence for the Jewish Canon— (a) Baba Bathra. (Ὁ) Talmudic extracts concerning disputed books. (c) Council of Jamnia. (d) The Second Book of Esdras. (e) Josephus. ΟἽ The New Testament: (1) the way in which the OT was regarded by our Lord and His disciples ; (2) books of Scripture quoted or referred to in NT; (8) NT evidence to extra-canonical books; (4) 2 aa estimate of NT evidence. ilo. πὴ Prologue to Sirach. Ὁ Sirach. Ezra and Nehemiah: («) prom Hexateuch ; (8) influence of the the formation of the Canon.
tion of the exateuch on
vii. Canonicity of the different divisions of the OT— (a) Preparatory stage, culminating in the cancnization of the Hexateuch by Ezra-Nehemiah, @ The prophetico-historical Canon.
οὖ The canonicity of the Hagiographa. . Summary of results obtained. . Claims of the Apocrypha to canonicity. . Some peculiarities in the evidence of the NT and Fathera . ‘The influence of our present knowledge of the OT Canon upon religion.
Kure
Literature.
i. DEFINITION OF THE TERM ‘CANON.’—The word ‘Canon’ may be roughly defined as the list of books authoritatively declared to be Holy Scripture. Speaking a priori, the authority by which they are so declared may differ in degree and even in kind. It may be, for example, that of a Church Council having power to lay down the law for the whole Church, or it may be the expression of an enlightened public opinion, or, again, the opinion of a few leading scholars, whose views have gradually found general acceptance. For authoritatively declared it might therefore be deemed suflicient to substitute wniversally received ; but it is preferable to start with a wider definition, leaving the nature of the Ἀπ ΠΌΣΙΣ ft be decided in each case by the evidence. he term Holy Scripture suggests—(1) in some peculiar sense a Divine origin, (2) in connexion with this a special sanctity distinguishing Scripture from all other books, (3) reading for devotion or edification in public worship, (4) quotations for the purpose of establishing doctrine or argument. But only the first, or perhaps we should say the first two, and even these with some necessary modification, can be considered as belonging to the n con- notation of the idea; the second, third, and fourth are obviously the result of the first, and all are to some extent questions of degree. In the Jewish Church several of the books which are unquestion- ably canonical are not read even now, and have never been read, in public worship, namely Chron- icles, Job, Proverbs, Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah. On the other hand, in the English Church, not to mention the Protestant communities, parts of several books are read in public worship, such as Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch, which are not received as canonical ; whereas the canonical Song of Songs is altogether omitted. Again, a difference of degree, and even to some extent of kind, in the inspiration of the various books has been generally admitted ; while, on the other hand, many writers have recognized that we have no right to deny inspiration altogether to books outside the Canon. This was admitted even by Jewish writers, as we may see from the following quotation from the Talmud: ‘According to R. Judah, Samuel said, “‘Esther does not defile the hands” [t.e. is not canonical ; see below]. Could Samuel have meant ἊΝ this that the Bk. of Esther was not the work of the Holy Spirit? No, he meant that it was pro- duced by the Holy Spirit, but only for esding. not as Holy Scripture’ (Bab. Meg. 7a, quoted by Buhl, Eng. tr. p. 31). Here we see that it might be sup- posed that a Jewish Rabbi regarded a book as inspired in the highest sense, and yet as not a part of Holy Scripture. The subject of Inspira- tion goes far beyond our present inquiry ; it will be enough here to state that from the earliest times, among both Jews and Christians, it entered ree as largely as it does now into the idea of