garded by some as a genuine part of Jeremiah
OLD TESTAMENT CANON
goes, is too circumstantial to admit of such a supposition. On the other hand, when we examine the language of Josephus critically, there are two facts that we feel compelled to bear in mind: (1) That he was fond of rhetorical statements, which have an evident flavour of Oriental hyperbole. He could not resist the temptation to make the most of what he thought would interest his readers. We should hardly think, for instance, of treating his account of the events connected with the last siege of Jerusalem as the language of a scientific historian. (2) His object in speaking of the Canon afforded in this particular instance a special temp- tation to make the most of it, his intention being to show the incomparable superiority of the select Jewish writings to the ‘myriads’ (the word is itself a gross exaggeration) of Greek books whose accounts of their mythology differed so widely from each other. In fact such an argument helps us to understand why it was that the Jewish doctors of that day were so sensitive about seem- ing discrepancies in Bible books. A clever heathen disputant might have turned the tables and said, “Why, your own sacred books often contain like contradictions.’ After all, the temptation to in- accuracy and exaggeration is one which some of our greatest historians, even in this scientific age, —Macaulay, for example,—have not been wholl
free from. We may, however, reasonably enoug
‘accept the statement of Josephus as evidence of the
books commonly accepted by the most orthodox of the Jews of his day, without binding ourselves to believe that he was unacquainted with the ob- jections raised in certain quarters. But that statement can hardly be accepted as a positive pa that the Canon had been fixed long before lis time. It has its value as making it probable that at that period the objections to certain books were confined to a few persons, whose opinions Josephus felt justified in ignoring.
(f) The New Testament.—So considered, the
evidence of Josephus carries us a step further, showing us that the decision of the Council of
Jamnia practically endorsed what may be regarded as the public opinion of the time on the subject of
the Canon. Going farther back, we come to the evidence of the NT. From a Christian point of view this is of very special importance. There is
a natural desire to prove that the OT Canon has the imprimatur of our Lord. For this very reason it is important to be on our guard against even the suspicion of prejudice.
(1) The way in which the OT was regarded by our Lord and His disciples.—This is perhaps the most important feature of NT evidence for the OT Canon. It shows unmistakably that the Chris- tians inherited from the Jews the mag neetiones belief in a body of literature of a specially sacred and Divine character. The expressions, ‘the Scrip- ture,’ ‘the Scriptures,’ ἡ γραφή, al γραφαί, are used, much as we use them now, as well-known terms which required no further explanation, as, for example, in Mt 21, Mk 14, Jn 7# 20% The boas ‘it has been written,’ γέγραπται, Mt 4% 6 1°,
Ro 17, Gal 3% ete., is equivalent to saying ‘it is found in Scripture.’ It is true that words signify- ing ‘holy’ are only twice applied to Scripture (γραφαῖς ἁγίαις Ro 1*, ἱερὰ γράμματα 2 Ti 3) put Divine influence is asserted even more emphatic- ally in such phrases as πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος (2 Ti 318), Δαυεὶδ ἐν πνεύματι κύριον αὐτὸν καλεῖ (Mt 22%; οὗ, Ac 435). Moreover, the authority of Scripture is appealed to very frequently as sufficient evi- dence of truth, as in Mt 21%, Lk 2427, Ro 11? ete. ete., and esp. Jn 1085 (οὐ δύναται λυθῆναι ἡ γραφή, unless our Lord is here arguing ad hominem). That authority is equally implied in such expressions as λέγει, εἴρηκε, ete., in introducing Scripture
OLD TESTAMENT CANON
OLD TESTAMENT CANON 609
quotations. Sometimes, no doubt, the true subject is God, not so much as speaking through the writer, but as the actual speaker in the passage quoted, ΤῸ in Ac 13%, He 135, It is also possible to ex- plain the verb as strictly impersonal, and as prac- tically eiuiraleus to a passive. This view is supported by such a phrase as διεμαρτύρατο δέ πού τις λέγων (He οὖ; but the very indefiniteness is signifi- cant. It is as though the writer were so impressed with the Divine sanctity of the words that it was of little moment to him through whom or how they were first used. In fact, he conceived of them in certain cases as being continued to be spoken, as in He 37:8, This use, though specially frequent in Hebrews, is by no means confined to that book. We have a remarkable example of it in Ac 2" τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ εἰρημένον διὰ τ. προφήτου ᾿Ιωήλ, where Joel is merely the channel of Divine communication. So, too, ὡς καὶ ἐν τῷ Ὡσηὲ λέγει (Ro 9%). Indeed, phrases of this kind occur so frequently, and with so much variety, that it seems most probable that the writers really thought of God or the Holy Spirit as the true subject, even though grammatically, perhaps, τις should besupplied. In He 37 10"- 16 the subject τὸ Πνεῦμα is actually given. See, further, Expos. Times, Sept. 1899, p. 533 f.