(2) Books of Scripture quoted or referred toin NT. —When we come to inquire what books were com-
rised in the connotation of ‘Scripture’ as used in
T, we may feel sure from Mt 5”, Lk 2477-4, Jn 1*, Ac 1315 2414 28%, Ro 321, that it included, at least, the Pentateuch and the Prophetico-Historical Books, as well as the Psalms.* From Ac 13” we learn that the first two groups were regularly read in the synagogue. This is confirmed by quotations in the NT from practically all these books.+
The evidence of Lk 24" cannot be urged against the books of the Hagiographa other than the Psalms. Our Lord is referring to Scripture with special reference to the prophecies of the Messiah. A mention of books which contained no Messianic prophecies could not have been expected. In point of tact, some of the Hagiographa are introduced with what are most naturally understood as for- mulz of Scripture quotation, e.g. Pr 3% with διὸ λέγει in Ja 45 ; cf. also Ro 1919. 30. where a quotation from Pr 25%-*2 is connected with another from Dt 32%, which is introduced with the words yéypar- tat γάρ. The same formula is used in 1 Co 3" to introduce a quotation from Job 5%. More remark- able is the mixture of Ec 7” with Ps 14! in Ro 3” prcet by καθὼς γέγραπται (see QUOTATIONS, F).
he reference in Mt 23" to 2Ch 9459. "1 at least
roves that that book was a recognized source vf ewish history. It can hardly prove its canonicity, unless He 11%-88 proves the canonicity of 1 Mac.t
But the absence of quotations in NT is not enough to prove that the rest of the Hagiographa were not at this time regarded as Scripture, when we take into account that of the first two groups there are no quotations from Judges, Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah, and very few from some others (1 from Nu, 1 from Jos, 2 from 1 and 2§, 2 from 1 and 2 K, 1 from Job), and, above all, that the contents of some of the books would not readily tend themselves to quotation.
(3) NT evidence to extra-canonical books.—On the other hand, it may be questioned whether the argument from the quotations in NT does not prove too much. Attention has already been
* Curiously enough, the Psalms are quoted in St. John as the Law in 10% and as the Prophets in Οὐδ᾽
+ Judges, though not actually του is referred to in He 1133, As the 12 Minor Prophets had long before formed one book ee it is sufficient to find quotations as we do from several of them.
t The same objection might be urged nst the reference to Judges in He 1152, were it not practically certain that it was included in ‘ the Prophets,’ so often referred to in NT.
VOL. 111. —39
called to the use made of 1 Mac in He 11%. The quotation from the Book of Enoch in Jude™ is still more remarkable, showing that the writer of the Epistle accepted as a genuine prophecy of the patriarch an extract from a late book: which never had a claim to be considered part of the Jewish Canon. To this we should add v.°, evi- dently taken also from some such extra-canonical source. It is almost certain that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews adapted the phrase ἀπαύ- γασματ. δόξης... αὐτοῦ ἴῃ 153 from Wis 7; but such an adaptation, in view of the sacredness and im- portance of the subject—the Divine nature of the
on of God—would seem to imply a recognition of the authority of this book. " gen in connexion with the reference to 1 Mac in ch. 11, it suggests that this Alexandrian writer accepted the whole collection of the Alexandrian LXX as Scripture. To these should perhaps be added the quotations in Jn 7*-*, Eph 5%, which, though not found in their present form in any canonical books, are definitely quoted as Scripture (see QUOTATIONS, G).
(4) General estimate of NT evidence.—Speaking generally, it may be said that while there was in the early Church a very strong feeling of both the sanctity and authority of Holy Scripture, and Holy Scripture connoted at least the majority of the books of OT, there was, on the other hand, by no means a very definite universally accepted idea of the exact contents or limits of fol Beare at any rate among the Christians of the 150 century. With the learned Jews of Palestine it may have been, and probably was, different. This attitude on the part of Christian writers towards so im-
ortant a question may seem improbable and logical. It would be so in modern times. But it is neces: to bear in mind the paucity of MSS in that age, the ‘illiterateness’ of ‘ the masses,’ and, to some extent, of the writers themselves, and the difference of literary methods and standards then revalent. Even the learned St Paul limself ardly ever quotes accurately exvept from the Law and the Psalms, and mixes up quotations from different books to a most extraordinary extent (see QUOTATIONS, F). It has already been noticed how ata later time a distinguished bisho of the Church actually found it necessary to go an inquire among the Jews what the books of the OT really were. Taking all this into account, it is satisfactory to know that the early Church from the very first accepted very nearly, if not quite, all of the OT books as Scripture. Moreover, there is no indication that the Hagiographa were looked upon as inferior to the rest of Scripture.