* Ezekiel, Daniel, Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther (Buhl, tr. p. 15; οἱ. Ryle, Philo and Holy Scripture). + For quotations from or references to extra-canonical books in
NT, see I, p. 14.
history. Theomission of Esther stands on a differ- footing, and is, moreover, more common. x1. LHE INFLUENCE OF OUR PRESENT KNOW- LEDGE OF OT CANON UPON RELIGION.—Hitherto the subject has been investigated on its purely historical side. The question has been— What books were in point of fact received as Scripture at different times? not—What is the intrinsic value of the books of Scripture, or of particular books of Scripture, as sanctions for religious belief and religious conduct? The latter question belongs rather to the subject of inspiration than to that of the Canon. But it comes within the limit of the present inquiry in so far as the spiritual authority and value of Bible books depend upon canonicity. Except for this, the history of the Canon has nothing more than a purely literary and archo- logical value. The question may be put thus—Does the scientific method as applied to the history of the Canon—and no other method is really per- missible—increase or diminish the practical value of the Bible as a whole or in part? Theoretically, it would appear that it diminishes it. It is one thins to say that the OT was authoritatively fixed by Ezra or a religious school founded by him; another, that it was, as far as the evidence really roves, first officially sanctioned in its completeness y the Council of Jamnia. Christians would far rather believe that the Bks. of Esther and Canticles formed part of the Bible of Christ and His apostles, than that they were sanctioned by a Jewish council held some 70 years after Clirist’s ascension. A devout Protestant may be somewhat shocked to find that many of the earlier Christians practically included several Apocryphal books in their Bible. The modern study of the subject does certainly tend in some measure to obscure the lines drawn between canonical and Apocryphal books, and to depreciate relatively some oF the former and appreciate some of the latter. It affects, in some degree, both the conditions of canonicity and the question to what extent certain books within or without the recognized Canon fulfil those condi- tions. But what practical bearing has all this as concerns the influence of the Bible upon faith and life? We feel that the books of whose claim to canonicity there is some degree of doubt are just those which, from a purely religious point of view, are the least important. There are those who feel that if Ecclesiastes, Esther, and Canticles had never been included in the Canon, and Sirach and Wisdom had been included, it would have made little real difference. We might still in Ecclesiastes have reverenced the outspoken honesty of a pious Israelite struggling according to his limited light with perhaps the greatest problems of life. We Sain have been thankful that in Esther we had illustrated for us a phase of character belonging to the most interesting, and once the most religious, nation of the world. We should have found in Canticles at least a pretty love-lyric, and possibly a good deal more. The old questionings and doubts about these books make it easier for us to have some such ideas about them now without shocking our religious sense. We feel that the standard by which all Bible or quasi-Bible books must eventu- ally be appraised is not merely the ipse dixit of an infallible Church, Jewish or Christian, which rules all on one side of a line holy and all on the other secular, but an enlightened intelligence which sees in the sacred books, including even some not generally accounted canonical, various degrees of inspiration and spiritual power. By enlightened intelligence is here meant, not the mere private opinion of the individual, but the growing consent of spiritually-minded, right-thinking, honest, and devout Christians. In a word, the study of the formation of the Canon makes it possible to think
616 OLD TESTAMENT LANGUAGE
that the same influences which resulted in the fixed Canon of OT in ancient times, may at a future time lead to some more defined modification in our conception of a sacred Canon.
Lrraratcrs.—H. E. Ryle, The Canon of the Old Testament, London, Macmillan, 1892, also Philo and Holy Scripture, 1895 ; Fr. Buhl, Kanon u. Text des AT, Leipzig, 1890 [Eng. tr., Edinburgh, T. & T. Olark, 1892) i, Julius First, Der Kanon des AT, Leipzig, 1868 ; J. 8. Bloch, Studien zur Geach. der Samm- tung der althed. Literatur, Breslau, 1876; Ed. Reuss, Gesch. der heil. Schriften AT, 1890, Hist. du canon des saintes écritures dans Céglise chrétienne?, Strassburg, 1864 (Eng. tr., Edinburgh, 1884]; ὃ, Wildeboer, Het ontstaan van den Kanon des Ouden Verbonds, Groningen, 1889 (Germ. tr., Gotha, 1891; Eng. tr. by B. W. Bacon) 1895); Schirer, Οὐδ, 1899, ii. 305-312 HJP, wu. i. 306-312); Driver, LOT'S, pp. i-xi; B. F. Westcott, The Bible in the Church, London, 1865-66; W. Sanday, In-
iration, London, 1893. Cf. also the articles ‘Canon of OT’ (ὃν Budde) in the Bneye. Biblica, ‘Kanon des AT’s’ (by Strack) in PRE, and ‘Kanon’ (by Schmiedel) in Ersch and Gruber’s Aligem. Encyk.; and see the authorities cited under the articles on the several books of the OT in the present work.
F. H. Woops.