For purposes of teaching and of disputation there were sjjecial places set apart — ' houses of teaching,' as they were called — where the teacher sat upon an elevated bench, and the pupils on the ground. In Jerusalem, lectures were delivered in the Temple, somewhere in the outer court. The ' houses of teaching ' were distinct from the syna- gogues ; but as it was through the influence of the Scribes that the synagogue service originated, so doubtless they availed themselves of the oppor- tunities Avhich the synagogues gave them of teaching the Law to the common people. The Scripture exposition, which usually formed part of the service, might, indeed, be given by any one qualified to speak ; but ordinarily it fell to a Scribe, if any were present, as the one most competent to discharge the duty.
(3) The Scribes as judges. — To the Scribes, as specially skilled in knowledge of the Law, it also naturally fell to take a leading part in its jjractical administration. From the time of the Hasmonseans they had formed a constituent element in the Sanhedrin, being associated in that body with the chief priests and elders, and it A\'as usually the Scribes who exercised the greatest influence in its deliberations. In the local courts they were also naturally looked to for advice and judgment. Any one, indeed, who possessed the confidence of the community might be appointed a local judge, and probably for the most part the small local courts were presided over by unprofessional men. But whenever a Scribe— a skilled lawyer — was available, the choice of the community naturally fell upon him, as, in virtue of his qualifications, he was considered best fitted for the post.
3. Relations of the Scribes to Jesus.— The ministry of Jesus could not but excite interest amongst the Scribes. His first call, like that of the Baptist, was to repentance as a preparation for the Kingdom of God. With this they were bound to sympathize. They held that what the nation needed for its salvation was a stricter obedience to the Law, and they naturally thought that the new Teacher, who was calling to repent- ance for the past, would be calling also to a new and more rigid obedience for the future. There are not wanting indications that at first they were inclined to regard Him with favour. But they speedily discovered that His teaching was on very different lines from theirs, both in manner and in substance. In the exposition of Scripture their method was to give out a text, and then quote the various comments made on it by recognized
584
SCRIP
SCRIPTURE
authorities. Jesus followed a different plan. He had a message of His own, which He delivered with conviction and enthusiasm, not appealing to authorities, but speaking with the conscious authority of truth. And the substance of His teaching was also very different. He condemned the external, mechanical formalism which they encouraged, and declared that only the inward purity of the heart was of value in the sight of God. See, further, art. Pharisees, p. 355 f.
4. Later history. — Though it does not properly belong to our subject, it is interesting to note that after the fall of Jerusalem in A. D. 70, the authority of the Scribes increased in importance. Under much discouragement they undertook the difficult task of the reorganization of Judaism. Working on calmly and peacefully, they were able to avoid extremes, and were successful in keeping what was left of the nation faithful to the religion of their fathers, and in stimulating hope for the future. The ordinances of the Oral Law were at last written down, and to their careful preserva- tion by the Scribes we are indebted for the Hebrew Scriptures we now possess.
Literature. — The literature on the subject is very extensive. Every History' of the Jews, every Life of Christ, every Com- mentary on the Gospels, deals to some extent with the Scribes. Schiirer's HJP may be taken as a standard authority ; Ewald, Kuenen, and Vi^ellhausen are all important ; so are Edersheim's LT and W. R. Smith's OTJC. A very full bibliography is given in Schiirer. See also artt. in Hastings' DB and in the
^Bi. Joseph Mitchell,
SCRIP.— See Wallet.
SCRIPTURE — The scoi)e of this article does not permit the discussion in it of the employment of Scripture, or of the estimate put upon Scripture, by either our Lord or the Evangelists. It is strictly limited to the use of the term ' Scripture ' in the NT, particularly in the Gospels : and to the immediate implications of that use.
1. The use of this term in the NT was an inheritance, not an invention. The idea of a ' canon ' of ' Sacred Scriptures ' (and with the idea the thing) Avas handed down to Christianity from Judaism. The Jews possessed a body of writings, consisting of ' Law, Prophets, and (other) Scriptures (KHhuhhim),' though they were often called, for brevity's sake, merely ' the Law and the Prophets ' or simply 'the Law.' These 'Sacred Scriptures,' or this 'Scripture' (a'riDn) as it was frequently called, or these ' Books,' or simply this ' Book ' (iDon), they looked upon as originating in Divine inspiration, and as therefore possessed everywhere of Divine authority. Whatever stood written in these Scriptures was a word of God, and was therefore referred to indifferently as something which 'Scripture says' (xnp idx, or a'n^n ncN, or N-ip 3'nD), or 'the All-Merciful says' (xMrn ncx), or even simply ' He says ' (noiN xi.i pi or merely -laiKi) ; that God is the Speaker in the Scriptural word being too fully understood to require explicit expression. Every precept or dogma was supposed to be grounded in Scriptural teaching, and possessed autliority only as buttressed by a Scripture passage, introduced commonly by one or the other of the formulas ' for it is said ' (ionjej) or ' as it is Avritten ' (a'riD-i or n^riDis), though, of course, a great variety of more or less frequently occurring formulas of adduction are found. Greek-sjieaking Jews natur- ally tended merely to reproduce in their new language the designations and forms of adduction of their sacred books current among their people. This process Avas no doubt facilitated by the exist- ence among the Greeks of a pregnant legislative use of ypd(f>u), ypacpr;, ypd/j./j.a, by which these terms were freighted with an implication of authority. But it is very easy to make too much of this. In