8. As applied to Scripturt^ the derivatives of koviov are used long before the simple word. The Latin tnmslation of Origen speaks of ScriptunB CanoniUxt {de Princ, iv, 83), Ubri regulares (Comm. m Matt, § 117), and hbri ctmonkati (id. § 28). In another place the plirase haberi in Ccaone (Prd, m Cant. s. £) occurs, but probably only as a translation of cavovt^e^m, whu^ is used in this and cognate senses in Athanasius (Ep, Fe8t,\ the Laodicene Canons (oKav^ivrat C*^* lix), and later writers (Isid. Pelus. Ep, cxiv ; comp. Aug. de doctr, Ckr, iv, 9 [6] ; and as a contrast, Anon, w^ Eoseb. E. E, v, 28).
The first direct ^plication of the term Kavtav to the Scriptures seems to be by Amphilochius (dr. 880), in his Catalogue of the Scriptures, where the word indi- cates the rale by which the contents of the Bible must be determined, and thus secondarily an index of the eonstitaent books. Among Latin writers the word is commonly found frtmi the time of Jerome (ProL Gal,) and Augustine (De Cw, xvii, 24 ; xviii, 88), and their usage of the word, which is wider than that of Greek writers, is the source of its modern acceptation.
The uncanonical books were described simply as "those without," or "those uncanoniaed" (cbnivt^vt- ffro, Cane, Laod, lix). The apocryphal books, which woe supposed to occupy an intermediate position, "vere called " books read" {6vayiyvtafrK6fifva, Athan. Ep, Fed,), or "ecclesiastical" (ecdenasHoi, Rufin. mi l^ftub. Apati, § 88), though the latter title was also ap- plied to the canonical Scriptures, which (Leont. de Sect, fi) were also called "books of the Testament" (MiA- OijKa fiipKid)j and Jerome styled the whole collection by this striking name of "the holy library" (BibHo' tieca 8€mctd), which hi^pily expresses the unity and variety of the Bible (Credner, Zur Gesch, d, Kan, § 1 ; Westcott, Hiti. of Canon o/N, T, App. D).
II. The Jewiek Canon. — 1. According to the com- msnd of Moses, the " book of the law" was "put in the side of the ark" (Deut xxxi, 25 seq.), but not m it (lKingsviii,9; comp. Joseph. Jn^.iii, 1, 7; v, 1,17); sod thus, in tiie reign of Josiah, Hilkiah is said to have '*fiMiod the book of the law fai the house of the Lord^ (2 Kings xxii, 8; comp. 2 Chron. xxxiv, 14). This "book of the law," which, fai addition to the dbect precepts (Exod. xxiv, 7), contaiiied general exhorta-
tions (Deut. xxviii, 61) and historical narratives (Exod. xvii, 14), was fiuther increased by the records of Joshua (Josh, xxiv, 26), and other writings (1 Sam. X, 26). From these sacredly guarded autographs copies were taken and circulated among the people (2 Chron. xvii, 9). At a subsequent time collections of proverbs were made (Prov. xxv, 1), and the later prophets (especially Jenmiah ; comp. Kueper, Jerem, Libror, ss, interp. et mndex^ Berol. 1887) were familiar with the writings of thebr predecessors, a circumstance which may naturally be connected with the training of "the prophetic schools." It perhaps marks a far- ther step in the formation of the Canon when " the book of the Lord" is mentioned by Isaiah as a general collection of sacred teaching ^cxiv, 16 [where it is implied that his own writings^ere to be added to those previously regarded as sacred; see Gesenius, Comment, in loc.] ; comp. xxix, 18) at once familiar and authoritative ; but it is unlikely that any definite collection either of " the Psalms" or of " the Prophets" existed befora the Captivity. At that time Zechariah speaks of " the law" and "the former prophets" as in some measure co-ordinate (Zech. vii, 12) ; and Daniel refers to "<Ae boobt'' (Dan. ix, 2) in a manner which seems to mark the prophetic writings as already col- lected into a whole. Shortly after the return from Babylon, the Levites read and expounded the word of the Lord to the people (Neh. viii, 1-8 ; ix, 1-8).
2, Popular belief assigned to Ezra and " the great synagogue" the task of collecting and promulgating the Scriptures as part of their work in organizing the Jewish Church. Doubts have been thrown upon this belief (Ran, De Synoff. magnd^ 1726 ; comp. Ewald, Geech. d. V, Itr, iv, 191 [see below] ) ; but the state- ment is in every way consistent with the history of Judaism, and with the internal evidence of the books themselves. The later embellishments of the tradi- tion, which represent Ezra as the second author of all the books (2 Esdras), or define more exactly the na- ture of his work, can only be accepted as signs of the universal belief in his labors, and ought not to cast discredit upon the simple fact that the foundation of the present Canon is due to him. Nor can it be sup- posed that the work was completed at once ; so that the account (2 liacc. ii, 18) which assigns a collection of books to Nehemiah Ib in itself a confirmation of the general truth of the gradual formation of the Canon during the Persian period. The work of Nehemiah is not described as initaatory or final. The tradition omits all mention of the law, which may be supposed to have assumed its final shape under Ezra, but says that Nehemiah "gathered together the [writings] concerning the kings and proj^sts, and the [writings] of David, and letters of kings concerning offerings," while "founding a library" (2 Mace. 1. c). The va- rious classes of books were thus completed in succes- sion ; and this view harmonizes with what must have been the natural development of the Jewish faith after the Betum. The constitution of the Church and the formation of the Canon were both, fhnn their nature, gradual and mutually dependent. The constraction of an ecclesiastical polity involved the practical de- termination of the divine rule of truth, though, as in the parallel case of the Christian Scriptures, open per- secution first gave a dear and distinct expression to the implicit faith.