§ 28.

CANON OF THE PROTESTANTS AND MODERN CATHOLICS.

The Protestants have been diligent in this department of criticism, and, in respect to the Old Testament, have gone back to the Jewish canon, and separated the books which had been added by the Alexandrian version, from the Hebrew text." But, in respect to the

Novo vero Evangelia et Apostolos inspiravit....... Et ideo, quæ sunt Novi ac Vet. Instrumenti volumina, quæ secundum majorum traditionem per ipsum spiritum sanctum inspirata creduntur et ecclesiis Christi tradita, competens videtur in hoc loco...... designare. Itaque Vet. Instrumenti primo omnium Moysis quinque libri sunt traditi...... post hos Jesu Nave et Judicum simul cum Ruth: quatuor post hæc Regnorum libri, quos Hebræi duos numerant: Paralipomenon, qui dierum dicitur liber: et Esdræ libri duo, qui apud illos singuli computantur, et Hesther. Prophetarum vero Esaias, Hierem., Ezech., et Daniel.: præterea xii. Prophetarum liber unus. Job quoque et Psalmi David singuli sunt libri: Salomonis vero tres....... Novi vero (Test.) iv. Evangg.... Actus Apostolorum ...... Pauli Epistolæ xiv., Petri ii., Jacobi una, Judæ una, Joannis iii., Apocalypsis Joannis. Hæc sunt, quæ Patres intra Canonem concluserunt, ex quibus fidei nostræ assertiones constare voluerunt. Sciendum tamen est, quod et alii libri sunt, qui non canonici, sed ecclesiastici a majoribus appellati sunt: ut est Sapientia Salomonis, et alia sapientia, quæ dicitur Filii Sirach, qui liber apud Latinos generali vocabulo Ecclesiasticus appellatur, quo vocabulo non auctor libelli, sed scripturæ qualitas cognominata est. Ejusdem ordinis est libellus Tobia et Judith et Maccab. libri. In Novo vero Test. libellus, qui dicitur Pastoris sive Hermatis, qui appellatur duæ viæ, vel judicium Petri: quæ omnia legi quidem in ecclesiis voluerunt, non tamen proferri ad auctoritatem ex his fidei confirmandam. Ceteras vero scripturas apocryphas nominarunt, quas in ecclesiis legi noluerunt. [See Lardner, vol. ii. p. 532, sqq. vol. iv. p. 483, sqq.] See the divergent and more free opinions of Junilius, De Partibus Legis divinæ, i. 3-7, in Bibliotheca Max. Patrum, vol. x. p. 340; of Isidorus, Hispal. De Ecclesiast. Offic. i. 12. Against such as doubted of the Apocalypse, see the Acts of the Council of Toledo, held A. C. 633, in Harduin. Act. Concil. vol. iii. p. 584. [Lardner, vol. v. p. 135, sqq.]

See Luther's Preface, in German, to Jesus Sirach, in the Halle edition of his works, vol. xiv. p. 91, the Preface to Baruch, p. 93, and the books of Maccabees, p. 94. Andr. Carlstadt, De Scripturis canonicis; Viteb. 1521.

New Testament, doubts have freely risen again on the books that were contested in the ancient church."

In opposition to this method, the council of Trent, by the following decree, declared all the books in the Vulgate to be canonical:

"If any one will not receive as sacred and canonical the whole books, with all their parts, as they are wont to be read in the Catholic church, and in the old Vulgate Latin edition, and if, knowingly and wilfully, he shall despise the aforesaid traditions, let him be accursed."

Several of the Fathers, however, sought to moderate this hard conclusion; and some learned Catholics attempted to avoid it, by making a distinction between the first and second canon. "Therefore," says Lamy, "the books which are in the second canon, though conjoined with others of the first canon, are, nevertheless, not of the same authority."

Welche Bücher heilig und biblisch sind.; 1521. Flacius, Clavis Script. Sac. vol. ii. p. 46. J. Gerhard, Loc. Theol. i. 6, vol. ii. p. 54, sqq. ed. Cott. • Luther's Preface to the Epistle to the Hebrews, ibid. vol. xiv. p. 147; to the Epistle of James, p. 148. Carlstadt, 1. c., renews the doubts against the Apocalypse.

Sess. iv. c. 1: Si quis libros integros cum omnibus suis partibus, prout in ecclesia catholica legi consueverunt, et in veteri vulgata Latina editione habentur, pro sacris et canonicis non susceperit, et traditiones prædictas sciens et prudens contemserit, anathema sit. Compare the two decrees of the council of Trent, with Prefaces and Glosses, by an unknown author, in Luther's Works; Halle ed. vol. xvii. p. 1192, sqq. Chemnitius, Exam. Concil. Trid. vol. i. p. 50, sqq.

Paul Sarpi, Hist. del Concil. Trid. vol. ii. p. 157; ed. Geneva, 1660. Palavicini, Hist. Concil. Trid. vi. Jahn, Einleit. vol. i. p. 140. Marheinecke, System d. Katholicismus, vol. i. 2, p. 235, sqq. [See, also, J. H. Von Wessenberg, Die grossen Kirchenversammlungen des 15ten and 16ten Jahrhunderts, &c.; Constanz. 1840, 4 vols. 8vo. vol. iii. p. 205, sqq.]

d Bern. Lamy, Apparat. bibl. 1. ii. c. 5, p. 333; ed. Lugd. 1723: Idcirco libri, qui in secundo canone sunt, licet conjuncti cum ceteris primi canonis, tamen non sunt ejusdem auctoritatis. Jahn, l. c. p. 141, sqq.

$29.

RESULTS OF THE HISTORY OF THE CANON IN RESPECT TO CRITICISM.

Since the grounds for determining the limits of the canon are in part dogmatical, and in part critical, the question arises, What value is to be placed on the critical arguments? In determining this canon, the Jews looked more to the age than to the authors of the books, (§ 16,) and they seem to have followed a method of decision which is entirely inaccurate. The Christians, in determining the canonicity of a book, regarded the author, and had a certain historical feeling for its genuineness; but this, however, was not pure and clearly developed. The tradition of the church appeared to them rather in the light of an authority, than that of an evidence, into which at last it resolves itself. In their inquiries they did not enter enough into details, nor go back to the primitive sources, but judged of the book more as a whole, and in the mass. They made only some feeble attempts to apply the internal critical argument, and went to work rather anticipating their conclusion, than pursuing a critical investigation of the matter. But after the first century, all sense of historical truth was lost, and a reliance on authority, and a reference to the decision of the church, destroyed all critical inquiry.

[The reformers proceeded on the opposite principle. Luther did not hesitate to reject the Epistle of James because it was epistola straminea, – a letter of straw. See Calvin, Institut. Christ. Rel. i. c. 7, § 4, 5. Owen, On the Divine Original of Scrip. ch. ii. § 5, and iv. § 5.]

See Lücke, Ueber d. neutest. Kanon des Eusebius, p. 28, sqq.

120

PART II.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE CANONICAL BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

BOOK I.

ON THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE

OLD TESTAMENT.

§ 30.

NAME, COUNTRY, AND ORIGIN, OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE.

THE Hebrew language," in which by far the greater part of the Old Testament is written, was the language of the Hebrews, or Israelites,' in the time of their independence.

.Isa. xix), שְׂפַת כְּנַעַן In the Old Testament, it is called -לָשׁוֹן עִבְרִית

18,), (2 Kings xviii. 26.) Comp. Isa. xxxvi. 11, 13. Neh. xiii. 24. In the Prologue to the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach, it is 'Epaïorl, but in the N. T. this term designates the common vernacular tongue. See John v. 2. xix. 13. Acts xxi. 40. xxii. 2. xxvi. 14. Josephus, Antiq. (Book i. 1, 2,) calls it yλõtta tõv 'Eßgalov, [the language of the Hebrews.] In the Targums it is called, e. g. in the Pseudo Jonathan's Targum upon Gen. xxi. 47.

TT

עבר

The most probable etymology of the word Hebrew, is from ie.. So that, nequins, (Gen. xiv. 13, in LXX.) applies to Abraham's migration. See R. Bechai, Maimonides, and other rabbins, Münster, Forster, Gesenius, Gesch. d. Heb. Sprache und Schrift. p. 11. [In Appendix, D.] It has been incorrectly derived from

7

This was also, with some modifications, the language of the other inhabitants of Canaan; of the Phoenicians, and the Carthaginians, who were descended from them. It appears that the Hebrew was the same as the Canaanitish and Phoenician language, from the following considerations : -1. From the proper names in the Bible; 2. From the fragments of the Phoenician and Carthaginian language still remaining; 3. From the silence of the Bible respecting any difference between the language of the Canaanites and Hebrews; and, 4. From the testimony of Augustine and Jerome."

a

Without doubt, it originated in the land, or was still

, by Grotius, (see Walton, Prolog. iii. 1,) or from the Patriarch ~, (Gen. x. 24. xi. 14.) Buxtorf, Löscher, Hezel, Gesch. d. Heb. Sprach. p. 7. Ewald, Krit. Gram. d. Heb. Sprach.; Lpzg. 1827, § 4.

Augustine ungrammatically derives it from 7, quæst. in Gen. i. 24. Wahl (Gesch. d. Morgendl. Sprachen. p. 453) is of the opinion that , as also, (perhaps indicating the Western nations,) is, originally, synonymous with

Israelite is a patronymic, from 3, but was used only among the natives themselves, while the terms Hebrews and Jews were used by foreigners. [See Gesenius's Hebrew Grammar, Conant's translation, § 1 and 2.]

* See Gesenius, Excursus, in his Geschichte der hebr. Sprache, p. 223, sqq. Bellermann, De Phoenicum et Pœnorum Inscriptionibus; Berlin, 1810. Eichhorn, Geschichte der Litteratur, vol. v. pt. i. p. 453, sqq.

See, on the contrary, Psalm lxxxi. 6. cxiv. 1. Isa. xxxvi. 11. Jer. v. 15. Augustinus, Contra Litteras Petiliani, lib. ii. 104; Tract. xv. in Joan. Jer. lib. v. ch. 25. Præf.

Quæst. in Jud. lib. vi. 16. Jerome, in Isa. lib. vii. in Ep. ad Galat. See Walton, Proleg. iii. § 14, sqq. Bochart, Canaan, ii. 1. Clericus, De Lingua Heb. No. 5. Bellermann, Erklarung der punischen stellen im Pœnulus des Plautus, vol. i. p. 5, sq., and iii. p. 5, sq. [We may justly conclude, says Palfrey, l. c. vol. i. p. 6, 7, (see Walton, Prolegg. iii. and Dathe's remarks, in Præf. to his edition, p. xxi. sqq.; Ackerblad, Inscript. Phonic. p. 26, cited by Gesenius, 1. c. p. 230,) that the Phoenician language, in ancient times, was entirely the same with the Hebrew in the books now extant. Bochart attempted to prove this by arguments collected from all quarters, which now receive new confirmation from monuments not known to his age. See Appendix, D.]