"inspired writings," and other similar titles. He supposes these prophets were merely interpreters of God, who, in their moments of inspiration, had neither will nor self-consciousness; they were not persons, but instruments in the hands of the Almighty. The passages in which he mentions the books of the first and second class, are given in the note." He does not mention Nehemiah, Ruth, Esther, Chronicles, Daniel, Ezekiel, the Lamentation of Jeremiah, Ecclesiastes, or the Song of Solomon. But Nehemiah may have been considered as a part of Ezra; Ruth, of Judges; and the Lamentation as belonging to the Prophecies of Jeremiah. The twelve Minor Prophets were probably considered as one book; and the books of Samuel and Kings were probably regarded as one work, in four parts. But, since Philo nowhere professes to furnish us with a list of the sacred books, his omission of a book furnishes no objection whatever to its admission into the canon.

$ 3.

THE NEW TESTAMENT.

The New Testament affords us no catalogue of the sacred books. Some parts of the Old Testament are frequently cited; but others are not once referred to. Those marked with an asterisk, in the table, are thought by some to be cited as proofs of religious truth; the others to be referred to merely for illustration. But it does not appear that the New Testament makes such a distinction.

Six books of the Old Testament are never referred to in the New Testament, namely, Judges, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Esther, Ezra, and Nehemiah. The fact that a book is cited in the New

He calls Moses roots, and iɛ00qúrτns, Opp. ed. Mangey, vol. ii. p. 66, 117, 121. He calls his writings προφητικὸν λόγον, or ἱερας βίβλους, vol. i. p. 347 -543, ii. p. 163. Similar appellations are bestowed on Genesis, vol. i. p. 18, Exodus, p. 438, Leviticus, p. 85, Numbers, p. 273, Deuteronomy, p. 657. The book of Joshua is called λóyrov tov îîε Оɛoù, p. 430. The First of Samuel is called ἱερός λόγος, p. 379. Ezra is called ἱεροφαντήσεις, p. 427. He calls Isaiah and Jeremiah prophets, p. 604, 681, 411, 147, &c. He mentions but two of the minor prophets, viz. Hosea, p. 350, 599, and Zachariah, p. 414, but both with the usual marks of approbation. He usually cites the Psalms without ascribing a divine origin to them. But he calls David a prophet, a prophetic or inspired man, and speaks of Solomon, as author of Proverbs, in similar terms. Judges, Job, and the First Book of Kings, are cited without any mark of peculiar veneration. See Eichhorn, § 25-33.

Testament, proves merely that it was regarded with respect by the Jews; or, at least, that it was well known at the time. It will by no means support the conclusion that it was supposed to be miraculously inspired, or to contain a standard of religious and moral doctrine.

The apocryphal books are not cited in the New Testament, though allusions are made to the book of Ecclesiasticus. Some apocryphal books are alluded to in the Epistle of Jude, vs. 14, and 2 Tim. iii. 8; and Paul does not hesitate to quote Greek authors, when he speaks to those who were familiar with them, as he quotes Jewish authors to the Jews.

Josephus furnishes us the oldest catalogue, now extant, of all the writings of the Old Testament, in the celebrated passage translated above, $15. In the table, the books marked with an asterisk are such as have divine authority ascribed to them by Josephus. Those marked with an obelisk (†) are inserted in his catalogue, but are never quoted in his writings. In the passage referred to," he does not merely give his own opinion upon the canon, or the books he supposed it to contain, but the common opinion of his countrymen. In compiling the table, I have not only referred to this passage containing the list of canonical books, but to various portions of his writings, where he has incidentally spoken of them.

In his list of books, he reckons, as canonical, all the writings composed before the time of Artaxerxes Longimanus, who died 424 before Christ. Why did he fix this period as the limit of the composition of the canon? Eichhorn acutely answers the question, Josephus supposed the book of Esther to be the latest of all the

books. This he places in the reign of Artaxerxes. If the book of Malachi was written later, Josephus was ignorant of the fact. His error, then, consists in placing Esther, instead of Malachi, at the end of the canon. We, therefore, are justified in placing any of our present canonical books in the catalogue of Josephus.

He calls these books, "works of the prophets," "sacred writings," &c., and grounds their authority on the fact that they were written by prophets. He receives all our present canonical books, but rejects the later writings, because they were not written by prophets. Every sacred book, therefore, with which he was acquainted, and which he believed to have been written by a prophet, (before the time of Artaxerxes,) received a place in the canon. All others were excluded. And since there were no prophets after the time of Artaxerxes, (excepting Malachi, whom he places earlier,) he mentions no books, in his canon, of a later date.

Now, leaving his systematic catalogue, and examining his works at large, it appears that he classes some books expressly among the sacred writings, mentions others without ascribing to them any authority, and omits others altogether.

I. The following belong to the first class: "

b

II. To the second belong the following books: —

1. Lamentations;

2. Judges and Ruth;

3. Samuel;

4. Chronicles;

5. Ezra and Nehemiah;

6. Esther.

III. The following belong to the third class:

1. Proverbs;

3. Ecclesiastes;
4. Job.

a

2. Canticles;

2; iv. c. 8, § 48; ix. c. 2, § 2. (4.) Ant. vii. c. 12, § 3. (5.) Ant.

(1.) See Preface, § 4. Ant. iii. c. 5, § (2.) Ant. v. c. 1, § 17. (3.) Ant. ix. c. 2, § 2. xi. c. 1, § 2. (6.) Ant. x. c. 5, § 1. (7.) Ant. x. c. 8, § 2. (8.) Ant. x. c. 10, § 4, and c. 11, § 7. (9.) Ant. x. c. 2, § 2, ad fin., (here he classes all the twelve Minor Prophets together, and ranks them with Isaiah,) and Ant. ix. c. 10, § 1, 2. (10.) Ant. ix. c. 11, § 3. See Whiston's note. (11 and 12.) Ant. xi. c. 4, § 5.

(1.) Ant. x. c. 5, § 1. v. c. 2-8 with Judges. (4.) Ant. viii. c. 12, § 4.

Compare v. c. 1 with the book of Joshua. (2.) And (3.) Compare v. c. 9-vii. with the books of Samuel. Compare 2 Ch. xiv. 8. (5.) Ant. xi. 5, § 1, 2, 8. But

Josephus does not quote any one of these four books. This fact is easily explained. He wrote a history of the Hebrew nation, not of its literature; and, as these are not historical books, he could write a history without quoting them. The book of Job was well known at that time, for it is quoted in the New Testament, and by Philo. Josephus, doubtless, included it among the thirteen prophetic books."

$ 5.

CHAP. II. CHRISTIAN CATALOGUES OF THE BOOKS IN THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

I. CANON OF THE WRITERS OF THE GREEK CHURCH.

The apostolical Fathers were mostly ignorant of the original language of the Hebrew canon; therefore, in studying the Old Testament, they were obliged to make use of a translation. The Alexandrian version was generally used. And since that contains books not found in the Hebrew canon, it is not strange to find these writers quoting indifferently the apocryphal and the canonical books.

Barnabas and Hermas, and, still later, Irenæus and Clement of Alexandria, cite the apocryphal writings, ascribing to them the same authority as to the canonical books. This is the more remarkable in a man so learned as Clement of Alexandria."

$ 6.

1. Canon of Melito.

Melito is the first Christian writer who gives us a catalogue of the universally acknowledged Scriptures" of the Old Testament, says Eusebius, to whom we are indebted for this valuable document." He took it from the writings of Melito himself. From his account, it

he draws also from the apocryphal Ezra. Compare xi. c. 3, § 2-8, with 1 Esd. iii. iv. See Whiston's note on this passage. (6.) Compare xi. c. 6 with the canonical book of Esther, which Whiston thinks J. never saw. Note on Cont. Ap. i. § 8. a See above, § 15, and Eichhorn, § 40-50. See, on the other hand, Dr. Palfrey s Academical Lectures, vol. i. p. 25, sqq.

appears the canon was not then settled among the Christians; for had this been the case, it would not have been necessary for Onesimus to write to Melito to ascertain the number of books deemed divine, or inspired; and still less would it be requisite for the bishop himself to journey to Palestine to make inquiries upon this subject.

Melito's list contains only the books received in the churches of Palestine; therefore we cannot conclude from it that these books, and these only, were received in all the other churches. The book of Esther, Nehemiah, and Lamentations, are not named in it. But the two latter were doubtless included in the books of Ezra and Jeremiah. Eichhorn, as it has already been said, thinks Esther was likewise included with Ezra, but his arguments are not satisfactory." From this epistle we learn that there was no well-known canon of Scripture acknowledged in his time. He admits none of the apocryphal, and all of the present canonical books, with the single and doubtful exception of Esther. This is marked with an asterisk in the table, as doubtful.

$7.

2. Canon of Origen.

The next list that has come down to us is from the celebrated Origen. This, also, is preserved by Eusebius. Origen formed it, as he says, from the testimony of the Jews. He not only does not admit all the apocryphal books, but expressly excludes some of them, namely, the books of Maccabees. The omission of the twelve Minor Prophets, in this catalogue, is satisfactorily explained as an accidental omission of the transeriber. But it is more difficult to account for the admission of Baruch to a place in the canon. Perhaps the following is the most satisfactory solution: The Jew, or Jews, whom he

a On this catalogue, see Lardner, vol. ii. ch. 15. Münscher, Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte, vol. i. § 26. Palfrey's Acad. Lect. vol. i. p. 32, sqq.

Schmid, in his Hist. et Vindic. Canonis, (cited by Eichhorn, § 52,) maintains that Esther is omitted by a mistake of the transcriber. But he is supported by few arguments. It might be omitted from the Christian canon at that period, for the book is not very edifying in a religious point of view. Afterwards, when the principles on which the Jewish canon was based, were better understood, the book was restored to its place.

Hist. Eccl. vi. 25. See above, § 25.

4 Εξω δὲ τούτων ἐστὶ τὰ Μακκαβαϊκά, κ. τ. λ. But see Palfrey, 1. c. lect. ii. p. 35.