THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT TO THE TIMES OF THE MACCABEES.
§ 1. Difference between Inspiration and Canon.
IT is necessary to distinguish between the inspiration and the Canon of Scripture. Canon' as applied to Scripture and that first, by Christians, in the fourth century after Christ, means a rule (Heb. בְּלַל) or standard. In result it may and does coincide with inspiration. But the one is a question of reputation, determined by historical evidence for collective human judgment in the past upon the inspiration of these writings; to which standard, of course, ecclesiastical sentiment—shifting indeed with the times—attaches itself; the other is of positive divine authority, to which heart and conscience under moral conviction yield their assent. The ecclesiastical argument that our possession of the New Testament is a debt we owe to the historical Church, and that we must abide by traditional interpretation, rests upon a confusion of these two things. The credibility to which the Scriptures are entitled has been put for the responsibility we are under to listen to them; the lamp that bears the light for the light itself; the interpreter for the Book that gives him his employment. This argument has only to be shaped by a Jew into a weapon against the interpreters of Christianity, and the fatal error it covers must at once be felt by the most ardent opponent within the Church of the individual application of Scripture. A missionary of the Catholic type, even of the mild form called 'Anglican,' cannot in heathen lands, as in the England of the nineteenth century, appeal to the general acknowledgment rendered to the Scriptures. He can alone depend upon the innate power of either the Old or the New Testament to convict the conscience and to subdue the will of man. While, as Mr. Robertson Smith truly says, 'No man's spiritual life is so large, so perfectly developed,.... that it can be used as a measure of the fullness of the Bible '—where the Canon comes in—nevertheless, as the same critic also remarks, a Christian's 'persuasion' of the truth of Scripture 'cannot be derived from external testimony.'
It is in taking up this subject, or what is called The Rule of Faith,' that we enter the battle-field of the Creeds of Christendom. What other subject can be of such moment? Upon the decision we come to in this matter evidently must depend our apprehension of the safe way,' where we must find, or in which we must place, our eternal interests. Assistance in the formation of a right judgment as to this is offered us by the Romanist on the one hand, and by the Rationalist on the other.
§ 2. Roman Catholic Idea of the Formation of the Bible.
We will turn to Catholic sources to notice a tract bearing the title, What is the Bible? Is Yours the Right Book? by W. H. Anderdon, Priest of the Society of Jesus' (1874). This is, if we mistake not, addressed to such as ourselves. Upon the first page we read, The Catholic is the true Bible-Christian. Others accept parts; he accepts the whole.... They believe some of the Books to be inspired: he, every one of the Books.' Upon p. 5: The Word of God and the World of God only, is the religion of Catholics,' and The Bible, according to St. Paul (referring to Rom. 10:14-.18; 2 Thess. 2:14), is one of two elements that make up the word of God. It is the only element, according to the popular system now in England.' Upon p. 6: What is the Bible?... Is the book of Judith, Bible? Are the books of the Maccabees?... or Bel and the Dragon?... or the last seven chapters of Esther?' which writings we are told on page 7 are Old Testament Scriptures of the second Canon, equal in authority with,' such as are printed in the English Protestant version... but rejected by the compilers of the Protestant Bible, who disliked some doctrines contained in them.' These last words refer, we suppose, to such passages as Eccles. 3:30; 2 Maccab. 14:43 sqq. Mr. Anderdon invites each to ask himself, How can I tell, without danger of fatal error, which of the writings' he has specified, including the Epistle to the Hebrews, is inspired, and therefore deserving of a place in the Canon of Scripture? How am I to accept, how am I to reject? By what rule, what test? Is it to be an external test, or does it depend on evidence arising out of the writings themselves?' Upon page 8 he says, Unless some infallible authority had given us the Bible, we should never have been able to put it together for ourselves out of these various treatises.' The reader will be able to judge if this agrees with the language of Mr. Anderdon's superiors at the Vatican Council, of which we shall speak more particularly afterward.
Upon p. 9 of this tract is the following statement: The Bible contains no list, nor hint of a list, of its own ingredients.' Now in reading such tracts of Jesuits it is necessary to keep clearly in mind that the great object they have is to establish a difference of their own invention between the Bible' and the Word of God.' Not content with such difference as arises from scriptural use of 'Word of God' for a Divine testimony—as regularly in the Acts of the Apostles—they seek to blend this with Tradition or the Voice of the Church. To show how vain is their distinction, we need but refer to Mark 7:13, in the Rhemes Version (1582): defeating the word of God for your own tradition which you have given forth.' The annotation upon this text by the authorities of the College at Rhemes is a sample of the turn that is given to such passages by Catholics ' and of the instruction this version is designed to afford: Traditions of Heretics... Howsoever they brag of Scriptures, all their manner of administration and ministry is their own tradition and invention without al Scripture and Warrant of God's Word.' In the annotation to the parallel passage of Matthew, headed Commandments of men,' we read: which at the least be frivolous, unprofitable and impertinent to piety or true worship.' This annotation warns its reader against the Protestants' perverse application' of the passage. It defends fasts, festivities,' &c., as 'made by the Holy Ghost joining with our pastors in the regiment of the faithful.'
To Catholics we may justly say, Well do you frustrate the precept of God that you may observe your own tradition' (Mark 7:9, Rhemes version). Upon p. 10 of his tract Mr. Anderdon says, The Bible never was intended by its divine author to be an exclusive rule of faith. To say The Bible and the Bible only is the religion of Protestants is an unconscious form of declaring the religion of Protestants has not sufficient foundation.' He goes on to use a favorite argument (see the Rhemes note on Tit. 1:14) drawn from the common practice of baptizing children, from the observance of the Lord's Day in place of the Sabbath, and the departure of Christendom from Acts 15:19, 20, 28, 29.
As to what he says upon page 12 of this tract, we may observe, no one questions the historical precedence of an oral over a written testimony; but let us be sure that what is offered us in this shape is a successional legacy of faithful men' (2 Tim. 2:2). On pp. 19 sqq. of this tract are the following, perhaps startling, assertions: To take the Bible on trust, is to accept a tradition'; upon p. 20, You know it to be the right book, simply by the traditions of the Catholic Church which gave the book to you'; upon p. 21,
Your Bible is not the whole of the right Book, because your forefathers, by the mere rule of their private judgment, or private dislikes... put a fraud upon you, three hundred years ago, which you have never yet seen through. And so they lied to the Holy Ghost, in a matter of more importance than did Ananias and Sapphira, and have long since accounted for their lie. Who would not be sorry to encounter either clause of the malediction, Apoc. 22:18, 19?'
Much of what this Jesuit says we could leave to `Reformed ' Jews—of whom we shall have to speak— to deal with; but we believe the reader will find in the following pages enough wherewith to answer his questions and statements. For the present we content ourselves with quoting from Westcott, for whose words at the close of his valuable treatise we may well be thankful. He says, There is not the slightest evidence to show that the collection of the Sacred Books, as the depositaries of doctrine, was ever the subject of a general conference of the Churches. The Bible was formed, even as the Church itself was formed, by the action of that Holy Spirit which is the life of both.'
§ 3. History of the Old Testament Books Previous to the Captivity.
Let us see if Westcott's remarks are borne out by an investigation of the history of the Old Testament Canon. We have first to ascertain the history of the different series of Books that make up the collection, and mainly from the inspired records. The archives of the Israelites are referred to in Ex. 17:14; 34:27; Num. 33:2; Deut. 31:26 (cf. 17:18); Josh. 24:26; 1 Sam. 10:25; 2 Kings 22:8; 2 Chron. 20:34; 26:22, &c.; Esther 9:32. The following passages may be referred to for original records no longer in existence: Num. 21:14; Josh. 10:13; 1 Chron. 29:29; 2 Chron. 9:29; 12:15, 33:18, 19. They had-their use for a time: there can have been nothing in them of enduring importance but what is enshrined in the historical Books of the Hebrew Canon. For the New Testament cf. John 20:30, 31, from which we learn the designedly fragmentary character of the Gospel histories.
Isa. 34:16 is of interest. We do not see why Westcott should say the 'Book of the Lord' there means the Law alone, as that which before the Captivity was specially open to all and authoritative.' The Book of the Law,' when that alone is meant, is spoken of with precision: see 2 Chron. 17:9; cf. 34:30, the Book of the Covenant.' Westcott is here in company with Davidson and Smith.
Dan. 9:2 (cf. Amos 7:14) suffices for the belief that the schools of the Prophets had no such exclusive custody of prophetic documents as some writers upon this subject suppose: we may believe that prophetic writings equally were open to all, even if they did not command as much reverence as the rolls of the Pentateuch. It may be correct with some to say that 2 Kings 22:8 is the only passage in which a so-far complete collection of Scriptures is spoken of prior to the Captivity, but not from the same passage to infer that no such official collection of other parts of the Old Testament had been made: Westcott seems certainly right in believing some collections of the words of the Prophets had been made, from the manner in which Jeremiah appeals to the writings of his predecessors. To this Oehler also had called attention. The Psalms,' as Pusey says, being intended for devotional use in the Temple, must have been early collected.' The Proverbs, as we learn from 25:1, were copied out by the men of Hezekiah.'
§ 4. The Captivity and the Succeeding Period.
The judgment that fell upon the people must have placed the sacred books in jeopardy. We cannot, follow Plumptre when he says, The great wrench given to the national life in the Babylonian captivity brought with it, we may well believe, the destruction and mutilation of the greater part of this literature.’ There is no ground for this notion. The Jews must have carried their sacred books everywhere with them: see Acts 15:21. There would seem to have been no ruthless treatment of the Israelitish archives by Babylonian conquerors, any more than by Assyrian. The record of the conduct of Cyrus in the Book of Ezra indicates consideration, from whatever motives, upon the part of Elamite monarchs—who would be fair samples of eastern rulers—for the religion of a subject race, similar to that which we meet with in the Romans. Whatever the treatment to which at the Captivity they were subjected, it is clear that the Hebrew Scriptures survived in a substantial condition, from the reference in Dan. 9:2 (cf. Ezek. 20:11, 5: 6). As to the passage in Daniel Oehler is surely mistaken in thinking the expression there used lacks precision. Westcott justly says, The title here applied to the prophetic writings—” the media.
Westcott, books” (Dan. 9:2)—shows that when the Book of Daniel was written the collection was definitely marked out and known.’
Westcott does not determine the date of the Book. Believing as we do that it was Daniel’s own work, and that at least chaps. 1-9 preceded Ezra’s reformation, we cannot follow the Cambridge Professor in saying, The Law alone seems to have formed the Jewish Bible up to the Captivity.’ No proof has been afforded of the common assertion that Ezra, the great Synagogue, or elders of the congregation, and the last prophets, collected and revised the Books which, when completed, made up the Old Testament as we possess it.
While it is demonstrable that Ezra, for one, was a man singularly adapted for such a work—at least so far as the Law’ is concerned—can it be correct to assert as Davidson, following his German guides, that The man who first gave public sanction to a portion of the national literature was Ezra, who laid the foundation of a Canon’? We believe that, not by any bold stroke of one man, but by a gradual process long at work had the foundation of the Canon been laid. That, as this ready scribe of Rationalism says, Ezra edited the Law,’ would result from 7:6, to, 12, and other passages of the Book called by his name; but to speak of making the first canon or collection of books, and giving it an authority which it had not before,’ is wide of the mark. Davidson goes on to say, As to Ezra’s mode of redaction, we are left for the most part to conjecture.’ But this is indeed the stock in trade of writers of the class to which Davidson belongs. We firmly believe that Ezra revived the reverence of the people for the Law, against which they had so grievously sinned; and that to the absorption of the Jewish mind at this epoch with the Mosaic Code is the fact due that the Samaritans, in setting up a rival religion, contented themselves with acquiring a copy of the Pentateuch as their sacred book. Westcott, on the other hand, is one of those who regard the Samaritan Canon as a proof of the limitation, at the time of the Exile, of the Jewish Bible to the Law.
If there is not enough in Daniel or Ezekiel upon which to build the assumption that the prince and the priest were equally solicitous with the priest, the scribe,’ for the inspired records, it is matter of history that the Babylonian schools of a later date were amongst the chief nurseries of sacred learning. We repeat that Dan. 9:2 is evidence of the well-defined character all the earlier writings had amongst the children of the Captivity,’ before this supposed redaction by Ezra could have been accomplished.
The idea that to this faithful man was revealed afresh all that had been written before, which he then rewrote, seems to have come from love of the marvelous, if not derived from 2 Esdras xiv. 38-48, in reading which it is well to be cautious.
It is however highly probable that the Books received authoritative revision from time to time and with particular care after the Captivity, under the superintendence, if not by the solicitude alone, of Ezra himself, who, a scribe, was also one of the inspired penmen, and would bestow, as we believe, special attention upon the Pentateuch. What would otherwise often seem to be interpolation thus obtains full justification: cf. Irrationalism of Infidelity,’ p. 216. That there was a gradual formation ‘—of the whole collection—fixed not by external authority, but by silent’ conviction of men of faith, seems to us the only view worthy of acceptance.
2 Maccabees 2:13, if it is to be trusted, as most seem to think, throws light upon the further history of Old Testament Scripture. It speaks of “the writings and commentaries of Neemias; and how he, founding a library, gathered together the acts of the Kings, and the Prophets, and of David, and the Epistles of the Kings concerning the holy gifts .”
To the final stage in the history of the Canon before Christian times allusion is probably made in the Prologue of Ecclesiasticus, already referred to. It will of course remind the reader of Luke 24:44. It connects itself with Josephus’ account of the canonical Books, which it is well to state here, although in historical order it belongs to a later section: it places us at the end of the first Christian century.