Footnotes

Footnotes1.κανών.2.Zur Geschichte des Kanons, pp 3-68.3.Clement. Hom.ap. Coteler, vol. i. p. 608.4.Stromata, vi. 15, p. 803, ed. Potter.5.Adv. Hæres., i. 95.6.Ap.Euseb. H. E., v. 24.7.De præscript. Hæreticorum, chs. 12, 13.8.Comment.inMat.iii. p. 916; ed. Delarue.9.γραφαὶ κανόνος.10.Monumenta vetera ad Donatistarum historiam petinentia, ed. Dupin, p. 168.11.κανών.12.At the end of theIambi ad Seleucum, on the books of the New Testament, he adds, οὐτος ἀψευδέστατος κανὼν ἄν εἴη τῶν θεοπνεύστων γραφῶν.13.Prologus galeatusin ii. Reg.14.Expos. in Symb. Apost., 37, p. 374, ed. Migne.15.κανονικός.16.ἰδιωτικός and ἀκανόνιστος.17.Κανονιζόμενα.18.Such as ἐνδιάθηκα, ὡρισμένα.19.κανονιζόμενα or κεκανονισμένα.20.ἀπόκρυφος.21.Orat. de Ordin., vol. ii. p. 44.22.גנז. The Jews applied the wordgenuzimto books withdrawn from public use, whose contents were thought to be out of harmony with the doctrinal or moral views of Judaism when the canon was closed. See Fürst'sDer Kanon des alten Testaments, p. 127, note; and Geiger'sUrschrift, p. 201.23.δεδημοσιευμένα.24.H. E. Il. 23, III. 3-16.25.Stromata, lib. iii. p. 1134, ed. Migne.26.Prolog. ad Cant., opp., vol. iii. p. 36.27.νόθος, ψευδεπίγραφος.28.See Suicer'sThesaurus,s.v.29.Βιβλία ἀναγινωσκόμενα, libri ecclesiastici.30.In his epistle to Laeta he uses the epithet in its customary sense, of books unauthentic, not proceeding from the authors whose names they bear.Opp.vol. i. p. 877, ed. Migne.31.Num. xxi. 14.32.Joshua x. 12, 13; 2 Sam. i. 18.33.2 Sam. viii. 16; 1 Kings iv. 3.34.Isaiah, xl.-lxvi.35.Chap. xiv. 23-50, &c. See Hilgenfeld'sMessias Judærorum, p. 107.36.See Buxtorf'sTiberias, chap. x., p. 88, &c.; and Herzfeld'sGeschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. i. p. 380, &c. Zwölfter Excursus.37.Chapter i.38.על ידי. Does this meanfor, instead of, as Bloch understands it? Waehner inserts, to fill up the sense,“some of which, however, were composed by;”but this is far-fetched. SeeAntiquitates Ebræorum, p. 13.39.Fol. 15, 1.40.פחכ.41.Studien zur Geschichte der Sammlung der althebräischen Literatur, p. 127, &c.42.vii. 12, συναγωγὴ γραμματέων, not ἡ συναγωγή.43.That the Scribes always adhered to the prohibition to write no religious laws and ordinances cannot be held, even in the face of the Talmudic saying, כוחכ הילכוה כשורף חורה (writers of Halacoth are like a burner of the law). This may apply to the late scribes or bookmen, not to the earlier. The greater part of Geiger'sUrschriftis based on the opposite idea. As the reverence for former scholars increased, the Talmudic saying might be accepted. SeeTemura, 14 b.44.Chapter ix. 2.45.Chapter ii. 13.46.Antiq. xii. 10, 1.47.Josephus's Antiq., xiii. 5, 8; 1 Maccab., xii. 35.48.1 Maccab., xiii. 36.49.Sota, 24 a.50.מבינים, Nehemiah viii. 3.51.Talmudic tradition, which attributes the redaction of the book to the men of the great synagogue who are said to have acted under the influence of the divine spirit, separates the three apocryphal pieces from the rest; but this arose from the desire of discountenancing the idea that the work consists of romance and legend. Such later tradition took curious ways of justifying the canonicity of Daniel and the redaction of it by the great synagogue,ex gr., the assumption that the second part arose out of a series of unconnectedMegilothwhich were not reduced to chronological order. Still the Midrash maintains that Daniel, or the person writing in his name, was no prophet, like Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, but a man of visions, anapocalyptist. It was a general belief, thatvisionshad come into the place ofprophecywhen the book appeared. The Greek translation could not have been long after the original, because it is used in the First Book of Maccabees. The interval between the Hebrew and the Greek was inconsiderable. The translator not only departed from, but added to, the original, inserting such important pieces as the Prayer of Azarias, the Song of the Three Children, the history of Susanna, and that of Bel and the Dragon. Whether any of these had been written before is uncertain. Most of the traditions they embody were probably reduced to writing by the translator, and presented in his peculiar style. The assertion, that Josephus was unacquainted with these additions is hazardous, since the way in which he speaks of Daniel's fame (Antiq. x. 11, 7), and especially ofthe bookshe wrote (τὰ βιβλία), supposes some relation to them. Elsewhere he speaks ofone book(x. 10, 4; xi. 8, 5), where he may have thought of the canonical part.52.פתוביס, translated by the Greek ἁγιόγραφα, hagiographa.53.It has been thought that the phrase פעלי אמפות in the ninth verse alludes to the great council or synagogue. This conjecture is plausible on various grounds. The reasons for attributing the epilogue to a later time than the writer of the book appear to be stronger than those assigning it to the original author. The 13th and 14th verses in particular, are unlike Coheleth.54.τὰ ἀλλα πάτρια βιβλία; τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν βιβλίων. The younger Sirach does not use γραφαὶ, which would have been a proper translation ofc'tubim. Does not this ἀλλα imply the non-application of the specific titlec'tubimto the hagiographa at that time, and therefore the idea that the third canon was still open?55.Contra Apion, i. 8.56.In Maaser Sheni, Sota 24. 1, the duumvirate or suggoth, consisting of the president, Nasi, and vice-president, Ab-beth-din, are referred to Hyrcanus's creation. Zunz affirms that it originated in the time of Simon, son of Mattathias, 142b.c.57.Antiq., xiv., 9.58.Der gerichtliche Beweis, p. 68.59.The Sanhedrimproperly so calledceased under R. Judah I., Ha-Nasi, when the council of seventy members which sat at Sepphoris before his patriarchate, transferred its privileges to him, on his removal to that place. The court was then merged in the patriarch.60.ננוזים literally concealed, withdrawn from public use.61.See Fürst'sDer Kanon des alten Testaments, u.s.w.pp. 147, 148.62.Tract. Sabbat.ch. i.63.Because of its profane spirit and Epicurean ideas; see Adoyot v. 3.64.Yadayim v. 3.65.See Graetz'sKohelet, pp. 162, 163.66.The sages wished to pronounce Coheleth apocryphal, because its statements are contradictory. And why have they not declared it apocryphal? Because it begins with words of the law, and ends with words of the law, for it opens with the words“What advantage has man in all his labor wherewith he labors under the sun?”&c., &c.—Sabbat. 30 b.So also in the Midrash:“The sages wished to pronounce Coheleth apocryphal,”&c., &c.—Vayyikra rabba 161 b.67.R. Simeon ben Asai said,“I have received it from the mouth of the 72 elders in the day that R. Eleasar ben Asaria was appointed elder, that the Song of Songs and Coheleth pollute the hands.”—Yadayim v. 3.68.This language was based on a figurative interpretation of the Song. One who said,“Whoever reads such writings as Sirach and the later books loses all part in everlasting life,”can have no weight. He outheroded the Palestinian tradition respecting the Jewish productions of later origin, which merely affirms that they“do not pollute the hands.”—(Toss. Yadayim, c. 2)69.Studien zur Geschichte, u. s. w., p. 150, &c.70.Geiger'sUrschrift, p. 288.71.See De Goeje in theTheologisch Tijdschriff Jaargang II.(1868) p. 179, &c.72.Zunz'sDie gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, pp. 101, 102.73.V. 20, p. 124, ed. Ueltzen.74.Dillmann, in theJahrbücher für deutsche Theologie, dritter Band, p. 422.75.In hisAntiq., x. 4, 5, and xi. 1-5.76.iv. 6, sec. 3, and vi. 2, sec. 1.77.xi. 8, sec. 5.78.Article“Kanon”in Herzog'sEncyklopædie, vol. vii., p. 253; and the same author'sProlegomena zur Theologie des alt. Test., pp. 91, 92.79.See Abulfatach'sAnnal. Samar., p. 102, 9, &c.80.Kirschbaum, Weisse, and Noack.81.Einleitung in das alte Testament, vol. i. p. 133.82.De vita contemplativa, Opp. Tom. ii., P. 475, ed. Mangey.83.See Credner'sZur Geschichte des Kanons, p. 124.84.De mens. et pond., chapters 22, 23, vol. ii. p. 180, ed. Petav.85.Baba Bathra, fol. 14, 2.86.SeeFürst, Der Kanon u. s. w. p.14, &c.87.Studien zur Geschichte der alttestamentliche Literatur, u. s. w., p. 18, etc.88.HodyDe Bibliorum textibus originalibus, p. 644.89.Hody gives lists of the order in which the books stand in some early printed editions and in a few MSS., p. 645.90.Die Apokryphen, u. s. w., p. 14, &c.91.Studien und Kritikenfor 1853, p. 267, &c.92.A Scholastical History of the Canon, p. 22.93.See Rothe,Zur Dogmatik, Studien u. Kritikenfor 1860, p. 67, &c. The apostle's argument rests on the occurrence of the singular (seed, σπέρμα) in Genesis xvii. 8 (LXX.), not the plural (seeds, σπέρματα); though the plural of the corresponding Hebrew word could not have been used, because it has a different signification. Grammatical inaccuracy is made the basis of a certain theological interpretation. Those who wish to see a specimen of labored ingenuity unsuccessfully applied to the justification of St. Paul's argument in this passage, may consult Tholuck'sDas alte Testament in neuem Testament, p. 63, etc. Vierte Auflage. (Epist. to the Galatians iii. 16.)94.Died 202a.d.95.Advers. Hares., v. 35, referring to Baruch iv. 36, and v. p. 335, ed. Massuet.96.Ibid., iv., 26, referring to Daniel xiii. 20 in the Septuagint.97.Died 220a.d.98.Pædagog.vi. 3.99.Stromata, ii. 23.100.Stromata, iv. 16.101.Ibid., ii. 7.102.Ex Script. prophet. eclogae, c. 1.103.Stromateis, ii. 15.104.Died 264a.d.105.De Natura; Routh's Reliquiae Sacrae, vol. iv. p. 356.106.Fragment. Nicet., inReliq. Sacrae, vol. ii. p. 404.107.Ibid., p. 407.108.Ibid., p. 406.109.Epistola ad. Dionys. Roman, inReliq. Sacr., vol. iii. p. 195.110.Reliq. Sacr., vol. ii. p. 408.111.Died 220a.d.112.Advers. Valentinianos.ch. 2.113.De Exhortatione Castitatis, ch. 2.114.Contra Gnosticos, ch. 8.115.De Habitu Muliebri, ch. 3.116.Epist.55, p. 110, ed. Fell.117.De Orat. Domin.p. 153.118.De Exhortat. Martyrii, ch. 12, p. 182.119.De Mortal, p. 161.120.De Orat. Domin., p. 141.121.Testim.iii. 4, p. 62.122.De Lapsis, p. 133, &c.123.Adv. Noel.v.124.See Migne's edition, p. 689, &c.125.Died after 171.126.Ap.Euseb. H. E., lib. iv. ch. 26.127.Died 254,a.d.128.Ap.Euseb. H. E., lib. iv. ch. 25.129.Comment. in Joann.tom. xxxii. ch. 14, ed. Huet. p, 409.130.Contra Cels.iii. 72; vol. i. p. 494, ed. Delarue.131.In Exodus, Hom. vi. i; Levit. Hom. v. 2.132.In Levit., Hom. xii. 4.133.In Lukam, Hom. 21.134.De Oratione, ii. p. 215.135.Opp. edDelarue, vol. i. p. 12.136.Died 311.137.Convivium decem virginum, in Combefis's Auctarium bibliothecae Graecorum patrum, p. 69.138.Ibid., p. 69.139.Ibid., p. 109.140.τὰ λόγια.Ap.Euseb. H. E. iii. 39.141.Davidson'sIntroduction to the Study of the N. Testam.vol. x. p. 388.142.Explanatio in Epist. ad Titum, vol. iv. p. 407, ed. Benedict.143.Die Valentinianische Gnosis und die heilige Schrift, p. 75.144.A good deal of manipulation has been needlessly employed for the purpose of placing these heretics as early as possible; but nothing definite can be extracted from Irenæus's notices of them. Hippolytus's use of the present tense, in speaking of them, renders it probable that they were nearly his contemporaries.145.See the Indexes to Duncker and Schneidewin's edition.146.Bibliotheca, cod. 232.147.It is an unfounded assumption that Paul cited the passage by“mere accident;”on the contrary, he gives it as canonical, with“as it is written”(1 Corinth. ii. 9). It may be that the Gnostics are referred to as using the objectionable passage; but it is special pleadingto limitit to them, when Paul has expressly used the same, deriving it either from Isaiah lxiv. 4, or some unknown document; just as it is special pleading to identify ὁ κύριος standing beside νόμος καὶ προφῆται, withthe New Testament. The word excludes Paul's Epistles from the canon; nor is there any evidence to the contrary, as has been alleged, in the two Syriac epistles attributed to Clement, which Wetstein published. Comp.Eusebius's H. E.iv. 22,Photius's Bibliotheca, 232. Apologists have labored to prove Hegesippus an orthodox Catholic Christian, like Irenæus; but in vain. He was a Jewish Christian of moderate type, holding intercourse with Pauline Christians at the time when the Catholic Church was being formed.148.SeeHilgenfeld's Zeitschriftfor 1875-1878.149.There is ἄπεστιν instead of the Septuagint's and Mark's (Tischend.) ἀπέχει.150.Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, vol. 1, p. 144.151.See Vision ii, 3, 4, with the prolegomena of De Gebhardt: and Harnack, p. lxxiii.152.See Holtzmann in Hilgenfeld'sZeitschriftfor 1875, p. 40, &c.153.Epist. ch. iv.154.Chapter xii. pp. 30, 31, ed. 2, Hilgenfeld.155.See Chapter xv. end, with Hilgenfeld's note,Barnabae epistula ed.altera, pp. 118, 119.156.Epis.p. 13 ed. Hilgenfeld.157.Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1871, P. 336, etc.158.Chapters xvi. and iv. In the former the reference is to Enoch lxxxix. 56, 66, 67, but the latter is not in the present book of Enoch, though Hilgenfeld thinks he has discovered it in lxxxix. 61-64 and xc. 17. (Dillmann's Das Buch Henoch, pp. 61, 63). Was another apocryphal Jewish book current in the time of Barnabas, under the name of Enoch; or did he confound one document with another, misled by the Greek translation of an apocalyptic work which had fallen into discredit? See Hilgenfeld'sBarnabae Epistula, ed. 2 pp. 77, 78.159.Chapter xi.160.Hist. Eccles.iii. 39.161.A small body of literature originating in the fragment of Papias preserved by Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. iii, 39, 1-4) has appeared; though it is difficult to obtain satisfactory conclusions. Not only have Weiffenbach and Leimbach written treatises on the subject, but other scholars have entered into it more or less fully,—Zahn, Steitz, Riggenbach, Hilgenfeld, Lipsius, Keim, Martens, Loman, Holtzmann, Hausrath, Tietz, and Lightfoot. The fragment is not of great weight in settling the authenticity of the four gospels. Indirectly indeed it throws some light on the connection of two evangelists with written memoirs of the life of Jesus; but it rather suggests than solves various matters of importance. It is tolerably clear that the gospels, if such they may be called, of which he speaks as written by Matthew and Mark, were not identical with the works now existing under the names of these evangelists; and that no safe conclusion can be drawn from Papias's silence about John's and Luke's as not then in existence. Neither the present gospels nor any other had been converted intoScripture; since he regarded oral traditions as more credible than written memoirs. Those who hold that the presbyter John was none other than the apostle, Eusebius having misunderstood the fragment and made a different John from the apostle, as well as the critics who deduce from the fragment the fact that John suffered martyrdom in Palestine, have not established these conclusions. Papias refers to the material he got for explaining the λογία, rather than the source whence they were drawn. But whether he learnt directly from the elders, or indirectly as the preposition (παρὰ) would seem to indicate, and whether the sentence beginning with“What Andrew,”&c., (τί Ἀνδρέας κ. τ. λ.) stands in apposition to the“words of the elders,”(τούς τῶν πρεσβυτέρων λόγους) or not, are things uncertain.162.Epist. ad Philadelph., ch. 5 See Hefele's note on the passage. The other well-known passage in chapter viii. is too uncertain in reading and meaning to be adduced here.163.Chapter iii.164.To the Ephesians, chapter xii.165.Epist. ad Romanos, iv.166.Testam. Benj.11, p. 201, ed. Sinker.167.Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1875, p. 490,et seq.168.Ἐν τόις ἀπομνημονέυμασαι, ἄ φημι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν ἐκείνοις παρακολουθησάντων συντετάχθαι. Sec. 103. Here“the apostles”are not necessarily Matthew and John. Apocryphal gospels then current bore the name of apostles or their attendants,—of Peter, James, Nicodemus, Matthias, &c.169.Καὶ τὸ εἰπεῖν μετωνομακέναι αὐτὸν Πέτρον καὶ γεγράφθαι ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασαι αὐτοῦ γεγενημένον καὶ τοῦτο, μετὰ τοῦ καὶ, κ. τ. λ. Dial. cum Tryph., 106. Here the pronoun αὐτοῦ probably refers to Peter. And the expression“his memoirs”can hardly mean Mark's gospel, since Jerome is the first that calls it such.170.Dialogus, part ii., p. 315, ed. Thirlby. Comp. on Justin, Tjeenk-Willink'sJustinus Martyr in zijne Verhouding tot Paulus.171.Apolog.i. 97, ed. Thirlby.172.Hieronymi Prooem.inEpist. ad Titum.173.Comp. chap. xii., where γραφαί is applied to the apostolic epistles; a title they did not receive so early as the age of Polycarp. Zahn himself admits this.174.Chapter xiv. 2.175.Chapter ii. 4.176.SeeClementis Romani ad Corinthios quae discuntur epistulae, ed. de Gebhardt et Harnack, 2., sec. 10, Prolegomena.177.Legat. pro Christ.II, 12.178.Ibid.33.179.Chapter xviii.180.Ap.Euseb. H. E., iv. 23.181.Ap. Euseb. H. E., v. 1, p. 144, ed. Bright.182.θεῖος λόγος.Ad Autolycum, iii. 14, p. 1141, ed Migne.183.Ibid., ii. 22.184.Epist. 151, ad Algasiam.185.See Overbeck'sStudien zur Geschichte der alten Kirche, AbhandlungI., in which the date of the letter is brought down till after Constantine. Surely this is too late.186.Davidson'sIntroduction to the Study of the New Testament, vol. ii. p. 508, &c.187.τὸ εὐαγγέλιον.188.ὁ ἀπόστολος.189.Adves. Hæres., iv. 20, 2.190.Stromateis, ii. 6, p. 965, ed. Migne.191.Ibid., iv. 17, p. 1312.192.Ibid., i. 29, p. 928.193.De Oratione, cap. 12.194.De Pudicitia, cap. 10-20.195.G. of St. Paul's epistles, a MS. of the ninth century according to Tischendorf.196.See Anger'sUeber den Laodicener Brief, 1843.197.Fertur etiam ad Laudecences alia ad Alexandrinos Pauli nomine fincte ad hesem Marcionis el alia plura quæ in Catholicam ecclesiam recepi non potest.Perhaps a comma should be put afternomine, andfinctejoined to what follows, to thealia plurasaid to be forged in the interest of Marcion.198.Quarti evangeliorum Johannis ex discipulis cohortantibus condiscipulis et episcopis suis dixit conjejunate mihi odie triduo el quid cuique fuerit revelatum alterutrum nobis ennarremus eadem nocte revelatum Andreæ ex apostolis ut recogniscentibus cunctis Johannis suo nomine cuncta discriberet.199.It is printed and largely commented on by Credner in hisGeschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanonedited by Volkmar, p. 141, &c., and by WestcottOn the Canon, Appendix C, p. 466, 2d edition. Many others have explained it; especially Hilgenfeld.200.Abouta.d.190.201.Euseb.H. E. vi. 12.202.Tischendorf edited the Pauline epistles from this MS. Lipsiæ, 1852.203.Died 254a.d.204.τὰ ἐν τῇ διαθήκη βιβλία, ἐνδιάθηκα, ὁμολογούμενα.205.In one place, however, he calls itvery useful and divinely inspired.Comment. in ep. ad Roman., xvi. 14.206.νόθα.207.Ap. Euseb,Hist. Eccles., vi. 25; iii. 25, ἀντιλεγόμενα.208.See Euseb.H. E.vi. 25.Comment. in Malth., iii. p. 463;Ibid., p. 814;Comment. in ep. ad Roman., iv. p. 683;in Matth., iii. p. 644;Homil.viii.in Numb., ii. p. 294;Contra Cels., i. 63, p. 378;De Principiis præf., i. p. 49.Opp., ed. Delarue.209.Died 340a.d.210.Hist. Eccles., iii. 25; also 31, 39; vi. 13, 14.211.ὁμολογούμενα, ἐνδιάθηκα, ἀναμφίλεκτα, ἀναντίρρητα.212.ἀντιλεγόμενα, γνώριμα δὲ τοῖς πολλοῖς, ἐν πλείσταις ἐκκλησίαις δεδημοσιευμένα, νόθα.213.ἄτοπα πάντη καὶ δυσσεβῆ; παντελῶς νόθα (iii. 31).214.This last with the qualification εἴγε φανείη. In another place he states that it was rejected by some, and therefore it is also along with the ἀντιλεγόμενα or νόθα.215.μικτά.216.νόθα.217.νοθεύομαι.Hist. Eccles., ii. 23. Christophorson, Schmid, and Hug think that Eusebius gave the opinion of others in this word: but it is more likely that he gave his own, as Valesius thinks. See the note in Schmid'sHistoria antiqua et vindicatio Canonis, &c., p. 358.218.Ibid., vi. 14.219.See Weber'sBeiträge zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, p. 142, &c.220.ὁμολογουμένη.Hist. Eccles., iii. 16.221.Adversus Hæres, iii., II, 8.222.Adv. Marc.iv. 5.223.De præscript. hæret.c. 36.224.De præscript. hæret.c. 32.225.Ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccles.ii. 15 and vi. 14.226.Ignatius von Antiochien, 1873; and Prolegomena to thePatrum Apostolicorum opera, by de Gebhardt, Harnack, and Zahn, Fasciculus, ii.227.Geschichte des neutest. Kanon, p. 217, &c.228.SeeConstit. Apostol., p. 67, ed Ueltzen.229.Died 386a.d.230.Catech., iv. 22, pp. 66, 67, ed. Milles.231.Ibid., xi. p. 142.232.Ibid., vi. p. 80.233.Ibid., ix. pp. 115, 122.234.Ibid., ix. p. 115.235.Ibid., ii. p. 31.236.Ibid., xvi. p. 239.237.AthanasiiOpp.ed. Benedict. i. 2, pp. 962, 963.238.Orat. contra Arianos, ii. 35, vol. i. 503, ed. Benedict.239.Ibid., ii. 42, i. p. 510.240.Ibid., ii. 79, i. p. 546.241.Epist. ad episcop. Ægypt., &c., i. 1, p. 272.242.Contra Arian., i. 12, i. p. 416.243.Apolog. contra Arianos, ii. vol. i. p. 133.244.Praepar Evan., i. 9.245.Ibid., xi. 14.246.Ibid., xii. 18.247.Ibid., vi. 11.248.Demon. Evang., vi. 19.249.Died 379a.d.250.Homil. in princip. proverb. Opp.ed. Garnier altera, vol. ii. p. 140.251.Constitutiones Monast., c. iii. 2.Ibid., p. 779.252.Adv. Eunom, vol. i. p. 417.253.De Spiritu Sancto, c. viii. vol. iii. p. 23.254.In Princip. Proverb, vol. ii. p. 152.255.Died 389a.d.256.Opp.ed. Migne, vol. iii. pp. 473, 474.257.Gregorii Nazianzeni,Opp.ed. Migne, vol. iii. pp. 473, 474.258.Died 395a.d.259.Iambi ad Seleucum; in Greg. Naz.Opp.ii. p. 194.260.Died 403a.d.261.ἀμφιλέκτα.Adv. Hæres, i. p. 19. SeeHæres, iii. tom. i. p. 941. De ponder. et mensur. 23.262.Advers. Hæres, lib. i., tom. 2 ed. Petav. Paris, 1662, p. 72.263.Ibid., lib. ii. tom. ii. p. 781.264.Ibid., lib. ii. tom. i. p. 580.265.Ibid., lib, ii. tom. i. p. 481.266.Ibid., lib. i. tom. ii. p. 157.267.Hæres, xxx. 15.268.Died 392a.d.269.Enarrat. in ep. S. Petri secundam, p. 1774 ed Migne.270.Died 407a.d.271.See Montfaucon in his edition of Chrysostom's Works, vol. vi. pp. 364, 365, ed. Paris, 1835.272.Expos. in Psalm cix. 7. See also xi. 1 in Genes, where Wisdom xiv. 3 is cited.273.Expos. in Psalm xlix. 3.274.De Lazaro, ii. 4.275.Died 392a.d.276.De Trinitate, iii. 2. p. 792 ed. Migne.277.Fragmenta in Epist. 2 ad Corinthios, when Baruch, iii. 3, is quoted like Psalm 101, p. 1697.278.De Spirit. sanct. i. p. 1033.279.Died 428a.d.280.See Leontius Byzantinus contra Nestorianos et Eutychianos, lib. iii. inGallandi Bibliotheca, xii. p. 690. Comp. FritzscheDe Theodori Mopsuesteni vita et scriptis, Halæ, 1836.281.Died 444a.d.282.Contra Julian, i. p. 541, ed. Migne.283.Ibid., p. 815.284.Ibid., p. 921.285.In Isaim, ed. Migne, p. 93.286.P. 859, vol. i.287.P. 910, vol. i., ed. Migne.288.βιβλία κανονιζόμενα, κανονικά, κεκανονισμένα, ὡρισμένα.289.βιβλία ἀναγινωσκόμενα.290.Died 430a.d.291.The forty-four books are, 5 of Moses, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 4 Kings, 2 Chronicles, Job, Tobit, Esther, Judith, 2 Maccabees, Ezra, Nehemiah, Psalms, 3 of Solomon, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, 12 Prophets, 4 greater do.De Doctrina Christianaii. 8.292.Contra Gaudent.i. 38.Opp.Paris, 1837, vol. ix. p. 1006.293.De Doctr. Christ.ii. 8.Civitat. Dei.xviii. 20, 1.294.De Praesdest. Sanct.i. 11.295.Retractt.i. 10.296.De Peccat. merit.i. 50;Opp.vol. x. p. 137, ed. Migne.297.Mansi, tom. iii. p. 924.298.Ibid., p. 891.299.Died 420a.d.300.Prologus galeatus in Libros Regum. Epist. ad Paulinum.301.In Herbst'sEinleit.,erster Theil, p. 37.302.Opp.ed. Benedict., Vol. IV., pp. 679, 684, 750.303.Ep. ad Dardan.Opp.vol. i. P. 1103, ed. Migne.304.SeeOnomastica Sacra; Comment. in Ep. ad Philem; De Viris illustr.305.Died 368a.d.306.Prolog. in Psalm.,Opp.ed. Migne, vol. i. p. 241.307.De Trinitateiv. 16.308.Ex. Op. Hist. Fragmentum, iii. vol. ii. p. 672 ed. Migne.309.In cxxvii. Psalm.310.In Psalm cxxvi. 6.311.In Psalm lxviii. 19, andDe Trinitate, iv. 42.312.Ibid., iv. 8.313.Died about 370a.d.314.De Schismate Donatist, iii. 3.315.Ibid., ii. 25.316.Died about 370a.d.317.De non parcendo, &c., ed. Coleti, p. 190.318.Ibid., p. 236.319.Ibid., p. 187.320.Pro Athanasio, lib. i. p. 98.321.Ibid., p. 105.322.Ibid., lib. ii. pp. 127, 128.323.Died 397a.d.324.De Spiritu Sanctoiii. 18.325.De bono mortisviii.326.In Psalm cxviii., Sermo. 118, 2.327.De Spirit. Sancto.iii., vi. 39.328.Liber de Tobia.329.Died 410a.d.330.Expos. in Symbol. Apostol., pp. 373, 374, ed. Migne.331.Died about 387a.d.332.De Hæres. chs. 60 and 61, in Galland, vii. pp. 424, 425.333.Apud Mansi, iii. pp. 1040, 1041.334.Credner'sZur Geschichte des Kanons, p. 151, &c., and Thiel'sEpistolæ Romanorum Pontificum genuinae, tom. i.335.Mansi iv. p. 430.336.Opp. Græc., tom. ii. P. 327, ed. Rom. 1746.337.Ibid., tom. i. p. 101.338.Tom. iii. p. 60.339.Galland, xii. p. 79, &c.340.See Dillmann in Ewald'sJahrbücher, v. p. 144, &c.341.Died 599a.d.342.See Credner'sZur Gesch. des Kanons, p. 97, &c.343.Died 891a.d.344.Nomocanon, Titulus III., cap. 2, vol. iv. pp. 1050, 1051 ed. Migne.345.See Codd. 113, 126.346.Died 754a.d.347.Died 636a.d.348.Etymolog.vi. 1.349.Died 604a.d.350.Died 912a.d.351.Died 735a.d.352.Died 804a.d.353.Died 856a.d.354.Died 1141a.d.355.Died 1156a.d.356.Died 1182a.d.357.1270a.d.358.Died 1263a.d.359.Died 1384a.d.360.Died 1340a.d.361.See Hody, p. 648, &c.362.Chemnitz calls seven books of the New Testamentapocryphos, because of their uncertain authorship (seeExamen Concilii Tridentini, p. 45, &c.)363.See Tholuck'sKommentar zum Briefe an die Hebräer, zweite Auflage, pp. 55, 86.364.Carlstadt's treatise is reprinted in Credner'sZur Geschichte des Kanons.365.Werke, edited by Schuler and Schulthess, vol. ii. p. 169.366.Ep. ad. Valdenses, 1530,apud. Sculteti annal. evang. renovat decas secunda, pp. 313, 314.367.Ibid.368.Hug says that his copy of Widmanstad's edition had the Acts immediately following the Gospels.369.Epist. ad Paulinum.370.Hom. vii. in Josua.371.De Bibliorum textibus originalibus, &c., p. 654.372.Ibid., p. 664.373.See Zacagni'sCollectanea monumentorum veterum Praefat, p. lxxi., &c.374.See Volkmar'sAnhangtoCrednet's Geschichte des N. T. Kanon, p. 341, &c.; and HodyDe Bibliorum textibus originalibus, p. 644, &c.375.Niemeyer's Collectio Confessionum, p. 468.376.Ibid., p. 330.377.Ibid., pp. 361, 362.378.See Herzog'sDie Romanischen Waldenser, p. 55, &c.; and his programmDe origine et pristino statu Waldensium, &c., pp. 17, 40, 41.379.Leger'sHistoire des Eglises Vaudoises, vol. i., p. 112, &c.380.The reason given for their being added as a separate appendix is that they are cited by some fathers and found in some Latin Bibles.381.Kimmel'sMonumenta fidei eccles. orient, part i. p. 467.382.Died 791a.d.383.Abhandlung von freier Untersuchung des Canons, 4 parts, Halle, 1771-1775.384.See Toland'sNazarenus, p. 25, &c., second edition; and Morgan'sMoral Philosopher, vol. i. p. 56, &c.385.For example,“Moses is dead; his rule went out when Christ came—he is of no further service here.... We are willing to regard him as a teacher, but we will not regard him as our lawgiver,unless he agree with the New Testament and the law of nature.”Sämmtliche Schriften, ed. Walch. dritter Theil., pp. 7, 8.386.Such as Calovius, Chemnitz, John Gerhard, W. Lyser, Quenstedt, Brochmand, Hollaz, &c. Melancthon also makes no important distinction between the two Testaments in hisLoci theologici. Calvin's theology was derived from the Old Testament more than the New.387.His full sayings are collected in Bretschneider'sLuther an unsere Zeit, pp. 186-224; and in Krause'sOpuscula theologica, pp. 205-241.388.Loci TheologiciTom. i. pp. 186, 187, ed. Cotta, 1762.389.Theologia Didactico-polemica, p. 340.390.See Jones's new and full method of settling the canonical authority of the New Testament, Vol. I., Part i., chap. 5. page 52, ed. 1726.391.Ecclesia sua autoritate nullum librum facit canonicum, quippe canonica scripturae autoritas est a solo Deo, &c. Gerhard'sLoci Theologici, tom. i. p. 4, ed. Cotta. Autoritas scripturæ quoad nos nihil allud est, quam manifestatio et cognitio unicæ illius divinæ et summæ autoritatis, quæ scriptum est interna et insita. Ecclesia igitur non confert scripturæ novam aliquam autoritatem quoad nos, sed testificatione sua ad agnitionem illius; veritatis nos deducit. Concedimus, ecclesiam esse scripturæ sacrætestem, custodem, vindicem, praeconem, et interpretem; sed negarnus, ex eo effici, quod autoritas scripturæ sive simpliciter sive quoad nos ab ecclesia pendeat et quidem unice, pendeat.—Ibid., tomus secundus, p. 39, ed. Cotta.

Footnotes1.κανών.2.Zur Geschichte des Kanons, pp 3-68.3.Clement. Hom.ap. Coteler, vol. i. p. 608.4.Stromata, vi. 15, p. 803, ed. Potter.5.Adv. Hæres., i. 95.6.Ap.Euseb. H. E., v. 24.7.De præscript. Hæreticorum, chs. 12, 13.8.Comment.inMat.iii. p. 916; ed. Delarue.9.γραφαὶ κανόνος.10.Monumenta vetera ad Donatistarum historiam petinentia, ed. Dupin, p. 168.11.κανών.12.At the end of theIambi ad Seleucum, on the books of the New Testament, he adds, οὐτος ἀψευδέστατος κανὼν ἄν εἴη τῶν θεοπνεύστων γραφῶν.13.Prologus galeatusin ii. Reg.14.Expos. in Symb. Apost., 37, p. 374, ed. Migne.15.κανονικός.16.ἰδιωτικός and ἀκανόνιστος.17.Κανονιζόμενα.18.Such as ἐνδιάθηκα, ὡρισμένα.19.κανονιζόμενα or κεκανονισμένα.20.ἀπόκρυφος.21.Orat. de Ordin., vol. ii. p. 44.22.גנז. The Jews applied the wordgenuzimto books withdrawn from public use, whose contents were thought to be out of harmony with the doctrinal or moral views of Judaism when the canon was closed. See Fürst'sDer Kanon des alten Testaments, p. 127, note; and Geiger'sUrschrift, p. 201.23.δεδημοσιευμένα.24.H. E. Il. 23, III. 3-16.25.Stromata, lib. iii. p. 1134, ed. Migne.26.Prolog. ad Cant., opp., vol. iii. p. 36.27.νόθος, ψευδεπίγραφος.28.See Suicer'sThesaurus,s.v.29.Βιβλία ἀναγινωσκόμενα, libri ecclesiastici.30.In his epistle to Laeta he uses the epithet in its customary sense, of books unauthentic, not proceeding from the authors whose names they bear.Opp.vol. i. p. 877, ed. Migne.31.Num. xxi. 14.32.Joshua x. 12, 13; 2 Sam. i. 18.33.2 Sam. viii. 16; 1 Kings iv. 3.34.Isaiah, xl.-lxvi.35.Chap. xiv. 23-50, &c. See Hilgenfeld'sMessias Judærorum, p. 107.36.See Buxtorf'sTiberias, chap. x., p. 88, &c.; and Herzfeld'sGeschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. i. p. 380, &c. Zwölfter Excursus.37.Chapter i.38.על ידי. Does this meanfor, instead of, as Bloch understands it? Waehner inserts, to fill up the sense,“some of which, however, were composed by;”but this is far-fetched. SeeAntiquitates Ebræorum, p. 13.39.Fol. 15, 1.40.פחכ.41.Studien zur Geschichte der Sammlung der althebräischen Literatur, p. 127, &c.42.vii. 12, συναγωγὴ γραμματέων, not ἡ συναγωγή.43.That the Scribes always adhered to the prohibition to write no religious laws and ordinances cannot be held, even in the face of the Talmudic saying, כוחכ הילכוה כשורף חורה (writers of Halacoth are like a burner of the law). This may apply to the late scribes or bookmen, not to the earlier. The greater part of Geiger'sUrschriftis based on the opposite idea. As the reverence for former scholars increased, the Talmudic saying might be accepted. SeeTemura, 14 b.44.Chapter ix. 2.45.Chapter ii. 13.46.Antiq. xii. 10, 1.47.Josephus's Antiq., xiii. 5, 8; 1 Maccab., xii. 35.48.1 Maccab., xiii. 36.49.Sota, 24 a.50.מבינים, Nehemiah viii. 3.51.Talmudic tradition, which attributes the redaction of the book to the men of the great synagogue who are said to have acted under the influence of the divine spirit, separates the three apocryphal pieces from the rest; but this arose from the desire of discountenancing the idea that the work consists of romance and legend. Such later tradition took curious ways of justifying the canonicity of Daniel and the redaction of it by the great synagogue,ex gr., the assumption that the second part arose out of a series of unconnectedMegilothwhich were not reduced to chronological order. Still the Midrash maintains that Daniel, or the person writing in his name, was no prophet, like Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, but a man of visions, anapocalyptist. It was a general belief, thatvisionshad come into the place ofprophecywhen the book appeared. The Greek translation could not have been long after the original, because it is used in the First Book of Maccabees. The interval between the Hebrew and the Greek was inconsiderable. The translator not only departed from, but added to, the original, inserting such important pieces as the Prayer of Azarias, the Song of the Three Children, the history of Susanna, and that of Bel and the Dragon. Whether any of these had been written before is uncertain. Most of the traditions they embody were probably reduced to writing by the translator, and presented in his peculiar style. The assertion, that Josephus was unacquainted with these additions is hazardous, since the way in which he speaks of Daniel's fame (Antiq. x. 11, 7), and especially ofthe bookshe wrote (τὰ βιβλία), supposes some relation to them. Elsewhere he speaks ofone book(x. 10, 4; xi. 8, 5), where he may have thought of the canonical part.52.פתוביס, translated by the Greek ἁγιόγραφα, hagiographa.53.It has been thought that the phrase פעלי אמפות in the ninth verse alludes to the great council or synagogue. This conjecture is plausible on various grounds. The reasons for attributing the epilogue to a later time than the writer of the book appear to be stronger than those assigning it to the original author. The 13th and 14th verses in particular, are unlike Coheleth.54.τὰ ἀλλα πάτρια βιβλία; τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν βιβλίων. The younger Sirach does not use γραφαὶ, which would have been a proper translation ofc'tubim. Does not this ἀλλα imply the non-application of the specific titlec'tubimto the hagiographa at that time, and therefore the idea that the third canon was still open?55.Contra Apion, i. 8.56.In Maaser Sheni, Sota 24. 1, the duumvirate or suggoth, consisting of the president, Nasi, and vice-president, Ab-beth-din, are referred to Hyrcanus's creation. Zunz affirms that it originated in the time of Simon, son of Mattathias, 142b.c.57.Antiq., xiv., 9.58.Der gerichtliche Beweis, p. 68.59.The Sanhedrimproperly so calledceased under R. Judah I., Ha-Nasi, when the council of seventy members which sat at Sepphoris before his patriarchate, transferred its privileges to him, on his removal to that place. The court was then merged in the patriarch.60.ננוזים literally concealed, withdrawn from public use.61.See Fürst'sDer Kanon des alten Testaments, u.s.w.pp. 147, 148.62.Tract. Sabbat.ch. i.63.Because of its profane spirit and Epicurean ideas; see Adoyot v. 3.64.Yadayim v. 3.65.See Graetz'sKohelet, pp. 162, 163.66.The sages wished to pronounce Coheleth apocryphal, because its statements are contradictory. And why have they not declared it apocryphal? Because it begins with words of the law, and ends with words of the law, for it opens with the words“What advantage has man in all his labor wherewith he labors under the sun?”&c., &c.—Sabbat. 30 b.So also in the Midrash:“The sages wished to pronounce Coheleth apocryphal,”&c., &c.—Vayyikra rabba 161 b.67.R. Simeon ben Asai said,“I have received it from the mouth of the 72 elders in the day that R. Eleasar ben Asaria was appointed elder, that the Song of Songs and Coheleth pollute the hands.”—Yadayim v. 3.68.This language was based on a figurative interpretation of the Song. One who said,“Whoever reads such writings as Sirach and the later books loses all part in everlasting life,”can have no weight. He outheroded the Palestinian tradition respecting the Jewish productions of later origin, which merely affirms that they“do not pollute the hands.”—(Toss. Yadayim, c. 2)69.Studien zur Geschichte, u. s. w., p. 150, &c.70.Geiger'sUrschrift, p. 288.71.See De Goeje in theTheologisch Tijdschriff Jaargang II.(1868) p. 179, &c.72.Zunz'sDie gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, pp. 101, 102.73.V. 20, p. 124, ed. Ueltzen.74.Dillmann, in theJahrbücher für deutsche Theologie, dritter Band, p. 422.75.In hisAntiq., x. 4, 5, and xi. 1-5.76.iv. 6, sec. 3, and vi. 2, sec. 1.77.xi. 8, sec. 5.78.Article“Kanon”in Herzog'sEncyklopædie, vol. vii., p. 253; and the same author'sProlegomena zur Theologie des alt. Test., pp. 91, 92.79.See Abulfatach'sAnnal. Samar., p. 102, 9, &c.80.Kirschbaum, Weisse, and Noack.81.Einleitung in das alte Testament, vol. i. p. 133.82.De vita contemplativa, Opp. Tom. ii., P. 475, ed. Mangey.83.See Credner'sZur Geschichte des Kanons, p. 124.84.De mens. et pond., chapters 22, 23, vol. ii. p. 180, ed. Petav.85.Baba Bathra, fol. 14, 2.86.SeeFürst, Der Kanon u. s. w. p.14, &c.87.Studien zur Geschichte der alttestamentliche Literatur, u. s. w., p. 18, etc.88.HodyDe Bibliorum textibus originalibus, p. 644.89.Hody gives lists of the order in which the books stand in some early printed editions and in a few MSS., p. 645.90.Die Apokryphen, u. s. w., p. 14, &c.91.Studien und Kritikenfor 1853, p. 267, &c.92.A Scholastical History of the Canon, p. 22.93.See Rothe,Zur Dogmatik, Studien u. Kritikenfor 1860, p. 67, &c. The apostle's argument rests on the occurrence of the singular (seed, σπέρμα) in Genesis xvii. 8 (LXX.), not the plural (seeds, σπέρματα); though the plural of the corresponding Hebrew word could not have been used, because it has a different signification. Grammatical inaccuracy is made the basis of a certain theological interpretation. Those who wish to see a specimen of labored ingenuity unsuccessfully applied to the justification of St. Paul's argument in this passage, may consult Tholuck'sDas alte Testament in neuem Testament, p. 63, etc. Vierte Auflage. (Epist. to the Galatians iii. 16.)94.Died 202a.d.95.Advers. Hares., v. 35, referring to Baruch iv. 36, and v. p. 335, ed. Massuet.96.Ibid., iv., 26, referring to Daniel xiii. 20 in the Septuagint.97.Died 220a.d.98.Pædagog.vi. 3.99.Stromata, ii. 23.100.Stromata, iv. 16.101.Ibid., ii. 7.102.Ex Script. prophet. eclogae, c. 1.103.Stromateis, ii. 15.104.Died 264a.d.105.De Natura; Routh's Reliquiae Sacrae, vol. iv. p. 356.106.Fragment. Nicet., inReliq. Sacrae, vol. ii. p. 404.107.Ibid., p. 407.108.Ibid., p. 406.109.Epistola ad. Dionys. Roman, inReliq. Sacr., vol. iii. p. 195.110.Reliq. Sacr., vol. ii. p. 408.111.Died 220a.d.112.Advers. Valentinianos.ch. 2.113.De Exhortatione Castitatis, ch. 2.114.Contra Gnosticos, ch. 8.115.De Habitu Muliebri, ch. 3.116.Epist.55, p. 110, ed. Fell.117.De Orat. Domin.p. 153.118.De Exhortat. Martyrii, ch. 12, p. 182.119.De Mortal, p. 161.120.De Orat. Domin., p. 141.121.Testim.iii. 4, p. 62.122.De Lapsis, p. 133, &c.123.Adv. Noel.v.124.See Migne's edition, p. 689, &c.125.Died after 171.126.Ap.Euseb. H. E., lib. iv. ch. 26.127.Died 254,a.d.128.Ap.Euseb. H. E., lib. iv. ch. 25.129.Comment. in Joann.tom. xxxii. ch. 14, ed. Huet. p, 409.130.Contra Cels.iii. 72; vol. i. p. 494, ed. Delarue.131.In Exodus, Hom. vi. i; Levit. Hom. v. 2.132.In Levit., Hom. xii. 4.133.In Lukam, Hom. 21.134.De Oratione, ii. p. 215.135.Opp. edDelarue, vol. i. p. 12.136.Died 311.137.Convivium decem virginum, in Combefis's Auctarium bibliothecae Graecorum patrum, p. 69.138.Ibid., p. 69.139.Ibid., p. 109.140.τὰ λόγια.Ap.Euseb. H. E. iii. 39.141.Davidson'sIntroduction to the Study of the N. Testam.vol. x. p. 388.142.Explanatio in Epist. ad Titum, vol. iv. p. 407, ed. Benedict.143.Die Valentinianische Gnosis und die heilige Schrift, p. 75.144.A good deal of manipulation has been needlessly employed for the purpose of placing these heretics as early as possible; but nothing definite can be extracted from Irenæus's notices of them. Hippolytus's use of the present tense, in speaking of them, renders it probable that they were nearly his contemporaries.145.See the Indexes to Duncker and Schneidewin's edition.146.Bibliotheca, cod. 232.147.It is an unfounded assumption that Paul cited the passage by“mere accident;”on the contrary, he gives it as canonical, with“as it is written”(1 Corinth. ii. 9). It may be that the Gnostics are referred to as using the objectionable passage; but it is special pleadingto limitit to them, when Paul has expressly used the same, deriving it either from Isaiah lxiv. 4, or some unknown document; just as it is special pleading to identify ὁ κύριος standing beside νόμος καὶ προφῆται, withthe New Testament. The word excludes Paul's Epistles from the canon; nor is there any evidence to the contrary, as has been alleged, in the two Syriac epistles attributed to Clement, which Wetstein published. Comp.Eusebius's H. E.iv. 22,Photius's Bibliotheca, 232. Apologists have labored to prove Hegesippus an orthodox Catholic Christian, like Irenæus; but in vain. He was a Jewish Christian of moderate type, holding intercourse with Pauline Christians at the time when the Catholic Church was being formed.148.SeeHilgenfeld's Zeitschriftfor 1875-1878.149.There is ἄπεστιν instead of the Septuagint's and Mark's (Tischend.) ἀπέχει.150.Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, vol. 1, p. 144.151.See Vision ii, 3, 4, with the prolegomena of De Gebhardt: and Harnack, p. lxxiii.152.See Holtzmann in Hilgenfeld'sZeitschriftfor 1875, p. 40, &c.153.Epist. ch. iv.154.Chapter xii. pp. 30, 31, ed. 2, Hilgenfeld.155.See Chapter xv. end, with Hilgenfeld's note,Barnabae epistula ed.altera, pp. 118, 119.156.Epis.p. 13 ed. Hilgenfeld.157.Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1871, P. 336, etc.158.Chapters xvi. and iv. In the former the reference is to Enoch lxxxix. 56, 66, 67, but the latter is not in the present book of Enoch, though Hilgenfeld thinks he has discovered it in lxxxix. 61-64 and xc. 17. (Dillmann's Das Buch Henoch, pp. 61, 63). Was another apocryphal Jewish book current in the time of Barnabas, under the name of Enoch; or did he confound one document with another, misled by the Greek translation of an apocalyptic work which had fallen into discredit? See Hilgenfeld'sBarnabae Epistula, ed. 2 pp. 77, 78.159.Chapter xi.160.Hist. Eccles.iii. 39.161.A small body of literature originating in the fragment of Papias preserved by Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. iii, 39, 1-4) has appeared; though it is difficult to obtain satisfactory conclusions. Not only have Weiffenbach and Leimbach written treatises on the subject, but other scholars have entered into it more or less fully,—Zahn, Steitz, Riggenbach, Hilgenfeld, Lipsius, Keim, Martens, Loman, Holtzmann, Hausrath, Tietz, and Lightfoot. The fragment is not of great weight in settling the authenticity of the four gospels. Indirectly indeed it throws some light on the connection of two evangelists with written memoirs of the life of Jesus; but it rather suggests than solves various matters of importance. It is tolerably clear that the gospels, if such they may be called, of which he speaks as written by Matthew and Mark, were not identical with the works now existing under the names of these evangelists; and that no safe conclusion can be drawn from Papias's silence about John's and Luke's as not then in existence. Neither the present gospels nor any other had been converted intoScripture; since he regarded oral traditions as more credible than written memoirs. Those who hold that the presbyter John was none other than the apostle, Eusebius having misunderstood the fragment and made a different John from the apostle, as well as the critics who deduce from the fragment the fact that John suffered martyrdom in Palestine, have not established these conclusions. Papias refers to the material he got for explaining the λογία, rather than the source whence they were drawn. But whether he learnt directly from the elders, or indirectly as the preposition (παρὰ) would seem to indicate, and whether the sentence beginning with“What Andrew,”&c., (τί Ἀνδρέας κ. τ. λ.) stands in apposition to the“words of the elders,”(τούς τῶν πρεσβυτέρων λόγους) or not, are things uncertain.162.Epist. ad Philadelph., ch. 5 See Hefele's note on the passage. The other well-known passage in chapter viii. is too uncertain in reading and meaning to be adduced here.163.Chapter iii.164.To the Ephesians, chapter xii.165.Epist. ad Romanos, iv.166.Testam. Benj.11, p. 201, ed. Sinker.167.Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1875, p. 490,et seq.168.Ἐν τόις ἀπομνημονέυμασαι, ἄ φημι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν ἐκείνοις παρακολουθησάντων συντετάχθαι. Sec. 103. Here“the apostles”are not necessarily Matthew and John. Apocryphal gospels then current bore the name of apostles or their attendants,—of Peter, James, Nicodemus, Matthias, &c.169.Καὶ τὸ εἰπεῖν μετωνομακέναι αὐτὸν Πέτρον καὶ γεγράφθαι ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασαι αὐτοῦ γεγενημένον καὶ τοῦτο, μετὰ τοῦ καὶ, κ. τ. λ. Dial. cum Tryph., 106. Here the pronoun αὐτοῦ probably refers to Peter. And the expression“his memoirs”can hardly mean Mark's gospel, since Jerome is the first that calls it such.170.Dialogus, part ii., p. 315, ed. Thirlby. Comp. on Justin, Tjeenk-Willink'sJustinus Martyr in zijne Verhouding tot Paulus.171.Apolog.i. 97, ed. Thirlby.172.Hieronymi Prooem.inEpist. ad Titum.173.Comp. chap. xii., where γραφαί is applied to the apostolic epistles; a title they did not receive so early as the age of Polycarp. Zahn himself admits this.174.Chapter xiv. 2.175.Chapter ii. 4.176.SeeClementis Romani ad Corinthios quae discuntur epistulae, ed. de Gebhardt et Harnack, 2., sec. 10, Prolegomena.177.Legat. pro Christ.II, 12.178.Ibid.33.179.Chapter xviii.180.Ap.Euseb. H. E., iv. 23.181.Ap. Euseb. H. E., v. 1, p. 144, ed. Bright.182.θεῖος λόγος.Ad Autolycum, iii. 14, p. 1141, ed Migne.183.Ibid., ii. 22.184.Epist. 151, ad Algasiam.185.See Overbeck'sStudien zur Geschichte der alten Kirche, AbhandlungI., in which the date of the letter is brought down till after Constantine. Surely this is too late.186.Davidson'sIntroduction to the Study of the New Testament, vol. ii. p. 508, &c.187.τὸ εὐαγγέλιον.188.ὁ ἀπόστολος.189.Adves. Hæres., iv. 20, 2.190.Stromateis, ii. 6, p. 965, ed. Migne.191.Ibid., iv. 17, p. 1312.192.Ibid., i. 29, p. 928.193.De Oratione, cap. 12.194.De Pudicitia, cap. 10-20.195.G. of St. Paul's epistles, a MS. of the ninth century according to Tischendorf.196.See Anger'sUeber den Laodicener Brief, 1843.197.Fertur etiam ad Laudecences alia ad Alexandrinos Pauli nomine fincte ad hesem Marcionis el alia plura quæ in Catholicam ecclesiam recepi non potest.Perhaps a comma should be put afternomine, andfinctejoined to what follows, to thealia plurasaid to be forged in the interest of Marcion.198.Quarti evangeliorum Johannis ex discipulis cohortantibus condiscipulis et episcopis suis dixit conjejunate mihi odie triduo el quid cuique fuerit revelatum alterutrum nobis ennarremus eadem nocte revelatum Andreæ ex apostolis ut recogniscentibus cunctis Johannis suo nomine cuncta discriberet.199.It is printed and largely commented on by Credner in hisGeschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanonedited by Volkmar, p. 141, &c., and by WestcottOn the Canon, Appendix C, p. 466, 2d edition. Many others have explained it; especially Hilgenfeld.200.Abouta.d.190.201.Euseb.H. E. vi. 12.202.Tischendorf edited the Pauline epistles from this MS. Lipsiæ, 1852.203.Died 254a.d.204.τὰ ἐν τῇ διαθήκη βιβλία, ἐνδιάθηκα, ὁμολογούμενα.205.In one place, however, he calls itvery useful and divinely inspired.Comment. in ep. ad Roman., xvi. 14.206.νόθα.207.Ap. Euseb,Hist. Eccles., vi. 25; iii. 25, ἀντιλεγόμενα.208.See Euseb.H. E.vi. 25.Comment. in Malth., iii. p. 463;Ibid., p. 814;Comment. in ep. ad Roman., iv. p. 683;in Matth., iii. p. 644;Homil.viii.in Numb., ii. p. 294;Contra Cels., i. 63, p. 378;De Principiis præf., i. p. 49.Opp., ed. Delarue.209.Died 340a.d.210.Hist. Eccles., iii. 25; also 31, 39; vi. 13, 14.211.ὁμολογούμενα, ἐνδιάθηκα, ἀναμφίλεκτα, ἀναντίρρητα.212.ἀντιλεγόμενα, γνώριμα δὲ τοῖς πολλοῖς, ἐν πλείσταις ἐκκλησίαις δεδημοσιευμένα, νόθα.213.ἄτοπα πάντη καὶ δυσσεβῆ; παντελῶς νόθα (iii. 31).214.This last with the qualification εἴγε φανείη. In another place he states that it was rejected by some, and therefore it is also along with the ἀντιλεγόμενα or νόθα.215.μικτά.216.νόθα.217.νοθεύομαι.Hist. Eccles., ii. 23. Christophorson, Schmid, and Hug think that Eusebius gave the opinion of others in this word: but it is more likely that he gave his own, as Valesius thinks. See the note in Schmid'sHistoria antiqua et vindicatio Canonis, &c., p. 358.218.Ibid., vi. 14.219.See Weber'sBeiträge zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, p. 142, &c.220.ὁμολογουμένη.Hist. Eccles., iii. 16.221.Adversus Hæres, iii., II, 8.222.Adv. Marc.iv. 5.223.De præscript. hæret.c. 36.224.De præscript. hæret.c. 32.225.Ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccles.ii. 15 and vi. 14.226.Ignatius von Antiochien, 1873; and Prolegomena to thePatrum Apostolicorum opera, by de Gebhardt, Harnack, and Zahn, Fasciculus, ii.227.Geschichte des neutest. Kanon, p. 217, &c.228.SeeConstit. Apostol., p. 67, ed Ueltzen.229.Died 386a.d.230.Catech., iv. 22, pp. 66, 67, ed. Milles.231.Ibid., xi. p. 142.232.Ibid., vi. p. 80.233.Ibid., ix. pp. 115, 122.234.Ibid., ix. p. 115.235.Ibid., ii. p. 31.236.Ibid., xvi. p. 239.237.AthanasiiOpp.ed. Benedict. i. 2, pp. 962, 963.238.Orat. contra Arianos, ii. 35, vol. i. 503, ed. Benedict.239.Ibid., ii. 42, i. p. 510.240.Ibid., ii. 79, i. p. 546.241.Epist. ad episcop. Ægypt., &c., i. 1, p. 272.242.Contra Arian., i. 12, i. p. 416.243.Apolog. contra Arianos, ii. vol. i. p. 133.244.Praepar Evan., i. 9.245.Ibid., xi. 14.246.Ibid., xii. 18.247.Ibid., vi. 11.248.Demon. Evang., vi. 19.249.Died 379a.d.250.Homil. in princip. proverb. Opp.ed. Garnier altera, vol. ii. p. 140.251.Constitutiones Monast., c. iii. 2.Ibid., p. 779.252.Adv. Eunom, vol. i. p. 417.253.De Spiritu Sancto, c. viii. vol. iii. p. 23.254.In Princip. Proverb, vol. ii. p. 152.255.Died 389a.d.256.Opp.ed. Migne, vol. iii. pp. 473, 474.257.Gregorii Nazianzeni,Opp.ed. Migne, vol. iii. pp. 473, 474.258.Died 395a.d.259.Iambi ad Seleucum; in Greg. Naz.Opp.ii. p. 194.260.Died 403a.d.261.ἀμφιλέκτα.Adv. Hæres, i. p. 19. SeeHæres, iii. tom. i. p. 941. De ponder. et mensur. 23.262.Advers. Hæres, lib. i., tom. 2 ed. Petav. Paris, 1662, p. 72.263.Ibid., lib. ii. tom. ii. p. 781.264.Ibid., lib. ii. tom. i. p. 580.265.Ibid., lib, ii. tom. i. p. 481.266.Ibid., lib. i. tom. ii. p. 157.267.Hæres, xxx. 15.268.Died 392a.d.269.Enarrat. in ep. S. Petri secundam, p. 1774 ed Migne.270.Died 407a.d.271.See Montfaucon in his edition of Chrysostom's Works, vol. vi. pp. 364, 365, ed. Paris, 1835.272.Expos. in Psalm cix. 7. See also xi. 1 in Genes, where Wisdom xiv. 3 is cited.273.Expos. in Psalm xlix. 3.274.De Lazaro, ii. 4.275.Died 392a.d.276.De Trinitate, iii. 2. p. 792 ed. Migne.277.Fragmenta in Epist. 2 ad Corinthios, when Baruch, iii. 3, is quoted like Psalm 101, p. 1697.278.De Spirit. sanct. i. p. 1033.279.Died 428a.d.280.See Leontius Byzantinus contra Nestorianos et Eutychianos, lib. iii. inGallandi Bibliotheca, xii. p. 690. Comp. FritzscheDe Theodori Mopsuesteni vita et scriptis, Halæ, 1836.281.Died 444a.d.282.Contra Julian, i. p. 541, ed. Migne.283.Ibid., p. 815.284.Ibid., p. 921.285.In Isaim, ed. Migne, p. 93.286.P. 859, vol. i.287.P. 910, vol. i., ed. Migne.288.βιβλία κανονιζόμενα, κανονικά, κεκανονισμένα, ὡρισμένα.289.βιβλία ἀναγινωσκόμενα.290.Died 430a.d.291.The forty-four books are, 5 of Moses, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 4 Kings, 2 Chronicles, Job, Tobit, Esther, Judith, 2 Maccabees, Ezra, Nehemiah, Psalms, 3 of Solomon, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, 12 Prophets, 4 greater do.De Doctrina Christianaii. 8.292.Contra Gaudent.i. 38.Opp.Paris, 1837, vol. ix. p. 1006.293.De Doctr. Christ.ii. 8.Civitat. Dei.xviii. 20, 1.294.De Praesdest. Sanct.i. 11.295.Retractt.i. 10.296.De Peccat. merit.i. 50;Opp.vol. x. p. 137, ed. Migne.297.Mansi, tom. iii. p. 924.298.Ibid., p. 891.299.Died 420a.d.300.Prologus galeatus in Libros Regum. Epist. ad Paulinum.301.In Herbst'sEinleit.,erster Theil, p. 37.302.Opp.ed. Benedict., Vol. IV., pp. 679, 684, 750.303.Ep. ad Dardan.Opp.vol. i. P. 1103, ed. Migne.304.SeeOnomastica Sacra; Comment. in Ep. ad Philem; De Viris illustr.305.Died 368a.d.306.Prolog. in Psalm.,Opp.ed. Migne, vol. i. p. 241.307.De Trinitateiv. 16.308.Ex. Op. Hist. Fragmentum, iii. vol. ii. p. 672 ed. Migne.309.In cxxvii. Psalm.310.In Psalm cxxvi. 6.311.In Psalm lxviii. 19, andDe Trinitate, iv. 42.312.Ibid., iv. 8.313.Died about 370a.d.314.De Schismate Donatist, iii. 3.315.Ibid., ii. 25.316.Died about 370a.d.317.De non parcendo, &c., ed. Coleti, p. 190.318.Ibid., p. 236.319.Ibid., p. 187.320.Pro Athanasio, lib. i. p. 98.321.Ibid., p. 105.322.Ibid., lib. ii. pp. 127, 128.323.Died 397a.d.324.De Spiritu Sanctoiii. 18.325.De bono mortisviii.326.In Psalm cxviii., Sermo. 118, 2.327.De Spirit. Sancto.iii., vi. 39.328.Liber de Tobia.329.Died 410a.d.330.Expos. in Symbol. Apostol., pp. 373, 374, ed. Migne.331.Died about 387a.d.332.De Hæres. chs. 60 and 61, in Galland, vii. pp. 424, 425.333.Apud Mansi, iii. pp. 1040, 1041.334.Credner'sZur Geschichte des Kanons, p. 151, &c., and Thiel'sEpistolæ Romanorum Pontificum genuinae, tom. i.335.Mansi iv. p. 430.336.Opp. Græc., tom. ii. P. 327, ed. Rom. 1746.337.Ibid., tom. i. p. 101.338.Tom. iii. p. 60.339.Galland, xii. p. 79, &c.340.See Dillmann in Ewald'sJahrbücher, v. p. 144, &c.341.Died 599a.d.342.See Credner'sZur Gesch. des Kanons, p. 97, &c.343.Died 891a.d.344.Nomocanon, Titulus III., cap. 2, vol. iv. pp. 1050, 1051 ed. Migne.345.See Codd. 113, 126.346.Died 754a.d.347.Died 636a.d.348.Etymolog.vi. 1.349.Died 604a.d.350.Died 912a.d.351.Died 735a.d.352.Died 804a.d.353.Died 856a.d.354.Died 1141a.d.355.Died 1156a.d.356.Died 1182a.d.357.1270a.d.358.Died 1263a.d.359.Died 1384a.d.360.Died 1340a.d.361.See Hody, p. 648, &c.362.Chemnitz calls seven books of the New Testamentapocryphos, because of their uncertain authorship (seeExamen Concilii Tridentini, p. 45, &c.)363.See Tholuck'sKommentar zum Briefe an die Hebräer, zweite Auflage, pp. 55, 86.364.Carlstadt's treatise is reprinted in Credner'sZur Geschichte des Kanons.365.Werke, edited by Schuler and Schulthess, vol. ii. p. 169.366.Ep. ad. Valdenses, 1530,apud. Sculteti annal. evang. renovat decas secunda, pp. 313, 314.367.Ibid.368.Hug says that his copy of Widmanstad's edition had the Acts immediately following the Gospels.369.Epist. ad Paulinum.370.Hom. vii. in Josua.371.De Bibliorum textibus originalibus, &c., p. 654.372.Ibid., p. 664.373.See Zacagni'sCollectanea monumentorum veterum Praefat, p. lxxi., &c.374.See Volkmar'sAnhangtoCrednet's Geschichte des N. T. Kanon, p. 341, &c.; and HodyDe Bibliorum textibus originalibus, p. 644, &c.375.Niemeyer's Collectio Confessionum, p. 468.376.Ibid., p. 330.377.Ibid., pp. 361, 362.378.See Herzog'sDie Romanischen Waldenser, p. 55, &c.; and his programmDe origine et pristino statu Waldensium, &c., pp. 17, 40, 41.379.Leger'sHistoire des Eglises Vaudoises, vol. i., p. 112, &c.380.The reason given for their being added as a separate appendix is that they are cited by some fathers and found in some Latin Bibles.381.Kimmel'sMonumenta fidei eccles. orient, part i. p. 467.382.Died 791a.d.383.Abhandlung von freier Untersuchung des Canons, 4 parts, Halle, 1771-1775.384.See Toland'sNazarenus, p. 25, &c., second edition; and Morgan'sMoral Philosopher, vol. i. p. 56, &c.385.For example,“Moses is dead; his rule went out when Christ came—he is of no further service here.... We are willing to regard him as a teacher, but we will not regard him as our lawgiver,unless he agree with the New Testament and the law of nature.”Sämmtliche Schriften, ed. Walch. dritter Theil., pp. 7, 8.386.Such as Calovius, Chemnitz, John Gerhard, W. Lyser, Quenstedt, Brochmand, Hollaz, &c. Melancthon also makes no important distinction between the two Testaments in hisLoci theologici. Calvin's theology was derived from the Old Testament more than the New.387.His full sayings are collected in Bretschneider'sLuther an unsere Zeit, pp. 186-224; and in Krause'sOpuscula theologica, pp. 205-241.388.Loci TheologiciTom. i. pp. 186, 187, ed. Cotta, 1762.389.Theologia Didactico-polemica, p. 340.390.See Jones's new and full method of settling the canonical authority of the New Testament, Vol. I., Part i., chap. 5. page 52, ed. 1726.391.Ecclesia sua autoritate nullum librum facit canonicum, quippe canonica scripturae autoritas est a solo Deo, &c. Gerhard'sLoci Theologici, tom. i. p. 4, ed. Cotta. Autoritas scripturæ quoad nos nihil allud est, quam manifestatio et cognitio unicæ illius divinæ et summæ autoritatis, quæ scriptum est interna et insita. Ecclesia igitur non confert scripturæ novam aliquam autoritatem quoad nos, sed testificatione sua ad agnitionem illius; veritatis nos deducit. Concedimus, ecclesiam esse scripturæ sacrætestem, custodem, vindicem, praeconem, et interpretem; sed negarnus, ex eo effici, quod autoritas scripturæ sive simpliciter sive quoad nos ab ecclesia pendeat et quidem unice, pendeat.—Ibid., tomus secundus, p. 39, ed. Cotta.

Footnotes1.κανών.2.Zur Geschichte des Kanons, pp 3-68.3.Clement. Hom.ap. Coteler, vol. i. p. 608.4.Stromata, vi. 15, p. 803, ed. Potter.5.Adv. Hæres., i. 95.6.Ap.Euseb. H. E., v. 24.7.De præscript. Hæreticorum, chs. 12, 13.8.Comment.inMat.iii. p. 916; ed. Delarue.9.γραφαὶ κανόνος.10.Monumenta vetera ad Donatistarum historiam petinentia, ed. Dupin, p. 168.11.κανών.12.At the end of theIambi ad Seleucum, on the books of the New Testament, he adds, οὐτος ἀψευδέστατος κανὼν ἄν εἴη τῶν θεοπνεύστων γραφῶν.13.Prologus galeatusin ii. Reg.14.Expos. in Symb. Apost., 37, p. 374, ed. Migne.15.κανονικός.16.ἰδιωτικός and ἀκανόνιστος.17.Κανονιζόμενα.18.Such as ἐνδιάθηκα, ὡρισμένα.19.κανονιζόμενα or κεκανονισμένα.20.ἀπόκρυφος.21.Orat. de Ordin., vol. ii. p. 44.22.גנז. The Jews applied the wordgenuzimto books withdrawn from public use, whose contents were thought to be out of harmony with the doctrinal or moral views of Judaism when the canon was closed. See Fürst'sDer Kanon des alten Testaments, p. 127, note; and Geiger'sUrschrift, p. 201.23.δεδημοσιευμένα.24.H. E. Il. 23, III. 3-16.25.Stromata, lib. iii. p. 1134, ed. Migne.26.Prolog. ad Cant., opp., vol. iii. p. 36.27.νόθος, ψευδεπίγραφος.28.See Suicer'sThesaurus,s.v.29.Βιβλία ἀναγινωσκόμενα, libri ecclesiastici.30.In his epistle to Laeta he uses the epithet in its customary sense, of books unauthentic, not proceeding from the authors whose names they bear.Opp.vol. i. p. 877, ed. Migne.31.Num. xxi. 14.32.Joshua x. 12, 13; 2 Sam. i. 18.33.2 Sam. viii. 16; 1 Kings iv. 3.34.Isaiah, xl.-lxvi.35.Chap. xiv. 23-50, &c. See Hilgenfeld'sMessias Judærorum, p. 107.36.See Buxtorf'sTiberias, chap. x., p. 88, &c.; and Herzfeld'sGeschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. i. p. 380, &c. Zwölfter Excursus.37.Chapter i.38.על ידי. Does this meanfor, instead of, as Bloch understands it? Waehner inserts, to fill up the sense,“some of which, however, were composed by;”but this is far-fetched. SeeAntiquitates Ebræorum, p. 13.39.Fol. 15, 1.40.פחכ.41.Studien zur Geschichte der Sammlung der althebräischen Literatur, p. 127, &c.42.vii. 12, συναγωγὴ γραμματέων, not ἡ συναγωγή.43.That the Scribes always adhered to the prohibition to write no religious laws and ordinances cannot be held, even in the face of the Talmudic saying, כוחכ הילכוה כשורף חורה (writers of Halacoth are like a burner of the law). This may apply to the late scribes or bookmen, not to the earlier. The greater part of Geiger'sUrschriftis based on the opposite idea. As the reverence for former scholars increased, the Talmudic saying might be accepted. SeeTemura, 14 b.44.Chapter ix. 2.45.Chapter ii. 13.46.Antiq. xii. 10, 1.47.Josephus's Antiq., xiii. 5, 8; 1 Maccab., xii. 35.48.1 Maccab., xiii. 36.49.Sota, 24 a.50.מבינים, Nehemiah viii. 3.51.Talmudic tradition, which attributes the redaction of the book to the men of the great synagogue who are said to have acted under the influence of the divine spirit, separates the three apocryphal pieces from the rest; but this arose from the desire of discountenancing the idea that the work consists of romance and legend. Such later tradition took curious ways of justifying the canonicity of Daniel and the redaction of it by the great synagogue,ex gr., the assumption that the second part arose out of a series of unconnectedMegilothwhich were not reduced to chronological order. Still the Midrash maintains that Daniel, or the person writing in his name, was no prophet, like Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, but a man of visions, anapocalyptist. It was a general belief, thatvisionshad come into the place ofprophecywhen the book appeared. The Greek translation could not have been long after the original, because it is used in the First Book of Maccabees. The interval between the Hebrew and the Greek was inconsiderable. The translator not only departed from, but added to, the original, inserting such important pieces as the Prayer of Azarias, the Song of the Three Children, the history of Susanna, and that of Bel and the Dragon. Whether any of these had been written before is uncertain. Most of the traditions they embody were probably reduced to writing by the translator, and presented in his peculiar style. The assertion, that Josephus was unacquainted with these additions is hazardous, since the way in which he speaks of Daniel's fame (Antiq. x. 11, 7), and especially ofthe bookshe wrote (τὰ βιβλία), supposes some relation to them. Elsewhere he speaks ofone book(x. 10, 4; xi. 8, 5), where he may have thought of the canonical part.52.פתוביס, translated by the Greek ἁγιόγραφα, hagiographa.53.It has been thought that the phrase פעלי אמפות in the ninth verse alludes to the great council or synagogue. This conjecture is plausible on various grounds. The reasons for attributing the epilogue to a later time than the writer of the book appear to be stronger than those assigning it to the original author. The 13th and 14th verses in particular, are unlike Coheleth.54.τὰ ἀλλα πάτρια βιβλία; τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν βιβλίων. The younger Sirach does not use γραφαὶ, which would have been a proper translation ofc'tubim. Does not this ἀλλα imply the non-application of the specific titlec'tubimto the hagiographa at that time, and therefore the idea that the third canon was still open?55.Contra Apion, i. 8.56.In Maaser Sheni, Sota 24. 1, the duumvirate or suggoth, consisting of the president, Nasi, and vice-president, Ab-beth-din, are referred to Hyrcanus's creation. Zunz affirms that it originated in the time of Simon, son of Mattathias, 142b.c.57.Antiq., xiv., 9.58.Der gerichtliche Beweis, p. 68.59.The Sanhedrimproperly so calledceased under R. Judah I., Ha-Nasi, when the council of seventy members which sat at Sepphoris before his patriarchate, transferred its privileges to him, on his removal to that place. The court was then merged in the patriarch.60.ננוזים literally concealed, withdrawn from public use.61.See Fürst'sDer Kanon des alten Testaments, u.s.w.pp. 147, 148.62.Tract. Sabbat.ch. i.63.Because of its profane spirit and Epicurean ideas; see Adoyot v. 3.64.Yadayim v. 3.65.See Graetz'sKohelet, pp. 162, 163.66.The sages wished to pronounce Coheleth apocryphal, because its statements are contradictory. And why have they not declared it apocryphal? Because it begins with words of the law, and ends with words of the law, for it opens with the words“What advantage has man in all his labor wherewith he labors under the sun?”&c., &c.—Sabbat. 30 b.So also in the Midrash:“The sages wished to pronounce Coheleth apocryphal,”&c., &c.—Vayyikra rabba 161 b.67.R. Simeon ben Asai said,“I have received it from the mouth of the 72 elders in the day that R. Eleasar ben Asaria was appointed elder, that the Song of Songs and Coheleth pollute the hands.”—Yadayim v. 3.68.This language was based on a figurative interpretation of the Song. One who said,“Whoever reads such writings as Sirach and the later books loses all part in everlasting life,”can have no weight. He outheroded the Palestinian tradition respecting the Jewish productions of later origin, which merely affirms that they“do not pollute the hands.”—(Toss. Yadayim, c. 2)69.Studien zur Geschichte, u. s. w., p. 150, &c.70.Geiger'sUrschrift, p. 288.71.See De Goeje in theTheologisch Tijdschriff Jaargang II.(1868) p. 179, &c.72.Zunz'sDie gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, pp. 101, 102.73.V. 20, p. 124, ed. Ueltzen.74.Dillmann, in theJahrbücher für deutsche Theologie, dritter Band, p. 422.75.In hisAntiq., x. 4, 5, and xi. 1-5.76.iv. 6, sec. 3, and vi. 2, sec. 1.77.xi. 8, sec. 5.78.Article“Kanon”in Herzog'sEncyklopædie, vol. vii., p. 253; and the same author'sProlegomena zur Theologie des alt. Test., pp. 91, 92.79.See Abulfatach'sAnnal. Samar., p. 102, 9, &c.80.Kirschbaum, Weisse, and Noack.81.Einleitung in das alte Testament, vol. i. p. 133.82.De vita contemplativa, Opp. Tom. ii., P. 475, ed. Mangey.83.See Credner'sZur Geschichte des Kanons, p. 124.84.De mens. et pond., chapters 22, 23, vol. ii. p. 180, ed. Petav.85.Baba Bathra, fol. 14, 2.86.SeeFürst, Der Kanon u. s. w. p.14, &c.87.Studien zur Geschichte der alttestamentliche Literatur, u. s. w., p. 18, etc.88.HodyDe Bibliorum textibus originalibus, p. 644.89.Hody gives lists of the order in which the books stand in some early printed editions and in a few MSS., p. 645.90.Die Apokryphen, u. s. w., p. 14, &c.91.Studien und Kritikenfor 1853, p. 267, &c.92.A Scholastical History of the Canon, p. 22.93.See Rothe,Zur Dogmatik, Studien u. Kritikenfor 1860, p. 67, &c. The apostle's argument rests on the occurrence of the singular (seed, σπέρμα) in Genesis xvii. 8 (LXX.), not the plural (seeds, σπέρματα); though the plural of the corresponding Hebrew word could not have been used, because it has a different signification. Grammatical inaccuracy is made the basis of a certain theological interpretation. Those who wish to see a specimen of labored ingenuity unsuccessfully applied to the justification of St. Paul's argument in this passage, may consult Tholuck'sDas alte Testament in neuem Testament, p. 63, etc. Vierte Auflage. (Epist. to the Galatians iii. 16.)94.Died 202a.d.95.Advers. Hares., v. 35, referring to Baruch iv. 36, and v. p. 335, ed. Massuet.96.Ibid., iv., 26, referring to Daniel xiii. 20 in the Septuagint.97.Died 220a.d.98.Pædagog.vi. 3.99.Stromata, ii. 23.100.Stromata, iv. 16.101.Ibid., ii. 7.102.Ex Script. prophet. eclogae, c. 1.103.Stromateis, ii. 15.104.Died 264a.d.105.De Natura; Routh's Reliquiae Sacrae, vol. iv. p. 356.106.Fragment. Nicet., inReliq. Sacrae, vol. ii. p. 404.107.Ibid., p. 407.108.Ibid., p. 406.109.Epistola ad. Dionys. Roman, inReliq. Sacr., vol. iii. p. 195.110.Reliq. Sacr., vol. ii. p. 408.111.Died 220a.d.112.Advers. Valentinianos.ch. 2.113.De Exhortatione Castitatis, ch. 2.114.Contra Gnosticos, ch. 8.115.De Habitu Muliebri, ch. 3.116.Epist.55, p. 110, ed. Fell.117.De Orat. Domin.p. 153.118.De Exhortat. Martyrii, ch. 12, p. 182.119.De Mortal, p. 161.120.De Orat. Domin., p. 141.121.Testim.iii. 4, p. 62.122.De Lapsis, p. 133, &c.123.Adv. Noel.v.124.See Migne's edition, p. 689, &c.125.Died after 171.126.Ap.Euseb. H. E., lib. iv. ch. 26.127.Died 254,a.d.128.Ap.Euseb. H. E., lib. iv. ch. 25.129.Comment. in Joann.tom. xxxii. ch. 14, ed. Huet. p, 409.130.Contra Cels.iii. 72; vol. i. p. 494, ed. Delarue.131.In Exodus, Hom. vi. i; Levit. Hom. v. 2.132.In Levit., Hom. xii. 4.133.In Lukam, Hom. 21.134.De Oratione, ii. p. 215.135.Opp. edDelarue, vol. i. p. 12.136.Died 311.137.Convivium decem virginum, in Combefis's Auctarium bibliothecae Graecorum patrum, p. 69.138.Ibid., p. 69.139.Ibid., p. 109.140.τὰ λόγια.Ap.Euseb. H. E. iii. 39.141.Davidson'sIntroduction to the Study of the N. Testam.vol. x. p. 388.142.Explanatio in Epist. ad Titum, vol. iv. p. 407, ed. Benedict.143.Die Valentinianische Gnosis und die heilige Schrift, p. 75.144.A good deal of manipulation has been needlessly employed for the purpose of placing these heretics as early as possible; but nothing definite can be extracted from Irenæus's notices of them. Hippolytus's use of the present tense, in speaking of them, renders it probable that they were nearly his contemporaries.145.See the Indexes to Duncker and Schneidewin's edition.146.Bibliotheca, cod. 232.147.It is an unfounded assumption that Paul cited the passage by“mere accident;”on the contrary, he gives it as canonical, with“as it is written”(1 Corinth. ii. 9). It may be that the Gnostics are referred to as using the objectionable passage; but it is special pleadingto limitit to them, when Paul has expressly used the same, deriving it either from Isaiah lxiv. 4, or some unknown document; just as it is special pleading to identify ὁ κύριος standing beside νόμος καὶ προφῆται, withthe New Testament. The word excludes Paul's Epistles from the canon; nor is there any evidence to the contrary, as has been alleged, in the two Syriac epistles attributed to Clement, which Wetstein published. Comp.Eusebius's H. E.iv. 22,Photius's Bibliotheca, 232. Apologists have labored to prove Hegesippus an orthodox Catholic Christian, like Irenæus; but in vain. He was a Jewish Christian of moderate type, holding intercourse with Pauline Christians at the time when the Catholic Church was being formed.148.SeeHilgenfeld's Zeitschriftfor 1875-1878.149.There is ἄπεστιν instead of the Septuagint's and Mark's (Tischend.) ἀπέχει.150.Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, vol. 1, p. 144.151.See Vision ii, 3, 4, with the prolegomena of De Gebhardt: and Harnack, p. lxxiii.152.See Holtzmann in Hilgenfeld'sZeitschriftfor 1875, p. 40, &c.153.Epist. ch. iv.154.Chapter xii. pp. 30, 31, ed. 2, Hilgenfeld.155.See Chapter xv. end, with Hilgenfeld's note,Barnabae epistula ed.altera, pp. 118, 119.156.Epis.p. 13 ed. Hilgenfeld.157.Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1871, P. 336, etc.158.Chapters xvi. and iv. In the former the reference is to Enoch lxxxix. 56, 66, 67, but the latter is not in the present book of Enoch, though Hilgenfeld thinks he has discovered it in lxxxix. 61-64 and xc. 17. (Dillmann's Das Buch Henoch, pp. 61, 63). Was another apocryphal Jewish book current in the time of Barnabas, under the name of Enoch; or did he confound one document with another, misled by the Greek translation of an apocalyptic work which had fallen into discredit? See Hilgenfeld'sBarnabae Epistula, ed. 2 pp. 77, 78.159.Chapter xi.160.Hist. Eccles.iii. 39.161.A small body of literature originating in the fragment of Papias preserved by Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. iii, 39, 1-4) has appeared; though it is difficult to obtain satisfactory conclusions. Not only have Weiffenbach and Leimbach written treatises on the subject, but other scholars have entered into it more or less fully,—Zahn, Steitz, Riggenbach, Hilgenfeld, Lipsius, Keim, Martens, Loman, Holtzmann, Hausrath, Tietz, and Lightfoot. The fragment is not of great weight in settling the authenticity of the four gospels. Indirectly indeed it throws some light on the connection of two evangelists with written memoirs of the life of Jesus; but it rather suggests than solves various matters of importance. It is tolerably clear that the gospels, if such they may be called, of which he speaks as written by Matthew and Mark, were not identical with the works now existing under the names of these evangelists; and that no safe conclusion can be drawn from Papias's silence about John's and Luke's as not then in existence. Neither the present gospels nor any other had been converted intoScripture; since he regarded oral traditions as more credible than written memoirs. Those who hold that the presbyter John was none other than the apostle, Eusebius having misunderstood the fragment and made a different John from the apostle, as well as the critics who deduce from the fragment the fact that John suffered martyrdom in Palestine, have not established these conclusions. Papias refers to the material he got for explaining the λογία, rather than the source whence they were drawn. But whether he learnt directly from the elders, or indirectly as the preposition (παρὰ) would seem to indicate, and whether the sentence beginning with“What Andrew,”&c., (τί Ἀνδρέας κ. τ. λ.) stands in apposition to the“words of the elders,”(τούς τῶν πρεσβυτέρων λόγους) or not, are things uncertain.162.Epist. ad Philadelph., ch. 5 See Hefele's note on the passage. The other well-known passage in chapter viii. is too uncertain in reading and meaning to be adduced here.163.Chapter iii.164.To the Ephesians, chapter xii.165.Epist. ad Romanos, iv.166.Testam. Benj.11, p. 201, ed. Sinker.167.Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1875, p. 490,et seq.168.Ἐν τόις ἀπομνημονέυμασαι, ἄ φημι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν ἐκείνοις παρακολουθησάντων συντετάχθαι. Sec. 103. Here“the apostles”are not necessarily Matthew and John. Apocryphal gospels then current bore the name of apostles or their attendants,—of Peter, James, Nicodemus, Matthias, &c.169.Καὶ τὸ εἰπεῖν μετωνομακέναι αὐτὸν Πέτρον καὶ γεγράφθαι ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασαι αὐτοῦ γεγενημένον καὶ τοῦτο, μετὰ τοῦ καὶ, κ. τ. λ. Dial. cum Tryph., 106. Here the pronoun αὐτοῦ probably refers to Peter. And the expression“his memoirs”can hardly mean Mark's gospel, since Jerome is the first that calls it such.170.Dialogus, part ii., p. 315, ed. Thirlby. Comp. on Justin, Tjeenk-Willink'sJustinus Martyr in zijne Verhouding tot Paulus.171.Apolog.i. 97, ed. Thirlby.172.Hieronymi Prooem.inEpist. ad Titum.173.Comp. chap. xii., where γραφαί is applied to the apostolic epistles; a title they did not receive so early as the age of Polycarp. Zahn himself admits this.174.Chapter xiv. 2.175.Chapter ii. 4.176.SeeClementis Romani ad Corinthios quae discuntur epistulae, ed. de Gebhardt et Harnack, 2., sec. 10, Prolegomena.177.Legat. pro Christ.II, 12.178.Ibid.33.179.Chapter xviii.180.Ap.Euseb. H. E., iv. 23.181.Ap. Euseb. H. E., v. 1, p. 144, ed. Bright.182.θεῖος λόγος.Ad Autolycum, iii. 14, p. 1141, ed Migne.183.Ibid., ii. 22.184.Epist. 151, ad Algasiam.185.See Overbeck'sStudien zur Geschichte der alten Kirche, AbhandlungI., in which the date of the letter is brought down till after Constantine. Surely this is too late.186.Davidson'sIntroduction to the Study of the New Testament, vol. ii. p. 508, &c.187.τὸ εὐαγγέλιον.188.ὁ ἀπόστολος.189.Adves. Hæres., iv. 20, 2.190.Stromateis, ii. 6, p. 965, ed. Migne.191.Ibid., iv. 17, p. 1312.192.Ibid., i. 29, p. 928.193.De Oratione, cap. 12.194.De Pudicitia, cap. 10-20.195.G. of St. Paul's epistles, a MS. of the ninth century according to Tischendorf.196.See Anger'sUeber den Laodicener Brief, 1843.197.Fertur etiam ad Laudecences alia ad Alexandrinos Pauli nomine fincte ad hesem Marcionis el alia plura quæ in Catholicam ecclesiam recepi non potest.Perhaps a comma should be put afternomine, andfinctejoined to what follows, to thealia plurasaid to be forged in the interest of Marcion.198.Quarti evangeliorum Johannis ex discipulis cohortantibus condiscipulis et episcopis suis dixit conjejunate mihi odie triduo el quid cuique fuerit revelatum alterutrum nobis ennarremus eadem nocte revelatum Andreæ ex apostolis ut recogniscentibus cunctis Johannis suo nomine cuncta discriberet.199.It is printed and largely commented on by Credner in hisGeschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanonedited by Volkmar, p. 141, &c., and by WestcottOn the Canon, Appendix C, p. 466, 2d edition. Many others have explained it; especially Hilgenfeld.200.Abouta.d.190.201.Euseb.H. E. vi. 12.202.Tischendorf edited the Pauline epistles from this MS. Lipsiæ, 1852.203.Died 254a.d.204.τὰ ἐν τῇ διαθήκη βιβλία, ἐνδιάθηκα, ὁμολογούμενα.205.In one place, however, he calls itvery useful and divinely inspired.Comment. in ep. ad Roman., xvi. 14.206.νόθα.207.Ap. Euseb,Hist. Eccles., vi. 25; iii. 25, ἀντιλεγόμενα.208.See Euseb.H. E.vi. 25.Comment. in Malth., iii. p. 463;Ibid., p. 814;Comment. in ep. ad Roman., iv. p. 683;in Matth., iii. p. 644;Homil.viii.in Numb., ii. p. 294;Contra Cels., i. 63, p. 378;De Principiis præf., i. p. 49.Opp., ed. Delarue.209.Died 340a.d.210.Hist. Eccles., iii. 25; also 31, 39; vi. 13, 14.211.ὁμολογούμενα, ἐνδιάθηκα, ἀναμφίλεκτα, ἀναντίρρητα.212.ἀντιλεγόμενα, γνώριμα δὲ τοῖς πολλοῖς, ἐν πλείσταις ἐκκλησίαις δεδημοσιευμένα, νόθα.213.ἄτοπα πάντη καὶ δυσσεβῆ; παντελῶς νόθα (iii. 31).214.This last with the qualification εἴγε φανείη. In another place he states that it was rejected by some, and therefore it is also along with the ἀντιλεγόμενα or νόθα.215.μικτά.216.νόθα.217.νοθεύομαι.Hist. Eccles., ii. 23. Christophorson, Schmid, and Hug think that Eusebius gave the opinion of others in this word: but it is more likely that he gave his own, as Valesius thinks. See the note in Schmid'sHistoria antiqua et vindicatio Canonis, &c., p. 358.218.Ibid., vi. 14.219.See Weber'sBeiträge zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, p. 142, &c.220.ὁμολογουμένη.Hist. Eccles., iii. 16.221.Adversus Hæres, iii., II, 8.222.Adv. Marc.iv. 5.223.De præscript. hæret.c. 36.224.De præscript. hæret.c. 32.225.Ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccles.ii. 15 and vi. 14.226.Ignatius von Antiochien, 1873; and Prolegomena to thePatrum Apostolicorum opera, by de Gebhardt, Harnack, and Zahn, Fasciculus, ii.227.Geschichte des neutest. Kanon, p. 217, &c.228.SeeConstit. Apostol., p. 67, ed Ueltzen.229.Died 386a.d.230.Catech., iv. 22, pp. 66, 67, ed. Milles.231.Ibid., xi. p. 142.232.Ibid., vi. p. 80.233.Ibid., ix. pp. 115, 122.234.Ibid., ix. p. 115.235.Ibid., ii. p. 31.236.Ibid., xvi. p. 239.237.AthanasiiOpp.ed. Benedict. i. 2, pp. 962, 963.238.Orat. contra Arianos, ii. 35, vol. i. 503, ed. Benedict.239.Ibid., ii. 42, i. p. 510.240.Ibid., ii. 79, i. p. 546.241.Epist. ad episcop. Ægypt., &c., i. 1, p. 272.242.Contra Arian., i. 12, i. p. 416.243.Apolog. contra Arianos, ii. vol. i. p. 133.244.Praepar Evan., i. 9.245.Ibid., xi. 14.246.Ibid., xii. 18.247.Ibid., vi. 11.248.Demon. Evang., vi. 19.249.Died 379a.d.250.Homil. in princip. proverb. Opp.ed. Garnier altera, vol. ii. p. 140.251.Constitutiones Monast., c. iii. 2.Ibid., p. 779.252.Adv. Eunom, vol. i. p. 417.253.De Spiritu Sancto, c. viii. vol. iii. p. 23.254.In Princip. Proverb, vol. ii. p. 152.255.Died 389a.d.256.Opp.ed. Migne, vol. iii. pp. 473, 474.257.Gregorii Nazianzeni,Opp.ed. Migne, vol. iii. pp. 473, 474.258.Died 395a.d.259.Iambi ad Seleucum; in Greg. Naz.Opp.ii. p. 194.260.Died 403a.d.261.ἀμφιλέκτα.Adv. Hæres, i. p. 19. SeeHæres, iii. tom. i. p. 941. De ponder. et mensur. 23.262.Advers. Hæres, lib. i., tom. 2 ed. Petav. Paris, 1662, p. 72.263.Ibid., lib. ii. tom. ii. p. 781.264.Ibid., lib. ii. tom. i. p. 580.265.Ibid., lib, ii. tom. i. p. 481.266.Ibid., lib. i. tom. ii. p. 157.267.Hæres, xxx. 15.268.Died 392a.d.269.Enarrat. in ep. S. Petri secundam, p. 1774 ed Migne.270.Died 407a.d.271.See Montfaucon in his edition of Chrysostom's Works, vol. vi. pp. 364, 365, ed. Paris, 1835.272.Expos. in Psalm cix. 7. See also xi. 1 in Genes, where Wisdom xiv. 3 is cited.273.Expos. in Psalm xlix. 3.274.De Lazaro, ii. 4.275.Died 392a.d.276.De Trinitate, iii. 2. p. 792 ed. Migne.277.Fragmenta in Epist. 2 ad Corinthios, when Baruch, iii. 3, is quoted like Psalm 101, p. 1697.278.De Spirit. sanct. i. p. 1033.279.Died 428a.d.280.See Leontius Byzantinus contra Nestorianos et Eutychianos, lib. iii. inGallandi Bibliotheca, xii. p. 690. Comp. FritzscheDe Theodori Mopsuesteni vita et scriptis, Halæ, 1836.281.Died 444a.d.282.Contra Julian, i. p. 541, ed. Migne.283.Ibid., p. 815.284.Ibid., p. 921.285.In Isaim, ed. Migne, p. 93.286.P. 859, vol. i.287.P. 910, vol. i., ed. Migne.288.βιβλία κανονιζόμενα, κανονικά, κεκανονισμένα, ὡρισμένα.289.βιβλία ἀναγινωσκόμενα.290.Died 430a.d.291.The forty-four books are, 5 of Moses, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 4 Kings, 2 Chronicles, Job, Tobit, Esther, Judith, 2 Maccabees, Ezra, Nehemiah, Psalms, 3 of Solomon, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, 12 Prophets, 4 greater do.De Doctrina Christianaii. 8.292.Contra Gaudent.i. 38.Opp.Paris, 1837, vol. ix. p. 1006.293.De Doctr. Christ.ii. 8.Civitat. Dei.xviii. 20, 1.294.De Praesdest. Sanct.i. 11.295.Retractt.i. 10.296.De Peccat. merit.i. 50;Opp.vol. x. p. 137, ed. Migne.297.Mansi, tom. iii. p. 924.298.Ibid., p. 891.299.Died 420a.d.300.Prologus galeatus in Libros Regum. Epist. ad Paulinum.301.In Herbst'sEinleit.,erster Theil, p. 37.302.Opp.ed. Benedict., Vol. IV., pp. 679, 684, 750.303.Ep. ad Dardan.Opp.vol. i. P. 1103, ed. Migne.304.SeeOnomastica Sacra; Comment. in Ep. ad Philem; De Viris illustr.305.Died 368a.d.306.Prolog. in Psalm.,Opp.ed. Migne, vol. i. p. 241.307.De Trinitateiv. 16.308.Ex. Op. Hist. Fragmentum, iii. vol. ii. p. 672 ed. Migne.309.In cxxvii. Psalm.310.In Psalm cxxvi. 6.311.In Psalm lxviii. 19, andDe Trinitate, iv. 42.312.Ibid., iv. 8.313.Died about 370a.d.314.De Schismate Donatist, iii. 3.315.Ibid., ii. 25.316.Died about 370a.d.317.De non parcendo, &c., ed. Coleti, p. 190.318.Ibid., p. 236.319.Ibid., p. 187.320.Pro Athanasio, lib. i. p. 98.321.Ibid., p. 105.322.Ibid., lib. ii. pp. 127, 128.323.Died 397a.d.324.De Spiritu Sanctoiii. 18.325.De bono mortisviii.326.In Psalm cxviii., Sermo. 118, 2.327.De Spirit. Sancto.iii., vi. 39.328.Liber de Tobia.329.Died 410a.d.330.Expos. in Symbol. Apostol., pp. 373, 374, ed. Migne.331.Died about 387a.d.332.De Hæres. chs. 60 and 61, in Galland, vii. pp. 424, 425.333.Apud Mansi, iii. pp. 1040, 1041.334.Credner'sZur Geschichte des Kanons, p. 151, &c., and Thiel'sEpistolæ Romanorum Pontificum genuinae, tom. i.335.Mansi iv. p. 430.336.Opp. Græc., tom. ii. P. 327, ed. Rom. 1746.337.Ibid., tom. i. p. 101.338.Tom. iii. p. 60.339.Galland, xii. p. 79, &c.340.See Dillmann in Ewald'sJahrbücher, v. p. 144, &c.341.Died 599a.d.342.See Credner'sZur Gesch. des Kanons, p. 97, &c.343.Died 891a.d.344.Nomocanon, Titulus III., cap. 2, vol. iv. pp. 1050, 1051 ed. Migne.345.See Codd. 113, 126.346.Died 754a.d.347.Died 636a.d.348.Etymolog.vi. 1.349.Died 604a.d.350.Died 912a.d.351.Died 735a.d.352.Died 804a.d.353.Died 856a.d.354.Died 1141a.d.355.Died 1156a.d.356.Died 1182a.d.357.1270a.d.358.Died 1263a.d.359.Died 1384a.d.360.Died 1340a.d.361.See Hody, p. 648, &c.362.Chemnitz calls seven books of the New Testamentapocryphos, because of their uncertain authorship (seeExamen Concilii Tridentini, p. 45, &c.)363.See Tholuck'sKommentar zum Briefe an die Hebräer, zweite Auflage, pp. 55, 86.364.Carlstadt's treatise is reprinted in Credner'sZur Geschichte des Kanons.365.Werke, edited by Schuler and Schulthess, vol. ii. p. 169.366.Ep. ad. Valdenses, 1530,apud. Sculteti annal. evang. renovat decas secunda, pp. 313, 314.367.Ibid.368.Hug says that his copy of Widmanstad's edition had the Acts immediately following the Gospels.369.Epist. ad Paulinum.370.Hom. vii. in Josua.371.De Bibliorum textibus originalibus, &c., p. 654.372.Ibid., p. 664.373.See Zacagni'sCollectanea monumentorum veterum Praefat, p. lxxi., &c.374.See Volkmar'sAnhangtoCrednet's Geschichte des N. T. Kanon, p. 341, &c.; and HodyDe Bibliorum textibus originalibus, p. 644, &c.375.Niemeyer's Collectio Confessionum, p. 468.376.Ibid., p. 330.377.Ibid., pp. 361, 362.378.See Herzog'sDie Romanischen Waldenser, p. 55, &c.; and his programmDe origine et pristino statu Waldensium, &c., pp. 17, 40, 41.379.Leger'sHistoire des Eglises Vaudoises, vol. i., p. 112, &c.380.The reason given for their being added as a separate appendix is that they are cited by some fathers and found in some Latin Bibles.381.Kimmel'sMonumenta fidei eccles. orient, part i. p. 467.382.Died 791a.d.383.Abhandlung von freier Untersuchung des Canons, 4 parts, Halle, 1771-1775.384.See Toland'sNazarenus, p. 25, &c., second edition; and Morgan'sMoral Philosopher, vol. i. p. 56, &c.385.For example,“Moses is dead; his rule went out when Christ came—he is of no further service here.... We are willing to regard him as a teacher, but we will not regard him as our lawgiver,unless he agree with the New Testament and the law of nature.”Sämmtliche Schriften, ed. Walch. dritter Theil., pp. 7, 8.386.Such as Calovius, Chemnitz, John Gerhard, W. Lyser, Quenstedt, Brochmand, Hollaz, &c. Melancthon also makes no important distinction between the two Testaments in hisLoci theologici. Calvin's theology was derived from the Old Testament more than the New.387.His full sayings are collected in Bretschneider'sLuther an unsere Zeit, pp. 186-224; and in Krause'sOpuscula theologica, pp. 205-241.388.Loci TheologiciTom. i. pp. 186, 187, ed. Cotta, 1762.389.Theologia Didactico-polemica, p. 340.390.See Jones's new and full method of settling the canonical authority of the New Testament, Vol. I., Part i., chap. 5. page 52, ed. 1726.391.Ecclesia sua autoritate nullum librum facit canonicum, quippe canonica scripturae autoritas est a solo Deo, &c. Gerhard'sLoci Theologici, tom. i. p. 4, ed. Cotta. Autoritas scripturæ quoad nos nihil allud est, quam manifestatio et cognitio unicæ illius divinæ et summæ autoritatis, quæ scriptum est interna et insita. Ecclesia igitur non confert scripturæ novam aliquam autoritatem quoad nos, sed testificatione sua ad agnitionem illius; veritatis nos deducit. Concedimus, ecclesiam esse scripturæ sacrætestem, custodem, vindicem, praeconem, et interpretem; sed negarnus, ex eo effici, quod autoritas scripturæ sive simpliciter sive quoad nos ab ecclesia pendeat et quidem unice, pendeat.—Ibid., tomus secundus, p. 39, ed. Cotta.

The sages wished to pronounce Coheleth apocryphal, because its statements are contradictory. And why have they not declared it apocryphal? Because it begins with words of the law, and ends with words of the law, for it opens with the words“What advantage has man in all his labor wherewith he labors under the sun?”&c., &c.—Sabbat. 30 b.

So also in the Midrash:“The sages wished to pronounce Coheleth apocryphal,”&c., &c.—Vayyikra rabba 161 b.

Back to IndexNext