Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

CANDLESTICK

The name of the third ornament means blossom, bud, but it is so general a term that it may apply to any flower. The Septuagint, Josephus and Maimonides, understand it of the lily, and Bähr prefers the flower of the almond.

It now remains to consider the manner in which these three ornaments were attached to the candelabrum. The obscurity of verse 33, which orders that there shall be 'three almond-shaped cups on one arm, globe and blossom, and three almondshaped cups on the other arm, globe and blossom; so on all the arms which come out of the shaft,' has led some to suppose that there was only one globe and blossom to every three cups. However, the fact that, according to verse 34, the shaft (which, as being the principal part of the whole, is here called the candelabrum itself), which had only four cups, is ordered to have globes and blossoms, is a sufficient proof to the contrary.

(4) Holy Place. It is to be observed, that the original text does not define the height and breadth of any part of the candelabrum, which was placed in the Holy Place, on the south side (i. e., to the left of a person entering the tabernacle), opposite the table of shew-bread (Exod. xxvi:35). Its lamps, which were supplied with pure olive oil only, were lighted every evening and extinguished (as it seems) every morning (Exod. xxvii :21; xxx:7, 8; Lev. xxiv:3; 1 Sam. iii:3; 2 Chron. xiii:11). Although the tabernacle had no windows, there is no good ground for believing that the lamps burnt by day in it, whatever may have been the usage of the second temple. It has also been much disputed whether the candelabrum stood lengthwise or diagonally as regards the tabernacle, but no conclusive argument can be adduced for either view. As the lamp on the central shaft was by the Jewish writers called the western, or evening lamp, some maintain that the former name could not be applicable, unless the candelabrum stood across the tabernacle, as then only would the central lamp point to the west. Others again adhere to the later signification, and build on a tradition that the central lamp alone burnt from evening to evening, the other six being extinguished by day (Reland, Antiq. i:5, 8).

(5) First Temple. In the first temple, instead of this single candelabrum, there were ten candelabra of pure gold (1 Kings vii:49; 2 Chron. iv :7), one-half of which stood on the north and the other on the south side of the Holy Place. These were carried away to Babylon (Jer. lii:19).

(6) Second Temple. In the temple of Zerubbabel there appears to have been only one candelabrum again (1 Macc. i:21; iv:49, 50). It is probable that it also had only seven lamps.

(7) Herodian Temple. At least, that was the case in the candelabrum of the Herodian temple, according to the description of Josephus (De Bell. Jud. vii:5). This candelabrum is the one which, after the destruction of Jerusalem, was carried with other spoils to Rome; then, A. D. 455, became a part of the plunder which Genseric transported to Africa; was again, about A. D. 533, recaptured from the Vandals by Belisarius, and carried to Constantinople, and was thence sent off to Jerusalem, and from that time has disappeared altogether. It is to this candelabrum that the representation on the arch of Titus, at Rome, was intended to apply.

Figurative. The custom, practiced from time immemorial in the East, of allowing a house lamp to burn night and day, is the source of the frequent figure by which the continually burning lamp pictures the continued prosperity both of the individual and of his family (Ps. xviii:

[blocks in formation]

28, 29), thou wilt light my candle' (1 Kings xi:36). Conversely, to put out the candle of the wicked' (Prov. xxiv:20; Job xviii:6) is to make his home desolate and bring destruction on himself. This familiar metaphor is employed in the Apocalypse to describe the fate with which the Church of Ephesus was threatened: 'I will remove thy candlestick out of his place' (Rev. ii:5). (R. S. Kennedy, Hastings' Bib. Dict.) The "seven golden candlesticks" in John's vision, denoted the seven churches of Asia (Rev. 1:20). As seven denotes fulness, Jesus, walking in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks, implies his watchful presence in the church universal.

CANE (kān), or calamus (Cant. iv:14; Ezek. xxvii:19);or sweet calamus (Ex. xxx:23); or sweet cane (Is. xliii:24; Jer. vi:20); all probably names for the same plant.

It seems to have been an aromatic reed brought "from a far country." Lemon-grass (Andropogon) is "a plant of remarkable fragrance and a native of Central India, where it is used to mix with ointments, on account of the delicacy of its odor." Calamus may have been a species of this. (See KANEH.)

CANKER-WORM (kǎn'ker-wûrm), (Joel i:4; Nah. iii:15, 16).

This was one of the army of destroying insects by which the land of Judæa was laid waste. It is thought that the original word means rather the locust in its larva or caterpillar state, when it is even more destructive than after it acquires wings and is about to fly away. Of this Nahum's words are very expressive-it "spoileth and fleeth away." (See TELEK.)

CANNEH (kǎn'neh), (Heb. 2, kan-neh', set up, distinguished, Ezek. xxvii:23). Probably a contracted form of the earlier Calneh (Gen. x:10). (See CALNEH.)

CANON (kǎn'un). The Greek word Kavúv, kanohn', denotes, primarily, a straight rod, and from this flow numerous derivative uses of it, in all of which the idea of straightness, as opposed to obliquity, is apparent.

(1) Meaning of Term. Among the rest it is employed to denote a rule or standard, by a reference to which the rectitude of opinions or actions may be determined. In this latter acceptation it is used in the New Testament (comp. Gal. vi:16; Phil. iii:16). In the same sense it is frequently used by the Greek fathers (Suicer, Thes. Eccles. in voce); and as the great standard to which they sought to appeal in all matters of faith and duty was the revealed will of God contained in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, they came insensibly to apply this term to the collective body of those writings, and to speak of them as the Canon or Rule. In the same acceptation we shall use the term in this article.

(2) Authoritative. The Canon then may_be defined to be 'The Authoritative Standard of Religion and Morals, composed of those writings which have been given for this purpose by God to men.' A definition frequently given of the Canon is that it is 'The Catalogue of the Sacred Books,' while Semler (Von Freier Untersuchungen des Canons), Doederlein (Institutio Theol. Christ. tom. i. p. 83) and others, define it as 'The List of the Books publicly read in the meetings of the early Christians.' The former of these definitions, however, leaves out of sight the true meaning of the term Canon; and the latter is doubly erroneous, as it not only omits the main characteristic of the Canon, its Divine authority, but substitutes for this a characteristic which is

[blocks in formation]

No. I. CHRISTIAN CATALOGUES OF THE BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

The list extends only to such books as are disputed. Of the signs, * indicates that the book is expressly reckoned as Holy Scripture: † that it is placed expressly in a second rank: ? that it is mentioned with doubt. A blank marks the silence of the author as to the book in question.

[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][ocr errors][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed]

CANON

historically false, as the Canon was not at any time synonymous with the list of books read in public in the early churches.

(3) Individual Books. According to this definition, in order to establish the Canon of Scripture, it is necessary to show that all the books of which it is composed are of Divine authority; that they are entire and incorrupt; that, having them, it is complete without any addition from any other source, and that it comprises the whole of those books for which Divine authority can be proved. It is obvious that, if any of these four particulars be not true, Scripture cannot be the sole and supreme standard of religious truth and duty. If any of the books of which it is composed be not of Divine authority, then part of it we are not bound to submit to, and, consequently, as a whole, it is not the standard of truth and morals. If its separate parts be not in the state in which they left the hands of their authors, but have been mutilated, interpolated, or altered, then it can form no safe standard, for, in appealing to it, one cannot be sure that the appeal is not made to what is spurious, and what, consequently, may be erroneous. If it require or admit of supplementary revelations from God, whether preserved by tradition or communicated from time to time to the Church, it obviously would be a mere contradiction in terms to call it complete, as a standard of the Divine will. And if any other books were extant, having an equal claim, with the books of which it is composed, to be regarded as of Divine authority, it would be absurd to call it the sole standard of truth, for in this case the one class of books would be quite as deserving of our reverence as the other.

(4) Evidence. Respecting the evidence by which the Canon is thus to be established, there exists considerable difference of opinion amongst Christians. Some contend, with the Catholics, that the authoritative decision of the Church is alone competent to determine the Canon; others appeal to the concurrent testimony of the Jewish and early Christian writers, and others rest their strongest reliance on the internal evidence furnished by the books of Scripture themselves. We cannot say that we are satisfied with any of these sources of evidence exclusively. As Michaelis remarks, the first is one to which no consistent Protestant can appeal, for the matter to be determined is of such a kind that, unless we grant the Church to be infallible, it is quite possible that she may at any given period of her existence determine erroneously, and one sees not why the question may not be as successfully investigated by a private individual as by the Church.

(5) Church of England. The books specified as canonical in the Sixth Article of the Church of England, and the First of the Confession of the Church of Scotland, are received as such by the majority of Protestants. To these the Church of Rome adds, as part of the Old Testament, ten other books, or parts of books, which Protestants reject as Apocryphal (see APOCRYPHA). For the evidence in support of the genuineness and Divine authority of those books universally regarded by Christians as canonical, taken individually, we would refer here to the articles in this work under the titles of these books respectively. The remainder of the present article shall be devoted to a sketch of the formation and history of the Canon, first of the Old Testament and then of the New.

(6) Formation of Old Testament Canon. By this is meant the collection into one whole of all those books whose Divine authority was recognized by the Jews and which now form the Old

[blocks in formation]

Testament, as that is received by the Protestant churches. The question is, At what time and by whom was this done?

In answer to this, a very steadfast tradition of the Jews ascribes the completion of the Old Testament Canon to Ezra, and certain other persons who, after the rebuilding of the Temple, formed with him, and under his auspices, what has been called the Great Synagogue. Without pretending to be able to give full demonstration of the accuracy of this traditionary opinion, it seems to us one which may by evidence, both direct and circumstantial, be rendered so extremely probable that to call it in question would be to exhibit a degree of scepticism such as, in all other questions of a similar kind, would be thought highly unreasonable and absurd (I) In the first place, there is the testimony of the tradition itself. It occurs in one of the oldest books of the Talmud, the Pirke Aboth, and is repeated, with greater minuteness, in the Babylonian Gemarah (Tr. Baba Bathra, fol. 13, 2). See the passages in Buxtorf's Tiberias, lib. i. c. 10). The substance of it is that, after Moses and the elders, the sacred books were watched over by the prophets, and that the Canon was completed by Ezra, Nehemiah, and the men of the Great Synagogue.

An effort has been made to discredit this tradition by adducing the circumstance that Simon the Just, who lived long after Ezra, is said, in the Pirke Aboth, to have been one of the members of the Great Synagogue; but to this much weight cannot be allowed, partly because Simon is, in the passage referred to, said to have been one of the remnants of the Great Synagogue, which indicates his having outlived it, and principally because the same body of tradition which states this opinion makes him the successor of Ezra, so that either the whole is a mistake or the Simon referred to must have been a different person from the Simon who is commonly known by the title of 'Just' (Cf. Othonis. Lex. Rabbin. Philol. p. 604. Gen. 1675; Hävernick's Einleitung in das A. T. Th. i. Abt. 1, s. 43); or we may adopt the opinion of Hartmann (Die Enge Verbindung des Alt. Test. mit d. Neuen, s. 127), that the college of men learned in the law, which gathered round Ezra and Nehemiah, and which properly was the synagogue, continued to receive accessions for many years after their death, by means of which it existed till the time of the Maccabees, without our being required to suppose that what is affirmed concerning its doings in the time of Ezra is meant to refer to it during the entire period of its existence. Suspicions have also been cast upon this tradition from the multitude of extravagant wonders narrated by the Jews respecting the Great Synagogue. But such are found in almost every traditionary record attaching to persons or bodies which possess a nationally heroic character. (II) The part of this tradition which ascribes the formation of the Canon, before the Exile, to Moses and the prophets, is sufficiently supported by the testimony of Scripture itself. When Moses had finished the writing of the Law 'he delivered it to the priests, the sons of Levi, and unto the elders of Israel' (Deut. xxxi:9); and the book was then taken and put in the side of the ark, in the most holy place (ver. 26). Towards the close of the book of Joshua it is said that he wrote these words in the book of the law of God,' which Le Clerc, with considerable probability, explains as meaning that he agglutinated the membrane on which his words were written to the volume of Moses which had been deposited in the side of the ark (Comment. in loc.). At a later period we find that Samuel, when he had told the people

22

No. II.-QUOTATIONS OF THE APOCRYPHA AS SCRIPTURE.

[blocks in formation]

AMBROSIUS.

c. Cels iii: 72; v: 29; Ep. ad Afric. p. 13
Hom. sæpe.
In Cant. Prol.

Adv. Eunom, v: 2.

Hær. xxvi (Gnost.) 15.

etc.

In Ps. cix: 7.

Testim. ii: 14; De Mor- De Orat Dom. 32.

[De Præs. Hær. 7.]

Testim. ii: 1; De
Mortal. P. 9.

tal. p. 23.

In Ps. lxvi: 9, etc.

In Ps. cxviii: 2, 8.

Adv. Hær. v: 5, 2; 28,
3.

Proph. Ecl. 1.

Ep. ad Afric. etc.

Comm. in Dan. p. 639
ff., ed. Migne.

[Conv. xi: 2.]

c. Arian. iii, p. 580.

Cat, ii: 16, etc.

Orat. xxxvi. 3.

Hom. xii. in Prov. 13.

Ancor. pp. 23, 24.

Adv. Hermog. 44.

[blocks in formation]

In Ps. cxxix: 7.

In Ps. CXXV: 6.

De Sp. S. iii: 6, 39.

De Trin. iv. 142.
In Ps. cxviii: 18, 2. De bono mortis, 8. De Sp. S. iii: 18, 135, Lib. de Tobia, 1.

[blocks in formation]

1. The quotations in brackets are doubtful either as to the reference or as to the character assigned to the book quoted.

[blocks in formation]

CANON

[blocks in formation]

CANON

the manner (the jus publicum) of the kingdom, wrote it in the book and laid it up before the Lord (1 Sam. x:25). Hilkiah, at a still later date, is said to 'have found the book of the Law in the House of the Lord' (2 Kings xxii:8). Isaiah, in calling attention to his own prophecies, says: 'Seek ye out of the book of the Lord and read; no one of these shall fail' (xxxiv:16); a passage on which Gesenius says (Comment. i. 921), 'The poet seems to have before his mind the placing of his oracle in a collection of oracles and sacred writings, whereby future generations might judge of the truth of his predictions.' And Daniel informs us that he 'understood, by the books, the number of the years of the captivity' (ix :2), an expression which seems to describe the sacred Canon so far as it then was complete.

From these notices we may gather that such books as were sanctioned by the authority of Moses and the prophets (whose business it was, as the watchmen of Zion, to guard the people against either the reception of any writing that was spurious or the loss of any that was genuine) were acknowledged by the Jews, before the Exile, as of Divine authority; that in all probability an authentic copy was in every case laid up in the sanctuary, and placed under the care of the priests (Joseph. Antiq. v:1, 17), from which copies were taken and circulated among the people (2 Chron. xvii:9); and that collections of these were made by pious persons for their own use, such as Daniel probably had in Babylon, and such as Jeremiah seems to have had, from the frequent quotations in his prophecies from the older books. (III) It is natural to suppose that, on the return of the people from their exile, they would desire an authoritative collection of their sacred books. We know that, on that occasion, they were filled with an anxious desire to know the will of God, for neglect of which, on the part of their fathers, they had so severely suffered; and that, to meet this desire, Ezra and certain of the priests and Levites read and expounded the word of the Lord to the people (Neh. viii:1-8; ix:1-3). As their fathers also had been misled by false prophets, it is natural to suppose that they would earnestly crave some assurance as to the writers whose words they might with safety follow. The Temple also was now bereft of its sacred treasures (Joseph. De Bell. Jud. vi:6; Tract. Rabbin, Joma. ed. Sheringham, p. 102, sq.). During the Exile, and the troublous times preceding it, several prophets had committed their oracles to writing, and these required to be added to the Canon; and the majority of the people having lost acquaintance with the Hebrew, a translation of their sacred books had become necessary. All this conspired to render it imperative that some competent authority should, at the time of the second temple, form and fix the code of sacred truth. (IV) The time of Ezra and Nehemiah was the latest at which this could be done. As the duty to be performed was not merely that of determining the genuineness of certain books, but of pointing out those which had been divinely ordained as a rule of faith and morals to the Church, it was one which none but a prophet could discharge. Now, in the days of Nehemiah and Ezra, there were several prophets living, among whom we know the names of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi; but with that age expired the line of prophets which God had appointed 'to comfort Jacob and deliver them by assured hope' (Ecclus. xlix:10). On this point the evidence of Josephus, the Apocryphal books and Jewish tradition, is harmonious (comp. Joseph. Cont. Apion. i:8; 1 Macc. iv:46; ix:27; xiv:41; Hieronym. ad. Jes. xlix:21; Vitringa,

[blocks in formation]

Obs. Sac. lib. vi. cap. 6, 7; Hävernick, Einleit, 1:1-27; Hengstenberg, Beiträge zur Einleit. ins A. T. i. s. 245). As the men of the Great Synagogue were thus the last of the prophets, if the Canon was not fixed by them, the time was passed when it could be fixed at all. (V) That it was fixed at that time appears from the fact that all subsequent references to the sacred writings presuppose the existence of the complete Canon; as well as from the fact that of no one among the apocryphal books is it so much as hinted, either by the author or by any other Jewish writer, that it was worthy of a place among the sacred books, though of some of them the pretensions are in other respects sufficiently high (e. g. Ecclus. xxxiii:16-18; 1:28). Josephus, indeed, distinctly affirms (Cont. Ap. loc. cit.) that, during the long period that had elapsed between the time of the close of the Canon and his day no one had dared either to add to, or to take from, or to alter anything in, the sacred books. This plainly shows that in the time of Artaxerxes, to which Josephus refers, and which was the age of Ezra and Nehemiah, the collection of the sacred books was completed by an authority which thenceforward ceased to exist.

(7) Division or Canon. Division of the Canon into three parts-the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. This division is very ancient; it appears in the prologue to Ecclesiasticus, in the New Testament, in Philo, in Josephus and in the Talmud. Respecting the principle on which the division has been made, there is a considerable difference of opinion. The law was so named from its containing the national laws and regulations; the other two are regarded by some as named from the character of the writings they contain; by others, from the office and station of their authors, and by others, from a sort of accidental combination, for which no reason can now be assigned. Of these, the second is the only one that will bear the test of examination. Two very material points in its favor are: (I) That in the days of the Theocracy there was a class of persons who bore the name of Prophets professionally, i. e., they were persons not who were occasionally favored with Divine revelations, but who, renouncing all other occupations, gave themselves up to the duties of the prophetic office, and (II) that of all the books in the second division the reputed authors belong to this class; while of those in the third division, none of the authors, with two exceptions, belong to this class. The exceptions are Daniel and Lamentations. Of these the first is only apparent, for, though Daniel uttered prophecies, he was not by profession a prophet. The latter presents a greater difficulty, the best way of getting over which, perhaps, is, with Hävernick, to admit it to be an exception, and suppose it made intentionally, for the purpose of classing this book of elegies with the Psalms and other lyric poetry of the Jews (Einleit, sec. II, s. 65). Adopting this theory, the title of the second division is accounted for. for that of the third, the most probable account of it is that at first it was fuller-viz., the other writings,' as distinguished from the law and the prophets, and that in process of time it was abbreviated into 'the writings.' This part is commonly cited under the title Hagiographa.

As

(8) Subsequent History of Old Testament Canon. The canon, as established in the time of Ezra, has remained unaltered to the present day. Some, indeed, have supposed that, because the Greek version of the Old Testament contains some books not in the Hebrew, there must have been a double canon, a Palestinian and an Egyp

« FöregåendeFortsätt »