The sign marks a verbal coincidence: * a direct quotation: ? an expression of doubt: () an uncertain reference: † a clear rejection: [] that the evidence is suspicious, or inconclusive as to the authority assigned to the book.

CANON

CANON

tian (Semler, Apparat ad liberaliorem V. T. interpret., secs. 9, 10; Corrodi, Beleuchtung der Gesch. des Jüdisch. u. Christlich. Kanons, s. 155-184; Augusti, Einleit. ins. A. T. s. 79); but this notion has been completely disproved by Eichhorn (Einleit, bd. i. s. 23), Hävernick (Einl. i. sec. 16) and others. All extant evidence is against it. The Son of Sirach, and Philo, both Alexandrian Jews, make no allusion to it, and Josephus, who evidently used the Greek version, expressly declares against it in a passage above referred to (sec. 6). The earlier notices of the canon simply designate it by the threefold division already considered. The Son of Sirach mentions 'the Law, the Prophets and the other books of the fathers,' and again, the Law, the Prophecies and the rest of the books,' expressions which clearly indicate that in his day the canon was fixed.

(9) New Testament References. In the New Testament our Lord frequently refers to the Old Testament, under the title of 'The Scriptures' or of 'The Law' (Matt. xxi:42; xxii:29; John x:35, etc., etc.), and in one place he speaks of 'the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms' (Luke xxiv:44); by the third of these titles intending, doubtless, to designate the Hagiographa, either after the Jewish custom of denoting a collection of books by the title of that with which it commenced, or, as Hävernick suggests, using the term psal-moi, psalms, as a general designation of these books, because of the larger comparative amount of lyric poetry contained in them (Einl.. 14); Paul applies to the Old Testament the appellation 'The Holy Writings' (Rom. 1:2), 'The Sacred Letters' (2 Tim. iii:15), and 'The Old Covenant (2 Cor. iii:14). Both our Lord and his apostles ascribe Divine authority to the ancient canon (Matt. xv:3; John x:34-36; 2 Tim. iii:16; 2 Peter 1:19-21, etc.), and in the course of the New Testament, quotations are made from all the books of the Old, except Ruth, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Canticles, Lamentations and Ezekiel, the omission of which may be accounted for on the simple principle that the writers had no occasion to quote from them. Philo attests the existence in his time of the sacred writings. He describes them as comprising laws, oracles uttered by the prophets, hymns and the other books by which knowledge and godliness may be increased and perfected (De Vita Contemplat. in Opp., tom. ii, p. 275, ed. Mangey), and quotations from or references to the most of the books are scattered through his writings. The evidence of Josephus is very important, for, besides general references to the sacred books, he gives a formal account of the canon, as it was acknowledged in his day, ascribing five books, containing laws and an account of the origin of man, to Moses, thirteen to the prophets, and four, containing songs of praise to God and ethical precepts for men, to different writers, and affirming that the faith of the Jews in these books is such that they would for them suffer all tortures and death itself (Cont. Apion. i:7, 8; Eichhorn, Einleit. i, sec. 50; Jahn, Introductio, p. 50). Melito, bishop of Sardis in the second century of the Christian era, gives, as the result of careful inquiry, the same books in the Old Testament Canon as we have now, with the exception of Nehemiah, Esther and Lamentations, the first two of which, however, he probably included in Ezra, and the last in Jeremiah (Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iv:26; Eichhorn, Einl. i, sec. 52). The catalogues of Origen (Euseb. Hist. Eccles. vi:2, 5), of Jerome (Prol. Galeat. in Opp. ii),. and of others of the fathers, give substantially the same list (Eichhorn, I. c.; Augusti, Einl., sec. 54; Cosin, Scholastical Hist. of the Canon, ch.

CANON

iii, vi; Henderson, On Inspiration, 449). In the Talmudic Tract entitled Baba Bathro, a catalogue of the books of the sacred canon is given, which exactly corresponds with that now received by Christians (Buxtorf, Tiberias, c. 11). Hence it appears that all the evidence we have shows that the canon, once fixed, has remained unaltered.

(10) Formation of New Testament Canon. The history of the formation of the New Testament Canon is involved in much greater obscurity than that of the Old. An ecclesiastical tradition. ascribes to the Apostle John the work of collecting and sanctioning the writings which were worthy of a place in the Canon, but this tradition is too late for any weight to be allowed to it. A much more probable opinion, and one in which nearly all the modern writers who are favorable to the claims of the Canon are agreed, is that each of the original churches, especially those of larger size and greater ability, collected for itself a complete set of those writings which could be proved by competent testimony, to be the production of inspired men, and to have been communicated by them to any of the churches as part of the written Word of God, so that in this way a great many complete collections of the New Testament Scriptures came to be extant, the accordance of which with each other, as to the books admitted, furnishes evidence of the correctness of the Canon as we now have it. This opinion, which in itself is highly probable, is rendered still more so when we consider the scrupulous care which the early churches took to discriminate spurious compositions from such as were authentic-the existence, among some, of doubts regarding certain of the New Testament books, indicating that each church claimed the right of satisfying itself in this matter-their high veneration for the genuine apostolic writings the practice of the fathers of arguing the canonicity of any book, from its reception by the churches, as a sufficient proof of this-and the reason assigned by Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. iii:25) for dividing the books of the New Testament into uoλoyovμevo, those agreed upon, and ȧvтiλeybμevo, those disputed, viz., that the former class was composed of those which the universal tradition of the churches authenticated, while the latter contained such as had been received by the majority, but not by_all (Storch, Comment. Hist. Crit. de Libb. N. Testamenti Canone, etc., p. 112, ff.; Olshausen's Echtheit der IV. Evang., s. 439). In this way we may readily believe that, without the intervention of any authoritative decision, either from an individual or a council, but by the natural process of each body of Christians seeking to procure for themselves and to convey to their brethren authentic copies of writings in which all were deeply interested, the Canon of the New Testament was formed.

(11) History of New Testament Canon. The first certain notice which we have of the existence of any of the New Testament writings, in a collected form, occurs in 2 Pet. iii:16, where the writer speaks of the epistles of Paul in such a way as to lead us to infer that at that time the whole or the greater part of these were collected together, were known amongst the churches generally (for Peter is not addressing any particular church), and were regarded as on a par with 'the other Scriptures,' by which latter expression Peter plainly means the sacred writings both of the Old Testament and the New Testament, as far as then extant. That John must have had before him copies of the other evangelists is probable from the supplementary character of his own

CANON

gospel. In the anonymous Epistle to Diognetus, which is, on good grounds, supposed to be one of the earliest of the uninspired Christian writings, the writer speaks of the Law, the Prophets, the Gospels, and the Apostles (sec. xi. ed. Hefele), Ignatius speaks of betaking himself to the gospel as the flesh of Jesus, and to the apostles as the Presbytery of the church,' and adds, 'the prophets also we love,' thus showing that it is to the Scriptures he was referring (Ep. ad Philadelphenos, sec. v, ed. Hefele). Theophilus of Antioch speaks frequently of the New Testament writings under the appellation of the sacred writings, or the Divine Word, and in one place mentions the Law, the Prophets and the Gospels, as alike divinely inspired (Ad. Autol. iii:11). Clement of Alexandria frequently refers to the books of the New Testament, and distinguishes them into the Gospels and Apostolic Discourses' (Quis Dives Salvus? prope fin.; Stromat. sæpissime). Tertullian distinctly intimates the existence of the New Testament Canon in a complete form in his day, by calling it 'Evangelicum Instrumentum' (Adv. Marc iv:2), by describing the whole Bible as 'totum instrumentum utriusque Testamenti (Adv. Prax. chap. 20), and by distinguishing between the 'Scriptura Vetus' and the 'Novum Testamentum' (ibid. c. 13). Irenæus repeatedly calls the writings of the New Testament, 'the Holy Scriptures,' 'the Oracles of God' (Adv. Hær. ii:27; i:8, etc.), and in one place he puts the Evangelical and Apostolic writings on a par with the Law and the Prophets (ibid. 1:3, sec. 6). From these allusions we may justly infer that before the middle of the third century the New Testament Scriptures were generally known by the Christians in a collected form, and reverenced as the word of God. That the books they received were the same as those now possessed by us, is evident from the quotations from them furnished by the early fathers, and which have been so carefully collected by the learned and laborious Lardner, in his Credibility of the Gospel History. The same thing appears from the researches of Origen and Eusebius. Besides these sources of information we have no fewer than ten ancient catalogues of the New Testament books still extant. Of these, sir accord exactly with our present Canon, while of the rest three omit only the Apocalypse, and one omits, with this, the Epistle to the Hebrews (Lardner's Works, vol. iv and v, 8vo; Horne's Introduction, vol. i, p. 70, 8th edition).

(12) Internal Evidence. With the external evidence thus furnished in favor of the sacred Canon, the internal accords. In the Old Testament all is in keeping with the assumption that its books were written by Jews, sustaining the character, surrounded by the circumstances, and living at the time ascribed to their authors; or if any apparent discrepancies have been found in any of them, they are of such a kind as further inquiry has served to explain and reconcile. The literary peculiarities of the New Testament, its language, its idioms, its style, its allusions, all are accordant with the hypothesis that its authors were exactly what they profess to have been-Jews converted to Christianity, and living at the commencement of the Christian era. both Testaments the theological and ethical systems are substantially in harmony, whilst all that they contain tends to one grand result-the manifestation of the power and perfection of Deity, and the restoration of man to the image, service and love of his Creator. The conclusion from the whole facts of the case can be none other than that the Bible is entitled to that implicit and un

Of

divided reverence which it demands, as the only divinely appointed Canon of religious truth and duty.

The criticism of the present century upon the authenticity of the separate books of the Old and New Testaments belongs to the special articles on these books.

Literature. Besides the immortal work of Lardner and the different introductions to the critico-historical study of Scripture, the following works may with advantage be consulted on the subject of the Canon:- Cosin's Scholastical History of the Canon, 4to. London, 1657, 1672. Westcott, The Bible in the Church, London, 1864; and History of the Canon of the N. T., London, 1866; Hilgenfeld, Der Kanon und die Kritik des N. T., Halle, 1863; How the English Bible Has Come Down to Us, Thompson, Chas. Scribner's Sons, 1900.

CANTICLES (kǎn'ti-k'lz), or Solomon's Song (Heb. 7, shir' hash-irim; Sept. doua doμáTwv; Vulg. Canticum Canticorum; all signifying the Song of Songs), is generally believed to have been so denominated in the inscription, to denote the superior beauty and excellence of this poem.

It is one of the five megilloth, or volumes, placed immediately after the Pentateuch in the present manuscript of the Jewish Scriptures in the following order, viz.: Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes and Esther, although this order is sometimes violated (see SCRIPTURE, HOLY). It also constitutes the fourth of the Cetubim, or writings (hagiographa), which in the Jewish enumeration comprehend the Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel and Ezra, which last includes the book of Nehemiah. These books are supposed to have been so called in contradistinction to the Law, which was delivered orally, and to the prophetical books, which were dictated in a peculiar manner. The Cetubim the Jews regard as the inspired writings of men who had no prophetic mission (see HAGIOGRAPHA).

1. Canonicity. In favor of the canonical authority of this book (which has been questioned in ancient and modern times) we may observe that it is found in all the copies of the Hebrew Bible which have descended to our times, as well as in the version of the Seventy, which was finished some time in the second century before the Christian era. It is also found in all the ancient catalogues which have come down to us from the early Christian church. The most ancient which we possess, that of Melito, bishop of Sardis (A. D. 170), preserved by Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. iv, chap. 26), professes to give an account of the books of the Old Testament, according to the order in which they were written, from accurate information obtained in the East. The names of these books, he acquaints us, are as follows: 'Of Moses, five books, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Jesus Naue, Judges, Ruth; four books of Kings; two of Paralipomena; Psalms of David; Proverbs of Solomon; Ecclesiastes; Song of Songs; Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve Prophets, one book; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras.' The book of Canticles is invariably contained in all subsequent catalogues. It has consequently all the external marks of canonicity possessed by any other book of the Old Testament not expressly cited in the New. Those who have questioned its right to a place in the sacred volume have proceeded more in dogmatical than on historico-critical grounds. It has been, indeed, attempted to be shown that the Song of Solomon

CANTICLES

was not included by Josephus in his account of the books of canonical Scripture, on the following grounds: Josephus divides these books into the 'five books of Moses; thirteen books containing the history of their own times, written by the Prophets who succeeded him, to the time of Artaxerxes, son of Xerxes, King of Persia; and the remaining four consisting of hymns to God and admonitions for the conduct of men's lives. It is generally supposed that these four books are Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Canticles, and that the thirteen other books, included under the term Prophets, are Joshua, Judges and Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, Esther, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Lamentations,

Ezekiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets, and the book of Job. But it has been maintained that this last book more appropriately belongs to the four which contain hymns and admonitions for human conduct than to the Prophets who wrote the history of their own times after Moses, and consequently that there is no place left for Canticles. Those who adopt this view are compelled to separate the book of Ezra from that of Nehemiah in order to make up the number of thirteen prophets; but whatever appearance of truth there may be in this reasoning, which is that advanced by Mr. William Whiston, in his supplement to his Essay Towards Restoring the Text of the Old Testament, it is overbalanced by the fact already stated, that this book formed part of the Jewish canonical Scriptures and of the Septuagint version. It is true that other books are found in the copies of this latter version, which were either originally written in Greek, as the Book of Wisdom and others, or are translated from the Hebrew or Chaldee, as Ecclesiasticus, and the first book of Maccabees; but it is confessed that these never formed part of the first or Jewish canon. The Book of Canticles was also translated into Greek, from the original, by Symmachus the Jew, and by Aquila, in the second century.

The Canticles was one of the books translated by Jerome from the Greek, or rather, corrected from the older Latin version, and published by that father; but this work is now lost. We still possess in the present Latin Vulgate Jerome's translation of this book from the original Hebrew.

2. Subject. The subject of this book is confessedly Love. But it has been a matter of much controversy, especially in modern times, what kind of love is here celebrated. It is equally a matter of dispute among Divines whether the interpretation of the poem is limited to its obvious and primary meaning, or whether it does not also include a latent mystical and allegorical sense. We shall speak of these subjects in order. And, first, as to the literal and primary meaning, the earliest information which we have is contained in the preface of Origen to his commentary on this book. This eminent scholar holds it to be an epithalamium, or marriage song in the form of a drama. This idea has been, in modern times, improved by Lowth, Bossuet, Michaelis and other commentators. The Song of Songs,' says Bishop Lowth, 'for so it is entitled, either on account of the excellence of the subject or of the composition, is an epithalamium, or nuptial dialogue, or rather, if we may be allowed to give it a title more agreeable to the genius of the Hebrews, a Song of Loves. Such is the title of Psalm xlv. It is expressive of the utmost fervor as well as delicacy of passion; it is instinct with all the spirit and sweetness of affection. The principal characters are Solomon himself and his bride, who are represented speaking both in dialogue and in soliloquy, when accidentally separated. Virgins, also,

CANTICLES

the companions of the bride, are introduced, who seem to be constantly on the stage, and bear a part of the dialogue. Mention is also made of young men, friends of the bridegroom, but they are mute persons. This is exactly conformable to the manners of the Hebrews, who had always a number of companions to the bridegroom, thirty of whom were present in honor of Samson at his nuptial feast (Judg. xiv:13). In the New Testament, according to the Hebrew idiom, they are called children, or sons of the bridechamber, and friends of the bridegroom. There, too, we find mention of ten virgins who went forth to meet the bridegroom and conduct him home; which circumstance indicates that this poem is founded on the nuptial rites of the Hebrews, and is expressive of the forms or ceremonial of their marriage. In this opinion, indeed, the harmony of commentators is not less remarkable than their disagreement concerning the general economy and conduct of the work, and the order and arrangement of the several parts. The present object of inquiry, however, is only whether any plot or fable be contained or represented in this poem; and upon this point the most probable opinion is that of the celebrated Bossuet, a critic whose profound learning will ever be acknowledged and a scholar whose exquisite taste will ever be admired.'

Bossuet's idea of this poem was that it is a regular drama, or pastoral eclogue, consisting of seven acts, each act filling a day, concluding with the Sabbath, inasmuch as the bridegroom on this day does not, as usual, go forth to his rural employments, but proceeds from the marriage chamber into public with his bride. The following are Bossuet's divisions of the plots:

Lowth so far differs from Bossuet as to deny the existence of a regular drama, inasmuch as there is no termination to the plot. Michaelis, in his notes to his German translation of Lowth's Prelections, endeavors to overturn the views of Bossuet and Lowth and to show that this poem can have no relation to the celebration of a marriage, inasmuch as the bridegroom is compelled in his nuptial week to quit his spouse and friends for whole days in order to attend to his cattle in the pastures; and while he altogether repudiates the idea, which some have had the rashness to maintain, that the subject of the poem, in its literal signification, is a clandestine amour, inasmuch as the transaction is described as legal and public, and the consent of parents plainly intimated, he equally rejects the views of those who conceive that these songs relate to the state of parties betrothed before marriage. His opinion is that this poem had no reference to a future marriage, but that the chaste loves of conjugal and domestic life are described. This state, he conceives, in the East, admits of more of the perplexities, jealousies, plots and artifices of love than it does with us; the scene is more varied, and there is consequently greater scope for invention.

But the idea that the conjugal state, or the loves of married persons, are here referred to, has been strongly opposed by some of the ablest modern writers, including Eichhorn (Einleitung), Rosenmüller (Scholia in Cant. Pref. p. 261), Jahn (Ein