acceptance of the great majority of the books no serious question has ever arisen; and while some of the apocryphal books are of obviously inferior value, it may be said of all of them, canonical, apocryphal, and pseudepigraphical, that they contain much that is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness"; and it would make no serious difference in results if we should include them all in our sources of biblical dogmatics. In fact, on doctrines not a few we find it necessary to consult these apocryphal sources for information touching the religious opinions of the Jews current at the time these books were written. The book of Tobit, as well as the book of Esther, furnishes us with a noteworthy side-light upon the Jewish life and thought of its time, and the historian of Judaism might well deplore its loss. On the other hand, no important truth of our Christian religion would be invalidated or imperiled if we should omit from our sources of doctrine not only all the apocryphal writings, but also the books of Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Chronicles, James, Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and the Apocalypse, for the canonicity of most of these, as we have observed, was much questioned in the ancient times. There is, moreover, a convenience in the use of the more limited canon, and it seems preferable to confine our sources of doctrine to the scriptures of the Old Testament which are accepted alike by Jews, Greek and Roman Catholics and Protestants, and to the New Testament as commonly received by the Greek, Roman, and Protestant Churches.

6. Other Traditions Questioned. Other traditions of the Jewish synagogue touching the authorship of certain books have also been challenged by modern criticism. A well-known passage in the Talmud assumes to answer the question, "Who wrote the Old Testament books ?" That answer, given in the footnote,' is a fair specimen of oracular dogma prevalent in the old rabbinic schools. Its value is to be estimated by comparison with scores of similar deliverances found among the teachings of the Gemara. The entire statement is obviously a set of rabbinical conjectures, made at a time when the origin and history of the books named were as uncertain to these Jews as they are to us. The strange idea

Joshua

Moses wrote his own book, and the section about Balaam and Job. wrote his own book and eight verses of the Law. Samuel wrote his own book and also Judges and Ruth. David wrote the book of Psalms at the direction of (or in behalf of) the ten ancients: Adam the first, Melchizedek, Abraham, Moses, Heman, Jeduthun, Asaph, and the three sons of Korah. Jeremiah wrote his own book and the book of Kings and Lamentations. Hezekiah and his company wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, Song, and Ecclesiastes. The men of the Great Synagogue wrote Ezekiel and the Twelve, Daniel, and the roll of Esther. Ezra wrote his own book, and the genealogies of Chronicles down to his own time.-Baba Bathra, 14, b.

that David wrote the Psalms by the aid of Adam, Melchizedek and Abraham, and that the men of the Great Synagogue wrote Ezekiel, is sufficient to disparage the entire tradition and to divest it of all historical value. And yet this old and worthless statement of conjectures, repeated in substance by generations of biblical commentators, has been allowed to go unchallenged so long, that when we now call attention to its obscurity and want of corroborating evidence some people show alarm, and imagine that we are "attacking" the Scriptures themselves. A careful study of the Bible evinces the fact that many of the Old Testament books are anonymous, while the traditional authorship of others is heavily discounted, if not disproved, by the internal witness of the books themselves. The Psalms are not all ascribed to David, and the book of Proverbs contains at least seven different collections, some of them made long after the time of Solomon. Moreover, the titles of many psalms and the superscriptions and subscriptions of some books and portions of books appear to have no more value than the chapter-headings inserted in the "authorized" English version of 1611. Some books long supposed to have come from one writer are found on closer examination to be composite, and this noteworthy feature of books both canonical and apocryphal appears also in most of the religious books of other nations. It ought, therefore, to be no disturbing element in our search for the truth embodied in these ancient books to be apprized of all the facts and features of their origin, so far as such facts can now be ascertained. The books themselves remain precisely what they always have been since they were canonized for religious uses, and the results of continuous searching criticism only serve to present them to us in a clearer light.

7. Variety of Compositions. Another fact brought into prominence by modern research is the remarkable variety of compositions embodied in the scriptures of the two Testaments. There are fragments of very ancient Hebrew song imbedded sometimes in the midst of historic annals; there are sundry collections of odes and proverbs, dramas wrought out in artificial form, alphabetical poems, orations of fervid eloquence, biography of romantic interest, genealogies of tedious length, theocratic history and narratives of many persons and of events of which we possess no other record; there are the oracles of prophecy and the gospel memoirs, unlike any other literature known; the New Testament epistles are unique, and the gospel of John is a monument of Christian thought which persistently confounds the hostile criticism of the centuries. All these writings taken together exhibit also a wealth and variety of rhetorical qualities unsurpassed in other comparable

collections of religious literature. There are enigmatical sayings, riddles, fables, parables, allegories, types, symbols, and apocalyptic pictures set in exquisite idealistic form, and often adorned with the most beautiful and forceful figures of speech. It is easily seen now that all portions of this extensive and various body of scripture are not of equal value. Compositions of such great diversity of character and scope, many of them separated from each other by centuries, could not and should not be expected to escape the most searching criticism. The original texts are in many cases corrupt, so that we are at a loss to know precisely what the ancient writer said. Had the biblical writings, like certain well-known inscriptions, been originally graven in the enduring rock with a stylus of iron (comp. Job xix, 24), there might have been less ground for dubious questioning; but they were at first inscribed in perishable manuscripts, and they have been copied by many different hands through successive generations, and a comparison of the various copies and of the several versions shows that they have suffered by way of numerous omissions, interpolations, and verbal changes.

8. Three Divisions of the Hebrew Canon. The three well-known divisions of the Hebrew canon-the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings-appear to have been made some time before the beginning of our era. They are mentioned in Luke xxiv, 44, as "the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms," and in the prologue of Ecclesiasticus as "the law, and the prophets, and the other books of our fathers." All printed copies of the Hebrew Bible show this arrangement of the Palestinian canon. The first five books are called the Law of Moses; the books of the Prophets are separated into two classes, the earlier and the later, the first class embracing Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, the second the more oracular books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve Minor Prophets. All the other books of the Old Testament belong to the third division called Kethubim, i. e., Writings. By some of the Greek and Latin fathers and by many later writers this third section was called the Hagiographa, i. e., Holy Writings. The book of Psalms is divided into a pentateuch, each section ending with a doxology; and the Jews have a saying that Moses gave five books of law, and David gave five books of psalms; the law is the word of Jehovah to his people, and the psalms are the responsive word of his people to Jehovah. But the critical study of both these pentateuchs has resulted in a prevalent belief that Moses was no more the author of the one than was David of the other. On this question of criticism, however, the last word has not yet been said, and is not likely to be for years to come.

9. The New Testament Canon. The books of the New Testament canon are fewer in number than those of the Old, and would fill less than one third the number of pages, but as sources of Christian doctrine they are very far in advance of the Hebrew scriptures, for they embody the teachings of the Lord Jesus who has fulfilled the law and the prophets, and is the Mediator of a new and better covenant. The three synoptic gospels occupy the first and highest position in this canon, for they contain a remarkably simple and uniform account of the best established traditions. of what Jesus said and did, as they were first reported by those "who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word" (Luke i, 2). This oral testimony, which doubtless entered largely into the first preaching of the gospel by the apostles, found its way at an early date into numerous written narratives out of which our first three gospels appear to have been compiled. It is now commonly believed that Mark's gospel is the oldest of the three, and, according to Papias (about A. D. 130), it is in substance what Mark remembered of the things said or done by Christ as they were personally communicated to him by Peter. Papias also says that Matthew wrote out a collection of the sayings of Jesus in the Hebrew language, which others translated and interpreted as they were able.' That Hebrew (or Aramaic) original is lost, and we do not know just how much of it has been preserved in translation in our present Greek gospel according to Matthew. The date of Matthew and also that of Luke are quite uncertain, and each of these gospels has recorded words and works of our Lord which are not reported elsewhere. The gospel according to John is so different in its style from the Synoptics that its date and authorship form one of the most persistently disputed problems of New Testament criticism. Those who maintain its genuineness concede that the style and contents are probably due to the mystic temperament of the writer and the advanced age at which he wrote. Long residence in a center of Greek literary activity, and half a century of thinking and speaking repeatedly of personal memories of his beloved Lord, would very naturally color a mystic apostle's manner of reporting his testimony "that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God" (John xx, 31).

The Acts of the apostles is from the author of the third gospel, and furnishes a most important history of the beginnings of the Christian community, and of the preaching and ministry of the

1 See Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book iii, chap. xxxix. Our Greek gospel of Matthew appears to be based upon the Hebrew original referred to by Papias, and to include also a considerable amount of matter derived from other sources. It is also not improbable that our Greek gospel of Mark is a similar enlargement of the original memoranda of Peter's recollections.

first apostles, especially of Peter and Paul. The epistles of Paul to the Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians bear the most indisputable marks of genuineness and are among the earliest writings of the New Testament. The other Pauline epistles have been repeatedly questioned, especially the so-called Pastoral epistles; but they are all so clearly products of earliest Christian teaching, and have so much to commend them as substantially the works of Paul, that we can safely accept them as trustworthy sources of apostolic doctrine. The same, in substance, may be said of the Catholic epistles and the Apocalypse, although Jude and 2 Peter have least value among all the New Testament writings, and the majority of modern critics assign their composition to the first half of the second century.

10. Superiority of the New Testament. When, now, we examine the contents and scope of all these canonical books, and observe that Jesus and his disciples emphasize the transcendent superiority of the new covenant, mediated and ministered by the Christ, the Son of God, we must note that the New Testament revelation consummates and supersedes that of the law and the prophets of the former times. How or why should this be otherwise after "the appearing of our Saviour Christ Jesus, who abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel"? There has been such a widespread habit of placing the Old Testament on a full equality with the New, and a consequent failure to observe how Jesus and his apostles inculcate a different doctrine, that we must here call attention to the following facts: (1) Shown by Statements of Jesus. One of the most emphatic statements of Jesus is that he came to fulfill, not to destroy, the law and the prophets (Matt. v, 17). His own most positive teaching in the immediate context and elsewhere, goes to show a complete displacement of the statutes of the old covenant as a norm of ethics and of religious life, and a taking up of all their essential and permanent elements into a new setting in the gospel of the kingdom of heaven. Even the decalogue, the richest kernel of the whole law, becomes, in the teaching of Christ, exalted into a divine fullness and significance unknown to the Jewish fathers. The word, "Thou shalt not kill" is violated by "every one who is angry with his brother." The sin of adultery is committed when one "looketh on a woman to lust after her." The statutes against swearing falsely are all superseded by the new commandment, "Swear not at all." The sabbath law is so enlarged as to become a principle of universal obligation to do good: to be, like the Son of man, not a slave but "lord of the sabbath," and to know that the heavenly Father "worketh even until now." Jesus set aside