3. For unknown authors, we can find no direct attestation. The rule given in Deuteronomy is ignored, and, by implication, denied. Apocryphal books are consulted and cited, but the account given by the Old Testament, more especially in regard to the authorship of the Pentateuch, is treated as unworthy of credit. 4. Consequently we have по answer from Professor Driver to the question, What is Scripture, or what distinguishes a Canonical Book from uny other writing? Our Lord is held to have given expression only to the common opinions of His time. 5. The quotation from Josephus is given with an omission which robs it of half its force. The date of the Canon is placed outside the age or the Prophets. 6. We are landed in a position not far from that of Rome. The instinct of the 1 See Allegation VIII. above. with the Oracles of God, and is, according to our Twentieth Article, a witness and keeper of Holy Writ:-a witness to the fact that these Books only were delivered to her as "Holy Scriptures," and a Trustee to guard them from generation to generation. This is the Biblical and Christian basis of the Authority of Holy Scripture. Church becomes the basis of the Canon. All higher authority is practically superseded. Thus we are left with subjective convictions only as a ground for Biblical teaching. This basis is already stigmatised by Moslems as inferior to that of the Koran. A very short summary of what Professor Driver says in the Introduction to his "Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament" will show that I have not misrepresented him here. The title of the introductory chapter referred to is, "The Origin of the Books of the Old Testament, and the Growth of the Canon according to the Jews." He says, in paragraph 1, p. 1, "On the “On authorship of the books of the Old Testament, as on the completion of the Canon of the Old Testament, the Jews possess no tradition worthy of real credence or regard, but only vague and uncertain reminiscences, intermingled often with idle speculations. Of the steps by which the Canon of the Old Testament was formed, little definite is known." He then proceeds to cite passages from:-1. The Proverbs of Jesus the son of Sirach. 2. The second Book of Maccabees. 3. The fourth Book of Ezra. (This book is so intensely Apocryphal that it has not even found a place in the Latin Vulgate. Our Authorised Version came from a Latin translation of an Arabic translation of a presumably Greek original, which has been lost. It is later in the form in which we have it than the Revelation of St. John, upon which it appears to draw.) 4. The Talmud. 5. Josephus, in the well-known passage against Apion, from which however Driver omits to quote the fact that the Jewish belief in the sacred writings which fall within the succession of the prophets was so intense that they would die for them. It is not intimated that they were willing to suffer for the Apocryphal books. The omission of this statement from a passage cited in relation to the Canon of the Old Testament indicates a curious disregard of the main point at issue. But the truly amazing thing about this series of passages is that all reference in Holy Scripture to the account of the Canon, or the principles on which it is formed, is entirely wanting. Not a passage from the Old or New Testament is admitted as evidence at all. Apocryphal books, which as a class are regarded as pretenders to the position of Canonical Scriptures, are admitted as evidence to the origin of genuine Scripture, but the testimony of genuine Scriptures themselves is made of no account. It is treated as One would like to though it had no place. know on what principle of justice, or rule of evidence, this line of action proceeds. If we may take Driver's solitary example, Thucydides, it is as though the history of that writer were to be discussed on the basis that it is anonymous. The statement that he wrote it, being made by himself in the beginning of his book, must, on this principle, be disregarded. If others say he wrote it, that is something. That he himself should sign the writing, stands for nothing at all. It appears to me that this line of argument proceeds upon the tacit assumption that the Books of the Bible are as thieves, or impostors, on their trial, "claimants to a title to which they have no right. They are put to the bar, and not permitted to give evidence in their own behalf. But those books which appeared after them, and were written in imitation of them, as the fourth Book of Esdras followed the real Ezra, are admitted as witnesses. The preposterous statement of this book, that "the (sacred) books were actually destroyed, and Ezra re-wrote them by Divine inspiration," is cited by Driver (" Introduction," p. v) as worthy to be considered and commented upon, and not a word of all that is "written" in Ezra and Nehemiah on this point is even mentioned. For all that appears in Driver's "Introduction," the Bible N |