that which penned 1:1-31 and 2:1-3. Instances of the same sort may be found in the books of Chronicles. In like manner, Marshall?s Life of Washington incorporates documents by other writers. By thus incorporating them, Marshall vouches for their truth. See Bible Com., 1:2,
22. Dorner, Hist. Prot. Theology, 1:243 ? ?Luther ascribes to faith critical authority with reference to the Canon. He denies the canonicity of James, without regarding it as spurious. So of Hebrews and Revelation, though later, in 1545, he passed a more favorable judgment upon the latter. He even says of a proof adduced by Paul in Galatians that it is too weak to hold. He allows that in external matters not only Stephen but also, even the sacred authors contain inaccuracies. The authority of the Old Testament does not seem to him invalidated by the admission that several of its writings have passed through revising hands. What would it matter, he asks, if Moses did not write the Pentateuch? The prophets studied Moses and one another. If they built in much wood, hay and stubble along with the rest, still the foundation abides; the fire of the great day shall consume the former; for in this manner do we treat the writings of Augustine and others. Kings is far more to be believed than Chronicles. Ecclesiastes is forged and cannot come from Solomon. Esther is not canonical. The church may have erred in adopting a book into the Canon. Faith first requires proof. Hence he ejects the Apocryphal books of the Old Testament from the Canon. So some parts of the New Testament receive only a secondary, deuterocanonical position. There is a difference between the word of God and the Holy Scriptures, not merely in reference to the form, but also in reference to the subject matter.?
H. P. Smith, Bib. Scholarship and Inspiration, 94 ? ?The Editor of the Miner Prophets united in one roll the prophetic fragments which were in circulation in his time.
Finding a fragment without an author?s name he inserted it in the series. It would not have been distinguished from the work of the author immediately preceding. So <380914>Zechariah 9:14 came to go under the name of Zechariah, and Isaiah 40-66 under the name of Isaiah. Reuss called these ?anatomical studies.?? On the authorship of the book of Daniel, see
W.C. Wilkinson, in Homiletical Review, March, 1902:208, and Oct. 1902:305; on Paul, see Hom. Rev., June, 1902:501; on 110th Psalm, Hom. Rev., April, 1902:309.
(b) In the case of additions to Scripture books by later writers, it is reasonable to suppose that the additions, as well as the originals, were
<- Previous Table of Contents Next ->
Was this article helpful?