The scope of this article does not permit the full discussion in it of the employment of Scripture, or of the estimate put upon Scripture, by either our Lord or the writers of the New Testament. It is strictly limited to what is necessary to exhibit the use of the terms ‘Scripture,’ ‘The Scriptures,’ in the New Testament and the more immediate implications of this use.
This use was an inheritance, not an invention. The idea of a ‘canon’ of ‘Sacred Scriptures,’ and, with the idea, the ‘canon’ itself were derived by Christianity from Judaism. The Jews possessed a body of writings, consisting of ‘Law, Prophets and (other) Scriptures (K’thubhim),’ though they were often called for brevity’s sake merely ‘the Law and the Prophets’ or even simply ‘the Law.’ These ‘Sacred Scriptures” ()ִכ ְת ֵב י ַח ֹּקֶד ׁש,—or, as they were very frequently pregnantly called, this ‘Scripture’ ()הכתיב, or these ‘Books’ ( )הספריםor, even sometimes, in the singular, this ‘Book’ (—)הספרwere looked upon as all drawing their origin from divine inspiration and as possessed in all their extent of divine authority. Whatever stood written in them was a word of God, and was therefore referred to indifferently as something which ‘the Scripture says’ ( אמר קראor אמר הכתיבor )כתיב קראor ‘the All-merciful says’ ()אמר רחמנא, or even simply ‘He says’ ( כן הוא אומרor merely —)ואומרthat God is the speaker being too fully understood to require explicit expression. Every precept or dogma was supposed to be grounded in Scriptural teaching, and possessed authority only as buttressed by a Scriptural passage, introduced commonly by one of the formulas, ‘for it is said’ ()שנאמר, or ‘as it is written’ ( דכתיבor )כדכתיב, though of course a great variety of less frequently occurring similar formulas of adduction are found. 1
Greek-speaking Jews naturally tended merely to reproduce in their new language the designations and forms of adduction of the sacred books current among their compatriots. This process was no doubt facilitated by the existence among the Greeks themselves of a pregnant legislative use of γράφω, γραφή, γράμμα, in which they were already freighted with a certain implication of authority. 2 But it is very easy to make too much of this (as e. g., Deissmann does), and the simple fact should not be obscured that the Greek-speaking Jews follow the usage of the Jews in general. It may no doubt very possibly be due in part to his Graecizing tendencies that the Scriptures are spoken of by Josephus apparently with predilection as the “Sacred Books” (ἱεραὶ βίβλοι or ἱερὰ βιβλία) or “Sacred Scriptures” (ἱερὰ γράμματα) or more fully still as the “Books of the Sacred Scriptures” (αἱ ἱερῶν γραφῶν βίβλοι); and quoted with the formula γέγραπται or more frequently ἀναγέγραπται—all of which are forms which would be familiar to Greek ears, with a general implication of authority. 3 Perhaps, however, the influence of the Greek usage is more clearly traceable in certain passages of the LXX in which γραφή may seem to hover between the pregnant Greek sense of authoritative ‘ordinance,’ and the pregnant Hebrew sense of authoritative ‘Scripture.’ When, for example, we read in 1 Chron. 15:15, “And the sons of the Levites took upon themselves with staves the Ark of God, ὡς ἐνετείλατο Μωυσῆς ἐν λόγῳ θεοῦ κατὰ τὴν γραφήν,” we scarcely know whether we are to translate the κατὰ τὴν γραφήν (which has no equivalent in the Hebrew) by “according to the precept,” or by “according to the Scriptures.” Something of the same hesitancy is felt with reference to the similar passages: 2 Chron. 30:5, “Because the multitude had not done it lately κατὰ τὴν γραφήν” (= ;)ַּכ ָּכ תּוב2 Chron. 30:18, “But they ate the passover παρὰ τὴν γραφήν” (= ;)ְּב ֹלא ַּכ ּכתּוב2 Esdr. 6:18, “And they established the priests in their courses and the Levites in their divisions for the service of God in Jerusalem, κατὰ τὴν γραφὴν βίβλου Μωυσῆ” (= ;)ִּכ ְכ ַת ב ֽס ַפ ר מֶׁש ה1 Chron. 28:19, “All these things David gave to Solomon ἐν γραφῇ χειρὸς κυρίου” (= ִּב ְכ ָת ב )ִמ ַּיד ְי הָֹו ה: 2 Chron. 35:4, “Prepare yourselves … κατὰ τὴν γραφὴν Δαυὶδ … καὶ διὰ χειρὸς Σαλωμὼν” (= ;)ִּכ ְכ ָת כ ָד ִו יד ּוִב ִמ ְכ ַּת ב ְׁש ֹלֹמה1 Esdr. 1:4, “κατὰ τὴν γραφὴν Δαυὶδ” κτλ; and especially the very instructive passage 2 Esdr. 7:22, “For which there is no γραφή.” Similarly in 2 Esdr. 3:2, “κατὰ τὰ γεγραμμένα (= )ַּכ ָּכ תּובin the law of Moses,” τὰ γεγραμμένα might very well appeal to a Greek ear as simply “the prescriptions”; and there are a series of passages in which γέγραπται might very readily be taken in the Greek sense of “it is prescribed,” such as Josh. 9:4, (8:31), 2 Kings 14:6, 23:21, 2 Chron. 23:18, 25:4, Neh. 10:34, (35), 35, (37), Tob. 1:6. Should this interpretation be put on these passages, there would be left in the LXX little unalloyed trace of the peculiar Jewish usage of pregnantly referring to Scripture as such by that term, and citing it with the authoritative ‘It is written.’ For clear instances of the former usage we should have to go to 4 Macc. 18:14, and of the latter to Dan. 9:13, and to the Greek additions to Job (42:17). 4 Philo on the other hand is absolutely determined in his usage by his inherited Jewish habits of thought. With him the Sacred books are by predilection a body of divine Oracles and are designated ordinarily either ὁ λόγος with various adjectival enhancements—‘prophetic,’ ‘divine,’ ‘sacred’—or, perhaps even more commonly, “the Oracles,” or even “the Oracle,” (οἱ χρησμοί, τὰ λόγια, ὁ χρησμός, τὸ λόγιον, or even possibly the anarthrous χρησμός, λόγιον); and are adduced (as is also most frequently the case in the Mishna, cf. Edersheim as cited) rather with the formula, “As it is said,” than with the “As it is written” which would more naturally convey to Greek ears the sense of authoritative declarations. Of course Philo also speaks on occasion (for this too is a truly Jewish mode of speech) of these “Oracles” as “the Sacred Books” (ἱα ἱεραὶ βίβλοι. “De Vita Moysis,” iii. 23, Mangey ii. 163; “Quod det. pot. insid.” 44, Mangey i. 222), or as “the Sacred Scriptures” (αἱ ἱερώταται γραφαί, “De Abrah.” i, Mangey ii. 2; ἱεραὶ γραφαί, “Quis rerum div. heres.” 32, Mangey i. 495; τὰ ἱερὰ γράμματα, “Legat. ad Caium,” 29, Mangey ii. 574-); and adduces them with the pregnant γέγραπται. But the comparative infrequency of these designations in his pages is very noticeable. 5