| |
Old Testament
|
ohld tes-tuh-muhnt
RELATED: Bible, New Testament, Quotations, Septuagint
LIST OF BOOKS: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon (Canticles), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi |
|
|
|
|
|
Easton's Bible Dictionary
(no entry)
Hitchcock's Dictionary of Bible Names
(no entry)
Smith's Bible Dictionary
I. TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. --
History of the text. -
A history of the text of the Old Testament should properly commence from the date
of the completion of the canon. As regards the form in which the sacred writings
were little doubt that the text was ordinarily were preserved, there can be written
on skins, rolled up into volumes, like the modern synagogue rolls. ( Psalms 40:7
; Jeremiah 36:14 ; Ezekiel 2:9 ; Zechariah 5:1 ) The original character in which
the text was expressed is that still preserved to us, with the exception of four
letters, on the Maccabaean coins, and having a strong affinity to the Samaritan
character. At what date this was exchanged for the present Aramaic or square character
is still as undetermined as it is at what the use of the Aramaic language Palestine
superseded that of the Hebrew. The old Jewish tradition, repeated by Origen and
Jerome, ascribed the change to Ezra. [WRITING] Of any logical division, in the
written text, of the rose of the Old Testament into Pesukim or verses, we find
in the Tulmud no mention; and even in the existing synagogue rolls such division
is generally ignored. In the poetical books, the Pesukim mentioned in the Talmud
correspond to the poetical lines, not to our modern verses. Of the documents which
directly bear upon the history of the Hebrew text, the earliest two are the Samaritan
copy of the Pentateuch and the Greek translation of the LXX. [SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH;
SEPTUAGINT] In the translations of Aquila and the other Greek interpreters, the
fragments of whose works remain to us in the Hexapla, we have evidence of the
existence of a text differing but little from our own; so also in the Targums
of Onkelos and Jonathan. A few centuries later we have, in the Hexapla, additional
evidence to the same effect in Origins transcriptions of the Hebrew text. And
yet more important are the proofs of the firm establishment of the text, and of
its substantial with our own, supplied by the translation of Jerome, who was instructed
by the Palestinian Jews, and mainly relied upon their authority for acquaintance
not only with the text itself, but also with the traditional unwritten vocalization
of brings us to the middle of the Talmudic period. The care of the Talmudic doctors
for the text is shown by the pains with which they counted no the number of verses
in the different books and computed which were the middle verses, words and letters
in the Pentateuch and in the Psalms. The scrupulousness with which the Talmudists
noted what they deemed the truer readings, and yet abstained from introducing
them into the text, indicates at once both the diligence with which they scrutinized
the text and also the care with which even while knowledging its occasional imperfections,
they guarded it. Critical procedure is also evinced in a mention of their rejection
of manuscripts which were found not to agree with others in their readings; and
the rules given with refer once to the transcription and adoption of manuscripts
attest the care bestowed upon them. It is evident from the notices of the Talmud
that a number of oral traditions had been gradually accumulating respecting both
the integrity of particular passages of the text itself and also the manner in
which if was to be read. This vast heterogeneous mass of traditions and criticisms,
compiled and embodied in writing, forms what is known as the Masorah , i.e. Tradition.
From the end of the Masoretic period onward, the Masorah became the great authority
by which the text given in all the Jewish MSS. was settled.
Manuscripts . --
The Old Testament MSS. known to us fall into two main classes: synagogue rolls
and MSS. for private use of the latter, some are written in the square, others
in the rabbinic or cursive, character. The synagogue rolls contain separate from
each other, the Pentateuch, the Haphtaroth or appointed sections of the prophets,
and the so-called Megilloth, viz. Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes
and Esther. Private MSS. in the square character are in the book form, either
on parchment or on paper, and of various sizes, from folio to 12mo. Some contain
the Hebrew text alone; others add the Targum, or an Arabic or other translation,
either interspersed with the text or in a separate column, occasionally in the
margin. The upper and lower margins are generally occupied by the Masorah, sometimes
by rabbinical commentaries, etc. The date of a MS. is ordinarily given in the
subscription but as the subscriptions are often concealed in the Masorah or elsewhere,
it is occasionally difficult to find them: occasionally also it is difficult to
decipher them. No satisfactory criteria have been yet established by which the
ages of MSS. are to be determined. Few existing MSS. are supposed to be older
than the twelfth century. Kennicott and Bruns assigned one of their collation
(No. 590) to the tenth century; Deuteronomy Rossi dates if A.D. 1018; on the other
hand. one of his own (No. 634) he adjudges to the eighth century. Since the days
of Kennicott and Deuteronomy Rossi modern research has discovered various MSS.
beyond the limits of Europe. Of many of these there seems no reason to suppose
that they will add much to our knowledge of the Hebrew text. It is different with
the MSS. examined by Pinner at Odessa. One of these MSS. (A, No. 1), a Pentateuch
roll, unpointed, brought from Derbend in Daghestan, appears by the subscription
to have been written previous to A.D. 580 and if so is the oldest known biblical
Hebrew MS. in existence. The forms of the letters are remarkable. Another MS.
(B, No. 3) containing the prophets, on parchment, in small folio, although only
dating, according to the inscription, from A.D. 916 and furnished with a Masorah,
is a yet greater treasure. Its vowels and accents are wholly different from those
now in use, both in form and in position, being all above the letters: they have
accordingly been the theme of much discussion among Hebrew scholars.
Printed text . --
The history of the printed text of the Hebrew Bible commences with the early Jewish
editions of the separate books. First appeared the Psalter, in 1477, probably
at Bologna, in 4to, with Kimchis commentary interspersed among the verses. Only
the first four psalms had the vowel-points, and these but clumsily expressed.
At Bologna, there subsequently appeared in 1482, the Pentateuch, in folio, pointed,
with the Targum and the commentary of Rashi; and the five Megilloth (Ruth--Esther),
in folio with the commentaries of Rashi and Aben Ezra. From Soncino, near Cremona,
issued in 1486 the Prophetae priores (Joshua--Kings), folio, unpointed with Kimchis
commentary. The honor of printing the first entire Hebrew Bible belongs to the
above-mentioned town of Soncino. The edition is in folio, pointed and accentuated.
Nine copies only of it are now known, of which one belongs to Exeter College,
Oxford. This was followed, in 1494, by the 4to or 8vo edition printed by Gersom
at Brescia, remarkable as being the edition from which Luthers German translation
was made. After the Brescian, the next primary edition was that contained in the
Complutensian Polyglot, published at Complutum (Alcala) in Spain, at the expense
of Cardinal Ximenes, dated 1514-17 but not issued till 1522. To this succeeded
an edition which has had more influence than any on the text of later times the
Second Rabbinical Bible, printed by Bomberg al Venice, 4 vols. fol., 1525-6. The
editor was the learned Tunisian Jew R. Jacob hen Chaim. The great feature of his
work lay in the correction of the text by the precepts of the Masorah, in which
he was profoundly skilled, and on which, as well as on the text itself, his labors
were employed. The Hebrew Bible which became the standard to subsequent generations
was: that of Joseph Athiais, a learned rabbi and printer at Amsterdam. His text
Was based on a comparison of the previous editions with two MSS.; one bearing
date 1299, the other a Spanish MS. boasting an antiquity of 900 years. It appeared
at Amsterdam 2 vols. 8 vo, 1661.
Principles of criticism . --
The method of procedure required in the criticism of the Old Testament is widely
different from that practiced in the criticism of the New Testament. Our Old Testament
textus receptus is a far more faithful representation of the genuine Scripture;
but, on the other hand, the means of detecting and correcting the errors contained
in it are more precarious, the results are more uncertain, and the ratio borne
by the value of the diplomatic evidence of MSS. to that of a good critical judgment
and sagacity is greatly diminished. It is indeed to the direct testimony of the
MSS. that, in endeavoring to establish the true text, we must first have recourse.
The comparative purity of the Hebrew text is probably different in different parts
of the Old Testament. In the revision of Dr. Davidson, who has generally restricted
himself to the admission of corrections warranted by MS., Masoretic or Talmudic
authority, those in the book of Genesis do not exceed eleven; those in the Psalms
are proportionately three times as numerous; those in the historical books and
the Prophets are proportionately more numerous than those in the Psalms. |
II. QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. --
The New Testament quotations from the Old form one of the outward bonds of connection
between the two parts of the Bible. They are manifold in kind. In the quotations
of all kinds from the Old Testament in the New. We find a continual variation
from the letter of the older Scriptures. To this variation three causes may be
specified as having contributed: First, all the New Testament writers quoted from
the Septuagint; correcting it indeed more or less by the Hebrew, especially when
it was needful for their purpose occasionally deserting it altogether; still abiding
by it to so large an extent as to show that it was the primary source whence their
quotations were drawn. Secondly, the New Testament writers must have frequently
quoted from memory. Thirdly, combined with this there was an alteration of conscious
or unconscious design. Sometimes the object of this was to obtain increased force.
Sometimes an Old Testament passage is abridged, and in the abridgment so adjusted,
by a little alteration, as to present an aspect of completeness, and yet omit
what is foreign to the immediate purpose. ( Acts 1:20 ; 1 Corinthians 1:31 ) At
other times a passage is enlarged by the incorporation of a passage from another
source: thus in ( Luke 4:18 , 4:19 ) although the contents are professedly those,
read by our Lord from ( Isaiah 61:1 ) ... we have the words "to set at liberty
them that are bruised," introduced from ( Isaiah 58:6 ) (Sept.); similarly in
( Romans 11:8 ; 29:4 ) is combined with ( Isaiah 29:10 ) In some cases still greater
liberty of alteration assumed. In someplaces,again, the a words of the original
are taken up, but employed with a new meaning. Almost more remarkable than any
alteration in the quotation itself is the circumstance that in ( Matthew 27:9
) Jeremiah should be named as the author of a prophecy really delivered by Zechariah;
the being that the prophecy is based upon that in ( Jeremiah 18:1 ; 19:1 ) ...
and that without a reference to this original source the most essential features
of the fulfillment of Zechariahs prophecy would be misunderstood.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
See TEXT CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
I. INTRODUCTORY
The problem of how we came by 39 books known as Old Testament "Scripture" is a
purely historical investigation. The question involved is, not who wrote the several
books, but who made them into a collection, not their origin or contents, but
their history; not God's part, but man's. Our present aim, accordingly, must be
to trace the process by which the various writings became "Scripture."
1. The Christian Term "Canon":
The word "canon" is of Christian origin, from the Greek word kanon, which in turn
is probably borrowed from the Hebrew word, qaneh, meaning a reed or measuring
rod, hence, norm or rule. Later it came to mean a rule of faith, and eventually
a catalogue or list. In present usage it signifies a collection of religious writings
Divinely inspired and hence, authoritative, normative, sacred and binding. The
term occurs in Galatians 6:16; 2 Corinthians 10:13 - 16; but it is first employed
of the books of Scripture in the technical sense of a standard collection or body
of sacred writings, by the church Fathers of the 4th century; e. g. in the 59th
canon of the Council of Laodicea (363 AD); in the Festal Epistle of Athanasius
(365 AD); and by Amphilochius, archbishop of Iconium (395 AD).
2. The Corresponding Hebrew Expression:
How the ancient Hebrews expressed the conception of canonicity is not known; but
it is safe to say that the idea, as an idea, existed long before there was any
special phrase invented to express it. In the New Testament the word "Scriptures"
conveys unquestionably the notion of sacredness (Matthew 21:42 ; John 5:39 ; Acts
18:24). From the 1st century AD and following, however, according to the Talmud,
the Jews employed the phrase "defile the hands." Writings which were suitable
to be read in the synagogue were designated as books which "defile the hands."
What this very peculiar oriental expression may have originally signified no one
definitely knows. Probably Leviticus 16:24 gives a hint of the true interpretation.
According to this passage the high priest on the great Day of Atonement washed
not only when he put on the holy garments of his office, but also when he put
them off. Quite possibly, therefore, the expression "defile the hands" signified
that the hands which had touched the sacred writings must first be washed before
touching aught else. The idea expressed, accordingly, was one akin to that of
taboo. That is to say, just as certain garments worn by worshippers in encircling
the sacred Kaaba at Mecca are taboo to the Mohammedans of today, i.e. cannot be
worn outside the mosque, but must be left at the door as the worshippers quit
the sanctuary, so the Hebrew writings which were fit to be read in the synagogue
rendered the hands of those who touched them taboo, defiling their hands, as they
were wont to say, so that they must first be washed before engaging in any secular
business. This seems to be the best explanation of this enigmatical phrase. Various
other and somewhat fanciful explanations of it, however, have been given: for
example, to prevent profane uses of worn-out synagogue rolls (Buhl); or to prevent
placing consecrated grain alongside of the sacred rolls in the synagogues that
it might become holy, as the grain would attract the mice and the mice would gnaw
the rolls (Strack, Wildeboer and others); or to prevent the sacred, worn-out parchments
from being used as coverings for animals (Graetz); or to "declare the hands to
be unclean unless previously washed" (Furst, Green). But no one of these explanations
satisfies. The idea of taboo is more likely imbedded in the phrase.
3. The "Hidden Books" of the Jews:
The rabbins invented a special phrase to designate rolls that were worn-out or
disputed. These they called genuzim, meaning "hidden away." Cemeteries filled
with Hebrew manuscripts which have long been buried are frequently found today
in Egypt in connection with Jewish synagogues. Such rolls might first be placed
in the genizah or rubbish chamber of the sanctuary. They were not, however, apocryphal
or uncanonical in the sense of being extraneous or outside the regular collection.
For such the Jews had a special term cepharim chitsonim, "books that are outside."
These could not be read in the synagogues. "Hidden books" were rather worn-out
parchments, or canonical rolls which might by some be temporarily disputed. See
APOCRYPHA.
4. The Determining Principle in the Formation of the Canon:
Who had the right to declare a writing canonical? To this question widely divergent
answers have been given. According to a certain class of theologians the several
books of the Old Testament were composed by authors who were conscious not only
of their inspiration but also that their writings were destined to be handed down
to the church of future generations as sacred. In other words each writer canonized,
as it were, his own writings. For example, Dr. W. H. Green (Canon, 35, 106, 110)
says: "No formal declaration of their canonicity was needed to give them sanction.
They were from the first not only eagerly read by the devout but believed to be
Divinely obligatory .... Each individual book of an acknowledged prophet of Yahweh,
or of anyone accredited as inspired by Him to make known His will, was accepted
as the word of God immediately upon its appearance. .... Those books and those
only were accepted as the Divine standards of their faith and regulative of their
conduct which were written for this definite purpose by those whom they believed
to be inspired of God. It was this which made them canonical. The spiritual profit
found in them corresponded with and confirmed the belief in their heavenly origin.
And the public official action which further attested, though it did not initiate,
their canonicity, followed in the wake of the popular recognition of their Divine
authority. .... The writings of the prophets, delivered to the people as a declaration
of the Divine will, possessed canonical authority from the moment of their appearance.
.... The canon does not derive its authority from the church, whether Jewish or
Christian; the office of the church is merely that of a custodian and a witness."
So likewise Dr. J. D. Davis (Pres. and Ref. Review, April, 1902, 182).
On the contrary, Dillmann (Jahrb. fur deutsche Theol., III, 420) more scientifically
claims that "history knows nothing of the individual books having been designed
to be sacred from their origin. .... These books bore indeed in themselves from
the first those characteristics on account of which they were subsequently admitted
into the sacred collection, but yet always had first to pass through a shorter
or longer period of verification, and make trial of the Divine power resident
within them upon the hearts of the church before they were outwardly and formally
acknowledged by it as Divine books." As a matter of fact, the books of the Old
Testament are still on trial, and ever will be. So far as is known, the great
majority of the writers of Holy Scripture did not arbitrarily hand over their
productions to the church and expect them to be regarded as canon Scripture. Two
parties are involved in the making of canonical Scripture--the original authors
and the church--both of whom were inspired by the same Spirit. The authors wrote
inspired by the Divine Spirit, and the church ever since--Jewish and Christian
alike--has been inspired to recognize the authoritative character of their writings.
And so it will be to the end of time. "We cannot be certain that anything comes
from God unless it bring us personally something evidently Divine" (Briggs, The
Study of Holy Scripture, 162).
5. The Tripartite Division of the Old Testament:
The Jews early divided the Old Testament writings into three classes:
(1) the Torah, or Law;
The Torah included the 5 books of the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers, Deuteronomy), which were called "the Five-fifths of the Law."
(2) the Nebhi'im, or Prophets; and
(a) the four so-called Former Prophets, Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, counted
as one book, 1 and 2 Kings, also counted as one book; and
(b) the four so-called Latter Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve
Minor Prophets, counted as one book; a total of 8 books. |
(3) the Kethubhim, or Writings, called in Greek the Hagiographa.
The Kethubhim, or Writings, were 11 in all, including Psalms, Proverbs, and Job,
the five Meghilloth or Rolls (Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther),
Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, counted as one book, and 1 and 2 Chronicles, also counted
as one book; in all 24 books, exactly the same as those of the Protestant canon.
This was the original count of the Jews as far as we can trace it back. Later
certain Jewish authorities appended Ruth to Judges, and Lamentations to Jeremiah,
and thereby obtained the number 22, which corresponded to the number of letters
in the Hebrew alphabet; but this manner of counting was secondary and fanciful.
Still later others divided Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah and Jeremiah-Lamentations
into two books each respectively and thereby obtained 27, which they fancifully
regarded as equivalent to the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet plus 5, the number
of letters having a peculiar final form when standing at the end of a word. Jerome
states that 22 is the correct reckoning, but he adds, "Some count both Ruth and
Lamentations among the Hagiographa, and so get 24." 4 Esdras, which is the oldest
(85-96 AD) witness to the number of books in the Old Testament, gives 24. |
6. How Account for the Tripartite Division?:
The answer to the question of how to account for the tripartite division involves
the most careful investigation of the whole process by which the canon actually
took shape. If the entire canon of the Old Testament were formed, as some allege,
by one man, or by one set of men, in a single age, then it is obvious that the
books must have been separated into three groups on the basis of some material
differences in their contents. If, on the other hand; the process of canonization
was gradual and extended over several generations, then the various books were
separated from one another probably because one section of the canon was closed
before certain other books of similar character were written. At any rate it is
difficult to see why Kings and Chronicles are not included in the same division,
and especially strange that Daniel does not stand among the prophets. To explain
this mystery, medieval Jews were wont to say that "the Prophets were inspired
by the spirit of prophecy, whereas the Writings by the Holy Spirit," implying
different degrees of inspiration. But this is a distinction without a difference,
the Holy Spirit and the spirit of prophecy are one and the same. Modern Protestants
distinguish between the donum propheticum and the munus propheticum, i.e. between
the gift and the office of prophecy. They allow that Daniel possessed the gift
of prophecy, but they deny that he was Divinely appointed to the office of prophet.
But compare Matthew 24:15, which speaks of "Daniel the prophet," and on the other
hand, Amos 7:14, in which Amos resents being considered a prophet. Oehler modifies
this explanation, claiming that the threefold division of the canon corresponds
to the three stages of development in the religion of Israel, namely, Mosaism,
Prophetism, and Hebraism. According to Oehler, the Law was the foundation of the
entire canon. From it there were two lines of development, one objective, the
Prophets, the other subjective, the Writings. But Oehler's theory does not satisfactorily
account for Ezra and Nehemiah and Chronicles, being in the third division; for
in what sense can they be said to be more subjective than Judges, Samuel, and
Kings? The Septuagint version (250-150 BC) takes no notice of the tripartite division.
The true solution probably is that the process was gradual. When all the witnesses
have been examined, we shall probably discover that the Law was canonized first,
the Prophets considerably later, and the Writings last of all. And it may further
become evident that the two last divisions were collected synchronously, and hence,
that the tripartite divisions of the canon are due to material differences in
their contents as well as to chronology. |
II. EXAMINATION OF THE WITNESSES
1. The Old Testament's Witness to Itself (circa 1450-444 BC):
Though the Old Testament does not tell us anything about the processes of its
own canonization, it does furnish valuable hints as to how the ancient Hebrews
preserved their writings. Thus in Exodus 40:20 it is stated that the "testimony,"
by which is meant the two tables of the Law containing the Ten Commandments, was
put into the Ark of the Covenant for safe-keeping. In Deuteronomy 31:9 , 24 -
26, the laws of Deuteronomy are said to have been delivered to the sons of Levi,
and by them deposited "by the side of the ark .... that it may be there for a
witness against thee." Such language indicates that the new lawbook is regarded
"as a standard of faith and action" (Driver, Deuteronomy, 343). According to 1
Kings 8:9, when Solomon brought the Ark up from the city of David to the Temple,
the two tables were still its only contents, which continued to be carefully preserved.
According to 2 Kings 11:12, when Joash was crowned king, Jehoiada the high priest
is said to have given (literally "put upon") him "the testimony," which doubtless
contained "the substance of the fundamental laws of the covenant," and was regarded
as "the fundamental charter of the constitution" (compare H. E. Ryle, Canon of
the Old Testament 45). Likewise in Proverbs 25:1, it is stated that a large number
of proverbs were copied out by Hezekiah's men. Now all these, and still other
passages which might be summoned, witness to the preservation of certain portions
of the Old Testament. But preservation is not synonymous with canonization. A
writing might easily be preserved without being made a standard of faith and conduct.
Nevertheless the two ideas are closely related; for, when religious writings are
sedulously preserved it is but natural to infer that their intrinsic value was
regarded as correspondingly precious.
Two other passages of paramount importance remain to be considered. The first
is 2 Kings 22:8, describing the finding of the "Book of the Law," and how Josiah
the king on the basis of it instituted a religious reformation and bound the people
to obey it precepts. Here is an instance in which the Law, or some portion of
it (how much no one can say), is regarded as of normative and authoritative character.
The king and his coadjutators recognize at once that it is ancient and that it
contains the words of Yahweh (2 Kings 22:13 , 18 , 19). Its authority is undisputed.
Yet nothing is said of its "canonicity," or that it would "defile the hands";
consequently there is no real ground for speaking of it as "the beginnings of
the canon," for in the same historic sense the beginnings of the canon are to
be found in Exodus 24:7. The other passage of paramount importance is Nehemiah
8:8, according to which Ezra is said to have "read in the book, in the law of
God, distinctly." Not only did Ezra read the Law; he accompanied it with an interpretation.
This seems to imply, almost beyond question, that in Ezra's time (444 BC) the
Law, i.e. the Pentateuch, was regarded as canonical Scripture. This is practically
all that the Old Testament says about itself, though other passages, such as Zechariah
7:12 and Daniel 9:2 might be brought forward to show the deep regard which the
later prophets had for the writings of their predecessors. The former of these
is the locus classicus in the Old Testament, teaching the inspiration of the Prophets;
it is the Old Testament parallel to 2 Timothy 3:16.
2. The Samaritan Pentateuch (circa 432 BC):
Chronologically the Old Testament is of course our most ancient witness. It brings
us down to 444 BC. The next in order is the Samaritan Pentateuch, the history
of which is as follows: About 432 BC, as we know from Nehemiah 13:28 and Josephus
(Ant., XI, vii, 2 through viii, 4), Nehemiah expelled from the Jewish colony in
Jerusalem Manasseh, the polygamous grandson of Eliashib the high priest and son-in-law
of Sanballat. Manasseh founded the schismatic community of the Samaritans, and
instituted on Mt. Gerizim a rival temple worship to that at Jerusalem. Of the
Samaritans there still survive today some 170 souls; they reside in Shechem and
are known as "the smallest religious sect in the world." It is true that Josephus,
speaking of this event, confuses chronology somewhat, making Nehemiah and Alexander
the Great contemporaries, whereas a century separated them, but the time element
is of little moment. The bearing of the whole matter upon the history of the formation
of the canon is this: the Samaritans possess the Pentateuch only; hence, it is
inferred that at the time of Manasseh's expulsion the Jewish canon included the
Pentateuch and the Pentateuch only. Budde (Encyclopaedia Biblica col. 659) says:
"If alongside of the Law there had been other sacred writings, it would be inexplicable
why these last also did not pass into currency with the Samaritans." Such a conclusion,
however, is not fully warranted. It is an argument from silence. There are patent
reasons on the other hand why the Samaritans should have rejected the Prophets,
even though the y were already canonized. For the Samaritans would hardly adopt
into their canon books that glorified the temple at Jerusalem. It cannot, accordingly,
be inferred with certainty from the fact that the Samaritans accept the Pentateuch
only, that therefore the Pentateuch at the time of Manasseh's expulsion was alone
canonical, though it may be considered a reasonable presumption.
3. The Septuagint Version (circa 250-150 BC):
The Septuagint version in Greek is the first translation of the Old Testament
ever made; indeed the Old Testament is the first book of any note in all literature
to receive the honor of being translated into another tongue. This fact in itself
is indicative of the esteem in which it was held at the time. The work of translation
was inaugurated by Ptolemy Philadelphus (285-247 BC) and probably continued for
well-nigh a century (circa 250-150 BC). Aristeas, a distinguished officer of Ptolemy,
records how it came about. It appears that Ptolemy was exceedingly fond of books,
and set his heart on adding to his famous collection in Alexandria a translation
of the Hebrew Pentateuch In order to obtain it, so the story goes, the king set
free 198,000 Jewish slaves, and sent them with presents to Jerusalem to ask Eleazar
the high priest for their Law and Jewish scholars capable of translating it. Six
learned rabbis from each tribe (6 X 12 = 72) were sent. They were royally feasted;
70 questions were asked them to test their wisdom, and after 72 days of cooperation
and conference they gave the world the Old Testament in the Greek language, which
is known as the Septuagint version. To this fabulous story, Christian tradition
adds that the rabbis did the work of translating in 72 (some say 36) separate
cells on the island of Pharos, all working independently of each other, and that
it was found at the expiration of their seclusion that each had produced a translation
exactly word for word alike, hence, supernaturally inspired. Justin Martyr of
the 2nd century AD says that he was actually shown by his Alexandrian guide the
ruins of these Septuagint cells. The story is obviously a fable. The kernel of
real truth at the bottom of it is probably that Ptolemy Philadelphus about the
middle of the 3rd century BC succeeded in obtaining a translation of the Law.
The other books were translated subsequently, perhaps for private use. The lack
of unity of plan in the books outside the Law indicates that probably many different
hands at different times were engaged upon them. There is a subscription, moreover,
at the close of the translation of Es which states that Lysimachus, the son of
Ptolemy in Jerusalem, translated it. But the whole was apparently completed before
Jesus ben Sirach the younger wrote his Prologue to Ecclesiasticus (circa 132 BC).
Now the Septuagint version, which was the Bible of our Lord and His apostles,
is supposed to have included originally many of the Apocryphal books. Furthermore,
in our present Septuagint, the canonical and Apocryphal books stand intermingled
and in an order which shows that the translators knew nothing of the tripartite
division of later Judaism, or if they did they quite ignored it. The order of
the books in our English Old Testament is of course derived from the Septuagint
through the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A. D.) of Jerome. The books
in the Septuagint are arranged as follows: Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1
and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 1 and 2 Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit,
Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Hosea,
Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zepheniah, Hagai, Zechariah,
Malachi, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Lamentations, Ep. Jer., Ezekiel, Daniel, 1,
2 and 3 Maccabees. On the basis of the Septuagint, Catholics advocate what is
known as the "larger" canon of the Jews in Alexandria; Protestants, on the other
hand, deny the existence of an independent canon in Alexandria in view of the
"smaller" canon of the Jews in Palestine The actual difference between the Catholic
and Protestant Old Testaments is a matter of 7 complete books and portions of
two others: namely, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees,
together with certain additions to Esther (Es 10:4-16:24) and to Daniel (Da 3:24-90;
The So of the Three Holy Children (Azariah); Susanna verse 13 and Bel and the
Dragon verse 14). These Protestants reject as apocryphal because there is no sufficient
evidence that they were ever reckoned as canonical by the Jews anywhere. The fact
that the present Septuagint includes them is far from conclusive that the original
Septuagint did, for the following reasons:
(1) The design of the Septuagint was purely literary; Ptolemy and the Alexandrians
were interested in building up a library.
(2) All the extant manuscripts of the Septuagint are of Christian not Jewish origin.
Between the actual translation of the Septuagint (circa 250-150 BC) and the oldest
manuscripts of the Septuagint extant (circa 350 AD) there is a chasm of fully
500 years, during which it is highly possible that the so-called Apocryphal books
crept in.
(3) In the various extant manuscripts of the Septuagint, the Apocryphal books
vary in number and name. For example, the great Vatican MS, which is probably
"the truest representative which remains of the Alexandrian Bible," and which
comes down to us from the 4th century AD, contains no Book of Maccabees whatever,
but does include 1 Esdras, which Jerome and Catholics generally treat as apocryphal.
On the other hand, the Alexandrian MS, another of the great manuscripts of the
Septuagint, dating from the 5th century AD, contains not only the extra-canonical
book of 1 Esdras, but 3 and 4 Maccabees, and in the New Testament the 1st and
2nd Epistles of Clement, none of which, however, is considered canonical by Rome.
Likewise the great Sinaiticus MS, hardly less important than the Vatican as a
witness to the Septuagint and like it dating from the 4th century AD, omits Baruch
(which Catholics consider canonical), but includes 4 Macc, and in the New Testament
the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas; all of which are excluded
from the canon by Catholics. In other manuscripts, 3 Maccabees, 3 Esdras and The
Prayer of Manasseh are occasionally included. The problem as to how many books
the original Septuagint version actually included is a very complicated one. The
probability is that it included no one of these variants.
(4) Still another reason for thinking that there never existed in Egypt a separate
or "larger" canon is the fact that during the 2nd century AD, the Alexandrian
Jews adopted Aquila's Greek version of the Old Testament in lieu of their own,
and it is known that Aquila's text excluded all Apocryphal books. Add to all this
the fact that Philo, who lived in Alexandria from circa 20 BC till 50 AD, never
quotes from One of these Apocryphal books though he often does from the canonical,
and that Origen, who also resided in Alexandria (circa 200 AD), never set his
imprimatur upon them, and it becomes reasonably convincing that there was no "larger"
canon in Alexandria. The value of the evidence derived from the Septuagint, accordingly,
is largely negative. It only indicates that when the translation of the Old Testament
into Greek was made in Alexandria, the process of canonization was still incomplete.
For had it been actually complete, it is reasonable to suppose that the work of
translation would have proceeded according to some well-defined plan, and would
have been executed with greater accuracy. As it is, the translators seem to have
taken all sorts of liberties with the text, adding to the books of Es and Da and
omitting fully one-eighth of the text of Jer. Such work also indicates that they
were not executing a public or ecclesiastical trust, but rather a private enterprise.
Our necessary conclusion, therefore, is that the work of canonization was probably
going on in Palestine while the work of translation was proceeding in Alexandria.
|
4. Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach (circa 170 BC):
Our next witness is Jesus ben Sirach who (circa 170 BC) wrote a formidable work
entitled Ecclesiasticus, otherwise known as Sir. The author lived in Jerusalem
and wrote in Hebrew. His book is a book of Wisdom resembling Proverbs; some of
his precepts approach the high level of the Gospel. In many respects Ecclesiasticus
is the most important of all the Apocryphal books; theologically it is the chief
monument of primitive Sadduceeism. In chapters 44-50, the author sings a "hymn
to the Fathers," eulogizing the mighty heroes of Israel from Enoch to Nehemiah,
in fact from Adam to Simon, including the most famous men described in the Old
Testament, and making explicit mention of the Twelve Prophets. These facts would
indicate that the whole or, at least, the most of the Old Testament was known
to him, and that already in his day (180 BC) the so-called Minor Prophets were
regarded as a special group of writings by themselves. What the value of Ecclesiasticus
is as a witness, however, depends upon the interpretation one places on 24:33,
which reads: "I will yet pour out doctrine as prophecy and leave it unto generations
of ages." From this it is inferred by some that he feels himself inspired and
capable of adding to the canon already in existence, and that, though he knew
the full prophetic canon, he did not draw any very definite line of demarcation
between his own work and the inspired writings of the prophets. For example, he
passes over from the patriarchs and prophets of Israel to Simon the son of Onias,
who was probably the high priest in his own time, making no distinction between
them. But this may have been partly due to personal conceit; compare 39:12, "Yet
more will I utter, which I have thought upon; and I am filled as the moon at the
full." Yet, perhaps, in his day still only the Law and the Prophets were actually
canonized, but alongside of these a body of literature was being gathered and
gradually augmented of a nature not foreign to his own writings, and therefore
not clearly marked off from literary compositions like his own. Yet to Sirach
the Law is everything. He identifies it with the highest Wisdom; indeed, all wisdom
in his judgment is derived from a study of the Law (compare Sirach 19:20 - 24
; 15:1 - 18 ; 24:23 ; 2:16 ; 39:1).
5. The Prologue to Ecclesiasticus (circa 132 BC):
The Prologue or Preface to Ecclesiasticus is our next witness to the formation
of the canon. It was written by the grandson of Jesus ben Sirach, who bore his
grandfather's name (circa 132 BC). Jesus ben Sirach the younger translated in
Egypt his grandfather's proverbs into Greek, and in doing so added a Preface or
Prologue of his own. In this Prologue, he thrice refers to the tripartite division
of the Old Testament. In fact the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus is the oldest witness
we have to the threefold division of the Old Testament books. He says: "Whereas
many and great things have been delivered unto us by the Law and the Prophets,
and by others, .... my grandfather, Jesus, when he had given himself to the reading
of the Law, and the Prophets, and other books of our Fathers, and had gotten therein
good judgment (the Revised Version (British and American) "having gained great
familiarity therein"), was drawn on also himself to write something pertaining
to learning and wisdom. .... For the same things uttered in Hebrew and translated
into another tongue, have not the same force in them; and not only these things,
but the Law itself, and the Prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small
difference, when they are spoken in their own language." These are explicit and
definite allusions to the threefold division of the Old Testament writings, yet
only the titles of the first and second divisions are the technical names usually
employed; the third is especially vague because of his use of the terms, "the
other books of the Fathers," and "the rest of the books." However, he evidently
refers to writings with religious contents; and, by "the other books of the Fathers,"
he can hardly be supposed to have meant an indefinite number, though he has not
told us which they were or what was their number. From his further statement that
his grandfather, having immersed himself in the Law and the Prophets, and other
books of the Fathers, felt drawn on also himself to write something for the profit
of others, it may be inferred that in his time there was as yet no definite gulf
fixed between canonical writings and those of other men, and that the sifting
process was still going on (compare W. R. Smith, OTJC2, 178- 79).
6. 1 and 2 Maccabee (between 125 and 70 BC):
1 Maccabee was written originally in Hebrew; 2 Maccabee in Greek, somewhere between
125 and 70 BC. The author of 1 Maccabee is acquainted, on the one hand, with the
deeds of John Hyrcanus (135 to 105 BC), and knows nothing on the other of the
conquest of Palestine by Pompey (63 BC). The value of this book as a witness to
the history of the canon centers about his allusions to Daniel and the Psalms.
In 1 Macc 1:54, he tells how Antiochus Epiphanes "set up the abomination of desolation"
upon the altar at Jerusalem, referring most likely to Daniel 9:24 - 27; and in
1 Macc 2:59,60 he speaks of Ananias, Azarias and Misael, who by believing were
saved from the fiery furnace, and of Daniel, who was delivered from the mouths
of the lions (compare Daniel 1:7 ; 3:26 ; 6:23). From these allusions, it would
seem as though the Book of Daniel was at that time regarded as normative or canonical.
This is confirmed by 1 Macc 7:16 , 17, which introduces a quotation from Psalms
79:2, with the solemn formula, "According to the words which he wrote"; which
would suggest that the Psalms also were already canonical.
2 Maccabee, written circa 124 BC, also contains a couple of passages of considerable
importance to us in this investigation. Both, however, are found in a spurious
letter purporting to have been sent by the inhabitants of Judea to their fellow-countrymen
residing in Egypt. The first passage (2 Macc 2:13) tells how Nehemiah, "founding
a library, gathered together the acts of the kings, and the prophets, and of David,
and the epistles of the kings concerning holy gifts." These words throw no special
light upon the formation of the canon, but they do connect with the name of Nehemiah
the preservation of public documents and historical records of national interest,
and how he, as a lover of books, founded a library. This is in perfect agreement
with what we know of Nehemiah's character, for he compiled the genealogy of Nehemiah
7; besides, collection precedes selection. The other passage (2 Macc 2:14) reads:
"In like manner also Judas gathered together all things that were lost by reason
of the war we had, and they remain with us." Though found in a letter, supposed
to be spurious, there is every reason for believing this statement to be true.
For when Antiochus, the arch enemy of the nation, sought to stamp out the religion
of the Jews by destroying their books (compare 1 Macc 1:56,57), what would have
been more natural for a true patriot like Judas than to attempt to re-collect
their sacred writings? "This statement, therefore," as Wildeboer says, "may well
be worthy of credence" (The Origin of the Canon of the Old Testament, 40). Though
it yields nothing definite as to the number of the books recovered, it is obvious
that the books collected were the most precious documents which the nation possessed.
They were doubtless religious, as was the age.
7. Philo (circa 20 BC-50 AD):
Philo is our next witness. He flourished in Alexandria between circa 20 BC and
50 AD, leaving behind him a voluminous literature. Unfortunately, he does not
yield us much of positive value for our present purpose. His evidence is largely
negative. True, he nowhere mentions the tripartite division of the Old Testament,
which is known to have existed in his day. Nor does he quote from Ezekiel, the
Five Megilloth (Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther), Daniel,
Chronicles, or from the Twelve Minor Prophets, except Hosea, Jonah, and Zechariah.
Moreover he held a loose view of inspiration. According to Philo, inspiration
was by no means confined to the sacred Scriptures; all truly wise and virtuous
men are inspired and capable of expressing the hidden things of God. But as Dr.
Green (Canon, 130) right fully contends, "Philo's loose views of inspiration cannot
be declared irreconcilable with the acceptance of a fixed canon, unless it is
first shown that he places others whom he thinks inspired on a level with the
writers of Scripture. This he never does." Philo's reverence for the "Law" was
unbounded. In this respect he is the type of other Alexandrians. He quotes predominatingly
from the Law. Moses was to him the source of all wisdom, even the wisdom of the
Gentiles. Concerning the laws of Moses, he is reported by Eusebius as saying:
"They have not changed so much as a single word in them. They would rather die
a thousand deaths than detract anything from these laws and statutes." On the
other hand, Philo never quotes any of the Apocryphal books. Hence, it may safely
be assumed that his canon was essentially ours.
8. The New Testament as a Witness (circa 50-100 AD):
The evidence furnished by the New Testament is of the highest importance. When
summed up, it gives the unmistakable impression that when the New Testament was
written (circa 50-100 AD) there was a definite and fixed canon of Old Testament
Scripture, to which authoritative appeal could be made. And first, too much importance
can scarcely be attached to the names or titles ascribed to the Old Testament
writings by the authors of the New Testament: thus, "the scripture" (John 10:35
; 19:36 ; 2 Peter 1:20), "the scripture s" (Matthew 22:29 ; Acts 18:24), "holy
scriptures" (Romans 1:2), "sacred writings" (2 Timothy 3:15), "the law" (John
10:34 ; 12:34 ; 15:25 ; 1 Corinthians 14:21), "law and prophets" (Matthew 5:17
; 7:12 ; 22:40 ; Luke 16:16 ; 24:44 ; Acts 13:15 ; 28:23). Such names or titles,
though they do not define the limits of the canon, certainly assume the existence
of a complete and sacred collection of Jewish writings which are already marked
off from all other literature as separate and fixed. One passage (John 10:35)
in which the term "scripture," is employed seems to refer to the Old Testament
canon as a whole; "and the scripture cannot be broken." In like manner the expression
"law and prophets" is often used in a generic sense, referring to much more than
merely the 1st and 2nd divisions of the Old Testament; it seems rather to refer
to the old dispensation as a whole; but the term "the law" is the most general
of all. It is frequently applied to the entire Old Testament, and apparently held
in Christ's time among the Jews a place akin to that which the term "the Bible"
does with us. For example, in John 10:34 ; 11:34 ; 15:25, texts from the prophets
or even from the Psalms are quoted as part of "the Law"; in 1 Corinthians 14:21
also, Paul speaks of Isaiah 28:11 as a part of "the law." These names and titles,
accordingly, are exceedingly important; they are never applied by New Testament
writers to the Apocrypha.
One passage (Luke 24:44) furnishes clear evidence of the threefold division of
the canon. But here again, as in the Prologue of Sirach, there is great uncertainty
as to the limits of the 3rd division. Instead of saying "the law, the prophets
and the writings," Luke says, "the law, the prophets and the psalms." But it is
obvious enough why the Psalms should have been adduced by Jesus in support of
His resurrection. It is because they especially testify of Christ: they were,
therefore, the most important part of the 3rd division for His immediate purpose,
and it may be that they are meant to stand a potiori for the whole of the 3rd
division (compare Budde, Encyclopedia Biblica, col. 669).
Another passage (Matthew 23:35 ; compare Luke 11:51) seems to point to the final
order and arrangement of the books in the Old Testament canon. It reads: "That
upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of
Abel the righteous unto the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, whom ye slew
between the sanctuary and the altar." Now, in order to grasp the bearing of this
verse upon the matter in hand, it must be remembered that in the modern arrangement
of the Old Testament books in Hebrew, Chronicles stands last; and that the murder
of Zachariah is the last recorded instance in this arrangement, being found in
2 Chronicles 24:20 , 21. But this murder took place under Joash king of Judah,
in the 9th century BC. There is another which is chronologically later, namely,
that of Uriah son of Shemaiah who was murdered in Jehoiakim's reign in the 7th
century BC (Jeremiah 26:23). Accordingly, the argument is this, unless Ch already
stood last in Christ's Old Testament, why did He not say, "from the blood of Abel
unto the blood of Uriah"? He would then have been speaking chronologically and
would have included all the martyrs whose martyrdom is recorded in the Old Testament.
But He rather says, "from the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zachariah," as though
He were including the whole range of Old Testament Scripture, just as we would
say "from Genesis to Malachi." Hence, it is inferred, with some degree of justification
also, that Chronicles stood in Christ's time, as it does today in the Hebrew Bible
of the Massorets, the last book of an already closed canon. Of course, in answer
to this, there is the possible objection that in those early days the Scriptures
were still written by the Jews on separate rolls.
Another ground for thinking that the Old Testament canon was closed before the
New Testament was written is the numerous citations made in the New Testament
from the Old Testament. Every book is quoted except Esther, Ecclesiastes, Canticles,
Ezra, Nehemiah, Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah. But these exceptions are not serious.
The Twelve Minor Prophets were always treated by the Jews en bloc as one canonical
work; hence, if one of the twelve were quoted all were recognized. And the fact
that 2 Chronicles 24:20 , 21 is quoted in Matthew 23:35 and Luke 11:51 presupposes
also the canonicity of Ezra-Nehemiah, as originally these books were one with
Chronicles, though they may possibly have already been divided in Jesus' day.
As for Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles, it is easy to see why they are not
quoted: they probably failed to furnish New Testament writers material for quotation.
The New Testament writers simply had no occasion to make citations from them.
What is much more noteworthy, they never quote from the Apocryphal books, though
they show an acquaintance with them. Professor Gigot, one of the greatest of Roman
Catholic authorities, frankly admits this. In his General Introduction to the
Study of the Scriptures, 43, he says: "They never quote them explicitly, it is
true, but time and again they borrow expressions and ideas from them." As a matter
of fact, New Testament writers felt free to quote from any source; for example,
Paul on Mars' Hill cites to the learned Athenians an astronomical work of the
Stoic Aratus of Cilicia, or perhaps from a Hymn to Jupiter by Cleanthes of Lycia,
when he says, "For we are also his off-spring" (Acts 17:28). And Jude 1:14 , 15
almost undeniably quotes from Enoch (1:9 ; 60:8)--a work which is not recognized
as canonical by any except the church of Abyssinia. But in any case, the mere
quoting of a book does not canonize it; nor, on the other hand, does failure to
quote a book exclude it. Quotation does not necessarily imply sanction; no more
than reference to contemporary literature is incompatible with strict views of
the canon. Everything depends upon the manner in which the quotation is made.
In no case is an Apocryphal book cited by New Testament authors as "Scripture,"
or as the work of the Holy Spirit. And the force of this statement is not weakened
by the fact that the authors of New Testament writings cited the Septuagint instead
of the original Hebrew; for, "they are responsible only for the inherent truthfulness
of each passage in the form which they actually adopt" (Green, Canon, 145). As
a witness, therefore, the New Testament is of paramount importance. For, though
it nowhere tells us the exact number of books contained in the Old Testament canon,
it gives abundant evidence of the existence already in the 1st century AD of a
definite and fixed canon.
9. 4 Esdras (circa 81-96 AD):
4 Esdras in Latin (2 Esdras in English) is a Jewish apocalypse which was written
originally in Greek toward the close of the 1st century (circa 81-96 AD). The
passage of special interest to us is 2 Esdras 14:19 - 48 which relates in most
fabulous style how Ezra is given spiritual illumination to reproduce the Law which
had been burned, and how, at the Divine command, he secludes himself for a period
of 40 days, after which he betakes himself with five skilled scribes to the open
country. There, a cup of water is offered him; he drinks, and then dictates to
his five amanuenses continuously for 40 days and nights, producing 94 books of
which 70 are kept secret and 24 published. The section of supreme importance reads
as follows: "And it came to pass, when the forty days were fulfilled, that the
Most High spake, saying, `The first that thou hast written, publish openly, that
the worthy may read it; but keep the seventy last, that thou mayest deliver them
only to such as be wise among the people; for in them is the spring of understanding,
the fountain of wisdom, and the stream of knowledge.' And I did so" (4 Esdras
14:45 - 48). The story is obviously pure fiction. No wonder that a new version
of it arose in the 16th century, according to which the canon was completed, not
by Ezra alone, but by a company of men known as the Great Synagogue. From the
legend of 4 Esdras it is commonly inferred that the 24 books which remain after
subtracting 70 from 94 are the canonical books of the Old Testament. If so, then
this legend is the first witness we have to the number of books contained in the
Old Testament canon. This number corresponds exactly with the usual number of
sacred books according to Jewish count, as we saw in section 5 above. The legend,
accordingly, is not without value. Even as legend it witnesses to a tradition
which existed as early as the 1st Christian century, to the effect that the Jews
possessed 24 specially sacred books. It also points to Ezra as the chief factor
in the making of Scripture and intimates that the Old Testament canon has long
since been virtually closed.
10. Josephus' "Contra Apionem" (circa 100 AD):
Flavius Josephus, the celebrated Jewish historian, was born 37 AD. He was a priest
and a Pharisee. About 100 AD, he wrote a controversial treatise, known as Contra
Apionem, in defense of the Jews against their assailants, of whom Apion is taken
as a leading representative, Now Apion was a famous grammarian, who in his life
had been hostile to the Jews. He had died some 50 years before Contra Apionem
was written. Josephus wrote in Greek to Greeks. The important passage in his treatise
(I, 8) reads as follows: "For it is not the case with us to have vast numbers
of books disagreeing and conflicting with one another. We have but twenty-two,
containing the history of all time, books that are justly believed in. And of
these, five are the books of Moses, which comprise the laws and the earliest traditions
from the creation of mankind down to the time of his (Moses') death. This period
falls short but by a little of three thousand years. From the death of Moses to
the reign of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, the successor of Xerxes, the prophets
who succeeded Moses wrote the history of the events that occurred in their own
time; in thirteen books. The remaining four documents comprise hymns to God and
practical precepts to men. From the days of Artaxerxes to our own time every event
has indeed been recorded. But these recent records have not been deemed worthy
of equal credit with those which preceded them, because the exact succession of
the prophets ceased. But what faith we have placed in our own writings is evident
by our conduct; for though so great an interval of time (i.e. since they were
written) has now passed, not a soul has ventured either to add, or to remove,
or to alter a syllable. But it is instinctive in all Jews at once from their very
birth to regard them as commands of God, and to abide by them, and, if need be,
willingly to die for them."
The value of this remarkable passage for our study is obviously very great. In
the first place Josephus fixes the number of Jewish writings which are recognized
as sacred at 22, joining probably Ruth to Judges and Lamentations to Jeremiah.
He also classifies them according to a threefold division, which is quite peculiar
to himself: 5 of Moses, 13 of the prophets, and 4 hymns and maxims for human life.
The 5 of Moses were of course the Pentateuch; the 13 of the prophets probably
included the 8 regular Nebhi'im plus Daniel, Job, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, and
Esther; the "4 hymns and maxims" would most naturally consist of Psalms, Proverbs,
Canticles and Ecclesiastes. There is little doubt that his 22 books are those
of our present Hebrew canon.
Another very remarkable fact about Josephus' statement is the standard he gives
of canonicity, namely, antiquity; because, as he says, since Artaxerxes' age the
succession of prophets had ceased. It was the uniform tradition of Josephus' time
that prophetic inspiration had ceased with Malachi (circa 445-432 BC). Hence,
according to him, the canon was closed in the reign of Artaxerxes (465-425 BC).
He does not pause to give any account of the closing of the canon; he simply assumes
it, treating it as unnecessary. Prophecy had ceased, and the canon was accordingly
closed; the fact did not require to be officially proclaimed. As remarked above.
the value of Josephus as a witness is very great. But just here an important question
arises: How literally must we interpret his language? Was the Old Testament canon
actually closed before 425 BC? Were not there books and parts of books composed
and added to the canon subsequent to his reign? Dr. Green seems to take Josephus
literally (Canon, 40, 78). But Josephus is not always reliable in his chronology.
For example, in his Antiquities (XI, vi, 13) he dates the story of Esther as occurring
in the reign of Artaxerxes I (whereas it belongs to Xerxes' reign), while in the
same work (XI, v, 1) he puts Ezra and Nehemiah under Xerxes (whereas they belong
to the time of Artaxerxes). On the whole, it seems safer on internal grounds to
regard Josephus' statements concerning the antiquity of the Jewish canon as the
language not of a careful historian, but of a partisan in debate. Instead of expressing
absolute fact in this case, he was reflecting the popular belief of his age. Reduced
to its lowest terms, the element of real truth in what he says was simply this,
that he voiced a tradition which was at that time universal and undisputed; one,
however, which had required a long period, perhaps hundreds of years, to develop.
Hence, we conclude that the complete Old Testament canon, numbering 22 books,
was no new thing 100 AD.
11. The Councils of Jamnia (90 and 118 AD):
According to the traditions preserved in the Mishna, two councils of Jewish rabbis
were held (90 and 118 AD respectively) at Jabne, or Jamnia, not far South of Joppa,
on the Mediterranean coast, at which the books of the Old Testament, notably Ecclesiastes
and Canticles, were discussed and their canonicity ratified. Rabbi Gamaliel II
probably presided. Rabbi Akiba was the chief spirit of the council. What was actually
determined by these synods has not been preserved to us accurately, but by many
authorities it is thought that the great controversy which had been going on for
over a century between the rival Jewish schools of Hillel and Shammai was now
brought to a close, and that the canon was formally restricted to our 39 books.
Perhaps it is within reason to say that at Jamnia the limits of the Hebrew canon
were officially and finally determined by Jewish authority. Not that official
sanction created public opinion, however, but rather confirmed it.
12. The Talmud (200-500 AD):
The Talmud consists of two parts:
(1) The Mishna (compiled circa 200 AD), a collection of systematized tradition; and
(2) the Gemara, Gemara (completed about 500 AD),
a "vast and desultory commentary on the Mishna" A Baraitha', or unauthorized gloss,
known as the Babha' Bathra' 14 b, a Talmudic tractate, relates the "order" of
the various books of the Old Testament and who "wrote" or edited them. But it
says nothing of the formation of the canon. |
To write is not the same as to canonize; though to the later Jews the two ideas
were closely akin. As a witness, therefore, this tractate is of little value,
except that it confirms the tripartite division and is a good specimen of rabbinic
speculation. For the full text of the passage, see Ryle, Canon of the Old Testament,
273.
13. Jewish Doubts in the 2nd Century AD:
During the 2nd century AD, doubts arose in Jewish minds concerning four books,
Proverbs, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, and Esther. In a certain Talmudic tractate
it is related that an attempt was made to withdraw (ganaz, "conceal," "hide")
the Book of Pr on account of contradictions which were found in it (compare Proverbs
26:4,5), but on deeper investigation it was not withdrawn. In another section
of the Talmud, Rabbi Akiba is represented as saying concerning Canticles: "God
forbid that any man of Israel should deny that the So of Songs defileth the hands,
for the whole world is not equal to the day in which the So of Songs was given
to Israel. For all Scriptures are holy, but the So of Songs is the holiest of
the holy." Such extravagant language inclines one to feel that real doubt must
have existed in the minds of some concerning the book. But the protestations were
much stronger against Ecclesiates. In one tractate it is stated: "The wise men
desired to hide it because its language was often self-contradictory (compare
Ecclesiastes 7:3 and Ecclesiastes 2:2 ; 4:2 ; 9:4), but they did not hide it because
the beginning and the end of it consist of words from the Torah (compare Ecclesiastes
1:3 ; 12:13 , 14)." Likewise Es was vigorously disputed by both the Jerusalem
and Babylonian Gemaras, because the name of God was not found in it; but a Rabbi
Simeon ben Lakkish (circa 300 AD) defended its canonicity, putting Esther on an
equality with the Law and above the Prophets and the other Writings. Other books,
for example, Ezekiel and Jonah, were discussed in post-Talmudic writings, but
no serious objections were ever raised by the Jews against either. Jonah was really
never doubted till the 12th century AD. In the case of no one of these disputed
books were there serious doubts; nor did scholastic controversies affect public
opinion.
14. Summary and Conclusion:
This brings us to the end of our examination of the witnesses. In our survey we
have discovered
(1) that the Old Testament says nothing about its canonization, but does
emphasize the manner in which the Law was preserved and recognized as authoritative;
(2) that to conclude that the Jews possessed the Law only, when the renegade Manasseh
was expelled by Nehemiah from Jerusalem, because the Samaritans admit of the Law
alone as the true canon, is unwarrantable;
(3) that the Septuagint version as we know it from the Christian manuscripts extant
is by no means a sufficient proof that the Alexandrians possessed a "larger" canon
which included the Apocrpha;
(4) that Jesus ben Sirach is a witness to the fact that the Prophets in his day
(180 BC) were not yet acknowledged as canonical;
(5) that his grandson in his Prologue is the first witness to the customary tripartite
division of Old Testament writings, but does not speak of the 3rd division as
though it were already closed;
(6) that the Books of Maccabees seem to indicate that Psalms and Daniel are already
included in the canon of the Jews;
(7) that Philo's testimony is negative, in that he witnesses against the Apocryphal
books as an integral part of Holy Scripture;
(8) that the New Testament is the most explicit witness of the series, because
of the names and titles it ascribes to the Old Testament books which it quotes;
(9) that 4 Esdras is the first witness to the number of books in the Old Testament
canon--24;
(10) that Josephus also fixes the number of books, but in arguing for the antiquity
of the canon speaks as an advocate, voicing popular tradition, rather than as
a scientific historian;
(11) that the Councils of Jamnia may, with some ground, be considered the official
occasion on which the Jews pronounced upon the limits of their canon; but that
(12) doubts existed in the 2nd century concerning certain books; which books,
however, were not seriously questioned. |
From all this we conclude, that the Law was canonized, or as we would better say,
was recognized as authoritative, first, circa 444 BC; that the Prophets were set
on an even footing with the Law considerably later, circa 200 BC; and that the
Writings received authoritative sanction still later, circa 100 BC. There probably
never were three separate canons, but there were three separate classes of writings,
which between 450 and 100 BC doubtless stood on different bases, and only gradually
became authoritative. There is, therefore, ground for thinking, as suggested above
(section 6), that the tripartite division of the Old Testament canon is due to
material differences in the contents as well as to chronology. |
III. THE CANON IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH
1. In the Eastern or Oriental Church:
In making the transition from the Jewish to the Christian church, we find the
same canon cherished by all. Christians of all sects have always been disposed
to accept without question the canon of the Jews. For centuries all branches of
the Christian church were practically agreed on the limits set by the Jews, but
eventually the western church became divided, some alleging that Christ sanctioned
the "larger" canon of Alexandria, including the Apocrypha, while others adhered,
as the Jews have always done, to the canon of the Jews in Palestine taking the
eastern or oriental church first, the evidence they furnish is as follows: The
Peshitta, or Syriac version, dating from circa 150 AD, omits Chronicles; Justin
Martyr (164 AD) held to a canon identical with that of the Jews; the Canon of
Melito, bishop of Sardis, who (circa 170 AD) made a journey to Palestine in order
carefully to investigate the matter, omits Est. His list, which is the first Christian
list we have, has been preserved to us by Eusebius in his Eccl. Hist., IV, 26;
Origen (died 254 AD), who was educated in Alexandria, and was one of the most
learned of the Greek Fathers, also set himself the task of knowing the "Hebrew
verity" of the Old Testament text, and gives us a list (also preserved to us by
Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., VI, 5) in which he reckons the number of books as 22 (thus
agreeing with Josephus). Inadvertently he omits the Twelve Minor Prophets, but
this is manifestly an oversight on the part of either a scribe or of Eusebius,
as he states the number of books is 22 and then names but 21. The so-called Canon
of Laodicea (circa 363 AD) included the canonical books only, rejecting the Apocrypha.
Athanasius (died 365 AD) gives a list in which Esther is classed as among the
non-canonical books, but he elsewhere admits that "Esther is considered canonical
by the Hebrews." However, he included Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah with
Jeremiah. Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium (circa 380 AD), speaks of Esther as
received by some only. Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem (died 386 AD), gives a list
corresponding with the Hebrew canon, except that he includes Baruch and the Epistle
of Jeremiah. Gregory of Nazianzus in Cappadocia (died 390 AD) omits Esther. But
Anastasius, patriarch of Antioch (560 AD), and Leontius of Byzantium (580 AD)
both held to the strict Jewish canon of 22 books. The Nestorians generally doubted
Esther. This was due doubtless to the influence of Theodore of Mopsuestia (circa
390-457 AD) who disputed the authority of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther and
Job. The oriental churches as a whole, however, never canonized the Apocrypha.
2. In the Western Church:
Between 100 and 400 AD, the New Testament writings became canonical, occupying
in the Christian church a place of authority and sacredness equal to those of
the Old Testament. The tendency of the period was to receive everything which
had been traditionally read in the churches. But the transference of this principle
to the Old Testament writings produced great confusion. Usage and theory were
often in conflict. A church Father might declare that the Apocryphal books were
uninspired and yet quote them as "Scripture," and even introduce them with the
accepted formula, "As the Holy Ghost saith." Theologically, they held to a strict
canon, homiletically they used a larger one. But even usage was not uniform. 3
and 4 Esdras and the Book of Enoch are sometimes quoted as "Holy Writ," yet the
western church never received these books as canonical. The criterion of usage,
therefore, is too broad. The theory of the Fathers was gradually forgotten, and
the prevalent use of the Septuagint and other versions led to the obliteration
of the distinction between the undisputed books of the Hebrew canon and the most
popular Apocryphal books; and being often publicly read in the churches they finally
received a quasi-canonization.
Tertullian of Carthage (circa 150-230 AD) is the first of the Latin Fathers whose
writings have been preserved. He gives the number of Old Testament books as 24,
the same as in the Talmud Hilary, bishop of Poitiers in France (350-368 AD), gives
a catalogue in which he speaks of "Jeremiah and his epistle," yet his list numbers
only 22. Rufinus of Aquileia in Italy (died 410 AD) likewise gives a complete
list of 22 books. Jerome also, the learned monk of Bethlehem (died 420 AD), gives
the number of canonical books as 22, corresponding to the 22 letters of the Hebrew
alphabet, and explains that the five double books (1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings,
1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Jeremiah-Lamentations) correspond to the five
final letters of the Hebrew alphabet. In his famous Prologus Galeatus or "Helmed
Preface" to the books of Samuel and Kings, he declares himself for the strict
canon of the Jews; rejecting the authority of the deutero-canonical books in the
most outspoken manner, even distinguishing carefully the apocryphal additions
to Esther and to Daniel. As the celebrated Catholic writer, Dr. Gigot, very frankly
allows, "Time and again this illustrious doctor (Jerome) of the Latin church rejects
the authority of the deutero-canonical books in the most explicit manner" (General
Intro, 56).
Contemporaneous with Jerome in Bethlehem lived Augustine in North Africa (353-430
AD). He was the bishop of Hippo; renowned as thinker, theologian and saint. In
the three great Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 and 419 AD), of which
he was the leading spirit, he closed, as it were, the great debate of the previous
generations on the subject of how large shall be the Bible. In his essay on Christian
Doctrine, he catalogues the books of Scripture, which had been transmitted by
the Fathers for public reading in the church, giving their number as 44, with
which he says "the authority of the Old Testament is ended." These probably correspond
with the present canon of Catholics. But it is not to be supposed that Augustine
made no distinction between the proto-canonical and deutero-canonical books. On
the contrary, he limited the term "canonical" in its strict sense to the books
which are inspired and received by the Jews, and denied that in the support of
doctrine the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus were of unquestioned authority,
though long custom had entitled them to respect. And when a passage from 2 Maccabees
was urged by his opponents in defense of suicide, he rejected their proof by showing
that the book was not received into the Hebrew canon to which Christ was witness.
At the third Council of Carthage (397 AD), however, a decree was ratified, most
probably with his approval, which in effect placed all the canonical and deutero-canonical
books on the same level, and in the course of time they actually became considered
by some as of equal authority (see DEUTERO-CANONICAL). A few years later, another
council at Carthage (419 AD) took the additional step of voting that their own
decision concerning the canon should be confirmed by Boniface, the bishop of Rome;
accordingly, thereafter, the question of how large the Bible should be became
a matter to be settled by authority rather than by criticism.
From the 4th to the 16th century AD the process of gradually widening the limits
of the canon continued. Pope Gelasius (492-496 AD) issued a decretal or list in
which he included the Old Testament apocrypha. Yet even after this official act
of the papacy the sentiment in the western church was divided. Some followed the
strict canon of Jerome, while others favored the larger canon of Augustine, without
noting his cautions and the distinctions he made between inspired and uninspired
writings. Cassiodorus (556 AD) and Isidore of Seville (636 AD) place the lists
of Jerome and Augustine side by side without deciding between them. Two bishops
of North Africa, Primasius and Junilius (circa 550 AD) reckon 24 books as strictly
canonical and explicitly state that the others are not of the same grade. Popular
usage, however, was indiscriminate. Outside the Jews there was no sound Hebrew
tradition. Accordingly, at the Council of Florence (1442 AD), "Eugenius IV, with
the approval of the Fathers of that assembly, declared all the books found in
the Latin Bibles then in use to be inspired by the same Holy Spirit, without distinguishing
them into two classes or categories" (compare Gigot, General Introduction, 71).
Though this bull of Eugenius IV did not deal with the canonicity of the Apocryphal
books, it did proclaim their inspiration. Nevertheless, down to the Council of
Trent (1546 AD), the Apocryphal books possessed only inferior authority; and when
men spoke of canonical Scripture in the strict sense, these were not included.
Luther, the great Saxon Reformer of the 16th century, marks an epoch in the history
of the Christian Old Testament canon. In translating the Scriptures into German,
he gave the deutero-canonical books an intermediate position between the Old Testament
and the New Testament. The Lutheran church, also, while it does not expressly
define the limits of the canon, yet places the Apocryphal writings by themselves
as distinct and separate from Holy Scripture. This indeed was the attitude of
all the early Reformers. In the Zurich Bible of 1529, as in the Genevan version
in English of 1560, the Apocryphal books were placed apart with special headings
by themselves. Thus the early Reformers did not entirely reject the Apocryphal
writings, for it was not an easy task to do so in view of the usage and traditions
of centuries.
Rome had vacillated long enough. She realized that something must be done. The
Reformers had sided with those who stood by Jerome. She therefore resolved to
settle the matter in an ecclesiastical and dogmatic manner. Accordingly the Council
of Trent decreed at their fourth sitting (April 8, 1546), that the Apocryphal
books were equal in authority and canonical value to the other books of sacred
Scripture; and to make this decree effective they added: "If, however, anyone
receive not as sacred and canonical the said books entire with all their facts,
and as they have been used to be read in the Catholic church, and as they are
contained in the Old Latin Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A. D.) edition
.... let him be anathema." The decree was the logical outcome of the ever-accumulating
snowball tendency in the western church. The historical effect of it upon the
church is obvious. It closed forever the field of Biblical study against all free
research. Naturally, therefore, the Vatican Council of 1870 not only reiterated
the decree but found it easy to take still another step and canonize tradition.
Repeated endeavors were made during the 16th and 17th centuries to have the Apocryphal
books removed from the Scriptures. The Synod of Dort (1618-19), Gomarus, Deodatus
and others, sought to accomplish it, but failed. The only success achieved was
in getting them separated from the truly canonical writings and grouped by themselves,
as in the Gallican Confession of 1559, the Anglican Confession of 1562, and the
Second Helvetic Confession of 1566. The Puritan Confession went farther, and declared
that they were of a purely secular character. The various continental and English
versions of the Bible then being made likewise placed them by themselves, apart
from the acknowledged books, as a kind of appendix. For example, the Zurich Bible
of 1529, the French Bible of 1535, Coverdale's English translation of 1536, Matthew's
of 1537, the second edition of the Great Bible, 1540, the Bishops' of 1568, and
the King James Version of 1611. The first English version to omit them altogether
was an edition of King James' Version published in 1629; but the custom of printing
them by themselves, between the Old Testament and the New Testament, continued
until 1825, when the Edinburgh Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society
protested that the Society should no longer translate these Apocryphal writings
and send them to the heathen. The Society finally yielded and decided to exclude
them (May 3, 1827). Since then, Protestants in Great Britain and America have
given up the practice of publishing the Apocrypha as a part of sacred Scripture.
In Europe, also, since 1850, the tendency has been in the same direction. The
Church of England, however, and the American Episcopal church, do not wholly exclude
them; certain "readings" being selected from Wisdom, Ecclesiastes and Baruch,
and read on week days between October 27 and November 17. Yet, when the English
Revised Version appeared in 1885, though it was a special product of the Church
of England, there was not so much as a reference to the Apocryphal writings. The
Irish church likewise removed them; and the American Standard Revised Version
ignores them altogether. |
LITERATURE
G. Wildeboer, The Origin of the Canon of the Old Testament, translated by B. W.
Bacon, London, Luzac and Co., 1895; H. E. Ryle, The Canon of the Old Testament,
London and New York, Macmillan, 1892; F. Buhl, Canon and Text of the Old Testament,
translated by John MacPherson, Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark, 1892; W. H. Green,
General Introduction to the Old Testament, The Canon, New York, Scribner, 1898;
W. Robertson Smith, The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, 2nd edition, London,
A. and C. Black, 1895; F. E. Gigot, General Introduction to the Holy Scriptures,
3rd edition, New York, Cincinnati and Chicago, Benziger Bros., 1903; B. F. Westcott,
The Bible in the Christian Church, London and New York, Macmillan, 1901; C. A.
Briggs, General Introduction to the Study of Holy Scripture, New York, Scribner,
1899; A. F. Kirkpatrick, The Divine Library of the Old Testament, London and New
York, Macmillan, 1892; Hastings, DB, III, 1900, article "Old Testament Canon"
by F. H. Woods; Cheney and Black's EB, I, 1899, article "Canon" by K. Budde; The
New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, II, 1908, article "Canon
of Scripture" by H. L. Struck; Jour. of Biblical Lit., 1896, 118-28, article "The
Alleged Triple Canon of the Old Testament," by W. J. Beecher; Abbe A. Loisy, Histoire
du canon de l'ancien testament, Paris, 1890; J. Furst, Der Kanon des Altes Testament,
Leipzig, 1868; E. Reuss, Histoire du canon des saintes ecritures dans l'eglise
chretienne, Strassburg, 1864, English translation, Edinburgh, 1891.
George L. Robinson
Tags:
bible commentary, bible history, bible reference, bible study, canon, christian bible, define, hagiographa, kethubhim, law, list of book in the old testament, nebhi'im, old testament, pentateuch, prophets, septuagint, torah, writings
Comments:
|
 |
|
