The Catholic Encyclopedia:
In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity.
(George J. Reid, S.T.L., “Canon of the Holy Scriptures;” In: The Catholic Encyclopedia: An International Work of Reference on the Constitution, Doctrine, Discipline, and History of the Catholic Church: Vol. III, [New York: The Universal Knowledge Foundation, Inc., 1913], p. 273. Ecclesiastical approbation: Nihil Obstat, November 1, 1908: Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur: John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.)
Note: Click here for more on the Apocrypha.
Gleason L. Archer, Jr.:
The first argument in favor of the Apocrypha is that the early versions contained them. This however is only partially true. Certainly the Aramaic Targums did not recognize them. Not even the Syriac Peshitta in its earliest form contained a single apocryphal book; it was only later that some of them were added. We have just seen that Jerome, the great translator of the Scriptures into Latin, did not recognize the Apocrypha as being of equal authority with the books of the Hebrew canon. A more careful investigation of this claim narrows down the authority of the Apocrypha as resting upon only one ancient version, the Septuagint, and those later translations (such as the Itala, the Coptic and Ethiopic, and later Syriac) which were derived from it. Even in the case of the Septuagint, the apocryphal books maintain a rather uncertain existence. The Codex Vaticanus (B) lacks 1 and 2 Maccabees (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 1 Esdras (noncanonical, according to Rome). The Sinaiticus (Aleph) omits Baruch (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 4 Maccabees (noncanonical according to Rome). The Alexandrinus (A) contains three “noncanonical” Apocrypha: 1 Esdras and 3 and 4 Maccabees. Thus it turns out that even the three earliest MSS or the LXX show considerable uncertainty as to which books constitute the list of Apocrypha, and that the fourteen accepted by the Roman church are by no means substantiated by the testimony of the great uncials of the fourth and fifth centuries.
(Gleason L. Archer, Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction: Revised Edition, [Chicago: Moody Press, 1985], p. 75.)
E. Earle Ellis:
When the Septuagint was put into codex form, apparently sometime after the mid-second century A.D., it became even more a corpus mixtum. In some manuscripts it included two partially overlapping translations of parts of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah (i.e. I Esdras and II Esdras) as well as a collection of excerpts from the Old Testament, the Apocrypha and Luke 1-2 (i.e. the Odes). Furthermore, it placed Jewish apocrypha not only among the Old Testament books but also, in one codex, at the end of the New Testament (the Psalms of Solomon). No two Septuagint codices contain the same apocrypha, and no uniform Septuagint ‘Bible’ was ever the subject of discussion in the patristic church. In view of these facts the Septuagint codices appear to have been originally intended more as service books than as a defined and normative canon of scripture.
(E. Earle Ellis, The Old Testament in Early Christianity: Canon and Interpretation in the Light of Modern Research, [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992], pp. 34-35.)
William Webster:
One of the reasons Roman Catholics argue for a broader canon is that the oldest extant manuscripts of the Septuagint do contain a number of Apocryphal books. These manuscripts are: Vaticanus (early 4th century), Sinaiticus (early 4th century), and Alexandrinus (early 5th century). The Apocryphal books of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith and Tobit are included in all three, but there are also differences. Vaticanus does not include any of the Maccabean books, while Sinaiticus includes 1 and 4 Maccabees and Alexandrinus includes 1, 2, 3, and 4 Maccabees and a work known as the Psalms of Solomon. If inclusion of a book in the manuscript proves its canonicity, as Roman Catholics assert, then 3 and 4 Maccabees were canonical. However, we know with certainty that this was not the case. It is also true that the Septuagint included a number of appendices to the canonical Old Testament books such as Esther, 1 Esdras, the additions to Daniel (Song of the Three Children, Bel and the Dragon and Susanna), and the additions to Jeremiah (Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy). But as Henry Swete points out, none of these books, or the rest of the Apocrypha, were part of the Hebrew canon… Additionally, we must reckon with the testimony of Josephus. He used the Septuagint but his citation of the Hebrew canon did not include the Apocrypha. There are a number of problems with Roman Catholic assumptions. First of all, the Septuagint manuscripts are all of Christian origin from the fourth and fifth centuries as opposed to Alexandria in Egypt. We do not know for certain that the Septuagint itself included the books of the Apocrypha as canonical Scripture. Secondly, as already mentioned, there were books in these manuscripts that were never considered canonical by the Jews or the Church, in particular, 3 and 4 Maccabees. Therefore, just because a book was listed in the manuscripts did not mean it was canonical. It simply means that these books were read in the Church. This likely parallels the general perspective of many of the fathers of the early Church. During the Church age, certain books were designated canonical while others were called ecclesiastical, but all were grouped together without distinction. The ecclesiastical books were useful for reading and edification but were not authoritative for the establishing of doctrine. This position was held by both Athanasius and Cyril of Jerusalem, who used the Septuagint, but were careful to exclude the Apocryphal books from the status of canonical Scripture. This was also the practice of the Jews of Palestine. While rejecting Tobit and Judith as canonical, they still read them. This is seen from the statements of Josephus who used the Septuagint but excluded the Apocryphal books from canonical status. A similar situation probably existed among the Greek speaking Jews who may have included them in the Septuagint. Philo, who resided in Alexandria and used the Septuagint, did not cite the Apocrypha as canonical, but referred to a fourth class of books which were highly esteemed but not considered canonical.
(William Webster, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith: Volume II, [Battle Ground: Christian Resources Inc, 2001], pp. 320, 320-321.) See also: christiantruth.com.
Martin Hengel:
At this point we encounter the Greek Old Testament in the three great codices of the fourth and fifth centuries: Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus. But even there the data exhibit such significant differences that one can not yet speak of a truly fixed canon even in this period. All exceeded the scope of the Hebrew Bible by including Judith, Tobit, Sirach and Wisdom, as well as the expanded books of Daniel, Esther and Psalm 151. In Vaticanus, however, all four of the books of Maccabees are missing and in Sinaiticus, 2 and 3 Maccabees, as well as 1 Ezra, Baruch and Letter of Jeremiah—presumably only the result of lacunae in the text. Codex Alexandrinus, approximately one century younger, is, in contrast, much more extensive; it includes the LXX as we know it in Rahlfs’ edition, with all four books of Maccabees and the fourteen Odes appended to Psalms. The Odes also include the Prayer of Manasseh, previously attested only in the Syriac Didaskalia and the Apostolic Constitutions. This form, usually without 4 Maccabees, then became the rule in the East. A peculiarity of Codex Alexandrinus is that its table of contents mentions the Psalms of Solomon after the books of the Old and New Testaments in a sort of appendix (which also includes the two letters of Clement) and further separated from the ‘canonical’ books by a number of blank lines. Moreover, their text is not to be found in the codex as it has been preserved for us. They may have been lost together with a portion of 2 Clement, a document that immediately preceded them in the list. J. Rendel Harris suspects that in Codex Sinaiticus, where six leaves are missing, they were to be found between Barnabas and Hermas. This remains, however, completely uncertain. In addition, they were listed in later canon catalogues among the ἀντιλεγόμενα, or disputed books. Thus, for example, in the stichometry of Nicephorus between Sirach and Esther, and in the Synopsis scripturarum sacrarum of Ps-Athanasius between the books of Maccabees and Susanna. The text itself is preserved in private manuscripts from the tenth to sixteenth centuries.
It should be considered, further, that the Odes (sometimes varied in number), attested from the fifth century in all Greek Psalm manuscripts, contain three New Testament ‘psalms’: the Magnificat, the Benedictus, the Nunc Dimittis from Luke’s birth narrative, and the conclusion of the hymn that begins with the ‘Gloria in Excelsis’. This underlines the fact that the LXX, although, itself consisting of a collection of Jewish documents, wishes to be a Christian book. The relative openness of the Old Testament portion of these oldest codices also corresponds to that of its ‘New Testament’: Sinaiticus contains Barnabas and Hermas, Alexandrinus 1 and 2 Clement.
(Martin Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Problem of its Canon, trans. Mark E. Biddle, [Edinburg: T&T Clark, 2002], pp. 57-59.)
David A. deSilva:
A fifth persistent factor that has clouded this discussion is the concept of an “Alexandrian Jewish canon” of Scripture that was broader than the Palestinian Jewish canon. This is based on a lack of clarity about the meaning of the term “Septuagint” and can be illustrated by considering a severe misstatement of the facts (Oikonomos 1991: 17 [cf. Constantelos 1997: xxvii]):
Both Judaism and Christianity began by simply using the deuterocanonical writings as part of the biblical canon. It is hard to say when this kind of usage began; it was certainly not later than the translation of the Septuagint (from 285-247 B.C.) since this translation, made by Jews for Jews and Gentiles, includes the deuterocanonical writings.
The author of this quotation has assumed that the “Septuagint” in the sense of that collection of texts known from Codices Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus (or in the sense of the critical editions available today) was the “Septuagint” of the Jewish community of the third century B.C.E. This is, however, a grave misstep, because the work undertaken in the third century B.C.E. in Alexandria involved only the Greek translation of the Pentateuch (clearly the scope envisioned by Letter of Aristeas). Moreover, the quotation involves its author in a paradox: it would be impossible for the third-century B.C.E. version of the Septuagint to contain the Apocrypha books, since they were all written between 185 B.C.E. and 100 C.E. (with the possible exception of Tobit, which may predate the second century B.C.E.)! Also telling in the argument against an Alexandrian Jewish canon is that Philo, the Jewish commentator in Alexandria par excellence, never quotes from the Apocrypha (Beckwith 1985: 384). Indeed, his focus is overwhelmingly on the Torah, with occasional references to the Prophets, Psalms, and other texts that would become known as the Jewish canon.
The “Septuagint” codices mentioned above cannot be used as evidence for an Alexandrian Jewish canon that included the Apocrypha. These manuscripts are fourth- and fifth-century Christian works, fail to agree on the extent of the extra books, and seem to have been compiled more with convenience of reference in mind than as the standards of canonical versus noncanonical books (the fact that one even contained, at one point, Psalms of Solomon strongly suggests this). As “church books,” they may have sought to contain what was useful rather than what was strictly canonical. These manuscripts do bear witness, however, to usage in the church in the fourth century (differing from one region to another or even within a single region). The fact that the books of the Apocrypha are interspersed among the (other) Old Testament books also suggests that the communities that produced these manuscripts did not share a consciousness of a closed Old Testament canon corresponding to the rabbinic canon. With these considerations in mind, we can begin to sort out the history of the use and status of the Apocrypha books in the early synagogue and early church.
(David A. deSilva, Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Context, and Significance, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002], pp. 29-30.)
F. F. Bruce:
Here, for example, are the contents of the codices Sinaiticus (Aleph). Vaticanus (B) and Alexandrinus (A), so far as their Old Testament part is concerned:
Sinaiticus 4th century:
Genesis . . . , Numbers . . . , Judges . . . , 1 & 2 Chronicles, 1 & 2 Esdras, Esther, Tobit, Judith, 1 & 4 Maccabees, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, the Twelve, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach, Job. (Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Ezekiel are missing, as also are most of Joshua—4 Kingdoms; the text of the Twelve Prophets is incomplete.)
Vaticanus 4th century:
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1-4 Kingdoms, 1 & 2 Chronicles, 1 & 2 Esdras, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job, Wisdom, Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, the Twelve, Isaiah, Jeremiah,. Baruch, Lamentations, Letter of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel. (The books of Maccabees are not included.)
Alexandrinus 5th century:
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1-4 Kingdoms, 1 & 2 Chronicles, the Twelve, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Lamentations, Letter of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Esther, Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Esdras, 1-4 Maccabees, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach, [Psalms of Solomon]. (The Psalms of Solomon, a collection of eighteen poems from the middle of the first century BC, were probably never accepted as holy scripture. The work is listed, at the end of all the biblical books, in the catalogue of contents prefaced to Codex Alexandrinus, but its text is not reproduced.)
(F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1988], pp. 69-70.)
Roger T. Beckwith:
The original grounds for the Alexandrian canon hypothesis were the comprehensive manuscripts of the Septuagint. The Septuagint is a pre-Christian Jewish translation, and the larger manuscripts of it include various of the Apocrypha. Grabe’s edition of the Septuagint, where the theory was first propounded, was based upon the fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus. However, as we have seen, manuscripts of anything like the capacity of Codex Alexandrinus were not used in the first centuries of the Christian era, and since, in the second century AD, the Jews seem largely to have discarded the Septuagint in favour of revisions or translations more usable in their controversy with the church (notably Aquila’s translation), there can be no real doubt that the comprehensive codices of the Septuagint, which start appearing in the fourth century AD, are all of Christian origin. An indication of this is that in many Septuagint manuscripts the Psalms are followed by a collection of Odes, or liturgical canticles, including Christian ones from the New Testament. Also, as was noted on pp. 193-5, the order of the books in the great fourth and fifth-century Septuagint codices is Christian, not adhering to the three divisions of the Hebrew canon; nor is there agreement between the codices which of the Apocrypha to include. Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus all include Tobit, Judith, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, and integrate them into the body of the Old Testament, rather than appending them at the end; but Codex Vaticanus, unlike the other two, totally excludes the Books of Maccabees. Moreover, all three codices, according to Kenyon, were produced in Egypt, yet the contemporary Christian lists of the biblical books drawn up in Egypt by Athanasius and (very likely) pseudo-Athanasius are much more critical, excluding all apocryphal books from the canon, and putting them in a separate appendix. It seems, therefore, that the codices, with their less strict approach, do not reflect a definite canon so much as variable reading-habits; and the reading-habits would in the nature of the case be those of fourth and fifth-century Christians, which might not agree with those of first-century Jews. To bridge the gap between the fourth or fifth century and the first, one is thrown back on the records left by the Jewish and Christian writers who used the Septuagint during that period, and these records, as we shall find, do not by any means show that the canon had a simple and unvarying history throughout it.
(Roger T. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, [Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2008; previously published by SPCK 1985], pp. 382-383. Preview. Cf. Roger T. Beckwith, “Formation of the Hebrew Bible;” In: Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading, and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. Martin Jan Mulder, [Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988], pp. 81-82.)
Lee M. McDonald:
The biggest problem with the theory of the Alexandrian canon is that there are no lists or collections one can look to in order to see what books comprised it. Pfeiffer himself acknowledged that no one knows what the canon of the Alexandrian and other Diaspora Jews was before the LXX was condemned in Palestine, ca. 130 CE. Long ago E. Reuss concluded that we know nothing about the LXX before the time when the church made extensive use of it. That includes the condition of the text and its form as well as its extent. Another problem with the Alexandrian canon theory is that it has not been shown conclusively that the Alexandrian Jews or the other Jews of the Dispersion were any more likely to adopt other writings as sacred scriptures than were the Jews of Palestine in the two centuries BCE and the first century CE. Further, there is no evidence as yet that shows the existence of a different canon of scriptures in Alexandria than in Palestine from the second century BCE to the second century CE. Although there were many differences in the interpretation of the scriptures between Philo of Alexandria and the rabbis in Palestine, it must be conceded that most of Philo’s references to scripture are from the Law and only a few are from other Jewish books. Philo appears to have had an even more conservative canon than the Jews of Palestine! Moreover, since the communications between Jerusalem and Alexandria were considered quite good during the first century BCE and CE, it is not certain that either the notion or extent of divine scripture would be strikingly different between the two locations during the period before 70 CE. This does not necessarily mean, however, that there were no differences between the Jews in the Diaspora and those in Palestine. There were indeed many differences among the Jews in Palestine regarding what was scripture. For example, as we have shown above, the Sadducees, Essenes, and Pharisees all had their own collections of sacred and authoritative scriptures. Were there also differences among the Jews who lived outside the land of Israel? Although the Jews of the Dispersion were more affected by Hellenism than were the Jews of Palestine, there is little evidence to show that this influence also affected their notion of scripture or the boundaries of their scriptures.
(Lee M. McDonald, The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon: Revised & Expanded Edition, [Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995], p. 91.)
F. F. Bruce:
It has frequently been suggested that, while the canon of the Palestinian Jews was limited to the twenty-four books of the Law, Prophets and Writings, the canon of the Alexandrian Jews was more comprehensive. There is no evidence that this was so: indeed, there is no evidence that the Alexandrian Jews ever promulgated a canon of scripture.
(F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1988], pp. 44-45.)
J. W. Wenham:
The truth appears to be that the Jews were perfectly clear as to the limits of the Canon in spite of the fact that they read and esteemed highly a number of other books. The apocalyptic writings had particular popularity in a Palestine seething with Messianic hope, and the apocryphal books that sought to effect a reconciliation between Judaism and Greek philosophy had a particular popularity in Hellenistic Judaism, especially in such cultural centres as Alexandria. But, as Josephus and Philo show by their quotations as well as by their direct comments on the subject, knowledge and use of the Septuagint translation of Law, Prophets and Hagiographa does not imply the recognition of the canonicity of the apocryphal books that were incorporated in the later codices.
(J. W. Wenham, Christ and the Bible, [London: Tyndale Press, 1972], pp. 144-145.)
καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν ~ Soli Deo Gloria
No comments:
Post a Comment