the commencing and concluding books of the third division is given by the New Testament (Luke xxiv. 44 ; Matthew xxiii. 35), agreeably to which the Psalms were first and
the Chronicles last ; but this is inconclusive.The Alexandrian translators, as we have seen already, placed the books differently from the Palestinian Jews. In their version Daniel comes after Ezekiel, so that it is put beside the greater prophets. Was this done by Jews or Christians 1 Perhaps by the latter, who put it between the greater and lesser prophets, or, in other words, out of the third into the second division, because of dogmatic grounds, and so effaced a trace of the correct chronology. Little importance, however, can be attached to the order of the books in the Septuagint, because the work was done at different times by different persons. But whatever may have been the arrangement of the parts when the whole was complete, we know that it was disturbed by Protestants separating the apocryphal writings and putting them all together.
The writings of the New Testament show their authors acquaintance with the apocryphal books. They have ex pressions and ideas derived from them. Stier collected 102 passages which bear some resemblance to others in the Apocrypha;[1] but they needed sifting, and were cut down to a much smaller number by Bleek. They are James i. 19, from Sirach v. 11 and iv. 29 ; 1 Peter i. G, 7, from Wisdom iii. 3-7 ; Hebrews xi. 34, 35, from 2 Maccabees vi. 18-vii. 42 ; Hebrews i. 3, from Wisdom vii. 26, *fcc. ; Romans i. 20-32, from Wisdom xiii.-xv. ; Romans ix. 21, from Wisdom xv. 7; Eph. vi. 13-17, from Wisdom v. 18-20; 1 Cor. ii. 10, &c., from Judith viii. 14. Others are less probable.[2] When Bishop Cosin says that "in all the New Testament we find not any one passage of the apocryphal books to have been alleged either by Christ or his apostles for the confirmation of their doctrine,"[3] the argument, though based on a fact, is scarcely conclusive ; else Esther, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, and other works might be equally discredited. Yet it is probable that the New Testament writers, though quoting the Septuagint much more than the original, were disinclined to the additional parts of the Alexandrian canon. They were Palestinian themselves, or had in view Judaizers of a narrow creed. The apostle Paul, at least, and probably the other writers of the New Testament, believed in the literal inspiration of the Biblical books, for he uses an argument in the Gala- tian epistle which turns upon the singular or plural of a noun.[4] And as the inspiration of the Septuagint trans lators was commonly held by the Christians of the early centuries, it may be that the apostles and evangelists made no distinction between its parts. Jude quotes Enoch, an apocryphal work not in the Alexandrian canon ; so that he at least had no rigid notions about the difference of canonical and uncanonical writings. Still we know that the compass of the Old Testament canon was somewhat unsettled to the Christians of the 1st century, as it was to the Hellenist Jews themselves. It is true that the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms were universally recognized as authoritative ; but the extent of the third division was indefinite, so that the non-citation of the three books re specting which there was a difference of opinion among the Jews may not have been accidental. Inasmuch, however, as the Greek -speaking Jews received more books than their Palestinian brethren, the apostles and their immediate suc cessors were not disinclined to the use of the apocryphal productions. The undefined boundary of the canon facilitated the recognition of other sacred writings, such as the primitive records of the new revelation.
The early fathers used the Greek Bible, as almost all of them were ignorant of Hebrew. Thus restricted, they naturally considered its parts alike, citing apocryphal and canonical in the same way. Accordingly, Irenaeus (t 202) quotes Baruch under the name of " Jeremiah the prophet;"[5] and the additions to Daniel as "Daniel the prophet."[6] Clement of Alexandria (t 220) uses the apo cryphal books like the canonical ones, for explanation and proof indiscriminately. He is fond of referring to Baruch, which he cites upwards of twenty-four times in the second book of his Pcedagogus, and in a manner to show that he esteemed it as highly as many other parts of the Old Tes tament. A passage from Baruch is introduced by the phrase[7] " the divine Scripture says ;" and another from Tobit by[8] "Scripture has briefly signified this, saying." Tertullian (t 220) quotes the Wisdom of Solomon ex pressly as Solomon s,[9] and introduces Sirach by <; as it is written."[10] He cites Baruch as Jeremiah.[11] He also be lieved in the authenticity of the book of Enoch, and de fends it at some length.[12] Cyprian often cites the Greek additions to the Palestinian canon. He introduces Tobit with the words "as it is written,"[13] or "divine Scripture teaches, saying ;"[14] and Wisdom with " the Holy Spirit shows by Solomon."[15] The African fathers followed the Alexandrian canon without scruple.
Melito of Sardis (t after 171) made it his special business to inquire among the Palestinian Jews about the number and names of their canonical books ; and the result was the following list : the five books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, the twelve in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra.[16] Here Ezra includes Nehemiah ; and Esther is absent, because the Jews whom he consulted did not consider it canonical.
Palestinian one. After the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Kings first and second, Samuel, Chronicles, come Ezra first and second, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Can ticles, Isaiah, Jeremiah with Lamentations and the epistle, Daniel, Ezekiel, Job, Esther. Besides these there are the Maccabees, which are inscribed Sarbeth sarbane el.[17] The twelve prophets are omitted in the Greek , but the mistake is rectified in Rufinus s Latin version, where they follow Canticles, as in Hilary and Cyril of Jerusalem. It is remarkable that Baruch is given, and why? Because Origen took it from the MSS. of the Septuagint he had before him, in which the epistle is attributed to Jeremiah. But the catalogue had no influence upon his practice. He followed the prevailing view of the extended canon. Sirach is introduced by " for this also is written ; "[18] the book of Wis dom is cited as "a divine word,"[19] Tobit as "Scripture."[20] His view of the additions to the book of Daniel and Esther, as well as his opinion about Tobit, are sufficiently expressed in the epistle to Africanus, so that scattered -quotations
from these parts of Scripture can be properly estimated.
- ↑ Die Apokryphen, u.s.w., p. 14, &c.
- ↑ Studien und Kritiken for 1853, p. 267, &c.
- ↑ A Scholastical History of the Canon, p. 22.
- ↑ See Rothe, "Zur Dogmatik," in Studien u. Kritiken, 1860 p. 67, Ac.
- ↑ Advers. Hares., v. 35, referring to Baruch iv. 36, and v., p. 335, ed. Massuet.
- ↑ Ibid., iv. 26, referring to Daniel xiii. 20 in the Septuagint.
- ↑ Pccdagog., ii. 3.
- ↑ Stromata, ii. 23.
- ↑ Advers. Valentinianos, ch. 2.
- ↑ De Exhortatione Castitatis, ch. 2.
- ↑ Contra Gnosticos, ch. 8.
- ↑ De Habitu Muliebri, ch. 3.
- ↑ Epist. 55, p. 110, ed. Fell.
- ↑ De Orat. Domin., p. 153.
- ↑ De Exhortat. Martyrii, ch. 12, p. 182.
- ↑ Euseb. H. E., lib. iv. ch. 26
- ↑ Euseb. //. E., lib. vi. p. 25.
- ↑ Comment, in Joann., torn, xxxii. ch. 14, ed. Huet. p. 409.
- ↑ Contra Cels. iii. 72 ; vol. i. p. 494, ed. Delarue.
- ↑ De Orations, ii. p. 215.
