The Canon of the Bible by George L. Robinson

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Washington, D.C. · Jan 11, 1906

The Canon of the Bible

By George L. Robinson

The word “canon,” as at present employed, signifies a collection of religious writings of an authoritative or normative character, such as “always, everywhere, and by all” have been considered divinely inspired, hence sacred and binding. The term was first used in this sense by Amphilochius, 395 A. D.

The So-Called “Larger” and “Smaller” Canons

Between the New Testament of Catholics and that of Protestants there is absolutely no difference as to canon, or size, the number and order of the books corresponding exactly. But the case of the Old Testament is different; Catholics holding to what is sometimes spoken of as the “larger” canon of the Jews in Alexandria, while Protestants hold to the “smaller” canon of the Jews in Palestine. The actual difference between them is a matter of seven complete books and portions of two others; namely, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, First and Second Maccabees, together with certain additions to Esther and to Daniel. All these Protestants usually reject as apocryphal, because there is no evidence whatever that they were ever considered canonical by the Jews.

The Canon of the Jews in Alexandria

The chief witness to the existence of a possible “larger” canon in Alexandria is the Greek version of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint (which was translated probably between 250 and 150 B. C., and frequently designated “LXX”). But it is exceedingly doubtful whether the Jews in Egypt ever had a larger canon than their brethren in Palestine. There is absolutely no explicit witness to this effect. The LXX version is inconclusive. The mere existence of manuscripts of this ancient version which contain the canonical and deutero-canonical or apocryphal books, intermingled, is a long way from substantial evidence. For not only are all the extant manuscripts of Christian origin, but they differ widely as to their contents among themselves, no one of

them including exactly the same books as those considered canonical to-day by the Church of Rome. And Philo, who lived and wrote in Alexandria (B. C. 20 to A. D. 50), and who must have been acquainted with the apocryphal writings, never makes a quotation from one of them.

Coming down to the second century A. D., the adoption by the Alexandrian Jews of Aquila’s Greek Version of the Old Testament (which excludes all of the apocryphal books); and the many statements of Origen, who was a resident in Egypt, and who held to the strict canon, are convincing corroboration of our former statement, namely, that it is exceedingly doubtful whether the Jews in Egypt ever had a larger canon than their brethren in Palestine.

The Canon of the Jews in Palestine

The canon of the Jews in Palestine was by general admission the same as the strict canon of the Protestant church. Among the witnesses are Fourth Esdras, which, though fabulous, nevertheless incidentally testifies to the number of books then reckoned as canonical in Palestine; and Josephus, the great Jewish historian, writing in Rome about 100 A. D., who also gives the number of sacred books. The latter is an invaluable witness of the strict canon, inasmuch as he probably expresses not only his own view, but the traditional opinion of his people. The apocryphal books can not possibly have been reckoned by him as included in the number, for he shows no acquaintance with them; besides, the books of the Maccabees would be excluded by the chronological limit which he sets for the completion of the canon. Hence we may safely conclude that at the close of the first century A. D., the Jewish canon in Palestine was the strict or Protestant canon. Later Jewish doubts, expressed in the Talmud, as to the canonicity of Ezekiel, Proverbs, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, and Esther, do not vitiate the force of this statement, but rather show only how the Jews, like later Christians, departed from the original views of the church.

The Canon of Christ and His Apostles

With Bellarmin and other Catholic writers, we most heartily agree that “the canon of the Old Testament sanctioned by the Lord Jesus and his apostles must beyond all doubt or question be accepted as the true one.” But did Christ and his apostles sanction the “larger” canon of the Old Testament? This is the crux of the whole question. Here are the facts: The writers of the New Testament repeatedly quote from the Greek or Septuagint Version of Alexandria instead of from the original Hebrew. It has been estimated that six out of seven of all the quotations made from the Old Testament in the New are from this version. Does this not argue, therefore, in favor of a “larger” canon? It certainly would were it not for two considerations: (1) They never quote the apocryphal books, though they do show acquaintance with them, and

use them without in any sense approving of them. (2) On the other hand, they sometimes quote from other non-canonical sources, such as the “Book of Enoch,” which no one considers canonical except the Church of Abyssinia; hence if usage is to become our guide, the Book of Enoch ought to be received into the Catholic canon; but it is not. Nor have we any right, with Gigot, to say that “if the apostles looked upon the deutero-canonical writings as non-inspired, it was their plain duty not only to abstain from giving them full approval, but also to exclude them from the Bible used by the early Christians.” For this assumes two things: (1) That it was the duty of Christ and the apostles to settle the question of the Old Testament canon, which is gratuitous; and (2) it is assumed that at that early time the “rolls” of Scripture were already bound together in one volume, or written together on a single parchment, which is highly improbable.

There is, therefore, really no positive evidence anywhere that Christ or his apostles regarded the deutero-canonical books of the Old Testament as an integral part of God’s holy revelation. On the contrary, there is every reason to believe that, being Jews and residents of Palestine, they, too, held to the strict Jewish or Protestant Canon.

The Canon of the Early Church From 200 to 400 A. D.

It was during this period that the New Testament writings became canonical. At the beginning of the second century, there were no New Testament Scriptures in the possession of the church which were deemed worthy of being placed side by side with the Old Testament. But before the second century was completed, a body of apostolic literature, identical with our New Testament writings to-day, was to be found occupying in the Christian church a place of authority and sacredness equal to those of the Old Testament. The number of such writings varied indeed in different parts, but for the purposes of this essay the decision of the church was unanimous in favor of our present New Testament canon. The tendency of the age seems to have been to receive everything which had been traditionally read in the leading Christian communities, and by no means to lose anything which might by any possibility be apostolic.

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 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. Third and Fourth Esdras and the Book of Enoch are sometimes quoted as “Holy Writ,” yet the Church of Rome does not now receive these books as canonical.

The criterion of usage, therefore, is too broad. But the theory of the Fathers was gradually forgotten, and the prevalent use of the LXX 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.

The Canon of St. Jerome (389-420 A. D.)

To Jerome, the learned monk of Bethlehem, the world owes the Latin Vulgate—the best of all the ancient versions extant. He was by far the greatest scholar of the early church. By birth and education, he belonged to both the East and the West. No one can be said to have been as well acquainted with all the facts at hand in his day as he, and yet the Catholic Church utterly rejects his testimony concerning the canon. That Catholics should prize so highly the quality of his Latin translation of the Bible, and reject so absolutely his expressed opinions concerning its size, is one of their many mysteries, not to say inconsistencies. For, as the celebrated Catholic writer, Gigot, very frankly allows, “Time and again this illustrious doctor of the Latin Church rejects the authority of the deutero-canonical books in the most explicit manner.”

To show in great detail how strictly Jerome held to the Jewish canon would be unnecessary in view of such a confession. The evidence is overwhelming. In his famous Prologus Galeatus, or “Helmed Preface” to the books of Samuel and Kings, written in 391; in his Epistle to Paulinus (cir. 394); in his prefaces, respectively, to Esdras (394), the Books of Solomon (398), and Jeremiah (414), but especially in a private letter written to a holy Roman matron named Leta (403), he sets forth his full views on the subject, declaring 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. Nor is his position at all modified by the fact that he was prevailed upon by his friends to translate hastily Tobit and Judith, or by the concession in his Prologue to the Books of Solomon, that “the apocryphal books may be read for purposes of edification;” or, even by the fact that in a letter to Pammachius he applies to Ecclesiasticus the expression, “divine scripture;” for all that can possibly be deduced from these circumstances, in face of his explicit testimony on the subject, is that he consented, under pressure, to give the apocryphal books an intermediate position. Whenever Jerome expressed himself formally upon the great subject of the canon, he never failed to draw a clear line of demarcation between the books of the Hebrew Bible and later additions to it.—Prof. George L. Robinson, Ph. D., in The Bible Record for October, 1905.

(To be continued)