The Canon of the Bible

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Washington, D. C. · Jan 25, 1906

The Canon of the Bible

(Concluded)

The Canon of the Later Reformed and Anglican Churches

REPEATED endeavors were made during the sixteenth and seventeenth 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. The Puritan Westminster Confession went further, and declared that they were of a purely secular character. The various new versions of the Bible, then being made, likewise placed them by themselves, apart from the acknowledged books, as a kind of appendix. The first English version to omit them altogether was an edition of King James’s Version, published in 1629; but the custom of printing them by themselves, between the Old and New Testaments, continued till 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 practise 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, Ecclesiasticus, 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 the special product of the Church of England, there was not so much as a reference to the apocryphal writings. The Irish Church, likewise, removes them; and the American Revised Version ignores them altogether.

The Apocryphal Writings Self-Condemned

From the discussion up to this point it becomes obvious how far apart Catholics and Protestants stand in reference to the size of the Bible. The natural question which arises in the reader’s mind must be, What is the intrinsic value of these deutero-canonical writings which have stood so long upon the border land, and which have become at last fully canonized by Rome, but are usually rejected by Protestants? What are their merits? What their defects? Why accepted by some and rejected by others? There is no doubt but that they contain many good moral teachings; that they supplement the history of Judaism and bring it down to the Christian era; and that many of the doctrines in the canonical Scriptures are to be found also in them. On the other hand, they contain practically nothing of value which could possibly assist in furthering the interests of Christianity. By their contents they are self-condemned. Here are a few only of the blemishes that might be enumerated:—

1. The Book of Tobit teaches the meritorious value of almsgiving; and is infused with quackery and puerility.

2. The Book of Judith approves of deception and falsehood, and treats a breach of the ceremonial law as a deadly sin.

3. The Book of Wisdom teaches the doctrines of purgatory, the pre-existence of the soul, and that the body is a clog upon the soul.

4. The Book of Ecclesiasticus forbids giving bread to the wicked, and advises to torture a malicious slave.

5. The Book of Baruch teaches that God hears the prayers of the dead, and predicts that the captivity shall last seven generations instead of “seventy years.”

6. The First Book of Maccabees practically identifies Simon with the Messiah, and sees in the Maccabean rule the fulfilment of the hope of Israel.

7. The Second Book of Maccabees relates how the sacred fire upon the temple altar was miraculously preserved till Nehemiah’s time; and how Jeremiah, when Jerusalem was destroyed, hid the tabernacle, the ark, and the altar of incense. It also describes an apparition which prevented Heliodorus from invading the sanctity of the temple, and teaches the doctrine of sacrifices for the dead. It even justifies, tacitly, the sin of suicide, and in conclusion lays no claim to inspiration.

In view of such blemishes, are we not forced to allow that these books are not only not equal in authority to the true canon, but that they are positively contradictory to the spirit of the Bible’s teaching?

Concluding Remarks on the Canon

In conclusion, it has been shown that our Lord and his apostles used only the strictly canonical books of the Greek Version and none of the Apocrypha; that the canon of the Jews in Palestine corresponded exactly to the strict Protestant canon of to-day; that the early church taught theoretically the same view, but used a larger canon; that as an argument, however, usage proves too much; that Jerome advocated most strenuously a strict canon; that Augustine, while he wavered, distinguished, nevertheless, between the inspiration of the proto- and that of the deutero-canonical books; that down to the sixteenth

century there was a growing tendency to elevate the apocryphal writings to the rank of authoritative Scripture; and that the Council of Trent, for the first time in history, placed them on a level with Holy Scripture, as to both inspiration and authority.

It has further been shown how the Reformed Churches gradually discarded them, and how the Lutheran and Anglican Churches have always inclined to give them an intermediate position; in fine, it has been shown how that, on the basis of both history and of intrinsic worth, the apocryphal writings are not entitled to a place of equal honor in the canon of Holy Scripture.—Prof. George L. Robinson, Ph. D., in The Bible Record for October, 1905.