might still expect that he should shew some signs of acquaintance with them. When we join to the evidence afforded by Philo the fact that we never hear of any difference of opinion between Alexandrian and Palestinian Jews as to the books to which they ascribed inspired authority, we are warranted in concluding that the Canon of both was the same; and that though the Greek-speaking Jews used in private reading noncanonical books which they found to be edifying, they did not set these on the level of the ancient Scriptures.

SV. THE OLD TESTAMENT AS USED

BY THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

32. Non-recognition of the Apocrypha in the New Testament.-Philo's silence with regard to the Apocrypha harmonizes with the fact that in the New Testament writings which quote freely all the parts of the Canon recognised by Josephus, there is no formal quotation of any of those other books which, according to Josephus, were later than the reign of Artaxerxes, and which he regarded as inferior in credit to the earlier writings. It is true that in the New Testament there are some halfdozen passages where the formulæ of Scripture citation are used, but where the passages quoted can either not be identified at all, or not with any certainty, with anything found in our Old Testament. Such passages are Matt. ii. 23, Luke xi. 49, John vii. 38, 1 Cor. ii. 9, Eph. v. 14, 2 Tim. iii. 8, James iv. 5. But the singular thing is, that if we fail to find the originals of these passages in the books of the Hebrew Canon, we equally fail to find them in the works commonly called the Apocrypha, in no part of which can anything resembling these passages be found. If indeed the Book of Enoch had formed part of the Canon of the Council of Trent, we should be bound to consider what inference ought to be drawn from the fact that that book is quoted by St. Jude; but except Tertullian, no one in the Christian Church seems to have owned the Book of Enoch as canonical; and the fact remains that among the books which were anywhere admitted into the Canon of the Christian

Church, none but those of the Hebrew Canon are directly quoted by New Testament writers. In fact the Apostles appear to have been in full agreement with their Jewish brethren as to the Old Testament Canon; and Jewish tradition on the subject has never wavered down to the present day.

33. Patristic use of the Old Testament. -But the Gospel was rapidly propagated among men unacquainted with Jewish tradition, and unable to read the Hebrew Bible. The Greek Bible had been a chief instrument in their conversion, and continued to be a principal means of sustaining their religious life. Many of them had not the qualifications for discriminating between the claims of the different parts of the Greek book which they used. It has been already remarked, that ordinarily the Christian Fathers apply to their whole Greek Bible the account which Aristeas gave of the origin of the Pentateuch, and imagine that the translation of all the books was the work of the Seventy Interpreters. So, for example, Irenæus (iii. 21), when he tells the story of the seventy cells, tells it concerning the translation, not of "the Law," but of all the books of the Scriptures. And at an earlier time, Justin Martyr, in his controversy with Trypho, accuses the Jews of having taken away many Scriptures from the translation effected by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy; and when he is asked to specify these mutilations, they turn out to affect passages in Isaiah, in Jeremiah, in the Psalms, and in Esdras; and the idea does not appear to occur, either to Justin or to his Jewish interlocutor, that these books had not been translated by the same hands as the Pentateuch.

34. The Christian Fathers were acquainted with the books called Apocrypha.

But the Greek Bible which passed into the hands of the Gentile converts to Christianity included whole books not to be found in the Hebrew Canon; and it is not wonderful that where the Hebrew language was unknown, and where there was no contact with Jewish tradition, all should have been received indiscriminately. Numerous instances can be produced of the use of the books of the Apocrypha by Christian Fathers from the

earliest times; and in many cases the quotations are made with the usual formulæ of Scripture citation. Judith is cited as a pattern of female heroism in the Epistle of Clement of Rome (c. 55): in the Epistle which bears the name of Barnabas (xix. 9) a saying of the Son of Sirach (iv. 31) is incorporated; and the occurrence of the same passage in the lately discovered Teaching of the Twelve Apostles has led many critics to believe that Barnabas here copied a still earlier document. The homily which goes by the name of Clement's Second Epistle exhibits (ch. 16) a reminiscence of the Book of Tobit (iv. 11, xi. 9), though with much freedom of alteration. The same passage of Tobit was clearly also known to Polycarp (ch. 10). The Story of Bel and the Dragon is cited by Irenæus (iv. 5).

--

35. And frequently quote them as Scripture. The instances just produced only exhibit acquaintance with the books of the Apocrypha, and determine nothing as to the consideration in which they were held by those who quoted them. And perhaps we cannot lay much stress on the fact that Irenæus (v. 35) ascribes to the prophet Jeremiah a quotation really taken from the apocryphal Book of Baruch. But Clement of Alexandria, who was omnivorous in his reading, not only, like Irenæus, quotes Baruch as Jeremiah (Strom. i. 10), but repeatedly quotes apocryphal books as Scripture. Thus he quotes Tobit as Scripture (Strom. vi. 12), Ecclesiasticus (i. 8), 2 Esdras (iii. 16), Wisdom (v. 14), ascribing the last-named book to Solomon (vi. 14). Clement was not very critical; and if, in deference to his authority, we were to add the books just named to our Old Testament Canon, we should be bound in consistency to add the Epistles of Clement and of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and other books to our New Testament Canon. Tertullian ascribes the Book of Wisdom to Solomon (Adv. Valent. 2), and quotes Ecclesiasticus with the formula "sicuti scriptum est" (Exhort. ad Cast. 2). In this style of quotation Clement and Tertullian are followed by many succeeding writers, popular usage constantly tending to make no discrimination between the different books

which circulated as component parts of the current Greek Bible.

§ VI. LEARNED Eastern OPINION CONCERNING THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON.

36. Origen. But whatever popular usage might be, learned opinion constantly remained cognizant of the distinction between those books which the Hebrews recognised as part of their Bible, and those which owed their circulation to the Greek version. The Christian world was, no doubt, much indebted for its wide knowledge of this distinction to the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius. In this the historian had inserted not only the testimonies of Josephus and Melito which we have already quoted, but also that of Origen, than whose authority none stood higher on questions of biblical criticism. He quotes (vi. 25) a passage from Origen's commentary on the First Psalm, in which it is stated that the canonical books of the Old Testament are, as the Hebrews have handed down, twenty-two in number, answering to the number of letters in their alphabet; and then the Hebrew as well as the Greek names of these books are given. Of the books of the Apocrypha, the only mention in this place is that Origen adds that, besides the twenty-two books which he has enumerated, there are the books of the Maccabees.

37. Africanus.-But Origen himself affords a curious example of the conflict between popular and scientific opinion. He used a Greek Bible himself; and though he has shewn himself aware that some of the things included in it formed no part of the Hebrew Canon, he habitually conformed to what, in Alexandria at least, was the popular usage. Thus he read the Story of Susanna as part of the Book of Daniel, and he appealed to it in a public discussion which he held in Palestine. For this he was taken to task by Africanus, at that time the most learned scholar in Palestine; and since, in the question what Canon was recognised by the Apostles, it is with the Palestinian tradition we are mainly concerned, it is interesting to find that the Canon which is attested as recognised in Palestine, by Josephus in the first century and

by Melito in the second, appears now from Africanus to have been in the third century still in exclusive possession. Africanus writes, that having been present when Origen had quoted that part of the Book of Daniel which contains the Story of Susanna, he was not so discourteous as to interrupt at the time; but he expresses his surprise that Origen could fail to be aware that this section of the book was spurious. The story was a pretty one, but was a modern addition, as might be shewn by many proofs, of which he proceeds to give a summary. Only one of the arguments he uses need here be noticed: viz. that all the books of the Old Testament had been translated from the Hebrew, but that the original of this story was plainly Greek, as appears from a certain play on words. The story tells how Daniel convicted the two false witnesses by asking each separately under what tree he had seen Susanna commit adultery. The one answers, Under a mastich-tree (oxivos); and Daniel replies, God will cut thee asunder (oxioa). The other answers, Under a holm-tree (pivos); and Daniel replies, The angel of the Lord is ready to saw thee asunder (pioa). Origen replies seriatim to the objections stated by Africanus; and in answer to this one, he refuses to accept the paronomasia as proof that the Story of Susanna was not originally written in Hebrew. He challenges Africanus to tell the Hebrew names of the two trees in question; a thing which he himself, notwithstanding many inquiries from Jews, had never been able to find out. How, then, could Africanus tell that the Hebrew names might not have admitted the same play on words? Or at least might there not have been a play on words in the Hebrew, which, though incapable of literal translation, had yet, by a change in the names of the trees, been skilfully represented by the Greek translator? If Origen is right here, the Greek translator must not only be complimented for his skill, but congratulated for his good fortune in being able to find Greek names of trees so admirably suited to his purpose.

38. Origen's reply to Africanus.-But a more fundamental question was raised

with regard to the principle assumed by Africanus, that no books were to be recognised as belonging to the Old Testament but those which had been originally written in Hebrew. The admission of this principle would evidently be fatal to the claims of many of the books of the Apocrypha. Origen points out what revolutionary consequences would follow if the Christian Church were required then to alter its Canon into conformity with the Hebrew text. It was not only the Story of Susanna that must be cut out: not only the other additions to the Book of Daniel, the Song of the Three Children, and the Story of Bel and the Dragon, but there were also passages in the Book of Esther, in the Book of Job, and indeed in many other parts of the Old Testament, which, though found in the Greek text, had nothing corresponding in the Hebrew. Must all these be also excised? Must we reject the sacred books current among the brotherhood, and pay humble court to the unbelieving Jews, entreating them to impart books free from spurious admixture? Can we suppose that Divine Providence, which had given in the sacred Scriptures edification to all the churches of Christ, did not care for those whom He had bought with a price, for whose sake God spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, that He with Him also might freely give us all things. It were well if Africanus would remember the precept, "Thou shalt not move the everlasting landmarks which those before thee have set up."

39. Athanasius. - However Origen's practice may have tended to obliterate the distinction which his theory acknowledged, between the books extant in Hebrew and the additions made to them in the Greek Bible, that distinction was not lost sight of even in Alexandria. The century after Origen presents us with the testimony of the great Alexandrian bishop Athanasius. In the letters which, in conformity with ancient custom, he annually issued to announce the date of Easter to the churches of his province, it was his wont not to confine himself to that notification, but to take a wider range of instruction. In that which he issued in the

year 365, he gives a list of the books of Scripture, stating that the books of the Old Testament, whose names he gives, were twenty-two, according to the number of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. He then gives a list of New Testament books, agreeing with our own Canon, and adds, "These are the fountains of salvation, so that he who thirsts may satisfy himself with the oracles in these. In these alone the lesson of piety is proclaimed. Let no one add to these, nor take anything from them." Apparently, however, the books of the Canon were reserved as the exclusive property of members of the Church; for Athanasius goes on to say that there were other books not included in the Canon used for the instruction of catechumens, viz. the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Esther, Tobit, Judith, the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. It will be observed that Esther is placed, not among the canonical books, but with those of the Apocrypha, and that the books of the Maccabees are not mentioned at all. Athanasius, being ignorant of Hebrew, used a Greek Bible; and though he was aware of the inferior authority of the books which he names as not belonging to the Canon, it is very possible that he may not have been equally aware of the spurious character of some of the additions made in the Greek text to some of the books which he acknowledged. He certainly counted Baruch as part of Jeremiah; and in this he was followed by several succeeding writers.

40. Other Eastern authorities. — It would be tedious to quote other Eastern Fathers, such as Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, Amphilochius, Epiphanius. Nor need time be spent in discussing the Council of Laodicea, a small council which met about A.D. 363, and which appears to have been the first council to make decrees on the subject of canonical books. The list of books commonly appended to their decrees omits the Apocrypha, but its authenticity cannot be relied on. The exclusion of the Apocrypha is so completely in accordance with Eastern learned opinion, that it is immaterial whether the list as we have it was drawn up at the council itself, or afterwards appended as Apoc.-Vol. I.

Suf

expressing general church usage. fice it, then, to say that when Eastern writers undertake formally to enumerate the books of the Old Testament, they ordinarily reckon only the books of the Hebrew Canon; but that, in practical use, all the books of the Greek Bible are apt to be indiscriminately employed. It is worth while to mention that this practical use applies quite as much to the apocryphal First Book of Esdras, which is not recognised by the Council of Trent, as to any of the apocryphal books which that council has admitted. There is no story more frequently cited by the Fathers than the tale of the three young men at the court of Darius, which is told in the book just mentioned. It may be added that the Apostolic Constitutions—a work which in its present form may be dated as of the latter part of the fourth century-gives a list (ii. 57) of books to be used in church reading, and in this is quite silent as to any books but those of the Hebrew Canon. The Apostolic Canons is a compilation to the earlier part of which may be assigned the date just given for the present form of the Apostolic Constitutions, but which has received additions of uncertain later date. The last of the Canons so added gives a list of Scripture books, which adds to the books of the Hebrew Canon three books of Maccabees, and mentions on a lower level the Book of Ecclesiasticus as useful for the instruction of the young.

§ VII. THE OLD TESTAMENT Canon IN THE WEST.

41. Augustine.-We turn now to the West, and there, as might be expected, we find an echo of Greek opinion. The Latin Old Testament was, at least for some three centuries, only a translation from the Greek, so that popular usage in the West, as well as in the East, tended to an indiscriminate use of all the books which possessed ecclesiastical authority. The story that the Seventy Interpreters had evidenced their inspiration by the exact agreement of their separate works was very generally believed; and with those who accepted that story, the Greek Bible was evidently an inspired book of au

C