Loading...
Larger font
Smaller font
Copy
Print
Contents

The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 1

 - Contents
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "".
  • Weighted Relevancy
  • Content Sequence
  • Relevancy
  • Earliest First
  • Latest First
    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents

    III. Crept in Through Medium of the Greek

    The Septuagint translation rose in importance to the level of the Hebrew original. And not only did this translation become the Bible of the Hellenistic Jews, but it brought the Jewish religion to the knowledge of nations before unreached. It was undoubtedly a factor in bringing about “the fulness of the time” for Christ’s first Advent. Any comprehensive tracing, therefore, of the book of Daniel must include the Septuagint.PFF1 76.1

    1. ADDED TO ALEXANDRIAN, NOT PALESTINIAN, LIST

    The greater freedom of mind and the lessened conservatism of the Jews of Alexandria would make them more ready than those of Palestine to receive new books seeking admission into the canon. Thus it was that, as the writings that form the Apocrypha came into acceptance in Alexandria, they were added to the Septuagint but were not added to the Hebrew canon of Palestine. They came to form part of the Jewish Scriptures in the Greek version alone, and not in the Hebrew. They were accepted abroad, but not at the Jerusalem base.PFF1 76.2

    We repeat, for emphasis, that “the Apocrypha never was included in the Palestinian Canon.” 10Grant, op. cit., p. 116. The Septuagint was, of course, the Old Testament of the early Christian church, used by the apostles and their converts. As mentioned, the translators had taken liberties with the text——enlarging, abbreviating, transposing, and otherwise modifying it—but the most noteworthy departure was, of course, the inclusion of the books now known as the Apocrypha. All these books were of late date and were soon called in question. They had not been segregated, but were interspersed among the canonical books in the Septuagint. Notwithstanding this enlargement of the canon, the Apocryphal books attained no recognition from the writers of the New Testament. Moreover, the more scholarly of the church fathers adhered to the Hebrew list, and drew a sharp distinction between the Hebrew canonical books and these Greek additions. Nevertheless, the constant use of the Apocrypha could but tend to break down the limits set by the Hebrew canon. 11James Orr, “Bible, The,” The International Standard Encyclopaedia, vol. 1, pp. 461, 462.PFF1 76.3

    2. JEROME PROTESTS THE ALEXANDRIAN ACCRETIONS

    It is not difficult to understand how, having once got into the Alexandrian canon, these Apocryphal books slipped easily into the Catholic canon. The overwhelming majority of the converts of the early church spoke Greek and read the Septuagint. They thus became accustomed to the Apocrypha. And as Latin versions of the Scriptures were being made, the Apocryphal books were translated along with the rest. Jerome, the great scholar of the Roman church of his day, who began revising these versions and forming the famous Latin Vulgate, declared strongly against the Alexandrian accretions. This brought him into sharp conflict with others, including Augustine. Finally, however, Jerome was pressed into modifying his position, and all the books of the Apocrypha were admitted into the Vulgate except 1 Esdras and the Prayer of Manassas. 12Grant, op. cit., p. 116.PFF1 77.1

    3. CONTRASTING TABULATION OF THE VARIOUS LISTS

    The accompanying tabulation (on pages 78 and 79) indicates the enlargements in the Septuagint and later Roman Catholic listings, which latter list superseded the original list of the early church. The later Waldensian and Protestant views of the Apocrypha will likewise be observed, the latter returning to the original canon under Reformation influences. The seven groupings are placed in parallel columns to facilitate comparison with the Apocryphal books or parts thereof, as they occur, set off in italics. Although the Septuagint lists more Apocryphal books by name than the Catholic Bible, the latter has incorporated with other books most of those not separately named, so in reality the two lists are virtually alike in content of Apocryphal material.PFF1 77.2

    The general use of the Septuagint in apostolic times, as enlarged by the Apocryphal additions, produced effects in the history of the Old Testament canon that can be plainly seen among early Christian writers. In proportion as the early fathers were more or less dependent on the Septuagint for their knowledge of the Old Testament, they gradually lost the distinction between the canonical books and the Apocryphal. The customs and opinions of individuals in time naturally became the custom of the church. And their public use obliterated the distinction between the two, which could be discerned only by the scholar. However, the custom of the church was not as yet fixed in an absolute judgment. 13M’Clintock and Strong, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 78.PFF1 77.3

    Picture 1: COMPARATIVE LISTS OF OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS, SHOWING SEPTUAGINT AND ROMAN CATHOLIC ENLARGEMENTS
    It will be observed that the later Waldensian and Protestant Lists return to the original canon, under reforming influences.
    Page 80
    PFF1 80

    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents