Canon of the Old Testament - Catholic Apologetics Information

550 Pages·2003·1.65 MB·English

by  Arthur Drambliukas

T H E C A N O N
OF
THE OLD TESTAMENT,
BY
TOBIAS MULLEN,
Bishop of Erie
I, for my part, would not believe the Gospel, unless the
authority of the Catholic Church moved me to it.”
Saint Augustine, Contra Ep. Man. Fund.
1892

FR PUSTET,
Printer to the Holy Apostolic See and the S. Congregation of Rites

FR. PUSTET & CO.
NEW YORK
2 Preface.

“Entered according to act of Congress in the year 1888, by
TOBIAS MULLEN,
In the office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington.”
Preface.
Western Christendom is still infested with the plague of religious
controversy, a baneful heritage transmitted to the present age by certain
theologians of the sixteenth century. That heritage has in too many
instances led long ago to deeds of violence and bloodshed disgraceful
not only to all who encouraged them, but particularly so to those forms
of religious belief in whose behalf they were perpetrated. Christians,
however, convinced that those who sought in that way to force their
opinions upon others, were generally unsuccessful; and that any appeal
to pains and penalties for such a purpose only exposed the inherent
weakness of the cause in support of which it was made, learned at last,
while differing in opinion, to practice, if not mutual respect, at least
mutual forbearance. As a consequence, religious wars waged for the
purpose of maintaining, or suppressing some form of Christian belief
have long ceased to embroil with each other the Kingdoms of Europe, or
even to affect in any way their mutual relations. There, now, neighbor
meets neighbor and discusses the relative merits of their respective
creeds, without uttering an offensive or even an unkind word. It is much
the same in the New World. Thus the plague of controversy, as it once
raged, has (praised be God) been stayed at last, and, let us hope, forever.
So far as religious strife is concerned, the present compared with any
age that has passed since the sixteenth century is, therefore, eminently
one of peace and good will; one in which men generally recognize the
good traits possessed by others, and accord to them their full rights even
though not in sympathy with their doctrinal principles. Nevertheless, the
spirit of controversy still survives, and must survive, so long as truth is
combated by error, and good confronted by evil. Several of the old
controversies have, indeed, been almost forgotten, or been divested of
the interest they once possessed. And many a creed in which its first
i
ii Preface.
professors could discern no flaw, has been found by those, who now
belong to the same sect, to be more or less inconsistent with reason and
revelation. As a symbol, it no longer expresses their belief, and sooner or
later must be recast, in order to adapt it to views far too humane, too
rational and too Christian for its authors to have entertained, much less
approved, dominated as they were by polemical prejudices and the stern
dictates of sectional rancor. Such movements may tend to narrow the
field of controversy, but cannot close it altogether; until Christendom
shall have become what it once was, and what it ought to be still, one
fold and one shepherd.
Among the many points of controversy which have kept Christendom
divided into two principal camps for nearly four hundred years, is that
which forms the subject of the following volume. That controversy, like
others originating at the same time, has been conducted by many in a
way which showed that they were more anxious for factional ascendancy
than for the triumph of divine truth. On the Catholic side of the
discussion, hardly has anything been written in English beyond a few
pages, though the subject has been exhaustively treated by Catholic
scholars. But these scholars generally wrote in Latin, their works being
intended principally for the use of ecclesiastical students, who, when
afterwards charged as Pastors with the care of souls, would thus be
prepared to teach the Faithful whatever it was necessary to know
regarding the Sacred Scripture. However, once the Canon of Scripture
was solemnly proclaimed, the unanimity with which that decision was
received by the Catholic laity made it unnecessary to explain to the
people in detail the reasons on which it was based; and this the more so,
as all were aware that the contents of the Bible remained substantially
unchanged. What Catholics found, for example, in the Bible of the
sixteenth and subsequent centuries, they found in the Bible of the
fifteenth and preceding centuries. For them, therefore, little instruction
on the subject was necessary beyond what they already actually knew.
They believed in the Church. The Church had solemnly approved, as a
canon of Scripture, a catalogue of sacred books universally used by her
in her divine offices already for ages. In what she had thus done, she, as
infallible, could be no more mistaken than she was in inculcating the
existence and unity of God. All this the laity, as well as their teachers,
Preface. iii
knew full well. What use, then, in wasting time on the why or the how of
the decision in question? That decision, once made, stands forever. And
that is all there is about it.
It was far otherwise with those who, at the time, had revolted against
the authority of the Church. Regarding the Canon of Scripture, they not
only disagreed with her but with each other, and their followers do so to
this day. Yet they none the less prepared to assail her, as well on account
of the Canon she had approved, as on account of other dogmas she
retained but they rejected. Volume after volume was issued from the
English press, with the single object of proving that certain books in the
Bible, which the Church pronounced authentic, were not only human but
doctrinally and historically objectionable. So unscrupulous were the
authors of those volumes in their statements, that subsequent writers of
the same school felt compelled, as a matter of justice, to correct their
misstatements, or apologize for their dishonesty. Unfortunately, the work
of one of these unscrupulous censors, a member of the Anglican
episcopate, has been treated on the continent of Europe and in the United
States as possessed of the highest authority on the question it discusses,
its arguments being regarded as unassailable and its conclusions
accepted as irrefragable. Yet, a learned Professor in the University of
Oxford, long ago pointed out several gross and apparently deliberate
misstatements in the work. And another dignitary in the Anglican
communion, within the last ten or eleven years, warned the public
against it, saying it “must be read with great caution.”
The discussion, which has for its subject The Canon of Scripture, like
almost every other, which the present has inherited from the sixteenth
century, has been recently conducted in a spirit far different from that in
which it originated, or from that which marked its history for ages
afterwards. There is no longer, as there once was among the advocates of
the contracted Canon, a disposition to deduce from the writings of any
Father other conclusions than such as are warranted by these writings
considered as a whole. For these advocates have discovered, and some of
them have expressly admitted, that not a few of such writings are
characterized by inconsistencies, not to say contradictions. In fact, the
canon which any individual Father followed is, as the most advanced
critics now hold, not to be ascertained so much from isolated passages in
iv Preface.
his works or from any catalogue he may have formulated, as from the
manner in which he may have referred to the books of Scripture, and the
use he has made of them throughout his writings. Nor will the reader
often now find what was once so common among the advocates of the
same contracted canon, writers urging against some of the Old
Testament deutero-canonical books objections which, boomerang-like,
recoiling on their projectors, would if admitted have been fatal to books
in their own canon, and have furnished infidels with weapons wherewith
to assail revelation in general. Writers of that class, warned of their folly
by critics of their own school, have become all but extinct.
There were several considerations which induced the writer to
undertake the following work. But they may all be reduced to two. In the
first place, he was anxious to counteract the effect, which the almost
constant publication of certain English books in Great Britain and this
country, on the canon of Scripture, might have among his own people. It
is well known that the persistent attacks of infidels, on the views held by
Protestants regarding their Bible, has made it necessary for its defenders
to vindicate, as best they may, its claim to the veneration of those who
still regard it as the only infallible rule of belief and practice. The
volumes that have been thus written in its defense are legion, and almost
every year adds to their number. To this no Christian could object. But
the authors of some of these volumes, not content with attempting to
establish the canonical character of the books retained in the Protestant
Bible, go farther and endeavor to convince their readers that the other
books contained in the Douay Bible are unscriptural, or, as they
generally express it, apocryphal. Now, these volumes, in defense of the
Protestant Bible, may be found in the shelves of many booksellers from
whom Catholics are accustomed to obtain their works of instruction and
devotion, and who may thus be introduced to a class of literature
antagonistic to divine revelation. To prepare such people for an
introduction of that kind seemed a work of charity and a tribute to truth.
This single reason might in itself be an apology for writing a work on
The Canon of the Old Testament. But, in the second place, there was
another reason which led to the belief that the labor devoted to such a
work might not be labor lost. Several of the attempts made of late by
eminent Protestant scholars to strengthen or restore that attachment to
Preface. v
the Bible, which was at least once so characteristic of our separated
brethren, exhibited on their part a strong suspicion, — the result, no
doubt, of candid and independent inquiry, — that the Protestant canon of
the Old Testament, after all that had been written in its favor, was really
defective, indeed it has been actually admitted, at least in one instance,
that that canon requires to be readjusted, though in making this
admission the writer seems to have had little hope that the readjustment
would be accomplished. Another confesses that the authors of that canon
placed thereon books which should have been excluded in favor of
others, which they rejected as apocryphal; while several other critics,
belonging to the same school, candidly allow that the Church at the
Council of Trent admitted to the canon only such books as had been in
general use from time immemorial. To assist such men in their efforts at
grasping in its fullness the written revelation which God has made to
mankind, seems to excuse, if it cannot justify, the time spent and the
labor undergone in collecting and arranging the materials for the
following pages.
In the composition of a work like the following, as a matter of course,
writers belonging to different ages and different countries had to be
consulted. Often it became necessary also to reproduce some of their
statements. But it will be observed, and perhaps be regretted by some,
that though the authors of many of these statements did not write in
English, the extracts made from their works are almost invariably
presented to the reader in that language alone. It would indeed have been
easy to insert among the footnotes or in an appendix all such extracts,
exactly as they appear in the works to which they belong. But to have
done so would have resulted in an inconveniently bulky volume, and
involved the proof-reader in serious trouble, situated as he was some five
hundred miles from the printers. Besides, as in the end, there was
nothing to be gained, but much certain to be lost by misrepresenting
what had been written by others, the purpose throughout has been to
substitute an honest English equivalent for all such extracts. And it is
hoped the reader will find, that in no instance has that purpose been
forgotten. Furthermore, English readers may be divided into two classes,
— those who understand other languages than English and those who do
not. For the former a different course in the matter under consideration,
vi Preface.
from that which has been followed, was not necessary, as many of them
are supplied with the means of testing the accuracy of the versions
referred to. To the latter nothing has been lost by not being supplied with
the originals of those versions, as those originals, if inserted, would not
have been understood by them.
With these preliminary remarks, the volume itself is respectfully
submitted to the judgment of an impartial and intelligent public.

June 12th, 1891.
CONTENTS
CHAPTER I.
Bible—Meaning of the word. Canon—What is implied thereby. Names of the Sacred Books. Old
and New Testament—What is meant by the distinction. The Catholic Canon—Number of Books
contained therein. The Sacred Books divided into several classes. Other books not Sacred—their
origin and character. Of all the Books whether really or only professedly parts of the Bible, as
referred to by the Fathers, a quadruple division may be made. Apocryphal—its meaning, how
applied by early Christian writers. Ecclesiastical as used by Rufinus. Canonical and
Canonized—what is and was meant thereby. Catalogues of the Sacred Books—their origin and
value. Protocanonical and Deuterocanonical Books—the import and origin of these terms—the
Deutero-canonical Books designated. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
CHAPTER II.
Jewish Canon—Number and Names of Books thereon. Various enumerations of these Books. Jews
divided their Books into three classes—the number in the first class constant, that in each of the
other two classes variable, though at least in recent times the contents of their Bible always the
same—how classified by the author of Ecclesiasticus—how by our Lord—how by Josephus. The
relation of Esdras to the Canon as described in the Scriptures—as alleged by the Jews themselves.
The earliest reference to the point found in apocryphal IV. Esdras. The statement in IV. Esdras
considered. Degree of credit given to that statement by early Christian writers. The Scriptures not
destroyed in the Babylonian captivity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
CHAPTER III.
Origin of their Canon as described by the Jews. The Talmud—its reference to the formation of the
Canon. The College of Esdras. The Sanhedrim or Great Synagogue. Its existence denied for
various reasons. Josephus on the subject. Opinions of Christian writers. Why the Jewish Canon
could not have been the work of Esdras. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
CHAPTER IV.
Difference of opinion between Catholic and Protestant writers regarding the relation of Esdras to the
Canon. Difficulties connected with the subject. Theories advocated by Catholic writers in
reference to it—Genebrard, Serarius, Richard Simon, Huet, Frassen, Movers, Netteler, Danko,
Addis and Arnold. Theories maintained by Protestant writers. on the same subject. Prideaux and
Davidson. Various reasons for believing that Esdras had nothing whatever to do with the Canon of
Scripture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
vii
viii Contents.
CHAPTER V.
The assembly at Jamnia. Debate thereat on the Canon. Influence of the debate on Protestant opinion.
Catholic belief not affected thereby, but expressed mainly in three forms. The Septuagint or
Alexandrine version. Its origin, circulation and authority—In general use outside Palestine, but
read even in the Synagogue at Jerusalem. Jerusalem a center of unity for Jews throughout the
world. The Temple of Leontopolis—The Jews who worshipped there recognized as orthodox at
Jerusalem, while their Bible contained the Deutero Books. That same Bible delivered by the
Apostles to the first Christians. It, or versions of it containing the deutero books, the only Bible in
the hands of Christians until 1536. The Latin Vulgate, its origin. It also contained the Deutero
books according to Protestant testimony. Two points settled. The bond of union between the
Palestinian and Hellenistic Jews. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
CHAPTER VI.
The credit of formulating a canon due more to Jeremias and Nehemias than to Esdras. Its real
author the Jewish high Priest. This proved by the Scriptures, the testimony of Josephus, and by
the course which Jewish writers supposed was adopted in translating the Hebrew Scriptures into
Greek. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
CHAPTER VII.
Temple at Garizim contrasted with that at Leontopolis. The former execrated, the latter at least
tolerated by the Palestinian Jews. Towards the end of the Hebrew Theocracy the high Priests at
Jerusalem guilty of awful crimes. Those at Leontopolis charged with no disorders. Probable effect
of the contrast on pious Jews. Reasons for believing that the books used by the Egyptian Jews
were adopted by those of Palestine. A canon though incomplete in existence in the time of Moses,
gradually enlarged by the high Priest. Interference of the civil power with the high Priest. The
appointment to that office of men without any title to it. As a consequence the Canon becomes
vague and confused among the Palestinian Jews soon after the beginning of the Christian era.
Until that period the books received by the Hellenists also received by the Palestinians. Then only
did the Rabbins decide to mutilate their canon by excluding therefrom certain books all along used
not only by the Hellenists, but by the Palestinians. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
CHAPTER VIII.
The decision reached at Jamnia not final. The usurpers of the authority possessed alone by the high
Priest of the old, but already transferred to the High Priests of the new Dispensation, still in
doubt about their canon. This proved by the testimony of Melito, Justin Martyr and others. The
Jews without a fixed canon from the Apostolic age until the fifth century, when they at last
agreed on one which however was false. The uncertainty among the Jews about the canon
increased by their efforts at meeting the arguments of Christians. The attempt of the Rabbins at
curtailing the canon more successful than that of the Protestant Doctors. Aquila, Theodotion,
and Symmachus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
CHAPTER IX.
The Septuagint a formidable weapon in the hands of the Christians when arguing with Jews. The latter
charged with attempting to corrupt it. What happened to the Book of Esther. The Jewish Canon
not now what it was in the time of Christ. The general theory advocated by Protestants on this