{"id":7,"date":"2018-01-21T03:50:17","date_gmt":"2018-01-21T03:50:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/hips.dormitionpress.org\/?p=7"},"modified":"2018-01-21T03:50:17","modified_gmt":"2018-01-21T03:50:17","slug":"the-broad-and-truncated-canons-of-the-old-testament","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hips.dormitionpress.org\/?p=7","title":{"rendered":"The Broad and Truncated Canons of the Old Testament"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"The<\/a>

The Books called Apocrypha<\/p><\/div>\n

The Christian Church accepted the broader canon of the Old Testament\u00a0(including the Apocrypha) until the time of the Reformation. The Anglican Henry Wace, in his commentary on the King James\u00a0Version, admits as much when he writes:<\/p>\n

When the Reformers\u00a0denied the inspired authority of the books of the Apocrypha, it was by no means their intention to exclude them from use either in public or in private reading. The Articles of the Church of England\u00a0quote with approbation the ruling of St. Jerome, that though the Church does not use these books for establishment of doctrine, it reads them for example of life and instruction of manners.<\/em>[<\/em>1]<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

Having already truncated their canon, some Protestants look back to the ancient church for support, citing this or that authority who seemingly support their position. There were individuals who devised lists of books approved for use in the church, such as the listing called the “ruling of St. Jerome.\u201d These lists are occasionally similar to the canon used by Protestants today, but these individual lists were not authoritative in the wider church. Even where the lists of Old Testament\u00a0books matched those of the Protestant canon, these lists wouldn’t match the New Testament\u00a0books \u2014 and vice versa. (We will provide more detail on this later). St. Jerome was not a bishop, and the \u2018ruling of St. Jerome\u2019 was not authoritative anywhere. St. Jerome ultimately accepted the ruling of his bishop, something noted by Martin Hengel: \u201cJerome himself, who was not only a great and combative scholar but also a smooth diplomat, largely abandoned any effort to defend the Hebrew original in the Apocrypha question.\u201d[2]<\/a><\/p>\n

St. Athanasius (c. 296-373) is widely cited as having provided the first complete listing of the 27 books of the New Testament. Matt Slick, the President and Founder of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM), cites Festal Letter 39 (c. 367 A.D.) as proof that Athanasius condemns the Apocrypha.[3]<\/a> This is only partially correct. First of all, St. Athanasius was speaking for his own diocese, not the entire Church. Second, there were many different lists being advanced for centuries afterwards.<\/p>\n

While St. Athanasius did not approve of all the so-called Apocrypha, his festal letter approved several of them. For example, his list contains \u201cthe first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book\u201d; \u201cJeremiah with Baruch\u201d; \u201cLamentations, and the epistle, one book\u201d; Esther; and Daniel. Baruch is one of the so-called Apocrypha, as is the Epistle of Jeremiah. The versions of 2 Chronicles, Esther, and Daniel judged by St. Athanasius as genuine contain material Protestants judge to be Apocryphal.[4]<\/a> In the unabridged King James Version, these are called \u201cThe Prayer of Manassas\u201d (placed at the end of 2 Chronicles); \u201cThe rest of Esther\u201d (material found throughout Esther in the Septuagint); \u201cThe History of Susanna\u201d (comes before Daniel chapter 1); \u201cThe Song of the Three Holy Children\u201d (comes in the middle of Daniel chap. 3); and \u201cBel and the Dragon\u201d (comes after Daniel chap. 12). To be honest, if Protestants want to claim Festal Letter 39 of St. Athanasius as sealing the canon of the New Testament, they should also be prepared to accept all the Old Testament Apocrypha cited by Athanasius.<\/p>\n

In his book The Divine Names<\/em>, the author known today as Pseudo-Dionysius (late 5th to early 6th century) quotes from the Wisdom of Solomon, describing it as \u201cintroductory Scriptures.\u201d[5]<\/a> We might be tempted towards thinking this supports the general Protestant view. Paul Rorem and John Lamoreaux say the term \u201cintroductory Scripture\u201d merely means that the Old Testament was an introduction to the New; in other words, the entire Old Testament could be termed \u201cintroductory Scripture.\u201d[6]<\/a> The question, then, is how extensive that introduction is.<\/p>\n

Among early Protestants, there was substantial disagreement and confusion as to the extent of the Old Testament. For example, John Wycliffe’s Bible translation, first hand-printed in 1382 A.D., contains 48 Old Testament books, as opposed to the 39 contained in the Protestant Old Testament.[7]<\/a>\u00a0 We should note the Bibles printed following<\/em> the Protestant Reformation\u00a0also include what Protestants call the Apocrypha.[8]<\/a> For example, Martin Luther’s German translation of 1522 contained the Apocrypha. The English Language Matthew-Tyndale Bible, published by John Rogers\u00a0in 1537, contained the Apocrypha.[9]<\/a> Both the Geneva Bible\u00a0of 1560 and the original King James\u00a0Version\u00a0(KJV) of 1611 contained the Apocrypha. Unabridged editions of the KJV with the Apocrypha are still available today, although printed versions are rare in the United States.[10]<\/a><\/p>\n

Abridged Bibles without the Apocrypha are an American invention. The Continental Congress\u00a0approved and funded the printing of Bibles without the Apocrypha. Rev. Dr. Will Gafney\u00a0writes:<\/p>\n

Many are unaware that the shorter Protestant bible was created in the new America, during the revolutionary war when a printer took it upon himself without the authority of a church council to print a bible whose contents he chose. That bible, The Aitken Bible<\/em>[11]<\/strong><\/a> is also significant for having been printed with the authority of the Continental Congress.<\/em>[12]<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

Modern Protestants use a truncated canon whose origins and history they are unaware of. Moreover, they misread the canonical history of the Old Testament. This does not mean Protestants cannot be saved, of course. What it does mean is that Protestants lack the fullness of the faith.<\/p>\n

<\/a>Endnotes<\/h1>\n

[1] (Wace 1811, xxxvi) The ruling of St. Jerome was his private theological opinion, was contrary to the practice of the wider Christian Church, and was not accepted as dogma anywhere.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> (Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture 2002, 49-50)<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> (Slick 2014)<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> The Masoretic text favored by many conservative Protestant scholars did not exist at this time. The favored text in the Church was the Septuagint (see chap. 4.)<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> (Pseudo-Dionysius, the Areopagite 1987, 81)<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> (Rorem and Lamoreaux 1998, 48)<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> The various eBooks and online sources like Bible Gateway only reproduce the part of Wycliffe\u2019s translation that are acceptable to the Protestants. Wycliffe’s complete Old Testament\u00a0contained the following books considered unacceptable after the Reformation: 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, 3 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom (Wisdom of Solomon), Syrach (Sirach, a.k.a. Ecclesiasticus), Preier of Jeremiah\u00a0(Epistle of Jeremiah), Baruk (Baruch), along with 1 Machabeis & 2 Machabeis (1st<\/sup> and 2nd<\/sup> Maccabees). John Wycliffe’s New Testament\u00a0also contains Paul’s letter to the Laodiceans, a contested document found in no generally accepted version or translation. (Wycliffe 2008)<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> When asked if The Online Bible (www.onlinebible.net<\/a>) would be providing a copy of the original King James\u00a0Version\u00a0with the Apocrypha,\u00a0\u00a0 Larry Pierce, (the founder) responded: \u201cWe have no intention of mixing Jewish fables with the infallible Word of God.\u201d (Pierce 2014) Pierce is quoting Titus 1:14 here, equating Paul\u2019s reference to \u2018Jewish fables\u2019 with the Apocrypha, an interpretation that cannot be found in the text. Pierce chooses to use an abridged version of the King James Version rather than provide it as it was originally printed. In an email to Pastor EJ Hill, Larry Pierce\u00a0admitted to redacting and editing other people\u2019s work when they do not agree with his theology (such as Thayer’s 1889 Greek-English Lexicon.) (Hill 2012)<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> The Matthew-Tyndale Bible, generally known as the Matthew Bible, contains the following books not found in the Protestant Bible: 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Rest of Esther, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 3 Holy Children, Suzanna, Bel & the Dragon, Prayer of Mannesah, 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees. (Rogers and Coverdale 1537)<\/p>\n

[10]<\/a> An excellent resource is the Official King James\u00a0version online which contains the American truncation of the King James Version, the Apocrypha, and the original 1611 version with the apocrypha. http:\/\/www.kingjamesbibleonline.org\/Apocrypha-Books\/<\/p>\n

[11]<\/a> http:\/\/www.theworldsgreatbooks.com\/Aitken Bible.htm<\/p>\n

[12]<\/a> (Gafney 2013)<\/p>\n

Bibliography<\/h1>\n

Gafney, W. C. (2013, March 17). Jesus\u2019 Bible and the History Channel\u2019s Bible.<\/em> Retrieved December 7, 2014, from The Rev. Wil Gafney, Ph.D.: http:\/\/www.wilgafney.com\/2013\/03\/17\/jesus-bible-and-the-history-channels-bible\/<\/p>\n

Hengel, M. (2002). The Septuagint as Christian Scripture.<\/em> Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.<\/p>\n

Hill, E. (2012). Did Larry Pierce abridge Thayer’s Lexicon? The Online Bible Forum<\/em>. Winterbourne: Online Bible.<\/p>\n

Pierce, L. (2014, May 5). “email conversation”. Online Bible Tech Support<\/em>. Winterbourne: Online Bible.<\/p>\n

Pseudo-Dionysius, the Areopagite. (1987). Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works.<\/em> (C. Luibheid, Trans.) New York: Paulist Press.<\/p>\n

Rogers, J., & Coverdale, M. (1537). 1537 Matthew’s Bible.<\/em> Retrieved September 1, 2014, from Bibles-Online.net: http:\/\/www.bibles-online.net\/1537\/<\/p>\n

Rorem, P., & Lamoreaux, J. C. (1998). John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus: Annotating the Areopagite.<\/em> Oxford: Clarendon Press.<\/p>\n

Slick, M. (2014, November 1). Apocrypha.<\/em> Retrieved June 23, 2016, from CARM: http:\/\/carm.org\/early-church-fathers-apocrypha<\/p>\n

Wace, H. (1811). Holy Bible According to the Authorized Version (A.D. 1611).<\/em> (Vol. 1). (H. Wace, Ed.) London: John Murray.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Christian Church accepted the broader canon of the Old Testament\u00a0(including the Apocrypha) until the time of the Reformation. The Anglican Henry Wace, in his commentary on the King James\u00a0Version, admits as much when he writes: When the Reformers\u00a0denied the inspired authority of the books of the Apocrypha, it was by no means their intention […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9A0cH-7","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/hips.dormitionpress.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/hips.dormitionpress.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/hips.dormitionpress.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hips.dormitionpress.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hips.dormitionpress.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=7"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/hips.dormitionpress.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8,"href":"https:\/\/hips.dormitionpress.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7\/revisions\/8"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/hips.dormitionpress.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=7"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hips.dormitionpress.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=7"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hips.dormitionpress.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=7"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}