Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-04T09:26:32.738Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Old Testament of the Early Church (A Study in Canon)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2011

Albert C. Sundberg Jr.
Albert C. Sundberg Jr.
Affiliation:
Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

For three-quarters of a century the hypothesis of an Alexandrian canon has been the commonly accepted solution to the problem of how the Jewish canon and the Old Testament of the early church came to differ. That hypothesis suggests that a larger canon of scriptures was initiated in Alexandria and circulated throughout Diaspora Judaism than what obtained in Palestine. The Christian church, becoming predominantly Gentile early in its history, adopted this enlarged canon, that included the books of the Apocrypha, from Diaspora Judaism. The hypothesis represents essentially a geographic distinction in canonical usage between Palestinian Judaism and Alexandrian and Dispersion Judaism. It is the opinion of the present writer that the Alexandrian canon hypothesis is not only unprovable, as Pfeiffer has recognized, but is erroneous. This opinion is based (1) on a study of the history of the Alexandrian canon hypothesis, (2) on an examination of the arguments favoring the hypothesis, and (3) on a re-evaluation of the status of canonical usage in Judaism at the time of the emergence of Christianity into the world.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 51 , Issue 4 , October 1958 , pp. 205 - 226
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1958

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Pfeiffer, R. H., Introduction to the Old Testament (New York, 1941), pp. 65–69Google Scholar.

2 Ibid., p. 67.

3 Prolegomena to the Septuagint, cited by Churton, W. R., The Uncanonical and Apocryphal Scriptures (London, 1884), p. 12Google Scholar.

4 Semler, J. S., Abhandlung von freier Untersuchung des Canon, I (Halle, 1771), 9–128Google Scholar.

5 The Massoreth ha-Massoreth, ed. and trans. Ginsburg, C. D. (London, 1867), pp. 119–120Google Scholar. Semler, op. cit., p. 103.

6 Ibid., pp. 121–122.

7 Cosin, J., A Scholastical History of the Canon of the Holy Scripture (London, 1657)Google Scholar, cited from The Works of the Right Reverened Father in God John Cosin, now first collected, ed. Sansom, J. (Oxford, 1849), pp. 23, 35–40Google Scholar; 263, 5, 14; 8–12, 264–268, etc.

8 Knaake, J. K. F., et al. , eds., D. Martin Luthers Werke (Weimar, 1883–1939), II, 328 ff.Google ScholarHoworth, H. H., “The Bible Canon of the Reformation,” The International Journal of Apocrypha, XV (1908), 10–11Google Scholar; XX (1910), 13–15.

9 Rome, 382 A.D. (A critical edition of the oldest manuscript of this council was published by C. H. Turner, “Latin Lists of the Canonical Books,” JTS, I (1900), 554–560.) At Hippo, 393 A.D., Sacrorum conciliorum; nova et amplissima collectio, ed. G. D. Mansi (Florentiae, 1759–1792), III, 850. At Carthage, 397 and 419 A.D., Ibid., p. 891 and IV, 430, respectively.

10 Reuss, C. W. E., History of the Canon of the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Church, second ed., trans. Hunter, D. (Edinburgh, 1891), pp. 276–279Google Scholar. Churton, op. cit., p. 17.

11 Kuenen, A., “Uber die Männer der grossen Synagogue,” trans., Budde, K., Gesammelt Abhandlungen zur biblischen Wissenschaft von Dr. Abraham Kuenen (Freiburg i.B., 1894), pp. 125–160Google Scholar.

12 Pfeiffer, op. cit., p. 64. Eissfeldt, O., Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Tübingen, 1934), pp. 622–625Google Scholar. Moore, G. F., Judaism (Cambridge, 1927–1930), I, 240–242Google Scholar.

13 Pfeiffer, R. H., “Introduction to the Apocrypha,” The Apocrypha (New York, 1953), pp. xii–xvGoogle Scholar. Idem, History of New Testament Times with an Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York, 1949), pp. 60–61, and loc. cit.Google Scholar

14 Torrey, C. C., The Apocryphal Literature (New Haven, 1945), pp. 3, 7, 9, 11, and loc. cit.Google Scholar

15 Int. to O. T., pp. 65–69.

16 Ibid., p. 67.

17 Ibm.

18 Ibm.

19 Ibid., p. 63.

20 Ibid., p. 67.

21 Smith, W. R., The Old Testament in the Jewish Church (New York, 1890), pp. 145–146Google Scholar. Moore, op. cit., I, 239, 245.

22 Ibm.

23 Wolfson, H., Philo (Cambridge, Mass., 1947), I, 117Google Scholar.

24 Cf. Zeitlin, S., ed., The Second Book of Maccabees (New York, 1954), pp. 240–241Google Scholar.

25 Buhl, F., Canon and Text of the Old Testament, trans. MacPherson, J. (Edinburgh, 1892), p. 18Google Scholar; Swete, H. B., An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge, 1900), p. 217Google Scholar; Ryle, H. E., The Canon of the Old Testament (London, 1914), pp. 165 ff.Google Scholar; Thackeray, H. J., Josepbus, the Man and the Historian (New York, 1929), p. 79Google Scholar, who concludes that Josephus' strange division of the scriptures was not peculiar to him but bad support in some Palestinian circles. He bases this upon the fact that Origen and Jerome, who obtained their information from Palestinian traditon also have twenty-two books in the Old Testament. Katz, P., “The Old Testament Canon in Palestine and Alexandria,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, XLVII (1956), 191–217Google Scholar. follows much the same argument. However, this argument is questionable since the lists of Origen and Jerome are not divisible according to Josephus' arrangement. The number twenty-two, being related to the Hebrew alphabet, seems to be mechanical in this respect. Therefore, while the number of books is the same, Josephus' order remains peculiar to him.

26 Smith, op. cit., pp. 150–151.

27 Pfeiffer, Int. to O.T., p. 67. Knox, W. L., “A Note on Philo's Use of the Old Testament,” JTS, XLI (1940), 30CrossRefGoogle Scholar, gives the ratio as 50 from outside the Law to 2,000 from the Law.

28 Ryle, op. cit., pp. 158–159; Idem, Philo and Holy Scripture (London, 1895), pp. xvii, xxxii–xxxiiiGoogle Scholar; Swete, op. cit., pp. 374–375.

29 Op. cit., p. 34; Idem, Some Hellenistic Elements in Primitive Christianity (London, 1944), pp. 34–35Google Scholar.

30 Smith, op. cit., pp. 145–146; Buhl, op. cit., pp. 8–9; Moore, op. cit., I, 239, 245.

31 Ryle, Canon, p. 280; Swete, op. cit., p. 200.

32 Jepsen, A., “Kanon und Text des Alten Testaments,” Theologische Literaturzeitung, LXXXIV (1949), 65–74Google Scholar. Cf. Swete, op. dt., pp. 201–214, for a collection of Christian Old Testament lists. A.D. Nock, in his review of Traditio [Am. Jl. of Phil., LXVII (1946), 367], raises the question whether the Christians, in making a greater emphasis on the Prophets and less or qualified emphasis on the Law, tend toward a more uniform valuation of the Old Testament as a whole? When comparing Christian usage with Philo, such would appear to be the case. But when New Testament usage is compared with other areas in Judaism, e.g., rabbinics, Josephus, and the subject matter of the paintings at Dura, the New Testament usage does not seem to differ significantly. The percentages between Law and Prophets-Writings are: rabbinic usage 33/67 [Knox, “Philo's Use of the O.T.,” P. 31]; Josephus 29/71 [according to the index in The Works of Flavius Josephus, trans. W. Winston (Philadelphia)]; Dura 32/68, where the prominence of Esther should be noted [The Excavations at Dura-Europas, conducted by Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters, Final Report (New Haven 1956), VIII, 349–350, 151]; New Testament 28/72 [according to the index in Novum Testamentum Graece, ed. E. Nestle (Stuttgart, 1948)]. The citations from Prophets and Writings are about equally divided in the New Testament. It would, therefore, appear that the more uniform evaluation of the Old Testament in Christian hands is to be sought in the mode rather than in the frequency of citation.

33 Acts ii. 5–13. Swete, op. cit., pp. 7–8. Wildeboer, G., The Origin of the Canon of the Old Testament, trans. Bacon, B. W. (London, 1895), pp. 19–21, 35Google Scholar. Orlinsky, H. M., The Septuagint (Cincinnati, 1949), p. 1.Google Scholar

34 So Buhl, op. cit., pp. 45–46. Orlinsky, op. cit., p. 5.

35 Lieberman, S., Greek in Jewish Palestine (New York, 1942)Google Scholar.

36 Goodenough, E. R., Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period (New York, 1953), I, 8–13Google Scholar.

37 Ibid., pp. 111–132.

38 Ibid., p. 180. Cf. Weill, R., La Cité de David, Compte rendu des fouilles exécutée à Jérusalem, sur le site de la ville primitive. Campagne de 1913–14, (Paris, 1920), I, 186 ff.Google Scholar; II, Pl. xxvi.

39 Op. cit., I, 124–128.

40 Stendahl, K., The School of St. Matthew, Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis, XX (Lund, 1954), p. 177.Google Scholar

41 Barthélemy, D., “Redécouverte d'un chaînon manquant de I'Histoire de la Septante,” Revue Biblique, LX (1953), 18–29Google Scholar.

42 Stendahl, op. cit., pp. 177–180.

43 Int. to O.T., p. 66.

44 Op. cit., pp. 10–29.

45 Op. cit., pp. 4–5, 7.

46 Op. cit., pp. 14–15. Cf. Baratke, H., Die Handschriftenfunde am Toten Meer (Berlin, 1953), pp. 9–14Google Scholar.

47 Cf. Fritsch, C. T., “Herod the Great and the Qumran Community,” JBL, LXXIV (1955), 174Google Scholar. Brownlee, W. H., The Dead Sea Manual of Discipline, BASOR Supplementary Studies No. 11–12 (New Haven, 1951), p. 9Google Scholar. J. C. Trever, “Identification of the Aramaic Fourth Scroll from ‘Ain Feshkha,” BASOR, No. 115 (Oct., 1949), 8–10. Roberts, B. J., “The Dead Sea Scrolls and Apocalyptic Literature,” Oxford Society of Historical Theology, Abstract of Proceedings for the Academic Year, 1952–1953 (Oxford, printed for private circulation), p. 29Google Scholar. Cross, F. M. Jr., “The Manuscripts of the Dead Sea Caves,” Biblical Archaeologist, XVII (1954), 17–20Google Scholar. Milik, J. C., “Le Testament de Lévi en arméen. Fragment de la grotte 4 de Qumrân,” Revue Biblique, No. 3 (July, 1955), pp. 398–406Google Scholar. Cross reports fragments from Cave Four written in non-Jewish scripts including two exemplars of the Old Septuagint. “A Report on the Biblical Fragments of Cave Four in Wâdī Qumrān,” BASOR, No. 141 (Feb., 1956), pp. 9–13. But, wanting substantial finds of Greek and other non-Semitic texts, these fragments may represent manuscripts that chanced to fall into the hands of the Qumran community, perhaps through a proselyte who knew Greek, and were kept because they were writings of sacred texts. Unless it can be shown that these fragments were produced at Qumran it is not necessary to conclude from them that the community was multi-lingual.

48 Cross, op. cit., p. 20.

49 The relation of Christian quotations and allusions from the extra-canonical Jewish literature has been mentioned above. For the Qumran usage cf. Carmignac, J., “Les citations de l'Ancien Testament dans ‘la Guerre des Fils de Luminère contre les Fils de Ténèbres.’” Revue Biblique, LXIII (1956), 234–260, 375–390.Google Scholar

50 Dupont-Sommer, A., The Dead Sea Scrolls (Oxford, 1952), pp. 99–100Google Scholar. Idem, The Jewish Sect of Qumran and the Essenes (London, 1954), pp. 149 ff.Google ScholarPubMed

51 Cullmann, O., “The Significance of the Qumran Texts for Research into the Beginnings of Christianity,” JBL, LXXIV (1955), 213–226Google Scholar.

52 Burrows, op. cit., p. 328. Cadbury, H. J., “New Light from Old Scrolls,” The Unitarian Christian, XI (1955), 9–12Google Scholar.

53 Corrodi, H., Versuch einer Beleuchtung der Geschichte des jüdischen und christlichen Bibelkanons (Halle, 1792), pp. 114–115, 161–166.Google Scholar

54 Pfeiffer, Int. to O.T., p. 64.

55 It should be noted that scholars such as Torrey (op. cit., pp. 10–29) and Orlinsky (op. cit., pp. 4–5, 7), without benefit of the Dead Sea finds, and Roberts (op. cit., p. 33), Baumgartner, W. (“Die Bedeutung der Höhlenfunde aus Palästina für die Theologie,” Schweizerische Theologische Umschau, XXIV (1954), 54)Google Scholar followed by Fritsch (op. cit., p. 48), in the light of these finds, approach the hypothesis herein presented. They, however, have been prevented from the conclusions here reached because they assumed the Alexandrian canon was a substantially fixed canon prior to the rise of Christianity. They suggest, therefore, that Hebrew (Palestinian) usage paralleled the Septuagint (Alexandrian) canon prior to Jamnia.

56 Pfeiffer, Int. to O.T., p. 63. Cf. II Esdras xiv. 45–46, of about the same date as Josephus and B.T. Sanhedrin 11a.

57 Jeffery, A., “The Canon of the Old Testament,” The Interpreter's Bible, I (New York, 1952), 32–45Google Scholar; Hölscher, G., Kanonisch und Apokryph (Leipzig, 1905), pp. 38–64Google Scholar; Torrey, op. cit., pp. 14–15; Bentzen, A., Introduction to the Old Testament (Copenhagen, 1948), I, 28–29Google Scholar. Moore, G. F., “The Definitíon of the Jewish Canon and the Repudiation of the Christian Scriptures,” Essays in Modern Theology and Related Subjects … to Charles Augustus Biggs (New York, 1911), pp. 99–125Google Scholar, and Bloch, J., “Outside Books,” Mordecai Kaplan Jubilee Volume, English Section, ed. Davis, M. (New York, 1953), pp. 87–108Google Scholar, argue that the Jewish canon was closed as an anti-Christian movement directed at the exclusion of Christian writings. But cf. Ginzberg, L., “Some Observations on the Attitude of the Synagogue towards the Apocalyptic-Eschatological Writings,” JBL, XLI (1922), 115–136Google Scholar, who, while answering Moore, is an effective refutation of Bloch as well. Ginzberg concludes that the Jewish canon was closed at Jamnia as an anti-apocalyptic movement.

58 Cf. note 55 above.

59 In the East at the Council of Laodicea (between 343 and 381 A.D.), cf. Mansi, op. cit., II, 573–574. For the Western councils cf. note 9 above.

60 Swete, op. cit., p. 200; Ryle, Canon, p. 280. Jepsen, op. cit., pp. 65–74, correctly argues from these variations that the extent of the Christian Old Testament was determined within the church.

61 Cf. Jefferies, op. cit., pp. 41–42, for a convenient description of these differences.

62 Burkitt, F. C., Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (London: Oxford University Press, 1914), pp. 11 ff.Google Scholar

63 Op. cit., pp. 70–71. Koole, J. L., Het Problem Van De Canonistie Van Het Oude Testament (1955), pp. 30 ff.Google Scholar, would determine the matter of the canon of the Old Testament on the theological grounds; what contained the Word of God was canonized as the Old Testament. The quality of containing the Word of God is self-evident in the books as compared with the Apocrypha. Likewise, Metzger's, B. M. theory in An Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York, 1957), pp. 7–10, 171–180Google Scholar, reflects a dogmatic theological position argued at Princeton as early as Alexander, A., The Canon of the Old and New Testaments Ascertained (New York, 1826)Google Scholar: the Word of God is self-validating. The Apocrypha are not and cannot ever have been canonical since there is no criteria for judging what is canonical except the Word of God. While Metzger denies an Alexandrian canon, he gives no reason for this. Consequently his position closely resembles (with only minor variations) the old dogmatic Protestant position before Kuenen.

64 Katz, P., “The Old Testament Canon in Palestine and Alexandria,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, XLVII (1956), 191–217Google Scholar.

65 Ibid., p. 194. While treating those who account for a twenty-two book canon by assuming the influence of the Septuagint in a rather cavalier fashion (Ibid., pp. 212–217), Katz completely overlooks the effective answer to his position in König, E., Kanon und Apokryphen, (Gütersloh, 1917), pp. 45–46Google Scholar.

66 Lake, K., Eusebius with an English Translation (Cambridge, 1926–1932), I, 392–393Google Scholar.

67 Ryle, Canon, p. 215; Wildeboer, op. cit., pp. 77–78.

68 Cf. discussion below.

69 Lake, translating the entry concerning Solomon, Σολομῶνος παραμίαι ἡ καὶ Σοϕἰα, as “The Proverbs of Solomon and His Wisdom,” thus includes the Wisdom of Solomon in Melito's list (op. cit., I,393). However, in view of Eusebius, H. E. IV.xxii.9, ὁ πᾶς τῶν ἀρχαίων χορὸς πανάρετον Σοϕίαν τὰς Σολομῶνος Παροιμίας ἐκάλουν, a reading like R. Grant's “… of Solomon, Proverbs (also called Wisdom)” (Second-Century Christianity (London, 1946), p. 71), seems more probable.

70 Josephus' division, then, may well have been Law: Gen., Ex., Lev., Num., Deut.; Prophets: Josh., Judg., Ki. (I, II), Isa., Jer., Lam., Ez., Twelve, Ezra, Chr., Dan., Job, Ruth (or, if Josephus counted Esther, he may have counted Jer. and Lam. as one work [see below], and thus exactly have paralleled the contents of the Jamnia canon); Writings: Ps., Prov., Eccles., Song (there is no attempt here to suggest Josephus' order in the groups).

71 Katz, op. cit., p. 196.

72 Ep. fest., xxxix, J. P. Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus … Series Graeca (Lutetiae Parisiorum: 1857–1866), XXVI, 1436–1437.

73 Weights and Measures xxiii, Migne, op. cit., XLIII, 277–280. Lamentations does not appear in the list, nor is it counted with Jeremiah; it appears following the twenty-two book canon as an additional canonical book.

74 Carmina i.12, Migne, op. cit., XXXVII, 472–474.

75 Ad. Seluc, in Gregory of Nazianzus, Carm., II.vii, Migne, op. cit., XXXVII, 1593–1596.

76 Eusebius, H. E. VI.xxv.2.

77 Adv. Haer. I.i.8, Migne, op. cit., XLI, 213. Cf. Weights and Measures iv, Migne, op. cit., XLIII, 244, where only Jeremiah is mentioned.

78 Cf. note 75 above.

79 Carmina, I.xii.5, Migne, op. cit., XXXVII, 472–474. Here Esther is missing. However, Gregory names only Jeremiah and since he intends to give a twenty-two book list, it seems probable that Esther is inadvertently omitted.

80 Cf. note 76 above.

81 Catech. IV.35, Migne, op. cit., XXXIII, 497–500.

82 Contrary to Katz, op. cit., p. 201.

83 Migne, op. dt., XV–XVI.

84 Cf. note 76 above.

85 Origen states clearly that it is the Jewish canon that he enumerates in this list. That he recognizes Christian usage differed from that of the Jews is shown in his letters To Africanus v, ix, xiii. Cf. Hanson, R. P. C., Origen's Doctrine of Tradition (London, 1954), pp. 133–137Google Scholar.

86 To Africanus ix.

87 To Africanus v, xiii.

88 Cf. above.

89 Athanasius: Wisdom of Solomon i.45 (Letters iv.4); i.ii (Def. before Constantius v); ii.21 (Hist, of Arians lxxi); ii.23 (Incarnation of Word v) ; vi.18 (Incar. of Word iv); iii.57 (Defence of his Flight xix); vii.25 (Defence of Nicean Definition xi, On the Opinion of Dionysius xv); vii.27 (Lectures i.1; x.4); ix.2 (Discourse II.xix.45); xiii.5 (Against the Heathen xxxv); Ecclus. i.25 (Life of Anthony xxviii); iv.28 (Def. against the Arians xc); vii.25 (Def. before Constantius ii); xviii.17 (Letters xix.5); Esther iii.9; ix.21 (Letters x. ii); Judith ix.15; xiii.8 (Letters iv.2); Tobit iv.18 (Def. before Constantius xvii) I Esd. iv.36 (Discourse ii.20); iv.40 (On the Opinion of Dionysius xxv); iv.41 (Def. before Constantius xi). Gregory of Nazianzus: Judith v.6 (Oration xlv.15); Wisd. vii.26 (Oration xxix.16–17); Ecclus. iii.12 (Oration xxxvii.18); II Mace. (Oration xliii.74–75). Cyril of Jerusalem: Wisd. xiii.5 (Lecture ix.2); Ecclus. iii.21–22 (Lecture vi.4).

90 Heresies lxxvi, Migne, op. cit., XLII, 559–562.

91 Souter, A., The Text and Canon of the New Testament (New York, 1913), p. 210.Google Scholar

92 B. T. Hagigah 13a; Yebamoth 63b; Baba Kamma 92b.

93 Cf. note 76, above.

94 Preface to Tobit; Preface to Judith.

95 J. T. Sanhedrin x.1.

96 On Christian Doctrine II.13.

97 The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford, 1913), II, 165.Google Scholar

98 Ibid., loc. cit.

99 Ibid., II, 165.