The Canon of The Old Testament Books 2

[In-Christ-Alone]

4 EZRA - The Apocalypse (A.D.100-135)

“So in forty days were written ninety-four books *. And it came to pass when the forty days were fulfilled, that the Most High spake unto me saying: "The twenty-four books that thou hast written publish, that the worthy and unworthy may read (therein) : but the seventy last thou shalt keep, to deliver them to the wise among thy people” [*The twenty-four books are, of course, the books of the O.T., which were read openly in the synagogue, and were open for all to read. The number 24 is the ordinary reckoning of the O. T. books (5 + 8+ 11). In the Talmud and Midrash the O.T. is regularly termed 'the twenty-four holy Scriptures'. Another reckoning was 22 (cf. Joseph, c. Apion, i. 8) in accordance with the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet (so also Origen, Epiphanius, Jerome). This total seems to have been obtained by combining Ruth with Judges, and Lamentations with Jeremiah. The seventy last, i.e. the apocalypses which were secret books.]” (R H Charles; The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, Vol.II. IV Ezra, XIV, 45-46, p.624; also, G A Box, The Apocalypse of Ezra, p.113)

Syriac Peshitta VERSION (1st/2nd century)

“The Syriac translation of the Old Testament was undoubtedly made directly from the Hebrew; though at Antioch, during the third century of the present era and at later periods, it was revised so as to make it conform to the Septuagint. The history of its origin is obscure; but it was probably made in Mesopotamia during the first century” (Jewish Encyclopedia,Vol III, p.188)

“It is one of the best of the ancient versions in accuracy and general excellence. It adheres closely to the Hebrew text with few variations…This version originally contained all the canonical books of the Old Testament with the exception of Chronicles, but none of the Apocrypha; these were, however, at an early period rendered into Syriac “ (William Green, General Introduction to the Old Testament: Text, pp. 112,113)

Athanasius of Alexandria (A.D. 296-373), Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle of A.D. 367

4 There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the Twelve [minor prophets] being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle, one book; afterwards Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.

7. But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read; nor is there any place a mention of secret writings. But such are the invention of heretics, who indeed write them whenever they wish, bestowing upon them their approval, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as if they were ancient writings, they find a means by which to lead astray the simple-minded.

It is interesting that the authority of Athanasius is used by the Roman Catholics and Orthodox, for the Canon of the New Testament Books, but rejected for the Canon of the Old Testament Books! The evidence is very much conclusive, that the Old Testament Books accepted as Canonical, and Divinely Inspired by the Holy Spirit, are the same as we have in our English Versions like the KJV.

 

[ViaCrucis]

4 EZRA - The Apocalypse (A.D.100-135)

“So in forty days were written ninety-four books *. And it came to pass when the forty days were fulfilled, that the Most High spake unto me saying: "The twenty-four books that thou hast written publish, that the worthy and unworthy may read (therein) : but the seventy last thou shalt keep, to deliver them to the wise among thy people” [*The twenty-four books are, of course, the books of the O.T., which were read openly in the synagogue, and were open for all to read. The number 24 is the ordinary reckoning of the O. T. books (5 + 8+ 11). In the Talmud and Midrash the O.T. is regularly termed 'the twenty-four holy Scriptures'. Another reckoning was 22 (cf. Joseph, c. Apion, i. 8) in accordance with the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet (so also Origen, Epiphanius, Jerome). This total seems to have been obtained by combining Ruth with Judges, and Lamentations with Jeremiah. The seventy last, i.e. the apocalypses which were secret books.]” (R H Charles; The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, Vol.II. IV Ezra, XIV, 45-46, p.624; also, G A Box, The Apocalypse of Ezra, p.113)

Syriac Peshitta VERSION (1st/2nd century)

“The Syriac translation of the Old Testament was undoubtedly made directly from the Hebrew; though at Antioch, during the third century of the present era and at later periods, it was revised so as to make it conform to the Septuagint. The history of its origin is obscure; but it was probably made in Mesopotamia during the first century” (Jewish Encyclopedia,Vol III, p.188)

“It is one of the best of the ancient versions in accuracy and general excellence. It adheres closely to the Hebrew text with few variations…This version originally contained all the canonical books of the Old Testament with the exception of Chronicles, but none of the Apocrypha; these were, however, at an early period rendered into Syriac “ (William Green, General Introduction to the Old Testament: Text, pp. 112,113)

Athanasius of Alexandria (A.D. 296-373), Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle of A.D. 367

4 There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the Twelve [minor prophets] being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle, one book; afterwards Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.

7. But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read; nor is there any place a mention of secret writings. But such are the invention of heretics, who indeed write them whenever they wish, bestowing upon them their approval, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as if they were ancient writings, they find a means by which to lead astray the simple-minded.

It is interesting that the authority of Athanasius is used by the Roman Catholics and Orthodox, for the Canon of the New Testament Books, but rejected for the Canon of the Old Testament Books! The evidence is very much conclusive, that the Old Testament Books accepted as Canonical, and Divinely Inspired by the Holy Spirit, are the same as we have in our English Versions like the KJV.

As you begin to read more about the history of the Canon, you're going to eventually realize that this was a very complicated thing. There was no universally defined Canon, not even in St. Athanasius' time. Athanasius, writing as bishop, is addressing the churches under his pastoral care over what books ought to be read.

You should notice, also, that Athanasius' Old Testament isn't the Tanakh, or modern Protestant Old Testament; he excludes Esther for example, but includes Baruch.

The simple fact of the matter is that the evolution of the Biblical Canon was an ongoing process for many hundreds of years.

By the time of the Reformation there still wasn't a universal consensus among all Christians, East and West. So when Luther examined the Canon, he added his own opinions to the age-long discussion that had been going on in Christianity. To that end, Luther sided with some, such as St. Jerome, that the Old Testament Deuterocanonicals probably aren't Canonical Scripture, though they are nevertheless important and should be read in the Church so that Christians may benefit from them. As such, he did not remove them from his German translation, but shifted their location to their own appendix between the OT and NT. In the same way, Luther took issue with a number of books of the New Testament Antilegomena, even going so far as to accuse the Epistle of St. James of being "an epistle of straw" "with no gospel at all in it"; however in this case rather than moving them to an appendix, Luther moved them all to the end of the New Testament. Meaning that Luther's original German Bible has the New Testament books in a different order than the more traditional order we are familiar with.

However, and this is important--Luther's opinions shouldn't be seen as infallible. The official position within Lutheranism is that we don't have an official position. Luther's opinions are his own opinions, and are part of the long-standing debates and discussion over the Biblical Canon. But Luther, as an individual, certainly didn't have the authority to single-handedly change the Canon (and, I don't think that was necessarily his intent with his German language Bible).

From where I sit, the conversation is still open. And so I tend to find hardline Roman Catholic and hardline Protestant arguments equally lacking in merit and substance.

The simple answer is that the question of whether the Deuterocanonicals are Canonical Scripture or not is an open question; but it's an open question that has very strongly opinionated people on both sides.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[In-Christ-Alone]

As you begin to read more about the history of the Canon, you're going to eventually realize that this was a very complicated thing. There was no universally defined Canon, not even in St. Athanasius' time. Athanasius, writing as bishop, is addressing the churches under his pastoral care over what books ought to be read.

You should notice, also, that Athanasius' Old Testament isn't the Tanakh, or modern Protestant Old Testament; he excludes Esther for example, but includes Baruch.

The simple fact of the matter is that the evolution of the Biblical Canon was an ongoing process for many hundreds of years.

By the time of the Reformation there still wasn't a universal consensus among all Christians, East and West. So when Luther examined the Canon, he added his own opinions to the age-long discussion that had been going on in Christianity. To that end, Luther sided with some, such as St. Jerome, that the Old Testament Deuterocanonicals probably aren't Canonical Scripture, though they are nevertheless important and should be read in the Church so that Christians may benefit from them. As such, he did not remove them from his German translation, but shifted their location to their own appendix between the OT and NT. In the same way, Luther took issue with a number of books of the New Testament Antilegomena, even going so far as to accuse the Epistle of St. James of being "an epistle of straw" "with no gospel at all in it"; however in this case rather than moving them to an appendix, Luther moved them all to the end of the New Testament. Meaning that Luther's original German Bible has the New Testament books in a different order than the more traditional order we are familiar with.

However, and this is important--Luther's opinions shouldn't be seen as infallible. The official position within Lutheranism is that we don't have an official position. Luther's opinions are his own opinions, and are part of the long-standing debates and discussion over the Biblical Canon. But Luther, as an individual, certainly didn't have the authority to single-handedly change the Canon (and, I don't think that was necessarily his intent with his German language Bible).

From where I sit, the conversation is still open. And so I tend to find hardline Roman Catholic and hardline Protestant arguments equally lacking in merit and substance.

The simple answer is that the question of whether the Deuterocanonicals are Canonical Scripture or not is an open question; but it's an open question that has very strongly opinionated people on both sides.

-CryptoLutheran

the NT Canon was completed after the letter from Athanasius containing the 27 Books was finally settled in the West and East of the Church. This Canon is accepted even by the Roman Catholic and Orthodox, on the authority of Athanasius. It is noteworthy that Athanasius exculdes the additonal books of the OT, except for Baruch. Why except his Canon for the NT and then reject his authority for the Books of the OT?

 

[ViaCrucis]

the NT Canon was completed after the letter from Athanasius containing the 27 Books was finally settled in the West and East of the Church. This Canon is accepted even by the Roman Catholic and Orthodox, on the authority of Athanasius. It is noteworthy that Athanasius exculdes the additonal books of the OT, except for Baruch. Why except his Canon for the NT and then reject his authority for the Books of the OT?

Except, of course, the NT wasn't "finally settled in the West and the East", just look at the near-contemporaneous Codex Sinaiticus, or the later Codex Alexandrinus. We can also look at the developments of the Peshitta and Armenian Canon, of which early manuscripts demonstrate for example that the Peshitta did not include all of the now accepted Antilegomena (specifically lacking 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, and the Apocalypse of St. John), and we also find the Armenian Canon including the now recognized as spurious 3 Corinthians. All from after the time of Athanasius.

Athanasius is an authority, but isn't the authority. Just as the local synods held in Rome, Carthage, and Laodicea are all important parts of the ongoing story of the Canon, but were not the authority on such matters.

So your argument simply isn't true. Which is why I tried to point out that the more you research this topic, the more you are going to discover that things aren't simple and tidy--it's complicated and messy.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[In-Christ-Alone]

Except, of course, the NT wasn't "finally settled in the West and the East", just look at the near-contemporaneous Codex Sinaiticus, or the later Codex Alexandrinus. We can also look at the developments of the Peshitta and Armenian Canon, of which early manuscripts demonstrate for example that the Peshitta did not include all of the now accepted Antilegomena (specifically lacking 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, and the Apocalypse of St. John), and we also find the Armenian Canon including the now recognized as spurious 3 Corinthians. All from after the time of Athanasius.

Athanasius is an authority, but isn't the authority. Just as the local synods held in Rome, Carthage, and Laodicea are all important parts of the ongoing story of the Canon, but were not the authority on such matters.

So your argument simply isn't true. Which is why I tried to point out that the more you research this topic, the more you are going to discover that things aren't simple and tidy--it's complicated and messy.

-CryptoLutheran

so you do not accept the 27 Books of the NT Canon as being closed? And the fact that this was accepted by the Western and Eastern Church as detailed by Athanasius did in his Easter Letter? If you do, then your arguments are moot!

 

[ViaCrucis]

so you do not accept the 27 Books of the NT Canon as being closed? And the fact that this was accepted by the Western and Eastern Church as detailed by Athanasius did in his Easter Letter? If you do, then your arguments are moot!

I accept the 27 books of the present NT Canon, though I do admittedly make a distinction between Homolegomena and Antilegomena (I believe Homolegomena takes precedence in matters of biblical interpretation and exegesis).

My opinions and position on the topic isn't material here, what is material is the subject matter itself.

You are stating that the matter was settled with Athanasius' Paschal Letter, when that simply isn't the case--and I gave you clear examples of how that isn't the case. I'm not denying the importance of Athanasius' Paschal Letter is, but what he wrote in 367 doesn't magically end the debate. The facts of history are that the Canon, including the New Testament Canon, continued to be debated and discussed for centuries after Athanasius. Over time the 27 books in Athanasius' letter (and in other places) do arise as a near-universal consensus across the Church (with the exception of the ancient Ethiopian Church). But that took time.

Your argument is that since the NT was settled by Athanasius, therefore Athanasius settles the OT as well. Since your conclusion is based upon a false premise, then your conclusion does not follow through; as such your argument simply doesn't hold water.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[The Liturgist]

4 EZRA - The Apocalypse (A.D.100-135)

“So in forty days were written ninety-four books *. And it came to pass when the forty days were fulfilled, that the Most High spake unto me saying: "The twenty-four books that thou hast written publish, that the worthy and unworthy may read (therein) : but the seventy last thou shalt keep, to deliver them to the wise among thy people” [*The twenty-four books are, of course, the books of the O.T., which were read openly in the synagogue, and were open for all to read. The number 24 is the ordinary reckoning of the O. T. books (5 + 8+ 11). In the Talmud and Midrash the O.T. is regularly termed 'the twenty-four holy Scriptures'. Another reckoning was 22 (cf. Joseph, c. Apion, i. 8) in accordance with the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet (so also Origen, Epiphanius, Jerome). This total seems to have been obtained by combining Ruth with Judges, and Lamentations with Jeremiah. The seventy last, i.e. the apocalypses which were secret books.]” (R H Charles; The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, Vol.II. IV Ezra, XIV, 45-46, p.624; also, G A Box, The Apocalypse of Ezra, p.113)

Syriac Peshitta VERSION (1st/2nd century)

“The Syriac translation of the Old Testament was undoubtedly made directly from the Hebrew; though at Antioch, during the third century of the present era and at later periods, it was revised so as to make it conform to the Septuagint. The history of its origin is obscure; but it was probably made in Mesopotamia during the first century” (Jewish Encyclopedia,Vol III, p.188)

“It is one of the best of the ancient versions in accuracy and general excellence. It adheres closely to the Hebrew text with few variations…This version originally contained all the canonical books of the Old Testament with the exception of Chronicles, but none of the Apocrypha; these were, however, at an early period rendered into Syriac “ (William Green, General Introduction to the Old Testament: Text, pp. 112,113)

Athanasius of Alexandria (A.D. 296-373), Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle of A.D. 367

4 There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the Twelve [minor prophets] being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle, one book; afterwards Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.

7. But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read; nor is there any place a mention of secret writings. But such are the invention of heretics, who indeed write them whenever they wish, bestowing upon them their approval, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as if they were ancient writings, they find a means by which to lead astray the simple-minded.

It is interesting that the authority of Athanasius is used by the Roman Catholics and Orthodox, for the Canon of the New Testament Books, but rejected for the Canon of the Old Testament Books! The evidence is very much conclusive, that the Old Testament Books accepted as Canonical, and Divinely Inspired by the Holy Spirit, are the same as we have in our English Versions like the KJV.

Wrong, wrong wrong. The Old Testament books mentioned by Athanasius are, on the basis of what Athanasius said, regarded as Deuterocanonical.

Oh, and here is a fun fact for you: if you have an original or complete King James Version, it INCLUDES the Apocrypha! Virtually every copy of the KJV printed before the late 18th century will contain the deuterocanonical books of Wisdom, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, the Maccabbees, et cetera. Why is this? Because the Church of England and other Anglican churches, which are Protestant by the way, in accordance with the instructions of Athanasius, read them for edification in their services of Morning and Evening Prayer, as explained by Article VI of the 39 Articles of Religion which govern Anglican churches, which I shall partially quote:

And the other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:
The Third Book of Esdras.
The Fourth Book of Esdras.
The Book of Tobias.
The Book of Judith.
The rest of the Book of Esther.
The Book of Wisdom.
Jesus the Son of Sirach.
Baruch the Prophet.
The Song of the Three Children.
The Story of Susanna.
Of Bel and the Dragon.
The Prayer of Manasses.
The First Book of Maccabees.
The Second Book of Maccabees.

 

[The Liturgist]

the NT Canon was completed after the letter from Athanasius containing the 27 Books was finally settled in the West and East of the Church. This Canon is accepted even by the Roman Catholic and Orthodox, on the authority of Athanasius. It is noteworthy that Athanasius exculdes the additonal books of the OT, except for Baruch. Why except his Canon for the NT and then reject his authority for the Books of the OT?

I am the biggest fan of Athanasius on this forum, by the way, and I have to say two things; firstly, @ViaCrucis is right, and secondly, the correct arguments of @ViaCrucis notwithstanding, we should regard Athanasius as having an extreme authority as one of the most important Church Fathers, a man rightly regarded as “The Pillar of Orthodoxy,” for it was he who at the Council of Nicea defend the Christian faith against Arius while he was still a Deacon under Patriarch Alexander of Alexandria, and was instrumental in persuading that council to adopt the Creed that it did, asserting Christ was of one essence with the Father (homoousios) as opposed to like essence (homoiousios), which was the moderate Arian position, or unlike essence (heteroousios), the extreme Arian position. And he was also instrumental in procuring an anathema from the Council of Nicea against Arius and his followers and all variations of Arianism that existed at that time.

Athanasius was the originator of the 27 book New Testament canon, which can be regarded as divinely inspired, but it took the church about 150 years to accept his canon as definitive. A major boost came when the Bishop of Rome, in the year 490, made it the standard for the Roman church, which influenced those churches which were still rejecting books like Revelations to cease doing so.

Also, by the way, I do hope that you have read and respect the various important theological writings of St. Athanasius, specifically, On The Incarnation, and The Life of Anthony.