Melito of Sardis said he went to Palestine to determine the extent of the Hebrew OT. and he gives the names of the books and their number as twenty-two—a reaffirmation of the number given by Josephus. Origen also names twenty-two books in his list of the Hebrew canon. Epiphanius, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzen and Hilary of Poitiers all agree with Josephus and Origen, and omit the writings of the Apocrypha.
Dear kelman,
Hello again and thankyou for the above.
Quite clearly, Melito is giving the canon as he found it in Palestine, where by this time the deutrocanonical books had been rejected from the canon. His purpose may have been polemical, his good intention being to give a list which the Jews would accept in controversy. That would simply have been in the interest of apologetics and finding a point of contact with the enemies of the new Christian religion. True, it has been suggested by some that Melito himself did accept the shorter Hebrew list on the authority of the Jews, and that, in so doing, he was departing from the established tradition of the Church. This may appear quite plausible at first sight, but we must needs recall that the Christian theologians of this period knew the O.T. only in the LXX and consequently made no distinction between the Hebrew canon and the deutrocanonical’s. They actually qoute the latter with the same sort of confidence as the former and with the same titles of honour. Moreover, they attribute to them an equal authority founded on an equal inspiration, so one cannot dogmatically assert that Melito rejected the LXX in favour of the shorter Hebrew canon. Certainly I will concede that it is a possibility, but an exceedingly unlikely one in view of what I have just said.
As regards the list of Origen, we naturally expect to find the deutrocanonical books excluded, for he informs us that he is giving the
Hebrew canon. Later writers have quite wrongly used Origen as though he supported the shorter canon, but this cannot be sustained by the evidence. In point of fact, the contrary is borne out by his constant practice of quoting as scripture passages found only in the LXX and also by his own words, when makes reference to the question at issue. In his letter to Julius Africanus, for instance, he shows the precise way in which he regarded the disputed books. Africanus had refused to accept the history of Susanna because, among other things, it ‘was not contained in the Daniel received among the Jews’. The reply of Origen is interesting because he defends this and other deutrocanonical passages on the grounds that *the Greek bible had been received by the *
Church, and adds the warning from Proverbs 22: 28. “It is well”, he says, "to remember the words “Thou shalt not remove the ancient landmarks which thy Fathers have set” (*Ep. *
Africanus).
The fourth century does appear to be a period of confusion and uncertainty and several factors seem to be responsible. Firstly, the indisputable appropriation of the Septuagint by the Christians and the use made against the Jews of the Messianic prophecies as found in the LXX (especially Isa. 7: 14) did lead the Jews to reject the Greek version (
Jewish Encyclopedia 3, 152). In consequence, the Christians in their controversy were compelled to argue their case soley from books acknowledged as canonical by the Jews themselves (cf.
St. Justin Martyr, Dial. Tryph. 71). This in turn would lead to doubt about the authority of the deutrocanonical books left aside.
Certainly in the East you find St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Epiphanius and St. Gregory Nazianzen rejecting the deutrocanonical books. Indeed, the 60th. Canon of the provincial Council of Laodicea (circa 360 AD) supports their view. Even though its authenticity has been contested , it is still, notwithstanding, an ancient witness to the opinions prevalent in Asia Minor in the 4th. cent. Without controversy, this was the general position in the East and to deny it is to disregard the evidence. However, we cannot, I think, leave the matter there, for these very same Fathers, who* i**n theory* confine inspiration and canonicity to the Hebrew canon, in practice highly esteem and quote as Scripture all the books in the wider canon. Now “surely the practical use of writings is an evidence of their canonicity as strong as theoretical opinions” (
The Canon of the Bible, S. Davidson (Protestant), 1878, p. 60).
Quite plainly in the case of the Eastern Fathers, however great may have been their hesitations re. the LXX, it did not greatly influence their actual practice. In teaching the faithful and setting forth the proofs of revealed doctrine they instinctively turned to the Septuagint. They knew of a Jewish and Christian O.T., and whilst they had a preference towards the Jewish canon, they recognised the LXX as the one historically transmitted by the Church. Thus when Origen and the Greek Fathers who follow him fix the number of sacred writings at twenty-two or twenty-four, they follow, not the earlier traditions of the Church, but the corrected estimate of Christian scholars who had learned it from thier Jewish teachers, who, as I have said previously, had their own biased reasons for wanting to reject the LXX.
God willing, I will continue to respond to your other comments respecting the canon tomorrow. Goodbye for now, dear friend.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
