Jewish (Heb.) Canon. That the LXX was a tr. of the Heb. was, of course, never lost sight of, but it was an inspired tr., sanctified by Christian use from the apostles onwards. The discrepancy between the two was obvious, and yet could not be given its natural weight. The question of the status of the A. depended upon tlie relative im- portance given to traditional Christian usage and current Jewish usage, summarily expressed in the number 22, or to practice and theory, and upon new theories devised for their adjustment.
Five possibilities seemed open : (1) To insert the A. in OT in such a way as to retain the number 22. (2) To introduce some of the most valued A. into NT (as distinctively Christian posses- sions), or to append them at the end. (3) To make a third class of books, between can. and uncan. in dignity. (4) To give up the Heb. for the LXX Canon, making theory square with practice. (5) To give up the LXX for the Heb., making practice square with theory. The first three ways are followed, with more or less combination, in the East, the fourth finally by Rome, the fifth finally by Protestantism, though in neither case with entire consistency, since, in the Vulg., the LXX has been considerably modified in accordance with the Heb., and in the Prot. Bible the order of the Vulg. (and LXX) has been retained.
It i3 important to set forth the place of the A. in the varioiu theoretical Canons of Eastern writers somewhat in detail.
Mrlito, Bishop of Sardis (c. 150-170 A.D.) learned from Jewa or Jewish Christians in Pal. the contents of UT. His list (Euseb. iv. 26. 13, 14) contains only the books of the Heb. (omitting Est), but the titles and order (?) are from the LXX [Ch after K, Proph. after Poet, books; so in general: (1) History, (2) Poetn,', (3) Prophecy]. It cannot be certainly inferred that Jer and "Dn were without the a"^* additions. The Muratorian Fragment (175-200 A.D.) contains only NT (whether OT \\a» originally given is uncertain); but it inserts Wis between 2 Jn and Rev (as by Philo?), and gives t<t the Shepherd the position of a book that is to be privately, not publicly, read. Its place is not among prophets or apostles, but also not among heretical hooks. The writer makes use of the ceoond solution of the problem and suggests the third.
Ori'jen (c. 185-254) deals with the problem with the fullest knowledge. His great Hexapla testifies to the importance of the problem presented by the deviating texts of OT Scripture, and gave him ntinute familiarity with the divergence of the LXX from the Heb. In his Com." on Psalms (Eus. vi. 25. 1) he gives a list of the 22 books of the Heb. Canon, apparently like Melito's, with the addition of Est. But he begins the use of the first solution of the problem above suggested by including in Jer not only La, but Ep. Jer (Bar?). Moreover, he says that I and 2 Ezr were counted &a one book. This would be understood by Gr. readers as referring, not to the Heb. Ezr and Neh, but to the LXX 1 Es and 2 Es :=Ezr-l- Neh). He mentions * the Maccabfflan books' at the end of his list as outside of the Canon. But from the Ep. to Africanus we learn that this Heb. Canon wa» not regarded by Origen as of final validity for Christians. He criticises the theory of a Heb. Canon on the ground of traditional Christian practice (»'.^. he sup- plements the first by the fourth solution). His view is that the present is not the original Heb. Canon, since Jewish rulers and elders hid from the people passages that might bring them into discredit (§ 9). On this ground Susanna is defend«'d, thovigh it is now among the Jewish A. But To and Jth, which the Jews do not possess even among their ' hidden * honks, are to be retained simply on the ground of Christian usage. Providence must have guided t,he practice of the t;liurch, and Judaism i« not to dictate to Christianity (the Catholic principle).
Cj/ril, Bishop of Jems. (Cat. iv. SS-S8, c. S48 A.D.), insist* with equal stress upon tlie number 22, that of the Heb. Canon, and the authority of the usage of the Church. His list of L'2 (12 historical, 6 poetical, and B propheti<:al) he seems to regard as that of the LX.X in current use. His Jer includes liar, and his Dn (and Est?) the additions. He declares that the books not rend in the churches are not to he read in priv ate, and. after all, himself cites Wis as bv Solomon (Cal. ix. 2, IC)
The Si/nod of Laodicm (c. 360) affinns Cyril's list -"th minor changes o'f order. Tlie list in Apottt. Canon. 85, is aiso Cvril's, with the addition, at the end of the histories, of 13 Mac. On the other hand, the metrical lists of Gregorij of Naz. (d. 390) and AmphUochiui. though following the same orrier, seem to have omitted the a»' additions as well os Est.
Kpiphaniim (c. 315 403) moves in the opjKisite direction. Like Cvril, he regarded the LX.X as the inspired tr. of the 22 books of the Heb. Canon ; but besides 1 Es, Bar, Ep. Jer and .\d. Dn, he seems to have included, under Est (with Ad. TJ To and Jth ; and, against Cyril, he introduces an int4»rmediat« 0 russ of writings, not 'in the ark,' but yet 'good and useful.' H.re belong Wis and Sir, which be put* after NT in his lisl