THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
3D2
when at the end of a word); made by separating the double books, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and Ezra. But this double counting was only possible for Jews using the Septuagint, since the original does not divide these books. Further, neither in the Talmud nor in the Midrash is there the least trace of any acquaintance with the number twentytwo; but, on the contrary, twenty-four is always given, not because it corresponds with the twentyfour Greek letters, but simply as the natural result of the gradual rise of the canon. In the present printed Hebrew Bible the number is thirty-nine, similarly counted, though not arranged, with those of Protestant Bibles.
■ 5. The Old Testament Canon in the Christian Church: The Fathers did not impugn the authority of the Old Testament; but, because of the universal
use of the Septuagint, they recognized
i. Patristic as Scripture what we regard as Apoc-
and rypha. Origen, who counts only the
Medieval books of the Hebrew canon, yet speaks
Writers, of Jeremiah, Lamentations, and the
Epistle as in one [book]. Justin Martyr used the additions to Daniel; Irenseus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, and others used the Apocrypha with the same formula of citation as when they used the Old Testament. From the fourth century the Greek Fathers make less and less use of the Apocrypha; while in the Latin Church conciliar action justified and emphasized their use. Jerome alone speaks out decidedly for the Hebrew canon. During the Middle Ages the Apocrypha were not recognized by the majority of the Greeks; while just the opposite was true of the Latins, although not a few followed Jerome.
The Book of Esther, because of its contents, was sometimes excluded from the Christian Old Testament canon. Melito of Sardis (170 a.d.) omits it from his list (see Eusebius, Hist, eccl., IV xxvi.), although perhaps it has rather dropped out after Esdras (Ezra), inasmuch as in other lists it comes next to this name. It is also omitted by Athanasius (Epistola Festalis, i. 961, ed. Bened.), Gregory Nazianzen (Carm., xxxiii.),andin the sixth century by Junilius (De partibus leg!* tlivince, i. 3-7). On the other hand, it is included in the canon by Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Epiphanius.
The old Syrian Church did not receive the Apocrypha. They are not in the Peshito, although found in a later Syriac translation. Ephraem
Syrus (d. 373) does not give
2. The them canonical authority. Aphraates
Ancient (fourth century) cites from every
Oriental canonical book, but uses the Apoc-
Versions. rypha sparingly and not in such a
way that they must be regarded as canonical. A great difference is perceptible in the Peshito translation between Chronicles and the other books. This has started the query whether Chronicles was accepted as canonical by the Syrian Church. The Xestorians certainly rejected it and Esther. The Ethiopic translation follows the Septuagint throughout, and contains not only the canonical but also the apocryphal books, except that for I and II Maccabees it substitutes two books of its own under the same name,
and some pseudographs of which the Greek texts do not now exist; for the Ethiopic Church makes even less difference than the Alexandrian between canonical and uncanonical books. (See Pseudepigrapha, Old Testament.)
The Roman Catholic Church is committed to the
use of the Apocrypha as Scripture by the decision
of the Council of Trent at the fourth
3. The session. In order to get a normal Roman text for purposes of quotation, a Bible Catholic was published in Rome in 1592 under Church, the order and care of the pope. In
it is given Jerome's remark, that the additions to Esther and Daniel which are printed are not in the Hebrew text; and in smaller type the candid announcement is prefaced to the Prayer of Manasses and the Third and Fourth Books of Ezra, that, while it is true they are not in the Scripture canon of the Council of Trent, they are still included because they are quoted occasionally by certain of the Fathers, and are found both in printed and manuscript copies of the Latin Bible. The decree of the council was not passed without opposition; and later Roman Catholics, such as Du Pin, Dissertation preliminaire ou prolegomenes sur la Bible, Paris, 1699; and B. Lamy, Apparatus biblicus, II. v. 333, Lyons, 1723, have endeavored to establish two classes of canonical books — the protocanonical and the deuterocanonical — attributing to the first a dogmatic, and to the second only an ethical authority; but this distinction contravenes the decision of Trent, and has found little support. In early times and in the Middle Ages many distinguished three kinds of writings, the canonical, recognized, and apocryphal. So the " Easter Epistle " of Athanasius. The synods of Constantinople (1638), Jassy (1642), and Jerusalem (1672) expressly reject the view of Cyril Lucar, patriarch of Constantinople, and others, which
4. The distinguishes the canonical form from Greek the apocryphal. And the last, which
Church, is the most important in the history of the Eastern Church, defined its position in regard to the Apocrypha in the answer to the third question appended to the Confession of Dosithevs, in which it expressly mentions Wisdom, Judith, Tobit, History of Bel and the Dragon, History of Susannah, the Maccabees (four books), and Ecclesiasticus as canonical. Reuss (Geschichte der heiligen Schriften, § 338, Brunswick, 1878) says that the official Moscow edition of the Bible of 1831 has all the Apocrypha, Ezra, in both recensions, with Neh. and I-IV Mace, at the end of the historical books, the Prophets before the seven Poetical or Wisdom books. But the " Longer Catechism" of Philaret (Moscow, 1839), the most authoritative doctrinal standard of the orthodox Greco-Russian Church, expressly leaves out the apocryphal books from its list on the ground that " they do not exist in the Hebrew " (cf. Schaff, Creeds, ii. 451). See Eastern Church, III., § 9.
The Lutheran symbols do not give any express declaration against the Apocrypha. Nevertheless, they are denied dogmatic value. Luther translated them, not, however, III and IV Ezra, and recommended them for private reading, except-