Chapter 4

 •  5 min. read  •  grade level: 11
 
THE SAMARITAN CANON; THE ALEXANDRIAN BIBLE.
§ 1. The Samaritans
IN the last chapter we considered the Hebrew Canon. To speak now of the Samaritan: it was and Schrader's is confined to the Pentateuch. As the last editor of De Wette's Introduction' says, the Samaritans, who took as their sacred book the 'Law,' the authority of which had in that day been firmly established, would be afterwards disinclined, from the hostility that existed between them and their neighbours, to accept any other Scriptures that acquired equal authority among the Jews. And the same writer—who seems here to follow Geiger—is right in thinking there is no sufficient ground for the assertion that the Jewish sect of the Sadducees was responsible for an attempt to confine the Canon to the Pentateuch. Josephus, in speaking of their tenets, does not hint at anything of the kind. The Talmud says passages in the Prophets were discussed by both parties.
§ 2. The Alexandrians.
The Alexandrian collection took in more Books than the Hebrew : this may be seen from the Septuagint in its complete form. The accretions called external,' extraneous' in the Talmud, are to us known by the name of Apocrypha, meaning either, books with a hidden, mystical meaning or, books that are kept back, though not lightly esteemed. In modern Greek, the meanings of ἀπόκρυφος seem to be secret, hidden, occult. We might perhaps compare the relation between these writings and those of our Old Testament to that between the Patristic and the New Testament writings.
Some books of the Apocrypha were translated into Greek or Latin from Hebrew or Aramaic; others were written originally in Greek. They were never accepted by the Palestinian Jews, though some were of Palestinian origin. Josephus is a primary witness for the Hebrew (or Palestinian) Canon: we have seen the form it takes in his hands. It is not that the books of the Apocrypha contain nothing worth reading. Wisdom 2:23 would set right the materialism of our own day; 11:5 of the same book in the Greek ought to put to shame the opponents of the doctrine of endless torment, who boast of their much learning. But the leaders of the nation at the center of its life had divine instincts to which under God we owe the purity of the Hebrew Canon.
§ 3. The Difference Between the Canonical Books and the Apocrypha.
As to the broad line between the 'Holy Scriptures' and the writings called Apocrypha, we may be thankful for 2 Tim. 3:15-1715And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Timothy 3:15‑17), where we get (1) salvation, (2) instruction in righteousness, (3) perfection (see even the Vulgate, Clementis VIII. auctoritate edita,' in loco). To speak of but one book of the Apocrypha, that of 2 Maccabees: the Jews were restrained from accepting a book as inspired which virtually commended a man for cutting short his own life (see 14:43). The Douay note does its best to save the credit of the passage. How could such a production promote sound morals? The difference between what is divine and what is human is within the comprehension of a child that compares the last two verses of this book with the last two verses of the Gospel of John. Clearly in writings of this kind, Jews of the stamp of the Palestinian Gamaliel, of the Alexandrian Philo, could not think they had eternal life (John 5:3939Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. (John 5:39)). But what was uppermost in the mind of an Alexandrian Jew, mighty in the Scriptures,' after he became a Christian? To show from the Scriptures' that Jesus was Christ (Acts 18). There was that running through the inspired writings which the others left aside: they testified in one way or another of Jesus. It matters not whether we examine Genesis or Joshua, the Song of Solomon, Esther or Daniel: all alike direct our hearts to Him (Luke 24:2727And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. (Luke 24:27)); they looked on to the fullness of time, when God should send forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the Law, to redeem them that were under the Law, when Jesus should come to save His people from their sins. But for the mass such Scriptures as Isa. 5:20, 59:9, had no voice: compare John 1:5, 115And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. (John 1:5)
11He came unto his own, and his own received him not. (John 1:11).
Next we may say, as a characteristic of 'Holy Scriptures,' that they afford us certainty: Luke 1:44That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. (Luke 1:4). No conflict with history is discoverable in any of them,’ while all the historical Books of the Canon leave every parallel record of the past far behind in every respect.: Apparent discrepancies only trouble superficial or rationalistic readers; but the careful and devout student of Scripture is not disconcerted if he find a king of Judah like Jehoshaphat spoken of as such in one chapter, and as 'King of Israel' in another chapter of the same Book (2 Chron.): he is sensible of a divine motive for the difference.
How soon the Church belied the possession of the mind of Christ may be seen from the ancient MSS. of the LXX—which are of Christian origin—the Sinaitic, Vatican, and Alexandrian. While they assure us by their contents of Holy Scripture, these documents afford evidence of the early ecclesiastical use of the Apocrypha, which can only have helped on the departure from the truth as it is in Jesus. We shall return to this subject in subsequent chapters.