by Rev. Terence H. Brown
(continued from page 85)
Why included in the English Bible
The inclusion of the Apocrypha in the English Bible is easily accounted for. These books seem to have been compiled during the period B.C. 250-B.C. 100 and were appended to the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament which came to be known as the Septuagint or LXX. Greek writers early in the Christian era, having little or no familiarity with the Hebrew, made frequent use of the LXX and quoted also from the Apocryphal books which it contained. Although the Greek Church from the time of the Council of Laodicea in A.D. 363 gave these books a lower rank than those received as “canonical”, and although in the Western Church the opinion of Jerome was widely held, that the Hebrew canon was the ultimate text, the books continued to be copied and quoted by many Christian writers. The Old Latin versions made from the LXX included them and Jerome himself translated them and sent them forth with his Latin Vulgate.
Influence of the Latin Vulgate
During a period of many centuries the Latin Vulgate was the Bible of Western Christendom, and when Wyclif made his translation he felt that he should include the Apocrypha but carefully explain that it was not to be regarded as of equal authority with the other books. The translators of the 16th century were also influenced in their judgment by the fact that the Latin Vulgate had joined the Canonical and Apocryphal books together for upwards of twelve hundred years. Another consideration ensured the inclusion of these books long after the era of the Reformation. The Church of England Book of Common Prayer prescribed certain “lessons” to be read during the various services and the lectionary included certain readings from the Apocrypha. As the Prayer Book was often bound in the same volume with the Bible, and the 6th of the 39 Articles sanctions their use, although of inferior authority to the Canonical Books, it is not surprising that the Apocrypha held its place in these composite volumes.
The Council of Trent and the R.C. Versions
At the Roman Catholic Council of Trent the place of the Apocrypha was discussed in the light of the utter rejection of the authority of these books by many of the Protestants and the Council duly pronounced an anathema upon all who did not accept the Apocrypha as contained in the Latin Vulgate, except 1 and 2 (3 and 4) Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses, as “sacred and canonical”. The books are of course to be found in the Douay Version, the Jerusalem Bible, and other Roman Catholic Versions.
It is interesting to see how the Jerusalem Bible follows the objectionable practice of interspersing the Apocryphal books with the canonical ones. Tobit, Judith, Esther, and I and II Maccabees follow Nehemiah, while Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus follow the “Song of Songs”; Baruch follows Lamentations, the “Song of Azariah” or “Song of the Children” is added to Daniel 3 after verse 23, extending the chapter to 100 verses, “Susanna and the Judgment of Daniel” appears as chapter 13 of Daniel, and “Bel and the Dragon” as chapter 14.
The introduction to Tobit, Judith and Esther in the Jerusalem Bible describes the first two as “deutero-canonical” — that is to say, only recognised by the Church after a certain hesitancy in the patristic period. But they have been read and quoted from early days and appear in the official canonical lists in the West from the time of the Roman Synod of 382 A.D., and in the East from 682 A.D., the ‘in Trullo’ Council of Constantinople. The anathema of the Council of Trent did not hinder the writer of this introduction from expressing the opinion that “the Book of Judith in particular shows a bland indifference to history and geography”.
The surest guide
It must be remembered that these disputed books were never received into the Hebrew Canon and that the scrupulous care exercised by the guardians of the sacred text did not allow these writings to be placed upon the same level as the Hebrew Scriptures given by inspiration of God. Josephus, a contemporary of the Apostles, gives the list of Books recognised by the Jews, and then adds, “From the reign of Artaxerxes to within our memory there have been several things committed to writing, which however have not acquired the safe degree of credit and authority as the former Books, inasmuch as the tradition and succession of the prophets were less certain”. It is also of great importance to note that neither our Lord nor the New Testament writers quote from these books, while their quotations from the canonical books amount to many hundreds. These considerations are of infinitely greater weight than the opinions of Greek “Fathers” and the decrees of successive councils of the “Church”.