Professional Documents
Culture Documents
It is evident that the elders of each congregation had approved certain writings
and rejected others as they became available, and it turned out, by the grace of
God, that most of the churches were by the year 170 in agreement, having
approved the same books independently. Prominent teachers were also
influential in this process. About that time bishops began to prevail in the
Church, as governors of groups of churches, and they simply ratified with these
lists the results thus arrived at. The approved books were then called the
" canon" of Scripture, " canon" being a Greek word meaning " rod" or " ruler."
These books constituted the standard rule of faith for all the churches. We must
not imagine that the canon was imposed by ecclesiastical authorities. The canon
grew up by many independent decisions of elders who were responsible for
their congregations alone.
The Jewish use of versions. In the synagogue the Hebrew scripture itself was
read from a scroll, followed by a translation into Aramaic or Greek given by the
Methurgeman (translator). The translation was never read from a scroll,
because the Jews were determined not to give any version such an illusion of
authority; the translation had to be memorized or done extemporaneously. In the
beginning the translations were not even written down. When they were
eventually written down they were not made widely available, and were not
" authorized" in any sense by the Rabbis.
The Greek version of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint. About two
hundred years before the birth of Christ a Greek translation of the Pentateuch
was committed to writing in Alexandria, where many Jews only knew Greek. This
version was later called the Septuagint because legend has it that the translation
was done by seventy (Latin septuaginta) men. Gradually the other books of the
Old Testament were also put in Greek. The Septuagint gives a fairly accurate
translation of the Pentateuch, which was read most closely by the Jews, but for
the prophetical books like Isaiah and Jeremiah the translation is often quite
loose and even erroneous, and in need of correction.
Apostolic use of the Septuagint. The quotations of the Old Testament in the
New show that the apostles often used the Septuagint, because it was generally
known to those in the Church and usually adequate for their purposes. Some
people in looking at these quotations have been troubled by the fact that they are
sometimes not very accurate translations of the Hebrew. Did the apostles not
know their business? Of course they did. They did not concern themselves with
corrections when the translation served well enough for their purpose, but when
it did not they quietly offered their own translation of the Hebrew. Then they
usually offered a better translation. The apostles did not see fit to produce a
complete version of the Old Testament in Greek for the use of the churches.
The Old Latin version. Within two hundred years after the departure of the
apostles there were many churches throughout the world in which the people did
not understand Greek very well, and so new translations of both the Old and New
Testaments were made into Syriac, Coptic, and Latin, for use in the churches.
The Coptic and Latin versions were not translated directly from the Hebrew, but
from the Greek Septuagint, and the Syriac was soon " corrected" from the
Septuagint.
The Vulgate. In western Europe the variety of Latin translations and copies
created confusion, and a notable scholar named Jerome was asked to look into
the matter and to make a trustworthy translation. Jerome wisely revised the Latin
versions from the Hebrew itself, and expressed his opinion, shared by many,
that it was a mistake to receive the Apocryphal books just because they
happened to be included in copies of the Septuagint. There was some resistance
to Jerome' s version, and to his exclusion of the Apocrypha. Latin translations of
the Apocryphal books were added to it, and in that form it became the version
commonly used in the churches for a thousand years. This version came to be
called the Vulgate, or " common" Bible.
Protestant vs. Catholic views of the Vulgate. When the Protestant reformers
wrote biblical commentaries in Latin, they gave Latin translations of the biblical
text, but in these translations they often departed from the Vulgate version.
Luther and Calvin knew Hebrew and Greek, and they did not believe that the
Vulgate should be regarded as an authoritative version. They also were aware of
how the Apocryphal books came to be in the Vulgate, and so they rejected them.
The Roman Catholics, on the other hand, declared that the Vulgate was an
authoritative version and not to be departed from. This idea of a uniquely
authoritative version (which has recurred in our own times with the rise of the
" King James Only" movement) has created many problems in Church history.
Conclusion
Protestant vs. Catholic views of the canon. Protestant teachings concerning
the canon are in general based upon the same principle which is employed by
Protestant theologians in all sorts of questions about doctrine and church order:
the clearly ancient teachings and practices are to be preferred over the
medieval. In questions that are not answered by Scripture itself, we inquire into
the earliest available evidence for the teachings and practices of the churches,
and have little regard for traditions that cannot be traced back to the generation
that immediately followed the Apostles. (2) And so with respect to the canon, we
are interested to know what the earliest available sources have to say. That is
why the resolution of this question partly depends upon an examination of the
ancient canon lists. When these lists are examined, we find that the earlier ones
omit the Apocrypha, and that the later ones (beginning at the end of the fourth
century in the West) include it. The Apocrypha began to be put on the same level
as our canonical books at about the same time as many other innovations
entered into the Church.
Implications for the text of Scripture. A word may be added here concerning
the text of Scripture, which is in a sense a question of canon also. The canonical
text for Protestants is the original autographic text, in Hebrew and Greek. Our
investigation of this text, as Protestants, can only proceed on the same principle
adhered to in the investigation of the canon. There can be no authoritative
medieval version, as in Catholicism, and the manuscript tradition cannot all be
put on one level. Instead, we are bound to inquire, What do the earliest sources
support? The idea which has gained some currency among conservative
Protestants lately, namely, that the traditional medieval text upon which the King
James Version is based is to be regarded as authoritative simply because it
became traditional, involves the adoption of an essentially Catholic view of
tradition and authority, foreign to the spirit of Protestantism. This approach is
inconsistent with the rejection of the Apocrypha, and of all other corruptions
which arose in the middle ages.
1. For a good brief discussion of this whole question see E. Earl Ellis,
The Old Testament in Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1991), Chapter 1, "The Old Testament Canon in the Early Church."
Ellis concludes that the churches did not receive or adopt a wider
Septuagint canon until the fourth century.
2. As Tertullian wrote: Quo peraeque adversus universas haereses
iam hinc praeiudicatum sit id esse, verum quodcunque primum,
id esse adulterum quodcunque posterius. "For against all heresies
equally let this now be our presumption: whatever is earliest is true,
and whatever is later is corrupt." (Against Praxeas, chap. 2.)
AT RIGHT: Detail from the title page of an early printing of the
Geneva Bible. The Latin motto Verbum Dei Manet in Æternum (The
Word of God Abideth Forever) was commonly used by Protestants
of the era to express their devotion to Scripture. In the iconography
of this illustration, the placement of the motto on a clasped book identifies the "Word of God"
with the printed Bibles of the era. A hand from the clouds signifies that the Bible was given by
heaven.
Bible Research > Cano n > Introduction