De Moor II:13: The Canon of Scripture, Part 5

Our AUTHOR proceeds:  There has been no place here for the confutation of, α.  the SAMARITANS in their rejection of the Prophets after Moses.  This is related concerning the Samaritans by the Jews and Ancient Christians with unanimous consent.  Thus they are called in Benjamin’s Itinerario,[1] שומרי תורת משה לבדה, observers of the Mosaic Law alone.  Thus also EPIPHANIUS has concerning the Samaritans in book I adversus Hæreses, opera, tome I, page 24, § 2, Διαφέρονται δὲ οὗτοι Ἰουδαίοις κατὰ τοῦτο πρῶτον, ὅτι οὐκ ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς προφητῶν τῶν μετὰ Μωϋσέα γραφὴ, ἢ μόνον ἡ δοθεῖσα πεντάτευχος διὰ Μωϋσέως τῷ σπέρματι Ἰσραὴλ ἐν τῇ Ἐξόδῳ τῆς ἀπ᾽ Αἰγύπτου πορείας·  φημὶ δὲ Γένεσις, καὶ Ἔξοδος, καὶ Λευιτικὸν, καὶ Ἀριθμοὶ, καὶ Δευτερονόμιον, These differ from the Jews concerning this first, that they were given no text of the prophets after Moses, but only the Pentateuch, which was given to the seed of Israel by Moses, in the Exodus of their march from Egypt, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy; which things are repeated and confirmed in book I adversus Hæreses, opera, tome I, page 28, § 5, περὶ δὲ Προφητῶν, ἐπειδὴ ἔφθη αὐτοῖς δοθῆναι ἡ πεντάτευχος, οὐκετι ταῖς ἄλλαις γραφαῖς ἐστοίχησαν, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ μόνῃ τῇ Πεντατεύχῳ, καὶ οὐ τῇ λοιπῇ ἀκολουθίᾳ·  κᾄν τε δὲ αὐτοῖς εἴπῃ τὶς νυνὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων, φημὶ δὲ περὶ Δαβὶδ καὶ Ἠσαΐου, καὶ τῶν καθεξῆς, οὐ παραδέχονται, κατεχόμενοι παραδόσει τῇ προαχθείσῃ τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν ἰδίων πατέρων, But concerning the Prophets, since the Pentateuch alone came at the first to be given to them, they submitted to no other scriptures, but to the Pentateuch alone, and not to the others following.  Hence today, if one should speak to them of the others, I say, of David, Isaiah, and those after them, they do not receive them, being prevented by the tradition that has been brought to them from their ancestors.  The Samaritans themselves acknowledge this in Epistola ad Ludolfum a Cellario edita, page 2, and likewise in Epistola 2 ad Scaligerum, page 131; and the relations of Pietro della Valle,[2] Maundrell,[3] and other travelers.  Which all they prohibit, lest we should easily give credence to BASNAGE’S[4] contrary conjectures, which he sets forth in his Histoire de Juifs, book II, chapter III, who maintains that the Samaritans indeed admit the Mosaic Books alone as the rule of faith, yet they also receive the remaining Historical Books with a lesser degree of dignity; either because the Jews did not honor the same with equal veneration, or because they were not of so much necessity and use as the Mosaic Books.  These ill-considered conjectures of Basnage against universal tradition will less compel assent, the more fully the occasion of this Samaritan error is uncovered.  1.  For, before the Assyrian deportation, the remaining Books of the Old Testament besides the Pentateuch hardly appear to have been received by the kingdom of the Ten tribes.  Indeed, at the time of the schism, the Prophetic Books were not yet written; but, the reception of the Historical and Hagiographical Books, which were extant at that time, together with the Prophetic Books, which were added thereafter, by Jeroboam and his successors, was hindered by domestic considerations, both political and ecclesiastical:  namely, in those Books holy and solemn worship was bound to Jerusalem alone:  on the other hand, the defection and idolatry of the Ten tribes was continually condemned by the Prophets, who lived in succession among the people of God.  2.  That Priest, returning from Assyria unto Israel, had the care only of the divine Law, consigned by Moses, that he might instill it in the new colonists;[5] while this alone was embraced as the sum of religion and worship, the remaining things that are delivered in the Historical Books had little bearing upon those foreigners.  3.  And while, after the return from the Babylonian Captivity, Ezra and his colleagues arranged the sacred Books into one corpus and syntagma, as it were, the hatred that even then had been provoked in the hearts of the Samaritans against the Jews, and that was being stirred up daily, hindered their reception of the Canon gathered by Ezra and his colleagues as divine, or their acknowledgement of the authority of the latest Prophets in the Jewish Church.  But how greatly the Samaritans strayed from the right path in this, is indeed shown by the approbation of the Jewish Codex by Christ and the Apostles, and by the continual conjunction in their sermons of the Prophets with the Law:  consult our AUTHOR’S Exercitationes Miscellaneas, Disputation IV, which is concerning Samaritanism; CARPZOV’S Critica Sacra Veteris Testamenti, part II, chapter IV, § 1-3, pages 585-599.

Our AUTHOR thinks that the same rejection of the Prophets and Hagiographa as is found among the Samaritans is attributed to the SADDUCEES without foundation.  Nevertheless, we find that ORIGEN had already of old written thus, contra Celsum, book I, page m. 38, κᾄν οἱ μόνου δὲ Μωσέως παραδεχόμενοι τὰς βίβλους Σαμαρεῖς ἢ Σαδδουκαῖοι φάσκωσιν ἐν ἐκείνοις πεπροφητεῦασθαι τὸν Χριστόν, although the Samaritan and Sadducees, who receive the books of Moses alone, would say that in them the Christ has been prophesied.  TERTULLIAN also affirms the same concerning the Sadducees, de Præscriptione Hæreticorum, chapter XLV; and JEROME on Matthew 22:31-33; whose words DRUSIUS cites, following hard upon their steps, de tribus Judæorum sectis, book III, chapter IX.  Of the same opinion are GROTIUS on Matthew 22:23; and PRIDEAUX in his History of the Jews, part II, book V, columns 1110, 1111, § 2, etc.  Yet, so that we might not concede unto the same also, do these things make, which JOSEPH SCALIGER places opposite in Elencho Trihæresii, chapter XVI, among which are, 1.  that neither the Lord, nor the Apostles or Writers of the New Testament, nor Josephus, treating of the Sadducees or disputing with them, ever indicated to us this as their error:  contrariwise, that they rejected only unwritten traditions, JOSEPHUS appears to indicate with sufficient clarity, book XIII of Antiquities of the Jews, chapter XIII, page 454, when he says that Σαδδουκαίων γένος λέγον ἐκεῖνα δεῖν ἡγεῖασθαι νόμιμα τὰ γεγραμμένα, τὰ δὲ ἐκ παραδόσεως πατέρων μὴ τηρεῖν, the sect of the Sadducees said that those observances which have been written are necessary to hold, but not to keep those from the tradition of the fathers.  2.  Also, the High Priests were appointed from the sect of the Sadducees:  but it hardly, or not even hardly, appears credible that a High Priest sat at Jerusalem that acknowledged the Pentateuch alone and repudiated the other sacred Books.  3.  Is it not so that the Sadducees were not only present for the Reading, but they themselves were reading, when the functions fell to them, in the Synagogues, not only the legal Parashah, but also the Prophetic Haphtarah?[6]  On this point, therefore, the Sadducees appear to have been confused with the Samaritans.  That the Sadducees rejected all the Holy Books except Moses no less than the Samaritans, learned men persuade themselves from this, that Christ, when disputing with the Sadducees in favor of the Resurrection of the Dead, with many clear testimonies of other Writers upon this matter disregarded, appeals to Moses alone, from whom he proves this point only by consequence, Matthew 22:31, 32.  But, a.  with the Sadducees objecting from Moses, the Lord rightly wished also to respond from Moses, by comparison with verses 23, 24.[7]  b.  Perhaps the Lord judged them unworthy, whom He might have convinced with more and clearer proofs concerning this matter, by comparison with Matthew 13:10-15:  consult CARPZOV’S Apparatum Antiquitatum Sacrorum ad Goodwini Moses and Aaron, pages 208, 209.

β.  Our AUTHOR does not wish to confute “the many Ancient Heretics in their malignant repudiation of individual Books of the Old or New Testament.”  Namely, those who, as these or those Books of Sacred Scripture were more directly opposing their errors, were audaciously repudiating the Canonical authority of the same.  Thus, after the Simonians in the first century,[8] many and nearly all Heretics of the second Century rejected the Law of Moses and the Prophets as proceeding from an evil God.  In particular, unto this end Marcion earnestly endeavored to show through affected antitheses that the Law is contrary to the Gospel.  So also his disciple Apelles,[9] Tatian,[10] and the Manichæans, against whom AUGUSTINE strenuously defends the divine and canonical authority of the Old Testament; see CARPZOV’S Introductionem ad Libros Historicos Veteris Testamenti, chapter II, § 6, pages 28-30.  And, with respect to the New Testament, it should suffice to relate the words of SPANHEIM the Younger from Disputation X de Fundamentalibus Fidei Capitibus, § 7, opera, tome 3, column 1334:  “For example,” says he, “from the Gospels Faustus Manichæus[11] admitted nothing as written in the Apostolic Spirit; the Ebionites and Nazarenes, only Matthew; Cerinthus and his followers, only Mark; the Marcionites, only Luke; Valentinus[12] and his, only John, in the writings of Irenæus, Eusebius, etc.  The same Writers relate that thus the Acts of the Apostles was rejected without any shame by Cerdo,[13] Tatian, and Manichæus; all the writings of Paul, by Ebion and the family of the Heclesaites;[14] but the majority, by Marcion.  Not to mention the authority of the Epistles of James, Peter, Jude, and John, more frequently called into question, or denied, but of the Apocalypse especially.”  Add WALCH’S Miscellanea Sacra, book I, exercitation VI, § 6, pages 149, 150.

γ.  Neither does our AUTHOR wish to confute “certain Socinians, attacking especially the authority of the SONG OF SONGS and the EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS:”  SPANHEIM, de Auctoritate Epistolæ ad Hebræos, book II of Miscellaneorum Sacrorum Antiquorum, part I, chapter I, § 1, column 173, “Various of the ancients, indeed, of the more recent especially from the school of Socinus, are reported to have moved…the monuments of Solomon.”  And § 2, column 174, “Yet it has hardly been disputed to such an extent as concerning the authority of that most famous Epistle that is inscribed to the Hebrews.  That is, its authority has been most consistently discredited, to whose doctrine it was always adverse.  Marcion repudiated it, chiefly out of a hatred for the Old Testament, deeming with indignation the most painstaking comparison of types with antitypes, …the Old Testament with the New, in this Epistle.  Ebion was in the same iniquity, with his altogether misguided zeal for the Law and its ceremonies.  Arius,[15] and the other Antitrinitarians, are of the same opinion, on account of the Divinity of the Son of God asserted so clearly and vindicated in it, etc.  Some ancient Latins agreed, the Africans, and especially the Romans, almost to the times of Jerome, especially because the Epistle seems to support Novatian and the Novatians concerning not receiving the lapsed unto favor; etc.  Even now, there are certain men of the Socinians, in many ways injurious to this Epistle and insolent, although more cautiously, according to their usual practice, and with more secretiveness; namely, with the same thrust as the Marcionites and Arians, even that it was enough of an indictment against the Author of the Epistle to have demonstrated both the divinity of Christ and the excellent use of the Old Testament under the New, and the essential agreement of both.”  But the Song of Song’s divine authority and spiritual sense against the religious crisis of various couples are upheld by our Most Illustrious AUTHOR in his Prologo et Commentario ad Inscriptionem Cantici; WITSIUS in tome I of his Miscellaneorum sacrorum, book I, chapter XVIII, § 38-40; CARPZOV and NICOLAUS NONNEN against Whiston, the former indeed in his Criticis Sacris Veteris Testamenti, part III, chapter IV, § 8, pages 898-917, but the latter in his Disputatione inaugurali pro Canonica Auctoritate Cantici Canticorum, held at Utrecht on April 6, 1725; and also CARPZOV in his Introductione ad Libros Poeticos Veteris Testamenti, chapter VI, § 3, 7, pages 247-252, 261-266; while I now find in PHILASTRIUS’ Hæresi de Cantici Canticorum Libro, concerning which he says:  “There is a heresy, which disputes concerning the Song of Songs, and does not esteem the things commended by the same to men as worthy of the divine Spirit, but for the sake of human affairs and pleasures:”  see what things follow in that place additionally.  Also in favor of Solomonic authorship of the Song of Songs, and the Canonical authority of this book, read FINDLAY’S Verdediging der Heilige Schriften tegen de Voltaire, part 2, section 6, pages 87-108, 131-133; and LILIENTHAL’S Oordeelk Bybelverklar, chapter VI, § 88-91, part 2, pages 155-161.  Indeed, how the authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews is vindicated by TWELLS, see in WOLF’S Prolegomenis in Epistola ad Hebræos, pages 587-589, while upon the same matter SPANHEIM concisely comprehends many things in these briefer strictures, de Auctoritate Epistolæ ad Hebræos, book II of Miscellaneorum Sacrorum Antiquorum, part I, chapter I, § 3, 4, column 175:  “It is certainly a great argument for its divine and unshakeable origin, that the enemy of mankind has made greater and stronger assaults in order to subvert it.  And, just as hardly any part of the Canon has experienced so many unjust judgments of men, so hardly is any part more illustrious with Canonical marks, and breathing out its heavenly origin to a greater extent.  Whether we attend to the lofty class of doctrine, concerning Christ’s Divinity, Incarnation, Priesthood, figures, which had preceded in Aaron, or Melchizedek, or types legal and ceremonial, and which express what is more sublime than human wisdom; or we consider the most holy principles of life, and precepts or manners; or the agreement, greater than all exception, with the Scriptures of both Covenants; attacked in some histories in vain; or the lofty and sublime manner of speaking, greater than human eloquence, swelling already at the very entrance; or the efficacy and ἐνέργειαν/energy in the souls of the pious, exerting itself here as elsewhere, and the altogether certain argument of the speaking God; or, dismissing other things, the antiquity of the Epistle, already written in the first age of the Apostles, received from the first in the Church, even by an Apostolical man as author, even, which we undertake as worthy of demonstration, Paul.  Therefore, with the former κριτηρίοις/criteria weighed elsewhere, we subject the latter to inquiry; and, if there be agreement concerning its Author, remaining scruples concerning its Authority will scarcely be possible.”

[1] Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela (died 1173) was a Spanish Jew, who chronicled his travels through Europe and Asia, unto the very borders of China.

[2] Pietro della Valle (1586-1652) was an Italian nobleman and scholar.  He traveled extensively in the Near East, including the Holy Land.

[3] Henry Maundrell (1665-1701) was an English scholar and clergyman.  In the midst of his chaplaincy to the Levant Company in Syria, he wrote Journey from Aleppo to Jerusalem at Easter Anno Domini 1697.

[4] Jacques Basnage (1653-1723) was a French Protestant pastor, theologian, and historian.

[5] 2 Kings 17:25-41.

[6] The Haphtarah is a series of selections taken from the Prophetic Books read in public worship.  The Haphtarah is thematically related to the preceding legal Parashah.

[7] See Deuteronomy 25:5-10.

[8] The Simonians were a Gnostic sect; they claimed to be followers of Simon Magus (see Acts 8:9-24).  The Church Fathers sometimes refer to him as the father of all heresies.

[9] Apelles (flourished mid-second century) was a disciple of Marcion, probably at Rome.  However, he may have had views differing somewhat from those of his teacher.

[10] Tatian the Assyrian (c. 120-c. 180) was a Christian theologian and apologist.  He is most remembered for his Diatessaron, his harmony of the four gospels, which was used in the Syriac church until the fifth century.  In his Oratio ad Græcos, he extols the virtues and antiquity of Christianity, and critiques paganism.  Some shadow has been cast over his name by accusations of heresy from Irenæus and Eusebius.

[11] Faustus of Mileve (fourth century) was a celebrated Manichæan teacher.  While a Manichæan, Augustine, wrestling with questions, sought an audience with him.  Finding Faustus unable to answer his questions, Augustine rejected Manichæism as a collection of unsubstantiated fables.

[12] Valentinus (c. 100-c. 160) was perhaps the most influential Gnostic of his day, with many followers.  Although his work survives only in fragments, his system continued, albeit in modified forms, in his disciples.

[13] Cerdo was an early second century Syrian docetic gnostic.  He taught that there were two Gods:  the vengeful and demanding creator God of the Old Testament, and the loving and merciful God of the New Testament revealed in Jesus Christ.

[14] The Heclesaites were a second- and third-century party of Ebionites.  Little is known of them.

[15] Arius (c. 250-336) was a presbyter of the church in Alexandria, Egypt.  He denied the Son to be of one substance, and co-equal Deity, with the Father.  His views precipitated the Arian controversy, and led to the calling of the First Ecumenical Council at Nicea (325).