Mr.(Rev. Dr. Prof.) E.F. Harrison's "Introduction to the New Testament:" Ch. 1-2

          Harrison, Everett F. Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI:  William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974.  A 1990-edition is available at: http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-New-Testament-Everett-Harrison/dp/0802847862/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1377042673&sr=8-4&keywords=everett+f.+harrison

After twenty-five years of teaching seminary as a “double doctor,” this 508-page introduction was motivated by watching his students “grow weary of taking notes diligently from day to day in the classroom” (Preface).  Commendable by Dr. Harrison; it spares hours of hearing a Professor read his notes. Can’t go to seminary?  Here is one workable and serviceable volume, although Mr. (Rev. Dr. Prof.) Guthrie's magnum opus is unrivalled. He was a Presbyterian Churchman and plank-owner/cofounder of Fuller Theological Seminary.

Background

Part One: The Background

1.      The Background—history, institutions and literature, pages 3-46

Mr. Harrison affords the student the obligatory and necessary backgrounds of the Babylonian, Persian, Alexandrian, Egyptian, Syrian, Maccabean and Roman periods of intersection with the covenant community including discussions about chief priests, synagogues, doctors of the law, Pharisees, Sadducees, Hasmoneans, and the Diaspora.  He advises the NT student to learn 200 years before and 200 years after Christ’s life. Mr. Harrison affords the student a modest bibliography at the end of each chapter with footnotes per page.  However, this nowise appears to compare to Mr. (Rev. Dr. Prof.) Donald Guthrie’s 1000-page magnum opus with a 100-page bibliography.

·        Persian period. Zerubbabel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Malachi and the end of the OT.

·        Alexandrian period (332-301 B.C.). Alexander the Great gobbles up Syria, Palestine, and Egypt. He was trained by Aristotle.  He sought to avenge the Persian invasion by Xerxes.  The notable element is the extension of the language, literature and culture throughout the Mediterranean. His dominion split at his death.  The Ptolemies ruled Egypt with the Seleucids Syria.

 

·        Egyptian Period (301-198 B.C.). This was developed and settled by successors of Alexander. Or, Alexandria, Egypt.  This was the “bread basket” of the area and became an influential commercial and intellectual center.  A great library was found there that existed for nearly 1000 years.  The Jews moved there in great numbers.  The Septuagint was translated here.

·     Syrian Period (198-167 B.C.).  There were decent relations with Israel although they were taxed.  Antiochus Epiphanes IV marks a change in Seleucid policy and results in the Maccabean War with the Jews. He seeks to regulate Israel’s religion and to “Hellenize” them.  His coins indicate “God manifest, Victory-bearer.”  He became known as a “Madman.” He outlaws Sabbath, circumcision, and temple worship. He had the Hebrew Scriptures burned. He confiscated temple funds, built a pagan altar in the temple and offered pigs on the altar. 

·   Maccabean Period (163-63 B.C.). Revolt by Jews, religious freedom re-acquired, and the temple cleansed.  Other than continued taxation, there was a degree of independence.  The Hasmonean line is established.

·   Roman Period (63 B.C. into NT period).  Internal dissensions developed within Israel. Rome resolved the issue with Pompey’s visit and hegemony. Mr. Harrison gives a quick review of Roman history (triumvirates, Caesars, loss of the republic, establishment of the Empire, and emergence of control over Israel). Herod was installed: he walked the parameters of pleasing Rome and keeping peace in Israel. Herod had 10 wives.  He killed his mother-in-law, a wife, some sons and others to maintain control.  He engaged in many building projects: Temple enlargement, Caesarea port, varied fortresses, a resort area east of Jericho, and many other temples. A theater, amphitheater and hippodrome were built in Jerusalem. In Herod’s last will, he wanted his sons as governors, but Rome retained oversight.  Jesus taught submission to Rome and paying one’s taxes.

The institutions: the synagogue, Temple, Sanhedrin, Jewish Parties, and the Disaspora, pages 18-30.

 

 

 

·        The synagogue, allegedly, is a post-Exilic development, although we are not sure about this claim. People met weekly for the Sabbath; this was the fulcrum of religious education and worship.  Annual trips to Jerusalem were for the Levitical feasts. Scribes came to be an honored tradition.  Elders ran the synagogue.  There was a president and attendant (who kept the scrolls). There may have been a Sabbath school.  A liturgical service included: the Shema (Dt. 6.4-9; 11.13-21; Num. 15.37-41), liturgical prayers, Psalm-singing, lections from the Law and Prophets, an exegetical sermon or homily, with an Aaronic blessing and benediction. This carried over to the NT.

·        The Temple.  It was expanded under Herod the Great to about 26 acres.  It was the same site as Solomon’s and Zerubabbel’s times. The Temple was supported by dispersed Jews.  There was half-shekel tax on each male Israelite (about 2 days of wages).  These taxes went to support the morning and evening sacrifices, salaries and Temple repairs. The Temple was also a site of commercial activity.  It was the “crown jewel of the holy city.”  

·        Sanhedrin.  After the captivity, the ruling figure was the High Priest.  It added political dimensions to the judicio-religious character of office. This was a Senate of 70 members. It issued judicial rulings.  The Sadducees dominated the Senate, although there were Pharisees too.

·        The Parties: Sadducees, Pharisees, and Essenes.  The Pharisees consisted of laymen and priests.  They were the largest party.  They were a driving force and probably emerged from the Maccabean period. They regarded themselves as the “true Israel.” St. Paul belonged to this party, a “Pharisee of Pharisees” (Phil. 3). They viewed themselves as the “custodians” of the faith. The Sadducees, a smaller and more aristocratic party, disappeared after the Jewish War of 66-70 A.D. They rejected the oral tradition, affirmed Moses’ Pentateuch, denied the resurrection and lacked something of the moral earnestness of the Pharisees. The Essenes—a few things here are disputed.  Some confine them to the western community a few miles south of Jericho, but Josephus indicates they were spread throughout Israel.  Or, there may have been degrees of Esseneism.  Mr. Harrison gives a lengthy description of the community, scrolls, and background, but we’re treating that elsewhere.

·        The Diaspora. Exiles (Assyrian and Babylonian) as well as economic opportunities facilitated Jewish emigration and migration. A heavy concentration was found in Alexandria, Cyrenaica, Rome, major cities, Greece, Macedonia and Asia Minor.  Yet, cultural and religious connections were maintained with Israel.

The literature: historical, fictional, sapiential, apocryphal, general, apologetic and miscellaneous, pages 31-46.

Historical.

1.      I Esdras.  Closely connected to 2 Chron. 35 and concludes with Ezra reading the Law.

2.      1 Maccabees.  The events of Antiochus IV and related events (175-135 B.C.)

3.      2 Maccabees.  Events after 135 B.C.

Fictional.

1.      Tobit. A pious Jew living in Ninevah in Shalmanezer’s times.

2.      Judith. Story of a beautiful Jewish widow.

Sapiential.

1.      Ecclesiasticus.  Dated about 180 B.C. It praises wisdom and has similarities to Proverbs.

2.      Wisdom of Solomon. Dated about 100 B.C. Gives a review of various figures from Israel’s history.

3.      Sayings of the Fathers. Varied sayings by Rabbis from the Christian times to the 2^nd century A.D.

Apocryphal.

1.      Book of Enoch. The heavenly Enoch lays open his views.

2.      Apocalypse of Baruch.  Baruch, Jeremiah’s secretary, dated the 1^st century A.D. or later, speaks of the coming of the Messiah.

3.      Assumption of Moses. Reviews Israel’s history down to the Roman times.  It predicts the coming of the Messianic kingdom over 250 times.

4.      Apocalypse of Ezra.  A jeremiad about sin, the paucity of the righteous, and a justification of God’s ways.

General.

1.      Jubilees. A revelation to Moses covering Creation to the Exodus.  It has been called the “Little Genesis.”

2.      Sibylline Oracles.  Book 3 is a resume of Israel’s history, the dire conditions before the end, prophecies about the overthrow of the wicked, the return of the world to Jehovah, and the period of peace and prosperity.

3.      Psalms of Solomon. Expresses disillusionment with the Hasmoneans and expectations for the advent of the Son of David along with nationalistic aspirations (Psalm 17 and 18).

4.      Testaments of Two Patriarchs. Biography of the patriarchs, including vices and virtues.

Philosophical.

1.      IV Maccabees.

Apologetical.

1.      Letter of Aristeas. Background to the translation of the LXX.

2.      III Maccabees. An account of Ptolemy IV in the Temple.

Miscellaneous.

1.      Book of Baruch. Purports to be Babylonian in provenance.  Upshot: remain steadfast and hold hope for the Restoration.

2.      Epistle of Jeremiah. Stand fast against temptation to idolatry.

3.      Prayer of Azariah (Abednego).  An addition to Daniel.

4.      Song of the Holy Children.  Story about the fiery furnace of Daniel.

5.      History of Susanna.  Daniel rescues a woman falsely accused of adultery by two Jews.

6.      Bel and Dagon.  Daniel and King Cyrus hold a theological discussion while Daniel defangs pagan deities.

7.      Additions to Esther.  There are six of them. 

Part II

The Language of the New Testament 

2.     The Language of the New Testament—rise of kione, sources for knoine, New Testament writers, influence of the Septuagint, quotation of the Old Testament in the New, bibliography, pages 49-62.

Aramaic was widely used in Israel, although not exclusively.  The medium was Hebraic, the culture, the customs, the history and backgrounds, but the medium for the extension of the Gospel was Greek.

Homer and Hesiod, 800 B.C. Various incursions by Indo-Europeans influence the development of Greek.  There were 4 dialects: Doric, Aeolic, Ionic and Attic.  Attic prevailed with its storied galaxy of writers in Athens. After Alexander the Great’s conquests, post-300 B.C., Koine (Κοινε) spreads as the lingua franca of the Mediterranean. Latin dominated Italy, but Greek was evident in Rome. Aramaic was predominant in Israel, but Greek was evident also.  The LXX, NT, and Greek Fathers used Koine.

The dual was gone.  The optative was curtailed.  There was less use of superlative adjectives. The ina ('ινα) clause was expanded to include result as well as purpose. A greater aggregation of prepositions were used for emphasis.  Luke and Hebrews evince a more classical perspective although Paul shows facility also.

Whitaker's "Disputations on the Holy Scriptures Against the Papists," Ch.11-12, 80-86(Judith, Tobit)

Whitaker's "Disputations on the Holy Scriptures Against the Papists," Ch.11-12, 80-86(Judith, Tobit). Whitaker is dealing with the canon in general and, here, in particular, with the apocryphal sections of Tobit and Judith.

The false church in The Council of Trent "anathemetized" Confessional Catholics of the Reformation Churches (Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed) for their views of the OT and NT canon (consult the respective Confessions of Faith). We will post respective Confessional views

This raises the issue of "authority" which Whitaker will tackle later in his work against the Papists, e.g inspiration, authority, and the perspicuity of the Scriptures.

The photos below are from St. John's College, Cambridge, where Whitaker laboured in his work against the Romanist theologians, Bellarmine and Stapleton. Whitaker is fair, balanced, clear, academic, Reformed, and Calvinistic. In short, Whitaker is an English Reformed theologian.

http://www.archive.org/stream/disputationonhol00whituoft/disputationonhol00whituoft_djvu.txt

---------------------------------
CHAPTER X. OF THE BOOK OF TOBIT.

After having proved that those fragments which are stuck upon certain canonical books should be cut off, and plucked out from the body of sacred scripture, it follows now that we should treat of those six entire apocryphal books.

And first let us consider the book of Tobit, for the authority of which the papists adduce no special argument whatsoever. For, though it be quoted by the fathers, it does not thence follow that it is a canonical book, as we have already clearly proved : and as to its being called "divine" by Ambrose, the meaning is not to teach us that the book is undoubtedly canonical and equal in every respect to those which really form part of the canon, but that it is a book by no means to be despised or esteemed lightly. For although it is not truly canonical, yet it may be styled divine, as it was wont to be read in the church, and was joined with the canonical books in one volume, so as commonly to pass under the name of scripture. For that it is not properly canonical, we have shewn by many testimonies of the fathers, and can demonstrate by plain arguments. But here consider how the papists run into a clear contradiction. Bellarmine confesses that Jerome rejects this book, and the rest which are involved in the present controversy, from the canon of scripture ; and pretends that it is no wonder he should do so, since no general council (which hath the regular privilege of determining and defining what should be deemed the canon of scripture) had decreed the canonicity of these books. Yet, in the meanwhile, the papists bring testimonies from Irenaeus, Cyprian, Hilary, Ambrose, to prove these books canonical. But how or by what authority could those fathers affirm these books to be canonical, when that matter was not yet certain and clearly known, being as yet not decided by any general council? Therefore, either this is not the exclusive prerogative of a general council, or those fathers followed opinion rather than judgment and reason, when they received (as our opponents imagine) these books for canonical, which the church had not yet approved by its sanction and testimony.

Let us now bring forward some objections against the authority of this book. And first, Jerome witnesses the judgment which the church of old passed upon this book. For he says, in the preface to the books of Solomon, that the church does not receive the book of Tobit into the canonical scriptures ! Therefore the catholic church (of which Jerome speaks) hath judged this book not to be canonical. And, in the prologue to the book of Tobit 2 , he wonders at the importunity of those by whom he had been induced to translate into the Latin tongue this book, which the Hebrews had cut off from the list of the divine scriptures, and which was only to be read in the Chaldee, a language with which he was unacquainted. Wherefore he confesses that he had availed himself of the assistance of another, and had rendered in Latin words that which some unknown interpreter, skilled both in the Hebrew and Chaldee languages, had dictated to him in Hebrew. So that Jerome hath rather translated some other person's version of this book than the book itself. Besides, the book is now extant only in Greek and Latin, and it is wholly uncertain in what language it was originally written. Jerome writes that he had seen a Chaldaic copy of it, but attributes to it no sort of authority. And the present copies of the book are exceeding various and corrupt, as may be easily detected by a collation of them. What more do we want? The book may speak for itself, the whole character of which shews, as clear as the light, that it hath no claims to canonicity.

CHAPTER XI. OF THE BOOK OF JUDITH.

Our adversaries snatch up an argument from Jerome in favour of this book, which goes under the name of Judith. For Jerome tells us, in the preface to the book of Judith, that this book was counted in the sacred scriptures by the Nicene synod. Therefore, say they, Jerome himself testifies that this book at least is canonical. But this testimony injures our opponents' cause more than it helps it. For first, if that synod received this book into the number of the sacred scriptures, it affected those others, which it omitted, with no slight prejudice. For if, as these men will have it, it determined this book to be canonical, why did it not comprehend the others also in the same decree, if they be really canonical ?

Secondly, Jerome's words are, " We read that the synod of Nice counted this book in the number of sacred scriptures." But where this is read, he tells us not. And if the Nicene synod had determined the canonicity of this book, the council of Laodicea, which was held a short time after that of Nice, would not have left it in the Apocrypha. And Erasmus hath rightly noted, that Jerome does not himself affirm that this book was counted sacred scripture by the council of Nice.

Thirdly, " To be canonical scripture" is one thing, and " to be counted in the number of sacred scripture" is another thing. For those pieces which are read along with the sacred scriptures for the edification of the people, although not for confirmation of doctrines, are counted in the number of sacred scriptures. And that tills was the mind and meaning of Jerome, is plain from Jerome's own words in the preface to the Proverbs. " The church." says he, " reads this book, but does not receive it amongst the canonical scriptures 2 ." Although, therefore, this book be read, and counted in the number of sacred scriptures, yet is it not received amongst those scriptures which are canonical and sacred in the highest sense. This Jerome asserts in plain words ; but this he would never have asserted, if the council of Nice had determined this book to be canonical. Nay, in this very preface Jerome shews this book not to be canonical by two arguments : — first, because the Hebrews esteem it apocryphal, and unfit for confirming anything which may be called in question 3 : secondly, because the book was written in the Chaldee language, and the copies of it grossly corrupted and depraved. For which reason Jerome, in translating it, gave the general sense rather than the exact meaning of each word, and only rendered into Latin what he found uncorrupted in the Chaldee 4 . Now, however, even those Chaldee copies themselves have perished ; and the Greek ones differ widely from Jerome's version. Besides, Josephus, in his commentaries upon the Jewish antiquities, does not touch at all upon this story of Judith, — a sufficient proof that Josephus did not consider it canonical.

But now let us estimate the authority of this book by the evidence of the book itself, and briefly examine what the times were of which it professes to be the history. For the opinions of authors upon this subject are various ; nor is it needful that we should enumerate them particularly. Let us hear, then, the determinations of those who at present sway the Romish schools. Sixtus Senensis (Lib. vm. Haer. 11) writes, that he who is called Nabuchodonosor was Ahasuerus, the son of Darius Hystaspes, and that he reigned in Babylon after Cyrus was slain. But no Persian emperor was called Nabuchodonosor ; and the Persian kings fixed the seat of their empire not at Nineve but at Babylon.

But he who sent Holofernes with an army to subdue the world, is called in the first chapter of this book Nabuchodonosor, and is said to have reigned at Nineve. There are many other incongruities besides, so that Bellarmine refers this history to the times of Manasseh, whom Nabuchodonosor took captive, brought to Babylon, and after a long while set at liberty. He supposes, therefore, that these events happened a little after the return of Manasseh, following Melchior Canus, (Lib. 11. c. 16) : which opinion (although repugnant to that of all his predecessors, as Eusebius in his Chronicon, Augustine, Philo, Bede, Lyra, Driedo and others,) seems yet much more probable than that of the rest, since it is certain that there was no Nabuchodonosor in existence after the Babylonian captivity. But now let us sift this hypothesis, and prove that these things could not have been done even in the time of Manasseh.

First, in the beginning of the fifth chapter, when Holofernes perceives that the Jewish people were meditating and preparing war, he convokes all his officers and asks them what people this was, and who was their leader. But if Manasseh had been only a short time before taken captive by the king of the Chaldeans, and carried into Babylon, neither Holofernes nor the Chaldeans could have been so ignorant who was their king as to be forced to seek and obtain information upon this subject from Achior the Ammonite. For they are made to inquire concerning the people, the country, the cities, the power of the inhabitants, their mode of warfare, their leader and king, as if they had never heard of such a nation as the Jews. But the Chaldeans had before then made war upon this people, wasted Judrea, taken Jerusalem, and carried away with them Manasseh into Babylon. Therefore these things about which
they now inquire could not have been unknown to them.

Secondly, when Holofernes came into Judaea, the temple was overthrown. For these are the very words of Achior, in the Greek text : O vaos tou Qeov aurwv eyevrjOrj et? ecafpos kol a\ TroXeis avTwv eKpaTqOrjarav. " The temple of the Jews at Jerusalem was overturned and rased to the ground, and their cities occupied." But in the captivity of Manasseh there was no subversion of the temple, nor was the temple levelled to the ground before the reign of Zedekiah, in which (as everybody knows) the great captivity took place.

Thirdly, if these things had happened in the time of Manasseh and after his return, the Jewish people would not have treated the messengers of the king of Babylon so shamefully, or dismissed them so ignominiously, as we are told they did in the first chapter. For the Jews had then experienced both the power and the clemency of the Babylonians.

Fourthly, in the history of the Kings, in which the acts of Manasseh are written, we read nothing of this kind about Holofernes ; which being a thing of such a remarkable character, it is surprising that the Holy Spirit should have omitted to mention it.

Fifthly, in the last chapter we read that Judith lived more than 105 years, and that while Judith lived, after this victory no enemy troubled Israel. This peace, therefore, lasted many years. But now, when Holofernes was in Judaea, Judith had not passed the flower of her age ; for she was very beautiful, and she pleased Holofernes, and is called a girl, chap. xii. : so that, after this victory, there must have been peace for near a hundred years. For the peace is said to have subsisted many years, both during her life and after she was dead. But Amon succeeded Manasseh, and reigned two years; Josiah succeeded Amon, and held the sovereignty thirty-one years. After the death of Josiah, a mighty mass of trouble fell upon the state, which could not be allayed until it was entirely subverted, and the people carried into captivity. How can we assign that long peace to such times as these ?

Sixthly, I should wish to know, (for I am by no means disposed to think it,) whether there was any Nabuchodonosor in Manasseh's time. For Nabuchodonosor the first, whose son was the second and great Nabuchodonosor, began to reign with Josiah, who was 33 years later than Manasseh. Before him, if we believe history, no Nabuchodonosor reigned either at Nineve or Babylon. For, as to the allegation that all the kings of the Babylonians were called Nabuchodonosor, I grant it to have been so after that great Nabuchodonosor, whose greatness was the cause that this name became hereditary in the line of Babylonian kings : but there is no evidence that they all went by that name before him.

We have now shewn plainly enough that this history does not suit the times of Manasseh. And the argument which led Bellarmine to cast it in those times is utterly destitute of force. Eliakim, says he, was at this time high priest, as he is called in the fifteenth chapter of Judith; and in the time of Hezekiah there was a certain Eliakim priest, the son of Hilkiah. But Bellarmine did not observe that that Eliakim, who is mentioned in the history of Hezekiah, was not a priest, but a certain officer, of the tribe of Judah and the family of David, as appears from Isai. xxii. and 2 Kings xviii. For he succeeded Shebna, who was either the royal scribe, as some render it, or the chancellor, as others, or the master of the royal household, as others ; but who neither was, nor could have been, a priest. Josephus, in the last book of his Jewish antiquities, gives a list of all the pontiffs of the Jews, from Aaron down to the last, yet names no Eliakim or Joakim about these times. You see what sort of foundation Bellarmine had for his opinion concerning the history of Judith.

Genebrard, in his Chronology, (Lib. 11. anno mundi 3560 l ) assigns the date of this history otherwise, but much more rashly. For he says this was the same Nabuchodonosor, who subdued Zedekiah, took Jerusalem, and carried the people into captivity ; that he sent Holofernes into Judsea in the 13th year of his reign, and in the 19th transferred the remainder of the Jews to Babylon. But Genebrard hath not made a correct distribution of the times. For how can it be truly said that Judith lived so long after that calamity, and that peace subsisted during her life and a long time after it? Or how could the Chaldeans have failed to be thoroughly acquainted with the people and king of the Jews, when Nabuchodonosor had, but a little before, made Zedekiah himself king of the Jews ? No time, therefore, can be found, which suits with these transactions. For it is manifest that none of these three opinions is true, and our adversaries can invent none truer than these.

Whitaker: "Disputations on Holy Scripture," Ch.7, 67-71,

Whitaker's "Disputations on the Holy Scriptures Against the Papists," Ch.7, 67-71. Whitaker is dealing with the canon in general and, here, in particular, the Book of Baruch.

The photos below are from St. John's College, Cambridge, where Whitaker laboured in his work against the Romanist theologians, Bellarmine and Stapleton. Whitaker is fair, balanced, clear, academic, Reformed, and very Calvinistic.

http://www.archive.org/stream/disputationonhol00whituoft/disputationonhol00whituoft_djvu.txt

-----------------------------------------------

CHAPTER VII.

OF THE BOOK OF BARUCH.

Order requires that we should now treat particularly of these several apocryphal scriptures : and first of those which are counted parts of the canonical books. Here, in the first place, what is commonly called "the book of Baruch" claims an examination. To confirm the authority of this book, our opponents avail themselves of four arguments. The first is, that there is a quotation made from the last chapter of Baruch in 2 Mace. ch. ii. The second, that the councils of Florence and Trent place this book by name amongst the canonical scriptures. The third, that the church takes some lessons from this book in her anniversary offices. The fourth, that many fathers produce testimonies from this book as canonical.
From these premises Bellarmine concludes that this book is truly canonical (Lib. i. c. 8). To these we can answer briefly : for the arguments are, as you see, altogether slight ones, and require no very long reply. Thus, therefore, I answer them severally.

To the first : The second book of Maccabees is apocryphal ; as I shall hereafter prove by demonstrative arguments. Now one apocryphal book cannot confirm by its testimony the authority of another apocryphal book. Therefore this is no argument.

To the second : We care nothing for those councils. They were popish and altogether antichristian assemblies. The papists may attribute as much weight to those councils as they please : we refuse to be pressed or bound by any such authority.

As to what is objected in the third place, — although the church used to read, and still does read, certain parts of this book, yet it by no means hence follows that the book is in the genuine and strict
sense canonical. For we have shewn above, from Jerome and other fathers, that the church was wont formerly to read books not canonical, for the benefit of the people in forming their morals, but
not for confirmation of the faith. Besides, what church is it whose example they object to us as an argument ? For we are so far from recognising in the custom of the Roman church the force of so
great an argument, that we count it a matter of very slight importance.

To the last: I acknowledge that some testimonies are cited from this book by the fathers ; and I add too that some of them believed this piece to be a part of Jeremiah. And, in truth, this book does seem preferable to the rest of the apocrypha : for everything in it, whether we consider the matter or the style, appears more august and suitable to the sacred character than in the other books. Nevertheless, the book is apocryphal, as you shall hear. There is no consequence in this reasoning : Some fathers thought this book a part of Jeremiah, therefore it is a part of Jeremiah. For those fathers were in error, as is manifest. Nor is there force in this inference: Some fathers cited testimonies from this book,
therefore the book hath canonical authority. For testimonies are often alleged from other books also, which are by no means to be esteemed canonical. Irenaeus cites the book of the Shepherd (as
Eusebius relates, Lib. v. c. 8) l ; but I suppose he did not deem that book part of the canonical scriptures. Yet, alleging a passage from it, he hath used the expression, "Well spoke the scripture which
says, &c." And Eusebius writes of him, "He receives the scripture of the Shepherd.'" And Nicephorus also attests the same, Lib. iv. c. 14. In like manner Athanasius, in his third oration against the Arians,
produces something from the book of Baruch : but the same writer does also, in the same oration, bring forward a testimony, to prove that the word is God, from the third of Esdras, which book our adversaries confess to be apocryphal. Testimonies out of this third book of Esdras are used also by Cyprian (Epist. lxxiv.) 2 ; by Augustine (Yet. ac Nov. Test. Qusest. 109 3 , and Civit. Dei, Lib. xviii.
c. 36) 4 ; and Ambrose (De bono Mortis, c. 10), in order to prove that souls are not extinguished with the body 5 . Now this book of Esdras is not canonical, as the papists themselves allow ; so that it is manifest that the cause is not concluded by this argument.

The papists object, that these books of Esdras are not cited by those fathers as sacred and canonical, but that the book of Baruch and the rest are cited and mentioned by them in such a manner as to shew that they thought them to be truly canonical. Therefore there is no analogy between the two cases. I answer, that they are indeed styled by them sacred, and scriptures, but in a certain general sense. For most of them did not suppose that the books were sacred in such a sense as to leave no difference between them and the books which are truly divine and canonical. This John Driedo, one of the chief popish writers, expressly testifies in the case of this very book of Baruch. For thus he writes (de Cat.
Script. Lib. i. c. 4. ad Difficult. 11): "So Cyprian, Ambrose, and the other fathers cite sentences from the book of Baruch, and from the third and fourth of Esdras, not as if they were canonical books, but as containing salutary and pious doctrines, not contrary, but rather consonant to our faith 6 ." A papist answers the objection of the papists : for in these words he denies that the book of Baruch is either canonical, or cited as such by those fathers. Melchior Canus too (Lib. xn. c. 6) writes thus of this same book: "For, as Ave have shewn in the second book, the church hath not placed the book of Baruch in the number of the sacred writings so certainly and clearly, as to make it a plain catholic verity that it is a sacred piece, or a plain heresy that it is not. That book, therefore, or any other, which may be called in question without heresy, can not produce certain and evident verities of the catholic faith 7 ." From this testimony of Canus I collect, in the first place, that the book of Baruch is not clearly canonical : in the next, that we may deny its canonicity without heresy : lastly, that no firm and evident verity of the
catholic faith can be derived from this book; — an evident proof that the book itself is apocryphal, since all canonical books are fit to produce certain and evident verities of the catholic faith.

Aquinas, however, in his Commentary upon Jude, says, that it is " lawful to derive a testimony to the truth from an apocryphal book," since Jude the apostle hath cited a passage from the apocryphal book of Enoch, v. 14. But, although I by no means deny that it is just as much lawful to quote a passage from an apocryphal book, as from a profane author, — as Paul cites an Iambic line from Menander, 1 Cor. xv. 33, a hemistich from Aratus, Acts xvii. 28, and an heroic verse from Epimenides the Cretan, Tit. i. 12 ; yet I do not think that this passage, which Jude recites, is taken from an apocryphal book, because Jude uses the term TTpoeipYirevae, " he prophesied. 11 Consequently, he hath adduced this as a prophetical testimony : unless, perhaps, he used the word prophet here in the same sense as Paul when he called Epimenides a prophet ; though, indeed, he does not style him a prophet simply, but a prophet of the Cretans.

We have now sufficiently shaken the authority of this book. For I ask, who wrote it? Either Baruch himself, or Jeremiah, is counted the author of the book. But neither of them could have written it ; as is clear from hence — that it was written in Greek, not in Hebrew, as Jerome tells us, and as the book itself shews. For Jerome says, in the preface to Jeremiah 1 , that this book is not read by the Hebrews, nor extant amongst them, and that it was therefore wholly omitted by him. But if it had been written by that Baruch, or by Jeremiah himself, it would doubtless have appeared in Hebrew, not in Greek : for Jeremiah spoke in Hebrew, and published his prophecies in the Hebrew language ; and Baruch was Jeremiah's scribe, and committed many things to writing from Jeremiah's lips, as we find in Jerem. xxxvi. 4. Besides, the very phraseology and diction is Greek, not so condensed, nervous, sedate, and majestic as the style of scripture is wont to be. In the Epistle of Jeremiah, which is recited in Chap, vi., the expression, " Ye shall be there seven generations," (v. 2), is new and foreign to the Hebrew idiom : for in the Hebrew books the term "generation" is never used to designate a period often years, as Francis Junius hath correctly observed. Whoever wrote this book was a Greek, or wrote in Greek. Consequently he was neither Baruch nor any other of the prophets. Thus we prove by inevitable deduction that this book must be necessarily esteemed apocryphal.