why catholic bibles are bigger

WhyCatholicBiblesAreBigger

ByGaryMichuta

MorematerialfromGaryMichuta

www.handsonapologetics.com

Exceptwhereotherwiseindicated,allScripturequotationsinthisbookaretakenfromtheNewAmericanBiblewithRevisedNewTestamentandRevisedPsalms©1991,1986,1970ConfraternityofChristianDoctrine,Washington,DC,andareusedbypermissionofthecopyrightowner.AllRightsReserved.NopartoftheNewAmericanBiblemaybereproducedinanyformwithoutpermissioninwritingfromthecopyrightowner.

QuotationstakenfromBruceM.Metzger’s,AnIntroductiontotheApocrypha©OxfordUniversityPress,Inc.,198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NewYork10016.Usedwithpermission.

www.GrottoPress.org

PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmericaLibraryofCongressCataloguing-in-PublicationDataMichuta,GaryG.,1964–WhyCatholicBiblesAreBigger/GaryG.Michuta

Includesbibliographicalreferences

ISBN1-58188-010-3

978-1-58188-010-6

ContentsAcknowledgements

AbbreviationsChapter1AClosedPre-ChristianCanon?

Chapter2TheClosingoftheJewishCanon

Chapter3WhenContentsBecameCanonChapter4JeromeAgainsttheWorld

Chapter5TheAgeofPreservation

Chapter6“AsJeromeSaith…”Chapter7WhyProtestantBiblesAreSmaller

Chapter8TheDeuterocanoninExile

Appendix1SolaScripturaandtheProblemoftheCanonAppendix2TheDeuterocanonandBiblicalInerrancy

SelectedBibliography

Acknowledgements

“Amicofidelinullaestcomparatio,etnonestdignaponderatioaurietargenticontrabonitatemfideiillius.”(Sir6:15)

ThereareanumberofpeopleIwouldliketoacknowledgeandthankforbringingthisbooktocompletion.Firstandforemost,IwouldliketothanktheHolySpiritwhohasspokenthroughtheprophetsandgaveustheSacredScripturesasatreasureofHisloveandwisdom.ThankyouRodBennettwhopatientlyworkedthroughthisbookandmadeitwarm,accessibleandreadableforall.IwouldalsoliketothanktheteamofeditorsproofreadersanddesignerswhohelpturnthisbookfromresearchtoarealityespeciallyDennisWalters,AdeleBrinkley,GigiMills,BrendaPolk,andLaunaandAlanWakenhut.ThankyoualsoPaul,CassandraandtherestoftheHusakfamilyforthegiftofyourtime,wisdomandsupportforthisproject.MygratitudeisalsoextendedtotheteamatGrottoPressfortheirflexibilityandhardworkespeciallyDianeEverettandJohnMcAlpine.TomygoodfriendRobCorzine,whoseconstantadviceandencouragementhasguidedmethroughtheentiredevelopmentofthisbook,Igivethanks.ManythanksgotoDouglasEibenforspendinghoursinfrontofahotphotocopier.IoweSteveRayandPatrickMadridaverylargedebtofgratitudefortheirconstantsupportandguidance.Theyhavebeenfaithfulfriendsindeed.Finally,IwouldliketothankmywifeChris,andmychildren,Paulina,Daniel,andJenniferfortheirpatienceandunderstandingwhileIwasrunningofftolibraries.

Abbreviations

ABDAnchorBibleDictionary

ANFAnte-NiceneFathers(Robertson)

CBQCatholicBiblicalQuarterly

CECatholicEncyclopedia(1914ed.)

DSourcesofCatholicDoctrine(Denzinger)

DSDenzinger-Schonmetzer,EnchiridionSymbolorum

EJEncyclopaediaJudaica.

FEFFaithoftheEarlyFathers

HTRHarvardTheologicalReview

IBDInterpreterBibleDictionary

IJAInternationalJournaloftheApocrypha

JBCJeromeBiblicalCommentary

JTSJournalofTheologicalStudies

JBRJournalofBiblicalReligion

NCCNewCatholicCommentaryonHolyScripture

TDNTTheologicalDictionaryoftheNewTestament

PGPatrologiaGraecae(Migne)

PLPatrologiaLatina(Migne)

Chapter1AClosedPre-ChristianCanon?

IsittruethattheOldTestamentcanonwascompleteandclosedlongbeforethefirstwordoftheDeuterocanonwaswritten?DoestheNewTestamentprovideevidenceforaclosedOldTestamentcanon?DotheDeuterocanonicalbooksthemselvescontainproofsofthissupposedfact?

AlloftheseclaimshavebeenmadethroughtheyearsbyProtestantapologistsattemptingtodefendthecanonofLutherandCalvin;andifanyoftheseallegationswere,infact,provedvalidthentherereallymightbegoodreasontoquestionthetraditionalChristianbibleoverthrownbyProtestantism.Theseclaims,however,arenottrue—afactthatmaybefirmlyestablishedbyacarefulandunbiasedexaminationofthehistoricalrecordandtheotherevidenceathand.Anybible-lovingChristianwillwanttomakesuchanexamination,surely,ratherthanruntheriskofspurningasetofbookswhichmay,infact,containGod’sownholyWord.

LetusbeginbyexaminingtheclaimthattheDeuterocanonicalbooksthemselvesprovideevidenceforaclosed,pre-existingHebrewcanon.

TheBookofSirach(200–150BC)

TheBookofSirach(alsocalledEcclesiasticus)istheoldestoftheDeuteros,writteninHebrew(mostlikelyinPalestine)sometimearoundthebeginningofthesecondcenturybeforeChrist.[1]LikethebookofProverbs,SirachfallsunderthecategoryofwisdomliteratureandwasverypopularintheJewishworld;somuchsothatSirach’sgrandsontranslatedthebookintoGreek(probablyinEgypt)aboutfiftyyearsafteritscomposition.[2]ThisgrandsonalsoaddedaGreekprefacetothebookwhichrefersseveraltimestotheexistingScripturesofthatday.Doesthisprefaceshow,assomehaveclaimed,thatthecanonwasalreadyclosedbythenandexcluded,therefore,Sirachitself?

SomeProtestantapologistshavearguedthatthisintroductionspeaksof“theLaw,theProphets,andtheWritings”—athree-folddivisionoftheOld

Testamentcorrespondingtothethree-folddivisioninmodernJewishbibles(Hat-Torah,Nebiim,wa-Kéthubim)—andimplyingthatthissamemoderndivisionwasalreadypresentwhenSirach(oldestoftheDeuteros)wasnew.Unfortunately,thislineofreasoninggreatlyoverstatestheevidence.Sirach’sintroductionneverspeaksof“theLaw,theProphetsandtheWritings;”itspeaksonlyof“theLaw,theProphets,andtheotherbooks”—averyunusualpieceoflanguageifthenow-establishedtermswerealreadyinuse.Indeed,inthreeattemptstoreferenceScriptureinthisfashion,Sirach’sgrandsonfailsevenoncetoapplywhatlaterbecametherecognizedphraseology.[3]Furthermore,suchaveryvaguenameas“theotherbooks”maysuggestadeliberatevaguenessand,infact,recallsthesimilarambiguityemployedbysomeoftheearlyChurchFathersinthedecadesbeforeauniversallyrecognizedNewTestamentcanonwaspromulgated.Attheveryleast,suchanindistinctcategorycannotbesaidtoeffectivelyexcludemuchofanything.

Moreover,inatleasttwoplaces,perhapsmore,Sirachindicatesthathedid,infact,believehisbooktocontainthewisdomthatcomesonlyfromtheLord,andthatitcouldtakeaplaceamongtheotherbooksofScripture(SirPreface,Sir24:28-31;cf.Sir1:1;6:37;16:24-25;).[4]TheseclaimsbearwitnesstothefactthatSirachandhisgrandson,alongwiththeircontemporariesinPalestineandEgypt,couldnothavebelievedthatthecontentsofScripturewereyetfixedand/orthatthecompositionofinspiredliteraturewasnolongerpossible.Afterall,alloftoday’sChristiansarefullyagreedthattherewasdefinitelyagreatdealofScriptureyettocomeinSirach’stime—twenty-twowholebooksofNewTestamentwriting!TheideathatSirach’sintroductionimpliesaclosedcanonby200BCreallyimpliesthatthecanonofScripturewasclosedonce,thenreopenedinapostolictimes,beforebeingre-closedagainatthedeathoftheApostleJohn;aninelegantpictureofGod’splanofrevelationtosaytheleast.

1Maccabees(150–50BC)

Protestantapologistshavealsoclaimedthatthebookof1MaccabeesprovesScripturetohavebeenclosedpriortoitscomposition.Theyappealtothefollowingverses:

1Maccabees4:45-46

Thehappythoughtcametothemtotearitdown,lestitbealastingshametothemthattheGentileshaddefiledit;sotheytoredownthealtar.Theystoredthestonesinasuitableplaceonthetemplehill,untilaprophetshouldcomeanddecidewhattodowiththem.

1Maccabees9:27

TherehadnotbeensuchgreatdistressinIsraelsincethetimeprophetsceasedtoappearamongthepeople.

1Maccabees14:41

TheJewishpeopleandtheirpriesthave,therefore,madethefollowingdecisions.Simonshallbetheirpermanentleaderandhighpriestuntilatrueprophetarises.

Because1Maccabeesseemstoassertthatallprophets(andprophecies)hadceasedbythetimeoftheeventsdepicted,itwouldappeartofollowthatthisbookcannotbeconsideredprophetic(i.e.,inspired)Scripture.[5]Inactualfact,thisconclusionreadsagreatdealtoomuchintothetextsinquestionandonlydemonstratesthatthisinspiredandinspiringbookhasbeenreadthroughaprejudiced,Protestantlens.

Considerifsomeofficialweretodecreethatacertainpileofbrickscouldnotberemoveduntilafterapolicemanshouldarrive,wouldthosewhoheardthedecreeimmediatelyassumethatpolicemennolongerexist?—oronlythatnopolicemaniscurrentlyavailable?Wouldnotthehearersassume,rather,thatpolicemendostillexistandthatonewilleventuallymakehisappearance?Likewise,thewriterof1Maccabeesshouldnotbeconstruedtomakeanysweepinggeneralizationaboutthecontinuedexistenceofthepropheticoffice—anymorethantheseveralProtocanonicalwriterswhomakesimilarstatementsintendedsuchageneralization.TakeAsaph,forinstance,authorofthePsalm74,whenhewrotethesewords:“Theysaidintheirhearts,‘Destroythemall!Burn

alltheshrinesofGodintheland!’Nowweseenosigns,wehavenoprophets,noonewhoknowshowlong”(74:8).[6]NoChristianarguesfromthispassagethatprophecyinAsaph’sdayhadceaseduntilthecomingofChrist;whythenshouldparallelstatementsinanotherOldTestamentbook(namely,1Maccabees)beheldtoprovethatithad?Similarly,theauthorofLamentations,writinginthemidstoftheBabyloniancaptivity,speaksofhiseraasatimewhenprophetswerepresentbutwerebeinggivennorevelations:

Sunkintothegroundarehergates;hehasremovedandbrokenherbars.Herkingandherprincesareamongthepagans;priestlyinstructioniswanting,AndherprophetshavenotreceivedanyvisionfromtheLORD.[7]

Certainly,thesewereterribletimes,butmanyprophetscameandmanyinspiredbookswerewritten(includingEzra,Nehemiah,Esther,Joel,Zechariah,andMalachi)wellafterthetimeofexile.InJewishhistory,then,thereweremultipleperiodswhenGoddidnotspeaktohispeoplethroughprophets,leavingonlyfalseprophetstoroamtheland.Thesedisputedpassagesin1Maccabeesaresimplyreferencingsuchtimes,notimplyingsomemythical“400yearsilence”thatstartedatthetimeofEstherandcontinueduntiltheadventofJohntheBaptist.

Dr.RudolfMeyers,writinginKittle’sTheologicalDictionaryoftheNewTestament,ablysumsupthedeficienciesinthiscommonProtestantpolemic:

OntherestorationofthetemplebyJudasMaccabeusthestonesofthedesecratedaltarweresetasidetobeusedonlywhenaprophetarosetomakethenecessaryintimation.Thisisusuallyregardedasasignthattherewasnocurrentprophecy,butthisunderstandingisnotquitecorrect.Expositionshouldratherassumethattheauthorregardsthepresentappearanceofaprophetaspossible(2Mc10:1ffdoesnotcarrytheprophecymotif).Intermsofthisbasicreligiousattitude,1Mcagreeswith[Sirach]andhisgrandson.Itneedbenosurprisethatsuchviewswerepossibleatatimewhenneo-prophecywasalreadyemergingpseudepigraphically,forthedifferingoutlooksdidnotcanceloneanotherout,butexistedtogetherforalongtime.TheRabbtheorythatthereisnopresent

prophecy,asweshallseelater(->982),didnotprevailuntilthe[postapostolic]period.”[8]

NeitherSirachnor1Maccabees,then,providesanyrealcomfortforthosewhowoulddefendtheshorterOldTestamentfavoredbyLutherandCalvin.

Letusturnnowtoaninvestigationofasecondclaim;thattheNewTestamentwritingscontainevidenceforanOldTestamentcanonwhichhadbeenclosedpriortothecompletionoftheDeuteros.

SeveralNewTestamentpassageshavebeenheldtodisqualifytheDeuterocanonicalbooks;amongthemRomans3:2,Luke24:44,Luke11:49-51,andRevelation22:18-19.Eachdeservesaseparateinquiry.

Romans3:2

Firstofallthatthey[theJews]wereentrustedwiththeoraclesofGod.

SeveralProtestantapologistshaveappealedtothisshortversetodemonstratethataclosedcanonofScripturealreadyexistedinthedaysofPaulandthatitscontentsareidenticaltothosefoundinmodernProtestantbibles.ThewordsareheldtoimplythatGodnotonlygavetheJewstheOldTestament(“theoraclesofGod”)butalsotheauthoritytoinfalliblydeclarethatcollectioncompleteandclosed—akindofHebrew“magisterium.”AndsinceanyonemayobtainaJewishbibletoday,examineitandeasilydeterminethatitincludesonlythebooksfoundinProtestantOldTestaments,anyonemayseeGod’sappointedcustodiansrejectedtheDeuterocanon.

Themostobviousproblemwiththisargumentisthatitprovesagreatdealtoomuch—meaning,ofcourse,thatitprovesnothingatall.IftheOldTestamentascurrentlyunderstoodbyJewsrepresentsthecompleteandfinished“oraclesofGod”,thennotonlytheDeuterosbuttheNewTestamentbooksaswell,havefailedtomakethecut.Butif,contrariwise,thelistofGod’strueoracleswasnotliterallycompleteinPaul’stime,butsubjectrathertoalaterrevision(asallChristiansmustmaintaininordertosavetheGospelsandotherapostolicworksasScripture)thenthispassagedoesnotprovewhatitwaspurportedtoprove.Toputthecase

shortly,ifPaul’swordsinRomans3:2meanthatinspirationhadalreadyceasedinJudaismandthecanonofScripturewasalreadyclosed,thenRomans3:2itselfisnon-canonicalandweneedtakenofurthernoticeofit!

No;tosay,asPauldoes,thattheJews“wereentrustedwiththeoraclesofGod”doesnotsuggestthatthoseoraclesalreadyrepresentedafinishedwork;anymorethanthestatement“theLibraryofCongresswasentrustedwiththearchivesoftheUnitedStates”meansthattheUnitedStateswillproducenomorearchivalmaterial.Thestatementis,rather,asimpleaffirmationonthepartoftheApostlethatGoddidspeakinfalliblytotheJewspriortothecomingofChristandthattheOldTestamentistoberegardedasScripture.

Secondly,whentheApostlesaystheJews“wereentrustedwithoraclesofGod”heusestheaoristpassive;heindicates,inotherwords,thattheauthorityofthesynagogueisathingofthepast.AnyrighttorejectagivenprophecyorpropheticbookhadnowpassedfromtherulersoftheJewstotheChristianChurch(ifitwerenotso,theauthorityofPaulhimselfwouldbenullandvoid).ItshouldalsoberememberedthatPauldidnotliterallysaythattheJews“wereentrustedwiththeinspiredbooks”(thoughthatiscertainlyincludedinwhathemeant);whattheApostleactuallysaidwas“entrustedwiththeoraclesofGod”—andthiscategoryincludedmuchmorethanjusttheOldTestamentwritings.TheHebrews,recall,werealsoentrustedwiththeUrrimandThummim(Nm27:21),andotherpropheticaldevices;andnotalltheconsultationsreceivedbythesemethodswerewrittendown.ThescopeofRomans3:2then,cannotberestrictedtoinspiredbooksaloneandcannot,therefore,beadirectreferencetoafixedcanon.

Finally,theideathattheJewspossessedacanonidenticaltomoderndayProtestantismisentirelygratuitous;thereissimplynocontemporaryevidencetosupportsuchaclaim.Foronething,bibleswerenotboundtogetherbetweencoversinNewTestamenttimes;theyexistedasloosecollectionsofscrollsstoredinindividualsynagoguesandtheprecisecollectionvariedfromplacetoplace.Secondly,Judaismwascomprisedofasmanyastwenty-fourdistinctpartiesor“denominations”,asitwere,inthefirstcenturyADandeachofthesepartiesseemstohavehadits

owndistinctivetheologyanditsownpreferencesinmattersofcanonicity.[9]MoststudentsoftheNewTestamentalreadyknowthatthepartyoftheSadduceeshadthenarrowestviewsinthisregard,acceptingonlythePentateuchasindisputablysacred.Theborderswereequallyindistinctontheotherendofthespectrum,withsomeJewishgroupswillingtouseacanonlargerthanthatreceivedbytoday’sCatholics.So,evenifsomeJewishlistingfromPaul’seraweretobediscoveredinthefuture,itwouldstillrepresentonlyacanon—acanonofthePharisees,acanonoftheEssenes,andsoforth—nevertheJewishcanon,fornooneatthattimespokeforalltheJewsandtheprecisemixofscrollsineachsynagoguevariedwidely.Indeed,theJewsofJesus’daywereshockedtohearJesusteachingauthoritativelyandnotlikethescribes.[10]Romans3:2then,providesnoevidenceforaclosed,pre-ChristianHebrewcanon.

Luke24:44

TheseareMywordswhichIspoketoyouwhileIwasstillwithyou,thatallthingswhicharewrittenaboutMeintheLawofMosesandtheProphetsandthePsalmsmustbefulfilled.

Intheirattemptstofindevidenceforacanonclosedduringtheinter-testamentalperiod,somewritershaveappealedtothesewordsofOurLordinthetwenty-fourthchapterofLuke’sGospel.Theargumentrunslikethis:“WhileitistruethatancientJewsdidnotusetheterms‘Bible’or‘OldTestament,’theyhaddevelopedastockidiomwhichtheyregularlyemployedwhenreferringtotheentirebodyofinspiredScripture;thatidiomwas(aswenotedabove)‘theLaw,theProphets,andtheWritings.’AndweknowforafactthatthecollectionthusreferredtodidnotincludetheDeuterocanon.If,therefore,OurLordisfoundusingthosesamedivisions(asHeisinLk24:44)thenwemayreasonablyinferthatHerejectedtheDeuterosaswell.”

Whilethisargumentsoundsplausibleenoughonthesurface,bothofitspremisescontainassumptionsthatgofarbeyond(andevenagainst)whatweknowoftheperiod.Firstofall,itassumesthatthestockidiomunderdiscussionhadalreadycomeintousebythetimeofChrist;whereas,infact,thephraseinquestioncannotbelocatedinanydocumentdatedearlierthanthemid-secondcenturyAD.TheearliestexampleofanythingsimilarisfoundinthebookofSirach,aswesaw

above;yetSirachneverusestheall-important“coinedphrase”butonlyavague,tentativeapproximationtoit(“theLaw,theProphets,andtheotherbooks”)fromwhichnothingsolidcanbededuced.Anotherearlyreference,foundin2Maccabees(writtenaround150BC),alsomissesthemark;itspeaksonlyof“theLawandtheProphets.”[11]EvenPhilo,writingaboutthesametimeastheevangelistLuke,seemsunawareofthethree-folddivisionuponwhichthisargumentdepends.Philowrote,“Andineveryhousethereisasacredshrinewhichiscalledtheholyplace,andthemonasteryinwhichtheyretirebythemselvesandperformallthemysteriesofaholylife…studyinginthatplacetheLawandthesacredoraclesofGodenunciatedbytheholyprophetsandthehymns,andpsalmsandallkindsofotherthingsbyreasonofwhichknowledgeandpietyareincreasedandbroughttoperfection.”[12]NeitherisChristHimselfusingwhatbecamethestandardphrase.Hiswordsare“theLawofMosesandtheProphetsandthePsalms”—not“theLaw,theProphets,andtheWritings.”Perhaps,itmaybeargued,thetwophrasesmeanthesame.Perhapsandperhapsnot,buttheycertainlyarenotactuallythesame,asanyargumentbasedonthereceivedmeaningofalateridiomwouldseemtorequire.Thefirstruleofexegesisisnottogobeyondtheplainmeaningofatextunlessthereissufficientjustificationforit.TheplainmeaningofLuke24:44is“theLaw,theProphetsandthe[Bookof]Psalms,”not“theLaw,theProphetsand[theWritingswhicharebeingcalledthe]Psalms.Certainly,thereisnoscrapofevidencethatChrist’shearerswouldhaveunderstood“Psalms”asanythingotherthanthoseofDavid;andanysuggestionthattheymighthaveispurespeculation.[13]

What,then,istheconnectingthreadbetween“theLaw,theProphets,andthePsalms”asreferredtobyChristhereinLuke24:44?Verseforty-sixofthesamechapterleadsustothebest,simplestexplanation:“Thusitiswritten,thattheChristshouldsufferandonthethirddayrisefromthedead…”AllthreesourcescitedbyChristinverseforty-fourarenotablefortheirmanypropheciesofasufferingSavior;theinclusion,byname,ofthebookofPsalmsseemstounderscorethisconclusion.[14]Simplyput,thereisnoindicationthatOurLordwishedtodelineatetheparametersoftheOldTestamentcanoninLuke24:44.“Commonly,”asProtestantscholarEdwardReussobserves,

theattemptismadetoprovetheintegrityoftheHebrewcanonfor

theapostolicage,bythetermswhichLukeuses(xxiv.44);butitiseasytoseethatinthatpassageheissimplyenumeratingthebooksinwhichMessianicprophecieswerefound.[15]

ThesecondpremiseofthisargumentfromLuke’sGospelisalsofatallyflawed.Itassumes,asamatteroffact,thatthelater,idiomaticphrasewithitsthree-folddivision,excludedthebooksoftheDeuterocanon;inreality,thiscommonassertionisfarfromproved.Forexample,theJewishworkBabaKamma92b(writtenwellintotheChristianera)explicitlyincludesthebookofSirachamong“theWritings”!Rabbanb.Mari(320–350)toldRaba(320–350):

ThismatteriswrittenintheTorah,repeatedintheProphets,andrepeatedathirdtimeintheHagiographa,andwastaughtintheMishnah,andwastaughtinaBaraitha…andrepeatedathirdtimeintheHagiographa,asitiswritten,‘Hewillstaywithyouforatime,butifyoufalter,hewillnotstandbyyou’(Sir12:15).[16]

SomeoftheearlyChristianwritersalsowitnessedtheinclusionofDeuterocanonicalbookswithinthethree-folddivisionofJewishScripture.OrigenofAlexandria(AD185–232),inlistingthebooksoftheHebrewcanoninhisday,enumeratesallthefamiliarProtocanonicalworks,thenaddsthisphrase:“AndbesidesthesetherearetheMaccabees,whichareentitledSarbethSabanaiel.”[17]Likewise,HilaryofPoitiersincludestheBookofBaruchinhislistoftheHebrewcanon(underthecategoryof“theProphets”)andindicatesthatWisdomandSirachcouldbeaddedtothislistaswell.[18]Quiteafewotherpatristicdocumentssheddoubtonthecrucialsecondpremiseaswell.Forinstance,ifweknowforcertainthat“theLaw,theProphets,andtheWritings”didnotincludetheDeuteros,whatarewetomakeofthesefacts,compiledbytheCatholicscholarA.E.Breen?

St.Epiphanius,Haer.VIII.No.6,testifiesthatWisdomandEcclesiasticuswereinhonoramongtheJews,anddistinguishedfromtheapocryphalworks.IsidoresaysofWisdom:‘Asacertainoneofthosewhoknowhasrecorded,theHebrewsreceivedthiswork(Wisdom)amongtheCanonicalScriptures.ButaftertheyhadseizedandkilledtheChrist,rememberingthemostevidenttestimoniesconcerningChristinthatsamebook,inwhichitis

written:‘Theimpioussaidamongthemselves,‘letusseizethejust,’etc.,takingcounsellestwemightlayuponthemsuchanevidentsacrilege,theycutitofffromthepropheticvolumes,andprohibiteditsreadingtotheirpeople.’TheApostolicalConstitutionstestifythatBaruchwasreadintheJewishsynagogues.St.JerometestifiesinthisprefacetothebookofJudiththatamongtheHebrewsJudithisread‘amongtheHagiographa.’‘Itsauthority,’hecontinues,‘isconsideredlessapttodecidethingsaboutwhichthereisdispute.ItiswritteninChaldaic,andreckonedamongthehistoricalbooks.’[19]

Anyattemptthen,toarguethatthelaterrabbinical,three-folddivisionofScripturecertainlydidnotincludetheDeuteros,goeswellbeyondtherealmofprovenfact.EvenifLuke24:44doesaffirmthetripartitedivisionofScripture,itdoesnot,bythatveryfact,ruleoutthepossibilitythatthedisputedbookswerealsoincludedinthatcollectionofScripture.

Bothpremises,then,havebeendisproved.IftheargumentbasedonLuke24:44is,simplystated,this:“TherecognizednamefortheHebrewbible,usedbyChrist,referredtoacollectionwithnoDeuteros”thentheCatholicanswercanbestatedsimplyaswell:“Thisclaimhasnotbeenestablished;andevenifitwere,therecognizednamecannotevenbeshowntohaveexistedatthetimeofChrist.”

Luke11:49-51

ThereforealsotheWisdomofGodsaid,‘Iwillsendthemprophetsandapostles,someofwhomtheywillkillandpersecute,’thatthebloodofalltheprophets,shedfromthefoundationoftheworld,mayberequiredofthisgeneration,fromthebloodofAbeltothebloodofZechariah,whoperishedbetweenthealtarandthesanctuary.Yes,Itellyou,itshallberequiredofthisgeneration.

AnothercommonargumentagainsttheDeuterosisbasedonthisquote,inwhichOurLordpronouncesawordofjudgmentuponfaithlessIsrael.ThecontentionhereisthattheLordhasproducedasortof“AtoZ”listing(thoughthecorrespondencetoourmodernalphabetisanadmittedcoincidence)of“alltheprophets”,thefirstbeingAbel(Gn4:8-10)andthelastZechariah(2Chr24:20-22).Andsince2Chronicles(thebookinwhichthemartyrdomofZechariahappears)wasthelastbookofthe

whichthemartyrdomofZechariahappears)wasthelastbookoftheshorterHebrewcanon,thispassagesupposedlyshowsChristHimselfplacingastampofapprovaluponacanonendingat2Chronicles.Intruth,thisargument,likethatbasedonLuke24:44,fallsapartatitspremises.

Thepremisesarethese:(1)theZechariahmentionedinLuke11:51isthesamepersonastheZechariahmentionedin2Chronicles24:20-22;(2)thesecondbookofChronicleswasthelastbookintheHebrewbibleofJesus’day;(3)Jesus’referencetothesetwomartyrspurposefullycorrespondedtothelimitsoftheOldTestamentcanon;and(4)theonlybooksfoundbetweenGenesisandChroniclesarethoseinthelaterJewishandProtestantcanons.Letusexamineeachoftheseindividually.

Firstofall,itisnotatallcertainthattheZechariahindicatedinLuke11:51isthesameZechariahmentionedin2Chronicles24:20-22.Indeed,theparallelpassageinMatthew’sGospel(Mt23:34-36)specificallyidentifiestheZechariahtowhomChristrefersas“thesonofBarachiah”—inotherwords,theeleventhoftheTwelveProphets,authoroftheProtocanonicalbookofthesamename[20]—whereastheZechariahof2Chroniclesisidentifiedas“thesonofJehoiada.”Somewritershaveguessedthatthephrase“ofBarachiah”isanerrororlatercorruptionoftheMattheantext;given,however,thetotalabsenceofevidenceforsuchamistake,thetheoryremainsjustthat—guesswork.[21]

Thesecondpremiseofthisargumentassumesthatthebookof2ChronicleswascertainlythelastbookoftheHebrewbibleinJesus’day.Thisisimpossibletoprove,forseveralreasons.Tobeginwith,thisideatakesforgranted,onceagain,thatarabbinicalcanondatingfrommanyyearslatermusthavebeenauthoritativeinNewTestamenttimesaswell;andwehavealreadydiscussedthemanyfallaciescontainedinthatanachronisticnotion.Also,determiningtheactualbookorderevenoftheselater,rabbinicaleditionsishighlyproblematical.Nosurvivingcodiceshavesurvivedfromtheearlycenturies.Infact,theearliestexistingcopyoftheHebrewbible(inthesenseofabookorcodex,asopposedtoaloosecollectionofscrolls)isthefamedLeningradCodex,composedaroundtheendofthefirstmillennium;andboththeLeningradCodexandthestandardAleppensisCodexplacetheBooksof

Chronicles,notlast,butfirstamongtheWritings![22]AndalthoughtheseCodicesarerelativelyrecentinhistory(ca.AD1000),theydo,nevertheless,openthepossibilitythattheChroniclesmaynotalwayshavebeenthelastbooksoftheHebrewbible.FurtherevidencecanbefoundinthetextsofChroniclesandEzrathemselves.ProtestantexegeteDavidNoelFreedmanarguesthatthelastparagraphofSecondChroniclesisarepetitionofthefirstparagraphofEzra.Hesuggeststhat1and2ChroniclesmusthavebeenseparatedspatiallywithinthecollectionoftheWritingsbecauseifthebookshadbeenconnected,therewouldhavebeennoneedfortherepetition.”[23]IfFreedmaniscorrect,thentheorderfoundintheLeningradandAleppoCodicesreflectsamoreancientorderingwhichdiffersfromthatusedtoday.Attheveryleast,wemayregardaswhollyunsubstantiatedanydogmaticinsistencethatthebookorderfollowedbymodernJewsandProtestantswouldhavebeenknownandinsisteduponbyChrist.

ThethirdpremisestatesthatJesuswishedtomakethesetwomartyrs(AbelandZechariah)intoasetofbookends,sotospeak,correspondingtothelimitsoftheOldTestamentcanon.If,afterall,HehadconsideredthebooksoftheMaccabeestobepropheticorinspiredScripture,wouldhenothavesaid,rather,“fromthebloodofAbeltothebloodoftheMaccabees”?Themistakehereisthatofforgettingthecontext;Christis,inthispassage,judgingthefaithlessJewsforspillingthebloodofprophets—andtheMaccabeeswereslainbyGreek,andnotbyfaithlessJews.ThecontextrestrictsJesus’remarkstothefirstandthelastprophetslainbytheircompatriotsandnotnecessarilythefirstandlastbooksoftheBible.Inbrief,thereissimplynothinginthesurroundingcontextofthispassagetoindicatethatOurLordintendedtomakeanycommentwhatsoeveraboutthelimitsofOldTestamentcanonicity.Anyattempttofindsuchacommentispureimagination.

Finally,theargumentbasedonLuke11:49-51assumesthattheonlybooksfoundbetweenGenesisandChroniclesarethoseoftheProtocanon.This,aswehavealreadydemonstrated,isalsoamatterofconjecture.TherearesimplynoJewishbibles,nolistsorcanonsofScripturefromJesus’dayorearlier,bywhichonemightestablishthispoint,howeverbadlyonemightwishitwereotherwise.[24]Infact,wedonotevenknowthestatusofseveralProtocanonicalworksduringthat

period.ManyofthebookspresentinlaterJewishOldTestaments(suchasEcclesiastes,SongofSolomon,Esther,andothers)werestillbeinghotlydebatedinJudaismwellafterthetimeofChrist.SoevenifweweretouncoversomewidelyacceptedJewishcanonfromapostolictimesorearlier,itmightverywellbemissingtheseimportantbooksnowpresentinallChristiancanons!

Weconcludethisexaminationwithaquestion:IfthispassageinLuke’sGospelreallypresentsaperspicuousproof-textfordeterminingthecanon,whyisitthattheFathersoftheChurchneverreferredtoitduringanyoftheearlydebatesoverthecanon?Certainlytheseearlysaintswerenotinfallible;nooneclaimsthattheywere.AllknewtheGospelswell,yetnoneeverthoughttointerpretLuke11:51inthemannersuggestedbythislate,Protestantlineofreasoning.Thisfact,surely,deservesseriousconsideration.

Revelation22:18-19

Iwarneveryonewhohearsthewordsoftheprophecyofthisbook:ifanyoneaddstothem,Godwilladdtohimtheplaguesdescribedinthisbook,andifanyonetakesawayfromthewordsofthebookofthisprophecy,Godwilltakeawayhisshareinthetreeoflifeandintheholycity,whicharedescribedinthisbook.

TheBookofRevelationwas,inalllikelihood,thelastbookoftheBibletobewrittenandis,ofcourse,thefinalbookintheNewTestamentcanonweallagreeon.Itwasalsowrittenverylate,neartheendofthelifeofthelastlivingapostle,uponwhosedeaththepossibilityofinspiredScriptureceasedonceandforall(atruththat,again,weallagreeupon).Thisterriblewarning,then,comingattheendofthatfinalbook,indicates,accordingtoProtestantpolemicists,thatthecanonofScripturewasclosedatthattimeandcouldnotbealtered.Isthisnotaverycompellingargument?

Actually,muchoftheeffectivenessofthisclaimrestsonakindof“opticalillusion.”First,itisbynomeanscertainthattheBookofRevelationwaswrittenlast;mostscholarsthinkso,butcertainlynotall.ManyveryorthodoxexpertsbelievethatJohn’sGospelorperhapsoneofhisEpistleswasthelastbooktobecomposed.Andnooneknowsforsure

whentheBookofRevelationwaswritten;datesasearlyasAD68havebeenofferedbyreputablemen.Secondly,thefactthatRevelationcomeslastinmodernbiblesisnotbasedonchronologyanymorethanthefactthatPsalmscomesafterNehemiahprovesthatPsalmswaswrittenafterNehemiah.Modernbiblesarearrangedlikealibrary—intocategoriessuchas“history”and“prophecy”—notinfirst-to-lastorder.Thecustomaryorderforourcanonicalbooksisjustthat:acustom—anentirelyman-madeconventionwithnodoctrinalsignificance.Theconvergence,then,ofthesethreefacts—thatRevelationwas,mostlikely,thelasttobewritten;thatitdealswith“lastthings”andtheendoftheage;andthatitappearslastinmodernbibles—haveproducedanaccidentalsenseoffinalityandgiventothepassageunderdiscussionanunintendedmeaning.Thirdly,theDeuteroswerenot,despiteProtestantclaims,addedtotheScripturesafterthispassageinRevelationwaswritten.AlloftheDeuterocanonicalbookshadbeencompleteandinuseamongpiousJewsfordecadesatthetimeoftheApostleJohnandhadreceivedasmuchDivineinspirationasanyOldTestamentbooks.Anyclaimthattheyhadalreadyfailed,bythistime,to“makethecut”intosomesupposedlyclosed(butsubjecttoreopening)Jewishcanonhasalreadybeenexploded.

What,then,doesthispassageinRevelationreferto?Plainly,itreferstoitself—totheBookofRevelationascomposedbytheApostleJohn—andnottotheBibleasawhole.WeknowthisbecausetheBibleasawholehadnotyetbeengatheredtogetherinJohn’sday.Indeed,itwouldbecenturiesbeforethevariousbooksoftheNewTestamentweregatheredtogetherintoauniversallyacknowledgedcollection.TheBookofRevelation,infact,wasoneofthelastbookstogainuniversalrecognitionandacceptanceinboththeEastandtheWest.Isitnotpossible,however,thatGodHimselfinspiredJohntoprovidea“bible-wide”curse,eventhoughthetruecontentsofthatbiblewasknown,atthetimeofcomposition,onlytoGodHimself?Perhaps,buttherereallyisnoneedtodragsuchstrainedexegeticalguessworkintothediscussion;notwhenthereisaparallelpassageintheOldTestamentwhichprovidessomuchlight.Deuteronomy4:2says:

YoushallnotaddtothewordwhichIamcommandingyou,nortakeawayfromit,thatyoumaykeepthecommandmentsoftheLord

yourGodwhichIcommandyou.

Givenourobjector’slogic,thisveryancientpassagemustbeteachingthatnobookwastohavebeenaddedtothecanonafterthebookofDeuteronomy!

Tosumupthissection,wemaysaywithoutfearofreasonablecontradictionthattheNewTestamentaloneprovidesuswithnoinformationwhatsoeveronwhichbooksdoanddonotbelonginthecanonoftheOldTestament.

NewTestamentUsage

Letusturnnowtoanothertypeofobjection.IsittruethattheNewTestamentcontainsnoreferencestotheDeuterocanonicalbooks,indicatingthattheinspiredwritersdidnotconsiderthemtobeasacredsource?

AsallreadersoftheNewTestamentknow,OurBlessedLordandthesacredwriterswhoconsignedHisdoctrinetowritingveryoftenalludedtoandactuallyquotedfromtheexistingbooksofScripturealreadycompleteatthattime(thebookswhichlaterbecameknownastheOldTestament).Thereareover330directquotationsfromtheOldTestamentincludedwithintheNewandmanymoreobliquereferences.Thisisanimportantfact;indeed,itwasusedbyseveraloftheearlyFathersasarefutationofMarcionism,thatancientheresywhichdeniedtheinspirationoftheHebrewScripturesandheldthemtobeofnovalueforChristians.Morerecentlyhowever,someProtestantpolemicistshavesuggestedthatthequotingofanOldTestamentbookwithinthepagesoftheNewcanbeusedasatestofcanonicity;andthattherearenosuchquotationsfromtheDeuterocanonicalbooks.TheNewTestamentwritersignoredtheDeuterosaltogether(orsotheargumentgoes)andthisapostolic“coldshoulder”isaninfalliblesignthatthebooksinquestionarenottoberegardedasScripture.

Actually,theforceofthisargument,socommonlyheardtoday,dependsalmostentirelyuponignoranceofthecontentsoftheDeuteros;mostoftheearlyProtestantsweretoofamiliarwiththemeventosuggestsuchanabsurdidea.SeveralearlyProtestantbiblesnotonlyincludedtheDeuterocanonalongwiththeNewTestament,butactuallycontained

cross-referencingnotespointingoutthe(supposedlynon-existent)connectionsbetweenthetwo!Theoriginal1611editionoftheProtestantKingJamesBible,forinstance,boastselevenofsuchcross-references(and102betweentheDeuterosandtheOldTestament!).Thenoteswereremovedfromfutureeditions.

Torefutethenthisfallaciousargument,letusbeginhereusingthevenerableKingJamesBibleasourstartingpoint.LetusexaminetheelevenpointsofcontactrecognizedbythefathersofthisgreatestofallEnglishbiblesandseewhattheycantellusabouttherelationshipbetweentheNewTestamentandthatportionoftheOldknownastheDeuterocanon.

1)Matthew6:14-15–Sirach7:14

Matthew6:14-15

Forifyouforgiveothersfortheirtransgressions,yourheavenlyFatherwillalsoforgiveyou.Butifyoudonotforgiveothers,thenyourFatherwillnotforgiveyourtransgressions.(cf.Mk11:25:Whenyoustandtopray,forgiveanyoneagainstwhomyouhaveagrievance,sothatyourheavenlyFathermayinturnforgiveyouyourtransgressions.)

Sirach28:2

Forgiveyourneighbor’sinjustice;thenwhenyoupray,yourownsinswillbeforgiven.

Thisfirstcross-referenceconcernsOurLord’sexplanationofthelastlineoftheOurFather.Thelinkbetweenforgivingothersandreceivingforgivenessofsins(orinthecaseoftheparalleltextinMark11:25,therelationshipbetweenprayerandforgivingone’sneighbors)isfoundinSirach28:2.

2)Matthew27:43–Wisdom2:15,16

Matthew27:41-43

Likewisethechiefpriestswiththescribesandeldersmockedhimandsaid,“Hesavedothers;hecannotsavehimself.Soheisthe

kingofIsrael!Lethimcomedownfromthecrossnow,andwewillbelieveinhim.Hesavedothers;hecannotsavehimself.HetrustedinGod;lethimdeliverhimnowifhewantshim.Forhesaid,‘IamtheSonofGod.’”

Wisdom2:17-22

Letusseewhetherhiswordsbetrue;letusfindoutwhatwillhappentohim.ForifthejustonebethesonofGod,hewilldefendhimanddeliverhimfromthehandofhisfoes.Withrevilementandtortureletusputhimtothetestthatwemayhaveproofofhisgentlenessandtryhispatience.Letuscondemnhimtoashamefuldeath;foraccordingtohisownwords,‘Godwilltakecareofhim.’Theseweretheirthoughts,buttheyerred;fortheirwickednessblindedthem,AndtheyknewnotthehiddencounselsofGod;neitherdidtheycountonarecompenseofholinessnordiscerntheinnocentsouls’reward.

ThelargercontextofMatthew27:41-43isgivenhereforthereader’sbenefit.ManymodernbibleswilldirectthereadertotheSufferingServantpassageinPsalm22:8-9,whichreads:

Allwhoseememockme;theycurltheirlipsandjeer;theyshaketheirheadsatme:‘YoureliedontheLORD—lethimdeliveryou;ifhelovesyou,lethimrescueyou.’

BibleswhichincludetheDeuterocanonwilllikelyprovideasecondcross-referencetoWisdom2:17-18.Noonewoulddeny,surely,thatthetwotextshaveacertainaffinitywithoneanother.Forexample,bothPsalm22:8-9andWisdom2:17-18speakaboutGodrescuingthejustmanwhoplaceshistrustinHim.[25]However,thetauntsofthechiefpriests,scribesandeldersinMatthew27:43suggestsomethingmorespecific;Christisbeingmockednotmerelyforbeing“lovedbyGod”(asacomparisontoPs22:8-9wouldsuggest),butspecificallybecause“Hesaid‘IamtheSonofGod.’”ThisisthepointatwhichtheconnectiontotheplainerpassageintheDeuterocanonicalbookbecomesdramatic:

HetrustedinGod;lethimdeliverhimnowifhewantshim.Forhesaid,‘IamtheSonofGod.’[26]

ForifthejustonebethesonofGod,hewilldefendhimanddeliverhimfromthehandofhisfoes.[27]

ThisistheonlypassageintheOldTestamentwhichexpressesadirectexpectationthatthetrueSonofGodwouldberescuedanddeliveredfrompersecutionbymockersanddetractors;anditispreciselyChrist’sclaimofdivineSonshipthatledtheJewishleadersofMatthew27:43toexpresstheirfeignedexpectationofsucharescue.Giventhiscloseinterconnection,itisnotsurprisingtofindProtestantsourcesrecognizingthisdependencyonWisdominMatthew27:41-43.What,ifanything,however,doesthisusagetellusabouttheinspiredstatusofWisdom?

First,theeldersmusthaveunderstoodtheBookofWisdomtobeanauthoritative,perhapsevenpredictive,sacredtext;forhadtheytakenthebookasmerehumanapocryphatheirtauntwouldhavebeenmeaningless,perhapsevenblasphemous,sinceitwouldthenhaveamountedtoademandforamiraculousrescueGodneverpromised.Onlyarecognizedinspiredtextwouldhavegiventhesewordspowerandavoidedblasphemouspresumption.

Secondly,thechiefpriests,scribes,andeldersmusthavehadareasonableexpectationthatthosepresentwouldrecognizetheircitationofWisdom2:17-18;otherwise,theirwordswouldhavebeenlostontheirhearers.Third,Matthew’sinclusionofthesewordsinhisGospelnarrativeindicatesthathesawthemashavingsomesignificanceforJewishChristianreaders,seeingperhaps,astheApostlePauldid,Christ’sultimaterescueintheResurrectionasavindicationordemonstrationofHisdivineSonship.[28]Finally,Matthewapparentlyexpectedhisreaderstoknowthistextaswellandacceptitasagenuineprophecy.Fromearliesttimes,ChristiansusedWisdom2:17-18asagenuineprophecyofChrist’spassion.[29]

Thereissomethingstrongerthananallusionorevenaquotehere;MatthewisemployingWisdominthistext(orrathertheJewishelderswereemployingWisdom,andMatthewrecordedit).ItsuggeststhatMatthew,thechiefpriests,scribes,andelders,aswellastheirhearersandreaders,understoodthistexttobeprophetic.Yetdespitethesignificanceofthisemployment,byMatthewandothers,thisreferencetotheinspiredbookofWisdomhasbeensystematicallyomittedfrommost

Protestantbibles.[30]

3)Luke6:31–Tobit4:15

Luke6:31

Dotoothersasyouwouldhavethemdotoyou.(cf.Matthew7:12:Dotootherswhateveryouwouldhavethemdotoyou.Thisisthelawandtheprophets.)

Tobit4:15

Dotonoonewhatyouyourselfdislike.

TheKingJamesBibleof1611drewtheobviouscomparisonbetweenOurLord’sGoldenRuleandthenegativeformofitwhichappearsinTobit4:15.

4)Luke14:13–Tobit4:7

Luke14:13

Butwhenthoumakestafeast,callthepoor,themaimed,thelame,andtheblind…

Tobit4:7

Givealmsoutofthysubstance,andturnnotawaythyfacefromanypoorperson:forsoitshallcometopassthatthefaceoftheLordshallnotbeturnedfromthee.

5)John10:22–1Maccabees4:59

John10:22

AnditwasthefeastofthededicationatJerusalem:anditwaswinter.

1Maccabees4:59

AndJudas,andhisbrethren,andallthechurchofIsraeldecreed,thatthedayofthededicationofthealtarshouldbekeptinitsseasonfromyeartoyearforeightdays,fromthefiveandtwentieth

dayofthemonthofCasleu,withjoyandgladness.

TheFeastoftheDedication,mentionedinJohn10:22andknowntodayasHanukkah(Chanukah),wasestablishedduringthetimeoftheMaccabeesandprescribedasanannualfeastin1Maccabees4:59.AntiochusIV,kingofSyria,haddefeatedEgyptandturnedhiswrathtowardIsrael.Hetookforhimselfthegoldenaltar,lampstands,andsacredvesselsoftheTempleandsacrificedapigtothegodZeusintheHolyofHolies.TheSyriankingforbadecircumcision,Sabbathobservance,andthekeepingofthekosherlaws.JudasMaccabeesrefusedtosubmittotheking’soppressiverulesandledasuccessfulrebelliononbehalfofGod’sPeopleagainsttheiroppressors.Onthetwenty-fifthofKislev,theJewsrededicatedtheTemple.Aspeciallampcalledthe“nertamid”or“eternallight”wasrelit,buttherewasbarelyenoughconsecratedoiltokeepitburningforaday,andaweekwouldbeneededtopreparemore.SecondMaccabeesrecordsthatGodmiraculouslysustainedtheburninglampforeightdaysuntilanewsupplyhadbeenpreparedandcommissionedthecelebrationofaFeastonthisdate.

TheoriginofthefeastisfoundnowhereintheProtestantbible,yetourLordnotonlyattendedthisfeast,butalsoheusedtheFeastofLightsasabackdropforHis“LightoftheWorld”discourse.[31]Inasense,thisfeastisfulfilledinJesus,whoisthetruelightthatenlightenseveryman.[32]

6)&7)Romans9:20-22–Wisdom12:12,15:7,12:20

Romans9:20

Onthecontrary,whoareyou,Oman,whoanswersbacktoGod?Thethingmoldedwillnotsaytothemolder,‘Whydidyoumakemelikethis,’willit?

Wisdom12:12

Forwhocansaytoyou,‘Whathaveyoudone?’or‘whocanopposeyourdecree?’Orwhenpeoplesperish,whocanchallengeyou,theirmaker;orwhocancomeintoyourpresenceasvindicatorofunjustmen?

Romans9:21

Ordoesnotthepotterhavearightovertheclay,tomakefromthesamelumponevesselforhonorableuse,andanotherforcommonuse?

Wisdom15:7

Fortrulythepotter,laboriouslyworkingthesoftearth,moldsforourserviceeachseveralarticle:Boththevesselsthatserveforcleanpurposesandtheiropposites,allalike;Astowhatshallbetheuseofeachvesselofeitherclasstheworkerinclayisthejudge.

Romans9:22

WhatifGod,althoughwillingtodemonstrateHiswrathandtomakeHispowerknown,enduredwithmuchpatiencevesselsofwrathpreparedfordestruction?

Wisdom12:20

Forifthoudidstpunishtheenemiesofthychildren,andtheycondemnedtodeath,withsuchdeliberation,givingthemtimeandplace,wherebytheymightbedeliveredfromtheirmalice?

The1611KingJamesVersioncross-referencesonlyRomans9:21andWisdom15:7,butbythemselves,theconnectionbetweenthesetwotextsisnotveryimpressive.ThesameimageryofthepotterandtheclayisusedinseveralotherpassagesintheProtocanon.[33]Metzgernotes,however,thatwhiletheimageofthepotterandclaycanbefoundelsewhere,onlyRomansandWisdomagreeinthe“twist,”thatbothgoodandbadaremadefromthesamelumpofclay.[34]MetzgerbolstersthisobservationbynotingbetweenthesetwotextsseverallinguisticparallelsthataresustainedthroughthreeconsecutiveversesfromRomans9:20–22.[35]

8)Romans11:34–Wisdom9:13

Romans11:34

ForwhohathknownthemindoftheLord?Orwhohathbeenhiscounselor?

Wisdom9:13

ForwhoamongmenishethatcanknowthecounselofGod?OrwhocanthinkwhatthewillofGodis?

HerePaulisapparentlyquotingIsaiah40:13(Septuagint).However,thereisamoredistantechoofthesamethoughtinWisdom9:13.

9)2Corinthians9:7–Sirach35:9

2Corinthians9:7

Everyoneashehathdeterminedinhisheart,notwithsadness,orofnecessity:forGodlovethacheerfulgiver.

Sirach35:8[9]

Witheachcontributionshowacheerfulcountenance,andpayyourtithesinaspiritofjoy.

TheSeptuagintversionofProverbs22:8aandSirach35:8(KJV35:9)echoesPaul’sthoughtsin2Corinthian9:7.ItisinterestingthatbothofthesetextsareabsentintheHebrewMasoreticText(MT)oftheOldTestament.

10)Hebrew1:3–Wisdom7:26

Hebrew1:3

Whoistherefulgenceofhisglory,theveryimprintofhisbeing,andwhosustainsallthingsbyhismightyword.Whenhehadaccomplishedpurificationfromsins,hetookhisseatattherighthandoftheMajestyonhigh…

Wisdom7:26

“Forsheistherefulgenceofeternallight,thespotlessmirrorofthepowerofGod,theimageofhisgoodness.

LiketheBookofProverbs,Wisdom7:26personifiestheWisdomofGod.[36]ThewriterofHebrewsappearstohaveadoptedWisdom7:26’sdescriptionofdivineWisdomandappliesittoJesus.Heistherefulgence

ofGod’sglory.Thewordtranslatedrefulgence[Gk.apaugasma]isextremelyrareintheSeptuagint,appearingonlyinWisdom7:26,thuslinkingthetwopassages.[37]

11)Hebrews11:35–2Maccabees7:7

Hebrews11:35

Womenreceivedbacktheirdeadthroughresurrection.Someweretorturedandwouldnotacceptdeliverance,inordertoobtainabetterresurrection.

2Maccabees7:1,13-14

Italsohappenedthatsevenbrotherswiththeirmotherwerearrestedandtorturedwithwhipsandscourgesbytheking,toforcethemtoeatporkinviolationofGod’slaw...13Nowwhenthismanwasdeadalso,theytormentedandmangledthefourthinlikemanner.14Sowhenhewasreadytodiehesaidthus,Itisgood,beingputtodeathbymen,tolookforhopefromGodtoberaisedupagainbyhim:asforthee,thoushalthavenoresurrectiontolife.

ThewriterofHebrewsprovidesalonglistoffiguresfromsacredhistorywhosefaithfulnessgainedapproval.[38]Innearchronologicalorder,theauthorarrangesaseriesofillustrationsfromthefollowingBiblicalfigures:Abel(Gn4:4),Enoch(Gn5:21-24),Noah(Gn6:13-22)Abraham(Gn12:1-4,8,13:3,18,18:1-9etal.),Sarah(Gn17:19,18:11-14,21:1),Isaac(Gn22:1-10,21:12,27:27-29),JacobandEsau(Gn27:27-29,48:1,5,16,20),Joseph(Gn50),Moses(Ex2:2,10-11,15),Joshua(Jo6:20),Gideon(Jgs6-7),Barak(Jgs4-5),Samson(Jgs13-16),Jephthah(Jgs13-16),David(1Sm16:1-13),Samuel(1Sm1:20)andtheprophets.Hebrewscontinueshislistofthesegreatbiblicalfiguresbyrecountingtheirexploitsratherthanlistingtheirnames.InHebrews11:35,thewriterreferstoMaccabeanmartyrsdepictedin2Maccabees7:1-42.

ThisidentificationoftheMaccabeanmartyrswiththosedescribedinHebrews11:35isofahighdegreeofcertaintybecausetherearenootherexamplespresentedintheGreekOldTestamentofpersonsundergoingtortureandnotacceptingdeliveranceforthehopeofabetter

resurrection.TwiceintheepisodeoftheMaccabeanmartyrsthishopeforabetterresurrectionisexplicitlystated.[39]

Hebrews11:35and2Maccabeesarealsolinkedlinguisticallyaswell:

ThewordinHeb.xi.35,rendered‘tormented,’isapeculiarone(tumpanizw)…isusedhereinreferencetothetumpanon,intheaccountofEleazar’smartyrdominMaccabees,whichtheDeandoesnothesitatetoassertisthecaseespeciallyintended.Alsothewordfor‘cruelmockings’inverse36ispeculiartothisverseand2Macc.vii.7.OtherofthedeedsandsufferingenumeratedarealsobasedupontheMaccabeanhistory.[40]

Apartfromdogmaticprejudice,thisreferenceto2Maccabeesisunquestionable,andbothCatholicandProtestantscholarsrightlyacknowledgethispointofcontactbetweenHebrewsandtheDeuterocanonicalbookof2Maccabees.

ProtestantapologistsoftenarguethatthecitationoftheseMaccabeanmartyrsisreallynothingmorethanasimplehistoricalreference,andthatithasnobearingonthediscussionofwhether2MaccabeesoughttobeconsidereddivinelyinspiredScripture.ThecontextoftheeleventhchapterofHebrewswouldindicatethecontrary.Wearenotdealingherewithamerehistoricalfactoid;Hebrews11providesapanoramicviewofsacredhistorybeginningwithAbelintheBookofGenesisandcontinuingthrough(moreorlesschronologically)totheBookof2Maccabees.Noneofthepreviousversesreferstoanymerehistoricalpersonage;eachandeverypriorreferenceistosomebiblicalfigurerenownedforsupernaturalactsoffaith.Sowemustask:IfthewriterofHebrewshadwishedustoacceptonlytheshorterProtestantcanonandhadacceptedsuchacanonhimself,wouldhehaveplacedashedoestheheroesofanapocryphalbookonthesamelistwithNoah,Abraham,Moses,andDavid—thegreatestfiguresofSalvationHistory?Orwouldhenot,rather,haveavoidedanyreferencetosuchabook,asmostProtestantsdo,fearingtogiveitafalseimpressionofauthority,andconcludedhislistinsteadwithbiblicalfiguresfrombeforethetimeofEzra?[41]

BecausethebookofHebrewsdoesextenditspanoramaof“themenofoldwhogainedapproval”fromAbeltotheMaccabees,wemusthonestlyconcludethatthewriterofHebrewsappearstohaveacceptedthelarger

concludethatthewriterofHebrewsappearstohaveacceptedthelargerCatholiccanon.

OtherPointsofContact

TheeditorsoftheKingJamesBiblemightwellhaveincludedmanyothersimilarconnections,allofwhichhavebeenknownandcommenteduponsincethedaysoftheChurchFathers.Severaloftheseadditionalpointsdeservementioninthissection.

ThefirstisaratherlengthyparallelbetweenthethoughtoftheApostlePaulinRomans1:20-32andthatcontainedinthethirteenthandfourteenthchaptersoftheBookofWisdom.Thereareseveralpointsofcontactbetweenthesetwosections,thebreadthofwhichledthefamedProtestantexegete,J.B.Lightfoot,tocommentthusly:

AllwhichfollowinthischaptershowsaremarkablecorrespondencewithWisd.xiii.–xv.,apassagewhichSt.Paulmusthavehadinhismind.”[42]

Paul,wholearnedhisHebrewtheologyatthefeetofGamaliel,wouldcertainlyhaveknowntheBookofWisdomwell,asdidalllearnedJews,whatevertheymayhavethoughtofitsstatusasinspiredScripture.ThatthegreatApostlewaswillingtoechothethoughtsofsuchabooksodirectly,borrowingthemalmostwholesaleforuseinhisownarguments,speaksvolumesabouthisopinionofthesupposedly“apocryphal”writingsinquestion.Attheveryleast,however,thisremarkablecorrespondenceisanexampleofsomethingwhich(accordingtotheargumentweareexamining)isnotsupposedtohavehappened:adirectallusionto,ifnotaquotationfrom,theDeuterocanonicalbookswithinthepagesoftheNewTestament.

2Corinthians5:1-9–Wisdom9:10-18

2Corinthians5:1-9

Forweknowthatifourearthly[Gk.epigeodos]dwelling,atent[Gk.skenos],shouldbedestroyed,wehaveabuildingfromGod,adwellingnotmadewithhands,eternalinheaven.Forinthistentwegroan,longingtobefurtherclothedwithourheavenlyhabitationifindeed,

whenwehavetakenitoff,weshallnotbefoundnaked.Forwhileweareinthistentwegroanandareweigheddown,[Gk.bareomai]becausewedonotwishtobeunclothedbuttobefurtherclothed,sothatwhatismortalmaybeswallowedupbylife.NowtheonewhohaspreparedusforthisverythingisGod,whohasgivenustheSpiritasafirstinstallment.Sowearealwayscourageous,althoughweknowthatwhileweareathomeinthebodyweareawayfromtheLord,forwewalkbyfaith,notbysight.Yetwearecourageous,andwewouldratherleavethebodyandgohometotheLord.Therefore,weaspiretopleasehim,whetherweareathomeoraway.”

Wisdom9:10–18

Sendherforthfromyourholyheavensandfromyourgloriousthronedispatchher.Thatshemaybewithmeandworkwithme,thatImayknowwhatisyourpleasure.Forsheknowsandunderstandsallthings,andwillguidemediscreetlyinmyaffairsandsafeguardmebyherglory;Thusmydeedswillbeacceptable,andIshalljudgeyourpeoplejustlyandbeworthyofmyfather’sthrone.ForwhatmanknowsGod’scounsel,orwhocanconceivewhatourLORDintends?Forthedeliberationsofmortalsaretimid,andunsureareourplans.Forthecorruptiblebodyburdensthesoul[Gk.barunei]andtheearthenshelter[Gk.geodesskenos]weighsdownthemindthathasmanyconcerns.Andscarcedoweguessthethingsonearth,andwhatiswithinourgraspwefindwithdifficulty;butwhenthingsareinheaven,whocansearchthemout?Orwhoeverknewyourcounsel,exceptyouhadgivenWisdomandsentyourholyspiritfromonhigh?Andthuswerethepathsofthoseonearthmadestraight,andmenlearnedwhatwasyourpleasure,andweresavedbyWisdom.

Metzgerseesherebothaparallelinthoughtandlinguisticcontacts:

ButthepresenceofcertainverbalcoincidencesintheGreekofbothpassagespointstoaliteraryconnection.Forexample,itissignificantthatthewordskēnos,translated‘tent’or‘tabernacle,’appearsonlyinthesetwopassagesinallofBiblicalGreek–theentireSeptuagintandtheNewTestament.[43]

WhileMetzgerdoesnotgoasfarastosaythatPaulwasdependentupontheBookofWisdomforhisteachings,hedoesadmitthattheApostleborrowedthoughtsandphrasesfromtheDeuterocanonicalbooks.[44]TherenownedProtestantexegete,E.H.Plumptre,echoesMetzger’sthoughtswhenhewrote,“Thewholepassage[2Cor5:4]isstrikinglyparalleltoWisd.ix.15.”

James1:13–Sirach15:11-13

James1:13

Nooneexperiencingtemptationshouldsay,‘IambeingtemptedbyGod;’forGodisnotsubjecttotemptationtoevil,andhehimselftemptsnoone.

Sirach15:11-13

Saynot:‘ItwasGod’sdoingthatIfellaway’;forwhathehateshedoesnotdo.Saynot:‘Itwashewhosetmeastray’;forhehasnoneedofwickedman.AbominablewickednesstheLORDhates,hedoesnotletitbefallthosewhofearhim.

JamesandSirachbothrecordasimilaraccusationagainstGod.[45]TherelationshipbetweenthesetwopassagesseemstobetenuousatbestuntilthereadertakesintoaccountthatJames1:13isonlyoneofaseriesofsuchcontactsbetweentheLetterofJamesandtheBookofSirach,aswewillseeillustratedbelow.

James1:19–Sirach15:11

James1:19

Thisyouknow,mybelovedbrethren.Butleteveryonebequicktohear,slowtospeakandslowtoanger.

Sirach5:11[13]

Beswifttohear,butslowtoanswer.

BothJames1:19andSirach5:11recommendthatthegodlybequicktohearandslowtospeakorgiveanswer.

James3:5

Soalsothetongueisasmallpartofthebody,andyetitboastsofgreatthings.Seehowgreataforestissetaflamebysuchasmallfire!

Sirach28:12

Blowonasparkandupitflares,spitonitandoutitgoes;botharetheeffectsofyourmouth.

Commentingonthepowerofspeechforgoodorill,boththeEpistleofJamesandtheDeuterocanonicalbookofSirachuseexactlythesame,quitedistinctive,imagery:thekindlingofapotentiallydestructivefire.Otherparallelscontinuethroughoutthischapter(e.g.Jas3:6,10).TheProtestantscholarEdersheimnotes,“TheresultistoprovebeyonddoubtthefamiliarityofSt.JameswithEcclus[Sir].”[46]

James3:6

Thetongueisalsoafire.Itexistsamongourmembersasaworldofmalice,defilingthewholebodyandsettingtheentirecourseofourlivesonfire,itselfsetonfirebyGehenna.

Sirach5:13

Bothhonouranddisgracecomefromtalking,thetongueisitsowner’sdownfall.

James3:10

…[B]lessingandcursecomeoutofthesamemouth.Mybrothers,thismustbewrong…

Sirach5:13

Bothhonouranddisgracecomefromtalking,thetongueisitsowner’sdownfall.

James5:3

Yourgoldandyoursilverhaverusted;andtheirrustwillbeawitnessagainstyouandwillconsumeyourfleshlikefire.Itisinthelastdaysthatyouhavestoredupyourtreasure!

Sirach12:11

Eventhoughheactshumblyandpeaceablytowardyou,takecaretobeonyourguardagainsthim.Rubhimasonepolishesabrazenmirror,andyouwillfindthatthereisstillcorrosion.

Sirach29:9-10

Inobediencetothecommandment,helpthepoor;donotturnthepoorawayempty–handedintheirneed.Spendyourmoneyonyourbrotheroryourfriend,donotleaveitunderastonetorustaway.

MetzgernotesthreeareasinwhichJames5:3hasanaffinitywithnootherbookintheGreekbiblebutSirach.Forexample,theverbtranslatedintheNASBas“haverusted”)isusedintheGreekOldTestamentonlyinSirach12:11.[47]Moreover,thenountranslated“rust”[Gk.:hoios]inJames5:3isnotfoundanywhereelseintheNewTestament.Yet,thesamewordinitsverbalformisusedinSirach29:9-10.Likewise,theillustrationofrustcorrodingunusedgoldandsilverappearsnowhereelseintheGreekOldTestamentorintheNewTestamentoutsideofthesetwobooks.AlthoughMetzgerdoesnotconsidertheviewspresentedinSirachandJamestobecompatible,hedoesconcludethatJamesdrewhismaterialfromtheBookofSirach.

Considerthepastfewallusions,allofwhichtracefromJamestotheBookofSirach:

James1:13–Sirach15:11-13James1:19–Sirach15:11[13]James3:5–Sirach28:12James3:6–Sirach5:13James3:10–Sirach5:13James5:3–Sirach12:11

WithintherelativelyshortfivechaptersofJames,thereareahalfdozenallusionsorreferencestotheDeuterocanonicalBook.Takenindividually,

allusionsorreferencestotheDeuterocanonicalBook.Takenindividually,oneortwoofthesemaybedismissed.Takencollectively,itisdifficultnottogettheimpressionthatJamesisdeliberatelydrawingfromandmakinguseofmaterialfoundintheBookofSirach.

Matthew11:28-30–Sirach6:24-25,24:19-22,51:23-27

Matthew11:28-30

Cometome,allyouwholaborandareburdened,andIwillgiveyourest.Takemyyokeuponyouandlearnfromme,forIammeekandhumbleofheart;andyouwillfindrestforyourselves.Formyyokeiseasy,andmyburdenlight.

Sirach6:24-26

Listen,myson,andheedmyadvice;refusenotmycounsel.Putyourfeetintoherfetters,andyourneckunderheryoke.Stoopyourshouldersandcarryherandbenotirkedatherbonds.

Sirach24:18-22

Cometome,allyouthatyearnforme,andbefilledwithmyfruits;Youwillremembermeassweeterthanhoney,bettertohavethanthehoneycomb.Hewhoeatsofmewillhungerstill,hewhodrinksofmewillthirstformore;Hewhoobeysmewillnotbeputtoshame…

Sirach51:23-27

Comeasidetome,youuntutored,andtakeuplodginginthehouseofinstruction;Howlongwillyoubedeprivedofwisdom’sfood,howlongwillyouenduresuchbitterthirst?Iopenmymouthandspeakofher:again,atnocost,wisdomforyourselves.Submityournecktoheryoke,thatyourmindmayacceptherteaching.Forsheisclosetothosewhoseekher,andtheonewhoisinearnestfindsher.Seeforyourselves!Ihavelaboredonlyalittle,buthavefoundmuch.

OurLord’swordsinMatthew11:28-30,likeningthetrainingHisdiscipleswillreceivetothatgivenwithayoketoadomesticanimal,has,clearly,astrongaffinitytothispassageinSirach51.

John3:12–Wisdom9:16

John3:12

IfItoldyouearthlythingsandyoudonotbelieve,howwillyoubelieveifItellyouheavenlythings?

Wisdom9:16

Andhardlydoweguessarightatthingsthatareuponearth:andwithlabourdowefindthethingsthatarebeforeus.Butthethingsthatareinheaven,whoshallsearchout?

John3:12appearsbyitselftobeamerestatementoffact;yetifoneconsidersWisdom9tobeitsbackground,onemayfindinJesus’wordsaprofoundstatementaboutwhoHeHimselfis—andwhereHecamefrom.

Revelation8:2–Tobit12:15

Revelation8:2

AndIsawthesevenangelswhostandbeforeGod,andseventrumpetsweregiventothem.

Tobit12:15

ForIamtheangelRaphael,oneoftheseven,whostandbeforetheLord.

Thereare,ofcourse,otherwaysinwhichtheauthorofRevelationcouldhavelearnedofthesevenwhostandbeforetheLord;itmighthavebeenrevealedtohiminthevisionitself,orhecouldhavelearneditthroughJewishtradition.Evenso,thefactremainsthatthereferencetosevenangelsstandingbeforeGodisfoundnowhereelseintheGreekbibleexceptthispassageinTobit.

Ephesians6:13-17–Wisdom5:17-20

Ephesians6:13-17

Therefore,takeupthefullarmorofGod,thatyoumaybeabletoresistintheevilday,andhavingdoneeverything,tostandfirm.Standfirmtherefore,havinggirdedyourloinswithtruth,andhaving

putonthebreastplateofrighteousness,andhavingshodyourfeetwiththepreparationofthegospelofpeace;inadditiontoall,takinguptheshieldoffaithwithwhichyouwillbeabletoextinguishalltheflamingmissilesoftheevilone.Andtakethehelmetofsalvation,andtheswordoftheSpirit,whichisthewordofGod.

Wisdom5:17-20

Heshalltakehiszealforarmorandheshallarmcreationtorequitetheenemy;Heshalldonjusticeforabreastplateandshallwearsurejudgmentforahelmet;Heshalltakeinvinciblerectitudeasashieldandwhethissuddenangerforasword,Andtheuniverseshallwarwithhimagainstthefoolhardy.

The“armorofGod”motifusedinEphesians6:13-17isfoundalsoinIsaiah59:17ffandWisdom5:17-20—bothofwhichhavepointsofdissimilaritywithPaul,alongwiththeiraffinities.Interestinglyenough,however,EphesiansusestheGreekwordpanoplian(translated“armor”)inverse13,awordfoundonlyinWisdom’sdescription,nottheSeptuagintversionofIsaiah.

Therearemanyotherreferencesthatcouldbegivenaswell.Sufficeittosay,thecontentionthattherearenoallusionsorpointsofcontactbetweenthebooksoftheNewTestamentandthoseoftheDeuterocanonhasbeendisproved.Therearemanysuchinterlinkingpassages—asearlier,lessinvestedProtestantscholars(suchastheKJVtranslators)wellunderstood.

Whatthen,ofthelargercontentionoftheargumentathand;i.e.,thattheabsenceofsuchquotesorallusionswouldhavedemonstratedrejectiononthepartofthesacredwriters,andthat,conversely,thepresenceofsuchcitationswouldhaveindicatedacceptance?

Thisideaissopatentlyabsurdthatonemarvelstofinditstillinuse.Afterall,doesaNewTestamentcitationautomaticallymeanthatthecitedtextshouldberegardedasScripture?Everyoneknowsthatitdoesnot.TheNewTestamentauthorsquoteseveralworksthatarenotpartofanyone’sbible,formallyciting(i.e.withintroductoryremarks)worksnon-canonicalandeventotallyunknown(e.g.Jn7:38;Jas4:5etal.).PerhapsthemostfamousoftheseistheformalcitationoftheapocryphalBookofEnochfoundinJude14:

foundinJude14:

AndaboutthesealsoEnoch,intheseventhgenerationfromAdam,prophesied,saying,“Behold,theLordcamewithmanythousandsofHisholyones,toexecutejudgmentuponall,andtoconvictalltheungodlyofalltheirungodlydeedswhichtheyhavedoneinanungodlyway,andofalltheharshthingswhichungodlysinnershavespokenagainstHim.”[48]

NoticethatJudeevengoessofarastosaythatthewriterofEnoch“prophesied”whenhecomposedthispassage!Yetwouldanyonearguetoday,basedonthisformalcitationalone,thattheBookofEnochmustbeconsideredScripture?Usethen,doesnotequatetocanonicity.Neitheristheconversetrue;theabsenceofcitationisnoargumentagainstcanonicity;noone,outsidetheconfinesofanargumentagainsttheDeuteros,haseverthoughttosuggestthatitdoes.Simplyput,iftheabsenceofNewTestamentquotationswouldhaveprovedtheDeuterosnon-canonical,thenJudges,Ruth,Ezra,Nehemiah,Obadiah,Nahum,Esther,theSongofSongs,andEcclesiastesareallnon-canonicalaswell;fornotoneoftheseinspired,infallible,universallyrecognizedbooksoftheProtocanonreceivesevenasingleNewTestamentcitation.IsProtestantismguiltythen,of“goingbeyondwhatiswritten”inacceptingthebookofEsther,forinstance,andcallingitScripture—despiteitscompleteabsenceinanyformfromthepagesofNewTestamentwriting?Ofcoursenot.WhatsomeProtestantsareguiltyof,however,iscreatingacompletelyarbitrary“testbyquotation”neverheardofuntilmoderntimes,andthenhastilyapplyingittoapieceofCatholictraditiontheydislike—withoutevenbotheringfirsttofindouthowtheirowntraditionswouldfareunderthesametest!

DoesthismeanthatthepresenceofDeuterocanonicalquotesintheNewTestamenthasnothingwhatevertocontributetothequestionathand?Afterall,didwenotargueearlierthattheuseofthebookofWisdombySt.PaulandSt.Jamesimpliedapositivejudgmentonthatbook?Yes,wedid;theuseofDeuterocanonicalsourceswithinthebooksoftheNewTestamentcertainlydoesimplysomekindofpositiveassessmentofthosesources—without,ofcourse,signifyinganydisparagementoftheProtocanonicalbookswhichdonothappentohavebeenused.Althoughthispositiveassessmentdoesnotconstituteincontrovertibleproofofthe

Deuterocanon’sdivinityitdoesshowhowfarmodernProtestantismhasslippedfrombiblicalpractice.UnlikemodernProtestantism,theNewTestamentneverdisparages,qualifiesorinanywaydistinguishesitsuseoftheDeuterocanonicalbooks.Indeed,theDeuterocanonisemployedinafarmoresubstantialmannerthantrulyapocryphalworksintheNewTestament;non-canonicalworksareusedrarelyandsporadicallywithinthepagesoftheNewTestament,whereaspointsofcontactwiththeDeuterosare(aswehaveshown)morenumerousandmuchmoreinfluential;lendingtheirtone,attimes,toentirechapters.Non-canonicalsourcesareoftenusedtoaddcolorordetailtonarrativesorpersonagesalreadyestablishedelsewhereinScripture:wethinkofSt.Michael’sdefenseofthebodyofMosesinJude9and14,ofthenamesofPharaoh’ssorcerersassuppliedin2Timothy3:8,andofthemartyrdomofIsaiahdescribedinHebrews11:37.SomeoftheDeuterocanonicalcitations,ontheotherhand,areprimarysourcesofmoralandtheologicalthoughtfortheirNewTestamentcounterparts.[49]Inotherwords,theyprovidethesubstanceofwhattheNewTestamentwriterissaying.

OursurveyofthehistoryoftheDeuterocanonhasnowreachedtheendofthefirstcenturyAD,tothepointintimeatwhich(asmostorthodoxscholarsbelieve)thegivingofinspiredScripturetomankindcametoanend.ThetraditionofProtestantismhaslongbeenthatJesusandhisApostleshadreceivedaclosed,fixedcanonofpre-ChristianScripturebythispoint.Thisassertion,aswehavealreadyseeninourreviewofSirach,Maccabees,andtheNewTestament,isnotbaseduponinternalsources;nohintofanysuchideawouldhavearisenfromanimpartialreadingofscripturalsourcesalone.Whattherefore,istheoriginalsourceofthisoldProtestanttradition?Oneofthemostimportantofthem,atleast,isapassagewrittenbytheJewishhistorianFlaviusJosephuswellafterthetimeofChrist.

FlaviusJosephuslivedfromroughlyAD37–101.HebelongedtoadistinguishedpriestlyfamilyinPalestineandinhisyouthhebecameaPharisee,thoughhispoliticalandreligiousviewsdifferedfromtheirs.WhentheJewsstagedarevoltagainsttheoccupyingforcesoftheRomanEmpireinAD66,theSanhedrininJerusalemchoseJosephustocommandtherebelforcesinGalilee.TheRomanGeneralVespasianeventuallycapturedJosephusinthefortressofJotapataaroundAD67

andimprisonedhim.Despitethiscaptivity,JosephuscurriedfavorwithVespasianbypredictingthathewouldonedaybecomeemperor,andhissonTitusafterhim!TheprophecycametrueandJosephuswasreleased.ThissuddenchangeoffortuneallowedJosephustoaccompanytheRomantroopsintobattleandthuswitnessthecatastrophicfallofJerusalemandthedestructionoftheTempleinAD70.TheseeventsaredocumentedinhisworkTheJewishWar.JosephusalsopennedanotherworkcalledTheJewishAntiquities,whichrecountsJewishhistoryfromCreationtotheJewishRevoltofAD66.Healsowrote,aroundAD90,anautobiographyaswell,intendingitasanapologeticagainsttheAlexandrianpagangrammarianApion;itwasentitled,appropriatelyenough,AgainstApion.Itisthislastworkwithwhichourpresentdiscussionisconcerned.

ApionchargedJosephuswithfraud.HeclaimedthatJewishAntiquitiescouldnotbetruebecausetheHebrewracedoesnotappearinthebestGreekhistoriesuntilarelativelyrecentdate.[50]JosephusrespondedbyassertingthatthesacredhistoriansoftheGreeksweremoreconcernedwithimpressingtheirreaderswithliteraryeloquencethaninproducinganaccurateaccountofantiquity.Moreover,Josephuspointsout,thesacredhistoriesoftheGreeksoftencontradictedoneanother.[51]TheJews,bycontrast,tookgreatcarewiththeirhistoricaltexts,makingcertainthattheywerecopiedproperlyandcarefullypreservingthemfromthemostancientoftimes.HereiswhatJosephuswrote:

Forwehavenotaninnumerablemultitudeofbooksamongus,disagreeingfromandcontradictingoneanother,[astheGreekshave,]butonlytwenty-twobooks,whichcontaintherecordsofallthepasttimes;whicharejustlybelievedtobedivine;andofthemfivebelongtoMoses,whichcontainhislawsandthetraditionsoftheoriginofmankindtillhisdeath.Thisintervaloftimewaslittleshortofthreethousandyears;butastothetimefromthedeathofMosestillthereignofArtaxerxeskingofPersia,whoreignedafterXerxes,theprophets,whowereafterMoses,wrotedownwhatwasdoneintheirtimesinthirteenbooks.TheremainingfourbookscontainhymnstoGod,andpreceptsfortheconductofhumanlife.Itistrue,ourhistoryhathbeenwrittensinceArtaxerxesveryparticularly,buthathnotbeenesteemedofthelikeauthoritywiththeformerbyourforefathers,

becausetherehathnotbeenanexactsuccessionofprophetssincethattime;andhowfirmlywehavegivencredittothesebooksofourownnationisevidentbywhatwedo;forduringsomanyagesashavealreadypassed,noonehasbeensoboldaseithertoaddanythingtothem,totakeanythingfromthem,ortomakeanychangeinthem;butitisbecomenaturaltoallJewsimmediately,andfromtheirverybirth,toesteemthesebookstocontainDivinedoctrines,andtopersistinthem,and,ifoccasionbewillinglytodieforthem.[52]

Josephusisherestating,accordingtoProtestantapologists,thatallprophecyceasedafterthetimeofArtaxerxes(i.e.thetimeoftheeventsrecordedinthebookofEsther);itisimpossible,therefore,fortheDeuterocanontobeinspiredScripturebecauseonlyprophetscanwritedivinelyinspiredbooks.Josephus,inotherwords,believedthataclosed,fixedcanonofonlytwenty-twobooks(i.e.theequivalentoftheProtestantOldTestamentcanon)hadexistedforhundredsofyearsbyhistimeandnootherworkswereconsideredScripture.Invariably,laterrabbinicalstatementsareaddedtothiscommonapology;forinstance:

Untilthen,theprophetsprophesiedbymeansoftheholyspirit.Fromthenon,giveearandlistentothewordsoftheSages.[53]

Whenthelastprophets—i.e.,Haggai,Zechariah,andMalachi—died,theholyspiritceasedinIsrael.Despitethis,theywereinformedbymeansoforacles[Heb.bathqol].[54]

Thisargumentisfraughtwithnumerousdifficulties.WehavealreadyseenthatbothSirachand1Maccabeesiscompletelyunawareofanystandingcessationofprophecy;andtheNewTestamentshowsclearlythatJewsofthattimewerequitecomfortablewiththepresenceofprophetsandprophecy.[55]ThewritingsofJosephusthemselvescontradictanystrictunderstandingofthestatementsinAgainstApion.IfallprophecyceasedafterArtaxerxes,thenweshouldnotexpecttofindanymentionofprophetsorprophecyintheotherworksofJosephus.Thehistorianpresents,nevertheless,inhisbookJewishAntiquities,dozensofpropheticfiguresatworkduringthistime.[56]

Moreover,itmustbenotedthatJosephusneverstatedthat“allprophecyceased”afterArtaxerses,nordidhesaythata“successionofprophets

ceased.”Hewritesinsteadthatan“exactsuccessionofprophets”ceased.[57]RememberthecontextofJosephus’argument:Apion’sremarkswerenotintendedtoattacktheveracityofthewholeoftheJewishcanon.ApionconcededthattheJewishracedidexistatalaterperiod,asseeninGreekhistories.WhatApionquestionedwastheveracityoftheearliestsacredrecords.Thus,JosephusfeltcompelledtovindicateonlythewritingswhichcamebeforeArtaxerxes(theDeuteroswere,ofcourse,writtenafterthattime).WhydidJosephuschooseArtaxerxes?TheoldestandperhapsbestGreekhistoriesbegintheirhistoricalnarrativesduringArtaxerxes’reign.[58]Josephus’mentionoflaterbooksaddsarhetoricalpunchinthattheselatterhistorieslackthe“exactsuccessionofprophets”astheformer.

ScholarRebeccaGraypositsthatforJosephus,the“exactsuccessionofprophets”meansacontinuousandsometimesoverlappinghistoricalnarrative.[59]Becausethesenarrativescoveralltheyearsduringthisperiod,theyenjoyedasuccessionandbecausetherearenogapswithinthiscoverage,thesuccessionisexact.Gray’sinterpretationnotonlyfitsperfectlyintoJosephus’apologetic,butitalsopermitsthecontinuationofprophecy(andperhapspropheticorinspiredbooks).ProphetsandprophecywouldbeabletocontinueafterthetimeofArtaxerxes;suchprophecies,however,wouldnotbeashighlyesteemedashistoricaldocumentsbecausetheperiodtheycovercontainsgapsandomissions(i.e.theydonothaveanexactsuccession).

Verywell;isthereanypositiveevidencethatJosephusdidconsidertheDeuterocanonicalbooks(written,astheywere,afterArtaxerxes)tobeprophetic?Gigotbelievesthereis:

AtthecloseofhisAntiquitiesoftheJews,[60]aworkwhichnarratesthehistorybetweentheCreationandthetwelfthyearofNero,Josephusaffirmsthathisonlyauthoritieshavebeenthesacredwritings(heirabibloi),althoughinthecourseofhisvolumehehasfreelyusedthefirstbookoftheMaccabeesandtranscribedliterallyseveralpassagesfromthedeutero-canonicalfragmentsofthebooksofEsther.[61]

Protestantsoftendisregardthesecommentsonthe“sacredwritings,”preferringtoseetheopinionsupposedlyexpressedinAgainstApionas

thehistorian’sdefinitiveviewonthesubject.Josephus’ownclaimthatAntiquitiesisbasedonthe“sacredwritings”isdismissedasoverexaggeration,[62]buthisstatementsconcerningScriptureinAgainstApion1.41areclearlycounterfactual.

ScholarswhospecializeinthewritingsofJosephuscandidlyadmitthathefrequentlyresortstobombastandexaggeration,especiallyinhiscontroversieswithpagans.[63]AgainstApion1.41isagoodexample.Immediatelyafterhiscommentsonthetwenty-twobooks,Josephuswrites,“…somanyagesashavealreadypassed,noonehasbeensoboldaseithertoaddanythingtothem[thetwenty-twobooksofScripture],totakeanythingfromthem,ortomakeanychangeinthem.”Wenowknow,fromthediscoveriesmadeinQumranthatthetextofScripture,inbothHebrewandGreek,circulatedinavarietyofdifferentversionsinJosephus’day.SomeJewishsects,liketheEssenesofQumran,showednoscruplesabouteditingthesacredtexttotheirliking.ThesevarianttextscouldnothaveescapedJosephus’notice;therefore,hiswordsmustbetakenashyperbole.However,ifJosephuswaswillingtooverexaggerateknowinglythewidespreadexistenceofafixedtext,canwetrusthiminhisassessmentonthetwenty-twobooksinAgainstApion?Asahistoricalsource,Josephus’commentsarecertainlyimpeachable.

Therabbinicalcitationsincludedearlier(whichallegedlyconfirmtheProtestantunderstandingofJosephus’claim)werecomposedhundredsofyearsafterJosephusandaftertheBarKochbaRevolt,whichwillbediscussedlater.BasedonJewishlegendsofunknownorigin,theywereincludedintheMishnahandTalmudiminordertoteachaspecific(andwhollyunacceptabletoChristians)lesson;namely,thattherabbinicalsagesofthesecondcenturyADonwardsarethesuccessorsoftheprophetsofold.Moreover,theideathatprophecyceasedwithMalachiorZechariahisdirectlycontrarytothewordsofChristHimself,whocalledJohntheBaptist“aprophet…andmorethanaprophet”(Lk7:26).Itisanideawhich,indeed,invalidatestheentireChristianrevelationforthosewhoreceiveit.ItreflectstheviewsofsecondcenturyJudaism,butnot(aswehavealreadydemonstrated)anyreceivedopiniondatingfrompriortothecomingofChrist.

LetusconsidernowthequestionofwhethertheearliestChristians

LetusconsidernowthequestionofwhethertheearliestChristiansconsideredtheDeuterocanonicalbookstobedivinelyinspired.

OutsidethepagesoftheNewTestament,thereexistsagroupofveryearlyChristianwritingscomposedlargelybytheimmediatesuccessorsoftheapostles;thesebookshavecometobeknownastheworksoftheApostolicFathers.PennedbetweenAD80and120,thesebooksconstitutetheearliestbodyofmerelyhumanChristianwritingandthustheypresentuswithatrulyinvaluableglimpseintothemindoftheinfantChurch.WeincludeadiscussionoftheminthissectionontheNewTestament,notbecauseweconsiderthemtobeinspiredorpropheticthemselves,butsimplybecauseoftheircloseproximitytothetimeofChristandtheapostles.

FirstEpistleofClement

St.ClementofRomewasthethirdbishopofthatcityaftertheApostlePeter.[64]Helivedduringthetimeoftheapostlesandverylikelyhadpersonalcontactwiththem;severalancientaccountsstatethatSt.ClementwasbaptizedbySt.Peterhimself.SometimearoundtheyearAD80,St.ClementwrotealetterfromRome,correctingandadmonishingthoseinthechurchinCorinthwhowrongfullydismissedcertaineldersfromtheirChurchoffices.Theletter,called1Clement,wasobeyedbytheCorinthianChurchandsubsequentlywasheldinhighesteem.

Thisveryancientbook,writtenaboutthesametimeastheGospelofJohn,makesuseofDeuterocanonicalsourcesatleastthreetimes,andeachtimewiththedeferencesuchagreatChristianelderwouldaccordonlytoaninspiredsource.1Clement3:4quotesWisdom2:24;thatitisthroughtheenvyofthedevilthatdeathenteredintotheworld.Thesecondcitation,in1Clement27:5-7,isaquotefrom(oratleastanallusionto)Wisdom11:21or12:12,followedimmediatelybyaquotefromPsalm19:1-3.[65]BoththeintroductorywordsandtheunqualifiedquotationfromthePsalmssuggestthatClementacceptedWisdomasScripture.[66]Ofevengreaterinterestis1Clement55:2-6inwhichSt.Clementwrites:

Weknowmanyamongourselveswhohavegiventhemselvesuptobonds,inorderthattheymightransomothers.Many,too,have

surrenderedthemselvestoslavery,thatwiththepricewhichtheyreceivedforthemselves,theymightprovidefoodforothers.Manywomenalso,beingstrengthenedbythegraceofGod,haveperformednumerousmanlyexploits.TheblessedJudith,whenhercitywasbesieged,askedoftheelderspermissiontogoforthintothecampofthestrangers;and,exposingherselftodanger,shewentoutforthelovewhichshebaretohercountryandpeoplethenbesieged;andtheLorddeliveredHolofernesintothehandsofawoman.Estheralso,beingperfectinfaith,exposedherselftonolessdanger,inordertodeliverthetwelvetribesofIsraelfromimpendingdestruction.ForwithfastingandhumiliationsheentreatedtheeverlastingGod,whoseethallthings;andHe,perceivingthehumilityofherspirit,deliveredthepeopleforwhosesakeshehadencounteredperil.

SomemaybetemptedtodismissSt.Clement’suseofJudithasanexampledrawnfromsecularhistory,notScripture.Onthecontrary:justaswesawwiththeMaccabeesinHebrews11,Judithislinkeddirectlyin1ClementtoanexaltedfigurefromtheProtocanonicalbooks,andbothsheandEstherareproducedasexamplesofwomenwhowere“strengthenedbythegraceofGod.”[67]Likewise,GoddeliveredHolofernesintothehandsofJudithtosavehischosenpeople,justasHesparedtheJewsthroughthehumilityofEsther.ThereisnottheslightesthintinthispassagethatSt.ClementconsiderstheancientaccountofJudith’sheroicstobeonewhitlessreliable,onewhitlessreligiousinnature,thanthesimilarstorycontainedinthebookofEsther.Furthermore,St.ClementcallsJudith“blessed”—quiteasignificantappellation,sincetheonlyotherpersonsgiventhistitleinhisletterarethetoweringfiguresofthe“Blessed”Paulandthe“Blessed”Moses.[68]Inshort,theauthorof1ClementtakesforgrantedthathisCorinthianreadershipwillunderstandandaccepthisuseofJudithasabiblicalfigureworthyofmentionalongsidesomeofthegreatestnamesinScripture.Asasidenote;thispassagealsosuggeststhatSt.ClementacceptedthelongerSeptuagintversionofEstheraswell(whichincludessectionsomittedfromProtestantbibles)sincethatversionbettersuitshisrhetoricalpurposes.[69]

TheEpistleofBarnabas(ca.AD70)

Thetitleofthisworkissomethingofamisnomer;modernscholarsdonotconsiderTheEpistleofBarnabastohavebeenwrittenbythegreatcompanionofSt.Paul(largelybecauseofmarkeddifferencesinviewpoint).Nevertheless,theletterisveryancient,anditwashighlyregardedintheearlyChurch;sohighly,infact,thatmanyancientwritersconsidereditacanonicalNewTestamentbook.Itsauthorandplaceofcompositionareunknown;itmayhaveoriginatedinAlexandria,Palestine,orevenSyria.

ArethereDeuterocanonicalreferencesin1Clement—inaworksowidelyhonoredinearlyChristianitythatthefamousCodexSinaiticusincludeditrightaftertheBookofRevelation?Yes.Barnabas6:7appearstobequotingWisdom2:12;asifWisdomwerepartofIsaiah3:9-10.Ifthisidentificationiscorrect,thentheintermixingofthetwopropheciesfromWisdomandIsaiahwouldstronglysuggestthattheauthorunderstoodthembothtobedivineandpropheticinorigin.[70]Inourlastsection,wesawasimilarintertwiningofWisdomandthePsalmsinMatthew27:42-43,wherethepsalmist’sSufferingServantappearstobelinkedtoWisdom’sbindingoftheJustOne.[71]

EpistleofSt.PolycarptothePhilippians(AD69–155)

St.Polycarp,whowasthebishopofthechurchinSmyrna,wasmartyredbytheRomansaroundtheyearAD157.WeknowsomethingabouthislifethroughthewritingsofthesecondcenturyFatherIrenaeusofLyons,whowrote:

PolycarpalsowasnotonlyinstructedbyapostlesandconversedwithmanywhohadseenChrist,butwasalso,byapostlesinAsia,appointedbishopoftheChurchinSmyrna,whomIalsosawinmyearlyyouth,forhetarried[onearth]averylongtime,andwhenaveryoldman,gloriouslyandnoblysufferingmartyrdom,departedthislife,havingalwaystaughtthethingswhichhadlearnedfromtheapostles,andwhichtheChurchhashandeddown,andwhichalonearetrue.[72]

HislettertotheChurchinPhilippiistheonlysurvivingauthenticletterofSt.Polycarp.Init,thisearlyChristianmartyrcitestheBookofTobit.[73]

Standfast,therefore,inthesethings,andfollowtheexampleofthe

Lord,beingfirmandunchangeableinthefaith,lovingthebrotherhood,andbeingattachedtooneanother,joinedtogetherinthetruth,exhibitingthemeeknessoftheLordinyourintercoursewithoneanother,anddespisingnoone.Whenyoucandogood,deferitnot,because‘almsdeliversfromdeath.’[Tb4:10,12:9]Beallofyousubjectonetoanother?[cf.1Pt5:5]havingyourconductblamelessamongtheGentiles,’[1Pt2:12]thatyemaybothreceivepraiseforyourgoodworks,andtheLordmaynotbeblasphemedthroughyou.ButwoetohimbywhomthenameoftheLordisblasphemed![Is52:5]Teach,therefore,sobrietytoall,andmanifestitalsoinyourownconduct.[74]

Like1ClementandBarnabas,PolycarpquotesfromtheDeuterocanonwithoutmakinganydistinctionorqualification,eventhoughhisquotefromTobitissurroundedonallsidesbyotherquotationsfromScripture!Inthiscase,thequotefromTobitisfollowedbytwoshortquotationsfrom1PeterandonequotefromtheBookofIsaiah,allindicatingstronglythatPolycarpunderstoodTobittopartthesamebodyofauthoritativetexts.[75]

TheShepherdofHermas(ca.140)

TheShepherdofHermasisaChristianapocalypticwritingcomposedinthefirsthalfofthesecondcenturyAD.Inthisbook,HermasreceivesseveralvisionsfromOurLordinwhichHeexplainsvariousmysteriesanddoctrines,especiallythatofpenance.ScholarsnoteseveralpointsofcontactbetweentheShepherdofHermasandtheDeuterocanonicalbooks.[76]However,mostoftheseallusionsaretooindistincttoinsistupon.Thereisoneworthyofnote,however;itcomesatthebeginningofasectiontitledFirstCommandment,inwhichHermaswrites:

Firstofall,believethatthereisoneGodwhocreatedandfinishedallthings,andmadeallthingsoutofnothing.[77]

ThedoctrinethatGodmadeallthingsoutofnothing(creationexnihilo)isneverexplicitlystatedintheProtocanonicalbooksofScripture,althoughitisimpliedinseveralpassages.[78]SecondMaccabees7:28,however,doesexplicitlyteachthisgreatandfoundationalChristiandoctrine:

Ibeseechthee,myson,lookuponheavenandearth,andallthatis

inthem:andconsiderthatGodmadethemoutofnothing,andmankindalso…[79]

Hermas’phraseologywouldseemtoechothatof2Maccabees,butitisimpossibletodeterminewithcertaintywhetherheusedtheDeuterocanonicalbookashissource.[80]

TheDidache(ca.140)

AlthoughtheDidache(orTheTeachingoftheTwelveApostles)isperhapstheearliestsurvivingdocumentoutliningrulesforChurchgovernment,itisdifficulttodate.Scholarsgenerallyplacethedateofcompositionsometimeduringthefirsthalfofthesecondcentury(thoughmuchearlierdatesarewidelyaccepted).ThisbookcontainstwopossiblepointsofcontactwiththeBookofSirach.

Thefirstinstanceisdebatable.Didache1:6appearstobequotingtheBookofSirach,butthewordingisimprecise(ProtestantexegeteJ.B.Lightfoot,inhisworkTheApostolicFathers,believesthistobeaninexactquotefrommemory).[81]Thesecondcitationismorediscerniblethanthefirst.Itreads:

‘Bejustinyourjudgment’:[Dt1:16,17;Prv31:9]makenodistinctionbetweenmanandmanwhencorrectingtransgressions.Donotwaverinyourdecision.‘Donotbeonethatopenshishandstoreceive,butshutsthemwhenitcomestogiving’[Sir4:31].[82]

ThispassagecertainlyappearstobedependentupontheBookofSirach.[83]AlsosignificantisthefactthattheDidachistmakesnodistinctionbetweenthisquotationandthequotationsfromDeuteronomyandProverbswhichprecededit.Thetransitionbetweenthequotesisseamless.

SecondClement(ca.150)

ThisearlydocumenthascomedowntousastheSecondEpistleofClementtotheCorinthians.Itstraditionaltitle,nowhereincludedwithinthetextoftheworkitself,isnowalmostuniversallyheldtobeincorrect;thebookdoesnotseemtoanepistleatall,butrathertheearliestpreservedChristianhomilyoutsidethepagesoftheNewTestament;andtheidentificationwithClementisalmostcertainlyanerror.Itmayhave

beencomposedinCorinthandincludedinacollectionofwritingsalongwiththeauthenticletterofClement.Thereisnodoubtatall,however,thatitdatesfromthesecondcenturyADatlatest.

Scholarsdonoteafewpointsofcontactbetweenthedisputedbooksand2Clement.Theseallusionsareabitvagueandmay,again,havebeenquotedfrommemory.Forexample,Lightfootbelievesthewriterof2Clement16:4tohavehadTobit12:8inmind.[84]Likewise,2Clement16:4appearstobemoreofanechoofTobit12:8thanadirectquoteorallusion.

WhathavewefoundinthisbriefsurveyofveryancientChristianwriting?WehavefoundthattheApostolicFathersusedtheDeuterocanonicalbooksinamannerquitesimilartothatwhichwesawemployedbytheApostlesthemselves(andtheotherNewTestamentwriters).[85]Althoughneverexplicitlyreferredtoas“Scripture”or“canonical,”theApostolicFathersfreelyquotedfrom,alludedto,andutilizedtheDeuterosassourcematerial,justastheydidtherestofSacredScripture.CertainlytheDeuteroswereneverimpugned,segregated,orqualifiedbytheminanyway.Onthecontrary,thereareseveralinstancesinwhichthebooksinquestiontoconfirmdoctrine.Examples:1Clement55:2-6,inwhichJudithispresentedasaChristianmodelofGod’sgrace;Barnabas6:7,whereinthebookofWisdomisheldtocontainanauthenticprophecyaboutthesufferingsofthecomingChrist;andPolycarp10:1-3,inwhichthemartyrquotesTobitconcerningthespiritualefficacyofalmsgiving.Inhisdoctoraldissertation,Brabban,afteraverythoroughstudyofthesourcesoftheApostolicFathers,concludesthattheir“canon”musthaveincludedWisdom,Sirach,Judith,Esther(expandedversion),Tobit,4Esdras,(1)Enoch,anexpandedJeremiah,andperhapsothersaswell.[86]

Whathavewedemonstratedinthischapter?Simplythis:iftherewasanylongstandingclosedOldTestamentcanon,noearlyChristiancanbeshowntohavehonoredit.BoththeNewTestamentwritersandtheApostolicFathersdemonstratenohesitation,noslightesttendencytoconfinetheirsourcestoProtocanonicalbooksalone.Instead,bothgroupsofwritersfreelyusedsourceswhichareindisputablyoutsidethelimitsofthetraditionalProtestantcanon.TheProtestantdisparagement,thetypicalhesitationtociteandeventheavoidanceofthesegreatworks,

thetypicalhesitationtociteandeventheavoidanceofthesegreatworks,isalientoallancientChristianwriters;whetherDivinelyinspired(asweretheNewTestamentauthors)ormerelyreflectiveofprimitivepractice(asweretheearliestFathers).InearlyChristianity,theDeuterocanonisnevertreatedaslessthanScripture.

Chapter2TheClosingoftheJewishCanon

WhenwasthecanonclosedinJudaism?Thisistheall-importantquestion.Andexactlywhatdoesa“closed”canonmean?

Aclosureoccurswhenastatementordeclarationismadethatdrawsalinebetweeninspiredtextsanduninspiredtexts.Anti-CatholicshavebeenquicktoaffirmanyearlylistwhichmightsuggestthatsuchclosedcanondidexistinOldTestamenttimes(e.g.Josephus,Melito,Origen,etal.),veryslowtocreditevidencetothecontrary.Afterall,noteverypre-Christianlistequalsamountstotherecognitionofaclosedcanon.Juristscorrectlydrawadistinctionbetweendescriptivelistsandexhaustivelists.Adescriptivelistmighthighlightcertainimportantcomponentsofagivencategorywithoutnecessarilyincludingeverysingleitemthatmightbefoundwithinit.Forexample,theMasterofCeremoniesatanawardsshowmightannouncethattherewillbenosmokingorloudnoises,andthateveryonemustsitinhisorherassignedseat.Shouldthisbeconstruedasanexhaustiveenumerationofeverysinglebehaviorthatmustbeavoidedatanawardsshow?Certainlynot;manyotherthingsareexpectedoftheaudienceaswell(e.g.nottofight,nottospittobaccojuiceonthefloor,andsoforth),noneofwhichwereexplicitlymentioned.Anexhaustivelistexplicatesallitemsinsuchafashionthatnothingcanbeaddedorchanged—butnotalllistsareexhaustivelists.

Atthispointinoursurvey,wehavenotbeenabletoproduceanexhaustivelistproposingtosegregateinspiredfromnon-inspiredwritings(i.e.separatingbooksinspiredtextsfromapocryphalworks).Infact,uptothemiddleofthesecondcenturynoteventherabbinicalwritingscontainsuchademarcation.TheRabbinicaldebateswhichdobegintoappearduringthatperiodfocusonwhethercertainbooks(e.g.Ecclesiastes,SongofSongs,Esther,etal.)aretobeconsideredsacred,buteventhesedidnotarriveatanydefinitivedecision—orsuchadecision,atleast,wasnotrecorded.[87]Indeed,thefirstrabbinicalpronouncementofanykindtoexplicitlydenytheinspiredstatusoftheDeuterocanoncomes

duringthemiddledecadesofthesecondcentury,rightaroundthetimeoftheSecondJewishRevolt(AD132–135).[88]

TheSecondJewishRevolt

SincetheendoftheFirstJewishRevoltattheendofthefirstChristiancentury,anuneasytensionhadexistedbetweentheRomansandtheJewsofPalestine.InAD118,HadrianIbecameemperor;andHadrianwassympathetictotheplightoftheJews.HeevenproposedtherebuildingoftheJerusalemTemplewhichhadbeendestroyedintheFirstRevolt.TheproblemwasthathewishedtorebuildtheTempleatalocationotherthanitsformerspot,whichtheJewsconsideredsacred.Theresultoftheemperor’sactionwastoenflameratherthantopacifythePalestinianJewsanditsetthestageforasecondgreatrebellion.

TheJewssufferedmuchinthefirstrevolt,whichfailedlargelybecauseofconflictsbetweenvariouspartiesofzealotswithinJudaism.ThesedeadlyconflictseventuallyspelledthefallofJerusalemandthedestructionofherTemple.Thelessons,however,ofthispainfulandbloodydefeatwerewelllearnedbytheinstigatorsoftheSecondRevolt.Internecinewarfaremustbepreventedthistime;unitymustbeachievedatallcosts.Tothisend,thechiefrabbiatJamnia,RabbiAkibabenJoseph,solemnlydeclaredtheleaderofthesecondrevolt,oneSimonBarCochba,tobethepromisedMessiahcometodeliverGod’speopleatlast.[89]Simonwasthe“staroutofJacob”(Heb.BarCochba,“sonofthestar”)predictedbyBalaaminNumbers24:17.[90]TheFirstRevoltwasanationaluprising;thisSecondRevoltwouldbeamessianicmovement.[91]BymeansofAkiba’swork,alargenumberofJewsjoinedintherebellion.EvenSamaritansandpagansjoinedBarCochbainhisrevolt.However,therewasoneJewishsectwhichrefusedtojoin:thatobstinatetribeknownasChristians.

TheChristians,amajorityofwhomwerestillethnicallyJewish,werepressedtojoininthislifeanddeathstrugglewithRome,buttheyrefused.ToacceptBarCochbaasMessiah,asAkibainsisted,wouldhavebeennothingshortofapostasy;andbecauseoftheirrefusaltodoso,ChristiansweretreatedbytheJewsashereticsandtraitors.[92]ItisthissameRabbiAkibawhoistheveryfirstwritertoexplicitlyandforthrightlyrejecttheinspirationofboththeChristianNewTestamentandthebooks

oftheDeuterocanon.[93]Akiba’sdeclarationisfoundinToseftaYahayim2:13,whichreads:

TheGospelsandhereticalbooksdonotdefilethehands.ThebooksofBenSiraandallotherbookswrittenfromthenon,donotdefilethehands.[94]

Twooutstandingpointsmustbedrawnfromthisimpiousdeclaration:first,itmusthavebeencommonknowledgeevenatthisearlydatethattheChristiansacceptedtheDeuterocanonanduseditasScripture(alongwiththeGospels),otherwise,therewouldhavebeennoneedtoruleagainstthem;secondly,thatatleastsomeJewsmustalsohavesharedthatacceptance,otherwiseAkiba’sdecreewouldhavebeensuperfluous.

HerewehaveahostilewitnessconfirmingthroughhisactionsthattheearliestChristiansacceptedboththeGospelsandtheDeuterocanonasinspiredandsacredScripture.Itwasthiswatershedevent—thenamingofthefalseMessiahBarCochbaandtheanathematizingofthosewhorejectedhim—whichoccasionedtheveryfirstunquestionablerejectionoftheDeuterosbyasingle,widelyrecognizedJewishauthority.ItwasunderAkiba’stenurethatasingletextualtraditionoftheOldTestamentwasfirstadopted;beforethistime(aswehaveshown)avarietyofdifferenttextswereinuseamongtheJews.Itwashere,sometimeinthemiddleofthesecondChristiancentury,thatJudaismfirstadoptedanofficialnormativetext(i.e.theMasoreticTextortheMT).[95]TheexclusiveuseofthistextfreedtheJewishpopulationfromanyfurtherdoubtsrootedinthetroublesomeGreekSeptuagint—thatOldTestamenttranslationemployedtosuchgreateffectwithinthepagesoftheNewandwhichChristianapologistshadbeenusingtoprovethatJesuswasthelong-expectedMessiah.[96]Initsplace,aJewishproselyteanddiscipleofRabbiAkiba,namedAquila,producedahyper-literalGreektranslationoftheMasoreticTexttoserveasareplacementforGreek-speakingJews.Aquila’stextfollowedRabbiAkiba’speculiarinterpretativemethods,anditomittedtheDeuterocanon.ItsappearanceofstrictliteralismovershadowedthefactthatsomeofitsrenderingswerebiasedtowardsAkiba’speculiarinterpretivescheme.[97]RabbiAkiba’stenurealsomarkedthebeginningoflongseriesofcharges,madebyChristians,thatJudaismhadalteredordeletedportionsofthetextofScripture.

JustinMartyr,acontemporaryofAkiba’sandanapologistwhodebatedwithJews,listsdozensofsuchallegedalterations,notallofwhichhavebeenborneoutbyscholarship.Thisillustratesthatthechaoscreatedbythefailedandbloodyrevoltsmadeitdifficult,ifnotimpossible,fortheearlyChristianstoascertainpreciselywhatconstitutednormativerabbinicalScriptureandwhatdidnot.Inotherwords,theyknewthatachangehadoccurred,buttheywerenotsurewhatpreciselyhadchanged.[98]

TheBarCochbaRevoltfailedandRabbiAkibawasledtoamisguidedmartyrdomatthehandsofthepaganRomans.RabbiMierandJudahthePrince,twoofAkiba’sdisciples,completedtheirmaster’sworkofsystematizing,collecting,andeditingtheoraltraditionoftheJews.TheirworklaterbecametheMishnahandTalmud.ItisalsoduringreignofAkiba(orshortlyafterwards)thattheideaofacessationofprophecybegantoappearinrabbinicliterature.[99]TheseoraltraditionsoftheJewsclaimtohavecomefromantiquity,butbothProtestantandJewishscholarshaveadmittedthattheyaremerelydevicesusedtogivetheimpressionthattheopinionsoftheselate,rabbinicalsageswererootedintheprophetictradition.TheideaofacessationofprophecyallowedJewishleaderstobecomethesolearbitersofJewishoraltradition.[100]Protestantappeals,therefore,tosuchlaterabbinicliteratureasproofofafixedpre-Christiancanonareentirelymisplaced.TheevidenceforaclosedcanonbeforetheendofthefirstChristiancenturyis,atbest,weakandunconvincing.[101]

Letusnowinvestigate,byuseofancientwritings,howChristiansofthesecondandthirdcenturiesregardedthesebooks.

JustinMartyr(ca.100–163)

Borntopaganparents,Justingrewupwithaloveforphilosophy.Whilewalkingonabeachoneday,JustinmetanoldmanwhoexplainedChristianitytohim.JustinbecameaChristianandanardentdefenderoftheFaith.

ThoughJustinmadeampleuseoftheGreekSeptuagintwhenquotingScripture,henever,inanyofhissurvivingbooks,makesanyuseoforcitationfromtheDeuterocanon.Atfirstblush,thisomissionmightappear

tospeakstronglyagainstearlyChristianacceptanceofthebooksinquestion;acloserlookrevealsthetrueexplanation.Justin,liketheotherChristianapologistsofthisera,usedrelativelylittleScripturewhendefendingtheFaithagainstpagans—forthesimplereasonthatpagansdidnotacceptScriptureasauthoritative.TheonlyworkofJustin’saddressedtoanon-paganreadershipishisDialoguewithTryphotheJew,composed(asmostscholarsbelieve)duringtheyearsimmediatelyfollowingtheBarCochbarevolt.Thisbeingthecase,JustindeliberatelyrefrainedfromusingDeuterocanonicalsources,sinceTrypho,aJewofthepost-Akibaperiod,wouldnothaverecognizedthemasauthoritative.Suchanexplanationwouldhavebeeneasytodeduce,evenifJustinhimselfhadnotspelleditoutinthepagesoftheDialogueitself.[102]Asamatteroffact,oneofJustin’smainpointsofattackinthedebatewithTryphoisthathiseldersintheSynagoguehaddaredtoalter,abridge,andotherwisemutilatetheveryWordofGoditself.[103]

MelitoofSardis(d.170)

LittleisknownaboutMelitoofSardisotherthanthathewasawell-respectedbishopofthechurchatSardis(oneofthesevenchurchesofthebookofRevelation)wholivedinthelatterhalfofthesecondcentury.Onlyfragmentsofhisworkshavecomedowntous.Onesuchfragment,relevanttoourcurrentdiscussion,ispreservedinEusebius’sChurchHistory:

ButintheExtractsmadebyhimthesamewritergivesatthebeginningoftheintroductionacatalogueoftheacknowledgedbooksoftheOldTestament,whichitisnecessarytoquoteatthispoint.Hewritesasfollows:‘MelitotohisbrotherOnesimus,greeting:Sincethouhastoften,inthyzealfortheword,expressedawishtohaveextractsmadefromtheLawandtheProphetsconcerningtheSaviourandconcerningourentirefaith,andhastalsodesiredtohaveanaccuratestatementoftheancientbooks,asregardstheirnumberandtheirorder,Ihaveendeavoredtoperformthetask,knowingthyzealforthefaith,andthydesiretogaininformationinregardtotheword,andknowingthatthou,inthyyearningafterGod,esteemestthesethingsaboveallelse,strugglingtoattaineternalsalvation.AccordinglywhenIwentEast

andcametotheplacewherethesethingswerepreachedanddone,IlearnedaccuratelythebooksoftheOldTestament,andsendthemtotheeaswrittenbelow.Theirnamesareasfollows:OfMoses,fivebooks:Genesis,Exodus,Numbers,Leviticus,Deuteronomy;JesusNave,Judges,Ruth;ofKings,fourbooks;ofChronicles,two;thePsalmsofDavid,theProverbsofSolomon,Wisdomalso,Ecclesiastes,SongofSongs,Job;ofProphets,Isaiah,Jeremiah;ofthetwelveprophets,onebook;Daniel,Ezekiel,Esdras.FromwhichalsoIhavemadetheextracts,dividingthemintosixbooks.’SucharethewordsofMelito.[104]

Melito’slistisimportantbecauseitistheearliestsurvivingexampleofsuchalistcompiledbyaChristian.ProtestantapologistsclaimthatMelitogivesushereacompletelistingoftheOldTestamentbooksacceptedbyChristiansinhisdayandthatithappenstocorrespondtotheshorterProtestantcanon.Onevitalfactmustbenoticed,however;Melitotellsusexplicitlythatheacquiredthislistonlythroughinvestigation—bygoingEast,wherehe“learnedaccuratelytheBooksoftheOldTestament.”Now,itisdifficulttobelievethatarespectedChristianbishopcouldpossiblyhavebeenignorantofwhichbookswerereadinthechurchesunderhiscare;evenmoredifficulttobelievethatMelitohadneverthoughttoevenattemptsuchalistuntilhisconsciencewasprickedbyOnesimus’inquiry.Ifthispassageistobetakenatfacevalue,onemusttrytoimagineachurchwhereeventheleadersdonotknow(andshowlittleinterestin!)whichbooksareandarenottobeconsideredtheWordofGod!Gigotoffersamuchmorefeasibleexplanation;namelythattheExtracts,quotedbyEusebiusabove,wereaChristianapologeticworktohelpChristiansdialoguewithJews.Itwas,therefore,importantattheoutsetoftheworkforMelitotoestablishsomecommongroundbylistingbookswhichtheJewsalreadyaccepted—justasJustinhadafewyearsearlier.

WhydidMelitofeelitnecessarytotravelallthewaytoPalestinetoreceivehisJewishcanon?Surely,theremusthavebeenJewspracticinginSardis?Indeed,therewere;historianstellusthatSardishadaverylargeJewishpopulationinthesecondcentury.Infact,oneofthelargestsynagoguesfromtheGreco-Romanperiod,builtaroundthetimeofMelito,hasbeendiscoveredatSardis.WhatpreventedMelitofrom

simplyknockingonthedoorofthissynagogueandaskingoneofitsmembers?[105]Itisreasonabletoassumethathedidinquire,butthattheJewsinSardiswereunabletogiveanadequateresponse.Afterall,thechaoticperiodoftheBarCochbaRevoltwasarecentmemoryandmuchofJewishtraditionwasstillverymuchinflux(includingrabbinicaldiscussionsontheOldTestamentcanon)andwouldbeforyearstocome.

WeoughttotakeacloserlookatMelito’slist,aswell,beforemovingon.Amoment’sreflectionrevealsthatitdoesnotlineupwiththeProtestantcanonatall.ItomitsthebooksofLamentations,Nehemiah,andEsther—andincludestheBookofWisdom.[106]EvenifLamentationsandNehemiaharepresent,assomehaveargued,undertheothertitlesbroadlydefined,theomissionofEstherremainsunaccountable.WedoknowthatthereweredisputesamongrabbisinthiseraconcerningEsther’sinspiredstatus.[107]Melito’slist,therefore,isnotidenticaltotheProtestantcanon.

Athenagoras(ca.133–190)

VerylittleisknownaboutAthenagoras.HewasanAthenianphilosopherwhohadconvertedtoChristianityaroundthefirsthalfofthesecondcentury.Liketheothersecondcenturyapologists,AthenagorasquotesScriptureinfrequently,sincehisonlysurvivingworks—ThePleaforChristiansandaTreatiseontheResurrection—wereaddressedtopaganaudiences.Hedoes,however,quotetheBookofBaruchatonepoint,andinanoteworthyfashion:

Ifwesatisfiedourselveswithadvancingsuchconsiderationsasthese,ourdoctrinesmightbysomebelookeduponashuman.But,sincethevoicesoftheprophetsconfirmourarguments–forIthinkthatyoualso,withyourgreatzealforknowledge,andyourgreatattainmentsinlearning,cannotbeignorantofthewritingseitherofMosesorofIsaiahandJeremiah,andtheotherprophets,who,liftedinecstasyabovethenaturaloperationsoftheirmindsbytheimpulsesoftheDivineSpirit,utteredthethingswithwhichtheywereinspired,theSpiritmakinguseofthemasaflute-playerbreathesintoaflute;–what,then,dothesemensay?‘TheLORDisourGod;noothercanbecomparedwithHim.’Andagain:‘IamGod,thefirstandthelast,and

besidesMethereisnoGod.’Inlikemanner:‘BeforeMetherewasnootherGod,andafterMethereshallbenone;IamGod,andthereisnonebesidesMe.’AndastoHisgreatness:‘HeavenisMythrone,andtheearthisthefootstoolofMyfeet:whathousewillyebuildforMe,orwhatistheplaceofMyrest?’ButIleaveittoyou,whenyoumeetwiththebooksthemselves,toexaminecarefullythepropheciescontainedinthem,thatyoumayonfittinggroundsdefendusfromtheabusecastuponus.[108]

ThisearlydescriptionoftheinspirationofScriptureincludes—rightalongwithMoses,Isaiah,Jeremiah,andtheotherprophets—apassagefromBaruch3:36.Thequotationisgiven,thenfollowedupimmediatelybyadditionalquotesfromIsaiah.ThereisnoindicationthatAthenagorasrecognizedanydifferentiationbetweentheauthorityoftheBaruchandthatoftheothertexts.[109]

IrenaeusofLyons(ca.115–190)

IrenaeuswasborninProconsularAsiaandconvertedtoChristianityduringthefirsthalfofthesecondcentury.Weknowfromanautobiographicalpassageinhiswritingsthathewas,asayoungman,ahearerofPolycarp,bishopofSmyrna,adiscipleoftheApostleJohnhimself.IrenaeusbecameapriestinthecityofLyonandlater,uponthemartyrdomofhispredecessor,thebishopofthecity.Irenaeus’issomewhatuniqueinthatheprovideseyewitnesstestimonyregardingtheconditionofthesecondcenturychurchinboththeEasternandWesternpartsoftheEmpire.HislifestraddlesthewatershedperiodfromtheendoftheApostolicFathers(viahisacquaintancewithPolycarp)rightuptotheturnofthethirdcentury.

Irenaeus’writingsindicateclearlythatheacceptedtheDeuterocanonasScripture.ThebooksofWisdom,Baruch,andtheDeuterocanonicalportionsofDanielarefreelycitedasScripture.[110]Forexample,heunambiguouslyattributesthesectionknownas“BelandtheDragon”to“DanieltheProphet.”[111]ThestoryofSusannahealsocreditstoDaniel.[112]Twice,IrenaeusquotessayingsheattributestotheprophetJeremiah—whichareactuallypassagesfromBaruch.[113](BaruchwasJeremiah’ssecretary,anassociationsoclosethatmanyearlywritersconsideredthetwobookstobeessentiallyone.[114])Inotherwords,

IrenaeusundoubtedlyconsideredthebookofBaruchtobeanauthenticconduitofJeremiah’sprophecies.[115]AndastheearlyChurch’sgreatexpertonGnosticism,IrenaeusalsoprovidesevidenceforacceptanceoftheDeuterosevenamongtheearlysplintergroups;herecordsthatGnosticOphitesandSethiansincludedthebookofTobitamongthewritingsoftheProphets.[116]

TheMuratorianFragment(ca.AD155)

L.A.Muratoridiscoveredthisfamousfragmentin1740;asomewhatmysteriousscrapofsecondcenturywritingthatcouldverywellbetheoldestsurvivinglistofNewTestamentbooks.[117]AndeventhoughtheMuratorianFragmentneveraddressesthesubjectoftheOldTestamentatall,wemustincludeadiscussionofithere—ifonlybecauseitincludes,amongthebooksofitsrecommendedNewTestament,theOldTestamentBookofWisdom!Thefragmentreads,inpart:

[NewTestamentbooks....]TheEpistleofJude,indeed,andtwobelongingtotheabove-namedJohn—orbearingthenameofJohn—arereckonedamongtheCatholicEpistles.AndthebookofWisdom,writtenbythefriendsofSolomoninhishonour.

Somehow—nooneknowsquitehow—theOldTestamentbookofWisdommadeitswayintothisfragmentasapartofsomebody’sNewTestament.Itmaybethattherelativelyrecentdateofitscomposition(aslateas40BC,accordingtosomescholars)ledtotheerror.Alternately,thewell-knownpropheciesofthe“SonofGod”inchaptertwo(combinedwithanawarenessthattheJewshadalreadyrejectedthebook)ledittobeidentifiedsocloselywithChristianity.[118]Again,nooneknowsforsure,sincetheevidenceistoo(ifyouwillforgivethepun)fragmentary.

TheCatacombs(earlysecondcentury–thirdcentury)

Christianartdatesbacktothebeginning.TombsoftheearliestChristianswereadornedwithbiblicalimagesdrawnfromtheOldandNewTestamentsincludingtheDeuterocanon.Althoughfewerinnumber,theimagesfromtheDeuterocanonarealsopresentamongtheworkssomedatingasfarbackastheearlysecondcentury.TheearliestthemesaredrawnfromSusannah,BelandtheDragonandTobit.[119]

TertullianofCarthage(155–250)

QuintusSeptimiusFlorensTertullianus,betterknownasTertullian,wasbornaroundAD160tothefamilyofaRomanCenturion.HegrewupinRomeandlaterbecameinvolvedintheRomanlegalsystem,eitherasalawyerorassomeoneschooledinthewaysofthecourt.TertullianconvertedtoChristianityneartheendofthesecondcenturyandbecameanardentapologist,writingnumerousdefensesoftheChristianFaith.Sadly,hiscareerasadefenderoftheFaithwasshort-lived;brilliantashewas,hewasalsoahot-headedperfectionist,impatientwithhumanfrailty.BytheendofAD210orso,TertullianhadabandonedtheCatholicChurchforahereticalgroupcalledtheMontanists.Thisearly,“quasi-Charismatic”sectbelievedthattheworkoftheApostleshadlargelycometonothingandlookedforafuller,morecompleterevelationthroughtheirlatter-day“prophet”Montanusandtwoofhisfemaleadepts.Amongtheirmorespectaculardeparturesfromorthodoxy:abeliefthattheNewJerusalemwouldsoondescendoutoftheheavensandcometorestsomewhereinthevicinityofPhrygia.Needlesstosay,theywerewrong.BecauseofTertullian’sdeparturefromorthodoxy,hiswritingsaregenerallydividedintothreedistinctperiods:Catholic,semi-Montanist,andMontanist.[120]

CatholicsandProtestantsbothagreethatTertullianacceptedtheDeuterocanonasinspiredScripture;thereisreallynodoubtaboutthematter.

LikeClementofRomebeforehim,whoofferedbothJudithandEstherasexamplesofgraceatworkingodlywomen,TertullianoffersbothRebeccaandSusanna.[121]ThebookofBaruchandtheDeuterocanonicalportionsofDanielareundoubtedlytreatedasauthenticcontinuationsofJeremiahandtheProtocanonicalDaniel.[122]TheBookofWisdomTertullianattributestoSolomon.[123]InhisbookConcerningtheSoul(1:6),TertullianreferstothebookofWisdomasoneof“ourChristianauthorities”andaffirmsthatitspreceptswere“taughtbyGod.”HemakesnodistinctionbetweenhisquotationsfromtheBookofWisdomandthosefromtheProtocanonicalbooks.[124]Elsewhere,inanapologeticagainsttheJews,TertullianextolsthezealofJoshuaandtheMaccabeeswithoutdistinctionorqualification,suggestingthathesaw

thembothasfiguresinthesameinspiredhistory.[125]InAgainstHermogenes,Tertullianexplicitlyidentifies2Maccabees7:28as“Scripture;”[126]inanotherbookhedoesthesamefortheBookofSirach.[127]Infact,TertullianreferenceseverybookintheDeuterocanonatleastonce—exceptforTobit,butitislikelythatheaccepteditaswell.[128]

SomeapologistsarguethatTertullian,likeIrenaeus,blindlyfollowedtheSeptuagint.Thisisdemonstrablyfalse—notleastbecauseTertullianalsoappearstohaveacceptedtheBookofEnochasScripture,aworkneverincludedintheSeptuagintortheOldLatinBible(anearlytranslationoftheSeptuagint).Tertullian’soddacceptanceofthebookofEnochdoesnot,however,weakenhisstatusasawitnessinfavoroftheDeuterocanon.Whynot?Becausehecanbeshowntohaveanticipatedcriticismoverit;indeed,inonepassageTertullianmountsa(ratherweak)defenseforhisacceptanceofEnoch.[129]Bycontrast,thisgreatbutsadlyflawedmasterofearlyLatintheologypresentshisDeuterocanonicalsourceswithoutapology,distinction,orqualification—expectingnocensurefordoingso.

HippolytusofRome(170–235)

HippolytuswasapresbyterinRomeatthebeginningofthethirdcentury.HisunorthodoxChristologysparkedaconflictbetweenhimselfandPopeZephyrinus(198–217)alongwithamajorityofthepriestsinRome.AfterthePope’sdeath,Callistus,whoplayedaroleinHippolytus/Zephyrinusconflict,succeededtothechairofPeter.AfterHippolytusseparatedfromtheChurch,hisfollowerselectedhimpope(moreaccurately,electedhimasanti-popesincethiswasanillicitelection).Hippolytus’reignasanti-popelastedthroughthepontificatesofCallistus(217–22)andUrban(222–30).ItwasnotuntilthereignofPopePontian(230–35)thatHippolytuswasreconciledwiththeChurch,whilehewasinexileinSardinia.

InhisCommentaryontheBookofDaniel,HippolytusunquestionablyacceptstheDeuterocanonicalportionsofthatbookasauthenticcontinuationsofthescripturalnarrative.SusannahepresentsasamodelforChristianimitation.[130]HippolytuscanalsobeshowntohaveusedDeuterocanonicalsourcestoestablishdoctrine;heappealstopassages

fromSusannaandTobitasproofsthatGodimmediatelyhearsourprayers.[131]HippolytusmakesnodistinctionbetweenProtocanonicalandDeuterocanonicalbooks,oftenquotingfrombothgroupswithoutqualificationordistinction.[132]InhistreatiseAgainstNoetus,heexplicitlyreferstothebookofBaruchas“Scripture.”[133]

Hippolytuscites1Maccabees2:33asthefulfillmentofaprophesygivenbyDaniel.[134]Inhisbook,AgainsttheJews,hestatestwicethatthebookofWisdomcontainsaprophecyaboutChrist.[135]HisuseofWisdominapolemicagainstJewsmaydemonstratethatHippolytuswaseitherunawarethattheJewsdidnotacceptthisbook,orfeltthatthesubstanceofthequotewassostrongthathewascompelledtoincludeit,eventhoughtheappealwaslikelytofallondeafears.Regardlessofhismotives,HippolytusmakesnodistinctionorqualificationbetweentheWisdomquoteandtheProtocanonicalquotationsthatsurroundedthispassage.[136]Inconclusion,HippolytususestheDeuterocanonicalworksasauthenticportionsofScripture,justasprofitablefortheconfirmingofdoctrineasanyotherOldTestamentbook.[137]

ClementofAlexandria(150–216)

TitusFlaviusClemenswasanativeofAthenswhotraveledwidelyasaphilosopher.HeconvertedtoChristianity,believingitsuperiortopaganphilosophy.WhileinAlexandria,hemetamannamedPantaenuswhosoimpressedhimthatClementbecamehispupil.HestudiedandtaughtatthefamedcatecheticalschoolofAlexandriauntilthepersecutionofAD202anddiedinCappadociaaroundtheyearAD216.LikeIrenaeus,ClementwasonlyonegenerationremovedfromtheApostles,receiving,ashewrote,“theshadowandoutlineofwhathehadheardfrommen…whoperseveredthetruetraditionoftheblessedJohnandPaul…theholyApostles,fromfathertoson,evento[his]time…”[138]

Clement,inhiswritings,affirmsinthestrongestpossiblelanguagetheinspirationandscripturalstatusoftheDeuterocanon.BaruchheunderstoodasthewordsoftheprophetJeremiah.[139]Hereferstoitplainlyas“DivineScripture.”[140]ClementalsoquotesthebookofSirachandcallsitScripturefivetimes.[141]ThebookofWisdomClementlaudsas“theDivineWisdom.”[142]TobitisalsoquotedasScriptureinStromata2.23.[143]Thereissimplynodispute;thistremendous

apologist,socloseintimetotheApostlesthemselves,honoredtheDeuterocanonastheinspiredWordofGod.HequotesnearlyeveryDeuterocanonicalbookatonetimeoranotherandcallsthem“Scripture”insomanywords.[144]

CyprianofCarthage(ca.200–258)

BorntopaganparentsaroundAD200,CyprianbecameaskilledrhetoricianandlawyerinCarthage,NorthAfrica.HeconvertedtoChristianityinhismiddle-fortiesandwaslaterelectedbishopofCarthage.EnamoredwithTertullian’swritings,Cyprianexhibitedthesametenacityinhisownworks.Cyprian,however,ismoreeloquentandrefinedthanhismaster.Hisreignasbishopwasfraughtwithdangers;theintensepersecutionunderDeciusforcedCypriantofleeforhislife.HeeventuallyreturnedtohisSee,whereheremainedastalwartdefenderoftheChristianFaithuntilhismartyrdominAD258.

CyprianheldSirachtobeinspiredScripture,actuallystatingthatitsauthorwas“establishedintheHolySpirit.”[145]Elsewhere,hereferstoit“[the]DivineScripture.”[146]ManyofhisquotesfromSirachareprefacedwiththesolemnformula,“Itiswritten.”[147]Wisdomislikewiseintroducedas“DivineScripture.”[148]InchaptertwelveofhisExhortationtoMartyrdom,CyprianintroducesWisdom3:4withthesewords:“TheHolySpiritshowsandpredicts…”[149]Wisdomisfrequentlyquotedwithoutapologyorprovisoofanykind.[150]HeconsidersBelandtheDragonandSusannaasauthenticpartsoftheProphetDaniel.[151]TheseDeuterocanonicalsectionsaresaidtohavecomefromtheProphetfilledwiththeHolySpirit.[152]TheyarealsosaidtorecordtheactionsofGod.[153]BaruchisanauthenticpartofJeremiah,accordingtoCyprian,andcontainsthetruewordsoftheinspiredProphet.[154]TheBookofTobit,whichisquotedwithoutqualificationorstipulation,[155]isofferedasanexampleforChristianliving.[156]ItisusedtoexplainthepowerofprayerbeforeGod.[157]Cyprianalsocites,asdidPolycarpbeforehim,thebookofTobitforscripturalproofofthespiritualefficacyofalmsgiving.[158]CyprianfoundsolacewithinthebooksoftheMaccabeesalsoandrecommendstheMaccabeanmartyrstohisChristianreadersfacingsimilarpersecution.[159]ThebooksarealsousedasScriptureinargument.[160]FirstMaccabees2:62-63isquotedasScripture.[161]

Both1and2MaccabeesarequotedrightalongwithProtocanonicalsources,withnohesitationorexpectationofcontradiction.CyprianclearlyconsidersbothDeuterosandProtostobeequallyauthoritativeportionsofthesameinspiredcorpus.[162]

JuliusAfricanus(ca.160–231)

JuliusisthefatherofChristianchronography.Littleisknownabouthislife,otherthanthathewasNorthAfricanandperhapsapriest.

Itishere,duringthefirstdecadesofthethirdChristiancentury,thatwefindforthefirsttimedocumentaryproofofanorthodoxChristiandisputingtheauthenticityofaportionoftheDeuterocanon;specificallythesectionofDanielknownasSusanna.InalettertoOrigen,AfricanusupbraidstheAlexandrianteacherforappealingtoSusannainadiscussionwithamutualfriend.ItisimportanttonotethatAfricanusdoesnotbasehisobjectiononanappealtotheclosedJewishcanon,noronacceptedJewishorChristianusage;AfricanusobjectstotheauthenticityofSusannaalmostentirelyonlinguisticgrounds.IntheSusannanarrative,orsoAfricanusreasoned,therearetwopairsofwordsthatsoundalikeinGreek.Thebookmust,therefore,havebeencomposedinGreekbecauseitisimpossibletoreproducethewordplayofthepassageinHebrew.

WhatismostinterestinginthetaleofthisancientdebateisthewayinwhichOrigenrespondedtothecharge;AfricanusattackedSusannaonlinguisticgrounds,OrigendefendedSusannaonlinguisticsandespeciallyChristianusage.AfteraddressingAfricanus’concernsaboutthewordplay,OrigenremindshimthatSusanna(and,byextension,therestoftheDeuterocanon)isfoundandreadasScriptureinallofthechurchesofGod.[163]OrigenacknowledgesthatJewsdidnotcurrentlyacceptSusannaortheotherbooksoftheDeuterocanon;becausetheChurch,however,receivesthemasScripture,wecanhaveconfidenceintheirauthenticity.[164]Indeed,OrigenactuallymocksthatideathatChristiansoughttorejectanyportionofScripturenotacceptedbytheJews:[165]

And,forsooth,whenwenoticesuchthings[portionsofScripturenotfoundinHebrewmanuscripts],weareforthwithtorejectas

spuriousthecopiesinuseinourChurches,andenjointhebrotherhoodtoputawaythesacredbooks[sacrislibris/hierais/biblous]currentamongthem,andtocoaxtheJews,andpersuadethemtogiveuscopieswhichshallbeuntamperedwith,andfreefromforgery!ArewetosupposethatthatProvidencewhichinthesacredScriptureshasministeredtotheedificationofalltheChurchesofChrist,hadnothoughtforthoseboughtwithaprice,forwhomChristdied;whom,althoughHisSon,Godwhoislovesparednot,butgaveHimupforusall,thatwithHimHemightfreelygiveusallthings?Inallthesecasesconsiderwhetheritwouldnotbewelltorememberthewords,‘Thoushaltnotremovetheancientlandmarkswhichthyfathershaveset.’[166]

ItisGod’sprovidentialconcernfortheChurch,accordingtoOrigen,whichpreventstheoriginaldepositofScripturefrombeingcorrupted.Therefore,itisanoffenseagainstGodtoconsiderthattheJews,whorejectedChrist,couldsomehowhavepreservedthetruecollectioninpristinepurityoverandagainsttheSpirit-filledChurch.[167]TheScripturesareasetcollection,givenbytheapostles,thatnooneispermittedtochange.[168]AndlikeJustinMartyrandTertullian,OrigencontendsthattheJewstamperedwiththeScripture.[169]

OrigenofAlexandria(185–232)

OrigenwasraisedinaChristianhome,andbecamethestudentofClementofAlexandria.HebecameapioneerinbiblicaltextualcriticismandcreatedthefamedHexapla,amanuscriptwithvarioustranslationsoftheBiblerunninginparallelcolumnsforthepurposesofcomparison.Forthisreason,heisknownasthefatherofTextualCriticism.Origen’smotivationforthisworkwastoaidChristiansinJewishapologetics.[170]

GivenOrigen’sstringentdefenseoftheDeuterocanoninhisHistoryofSusanna,itmaybesurprisingtofindthatProtestantsoftenappealtoOrigenasoneexampleofaChurchFatherwhorejectedtheDeuterocanon.Thisappealismadefortworeasons.Firstofall(andinmarkedcontrasttoeverythingwehaveseensofar)Origendoes,onoccasion,qualifyhisuseoftheBookofWisdom.Forexample,inhisworkFirstPrinciples,OrigenstatesthatWisdomis“aworkwhichiscertainlynotesteemedauthoritativebyall.”[171]Byqualifyinghisuseof

Wisdom,itisargued,OrigendemonstratesthattheearlyChurchhaditsdoubtsaboutthisbookandthatitshouldnot,therefore,bereceivedasScripture.ThesecondreasonisthatinaportionofhisCommentaryonthePsalms(preservedinEusebius),Origenproducesalistoftwenty-twoOldTestamentbookswhichomitstheDeuterocanon.[172]Thispassage,accordingtoproponentsoftheshorterProtestantlist,representsOrigen’sdispassionatejudgmentonthesubject;hisdefenseofSusanna,andtheabundantusehemakesoftheDeuteroselsewhere,issimplyloosetalkgeneratedbycarelessenthusiasm.Bothofthesereasonslackcogency.

WhydoesOrigenqualifyhisuseofWisdom?Clearly,hedoesitbecausethestatementasitstandsisliterallytrue:noteveryonedidaccepttheauthorityofWisdomatthistime.Butwhatsortsofpeoplerejectedit—andwhy?Jewsrejectedit,tobesure,forreasonswehavealreadyaddressed;andatleastafewChristians,too,sincewehavealreadyseenOrigenhimselfdisputingoveritwithAfricanus.Thequestion,really,isjusthowmanythirdcenturyChristiansAfricanusmayreasonablybesupposedtorepresent.Afterall,wecouldprobablyfindsomeisolatedgrouptoday,orsomemodernistscholar,willingtorejectoneportionoranotheroftheProtestantcanon(asLutherhimselfdidforawhile!).Woulditbesafetoconcludefromsuchadiscoverythattwenty-firstcenturyProtestantsareseriouslydividedoverthecanon,orthatopinionsonitvarywidely?Ofcoursenot.Aswehaveseen,AfricanusneverevenclaimedtobebasinghisrejectionofSusannaonanythingotherthanhisownprivatestudy;whileOrigen’sdefenseofitisbasedonanappealtonear-universalacceptanceinallthechurchesofGod.Itiswise,therefore,nottoreadintothisphrasefromFirstPrinciplesanynotionthatalargenumberofChristiansrejectedthebookofWisdominOrigen’sday;actually,hisargumentagainstAfricanusshowshebelievedjusttheoppositetobetrue—thatanyrejectionoftheDeuterosrepresentedaprivatelyheldopinionatvariancewithtraditionalChristianideas.ThisisunderscoredbyoneadditionalfactaboutOrigen’sFirstPrinciples;bothbeforeandafterthepassageinwhichhesupposedlycastsdoubtofthebookofWisdom,theauthorquotesfromitanddescribesthequotesas“Scripture.”[173]

Origen’slistinEusebiusislikewisemisunderstood.HisactualCommentaryonthePsalmsislostsoweareforcedtorelyonthetwo

briefquotesincludedinEusebiustounderstandwhyOrigenmadeupthislist.HereishowEusebiusframedthequotes:

WhenexpoundingthefirstPsalm,he[Origen]givesacatalogueofthesacredScripturesoftheOldTestamentasfollows:‘Itshouldbestatedthatthecanonicalbooks,astheHebrewshavehandedthemdown,aretwenty-two;correspondingwiththenumberoftheirletters.’Fartheronhesays:‘Thetwenty-twobooksoftheHebrewsarethefollowing:ThatwhichiscalledbyusGenesis,butbytheHebrews,fromthebeginningofthebook,Bresith,whichmeans,‘Inthebeginning’;Exodus,Welesmoth,thatis,‘Thesearethenames’;Leviticus,Wikra,‘Andhecalled’;Numbers,Ammesphekodeim;Deuteronomy,Eleaddebareim,‘Thesearethewords’;Jesus,thesonofNave,JosouebenNoun;JudgesandRuth,amongtheminonebook,Saphateim;theFirstandSecondofKings,amongthemone,Samouel,thatis,‘ThecalledofGod’;theThirdandFourthofKingsinone,WammelchDavid,thatis,‘ThekingdomofDavid’;oftheChronicles,theFirstandSecondinone,Dabreiamein,thatis,‘Recordsofdays’;Esdras,FirstandSecondinone,Ezra,thatis,‘Anassistant’;thebookofPsalms,Spharthelleim;theProverbsofSolomon,Me-loth;Ecclesiastes,Koelth;theSongofSongs,SirHassirim;Isaiah,Jessia;Jeremiah,withLamentationsandtheepistleinone,Jeremia;Daniel,Daniel;Ezekiel,Jezekiel;Job,Job;Esther,Esther.AndbesidesthesetherearetheMaccabees,whichareentitledSarbethSabanaiel.’Hegivestheseintheabove-mentionedwork.[174]

IsthislistacatalogueofthebooksacceptedbyJewsalone,orisitalsointendedtorepresentthelistreceivedbyChristiansaswell?Lookcloselyatthewordingofthepassageabove;noticethatOrigentwicedescribesthisasalistofcanonicalbooks“astheHebrewshavehandedthemdown…Thetwenty-twobooksoftheHebrewsare…”[175]Origen’slistinEusebiusthen,reflectsrabbinicalusage,notChristian;andwehavealreadyseenwhatOrigenbelievedaboutallowingunbelievingJewstofixthelimitsofScriptureforChristians.Notice,too,thatthelistasEusebiusquotesitdoesnotevensucceedasanaccuraterepresentationoftherabbinicalcanonacceptedinthethirdcentury!OrigenomitstheTwelveMinorProphets(whichwouldhavebeenreckonedasonebookinthe

practiceofthattime)andtheninexplicablyincludes(underitsHebrewtitle)thebookof1Maccabees(thoughhedoesseparateitfromtheotherbooks).Shallweconcludethen,thatOrigendeniedtheauthorityoftheMinorProphetsaswellastheDeuteros?Orhasamistakebeenmadesomewhere?

ItwouldbeniceifwecouldexaminetherestofOrigen’sCommentaryonthePsalms,forclearlythepassageasitstandsinrathermysterious.Sadly,theoriginalworknolongerexists.Thereis,however,atleastonewaytogaininsightintoitscontents:bothcontemporariesandmoderncriticsagreethattheProloguetotheBookofPsalmsbyHilaryofPoitiers(whichhassurvived)followsOrigen’sCommentaryofthePsalms“inallthings.”[176]WhatdowefindinHilary’sbookcorrespondingtothepassageofOrigeninquestion?

AndthisisthecausethatthelawoftheOldTestamentisdividedinto22books,thattheymightagreewiththenumberofletters.Thesebooksarearrangedaccordingtothetraditionoftheancients,sothatfiveareofMoses...completethenumberoftwenty-twobooks.TosomeithasseemedgoodtoaddTobiasandJudith,andthusconstitute24booksaccordingtotheGreekalphabet….[177]

Onedoesnotfindhereadispassionate,literal-historicalinvestigationattheOldTestamentcollection.Instead,atypicalAlexandriancontemplationofthemysticalcorrespondencesbetweennumbers,letters,andsacredbooksisfound.Hilary’sprimaryconcernwasthiscorrespondenceofnumbersandalphabetsandnotsomuchanaccuratecomputationofanOldTestamentcatalogue.[178]TobitandJudithareaddedtothelistsoastoproducethenumberoflettersintheGreekalphabet.AsBreenobserves:

Weseehere[inHilary]anexcessivemysticismimpellingamantorejectoradmitabookforthesolepurposeofcompletingamysticnumber.ThistendencyhadbeenbroughtintopatristicthoughtbyOrigenandtheAlexandrianschool.[179]

Hilary’sdependenceonOrigen’sCommentarysuggeststhatOrigenhadthesameprioritiesinmindwhenhecomposedhislist.WhilewritingdownthebooksandtheirHebrewnames,Origenseemstohave

accidentallyskippedovertheTwelveMinorProphets,sowhenheendedthecompilation,heonlyhadtwenty-onenames.Unabletofindtheomission,OrigenincludedtheHebrewnameforMaccabeesinordertohavetwenty-twonamesfortwenty-twoletters.[180]ItisdifficulttobelievethatOrigenwouldbesocarelessinprovidingacatalogue,untilwerecallthatHilaryaddedSirachandWisdomtofittheGreekalphabetintothesamecatalogueofbooks.Itisthemysticalcorrespondencesofalphabets,andnotthestrictenumerationoftheChristiancanon,thatthegreatAlexandrianwishedtoleavehisChristianreaders.

ThestrongestproofofOrigen’sfullacceptanceoftheDeuterocanonistobefoundinthemannerinwhichheemployedthem.Heunderstoodthemtobe“DivineScriptures”containing“divinethings.”[181]HealsosawtheDeuterocanonicalsectionsofEstherasanauthenticpartoftheBookofEsther.[182]OrigenquotesWisdomasthewordofGodinContraCelsus3.72.[183]OrigenusedWisdomtoconfirmandsummarizeChristiandoctrine.[184]Onnumerousinstances,OrigenquotesWisdomandtheProtocanonicalbookswithoutqualificationordistinction.[185]OrigencallstheBookofSirach“HolyScripture”[sacrisScripturis/hierongrammaton]and“thedivineword”[divinumsermonem/Hotheioslogos].[186]TheProtestantscholarRuesspointsoutthattheGreekdescription“hotheioslogos”indicates,“notonlytheintrinsicvalueofthepassagequoted,butoughtcertainlytoremindusofitssupernaturalorigin.”[187]AsimilarphraseisappliedelsewheretobothSirach21:18and1Peter3:15.[188]Sirachiscalled“divineScripture”inContraCelsum,8.50and“Scripture”inHomily1intheBookofKings,4.Theformalappellation,“Itiswritten,”isappliedtoSirachonnumerousoccasions.[189]Again,nodistinctionorqualificationisevergiventoSirachwhenotherbooksarequotedinthesamecontext.[190]Thesolemnformula,“Itiswritten,”isalsoappliedtoquotesfromTobit.[191]Again,OrigenmakesnodistinctionorqualificationwithhisquotesfromTobit.[192]JudithispresentedasanoblefigureworthyofChristianimitation.[193]Baruchiscitedwiththeformula“Itiswritten”andusedwithoutqualification.[194]ForOrigen,sacredhistorydoesnotterminateatthetimeofEzraaswouldbethecasewiththeProtestantcanon,butitcontinuesdownthroughtothetimeofMaccabees.InContraCelsum,8.46,Origenwritesthatthereisnoneedtoquote“alltheprincesandprivatepersonsofScripturehistory

[Scripturarumhistoria/katatohistoriastesgraphas]whofaredwellorillaccordingtotheirobediencetotheprophets.”[195]HethenpresentsAbrahamandSarah,KingHezekiahandIsaiah,Elishaandthechildlesswomenwhoreceivedhimandboreason,ageneralstatementaboutthemaimedmanwhomJesuscured,andtheMaccabees.OrigenelsewherecitesMaccabeesasscripturalwarrantforthedoctrineofCreationExNihilo[Godcreatedallthingsfromnothing].[196]

Finally,inaveryimportantpassagefromOrigen’sHomilyontheBookofNumbers,theAlexandrianteachergivesguidancetothosewhohadrecentlyenteredtheChurchonhowtoreadthe“divinevolumes”.HesuggeststhattheystartwiththebooksofEsther,Judith,Tobit,Wisdom,theGospels,thewritingsoftheApostles,andthePsalms,buthewarnsagainstreadingNumbersandLeviticusuntillater.[197]Clearly,OrigensawtheDeuterocanontobeonparwiththeotherinspiredbooksofScripture.

DionysiustheGreatofAlexandria(190–ca.260)

DionysiuswasaconverttoChristianityanddiscipleofOrigeninAlexandria.HebecametheheadofitsCatecheticalSchool,andinAD247,becamebishopofAlexandria.Althoughhewasaprolificwriter,onlyafewofhisworkshavesurvivedtheages.Evenfromtheseworks,however,wereadilydemonstratehisacceptanceoftheDeuterocanon.Forexample,hequotesTobitinAgainstGermanus,10.[198]DionysiusalsousesWisdom7:25toshowhowfittingisJohn4:24’sdefinitionthat“GodisSpirit.”[199]Moststrikingly,DionysiusintroducesSirachas“divineoracles”[L.oraculorumvocem].[200]Inthesamework,DionysiusquotesSirachafterastringofquotationsfromPsalms,asifSirachcamefromthesameinspiredcorpus.[201]

TheCouncilofAntioch(269)

TheCouncilofAntiochwasconvenedtocondemntheantitrinitarianheresyofArtemonasintroducedbyPaulofSamasota.AnofficiallettersenttoDionysiusofRomeandMaximusofAlexandriacontainsaquoteintroducedwiththeformalappellation“itiswritten”followedbywhatappearstoquotetheninthchapterofSirach.TheCouncilofAntioch,ifthiscontentionistrue,istheearliestknownlocalcounciltoofficiallyusea

Deuterocanonicalbookinanauthoritativemanner.[202]

Archelaus(d.ca.277)

LittleisknownaboutthisearlyfatherotherthanthathewasbishopofMesopotamia.InhisdebatewiththehereticManes,recordedbyanunknownwriter,ArchelaususesWisdom1:13againstthecontentionthatdeathdidnotbeginintime,butitwas“unbegotten”orpartofGod’snature.[203]Byhisuseofthisquote,ArchelausdemonstratesanexpectationthatbothManesandhiswiderreadershipwouldacceptthebookofWisdomasanauthoritativesource,capableofconfirmingdoctrine.

MethodiusofTyre(d.ca.311)

AnativeofOlympiusinLycia,MethodiuswasthebishopofPhilippi.HesufferedmartyrdominGreeceabouttheyearAD311.Unfortunately,verylittlebiographicaldatahassurvivedtheages.

Methodius’useofthedisputedbooksdidnotdifferfromthosefatherswhoprecededhim;hefullyembracedtheDeuterocanonicalbooksasScripture.MethodiusquotesSirach,Wisdom,andProverbsinthesamepassagewithoutanyqualificationordistinction.[204]MethodiusexplicitlyintroducesapassagefromWisdomasScripture.[205]TheDeuterocanonheusesoftentoconfirmdoctrine.IntheBanquetoftheTenVirgins,SirachandWisdomarebothemployedasscripturalproofagainsttheideathatpolygamyendedduringthetimeoftheProphets.[206]Wisdomisalsousedtoshowhow“theWord”accusesidolaters.[207]Quotationsfromthesamebookareemployedtoconfirmthegoodofcreation,aswellascertainmattersofeschatology.[208]HeusesSirachagainstcertainteachingsofOrigen.[209]Thesamebookiselsewherequotedwiththesolemnformula“Itiswritten.”[210]MethodiusquotesBaruchwithoutqualificationordistinction[211]andpraisesJudithandSusannaasmodelsofChristianvirtue.[212]Forthesereasonsandothers,thereisnocontroversythatMethodiusacceptedtheDeuterocanonasScriptureinthefullestsense.[213]

Lactantius(250–326)

KnownastheChristianCicero,Lactantiusproducedsomeofthemost

eloquentdefensesofChristianityintheearlyChurch.BorntoapaganfamilyinNorthAfrica,Lactantiusexcelledinthedisciplineofrhetoric.TheEmperorDiocletianhimselfrequestedthathebecomeanofficialprofessorofrhetoricattheimperialcityofNicomedia;heconvertedtoChristianityeithershortlybeforeorafterheleftthischair.WhentheEmperorbeganhisgreatpersecutionofChristiansinAD303,Lactantiuswasfinanciallyruined.Later,hewasraisedupbytheEmperorConstantine,whoappointedhimtutorofhissonCrispus.LactantiusdiedaroundtheyearAD326.Becausemostofhisworksaredefensesagainstpaganism,LactantiususesrelativelyfewOldTestamentquotations.Hedid,however,leaveonesurvivingreferencetotheDeuteros;aquotationfromSirachwhichheuses,inhisInstitutes,toconfirmdoctrineinanauthoritativemanner.[214]

TheCouncilofNicea(313)

ThefirstandperhapsgreatestoftheEcumenicalCouncils,thatofNicea,wascalledprimarilytorefutetheheresyofArius,[215]anditleftnoofficialrecordofhavingattemptedtosettleanyquestionsofcanonicity.Cassiodorusseemstoclaim,however(alongwiththethirty-sixthcanonofthelaterCouncilofHippo)thattheNiceneFathersdidtakeuptheissueoftheChristiancanon;[216]andJerome(inamuchmorereliabletext)believesthatNicearuledinfavorofthebookofJudith.Bethatasitmay,itseemsexceedinglyunlikely(asBreennotes)thatsogreataCouncilmadeanyofficialdecreeonthesubjectwithouttheactionhavingbecomewidelyknown;ifithaddoneso,theresultwouldhavebeenamuchmoreunifiedunderstandingofthecanonintheEast.[217](ItmaybethatJeromeonlymeanstheCouncilFathersmadeuseofJudithintheirdeliberationswithoutincorporatingtheirapprovalintoanyofficialstatement).

EusebiusPamphilus(260–341)

EusebiuswaslikelyofanoblebirthandbecameadiscipleofPamphiluswhoestablishedthefamedlibraryintheChurchofCaesarea.EusebiuslaterbecametheheadoftheschoolinCaesareaanditslibrary.InAD315,hewaselectedbishopandbecamedeeplyentangledintheAriancontroversiesofthatera.

Eusebius’viewoftheDeuterocanonisdifficulttodetermine.MostoftheevidenceistakenfromhisChurchHistory,andtheretheauthormerelypassesontheopinionsofothers.HereproducesthelistsofJosephus,Melito,andOrigen,butbecausetheselistsdonotagreewithoneanother(andhemakesnoindicationofwhichheprefers),nonecanbetakentorepresenthisowntrueopinion.Attimes,EusebiusseemstoseparatetheBooksoftheMaccabeesfromthe“DivineScriptures,”andreportssomedisputeoverSirachandWisdom.Inotherplaces,hequotesBaruchandWisdomasiftheyareScripture.[218]Therefore,Eusebius’viewscannotbedeterminedwithanythinglikecertainty.[219]

AphraatesthePersian(280–345)

AphraatesisoneoftheoldestSyrianfathers.Thereisnosolidbiographicalinformationavailableandonlyasingleworkofhishassurvivedtheages.

InDemonstrations,5.19,AphraatesreferstothemartyrdomsoftheMaccabees,[220]andlaterinthesamework,quotesSirach29:17.[221]HedoesnotsegregatethesequotationsfromthosetakenfromtheProtocanonandusesthemwithoutqualificationordistinction.AphraatesassumesthroughoutthathisreaderswillbefamiliarwithDeuterocanonicaltextsandmakesnoapologyforusingthem.

AlexanderofAlexandria

AlexanderofAlexandriawasbishopofthatcityatthetime(ca.AD312)whenAriusfirstbeganhisagitationsconcerningthenatureoftheChrist.Alexanderactedslowlybutfirmlyagainsthisunrulypresbyter,yethiscounteringstatementsonthegreatsubjectwerecarelessandimprecise,leavinghimopentoArianchargesofModalism.AlexanderthusleftmattersatAlexandriaworsethanhefoundthem.ItwaslettersfromthisbishopAlexandertoConstantinewhichconvincedtheEmperortoconvenethegreatCouncilofNiceaandsettlethematterofArianism(orsohethought)onceandforall.

Inoneofhissurvivingworks,AlexandermakesanimportantuseofthebookofSirach.Heactuallysandwichesaquotefrom1CorinthiansbetweentwodifferentquotesfromthatDeuterocanonicalwork:

Therefore,Idonotthinkmenoughttobeconsideredpiouswhopresumetoinvestigatethissubject,indisobediencetotheinjunction,‘Seeknotwhatistoodifficultforthee,neitherenquireintowhatistoohighforthee.’Foriftheknowledgeofmanyotherthingsincomparablyinferiorisbeyondthecapacityofthehumanmind,andcannotthereforebeattained,ashasbeensaidbyPaul,‘Eyehathnotseen,norearheard,neitherhaveenteredintotheheartofman,thethingswhichGodhathpreparedfarthemthatlaveHim,’andasGodalsosaidtoAbraham,thatthestarscouldnotbenumberedbyhim;anditislikewisesaid,‘Whoshallnumberthegrainsofsandbythesea-shore,orthedropsofrain?’[222]

Aswecanclearlydeducefrominthisfragment,AlexandersawnodistinctioninstatusbetweenSirachand1Corinthians;andSirach’s“injunction”isplainlybeingusedtoconfirmanimportantdoctrineoftheChurch,thatofGod’sincomprehensibility.

Chapter3WhenContentsBecameCanon

Whatisacanon?Whatdoes‘canon’meantoday?Upuntilthispointinoursurvey,wehaverefrainedfromusingtheterm“canon”or“canonical”(excepttodenythatsuchathingexistedintheearliestcenturies).Wehavedonethisbecausethetermwasnotusedpriortothemid-fourthcentury—thepointwhichwehavenowreachedinthisbriefhistoricalsurvey.

Theword‘canon’comesfromtheGreek,atermoriginallyreferringtoa‘reed’ormeasuringstick.Acanonisusedtomeasurethingsor,ifyouwill,providesarulebywhichpeoplemustabide.ThewordisusedtwiceintheNewTestamentandbytheearlyfathersinagenericsense,likethe‘canonofthefaith’orthe‘canonofdoctrine’orthe‘canonoftradition,’butitwasnotappliedtothecontentsofScriptureuntiltheperiodnowunderconsideration.

Today,the‘canonofScripture’referstotheChurch’sauthoritativelistofinspiredbooks.Allcanonicalbooksareinspired,andallinspiredbooksarecanonical.[223]Anybookfoundoutsidethecanonisapocrypha,i.e.merelyhumanwritingshavingsomeoneotherthanGodastheirprimaryauthor.TheearliestknowninstanceofthetermcanonbeingappliedtothesacredtextoccursinthewritingsofAthanasiusofAlexandria,wholivedfromAD296–373.[224]ProtestantapologistsoftenappealtoAthanasius’Thirty-ninthFestalLetterasaproofthatthisvenerablefatherofficiallyacceptedonlytherestrictiveProtestantcanon.

Athanasius(295–373)

AthanasiusofAlexandriasucceededAlexanderasbishopofthatcity.Hisbishoprictherelastedfortytumultuousyears,duringwhichhewasfourtimesdeposedandexiledfromhisSeebyArianopponents.AthanasiusisbestknowninChurchhistoryforhisstaunchandheroicdefenseofthefullDivinityofChristagainsttheoverwhelmingtideofheresythatthreatenedtoengulftheworldduringthosedecades.

ItwasthecustominancientAlexandriathataletterfromthebishopbecirculatedthroughoutthechurchesofEgypttohelpthefaithfulbetterpreparefortheEasterSeason.Oneofthese,theThirty-ninthFestalLetter(writtenbyAthanasiusonJanuary7,367),addressedwhathadbecomeanaggingconcernatthattime.Itseemsthataspateofsuspiciousbookshadbeencirculatinglatelyamongthechurches,astateofaffairsinwhich(accordingtotheletter)some“whicharecalledApocrypha”hadbeenmixedtogether“withthedivinelyinspiredScripturewhichwehavereceiveduponcertaintestimonyastheFathershandeddowntous.”AthanasiuswishedtoseparateundoubtedScripturefromtheapocrypha.TheThirty-ninthFestalLetterreads:

ThebooksoftheOldTestamentareinnumbertwenty-two;forsomany,asIhaveheard,aretheelements(ofspeech)withtheHebrews.Inthisorder[listsallthebooksoftheProtestantcanonaddingBaruchandtheEpistleofJeremiahandomittingtheBookofEsther]thusfarthebooksoftheOldTestament.

AthanasiuscontinuesbyenumeratingthebooksoftheNewTestament.Attheendofthislist,thebishopconcludesthusly:

Thesearethefountainsofsalvation,sothatwhothirstsmaybefilledbytheirdiscourses;inthesealone,theChristiandoctrineistaught.Letnooneaddtothemortakeanythingfromthem…Butforgreateraccuracy,Ideemitnecessarytoaddthisalso,thatthereare,forsooth,otherbooksbesidesthese,which,indeed,arenotplacedintheCanon,butwhichtheFathersdecreedshouldbereadtothosewhohavelatelycomeintothefold,andseektobecatechized,andwhostudytolearntheChristiandoctrine.TheseareTheWisdomofSolomonandtheWisdomofSirach(Ecclesiasticus),Esther,Judith,Tobias,theso-calledDoctrineoftheApostles,andPastor.Therefore,whichtheformerareintheCanon,andtheselatterareread,thereisnomentionoftheApocrypha,whicharethefigmentofhereticswhoarbitrarilywritebooks,towhichtheyassigndates,thatbythespecioussemblanceofantiquitytheymayfindoccasiontodeceivethesimple.[225]

Protestantapologistsfocusonthefactthattwenty-twobooksaredescribedashavingbeencanonized;makingup,astheywouldargue,

anexhaustivelistsinceAthanasiusseemstoinsistthat“Inthese[books]alone,theChristiandoctrineistaught.”Thegreatfourthcenturychampion,therefore,hasbeenshowntohaveacceptedtheProtestantcanon,andconsignedeverythingoutsidethatcanontothecategoryofhumanapocrypha.Thisargumenterrsonanumberofpoints.

Mostobviously,thebooksAthanasiuslistedas“canonical”donotcorrespondtotheProtestantcanon;heplacesthebookofBaruchandtheletterofJeremiahamongthe“canon,”butdeliberatelyomitsthebookofEstherfromthatlistandplacesitamongthosethatareread.Thiscanon,infact,isuniquetoAthanasiushimself;nootherwriterusesitandallotherChristiancanons,thenandnow,differfromit.Secondly,acarefulreadingshowsthatAthanasiusisnotusingtheword“canon”inexactlythewayamodernreaderwouldexpect.Yes,hestatesthatChristiandoctrineistaughtbythecanonizedbooksalone,buthewouldseemtoundercutthatstatementbyconfessingthathiscanonicallistisinitselfnotcompletelyaccurate,thatitisalsonecessarytoaddotherstothelist.These“necessary”booksarenotcalledcanonical,but“theyareread”[226]andtheycanbeusedtoteachChristiandoctrine,especiallytorecentconverts.[227]Theuseoftheword“apocrypha”ontheotherhand,Athanasiusconfinestoworksheretical,arbitrary,specious,anddeceptive:

Therefore,whichtheformerareintheCanon,andtheselatterareread,thereisnomentionoftheApocrypha,whicharethefigmentofhereticswhoarbitrarilywritebooks,towhichtheyassigndates,thatbythespecioussemblanceofantiquitytheymayfindoccasiontodeceivethesimple.

Accordingtothisdefinitionthen,theDeuteroscannotbeconsidered(astheyarebytoday’sProtestants)“apocrypha.”Athanasiusisusingthetermsdifferently.ForChristianstoday,thereareonlytwocategoriesofwritings:inspired,canonicalScriptureanduninspiredapocrypha;yetforAthanasius,therewerethreecategories:“canonical”Scripture,theScripture“thatisread,”andtheuninspiredApocrypha.

HowcanwebesurethatAthanasiusacceptedtheDeuterocanonasinspiredScripture?Tobeginwith,wehaveseeninoursurveythat,withtheexceptionofJuliusAfricanus,allChristianswhousedtheDeuterocanonicalbooksdidsoinamannercommensuratewithsacred

DeuterocanonicalbooksdidsoinamannercommensuratewithsacredScripture.Ifthissecondcategoryweretobeconsideredadenialoftheirinspiration,AthanasiuswouldbeguiltyofawidedeparturefromthecommonandancientChristianusage—somethingevenhismanyenemiesneveraccusedhimof.Suchanopinionwouldalsohavesignaledamajorbreakfromthepracticeofhispredecessor,AlexanderofAlexandria,whoclearlyacceptedtheDeuterocanon.This,too,wouldhavebeenpounceduponbytheenemiesofAthanasiusandthusthoroughlydocumentedinthepagesoftheAriancontroversy.

YetthebestproofthatAthanasius’acceptedtheDeuterocanonicalbooksisthewayinwhichheusesthem.AthanasiusquotesbothBaruchandSusannarightalongsidepassagesfromIsaiah,Psalms,Romans,andHebrews;hemakesnodistinctionorqualificationbetweenthem.[228]WisdomalsoisusedasanauthenticportionofsacredScripture;as,forinstance,whenAthanasiuswritesthis:

Butoftheseandsuchlikeinventionsofidolatrousmadness,Scripturetaughtusbeforehandlongago,whenitsaid,‘Thedevisingofidolswasthebeginningoffornication,andtheinventionofthem,thecorruptionoflife…’[Ws14:12].[229]

andlaterinthesamework:

ForsincetheywereendeavouringtoinvestwithwhatScripturecallstheincommunicablenameandhonourofGodthemthatarenogodsbutmortalmen,andsincethisventureoftheirswasgreatandimpious,forthisreasonevenagainsttheirwilltheywereforcedbytruthtosetforththepassionsofthesepersons,sothattheirpassionsrecordedinthewritingsconcerningthemmightbeinevidenceforallposterityasaproofthattheywerenogods.[230]

Thisreferencetothe“incommunicablename”comesfromWisdom14:21:

Andthiswastheoccasionofdeceivinghumanlife:formenservingeithertheiraffection,ortheirkings,gavetheincommunicablenametostonesandwood.[231]

AthanasiusquotesanotherpassagefromWisdomasconstitutingthe

teachingsofChrist,theWordofGod.[232]Heundoubtedlyusesittoconfirmdoctrine.[233]InanotherargumentagainstArians,hecallsboththeProtocanonicalProverbsandtheDeuterocanonicalWisdom“holyScripture”[sacrislitteris/taishagiaisgraphais].[234]HestatesplainlythatapassagefromtheBookofWisdomwasauthoredbythe“WisdomofGod.”[235]AthanasiusalsoquotesthebookofSirachwithoutdistinctionorqualification,inthemidstofseveralotherscripturalquotations.[236]EvenaletterwrittentoAthanasius,byanAlexandrianSynodconsistingofbishopsfromEgypt,Thebais,Libya,andPentapolis,usesSirachwithoutanyqualifyingremarksorsegregation.[237]AthanasiuscallstheBookofJudithScripture.[238]TobitiscitedrightalongwithseveralProtocanonicalquotations[239]andevenintroducedwiththesolemnformula“itiswritten.”[240]AthanasiusalsousestheBookofMaccabeesinhiswritings.[241]

Howcanbooks“thatareread”beexcludedfromthecanon,butstillbeconsideredScripture?ThepracticeofancientJudaismprovidesthekey.FortheJews,therewereonlysacredandsecularwritings,whichwerecalled“thosethatdefilethehands”and“thosethatdidnotdefilethehands”respectively.Ifabookwassacred,itwoulddefilethehandsofthepersonwhoreadsitatthesynagoguerequiringthatpersontorituallywashtheirhands.Secularwritingsdidnotrequirehandwashingandwerenotreadatthesynagogue.TheearlyChristiansinheritedthislegacy,minustheritualwashings.[242]TherewasalwaysaspecialstationintheliturgyforthereadingofsacredScripture.[243]Athanasius’Thirty-ninthFestalLetteradvisesthechurchesofAlexandriawhichbooksaretobeacceptedbasedonliturgicalusage.ForAthanasius,thecanonicalbookswerethosethatwerereadasScripturebothinthesynagogueandintheChristianChurch.The“booksthatwereread”wereScripturethatwasreadonlyintheChristianChurch.[244]TheApocryphawerethosewritingsthatwerenotreadeitherintheChristianChurchorinthesynagogue.ItisonlywithaknowledgeofthisvitalbackgroundinformationthatAthanasius’confusingstatementsonthistopiccanbetrulyunderstood.

TheCouncilofSardica(ca.342)

In342or343,PopeJuliusrequestedtheEmperorConstanstoconvenealocalcouncil,theCouncilofSardica,tohelpclearupnewdifficulties

alocalcouncil,theCouncilofSardica,tohelpclearupnewdifficultiescausedbytheongoingArianheresy.TheCouncilmetinSofiainBulgaria.NinetybishopsfromtheWestandabouteightybishopsfromtheEastattendedthislocalcouncil,withbishopsrepresentingsomeforty-eightprovincesoftheEmpire.ThisCouncilformallyemploysaquotefromtheBookofWisdominitsdecrees:

Wecannotdenythathewasbegotten;butwesaythathewasbegottenbeforeallthings,whicharecalledvisibleandinvisible;andthatheisthecreatorandartificerofarchangelsandangels,andoftheworld,andofthehumanspecies.Itiswritten,‘Wisdomwhichmadeallthingshastaughtme;’andagain,‘Allthingsweremadebyhim.’[245]

Clearly,thesecouncilfathersunderstoodWisdomtobeauthoritativeScripture,capableofconfirmingdoctrine.[246]Itoughttobenotedthataquotationdoesnotconstituteanofficialdeclarationofabook’sinspirationorcanonicity,butinthiscaseitdoesspeakstronglyinfavorofaverywideacceptanceofWisdombytheearlyChristianChurch.

CyrilofJerusalem(315–386)

CyrilwasordainedapriestbyMaximusinJerusalem,whomhesucceededasbishopthroughtheappointmentofAcacius,whowasanArianandmetropolitanofCaesarea.LikeAthanasius’church,thechurchinCyril’sareawaswrackedbytheAriancontroversy.AlthoughCyrilalwaysheldtotheorthodoxFaith,hisreignasbishopwasastormyone.

LikeAthanasius,CyrilofJerusalem,hadaproblemwithapocryphainhisdistrict,andhecomposedalistmuchlikethatofAthanasius.[247]Lecture4:33,35-36reads:

…Learnalsodiligently,andfromtheChurch,whatarethebooksoftheOldTestament,andwhatthoseoftheNew.And,pray,readnoneoftheapocryphalwritings:forwhydostthou,whoknowestnotthosewhichareacknowledgedamongall,troublethyselfinvainaboutthosewhicharedisputed?ReadtheDivineScriptures,thetwenty-twobooksoftheOldTestament,thesethathavebeentranslatedbytheSeventy-twoInterpreters…Ofthesereadthetwoandtwentybooks,buthavenothingtodowiththeapocryphalwritings.Studyearnestlytheseonlywhichwereadopenlyinthe

Church.FarwiserandmorepiousthanthyselfweretheApostles,andthebishopsofoldtime,thepresidentsoftheChurchwhohandeddownthesebooks.BeingthereforeachildoftheChurch,trenchthounotuponitsstatutes.AndoftheOldTestament,aswehavesaid,studythetwoandtwentybooks,which,ifthouartdesirousoflearning,strivetorememberbyname,asIrecitethem.ForoftheLawthebooksofMosesarethefirstfive,Genesis,Exodus,Leviticus,Numbers,Deuteronomy.Andnext,JoshuathesonofNave,andthebookofJudges,includingRuth,countedasseventh.Andoftheotherhistoricalbooks,thefirstandsecondbooksoftheKingsareamongtheHebrewsonebook;alsothethirdandfourthonebook.Andinlikemanner,thefirstandsecondofChroniclesarewiththemonebook;andthefirstandsecondofEsdrasarecountedone.Estheristhetwelfthbook;andthesearetheHistoricalwritings.Butthosewhicharewritteninversesarefive,Job,andthebookofPsalms,andProverbs,andEcclesiastes,andtheSongofSongs,whichistheseventeenthbook.AndafterthesecomethefivePropheticbooks:oftheTwelveProphetsonebook,ofIsaiahone,ofJeremiahone,includingBaruchandLamentationsandtheEpistle;thenEzekiel,andtheBookofDaniel,thetwenty-secondoftheOldTestament.

ThenoftheNewTestament[thebooksoftheNewTestamentarelisted].Butletalltherestbeputasideinasecondaryrank.AndwhateverbooksarenotreadinChurches,thesereadnotevenbythyself,asthouhastheardmesay.Thusmuchofthesesubjects.[248]

Onceagain,acarefulreadingshowsthatCyril,likeAthanasius,isactuallydividingreligiousliteratureintothreecategories,nottwo.Inadditiontothetwenty-twobooks(includingBaruchandtheEpistleofJeremiah),Cyrilmentionstwoothercategories:

Butletalltherestbeputasideinasecondaryrank[endeuterw].AndwhateverbooksarenotreadinChurches,thesereadnotevenbythyself,asthouhastheardmesay.[249]

HereweseethatCyril’sthreeclassesare:(1)Thetwenty-twobooks,(2)others,ofasecondaryrank(thoseendeuterw),whichare,notice,stillreadopenlyinthechurches,and(3)apocryphalbooks,whicharenotto

bereadatall,notevenprivately.[250]WeknowforcertainthatCyrildidnotconsidertheDeuterostobeamongthisthirdclassbecauseheusesthemextensivelyinhisCatecheticalLectures.Inthesefamouslecturestocatechumens,CyrilcitesBaruchascomingfromtheProphet.[251]Wisdomislikewiseusedfordoctrinalinstruction.[252]Itisalsoelsewherequotedwithoutdistinctionorqualification.[253]Sirachisusedinasimilarmanner.[254]TheDeuterocanonicalsectionsofDanielareconsideredauthenticportionsofProtocanonicalDanielandoccasionallycitedwiththesolemnintroduction,“Itiswritten.”[255]

ItistruethatCyrildoesnotusetheDeuterocanonwiththesameforceandfrequencyasAthanasius;hemaythereforehavepossiblyheldtheminalowerrank.Nevertheless,hemanifestlydidnotconsiderthemapocrypha.ItislikelythenthatCyrilfollowsAthanasiusinholdingtheDeuterocanonasasubsetofinspiredScriptures.

TheCouncilofLaodicea(343/381)

ThelocalcouncilofLaodiceatookplaceinPacatianofPhrygiasometimeinthelatterhalfofthefourthcentury.Itisnotknownhowmanybishopsattendedthiscouncil.Laodiceaissuednodoctrinaldecrees;itonlypasseddisciplinarycanons.Thisdistrict,too,wasplagued,apparently,byapocryphawhichhadcreptintotheusageofcertainchurches.TheFifty-ninthcanonofLaodiceadealtwiththisproblem:

Canon59

Thatpsalmsofprivateoriginarenottobereadinthechurch,noruncanonicalbooks,butonlythecanonicalbooksoftheOldandNewTestaments.

Anti-CatholicssometimesassertthatAthanasiusandCyrilrejecteddisputedbooksbysayingthattheyweremerelytoberead.Thismistakeisperhapsrootedinthefactthatmostanti-Catholicchurchesarenon-liturgical—quiteunlikeboththesynagogueandtheearlyChurch.Liturgicalbelieversknowthatasolemn,publicreading,takingplaceasaritualpartofdivineworship,isthestrongestpossibleaffirmationthatthetextbeingreadisconsideredsacredandisnotanexampleofmeresecularwriting.[256]Laodicea’sFifty-ninthCanonreinforcedthedividinglinebetweensacredandprofanebooksbyforbiddingthereadingof

uncanonicalliteratureinthechurches.Whichbooksdidthiscouncilconsidercanonical?TheSixtiethCanonreads:

TheseareallthebooksoftheOldTestamentappointedtoread:Genesisoftheworld,ExodusfromEgypt…JeremiahandBaruch,theLamentationandtheEpistle…andthesearethebooksoftheNewTestament:FourGospelsaccordingtoMatthew,Mark,LukeandJohn;TheActsoftheApostles;SevenCatholicEpistles—oneofJames,twoofPeter,threeofJohn,oneofJude;FourteenEpistlesofPaul…[257]

ThisSixtiethCanonhassomeaffinitywithAthanasius’list,inthatitincludesBaruchandtheEpistleofJeremiah,butdiffersbyincludingEsther.[258]ItalsodiffersfromCyril,Athanasius,andOrigeninthatitomitsanymentionoftheDeuterocanon.[259]Theseodditiesonlyservetohighlightthefactthatthiscanonmayverywellbespurious;scholarshavelongnotedthatthisSixtiethCanonismissinginanimportantGreekmanuscriptandintwoearlySyriacversions;alsoinoneoftwolaterLatinmanuscripts.TheconsensusfromCatholicandProtestantscholarsalikeisthatthiscanonisnotgenuine,butlikelyrepresentsaglossthatwasincorporatedintothetextatlaterdate.[260]Furthermore,evenifitcouldbeprovedtorepresenttheauthenticviewofthecouncil,thisSixtiethCanonwouldhavebeenadisciplinarymeasurenotadoctrinalone.Thatis,itsoughttolegislatethepracticeoftheChurch(discipline)andnottheteachingoftheChurch(doctrine).[261]Thismeasuremayhavebeenatemporaryrestrictiononwhichbookscouldbeusedintheliturgy,andmaynothavereflectedthecommonpracticeduringotherperiodswhencircumstancesweredifferent.Aftertheapocryphaproblemhadsubsided,thedisciplinarycanoncouldberescinded.ThedeliberationsofthiscouncilhavebeenlostanditisimpossibletoknowiftheserestrictionsintheFifty-ninthcanonand/orthesixtiethcanonweretobetemporaryorpermanentoriftheywereintendedtobeenforcedlocallyoruniversally.

HilaryofPoitiers(315–ca.367)

BornintoawealthypaganfamilyinGaul,Hilarywaswelleducatedandlaterinlife,alongwithhiswifeandchildren,convertedtoChristianity.AroundAD350,hewaselectedBishopofPoitiers,wherehebecamefamousasavaliantdefenderoforthodoxyagainsttheArianheresy.TheArianmetropolitansentHilaryintoexileinPhrygiaforhisbeliefs.In

ArianmetropolitansentHilaryintoexileinPhrygiaforhisbeliefs.InPhrygia,HilaryprovedtoomuchtohandlefortheAriansintheEastsohewassentbacktoGaulwherehewasreceivedasahero.HilarydiedaroundtheyearAD368.

WehavealreadyvisitedHilary’sPrologueonthePsalms,inwhichheenumeratedthetwenty-twobooksoftheOldTestament,adding:“TosomeithasseemedgoodtoaddTobiasandJudith,andthusconstitutetwenty-fourbooksaccordingtotheGreekalphabet….”[262]OutsideofthiseccentricAlexandriancomputationofthecanon,Hilary’sDeuterocanonicalusagerevealsthatheacceptedallofthebooksinquestionasinspiredScripture.[263]Baruch,heusesasanauthenticpartofJeremiah.[264]Wisdom,HilaryreferstoasthewordsofaProphet,[265]andquotesitsidebysidewiththeProtocanonicalbookswithoutdistinctionorqualification.[266]Sirachislikewiseusedwithoutqualificationordistinction.[267]JudithisquotedasScripture.[268]Tobitisusedwithoutanyqualification.[269]TheDeuterocanonicalsectionsofDanielareusedinamannerindistinguishablefromtheProtocanonicalbooksandsections.[270]Inhiswork,OntheTrinity,Hilarywrites:

Since,therefore,thewordsoftheApostle,OneGodtheFather,fromWhomareallthings,andoneJesusChrist,ourLord,throughWhomareallthings,formanaccurateandcompleteconfessionconcerningGod,letusseewhatMoseshastosayofthebeginningoftheworld.Hiswordsare,‘AndGodsaid,Lettherebeafirmamentinthemidstofthewater,andletitdividethewaterfromthewater.Anditwasso,andGodmadethefirmamentandGoddividedthewaterthroughthemidst.Here,then,youhavetheGodfromWhom,andtheGodthroughWhom.’Ifyoudenyit,youmusttellusthroughwhomitwasthatGod’sworkincreationwasdone,orelsepointforyourexplanationtoanobedienceinthingsyetuncreated,which,whenGodsaidLettherebeafirmament,impelledthefirmamenttoestablishitself.SuchsuggestionsareinconsistentwiththeclearsenseofScripture.‘Forallthings’,astheProphetsays,‘weremadeoutofnothing;’itwasnotransformationofexistingthings,butthecreationintoaperfectformofthenon-existent.[271]

HereHilaryquotes2Maccabees7:28asthewordsofaprophetquotedfromScripture!Hilarysees2Maccabeesascapableofconfirming

Christiandoctrine.HeelsewherequotesfromtheMaccabeeswithoutqualificationordistinction.[272]

BasiltheGreat(329–379)

BasilwasbornintoadistinguishedChristianhome.AlongwithGregoryofNyssaandGregoryofNazianzus,heiscountedasoneofthethreeCappadocianFathers.Excellinginstudies,BasiltraveledtoCaesarea,Constantinople,andAthens.InCaesarea,hemetandbecameclosefriendswithGregoryofNazianzus.InAD370,BasilbecamebishopoftheSeeofCaesarea,wherehewonrenownforhisteachingandadministration.

BasilquotestheBookofJudithinhistreatise,OntheHolySpirit.[273]HefollowsthisquotewithquotationsfromtheGospelofJohnwithoutanydistinctionorqualification.BasilholdsupthemotherofthesevenMaccabeanmartyrsasanexampleforChristians.[274]BasilelsewherequotesfromWisdom,Baruch,andtheDeuterocanonicalportionsofDaniel,alwaysinamannerindistinguishablefromtherestofScripture.[275]

GregoryofNazianzus(330–374)

AnotheroneoftheCappadocianfathersisGregoryofNazianzus.ThequietercounterpartofBasiltheGreat,GregorywasborninAsiaMinorinoraroundtheyearAD325.Gregory’sfatherhadbeenamemberofahereticalsectbutconvertedtoorthodoxChristianityandwaslaterordainedapriest.WhileatthefamedschoolofCaesarea,GregorymetBasilwhobecamehislifelongfriend.HetraveledtoPalestineandcompletedhisstudiesinAlexandria(whereAthanasiuswasthenbishop)andAthens.GregorybecamebishopinNazianandwaslaterinvitedtobebishopofConstantinople,butinternalbickeringpreventedhimfromacceptingtheposition/post.GregoryretiredanddiedinseclusionintheyearAD374.

GregoryusestheDeuterocanonasScripture.HequotesBaruch3:35-37tocounterhisopponent’spositionconcerningthedoctrineoftheTrinity.[276]WisdomisusedasadefinitionfromSolomon.[277]Wisdomisfrequentlyquotedamongothertextswithoutqualificationordistinctionandisoftenusedtoconfirmdoctrine.[278]TheDeuterocanonical

sectionsofDanielareusedasanauthenticpartofDaniel.[279]Sirachisalsocitedinanauthoritativemanner.[280]GregoryusesSirachtoexpoundontheCommandment“Honoryourfatherandyourmother.”[281]Elsewhere,Sirach,andProverbsarequotedwithoutqualificationinordertodemonstratethattheHolySpiritisnotacreatedbeing.[282]ApassageinJudithisintroducedashavingbeentakenfromScripture.[283]

InOrations43.70,Gregoryrecountsnumerousexamplesdrawnfromsacredhistory:

Comethen,therehavebeenmanymenofolddaysillustriousforpiety,aslawgivers,generals,prophets,teachers,andmenbravetothesheddingofblood.Letuscompareourprelatewiththem,andthusrecognizehismerit.[284]

HecontinuesbyexpoundingwiththeexamplesofAdam,Enos,Enoch,Noah,Abraham,Isaac,Jacob,Joseph,Job,Moses,Aaron,Joshua,theJudges,Samuel,David,Solomon,Elijah,andthesevenMaccabeanmartyrs.Inchapter75,withexamplestakenfromtheNewTestament,Gregory’spanoramacoversthewholeofbiblicalhistory,beginningwithGenesisandcontinuingthroughtheNewTestament.TheinclusionoftheMaccabeesinthiscontextstronglysuggeststhatGregory’sOldTestamentincludedtheDeuterocanon;becauseotherwiseitwouldhaveterminatedatthetimeofArtaxerxesandskippedtothetimeofChrist.

ThisusageseemstobecontradictedbyapoemwrittenbyGregorythatreads:

Thesearealltwelveofthehistoricalbooks,OfthemostancientHebrewwisdom:FirstthereisGenesis…Thepoeticbooksarefive:Jobbeingfirst…Andfiveprophetic,likewiseinspired…Therearethetwelvewritteninonebook…Alltheseareone.ThesecondisIsaiah,ThenEzekiel,andDaniel’sgift,Ireckon,therefore,twenty-twooldbooks,Nowcountalsothoseofthenewmystery…[285]

ItisimportanttonotenotonlywhatGregorysaysinthispassagebutalsowhathedoesnotsay.GregorydoesnotrelegatetheDeuterocanontotheapocryphaasProtestantsdotoday.Heomitsthemonlyfromthe“mostancientHebrewwisdom”containedinthetwenty-twobooks.The

apocryphaisnotmentioned.ThereisalsonoindicationinhisotherworksthatheeverrejectedorevendisparagedtheDeuterocanon.Onthecontrary,heusesthemtoconfirmdoctrineandtreatstheminamannercommensuratewithinspiredScripture.GrantingthatGregoryisnotself-contradictoryinhisviewsonthecanon,hislistoughttobeunderstoodasdescriptiveandnotexhaustive.LikeAthanasiusandCyrilofJerusalem,itislikelythatheheldathree-folddivisionofsacredScripture.[286]IfGregorydiddenytheDeuterocanoninthepassage,thenhewouldhaveactedhypocriticallybyusingtheDeuterocanonasScriptureagainstopponentsandChristianswhilepersonallyholdingthattheyarenotworthyofsuchusebecausetheyaremerehumanwritings.

AmphilochiusofIconium(ca.339–394)

AmphilochiusisnotcountedasoneofthethreegreatCappodocianFathers,buthewasanintegralmemberoftheircompany.InAD374,AmphilochiusbecamebishopoftheSeeofIconium.HewasknownforhislearningandforhisclosefriendshipwithBasil.Themajorityofhisworksarelost,andthefewthathavesurvivedareinfragments.Onework(longconsideredthewritingofGregoryofNazianzusbutnowattributedtoAmphilochius)iscalledtheIambicstoSeleucus.TheIambicsliststhebooksoftheProtestantOldTestamentcanon(includingEsther)inverseandtheNewTestamentcanon,althoughitstatesthatsomeconsideredtheBookofRevelationspurious.Amphilochiusstates:“HerethenmostcertainlyyouhavetheCanonofthedivinelyinspiredScriptures.”[287]However,theIambicsdonotexcludetheDeuterocanonentirely.AsBreennotes,laterinthesamepoem,AmphilochiusplacestheDeuterocanoninanintermediateplacebetweeninspiredandnon-inspiredwritings.[288]IfBreeniscorrect,AmphilochiusheldanerroneousunderstandingofinspirationbecauseGodeitherisorisnottheprimaryauthorofagivenwriting;thereisnomiddleground.WehaveinAmphilochiusathree-folddivisionofreligiousliterature(e.g.Canonical,Intermediate[thosethatareread],andSpurious[apocrypha])similartothatofAthanasiusandCyril,onlythesecondcategoryisofinferiorsubstancetothecanonicalandsuperiorinsubstancetomereapocryphalorspuriouswritings.

DamasusI,Pope(366–384)andTheCouncilofRome(382)

AroundtheyearAD382,alistofcanonicalScriptureswascompiledthatcontainedtheDeuterocanon.ThislistisidenticaltothecanonheldbyCatholics[289]andisfoundinaworkcalledTheDecreeof[Pope]Damasus.SomebelievethisDecreeisapapalpronouncement,whileotherscontendthatitwaspartofaDecreefromthelocalcouncilofRomethatwasheldinthesameyear.Itisimpossibletoproveordisproveeitherofthesepropositions.TheDecreereads:

Likewise,ithasbeensaid:NowindeedwemusttreatofthedivineScriptures,whattheuniversalCatholicChurchacceptsandwhatsheoughttoshun.TheorderoftheOldTestamentbeginshere:Genesis,onebook;Exodus,onebook;Leviticus,onebook;Numbers,onebook;Deuteronomy,onebook;Joshua[Sonof]Nave,onebook;Judges,onebook;Ruth,onebook;Kings,fourbooks[i.e.,1and2Samueland1and2Kings];Paralipomenon[Chronicles],twobooks;Psalms,onebook;Solomon,threebooks:Proverbs,onebook;Ecclesiastes,onebook;CanticleofCanticles,onebook;likewiseWisdom,onebook;Ecclesiasticus[Sir],onebook.LikewiseistheorderoftheProphets:Isaiasonebook,Jeremiasonebook...lamentations,Ezechielonebook,Danielonebook,Osee...Nahum...Habacuc...Sophonias...Aggeus...Zacharias...Malachias....Likewisetheorderofthehistorical[books]:Job,onebook;Tobit,onebook;Esdras,twobooks;Esther,onebook;Judith,onebook;Maccabees,twobooks.[290]

IfTheDecreeof[Pope]DamasusistrulytheproductoftheCouncilofRome,thenitwouldrepresentthefirstlistofScriptureofficiallypromulgatedbysuchacouncil.[291]TheAnglicanscholar,H.H.Howorthnotes:

Thispronouncement,aswehaveseen,doesnotprofesstoenunciateanynewviewsonthematter,butmerelytodeclarewhattheUniversalChurchacceptedasDivineScripture…[292]

Epiphanius(310–403)

Duringhisyouth,EpiphaniusjoinedamonasteryinEgyptandlaterreturnedtoPalestine,wherehefoundedhisownmonastery.InAD367,

hebecamebishopofConstantiaorSalamisontheIslandofCypruswherehereignedasbishopuntilhisdeath.Hetraveledfrequentlytoothercountriesinordertocombatheresy,especiallythatheresyofOrigenism,which,nodoubt,wonhimtheadmirationofJerome.[293]Epiphanius’worksarefraughtwithconfusionandinconsistency.Heattemptstocramhisvoluminouslearningintotightlywoundtreatisesthatareoftenconfusedandconfusing.

HiscanonoftheOldTestamentisagoodexampleofthisconfusion.Epiphaniusundoubtedlyheldthetwenty-twobooksoftheHebrewcanontobeinspiredScripture,buthisthoughtsabouttheDeuterocanon(particularlySirachandWisdom)areinconsistent,rangingfrom“doubtful,butuseful”to“divineandauthoritativeScripture.”

ProtestantsfrequentlylistEpiphaniusasonewhorejectedtheDeuterocanonbecausehecompiledthreecanonicalliststhatmoreorlessreflecttheProtestantcanon.Suchapologistsoftenignorethefactthattheselistsdonotagreewithoneanother—incontentorinorder.SometimestheBookofBaruchandthelettertoJeremiahareincluded,butatothertimes,theyareomitted.OnesuchlistincludesSirachandWisdomaspartofthe“holybooks”[sacrosanctvolumina/hieraibiblioi],butotherlistsexcludethem.[294]TheseapologistswouldalsoomitapartiallistgiveninAdversusHaereses,76.5whereEpiphaniuswrites:

ForifthouwerebegottenoftheHolyGhost,andtaughtbytheApostlesandProphets,thisshouldyoudo:ExamineallthesacredcodicesfromGenesistothetimesofEsther,whicharetwenty-sevenbooksoftheOldTestament,andareenumeratedastwenty-two;thenthefourHolyGospel…theBooksofWisdom,thatofSolomon,andoftheSonofSirach,andinfineallthebooksofScripture[Gk.divinewritings].[295]

NotallofEpiphanius’listsarebaseduponthesoundestreasoning.Forexample,thosefoundinhisOnWeightsandMeasurescomputesthelistofScriptureonthebasisofanecstaticcontemplationofthesignificanceofthenumbertwenty-two.AccordingtoEpiphanius,thereweretwenty-twoworksofGodinthesixdaysofCreation,twenty-twogenerationsbetweenAdamandJacob,twenty-twolettersoftheHebrewalphabet,andtwenty-twobooksintheOldTestament.[296]

Epiphanius’usageoftheDeuterocanonspeaksmuchmoreclearlythananysuchflightoffancy.HecitesthebookofSirachnumeroustimesandcallsitScripture.[297]Usuallysuchquotesarewithoutqualification.[298]Elsewhere,EpiphaniusquotesthebookofWisdom,callingitScriptureaswell[299]andaffirmingthattheteachingcitedhascomefromthemouthoftheHolySpirit[300]WisdomisalsoquotedamongstotherProtocanonicaltexts,againwithoutqualification.[301]EpiphaniuscitesMaccabeeswiththesolemnformula,“Itiswritten.”[302]HeusesthesameformulafortheDeuterocanonicalsectionsofDaniel.[303]Baruch,inadditiontobeingincludedinhis“canonical”lists,iscitedascomingfromthedivineScriptures.[304]Baruchisalsoquotedwithoutanydistinctionorqualification.[305]

Epiphanius’viewontheOldTestamentcanonisfarfromclear.HiscommentsconcerningtheDeuterocanonicalbooksaremixedandconflicting.HissojourninPalestinenodoubtputhimincontactwiththerabbis’viewonthecanon.IfhehadanydoubtsconcerningWisdomandSirach,theydidnotpreventhimfromusingtheminascripturalmanner.Epiphanius’conflictingcanonsserveonlytoconfuse,ratherthanclarify,whatheactuallybelievedtheDeuterocanontobe.

TheodoreofMopsuestia(ca.350–428)

Theodorebecameamonkearlyattheageofeighteen,laterdriftedoutofandbackintothecontemplativelifemorethanonce.Thisinconstancyandhisimpetuouscharacter,alongwithapropensityforanoverlyliteralisticreadingofScripture,eventuallyledhimintotheologicalerror.HeisperhapsbestknownforhisespousaloftheNestorianheresy.Theodore’swritingseventuallysufferedcondemnationattheSecondCouncilofConstantinoplein533.

ThecanonofScripturealsosufferedunderhishand.TheodorerejectedtheLetterofJamesintheNewTestament;andintheOld,appearstohavediscardedthebooksofJob,SongofSongs,andChronicles,alongwiththeDeuterocanon.[306]

Theodore’scanonisjustthat—Theodore’scanon.LikeJuliusAfricanus,itrepresentstheoutworkingofhisownresearchandreflectshisownprivateopinion,notthatofhiscontemporaries.Assuch,itoffersuslittlemorethananhistoricalcuriosity.Ifthereisanythingusefulatalltobe

morethananhistoricalcuriosity.Ifthereisanythingusefulatalltobegleanedfromit,Theodore’scanonshowsthat,insomequartersofthechurchinSyria,theremaypossiblyhavebeenconfusionaboutthecanoninboththeProtocanonicalandDeuterocanonicalsectionsoftheOldandNewTestaments.

JohnChrysostom(347–407)

BorninAntioch,Chrysostomwasoneoftwochildrenofahigh-rankingofficerintheSyrianarmy.AbouttheyearAD367,Chrysostomunderwentaspiritualconversion,andthroughhisBishopMeletius,hestudiedScriptureandwaseventuallybaptized.Hewasordainedapriestandbecamerenownedforhissermons,hence,receivingthesurnameChrysostom(“golden-mouthed”).InAD397,JohnChrysostomwasconsecratedbishopofConstantinople.

FewcontestChrysostom’sacceptanceoftheDeuterocanonasScripture.HeusesTobitinhisworkConcerningStatues.[307]BaruchisquotedasanauthenticportionofJeremiah.[308]TheDeuterocanonicalsectionsofDanielareincludedamongaseriesofquotesfromScripture,withoutqualification.[309]WisdomisquotedasdivineScripture.[310]AlthoughthisprominentFathercannotbeshowntohaveusedtheotherdisputedbooks,helikelyacceptedthemasScripturealongwiththerest.

AmbroseofMilan(ca.340–397)

BornofaRomanChristianfamily,AmbrosebecamebishopofMilaninAD374.HemasteredtheGreeklanguageandwasanassiduousstudentofScriptureandthewritingsoftheFathers,particularlyOrigenandBasil.AmbrosecombatedandextinguishedtheArianheresyinhisdioceseanddefeatedashort-livedpaganuprisinginAD391.Ambrose’sgodlinessandhumilitymadeatremendousimpactonAugustineofHippo.

Ambrose’sacceptanceoftheDeuterocanonasScriptureisuncontested;hissurvivingworksleavenoseriousdoubtonthesubject.Forexample,AmbroseusesBaruchasanauthenticpartofJeremiah.[311]Tobitisheldupasamodelofvirtue[312]andisusedasapropheticbook.[313]Judith,Jephthah,Isaac,Moses,andElishaareallheldupasChristianmodels.[314]AmbrosedrawsparallelsbetweenJudithandRahabasiftheybothcamefromthesamesacredtext.[315]Wisdomisquotedas

Scripture[316]andissaidtocontainthewordsoftheLord.[317]Moreover,Wisdomisquotedwiththesolemnformula,“Itiswritten.”[318]SirachiscalledScripture.[319]TheMaccabeesareusedasexamplesofgodlycourage.[320]SecondMaccabeesisalsoquotedwiththesolemnformula,“Itiswritten.”Inaninterestingpassage,Ambroseplacesthewordsof1MaccabeesonthelipsofaSaint.[321]TheDeuterocanonicalDanielisalsoquotedasanauthenticpartofthatpropheticbook.[322]

MommsenCatalogue(Cheltenham)(ca.350–359)

In1885,TheodorMommsendiscoveredamanuscriptwhichcontainedalistofScripture.ThemanuscriptwasthenhousedamongthePhillippsCollectionatChelthenham;therefore,itissometimesreferredtoasthe“CheltenhamList.”TheauthorisunknownandthemanuscriptwasprobablycomposedinNorthAfricaduringthemiddleofthefourthcentury.ThelistcontainsthefollowingOldTestamentbooks:Genesis,Exodus,Numbers,Leviticus,Deuteronomy,Joshua,Judges,Ruth,1-4Kings,[323]1-2Chronicles,Solomon,Job,Tobit,Esther,Judith,Psalms,Isaiah,Jeremiah,Daniel,Ezekiel,TwelveMinorProphets,1-2Maccabees.

Ellisbelievesthat“Solomon”inthislistisareferencetothebooksofWisdomandSirach.[324]IfBaruchisincludedwiththeBookofJeremiah(inclusionwasacommonpractice),thentheCheltenhamlistreflectsthesamecontentsasthatofthecouncilsofCarthageandHippo.

RufinusofAquileia(345–410)

BorninConcordiainItaly,RufinusstudiedinthetownofAquileia,knownforitsinstitutionsofhigherlearning.ItwasatAquileiathatRufinusmetJeromeandwheretheyformedastrongfriendship.WhenJeromeleftAquileia,RufinustraveledtoEgyptwherehelearnedGreekandthentoPalestinewherehebuiltamonasteryonMountOlivet.Foratime,bothJeromeandRufinusembracedtheteachingofOrigenofAlexandria.However,aftersomeofOrigen’sless-than-orthodoxideascameunderattack,Jeromeabandonedandturnedonhisformermaster,butRufinusremainedfaithful.Sadly,thetwoformerfriendsbecamebitterenemies.

ProtestantapologistsoftenenlistRufinusasaFatherwho“rejected”theDeuterocanon.TheyappealtoalistthathegivesinhisSymbolsofthe

Apostles,whichreads:

ThisthenistheHolyGhost,whointheOldTestamentinspiredtheLawandtheProphets,intheNewtheGospelsandtheEpistles.WhencealsotheApostlesays,‘AllScripturegivenbyinspirationofGodisprofitableforinstruction.’Andthereforeitseemsproperinthisplacetoenumerate,aswehavelearntfromthetraditionoftheFathers,thebooksoftheNewandoftheOldTestament,which,accordingtothetraditionofourforefathers,arebelievedtohavebeeninspiredbytheHolyGhost,andhavebeenhandeddowntotheChurchesofChrist....OftheOldTestament,therefore,firstofalltherehavebeenhandeddownfivebooksofMoses,Genesis,Exodus,Leviticus,Numbers,Deuteronomy…andEsther....ThesecomprisethebooksoftheOldTestament....ThesearethebookswhichtheFathershavecomprisedwithintheCanon,andfromwhichtheywouldhaveusdeducetheproofsofourfaith.Butitshouldbeknownthattherearealsootherbookswhichourfatherscallnot‘Canonical’but‘Ecclesiastical:’thatistosay,Wisdom,calledtheWisdomofSolomon,andanotherWisdom,calledtheWisdomoftheSonofSyrach,whichlast-mentionedtheLatinscalledbythegeneraltitleEcclesiasticus,designatingnottheauthorofthebook,butthecharacterofthewriting.TothesameclassbelongtheBookofTobit,andtheBookofJudith,andtheBooksoftheMaccabees…allofwhichtheywouldhavereadintheChurches,butnotappealedtofortheconfirmationofdoctrine.Theotherwritingstheyhavenamed“Apocrypha.”ThesetheywouldnothavereadintheChurches.ThesearethetraditionswhichtheFathershavehandeddowntous,which,asIsaid,Ihavethoughtitopportunetosetforthinthisplace,fortheinstructionofthosewhoarebeingtaughtthefirstelementsoftheChurchandoftheFaith,thattheymayknowfromwhatfountainsoftheWordofGodtheirdraughtsmustbetaken.[325]

Despitetheclaimsofsome,RufinusdoesnotrejecttheDeuterocanon,nordoesheclassifythemasapocrypha.LikeAthanasiusandCyril,rather,Rufinusappearstoholdathree-folddivisionofreligiousliterature,whereintheDeuterosmakeupaless-ancient,yetstillliturgicallyvalidsubdivisionoftheOldTestament.ThenatureofthissubdivisioncanbebetterdiscernedtodayifweexaminethewayinwhichRufinushimself

usedtheDeuteros.HespeaksofBaruch,forexample,asthewordsoftheProphetJeremiah.[326]HefromquotesSirach,callingthebookbothScriptureand“sacredScripture.”[327]Wisdomissaidtocontainapredictionmadebyaprophet.[328]Moreover,RufinusarguesinhisApologyAgainstJeromethattherejectionofthedisputedportionsofDanielwastantamounttocuttingthemoutofsacredScripture.[329]Hewrites:

Inallthisabundanceoflearnedmen,hastherebeenonewhohasdaredtomakehavocofthedivinerecord[Instrumentumdivinum]handeddowntotheChurchesbytheApostlesandthedepositoftheHolySpirit[depositumSanctiSpiritus]?Forwhatcanwecallitbuthavoc,whensomepartsofitaretransformed,andthisiscalledthecorrectionofanerror?Forinstance,thewholeofthehistoryofSusanna,whichgavealessonofchastitytothechurchesofGod,hasbyhimbeencutout,thrownasideanddismissed.Thehymnofthethreechildren,whichisregularlysungonfestivalsintheChurchofGod,hehaswhollyerasedfromtheplacewhereitstood.ButwhyshouldIenumeratethesecasesonebyone,whentheirnumbercannotbeestimated?[330]

NoticethatRufinusexplicitlydeniestheProtestantcontentionthatremovingthedisputedpartsofDanielwouldrepresent‘thecorrectionofanerror.’Onthecontrary,heunequivocallyaffirmsthatthoseDeuterocanonicalpartsarepartofthe‘depositoftheHolySpirit,’foundinthe‘divinerecord’andhandeddowntotheChurchbytheapostles.[331]Rufinus,inotherwords,consideredthelongerDanieltobenothinglessthantheWordofGod.Thisbeingthecase,whydoesherulethatthelesser,‘ecclesiastical’categorytowhichheassignsthismaterialshouldnotbeappealedtofortheconfirmingofdoctrine?Why,sinceheclearlydidnotfollowhisownadviceinthematter?

Intruth,anystrictinterpretationofRufinus’ruleisfraughtwithproblems.Aswehavealreadyseen,theDeuterocanonwasconstantlyusedtoconfirmChristiandoctrineintheearlyChurch,fromthedaysofPolycarprightupuntilRufinus’owntime—andthisbythemostveneratednamesintheannalsoftheFaith.ThisusagecouldnothaveescapedRufinus’notice.Origenhimself,Rufinus’greathero,isoneoftheworstoffenders

againstthissupposedrule!YetRufinusclaimsthathisviewofthematterdatesbackintoantiquity;heevenclaimsthathisterm“ecclesiasticalbooks”wasusedbytheFathers—thoughthereisnoevidenceofanyoneusingitpriortoRufinushimself.[332]

AseconddifficultyariseswhenwereflectupontheNewTestamentquotewithwhichRufinusintroduceshislist:

AllScriptureisinspiredbyGodandprofitableforteaching,forreproof,forcorrection,fortraininginrighteousness;sothatthemanofGodmaybeadequate,equippedforeverygoodwork.[333]

IfthesewordsoftheApostlePaularetrue,andiftheDeuterosarenot(asRufinusaffirms)merehumanapocryphabut“Scripture”inatleastsomesense,thentheDeuterosare,bydefinition,profitableforteaching,reproof,andcorrection.[334]Howthen,canRufinusdenythemthisattribute?AllScripture[literallyeveryScripture]isprofitableforteachingdoctrine.SotheDeuterosmustbeeitherScriptureandprofitable,orhumanapocryphaandnotprofitable.Theonethingtheycannot,logically,beisbothscripturalandnotprofitable—andyetthatisjustwhatRufinusappearstobetryingtosay.

Thesolutiontothisproblemrevealsitselfwhenwearewillingtotaketheauthor’swordsabitlessliterally.Rufinus’commentsarenotdirectedtowardstheintrinsicqualitiesoftheDeuterocanon(i.e.thatbytheirverynaturetheyarenotcapableofconfirmingdoctrine),buttotheDeuterocanon’sextrinsicqualities(i.e.thattheywerenotalwaysusefulinargumentwitheverykindofopponent).Antiquitydoessupportthisinterpretation,forfromasearlyasJustinMartyr,ChristianshadacceptedthattheDeuterocanoncouldnotbeusedtoconfirmdoctrinewiththeJews,whohadalreadyrejectedthosebooks.BeginningwithPolycarp,however,andrightuptoownRufinus’day,theChurchhadacceptedthemandusedthemtoconfirmdoctrineforChristians.Sotheuniquetitleof“ecclesiastical”ceasestobeproblematicinthisinterpretation,sinceitbecomesanaptdescriptionoftheextrinsicusefulnessofthewritings.Theyare“Church”books—becausetheyareesteemedasScriptureonlyinsidetheecclesia(i.e.theChurch).Byhisownusage,thisbroaderinterpretationplacesRufinus’commentssquarelyinlinewithantiquityandexplainshowitcouldbethatRufinuslateracceptedanddefended

thecanonasgivenbyPopeDamasus/theCouncilofRomeagainstthemachinationsofhisformercolleagueJerome.[335]

Chapter4JeromeAgainsttheWorld

WhowasthefirsttocalltheDeuterocanon‘“Apocrypha”?WehavenowreviewednearlyfourhundredyearsofChurchHistoryandhaveyettofindanyserious,sustained,andconsistentattackontheuseoftheDeuterocanonasHolyWrit.Ourstoryhas,onthecontrary,beenremarkablysteadysofar;everysingleearlyFatherwhousedtheDeuterocanonicalbooksatalldidsoinamannerfullycommensuratewiththeirtraditionalChristianstatusasinspiredScripture,oftencitingthemasScriptureinsomanywords.OnlyJuliusAfricanusraiseddoubtsaboutthesebooks,but,aswerecall,madenopretensethathisopinionwasinanywaypopularorwidespread.Besidesthisonelimitedexception,noonebutheretics(suchasMarcionandValentinus)haddaredtocallthesebooksapocrypha.Noone,thatis,untilnow.

Jerome(340–420)

BorninStridoninDalmatia,Jeromewasbaptizedaroundtheageoftwenty.Interestedintheologicalandbiblicalstudies,heenteredaschoolinTierandlatertransferredtothefamedschoolofAquileiawherehebefriendedRufinus.EasttoAntioch,hestudiedunder(thethenorthodox)Apollinaris.Afterbecomingapriestandamonk,hetraveledtoConstantinopleandeventuallystoppedinRomeafewyearsbeforethedeathofPopeDamasus(AD384).Withhisirascibledemeanorandinsatiableappetiteforbrutalcontroversy,JeromequicklymadeenemiesinRomeandwasessentiallyforcedtoleave.ReturningtotheEast,hesettledinamonasteryinBethlehemwherehespenttherestofhislife.Jerome’sgreatestcontributiontotheChurchishisworkinbiblicalstudies.HismasteryofLatin,Greek,Hebrew,andAramaicisuniqueforhistime.PopeDamasuscommissionedJerometoreplacetheOldLatintranslation,whichhadbeeninserviceforLatinChristiansforcenturies,withanewtranslation.[336]

Atfirst,JerometranslatedtheGreekSeptuagintforhisnewLatinVulgatebecauseheknewthattheSeptuaginthadfunctionedastheOldTestamenttextforChristianitysincethedaysoftheApostles.[337]

Indeed,theOldLatintexthesoughttoimproveuponwasanancienttranslationoftheGreekSeptuagint.JeromequicklybecamefrustratedwiththistaskbecausehehadtoexamineandcollatevariousversionsoftheSeptuagintinordertoarriveatanoriginal.Bycontrast,hehadaHebrewtextavailablewhichseemedtohavecirculatedalongtimeinonlyonestandardizedandstableversion.SincetheSeptuagintitselfisatranslationoftheHebrew,hethought,whybotherdraggingtheGreekinatall?WhynotsimplytranslatedirectlyfromtheHebrew?Jeromecalledthisprinciple—thatofplacingtheHebrewMasoreticTextoverandagainstallotherversions—theprincipleof“HebrewVerity”(Hebrewtruthorveracity).HebrewVerityplaysabigroleinJerome’stranslationoftheLatinVulgate.

Inprinciple,Jeromewasright;theoriginal,inspiredHebrewreallyiswhatultimatelyneedstobetranslated.Unfortunately,Jeromemadeacriticalerrorinhisapplicationofthatprinciple;hethoughtthattheHebreworiginalhadbeenpreservedonlyinthesinglerabbinicaltraditionrepresentedbytheMasoreticTextandthattheGreekSeptuagintwasnothingbutafaultytranslationofthattexttradition.InthisJeromewaswrong.WiththediscoveryoftheDeadSeaScrollswehavebeenabletoconfirmwhatmoretraditionalvoiceshadinsisteduponallalong—thattheSeptuaginthadnotbeenveneratedbyChristiansfornothing,thatitlongpredatesthetextpreferredbyJeromeand(alongwithothersources)preservesremnantsofamoreancienttextualtraditionnowlost.ThoughtheMasoreticTextisundoubtedlyaverygoodandauthentictraditionoftheancienttexts,itunderwentaprocessofdevelopmentbeforereachingitsfinalformduringthemiddleofthesecondChristiancentury.WhatJeromeunwittinglydidwastopitoneauthentictextualtradition(theMT)againstallotherauthentictexts(e.g.theSeptuagint,etal.);[338]hisprincipleofHebrewVeritywasvalid,butdisastrouslymisapplied.ScholarA.C.Sundbergexplains:

Butnow,ithasbeenshown,Jerome’scasefallshopelesslytothegroundsinceitwasbasedonthemisconceptionthatthatJewishcanonwasthecanonofJesusandtheapostles.AnycontinuingappealthroughthereformerstoJeromeandtheHebrewcanoncomestothissameend.Twodifferentcommunitieswereinvolvedindefiningcanonsoutofthecommonmaterialofpre-70Judaism.

AndsincethechurchdiddefineherOTcanonforherself,whathistoricalclaimdoestheJewishdefinitionofthecanonabouttheendofthefirstcenturyhaveforthechurch?…IfProtestantChristianityistocontinueitscustomofrestrictingitsOTcanontotheJewishcanon,thenanentirelynewrationaleanddoctrineofcanonwillhavetobedescribed.AndanyProtestantdoctrineofcanonizationthattakesseriouslythequestionofChristianusageandhistoricalandspiritualheritagewillleadultimatelytotheChristianOTasdefinedintheWesternChurchattheendofthefourthandthebeginningofthefifthcenturies.[339]

Jerome’sversionofHebrewVeritycarriedwithitanimportantcorollaryinregardstotheOldTestamentcanon.[340]IftheMasoreticTextisidenticaltotheinspiredHebreworiginalandifitdoesnotincludetheDeuterocanon,thentheDeuterocanonisnotinspired.ThiscorollaryJeromeultimatelyaccepted,thoughitputhimatoddswiththewholeoftheearlyChurch.JeromeisthefirstoftheWesternFatherstodenytheinspiredstatusoftheDeuterocanon;thefirsttounabashedlydesignatethemapocryphainstead.[341]Gigotgoesevenfurther:“…St.Jerome[is]thesoleFatheronrecordasquotingsometimestheDeuterocanonicalbookswitharestrictionconcerningtheircanonicalcharacter.”[342]

Jerome’snewcanonwasaninnovation—andheknewit.Heknewthatitwouldprovokeamaelstromofcriticismfromallovertheancientworld;yetlikeJuliusAfricanusbeforehim,hewasconvincedthathe,bymeansofHebrewVerity,hadstumbleduponatruthwhichhadeludedtheentireChristianworlduptothatpoint.Asapreemptivestrikeagainsthiscritics,JeromewroteaseriesofprefacestothevariousbooksofhisnewlycompletedLatinVulgate,thensentcopiesofthebookstoinfluentialfriends.Thesefriends,inturn,circulatedthetranslation,alongwithhiscriticalprefaces,amongtheChristianpublic.[343]

ThefirstprefacetoappearwasthePrefacetoSamuelandChronicles,knownastheHelmetedPrologue[L.prologusgaleatus],becauseJeromewantedittoserveasanarmoreddefensiveagainsthiscritics.[344]OfallJerome’sprefaces,theHelmetedPrologueisthemostpointedandcontainsthestrongestdenialoftheinspiredandcanonicalstatusoftheDeuterocanon.Init,hewrotethis:

ThisprefacetotheScripturesmayserveasa‘helmeted’introductiontoallthebookswhichwenowturnfromHebrewintoLatin,sothatwemaybeassuredthatwhatisnotfoundinourlistmustbeplacedamongsttheApocryphalwritings.Wisdom...thebookof...Sirach,andJudith,andTobias,andtheShepherdarenotinthecanon.[345]

TheDeuterocanon,asourcefortheNewTestamentwritersthemselvesandheraldedbytheearliestChristiansasdivineScripture,isnowtobeoverthrownontheauthorityofJeromealone.Hisotherprefacesexpresssimilarsentiments.InthePrefacetotheBookofProverbs,Jeromewritesthis:

WehavetheauthenticbookofJesussonofSirach,andanotherpseudepigraphicwork,entitledtheWisdomofSolomon.IfoundthefirstinHebrew,withthetitle,‘Parables’,notEcclesiasticus,asinLatinversions...ThesecondfindsnoplaceinHebrewtexts,anditsstyleisredolentofGreekeloquence:anumberofancientwritersassertthatitisaworkofPhiloJudaeus.Therefore,justastheChurchreadsJudith,Tobit,andthebooksofMaccabees,butdoesnotadmitthemtothecanonofScripture;solettheChurchreadthesetwovolumes,fortheedificationofthepeople,butnottosupporttheauthorityofecclesiasticaldoctrines.[346]

Jerome’sidentificationoftheSirachasapseudepigraphicworkisanotherfirst.[347]ThePrefacetoEzraadvocatesawholesaleadoptionoftherabbinicalcanon.

Whatisnotreceivedbythem[theHebrews]andwhatisnotofthetwenty-fourancientsistoberepulsedfarfromone.[348]

Jerome’sCommentaryonEstherreducestheDeuterocanonicalsectionsofthatbookto“raggedpatchesofwords.”[349]

Jerome’smostdisparagingremarksarefoundinhisLettertoLaeta107.12,inwhichheadvises,“LethershunallApocrypha,andifeversheshouldreadthem,notforconfirmationofdogmas,butoutofreverenceforthewords,letherknowthattheyarenotofthosewhoappearinthetitles,andthattherearemanyfalsethingsintermingledinthem,andthatonehasneedofgreatprudencetoseekthegoldintheslime.”[350]

AlthoughJeromepermitsthedaughter-in-lawofPaulatoreadthedisputedbooks“outofreverenceforthewords,”sheshoulddosowithcautionbecausetheycontainfalsethingsmixedinthem.HisanalogyofgoldbeingmixedinslimeisperhapsthemostirreverentexpressionusedagainsttheDeuterocanonsinceJuliusAfricanus’disputewithOrigen.

ProtestantapologistsoftenattempttomakeJeromethespokesmanforalargesilentmajorityofknowledgeableChristiansinhisday;thisopinionissupportedbynoevidencewhatsoever.ProtestantscholarshavelongadmittedthatJeromewasessentiallyaloneinhisoppositiontotheDeuterocanon.[351]Itwastheproductofhisown(flawed,aswenowknow)scholarship.ItwasalsoadecisivebreakfromthepracticeoftheancientChristianChurch—somethingwhichwouldhavegivenahumblermanseriouspause:

[I]nadditiontothemischiefhedidbyhisungovernedrhetoricinhisquarrelswithothertheologians,he[Jerome]didamuchgreatermischiefbygivingthesanctionofhisgreatfameasascholartoatheoryontheCanon,which,whateveritsmerits,wasnotthatoftheprimitiveChurch.WhatIventuredtosaywas,forthemostpart,ofcommonandelementaryknowledge;butitneedstobecontinuallyemphasizedinviewofthestillprevailingtheoriesabouttheCanoninmanyhighquarters.[352]

Thelawsofphysicsteachthatforeveryactionthereisanequalandoppositereaction.AsimilarprinciplealsohasapplicationstoChurchhistory.Wheneveranindividualattemptstofoistaninnovationcontrarytothecommonacceptedpractice,thereisusuallyareaction.Jerome’scaseisnoexception.Jeromeexpectedopposition,andhegotit;notonlyinpersonalcorrespondencesbutalsoinformalconciliardecrees.[353]

OneofJerome’smostbitteropponentswashisonce-best-friend-turned-adversary,Rufinus.InRufinus’ApologyAgainstJeromeandinJerome’sApologyAgainstRufinus,thetopicofHebrewVerity(andbyextensionJerome’sadoptionoftheJewishshortercanon)wasdiscussedatlength.Rufinuswrites:

TherehasbeenfromthefirstinthechurchesofGod,andespeciallyinthatofJerusalem,aplentifulsupplyofmenwhobeingbornJews

havebecomeChristians;andtheirperfectacquaintancewithbothlanguagesandtheirsufficientknowledgeofthelawisshewnbytheiradministrationofthepontificaloffice.Inallthisabundanceoflearnedmen,hastherebeenonewhohasdaredtomakehavocofthedivinerecordhandeddowntotheChurchesbytheApostlesandthedepositoftheHolySpirit?

SomecontroversialistsarguethattheDeuterocanonwasacceptedintheancientChurchonlybecauseChristianswereignorantofHebrewandreliedontheGreekSeptuagintforScripture.ItisarguedthathadtheearlyChurchunderstoodHebrewandbeenabletoconversewiththerabbisoftheirday,theywouldhavelearnedthetruthaboutthecanon.WhatisforgotteniswhatRufinusremindsJerome:therealwayswasasteadystreamofHebrew-speakingconvertscomingintotheChurch.TheyknewbothHebrewandJewishtraditions.Yetnoneofthem,accordingtoRufinus,hadeverattemptedtoaltertheChristiancanon.Rufinusclaims,muchlikehismasterOrigenagainstAfricanus,thattheScripturesareadepositleftbytheapostlesforChrist’sbride:theChurch.ItisinconceivablethattheApostlesfailedintheirdutybecausetheydidnotprovidefortheChurchatrueandundoubtedcollectionofScripture.Rufinussummarizesthisargumentdramatically:

Thesemen[theApostles]whobidusnotattendtoJewishfablesandgenealogies,whichministerquestioningratherthanedification;andwho,again,bidusbewareof,andspeciallywatch,thoseofthecircumcision;isitconceivablethattheycouldnotforeseethroughtheSpiritthatatimewouldcome,afternearlyfourhundredyears,whenthechurchwouldfindoutthattheApostleshadnotdeliveredtothemthetruthoftheoldTestament,andwouldsendanembassy[Jerome]tothosewhomtheapostlesspokeofasthecircumcision,beggingandbeseechingthemtodoleouttothemsomesmallportionofthetruthwhichwasintheirpossession:andthattheChurchwouldthroughthisembassyconfessthatshehadbeenforallthosefourhundredyearsinerror;thatshehadindeedbeencalledbytheApostlesfromamongtheGentilestobethebrideofChrist,butthattheyhadnotdeckedherwithanecklaceofgenuinejewels;thatshehadfondlythoughtthattheywerepreciousstones,butnowhadfoundoutthatthosewerenottruegemswhichthe

Apostleshadputuponher,sothatshefeltashamedtogoforthinpublicdeckedinfalseinsteadoftruejewels,andthatshethereforebeggedthattheywouldsendherBarabbas,evenhimwhomshehadoncerejectedtobemarriedtoChrist,sothatinconjunctionwithonemanchosenfromamongherownpeople,hemightrestoretoherthetrueornamentswithwhichtheApostleshadfailedtofurnishher.[354]

Jerome’sinnovationtamperedwiththedepositofFaith.Aperson’sownintellectualprowess,howeverwiseorlearneditmaybe,isnotcapableofdeterminingwhatisthewordofGodandwhatisnot.TheChurchdoesnotmakeScripture.Instead,thebrideofChristpassivelyreceivesthewrittenwordofGodfromChristandhisapostlesaspartoftheoriginaldepositoffaith.RufinusandOrigenarguethattosuggestthatthosebookswhichhavebeenreceivedbytheChurcharewrong,wouldultimatelymeanthatChristandhisapostleshadfailedintheirdutyofsupplyingthetrueandunadulteratedwordofGodtothechurches,andthatourtrustindivineProvidenceismisplaced.

Despitehistenacity,Jeromedidbendabitinthefaceofthedauntingoppositiontohisviews.HeagreedtotranslateacoupleofDeuterocanonicalbooks,ashewritesinhisPrefacetoTobit,“…judgingitbettertodispleasethePharisees,inordertogranttherequestsofthebishops.”[355]

Jerome’ssympathiesliewithhisrabbinicalteachers,butbeingaChristian,hewasobligedtotranslatethosetextsacceptedbytheChurch.Jeromeadoptedotherconventionsofhistimealthoughtheywentagainsthisopiniononthecanon.

Jerome’sUsage

Accordingtoanancientadage,nomanisanisland,notevenamonksecludedinaBethlehemmonastery.Throughpersonalcontactandwrittencorrespondences,Jeromestillhadtoliveandinteractwiththepeoplearoundhim.Onmorethanafewoccasions,JeromeaccommodateshiswritingstyletotheconventionsofaChristianworld.[356]Inthissense,JeromebecomesaninvoluntarywitnessinfavoroftheDeuterocanon.[357]AsBreenwrites:

WehavenowishtominimizeJerome’soppositiontothedeuterocanonicalbooks.Attimes,itwaspronouncedandviolent.Buthecould,atmost,onlybetermedaviolentdoubter.Heneverwascalmandconstantinhisrejectionofthosebooks.Thefactthat,insuchstrangeopposition,hewasatvariancewithallhiscontemporaries,madehimwaver,andwefindmorequotationsfromDeuterocanonicalScriptureinJerome,thaninanyotherwriteryetquoted.OftwhenopposedbyhisadversariesforhisScripturalviewsheventedhisresentmentuponthebooksthemselves.Then,whenaskedbyafriend,hewouldcalmlydiscussthemeritsofthesamewritings.[358]

Jerome’suseoftheDeuterocanonismostlynegative.HecallstheDeuterocanonicalsectionsofDanielafable[359]andflatlydeniesthatTobitispartofthecanon,[360]althoughelsewherehecitesitwithoutqualification![361]TheBookofBaruchisomittedinhisProloguetoJeremiah,“Settingatnaughttherageofhiscalumniators.”[362]However,JeromeadoptsthepopularconventioninhisLettertoOceanusbyquotingBaruchasavoicemadeby“thetrumpetsoftheprophets.”[363]SirachisbothrejectedandquotedasScripture,[364]althoughitisformallyquoted[365]andoccasionallyusedwithoutqualification.[366]Wisdomisalsooccasionallyformallyquoted.[367]JeromeevenattributesthepassagesfromWisdomtotheHolySpirit.[368]Maccabeesisusedwithoutdistinction.[369]JeromeattimesalludestotheDeuterocanonicalsectionsofDanielinhisletters.[370]DeuterocanonicalpassagesfromEstherarelikewisequoted.[371]JeromeprefacesaquotefromJudithwiththesewords,“…ifanyoneisofopinionthatitshouldbereceivedascanonical....”[372]Elsewhere,helistsJudithasoneofthevirtuouswomenofsacredScripture,“RuthetEstheretJudithtantaegloriaesunt,utsacrisvoluminbusnominaindiderint.”[373]DespitehisviciousoppositiontotheDeuterocanon(especiallyinhisprefaces),Jeromewascompelledbytheconsensusofhispeerstousethesamebooksinthemannertheywerecustomarilyused.

JeromealsodisclosesaveryinterestingconventionoftheJewsinhisPrefacestoTobitandJudith.Hewrites:

TheJewshaveexcludedit[Tobit]fromthelistoftheHoly

Scriptures,andhavereducedittotherankoftheHagiographa.Nowtheyreproachmeforhavingtranslatedit.[374]

Reusscontendsthat“Hagiographa”herereferstothethirdcategoryoftheJewishbible(e.g.theWritings)becauseelsewhereJeromehadplacedtheBooksofJob,Psalms,Solomon,Daniel,andothersinthissamecategory.[375]JeromemakesasimilarremarkinhisPrefacetoJudith:

TheJewsplacethisbook[Judith]amongtheHagiographa,anditsauthorityisconsideredtobeinsufficientforsettlingcontrovertedpoints.ButastheCouncilofNiceareckoneditamongtheHolyScriptures,Ihaveyieldedtoyourinvitation…[376]

Evenatthislatedate,thesetwoDeuterocanonicalbooksremainedamongtheJewishScripture,albeitinadiminishedcapacity.ThedictatesofthemiddleofthesecondcenturyonwardhavenotyetbeenabletoeradicateentirelytheDeuterocanonfromtheJewishScriptures.Theyweredisparaged,butaswewillseeinProtestantismhundredsofyearslater,theycouldnotbeentirelyremoved.

Jerome’scanonicalinnovationswereabreakwiththeconstantusageandbeliefoftheChristianChurch.[377]Thereactionofhiscontemporariesprovesthistobethecase.Indeed,thesplashcreatedbyJerome’srepudiationoftheDeuterocanonhasrippledthroughoutWesternChurchthroughtheagesdowntotoday.

AugustineofHippo(354–430)

BornintheNorthAfricantownofTagaste,Augustinewastheoffspringofamixedmarriage.HismotherMonicawasaChristianandhisfatherwasapaganwhoconvertedtoChristianitybeforehisdeath.AlthoughraisedintheChristianFaith,AugustinebecameamemberofahereticalsectknownastheManicheans.ThroughtheinfluenceofAmbroseofMilan,however,hecamebacktotheFaith.Helaterbecameapriest,andattheageofthirty-four,bishopofHippoinNorthAfrica.Augustinequicklywonnotorietyforhisholinessandhiskeentheologicalmind.HeisafigurereveredbybothCatholicsandProtestants.

Augustinewaswellfamiliarwiththetopicofthecanon.Hereticalsects

throughouthistoryoftentamperedwiththecanonofScriptureinordertogivebettersupporttotheirviews.[378]BoththeManicheansandtheSemi-PelagiansexpresseddoubtsconcerningthecanonicityofseveralbooksintheOldandtheNewTestament.Augustineaddressedtheissueofthecanononmanyoccasions,althoughhismostdetailedandsystematicexplanationisfoundinhistreatise,OnChristianDoctrine,wherehewrites:

Now,inregardtothecanonicalScriptures,hemustfollowthejudgmentofthegreaternumberofcatholicchurches;andamongthese,ofcourse,ahighplacemustbegiventosuchashavebeenthoughtworthytobetheseatofanapostleandtoreceiveepistles.Accordingly,amongthecanonicalScriptureshewilljudgeaccordingtothefollowingstandard:topreferthosethatarereceivedbyallthecatholicchurchestothosewhichsomedonotreceive.Amongthose,again,whicharenotreceivedbyall,hewillprefersuchashavethesanctionofthegreaternumberandthoseofgreaterauthority,tosuchasareheldbythesmallernumberandthoseoflessauthority.If,however,heshallfindthatsomebooksareheldbythegreaternumberofchurches,andothersbythechurchesofgreaterauthority(thoughthisisnotaverylikelythingtohappen),Ithinkthatinsuchacasetheauthorityonthetwosidesistobelookeduponasequal.[379]

LikeRufinusandOrigenbeforehim,AugustineunderstoodChurchusageastherecognizedindicatorofcanonicity.ForAugustine,thecanonwasestablishedbytheApostlesandhandedbythemtothechurchesviathesuccessionofbishopstobereadasdivineScripture.Therefore,unlikethosethatdidnothaveapostolicties,thosechurchesthatwereestablishedbyanApostlearegivenspecialemphasisorauthoritativeweight.[380]Augustinecontinues:

NowthewholecanonofScriptureonwhichwesaythisjudgmentistobeexercised,iscontainedinthefollowingbooks:-FivebooksofMoses,thatis,Genesis,[Exodus,Leviticus,Numbers,Deuteronomy;Joshua;Judges;Ruth;fourbooksofKings,andtwoofChronicles]…Thebooksnowmentionedarehistory,whichcontainsaconnectednarrativeofthetimes,andfollowstheorderof

theevents.Thereareotherbookswhichseemtofollownoregularorder,andareconnectedneitherwiththeorderoftheprecedingbooksnorwithoneanother,suchas[Job;Tobias,Esther;Judith,twobooksofMaccabees,andthetwoofEzra]….NextaretheProphets,inwhichthereisonebookofthePsalmsofDavid;andthreebooksofSolomon,viz.,Proverbs,SongofSongs,andEcclesiastes.Fortwobooks,onecalledWisdomandtheotherEcclesiasticus,areascribedtoSolomonfromacertainresemblanceofstyle,butthemostlikelyopinionisthattheywerewrittenbyJesusthesonofSirach.Stilltheyaretobereckonedamongthepropheticalbooks,sincetheyhaveattainedrecognitionasbeingauthoritative.TheremainderarethebookswhicharestrictlycalledtheProphets…[Hosea,Joel,Amos,Obadiah,Jonah,Micah,Nahum,HabakkukZephaniah,Haggai,Zechariah,Malachi;thentherearethefourgreaterprophets,Isaiah,Jeremiah,Daniel,Ezekiel].TheauthorityoftheOldTestamentiscontainedwithinthelimitsoftheseforty-fourbooks.[381]

ThesamethoughtisexpressedmoresuccinctlyinhisApologyAgainstFaustustheManichean,inwhichAugustinewrites:

…ifyouacknowledgethesupremeauthorityofScripture,youshouldrecognizethatauthoritywhichfromthetimeofChristHimself,throughtheministryofHisapostles,andthrougharegularsuccessionofbishopsintheseatsoftheapostles,hasbeenpreservedtoourowndaythroughoutthewholeworld,withareputationknowntoall.”[382]

TheChurchdoesnotmakeorconstructthecanon.Instead,itauthoritativelypassesonwhattheApostlesprescribedtobereadpubliclyintheChurchasdivineScripture.Bythispractice,theChurchmakesmanifestwhichbookswereentrustedtoitbytheapostles.[383]Therefore,forAugustine,thecanonofScriptureisaverifiable,historical,anddefinableentity.

AugustinewasfullyawarethattheJewsheldtoamoreconstrictedOldTestamentcanon;butunlikeJerome,hedidnotadoptthatJewishcanon.Instead,heacceptedtheDeuterocanonasinspiredScriptureandfrequentlyusedthemassuchinhiswritings.

Forexample,AugustinequotestheBookofWisdomasoneofthe“…manypassagesofholyScripture.”[384]Itswordsarethatof“aprophet.”[385]ItisusedasaprooftextalongwiththePsalms.[386]AugustinestatesthatWisdomcontainsaprophecyaboutwhatwillhappenonJudgmentDay.[387]InhisbookTheCityofGod,Augustinewrites:

Butletthosereadersexcuseuswhoknewthemallbefore;andletthemnotcomplainaboutthoseperhapsstrongerproofswhichtheyknoworthinkIhavepassedby.AfterhimSolomonhissonreignedoverthesamewholepeople…He[Solomon]alsoisfoundtohaveprophesiedinhisbooks,ofwhichthreearereceivedasofcanonicalauthority,Proverbs,Ecclesiastes,andtheSongofSongs.ButithasbeencustomarytoascribetoSolomonothertwo,ofwhichoneiscalledWisdom,theotherEcclesiasticus,onaccountofsomeresemblanceofstyle,-butthemorelearnedhavenodoubtthattheyarenothis;yetofoldtheChurch,especiallytheWestern,receivedthemintoauthority,-intheoneofwhich,calledtheWisdomofSolomon,thepassionofChristismostopenlyprophesied….ButinEcclesiasticusthefuturefaithofthenationsispredictedinthismanner:“Havemercyuponus,OGod,Rulerofall,andsendThyfearuponallthenations:liftupThinehandoverthestrangenations,andletthemseeThypower.AsThouwastsanctifiedinusbeforethem,sobeThousanctifiedinthembeforeus,andletthemacknowledgeThee,accordingaswealsohaveacknowledgedThee;forthereisnotaGodbesideThee,OLord.”WeseethisprophecyintheformofawishandprayerfulfilledthroughJesusChrist.ButthethingswhicharenotwritteninthecanonoftheJewscannotbequotedagainsttheircontradictionswithsogreatvalidity...[388]

Elsewhere,AugustineusedthebookofWisdomasanauthoritywhilearguingagainstthehereticalSemi-Pelagians;whentheyobjected,herespondedthusly:

[T]hejudgmentofthebookofWisdomoughtnottoberepudiated,sinceforsolongacourseofyearsthatbookhasdeservedtobereadintheChurchofChristfromthestationofthereadersoftheChurchofChrist,andtobeheardbyallChristians,frombishops

downwards,eventothelowestlaybelievers,penitents,andcatechumens,withthevenerationpaidtodivineauthority.Forassuredly,if,fromthosewhohavebeenbeforemeincommentingonthedivineScriptures,Ishouldbringforwardadefenseofthisjudgment,whichwearenowcalledupontodefendmorecarefullyandcopiouslythanusualagainstthenewerrorofthePelagians…Butifanywishtobeinstructedintheopinionsofthosewhohavehandledthesubject,itbehovesthemtoprefertoallcommentatorsthebookofWisdom,whereitisread,“Hewastakenaway,thatwickednessshouldnotalterhisunderstanding;”becauseillustriouscommentators,eveninthetimesnearesttotheapostles,preferredittothemselves,seeingthatwhentheymadeuseofitforatestimonytheybelievedthattheyweremakinguseofnothingbutadivinetestimony;andcertainlyitappearsthatthemostblessedCyprian,inordertocommendtheadvantageofanearlierdeath,contendedthatthosewhoendthislife,whereinsinispossible,aretakenawayfromtherisksofsins…AndthebookofWisdom,whichforsuchaseriesofyearshasdeservedtobereadinChrist’sChurch,andinwhichthisisread,oughtnottosufferinjusticebecauseitwithstandsthosewhoaremistakenonbehalfofmen’smerit…[389]

Costelloobserves:

St.AugustinenotonlystatesthattheseearlyFathersregardedthebookofWisdomoneofthedivineScriptures,butalsotestifies,andgivesproofthattheyuseditsauthorityinsupportofCatholicteaching.HesinglesoutSt.CyprianasoneoftheFathersbeforehim,whohadusedtheBookofWisdominsupportofCatholicdoctrine.[390]AndanexaminationofSt.Cyprian’swritingsrevealsthatheuseditfrequentlyinsupportofCatholicteaching.[391]…HadSt.Augustinedesired,hecouldhavementionedbynameotherearlyFatherswhohadusedtheBookofWisdomasadivinetestimonyinconfirmationoftheirteachings.[392]

AugustinecallsSirach“HolyScripture”[393]andstatesplainlythatthebookcontainsthewordsofaprophet.[394]HealsoreferstoBaruchas“theProphet,”[395]anddescribesthestoryofSusannaascomingfromScripture.[396]AugustinespeaksofTobitinthesamemanner,[397]and

elsewherereferstoitas“HolyTobit”.[398]InregardstothebooksoftheMaccabees,Augustinewrote:

Butsincewearespeakinghereofbearingpainandbodilysufferings,Ipassfromthisman,greatashewas,indomitableashewas:thisisthecaseofaman.ButtheseScripturespresenttomeawomanofamazingfortitude,andImustatoncegoontohercase.Thiswoman,alongwithsevenchildren,allowedthetyrantandexecutionertoextracthervitalsfromherbodyratherthanaprofanewordfromhermouth,encouraginghersonsbyherexhortations,thoughshesufferedinthetorturesoftheirbodies,andwasherselftoundergowhatshecalledonthemtobear.[2Mc7]Whatpatiencecouldbegreaterthanthis?AndyetwhyshouldwebeastonishedthattheloveofGod,implantedinherinmostheart,boreupagainsttyrant,andexecutioner,andpain,andsex,andnaturalaffection?Hadshenotheard,“PreciousinthesightoftheLordisthedeathofHissaints?”[Ps116:15]Hadshenotheard,“Apatientmanisbetterthanthemightiest?“[Prv16:32]Hadshenotheard,“Allthatisappointedtheereceive;andinpainbearit;andinabasementkeepthypatience:forinfirearegoldandsilvertried?”[Sir2:4-5]Hadshenotheard,“Thefiretriesthevesselsofthepotter,andforjustmenisthetrialoftribulation?”[Sir27:6]Thesesheknew,andmanyotherpreceptsoffortitudewritteninthesebooks,whichaloneexistedatthattime,bythesamedivineSpiritwhowritesthoseintheNewTestament.[399]

SecondMaccabeesisusedtwiceasaproof-textinAugustine’swork,OntheSoulanditsOrigin.[400]Elsewhere,hequotesMaccabeesascomingfromtheHolyScriptures.[401]

ThroughoutAugustine’sworks,thedisputedbooksareusedasnothinglessthaninspiredcanonicalScriptureindistinguishablefromtheotherbooksoftheBible,saveonlythattheyarenotacceptedbytheJews.Augustine’spositiveviewpointwaslaterenshrinedinthedecreesofthecouncilsofHippo(AD393)andCarthageI(AD397)inwhichheparticipated.[402]

InanefforttoweakenAugustine’sunambiguousandforthrightaffirmationoftheDeuterocanon,someProtestantapologists,oftencitethefollowing

passagefromTheCityofGod:

Theseareheldtobecanonical,notbytheJews,butbytheChurch,onaccountoftheextremeandwonderfulsufferingsofcertainmartyrs.[403]

TheseapologistsclaimthatAugustineacceptedMaccabeesonlybecausetheywereawonderfulmartyrologyandnotbecauseitisaninspiredbook.Wasthis,however,theyardstickAugustinehimselfusedindeterminingthecanon?Basedontheevidencealreadygiven,itclearlywasnot.

Augustinedidnotbelievethatthecanonwasapurelyhumanconstruct;heconsidereditagifthandedontotheChurch.TopositthatAugustinethoughtthecanonwasselectedbytheChurchsimplybecausesomeofthebookscontainedwonderfulaccountsofmartyrdom,istoentirelymisshiswellthoughtoutanddevelopedexplanationofhowoneknowswhichbooksareScripture.Thisshort,off-the-cuffremarkcannotoverturnthewholetenorofAugustine’swork.Instead,itoughttobeinterpretedinlinewithhisthoughtsasexpressedinallofhiswritings.TheApostleshandedthecanontotheChurch.Augustine’sremarks,therefore,mustbedirectedprimarilytowardstheapostolicChurch.[404]SpeculatingastowhytheapostolicChurchacceptedMaccabees,AugustinereasonsthatMaccabeesmayhavebeenacceptedbecauseoftheiraccountoftheMaccabeanmartyrs.Afterall,the“rollcalloffaith”fromHebrews11mentionstheMaccabeanmartyrsinitsmartyrologyoftheOldTestamentsaints.Augustine’sremarksshouldnotbetakenasinanywayimpugningtheauthorityofMaccabeesasasacredtext.HedidnotusethebooksofMaccabeesasameremartyrologyanymorethanheusedtheBookofActsasamerehistory.

TheCouncilsofHippo(393)andCarthageI(397)

TherewaslittleconciliarinterestindefiningthecanonofScripturepriortothetimeofJerome,justastherewaslittleneedtodefinetheprecisemeaningofword“Son”inregardstoChristuntilthetimeoftheArians.OnceJerome’snoveltiesbegantocirculate,however,astringofcouncilswasconvenedinNorthAfricatoreaffirmthetraditionalcanon.ThefirstcouncilknownwithcertaintytohavedonesoistheCouncilofHippo.The

samecanonwasreaffirmedfouryearslaterintheFirstCouncilofCarthage,whichstated:[405]

TheSynoddefinesthatbesidesthecanonicalScripturenothingbereadintheChurchunderthenameofdivineScripture.TheCanonicalScripturesare:Genesis,Exodus,Leviticus,Numbers,Deuteronomy,Josue,Judges,Ruth,fourbooksofKings(Regnorum),Paralipomenatwobooks,Job,theDavidicPsalter,thefivebooksofSolomon,thetwelveProphets,Isaiah,Jeremiah,Daniel,Ezekiel,Tobias,Judith,Esther,Ezratwobooks,Maccabeestwobooks.[406]

TheProtestanttheologianF.F.BruceandothersadmitthatthecanonsofHippoandCarthagedidnotimposeaneworinnovativecanonontheChurchbutsimplyendorsedwhathadbeenthegeneralconsensusamongChristiansupuntilthistime.[407]ItwasJerome’sinsistencethatChristiansabandontheDeuterocanonwhichrepresentedaninnovation.

AlthoughtheseNorthAfricancouncilswerelocal,theirlocaleinnowaydetractsfromtheirwitnessastotheinspirationoftheDeuterocanon.TheirdecisionsreflectedthecommonusageoftheChristianChurchandwerelaterreaffirmedbyPopesandotherlocalcouncils.[408]WefindnodecreesonthecanonfromthemajorecumenicalCouncils(suchasChalcedonandEphesus)becausenonewasneeded;nolarge-scaleassaultonthetraditionalcanonoccurredatthistimeandthedecreesoftheselocalcouncilswentunchallengedforthemostpart.[409](Centurieslater,EcumenicalCouncils(e.g.FlorenceandCouncilofTrent)didofficiallyadoptthedecreesofHippoandCarthageonbehalfofthewholeChurch).

TheCouncilofCarthageIII(397)

[Ithasbeendecided]thatnothingexcepttheCanonicalScripturesshouldbereadinthechurchunderthenameofthedivineScriptures.ButtheCanonicalScripturesare:Genesis,Exodus…fivebooksofSolomon…Tobias,Judith,Esther,twobooksofEsdras,twobooksofMaccabees.Moreover,oftheNewTestament[liststhetwenty-sevenbooks].Thus[ithasbeendecided]thattheChurchbeyondtheseamaybeconsultedregardingtheconfirmationofthat

canon;alsothatitbepermittedtoreadthesufferingsofthemartyrswhentheiranniversarydaysarecelebrated.[410]

Jerome’sprestigeasthetranslatoroftheLatinVulgate,alongwithhisothercontributionstobiblicalscholarship,gavehisinvectivesagainsttheDeuterocanonicalbooks(spreadbymeansoftheprefaces)muchweight.TocombatthisnewoppositiontothetraditionalChristiancanonandtosafeguardagainstthegrowthofspuriouswritings,thecouncilsofHippoandCarthagedrewupadecree,asdidsubsequentcouncilswhoreaffirmedtheirdecision.WhilethedecreesofthesecouncilscirculatedthroughouttheChurch,sodidJerome’sLatinVulgateandhisprefaces.

CodexClaromontanus(Dp,06,A1026)(ca.400)

TheCodexClaromontanusisaGreek/Latinmanuscriptdatedtotheearlyfifthcentury.ClaromontanuscontainsalistofthebooksofScripturethatincludesWisdom,Judith,Tobit,First,Second,andFourthMaccabees.

PopeInnocentI(d.417)

Innocent’spontificatewasmarkedbyconflictswithintheChurchinwhichhenoblyfoughtfororthodoxy.Theonlyextantwritingscometousintheformofcorrespondences,oneofwhichconcernsthecanon.

Exuperius,thebishopofToulouseandapersonalfriendofJerome’s,wrotetoInnocentIinquiringastowhichbookscomprisedtheOldTestament.[411]PerhapsExuperius,havingheardJerome’spersuasiveopinions,hadbecomeconfusedonthesubjectandsoughtabetteranswerfromamoreauthoritativevoice.[412]HereishowthePopeanswered:

ThesubjoinedbrieflywillshowwhatbooksshouldbereceivedintotheCanonofHolyScripture.Thesearetherefore(thebooks)concerningwhichyouhavewishedtheadmonitionofalongedforvoice.ThesefivebooksofMoses…fivebooksofSolomon…[JeremiahwhichincludedBaruch]…Esther,Judith,twoofMaccabees.[413]

Innocent’scanonicallistmirrorstheso-calledDecreeofDamasus(CouncilofRome)aswellasthedecreesofthecouncilsofHippoandCarthage.InnocentI’slettercorrectsJerome’smistakentheoriesandreaffirmsthetraditionalChristiancanonincontradistinctiontohisnovel

reaffirmsthetraditionalChristiancanonincontradistinctiontohisnovelopinions.

TheCouncilofCarthageIV(419)

HavingFaustinus,bishopofPontentia,presentonthePope’sbehalf,thiscouncilheldinCarthageissuedwhatisperhapsthemostsolemnaffirmationofthelargercanon.HereisthewordingtheCouncilused:

ItisdecreedthatnothingbutthecanonicalScripturemaybereadunderthenameofdivineScriptures.ThecanonicalScripturesarethefollowing:oftheOldTestament,Genesis…Job,thePsalter,fivebooksofSolomon,theProphets,Isaiah,Jeremiah,Daniel(omitEzekiel)theTwelveProphets,Tobias,Judith,Esther,twobooksofEzra,twobooksofMaccabees….ThisdecreeshallbemadeknowntoourbrotherandfellowpriestBoniface,theBishopofRome,oreventotheotherbishopsforitsconfirmation;forwehavereceivedfromtheFathers,thatthusshouldbereadintheChurch.[414]

EthiopianVersionofScripture

ThecanonofthechurchinEthiopiaappearstobeoneofthemostuniquecollectionsoftheancientChurch.InadditiontotheDeuterocanon,theEthiopiancanonincludedbooks,suchasEnoch,Jubilees,3and4Ezra,andPsalm151,whichwerenotpartofanyone’scanon.[415]

ArmenianVersionofScripture

Withoutgoingintospecifics,itisgenerallyagreedthattheChristianchurchesinArmeniaacceptedthelargercanonforitscanonicalScriptures.[416]

JohnCassian(ca.360–426)

AnativeofFrance,CassiantraveledeastandenteredamonasteryinBethlehemandforsometimevisitedthedesertFathersinEgypt.JohnChrysostomordainedhimadeaconinConstantinople.HetraveledtoRomeandwasordainedapriest,andthenfinallytoMarseilles,Francewherehefoundedtwomonasteries.

JohnCassianacceptedtheDeuterocanon.HequotesSirachasScripture:“Wherefore,asScripturesays,‘whenyougoforthtoservethe

LordstandinthefearoftheLord,andprepareyourmind’”[417]CassianalsoreferencesWisdomasScripture:“[A]sScriptureitselftestifies:‘ForGodmadenotdeath,neitherdoesherejoicethinthedestructionoftheliving.’”[418]

TheodoretofCyrus(393–466)

TheodoretwasborninAntiochneartheendofthefourthcentury.Atanearlyage,hebecamebishopofCyrus.HeisknownforhisroleincombatingMonophysitismandNestorianism.TheodoretacceptedtheDeuterocanonasinspiredScriptures.[419]

VincentofLerins(d.ca.434)

Vincentwasasemi-PelagianmonkatLerins’islandmonastery,whoopposedAugustineandProsper’sdefinitionsofgrace.Vincent’smostfamousworkishisCommonitoria,inwhichhegiveshisfamous“canonofVincentofLerins,”whichgivesthemarksofauthenticteaching.[420]Vincent’sonlyuseofDeuterocanonicalbooksappearsinthesewords,“[T]hedivineOraclescryaloud,‘Removenotthelandmarks,whichthyfathershaveset,’[Prv22:28]and‘GonottolawwithaJudge,’[Sir8:14]and‘Whosobreakeththroughafenceaserpentshallbitehim,’[Ecc10:8]”[421]

VincentmakesnodistinctionamongthequotesfromProverbs,Ecclesiastes,andSirach.Allthreeareincludedamongthedivineoracles.

SynopsisofSacredScripture(ca.490)

Althoughoftenattributedtohim,theSynopsisisnotagenuineworkofAthanasius.[422]ItappearsinsteadtobetheworkofanunknownauthorborrrowingfromthethoughtsofAthanasius.Itreads,inpart:

AlldivinelyinspiredScripturebelongstousChristians.Thebooksarenotundefinedbutdefined,andhavecanonicalstatus.ThebooksoftheOldTestamentare…[liststheshortercanonwithEstheromitted].

ThecanonicalbooksoftheOldTestamentarethereforetwenty-twoinnumber,equalinnumbertothelettersoftheHebrewalphabet.BesidethesetherearealsootherbooksofthesameOldTestament,

whicharenotcanonicalandwhicharereadonlytothecatechumens.Theseare…[liststhedisputedbooksandtheBookofEsther]…thesearenotcanonical.

SomuchthenforthebooksoftheOldTestament,tothecanonicalandthenoncanonical....OftheNewTestament....[423]

Pseudo-AthanasiusfollowsessentiallythesamelistasAthanasius’Thirty-ninthFestalLetter.[424]ItdividestheOldTestamentintocanonicalandnoncanonicalwritings.ThecanonicalwritingscorrespondtothenumberofthelettersintheHebrewalphabet,whilethenoncanonicalwritingsarereadonlytocatechumens.UnlikeAthanasius’Thirty-ninthFestalLetter,theApocryphaisnotmentioned.

ApostolicCanons(latefourth/earlyfifthcentury)

TheEighty-fifthcanoncontainedaratheroddOldTestamentlist.ItincludesalltheProtocanonicalbooks(includingEsther),alongwiththreebooksofMaccabeesandpossiblyJudith.[425]ThebookofSirachwasappendedtothelistasarecommendedbook.

Pseudo-DionysiusAreopagita(ca.500)

AlthoughattributedtoDenistheAreopagite(mentionedbytheApostlePaulinActs17:34)theauthoroftheworksbearingthisnamewasalmostcertainlyasixthcenturyChristian.Pseudo-Dionysius’TheDivineNames,whichbecamequitepopularintheearlyChurch,especiallyinthemiddle-ages,wasamajorinfluenceonthetheologyofSt.ThomasAquinas.

Pseudo-DionysiusunquestionablyacceptedtheDeuterocanon.[426]ThebooksareusedsoextensivelyinTheDivineNamesthattoenumeratethereferenceswouldgoquitebeyondthescopeofoursurvey.

TheSo-CalledDecreeofGelasius(ca.366–523)

Thereismuchdisputeovertheexactnatureofthiswork.Breenwrites,

“Thisdecreeisnotfoundthesameinthedifferentcodices.ItisbysomescribedtoDamasus(AD366–384);byotherstoGelasius(AD492–496);andbyotherstoHormisdas(AD514–523).CornelybelievesthatitwasoriginallyadecreeofDamasusthatwas

afterwardsenlargedbyGelasius.AllagreethatitwasanauthenticpromulgationfromtheRomanseeinthatperiod.”[427]Itliststhe“truedivineScripture”whichare“universallyreceived”bytheChurch.ThewholeDeuterocanonislisted.

PopeAnastasiusII(August23,498)

PopeAnastasiusIIquotesSirachwiththeformalappellation,“Itiswritten”inhisLettertotheBishopsofGaul,titledBonumAtqueIucundum.ItisfollowedbyaquotefromtheGospelofJohnwithnoqualificationordistinctionbetweenthetwo.”[428]

Chapter5TheAgeofPreservation

Jerome’srejectionoftheDeuterocanonwasvanquishedonlyforatime.HisLatinVulgategrewinpopularity;somuchsothatbythesixthcenturyithadreplacedtheOldLatintranslationasthebiblicaltextforanyonewhocouldread.ThisgrowthinthepopularityandtheauthorityoftheLatinVulgatecastaglowofcredenceontoJerome’saccompanyingprefacesbecauseoftheirproximitytothesacredtext.[429]

FromthesixthCenturythroughtothetenth,Christianwriters,asarule,acceptedtheDeuterocanonasdivineScripture.ThoseofscholarlyacumenrecognizedthatJerome,thegreatestbiblicalscholarofantiquity,heldadifferentcanonthanthatreceivedbythebodyoftheChristianChurch.OthersmayrepeatJeromeonoccasionduringthisperiod,buttheyneverrejecttheDeuterocanon.Thefewexceptionstotheruleareisolatedandareusuallytheproductsofprivatespeculation,bypersonswhosometimesrejectProtocanonicalbooksaswell.

AsweturnourattentiontothelatePatristicperiod,letusbeginbyinquiringwhatthegreatbiblicalcodicesofantiquitytellusaboutthesubjectathand.

TheGreatCodices

Inlayman’sterms,acodex(pl.codices)isacollectionofseveralbookswrittenandcompiledinleafformandboundtogether,asopposedtothescroll,whichcontainsonlyafewwritingsononecontinuousrollofpaper.ThecodexofferedancientChristianitytheabilitytoincludeseveralbooksinasinglevolume.Varyinginsizeandusage,thecodexhasbeenusedbyChristianssincethefirstcentury.Intermsofscripturalcodices,threestandoutinqualityandantiquity;thesearesometimesreferredtoasthegreatcodices(Aleph,A,andB).Thesecodicesarequitelargeandconstructedprimarilyforpublicreadinginachurch;[430]meaning,ofcourse,that(unlikeasinglemanuscript)theyexpressthecollectivemindofanentirebodyofChristiansspreadoveravastperiodoftime,ratherthantheopinionsofanysingleauthor,howeverlearned.Theearliestofthegreatcodiceswaslikelycopiedatthebeginningofthefourthcentury.

Theothersdatefromthefifthandsixthcenturies,butlikelyreflecttheviewsofanearlierperiod.[431]

Thefollowingchartisasummaryofthecontentsoftheseearlyandimportantcodices.[432]Theorderofthebookshasbeenrearrangedtoaidthemodernreaderincomparingthecontentsofonecodextothatofanother.Thetitlesandnomenclatureofvariousbookshavealsobeenmodernizedforthesamepurpose.Thedisputedbooksareinitalics,andtheblankspacesrepresentthosebooksthatareabsentfromagivencodex.

TableNotes:TheselistsarebasedonHenryB.Swete’sIntroductiontotheGreekOldTestament(KTAV,1978).[1]TheCodexEphraemiRescriptuswasonceacompletecopyoftheSeptuagintcomposedaroundthefifthcentury.However,itwastakenapart,partiallyerasedandusedoveragain.Today,itsurvivesonlyinparts.Theoriginalorderofitsbookscannotbedetermined.[2]TheCodexBasilano-Vaticanus(N)andCodexVenetus(V)appeartobetwohalvesofanoriginalcodex.Theywerecompiledintheeighthcentury(Swete,Introduction,130).[3]TheCodexAlexandrinuscontainssomelateChristianadditions.Forexample,thePsalmsofSolomon(whichHengelargueswasneverpartoftheLXX)andtheOdes(thatcontainprayersfromtheNewTestament)wereaddedinthefifthcentury.SeeHengel,Septuagint,58FN3,59.[H]TheSeptuagintincludes1-2Smand1-2Kgsundertheheading1-4Kgs.

NoticethatnoneoftheseCodicesrestrictsitselftotheshorterHebrewcanon.Instead,allfiveincludesome,many,orall,ofthedisputedbooks.Significantly,Wisdom,Sirach,Tobit,andJuditharerepresentedinallthreeofthegreatcodices.Baruchand1Maccabeesarepresentintwoofthethree.Only2Maccabeesfoundacceptanceinbutoneofthethreegreatcodices.[433]Althoughwedonotfindcompleteagreementhere(severalProtocanonicalbooksarealsomissingfromsomeofthecodices),thereisasubstantialconcurrenceamongthesetextsinfavorofthelargercanon.

Becausethebookshavebeenreordered,thereisanadditionalmatterofimportancewhichthechartabovedoesnotillustrate;namely,thatthebooksofDeuterocanonarethoroughlyintermixedamongtheothersinallfiveofthesecodices.NoneseparatestheDeuterocanonicalbooksordifferentiatesamongtheminanyway,indicatingthatthecompilersunderstoodthesesectionstobeauthenticpartsofthesameinspiredcorpus.

LeontiusofByzantium(ca.485–543)

BorninConstantinople,LeontiusbecameamonkandatonetimeflirtedwiththeNestorianheresy,onlytoreturntoorthodoxyandbecomeafirm

withtheNestorianheresy,onlytoreturntoorthodoxyandbecomeafirmsupporteroftheCouncilofEphesus.HespentsometimeinJerusalem,engagedindebates,andreturnedbacktoConstantinople.

ProtestantapologistsoftenappealtoLeontiusasasupporteroftheProtestantcanonbecausehecomposedalistofcanonicalbookswhichexcludedtheDeuterocanon.[434]AswesawwithRufinusandothers,however,changesinterminologysincethedaysoftheFatherscansometimescreateamisleadingimpressiononmodernreaders.AsBreennotes:

Itcanbesaidofhim[Leontius],asofCyril[ofJerusalem],thatexclusionfromcanonicitywasnotwithhimexclusionfromdivinity.WiththemthedivinebooksoftheOldTestamentwerearrangedintwoclassescanonicalandnon-canonical.TheyusedthelatterasdivineScriptureswithoutaccordingthemthepre-eminenceofcanonicity.LeontiususedinseveralplacesquotationsfromdeuterocanonicalworksasdivineScripture.[435]

Leontius’usageoftheDeuterocanonmakeshisownopinionclear.Forexample,heexplicitlyquotesthreeofthedisputedbooksasScripture.[436]HealsousesthebookofWisdomtoconfirmthedoctrineoftheconsubstantialityoftheSon.[437]Unfortunately,apologistsmisunderstandLeontius’list(alongwiththoseofotherFathersadoptingthethree-folddivisionofreligiousliterature)byimportingamodernunderstandingof“canon”intoatextwhichisactuallyemployingthewordinquiteadifferentsense.Sufficeittosaythatforpurposesofthisdiscussion,whatmattersiswhetherornotagivenbookwasthoughttohavereceivedDivineinspiration;ifitwassoconsideredthenthatbookisundoubtedlytobereadasGod’sownword—whethertheterm“canonical”hasbeenattachedtoitorwithheld.

PopeGregoryI(theGreat)(540–604)

GregorycamefromawealthyChristianfamilyinItaly.Heexcelledingrammar,rhetoric,anddialecticandbecamePrefectofthecityofRome.Attheageofthirty,heresignedhispostasPrefect,becameamonk,andwasassignedtothepostofpermanentambassadortotheCourtofByzantium.HestayedinConstantinopleforsixyearsbeforebeing

recalledtohismonasteryinRomearoundtheyearAD585or586.Notlongafterhisreturn,GregorypublishedasetoflecturesbasedontheBookofJobandknownastheMagnaMoralia.WhenPopePelagiusIIdiedin590,Gregorywaselectedhissuccessor.HispontificatelastedfourteenyearsuntilhisowndeathinAD604.GregorytheGreat’saccomplishmentsarefartoonumeroustobementionedhere,butthisshortsummarywillsufficeforourpurposes.

Anti-CatholicsinvariablypointtoGregorywhensearchingforanearly,authoritativefigurewhorejectedtheDeuterocanon.SomeevenarguethatPopeGregory’salleged“rejection”representsadefinitive(eveninfallible)pronouncementwhichwaslatercontradictedwhentheCatholicChurchacceptedtheDeuterosinspiteofhim.AcloserexaminationrevealsthatGregoryneverrejectedtheDeuterocanontobeginwith,andthattheChurch,whichhasalwaysacceptedtheDeuteros,hasnotcontradicteditselfinthismatteratall.

Believeitornot,anti-Catholicsbasethisentireclaimonasinglequalifyingphraseconcerningapassagein1Maccabees.HereareGregory’swords:

Withreferencetowhichparticularwearenotactingirregularly,iffromthebooks,thoughnotCanonical,yetbroughtoutfortheedificationoftheChurch,webringforthtestimony. ThusEleazarinthebattlesmoteandbroughtdownanElephant,butfellundertheverybeastthathekilled.[438]

Notefirst,thatGregoryisnotrejectingtheDeuterocanonasawhole;infact,hedoesnotevenreject1Maccabees.Whatheisactuallydoingisanticipatingquestionsonthesubject(acknowledgingthewidespreadinfluenceofJerome’sideas)andpausingtoestablishthattheexamplehewillofferisstillvalid,evenforthosewhoacceptJerome’spointofview.[439]CatholicapologistArthurSippoexpressesitthisway:

SoSt.Gregory…acceptedthemoderateviewthattheDeuteroswere‘ecclesiastical.’ Butnoticethatheisnotapologizingforusing1Maccabees. Heisnotsayingthatitisofnovaluebutratherthathefeltthenecessityofusingthisbookdespitedoubtsaboutitscanonicity. Thisisverysignificant. Theinspiredcharacterof1

Maccabeesshowedthroughdespitethedoubtingofmeremen.

Elsewhere,Gregory’sownusagereflectshisacceptanceof1MaccabeesandtherestoftheDeuterocanon.HecitestheDeuterocanonicalsinamannerindistinguishablefromScripturethroughouthisworks.Forexample,GregoryquotedTobitwithoutqualificationandintroduceditwiththewords,“Hence,itiswiselysaid...”[440]HemakesextensiveuseofSirach,oftenquotingitamongtheProtocanonicalbooksofScripturewithoutdistinctionorqualification.[441]HealsocountsSirachastheworkofSolomon.[442]Forthisreason,GregoryoftenintroducesquotesfromSirachasthesayingsofa“wiseman”andthe“voiceofWisdom.”[443]Thesequotesweremadewiththesolemnintroduction,“Itiswritten,”aboutfifteentimes.GregoryusesthebookofWisdomalmostasfrequentlyasSirach,citingWisdomwithoutqualificationabouttwenty-eighttimes.Wisdomisquotedwiththeformula,“Itiswritten”aboutsixteentimes.GregoryquotesfromeverybookoftheDeuterocanonexceptJudithandBaruch.[444]

Thissingle,isolatedqualificationofMaccabees,inwhichGregoryanticipatesapossibleobjectionfromtheJeromists,doesnotconstitutearejection,especiallyinlightofhisuseoftheDeuterocanoninhisworks.Evenifitdid,however,asingleoffhandcomment—almostaparenthesis—inanearlyworkwouldnotconstituteapapalpronouncementonthesubject;toarguethatitwouldbetraysprofoundignoranceabouthowthepope’steachingauthorityisactuallyheldtowork.Firstofall,inordertoteachwithpapalauthorityamanmustactuallybepope—andthereisconsiderabledoubtastowhetherGregoryhadyetbeenelectedwhentheabovequotationwaspenned.AsArthurSipponotes:

…theMoralia[orCommentaryonJob]wasstartedin578ADwhileSt.GregorywasinConstantinopleandhecompletedthelastsection(BookXXXV)in595AD. AccordingtoRev.JamesBarmbyDD(inNPNF2ndSeriesvolumeXII,St.Gregory,pagexxxi)itwas‘inagreatmeasurewrittenduringhisresidenceinConstantinople.’ St.GregorywasPopefrom590to604AD. HencethisworkwasstartedtwelveyearsbeforehewasPopeandwasmostlycomposedbeforeheassumedthatoffice. Innowaycouldthisbeconsideredanofficialmagisterialdocument. Itisaworkofprivatespeculationand

hasnoauthoritybeyondthescholarshipusedinitscomposition.

Secondly,evenifthedatesarewrongandGregorydidhappentohavewrittenthisbookduringhispontificate,thepassageinquestionstillcouldnotbeheldtoconstituteaninfalliblestatement.ThepopejudgesinfalliblywhenheactsinhisofficialcapacityaschiefteacheroftheuniversalChurch,noteverysingletimeheopenshismouth.Inorderforhisteachingstobeinfallible,inotherwords,hemustactuallybeteaching.Hemust(inthewordsoftheFirstVaticanCouncil)bemakingadefinitivejudgmentonamatteroffaithormorals.Yethere,Gregoryisonlyacknowledgingthatsomepeoplemaynotagreewithhisappealto1Maccabees.Gregory’sstatementsaysnothingaboutmakingtheviewsofthesecriticsbindinguponthewholeChurch.Anyclaim,therefore,thatGregoryinfalliblyrejectedthebookof1Maccabeesisameregraspingatstraws.

Primasius,BishopofAdrument(Justiniapolis)(527–565)

Anti-CatholicsfrequentlylistPrimasiusasaFatherwhorejectedtheDeuterocanon.ThisisbasedonapassagefromhisCommentaryontheBookofRevelationinwhichhewrote:

Thetwenty-foureldersarethebooksoftheOldTestamentwhichwereceiveofthatnumberaspossessingcanonicalauthority.[445]

ThisinterpretationofRevelationisJerome’s,notPrimasius.[446]However,Primasius’adoptionofJerome’sinterpretationofRevelationdoesnotmeanthathealsoadoptedJerome’sviewofthecanon.HadPrimasiusadoptedJerome’scanon,hewouldhaverejectedtheBookofBaruchasJeromeforcefullydidinhisPrefacetotheBookofJeremiah.YetinhisworkTheIncarnationofChrist,PrimasiusstatesthatthesacredScriptures[L.Scripturamsacram]predictedtheIncarnationofOurLord—andthenheimmediatelyquotesthefamouspassagefromBaruch:[447]

ThisisourGod,andthereshallnootherbeaccountedofincomparisonofhim.Hefoundoutallthewayofknowledge,andgaveittoJacobhisservant,andtoIsraelhisbeloved.Afterwardshewasseenuponearth,andconversedwithmen.[448]

Suchastatementcouldnothavebeenmadebyamanwho(asProtestantapologistclaim)deniedtheauthorityofthebookofBaruch.

Protestantapologistclaim)deniedtheauthorityofthebookofBaruch.PrimasiusmayhavepassedontheopinionofJeromeinregardstotheinterpretationofRevelation,butanybeliefthathefollowedhimindenyingtheDeuterosisbasedsolelyonprejudice.

DionysiusExiguus(theLittle)(d.544)

ThedateofDionysius’birthisunknown,butitisfairlycertainthathediedaroundtheyearAD544.HewasafriendofCassiodorus(seebelow).Dionysius’contributiontoChurchhistoryishiscompilationofChurchdocumentsanddecreesinabodyofworkknownastheCollectioDionysiana.InhisCodexCanonumEcclesiasticarum,DionysiusincludesthecanonsoftheCouncilofCarthage,whichaffirmedtheDeuterocanon.[449]

JuniliusAfricanus(d.ca.551)

JuniliusAfricanus(nottobeconfusedwithJuliusAfricanus)offersanunusuallistingofthecanon.InhisworkDePartisDivinaLegis,I.3-7,JuniliusdividesandsubdividesthebooksofScriptureintovariousdegreesofauthority.[450]AccordingtoJunilius’rendering,theHistoricalBooksof“perfectauthority”arethePentateuch,Joshua,Judges,Ruth,,Kings,fourGospels,andtheActs.Thebooksof“intermediate”authorityareChronicles,Job,Judith,Esther,andMaccabees.Juniliusnotesofthissecondclass:

TheyarenotincludedamongtheCanonicalScriptures,becausetheywerereceivedamongtheHebrewsonlyinthesecondaryrankasJeromeandotherstestify.[451]

ThePropheticBooksof“perfectauthority”arethePsalms,thesixteenProphets,Proverbs,andEcclesiastes.TheBookofRevelationisdoubtedintheEast.Thesecond“intermediate”categorycontainstheSongofSongsandtheBookofWisdom.OftheDidacticbooks,thereareSirach,thefourteenEpistlesofPaul,FirstPeter,andFirstJohn.AmongthesecondcategoryareJames,2Peter,Jude,and2and3John.

Junilius’strangelistisnotableinthatitisthefirstattempttounderstandthecanonofScriptureintermsofutility.[452]TheApostlePaulstates,“AllScriptureisinspiredbyGodandprofitableforteaching,forreproof,forcorrection,fortraininginrighteousness.”[453]AlthoughallScriptureis

equallyinspired,noteverybookisequallyprofitableorusefulinconfirmingdoctrine.TheBookofGenesis,forexample,isasinspiredasEstherbecausetheHolySpiritistheprimaryauthorofboth,butGenesisiscertainlymoreusefulforteaching,reproof,andtrainingthanEstheris.Juniliusconfusesutilitywithinspiration;therefore;therearedifferentcategoriesofScripture.Junilius’listisclearlytheproductofhisowntheologicalspeculationsandrepresentsnothingmorethanahistoricalcuriosity.

FlaviusMagnusAureliusCassiodorus(490–583)

Cassiodorus’lifeisdividedintohispoliticalcareerandhislifeasamonk.Severalworksofhishavesurvived.Oneofthese,thefamousDeInstitutioneDivinarumLitterarum,addressesthecontentsoftheOldTestamentcanon.[454]DeInstitutione,whichwaswrittenbetweenAD543and555,wasintendedasanintroductiontoScriptureforthebrothersathismonasteryandaguidetothestudyofScripture.Itcontainsthreelists:Jerome’sPrologusGaleatusorHelmetedPrologue(theProtestantcanon.);Augustine’slistinOnChristianDoctrine(theCatholiccanon);andthebooksoftheLatinVulgate(theCatholiccanon).Cassiodoruspresentstheselistswithoutcommentinguponthecontradictionsinvolved.

IsidoreofSeville(ca.560–636)

BorninCartagena,Spain,IsidorewaseducatedattheCathedralSchoolinSevillewherehemasteredLatin,Greek,andHebrew.HebecamebishopofSevilleandwasinstrumentalinrebuildinganewculturethathadbeendestabilizedbytheinvasionoftheGoths.HealsoplayedakeyroleinthecouncilofSevilleandthetwocouncilsofToledo.TheCatholicEncyclopediastates,

IsidorewasthelastoftheancientChristianPhilosophers,ashewasthelastofthegreatLatinFathers.Hewasundoubtedlythemostlearnedmanofhisageandexercisedafar-reachingandimmeasurableinfluenceontheeducationallifeoftheMiddleAges.[455]

ProtestantapologistssometimesincludeIsidoreasonewhorejectedtheDeuterocanon.Theyappealtoapassageinhisbook,Etymologies,in

whichIsidorestates,“TheHebrewsontheauthorityofEzrareceivetwenty-twobooksoftheOldTestament.”[456]HecontinuesbylistingthebooksoftheProtestantcanonanddividingthemintotheLaw,theProphets,andtheHolyWritings.FrequentlyomittedbytheseapologistsiswhatIsidorewriteslaterinthesamepassage:

ThereisafourthorderwithusofthosebooksoftheOldTestament,whicharenotintheHebrewCanon.ThefirstoftheseisWisdom;thesecondEcclesiasticus;thethird,Tobias;thefourth,Judith;thefifthandsixth,theMaccabees...theChurchofChristhonorsthemandpromulgatesthemasdivinebooks.[457]

BeingconversantwiththeHebrewlanguage,IsidoreknewtherabbinicaltraditionoflimitingScripturetotwenty-twobooks.Nevertheless,heacknowledgesthattheDeuterocanoncontainsdivinebooksandthatitcomprisesafourthdivisionwithintheOldTestament.Anotherlistinhiswork,DeEcllesiasticisOfficiis,likewise,confirmstheDeuterocanon:

Thesearetheseventy-twocanonicalbooks,andonthisaccountMoseselectedtheelders,whoshouldprophesy;Forthiscause,theLordJesussentseventy-twodisciplestopreach.[458]

Isidore’sviewsontheDeuterocanonareveryclearlystatedinhisProloguetotheOldTestament:

Ofthese(thehistoricalbooks),theHebrewsdonotreceiveTobias,Judith,andMaccabees,buttheChurchranksthemamongtheCanonicalScriptures.Thenfollowalsothosetwogreatbooks—booksofholyteaching,WisdomandEcclesiasticus;which,althoughtheyaresaidtobewrittenbyJesusthesonofSirach,nevertheless,onaccountofthesimilarityofdiction,arecalledofSolomon.Andtheseareacknowledgedtohave,intheChurch,equalauthoritywiththeotherCanonicalScriptures.[459]

IsidoreisanexcellentexampleofhowawriteracknowledgestherabbinicalcanonwithoutrejectingtheDeuterocanon.Heismerelypassingoninformationforthebenefitofhisreaderandnotsuggestingthatthatpositioniscorrect.IsidorecanbeusedforsupportoftheProtestantcanononlyifreaderscommitthefallacyofSpecialPleading(i.e.acceptingonlythepassagesthatagreewiththeirposition).

TheChaldeanNestorians,Jacobites,Copts,Monophysites,andIslam

Duringthefifthandsixthcenturies,severalimportantchurchesinthesoutheasternpartoftheEmpirerejectedtheChristologyoftheCouncilsofEphesusandChalcedonandbrokeawayfromthemainbodyofChristianity.Eveninthisseparatedcondition,however,theyretainedthebooksoftheDeuterocanonasauthenticpartsoftheOldTestament.[460]Islam,whicharoseintheseventhcentury,wentfartherandrejectedthedivinityofChristaltogether(thoughretainingHimasaveryimportantprophet);yetevenseveralMuslimjuristsquotefromtheDeuterocanon,sometimesascribingittotheTorah(i.e.OldTestament).[461]

Syro-Hexaplar,PaulofTella(616)

TheHexaplarisasix-columneddocumentusedtocomparevariousversionsortranslationsofScripture.Centuriesearlier,OrigenproducedaHexaplarcontainingcolumnsinHebrew,aGreektransliterationoftheHebrew,andfourGreektranslationsoftheOldTestament(Aquila,Symmachus,Theodotion,andtheSeptuagint).Atthebeginningoftheseventhcentury,aSyriannamedPaulofTellamadeanewversionofOrigen’sHexapla,knownastheSyro-Hexapla.ItincludestheDeuterocanonicalbooksofWisdom,Sirach,andBaruch.[462]

EugeniusII(theyounger)(d.647)

EugeniuswasbishopofToledofromAD647untilhisdeathinAD657.Knownforhispoetry,EugeniusIIsetIsidore’scanonicallist(includingtheDeuterocanon)toLatinverse.[463]

Ildephonsus(ArchbishopofToledo,ca.600–667)

Ildephonsus,thenephewofEugeniusIIandsuccessorofthesamebishopricinToledo,pennedseveralspiritedworks,amongthemaTreatiseonBaptismwhichincludesAugustine’slongercanon.[464]

TheSixtyBooks(after650)

TheSixtyBooks,foundamongthemanuscriptsofAnastasiusofSinai’sQuestionsandResponses,isanancientmanuscriptwrittenbyanunknownauthor.[465]ItlistsallofthebooksofProtocanonexcept

Esther.ItsNewTestamentlistingfailstoincludethebookofRevelation.ItisanexhaustivelistbecauseitdistinguishesthesixtybooksfromtheApocrypha.IncludedinasectionofapocryphaareEsther,3and4Maccabees.

TheCouncilofTrullo(Quinisext)(692)

TheCouncilofTrulloorQuinisextmettopassthedisciplinarycanonsthatwerelackingintheFifthandSixthEcumenicalCouncils.Astheanti-CatholichistorianPhilipSchaffnotes,itadopted102canons(“canons”inthissense,meanslegaldecrees,notlistsofScripture),mostofthemtakenfrompreviouscouncils.Itmustbeemphasized,however,thatthesedecreeswerenotlegallyorecumenicallysanctioned.Theyweresignedbytheemperor,withasecondplacebeingleftblankforthesignatureofthepope;butthatplacewasneverfilled.ThenamesofPaulofConstantinople,PeterofAlexandria,AnastasiusofJerusalem,GeorgeofAntioch,andotherimportantprelateswereadded;211GreekandOrientalbishopsortheirrepresentativesinall,ofwhom43hadbeenpresentattheSixthEcumenicalCouncil.YetnopopeeverapprovedthecanonsoftheCouncilofTrullo—thoughsomeattemptwaslatermadetosanctionasmanyofthemasmightbeacceptable.

TrulloadoptedthedecreesofboththecouncilsofCarthageandLaodicea,includingperhaps,thespurioussixtiethcanonaswell.UnlesstheTrullianFathersrejectedLaodicea’ssixtiethcanonorfoundsomewaytoharmonizetheincompatiblelistswhichwouldhaveresulted,theirpositiononScriptureremainshopelesslyatoddswithitself.Tomakemattersevenmoreconfusing,theTrulliancouncilalsosanctionedtheeighty-fifthdecreeoftheso-calledApostolicCanons,whichacceptsthefourbooksofMaccabees.[466]ThecouncilalsoaffirmedtheteachingsofseveralChurchFathersonthesubject;ofwhomatleasttwo(e.g.GregoryofNazianzusandAmphilochius)omittedtheDeuterocanonfromtheirlists.Inshort,Trullo’sdecreesareaconfusingmixedbagfromwhichnoclearteachingonScriptureemerges.ArthurSippooffersonepossiblewaytounderstandthesecanonsinamorecoherentfashion:

Astothe‘contradictions’betweenthecanonofHippoontheCanonofScriptureandthoseofSt.Amphilocus&St.Athanasius,therewasactuallyatotalof5differentlistingsoftheCanonofScripture

amongthe102CanonsatQuinisext. Noneofthemareidenticalwitheachother. Tocountertheargumentthattheywerecontradictorytoeachother,Percivalopinedthattheaffirmationofthesecanonswas‘notspecificbutgeneral’(page611). Inotherwords,QuinisextwasgivingageneralwitnesstotheusageoftheScripturesintheEarlyChurchwiththesedifferentcanons. Asinanylawcode,thereareboundtobeportionsofthatcodethatareobsolete,superceded,orover-turnedbyjudicialauthority. SincethelongCanonhasalwayspredominatedintheEasternChurchwecanonlysurmisethatQuinisextwouldhavegivenprideofplacetotheCanonofScripturefromHippo/Carthage.[467]

TheProtestantscholarOsterley,likewise,arguesthatTrulloacceptedtheDeuterocanon,becauseitgaveaplaceofprimacytothecanonsofthecouncilofCarthage.[468]

Bede(ca.673–735)

BorninNorthumberland,England,BedebeganhiseducationinthemonasteryofSt.PeterandPaul.Bytheageofthirteen,hehadbecomeapriestandjoinedthereligiousleadersatthemonastery.Heisbestknownasanhistorian,especiallyforhiswork,EcclesiasticalHistoryoftheEnglishPeople.BedewasadevotedreaderandcommentatoronScripture.Heoncewrote,

Fromthetimeofmyadmissiontothepriesthoodtomypresentfifty-ninthyear,Ihaveendeavoredformyownuseandthatofmybrethren,tomakebriefnotesupontheholyScripture,eitheroutoftheworksofthevenerableFathersorinconformitywiththeirmeaningandinterpretation.[469]

TwopassagesaresometimesofferedasevidencethatBederejectedthedisputedbooks.ThefirstpassageisinhisDeTemporumRatione,writtenaboutAD703.Itreads:

ThusfardivineScripturecontainstheseriesofevents.ThesubsequenthistoryoftheJewsisexhibitedinthebookofMaccabees,andinthewritingsofJosephusandAfricanus,whocontinuethesubsequenthistorydowntothetimeoftheRomans.[470]

Thework,DeTemporumRatione,recountshistoryfromCreationdowntoBede’sowntime.Bede’sconcernisnottodeterminethelimitsofthecanonoftheOldTestamentbuttoexplainwhatsourcesareavailabletocoverthisparticularperiodinthehistoryoftheJews.AsBreenexplains:

Webelieve,therefore,thatindistinguishingMaccabeesfromtheotherhistoricalbooksofdivineScripture,hemerelywishestopointoutthatitdoesnotalonecontinuetheseriesofhistoricaleventsfromEzratotheeraoftheRomans.UptothetimeofEzra,indeed,notallhistoricaleventswerewritten,butenoughwaswrittentoformacontinuouschainofchiefevents,andnootherwritingscontaintheeventsofthosetimesexcepttheHolyBooks,whichfolloweachotherinacertainhistoricalseries.ButafterEzraagreatlacunaoccursinthehistoryoftheJewsdowntothetimeoftheRomans,whichisonlypartlybridgedoverbythecombineddataofMaccabees,Africanus,andJosephus.ThesecondbookofMaccabeescoversaperiodofonlyaboutsixteenyears;thefirst,ofaboutforty.Theyarepartlysynchronous,andcombinedtheywouldnotcoveraperiodoverfiftyyears.HenceBedecouldnotsaythatthedivineScripturecontainedtheseriesofeventsdowntotheRomanepoch.He,therefore,drewadistinctionbetweenMaccabees,andtheprecedinghistoricalbooks,notfromthenatureofthebooks,butfromthefactthatthescripturalhistoryoftheJewsbecamebrokenatEzra,andthefragmentofitwhichexistedinMaccabeeshadtobesupplementedbythetwocitedauthors.[471]

Bede’scommentsthenaresimilartothoseofJosephus’inthatwriter’sworkAgainstApion.Asahistorian,Bede’scontinuousnarrativebreaksdownafterEzraandispickedupagainbyMaccabees,theNewTestament,andotherbooks.ThispointisaffirmedbyexaminingtherestofDeTemporumRationeandBede’sotherworks.HequotesalloftheDeuterocanonicalbooksfreely,oftenintroducingthemwithsolemnformulascommonlyrestrictedtoScripture.Bede’sCommentaryontheBookofTobitinterpretsTobitasanallegoryconcerningChristandHisChurch.[472]Itistruethat,likePrimasiusbeforehim,BedeadoptsJerome’sinterpretationofthetwenty-foureldersinRevelation;buttheclearacceptanceoftheDeuterocanoninhisotherworksdemonstratesthatBedecouldnothaveadoptedJerome’sviewsonthecanon.[473]

JohnDamascene(ofDamascus)(676–730)

Inhisyouth,Damasceneexcelledintheareasofscienceandtheology,eventuallybecomingtheChiefCouncilorofDamascus.Later,hefeltcalledtothereligiouslifeandenteredthemonasteryinSt.SabasnearJerusalem.Asanordainedapriest,hefoughtagainsttheIconoclasticheresy.[474]TheSynodofConstantinopledenouncedhiminAD754,butsome35yearslaterhisoppositiontoiconoclasmwasvindicatedbytheSecondGeneralCouncilofNicea.WithJohnDamascenethepatristicagecomestoacloseintheEast;heisusuallyreckonedasthelastoftheeasternFathers.

Damascenealsoacceptstheoldsymbolictheorythattheremustbetwenty-twobooksoftheOldTestamenttocorrespondwiththetwenty-twolettersoftheHebrewalphabet.[475]HestatesthatWisdomandSirachare“excellentanduseful,butarenotnumbered,norweretheyplacedintheArk.”[476]Being“placedintheArk”referstotheLawthatwasplacedintheArkoftheCovenantbytheJews.[477]TheideaofbooksbeingplacedintheArkcomesfromEpiphanius’OnWeightsandMeasures.[478]Damascene,however,istryingtoreproducethosebooksthatareacceptedbyrabbinicaltradition.HeaffirmedWisdomasdivineScripturewhenhewrote:“ThedivineScripturelikewisesaiththat‘thesoulsofthejustareinGod’shand’[Ws3:1]anddeathcannotlayholdofthem.”[479]Laterinthesamebook,DamascenequotesBaruchasHolyScripture.[480]Baruch,Zechariah,andMicahwereallquotedaspropheciesabouttheIncarnation.[481]SecondMaccabeeswasusedtosupportthedoctrineofGod’somniscience.[482]

Alcuin(735–804)

AlcuinwastheheadofthecathedralschoolofYorkbeforebeingcommissionedbyCharlemagne,in781,toorganizehisPalaceSchool.LikeBedebeforehim,hewasacollectorofthewritingsoftheFathersandotherimportantdocuments.AlcuinwasalsocommissionedtorestoreJerome’soriginalLatinVulgate,whichhadgraduallybeencorruptedbycopyist’serrors.TheproductofAlcuin’sworkbecameknownasthe“CharlemagneBible.”

ProtestantapologistsoftenpointtoAlcuin’ssupposeddenialofSirachin

histreatise,AgainstElipandus,Book1,18becauseElipandushadcitedSirach34:14,infavoroftheheresyofAdoptionism.[483]Alcuinreplied:

InthebooksofJesus,theSonofSirach,theaforesaidsentenceisread,ofwhichbookblessedJeromeandIsidorepositivelytestifythatitisplacedamongtheapocryphal,thatistosay,thedoubtfulbooks.[484]

HereAlcuinisonlyattemptingtoweakenElipandus’appealtoSirach;itisnotarejectionofSirach’sauthority.HewishestopointoutthatSirachdoesnothaveapurepedigree,andthatsomeprominentFathershaddoubteditsauthority.Ofcourse,thesamecouldbesaidofcertainbooksoftheNewTestamentbecausetheytoohavebeendoubtedatonetimeoranother.Alcuin’sappealtoJeromeandIsidoreisnotentirelycorrect.JeromedidnotlisttheDeuterocanonasdoubtful;herejectedit.AlcuinhadsoftenedJerome’scommentsonthesubject.Isidore,ontheotherhand,hasnodoubtsonthedivinityoftheDeuterocanon;heacceptedallofthemasinspiredcanonicalwritings.[485]

Elsewhereinhiswritings,AlcuinshowsnoscruplesinusingtheDeuterocanon(includingSirach)asinspiredScripture.Forexample,inhistreatise,DeVirtutibusetVitiis,15.18,Alcuinwrites:

ThesayingisreadinthedivinelyinspiredScriptures;‘Son,delaynottobeconvertedtotheLord;becausethouknowestnotwhatthecomingdaymaybringforth.’[Sir5:8]…ThesearethewordsofGod,notmine.[486]

IfAgainstElipandustrulyrepresentedAlquin’smeasuredjudgmentonthebookofSirach,wecertainlywouldnotfindhimreferringtoquotationsfromitas“thewordsofGod.”Inchapter18ofthesamework,AlcuinquotesSirachagainas“HolyScripture.”[487]Moreover,AlcuinalsoincludesalloftheDeuterocanoninhisCharlemagneBible.[488]Healsoliststhemelsewhereascanonicalbooks.[489]

TheodulfofOrleans(760–821)

TheodulfwastheBishopofOrleansandacontemporaryofAlcuin.HeamendedthetextoftheVulgate,usingHebrewtextsaswellastheSeptuagint.Theodulf’sversionincludesalloftheDeuterocanon.

CouncilofNiceaII(787)

ConvokedtodealwiththeIconoclastheresythathadgrippedtheEast,theCouncilwascomprisedofsomewherebetween330and367bishops.ThisEcumenicalCouncilproduceddecreescontainingauthoritativequotesfromthebooksofWisdomandSirach.[490]

CodexAmiatinus(A)

ThiscodexbelongedtothemonasteryofAmiata,fromwhichisreceivesitname.Atonetime,itwasthoughttobeoneofthemorepristinemanuscriptsoftheLatinVulgateandwasusedintheSixtus’editionoftheBible(1590).Scholarsnowplaceitsorigin,notinItaly,butinnorthernEnglandduringtheearlyeighthcentury.ItwasgiventoPopeGregoryIIinAD716,anditverylikelyrepresentstheScripturebroughtintoEnglandbythemissionariesofPopeGregorytheGreat.[491]ThiscodexcontainsalloftheDeuterocanonwiththeexceptionofBaruch.Theso-calledEpistleofJeremiahispresentandisattachedtotheBookofJeremiah.TheCodexalsocontainsJerome’sprefaces,includingthePrologusGaleatus.

Nicephorus(758–829)

NicephoruswasthePatriarchofConstantinopleandastaunchdefenderoftheuseofsacredimages.HerepresentedtheEmpressattheCouncilofNiceaIIandplayedakeyroleinthecondemnationoftheIconoclastheresy.

Nicephorusproducedacatalogueofscripturalbookscategorizedbytheirdegreeofcertainty.HebeginshislistoftheOldTestamentwiththeshortercanonoftwenty-twobooks,includingBaruchandomittingEsther,andfollowedbyalistoftheNewTestamentbooks.

Hissecondcategoryhecalled“antilegomena,”whichmeans“thosespokenagainst.”ThislistcontainsthebooksofMaccabees,Wisdom,Sirach,thePsalmsofSolomon,Esther,Judith,Susanna,andTobias,followedbytheNewTestamentantilegomena.[492]Nicephorusconcludesbylistingtheapocrypha.[493]Nicephorus’cataloguedidnotconsigntheDeuterocanontotheapocrypha,butlisteditasbeingdoubtedbysome.[494]

NicephorusshouldnotbeincludedamongthosewhodoubtedthedivinityoftheDeuterocanonsinceheusestheminanauthoritativemanner.SirachandWisdomhequotesrightalongwithProtocanonicalbooks,entirelywithoutqualificationordistinction.[495]BaruchissaidtobethevoiceoftheProphet.[496]Wisdomisquotedwiththesolemnintroductionof“Itiswritten.”[497]ForNicephorus,Wisdom2:12-23isaprophecyofOurLord’sdeath.[498]

CodexPaulinus(Carolinus)&CodexStatinus(Vallicellianus)

BothofthesecodicesincludetheentireDeuterocanon(with,inCodexPaulinus,thesingleexceptionofBaruch).

RhabanusMaurus(780–856)

BorninFaldain788toaprominentfamily,RhabanuswasraisedinamonasteryandstudiedunderAlcuininTours.Whenhereturnedtohishome,hewaselectedAbbotofthemonastery.Later,847,hewaselectedArchbishopofMayenceandbecamerenownedasazealousguardianoftheFaith.

Inhisbook,DeInstituteioneClericorum,RhabanusessentiallyreproducesthecanonofIsidoreofSeville,enumeratingseventy-twobooksascanonicalScriptures.[499]RhabanusMaurusalsoproducedcommentariesonthebooksofWisdom,Sirach,Judith,and1and2Maccabees.

WalafridStrabo(808–894)

SurnamedStrabo,meaning“thesquint-eyed,”WalafridwasrearedinamonasteryunderRhabanusMaurus.HeeventuallybecameDeanofSt.GallandlaterAbbotofReichenouinConstance.Oneofhisbest-knownworksistheGlossiaOrdinariaofSacramScripturam.TheGlossiaisessentiallyaseriesofnoteswritteninthemarginsoftheBibletohelpilluminateagiventextforthereader.ThesenotationsareprimarilytakenfromtheworksoftheearlyChurchFathers.Beingplacedincloseproximitytothesacredtext,thesenotationsgainedacertainamountofprestigeandauthority.TheGlossiabecamehighlyinfluentialduringthelateorhighMiddleAges.

Walafrid’sselectionofworksisimportantforourdiscussion;hehasprovidedevidencebothforandagainsttheacceptanceofthebooksinquestion.InfavoroftheDeuterocanon,hisGlossiaadoptsextractsfromRhabanusMaurus’commentariesonthebooksofWisdom,Sirach,Judith,and1and2Maccabees.HealsousesBede’sCommentaryontheBookofTobit.Ontheotherhand,WalafridintroducesthebookofBaruchwiththefollowing:

ThebookwhichiscalledBaruchisnotfoundintheHebrewCanon,butonlyintheVulgateedition,asalsotheEpistleofJeremiah.Fortheknowledgeofthereaders,theyarewrittenhere,fortheycontainmanythingsrelatingtoChristandthelasttimes.[500]

Itshouldbenotedthatthisstatementillustratesitsauthor’slimitedrangeofexperience:aswehavealreadyseen,itcertainlyisnottruethatBaruchisfound“onlyintheVulgateedition”—twoofthethreegreatcodicescontainthatbookaswell.SinceWalafrid’sGlossiaOrdinariaalsoincludedquotationsfromJerome’sprefaces(highlycriticaloftheDeuterocanon,ofcourse)thebookhelpedtospreaddoubtaboutthelongercanonallthroughtheMiddleAges.

PopeNicholasI(d.867)

ConsideredbysomeasoneofthegreatestpopesoftheMiddleAges,NicholasascendedtothepapalthroneduringoneofthedarkestperiodsinChurchhistory.Charlemagne’sempirewasonthevergeofcollapse,andChristianmoralitywaslukewarmamongthefaithful,evenworseamongcertainworldlyclerics.NicholasalsofacedtheillegitimateappointmentofPhotiustothepowerfulpatriarchalseeofConstantinople.Nicholasmetallthesechallengesandpreventedmattersfromescalating.InhisLettertothebishopsofGaul,PopeNicholasIwrotethattheDecreeofPopeInnocentI(whichreiteratedthelargercanonofCarthageandHippo)waspartoftheuniversallawoftheChurch.[501]

Photius(ca.815-891)

WhenitlookedasifmatterscouldnotbeworseforChristianity,Photiusmadethemworse.NotonlydidhostileforcesthreatentheChurchfromwithout,schismandrebellionwereboilingupfromwithin.WhenPhotius,averylearnedmanofscienceanddialecticsinConstantinople,wasillegitimatelyelectedPatriarchofConstantinople,PopeNicholasIrefused

illegitimatelyelectedPatriarchofConstantinople,PopeNicholasIrefusedtoaccepthim.HeralliedtheChurchagainstPhotius,who,inturn,“excommunicated”thePope.TheseactionsbroughtaboutthefirstEast/Westschism.

InregardstothecanonofScripture,Photius’SyntagmaCanonumshowsthatheadoptedthedecisionsofTrullo,whichhadacceptedtheEighty-fifthCanonoftheApostles,thesixtiethCanonofLaodicea,andthetwenty-fourthCanonofCarthage.[502]BothProtestantandCatholicscholarscounthimasapositivewitnessfortheinclusionoftheDeuterocanon.[503]Photius’viewsconfirmNicholasI’sstatementthattheDeuterocanonwaspartoftheuniversallawoftheChurch.

CouncilofConstantinopleIV(869–870)

AttheEighthEcumenicalCouncil,ConstantinopleIVwasrequestedbyEmperorBasiltoreinstatePatriarchIgnatiusandtodeposePhotius.Aboutsixty-fivebishopsattendedtheCouncil.[504]AmongthemanytopicsaddressedbythisCouncilwasacondemnationofIconoclasm,anadoptionofanewcanonicalmethodforchoosingbishops,andatreatmentontheunityofthesoul.WithinthedecreesofConstantinopleIVisaquotationfromSirach11:7,referredtoexplicitlyasdivinescripture.[505]

CodicesToletanusandCavensis

Datingfromtheninthandtenthcenturies,thesetwoLatinmanuscriptscomefromSpainandbothincludetheentireDeuterocanon.[506]

NotkerBalbulus(840–912)

VirtuallynothingisknownaboutNotker,authorofOnTheInterpretationofDivineScripture.HeisgiventhesurnameBalbulus,whichmeans“thestammerer.”HediedinthemonasteryofSt.GallinIreland.

InhisbookNotkercommentsonthePentateuch,Joshua,Judges,Samuel,andtheBooksofKingsandtheProphets.TurninghisattentiontoWisdom,Notkerwrites:

…Ihavefoundnoauthor’sexposition,weacceptsometestimonies(therefrom)explainedinrelationtootherbooks.Thebookistotally

rejectedbytheHebrews,andisbyChristiansconsidereduncertain,nevertheless,sinceonaccountoftheutilityofitsdoctrine,ourforefatherswereaccustomedtoreadit,andtheJewshaveitnot,itiscalledwithusEcclesiasticus.Whatthoubelieveofthis,itbehoovesyoutobelievealsoofthebooksofJesusthesonofSirach,exceptthatthislatterispossessedandreadbytheHebrews…ThepriestBedewrotesomethingsonTobiasandEzra,morepleasingthannecessary,sincehehasstriventoconvertsimplehistoryintoanallegory.WhatshallIsayofthebooksofJudith,EstherandParalipomenon[Chronicles]?Bywhom,orhowshalltheybeexplained,sincetheircontentsarenotintendedforauthority,butonlyasamemorialofwonderfulthings?ThisthoumayestalsosuspectoftheBooksofMaccabees.[507]

Notker’sstrangecanonseemstohavebeentheproductofhisownreligiousimagination;certainlyitcannotbeshowntohavebeenusedbyanyotherwriterorgroupofChristians.

Wisdomheacceptsbecausehefindsituseful;thesameseemstoholdtrueforSirach.Tobithefindsdevoidofspiritualmeaning,ameresecularhistory;Maccabees,likewise,isonly“amemorialofwonderfulthings.”[508]Notker’susefulnessforProtestantpurposes,however,isseverelylimitedbyhissimultaneousrejectionofEzra,Esther,andtheChronicles.Allinall,Notkerishelpful,mainly,asawitnesstohowveryconfusedthingsbecameonceJeromeopenedthedoortoprivate,freelancecanon-making.

Chapter6“AsJeromeSaith…”

ThelasthalfofthefirstChristianmillenniumwasaverydifficultperiodfortheChristianchurch.TheinvasionofbarbariansfromtheNorth,theriseofIslaminNorthAfrica,heresies,temporalmeddlingbysecularpowers,andfinallytheGreatEast/WestSchismrackedChristiancivilizationtothecore.Duringthistumultuousperiod,Christianscholarstendedtobelessconcernedwithprogressanddevelopmentthantheywerewiththepreservationofthepast.Thisindustriousperiodcodified,andpropagated,andhandeddownthetextsofScriptureandthewritingsoftheChurchFathers.NearlyallChristianwritersacceptedtheDeuterocanonasauthentic,inspired,canonicalbooksofScripture;thefewisolateddoubtsthatdidsurfacewereeitheruniquepersonalconvictionsorelsetheechoesofearlierwritersquotedforthebenefitofposterity.ThecouncilsofCarthage,Hippo,Trullo(Quinisext),theDecreeofGalatius,andInnocentIreaffirmedtheconstantusageoftheDeuterocanonicalbooks,andbytheendoftheninthcentury,PopeNicholasIcouldspeakofInnocentI’scanonicallistastheuniversallawintheChurch.Itisthelargercanon,notthatofJerome,thathadwide,substantialsupport.[509]

FromtheturnofthefirstChristianmillenniumuntilthehighMiddleAges,theChristianChurchexperiencedarenewedvigoranddevelopmentinthestudyofScriptureandtheology.ThesestudiesofteninvolvedthesystemizationandcrystallizationoftheteachingsoftheFathersintoacoherentwhole.ThisrenewedvigorofsynthesisandanalysiswasagreatbenefitfortheChurch,butitalsocarriedwithitsomeunintendedconsequences.Underagrowinghumanism,fedbytherediscoveryofclassicalliterature,somemedievalscholarsattemptedtoreconcilebeliefswhicharenotreallyreconcilable.SuchwasthecasewiththecanonofScripture.Theisolateddoubtswehaveseenscatteredsparselythroughourstorysofarbegantobesynthesizedintoacohesivebodyofthought;anddivisions,whichdidnotformerlyexist,begantoarise.Terminologybegantochangeaswell,forbothsidesofthedebate.Wordsbegantoacquireconnotationsandassociationstheyhadnotcarriedforearlier

authors;termsusedlooselyinthedaysoftheFathershardeneddowntoafixeddefinition.Somewords,ontheotherhand,losttheprecisemeaningstheyhadearlierowned;thewordapocrypha,forinstance,begantoloseitsdistinctiveness,andbythetimeoftheCouncilofTrent,waspracticallyuseless.Alloftheseforcesconspiredtoplaceevenwell-meaningChristianscholarsmoreandmoreatcrosspurposes.

ThereinvigorationofbiblicalstudiesintheMiddleAgesalsogavenewlifetothewritingsofJerome,and,consequently,tohisshortenedcanon.HisLatinVulgatebecamenotonlypopularbutdownrightvenerableintheMiddle-ages;andhisprefaces,includingthe“helmeted”PrefacetotheBooksofKings,werecommonlyincludedincopiesoftheVulgate.Biblicalnovicesstudiedtheseprefacesalongwiththesacredtext,forgetting,attimes,toreadJerome’sthoughtswithabitlessreverencethanGod’s.TheverypopulareditioncalledtheGlossiaOrdinaria,infact,worsenedthisconfusion,foritremovedJerome’scriticalremarksfromtheiroriginalplaceandintegratedthem,likeraisinsinafruitcake,intothesacredtextitselfasexplanatoryglosses.AsGigotcomments:

IfnowweinquireintothecausesofthispersistentdivisionbetweentheecclesiasticalwritingsoftheMiddleAges,weshallfindthatitsmain,ifnotitsexclusive,cause,istheinfluencewhichtheviewsofSt.JeromeexerciseduponthemindsofmanyDoctorsofthatperiod…Itisnotthereforetobewonderedat,iftheviewsounfavorabletothedeuter-canonicalbooks,whichtheseprefacescontained,seemedtenabletomanyschoolmen,andwere,infact,heldbythemintheteethofcontrarypracticeintheChurch,andofdisciplinarydecreesofthePopes.Finally,asitwasthefashionofthetimetogetridofdifficultiesbymeansofsubtledistinctions,severalecclesiasticalwriters…[triedto]reconcilethestatementsofSt.Jerome,inhisprefaces,withthepapaldecreesandthepracticeoftheChurch.[510]

Asweshallsee,Gigot’sassessmentoftheprocessofpreservation,harmonization,andadoptionisquiteaccurate.Jerome’sprestigewouldbecomesogreatthatsomeofhisdiscipleswenttogreatlengthstoreconcilehisviewsonthecanonwiththatoftheofficialChristianChurch.

Alfrick(d.1009)

AlfrickwasamonkintheBenedictineAbbeyofAbingdon,England.HewasappointedthebishopofWilton,England,inAD990.In995,hebecamearchbishopofCanterburyandfacedthedevastatingresultsofoneofthebarbarianinvasionsofEngland.

InatreatisecalledOntheOldandNewTestament,AlfrickwritesofSirachandWisdomasbeingincludedintheBibleamongtheworksofSolomon,becauseoftheirsimilarityinstyletoProverbsandEcclesiastes.Likewise,1and2Maccabees,Tobit,Esther,andJudithhealsoreckonsasauthenticpartsofsacredScripture.[511]

BurchardofWorms(d.1025)[512]Ivo(Ives)ofChartres(ca.1040–1116)[513]Gratianus(1155)[514]

BothBurchardofWormsandIvoofChartresreceivedtheso-calledDecreeofGalatiusasauthenticandanauthoritativesanctionoftheDeuterocanon.Theirworks,alongwithGratian’s,laterformedthebasisforChurchdisciplineintheirera.

StephanHarding(1109–1133)

HardingandtherestofthemonksatCiteauxmadearecensionoftheLatinVulgateinAD1109.TheyreliedonmanymanuscriptsandconsultedseverallearnedJewsontheHebrewtext.ThecorrectedLatintexttheyproducedfortheirownuseincludedtheDeuterocanon.

Gislebert(GilbertCrispin)(979-1117)

InafictionaldialoguebetweenaChristianandaJew,GislebertdefendsthepropheticintegrityofBaruch,arguingthattheProphetJeremiahdictateditscontents.[515]

HonoriusofAutun(1120)

InhisworkGemmaAnimae,HonoriusestablishestheorderofthebooksofScripturethataretobereadintheDivineOffice.[516]WiththeexceptionofBaruch,alloftheDeuterocanonisincludedinthislist.Itislikely,however,thatevenBaruchwasincludedinthereadingsfromtheBookofJeremiah.[517]

Aegidius(ca.1180)

ThisdeaconofPariscomposedalistofScriptureinLatinversethatincludesalltheDeuterocanon.[518]

PeterofRiga

AcontemporaryofAegidius,whoalsocomposedalistofthebooksofScripture,PeterofRigaincludesalloftheDeuterocanonicalbooksintermixedwiththeProtocanonicalbooks,withoutdistinctionorqualification.[519]

HughofSt.Victor(1096–1141)

HughwasacanonregularofSt.VictoratParis.HebecameoneofthemostinfluentialtheologiansinParis.HisimpactontherevivalofBiblicalstudiesintheMiddleAgesshouldnotbeunderestimated.[520]

HughrejectstheDeuterocanon.HeacknowledgesthattheChristianChurchreadstheDeuterocanon,butitisoutsideofthecanonofScripture.ThisviewcanbeseeninhisprefacetoDeScripturisetScriptoribussacris,inwhichhewrote:

[AfterenumeratingthebooksoftheProtocanon]All,therefore,maketwenty-two.Therearebesidescertainotherbooks,astheWisdomofSolomon,thebooksofJesusthesonofSirach,theBookofJudith,TobitandtheMaccabees,whichareread,butarenotwrittenintheCanon.[521]

AfterlistingtheNewTestamentcanonandthewritingsoftheFathers(includingJerome),Hughcontinued:

ButthesewritingsoftheFathersarenotcomputedinthetextofthedivineScriptures,justaswehavesaidthattherearebookswhicharenotembodiedintheCanonoftheOldTestament,andyetareread,astheWisdomofSolomonandotherbooks.Thetext,therefore,ofHolyScripture,asonebody,isprincipallymadeupofthirtybooks.Ofthesetwenty-twobooksarecomprisedintheOldTestament…[522]

InhisprefacetothebookDeSacrementis,Hughreiteratedthesame

Thereare,besides,intheOldTestamentcertainotherbooks,whichareread,indeed,butarenotwithintheCorpusScripturarum,orintheauthenticCanon.TheseareTobias,Judith,Maccabees,andthatwhichisinscribedtheWisdomofSolomon,andEcclesiasticus[Sir].[523]

HughwasdependentuponJeromeforhiscanonicalviews.[524]ThepopularityofHugh’sworkscontributedgreatlytothewholesaleadoptionofJerome’sviewsonthecanonduringtheMiddleAges”[525]

RupertofDeutz(1075-1130)

Awell-knownBenedictineMonkfromtheAbbeyofDeutznearCologne,Germany,RupertalsorejectstheDeuterocanon.InhisCommentaryonGenesis,heassertsthatWisdomcouldnotbebroughttobearonthequestionofwhetherAdamwasreconciledtoGodbecauseWisdomisnot“ofthecanon.”[526]HeomitsBaruchandtheDeuterocanonicalsectionsofDanielinhisCommentaryonJeremiah.ThesameislikelytruewiththeDeuterocanonicalsectionsofEsther.[527]LikeHughofSt.Victor,Rupert’sviewsaretakenfromJerome.WecanseehisinfluencemostclearlyinRupert’sworkDeDivinisOfficiis(OntheDivineOffice),whereherepeatsJerome’sclaimthatJudithandTobitwereadoptedontheauthorityofNicea.

Nevertheless,RupertcouldnotomitthebooksoftheDeuterocanonfromhisDivineOfficebecausetheywereusedandacceptedbytheChristianChurchasdivineScripture.Theiromissionwouldnothavebeentolerated.

PeterofCluny(1092–1156)

PeterofClunyisalsosometimesknownsimplyasPetertheVenerable.Hebecametheabbotgeneralin1121andspentmostofhislifecombatingheresyinFrance.SomebelievethatPeterofClunyalsoopposedtheDeuterocanon.TheirfoundationforthisopinionisfoundinapassagefromhistreatiseAgainstPeterofBruys,inwhichhewrote:

ThereremainbesidestheseauthenticbooksofHolyScripturesixotherbookswhicharenottobepassedoverinsilence,viz,.

Wisdom,theBookofJesusSonofSirach,Tobias,JudithandthetwobooksofMaccabees.Althoughthesedonotreachthesublimedignityofthepreceding,nevertheless,onaccountoftheirlaudableandverynecessarydoctrine,theyhavemeritedtobereceivedbytheChurch.ThereisnoneedthatIshouldlaborincommendingthesetoyou.ForifyouvaluetheChurchinanywise,youwillreceivesomething,atleastalittle,onherauthority.Butif(asChristsaidtoMosesoftheJews)youwillnotbelieveChrist’sChurchhowwillyoubelievemywords?[528]

Thecontextofthisletterisimportant.AlthoughPeterofBruysandhisfollowersacceptedonlytheGospelsasauthenticScripture,[529]PeterofClunyimploredthemtoacceptthewholeofScripture,includingtheDeuterocanon,becauseofitsancientandundoubtedacceptancebytheuniversalChurch.HisstatementthattheDeuterosdonotattaintothesame“sublimedignity”asearlierbookscannotbetakenasadenialofauthorityorinspiration;weknowthisbecausePeter’susageelsewheredemonstratesthathedidacceptthesebooksasScripture.[530]Forexample,Petercalls1Maccabees“thetruthfulScriptures.”[531]HeintroducesapassagefromSirachbycallinghim“thedivinephilosopher.”[532]InhisTreatiseAgainsttheJews,PeterquotesBaruchascomingfrom“theProphetorthepropheticman.”[533]HealsoquotedSirachascomingfromGod.[534]

RudolfofFlavigny(1155)

RudolfdividesScriptureintofourcategories:Historical,Prophetic,Proverbs,andSimpleDoctrine.HeincludesthebooksofSirachandWisdomamongtheProtocanonicalbooksofSimpleDoctrine.HequalifiestheauthorityofTobit,Judith,andMaccabeesbywriting,“…althoughreadfortheinstructionoftheChurch,[they]havenotperfectauthority.”[535]

PeterComestor(d.1178)

Peterwasknownforhisprodigiousreadingandhasbeencalled“TheMasterofHistory.”InhisPrefacetothebookofJoshua,PeterprovidesalistofthebooksofScripture:

…Job,David,threebooksofSolomon,Daniel,Paralipomenon[Chr],

Ezra,Esther,Sapientia[Ws],Ecclesiasticus[Sir],Judith,Tobias,MaccabeesarecalledtheHagiographa(al.Apocrypha)becausetheirauthorisunknown;butsincethereisnodoubtoftheirtruth,theyarereceivedbytheChurch.[536]

BoththeProtocanonicalandtheDeuterocanonicalbooksmakeupthethirddivisionoftheJewishScriptures,calledtheHagiographaortheWritings.Nevertheless,Peterparentheticallycallsthisthirddivisionapocrypha.Heunderstandsapocrypha(Greekforhidden)tomeanthattheirauthorsarenotknown.Beingofuncertainorigin,theirtruthfulnessisvouchsafedbytheirreceptionbytheChurch.

TheredefinitionofapocryphaisnottheonlyattemptbyPetertoreconcileJeromewiththeChurch.AsimilarandmoredisastrousattemptisfoundinhisHistoriaScholastica,inwhichheexplainstheDeuterocanonicalsectionsofDaniel:

TherefollowsthehistoryofSusanna,whichtheHebrew(text)doesnotcontainintheBookofDaniel.Itcallsitafable,notthatitdeniesthehistory,butbecauseitisfalselystatedthere,thatthepriestswerestoned,whomJeremiahtestifiestohavebeenburned:andbecausewefabledittohavebeenwrittenbyDaniel,whereasitwaswrittenbyacertainGreek.[537]

Jeromehimselfisquiteplaininthismatter;hetwicerecordshisopinionthattheDeuterocanonicalsectionsofDanielare“afable”[538]—meaning,withoutanydoubt,thatheconsidersthemtobefictional,fantastic,ormythological.Peter,however,unabletobearthesightofhisheroatdirectloggerheadswiththeofficialChurch,choosestoimaginethatJeromewascommentinguponsomeallegedclaimthatDanielhimselfauthoredthepassagesinquestion.ItisremarkabletoseehowhighlyprizedJerome’sreputationwasthatanotherwiseorthodoxwriterwouldgotosuchlengthstobringhiminlinewiththerestofChristianity.

JohnBeleth(d.ca.1180)

ThisnotedtheologianofPariseditedtheorderofreadingsfortheDivineOfficeinhisRationaleDivinorumOfficiorum.Init,hefollowedthesameorderasHonoriusofAutun,notedabove,whichincludestheDeuterocanon.[539]

AnonymousWriter(mid-12thcentury)

Ananonymouswriterofthetwelfthcentury(likelyamonk)borewitnessestothereceivedcanonofhisdayinthesewords:

[AfterenumeratingtheProtocanonicalbooks]…BesidestheaforesaidtherearefivebookswhicharecalledbytheHebrewsapocryphal,thatistosayhiddenanddoubtful,buttheChurchhonorstheseandreceivesthem.ThefirstisWisdom:thesecondEcclesiasticus[Sir];thethird,Tobias,thefourthJudith,thefifth,Maccabees.[540]

JohnofSalisbury(1115–1180)

AnativeofEngland,JohnwasappointedtothepapalcourtbyHenryII.HelaterreturnedtoEnglandandwasadvancedthroughvariousofficesbySt.ThomasáBecket.AfterBecket’smartyrdom,JohnwasappointedthebishopofChartres.

JohnofSalisburyisrightlycountedamongthosewhorejectedtheDeuterocanon.InLetter143,hewrote:

Since,therefore,concerningthenumberofthebooks,IreadmanyanddifferentopinionsoftheFathers,followingJerome,adoctoroftheCatholicChurch,whomIholdmostapprovedinestablishingthefoundationsofScripture,Ifirmlybelievethat,astherearetwenty-twoHebrewletters,thustherearetwenty-twobooksoftheOldTestament,arrangedinthreeorders…andthesearefoundinthePrologueoftheBookofKingswhichJeromecalledtheGaleatumPrincipiumofallScripture…ButthebookofWisdom,Ecclesiasticus,Judith,Tobias,andPastor,asthesameFatherasserts,arenotintheCanon,neitheristhebookofMaccabees,whichisdividedintwo.[541]

JohnofSalisburyclearlydependsonJeromeandhisso-called“helmeted”preface.Eventhewording,however,demonstrateshisrecognitionthatJerome’sisaminorityopinion:“Jerome…whomIholdmostapproved…”

PeterofBlois(1130–1203)

QuiteacontrastistheopinionofPeterofBlois,astatesmanand

QuiteacontrastistheopinionofPeterofBlois,astatesmanandtheologianwhostudiedinTours,Bologna,andParis.HebecamechancelloroftheArchbishopofCanterburyandArchdeaconofBathinAD1176.FollowingIsidore’sfourfolddivisionoftheOldTestamentbooks,Peterwrote:

Thesebooks[theDeuterocanon]theJewsplaceapartamongtheapocrypha;buttheChurchofChristhonorsthemamongthedivinebooksandpromulgatesthem.[542]

PeterrestshisbeliefontheauthorityoftheChurchofChrist,notonhisprivateestimationofwhichearlywritermayhavebeenmostbrilliant.

TheFourthLateranCouncil(1213–1215)

Averyimpressivenumberofpatriarchs,metropolitans,bishops,abbots,andpriorsattendedthisimportantChurchCouncil.Section70oftheCouncil’sremainscontainstwoquotesfromtheBookofSirachwiththesolemnintroduction,“Itiswritten.”[543]

AlberttheGreat(1206–1280)

Oftencalled“theGreat”orthe“UniversalDoctor”(DoctorUniversalis),Albertwasknownforhisunparallelederudition.Hemetayouthfulstudent,ThomasAquinas,whostudiedunderhim;particularlybymeansofthistutorage,Alberthadanenormousinfluenceovertheologyofhisday.

Albertneveraddressestheissueofthecanonperse,buthisusageindicatesthatheunderstoodthemtobeScripture.AlbertdefendstheinclusionofBaruchasScriptureagainstJerome’scontentions.Inhisworks,heusestheentireDeuterocanoninamannerindistinguishablefromtheotherbooksofScripture.[544]

Bonaventure(1217–1274)

AnotherDoctoroftheChurch,BonaventurewastheCardinal-BishopofAlbanoandtheMinisterGeneraloftheFriarsMinor.HiswritingsandteachingswerequiteinfluentialinlatertheologyandChristianphilosophy.

Bonaventureprovidesalistoftwenty-sixbooksofScripturewhichincludestheDeuterocanon.[545]Elsewhere,hehappenstohavepicked

thebookofWisdomtoexplainvarioustypesofcausality,andinsodoing,provideduswithaparticularlysuccinctstatementofhisopinionofit:

Theefficientcauseofthebookisthreefold:Godwhoinspiredit,Solomonwhoproducedit,andPhilowhocompiledit.[546]

Clearly,wemustcounttheSeraphicDoctoramongthosewhoheldtheDeuterocanontobeinspiredScripture.

AlexanderNeckam(1157–1217)

AlexanderNeckam,professorofthefamedUniversityofParis,wroteacommentarythatfocusedofdifficultpassagesofScripture.Init,heplainlyacceptstheDeuteroncanonastheinspiredWordofGod.[547]

RobertGrosseteste(1235–1253)

RobertGrossetestewasbishopofLincoln,England.HequotesthebooksofMaccabees,Wisdom,andSirachasScriptureinhisletters.

HughofSt.Cher(ca.1200–1263)

HughjoinedtheDominicanorder,andlaterbecameateacherintheschoolatSorbonne.EventuallyhewasmadeaCardinal.Likeseveralbeforehim,HughpennedalistofthebooksofScriptureinLatinverse.AfterenumeratingtheProtocanon,heincludedtheDeuterocanonunderthetitleApocrypha.[548]However,again,theterm“apocrypha”hasbeenredefined.Inanotherplace,Hughwrites:

Thepalaceofthekingismadeupoffourthings:thefoundationistheLaw:thewallsaretheProphetsandtheEpistles:theroofistheGospels,andtheornamentsaretheHagiographaandtheApocrypha.[549]

IntheprefacetohisCommentaryonSirach,HughstatesthatthebooksoftheDeuterocanonareacceptedonlyformoralinstructionandnotfortheconfirmationofdogma.

HughofSt.CherclearlyadoptsJerome’sabridgedcanonandattemptstoreconcileitwithordinaryChurchusage.Likeotherswehaveseen,HughneitheradherescompletelytoJeromenorrejectshisviewsoutright

—because,thoughheiswillingtolabelthemapocrypha,HughstillconsiderstheDeuterocanontobeScriptureinsomesense.

ThomasAquinas(ca.1224–1274)

IntermsofinfluenceonChristiantheology,arguablynoindividualsinceAugustinehashadasmuchofanimpactastheAngelicDoctor,St.ThomasAquinas.St.Thomaswasaprodigiouswriter,butscholarsneednotgobeyondhismostfamousworktolearnthatheacceptedthedisputedbooksasnothinglessthantheWordofGod.InhismonumentalSummaTheologiaeSt.ThomasusesthebooksoftheDeuterocanonasauthoritativesourcesthroughout,veryfrequentlyquotingthemwiththesolemnformula“Itiswritten.”[550]

AttemptshavebeenmadetomakeSt.ThomasopposetheinspirationandcanonicityoftheDeuterocanon,buttheseassertionshavegainedfewfollowers.[551]AsimplesummaryofhowAquinasusedtheDeuterocanonissufficienttodispelanydoubtsastohisopinionofitsinspiredstatus.Hestatesplainly,forexample,thatthebookofWisdomcontainsthewordsof“DivineWisdom.”[552]Attimes,St.ThomasexplicitlycallsWisdomtheHolyScripture,[553]quotingitasanauthenticpartoftheOldTestament.[554]PassagesfromWisdomareputonthelipsofChrist,whoistheDivineWisdom.[555]InthearticleWhethereverylieisasin?AquinasdefendstheBookofJudithagainsttheaccusation(lateremployedbyAnti-Catholics)thatitpropagatesamoralerrorbyshowingGodcommendingJudith’slietoHolofernes.St.Thomasanswers:

Some,however,arecommendedintheScriptures,notonaccountofperfectvirtue,butforacertainvirtuousdisposition,seeingthatitwasowingtosomepraiseworthysentimentthattheyweremovedtodocertainunduethings.ItisthusthatJudithispraised,notforlyingtoHolofernes,butforherdesiretosavethepeople,towhichendsheexposedherselftodanger.Andyetonemightalsosaythatherwordscontaintruthinsomemysticalsense.[556]

St.Thomas’answerispredicatedontheassumptionthatJudithisanauthenticpartofScripture.TobitisseenasScripture.[557]FirstMaccabeesisincludedamongothercitationsfromtheOldTestament

withoutqualification.[558]Basedon2Maccabees,St.Thomasrespondstodifficultiesastowhethersuffragescanbemadeforthedamned.[559]HeinterpretsBaruch3:38asaprophecyconcerningChrist.[560]TheseareexamplestakenonlyfromonebookofThomasAquinas.Sufficeittosay,St.ThomasacceptedtheDeuterocanonasScriptureinitsfullestsense.

RobertHelot(1290–1340)

ThisEnglishDominicantheologianfollowsAugustine’scanonicallistinhisworkOnChristianDoctrineasnotedinhislecturesontheBookofWisdom:

St.AugustineexpresslydeclaresinhisChristianDoctrine(II.9)thattheBookofWisdomshouldbeenumeratedintheSacredScriptures;for,enumeratingthebooksoftheCanonoftheBible,hesaysthusofWisdomandEcclesiasticus:’WisdomandEcclesiasticus,sincetheyhavemeritedtobereceivedinauthority,arereckonedamongthepropheticbooks.”Wherefore,itisevidentthatthebookiscountedamongtheCanonicalScripturesintheChurch,thoughthecontraryisheldbytheJews…andtherefore,althoughbytheJewsrejected,thebooksareofgreatauthorityamongthefaithful.[561]

ThomasNetter(ThomasWaldensis)(1375–1430)

AnEnglishCarmelitetheologian,ThomasNetterwaseducatedatOxford.HiswritingswereverypopularinhistimeandcommonlytoucheduponquestionsofScripture.NetteropposedWycliffeandarguedthattheChurchhadtheauthoritytoestablishthecanon.[562]Hebelievedthequestionofthecanonhadalreadybeenauthoritativelysettledbytheso-calledDecreeofGelasius,whichespousedtheDeuterocanon.

TheCouncilofVienne(1311–1312)

TheCouncilofViennewasalocalcouncilthatmettoaddresstheproblemswiththeOrderofKnightsTemplarandvariousecclesiasticalabusesandpractices.Itisthoughtthatsomethingbetween114and300bishopsattendedthiscouncil.Likethecouncilsbeforeit,theCouncilofVienneauthoritativelyquotestheDeuterocanonicalbooksinitsdecrees.

Forexample,insection14,theCouncilFathersquoteSirach24:23.Wisdom5:6isquotedinsection24ofthesameCouncil.Sirach24:28-29and1:5arequotedasthewordsofGod.Susanna(Daniel13:42)isalsousedinsection38.[563]

NicholasofLyra(1340)

ThisParisiantheologianandfamedconvertfromJudaismrejectedtheDeuterocanon.[564]ThereasonforNicholas’adoptionoftheshortercanoniseasilydiscernible—theinfluenceofJerome.InhisCommentaryonEzra,Nicholaswrites:

Iintend,forthepresent,topassoverthebooksofTobias,Judith,andMaccabees,althoughtheyarehistorical;becausetheyarenotintheCanonoftheJewsorChristians.Jerome,indeed,saystheyarereckonedamongtheapocrypha.[565]

LikethosewritersbeforeandafterhimwhoopposedtheDeuterocanon,NicholasofLyraiscontenttorestupontheauthorityofJerome.

AndrewHorne(d.1345)

ThisEnglishlawyer’swritingsbetraycertaindoubtsabouttheauthorityoftheDeuterocanon.ArguingthatalllawisbaseduponScripture,Hornefindsonlythecanonicalbooksauthoritative.

BesidesthesethereareotherbooksintheOldTestament,althoughtheyarenotauthorizedasCanonicals,asTobit,Judith,Maccabees,Ecclesiasticus[Sir].[566]

AlthoughHornedidnotbelievetheDueterocanonshouldbeusedasfundamentaltextsforlaw,hedid,nevertheless,notethattheyarepartoftheOldTestament,ifonlybecauseofutility.

WilliamofOccam(ca.1285–1347)

WilliamofOccamwasanEnglishphilosopherandmemberoftheGrayFriars.PopeJohnXXIIexcommunicatedhimforhissupportofLouisofBavaria’sstandagainstthePope.However,historiansbelievethathewasreconciledtotheChurchbeforehisdeathin1347.Williamis,perhaps,mostfamousforthe“Occam’srazor”analogy.Weshouldalsonotethathisphilosophylaidthefoundationforastreamoftheological

notethathisphilosophylaidthefoundationforastreamoftheologicalthoughtcalledNominalism.BythetimeofLuther,Nominalism(orthe“viamoderna”)hadbecomedominantinmanyuniversities.

OccamacknowledgedthattheChurchreadstheDeuterocanonbutdeniedthatitwascanonicalbecausetheycannotbeusedtoconfirmdoctrine.HederivedthisviewfromthewritingsofJeromeand,perhaps,GregorytheGreat.[567]

ClementVI(1342–1352)

InPopeClementVI’spapalbulldeclaringtheJubilee,UnigentiusDeiFilius,hequotesthebookofWisdom.[568]

JohnWycliffe(1324–1384)

Wycliffe,veneratedbymanyProtestantsasaforerunneroftheReformation,composedtwomanuscriptstranslatingtheScripturesintoEnglish.AccordingtoWestcott,thefirstmanuscriptcontainedatranslationoftheentireDeuterocanon,alongwithJerome’sprefaces,notingthatwithinthem,“he[Jerome]affirmstheexclusiveauthorityoftheHebrewCanon…”[569]AsecondrevisionbyPurveyprovidesasummaryofJerome’sprefacetotheBooksofKings.[570]PurveyessentiallyanduncriticallyreiteratesJeromeviewsinhispreface.ItisworthyofnotethatdespitePurvey’spreface,theDeuterocanonwasstillincludedinthiseditionofWycliffe’sOldTestament,intermixedwiththeProtocanonicalbooks.

LikeotherswhoreproducedJerome’sdoubts,WycliffestillusedtheDeuterocanoninhispersonalcorrespondenceandinotherworks.AstheAnglicanscholar,Daubneypointsout:

EvenJohnWyclifhimselfdoesnotseemtohaveheldverydifferentviewsonthissubject.InhisSermonshequotesWisdomandEcclesiasticusveryfreely,Tobitbutrarely.InhisDeentepredicamentalihereferstoEcclus.[Sir]iii.11as“scriptura”(p.188)andxviii.1iscitedwith“utdictiur”(p.146).ButperhapshisstrongestassertionisinQuaestioneslogicaeetphilosophicae,whereheclincheshisargumentbysaying,“Istaconclusioetiampatetauctoritatescripturae,”Ecclus.[Sir]xviii.1.InhisDeeucharistiaheguardsagainstidolatryintheMassbyBaruchvi.1,26(p.57);and

inhisOpusevangelicum,ch.xxviii.,hequotesII.Mac.v.19,againstthePope.ThispracticeofWyclif’sofconfutingPoperyfromtheApocryphalbooks,inviewoflaterdevelopmentsoneithersideisnotwithoutitshumorousaspect.InhisPaternosterhereferstoTobitvi.17withapparentlyfullacceptance.HealsowroteaPracticalExpositionoftheSongoftheThreeMenintheFurnace,Dan.Iii.51sqq.[571]

DespiteWycliffe’sdependenceonJerome,this“MorningStaroftheReformation”appearstohaveacceptedtheDeuterocanon,anduseditinamannerfullycommensuratewiththatofinspiredSacredScripture.

JohnofRagusa(1380–ca.1443)

ADominicanprofessorattheSchoolofSorbonneandPresidentoftheill-fatedCouncilofBaselin1450,JohnofRagusastatedinthestrongesttermstheacceptanceoftheDeutrocanonbytheChurchduringtheCouncil.

Moreover,itismanifestthattherearemanybooksintheBible,whicharenotheldinauthoritywiththeJews,butarebythemreckonedapocryphal,whichnevertheless,byusareheldinthesamevenerationandauthorityastheothers,andouracceptanceofthemrestsonnothingbutthetraditionandacceptanceofthewholeCatholicChurch,whichisnotlawfulperniciouslytocontradict.[572]

JohnofRagusa’ssentimentsfoundtheirvoiceintheCouncilofFlorenceand,subsequently,wereacceptedbytheCouncilofTrent.HisstatementontheequalityoftheDeuterocanonwiththeProtocanonisapointthatsomeduringhisagemissed.Nevertheless,JohnofRagusaclearlystatedthathisbeliefwasbasedsolelyupontheacceptanceandtheconstantteachingoftheuniversalChurch.HiswordsabouttheunlawfulnessofcontradictingthisuniversalacceptanceechoedthoseofPopeNicholasI’sLettertotheBishopsinGaulsomefivehundredyearsearlier.[573]

TheCouncilofFlorence(1439–1445)

Beginningastheill-fatedCouncilofBasel,thisCouncilwasmovedtoFlorenceonJanuary10,1439,whenanopportunityforreconciliation

betweenWestandEastpresenteditself.ThereunionofthetwoestrangedhalvesoftheChurchoccurred,howevertemporarily,onJuly6,1439withtheapprovalofaDecreeonReunionwiththeGreeks.OtherdecreeswereissuedconcerningreunionwiththeSyrian,Armenian,andCopticchurches;andeventuallywiththeBosnians,theSyrians,Chaldeans,andMaronitesofCyprusaswell.OnFebruary24,1443,theCouncilwasmovedtoRomewhereitfinallyclosedonAugust7,1445.Unlikepriorconciliardecrees,thedecisionsmadebytheCouncilofFlorencewerenotgivenaslegalcanons,butwereissuedintheformofpapalbulls.

OnesuchdecreewasthebullOntheUnificationoftheJacobites,issuedonFebruary4,1441.PromulgatedbyPopeEugeneIVandadoptedaspartoftheCouncilofFlorence,thisdecreelistedthebooksofSacredScripture:

Moststronglyit[TheholyRomanChurch]believes,professes,anddeclares…oneandthesameGodastheauthoroftheOldandNewTestament,thatis,oftheLawandtheProphets,andtheGospel,sincethesaintsofbothTestamenthavespokenwiththeinspirationofthesameHolySpirit,whosebooks,whicharecontainedunderthefollowingtitlesitacceptsandvenerates:ThefivebooksofMoses…Josue,Judges,Ruth,fourbooksofKings,twobooksofChronicles,Ezra,Nehemias,Tobias,Judith,Esther,Job,thePsalmsofDavid,Proverbs,Ecclesiastes,CanticleofCanticles,Wisdom,Ecclesiasticus,Isaiah,JeremiahwithBaruch,Ezechiel,Daniel,twelveProphets,…andtheBooksofMaccabees.[574]

NotethatthisisthefirsttimeanyEcumenicalCouncilhadpromulgatedalistofinspiredScripturesandraisedtheissueofthecanontothislevelofsolemnity.[575]FlorencedidnotqualifyitsacceptanceoftheDeuterocanon,nordiditplaceitintoaseparatecategory.TheProtocanonicalandDeuterocanonicalbooksareintermixedwithoutdistinction,astheywereinthepast.[576]Thewordingofthisdecreeisalsoimportant.TheCouncilstatesthatallthebooksoftheOldandNewTestaments,includingtheDeuterocanon,areinspiredbytheHolySpirit[SpirituSanctoinspirante],aretobeaccepted[suscipit],andvenerated[veneratur].

FlorencealsoemploystheDeuterocanonelsewhereinanauthoritativemanner.Forexample,Sirach18:23isquotedasScriptureinsession21,andWisdom10:19isquotedwiththeformula“Itiswritten”insession3.Tobit12:20,Susanna(Dn13:9),andWisdom5:21arequotedbytheCouncilwithoutqualification.[577]

InourInformationAge,itistemptingtoassumethatafterFlorencepromulgateditslist,allconfusionstoppedandstrictuniformityonthecanonbecamethenorm.Unfortunately,suchconformityrarelyhappensimmediately.Ittakestimeforthevariousdeclarations,symbols,anddecreestodisseminatethroughouttheChristianChurch.Moreover,thosewhoseviewsarecondemnedbyacounciloftenrepackagetheirhereticalviewssoastogivetheimpressionthattheyhavechangedtheirpositions.ThislackofconformitydoesnotreflectuponaCouncil’sauthority.CenturiesoftenpassbeforethedecreesofeventhemostimportantCouncilsachievethedesiredresults;thegreatNiceaof325,forinstance,acceptedbybothCatholicandProtestantalike,wascontradictedbyimportantfigureswithintheChurchfordecadesafterward.Inthisrespect,Florencewasnodifferent.ItsdecreesseemedtohavecirculatedmoreswiftlyintheEastthantheydidintheWest.[578]Consequently,thescripturalcanonsofFlorencehadlittleimpactoncetheeasternchurchesrejecteditsdecreesonreunion.[579]Andnotsurprisingly,evenafterFlorence,ill-conceivedattemptstoreconcileJerome’scanonwiththatoftheChurchcontinued.

AlphonsusTostatus(1455)

Rarelyisanexaminationofoneman’sviewsmoreconfusedandcontradictorythantheattempttogettothebottomofAlphonsusTostatus’understandingofthecanon.InhisProloguetotheBookofKings(PrologusGalaetus),forinstance,Tostatuswrites:

ItissaidthatthebookofWisdomisnotintheCanon,becausetheJewsexpungeditthence;inthebeginningtheyreceivedit,butaftertheyhadlaidhandsonJesusandslainhim,rememberingtheevidenttestimoniesconcerninghiminthesamebook…takingcounsel,lestweshouldimputetothemtheevidentsacrilege,theycutthebookofffromthepropheticvolumes,andinterdicteditsreading.ButweontheChurch’sauthorityreceivethebookamongthe

authenticScriptures,andreaditatstatedtimesintheChurch.AgaintheBookofJesus,thesonofSirach,isnotintheJewishCanon…andalthoughtheJewsneverreceiveditintotheCanonofScriptures,theChurchreceivesitandreadsit….ThesethingsaretrueaccordingtotheJews;butwithusitisotherwise,forthebookofJudithisreceivedamongtheauthenticScriptures,forthereasonthattheChurchapproveditattheCouncilofNice,andreceiveditinherdivineliturgy,asshereadstheotherauthenticbooks.[580]

Thesepositivecommentsseemclearenoughandrathermorestraightforwardthanmanywehaveexamined.YetwhenthesameauthorcommentsuponJerome’sPrefacetotheBooksofChronicles,wereadthefollowing:

Thereisadifferencebetweenthem[thedisputedbooks]andthecanonicalbooksthatarecalledauthentic;andvalidlyargueagainstbothJewsandChristiantoprovetruth;butfromtheapocryphalbookswemayreceivedoctrine,becausetheycontainholydoctrine,whereforetheyarecalledattimeshagiographa;buttheirauthorityisnotsufficienttoadduceinargumentagainstanyone,nortoprovethingstowhichareindoubt,andinthistheyareinferiortothecanonicalandauthenticbooks…NoneoftheseapocryphalbookseventhoughitbeincludedamongtheotherbooksoftheBible,andreadintheChurch,isofsuchauthoritythattheChurchmayfromitprovedoctrineandinthisregardtheChurchdoesnotreceivethem,andthusistobeunderstoodthedeclarationofJerome,thattheChurchreceivesnottheapocrypha.

Asshouldbeabundantlyclearbynow,theChurchmostdefinitelydidusethesebooksintheconfirmationofdoctrineandalwayshad.Evenindividualscholarswhoseem,attime,toaffirmotherwise,slipcontinuallybackintothehabitofconfirmingdoctrinebymeansoftheDeuteros.Furthermore,Jeromehimselfisnotshyaboutrejectingthesebooksoutright;hecallsthemapocrypha,useful,perhaps,“fortheedificationofthepeople,butnottosupporttheauthorityofecclesiasticaldoctrines.”Tostatus’words,therefore,utterlyfailtobefaithfultoeitherJeromeortheChurch.Healsocomplicatesmattersfurtherbyhisinconsistentuseofterminology.Forexample,earlierTostatusdeniedthetitleof“authentic”

ScripturetotheDeuterocanonicalbooks,yetinthesecondquotation,hefranklydeclaresthattheChurchacceptsWisdom“amongtheauthenticScripture.”[581]

AstowhyTostatusbelievestheDeuterocanonarenottobecapableofestablishingdoctrine;considerthisfromhisPrologueontheGospels:

TheChurchknowsnotwhetherwritersinspiredbytheHolyGhostwrotethese[thedisputed]books…When,therefore,thereisdoubtconcerningthewritersofcertainbooks,whethertheywereinspiredbytheHolyGhost,theirauthorityistakenaway,andtheChurchdoesnotplacethemintheCanonofScripture.Furthermore,regardingthesebooks,theChurchisnotcertainwhetherornothereticshavenotaddedto,ortakenfromthatwhichwaswrittenbytheirproperauthors.TheChurch,therefore,receivessuchbooks,permittingeveryoneofthefaithfultoreadthem;theChurchalsoreadstheminherofficesonaccountofthemanydevoutthingswhicharecontainedinthem;butsheobligesnoonetobelievethatiscontainedtherein,asisthecasewiththebooksofWisdom,Ecclesiasticus,Maccabees,Judith,andTobias.ForthoughthesebooksarereceivedbyChristians,andproofderivedfromtheminsomedegreemayhaveweight,becausetheChurchretainsthosebooks,yettheyarenoteffectualtoprovethosethingsthatareindoubtagainsthereticsandJews,asJeromesaysinhisprologueuponJudith.[582]

ThislaststatementshowsthatTostatuswoulddivideScripturealonglinesofutility.HeequatestheextrinsicusefulnessoftheDeuterocanon(e.g.theywerenotauthoritativeindebatewithnon-Christiansandheretics)withtheintrinsicnatureoftheotherbooks(whetherornottheHolySpiritwastheirprimaryauthor).BecausetheDeuterocanonhas“somedegree”ofauthoritativeweightonlyintheChurch,andbecausethecanonicalbooksareauthoritativebothintheChurchandwiththeJews,theinspirationofthedisputedbooksisinsomemannerinferiortothecanonicalbooks.

Inthissense,Tostastus’viewsregardingthedegreesofauthoritymaybeforgivablebecausetheCouncilofFlorence(andthosethatprecededit)didnotexplicitlyaddresstheissueofwhetherallthebooksofitscanon

wereequallyinspiredandequallyauthoritative.[583]However,TostastusflatlycontradictsFlorenceindenyingthattheDeuterocanonisdivinelyinspired.TheCouncildidnotpermitsuchlatitude.

Antoninus(d.1459)

InspiteoftheCouncilofFlorence,Antoninus,theArchbishopofFlorence,alsoremainedfaithfultoJerome.Antoninuswrites:

TheChurchreceivesthesebooksastrue,andveneratesthemasuseful,moraltreatises,though,inthediscussionofthosethingswhichareoffaith,notconclusiveinargument…Wherefore,perhaps,theyhavesuchauthorityashavethesayingsofholydoctorsapprovedbytheChurch.[584]

AntoninusclaimsthathisopinioncomesfromSt.ThomasAquinas,butaswehaveseeninoursurvey,thisisnotthecase.Instead,Antoninus’viewsweredependentuponJerome.[585]

DenisofChartreux(1471)

DenisofChartreuxbelievedthattheChurchreceivedtheDeuterocanonbutnotascanonicalwritings.[586]

FranciscusXimenesdeCisneros(1436–1517)

Anotherwell-knownCatholicnametoutedbyanti-CatholicsisFranciscusXimenesdeCisneros,betterknownsimplyasCardinalXimenes,whosepositioninhighofficeearnedhimasmallfortuneneartheendofhislife.TheCardinalusedhiswealthtofoundaschoolfortheArtsandSciencesandhaditbuiltinanoldRomantowncalledComplutum.Ximenes’endowmentsenabledthisupstartuniversitytobecomewellknown;bytheendofitsfirstyear,ithadnearlythreethousandstudents.[587]ThecrowningachievementofXimenes’careerwasthepublicationofapolyglotbible.Apolyglotbibleisformattedinsuchawayastoprovidevarioustextsandtranslationsinparallelcolumns.Ximenes’ComplutensianPolyglot(BibliaComputensiaasitbecameknown)includedthetextoftheLatinVulgate,surroundedbytheGreekSeptuagint,theGreekNewTestament,andtheHebrewMasoreticText.

Ximenes’roleinthemakingofthePolyglotwasthatofgeneral

supervisor.HismaincontributionwastosecureHebrewmanuscriptsforuseinit.Underhim,ahostofeditorsputthePolyglottogether,includingthreeHebraistswhowereconvertsfromJudaism:AlphonsoofAlcala,PaulCoronelofSalamanca,andAlphonsodeZamora.[588]

ThePolyglotincludestheDeuterocanonwiththefollowingcriticalremarks:

Thebooks…whicharewithouttheCanon,whichtheChurchreceivesratherfortheedificationofthepeoplethantheestablishmentofecclesiasticaldoctrinesareonlygiveninGreek,butinadoubletranslation.[589]

ItislikelythatXimenesmayhaveadoptedJerome’sviewsonHebrewVeritybecausehehimselfreferences,intwooftheprefaces,theMasoreticTextasbeingthetruth(veritas).[590]Bethatasitmay,Jerome’sinfluenceonthePolyglotisdemonstratedwithoutanydoubtbytheinclusionofseveralofhisprefaces.

Erasmus(1466–1536)

ErasmusisperhapsthebestknownfigureinthehumanistmovementofLuther’sday.ErasmusalsoattemptedtoreconcileChurchusagewithJerome.ThethreequotesbelowaresamplesofhowErasmuswrestledwiththeseviews:

Fortherest…itisnotyetagreedinwhatspirittheChurchnowholdsinpublicusebookswhichtheancientswithgreatconsentreckonedamongtheApocrypha.WhatevertheauthorityoftheChurchhasapprovedIembracesimplyasaChristianmanoughttodo…YetitisofgreatmomenttoknowinwhatspirittheChurchapprovesanything.ForallowingthatitassignsequalauthorityoftheHebrewCanonandtheFourGospels,itassuredlydoesnotwithJudith,TobitandWisdomtohavethesameweightasthePentateuch.[591]

AfterenumeratingtheshortcanonminusEsther,Erasmuswrites:

…[T]hatWisdom,Ecclesiasticus[Sir],Tobit,Judith,Esther,andtheAdditionsofDanielhavebeenreceivedintoecclesiasticaluse.

Whether,however,theChurchreceivesthemaspossessingthesameauthorityastheothersthespiritoftheChurchmustknow.[592]

ThatitisnotunreasonabletoestablishdifferentdegreesofauthorityamongtheHolyBooks,asSt.Augustinehasdone.Thebooksofthefirstrankarethoseconcerningwhichtherehasneverexistedadoubtwiththeancients.Certainly,IsaiahhasmoreweightthanJudith.[593]

ErasmusispuzzledastotheexactstatusoftheDeuterocanon.HeconfusestheutilityofScripturewithitsinspiration.Forexample,theBookofGenesisandtheBookofEstherarebothinspiredandauthoritative,buttheyarenotequallyusefulinconfirmingdoctrine.HadErasmusmadesuchadistinction,itmightverywellhaveservedtoclearuphismuddledthinkingonthecanon.

ThomasdeVio(Cajetan)(1469–1534)

Rarelydoesananti-CatholicworkfailtomentionThomasdeVio,betterknownasCardinalCajetan.CajetanwasapapallegatetoGermanyandanofficialintermediarybetweenMartinLutherandRome.HewastappedfortheroleasLegatebecausehewasoneofthefinestandstrictestThomisticscholarsofhisday.[594]AlthoughCajetan’sstudyofSt.ThomasmadehimasuitablecandidatetodialoguewithMartinLutheroverhistheologicalinnovations,itwasalsoadeadlyweakness.SosingularwasCajetan’sfocusonThomasAquinasthathelackedtheflexibilitytograpplewiththeunorthodoxcomplexitiesofLuther’stheology.ThisinflexibilitycanbeseeninCajetan’sfirstmeetingwiththeReformer.CatholichistorianWarrenCarrollrecounts:

Inexplainingwhythesepropositions[Luther’sviewsonIndulgencesandtheSacraments]wereheretical,Cajetan,agreatauthorityonSt.ThomasAquinas,reliedontheAngelicDoctor,whomLutherdespised,formuchofhisargumentation…[Cajetan]wassoincensedbyLuther’sprovocativemanneranddiatribesagainstSt.ThomasAquinas,towhomhewasdevoted,thatmostuncharacteristicallyhebeganshoutingathim.Lutherrepliedevenmoreloudly(themandidnotlivewhocouldoutshoutMartin

Luther)andfinallyCajetandismissedhimwith:‘Go,anddonotreturnunlessyouarereadytorecant!’[595]

AquinaswasthelastwordinCajetan’stheology.Whenitcametobiblicalstudies,however,Jeromewashismaster,eventothepointofabsurdity.Cajetan’sdevotiontothesetwogreattheologiansisadmirable,butitshouldhavehadlimits.Notheologian,howevergreatandknowledgeable,isimmunefromerror.EventhetwogreatDoctorsoftheChurch,JeromeandAquinas,occasionallymademistakes.Theyaresubjecttocorrection.Cajetan’sunbalanceddevotiontoJeromecanbeseeninhisratherbizarrestatementsinhisCommentaryontheBookofEsther:

TheChurchreceivessuchbooks[theDeuterocanon],permittingthefaithfultoreadthem;theChurchalsoreadstheminheroffices,onaccountofthemanydevoutthingswhichtheycontain.ButtheChurchobligesnoonenecessarilytobelievewhatiscontainedtherein,whichisthecasewiththebooksofWisdom,Ecclesiasticus[Sir],Maccabees,Judith,andTobit.ForthoughthesebooksarereceivedbyChristians,andproofderivedfromthemmay,insomewayorother,haveweight,becausetheChurchretainsthosebooks;yettheyarenoteffectualforprovingthosethingswhichareindoubt,againsthereticsorJews.Wehereterminateourcommentaries(onthebooksofJudith,Tobit,andtheMaccabees),whicharereckonedbyJeromewithoutthecanonicalbooks,andareplacedamongtheapocrypha,togetherwithWisdomandEcclesiasticus,asappearsinhis‘PrologusGaleatus”[HelmetedPrologue].Norshouldyoubedisturbed,Onovice,ifyoushouldanywherefindthosebooksreckonedamongthecanonicalbooks,eitherintheholycouncils,orintheholydoctors.Forthewordsofthecouncils,aswellasofthedoctors,aretobesubmittedtothecorrectionofJerome;andaccordingtohisjudgmenttothebishopsChromatiusandHeliodorus,thosebooks(andiftherebeanysimilaronesintheCanonoftheBible)arenotcanonical,thatis,theyarenotthosewhicharegivenasarulefortheconfirmationofthefaith.Theymay,however,becalledcanonical(thatis,givenasarule)fortheedificationofthefaithful;since[theyare]receivedandauthorizedintheCanonoftheBibleforthispurpose.[596]

Inoneparagraph,CajetanplacesJeromeaboveeverypope,everylocalorEcumenicalcouncil,andeveryChristianteacher.HeadmitsthattheChurchreceivestheDeuterocanonandcallsitcanonical,andheadmitsthattheDeuterocanondoescarrysomeweightindoctrinalproofs,albeitnotenoughtopersuadehereticsandJews.[597]ThemostfascinatingaspectofthiscommentaryistoseethelengthstowhichthisotherwisesobertheologianwillgotoreconcileJeromewiththeofficialChurch.EvenCajetan’sownlanguagebecomestwistedwhenhewritesthattheDeuterocanonisinthe“CanonoftheBible,”butlaterheclaimsthatitis“notcanonical.”DidCajetanreallymeantomakeadistinctionbetweencanonical-canonicalbooksandcanonicalnon-canonicalbooks?TheconfusionintheCajetan’sotherwiseclearthinkingservestoillustratehowthediscussionofthecanonhaddegradedbythetimeoftheProtestantReformation.

TheSynodofSens(1528)

ThelocalcouncilofSensmettoreaffirmtheFaiththatwasbeingdeniedbyProtestants.TheyheldthattheDecreeofPopeGelasius,theThirdCouncilofCarthage,andPopeInnocentIhadalreadysettledthequestionofthecanon,sotheydecreedthatanyonewhodidnotaccepttheseancientteachingswastobedenouncedasahereticandschismatic.[598]Sens’decree,however,hadlittleeffectonthemaelstromofopinionsandviewpointsofthisage.Consequently,theneedforaGeneralCouncilappearedalltooobvious.Unfortunately,becausepolitical,social,andlogisticaldifficulties,thatGeneralCouncilwouldnotbeconveneduntilDecemberof1545.

TheCouncilofTrent(February11,1546)

TheCouncilofTrentdecidedearlyontoaddressquestionsofScriptureandSacredTraditionbecausebothwereprerequisitestoalldiscussionsofdoctrine.[599]ItisTrent’sactioninthedefiningofthecanonwhichliesattheheartoftheCatholic/Protestantcontroversy.DidtheCouncilofTrentaddbookstotheBible,ordidProtestantsremovethem?

Toanswerthisquestion,researchersshouldtostartwiththedecreeitself.OnApril8,1546,theFourthSessionoftheCouncilofTrentissuedaDogmaticDecreetitledTheSacredBooksandtheTraditionsofthe

Apostles.Ittouchedupondoctrine(e.g.thecanon)andupondisciplineaswell(e.g.theacceptanceoftheLatinVulgate).TheCouncilFathersdeclared:

ThesacredandholyecumenicalandgeneralSynodofTrent…followingtheexamplesoftheorthodoxFathers,receivesandholdsinvenerationwithanequalaffectionofpietyandreverenceallthebooksbothoftheOldandoftheNewTestament,sinceoneGodistheauthorofboth,andalsothetraditionsthemselves,thosethatappertainbothtofaithandtomorals,ashavingbeendictatedeitherbyChrist’sownwordofmouth,orbytheHolySpirit,andpreservedintheCatholicChurchbyacontinuoussuccession.Andsothatnodoubtmayariseinanyone’smindastowhicharethebooksthatareacceptedbythisSynod,ithasdecreedthatalistoftheSacredbooksbeaddedtothisdecree.

BooksoftheOldTestament:[liststhebooksofthelargercanon].

BooksoftheNewTestament[liststhebooksoftheNewTestament].Ifanyone,however,shouldnotacceptthesaidbooksassacredandcanonical,entirewithalltheirparts,astheywerewonttobereadintheCatholicChurch,andastheyarecontainedintheoldLatinVulgateedition,andifbothknowinglyanddeliberatelyheshouldcondemntheaforesaidtraditionslethimbeanathema.Letall,therefore,understandinwhatorderandinwhatmannerthesaidSynod,afterhavinglaidthefoundationoftheconfessionofFaith,willproceed,andwhattestimoniesandauthoritiesitwillmainlyuseinconfirmingdogmas,andinrestoringmoralsintheChurch.[600]

HowdidtheCouncilFathersarriveatthiscanon?WasitsimplyareactionarymoveagainsttheProtestants?ThedeliberationsoftheCouncilprovidethekeythatunlockstheanswer.[601]

DeliberationsoftheCouncilofTrent

TheCouncilheldthreeofficialsessionsbeforeissuingitsdecreeonthecanon.TheFirstSessionofficiallyopenedtheCouncil;theSecondlaiddownvariouspointsofprocedureandissuedthestatementofFaithcalledtheSymbolumFidei.[602]ThethirdsessionadoptedaplantodividethebodyintothreeParticularCongregationsforthepurposeof

readyingquestionstobediscussedduringthemeetingoftheGeneralCongregations(inwhichallthebishopswouldparticipate).

ThefirstGeneralCongregation(February8)discussedwhetheradecreeonthecanonofScripturewasactuallyneeded;afterall,CardinalPachecoargued,theChurchFathersandpreviouscouncilshadalreadyaddressedtheissue.ItwassuggestedthatTrentmerelycollectandconfirmthesedecreeswithoutanyadditionaldeliberation.Thisideawontheapprovalofseveralofthecouncilmembers.[603]Othersconsideredanydiscussionofthecanonsuperfluous,beingundertheimpressionthatLutheransandCatholicsheldsimilarviewsonthetopic.Themajority,however,wishedtoconsidertheissueandvotedtodoso.

IntheFirstParticularCongregation(February11),itwasaskedifthecanonofScriptureoughttobereceivedas“pureandsimple”(pureetsimpliciter),orwhetherthereshouldbesomepreliminarydiscussionoftheobjectionsraisedagainstit;“notasifthequestionitselfwereindoubt,butinorderthattheSynodshouldbeabletogiveanaccountofitselftoanybelieverwhatsoever.”[604]Itwasdecided“toreceivethebookssimplyandentirelyastheChurchhaddoneinothercouncils,andespeciallyintheCouncilofFlorence.”[605]Thatnight,theCardinalLegateswrotethatallthreeParticularCongregationshadagreedontheacceptanceoftheBooksofScripturepureandsimple,“…aswasdonebymanyoftheancientFathers,bythethirdProvincialCouncilofCarthage,bythatofPopeGelasius,byInnocentI,andlastlybytheCouncilofFlorence.”[606]Theletteralsoproposedthatagroupoftheologiansshouldbebroughttogether,outsideofthecouncil,toanswerobjectionsraisedagainstcertainbooks.TwoCouncilFathers,PietroBertanoandGirolamoSeripando,proposedthatadistinctionbemadebetweentheDeuterocanonandtheProtocanon,asJeromehadcalledforinthePrologusGaleatus.ThisproposalwasofferedtotheCongregation,butfailedtowinacceptance.[607]Breennotes:

Sohere,itisnotevidentjustwhatdistinctionthismanwishedtoinduce.Butineverycase,hispropositionwasuseless.IfhewishedmerelytosaythattheimportofsomedivinebooksismoreimportantinChristiandoctrinethanothers,thetruthisunderstoodbyallChristians,andneedsnodefinition.TheCouncilwasnot

abouttodefinethatMaccabeeswasasvaluabletouseasMatthew.ButifhewishedtosaythattherelationwhichGodboretoanybookwaslessthaninspirationaswehavedefinedit,thepropositionisfalse.TheCouncilsimplyextendedproperinspirationtoallthebooks,andleftthequestionoftheirrespectdogmaticandmorevaluesintact.

TheSecondGeneralCongregationmetonFebruary12.CardinaldelMonteopenedtheGeneralCongregationbypresentingthefindingsofallthreeParticularCongregations;theSacredBooksweretobeacceptedjustastheyhadbeeninformercouncils,especiallythecouncilofFlorence.BytheendofthisGeneralSession,theadoptionofthesedecreesseemed,todelMonte,tohavegainedtheassentofallbutoneofthecouncilfathers.[608]

TheThirdGeneralCongregation(February15)offeredtwoquestionsforfinalapprovalbytheentirecongregation.ThefirstquestionaskediftheCouncilofTrentshouldapproveallthebookswhichhadbeenapprovedatFlorence;eachandeveryoneofthefathersrespondedintheaffirmative[L.placet].Thesecondquestionaskedifananathemashouldbeaddedtothedecreeonthecanon.Theinclusionofananathemawascarriedwith24votesinfavor,15votesagainst.[609]

Fromanexaminationofthis“insideinformation”evenaconvincedProtestantoughttobeabletoseethatTrentdidnotaddanybookstotheBible.Rightlyorwrongly,thisbodyactedinamannerentirelyconservative,basingtheirdecisionsonprecedentalone.ThedesireoftheCouncilwastoavoidtamperingwiththecanoninanyway;tooffer,rather,asimple“rubberstamp”uponthejudgmentsofpreviousauthorities(especiallythatoftheCouncilofFlorence).[610]EvenitsrefusaltoprovideadefenseoftheDeuterocanonortoallowfurtherdiscussionwasbaseduponconservativeprinciples;afterall,whyprovideafreshapologyforsomethingthathadbeensettledforcenturies?DoingsocouldonlymakethedeclarationsoftheCouncillookreactionaryandunsure.Moreover,Trent’smaintaskwastodeclarewhatisoftheCatholicFaith.Adefense,itwasargued,wouldonlyprovokearebuttalbyaProtestantsynod,whichinturnwouldcallforanotherCatholicresponse,thusunderminingtheforceoftheoriginaldecree.Intheend,

Trent’sconservatismwonout,andthecanonwaspublishedpureandsimple;aplain,unadornedreiterationofthetraditionalposition.

OnFebruary18,theCouncildirecteditsattentiontotheotheraspectsofthedeclaration(e.g.ApostolicTraditionandthedisciplinarydecreeontheVulgate),andonMarch22,circulatedthefirstdraftofthedecree.ThedraftwasproposedfordiscussionintheGeneralCongregation,andonthetwenty-ninthofthesamemonth,alistof14pointsorquestions(calledtheCapitaDubitationum)wasgiventotheFathersforavote.Themostinterestingofthesepoints,forourdiscussion,isQuestionFour,whichaskediftheBookofEsdrasandothersoughttobeformallyrejectedorpassedoverinsilence.WhywasEsdrasquestioned?

TheProblemofEsdras

ProtestantapologistsarguethatTrent’slistcontradictedthatoftheCouncilofCarthagebecausetheearlierCouncilhadacceptedtheBookofEsdraswhileTrentrejectedit.Istherereallysuchacontradiction?Atfirstglance,thechargeseemscredible;Carthagedid,indeed,accept“Esdras,twobooks”andtheidentityofthesetwobooksseemsstraightforwardenough.[611]ThetermwasgenerallyunderstoodtomeanthetwoProtocanonicalbooksofEzraandNehemiah(countedasone)togetherwiththedisputedbookofEsdrasproper.These“booksofEsdras”,however,arenumbereddifferentlyindifferenttranslationsandinthevariousrecensionsofthosetranslations.Herethenistheconfusingpart.InSyriacVersionsandinseveralimportantGreekmanuscripts,thebookofEsdrasitselfiscountedas1Esdras.[612]InsomeSeptuagintmanuscripts,ontheotherhand,2EsdrasisactuallyEzrachapters1-10,linkedwithNehemiahchapters11-23.IntheLucianicrecensionoftheSeptuagint,however,1EsdrasisEzraandNehemiahtogether,with2EsdrasbeingtheBookofEsdrasproper.IntheLatinVulgate,1EsdrasistheBookofEzra,2EsdrasisNehemiah,3EsdrasistheBookofEsdrasproper,and4EsdrasistheApocalypseofEzra.[613]Nowthequestionis,whatdidtheCouncilofCarthagemeanwhenitcalledforacanonwith“Esdras,twobooks”?DiditmeanEzraandNehemiahalone,ordiditmeanEzra,Nehemiah,andEsdrasproper?Itisdifficulttotell.ItappearsthatCarthagewouldhavemorelikelyincludedEsdras,notomittedit.[614]

However,neithercaseiscertain.

WhatexactlyistheBookofEsdras?ItisanamalgamationofsectionstakenfromtheBooksofChronicles,Ezra,andNehemiahandashortsectionofuniquematerialasthefollowingtableindicates:[615]

EsdrasIsidenticalto…

Esdras1 2Chronicles35-26:21

Esdras2:1-15 Ezra4:7-24

Esdras3-5:6 unique

material

Esdras5:7-73 Ezra2-4:5

Esdras6-9:36 Ezra5-10

Esdras9:37-55 Nehemiah

7:73-8:13a

Onlyashortsectionofthisbook(Esdras3:1-5:6)containsuniquematerial.Mostofthebookisarepetitionof2Chronicles,Ezra,orNehemiah.IfEsdrasismostlyacompilationofexistingScripture,whywasitmadeinthefirstplace?GigotbelievesthatEsdrasmaynothaveoriginatedasanindividualwriting:

ButshouldnotthisalmostperfectidentityofcontentsbetweenthethirdbookofEsdrasandthebookswhichprecedeandfollowitintheoldeditionsofthesacredtext,havesuggestedlongagothatthethirdbookofEsdrasisreallynotanindependentwriting,butratherarevisedtranslationwithasingleinterpolationtakenfromsomeindependentsourceviz.,iii-v,6?Inpointoffact,themoreclosely

thecommonelementsareexamined,themorewilltheyappeartopointtotheoneandsametextasunderlyingthethirdbookofEsdrasandourcanonicalwritings,andasrenderedmorefreelyintheformerthanintheordinaryGreekcopiesoftheSeptuagint:themore,inoneword,willitbecomeprobable,thattheso-calledthirdbookofEsdrasissimplyaversionofcertainpartsofHolyWrit,whosesubstanceisofcourseinspired,butwhoseindividualitymayberejectedbytheChurch,aswasdoneinthecaseoftheoldSeptuaginttranslationofthebookofDaniel.[616]

Thequestionwas(andstillis)‘isEsdrasaseparatebookthathappenedtouseanawfullotofcanonicalmaterial,’or‘isitanearlyrecensionofScripturewithsomeadditionalnon-canonicalmaterialadded?’Nooneknows.TheonlythingcertainaboutEsdras’canonicalpedigreeisthatitisuncertain.

ManythingsarequestionableaboutEsdras.TheCouncilofCarthagemayhaveincludedEsdrasonitslist.Wedon’tknowforcertain.Esdrasmaybeanindividualbookoritmaybearecension.Nooneknows.AfewChurchFathersmayhaveusedEsdrasasacanonicalbook,butthisusagedisappearedaroundthefifthcentury,althoughitremainedintheLatinVulgateandtheSeptuagint.BythetimeofTrent,theexactnatureoftheEsdras,bothitsformanditscanonicalstatus,wasopentodoubt.ThebestmoveforTrentwasnottomoveatall.

ThefourthquestionoftheCapitaDubitationumaskedwhetherthosebooksthatwerenotincludedinTrent’slist,butwereincludedintheLatinVulgate(e.g.TheBookofEsdras,4Ezra,and3Maccabees),shouldberejectedbyaConciliardecree,orshouldtheybepassedoverinsilence.OnlythreeFathersvotedforanexplicitrejection.Forty-twovotedthatthestatusofthesebooksshouldbepassedoverinsilence.Eightbishopsdidnotvote.Themajoritywon,andTrentdeliberatelywithheldanyexplicitdecisiononthesebooks.Inpost-TridentineeditionsoftheVulgate,Esdras,andtheothersweremovedtoanappendixintheback.[617]

Thosewhoclaimthen,thatTrent“rejected”Esdrasaremistaken.Itdidnot.Infact,anyrejectionoraffirmationwaspurposefullywithheld.[618]Iftherewasnodecision,thenTrentcannotbesaidtohavecontradictedCarthage.ThequestionofEsdras’canonicalstatuswaslefttheoretically

AnotherCapitaDubitationumofnoteisPoint10,whichaskediftheexpression“sacredandcanonical”[prosacrisetcanonical]shouldbeused:Yesorno.Forty-fourfathersvotedinagreement[placet],andthreeFathersvotedagainst[nonplacet].[619]OneofthosethreewhoopposedwasBishopCastellamarewho,onApril5,voicedhisobjectionintheGeneralCongregation.Breenrecounts:

ThebishopofCastellamareremarkedthatthewordssacredandcanonicalwereobjectionableonaccountofJudith,andsomeotherswhicharenotintheHebrewCanon.Hemovedtosubstitute:‘intheCanonoftheChurch.’CardinalCervini,thepresident,responded:‘Itistruewhatthousayest,butwefollowtheCanonoftheChurch,notoftheJews.WhenwesayCanonical,therefore,weunderstandoftheCanonoftheChurch.’[620]

Towhich,thedissentingbishopgavehisapproval[placet].[621]

Point13oftheCapitastates“AstotheremainingpointsthatalreadyhavebeendecideduponinaGeneralCongregation:nottomakeadistinctionbetweenthebooksthatareaccepted,theirenumerationaccordingtotheCouncilofFlorence,andtheanathematobeaddedtothebooks,wedonotknow,iftheSacredSynodwantstorecallanddealwiththematteragain.Ifitwantsto,itisfreetodoso.”[622]TheCouncilFathersgavetheirOmnibusplacet(amajorityvoteintheaffirmative).Althoughacoupleofbishops(e.g.,BertanoandSeripando)attemptedtoreintroduceJerome’sdistinctionintothedecree,theirmotionwasrejectedoutofhand,sinceithadalreadybeendeterminedbytheGeneralCouncilthatthebooksweretobeacceptedastheyhadbeenatpriorCouncils.

Trentthen,wasneitherinnovativenorreactionary;thosewhoattendedwereconvincedthatcanonhadalreadybeensettled.TheclaimthatTrentactedcreatively,aggressively,deliberatelyalteringarecognizedbiblebyaddingadditionalbooksonitsownauthority,canonlybemadebysomeonecompletelyignorantofthehistoricalfacts.Trent’slistwasthatoftheCouncilofFlorence.TheonlyquestionablebooksevendiscussedwerethosementionedinPoint10oftheCapita(e.g.Esdras,3

Maccabeesetal.);andtheseweredeliberatelypassedoverinsilence.AndsinceTrentwaswhollydependentinthismatterupontheactionsofpreviouscouncils(somewhichhadtakenplacecenturiesbeforetheReformation),itcannotlegitimatelybesaidthattheCouncil’scanonwasreactionary.

CyrilLucar(CyrilLucaris)(1572–1637)

TheEasternOrthodoxchurchesalsoflirtedwiththeProtestantcanonforatime.CyrilLucarwaspatriarchofAlexandria(1602–1620)andlaterConstantinople(1620–1637).HewasattractedtoCalvinistEuropeandsentmanyyoungprieststotheWesttostudy.CyrilhadalsomadeoverturesoffriendshiptotheAnglicanChurchaswellastotheLutherans.HedonatedtheCodexAlexandrinustoKingCharlesI.In1627,LucarpublishedatreatisecalledTheConfessionofFaith,whichrejectedtheDeuterocanonasapocrypha.[623]MetrophanesCritopulus,afriendofLucar,inhisConfessionoftheCatholicandApostolicEasternChurchfollowedhisfriend’sopinionbyclaimingthattheChurchofChristhadneverreceivedtheDeuterocanonasauthenticScripture.[624]ThesebookswerewidelycirculatedthroughouttheEast.[625]In1638,thePatriarchPartheniusconvenedacouncilinConstantinople.Thetwopatriarchsandthe120easternbishopspresentatthiscouncilissuedalettertotheprovidentialsynodofJerusalem(Jassy),condemningtheviewsofCyrilLucasasheretical.ThisletteraffirmedthattheDeuterocanonhadalwaysbeenacceptedintheEast,despiteisolateddoubts.[626]

VaticanCouncil,I(1870)

TheFirstVaticanCouncilreaffirmedTrent’sdecreeonthecanon.

And,indeed,thesebooksoftheOldandNewTestament,wholewithalltheirparts,justastheywereenumeratedinthedecreeofthesameCouncil,arecontainedintheoldVulgateLatinedition,andaretobeacceptedassacredandcanonical.ButtheChurchholdsthesebooksassacredandcanonical,notbecause,havingbeenputtogetherbyhumanindustryalone,theywereapprovedbyitsauthority;norbecausetheycontainrevelationwithouterror;butbecause,havingbeenwrittenbytheinspirationoftheHolySpirit,theyhaveGodastheirauthor

and,assuch,theyhavebeenhandeddowntotheChurchitself.[627]

ThisdecreeoftheFirstVaticanCounciliscertainlyhelpfulinclearingupafewmisconceptions.Ithadlongbeenananti-Catholicbugaboo,forexample,thattheCatholicChurchbelievesitselftohavemadeorcreatedthecanonofScripture;amisrepresentationthathasbeencirculatingwithinProtestantismsincethebeginningoftheReformation.[628]ItistruethattheChurchpreservedthesebooksandpromulgatedthemasacanon,butVaticanIrejectstheideathattheyaremadecanonicalbybeingdeclaredsuchbytheChurch.TheCatholicChurchteachesthatthecanonicalbooksarecanonicalbecausetheywerewrittenbytheinspirationoftheHolySpiritand,inGod’sprovidentialcare,wereentrustedtotheChurch.TheHolySpiritinspiredacertainnumberofbooks.ChristandhisinspiredapostleshandedthosebooksontotheChurch.Wheneverdoubtersandinnovatorstrytoalterthissacreddeposit,theChurchpromulgatesacatalogueofthosebookswhichhavealwaysbeenacceptedasinspired.TheChurchisnotsomehowabovetheScripture.InsteadtheChurchisScripture’sdulyauthorizedcustodian.

Chapter7WhyProtestantBiblesAreSmaller

IftheCatholicChurchdidnotaddbookstotheBible,whyisitthatmostProtestantbiblestodayomitthesebooks?Itisalittleknownfactthatthingshavenotalwaysbeenastheyaretoday.Before1599,nearlyallProtestantbiblesincludedtheDeuterocanonicalbooks;betweentheyears1526to1631,ProtestantbibleswiththeDeuterocanonweretheruleandnottheexception.[629]ItwasnotuntilthemiddleoftheseventeenthcenturythatthetidebegantoturntowardsmallerbiblesforProtestants.By1831,thebooksoftheDeuterocanon,alongwiththeircross-references,werealmostentirelyexpungedfromProtestanttranslations.ThiseradicationhasbeensocompletethatfewProtestantstodayareawarethatsucheditionsofScriptureeverexisted.ThisprocessoferadicatingtheDeuterocanonbeganwithMartinLuther.

Luther’sInnovation

CatholicapologistssometimesclaimthatMartinLutherremovedtheDeuterocanonicalbooksfromScripture.Thisassertionisnotentirelytrue.Luther’sGermanTranslationoftheScripturesincludedalloftheDeuterocanon.Infact,thecompletionofLuther’sGermanBiblewasdelayedbecauseillnesspreventedhimfromcompletingthesectioncontainingthosebooks!AndsinceLuther’sbible(withitsDeuteros)becameaparadigmforsubsequentProtestanttranslations,mostofthesebiblesalsoincludedthemaswell.Itis,therefore,incorrecttosaythatLutherremovedtheDeuterocanon.Hedid,however,didintroducecertaininnovationsintohistranslationthatledeventuallytosmallerProtestantbibles;innovationswhichweretheculminationofaprocessofdevelopmentwithinLuther’stheology,aprocessthatgainedimpetusfromtheHumanistmovementoftheday.

DuringthefirsthalfoftheMiddleAges,ChristianscholarswerelargelyignorantoftheGreekandHebrewlanguages.Theconsiderableknowledgethesescholarshadgained,oftheteachingsoftheGreekFathersandsoforth,hadbeenacquiredmainlythroughLatintranslations

oftheirworks;andknowledgeofHebrewwaspracticallynon-existent.[630]TheHumanistmovementsoughttoremedythissituationbyemphasizingtheimportanceofareturntotheoriginallanguages.InGermany,onescholarinparticularwasthepioneerofGreekandHebrewstudiesintheRenaissance;hisnamewasJohannReuchlin(1455-1522).ReuchlinhadalreadywonfameforhisworkpromotingtheteachingofGreekwhenhebecamefascinatedwithamysticalHebrewdocumentcalledtheCabbala.BelievingthattheCabbalamightprovideanewavenueforthereconciliationoffaithandscience,ReuchlinfocusedhisbrilliantlinguisticskillsonmasteringtheHebrewlanguage.In1506,hepublishedaHebrewgrammaranddictionarycalledRudimentaHebraica,whichlaterbecameastandardmanualforlearningHebrewforallstudentsnorthoftheAlps.[631]ReuchlinbefriendedJohannStaupitzwhoatthattimewasthepriorofthecloisteredAugustinianmonksatErfurt.In1502,bothofthesemenplayedanactiveroleinthefoundingofthenewUniversityofWittenberg.[632]Reuchlin’steachings,whichespousedJerome’sviewofHebrewVerity,nodoubtinfluencedtheviewsofseveraloftheearlyReformerssuchasJohannStaupitz,MartinLuther(whobecamethefriendofStaupitzinErfurt),AndrewBodenstein(alsoknownasKarlstadt),[633]andperhapsPhilipMelancthon.[634]

ThisemphasisoftheHumanistsupontheimportanceofreadingScriptureintheoriginallanguagesproducedinscholarsatendencytodownplaytheDeuterocanonicalbooks,becausesomeofthemwereavailableatthattimeonlyinGreekorLatin.Jerome’sprestige,ontheotherhand,hitnewheightsintheMiddleAgespreciselybecausehehadlearnedHebrew.Itwaswithinthisatmospherethen,thatLutherbegantodevelophisnewtheology.

Fromearlyon,itappearsthatLutherdidnotalwaysconsidertheDeuterocanontobemereapocrypha.Inatleastoneofhisearlycontroversies,heappearstohaveusedtheDeuterocanonasScriptureinitsfullestsense.TheProtestantscholar,SirHenryHoworth,notesthatLutherappearstohaveusedtheDeuterocanonasauthoritativecanonicalwritingsinhisconflictwiththeChurch:

TheDominicans,thegreatchampionsofPapalclaims,continuedtoattackLuther,andespeciallydidtheydothisatRome,whereoneof

them,SilvesterMaccolinisurnamedPrierias,theofficialcensormadeanespecialassaultuponhim….Lutheranswered[Prierias]inthewordsofAugustinethattheonlyauthorityhecouldacceptinthematterwastheCanonicalScriptures.WhatLutheractuallymeantatthistimebythephrase“eislibris,quiCanoniciappellantur”isnotquiteclear,forwenowfindhimintheResolutionscommentingontheThesispublishedin1518quotingSirach(Luther’sWorks,Weimar,Ed.I.603)whileinhisanswertoPieriashequotesTobias(667)ineachcaseapparentlyasauthoritative.[635]

In1518,LutherfreelyquotedSirachandTobitagainsthisCatholicdetractors;butbythefollowingyear,Luther’sviewoftheDeuterocanonhadtakenadecidedlynegativeturn.

TheLiepsicDisputation

Iftherewasonepersonwhowasnotafraidtogotoe-to-toewiththefieryLutherinpublicdebateitwasJohannEck.In1519,EckagreedtoaseriesofdebateswithKarlstadtandLutherintheElectoralPalaceinLiepsic.ThemostfamousoftheseDisputationstookplaceonJuly4ofthatyear,whenLutherdeniedtheinfallibilityofcouncilsandpopesandassertedthatultimateauthorityofScripturealone.[636]TheSecondDisputationwasonthesubjectofPurgatory.Eckappealedto2Maccabees12:46asaclearandincontestableprooffromScripturethatPurgatoryexists.SecondMaccabees12:46reads:

Andmakingagathering,hecollectedtwelvethousanddrachmsofsilvertoJerusalemforsacrificetobeofferedforthesinsofthedead,thinkingwellandreligiouslyconcerningtheresurrection,(Forifhehadnothopedthattheythatwereslainshouldriseagain,itwouldhaveseemedsuperfluousandvaintoprayforthedead,)Andbecauseheconsideredthatthosewhohadfallenasleepwithgodliness,hadgreatgracelaidupforthem.Itisthereforeaholyandwholesomethoughttoprayforthedead,thattheymaybeloosedfromsins.[637]

OnJuly8,1519,LutherrefusedtoallowMaccabeesintotheargument,stating:

ThereisnoproofofPurgatoryinanyportionofsacredScripture,whichcanenterintotheargument,andserveasaproof;forthebookofMaccabeesnotbeingintheCanon,isofweightwiththefaithful,butavailsnothingwiththeobstinate.[638]

Luther’sresponseissometimesoverstated.LutherdidnotdenythatMaccabeeshadauthority.Ithad(authoritative?)weightwiththefaithful,but,accordingtoLuther,itlackedsufficientweighttomovehimfromhisconvictions.Thisdenialofcanonicalstatuswassomethingnew.AsHoworthnotes:

Thiswasundoubtedlyaveryimportantnewdeparture.ItisquitetruethatthebookinquestionwasnotintheJewishCanon,andthatconsequentlySt.JeromeexcludeditfromhisCanon,buttherecouldbenodoubtaboutitscontinuousacceptancebytheChurchCatholicascanonicalfromtheearliesttimes,northatitwasexpresslyincludedinthelistsofCanonicalbooksissuedbythethreeAfricanCouncilsofHippoin393andofCarthagein397and419,whichwereundertheimmediateinfluenceofAugustine,andwhichconstitutetheearliestcorporatepronouncementonthesubjectmadebytheWesternChurch.[639]

Luther’sappealtotherabbinicalJewishcanonopenedthefieldforEcktoadvance.Heimmediatelycounteredbyinsistingthat1MaccabeeshadalwaysbeenapartoftheChristiancanon,thoughtheJewshad,admittedly,rejectedit.[640]Atthispoint,LutherhadnootheroptionbuttoappealtotheauthorityofJerome.[641]AsHoworthcomments:

Luther,however,clearlyseemstohavethoughtthatthisdisingenuousspecialpleadingawaynotasufficientsupporttohiscase,foritineffectmeantsettingupJeromeasaninfalliblePopetorevisethedecisionoftheChurchuponsuchacriticalmatterasthelegitimatecanonicityofthetwoMaccabeanbooks,uponwhichithadcorporatelyalwaysheldthesameview…HethereforegoesontoaffirmanotherreasonthatshowsathowearlyaperiodinhiscareerhehadreallybrokenwiththeChurchastheultimateruleoffaithandsetupapontificalauthorityofhisown.HesaysheknowsthattheChurchhadacceptedthisbook,buttheChurchcouldnotgiveagreaterauthorityandstrengthtoabookthanitalready

possessedbyitsownvirtue.[642]

SensingperhapsthathehadcorneredLuther,EckappealedtoAugustine’sstatementsinTheCityofGod18.36inwhichheassertsthattheChristianChurchdoesnotfollowtheJewishcanon.Lutherreiteratedthatacouncilcouldn’tgivetoabooksomethingthatitdoesnotpossessbyitsnature.[643]Hisstatementis,ofcourse,true—anditlaterbecameaformaldoctrineoftheCatholicChurch.TheChurchdoesnotinvestabookwithanyspecialpower;rather,itaffirmsandpromulgatesthatwhichithadreceivedasdivineScripturesfromtheApostles.[644]ButLutherwasskippingastep:bywhatprocessisonetolearnwhichbookspossessthisauthoritybynatureandwhichdonot?

Luther’scommentsintheSecondDisputationreflectauniqueperspectivethatheheldoncanonicity.Asalreadynoted,hedidnotdenythatMaccabeeshadweight,butonlythatithadsufficientweighttoprevailoverandagainsthisconvictions.ForLuther,thecanonrepresentedaspectrumofauthorityinsteadofagroupinwhichallitsmembersenjoyedequalauthority.AccordingtoLuther,eachbookcanbemoreorlesscanonical,dependingonitsdegreeofapostolicity.WhatisapostolicityforLuther?AsLutherunderstoodtheterm,apostolicitywasthedegreetowhichabookpreachedthegospelasLutherunderstoodit.[645]Putanotherway,abookwasconsideredapostoliconlytothedegreethatLutherheardhistheologyclearlyconfirmedinit.[646]Theapostolicityorcanonicityofseveralbooks(e.g.Esther,2Maccabees,James,JudeandRevelation)wasthuscalledintoquestion.ThisdenialofcanonicitydidnotexcludeabookfromtheBible.Instead,itwasacanonwithinacanon.Otherwise,LutherwouldhavetestedtheotherJewishapocrypha(e.g.TheBookofEnoch,Jubilees,etal.)forapostolicity/canonicity.[647]

LiketheMarcionites,Ebionites,andGnosticsbeforehim,Luther’stheologicalconvictionsdeterminedwhatconstitutedthecanonicalScriptures.Consequently,MaccabeescouldneverbeallowedfullcanonicalauthoritybecauseitcontradictsLuther’stheology.Therefore,thecanonandcanonicityhadtoberadicallyre-conceptualizedbyLuthertosupporthisgospel.[648]Fromthatmomenton,ProtestantismbegantodenytheinspirationoftheDeuterocanon.

Luther’sGermanTranslation

Luther’sGermanTranslationintroducedmorethanoneradicalinnovation.Withrareexceptions,ChristianbiblesbeforeLutherhadnotonlyincludedtheDeuterocanon,buthadintermixedbythemcategoryamongtheProtocanonoftheOldTestament.[649]EvenJohnWycliffe,consideredbyProtestantsasthegreatrole-modelofbibletranslators,followedthispractice.ItwasLuther’sbiblewhichbrokewiththistraditionalpracticeinfavorofanewchronologicalornearchronologicalorder.ThisnewarrangementmayhaveprovedadvantageousforthosereaderswhowishedtoperusetheBiblecovertocover,buttheneworderremovedtheDeuterocanonicalbooksfromtheirformerplaceinthestoryofsalvation.Luther’sneworderinevitablyledthosewhoreadhisbible(andthetranslationsthatfollowedhis)toviewtheDeuterocanonassomethingextraneoustothewordofGod.[650]Luther’ssecondnoveltywasthegatheringoftheDeuterocanonicalbooksintoanappendixattheendoftheOldTestamentandmarkingthemApocrypha.[651]

Thetitlepageofthisnewappendixisprefacedbythefollowingexplanatoryremark:

Apocrypha–thatis,bookswhicharenotheldequaltotheHolyScriptures,andyetareprofitableandgoodtoread.[652]

WemustnotreadtoomuchintothistitleApocrypha;ashasbeenseen,themeaningofthetermhadbecomequitefluidandconfusedbyLuther’stime.Somewritersusedittomean“spuriouswritingsofmerelyhumanorigin;”othershadnodifficultyusingitforbookstheythemselvesconsideredcanonicalScripture![653]WhatdidLuthermeanbyit?

Luthercertainlydidnotbelieve,norcouldhebelieve,thattheDeuterocanonwasequaltotheProtocanon;butthefactthatthesebookswerestill,insomesense,apartoftheOldTestamentisevidencedbythecolophonheplacesafterhis“Apocrypha”intheappendix:“TheendofthebooksoftheOldTestament.”[654]Althoughsegregatedanddevalued,theDeuterocanonstillremainedpartofLuther’sOldTestamentcorpus.

Luther’sownuseoftheDeuterocanonoughttospeakagainstthelaternotionthatCatholicssomehowfoistedstrange,alienbooksintotheBible

wheretheyneverbelonged.Afterall,ifnoonehadeverreallyconsideredthesebooksScripture,whybothertoqualifythemasnotbeingequaltoScripture?Whynotsimplypublishabiblewithoutthemandletitstand,asTrenthadpublisheditscanonwithoutcomment?Lutherhesitatedtodosobecausesuchamovewouldhavebeentooradicalevenforhisfollowers.NosuchbiblehadeverbeenpublishedinthehistoryofChristendom—notevenbyJerome.Instead,LutherreformattedtheScriptures.Theresultingeditionwasstillunlikeanybibleeverseenbefore,butatleastthechangescouldbejustifiedasreflectingcertaindoubtsentertainedbysomevenerabledoctors.Luther,inotherwords,movedslowlywithhisoriginalGermanbible—butthemoveundoubtedlypavedthewayformoreradicalchangestocome.[655]

ContinentalProtestantism

WhileLuther’sProtestantcontemporariesquicklyadoptedhisboldattitudetowardtheDeuterocanon,theysoonabandonedhisshakyrationalizationfordoingso.Indeed,sixteenthcenturyjustificationsforthedemotionvariedwidely(thoughtheappealtothe“infallible”authorityofJeromewasseldomneglected).

JoseiasOsiander,aLutheranevangelist,finishedaneweditionofJerome’sVulgateinLatinwithcertaincorrectionsfromtheHebrew.ItwaspublishedinDecember1522,thesamemonththatLuther’sNewTestamentappeared.OsianderstrictlyfollowsJeromeandadoptshiscanon.Hemakes,however,makesacuriousadmissionconcerningthebookofMaccabees,whichLutherflatlyrejectedasuncanonical.Hecommentsthat“Maccabees,althoughnotintheHebrewCanon,wereclassedbytheChurchamongdivinehistories.”[656]

SwissBibles

LikeLuther,Oecolampadius(1482-1531),arepresentativeoftheGermanchurchesinSwitzerland,placedtheDeuterocanononalevelbelowthatofScripture.HesharedLuther’sviewonthedegreesofcanonicity.InhisLettertotheWaldenses,Oecolampadiuswrites:

WedonotthedespiseJudith,Tobit,Baruch,thelasttwobooksofEsdras,thethreebooksofMaccabees,thelasttwochaptersofDaniel,andwedonotallowthemDivineauthority,equalwiththose

others[oftheHebrewcanon].[657]IntheNewTestamentwereceivefourGospels,withtheActsoftheApostles,andfourteenEpistlesofSt.Paul,andsevenCatholicEpistles,togetherwiththeApocalypse;althoughwedonotcomparetheApocalypse,theEpistlesofJames,andJude,and2Peterand2,3,Johnwiththerest.[658]

TheAlsatianZwinglite,LeoJud,producedatranslationofScriptureknownastheZurichBible(1531).TheDeuterocanonisincludedinanappendixtitled“Apocryphi.”Judjustifieshisinclusionoftheappendixsothatthosewhoreadthemandlikethemwillnotcomplainabouttheirabsence.HeclaimstohavefollowedtheFathersinthattheydidnotincludetheDeuterocanonamongtheHolyScripture.However,Judstates,

…[Y]etthey[theDeuterocanon]containmuchwhichinnowaycontradictsthebiblicalwritings,faithandlove,andsomethingswhicharefoundedinGod’sword.[659]

Completedin1531,threeyearsbeforethepublicationofLuther’sbible,theZurichBiblematchesLuther’stranslationincontentsandorder.[660]AnotherprefaceoftheZurichBible,commonlyascribedtoZwingli,statesthattheApocryphaisnothighlyesteemed,beinglessclearandaccuratethattheProtocanon,althoughthebookscontainmuchthatistrueanduseful.Zwinglileavesituptothereadertodividethegoodfromthebad.LikeJud’spreface,ZwinglistatesthattheApocryphahasbeenincludedintheZurichBible“sothatnoonemaycomplainoflackinganything,andeachmayfindwhatistohistaste.”[661]JustasLuthercouldnot“hearthegospelpreached”inthebooksoftheDeuterocanon,Zwinglididnotfindtheircontentstobealtogetherclear.Doubtless,thesedistortedorblurredpassagesofZwingli’scorrespondtothosetextssupportingCatholicdoctrine.Forexample,whenCatholicscitedBaruch3:4toconfirmthedoctrineofPurgatory,Zwingli,intheworkConcludingDiscourses(1523),retortedthatBaruchcontainslegendsandisnotcanonical.Yetinspiteofsuchappealsbyhisopponents,ZwinglididnotfeelcompelledtoremovetheDeuterocanonentirelyfromtheBible;tohimtheywereOldTestamentapocrypha—liketheProtos,insomesense,butwithoutthesame“clarityofScripture”(claritasscripturae).

Inthe1543editionoftheLatinZurichBible,thetitleoftheApocryphi

appendixwaschangedto“ChurchBooks”(EcclesiasticiLibri).Theprefacestates:

ChurchBookswhichtheChurchalwaysheldtobeholybooks,worthyforthepioustoread.Yettheywerenotgivenequalauthoritywiththecanonicalwritings.Ourforefatherswantedthemtobereadinthechurches,butnotdrawnontoconfirmtheauthorityoffaith(articlesoffaith).Sotheywerecalledapocrypha,awordwhichisnotineveryrespectappropriateorsuitableforthem.TheyhadnovalidityamongtheHebrews,butwerebroughttolightagainamongtheGreeks.[662]

ThetitleEcclesiasticalBooksorChurchBooksnodoubtcomesfromRufinus.Jerome’sopinionisstillretained,albeitwithreservationsconcerningJerome’suseofthetermapocrypha.ItissignificantthattheauthorsofthisPrefaceadmitsthattheFatherswantedtheDeuterosreadinchurch,yettheystillfeeltheneedtoaddtheold(andincoherent)caveataboutusingthemtoconfirmdoctrine.[663]

JohnCalvin

AnotherkeyfigureintheearlyProtestantReformationisJohnCalvin(1509–1564).BeforeweexamineCalvin’sviewofthecanon,however,weneedfirsttoexaminetheworkofhiscousinOlivetanwhoproducedthefamousOlivetanBible(1535).[664]BecauseOlivetanwasnotaGreekscholar,histranslationhadtoundergonumerousrevisionsandcorrections.FollowingLuther’sandtheZurichBible,OlivetanplacedtheDeuterocanonintoanappendixmarkedApocrypha.ThiseditioncontradictedtheZurichBiblebystatingthattheDeuterocanon(apocrypha)isnottobepubliclyreadinchurch,butonlyprivatelyandapart(ensecretetapari).Theyhavebeensegregatedattherearofthebookto“makeitclearwhichbooksgivebindingtestimony,andwhichdonot.”[665]TheprefacespecificallyappealstoJeromeandHebrewVerityasjustificationfortheiromission.

The1540editionoftheGenevaBiblereplacedOlivetan’sprefacetotheApocryphawithonefromJohnCalvin.HereiswhatCalvinwroteregardingthedisputedbooks:

Thesebooks,calledApocrypha,havealwaysbeendistinguished

fromthewritingswhichwerewithoutdifficultycalledHolyScripture.FortheChurchFathers(Anciens)wishedtoavoidthedangerofmixingprofanebookswiththosewhichwerecertainly(pourcertain)broughtforthbytheHolySpirit.Thatiswhytheymadealist,whichtheycalledacanon.Thewordmeansthateverythingwhichbelongstoitwasafirmrule(reiglecertaine)towhichoneshouldhold…ItistruethattheApocryphaisnottobedespised,insofarasitcontainsgoodandusefulteaching.YetthereisgoodreasonforwhatwasgivenusbytheHolySpirittohaveprecedenceoverwhathascomefromhumanbeings.ThusallChristians,followingwhatSt.Jeromesaid,readtheApocrypha,andtakefromitteaching‘foredification’[Eph4:12].Butinordertoremindthemthatthesewritingscannotprovidefullassurance(pleineasseurance)oftheirfaith,itistobenotedthattheydonotcontainanysatisfyingtestimony.

NoneofthesebookswasinanywayacceptedbytheHebrews,andtheiroriginaltextsarenotinHebrew,butinGreek.Itiscorrectthattoday,agreatpartofthemarefoundinHebrew.Butitmaybethattheywere[back]translatedfromtheGreek.Thesafestthingisthereforetoholdtowhatisextantinthelanguageinwhichtheyareusuallyfound...[666]

Calvin’sprefacesuffersfromnumerousoverstatementsandblunders.Forexample,hestatesthatthebooksofthe“Apocrypha”havealwaysbeendistinguishedfromScripture“withoutdifficulty”.Anyonewhohasfollowedthehistoricaloverviewpresentedsofarknowsthatthisissimplynotthecase.ForeveryJeromeorAmphilochiuswhoentertaineddoubtstherearethreeAugustinesorChrysostoms;andevenmanyofthewriterswhodoseemtospeakagainsttheDeuterosareoftenfoundquotingthemasScriptureelsewhere!EvenJeromebendshisownusagetothatofhisday.Furthermore,thesamewriterswhodoubtedtheDeuterosoftendoubtedProtocanonicalbooksaswell;theholy,God-breathedbookofEstherfaresespeciallypoorlyinthisregard.SowhatdoesCalvinmeanby“withoutdifficulty?”Asseeninpreviouschapters,religiousliteraturehasnotalwaysbeendividedintocanonical(sacred)andapocrypha(profane).Manytimes,athree-folddivisionwasused,andspacewasmadefornon-canonical,yetnon-apocryphalworks.Calvin

alsoinsinuatesthattheearlyFatherscalledtheDeuterocanonApocrypha.Thisistrueonlyfromthefifthcenturyon.BeforeJerome,theDeuterocanonwasnevercalledApocryphaandwasoftenexplicitlydistinguishedfromit.

CalvinthendeniesthattheDeuterocanonisinspired,statingthattheHebrewsnever,inanyway,acceptedtheDeuterocanon.Again,areviewofthematerialcontainedintheearlychaptersofthepresentworkoughteasilytodispelthiswhollyerroneousbelief.HegoesontoinsistthatalloftheDeuterocanonwasoriginallywritteninGreekandnotHebrew.NotevenJeromeandhissympathizersmadethiserror;evenwithoutthebenefitofmorerecentdiscoveriestheyknewverywellthatthebookofSirachwasoriginallycomposedinHebrew.[667]Today,scholarsadmitthatalloftheDeuterocanon—withtheexceptionofWisdomand2Maccabees—wasoriginallycomposedinHebrew.

Calvin’sviewsontheDeuterocanonarefurtherexplicatedinapolemicaltracttitled,“AntidotetotheCouncilofTrent.”InhiscritiqueoftheFourthSessionofTrent,CalvinwarnsthatifthedecreeonthecanonandSacredTraditionwereallowedtostand,itwouldspellthedefeatofProtestantism.[668]Therefore,hesarcasticallycallsthissessionthe“…victoriousandnow,asitwere,triumphalSession…”[669]InsteadofrefutingCouncil’sdecreepointbypoint,however,Calvinonlyvaguelyandsporadicallyfocuseshisattentiononthesubjectofthecanon,preferring,instead,tospendmostofhistimeattackingthedeficienciesoftheLatinVulgate.Inhisfirstpassonthecanon,Calvinwritesthefollowing:

Addtothis,thatthey[theFathersatTrent]providethemselveswithnewsupportswhentheygivefullauthoritytotheApocryphalbooks.OutofthesecondoftheMaccabeestheywillprovePurgatoryandtheworshipofsaints;outofTobitsatisfactions,exorcisms,andwhatnot.FromEcclesiasticustheywillborrownotalittle.Forfromwhencecouldtheybetterdrawtheirdregs?Iamnotoneofthose,however,whowouldentirelydisapprovethereadingofthosebooks;butingivingthemanauthoritywhichtheyneverbeforepossessed,whatendwassoughtbutjusttohavetheuseofspuriouspaintincolouringtheirerrors?[670]

Theauthor’sreferencetotheChurchproviding“newsupports”issurely

Theauthor’sreferencetotheChurchproviding“newsupports”issurelymoreofasneerthanastatementoffact—andCalvinmusthaveknownittobeso.Catholicapologists(e.g.Herbon,Clichtovius,DeCastro,Bellermine,etal.)hadalwaysappealedtothesebooksindefenseofthedoctrinesinquestion,beginningwithJohannEck’sappealto2MaccabeesattheLiepsicDisputationof1519.Moreover,LutherandWycliffethemselveshadboth,atonetime,usedtheDeuterocanontoconfirmdoctrine.Laterinthesametract,Calvinrevisitsthetopicofthecanoninamoredetailedfashion:

OftheiradmittingalltheBookspromiscuouslyintotheCanon,IsaynothingmorethanitgoesagainsttheconsentoftheprimitiveChurch.ItiswellknownthatJeromestatesasthecommonopinionofearliertimes.AndRufinus,speakingofthematterasnotatallcontroverted,declareswithJerome,thatEcclesiasticus,theWisdomofSolomon,Tobit,Judith,andthehistoryoftheMaccabees,werecalledbytheFathersnotcanonicalbutecclesiasticalbooks,whichmightindeedbereadtothepeople,butwerenotentitledtoestablishdoctrine.Iamnot,however,unawarethatthesameviewonwhichtheFathersofTrentnowinsistwasheldinthecouncilofCarthage.Thesame,too,wasfollowedbyAugustineinhisTreatiseonChristianDoctrine;butashetestifiesthatallofhisagedidnottakethesameview,letusassumethatthepointwasthenundecided.Butifitweretobedecidedbyargumentsdrawnfromthecaseitself,manythingsbesidethephraseologywouldshewthatthoseBookswhichtheFathersofTrentraisesohighmustsinktoalowerplace.Nottomentionotherthings,whoeveritwasthatwrotethehistoryofMaccabeesexpressesawish,attheend,thathemayhavewrittenwellandcongruously;butifnot,heaskspardon.HowveryalienthisacknowledgmentfromthemajestyoftheHolySpirit![671]

Thesestatementsarealmostthemirrorimageofwhatwehaveseeninoursurvey.CalvinholdsJerome’soutlooktobethe“commonopinionofearliertimes.”[672]Jeromehimself,whointroducedHebrewVeritywithatriumphantairworthyofGalileo,knewthatthetruthwasotherwise.ThewordofAugustine,inconcedingthatdoubtshadbeenraised,ispresentedbyCalvinasjustificationforassuming“thatthepointwasthen

undecided.”[673]Inreality,Augustine’swholecaseforretainingtheDeuterosisbasedontheclearconsensusoftheearlyChurch,especiallythosechurcheswithanapostolicorigin![674]Nevertheless,CalvinisforcedtoconcedethattheCouncilofTrenthadfollowedthedecreesoftheCouncilofCarthageandthewritingsofAugustine.Sensing,perhaps,thathisconclusionisnotsufficienttooverturnthedecreeofTrent,CalvinswitchestacticsfromahistoricallybasedargumenttooneconcerningtheliteraryqualityofMaccabees.[675]

AsimilarappealismadeinCalvin’sInstitutesoftheChristianReligion,inwhichtheauthorwrites:

TothepassagewhichtheyproducefromthehistoryoftheMaccabees(1Mc12:43),Iwillnotdeigntoreply,lestIshouldseemtoincludethatworkamongthecanonicalbooks.ButAugustineholdsittobecanonical.First,withwhatdegreeofconfidence?“TheJews,”sayshe,“donotholdthebookoftheMaccabeesastheydotheLaw,theProphets,andthePsalms,towhichtheLordbearstestimonyastohisownwitnesses,saying,‘OughtnotallthingswhicharewrittenintheLaw,andthePsalms,andtheProphets,concerningmebefulfilled?’(Lk24:44).ButithasbeenreceivedbytheChurchnotuselessly,ifitbereadorheardwithsoberness.”Jerome,however,unhesitatinglyaffirms,thatitisofnoauthorityinestablishingdoctrine;andfromtheancientlittlebook,DeExpositioneSymboli,whichbearsthenameofCyprian,itisplainthatitwasinnoestimationintheancientChurch.AndwhydoIherecontendinvain?Asiftheauthorhimselfdidnotsufficientlyshowwhatdegreeofdeferenceistobepaidhim,whenintheendheaskspardonforanythinglessproperlyexpressed(2Mc15:38).Hewhoconfessesthathiswritingsstandinneedofpardon,certainlyproclaimsthattheyarenotoraclesoftheHolySpirit.Wemayadd,thatthepietyofJudasiscommendedfornootherreasonthanforhavingafirmhopeofthefinalresurrection,insendinghisoblationforthedeadtoJerusalem.Forthewriterofthehistorydoesnotrepresentwhathedidasfurnishingthepriceofredemption,butmerelythattheymightbepartakersofeternallife,withtheothersaintswhohadfallenfortheircountryandreligion.Theact,indeed,wasnotfreefromsuperstitionandmisguidedzeal;butitismere

fatuitytoextendthelegalsacrificetous,seeingweareassuredthatthesacrificestheninuseceasedontheadventofChrist.[676]

Elsewhereinthesamework,CalvinaddressestheroleoftheChurchinpromulgatingacanon:

TheirdogmawithregardtothepowerofapprovingScriptureIintentionallyomit.FortosubjecttheoraclesofGodinthiswaytothecensureofmen,andholdthattheyaresanctionedbecausetheypleasemen,isablasphemywhichdeservesnottobementioned.Besides,Ihavealreadytoucheduponit,(Book1chap.7,8,sec.9.)Iwillaskthemonequestionhowever.IftheauthorityofScriptureisfoundedontheapprobationofthechurch,willtheyquotethedecreeofacounciltothateffect?Ibelievetheycannot.Why,then,didAriusallowhimselftobevanquishedattheCouncilofNicebypassagesadducedfromtheGospelofJohn?Accordingtothese,hewasatlibertytorepudiatethem,astheyhadnotpreviouslybeenapprovedbyanygeneralcouncil.Theyallegeanoldcatalogue,whichtheycalltheCanon,andsaythatitoriginatedinadecisionoftheChurch.ButIagainask,inwhatcouncilwasthatCanonpublished?Heretheymustbedumb.Besides,IwishtoknowwhattheybelievethatCanontobe.ForIseethattheancientsarelittleagreedwithregardtoit.IfeffectistobegiventowhatJeromesays,(Praef.inLib.Salom.)theMaccabees,Tobit,Ecclesiasticus,andthelike,musttaketheirplaceintheApocryphal:butthistheywillnottolerateonanyaccount.[677]

ItmaybetruethatsomecarelessCatholicapologistshavepropoundedaChurchwhichmakesabookscripturalbyawardingitsapproval;thiscertainlyisnottheChurch’sownaccountofitself.[678]ScripturebecameScriptureasitwasbeingwritten,byvirtueofthefactthatGodwasactingasitsprimaryauthorbytheactionofHisHolySpirit.[679]Itcangainorlosenothingofthisintrinsicqualitybybeingeitherrecognizedbymen,orforgottenbythem.Yetrecognitionbymenisimportant—nottothebooksthemselvesbuttothemen!HumanityneedsanaccurateaccountofwhichbookshavereceivedGod’sinspirationandwhichbookshavenot—acanon,inotherwords—andthisiswherethewitnessoftheChurchcomesin.TheChurchisChrist’sbridewhobearswitnesstothedivine

inspirationofagivensetofbooks,especiallythroughtheirreadingandproclamationinthesacredliturgy.SoCalvin’sattackhereisastrawman;ifanyoneis“subjectingtheoraclesofGod…tothecensureofmen”itisthosewhowouldallowtheopinionsofalonescholar(andJeromeistheonlyauthorityCalvinseemsabletoname)toexpungeawholeclassofvenerablebookssolelyonthebasisofhissuperiorknowledgeoftheHebrewlanguage.

Surprisingly,CalvintoousedtheDeuterocanonearlyinhiscareerinamannerquiteunlikehisfollowersoftoday.Forexample,heliststheangelRaphael(Tb12:15)withMichaelandGabriel.CalvinalsomakesextensiveuseofthebookofWisdominhistreatmentonthebodyandsoulinhisPsychopannychia(1542),onlyoccasionallyqualifyingitsauthority.InCalvin’sInstitutes(1539),theauthorspeaksofWisdomandSirachbeingworksofSolomon,asdidtheearlyFathers;however,hegoesonquicklytodiscountthisascriptionbecauseSirach15:14-17teachesthe“seriousdoctrinalerror”offreewill.[680]MostsurprisingofallisCalvin’suseofBaruchanditssubsequentcorrections.Neuserwrites:

ItissignificantthatCalvin,intheInstitutesof1536,referstoBaruch3.12-14andJames3.17forthedivineattributes:sapientia,justitia,bonitas,misericordia,veritas,virtusacvita.YetasearlyastheInstitutesof1539,thisstatementwasnolongermade.Similarly,inthesectiononprayerinthefirstInstitutes,Baruch2.18-20and3.2werequoted,inordertocommendhumblesubmissionbeforeGod.IntheintroductionCalvinwrites:Alterveropropheta(Bar2)scribit.Yetasearlyasthe1539Institutes,Calvincorrectsthis:‘Verytrueandveryholyisanotherwordwhichanunknownauthor(whoeverhewas)wrote,andwhichisattributedtotheprophetBaruch.’ForCalvin,itremainstruethatthe‘scribe’BaruchintheBookofJeremiahisa‘prophet,’buthequestionswhetherheisalsotheauthoroftheBookofBaruch.InthePsychopannychia(1542),someoftheevidenceistakenfromthisapocryphalbook.ToprovethatGodisthesourceoflife,the‘prophet’Baruch(3.14)isquoted.Whenthe‘prophet’Baruch2.17isusedtoexplainPsalm115.17:‘thedeadwillnotpraisethee,’itisinordertoprovethat‘thedead’meansthespiritually,notthephysicallydead.Yetinthesecond

editionof1545,theword‘prophecy’(prophetia)isomitted:CalvinsayssimplyinlibroBaruch.HoweverwelcomeCalvinmayfindthisprooftext,hedoesnotforgetthatBaruchisoftheApocrypha.[681]

SeveralcitationsfromthebooksofTobit,Wisdom,Sirach,Baruch,andthetwobooksofMaccabeesremaineveninthelatereditionsoftheInstitutes.

TheProtestantConfessions

OnFebruary11,1546,theCouncilofTrentsolemnlyreaffirmedthetraditionalcanonoftheOldTestament.Fortheirpart,someProtestantcommunionsalsoraisedthecanontothelevelofdogmathroughvariousConfessionsofFaith.TheseConfessionsarenotuniversallyacceptedinProtestantism.Forexample,LutheranshaveneverraisedthecanonofScripturetothelevelofdogma.Eventoday’sLutherans,whofollowedthemoreradicalexamplesetbytheirfounder’sGermanbible,havenotproducedanybindingdeclarationonthecanon.

ThefollowingareexcerptsonthesubjectofthecanonfromsomeofthemoreinfluentialProtestantConfessions.

TheBelgicConfession(1561)

TheBelgicConfessionisperhapstheoldestConfessioninReformedProtestantism.ComposedintheLowlands(moderndayBelgium)byGuidodeBres,theBelgicConfessionraisesthecanonofScripturetothelevelofdogma.TheFourthArticleproducesalistofOldandNewTestamentbooks“forwhichthereisnoquarrelatall.”[682]ThislistincludestheProtestantOldTestamentcanon.Thefollowingarticleexplainswhytheauthorsacceptedthesebooksascanonicalandauthoritative:

Andwebelievewithoutadoubtallthingscontainedinthem—notsomuchbecausethechurchreceivesandapprovesthemassuchbutaboveallbecausetheHolySpirittestifiesinourheartsthattheyarefromGod,andalsobecausetheyprovethemselvestobefromGod.Foreventheblindthemselvesareabletoseethatthethingspredictedinthemdohappen.[683]

TheSixthArticleofthesameConfessionreads:

Wedistinguishthosesacredbooksfromtheapocryphal,namely:[liststheDeuterocanon].AllofwhichtheChurchmayreadandtakeinstructionfrom,sofarastheyagreewiththecanonicalbooks;buttheyarefarfromhavingsuchpowerandefficacy,asthatwemayfromtheirtestimonyconfirmanypointoffaith,oroftheChristianreligion;muchlessdetractfromtheauthorityoftheothersacredbooks.[684]

TheFrench(Gallican)Confession(1559)

ComposedbythefirstnationalProtestantsynodinParis,thesynodadoptedmanyofthedoctrinesproposedbyCalvin.InArticle3,theFrenchConfessionaddressedthestatusofthecanon:

Weknowthesebooks[theshortercanon]tobecanonical,andthesureruleofourfaith,notsomuchbythecommonaccordandconsentoftheChurch,asbythetestimonyandinwardilluminationoftheHolySpirit,whichenablesustodistinguishthemfromotherecclesiasticalbooksuponwhich,howeveruseful,wecannotfoundanyarticlesoffaith.[685]

Here,theConfessionwasapparentlyapplyingthefollowingtextfromCalvin’sInstitutestothecanon:

ButalthoughwemaymaintainthesacredWordofGodagainstgainsayers,itdoesnotfollowthatweshallforthwithimplantthecertaintywhichfaithrequiresintheirhearts.Profanementhinkthatreligionrestsonlyonopinion,and,thereforethattheymaynotbelievefoolishly,oronslightgroundsdesireandinsiststohaveitprovedbyreasonthatMosesandtheprophetsweredivinelyinspired.ButIanswer,thatthetestimonyoftheSpiritissuperiortoreason.ForasGodalonecanproperlybearwitnesstohisownwords,sothesewordswillnotobtainfullcreditintheheartsofmen,untiltheyaresealedbytheinwardtestimonyoftheSpirit.[686]

CommentingontheFrenchConfession,NeusercontendsthatCalvin’steachingabouttheinnertestimonyoftheHolySpiritwasareferencetotheSpirit’sworkofconfirmingthebeliever’sfaithinScripture;notatestofcanonicity.ItistheFrenchConfession,notCalvin’sInstituteswhichextendedthe“innertestimony”toincludethediscernmentofwhich

booksfunctionastheruleoffaithandwhichonesdonot.[687]

TheSynodofDort(1618–1619)

TheProtestantReformedSynodofDortalsoaddressedtheproblemoftheDeuterocanon.SeveralofitsmembersdemandedthattheSynodinsistupontheremovaloftheApocryphafromtheGenevaBible.[688]Nevertheless,theirmotionfailedtocarryandtheapprovedversionofScriptureendorsedbytheSynodincludedtheso-calledApocrypha.However,thedissentingpartydidwinanumberofconcessions.Forexample,DortadoptedtheSixthArticleoftheBelgicConfession(1561),whichstronglyinveighedagainstthebooksinquestion.Italsorecommendedthatthesebooksbeprintedinsmallertypethantheotherbooksinordertomakethemconspicuous,andthatderogatorynotesbeaddedtotheirmargins.DortalsorecommendedthattheappendixcontainingtheDeuterosbemoved,frombetweenthetwoTestamentswhereLutherhadplacedthem,tothebackoftheBible,creatinganevengreaterphysicaldistancefromtheirformerplacewithinthecorpusofthetext.TheDutchBibleof1637carriedoutthedictatesoftheSynodofDort,completewithacriticalprefaceandnotesinthemarginexplainingthepointswherethesebooksweresupposedtocontradicttheProtocanon.ItbecamethestandardbiblefortheRemonstrantsaswellasfortheReformedChurchofHolland.

Giventhehistoricaltrajectoryoutlined,itshouldnothavebeendifficulttopredictwhatwouldhappeneventually.Atthebeginning,duringhisearlyconfrontationswithPope,LutherseemsperfectlywillingtousetheDeuterocanontoconfirmdoctrine.Later,whencorneredinadebate,theysuddenlylacktheauthoritytomovehimfromhisposition.RecallinghisdaysatWittenbergunderReuchlin,heseizesuponthedoubtsofJerome,andthebooksbecomeApocryphafromnowon.Nevertheless,hehesitatestopublishabiblewithoutthem.Instead,hegathersthemintoanappendixattheendofhisOldTestament—stillpartoftheBiblesomehow,butnotreally.TheSynodofDorttakesLuther’sinnovationonestepfurther;bysegregatingtheancientbooksevenmoreandmakingotherchangesdesignedtocastdoubt.Sadly,asetofbookswhichwereoncetrumpetedbytheFathersasdivineScripturecontainingthewordsoftheProphets,havebeenreducedtojockeyingforspaceinthepartof

theBibleusuallyreservedformapsandbaptismalrecords!Thenextstep,ofcourse,wastheirtotalexclusionfromProtestantbibles.

EnglishProtestantism

TheEnglishReformationdifferedconsiderablyfromthatwhichtookplaceontheEuropeancontinent.Allthedifferentdoctrinalanddisciplinarianvariationswerekeptundertheoneroofofthestate-sponsoredChurch.KingHenryVIIIhadrejectedpapalauthorityandsethimselfupastheheadoftheChurchinEngland;yetHenry,quiteunliketheReformersonthecontinent,didnotdesirearadicalbreakwiththeOldFaith.Hewas,onthecontrary,quiteconservativeinhistheologyandapersecutorofLutheranism.HenrywishedonlytooccupyhimselftheplaceintheEnglishChurchwhichhadformerlybeenoccupiedbythepope.Therewerethose,however,whowishedtomovethisnew,independentChurchofEnglandinamoredistinctlyProtestantdirection.ThismeantthattheDeuterocanonbecame,astimewenton,asourceofcontentionbetweenthosecontendingforamoreProtestanttheologyandthosewishingtoretainsomethingmoreliketheoriginalCatholicFaithoftheEnglish.

Thestoryofhowthesebookswereaccepted,thenstigmatized,andeventuallyremovedaltogetherisreflectedinthesuccessionofEnglishbiblesandintheofficialPrayerBooksoftheAnglicanChurch.

TheMylesCoverdaleBible(1535)

PrintedinZurichin1535,theEnglishMylesCoverdaleBiblecontinuesthetraditionofLutherandCalvinbyplacingtheDeuterocanoninaseparateappendix.CoverdalefollowedmuchthesamelineasZwingli’sZurichBible.ZwinglifeltthattheDeuterocanoncouldnotbeusedtoconfirmdoctrinebecauseitdidnotenjoythesamedoctrinalclarityastheProtocanon.However,thebooksweregoodandprofitabletoread.Coverdaleessentiallyheldthesameopinion,onlyhespokeof“darksentences”intheDeuterocanonthatdifferedfromtheopenandmanifesttruthoftheProtocanon(asifnooneeverfinds“darksentences”inthePsalmsorEzekiel!).[689]

WilliamTyndale(1494–1536)

ItiscommonlybelievedthatthehonorofproducingthefirstEnglish

translationoftheNewTestamentbelongstoWilliamTyndale(thehonormayactuallybelongtoCoverdale,butthishasnotbeensolidlyestablished).TyndalediedbeforehecouldbeginatranslationoftheOldTestament,butitisreasonablycertainthathistranslationwouldhaveincludedtheDeuterocanoninanappendixbetweentheOldandNewTestaments.[690]Anindicationofhisthoughtsinthemattercanbegainedbyhisinclusion,inanappendixtothe1534revisionofhisNewTestament,oftworeadingsfromSirachandWisdomintendedtobereadduringparticularfeastdays.[691]

TheMatthew’sBible(1537)

TheMatthew’sBibleisareworkingofboththeCoverdaleTranslationandtheTyndaleTranslation.TheDeuterocanonisagainplacedinanappendix.ThecautionaryremarksaretakenlargelyfromCalvin’sprefaceintheOlivetanBible(1535).[692]Curiously,the1539and1540editionsoftheMatthew’sBiblechangedthetitleoftheappendixfromApocryphatoHagiographa,atermusuallyreservedtodenoteasectionofthecanonicalOldTestament.

TheTaverner’sBible(1539)

ThisBiblewasareworkingoftheMatthew’sBible,producedlargelybyEdmundBecke.TheDeuterocanon(alongwith3Maccabees)isplacedinanappendix,combinedwithaprefaceexplainingwhythesebooksweregoodtoreadbutnottobeconsideredinspiredScripture.

TheGreatBible(1539)

EditedbyCoverdale,usingtheMatthew’sBibleasafoundation,TheGreatBiblewascommissionedbyKingHenryVIIIthroughtheauspicesofthenArchbishopofCanterburyThomasCranmer.ItwasintendedtofunctionastheAuthorizedVersionofScripture,andacopyofthisBiblewastobesuppliedtoeveryparishchurch.TheGreatBiblewentthroughseveneditions,allofwhichincludedtheDeuterocanon.Thefirstedition(1539)sportedCoverdale’spreface.TheGreatBibletitledtheDeuterocanonicalappendixApocrypha,butlikesomeeditionsoftheMatthew’sBible,thetitlewaschanged.[693]Inlatereditions,theprefacewastitled“ThevolumeofthebookscalledtheHagiographa,”or“ThevolumeofthebookscalledtheApocrypha,containingthebooks

following,”or“ThefourthpartoftheBible.”ThisfirstAuthorizedVersionofEnglishScripturetherefore,includedthebooksoftheDeuterocanon—andinamannerrecognizingthemas,insomesense,apartoftheOldTestament.

Geneva“Breeches”Bible(1560)

FamedforitsrenderingofGenesis3:7(AdamandEvemaking“breeches”forthemselvesoutoffigleaves),the1560GenevaBibleaffixedaprefacetoits“Apocrypha”explainingthewritingsas“thosebooksthatwerenottobereceivedbycommonconsentortobereadorexpoundedpubliclyinchurch.TheycouldonlyprovedoctrineinasmuchastheyagreewiththeProtocanon.”[694]

Ofhowthiscommonconsentmightbecomputed,thereisnoexplanation.Thestatement,however,thatthesebookswerenot“readorexpoundedpubliclyinchurch”canbeeasilyestablishedascompletelyfalse.WehavealreadydemonstratedthattheDeuteroswereoften,andfromtheearliesttimes,prescribedtobereadintheChurch.

ThesevariousEnglishtranslationsreflecttheebbandflowofAnglicanthoughtontheDeuterocanon.TheauthorizedbiblesoftenreflectsomethingapproachingarealacceptanceoftheDeuterocanonasScripture.Thosetranslationsdependinguponforeignentities(e.g.,theZwingliandtheZurichBible)usuallytooktheoppositeapproach:reducingtheDeuterocanontoapocrypha;yetrefusing,nevertheless,toeliminatesuch“merelyhumanwriting”frombetweenthetwocoversofScripture.

ThechangewithintheChurchofEnglandcanbeevenmorestrikinglyseenintheofficialarticlesofFaiththatpromulgatedbythatchurch.

TheTenArticles(1536),TheBishops’Book(1537)andTheKing’sBook(1546)

InordertoretainpeaceandunityintheEnglishChurch,KingHenryVIIIimposedtheTenArticlesasacompromise.ArticleOneassertsthattheFaithrestednotonlyuponthe“wholebodyandcanonoftheBible”butalsoupontheCreedsaswell.InArticleTen,PrayersfortheDeadareencouragedandsupportedbyaprooftexttakenfromthe2Maccabees.

In1537,acommitteesetupbyArchbishopCranmerrevisedtheTenArticlesbutleftthistenthessentiallyasitwasintheoriginal.TheKingdisapprovedofCranmer’srevision,however,anditnevergainedanyauthoritativesanction.In1546,HenryVIIIpublishedTheNecessaryDoctrineandEraditionofAnyChristianMan,whichservedasastatementofFaithfortheChurchofEnglanduntilHenry’sdeathin1547.It,too,includedastatementonprayersforthesoulsdeparted,alongwiththesamereferenceto2Maccabees.AseriesofnewarticlesweredrawnupduringthereignofEdwardVI,butwerewithdrawnaftertheaccessionoftheCatholicQueenMaryin1553.However,CranmerhadalreadyissuedatextoftheForty-twoArticles(1553).Thelater(andmorefamous)Thirty-nineArticleswerebasedlargelyuponthiswork.

TheThirty-nineArticles(1562)

In1562,theChurchofEnglandadoptedtheThirty-nineArticlestoserveasadoctrinalmeasuringrodfortheProtestantEnglishChurch.[695]TheSixthArticleprovidesalistoftheOldandNewTestamentbooksandcloseswiththefollowingdecree:

InthenameofHolyScripture,wedounderstandthoseCanonicalbooksoftheOldandNewTestaments,ofwhoseauthoritywasneveranydoubtintheChurch.OfthenamesandnumberoftheCanonicalBooks…[liststheshortcanonoftheOldTestament]…AllthebooksoftheNewTestament,astheyarecommonlyreceived,wedoreceive,andaccountthemcanonical.Andtheotherbooks(asHierome[Jerome]saith)theChurchdothreadforexampleoflifeandinstructionofmanners;butyetdothitnotapplythemtoestablishanydoctrine.Sucharethesefollowing[ListstheDeuterocanonand3and4Esdras].

TheSixthArticle’sstatementassertion,thatthereneverwasanydoubtconcerningtheauthorityoftheProtocanonicalbooks,isanoverstatement,orwhatF.F.Brucecalls“[a]certainnaiveté.”[696]IndividualshadexpresseddoubtsaboutmanyoftheProtocanonicalbooks.TheadoptionoftheSixthArticleoftheProtestantcanonnotonlycontradictshowtheDeuterocanonwasusedthroughouthistory,butalsoitcontradictstheThirty-fifthArticle,whichreads:

ThesecondBookofHomilies,theseveraltitleswhereofwehavejoinedunderthisArticle,dothcontainagodlyandwholesomedoctrineandnecessaryforthesetimes,asdoththeformerBookofHomilieswhichweresetforthinthetimeofEdwardtheSixth:andthereforewejudgethemtobereadinChurchesbytheministersdiligentlyanddistinctly,thattheymaybeunderstoodofthepeople.[697]

TheBookofHomiliesisasetoflessonsthatweretobereadinchurchduringholydays.However,theHomiliesusetheDeuterocanoninamannerthatgoesbeyondtherestrictionsetforthintheSixthArticle,sometimesexplicitlyquotingthemasdivineScripture.[698]AstheAnglicanscholarWilliamDaubneyobserves:

IntheIndextoDr.Corrie’sedition[oftheHomilies]nolessthanseventy-fiveapocryphaltextsarereferredtoasquotedintheHomilies.HighhonouriscertainlypaidtotheApocryphainthoseReformationsermons,almostbeyondwhatatfirstsightthetermsoftheSixthArticlewouldseemtowarrant…InthehomilyagainstSwearing,forexample,aquotationfromEcclesiasticusisintroducedbythewords‘AlmightyGodbythewisemansaith’(p.68)’.InthehomilyagainstExcessofApparel,JudithandtheapocryphaportionsofEstherarecitedas‘Scripture’(p.291).Likewise,inthehomilyagainstIdolatry,thecanonicalanduncanonicalbooksareindiscriminatelyclassedtogetherunderthecommontitleof‘theScriptures’;thedoctrineofthe‘foolishnessofimages,’itissaidis‘expressedatlargeintheScriptures;viz.ThePsalms,theBookofWisdom,theProphetIsaiah,EzekielandBaruch’(p.166).ThewordsfoundwhichprefaceaversefromTobit,‘TheHolyGhostdothalsoteachin…Scripture,saying’;andinthenextsentenceatextisgivenfromEcclesiasticus,whichisintroducedas‘confirmingthesame.’Butperhapsthestrongeststatementofallisthatinthetenthhomily,whereinweareexhortedtolearnfromtheBookofWisdom,asbeingthe‘infallibleandundeceivablewordofGod.’…andinthelasthomilyofall,thatagainstRebellion,westillfindourselvesreferredtoWisdomasHolyScripture,andarestillexhortedtohearBaruchasaprophet(pp.516,523).[699]

TheSixthArticlestatesthattheDeuterocanoncannotbeusedtoestablishdoctrine,yettheThirty-fifthArticledescribestheBookofHomiliesascontaining“godlyandwholesomedoctrine,”eventhoughitusestheDeuterocanontoestablishthesedoctrines.Awareofthiscontradiction,DaubneysuggeststhatthetwoArticlescanbereconciledifoneunderstandstheSixthArticle’sreferenceto“anydoctrine”tomean“anydoctrine[notalreadyconfirmedbythecanonicalScriptures].”Daubneycontinues:

UnlesswetakethewordsoftheArticleinthissense,itseemsimpossibletoreconcileitwiththedoctrinaluseoftheApocryphaintheHomiliesbythesameauthoritiesasthosewhoputforththeArticles...[700]

Daubney’scureisworsethanthedisease.IftheDeuterocanonisScripture,astheBookofHomiliesusesthem,thenaccordingtoPaul,itoughttobeprofitableforteaching,correction,andtraininginrighteousness.[701]TheApostlemakesnodistinctionbetweenScripturethatisprofitabletowardstheseendsandScripturethatisnot.Moreover,whoorwhatdeterminesifagivendoctrineistaughtinthecanonicalbooksinorderfortheDeuterocanontoconfirmthem?[702]Furthermore,ifadoctrineisclearlytaughtinthecanonicalScriptures,whybotherreferringtotheDeuterocanonatall?Ineffect,Daubney’ssolutionrendersthosebooks,whichtheHomiliescallHolyScriptureandthewordofGod,essentiallyworthless.

ThiscontradictionwithintheThirty-nineArticlesillustratesthetheologicaltensionthatwaspresentinmuchearlyProtestanttheologywithregardstothecanon.Doctrinally,theDeuterocanoncouldnotbeadmittedtothesameauthorityastheProtocanon,yetavastmajorityoftheearlyProtestants,includingtheReformers,wouldnotdareremovethesebooksbecausethesimplestpeasantsknewtheywerepartoftheBible.Therefore,earlyProtestantismpropagatedtheDeuterocanon,butatthesametimedenieditsauthority.

TheWestminsterConfession

In1643,theLongParliament,whichconvenedunderPuritaninfluence,resolvedthattheliturgyanddoctrinesoftheChurchofEnglandneeded

tobeclarified.In1644,itwasproposedthatasingleconfession,catechism,anddirectoryofpublicworshipwouldbeimposedthroughouttheKing’sdominion.AllworkoneditingandrevisingtheThirty-nineArticlesceased,andin1648,ParliamentgrantedauthoritytoworkonnewandindependentConfessionthatcontinueduntiltherestorationof1660.TheWestminsterConfessionbecamethatsingleConfessionofFaithandenjoyedtheuniquedistinctionofbeingtheConfessionalstandardforthewholeUnitedKingdom.RegardingtheApocrypha,theWestminsterConfessionstates:

ThebookscommonlycalledApocrypha,notbeingofdivineinspiration,arenopartoftheCanonofScripture;andthereforeareofnoauthorityintheChurchofGod,nortobeanyotherwiseapproved,ormadeuseof,thanotherhumanwriting.[703]

TheWestminsterConfessionintroduceshereaverysubtle,butradical,departurefromthepast—abreakfrompreviousProtestantusageasmuchasCatholic.BystatingplainlythattheDeuterocanonisnotinspiredandthatithasnomoreauthoritythanany“otherhumanwriting,”theConfessioneffectivelycondemnsitsinclusionbetweenthecoversofabible;nolongerevenanappendagetoScripture,astheReformersthemselveswouldhaveit,butamerecollectionofhumanopinion.Luther,Calvin,andZwinglididnotventurethisfar.Onceconsideredthe“fourthpartoftheBible,”consistingofholyandwholesomewritingsprescribedbytheearlyChurchtobereadpublicly,itswritingswerenownomoreauthoritativethanBunyan’sPilgrimsProgress—ifthat.ThelossoftheDeuterocanonfromProtestantbiblescanbetracedthen,nottotheReformersthemselves,buttothatradicalbodyofself-proclaimed“Puritans”whoseizedcontroloftheEnglishgovernmentunderOliverCromwell.

ThePuritan“Persecution”

EvenaftertheThirty-nineArticles,afteryearsofsteadyProtestantizationunderCranmerandhissuccessors,therewerestillsomewithintheChurchofEnglandwhobelievedthebreakwiththeoldFaithhadnotgonefarenough.Forthem,theEnglishChurchneededtobe“purified”—bywhichtheymeantcompletelyremadeonaradicallyCalvinisticbasis,removingalllingering“popish”teachingandpractices.Itwasthese

PuritanswhofirstbegantopressureChurchleadershiptoremovetheDeuterocanonfromallEnglishbibles,beginningwhatSirFredericKenyononcecalled,thePuritanpersecutionoftheApocrypha.[704]

ModernauthorssometimeassertthatthemovetoexcludetheDeuterocanonfromProtestantbibleswasreadilyacceptedwithoutmuchdiscussion;thisclaimisfarfromtrue.Thefirstattemptstodosometwithstiffopposition,mostnotablyfromtheAnglicanArchbishopJohnWhitgift.ForWhitgift,thethoughtofProtestantbiblesbeingprintedwithouttheDeuterocanonseemedunthinkable,almostrevolutionary.HereishowtheArchbishoprespondedtoachallengebyPuritanJohnPentrytoremovethem:

TheScriptureherecalledApocrypha,abusivelyandimproperly,areHolyWritings,voidoferror,PartoftheBible,andsoaccountedofinthepuresttimeoftheChurchandbythebestWriters;everreadintheChurchofChrist,andshallneverbeforbiddenbyme,orbymyconsent.[705]

WhoeverseparatedtheApocryphafromtherestoftheBiblefromthebeginningofChristianitytothatday?…AndshallwesufferthissingularityintheChurchofEngland,totheadvantageoftheadversary,offenseofthegodly,andcontrarytoalltheworldbesides?…Andthereforethatsuchgiddyheadsasthoughttodefacethemweretobebridled,andthatitwasafoulshame,andnottobesuffered,thatsuchspeechesshouldbeutteredagainstthosebooks,asbysomehadbeen:enoughtocauseignorantpeopletodiscreditthewholeBible.[706]

PressurecontinuedandthePuritanseventuallywonavictory,withtheexclusionoftheDeuterocanonfromthe1599editionoftheGenevaBible.Thebooksweregonebut,curiouslyenough,nottheirpages,whichwereleftblankandunnumberedbetweentheOldandNewTestaments.

WhydidthePuritansfeeltheneedtoexcludethesebooksfromtheScripture?Afterall,Luther’snewformatpreventedthemfrombeingusedtocontradictProtestanttheology.TheProtestantscholarGoodspeedbelievesthattheirobjectiontotheDeuteroshadlesstodowithscholarshipandmoretodowiththegrimorsensationalcharacter(as

theyperceivedit)ofcertainpassageswithinthosebooks.[707]Forwhateverreason,theDeuterocanondidnotsuittheirtastes.

Eventually,thePuritansandotherdissenterswithintheChurchofEnglandslowlybegantoemergeasapoliticalandreligiousforce.Somuchso,thatKingJamesIcalledtheHamptonCourtConferences(1604)toattempt,somewhatdisingenuously,toappeasethesedissentingparties.Littlewaswonforthedissenters,excepttosecuretheking’spermissiontoproduceanewtranslationofScripture.Thisversionwouldbecompletedin1611andknownastheKingJamesVersionortheAuthorizedVersion.[708]

TheKingJamesVersion(1611)

Mostpeopledonotknowthattheoriginal1611editionoftheKingJamesVersion,andafewsubsequenteditions,includedtheDeuterocanoninanappendixmarkedApocrypha.Aswithpreviousversions,thisappendixwassandwichedbetweentheOldandNewTestaments(thoughtherewasnopreface).Inlatereditions,thisappendixwasremoved,butthecross-referencesthatlinkedthetexttotheDeuterocanonremainedforsometime.ScholarBruceM.Metzgerbelievesthatthesecross-referenceswereremovedbecausethemarginsweretoocrowded.[709]However,theProtestanttheologianDaubneyexplainsthattherewasmuchmoregoingonthancleaningupcrowdedmargins:

Plainly,thereferencestotheApocryphatoldaninconvenienttaleoftheusewhichtheChurchintendedshouldbemadeofit;so,eitherfromdissentinginfluencewithout,orfromprejudicewithintheChurch,thesereferencesdisappearedfromthemargin.[710]

Allcross-referenceswereremoved,includingthereferencetotheMaccabeanmartyrsinHebrews11:35-37whowereinexplicablyexpungedor,asDaubneyputsit,“illicitlysuppressed!”[711]GiventheexaltedpositionthistranslationcametooccupywithintheEnglishspeakingword,thisactioncertainlydidcontributetotheignoranceofsubsequentProtestantgenerations,withregardtotheDeuterocanonandplaceitonceheldeveninnon-Catholicbibles.

TheAlmightyandtheAlmightyDollar

Puritanpressurewasnottheonlyreasontoday’sProtestantbiblestodayusuallyomittheDeuterocanon;ifitwere,thenthebookswouldsurelyhavereturnedtotheiraccustomedplaceoncePuritaninfluencesubsided.No,strangeasitmayseem,thewidespreaddemiseoftheDeuterocanoncanbeattributedtoanotherinfluenceaswell—economics.Putsimply,smallerbibles(suchasthoseomittingtheDeuterocanon),werecheapertomake.TheprospectofhigherprofitmarginswooedsomeprintersintoproducingnoveltybibleswithouttheDeuterocanon.[712]Atfirst,thesesmallerbibleswereillicit.In1615,GeorgeAbbott,theArchbishopofCanterbury,wentsofarastoemploythepowerofthelawtocensureanypublisherwhodidnotproducetheBibleinitsentiretywiththeDeuterocanonasprescribedbytheThirty-nineArticles.[713]Nevertheless,economicincentivesprovedstrongerthanthethreatsoftheArchbishop,andeditionswithouttheDeuterocanonweresporadicallyproduced.[714]Inasense,theseversionswereunauthorizedAuthorizedVersions.

YetdespitethegrowingnumberofProtestantbibleswithoutthem,bibleswhichincludedtheDeuterocanonremainedthenorm.ThebooksweretoowellknownandtoowellintegratedintoEuropeanthoughttobeeasilydiscarded.AsGoodspeednotes:

…[W]hatevermaybeourpersonalopinionsoftheApocrypha,itisahistoricalfactthattheyformedanintegralpartoftheKingJamesVersion,andanyBibleclaimingtorepresentthatversionshouldeitherincludetheApocrypha,orstatethatitisomittingthem.Otherwiseafalseimpressioniscreated.[715]

PuritaninfluencecontinuedlongaftertherestorationunderCharlesII,andfromthenon,thetidebegantorundecidedlyagainsttheDeuterocanon.[716]Anti-apocryphaltractsandpamphletsbegantocirculate,andin1740,someactuallyproposedthatalawshouldbepassedtoforceprinterstoremovetheApocryphaappendixfromitsplacebetweenthetwoTestaments.[717]ThispropositionandotherslikeithadlittleeffectotherthantoweakentheresolveofthoseProtestantswhowishedtoincludethem.ItwasnotuntilreligiousmotivationsandeconomicforcesunitedthatProtestantbiblesuniformlyexcludedtheDeuterocanon.Oddlyenough,oneofthechieffactorsinthedemiseof

ProtestantbiblescontainingtheDeuterocanoncamethroughanagencythatwasoriginallydesignedtopropagatetheBibleeverywhere…

Chapter8TheDeuterocanoninExile

Intheearlyseventeenhundreds,philanthropicgroupsconvenedtoproduceinexpensivecopiesofScripturesothattheBiblewouldhavethewidestpossibledistributionthroughouttheworld,especiallyamongthepoor.ThesesocietiesenabledtheordinarymantoownhisowncopyofScriptureathomeoreventocarryinithisvestpocket.ThefirstofthesesocietieswasthevonCansteinBibleSociety,foundedinGermanyin1710.ItproducedanddistributedProtestantbiblesthatcontainedtheApocrypha,followingLuther’sexampleinhisoriginalGermanTranslation.ThevonCansteinSocietyalsoproducedstand-alone,pocketeditionsofindividualbooksoftheBible—aseriesthatincludedaneditionoftheBookofSirach.[718]

InLondonin1804,asimilarsocietycalledtheBritishandForeignBibleSociety(BFBS)wasformed.[719]Becauseofitsinterdenominational,non-sectarianmission,theBFBSreceivedbroad-basedsupportandenjoyedremarkablegrowth.Withinadecade,theparentorganizationfoundeddozensofauxiliaryBiblesocietiesinEnglandandinotherEuropeancountriesandprovidedfinancialandtechnicalaidtoothersocietiesworkingalongthesamelines.

However,itwasnotlongbeforetheBFBSfounditselfembroiledincontroversy.In1813,severalforeignsocietiesbeganpreparingtoprintbibleswiththeApocrypha,ashadbeenthecustomwiththemsincethetimeofLuther.[720]TheinclusionoftheDeuterocanonrubbedagainstthesensibilitiesofsomeBFBSmemberswhoadvocatedthattheparentorganizationcutfundingtotheseforeignsocietiesuntiltheyagreetoprinttheirbiblesinthesameformatastheBritishSociety—thatis,withouttheDeuteros.CuttingthefundswouldhavedestroyedthesefledgingSocieties.Finally,theboardoftheSocietyruledthattheprintingofbiblesindifferentformatswouldbepermitted,becauseby-lawsoftheorganizationhadneverexplicitlyprohibitedtheinclusionoftheso-calledApocrypha.ThispragmaticactoftolerancedidnotsitwellwithmanyReformedProtestants,especiallythePresbyterianpreacherRobertHaldane,whobeganaspeakingcrusadeagainsttheBritishandForeign

BibleSociety’sdecision.[721]AsGundertrecounts:

He[RobertHaldane]taughtadoctrineofverbalinspiration,appliedexclusivelytothecanonicalbooksoftheBible,anddismissedtheApocryphaasahumanword.LikeothersconvincedthatGodhasgiventhemamission,hefoundithardtounderstandthatotherChristianscouldhaveadifferentview.Sohecamebackin1819fromanevangelisticcampaigninFrancetopresstheCommitteetoreverseitsresolutionof1813.[722]

ThemultiplicityofbeliefswithinProtestantismastowhatconstitutedtheBiblegraduallybecameaseriousobstaclefortheBritishSociety.Theforeignauxiliariesfearedthattheywouldbeforcedtoprintbiblesinaformatlikelyalienatetheverypeopletheyweretryingtohelp.TheScottishSocieties,whichhadsympatheticmemberssittingonBritishandForeignSociety’sboard,sidedwithHaldaneandpressedforatougherresolutionthatwaseventuallypassedin1822.ThisnewresolutionwouldonlyfullyfundProtestantSocietiesthatproducedbibleslackingtheDeuteros.ThiscompromiseallowedforeignSocietiestocontinueproducingbibleswiththeso-calledApocrypha,butwouldhavetopayfortheprintingofthatsectionwiththeirownfunds.MostSocietiesweregladtodoso.

PeriodofTolerance

Compromisessometimesalienatebothofthepartiesthattheytrytoappease.Ononeside,therewerememberswhofeltthatthemissionoftheSocietywastopromotethewidestpossibledistributionoftheBible.IfwiderdistributionmeantcontributingtotheprintingbibleswiththeDeuterocanon,thensobeit.[723]ItwasalsoarguedthatnoProtestantcommunityhadtherighttodictatewhatconstitutestheBibletootherProtestantcommunities.[724]Ontheotherside,therewerethosewhobelievedthatthecompromisehadbeenamistaketobeginwithandthatallfundingoughttobecutsoastodiscouragetheprintingofbiblescontainingtheApocrypha.Finally,theuneasypeacewasbreachedwhentheboardsoftheEdinburghBibleSocietyandtheGlasgowBibleSocietyresolvedtowithholdtheirsupporttotheBritishandForeignBibleSocietyuntilallfundingforsuchprintingwascut.TheCommitteeNotesoftheEdinburghSocietymaketheirreasonsfordoingsoplain.

TheEdinburghCrusade

TheScottishSocietiessawtheprimarymissionoftheBritishandForeignBibleSocietyasanevangelisticefforttospreadtheProtestantFaiththroughouttheworld,notmerelyasaphilanthropicefforttosupplyScripturetothosewithoutit.TheSociety,inotherwords,soughttoachievethewidestpossibledisseminationofbiblesbutonlyinaformatthatwasconducivetotheirunderstandingofProtestantism.TheirrationalemaybeexaminedintheCommitteeStatementsoftheEdinburghBibleSociety.

ThestatementsrecordnoeffortonthepartoftheScottishSocietytoprovidethebonafidesoftheshortercanonortoexplainbywhatauthoritytheEdinburghBibleSocietysoughttodictatetootherProtestantcommunitieswhatbooksareandarenotcanonical.Theshortercanonwasmerelyassumedtobetrueandself-evident.IntheestimationoftheCommittee,themerepresenceoftheso-calledApocryphabetweenthecoversofabibleeitherundulyelevatesthosebooksordegradesthecharacteroftheScriptureasawhole.[725]TheCommitteecontinuesbylistingvariousdoctrineswhichtheDeuterocanonwasheldbythemtoconfirm(e.g.intercessionofsaints,purgatory,thatalmsgivingatonesforsins,thatgoodworksjustify,etal.).Thesethingsaresaidto“strikeattherootofsomeofthefundamentaltruthswhichGodhasrevealedfortheinstructionandsalvationofman.”[726]Noticethatthecommonthreadunitingthisgrab-bagofdoctrinesisthatallofthemhadbeenwarreduponbythePuritansandScotchCalvinists(mainstreamAnglicanismallowedroomfortheseteachings).[727]

TheEdinburghCommitteecontinuesbycandidlyadmittingsomethingwhichmanyProtestantapologistsoftodayhotlydeny;thatis,thattheDeuterocanonicalwritingsactuallypresentthemselvesasScripture:

GreatindeedisthedemeritofthatbookwhichcontradictstherevealedwillofGod;butitsdemeritisunspeakablyaggravatedwhen…itaddstheblasphemousassumptionofbeingitselfarevelationofGod’swill.NowsuchistheApocrypha.Itpretendstoadivineoriginal.Some,itistrue,havedeniedthis,andpublishedtheirdenial.Noone,however,whohasreadtheApocryphacanfailtoperceivethatthedenialisfoundedinignoranceandinattention.So

plainlydoesitaffecttohavethesanctionofheaven,thatitactuallyapesthephraseologyofinspiration.ItcontainsmessagestomankindwhicharesometimesrepresentedasproceedingimmediatelyfromGodhimself,andsometimesasconveyedthroughthemediumofangels.Andfrequentlyitsdeclarationsareintroducedwiththatmostawfulandauthoritativeofallsanctions,‘ThussaiththeLord.[728]

IftheDeuterocanonsoundslikeScriptureandteachesCatholicdoctrine(astheEBShasalreadystated),thenitfollowsthatthosewhoreadtheBibleinitstraditionalformatmaybecomeCatholic![729]

Again,iftheyareProtestantsamongwhomtheApocryphaistobedispersed,itdoesnotonthataccountloseitsqualitiesoffalsehood,absurdity,andblasphemy…weaccountitnosintobeinstrumentalindeliberatelycirculatingthat,whichendangersthesoulsofmenandinsultsthehonourofGod:AndassenttothosewhohavebeenemancipatedfromthedarknessandsuperstitionofPopery[i.e.CatholicconvertstoProtestantism],itimpliesanendeavouronourpart,nottoperfectandperpetuatetheiremancipation,buttocontinuethemintheerrorsthatstillenvelopetheirminds,ortosendthembacktothethraldomfromwhichtheyhadhappilyescaped.[730]

ThefreedomtoreadtheScriptureintheformatoftheearliestChristiancodiceswasdeemedtoodangerousforProtestantsandpotentialCatholicconverts.ItwasfearedthatthosewhodidreadthesebiblesinthetraditionalformatwouldabandontheProtestantFaithorthatunsettledCatholicswoulddecideagainstit.TheybelievedthedisseminationoftheToulouseeditionofScriptureconfirmedthisfear:

WithrespecttotheProtestantsalso,thecirculationoftheApocryphaisinexpedient.SuchoftheminFrance…eventhoughtheywerebetterinformedonthesubject…[Theymay]peruseit[theDeuterocanon]withsomeportionofthosereverentimpressionswithwhichtheyperusetheinspiredbooks;and,ofcourse,notonlytoimbibetheerroneousnotionswhichitinculcates,buttolosethatexclusivesubmissiontothewordofGodwhichissodutifulandsobecoming.AnexampleofthisistobefoundinMr.Chabrand’scorrespondencerelativetotheToulouseeditionoftheBible.He

objectedtotheadditionoftheApocryphabecause‘therewasdangeroftheProtestantconfoundingtheApocryphalwiththecanonicalbooks;andoftheirbeingthusledtoadoptsomeoftheerrorsofPopery,(particularlythatofpurgatory)....Thisisthenatural,andwillbethefrequent,effectofcirculatingtheBiblecontainingtheApocrypha…[731]

TheCommitteeStatementalsoadds:

…[T]hatpracticejudiciousorwise,which,insteadofconfirmingorimprovingtheprinciplesofthosewhohave,inaCatholiccountry,embracedorbeeneducatedintheProtestantfaith,threatenstodarkenwhathadbeenmadelight,tocorruptwhathadbeenreformed,andinanymeasuretopavethewayforbackslidingorapostasy?…ButtheevilofcirculatingtheApocryphaasapartoftheScripturevolumeisnotlimitedtothoseProtestantswhogetthebooktoperuse;itisalsoinjurioustothemindsofProtestants,whomerelyseeorknowthatsuchaunionandsuchacirculationarepermitted.[732]

AccordingtotheEdinburghSociety,theonlybiblessafetodisseminatearethosethathavebeensanitizedfromthepresenceofthese“popish”books.[733]Clearly,itwastoodangeroustoleaveituptotheindividualreadertodecidethemeritsordemeritsoftheDeuterocanon.[734]NotonlydoesthisstatementarrogateanenormousamountofauthoritytotheScottishSociety,italsocallsseriouslyintoquestiontheWestminsterConfession’steachingontheperspicuityofScripture.ThatConfessionstates:

AllthingsinScripturearenotalikeplaininthemselves,noralikeclearuntoall:yetthosethingswhicharenecessarytobeknown,believed,andobservedforsalvationaresoclearlypropounded,andopenedinsomeplaceofScriptureorother,thatnotonlythelearned,buttheunlearned,inadueuseoftheordinarymeans,mayattainuntoasufficientunderstandingofthem.[735]

WouldnottheactionsoftheEdinburghSocietycircumventthebeliever’sinnateabilitytorecognizethe“falsehoodsofpopisherrors”inthesebooks?DidnottheConfessionsoftenspeakaboutaninnerwitnessoftheHolySpiritthatenablesthebelievertodistinguishtruthfromerror?TheCommitteeStatementarguedthateventhelearnedhaddifficulty

separatingthefalsefromthetrueintheso-calledApocrypha;therefore,thetaskwouldbeimpossiblefortheunlearned.[736]

AtleasttheCommitteeoftheEdinburghSocietymaybecreditedwithfrankness:theydislikedthedoctrinetheyfoundtaughtintheDeuterocanon;theywished,therefore,tohaveitcensored.Plainandsimple,withoutdragginginpoorJerome.Thislineofreasoningbecomesespeciallyclearinthefollowingpassage:

…bysendingthemtheApocrypha,weare,infact,abettingthechurchofRomeinanimpiousattempttoestablishtheinspirationofthatspuriousdocumentandsecondinghereffortstocompelthosewhoacknowledgeherspiritualdominion,tolistentoitslyingwondersastothevoiceoftheAlmighty.[737]

Anti-CatholicsoftenchargeTrentwithbeingreactionaryandclaimthattheCounciladdedbookstotheBibleinanefforttosubvertProtestantism.Isitnotclear,however,thatinthismatteroftheEdinburghSociety,theveryreverseistrue?HerewefindaProtestantBiblesocietywagingaveritablecrusaderatherthantoallowanuneditedBibletobeexaminedbythecommonfolk.Inaclear,candid,andpassionatemanner,theEdinburghCommittee’snotesadvocatetheremovaloftheDeuterocanonasacountermeasureagainstRome—andspecificallyagainsttheCouncilofTrent:

…[I]tiscountenancingandsupportingthechurchofRomeinhersystemofimposition.She,byherdecree,hasmadethatcanonicalwhichisuncanonical,andcompelledthepeopletoreceiveastheWordofGodwhatisonlythewordofman.AndtheLondonCommittee,innameoftheBritishandForeignBibleSociety,andofallwhohavecontributedtoitsfunds,insteadofresistingthatactofspiritualdespotismanddelusionbywhichshepropsupherpower,helpsandencourageshertopersistinit.Shecan,perhaps,checkthecirculationandtheperusaloftheBible,butshecantellthepeopleatthesametime,andtheywillhavetoogoodreasontobelieveher,thattheProtestantsthemselvesbelieveinthedivinityofthosepassagewhichshebringsfromtheApocryphatoestablishthedoctrineofpurgatoryandofthesavingmeritofgoodworks.Andshewillpleadfromwhathasbeendone,asfarasProtestantauthoritycanbeof

anyweight,thatherdecreescanmakeanysayingsordoctrineswhichshechoosestofixupon,tantamounttoarevelationfromheaven.Andthirdly,whenProtestantsgivetheApocryphaintermixedwiththeScriptures,theyexcitethecontemptofthepapists,insteadofsecuringeithertheirrespectortheirgratitude.ThePapistsmustconcludeeitherthattheProtestantsarealtogetherindifferenttotheCanonofScripture,whichwouldbediscreditablebothtotheirpietyandtheirjudgment,orthat,believingtheApocryphatobeamerehumancomposition,theyyetareguiltyofsomuchduplicityastogiveundertheformandappearanceofhavingadivineoriginal.[738]

ItisagainstthewillofGodthattherebecirculatedfortheWordofGod,‘thedoctrinesandcommandmentsofmen,’ThePapistsdocirculatetheApocryphaasthewordofGod,andwearetheiragents,infact,ifwefurnishthemwiththemeansofdoingso.Bycontributing,therefore,‘webecomepartakersofothermen’ssins.’[739]

Inthefaceofallsuchsophistrywerecuragaintotheobligationunderwhichwelietodonothingagainstthetruth,andeverythingforthetruth,andtotheunassailablepositionthattheApocrypha…impiouslypretendstobeaportionofGod’sholyword,andisemployedbytheChurchofRometosupportthedelusionsofhim‘whoopposethandexaltethhimselfaboveallthatiscalledGod.’[740]

…anditiswellthattheyhavebeensofranklyavowed,becauseitmakesusawareofthedanger,andenablesustoliftthevoiceofwarningereitbetoolate,forrescuingtheBibleSocietyfromthatApocryphalcontaminationwhichhassolongandsoinveteratelycleavedtoit,andwhichthreatenstorenderit,whileitspresentmanagementcontinues,notaninstrumentofProtestantbenevolence,butanengineofPopisherrorandsuperstition.[741]

DespiterepeatedattemptsbyotherstoinformtheEdinburghSocietyofhowradicalandunhistoricaltheirdemandswere,Edinburghwouldnotbudge.EdinburghbelieveditsactionsfulfilledtheProtestantReformers’wishes,i.e.,thecompleteremovaloftheDeuterocanonfromtheBible.

Butwecouldcalltheattentionofourreaders,inaparticular

manner,tothefineopportunityaffordedbytheBritishandForeignBibleSociety,constitutedasitis,forintroducingamoreexclusive,anddecided,andgeneralattachmenttothepureCanonofScripture.ItwasagreatstepwhentheApocryphabooksweretakenoutoftheBible,andplacedbythemselves,withtheApocryphaltitle.Butiswasonlyastep;anditstillremainedadesideratumtogetquitofthem,altogether,andtokeepthepurewordofGoddetachedineveryrespectfromtheircontaminatingfellowship.ThiswebelievetohavebeenanobjectofanxiousdesirewithmanygoodandenlightenedmenatthetimeoftheReformation,thoughcircumstancesdiscouragedthemfromattemptingtoaccomplishit.[742]

DidtheCatholicChurchaddbookstotheBible,ordidProtestantsremovethem?AccordingtotheCommitteeStatementsoftheEdinburghBibleSociety,theReformerswouldhaveremovedtheDeuterocanonthemselveshadtheydaredtodoso.Whatwerethesecircumstancesthatdidnotallowforsucharemoval?Whatwasitthatcowedthemanwhoissaidtohavebravelycried,“HereIstand;Icandonoother”?Afterall,bythetimeLutherpublishedhisGermanBiblehecouldnothavebeeninanyhotterwaterthanhealreadywas,asfarastheCatholicauthoritieswereconcerned.IsitnotclearthatwhatheandtheothersactuallyfearedwasabacklashamongProtestants?Plainly,thiswaswhattheyfeared;amisstep,theslip-upofgoing“toofar,toofast.”AsRuessnotes,theretentionoftheDeuterocanon(Apocrypha)inProtestantbiblesafteritscanonicitywasdenied,“wasaconcessiontoecclesiasticalusage,thehabitsofthepeople,theopinionoftheEarlyFathers,andthefearofthestormwhichaninnovationmightcause.’”[743]Yetifthisisthecase,whatofthecommonProtestantcontentionthattheDeuteroswerealreadyknowntostandonshakyfootingduringtheMiddleAges,thateventhecommonfolkknewthattheyshouldnotreallybeconsideredScripture?Hadthistrulybeenthecase,theoutrightremovalofthesebookswouldhavebeenoflittleaccount.ThetruthisthattheremovaloftheDeuterocanonwouldhavebeenfartooradicalandobviousadeparturetogounnoticed.TheearliestProtestantfollowerswouldnothaveacceptedit.[744]

EdinburghacknowledgedthatLuther’snewformatofScripturewasonlyahalf-measure.EvenattheSynodofDort,thefathersoftheSynodwere

afraidthatoutrightremovaloftheDeuterocanonwouldgive“occasionofoffenseandcalumny.”TheEdinburghSocietysawtheBritishandForeignBibleSocietyasamostfittinginstrumenttocarryouttheunstatedwishesoftheseearlyProtestantsbecauseitcoulduniteallofProtestantismunderthesameabridgedBibletext.[745]

SoinresponsetocontinuedScottishthreatstoseparatefromtheBritishSocietypermanentlyandtocontinueacampaignagainstthem,theBritishandForeignBibleSocietycapitulatedonthematter.In1827,itadoptedaresolutionthatnoaid,financialorotherwise,wouldbegiventoanyBiblesocietythatproducedbiblescontainingtheso-calledApocrypha.Thiswouldseemtohavebeentheendofthematter;buttheaftermathisworthrecordingaswell.

EvangelicalaccountsofthiscontroversyareoftenwritteninamannerwhichsuggestsallProtestantsreceivedthedecisionwithrelief;the“othershoe”hadfinallybeendroppedandabitofunfinishedReformationbusinesshadbeenquietlycheckedoffthelist.F.F.Bruce,forinstance,tellsthestorythisway:

WhentheBritishandForeignBibleSocietybegantodistributeexclusivelyeditionslackingtheApocrypha,theBible-buyingpublicseemedquitecontentwithsucheditions.Thatbeingso,otherBiblepublisherssawnoreasonwhytheyshouldcontinueproducingBibleswiththeApocrypha.[746]

Similarly,BruceM.MetzgersummarizestheendoftheApocryphaControversywith:

…SeveralotherBibleSocieties,includingtheAmericanBibleSociety,whichwasfoundedatNewYorkin1816,followedthedecisionandpracticeoftheLondonSociety.Asaconsequenceitwasnotlongbeforecommercialpublishers,forobviousreasonsofeconomy,likewiseceasedincludingtheApocryphalbooksintheireditionsoftheBible,anditsoonbecamedifficulttoobtainordinaryeditionsoftheBiblewiththeApocrypha.

Inreality,thedecisionoftheBritishandForeignBibleSocietywasquitedivisiveandwidenedtheexistingriftbetweenBritishandContinentalProtestantism.ManyEuropeanBibleSocieties(includingthoseof

Germany,Switzerland,France,theNetherlands,Sweden,andDenmark)brokewiththeBritishoverthisPuritan-ledcoupandrefusedtodistributeProtestantbibleswithouttheDeuterocanon.[747]TheyweregratefulforLondon’shelpinthepast,butwillingtogoitaloneifitmeantkeepingthesebooksintheBible.Howorthnotes:

TheLutheranauthoritiesdecidedthattheycouldhavenopartinsuchamovement[BFBS’spolicy],andrefusedtocountenancetheissuingofmutilatedbiblesortodepartfromLuther’sexampleinsuchacriticalmatter,andtheyhavesinceremainedstaunchtothatdecision.[748]

NordidthedecisionsucceedinmollifyingtheScotsforlong;despitetheBritishandForeignBibleSociety’sacquiescencetotheirdemands,theScottishSocietieseventuallybrokeoffandwenttheirownways.

ThestoryoftheremovaloftheDeuterosbytheBritishandForeignBibleSocietyisrarelytold,yettherearemanyinterestinglessonstobelearnedfromit;notleast,thataDeutero-freeBiblewasstillseentobe,aslateas1827,adeparturefromtraditionalChristianpractice—evenaspracticedbyProtestants.

TheProtestantCrusadeInAmerica

InAmerica,theAmericanBibleSocietywasmorethanwillingtoadopttheBritishandForeignBibleSociety’sdecisionontheDeuterocanon.AmericanProtestantismisdeeplyrootedinEnglishPuritanism;therefore,bibleswiththeApocryphawerenotpartoftheProtestantAmericanheritage.Likely,theLutheransandtheCatholicsweretheonlysizablegroupofChristiansinAmericawhousedbiblescontainingtheDeuterocanon.

In1816,TheAmericanBibleSocietywasformedalongthesamelinesastheBritishandForeignBibleSociety.ItattemptedtobypasssectarianprejudicesbyproducingcopiesoftheBiblewithoutnoteorcomment.WithAmericaProtestantisminthemidstoftheSecondGreatAwakening,religiousfervorranhighwhentheBritishSocietyruledagainsttheApocrypha.Unfortunately,thisgreatreligiousrevivalalsocarriedwithitastrongundertowofanti-Catholicsentiment.ThecombinationofProtestantanti-Catholicsentimentsandthepropagationofbiblesminus

theDeuterocanonledtosomesadmisunderstandings.

WhenProtestantsofferedcopiesoftheirbiblestoCatholics,theCatholicspredictablyrefusedthem;notonlybecausethetranslationitself(invariablytheKingJames)containedanti-Catholicbias,butalsobecauseoftheabsenceoftheDeuteros.ThisrefusalwasmisinterpretedbyProtestantmissionariesashostilitytotheBibleitself.AstheAmericanhistorian,RayAllenBillingtonrecords:

AclashdevelopedassoonastheAmericanBibleSocietyattemptedtospreadtheProtestantversionoftheBibleamongCatholics.TheindignationoftheCatholichierarchy,andpapallettersdenouncingthesocietyallwereinterpretedbyProtestantsasanattackontheBibleratherthanononeversionoftheBible.ThustheillusionwascreatedthatPapistswerehostiletotheScripturesandthattheirchurchrestednotondivinebutonman-madeauthority.ThesebeliefsboreparticularweightwithapopulaceunderthefundamentalisticinfluenceoftheNewMeasure.ThissupposedCatholicattackontheBibleinterestedthechurchintheNo-PoperycrusadeandledthemtotaketheirfirstexploratorystepsagainstCatholicism.[749]

TheexpulsionoftheDeuterocanonfromProtestantbiblescameatgreatcost.FortheBritishandForeignBibleSociety,itmeantthelossofmanyofitsauxiliaries,includingtheScottishsocieties;thedamagetookyearstorepair.TheestablishmentoftheAmericanBibleSocietyandthepropagationofbibleswithouttheDeuterocanonfannedtheflamesofpersecutionforCatholicsinAmericabyprovidingfodderforthefledgling“No-Popery”andlatertheNativisticmovementsintheUnitedStates.[750]Intheend,everyonesuffered.

BooksInExile

ThetimehascomewhenallrealProtestantsshoulddemandfromtheBiblesocietiesthewholeBible.Thedaywas,anditwasnotlongago,wheneverytrueProtestanthadasthemottoonhisbanner,‘TheBibleandtheBibleonly;ourruleoffaithandpractice.’ThereforethetrueProtestantsshouldnowmakeafightfortherestorationoftheBible.Oneofthegreatestlibrariesofsacred

Writingsiscontainedinwhatisknownas‘TheApocrypha’…[I]tisthefaultofBibleSocietiesthatthiswonderfulpartofHolyWrithasbeenstolenfromtheBible.IftheseBiblesocietiesweretrulyProtestanttheywouldnotcommitsuchagrievoustheft.TheywouldnotkeeptheBiblefromthecommonpeople.Whatweneed-to-dayiseitherareformortheretirementoftheso-calledBibleSocieties.Iftheyarepermittedtogoon,IfearthattheywillcontinuemoreseriouslytohindertheuseoftheHolyScriptures.WhatweneedisanewLuthertoarouseusandtoleadanewReformationforthefreedomoftheBible.HewillfinditsmostpowerfulenemynotatRome,butinthe‘BibleHouses’oftheUnitedStatesandEngland.(FromasermondeliveredbyRev.Dr.MiloH.GatesonBibleSunday,December6,1915).[751]

Evenatthebeginningofthetwentiethcentury,voices(suchasthequoteabovedemandingtherestorationofProtestantbibles)persisted,buttheycriedinvain.MuchofProtestantismpreferredtoforgettheso-calledApocryphaandthecontroversyitstirredintheProtestantfaithforsomanyyears.Anti-CatholicisminbothAmericaandEnglandhadsappedthewillofnon-CatholicstopreservetheBibleastheReformershadleftit.TheApocryphahaddisappearedfromtheProtestantlandscape.SothoroughwasthisexpulsionthattheDeuterocanonwasevenremovedfromaProtestantreproductionoftheCodexVaticanus.[752]ThefewProtestantbiblesthatstillincludedtheDeuterosreliedonoldandantiquatedtranslations.Forexample,aconsiderablepartoftheDeuterocanoninthe1895EnglishRevisedVersionwastranslatedfromtheLatinCoverdaleBibleof1535.Likewise,thetwo-volumeworkTheApocryphaandPseudepigrapha(1913),editedbyR.H.Charles,providedmorethanhalfofthebookswithnewtranslations.AminorityofthebookswerecopiedfromtheEnglishRevisedVersion.[753]

ThediscoveryoftheDeadSeaScrollstakesthestoryofsmallerProtestantbiblesinanewdirection.ThefindingoftheseancientScrollsrenewedinterestinintertestamentalstudies,anditspawnedseveralnewProtestanttranslationswhichincludedtheDeuterocanon.Despitethisrenewedinterest,however,theanti-Catholicwindsofthelastcentury-and-a-halfhaveeradicatedtheplacethesebooksformerlyheldinProtestantdevotion.Today,practicallynoone(ProtestantorCatholic)isawarethatanApocryphacontroversyexistedinProtestantism,muchless

awarethatanApocryphacontroversyexistedinProtestantism,muchlessthatthesebookswereoncepartoftheProtestantBible.

ProblemswiththeProtestantPosition

ThereisnodoubtthattheProtestantcanonwasthecanonoflaterabbinicalJudaism.BythethirdorfourthChristiancentury,thisrejectionbecamenearlyuniversalamongtheJewishcommunity.However,whatlegitimacydoesthisrabbinicalcanonhaveforChristians?Indeed,theearliestJewishrejectionoftheDeuterocanonenblocalsorejectedtheChristiangospelsaswell.[754]TheearliestChristiansknewthattherabbisdidnotacceptalloftheirOldTestamentbooks,andtheychoosenottofollowthem.Hundredsofyearslater,JeromealsorejectedtheDeuterocanonoutofanerroneousunderstandingofthetextualtransmissionoftheOldTestament,buttheDeadSeaScrollshavedestroyedJerome’sassumption.FromthebeginningoftheReformation,Jerome(andthosewhosubsequentlyadoptedhisviews)providedProtestantleaderswithpracticallytheirsolebasisforrejectingtheDeuterocanon.WithoutJerome,asA.C.Sundbergnotes,thehistoricProtestantcasecollapses:

…[A]nyProtestantdoctrineofcanonizationthattakesseriouslythequestionofChristianusageandhistoricalandspiritualheritagewillleadultimatelytotheChristianOTasdefinedintheWesternChurchattheendofthefourthandthebeginningofthefifthcenturies.[755]

ThesedefinitionsaffirmedtheDeuterocanonasequallyinspiredbooksofScripture,canonicalinthefull,modernsenseoftheterm.

ThatthecouncilofTrentdidnotaddbookstotheBibleisclearfromtheirofficialandnon-officialdeliberations;thataugustbodymerelyre-affirmedthecanonacceptedbypreviouscouncils,especiallythatofFlorence—acanoninfullcontinuitywithtraditionsgoingbacktothetimeoftheearliestChristians.Adefinitechangeinattitudetowardthesebookscan,however,bediscernedwithinthehistoryofProtestantism.TheReformationdecisionsweremadeatthepointinhistoryduringwhichtheterms“apocrypha,”“canonical”and“inspired”wereattheirmostconfused.LanguagehadbecomemuddledandJerome’sexaggeratedprestige(basedonassumptionsabouttheSeptuagintandtheMasoreticTextwhichallsidesnowagreeweremistaken)distortedratherthan

clarifiedtheissuesatstake.Luther’sattitudetowardtheDeuteroshasbeenshowntohavepassedthroughthreestages;earlyacceptance,laterdoubts,afinalchoicetosegregatebutnottoremove.LaterProtestantscontinuedwhatmustbesurelybeconfessedbyallasaprocessofremoval:howelsecanitbedescribed,whenthefinalproductisabiblethateventheearlyProtestants(andsomenotsoearly!)wouldhavedisowned?Clearly,ProtestantismhasremovedbooksfromScripture.

Doesanyofthischangematter?DoestheDeuterocanonmatter?Considerthefollowingpoints.TheDeuterocanonisthewordofGod,HolyScripture,andinspiredbytheHolySpirit.Thesearenotmysentiments,butthoseoftheearlyChristians.OurLordwasconcernedthatnotonejotortittleshouldpassfromtheLawuntilallwasfulfilled.[756]ImaginehowHewouldfeelaboutwholebooksbeingrejected?Inaddition,BibleChristiansareinterpretingtheNewTestamentwithatruncatedOldTestament.JesusdidnotliveandteachduringthetimeofArtaxerxesbutshortlyafterthetimeofMaccabees.Judaismofthefirstcenturywasmuchmoretheologicallydevelopedthanitwashundredsofyearsearlier.ItisthismoredevelopedJewishFaithofthefirstcenturythatOurLordandHisApostlesinheritedandwhichformedtheunspokenbackdropoftheNewTestament.WithouttheDeuterocanon,manyNewTestamentallusionsandechoesofdoctrinesandpracticesfromtheDeuterocanonicalperiodaresilenced.[757]Moreover,ProtestantswhouseabiblewithouttheDeuterocanonarecutofffromthepracticeoftheearliestChristians.TheChristianFathers,fromthetimeoftheApostlestotheendofthepatristicage,usedtheDeuterocanon“fordoctrine,forreproof,forcorrection,forinstructioninrighteousness.”[758]NeitherChristnorHisApostlesnortheearliestChristianseverrejectedtheDeuterocanonas“Apocrypha.”Theearliestrejectioncamefromapost-ChristianmessianicmovementwithinJudaism.Thatmovementendorsedafalsemessiahaswell,andrejectedtheinspirationoftheChristianGospels.Finally,bibleswhichlacktheDeuterocanonareadeviationevenfromthepracticeofearlyProtestantism.Luther,Calvin,andZwingliandtheearliestEnglishProtestantbiblesallincludedtheDeuterocanon.Someofthemevencross-referencedtheDueterocanon(Apocrypha)intheNewTestamentmargins.TherejectionoftheDeuterocanonhasalsoproducedmanybadfruits.Forexample,themocking,skepticalcriticism

ofthemiraclestoriesintheDeuteros—lookedonas“goodcleanfun”byearlyanti-Catholicapologistswhotooktheirapocryphalstatusasaxiomatic—openedthedoorforthesamekindsofcriticismtobeappliedtotheProtocanon.Withinafewdecadesofthe1827protestbytheEdinburghBibleSociety,allScotlandwasfilledfromoneendtotheotherwiththesimilarridiculeofthe“highercritics.”Inaddition,theeliminationoftheDeuteroshaspreventedProtestantsfromofferinganexplanationofthecanonofScripturewhichislogicallyconsistentwiththeprincipleofSolaScriptura(seeAppendix1).

TheremovaloftheDeuterocanonisindeedamatterofsupremeimportance,sinceitaffectstheveryWordofGodHimself;anditseffectscanbeshowntohavebeendevastatinginboththeologyandinpractice.Asanti-CatholicprejudicescontinuetofadeandtheveneerofhistoricaljustificationforthetruncatedOldTestamentischippedaway,letushopethattherewillcomeintoexistenceanewfoundcourageinallofustoembracethewordofGodinitsentiretyandtofollowitwhereeveritmaylead—evenifthatroadeventuallyleads(asallroadsdo)backtoRome.

Appendix1SolaScripturaandtheProblemoftheCanon

LuthertaughtthatScripturealoneisthehighestandultimateauthorityfortheindividualChristian.WhenconfrontedwithScripturethatcontradictedhistheology(ashewaswith2Maccabees12:43-46,usedasadefenseofPurgatory),LuthertookadvantageofthedoubtsraisedbyJerometodenythatancientbook’sfullcanonicalweight.Therefore,itwasnottheSolaScripturathatgavebirthtoLuther’sunderstandingofJustificationbyFaithAlone(SolaFide),butSolaFide,rather,whichcouldnotpermittheScripturetofullyspeak.ManysinceLuther’stimehaveattemptedtoprovideajustificationfortheProtestantcanoninamannerlogicallyconsistentwithSolaScriptura.Comingupwithsuchanafter-the-factjustification,however,hasprovedtobeeasiersaidthandone.

TheProtestantprincipleofSolaScripturadictatesthatthecanonicalScriptureisthehighestandfinalauthorityinallmattersoftheChristianFaith.Allotherauthorities(e.g.theChurch,traditionsorcustoms,theologicalsystemsetal.)haveweight,butonlyinsofarastheyaresubservienttoandjudgedbythewordofGodinScripture.ThisisanobleattempttoelevatethedivineScripturetothehighestpossiblestandard,indeed,thestandardaboveallstandardsandthenormthatsetsallnorms.However,SolaScripturaultimatelyunderminesScripturesinceiteffectivelydestroysanylogicallyconsistentandcogentexplanationofhowwecometotheknowledgeofwhichbookscompriseScripturetobeginwith.

Dozensofexplanationsorjustificationsforthescripturalcanonhavebeenofferedovertheyears,butonlythefollowingthreeapproacheshavegainedanysizableadherents:(1)thehistoricalinvestigativeapproach;(2)thecanonwithinacanonapproach;and(3)theself-attestation/innerwitnessapproach.

HistoricalInvestigativeApproach

EvangelicalsandmainlineProtestantstypicallyfavorthisargument,

supposedlybasedontheresultsofhistoricalinvestigation.Accordingtothismethod,theinvestigatorusesvarioushistoricalcriticalmethodstoexaminethebeliefsoftheearlyChurchFathersandcouncils.Trendsofthoughtareoutlinedandtheresults,theyclaim,pointtoaconsistent(ornearlyconsistent)affirmationofthelegitimacyoftheshorterOldTestamentcanon.Thecanon,therefore,isdeterminedbyhistoricalresearch.

Thehistoricalinvestigativeapproachhassubstantialmeritinthatitprovidesanobjectiveandverifiablemeansofdeterminingaclosedfixedcanon.Criticsarequicktopointout,however,thatithasmorethanafewequallysubstantialfailings.Forexample,practitionersofthismethodoftenpresumethelegitimacyofashorterProtestantcanonandthenproceedtoselectthoseFatherswhoappeartoagreewiththeiraprioriassumption.Evidencetothecontrary(suchasaFatherwhoaffirmstheDeuteros)iseitherignoredordismissedastheproductofignorantmen.Inotherwords,thismethodispronetospecialpleading.[759]

CriticsofthismethodnotethattheresultsofthishistoricalapproachneverreachthelevelofcertitudenecessarytoestablishthelimitsofsomethingsofundamentalastheWordofGod.Ariver,astheysay,cannotrisehigherthanitssource.Inotherwords,becausethehistoricalinvestigationapproachreliesontheinductivereasoningoffalliblemen,movingfromparticularstothegeneral,itcanneverproduceaninfallibleconclusion,butonlyahighlyprobableone.Highprobability,thesecriticspointout,isnotenoughtobindtheconsciencesofallbelievers.TheremustbenopossibilityoferrorwhenitcomestothecontentsofGod’swordsincethecertaintyoffaithrestsonthosecontents.IfScriptureisuncertain,one’sfaithisuncertain.

Finallyandmostdecisively,criticshavearguedthatthehistorical-investigativeapproachcontradictsSolaScripturabecauseitsetstheresultsofexternalhistoricalinvestigationasthenormabovethenormofScripture.HistoricalresearchbecomestheultimatejudgeandarbitratorofwhatshouldandshouldnotbepermittedtopassmusterastheWordofGod.Althoughthisapproachisoftenlaudedforbeingofsecondaryusefulness,itmostcertainlydoescontradictSolaScriptura.

CanonwithinaCanonApproach

MartinLutherdevelopedthissecondapproach.Hebelievedthatthecanonicalscripturesdemonstratedtheirowncanonicitybytheircontents.LutherreasonedthatthefirstdutyofanapostlewastopreachChrist.Therefore,ifabookpreachedChristitwastothatextentapostolicandcanonicalScripture.Conversely,ifabookdidnotpreachChristitwastothatextentnotapostolicandcanonicalScripture.[760]

Luther’s“canonwithinacanon”approachattemptstoavoidappealingtoanycriterionoutsideofScripturesoasnottoviolateSolaScriptura.Instead,thecontentsofScriptureitselfareusedtodeterminethecanon.Criticsarequicktopointoutthatthismethodalsofailsitsobjectivesintwoways.

First,the“canonwithinacanon”approachsuffersfromcircularreasoning.HowdidLutherlearnthatanapostle’sfirstdutyistopreachChrist,ifhedidnotlearnitfromabookofScripture?Andhowdidheknow,beforereadingit,thatsaidbookwascanonical?ByrejectinganauthoritativeandauthenticTraditionofScripture,SolaScripturacutsitselfofffromtheonlyavenueofescapefromthiscircle.The“canonwithinacanon”approachassumesattheoutsetthecanonicityofacertaingroupofbooksandthen,basedonthosebooks,formulateswhatconstitutes“preachingChrist.”Itthenusesthisformulationtoconfirmthoseverysamebooksascanonical—thusbeggingthequestion.

Second,thisapproach,itissometimeargued,alsocannotprovidethelevelofcertitudenecessarytoestablishthelimitsofthewordofGod.EvenLutheradmittedthatnotallbooks“preachChrist”equally.Some“preach”Himmoreforcefullyandclearlythanothers(somethingwhichhardlyanyonehaseverdoubted).The“canonwithinacanon”methodproducesnotasetnumberofbooks,butacontinuumofcanonicity.Eachbookwasmoreorlesscanonical.Indeed,someNewTestamentbooks(e.g.,2and3John,James,Hebrews,JudeandRevelation)weresaidtobeofquestionablecanonicalstatus.Whoorwhatdeterminesifagivenbookpossessessufficientcanonicitytooverturnaconvictionortobindtheconscienceofthebeliever?TheanswerisMartinLuther.Notsurprisingly,non-Lutheransarelessthansatisfiedwiththisanswer.

ThecanonwithinacanonapproachalsoviolatesSolaScriptura,inthatitsetsupasthestandarddeterminingwhatisandwhatisnotthewordof

God,nothingmoreorlessthanDr.MartinLuther’sownunderstandingofwhatconstituteshaving“Christpreached.”AnyonewhoadoptsthismethoderasesDr.Luther’snameandfillsintheirown,buttheprocessdoesnotbecomemorereliablebythechange.

TheSelf-attesting/InnerWitnessApproach

JohnCalvinofferedatwo-foldwitnessapproachtothisproblem,andReformedProtestantsgenerallyfollowhisapproachtoday.Accordingtothismethod,thecanonicityofagivenwritingcanbeknown—notbythecontentsofagivenbook,aswasLuther’sapproach—butbythequalityornatureofthewritingitself.ThecanonicalScripturesaresaidtobesoholy,true,powerful,harmonious,elevatedandbeautifulthattheirinspiredcharacterunmistakablyimposesitselfuponthereader.ThisimpressionmadebyinspiredScriptureissostrongandunmistakablethattheProtestanttheologianCharlesBriggs,argues:

Ifmenarenotwonbytheholycharacterofthebiblicalbooks,itmustbebecauseforsomereasontheireyeshavebeenwithheldfromseeingit.[761]

Therefore,thisapproachconcludes,theinspiredcanonicalScriptureisautopisteuo(self-attesting).Inadditiontotheself-evidentnatureofScripture,theHolySpiritissaidtoalsoprovideaninnerwitnesswithinthebeliever’sheartthatassuresandconfirmshimorherthatwhatisbeingreadistheinspiredwordofGod.

Thisself-attestingapproachtothecanonmasterfullyavoidstwoofthemostseriousflawsofthe“canonwithinacanon”approach.Bymovingthecriterionfromabeliever’stheology(Christpreached)toqualitiesperceivabletoeveryhuman(truth,harmony,beauty,etc.),theself-attestingapproachavoids,atleastatfirstglance,theplacingofone’stheologyabovetheScripture.ItalsoavoidsLuther’scanonicalcontinuum,byinsistingthattheimpressionmadebyaninspiredworkissuchthatdegreesofcanonicityareneitherneedednordiscernible.Intheory,thisapproachseemsformidable.Whenputintopractice,however,theself-attestingapproachdisclosesseveralseriousdeficiencies.

IfthenatureofthesacredScripturesissoplainandunmistakable,howis

itthatsomanypeoplewerewrongonthecanon?MartinLutherisperhapsthebestexample.HowisitthatLuthermissedtheunmistakableperceptionofthecanonicityoftheBookofRevelation,theEpistleofJames,orEsther?ReformedProtestantsgenerallyarguethatitwasLuther’szealforthegospelthatblindedhiseyesfromseeingtheobvious.Ifthislogicistrue,however,thenhowdotheReformedProtestantsknowthattheirperceptioniscorrect,andthatLuther’swasincorrect?Moreover,howdotheyknowthatitwasLuther’szealthatdidhiminonthecanonquestion?ProponentsnoticedthatLuther’sviewsonthecanondifferedfromtheirs.TheyinvestigatedLuther’slife,notedhiszealforhisbeliefs,andconcludedthatitisprobablethatLuther’szealblindedhimonthecanonicityofthesebooks.Inotherwords,theyknewthattheywererightandLutherwaswrongbasedontheresultsofhistoricalinvestigation.Sothismethod,really,isjustthepreviouslydiscussedhistorical-investigationmethodindisguisefraughtwiththesameweaknessesandfailings.ThehistoricalinvestigativeapproachcannotbeusedtodeterminethecanonbyProtestantsbecauseitsresultsarenotcertainanditviolatesSolaScriptura.

Thereareotherproblemsaswell.Theself-attestationapproachcanneverprovideaclosedorfixedcanon.EvenifapersoncouldinfalliblydiscernwhatwasandwasnotinspiredScripture,thisperceptioncouldnevertellanyonethatthesebooksalonecomprisethecanon.Thereisalwaysthepossibilitythattherearebooksyettobereadwhichwillalsogiveaself-attestation.ManygoodProtestants,infact,havebeenledintoMormonismbyjustthisrationale:“Perhaps”saidthemissionariesatthedoor,“youwouldfeelaburninginyourbosomifyoudidreadtheBookofMormon.”Moreover,ifself-attestationidentifiesinspiration(thatistosaythatallinspiredworksattesttotheirowndivinity),woulditnotalsobepossibletodetermineinspirationwithinvariousmanuscripts?Wouldn’titbepossibletodiscernwhethercertaintextualvariantsareauthenticornotbasedontheirself-attestation?[762]Furthermore,whatconstitutesadivinewitness?AcaseinpointistheProtestantdivineJohnBunyan,authorofthefamedProtestantallegoryPilgrim’sProgress.Inhisautobiography,GraceAboundingtotheChiefofSinners,Bunyanwrites:

Oneday,afterIhadbeensomanyweeksoppressedandcastdown,asIwasnowquitegivinguptheGhostofallmyhopesofever

attaininglife,thatsentencefellwithweightuponmyspirit,‘Lookatthegenerationsofold,andsee:DideveranytrustintheLordandwasconfounded?’AtwhichIwasgreatlylightened,andencouragedinmySoul…[763]

Drawingspiritualstrengthfromthispassage,BunyansearchedhisProtestantBibleforit,buttonoavail.Eventuallyhediddiscoveritslocation—inSirach2:11!ShockedthathehadfeltsuchdivineconsolationfromabookintheApocrypha,hedissembled,onlytoadmitlaterthatthispassagecontinuedtobringhimspiritualcomfort.[764]IsthisnotaninstanceofSirach’sattestingitsowndivinecharactertoJohnBunyan?AndifsovenerableafigureasBunyancanbewrongaboutsuchathing,perhapsthesamecouldhappentoyouandme?

Conclusion

Ironically,theprincipleofSolaScripturaisthechiefimpedimenttodefiningtheexactlimitsoftheScripturewithinProtestantism.ItplacestheScripturesasthefinalcourtofappeal,butitisunabletoidentifywhichjudgesaretositonitsbench.ASolaScripturistmaysay,“ThussaiththeLord,”providedhequalifieshisstatementwiththewords“…Ithink.”Inotherwords,SolaScripturaisaself-refutingproposition.Noonecanknow,withsufficientcertainty,whattheScripturaisunlessheadoptsanormoutsideofscripturethatsetsthelimitsofScripture.ButthenScripturahasceasedtobeSola.

Nosolutionispossibleinthismatterbecauseallofthesemethodsareaposterioriinnature.Theyareattemptstojustifyapositionthathas,forotherreasons,alreadybeendetermined.

Theonlyalternativetotheseaposteriorisolutionsistotreatthecanonassomethinghandeddownorreceived,asdidsomeoftheearlyProtestantConfessions.However,thequestionmustbeasked:receivedfromwhom?SaintFrancisdeSales,anardentleaderoftheCatholiccounter-reformation,arguedthatnoancientcanonsquaresperfectlywiththatacceptedbyProtestants.Hewrote:

…Iprayyou,reformers,tellmewhenceyouhavetakenthecanonoftheScripturewhichyoufollow?YouhavenottakenitfromtheJews,forthebooksoftheGospelswouldnotbethere;norfromthe

CouncilofLaodicea,fortheApocalypsewouldnotbeinit;norfromtheCouncilsofCarthageorofFlorence,forEcclesiasticusandtheMachabeeswouldbethere.Whence,then,haveyoutakenit?Ingoodsooth,likecanonwasneverspokenofbeforeyourtime.TheChurchneversawcanonoftheScriptureinwhichtherewasnoteithermoreorlessthanyours.WhatlikelihoodistherethattheHolySpirithashiddenhimselffromallantiquity,andthatafter1500yearshehasdisclosedtocertainprivatepersonsthelistofthetrueScriptures?[765]

Jerome,inthelatefourthcentury,andsubsequentauthorswhorelieduponhisjudgmentrejectedtheDeuterocanonandacceptedtheremainingbooks,buthistoryhasshownhisnewcanontobeaninnovationandthebasisforhisnewcanonhasbeendemonstratedtobefalse.Wherethendoyouturn?Thecanonwasindeedsomethingthathasbeenreceived.TheChurchreceiveditfromChristandhisApostles.HowdoweknowwhichbookstheChurchreceivedasinspiredScripture?Augustineanswersthisquestionquiteneatly:consultthechurches,especiallythoseknowntohavebeenestablishedbytheApostles,andseewhichbooksarereadthereasScripture.Afterthishasbeendone,thewitnessoftheearlyChurchisclear:theDeuterocanonisinspiredScripture.

Ironically,theexaltationofScripture,asenvisionedbySolaScriptura,canonlybeexperiencedandpracticedwithintheCatholicChurch.TheCatholicChurchacceptstheScriptureassomethingreceivedfromOurLordandHisApostles.ItdoesnotdeterminewhatScriptureis,butitmanifestsitsinspiredstatusbyreadingitinitsliturgyasthewordofGod.Whenthecanoniscontested,theChurchreaffirmsthegiftithasreceivedfromtheApostles.ItisonlywithintheconfinesofthehistoricCatholicandApostolicChurchthatScripturestandspredetermined,untamperedwithbymeretraditionsofmen.OutsideofthehistoricChristianChurchtheBiblecanneverachievethehighestaspirationsofProtestantReformation.

Appendix2TheDeuterocanonandBiblicalInerrancy

ProtestantssometimesallegethattheDeuterocanoncontainshistorical,logical,theological,andmoralerrors.SinceScriptureisimmunefromerrors,theyarguethatDeuterocanonmustbedisqualifiedfrombeingconsideredpartofScripture.

ThehistoricalresponsetotheseaccusationshasbeeneithertoattempttoreconcilethesesupposederrorsortoshowsimilardifficultiesintheProtocanon.Thesetacticsoftenfallondeafears.JohnHenryNewmanoncesaidofbelievers,“Tenthousanddifficultiesdoesnotequalonedoubt.”ButforthosewhoarenotinclinedtoseetheDeuterocanonasScripture,onedoubtsufficientlyestablishestenthousanddifficulties.Evenifoneweretoharmonizewithninety-ninepercentcertaintythatagivenerrordoesnotexist,thenon-Catholicwoulddeemtheremainingonepercentsufficienttorejectthework.AppealingtosimilarproblemsintheProtocanonlikewisefallsondeafearsbecausesuchargumentsappearbedenigratingScripturebecausethe“realerrors”oftheDueterocanoncannotcomparetothemere“difficulties”oftheProtocanon.

Hereinliestheproblem.Whatconstitutesarealerror,asopposedtoa“Bibledifficulty”?Caneitherofthesetwobeestablishedbeyondalldoubt?Letusanswerthesecondquestionfirst.AllScriptureisinspiredorGod-breathed,butinspirationappliesonlytotheoriginaltext.Subsequentcopiesarenotimmunefromerrororcorruption.Overcenturiesofmanuallyre-copyingthesacredtext,copyistsundoubtedlymadeerrors.Fortunately,wepossessalargenumberofcopiesoftheNewTestament,someofwhichwerecreatednotlongaftertheoriginalinspiredtext(calledtheautograph)wasmade.Throughthescienceoftextualcriticism,wepossessatheoretictextoftheNewTestamentthatisnearlyidenticaltotheoriginalinspiredtext.TheOldTestamenttextdoesnotsharethesebenefits.EvenafterthediscoveriesoftheDeadSeaScrolls,theearliestmanuscriptsweownarestillcenturiesremovedfrom

theoriginals.DespitetheremarkablefidelityofJewishscribesoverthecenturies,difficultiesandcorruptionsexistintheOldTestament;andtheabilitytosolvethesedifficultiesconclusivelyisquitebeyondourreach.Itis,therefore,impossibletodemonstratetheexistenceoferrorsinagiventextwithoutlookingattheautograph.Allthatcanbeproducedisahighdegreeoftheprobabilityforagivenerror.

Evenifitwerepossibletoshowthatan“error”didexistintheautograph,itremainstobeprovedthattheauthormadethe“error.”Aninspiredwritingiswithouterroronlyifitisinterpretedinlinewiththeauthor’soriginalintent.Itis,obviously,possibleforthereadertounderstandatextincorrectly,soastomakeitappeartoconstituteorcontainanerror.Forexample,OurLordsaid,“IfanyonecomestoMe,anddoesnothatehisownfatherandmotherandwifeandchildrenandbrothersandsiters,yes,andevenhisownlife,hecannotbeMydisciple.”[766]Interpretedoneway,OurLordcouldbemadetoteachamoralerror.[767]ThoseinterpretingthispassageinthespiritoftheChurch,however,understandChristtobeusingtheliteraryformofhyperbole,whichisadeliberateexaggerationoroverstatementtomakeapoint.Inthiscase,theerrorexistedinourinterpretationandnotinthedocumentitself.

Ifthen,wecanneverknowwithcertaintyofthepresenceorabsenceofanerror,howdoweknowifanybookoftheBibleisinerrant?Inerrancyistheproductofinspiration.TheHolySpirit,whoisitsprimaryauthorofinspiredScripture,canneverdeceivenorbedeceived.

Theinspiredbooks,therefore,canneitherbemistakennordeliberatelydeceiveothers.Itistheinspiredstatusofagivenbookthatguaranteesforusitsinerrancy,notourowncriticalhistoricalinvestigations.Andthedeterminationofinspirationmustnecessarilycomebeforeanyotherquestionisasked.Ifatextisinspired,thenalldifficultiesareunderstoodtobeerrorsonlyinappearanceandnotactualerrors.If,ontheotherhand,onebelievesthatatextnotinspired(i.e.itdoesnothavetheHolySpiritasitsprimaryauthor.),thenthereisapossibilitythatthedifficultymaybeinfactarealerror.[768]Thereasonwhythesupposedmoral“error”

committedinLuke14:26abovewassoeasytosolvecomesfromourpre-determinationthattheGospelofLukeis,infact,aninspiredtextand

pre-determinationthattheGospelofLukeis,infact,aninspiredtextanditcannoterr.Basedonthispresupposition,weendeavortoharmonizethedifficulty.

Theappealto“errors”intheDeuterocanonultimatelyendsupcommittingtheformalfallacyofbeggingthequestionbecausetheProtestantbeginsallhisinquirieswiththepresuppositionthattheDeuterocanonisnotinspired.WhendifficultiesarefoundintheDeuterocanon,thereaderassumesthatthesedifficultiesaretrueerrorsandconcludesthattheDeuterocanonmustnotbeinspired.[769]TheDeuterocanoncannotbeinspiredbecauseithaserrors,andithaserrorsbecauseitisnotinspired.Forthisreason,neitherCatholicsnornon-Catholicsarepersuadedtochangetheirpositionbyargumentsbasedonsupposederrors.ThesameistruewithpointingoutsimilardifficultiesintheProtocanonortheNewTestament.ForProtestantswhorejecttheinspirationoftheDeuterocanonandaccepttheinspirationoftheNewTestament,comparingdifficultiesbetweenthetwotextswouldbelikecomparingapplestooranges.Theaprioriconvictionofinspirationandinerrancyrenderstheappealmoot.

Thebestwayoutofthisdilemmaisnottoenteritatall.

Biblicalinerrancyisnotbaseduponourfeebleabilitiestosolveeveryproblem.OurfaithrestsupontheGodwhoinspiredthetext,notinourownabilitiesorinus.Firstdetermineifatextisinspiredandonlythendetermineiferrorsexist.Doingotherwiseisnotonlyanti-Protestant(placingourselvesasjudgeoverScripture),butithasalsoservedtodestroybeliefinBiblicalinerrancywithinmainlineProtestantism.

AppealstosupposederrorsintheDeuterocanonhavelongpepperedProtestant/Catholicdebatesandrendereditfaruglierthanitneededtobe.BecauseCatholicismwasitstarget,fewhadtheforethoughtthatthismethodcouldbeusedagainsttherestoftheBible.AstheReformedscholarEdwardRuessnoted,“ThescoffsthrownatthelittlefishofTobitwillsoonerorlaterdestroyJonah’swhale.”[770]Ruess’propheticwordshavebeenfulfilledbytheextravagancesofhighercriticism.AftertheApocryphacontroversyhadsubsided,criticsturnedthesameweaponsagainst,notonlytheProphetJonah,butalsotherestofthebooksofScripture.So-callederrorsandabsurditieswerequicklyexpungedfrom

theProtocanonoftheOldandNewTestaments.Wholebookswerelabeled(orlibeled)asmythsandfables.Theendresultisabiblewhereonlyafewpassagesareworthyofbelief.Anti-CatholicpolemicistshaveunwittinglyopenedaPandora’sBox.TheyassumednoonewouldeverdarechargetherestofScripturewitherrorsandabsurdities,yettheadventofLiberalProtestantismbroughtwithitindividualswhodidnotfeartoapplytheseargumentsconsistentlythroughouttheentireBible.

Theproblemattheheartofthislineofargumentationisoneofpride.Itplacestheintellectintheroleofjudge,allowingittositinjudgmentupontheWordofGod.YetwemustknowinadvancewhattheWordofGodisbeforeofferingitthiskindofallegiance.ThatiswhythecanonofScripturemustbereceivedasSacredTradition.

IttakeshumilitytoacceptthecanonofScriptureasgiventotheChurch.ButoncewehavemadesuchanactallthegloriesoftheBibleopenuptous.Wemayhumblysubmitourintellecttothetext,sittingattheMaster’sfeetlikelittlechildren,knowingthatevenifthepowertosolvealldifficultiesisbeyondus,thereisneverthelessasolution.Todootherwisewouldbenotonlyanti-Protestant(sinceifviolatesSolaScriptura),butanti-Catholicandanti-Christianaswell.

SelectedBibliography

Aichele,George,TheControlofBiblicalMeaning:CanonAsSemioticMechanism.Pennsylvania:TrinityPressInternational,2001.

Althaus,Paul.TheTheologyofMartinLuther.TranslatedbyRobertC.Schultz.Pennsylvania:FortressPress,1966.

Alzog,JohnM.H.ManualofUniversalChurchHistory.London:GillandSon,.Ltd.,1874.3volumes

Aquinas,Thomas.SummaTheologica:CompleteEnglishEditionInFiveVolumes.TranslatedbyFathersoftheEnglishDominicanProvince.Westminster,Maryland,ChristianClassics,1948.

_______.SummaTheologica.EditioAlteraRomanaademendatioreseditionesimpressaetnoviteraccuratissimerecognita.Romae:ExTypographiaForzaniETS.,1894.

Archer,GleasonL.EncyclopediaofBibleDifficulties.GrandRapids:ZondervanPublishingHouse,1982.

Bader,Gershom.TheEncyclopediaofTalmudicSages.TranslatedbySolomonKatz.NorthvaleNewJersey:JasonAronson,Inc.,1988.

Barr,James.HolyScripture:Canon,Authority,Criticism.Philadelphia:WestminsterPress,1983.

Barrera,JulioTrebolle.TheJewishBibleandtheChristianBible:AnIntroductiontotheHistoryoftheBible..TranslatedbyWilfredG.E.Watson.GrandRapids:Eerdmans.1998

Barry,William.TheTraditionofScripture:ItOrigin,AuthorityandInterpretation.NewYork:Longmans,GreenandCompany,1906.

Barton,John.OraclesofGod:PerceptionsofAncientProphecyinIsraelaftertheExile.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1990.

________.HolyWritings,SacredText:TheCanonInEarlyChristianity.Louisville,Kentucky:WestminsterJohnKnoxPress.1997.

Bauer,Walter,Gingrich,F.Wilbur,andDanker,FrederickW.AGreek-EnglishLexiconoftheNewTestamentandOtherEarlyChristianLiterature,Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1979.

Beckwith,RodgerT.TheOldTestamentCanonoftheNewTestamentChurch.GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1985.

________.“CanonoftheHebrewBibleandtheOldTestament.”InTheOxfordCompaniontotheBible.EditedbyBruceM.MetzgerandM.D.Coogan.Pages102-4.NewYork/Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1993.

________.“TheCanonoftheOldTestament.”InTheOriginoftheBible.EditedbyPhilipWesleyComfort.Pages51-64.WheatonIll.:Tyndale,1992.

Beegle,DeweyM.Scripture,InspirationandInfallibility.GrandRapids:Wm.B.EerdmansPublishingCompany,1973.

Billington,RayAllen,TheProtestantCrusade1800-1860(Gloucester,Mass.:PetterSmith,1963),42-43

Bloch,Joshua,“OutsideBooks.”InTheCanonandMasorahoftheNewHebrewBible.editedbySidZ.Lieman.NewYork:KTAV.

Boring,EugeneM.“Matthew.”InTheNewInterpreter’sBible.EditedbyinPhemePerkinsetal.Volume8.

Brabban,RalphJ.,II.TheUseoftheApocryphaandPseudepigraphaintheWritingsoftheApostolicFathers.DoctoralDissertationsubmittedtothefacultyofBaylorUniversity,WacoTexas,UMIDissertationInformationService,1984

Breen,A.E.AGeneralandCriticalIntroductiontotheHolyScripture.NewYork:JohnP.SmithPrinting,1897

Bruce,F.F.TheCanonofScripture.DownersGrove,Illinois.:InterVarsity,1988.

Calvin,John.InstitutesoftheChristianReligion,translatedbyHenryBeveridge,GrandRapids:Wm.B.EerdmansPublishingCompany,1993.

________.AntidotetotheCouncilofTrent.TranslatedbyHenryBeveridge.Edinburgh,1851.3Volumes.

Carroll,WarrenH.,TheCleavingofChristendom.ChristendomPress,2001.

Chadwick,Owen.TheApocryphainEcumenicalPerspective,UBSMonographSeries,No.6.EditedbySiegfriedMeurer.TranslatedbyPaulEllingworth.Read,UK,NewYork:UnitedBibleSocieties,1991.

Childs,BrevardS.BiblicalTheologyoftheOldandNewTestaments:TheologicalReflectionontheChristianBible.Minneapolis:Fortress,1993

Comfort,PhilipWesley.ed.TheOriginoftheBible.Wheaton,Ill.:Tyndale,1992.

Cornley,E.P.ManuelD’IntroductionHistoriqueetCritiqueatouteslesLaintesEvcritures,TomePremier.P.Lethielleux,Libraire-Editeur,1907

Cosin,John.AScholasticalHistoryoftheCanonoftheHolyScriptureorTheCertainandIndubitateBookesThereofasTheyareReceivedintheChurchofEngland,London:RobertPawlett,1672.

Cox,RichardB.Jr.,TheNineteenthCenturyBritishApocryphaControversy.DoctoralDissertationsubmittedtothefacultyofBaylorUniversity,WacoTexas,1981.

Cross,F.L.andLivington,E.A.eds.TheOxfordDictionaryoftheChristianChurch,2ed.,NewYork/Oxford:OxfordUniv.Press,1983

Daubney,WilliamHeaford.TheUseoftheApocryphaintheChristianChurch.London:C.J.ClayandSons,1900.

Dentan,RobertC.TheApocrypha:BridgeoftheTestaments.Greenwich,Connecticut:Seabury,1954.

DenzingerH.andC.Bannwart,EnchiridionSymbolorum:DefinitionumetDeclarationumDeRebusFideietMorum.London:Herder&Co.,1922

________.TheSourcesofCatholicDogma,TranslatedbyRoyJ.Deferrari.St.Louis:B.HerderBookCo.,13thedition,1954.

Duncker,PeterG.“TheCanonoftheOldTestamentattheCouncilof

Trent.”InTheCatholicBiblicalQuarterly15(1953).

Davies,PhilipR..ScribesandSchools:TheCanonizationoftheHebrewScriptures.Louisville,Kentucky:WestminsterJohnKnowPress,1998

DeSales,Francis.TheCatholicControversy:St.FrancisDeSales’DefenseoftheFaith.TranslatedbyHenryBenedictMackey,O.S.B.,Rockford,Illinois:TanBooksandPublishers,1989

EllisE.Earle.TheOldTestamentinEarlyChristianity:CanonandInterpretationintheLightofModernResearch.GrandRapids:BakerBookHouse.

EncyclopediaofBibleDifficulties,ed.GleasonL.Archer.GrandRapids:ZondervanPublishingHouse,1982.

Feldman,LouisH.andHataGohei,editors.Josephus,theBibleandHistory,Detroit,WayneStateUniversityPress,1989.

Filson,FloydV.,WhichBooksBelongInTheBible?Philadelpha:WestminsterPress,1957.

Fuller,ReginaldC.,Johnston,Leonard,Kearns,Conleth,eds.,NewCatholicCommentaryonHolyScripture,ThomasNelsonPublishers,1969.

Funk,FrancisXavier.AManualofChurchHistory.St.Louise,Missouri:BHerder,1912.2volumes.

Geisler,NormanL.andMacKenzie,RalphE.RomanCatholicsandEvangelicals:AgreementsandDifferences.GrandRapids:BakerBookHouse,1995.

Gersh,Harry.TheSacredBooksoftheJews.NewYork:SteinAndDay,1968.

Gigot,FrancisE.GeneralIntroductiontotheStudyoftheHolyScriptures.NewYork:BenzingerBrothers,1900

Goodspeed,EdgarJ.,TheStoryoftheApocrypha.Chicago/London:UniversityofChicagoPress,1937.

Gray,Rebecca.PropheticFiguresinLateSecondTempleJewish

Palestine:TheEvidencefromJosephus.London:OxfordUniversityPress,1997.

Green,WilliamH.GeneralIntroductiontotheOldTestament:TheCanon.NewYork,CharlesScribner’sSons,1906

Greenslade,S.L.ed.TheCambridgeHistoryoftheBible:TheWestFromTheReformationToThePresentDay.CambridgeUniversityPress:England,1963.

Gundert,Wilhelm“TheBibleSocietiesandtheDeuterocanonicalWritings.”InTheApocryphainEcumenticalPerspective,UBSMonographSeries,No.6.EditorSiegfriedMeurer.TranslatedbyPaulEllingworth.Read/UK/NewYork:UnitedBibleSocieties.

Hengel,Martin.TheSeptuagintAsChristianScripture:ItsPrehistoryAndTheProblemOfItsCanon.TranslatedbyMarkE.Biddle,Edinburgh&NewYork:T&T.

Henry,Matthew.MatthewHenry’sCommentaryontheBible.Peabody,MA:HendricksonPublishers,1991.

Howorth,SirHenry.“TheOriginAndAuthorityOfTheBiblicalCanonAccordingToTheContinentalReformers”JournalofTheologicalStudies,Volume8,1907,321

_______.“TheBibleCanonoftheReformation.”IntheInternationalJournaloftheApocrypha.No.20,SeriesVI,Jan.1910–1917.

_______.“TheDecretalofDamasus”IntheJournalofTheologicalStudies,Volume14,1918,Pages321-36.

_______.“TheInfluenceofJeromeontheCanonoftheWesternChurch,”IIIntheJournalofTheologicalStudies,Volume.11,1909/1910,Pages321-347.

_______.“TheInfluenceofJeromeontheCanonoftheWesternChurch,”III.IntheJournalofTheologicalStudies,Volume13,1911,Pages1-27

Jacobs,C.M.ed.WorksofMartinLuther.Philadelphia:MuhlenbergPress,1932.

Jedin,Hubert.AHistoryoftheCouncilofTrent.TranslatedbyDomErnestGrafO.S.B..St.Louis,Missouri:B.HerderBookCo.,1961,2volumes.

Josephus,Flavius.TheWorksofJosephus:CompleteandUnabridged,NewUpdatedEdition.TranslatedbyWilliamWhiston,A.M..Peabody,Massachusetts,HendricksonPublishers,1987.

Jurgens,W.A.TheFaithoftheEarlyFathers.Collegeville,Minnesota:TheLiturgicalPress,1970-1979,3volumes.

Kelly,J.N.D.EarlyChristianDoctrines:RevisedEdition.SanFrancisco,Harper,1978.

Lamberton,ClarkD.EarlyChristianPaintingAndTheCanonOfScripture.Volume17,No.8.WesternReserveUniversityBulletin.

Lewis,JackP.,“WhatDoWeMeanbyJamnia?”inJournalofBibleandReligion32(1964).

Lieman,SidZ.TheCanonizationoftheHebrewScripture:TheTalmudicandMidrashicEvidence.Hamden,Conn.:Archon,1976

Lightfoot,J.B.NotesontheEpistlesofSt.Paul.Peabody,MA:HendricksonPublishers,1995

Kelly,J.N.D.TheOxfordDictionaryofthePopes.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1988.

________.Jerome:HisLife,WritingsandControversies.Peabody,MA:Hendrickson,1998.

________.Lutheran–OrthodoxDialogue:AgreedStatements1985-1989,Geneva:LutheranWorldFederation,1992

________.LutheranCyclopediaAConciseIn-HomeReferencefortheChristianFamily,EditedbyErwinL.Lueker,St.Louis:Concordia,1975

Lyell,JamesP.R.,CardinalXimenes:Stateman,Ecclesiastic,SoldierandManofLettersWithAnAccountOfTheComplutensianPolyglotBible.London:Grafton&Co.,1917

Margoliouth,D.S.,“TheUseoftheApocryphabyMoslemWriters”inIJA,

12.44(Jan..1916).

Marsh,Jr.,HarryC.CosmicStructureandtheKnowledgeofGod:ThomasAquinas.InLibrumBeatiDionysiideDivinisNominibusExpositio.[Dissertation:VanderbiltUniversity;1994]CommentaryontheDivineNames,IV-11

McDonald,LeeM.TheFormationoftheChristianBiblicalCanon:RevisedanExpandedEdition,Massachusetts:HendricksonPublishers,1996.

McNally,RobertE.TheBibleintheEarlyMiddleAges.WoodstockPapersNo.4.Westminster/Maryland:TheNewmanPress,1959.

Metzger,BruceM.“Bible.”InTheOxfordCompaniontotheBible.EditedbyBruceM.MetzgerandM.D.Coogan.Page79.NewYork/Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1993.

________.TheCanonOfTheNewTestament:ItsOrigin,Development,AndSignificance.Oxford:ClarendonPress,1992.

________.IntroductiontotheApocrypha.OxfordUniversityPress,1977.

Meyers,Rudolf.“SupplementontheCanonandtheApocrypha.”TDNT,3.978-87.

________.“kruptw.”TDNT.3.980.

________.“profhthN.ktl.”TDNT.6.812-28.

Morre,GeorgeF.“TheDefinitionoftheJewishCanonandtheRepudiationoftheChristianScripture.”InTheCanonandMasorahoftheNewHebrewBible.EditedbySidZ.Lieman.NewYork:KTAV,1974.

Nestle-AlandGreekNewTestament,27thedition(NovumTestamentum:GraeceetLatine,(DeutscheBibelgesellschaft).

Neuser,WilliamH.“TheReformedChurchesandtheOldTestamentApocrypha.”InTheApocryphainEcumenicalPerspective.NewYork:UnitedBibleSocieties.

Newman,RobertC.,“TheCouncilofJamniaandtheOldTestamentCanon.”IntheWestminsterTheologicalJournal38(Spring,1976)reprintedintheInterdisciplinaryBiblicalResearchInstitute(ReportNo.

reprintedintheInterdisciplinaryBiblicalResearchInstitute(ReportNo.13),Hatfield,Pennsylvania:IBRN.n.d.

Oesterley,W.O.E.AnIntroductiontotheBooksoftheApocrypha.London:SPCK,1958.

Oepke,Albrecht,“kruvptw”TDNT,“SupplementontheCanonandtheApocrypha.”3.988-992.

Paché,René,TheInspirationandAuthorityofScripture.TranslatedbyHelenI.Needham,Chicago,MoodyPress,1969.

QumranandtheHistoryoftheBiblicalText,ed.F.M.CrossandS.Talmon(HarvardUniversityPress,Massachusetts),1975.

Robert,A.andTricotA.TheGuidetotheBible:AnIntroductiontotheStudyofHolyScripture.NewYork:DescleeCompany.Volume1,1970.

RobertsandDonaldsoned.TheAnteNiceneFathersGrandRapids:Eerdmans,10volumes.

Ruess,EdwardW.HistoryoftheCanonoftheHolyScripturesintheChristianChurch.Edinburgh:JamesGemmell,GeorgeIV.Bridge,1890.

Rüger,HansPeter.“TheExtentoftheOldTestamentCanon.”InTheBibleTranslator,No.40,1989.

Ryle,HerbertEdward.TheCanonoftheOldTestament.London:MacmillanandCo.Limited,1904

Pfeiffer,R.H.“CanonoftheOT.”IDB,1.498-520.

Pieper,Francis.TheWitnessOfHistoryForScripture(HomologoumenaandAntilegomena).InChristianDogmatics,Volume.1.St.Louis:ConcordiaPublishingHouse,1950.Pages330–338.

Sanders,E.P.withA.I.BaumgartenandAlanMendelson,eds.,JewishandChristianSelf-Definition.Volume2.Philadelpha:FortressPress,1981.

Scannell,JohnM.,TheCanonofSacredScripture:AContributiontotheControversy,Southampton:SteamPrintingWorks,1892.

Schaff,Philip.TheCreedsofChristendomwithaHistoryandCritical

Notes.GrandRapids:BakerBookHouse,1889

_______.HistoryoftheChristianChurch

Smith,WilliamandCheetham,Samuel,eds.,DictionaryofChristianAntiquities,London:JohnMurray,1876,2volumes.

Stern,DavidH.JewishNewTestamentCommentary.Clarksville,MD:JewishNewTestamentPublications,1992.

Steinmueller,JohnE.TheCompaniontoScriptureStudies;GeneralIntroduction.,London:B.Herder1950.

Sundberg,AlbertC.,Jr.TheOldTestamentoftheEarlyChurch.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,1964

________.“CanonoftheNT.”IDB.EditedbyKeithCrim.Sup.Vol.,136-40.Nashville:Abingdon,1976

________.“TheOldTestament:AChristianCanon.”CBQ30(1968)403-9.

________.“TheProtestantOldTestamentCanon:ShouldItBeRe-examined?”CBQ28(1966)194-203

________.“TheOldTestamentCanonintheNewTestamentChurch,Revisited.”InFestschriftinHonorofCharlesSpeel.EditedbyThomasJ.SienkewiczandJamesE.Betts.MonmouthIll.:MonmouthCollege,1997

________.“TheOldTestamentoftheEarlyChurch(AStudyinCanon).”HTR51:205-226.

Swanson,TheodoreNorman,TheClosingoftheCollectionofHolyScriptures:AStudyintheHistoryoftheCanonizationoftheOldTestament.DoctoralDissertationsubmittedtothefacultyofVanderbiltUniversity,NashvilleTN,UMIDisserationInformationService,1970

Swete,H.B.IntroductiontotheOldTestamentinGreek.RevisedbyR.R.Ottley.Peabody,MA:Hendrickson,1989

Tanner,NormanP.DecreesoftheEcumenicalCouncils.Georgetown:GeorgetownUniversityPress,1990,2volumes.

Weiser,Artur,Weiser.TheOldTestament:ItsFormationandDevelopment.NewYork:AssociationPress,1961

Walvoord,JohnF.,andZuck,RoyB.,TheBibleKnowledgeCommentary.Wheaton,Ill.:ScripturePressPublications,Inc.,1983,1985.

Westcott,BrookeFoss.TheBibleintheChurch:APopularAccountoftheCollectionandReceptionoftheHolyScripturesintheChristianChurches,NewYork:MacmillianandCo.,1887

Wildeboer,G.,TheOriginoftheCanonoftheOldTestament,TranslatedbyBenjaminWisnerBacan.London:Luzac&Co..1895

Woffle,John.TheProtestantCrusadeInGreatBritain1829-1860.Oxford:ClarendonPress,1991.

[1] Some argue that theDeuterocanon should be rejected because theJewsonlyacceptedworkswritteninHebrew.Thisisfalse.Portionsofthe Protocanon were written in Aramaic, not Hebrew, and only twobooksof theDeutrocanonwereoriginallywritten inGreek (Wsand2Mc). The remaining books were composed in Hebrew. For example,fragments of the Hebrew Sirach (2Q18 (2QSir) 2QBenSira ß) werefound among the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as five fragments of theBookofTobit(4Q196-4Q200),fourfragmentswereinAramaicandonein Hebrew. Also, the so-called Ben Sira Scroll dating from the firstcentury before Christ was discovered in Masada contains Sir 39:27-44:17inHebrew.Inastorageroom(genizah)inanancientsynagogueinCairo,HebrewmanuscriptsofSirachwerediscovered(A,B,CandD). Even the books of Wisdom and 2 Maccabees were eventuallytranslated, by the Jews, intoHebreworAramaic.Origenwas able toproduce theHebrewname forMaccabees (Eusebius’ChurchHistory,6,25),andMosesbeNahman(Nachmanides,c.1194-1270)possessedanAramaiccopyoftheBookofWisdom(AlbertC.Sundberg,Jr.,“TheOldTestament:AChristianCanon,”CBQ30(1968):152.).

[2]ThefactthatSirach’sgrandsonfeltitnecessarytotranslateSirachintoGreek (as was done with the other books of Scripture in his day)indicates that it was well received by the Jews in Egypt. ThisacceptancecouldonlyhappenifitwerefirstacceptedinPalestine.SeeJohn E. Steinmuller, The Companion to Scripture Studies; GeneralIntroduction (London: B. Herder, 1950), 63; Also see Pfeiffer, IBD,1:499.

[3] Sir Preface 1:1, “The Law, the Prophets, and the other writerssucceedingthem”;SirPreface1:7,“MygrandfatherJesus,havinglongdevoted himself to the reading of the Law, the Prophets and otherbooks of the Fathers.” Sir Preface 1:24-25, “…[T]he Law itself, theProphetsandtheotherbooks....”

[4]SeeLeeM.McDonald,TheFormationoftheChristianBiblicalCanon:Revised an Expanded Edition (Massachusetts: HendricksonPublishers,1996),36;W.O.E.Oesterley,AnIntroductiontotheBooksoftheApocrypha(London:SPCK,1958),121,etal.

[5] The claim that only those publicly known as prophets can writeScripture is contestable and will be addressed in this chapter’s

discussionofthewritingsofJosephus.[6]Emphasisadded.[7] Lam2:9.Emphasisadded.[8] R. Meyers, “kruptw–Supplement on the Canon and the Apocrypha,”TDNT3:980FN64.

[9] PaulJohnson,HistoryofChristianity(NewYork:MacMillan,1976),15.[10]Mt7:29,Mk1:22.[11]2Mc15:9[12] ContemplativeLife,25-26.Emphasisadded.Anywherefromathree-foldtoafive-folddivisionofwritingscanbediscernedinthispassage.

[13] Andsurely“Psalms”isaverystrangedescriptorforbookslikeEzra,Esther,andtheChronicles—noneofwhichispoeticandnoneofwhichwas authored by David. Some apologists have tried tomake such adescriptormoreplausiblebyappealingtooneoftheDeadSeaScrolls,a fragment called Miqsat Ma’asch Torah or 4QMMT. As currentlyedited, the fragment reads: “Foronaccountof [these things]wehave[written]foryouthatyoumayperceiveinthebookofMoses[andinthewordsoftheProphetsandinDavidandinthewordsoftheDays(i.e.,Chronicles)] fromgenerationtogeneration.”Thehopehere is that thereferencetoDavidisareferencetohisPsalms(plausibleenough)andthat the further reference to the Chronicles (which, after all, tell thestory ofDavid) demonstrates a link between the two. Then,with oneadditional step, the other books which came later to accompany theChronicles in the collection known as “theWritings”may be includedwith themherebyassociation.Werewecertain thatevery link in thiselaborate chain of guesswork were sound, this Dead Sea fragmentmight very well impact our understanding of Lk 24:44. Even in thatunlikely event, however, other factors would seriously diminish itsvalue;itsdating,forinstance,isveryuncertain(itmayevenhavebeencomposedafter Luke’sGospel!) andasMcDonald notes (44): “Thereareseveralimportantlettersandwordsmissing,makingallconclusionsaboutitarbitrary…”

[14] Theuseof“theLaw,theProphetsandthePsalms”alsomirrorsthewaythattheNewTestamentitselfusesScripture,sincenearly60%ofall the direct citations from theOldTestament in theNewTestamentare taken fromDeuteronomy(theLaw), Isaiah (theProphets)and the

BookofPsalms.SeeMartinHangel,Septuagint inPrehistoryand theProblem of the Canon, Trans. Mark E. Biddle (Edinburgh: T and T,2004), 106-107. Jesus’ words in Lk 24:44, if taken in their plainestsense,mirrortheNewTestamentusage.See“Canon,”ABD,1:839.

[15] EdwardW.Reuss,HistoryoftheCanonoftheHolyScripturesintheChristian Church. Trans. David Hunter (Edinburgh: R. W. Hunter,1891),10.

[16] BabaKamma92basquoted inSidZ.Lieman,TheCanonizationofthe Hebrew Scripture: Talmudic and Midrastic Evidence (Hamden,Connecticut:Archon,1976),97.Emphasisadded.Hagiographameans“HolyWritings.”

[17] Preface to theBookofPsalms,quoted inEusebius’ChurchHistory6.25.

[18] See Prologue to the Psalms, 15. Athanasius of Alexandria alsoincludesBaruchinhislistoftheJewishcanon.

[19] A.E.Breen,AGeneralandCriticalIntroductiontotheHolyScripture,(Rochester,NewYork:JohnP.SmithPrintingHouse,1897),55.

[20] Cf.Zec1:1[21] Gleason L. Archer, ed. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (GrandRapids:ZondervanPublishingHouse,1982),337-38.ZechariahsonofBarachiah is the preferred reading in modern critical editions of theGreek New Testament. The chance of it being a textual variant isremote.

[22] TheAleppoCodex[alsoknownastheKeterAramTsova]wascopiedaround AD 935. Before the Qumran discoveries, it was one of theoldest copies of the Hebrew Old Testament. This placement of theChroniclesisalsofoundinnumerouslaterHebrewmanuscriptsaswell.See.ABD1.840.

[23] McDonald,BiblicalCanon,47.[24] Josephus is generally recognized as the earliest Jewish writer toaddress the “canon” of theOldTestament.Hewrotenear theendofthefirstChristiancentury.AlthoughmanyappealtoJosephusasproofthatthecanonhadalreadybeenclosedbytheendofthefirstChristiancentury, there is no consensus as to exactlywhen this occurred andwhomighthaveclosedit.Remember,too,thatforChristians,nocanonwhichexcludes theNewTestamentcanbeconsideredcomplete;and

any canon subject to possible reopening at a future date is really nocanon at all, for the very word “canon”means a collection fixed andunalterable.

[25] Mt 27:43,Ws 2:17-18 and Ps 22:8 (LXX) all use the sameGreekwordfor“rescue.”

[26]Thisconnectionseemsall themorecertainwhenonecomparestheuseof thepostpositive “gar” (translated “for”) inMt 27:42-43 [Gk. “…eipengarhotitheoueimihuios]andtheconditionalclausefoundinWs2:17-18[Gk.“Eigarestinhodikaioshuiostheou”].Emphasisadded.

[27] Emphasisadded.[28] Paul,withoutreferencingWs2:17-18,saysasmuchinRom1:4.

[29] For example, Barnabas, Epistle of Barnabas 6:7; Hippolytus ofRome,Against theJews,8-9;CyprianofCarthage,Against theJews,2.14.1; Hilary of Poitiers, Tract. in Psalm 41.12; Jerome (withoutmentionofprophecy)CommentaryonIsaiah,Book2,3:1;GregorytheGreat,CommentaryonJob9.89;Nicephorus,ApologeticusProSacrisImaginibus,PG100:751-752etal.

[30] TheProtestantAnglicanscholarW.H.Daubneybelievesthesecross-referenceswere “improperlyexpunged”andquotes the famedbiblicalscholar F.H.A. Scrivener who calls this action “an unwarrantablelicense.” (WilliamHeafordDaubney,TheUseof theApocrypha in theChristianChurch(London:C.J.ClayandSons,1900),21quotingTheCambridgeParagraphBibleoftheAuthorizedEnglishVersion,withthetext revisedbyacollationof itsearlyandotherprincipaleditions, theuseoftheitalictypemadeuniform,themarginalreferencesremodeled,andacritical introductionprefixed,F.H.A.Scrivener,ed., (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1873),lvi.

[31] SeeBruceVawter,John(JBC;NJ:Prentice-Hall,1968),63:119,445.AlsoJn9:5.

[32] Jn1:9[33] Is29:16,45:9,64:8andJer18:6[34] CompareRom9:21andWs15:7.BruceM.Metzger,IntroductiontotheApocrypha(OxfordUniversityPress,1957),161.

[35] Metzger,Introduction,161.

[36] SeeWs7:22andPrv8:30.[37] W.J.Deane,inhiscommentaryontheBookofWisdom,statesthat“The similarity here is too close to be accidental” (W. J. Deane,TheBookofWisdom,(Oxford,1881),36.

[38] Heb 11:1-2 (literally “were attested of”). Certainly, God attests tothesemen’ssupernatural faith,but is thisdivineattestation recorded?TheirfaithisattestedinScripture.

[39] 2Mc7:9states,“…Thouindeed,Omostwickedman,destroyestusoutofthispresentlife:buttheKingoftheworldwillraiseusup,whodieforhislaws,intheresurrectionofeternallife.”Likewise,thefourthsonin2Mc7:14says,“…Itisbetter,beingputtodeathbymen,tolookforhopefromGod,toberaisedupagainbyhim:for,astotheethoushalthavenoresurrectionuntolife.”

[40] WilliamHeafordDaubney,TheUseoftheApocryphaintheChristianChurch (London: C.J. Clay and Sons, 1900), 22. AlsoMetzger, 163-164.

[41] Thereferencetothenoncanonicalbook,TheAscensionofIsaiah,inHeb11:37doesnotnegatemypoint. It isnotmycontentionthatHeb11 used only information supplied by Scripture, but that it uses onlybiblical figures to illustrate supernatural Faith. This is clear from theprecedingcontext.Thereferencetothosewhowere“sawnintwo”isanexpansion on the biblical figure of the prophet Isaiah. One can findnumerousexpansionsofbiblical figures in theNewTestament (e.g.2Tm3:8,Jude14,etal.)fromapocryphalsources,butnone introducesnewbiblicalcharacters.

[42] J. B. Lightfoot, Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul (Peabody, MA:HendricksonPublishers,1995),252.Emphasisadded.

[43] Metzger,Introduction,163.[44] FromBishopEllicott’sCommentaryforEnglishReaders,asquotedinDaubney,UseoftheApocrypha,19.

[45] BothaccuseGodofbeingtheoriginofevilacts.[46] SeeEdersheim,Speaker’sCommentary,22asquoted inDaubney,UseoftheApocrypha,24FN1.

[47] AlsoseeDaubney,UseoftheApocrypha,24.[48] Emphasisadded.[49] Especially,Mt27:43,Jn3:12,Jas1,3,5,Heb1:3etal.Quotations

frompaganphilosophersdonotweakenthispoint.Pagansourcesarequoted, not as Scripture, but as authoritative figures for paganaudiences. The Deuterocanon passages are directed toward aChristianand/orJewishaudience.

[50] AgainstApion,1.1.[51]AgainstApion,1.3.[52]AgainstApion,1.41.Emphasisadded.[53]SederOlamRabbah,30asquotedinLeiman,Canonization,66.[54]ToseftaSotah13:2asquotedinLeiman,Canonization,66.[55]SeeMt10:41;11:9;14:5;21:11,26,46;Mk6:4,15;11:32;7:16,39,24:19;Lk2:36;Jn1:21;4:19;9:17;11:51etal.).

[56] See Antiquities 1.240-41; 3.218; 13.311-13; 20.97-99; 20.167-68;20.169-72;20.188;20.167-68;6.283-87;14.22-24,etal.).

[57] JohnM.Scannell,TheCanonofSacredScripture:AContributiontothe Controversy on Rome and the Bible (Southhampton: SteamPrinting,1892),4,16.

[58] Artaxerxes’ reign (464–424 BC) roughly corresponds to the periodcoveredbyHerodotusandThucydides(ca.460–400BC)aswellasthehistoriansCadmusofMiletusandAcusilausofArgos(ca.550–500BC)whoarementionedbyJosephusinAgainstApion1.2.

[59] Rebecca Gray, Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple JewishPalestine: The Evidence from Josephus. London (Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress,1997),12-13.

[60]AntiquitiesBook20,Chapter11§2.[61] Francis E. Gigot, General Introduction to the Study of the HolyScriptures (NewYork:BenzingerBrothers,1900),33,commentingonJewishAntiquitiesBook12,Chapter5,§1-Book13,Chapter7,Books11,Chapter6§6,etc.

[62]HerbertE.Ryle,TheCanonoftheOldTestament(London:Macmillan&Co.,1904),170-171.

[63] See Josephus, the Bible and History, ed. Louis Feldman (WayneStateUniversityPress,1989).

[64] SeeJ.N.D.Kelly,TheOxfordDictionaryofthePopes(Oxford/NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1988),7

[65] This allusion is confirmed by W. H. Daubney, F.X. Glimm, E.J.Goodspeed,R.M.Grant,A.Harnack,J.A.Kleist,D.R.Knopf,K.Lake,

J.B.Lightfoot,J.P.Migne,C.C.Richardson,andJ.Sparks.Westcott,however, calls this connection into doubt (Brooke F. Westcott, TheBibleintheChurch:aPopularAccountoftheCollectionandReceptionoftheHolyScripturesintheChristianChurches(NewYork:MacmillianandCo.,1887),84-85),butelsewhereacknowledgesthatClementdidnot restrict himself to only the Protocanonical books (Westcott,Bible,123).

[66] Oesterley,Introduction,125.[67]Gk.“…diacharitostoutheou.”[68]1Clement42:1and47:1respectively.[69]RalphJ.BrabbanII,“TheUseoftheApocryphaandPseudepigraphaintheWritingsoftheApostolicFathers”(Ph.D.diss.,BaylorUniversity,1984), 350-51.MartinHengel,TheSeptuagintAsChristianScripture:ItsPrehistoryandTheProblemoftheCanon(BakerAcademic,2004),115.

[70] Therelationshipbetweenthesetwotextsisdisputed.Oesterleyseesan interminglingofWs2:12and Is3:9-10 indicating thatbothwereofequalauthority. (Oesterley, Introduction, 125).Similarly, theTheAnteNicene Fathers, edited by Roberts and Donaldson (Grand Rapids:EerdmansPublishers)acknowledgesbothpassages.SeeANF1.140,FN. 19. Likewise, Migne, Muilenburg, Kraft, Goodspeed, Lake, andSparksconfirmsthisconnectionasdoesBrabban,whocallsita“looseparaphrase” (Brabban, “Use of the Apocrypha,” 358-59). Westcott(Westcott,84),Beckwith(RodgerBeckwith,TheOldTestamentCanonof the New Testament Church and its Background in Early Judaism(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 427, FN. 208) and Norman L.GeislerandRalphE.MacKenzie’sRomanCatholicsandEvangelicals:Agreements and Differences (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,1995),161)andothersdisputethisconnection.

[71] Ws2:15-16[72] IrenaeusofLyons,AgainstHeresies,3.3.4.ANF1.416.[73] Thispassage isaLatin translation from theGreekofTb4:10aand12:9a.ThereislittlequestionthatthisisanintendedquotefromTobit.SeeBrabban, “Useof theApocrypha,”357-58.PolycarpalsoappearstoquoteTb14:9binPolycarp2:1a.

[74] Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians 10:1-3. Emphasis added. The

biblical references are cited. See ANF 1.35 FN 12-15. Also see,Kirsopp Lake, Apostolic Fathers (Harvard University Press, 1960)24.294-297.

[75] Polycarp,adiscipleofSt.JohntheApostle,quotesapassagefromTobit,whichisdeemedtheologicallyerroneousbyProtestants.

[76] Forexample,BreenseesalinkbetweenSimilitude9:23andSir28:3(Breen, Introduction, 64-65). Others see links between Visions 3.7.3andSir18:30;Visions4.3.4andSir2:5;Mandates5.2.3andTb4:19,alsoMandates10.1.6andSir2:3.

[77] TheShepherdofHermas,FirstCommandment,1.[78] DidGodcreateeverythingoutofnothingordidhecreateeverythingfrom pre-existing matter? Christians believe the former. SomeProtocanonical passage imply creation ex nihilo (e.g., Genesis 1:1,Psalms124:8; 146:6 andRomans4:17), but only 2Mc 7:28 teachesthisdoctrineexplicitly.

[79]Emphasisadded.[80] Hengel doubts Hermas’ dependence onMaccabees. He prefers toseethispassageasaquote fromanearlyJewishconfessionof faith.Hengel,Septuagint,118.

[81] J. B. Lightfoot, et al., eds. The Apostolic Fathers, 2 ed (GrandRapids:BakerBookHouse,1990),150,FN12.

[82] Didache4:3-5.[83] SeeDidache4.3-5.[84] Compare Second Clement 16:4 and Polycarp’s Letter to thePhilippians10:1-3.

[85] McDonald,Formation,129.[86] Brabban,“UseoftheApocrypha,”367-68.[87] JackP.Lewis,“WhatDoWeMeanbyJamnia,”JBR32(1964).[88] SeeGeorgeF.Moore, “TheDefinitionof theJewishCanonandtheRepudiationof theChristianScripture,” inTheCanonandMasorahofthe NewHebrew Bible, ed. Sid Z. Lieman (New York: KTAV, 1974),101 et seq.; also J. Bloch, “Outside Books,” inCanon andMasorah,202-223.AlsoseeMcDonald,Formation,126FN95.

[89] Gershom Bader, The Encyclopedia of Talmudic Sages (JasonAronson,1993),263etseq.

[90] AsEusebiusputsit,“TheleaderoftheJewsatthistimewasaman

bythenameofBarcocheba,whopossessedthecharacterofarobberandamurderer, but nevertheless, relying uponhis name, boasted tothem,asiftheywereslaves,thathepossessedwonderfulpowers;andhepretended that hewasa star that had comedown to themout ofheaven to bring them light in themidst of theirmisfortunes” (ChurchHistory,4,6,2).

[91] Moore,“JewishCanon,”140.[92] JustinMartyrinFirstApology,31writes,“ForintheJewishwarwhichlatelyraged,Barchochebas, the leaderof therevoltof theJews,gaveordersthatChristiansaloneshouldbeledtocruelpunishments,unlesstheywoulddenyJesusChristandutterblasphemy.”

[93] Moore,“JewishCanon,”141.[94] ToseftaYadayim,2:13asit isquotedinLeiman,Canonization,109.AlsoseeMoore,“JewishCanon,”117-21.

[95] SeeRoberts, IDB4: 585.AlsoSeeQumranand theHistory of theBiblicalText,ed.F.M.CrossandS.Talmon(HarvardUniversityPress,Massachusetts),1975,228-229.

[96] McDonald,Formation,89.[97] Gigot,Introduction,284-285,AlsoJulioT.Barrera,TheJewishBibleand the Christian Bible: An Introduction to the History of the Bible,trans.W.G.E.Watson,(GrandRapids:Eerdmans),1998,314.

[98] This may explain the repeated attempts by Christians to constructlists of what the Jews accept as Scripture as well as the fact thatChristians continued to cite the Deuterocanon against the Jews forhundredsofyearsaftertheSecondRevolt.

[99] Forexample,SedarOlamRabban,30waswrittenca.AD165–200;ToseftaSotah13:2waswrittenca.AD200;Jer.Taanith2.1etal.werewrittenca.AD200orlater;Bab.BabaBathra,12awaswrittenaroundthird or fourth century AD; and Bab. Baba Bartha 12b was writtensecondorthirdcenturyAD.AllofthesetraditionswereeithereditedorredactedbyRabbiAkibaoroneofhisdisciples(e.g.R.Meir,JudahthePrince,etal.).

[100] “The limitation of the prophetic period contains the claim of theRabbis that in thepresent theyalone,as thebearersoforal tradition,have the right to formulate legal and philosophical pronouncements.The claim of Sirach and all other post-prophetic literature is thus

invalidated….Tracesofopposition to thesharpdifferentiationbetweenpropheticandpost-propheticwritingsevenamongtheRabbisaretobefoundaslateasthefourthcentury.”TDNT,3.982.

[101]SeeABD,1.843.[102]DialoguewithTrypho,71.[103]DialoguewithTrypho,120-121.[104]Eusebius’sChurchHistory,Book4.26.12-14.[105] Some argue that Melito could not have had contact with thesynagoguebecausedialoguebetweenJewsandChristianshadallbutceased due to tensions between the two groups. Antagonism indeedexisted, but dialogue did nevertheless continue; as we saw in St.Justin’sDialoguewithTryphotheJewwrittenonlyafewyearsearlier.Moreover, Melito’s inquiry would be for information, not debate andthere is no reason to expect the rabbis to be antagonistic.When thetwoprospectsofeitherinquiringatthesynagogueinSardisormakingthe arduous trek to Palestine to receive essentially the same answerare considered,Melito certainlywould have chosen the former. If theJews inSardisweresoantagonisticas tonotanswerMelito’s inquiry,what hope would there be of an answer being secured among therabbis in Palestine?We do know that Jewish/Christian dialogues, asevidenced in the writings of the early fathers, continued unabatedthroughoutthefirstseveralcenturiesoftheChurch.Theywerepointed,buttheycontinued.

[106]Somedisputewhether“alsoWisdom”[Gk.ekaisophia]referstotheBook ofWisdomor an alternative title for theBook ofProverbs.SeeBruce,F.F.,TheCanonofScripture(InterVarsityPress,1988),71.

[107]Westcott,Bible,124;Gigot,Introduction,49;Breen,Introduction,356etal.

[108]PleaforChristians,9.[109] Is 44:6, 43:10-11 and 46:1 respectively. The ANF omits thereference to Baruch giving instead, “Isa. xli, 4; Ex. xx. 2,3 (as tosense)”ANF2.133FN3.

[110]Gigot,Introduction,45FN4.[111]AgainstHeresies,4.5.2 [L.Quem (Deum)etDanielPropheta,cumdixisseteiCyrusrexPersarum].Emphasisadded.

[112] Against Heresies, 4.26.3 [L. Audient eas quae sunt a Daniele

Prophetavoces…].[113]AgainstHeresies, 4.38.1 [L.Hoc significavit Jeremias propheta…].AlsoAgainstHeresies, 5.35.1. The former reference comes after twoquotations from the Isaiah indicating that Irenaeus saw no differencebetweentheProtocanonicalandDeuterocanonicaltexts.

[114] Jer 32:12-16; 36:1-32; esp. 45:1ff. Hengel argues that thecombination of Baruch with Jeremiah goes back to the Jewish LXXscrolls.Hengel,Septuagint,113-14,esp.114FN31.

[115]Irenaeuscontradictsthenotionthatonlyprophetscanwritepropheticwritings, since he accepts Baruch as the words of Jeremiah sinceBaruchwashissecretary.

[116]AgainstHeresies,2.30.11.SomeChristianFathersalsounderstoodTobittobeprophetic(e.g.,AmbroseandperhapsBede).

[117]Somescholarshavechallengedthisearlydating.Forourpurposeshere,wewilluseitstraditionaldating.

[118]Later,EpiphaniusalsoputWisdomwiththeNewTestament—alongwithSirach,aswell(Daubney,“UseoftheApocrypha,”51).

[119] Clark D. Lamberton, “Early Christian Painting And The Canon OfScripture”WesternReserveUniversityBulletin17No.8:8.

[120]SinceTertullian’sviewofthecanonremainedunchangedthroughallthree periods, we will not differentiate these periods in our quotes.Tertullian’s consistency in usage throughout these periods suggeststhatbothCatholicsandMontanistsbothacceptedtheDeuterocanon.

[121]TheCrown,4.[122]Scorpion’s Antidote, 8;Against Hermogenes, 44;Against Idolatry,18;AgainsttheGnostics,8.

[123]Against theValentinians,2;Also,PrescriptionAgainst theHeretics,7.

[124] Concerning the Soul, 15; Beckwith believes Ps 139:23 is quotedhere instead ofWs 1:6. Roberts and Donaldson, on the other hand,referencesonlyWs1:6.SeeANF3.194.

[125]InAnswertotheJews,4.[126]AgainstHermogenes,21,“Then,ifGodhadbeenunabletomakeallthingsofnothing,theScripturecouldnotpossiblyhaveaddedthatHehadmade all things of nothing [2Mc 7:28]” [L. Ita, si ex nihiloDeuscuncta fecissenonpotuit, etsiScripturanonadjecisset illumexnihilo

fecisse…].[127]AgainstMarcion,1,16andperhaps,OnMonogamy,14.[128] See Bruce, Canon, 84. Tertullian used the Old Latin version ofScripture, which included all the Deuterocanon. Cyprian, who was inmanywaysTertullian’sdisciple,usedTobitauthoritatively,citingitmorethananyotherChurchFather in thesecondor thirdcentury,with theexceptionofOrigen.SeeHengel,Septuagint,177.

[129]ThecornerstoneofTertullian’sdefenseistheuseofEnoch inJude14.

[130]SeeCommentaryonDaniel,6:1andCommentaryonDaniel,6:1,61.[131]SeeCommentaryonDaniel,6:1,55.[132]CommentaryonDaniel,6:1.[133]AgainstNoetus,2.HippolytusisusingBaruchinaprooftextfortheIncarnation: “But they make use also of other testimonies, and say,Thusitiswritten:“ThisisourGod…”[L.DicitScripturainalioloco;‘HisestDeus…].Emphasisadded.

[134] See The Anti-Christ, 49 and Commentary on Daniel 2:23respectively.

[135]AgainsttheJews,8–9,10,“IproducenowtheprophecyofSolomon[prophetiam Salomonis], which speaketh of Christ, and announcesclearlyandperspicuouslythingsconcerningtheJews;andthosewhichnot only are befalling themat the present time, but those, too,whichshall befall them in the future age, on account of the contumacyandaudacitywhichtheyexhibitedtowardthePrinceofLife;fortheprophetsays [L. Ait enim Propheta; Gk. legei gar ho prophetes] [quotesWs2:12-20].”

[136]JobandDavidarementionedpriortothecitationsfromtheBookofWisdomandtheBookofPsalms.

[137]InafragmentofHippolytus’CommentaryonSongofSongs,WisdomislistedamongthosebooksinwhichtheknowledgeofthemysteriesoftheIncarnationresides.SeeSongofSongs1-2.

[138]Stromata1.11.[139]TheInstructor,1.10.[140]TheInstructor,2.3[L.dicitdiviniaScriptura].[141]TheInstructor,1.8;2.5,8,10;Stromata3.11.[142]Stromata4.16,“ThedivineWisdomsaysofthemartyrs[quotesWs

3:1-4]” [L.DivinaSapientiadicitdemartyibus…;Gk.HoTheiaSophiaperitonmarturonlegei…].

[143]Stromata2.23, “This Scripture has briefly showed, when it says…(quotes Tb 4:15).” [L. Hoc breviter Scirptura significavit dicens]. AlsoStromata4.12.

[144]SeeWestcott,Bible,126-127.Asimplequotationwithoutdistinctionor qualification from Judith occurs in Stromata 2.7. Cornely believesthat theBookofMaccabees ismentioned inStromata1.21and5.14.SeeE.P.Cornley,ManuelD’IntroductionHistoriqueetCritiqueatoutesles Laintes Ecritures, Tome Premier (Paris: P. Lethielleux, Libraire-Editeur,1907),437.LikeTertullian,ClementappearstohaveacceptedtheBookofEsdrasasinspiredScriptureaswell.

[145]Letter64.2 [L.SedetSalomon inSpiritusantoconstitus testaturetdocet quae sit sacerdotalis auctoriras et potestas, dicens: HonoraDeumextotaaminatuaethonorificasacerdotesejus].

[146] On Morality, 9, “Holy Scripture teaches and forewarns, saying…[quotes Sir 2:1-5]” [L. Docet et praemonet Scriptura divina dicens].Emphasisadded.

[147]SeeLetter5.2 [L.cumscriptumsit];OntheGiftofPatience,17[L.sicut scripturum est]; Glory of Martyrdom, 16 [L. Scriptum est etlegimus].

[148]Letter80.6[L.ubiloquiturScripturadivina];OntheDressofVirgins,10[L.cumdicatScripturadivina].Emphasisadded.

[149]Exhortation toMartyrdom, 12 [L. PerSalomonemSpiritusSanctusostendit,etpraecinitdicens].

[150]Letter61.1quotesWs3:11betweenJer3:15andPs2:12(LXX);OntheDressofVirgins,1quotesWs3:11betweenPs2:12,49:16-17andPrv3:11-12;AgainsttheJews3.16quotesWsandPrv,etal.

[151]SeeAgainsttheJews,3.20;ExhortationtoMartyrdom,9;Letter55.5andLetter39.4.

[152]SeeExhortationtoMartyrdom,9.[153]SeeOntheLord’sPrayer,21.[154] On the Lord’s Prayer, 5 [L. Per hieremiam quoque haec eademspiritus sanctus suggerit et docet dicens]. Baruch’s precedes quotesfrom1Kgs1:13andPs4:5.

[155]AgainsttheJews,3.1quotesTb2:2–11afterJob;AgainsttheJews

3.6quotesTb2:14after 2Cor,RomandMt;Against the Jews, 3.62makesareferencetoGnand1Cor7:39–40afterTb4:12;AgainsttheJews, 1.20 mentions Tb as an example of the importance of thenumber seven in Scripture (along with examples drawn between GnandPaul).

[156]SeeOnMorality,10andOntheGiftofPatience,18.[157]SeeOntheLord’sPrayer,33.[158]SeeOnWorksandAlms,5.20.[159]SeeAgainsttheJews,3.17especiallyExhortationtoMartyrdom,9.[160]SeeAgainsttheJews,3.15.[161] See Letter 54.3, “…[S]ince Holy Scripture meets and warns us,saying, ‘Buthewhopresumesandishaughty,themanwhoboastsofhimself,whohathenlargedhissoulashell,shallaccomplishnothing.’”Andagain,“‘Andfearnotthewordsofasinfulman,forhisgloryshallbedungandworms.To-dayheisliftedup,andto-morrowheshallnotbe found, because he is turned into his earth, and his thought shallperish,’quotingHb2:5and1Mc2:62-63.Emphasisadded.

[162]SeeAgainsttheJews,3.4andAgainsttheJews,3.52.[163]HistoryofSusanna,1,“Yourletter,fromwhichIlearnwhatyouthinkoftheSusannaintheBookofDaniel,whichisusedintheChurches…”[L. exemplaribus Ecclesiae circumferunt; Gk. peri tes hen ti Danielpheromeneshen taisekklesiais].HistoryofSusanna,2, “Inanswer tothis,IhavetotellyouwhatitbehovesustodointhecasesnotonlyoftheHistoryofSusanna,whichisfoundineveryChurchofChrist”[L.sitnonsolumdeSusannaehistoriaquaeinGraecoGraecorumexemplariper totam Christi Ecclesiam circumfertur; Gk. hen pase EkklesiaChristou].

[164]HemakesthisknownbothintheHistoryofSusanna(e.g.HistoryofSusanna,13),aswellashisotherworks(e.g.Homily1OnLeviticus,I.HistoryofSusanna).

[165]SeeEdwardW.Reuss,Historyof theCanonof theOldTestament(Edinburgh:JamesGemmellGeorgeIV,1890),130-31.

[166]HistoryofSusanna,4-5.Emphasisadded.[167]Hengel,Septuagint,10.[168]ThisisseeninOrigen’semploymentofPrv22:28andDt19:14.[169] The same accusation is made elsewhere in Origen’s works. For

example, in hisHomilies on theBook of Leviticus,Origen addressedthe“impious”JewishpresbyterswhoreadtheBookofLeviticusliterally.Hewrites, ““But itbehoovesus touseagainst the impiouspresbytersthewordsoftheblessedSusanna,whichtheyindeedrepudiating,havecut off from the catalogue of divineScripture the history of Susanna.Butwereceiveit,andappositelyadduceitagainstthem,saying,‘Iamstraitened on every side: for if I do this thing (follow the letter of theLaw)itisdeathtome;andifIdoitnot.Ishallnotescapeyourhands.’”Homily1,CommentaryonLeviticus1.Emphasisadded.

[170]HistoryofSusanna,5.[171]FirstPrinciples,2.2.Emphasisadded.[172]CommentaryonthePsalms,1quoted inEusebius’ChurchHistory,6.25.

[173] “By this drowning, however, it is not to be supposed that God’sprovidence as regards Pharaoh was terminated; for we must notimagine, because he was drowned, that therefore he had forthwithcompletely perished: ‘for in the hand of God are both we and ourwords;allwisdom,also,andknowledgeofworkmanship,’[Ws7:16]asScripture declares” (First Principles, 3.1.14) and “For, naturally,whatever is infinite will also be incomprehensible. Moreover, asScripture says, “Godhasarrangedall things in numberandmeasure[Ws11:21]…”(FirstPrinciples,2.9.1).Emphasisadded.

[174]CommentaryonthePsalms,1quoted inEusebius’ChurchHistory,6.25.

[175][L.sicutabHebraeistraditur:quinumerusetiamlitterarumapudeoshabetur…juxta Hebraeos hi; Gk. os Hebraioi paradidasin…kathHebraiousaide]

[176] See Westcott, Canon, 180; Reuss, History, 185-86; Gigot,Introduction,54;H.H.Howorth,“TheInfluenceofJeromeontheCanonoftheWesternChurch,”JTS11(1909/1910),323,etal.GivenHilary’sdependenceonOrigen,wemay,withcaution,useHilary’sworktopointusintherightdirectioninunderstandingOrigen’slist.

[177]ProloguetoPsalm,15.Emphasisadded.[178]Thisfascinationwiththemysticalcorrespondencesbehindnumbersand letters is also found in Epiphanius. It should also be noted thatHilary’slistdiffersfromOrigenonlyinthatheincludestheTwelveand

omitsMaccabees(Hengel,63).[179] Breen, Introduction, 406. Another fragment is persevered in BasilandGregory’sPhilocaliaalsoconfirmsthisidea.

[180]Hengel,Septuagint,11.[181]SeeHomily1,CommentaryonLeviticus,1andHistoryofSusanna,15.

[182]SeeHomily5inPsalms36.5.[183]ContraCelsum,3.72,“Inreplytowhichwesaythat,sincewisdomistheknowledgeofdivineandhumanthingsandoftheircauses,or,asitis defined by the word of God [L. illum divina Scriptura definit], “thebreathofthepowerofGod,andapureinfluenceflowingfromthegloryof the Almighty; and the brightness of the everlasting light, and theunspottedmirrorofthepowerofGod,andtheimageofHisgoodness.”

[184]ContraCelsum,3.60.[185] See Selecta in Psalms 34:2; Homily 5 in Psalm 36:5; Selecta inPsalm88:32;ProloguetoSongofSongsandHomily6inIsaiah5.

[186]ContraCelsum,6.7.[187] Reuss, 85. Reuss’s statement is directed towards Theophilius ofAntioch’sdescriptionofSaintPaul’slettertoTimothy.TheophiliuscallsPaul’sletter“HotheiosLogos”(theDivineWord).SincetheexactsamephraseisusedhereinOrigentodescribeapassageinSirach,Reuss’wordsareequallyapplicable.

[188]ContraCelsum,7.12[Gk.katatastheiaszoengraphas].[189]SeeHomily18 in theBookofNumbers,3 [L.scriptumest];Homily24inJoshua,2[L.etiterumquodscriptumest]andSelectainPsalms120:6[L.quodscriptumest].

[190] SeeHomily 2 in Psalm 35.3.7;Selecta in Psalm 51:4;Selecta inPsalm65:2;SelectainPsalm120:6andHomily5inEzekiel4.TheonlypossibleexceptisFirstPrinciples2.2,whichwastreatedearlier.

[191]SeeContraCelsum,5.19.[192]ibid.[193]Homily9inJudic,1.[194]SeeSelectainJer31:16[L.scriptumest]andSelectainPs125:2.[195]See.ContraCelsum,8.46.[196] First Principles, 2.1.5. He also quotes The Shepherd of Hermas,Commandment1.1andPs33:6.

[197]HomilyonNumbers,27.1.[198]SeeAgainstGermanus,10.[199]SeeLettertoDionsyiusofRome,4.[200]OnNature,3.[201]OnNature,5.[202]WilliamH.Daubney,Useof theApocrypha in theChristianChurch(London;C.J.ClayandSons,1900),44.Othershaveargued that thequotecouldalsobetohavecomefromPrv6.

[203]TheActsoftheDisputationwiththeHeresiarchManes,29.[204]SeeTheBanquetoftheTenVirgins,Discourse1.3.SimilarlyWs4:2is included among the quotations from the Protocanon withoutdistinction or qualification. Also see Banquet of the Ten Virgins,Discourse,11.1;ConcerningSimeoneandAnna,6,etal.

[205]TheBanquetoftheTenVirginsDiscourse2.3,“bringingforwardtheScripture which says…[quotes Ws 3:16]” [L. prolato testimonioScripturae dicentis; Gk. procheirizomene ten legousan graphen].Emphasisadded.

[206] The Banquet of the Ten Virgins Discourse [Marcella], 1.3 [L.testimonio Scripturae dicentis; Gk. procheirizomene ten legousanGraphen].

[207] SeeThe Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Discourse 2.7. The Book ofWisdomisalsosaidtobeabook“fullofvirtue.”Methodiusalsofollowsthisquote fromWs15:10-11withaquote from1Tm2:4withoutanydistinctionorqualification.

[208]SeeConcerningtheResurrection,8andchapter14.[209] Extracts from Created Things, 9 [L. quomodo Sapientia in JesuSirachdicit].

[210]SeeConcerningSimoneandAnna,12,“asit iswritten…[quotesPs13:8] “and in another place…[quotes Sir 22:7] which plainly, in therevered Gospels, our Lord signified, when He said to the Jews…[quotesMt23:38].”

[211]SeeConcerningSimeoneandAnna,10.[212]SeeTheBanquetoftheTenVirgins,Discourse11.14.[213]Westcott,Bible,138.[214]Institutes4.8quotingSir24:3-5.Emphasisadded.

[215] TheAriansdeniedChrist’s divinenature.Niceadefined that Jesushastwonatures—divineandhuman.

[216]Breen,Introduction,361FN.[217]SeeBreen,Introduction,361FN1.[218]ChurchHistory lists theBookofWisdomasbeingamong theNewTestament books used by Irenaeus of Lyon (Church History, 5.8.8);Baruch was referred to as a prophet of God in DemonstratioEvangelica, 6.19; Wisdom is quoted as a divine oracle (PraeparatioEvangelica, 1.9); Susanna is quoteed as Scripture (ibid.,6.11) andWisdomislikewisequotedasScripture.Ibid.11.14.

[219] Eusebius includes the Deuterocanon under the category,“controverted and yet familiarly used by many.” See Westcott,Bible,153.

[220]SeeDemonstrations,5.19.[221]SeeDemonstrations22.7.[222] To Alexander, preserved in Theodoret’s Church History, 1:3.Emphasisadded.

[223] There are segments within Protestantism (particularly amongLutherans)thatmaynotacceptthisstrictidentification.

[224] Athanasius uses the Greek word “canonized” [Gk. kanonzomena]and it appears that he is one of the first knownauthors to apply thisterm toScripture (seeBruce,Canon, 77).HagertybelievesOrigenofAlexandria may have preceded Athanasius in this manner (Hagerty,108). Beckwith places its first usage sometime in the fourth century(Beckwith, Canon, 1). Oesterley holds that Amphilochius, bishop ofIconium is the first (Oesterley, Introduction, 3). Robert and TricotidentifybothOrigenandAthanasiustobeamongthefirst(RobertandTricot, 69; Also ABD, 1.838). Regardless of which is correct,Athanasius is one of the earliest Fathers to use the term “canon” torefertoacollectionofbooksinScripture.

[225]Thirty-ninthFestalLetter.Emphasisadded.[226][L.Sedtamenmajorisaccurationisgratia;Gk.pleionosakribeias].[227]HereAthanasiusechoesOrigen’sadvice inHomilyon theBookofNumberswhereOrigensuggeststhatrecentconvertsoughttoreadthe“divine volumes” starting with Esther, Judith, Tobit, Wisdom, theGospels,thewritingsoftheApostlesandthePsalmsleavingNumbers

andLeviticusforlast.[228]SeeFourDiscourseAgainsttheArians.Discourse1.12.[229]AgainsttheHeathen,11.1.Emphasisadded.[230]AgainsttheHeathen,1,17.3.[231]Emphasisadded.[232] Against the Heathen, 1, 44.3, “But Himself being over all, bothGovernorandKingandorganizingpower,HedoesallforthegloryandknowledgeofHisownFather,sothatalmostbytheveryworksthatHebringstopassHeteachesusandsays, ‘Bythegreatnessandbeautyofthecreaturesproportionallythemakerofthemisseen…’”

[233]SeeOntheIncarnateWord,4.6;OntheIncarnateWord,5.2.[234]DefenseAgainstArius,1,3, [L.quod inSacrisLitterisscriptumest(Prv19:5;Ws1:11);Gk.ouphobountaidetohentaishagiaisGraphaisgegrammenon].

[235]SeeAgainsttheHeathen,2,9.4,[L.quodetDeisapientiahisverbisdeclarat;Gk.kathoskaiesophiatouTheoupromarturetailegousia].

[236]SeeLifeofAnthony,28andApologyAgainsttheArians,66.[237]SeeLetterfromtheEgyptianBishops,3.[238]SeeFourDiscoursesAgainst theArians,Discourse2.35, [L.Deusautemnonuthomoest,quemadmodumtestaturScriptura],quotingJdt13:15.SeeBreen,Introduction,374.

[239]SeeDefenseofConstantius,17.TbiscitedafterMtandIs.[240]DefenseAgainstAriusPart1,11,[L.cumoporteat,utscriptumest;Gk.osgegraphtai].

[241]ExpositioinPsalm,78.[242]See“Canon,”ABD1:838.[243]SeeJustinMartyr,FirstApology,67.[244] Athanasius’ exclusion of Esther and inclusion of Baruch in thecanonical category reflects Jewish practice. Melito omits Esther fromthe books accepted by the Jews in Palestine and Epiphanius statesthatBaruchwasstillreadthesynagoguesofhisday.

[245] This quote is persevered in Theodoret’sHistory of the Church, II.8.18-43,45-8.Emphasisadded.

[246] This evidence flatly contradictsChurton’s claim that theCouncil ofSardicaformallyexcludedthebookofWisdomfromthecanon.SeeW.

R. Churton,Uncanonical and Apocryphal Scriptures (London, 1884),14.

[247] Cyril and Athanasius’ Thirty-ninth Festal Letter list 22 books thatinclude Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah. Cyril differs fromAthanasius in that he includes Esther among the “canonical” bookswhereAthanasiusplacesitamongthosethatareread.

[248] CatecheticalLectures,4.33-38.Emphasisadded.[249]CatecheticalLectures,4.36.[250]ThisdivisionisnotedevenbyEllis,21.[251]CatechicalLectures,11.15,[L.audiProphetamdicentem;Gk.akouetouprophetoulegontos].

[252]Catechetical Lectures, 9.2, “...according to Solomon, who says....”AlsoseeCatecheticalLectures,12.5.

[253]CatecheticalLectures,9.16.[254]CatecheticalLectures,6.4quotesJobandSir;CatecheticalLectures13.8 quotes 1 Cor twice and then Sir with no qualification. Also,CatecheticalLectures11.19.

[255] Catechetical Lectures 14.25 and Catechetical Lectures 16.31respectively.

[256]“Canon,”ABD1:838.[257]Canon60.[258]SeeBruce,Canon,80.[259]Origen:“…foundinalltheChurch”and“[TobitandJudithare]…usedin all the churches” (Susanna, 2 History of Susanna, 13, et al.);Athanasius,“…theFathersdecreed[that thesebooks]shouldbereadtothosewhohavelatelycomeintothefold,andseektobecatechized,and who study to learn the Christian doctrine” (Thirty-ninth FestalLetter);CyrilofJerusalem,“Butletalltherest[notlistedascanonical,but is read in the Church] be put aside in a secondary rank. Andwhatever books are not read in Churches, these read not even bythyself…”(CatecheticalLectures,4.36).

[260] This appears to be the consensus among Protestant scholars.Westcott believes this canon to be a later addition (Westcott, Bible,170).RyleandReusscalls it spurious (Ryle,Canon,228andReuss,History,180).Ellis,followingTheodoreKahn,callsitalaterappendage.(Earle E. Ellis, The Old Testament in Early Christianity: Canon and

InterpretationinLightofModernResearch(WipfandStockPublishers,2003), 21). F. F. Bruce, likewise, calls its genuineness into question(Bruce,Canon,80).

[261]Forexample,thereareinstancesinChurchhistorywherecopiesoftheBiblewereprohibitedduetothepervasivecirculationofadulteratedtranslations and/or heretical footnotes. These measures weredisciplinary in that they only affected the practice in limited localitiesandtheylastedonlyuntiltheproblemwasresolved.Theseprohibitionswerenotdoctrinal(i.e.theydidnotconstitutearepudiationofScripturepersenorthepublicationanddistributionofScripture),butdisciplinary.Had they been doctrinal the prohibition would have been applieduniversallythroughouttheChurchandwouldhavelastedinperpetuity.

[262]ProloguetothePsalms,15.[263]SeeHoworth,“Jerome,”324.[264]On the Trinity, 4:42, “As you have listened already toMoses andIsaiah,so listennowtoJeremiah inculcatingthesametruthasthey…[quotesBar3:36-38].”

[265]OntheTrinity,1.7,“fromtheprophet’svoice”[L.propheticisvocibus];Also,Tract. InPs118.8[L.etrursumpropheta];Ps118.Lettera19.8;Ps118.Lettera19.8,[L.EtSpiritusDei,secundumProphetam,replevitorbem terrarum] Ws 1:7 [quoted between Acts 17:28 and Jer 23:24without qualification];Tract. In Ps 135.11, [L. docet propheta dicens];Letter,9,[L.ClamatProphetadicens].

[266]Letter8;Psalm118.(LitteraV.9);Tract.Psalms128.9,andTract.DePsalms41.12.

[267] Prol. To Psalms 20, Tract. In Psalms 140.5; and Ex OperibusHistoricisFrag.3.24.

[268]Tract.Psalms125.6–(Jdt16:3).Hilarycontinuesbyquoting Isaiah,JohnandColossianswithoutanydistinctionorqualification.

[269]Tract.InPsalms129.7.[270]OntheTrinity,Book4.8quotes Is,Jn,Mk,1Tm,Mal,PssandMtbeforeSusannaand followswithquotes fromIs,Acts,Pss,Jn,1Tm,JnandExallwithoutdistinctionorqualification.Alsosee,Tract.In52;Ps19.

[271]OntheTrinity,Book4.16,[L.SedhaecdivinaeScripturaerationonrecipit.OmniaenimsecundumProphetamfactaexnihilosunt].

[272]TractinPsalms134.25;Lib.ContraConst.Imp.6.[273]OntheHolySpirit,19.[274]Letter6,AdNectariiUxorem,2.[275]SeeWestcott,Bible,168.[276]Oration30.13.[277]Oration,43.23.[278] SeeOration 7.14, 19 quotes Jb,Ws, Pss and Jer;Oration 21.17quotes Jn, Pss, 1Cor,Heb,Ws, Jn,Gn, Pss andRev;Oration40.6quotes2Kg,Lk,Mt,Lk,Acts,MtandWs;InOration41.14Wsisusedto“prove”thattheHolySpiritistheAuthorofspiritualregeneration.Itisquotedbetweenquotes fromJnand1Sm;Oration42.6quotesRom,Ez,Pss,Ws,Zec,PssandHb.

[279]SeeOration2.64.[280]SeeOration7.1;Oration40.18.[281]SeeOration37.6,[L.Itemalioloco...(quotesSir3:11)].[282]SeeOration37.18.[283]Oration45.15,“…whicharealsocalledintheScripturetheSeedoftheChaldeans.”[L.Scripturavocat].Emphasisadded.

[284]Oration,43.70.Theexamplesrunfromchapter70-75.[285]Carmen,1.1.12,asquoted inW.A.Jurgens’TheFaithof theEarlyFathers(Collegeville,Minnesota:TheLiturgicalPress,1979),2.42.

[286]Gregory’s list isnearly identical toAthanasius.BothexcludeEstherandclaimtobasetheirnumberofbooksuponthenumberoflettersintheHebrewalphabet.

[287]Song,2.2.8(foundamongthewritingsofGregoryofNazianzus)asquotedinJurgens,2.66.

[288]Breen,Introduction,397.Alsosee,IambicstoSeleucus,2.[289]SeeF.L.CrossandE.A.Livington,eds.TheOxfordDictionaryofthe Christian Church, 2 ed., (New York/Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press,1983),232.

[290] Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, 13 ed., trans.RoyJ.Deferrari(St.Louis,MO:B.HerderBookCo.,1954),84.

[291]HoworthbelievesJerome,whowasPopeDamasus’secretaryatthistime, was in sympathy with it pronouncement on the Canon (thatacceptedtheDeuterocanon),butlaterabandoneditforhisnewideaof

Hebrew Verity (which adopted the shorter rabbinical canon). SeeHoworth,“Jerome,”322.

[292]Howorth,ibid.[293]OrigenismisaheresythatclaimedtofollowhereticalbeliefsfoundinthewritingsofOrigen.

[294]SeePanarion8.6,“…Therearealsotwootherbooksneartotheminsubstance [Gk.emphilekto], theWisdomofSirachand theWisdomofSolomon,besidesomeotherapocryphal[Gk.enapokruphon]books.All theseholybooks[Gk.hieraibiblioi]also taughtJudaismthethingskeptbythelawuntilthecomingofourLordJesusChrist”(asquotedinEllis, 23). Epiphanius diverges in terminology from Athanasius bylabelingtheDeuterocanon“apocrypha.”

[295] Adversus Haereses, Haeres. 76.5. Emphasis added. [L. omnibusdenique Scripturae libris percursis; Gk. kai pasais haplos graphaistheiais].

[296]SeeReuss,History,172.[297] Adversus Haereses, Book I, Haeres. 24.6; 1, 32.8; 1,42.9; 1, 42Refut.70,Book2,58.4.

[298]SeeAdversusHaereses,Book2,59.7;AdversusHaereses,Book2,64.39.

[299]AdversusHaereses.Book2,65.1.[300]AdversusHaereses,Book1,Haeres24.15.[301]cf.AdversusHaereses,Book2,64.39;AdversusHaereses,Book2,64.34;AdversusHaereses,Book3,74confut.31.

[302] Adversus Haresees, Book 1, 30.25, [L. quae causa est sur inMaccabaeorumlibrisscriptumsit].

[303] Adversus Haereses, Book 1, 31, [L. Novit enim omnia Deusantequamfiant,‘utestScriptum’].

[304] Adversus Haereses, Book 3, 74.3, [L. Qui invenit omnem viamscientiae. Exstitisse vero divina Scirptura non dubitat]; AdversusHaeresesBook2,57.2, [L.utScripturadeclarat];AdversusHaereses,Book2,57.9,[L.Scriptumest,inquit].

[305]AdversusHaereses,Book2,69.31.[306]SeeWestcott,Bible,174;Bruce,Canon,81.[307]ConcerningStatues,7.[308]AgainstMarcionist&Manicheans.

[309]SeeHomiliesonFirstCorinthians,15.[310] Homilies on John, 48, [L. divinae Scripturae; Gk. apo tes theiasgraphes].

[311]ConcerningRepentance,1.9.43.[312]OntheDutyoftheClergy,3.16.96.[313]DeTobia, [L. Lecto prophetico libro, qui inscribitur Tobis, quamvisplene virtutes sancti prophetae scriptura insinuaverint, tamenconpendiario mihi sermone de eius meritis recensendis et operibusapudvosutendumarbitiror,uteaquaescripturahistoricomoredigessitlatius nos strictius comprehendamus virtutem eius genera velusquodambreviariocolligentes]asquoted inHengel,Septuagint,68FN33.

[314]OntheDutyoftheClergy,3.13.82-85.[315]ConcerningVirgins,2.4.24.[316]OntheDutyof theClergy,2.13.64-65, “[quotesWs7:29]Wehavespoken of its beauty, and proved it by the witness of Scripture…[continueswithotherquotesfromWs].”

[317]OntheHolySpirit,3.6.36.[318] On the Holy Spirit, 3.18.135, “Let them learn that we teach byauthorityoftheScriptures;foritiswritten:[quotesWs7:22].”Emphasisadded.

[319]OntheDutyoftheClergy,1.2.5.[320]On the Duty of the Clergy, 1.40.205-208 andOn the Duty of theClergy,2.24.

[321] On the Duty of the Clergy, 3.18.107, “The sacrifice which wasconsumed in the time of Moses was a sacrifice for sin, whereforeMosessaid,asiswritteninthebookoftheMaccabees....”AlsoLetter40,33,“Andnow,OEmperor,Ibegyounottodisdaintohearmewhoaminfearbothforyourselfandformyself,foritisthevoiceofaSaintwhichsays…[quotes1Mc2:7].”

[322]SeeOntheDutyoftheClergy,1.3.9;2.4.11;and2.11.57-58;OntheHolySpirit,3.6.39;andConcerningVirgins,2.4.27-28.

[323] TheSeptuagint groupsmodern day 1-2Smwith 1-2Kgs into fourbooksofKings (1Sm=1Kings (orKingdoms)and2Kgs=4Kings (orKingdoms).

[324]SeeEllis,OldTestament,25.

[325] Commentary on the Symbol of the Apostles, 36-38. Emphasisadded.

[326]Commentary on the Twelve Patriarchs, Blessing of Joseph, 5, [L.Quodetprophetapraedixerat,ubiait...(quotesBar3:36-38)].

[327]Commentary on the Twelve Patriarchs, Blessing of Gad, 3, [L. itaenimScripuradicit...(quotesSir34:9)]andCommentaryontheTwelvePatriarches, Blessing of Joseph 3, [L. sed et sanctae Scripturasententiaest...(quotesSir11:30)].

[328] Also,Commentary on theTwelvePatriarches,Blessing of Joseph,46,[L.quaeProphetaepraedixerant...(quotesWs3:7)].

[329] The apology addresses Jerome’s removal of theDeuterocanonicalportions of Daniel, but his works are equally applicable to Jerome’srejectionoftherestoftheDeuterocanon.

[330]ApologyAgainstJerome,2.33.Emphasisadded.[331]Alsosee,ApologyAgainstJerome,2.33-35.[332] The term “ecclesiastical books” appears first in Rufinus, then inJerome.ProtestantscholarJ.N.D.Kellybelieves that thephrasemusthavebeencoinedbyOrigen,buthedoesnotfurnishanyreferencestobackupthisclaim.Hemayhavesimplyinferredawiderusagebasedon Rufinus’ words. J.N. D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings andControversies(Peabody,MA:Hendrickson,1998),160.

[333]2Tm3:16-17(NASB).Emphasisadded.[334]CommentaryontheSymboloftheApostles,36-38.[335]SeeHoworth,“Jerome,”345.[336] By the fifth century, theOld Latin version had become corruptedbeyondrevision. Itwassaidthat therewereasmanyvariations in thetextasthereweremanuscripts.Afreshtranslationwasneeded.

[337]OvereightypercentoftheOldTestamentquotationswhichappearintheGreekNewTestamentaredirectquotesfromtheSeptuagint.

[338]Kelly,Jerome,159-160.[339] Sundberg, Albert C. Jr., “The Protestant Canon: Should It BeRe-examined?”CBQ(1966):28.202-203.

[340]Kelly,Jerome, 160.Also see,TheCambridgeHistoryof theBible:The West from the Father to the Reformation, vol. 2, ed. G. W. H.Lampe,(Cambridge:CambridgeUniverityPress),1969,92

[341]Fuller,“OldTestamentCanon,”NCC,26.[342]Gigot,58.Emphasisadded.[343] Jerome’s manuscripts were scattered extensively throughout theWesternChurchmuchtothechagrinofRufiniuswhocomplained:“Buthow arewe to regard those translations of yourswhich you are nowsending about everywhere, through our churches and monasteries,through all our cities and walled towns?” (Apology Against Jerome,2.32). Indeed, the rapidity and expansiveness of Jerome’swritings isimpressive. For details, see Howard, H. H., “The Influence Of StJerome On The Canon Of The Western Church,” JTS (Oct. 1911),13,1-17.

[344]Kelly,Jerome,161.[345] Preface to Samuel and Kings “Helmeted Prologue” [PrologusGaleatus].Emphasisadded.

[346]PrefacetotheBooksofSolomon.Emphasisadded.[347] Pseudepigraphic can mean either a work that was written by anunknownauthororaworkthatcontainsfalseteachings.

[348]PrefacetotheBookofEzra.Emphasisadded.[349]PrefacetotheBookofEsther.[350]Letter,307-12,ToLaeta.[351]Metzger,Introduction,178.[352]Howorth,“Jerome,”319.Alsosee,DictionaryofChristianAntiquities,ed. William Smith and Samuel Cheetham, (London: John Murray,1876),1.278;Bruce,Bible,90-93;andHengel,Septuagint,50FN80.

[353]SeeHoworth,“Jerome,”339.[354] Apology Against Jerome, 2.33-34. Emphasis added. Rufinus’argument concerns the primacy of the Septuagint as well as otherissues.However, Jerome’s rejection of theDeuterocanon is a logicalconsequenceofhisacceptanceofHebrewVerity.Therefore,Rufinus’commentsareadremtoourdiscussion.

[355]PrefacetoTobit.[356]Reuss,History,194.[357]SeeGigot,Introduction,58-59,81;Steinmueller,Companion,78.[358]Breen,Introduction,443.Emphasisinoriginal.[359]CommentaryinDaniel,2.

[360] Prologue to John, [L. Liber quoque Tobiae, licet non habeatur inCanone,tamenquiausurpaturabEcclesiasticisviris].

[361]SeeCommentaryinEccles.8.[362]ProloguetoJeremiah.[363]Letter77:4,toOceanus.[364]Commentary on Isaiah, Book 2, 3:12; Letter 77.6; 108.22; 118.1;148:2,16,18.

[365] See Commentary on Jeremiah, Book 4, 21:14; Commentary onEzekiel,Book6,18:6;andLetter64.5.

[366]SeeCommentaryonIsaiah,Book8,24:4;CommentaryonEzekiel,Book 6, 18:6; Letter 57.1 To Pammachius; and Letter 125.19, ToRusticus.

[367] See Commentary on Isaiah, Book 1, 1:24; Commentary onZechariah,Book3,14:9;andCommentaryonMalachi,3:7ff.

[368] See Commentary on Galatians, Book 1, 3:2, [L. de quo (SpirituSancto)alibiscribitur]andBreviarium inPsalmos,Ps9, [Etalibi (ipseDeusait)].

[369]SeeAgainstPalegians,Book2.30;Letter7,ToChromatius,JovinusandEusebiusandagaininAgainstthePelagians,2.30.

[370] See Letter 3,1 (AD 374) to Rufinus the Monk; Letter 22, 9-10 toEustochium;Letter1,9toInnocent.

[371]Letter48toPammachius,14.[372]Letter54.16,toFuria,16.[373]Letter65,1.[374]PrefacetoTobit,[L.QuemHebraeidecatalogovi.S.S.secanteshisquaehagiographamemorantmanciparunt…sedmeliusesse judicansdisplicere,institiutpotui].Emphasisadded.

[375]SeeReuss,History,195.[376]PrefacetotheBookofJudith.[377] This claim ismade inGeisler andMacKenzie, 170, FN 40. Theseauthors understand Jerome’s statements that he “followed thejudgment of the churches” and that “[He] was not following my ownpersonal opinion” (Against Rufinus, 33) to be an admission that therejection of theDeuterocanon reflected the views of theChurch. Thecontextindicates,however,thatthesereferencesweremadeinregardsto the Theodotion Version of the Greek Old Testament and not the

Deuterocanon, “I also told the reader that the version read in theChristianchurcheswasnotthatoftheSeptuaginttranslatorsbutthatofTheodotion.Itistrue,IsaidthattheSeptuagintversionwasinthisbook[the book of Daniel] very different from the original, and that it wascondemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but thefaultwasnotminewhoonlystatedthefact,butthatofthosewhoreadthe version. We have four versions to choose from those of Aquila,Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose toreadDanielintheversionofTheodotion.WhatsinhaveIcommittedinfollowing the judgment of the churches?” (Emphasis added.) TheTheodotionVersion ofDaniel includes theDeuterocanonical sections.SeeH.B.Swete,IntroductiontotheOldTestamentinGreek,revisedbyR.R. Ottley, (Peabody,MA: Hendrickson, 1989), 44. For this reason,Jerome had originally included rabbinical arguments against thesesections in his Preface. But Jerome claims that these arguments didnot represent his own view, “But when I repeat what the Jews sayagainsttheStoryofSusannaandtheHymnoftheThreeChildren,andthe fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in theHebrew bible, theman whomakes this a charge against me proveshimselftobeafoolandaslanderer;forIexplainednotwhatIthoughtbutwhat they commonly say against us…[by the rabbis].” (Emphasisadded.)

[378]Examplesinhistoryabound.TheGnosticMarcion,whobelievedtheOld Testament chronicled the work of an evil materialistic god,disparaged the Old Testament and the Gospels accepting only thewritingsofPaulandanadulteratedversionofLuke.TheEbionitesectdidawaywiththelettersofPaulpreferringtoacceptonlytheGospelssincePaul’sstatementsabout theJewishceremonial lawcontradictedtheir beliefs. Others can be listed as well. In all cases, the hereticsplacedtheirownpersontheologicalviewsoverthewordofGod.

[379]OnChristianDoctrine,Book2,12.[380] “The authority of these books has come down to us from theapostles through thesuccessionsofbishopsand theextensionof theChurch,and,fromapositionofloftysupremacy,claimsthesubmissionof every faithful and pious mind” Against Faustus, 11.5. Also see,AgainstFaustus,28.2and33.6.

[381]OnChristianDoctrine,Book2,13.Emphasisadded.

[382]AgainstFaustus,Book33,9.[383]CharlesJ.Costello,St.Augustine’sDoctrineon the InspirationandCanonicity of Scripture (Ph. D. diss., The Catholic University ofAmerica,1930),78.

[384]City of God, 11.30, [L. multis sanctarum Scripturum locis];City ofGod, 13.16 and 2.21, “Holy Scripture” [L. sacra Scriptura]; On theTrinity Book 13.16.21, “Holy Scripture” [L. sacra Scriptura]; On theTrinityBook14.1.1,“HolyScripture”[L.sacraScriptura];OnLying,30-31, “Scripture”; Of the Morals of the Catholic Church, 27, “…couldanythingagreebetterwiththesepassagesthanwhatissaidintheOldTestament of wisdom…[quotes Ws]”; In Reply to Faustus theManichaeanBook11.9heappealstoWsinacontroversyasa“divineauthority.”Concerning the Nature of Good, Against the Manicheans,24;ATreatiseonGraceandFreeWill,8,Wsissaidtocontain“divinecommandments”; Sermons on the Gospel, Sermon 12.12, “holyScripture.”

[385]OftheMoralsoftheCatholicChurch29.Also,OftheMoralsoftheCatholicChurch31-32.

[386]CityofGod14.7.[387]SermonsontheGospel,Sermon8,7.

[388]CityofGod,17.19-20.Emphasisadded.[389]OntheSoulandItsOrigins,1.1,(PL44.980-981).[390]CostellocitesOntheGiftofPerseverance,43,“AndofcontinencyitisreadinthebookofWisdom,whoseauthorityhasbeenusedbygreatand learned men who have commented upon the divine utteranceslongbeforeus;there,therefore,itisread…”

[391] Costello cites Cyprian’s Three Books Against the Jews, 3.14, 15;3.52;3.68;andOntheDressofVirgins,10.

[392]Costello,“Augustine,”80.[393]CityofGod14.11alsoreferstoitapartofthe“ancientScriptures”;CityofGod21.9, [L.Legiturquippeet inveteribusScripturis];On theTrinity15,11,20;TheEnchiridion66,“sayingofScripture”;OntheSpiritand the Letter, 26, “Scripture” and later in the same passage it isdescribedas being from the “holyScriptures”;OnNature andGrace,33, “Scripture”; On Marriage and Concupiscience, Book 1,29-32;SermonsontheGospel,Sermon56,4.

[394] On the Sermon on the Mount, 48, “From this carelessness andruinous security the Holy Spirit recalls us, when He says by theprophet…[quotesSir5:5-6].”

[395]CityofGod,15.23;OfHolyVirginity,44;OnPatience,11;OnCaretoBeHadfortheDead,21,“holyScriptures”.

[396]OfHolyVirginity,19-20.[397]ReplytoFaustustheManichaean,20,35.[398]ConcerningMan’sPerfectioninRighteousness,Book1,8[31].[399]OftheMoralsoftheCatholicChurch,43.Emphasisadded.[400]SeeOntheSoulanditsOrigin,1.13andBook3,18.[401]SeeOnGraceandRebukes,41.[402]TheactsoftheCouncilofHippo(AD393)isnowlost.However,itisunderstoodthattheFirstCouncilofCarthage(AD397)adoptedthelistofHippo.SubsequentcouncilsalsoaffirmedtheCarthagiancanon.

[403]CityofGod,18.36.[404] It is only in consequence of the Apostolic Church’s acceptance ofMaccabeesthattheChurchofAugustine’sdayacceptedthesebooks.

[405] ItappearsthatHippo,likeThirdCarthage,sentitscanonstoRomeforconfirmation.SeeDaubney,UseoftheApocrypha,46.

[406]AsquotedinBreen,Introduction,361-62.[407]Bruce,Canon,97.[408] Pope Innocent Iapproved thesecanonical listsasdidsubsequentNorthAfricancouncils(e.g.TheSecondCouncilofCarthage)andthelaterCouncilofTrullo(Quinisext)intheEastinAD692.

[409] See Philip Schaff’sHistory of the Christian Church (Hendrickson,1996),2.138.AlthoughSchaff’scommentsaremainlydirected towardthe New Testament, the same can be applied to the Old Testamentcanon as well. Despite Schaff’s anti-Catholic bias, he neverthelessstates that that Carthage and subsequent councils closed the OldTestamentcanon(Schaff,ChurchHistory,3.118§90).

[410]CouncilofCarthage(III),Canon36(47),D92.[411]JeromehaddedicatedhisCommentaryonZechariah toExuperius.SeeWilliamBarry,TheTraditionofScripture: ItsOrigin,AuthorityandInterpretation, (London/New York/ Bombay: Longmont, Green andCompany,1906),138.

[412]SeeGigot,Introduction,61.[413]PopeInnocenttoSt.Exuperius,BishopofToulouse,[L.Quiverolibrirecipianturincanone,brevisannexusostendit].Emphasisadded.

[414]CouncilofCarthage(III),Canon24.[415]Taken fromHansPeterRüger’s “TheExtentof theOldTestamentCanon” in The Bible Translator 40 (1989): 301-303; Also BruceMetzger’s article “Bible” in theOxford Companion to the Bible, (NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1993),79.Metzgeraddsonemorebooktothelistabove:JosephbenGurion’s(Josippon’s)MedievalHistoryoftheJewsandOtherNations.

[416]Breen,Introduction,468;Westcott,Bible,239-240.[417]Institutes,4:37.[418]ThirdConferenceofAbbotChaermon,7,quotingWs1:13.[419]SeeChurchHistory,3.11andLetter136,toCyrusMagistrianus.[420]ThecanonofSt.VincentofLerinsisatheologicalrulethatorthodoxyhas the marks of universality, antiquity and consent. Theologicalnovelties, conversely, come from a certain locality or a person, theystart at a particular time (i.e. they do not stretch back into antiquity)and/or theywerenot acceptedof by the commonconsentFathersoftheChurch.SeeCommonitory,27[70].

[421]Commonitory,21.51.[422]Jurgens,“SynopsisofSacredScripture,”FEF3:255-56.[423]SynopsisofSacredScripture,1-3.[424]SeeReuss,History,262.[425]Judithismissinginsomemanuscripts.[426]Today, this isnotcontested.Olderworks,suchasantiquatedJohnCosin’s Scholastic History of theCanon (Oxford Parker, 1849)whicherroneouslyacceptsPseudo-Dionysiusasanapostolicwriting,contestsit.

[427]Breen,Introduction,366[428]LettertotheBishopsofGaul“BonumAtqueIucundum”(August23,498).

[429]AsimilarphenomenonoccurredinProtestantismwiththespreadofDispensationalismthroughDarby’sfootnotesintheScofieldReferenceBible.

[430]Reuss,History,158-159.[431]Ellis,followsSwete,datesthisworkaroundthesecondorearlythirdcentury(Ellis,OldTestament,24FN.74).

[432]TheselistsarebasedonHenryB.Swete’sIntroductiontotheGreekOldTestament(KTAV,1978).

[433]Hengelbelievestheomissionof2and3Mc,1Ezr,BarandLetterofJeremiahmaybelacunaeinthetext.Hengel,Septuagint,57.

[434]DeSectis,II,1-4asquotedfromWestcott,Bible,219-20.Emphasishis.

[435]Breen,Introduction,468.[436] Theodoret repeatedlyquotesSir,WsandBarasScripture,ContraNestor. Et Eutych. [L. ait Scriptura (quoting Sir 21:21)/Gk. kata tenGraphen] and [L. quem Scriptura dicit (Ws 2:10)/Gk. kata ton henGraphe] and [L. Verum et illud ostendemus e Scriptura veteri. NammanifestoJeremias idalicubidicithisverbis:Hicdeusnosterest(Bar3:36-38)/Gk.toutoJeremiasanaphandon,OutoshoTheos].

[437]AdversusNestorianos,Book3.[438]MoralTreatises,19,21.[439]SeeGigot,Introduction,66;alsoBreen,Introduction,469.[440]Pastoral Care, Part 3, 20,Comm. on Job 10:8 and 6:24 [L. Hinc

quidamsapiensdicit(quotesTb4:16).[441]Thereareabouttwenty-eightinstancesofthisusage.[442] SeePastoral Care, Book 3, 15;Commentary on Job, Book 4.61;CommentaryonJob34.25.

[443] SeePastoral Care,Book 3, 30 andCommentary on Job Book 2,2.20respectively.

[444]Breen,Introduction,474.ItappearslikelythatGregoryacceptedBarandJdt,butdidn’thaveanoccasiontoquotethem.

[445]CommentaryontheBookofRevelation,1(PL77.119).[446]Jerome’s“helmeted”PrefacetotheBookofKings.[447] The Incarnation of Christ, 4.13, “…admiscentes interdum antiquisnova, ut intelligant omnes, Scripturam sacram venturum in carneDominum,totoquodammodosuocorpore,quasiunooreclamasse.Aititaque eximius ille et admirabilis tam munere Dei dives, quamtestimonio, cui uni admodum conitigit sanctificari antequam nascei.Jeremiahpropheta,[quotesBar3:36-38].”Emphasisadded.

[448]Bar3:36-38[449]Breen,Introduction,467.[450]DePartisDivinaLegis,I.3-7.[451]AsquotedinWestcott,Bible,193.[452]Reuss,History,239.[453]2Tm3:15,theGreekliterallyreads,“EveryScripture…”thatiseveryindividualScripturecontainsthesequalities.

[454]DeInstitutioneDivinarumLitterarum(PL1123-1126).[455]JohnB.O’Connor,“Isidore”CE,8:187.[456]Etymologies,Book1.3-9.[457]“QuartusestapudnosordoVeterisTestamentieorumlibrorumquiincanone Hebraico non sunt. Quorum primus Sapientiae liber est;secundus Ecclesiasticus; tertius Thobias; quartus Judith; quintus etsexius Machabaeorum, quos licet Judaei inter apocrpha separent,Ecclesia tamen Christi inter divinos libros, et honorat et praedicat.”Emphasisadded.BaruchislikelyincludedwithJeremiah.

[458]DeEcclesiasticisOfficiis,1.9.4-5and7.Emphasisadded.[459]ProloguetothebooksoftheOldTestament,Book1,7-8.Emphasisadded.

[460]SeeBreen,Introduction,467-68.[461] See D. S. Margoliouth, “The Use of the Apocrypha By MoslemWriters,”IJA12.44(January1916),10-12.

[462]SeeWestcott,Bible,241.[463]SeeBreen,Introduction,477.[464]SeeIldefonsus,TreatiseonBaptism,79.[465] This may be Anastasius Sinaita’s work, but this identification isdoubtful.SeeWestcott,Bible,224-25.

[466]ItalsocommendstheWisdomofSirachtothosewhohaverecentlyjoinedtheChurch.SeeBarry,Tradition,136.

[467] From an article posted by Dr. Art Sippo in response to WilliamWebsterontheInternet.Usedwithpermission.

[468]Oesterley,Introduction,128.[469]EcclesiasticalHistory,Book5,24.[470]DeTemporumRatione,(PL90,539).Emphasisadded.[471]Breen,Introduction,486-87.[472] Daubney also finds Bede, in his Church History, 1.27, giving ananswer from Pope Gregory to Augustine where the pope’s remarksappears to be echoing 2 Mc 5:19. See Daubney, “Use of theApocrypha,”57.

[473]CommentaryontheRevelation,4.[474] The Iconoclasts forbade Christians from using religious art(particularlyiconsandstatues)becausetheywronglybelievedtheuseoftheseobjectstobeidolatrous.

[475]TheOrthodoxFaith,4,17.[476]Ibide.[477]Ex25:21,Dt10:2,1Kgs8:9and2Chr5:10.[478] SeeOn Weights and Measures, 4; This dependence is noted inWestcott,Bible, 220;Reuss,History, 249,Gigot, Introduction, 65andBreen,Introduction,477.

[479]OrthodoxFaith,4,15.[480] Orthodox Faith, 4, 6 “And although the holy Scripture says,‘ThereforeGod,thyGod,hathanointedtheewiththeoilofgladness,’itis to be observed that the holy Scripture often uses the past tenseinstead of the future, as for example here: ‘Thereafter He was seen

upon theearthanddweltamongmen.’ForasyetGodwasnotseennordidHedwellamongmenwhenthiswassaid.Andhereagain:‘Bythe riversofBabylon, therewesatdown;yeawept.’Forasyet thesethingshadnotcometopass.”Bar3:38isquotedbetweenPs14:7and137:1withoutdistinctionorqualification.

[481]OrthodoxFaith,4,16[quotingBar3:38]andOrthodoxFaith,4.18.[482]OrthodoxFaith,1,9 “ForGod isa fireconsumingallevils:or from[Gk] ‘theasthai,’becauseHe isall-seeing [2Mc10:5]: fornothingcanescapeHim,andoverallHekeepethwatch.”

[483]TheheresyofAdoptionismbelievedthatJesuswastheSonofGodbyadoption(likeallbaptizedChristians)andnotbynature.

[484]AgainstElipandus,Book1,18.[485]OutsideofIsidore’squotationofJeromethereisnothingtosuggestthatIsidorebelievedSirachtobeapocrypha.

[486]DeVirtutibusetVitiis,14,18.Emphasisadded.[487]DeVirtutibusetVitiis,18.Emphasisadded.[488] The Codex Paulinus (Carolinus) and the Codex Statianus(Vallicellianus)containstheentireDeuterocanonminusBaruch.

[489]PL101.731-734.[490]ActionVIIunderProofIIandCanon,16.[491] Breen believes this manuscript is evidence of Pope Gregory theGreat’s acceptance of the Deuterocanon as Scripture. Breen,Introduction,481.

[492]TheBookofRevelationisincludedamongthissecondgroup.[493]SeeStichomentry[494]Gigot,66;Breen477-478.ScholarsnotethatNicephorus’cataloguehas an affinity with the Synopsis of Sacred Scripture of pseudo-Athanaius.

[495] Letter to Pope Leo III, (PG 100.189-190); Antirrheticus I Adv.Constantinus Corp., (PG 100.249-250); Antirrheticus I Adv.ConstantinusCorp.,(PG100.443-444).

[496]SeeApologeticusProSacrisImaginibus,(PG100.727-728).[497]AntirrheticusIIIAdv.ConstantinusCorp.,(PG100.473-474).[498]ApologeticusProSacrisImaginibus,(PG100.751-752).

[499]De Institutione Clericorum, II, chapter 53. Rhabanus Mauras, likeIsidore, notes the correspondence of seventy-two books of Scripturewith the number of prophets elected by Moses and the number ofdisciplesJesussenttopreach.

[500]PrefacetoBaruchasquotedinBreen,Introduction,489.[501]LetterTothebishopsofGaul(865),PopeInnocentI.[502]Despitethecontradictionswithinthesedecrees,theEastmayhaveunderstoodthemasaffirmingtheDeuterocanonasScripturealongwith3and4Mc.

[503]Westcott,Bible, 223; Breen, Introduction,478;Oesterley, 128 andSteinmueller,Companion,79.

[504] This number is debatable. Only a few bishops attended at thebeginning, but the number grew to about 102 as the Councilproceeded.

[505] “Divina manifesto clamente scripture: (Sir 11:7)/“tes theias …graphes:”

[506]SeeBreen,Introduction,485.[507]De Interpretibus Divinae Scripturae, 3 (PL. 131.996) as quoted inBreen,Introduction,490-91.Emphasisadded.

[508] Westcott holds that Nokter’s views represent the judgment of theancientIrishChurch(Westcott,Bible,207).ButNokter’spositionseemsfar too eccentric to be a common belief. It’s likely the product ofspeculationonhispart.

[509]Daubney,“UseoftheApocrypha,”57.[510]Gigot,Introduction,68-69.Emphasisadded.[511]Westcott,Bible,209.[512]Decr.III.217.[513]Decr.IV.16.[514]Decr.I.dist.15.C.3.[515]SeeDisputeofaJewwithaChristian.[516] TheDivineOffice is theofficial prayer book that is readbypriestsandreligiousintheCatholicChurch.

[517]GemmaAnimae,IV.,118.

[518]PL212.43.[519]SeeAurora,Fragment.5.[520]Bruce,Canon,99.[521]PrefacetoDeScripturisetScriptoribusSacris.Emphasisadded.[522]DeScripturisetScriptoribussacris.[523]DeSacramentis,Preface.[524]Bruce,Canon,100.[525]Breen,Canon,497.[526]CommentaryonGenesis,31.[527]DeVictoriaVerbiDei,12.[528] Letter Against Peter of Bruys, Letter 2, Book 1 (PL 188.751).Emphasisadded.QuotedinBreen,Introduction,499.[L.…restantposthosauthenticosll.sexnonreticendilibri(Ws,Jdt,Tb,Mc)qui,etsiadillam sublimem praecedentium dignitatem pervenire non potuerunt,propter laudabilem tamen et perneccessariam doctrinam ab ecclesiasuscipimeruerunt.]AlsoseeReuss,History,257.

[529] Breen, Introduction, 499. The other New Testament writings weresubordinated to the Gospels and were considered, by Peter and hisfollowers,asbeingofdoubtfulapostolicorigin.

[530] Several issues remained even after all the conciliar and papaldecreesupuntil thispoint.Areall booksofScriptureequally inspiredandequallycanonical?Doallcanonicalbooksshareequaldignityordosome deserve greater honor? This latter view appears to be that ofPeterofCluny.

[531]LetterAgainstPetrobrusiani.[532]Letter34.[533]AgainsttheJews,2.[534]AgainsttheJews,4.[535]InLeviticus,14,Preface.[536] Preface to the Book of Joshua. [L. …eos apocryphos esse, quiaauctor ignoratur eorum, sed recipiuntur ab Ecclesia, quia de veritatenondubitatur].

[537]HistoriaScholastic,13.[538]CommentaryonDaniel,2andAgainstRufinus,11:33.[539]RationaleDivinorumOfficiorum.

[540]EpistleAdHugon.DemodoetordinelegendiScript..[541] Letter 143. Emphasis added. [L. Quia ergo de numero libroumdiversas et multiplices Patrum lego sententias, catholicae Ecclesiaedoctorem Hieronymum sequens, quem in sconstrudendo litterafundamento probatissimum habeo, sicut constat esse xxii litterasHebraeorum, sic xxii libros Veteris Testamenti in tribus distinctosordinibusindubitantercredo.(Emphasisadded.)]

[542]Rationalediv.Off.59.[543]“Cumautemscriptumsit…”(70).[544]SinceAlbert’sacceptanceoftheDeuterocanonisnotcontested,wewillforegoananalysisofhisusage.

[545]AsquotedinBreen,Introduction,503.[546]Commentary on the Book of Wisdom, Preface. Quoted in Breen,Introduction,503-504.

[547]Breen,Introduction,503.[548]PostilleainJoshua,PrologueasquotedinBreen,Introduction,506.[549] Preface to the Books of Judith and Sirach as quoted in Breen,Introduction,506.

[550] Thomas appeals to the Deuterocanon throughout his SummaTheologicaenotonlyinhis“objections,”butalsointherepliesandhis“sedcontra.”

[551]AthoroughdefenseofSt.Thomasonthispointwouldbebeyondthescopeof thispresentwork,butadetailedstudyofhisusagemaybefound in the unpublished unabridged version ofWhy Catholic BiblesAreBigger.

[552]SummaTheologicae,I.Q.109,Art.2,Sedcontraetal.[553]SummaTheologicae, I.Q.1,Art.3,Sedcontra;also,Ws iscalled“Scripture” in Summa Theologicae, I. Q. 19, Art. 12,Obj. 2; ThomasusesWs11:20toanswerwhethertheparticularpunishmentsofAdamand Eve were suitably appointed in Scripture; See SummaTheologicae,II.Q.164,Art.2,Sedcontra.

[554]SummaTheologicae,I-II,Q.106,Art.1,Obj.1.[555]SummaTheologicae,III.Q.55,Art.6.Sedcontra.[556]SummaTheologicae,II-II,Q.110,Art.3,Reply3.Emphasisadded.[557]SummaTheologicae,III.Q.5.Art.6.Reply1.

[558]SummaTheologicae,II-II,Q.64.Art.4.Obj.1.[559]SummaTheologicae,III.Q.71.Art.5.Obj.1&Reply.[560]SummaTheologicae,III.Q.40.Art.1.Obj.Sedcontra.[561] Postilla super Lib. Sapientiae, 1, lect. 2. Quoted in Breen, 503.Emphasishis.

[562] Doctrinale Fidei, II, 20 [L. …ex Ecclesiae testificantis auctoritatedenuntietlibros,quiinplenariaauctoritatesinthabendi].

[563] See Norman P. Tanner, ed.Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils(GeorgetownUniversityPress,1990).

[564]SeePrefacetoTobit.[565]SeeCommentaryonEzra.[566]AsquotedinWestcott,History,211.Emphasishis.[567]SeeBreen,Introduction,507.[568]BullofJubilee,“UnigentiusDeiFilius”January25,1343.[569]Westcott,Bible,211.[570]AsquotedinWestcott,Bible,212-213.Emphasisadded.[571]Daubney,UseoftheApocryph,62.[572]SacrorumConciliumNovaetAmplissimaCollectio (Mansi)21,885asquotedinBreen,Introduction,504.Emphasisadded.

[573]SeeNicholasI,LetterTothebishopsofGaul(865).[574]DS703,706.[575]PreviousEcumenicalCouncilsmayhaveonlysanctionedthecanonsofHippoandCarthage.

[576]AsdoneinthemostancientgreatcodicesAleph,AandB.[577]Session6ofFlorencequotesTb12:20;Session7quotesSusanna(Dn13:9),andSession9quotesWs5:21.

[578]Breen,Introduction,510.[579]TheDecreeontheReunificationoftheJacobiteswasaccepted.[580]OntheJerome’sProloguetotheBookofKings.Emphasisadded.[581]NotedinBreen,Introduction,512.[582]ProloguetotheGospels.Emphasisadded.[583]Viewed fromourvantagepoint,hundredsofyears later, itappearsobvious that equal authority and veneration are given to all books ofScripturesincetheyallhaveGodastheirprimaryauthor.

[584]SummaTheol.III,18,6asquotedinBreen,Introduction,513.

[585] Antoninus’s dependence on Jerome is noted in Breen, 513,Westcott,Introduction,199andGigot,Introduction,71.

[586]Breen,Introduction,514.[587]JamesLyell,CardinalXimenes:Statesman,Ecclesiastic,SoldierandManofLettersWithAnAccountOfTheComplutensianPolyGlotBible(London:Grafton&Co.,1917),25.

[588]Lyell,Xemenes,27.[589]AsquotedinGigot,Introduction,72.[590]Lyell,Xemenes,29[591]Westcott,Bible,252.[592]ExpositionontheCreed,10asquotedinWestcott,Bible,253.[593]Malou,II,108,asquotedinBreen,Introduction,514.[594] A Thomist is one who is schooled in the theology of ThomasAquinas.

[595] Warren H. Carroll, The Cleaving of Christendom (ChristendomPress,2001),4.10.

[596]CommentaryonEsther,asquotedinBreen,Introduction,514-515.[597] Like Tostatus and Erasmus, Cajetan confuses the usefulness ofScripturewithitsinspiredauthority.

[598] Conc. Senonse, Decr., 4, ap. Hard., ix, 1939: “In enumerandiscanonicae scripturae libris qui praescriptum ecclesiae usum nonsequitur, Carthaginense concilium iii., Innocentii et Gelasii decreta etdenique definitum a ss. patribus librorum catalogum respuit, aut inexponendis scripturis non pascit haedos juxta tabernacula pastorum,sedfoditsibicisternasdissipatasquaecontinerenonvalentaquas,etspretisorthodoxorumpatrumvestigiispropriispiritusjudiciumsequitur,is veluti schismaticus et haereseon omnium inventor…reprimatur.”(QuotedinReuss,History,273.)

[599]TheCouncilofTrentisthefirstCouncilinhistorytoraisethebeliefinScripturetothelevelofanArticleofFaith.AsDaubneycomments,“ButtothosewhoregardtheChurchofRomeasanenemytothefulluseofthe Scriptures, the fact that Pope Pius’ Creed should be the first tocontain an express declaration of belief inHoly Scripturemust seemstrange.”Daubney,UseoftheApocrypha,49.

[600]DS783-784.[601]Breen,who reliesonTheiner’sActagenuinaSS.Oecumen.Conc.

Trident,providesagoodsummaryofthesemostpertinentdiscussions.AnotherhelpfulresourceonthebehindthescenesdiscussionsonthecanonisPeterG.Duncker’sarticle“TheCanonoftheOldTestamentattheCouncilofTrent,”CBQ15(1953).HubertJedin’s“AHistoryoftheCouncilofTrent” translatedbyDomErnestGraf.O.S.B.,2vol. (SaintLouis,Missouri:B.HerderBooksCo.)isalsohelpful.

[602]ThatistheCreedorSymboloftheFaith.[603]PeterG.Duncker,“TheCanonoftheOldTestamentattheCouncilofTrent,”CBQ15(1953):281.

[604]AskedbyCardinalCervini.SeeDuncker,“Canon,”CBQ15(1953):283.

[605]Breen,Introduction,517.QuotingTheiner,1,c.[606]Duncker,“Trent,”284.[607]SeeDuncker, “Trent,”285;Breen, Introduction,517;R.E.Murphy,“OldTestamentCanon,”CBQ28(1966):192.

[608]ItappearsthatCardinalMadruzzo,theBishopofTrent,waswillingtoacceptFlorence’scanon.HewishedthattheCouncilwouldalsorefutetheargumentsoftheheretics.SeeDuncker,“Trent,”284.

[609]TheanathemaisatermusedtoassignacanonicalpenaltyagainstanyonewhoholdsagivenpropositionthatiscontrarytotheFaith.Itisused both to underscore the importance of a given teaching and thespiritualdangeritplacedoneinbyrejectingit.CardinalPacheco,whoproposedtheinclusionofananathema,statedthatananathemawouldremovealldoubtas to theauthorityof thecanonical listsof thepast.Cardinal Cajetan (Thomas de Vio) is mentioned as “one of our ownpeoplewhowasnotashamed todispute theauthorityofmanyofourbooks and reject them as apocryphal.” Duncker, “Trent,” 288; Jedin,CouncilofTrent,2:55-57.

[610]Duncker,“Trent,”291;Letter303,CT,X,382-383.[611]DS92[L.Esdraeliberduo].[612]Gk.esdra~a[613]SeeOesterley,Introduction,133.[614]Gigot,Introduction,121.[615]Gigot,Introduction,122.[616]Gigot,Introduction,122-123.[617]Duncker,“Trent,”293-94.

[618] Note the conservatism of Trent. They preferred to remain silentratherthanimposetheiropinion.

[619]SeeDuncker,“Trent,”295;Breen,Introduction,519.[620]SeeBreen,Introduction,519.[621]Breen,Introduction,519.[622]Dunker,“Trent,”296.[623]SeeBreen,Introduction,430;Reuss,History,285.[624]SeeWestcott,Bible,227-228.[625]Inlatercenturies,PhilaretesincorporatedtheseviewsintheRussianCatechismof1868.SeeBreen,Introduction,430.

[626] Breen, Introduction, 430. The Synod of Jerusalem (Jassy)understood that the omission of books from lists (e.g. the Council ofLaodicea) and those of some of the early fathers (e.g. Gregory ofNazeanzus) was not a rejection of the book’s inspired status. Theywerenottreatedasapocrypha(“paganorprofane”),butScripture(i.e.acceptedas“goodandexcellent”).SeeWestcott,Bible,229.

[627]DS1787andDS1808.VaticanIattachedananathematoanywhodenyTrent’sdecreeonthecanon.Emphasisadded.

[628] St. Francis de Sales encountered this objection during his workamongtheFrenchCalvinists.DeSales’responseechoedinthewordsofVaticanI.SeeFrancisdeSales,CatholicControversies(TanBooksandPublishers,Rockford,Illinois),110-111.

[629]Chadwick,Owen,TheApocrypha inEcumenicalPerspective,UBSMonograph Series, No. 6, ed. Siegfried Meurer (trans. PaulEllingworth), United Bible Societies, (Read, UK: New York), 120.Moreover, every bible produced by the Protestant Society for thePromotionofChristianKnowledge (SPCK)before1743contained theDeuterocanon.

[630] See Robert E. McNally, The Bible in the Early Middle Ages(Westminster/Maryland:TheNewmanPress)WoodstockPapersNo.4,19-36.

[631]Healsopublishedanew translationof thePsalms fromHebrew in1512utilizing(notsurprisingly)theworksofJerome.

[632] Henry Howorth, “The Bible Canon of the Reformation,” IJA, 20,SeriesVI(Jan.1910):8-10.

[633]AndrewBodenstein’s treatiseDeCanonicisScripturis likely reflectsthisdisparagementoftheDueterocanon.

[634]Reuchlin laid the foundation thatwould, tosomedegree, legitimizeMartin Luther’s rejection of the Deuterocanon. Reuchlin never brokefromtheCatholicChurch. In fact,he trieddesperately toconvincehisgrandnephew,PhilipMelancthon,tocuttieswithLuther.

[635]Howorth,Bible,12.[636]Later,LuthermakesasimilarstatementattheDietofWorms(1521).[637]2Mc12:43-46isaclassicprooftextfortheexistenceofPurgatory.JudasMaccabees’ prayers and sacrifices for his dead soldierswouldhavebeenuseless theywere inHell (whichhasnot relief)orHeaven(whichthereisnoneedforrelief).Therefore,itiscommonlyargued,thesoulsmust be a state or place (that is neither Heaven norHell) thattheycanbeaidedbyprayersandsupplications.Maccabeescallstheseprayersandsacrifices“holyandwholesome”actions.

[638] “…hoc volo, quod in universa Scriptura non habeatur memoriapurgatorii,quepossetstare incontentioneetconvincere:namet liberMachabeorum,cumnonsitinCanone,profidelibuspotensest,contrapertinaces nihil facit.” As quoted in Breen, Introduction, 516. Luther’swordsseemtoechothatofRobertHelot.

[639]Howorth,“Bible,”14.Emphasisadded.[640]EckappealstoAugustine’sCityofGod,Book18.[641] “Evidens enim est, librum Machabeorum pertinere ad vetustestamentum quando ergo Sanctus Hieronymus canonem hebreumconscripserit,eteossolos librosvalere incontentione,quidecanonesunt, definiat sitque in hac sua sententia receptus, facile nostro teloverberabimur nisi fidelibus persuadeamus” as quoted inHoworth, 14.Luther knew thatEck’s interpretation ofMaccabeeswas unassailableand the Church’s acceptance of Maccabees could not be ignored.Luther, in what Sundberg called “an argument of desperation,” firstappealedtoJeromeandthenpositedthattheChurchisnotcompetenttodeterminetheCanon.AlsoseeAlbertSundberg,Jr.“TheProtestantCanon:ShouldItBeRe-examined?”CBQ28(1966):195.

[642]Howorth,“Bible,”14.“Scioquodecclesiarecipithunclibrum,ethocdixi: sed non potest ecclesia plus tribuere auctoritatis aut firmitatisquam per se ipsum habeat, sicut et ceterorum patrum opuscula

approbatetrecipit,sednonideoconfirmatautmeliorareddit…Transeoergoistaqueinmultisdicunturcanonetcanon.”

[643] “[C]oncilium non potest facere de scriptura esse, quod non est descripturanaturasua,sicutnececclesiapotuitfacere,Evangelia,etiamsiapprobavitEvangelia…”ibid.

[644]OrasJohannEckreplied:“Cumdoctissimifuerintineoconsilioviri,malo credere concilio quod a spiritu sancto regitur quam dominoLuthero, non quod concilium faciat aliquid de scriptura quod non sit,sed quod credam conciliummelius habere sen sum et intelligentiamscriptu rarum decernendo hoc esse de scriptura quod in scripturareperitur…”ibid.

[645] See Works of Martin Luther, trans. C.M. Jacobs (Philadelphia:MuhlenbergPress,1932),UnitedLutheranChurchinAmerica,6.363ff.AlsoseeReuss,History,321.

[646]SeeDentan,RobertC.,TheApocrypha,Bridgeof theTestaments,(Greenwich, Connecticut: Seabury, 1954), 18-19. Also Metzger,Introduction,181.

[647]SeeHenryHoworth“TheBibleCanonAmongLaterReformers,”JTS10(Jan.1909):207-08.

[648] Luther is, quite literally, guilty of the charge commonly launchedagainst Catholicism by Protestants today. He has, to paraphraseScripture,“[made]voidthewordofGodby[his]owntradition…”

[649] This phenomenon canbe seen in the earliestChristian editions oftheOldTestament (e.g.Thegreatcodices, theOldLatinandvariouscodicesoftheLatinVulgate).

[650] See Robert C. Dentan, The Apocrypha: Bridge of the NewTestament,(Conn.:Seabury,1954),18-19.

[651] Goodspeed, Edgar J., The Story of the Apocrypha,(Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, 1937), 4. Emphasisadded.

[652] Luther’sGerman Bible (1545), as quoted inMetzger, Introduction,183.

[653]Afewwordsoughttobesaidabouttheterm“apocrypha.”Daubneyfollows Lightfoot in distinguishing three particular stages ofdevelopment of this term: “Firstly, it was taken to designate thosebookswhichwere‘heldinreserveandstudiedprivately’butnotreadin

church (orig. Ep. Ad Afric. 9). Secondly, it came to denote booksaffected by heretics, and carried with it the ideas of ‘spurious’ and‘heretical’ (Iren. I. xx. 1); andThirdly, itwas applied to non-canonicalbookswhethergenuineor spurious (Jer.Prol.Gal. 1).” (Daubney,3).Emphasis his. Later, Jeromists distorted this term in an attempt toreconcileJeromewiththeChurch(e.g.Alcuin,AgainstElipandus,Book1, 18; Peter Comster, Preface to the Book of Joshua; and possiblyHughofSt.Cher,PostilleainJoshua,Prologue).ByLuther’stime,theterm had been so distorted as to render it practically useless. Forexample,evensomeFathersoftheCouncilofTrent,whoargueforthefull canonicity and inspiration of the Deuterocanon, call them“apocrypha.” The Evangelical Lutheran Church recognizes this broadmedievaldefinitioninitsjointstatementonthecanonofScripture.SeeLutheran-OrthodoxDialogue:AgreedStatements1985–1989(Geneva:LutheranWorldFederation,1992),22andfootnote.

[654]Indeed,Luther’sGermanTranslationwasnotconsideredacompletebibleuntilthe“Apocrypha”sectionwascompleted.SeeTheCambridgeHistory of the Bible: TheWest From the Reformation to the PresentDay, vol. 1, ed. S. L.Greenslade, (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress),1963,96.

[655] The Protestant theologian Wilhelm H. Neuser notes that Luther’snew arrangement of the Old Testament, “…broke radically withprevious church tradition.” (Wilhelm H. Neuser, “The ReformedChurches and the Old Testament Apocrypha” in The Apocrypha InEcumenicalPerspective,UBSMS6,(UnitedBibleSocieties,1991),89).

[656]Howorth,“Bible,”25.Emphasisadded.[657]“…sednondivinamcumcaeterisillisautoritatemdamus.”[658] “… non cum caeteris conferamus.” See Westcott, History, 270.Emphasishis.Oecolampadius’listomitstheDeuterocanonicalsectionsofEstherandtheBookofHebrews.Howorth,“Bible,”27.

[659]Neuser,“Apocrypha,”90.[660]SeeWestcott,270andBruce,102.[661]Prefacetothe1531ZurichBibleasquotedinNeuser,“Apocrypha,”91.

[662]AsquotedinNeuser,“Apocrypha,”91.Emphasisadded.

[663] Thepublic readingof a book inChurchattests to thebelief that agiven book is Scripture since the ancient liturgy, like the synagoguebeforeit,heldaspecialstationforthereadingofsacredScripture.

[664]ScholarsbelievethisfirstprefaceisnottheworkofJohnCalvin,buthiscousinOlivetan.

[665]AsquotedbyNeuser,“Apocrypha,”93.[666]AsquotedinNeuser,“Apocrypha,”95-96.[667]SeeNeuser,“Apocrypha,”96.Cholinusinthe1542LatinBiblestatedthatSirachwaswritteninHebrew.

[668] The decree of the Fourth Session addressed the authority ofapostolic tradition, the canonof theOldandNewTestament and theLatinVulgateastheauthoritativetranslationfortheologicaldebate.

[669] JohnCalvin,Antidote to theCouncil ofTrent,SessionFour, trans.HenryBeveridge(Edinburgh,1851),69.

[670]Calvin,Antidote,68.Emphasisadded.[671]Calvin,Antidote,70-71.[672]IfJerome’sopinionwasthecommonviewofthetimes,onewonderswhyhecomposedthe“helmeted”preface(andotherslikeit)asapre-emptivestrikeagainsthiscritics?

[673] Following this line of reasoning, one could also conclude that thedoctrineoftheTrinityisstillnotformulatedeventodaybecauseitisnotacceptedbysome(e.g.theJehovah’sWitnesses,Mormons,etal.).

[674]OnChristianDoctrine,2.12-13.[675]MaccabeesismerelyacknowledgingthatsomeGreekreaders(whopridethemselvesandtheircultureontheirliteraryeloquence)maynotfeelhisliterarystylecompletelysatisfying.Hedoescommendhisworkasthefruitofhisbestefforts.Thisacknowledgmentinnowayimpingesupon the question of this book’s inspiration. The Holy Spirit is theprimary author of Scripture and the human writer is the secondaryauthor. All the words set to writing are those of the Holy Spirit, theliterarystyleandskill,however,reflectthatofthehumanauthor.ThisiswhyeachbookofScripturereadsdifferentlyanddiffersfromoneotherinliteraryquality.WhatmattersiswhethertheHolySpiritistheprimaryauthor.Calvin’scomments,therefore,misstheirmark.

[676]JohnCalvin,TheInstitutesoftheChristianReligion,Book1,Chapter8,Section10,p.80;TheBeveridgetranslationerroneouslyhasCalvin

discussing1Mc12:43;2Mc12:43isthecorrectcitation.Thequotationfrom Augustine is said to come from Contra Gaudentium, 31.38.However,Calvin seems tohavehad inmindRufinus’DeExpositioneSymboli36-38.

[677]Calvin,Institutes,441[Book4,9,section14].[678] This has been solemnly affirmed, as we saw in the quote fromVaticanIcitedabove.

[679]2Tm3:15[680] Nuesner, “Apocrypha,” 101. Calvin has it backwards. It’s fromScripture that we learn true doctrine, not from doctrine that wedeterminewhichbooksareScripture.

[681]Nuesner,“Apocrypha,”102-103.[682] This is a gross generalization. Neither the Protocanonical norDeuterocanonical books of Scripture were immune from questions ordoubtsby individuals.Whatmatters iswhether thesedoubts reflectedtheChurchasawholeorthetheologicalspeculationsoftheindividual.

[683]BelgicConfession,Article5.[684]AsquotedinMetzger,Introduction,190.[685] As quoted in Philip Schaff’, The Creeds of Christendom, with aHistoryandCriticalNotes;6thed.,(GrandRapids:BakerBookHouse,1931)356-82.

[686]InstitutesoftheChristianReligion,Book1,Chapter7,72.[687]SeeNeuser,“Apocrypha,”106.[688] “Quandoquidem libros Apocryphos scripta mere humana esseconstat, nonnullos quoque suppositios, Iudaicis fabulis et commentisaspersos, quales sunt Historiae Iudithae, Susannae, Tobithi, BelisDraconisque,atqueimprimistertiusetquartusEsdrae:nonnullosetiamcontinerequaedamdogmaticaethistorica,librisCanonicisrepugnantia:cumquenec in Iudaica,nec inantiquissimaEcclesiaChristianasacroVeteris Testamenti codici fuerint adiuncti, deliberatum, fuit: an et illiaccuratiori versione digni sint. Tunc vero utrum conveniat, ut cumsacris et Canonicis libris, in uno volumine porro coniungantur: cumpraesertim illa coniunctio idem progressu temporis periculum crearepossit, quod in Pontificia Ecclesia accidisse videmus: ut scripta haecmere humana tendem pro Canonicis, divinisque, ab imperitioribushaberentur. Re diu deliberata rationibusque variis ac gravissimis

utrique allatis atque explicatis, spatium maturius rationes allatasexpediendi,postulatumfuit.”NinthSessionasquotedinHoworth“TheBible Canon Among the Later Reformers,” JTS 10 (Jan. 1909): 224-225.

“Acquandoquidemamultisretrosaeculis,librihicumsacrisscriptisuno eodemque volumine coniuncti fuerunt, atque haec coniunctio inReformatis quoque omnium Nationum Ecclesiis etiamnum servetur,cumquedistinctioseuseparatiohorum librorumavolumineBibliorum,nec exemplo nec suffragiis aliarum Ecclesiarum Reformatarum sitcomprobata, sed occasionem et scandalorum et calumniorum, faciledaturasit,quanquamoptarentquidemomneslibroshosceApocryphos,sacris Scripturis nunquam adiunctos fuisse; placuit tamen eos hoctempore sine aliarum Ecclesiarum Reformatarum consensu atqueapprobatione, a corpore voluminisBiblici non esse segregandos; sedeidem coniungendos, adhibitis tamen hisce cautionibus….” TenthSession,asquotedinHoworth,“BibleCanon,”225.

[689]Metzger,Introduction,185-186.[690] Bruce, Canon, 102-03. Bruce and others point out that the bookorder of Tyndale’s New Testament follows closely that of Luther’sGermanBibleandsuggestthathewouldhavefollowLutherintheOldTestament.

[691]Bruce,Canon,103.[692]Reuss,History,339-40translator’snote.[693] Hagiographa is the Greek title of the third section of the HebrewScripture known as the Writings. Its use here implies that theDeuterocanonispartofthethirddivisionoftheOldTestament.

[694]Reuss,History,340.Emphasisadded.[695]Episcopaliansalsoholdthesearticlestobeauthoritative.[696]Bruce,Canon,106.OnemayaddtheBelgicConfessionaswell.[697]Article35.Emphasisadded[L.continetpiametsalutaremdoctrinamethistemporibusnecessarium].

[698]SeeBruce,Canon,107,FN19.[699]Daubney,UseoftheApocrypha,67-68.[700]Daubney,UseoftheApocrypha,69.[701]2Tm3:15.Emphasisadded.Greekmeansliterally“everyScripture.”[702] For example, Catholics may find Purgatory taught both in the

Protocanon and Deuterocanon. Daubney’s solution would prescribethat the Deuterocanon can only be used to confirm doctrine that isfoundintheNewTestamentasexplicatedbytheArticles.Ineffect,thissolutionplacestheArticlesasthedeterminerofScripture.

[703]WestminsterConfession,1.3.[704]AsquotedinGoodspeed,Apocrypha,6.[705] John Strype, The Life and Acts of John Whitgift, Vol. 1 (Oxford,1718),80asquotedinDaubney,UseoftheApocrypha,72.

[706]JohnStrype,1.590(1722edition)asquotedinMetzger,Introduction,196.

[707]Goodspeed,Apocrypha,6.IfGoodspeed’sassessmentiscorrect,itis frightening to imagine what the Puritans must have thought aboutcertain portions of Protocanon that appear even more sensationaland/orofalower“morallevel’thantheDeuterocanon.

[708]Theuseof title “TheAuthorizedVersion” ismisleadingsince thereweretwo“authorized”textspriortotheKingsJamesVersion.

[709] Metzger, Introduction, 188. Metzger notes that there were 113references to the disputed books in theKing James Version (1611),with 102 found in theOld Testament and 11 in the New Testament.These11NewTestamentreferencesare listed inMetzger,188FN6.Emphasisadded.

[710]Daubney,UseoftheApocrypha,21.[711]Daubney,UseoftheApocrypha,21.[712]TheApocrypha-lessbibleswerestyledas“thenewcut”andslowlygrew in vogue as something of a new fashion among EnglishProtestants.

[713] Arber, Edward, A Transcript of the Registers of the Company ofStationers of London, Volume 5 (Birmingham, 1894). Violators weregivenayearinprison.

[714]Thesewerethe1626,1629,1630,and1633editions.[715]Goodspeed,Apocrypha,7.[716]Outofthe227printingsoftheBible(between1632and1826)only40% included the Deuterocanon. See Wilhelm Gundert, “The BibleSocieties and the Deuterocanonical Writings” in The Apocrypha inEcumenicalPerspective(UnitedBibleSocieties,1991),135.

[717] Anonymous author, “Essay on the Books Commonly Called

Apocrypha”(1740).[718] Wilhem Gundert, “The Bible Societies and the DeuterocanonicalWritings,”TheApocryphainEcumenicalPerspective,USBMonographSeriesNo.6(NewYork:US):135.

[719] Biased footnotes and skewed prefaces had long been tools forproselytization. Unsuspecting Bible readers unwittingly use thesefootnotes to interpret Scripture in line with the particular sect thatpublished the Bible. TheBritish and Foreign Bible Society in Londonwasdesignedtotrytoavoidthistypeofsectarianismbyprintingbibleswithout footnotes or commentaries. See The Third Statement of theCommittee of the Edinburgh Bible Society, being a statementrespectingtheirconference,onApril4,1826,withadeputationfromtheCommittee of the British and Foreign Bible Society, relative to theCirculationoftheApocrypha(Edinburgh:W.Whyte&Co),4.

[720]ForProtestantareas,theDeuterocanonwasplacedinanappendix.InCatholicandOrthodoxareas,thebooksoftheOldTestamentwerearranged as was customary in those countries (i.e. with theDeuterocanon intermixed with the Protocanon). There was even aSlovakianBible, printed inMoscow in 1815,which included, not onlytheDeuterocanon,but3Esdrasand3Maccabeesaswell!Unlike thevonCansteinBibleSociety,biblesfirstproducedbytheBFBSomittedtheDueterocanon.

[721] Haldane was a supporter of the BFBS and learned, almost byaccident, that theSocietyhadcommittedfundstoprintbibleswiththeDeuterocanon.

[722]Gundert,BibleSocieties,137.[723]“Weconceivethattheverytermsinwhichthedesignsandcharacterof the Society are declared, in the body of rules and regulations, dofullyadmitof thecirculationof theScriptures,as theyarereceivedbydifferentestablishedchurches throughout theworld;andwewish it tobeconsideredwhetherthewholespiritoftheSociety,asbreathingloveto mankind, and a desire for the salvation of the world, be notcontravened by the resolution in question…. “(London Bible Society,March21,1825).

[724]Thiscanbeseen inanarticlequoted fromTheEclecticReviewerswithouttitleorauthorintheThirdStatement,108-109.

[725]“…[T]heApocryphaisnopartofthewordofGod.Weareawarethatitmaybequite lawful forus topropagatemany things,whicharenotinspired.Buttothese…weshouldmakethesameobjection,andholditgood;becausewhenwesend them interspersedwith theBible, or incompany with it, so as to arrogate the same authority which itpossesses, and claim the same submission which it demands, wecorrupt theholy communicationof heaven,—weput thewisdom,or itmaybethefolly,ofmanonalevelwiththeunerringconselsofGod,—andweso farendeavour tocounteract theeffect,aswellasdegradethecharacter,ofdivinerevelation.Thismaximappliestotheablestandthepurestofmerehumanproductions;and tosay that leastof it,wesee nothing in the Apocryphawhich for us to know that it is not thewordofGod,tosatisfyusthatwedowrong,andcommitsin,whenwegiveittoanyofourfellow-creatures,underthedesignation,orwearingonitappearance,ofthewordofGod.”(SecondStatement,15).

[726]SecondStatement,16[727] The “fundamental teachings” that theDeutrocanon is said to strikeagainstwasnot theProtocanon,but theSociety’s interpretationof theProtocanon.CatholicismhasnotdifficultyharmonizingtheteachingsoftheseDeuterocanonwiththeProtocanon.

[728]SecondStatement,16-17paragraph3.Emphasisadded.[729] The traditional format being the Deutrocanon intermixed with theProtocanon. This is the format of themost ancientChristianCodicesandcanonicallists.

[730]SecondStatement,17-18,paragraph3.Emphasisadded.[731]SecondStatement,17-18.Emphasisadded.[732]SecondStatement,51-52.Emphasisadded.[733]This“purification”wastobetotal.AllreferencestotheDeutrocanon(apocrypha) in the table of contents, footnotes, and even the cross-references were to be entirely omitted: “But, besides notes andcommentsinthecontents,andmarginalreferencestothepartsofHolyScripture,therearemanymarginalreferencestotheApocrypha,also.This we hold to be a recognition of the Apocrypha as an inspiredrecord. It isemployed toproveand illustratedivine truthdogmatically,whichpresupposesit tobeapartof thedivinerevelation.Andthoughthe Apocyrpha is excluded from the volume that is circulated, this

reference to it, in common with the accompanying references topassages of Holy Writ, must give the reader an impression of bothbeingona level inpointoforiginandauthority.And thisbeingdone,Apocryphas(sic)aretobehadinabundanceforconsultationbythosewho are thus prepossessedwith reference for themas part ofGod’sWord.[Example:1Cor10:25–Bar6:28;1Tm1:18–Sir46:1;2Cor9:7–Sir35:9].”(SecondStatement,135-136.)Emphasisadded.NotraceoftheDeuterocanonwasleftbehind.Thisomissionwassocompletethat,as Goodspeed laments, “Very few people nowadays know that theApocrypha are, much less what they have to say.” Goodspeed,Apocrypha,11.

[734] The Edinburgh Society’s opposition to the Deuterocanon goes farbeyond that of the early Reformers. This point was not lost onEdinburgh’s opponents in the LondonBritish andForeignSociety, asRev. Mr. Venn stated ‘Not only may the term Holy Scriptures, whenusedinacollectivesense,includetheApocryphalbooks,butitisoftenapplied to them individually by the earliest Christian writers, and bythoseofourownReformedChurch.”SecondStatement,117.

[735]WestminsterConfession,Chapter1,Section6.[736]SecondStatement,50.[737]SecondStatement,17,paragraph3.Emphasisadded.[738]SecondStatement,50(Emphasistheirsandmine).[739]From“Twenty-oneReasonsfornotcontributingto thecirculationoftheapocryphaamongthechurcheswhichdeemitcanonical,”SecondStatement,4.Emphasisadded.

[740]SecondStatement,39.[741]SecondStatement,108.Emphasisadded.[742]SecondStatement,54.Emphasisadded.[743]Howorth,“BibleCanon,”208.Emphasisadded.[744] Ss Dr. J. Hey noted, “At the Reformation, when men had beenbroughtuptoreverethem[theDeuterocanon],itwouldhavebeenbothimprudent and cruel to set them aside” (ed. 1797, 4.490. Quoted inDaubney,61).

[745]SecondStatement,45.Emphasisadded.[746]Bruce,Bible,112.Emphasisadded.

[747]Neuser,“Apocrypha,”138.[748] Howorth, “TheBibleCanonAmongThe LaterReformers,” JTS 10(Jan.1909)215.

[749] Billington, Ray Allen, The Protestant Crusade 1800-1860, PeterSmith(Gloucester,Mass.,1963),42-43.

[750]FewAmericansareawarehowdeeply rootedanti-Catholicism is inAmerica culture and that these anti-Catholic movements spawnedviolent assaults against Catholics and Church property. For furtherreading, I recommendRayBillington’s “TheProtestantCrusade” (seeFN 727);Mark J.Hurley’sTheUnholyGhost: Anti-Catholicism in theAmerican Experience (Our Sunday Visitor, 1992), and more recentlyPhilip Jenkins, The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last AcceptablePrejudice(OxfordUniversityPress:2003).

[751]IJA,12(Jan.1916),17.[752]Daubney,UseoftheApocrpha,11FN1.[753]Goodspeed,Apocrpha,10-11.[754]SeeToseftaYadayim,2:13andToseftaShabbath,13:5.Moreover,thetime-limitedcanontheoryalsospeaksagainsttheinspirationoftheNewTestamentsinceittoowasalsowrittenafterthetimeofEzra.

[755]Sundberg,“ProtestantCanon,”202-03.[756]Mt5:18[757]Forexample,theteachingin2Mc12:46declarationthatitisaholyand wholesome thing to pray for the dead brings meaning to Paul’spractice in 2 Tm 1:18 where he prays for his deceased friendOnesiphorus or Paul’s complex explanation of purification in 1 Cor3:11-13.

[758]2Tm3:16[759] For example, anti-Catholics sometimes appeal to the councils ofCarthageandHippoasauthenticexpressionsoftheancientviewoftheNew Testament canon, while ignoring that these very same councilsalsodefinetheOldTestamentcanonwiththeDeuterocanon.

[760] The word “apostolic,” in Luther’s theology, does not mean anyhistorical connection to the apostles. It means only that it “preachedChrist”liketheapostles.

[761] Charles A. Briggs, General Introduction to the Study of HolyScripture(NewYork:CharlesScribners’Sons,1899),163.

[762]Forexample,couldthisapproachdeterminewhetherMk16:9-20 isinspiredcanonicalScripture?

[763]Metzger,Introduction,199.[764]Metzger,Introduction,200.[765]deSales,Francis,TheCatholicControversy,St.FrancisDeSales’DefenseoftheFaith,trans.H.B.Mackey(TanBooksandPublishers:Rockford,Illinois,1989),Pt.2,Art.1,c.6,112.

[766]Lk14:26[767]ItwouldappeartoviolatetheEx20:12,Dt5:16,Mt5:14,19:19,etal.[768]Thispoint isablymadebyHaroldO.J.Brown inTheOriginof theBible, ed, Philip Wesley Comfort, (Wheaton Illinois: Tyndale HousePublishers,Inc.,1992),44-45.

[769] This method also violates the principle of Sola Scriptura since itplacesone’sintellectualprowessandinvestigativeabilitiesasthenormthatsetsthenormofScripture.SeeAppendix1.

[770]H.H.Howorth,“BibleCanon,”222-23.

why catholic bibles are bigger

Documents

poppe’s2013/08/18 · poppe’s 1886 maine, quincy...

old bibles and antique chairs

cambridge bibles 2014-2015

sacramento diocese of catholic schools€¦ · 2.0 reading...

beer and bibles

christian art bibles

poppe’s2012/09/23 · poppe’s 1886 maine, quincy...

pg 1075 in church bibles. pg 1075 in church bibles

hidecorg.files.wordpress.com...they grow bigger. and bigger ...

pg 587 in church bibles

catholic and protestant bibles

fireside bibles

2021 bd brochure cover page - claretianpublications.org ·...

poppe’s2012/10/14 · poppe’s 1886 maine, quincy...

bibles (1)

bibles amazing story

pg 595 in church bibles

bibles at cost - best-selling bibles, lowest prices in

niv bilingual bibles

tableau comparaison bibles