The Church relies on Apostolic Tradition

The Word "Canon" as applied to Scripture

The word "canon," Kanon, means "a rule" or "measure," see St. Paul's use of it Galatians 6:16, etc. Thus Apostolic truth and doctrine is opposed by the Fathers to heretical tenets as being the canon traditionis or "measure of tradition." Hence the term came to be applied to those Books which contained sound doctrine and which were thus regarded as the test or "measure" of such doctrine. By the time of Eusebius the term "canon" had come to mean the list of recognized Books, thus H.E. III. 3, he says that a certain Epistle is not "found in the Canon."

Formation of the Canon of the Old Testament

Any one who compares a Protestant Bible with the Catholic Bible will find that the latter has seven more Books in the O.T. than the former, viz., Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobias, Judith, Baruch, and the two Books of Maccabees; further he will find that certain portions of Esther and of Daniel are omitted in the Protestant Bible. It is true that in many Protestant Bibles these Books and portions of Books are found at the end under the heading "Apocrypha," but they are not considered to be Canonical or inspired. The Catholic Church on the contrary accepts them all as of equal authority with the rest of the Books. The reason for this divergence lies in the fact that the Protestant Bible only contains those Books which are to be found in the Hebrew Bible, whereas the Catholic Bible is based — not on the Hebrew or Jewish tradition — but on the Greek Jewish Bible used by Our Lord and His Apostles. After the destruction of Jerusalem in 588 B.C. the Jews were scattered; many of them found their way to Egypt, and there in course of time a translation of the Bible into Greek was formed, see under Greek versions. It seems certain that the list of Books considered authoritative in Palestine differed from that accepted in Egypt, hence it is customary to speak of the Hebrew and Greek Canons respectively, or of the "first" and the "second" Canons. Books found in the Hebrew Bibles as well as in the Greek are called "Proto-canonical," as belonging to the "first" Canon, while those found only in the Greek Bibles are called "Deuterocanonical" as belonging to the "second" canon.

It is these latter Books which the Protestant Bible. call "Apocryphal," whereas Catholics confine that term to Books which are to be rejected as not being inspired, e.g., the Assumption of Moses, the Gospel of Peter, etc.

It has been urged at times that, after all, the Jews were the best judges as to the contents of the Bible. But the Jews of Palestine were not more Jewish than those in Alexandria; it remains to be proved, too, that the former did not receive the same Books as those of Alexandria. But the chief thing to be remembered is that the Church has never tied Herself down to the authority of the Jews on this or any other point of doctrine, but depends solely upon Apostolic tradition (see below).

In brief, then, the ordinarily accepted view of the formation of the O.T. Canon is as follows:

(a). The Books were, of course, written at different times.

(b). Deuteronomy 31:9-13 and 31:24-26 shows the germ of a collection.

(c). Joshua 24:25, and 1 Samuel 10:25 show how Moses' successors imitated him, and added to the collection.

(d). In 1 Chronicles 29:30, we have a hint regarding the successive steps in the formation of the collection now known as the Psalter; i.e., the Psalms of Asaph are added to the already existing collection of Davidic Psalms.

(e). The same activity in collecting the Sacred Writings is borne witness to in Proverbs 25:1, where we are told that the men of Ezechias copied out other parables of Solomon.

(f). Daniel 9:2 shows that Daniel knew of a collection of Sacred Books.

(g). Finally, in 2 Maccabees 2:13, we find it stated that Nehemiah was strenuous in his efforts to form "a Sacred Library."

The traditional view is that Esdras closed the Canon, i.e., that no authoritative pronouncement was made in Palestine regarding the contents of the Canon after the time of Esdras. The grounds for this assertion are:

(1). That after the time of Esdras the Jews had no official Prophet, cf. 1 Maccabees 4:46, 9:27, and 14:41.

(2). That we know of no additions to the Hebrew Canon after the Prophecy of Malachi who was probably contemporary with Esdras.

(3). In the tract Baba Bathra of the Talmud we have the following extraordinary statement:

"Moses wrote his book, the section of Balaam and Job; Joshua wrote his book and the eight verses of the Law; Samuel wrote his book and Judges and Ruth; David wrote the Book of Psalms with the aid of the ten Ancients, with the aid of Adam the first, Melchisedec, Abraham, Moses, Heman, Jeduthun, Asaph, the three sons of Core; Jeremiah wrote his book, the books of Kings and Lamentations; Ezechias and his company wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, Canticle of Canticles, and Ecclesiastes ...; the men of the Great Synagogue wrote Ezechiel and the Twelve (Minor Prophets), Daniel and the roll of Esther ... Esdras wrote his book and the genealogy of Chronicles unto himself."

It is maintained that the word "wrote" is not to be understood here as meaning composition but rather authoritative confirmation. If this be so then we can see in this passage the attribution of an act of canonization to Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Jeremiah, Ezechias and "his college," to the "men of the Synagogue," and finally to Esdras.

In 4 Esdras 14:18-47, we read that when all the Sacred Books had perished during the Exile, Esdras won from God their complete restoration; God dictated to him ninety-four Books in forty days; seventy of these he was told to hide, the remaining twenty-four he was told to publish. This apocryphal passage clearly indicates the existence of a tradition to the effect that Esdras in some sense formed the canon of the O.T.

It is often asserted that the Fathers depended absolutely on this passage when defending the Canon; but it should be noted that while it is true that some of them, e.g., Tertullian, St. Basil, Theodoret, Clement of Alexandria, etc, do use it and depend on it, others, e.g., St. Irenaeus and St. Chrysostom, while making use of it, also use other sources as well and are not entirely dependent on the passage from 4 Esdras. Others again, e.g., St. Isidore and Pseudo-Athanasius, make no use of it whatever.

The undoubted existence, however, of the Alexandrian Canon compels us to accept with caution the statement that Esdras did in any formal manner declare the Canon closed. In fact some Books were called in question at a later time by the Rabbis themselves, notably at the Council of Jamnia [1] in 90 or 118 A.D. [2] though it is possible that there they only questioned how certain Books came to be canonical rather than whether they actually were so. It is also to be noted that some of the genealogies in Paralipomena come down to a period later than that of Esdras himself. At the same time it would be uncritical to deny all weight to the statements regarding Esdras. Perhaps the following passage from Josephus shows us in what light we are to regard it:

"We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. The interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets who were after Moses wrote down what was done in their time in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life. It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes, very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; and how firmly we have given credit to those books of our nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything to them or take anything from them, or to make any change in them whatever; but it becomes natural to all Jews, immediately and from their very birth, to esteem those books to contain divine doctrine, and to persist in them, and if occasion arise, willingly to die for them."
-- Contra Apion, i. 8.

Here Josephus clearly shows that he knows of other Books besides those in the Hebrew Canon, but he says that there has been no authoritative pronouncement regarding them "because there has been no exact succession since that time." That Josephus knew, for example, the Books of Maccabees, is clear, for they constitute practically his sole authority for the period. But he did not know that they were inspired. And the same must, presumably, be said of the rest of the Palestinian Jews; they knew of these other Books but had no means at their disposal for determining their Canonicity. It was not until the "Prophet of Prophets" used the Greek Bible in which these Books were contained that "a faithful Prophet" could be said to have arisen, One who had the authority to decide the question. It is upon Him and His Apostles that the Christian Church depends, and not upon the testimony of the Jewish Church from which "the glory had departed."

Modern View of the Formation of the O.T. Hebrew Canon

In the Hebrew Bible we have the threefold division given above, that namely into "the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings." It is commonly maintained that in this threefold division we are to see the three steps which went to the formation of the Canon. An analysis of the contents of these three main divisions is said to lead to the following conclusions:

(a). Deuteronomy was "discovered" — if not, according to many critics, "fraudulently composed" — in B.C. 621.

(b). The Pentateuch as a whole was "promulgated" by Esdras (Nehemiah 8) about B.C. 440.

(c). These two events may be considered as the "canonization" of the respective portions, for, the "Priestly Code," i.e., the larger portion of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, contains legislation later than Deuteronomy.

(d). The date of canonization of the "Prophets," both the "Former" and the "Latter," cannot, since many of the Books bear traces of the influence of Deuteronomy, be earlier than the "discovery" of the latter in 621. Their moralizing character caused them to be singled out, and we have an indication of this awakened interest in the Prophetic writings in the act recorded of Nehemiah in 2 Maccabees 2:13; hence we may say that all the Prophetic writings were declared "Canonical" between 300 and 150 B.C.

Having thus accounted for the two first divisions of the Bible it remains to be seen how the third division, that namely of "the Writings," came to be regarded as canonical.

(e). Some "Writings" would stand out as preeminent, and would be regarded as an appendix to the Law and the Prophets. Their value would be realized when Antiochus Epiphanes in B.C. 167 attempted to destroy the collections, 2 Maccabees 2:13, we have a reminiscence of some such "collecting" and of the probable canonization of such Books.

(f). This hypothesis would explain, it is thought, the peculiar character of the contents of the Hagiographa. How else, it is asked, can we explain the fact that

i. Ruth, Esther, and 1-2 Chronicles (Paralipomena) are not among the "Former Prophets," i.e., the historical Books?

ii. Similarly, that Daniel and Lamentations are not among the "Latter Prophets"?

(g). And this view is confirmed, so it is held, by the disputes relative to the canonicity of such Books as Canticles, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and 1 and 2 Chronicles, at the Council of Jamnia.

(h). It is further urged that most of these Books might easily remain for a long time without definite canonization owing to the fact that they were not really liturgical, and hence not in public use.

We need not criticize these views in detail: it may be sufficient to remark in general that it is precarious to argue from the present divisions of the Hebrew Bible. The LXX bears witness to an order which accords far more with that in use in our Latin Bibles. And though nearly every MS. has a different order as regards individual Books, yet the great threefold division in the Hebrew Bibles is conspicuous by its absence. Moreover, the LXX order witnesses to a tradition much older than that of the present Hebrew Massoretic text. At the same time it is true that the threefold division is as old as the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus, i.e., about 132 B.C. We have no means, however, of deciding what were, according to this writer, the precise contents of each division. It is possible that the omission from Ecclus. xlix. 1, of Daniel, Esdras, and Esther, may show that the canonicity of their Books was not at that time (c. 180 B.C.) known at Alexandria.

And this confirms the view we have stated above regarding Josephus' testimony to the contents of the Canon in his time. Since the cessation of Prophecy there had been no means of securing a definite pronouncement on Books written subsequent to the time of Artaxerxes, and it is in this sense true that Esdras probably made some definite pronouncement regarding the contents of the Canon. But these Books were known in the country which gave them birth, whether Palestine or Egypt. Thus Philo, while never quoting the Deuterocanonica as authorities, yet shows a knowledge of them, and his language is tinged by them; no argument, indeed, can as a matter of fact, be drawn from his not quoting them, for, apart from the Pentateuch, he appears to make no distinction between the Sacred and profane books. Similarly, Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, knew the fragments of Daniel; Josephus quotes Esther; Origen tells us that Baruch was in his time joined to Jeremiah — and this after he has given the Hebrew Canon; similarly, St. Epiphanius tells us of the honor in which Ecclesiasticus was held — and this, too, after enumerating the Books of the Hebrew Canon.

Grounds for Accepting the Deuterocanonical Books

As already stated, these Books had a place in the Alexandrian Canon as shown in the LXX. This Greek Bible was the one in use at the time of Our Lord. He can never be said to have expressly quoted any of the Books exclusively found in the Greek Bible; yet there can be no question that the New Testament is in many places tinged with the language of these Books, and, in one place at least, an argument in favor of a dogmatic point is derived from one of them, cf. Hebrews 1:3 and Wisdom 7:26, in the Greek text. We append below a list of passages in the New Testament which show traces of the Deuterocanonica. It should be remembered, too, that outside Palestine the Jews could not use the Hebrew Bible and were accustomed everywhere to the Greek text, and consequently to the peculiarly Greek Books. Hence it is that St. Paul, with two exceptions, always quotes from the LXX, though he often does so from memory only and his quotations sometimes cannot be clearly referred either to the Hebrew or the Greek.

Further, it should be noted that the early Fathers were all accustomed to the same version; with the exception of Origen hardly one of them had even a smattering of Hebrew. And there can be no doubt that the translation of the Bible into Greek was, under Divine Providence, a most potent factor in the conversion of the world to Christianity. It had served to make known to the Gentile world the Sacred Books of the Hebrews, and now when the Messiah had come the Apostles could turn to a Book which was readily accessible to all in proof of their assertion that this same Messiah had been foretold from the beginning of the world.

Use of the Deuterocanonical Books in the N.T.

As already remarked, these Books are not quoted, save in the one instance mentioned, in the New Testament, but

(a). They do not lend themselves to quotation since they do not contain the greater Messianic passages.

(b). Some of the Protocanonical Books also are not quoted, e.g., Ecclesiastes and Esther, Canticles, Esdras and Nehemiah, etc.

(c). We give a few of the passages which invoke the Deuterocanonica, premising however that many of these connections can only be detected in the original text:

1. 1 Peter 1:6-7 ... Wisdom 3:5-6

2. Matthew 27:39-42 ... Wisdom 2:13-20

3. Hebrews 1:3 ... Wisdom 7:26

4. Hebrews 4:12-13 ... Wisdom 7:22-25

5. Romans 1:20-32 ... Wisdom 13:1-4

6. 1 Corinthians 2:10 ... Judith 8:14

7. Matthew 13:43 ... Wisdom 3:7

8. 1 Corinthians 6:2 ... Wisdom 3:8

9. Ephesians 6:13 ... Wisdom 5:17-18

10. Romans 13:1 ... Wisdom 6:4

11. Romans 11:34 & 1 Corinthians 2:6 ... Wisdom 9:13

12. 2 Corinthians 9:7 ... Ecclus. 32:9 (LXX)

13. Romans 9:21 ... Wisdom 15:7-8

14. Luke 12:19, 29 ... Ecclus. xi. 19-20 (LXX)

15. John 1:1, 14 ... Ecclus. xxiv. 8 (LXX)

16. Romans 5:12 ... Ecclus. xxv. 24 (LXX)

17. Matthew 16:27 ... Ecclus. xxxii. 19 (LXX)

18. John 6:35 ... Ecclus. xxiv. 21 (LXX)

Testimony of the Fathers to the Deuterocanonicals

Briefly, we find St. Clement of Rome quoting — or at least alluding to — Judith, Tobias, Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus.

In the Shepherd of Hermas there are at least 20 allusions to Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, and 2 Maccabees.

Passing to a later period still we find that Hippolytus knows the fragments of Daniel, Tobias, 1-2 Maccabees, Wisdom, and Baruch. The same must be said of St. Irenaeus. It is the same in Africa; Tertullian and St. Cyprian are well acquainted with them all and use them frequently.

Origen even wrote a defense of their canonicity which has come down to us in his Letter to Africanus. For him the LXX is divine and its contents have Apostolic authority. In the little treatise De Oratione, he quotes Wisdom four times, Tobias four times, and Judith twice.

Indeed it may be said that the evidence of these Fathers is so clear in favor of the Deuterocanonica that were it not for the subsequent action of St. Jerome there would be no question now as to the absolute right of these Books to a place in the Canon. It is often objected, however, that on these lines we ought to allow a place in the Canon to such Books as the Shepherd and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles since they are often referred to by the Fathers; but it may be remarked that:

(a) No Apocryphal Book is used by the Fathers regularly.

(b) No Apocryphal Book is used for any length of time in the Church.

(c) No Apocryphal Book is used is insisted on as Canonical by any Father.

(d) No Apocryphal Book is used was widely received.

(e) There are only incidental quotations of these books, and Fathers occasionally question whether they really are canonical.

The Books mentioned above belong to New Testament times, instances where O.T. Apocrypha are quoted by the Fathers are rare. It should be noted, too, that these Fathers were far too well aware of the importance of what they said to have risked quoting the Deuterocanonical Books had they not had good reasons for what they did.

At a later time, however, doubts began to arise in the Church as to the real position of the Books which did not occur in the Hebrew Bible; controversy with the Jews undoubtedly showed that there were Books accepted by Christians but which the Jews rejected. It might seem an overwhelming argument that Books to which the Christians triumphantly referred were after all not in the Hebrew Bible. Hence we find that in the Fourth Century doubts had arisen and that a tendency manifested itself to range these Books apart as Ecclesiastical rather than as Canonical.

Thus we find St. Athanasius saying:

"Since some have endeavored to reduce to order the apocryphal books as they are called, and have also endeavored to insert them amongst the divinely inspired Scriptures which we have received from sure witnesses, as they have been handed down to us by the Fathers who were witness from the beginning and were ministers of the word; it seemed fitting for me, too, at the instigation of the brethren, to set down from the commencement and in order, as I have learnt it, the Books which belong to the Canon, which are handed down to us and which, moreover, are believed to be divine; so that any who have been led astray may be able to refute their seducers and those who have kept themselves unspotted may joyfully commit them to memory."

St. Athanasius then declares that there are twenty-two Books "according to the letters of the Hebrew alphabet," but it is not the Hebrew Canon which he enumerates, for he gives Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah, Books which certainly never had a place in the Hebrew Canon; moreover he never refers to Hebrew tradition but to the testimony of the "Fathers ... who were ministers of the word."

He gives the New Testament Canon in the same order as ours except that he inserts the Catholic Epistles before the Pauline. He concludes with the words:

"these are the fountains of salvation let no one add to or subtract from them ... But for the sake of greater accuracy I think it necessary to add that there are also certain other Books which are not included in the Canon but which the Fathers appointed to be read by those who have lately approached (the Church), and who are eager to be instructed and to learn pious doctrine: the Wisdom of Solomon and the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith. Tobias, the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, and the Shepherd. Whereas, however, the former are included in the Canon and the latter are appointed to be read, there is no mention of the Apocrypha which are nothing but the fictions of heretics who compose books after their own likings and assign dates to them so as to deceive simple souls by a fictitious appearance of antiquity." (Ep. xxxix.)

St. Athanasius, then, regarded the Books of the Old Testament as falling into three groups, the Canonical, the Ecclesiastical, and the Apocryphal. And though he does not regard those in the second class as of equivalent rank with those in the first, yet he looks upon them as worthy of all respect and as very different from the "Apocrypha." The same division is to be found in the Synopsis of Sacred Scripture long attributed to St. Athanasius and undoubtedly composed about his time. It occurs again in the Catechism of St. Cyril of Jerusalem:, lib. IV. chs. 33-36, where he tells his hearers that they must be

"careful to learn — and that from the Church — which are the Books of the Old and the New Testaments, and must have nothing to do with the Apocrypha. For when you do not even know those Books which all acknowledge — what is the good of wasting time over those which are doubtful? Read the divine Scriptures, those twenty-two Books of the Old Testament which the Seventy Interpreters translated."

Cyril then narrates the story of the formation of this translation and adds:

"Read their twenty-two Books and have nothing to do with the Apocrypha. Carefully meditate these alone for we receive them in the Church with all confidence. Much wiser and much more careful (religiosiores) than you were the Apostles and Bishops of old, the rulers of the Church who have handed them down. You, then, as a son of the Church, transgress not her laws. Meditate, then, as we have said, the twenty-two Books of the Old Testament, and, if you are anxious to learn, fix them in your memory as I mention them each by name."

He then gives the names according to the Hebrew list, though not in the same order, and with the addition of Baruch and the Epistle; after which he gives those of the New Testament, omitting the Apocalypse; he concludes by saying: " All the rest belong to the second rank; but those which are not read in the Church do not even read in private."

Rufinus in the Latin Church held the same views. Like St. Athanasius, Pseudo-Athanasius, and St. Cyril, he distinguishes between the Canonical Books, the Ecclesiastical (amongst which in the New Testament he enumerates the Shepherd and the Duae Viace, or Judgment of Peter; he concludes by saying: "All the rest are called 'Apocryphal' and are not read in the Church. These things have been handed down to us by the Fathers." Symbol. Apost. 36.

St. Jerome's views on the Old Testament Canon are not so clear as those would have it who reject the Deuterocanonical Books on his authority. Yet there can be no doubt that he did explicitly reject them. Thus in his Preface to his Translation of the Sapiential Books he says:

"As then the Church reads Judith, Tobias, and the Books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the Canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority in the Church."

Again, in his Preface to the Books of Samuel and Kings, commonly known as the Prologus Galeatus, or "Helmeted Preface," St. Jerome — after enumerating the Canonical Books according to the order and contents of the Hebrew Bibles — says:

"This Preface to the Scriptures may serve as a 'helmeted' introduction to all the Books which we translate from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed among the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the Book of Jesus, the son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd, are not in the Canon. The First Book of Maccabees I have found to be Hebrew, the Second is Greek, as can be proved from the very style."

Similarly, in his Epistle to Paulinus {Ep. liii., 8), he passes in Review all the Books of the Old Testament according to the Hebrew Canon, and he gives no hint that there are any others.

But in spite of these positive assertions there are many passages in his writings which show that St. Jerome's views on the subject of the Canonicity of the Deuterocanonical Books were by no means consistent. In the first place, he uses the term "Apocrypha" in widely different ways: thus in his Life of St. Barnabas he speaks of the Epistle of St. Barnabas as being composed for the "edification of the Church," and yet adds that "it is read amongst the Apocryphal Scriptures" (Contra Helvid. 8. Contra Vigil. 6. Contra Ruf. I. 27.); similarly he speaks of Judith as being "Apocryphal" and (therefore) as of less weight in deciding controversies (Ep. 107, 12.). It will be noticed that he here seems to use the terminology with which we have become familiar from St. Athanasius, etc., and divides the Books of the Bible into Canonical, Ecclesiastical and Apocryphal. Again, he often speaks as though in doubt about the Canonicity of the Deuterocanonical Books: thus arguing against the Pelagians from Ecclesiasticus, Ecclesiastes, and Wisdom, he feels bound to confirm these arguments by citations from the Ep. to the Romans, "lest perchance anyone should object to this volume." He makes the same qualifications when quoting Judith and Tobias, of the latter he remarks that he has used it as an argument "because, though not in the Canon, it is yet used by Churchmen." (Contra Pelag. I. 33. Ep. liv. 16; in Agg. I. 5; Prol. in Jonam.)

But it is still more striking to note how often he quotes these Deuterocahonical Books without any apparent doubts as to their Canonicity; thus in the first six chapters of his commentary on Isaiah (In Is. ii. 24; iii. 3, 7, 14; vi. 5.) he quotes Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus at least six times; he terms them "our Books" as opposed to Greek profane writings also quoted; he calls them "Sacred Scripture"; says that they teach us certain precepts, and quotes them on a par with Protocanonical Books under the formula "it is written"; the same thing is to be noted in his other commentaries and in his Epistles (Ep. lviii. 1; lxii. 5; cviii. 16, 22; cxviii. 1, 4; cxxv. 19, etc.); in fine, as Comely well says: "there is no Book or fragment of the Second Canon which he does not use with reverence and as a divine authority." (Ep. lxv. 1; lxxix. 11; xxi. 21; cxxx. 4, etc. Cornely. I. 107.)

The reason for this fluctuation in his opinions is not far to seek. Brought up in the West, he had always been accustomed to regard the Deuterocanonical Books as of equal authority with the Protocanonical, but — carried away by his Hebrew studies — he came to regard the Hebrew Bible as the sole standard of authority. These views he insisted on in his Prologus Galeatus, A.D. 391, and in his Preface to Esdras (Ezra) and Nehemiah, A.D. 394. At a later period, however, he would appear to have been influenced by the declarations of the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, and hence modified his opinion in his later works, e.g., in his Preface to the Sapiential Books. In his later commentaries, e.g., in that on Isaiah, A.D. 410, he quotes the Deuterocanonical Books as authorities and that without hesitation. And it should be noted that his very wavering is the best proof of the Christian tradition in favor of the Deuterocanoical Books; the Church has never confined Herself to the authority of one Doctor, and it is at least remarkable that all through St. Jerome's life we have repeated Ecclesiastical and Patristic testimonies in favor of the Canonicity of the Books of the Second Canon.

Christian Canon of the Old Testament

We have already touched incidentally on this point, and what has been said will serve to explain as well the action of the Church in deciding the contents of the Canon, as the — at times conflicting — views of various Fathers on the subject.

We learn the Church's teaching from Her definite documents and pronouncements; but these only mirror the teaching of the age in which they were formulated. Hence, while accepting without hesitation the formal decisions of the Church, we are — if we would defend Her teaching against those who impugn it — bound to see how far the literature of the Early Church, as it has come down to us, bears out the ultimate decisions at which the Church has arrived.

The definite pronouncements of the Church upon the Canon:

I.— Council of Nice

There are solid reasons for thinking that the Council of Nice published a list of the Canonical Books:

(a). St. Jerome says in his Pref. to Judith and Tobias, that he has consented to translate Judith because the Bishops have, contrary to the Hebrew Canon, included it in the Canon.

(b). Cassiodorus argues concerning the mystical number of the Books from the "Synods of Nice and Chalcedon."

(c). The 36th Canon of the Council of Hippo is, in some texts, furnished with the title:

"that besides the Catholic Scriptures nothing should be read in Church; (according to the xxivth Canon of Nicaea)."

But no trace of this Canon is now to be found.

II. — Council of Laodicea, c. 363.

Such grave doubts have been thrown on the lists furnished in this Council — they vary indeed in every MS. — that we may well leave it out of consideration.

III. — Council of Hippo, A.D. 393

This council has the following declaration (and confirmed at the Council of Carthage, A.D. 397):

"It was also decided that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing should be read under the title of Scripture in the Church. And the Canonical Scriptures are the following:"

there then follows a list in all respects identical with that of the Council of Trent, thus we have "the five Books of Solomon", i.e. Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus are included; also Tobias, Judith, and the two Books of Maccabees; Baruch, of course, is included under Jeremiah. The list of New Testament Books then follows and is identical with that of Trent.

At the close we read the significant words:

"Yet let the Church across the seas be consulted as regards the confirmation of this Canon."

What is meant by "the Church across the seas" is clear from the declaration of the Council of Carthage held in A.D. 419; in it the same list of Books was repeated with the exception of Ezechiel — an omission due apparently to an oversight on the part of some copyist; — the Decrees close with the words:

"Let this also be made known to our Brother and fellow-Priest, the Holy Boniface, Bishop of the City of Rome, or to other Bishops of the same (earum), for the confirmation of this Canon, for we have learnt from our Fathers that so we should read in the Church."

IV. — Pope Innocent I

Precisely the same Canon was given by Pope Innocent I. in his answer to Exuperius the Bishop of Toulouse, in A.D. 401. A similar Canon is attributed to either Pope Damasus (366-384), Pope Gelasius (492-496), or Pope Hormisdas (514-523); the arguments for attributing it to Pope Damasus are strong, in spite of the fact that it does not agree with the views of his secretary, St. Jerome. [3]

V.— St. Augustine

In De Doctrina Christiana, II. viii. 13, he says:

"The whole Canon of Scripture is contained in the following Books: the five Books of Moses ... one of Josue (Joshua) Nave, one of Judges, one which is termed Ruth, and which seems rather to belong to the beginning of Kingdoms; then four Books of Kingdoms, and two of Paralipomenon which do not follow upon the former, but rather run parallel with them and have the same aim. So far the history, which gives the dates appended and the order of events. There are other histories, apparently of a different kind, they follow neither the order of time nor are they connected with one another, such are Job and Tobias and Esther and Judith and the two Books of Maccabees and the two of Esdras (i.e., Ezra and Nehemiah), which latter seem to follow the ordinary history ending with Kingdoms and Paralipomena. Then come the Prophets, among whom David with the one Book of Psalms, and Solomon with his three, Proverbs, Canticle of Canticles, and Ecclesiastes. For the other two, the one called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus, are only termed Solomon's from a certain similarity (to his work) ... none the less, since they have been accounted authoritative, they are counted amongst the Prophets. The remainder are the Books of those who are strictly termed Prophets: each of the twelve Prophets which are connected together and — since they have never been separated — are counted as one ...; then come the four Prophets who have written at greater length, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, and Ezechiel. In these forty-four Books [4] of the Old Testament, you have the authoritative writings of the Old Testament."

VI. — Council of Florence, A.D. 1438

This same Canon again appears in the Council of Florence, held in 1438:

"The Holy Roman Church professes that one and the same God is the Author of the Old and of the New Testaments, that is of the Law and the Prophets and the Gospels; since the holy men of either Testament spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit; their Books the Church receives and venerates and they are contained in the following list (titulis)."
— The Decree for the Jacobites, or the Bull of Pope Eugenius IV, "Cantate Domino."

But it was not till the time of the Reformation, when the so-called Reformers had indulged in the most extravagant views regarding Canonicity, that the Church in the Council of Trent, formally discussed the actual status to be assigned to the Deuterocanonical Books, i.e., those which did not find a place in the Hebrew Bibles. It was proposed by some to distinguish different grades of inspiration, assigning a higher degree to the Protocanonical Books; but this view did not prevail, and in spite of the influence of St. Jerome's views — for to him and his rejection of the Deuterocanonica these ideas were due — it was decided to put all the Books, whether derived from the First or from the Second Canon, on the same footing.

VII.— Council of Trent

We give the Decree of the Council in full:

"The Holy, Ecumenical, and General Synod of Trent ... having ever before its eyes the removal of error and the preservation of the Truth of the Gospel in the Church — that Gospel which, promised beforehand through the Prophets in the Holy Scriptures, Our Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, first promulgated with His Own mouth and then ordered to be preached to every creature by His Apostles as the fountain of all saving truth and moral instruction; seeing, moreover, that this truth and Instruction is contained in the written Books and in the unwritten traditions which were received by the Apostles from the very mouth of Christ, or were delivered, as it were by hand, by the Apostles themselves at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; this same Holy Synod, following the example of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with like devotion and reverence all the Books of both the Old and the New Testaments — since the one God is the Author of both — as also the aforesaid traditions, whether pertaining to faith or to morals, as delivered by the very mouth of Christ or dictated by the Holy Spirit and preserved in the Catholic Church by the unfailing succession. And lest any doubt should arise as to which are the Books received by this Synod it has seemed good to append to this Decree a list of them. The following, then, are the Books of the Old Testament:

The Five Books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy.

Then Josue (Joshua); Judges; Ruth; the Four Books of Kings; the Two Books of Paralipomena; the Two of Esdras — the First namely (Ezra) and the Second which is also called Nehemias (Nehemiah); Tobias; Judith; Esther; Job; the Davidic Psalter of CL (150) Psalms, Parables (Proverbs); Ecclesiastes; Canticle of Canticles; Wisdom; Ecclesiasticus; Isaias; Jeremias; Baruch; Ezechiel; Daniel; the Twelve Minor Prophets, namely, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias; the Two Books of Maccabees, namely the First and the Second.

The Books of the New Testament: The Four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles, written by Luke the Evangelist; Fourteen Epistles of St. Paul the Apostle, viz., to the Romans, Two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, Two to the Thessalonians, Two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; the Two Epistles of the Apostle Peter; the Three of the Apostle John; one of James; one of the Apostle Jude; and the Apocalypse of John the Apostle.

If any one shall not receive these entire Books with all their parts, as they have been wont to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin edition; and whosoever shall knowingly and of set purpose (prudens) contemn the aforesaid traditions: let him be ANATHEMA."
— Council of Trent, Sess. IV.

"Further, the same Holy Synod, considering that it will be no small gain to the Church of God if of all the Latin editions of the Sacred Scriptures which are in circulation, it be clearly made known which is to be considered authentic; decrees and declares that this same old and common (vulgata) edition which has been approved of in the Church by the use of long centuries, is to be held as authentic in public lectures, disputations, preachings, and expositions; and that no one is to dare or presume to reject it upon any pretext whatever."

[1] VB Note: For additional discussion of Jamnia, see The Hebrew Bible.

[2] There appear to have been two Councils held at Jamnia, one about A.D. 90, the other in A.D. 118.

[3] VB Note: The Damasene Decrees are typically associated with the Council of Rome in 382 A.D.

[4] St. Augustine presumably united Baruch and Lamentations with Jeremiah [VB note: since he signed the proceedings of the Council of Carthage which included same]


by
Very Rev. Hugh Pope, O.P., S.T.M.
Doctor in Sacred Scripture,
Member of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, and
late Professor of New Testament Exegesis at the Collegio Angelico, Rome.