The Evangelization Station

PROTOCANONICAL AND DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS

Victor R. Claveau, MJ

In view of the important place the Biblical terms occupy in the succeeding pages and discussion, we ought to consider the meaning of these terms before proceeding. All the books found in the Hebrew Bible are called protocanonical, those found only in the Greek are called deuterocanonical. “These phrases were first used by Sixtus of Siena, in 1566, protocanonical denoting those books whose inspired character had always been accepted, deuterocanonical denoting those whose inspiration was recognized throughout the Universal Church.”[1] The deuterocanonicals had also been doubted in some circles, but consequently came to occupy, in point of time, a second place in the Canon. Protestants usually refer to the deuterocanonical books as Apocrypha (not divinely inspired), and if they are printed in Protestant Bibles at all, they are printed under that heading. Confusion may easily arise, unless it is borne in mind that for the Catholic apocryphal means that a work is neither inspired or authentic, is not the work of the author to whom it is ascribed, or if it is anonymous, does not belong to the date to which it is assigned. For the Protestant it might, according to context, have this meaning or it could refer to a deuterocanonical work. Because of the double use of the word apocryphal, Catholics avoid applying it to the deuterocanonical books. 

What is the difference between the books accepted by the Jews of Alexandria and the Jews of Palestine? Were there two different canons, a shorter Palestinian one and a more extensive one used by the Hellenistic Jews? The question is difficult to answer. Some maintain that prior to the Christian era the limits of the canon were widely drawn, embraced all the books of both canons, and that later the deuterocanonical books were rejected by the Palestinian Jews by the use of a narrow and rigid criteria. It would have been unlikely that the Alexandrian Jews would have set up a different “official” canon from that in Jerusalem. In addition, there is no trace of any dissension between the communities on this point. What is more probable is that the Alexandrian Jews had a broader view of inspiration, not restricting it to either the Hebrew language or to the centuries proceeding Esdras. They simply used a larger number of books without receiving formal sanction from Jerusalem. In other words, the Jews of Alexandria might have accepted books as inspired that might not have been acceptable to the rabbis in Jerusalem. But even in Palestine some of the deuterocanonical books seem to have been used before and after the Christian era. Baruch seems to have been used in the synagogues in commemorating the fall of the Holy City.[2] And, according to Irenæus and Origin, appears also at one time to have been united with Jeremiah.[3] Doubts and differences were reduced for the Palestinian Jews towards the end of the first century A.D. But, let us digress for a moment.

It is one of the less proud facts of Jewish history that Rome occupied Jerusalem in 63 B.C., not by invasion, but by invitation.  There was a dispute over who should occupy the throne of Israel upon the death of Queen Shlomtzion Alexandra in 67 B.C. Two of her sons, Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II, the high priest, entered into a full-scale fraternal and civil war to decide who should reign. The two brothers decided to submit their dispute to Pompey, the Roman General in Syria, who ruled in favor of Hyrcanus, apparently believing him to be the more pliable of the two. No match for the Roman army, Aristobulus surrendered to Pompey. Hyrcanus’s ability to rule depended upon Roman support; thus, he invited the Roman Army to occupy Jerusalem.

Pompey encountered resistance only at the Temple Mount. After a three-month siege, the Romans succeeded in entering the Temple after killing several thousand of its priests and defenders.[4] Pompey further horrified Jewish sensibilities by walking straight into the Temple’s Holy of Holies, a room which, according to Jewish Law, was to be entered only once a year on Yom Kippur[5] and then only by the High Priest.

The Roman occupation marked the end of the Jewish State’s independence. Pompey wasted no time in converting the Jewish kingdom into a Roman tributary. Hyrcanus’s major responsibility was to collect the tribute for his Roman masters. Clashes and rebellions plagued the Romans until 6 A.D. when the policy of native rulers for Palestine was ended. Strategically, for the Romans, the country was too important and its people too turbulent to do without direct Roman rule. A procurator was placed in control, responsible only to the emperor.

As the years passed, under all the procurators, bad and good alike, there were clashes and the land seethed with rebellion. The most serious resistance came from Galilee, where the leaders were the Zealots. They were extremists who shrank from nothing to bring down their pagan rulers. Their watchword was: “No God but Yahweh, no tax but to the temple, no friends but the Zealot.” These anti-Roman rebels were active for more than sixty years, and later instigated the Great Revolt.

Excessive taxes by both Herodians and Romans and their corrupt bureaucracies led to economic disarray, this, combined with other socioreligious and political conflicts brought about social turmoil which prepared the ground for the ultimate conflict. Although begun by the Zealots, the command soon passed to the aristocratic leadership who planned to create an army powerful enough to meet the Romans on the field of battle. The Jews’ Great Revolt against Rome in 66 A.D. led to one of the greatest catastrophes in Jewish history. No one could argue with the Jews for wanting to throw off the Roman yoke. Since the Roman occupation during the rule of Hyrcanus II, their rule had grown more and more repressive. From almost the beginning of the century, Judea was ruled by Roman Procurators, whose chief responsibility was to deliver the annual tribute to Rome.

In the year 66 A.D., Gessius Florus, the last Roman procurator, robbed entire cities and communities, did not prosecute bandits so long as they gave him part of their booty, and stole vast sums of silver from the Temple. These atrocities went unpunished by Rome and the outraged Jewish masses, led by the zealots, rioted and wiped out the small Roman garrison stationed in Jerusalem. Cestius Gallus, the Roman ruler in neighboring Syria, sent in a larger force of soldiers. But the Jewish insurgents defeated them as well. This was a heartening victory that had a terrible consequence. Never again did the Jews achieve so decisive a victory.

When the Romans returned, they had 60,000 heavily armed and elite troops. The first attack was launched against the northern area of Galilee, and an estimated 100,000 Jews were killed or sold into slavery.

The final catastrophe took place in Jerusalem. Outside the city, Roman troops prepared to besiege the city; inside the city, the Jews were engaged in a suicidal civil war. “The hatred of the people for the aristocratic high priesthood found expression at the time of the great revolt. When the zealots dominated Jerusalem, they expelled all of them, slew a number of them, and chose a high priest from the ordinary priests, viz. Phinehas b. Samuel a stonemason by profession, a relative by marriage of the family of Hillel. He was the last Jewish high priest.”[6]

The Jews died by the thousands, more from plague and famine than from the wounds of war. During the summer of 70 A.D., the Romans breached the city’s walls, and began an orgy of violence and destruction. Shortly thereafter, they destroyed the Second Temple. This was the final and most devastating blow against Judea.[7]

Of those who survived, thousands were transported to fight wild beasts in the amphitheaters of Antioch and Cæsarea, or to slave to death in the mines of Sinai. According to the noted Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (c. A.D. 37-100), as many as 1.1 million Jews were killed and 97,000 were captured and sold into slavery.[8] When people today speak of the almost two-thousand-year span of Jewish homelessness and exile, they are dating it from the failure of the revolt and the destruction of the Temple. In addition to the more than one million Jews killed, the rebellion resulted in the complete loss of the Levitical priesthood. All the priests who received their authority from Aaron, the brother of Moses, were killed. From that time to this, there have been no Jewish Temple sacrifices. “Those currently designated ‘priests’ are ‘presumed priests’, inasmuch as there is no legally sufficient proof testifying to their descent from ancient priestly families.”[9]  Orthodox Jews still pray three times a day for the restoration of the Temple and the sacrifices.

Jews believe that God allowed the destruction of the Second Temple because of the sin of causeless hatred, which was rampant among the people. Yet is it possible that God gave the Jews a generation of forty years in which to accept Jesus and the new covenant and then allowed the destruction of the Temple?  

The next historic period in the history of the Bible is at about the end of the first century, some ten to thirty years after the destruction of the Temple. By that time a strong Rabbinical academy had been established by Yohanan ben Zakkai at Yavneh (Greek, Jamnia), located near the coast between Jaffa and Ashod approximately twelve miles south of present-day Tel Aviv. Rabban Zakkai knew that in order to preserve the organic body of Judaism it would be necessary to have an organized group of men to take over the duties and responsibilities of the now defunct Sanhedrin. He therefore organized a council of teachers, the Bet Din, which served as senate, as court, and as parliament. In other words, the voice of scattered Israel.

On the whole, the Yavnean sages proved to be very adept ideologically; they mitigated the disaster of 70 by offering alternate means of religious expression in the absence of the Temple.[10] The Yavnean period lasted for about 60 years, until the outbreak of the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome,[11] that of Bar Kochba (70-132 A.D.). It was at this great center of learning that the rabbis held a synod (c. A.D. 84), where two major decisions were reached: First Judaism would be shaped primarily by the remembered insights of Hillel;[12] second, the Jewish canon, which had been developing for centuries was closed, except for some decisions regarding “the Writings” (especially Ben Sirach and Esther).[13]

The early Christians used the Septuagint to show the prefiguration of Christ. Christ’s Incarnation, Passion, death and Resurrection[14] had all been prophesied in the Septuagint. According to Ricciotti:

“Under the influence of anti-Christian animus, the Septuagint was repudiated in the second century A.D. and other translations were substituted for it (Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion and perhaps the anonymous Quinta, Sexta, and Septima); but these were also in Greek. The Greek Bible was indispensable for Alexandrian Judaism and for practically all the rest of the diaspora as well.”[15]

It is reasonable to assume that the rabbis might have felt obligated to establish their canon in reaction to the Christian evangelists. These translations were primarily meant to be more faithful to the Hebrew texts. The rabbis seemed to have accepted as sacred and canonical only those books distinguished by certain characteristics. These were (1) conformity with the Torah,[16] (2) antiquity, i.e., written not later that the time of Esdras (mid to late fifth century B.C.), (3) written in the Hebrew language, and (4) Palestinian origin.[17] The deuterocanonical books did not meet these strict requirements, and despite the great spiritual value of some of them and the esteem in which they were held, they were rejected. In light of the discussions, which continued long after Yavneh, it would hardly be justified in holding that the Palestinian Canon was finally settled. The available evidence points to finalization of the shorter canon at the end of the 2nd century.

The Protestant Churches have continued to exclude the deuterocanonical writings from their canons, classifying them as “Apocrypha”. Presbyterians and Calvinist in general, especially since the Westminster Synod of 1648, have been the most uncompromising enemies of any recognition of these books.

 One argument put forth by our Protestant brethren against the use of the deuterocanonical books is that they are not specifically quoted as Scripture in the New Testament, though the New Testament does contain a number of allusions to them; but the same may be said of several Old Testament books accepted by Protestants such as Judges, Nehemiah, Ecclesiastes and Canticles. The admitted absence of any explicit citation of the deutero writings does not therefore prove that they were regarded as inferior to the writings included in the Palestinian canon. Orchard supports this premise:

“The wide popularity of the deuterocanonical books enjoyed in the early Church is finally shown by their use in the liturgy and from the many illustrations taken from them found in the catacombs; there are representations from Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Maccabees, and Daniel 3:24 ff.”[18]

A comparison of Hebrews, chapter 11 and II Maccabees, chapters 6 and 7 reveals unmistakable references in the former to the heroism of the martyrs glorified in the latter. There are close affinities of thought, and in some cases also of language, between 1 Peter 1:6-7, and Wisdom 3:5-6; 1 Corinthians 10:9-10, and Judith 8:24- 25; 1 Corinthians 6:13, and Ecclesiasticus 36:20.

It must be remembered that the New Testament does not provide a list of the Old Testament books used by Christ and His apostles and that, when Christianity began the Jews had not yet established a canon. It can, however, be proved from tradition, that the full list of Old Testament books including the deuterocanonicals was authorized by the apostles. The testimony of Christian writers during the first three centuries is unanimous on this point. We can trace the reception of these books from the very time of the apostles. Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Irenæus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and others quoted them and many early writers quoted them as Scripture.[19]

There is nothing more complete than the pre-Nicene tradition for the Roman Catholic canon of the Old Testament. For the deuterocanonical books, we have the witness of Father after Father; we find them placed in every manuscript of the Septuagint, translated in the Old Latin version, and quoted in controversy against heretics.[20]

The Fathers of the Church instructed that the books of Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobias, the Didache[21] and the Shepherd of Hermas were to be read to the catechumens[22] for edification and instruction. All the deuterocanonical writings are quoted in the apostolic and the early Fathers in the same way as the rest of the sacred books. Justin Martyr is the first to note that the Church has a set of Old Testament Scriptures different from the Jews, and also the first to intimate the principle proclaimed by later writers, namely, the self-sufficiency of the Church in establishing the canon.[23] Irenæus, always a witness of the first rank, because of his broad acquaintance with church tradition, vouches that Baruch was deemed on the same footing as Jeremiah, and that the narratives of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon were ascribed to Daniel.[24] In addition, the weighty authority of Origen who employed all the deuterocanonicals as Divine Scriptures represents the Alexandrian tradition. In his letter to Julius Africanus, he defends the sacredness of Tobit, Judith and the fragments of Daniel, at the same time implicitly asserting the autonomy of the Church in establishing the canon.[25] In his homilies on Numbers,[26] he includes Esther, Judith, Tobias and Wisdom among the books suitable for beginners.

Studer writes:

“As regards the Old Testament, Origen’s position played a decisive roll. With the Jews he accepted as authoritative the books written in Hebrew but, following tradition, he added to these the books that would later be called “deuterocanonical.” In fact, his commentaries and homilies dealt only with the former, since only these were read in the liturgical assemblies. The books of the second group, on the other hand, were cited in theological and exegetical writings. In this use Origen had been preceded by Clement of Alexandria, who was little influenced by the Jewish tradition. Origen also allowed that in addition to this large block of books (thus subdivided into two), educated people might also read the apocryphal writings. Origen’s position appears chiefly in his Letter to Julius Africanus and in “Origen’s list,” as it is called, which Eusebius repeats in his History of the Church.”[27]

Hippolytus (d. 236 A.D.) may be considered as representing the primitive Roman tradition commented on the Susanna chapter,[28] and often quoted Wisdom as the work of Solomon, and employed both Baruch and the Books of Maccabees as Sacred Scripture. All the deuterocanonicals except Tobit, Judith, and the edition to Esther were Biblically used by Tertullian and St. Cyprian.

Ecclesiasticus or The Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sirach, composed around 180 B.C., is the only book among the deuterocanonicals whose author we know. There are variant forms of his name: Simeon, son of Jesus called ben Sira, or Simeon, son of Jesus, son of Eleazar ben Sira; or also in the Talmud, The Book or Instruction of ben Sira. As a matter of fact, Sirach is quoted in Talmudic literature with the introductory phrase “as it is written,” ordinarily reserved for biblical quotations. A large part of it is available in the original Hebrew. Fragments were found in 1896, 1929, 1931, 1955 at Qumran and in 1964 at Masada, the fortified palace of Herod on the western side of the Dead Sea; a fragment from the first century A.D. has also been found at Qumran in Cave 2.

The Latin Vulgate called it “the Church’s Text”. We find over 100 quotations from, or illusions to, Sirach in the Greek New Testament Gospels, and especially in the Epistle of James.[29] It was the most used book in early Christianity for the instruction of catechumens.

We must admit that there was doubt among the Fathers of the fourth century concerning the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books.

St. Jerome (Eusebius Hieronymus 340? -419? A.D.), owes his place in history to his revisions and translations of the Bible. At the urging of Pope Damasus I (366-384), he revised the translation of the Gospels in 383. He translated the greater part of the Hebrew bible between 390 and 415/406; this was the translation that would later be called the vulgate. Until about 391-2, he considered the Septuagint translation as inspired and recognized the canonicity of the books known as deuterocanonical. Although in his later years, during his study of the Hebrew language, as he came increasingly under the influence of the rabbis, he came to recognize only the original Hebrew text as inspired. Nevertheless, he cited the deuterocanonicals:

“As an example of his earlier attitude may be cited the commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, where Mattathias is mentioned as spoken of in ‘the treasury of the Scriptures’; his name occurs only in I Maccabees. Later, in the prologue to his translation from the Hebrew of the Books of Samuel and Kings, he provides a list of the Hebrew books and then goes on to say that whatever is not in that catalogue is to be reckoned among apocryphal writings. He mentions by name Wisdom, the Book of Jesus the son of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Judith, Tobit, and Maccabees. Elsewhere he speaks similarly of Baruch. Various other passages could also be quoted. This attitude was never abandoned. The reference to Baruch, just given, is found in the commentary on Jeremiah, the last to be undertaken. Yet these later years produced a number of expressions that speak in an opposite sense. The reader gains the impression that the lessons on the Canon which Jerome had learnt in his youth still exercised their influence, which caused them, perhaps almost unnoticed by the author, to find expression in the writings of his advanced years. Thus, Judith is said to give her name to a ‘sacred volume’ (ep. 65 – 1, which dates from 397). Ecclesiasticus is called ‘holy Scripture’ in the commentary on Isaiah, 408-10. Wisdom is styled ‘Scripture’ in the last commentary, that on Jeremiah. And these are only a small selection of the texts that could be mentioned.”[30]

He is open to criticism for not having fully appreciating the Septuagint as it was translated from a much older, and at times much purer Hebrew text than the one in use at the end of the fourth century. Although he preferred the canon of the Hebrew Bible and declared that the deuterocanonical books were not “canonical,” but “ecclesiastical,” that they could be read in church, but did not hold full dogmatic authority, he repeatedly made use of them. It was about this time that he began his translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew. It should not be imagined that he translated all of the Scriptures or that his work of translation followed a uniform plan or method.[31] Jerome did translate Tobias and Judith and he did not omit the chapters added in the Greek text to Daniel and Esther in his translations of those books.[32]

Jerome’s work elicited rather strong negative criticism especially from Augustine. It was thus that the discussions between Augustine and Jerome on veritas hebraica (“truth of the Hebrew text”) arose and on the validity of the Septuagint, the Bible of the Church. Jerome’s version was in fact definitively accepted only in the eighth century; until then, and even afterwards, the Vetus Latina did not cease to play a part in the transmission of the Latin Bible.[33]

Rufinus of Aquileia (b. about 345, d. About 410 A.D.), like the majority of Jerome’s contemporaries,[34] adopted a distinctly hostile attitude to Jerome’s project. He developed his criticisms at some length in his Apology against Jerome, arguing that it was blasphemous to discard the version of Holy Scripture (the Septuagint) which the Apostles themselves had approved, and which St. Peter had presumably delivered to the Roman Church. The fact that St. Paul, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, had preferred the Septuagint to the Jewish original ought to have served as a deterrent against impious innovation. He argued that heathen would only conclude that the Christians were not certain in their own minds, and that divine infallibility could not be attributed to their sacred books.[35]

St. Augustine gave a list of canonical books, which is identical to our modern canon. A great many Fathers including St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, St. Anthanasius and St. Ambrose quoted the deuterocanonical books just as they quoted the other books in the Old Testament. So strong was the feeling within the Church in favor of the complete Septuagint, that even Fathers who rejected the deuterocanonical books in theory, in practice quoted them as Scripture.

The witness of the Church in the fourth century, though not as forceful as that of the first three centuries, is still strongly in favor of the deuterocanonical books.

This difference of opinion among some of the Fathers probably led to the conciliar decisions; and here too, we see the weight of authority and tradition on the side of the inclusion of the deuterocanonical books.

Two documents of prime importance in the history of the canon provide us with the first formal statements of papal authority on the subject. The first is called the “Decretal of Gelasius”, de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, the essential part of which is now generally attributed to a synod convoked in Rome by Pope Damasus I in the year 382 A.D. The text of which is as follows:

Likewise, it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun.

The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Joshua Nave one book, judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus one book.

Likewise, the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book, with Ginoth, that is, with his lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book.

Likewise, the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books, Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books.

Likewise, the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book.

The Epistles of Paul [the apostle] in number fourteen.  To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one.

Likewise, the Apocalypse of John, one book.  And the Acts of the Apostles one book.

Likewise, the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealot, the Apostle one epistle.[36]

The other is the Canon of Innocent I, sent in the year 405 A.D. to a Gallican bishop in answer to an inquiry. Both contain all the deuterocanonicals and are identical with the canon listed by the Council of Trent.

The African Church, always a staunch supporter of the contested books, found itself in agreement with Rome on this question. The Synod of Hippo (393 A.D.), and the third and fourth Councils of Carthage (397 and 419 A.D.), in which St. Augustine was the leading spirit, found it necessary to deal specifically with the question of the Canon, and drew up identical lists from which no sacred books are excluded.

The Ecumenical Council of Second Nicea in 787 A.D, though local and not ecumenical, ratified these councils.[37]

“In the year 418-419, all canons formally made in sixteen councils held at Carthage, one at Melevis, one at Hippo, that were approved of, were read, and received a new sanction from a great number of bishops, then met in Synod in Carthage. This collection is the Code of the African Church, which was always in greatest repute in all Churches next after the Code of the Universal Church”.[38]

If doubts remained as to the canonical books they were put to rest by the Councils of Florence and Trent. During the Council of Florence (1442 A.D.), and with its approval, Pope Eugenius IV issued several bulls or decrees. In the Bull of union with the Copts, he wrote:

 “It professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testaments–that is, the law and the prophets and the gospel–since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books; whose titles are as follows [Document went on to list the current Canon].”[39]

The Council of Trent promulgated the definitive list of Old Testament canon, the same books used by Jesus Christ and his apostles.[40]

  • [1] Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, (New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1953), p.15.
  • [2] See, Dom Bernard Orchard, M.A., et. al., “The Formation and History of the Canon (OT and NT),” in A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1953), p. 15.
  • [3] Orchard, p. 15.
  • [4] Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, Jewish Literacy (New York: William Morrow and Company Inc., 1991), P. 120. See also Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 8, pp. 1145-1146.
  • [5] Yom Kippur: Day of Atonement, a solemn Jewish fast day falling on the 10th day of Tishri and marked by continuous prayer and repentance according to the rotes described in Leviticus 16.
  • [6] Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 13, p. 1088.
  • [7] Note: As an interesting sidelight, when the Second Temple was destroyed, all the archives were also destroyed. Our Jewish brothers and sisters are still waiting for the Messiah. If today someone claimed to be the long-awaited Messiah, how could he possibly prove he was of the lineage of the House of David? See Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 3, p. 375.
  • [8] Flavius Josephus, “Wars of the Jews” in The Complete Works of Josephus (Michigan: Kregel Publications, 1981), pp. 568-570. Note: Josephus is regarded as the major Jewish historian after the close of the Old Testament period.
  • [9] Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 13, p. 1088.
  • [10] Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism: A Parallel History of Their Origins and Early Development, Hershel Shanks, ed. (Washington: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1992) p.133.
  • [12] Hillel (Zaken “the Elder”; the greatest of the sages of the Second Temple period. He is said to have held the office of patriarch (nasi) for 40 years until approximately the year 10 A.D. Yohanan ben Zakkai was one of Hillel’s disciples. Hillel’s grandson, Rabban Gamaliel the Elder, who lived in the first half of the first century, is said to have been a teacher of St. Paul (Acts 22:3). —
  • [13] Shanks, p. 311.
  • [14] Basic Writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Pegis, A.C., ed. (New York, Random house, 1945) Vol. 2, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 1, A. 7., pp. 1065-66.
  • [15] Ricciotti, Giuseppi, The History of Israel, Vol. II, p. 181.
  • [16] Josephus, p. 33.
  • [17] John A. Hardon, S.J., The Catholic Catechism (New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1975), p. 45.
  • [18] Orchard, p. 16.
  • [19] William E. Addis, et. al., A Catholic Dictionary (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1951), p. 105.  
  • [21] Also called The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, written between 65 and 80 A.D.
  • [22] One receiving instruction in doctrines, discipline, and morals preliminary to admission among the faithful of the early Church.
  • [23] Orchard, p. 16.
  • [24] The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, Alexander Roberts, D.D., and James Donaldson, L.L.D., Eds. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1991), p. 467.
  • [25] Ibid. Vol. IV, pp. 386-392.
  • [26] Hom. Num. 27, I.
  • [27] History of Theology, p. 359.
  • [28] Ibid. Vol. V, p. 224-225.
  • [29] See Rev. Michael Duggan, The Consuming Fire: A Christian Introduction to the Old Testament. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1991), pp. 536-538.
  • [30] The Cambridge History of the Bible: The West from the Fathers to the Reformation. G.W.H. Lampe, ed. (New York, Cambridge University Press, 1969), Vol. 2., pp. 92-93.
  • [31] Patrology, Volume IV, The Golden Age of Latin Patristic Literature From the Council of Nicea to the Council of Chalcedon, Di Bernardino, Angelo, ed. (Westminster, Maryland: Christian Classics, Inc., 1994), P. 221.
  • [32] Ibid. PP. 226-227.
  • [33] History of Theology, p. 358.
  • [34] Augustine may be cited as an example of the attitude of Jerome’s contemporaries. He held that the Septuagint was no less inspired than the Hebrew.
  • [35] The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. III, Philip Schaff, D.D., L.L.D., and Henry Wace, D.D., eds. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1991), p. 435-482.
  • [36] The Sources of Catholic Dogma, Roy J. Deferrari, Translator, From the Thirtieth Edition of Henry Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, (St. Louis, Missouri, B. Herder Book Co., 1957), pp. 34-35.  
  • [37] Note: Ecumenical Councils or General Councils are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians. There has been twenty-one such councils in the history of the Church.
  • [38] The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. XIV, Philip Schaff, D.D., L.L.D. and Henry –Wace, D.D., eds. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1991), p. 438.
  • [39] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. I, pp. 567-568.
  • [40] Schroeder, Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, pp. 17-20.  

New Post

Select A Catagory