Victor R. Claveau, MJ
In view of the important place 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 (first canon); those found only in the Greek are called deuterocanonical (second canon).
Jewish convert and biblical scholar Sixtus of Siena (d. 1569) was the first to use these phrases in 1566 — protocanonical denoting those books whose inspired character had always been accepted, deuterocanonical denoting those whose inspiration was recognized throughout the Universal Church after it had been doubted in some places, and which consequently came to occupy the second place in the canon.
Sixtus also is credited with creating the science of writing biblical introductions to the sacred Books.
The following is a list of the Old Testament deuterocanonical books as they appear in the sequence used in modern Catholic Bible translations accompanied by the approximate date and original language of composition:
Title Date Language
Book of Tobit Early 2nd century BC Aramaic
Book of Judith End 2nd – Beg. 1st century BC Hebrew
First Book of Maccabees 100 BC Hebrew
Second Book of Maccabees 125-100 BC[1] Greek
Book of Wisdom 100 BC Greek
Book of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) 200-175 BC Hebrew
Book of Baruch 150-60 BC Hebrew
Parts of the Book of Daniel, which were added to the Greek manuscript at the time of its translation from the Hebrew, i.e., Song of the Three Young Men (3:24-90); Susanna (Chapter 13:1-14, 42) and Bel and the Dragon (Chapter 14).
Parts of the Book of Esther, which also were added to the Greek manuscript at the time of its translation, i.e., six additions totaling 107 verses. The additions are 11:2-12:6; 13:1-7; 13:8-14; 15:1-16; 16:1-24 and 10:4-11:1.
Protestants usually refer to the deuterocanonical books as Apocryphal — not divinely inspired. If they are printed in Protestant Bibles at all, they are printed under that heading.
For the Catholic, the word apocryphal means a work is neither inspired nor authentic. It also can mean it 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, the word apocryphal might have the same meanings ascribed to it by Catholics or it could refer to a deuterocanonical work, depending on its context.
Because of the double uses of the word apocryphal, confusion may arise easily. Catholics do not apply the word apocryphal to the deuterocanonical books.
Alexandrine vs. Palestinian Canons
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 39 book Palestinian one and a more extensive 46 book 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 more flexible, widely drawn and embracing the books of the protocanonical and deuterocanonical works. And later, the deuterocanonical books were rejected by the Palestinian Jews by the use of narrow and rigid criteria. These criteria were: 1) conformity to the Torah;[2] 2) of antiquity, i.e., written not later that the time of Esdras (mid- to late fifth century BC); 3) written in the Hebrew language; and 4) of Palestinian origin.[3]
It would have been unlikely the Alexandrine Jews would have set up a different “official” canon from that in Jerusalem. In addition, there is no trace of dissension between the communities on this point.
What is more probable is the Alexandrine Jews had a broader view of inspiration, restricting it to neither the Hebrew language nor 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 during the Christian era in the Hellenistic synagogues. Baruch seems to have been used in the synagogues in commemorating the fall of the Holy City.[4] According to Irenæus and Origen, it also appears to have been united with Jeremiah at one time.[5]
Doubts and differences were reduced for the Palestinian Jews toward the end of the first century AD at Yavneh.
The early Christians used the Septuagint to show the prefigurement of Christ. Christ’s Incarnation, Passion, Death and Resurrection[6] had all been prophesied in the Septuagint.
Historian Giuseppi Ricciotti explained the antagonism and subsequent rejection of the Septuagint by the Jews:
“Under the influence of anti-Christian animus [hostility], the Septuagint was repudiated in the second century AD 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.”[7]
It is reasonable to assume the Palestinian rabbis might have felt obligated to establish their canon in reaction to the Christian evangelists. The rabbis seemed to have accepted as sacred and canonical only those books distinguished by the four criteria previously mentioned. Their translations primarily were meant to be more faithful to the Hebrew texts.
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 believing the Palestinian Canon was finally settled. The available evidence points to finalization of the 39-book canon at the end of the 2nd century.
Protestant Arguments
The Protestant churches have continued to exclude the deuterocanonical writings from their canons. Presbyterians and Calvinists, 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 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 Ruth, Esther, Obadiah, Ezra, Nahum, Judges, Nehemiah, Ecclesiastes and Canticles.
The admitted absence of any explicit citation of the deuterocanonical writings does not therefore prove 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.”[8]
A comparison of Hebrews, Chapter 11 with 2 Macc., Chapters 6 and 7, reveals unmistakable references in the former to the heroism of the martyrs, who are glorified in the latter. There are close affinities of thought and, in some cases, of language, between 1 Peter 1:6-7 and Wis. 3:5-6; 1 Cor. 10:9-10 and Jth. 8:24-25; 1 Cor. 6:13 and Sir. 36:20.
It must be remembered the New Testament does not provide a list of the Old Testament books used by Christ and His Apostles and, 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 other early writers quoted them as Scripture.[9]
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 Church Father after Church Father; we find them placed in every manuscript of the Septuagint, translated in the Old Latin version and quoted in controversy against heretics.[10]
The Fathers of the Church instructed that the books of Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobias, the Didache[11] and the Shepherd of Hermas were to be read to the catechumens[12] for edification and instruction. All the deuterocanonical writings are quoted by the apostolic writers and the early Fathers in the same way as the rest of the sacred books.
Justin Martyr was the first to note the Church has a set of Old Testament Scriptures different from the Jews. He also was the first to intimate the principle proclaimed by later writers, namely, the self-sufficiency of the Church in establishing the canon.[13]
Irenæus, always a witness of the first rank because of his broad acquaintance with Church Tradition, vouched 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.[14]
In addition, the weighty authority of Origen, who employed all the deuterocanonicals as Divine Scriptures, represents the Alexandrine 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.[15] In his homilies on Numbers, he includes Esther, Judith, Tobias and Wisdom among the books suitable for beginners.
Basil Studer wrote:
“As regards the Old Testament, Origen’s position played a decisive role. With the Jews he accepted as authoritative the books written in Hebrew but, following tradition, he added to these books that would later be called ‘deuterocanonical.’ In fact, his commentaries and homilies dealt only with the former, since 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 proceeded 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 subdividing 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.”[16]
Hippolytus (d. 236 AD) may be considered as representing the primitive Roman tradition, commented on the Susanna chapter.[17] He often quoted Wisdom as the work of Solomon and employed Baruch and the Books of Maccabees as Sacred Scripture.
Tertullian and St. Cyprian biblically used all the deuterocanonicals except Tobit, Judith and the editions to Esther.
Ecclesiasticus or The Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sirach, composed around BC 180, 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 Ecclesiasticus is available in the original Hebrew. Fragments were found in 1896, 1929, 1931, 1955 at Qumran and 1964 at Masada, the fortified palace of Herod on the western side of the Dead Sea. A fragment from the first century AD has been found at Qumran in Cave 2.
The Latin Vulgate called it the Church’s Text. We find more than 100 quotations from, or illusions to, Sirach in the Greek New Testament Gospels, and especially in the Epistle of James.[18] It was the most used book in early Christianity for the instruction of catechumens.
However, there was doubt among the Fathers of the fourth-century concerning the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. When St. Hilary of Arles told Augustine some had sneered at him for quoting Wisdom as an authority, the Bishop of Hippo replied: “The judgment of the book of Wisdom ought not to be repudiated, since for so long a course of years that book has deserved to be read in the Church of Christ, from the station of the readers of the Church of Christ, and to be heard by all Christians, from bishops downwards, even to the lowest lay believers, penitents and catechumens, with the veneration paid to divine authority.”[19]
St. Jerome
St. Jerome (Eusebius Hieronymus AD 340?-419?), 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, 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, he came to recognize only the original Hebrew text as inspired. Nevertheless, G.W.H. Lampe supports the fact that 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 1 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.”[20]
St. Jerome is open to criticism for not having fully appreciated 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 the deuterocanonical books were not “canonical” but “ecclesiastical” — they could be read in church but did not hold full dogmatic authority — he repeatedly made use of them.
It was about this time he began his translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew. It should not be imagined he translated all of the Scriptures or that his work of translation followed a uniform plan or method.[21] 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.[22]
Jerome’s work elicited rather strong negative criticism, especially from Augustine. It was because of this, discussions arose between Augustine and Jerome on veritas hebraica — “truth of the Hebrew text” — 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.[23]
Rufinus of Aquileia (b. about 345, d. about AD 410), like the majority of Jerome’s contemporaries,[24] adopted a distinctly hostile attitude to Jerome’s project. He developed his criticisms at some length in his Apology against Jerome, arguing it was blasphemous to discard the version of Holy Scripture (the Septuagint) the Apostles themselves had approved, and which St. Peter had presumably delivered to the Roman Church. He contended the fact 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. Rufinus argued the 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.[25]
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 quoted them as Scripture in practice.
Conciliar Decisions
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 AD 382. 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 [Chronicles] two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles [Song of Solomon] one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus [Sirach] 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 [Hosea] one book, Micheas [Micah] one book, Joel one book, Abdias [Obadiah] one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc [Habakkuk] one book, Sophonias [Zephaniah] one book, Aggeus [Haggai] one book, Zacharias [Zechariah] one book, Malachias [Malachi] one book.
“Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras [Ezra] 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.”[26]
The other is the Canon of Innocent I, sent in the year AD 405 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 (AD 393), and the third and fourth Councils of Carthage (AD 397 and 419), 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. This list became known as the African code.
The Ecumenical Council of Second Nicea in AD 787 ratified the decision made by the Fathers at Hippo and Carthage:
“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.”[27]
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 (AD 1442), 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 … [the document went on to list the current Canon]”[28]
The Council of Trent promulgated the definitive list of Old Testament canon — the same books used by Jesus Christ and His Apostles.[29]
[1] Although this book receives its title from its protagonist, Judas Maccabee (or Maccabeus) it is not a sequel to the First Book of Maccabees. The two differ in many respects. Whereas the first covers the period from the beginning of the reign of Antiochus IV (175 BC) to the accession of John Hycanus I (134 BC), the Second Book of Maccabees treats the events in Jewish history from the time of the high priest Onias III and King Seleucus IV (c. 180 BC) to the defeat of Nicanor’s army (161 BC).
[2] Josephus, “Wars of the Jews”, p.33.
[3] John A. Hardon, (S.J.), The Catholic Catechism (New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1975) 45.
[4] See, Dom Bernard Orchard, M.A., ed. The Formation and History of the Canon (OT and NT), A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture(New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1953) 15.
[5] Orchard, A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, 15.
[6] Pegis, A.C., ed., Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 1, A. 7. Basic Writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Vol. 2. (New York: Random house, 1945), pp. 1065-66.
[7] Ricciotti, Giuseppi, The History of Israel, Vol. II, 181.
[8] Orchard, Dom Bernard. Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture. p. 16.
[9] Addis, William E., ed., A Catholic Dictionary (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1951) 105.
[10] Addis, A Catholic Dictionary. 106.
[11] Also called The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, most probably written between 65 and 80 AD.
[12] One receiving instruction in doctrines, discipline, and morals preliminary to admission among the faithful of the early Church.
[13] Orchard, A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, p. 16.
[14] Roberts, Alexander, D.D., and Donaldson, James, L.L.D., eds. Irenæus Against Heresies, The Before-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1991) 467.
[15] Roberts, “A Letter from Origen to Africanus” The Before-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV, 386-392.
[16] Di Bernardino, History of Theology, 359
[17] Roberts, Against the Heresy of One Noetus, The Before-Nicene Fathers, Vol. V, 224-225.
[18] Duggan, Michael, The Consuming Fire: A Christian Introduction to the Old Testament. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1991), pp. 536-538.
[19] Schaff, On the Predestination of the Saints, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. V, p. 511.
[20] Lampe, G.W.H., ed., The Cambridge History of the Bible: The West from the Fathers to the Reformation. Vol. 2. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1969), pp. 92-93.
[21] Di Bernardino, Angelo, ed., Patrology, Volume IV, The Golden Age of Latin Patristic Literature From the Council of Nicea to the Council of Chalcedon, (Westminster: Christian Classics, Inc., 1994), p. 221.
[22] Di Bernardino, Patrology, Volume IV, pp. 226-227.
[23] Di Bernardino, History of Theology, p.358.
[24] 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.
[25] Schaff, The Apology of Rufinus, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. III, 435-482.
[26] Deferrari, Roy J., trans., The Sources of Catholic Dogma. From the Thirtieth Edition of Henry Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum(St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1957), pp. 34-35.
[27] Schaff, African Code. A.D. 419, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. XIV, p. 438.
[28] Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. I, pp. 567-568.
[29] Schroeder, Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, pp. 17-20.