We do not know with certainty when the Jews began to gather the Sacred Books into collections. But we do know with complete certainty that the Jews possessed books which they regarded as sacred and surrounded with great veneration. We do not know when the Jewish canon of the Sacred Books was definitively closed. For some it would have been in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (5th century B.C.); for others, in the age of the Maccabees (2nd century B.C.). What is certain is that in the first century of our era the Jews had a collection of Sacred Books which they regarded as inspired by God, and which contained the revelation of the divine will made to men. In this regard we have very clear testimonies from Flavius Josephus[1], from the fourth book of Esdras[2] and from the Talmud[3].

Jesus Christ, the apostles and the primitive Church received the canon of the Old Testament from the Jews. Consequently, it seems fitting to study the historical testimonies that have come down to us concerning the formation of the canon of the Old Testament.

I. THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT AMONG THE JEWS.

1. THE PROTOCANONICAL BOOKS.- We shall speak first of the formation of the canon of the protocanonical books of the Old Testament, which were accepted by all the Jews. Keeping to the biblical testimonies, it seems that the formation of the canon underwent the following evolution.

Before the exile there are many places in Sacred Scripture which show that the Hebrews took special care to preserve certain books written by Moses, Joshua, Samuel and other great men of the Israelite people. On various occasions God commands Moses to put the laws in writing, both civil and cultic (cf. Ex 17:14; 34:27; Num 33:2; Deut 31:9-14). He also wrote the book of the covenant (Ex 24:4; Deut 27:8; cf. Ex 20:22-23:19). The Mosaic Law, given by the great lawgiver to the chosen people, was later augmented with new laws and adapted to the needs of the times. This Law, designated by the Hebrews with the name Torah, always enjoyed great authority among them. Joshua, the successor of Moses, added new laws and ordinances, “writing them in the book of the Law of God” (Josh 24:25). Samuel, a prophet, “wrote the royal law in a book, which he laid up before Yahweh” (1 Sam 10:25). Hezekiah, a king, ordered the sayings of Solomon to be collected (Prov 25:1).

But it is above all in the time of King Josiah (640-608 B.C.) that recourse begins to be had to the authority of a written text, whose character as a sacred code seems to have been officially recognized. Before the reign of Josiah there is no evidence that the Mosaic Law enjoyed a universally recognized “canonical” authority. According to the testimony of Sacred Scripture, before the reform of Josiah there existed many practices of worship that were not in conformity with the prescriptions of Leviticus (cf. 2 Kings 23:4-15). However, after the high priest Hilkiah found “the book of the Law” in the temple of Yahweh (cf. 2 Kings 22-23; 2 Chron 34-35), things changed radically. It is not known whether the book that was found is to be identified with the entire Pentateuch, or rather with Deuteronomy alone. But the fact is that, from this moment on, “the book of the Law” was regarded as something most sacred and as the collection of the laws given by God to Israel. In the books of Kings we already find the first explicit citations of “the Law of Moses” (cf. 1 Kings 2:3 = Deut 29:8; 2 Kings 14:6 = Deut 24:16).

The prophets Isaiah (Is 30:8; 34:16) and Jeremiah (Jer 36:2-4.27-32) wrote down their prophecies. And the work of the prophet Jeremiah is undoubtedly inspired by the spirit of Josiah’s reform. This same prophet contains citations of earlier prophets (Jer 26:18f; 49:14-16 = Mic 3:12; Obad 1-4), which seems to indicate that collections of prophecies already existed.

After the exile we have important scriptural testimonies, from which we can deduce that almost all the protocanonical books were already gathered into collections and were regarded as canonical. The biblical texts of this period make known to us three classes of Sacred Books: the Law (Torah), the Prophets (Nebi’im) and the Writings or Hagiographa (Ketubim).

The first testimony in this regard is that of the book of Nehemiah (ch. 8-9). It relates that Ezra, priest and scribe, read and explained the Law of Moses before the people (444 B.C.). And, after listening to its reading, the people promised with an oath to observe it, which seems to indicate that they recognized the canonical authority of the Pentateuch.

The prophet Daniel states that he was “studying in the books the number of the seventy years… which Yahweh spoke to Jeremiah the prophet” (Dan 9:2; cf. Jer 25:11; 29:10). This shows quite clearly that a collection of Sacred Books already existed at that time.

The book of Ecclesiasticus, written in Hebrew in Palestine around the year 180 B.C. by Jesus, son of Sirach, and translated into Greek by his grandson around the year 130 B.C., contains a prologue added by the translator which is of the utmost importance for the history of the canon. In it the grandson of Jesus ben Sirach speaks of his grandfather, who “gave himself much to the reading of the Law, of the Prophets and of the other books of the fathers” (Ecclus prologue; the translator uses the same expression three times in the prologue). From this we can deduce that the Bible was already divided at that time into three groups. Two of these, the Law and the Prophets, quite possibly were already definitively complete and closed. The third, on the other hand, designated by an indefinite term, the other books, seems to suggest that it was still in a stage of formation and had not yet reached its final goal. Moreover, Jesus ben Sirach, in the hymn of praise of the fathers (Ecclus ch. 44-49), ordinarily follows the order of the biblical writings, thus proving that he knew all the books which the Hebrews placed under the title of former and latter prophets. On the other hand, from the citations he makes of other books of the Old Testament it can be concluded that he knew almost all the books of the Hebrew canon. The only ones to which he seems to make no reference at all are the Song of Songs, Daniel, Esther, Tobit, Baruch and Wisdom.

In the second book of Maccabees, written in Greek around the year 120 B.C., there is a letter of the Jews of Jerusalem, written shortly after 164 B.C., addressed to Aristobulus and to the Jews of Egypt (cf. 2 Mac 1:10-2:19). In it mention is made of a copy of the Law, which the prophet Jeremiah is said to have delivered to the deportees (2 Mac 2:1). Reference is also made to the sacred writings which Nehemiah had gathered in his library, and to those which Judas Maccabeus –following his example– had collected after they had been scattered by the war (2 Mac 2:13-15). The books gathered both by Nehemiah and by Judas Maccabeus are designated under the general titles of “books of the kings”, “books of the prophets”, “books of David” and “the letters of the kings concerning the offerings” (2 Mac 2:13).

The first book of Maccabees speaks of Daniel and his three friends: Hananiah, Azariah and Mishael, who for their innocence and their great faith were delivered from the mouth of the lions and from the fiery furnace (1 Mac 2:59f). This shows us that the book of Daniel already formed part of the canon of the Sacred Scriptures toward the end of the second century (cf. 1 Mac 12:9).

First century of our era.– At this time we are already clearly given the number of the Sacred Books and their threefold division: Law, Prophets and Hagiographa. Nevertheless, in some Jewish circles there existed certain doubts about the canonicity of Cant, Eccl, Prov, Ezek and Esth. For some, they were to be excluded from the collection of the Sacred Books and from the public reading of the synagogue; for others, they had the same authority as the other Holy Books. This supposes that by that time they had already been received into the canon of the Old Testament.

Philo (+ A.D. 38), the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher, does not deal ex professo with the canon of the Old Testament, but he cites the Pentateuch –to which he attributes a higher degree of inspiration–, Josh, Judg, Kings, Is, Jer, the Minor Prophets, Psalms, Prov, Job, Ezra[4].

The New Testament contains innumerable citations of the Old Testament, although it does not name the books explicitly. It seems that no allusion is made to the books of Ruth, Ezra-Neh, Esth, Eccl, Cant, Obad, Nah, or to the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament. But there is no doubt that the authors of the New Testament admitted and used the canonical books received by the Jews.

Flavius Josephus (A.D. 38-100), in his book Contra Apion (1,7-8), composed around A.D. 97-98, writes that the Jews did not have thousands of books in disagreement and contradiction with one another, as happened among the Greeks, but only twenty-two[5], which were justly regarded as divine and contained the history of the past. He distributes the 22 books in the following manner: five of Moses, thirteen of the prophets[6] and four other books which contained hymns of praise to God and precepts of life for men[7]. This text of Flavius Josephus is of great importance, even though it does not give us the names of the books.

The fourth book of Esdras, written toward the end of the first century A.D., states that the number of the sacred books is twenty-four[8]. The author of this book of Esdras gives us a description of a legendary kind about the manner in which Ezra, scribe and priest, managed to restore the sacred books destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. Moved by the prophetic spirit, he dictated to four scribes, for forty consecutive days, ninety-four books. Of these, twenty-four were to be read by the worthy and the unworthy, and the other seventy were to be handed over to learned men (4 Esd 14:44f). The number of twenty-four books evidently corroborates the figure of 22 books given us by Flavius Josephus, which is obtained by joining Ruth with Judges and Lamentations with Jeremiah. Consequently, the small difference between twenty-four and twenty-two is only apparent and depends on the method of reckoning that is followed.

Second century after Christ.- The Babylonian Talmud[9] finally gives us the complete canon of the Old Testament. It enumerates 24 books in order and gives the names of the authors. The number thus coincides with that given us by 4 Esd and Flavius Josephus. This indicates that at that time the canon of the Jews was already closed. This fact seems to have taken place, according to rabbinic tradition, at the synod of Jamnia (around A.D. 100). After the destruction of Jerusalem, the learned Jews devoted themselves with great zeal to preserving what still remained of the past, especially the Sacred Scriptures. From the synod of Jamnia onward, which definitively fixed the canon already admitted for two centuries, the great concern of the rabbis was the preservation of the sacred text. The labors of the Masoretes pursued no other end than this.

The testimony of the Babylonian Talmud is contained in a Baraita[10] of the treatise entitled Baba Bathra (the “last gate”). The text is later than the second century A.D., but it gathers up a tradition of a considerably earlier period. It reads as follows: “Our teachers handed down to us the following teaching: The order of the Prophets is this: Josh, Judg, Sam, Kings, Jer, Ezek, Is and the Twelve (Minor Prophets)… The order of the Hagiographa is as follows: Ruth, Ps, Job, Prov, Eccl, Cant, Lam, Dan, Esth, Ezra and Chron. And who was it that wrote them? Moses wrote his own book and the section of Balaam[11] and Job. Joshua wrote his own book and the last eight verses of the Law[12]. Samuel wrote his own book, the book of Judges and Ruth. David wrote his book by means of the ten elders: Adam, Melchizedek, Abraham, Moses, Heman, Jeduthun, Asaph and the three sons of Korah. Jeremiah wrote his own book, the book of Kings and Lamentations. Hezekiah and his associates wrote the books of Isaiah, Proverbs, the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes. The members of the Great Synagogue wrote Ezekiel, the Twelve (Minor Prophets), Daniel and Esther. Ezra wrote his own book and the genealogies of Chronicles down to his own time, and Nehemiah completed them”[13].

In this catalogue nothing is said of the seven deuterocanonical books: Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Ecclus, 1 and 2 Maccabees and Wisdom.

From what has been said we can conclude that the Jewish canon was formed successively; that it contained the protocanonical books, following the Palestinian canon. However, it is quite possible that the deuterocanonical books were not absolutely excluded from the Palestinian Jewish canon, for, as we shall see later, some deuterocanonical books were used by the Jews of Palestine. The canon, definitively fixed at the synod of Jamnia, must most probably have been already completed in the second century B.C., as is shown by the Septuagint version, begun in the third century and finished at the end of the second century B.C.

2. WAS EZRA THE AUTHOR OF THE JEWISH CANON?– There are quite a few ancient authors who attribute the canon of the 24 books of the Old Testament to Ezra[14]. For this reason it is usually called the Esdrine canon. This opinion was revived in the sixteenth century by the Jew Elias Levita (+1549), who asserted that Ezra had been assisted in his labor by the “members of the Great Synagogue”[15]. Many Protestants and Catholics followed Elias Levita, in such a way that it became the common opinion down to our own days. Today, however, it has been abandoned by all authors. For the Protestants, Ezra would have closed the canon definitively, in such a manner that in the future it was not permitted to add any more books; for the Catholics, on the other hand, Ezra’s canonical compilation had not been definitive. For this reason, the Alexandrian Jews were able to add the deuterocanonical books later.

The arguments on which this opinion rested were several. In the first place, Ezra’s zeal for the Law[16]. 2 Mac 2:13 states that Nehemiah made a library in order to gather the Sacred Books. Flavius Josephus[17] attributes the formation of the canon to the time of Artaxerxes I Longimanus (465-425 B.C.), that is, to the period in which the religious activity of Ezra and Nehemiah took place. And the account of 4 Esd 14:18-47 shows that it was a common belief among the Jews that the canon had been determined by Ezra.

However, the difficulties that are raised against this theory are very strong. If Ezra was the one who closed the canon of the protocanonical books, the doubts which arose later regarding certain protocanonical books would be inexplicable. Moreover, the books of Chronicles and of Ezra were not written until the time of the Greeks, that is, considerably after the death of Ezra; and yet they are numbered among the Sacred Books of the Esdrine canon. On the other hand, how could we explain the later introduction of the deuterocanonical books into the canon of the Alexandrian Jews? As for the testimonies of 2 Mac 2:13-14, of Flavius Josephus, of 4 Esdras and of the Talmud, they only show that in the time of Ezra the protocanonical books were collected and from then on were treated with great veneration. The assertion of a group of Fathers who attribute the formation of the canon of the Old Testament to Ezra has no probative value, since it rests on the legend of 4 Esd, to which they frequently allude.

The Palestinian Jews admitted, in the time of Christ, all the protocanonical books as sacred. This seems to be beyond all doubt. There are even some indications which seem to show that the Palestinian Jews themselves knew and used some of the deuterocanonical books. At Qumran fragments of three deuterocanonical books have been found: of Ecclesiasticus (cave 2), of Tobit (cave 4) and of Baruch (cave 7)[18].

The Alexandrian Jews, on the other hand, regarded as canonical not only the protocanonical books, but also the deuterocanonical ones, just as they were found in the Septuagint version. From this has arisen the division of the canon into Palestinian and Alexandrian, as we shall see next.

3. THE DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS.- The Greek version of the Septuagint, executed in Egypt between 300 and 130 B.C., contained, besides the protocanonical books, received by all the Jews, seven other books called deuterocanonical: Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, and fragments of Esther (10:4-16:24) and Daniel (3:24-90; 13; 14).

The Christian Church, from apostolic times onward, received the deuterocanonical books among the Sacred Books, without making any distinction between protocanonical and deuterocanonical books. In this way, the canon of the Alexandrian Jews became the canon of the Catholic Church.

But we may ask ourselves: What authority did the deuterocanonical books have among the Palestinian and Hellenistic Jews? Were they also received as sacred by the Jews of Palestine?

Opinions:

a) According to the view of several authors, the Jewish canon would have been one and the same for all the Jews. And it would have been the short canon, which would not include the deuterocanonical books. This way of thinking is very common among Protestants, and it is also followed by some Catholics. But the latter suppose that it is not necessary that the Church should have received the canon from the Jews. It is enough that she received it from the apostles, and these from Christ, who would have given particular instructions to his disciples regarding the inspiration of the deuterocanonical books. Proposed in this form, the hypothesis is entirely orthodox; but it does not seem to rest on historical data, as we shall see later.

b) For other authors, the canon of the Old Testament would have been one and the same both for the Palestinian Jews and for the Alexandrians. This single canon would contain all the protocanonical and deuterocanonical books. Only at a later time (1st-2nd century A.D.) would the Pharisees have rejected the deuterocanonical books for particular reasons. The Hellenistic Jews, on the contrary, would have preserved them.

c) A third opinion, which seems to us the most probable, holds that among the Jews there existed a double canon: the short canon of the Jews of Palestine, which did not contain the deuterocanonical books, and the long canon of the Alexandrian Jews, which included the deuterocanonical books.

This divergence between the Palestinian and the Alexandrian Jews is easily explained if we take into account the environment in which each group lived. The Alexandrian Jews had a broader concept of biblical inspiration than the Palestinians. They were convinced that they possessed the divine wisdom, and this wisdom, pouring itself out through the ages into holy souls, can raise up friends of God and prophets wherever and whenever it wills[19]. On the other hand, this divergence was in a certain sense provoked by the great esteem and reverence which some groups of Palestinian Jews had for certain deuterocanonical books[20].

There is no doubt that the Alexandrian Greek version, called the Septuagint, contained the deuterocanonical books. The place they occupy in the Septuagint is not at the end, as if they were an appendix or of an inferior kind; rather, they are intermingled with the protocanonical books. This seems to be a clear indication that the same authority and dignity were recognized in them and the same value was attributed to them[21].

There are, moreover, testimonies which show us that the greater part of the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament were read and venerated by the Jews of Palestine and of the Diaspora.

Ecclesiasticus was written in Hebrew and preserved for a long time in this language[22]. It is frequently praised by the Talmud[23] and cited many times by the rabbis down to the tenth century A.D. In some places it is even cited as canonical scripture[24]. From this it seems to follow that in antiquity Ecclesiasticus was held as canonical, at least by certain circles of Jews.

Tobit and Judith were much read by the Jews, as can be seen from the Midrashim, in which they are commented upon[25]. In the time of St. Jerome, the Aramaic or the Hebrew text was still in use[26].

Baruch was read publicly by the Jews, even in the fourth century, on the Day of Atonement, according to the testimony of the Constitutiones apostolicae[27]. Moreover, the Greek version of Bar was made by the same author who made that of Jer 29-41. Consequently, it seems that Bar was already joined to Jer when the Greek version of the latter was made.

1 Maccabees, according to the testimony of the Babylonian Talmud[28], was read in its entirety on the feast of the Encaenia, or of the dedication of the temple (Hanukkah)[29]. It is also cited by Flavius Josephus[30], and in the time of Origen[31] and of St. Jerome the Hebrew text of 1 Mac was still preserved[32].

2 Maccabees was originally written in the Greek language, for which reason it is less frequently cited by the Palestinian Jewish writers.

The book of Wisdom, whose original language was also Greek, is cited several times in the New Testament[33], which supposes that it was known to the Jews. St. Epiphanius informs us that the Jews of his time (4th century) disputed about the book of Wisdom[34]. This seems to indicate that some admitted its canonicity, as may be gathered from the words of St. Eustathius of Antioch[35].

The deuterocanonical parts of Esther (10:4-16:24) probably belong to the original text. This seems to be confirmed by the fact that in the Septuagint the deuterocanonical fragments do not form an appendix to the protocanonical part, as in the Vulgate, but are intermingled with it. They are used by Flavius Josephus.

The deuterocanonical fragments of Daniel (3:24-90; 13; 14), written in the Hebrew or Aramaic language, must also have formed part of the original text. It is of the utmost importance that these deuterocanonical parts are found in the version of Theodotion (end of the 2nd century A.D.), made directly from the Hebrew. St. Jerome took these deuterocanonical fragments of Daniel from the version of Theodotion and incorporated them into his Latin version made from the Hebrew original. It is also probable that the story of Susanna[36] was found in the version of Symmachus.

From what has been said we can conclude that many of the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament enjoyed great authority among the Palestinian Jews. This does not mean, however, that they regarded them as canonical. The most likely view seems to be that the deuterocanonical books were received into the canon of the Sacred Scriptures by the Hellenistic Jews, independently of the Palestinian Jews. Later the Church, guided by the authority of Jesus Christ and of the apostles, approved this canon and made it her own, as we shall see in its place. In this way, the broader canon of the Alexandrian Jews came to become the patrimony of the Church of Christ. In her choice the Church did not let herself be guided by the particularist spirit of the Pharisees, but by the universalist spirit of Jesus Christ and of the apostles.

II. THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT AMONG CHRISTIANS.

1. CHRIST AND THE APOSTLES.– In the time of Christ, as we have already seen, there certainly existed among the Jews a collection of Sacred Books of the Old Testament, to which the highest normative authority was attributed. Jesus Christ and the apostles also received this collection of books with the utmost reverence and approved it, regarding it as sacred and normative. This is deduced from the manner of proceeding of Christ and of his disciples. They frequently have recourse to the testimony of the Sacred Scriptures, regarding them as the word of God[37].

The collection of Sacred Books accepted by Christ contained without any doubt all the protocanonical books admitted at that time by the Jews. Among these must also be included seven protocanonical books (Ruth, Ezra-Neh, Esth, Eccl, Cant, Obad, Nah) which are not cited anywhere in the New Testament. Christ and the apostles undoubtedly conformed in this to the opinion that was then common among the Palestinian Jews. And although at times these books are cited without being preceded by the introductory formula that indicated the divine character of the book[38], this does not mean that they denied that divine character to the books cited in this way[39].

As regards the deuterocanonical books, it is more difficult to determine whether they were admitted by Christ and his disciples as canonical. For although the authors of the New Testament knew the deuterocanonical books, they nevertheless never cite them with the formula “it is written”. Hence we cannot conclude with absolute certainty that the New Testament writers regarded them as inspired and canonical. Nevertheless, we can show in an indirect way that the apostles regarded them as being of divine origin. In fact, the sacred text used by the apostles was the Septuagint version, as appears from the fact that of the some 350 citations of the Old Testament which appear in the New, about 300 agree with the text of the Septuagint[40]. This shows that the apostles made use of the Greek text of the Septuagint as the sacred text par excellence. This indicates that it was approved by the apostles themselves, as St. Augustine affirms[41]. And, consequently, they admitted as canonical and inspired all the books contained in it, including the deuterocanonical books, which formed part of that version. Since the apostles were the custodians of the deposit of faith, whose source is Sacred Scripture, if they had not regarded the deuterocanonical books as inspired, they would have had a strict obligation to warn the faithful of this –all the more so since the deuterocanonical books were intermingled with the protocanonical ones in the Septuagint version. Now, in no ancient document do we find the slightest trace of such a warning. Quite the contrary: the ancient testimonies affirm that the Church received the complete collection of the books of the Old Testament from the apostles, as we shall see presently.

There are no explicit citations of the deuterocanonical books in the New Testament. But frequent allusions are found which show that the New Testament authors knew the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament. The following examples will suffice:

Ecclus 5:13           –       Jas 1:19

Ecclus 24:17 (23)   –       Jn 15:1

Ecclus 24:25         –       Mt 11:28f

Ecclus 28:2          –       Mt 6:14

Ecclus 51:1          –       Mt 11:25-27

Ecclus 51:23f        –       Mt 11:28f

2 Mac 6:18-7:42    –       Heb 11:35

Wis 2:13.18-20      –       Mt 27:43

Wis 3:8              –       1 Cor 6:2

Wis 5:18-21         –       Eph 6:13-17

Wis 6:18             –       Rom 13:9f

Wis 7:25             –       Heb 1:3

Wis 12:12           –       Rom 9:20

Wis 13-15           –       Rom 1:19-32

Wis 17:1             –       Rom 11:33

2. THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH (1st-2nd CENTURIES).- No one doubts that the primitive Church –following the example of Jesus Christ and of the apostles– received as canonical and inspired books all the protocanonical books of the Old Testament. The same is not the case, however, with the deuterocanonical books. Concerning these, certain discussions took place in the patristic age.

First there was a period of unanimity (1st-2nd centuries), during which no doubt appears concerning the authority and the inspiration of the deuterocanonical books. At least no trace of doubts has come down to us in the writings of the Fathers. The ancient Christian writers cite the protocanonical and deuterocanonical books without making any distinction. We have very important testimonies from the Fathers of the first and second centuries. The Apostolic Fathers, although they do not explicitly affirm that the deuterocanonical books are inspired, nevertheless cite their words with the same formulas as the other Scriptures.

The Didache (ca. 90-100) 4,5 alludes clearly to Ecclus 4:31 (36). Likewise Didache 5,2 refers to Wis 12:7, and Didache 10,3 to Wis 1:4.

St. Clement of Rome (+101) adduces the example of Judith and the faith of Esther[42]. He also alludes to the book of Wis and to Ecclus[43].

The Epistle of Barnabas (ca. A.D. 93-97) seems to allude in 6,7 to Wis 2:12, and in 19,9 to Ecclus 4:36.

St. Polycarp (+156) cites, although not expressly, in the Epistola ad Philippenses 10,2, Tob 4:11, or else 12:9[44].

St. Ignatius of Antioch (+109) alludes to the book of Judith 16:14 in his Epistola ad Ephes. 15,1.

The Shepherd of Hermas (ca. 140-154) has quite a few allusions to various deuterocanonical books: to Ecclus, to Tobit, to 2 Mac and to Wis[45].

When the disputes of the Christians with the Jews began in the East, the apologists found themselves obliged to make use only of the protocanonical books, because the Jews did not admit the canonicity of the deuterocanonical ones. St. Justin tells us so expressly[46].

St. Justin (+165), in his Apology 1,46, alludes to the deuterocanonical parts of Dan 3. And in the Dialogue with Trypho 71 he accuses the Jews of rejecting from the Greek version of the Septuagint the Scriptures that testified in favor of Christ.

Athenagoras (ca. 177), in his work Legatio pro Christianis 9, explicitly cites Bar 3:36, regarding him as one of the prophets.

St. Irenaeus (+202) cites Baruch under the name of Jeremiah[47]. He adduces chapters 13 and 14 of Daniel, attributing them to this prophet[48]. He also frequently makes use of the book of Wisdom[49].

Clement of Alexandria (+215) knows all the deuterocanonical books and passages, with the exception of 1 and 2 Mac, and regards them as sacred and canonical[50].

Origen (+254) frequently makes use of all the deuterocanonical books, which he regards as inspired, following in this –as he himself confesses– the authority of the Church[51]: “Ausi sumus uti in hoc loco Danielis exemplo, non ignorantes, quoniam in hebraeo positum non est, sed quoniam in Ecclesiis tenetur” (“…we know that this example from the life of Daniel is not found in the Hebrew text, but we use it because it is accepted in the Churches”).

Tertullian (+ ca. 225) cites all the deuterocanonical books, except Tob and the deuterocanonical parts of Esth. He also accuses the Jews of rejecting many things in the Sacred Books that were favorable to Christ[52].

St. Cyprian (+258) places among the canonical Scriptures all the deuterocanonical books, with the exception of Judith[53].

St. Hippolytus of Rome (+235) admits all the deuterocanonical books, except Judith and the deuterocanonical parts of Esther[54].

This unanimous tradition concerning the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament is confirmed by the testimony of the monuments, of the paintings and sculptures with which the Christian cemeteries of the first centuries were adorned. In the paintings, above all, are represented events and personages of which the deuterocanonical books speak to us. Three paintings and two sculptures of Tobit have been found. The three young men of the book of Daniel are represented in the furnace with their arms raised in an attitude of prayer[55]. Of this scene 17 paintings and 25 sculptures have been preserved for us. Susanna is also shown between the two elders in 6 paintings and 7 sculptures, and Daniel in the attitude of pronouncing sentence against the two wicked elders (two paintings and one sculpture). Daniel is also frequently seen in the lions’ den (39 paintings and 30 sculptures)[56].

This shows us that Christians from the second century A.D. onward[57] made use of the protocanonical as well as of the deuterocanonical books. And they attributed to them the same authority as to the protocanonical ones.

The unanimity of the Christian tradition concerning the deuterocanonical books in the first two centuries of our era is admirable. And this unanimity stands out all the more if we bear in mind that the Church had not yet given any official decision on the canon of the Sacred Scriptures.

3. PERIOD OF DOUBTS CONCERNING THE DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS (3rd-5th CENTURIES).- At the end of the second century and the beginning of the third, the first doubts about the inspiration of the deuterocanonical books begin to appear. These doubts, of a rather theoretical kind, will last until the end of the fifth century. We call them theoretical because the authors who doubt the divine authority of the deuterocanonical books continue in practice to cite them and to make use of them alongside the protocanonical books as sacred scripture.

The causes that gave rise to these doubts must have been several. In the first place, the disputes with the Jews. Since the latter denied the authority of the deuterocanonical books, the apologists, when disputing with them, found themselves obliged to make use only of the protocanonical books. This must have influenced certain writers, who began to doubt the divine authority of the deuterocanonical books. And these doubts kept spreading more and more in various regions. The first testimonies are:

St. Melito of Sardis (around the year A.D. 170), after a journey to Palestine to know exactly the places where the events narrated in the Old Testament took place and to learn which and how many were the books of the old economy, sends the list of them to Bishop Onesimus. In this list only the protocanonical books are present, except Esther, doubtless because at that time some Jews doubted the divine authority of Esther[58].

Origen (+254) relates –around the year 231– that many Christians doubted the inspiration of certain books of the Old Testament[59]. He himself, writing to the deacon Ambrose, does not judge it sufficient to support his arguments with proofs taken from two deuterocanonical books. This indicates that at that time there were quite a few Christians who doubted the deuterocanonical books or rejected them. In his commentary on Psalm 1 he gives the list of 22 books, that is, the list of the protocanonical ones[60]. And in his work De Principiis 4,3 he states that the book of Wisdom is scripture, but not canonical, because “not all recognize its authority”. In practice, however, Origen frequently employs the deuterocanonical books without making any distinction from the protocanonical ones[61].

In the third century we find another cause that must have exercised a powerful influence on the minds of many writers of that period: the apocryphal books. These circulated under the protection of names of great authority which, however, had nothing to do with those books. From this arose even greater doubts about the deuterocanonical books, which were already being doubted.

In the fourth century, many Greek Fathers admit only the protocanonical books and attribute a lesser authority to the deuterocanonical ones, at least theoretically. In practice, however, they make hardly any distinction between the protocanonical and the deuterocanonical books.

St. Athanasius (+373) enumerates only 22 books of the Old Testament, that is, the protocanonical ones. Moreover, he omits Esther, but adds Baruch with the letter of Jeremiah. He then cites other non-canonical books (Gr.: “ou kanonizomena”), appointed by the Fathers, which are to be read to the catechumens: Wisdom, Ecclus, Esth, Jdt, Tob, the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas[62]. From these are to be distinguished the apocrypha, which are not to be read. In practice it seems that St. Athanasius also uses the deuterocanonical books as inspired, without distinguishing them from the protocanonical ones[63].

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (+386) admits only the 22 protocanonical books, including among them Baruch and the letter of Jeremiah. He also knows the apocryphal books and those “about which there is doubt” (Gr. “amphiballomena”), probably the deuterocanonical books, almost all of which are cited in his Catechesis as inspired[64]. St. Cyril forbids the catechumens to read both the apocryphal books and the doubtful or deuterocanonical ones[65]. However, this prohibition does not prevent him from using the deuterocanonical books as Sacred Books with probative force.

St. Epiphanius (+403), in the same way, gives us the list of the protocanonical books of the Old Testament, which, according to him, are 22, corresponding to the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Among the protocanonical books he enumerates Esth, Bar and the letter of Jer. Regarding the book of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus he states that they are doubtful (Gr. “en amphilekto”). The rest he regards as apocryphal (enapokrypha)[66]. In practice he also cites the deuterocanonical books frequently, and at times with the formula: “moved by the Holy Spirit”, or “saying of the Holy Spirit”[67].

St. Gregory Nazianzen (+389) admits only 22 books of the Old Testament, from among which Esther is missing. He makes no allusion whatever to books of other categories. In his works, however, he uses many of the deuterocanonical books with some frequency[68].

St. Amphilochius (+ after 394) speaks of three categories of books: the certain ones (Gr. “asphaleis”), which are the protocanonical books, minus Esther. All the rest are pseudonymous (Gr. “pseudonymoi”). But among these there are two groups: “the intermediate ones, close to the true doctrine”, which are perhaps the deuterocanonical books, and the “apocrypha”, which are false and seductive[69]. But, like the preceding Fathers, he also cites the deuterocanonical books[70].

During the fifth century the doubts concerning the deuterocanonical books diminish quite noticeably. We find only an occasional testimony of Eastern writers who still reject the deuterocanonical books[71]. However, the doubts of the Eastern Fathers gradually penetrated into the West, managing to influence certain Latin Fathers, who came to doubt or to reject the inspiration of the deuterocanonical books. Thus think, among others:

St. Hilary of Poitiers (+366), who admits only the 22 protocanonical books, according to the Hebrew letters. But he himself observes that some add Tobit and Judith, thus obtaining the number 24 of the Greek letters[72]. In practice, however, he uses almost all the deuterocanonical books[73], regarding them as sacred Scripture or prophecy.

Rufinus (+410) distinguishes three classes of books: those that were received by the Fathers in the canon, that is, the protocanonical ones, of which he enumerates 22; the ecclesiastical books, which are to be read in church, but which cannot be adduced as authority to confirm the faith –these are: Wis, Ecclus, Tob, Jdt, 1-2 Mac–; and, finally, the apocrypha, which may not be read in church[74]. Nevertheless, he too cites the deuterocanonical books, and at times as sacred Scripture[75]. On the other hand, the following statement is from Rufinus: “Id pro vero solum habendum est in Scripturis divinis, quod LXX interpretes transtulerunt: quoniam id solum est quod auctoritate apostolica confirmatum est” (“we must regard as true in the divine Scriptures only that which the translators of the LXX version have handed down to us, since that alone has been confirmed by apostolic authority”)[76]. Now, the Greek version of the LXX also contained the deuterocanonical books; hence it seems that Rufinus admitted in some way the canonical authority of those books.

St. Jerome (+420) seems at first to have regarded all the deuterocanonical books as sacred and canonical, since he followed the version of the LXX, which contained them all. However, from the year 390 onward, when he began his version made directly from the Hebrew, influenced, as it seems, by his Jewish teachers, he admits only the books contained in the Hebrew Bible. In this sense he tells us in the Prologus galeatus: “Hic prologus Scripturarum, quasi galeatum principium, omnibus libris, quos de hebraeo vertimus in latinum, convenire potest, ut scire valeamus, quidquid extra hos est, inter apocrypha esse ponendum. Igitur, Sapientia quae vulgo Salomonis inscribitur, et Iesu filii Sirac liber (Ecclus) et Iudith et Tobias et Pastor non sunt in canone. Machabaeorum primum librum hebraicum repperi. Secundus graecus est” (“this prologue to the Scriptures, as a helmeted beginning, I find opportune in this place, where we translate the books from Hebrew into Latin, so that it may be known to all that whatever is not found among these books is to be counted among the apocrypha. Thus, the Wisdom that is popularly attributed to Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus, or the book of Ben Sirach, and Judith and Tobit and the Shepherd are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees I found in Hebrew; the second is in Greek”)[77]. Around the year 397 he confirms his view, denying the deuterocanonical books all probative value in dogmatic matters: “Sicut ergo Iudith et Tobi et Machabaeorum libros legit quidem Ecclesia, sed inter canonicas scripturas non recipit: sic et haec duo volumina (Ecclus and Wis) legat ad aedificationem plebis, non ad auctoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam” (“And just as the Church indeed reads the books of Judith, Tobit and Maccabees, but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also let her read these two volumes –Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom– for the edification of the people, but not to confirm the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas”)[78]. In the year 403, in a letter to Laeta, in which he gives her instructions for the Christian education of her daughter, after proposing the canon of the Hebrews, he adds this warning: “Caveat omnia apocrypha. Et si quando ea non ad dogmatum veritatem, sed ad signorum reverentiam legere voluerit, sciat… multa his admixta vitiosa” (“Let her beware of all the apocrypha. And if she should ever wish to read them, not to establish the truth of dogmas, but out of reverence for what they signify, let her know that… there is much that is defective mixed in with them”)[79]. He rejects the deuterocanonical parts of Esther and of Daniel (in the prefaces to both books)[80], as well as Baruch and the letter of Jeremiah, because the Hebrews do not regard them as sacred and canonical[81].

In other places in his works he does not show himself so categorical regarding the deuterocanonical books. Hence around 390-391 he translates the book of Tobit at the urging of some friends. He observes, however, that the Hebrews regarded it as apocryphal; but he justifies his decision to translate it by saying: “melius esse iudicans pharisaeorum displicere iudicio et episcoporum iussionibus deservire” (“it is better to oppose the judgment of the Pharisees and to obey the commands of the bishops”)[82]. In the same way he translates Judith, after several friends had asked him to do so, but he protests that the Hebrews held it as apocryphal, and states that its “auctoritas ad roboranda illa quae in contentionem veniunt, minus idonea iudicatur” (“the authority of these books to strengthen those truths that come under discussion is judged less suitable”)[83]. In the year 394 he says, referring to Judith: “Legimus in Iudith, si cui tamen placet volumen recipere” (“We read in the book of Judith –if one is willing to accept this book– that…”)[84]; in 397 he places the book of Judith alongside Ruth and Esther: “Rut et Esther et Iudith tantae gloriae sunt, ut sacris voluminibus nomina indiderint” (“Ruth, Esther and Judith are names of such glory that they came to give their names to the holy books”)[85]. And around 405, speaking of the same book of Judith, he writes: “Hunc librum synodus nicaena in numero sanctarum Scripturarum legitur computasse” (“the Council of Nicaea is said to have counted this book among the Sacred Scriptures”)[86]. Of Tobit he also says on another occasion: “Liber… Tobiae, licet non habeatur in canone, tamen usurpatur ab ecclesiasticis viris” (“The book of Tobit, although it is not in the canon, is nevertheless frequently used by the men of the Church”)[87].

The holy Doctor also frequently cites the deuterocanonical books, regarding them as sacred Scripture[88]. Around two hundred citations of the deuterocanonical books have been counted in St. Jerome[89].

Nevertheless, it is today a fairly common opinion that St. Jerome, after the year 390, denied the inspiration of the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament and excluded them from the canon. It should be borne in mind that this was a personal and private opinion of his, which had nothing to do with the doctrine and the teaching of the Church, as we shall see.

It should be noted, however, that the opinion which rejected the deuterocanonical books or attributed a lesser authority to them was the patrimony of a minority of Fathers. The greater part of the Greek and Latin Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries regard the deuterocanonical books as sacred and inspired[90]. Among these we may count St. Basil the Great (+379)[91], St. Gregory of Nyssa (+395)[92], St. Ambrose (+396)[93], St. John Chrysostom (+407)[94], Orosius (+ ca. 417)[95], St. Augustine (+430)[96], St. Cyril of Alexandria (+444)[97], Theodoret of Cyrus (+458)[98], St. Leo the Great (+461), St. Isidore of Seville (+636) and the Fathers of the Syriac Church, Aphraates and St. Ephrem[99].

The Fathers cited, and others whom we could cite, regard the deuterocanonical books as Sacred Books. But not all of them cite the complete catalogue of the deuterocanonical books, because they ordinarily make use of them in an occasional manner. It is enough that they cite one of the deuterocanonical books as sacred Scripture for the principle to be safeguarded that the deuterocanonical books have the same authority as the protocanonical ones.

The Greek codices of the fourth and fifth centuries that have come down to us confirm the patristic tradition, for they contain the deuterocanonical books. And these are not placed at the end, as in an appendix, but in their determined place. Thus they are presented to us by the principal codices: Sinaiticus (S), Vaticanus (B) and Alexandrinus (A).

Another strong proof of the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books is given us by the African provincial councils of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the III and IV of Carthage (years 397 and 419), which present us with the complete catalogue of the Sacred Books, including also the deuterocanonical ones. Pope St. Innocent I, in a letter to the bishop of Toulouse, Exuperius, in the year 405, also gives the complete catalogue of the canonical books[100].

4. RETURN TO UNANIMITY.- (6th century and after).- From the end of the fifth century onward the doubts concerning the deuterocanonical books gradually disappear. In this way unanimity is reestablished in the sixth century, a unanimity which is not obscured by some discordant voices that still doubt the inspiration of the deuterocanonical books. These are quite rare in the East; less rare in the West, where the authority of St. Jerome exercised a great influence, causing some to doubt until the time of the Council of Trent. Nevertheless, already in the seventh century, St. Isidore of Seville expressed very well the mind of the Church in these words: “Quos (deuterocanonicos libros) licet Hebraei inter apocrypha separent, Ecclesia Christi tamen inter divinos libros et honorat et praedicat” (“although the Hebrews set these books –the deuterocanonical ones– apart among the apocrypha, the Church of Christ nevertheless honors and proclaims them among the divine books”)[101].

Among the Greeks the following Fathers still do not admit the complete canon: Theodore of Mopsuestia (+428)[102], Leontius of Byzantium (+543)[103], St. John Damascene (+ ca. 754)[104] and Nicephorus of Constantinople (+829)[105]. Among the Latins the following still doubt the canonicity and inspiration of the deuterocanonical books: Junilius Africanus (+ ca. 550)[106], St. Gregory the Great (+604)[107], Walafrid Strabo (+849)[108], Rupert of Deutz (+1135)[109], Hugh of St. Victor (+1141)[110], Hugh of St. Cher (+1263)[111], Nicholas of Lyra (+1340)[112], Alphonsus Tostatus (+1455)[113], St. Antoninus of Florence (+1459)[114], Denis the Carthusian (+1471)[115] and Cardinal Thomas de Vio Cajetan (+1534)[116].

St. Thomas Aquinas (+1274) places the deuterocanonical books on a par with the other books of Sacred Scripture, as is clearly seen from an academic discourse of 1252, discovered in 1912 by Fr. Salvatore[117], in which he mentions all the books of the Bible, both the protocanonical and the deuterocanonical. Hence the doubts expressed previously by some authors regarding the thought of St. Thomas have no foundation whatever.

5. DECISIONS OF THE CHURCH REGARDING THE BIBLICAL CANON.- The Christian Church has always regarded the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament as inspired, and has received them with the same reverence and veneration as the protocanonical ones. This was the reason why these books were read in the liturgical assemblies from the very first centuries of the Church.

The first official decisions of the Church known to us are from the fourth century. The Council of Hippo (year 393) establishes, in effect, that “praeter Scripturas canonicas nihil in Ecclesia legatur sub nomine divinarum Scripturarum” (“let nothing be read in the Church under the name of divine Scriptures except the canonical Scriptures alone”), and then gives the complete catalogue of the Sacred Books[118]. This same canon is proposed by the III and IV Councils of Carthage, held in the years 397 and 419 respectively[119], and by Pope St. Innocent I in a letter of his to Exuperius, bishop of Toulouse (year 405)[120].

The Greeks received the complete canon of the IV Council of Carthage at the II Trullan Council (year 692)[121]. And Photius (+891) did the same[122]. There are certain authors who assert that the synod of Nicaea (year 325) had already determined the canon of the Sacred Books; however, it seems more plausible to deny this, since in the conciliar canons that have come down to us nothing is said about the canon of the Sacred Books. As for canon 60 of the Council of Laodicea (ca. 360), which enumerates of the Old Testament only the protocanonical books, including Baruch, it is known today that it is not authentic, but an ancient addition made to the canons of that council[123].

The Gelasian Decree gives the complete canon of the Sacred Scriptures[124]. This decree is also attributed to St. Damasus I (366-384) and to St. Hormisdas (514-523). Today, however, critics usually deny its authenticity. It would not be a document coming from a public authority, such as a council or a pope, but a private work composed by a cleric in southern Gaul or in northern Italy at the beginning of the sixth century. Other critics, on the other hand, defend its authenticity.

Testimonies of the ecclesiastical tradition of this period are also the catalogues of the Sacred Books found in some ancient codices of Sacred Scripture. The Claromontanus codex (DP), composed in the fifth-sixth century, contains the canon of the third-fourth century, with the deuterocanonical books[125]. The Mommsen Canon, of the fourth century, also presents us with the complete canon[126].

The traditional teaching on the canon was solemnly confirmed by the Council of Florence, which in the decree pro Iacobitis (February 4, 1441) gives the complete canon of the Sacred Books of the Old and New Testaments, including all the deuterocanonical books[127]. “(The Church) professes” –the council affirms– “that one and the same God is the author of the Old and of the New Testament…, since the holy men of both Testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, whose books she receives and venerates…”[128].

And, finally, the Council of Trent, in order to counter the Protestants, who denied the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, solemnly defines the canon of the Sacred Scriptures. In the 4th session, of April 8, 1546, the solemn decree is promulgated, which says: “The sacrosanct ecumenical and general Council of Trent… admits and venerates with the same pious affection and reverence all the books, both of the Old and of the New Testament… And if anyone should not receive as sacred and canonical these books, entire with all their parts, as it has been customary to read them in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the ancient Latin Vulgate version, or should knowingly and deliberately despise the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema”[129].

The First Vatican Council, with the purpose of dispelling some isolated doubts, which still subsisted in one or another Catholic author concerning the authority of the deuterocanonical books, renewed and confirmed the decree of the Council of Trent. And it solemnly declared: “If anyone should not receive as sacred and canonical the books of Sacred Scripture, entire with all their parts, as the holy Council of Trent has listed them, or should deny that they are divinely inspired, let him be anathema”[130].

Finally, the Second Vatican Council repeats and confirms once more the doctrine of the two preceding councils, in these words: “Holy Mother Church, faithful to the faith of the Apostles, acknowledges that all the books of the Old and of the New Testament, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical, inasmuch as, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and as such they have been entrusted to the Church” (Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, ch. 3, n. 11).

6. The canon of the Old Testament in the other Christian churches.-

a) The Syriac Church: Among the Syrians there has existed a tradition quite similar to that of the Catholic Church, as regards the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament. The greater part of their writers regard them as inspired and canonical. The Monophysite Jacob of Edessa (+708) admits Bar, Esth, Jdt, Wis, Ecclus. Gregory Barhebraeus (+1286) comments in his writings on Dan 3 and 13, Wis, Ecclus, and also cites Bar and Mac. The Nestorian writer Isho’dad (+852) presents a canon of 22 books; but Ebed Jesu (+1318) enumerates in his catalogue the majority of the deuterocanonical books, as does Ibn Chaldun (+1406). The ancient Syriac Church also admitted the deuterocanonical books, as is proved to us by the catalogue of the Sacred Books of the fourth century that has come down to us[131].

b) The Ethiopian Church also admits the complete canon of the Old Testament, to which it has incorporated some apocryphal books, such as 4 Esd, 3 Mac, Henoch[132].

c) The Coptic and the Armenian Churches admit the complete canon of the Old Testament. But, like the Ethiopians, they admit certain apocryphal books. The Copts add Psalm 151 and 3 Mac[133], and the Armenians include 3 Esd, 3 Mac, the Testament of the XII Patriarchs, etc.

d) Orthodox Greeks. The Greek Church admitted the complete canon of the Old Testament from the Council in Trullo (year 692) until the seventeenth century. Photius himself, the author of the schism, admitted the deuterocanonical books[134]. However, in the seventeenth century, under the influence of the Protestants, certain doubts began to appear concerning these books. It was chiefly Cyril Lucaris (+1638), patriarch of Constantinople, who, infected with Calvinism, rejected the deuterocanonical books, regarding them as apocryphal[135]. However, the synod of Constantinople held in the year 1638 under the successor of Cyril Lucaris, Cyril Contari, and the synods of Jassy (year 1642) and of Jerusalem (1672), condemned the view of Cyril Lucaris and accepted the complete canon of the Sacred Books, including the deuterocanonical ones.

In the middle of the eighteenth century, under the influence of the Russian Church, the doubts about the deuterocanonical books began to reappear, finding an echo in quite a few Greek theologians. Today the canonicity of these books is rejected by many. And since there has not yet been an official decision of the Greek Church in this regard, the admission or the denial of the deuterocanonical books is at present a free opinion.

e) The Russian Church accepted the complete canon of the Old Testament until the seventeenth century. But at the end of the seventeenth century the emperor Peter the Great (1689-1725), for nationalist reasons, separated the Russian Church from the Greek Orthodox Church and suppressed the patriarchate, instituting in its place the Holy Synod. In this work he was effectively assisted by Bishop Theophanes Prokopovich, who, among other things, denied the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament[136]. This opinion was accepted by many theologians, and even came to be approved by the Holy Synod[137]. Hence today there are many who reject the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books.

f) The Protestants, by the very fact of denying the authority of the Church, found themselves obliged to determine the canon by relying on historical testimonies or on internal and subjective criteria. For this reason, conservative Protestants, following the authority of St. Jerome, reject all the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, regarding them as apocryphal[138]. The first to deny the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books was Carlstadt, in 1520, whose real name was Andreas Bodenstein[139]. For this reason, the Zurich Bible of 1529 places them in an appendix. Luther soon followed him, and in his first German translation of the Bible (year 1534) he places them in an appendix under the title of apocrypha[140]. In 1540 Calvin also rejected the deuterocanonical books.

The various Protestant confessions likewise rejected the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. Nevertheless, the Gallican Confession (1559)[141], the Anglican Confession (1562), the Belgic Confession (1562) and the Second Helvetic Confession (1564) still keep them in an appendix at the end of the Bible. At the synod of Dordrecht (Holland), in the year 1618, some Calvinist theologians asked that the apocryphal books[142], that is, the deuterocanonical ones, be eliminated from the Bibles. The synod decided to follow a middle course, ordering that henceforth they should be printed in smaller type. This custom has been followed in general by the Lutherans down to the present day. Between the years 1825-1827, and again in the years 1850-1853, harsh controversies took place in England concerning the inclusion of the deuterocanonical books in the Bible. This led the British Bible Society to the decision (May 3, 1826) no longer to print the deuterocanonical books together with the rest of Sacred Scripture. Modern liberal Protestants, since they deny the supernatural order, also deny the concept of inspiration and of canonicity. For them, all the books of the Old and of the New Testament are merely human writings, and the canon has been formed under the influence of fortuitous causes, as can happen in any other secular literature[143].

Source: Apologetica.org

If you wish to have more resources to go deeper into the true teaching of Jesus, I recommend the book Lideres Cristianos (Christian Leaders), ideal for anyone who desires to be used powerfully by God in service. Movements, catechists, ministers, seminarians, servers, religious, priests, committed laypeople, evangelizers, preachers, etc. You can buy it at www.cristianosonline.org

NOTES

  1. Contra Apion 1,8. ↩
  2. 4 Esdr 14:37-48. ↩
  3. Babylonian Talmud (Baba bathra 14b-15a). ↩
  4. Cf. H. E. Ryle, Philo and Holy Scripture (London 1895). ↩
  5. The number 22 corresponds to the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. This same figure of 22 books is corroborated by Melito of Sardis (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 4,26), Origen (Expos. in Ps. 1), St. Athanasius (Epist. Fest. 39), St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech. 4,33.35), St. Gregory Nazianzen (Carm. 1,12), Rufinus (In symb. 37), St. Jerome (Prol. gal.), St. Epiphanius (Mens. et pond. 4f.22), St. Isidore of Seville (Etym. 16,10). ↩
  6. The 13 books of the prophets are: Josh, Judg-Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chron, Ezra-Nehemiah, the 12 Minor Prophets, Is, Jer-Lam, Ezek, Dan, Job, Esth. ↩
  7. These other four books must be: Psalms, Prov, Cant, Eccl. Cf. W. Fell, Der Bibelkanon des Josephus: BZ (1909) 1-16.113-122.235-244. ↩
  8. The number 24 probably comes from the Greek alphabet. This enumeration joins together, two by two, the books of Sam, the two books of Kings, the two of Chronicles and those of Ezra and Neh; the 12 Minor Prophets also form a single unit. ↩
  9. Talmud means “teaching, doctrine”, because it gathers the teaching of the rabbis. The Talmud consists of two parts: the Mishnah and the Gemara. The Mishnah was compiled at the end of the second century A.D., at Tiberias, by Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi; in it about 150 rabbis are mentioned, who are ordinarily called Tannaim. The Gemara is, as it were, the complement of the Talmud by the later rabbis, called Amoraim, who expounded the Mishnah in Palestine from the year 219 to 359, and in Babylonia from 219 to A.D. 500. For this reason, the first is known as the Palestinian recension, and the second as the Babylonian recension. ↩
  10. Baraita = “external”; it indicates the material that has been handed down by the rabbis, but which has not been incorporated into the Mishnah. ↩
  11. Num 23-24. ↩
  12. It refers to Deut 34:5-12: the death of Moses. ↩
  13. Baba Bathra 14b-15a. Cf. H. Strack – P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum N.T. aus Talmud und Midrasch IV p. 424f. ↩
  14. Thus St. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, St. John Chrysostom. ↩
  15. Ch. D. Ginsburg, The Massoreth hammasoreth (London 1867) p. 111. ↩
  16. Ezra 7:6.11; Neh 8-10. ↩
  17. Contra Apion 1,8. ↩
  18. Cf. J. T. Milik, Dieci anni di scoperte nel deserto di Giuda (Turin 1957) p. 23. ↩
  19. Cf. Wis 7:27. ↩
  20. From the documents of Qumran we know that they read and used some of the deuterocanonical books. Cf. J. T. Milik, Dieci anni di scoperte nel deserto di Giuda (Turin 1957) p. 23. ↩
  21. This is the order they have in the Vatican codex (B): Gen, Ex, Lev, Num, Deut, Josh, Judg, Ruth, 1-2 Sam, 1-2 Kings, 1-2 Chron, Ezra-Neh, Ps, Prov, Eccl, Cant, Job, Wis, Ecclus, Esth, Jdt, Tob, Hos, Am, Mic, Joel, Obad, Jon, Nah, Hab, Zeph, Hag, Zech, Mal, Is, Jer, Bar, Lam, Letter of Jer (=Bar 6), Dan. 1-2 Mac are missing, but they are found in the Sinaiticus and in the Alexandrinus. Codex B reproduces the order of ancient Greek manuscripts. ↩
  22. In the Genizah of an ancient synagogue in Cairo a large part of the Hebrew text of Ecclus was found, between the years 1896-1900. ↩
  23. Cf. Chagiga 2,1; Sanhedrin 10b. See S. Schechter, The Quotations from Ecclesiasticus in Rabbinic Literature: Jewish Quarterly Review (1891) 687-706. ↩
  24. Babylonian Talmud, Erubin 65a; ibid., Baba kama 92b. ↩
  25. The Midrashim are a free and at times arbitrary exposition of the biblical text. ↩
  26. Praef. in Tob. ↩
  27. Const. Apost. 5,20. ↩
  28. Yoma 29a. ↩
  29. Hanukkah means “consecration”. See 1 Mac 4. ↩
  30. Contra Apion 1,1. ↩
  31. In Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 6,25. ↩
  32. St. Jerome, Prol. gal. ↩
  33. Wis 2:13.18 = Mt 27:43; Wis 3:8 = 1 Cor 6:2; Wis 4:10 = Heb 11:5; Wis 5:18-21 = Eph 6:14.16f; Wis 6:4.8 = Rom 2:11; 13:1; Wis 12:24-15:19 = Rom 1:19-32. ↩
  34. St. Epiphanius, Haer. 8,6. ↩
  35. C. Orig. 18. ↩
  36. Dan 13. ↩
  37. Mk 7:13; Rom 3:2. ↩
  38. This formula was: “it is written”, “it stands written”, and other similar ones. ↩
  39. Christ and the apostles attribute an absolute authority to Sacred Scripture. Hence everything that is written in it must be fulfilled (Mt 21:42; 26:24.31.54.56; Lk 4:21; 18:31; Jn 5:34-39, etc.). The reason why Jesus Christ and the apostles attribute such great authority to the Scriptures is their divine origin. This divine origin is expressed in the N.T. with various formulas: “the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David” (Acts 1:16; 3:18.21); “God, who had promised through his prophets in the holy Scriptures” (Rom 1:2); “well did the Holy Spirit speak through the prophet Isaiah” (Acts 28:25). ↩
  40. Cf. R. Cornely, Introductio generalis: CSS (Paris 1894) n. 31; H. B. Swete – R. R. Ottley, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge 1914) 381-405. ↩
  41. Cf. Epist. 82 ad Hieron. 5,35. He says literally that this Greek translation (LXX) was “ab Apostolis approbata”. ↩
  42. Cf. Epist. 1 ad Cor. 22,4-6. ↩
  43. Cf. Epist. 1 ad Cor. 27,5 (=Wis 11:22; 12:12); 59,3 (=Ecclus 16:18f). ↩
  44. Cf. Epist. ad Philip. 10,2. ↩
  45. Cf. Sim. 5,3,8 (=Ecclus 18:30); Mand. 5,2,3 (=Tob 4:19); Mand. 1,1 (=2 Mac 7:28); Mand. 1,1 (=Wis 1:14). ↩
  46. Cf. Dialogue with Trypho 120. ↩
  47. Cf. Adv. Haer. 5,31,1. ↩
  48. Cf. Adv. Haer. 4,5,2; 4,26,3. ↩
  49. Cf. Adv. Haer. 4,38,3. ↩
  50. He adduces Jdt 8:27 in Strom. 2,7,35: MG 8,969; Tob 4:16 in Strom. 2,23: MG 8,1089; he cites the book of Wis 25 times, that of Bar 24 times and that of Ecclus 50 times, especially in the Paedagogus. He also alludes to the deuterocanonical parts of Dan and Esth in Strom. 1,21: MG 8,852f. It is probable that he also alludes to 2 Mac 1:10 in Strom. 5,14: MG 9,145. ↩
  51. In Matth. Comm., serm. n. 61. He cites Wis some 40 times and Ecclus some 70 times, and calls them “divine word” (Contra Celsum 3,72; 8,50). Tob and Jdt, Dan and Esth are regarded as sacred and received by the Church (Ep. ad Africanum n. 2.4.9.13). He also adduces 2 Mac 7:28 in De Princ. 2,1,5, and Bar 3:9-13 in Hom. in Jer. 7,3. ↩
  52. Cf. De cultu fem. 1,3. ↩
  53. Cf. ML 4,651-780. ↩
  54. Cf. MG 10,677-807. ↩
  55. Cf. Dan 3:24ff rather than Dan 3:19. ↩
  56. Cf. G. Wilpert, Pitture delle catacombe romane (Rome 1903) pp. 39, 52, 112, 265, 307-316, 327-337; C. Kaufmann, Handbuch der christlichen Archeologie (Paderborn 1922) 316ff; F. Grossi-Gondi, I monumenti cristiani iconografici e architettonici dei sei primi secoli (Rome 1923) 12-14; O. Marucchi, Manuale di Archeologia cristiana (Rome 1933) pp. 312-314; G. Wilpert, La fede della Chiesa nascente (Città del Vaticano 1938) pp. 121ff. ↩
  57. The paintings of the Roman catacombs range from the second century to the fifth. ↩
  58. Cf. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 4,26,12-14. ↩
  59. Cf. De Or. 14,4. ↩
  60. Cf. Comm. in Ps. 1, in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 6,25,1f. ↩
  61. Cf. A. Merk, Origenes und der Kanon des A.T.: Bi (1925) 200-205; J. Ruwet, Les «antilegomena» dans les oeuvres d’Origène: Bi 23 (1942) 18-42; 24 (1943) 18-53; idem, Les apocryphes dans les oeuvres d’Origène: Bi 25 (1944) 143-166.311-344. ↩
  62. Cf. Epist. Fest. 39. ↩
  63. Cf. J. Ruwet, Le canon alexandrin des Écritures. S. Athanase. Appendice: Le canon alexandrin d’après S. Athanase: Bi 33 (1952) 1-29. ↩
  64. He cites Ecclus in Catech. 2,15; 9,6; 11,19: MG 33,404.644.716; Wis in Catech. 9,2: MG 33,640, and Dan in ibid., 2,15f; 14,25; 16,31: MG 33,421.639.857.961. ↩
  65. Cf. Catech. 4,33-36. ↩
  66. Cf. Haer. 8,6; 76,5; De mens. et pond. 4 and 22f. ↩
  67. Cf. Haer. 24,6; 30,25. ↩
  68. He cites the book of Wis in Or. 28,8: MG 36,34; Ecclus in Or. 37,6.18: MG 36,290.304; the book of Bar in Or. 30,13: MG 36,121; Dan 3:14 in Carm. praecept. ad virg. 177-184: MG 37,592f, and Dan 13 in Or. 36,7: MG 36,273; Carm. 1,12: De veris Scripturae libris: MG 37,472. ↩
  69. Cf. Carm. ad Seleucum 251-324. ↩
  70. Cf. Or. 2,4; 1,2. ↩
  71. Cf. Apostolic Canons (ca. 400): cf. F. X. Funk, Didascalia et constitutiones apostolorum (Paderborn 1905) p. 590f. Pseudo-Athanasius, in his work Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae 1,2.3.39.41f, gives 22 books. ↩
  72. Cf. Prol. in Ps. 15. ↩
  73. Cf. In Ps. 52,19: ML 9,335; In Ps. 66,9: ML 9,441; In Ps. 78,9: ML 9,482; Trin. 4,42: ML 10,127; In Ps. 118,2.8; 127,9; 135,11: ML 9,514.708.775; In Ps. 125,6: ML 9,688. ↩
  74. Cf. Comm. in symb. apost. 36-38. ↩
  75. Cf. Comm. in symb. apost. 5 and 46: ML 21,344.385; Bened. Ioseph 3; Bened. Beniamin 2: ML 21,332f; Apol. 2,32-37: ML 21,611-616. ↩
  76. Cf. Interpretatio historiae Eusebianae 6,23, in Rufini vita 17,2: ML 21,270. Cf. M. Stenzel, Der Bibelkanon des Rufin von Aquileia: Bi 23 (1942) 43-61. ↩
  77. Cf. Prol. in libr. Samuelis et Malachim. ↩
  78. Cf. Praef. in libr. Salomonis. ↩
  79. Cf. Epist. 107 ad Laetam, 12. ↩
  80. Rufinus was scandalized that St. Jerome should reject the deuterocanonical parts of Daniel, and he defends them valiantly against the monk of Bethlehem (cf. Rufinus, Apol. 2,32-35). ↩
  81. Cf. Prol. comm. in Ier. Concerning St. Jerome the following works may be consulted: L. Sanders, Études sur Saint Jérôme (Brussels-Paris 1903) p. 196-267; P. Gaucher, St. Jérôme et l’inspiration des livres deutérocanoniques: Science catholique 18 (1904) 193-210.334-359.539-555.703-726; L. Schade, Die Inspirationslehre des Heiligen Hieronymus: BS 15,4-5 (1910) 163-211; L. H. Cottineau, Chronologie des versions bibliques de St. Jérôme: Miscellanea Geronimiana (Rome 1920) 43-68; F. Cavallera, St. Jérôme: Sa vie et son oeuvre (Paris 1922) 23-63.153-165; A. Penna, Principi e carattere dell’esegesi di S. Gerolamo (Rome 1950); H. H. Howorth, The Influence of St. Jerome on the Canon of the Western Church: JTS (1909) 481-496; (1910) 231-247; (1912) 1-8 (see Bi, 1920, 554.561). ↩
  82. Cf. Prol. in Tob. and Prol. in Io. ↩
  83. Praef. in libr. Iudith. ↩
  84. Cf. Epist. 54 ad Furiam, 16. ↩
  85. Cf. Epist. 65 ad Principiam 1-2. ↩
  86. Cf. Praef. in libr. Iudith. ↩
  87. Cf. Prol. in Io. ↩
  88. In 406 he cites Wis, saying: “Scriptum est, si cui tamen placet librum recipere” (“It is written –if one is willing to accept this book– that…”), in Comm. in Zach. 8,4; Ecclus is adduced with the formula “dicente Scriptura Sancta” (“as Holy Scripture says”), in Comm. in Is. 3,12 and Epist. 118 ad Iulian. 1; Judith is cited with the expression “legimus in Scripturis” (“we read in the Scriptures”) placed before it, in Comm. in Matth. 5,13; of Tobit he speaks in the Comm. in Ecl. 8. ↩
  89. Cf. J. Ruwet, De Canone, in Institutiones Biblicae 1, p. 113 n. 31. ↩
  90. The texts of the Fathers in which they speak of the deuterocanonical books as inspired and canonical can be seen in S. M. Zarb, De historia canonis… p. 151ff. ↩
  91. This Father cites all the deuterocanonical books. See S. M. Zarb, o.c., p. 16f. ↩
  92. St. Gregory also employs all the deuterocanonical books: S. M. Zarb, o.c., p. 168f. ↩
  93. He likewise uses all these books. Cf. J. Balestri, Biblica introductionis generalis elementa (Rome 1932) n. 284; S. M. Zarb, o.c., p. 175f. ↩
  94. This great commentator also employs all the deuterocanonical books. Cf. S. M. Zarb, o.c., p. 157-160; L. Dennefeld, Der alt. Kanon der antiochenischen Schule: BS 14,4 (1909) 29-38; Ch. Baur, Der Kanon des Hl. Johan. Chrysostomus: ThQ (1924) 258-271. ↩
  95. He cites the greater part of the deuterocanonical books: S. M. Zarb, o.c., p. 190. ↩
  96. He gives the catalogue of the Sacred Books, among which are all the deuterocanonical ones (Doct. Christ. 2,8,13: ML 34,41). Cf. C. J. Costello, St. Augustine’s Doctrine on the Inspiration and Canonicity of Scripture (Washington 1930) p. 65-97. ↩
  97. Cf. A. Kerrigan, St. Cyril of Alexandria Interpreter of the O.T. (Rome 1952) p. 17ff. ↩
  98. He uses the greater part of the deuterocanonical books: S. M. Zarb, o.c., p. 164f. ↩
  99. Cf. T. J. Lamy: RB 2 (1893) 13-17; J. Holzmann, Die Peschitta zum Buche der Weisheit (Freiburg 1903) 10. ↩
  100. Cf. EB n. 16-21. ↩
  101. Etymologiae 6,1,9. ↩
  102. Theodore of Mopsuestia, relying on reasons of internal criticism, rejected not only the deuterocanonical books, but also certain protocanonical books, such as Job, the Song of Songs, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther and Paralipomena. But his opinions were condemned by the Second Council of Constantinople (year 553). Cf. L. Pirot, L’oeuvre exégétique de Théodore de Mopsueste (Rome 1913); J. M. Vosté, L’oeuvre exégétique de Théodore de Mopsueste au II concile de Constantinople: RB 38 (1929) 382-395.542-554. ↩
  103. He gives the catalogue of only 22 books. In practice, however, he cites Bar, Ecclus and Wis (De sectis act. 2,1-4: MG 86,1200-4). ↩
  104. He cites 22 books and observes that Wis and Ecclus do not belong to the canon (De fide orthod. 4,17: MG 94,1176-80). ↩
  105. Cf. MG 100,1056-60. ↩
  106. Cf. De part. div. legis 1,3. ↩
  107. He does not regard the books of Mac as canonical (Moralia 19,21,34: ML 76,119). ↩
  108. He doubts Bar and the letter of Jer (Glossa ordin. in Bar: ML 114,63f). ↩
  109. He has some doubt about Wis: ML 169,1379; 170,331f. ↩
  110. He makes a distinction between the canonical books, which are 22, and the books for reading (De Scripturis et scriptoribus sacris 6: ML 175,15f). ↩
  111. He also distinguishes between canonical books (which are 22) and books of edification. However, in his Postillae he comments on both the protocanonical and the deuterocanonical books. ↩
  112. He has the same division as Hugh of St. Cher. ↩
  113. His thought does not seem very clear. Cf. E. Martín Nieto, Los libros deuterocanónicos del A.T. según el Tostado: EstAbulenses (1953) 107. ↩
  114. Cf. Chron. 1,3,5.9; Summa Theol. 3,18,6. ↩
  115. He denies the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books, following St. Jerome. ↩
  116. Cajetan wrote: “Iudith, Tobiae et Machabaeorum libri a divo Hieronymo extra canonicos libros supputantur et inter apocrypha locantur, cum libro Sapientiae et Ecclesiastico… Nec turberis, novitie, si alicubi repereris libros istos inter canonicos supputari vel in sacris Conciliis vel in sacris Doctoribus. Nam ad Hieronymi limam reducenda sunt tam verba Conciliorum quam Doctorum…” (“The books of Judith, Tobit and Maccabees are counted by St. Jerome outside the canonical books and are placed among the apocrypha, together with the book of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus… Nor should you be troubled, novice, if you should find somewhere that these books are counted among the canonical ones, whether in the sacred Councils or in the sacred Doctors. For the words of the Councils as well as of the Doctors are to be brought back to the standard of Jerome…”), in In omnes authenticos V.T. libros comm., Paris 1546, 481f. Cf. A. Colunga, El Card. Cayetano y los problemas de introducción bíblica: CT (1918) 26-30; J. M. Vosté, Thomas de Vio Card. Caietanus sacrae paginae magister (Rome 1935) 9-12. ↩
  117. Cf. F. Salvatore, Due Sermoni inediti di S. Tommaso d’Aquino (Rome 1912) 17-20. ↩
  118. Cf. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et ampl. collectio (Florence 1759) 3,924. ↩
  119. Cf. EB n. 19; Denz. 92. ↩
  120. Cf. EB n. 21. Cf. C. H. Turner, Latin Lists of the Canonical Books. III: From Pope Innocent’s Epistle to Exuperius of Toulouse: JTS 12 (1911f) 77-82. ↩
  121. The text can be seen in S. M. Zarb, De historia… p. 193-7. ↩
  122. Cf. MG 104,589-592. ↩
  123. Cf. EB n. 12. ↩
  124. Cf. EB n. 26. ↩
  125. The text can be seen in J. Ruwet, De Canone, in Institutiones Bibl. I (Rome 1951) 228ff. ↩
  126. Cf. W. Sanday, The Cheltenham List of the Canonical Books of the O. and N.T. and of the Writings of Cyprian: Studia biblica et ecclesiastica 3 (1891) 217-303. ↩
  127. Cf. EB n. 47; Denz. 706. ↩
  128. «(Ecclesia) unum atque eumdem Deum veteris et novi testamenti… profitetur auctorem, quoniam eodem Spiritu sancto inspirante utriusque testamenti sancti locuti sunt, quorum libros suscipit et veneratur» (EB n. 47). ↩
  129. «Sacrosancta oecumenica et generalis Tridentina synodus, omnes libros tam veteris quam novi testamenti… pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia suscipit ac veneratur… Si quis autem libros ipsos integros cum omnibus suis partibus, prout in ecclesia catholica legi consueverunt et in veteri vulgata latina editione habentur, pro sacris et canonicis non susceperit, et traditiones praedictas sciens et prudens contempserit, anathema sit» (EB n. 57.60). ↩
  130. “Si quis sacrae Scripturae libros integros cum omnibus suis partibus, prout illos sancta Tridentina Synodus recensuit, pro sacris et canonicis non susceperit, aut eos divinitus inspiratos esse negaverit: anathema sit” (EB n. 79; Denz. 1787). ↩
  131. Cf. A. S. Lewis, Catalogue of the Syriac Mss…: Studia Sinaitica I (London 1894) 11-14. ↩
  132. Cf. A. Baumstark, Der äthiopische Bibelkanon: Oriens Christianus 5 (1905) 162-173; M. Chaine, Le canon des livres saints dans l’église éthiopienne: RSR 5 (1914) 22-39. ↩
  133. Cf. I. Guidi, Il canone biblico della chiesa copta: RB 10 (1901) 161-174. ↩
  134. Cf. Photius, Syntagma canonum 3: MG 104,589-592. ↩
  135. In his work Orientalis Confessio christianae fidei (Geneva 1629), he states that he accepts the canon of the synod of Laodicea, which does not contain the deuterocanonical books, except Bar. ↩
  136. Cf. T. Prokopovich, Christiana orthodoxa theologia (Leipzig 1792). ↩
  137. For the Russians, then, the denial of the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books is almost a dogma of faith. ↩
  138. Cf. W. H. Daubney, The Use of the Apocrypha in the Christian Church (London 1900); H. H. Howorth, The Origin and Authority of the Biblical Canon in the Anglican Church: JTS 8 (1906f) 1-40.231-265; 9 (1907f) 188-230; 10 (1908f) 182-232. ↩
  139. Karlstadt, De canonicis scripturis libellus (Wittenberg 1520). ↩
  140. In this regard he says: “Apocrypha, that is, books which are not to be esteemed in the same way as Sacred Scripture, but which are good and may be read with profit”. ↩
  141. In the Confession of 1559 we read: “Utiles non sunt tamen eiusmodi, ut ex iis constitui possit articulus fidei” (“they are useful, but not in such a way that an article of faith can be based upon them”). ↩
  142. It is well known that the Protestants call the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament apocrypha; and the properly apocryphal books of the O.T. they designate with the name of pseudepigrapha. ↩
  143. E. von Dobschütz, The Abandonment of the Canonical Idea: The American Journal of Theology 19 (1915) 416-429. ↩