Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger (10 page)

We see here [in Hilary] an excessive mysticism
impelling a man to reject or admit a book for the sole purpose of completing a
mystic number. This tendency had been brought into patristic thought by Origen
and the Alexandrian school.
[179]

Hilary’s dependence on Origen’s
Commentary
suggests
that Origen had the same priorities in mind when he composed his list. While
writing down the books and their Hebrew names, Origen seems to have
accidentally skipped over the Twelve Minor Prophets, so when he ended the
compilation, he only had twenty-one names. Unable to find the omission, Origen
included the Hebrew name for Maccabees in order to have twenty-two names for
twenty-two letters.
[180]
It is difficult to believe that Origen would be so careless in providing a
catalogue, until we recall that Hilary added Sirach and Wisdom to fit the Greek
alphabet into the same catalogue of books. It is the mystical correspondences
of alphabets, and not the strict enumeration of the Christian canon, that the
great Alexandrian wished to leave his Christian readers.

The strongest proof of Origen’s full acceptance of the
Deuterocanon is to be found in the manner in which he employed them. He
understood them to be “Divine Scriptures” containing “divine things.”
[181]
  He also saw
the Deuterocanonical sections of Esther as an authentic part of the Book of
Esther.
[182]
Origen
quotes Wisdom as the word of God in
Contra Celsus
3.72.
[183]
Origen used Wisdom
to confirm and summarize Christian doctrine.
[184]
On numerous instances, Origen quotes Wisdom
and the Protocanonical books without qualification or distinction.
[185]
Origen calls the
Book of Sirach “Holy Scripture” [sacris Scripturis/hieron grammaton] and “the
divine word” [divinum sermonem/Ho theios logos].
[186]
The Protestant scholar Ruess points out that
the Greek description “ho theios logos” indicates, “not only the intrinsic
value of the passage quoted, but ought certainly to remind us of its
supernatural origin.”
[187]
A similar phrase is applied elsewhere to both Sirach 21:18 and 1 Peter 3:15.
[188]
Sirach is called
“divine Scripture” in
Contra Celsum
, 8.50 and “Scripture” in
Homily 1
in the Book of Kings
,
4
. The formal appellation, “It is written,” is
applied to Sirach on numerous occasions.
[189]
Again, no distinction or qualification is
ever given to Sirach when other books are quoted in the same context.
[190]
The solemn formula,
“It is written,” is also applied to quotes from Tobit.
[191]
Again, Origen makes no distinction or
qualification with his quotes from Tobit.
[192]
Judith is presented as a noble figure worthy
of Christian imitation.
[193]
Baruch is cited with the formula “It is written” and used without
qualification.
[194]
For Origen, sacred history does not terminate at the time of Ezra as would be
the case with the Protestant canon, but it continues down through to the time
of Maccabees. In
Contra Celsum
, 8.46, Origen writes that there is no
need to quote “all the princes and private persons of Scripture history
[Scripturarum historia/kata to historias tes graphas] who fared well or ill
according to their obedience to the prophets.”
[195]
He then presents Abraham and Sarah, King
Hezekiah and Isaiah, Elisha and the childless women who received him and bore a
son, a general statement about the maimed man whom Jesus cured, and the
Maccabees. Origen elsewhere cites Maccabees as scriptural warrant for the
doctrine of
Creation Ex Nihilo
[God created all things from nothing].
[196]

Finally, in a very important passage from Origen’s
Homily
on the Book of Numbers
, the Alexandrian teacher gives guidance to those who
had recently entered the Church on how to read the “divine volumes”. He
suggests that they start with the books of Esther, Judith, Tobit, Wisdom, the
Gospels, the writings of the Apostles, and the Psalms, but he warns against reading
Numbers and Leviticus until later.
[197]
  Clearly, Origen saw the Deuterocanon to be on par with
the other inspired books of Scripture.

Dionysius the Great of Alexandria (190–ca. 260)

Dionysius was a convert to Christianity and disciple of
Origen in Alexandria. He became the head of its Catechetical School, and in AD
247, became bishop of Alexandria. Although he was a prolific writer, only a few
of his works have survived the ages. Even from these works, however, we readily
demonstrate his acceptance of the Deuterocanon. For example, he quotes Tobit in
Against Germanus
, 10.
[198]
Dionysius also uses Wisdom 7:25 to show how fitting is John 4:24’s definition
that “God is Spirit.”
[199]
Most strikingly, Dionysius introduces Sirach as “
divine oracles
” [L.
oraculorum vocem].
[200]
In the same work, Dionysius quotes Sirach after a string of quotations from
Psalms, as if Sirach came from the same inspired corpus.
[201]

The Council of Antioch (269)

The Council of Antioch was convened to condemn the
antitrinitarian heresy of Artemon as introduced by Paul of Samasota. An
official letter sent to Dionysius of Rome and Maximus of Alexandria contains a
quote introduced with the formal appellation “it is written” followed by what
appears to quote the ninth chapter of Sirach. The Council of Antioch, if this
contention is true, is the earliest known local council to officially use a
Deuterocanonical book in an authoritative manner.
[202]

Archelaus (d. ca. 277)

Little is known about this early father other than that he
was bishop of Mesopotamia. In his debate with the heretic Manes, recorded by an
unknown writer, Archelaus uses Wisdom 1:13 against the contention that death
did not begin in time, but it was “unbegotten” or part of God’s nature.
[203]
By his use of this
quote, Archelaus demonstrates an expectation that both Manes and his wider
readership would accept the book of Wisdom as an authoritative source, capable
of confirming doctrine.

Methodius of Tyre (d. ca. 311)

A native of Olympius in Lycia, Methodius was the bishop of
Philippi. He suffered martyrdom in Greece about the year AD 311. Unfortunately,
very little biographical data has survived the ages.

Methodius’ use of the disputed books did not differ from
those fathers who preceded him; he fully embraced the Deuterocanonical books as
Scripture. Methodius quotes Sirach, Wisdom, and Proverbs in the same passage
without any qualification or distinction.
[204]
Methodius explicitly introduces a passage
from Wisdom as Scripture.
[205]
The Deuterocanon he uses often to confirm doctrine. In the
Banquet of the
Ten Virgins,
Sirach and Wisdom are both employed as scriptural proof
against the idea that polygamy ended during the time of the Prophets.
[206]
Wisdom is also used
to show how “the Word” accuses idolaters.
[207]
Quotations from the same book are employed
to confirm the good of creation, as well as certain matters of eschatology.
[208]
He uses Sirach
against certain teachings of Origen.
[209]
The same book is elsewhere quoted with the solemn formula
“It is written.”
[210]
Methodius quotes Baruch without qualification or distinction
[211]
and praises Judith and Susanna as models of
Christian virtue.
[212]
For these reasons and others, there is no controversy that Methodius accepted
the Deuterocanon as Scripture in the fullest sense.
[213]

Lactantius (250–326)

Known as the Christian Cicero, Lactantius produced some of
the most eloquent defenses of Christianity in the early Church. Born to a pagan
family in North Africa, Lactantius excelled in the discipline of rhetoric. The
Emperor Diocletian himself requested that he become an official professor of
rhetoric at the imperial city of Nicomedia; he converted to Christianity either
shortly before or after he left this chair. When the Emperor began his great
persecution of Christians in AD 303, Lactantius was financially ruined. Later,
he was raised up by the Emperor Constantine, who appointed him tutor of his son
Crispus. Lactantius died around the year AD 326. Because most of his works are
defenses against paganism, Lactantius uses relatively few Old Testament
quotations. He did, however, leave one surviving reference to the Deuteros; a
quotation from Sirach which he uses, in his
Institutes,
to confirm
doctrine in an authoritative manner.
[214]

The Council of Nicea (313)

The first and perhaps greatest of the Ecumenical Councils,
that of Nicea, was called primarily to refute the heresy of Arius,
[215]
and it left no
official record of having attempted to settle any questions of canonicity.
Cassiodorus seems to claim, however (along with the thirty-sixth canon of the
later Council of Hippo) that the Nicene Fathers did take up the issue of the
Christian canon;
[216]
and Jerome (in a much more reliable text) believes that Nicea ruled in favor of
the book of Judith. Be that as it may, it seems exceedingly unlikely (as Breen
notes) that so great a Council made any official decree on the subject without
the action having become widely known; if it had done so, the result would have
been a much more unified understanding of the canon in the East.
[217]
(It may be that
Jerome only means the Council Fathers made use of Judith in their deliberations
without incorporating their approval into any official statement).

Eusebius Pamphilus (260–341)

Eusebius was likely of a noble birth and became a disciple
of Pamphilus who established the famed library in the Church of Caesarea.
Eusebius later became the head of the school in Caesarea and its library. In AD
315, he was elected bishop and became deeply entangled in the Arian
controversies of that era.

Eusebius’ view of the Deuterocanon is difficult to
determine. Most of the evidence is taken from his
Church History
, and
there the author merely passes on the opinions of others. He reproduces the
lists of Josephus, Melito, and Origen, but because these lists do not agree
with one another (and he makes no indication of which he prefers), none can be
taken to represent his own true opinion. At times, Eusebius seems to separate
the Books of the Maccabees from the “Divine Scriptures,” and reports some
dispute over Sirach and Wisdom. In other places, he quotes Baruch and Wisdom as
if they are Scripture.
[218]
Therefore, Eusebius’ views cannot be determined with anything like certainty.
[219]

Aphraates the Persian (280–345)

Aphraates is one of the oldest Syrian fathers. There is no
solid biographical information available and only a single work of his has
survived the ages.

In
Demonstrations
, 5.19, Aphraates refers to the
martyrdoms of the Maccabees,
[220]
and later in the same work, quotes Sirach 29:17.
[221]
He does not segregate these quotations from
those taken from the Protocanon and uses them without qualification or distinction.
Aphraates assumes throughout that his readers will be familiar with
Deuterocanonical texts and makes no apology for using them.

Alexander of Alexandria

Alexander of Alexandria was bishop of that city at the time
(ca. AD 312) when Arius first began his agitations concerning the nature of the
Christ. Alexander acted slowly but firmly against his unruly presbyter, yet his
countering statements on the great subject were careless and imprecise, leaving
him open to Arian charges of Modalism. Alexander thus left matters at
Alexandria worse than he found them. It was letters from this bishop Alexander
to Constantine which convinced the Emperor to convene the great Council of
Nicea and settle the matter of Arianism (or so he thought) once and for all.

In one of his surviving works, Alexander makes an important
use of the book of Sirach. He actually sandwiches a quote from 1 Corinthians
between two different quotes from that Deuterocanonical work:

Therefore, I do not think men ought to be considered
pious who presume to investigate this subject
, in disobedience to
the injunction,
‘Seek not what is too difficult for thee, neither enquire
into what is too high for thee.’ For if the knowledge of many other things
incomparably inferior is beyond the capacity of the human mind, and cannot
therefore be attained, as has been said by Paul, ‘Eye hath not seen, nor ear
heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath
prepared far them that lave Him,’ and as God also said to Abraham, that the
stars could not be numbered by him; and it is likewise said, ‘Who shall number
the grains of sand by the sea-shore, or the drops of rain?’
[222]

As we can clearly deduce from in this fragment, Alexander
saw no distinction in status between Sirach and 1 Corinthians; and Sirach’s
“injunction” is plainly being used to confirm an important doctrine of the
Church, that of God’s incomprehensibility.

What is a canon? What does ‘canon’ mean today?
Up
until this point in our survey, we have refrained from using the term “canon”
or “canonical” (except to deny that such a thing existed in the earliest
centuries). We have done this because the term was not used prior to the
mid-fourth century—the point which we have now reached in this brief historical
survey.

The word ‘canon’ comes from the Greek, a term originally
referring to a ‘reed’ or measuring stick. A canon is used to measure things or,
if you will, provides a rule by which people must abide. The word is used twice
in the New Testament and by the early fathers in a generic sense, like the
‘canon of the faith’or the ‘canon of doctrine’ or the ‘canon of tradition,’ but
it was not applied to the contents of Scripture until the period now under
consideration.

Today, the ‘canon of Scripture’ refers to the Church’s
authoritative list of inspired books. All canonical books are inspired, and all
inspired books are canonical.
[223]
  Any book found outside the canon is apocrypha, i.e.
merely human writings having someone other than God as their primary author.
The earliest known instance of the term
canon
being applied to the
sacred text occurs in the writings of Athanasius of Alexandria, who lived from
AD 296–373.
[224]
Protestant apologists often appeal to Athanasius’
Thirty-ninth Festal Letter
as a proof that this venerable father officially accepted only the restrictive
Protestant canon.

Athanasius (295–373)

Athanasius of Alexandria succeeded Alexander as bishop of
that city. His bishopric there lasted forty tumultuous years, during which he
was four times deposed and exiled from his See by Arian opponents. Athanasius
is best known in Church history for his staunch and heroic defense of the full
Divinity of Christ against the overwhelming tide of heresy that threatened to
engulf the world during those decades.

It was the custom in ancient Alexandria that a letter from
the bishop be circulated throughout the churches of Egypt to help the faithful
better prepare for the Easter Season. One of these, the
Thirty-ninth Festal
Letter
(written by Athanasius on January 7, 367), addressed what had become
a nagging concern at that time. It seems that a spate of suspicious books had
been circulating lately among the churches, a state of affairs in which
(according to the letter) some “which are called Apocrypha” had been mixed
together “with the divinely inspired Scripture which we have received upon
certain testimony as the Fathers handed down to us.” Athanasius wished to
separate undoubted Scripture from the apocrypha. The
Thirty-ninth Festal
Letter
reads:

The books of the Old Testament are in number
twenty-two; for so many, as I have heard, are the elements (of speech) with the
Hebrews. In this order [lists all the books of the Protestant canon adding
Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah and omitting the Book of Esther] thus far
the books of the Old Testament.

Athanasius continues by enumerating the books of the New
Testament. At the end of this list, the bishop concludes thusly:

These are the fountains of salvation, so that who
thirsts may be filled by their discourses; in these alone, the Christian
doctrine is taught. Let no one add to them or take anything from them…But for
greater
accuracy,
I deem it
necessary to add this also,
that there are,
forsooth, other books besides these, which, indeed,
are not placed in the
Canon,
but which
the Fathers decreed should be read
to those who have
lately come into the fold, and seek to be catechized,
and who study to
learn the Christian doctrine
. These are The Wisdom of Solomon and the Wisdom
of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Esther, Judith, Tobias, the so-called Doctrine of
the Apostles, and Pastor.
Therefore, which the former are in the Canon, and
these latter are read, there is no mention of the Apocrypha
, which are the
figment of heretics who arbitrarily write books, to which they assign dates,
that by the specious semblance of antiquity they may find occasion to deceive
the simple.
[225]

Protestant apologists focus on the fact that twenty-two
books are described as having been
canonized
; making up, as they would
argue, an exhaustive list since Athanasius seems to insist that “In these
[books]
alone
, the Christian doctrine is taught.”  The great fourth
century champion, therefore, has been shown to have accepted the Protestant
canon, and consigned everything outside that canon to the category of human
apocrypha. This argument errs on a number of points.

Most obviously, the books Athanasius listed as “canonical”
do not correspond to the Protestant canon; he places the book of Baruch and the
letter of Jeremiah among the “canon,” but deliberately omits the book of Esther
from that list and places it among those that are read. This canon, in fact, is
unique to Athanasius himself; no other writer uses it and all other Christian
canons, then and now, differ from it. Secondly, a careful reading shows that
Athanasius is not using the word “canon” in exactly the way a modern reader
would expect. Yes, he states that Christian doctrine is taught by the canonized
books alone, but he would seem to undercut that statement by confessing that
his canonical list is in itself
not completely accurate,
that it is also
necessary
to
add
others to the list. These “necessary” books are
not called canonical, but “they are read”
[226]
and they
can
be used to teach
Christian doctrine, especially to recent converts.
[227]
The use of the word “apocrypha” on the other
hand, Athanasius confines to works heretical, arbitrary, specious, and
deceptive:

Therefore, which the former are in the Canon, and
these latter are read,
there is no mention of the Apocrypha
,
which are the figment of heretics who arbitrarily write books, to which they
assign dates, that by the specious semblance of antiquity they may find
occasion to deceive the simple.

According to this definition then, the Deuteros cannot be
considered (as they are by today’s Protestants) “apocrypha.”  Athanasius
is using the terms differently. For Christians today, there are only two
categories of writings: inspired, canonical Scripture and uninspired apocrypha;
yet for Athanasius, there were
three
categories: “canonical” Scripture,
the Scripture “that is read,” and the uninspired Apocrypha.

How can we be sure that Athanasius accepted the Deuterocanon
as inspired Scripture? To begin with, we have seen in our survey that, with the
exception of Julius Africanus, all Christians who used the Deuterocanonical
books did so in a manner commensurate with sacred Scripture. If this second
category were to be considered a denial of their inspiration, Athanasius would
be guilty of a wide departure from the common and ancient Christian usage—something
even his many enemies never accused him of. Such an opinion would also have
signaled a major break from the practice of his predecessor, Alexander of
Alexandria, who clearly accepted the Deuterocanon. This, too, would have been
pounced upon by the enemies of Athanasius and thus thoroughly documented in the
pages of the Arian controversy.

Yet the best proof that Athanasius’ accepted the
Deuterocanonical books is the way in which he uses them. Athanasius quotes both
Baruch and Susanna right alongside passages from Isaiah, Psalms, Romans, and
Hebrews; he makes no distinction or qualification between them.
[228]
Wisdom also is used
as an authentic portion of sacred Scripture; as, for instance, when Athanasius
writes this:

But of these and such like inventions of idolatrous
madness
, Scripture taught us beforehand long ago,
when it said,
‘The devising of idols was the beginning of fornication, and the invention of
them, the corruption of life…’ [Ws 14:12].
[229]

and later in the same work:

For since
they were endeavouring to invest
with what Scripture calls the incommunicable name
and honour of God them
that are no gods but mortal men, and since this venture of theirs was great and
impious, for this reason even against their will they were forced by truth to
set forth the passions of these persons, so that their passions recorded in the
writings concerning them might be in evidence for all posterity as a proof that
they were no gods.
[230]

This reference to the “incommunicable name” comes from
Wisdom 14:21:

And this was the occasion of deceiving human life: for
men serving either their affection, or their kings, gave the
incommunicable
name
to stones and wood.
[231]

Athanasius quotes another passage from Wisdom as
constituting the teachings of Christ, the Word of God.
[232]
He undoubtedly uses it to confirm doctrine.
[233]
In another argument
against Arians, he calls both the Protocanonical Proverbs and the
Deuterocanonical Wisdom “holy Scripture” [sacris litteris/tais hagiais
graphais].
[234]
He
states plainly that a passage from the Book of Wisdom was authored by the
“Wisdom of God.”
[235]
Athanasius also quotes the book of Sirach without distinction or qualification,
in the midst of several other scriptural quotations.
[236]
Even a letter written
to
Athanasius,
by an Alexandrian Synod consisting of bishops from Egypt, Thebais, Libya, and
Pentapolis, uses Sirach without any qualifying remarks or segregation.
[237]
Athanasius calls
the Book of Judith Scripture.
[238]
Tobit is cited right along with several Protocanonical
quotations
[239]
and
even introduced with the solemn formula “it is written.”
[240]
Athanasius also uses the Book of Maccabees
in his writings.
[241]

How can books “that are read” be excluded from the canon, but
still be considered Scripture? The practice of ancient Judaism provides the
key. For the Jews, there were only sacred and secular writings, which were
called “those that defile the hands” and “those that did not defile the hands”
respectively. If a book was sacred, it would defile the hands of the person who
reads it at the synagogue requiring that person to ritually wash their hands.
Secular writings did not require hand washing and were not read at the
synagogue. The early Christians inherited this legacy, minus the ritual
washings.
[242]
There
was always a special station in the liturgy for the reading of sacred
Scripture.
[243]
Athanasius’
Thirty-ninth Festal Letter
advises the churches of
Alexandria which books are to be accepted based on liturgical usage. For
Athanasius, the canonical books were those that were read as Scripture
both
in the synagogue and in the Christian Church. The “books that were read” were
Scripture that was read only in the Christian Church.
[244]
The Apocrypha were those writings that were
not read either in the Christian Church or in the synagogue. It is only with a
knowledge of this vital background information that Athanasius’ confusing
statements on this topic can be truly understood.

The Council of Sardica (ca. 342)

In 342 or 343, Pope Julius requested the Emperor Constans to
convene a local council, the Council of Sardica, to help clear up new difficulties
caused by the ongoing Arian heresy. The Council met in Sofia in Bulgaria.
Ninety bishops from the West and about eighty bishops from the East attended
this local council, with bishops representing some forty-eight provinces of the
Empire. This Council formally employs a quote from the Book of Wisdom in its
decrees:

We cannot deny that he was begotten; but we say that
he was begotten before all things, which are called visible and invisible; and
that he is the creator and artificer of archangels and angels, and of the
world, and of the human species
. It is written, ‘Wisdom which made
all things has taught me;’
and again, ‘All things were made by him.’
[245]

Clearly, these council fathers understood Wisdom to be authoritative
Scripture, capable of confirming doctrine.
[246]
It ought to be noted that a quotation does
not constitute an official declaration of a book’s inspiration or canonicity,
but in this case it does speak strongly in favor of a very wide acceptance of
Wisdom by the early Christian Church.

Cyril of Jerusalem (315–386)

Cyril was ordained a priest by Maximus in Jerusalem, whom he
succeeded as bishop through the appointment of Acacius, who was an Arian and
metropolitan of Caesarea. Like Athanasius’ church, the church in Cyril’s area
was wracked by the Arian controversy. Although Cyril always held to the
orthodox Faith, his reign as bishop was a stormy one.

Like Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, had a problem with
apocrypha in his district, and he composed a list much like that of Athanasius.
[247]
Lecture
4:33,35-36 reads:

…Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are
the books of the Old Testament, and what those of the New. And, pray, read none
of the apocryphal writings: for why dost thou, who knowest not those which are
acknowledged among all, trouble thyself in vain about those which are disputed?
Read the Divine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, these that
have been translated by the Seventy-two Interpreters… Of these read the two and
twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study
earnestly these only
which we read openly in the Church
. Far
wiser and more pious than thyself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old
time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore
a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes. And of the Old
Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if thou art
desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them. For of the
Law the books of Moses are the first five, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
Deuteronomy. And next, Joshua the son of Nave , and the book of Judges,
including Ruth, counted as seventh. And of the other historical books, the
first and second books of the Kings are among the Hebrews one book; also the
third and fourth one book. And in like manner, the first and second of
Chronicles are with them one book; and the first and second of Esdras are
counted one. Esther is the twelfth book; and these are the Historical writings.
But those which are written in verses are five, Job, and the book of Psalms,
and Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, which is the seventeenth
book. And after these come the five Prophetic books: of the Twelve Prophets one
book, of Isaiah one, of Jeremiah one, including Baruch and Lamentations and the
Epistle; then Ezekiel, and the Book of Daniel, the twenty-second of the Old
Testament.