Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger (19 page)

The last half of the first Christian millennium was a very
difficult period for the Christian church. The invasion of barbarians from the
North, the rise of Islam in North Africa, heresies, temporal meddling by
secular powers, and finally the Great East/West Schism racked Christian
civilization to the core. During this tumultuous period, Christian scholars
tended to be less concerned with progress and development than they were with the
preservation of the past. This industrious period codified, and propagated, and
handed down the texts of Scripture and the writings of the Church Fathers.
Nearly all Christian writers accepted the Deuterocanon as authentic, inspired,
canonical books of Scripture; the few isolated doubts that did surface were
either unique personal convictions or else the echoes of earlier writers quoted
for the benefit of posterity. The councils of Carthage, Hippo, Trullo
(Quinisext), the
Decree of Galatius
, and Innocent I reaffirmed the
constant usage of the Deuterocanonical books, and by the end of the ninth
century, Pope Nicholas I could speak of Innocent I’s canonical list as
the
universal law in the Church
. It is the larger canon, not that of Jerome,
that had wide, substantial support.
[509]

From the turn of the first Christian millennium until the
high Middle Ages, the Christian Church experienced a renewed vigor and
development in the study of Scripture and theology. These studies often
involved the systemization and crystallization of the teachings of the Fathers
into a coherent whole. This renewed vigor of synthesis and analysis was a great
benefit for the Church, but it also carried with it some unintended
consequences. Under a growing humanism, fed by the rediscovery of classical
literature, some medieval scholars attempted to reconcile beliefs which are not
really reconcilable. Such was the case with the canon of Scripture. The
isolated doubts we have seen scattered sparsely through our story so far began
to be synthesized into a cohesive body of thought; and divisions, which did not
formerly exist, began to arise. Terminology began to change as well, for both
sides of the debate. Words began to acquire connotations and associations they
had not carried for earlier authors; terms used loosely in the days of the
Fathers hardened down to a fixed definition. Some words, on the other hand,
lost the precise meanings they had earlier owned; the word
apocrypha
,
for instance, began to lose its distinctiveness, and by the time of the Council
of Trent, was practically useless. All of these forces conspired to place even
well-meaning Christian scholars more and more at cross purposes.

The reinvigoration of biblical studies in the Middle Ages
also gave new life to the writings of Jerome, and, consequently, to his
shortened canon. His
Latin Vulgate
became not only popular but downright
venerable in the Middle-ages; and his prefaces, including the “helmeted”
Preface
to the Books of Kings,
were commonly included in copies of the Vulgate.
Biblical novices studied these prefaces along with the sacred text, forgetting,
at times, to read Jerome’s thoughts with a bit less reverence than God’s. The
very popular edition called the
Glossia Ordinaria
, in fact, worsened
this confusion, for it removed Jerome’s critical remarks from their original
place and integrated them, like raisins in a fruitcake, into the sacred text
itself as explanatory glosses. As Gigot comments:

If now we inquire into the causes of this persistent
division between the ecclesiastical writings of the Middle Ages, we shall find
that its main,
if not its exclusive, cause
, is the influence
which the views of St. Jerome exercised upon the minds of many Doctors of that
period…It is not therefore to be wondered at, if the view so unfavorable to the
deuter-canonical books, which these prefaces contained, seemed tenable to many
schoolmen, and were, in fact, held by them in the teeth of contrary practice in
the Church, and of disciplinary decrees of the Popes. Finally, as it was the
fashion of the time to get rid of difficulties by means of subtle distinctions,
several ecclesiastical writers…[tried to] reconcile the statements of St.
Jerome, in his prefaces, with the papal decrees and the practice of the Church.
[510]

As we shall see, Gigot’s assessment of the process of
preservation, harmonization, and adoption is quite accurate. Jerome’s prestige
would become so great that some of his disciples went to great lengths to
reconcile his views on the canon with that of the official Christian Church.

Alfrick (d. 1009)

Alfrick was a monk in the Benedictine Abbey of Abingdon,
England. He was appointed the bishop of Wilton, England, in AD 990. In 995, he
became archbishop of Canterbury and faced the devastating results of one of the
barbarian invasions of England.

In a treatise called
On the Old and New Testament,
Alfrick writes of Sirach and Wisdom as being included in the Bible among the
works of Solomon, because of their similarity in style to Proverbs and
Ecclesiastes. Likewise, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Esther, and Judith he also
reckons as authentic parts of sacred Scripture.
[511]

Burchard of Worms (d. 1025)
[512]
Ivo (Ives) of Chartres (ca. 1040–1116)
[513]
Gratianus (1155)
[514]

Both Burchard of Worms and Ivo of Chartres received the
so-called
Decree of Galatius
as authentic and an authoritative sanction
of the Deuterocanon. Their works, along with Gratian’s, later formed the basis
for Church discipline in their era.

Stephan Harding (1109–1133)

Harding and the rest of the monks at Citeaux made a
recension of the
Latin Vulgate
in AD 1109. They relied on many
manuscripts and consulted several learned Jews on the Hebrew text. The
corrected Latin text they produced for their own use included the Deuterocanon.

Gislebert (Gilbert Crispin) (979-1117)

In a fictional dialogue between a Christian and a Jew,
Gislebert defends the prophetic integrity of Baruch, arguing that the Prophet
Jeremiah dictated its contents.
[515]

Honorius of Autun (1120)

In his work
Gemma Animae,
Honorius establishes the
order of the books of Scripture that are to be read in the
Divine Office
.
[516]
  With the
exception of Baruch, all of the Deuterocanon is included in this list. It is likely,
however, that even Baruch was included in the readings from the Book of
Jeremiah.
[517]

Aegidius (ca. 1180)

This deacon of Paris composed a list of Scripture in Latin
verse that includes all the Deuterocanon.
[518]

Peter of Riga

A contemporary of Aegidius, who also composed a list of the
books of Scripture, Peter of Riga includes all of the Deuterocanonical books
intermixed with the Protocanonical books, without distinction or qualification.
[519]

Hugh of St. Victor (1096–1141)

Hugh was a canon regular of St. Victor at Paris. He became
one of the most influential theologians in Paris. His impact on the revival of
Biblical studies in the Middle Ages should not be underestimated.
[520]

Hugh rejects the Deuterocanon. He acknowledges that the
Christian Church reads the Deuterocanon, but it is outside of the canon of
Scripture. This view can be seen in his preface to
De Scripturis et
Scriptoribus sacris
, in which he wrote:

[After enumerating the books of the Protocanon] All,
therefore, make twenty-two. There are besides certain other books, as the
Wisdom of Solomon, the books of Jesus the son of Sirach, the Book of Judith,
Tobit and the Maccabees, which are read, but are not written in the Canon.
[521]

After listing the New Testament canon and the writings of
the Fathers (including Jerome), Hugh continued:

But these writings of the Fathers are
not
computed in the text of the divine Scriptures
, just as we have said that
there are books which are not embodied in the Canon of the Old Testament, and
yet are read, as the Wisdom of Solomon and other books. The text, therefore, of
Holy Scripture, as one body, is principally made up of thirty books. Of these
twenty-two books are comprised in the Old Testament…
[522]

In his preface to the book
De Sacrementis
, Hugh
reiterated the same view:

There are, besides, in the Old Testament certain other
books, which are read, indeed, but are not within the Corpus Scripturarum, or
in the authentic Canon. These are Tobias, Judith, Maccabees, and that which is
inscribed the Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus [Sir].
[523]

Hugh was dependent upon Jerome for his canonical views.
[524]
The popularity of
Hugh’s works contributed greatly to the wholesale adoption of Jerome’s views on
the canon during the Middle Ages”
[525]

Rupert of Deutz (1075-1130)

A well-known Benedictine Monk from the Abbey of Deutz near
Cologne, Germany, Rupert also rejects the Deuterocanon. In his
Commentary on
Genesis
, he asserts that Wisdom could not be brought to bear on the
question of whether Adam was reconciled to God because Wisdom is not “of the
canon.”
[526]
He omits
Baruch and the Deuterocanonical sections of Daniel in his
Commentary on
Jeremiah
. The same is likely true with the Deuterocanonical sections of
Esther.
[527]
Like Hugh
of St. Victor, Rupert’s views are taken from Jerome. We can see his influence
most clearly in Rupert’s work
De Divinis Officiis
(On the Divine Office),
where he repeats Jerome’s claim that Judith and Tobit were adopted on the
authority of Nicea.

Nevertheless, Rupert could not omit the books of the
Deuterocanon from his
Divine Office
because they were used and accepted
by the Christian Church as divine Scripture. Their omission would not have been
tolerated.

Peter of Cluny (1092–1156)

Peter of Cluny is also sometimes known simply as Peter the
Venerable. He became the abbot general in 1121 and spent most of his life
combating heresy in France. Some believe that Peter of Cluny also opposed the
Deuterocanon. Their foundation for this opinion is found in a passage from his
treatise
Against Peter of Bruys,
in which he wrote:

There remain besides these authentic books of Holy Scripture
six other books which are not to be passed over in silence, viz,.
Wisdom,
the Book of Jesus Son of Sirach,
Tobias, Judith and the two books of
Maccabees. Although these do not reach the sublime dignity of the preceding,
nevertheless,
on account of their laudable and very necessary doctrine,
they have merited to be received by the Church
. There is no need that I
should labor in commending these to you. For if you value the Church in any
wise, you will receive something, at least a little, on her authority. But if
(as Christ said to Moses of the Jews) you will not believe Christ’s Church how
will you believe my words?
[528]

The context of this letter is important. Although Peter of
Bruys and his followers accepted only the Gospels as authentic Scripture,
[529]
Peter of Cluny
implored them to accept the whole of Scripture, including the Deuterocanon,
because of its ancient and undoubted acceptance by the universal Church. His
statement that the Deuteros do not attain to the same “sublime dignity” as
earlier books cannot be taken as a denial of authority or inspiration; we know
this because Peter’s usage elsewhere demonstrates that he did accept these
books as Scripture.
[530]
For example, Peter calls 1 Maccabees “the truthful Scriptures.”
[531]
He introduces a
passage from Sirach by calling him “the divine philosopher.”
[532]
  In his
Treatise Against the Jews,
Peter quotes Baruch as coming from “the Prophet or the prophetic man.”
[533]
He also quoted
Sirach as coming from God.
[534]
 

Rudolf of Flavigny (1155)

Rudolf divides Scripture into four categories: Historical,
Prophetic, Proverbs, and Simple Doctrine. He includes the books of Sirach and
Wisdom among the Protocanonical books of Simple Doctrine. He qualifies the
authority of Tobit, Judith, and Maccabees by writing, “…although read for the
instruction of the Church, [they] have not perfect authority.”
[535]

Peter Comestor (d. 1178)

Peter was known for his prodigious reading and has been
called “The Master of History.” In his
Preface to the book of Joshua
,
Peter provides a list of the books of Scripture:

…Job, David, three books of Solomon, Daniel,
Paralipomenon [Chr], Ezra, Esther, Sapientia [Ws], Ecclesiasticus [Sir],
Judith, Tobias, Maccabees are called the Hagiographa (al. Apocrypha) because
their author is unknown; but since there is no doubt of their truth, they are
received by the Church.
[536]

Both the Protocanonical and the Deuterocanonical books make
up the third division of the Jewish Scriptures, called the Hagiographa or the
Writings. Nevertheless, Peter parenthetically calls this third division
apocrypha
.
He understands
apocrypha
(Greek for hidden) to mean that their authors
are not known. Being of uncertain origin, their truthfulness is vouchsafed by
their reception by the Church.

The redefinition of
apocrypha
is not the only attempt
by Peter to reconcile Jerome with the Church. A similar and more disastrous
attempt is found in his
Historia Scholastica,
 in which he explains
the Deuterocanonical sections of Daniel: