Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger (9 page)

Cyprian of Carthage (ca. 200–258)

Born to pagan parents around AD 200 , Cyprian became a
skilled rhetorician and lawyer in Carthage, North Africa. He converted to
Christianity in his middle-forties and was later elected bishop of Carthage.
Enamored with Tertullian’s writings, Cyprian exhibited the same tenacity in his
own works. Cyprian, however, is more eloquent and refined than his master. His
reign as bishop was fraught with dangers; the intense persecution under Decius
forced Cyprian to flee for his life. He eventually returned to his See, where
he remained a stalwart defender of the Christian Faith until his martyrdom in
AD 258.

Cyprian held Sirach to be inspired Scripture, actually
stating that its author was “established in the Holy Spirit.”
[145]
Elsewhere, he
refers to it “[the] Divine Scripture.”
[146]
Many of his quotes from Sirach are prefaced
with the solemn formula, “It is written.”
[147]
Wisdom is likewise introduced as “Divine
Scripture.”
[148]
In
chapter twelve of his
Exhortation to Martyrdom
, Cyprian introduces
Wisdom 3:4 with these words: “The Holy Spirit shows and predicts…”
[149]
Wisdom is
frequently quoted without apology or proviso of any kind.
[150]
He considers Bel and the Dragon and Susanna
as authentic parts of the Prophet Daniel.
[151]
These Deuterocanonical sections are said to
have come from the Prophet filled with the Holy Spirit.
[152]
They are also said to record the actions of
God.
[153]
Baruch is an
authentic part of Jeremiah, according to Cyprian, and contains the true words
of the inspired Prophet.
[154]
The Book of Tobit, which is quoted without qualification or stipulation,
[155]
is offered as an
example for Christian living.
[156]
It is used to explain the power of prayer before God.
[157]
Cyprian also cites,
as did Polycarp before him, the book of Tobit for scriptural proof of the
spiritual efficacy of almsgiving.
[158]
Cyprian found solace within the books of the Maccabees also
and recommends the Maccabean martyrs to his Christian readers facing similar
persecution.
[159]
The
books are also used as Scripture in argument.
[160]
First Maccabees 2:62-63 is quoted as
Scripture.
[161]
Both 1
and 2 Maccabees are quoted right along with Protocanonical sources, with no
hesitation or expectation of contradiction. Cyprian clearly considers both
Deuteros and Protos to be equally authoritative portions of the same inspired
corpus.
[162]

Julius Africanus (ca. 160–231)

Julius is the father of Christian chronography. Little is
known about his life, other than that he was North African and perhaps a
priest.

It is here, during the first decades of the third Christian
century, that we find for the first time documentary proof of an orthodox
Christian disputing the authenticity of a portion of the Deuterocanon;
specifically the section of Daniel known as Susanna. In a letter to Origen,
Africanus upbraids the Alexandrian teacher for appealing to Susanna in a
discussion with a mutual friend. It is important to note that Africanus does
not base his objection on an appeal to the closed Jewish canon, nor on accepted
Jewish or Christian usage; Africanus objects to the authenticity of Susanna
almost entirely on linguistic grounds. In the Susanna narrative, or so
Africanus reasoned, there are two pairs of words that sound alike in Greek. The
book must, therefore, have been composed in Greek because it is impossible to
reproduce the word play of the passage in Hebrew.

What is most interesting in the tale of this ancient debate
is the way in which Origen responded to the charge; Africanus attacked Susanna
on linguistic grounds, Origen defended Susanna on linguistics and especially
Christian
usage
. After addressing Africanus’ concerns about the word play, Origen
reminds him that Susanna
(and, by extension, the rest of the
Deuterocanon) is found and read as Scripture in all of the churches of God.
[163]
Origen acknowledges
that Jews did not currently accept Susanna or the other books of the
Deuterocanon; because the Church, however, receives them as Scripture, we can
have confidence in their authenticity.
[164]
Indeed, Origen actually mocks that idea that
Christians ought to reject any portion of Scripture not accepted by the Jews:
[165]

And,
forsooth,
when we notice such
things [portions of Scripture not found in Hebrew manuscripts], we are forthwith
to reject as spurious the copies in use in our Churches, and enjoin the
brotherhood to put away the sacred books [sacris libris/hierais/biblous]
current among them,
and to coax the Jews, and persuade them to give us
copies which shall be untampered with, and free from forgery! Are we to suppose
that that Providence which in the sacred Scriptures has ministered to the
edification of all the Churches of Christ
,
had no thought for
those bought with a price, for whom Christ died; whom, although His Son, God
who is love spared not, but gave Him up for us all, that with Him He might
freely give us all things? In all these cases consider whether it would not be
well to remember the words, ‘Thou shalt not remove the ancient landmarks which
thy fathers have set.’
[166]

It is God’s providential concern for the Church, according
to Origen, which prevents the original deposit of Scripture from being
corrupted. Therefore, it is an offense against God to consider that the Jews,
who rejected Christ, could somehow have preserved the true collection in
pristine purity over and against the Spirit-filled Church.
[167]
The Scriptures are a set collection, given
by the apostles, that no one is permitted to change.
[168]
And like Justin Martyr and Tertullian,
Origen contends that the Jews tampered with the Scripture.
[169]

Origen of Alexandria (185–232)

Origen was raised in a Christian home, and became the
student of Clement of Alexandria. He became a pioneer in biblical textual
criticism and created the famed Hexapla, a manuscript with various translations
of the Bible running in parallel columns for the purposes of comparison. For
this reason, he is known as the father of Textual Criticism. Origen’s
motivation for this work was to aid Christians in Jewish apologetics.
[170]

Given Origen’s stringent defense of the Deuterocanon in his
History
of Susanna,
it may be surprising to find that Protestants often appeal to
Origen as one example of a Church Father who rejected the Deuterocanon. This
appeal is made for two reasons. First of all (and in marked contrast to
everything we have seen so far) Origen does, on occasion, qualify his use of
the Book of Wisdom. For example, in his work
First Principles
, Origen
states that Wisdom is “a work which is certainly not esteemed authoritative by
all.”
[171]
By
qualifying his use of Wisdom, it is argued, Origen demonstrates that the early
Church had its doubts about this book and that it should not, therefore, be
received as Scripture. The second reason is that in a portion of his
Commentary
on the Psalms
(preserved in Eusebius), Origen produces a list of twenty-two
Old Testament books which omits the Deuterocanon.
[172]
  This passage, according to proponents
of the shorter Protestant list, represents Origen’s dispassionate judgment on
the subject; his defense of Susanna, and the abundant use he makes of the
Deuteros elsewhere, is simply loose talk generated by careless enthusiasm. Both
of these reasons lack cogency.

Why
does
Origen qualify his use of Wisdom? Clearly,
he does it because the statement as it stands is literally true: not everyone
did accept the authority of Wisdom at this time. But what sorts of people
rejected it—and why? Jews rejected it, to be sure, for reasons we have already
addressed; and at least a few Christians, too, since we have already seen
Origen himself disputing over it with Africanus. The question, really, is just
how many third century Christians Africanus may reasonably be supposed to
represent. After all, we could probably find some isolated group today, or some
modernist scholar, willing to reject one portion or another of the Protestant
canon (as Luther himself did for a while!). Would it be safe to conclude from
such a discovery that twenty-first century Protestants are seriously divided
over the canon, or that opinions on it vary widely? Of course not. As we have
seen, Africanus never even claimed to be basing his rejection of Susanna on
anything other than his own private study; while Origen’s defense of it is
based on an appeal to near-universal acceptance in all the churches of God. It
is wise, therefore, not to read into this phrase from
First Principles
any notion that a large number of Christians rejected the book of Wisdom in
Origen’s day; actually, his argument against Africanus shows he believed just
the opposite to be true—that any rejection of the Deuteros represented a
privately held opinion at variance with traditional Christian ideas. This is
underscored by one additional fact about Origen’s
First Principles
; both
before and after the passage in which he supposedly casts doubt of the book of
Wisdom, the author quotes from it and describes the quotes as “Scripture.”
[173]
 

Origen’s list in Eusebius is likewise misunderstood. His
actual
Commentary on the Psalms
is lost so we are forced to rely on the
two brief quotes included in Eusebius to understand why Origen made up this
list. Here is how Eusebius framed the quotes:

When expounding the first Psalm, he [Origen] gives a
catalogue of the sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament as follows: ‘It should
be stated that the canonical books, as the Hebrews have handed them down, are
twenty-two; corresponding with the number of their letters.’ Farther on he
says: ‘The twenty-two books of the Hebrews are the following: That which is
called by us Genesis, but by the Hebrews, from the beginning of the book,
Bresith, which means, ‘In the beginning’; Exodus, Welesmoth, that is, ‘These
are the names’; Leviticus, Wikra, ‘And he called’; Numbers, Ammesphekodeim;
Deuteronomy, Eleaddebareim, ‘ These are the words’; Jesus, the son of Nave,
Josoue ben Noun; Judges and Ruth, among them in one book, Saphateim; the First
and Second of Kings, among them one, Samouel, that is, ‘The called of God’; the
Third and Fourth of Kings in one, Wammelch David, that is, ‘The kingdom of
David’; of the Chronicles, the First and Second in one, Dabreiamein, that is,
‘Records of days’; Esdras, First and Second in one, Ezra, that is, ‘An
assistant’; the book of Psalms, Spharthelleim; the Proverbs of Solomon,
Me-loth; Ecclesiastes, Koelth; the Song of Songs, Sir Hassirim; Isaiah, Jessia;
Jeremiah, with Lamentations and the epistle in one, Jeremia; Daniel, Daniel;
Ezekiel, Jezekiel; Job, Job; Esther, Esther. And besides these there are the
Maccabees, which are entitled Sarbeth Sabanaiel.’ He gives these in the
above-mentioned work.
[174]

Is this list a catalogue of the books accepted by Jews
alone, or is it also intended to represent the list received by Christians as
well? Look closely at the wording of the passage above; notice that Origen
twice describes this as a list of canonical books “
as the Hebrews have
handed them down
… The twenty-two books
of the Hebrews
are…”
[175]
Origen’s list in
Eusebius then, reflects rabbinical usage, not Christian; and we have already
seen what Origen believed about allowing unbelieving Jews to fix the limits of
Scripture for Christians. Notice, too, that the list as Eusebius quotes it does
not even succeed as an accurate representation of the
rabbinical
canon
accepted in the third century!  Origen omits the Twelve Minor Prophets
(which would have been reckoned as one book in the practice of that time) and
then inexplicably
includes
(under its Hebrew title) the book of 1
Maccabees (though he does separate it from the other books). Shall we conclude
then, that Origen denied the authority of the Minor Prophets as well as the
Deuteros? Or has a mistake been made somewhere?

It would be nice if we could examine the rest of Origen’s
Commentary
on the Psalms
, for clearly the passage as it stands in rather mysterious.
Sadly, the original work no longer exists. There is, however, at least one way
to gain insight into its contents: both contemporaries and modern critics agree
that the
Prologue to the Book of Psalms
by Hilary of Poitiers (which has
survived) follows Origen’s
Commentary of the Psalms
“in all things.”
[176]
What do we find in
Hilary’s book corresponding to the passage of Origen in question?

And this is the cause that the law of the Old
Testament is divided into 22 books, that they might agree with the number of
letters. These books are arranged according to the tradition of the ancients,
so that five are of Moses...complete
the number of twenty-two
books.
To some it has seemed good to add Tobias and Judith, and thus
constitute 24 books according to the Greek alphabet…
.
[177]

One does not find here a dispassionate, literal-historical
investigation at the Old Testament collection. Instead, a typical Alexandrian
contemplation of the mystical correspondences between numbers, letters, and
sacred books is found. Hilary’s primary concern was this correspondence of
numbers and alphabets and not so much an accurate computation of an Old
Testament catalogue.
[178]
Tobit and Judith are added to the list so as to produce the number of letters
in the Greek alphabet. As Breen observes: