If you’re a Protestant who has had conversations with your Roman Catholic friends about your differences, odds are that you have run into the fact that Roman Catholics (RCs) affirm a 73-book canon while Protestants generally affirm a 66-book canon. To be clear, Ecclesialists such as Roman Catholics, and Protestants such as Lutherans, Anglicans, and Presbyterians actually have identical New Testament canons. Where these traditions differ from one another is on the contents of the Old Testament canon.
Regarding the Old Testament canon, online RC pop-apologists love to sling about slogans like “Luther RIPPED books out of the Bible!” or “Protestants took books out of the Bible because those books disagree with Protestant doctrines!” and on and on and on the caricatures go.
The general talking point on the Roman Catholic side of the internet is that the Church down through the ages by and large (almost unanimously!) agreed with the Roman Catholic canon as later infallibly defined by the Roman Catholic church. As such, Protestants are charged with being innovators and heretics who, in an unprecedented manner, unjustly ripped books out of a Biblical canon that was authoritatively and universally settled eons before.
The Official Roman Catholic Canon
Here is how the Council of Trent enumerates and (purportedly) infallibly defines the Roman Catholic canon:
“The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent,–lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic Sec presiding therein,–keeping this always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament–seeing that one God is the author of both –as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. And it has thought it meet [i.e.- proper] that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one’s mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately condemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.”
Such is the official list of Rome… and it’s backed by anathemas to boot!
Notice that there are a few different criteria for incurring those anathemas. According to Trent, one would have to knowingly and deliberately:
NOT receive the books as sacred (in ALL their parts as listed at Trent & contained in the old Latin vulgate edition).
NOT receive the books as canonical (in ALL their parts as listed at Trent & contained in the old Latin vulgate edition).12
As such, to evade falling under the anathema of Trent, it will not suffice for someone to receive the books listed as simply sacred in some sense. Similarly, it will not suffice to receive the books listed as simply canonical in some sense. Additionally, it will not suffice to receive most of the books listed as both sacred and canonical. To evade Trent’s anathema, one must fully receive each and every single one of its listed books entirein all their parts as both fully sacred and fully canonical.
This Tridentine list includes the following disputed books, which will be the focus of our article today: Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, First and Second Maccabees.
Common Views of the Biblical Canon in Church History
Here, it might be worth mentioning some of the common views in regards to the canon in Church History:
There are, of course, those who have a 1-tier view of “Scripture” wherein any book that is considered “Scripture” must also be considered “canonical.” Some adherents to this view would see the Deuterocanonical books as fully Scriptural and as equally authoritative as the Protocanonical books; these adherents might hold that the canon of Scripture includes BOTH the 66 books included in Protestant Bibles and the 7 extra deuterocanonical books included in Roman Catholic Bibles (or, in some cases, including even more books than are found in Roman Catholic Bibles). However, other adherents to the 1-tier view would see the Deuterocanonical books as entirely apocryphal; these latter adherents might sometimes want to steer clear of the Deuterocanonical books entirely.
There are, of course, those who have a 2-tier view of “Scripture” wherein Scripture is composed of both “canonical” and “non-canonical” books. Those who hold this view see the “canonical” books of Scripture as sure, inerrant, and fully authoritative in all matters of life and doctrine. On the other hand, they see “non-canonical” books of Scripture as being of doubtful origin and composition, and thereby possessing a much lesser authority than the canonical books (if any at all); the non-canonical books of Scripture are primarily seen as being valuable for personal edification and devotion — but NOTfor the establishing of doctrine nor the settling of controversy. Books which lay outside of these two tiers would be seen as apocryphal and not a part of Scripture.3
Both of the above positions have their nuances, and not every adherent to a particular view may always act perfectly consistently with their stated view; however, this is trivially true, as it is likewise the case with practically any position ever taken by imperfect human beings living in an imperfect world. Additionally, both of the above views have a category for “Apocryphal” writings which are not to be trusted by Christians (although this, too, is nuanced at times depending on the writer).
Broadly-speaking, our Roman Catholic friends land in the 1-tier view, whereas most magisterial Protestants would land in the 2-tier view. Due to the decentralized nature of Eastern Orthodoxy, it is hard to make all-encompassing statements about its positions on any given topic; however, it is worth noting that, both historically as well as in the modern day, significant segments of the Eastern Orthodox church have retained a nuanced 2-tier view. 4567891011121314151617
The Aim of This Article
With that in mind, the questions we are interested in exploring in this article are the following:
Is there a unanimous Patristic & Medieval consensus in favor of the Tridentine definition of the canon?1819
Over the last couple of months, I have gathered a broad range of quotes from across church history that are relevant to this point (a special thank you to everyone who has aided me in this endeavor!). So, I thought it might be useful to others if I made a lengthy post documenting a significant number of them.
Now, before you read the rest of this article, please keep the following in mind: don’t expect a bunch of quotes that say “Hello! I affirm the exact Protestant canon.”20
That’s not what we’re after here.
The focus of this article is simply to try to figure out if church history is unanimously in support of the Tridentine definition of the canon.
*IMPORTANT NOTE: Please make sure to check out the copious footnotes throughout this article! In them, you can find added notes and context, alternate citations, the original Greek/Latin text, the source a given quote was pulled from, etc…
Thanks for reading Javier’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
“But this especially for you to learn is fitting: not every book is safe which has acquired the venerable name of Scripture.For there appear from time to time pseudonymous books, some of which are intermediate or neighbours, as one might say, to the words of Truth, while others are spurious and utterly unsafe, like counterfeit and spurious coins which bear the king's inscription, but as regards their material are base forgeries.For this reason I will state for you the divinely inspired books one by one, so that you may learn them clearly. I will first recite those of the Old Testament. The Pentateuch has Creation [i.e. - Genesis], then Exodus, and Leviticus, the middle book, after which is Numbers, then Deuteronomy. Add to these Joshua, and Judges, then Ruth, and of Kingdoms the four books, and the double team of Chronicles; after these, Esdras, one and then the second. Then I would review for you five in verse: Job, crowned in the contests of many sufferings, and the Book of Psalms, soothing remedy for the soul, three of Solomon the Wise: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticle of Canticles. Add to these the Prophets Twelve, Hosea first, then Amos the second, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, and the type of Him who three days suffered, Jonah, Nahum after those, and Habakkuk; and ninth, Zephaniah, Haggai, and Zechariah, and twice-named angel Malachi. After these prophets learn yet another four: The great and fearless Isaiah, the sympathetic Jeremiah, and mysterious Ezekiel, and finally Daniel, most wise in his deeds and words. With these, some approve the inclusion of Esther. Time now for me to recite the books of the New Testament. Accept only four Evangelists, Matthew, then Mark, to which Luke as third add; count John in time as fourth, but first in sublimity of dogma. Son of Thunder rightly he is called, who loudly sounded forth the Word of God. Accept from Luke a second book also, that of the catholic Acts of the Apostles. Add to these besides that Chosen Vessel, Herald of the Gentiles, the Apostle Paul, writing in wisdom to the churches twice seven epistles, one to the Romans, to which must be added two to the Corinthians, and that to the Galatians, and to the Ephesians, after which there is the one to the Philippians, then those written to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians two, two to Timothy, and to Titus and Philemon one each, and to the Hebrews one. Some call that to the Hebrews spurious, but they say it not well; for the grace is genuine. some say seven, others only three must be accepted: one of James, one of Peter, one of John, otherwise three of John, and with them two of Peter, and also Jude's, the seventh. The Apocalypse of John, again, some approve, but most will call it spurious. This would be the most unerring canon of the divinely inspired scriptures.”222324
Let the following books be esteemed venerable and holy by all of you, both clergy and laity. Of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy;one of Joshua the son of Nun; one of the Judges; one of Ruth; four of the Kings; two of Paralipomena (the books of Chronicles); two of Ezra [i.e.- Ezra and Nehemiah]; 2 one of Esther; one of Judith;* three of the Maccabees; one of Job; the one hundred and fifty Psalms; three books of Solomon: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs; the sixteen of the Prophets.And see that those newly come to discipleship become acquainted with the Wisdom of the learned Sirach [i.e.- Ecclesiasticus]. And ours, that is, of the New Testament, are the four Gospels, of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; the fourteen epistles of Paul; two epistles of Peter; three of John; one of James; one of Jude; two epistles of Clement; and the Constitutions dedicated to you, the bishops, by me, Clement, in eight books, which it is not appropriate to make public before all, because of the mysteries contained in them; and the Acts of us, the Apostles.”282930
“In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the Evangelist, saying on my own account: 'Forasmuch as some have taken in hand Luke 1:1,' to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine; to the end that any one who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led him astray; and that he who has continued steadfast in purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance. There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament. Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John. These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, 'You err, not knowing the Scriptures.' And He reproved the Jews, saying, 'Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me (Matthew 22:29; John 5:39)' But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read.”3334
“Even if it turns out that a number of miraculous events described in the books of Maccabees could be included in our study, we will not address them,because we intended to focus only on the miracles contained in the canonical books.”
“As for what Habakkuk translated in the fables of Belle and the Dragon, we have not included them in our study because they do not have the authority of divine scripture.”
“As we are dealing with numbers and every number among real existencies a certain significance of which the Creator of the universe made full use as well in the general scheme as in the arrangement of the details, we must give good heed, and with the help of the Scriptures trace their meaning, and the meaning of each of them. Nor must we fail to observe that without reason the canonical books are twenty-two, according to the Hebrew tradition, the same in number as the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. For as the twenty-two letters may be regarded as an introduction to the wisdom and the Divine doctrines given to men in those characters, so the twenty-two inspired books are an alphabet of the wisdom of God and an introduction to the knowledge of realities.”
- Basil the Great, Philocalia, Chapter III, Why the inspired books are twenty-two in number. From the same volume on the 1st Psalm. George Lewis, trans., The Philocalia of Origen: A Compilation of Selected Passages from Origen’s Works made by St. Gregory of Nazianzus and St. Basil of Caesarea (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1911), p. 34. See also Origen, Philocalie, ch. 3, edited by Marguerite Harl, Sources Christiennes 302 (Paris: Cerf, 1983), p. 260.
Brisith: Genesis. Elsimoth: Exodus. Odoikra: Leviticus. Diiēsou: Joshua son of Nauē. Eledebbari: Deuteronomy. Ouidabir: Numbers. Darouth: Of Ruth. Diōb: of Job. Dasophtim(n): Of the Judges. Sphertelim: Psalter. Diemmouēl: Of Kingdoms First. Diaddoudemouēl: Of Kingdoms Second. Damalachēm: Of Kingdoms Third. Amalachēm: Of Kingdoms Fourth. Debriiamin: Of Paralipomena First. Of Paralipomena Second. Damaleōth: Of Proverbs. Dakoloeth: Ecclesiastes. Sira Sirim: Song of Songs. Dierem: Jeremiah. Daatharsiar: Twelve Prophets. Dēsaiou: Of Isaiah. Dieezekiēl: Of Ezekiel. Dadaniēl: Of Daniel. Desdra: Esdras A. Dadesdra: Esdras B. Desthēs.”394041
- Bryennios List, translated by Edmon Gallagher and John Meade, The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity: Texts and Analysis, Oxford University Press (2017), pg. 71-72.
“Let no private psalms nor any uncanonical books be read in church, but only the canonical ones of the New and Old Testament.It is proper to recognize as many books as these: of the Old Testament, 1. the Genesis of the world; 2. the Exodus from Egypt; 3. Leviticus; 4. Numbers; 5. Deuteronomy; 6. Joshua the son of Nun; 7. Judges and Ruth; 8. Esther; 9. First and Second Kings [i.e. First and Second Samuel]; 10. Third and Fourth Kings [i.e. First and Second Kings]; 11. First and Second Chronicles; 12. First and Second Ezra [i.e. Ezra and Nehemiah]; 13. the book of one hundred and fifty Psalms; 14. the Proverbs of Solomon; 15. Ecclesiastes; 16. Song of Songs; 17. Job; 18. the Twelve [minor] Prophets; 19. Isaiah; 20. Jeremiah and Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle [of Jeremiah]; 21. Ezekiel; 22. Daniel.”444546
- Council of Laodicea, translated from the Greek as presented in B.F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (5th ed. Edinburgh, 1881), link: https://www.bible-researcher.com/laodicea.html47
“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 do you, who know not those which are acknowledged among all, trouble yourself 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. For after the death of Alexander, the king of the Macedonians, and the division of his kingdom into four principalities, into Babylonia, and Macedonia, and Asia, and Egypt, one of those who reigned over Egypt, Ptolemy Philadelphus, being a king very fond of learning, while collecting the books that were in every place, heard from Demetrius Phalereus, the curator of his library, of the Divine Scriptures of the Law and the Prophets, and judged it much nobler, not to get the books from the possessors by force against their will, but rather to propitiate them by gifts and friendship; and knowing that what is extorted is often adulterated, being given unwillingly, while that which is willingly supplied is freely given with all sincerity, he sent to Eleazar, who was then High Priest, a great many gifts for the Temple here at Jerusalem, and caused him to send him six interpreters from each of the twelve tribes of Israel for the translation. Then, further, to make experiment whether the books were Divine or not, he took precaution that those who had been sent should not combine among themselves, by assigning to each of the interpreters who had come his separate chamber in the island called Pharos, which lies over against Alexandria, and committed to each the whole Scriptures to translate. And when they had fulfilled the task in seventy-two days, he brought together all their translations, which they had made in different chambers without sending them one to another, and found that they agreed not only in the sense but even in words. For the process was no word-craft, nor contrivance of human devices: but the translation of the Divine Scriptures, spoken by the Holy Ghost, was of the Holy Ghost accomplished. 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 yourself 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 you are 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. Then of the New Testament there are the four Gospels only, for the rest have false titles and are mischievous. The Manichæans also wrote a Gospel according to Thomas, which being tinctured with the fragrance of the evangelic title corrupts the souls of the simple sort. Receive also the Acts of the Twelve Apostles; and in addition to these the seven Catholic Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude; and as a seal upon them all, and the last work of the disciples, the fourteen Epistles of Paul. But let all the rest be put aside in a secondary rank. And whatever books are not read in Churches, these read not even by yourself, as you have heard me say. Thus much of these subjects.”4950
“[Timothy the Christian said:]These, then, are the divinely inspired books, both among Christians and among Hebrews. The first is the book of Genesis. The second is Exodus. The third is Leviticus. The fourth is Numbers. These are the ones dictated through the mouth of God and written by the hand of Moses. And the fifth is the Book of Deuteronomy, not dictated though the mouth of God but was the law given a second time through Moses. (Therefore, it was not placed in the aron, that is, the Ark of the Covenant) (see Deut. 31:9; 24-26). This is the Mosaic Pentateuch. The sixth is Joshua, son of Nun. The seventh is the Judges along with Ruth. The eighth book is the ‘Things that are left,’first and second (1,2 Chronicles). Ninth is the Book of Kingdoms, first and second (1,2 Samuel). Tenth is the third and fourth Book of Kingdoms (1,2 Kings). Eleventh is Job. Twelfth is the Psalter of David. Thirteenth is the Proverbs of Solomon. Fourteenth is Ecclesiastes along with the Canticles. Fifteenth is the Twelve Prophets, then Isaiah, Jeremiah. And again, Ezekiel, then Daniel and again, Esdras (Ezra-Nehemiah), twentieth. The twenty first is the book of Judith. Twenty second is Esther. For Tobit and the Wisdom of Solomon and the Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach, the 72 translators (LXX) handed down to us as apocryphal books.These twenty two books are the inspired and canonical ones. There are twenty seven, but are numbered as twenty two, because five of them are doubled. And they are numbered according to the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, and all the rest of them belong to the Apocrypha.”52
“Receive the number and names of the holy books. First the twelve historical books in order: first is Genesis, then Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and the testament of the law repeated again; Joshua, Judges and Ruth the Moabitess follow these; after this the famous deeds of Kings holds the ninth and tenth place; the Chronicles comes in the eleventh place, and Ezra is last. There are also five poetic books, first of which is Job, the one next to it is King David’s, and three of Solomon, namely Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, and his Song. After these come five books of the holy prophets, of which twelve are contained in one volume: Hosea…Malachi, these are in the first book; the second contains Isaiah. After these is Jeremiah, called from his mother’s womb, then Ezekiel, strength of the Lord, and Daniel last. These twenty-two books of the Old Testament are counted according to the twenty-two letters of the Jews…Let not your mind be deceived about extraneous books (for many false ascriptions are making the rounds), but you should hold to this legitimate number from me, dear reader.”
- Gregory of Nazianzus, Carmina Dogmatica, Book I, Section I, Carmen XII. PG 37:471-474. Translation by Dr. Michael Woodward, Associate Library Director, Archbishop Vehr Theological Library. See also William Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 2, p. 42.
“Whence it is needful with great diligence both always to be doing good things, and to keep ourselves heedfully in the thought of the heart from the very good things themselves, lest, if they uplift the mind, they be not good, which are enlisted not to the Creator, but to pride. With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edifying of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed. 1 Macc. 6:46.”5859
“Now, at the time of the return from the Babylonian captivity, these Jews had books and these (following) prophets and these (following) books of prophets: first Genesis, second Exodus, third Leviticus, fourth Numbers, fifth Deuteronomy, sixth Book of Joshua of Naue, seventh of Judges, eighth of Ruth, ninth of Job, tenth the Psalter, eleventh Proverbs of Solomon, twelfth Ecclesiastes, thirteenth the Song of Songs, fourteenth first of Kingdoms, fifteenth second of Kingdoms, sixteenth third of Kingdoms, seventeenth fourth of Kingdoms, eighteenth first of Paralipomenon, nineteenth second of Paralipomenon, twentieth the Twelve Prophets, twenty-first Isaiah the prophet, twenty-second Jeremiah the prophet with the Lamentations and Epistles, both his own and Baruch's, twenty-third Ezekiel the prophet, twenty-fourth Daniel the prophet, twenty-fifth Esdras I, twenty-sixth Esdras II, twenty-seventh Esther. These are the twenty-seven books given by God to the Jews; now these are numbered twenty-two just as their letters in Hebrew characters because ten books are double, being reckoned as five. Now we have spoken clearly concerning this in another place. Now they also have two other books in dispute, the Wisdom of Sirach and the one of Solomon, separate from some other apocryphal books.”
- Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion 8.6.1-4, Edmon L. Gallagher and John D. Meade, The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity: Texts and Analysis (Oxford, 2017), pp. 160-161.
“For if you were begotten from the Holy Spirit and instructed in the prophets and apostles, you must have gone through (the record) from the beginning of the genesis of the world until the times of Esther in twenty-seven books of the Old Covenant, which are numbered as twenty-two, and in the four holy gospels, and in fourteen epistles of the holy apostle Paul, and in the general epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude before these [and] with the Acts of the Apostles in their times, and in the Revelation of John, and in the Wisdom books, I mean of Solomon and of the son of Sirach, and in short having gone through all the Divine Scriptures, I say, you should have condemned yourself for bringing forward as not unfitting for God but actually pious towards God a word which is nowhere listed, the word ‘unbegotten’ (ἀγεννητός), nowhere mentioned in Divine Scripture.”
- Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion 76.22.5, Edmon L. Gallagher and John D. Meade, The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity: Texts and Analysis (Oxford, 2017), pp. 168-169
“The book of the Genesis of the World to one pair, the Exodus of the Israelites to another pair, that of Leviticus to another, and the next book in order to the next; and thus were translated the twenty-seven recognized canonical books, but twenty-two when counted according to the letters of the alphabet of the Hebrews. For the names of the letters are twenty-two. But there are five of them that have a double form, for k has a double form, and m and n and p and s. Therefore in this manner the books also are counted as twenty-two; but there are twenty-seven, because five of them are double. For Ruth is joined to Judges, and they are counted among the Hebrews (as) one book. The first (book) of Kingdoms is joined to the second and called one book; the third is joined to the fourth and becomes one book. First Paraleipomena is joined to Second and called one book. The first book of Ezra is joined to the second and becomes one book. So in this way the books are grouped into four "pentateuchs," and there are two others left over, so that the books of the (Old) Testament are as follows: the five of the Law—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy—this is the Pentateuch, otherwise the code of law; and five in verse----the book of Job, then of the Psalms, the Proverbs of Solomon, Koheleth, the Song of Songs. Then another "pentateuch" (of books) which are called the Writings, and by some the Hagiographa, which are as follows: Joshua the (son) of Nun, the book of Judges with Ruth, First and Second Paraleipomena, First and Second Kingdoms, Third and Fourth Kingdoms; and this is a third "pentateuch." Another "pentateuch" is the books of the prophets—the Twelve Prophets (forming) one book, Isaiah one, Jeremiah one, Ezekiel one, Daniel one—and again the prophetic "pentateuch" is filled up. But there remain two other books, which are (one of them) the two of Ezra that are counted as one, and the other the book of Esther. So twenty-two books are completed according to the number of the twenty-two letters of the Hebrews.For there are two (other) poetical books, that by Solomon called "Most Excellent," and that by Jesus the son of Sirach and grandson of Jesus—for his grandfather was named Jesus (and was) he who composed Wisdom in Hebrew, which his grandson, translating, wrote in Greek—which also are helpful and useful, but are not included in the number of the recognized; and therefore they were not kept in the chest, that is, in the ark of the covenant. But, further, this also should not escape you, O lover of the good, that the Hebrews have also divided the book of Psalms into five books, so that it is yet another "pentateuch." For from the first Psalm to the fortieth they reckon one book, and from the forty-first to the seventy-first they reckon a second; from the seventy-second to the eighty-eighth they make the third book; for the eighty-ninth to the one hundred fifth they make the fourth; from the one hundred sixth to the one hundred fiftieth they unite into the fifth. For every Psalm that had as its conclusion, "Blessed be the Lord, so be it, so be it," they thought to be appropriately the end of a book. And this is found in the fortieth and in the seventy-first and in the eighty-eighth and in the one hundred fifth, and (thus) the four books are completed. But the conclusion of the fifth book, instead of the "Blessed be the Lord, so be it, so be it," is "Let everything that breathes praise the Lord! Hallelujah!" For when they thus reckoned they thereby completed the whole matter. Thus they are twenty-seven; but they are counted as twenty-two, even with the book of Psalms and those by Jeremiah—I mean Lamentations and the epistles of Baruch and of Jeremiah, although the epistles are not in use among the Hebrews, but only Lamentations, which is joined to Jeremiah. In the way we have related they were translated. They were given to every pair of translators in rotation, and again from the first pair to the second, and from the second pair to the third; and thus they went, every one going around. And they were translated thirty-six times, as the story goes, both the twenty-two and the seventy-two that are apocryphal.”
“... On account of which the letters of the Hebrews are also twenty-two, which are these: Aleph, Bēth, Gimēl, Deled, Ē, Ouau, Zēth, Ēth, Tēth, Iōth, Chaph, Lamed, Mēm, Noun, Samech, Aїn, Phē, Sadē, Kōph, Rēs, Sin, Thau. Wherefore also there are twenty-two specified books of the Old Covenant, although on the one hand the Hebrews have twenty-seven (books) but on the other hand they are numbered as twenty-two since five of their letters are double: the Chaph is double, and the Mem, and the Noun, and the Phi, and the Sadi. For in this way the books are numbered. First, Birsēth, which is called Genesis of the World. Elēsimath, the Exodus of the Sons of Israel out of Egypt. Ouaїekra, which is translated Leviticus. Ouaїdabēr, which is Numbers. Elledebareim, Deuteronomy. Diēsou, the one of Joshua son of Naue. Diōb, the one of Job. Desōphteim, the one of the Judges. Derouth, the one of Ruth. Spherteleim, the Psalter. Debriiamein, the first of the Paralipomenon. Debriiamein, second of Paralipomenon. Desamouēl, first of Kingdoms. Dadoudesamouēl, second of Kingdoms. Dmalacheim, third of Kingdoms. Dmalacheim, fourth of Kingdoms. Dmethalōth, the one of Proverbs. Dekōeleth, Ecclesiastes Sirathsirein, the Song of Songs. Dathariasara, the Twelve Prophets. Dēsaїou, of the prophet Isaiah. Dieremiou, the one of Jeremiah. Diezekēl, the one of Ezekiel. Dedaniēl, the one of Daniel. Desdra, the one of first Esdras. Desdra, the one of second Esdras. Desthēr, the one of Esther. Now these twenty-seven books are numbered as twenty-two according to the number of the letters, since also five letters are double, just as we said above. And there is another small book, which is called Kinōth, which is translated Lamentations of Jeremiah. This one is joined to Jeremiah, which is beyond the number and joined to Jeremiah.”
- Epiphanius of Salamis, Of Measures and Weights 22-23, Edmon L. Gallagher and John D. Meade, The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity: Texts and Analysis (Oxford, 2017), pp. 166-167.
“The law of the Old Testament is reckoned in twenty-two books, that they might fit the number of Hebrew letters. They are counted according to the tradition of the ancient fathers, so that those of Moses are five books; the sixth of Joshua; the seventh of Judges and Ruth; the eighth of the first and second of Kings; the tenth of the two books called theChronicles; the eleventh of Ezra, (wherein Nehemiah was comprehended:) the book of Psalms made the twelfth; the Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, made the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth; the twelve prophets made the sixteenth; then Isaiah, and Jeremy, together with his Lamentations and his Epistle, (now the twenty-ninth chapter of his prophecy) Daniel, and Ezekiel, and Job, and Esther, made up the full number of twenty-two books.”64656667
- Hilary of Poitiers, Sancti Hilarii Pictaviensis Episcopi Tractatus Super Psalmos, Prologue 15, Testamenti Veteris libri XXII, aut 24. Tres linguae praecipuae. Patrologia Latina 9:241. Translation by Dr. Michael Woodward, Associate Library Director, Archbishop Vehr Theological Library.
“It is indeed true that St. Clement, a disciple of the Apostle Peter, wrote in the Eighth Constitution (διάταξις) regarding the canons, as your Fraternity has written, that there are five books of Solomon, but he does not distinguish and name clearly which those books are; while there are only three according to the holy doctors that you have mentioned: Athanasius, Basil, Gregory, Amphilochius, and, before them, Eusebius of Caesarea, with many others who followed them. [...] These words embarrassed and surprised you, so you now ask me — although I am as embarrassed and as surprised as you — why Clement said five, while the Doctors said three, a fact which is true and absolutely true, but which I do not understand and do not promise to explain. I only write what I think is correct, which at least has a semblance of truth. So I hasten to say that Clement counted five books of Solomon because he assigned to him also the Wisdom, that admirable book, and because he divided the book of Proverbs into two books, because some also share the idea that these are two books that were collected and placed together, starting at the place where are mentioned the Proverbs written by “friends” of Hezekiah, until the end. That’s what I think that I can say about the text of Clement. As to the text of the doctors who mentions only three books (of Solomon), I say they do have three, because they speak only of the books defined canonically by the Church as proto-canonical books, and because they make only one book and not two of the whole book of Proverbs. All these ideas derive from my limited and humble opinion; as for the real truth, we leave that to be learned from the Spirit, the writer of the (holy) books; however, for your Fraternity’s tranquillity and comfort, I thought that I would send you with this a copy of a small treatise that I wrote about the Wisdom, this book so admirable that many attribute it to Solomon, from the time when I was applying myself with love of work to revise this book with the others. That’s all for the first question in your Fraternity’s letter. Let’s look at the second question: Why are these books not counted among the canonical books of the Church? I speak of the great Wisdom and of Jesus son of Sirach, and of many others which are rejected, like Tobit and those of the women Esther and Judith, and the three (books) on the Maccabees.I will answer again, that the truth is exactly known to the prophetic, apostolic and learned Spirit. I also would like to tell you the opinion of my feeble intelligence: it is that they are not entirely composed of words revealed by the (Holy) Spirit or of prophecies from God, but that they contain either words of human wisdom written by pious men, or stories about holy and pious men themselves, which is why they were separated from the number of the canonical books of the Church, and were placed for special reading outside of the (books) for regular use in the correction and correcting of morals, actions and deeds, for those who are of a very teachable spirit, and want to hear some useful and loving advice for word and deed and for the knowledge of good conduct.”69
“That the Hebrews have twenty-two letters is testified also by the Syrian and Chaldaaen languages, which for the most part correspond to the Hebrew; for they have twenty-two elementary sounds which are pronounced the same way, but are differently written. The Samaritans also write the Pentateuch of Moses with just the same number of letters, differing only in the shape and points of the letters. And it is certain that Esdras, the scribe and teacher of the law, after the capture of Jerusalem and the restoration of the temple by Zerubbabel, invented other letters which we now use, for up to that time the Samaritan and Hebrew characters were the same. In the book of Numbers, moreover, where we have the census of the Levites and priests [Num. 3:39], the same total is presented mystically. And we find the four-lettered name of the Lord [tetragrammaton] in certain Greek books written to this day in the ancient characters. The thirty-seventh Psalm, moreover, the one hundred and eleventh, the one hundred and twelfth, the one hundred and nineteenth, and the one hundred and forty-fifth, although they are written in different metres, are all composed [as acrostics] according to an alphabet of the same number of letters. The Lamentations of Jeremiah, and his Prayer, the Proverbs of Solomon also, towards the end, from the place where we read "Who will find a steadfast woman?" are instances of the same number of letters forming the division into sections. Furthermore, five are double letters, viz., Caph, Mem, Nun, Phe, Sade, for at the beginning and in the middle of words they are written one way, and at the end another way. Whence it happens that, by most people, five of the books are reckoned as double, viz., Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, and Jeremiah with Kinoth, i.e., his Lamentations. As, then, there are twenty-two elementary characters by means of which we write in Hebrew all we say, and the human voice is comprehended within their limits, so we reckon twenty-two books, by which, as by the alphabet of the doctrine of God, a righteous man is instructed in tender infancy, and, as it were, while still at the breast. The first of these books is called Bresith, to which we give the name Genesis. The second, Elle Smoth, which bears the name Exodus; the third, Vaiecra, that is Leviticus; the fourth, Vaiedabber, which we call Numbers; the fifth, Elle Addabarim, which is entitled Deuteronomy. These are the five books of Moses, which they properly call Thorath, that is, 'Law.' The second class is composed of the Prophets, and they begin with Jesus the son of Nave, which among them is called Joshua ben Nun. Next in the series is Sophtim, that is the book of Judges; and in the same book they include Ruth, because the events narrated occurred in the days of the Judges. Then comes Samuel, which we call First and Second Kings. The fourth is Malachim, that is, Kings, which is contained in the third and fourth volumes of Kings. And it is far better to say Malachim, that is Kings, than Malachoth, that is Kingdoms. For the author does not describe the Kingdoms of many nations, but that of one people, the people of Israel, which is comprised in the twelve tribes. The fifth is Isaiah; the sixth, Jeremiah; the seventh, Ezekiel; and the eighth is the book of the Twelve Prophets, which is called among them Thare Asra. To the third class belong the Hagiographa, of which the first book begins with Job; the second with David, whose writings they divide into five parts and comprise in one volume of Psalms. The third is Solomon, in three books: Proverbs, which they call Parables, that is Masaloth; Ecclesiastes, that is Coeleth; and the Song of Songs, which they denote by the title Sir Assirim. The sixth is Daniel; the seventh, Dabre Aiamim, that is, Words of Days, which we may more descriptively call a chronicle of the whole of the sacred history, the book that amongst us is called First and Second Paralipomenon [Chronicles]. The eighth is Ezra, which itself is likewise divided amongst Greeks and Latins into two books; the ninth is Esther. And so there are also twenty-two books of the Old Law; that is, five of Moses, eight of the prophets, nine of the Hagiographa, though some include Ruth and Kinoth (Lamentations) amongst the Hagiographa, and think that these books ought to be reckoned separately; we should thus have twenty-four books of the ancient Law. And these the Apocalypse of John represents by the twenty-four elders, who adore the Lamb and offer their crowns with lowered visage, while in their presence stand the four living creatures with eyes before and behind, that is, looking to the past and the future, and with unwearied voice crying, "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, who was and is and will be." This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a helmeted [i.e. defensive] introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is outside of them must be placed aside among the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd [of Hermes?] are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees is found in Hebrew, but the second is Greek, as can be proved from the very style. Although these things are thus, I beseech you, my reader, not to think that my labours are intended to disparage the ancients [i.e. the translators of the older versions]. For the service of the tabernacle of God each one offers what he can; some gold and silver and precious stones, others linen and blue and purple and scarlet; we shall do well if we offer skins and goats' hair [cf. Exod.25:3-5]. And yet the Apostle pronounces our more contemptible things more necessary than others [1 Cor. 12:22]. Accordingly, the beauty of the tabernacle as a whole and in its several kinds (and the ornaments of the church present and future) was covered with skins and goat-hair cloths, and the heat of the sun and the injurious rain were warded off by those things which are of less account. First read, then, my Samuel and Kings; mine, I say, mine. For whatever by diligent translation and by anxious emendation we have learnt and made our own, is ours. And when you understand something of which you were before ignorant, reckon me a translator if you are grateful, or a paraphraser if ungrateful, although I am not in the least conscious of having deviated from the Hebrew original. At all events, if you are incredulous, read the Greek and Latin manuscripts and compare them with these poor efforts of mine, and wherever you see they disagree, ask some Hebrew in whom you can have more faith, and if he confirm our view, I suppose you will not think him a soothsayer and suppose that he and I have, in rendering the same passage, divined alike. But I ask you also, handmaidens of Christ, who anoint the head of your reclining Lord with the most precious myrrh of faith, who by no means seek the Saviour in the tomb, for whom Christ has long since ascended to the Father—I beg you to confront with the shields of your prayers the dogs who bark and rage against me with rabid mouths, and who go about the city, and think themselves learned if they disparage others. Knowing my lowliness, I will always remember what we are told: "I said, I will take heed to my ways that I offend not in my tongue. I have set a guard upon my mouth while the sinner standeth against me. I became dumb, and was humbled, and kept silence from good words." [Psalm 38:2-3]”74757677
- Jerome of Stridon, Prologue to the Books of the Kings, this English translation is based upon W. H. Fremantle's (with just a couple of changes to make the translation more literal), which appeared in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, second series, vol. 6, St. Jerome; Letters and Select Works (Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1893).
“Genesis, we shall be told, needs no explanation; its topics are too simple—the birth of the world, the origin of the human race, the division of the earth, the confusion of tongues, and the descent of the Hebrews into Egypt! Exodus, no doubt, is equally plain, containing as it does merely an account of the ten plagues, the decalogue, and sundry mysterious and divine precepts! The meaning of Leviticus is of course self-evident, although every sacrifice that it describes, nay more every word that it contains, the description of Aaron’s vestments, and all the regulations connected with the Levites are symbols of things heavenly! The book of Numbers too—are not its very figures, and Balaam’s prophecy, and the forty-two camping places in the wilderness so many mysteries? Deuteronomy also, that is the second law or the foreshadowing of the law of the gospel,—does it not, while exhibiting things known before, put old truths in a new light? So far the ‘five words’ of the Pentateuch, with which the apostle boasts his wish to speak in the Church. Then, as for Job, that pattern of patience, what mysteries are there not contained in his discourses? Commencing in prose the book soon glides into verse and at the end once more reverts to prose. By the way in which it lays down propositions, assumes postulates, adduces proofs, and draws inferences, it illustrates all the laws of logic. Single words occurring in the book are full of meaning. To say nothing of other topics, it prophesies the resurrection of men’s bodies at once with more clearness and with more caution than any one has yet shewn. “I know,” Job says, “that my redeemer liveth, and that at the last day I shall rise again from the earth; and I shall be clothed again with my skin, and in my flesh shall I see God. Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another. This my hope is stored up in my own bosom.” I will pass on to Jesusthe son of Nave [i.e. - Joshua]—a type of the Lord in name as well as in deed—who crossed over Jordan, subdued hostile kingdoms, divided the land among the conquering people and who, in every city, village, mountain, river, hill-torrent, and boundary which he dealt with, marked out the spiritual realms of the heavenly Jerusalem, that is, of the church. In the book of Judges every one of the popular leaders is a type. Ruth the Moabitess fulfils the prophecy of Isaiah:—”Send thou a lamb, O Lord, as ruler of the land from the rock of the wilderness to the mount of the daughter of Zion.” Under the figures of Eli’s death and the slaying of Saul Samuel shews the abolition of the old law. Again in Zadok and in David he bears witness to the mysteries of the new priesthood and of the new royalty. The third and fourth books of Kings called in Hebrew Malâchim give the history of the kingdom of Judah from Solomon to Jeconiah, and of that of Israel from Jeroboam the son of Nebat to Hoshea who was carried away into Assyria. If you merely regard the narrative, the words are simple enough, but if you look beneath the surface at the hidden meaning of it, you find a description of the small numbers of the church and of the wars which the heretics wage against it. The twelve prophets whose writings are compressed within the narrow limits of a single volume, have typical meanings far different from their literal ones. Hosea speaks many times of Ephraim, of Samaria, of Joseph, of Jezreel, of a wife of whoredoms and of children of whoredoms, of an adulteress shut up within the chamber of her husband, sitting for a long time in widowhood and in the garb of mourning, awaiting the time when her husband will return to her. Joel the son of Pethuel describes the land of the twelve tribes as spoiled and devastated by the palmerworm, the canker-worm, the locust, and the blight, and predicts that after the overthrow of the former people the Holy Spirit shall be poured out upon God’s servants and handmaids; the same spirit, that is, which was to be poured out in the upper chamber at Zion upon the one hundred and twenty believers. These believers rising by gradual and regular gradations from one to fifteen form the steps to which there is a mystical allusion in the “psalms of degrees.” Amos, although he is only “an herdman” from the country, “a gatherer of sycomore fruit,” cannot be explained in a few words. For who can adequately speak of the three transgressions and the four of Damascus, of Gaza, of Tyre, of Idumæa, of Moab, of the children of Ammon, and in the seventh and eighth place of Judah and of Israel? He speaks to the fat kine that are in the mountain of Samaria, and bears witness that the great house and the little house shall fall. He sees now the maker of the grasshopper, now the Lord, standing upon a wall daubed or made of adamant, now a basket of apples that brings doom to the transgressors, and now a famine upon the earth “not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord.” Obadiah, whose name means the servant of God, thunders against Edom red with blood and against the creature born of earth. He smites him with the spear of the spirit because of his continual rivalry with his brother Jacob. Jonah, fairest of doves, whose shipwreck shews in a figure the passion of the Lord, recalls the world to penitence, and while he preaches to Nineveh, announces salvation to all the heathen. Micah the Morasthite a joint heir with Christ announces the spoiling of the daughter of the robber and lays siege against her, because she has smitten the jawbone of the judge of Israel. Nahum, the consoler of the world, rebukes “the bloody city” and when it is overthrown cries:—”Behold upon the mountains the feet of him that bringeth good tidings.” Habakkuk, like a strong and unyielding wrestler, stands upon his watch and sets his foot upon the tower that he may contemplate Christ upon the cross and say “His glory covered the heavens and the earth was full of his praise. And his brightness was as the light; he had horns coming out of his hand: and there was the hiding of his power.” Zephaniah, that is the bodyguard and knower of the secrets of the Lord, hears “a cry from the fishgate, and an howling from the second, and a great crashing from the hills.” He proclaims “howling to the inhabitants of the mortar; for all the people of Canaan are undone; all they that were laden with silver are cut off.” Haggai, that is he who is glad or joyful, who has sown in tears to reap in joy, is occupied with the rebuilding of the temple. He represents the Lord (the Father, that is) as saying “Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land; and I will shake all nations and he who is desired of all nations shall come.” Zechariah, he that is mindful of his Lord, gives us many prophecies. He sees Jesus, “clothed with filthy garments,” a stone with seven eyes, a candle-stick all of gold with lamps as many as the eyes, and two olive trees on the right side of the bowl and on the left. After he has described the horses, red, black, white, and grisled, and the cutting off of the chariot from Ephraim and of the horse from Jerusalem he goes on to prophesy and predict a king who shall be a poor man and who shall sit “upon a colt the foal of an ass.” Malachi, the last of all the prophets, speaks openly of the rejection of Israel and the calling of the nations. “I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand. For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same, my name is great among the Gentiles: and in every place incense is offered unto my name, and a pure offering.” As for Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel, who can fully understand or adequately explain them? The first of them seems to compose not a prophecy but a gospel. The second speaks of a rod of an almond tree and of a seething pot with its face toward the north, and of a leopard which has changed its spots. He also goes four times through the alphabet in different metres. The beginning and ending of Ezekiel, the third of the four, are involved in so great obscurity that like the commencement of Genesis they are not studied by the Hebrews until they are thirty years old. Daniel, the fourth and last of the four prophets, having knowledge of the times and being interested in the whole world, in clear language proclaims the stone cut out of the mountain without hands that overthrows all kingdoms. David, who is our Simonides, Pindar, and Alcæus, our Horace, our Catullus, and our Serenus all in one, sings of Christ to his lyre; and on a psaltery with ten strings calls him from the lower world to rise again. Solomon, a lover of peace and of the Lord, corrects morals, teaches nature, unites Christ and the church, and sings a sweet marriage song to celebrate that holy bridal. Esther, a type of the church, frees her people from danger and, after having slain Haman whose name means iniquity, hands down to posterity a memorable day and a great feast. The book of things omitted or epitome of the old dispensation is of such importance and value that without it any one who should claim to himself a knowledge of the scriptures would make himself a laughing stock in his own eyes. Every name used in it, nay even the conjunction of the words, serves to throw light on narratives passed over in the books of Kings and upon questions suggested by the gospel. Ezra and Nehemiah, that is the Lord’s helper and His consoler, are united in a single book. They restore the Temple and build up the walls of the city. In their pages we see the throng of the Israelites returning to their native land, we read of priests and Levites, of Israel proper and of proselytes; and we are even told the several families to which the task of building the walls and towers was assigned. These references convey one meaning upon the surface, but another below it. You see how, carried away by my love of the scriptures, I have exceeded the limits of a letter yet have not fully accomplished my object. We have heard only what it is that we ought to know and to desire, so that we too may be able to say with the psalmist:—”My soul breaketh out for the very fervent desire that it hath alway unto thy judgments.” But the saying of Socrates about himself—”this only I know that I know nothing”—is fulfilled in our case also.
The New Testament I will briefly deal with. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the Lord’s team of four, the true cherubim or store of knowledge. With them the whole body is full of eyes, they glitter as sparks, they run and return like lightning, their feet are straight feet, and lifted up, their backs also are winged, ready to fly in all directions. They hold together each by each and are interwoven one with another: like wheels within wheels they roll along and go whithersoever the breath of the Holy Spirit wafts them. The apostle Paul writes to seven churches (for the eighth epistle—that to the Hebrews—is not generally counted in with the others). He instructs Timothy and Titus; he intercedes with Philemon for his runaway slave. Of him I think it better to say nothing than to write inadequately. The Acts of the Apostles seem to relate a mere unvarnished narrative descriptive of the infancy of the newly born church; but when once we realize that their author is Luke the physician whose praise is in the gospel, we shall see that all his words are medicine for the sick soul. The apostles James, Peter, John, and Jude, have published seven epistles at once spiritual and to the point, short and long, short that is in words but lengthy in substance so that there are few indeed who do not find themselves in the dark when they read them. The apocalypse of John has as many mysteries as words. In saying this I have said less than the book deserves. All praise of it is inadequate; manifold meanings lie hid in its every word. I beg of you, my dear brother, to live among these books, to meditate upon them, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else.”78
“Let her treasures be not silks or gems but manuscripts of the holy scriptures; and in these let her think less of gilding, and Babylonian parchment, and arabesque patterns, than of correctness and accurate punctuation. Let her begin by learning the psalter, and then let her gather rules of life out of the proverbs of Solomon. From the Preacher[i.e.- Ecclesiastes] let her gain the habit of despising the world and its vanities. Let her follow the example set in Job of virtue and of patience. Then let her pass on to the gospels never to be laid aside when once they have been taken in hand. Let her also drink in with a willing heart the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles. As soon as she has enriched the storehouse of her mind with these treasures, let her commit to memory the prophets, the heptateuch, the books of Kings and of Chronicles, the rolls also of Ezra and Esther. When she has done all these she may safely read the Song of Songs but not before: for, were she to read it at the beginning, she would fail to perceive that, though it is written in fleshly words, it is a marriage song of a spiritual bridal. And not understanding this she would suffer hurt from it. Let her avoid all apocryphal writings, and if she is led to read such not by the truth of the doctrines which they contain but out of respect for the miracles contained in them; let her understand that they are not really written by those to whom they are ascribed, that many faulty elements have been introduced into them, and that it requires infinite discretion to look for gold in the midst of dirt. Cyprian’s writings let her have always in her hands. The letters of Athanasius and the treatises of Hilary she may go through without fear of stumbling. Let her take pleasure in the works and wits of all in whose books a due regard for the faith is not neglected. But if she reads the works of others let it be rather to judge them than to follow them.”79
“Among the Hebrews, the book of Judith is read among the Hagiographa; its authority is judged to be less suitable for reinforcing those things that come into contention.”8081
- Jerome of Stridon, Prologue to Judith, SACRED BIBLE VULGATE, vol. 1, p. 691.
“This prologue of the Scriptures, as a helmeted introduction to all the books that we have translated from Hebrew into Latin, can serve to inform us that anything outside of these should be set aside among the apocrypha. Therefore, the Wisdom which is commonly inscribed as of Solomon, and the book of Jesus son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobit, and the Shepherd are not in the canon. I found the first book of the Maccabees in Hebrew; the second is Greek, which can be proven from its very nature.”8283
- Jerome of Stridon, Prologue to the Books of Kings, SACRED BIBLE VULGATE.
“Simon Peter ... wrote two epistles which are called catholic, the second of which, on account of its difference from the first in style, is considered by many not to be by him. Then too the gospel according to Mark, who was his hearer and interpreter, is said to be his. On the other hand, the books of which one is entitled his acts, another his gospel, a third his preaching, a fourth his revelation, a fifth his judgment, are repudiated as apocryphal.”84
- Jerome, On Famous Men, Chapter 1.
“This must be said to our people, that the epistle which is entitled "To the Hebrews" is accepted as the apostle Paul's not only by the churches of the east but by all church writers in the Greek language of earlier times, although many judge it to be by Barnabas or by Clement. It is of no great moment who the author is, since it is the work of a churchman and receives recognition day by day in the public reading of the churches. If the custom of the Latins does not receive it among the canonical scriptures, neither, by the same liberty, do the churches of the Greeks accept John's Apocalypse. Yet we accept them both, not following the custom of the present time but the precedent of early writers, who generally make free use of testimonies from both works.And this they do, not as they are wont on occasion to quote from apocryphal writings, as indeed they use examples from pagan literature, but treating them as canonical and churchly works.”8586
- Jerome, Letter to Dardanus, prefect of Gaul (Ad Dardanum, no. 129 § 3).
“Both sinners and just are saved by the Lord’s propitiation - as the apostle Paul says: ‘We are reconciled to God by the blood of his Son’ (Rom 5:10); and it is said concerning sinners that they have the measure of half a cubit round about, who nevertheless may be saved by the Creator's mercy. This agrees with what is written in the Psalm: ‘You shall save them for nothing’ (Ps 56:7). Concerning the just — they are saved in one group, solitary and perfect, in imitation of the one divinity . For the Apostle says, ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself’ (2 Cor 5:19). Now as for what is recorded at the end of this citation, and its steps turned toward the east, we ought to understand the steps of this propitiatory either of the twenty-four books of Old Instrument, who had harps in the Apocalypse of John and crowns on their heads (cf. Rev 5:8); or of the mystery of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in whom true propitiation is given to us.”8788
- Jerome of Stridon, “Commentary on Ezekiel” (410-414) 13.43:13-17, CCSL 75:635, in: Jerome, “Commentary on Ezekiel,” trans. Thomas P. Scheck, Newman Press, New York 2017, p. 508.
“Observe, further, that there are two and twenty books of the Old Testament, one for each letter of the Hebrew tongue. For there are twenty-two letters of which five are double, and so they come to be twenty-seven. For the letters Caph, Mem, Nun, Pe, Sade are double. And thus the number of the books in this way is twenty-two, but is found to be twenty-seven because of the double character of five. For Ruth is joined on to Judges, and the Hebrews count them one book: the first and second books of Kings are counted one: and so are the third and fourth books of Kings: and also the first and second of Paraleipomena: and the first and second of Esdra. In this way, then, the books are collected together in four Pentateuchs and two others remain over, to form thus the canonical books. Five of them are of the Law, viz. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. This which is the code of the Law, constitutes the first Pentateuch. Then comes another Pentateuch, the so-called Grapheia, or as they are called by some, the Hagiographa, which are the following: Jesus the Son of Nave, Judges along with Ruth, first and second Kings, which are one book, third and fourth Kings, which are one book, and the two books of the Paraleipomena which are one book. This is the second Pentateuch. The third Pentateuch is the books in verse, viz. Job, Psalms, Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes of Solomon and the Song of Songs of Solomon. The fourth Pentateuch is the Prophetical books, viz the twelve prophets constituting one book, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel. Then come the two books of Esdra made into one, and Esther. There are also the Panaretus, that is the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Jesus, which was published in Hebrew by the father of Sirach, and afterwards translated into Greek by his grandson, Jesus, the Son of Sirach. These are virtuous and noble, but are not counted nor were they placed in the ark. The New Testament contains four gospels, that according to Matthew, that according to Mark, that according to Luke, that according to John: the Acts of the Holy Apostles by Luke the Evangelist: seven catholic epistles, viz. one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude: fourteen letters of the Apostle Paul: the Revelation of John the Evangelist: the Canons of the holy apostles, by Clement.”90
“The twenty-two books included in the Old Testament: 1. Bereshith, that is, in the beginning he created [i.e. - Genesis]. 2. Shemot, that is, here are the names [i.e. - Exodus]. 3. Vayikra, that is, and he called [i.e. - Leviticus]. 4. Bamidbar, Numbers. 5. Devarim, Deuteronomy, these are the words. 6. Joshua, son of Nun. 7. Judges. 8. Ruth. 9. Samuel, which translates to "called." 10. And King David, that is, King David. 11. The words of the days. 12. Ezra, the scribe, book. 13. Tehillim, that is, the book of Psalms. 14. Proverbs. 15. Ecclesiastes. 16. Song of Songs. 17. Twelve Prophets. 18. Isaiah. 19. Jeremiah. 20. Ezekiel. 21. Daniel. 22. Job. Besides these, Esther and the books of the Maccabees, titled Sarbeth Sabanaiel.”9293
- Jossepus, Hypomnestikon, cited in Joseph the Christian’s Bible notes: Hypomnestikon, 1996, pages 86-87.
“They [i.e. - Chronicles, Job, Ezra, Judith, Esther, Maccabees] are not included among the Canonical Scriptures, because they were received among the Hebrews only in a secondary rank, as Jerome and others testify.”9596
“Of the Old Testament there are twenty-two books... The historical books are twelve... The first five, called the Pentateuch, are according to universal testimony the books of Moses: those which follow are of unknown authors, namely Joshua... Judges... Ruth... Kings (in two books)... Chronicles... Ezra... The prophetic books are five, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, the twelve prophets... The didactic books are four, Job, which some thought to be a composition of Josephus, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles… These three books are Solomon’s. The Psalter follows. [In these] you have the books of the Old Scripture. Of the New there are six books. Of these two contain the four Evangelists, the first Matthew and Mark, the second, Luke and John. The third is the Acts of the Apostles. The fourth the Catholic Epistles, in number seven...They are called catholic or general, because they are not written to one nation, as those of St Paul, but generally to all. The fifth is the fourteen Epistles of St Paul. The sixth, the Apocalypse of St John. These are the books reckoned as canonical in the Church, both old and new; of which the Hebrews receive all the old.”9899
- Leontius of Jerusalem, cited by B. F. Westcott, A General Survey Of the History Of the Canon Of the New Testament, 1896, Seventh Edition, Macmillan & Co. Ltd. London, p. 568.
“I accordingly proceeded to the East, and went to the very spot where the things in question were preached and took place; and, having made myself accurately acquainted with the books of the Old Testament, I have set them down below, and herewith send you the list. Their names are as follows:— The five books of Moses—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, the two of Chronicles, the book of the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, also called the Book of Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job, the books of the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, of the twelve contained in a single book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From these I have made my extracts, dividing them into six books.”101
“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, Dabreïamein, 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, Meloth; Ecclesiastes, Koelth; the Song of Songs (not, as some suppose, Songs 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.””105106107108
“In one way, fore and aft, because the Church everywhere bearing fruit is broadened; it walks in the light of the face of God, and, his face revealed, gazes on the glory of God. In another way, fore and aft, he implies that the six-fold wings, which number twenty-four, are the books of the Old Testament, which we take up on canonical authority of the same number, just as there are twenty-four elders sitting above the thrones.”111112
- Primasius, Commentary on the Apocalypse of John, Book I, Chapter IV. Translation by Benjamin Panciera, The Medieval Institute, University of Notre Dame.
RUFINUS OF AQUILEIA - A.K.A.: RUFINUS TYRANNIUS (340-410 AD)
“And therefore it seems proper in this place to enumerate, as we have learnt from the tradition of the Fathers, the books of the New and of the Old Testament, which according to the tradition of our forefathers, are believed to have been inspired by the Holy Ghost, and have handed down to the churches of Christ. Of the Old Testament, therefore, first of all there have been handed down five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; then Jesus Nave, (Joshua the son of Nun), the Book of Judges together with Ruth; then four books of Kings (Reigns), which the Hebrews reckon two; the book of Omissions, which is entitled the Book of Days (Chronicles), and two books of Ezra (Ezra and Nehemiah), which the Hebrews reckon one, and Esther; of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; moreover of the twelve minor Prophets, one book; Job also and the Psalms of David, each one book. Solomon gave three books to the Churches, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles. These comprise the books of the Old Testament. Of the New there are four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; the Acts of the Apostles, written by Luke; fourteen Epistles of the apostle Paul, two of the Apostle Peter, one of James, brother of the Lord and Apostle, one of Jude, three of John, the Revelation of John. These are the books which the Fathers have comprised within the Canon, and from which they would have us deduce the proofs of our faith. But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not ‘Canonical’ but ‘Ecclesiastical:’ that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees. In the New Testament the little book which is called the Book of the Pastor of Hermas (and that) which is called the Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter; all of which they would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they have named ‘Apocrypha.’ These they would not have read in the Churches. These are the traditions which the fathers have handed down to us, which, as I said, I have thought it opportune to set forth in this place, for the instruction of those who are being taught the first elements of the Church and of the Faith, that they may know from what fountains of the Word of God their draughts must be taken.”114115116
- Rufinus, NPNF2, Vol. 3, Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed, 36.117
SYNOPSIS OF SACRED SCRIPTURE (APPROX. 6th CENTURY AD)
“All of our Christian Scriptures are inspired by God, and these books are not indefinite but set apart and designated as canonical.And the books of the Old Testament are these:Genesis, which begins, ‘In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth’; Exodus, which begins ‘These are the names of the sons of Israel that came into Egypt’; Leviticus, which begins ‘And the Lord called Moses again and spoke to him out of the tabernacle of witness’; Numbers, which begins ‘And the Lord spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sina, in the tabernacle of witness’; Deuteronomy, which begins ‘These are the words which Moses spoke to all Israel on this side Jordan in the desert towards the west near the Red Sea’; Joshua son of Naue, which begins ‘And it came to pass after the death of Moses, that the Lord spoke to Joshua the son of Naue, the minister of Moses, saying’; Judges, which begins ‘And it came to pass after the death of Joshua, that the children of Israel enquired of the Lord, saying, Who shall go up for us first against the Chananites, to fight against them?’; Ruth, which begins ‘And it came to pass when the judges ruled, that there was a famine in the land’; First and Second Kings, which are counted as one book, in which the first begins ‘There was a man of Armathaim Sipha, of mount Ephraim, and his name was Helkana, a son of Jeremeel the son of Elias’, and in which the second begins, ‘And it came to pass after Saul was dead, that David returned from smiting Amalec’; Third and Fourth Kings, which are likewise counted as one book, in which the third begins, ‘And king David was old and advanced in days, and they covered him with clothes, and he was not warmed’, and the fourth begins, ‘And Moab rebelled against Israel after the death of Achaab’; Paralipomenon First and Second, which are counted as one book, of which the first begins, ‘Adam, Seth, Enos, and Cainan, Maleleel, Jared, Enoch, Mathusala, Lamech, Noe’, and the second begins, ‘And Solomon the son of David was established over his kingdom, and the Lord his God was with him, and increased him exceedingly’; First and Second Esdras, which are counted as one book, in which the first begins, ‘Josias kept the passover to his Lord in Jerusalem; he killed the passover lamb on the fourteenth day of the first month’, and the second begins, ‘Now in the first year of Cyrus king of the Persians, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremias might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of the Persians’; The Psalms of David, which includes 151 Psalms, the first one beginning with ‘Blessed is the man who has not walked in the counsel of the ungodly’; The Parables of Solomon, beginning with ‘The Proverbs of Solomon son of David, who reigned in Israel, to know wisdom and instruction’; Ecclesiastes by the same author, which begins ‘The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king of Israel in Jerusalem: vanity of vanities ... all is vanity’; Song of Songs by the same author, which begins ‘The Song of songs, which is Solomon’s: let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy breasts are better than wine’; Job, which begins ‘There was a certain man in the land of Ausis, whose name was Job; and that man was blameless and godly’; The Twelve Prophets, which are counted as one book; and of these Hosea is the first, which begins, ‘The word of the Lord which came to Osee the son of Beeri, in the days of Ozias, and Joatham, and Achaz, and Ezekias, kings of Juda, and in the days of Jeroboam son of Joas, king of Israel. The beginning of the word of the Lord by Osee’; next is Amos, which begins ‘The words of Amos which came to him in Accarim out of Thecue, which he saw concerning Jerusalem, in the days of Ozias king of Juda, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joas king of Israel, two years before the earthquake’; Michaeas [Micah], which begins ‘and the word of the Lord came to Michaeas the son of Morasthi, in the days of Joatham, and Achaz, and Ezekias, kings of Juda, concerning what he saw regarding Samaria and Jerusalem.’; Joel, which begins ‘The word of the Lord which came to Joel the son of Bathuel: hear these words, ye elders, and hearken all ye that inhabit the land’; Obdias [Obadiah], which begins, ‘The vision of Obdias: thus saith the Lord God to Idumea’; Jonas, which begins, ‘Now the word of the Lord came to Jonas the son of Amathi, saying, Rise, and go to Nineve, the great city’; Naum [Nahum], which begins ‘The burden of Nineve: the book of the vision of Naum the Elkesite’; Ambacum [Habakkuk], which begins ‘The burden which the prophet Ambacum saw’; Sophonias [Zephaniah], which begins ‘The word of the Lord which came to Sophonias the son of Chusi, the son of Godolias, the son of Amorias, the son of Ezekias, in the days of Josias son of Amon, king of Juda’; Aggaeus [Haggai], which begins ‘In the second year of Darius the king, in the sixth month, on the first day of the month, the word of the Lord came by the hand of the prophet Aggaeus, saying’; Zacharias, which begins ‘In the eighth month, in the second year of the reign of Darius, the word of the Lord came to Zacharias, the son of Barachias, the son of Addo, the prophet, saying’; Malachias, which begins ‘The burden of the word of the Lord to Israel by the hand of his messenger.’ These, then, are the Twelve in one book. And besides these, there are four others which have each one book: Esaias [Isaiah], which begins ‘The vision which Esaias the son of Amos saw, which he saw against Juda, and against Jerusalem, in the reign of Ozias, and Joatham, and Achaz, and Ezekias, who reigned over Judea: hear, O heaven, and hearken, O earth, for the Lord has spoken’; Jeremias, which begins ‘The word of God which came to Jeremias the son of Chelcias, of the priests’; Ezechiel, which begins ‘Now it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, on the fifth day of the month, that I was in the midst of the captivity by the river of Chobar; and the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God’; Daniel, which begins ‘There was a man living in Babylon whose name was Joakim, and he took a wife named Susanna, the daughter of Hilkiah, a very beautiful woman and one who feared the Lord’; Thus the canonical books of the Old Testament are twenty-two, corresponding with the number of letters in the Hebrew, for they have this many elementary signs.But aside from these there are moreover some other books with the Old Testament, which are not considered canonical, but which are only read to catechumens, which are these: The Wisdom of Solomon, which begins, ‘Love righteousness, ye rulers of the earth’; The Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach, which begins ‘All wisdom cometh from the Lord, and is with him forever’; Esther, which begins ‘In the second year of the reign of King Artaxerxes the Great, on the first day of Nisan, Mardochaeus the son of Jairus, the son of Semeias, the son of Cisaeus, of the tribe of Benjamin’; Judith, which begins, ‘In the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who ruled over the Assyrians in the great city of Nineveh, in the days of Arphaxad, who ruled over the Medes in Ecbatana’: Tobit, which begins, ‘The book of the words of Tobit the son of Tobiel, son of Ananiel, son of Aduel, son of Gabael, of the seed of Asiel and the tribe of Naphtali, who in the days of Enemessarus king of the Assyrians.’ Again, books such as these are not canonical. However, some of the ancients have said that, among the Hebrews, Esther is held to be canonical; and that, even as Ruth is included with the book of Judges, so Esther is also included with some other book, and by this means they would still complete the number of their canonical books at twenty-two. Such are the books belonging to the Old Testament, including those which are canonical and those which are not canonical.”121
- Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae, translated by Michael D. Marlowe, J.P. Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca, vol. 28 (Paris, 1887; volume 4 of the collected works of Athanasius), cols. 284-93 and 432. Link: https://www.bible-researcher.com/sss.html
“As regards the images that are in the Sacred Scripture, they ought to be understood in an allegorical sense. The dignity of Sacred Scripture is in this: that it has not only signifying words, but also signifying things, above all other ancient writings, whence also they are subservient to all the arts which are called 'liberal.' These books, then, about which we are talking, and which are drawn from Scripture, belong partly to the Old Testament and partly to the New. Indeed the Old Testament is divided into three orders:the Law, of which there are five books, the Prophets, of which there are eight books, and the Hagiographies of which there are nine books, altogether this makes twenty-two, which is also the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet, so that by as many books as just men of holy life are exerted to wisdom by as many letters they are instructed in eloquence from an early age. So these four, that is the matter of sacred Scripture, intelligence [understanding], dignity and the number of its books signify those four steps, (which we placed on the table which means Scripture of which we spoke, two leading from this source to that place). If you want to know more about these, read the first part of the book of Master Hugh, which is entitled De sacramentis [On the Sacraments].”124125
- Adam Scotus, De Tripartito Tabernaculo, Pars Secunda. De Tabernaculo Christi Quod Est In Fide. Caput VIII. Patrologia Latina 198:697B. Translation by Benjamin Panciera, The Medieval Institute, University of Notre Dame.
“It is a wondrous thing and exceedingly astounding! All of the Levites, whom Moses and Aaron counted according to the instruction of the Lord through their families on the male side at one table and beyond, were twenty-two thousand (just as the Hebrews had twenty-two letters and there are twenty-two books of divine authority in the Old Testament). That it is this same thing that is written in Deuteronomy: Then Moses wrote down this law, and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and to all the elders of Israel.”128
- Agobard of Lyons, To Bishop Bernard, concerning the privileges and rights of the priesthood VI, Patrologia Latina 107:133C.
“The Church can be signified in the twenty-four elders under a different interpretation on account of the perfection of six which is completed in the four books of the holy Gospel. For the number six is held as perfect, for this reason that in six days God is thought to have completed all his works and in the sixth age of the world it is told that he reformed man. And so since the Church fulfills the works of the Fathers of the Old and New Testaments completed in the six ages of the world, just as in six days, and the four books of the holy Gospel, it is all correctly described in twenty-four elders. For four times six makes twenty-four. Or certainly, since it uses twenty-four books of the older Testament which it accepts with canonical authority in which it also recognizes that the New Testament was revealed, the Church is therefore figured in twenty-four elders. For this reason, the preaching of the New Testament is fruitful since strengthened from the Old, just as the Church takes the number from these same [books], by which it is perfected in sanctity.”131132
- Ambrose Autpert, Expositionis in Apocalypsin, Libri III (4, 4). Translation by Benjamin Panciera, The Medieval Institute, University of Notre Dame.
“I, the prosecutor of false judges, and falsely imprisoned by their order, in my sojourn [in gaol] searched out the privileges of the king and the old rolls of his treasury, wherewith my friends solaced me, and there discovered the foundation and the generation of the customs of England which are established as law, and the guerdons of good judges and the punishment of others, and as briefly as I could I set in remembrance what is essential, for which end my companions aided me in the study of the Old Testament and the New, and the canon and the written law.
And we discovered that law is nothing else than the rules laid down by our holy predecessors in Holy Writ for the salvation of souls from everlasting damnation, although it be obscured by false judges. And we found that all Holy Writ consists of the Old Testament and of the New. The Old contains three divisions — the law, the prophets, and the hagiographers. In the law there are the five volumes of the Pentateuch: to wit. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. In the class of the prophets there are eight volumes : to wit, Joshua, Judges, Samuel (which is the First and Second of Kings) ; the fourth is Malachiel, concerning the kings, and contains the Third and Fourth Books of Kings ; the fifth is Isaiah, the sixth Jeremiah, the seventh Ezechiel, the eighth is the book of the twelve minor prophets. In the class of hagiographers there are nine volumes: to wit. Job, Psalms, Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Daniel, the Chronicles, Esdras, and Esther. And besides there are other books in the Old Testament, albeit they are not in the canon, such as Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, and what is therein of Solomon and Ecclesiastes. The New Testament contains the Evangelists, the Apostles, and the Holy Fathers. The Evangelists contain four volumes; the writings of the Apostles contain four, the Epistles of Paul, the Canonical Epistles, the Apocalypse, and the Acts of the Apostles. Of the writings of the Holy Fathers there is no certain number determined.”
“The Jews,... according to Jerome in his prologue Galeatus...created four divisions of the books of the Old Testament. The first they called the Law... the second the Prophets,...the third the Hagiography,...the fourth (which the Jews did not place in the canon of Holy Scriptures, but called Apocrypha) they made from the other five books, namely, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobias, and Maccabees, which was divided into two books; (whence) concerning these five books Jerome says in his Prologue to Judith, that their authority is judged less suitable to strengthen those things that come into dispute... And Thomas says the same thing in the Secunda secundae, and Nicholas of Lyra on Tobias, namely, that they are not of such authority, that it cannot be argued from their words over what is of the Faith, as from the other books of Holy Scripture.Whence, perhaps, they have as much authority as the words of the holy Doctors approved by the Church.”136137
- Sancti Antonini, Archiepiscopi Florentini, Summa Theologica, In Quattuor Partes Distributa, Pars Tertia, Tit xviii, Cap vi, Sect 2, De Dilatatione Praedicationis, Col 1043-1044. Translation by Benjamin Panciera, The Medieval Institute, University of Notre Dame.
“XVIII. While the testimony fitting to your error has failed your perversity in the prophets of God, you have established for yourself to speak of a certain new prophet: Have mercy, Lord, on the people called by your name, and on Israel whom your have named your firstborn! You have also added to this opinion such an interpretation: Equality itself, you say, is not in the divinity, but in the humanity alone and in the taken-on flesh, which he received from the Virgin. Behold the fraud in the name of a prophet! Behold the perversity in the interpretation of this idea. And not in vain is it fitting that the new scholar find for himself a new prophet. Just as King Jeroboam departing from the true worship of God established for himself new gods, that he, lost, might lead astray the people subject to him; concerning this it was forecast much earlier in Deuteronomy: He abandoned God who made him and scoffed at the Rock of his salvation; so you, departing from the true God and the proper Son of God, have established a nominative God and an adopted redeemer Son for yourself, whom our fathers did not know. But you have left the God who freed you and forgotten the God your redeemer. In the book of Jesus son of Sirach this aforementioned idea is read, which blessed Jerome and Isidore judged, without doubt, to be among the apocrypha, i.e. doubtful scriptures.”140141142143
- Alcuin, Adversus Elipandum Toletanum, Liber Primus XVIII. Translation by Benjamin Panciera, The Medieval Institute, University of Notre Dame.
“Question 1. First it is sought, how many books of Sacred Scripture there are and what are the orders of these books in their canons. To the first matter it ought to be said that we ask here concerning the books of either testament, old and new at once, which are counted in various ways. Certain people say that there are fifty books of sacred scripture and that they are signified through the fifty loops which were in the border of each curtain of the tabernacle of Moses. Peter of Aurora maintains this reckoning. Yet it ought to be said that it is not fitting since it is necessary that it divide some books and unify others, for if it be added according to a different count, by not dividing books, unless done so according to what is commonly accepted, one could only arrive at forty-four and six books would be lacking, as will be declared below. To this end therefore, that it might fill out those six, it will be necessary to divide some books that are not normally divided, of which there is one in the Old Testament, namely the twelve minor prophets. But there are two in the New Testament, namely the Epistles of Paul and the Canonical Epistles. It ought to be said about the book of twelve minor prophets that it is single in the Old Testament and so placed among the Jews in their canon as Jerome says in his prologue to the Books of Kings which begins: Twenty-two letters. Although within that book, any one of the twelve prophets might have its own book, which wouldn't deserve the title of 'book' on its own on account of its smallness. But if they divide the book of the twelve prophets, it is fitting that it be divided into twelve according to the number of their prophets and then there will be not just fifty but fifty-five books.
On the division of the books of the Old Testament, there is a variety of opinions since we are accustomed to count in one way and the Jews in another. The reason for this variety is that some books are kept by us which are never found among the Hebrews, such as the Book of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and second Maccabees, as Jerome says in his prologue. The second reason for this variety is that certain books, although they are found among the Hebrews, nevertheless are not placed in their canon, such as the Book of Judith and Tobit, as Jerome says in his prologue. Our reckoning is universal, because all of the books, as many as the Church reads and accepts, are counted of whatever subsection or canon they are, even if they are considered in the number of Apocrypha among the Jews, and because those books are counted according to the divisions which they commonly hold among the Latins and Greeks. In this way forty-four books are found, namely thirty-six of the Old Testament and eight of the New. They are counted thus: five books of Moses, one of Joshua, one of Judges, one of Ruth, four of Kings, two of Chronicles, three books of Ezra (we add there that one of them is very apocryphal about which the Church does not at all concern itself or read, nor does any of the doctors mention it, for this reason we do not place it in the number of books), one of David (namely the Psalms), which although it is divided into many parts for use by the Church and is considered divided into five sections among the Hebrews, it is nevertheless called a single book by both, one of Tobit, one of Judith, one of Esther, two of Maccabees, three of Solomon (namely Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs), one of Job, one of Wisdom, one of Ecclesiasticus which is called Jesus son of Sirach, four of the Great Prophets (namely Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel), and one of Lamentations of Jeremiah (as if divided from the book of its prophet), one of Baruk (who was a secretary of Jeremiah) on of the twelve minor Prophets (who are all contained in one book. And so there are at once thirty-six. Then the eight books of the New Testament complete the number forty-four books of all Sacred Scripture. Some place only thirty books of all scripture, namely twenty-two books of the Old and eight of the New Testament. How these are counted is clear in Jerome's prologue and will be declared in the following inquiry. Some establish thirty-two books of the New and Old Testament, namely eight of the New and twenty-four of the Old.. Jerome writes concerning this in the aforementioned prologue and it will be explained in the following question.
Question 2: There are some books that, although they are maintained by the Church, they nevertheless are not placed in the canon, since the Church does not associate the faith with them, nor does it order that they be regularly read or received, and does not judge those who do not accept them as disobedient or faithless.This is on account of two things: first, that the Church is not certain concerning their authors, nay, rather, it does not know, whether [their writers], inspired by the Holy Spirit, composed them...But, since there are doubts surrounding some books, concerning their authors, whether they were moved by the Holy Spirit, their authority is taken away and the Church does not place them in the canon of its books.Secondly, since the Church is not certain about such books, whether heretics added or subtracted something beyond that which they hold from their own authors. But such books the Church accepts, allowing individuals to read them: For it also reads them in its offices on account of the many faithful things that are contained in them. Yet it obligates nobody necessarily to believe what is contained there; as is from the books of Wisdom,...Ecclesiasticus,...Maccabees,...Judith...and Tobias. For, although those are received by Christians, and a demonstration taken from them might sometimes be useful, the Church maintains those books; yet they are not useful against heretics or Jews for proving those things that might come into doubt: Just as Jerome says in his prologue on Judith, namely, among the Hebrews the book of Judith is read as hagiography, whose authority is judged less suitable to strengthen those things that come into dispute. These things having been presupposed, it ought to be said that in the Old Testament certain books are placed in the canon and certain books are not. Those that are not placed, such as Judith, Tobit, the two books of Maccabees, Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus do not have any subsection or division within themselves; those that are in the canon do. It should be known that books placed in the canon have three subsections, the first of legal, the second of prophetal, the third of hagiographical books. In the first subsection of legal books are placed only the five books of Moses, which are called Thorach among the Jews, that is, the law. Others call them humas, that is, the five, since there are five books. And to this name corresponds a certain Greek name among us, namely, Pentateuch which means the five books of the law. And they are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. They are called the law because they contain only the law, or at least chiefly the law, since in them certain things of their history are inserted pertaining to those to whom the law was given. The second subsection of books is called prophetal or of the Prophets and contains eight books. The first is the book of Joshua; second Judges with which they place the book of Ruth; the third is the book of Samuel, which we call first and second Kings; fourth is Malachi, that is the Book of Kings, or according to other Malachoth, that is, Kingdoms. But, as Jerome says it is better called Malachi, that is Kings, than Malachoth, that is Kingdoms; fifth, Isaiah; sixth, Jeremiah; seventh, Ezekiel; eighth, the Book of the Twelve Minor Prophets, which among the Hebrews is a single volume. The Book of Daniel is not placed among the prophetal books but in the third subsection, hagiography. In this subsection are nine books. First is the book of Job; second David, namely the Psalter, which among the Hebrews is divided by five sections, but nevertheless is gathered in a single volume; third, Proverbs which is the first of the three books of Solomon and among the Hebrews is called Misle, that is parables; fourth, Ecclesiastes of the same Solomon, which among the Hebrews is called choeler, among the Greeks Ecclesiastes, among the Latins the haranguer. Nevertheless, the Greek name remains in use by us since the Greeks imposed the names on these books before they came to the Latins. Therefore many of the names will always remain among us. Fifth is the Song of Songs, which in Hebrew is called sirhasim; sixth, Daniel; seventh, Chronicles, divided among us into two which among the Hebrews is called Dibreaiamim, that is words of days, among the Greeks Paralipomenon, and is genitive plural of the participle and means of those things omitted or left behind, since there it is treated of those completions omitted in the other books. Therefore Jerome calls it the chronicle of all divine scripture. Eighth is Ezra which is divided into two books and within it is contained the other book of Nehemiah. Ninth is the book of Esther, and thus is the third subsection, hagiography, completed. There are therefore three subsections of books of the Old Testament and in the first is contained five books; in the second, eight; in the third nine; and so there are twenty-two books. Some place eleven books in the third subsection, namely, they place the book of Ruth with the aforementioned ones, separating it from the other book of Judges; they also place the book threnorum, or the Lamentations of Jeremiah, there which is called Cinoth among the Hebrews who separate it from the book of the prophet Jeremiah, and so there are twenty-four books in the canon of the Old Testament. Concerning all of these things Jerome writes in his prologue. There remain many doubts surrounding these things, namely, why are there three subsections of books and not more or fewer and why are certain books called legal, others prophetal, and others hagiographical and why are they all not known by the same name and why are they placed in this subsection but not that and so on concerning many other doubts which will be omitted for the present. Concerning this we will make clear very extensively in the exposition on Jerome's prologue, which is complete on this material and is placed at the beginning of first Kings.
Question 3: This ought to be considered to understand that books may be called Apocrypha in two ways. One way, that it is not established concerning their authors, whether they wrote with the Holy Spirit composing, and it is not established concerning everything that is contained it them, whether it is all true.Yet there is not something in them that is demonstrably false or is very much suspected of falsehood. In another way they are called Apocrypha, it is not established concerning their authors, whether they were inspired by God and moreover many things that are held [in these books] are either demonstrably false or are very much suspected of error. Understanding in the first way that these books are Apocrypha, Scripture does not place them in the canon of its books, that faith ought of necessity be applied to them, yet it allows those wishing to do so to read what they read, since nothing unsuitable seems to result: also the Church itself does not read them. Understanding in the second way that these books are Apocrypha, not only does the Church not place them in its canon, it does not place them with its own books in any way, not does it favor those who read them; [although it does not altogether prohibit them. Yet it declares that those books are very much suspected of falsehood, that it might warn people when they read them and that they might see to what they should apply their trust.] Certain books are Apocrypha in the first way, which are placed outside the canon of the Old Testament, yet they are counted among the books of Holy Scripture, namely, the Book of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobias, and Maccabees, for concerning their authors, it is not established for the Church, whether they wrote them with the Holy Spirit composing; yet it did not find anything false in them or very much suspected of falsehood; but rather, there is abundant holy and faithful doctrine in them. For this reason the Church reads them and counts them among its books. Thus Jerome says in his Prologue to Judith that the book of Judith which is of the Apocrypha…”145146
- Alphonsi Tostati, Episcopi Abulensis, Commentariorum in Sanctum Iesu Christi Euangelium secundum Matthaeum, Praefatio, Quaest. 1, 2, 3. Translation by Benjamin Panciera, The Medieval Institute, University of Notre Dame.
ALULFUS TORNACENSIS - A.K.A: ALULPHE DE TOURNAI (?-1144 AD)
“If a city is fortified with a great rampart against lurking enemies, surrounded by strong walls, and guarded with unsleeping vigilance on all sides, but if one opening is left unprotected through negligence, undoubtedly the enemy will enter through that very gap, even though they seemed to be shut out everywhere else.
Let us hear how the Pharisee, who went up to the temple to pray, fortified the city of his mind: ‘I fast twice a week, I give tithes of all that I possess’—and before this, he said, ‘God, I give you thanks.’ Rightly indeed did he give thanks to God, from whom he had received the good things he had done. Certainly, he erected great defenses, but let us see where he left an opening unguarded for the lurking enemy. ‘I am not like other men—robbers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this publican.’ Behold, through pride, he opened his heart’s city to the lurking enemies, which he had vainly attempted to secure through fasting and almsgiving. The rest was fortified in vain when one place remained unguarded, allowing the enemy entry. He rightly gave thanks, but perversely exalted himself over the publican. By exalting himself, he betrayed the city of his heart, which he had sought to protect by fasting and giving. Gluttony was conquered through abstinence, the greed of the stomach destroyed, tenacity was overcome by generosity, and avarice was cast down.
But what do we believe was accomplished by these efforts? Oh, how many labors have been struck down and fallen because of a single vice! How many great goods have been slain by the sword of one fault! Therefore, it is greatly necessary always to do good and to guard our minds carefully even within good works themselves—lest if good deeds elevate the mind, they cease to be truly good, for they no longer serve their Author but rather serve pride.
In this matter, we do not act improperly if we cite a testimony, even from books that are not canonical but are nonetheless written for the edification of the Church. For Eleazar, in battle, struck and brought down an elephant, but he perished under the very creature he had slain (1 Maccabees 6). Whom does this signify but those who conquer vices, yet, by exalting themselves, are crushed beneath the very thing they have subdued? It is as if they die under the enemy they have struck down, those who are lifted up by pride over the sin they have conquered.
Therefore, the saints must carefully watch over their every action, lest they either commit wrong or, after doing what is justly commanded, grow proud in their thoughts because of their good works. The greater the hidden pride in what outwardly appears righteous, the graver the offense. For all that is done perishes if it is not carefully guarded with humility.”148
“The living creatures are interpreted in various ways. But the blessed Augustine, to follow the order in this book, says, that Matthew is intended in the lion, [...] Luke is intended in the calf, [...] But the face of a man, he says, signifies Mark, [...] and the eagle is John [...]. The living creatures, again, at one time denote the Evangelists, at another the whole Church; for its fortitude is represented in the lion, its sacrificial offering in the calf, its humility in the man, and its sublimity in the flying eagle. Wings: They raise the Church on high by the perfection of their doctrine. For the number six is called perfect, because it is the first which is made complete by its several parts, in that one which is the sixth part of six, and two which are the third, and three which are the half, make up the number six. Otherwise: the six wings of the four living creatures, which are twenty-four in number, intimate as many books of the Old Testament, by which the authority of the Evangelists is supported, and their truth proved.”151152
“In his prologue to the Books of Kings, Jerome says there are twenty-two books of the Old Testament. The Hebrews divide the Scripture of the Old Testament into three parts, that is into law, prophets, and hagiography. The five books of Moses they call the law, the other eight books, that is Joshua, the Book of Judges, under which they include the Book of Ruth, and the Books of Kings which they divide into two volumes, also Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekial, and the book of the twelve prophets they call the prophetal books. To hagiography they say pertain the last nine books, that is the Book of Job, the Psalter, the three books of Solomon, Chronicles, Ezra, and Esther. Hagiography is so called from hagios, that is holy, and graph, writing, thus holy writing. They call these books canonical and the others apocryphal.”154155
- Denys the Carthusian, Enneration In Genesis, Cap I, Articulus IV, De Multiplici Distinctione Atque Divisione Totius Divinae Scripturae. Translation by Benjamin Penciera, University of Notre Dame.
“Now that book is not counted among the canonical scriptures, nevertheless, Mother Church has no doubts about its truth: on account of this she receives and establishes that it is to be read not for the confirmation and proof of those things that come into contention, that is of those things that are to be believed, concerning which there is contentious debate between Catholics and nonbelievers, but rather for the instruction of morals. For this book is historical but also very much moral and doctrinal.”156
- Denys the Carthusian, Proemium, Judith and Tobit. Translation by Benjamin Penciera, University of Notre Dame.
“Now that book [i.e. - Ecclesiasticus] is not to counted of the canon, that is among the canonical Scriptures, although there is no doubt as to its truth. And it fits very well with the Book of Proverbs of Solomon in its meaning and style. About this Jerome writes that he found this book among the Hebrews, not called Ecclesiasticus, as it is by us, but entitled Parabola. And as in the books of Solomon, so also here wisdom is received in various ways: sometimes as wisdom uncreated and unborn, sometimes as wisdom uncreated and born, sometimes as wisdom created, infused, or acquired, sometimes as some sort of virtue, as will become clear in due course.”157
- Denys the Carthusian, Prologus, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach). Translation by Benjamin Penciera, University of Notre Dame.
“Many people, who do not give much attention to the holy scriptures, think that all the books contained in the Bible should be honored and adored with equal veneration, not knowing how to distinguish among the canonical and non-canonical books, the latter of which the Jews number among the apocrypha. Therefore they often appear ridiculous before the learned; and they are disturbed and scandalized when they hear that someone does not honor something read in the Bible with equal veneration as all the rest. Here, then, we distinguish and number distinctly first the canonical books and then the non-canonical, among which we further distinguish between the certain and the doubtful. The canonical books have been brought about through the dictation of the Holy Spirit. It is not known, however, at which time or by which authors the non-canonical or apocryphal books were produced.Since, nevertheless, they are very good and useful, and nothing is found in them which contradicts the canonical books, the church reads them and permits them to be read by the faithful for devotion and edification. Their authority, however, is not considered adequate for proving those things which come into doubt or contention, or for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogma, as blessed Jerome states in his prologue to Judith and to the books of Solomon.But the canonical books are of such authority that whatever is contained therein is held to be true firmly and indisputably, and likewise that which is clearly demonstrated from them. For just as in philosophy a truth is known through reduction to self-evident first principles, so too, in the writings handed down from holy teachers, the truth is known, as far as those things that must be held by faith, through reduction to the canonical scriptures that have been produced by divine revelation, which can contain nothing false. Hence, concerning them Augustine says to Jerome: To those writers alone who are called canonical I have learned to offer this reverence and honor: I hold most firmly that none of them has made an error in writing. Thus if I encounter something in them which seems contrary to the truth, I simply think that the manuscript is incorrect, or I wonder whether the translator has discovered what the word means, or whether I have understood it at all. But I read other writers in this way: however much they abound in sanctity or teaching, I do not consider what they say true because they have judged it so, but rather because they have been able to convince me from those canonical authors, or from probable arguments, that it agrees with the truth.”161162
- Glossa Ordinaria, English Translation by Dr. Michael Woodward, Biblia cum glosa ordinaria et expositione Lyre litterali et morali (Basel: Petri & Froben, 1498), British Museum IB.37895, Vol. 1, On the canonical and non-canonical books of the Bible.
“The same Church could also, according to another interpretation, be figured in the twenty-four elders. For this number is composed of the number six and the number four, because four sixes make twenty-four. The number six refers to works, because Almighty God completed His work in six days, and on the sixth day, at the sixth hour, redeemed man. The number four, however, refers to the four books of the Gospels. Because, however, the Holy Church, whether in the Old Testament or in the New, recalls and venerates the works of God, and preserves the books of the Holy Gospels, it [i.e. the Church] is also rightly understood in the twenty-four elders, or certainly according to the twenty-four books of the Old Testament, which are used according to canonical authority, in which the New Testament, and those things that are brought to fulfillment in it are acknowledged to be foretold. Whence also the Evangelist says of the two thieves who were crucified with Christ: this was done, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, which says, 'And he was classed among the wicked.' [...] And each of the four animals had six wings. The wings of the animals signify the two Testaments, by which the Church is carried up to the Heavens. However, while there are two Testaments, the spiritual wings of the same Church, on account of this twin testament, which is found in the twelve tribes of Israel, or in the twelve apostles, these wings are multiplied, two by twelve, and they give twenty-four wings. For two twelves are twenty-four. In another way, the number twelve consists of the parts of the number seven, that is, of the number three and the number four. We can say either four threes or three fours make twelve, which is a sacred number, the number of the twelve Apostles. In the number three, faith in the Holy Trinity is understood, and in the number four, the four parts of the world. Twelve is thus multiplied by two, and we get twenty-four. The number of the elect is expressed in terms of this number, by whose preaching the faith of the Holy Trinity is spread to the four corners of the world, and the whole world is raised to Heaven. We can also understand these wings in another way. The natural law is understood in the first wing, the Law of Moses in the second wing, in the third the prophets, in the fourth the Gospels, in the fifth the Epistles of the Apostles, in the sixth Canonical authority, or the doctrine of Catholic men such as Jerome, Augustine and other holy Fathers.”165
- Haymo of Halberstadt, Exposition of the Apocalypse of S. John, Book 7, Book I, Chapter IV. Patrologia Latina 117:1007, 1010. Translation by Catherine Kavanaugh, University of Notre Dame.
HONORIUS OF AUTUN - A.K.A.: HONORIUS AUGUSTODUNENSIS (12th CENTURY AD)
“The scripture of the Old Testament is written with the Holy Spirit as author and is divided into three parts: history, prophecy, and hagiography. History gives an account of things past, prophecy announces future things, hagiography proclaims the joys of the eternal life. This book (Psalms) takes its place in hagiography since it shines more fully with the joys of the eternal homeland.”168
- Honorius of Autun, Expositio In Psalmos: De mysterio psalmorum. Patrologia Latina 172.273B. Translation by Benjamin Panciera, The Medieval Institute, University of Notre Dame.
“In September infirmity is often accustomed to fall upon men on account of the new produce: and as at this time, when there is accustomed to be a greater abundance of things we also recollect when we also shall die in such an abundance of things and we patiently bear the infirmities of that time. Responsorials from Job and Tobit are sung, who both endured sorrows. They were not kings, for this reason they do not have their own months, but are read together in one month, through which the kingdom of the Assyrians is understood. On Sundays, on which the responsorials from the stories of Judith, Ezra and Esther are sung, and these same stories are read, the kingdom of the Persians and the Medes is designated. The Books of Tobit and Judith are not in the canon among the Hebrews, but since they accept them among their Hagiography, we sing and read from them.”169
- Honorius of Autun, Operum Pars Tertia.â Liturgica. Sacramentarium, Seu De Causis Et Significatu Mystico Rituum Divini In Ecclesia Officii Liber. Cap. C.â ? De lectionibus in matutinis post Pentecosten. Patrologia Latina 172.800D. Translation by Benjamin Panciera, The Medieval Institute, University of Notre Dame.
“Seven deacons are in service to the bishop in the place of the prophets since Scripture is divided seven ways into the New and Old Testament, which minister to the Gospel. The bishop and those joined to him are in the middle after the Gospel, since he is a vicar of Christ, he follows the Gospel. The New Testament is divided into four parts, that is the Acts of the Apostles, the seven canonical Epistles, the fourteen Pauline Epistles, and the Apocalypse; the Old Testament into three parts: law, prophets, and psalms. If there should be five deacons, they would show that five ministers of the books minister to the Gospel. The bishop in the middle, just as the Gospel holds in the New Testament the first order of the preachers of history, the second of the Epistle, the third of prophecy, as is of the Apocalypse. In the Old Testament, one of the law, the other of prophecy. If there should be three, three ministrations of three books, the Gospel, the fountain of all wisdom in the middle, in the New Testament two of the Epistle and of prophecy; in the Old one, that is the law; for among the ancients all Scripture is called law in the New Testament. If there would be one, he would show the one precept of love, as it is said: For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' The ministry of the prophet is to demonstrate the truth of the Gospel from the remembered books, and that he might have before him the wisdom of the subdeacons that they might prophesy at a fitting time and the light of the acolytes, the work of doctors, might finish by expounding books.”170
- Honorius of Autun, Operum Pars Tertia.â Liturgica. Sacramentarium, Seu De Causis Et Significatu Mystico Rituum Divini In Ecclesia Officii Liber, cap. xxxiv.â ? De caeremoniis in missa episcopi. Patrologia Latina 172.765A?765B. Translation by Benjamin Panciera, The Medieval Institute, University of Notre Dame.
HUGH OF ST. CHER - A.K.A: HUGO DE S. CARO (1200-1263 AD)
“Joshua Bennum was named from his father, that is Son of Num or Son of Nave, or, fully, Jesus Son of Nave. You call him by his surname in order to distinguish him from Jesus Son of Sirach, great-grandson of Jesus the high priest under whom and the leader Zorobabel the people returned from captivity, as is read in Haggai 1 and Zechariah 3. Jesus Son of Sirach wrote Ecclesiasticus, as has been said. It should be known, according to the Hebrews the second subsection of the Old Testament begins here, for the Hebrews divide the Old Testament into subsections. The first they call the Law; the second the Prophets; the third the Hagiography. In the Law they place the five books of Moses. In the Prophets they place eight books, namely Joshua, Judges, Samuel, that is the first two books of Kings, Malachi, that is the last two books of Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, the Twelve Prophets. In Hagiography they place the nine books of the Old Testament which remain, namely job, David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Daniel, the Canticle, Chronicles, Ezra, Esther. They are called Hagiography, that is the writings of saints, which is a name common to all the books of Holy Scripture. But since these nine books do not have any preeminent feature over the others, according to which they might be named, they are contained under a common name, just as the name confessor is common to all saints. But some are ordered according to some prominence through other names: for some are called Apostles, others Prophets, others Patriarchs, others Martyrs, others Virgins. Those who have no prominent feature are called Confessors. In this way the last order of Angels is called by the name common to all, that is Angels. According to the Greeks, Origen places seven books in the first subsection, adding Joshua and Judges to the Pentateuch. He calls this subsection the Heptateuch, from hepta, which is seven and teuchos, which is book. Whatever the order of this book, the truth of the history is not changed. Know the lines of all the books of the Old Testament. Five books of Moses; Joshua, Judges, Samuel; Malachi, three distinguished and twice six prophets: the Hebrew considers these to excel the remaining books. He calls the five the law and the remaining ones the prophets. Afterwards, the Hagiography are Daniel, David, Esther and Ezra, Job, Chronicles, and three books of Solomon. The entire old law is completely contained by these books. The Apocrypha remain: Jesus, Wisdom, Pastor; and the Books of the Maccabees, Judith and Tobit. Since these are doubtful they are not numbered in the canon. But since they proclaim true things, the Church accepts them.”172173
- Hugh of St. Cher, In Postillam super Librum Iosue: Prologus. Translation by Benjamin Panciera, The Medieval Institute, University of Notre Dame.
“After that we showed what the matter of the divine Scriptures is and how the matter treats of its subject in a triple sense, historical, allegorical and tropological. Now it is appropriate to show in which books that which is reckoned in the name of divine judgement to be Scripture. There are two Testaments which include all the divine Scriptures in one body: the Old and the New. Both are divided into three orders. The Old Testament contains the Law, the Prophets and the Hagiographies, which interpreted, means either the holy writers or the holy things written. There are five volumes in the Law: that is Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Genesis is so called from generation, Exodus from 'exit' - going out - Leviticus from the Levites, the book of Numbers, because in it the children of Israel are numbered, Deuteronomy on account of the Law, and in Hebrew, 'bresith', 'hellesmoth', 'vagetra', 'vegedaber', 'adabarim'. There are eight volumes in the order of the Prophets. The first in the book of Joshua, who is also Jesu Nave and Josue Bennun, that is son of Nun; the second the book of Judges, which is called Sophthim, the third the book of Samuel, which is the first and second book of Kings, the fourth is Malachi, which is understood as of the Kings, which is third and fourth Kings; the fifth Isaiah, the sixth Jeremiah; the seventh Ezechiel; the eighth the book of the twelve prophets, which is called 'thareasra'. They are called prophetic because they are 'of the prophets', however, not all are prophecies. A prophet is so called on account of three things: the office, the grace and the mission. The word is also frequently found in common use to indicate prophets who are prophets either on account of the office of prophet or on account of having clearly been sent as prophets, as is the case here. According to this definition, David and Daniel and several others are not said to be prophets, but hagiographers. There are nine volumes in the order of the Hagiographers: first Job, second the book of Psalms, third the Proverbs of Solomon, which is called 'Parabolae' in Greek and 'Masloth' in Hebrew, the fourth Ecclesiastes which is translated as 'coeleth' in Hebrew and 'concionator' [lit.: the lecturer of the people, speechmaker] in Latin; the fifth, 'syra syrim', that is the Canticle of Canticles; the sixth Daniel, the seventh Paralipomenon, which in Latin is called the Words of Days and in Hebrew is called 'dabreniamin'; the eighth Esdras and the ninth Esther. These are all, that is five and eight and nine, making twenty-two, just as do the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet, so that the life of the just may be instructed in the way of salvation by as many books as letters educate the tongues of the knowledgeable in eloquence. There are some other books besides these in the Old Testament, which are sometimes read, but they are not written in the body of the text or in the authoritative canon, such as the books of Tobias, Judith, and the Maccabees, and the one called the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus. The New Testament contains Gospels, Apostles and Fathers. There are four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Likewise there are four volumes of Apostolic writings: the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of St. Paul, the Canonical Epistles and the Apocalypse, which added to the twenty-two books of the Old Testament mentioned above make thirty, and Holy Scripture is completed in this corpus. The writings of the Fathers are not counted in the body of this text, because they do not add anything to it, but they explain what it is that is in the above mentioned, and they extend it more broadly and make it clearer.”175176
- Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis. Prologue, Cap. VII. Patrologia Latina 176:185D-186D. Translation by Catherine Kavanaugh, University of Notre Dame.
“Holy Scripture is contained in two testaments, namely the Old and the New. Each testament is divided into three subsections: the Old Testament contains the law, the prophets, and the hagiography. The New contains the Gospel, the apostles, and the fathers. The first subsection of the Old Testament is the law, which the Hebrews call thorath holds the Pentateuch, that is the five books of Moses. In this subsection the first is Beresith, which is Genesis; second Hellesmoth, which is Exodus; third is Vagethra, which is Leviticus; fourth Vagedaber, which is Numbers; fifth Elleaddaberim, which is Deuteronomy. The second subsection is of prophets and contains eight texts. The first is Bennum, that is, Son of Nun, who is called Joshua and Jesus and Jesus Nave. The second is Sathim, which is Judges; third Samuel, which is first and second Kings; fourth Malachi, which is third and fourth Kings; fifth Isaiah; sixth Jeremiah; seventh Ezekiel; eighth Thereasra, which is the twelve prophets. The third subsection has nine books. First is Job, second David, third Masloth, which in Greek is Parabolae but in Latin is Proverbs, i.e. of Solomon; fourth Coeleth, which is Ecclesiastes; fifth Sirasirim, which is the Song of Songs; sixth Daniel, seventh Dabreiamin, which is Chronicles; eighth Ezra; ninth Esther. They all add up to the number twenty-two. Moreover, there are certain other books, such as the Wisdom of Solomon, the book of Jesus son of Sirach, and the book of Judith, and Tobias, and the books of the Maccabees which are read but are not considered in the canon. To these twenty-two books of the Old Testament...Then the writings of the holy fathers, that is Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose, Gregory, Isidore, Origen, Bede and the other doctors, which are countless. These patristic writings are not counted in the text of Holy Scripture, just as in the Old Testament, as we have said, there are certain writings which are not written in the canon and yet are read, like the Wisdom of Solomon, etc. And so the text of Holy Scripture, like an entire corpus, is principally contained in thirty books, twenty-two of these are gathered in the Old and eight in the New Testament.”177178179
- Hugh of St. Victor, De Scripturis et Scriptoribus Sacris Praenotatiunculae, Cap. VI, De ordine, numero et auctoritate librorum sacrae Scripturae. Patrologia Latina 175:15D-16. Translation by Benjamin Panciera, The Medieval Institute, University of Notre Dame.
“And so I was glad to take up for your sake the questions propounded, and reply to them, with allowance made for my present opportunities and urgent affairs, not as I would, but as best I can for the while. The questions were: what do I believe to be the number of books in the Old and New Testament, and who were their authors…On the number of the books I find in my reading diverse and numerous opinions given by the fathers; and so I follow Jerome, teacher of the Catholic Church, whom I hold to be the surest witness in establishing the basis of the literal interpretation. Just as it is accepted that there are twenty-two letters in the Hebrew alphabet, so I believe without doubt that there are twenty-two books in the Old Testament, divided into three categories. The first contains the Pentateuch, that is the five books of Moses, which are divided into this number to represent the different sacraments,' though the historical subject matter is admittedly continuous. These are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. The second contains prophecies and is completed in eight books. The reason why they rather than the others should be called prophecies, although some of them seem to narrate straightforward history, while others, like Daniel and the Book of Psalms, while describing prophecy, are not reckoned among the prophetic books, was not among the questions put to me; nor does my limitation in time or parchment permit me to expound it now, nor yet the impatience of the bearer. Among these, then, are numbered Joshua, and Judges, to which Ruth is also attached, since the story told in it was set in the days of the judges; also Samuel, whose story is completed in the first two Books of Kings, and Malachim, in the two following. These are followed by Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel-reckoned one book each-and the book of the Twelve Prophets. The third category consists of the Hagiographa, containing Job, the Psalter, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Daniel, Chronicles, Esdras and Esther. And thus the total of the twenty-two books of the Old Testamen is made up, though some reckon that Ruth and the Lamentations of Jeremiah should be added to the number of the Hagiographa, and thus the total increased to twenty-four. All this is to be found in the prologue to the Books of Kings, which St. Jerome calls the armour-plated front of all the scriptures he himself made flow from the Hebrew source for the understanding of those of Latin speech. The book of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobit, and the Shepherd are not reckoned in the canon, as St. Jerome also asserts, nor the Book of Maccabees either, which is divided into two, of which the first has the savour of Hebrew eloquence, the second of Greek, as its style proves. Whether the book called the Shepherd anywhere survives I do not know; but it is certain that Jerome and Bede bear witness that they saw and read it. To these are added eight books of the New Testament; they start with the Gospels of Matthew, of Mark, of Luke and of John, and the fifteen Epistles of Paul gathered in one book. Although it is the common, indeed almost universal, opinion that there are only fourteen Epistles of Paul, ten to churches, four to individuals, if indeed the Epistle to the Hebrews is to be reckoned among them-and Jerome, the teacher of teachers, seems to impute it to him in his preface to it, when he demolishes the arguments of those who maintained that it is not Paul's. But the fifteenth is that which is written to the church of the Laodiceans, and although it is rejected by all authorities, as Jerome says, yet it was written by the Apostle; nor is this conclusion based on other men's opinions, but on the sure foundation of the Apostle's own testimony. He recalls it in the Epistle to the Colossians in these words: 'And when this letter has been read among you, have it read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you have read to you also the letter of the Laodiceans.' There follow seven canonical Epistles in one book, then the Acts of the Apostles in another, and finally the Apocalypse. It is the well-known and undoubted tradition of the Church that this is the number of the books which are accepted into the canon of the Holy Scriptures; which enjoy such great authority among all men, that no place is left in sane minds for doubt or contradiction, but that they were written by the finger of God. A lawful and just warning, and condemnation as a sinner, falls on him who in the mart of manners and speech, especially in the forum of the faithful, does not accept, openly and publicly, the silver currency of this divine utterance, tried by the fire of the Holy Spirit, purged from all earthly dross and stain by a sevenfold purgation. Let faith find a sure resting place in these facts and in those things which find their proved and just support in them; since he is an infidel or a heretic who dares to reject them.”181182
- John of Salisbury, The Letters of John of Salisbury, W.J. Millor S.J. and C.N.L. Brooke, editors (Oxford: Clarendon, 1979), Letter 209, pp. 317, 319, 321, 323, 325.
“The twenty-five books of the Old Testament are books of faith and are fully part of Holy Scripture. The first is Genesis… and these five are the books of Moses, which are properly called the Law. The sixth book is Joshua, the seventh is Judges, which includes the story of Ruth… The fourteenth book is Ezra, which includes Nehemiah, and among the Hebrews, it is considered one book, as Jerome says, but among the Greeks and Latins, these are two books… The sixteenth is Job… The twenty-first to twenty-fourth are the four major prophets… The twenty-fifth book is one book that contains the twelve minor prophets.
Any book in the Old Testament that is not included in these twenty-five mentioned above should be placed among the Apocrypha, meaning it does not have the authority of faith. Therefore, the Book of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Judith, and Tobit are not considered books of faith. The First Book of Maccabees was originally written in Hebrew, while the Second Book of Maccabees was first written in Greek. Jerome states all of this in his prologue to the First Book of Kings.
Additionally, the Book of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah are not considered authoritative Scripture among the Hebrews, nor is the Prayer of Manasseh, as Jerome testifies. Jerome himself explains in these books how much of Esther and Daniel is considered authoritative among the Hebrews and in the Hebrew text…
Therefore, just as the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the Books of Maccabees, but does not accept them as part of Holy Scripture, so too does the Church read the two books Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) and Wisdom for the edification of the people, but not to establish the authority of the Church’s teachings. Jerome states this clearly in his prologue to Proverbs…
However, all the books of the New Testament—that is, the four Gospels, the twelve letters of Paul, the seven smaller letters, the Acts of the Apostles, and Revelation—are fully authoritative for faith.” 186187
“Some admit besides those which were there enumerated [in the Catalogue of the Apostolic Canons] the Wisdom of Solomon, and Judith, and Tobit, and the Apocalypse of [John] the Divine.”189190191
- John Zonaras, in a note on the Catalogue of the Apostolic Canons, cited by B. F. Westcott, The Bible in the Church: A Popular Account Of the Collection And Reception Of The Holy Scriptures In The Christian Churches, 1879, Macmillan & Co.: London, Pg. 223-224. Link: https://archive.org/details/thebibleinthechu00westuoft/page/n221/mode/1up
“Here begins the commentary of Nicholas of Lyra on the Book of Tobit, and first the preface to the book. 'It is right to do these things and not to omit those,' Mt 23. After I have, with God's help, written on the canonical books of Holy Scripture, starting from the beginning of Genesis and proceeding to the end of Revelation, I intend, trusting again in God's help, to write on the other books that are not of the canon, namely the Book of Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Tobit, and the Books of Maccabees, following what Jerome says in the Helmeted Prologue, which is placed before the Books of Kings; and he says the same thing about the Book of Baruch in his prologue and about Second Ezra in his prologue on Ezra. This is why I chose the verse above, in which we may observe two points: first is the necessity of the work, where it begins: 'It is right to do these things;' second is the utility of the work, where it continues: 'and not to omit those.' As to the first point, it should be known that the books of Holy Scripture called canonical are of such authority that whatever is contained in them is held to be true, firmly and without discussion, as well as whatever is clearly demonstrated from it. For just as in philosophical writings, where truth is known by returning to first principles, known in themselves, so too the truth is known in the writings handed down by Catholic teachers, in regards to things that must be held by faith, by returning to the canonical writings of Holy Scripture, which were delivered by divine revelation, in which nothing false can exist. Therefore an understanding of them is necessary for the Church, and concerning their interpretation the words of Sirach 23 may be cited: 'All these things are the book of life,' i.e. all the books interpreted in the preceding work are contained in the book of life, i.e. in the book of truth revealed by God, who is life itself. For just as divine predestination is called the book of life, so too are these writings revealed from heaven called the book of life, both because they proceed essentially from life, as was said, and because they lead to a blessed life. As to the second point, it should be considered that the books that are not part of the canon are received by the Church so that they may be read in her for the instruction of morals, yet their authority is not judged adequate for proving things that come into contention, as Jerome says in his prologue to the Book of Judith and in his prologue to the Proverbs of Solomon. They are, then, of less efficacy than the canonical books. Thus we can say with the Lord, from whom is all good, what is written in Judith 6: 'I have thought these after those.' While in the divine act of thinking there is not before and after, since he is singular and most simple, yet in the effects thought by him beforehand there is an order of time and dignity; and so the truth written in the canonical books is prior, in time to many things and prior in dignity to all things, than the truth that is written in the non-canonical books. It is useful, nevertheless, for direction in the life of morals, as was said, whereby we come to the kingdom of heaven, which, may you grant us, etc.”193194
- Postilla Nicolai de Lyra super librum Tobiae, prefatio. Biblia cum glosa ordinaria et expositione Lyrae litterali et morali (Basel:Petri & Froben, 1498). British Museum IB.37895, Vol. 2. Translation by Dr. Michael Woodward.
“Chapter 1: 'In the first year of Cyrus,' etc.. This book, from which begins the rule of priests, as was said, together with the books connected to it, can be divided thus: first is treated the emergence of this rule, second ensuing misfortune, which is twofold: one considers the example of constancy against Aman, the other the example of patience in the books of Esther and Job. But at present I intend to pass over the books of Tobit, Judith, and Maccabees, although they are historical, because they are not of the canon for Jews, nor for Christians. Rather Jerome says about them, in the Helmeted Prologue that is the prologue on the Books of Kings, that they are sung among the apocrypha; and in the prologue on Judith he says that their authority is not efficacious for proving anything that comes into contention or doubt. And therefore I do not intend to pursue the exposition of them until, with God's help and continued life, I have written on all the canonical books. Now if the Lord grants me life, I will be able, God willing, to write on these books and others that are commonly placed in Bibles, although they are not of the canon. This book, moreover, is divided into three parts: first concerning the leading back of the people under Jesu son of Josedech; second concerning the instruction of the returnees by Ezra, teacher of the law - Chapter 7; third concerning the rebuilding of the walls by the leader Nehemiah - beginning with 'The words of Nehemiah.' And these three were priests, as will appear from what follows. But at present I do not intend to busy myself with the Second Book of Ezra for the reason given, namely that it is not of the canon.”195
- Postilla Nicolai de Lyra super librum Edsrae, cap.i, Biblia cum glosa ordinaria et expositione Lyre litterali et morali (Basel: Petri & Froben, 1498). British Museum IB.37895, vol. 1, Lyra on Ezra. Translation by Dr. Michael Woodward.
“Here begins the book of Tobit which is not in the canon.”196
- Basel: Petri & Froben, 1498). British Museum IB.37895, vol. 1. English translation provided by William Webster.
“Here begins the book of Judith which is not in the canon.”197
- Basel: Petri & Froben, 1498). British Museum IB.37895, vol. 1. English translation provided by William Webster.
“Here begins the Book of Wisdom which is not in the canon.”198
- Basel: Petri & Froben, 1498). British Museum IB.37895, vol. 1. English translation provided by William Webster.
“The books of Tobit and Judith and the Maccabees, although they are historical, I intend to pass over for the present because they are not part of the canon among the Jews or Christians.”199200
- Nicholas of Lyra, Postilla literalis in librum Edsrae, BIBLIA SACRA (Lyon, 1589) vol. 2, col. 1276.
NOTKER OF ST. GALL - A.K.A: NOTKER BALBULUS (c. 840-912 AD)
“Chapter III - On the Interpreters of the Book of Wisdom, Jesus the Son of Sirach, Job, Tobit, Ezra, Judith, Esther, Chronicles, and the Maccabees
Regarding the book titled The Wisdom of Solomon, I have not found any author’s complete exposition, except for a few passages explained incidentally in connection with other books. This is because the Hebrews entirely reject it, and among our own scholars, it is regarded as somewhat uncertain. However, since our predecessors were accustomed to read it for the usefulness of its teaching, and because the Jews do not possess it, it is also called Ecclesiasticus among us. What is said of this book must likewise be understood regarding the book of Jesus the Son of Sirach, except that the Hebrews do have and read that book.
The most difficult book, the Blessed Job the Prophet, was left untouched by all earlier teachers. However, our apostolic teacher Gregory expounded it in such a way that, upon the foundation of its historical narrative, he constructed a moral edifice and placed upon it the most excellent pinnacle of spiritual (anagogical) meaning. In this book, he wove together and unraveled so many testimonies from all the writings of divine authority that, through it, he appears to have expounded both the Old and New Testaments.
If, however, due to a lack of resources, preoccupation with worldly affairs, or even the duties of the court and military service, you do not have the opportunity or leisure to study it, then seek out the Excerptum of Ladkenus the Irishman. After reading through his explanations of the testimonies he presents, you will find that nothing is lacking for a complete understanding. Furthermore, in various places, both collected and excerpted interpretations of this and other writings can be found, should you choose to seek them, and these will be discussed later.
The presbyter Bede wrote some commentaries on the books of Tobit and Ezra, which are more delightful than necessary, as he attempted to turn simple historical accounts into allegories. What should I say about the books of Judith, Esther, and Chronicles, and by whom or in what manner they are explained—especially when even the literal text itself is regarded not for its authority, but only for its historical record and its admirable content? The same suspicion may be held concerning the Books of the Maccabees.”203204
“ON CANONICAL AND NON-CANONICAL BOOKS” (APPROX. 12th CENTURY AD)
“Since many people do not devote much effort to Sacred Scripture, they assume that all the books contained in the Bible should be revered and venerated equally. They do not know how to distinguish between canonical and non-canonical books—those that the Hebrews exclude from the canon and that the Greeks classify among the apocrypha. As a result, they often appear ridiculous in the presence of learned men and become confused and scandalized when they hear someone not giving equal veneration to everything that is read in the Bible.
For this reason, we have here made a distinction and have distinctly listed first the canonical books and afterward the non-canonical books, between which there is as much difference as between certainty and doubt. For the canonical books were written under the dictation of the Holy Spirit, whereas the non-canonical or apocryphal books are of uncertain origin—no one knows at what time or by whom they were composed. However, since they are very good and useful, and nothing in them contradicts the canonical books, the Church reads them and permits the faithful to read them for devotion and moral instruction. Nevertheless, their authority is not considered sufficient for proving matters in doubt or controversy, nor for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical doctrines, as the blessed Jerome states in his prologues to Judith and the books of Solomon.
The canonical books, on the other hand, possess such great authority that whatever is contained in them must be firmly and indisputably held as true. Consequently, any conclusion derived from them is also manifestly true. Just as in philosophy truth is known by reducing things back to first principles that are self-evident, so in theology, the truth regarding matters of faith is known by referring them back to the canonical Scriptures. These Scriptures are received through divine revelation, to which falsehood cannot in any way be attached.
Thus, Augustine says to Jerome:
"I have learned to give this respect and honor only to those writers who are called canonical, so that I firmly believe none of them erred in writing. If I encounter something in their texts that seems contrary to the truth, I am certain that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator did not fully grasp the meaning, or I myself do not understand it. But I read other authors in a different way: no matter how much holiness or learning they possess, I do not hold their words as true simply because they thought so, but only if they can prove it to me by canonical authors or by probable reasoning that does not depart from the truth."
Thus, the canonical books of the Old Testament number twenty-two, corresponding to the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet, as Origen, writing on the first Psalm, is reported to have said by Eusebius in the sixth book of Ecclesiastical History. The blessed Jerome, in his Helmeted Prologue to the Book of Kings, explains this more fully and distinctly, stating that all the books are divided by the Hebrews into three parts: 1. The Law, consisting of the five books of Moses, 2. The Prophets, consisting of eight books, 3. The Hagiographa, consisting of nine books.
As will soon be more clearly explained, some, however, separate the Book of Ruth from Judges and Lamentations from Jeremiah, placing them among the Hagiographa. This would make the total twenty-four books, corresponding to the twenty-four elders in the Apocalypse who worship the Lamb (Revelation 5). These are the books that are in the canon, as the blessed Jerome writes in greater detail in the Helmeted Prologue to the Books of Kings.
First, there are the five books of Moses, which are called the Law (Torah): 1. Genesis, 2. Exodus, 3. Leviticus, 4. Numbers, 5. Deuteronomy.
Second, there follow the eight prophetic books: 1. Joshua, 2. The Book of Judges, together with Ruth, 3. Samuel, that is, First and Second Kings, 4. Malachim, that is, Third and Fourth Kings (1 & 2 Kings in modern Bibles), 5. Isaiah, 6. Jeremiah, together with Lamentations, 7. Ezekiel, 8. The Book of the Twelve Prophets, whose individual books are: First: Hosea, Second: Joel, Third: Amos, Fourth: Obadiah, Fifth: Jonah, Sixth: Micah, Seventh: Nahum, Eighth: Habakkuk, Ninth: Zephaniah, Tenth: Haggai, Eleventh: Zechariah, Twelfth: Malachi.
Third, the nine Hagiographa (Writings) follow: 1. Job, 2. The Psalter (Psalms), 3. Proverbs of Solomon, 4. Ecclesiastes (also of Solomon), 5. Song of Songs (also of Solomon), 6. Daniel, 7. Chronicles (Paralipomenon), which is a single book in Hebrew, not two, 8. Ezra together with Nehemiah (which is also considered a single book), 9. Esther.
Anything outside of these books (speaking of the Old Testament), as Jerome states, is to be placed among the apocrypha.
These are the books that are not in the canon, but which the Church nonetheless accepts as good and useful, though not as canonical. Among them, some have greater authority, while others have less. The books of Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees, along with the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), are highly approved by all. Indeed, Augustine, in his book On Christian Doctrine (Book II, Chapter 3), counts the first three among the canon, and says that Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus have deserved to be received with authority and should be numbered among the prophetic books. In The City of God (Book 18, Chapter 31), he also states that, although the Hebrews do not consider the books of Maccabees or Ezra canonical, the Church regards them as such because of the intense and marvelous sufferings of certain martyrs.
However, books of lesser authority include Baruch and Third Esdras and Fourth Esdras. Augustine, in the aforementioned passage, makes no mention of these books, even though he includes others among the apocrypha as canonical. Likewise, Rufinus, in his Exposition of the Creed, and Isidore, in Book VI of the Etymologies, where they follow Jerome’s division, do not mention these books at all.
To list them in the order in which they appear in the Bible (though they were published in a different order): 1. Third Esdras and Fourth Esdras—so called because, before Jerome, the Greeks and Latins divided the canonical book of Ezra into two, calling the speeches of Nehemiah the second book. Third Esdras and Fourth Esdras Ezra are of the lowest authority among non-canonical books. Jerome, in his Prologue to Ezra, calls them "dreams," and they are found in very few manuscripts. In many printed Bibles, only Third Esdras is included. 2. Tobit—a very devotional and useful book. 3. Judith—which Jerome, in his Prologue, says was counted among the sacred Scriptures by the Council of Nicaea. 4. Wisdom—which nearly everyone holds to have been written by the learned Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria. 5. Ecclesiasticus (Sirach)—also known as the book of Jesus, son of Sirach. 6. Baruch—which Jerome mentions in his Prologue to Jeremiah. 7. Maccabees—divided into 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees.
[…]
Rufinus, in the aforementioned passage, after listing the canonical books—agreeing with Jerome—adds: “These are the books that the Fathers enclosed within the canon, from which they wished the assertions of our faith to be established. However, it should be known that there are other books, which are not canonical but have been called ecclesiastical by the elders, such as the Wisdom that is called Solomon’s, and the other Wisdom, which is called the book of Sirach.”
And further, he states: “Of the same order is the little book of Tobit, as well as Judith and the books of the Maccabees. All of these they wanted to be read in the churches, but not to be used for establishing doctrine. As for other writings, they called them apocryphal and did not want them to be read in churches.”
Moreover, it should be noted that in the book of Esther, only those parts that extend up to the point where we have marked “The book of Esther ends here, as it is in Hebrew” are included in the canon; what follows after this is not canonical. Similarly, in Daniel, only those sections up to where we have indicated “The prophet Daniel ends here” are considered canonical; anything after that is not in the canon.”205
“The Old Testament is so called because with the coming of the New, it ceased, which the Apostle also recalls, saying, 'Certain things passed away, and behold! All things were made new.' So the New Testament was so named because it makes new. For those who made this statement were none other than men called out of the Old [dispensation] by grace, and belonging now to the New Testament, which is the Kingdom of Heaven. The Hebrews accept the Old Testament as authorized by God in twenty-two books, according to the number of their letters, dividing them into three orders, that is, the Law, the Prophets and the Holy Writings…Five and eight added to nine make twenty-two, as is understood from the above. Some also add Ruth and Cinoth, which is called in Latin the Lamentations of Jeremiah, to the Hagiographies. These make twenty-four volumes of the Old Testament, just like the twenty-four elders who sit before the Face of God.The fourth [order?] is of those books accepted by us in the order of the Old Testament which are not in the Canon of the Hebrews. The first of them is the Book of Wisdom, the second Ecclesiasticus, the third Tobias, the fourth Judith, the fifth and sixth the Books of the Maccabees. The Church of Christ proclaims these and honors them as divine books, even though the Jews separate them as Apocrypha…The Book of Wisdom is found nowhere among the Hebrews, as a result of which it is far more redolent of Greek style than of Hebrew eloquence. The Jews affirm this to be Babylonian. Therefore they call it Wisdom, for in it the coming of Christ, who is the Wisdom of the Father, and His Passion, is evidently expressed. Now the Book of Ecclesiasticus was definitely composed by Jesus, son of Sirach and grandson of the great priest (high priest) Jesu, which Zacharias also mentions. This book is mainly known among the Latins by this title on account of its similarity to the sayings of Solomon. Indeed the statement of Ecclesiasticus is to be studied with great care, for it deals with the discipline of the whole Church and of religious discourse. This book is found among the Hebrews, but as Apocrypha. Judith, however, Tobias and the books of the Maccabees which were written by their author are the least established. They take their names from those whose deeds they describe…These are the writers of the holy books, who speaking by the Holy Spirit, have written in collaboration with him the rule to be believed and the precepts to be lived by for our erudition. Beyond these, other books are called Apocrypha, for 'apocrypha' are sayings, that is, secret sayings, which are doubtful. For the origin of them is hidden, nor does it appear to the Fathers, from whom the authority of the truth of Scriptures comes down to us in most clear and certain succession. Although some truth is found in these apocrypha, a great deal is false, nothing in them has canonical authority, and they are rightly judged by the wise not to be among those things to be believed, for a great deal is put out by heretics in the name of the Prophets, and more recently is the name of the Apostles. All that is called apocrypha has been removed following the diligent examination of canonical authority.”
- Peter Blesensis Tractatus Quales sunt. De Divisone Et Scriptoribus Sacrorum Librorum. PL 207:1051B-1056. Translation by Catherine Kavanaugh, The Medieval Institute, University of Notre Dame
“And so, concerning the field of the belly of Jesus, in which all storehouses of wisdom and knowledge have been hidden, just as from a mound of wheat surrounded by lilies, twenty-four loaves (according to the number of twenty-four elders standing in the sight of the Lamb) in order to curb all hunger, cleanse all disease, and remove all weakness, with however much care I have been able to gather in this little book by breaking asunder the battle lines of overflowing cares. For this number both of the sons of Jacob and of the apostles of Christ signifies twice the number twelve. And so under this number are contained the books of the Old Testament. And so the complete instruction of souls is offered from this number of books and no less full refreshment is taken from this number of loaves. And so running from the east and west and north and south to the sign of Abraham that they not fail on the way, they refresh themselves from the loaves of the compassion of the Lord and they show the perpetual refreshment to their flaws.”208209
“The Book of Joshua is so called from the name of the author, who is also called Jesus, for Joshua and Jesus are the same name. He is also surnamed from his father Jesus Nave, or Josue Bennum, that is son of Nave or Nun, which are the same. He is also surnamed thus to distinguish him from Jesu the son of Sirach, the great-grandson of Jesu the great priest, who wrote Ecclesiasticus. Note also that according to the Hebrews the second order of the Old Testament begins here. They distinguish the Old Testament into three orders: the first they call the Law, the second, the Prophets and the third the Hagiographies. They place the five books of Moses in the Law, eight in the Prophets, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Malachi, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, and the twelve prophets. In the Hagiographies they put nine books of the Old Testament, which are above. They are called Hagiographies, that is, the writings of holy men, and this name is common to all of the books of Sacred Scripture, and because these nine are no more important than any others they are listed under the common name as their name, just as the word 'confessor' is the general word for all the saints, and yet some of them, according to some special distinction which they have, are listed under other names: some are called 'apostles', others 'martyrs' and so forth.”211212213
“Daniel prophesied in Chaldaea, who was of the line of the Kings of Judah, according to Josephus and Epiphanius. According to the Seventy [Septuagint], however, he was of the Tribe of Levi, who put this in the title of the Fable of Bel: 'There was a man, a priest, named Daniel, the son of Abdo, the companion of the King of Babylon; he was born in Upper Beteroth. And he was so chaste that it seemed to his fellow tribesmen that it was because of a sword.' Jerome translated this book with great difficulty at the request of Paula and Eustochium. It was written in the Chaldaean language, but in Hebrew letters, nor was it read by the Church according to the Septuagint, whose edition is very inaccurate, but according to [the edition of] Theodotius. Among the Hebrews, it does not have the story of Susannah, nor the Hymn of the three boys, nor the story of Bel the dragon.”214
“The story of Susannah follows, which the Hebrew does not have in the Book of Daniel. And he calls it a fable, not that the story itself is corrupt, but the part in it about the stoning of the two priests is false, whom Jerome says were burnt, and because we claim it was written by Daniel, when it was written by some Greek-speaker, which is evident from some word-play and from the names of trees, that is: apotou, cymi, cyse, apotoy, primi, prise, for such word-play and names of trees are not found in Hebrew.”215
“The Jews relegate this story (Tobit) to the Apocrypha, but Jerome says in his Prologue that it should be in the Hagiographies, and at any rate, if it were there it would be in the third order of the Canon of the Old Testament, but because it is not in any order, we would say that that is because Jerome accepts many things as hagiographies, to the point that he also includes Apocrypha, and that is because Hebrew words are close to the language of the Chaldaeans. Jerome was fluent in both languages, so whatever somebody would say in Hebrew words, he would explain in Latin, making short work of it, almost [the work of] a day.”
- Peter Comestor, Historia Scholastica, Historia Libri Tobiae. Incipit praefatio in historiam libri Josue. PL 198:1432. Translation by Catherine Kavanaugh, University of Notre Dame.
PETER THE VENERABLE - A.K.A: PETER OF MONTBOISSIER; PETRUS VENERABILIS (c. 1092-1156 AD)
“For the Gospel gives testimony to the Old Testament and in addition it confirms by its authority the things it preaches. Did not Christ in the Gospel affirm the authority of the Old Testament with his own authority when appearing to all the disciples after the resurrection he said: Was it fitting that all things written in the law of Moses and the prophets and psalms be fulfilled in me? Did he not confirm this same thing with an unbreakable bond when he revealed the meaning to his disciples, that they might understand the scriptures. Did he not confirm this when he spoke to the two disciples walking to Emmaus: Oh how foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have declared. What more do you demand? Is so much and such clear authority insufficient by which Christ offers testimony to the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms, not confusedly but clearly when he teaches that it was fitting that the writings about him, first of the law, then of the prophets, finally of the psalms, were fulfilled in him. But I have reported above, although it is fully sufficient in order that the authority of old scripture be confirmed, I nevertheless offer from this same Gospel in which you trust, as much as you please ornamentedly and superabundantly evidence attesting to the divine books, which having been heard, you would not only believe them divine, but you would be ashamed to have doubted in anything concerning them. And that I might begin from the head of these holy books, reflect, if you do not remember,the Book of Genesis... Exodus... Come from there to Leviticus thence to the Book of Numbers. Come to the last book of the Pentateuch, that is the Mosaic law. Do you yet see that these books are not to be rejected, which Christ approves; that they are not lying or apocryphal, concerning which Truth bears testimony; they are not to be cast aside concerning which the Eternal Word himself, the very wisdom of God makes his own words certain. Other divine and prophetic books follow these, the first of which is called Joshua, to which its neighbor Deuteronomy which itself earns authority from the Gospel, gives authority. The Book of Judges follows which the following and preceding (concerning which we have already written) books make canonical and which was already proven to be canonical by written testimony. Because if the Apostle is consulted, to whose word necessity itself compels you to give complete faith, as was proved above, you will hear him in the Letter to the Hebrews among the other fathers, preaching the trustworthiness of those Judges and giving canonical authority to that same book when he says: For time has failed me speaking of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah who certainly ruled the Jews before the kings, ruled the Jews not with the name of kings but of judges. Then the small, but confirmed by the Gospel itself, book of Ruth follows, just as is read in the genealogy of the Savior... Boaz, it says, bore Obed from Ruth. Who, although a gentile, how she was joined to a Jewish husband, that book explains, which, as was said, earns its canonical authority from the Gospel. Then the pen hastens to the Books of Samuel and Kings and equally to believers and unbelievers it shows that they are supported not only by prophetic, but also by Gospel authority. Behold, truth bore all these things forth from the Book of Kings and showed that they therefore are true. Then the discourse turns to the prophets and the Gospel itself bears testimony first to Isaiah, prophet of the Gospel. Jeremiah follows about which prophet the Gospel is not silent that his words be taken as prophetic... The apostolic words of Paul make Ezekiel canonical, who in his second letter to the Corinthians from this same prophet brought in God saying... The oft-cited authority of the Gospel compels you to accept Daniel among the prophets… After these great, and, as it were, chief prophets, let's proceed at once to the twelve who are called minor, not by lesser authority, but by the quantity of their writing and let's prove them all canonical, not at once or confusedly, but individually and distinctly: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zaphaniah, Haggah, Zacariah... Last in the order of the prophets, but not least in authority follows Malachi. Then to Job... already the authority of the psalms... and concerning the books of Solomon (that is Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle, that is the Song of Songs) to that book which in Hebrew is Dabrehaiamin, in Greek is Paralipom…The volume of Ezra… The last among the Hagiographa, that is, among the books of Holy Scripture, is the Book of Esther, whose authority is confirmed by the authority of the other Hagiographa. For if those books, deriving their origin from the Hebrew truth, included this book as a companion and held it to be of equal authority in the same Hebrew canon, it follows that, with none of these books excepted, all ought to be received in the same manner.
Moreover, not only do Christian writings but also Jewish writings attest that all the books, from the Book of Job to the one under discussion—the Book of Esther—are of equal authority, this book not being excluded but rather added. Therefore, without any distinction, all ought to be received equally. Since this is the case, and since Christ, the Apostles, and the Prophets have given testimony to this book as they have to the preceding books, by an undeniable reasoning, they have also conferred upon this book a similar dignity.
Beyond these authentic books of Holy Scripture, there remain six books not to be left unmentioned: the Books of Wisdom, Jesus son of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Tobit, Judith, and the two Books of Maccabees. Though they did not attain the same exalted dignity as the preceding ones, they have nevertheless been received by the Church because of their praiseworthy and necessary doctrine. It is unnecessary for me to labor in commending them to you, for if the Church holds any value for you, then at least something, however little, ought to be received on its authority.
But if (as Christ said to the Jews concerning Moses) you do not believe His Church, how will you believe my words? Behold, you who say that you believe in nothing but the Gospel, I now urge you to indeed believe in nothing but the Gospel. For, as I said at the beginning: If you believe in the Gospel alone, you must necessarily believe in all of the Old Testament that you now hear, for the Gospel bears testimony to all those whom I have mentioned and grants them canonical authority, since it confirms its own words with theirs. ”217218219
“It follows on the pages, 'The Hebrew books say that Solomon was dragged five times through the streets of the city as punishment. And so they say he came to the temple he had built with his own hands with five branches and he gave them to the scribes that he might be beaten with them. They, on common accepted wisdom, said that they would not lay a hand on the annointed of the Lord. He then, frustrated by them, removed himself from the kingship. This is what is on the pages. Indeed, Jerome translated from Hebrew into Latin all the scriptures which were kept amongst the Hebrews in the canon. In them one cannot find that Solomon offered branches to the scribes that he might be beaten. But their remaining scriptures are apocrypha whose authority is not suitable to confirm those things that might come into dispute. Whence also the book of Jesus son of Sirach and Judith and Tobias and first Maccabees are counted by them amongst the apocrypha since they are not held in their canon.If they say they have any other books that they claim contain the punishment of Solomon, it is not to be believed of these books, since from the mouths of these same Jews such testimony is offered that whatever is not in the canon is in no way worthy of faith. Josephus, the author of Jewish antiquity, claims he read such a thing and he did not learn it from scripture, canonical or apocryphal, that Solomon repented. Whence clearly it is concluded that it is not foreign to the Jews to lie; but proper and customary for them either to deny what is true or affirm what is false. On account of which Jerome was urged by Sophronius to translate the psalms according to the Hebrew truth since when Sophronius would argue with a certain Jew and would offer sure evidence against him from the psalms according to the Septuagint, the Jew, babbling and mocking him as ignorant of Hebrew things throughout nearly every word, would say that in Hebrew what was contained was not contained or what was not contained was contained. It follows on the pages: the words of Solomon writing Ecclesiasticus after he has suddenly lost the kingdom: Solomon reigned in days of peace, and God gave him rest on every side, that he might build a house for his name and other things which follow in the same chapter. Solomon did not write Ecclesiasticus as Augustine in the tenth book of the City of God and, before Augustine, Jerome says in many places. Indeed Jerome found this Hebrew book, as he says, called in Hebrew not Ecclesiasticus as amongst the Latins, but Parabola. To which there were joined two others, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs, so that he could compare the similarity of their writers, of Solomon, not only by the number of books, but by the nature of the material. On account of this similarity of speech, the custom arose among the unlearned that Ecclesiasticus was said to be Solomon's and those who are wiser say it was Jesus, son of Sirach who, as was said above, lived in the time of the High Priest Simon.”221222
- Philip of Harvengt, Responsio De Damnatione Salamonis. Patrologia Latina 203:659. Translation by Benjamin Panciera, The Medieval Institute, University of Notre Dame.
RADULPHUS FLAVIACENSIS - A.K.A: RADVLPHI FLAVIACENSIS (12th CENTURY AD)
Historical/Biographical Details:
“In Holy Scripture, there are four kinds of speech: historical, prophetic, proverbial and simple. History is the telling of past events, as in the five books of Moses. In this, although the matters concerning which it is written, are full of figures, nevertheless, the lawgiver declares those things either ordered by the Lord, or fulfilled by himself or his people. Likewise, the books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Esther, the four Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles pertain to sacred history. For Tobit, Judith, and Maccabees, although they are read for the instruction of the Church, nevertheless do not have complete authority. Speech is prophetic when future things are predicted. That is found in the Psalms, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the twelve prophets. This speech calls out in plain language, as is that of Isaiah Behold, a young woman shall conceive. In which it makes use of many proverbial things as that same author on the same matter: There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots. The proverbial kind is figured speech, sometimes resounding, sometimes feeling, and treating of morals. For also the prophets, as we have said, often take this up for themselves, but nevertheless it is especially ascribed to moral teaching. This is received in the proverbs of Solomon, in the Song of Songs, in Wisdom, in Ecclesiasticus. Job too is judged partly historical, partly prophetic and partly proverbial. Ecclesiastes is also proverbial in part, but for the most part pursues doctrine in a simple manner. Doctrine is simple which teaches simply concerning faith and morals.”223224225
- Radulphus Flaviacensis, Commentary on Leviticus, Preface to Book XIV. Translation by Benjamin Panciera, The Medieval Institute, University of Notre Dame.
“And lections from the holy Scriptures are read in the churches of Christ. And the same sacred Scripture consists of the old law and the new. The old law is what was given first to the Jews through Moses and the prophets, which is called the Old Testament. Now it is called a Testament because it was written and sealed by suitable witnesses (testes), indeed by the prophets. But the new law is the Gospel, which is called the New Testament, which he gave through the Son of God himself, the Christ, and his apostles. That old law is like a root, this new one is like fruit from the root. For from the law one goes on to the Gospel. Now Christ, who has been manifested here, previously in the law he was predicted. Actually he spoke in the prophets, as it is written: "I who was speaking, here I am (Isa 52:6), sending the law beforehand like a pedagogue for children, but now supplying to all adults the Gospel, the perfect instruction for life." Therefore, in that one [= the Law], the good things of the earth were promised to those who worked, but here to those living under grace from faith a heavenly kingdom is offered. But the Gospel is called good news, and it really is good news, so that those who accept it are called sons of God. So then these are the books of the Old Testament, which the leaders of the churches have handed down to be read and received on account of the love of doctrine and of piety. The first are five books of law, that is, of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Sixteen historical books follow these: Jesus Nave and Judges, single books, and Ruth, and four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Tobit and Esther and Judith, single books, two of Ezra and two of the Maccabees.Beyond these there are sixteen prophetic books: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel, single books, and also single books of the Twelve prophets, and these are prophetic. After these, there are eight books of verses, which are written among the Hebrews in a different meter, that is: the book of Job, and the book of Psalms and of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, and Songs of Songs as well as Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, and the Lamentations of Jeremiah. Thus are completed the 45 books of the Old Testament. Now of the New Testament, first are the four gospels, of Matthew, of Mark, of Luke, of John. Following these are the 14 epistles of Paul the apostle, to which also have been join seven catholic epistles: of James, of Peter, of John, and of Jude; and the Acts of the Twelve Apostles, and the seal of all of these is the Apocalypse of John, which is the Revelation of Jesus Christ, who concludes all the books in both time and order. These are the 72 canonical books, and for this reason Moses selected seventy elders who would prophesy [Num 11:25]; on account of this also Jesus, our Lord, commanded 72 disciples to preach [Luke 10:1]. And because 72 languages have been scattered in this world, the Holy spirit suitably provides that there are so many books as nations by which peoples and Gentiles might be edified for the grace of faith to be accomplished.”227228
“Holy Scripture is contained in two testaments, namely the Old and the New. Each testament is divided into three subsections: the Old Testament contains the law, the prophets, and the hagiography. The New contains the Gospel, the apostles, and the fathers. The first subsection of the Old Testament is the law, which the Hebrews call thorath holds the Pentateuch, that is the five books of Moses. In this subsection the first is Beresith, which is Genesis; second Hellesmoth, which is Exodus; third is Vagethra, which is Leviticus; fourth Vagedaber, which is Numbers; fifth Elleaddaberim, which is Deuteronomy. The second subsection is of prophets and contains eight texts. The first is Bennum, that is, Son of Nun, who is called Joshua and Jesus and Jesus Nave. The second is Sathim, which is Judges; third Samuel, which is first and second Kings; fourth Malachi, which is third and fourth Kings; fifth Isaiah; sixth Jeremiah; seventh Ezekiel; eighth Thereasra, which is the twelve prophets. The third subsection has nine books. First is Job, second David, third Masloth, which in Greek is Parabolae but in Latin is Proverbs, i.e. of Solomon; fourth Coeleth, which is Ecclesiastes; fifth Sirasirim, which is the Song of Songs; sixth Daniel, seventh Dabreiamin, which is Chronicles; eighth Ezra; ninth Esther. However, they are twenty-four in number in all. There are other books also besides these, such as the Wisdom of Solomon, the Book of Jesu, son of Sirach, the Book of Judith also, Tobias and the book of the Maccabees, which are read, in fact, but are not written in the Canon.”230231232
- Richard of St. Victor, Tractatus Exceptionum: Qui continet originem et discretionem artium, situmque terrarum, et summam historiarum; distinctus in quatuor libros. Book II, Cap. IX. De duobus Testamentis. P.L. 177:193. Translation by Benjamin Panciera, The Medieval Institute, University of Notre Dame.
“Concerning this (thing) whether sometimes by Christ he means mercy, through which we are saved and set free and today some assert on behalf of this since clearly canonical scripture never shows that he underwent punishment. Only in this the Book of Wisdom is written concerning that it is written thus: Wisdom protected the first-formed father of the world, when he alone had been created; she delivered him from his transgression, and gave him strength to rule all things. But this scripture is not from the canon nor has this idea been taken from canonical scripture, as the other things which are remembered from the fathers in this same book in praise of wisdom; for example, she did not abandon the just man who was sold (understand Joseph) and the rest…”235236237
- Rupert of Deutz, Commentary on Genesis, Book III, Cap. 31.
“Around the throne are twenty-four thrones and seated on the thrones are twenty-four elders dressed in robes with golden crowns on their heads. Just as on the seat the kingdom of God, so on these seats we understand the judicial power of the saints, about which is has been written, the saints will judge the nations. But why are the elders sitting on the seats shown to be twenty-four in number? On this matter the explanations of the Fathers diverge. For some (of whom St. Jerome is one and the most notable) wish the elders displayed throughout here to be understood as the twenty-four books of the old law. Some others understand in these same elders the Church born through the twin testaments of the patriarchs and the apostles, or certainly those who brought about the work's perfection, which is commended to six-fold number, by clear preaching of the Gospel. For four times six makes twenty-four. But we judging neither interpretation to be useless, nevertheless dare to bring forth something certain from the majesty of the scriptures.”238239
- Commentary of Rupert, Abbot of Deutz, On the Apocalypse of John, Book III, Chapter IV. Translation by Benjamin Panciera, The Medieval Institute, University of Notre Dame.
“Those which are without the Sixty are, the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Maccabees (4), Esther, Judith, Tobit. Those which are Apocryphal: Adam, Henoch...the Psalms of Solomon...the Revelation of Esdras [2 Esdras]...the Revelation of Peter... the Epistle of Barnabas... (in all 25).”243244245
- ‘The Sixty Books’, Montf. Bible. Coislin. P. 198 f. Hody, p. 649, as cited by B. F. Westcott, The Bible in the Church: A Popular Account Of the Collection And Reception Of The Holy Scriptures In The Christian Churches, 1879, Macmillan & Co.: London, Pg. 224-225. Link: https://archive.org/details/thebibleinthechu00westuoft/page/n221/mode/1up
THOMAS WALDENSIS - A.K.A: THOMAS NETTER (c. 1375–1430 AD)
“Nevertheless, it ought to be said, just as above concerning the books, that since the Church has already grown into the perfect man, although it be equally powerful as before, yet it is not given to it to grow as before, in accordance with its stature (a), namely because it has three dimensions, length, breadth, and height or depth; according to these three dimensions the City of the Church, even before the death of John the Evangelist, is described to have been measured. And this equally: and he measured the city (he says) with his rod, twelve thousand stadia, prefiguring the twelve volumes in Scripture and canonical authority of the future Church, according to which Jerome speaks in his prologue on Kings. Just as (he says) there are twenty-two letters through which we write in Hebrew all that we say and human speech is comprehended by their beginnings, so are there considered to be twenty-two volumes, by which, just like letters and beginnings in the doctrine of God, the still tender and nursing infancy of the just man might be nourished. The first of these is called Bresith which we call Genesis. These things Jerome says. But the length, breadth, and height of this city are equal, the text says. Therefore, just as with regards to the height which is charity it cannot grow any further than with God and neighbor. Nor with regards to its height or depth, which is hope in the Rewarder of all things. How can it increase its length, which is the catholic faith, beyond the number of fourteen articles contained in Symbol, in one dispersedly written book of twenty-two volumes? The Holy Spirit speaks very strongly there in the conclusion of all canonical Scripture. Let him who desires take the water of life without price. I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book (Rev. 22:17-19).”247248
- Thomae Waldensis, Doctrinale Fidei Catholicae, Tomus Primus, Articulus Secundus, cap. 2, p. col. 353. First published in Venice 1757. Republished in 1967 by Gregg Press Limited. Translation by Benjamin Panciera, The Medieval Institute, University of Notre Dame.
“According to Augustine, as is held in Distich IX in various chapters, Holy Scripture ought to be set before the letters and writings of all the bishops and others. Just as fear and honor should be offered to the holy writers of the Bible, that they not be believed to err in anything, such fear and honor should not be offered to anyone after them. According to Jerome in the prologue to the books of Proverbs and Gregory in the Moralia, the books of Judith, Tobias, and Maccabees, Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom should not be taken to confirm any element of faith. For Jerome says, as does Gregory: the Church reads the books of Judith, Tobias, and Maccabees, but it does not accept them among the canonical scriptures.”250251252
- Guillelmus de Occam O.F.M., Opera Plurima (Lyon, 1494-1496), Dialogus de Impero et Pontificia Potestate, Liber iii, tractus i, cap. 16. Translation by Benjamin Panciera, The Medieval Institute, University of Notre Dame.
Quotes & Testimonies of Reformation-Era Roman Catholics
“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome.Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”254
- Cardinal Caietan (Jacob Thomas de Vio), Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Tesdtament, In ult. Cap., Esther. Taken from A Disputation on Holy Scripture by William Whitaker (Cambridge: University, 1849), p. 48. See also B.F. Westcott's A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (Cambridge: MacMillan, 1889), p. 475.
CARDINAL FRANCISCO XIMÉNES - A.K.A: CARDINAL JIMÉNEZ (1469-1534 AD)
“But there are books outside the canon which the Church has received more for the edification of the people than for the authoritative confirmation of ecclesiastical dogmas. But [in this Polyglot Bible] they have Greek writing, but with a double Latin translation, one of blessed Jerome, the other a word-for-word interlinear, just as in the others.”256257258259
DESIDERIUS ERASMUS - A.K.A: ERASMUS OF ROTTERDAM (1466-1536 AD)
Historical/Biographical Details:
“But in what spirit the Church now has them in public use which older writers by great consensus numbered among the apocrypha, is not sufficiently clear. We will embrace as worthy of Christian use whatever ecclesiastical authority approves. By what spirit the Church approves certainly matters. For you would attribute equal authority to the volumes of the Hebrews and the four Gospels; she certainly does not want the same weight to belong to the books of Judith, Tobit, and Wisdom, as for the Pentateuch of Moses.”260261
“The authority of the ancients has limited the books of the Old Testament to this number [i.e. - Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kingdoms, Paralipomenon, two books of Ezra (which the Hebrews count as one), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Twelve Minor Prophets, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs]; it is sinful to doubt their reliability. The book of Wisdom, which some suspect to be a work of Philo Judaeus, and another called Ecclesiasticus, attributed to Jesus, son of Sirach, have been accepted for use in the church, as well as Tobit, Judith, Esther, and two books of Macabees. Two stories which the Hebrews did not have, one about Susanna, the other about Bel and the Dragon, are appended to the book of Daniel and are also accepted. (Jerome asserts that he translated them from the edition of Theodotion.) Only the Spirit of the church knows whether or not the church has accepted these books as of equal authority with the others.”262263
“Behold how Jerome connects Pastor to the book of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith and Tobit bestowing on it the same authority since they contain the same power to build up devotion,but he also calls all of these apocrypha, since they are not from the canon and in the first and highest authority of the Church. Yet they are not in the other sense of apocrypha to be openly condemned, like the book of Enoch, but in the first known understanding of apocrypha, most praiseworthy after Holy Eloquence [i.e. Scripture].”265266
- Jacob Faber Stapulensis, Praef in Libri Trium Virorum et Virg. Spiritual. Translation by Benjamin Panciera, The Medieval Institute, University of Notre Dame.
JEAN DRIEDO - A.K.A: JOHANNES DRIEDO (c. 1480-1535 AD)
“Jerome can be contradictory to himself, as he teaches in his prologue that those books outside the canon are gathered amongst the Hagiography. Because if it is not pleasing that this book, which not even Erasmus emended, be erroneous. Let us say that among the Jews Hagiography is two-fold, just as we said above that apocrypha is twofold (i.e. may be understood in one of two ways). Certain things are Hagiography, that is writings of the saints, whose authority is suitable for strengthening those things that are of the faith: Hagiographies of this sort are in the biblical canon. But there are other Hagiographies (i.e. holy writings or writings of the saints) whose authority is not suitable for strengthening the assertions of the faith, although they are considered true and holy, just as the writings of Augustine and Jerome are considered, which are also called Hagiography (holy writings or writings of the saints). Hagiographies of this sort among the Hebrew are the stories of Judith and Tobias and Ecclesiasticus and first Maccabees, which books, although they keep and read them, yet they do not count them among the canonical books, but among the Apocrypha, not because they are false, but because their secret origin was not apparent to the entire Synagogue.But third and fourth Ezra, second Maccabees, the Hymn of the three children, and the stories of Susanna and Bela and the Dragon either they do not keep or even reject, and report that they were made up. But the Christian Church, on account of the authority of certain ancient scriptures which are read to make use of evidence from stories of this kind, reads these same scriptures with pious faith, and furthermore does not reject or despise them, even if it does not receive these books with authority equal to the canonical scriptures.”267268
- Jean Driedo, De Ecclesiasticis Scripturis et Dogmatibus, Libri quator. fol. XXI?XXII. Translation by Benjamin Panciera, The Medieval Institute, University of Notre Dame.
“What are the books of the Old Testament? Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two books of Chronicles, four books of Ezra, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, the Psalter, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, the Twelve Prophets, two books of Maccabees. Some of these are sometimes called Apocrypha (that is, hidden) because it was allowed to read them privately at home each according to his own inclination. In the Church they are not read publically, nor is any of them rewarded with authority. The apocryphal books are: third and fourth Ezra, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruk, and the two books of Maccabees. All the others are called canonical, since they are of irrefutable authority, even among the Jews. And so all the books of the Old Testament number thirty-seven, that is twenty-eight canonical and nine apocrypha.”270271
- John Ferus, The Examination of Those Who Were to Be Ordained for the Sacred Ministry of the Church. Translation by Benjamin Panciera, The Medieval Institute, University of Notre Dame.
“Still another Latin Bible, this one an addition of Jerome’s Vulgate published at Nuermberg by Johannes Petreius in 1527, presents the order of the books as in the Vulgate but specifies at the beginning of each Apocryphal book that it is not canonical. Furthermore, in his address to the Christian reader the editor lists the disputed books as ‘Libri Apocryphi, sive non Canonici, qui nusquam apud Hebraeos extant.’” 273
- Bruce Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha, p. 180.
“The earliest Latin version of the Bible in modern times, made from the original languages by the scholarly Dominican, Sanctes Pagnini, and published at Lyons in 1528, with commendatory letters from Pope Adrian VI and Pope Clement VII, sharply separates the text of the canonical books from the text of the Apocryphal books.”
- Bruce Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha, p. 180.
Bonus: Jewish Quotes & Testimonies
BANYLONIAN TALMUD (37-100 AD)
“The Sages taught: The order of the books of the Prophets when they are attached together is as follows: Joshua and Judges, Samuel and Kings, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and Isaiah and the Twelve Prophets. The Gemara asks: Consider: Hosea preceded some of the other prophets whose books are included in the Bible, as it is written: “The Lord spoke first to Hosea” (Hosea 1:2). At first glance this verse is difficult: But did God speak first with Hosea, and not with any other prophet before him? Weren’t there many prophets between Moses and Hosea? And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He was the first of four prophets who prophesied in that period, and they were: Hosea and Isaiah, Amos and Micah. Accordingly, Hosea preceded those three prophets; and the book of Hosea as well should precede the books of those prophets.
The Gemara answers: Since his prophecy is written together with those of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi in one book of the Twelve Prophets, and Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi were the last of the prophets, he is counted with them. The Gemara inquires: But let the book of Hosea be written separately and let it precede the others. The Gemara answers: Were it written separately, since it is small it would be lost.
The Gemara further asks: Consider: Isaiah preceded Jeremiah and Ezekiel; let the book of Isaiah precede the books of those other prophets. The Gemara answers: Since the book of Kings ends with the destruction of the Temple, and the book of Jeremiah deals entirely with prophecies of the destruction, and the book of Ezekiel begins with the destruction of the Temple but ends with consolation and the rebuilding of the Temple, and Isaiah deals entirely with consolation, as most of his prophecies refer to the redemption, we juxtapose destruction to destruction and consolation to consolation. This accounts for the order: Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Isaiah.
The baraita continues: The order of the Writings is: Ruth and the book of Psalms, and Job and Proverbs; Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, and Lamentations; Daniel and the Scroll of Esther; and Ezra and Chronicles. The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that Job lived in the time of Moses, let the book of Job precede the others. The Gemara answers: We do not begin with suffering, i.e., it is inappropriate to start the Writings with a book that deals so extensively with suffering. The Gemara asks: But the book of Ruth, with which the Writings opens, is also about suffering, since it describes the tragedies that befell the family of Elimelech. The Gemara answers: This is suffering which has a future of hope and redemption. As Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Why was she named Ruth, spelled reish, vav, tav? Because there descended from her David who sated, a word with the root reish, vav, heh, the Holy One, Blessed be He, with songs and praises.”275276
“For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books,which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life.It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be willingly to die for them. For it is no new thing for our captives, many of them in number, and frequently in time, to be seen to endure racks and deaths of all kinds upon the theatres, that they may not be obliged to say one word against our laws and the records that contain them; whereas there are none at all among the Greeks who would undergo the least harm on that account, no, nor in case all the writings that are among them were to be destroyed; for they take them to be such discourses as are framed agreeably to the inclinations of those that write them; and they have justly the same opinion of the ancient writers, since they see some of the present generation bold enough to write about such affairs, wherein they were not present, nor had concern enough to inform themselves about them from those that knew them; examples of which may be had in this late war of ours, where some persons have written histories, and published them, without having been in the places concerned, or having been near them when the actions were done; but these men put a few things together by hearsay, and insolently abuse the world, and call these writings by the name of Histories.”278279280
I hope these quotes and their citations are helpful to you. The truth is that the position on the Biblical canon dogmatized by the Council of Trent is yet another point where the “consensus of the Fathers” is not clearly in Rome’s favor — in fact, it’s anything but.
That being said… don’t treat this article as a quote mine! Instead, please utilize it as a jumping-off point for further study. And, if there are any quotes which you feel need added context, please feel free to let me know in the comments. I’ll gladly fix any mistakes or oversights which may have been unintentionally included in the original article.
I hope to keep updating this list as I come across more quotes.
Until then,
May the Lord bless you and keep you all in His good graces.
2 Timothy 3:14-17NKJV “But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.”
Note: Here is how the Catholic Encyclopedia defines the Roman Catholic understanding of “canon”:
“The word canon as applied to the Scriptures has long had a special and consecrated meaning. In its fullest comprehension it signifies the authoritative list or closed number of the writings composed under Divine inspiration, and destined for the well-being of the Church, using the latter word in the wide sense of the theocratic society which began with God's revelation of Himself to the people of Israel, and which finds its ripe development and completion in the Catholic organism. The whole Biblical Canon therefore consists of the canons of the Old and New Testaments. The Greek kanon means primarily a reed, or measuring-rod: by a natural figure it was employed by ancient writers both profane and religious to denote a rule or standard. We find the substantive first applied to the Sacred Scriptures in the fourth century, by St. Athanasius; for its derivatives, the Council of Laodicea of the same period speaks of the kanonika biblia and Athanasius of the biblia kanonizomena. The latter phrase proves that the passive sense of canon — that of a regulated and defined collection — was already in use, and this has remained the prevailing connotation of the word in ecclesiastical literature. The terms protocanonical and deuterocanonical, of frequent usage among Catholic theologians and exegetes, require a word of caution. They are not felicitous, and it would be wrong to infer from them that the Church successively possessed two distinct Biblical Canons.Only in a partial and restricted way may we speak of a first and second Canon. Protocanonical (protos, "first") is a conventional word denoting those sacred writings which have been always received by Christendom without dispute. The protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants. The deuterocanonical (deuteros, "second") are those whose Scriptural character was contested in some quarters, but which long ago gained a secure footing in the Bible of the Catholic Church, though those of the Old Testament are classed by Protestants as the "Apocrypha". These consist of seven books: Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, First and Second Machabees; also certain additions to Esther and Daniel. […] It is thus seen that canonicity is a correlative of inspiration, being the extrinsic dignity belonging to writings which have been officially declared as of sacred origin and authority.”
- Reid, G. (1908). Canon of the Old Testament. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat. November 1, 1908. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York. Link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm
Note: As an additional official account, here is how the Catholic Catechism speaks of the Old Testament canon:
“It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books. This complete list is called the canon of Scripture. It includes 46 books for the Old Testament (45 if we count Jeremiah and Lamentations as one) and 27 for the New. The Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zachariah and Malachi. […] The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked. […] Christians venerate the Old Testament as true Word of God. The Church has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the New has rendered it void (Marcionism).”
“The majority of early Christians in the catholica and in other communities divided the available books not into two but into three categories: the most authoritative were considered canonical; those deprived of any authority were rejected and called apocryphal; and those that had some authority, that is, those that were considered profitable or useful, comprised a third category. I believe that Origen was a witness to such a repartition. There is no doubt that Eusebius respects it, even though he prefers to avoid it. Athanasius of Alexandria explicitly affirms it even as he restricts its interpretation: the third category's destination is the catechumen! In later centuries the matter becomes so clear that it appears typographically. Carl de Boer's edition of the Stichometry , attributed to Nicephorus, the Patriarch of Constantinople in the early ninth century, divides the Old and New Testaments each into three categories: a) the holy scriptures, b) the books that are disputed, and c) the apocrypha. Among the disputed books of the New Testament, Nicephorus names the Apocalypse of John, i.e., the book of Revelation, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Gospel of the Hebrews. Among the apocrypha, he names the Travels (i.e., Acts) of Peter, John, and Thomas ,the Gospel of Thomas, the Didache of the Apostles, the books of Clement, the works of Ignatius and Polycarp, and the Shepherd of Hermas.”
- François Bovon, Beyond the Canonical and the Apocryphal Books, the Presence of a Third Category: The Books Useful for the Soul, The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 105, No. 2 (APRIL 2012), pp. 127, link: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41474569
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Athanasius the Great, and St. John Damascene reckon them at twenty-two, agreeing therein with the Jews, who so reckon them in the original Hebrew tongue. (Athanas. Ep. xxxix. De Test.; J. Damasc. Theol. lib. iv. c. 17.)
32. Why should we attend to the reckoning of the Hebrews?
Because, as the Apostle Paul says, unto them were committed the oracles of God; and the sacred books of the Old Testament have been received from the Hebrew Church of that Testament by the Christian Church of the New. Rom. iii. 2.
33. How do St. Cyril and St. Athanasius enumerate the books of the Old Testament?
As follows: 1, The book of Genesis; 2, Exodus; 3, Leviticus; 4, the book of Numbers; 5, Deuteronomy; 6, the book of Jesus the son of Nun; 7, the book of Judges, and with it, as an appendix, the book of Ruth; 8, the first and second books of Kings, as two parts of one book; 9, the third and fourth books of Kings; 10, the first and second books of Paralipomena; 11, the first book of Esdras, and the second, or, as it is entitled in Greek, the book of Nehemiah; 12, the book of Esther; 13, the book of Job; 14, the Psalms; 15, the Proverbs of Solomon; 16, Ecclesiastes, also by Solomon; 17, the Song of Songs, also by Solomon; 18, the book of the Prophet Isaiah; 19, of Jeremiah; 20, of Ezekiel; 21, of Daniel; 22, of the Twelve Prophets.
34. Why is there no notice taken in this enumeration of the books of the Old Testament of the book of the Wisdom of the son of Sirach, and of certain others?
Because they do not exist in the Hebrew.
35. How are we to regard these last-named books?
Athanasius the Great says that they have been appointed of the Fathers to be read by proselytes who are preparing for admission into the Church.”
“The Church recognizes 38 books of the Old Testament. After the example of the Old Testament Church, several of these books are joined to form a single book, bringing the number to twenty-two books, according to the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. These books, which were entered at some time into the Hebrew canon, are called ‘canonical.’To them are joined a group of ‘non-canonical’ books—that is, those which were not included in the Hebrew canon because they were written after the closing of the canon of the sacred Old Testament books. The Church accepts these latter books also as useful and instructive and in antiquity assigned them for instructive reading not only in homes but also in churches, which is why they have been called ‘ecclesiastical.’The Church includes these books in a single volume of the Bible together with the canonical books. As a source of the teaching of the faith, the Church puts them in a secondary place and looks on them as an appendix to the canonical books. Certain of them are so close in merit to the Divinely-inspired books that, for example, in the 85th Apostolic Canon the three books of Maccabees and the book of Joshua the son of Sirach are numbered together with the canonical books, and, concerning all of them together it is said that they are ‘venerable and holy.’ However, this means only that they were respected in the ancient Church; but a distinction between the canonical and non-canonical books of the Old Testament has always been maintained in the Church."
- Fr. Michael Pomazansky, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: A Concise Exposition (Third Edition), CA: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood (1983, 2009), Introduction, Section 1: The Sources of Christian Doctrine.
“The ‘non-canonical’ books of the Old Testament are: Second and Third Esdras (usually called First and Second Esdras in the West), Tobit, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus or the Wisdom of Joshua the Son of Sirach, Baruch, three books of Maccabees, the Epistle of Jeremiah, Psalm 151,and the additions to the book of Esther, to II Chronicles (The Prayer of Manasseh), and to Daniel (The Song of the Three Youths, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon).”
- Fr. Michael Pomazansky, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: A Concise Exposition (Third Edition), CA: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood (1983, 2009), Introduction, Section 1: The Sources of Christian Doctrine, Footnote #8.
“‘CANON LXXXV: To all you Clergymen and Laymen let the following books be venerable and holy: Of the Old Covenant, the five of Moses, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy; the one of Jesus of Nave (commonly called Joshua in English); the one of Judges; the one of Ruth; the four of the Kingdoms; two Chronicles of the Book of Days; two of Esdras; one of Esther; three of the Maccabees; one of Job; one Psalter (Psalms); three of Solomon, namely, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs; twelve of the Prophets; one of Isaiah; one of Jeremiah; one of Ezekiel; one of Daniel; outside of these it is permissible for you to recount in addition thereto also the Wisdom of very learned Sirach by way of teaching your younger folks. Our own books, that is to say, those of the New Covenant, comprising four Gospels, namely, that of Matthew, of Mark, of Luke, and of John; fourteen Epistles of Paul; two Epistles of Peter, three Epistles of John; one of James; one of Jude; two Epistles of Clement; and the Injunctions addressed to you Bishops through me, Clement, in eight books, which ought not to be divulged to all on account of the secret matters they contain) and the Acts of us Apostles.’
Interpretation: After teaching and legislating in their holy Canons in what manner it befits those in Holy Orders and lay Christians in general to conduct themselves as a matter of policy, the Apostles lastly teach also what books they ought to read. Thus in their Canon IX they taught us not to read books that are uncanonical and falsely entitled and ascribed to others than their real authors, while in the present Canon they teach us to read the canonical and holy books which they also enumerate, as they appear listed here.These books are also mentioned in Canon IX of the synod held in Laodicea, and in Canon XXXII of that held in Carthage. Moreover, Athanasios the Great in his 39th festal letter, and St. Gregory the Theologian, in his Epic Verses, and Amphilochios the Bishop of Iconium in his Iambic Lines also mention them. In fact Athanasios the Great in his said letter divides all the books of the Old Covenant into two groups: the canonical, and the readable.
As regarding the ones in the Old Covenant called canonical he says that they are twenty-two books, in agreement with the number twenty-two of letters in the Hebrew alphabet (as is stated also by St. Gregory the Theologian and by divine John of Damascus), being named as follows: 1, Genesis; 2, Exodus; 3, Leviticus; 4, Numbers; 5, Deuteronomy; 6, Jesus of Nave (or Joshua); 7, Judges; 8, Ruth; 9, Kingdoms first and second taken together (also known as the Books of Samuel among the Jews); 10, Kingdoms third and fourth (called also the First and Second Books of Kings, respectively); 11, Chronicles first and second; 12, the First and the Second Book of Esdras, taken together; 13, The Psalms; 14, Proverbs; 15, Ecclesiastes; 16, The Song of Songs; 17, Job; 18, the twelve lesser Prophets, named as a single book; 19, Isaiah; 20, Jeremiah together with Lamentations, and Baruch, and an epistle; 21, Ezekiel; 22, Daniel. Readable books to be studied by the recently catechized are the following: Wisdom of Solomon, which is also called all-virtuous according to Eusebius (Book 11, Ch. 7, concerning Evangelical preparation); Wisdom of Sirach, which is also called all-virtuous, according to George Syngelos (note, however, that Sirach is called by the Westerners “Ecclesiasticus”); Esther; Judith; and Tobias.
Take note, however, of the fact that the book of Esther, which is but one, is also included among the Canonical Books, just as the present Apostolic canon also lists it among the canonical books; and so does the synod held in Laodicea, and that held in Carthage. But even the Wisdom of Solomon, and Judith, and Tobit are enumerated among the canonical books by the synod of Carthage. In the present Apostolic Canon the first three books of the Maccabees are also listed as canonical books.”
- St. Nicodemos the Hagiorite & Fr. Agapios the Hiermonk, The Rudder (Pedalion), translated by Denver Cummings, The Orthodox Christian Educational Society (2005), The 85 Canons of the Holy and Renowned Apostles Together With an Interpretation of Them in the Common Dialect of Modern Greek (Circa 1800), pg. 240-242, link: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/nicodemus-the-rudder.pdf
“[Footnote 119:] So it may be said that the sequence and order of books now read by all and printed and published as the text of the Bible is by no means correct and certain, as respects the books of the Old Covenant, for many reasons. […] And sixth, because in some editions it calls the uncanonical books apocrypha,at a time when it ought not to call them by this name at all, according to Athanasios the Great in his aforesaid epistle, seeing that the name apocrypha was invented by the heretics in order by means thereof to be able to state anything they want to as a fact and thus deceive the more simpleminded into believing they are really apocryphal books of saints and old ones too. So it seems to be best to call the uncanonical books of the Old Covenant “books for reading” (or, in Greek, anaginoscomena), and not “apocrypha.” The books properly and especially called “books for reading” are the following. Nehemiah: the Praise of the Three Servants instead of which the English Version has it “The Song of the three Holy Servants”); Bel and the Dragon, and Susanna. For these books are even mentioned either in the present Apostolic Canon or by the synod of Laodicea or that of Carthage, or by Athanasios the Great, or by divine Gregory, or by Amphilocios. (Origen however, did have a homily on Nehemiah.)
[…]
All the books held canonical among the Jews were written in Hebrew, but that of Tobit and that of Judith were written in Aramaic (formerly called Chaldaic). As for the Wisdom of Solomon, according to St. Athanasios, if it is a genuine work of Solomon’s, it must have been composed in Hebrew, but according to others it appeared to contain certain apothegms of Solomon’s but to have been written in Greek by Philo, one of the seventy interpreters of the Holy Scripture [Septuagint]. […] As for the books of the Maccabees, they were first written in Hebrew, and second in Greek. The Wisdom of Sirach was composed originally by Jesus the son of Sirach, whom some say to have been one of the seventy interpreters of the Holy Scriptures, though they say that this was actually translated into Greek by his son and was dedicated to his grandfather of the same name, as appears from the preface to the book itself. But in our times it is only the Greek translation that has been preserved, and not the Hebrew.”
Note: The following is a quote from an Eastern Orthodox catechism which was “Examined and Approved by the Most Holy Governing Synod, and Published for the Use of Schools, and of All Orthodox Christians, by the North American Ecclesiastical Consistory With the Blessing of the Most Reverend Tikohn, Bishop of the Orthodox Greek Russian Church in North America”:
“Q. How many are the books of the Old Testament?
A. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Athanasius the Great, and St. John Damascene reckon them at twenty-two, agreeing therein with the Jews, who so reckon them in the original Hebrew tongue. Athanas. Ep. xxxix. De Test., J. Damasc. Theol. 1. iv. c. 17.
Q. Why should we attend to the reckoning of the Hebrews ?
A. Because, as the Apostle Paul says, unto them were committed the oracles of God; and the sacred books of the Old Testament have been received from the Hebrew Church of that Testament by the Christian Church of the New. Rom. iii, 2.
Q. How do St. Cyril and St. Athanasius enumerate the books of the Old Testament ?
A. As follows: 1, The book of Genesis; 2, Exodus; 3, Leviticus; 4, The book of Numbers; 5, Deuteronomy; 6, The book of Jesus the son of Nun; 7, The book of Judges, and with it, as an appendix, The book of Ruth; 8, The first and second books of Kings, as two parts of one book; 9, The third and fourth books of Kings; 10, The first and second books of Paralipomena; 11, ‘The first book of Esdras, and the second, or, as it is entitled in Greek, the book of Nehemiah; 12, The book of Esther; 13, The book of Job; 14, The Psalms; lo, The Proverbs of Solomon; 16, Ecclesiastes, also by Solomon; 17, The Song of Songs, also by Solomon; 18, The book of the Prophet Isaiah; 19, Of Jeremiah; 20, Of Ezekiel; 21, Of Daniel; 22, Of the Twelve Prophets.
Q. Why is there no notice taken in this enumeration of the books of the Old Testament of the book of the Wisdom of the son of Sirach, and of certain others?
A. Because they do not exist in the Hebrew.
Q. How are we to regard these last-named books?
A. Athanasius the Great says, that they have been appointed of the Fathers to be read by proselytes, who are preparing for admission into the Church.”
“Q. How many books are there in the Old Testament ?
A. The books of the Old Testament are twenty-two in number.
Q. What are they called ?
A. Canonical, as composing the canon of Ezra.
Q. Are there any others, besides these canonical books !
A. Yes. These others are called deutero-canonical by the Catholics, and apocryphal by the Protestants. The Fathers of the Church call them ауаууоокбиеға,
Q. What are the canonical books of the Old Testament ?
А. The following are the canonical books—(1) Genesis, (2) Exodus, (3) Leviticus, (4) Numbers, and (5) Deuteronomy. These five constitute the Pentateuch. (6) The book of Jesus the son of Navé, (7) Judges, with an appendix called ‘Ruth,’ (8) the First and the Second Book of Kings, (9) the Third and the Fourth Book of Kings, (10) the Books of the Paralipomena, (11) Esdras or the Priest, and the First and the Second Discourse of Neémias, (12) Esther, (13) Job, (14) the Psalter of David, (15) the Proverbs of Solomon, (16) Ecclesiastes, (17) the Song of Songs, (18) Esaias, (19) Jeremias and the Lamentations of Jeremias, (20) Ezekiel, (21) Daniel, and (22) the Dodecapropheton, or the books of the twelve prophets commonly called minor.
Q. What are the deutero-canonical Books?
A. They are the following :—(1) The Book of Tobit, (2) Judith, (3) the Priest, (4) the First, Second, and Third Books of the Maccabees, and the following additamenta, (5) Baruch, (6) the Letter of Jeremias, (7) the Wisdom of Solomon, (8) the Wisdom of Sirach.”
- St. Nektarios of Aegina, Holy Catechism, pg. 4-6.
“Besides the canonical books, a part of the Old Testament is composed of non-canonical books, sometimes called Apochrypha among non-Orthodox. These are books which the Jews lost and which are not in the contemporary Hebrew text of the Old Testament. They are found in the Greek translations of the Old Testament, made by the 70 translators of the Septuagint three centuries before the birth of Christ (271 B.C.). These book have been included in the Bible from ancient times and are considered by the Church to be sacred Scripture. The translation of the Septuagint is accorded special respect in the Orthodox Church. The Slavonic translation of the Bible was made from it.
To the non-canonical books of the Old Testament belong:
1. Tobit
2. Judith
3. The Wisdom of Solomon
4. Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Sirach
5. Baruch
6. Three books of Maccabees
7. The Second and Third book of Esdras
8. The additions to the (Book of Esther,) II Chronicles (The Prayer of Manasseh) and Daniel (The Song of the Youths, Susanna and Bel and the Dragon).”
- Archpriest Seraphim Slobodskoy, The Law Of God: For Study at Home and School—Jordanville, NY: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1996, p. 423.
“The Hebrew version of the Old Testament contains thirty-nine books. The Septuagint contains in addition ten further books, not present in the Hebrew, which are known in the Orthodox Church as the ‘Deutero-Canonical Books’ (3 Esdras; Tobit; Judith; 1, 2, and 3 Maccabees; Wisdom of Solomon; Ecclesiasticus; Baruch; Letter of Jeremias. In the west these books are often called the ‘Apocrypha’). These were declared by the Councils of Jassy (1642) and Jerusalem (1672) to be ‘genuine parts of Scripture;’ most Orthodox scholars at the present day, however, following the opinion of Athanasius and Jerome, consider that the Deutero-Canonical Books, although part of the Bible, stand on a lower footing than the rest of the Old Testament.”
“'Deutero-canonical' is the qualification given by Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions to writings considered by the Church to be inspired but having a lesser degree of authority in matters of faith and morals. These include 1-2 [some would add 3-4] Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, and certain additions to Esther and Daniel."
Note: The following Eastern Orthodox source says that the Orthodox church accepts the deuterocanonical books as fully canonical — but then says that it does not use them as primary sources in the definition of dogma, which appears to still substantially agree with the 2-tier canon position:
“The Orthodox Bible contains certain other Scriptures besides that normally found in the Hebrew bible and most English language Bibles. The word Apocrypha means things that are hidden, although why so is not positively known. Sometimes these books are given the title Deutero-canonicalas contrasted to Proto-canonical to distinguish the first (or proto) canonical books from those that came later (deutero second). This term is to be preferred over Apocrypha since that word may have negative meanings.
The Deutero-canonical books appeared as part of Holy Scripture with the translation of the Hebrew Scripture into Greek by Alexandrian Jews who had been gathered together for that purpose in Egypt just prior to the New Testament times. Over the centuries, however, these books have been disputed by many; many hold them to have little or no value as Scripture. However, both the Orthodox and Roman Catholics accept them as part of the Biblical Canon, whereas, since the Reformation, most Protestants have rejected them as being spurious. Although the Orthodox Church accepts these books as being canonical, and treasures them and uses them liturgically, she does not use them as primary sources in the definition of her dogmas.
The Greek Additions to the Old Testament that are accepted by the Orthodox Churches are the following:
First Esdras
Second Esdras
Tobit
Judith
Additions to Esther
The Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach
Baruch
The Letter of Jeremiah
Additions to Daniel:
Song of the Three Youths
Susanna
Daniel, Bel and the Dragon
The Prayer of Manasseh
First Maccabees
Second Maccabees
Third Maccabees
Fourth Maccabees […] This book is included in the Greek Orthodox Bible (in an Appendix), but is not found in Russian Bibles, and is a classic example of the interpretation of Judaism in terms of Greek philosophy.”
- “These Truths We Hold - The Holy Orthodox Church: Her Life and Teachings”. Compiled and Edited by A Monk of St. Tikhon's Monastery. Pennsylvania: St. Tikhon's Seminary Press (1986). Link: https://www.stots.edu/article/The+Old+Testament+Apocrypha
“While the Greek fathers cherished learning with true devotion and refused to change or add to the dogmas of-antiquity, they brought little more critical sagacity to the solution of historical questions than Western scholars.The one conciliar decision on the Canon, which was made (by implication and not directly) at Constantinople, involves the ratification of two absolutely inconsistent lists of the sacred books, those of Carthage and the Apostolical Canons; and neither of these lists is supported by the independent evidence of any Greek Fathers. This decision of the so-called Quini-Sextine Council [a.k.a. - the Council of Trullo] is remarkable on many grounds. No disciplinary Canons had been enacted at the fifth and sixth Councils of Constantinople—the socalled fifth and sixth general councils—which were occupied with the condemnation of the errors of Origen and the Monothelites. To supply this deficiency, a Council of 227 bishops was held in A. D. 692 (691) in a hall of the imperial palace (Trullus, i. e. the Cupola), who enacted a large and comprehensive code of laws, which is still valid in the Greek Church. The first canon is occupied with the assertion of the orthodox faith in the Blessed Trinity against the various errors which had been condemned in successive councils. The second contains an enumeration of those canons already enacted, which ‘from henceforth are to be held sure and certain for the nurture and healing of souls.’ In these are included the ‘ eighty-four Canons of the holy and glorious Apostles,’ and especial reference is made to the catalogue of Holy Scriptures which they contain by a notice of the Apostolical Constitutions.
This book, as we have seen, was included in the Apostolic Canons among the books of the Bible, but now, it is said, it must no longer be received as part of ‘the genuine teaching of the Apostles,’ owing to the interpolations of heretics. Thus the Epistles of Clement, which are also contained in the Apostolic Catalogue, are absolutely ratified as Holy Scripture. Yet further the Canons of Carthage are confirmed, and consequently the enlarged Bible of Augustine; and to make the confusion still more complete, the Canons of Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Amphilochius, who expressly exclude the Apocrypha from the Old Testament, are also admitted among those which it is unlawful ‘to change or subvert.’
It may be argued that the ratification of these various decrees does not descend into every detail, that the ecclesiastical list of sacred writings formed at Carthage is not inconsistent with the critical list of Athanasius, that the object of the Quini-Sextine decree was disciplinary and not doctrinal; but when every allowance is made on these or other grounds, it is obvious that the decree is a signal proof of the indifference with which the exact determination of the contents of the Bible was regarded at Constantinople in the seventh century. The Catalogues of Holy Scripture were prominent parts of the codes which were authorized; in one case at least they were revised; and yet the large residuum of discrepancies which they contained elicited no discussion or remark.
Individual writers exhibit the same absence of all desire for a precise determination of the limits of the Bible. Even where they give a formal opinion, they do not hold themselves bound by it in practice. Thus the later Greek fathers universally exclude the Apocrypha from their lists of the books of the Bible, and still constantly use them with respect in their own writings. In this respect their evidence forms an instructive commentary on that of earlier writers. Citation alone, with whatever marks of reverence it may be accompanied, cannot be confidently accepted as a test of the admitted canonicity of a book.”
“The Christian East took a longer time than the West in settling on an agreed canon of Scripture. The principal hesitations concerned the books of the Old Testament which are not contained in the Hebrew Canon ('shorter' canon) and the book of Revelation in the New Testament. Fourth-century conciliar and patristic authorities in the East differ in their attitude concerning the exact authority of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Esther, Judith, and Tobit. Athanasius in his famous Paschal Letter 39 excludes them from Scripture proper, but considers them useful for catechumens, an opinion which he shares with Cyril of Jerusalem. Canon 60 of the Council of Laodicea - whether authentic or not - also reflects the tradition of a 'shorter' canon. But the Quinisext Council (692) endorses the authority of Apostolic Canon 85, which admits some books of the 'longer' canon, including even 3 Maccabees, but omits Wisdom, Tobit, and Judith. John of Damascus (t ca. 753), however, considers Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus as 'admirable,' yet fails to include them in the canon. Therefore, in spite of the fact that Byzantine patristic and ecclesiastical tradition almost exclusively uses the Septuagint as the standard Biblical text, and that parts of the 'longer' canon - especially Wisdom - are of frequent liturgical use, Byzantine theologians remain faithful to a 'Hebrew' criterion for Old Testament literature, which excludes texts originally composed in Greek. Modern Orthodox theology is consistent with this unresolved polarity when it distinguishes between 'canonical' and 'deuterocanonical' literature of the Old Testament, applying the first term only to the books of the 'shorter' canon.”
Note: It is worth bringing up that some proponents of Eastern Orthodoxy believe that the Septuagint is the official source text of their church, and that, therefore, its contents should authoritatively determine their canon — however, this matter is not as simple as they would like it to be. While Biblical scholar and Hebraist Dr. Lénart de Regt believes that there is no explicit distinction in the way Eastern Orthodox utilize canonical vs. non-canonical Scriptural texts, he maintains that the Orthodox Church holds a multi-tier view of Scripture (speaking of its model of canon being one of concentric circles with no fixed boundaries). In this context, he also says the following regarding the Russian Orthodox use of the Septuagint and Masoretic text traditions in Bible translation:
“The use of the broad canon did not imply acceptance of the text of the Septuagint only. Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk summarises the situation in the Orthodox Church as follows:
“Православная Церковь никогда не канонизировала какой-то один текст или перевод, какую-то одну рукопись или одно издание Священного Писания. Единого общепринятого текста Библии в православной традиции нет.”
[“The Orthodox Church never canonised any one particular text or translation, or any one particular manuscript or any one publication of the Holy Scriptures. There is not a one and only generally accepted text of the Bible in Orthodox tradition.”] (Hilarion 2013, 3).
Significantly, the metropolitan finds justification for this in the fact that the Apostolic Church did not canonise any particular type of text either:
“Апостольская Церковь не настаивала на канонизации какого-то одного типа библейского текста. Не делает так и Православная Церковь.”
[“The Apostolic Church did not strive towards canonising any one particular type of biblical text. The Orthodox Church does not do this either.”] (Hilarion 2013, 4)
What the Apostolic Church did do is illustrated by the New Testament: the New Testament does not always quote from one and the same version of the Old Testament. While it often quotes from the Greek Septuagint, it does quote from the Hebrew text in a number of cases, for example in Matt 12.18, where it quotes from the Hebrew of Isa 42.1 (Hilarion 2013, 4).
As mentioned above in connection with Augustine, the Septuagint has a particularly important role in Orthodox tradition.
“Неверно, однако, было бы утверждать, что именно Септуагинта и только Септуагинта является Библией Православия.”
[“It would be wrong, however, to maintain that precisely the Septuagint and only the Septuagint forms the Orthodox Bible.”] (Hilarion 2013, 3)
This implies that the Orthodox Church regards neither the Hebrew, nor the Greek, nor the Slavonic texts as exclusively authoritative. Metropolitan Filaret of Moscow, who was opposed to the canonisation of the Greek Septuagint and of the Slavonic Bible, wrote concerning the Slavonic Bible in particular:
“Святейший Синод по трудам исправления славянской Библии не провосгласил текста славянского исключительно самостоятельным.”
[“In the process of improving the Slavonic Bible the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church did not proclaim the Slavonic text as exclusively independent.”] (Quoted by Hilarion 2013, 4)
At least in principle, this allows room for textual eclecticism, also in translation. This is already illustrated by the Slavonic Bible itself.
[…]
In conclusion, the Synodal Translation demonstrates which books are regarded as part of the Bible by the Russian Orthodox Church. Being an Orthodox Bible, it states that the Old Testament includes the 39 canonical and 11 non-canonical books. As the already mentioned UBS Translation Guidelines for Confessional Scripture Translation say (2004, 8): “The scope of the canon of the Church for whom the translation is intended should be respected as well as its canonical order of books.” The Synodal Translation is also indicative of the fact that the Septuagint was never the only ecclesiastical text of the Old Testament in Russia.
Other translations into Russian, for example, Iungerov’s translation of the Psalms, the Prophets and Wisdom Books from the Septuagint (1890−1915) were not Synod-authorised.
After its publication, the choice of the source texts of the Synodal Translation continued to be challenged, both for the Old and the New Testament: the Hebrew Masoretic Text on the one hand and the textus receptus on the other continued to be seen as controversial (Batalden 2013, 205). But to date this Russian translation has been the only one that was prepared and published with the authority of the Holy Synod.” [brackets included in original article]
“The controversy between Rome and the Reformers did not long escape the notice of the Eastern Orthodox Church, but the Orthodox were slow in taking sides. They knew both the broad and the narrow canon of the Fathers, and were concerned that the books of the broad canon, which they used in their liturgy, should continue to be esteemed. On the other hand, the belief that only the books of the Hebrew Bible are actually inspired has gradually gained ground among the Orthodox, at the expense of the Roman view, and it now looks as if a decision to this effect could be taken in the forseeable future by a pan-Orthodox synod....A draft statement which makes a firm distinction between the canonical books (those of the Hebrew Bible) and the books that are read (the Apocrypha) was prepared for the coming Great Council of the Orthodox Church, and though this topic has now been deferred until some future occasion, a similar statement has been agreed in the promising negotiations between the Orthodox and the Old Catholics. The first of these two statements is published in Towards the Great Council (London, SPCK, 1972), p. 3f., and the second in Episkepsis, no. 131 (23 September 1975), p. 10f. The Orthodox list of the books that are read, by comparison with the Apocrypha of the English Bible, adds 3 Maccabees, but finds no place for 2 Esdras (4 Ezra) or the prayer of Manasses. The 4 Maccabees of the LXX is not included either.”
- Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon Of The New Testament Church [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1986], p. 2, n. 9 on p. 14.
“In 1642 and 1672 respectively Orthodox synods at Jassy (Iasi) and Jerusalem confirmed as 'genuine parts of scripture' the contents of the 'Septuagintal plus' (the canonicity of which had been taken for granted), specifically: 1 Esdras (= Vulgate 3 Esdras), Tobit, Judith, 1, 2 and 3 Maccabees, Wisdom, Ben Sira (Ecclesiastiscus), Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah. The Septuagint remains the 'authorized version' of the Old Testament in Greek Orthodoxy, its deviations from the traditional Hebrew text being ascribed to divine inspiration. Most Orthodox scholars today, however, follow Athanasius and others in placing the books of the 'Septuagintal plus' on a lower level of authority than the 'proto-canonical' writings....an ecumenical milestone was reached in 1973 with the appearance of the Common Bible, an edition of the RSV with the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical Books printed between the Testaments in a form which received the blessing not only of Catholic and Protestant church leaders but also of the Archbishop of Thyateira and Great Britain, the leader of the Greek Orthodox community in Britain....The commendation of the Greek Orthodox Archbishop is the more telling because the OT part of the work is not based on the Septuagint, which is the authoritative text for the Orthodox Church.”
- F.F. Bruce, The Canon Of Scripture [Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1988], pp. 82, 113, n. 31 on p. 113.
Note: Here, it might be profitable to consider a few definitions of “unanimity” and “consensus” when it comes to assent toward a given proposition:
“#488. Assent —
N. assent, assentment; […]Unanimity, common consent, consensus, acclamation, chorus, vox populi; popular belief, current belief, current opinion; public opinion; concurrence &c. (of causes). […] Adj. assenting; of one accord, of one mind; of the same mind, at one with, agreed, acquiescent, content; willing &c. uncontradicted, unchallenged, unquestioned, uncontroverted.carried, agreed, […] unanimous; agreed on all hands, carried by acclamation. affirmative. Adv. […] of course, unquestionably, assuredly, no doubt, doubtless. […] With one consent, with one voice, with one accord; unanimously, una voce, by common consent, in chorus, to a man. […] without a dissentient voice; as one man, one and all, on all hands.”
When the Fathers of the Church are morally unanimous in their teaching that a certain doctrine is a part of revelation, or is received by the universal Church, or that the opposite of a doctrine is heretical, then their united testimony is a certain criterion of divine tradition. As the Fathers are not personally infallible, the counter-testimony of one or two would not be destructive of the value of the collective testimony; so a moral unanimity only is required.”
- Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary. WILKES-BARRE, PA.: Dimension Books (1965). Nihil Obstat. November 27, 1964. James T. Clarke, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur. Jerome D. Hannan, Bishop of Scranton. Pg. 153. link: https://archive.org/details/maryknollcatholi00nevi/page/153/mode/1up
[*IMPORTANT NOTE: keep in mind that this article will show a LOT more than just “one or two” Church Fathers disagreeing with Trent’s position]
Note: Please excuse the length of some of these quotes. For those quotes whose full text is freely available in the public domain, I wanted to include a sufficiently lengthy portion of the text, so that people cannot simply cry, “Ripped out of context!” when a given quote disagrees with them.
Note: The people that ask “Well, how many Church Fathers agree wholesale with the specific Protestant canon?” as a supposed rebuttal are entirely missing the point. Perhaps a thought experiment here would be helpful in explaining how that’s the case.
Suppose that you are a cop who's been tipped off about a large crew who is planning on robbing an incredibly busy bank. You walk into what is supposed to be the middle of the robbery, but nobody looks particularly suspicious to you at first. Additionally, several customers express confusion as to why you’re here — they didn’t witness any attempted robbery. However, at this point, several bank employees approach you and inform you that a robbery was, in fact, under way and that when the squad cars appeared outside, they witnessed the members of the crew take off their masks, change into regular civilian clothes, and blend into the crowd. The testimony of the bank employees seems credible to you, and you launch an investigation.
You are not exactly sure how many members make up the crew, but when you have a host of key witnesses examine a line-up of 46 suspects…
Some of them identify suspects 1-5 as members of the crew.
Some of them identify suspects 1, 2, 3, and 4 as members of the crew.
Some of them identify suspects 5, 6, and 7 as members of the crew.
Some of them identify suspects 2, 4, and 6 as members of the crew.
Some of them identify suspects 1, 3, 5, and 7 as members of the crew.
Would it be unreasonable if, after investigating each identified suspect further and weighing out all available material evidence, you concluded that suspects 1-7 are all members of the bank robber crew? Of course not. After all, you had reason to individually suspect all 7 of them from the get-go based on the testimonies afforded to you.
Obviously, this analogy isn’t perfect and is sure to break down like all analogies tend to do (especially since the deuterocanonical books don’t have the nefarious character of a group of criminals). However, hopefully the point is clear: if we have testimonies from an abundance of witnesses casting suspicion on each of the 7 deuterocanonical books, then it is not unreasonable to reach the conclusion that all 7 books should be in the disputed and non-canonical category.
“A Christian bishop of the fourth century, [Amphilochius of Iconium was]son of a Cappadocian family of distinction, b. perhaps at Cæsarea, c. 339 or 340; d. probably some time between 394 and 403. […] Early in 374 he was bishop of the important see of Iconium, probably placed there by Basil, whom he continued to aid in Cappadocian ecclesiastical affairs until Basil's death (379). Thenceforth he remained in close relations with Gregory of Nazianzus, and accompanied him to the Synod of Constantinople (381), where St. Jerome met and conversed with him (De Vir. Ill., c. 133). In the history of theology he occupies a place of prominence for his defence of the divinity of the Holy Spirit against the Macedonians. It was to him that St. Basil dedicated his work ‘On the Holy Spirit’. He wrote a similar work, now lost. We know, however, that he read it to St. Jerome on the occasion of their meeting at Constantinople. His attitude towards Arianism is illustrated by the well-known anecdote concerning his audience with Theodosius and his son Arcadius. When the Emperor rebuked him for ignoring the presence of his son, he reminded him that the Lord of the universe abhorreth those who are ungrateful towards His Son, their Saviour and Benefactor. He was very energetic against the Messalians, and contributed to the extirpation of that heresy. His contemporaries rated him very high as a theologian and a scholarly writer. Not to speak of his admirers and friends already mentioned, St. Jerome says (Ep. 70) of the Cappadocian triad (Basil, Gregory, and Amphilochius) that ‘they cram their books with the lessons and sentences of the philosophers to such an extent that you cannot tell which you ought to admire most in them, their secular erudition or their scriptural knowledge’. In the next generation Theodoret described him in very flattering terms (Church History IV.10 and V.16), and he is quoted by councils as late as 787.”
Note: Notice that Amphilochius opens this quote by mentioning the fact that there two different kinds of non-canonical books floating around in his day: 1. Books which are “intermediate or neighbours, as one might say, to the words of Truth,” and 2. Books which are forgeries and/or completely heretical. A key piece of context for understanding that first category is the fact that a two-tier view of the canon was common among many Church Fathers, wherein books like the deuterocanonicals were recognized as being spiritually edifying and were even sometimes included within a broad category of “canon” without being seen as infallible or as a valid foundation for basing doctrine. That being said, Amphilochius seems to recognize that these sorts of edifying books are out there, but he expressly does not include them in his canonical list. Especially of note is the fact that First and Second Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and Baruch are omitted from Amphilochius’ list of the “unerring canon of the divinely inspired scriptures” — although it is likely that he would’ve seen them as part of that first category of books mentioned above.
“Besides this, it is most important that you know this also: not everything is to be considered certain which offers itself as venerable Scripture. For there are those written by false men – as is sometimes done. As regards books, there are several which are intermediate and near to the doctrine of truth, so to speak but there are others however, which are spurious and extremely dangerous, like false seals and spurious coins, which do indeed have the inscription of the king, but which are counterfeit, and made out of base material. On account of this then, I shall enumerate for you the individual books inspired by the Holy Spirit, and in order that you may know the thing clearly, I will begin with the books of the Old Testament. The Pentateuch contains Genesis, then Exodus, Leviticus, which is the middle book, after that Numbers and finally Deuteronomy. To these add Joshua and Judges; after these Ruth and the four books of Kings, Paralipomenon equal to one book; following these first and second Esdras. Next I will recall to you five books: the book of Job, crowned by the struggles of various calamities; also the book of Psalms, the musical remedy of the soul; the three books of the Wisdom of Solomon, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, and the Canticle of Canticles. I add to these the twelve prophets, first Hosea, then Amos, and after that Michah, Joel, Abdiah, and Jonah, the type of the three days of the Passion, after these Nahum, Habacuc, then the ninth Sophonias, Haggai and Zachariah and the angel with two names, Malachi. After these, know the other prophets thus far to be four: the great and undaunted Isaiah, Jeremiah, inclined to mercy, and the mystic Ezechiel, and Daniel, most wise in the happenings of the Last Things, and some add Esther to these.”
- Letter to Seleucus. ap. Gregory Nazianzus, Carminum II.vii, PG 37.1593-1595. Translation by Catherine Kavanaugh, University of Notre Dame.
“[The Apostolic Canons are] A collection of eighty-five rules for the regulation of clerical life, appended to the eighth book of the Apostolical Constitutions. They are couched in brief legislative form though on no definite plan, and deal with the vexed questions of ecclesiastical discipline as they were raised towards the end of the 4th century. At least half of the canons are derived from earlier constitutions, and probably not many of them are the actual productions of the compiler, whose aim was to gloss over the real nature of the Constitutions, and secure their incorporation with the Epistles of Clement in the New Testament of his day. The Codex Alexandrinus does indeed append the Clementine Epistles to its text of the New Testament. The Canons may be a little later in date than the preceding Constitutions, but they are evidently from the same Syrian theological circle.”
“[The Apostolic Canons are] A collection of ancient ecclesiastical decrees (eighty-five in the Eastern, fifty in the Western Church) concerning the government and discipline of the Christian Church, incorporated with the Apostolic Constitutions (VIII, 47).
They deal mostly with the office and duties of a Christian bishop, the qualifications and conduct of the clergy, the religious life of the Christian flock (abstinence, fasting), its external administration (excommunucation, synods, relations with pagans and Jews), the sacraments (Baptism, Eucharist, Marriage); in a word, they are a handy summary of the statutory legislation of the primitive Church. The last of these decrees contains a very important list or canon of the Holy Scripture (see CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES under sub-title Canon of the New Testament). In the original Greek text they claim to be the very legislation of the Apostles themselves, at least as promulgated by their great disciple, Clement. Nevertheless, though a venerable mirror of ancient Christian life and blameless in doctrine, their claim to genuine Apostolic origin is quite false and untenable. Some, like Beveridge and Hefele, believe that they were originally drawn up about the end of the second or the beginning of the third century. Most modern critics agree that they could not have been composed before the Council of Antioch (341), some twenty of whose canons they quote; nor even before the latter end of the fourth century, since they are certainly posterior to the Apostolic Constitutions. Von Funk, admittedly a foremost authority on the latter and all similar early canonical texts, locates the composition of the Apostolic Canons in the fifth century, near the year 400. Thereby he approaches the opinion of his scholarly predecessor, Drey, the first among modern writers to study profoundly these ancient canons; he distinguished two editions of them, a shorter one (fifty) about the middle of the fifth century, and a longer one (eighty-five) early in the sixth century. Von Funk admits but one edition. They were certainly current in the Eastern Church in the first quarter of the sixth century, for in about 520 Severus of Antioch quotes canons 21-23. […] The home of the author seems to be Syria. He makes use of the Syro-Macedonian calendar (can. 26), borrows very largely from a Syrian council (Antioch, 341), and according to Von Funk is identical with the compiler or interpolator of the Apostolic Constitutions, who was certainly a Syrian (Die apostol. Konstitutionen, 204-5).
As just indicated the number of these canons has given rise to no little controversy. In the Apostolic Constitutions (loc. cit.) they are eighty-five (occasionally eighty-four, a variant in the Manuscripts that arises from the occasional counting of two canons as one). In the latter half of the sixth century, John of Antioch (Joannes Scholasticus), Patriarch of Constantinople from 565 to 577, published a collection of synodal decrees in which he included these eighty-five canons (see Justel-Voellus, Bibliotheca Juris Canonici veteris, Paris, 1661, II, 501), and this number was finally consecrated for the Greek Church by the Trullan or Quinisext Council (692), which also confined the current Greek tradition of their Apostolic origin. On the other hand the Latin Church, throughout the Middle Ages, recognized but fifty canons of the Apostles. This was the number finally adopted by Dionysius Exiguus, who first translated these canons into Latin about 500. It is not very clear why he omitted canons 51-85; he seems to have been acquainted with them and to have used the Apostolic Constitutions. In reality Dionysius made three versions of the Apostolic Canons (the oldest of them first edited by C. H. Turner, Ecclesiæ Occidentalis monumenta juris antiquissima, Oxford, 1899, fasc. I, 1-32); it is the second of these versions which obtained general European currency by its incorporation as the opening text of his famous Latin collection of canons (both synodal decrees and papal decretals) known as the "Dionysiana Collectio" (P.L., LXVII, 9 sqq.), made public in the first decade of the sixth century. Later collections of canons (Italy, Spain, France, Germany, etc.) borrowed from him; the text passed into Pseudo-Isidore, and eventually Gratian Included (c. 1140) some excerpts from these canons in his "Decretum", whereby a universal recognition and use were gained for them in the law schools. At a much earlier date Justinian (in his Sixth Novel) had recognized them as the work of the Apostles and confirmed them as ecclesiastical law. (For the Western references in the early Middle Ages see Von Funk, "Didascalia" etc. quoted below, II, 40-50, and for their insertion in the early Western collections of canons, Maassen, "Gesch. der Quellen und Literatur des canonischen Rechts im Abendlande, Gratz, 1872, 438-40.) Nevertheless, from their first appearance in the West they aroused suspicion. Canon 46 for example, that rejected all heretical baptism, was notoriously opposed to Roman and Western practice. In the so-called "Decretum" of Pope Gelasius (429-96) they are denounced as an apocryphal book, i.e. not recognized by the Church (Thiel, epistolæ Rom. pontificum genuinæ, 1867, I, 53-58, 454-71; Von Funk, op. cit., II, 40), though this note of censure was probably not in the original "Decretum", but with others was added under Pope Hormisdas (514-23). Consequently in a second edition (lost, except preface) of his "Collectio canonum", prepared under the latter pope, Dionysius Exiguus omitted them; even in the first edition he admitted that very many in the West were loath to acknowledge them (quamplurimi quidem assensum non prœbuere facilem). Hincmar of Reims (died 882) declared that they were not written by the Apostles, and as late as the middle of the eleventh century, Western theologians (Cardinal Humbert, 1054) distinguished between the eighty-five Greek canons that they declared apocryphal, and the fifty Latin canons recognized as "orthodox rules" by antiquity.
The influence of the Apostolic Canons was greatly increased by the various versions of them soon current in the Christian Church, East and West. We have already indicated the influence of the second Latin version of Dionysius Exiguus. They were also translated (more or less fully) into Syriac, Arabic, Coptic, and Armenian; in general they seem to have furnished during the fifth and sixth centuries a large element of the ecclesiastical legislation in the Eastern Church.”
“Apostolic Constitutions and Canons is the name applied to an ancient collection of ecclesiastical precepts. The Constitutions profess to be regulations for the organization of the Church put forth by the apostles themselves and published to the faithful by Clement of Rome. In reality they are of Syrian origin, and were composed by a cleric from older sources in the latter half of the fourth century. They consist of eight books. The eighty-five Canons have the form of synodal decisions, and proceeded from the same source not much later. The fate of the two collections, so nearly allied in their origin, has been different. The Constitutions can never have been received outside of a narrow circle. They were considered spurious even in an extremely uncritical age, and thus never came as a whole into any of the great collections of ecclesiastical law in the East, though a part of the eighth book is frequently met with in these. They were unknown in the West until the sixteenth century, at which time neither Baronius nor Bellarmine made any attempt to vindicate their authenticity, though Anglican theologians took a great interest in them and frequently upheld their apostolic origin. The Canons, on the other hand, were generally received as genuine, included in many collections of Church law, and translated into several Oriental languages; to this day they stand at the beginning of the canonical system of the Eastern Church. The first fifty were made known to the West by Dionysius Exiguus (d. before 544), from whom they passed into a number of Latin collections, e.g., the pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, the Decretum Gratiani, and the Decretals of Gregory IX. […] The Apostolic Canons grew up in the same surroundings [as the Apostolic Constitutions], probably with the view of covering the lack of authenticity of the Constitutions by a new forgery. Their numbering varies; the division into eighty-five seems to be the oldest. Outside of the Constitutions, their sources are the decrees of the Dedication Synod of Antioch in 341 and other councils. Canon lxxxv. is the interesting Bible canon of both the Old and New Testaments, which omits the Apocalypse, but includes the two Clementine epistles and the Constitutions as Scripture.”
Note: Canon 85 includes "three books of the Maccabees," but it omits the rest of the deuterocanonical books. While the canon says “And see that those newly come to discipleship become acquainted with the Wisdom of the learned Sirach”, that is in line with the usual Patristic use of Ecclesiasticus as an edifying work meant to help catechumen — but it does not make it canonical.
“Athanasius was the greatest champion of Catholic belief on the subject of the Incarnation that the Church has ever known and in his lifetime earned the characteristic title of ‘Father of Orthodoxy,’ by which he has been distinguished ever since.”
“St. Athanasius (born c. 293, Alexandria—died May 2, 373, Alexandria; feast day May 2) was a theologian, ecclesiastical statesman, and Egyptian national leader. He was the chief defender of Christian orthodoxy in the 4th-century battle against Arianism, the heresy that the Son of God was a creature of like, but not of the same, substance as God the Father. His important works include The Life of St. Antony, On the Incarnation, and Four Orations Against the Arians.”
“Athanasius of Alexandria also gave a list of the Old Testament canon. Like Cyril he listed the number of books at twenty-two and cited their identity. He mentions that the books he listed were those that had been handed down by tradition in the Church. Athanasius made some very significant statements in his comments. He gave the same canon as Cyril of Jerusalem but he omitted Esther. He likewise included Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah as additions to canonical Jeremiah and would most likely have included the additions to the book of Daniel. He said that these alone, along with the New Testament canon which he also catalogued, were the divinely inspired Scriptures from which the Church was to draw her doctrine of salvation. He went so far as to say that no man was to add to these books and was careful to distinguish between those that were truly authoritative and canonical and those that were useful for reading purposes only. He listed a number of Apocryphal books in this latter category as well as Esther.”
(7th century) Irish author of De mirabilibus sacrae scripture (‘On the wonders of sacred Scripture’) gives his name as Augustine, in recognition of his chief inspiration. Internal evidence shows that he wrote in Ireland in AD 655; hence, he is known as Augustinus Hibernicus. He mentions the fauna of the land; the fathers and masters he names help to define his location further. Some appear to be scholars active in the middle of the seventh century in the south (Grosjean; Gorman 79). He uses the 532-year Easter cycle, which had gained acceptance in southern Ireland by the middle of the seventh century, to give 652 as the date of the death of the (spiritual) father Manchianus (Esposito; O Croinin 1983). It is probable that he is the Manchan of Min Drochid whose death is recorded in the Irish annals in that year. Gerard MacGinty examined the tidal data in the tract an argued that they are compaible with the lower estuary of the River Shannon. He further suggested that, in the dedication of the work as it survives to the clerics of the monastery of Carthage, ‘Cartaginenses’ is probably a corruption of ‘Catagenses/Cataginenses’ denoting the monastery on Inis Cathaig, Scattery Island, in the Shannon estuary.”
“St. Basil the Great was an early Church Father who defended the orthodox faith against the Arian heresy. As bishop of Caesarea, he wrote several works on monasticism, theology, and canon law. He was declared a saint soon after his death.”
“[Basil the Great was] Bishop of Caesarea, and one of the most distinguished Doctors of the Church. Born probably 329; died 1 January, 379. He ranks after Athanasius as a defender of the Oriental Church against the heresies of the fourth century. With his friend Gregory of Nazianzus and his brother Gregory of Nyssa, he makes up the trio known as ‘The Three Cappadocians’, far outclassing the other two in practical genius and actual achievement.”
“In 1873, Philotheos Bryennios was working in the library of the Jerusalem Monastery of the Most Holy Sepulchre in the city of Constantinople when he discovered a manuscript (copied in 1056) containing the previously lost Didache, the two epistles of Clement, and several other compositions. Among these other compositions was a list of the OT books that has become known as the Bryennios List (BL). The list of books filled about twelve lines in the manuscript on fol. 76a, appearing between 2 Clement and the Didache itself. Bryennios published the contents of the manuscript in 1883, simply transcribing the list of biblical books. The surprising rediscovery of the Didache overshadowed the other works in the manuscript, so that it was not until 1950 that a full-scale analysis of this list was published. Jean-Paul Audet’s seminal study brought the list to the attention of scholars and spawned further analysis. Various issues are disputed, including the list’s language, provenance, date, and significance for the history of the canon of the Old Testament. BL contains a list of ‘the names of the books among the Hebrews.’ Its twenty-seven book titles appear in a Semitic form (in Greek transliteration) and then in the usual Greek form. The Semitic names for the books relate clearly to the titles in Epiphanius’ list in Mens. 23, though the two lists also have differences.”
- Edmon Gallagher and John Meade, The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity: Texts and Analysis, Oxford University Press (2017), pg. 70-71.
“This canon list contains a similar catalogue of books to the Jewish and Protestant canons in twenty-seven books. The identification of Esdras A and Esdras B is an open question, as well as whether Lamentations, Baruch, and the Epistle or a combination of these works are subsumed under the title of ‘Jeremiah.’ This list does not contain any of the deuterocanonical books.”
- Edmon Gallagher and John Meade, The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity: Texts and Analysis, Oxford University Press (2017), pg. 71.
“[The Synod of Laodicea was] an important council held at Laodicea, in Phvrgia, in the 4th century. The year in which this council convened is disputed. Baronius and Binius assign the year 314; Pagi. 363; Hardouin places it as late as 372, and others even in 399. Hefele thinks that it must have had its session between 343 (the Council of Antioch) and 381, rather in the second than in the first half of the 4th century. Beveridge adduces some probable reasons for supposing it to have been held in 365. Thirty- two bishops were present, from different provinces of Asia, and sixty canons were published, which were accepted by the other churches.”
“There are extant, in Greek, sixty canons of a Council of Laodicea. That this assembly was actually held, we have the testimony of Theodoret ("In Coloss.", ii, 18, P.L., LXXXII, 619). There has been much discussion as to the date: some have even thought that the council must have preceded that of Nicaea (325), or at least that of Constantinople (381) It seems safer to consider it as subsequent to the latter. The canons are, undoubtedly, only a resume of an older text, and indeed appear to be derived from two distinct collections. They are of great importance in the history of discipline and liturgy.”
“The prominence which Cyril [of Jerusalem] gives to the account of the contents of the Bible in his Instructions, no less than the metrical Catalogues of Gregory and Amphilochius, shows the popular interest which was excited in the subject in some provinces about the middle of the fourth century. But as yet no decision had been made by any council or synod upon the Bible. Every one who dealt with the question appealed to tradition, to usage, to antiquity, but not to any definite decree.At last, however, a decree was made upon the Sacred Books at the Synod of Laodicea, a small gathering of clergy from parts of Lydia and Phrygia, which was held about A.D. 363. After, other disciplinary ordinances the last Canon runs: 'Psalms composed by private men must not be read in the Church, nor books not admitted into the Canon, but only the Canonical [books] of the New and Old Testaments.' To this decree in the printed editions of the Canons and in most MSS., a list of the Holy Scriptures is added, which is absolutely identical with Cyril's, except as to the position of Esther and Job, adding Baruch and the Letter to Jeremiah, and omitting the Apocalypse. But this list is without doubt a later addition. It is omitted in good Greek MSS., in two distinct Syriac versions, preserved in MSS. of the sixth or seventh century, in one of the two complete Latin versions, and in the oldest digests of the Canons. Yet it was in all probability a very early gloss, derived either directly from Cyril, or from the usage of the Churches which Cyril himself followed. The authenticity of the list is really a question of verv little moment. Even if it were authentic, it could in itself have no binding authority for the Church at large. The Synod was small and (as it seems) unorthodox. But the genuine decree has none the less considerable historical interest. For the first time the Canonical Books of Scripture were invested with a special and exclusive ecclesiastical authority. Cyril, in opposition to Athanasius, had already marked out the same law, though general usage still sanctioned a wider range of ecclesiastical books. The change was called for by the circumstances of the Church; and as the Arian party, of whom the Synod appears to have been composed, were always inclined towards the stricter view of the Canon, it was natural that they should touch upon the subject in a series of dis ciplinary rules. But if the origin of the Laodicene decrees is not above suspicion, they were fully ratified at a later time by the Eastern Church at the Quinisextine Council of Constantinople, and sometimes with the appended list of the sacred books, sometimes without it, passed into the general code of Christendom.”
“These are all the books of Old Testament appointed to be read: 1, Genesis of the world; 2, The Exodus from Egypt; 3, Leviticus; 4, Numbers; 5, Deuteronomy; 6, Joshua, the son of Nun; 7, Judges, Ruth; 8, Esther; 9, Of the Kings, First and Second; 10, Of the Kings, Third and Fourth; 11, Chronicles, First and Second; 12, Esdras, First and Second; 13, The Book of Psalms; 14, The Proverbs of Solomon; 15, Ecclesiastes; 16, The Song of Songs; 17, Job; 18, The Twelve Prophets; 19, Isaiah; 20, Jeremiah, and Baruch, the Lamentations, and the Epistle; 21, Ezekiel; 22, Daniel. And these are the books of the New Testament: Four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; The Acts of the Apostles; Seven Catholic Epistles, to wit, one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude; Fourteen Epistles of Paul, one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Hebrews, two to Timothy, one to Titus, and one to Philemon.”
“Saint Cyril of Jerusalem (born c. 315, Jerusalem—died 386?, Jerusalem; feast day March 18) was a bishop of Jerusalem and doctor of the church who fostered the development of the ‘holy city’ as a pilgrimage centre for all Christendom. A senior presbyter when he succeeded Maximus as bishop (c. 350), Cyril was exiled about 357 and at two later times from his see by the Arians. Many years later at the Council of Constantinople (381) there was evidence that he might have been suspected by the strictly orthodox for his associations with the Homoiousians (moderate Arians), who had reinstated him as bishop at the Council of Seleucia (359). He retained his bishopric during the reign of Emperor Julian the Apostate (361–363). Cyril’s primary surviving work is a collection of 23 catechetical lectures (Catecheses) delivered to candidates for Baptism. The first 18, based on the Jerusalem baptismal creed, were given during Lent, and the concluding 5 instructed the newly baptized during the week after Easter. Cyril was declared a doctor of the church in 1883.”
“Cyril of Jerusalem in the mid fourth century, gave a complete catalogue of the canonical Old Testament books received by the Church of his day in his Catechetical Lectures. As pointed out previously, he mentioned the Jewish numeration of twenty-two books and gave a list of the specific books which comprise the canon.64 There are a number of important facts to note in Cyril’s comments. First of all, he states that this listing is the authoritative canon which was handed down by the Church. Secondly, he states that the canon he gave came from the Septuagint, but it excluded most of the books of the Apocrypha. The only Apocryphal books he listed were those of Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah which he mistakenly thought to have been part of the original canonical Jeremiah. It is probably true to say that he also included the additions to the prophet Daniel of Bel and the Dragon, The Song of the Three Children and Susanna since these were commonly associated with Daniel. He does not mention them but he does quote from them in his Catechetical Lectures.”
“[Roman Catholic apologists] suggest that if we appeal to Cyril on a particular issue, we are bound to accept everything he teaches. Why, then, are there teachings endorsed by Cyril which are rejected by these same Roman apologists today? For example, Cyril lists the specific books of the canon of Scripture, which he says were handed down by the Church. Yet Cyril rejected the majority of the books of the Old Testament Apocrypha from the canon of Scripture. In Not By Scripture Alone, [Roman Catholic apologist] Joe Gallegos makes reference to Cyril’s teaching on the canon in the context of promoting the authority of the Church. He purposefully misleads his readers, giving the impression that Cyril and the present day Roman Church are in agreement: “It was the Church who decided which books were and were not included in the canon of Scripture...Cyril of Jerusalem discusses where one finds the authentic canon of the Bible in his lectures on the faith: ‘Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testament, and what those of the New’ ” (Not By Scripture Alone, pp. 459–460). This is all Gallegos says. He fails to give all of Cyril’s comments on the canon. For obvious reasons, he purposefully omits the catalogue of books which Cyril says were authoritatively determined by the Church as canonical. The Roman Catholic Church has rejected Cyril’s view, demonstrating the inherent contradiction between the claims of Roman apologists and the facts of history. If the Church in Cyril’s day authoritatively defined the canon and Gallegos appeals to that Church in support of the authority of present day Rome, how can he reject what that Church authoritatively taught in the person of Cyril of Jerusalem? Gallegos wants to appeal to Cyril of Jerusalem on a fundamental point of authority but rejects the teaching which he says is illustrative of that authority. This is disingenuous. If he is at liberty to reject the teachings of Church fathers, while appealing to the authority of the Church, then Protestants are at liberty to reject whatever teachings we believe do not conform to Scripture. As we have seen, this was the overall practice of the early Church and its approach to the writings of the Church fathers.”
“The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila (TA) is an anonymous, Jewish and Christian dialogue situated in Alexandria during Cyril's episcopacy (412-444 C.E.). It is preserved in eight Greek manuscripts, the earliest of which is an eighth- or ninth- century C.E. palimpsest, manuscript R, whose underwriting is sparse and difficult to decipher. The remaining manuscripts fall into two groups: those preserving the longer form of TA, manuscripts P and O from the eleventh century and manuscript V from the twelfth, and a group of three shorter recensions: manuscript Z from the twelfth century, and manuscripts M and E from the fifteenth century. Robert Robertson identified an eighth witness to TA, manuscript A from the twelfth century, which preserves unacknowledged excerpts of TA previously believed to be a corrupt witness to Epiphanius's Weights and Measures. While Angelo Mai published the first excerpts of TA in 1843,2 and F. C. Conybeare presented the first unabridged edition in 1898, it was not until 1986 that Robertson established a critical edition. […] Conybeare and Williams both argued for a late second-century date for the earlier text. J. Neville Birdsall was sympathetic to Williams's view, noting, ‘the early dating of the Dialogue proposed by Lukyn Williams may well be right: or at any rate that some ancestral form of the present dialogue goes back than the fourth century or later for which most scholars opt.’ As will be discussed below, the latter third century, rather than the second, is a more appropriate setting.”
- Jacqueline Z. Pastis, Dating the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila: Revisiting the Earlier Vorlage Hypothesis, The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 95, No. 2 (Apr., 2002), pg. 169-170, 182, link: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4150719
Note: Lest any Roman Catholic tries to argue that Timothy the Christian was simply providing the books Jews and Christians hold in common for the purposes of debate, instead of the full Christian list, notice that Timothy the Christian says, “For Tobit and the Wisdom of Solomon and the Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach, the 72 translators (LXX) handed down to us as apocryphal books. These twenty two books are the inspired and canonical ones. […] And they are numbered according to the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, and all the rest of them belong to the Apocrypha.” He says the Septuagint’s translators handed down these books as Apocrypha, and he then reaffirms that they “belong to the Apocrypha.” Additionally, Aquila the Jew responds to cited passage by asking Timothy the Jew for a list of the New Testament so that he may know the full account of Christian Scriptures which he wished to dissuade Timothy from — and, even upon this insistence for a full canonical account, Timothy makes zero mention of the deuterocanonicals being a part of the Christian canon.
“[Gregory of Naianzus] was a 4th-century Church Father whose defense of the doctrine of the Trinity (God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) made him one of the greatest champions of orthodoxy against Arianism.”
“S. Gregory Nazianzen, called by the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus “The Great,” and universally known as “The Theologian” or “The Divine,” a title which he shares with S. John the Evangelist alone among the Fathers of the Church, was, like the great Basil of Cæsarea and his brother Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, by birth a Cappadocian. [...] His constant theme was the worship of the Trinity. After two Sermons in deprecation of religious contentiousness, he preached those famous Five Orations which have won for him the title of the Theologian. To analyse these belongs to another portion of this work; it will be enough in this place to say, that after warning his audience against the frivolity with which the Arians were dragging religious subjects of the most solemn kind into the most unsuitable places and occasions, he proceeds in four magnificent discourses to set forth the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, shewing carefully the difference between Sabellian confusion of Persons and Tritheistic division of Substance. The Arians, however, persecuted him bitterly; even, on one occasion at least, hiring an assassin to murder him; and their persecution was all the more bitter because of the wonderful success which attended Gregory’s preaching. S. Jerome, who came to Constantinople at this time, has left on record the pleasure with which he listened to and conversed with the great Defender of the Faith.”
“Some account must now be given of Gregory's voluminous writings, and of his reputation as an orator and a theologian, on which, more than on anything else, rests his fame as one of the greatest lights of the Eastern Church. His works naturally fall under three heads, namely his poems, his epistles, and his orations. [...] These [i.e. - Gregory’s prose epistles], by common consent, belong to the finest literary productions of Gregory's age. All that are extant are finished compositions; and that the writer excelled in this kind of composition is shown from one of them (Ep. ccix, to Nicobulus) in which he enlarges with admirable good sense on the rules by which all letter-writers should be guided. It was at the request of Nicobulus, who believed, and rightly, that these letters contained much of permanent interest and value, that Gregory prepared and edited the collection containing the greater number of them which has come down to us. Many of them are perfect models of epistolary style — short, clear, couched in admirably chosen language, and in turn witty and profound, playful, affectionate and acute. Both in his own time, and by the general verdict of posterity, Gregory was recognized as one of the very foremost orators who have ever adorned the Christian Church. Trained in the finest rhetorical schools of his age, he did more than justice to his distinguished teachers; and while boasting or vainglory was foreign to his nature, he frankly acknowledged his consciousness of his remarkable oratorical gifts, and his satisfaction at having been enabled to cultivate them fully in his youth. Basil and Gregory, it has been said, were the pioneers of Christian eloquence, modeled on, and inspired by, the noble and sustained oratory of Demosthenes and Cicero, and calculated to move and impress the most cultured and critical audiences of the age. Only comparatively few of the numerous orations delivered by Gregory have been preserved to us, consisting of discourses spoken by him on widely different occasions, but all marked by the same lofty qualities. Faults they have, of course: lengthy digressions, excessive ornament, strained antithesis, laboured metaphors, and occasional over-violence of invective. But their merits are far greater than their defects, and no one can read them without being struck by the noble phraseology, perfect command of the purest Greek, high imaginative powers, lucidity and incisiveness of thought, fiery zeal and transparent sincerity of intention, by which they are distinguished. Hardly any of Gregory's extant sermons are direct expositions of Scripture, and they have for this reason been adversely criticized. Bossuet, however, points out with perfect truth that many of these discourses are really nothing but skillful interweaving of Scriptural texts, a profound knowledge of which is evident from every line of them.”
- Hunter-Blair, Oswald. (1910). St. Gregory of Nazianzus. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07010b.htm
“Gregory the Great is certainly one of the most notable figures in Ecclesiastical History. He has exercised in many respects a momentous influence on the doctrine, the organization, and the discipline of the Catholic Church. To him we must look for an explanation of the religious situation of the Middle Ages; indeed, if no account were taken of his work, the evolution of the form of medieval Christianity would be almost inexplicable. And further, in so far as the modern Catholic system is a legitimate development of medieval Catholicism, of this too Gregory may not unreasonably be termed the Father. Almost all the leading principles of the later Catholicism are found, at any rate in germ, in Gregory the Great.”
“Doctor of the Church; born at Rome about 540; died 12 March 604.
[…]
He was a trained Roman lawyer and administrator, a monk, a missionary, a preacher, above all a physician of souls and a leader of men. His great claim to remembrance lies in the fact that he is the real father of the medieval papacy (Milman).
With regard to things spiritual, he impressed upon men's minds to a degree unprecedented the fact that the See of Peter was the one supreme, decisive authority in the Catholic Church. During his pontificate, he established close relations between the Church of Rome and those of Spain, Gaul, Africa, and Illyricum, while his influence in Britain was such that he is justly called the Apostle of the English. In the Eastern Churches, too, the papal authority was exercised with a frequency unusual before his time, and we find no less an authority than the Patriarch of Alexandria submitting himself humbly to the pope's ‘commands’. The system of appeals to Rome was firmly established, and the pope is found to veto or confirm the decrees of synods, to annul the decisions of patriarchs, and inflict punishment on ecclesiastical dignitaries precisely as he thinks right.
Nor is his work less noteworthy in its effect on the temporal position of the papacy. Seizing the opportunity which circumstances offered, he made himself in Italy a power stronger than emperor or exarch, and established a political influence which dominated the peninsula for centuries. From this time forth the varied populations of Italy looked to the pope for guidance, and Rome as the papal capital continued to be the centre of the Christian world.
Gregory's work as a theologian and Doctor of the Church is less notable. In the history of dogmatic development he is important as summing up the teaching of the earlier Fathers and consolidating it into a harmonious whole, rather than as introducing new developments, new methods, new solutions of difficult questions. It was precisely because of this that his writings became to a great extent the compendium theologiae or textbook of the Middle Ages, a position for which his work in popularizing his great predecessors fitted him well. Achievements so varied have won for Gregory the title of ‘the Great’, but perhaps, among our English-speaking races, he is honoured most of all as the pope who loved the bright-faced Angles, and taught them first to sing the Angels' song.”
“When Gregory, while Apocrisarius in Constantinople, met Bishop Leander of Seville about the year 578, Leander asked him to write a commentary on the Book of Job. Gregory’s response was his Moralia or Moralium libri or Expositio in librum Iob, at which he worked intermittently for many years, finally completing the work in thirty-five books about the year 595 A.D. The Moral Teachings is devoted mostly to discussions of questions in moral theology and of practical applications of Gregory’s solutions. In a sense it may be regarded as the first manual of moral and ascetic theology.”
- William Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1979), Volume III, p. 313.
“This is significant, coming as it does from a bishop of Rome, who denied canonical status to 1 Maccabees long after the Councils of Hippo and Carthage. But he taught that the book was useful for the purpose of edification, the same sentiment expressed by Jerome. This is in direct contradiction to what the earlier Roman Church decreed under Innocent I, who confirmed the books sanctioned as canonical by Augustine and the Councils of Hippo and Carthage. Gregory’s comments on 1 Maccabees are from his Morals on Job. There are some who suggest that this was simply Gregory’s opinion as a private theologian and that he did not write his commentary while bishop of Rome. The truth is, however, that he wrote part of his commentary prior to his position as Roman bishop while he was in Constantinople, and part while he was the pope of Rome. Roman Catholic patristics scholar, William Jurgens, gives the [above] background on Gregory’s commentary. [...] Note that Jurgens affirms that Gregory did write his commentary while he was pope. Additionally, in asserting that I Maccabees was not canonical, Gregory was not sharing his personal opinion as a private theologian, but stating the position of the Church of his day. Gregory would never have purposefully taught a view contrary to what he knew had been authoritatively established by the Church. Clearly, when the Church received the Apocryphal books as canonical it defined the term in the sense expressed by Cardinal Cajetan above. The term had both a broad and a narrow meaning. Broadly, it included all the books that were acceptable for reading in the Churches, which included the Apocrypha. But, in its narrower meaning, only the books of the Hebrew Canon were sanctioned as truly canonical for the purposes of establishing doctrine. Furthermore, the assertion that Gregory’s Morals on Job was not an official Church document is erroneous. In the later Middle Ages, his Morals was the standard commentary for the entire Western Church on Job. That this commentary was written while he was pope and was used as an official commentary for the entire Western Church is proof enough that this work was an official Church document. Moreover, Gregory never retracted what he wrote about the Apocrypha. Thus, we have the official and authoritative perspective of a bishop of Rome in the late sixth and early seventh centuries regarding the canonical status of the Apocrypha”
“[Epiphanius of Salamis was] Born at Besanduk, near Eleutheropolis, in Judea, after 310; died in 403. While very young he followed the monastic life in Egypt. On his return to Judea he founded a monastery at Besanduk and was ordained to the priesthood. In 367 his reputation for asceticism and learning brought about his nomination as Bishop of Constantia (Salamis) the metropolis of the Island of Cyprus. For nearly forty years he fulfilled the duties of the episcopate, but his activity extended far beyond his island. His zeal for the monastic life, ecclesiastical learning, and orthodoxy gave him extraordinary authority; hence the numerous occasions on which his advice was sought, and his intervention in important ecclesiastical affairs.”
“By the time of the captives’ return from Babylon these Jews had acquired the following books and prophets, and the following books of the prophets: 1. Genesis. 2. Exodus. 3. Leviticus. 4. Numbers. 5. Deuteronomy. 6. The Book of Joshua the son of Nun. 7. The Book of the Judges. 8. Ruth. 9. Job. 10. The Psalter. 11. The Proverbs of Solomon. 12. Ecclesiastes. 13. The Song of Songs. 14. The First Book of Kings. 15. The Second Book of Kings. 16. The Third Book of Kings. 17. The Fourth Book of Kings. 18. The First Book of Chronicles. 19. The Second Book of Chronicles. 20. The Book of the Twelve Prophets. 21. The Prophet Isaiah. 22. The Prophet Jeremiah, with the Lamentations and the Epistles of Jeremiah and Baruch. 23. The Prophet Ezekiel. 24. The Prophet Daniel. 25. I Ezra. 26. II Ezra. 27. Esther. These are the twenty-seven books given the Jews by God. They are counted as twenty-two, however, like the letters of their Hebrew alphabet, because ten books which the Jews reckon as five are double…And they have two more books of disputed canonicity, the Wisdom of Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon, apart from certain other apocrypha.”
- The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Nag Hammadi Studies, Edited by Martin Krause, James Robinson, Frederik Wisse, (Leiden: Brill, 1987), Book I, Section I.6,1.
“Belonging to a noble and very probably pagan family, [Hilary of Poitiers] was instructed in all the branches of profane learning, but, having also taken up the study of Holy Scripture and finding there the truth which he sought so ardently, he renounced idolatry and was baptized. Thenceforth his wide learning and his zeal for the Faith attracted such attention that he was chosen about 350 to govern the body of the faithful which the city had possessed since the third century. We know nothing of the bishops who governed this society in the beginning. Hilary is the first concerning whom we have authentic information, and this is due to the important part he played in opposing heresy. The Church was then greatly disturbed by internal discords, the authority of the popes not being so powerful in practice as either to prevent or to stop them. Arianism had made frightful ravages in various regions and threatened to invade Gaul, where it already had numerous partisans more or less secretly affiliated with it. Saturninus, Bishop of Arles, the most active of the latter, being exposed by Hilary, convened and presided over a council at Béziers in 356 with the intention of justifying himself, or rather of establishing his false doctrine. Here the Bishop of Poitiers courageously presented himself to defend orthodoxy, but the council, composed for the most part of Arians, refused to hear him, and being shortly afterwards denounced to the Emperor Constantius, the protector of Arianism, he was at his command transported to the distant coasts of Phrygia. But persecution could not subdue the valiant champion. Instead of remaining inactive during his exile he gave himself up to study, completed certain of his works which he had begun, and wrote his treatise on the synods. In this work he analysed the professions of faith uttered by the Oriental bishops in the Councils of Ancyra, Antioch, and Sirmium, and while condemning them, since they were in substance Arian, he sought to show that sometimes the difference between the doctrines of certain heretics and orthodox beliefs was rather in the words than in the ideas, which led to his counselling the bishops of the West to be reserved in their condemnation. [...] This learned and energetic bishop had fought against error with the pen as well as in words. The best edition of his numerous and remarkable writings is that published by Dom Constant under the title: "Sancti Hilarii, Pictavorum episcopi opera, ad manuscriptos codices gallicanos, romanos, belgicos, necnon ad veteres editiones castigata" (Paris, 1693). The Latin Church celebrates his feast on 14 January, and Pius IX raised him to the rank of Doctor of the Universal Church.”
“St. Hilary of Poitiers is one of the greatest, yet least studied, of the Fathers of the Western Church. He has suffered thus, partly from a certain obscurity in his style of writing, partly from the difficulty of the thoughts which he attempted to convey. [...] Hilary never does himself justice. He was a great original thinker in the field of Christology, but he has never stated his views systematically and completely. They have to be laboriously reconstructed by the collection of passages scattered throughout his works; and though he is a thinker so consistent that little or no conjecture is needed for the piecing together of his system, yet we cannot be surprised full justice has never been done to him.”
“Hilary of Poitiers held to the traditional Jewish numeration of twenty-two books, although he appended the Epistle of Jeremiah to Jeremiah. He wrote that the numeration and contents of the canon was given by an ancient tradition of the fathers [as cited above]. ”
“Hilary of Poitiers (300-368) was a bishop of Poitiers in Gaul. He was one of the few churchmen of the West who were able to read Greek in his day. The influence of the earlier Greek Fathers is evident in his list of the canonical books of the Old Testament. From his Expositions of the Psalms (Tractatus super Psalmos), § 15, written about A.D. 360. It should be noted that this list of canonical books follows that of Origen in several matters of detail. Origen's list also appeared in an exposition of the Psalms (according to Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, vi. 25), which indicates that Hilary was drawing upon the work of Origen in his exposition. Like Origen, he lists only the books of the Hebrew canon, but afterwards he mentions that some add Tobit and Judith.”
“The reason for reckoning twenty-two books of the Old Testament is that this corresponds with the number of the [Hebrew] letters. They are counted thus according to old tradition: the books of Moses are five, Joshua son of Nun the sixth, Judges and Ruth the seventh, first and second Kings the eighth, third and fourth [Kings] the ninth, the two of Chronicles make ten, the words of the days of Ezra the eleventh, the book of Psalms twelfth, of Solomon the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs are thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth, the Twelve Prophets sixteenth, then Isaiah and Jeremiah (with Lamentations and the Epistle) and Daniel and Ezekiel and Job and Esther complete the number of the books at twenty-two. To this some add Tobit and Judith to make twenty-four books, according to the number of the Greek letters, which is the language used among Hebrews and Greeks gathered in Rome.”
- Hilary of Poitiers, Tractatus super Psalmos, § 15, translation by Michael Marlowe, Bible Researcher, “Hilary of Poitiers on the Canon,” link:https://www.bible-researcher.com/hilary.html
“Et ea causa est, ut in viginti duos libros lex Testamenti Veteris deputetur: ut cum litterarum numero convenirent. Qui ita secundum traditiones veterum deputantur, ut Moysi sint libri quinque, Jesu Nave sextus, Judicum et Ruth septimus, primus et secundus Regnorum in octavum, tertius et quartus in nonum, Paralipomenon duo in decimum sint sermones dierum Esdrae in undecimum, liber Psalmorum in duodecimum, Salomonis Proverbia, Ecclesiastes, Canticum canticorum in tertium decimum, et quartum decimum, et quintum decimum, duodecim Prophetae in sextum decimum, Esaias deinde et Jeremias cum lamentatione et epistola, sed et Daniel, et Ezechiel, et Job, et Hester, viginti et duum librorum numerum consumment. Quibusdam autem visum est, additis Tobia et Judith 11 viginti quatuor libros secundum numerum graecarum litterarum connumerare, Romana quoque lingua media inter Hebraeos Graecosque collecta.”
- Sancti Hilarii Pictaviensis Episcopi Tractatus Super Psalmos, Prologue 15, Testamenti Veteris libri XXII, aut 24. Tres linguae praecipuae. Patrologia Latina 9:241. Translation by Dr. Michael Woodward, Associate Library Director, Archbishop Vehr Theological Library.
“A celebrated Syrian writer, b. most likely in A.D. 633; d. 5 June, 708. He was a native of the village of 'En-debha, in the district of Gumyah, in the province of Antioch. During several years he studied Greek and Holy Writ at the famous convent of Kennesrhe, on the left bank of the Euphrates, opposite Europus (Carchemish). After his return to Syria he was appointed Bishop of Edessa, about A.D. 684, by the Patriarch Athanasius II, his former fellow-student. Equally unable to enforce canonical rules and to connive at their infringement, he resigned his see after a four years' episcopate, and withdrew to the convent of Kaisum (near Samosata), while the more lenient Habhibh succeeded him as Bishop of Edessa. Shortly afterwards he accepted the invitation of the monks of Eusebhona (in the Diocese of Antioch) to reside at their convent, and there he commented for eleven years on the Sacred Scriptures in the Greek text, doing his utmost to promote the study of the Greek tongue. […] James of Edessa was a Monophysite, as is proved by the prominent part he took in the synod which the Jacobite patriarch Julian convened in 706, and by one of his letters in which he speaks of the orthodox Fathers of Chalcedon as "the Chalcedonian heretics". In the literature of his country he holds much the same place as St. Jerome does among the Latins (Wright). For his time, his erudition was extensive. He was not only familiar with Greek and with older Syriac writers, but he also had some knowledge of Hebrew, and willingly availed himself of the aid of Jewish scholars, whose views he often records. His writings, which are not all extant, were very varied and numerous. Among them may be noticed first, his important revision of the Old Testament. This work was essentially Massoretic. James divided the Sacred Books into chapters, prefixing to each chapter a summary of its contents. He supplied the text with numerous marginal notes, of which one part gives readings from the Greek and the Syrian versions at his disposal, and the other part indicates the exact pronunciation of the words of the text. Some of the notes contain extracts from Severus of Antioch; while, at times, glosses are inserted in the text itself. Unfortunately, only portions of this revision have come down to us. These are: practically the whole Pentateuch and the Book of Daniel, preserved in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris (Syric. nos. 26, 27); the two Books of Samuel with the beginning of Kings, and the prophecy of Isaias, found in the British Museum (Add. 14429, 14441).”
Note: Some may want to object that, since James of Edessa was a Syrian monophysite, his testimony of the canonical Scriptures must be limited to a monphysite context and is therefore of no use to us; however, that conclusion does not follow. James of Edessa may simply be bearing witness to the canon of his day, irrespective of his monophysite beliefs — as such, his testimony bears historical significance
Note: The original French translation is titled, “Lettre de Jacques d'Édesse à Jean le Stylite: Sur la Chronologie Biblique et la Date de la Naissance du Messie” by François Nau: https://doi.org/10.31826/9781463220693-040
“St. Jerome (born c. 347, Stridon, Dalmatia—died 419/420, Bethlehem, Palestine; feast day September 30) was a biblical translator and monastic leader, traditionally regarded as the most learned of the Latin Fathers. He lived for a time as a hermit, became a priest, served as secretary to Pope Damasus I, and about 389 established a monastery at Bethlehem. His numerous biblical, ascetical, monastic, and theological works profoundly influenced the early Middle Ages. He is known particularly for his Latin translation of the Bible, the Vulgate, and has been designated a doctor of the church.”
“St. Jerome’s importance lies in the facts: (1) That he was the author of the Vulgate Translation of the Bible into Latin, (2) That he bore the chief part in introducing the ascetic life into Western Europe, (3) That his writings more than those of any of the Fathers bring before us the general as well as the ecclesiastical life of his time. It was a time of special interest, the last age of the old Greco-Roman civilization, the beginning of an altered world. It included the reigns of Julian (361–63), Valens (364–78), Valentinian (364–75), Gratian (375–83), Theodosius (379–95) and his sons, the definitive establishment of orthodox Christianity in the Empire, and the sack of Rome by Alaric (410). It was the age of the great Fathers, of Ambrose and Augustine in the West, of Basil, the Gregories, and Chrysostom in the East. With several of these Jerome was brought into personal contact; of Ambrose he often speaks in his writings; with Augustin he carried on an important correspondence; he studied under Gregory Nazianzen at the time of the Council at Constantinople, 381; he was acquainted with Gregory of Nyssa; he translated the diatribe of Theophilus of Alexandria against Chrysostom. He ranks as one of the four Doctors of the Latin Church, and his influence was the most lasting; for, though he was not a great original thinker like Augustin, nor a champion like Ambrose, nor an organiser and spreader of Christianity like Gregory, his influence outlasted theirs. [...] To the theologian he is interesting rather for what he records than for any contribution of his own to the science; but to the historian his vivid descriptions of persons and things at an important though melancholy epoch of the world are of inestimable value.”
Historical Context: Here is some historical context for Jerome’s reception in the Middle Ages, which is incredibly germane to our discussion of canon in this article:
“The main lines of St. Jerome’s influence in various directions can be established and then illustrated by reference to Bede and to the Carolingian divines. For his library in the episcopal palace at Seville St. Isidore composed a series of short poems. These were placed above the cases in which his books were housed, so that the user could see at a glance what author or authors were to be found in each section of the library. He penned three dactylic hexameters for the bookcase in which reposed the works of St. Jerome, echoing a sentiment that had already been expressed by Cassian: ‘Jerome, adept translator skilled in divers tongues, honoured in Bethlehem, the world rings with thy name; So with thy books our library shall bruit thy fame.’ Nearly two centuries later [after St. Isidore of Seville] the Venerable Bede refers to Jerome as the ‘translator of sacred history’ and ‘the admirable translator and teacher of the Sacred Scriptures.’ In the ninth century testimonies to Jerome’s eminence meet one at every turn. One writer calls him ‘the translator of the Divine Law,’ another, ‘the most blessed Jerome, incomparably learned in so many languages and books.’ One writer calls him the ‘translator of the Divine Law,’ another ‘the most blessed Jerome, incomparably learned in so many languages and books.’ For Alcuin he [St. Jerome] is the ‘interpreter of Sacred History and the greatest teacher (maximus doctor) and defender of the Catholic Faith.’ The Spanish Paulus Albarus who calls Jerome ‘that saint and abyss of learning’ composed a poem of some length in his honor. The poetry is mediocre, but the sentiments are unimpeachable. The doubtable Hincmar of Rheims more specifically says of Jerome that he was ‘most expert in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin,’ while Hrabanus Maurus, some time abbot of Fulda and later bishop of Mayence and himself a most industrious compiler, expresses his admiration for the genius and learning of this Latin father, which he displayed in translating and expounding Holy Writ. Jonas, bishop of Orleans, with terse daring dubs him ‘the library of Mother Church.’ These various utterances, which could be multiplied greatly, are soubly significant: they show the veneration with which the scholars of the eighth and ninth centuries regarded Jerome, but they also indicate their reasons for it. He is the translator of the Bible he is versed in the original languages in which the Old and New Testament were composed; and he is a man of outstanding erudition. […] By the thirteenth century, too, greatly renewed interest had got under way in the original languages of the Old and New Testament and in comparing the Hebrew with the Vulgate version. This, amongst other things, brought with it fresh study of Jerome, the one Latin Father who had put such linguistic problems in the forefront of his Biblical exegesis. Indeed, it may be said that now more than ever before St. Jerome came to be regarded par excellence as the authority on the literal or historic sense of Scripture, just as St. Gregory the Great counted as the classic exponent of the sensus moralis. A fourteenth-century tractate on the art of preaching, attributed to Henry of Hesse, begins by defining the four senses of Scriptural interpretation. Jerome is the representative of the literal sense, Gregory of the moral, Ambrose of the allegorical, and Augustine of the anagogical. What the writer of the tractate lays down at the beginning of his work is not, of course, peculiar to him; it represents the accepted teaching of the age. Thus there was every reason why libraries should possess at least some of Jerome’s many writings. The larger collections, as for example, in Christ Church and in St. Augustine’s, Canterbury, would be likely to own a complete or near-complete set of his works, and some of these besides in multiple copies.”
- M. L. W. Laistner, A Monument to Saint Jerome: Essays on Some Aspects of His Life, Works, and Influence, Essay: “The Study of St. Jerome in the Early Middle Ages”, NY: Sheed & Ward, pg. 236-237, 253-254, link: https://archive.org/details/monumenttosaintj0000unse/page/236/mode/1up
“A similar perspective to Rufinus was held by Jerome. He and Origen are the only fathers considered to be true biblical scholars in the early Church, and Jerome, alone among all the fathers, is considered to be a Hebrew scholar. Given the many errors in translation found in the Septuagint, Jerome undertook to provide a fresh translation directly from the Hebrew for the Latin Church. He received a great deal of criticism because many felt, in undertaking this translation, he was casting aspersion upon the Septuagint which they considered inspired. His translation became known as the Latin Vulgate and became the standard Bible translation used by the Western Church throughout the medieval ages and the post-Tridentine Roman Catholic Church. Jerome lived in Palestine and consulted with the Jews. As a result he refused to translate the Apocrypha because the books were not part of the Hebrew canon. His position was that of Rufinus and Athanasius. He made it clear that the Church of his day did not grant canonical status to the writings of the Apocrypha as being inspired.”
“This preface, also known as the Prologus Galeatus, ‘Helmeted Preface,’ was written by Jerome about the year 391. In it he maintains that, for the Old Testament, only the Hebrew books traditionally regarded as Holy Scripture by the Jews are canonical, and the extra books of the Septuagint ‘are not in the canon.’”
“We shall now examine the standard references to St. Jerome’s formal teaching on the canon; then we shall try to account for that teaching as a consequence of the trend of his own personal studies, while taking note of how the teaching, once given, affected St. Jerome’s own practice and the attitude of his friends. For comprehensive statements regarding the canon, we have three to draw upon. They are not, as will be seen; entirely consistent; and the first applies only to the Old Testament. ’It is contained in the “Prologus galeatus,” or “Praefatio in libros Samuel et Malachim,” and it lists the Biblical books as follows: Genesis, Exodus, leviticus, Numbers, Deteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, Samuel (1, 2), Kings (3, 4) Isaias, Jeremias, Ezechiel, 12 Minor Prophets; Job, Psalms, Proverbs Ecclesiastes, Canticle of Canticles, Daniel, Paralipomenon (1, 2), Esdras (1, 2), Esther. Then comes a general statement that anything else is apocryphal, that is, non-canonical (us scire valeamus, quidquid extra hos est, inter apocrypha esse ponendum). This is followed by an explicit rejection (Igitur…non sunt in canone) of Wisdom, Sirach (Ecclus.), Judith, Tobias and the Shepherd (!), and it is said that the first, but not the second, book of Maccabees is to be found in Hebrew. […] As between the prologus galeatus and the letter to Paulinus, it will be noted that the former gives the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament uncompromisingly and in an arrangement solidly supported by Jewish tradition.”
“Viginti et duas esse litteras apud Hebraeos, Syrorum quoque et Chaldeorum lingua testatur, quae hebraeae magna ex parte confinis est; nam et ipsi viginti duo elementa habent eodem sono, sed diversis caracteribus. Samaritani etiam Pentateuchum Mosi totidem litteris scriptitant, figuris tantum et apicibus discrepantes. Certumque est Ezram scribam legisque doctorem post captam Hierosolymam et instaurationem templi sub Zorobabel alias litteras repperisse, quibus nunc utimur, cum ad illud usque tempus idem Samaritanorum et Hebraeorum caracteres fuerint. In libro quoque Numerorum haec eadem supputatio sub Levitarum ac sacerdotum censu mystice ostenditur. Et nomen Domini tetragrammaton in quibusdam graecis voluminibus usque hodie antiquis expressum litteris invenimus. Sed et psalmi tricesimus sextus, et centesimus decimus, et centesimus undecimus, et centesimus octavus decimus, et centesimus quadragesimus quartus, quamquam diverso scribantur metro, tamen eiusdem numeri texuntur alfabeto. Et Hieremiae Lamentationes et oratio eius, Salomonis quoque in fine Proverbia ab eo loco in quo ait: «Mulierem fortem quis inveniet», hisdem alfabetis vel incisionibus supputantur. Porro quinque litterae duplices apud eos sunt: chaph, mem, nun, phe, sade; aliter enim per has scribunt principia medietatesque verborum, aliter fines. Unde et quinque a plerisque libri duplices aestimantur: Samuhel, Malachim, Dabreiamin, Ezras, Hieremias cum Cinoth, id est Lamentationibus suis. Quomodo igitur viginti duo elementa sunt, per quae scribimus hebraice omne quod loquimur, et eorum initiis vox humana conprehenditur, ita viginti duo volumina supputantur, quibus quasi litteris et exordiis, in Dei doctrina, tenera adhuc et lactans viri iusti eruditur infantia. Primus apud eos liber vocatur Bresith, quem nos Genesim dicimus; secundus Hellesmoth, qui Exodus appellatur; tertius Vaiecra, id est Leviticus; quartus Vaiedabber, quem Numeros vocamus; quintus Addabarim, qui Deuteronomium praenotatur. Hii sunt quinque libri Mosi, quos proprie Thorath, id est Legem appellant. Secundum Prophetarum ordinem faciunt, et incipiunt ab Iesu filio Nave, qui apud eos Iosue Bennum dicitur. Deinde subtexunt Sopthim, id est Iudicum librum; et in eundem conpingunt Ruth, quia in diebus Iudicum facta narratur historia. Tertius sequitur Samuhel, quem nos Regnorum primum et secundum dicimus. Quartus Malachim, id est Regum, qui tertio et quarto Regnorum volumine continetur; meliusque multo est Malachim, id est Regum, quam Malachoth, id est Regnorum dicere, non enim multarum gentium regna describit, sed unius israhelitici populi qui tribubus duodecim continetur. Quintus est Esaias, sextus Hieremias, septimus Hiezecihel, octavus liber duodecim Prophetarum, qui apud illos vocatur Thareasra. Tertius ordo αγιογραφα possidet, et primus liber incipit ab Iob, secundus a David, quem quinque incisionibus et uno Psalmorum volumine conprehendunt. Tertius est Salomon, tres libros habens: Proverbia, quae illi Parabolas, id est Masaloth appellant, et Ecclesiasten, id est Accoeleth, et Canticum canticorum, quem titulo Sirassirim praenotant. Sextus est Danihel, septimus Dabreiamin, id est Verba dierum, quod significantius χρονικον totius divinae historiae possumus appellare, qui liber apud nos Paralipomenon primus et secundus scribitur; octavus Ezras, qui et ipse similiter apud Graecos et Latinos in duos libros divisus est, nonus Hester. Atque ita fiunt pariter veteris legis libri viginti duo, id est Mosi quinque, Prophetarum octo, Agiograforum novem. Quamquam nonnulli Ruth et Cinoth inter Agiografa scriptitent et libros hos in suo putent numero supputandos, ac per hoc esse priscae legis libros viginti quattuor, quos sub numero viginti quattuor seniorum Apocalypsis Iohannis inducit adorantes Agnum et coronas suas prostratis vultibus offerentes, stantibus coram quattuor animalibus oculatis retro et ante, id est et in praeteritum et in futurum, et indefessa voce clamantibus: «Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus Dominus Deus omnipotens, qui erat et qui est et qui futurus est». Hic prologus Scripturarum quasi galeatum principium omnibus libris, quos de hebraeo vertimus in latinum, convenire potest, ut scire valeamus, quicquid extra hos est, inter apocrifa seponendum. Igitur Sapientia, quae vulgo Salomonis inscribitur, et Iesu filii Sirach liber et Iudith et Tobias et Pastor non sunt in canone. Macchabeorum primum librum hebraicum repperi, secundus graecus est, quod et ex ipsa φρασιν probari potest. Quae cum ita se habeant, obsecro te lector, ne laborem meum reprehensionem aestimes antiquorum. In tabernaculum Dei offert unusquisque quod polest: alii aurum et argentum et lapides pretiosos, alii byssum et purpuram, coccum offerunt et hyacinthum; nobiscum bene agetur, si obtulerimus pelles et caprarum pilos. Et tamen Apostolus contemptibiliora nostra magis necessaria iudicat. Unde et tota illa tabernaculi pulchritudo et per singulas species Ecclesiae praesentis futuraeque distinctio pellibus tegitur et ciliciis, ardoremque solis et iniuriam imbrium ea quae viliora sunt prohibent. Lege ergo primum Samuhel et Malachim meum; meum, inquam, meum: quicquid enim crebrius vertendo et emendando sollicitius et didicimus et tenemus, nostrum est. Et cum intellexeris quod antea nesciebas, vel interpretem me aestimato, si gratus es, vel παραφραστην, si ingratus, quamquam mihi omnino conscius non sim mutasse me quippiam de hebraica veritate. Certe si incredulus es, lege graecos codices et latinos et confer cum his opusculis, et ubicumque inter se videris discrepare, interroga quemlibet Hebraeorum cui magis accomodare debeas fidem, et si nostra firmaverit, puto quod eum non aestimes coniectorem, ut in eodem loco mecum similiter divinarit. Sed et vos famulas Christi rogo, quae Domini discumbentis pretiosissimo fidei myro unguitis caput, quae nequaquam Salvatorem quaeritis in sepulchro, quibus iam ad Patrem Christus ascendit, ut contra latrantes canes, qui adversum me rabido ore desaeviunt et circumeunt civitatem atque in eo se doctos arbitrantur, si aliis detrahant, orationum vestrarum clypeos opponatis. Ego sciens humilitatem meam, illius semper sententiae recordabor: «Custodiam vias meas, ut non delinquam in lingua mea; posui ori meo custodiam, cum consisteret peccator adversum me; obmutui et humiliatus sum, et silui a bonis».”
- Incipit Prologus Sancti Hieronymi in Libro Regum, Biblia Sacra Vulgata edited by Robert Weber: Biblia Sacra Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem; Adiuvantibus Bonifatio Fischer OSB, Iohanne Gribomont OSB, H.F.D. Sparks, W. Thiele; Recensuit et Brevi Apparatu Instruxit Robertus Weber OSB; Editio Tertia Emendata quam Paravit, etc. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983), pp. 364-66. Weber's text-critical notes are omitted. The Latin text of other passages on this page conforms to the edition of Migne.
“The second general testimony [to St. Jerome’s formal teaching on the canon] is that in letter 53, to Paulinus, from July of A.D. 395 (Cavallera). The books here named are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Job, Josue, Judges, Ruth, Samuel (1, 2), Kings (3, 4), 12 Minor Prophets (in the Hebrew and Vulgate order), Isaias, Jeremias, Ezechiel, Daniel, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticle of Canticles, Esther, Paralipomenon, Esdras-Nehemias. New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; Epistles of Paul (to seven churches, to Titus, to Timothy, to Philemon; Hebrews is left doubtful); Acts; 7 Epistles of James, Peter, John Jude; Apocalypse of John. The list is concluded with an exhortation to Pualinus to make these books the sole preoccupation of his life (inter haec vivere, ista meditari, nihil aliud nosse, nihil quarere). […] As between the prologus galeatus and the letter to Paulinus, it will be noted that the former gives the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament uncompromisingly and in an arrangement solidly supported by Jewish tradition. The latter makes no change as regards the number of Old Testament books to be included; and the presence of Job after the Mosaic books finds warrant from Jewish and Syrian sources. But the grouping of the Prophets is a concession to the influence of the Septuagint tradition in two respects: the presence of the Minor Prophets at the beginning, and the inclusion of Daniel in this category at the end. Among Greek writers, these same features are found combined in Jerome’s friend Epiphanius; and several features of the same arrangement are suggested again by the letter to Laeta (note also the position of Esdras and Esther). There is, then, on the part of St. Jerome, a willingness to let the Septuagint tradition influence his theoretical positions, within limits. The letter to Paulinus shows that even when he is laying down a theory based on the Hebrew, he will accord to material drawn from the Greek a substantially equal recognition in practice.”
“The third [general testimony to St. Jerome’s formal teaching on the canon] is in the letter (107) to Laeta, from the period A.D. 400-402. One section (12) gives the books of the Holy Scriptures in the order in which St. Jerome recommends that they be read and studied by a growing child who has been dedicated by her parents to a life of virginity. Hence no inference is to be drawn from the order of the books; and indeed, the only point regarding the canon which can be safely be derived from this text is that St. Jerome was consistent in maintaining at this time the general position outlined for the Old Testament in the two earlier statements. […] Apart from the absence of the ‘deuterocanonical’ Old Testament books, we may notice certain other features of this list. Ruth is presumably to be included with Judges and hence in the “Heptateuch.” Samuel is included under Kings. Daniel (but not Baruch) is undoubtedly to be classes under the Prophets. In the New Testament, the position of Hebrews is not made plain; and we miss any mention of the Apocalypse, though this is probably deliberate.”
“In his Prologue to Judith, Jerome had approved the Jewish approach to the apocrypha, ‘whose authority for supporting those things that come into dispute is not considered sufficient.’ This position was later adopted by the Protestants, while the Roman Catholic determination of the Old Testament canon did not come until the Council of Trent.”
“Hoc prologus Scripturarum quasi galeatum principium omnibus libris, quos de hebraeo vertimus in latinum, convenire potest, ut scire valeamus, quicquid extra hos est, inter apocrifa seponendum. Igitur Sapientia, quae vulgo Salomonis inscribitur, et Iesu filii Sirach liber et Iudith et Tobias et Pastor non sunt in canone. Macchabeorum primum librum ebraicum repperi, secundus graecus est, quod et ex ipsa probari potest.”
- Jerome, Prologus in libris Regum, BIBLIA SACRA VULGATA, vol. 1, 3rd ed., Stuttgart, 1983, p. 365.
“David [Szaraz, a Roman apologist,] uses P. Skehan's faulty interpretation of Jerome to try to make him accept the „Book of Wisdom” and the „Book of Sirach” as canonical/Holy Writ/God’s word. The problem is pretty basic. Jerome in his „Letter 133”, 13 doesn't say that he’s going to use and cite only canonical and inspired Scriptures. And so providing one example in which he cites one deuterocanonical book („Book of Wisdom”) as „written in another place”, and once the „Book of Sirach” without qualification, but only naming it „Book of Wisdom”, is too little to prove the point.
Jerome in „Dialogus adversus Pelagianos” 3.2 (CCSL 80:99) cites the apocryphal „Gospel of Hebrews” and makes use of the „Letter of Barnabas” (which he mistakes for Ignatius of Antioch). Later in „Dialogus adversus Pelagianos” 3.6 (CCSL 80: 106) Jerome make use of Philo of Alexandria. In „Dialogus adversus Pelagianos” 3.18 (CCSL 80:122-123) he cites at length Cyprian of Carthage. And so on. We could multiply the examples but the point is clear. If we were to accept Skehan's argument, then we would need to say that Jerome in his refutation of Pelagians, treated as Holy Scriptures and God's word not only the „Book of Wisdom” and the „Book of Sirach”, but also the „Gospel of Hebrews”, and Cyprian’s letter. And that is absurd.
“Simon Petrus ... scripsit duas epistolas, quae catholicae nominantur, quarum secunda a plerisque eius esse negatur, propter styli cum priore dissonantiam. Sed et evangelium iuxta Marcum, qui auditor eius et interpres fuit, huius dicitur. Libri autem, e quibus unus Actorum eius inscribitur, alius Evangelii, tertius Praedicationis, quartus Apocalypseos, quintus Iudicii, inter apocryphas scripturas repudiantur.”
- Jerome, De Viris Illustribus sive de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, Chapter 1.
“This very clear and important passage shews that when Jerome speaks of the ‘Epistle to the Hebrews as not reckoned among St Paul’s’ in his letter to Paulinus (394 A.D.), we must suppose that the doubt applies to the authorship and not to the Canonicity of the writing. The distinct and decisive reference to ancient and constant (abutuntur) testimony for the two disputed books deserves careful attention.”
- B.F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (5th ed. London: MacMillan and Co., 1881), p. 452.
“Illud nostris dicendum est, hanc epistolam quae inscribitur ad Hebraeos, non solum ab ecclesiis Orientis, sed ab omnibus retro ecclesiasticis Graeci sermonis scriptoribus, quasi Pauli apostoli suscipi, licet plerique eam vel Barnabae, vel Clementis arbitrentur; et nihil interesse, cujus sit, cum ecclesiastici viri sit, et quotidie ecclesiarum lectione celebretur. Quod si eam Latinorum consuetudo non recipit inter Scripturas canonicas; nec Graecorum quidem ecclesiae Apocalypsin Joannis eadem libertate suscipiunt; et tamen nos utramque suscipimus, nequaquam hujus temporis consuetudinem, sed veterum scriptorum auctoritatem sequentes, qui plerumque utriusque abutuntur testimoniis, non ut interdum de apocryphis facere solent, quippe qui et gentilium litterarum raro utantur exemplis, sed quasi canonicis et ecclesiasticis.”
- Jerome, Letter to Dardanus, prefect of Gaul (Ad Dardanum, no. 129 § 3).
“‘Commentary on Ezekiel’ is one of his [Jerome’s] last works. In it he once again confirms the shorter Old Testament canon. The same motive with the 24 elders appears earlier in Jerome writings: ‘Prologus Galeatus’ (about 390) and ‘Prologue to Ezra and Nehemiah’ (about 394-395). Before Jerome, the same concept is present in Victorinus of Pettau (about 230-304), and repeated after him by Cesarius of Arles (about 470 - 542), Primasius (died 560), Bede the Venerable (about 672 - 735) or Ambrose Autpert (730 - 784).”
“Quod et peccatores et iusti Domini propitiatione saluentur — dicente apostolo Paulo : Reconciliati sumus Deo in sanguine Filii eius — ; et de peccatoribus dicitur quod dimidii cubiti mensuram habeant per circuitum : qui tamen saluentur misericordia Creatoris — iuxta illud quod in psalmo scriptum est : Pro nihilo saluos facies eos de iustis : quod in uno saluentur numero solitario atque perfecto et imitante unam diuinitatem — dicente apostolo : Deus erat in Christo mundum reconcilians sibi —. Quod autem in fine huius testi- monii ponitur : Et gradus eius uersi ad orientem, gradus huius propitiatorii uel uiginti quattuor libros ueteris instrumenti debemus accipere qui habebant citharas in Apocalypsi Ioannis et coronas in capitibus suis, uel sacramentum Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti, in quo uera nobis datur propitiatio.”
- Hieronymus, „Commentariorum in Hiezechielem libri XIV”, red. F. Glorie, Brepols, Turnhout 1964, s. 635.
“[John of Damascus was]Born at Damascus, about 676; died some time between 754 and 787.
[…]
On the death of his father, John Damascene was made protosymbulus, or chief councillor, of Damascus. It was during his incumbency of this office that the Church in the East began to be agitated by the first mutterings of the Iconoclast heresy. In 726, despite the protests of Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople, Leo the Isaurian issued his first edict against the veneration of images. From his secure refuge in the caliph's court, John Damascene immediately entered the lists against him, in defence of this ancient usage of the Christians.
[…]
The Seventh General Council of Nicea (787) made ample amends for the insults of his [iconoclast] enemies, and Theophanes, writing in 813, tells us that he was surnamed Chrysorrhoas (golden stream) by his friends on account of his oratorical gifts. In the pontificate of Leo XIII he was enrolled among the doctors of the Church. His feast is celebrated on 27 March.
John of Damascus was the last of the Greek Fathers. His genius was not for original theological development, but for compilation of an encyclopedic character. In fact, the state of full development to which theological thought had been brought by the great Greek writers and councils left him little else than the work of an encyclopedist; and this work he performed in such manner as to merit the gratitude of all succeeding ages. Some consider him the precursor of the Scholastics, whilst others regard him as the first Scholastic, and his "De fide orthodoxa" as the first work of Scholasticism. The Arabians too, owe not a little of the fame of their philosophy to his inspiration. The most important and best known of all his works is that to which the author himself gave the name of "Fountain of Wisdom" (pege gnoseos). This work has always been held in the highest esteem in both the Catholic and Greek Churches.”
“John of Damascus (Johannes Damascenes), the last of the great Greek fathers, whose writings are still regarded with the deepest reverence in the Eastern Church, treats the question of the Canon very summarily ; or rather he adopts opi¬ nions which he found expressed in earlier writings, without submitting them to any independent examination. For the Old Testament, he tran¬ scribes almost verbally one of the lists of Epiphanius, which gives only the books of the Hebrew Canon as of primary authority. To these Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom are subjoined as an appendix, ‘being noble and good books, though not prophetical.’ The other books of the Apocrypha are not specially noticed; but even in this case usage prevailed so far, that Damascenus quotes Wisdom as the work of Solomon; and Baruch as ‘Divine Scripture.’ In the New Testament, he gives all the books commonly received with the addition of the Apostolic Canons. To these one MS. adds the two Epistles of Clement, but the clause has been introduced without doubt from the last of the Apostolic Canons.
The preface with which Damascenus intro¬ duces this catalogue gives force to the judgment which he expresses. ‘The Law and the Prophets, Evangelists and Apostles, and Shepherds and teachers spake,’ he says, ‘by the Holy Spirit. All inspired Scripture therefore, is wholly profitable. So that it is best and most profitable for the soul to search the Divine Scriptures... Let us then knock that we may enter that fairest paradise...But let us not knock carelessly, but rather with zeal and steadfastness. Let us not faint in knocking ; for thus it shall be opened to us...Let us draw from the fountain of Paradise perennial and most pure streams springing up into eternal life...But if we can gather anything useful from other sources without, it is not foridden. Let us show ourselves tried moneychangers, storing up the genuine and pure gold, but declining the base...’ Thus clearly and fully is the spirit of Origen reproduced by the last father who used his language.”
“This work is divided into 5 books and 167 chapters. It has the title Ἰωσήππου βιβλίον ὑπομνηστικόν, which generated the idea that the author was a Josephus, called Josephus Christianus to distinguish him from the famous historian Flavius Josephus. But in reality it merely means the hypomnesticon of the books of Fl. Josephus, i.e. extracts from the latter. There is no author name attached, although older writers refer to him as “hypomnesticon auctor”. Some have thought that he was the 4th century Joseph of Tiberias, but this is impossible.[1] Chapter 136 is an extract from the Byzantine author Hippolytus of Thebes, who flourished in the late 7th/early 8th century. If this is considered a Byzantine interpolation, the work would naturally date to the 5th century.[2]
Each chapter contains a question – mostly biblical-historical questions – which receives an answer, generally given as a list. The questions concern a wide range of subjects. These include: How many generations were there from Adam to the coming of the Saviour? Hebrews married gentile wives? Which men were admired for their wisdom? What are the miracles wrought by Isaiah the prophet? How many Jakoboi were there among the apostles?
The Greek text with the rare title “Hypomnestikon” has reached us in a single manuscript, the tenth century Codex Ff.1.24 of Cambridge University library (a copy made in the 18th century is in the university library at Utrecht). This manuscript contains the best extant text of The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and was probably brought to England from Athens about 1241 AD by Robert Grosseteste.
The editio princeps was printed with a Latin translation in J. A. Fabricius, Codex pseudepigraphus Veteris Testamenti, Volume 2 (1723), and is online at Google Books here. It is also in the Patrologia Graeca vol. 106, cols. 15-177, as “Joseppus Christianus”, “Libellus memorialis in Vetus et Novum Testamentum”.
Amazingly a modern edition and translation does exist: Robert M. Grant and G. W. Menzies, Joseph’s Bible Notes (Hypomnestikon). SBL Texts and Translations 41, Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. This I have not seen, however. There is a deeply useful review by William Adler. “Review of R M, Grant, and G W Menzies, Joseph’s Bible Notes. (hypomnestikon.)” Journal of Theological Studies 48, no. 1 (1997): 258, which includes corrections.”
“Junilius (Ἰούνιλος, Junillus), an African by birth, hence commonly known as Junilius Africanus. He filled for seven years in the court of Justinian the important office of quaestor of the sacred palace, succeeding the celebrated Tribonian (Procop. Anecd. c. 20). Procopius tells us that Constantine, whom the Acts of the 5th general council shew to have held the office in 553, succeeded on the death of Junilius, which may therefore be placed a year or two earlier. Junilius, though a layman, took great interest in theological studies. A deputation of African bishops visiting Constantinople, one of them, PRIMASIUS of Adrumetum, inquired of his distinguished countryman, Junilius, who among the Greeks was distinguished as a theologian, to which Junilius replied that he knew one Paul [PAUL OF NISIBIS], a Persian by race, who had been educated in the school of the Syrians at Nisibis, where theology was taught by public masters in the same systematic manner as the secular studies of grammar and rhetoric elsewhere. Junilius had an introduction to the Scriptures by this Paul, which, on the solicitation of Primasius, he translated into Latin, breaking it up into question and answer. Kihn identifies this work of Paul with that which Ebedjesu (Asseman. Bibl. Or. III. i. 87; Badger, Nestorians, ii. 369) calls Maschelmonutho desurtho. The work of Junilius was called "Instituta regularia divinae legis," but is commonly known as "De partibus divinae legis," a title which really belongs only to chap. i. It has been often printed in libraries of the Fathers (e.g. Galland, vol. xii.; Migne, vol. lxviii.). The best ed., for which 13 MSS. were collated, is by Prof. Kiln of Würzburg (Theodor von Mopsuestia, Freiburg, 1880), a work admirable for its thorough investigations, and throwing much light on Junilius.
The introduction does not, as has been often assumed, represent an African school of theology, but the Syrian; and Kiln conclusively shews that (although possibly Junilius was not aware of it himself) it is all founded on the teaching of THEODORE of Mopsuestia.
Junilius divides the books of Scripture into two classes. The first, which alone he calls Canonical Scripture, are of perfect authority; the second added by many are of secondary (mediae) authority; all other books are of no authority. The first class consists of (1) Historical Books: Pentateuch, Josh., Judg., Ruth, Sam., and Kings., and in N.T. the four Gospels and Acts; (2) Prophetical (in which what is evidently intended for a chronological arrangement is substituted for that more usual): Ps., Hos., Is., Jl., Am., Ob., Jon., Mic., Nah., Hab., Zeph., Jer., Ezk., Dan., Hag., Zech., and Mal. (he says that John's Apocalypse is much doubted of amongst the Easterns); (3) Proverbial or parabolic: the Prov. of Solomon and the Book of Jesus the Son of Sirach; (4) Doctrinal: Eccles., the 14 epp. of St. Paul in the order now usual, including Heb., I. Pet., and I. Jn. In his second class he counts (1) Historical: Chron., Job, Esdras (no doubt including Neh.), Judith, Est., and Macc.; (3) Proverbial: Wisdom and Cant.; (4) Doctrinal: the Epp. of Jas., II. Pet., Jude, II. III. Jn. Lam. and Bar. were included in Jer. Tobit is not mentioned, but is quoted in a later part of the treatise. Kihn is no doubt right in regarding its omission as due to the accidental error of an early transcriber; for no writer of the time would have designedly refused to include Tobit even in his list of deuterocanonical books. Junilius gives as a reason for not reckoning the books of the second class as canonical that the Hebrews make this difference, as Jerome and others testify. This is clearly incorrect with regard to several of them, and one is tempted to think (pace Kihn) that Junilius himself added this reference to Jerome and did not find it in his Greek original. The low place assigned to Job and Cant. accords with the estimate formed by Theodore of Mopsuestia. Junilius quotes as Peter's a passage from his second epistle, which he had not admitted into his list of canonical books. He describes Ps., Eccles., and Job as written in metre (see Bickell, Metrices Biblicae Regulae). The work of Junilius presents a great number of other points of interest, e.g. his answer, ii. 29, to the question how we prove the books of Scripture to have been written by divine inspiration.
The publication of the work Kihn assigns to 551, in which year the Chronicle of Victor Tununensis records the presence at Constantinople of the African bishops Reparatus, Firmus, Primasius, and Verecundus. He thinks that Junilius probably met Paul of Nisibis there as early as 543. We do not venture to oppose the judgment of one entitled to speak with so high authority; but we should have thought that the introduction into the West of this product of the Nestorian school of theology took place at an earlier period of the controversy about the Three Chapters than 551. It is not unlikely that Primasius paid earlier visits to Constantinople than that of which we have evidence. A commentary on Gen. i. wrongly ascribed to Junilius is now generally attributed to Bede.”
“African bishop, Junilius, diverges yet further from the letter of the Carthaginian Canon, though, in point of fact, he only carries out in detail the theory of Augustine, by distinguishing books as possessed of 'complete' and ' intermediate' authority, according as they were severally received by all or very many. But in doing this he follows a very remarkable tradition. He divides all the books of the Bible into books of history, prophecy, proverbs, and simple doctrine. In history he reckons the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel (2), Kings (2), and the four Gospels and the Acts, as of 'perfect' authority; Chronicles (2), Job, Ezra (2), Judith, Esther, Maccabees (2), as of 'intermediate' authority. [...] In prophecy, Psalms and the sixteen prophets are of perfect authority. 'As to the Apocalypse, there are,’ he adds, ‘great doubts in the East.' In proverbs, the Proverbs of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus are of perfect authority, ' to which some join Wisdom and Canticles.’ In simple doctrine, ' sixteen are canonical, Ecclesiastes, fourteen Epistles of St Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John. Very many add five others which are called " Canonical Epistles of the Apostles," James, 2 Peter, Jude, 2, 3 John. This, he says, was the judgment of the teachers of Nisibis, where biblical criticism was made a subject of professed study, like rhetoric ; and this judgment he feels himself free to adopt and promulgate among his countrymen. No other proof is needed to show that a distinction in authority between the 'Canonical' Scriptures (improperly so called) was not supposed in his time to be excluded by the decision of the Council of Carthage.”
Note: Here, again, we see the idea of different gradations of authority & canonicity being assigned to different books based upon what the Jewish people had received as canonical.
“An important theologian of the sixth century. In spite of his deserved fame there are few Christian writers whose lives have been so much discussed. […] According to Loofs, Leontius was the monk of that name who came with others (Scythians) to Rome in 519, to try to persuade Pope Hormisdas (514-523) to authorize the formula (suspect of Monophysitism) "One of the Trinity suffered", and was also the Ongenist Leontius of the "Vita S. Sabæ". He was born, probably at Constantinople, about 485, of a distinguished family related to the imperial general Vitalian. He then joined the Nestorians in Scythia but was converted and became a stanch defender of Ephesus. Early in his life he became a monk. He came to Constantinople in 519, and then to Rome as part of the embassy of Scythian monks. After that he was for a time in Jerusalem. In 531 he took part in public disputes arranged by Justinian (527-565) between Catholics and the Monophysite followers of Severus of Antioch (538). He stayed at the capital till about 538, then went back to his monastery at Jerusalem. Later he was again at Constantinople, where he died, apparently before the first Edict against the "Three Chapters" (544). Loofs dates his death at "about 543". His change of residence accounts for the various descriptions of him as "a monk of Jerusalem" and "a monk of Constantinople". […] Leontius of Byzantium is, in any case, a theologian of great importance. Apart from the merit of his controversial work against Nestorians and Monophysites, his Aristotelianism marks an epoch in the history of Christian philosophy. He has been described as the first of the Scholastics (Krumbacher Ehrhard, "Byzantinische Litteratur", p. 544).”
“The judgment of Leontius of Byzantium, who has been called by an impartial judge ‘the most accomxilished theologian of his age,’ will help to connect the catalogues of the fourth century with the decision of the Quini-Sextine Council. It is singularly explicit and complete. Leontius prefaces his discussion of the opinions of different sects by an enumeration of ‘ the ecclesiastical books,’ as the natural basis of his inquiry.”
“Bishop of Sardis, prominent ecclesiastical writer in the latter half of the second century. Few details of his life are known. A letter of Polycrates of Ephesus to Pope Victor about 194 (Eusebius, Church History V.24) states that "Melito the eunuch [this is interpreted "the virgin" by Rufinus in his translation of Eusebius], whose whole walk was in the Holy Spirit", was interred at Sardis, and had been one of the great authorities in the Church of Asia who held the Quartodeciman theory. His name is cited also in the "Labyrinth" of Hippolytus as one of the second-century writers who taught the duality of natures in Jesus. St. Jerome, speaking of the canon of Melito, quotes Tertullian's statement that he was esteemed a prophet by many of the faithful.”
“The Eastern Church tended to be more conservative in her approach to the canon of the Old Testament in large part because she benefited from fathers who lived near Palestine and had contact with the Jews. The earliest Christian list of the Old Testament canon was that of Melito of Sardis in the mid-second century. He went to Palestine to determine the precise number of canonical Old Testament books. The number he gave was twenty-two, the same as Josephus, though he omitted the book of Esther. [...] He most likely received this list from the Christian Church near Palestine so his canon reflected a Christian perspective and a consciousness of the Hebrew numeration and canon. It clearly does not include the Apocrypha. Some have been confused by Melito’s reference to Wisdom, believing it to be the Apocryphal book, the Wisdom of Solomon. But, as F.F. Bruce points out, this was another way of referring to the book of Proverbs: “None of the writings of the ‘Septuagintal plus’ is listed: the ‘Wisdom’ included is not the Greek book of Wisdom but an alternative name for proverbs. According to Eusebius, Hegessipus and Irenaeus and many other writers of their day called the Proverbs of Solomon ‘the all-virtuous Wisdom.’ (F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988), p. 71)””
“Melito, to his brother Onesimus, greeting: Since thou hast often, in thy zeal for the word, expressed a wish to have extracts made from the Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour, and concerning our entire faith, and hast also desired to have an accurate statement of the ancient book, as regards their number and their order, I have endeavored to perform the task, knowing thy zeal for the faith, and thy desire to gain information in regard to the word, and knowing that thou in thy yearning after God, esteemeth these things above all else, struggling to attain eternal salvation. Accordingly when I came East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras.”
- Eusebius, NPNF2, Vol. 1, Church History IV.26.13-14.
“Origen's full name was Origenes Adamantius. Origenes was the name of one contemporary philosopher of distinction, and occurs elsewhere. Adamantius has commonly been regarded as an epithet describing Origen's unconquerable endurance, or for the invincible force of his arguments. But the language of Eusebius (H. E. vi. 14) and of Jerome (de Vir. Ill. 54, "Origenes qui et Adamantius") shews that it was a second name, and not a mere adjunct. His father, Leonides, suffered martyrdom in the persecution of the 10th year of Severus (202), and Origen had not then completed his 17th year (Eus. H. E. vi. 2). He must have been born therefore a.d. 185–186, a date consistent with the statement (ib. vii. 1) that he died in his 69th year, in the reign of Gallus (a.d. 251–254). In Origen we have the first record of a Christian boyhood, and he was "great from the cradle." […] In his 18th year he was, at first informally, the head of the Christian school in Alexandria in a season of exceptional danger. He was so successful that Demetrius, bp. of Alexandria, soon definitely committed to him the office. The charge decided the tenor of his life. Origen henceforth devoted himself exclusively to the office of a Christian teacher, and to ensure his independence sold his collection of classical writers for an annuity of four oboli (sixpence) a day, on which he lived for many years, refusing the voluntary contributions his friends offered him (ib. 3). His position is a remarkable illustration of the freedom of the early church. He was a layman and yet recognized as a leading teacher. His work was not confined to any district. Numbers of men and women flocked to his lectures, attracted partly by his stern simplicity of life, which was a guarantee of his sincerity. For he resolved to fulfil without reserve the precepts of the Gospel. […] For 12 or 13 years he was engaged in these happy and successful labours; and it was probably during this period that he formed and partly executed his plan of a comparative view of the LXX with other Greek versions of O.T. and with the original Hebrew text, though the work was slowly elaborated as fresh materials came to his hands. […] Of the later fortunes of his teaching it is enough to say here that his fate after death was like his fate during life: he continued to witness not in vain to noble truths. His influence was sufficiently proved by the persistent bitterness of his antagonists, and there are few sadder pages in church history than the record of the Origenistic controversies. But in spite of errors easy to condemn, his characteristic thoughts survived in the works of Hilary and Ambrose and Jerome, and in his own homilies, to stir later students in the West. His homilies had a very wide circulation in the middle ages in a Latin translation; and it would be interesting to trace their effect upon medieval commentators down to Erasmus, who wrote to Colet in 1504: "Origenis operum bonam partem evolvi; quo praeceptore mihi videor non-nullum fecisse operae pretium; aperit enim fontes quosdam et rationes indicat artis theologicae."”
“During his lifetime Origen by his writings, teaching, and intercourse exercised very great influence. St. Firmilian of Caesarea in Cappadocia, who regarded himself as his disciple, made him remain with him for a long period to profit by his learning (Eusebius, Church History VI.26; Palladius, "Hist. Laus.", 147). St. Alexander of Jerusalem his fellow pupil at the catechetical school was his intimate faithful friend (Eusebius, VI, xiv), as was Theoctistus of Caesarea in Palestine, who ordained him (Photius, cod. 118). Beryllus of Bostra, whom he had won back from heresy, was deeply attached to him (Eusebius, VI, xxxiii; St. Jerome, Illustrious Men 60). St. Anatolus of Laodicea sang his praises in his "Carmen Paschale" (P.G., X, 210). The learned Julius Africanus consulted him, Origen's reply being extant (P.G., XI, 41-85). St. Hippolytus highly appreciated his talents (St. Jerome, Illustrious Men 61). St. Dionysius, his pupil and successor in the catechetical school, when Patriarch of Alexandria, dedicated to him his treatise "On the Persecution" (Eusebius, VI, xlvi), and on learning of his death wrote a letter filled with his praises (Photius, cod. 232). St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, who had been his pupil for five years at Caesarea, before leaving addressed to him his celebrated "Farewell Address" (P.G., X, 1049-1104), an enthusiastic panegyric. There is no proof that Heracles, his disciple, colleague, and successor in the catechetical school, before being raised to the Patriarchate of Alexandria, wavered in his sworn friendship. Origen's name was so highly esteemed that when there was a question of putting an end to a schism or rooting out a heresy, appeal was made to it. After his death his reputation continued to spread. […] Amidst these expressions of admiration and praise, a few discordant voices were heard. St. Methodius, bishop and martyr (311), had written several works against Origen, amongst others a treatise "On the Resurrection", of which St. Epiphanius cites a long extract (Haeres., LXVI, xii-lxii). St. Eustathius of Antioch, who died in exile about 337, criticized his allegorism (P.G., XVIII, 613-673). St. Alexander of Alexandria, martyred in 311, also attacked him, if we are to credit Leontius of Byzantium and the emperor Justinian. But his chief adversaries were the heretics, Sabellians, Arians, Pelagians, Nestorians, Apollinarists. […] The discussions concerning Origen and his teaching are of a very singular and very complex character. They break out unexpectedly, at long intervals, and assume an immense importance quite unforeseen in their humble beginnings. They are complicated by so many personal disputes and so many questions foreign to the fundamental subject in controversy that a brief and rapid exposé of the polemics is difficult and well-nigh impossible. Finally they abate so suddenly that one is forced to conclude that the controversy was superficial and that Origen's orthodoxy was not the sole point in dispute. […] Were Origen and Origenism anathematized? Many learned writers believe so; an equal number deny that they were condemned; most modern authorities are either undecided or reply with reservations. Relying on the most recent studies on the question it may be held that:
It is certain that the fifth general council was convoked exclusively to deal with the affair of the Three Chapters, and that neither Origen nor Origenism were the cause of it.
It is certain that the council opened on 5 May, 553, in spite of the protestations of Pope Vigilius, who though at Constantinople refused to attend it, and that in the eight conciliary sessions (from 5 May to 2 June), the Acts of which we possess, only the question of the Three Chapters is treated.
Finally it is certain that only the Acts concerning the affair of the Three Chapters were submitted to the pope for his approval, which was given on 8 December, 553, and 23 February, 554.
It is a fact that Popes Vigilius, Pelagius I (556-61), Pelagius II (579-90), Gregory the Great (590-604), in treating of the fifth council deal only with the Three Chapters, make no mention of Origenism, and speak as if they did not know of its condemnation.
It must be admitted that before the opening of the council, which had been delayed by the resistance of the pope, the bishops already assembled at Constantinople had to consider, by order of the emperor, a form of Origenism that had practically nothing in common with Origen, but which was held, we know, by one of the Origenist parties in Palestine. The arguments in corroboration of this hypothesis may be found in Dickamp (op. cit., 66-141).
The bishops certainly subscribed to the fifteen anathemas proposed by the emperor (ibid., 90-96); and admitted Origenist, Theodore of Scythopolis, was forced to retract (ibid., 125-129); but there is no proof that the approbation of the pope, who was at that time protesting against the convocation of the council, was asked.
It is easy to understand how this extra-conciliary sentence was mistaken at a later period for a decree of the actual ecumenical council.”
“Origen’s list corresponds substantially with that of Josephus and includes Esther. The book of the minor prophets is missing but this was either an oversight on Origen’s part or a copyist’s error. He set Maccabees apart from the canonical Scriptures. One area of divergence from the truly canonical list of the Jews is that he included the Epistle of Jeremiah with the canonical book of the prophet Jeremiah. This the Jews did not do. Origen simply asserted his own opinion, believing that the epistle should be appended to Jeremiah. He also included the Apocryphal book of 1 Esdras along with 2 Esdras as one book yet only 2 Esdras was recognized as canonical by the Jews. It should be noted that in the above quotation from Eusebius, Origen specifically relates the bounds of the Jewish canon. This does not mean that he personally agreed with it or adhered to it. He personally accepted the Septuagint and the Apocryphal additions which it contained. This is clear from his letter to Julius Africanus. [...] Julius had written him, questioning the wisdom of Origen’s quoting from the work, The History of Susanna, as if it were a legitimate part of the book of Daniel. He was also critical of the other additions to Daniel: Bel and the Dragon and the The Song of the Three Youths. Origen responded saying that although the Jews rejected these works, he believed them legitimate because they were used in the Churches. Furthermore, he wrote that just because there were many variations between the Hebrew text and the Septuagint, that did not mean that the Church must give up the Septuagint. It was peculiarly the Church’s Bible. By this time, the Jews had completely forsaken the Septuagint for Aquila’s Greek translation. Throughout his letter, Origen contrasted what he called their Scripture (the Jews) and ours (the Christians). Origen believed that the Septuagint was the Scripture received by the Church and where a variation existed between the Hebrew and the Septuagint, the Septuagint took precedence because it was the Scripture of the Church. He believed that the Septuagint had been given providentially to the Church by God. In dealing with the Jews, he limited himself to the Hebrew Scriptures, knowing they would not accept arguments taken from books considered to be outside the bounds of their canon. However, he was unwilling to give up those books he felt were a part of the Septuagint and used in the Churches, though not found in the Hebrew Scriptures. It is clear that Origen held the Septuagint in high regard and felt that a number of the books of the Apocrypha were part of the revelation given by God. He believed the Septuagint to be inspired. Obviously, he was mistaken. Even the Roman Catholic Church admits this. The evidence for this is seen in the fact that the official Roman Catholic Bible is the Latin Vulgate produced by Jerome which underscored the errors in the Septuagint text and was based on a translation from the Hebrew. Rome has officially repudiated the Septuagint. So, the veneration of the early Church fathers (such as Origen) for the Septuagint and certain of the Apocryphal books, and belief in their inspiration, was misguided. Prior to Origen, Clement of Alexandria not only cited a number of the Apocryphal books as Scripture, specifically Wisdom, Tobit and Ecclesiasticus, but also certain pseudepigraphal works as well.”
“In fixing the contents of the collection of sacred books Origen shews some indecision. In regard to O.T. he found a serious difference between the Hebrew canon and the books commonly found in the Alexandrine Greek Bible. In his Comm. on Ps. i. he gives a list of the canonical books (αἱ ἐνδιάθηκοι βίβλοι) according to the tradition of the Hebrews, 22 in number (ap. Eus. H. E. vi. 25). In the enumeration the Book of the Twelve (minor) Prophets is omitted by the error of Eusebius or of his transcriber, for it is necessary to make up the number; and the "Letter" (Baruch vi.) is added to Jeremiah, because (apparently) it occupied that position in Origen's copy of the LXX., for there is no evidence that it was ever included in the Hebrew Bible. The Books of the Maccabees, which (I. Macc.) bore a Hebrew title, were not included (ἔξω τούτων ἐστί). But while Origen thus gives a primary place to the books of the Hebrew Canon, he expressly defends, in his letter to Africanus, the use of the additions found in the Alexandrine LXX. (cf. p. 122). He was unwilling to sacrifice anything sanctioned by custom and tending to edification. His own practice reflects this double view. He never, so far as we know, publicly expounded any apocryphal books of O.T., while he habitually quotes them as having authority, though he frequently notes that their authority was challenged. He quotes the Book of Enoch (c. Cels. v. 55; de Princ. iv. 35; Hom. in Num. xxviii. 2), the Prayer of Joseph (in Joh. ii. 25, εἴ τις προσίεται), the Assumption of Moses (Hom. in Jos. ii. 1), and the Ascension of Isaiah (ib.; de Princ. iii. 2, 1; cf. in Matt. t. x. 18) ; and it is probably to books of this class that his interesting remarks on "apocryphal" books in Prol. in Cant. p. 325 L. refer. How far Origen was from any clear view of the history of O.T. may be inferred from the importance he assigns to the tradition of Ezra's restoration of their text from memory after the Babylonian captivity (Sel. in Jer. xi. p. 5 L.; Sel. in Ps. id. p. 371).”
Note: The following is from Origen’s Letter to Africanus…
“Origen to Africanus, a beloved brother in God the Father, through Jesus Christ, His holy Child, greeting. Your letter, from which I learn what you think of the Susanna in the Book of Daniel, which is used in the Churches, although apparently somewhat short, presents in its few words many problems, each of which demands no common treatment, but such as oversteps the character of a letter, and reaches the limits of a discourse…You begin by saying, that when, in my discussion with our friend Bassus, I used the Scripture which contains the prophecy of Daniel when yet a young man in the affair of Susanna, I did this as if it had escaped me that this part of the book was spurious.You say that you praise this passage as elegantly written, but find fault with it as a more modern composition, and a forgery…In answer to this, I have to tell you what it behooves us to do in the cases not only of the History of Susanna, which is found in every Church of Christ in that Greek copy which the Greeks use, but is not in the Hebrew, or of the two other passages you mention at the end of the book containing the history of Bel and the Dragon, which likewise are not in the Hebrew copy of Daniel; but of thousands of other passages also which I found in many places when with my little strength I was collating the Hebrew copies with ours…And in many other of the sacred books I found sometimes more in our copies than in the Hebrew, sometimes less…And, forsooth, when we notice such things, we are forthwith to reject as spurious the copies in use in our Churches, and enjoin the brotherhood to put away the sacred books 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.’… And I make it my endeavor not to be ignorant of their various readings, lest in my controversies with the Jews I should quote to them what is not found in their copies, and that I may make some use of what is found there, even although it should not be in our Scriptures. For if we are so prepared for them in our discussions, they will not, as is their manner, scornfully laugh at Gentile believers for their ignorance of the true reading as they have them. So far as to the History of Susanna not being found in the Hebrew.”
- ANF, Volume 4, Origen, Origen to Africanus 1-2, 4-5.
“David [Szaraz], a Roman apologist, in his response to Gavin Ortlund, using an old translation of Origen’s ‘De Principiis’ from the 19th century, found for example on the ‘New Advent’, tried to make Origen of Alexadria say that ecclesiastical and canonical books are the same, and so the ecclesiastical books are also inspired by God. The problem with his argument lies in the translation. It is not faithfull to the original Latin in which Origen's work was preserved (the Greek of this fragment is lost). Origen, according to modern critical texts [1] and translations [2], writing ‘prima respondendum est ei quoniam liber ipse inter libros ecclesiasticos non habetur, et ostendendum quia neque Petri est ipsa scriptura neque alterius cuiusquam, qui spiritu dei fuerit inspiratus’, says that the apocryphal ‘Doctrine/Teaching of Peter’ is not ecclesiastical and that the book was also not written by Peter or some other inspired person. He differentiates between a book being ecclesiastical and being authored by inspired Apostle Peter. The translation by suggesting that the apocryphal work is not ecclesiastical ‘for’ the reason that it was not written by Peter or someone inspired, is in error.
[1] Origène, ‘Traité des principes, Livres I-II’, vol. 1, ed. H. Crouzel – M. Simonetti, Les Éditions Du Cerf, Paryż 1978, p. 86; Origenes, ‘Vier Bücher von den Prinzipien’, ed. Herwig Görgemanns, Heinrich Karpp, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 1976, p. 94.
[2] Origen, ‘On First Principles’, vol. 1, ed. and trans. John Behr, Oxford University Press 2017, p. 19. Also an official Polish catholic translation of Origen confirms my point: Orygenes, ‘O zasadach’, Wydawnictwo WAM, Kraków 1996, p. 55.”
“Bishop of Hadrumetum and primate of Byzacena in Africa; d. about 560. Of his early life nothing seems to be known, but in 551, after he had become a bishop, he was called with other bishops to Constantinople and took part in the Three Chapters Controversy (q.v.) where he shared the fortunes of Vigilius, bishop of Rome; helped to condemn Theodorus Ascidas, bishop of Cæsarea, the chief promoter of the controversy, and fled with Vigilius to Chalcedon. He declined to attend the so-called fifth ecumenical council at Constantinople in the absence of the pope; was the sole African to sign the papal constitutum to Justinian, and was ingloriously crushed with his leader. While at Constantinople, Primasius studied the exegesis of the Greeks, and his fame is chiefly due to his commentary on the Apocalypse. This work, divided into five books (MPL, lxviii. 793–936), is of importance both as containing the pre-Cyprian Latin text of the Apocalypse of the early African church, and as aiding in the reconstruction of the most influential Latin commentary on the Apocalypse, the exegetical work of the Donstist Ticonius.”
“On Primasius we are informed by Victor of Tunnuna and Isidore (Vir. Ill. 22). Bishop of Hadrumetum, he was among the African bishops summoned to Constantinople in 551 because of the controversy over the Three Chapters. Initially he took a position against Justinian and did not participate in the council of 553. In consequence he was exiled to a monastery. But then, according to Victor, in order to obtain the position of primate of the late Roman province of Byzacena, roughly equivalent to modern Tunisia, he sided with the emperor and began to persecute the defenders of the Three Chapters.
His Commentarius in Apocalypsin in five books is also mentioned by Cassiodorus (Inst. I, 9). This is presented in the prologue as a work of compilation, based upon Augustine – although Primasius notes that Augustine had never written a commentary on Revelation as such – and Tyconius. Tyconius had been a Donatist, so Primasius took care to declare this, and that he had selected the best bits, taken the gem out of the dung, etc. …
Apparently Primasius also wrote three books on Heresies, to bring up to date the catalogue of Augustine. Cassiodorus knew the first book of this, but it has not reached us. The work under his name in PL 68 is the commentary of Pelagius on Paul, reworked by Cassiodorus, and supplemented by a work by Halberstadt.
“Primasius was a sixth century African bishop who was present at the Fifth Ecumenical Council. In his commentary on the book of Revelation, he cited the number of authoritative canonical Old Testament books at twenty-four, equating the number of books with the number of elders pictured in chapters four and five who worship before the throne of God. This would come to be a common practice of theologians in the ages to follow.”
“Aliter, ante et retro, quod ubicunque fructificans dilatetur Ecclesia, in lumine vultus Dei ambulat, et revelata facie gloriam Dei speculatur. Aliter, ante et retro alas senas, quae viginti quatuor subsumantur, Veteris Testamenti libros insinuat, quos ejusdem numeri canonica auctoritate suscipimus, tanquam viginti quatuor seniores tribunalia praesidentes.”
- Primasius, Commentariorum Super Apocalypsim B. Joannis, Book I, Cap. IV. Patrologia Latina 68:818.
“Tyrannius Rufinus (born c. 345, Concordia, near Aquileia, Italy—died 410/411, Sicily, possibly at Messina) was a Roman priest, writer, theologian, and translator of Greek theological works into Latin at a time when knowledge of Greek was declining in the West.”
“This exposition of the Creed was made at the request of Laurentius, a Bishop whose see is unknown, but is conjectured by Fontanini, in his life of Rufinus, to have been Concordia, Rufinus’ birthplace. Its exact date cannot be fixed; but from the fact that he says nothing of his difficulty in writing Latin after being so long in the East, as he does in several of his books, and from the comparative ease of the style, it is most probable that it was written in the later years of his sojourn at Aquileia, that is, about 307–309. Its value is considerable (1) as bearing witness to the state of the Creed in local churches at the beginning of the 5th century, especially their variations. (In the church of Aquileia, in Jesu Christo. Patrem invisibilem et impassibilem. Resurrectio hujus carnis); (2) as showing the adaptation of Eastern ideas to the formation of Western theology; (3) as giving the Canon of the books of Scripture, and the Apocrypha of both the Old and New dispensations. The exposition is clear and reasonable; and, with the exception of a very few passages, such as the argument from the Phœnix for the Virgin Birth of our Lord, is still of use to us.”
“The distinction that Athanasius made between the canonical Scriptures and other writings which were not canonical, but nonetheless used for edification in the Church, was further expressed by Rufinus at the beginning of the fifth century. He was greatly influenced by Origen and likewise listed the canonical books according to the Jewish numbering. He claimed that the canon he gave was that which had been handed down by tradition through the fathers as authoritative and that the specific books he enumerated were alone to be used for establishing the doctrines of the faith. He cited the major works of the Apocrypha, specifically the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees as books that were not canonical but ecclesiastical. These were appropriate to be read in the Churches but were not authoritative for the confirmation of doctrine. Such, says Rufinus, was the tradition handed down from the fathers. Significantly, Rufinus expressed this view after the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, demonstrating that they did not possess universal authority for the Church at large. A similar perspective to Rufinus was held by Jerome”
Latin Text: The Latin text here is according to Westcott (after Migne)…
“Itaque Veteris Testamenti, omnium primo Moysi quinque libri sunt traditi, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, Deuteronomium. Post haec Jesus Nave, et Judicum simul cum Ruth. Quatuor post haec Regnorum libri quos Hebraei duos numerant; Paralipomenon, qui Dierum dicitur liber; et Esdrae duo, qui apud illos singuli computantur, et Hester. Prophetarum vero Esaias, Jeremias, Ezechiel et Daniel: praeterea duodecim Prophetarum liber unus. Job quoque et Psalmi David singuli sunt libri. Salomonis vero tres ecclesiis traditi, Proverbia, Ecclesiastes, Cantica Canticorum. In his concluserunt numerum librorum Veteris Testamenti. Novi vero quatuor Evangelia, Matthaei, Marci, Lucae, et Joannis. Actus Apostolorum quos describit Lucas. Pauli apostoli epistolae quatuordecim. Petri apostoli duae. Jacobi fratris Domini et apostoli una. Judae una. Joannis tres. Apocalypsis Joannis. Haec sunt quae patres intra Canonem concluserunt, et ex quibus fidei nostrae assertiones constare voluerunt. Sciendum tamen est quod et alii libri sunt qui non Canonici sed Ecclesiastici a majoribus appellati sunt, id est Sapientia, quae dicitur Salomonis, et alia Sapientia, quae dicitur filii Sirach, qui liber apud Latinos hoc ipso generali vocabulo Ecclesiasticus appellatur; quo vocabulo non auctor libelli, sed scripturae qualitas cognominata est. Ejusdem vero ordinis libellus Tobiae et Judith: et Machabaeorum libri. In Novo vero Testamento libellus qui dicitur Pastoris sive Hermas, qui appellatur Duae viae vel Judicium Petri. Quae omnia legi quidem in ecclesiis voluerunt, non tamen proferri ad auctoritatem ex his fidei confirmandam. Caeteras vero Scripturas Apocryphas nominarunt, quas in Ecclesiis legi noluerunt. Haec nobis a patribus tradita sunt, quae (ut dixi) opportunum visum est hoc in loco designare, ad instructionem eorum qui prima sibi ecclesiae ac fidei elementa suscipiunt, ut sciant, ex quibus sibi fontibus verbi Dei haurienda sint pocula.”
“[I say] then it was the Holy Spirit who in the Old Testament inspired the Law and the Prophets, and in the New the Gospels and the Epistles. For which reason the apostle also says, “All scripture given by inspiration of God is profitable for instruction.” And therefore it seems proper in this place to specify by a distinct enumeration, from the records of the fathers, the books of the New and of the Old Testament, which, in accordance with the tradition of our ancestors, are believed to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit, and handed down to the churches of Christ. Of the Old Testament, therefore, first of all there have been handed down five books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; then Joshua the son of Nun; the book of Judges together with Ruth; then four books of Kings, which the Hebrews reckon two; Paralipomenon, which is called the book of Days [Chronicles], and two books of Ezra, which the Hebrews reckon one, and Esther; of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; moreover of the Twelve [minor] Prophets, one book; Job also and the Psalms of David, each one book. Solomon gave three books to the churches, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs. These comprise the books of the Old Testament. Of the New Testament there are four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles, which was written by Luke; fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul, two of the apostle Peter, one of James, the brother of the Lord and an apostle, one of Jude, three of John, and the Revelation of John. These are the books which the fathers have included in the canon; on which they would have us establish the declarations of our faith But it should also be known that there are other books which are called not "canonical" but "ecclesiastical" by the ancients: that is, the Wisdom attributed to Solomon, and another Wisdom attributed to the son of Sirach, which the Latins called by the title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book but its character. To the same class belong the book of Tobit and the book of Judith, and the books of Maccabees. With the New Testament there is the book which is called the Shepherd of Hermas, and that which is called The Two Ways 6 and the Judgment of Peter. 7 They were willing to have all these read in the churches but not brought forward for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they named "apocrypha," which they would not have read in the churches. These are what the fathers have handed down to us, which, as I said, I have thought it opportune to set forth in this place, for the instruction of those who are being taught the first elements of the Church and of the Faith, that they may know from what fountains of the Word of God they should draw for drinking.”
- Rufinus of Aquileia, Exposition of the Creed, link: https://www.bible-researcher.com/rufinus.html
“The Synopsis of Sacred Scripture is an ancient treatise which has been traditionally ascribed to Athanasius, but most scholars now think that it was composed by an anonymous Greek churchman sometime in the sixth century.”
“The work is listed in the Clavis Patrum Graecorum under CPG 2249. It has reached us in a single manuscript, which remained unknown until 1895, hidden in the prestigious surroundings of Eton College, where it has the shelfmark Codex Etonensis 144 (formerly B. l. 5. 13). J. Armitage Robinson published it in that year in Texts and Studies 3, “Euthaliana”, p.106-120, with a collation of the manuscript against the PG text. The manuscript was written by Ducas the Notary, among others, at the end of the 14th or start of the 15th century. Other manuscripts seem to exist. The Pinakes database gives a list, which contains four manuscripts that look like full-length texts: Tübingen Mb 10 (16th c.), Vienna theol. gr. 249 (16th c.) and two 18th century Greek manuscripts – but I am not aware of any publication that deals with them.
The work was first published by P. Felckmann in Operum sancti patris nostri Athanasii archiepiscopi Alexandrini, t. II, Heidelberg 1600, p. 61-136, with a Latin translation by Wolfgang Musculus.[2] Regular readers will remember Musculus from my post Apocryphal and then some: The so-called “Synopsis” of so-called Dorotheus of Tyre. The Eton manuscript bears the marks of use as an exemplar for this edition. But the manuscript then disappeared, and all subsequent editions based themselves on Felckmann.
The text was edited again by Montfaucon, and reprinted by J.-P. Migne in the Patrologia Graeca vol. 28, cols. 281-438. There is no critical edition of the text, and the only translation is that of Musculus into Latin. The opening section of the work has been translated into English by Michael D. Marlowe and placed online here.
Studies of the work have been few. The only serious study, until a decade ago, was undertaken by Theodor Zahn in Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, 1890, Band 2, Hälfte 1, p.302-318.[3]
Zahn established that the work is not an original literary composition. Rather it is a collection of materials about the books of the bible and their contents, assembled from pre-existing sources in a pretty raw manner. The work contradicts itself; at one time it describes the Old Testament apocrypha as useful for reading; at another it states that they are not to be read.
The work has always been recognised as spurious [as far as Athanasian authorship is concerned]. Montfaucon in his preface listed some reasons why:
No work of this title is attributed to Athanasius in any ancient or medieval source. We have detailed lists of his work in Jerome (de viris illustribus 87) and Photius (codd. 32, 139, 140).
It is not found with any other work of Athanasius in the manuscript.
It contradicts what Athanasius says about the canon in his 39th Festal Letter, and ignores the Shepherd of Hermas, so dear to Athanasius’ heart.
The Synopsis takes material from the genuine Festal Letter 39. A section on the translation of the Old Testament is taken word-for-word from Epiphanius. Another section belongs to the strange book of Josephus Christianus. The content for Leviticus, Paralip., Esra, Prov., Job, Esther, Judith, Tobit, Sapientia Sal. is almost literally identical with corresponding sections of the Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae of ps.Chrysostom, another confused text of the same genre, which appears to be older than the ps.Athanasius.”
“We cannot give be more precise on the period when the Athanasian Synopsis was written. For the time being there is nothing to be found in the relation to Josephus Christianus; for 1) the original affiliation with the parallel section on synopsis is highly doubtful, 2) that Josephus, whose work is nothing more than a compilation of very different books, may as well have drawn this passage from our synopsis, but conversely, 3) the time of Josephus is a very unknown or at least uncertain thing.
The dependence of our synopsis on that of Chrysostom, on the 39th festal letter of Athanasius, on a fifth-century Palestinian canon, and probably also on Epiphanius, places us in a monastery or church library in which these diverse spirits were united as equally venerable authorities.
The compilation certainly did not come into existence before the sixth century, perhaps even later.”
- Theodor Zahn in Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, 1890, Band 2, Hälfte 1, p.302-318.
- Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae, J.P. Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca, vol. 28 (Paris, 1887; volume 4 of the collected works of Athanasius), cols. 284-93 and 432. Link: https://www.bible-researcher.com/sss.html
“A theologian and Church historian of the latter part of the twelfth century. He was born either in Scotland or England, and joined the newly-founded order of Saint Norbert. It is also believed that he became Abbot and Bishop of Candida Casa, or Whithorn in Scotland, and died after 1180. […] He was one of the most appreciated mystical authors of the Middle Ages; both in style and matter his works show unusual sweetness and spirituality. He is also known as Adam Anglicus and Anglo-Scotus.”
“ADAM SCOTUS (fl. 1180), theological writer, sometimes called Adam Anglicus or Anglo-Scotus, was born in the south of Scotland in the first half of the 12th century. About 1150 he was a Premonstratensian canon at St Andrews, and some twenty years later abbot and bishop of Candida Casa (Whithorn) in Galloway. He gained a European reputation for his writings, which are of mystico-ascetic type, and include an account of the Premonstratensian order, a collection of festival sermons, and a Soliloquia de instructione discipuli, formerly attributed to his contemporary, Adam of St Victor.”
“Adam identified the canonical Old Testament books as numbering twenty-two according to the Hebrew canon of five books of the Law, eight of the Prophets and nine of the Hagiographa.”
“De picturis quae in Sancta sunt, quomodo secundum sensum allegoricum debeant intelligi. Dignitas quoque sanctae Scripturae in hoc est, quod prae cunctis saecularibus scripturis non solum voces, sed etiam res significativas habet; unde et ei omnes artes, quas liberales appellant, subserviunt. Libri autem, de quibus hic loquimur, et qui de Scriptura tractant, partim ad Vetus Testamentum pertinent, partim ad Novum. Et Vetus quidem in tres ordines dividitur: in legem, cujus libri quinque sunt; in prophetas, quorum libri sunt octo: in hagiographa, ad quos libri novem pertinent: qui simul juncti viginti duos efficiunt, quot etiam elementa in Hebraico alphabeto sunt; ut tot libris sancta viri justi vita exerceatur ad sapientiam, quot litteris aetas tenera instruitur ad eloquentiam. Haec itaque quatuor, scilicet materiam sacrae Scripturae, intelligentiam, dignitatem, et numerum librorum ejus illi quatuor gradus innuunt, quos ad mensam, quae hanc, de qua loquimur, Scripturam designat, posuimus, duos hinc inde ad utrumque ejus caput. Si autem prolixius de his scire volueris, lege primam partem libri Magistri Hugonis, cujus est titulus de Sacramentis.”
- Adam Scotus, De Tripartito Tabernaculo, Pars Secunda. De Tabernaculo Christi Quod Est In Fide. Caput VIII. Patrologia Latina 198:697B.
“AGOBARD, ag´o-bɑ̄rd: Archbishop of Lyons 816–840 [b., probably in Spain, 779; d. in Saintonge (an old province of western France) June 6, 840]. Nothing certain is known of his youth. He went to Lyons in 792, and probably owed his education to Leidrad, archbishop of Lyons, one of the most diligent of Charlemagne’s helpers in his civilizing work. Later he became Leidrad’s assistant, and then his successor. […] Agobard takes a foremost place in the annals of Carolingian culture. In strictly theological treatises such as the Liber adversus dogma Felicis, against Adoptionism, and another, against image-worship, he is as much a mere compiler as any of his contemporaries. […] He wrote a book against the popular superstition that storms could be caused by magic, basing his argument on religious grounds, yet making appeal to sound reason. In advance of his age, again, he denied absolutely the justice of the ordeal by battle, and wrote two tractates against it. He was also to some extent a liturgical scholar; and in the preface to his revised antiphonary laid down the principle that the words of Holy Scripture should alone be used.”
“Adoptionism had no more active enemies than Leidrade (798-814) and Agobard (814-840). When Felix of Urgel continued rebellious to the condemnations pronounced against Adoptionism from 791-799 by the Councils of Ciutad, Friuli, Ratisbon, Frankfort, and Rome, Charlemagne conceived the idea of sending to Urgel with Nebridius, Bishop of Narbonne, and St. Benedict, abbot of the monastery of Aniane, Archbishop Leidrade, a native of Nuremberg and Charlemagne's librarian. They preached against Adoptionism in Spain, conducted Felix in 799 to the Council of Aachen, where he seemed to submit to the arguments of Alcuin, and then brought him back to his diocese., But the submission of Felix was not complete; Agobard, "Chorepiscopus" of Lyons, convicted him anew of Adoptionism in a secret conference, and when Felix died in 815 there was found among his papers a treatise in which he professed Adoptionism. Then Agobard, who had become Archbishop of Lyons in 814 after Leidrade's retirement to the monastery of St. Médard of Soissons, composed a long treatise which completed the ruin of that heresy.
Agobard displayed great activity as a pastor and a publicist in his opposition to the Jews and to various superstitions. His rooted hatred for all superstition led him in his treatise on images into certain expressions which savoured of Iconoclasm. […] Under Leidrade and Agobard the Church of Lyons, although fulfilling the task of purifying its liturgical texts exacted by the Holy See, upheld its own traditions. "Among the Churches of France", wrote St. Bernard to the canons of Lyons, "that of Lyons has hitherto had ascendancy over all the others, as much for the dignity of its see as for its praiseworthy institutions. It is especially in the Divine Office that this judicious Church has never readily acquiesced in unexpected and sudden novelties, and has never submitted to be tarnished by innovations which are becoming only to youth".”
“Et res mira, et vehementer stupenda! Omnes Levitae quos numeraverunt Moyses et Aaron juxta praeceptum Domini per familias suas in genere masculino a mense uno et supra, fuerunt viginti duo millia, sicut viginti duae litterae apud Hebraeos, et viginti duo libri divinae auctoritatis in Veteri Testamento. Ut id ipsum sit quod in Deuteronomio dicitur: Scripsit itaque Moyses hanc legem et tradidit eam sacerdotibus filiis Levi, qui portabant arcam foederis Domini, et cunctis senioribus Israelis.”
- Agobard of Lyons, Ad Bernardum Episcopum, De Privilegio et Jure Sacerdotii VI. Patrologia Latina 107:133C.
“An early medieval writer and abbot of the Benedictine Order, born in France, early in the eighth century; died after an abbacy of little more than a year at his monastery of St. Vincent on the Volturno, near Beneventum, in southern Italy, 778 or 779. Autpert, if forgotten today, was not without a name in his own century. Charlemagne made use of his talents; Pope Stephen IV protected him; and the monastery where he spent many years, and of which he died abbot was famous among the great monasteries of Italy.”
“AMBROSE (Ambroise), AUTPERT (d. 778), French Benedictine monk. He became abbé of St Vincent on the Volturno “in the time of Desiderius, king of the Lombards.” He wrote a considerable number of works on the Bible and religious subjects generally. Among these are commentaries on the Apocalypse (see Bibl. Patrum, xiii. 403), on the Psalms, on the Song of Solomon; Lives of SS. Paldo, Tuto and Vaso (according to Mabillon); Assumption of the Virgin; Combat between the Virtues and the Vices.”
“Ambrose, a ninth century theologian, wrote a commentary on the book of Revelation in which he, like Haymo of Halberstadt and Primasius before him, cited the number of canonical Old Testament books at twenty-four.”
“Potest autem sub alio intellectu in uigintiquattuor senioribus Ecclesia figurari, propter senariam scilicet perfectionem, quae per quattuor sancti Euangelii libros consummatur. Senarius etenim numerus ideo perfectus habetur, quia in sex diebus cuncta opera sua Deus fecisse perhibetur, atque in sexta mundi aetate hominem reformasse narratur. Quia itaque siue Veteris, siue Noui Testamenti Patrum opera, in sex mundi aetatibus tamquam sex diebus peracta, quattuor sancti Euangelii libros adimplet Ecclesia, recte in uigintiquattuor senioribus tota describitur. Quater enim seni, uigintiquattuor faciunt. Vel certe, quia prioris Testamenti uigintiquattuor libris utitur, quos et auctoritate canonica suscepit, in quibus etiam Nouum Testamentum reuelatum agnoscit, idcirco uigintiquattuor senioribus Ecclesia figuratur. Ideo enim est Noui Testamenti praedicatio fructuosa, quia ex Veteri roborata, tamquam scililicet ab eisdem trahat numerum Ecclesia, quibus in sanctitate perficitur ”
- Ambrosii Autperti, Expositionis in Apocalypsin, Libri III (4, 4), Cura et Studio, Roberti Weber O.S.B., Turnholti, Typographi Brepols Editores Pontifici, MCMLXXV.
“Andrew Horn, it should be observed, under whose eye the contents of both these volumes [of ‘Liber Horn’] were probably compiled, filled the important office of City Chamberlain during the reign of Edward II, and died in the second year of the reign of Edward III. He was one of the most learned lawyers of his day. […] [Footnote 2:] Andrew Horn of Bridge Street, a member of the Fishmonger’s Company, was the author of Le Mirroir des Justices, Speculum Justiciarorum, supposed by Plowden to contain the law as it existed before the Conquest. He died on Oct. 18, A.D. 1328, and the acquittance of his executors is dated on Monday the Eve of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, in the third year of he reign of King Edward, after the Conquest the Third. It is recorded in the Letter Book E. fol. clxxii. of the Corporation of London. Riley’s Memorials, p. 176.”
“ANTONINUS, SAINT, OF FLORENCE (ANTONIO PIEROZZI): Archbishop of Florence; b. in that city 1389; d. there May 2, 1459. In 1404 he joined the Dominicans, and in 1436 was made prior of the monastery of San Marco in Florence. In 1439 he took part in the negotiations for union with the Greeks. In 1446, against his wish but at the express behest of Pope Eugenius IV., he was chosen archbishop. His blameless life and devotion to duty rendered him beloved by all, and his canonization by Adrian VI. in 1523 was looked upon as the just due of an untiring, humble, and exemplary bishop. He has been a favorite subject of Florentine art.”
“Archbishop of Florence, b. at Florence, 1 March, 1389; d. 2 May, 1459; known also by his baptismal name Antonius (Anthony), which is found in his autographs, in some manuscripts, in printed editions of his works, and in the Bull of canonization, but which has been finally rejected for the diminutive form given him by his affectionate fellow-citizens. His parents, Niccolò and Thomasina Pierozzi, were in high standing, Niccolò being a notary of the Florentine Republic. At the age of fifteen (1404) Antoninus applied to Bl. John Dominic, the great Italian religious reformer of the period, then at the Convent of Santa Maria Novella in Florence, for admission to the Dominican Order. It was not until a year later that he was accepted, and he was the first to receive the habit for the Convent of Fiesole about to be constructed by Bl. John Dominic. […] A few years later he began his career as a zealous promoter of the reforms inaugurated by Bl. John Dominic. In 1414 he was vicar of the convent of Foligno, then in turn sub-prior and prior of the convent of Cortona, and later prior of the convents of Rome (Minerva), Naples (Saint Peter Martyr), Gaeta, Sienna, and Fiesole (several times). From 1433 to 1446 he was vicar of the Tuscan Congregation formed by Bl. John Dominic of convents embracing a more rigorous discipline. During this period he established (1436) the famous convent of St. Mark in Florence, where he formed a remarkable community from the brethren of the convent of Fiesole. It was at this time also that he built with the munificent aid of Cosimo de' Medici, the adjoining church, at the consecration of which Pope Eugene IV assisted (Epiphany, 1441). As a theologian he took part in the Council of Florence (1439) and gave hospitality in St. Mark's to the Dominican theologians called to the council by Eugene IV. […] Despite all the efforts of St. Antoninus to escape ecclesiastical dignities, he was forced by Eugene IV, who had personal knowledge of his saintly character and administrative ability, to accept the Archbishopric of Florence. He was consecrated in the convent of Fiesole, 13 march, 1446, and immediately took possession of the see over which he ruled until his death. As he had laboured in the past for the upbuilding of the religious life throughout his Order, so he henceforth laboured for it in his diocese, devoting himself to the visitation of parishes and religious communities, the remedy of abuses, the strengthening of discipline, the preaching of the Gospel, the amelioration of the condition of the poor, and the writing of books for clergy and laity. […] The literary productions of St. Antoninus, while giving evidence of the eminently practical turn of his mind, show that he was a profound student of history and theology.”
“Antoninus wrote that the Apocryphal books were not considered canonical by the Church and were therefore not authoritative for the confirmation of doctrines of the faith. He numbered the canonical books of the Old Testament at twenty-two, thereby indicating that he followed the Hebrew canon and cited Jerome and Nicholas of Lyra as authorities for his position.”
“Notandum secundum Hieronymum in prologo Galeato, qui ponitur super libro Regnum, quod librorum Veteris Testamenti Hebraeiquatuor faciunt partes. Et primum appellant Legem:...secundum Prophetas:....tertiam Hagiographa...quartam partem, quam tamen non ponunt ipsi Hebraei in canone Scripturarum sanctarum, sed appellant apocrypha, faciunt de aliis quinque libris, scilicet, Sapientia…Ecclesiasticus…Judith…Tobias…et Machabaeorum, distinctus in duos libros…Unde et de his quinque libris dicit Hieronymus in prologo super Judith, quod auctoritas horum librorum ad roboranda illa, quae in contentione veniunt, minus idonea judicatur...Et idem etiam dicit Thomas, 2a. 2ae, et Nicloaus de Lyra super Tobiam, scilicet, quod isti non sunt tantae auctoritatis, quod ex dictis eorum posset efficaciter argumentari in his, quae sunt fidei, sicut ex aliis libris Scripturae sacrae. Unde forte habent auctoritatem talem, qualem habent dicta sanctorum doctorum approbata ab ecclesia.”
- Sancti Antonini, Archiepiscopi Florentini, Summa Theologica, In Quattuor Partes Distributa, Pars Tertia, Tit xviii, Cap vi, Sect 2, De Dilatatione Praedicationis, Col 1043-1044.
“ALCUIN, al´cwin (English name, Ealhwine; Lat. Flaccus Albinus): The most prominent adviser of Charlemagne in his efforts to promote learning; b. in Northumbria (perhaps in York) 735 (730 ?); d. at Tours May 19, 804. He was of good birth and a relative of Willibrod. He was educated in the famous cathedral school of Archbishop Egbert of York, under a master, Ethelbert (Albert), who seems to have been a man of many-sided learning and who is often praised by Alcuin. Alcuin made several visits to Rome, and on such journeys became acquainted with Frankish monasteries and with men like Lul of Mainz and Fulrad of St. Denis. He succeeded Ethelbert as head of the school when the latter was made archbishop (766), and, after Ethelbert’s retirement and the elevation of Eanbald to the archiepiscopal throne (778), was also custos of the valuable cathedral library at York. He went to Rome to obtain the pallium for Eanbald, and at Parma (781) met Charlemagne to whom he was already known. Shortly after his return to England he accepted a call from the Frankish king, who was then gathering scholars at his court, and, with the exception of a visit to his native land on political business in 790-793, spent the rest of his life on the Continent. […] From 793 he was the constant and efficient helper of Charlemagne in founding schools, promoting the education of the clergy, and like undertakings. […] Under his guidance the school of Tours became a nursery of ecclesiastical and liberal education for the whole kingdom. His distinguished pupils there included Sigulf, who supplied the information for his biography, Rabanus Maurus, and perhaps the liturgist, Amalarius of Metz. When old and feeble and almost blind, he left the management to his scholars, but he continued to be the counselor of his royal friend till his death. Alcuin was mild in spirit, adverse to discord, orthodox in faith, equally interested in promoting the authority of Rome and the royal priesthood of Charlemagne. His great service was his part in the so-called Carolingian renaissance, his wise and efficient efforts to elevate and educate the clergy and the monks, to improve preaching, to regulate the Christian life of the people and advance the faith among the heathen, always by instruction rather then by force. His theology, while not original, rests on an intimate acquaintance with the Fathers, especially Jerome and Augustine. To ecclesiastical learning he added classical, but in such manner that it was always the servant of the former. He was able to give his master information concerning astronomy and natural science but, as he considered grammar and philosophy auxiliary to religion, so he regarded these branches of knowledge primarily as a means of knowing God. […] He wrote commentaries on Genesis, the Psalms, the Song of Songs, John, and other books of the Bible, based upon the Church Fathers and following the current moral and allegorical exposition. At Charlemagne’s request he revived the text of the Vulgate according to the best available sources. His skill as a teacher is evident in text-books on grammar and orthography, as well as in treatises on rhetoric and dialectics which resemble Cicero.”
“An eminent educator, scholar, and theologian born about 735; died 19 May, 804. He came of noble Northumbrian parentage, but the place of his birth is a matter of dispute. It was probably in or near York. While still a mere child, he entered the cathedral school founded at that place by Archbishop Egbert. His aptitude, and piety early attracted the attention of Aelbert, master of the school, as well as of the Archbishop, both of whom devoted special attention to his instruction. In company with his master, he made several visits to the continent while a youth, and when, in 767, Aelbert succeeded to the Archbishopric of York, the duty of directing the school naturally devolved upon Alcuin. During the fifteen years that followed, he devoted himself to the work of instruction at York, attracting numerous students and enriching the already valuable library. While returning from Rome in March, 781, he met Charlemagne at Parma, and was induced by that prince, whom he greatly admired, to remove to France and take up residence at the royal court as "Master of the Palace School". The school was kept at Aachen most of the time, but was removed from place to place, according as the royal residence was changed. In 786 he returned to England, in connection, apparently, with important ecclesiastical affairs, and again in 790, on a mission from Charlemagne. Alcuin attended the Synod of Frankfort in 794, and took an important part in the framing of the decrees condemning Adoptionism as well as in the efforts made subsequently to effect the submission of the recalcitrant Spanish prelates. In 796, when past his sixtieth year, being anxious to withdraw from the world, he was appointed by Charlemagne Abbot of St. Martin's at tours. Here, in his declining years, but with undiminished zeal, he set himself to build up a model monastic school, gathering books and drawing students, as before, at Aachen and York, from far and near. He died 19 May, 804. Alcuin appears to have been only a deacon, his favourite appellation for himself in his letters being "Albinus, humilis Levita". Some have thought, however, that he became a priest, at least during his later years. […] It is probable that he was a monk, and a member of the Benedictine Order, although this also has been disputed, some historians maintaining that he was simply a member of the secular clergy, even when he exercised the office of abbot at Tours. Of his work as an educator and scholar it may be said, in a general way, that he had the largest share in the movement for the revival of learning which distinguished the age in which he lived, and which made possible the great intellectual renaissance of three centuries later. In him Anglo-Saxon scholarship attained to its widest influence, the rich intellectual inheritance left by Bede at Jarrow being taken up by Alcuin at York, and, through his subsequent labours on the Continent, becoming the permanent possession of civilized Europe. […] Alcuin, like Bede, was a teacher rather than a thinker, a gatherer and a distributor rather than an originator of knowledge, and in this respect, it is plain to us now, the bent of his genius responded perfectly to the imperative intellectual need of the age, which was the preservation and the representation to the world of the treasures of knowledge inherited from the past, long buried out of sight by the successive tides of barbarian invasion. […] Although living in the world and occupied much with public affairs, he was a man of singular humility and sanctity of life. He had an unbounded enthusiasm for learning and a tireless zeal for the practical work of the class-room and library, and the young men of talent whom he drew in crowds around him from all parts of Europe went away inspired with something of his own passionate ardour for study. His warm-hearted and affectionate disposition made him universally beloved, and the ties that bound master and pupil often ripened into intimate friendship that lasted through life. Many of his letters that have been preserved were written to his former pupils, more than thirty being addressed to his tenderly loved disciple Arno, who became Archbishop of Salzburg. Before he died Alcuin had the satisfaction of seeing the young men whom he had trained engaged all over Europe in the work of teaching. "Wherever", says Wattenbach, in speaking of the period that followed, "anything of literary activity is visible, there we can with certainty count on finding a pupil of Alcuin's." Many of his pupils came to occupy important positions in Church and State and lent their influence to the cause of learning, as the above-mentioned Arno, Archbishop of Salzburg; Theodulph, Bishop of Orléans; Eanbald, Archbishop of York; Adelhard, the cousin of Charles, who became Abbot of (New) Corbie, in Saxony; Aldrich, Abbot of Ferrières, and Fridugis, the successor of Alcuin at Tours. Among his pupils also was the celebrated Rabanus Maurus, the intellectual successor of Alcuin, who came to study under him for a time at Tours, and who subsequently in his school at Fulda, continued the work of Alcuin at Aachen and Tours. […] Alcuin's work as a theologian may be classed as exegetical or biblical, moral, and dogmatic. Here again the characteristic that has been noted in his educational work is conspicuous it is that of conservation rather than originality. His nine Scriptural commentaries — on Genesis, The Psalms, The Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Hebrew Names, St. John's Gospel, the Epistles to Titus, Philemon, and the Hebrews, The Sayings of St. Paul, and the Apocalypse — consist mostly of sentences taken from the Fathers, the idea, apparently, being to collect into convenient form the observations on the more important Scriptural passages of the best commentators who had preceded him. A more important Biblical undertaking by Alcuin was the revision of the text of the Latin Vulgate. […] It is upon his dogmatic writings that the fame of Alcuin as a theologian principally rests. Against the Adoptionist heresy he stood forth as the foremost champion of the Church. It is a proof of his power of penetration — a quality of mind which some historians appear to deny him altogether — that he so clearly perceived the essentially heretical attitude of Felix and Elipandus toward the Christological question, an attitude whose heterodoxy was shrouded perhaps even from their own eyes in the beginning, by the specious distinction between natural and adoptive sonship; and it was a worthy tribute to the range of his patristic scholarship when Felix, the chief intellectual defender of Adoptionism, after the disputation with Alcuin at Aachen, acknowledged the error of his position. […] Besides his justly merited fame as an educator and a theologian, Alcuin has the honour of having been the principle agent in the great work of liturgical reform accomplished by the authority of Charlemagne.”
“ALCUIN, a British scholar, the pupil of Bede, was the chief literary adviser of Charlemagne. In controversy with a Spanish bishop he distinctly affirmed (on the authority of Jerome and Isidore) that Ecclesiasticus was a doubtful Scripture, and not to be alleged for the proof of doctrine. But in common practice he suffered the ordinary ecclesiastical usage to remain unchanged. Towards the close of his life he was commissioned by Charlemagne to undertake a revision of the Latin Bible for public use. The simultaneous use of the old Latin and Jerome s new Version had led to great corruption of the text. Alcuin restored the original readings of Jerome in a great measure in the books which he had translated or corrected, but he made no endeavour to separate the Apocrypha as Jerome had done. Several magnificent MSS. remain which claim to be directly derived from Alcuin s own revision. One of the finest of these (known as Charlemagne’s Bible ) is among the chief or naments of the Library of the British Museum ; and it is a singular proof of the small interest which attached in the ninth century to the exactness of the Canon, that it contains the Apocryphal Letter to the Laodicenes as a fifteenth letter of St. Paul.”
Note: Keep in mind, once again, that the two-tier view of Scripture does not mean that the deuterocanonical books are simply to be discarded or done away with. Through the Middle Ages, those who hold to Jerome’s view still read, quote from, and promulgate the deuterocanonical books (simply keeping the learned distinction of canonical vs. non-canonical in mind):
“Again, the British scholar Alcuin (ca. 804) vigorously declares on the authority of Jerome that Ecclesiasticus is a ‘doubtful Scripture,’ and not to be used to prove matters of doctrine. And yet in practice he allowed the common ecclesiastical usage to remain unchallenged; in his revision of the Latin Bible for public use, commissioned by Charlemagne, Alcuin largely restored the original readings of Jerome, and yet he made no attempt to follow Jerome in setting apart the Apocrypha. It is a singular indication of indifference to the precision of the canon that the manuscript known as ‘Charlemagne's Bible’ (in the British Museum) and derived from Alcuin's revision, should contain the Letter to the Laodicenes as a fifteenth letter of Paul! As Westcott observes, ‘It offers clear proof, if any proof were needed, of the utter absence of the power of historical criticism at the time.’”
- Floyd C. Medford, The Apocrypha in the Sixteenth Century: A Summary and Survey, Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church, Vol. 52, No. 4 (December, 1983), pg. 345, link: https://www.jstor.org/stable/42973978
“Dum tuae perversitati defecerunt in prophetis Dei testimonia errori tuo convenientia, finxisti tibi novum quemdam prophetam dixisse: Miserere, Domine, plebi tuae, super quam invocatum est nomen tuum, et Israel, quem coaequasti primogenito tuo. Addidisti quoque huic sententiae talem interpretationem: Aequalitas, inquis, ista non est in divinitate, sed in sola humanitate, et in carne adoptiva, quam accepit de Virgine. Ecce falsitas in nomine prophetae! Ecce perversitas in interpretatione sententiae! Et non frustra oportebat novum doctorem, novum sibi invenire prophetam. Sicut Jeroboam rex a veri Dei cultu recedens novos sibi finxit deos, ut perditus subjectum sibi perderet populum; de quo multo ante praedictum est in Cantico Deuteronomii: Dereliquit Deum factorem suum, et recessit a Deo salutari suo; sic tu a vero Deo et proprio Filio Dei recedens, nuncupativum Deum et adoptivum filium redemptorem tibi fingis, quem non noverunt patres nostri. Tu vero Deum qui te liberavit, dereliquisti, et oblitus es Dei Redemptoris tui. In libro Jesu filii Sirac haec praefata sententia legitur, quem librum beatus Hieronymus atque Isidorus inter apocryphas, id est, dubias Scripturas, deputatum esse absque dubitatione testantur”
- Alcuin, Adversus Elipandum Toletanum, Liber Primus XVIII. Patrologia Latina 101:253C-254A.
Exegete, b. at Madrigal, Castile, about 1400; d. at Bonilla de la Sierra, near Avila, 3 Sept., 1455. After a course of grammar under the Franciscans he entered the University of Salamanca, where, besides philosophy and theology, he studied civil and canon law, Greek, Hebrew, and the other branches then comprised in the curriculum of a university. By great application joined to an unusually brilliant mind and an extraordinarily retentive memory he accumulated such a vast store of knowledge that his contemporaries styled him the wonder of the world. At twenty-two he began to lecture on a wide variety of subjects to large audiences attracted by his learning. Later he assisted with distinction at the Council of Basle. […] He was appointed grand Chancellor of Castile, and in 1449 Bishop of Avila, whence his title Abulensis. Besides a Spanish commentary on the chronicles of Eusebius and other minor works, he wrote commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament as far as II Paralipomenon, and on the gospel of St. Matthew.”
“In his commentaries, and in particular in his Preface to the Gospel of Matthew, Tostado taught that the books of the Apocrypha were non-canonical and, as such, were not authoritative for establishing points of doctrine. He also affirmed that the Church allowed the books to be read and studied for the purpose of edification.”
“Quaest. I. Quaeritur ergo primo, quot sunt libri sacrae scripturae, & qui sunt ordines ipsorum librorum in canonibus suis. Ad primum dicendum, quod hic quaerimus de libris utriusque testamenti simul noui & veteris, qui varie computantur. Quidam dicunt quinquaginta libros sacrae scripturae esse: & dicunt eos significatos per quinquaginta ansulas, quae erant in ora cuiuslibet cortinae tabernaculi Moysi. Exod. 26. Et istam computationem tenet Petrus in Aurora. Dicendum tamen; quod non est conueniens: quia necesse est, quod aliquos libros diuidat, & aliquos uniat, Nam si computetur secundum aliam computationem, non diuidendo libros, nisi secundum quod communiter accipitur, non poterit perueniri nisi ad 44. libros, & desic sex. Ut infra declarabitur. Ad hoc ergo, quod suppleat istos sex, necessee est, quod diuidat aliquos libros, qui non consueuerunt diuidi: de quibus est unus in veteri testamento scil. lib. 12. prophetarum minorum. Duo autem sunt in nouo. scil. liber Epistolarum Pauli & liber canonicarum Epistolarum. De libro duodecim prophetarum minorum dicendum, quod unicus est in veteri testamento: & sic ponitur apud Iudaes in canone suo, ut ait Hieronymus in prologo Galeato super libros Regum, qui incipit: Viginti & duas literas: licet intra istum librum quilibet illorum duodecim prophetarum librum proprium habeat: qui propter paruitatem per se nomen voluminis non meretur. Si autem isti diuidant librum duodecim prophetarum, oportet illum diuidi in duodecim iuxta numerum ipsorum prophetarum, & tunc non solum erunt 50. sed 55. libri… Circa diuisionem librorum veteris testamenti est diuersitas: quia aliter solemus nos communiter computare, & aliter Iudaei. Ratio diuersitatis est: quia aliqui libri apud nos habentur, qui nunquam apud Hebraeos inueniantur, sicut liber Sapient. & Ecclesasticus, & secundus liber Machab. Ut ait Hieron. In prologo Galeato: Secunda diuersitatis ratio est: quia quidam libri, licet apud Hebraeos inueniantur, tamen in suo canone non ponuntur, sicut liber Iudith, & Tobiae, ut ait Hieron. in eodem prologo Galeato. Computatio autem nostra communis est; quod computentur omnes libri quotquot Ecclesia legit, & suscepit, cuiuscunque ordinis, vel canonis sunt: etiamsi apud Iudaeos in apocryphorum numero deputentur, etiam quod isti libri computentur secundum sectiones, quas communiter apud Latinos, & Graecos habent. Et hoc modo inuenientur 44. libri. scil. 30. & sex veteris testamenti, & octo noui testamenti. Et computantur sic. scil. quinque libri, Moysis, unus liber Iousue, unus Iudicum, unus Ruth, quatuor libri Regum, duo libri Paralipomenon. 3. libri Esdrae opponentes ibi unum valdeapocryphum, de quo Ecclesia nunquam curauit, nec legit, nec quisquam doctorum solennium illum unquam allegat: ideo nec nos in numero libroru ponimus: unus liber Dauíd. Scil. Psalmorum, qui licet apud nos in usu Ecclesiae sit in multas partes diuisus, & apud Hebraeos quinque incisionibus habeatur distinctus, utrobique tamen unicus liber dicitur: unus liber Tobiae, unus Iudith, unus Esther, duo libri Machabaeoru, tres libri Salomonis. scil. Parabolae Ecclesiastes, & Cantica Canticorum, unus liber Iob, unus Sapientiae, unus Ecclesiastici, qui vocatur Iesus filius Sirach, quaruor libri Magnorum Prophetarum. scil. Isai. Ierem. Ezech. Daniel. unus liber Threnorum, siue lamentationum Iere. Quasi a libro prophetiae suae distinctus est, unus liber Baruch, qui suit notarius Ierem. unus liber duodecim Prophetarum minorum, qui omnes sub uno clauduntur volumine. Et sic sunt simul 36. Deinde octo libri noui testamenti, & complent numerum 44 librorum totius sacrae scripturae. Alii ponunt solum triginta libros totius scripturae nouae, & veteris. scil. viginti &. Duos libros veteris testamenti, & octo noui testamenti. Qui quomodo computentur, patet per Hieronymo in prologo Galeato, & declarabitur sequenti quaestione. Alii ponunt triginta & duos libros noui & veteris: testamenti, scilicet, octo nouos, & viginti quatuor veteris: de quibus Hieronymus in dicto prologo, & patet sequenti quaestione. Quaest 2: Alii sunt libri, qui licet ab Ecclesia teneantur, in canone tamen non ponuntur, quia non adhibet illis Ecclesia hanc fidem; nec iubet illos regulariter legi, aut recipi, & non recipientes non judicat inobedientes aut infideles. Hoc autem est propter duo. Primo, quia Ecclesia non est certa de auctoribus eorum; immo nescit, an Spiritu sancto inspirati scriptores eorum dictauerunt eos...
Cum autem dubitatur circa aliquos libros, de scriptoribus eorum, an Scriptu sancto moti sint, adimitur auctoritas illorum, & non ponit illos Ecclesia in canone librorum suorum. Secundo, quia Ecclesia non est certa circa tales libros, an ultra id, quod habuerunt a propriis auctoribus, haeretici aliquid miscuerint, vel subtraxerint. Tales autem libros Ecclesia recipit permittens eos singulis fidelibus legere: ipsa quoque in officiis suis illos legit propter multa devota quae in illis habentur. Neminem tamen obligat ad necessario credendum id, quo ibi habetur; sicut est de libro Sapientiae Salomonis, & de Ecclesiastico, & de libro Machabaeorum, & de Iudith, & de Tobia. Isti enim licet a Christianis recipiantur, & probatio ex eis sumpta sit aliqualiter essicax (efficax ?): quia Ecclesia istos libros tenet; contra haereticos tamen, aut Hebraeos, ad probandum ea, quae in dubium veniunt, non sunt efficacies: sicut ait Hieronymus in prologo super Iudith, scilicet, apud Hebraeos liber Iudith inter agiographa legitur, cuius auctoritas ad roboranda illa, quae in contentione veniunt, minus idonea iudicatur. His praesuppositis dicendum, quod in veteri testamento quidam libri ponuntur in canone, quidam non. Illi qui non ponuntur sicut Iudith, & Tobias, & duo libri Machabaeorum, Sapientia, & Ecclesiasticus non habent inter se aliquem ordinem, vel diuisionem, qui autem ponuntur in canone, habent ordinem. Sciendum autem, quod libri positi in canone habent tres ordiens, primus est legalium, secundus prophetalium, tertius agiographorum. In primo ordine legalium ponuntur soli quinque libri Moysis, qui apud Iudaeos vocantur thorach, id est, lex. Alii vocant eos humas, id est, quinarium, quia quinque libri sunt. Et huic nomini correspondet quoddam nomen Graecum apud nos scil. Pentateuchus, quod interpretatur, id est quinque libri legis. Et isti sunt Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numerus & Deuteronomium. Qui vocantur leges, eo quod solam legem contitinent, vel saltem principaliter legem, cum in eis interdum quaedam ipsoru historiae inserentur pertinentes interdum ad eos, quibus dabatur lex. Ordo secundus librorum vocatur prophetalium, siue Prophetarum, & continet libros octo. Primus est liber Iosue, secundus est liber Iudicum, cum quo ponunt librum Ruth, tertius est liber Samuel, quem nos vocamus primum, & secundum libros Regum: quartus est Melachim, id est, liber Regum. Vel secundum alios Malachoth, id est, regnorum. Sed ut ait Hieronym. melius vocatur liber Melachim, id est Regum, quae Malachoth, id est regnorum: quintus est Isaias: sextus Ierem: septimus Ezechiel: octauus liber duodecim Prophetarum minorum, qui apud Hebraeos unum volumen est. Liber autem Danielis non ponitur inter prophetales, sed inter agiographos in tertio ordine: licet ille Propheta suerit. Causa huius declarata est supra prologum Galeatum. Tertius ordo librorum est agiographorum: & in hoc ordine sunt nouem libri, primus est liber Iob: secundus liber David. scil. Psalterium, quod apud Hebraeos quinque incisionibus diuisum est: uno tame volumine comprehenditur: tertius est liber Proverbiorum, qui est primus de tribus libris Salomonis, & apud Hebraeos vocatur Misle, id est parabolae: quartus liber est Ecclesiastes ipsius Salomon, qui apud Hebraeos vocatur choeler, apud Graecos Eccelsiates, apud Latinos concionator. Manet tamen nobis in usu nomen Graecum: quia Graeci prius imposuerunt nomina istis libris, quam peruenirent ad Latinos: ideo pleraque eorum manent semper apud nos: quintus est Cantica Canticorum, qui Hebraice vocatur sirhasirim: sextus est Daniel: septimus est liber Paralipom. diuisus apud nos in duos, quid apud Hebraeos vocatur Dibreaiamim, id est, verba dierum, apud Graecos vocatur Paralipomenon, & est genitiuus pluralis numeri participii & interpretatur omissorum, vel relictorum: quia ibi agitur de suppletionnibus omissorum in aliis libris: ideo Hieron. vocat eum chronicon totius diuinae scripturae. Octauus est Esdras, qui in duos libros diuisus est, & sub eo continetur alius liber Neemiae. Nonus est liber Esther. Et ita completur tertius ordo agiographum. Sunt ergo tres ordines librorum veteris testamenti: & in primo continentur quinque libri: in secundo octo: in tertio nouem, & ita sunt viginti duo libri. Alii autem ponunt in tertio ordine 11 libros, s.cum praedictis ponunt librum Ruth distinguentes eum ab alio Iudicum, ponunt etiam librum Threnorum, sive lamentationem Ierem. Qui vocatur apud Hebraeos Cinoth, distinguetes eum a libro prophetarium Ierem. & sic sunt 24 libri in canone veteris testamenti. De his omnibus Hieronymus in prologo Galeato. Multa dubia circa haec restabant, scilicet, quare sint tres ordines librorum & non plures, nec pauciores & quare quidam legales, alii prophetales, alii agiographi appellantur, & non omnes eodem niomine, & quare isti ponuntur in isto ordine & non in alio, & sic de multis aliis dubiis, quae in praesenti omittuntur, de quibus latissime declaranimus in expositione prologi Galeati, qui totus est de hac materia, & ponitur in principio primi libri Regum. Quaest 3: Ad intelligentiam huius considerandum, quod libri dicuntur apocryphi dupliciter. Uno modo, quia non constat de eorum scriptoribus, an Spiritu sancto dictatnte scripserint, & etiam non constat de omnibus, quae in eis habentur, an vera sint. Non est tamen in eis aliquid, quod manifeste falsum sit, vel quod valde suspectum sit de falsitate. Alio modo dicuntur libri apocryphi, de quorum auctoribus non constat, an a Deo sint inspirati, & insuper multa, quae habentur in ipsis libris, vel sunt manifeste falsa, vel de errore valde suspecta. Accipiendo primo modo libros apocryphos, scriptura non ponit illos in canone librorum suorum, ita ut debeat illis fides de necessitate adhiberi; permittit tamen volentibus legere, quod legant, quia non videtur inde sequi aliquod inconveniens: ipsa quoque Ecclesia illos legit. Accipiendo secundo modo apocryphos libros, non solum Ecclesia non ponit illos in canone, immo nec aliquo modo ponit eos cum libris suis, nec legit, nec legentibus favet: licet non omnino prohibeat. Annunciat tamen illos libros esse suspectos valde de falso, ut caveant quando legerint, & videant quibus fidem adhibeant. Primo modo sunt apocryphi libri quidam, qui ponuntur extra canonem veteris testamenti, computantur tamen inter libros sacrae scripturae, scilicet, liber Sapientiae, & Ecclesiasticus, & Iudith, & Tobias, & libri Machabaeorum: de auctoribus enim horum non constat Ecclesiae, an Spiritu sancto dictante scripserint: non tamen reperit in eis aliquod falsum, aut valde suspectum de falsitate; sed potius in eis est doctrina copiosa sacta, & devota: ideo Ecclesia legit illos, & computat inter libros suos. Sic dicit Hieronymus in prologo super Iudith.”
- Alphonsi Tostati, Eposcopi Abulensis, Commentaiorum in Sanctae Iesu Christi Euangelium secundum Matthaeum, Praefatio, Quaestio I, De numero & diusione librorum sacrae scriptura; Quaestio II, De ordine librorum veteris testamenti; Quaestio III, De ordine librorum noui testamenti.
“Alulphe, a monk of Saint-Martin de Tournai, lived at the end of the eleventh century. He composed a collection of sentences and thoughts, drawn from the works of Saint Gregory, entitled Gregorial. This manuscript can be found in several libraries, and Father Mabillon included its preface in the first volume of his Analecta. It is said that he also compiled a collection of various sentences under the title Opus Exceptionum, and it is further stated that this work was printed in Paris and Strasbourg in 1516.”
“Si qua civitas contra insidiantes inimicos magno valletur aggere, fortibus cingatur muris, ex omni parte insomni muniatur custodia, unum vero foramen in ea tantummodo immunitum per negligentiam relinquatur, inde proculdubio hostis ingreditur qui undique exclusus esse videbatur. Pharisaeus qui in templum oraturus ascendit, civitatem mentis suae quanta munitione vallaverit, audiamus: Jejuno bis in sabbato, decimas do omnium quae possideo; qui praemisit: Deus, gratias ago tibi. Recte quippe Deo gratias agebat, a quo acceperat bona quae facerat. Magna certe munimina adhibuit, sed videamus ubi insidianti hosti foramen immunitum reliquit. Quia non sum sicut caeteri hominum, raptores, injusti, adulteri, velut etiam hic publicanus. Ecce civitatem sui cordis insidiantibus hostibus per elationem aperuit, quam frustra per jejunium et eleemosynas clausit. Incassum caetera sunt munita, cum locus unus de quo hosti pateret aditus non est munitus. Gratias recte egit, sed se perverse super publicanum extulit. Civitatem sui cordis extollendo prodidit, quam abstinendo et largiendo servavit; victa est per abstinentiam gula, ventrisque ingluvies destructa, superata est largitate tenacia et avaritia depressa. Quibus hoc laboribus actum credimus? Sed o quot labores uno vitio percussi ceciderunt! quanta bona unius culpae gladio perempta sunt! Unde magnopere oportet bona semper agere, et ab ipsis nos bonis operibus in cogitatione caute custodire; ne si mentem elevant bona non sint, quae non auctori militant, sed elationi. De qua re non inordinate agimus, si ex libris licet non canonicis, sed tamen ad aedificationem Ecclesiae editis, testimonium proferamus. Eleazar namque in praelio elephantem feriens stravit, sed sub ipso quem exstinxit occubuit (I Mach. VI). Quos ergo iste significat quem sua victoria oppressit, nisi eos qui vitia superant, sed sub ipsa quae subigunt superbiendo succumbunt? Quasi enim sub hoste quem prosternit moritur, qui de culpa quam superat elevatur. Sancti igitur in omni opere suo sollicite invigilent ne aut prava agant, aut postquam recta quae praecepta sunt egerint, bonis actibus expletis in suis cogitationibus intumescant, et tanto gravius offendant, quanto in his quae juste videntur agere foris occultius peccant. Perit enim omne quod agitur, si non humilitate sollicite custodiatur.”
“[Bede was a]Historian and Doctor of the Church, born 672 or 673; died 735. In the last chapter of his great work on the "Ecclesiastical History of the English People" Bede has told us something of his own life, and it is, practically speaking, all that we know. […] Bede's influence both upon English and foreign scholarship was very great, and it would probably have been greater still but for the devastation inflicted upon the Northern monasteries by the inroads of the Danes less than a century after his death. In numberless ways, but especially in his moderation, gentleness, and breadth of view, Bede stands out from his contemporaries. In point of scholarship he was undoubtedly the most learned man of his time. A very remarkable trait, noticed by Plummer (I, p. xxiii), is his sense of literary property, an extraordinary thing in that age. He himself scrupulously noted in his writings the passages he had borrowed from others and he even begs the copyists of his works to preserve the references, a recommendation to which they, alas, have paid but little attention. High, however, as was the general level of Bede's culture, he repeatedly makes it clear that all his studies were subordinated to the interpretation of Scripture. In his "De Schematibus" he says in so many words: "Holy Scripture is above all other books not only by its authority because it is Divine, or by its utility because it leads to eternal life, but also by its antiquity and its literary form" (positione dicendi). It is perhaps the highest tribute to Bede's genius that with so uncompromising and evidently sincere a conviction of the inferiority of human learning, he should have acquired so much real culture. Though Latin was to him a still living tongue, and though he does not seem to have consciously looked back to the Augustan Age of Roman Literature as preserving purer models of literary style than the time of Fortunatus or St. Augustine, still whether through native genius or through contact with the classics, he is remarkable for the relative purity of his language, as also for his lucidity and sobriety, more especially in matters of historical criticism.”
“Thus much of the Ecclesiastical History of Britain, and more especially of the English nation, as far as I could learn either from the writings of the ancients, or the tradition of our forefathers, or of my own knowledge, with the help of the Lord, I, Bede, the servant of Christ, and priest of the monastery of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul, which is at Wearmouth and Jarrow, have set forth. Having been born in the territory of that same monastery, I was given, by the care of kinsmen, at seven years of age, to be educated by the most reverend Abbot Benedict, and afterwards by Ceolfrid, and spending all the remaining time of my life a dweller in that monastery, I wholly applied myself to the study of Scripture; and amidst the observance of monastic rule, and the daily charge of singing in the church, I always took delight in learning, or teaching, or writing. In the nineteenth year of my age, I received deacon’s orders; in the thirtieth, those of the priesthood, both of them by the ministry of the most reverend Bishop John, and at the bidding of the Abbot Ceolfrid. From the time when I received priest’s orders, till the fifty-ninth year of my age, I have made it my business, for my own needs and those of my brethren, to compile out of the works of the venerable Fathers, the following brief notes on the Holy Scriptures, and also to make some additions after the manner of the meaning and interpretation given by them. […] And I beseech Thee, good Jesus, that to whom Thou hast graciously granted sweetly to drink in the words of Thy knowledge, Thou wilt also vouchsafe in Thy loving-kindness that he may one day come to Thee, the Fountain of all wisdom, and appear for ever before Thy face.”
Note: Jerome’s influence as an exegete and translator of Holy Scripture was incredibly great both in Bede’s own thinking as well as that of Bede’s contemporaries:
“Nearly two centuries later [after St. Isidore of Seville] the Venerable Bede refers to Jerome as the “translator of sacred history” and ‘the admirable translator and teacher of the Sacred Scriptures.’ In the ninth century testimonies to Jerome’s eminence meet one at every turn. One writer calls him ‘the translator of the Divine Law,’ another, ‘the most blessed Jerome, incomparably learned in so many languages and books.’”
“Bede’s Commentaries on Ezra-Nehemiah, the Gospel of Mark, the Book of Acts and the Canonical Epistles were included in the Glossa ordinaria as the authoritative commentaries on those books for the Church as a whole. In his commentary on Revelation, he tallied the canonical Old Testament books at twenty-four.”
“Born in 1402 in that part of the Belgian province of Limburg which was formerly comprised in the county of Hesbaye; died 12 March, 1471. His birthplace was Ryckel, a small village a few miles from Saint-Trond, whence ancient writers have often surnamed him Ryckel or à Ryckel. His parents, historians say, were of noble rank; he himself says, however, that when a child he kept his father's sheep. His remarkable aptitude for intellectual pursuits and his eagerness to learn induced his parents to give him a liberal education, and they sent him to a school at Saint-Trond. In 1415 he went to another school at Zwolle (Overijssel), which was then of great repute and attracted many students from various parts of Germany. He there entered upon the study of philosophy and became acquainted with the principles and practice of religious life, which the rector, John Cele, a very holy man, himself taught. Shortly after the rector's death (1417) he returned home, having learnt all that the masters of the school could teach him. […] So he went forthwith to the then celebrated University of Cologne, where he remained three years, studying philosophy, theology, the Holy Scripture, etc. After taking his degree of Master of Arts, he returned to the monastery at Roermond and this time was admitted (1423). In his cell Denys gave himself up heart and soul to the duties of Carthusian life, performing all with his characteristic earnestness and strength of will, and letting his zeal carry him even far beyond what the rule demanded. Thus, over and above the time—about eight hours—every Carthusian spends daily in hearing and saying Mass, reciting Divine Office, and in other devotional exercises, he was wont to say the whole Psalter—his favourite prayer book—or at least a great part of it, and he passed long hours in meditation and contemplation; nor did material occupations usually hinder him from praying. Reading and writing took up the rest of his time. The list he drew up, about two years before his death, of some of the books he had read while a monk bears the names of all the principal ecclesiastical writers down to his time. He had read, he says, every summa and every chronicle, many commentaries on the Bible, and the works of a great number of Greek, and especially Arab, philosophers, and he had studied the whole of canon as well as civil law. His favourite author was Dionysius the Areopagite. His quick intellect seized the author's meaning at first reading and his wonderful memory retained without much effort all that he had ever read. It seems marvellous that, spending so much time in prayer, he should have been able to peruse so vast a number of books; but what passes all comprehension is that he found time to write, and to write so much that his works might make up twenty-five folio volumes. No other pen, whose productions have come down to us, has been so prolific. […] He had been a monk for forty-eight years when he died at the age of sixty-nine. Upon his remains being disinterred one hundred and thirty-seven years after, day for day (12 March, 1608), his skull emitted a sweet perfume and the fingers he had most used in writing, i.e. the thumb and forefinger of the right hand, were found in a perfect state of preservation. Although the cause of his beatification has never yet been introduced, St. Francis de Sales, St. Alphonsus Liguori, and other writers of note style him "Blessed"; his life is in the "Acta Sanctorum" of the Bollandists (12 March), and his name is to be found in many martyrologies.”
“In his Commentary on Genesis, Denys commented on the books of the canon. He gave a list of the canonical books of the Old Testament repeating Jerome’s Prologue to the book of Kings in which he listed the canonical Old Testament books as corresponding to the Hebrew canon and comprising twenty-two in number. He also made mention of the books of Judith, Tobit, Maccabees, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon and Ecclesiasticus stating that they were not included in the canon and were therefore not used for proving articles of the faith.”
- William Webster, The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha, Part 3: From Jerome to the Reformation, link: https://christiantruth.com/articles/apocrypha3/
“Sicut in prologo super libros Regum sanctus ait Hieronymus, viginti duo sunt libri veteris Testamenti. Hebraei enim dividunt Scripturam veteris Testamenti in tria, hoc est in legem, in Prophetas, et in hagiographa. Itaque quinque libros Moysis vocant legem, alios octo libros, videlicet Josue,et librum Judicum, sub quo comprehendunt et librum Ruth, et libros Regum quos dividunt in duo volumina, Isaiam quoque, Jeremiam, Ezechielem ac librum duodecim Prophetarum, appellant prophetales. Ad hagiographa vero asserunt pertinere alios novem libros, utpote libram Job, Psalterium, tria volumina Salomonis, Paralipomenon, Esdram et Esther. Hagiographon autem dicitur ab agios, quod est sacrum, et grafh, scriptura, quasi scriptura sacra. Hos libros vocant canonicos, alios vero apocryphos.”
- Denys the Carthusian, Enneration In Genesis, Cap I, Articulus IV, De Multiplici Distinctione Atque Divisione Totius Divinae Scripturae.
“Denique liber iste non computatur inter Scripturas canonicas. Tamen de ejus veritate non dubitat mater Ecclesia: propter quod eum recepit, et legendum instituit, non ad confirmationem atque probationem eorum qum veniunt in contintionem, id est credendorum, de quibus inter Catholicos et incredulos exstat disputationis contentio, sed ad morurn informationem. Est namque, hic liber historicus, etiam valde moralis ac doctrinalis.”
- Denys the Carthusian, Proemium, Judith and Tobit.
“Denique liber iste non est de canone, id est, inter Scripturas canonicas computandus; quamvis de ejus veritate non dubitetur. Et convenit multum in sensu. modoque procedendi cum libro Proverbiorum Salomonis. Propter quod scribit Hieronymus, se reperisse hunc librum aptid Hebræos, non tamen vocatum Ecclesiasticum, ut apud nos, sed Parabolas prænotatum seu intitulatum. Et sicut in libris Salomonis, ita et hic sapientia variis rnodis et extense accipitur: quandoque pro sapientia increata atque ingenita, interdum pro Sapientia increata et genita, aliquando pro sapientia creata, infusa aut acquisita, nonumquam pro quacumque virtute, prout in processu patebit.”
- Denys the Carthusian, Prologus, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach).
“For medieval Christians this tool [i.e. - the Glossa Ordinaria] was supremely necessary, indispensable for the reading of the sacred book which could not be understood without it. In their preface of 1617, taking up Peter Lombard’s remark about the Gloss as the ‘tongue’ of Scripture, the Douai theologians gave voice to this sentiment. Many generations, they suggested, ‘thought of this collection of scriptural interpretation so highly that they called it the “normal tongue” (glossa ordinaria), the very language (lingua) of Scripture, as it were. When Scripture speaks with it, we understand. But when we read the sacred words without it, we think we hear a language which we do not know.’”
- Karlfried Froehlich and Margaret Gibson, Biblia Latina Cum Glossa Ordinaria, Introduction to the Facsimile Reprint of the Editio Princeps Adolph Rusch of Strassborg 1480/81 (Brepols-Turnhout, 1992) Karlfried Froehlich, The Printed Gloss, p. XXVI.
“In the 13th century, the most common commentary on sacred scripture was the Glossa Ordinaria, a manuscript that consists of the Vulgate text accompanied by individual “glosses,” or excerpts from the biblical commentaries of Augustine, Jerome, Gregory the Great, and other patristic and medieval authors. One cannot read far in Aquinas’ Summa before encountering a quotation introduced by, “The Gloss says…”
The distinctive page layout of the Glossa was developed in the twelfth century and remained in common use until the seventeenth century. Each page of the manuscript contains the Biblical text in the center (in a large and spacious font), interspersed with small and short (2-4 word) glosses; this center block is surrounded in the margins by longer commentary from the church fathers. Emmaus Academic (a Division of The St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology) has introduced a beautiful English translation of the book of Genesis, cum Glossa Ordinaria, that preserves the unique and very functional page layout of the original manuscripts.
The Glossa Ordinaria enables the reader to easily move between the Biblical text and commentary by the masters. You can read different and sometimes conflicting interpretations by the fathers (see, e.g., the commentaries by Bede and Augustine on the order of creation in Gen. 2:8). There are commentaries grappling with inconsistencies in the Biblical text itself (in Gen. 46-47, Jerome and Augustine both work to reconcile the inconsistent count of people who entered Egypt with Jacob). Some comment on the literal sense of a passage while others ponder its spiritual sense. For example, on Genesis 6:16, Alcuin notes that the narrow taper at the top of the ark scatters the weight of the rains, while Gregory comments, “Narrow is the gate that leadeth to life.””
“The Ordinary Gloss (Glossa ordinaria) is a Latin Bible commentary that originated in the school of Laon in the twelfth century. It became, as Lesley Smith called it, “the ubiquitous text of the central Middle Ages”, surviving in thousands of manuscripts and numerous early modern printed editions. It was produced with a distinctive layout: a central column of spacious biblical text surrounded by longer marginal ‘glosses’ (exegetical notes) and interwoven with shorter inter-linear glosses. While the compilation of the Gloss was completed in the twelfth century, the content of the individual glosses is largely patristic. The Gloss on Genesis, for example, consists of excerpts from the works of Augustine and Jerome, supplemented with excerpts from Bede, Gregory the Great, Isidore of Seville, and Alcuin.”
“The Prologue [of the Glossa Ordinaria] then catalogues the precise books which make up the Old Testament canon, and those of the non-canonical Apocrypha, all in accordance with the teaching of Jerome. Again, the significance of this is that the Glossa ordinaria was the official Biblical commentary used during the Middle Ages in all the theological centers for the training of theologians. Therefore, it represents the overall view of the Church as a whole, demonstrating the emptiness of the claims of Roman apologists that the decrees of Hippo and Carthage officially settled the canon for the universal Church.”
“CXXXIV.The first authors of the Ordinary Gloss upon the Bible, although it be not so well and certainly known what particular persons they were, (for Antoninus the Archbishop of Florence, and Gaguinus the General of his Order in France, make Alcuin, our own countryman, to be the first beginner of it, but Trithemius and Sixtus of Sienna give that honour to Strabus, both whom we produced as our witnesses before,) yet this is certain, that, whoever began it, others had by this time much augmented it, and that it was now, with a general consent and applause of all the pastors and doctors in the Western Churches, received as a work of special use and benefit, for the better knowledge and understanding of the Holy Scriptures, and for the clearer setting forth of the common doctrine and religion then professed among them: for the abuses in religion, (whereof the new canonizing of Apocryphal Scriptures is one,) were not yet become the doctrines of the Church, as the new council at Trent hath since ordered them to be.
CXXXV. In this Gloss upon the Bible we have a Preface; wherein, first, the composers and defenders of the Trent canon are branded (before-hand) with ignorance, and a worse matter, for “holding all the books, that are contained and put into one volume of Scriptures together, to be of a like and equal veneration,” or that they ought so to be received in the Church. Secondly, the canonical books are there “distinguished from those which be not canonical, and as great a difference made between these two, as between that which is certain and that which is doubtful: for the canonical were written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost; but who were the authors of the other, or at what me they were written, no man can tell.” Thirdly, we are there informed, “that the Church permitteth the reading of the apocryphal books, only for devotion and instruction of manners, but not for any authority that they have to conclude controversies in matters of Faith.” Fourthly, that there be “but twenty-two canonical books of the Old Testament; and, what books soever there be besides, that they ought to be put among the Apocrypha.” This was the judgment of all learned men, and the common belief of the Church, in those days; wherein, if any parcular or private persons were of another mind, they are here condemned of ignorance, and want of knowledge in the Scriptures.
CXXXVI. Which judgment is not only here declared, and proposed, by the authors of this Ordinary Gloss themselves, but confirmed likewise by the testimonies of the ancient Fathers; among whom, though the chiefest attestations which they bring are out of Origen, S. Jerome, and Ruffin, yet they take notice of S. Augustine also, and of his distinction between those apocryphal, or ecclesiastical books, that are of greater authority, (which therefore he putteth into his larger catalogue,) and those that are of a lesser account, (which therefore he leaveth out.) But, whatsoever S. Augustine had said, the common consent of the Church now was, to acknowledge no more books for canonical Scripture, than those that Ruffin and S. Jerome had received from their ancestors, and recorded to posterity. In which regard, when they come to the several books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and the Maccabees, they prefix this tle to them all: “Here beginneth the book of Tobit, which is not in the canon: Here beginneth the book of Judith, which is not in the canon: Here beginneth the book of Wisdom, which is not in the canon: The book of Ecclesiasticus; The first and the second book of the Maccabees; which are not of the canon.” Which is to write this distinction, that we now maintain, with a pen of iron, that it might never be forgotten.”
“A Benedictine bishop of the ninth century; d. 26 March, 853. The exact date and place of his birth are unknown. When a youth, he entered the Order of St. Benedict at Fulda, where the celebrated Rabanus Maurus was one of his fellow-students. He went together with him to the Monastery of St. Martin at Tours to profit by the lessons of its great teacher, Alcuin. After a brief sojourn at Tours, both friends came back to the Benedictine house at Fulda, and spent there most of their life previous to their promotion to the episcopal dignity. Haymo became chancellor to the monastery, as is proved by his records of its transactions, which are still extant. It is indeed probable that owing to his great learning he was also entrusted with the teaching of theology in the same monastery; yet there is no positive proof that such was actually the case. He had been living for only a short while in the Benedictine monastery at Hersfeld, perhaps as its abbot, when in the last weeks of 840 he was nominated to the Bishopric of Halberstadt. […] Although a certain number of works have been wrongly ascribed to Haymo of Halberstadt, there is no doubt that he was a prolific writer. Most of his genuine works are commentaries on Holy Writ, the following of which have been printed: "In Psalmos explanatio"; "In Isaiam libri tres"; "In XII Prophetas"; "In Epistolas Pauli omnes"; "In Apocalypsim libri septem". As might be naturally expected from the exegetical methods of his day, Haymo is not an original commentator; he simply repeats or abridges the Scriptural explanations which he finds in patristic writings. As a pious monk, and a faithful observer of Rabanus's recommendations, he sets forth almost exclusively the moral and mystical senses of the sacred text.”
“Haymo (Haimo, Aymo, Aimo) was a Saxon, and was probably born about 778. He took monastic vows at Fulda, was sent by, his abbot (Ratgar) with his intimate friend Rabanus Maurus in 803 to Tours to study under Alcuin; on his return he taught at Fulda until in 839 he was chosen abbot of Hirschfeld. In 841 he was consecrated bishop of Halberstadt. In 848 he sat in the Council of Mayence which condemned Gottschalk. He founded at considerable expense the cathedral library of Halberstadt, which unfortunately was burnt in 1179. He died March 27, 853. He was an excellent scholar. As an exegete he was simple and clear, but rather too verbal. His writings are voluminous, and were first published by the Roman Catholics in the Reformation period (1519–36).”
“Potest et sub alio intellectu eadem Ecclesia figurari in viginti quatuor senioribus. Constat enim hic numerus ex senario et quaternario, quia quater seni viginti quatuor sunt. Senarius refertur ad operationem, quia sex diebus Deus omnipotens omnia opera sua perfecit, et sexto die atque sexta hora hominem redemit. Quaternarius vero ad quatuor libros sancti Evangelii pertinet. Quia ergo sancta Ecclesia sive in Veteri Testamento sive in Novo, Dei operationem recolit, et veneratur, et libros sancti Evangelii custodit, et recte in viginti quatuor senioribus comprehenditur, vel certe propter viginti quatuor libros Veteris Testamenti, quibus utitur secundum canonicam auctoritatem, in quibus Novum Testamentum, et ea quae in eo completa sunt praenuntiata cognoscit. Unde et Evangelista dicit (Marc. XV) de duobus latronibus qui cum Domino sunt crucifixi: ideo hoc factum, ut impleretur Scriptura, quae dicit: Et cum iniquis deputatus est (Isa. LIII).
[…]
Et quatuor animalia singula eorum habebant alas senas. Alae animalium significant duo Testamenta, quibus Ecclesia ad coelestia supportatur: sed cum duo sint Testamenta, ejusdem Ecclesiae spirituales alae, propter geminum testamentum, quod in duodecim tribubus Israel, vel in duodecim apostolis invenitur, ipsae alae per binarium duodecies multiplicantur, et viginti quatuor alas reddunt. Bis enim duodeni viginti quatuor sunt. Aliter duodenarius numerus constat ex partibus septenarii, id est ex tribus et quatuor. Sive etiam dicamus, ter quaterni, sive quater terni duodecim fiunt, qui numerus sacratus est numero duodecim apostolorum. In ternario autem fides sanctae Trinitatis intelligitur. In quaternario autem quatuor mundi partes. Ducatur ergo duodenarius per binarium, et efficiuntur viginti et quatuor. Quo numero summa electorum exprimitur, quibus fidem sanctae Trinitatis per quadripartitum orbem praedicantibus, totus mundus ad coelestia sustollitur. Possumus et has alas senas aliter intelligere. Prima ala intelligitur lex naturalis, secunda lex Moysi, tertia prophetae, quarta Evangelium, quinta Epistolae apostolorum, sexta canonica auctoritas, sive doctrina catholicorum virorum, Hieronymi, Augustini, caeterorumque sanctorum Patrum.”
- Haymo of Halberstadt, Expositionis In Apocalypsin B. Joannis, Libri Septem, Book I, Chapter IV. Patrologia Latina 117:1007 (First Half of Quote), Patrologia Latina 117:1010 (Second Half of Quote).
“A theologian, philosopher, and encyclopedic writer who lived in the first half of the twelfth century. Honorius has been correctly described as one of the most mysterious personages in all the medieval period. All that can be stated with certainty is that he flourished between the years 1106 and 1135, that he spent the greater part of that time in Southern Germany, and that he wrote a very large number of works, most of which have come down to us. He is generally said to have been a native of Autun in Burgundy, and in one of his works (De Luminaribus Ecclesiæ) he styles himself "priest and head of the school (scholasticus) of Autun". […] The list of Honorius's writings is a very long one. In Pez's "Thesaurus" ("Diss. isagog.", in vol. II, p. 4) we find as many as thirty-eight titles. […] Honorius does not pretend to observe a distinction between the province of philosophy and that of theology. In his work "Philosophia Mundi" he treats of the mystery of the Trinity, and in the treatise "De Hæresibus" he enumerates the "heretics of pagan times", Stoics, Pythagoreans, Platonists, etc. The distinction, which seems so natural to us, was not acknowledged generally until the time of St. Thomas. Honorius, as has been said, borrows his definition of philosophy from John the Scot. "Philosophy", he says, "is the comprehension of things visible and invisible" (eorum quæ sunt et non videntur et quæ sunt et videntur comprehensio). True to the inspiration of the Platonists, he begins with the invisible, uncreated, incorporeal, and proceeds to the consideration of the visible, created, corporeal But, unlike the Platonists, he has a proper appreciation of the value of concrete knowledge. Consequently, he devotes much space in philosophy to the description of the actual world, and in his theological speculations he is far from overlooking the value of institutions, ceremonies, and the organization of religious truth in the life and career of the Church. He thus marks one öf the first epochs in the history of the relation between speculative and positive teaching in the Middle Ages. At the same time he does not overlook the mystical element in Christian thought. In fact, he is an author whose importance has been too generally ignored in the history of Christian philosophy and theology.”
“HONORIUS OF AUTUN: Theologian; d. 1152. He is the great unknown in the church history of the twelfth century. The annals of Pohlde, which extend to 1139, praise him as a learned recluse filled with spiritual wisdom. […] Honorius was a Platonist, a mystic, and a realist, and at the same time a stanch defender of the rights of the papacy against the secular power. He agrees in his doctrines especially with Rupert of Deutz, and with the latter and Gerhoh of Rei chersberg belongs to that group of German realists who opposed the nominaliets of France-men like Abelard, Gilbert of Poitiers, Roscellin, Peter Lom bard, and others-in the twelfth century, especially on christological questions. […] Among Honorius's exegetical works may be mentioned his Hexaemeron, in which he shows how the whole creation is centered in the salvation of Christ. […] Still more numerous are Honorius's works on practical theology, homiletics, liturgies, discipline, and on the canonical position of the Church against the worldly empire.”
“Scriptura Veteris Testamenti Spiritu sancto auctore scribitur, et in tria, id est in historiam, in prophetiam, in hagiographiam dividitur. Historia est, quae praeterita narrat; prophetia, quae futura nuntiat; hagiographia, quae aeternae vitae gaudia jubilat. Hic liber in hagiographia locum possidet, quia laudibus aeternae patriae plenius refulgent.”
- Honorius of Autun, Expositio In Psalmos: De mysterio psalmorum. Patrologia Latina 172.273B.
“In Septembri solet saepe infirmitas accidere hominibus propter novos fructus: et ut eo tempore, quo major abundantia rerum esse solet, nos quandoque etiam in tanta rerum abundantia morituros esse recolamus, et infirmitates temporis illius patienter toleremus, canuntur responsoria de Job et de Tobia, qui ambo dolores pertulerunt. Hi non fuerunt reges, ideo non habent singulos menses, sed in uno mense leguntur, per quod regnum Assyriorum intelligitur. Dominicae, in quibus responsoria de historiis Judith, Esdrae et Esther canuntur, et ipsae historiae leguntur, regnum Persarum et Medorum designatur. Liber Tobiae et Judith non sunt in canone apud Hebraeos, sed quia eos in numero Agiographiae [hort. Agiographia, seu Hagiographia] recepit, cantamus et legimus ex eis.”
- Operum Pars Tertia.â 'Liturgica. Sacramentarium, Seu De Causis Et Significatu Mystico Rituum Divini In Ecclesia Officii Liber. Cap. C.â' ? De lectionibus in matutinis post Pentecosten. Patrologia Latina 172.800D.
“Septem diaconi sunt in ministerio episcopi in loco prophetarum, quia Scriptura septempliciter dividitur inter Novum et Vetus Testamentum: quae in Evangelio ministrant. Episcopus et sibi juncti post Evangelium in medio; quia vicarius est Christi, sequitur Evangelium. In Novo Testamento in quatuor, id est actus apostolorum, canonicae Epistolae septem, Epistolae Pauli quatuordecim, Apocalypsis: in Veteri in tria; in legem, in prophetas, in psalmos. Si quinque diaconi fuerint, quinque ministros librorum demonstrant Evangelio ministrare. Episcopus in medio quasi Evangelium habet in Novo Testamento primum ordinem praedicatorum historiae, secundum Epistolae, tertium prophetiae, ut est Apocalypsis: in Veteri unum legis, et alterum prophetiae. Si tres fuerint, tres ministrationes trium librorum; fons omnis sapientiae Evangelium in medio, in Novo Testamento duo Epistolae et prophetiae; in Veteri unum, id est legem; Novo Testamento enim omnis Scriptura apud veteres lex vocatur. Si unus fuerit, unum dilectionis praeceptum ostendit, ut dicitur: Omnis lex in uno sermone impletur, diliges proximum tuum sicut teipsum. Ministerium prophetae est ex memoratis libris evangelicam veritatem approbare, et habeant ante se subdiaconorum sapientiam, ut congruo tempore prophetent: et acolythorum lux doctorum opus expleat exponendo libros.”
- Honorius of Autun, Operum Pars Tertia.â Liturgica. Sacramentarium, Seu De Causis Et Significatu Mystico Rituum Divini In Ecclesia Officii Liber, cap. xxxiv.â ? De caeremoniis in missa episcopi. Patrologia Latina 172.765A-765B
“A Dominican cardinal of the thirteenth century; b. at St-Cher, near Vienne, in Dauphiné (France), about 1200; d. at Orvieto (Italy), 19 March, 1263.
He studied philosophy, theology, and jurisprudence in Paris, and next taught law in the same city. In 1225 he entered the Order of St. Dominic, and soon discharged therein the office of provincial, and next (1230) that of prior of the Dominican monastery in Paris. He became the confidant and adviser of several bishops, and the trusty envoy of Gregory IX to Constantinople (1233). In 1244 Innocent IV raised him to the cardinalate, and was greatly helped by him at the Council of Lyons (1245). The same pontiff entrusted him with various important affairs, approved whatever changes Hugh suggested in the altogether too strict rule which Albert the Patriarch of Jerusalem, had wished to impose on the Carmelites, and after the death of the Emperor Frederick II, sent him as his legate to Germany. Alexander IV appointed him one of the examiners of the so-called "Evangelium Æternum".
Chiefly through Hugh's exertions, the Dominicans were provided with a new Biblical "Correctorium", which is still extant in manuscript, and which is still known as "Correctorium Hugonis" and "Correctorium Praedicatorum". His "Postillae in universa Biblia juxta quadruplicem sensum, litteralem, allegoricum, moralem, anagogicum" has often been printed, and bears witness to his untiring industry as a compiler of explanations of the Sacred Text. He is justly regarded as the first author of a verbal "Concordance" to Holy Writ, a work which became the model for all following publications of the kind.”
“In the Prologue to his commentary on the book of Joshua, Hugh gave a listing of the books of the Old Testament according to the Hebrew canon, indicating that the entirety of the Old Testament was comprised in the specific books listed. He also made mention of the Apocrypha but stated that they were not numbered in the canon. The Church, he said, accepted them, but what he meant by this, since he followed the opinion of Jerome, was that the Church placed them in the secondary category of being useful for edification but not for the purposes of establishing doctrine.”
“Cognominatus autem est a patre Iosue Bennum, idest fili Num, vel filius Naue, vel Iesus Naue supple filius. Et cognominas, sic ad differentiam, Iesu filii Syrach, pronepotis Iesu, sacerdotis magni, sub quo, & Zorobabel Duce rediit populus de captiuitate, ut legitur Aggei I. & Zach. 3. Iesus aut filius Syrach, scripsit Eccelsiasticum, ut dicitur. Et notandum, secundum Hebraeos incipit hic secundus ordo veteris testamenti. Distinguunt enim Hebrei vetus testamentum in tres ordines. Primum vocant legem: Secundum, prophetas: Tertium, Agiographa. In lege ponunt quinque libros Moysi. In prophetis ponunt octo libros. scilicet Iosue, Iudicum, Samuel id est duos primos Libros Regum Malachim, idest duos ultimos Regum: Esaiam, Hieremiam, Ezechielem, Duodecim prophetas. In Agiographis, ponunt nouem libros, qui supersunt vereris testamenti, scilicet Iob, Dauid, Prouerbia, Ecclesiastem, Daniele, Cantica, Paralipomenon, Esdram, Hester. Hi dicuntur Agiographa id est sanctorum scripta, quod est nomen comune omnibus libris Sacrae Scripturae. Sed quia hi nouem libri, non habuerunt aliquam praeeminetiam prae caeteris, secundum quam agnominarentur, communi nomine sunt contenti. Sicut hoc nomen confessor, commune est sanctis omnibus. Sed aliqui secundum aliquam eminentiam, quam habent, aliis censentur nominibus: Nam alii Apostoli, alii Prophete, alii Patriarche, alii Martyres, alii Virgines dicuntur: Qui autem nullam habent eminentiam, dicuntur confessores. In hunc modem ultimus ordo Angelorum, nomine communi omnium, idest Angeli nuncupantur. Origenes vero secundum Graecos, ponit in primo ordine septem libros, addens Pentateucho Iosue, & Iudicum: Et vocat illum ordinem Heptatichum, ab Hepta, quod est septem & teuchos, quod est volumen. In quocunque vero ordine sit liber hic, historiae veritas non mutatur. Nota versus de omnibus libris veteris testamenti. Quinque libros Moysi: Iosue, Iudicum, Samuelem: Et Malachim, tres praecipuos, bis sexque prophetas: Hebraeus reliquis, censet praecellere libris. Quinque vocat legem, reliquos vult esse prophetas. Post Agriographa sunt Daniel, Dauid, Hester & Esdras. Iob, Paralipomenon & tres libri Salamonis. Lex vetus his libris, perfecte tota tenetur. Restant Apocrypha: Iesus, Sapientia, Pastor: Et Machabeorum Libri, Iudith atque Tobias. Hi quia sunt dubii, sub canone non numerantur. Sed quia vera canunt, ecclesia suscipit illos.”
- Reverendissimi In Christo Patris, Domini Ugonis etc., Cardinalis, In Postillam super Librum Iosue: Prologus.
“Medieval philosopher, theologian, and mystical writer; b. 1096, at the manor of Hartingham in Saxony; d. 11 March, 1141. […] It was in the monastery of St. Pancras, at Hamerleve near Halberstadt, that Hugh received his education. In spite of the opposition of his parents, he took the habit of the Canons Regular of St. Augustine at Hamerleve; before his novitiate was completed, the disturbed state of the country led his uncle to advise him to go to the monastery of St. Victor in Paris, where he arrived about 1115. William of Champeaux, its founder, on his election to the See of Châlons, in 1112, had been succeeded by Gilduin, under whom it lost none of its reputation for piety and learning. Under his rule and guidance Hugh spent the rest of his life, studying, teaching, and writing. On the tragic death of Thomas (20 Aug., 1133) Hugh was chosen to succeed him as head of the School of St. Victor, and under his direction it attained to brilliant success. He is sometimes spoken of as alter Augustinus, because of his familiarity with the works of the great Father of the Church. His own works cover the whole range of the arts and sacred science taught in his day. […] A great mystical writer, he was also a philosopher and a scholastic theologian of the first order. […] His teaching was one of the foundations of Scholastic theology, and his influence has affected the whole development of Scholasticism, for he was the first who after synthesizing the dogmatic treasures of the patristic age systematized them and formed them into a coherent and complete body of doctrine.”
“Hugh wrote that the entirety of the Scriptures is contained in the Old and New Testaments. Both Testaments are divided into three distinct classes of books, that of the Old Testament being the Law, the Prophets, the Hagiograph. He listed the Old Testament canonical books just as Jerome did and states that they are twenty-two in number. He concluded by saying that in the Old Testament there are some books which were not included in the canon and yet were read, specifically the Wisdom of Solomon, the book of Jesus the son of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees.”
“Postquam demonstravimus quae sit materia divinarum Scripturarum et qualiter de subjecta sibi materia tractent in triplici sensu, historiae, allegoriae, tropologiae, nunc ostendere convenit in quibus libris ea quae jure divinitatis nomine censetur, scriptura consistat. Duo sunt Testamenta quae omne divinarum Scripturarum corpus concludunt: Vetus scilicet et Novum. Utrumque tribus ordinibus distinguitur. Vetus Testamentum continet legem, prophetas, hagiographos, quod interpretatum sonat sanctos scriptores vel sancta scribentes. In lege continentur quinque volumina; scilicet Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, Deuteronomium. Genesis autem a generatione dicitur; Exodus ab exitu; Leviticus a levitis. Liber numeri, quia in eo numerantur filii Israel. Deuteronomium secunda lex, Hebraice autem, bresith, hellesmoth, vagetra, vegedaber, adabarim: In ordine prophetarum octo sunt volumina. Primus liber Josue, qui et Jesu Nave, et Josue Bennun, id est filius Nun; secundus liber Judicum, qui dicitur Sopthim; tertius liber Samuelis, qui est primus et secundus Regum; quartus Malachim quod interpretatur regum, qui est tertius et quartus Regum; quintus Isaias; sextus Jeremias; septimus Ezechiel; octavus liber duodecim prophetarum qui dicitur, thareasra. Hi prophetici dicuntur eo quod prophetarum sunt, etiamsi non omnes prophetiae sint. Propheta autem tribus modis dicitur: officio, gratia, missione. Vulgo autem usitato vocabulo magis prophetae vocantur, qui vel officio vel aperta missione prophetae sunt; sicut in hoc loco. Secundum quam acceptionem David et Daniel et caeteri complures, prophetae non dicuntur, sed hagiographi. In ordine hagiographorum novem volumina continentur. Primum Job; secundum liber Psalmorum; tertium Proverbia Salomonis quae Graece parabolae, Hebraice, masloth, dicuntur; quartum Ecclesiastes, qui Hebraice, coeleth, Latine concionator interpretatur; quintum, syra syrim, id est Cantica canticorum; sextum Daniel; septimum Paralipomenon, quod Latine sonat verba dierum, Hebraice, dabreniamin, dicitur; octavum Esdras; nonum Esther. Qui omnes, id est quinque octo novem: similiter faciunt viginti duos quot litteras etiam alphabetum continet Hebraicum, ut totidem libris erudiatur vita justorum ad salutem, quot litteris lingua discentium ad eloquentiam instruitur. Sunt praeterea in Veteri Testamento alii quidam libri qui leguntur quidem, sed in corpore textus vel in canone auctoritatis non scribuntur. Ut est liber Tobiae et Judith, et Machabaeorum et qui inscribitur liber Sapientiae Salomonis et Ecclesiasticus. Novum Testamentum continet Evangelia, apostolos, Patres. Evangelia quatuor sunt: Matthaei, Marci, Lucae, Joannis. Apostolica volumina similiter quatuor: Actus apostolorum; Epistolae Pauli; Canonicae Epistolae, Apocalypsis: qui juncti cum superioribus viginti duobus Veteris Testamenti, triginta complent, in quibus corpus divinae paginae consummatur. Scriptura Patrum in corpore textus non computantur; quia non aliud adjiciunt, sed idipsum quod in supradictis continetur explanando et latius manifestiusque tractando extendunt.”
- Hugh of St. Victor, De Sacramentis, Prologue, Cap. VII. Patrologia Latina 176:185D-186D.
“Hugo de S. Victore, a Canon Regular, and a Saxon by nation, was about this time Abbot of S. Victor’s at Paris: whose knowledge in the Scriptures hath been held equal to S. Augustine’s, and his authority at the Sorbon set above Thomas Aquinas himself. It is confessed by Serarius the Jesuit, that this abbot was altogether of our mind in setting forth the canon of Scripture. For in divers places of his works he doth formally and amply maintain, that there are no more books of the Old Testament than we now receive (as he and the Church in his time did) for Divine and canonical. Five several times he setteth down the catalogue of them all: whereof it will be sufficient here to consider two. In his Book of Sacred Writers, having first begun to say, ‘that all Divine Scripture is contained in two Testaments, the first whereof comprehendeth the (V.) Law of Moses, the (VIII.) Prophets, and the (IX.) Hagiographa,’—he enumerateth them every one in order, as S. Jerome doth in his prologue,—concluding, ‘that they make altogether twenty-two in number.’ Whereunto he subjoineth those others, of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees, with this note upon them, ‘That, though they be read and used in the Church, yet they are not written in the canon:’—computing them among the writings of S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, and other Fathers of the Christian Church; which were otherwhiles publicly read in assemblies, as well as they. In the same book he calleth them (as we usually do now) Apocryphal writings; and, in another, such as have no canonical authority.”
“Hugh of St. Victor…enumerates the books of the Hebrew Bible in a chapter ‘On the number of books in holy writ’ and goes on to say: ‘There are also in the Old Testament certain other books which are indeed read [in the church] but are not inscribed in the body of the text or in the canon of authority: such are the books of Tobit, Judith and the Maccabees, the so-called Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus.’ Here, of course, the influence of Jerome can be discerned: for medieval students of the Bible in the Latin church there was no master to be compared with him.”
- F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 1988), pp. 99-100.
“Omnis divina Scriptura in duobus Testamentis continetur Veteri videlicet et Novo. Utrumque Testamentum tribus ordinibus distinguitur: Vetus Testamentum continet legem, prophetas, agiographos. Novum autem Evangelium, apostolos, patres. Primus ordo Veteris Testamenti, id est lex, quam Hebraei thorath nominant, pentateuchon habet, id est quinque libros Moysi. In hoc ordine primus est Beresith, qui est Genesis. Secundus Hellesmoth, qui est Exodus. Tertius Vagethra, qui est Leviticus. Quartus Vagedaber, qui est Numeri. Quintus Elleaddaberim, qui est Deuteronomius. Secundus ordo est prophetarum, hic continet octo volumina. Primum est Bennum, id est filius Nun, qui et Josue et Jesus, et Jesus Nave nuncupatur. Secundum est Sothim, qui est liber Judicum. Tertium est Samuel, qui est primus et secundus Regum. Quartum Malachim, qui est tertius et quartus Regum. Quintum est Esaias. Sextum Jeremias, Septimum Ezechiel. Octavum Thereasra qui est duodecim prophetarum. Deinde tertius ordo novem habet libros. Primus est Job. Secundus David. Tertius Masloth, quod graece Parabolae, latine Proverbia sonat, videlicet Salomonis. Quartus Coeleth, qui est Ecclesiastes. Quintus Sirasirim, id est Cantica canticorum. Sextus Daniel. Septimus Dabreiamin, qui est Paralipomenon. Octavus Esdras. Nonus Esther. Omnes ergo fiunt numero viginti duo. Sunt praeterea alii quidam libri, ut Sapientia Salomonis, liber Jesu filii Sirach, et liber Judith, et Tobias, et libri Machabaeorum, qui leguntur quidem, sed non scribuntur in canone. His viginti duobus libris Veteris Testamenti.”
- Hugh of St. Victor, De Scripturis et Scriptoribus Sacris Praenotatiunculae, Cap. VI, De ordine, numero et auctoritate librorum sacrae Scripturae. Patrologia Latina 175:15D-16.
“Born about 1115; died 1180; a distinguished philosopher, historian, churchman, and scholar. Born near Salisbury, he went at an early age to Paris, where he studied arts and philosophy (1136-38) under Peter Abelard, Alberic of Reims, and Robert of Melun; then under William of Conches, Richard l'Evêque, and Theoderic of Chartres at the famous school at this latter town (1138-40); finally again at Paris, completing his studies in theology under Gilbert de La Porrée, Robert Pullus, and Simon of Poissy (1141-45). This solid education, under such brilliant masters, he perfected by some private teaching, perhaps with his lifelong friend Peter, Abbot of Moutier La Celle, near Troyes, with whom he was living in 1148. At the Council of Reims in this year, he was introduced to Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury, by St. Bernard. After spending a few years at the papal Court at Rome, whither he went from Reims with Pope Eugene III, he returned to England and acted as private secretary to Theobald for several years, during which period he was repeatedly sent on delicate and important diplomatic missions to the Holy See, in 1159 he had "ten times crossed the Alps on his road from England" (Metalogicus, iii, prol., p. 113). […] John of Salisbury was one of the most cultured scholars of his day. Notwithstanding the engrossing cares of his diplomatic career, his great learning and indefatigable industry enabled him to carry on an extensive and lifelong correspondence on literary, educational, and ecclesiastical topics with the leading scholars of Europe. His collected letters (over 300 in number), no less than his other works, form an invaluable source of the history of thought and activity in the twelfth century. His fine taste and superior training made him the most elegant Latin writer of his time. He is equally distinguished as an historian and as a philosopher: he was the first medieval writer to emphasize the importance of historical studies in philosophy and in all other branches of learning.”
“John was one of the leading scholars of the twelfth century and late in life became Bishop of Chartres. In a letter addressed to Henry I, the Count of Champagne, he responded to a number of theological questions which had been submitted to him. In particular, Henry I wanted to know John’s opinion as to the number of Old and New Testament books. John answered that he followed Jerome. He then listed the specific books of the authoritative canon, totalling their number at twenty-two. After enumerating the New Testament books he said of the catalogue he had provided that it was the well-known and undoubted tradition of the Church, that this was the number of the books which were accepted into the canon of the Holy Scriptures, and that these books alone were considered to be truly inspired. He further explained that the books of the Apocrypha, though not canonical, nevertheless were received by the Church for the purpose of edification.”
“Mihi itaque pro vobis complacuit, ut propositas exciperem quaestiones, et eis, habita ratione temporis et inevitabilium necessitatum, responderem, etsi non pro voto, certe pro tempore. Quaesitum vero est quem credam numerum esse librorum Veteris et Novi Testamenti, et quos auctores eorum,.. Quia ergo de numero librorum diversas et multiplices Patrum lego sententias, catholicae Ecclesiae doctorem Hieronymum sequens, quem in construendo litterae fundamento probatissimum habeo, sicut constat esse XXII litteras Hebraeorum, sic XXII libros Veteris Testamenti in tribus distinctos ordinibus indubitanter credo. Et primus quidem ordo Pentateuchum continet, quinque scilicet libros Moysi sic pro sacramentorum varietate divisos, et si continuam de historia constet esse materiam. Hi sunt Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, liber Numerorum, Deuteronomium. Secundus ordo continet prophetias, et octo libris expletur, qui quare prae caeteris dicantur prophetiae, cum aliqui eorum nudam referre videantur historiam, et alii prophetiam texentes, sicut Daniel, liberque Psalmorum, in propheticis non censeantur operibus, nec in quaestione propositum est, nec temporis, aut schedae angustia nunc patitur explicare, sed nec instantia portitoris. In his ergo numerantur, Josue, liber Judicum, cui compingitur et Ruth, quoniam in diebus Judicum, facta narratur historia, itemque Samuel, qui in duobus primis Regum voluminibus, et Malachim, qui in duobus sequentibus expletur, quos sequuntur voluminibus singulis, Isaias, Jeremias, Ezechiel, liber XII prophetarum in hagiographis consistit. Tertius ordo continens Job, Psalterium, Eccles. Cantica canticorum, Danielem, Paralipomenon, Esdram et Esther. Et sic colliguntur in summa XXII libri Veteris Testamenti, licet nonnulli librum Ruth et Lamentationes Jeremiae, in hagiographorum numero censeant supputandos, ut in XXIV summa omnium dilatetur. Et haec quidem inveniuntur in prologo libri Regum, quem beatus Hieronymus vocat galeatum principem omnium Scripturarum, quae ab ipso de fonte Hebraeorum manaverunt ad intelligentiam Latinorum. Liber vero Sapientiae, et Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobias et Pastor, ut idem Pater asserit, non reputantur in Canone, sed neque Machabaeorum liber, qui in duo volumina scinditur, quorum primum Hebraeam redolet eloquentiam, alterum Graecam, quod stylus ipse convincit, ille autem qui Pastor inscribitur, an alicubi sit nescio, sed certum est quod Hieronymus et Beda illum se vidisse et legisse testantur. His adduntur Novi Testamenti octo volumina, scilicet Evangelium Matthaei, Marci, Lucae, Joannis, Epistolae Pauli XV uno volumine comprehensae, licet sit vulgata, et fere omnium communis opinio non esse nisi XIV, decem ad Ecclesias, quatuor ad personas: si tamen illa quae ad Hebraeos est, connumeranda est Epistolis Pauli, quod in praefatione ejus astruere videtur doctorum doctor Hieronymus, illorum dissolvens argutias, qui eam Pauli non esse contendebant. Caeterum, quinta decima est illa quae Ecclesiae Laodicensium scribitur, et licet, ut ait Hieronymus, ab omnibus explodatur, tamen ab Apostolo scripta est: neque sententia haec de aliorum praesumitur opinione, sed ipsius Apostoli testimonio roboratur. Meminit enim ipsius in Epistola ad Colossenses his verbis: Cum lecta fuerit apud vos haec epistola, facite ut in Laodicensium Ecclesia legatur, et ea quae Laodicensium est legatur vobis. Sequuntur Epistolae Canonicae VII in uno volumine, deinde Actus apostolorum in alio, et tandem Apocalypsis. Et hunc quidem numerum esse librorum, qui in sacrarum Scripturarum canonem admittuntur, celebris apud Ecclesiam et indubitata traditio est, quae tanta apud omnes vigent auctoritate, ut contradictionis aut dubietatis locum sanis mentibus non relinquant, quia conscriptae sunt digito Dei. Jure ergo et merito cavetur, et condemnatur ut reprobus, qui in morum verborumque commercio, praesertim in foro fidelium, hujus divini eloquii passim et publico non admittit argentum, quod igne Spiritus sancti examinatum est, purgatum ab omni faece terrena et macula purgatur septuplum. Istis ergo secure fides incumbat et illis, quae hinc probatum et debitum accipiunt firmamentum, quoniam infidelis aut haereticus est qui eis ausus fuerit refragari.”
- John of Salisbury, Epistle 143: Ad Henricum Comitem Campaniae (A. D. 1165-66.). Patrologia Latina 199:124-127.
“John Purvey, who had served as Wycliffe’s secretary, is credited with a revision of the earlier Wycliffite translation at about 1395. This work replaced many of the Latinate constructions by the native English idiom, as well as removing the prefaces of Jerome in favor of an extensive prologue. The result of this revision was a weakening of papal influence over the English people, as this revision tended to drift away from the liturgical Latin of the church. This work, known as the Later Wycliffite version, was published prior to the invention of Johann Gutenberg, which had a dampening effect on the spread of these particular vernacular versions. Nevertheless, the first complete English Bible was published, revised, and in circulation prior to the work of John Huss (c. 1369-1415) in Bohemia. It was the close identity with the work of Huss that resulted in the exhumation of Wycliffe’s body; it was burned and the ashes were scattered on the River Swift in 1428, still a generation before Gutenberg’s invention.”
- Norm Geisler and William Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, Moody Press, Chicago (1991), pg. 551.
“John Purvey – (c. 1354-1428), English Biblical translator, born probably at Lathbury, Buckinghamshire, England, and likely educated at Oxford. Associated with John Wycliffe at Lutterworth for sometime before 1384; after Wycliffe’s death became a leader of the Lollard party. Preached at Bristol, silenced by the Bishop of Worcester in 1387 and imprisoned in 1390. While in prison compiled from Wycliffe’s translation a commentary on Revelation. In 1400 in fear of martyrdom recanted his Lollardy, and was given the vicarage of West Hythe, Kent. Resigned this charge in 1403, returned to preaching for the next eighteen years. In prison in 1421, but perhaps again recanted. Died about 1428. Chiefly noted for revision of Wycliffe’s and Hereford’s translation of the Bible into a literal and unidiomatic style, which he completed in 1388. Wrote against the corruption of the Church.”
- Elgin Moyer, Who Was Who In Church History, Keats Publishing: New Canaan, Conn (1974). p. 342.
“Wycliffe died in 1384, but he left ardent disciples behind, and it is to these that the credit for the second edition must go. Outstanding among them was John Purvy, who undertook the revision of Wycliffe’s earlier version, and who (c. 1388), replaced the earlier word-for-word rendering of the Vulgate with native English idiom. In order to produce a good English Bible, Purvey had to find a good Latin text. The Vulgate was still being copied by hand and so one manuscript might differ from another in innumerable details. First of all, then, by comparing Latin manuscripts, Purvey and his helpers established the best text possible. Then they rendered it into good English. Purvey had come to see that a word-for-word translation failed to transfer the sense of the original properly. Besides, Jerome’s Vulgate was itself a free rendering of the Hebrew and Greek, and that was the principle of translation espoused by Purvey.”
- David Ewert, A General Introduction to the Bible, Zondervan Publishing House: Grand Rapids, Michigan (1983), pg. 185
“Towards the close of the fourteenth century the great Wycliffite versions of the Bible were made, which formed a new epoch in the history of the Bible in England. The first version which was completed under Wycliffe’s care, and, probably, in part by his hand, contains all the books of the Apocrypha except 2 Esdras; but, like the contemporary MSS. of the Vulgate from which it was translated, it gives Jerome’s Prefaces, in which he affirms the exclusive authority of the Hebrew Canon of the Old Testament, and separates the Apocrypha from it. In the revised version which was afterwards put forth by Purvey, these prefaces are omitted in the Old Testament, at least in most copies, and a general Prologue is added in their place. This opens with an account of the Canon, which may be transcribed at some length for the sake of its interest as the first English discussion of the contents of the Bible. […] In the translation itself the books of the Apocrypha are placed among the other books, as in the common Latin Bibles. In the New Testament the order is remarkable. Gospels, Epistles of St Paul, Acts, Catholic Epistles, Apocalypse. In many MSS. the Epistle to the Laodicenes is added after the Colossians with a note: ‘ But this Epistle is not in common Latin books, and therefore it was but late translated into English tongue.’ The Epistle however had been excluded both by Wycliffe and Purvey, and the MSS. in which it is found are not earlier than about the middle of the fifteenth century.”
“Fyue and twenty bookis of the olde testament ben bookis of feith, and fulli bookis of holy writ; the first is Genesis...and these fyue ben the bookis of Moises, whiche ben clepid propurly the law; the vi book Josue, the vii book is Judicum, that enclosith the story of Ruth...the xiiii book is Esdre, that comprehendeth Neemye, and al is o bok anentis Ebreyes, as Jerom seith, but anentis Grekis and Latyns these ben twey bookis...the xvi is Joob...the xxi...xxiiii ben the foure grete prophetis...the xxv book is o book of xii small prophetis. And what euer book in the olde testament is out of these fyue and twenty byfore seid, shal be set among apocrifa, that is, with outen autorite of bileue; therefore the book of Wisdom and Eclesiastici and Judith and Tobie be not of bileue. The first book of Machabeies was founden write in Ebreu and the ii book of Machabeyes was writen first in Grek. Jerom seith al this sentence in the prologe on the first book of Kyngis. Also the book of Baruc and the pistle of Jeremye ben not of the autorite of the bible anentis Ebreyes, ne the preyer of Manasses as Jerom witnessith, and how mich of the book of Hester and of Daniel is of autorite anentis Ebreyes, and in Ebreu lettre, it is told in the same bookis by Jerom hymself...Therefore as holy chirche redith Judith and Tobie and the bookis of Machabeies but resceyveth not tho among holy Scripturis, so the Chirche redith these ii. bookis Eclesiastici and Sapience (Wisdom) to edifying of the people, not to conferme the autorite of techingis of holy Chirche; Jerom seith this pleynly in the prologe on Proverbis...But sothelv alle the bookis of the newe Testament, that is foure gospelleris...xii [so in the MSS.] pistelis of Paul, vii smale pistils, the Dedis qf Apostlis, and the Apocalips ben fulli of autorito of bileue.”
“Byzantine chronicler and canonist, lived from the latter part of the eleventh to about the middle of the twelfth century. Under Emperor Alexis Comnenus he was commander of the imperial body-guard and first secretary of the imperial chancery. Later he became a monk at Hagia Glykeria (one of the Princes' Islands now known as Niandro). Here he wrote his compendium of history: Epitome ton istorion, superior in form and contents to most other Byzantine chronicles, and extensively used during the Middle Ages. ”
“In the beginning of this age Zonaras wrote his Commentaries upon the canons that were then received by the Greek Church: where, reciting the canon of the council of Carthage, concerning the books of Scripture which they appointed publicly to be read in the African assemblies, he setteth this scholie upon it,—that the best rule, whereby to know what ought to be read in the Eastern Churches, (for among them he lived,) is to have recourse to the Apostles’ Canons, the Council of Laodicea, and the canonical Epistles of S. Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, and Amphilochius; who had given them their rules, as they received them from the Apostles and their successors, for that purpose, long before.”
“Thus PHOTIUS, patriarch of Constantinople, in his summary of the Laws of the Church, refers for the list of Canonical Books to the Catalogue of the Apostolic Canons, the Council of Carthage and the Council of Laodicea. ZONARAS, one of the chief Byzantine historians and theologians of the twelfth century, in a note on the Catalogue of the Apostolic Canons, remarks [the above quote]. Again, in another note he appeals to the exact enumeration of the books of the Old and New Testaments which ought to be read made by Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Amphilochius and the Council of Carthage. Again, in another note he appeals to the exact enumeration of the books of the Old and New Testaments which ought to be read made by Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Amphilochius and the Council of Carthage.”
Latin Text: Original language of relevant apostolic canons as found in page 56 of Synodicon by William Beveridge…
“Canon LXXXV. Let the following be venerated by all clerics and laity: the holy books of the Old Testament, namely, the five books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. One book of Jesus son of Nave (Joshua). One of Judges. One of Ruth. Four books of Kings. Two books of Paralipomenon, that is, the Chronicles. Two of Esdras. One of Esther. Three of the Maccabees. One of Job. One of the Psalter. Three of Solomon: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs. The twelve prophets. One of Isaiah. One of Jeremiah. One of Ezekiel. One of Daniel. But it is also understood that your young men ought to learn the most excellent wisdom of Sirach. Now, concerning the New Testament: the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Fourteen epistles of Paul. Two epistles of Peter. Three of John. One of James. Two epistles of Clement. The constitutions written for you bishops by me, Clement, in eight books, which are not to be entirely published to all, because of the mystical things contained in them. And the Acts of our Apostles. Bals. "Indeed, in the 60th canon, we have learned not to read the falsely inscribed books of the impious as if they were holy. However, we now say that we ought to read certain books from both the Old and New Testament. You must understand that although it is written here that the Constitutions of Clement are to be read by us, they should not be publicly disseminated. Nonetheless, the canon of the Sixth Synod prohibited their reading because corruption had occurred in them. And according to the same canon, along with certain others, we ought to read only the 85 canons of the holy Apostles, and to care for no other, even if it is said to be a canon of the holy Apostles. But whatever has been written by the holy Fathers and in their confessions, we should read and embrace, as these are what lead us to the true and orthodox faith." Zonar. When the faithful Apostles had prescribed how the faithful of Christ ought to live, they eventually added which books it was appropriate for them to read, and they listed them. As was said elsewhere above, even the enumerations of the books to be read were compiled by various holy Fathers. They did this because there were many spurious and falsely inscribed books, or still are, and some were corrupted: such as those constitutions that were promulgated through Clement. For they were adulterated and corrupted by certain heretics. Therefore, the Ecumenical Sixth Synod, in the second chapter of its canons, prohibited the reading of these entirely. However, other enumerations, by other Fathers who listed these books here, also allow the reading of the Wisdom of Solomon, Judith, Tobit, and the Apocalypse of John the Theologian. These, then, are the eighty-five canons of the most venerable Apostles. However, in some books that contain canons, other canons are also found, each inscribed under the name of one of the most celebrated Apostles. But the Synod convened in Trullo, consisting of 227 holy Fathers, under the reign of Emperor Justinian Rhinotmetus, which is called the Sixth, reviewed the holy canons and said as follows: It seemed right to this holy Synod that the canons received and approved by our holy and blessed Fathers should remain valid and firm. Indeed, the eighty-five canons in the name of the holy and most glorious Apostles have been handed down to us. However, the Constitutions written by Saint Clement were later consigned, and when it was said that they ought not to be read, they were rejected, because certain spurious and foreign elements to piety had been inserted into them by heretics, bringing destruction to the Church. He (the Synod) also mentioned the canonical laws of the Synods and the Ecumenical Councils, as well as local councils and those actions of the divine Fathers outside of Synods…”
“Exegete, b. at Lyra in Normandy, 1270; d. at Paris, 1340. The report that he was of Jewish descent dates only from the fifteenth century. He took the Franciscan habit at Verneuil, studied theology, received the doctor's degree in Paris and was appointed professor at the Sorbonne. In the famous controversy on the Beatific Vision he took sides with the professors against John XXII. He labored very successfully, both in preaching and writing, for the conversion of the Jews. He is the author of numerous theological works, some of which are yet unpublished. It was to exegesis that Nicholas of Lyra devoted his best years. In the second prologue to his monumental work, "Postillae perpetuae in universam S. Scripturam", after stating that the literal sense of Sacred Scripture is the foundation of all mystical expositions, and that it alone has demonstrative force, as St. Augustine teaches, he deplores the state of Biblical studies in his time. The literal sense, he avers, is much obscured, owing partly to the carelessness of the copyists, partly to the unskillfulness of some of the correctors, and partly also to our own translation (the Vulgate), which not infrequently departs from the original Hebrew. He holds with St. Jerome that the text must be corrected from the Hebrew codices, except of course the prophecies concerning the Divinity of Christ. […] Nicholas utilized all available sources, fully mastered the Hebrew and drew copiously from the valuable commentaries of the Jewish exegetes, especially of the celebrated Talmudist Rashi. The "Pugio Fidei" of Raymond Martini and the commentaries of St. Thomas Aquinas were laid under contribution. His exposition is lucid and concise; his observations are judicious and sound, and always original. The "Postillae" soon became the favourite manual of exegesis. It was the first Biblical commentary printed. The solid learning of Nicholas commanded the respect of both Jews and Christians. […] Nicholas taught no new doctrine. The early Fathers and the great schoolmen had repeatedly laid down the same sound exegetical principles, but, owing to adverse tendencies of the times, their efforts had partly failed. Nicholas carried out these principles effectively, and in this lies his chief merit — one which ranks him among the foremost exegetes of all times.”
“Nicholas was a Hebrew scholar who endorsed the Hebrew canon according to the judgment of Jerome. In his preface to the book of Tobit, he wrote that the books of Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Tobit, and Maccabees were not considered canonical but were received and read by the Church only for the purposes of edification and moral encouragement. In his introductory remarks to the book of Ezra, Nicholas stated that he would forgo making comments on the books of Tobit, Judith and Maccabees because, even though they were included in Bibles, they were not received as canonical by either the Jews or Christians. When he did comment on the text of one of the Apocryphal books, he would begin by asserting its non-canonical status. For example, with Tobit he wrote, ‘Here begins the book of Tobit which is not in the canon.’ Or, ‘Here begins the book of Judith which is not in the canon,’ and, ‘Here begins the Book of Wisdom which is not in the canon.’”
“Incipit postilla Nicolai de Lyra super librum Tobie, et primo eiusdem prefatio. Hec oportuit facere et illa non omittere, Matth. xxiii. Postquam (auxiliante Deo) scripsi super libros sacre scripture canonicos, incipiendo a principio Genesis et procedendo usque ad finem Apocalypsis, de eiusdem confisus auxilio super alios intendo scribere, qui non sunt de canone, scilicet liber Sapientie, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobias, et libri Machabeorum, secundum quod Hieronymus dicit in prologo galeato, qui premittitur libris Regum; et idem dicit de libro Baruch in eius prologo, et de secundo Esdre in prologo super Esdram. Propter quod assumpsi verbum propositum: Hec oportuit, etc., in quo duo possunt notari: primum est necessitas operis: precedentur ibi: hec oportuit facere; secundum est utilitas operis: subsequentur ibi: et illa non omittere. Circa primum sciendum quod libri sacre scripture qui canonici nuncapantur tante sunt auctoritatis quod quicquid ibi continetur verum tenetur firmiter et indiscusse, et per consequens illud quod ex hoc concluditur manifeste. Nam sicut in scripturis philosophicis veritas cognoscitur per reductionem ad prima principia per se nota, sic in scripturis a catholics doctoribus traditis veritas cognoscitur, quantum ad ea que sunt fide tenenda, per reductionem ad scripturas sacre scripture canonicas, que sunt habite revelatione divina, cui nullo modo falsum potest subesse. Propter quod intellectus earum necessaries est ecclesie, et ideo de expositione earum potest dici illud quod scribitur Eccli. xxiiii: Hec omnia liber vite, id est, omnes libri expositi in opere precedenti continentur in libro vite, id est, in libro revelate veritatis a Deo qui est ispa vita. Sicut enim divina predestinatio dicitur liber vite, sic est hec scriptura divinitus revelata liber vite dicitur, tum quia a vita per essentiam procedit, ut dictum est, cum quia ad vitam beatam perducit. Circa secundum considerandum quod libri qui non sunt de canone recepti sunt ab ecclesia ut ad morum informationem in ea legantur, tamen eorum auctoritas ad probandum ea que in contentionem veniunt minus idonea reputantur, ut dicit Hieronymus in prologo super librum Judith et in prologo super parabolas Salomonis; propter quod sunt minoris efficatie quam libri canonici. Et ideo possumus dicere Domino a quo est omne bonum illud quod scribitur Judith viii: Illa post illa cogitasti. Licet enim in actuo cogitandi divino non sit prius aut posterius cum sit unicus et simplicissimus, tamen in effectibus ab eo precogitatis est ordo temporis et dignitatis; et sic veritas scripta in libris canonicis prior est tempore quantum ad plura, et dignitate quantum ad omnia quam sit illa que scribitur in non canonicis. Utilis tamen est ad directione in via morum, ut dictum est, per quam pervenitur ad regnum celorum, quod nobis concedat, etc.”
- Postilla Nicolai de Lyra super librum Tobiae, prefatio.Biblia cum glosa ordinaria et expositione Lyrae litterali et morali (Basel:Petri & Froben, 1498). British Museum IB.37895, vol. 2.
“Capitulum I: In anno primo Cyri, etc.. Liber iste, a quo incipit regimen sacerdotum, ut dictum est, cum sibi annexis potest sic dividi: quia primo tangitur huius regiminis processus, secundo incidens casus, qui est duplex. In uno habetur exemplum constantie contra Aman, in altero exemplum patientie in libris Hester et Iob. Libros autem Tobie et Iudith et Machabeorum, licet sint historiales, tamen intendo eos ad presens pertransire, quia non sunt de canone apud Iudeos nec apud Christianos. Immo de ipsis dicit Hieronymus, in prologo galeoto qui est prologus super libros Regnum, quod inter apocrypha cantantur; et in prologo Iudith dicit quod auctoritas eorum non est efficax ad probandum aliquid quod in contentionem vel dubium venit. Et ideo expositionem eorum non intendo insistere donec cum Dei adiutorio et vita comite super omnes libros canonicos scripserim. Si autem Dominus vitam mihi concesserit, super istos libros et alios qui communiter ponuntur in bibliis, quamvis non sint de canone, scribere potero Domino concedente. Liber autem iste dividitur in tres partes, quia primo aditur de reductione populi sub Iesu filio Iosedech; secundo de instructione reducti per Esdram legis doctorem, vii capitulum; tertio de reedificationem muri per Neemiam ducem, ibi: Verba Neemie. Et isti tres fuerunt sacerdotes ut ex sequentibus apparebit. De secundo autem libro Esdre non intendo ad presens me intromittere ratione iam dicta, scilicet quia non est de canone.”
- Postilla Nicolai de Lyra super librum Edsrae, cap.i, Biblia cum glosa ordinaria et expositione Lyre litterali et morali (Basel: Petri & Froben, 1498). British Museum IB.37895, vol. 1, Lyra on Ezra.
“When it came to the legitimate use of biblical argument, Nicholas not only followed the common view in the schools by shunning mystical interpretations, but also shunned the use of the deutero-canonical books…For Nicholas, the deutero-canonical books, like mystical interpretations, were useful only for moral instruction. In his Postilla litteralis in Esdr. 1.1, Nicholas justified skipping Tobias, Judith and Machabees until he had glossed the canonical books. In De visione divinae essentiae, Nicholas again affirmed the non-canonical status of these books.”
- Michael Woodward, Nicholas of Lyra on Beatific Vision, A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Notre Dame in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Medieval Institute, Notre Dame, Indiana, April, 1992.
“Libros autem Tobie et Judith et Machabeorum licet sint historiales, tamen intendo eos ad presens pertransire quia non sunt de canone apud Iudaeos nec apud Christanos.”
- Nicholas of Lyra, Postilla literalis in librum Edsrae, BIBLIA SACRA (Lyon, 1589) vol. 2, col. 1276.
Monk and author, b. about 840, at Jonswil, canton of St. Gall (Switzerland); d. 912. Of a distinguished family, he received his education with Tuotilo, originator of tropes, at St. Gall's, from Iso and the Irishman Moengall, teachers in the monastic school. He became a monk there and is mentioned as librarian (890), and as master of guests (892-94). He was chiefly active as teacher, and displayed refinement of taste as poet and author. He completed Erchanbert's chronicle (816), arranged a martyrology, and composed a metrical biography of St. Gall. It is practically accepted that he is the "monk of St. Gall" (monachus Sangallensis), author of the legends and anecdotes "Gesta Caroli Magni". The number of works ascribed to him is constantly increasing. […] Ekkehard IV lauds him as "delicate of body but not of mind, stuttering of tongue but not of intellect, pushing boldly forward in things Divine, a vessel of the Holy Spirit without equal in his time". Notker was beatified in 1512.”
“Notker, surnamed the Older, or Balbulus (“the little Stammerer, “from a slight lisp in his speech), was born about 850 of a noble family in Switzerland, educated in the convent of St. Gall, founded by Irish missionaries, and lived there as an humble monk. He died about 912, and was canonized in 1512. He is famous as the reputed author of the Sequences (Sequentiae), a class of hymns in rythmical prose, hence also called Proses (Prosae). They arose from the custom of prolonging the last syllable in singing the Allelu-ia of the Gradual, between the Epistle and the Gospel, while the deacon was ascending from the altar to the rood-loft (organ-loft), that he might thence sing the Gospel. This prolongation was called jubilatio or jubilus, or laudes, on account of its jubilant tone, and sometimes sequentia (Greek ajkolouqiva), because it followed the reading of the Epistle or the Alleluia. Mystical interpreters made this unmeaning prolongation of a mere sound the echo of the jubilant music of heaven. A further development was to set words to these notes in rythmical prose for chanting. The name sequence was then applied to the text and in a wider sense also to regular metrical and rhymed hymns. The book in which Sequences were collected was called Sequentiale.
Notker marks the transition from the unmeaning musical sequence to the literary or poetic sequence. Over thirty poems bear his name.”
- Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume IV: Mediaeval Christianity, “Worship and Ceremonies: § 96. Latin Hymns and Hymnists”, link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc4.i.x.v.html
“In the absence of direct and immediate evidence from our own islands, the opinion of Nother, abbot of St Gall (A. D. 912), may be taken as the expression of the judgment of the ancient Irish church, from which the monastery of St Gall derived its origin, and with which it maintained a close literary connexion. Notker gives a summary of ‘the Interpreters of the Holy Scriptures.’ In doing this he passes in review the various books. First he notices the ‘Pentateuch, Joshua and Judges, Samuel and Kings and the Prophets;’ next the 'Psalter, Proverls, Ecclesiastes, Canticles;' he then comes to Wisdom, ‘which,’ he says, ‘is wholly rejected by the Hebrews, and held uncertain among us; still because our forefathers were accustomed to read it for the usefulness of its teaching, while the Jews have it not, it is called an ecclesiastical book also among us. It is right too that you should hold the same opinion about the book of Jesus the Son of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), except that that is held and read by the Hebrews.’ He then notices Job and Tobit and Ezra, observing that Bede wrote ‘a commentary on the two last books, rather pleasing than necessary, because he endeavoured to turn simple history into allegory. What shall I say,’ he continues, ‘ of Judith and Esther and Chronicles... since their letter is not considered as having authority, but only as possessing a historical and literary value? You will be able to guess that the same is the case with the Books of Maccabees.”
“Cap. III - De interpretibus libri Sapientiae, Jesu filii Sirach, Job, Tobiae, Esdrae, Judith, Esther, Paralipomenon et Machabaeorum.
De libro, qui Sapientia Solomonis inscribitur, nullius auctoris expositionem, nisi tantum per occasionem aliorum librorum pauca testimonia explanata cognovi; quippe qui ab Hebraeis penitus respuitur et apud nostros quasi incertus habetur. Tamen, quia priores nostri eum propter utilitatem doctrinae legere consueverunt, et Judaei eumdem non habent, Ecclesiasticus etiam apud nos appellatur. Quod de hoc, id etiam de libro Jesu filii Sirach sentias oportet, nisi quod is ab Hebraeis et habetur et legitur.
Difficillimum librum beati Job prophetae ab omnibus magistris anterioribus intactum apostolicus noster Gregorius ita exposuit, ut super historiae fundamentum moralitatis construeret aedificium, et anagogae imposuerit culmen praestantissimum. Cui libro tam multa de omnibus divinae auctoritatis scriptis testimonia intexuit et intexta dissolvit, ut huius occasione Vetus et Novum Testamentum videatur exposuisse.
Quod si propter inopiam rei familiaris, vel saecularium rerum occupationem, vel etiam palatii assiduitatem et militiae laborem tibi aspirare non suppetit aut vacare, excerptum Ladkeni Hiberniensis inquire, et post explanationem testimoniorum in medium adductorum nihil tibi invenies ad plenum intellectum deesse.
In diversis etiam locis diversa, tum collecta, tum excerpta de hoc et aliis scriptis, si requisieris, invenire poteris, de quibus postea dicetur.
In librum Tobiae et Esdrae Beda presbyter aliqua scripsit magis iucunda quam necessaria, quippe qui simplicem historiam vertere conatus est in allegoriam.
De libro Judith, Esther et Paralipomenon quid dicam, a quibus vel qualiter exponantur, cum etiam ipsa in eis littera non pro auctoritate, sed tantum pro memoria et admiratione habeatur? Idem de libris Machabaeorum suspicari poteris.”
“Quoniam plerique eo quod non multam operam dant sacrae Scripturae, existimant omnes libros qui in Bibliis continentur, pari veneratione esse reverendos atque adorandos, nescientes distinguere inter libros canonicos, et non canonicos, quos Hebraei a canone separant, et Graeci inter apocrypha computant; unde saepe coram doctis ridiculi videntur, et perturbantur, scandalizanturque cum audiunt aliquem non pari cum caeteris omnibus veneratione prosequi aliquid quod in Bibliis legatur: idcirco hic distinximus, et distincte numeravimus primo libros canonicos, et postea non canonicos, inter quos tantum distat quantum inter certum et dubium. Nam canonici sunt confecti Spiritus sancto dictante non canonici autem sive apocryphi, nescitur quo tempore quibusve auctoribus autoribus sint editi; quia tamen valde boni et utiles sunt, nihilque in eis quod canonicis obviet, invenitur, ideo Ecclesia eos legit, et permittit, ut ad devotionem, et ad morum informationem a fidelibus legantur. Eorum tamen auctoritas ad probandum ea quae veniunt in dubium, aut in contentionem, et ad confirmandam ecclesiasticorum dogmatum auctoritatem, non reputatur idonea, ut ait beatus Hieronymus in prologis super Judith et super libris Salomonis. At libri canonici tantae sunt auctoritatis, ut quidquid ibi continetur, verum teneat firmiter et indiscusse: et per consequens illud quod ex hoc concluditur manifeste; nam sicut in philosophia veritas cognoscitur per reductionem ad prima principia per se nota: ita et in Scripturis a sanctis doctoribus traditis veritas cognoscitur, quantum ad ea quae sunt fide tenenda, per reductionem ad Scripturas canonicas, quae sunt habita divina revelatione cui nullo modo potest falsum subesse. Unde de his dicit Augustinus ad Hieronymum: « Ego solis eis scriptoribus qui canonici appellantur, didici hunc timorem honoremque deferre, ut nullum eorum scribendo errasse firmissime teneam; ac si aliquid in eis offendero quod videatur contrarium veritati, nihil aliud existimem quam mendosum esse codicem, vel non esse assecutum interpretem quod dictum est, vel me minime intellexisse, non ambigam. Alios autem ita lego, ut quantalibet sanctitate doctrinave polleant, non ideo verum putem quia ipsi ita senserunt, sed quia mihi per illos auctores canonicos vel probabiles rationes, quod a vero non abhorreat, persuadere potuerunt. » Sunt igitur libri canonici Veteris Testamenti viginti duo, ad numerum viginti duarum litterarum Hebraeorum, ut scribere Origenem super primum psalmum refert Eusebius libro sexto Ecclesiasticae Historiae, et copiosius distinctiusque dicit beatus Hieronymus in prologo galeato super librum Regum, quod omnes in tres partes ab Hebraeis dividuntur: In Legem, id est quinque libros Moysi; in prophetas octo, et hagiographa novem; ut statim clarius patebit, quamvis nonnulli librum Ruth separent a libro Judicum, et Lamentationes Jeremiae a Jeremia, et inter Hagiographa computent, ut sint viginti quatuor libri1 ad numerum viginti quatuor seniorum quos Apocalypsis inducit adorantes Agnum (Apoc. V). Isti sunt libri qui sunt in canone, ut latius scribit beatus Hieronymus in prologo galeato qui est super libros Regum. Et primo quinque libri Moysi, qui appellantur lex, quorum primus est Genesis, secundus Exodus, tertius Leviticus, quartus Numeri, quintus Deuteronomium. Secundo sequuntur octo libri prophetales, quorum primus est Josue, secundus liber Judicum cum Ruth, tertius Samuel, id est, primus et secundus Regum, quartus Malachim, id est, tertius et quartus Regum; quintus Isaias, sextus Jeremias cum Lamentationibus, septimus Ezechiel, octavus liber duodecim prophetarum: quorum primus est Osee, secundus Joel, tertius Amos, quartus Abdias, quintus Jonas, sextus Michaeas, septimus Nahum, octavus Habacuc, nonus Sophonias, decimus Aggaeus, undecimus Zacharias, duodecimus Malachias. Tertio sequuntur Hagiographa novem, quorum primus est Job, secundus Psalterium, tertius Salomonis Proverbia, quartus ejusdem Ecclesiastes, quintus ejusdem Canticorum, sextus Daniel, septimus Paralipomenon, qui apud Hebraeos est unus liber, non duo; octavus Esdras cum Nehemia (est enim totus unus liber), nonus Esther. Quidquid autem extra hos est (de Veteri Testamento loquor) ut dicit Hieronymus, inter apocrypha est ponendum. Isti sunt libri qui non sunt in canone, quos tamen Ecclesia ut bonos et utiles libros admittit, non ut canonicos, inter quos sunt aliqui majoris auctoritatis, aliqui minoris. Nam Tobias, Judith, et Machabaeorum libri, Sapientiae quoque liber atque Ecclesiasticus, valde ab omnibus probantur; ita quod Augustinus libro de doctrina Christiana (lib. II, cap. 3) tres superiores numerat inter canonicos, et de Sapientia atque Ecclesiastico dicit, meruisse illos recipi in auctoritatem, et inter propheticos debere numerari. Et de libris Machabaeorum libro decimo octavo (Cap. 31) de Civitate Dei loquens, et de Esdrae libris dicit quod quamvis Hebraei non habeant eos pro canonicis, tamen Ecclesia habet illos pro canonicis propter quorumdam martyrum passiones vehementes atque mirabiles. Minoris autem auctoritatis sunt Baruch, et tertius et quartus Esdrae: nam Augustinus in loco supradicto nullam de his facit mentionem, cum tamen, ut dixi, alios apocryphos canonicis annumerat. Rufinus quoque in expositione Symboli, et Isidorus in libro sexto Etymologiarum, ubi hanc Hieronymi divisionem referunt, horum nihil meminerunt. Et ut numeres eos eo ordine quo sunt in Bibliis, quamvis alio ordine fuerint editi, primo sunt tertius et quartus libri Esdrae, qui dicuntur tertius et quartus; quia ante Hieronymum Graeci et Latini librum Esdrae canonicum secabant in duos libros, sermones Nehemiae, secundum librum appellantes. Isti autem tertius et quartus inter omnes, non canonicos minoris, ut dixi, sunt auctoritatis. Unde Hieronymus in prologo Esdrae eos appellat somnia, et in paucissimis Bibliis manuscriptis inveniuntur, et in multis impressis invenitur solum tertius. Secundus est Tobias, liber valde devotus et utilis. Tertius est Judith, quem dicit Hieronymus in prologo fuisse a Nicaena synodo computatum in numero sanctarum Scripturarum. Quartus liber Sapientiae, quem scripsisse Philonem Alexandrinum Judaeum doctissimum, fere omnes tenent. Quintus est liber Jesu filii Sirach, qui Ecclesiasticus dicitur: Sextus est Baruch, ut dicit Hieronymus in prologo Jeremiae. Septimus est Machabaeorum liber, in primum et secundum divisus. […] Rufinus vero ubi supra, enumeratis libris canonicis, in quibus cum Hieronymo concordat, infert: « Haec sunt quae patres intra canonem concluserunt, ex quibus fidei nostrae assertiones constare voluerunt. Sciendum tamen est quod et alii libri sunt qui non canonici, sed ecclesiastici a majoribus appellati sunt, ut Sapientia quae dicitur Salomonis, et alia Sapientia quae dicitur filii Sirach. » Et infra: « ejusdem ordinis est libellus Tobiae, et Judith, et Machabaeorum libri: quae omnia legi quidem in ecclesiis voluerunt, non tamen proferri ad auctoritatem ex his confirmandam. Caeteras vero scripturas apocryphas nominaverunt, quas in ecclesiis legi noluerunt. » Praeterea est sciendum quod in libro Esther illa duntaxat sunt in canone quae scribuntur usque ad eum locum ubi posuimus: « Finit liber Esther, prout est in Hebraeo, quae postea sequuntur non sunt in canone. » Similiter in Daniele, illa tantum sunt in canone quae sunt usque ad eum locum ubi posuimus: « Finit Daniel propheta: quae post ea sequuntur non sunt in canone. »”
“A statesman and theologian, born at Blois about 1130; died about 1203. He appears to have first studied at Tours, and was, perhaps, the disciple of Jean de Salisbury, who taught in Paris from 1140 to 1150; he studied law in Bologna, and theology in Paris, where he taught the liberal arts. In 1167 Count Stephen du Perche brought him to Sicily (1167). Here he became preceptor of the king, guardian of the royal seal, and one of the queen's principal counsellors. But the favouritism shown the foreigner excited the jealousy of the nobles and he was obliged to leave Sicily (1169). After several years in France, he went to England, where he became one of Henry II's diplomatic agents and was charged with negotiations with the pope and the King of France. In 1176 he became chancellor of the Archbishop of Canterbury and Archdeacon of Bath. […] He entered the service of Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine, to whom he was secretary (1190-95), and was made Archdeacon of London. […] Not only was he the king's chief counsellor, but many bishops consulted him and obtained his advice on important matters regarding their dioceses. ”
“Bishop of Chartres, b. of noble parentage in Champagne; d. at Chartres, 20 February, 1183. He was educated in the monastery of St. Martin-des-Champs at Paris, became a Benedictine, and in 1150 was made Abbot of La Celle near Troyes, whence his surname, Cellensis. In 1162 he was appointed Abbot of St. Rémy at Reims, and in 1181 he succeeded John of Salisbury as Bishop of Chartres. He was highly esteemed by men like John of Salesbury, Thomas à Becket, Archbishop Eskil, Eugene III, and especially Alexander III. His literary productions were edited by Janvier (Paris, 1671) and reprinted in P.L., CCII, 405-1146. They consist of 177 epistles, 95 sermons, and 4 treatises.”
“Peter was successor to John of Salisbury as Bishop of Chartres. He was formerly the Abbott of La Celle at Troyes. He too wrote that the Old Testament canon consisted of twenty-four books.”
“De agro igitur ventris Jesu, in quo sunt omnes thesauri sapientiae et scientiae absconditi, tanquam de acervo tritici vallato liliis, viginti quatuor panes (juxta numerum viginti quatuor seniorum, in conspectu Agni astantium) ad compescendam omnem famem, ad sanandam omnem pestem, et ad removendum omnem languorem; quanta potui sedulitate, interrumpendo curarum exundantium acies, in hoc opusculo collegi. Hic enim numerus, tam filiorum Jacob quam apostolorum Christi, duodenarium numerum duplicatum significat. Sub hoc etiam numero libri continentur Veteris Testamenti. Plenaria igitur instructio animarum praelibatur ex hoc numero librorum, et nihilominus plena refectio apprehenditur ex hoc panum numero. Ab oriente itaque et occidente, a septentrione et meridie ad signum Abrahae concurrentes; ne deficiant in via, de panibus miserationum Domini sese reficiunt, et defectibus suis perpetuam refectionem exhibent”
- Peter Cellensis, De Panibus, Cap 2. Patrologia Latina 202:935-936.
“Theological writer, b. at Troyes, date unknown; d. at Paris about 1178. He was first attached to the Church of Notre-Dame at Troyes and habitually signed himself as "Presbyter Trecensis". Before 1148 he became dean of the chapter and received a benefice in 1148. About 1160 he formed one of the Chapter of Notre-Dame at Paris, and about the same year he replaced Eudes (Odon) as chancellor. At the same time he had charge of the theological school. It was at Paris that Peter Comestor composed and certainly finished his "Historia Scholastica"; he dedicated it to the Bishop of Sens, Guillaume aux Blanches Mains (1169-76). […] His "Historia Scholastica" is a kind of sacred history composed for students, and at their own request. The author begins the sacred narrative at the Creation, and continues it to the end of the incidents related in the Acts of the Apostles; all the books of the Bible are contained therein, except those whose nature is purely didactic, the Book of Wisdom, the Psalms, the Prophets, the Epistles, etc. The discourses are abbreviated. He borrows frequently from profane authors, especially from Flavius Josephus for the beginning of the Gospels, and very often the test is as though paraphrased in a commentary where all data, cosmological and physical, philosophical theological, allegorical, historical, geographical, etc., are found. It is easy to understand, of course, that there are numerous inaccuracies and fables. The work consists of twenty books and often small "additions" supply geographical or etymological appendixes at the end of the chapters. This Biblical history met with great success, as witness the large number of manuscripts, the mention of his name in all the libraries of the Middle Ages, the lists of classical books for the universities and schools, the quotations and the eulogies with which the name of its author is everywhere accompanied (cf. The canonist Huguccio, about 1190) and its numerous translations. In the fifteenth century, the work was still in great demand, as can be seen by the editions made before 1500 of the Latin text, or of the French translation.”
“In his work Historia Scholastica, Peter [Comestor] aligned himself with Jerome in separating the Apocrypha from the canonical books of the Old Testament.”
“Petrus Comestor abbreviated the histories of the Bible,* and called it the Scholasical History; where, in his preface upon Joshua, he reciteth the books of the Old Testament, and divideth them into their three orders, as S. Hierome and the Hebrews do,—without saying, or insinuating, so much as by one word, that the Christian Church had any other canon which differed from the Hebrew. In the first order be the five books of Moses; in the second, the eight books of the Prophets; and in the third, the nine books (that remain) of the Hagiographa. If Comestor had known any more, that yet remained of the Old Testament, he would never have been so perfidious to himself, and the Christians, (for whose use and benefit alone he wrote this his Scholastical History,) as not to name any one of them. But clear it is, that he affirmeth absolutely, as well in his own sense as in the sense of the old Church,—that, after the five books of the Law, and eight of the Prophets, there remain but nine more for the first Testament; among which the six debated books can have no room. Otherwhere, when he cometh to speak in particular of the book of Tobit, he saith expressly, that it is in no order of the canon; and of Judith, that S. Jerome and the Hebrews lodge it among the Apocrypha, and that it was but a fault in the writer, to say they placed it among the Hagiographa. Besides all this, he is bold to call the story of Bel and the Dragon a fable,— and to say, that, in the history of Susanna, all is not so true as it should be; which certainly he would never have said of any canonical part of Scripture.”
“Liber Josue a nomine auctoris censetur, qui et Jesus dictus est. Nam Josue et Jesus idem est nomen. Cognominatus est autem a patre Jesus Nave, vel Josue Bennum, id est filius Nave, vel Nun; quod idem est. Cognominatus est autem sic, ad differentiam Jesu fili Sirach pronepotis Jesu magni sacerdotis, qui scripsit Ecclesiasticum. Et nota quod secundum Hebraeos hic incipit secundus ordo Veteris Testamenti. Qui distinguunt Vetus Testamentum in tres ordines. Primum vocant legem, secundum prophetas, tertium agiographa. In lege ponunt quinque libros Moysi; in prophetis octo Josue, Judicum, Samuel, Malachim, Isaiam, Jeremiam, Ezechielem, duodecim prophetas. In agiographis ponunt novem libros Veteris Testamenti, qui supersunt. Hi dicuntur agiographia, id est sanctorum scripta; quod nomen commune est omnibus sacrae Scripturae libris. Et quia hi novem non habuerunt eminentiam prae caeteris, secundum quam agnominarentur, communi nominecontenti sunt, sicut hoc nomen, confessor, generale est omnium sanctorum: et tamen quidam illorum, secundum eminentiam aliquam quam habent, aliis nominibus censentur, dicuntur alii apostoli, alii martyres, et hujusmodi.”
“Prophetavit etiam in Chaldaea Daniel, qui secundum Josephum et Epiphanium, de semine regio Judae fuit; secundum LXX vero de tribu Levi, qui in titulo fabulae Belis ita ponunt: Homo quidam erat sacerdos, nomine Daniel, filius Abdo, conviva regis Babylonis; natus fuit in Beteroth superiore. Et fuit adeo castus, quod a contribulibus suis spado putaretur. Librum ejus transtulit Hieronymus ad petitionem Paulae et Eustochii cum magna difficultate. Scriptus enim erat Hebraicis litteris, sed Chaldaico sermone, nec legebatur ab Ecclesia secundum LXX, quia multum a veritate discordabat eorum editio, sed secundum Theodotionem, qui apud Hebraeos, nec Suzannae habet historiam, nec hymnum trium puerorum, nec Belis draconisque fabulam.”
- Historia Scholastica, Historia Libri Danielis. Cap. I. Patrologia Latina 198:1447-1448.
“Sequitur historia Susannae, quam Hebraeus non habet in libro Danielis. Et vocat eam fabulam, non quod inficietur rem gestam, sed quod in ea falsum legitur de sacerdotibus lapidatis, quos Jeremias adustos testatur. Et quia fabulamur eam scriptam a Daniele, cum a quodam Graeco scripta fuerit: quod probatur ex eo quod quaedam allusio verborum facta sit ibi nominibus arborum, videlicet apotoy, cymi, cyse, apotoy, primi, prise. Tales enim allusiones verborum, et arborum nomina, non inveniuntur in Hebraeo.”
- Peter Mauritius (Venerabilis), Historia Scholastica, Historia Libri Danielis, Cap. XIII, De Sussana, Patrologia Latina 198:1466.
“Born in Auvergne, about 1092; died at Cluny, 25 December, 1156. His mother, Blessed Raingarde, offered him to God in the monastery of Sauxillanges of the Congregation of Cluny, where he made his profession at the age of seventeen. He was only twenty years old when he was appointed professor and prior of the monastery of Vézelay, and he discharged his duties in that house, and later in the monastery of Domene, with such success that at the age of thirty he was elected general of the order. […] He was prominent in resisting the schism caused by the antipope Anacletus II, after the death of Honorius II (1130). With St. Bernard, he was the soul and the light of the General Council of Pisa (1134), and having encouraged Innocent II to stand firm in the midst of persecutions, he predicted the end of the schism, which happened in 1138. […] He made several journeys to Rome, where the popes entrusted him with delicate missions, and he accompanied Eugene III to the Council of Reims (1147), where the doctrines of Gilbert de la Poree were condemned. Kings and emperors came to him for advice and in the midst of his labours he found time to write numerous letters, valuable theological works on the questions of the day, the Divinity of Christ, the Real Presence, against the Jews and the Mohammedans, and concerning the statutes and the privileges of his order, besides sermons and even verses. Theologians praise the precision of his teaching. […] Honoured as a saint both by the people and his order, he was never canonized; Pius IX confirmed the cult offered to him (1862).”
- Fournet, P.A. (1911). Blessed Peter of Montboissier. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10525b.htm
“Twelfth century theologian and abbot of Clugny in France, Peter Mauritius listed the books of the authoritative Old Testament canon as those which reflected the Hebrew canon.”
“Petrus Mauritius, the abbot of Clugny in France, was also in great account at this time, highly favoured by Pope Eugenius, and a special friend to S. Bernard. He wrote many treatises, collected, and set forth together, in the Bibliotheca Clniacensis at Paris. In his discourse against the Jews he rejecteth all they can allege as any authentic testimony for themselves, which is not in their sacred canon of Scripture. In his epistle or treatise against the Petrobusians, he refuteth five several heads of their doctrine; among which the first was their denial of baptism to infants. And, because the fame went, ‘that they detracted much from the majesty of the Scripture canon, contained in the books of the Old and New Testament,’ he proveth the divine authority of every book in particular to them, one after another, reckoning no more than are in the Hebrew canon, and specified in S. Jerome’s prologue. He endeth the Old Testament with the book of Esther, (which is otherwhiles counted as an appendix to Nehemiah.) And, after all the authentic Scriptures of that Testament, though he addeth those ‘other six, of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees, as books very useful and commendable in the Church,’ yet he saith expressly of them, ‘that they are not to be placed in the same sublime and equal dignity with the rest,’ that he had mentioned before; thereby plainly distinguishing between the Divine canon of Scripture-books, and the Ecclesiastical thereunto annexed for the use and benefit of the Church. And, (that which is remarkable,) he maketh this distinction between them even in that very place, where he bringeth in the second book of the Maccabees as a testimony against the Petrobusians, upon the point then in controversy about prayers for the dead: which he would never have done, but that he knew, full well, the Church in his time held none of those books to be canonical Scripture. But Pope Pius the Fourth, and his new workmen in the Church at Trent, have broken down this partition wall between the Divine and the Ecclesiastical canon, which all ages kept up before them.”
“Evangelium enim toti Veteri Instrumento testimonium dat, et ejus insuper auctoritatibus ea ipsa, quae praedicat, confirmat. Nonne Christus in Evangelio auctoritatem Veteris Testamenti sua auctoritate firmavit, quando post resurrectionem discipulis omnibus apparens dixit: Oportebat impleri omnia quae scripta sunt in lege Moysi, et prophetis et psalmis de me? Nonne eamdem indissolubili vinculo confirmavit, quando eisdem discipulis suis aperuit sensum, ut intelligerent Scripturas? Nonne eamdem confirmavit, quando duobus discipulis in Emmaus euntibus dixit: O stulti et tardi corde ad credendum in omnibus quae locuti sunt prophetae! Et quid ultra exigetis? An non sufficit vobis tanta tamque clara auctoritas qua Christus legi Moysi, qua prophetis, qua psalmis, non confuse, sed distincte testimonium perhibuit, quando primo legis, deinde prophetarum, ad ultimum psalmorum scripta de se, et in se impleri oportuisse docuit? Sed licet, quod praemisi, ad Veteris Scripturae auctoritatem confirmandam plene sufficiat, profero tamen de eodem, cui creditis, Evangelio, quamvis ex superabundanti sigillatim testimonia divinis libris attestantia, quibus auditis non solum eos divinos credatis, sed insuper vos de ipsis vel in aliquo dubitasse erubescatis. Et, ut a capite eorumdem sacrorum librorum incipiam, recolite si non meministis, libro Geneseos...Exodum...Venite dehinc et ad Leviticum...Inde ad librum Numeri...Accedite et ad ultimum Pentateuchi, hoc est legis Mosaicae librum, qui Deuteronomium, id est secunda lex...Videtis adhuc non esse repudiandos libros, quos sic Christus approbat; non esse mendaces vel apocryphos, de quibus Veritas testimonium profert; non esse abjiciendos, de quibus verba sua ipsum Verbum aeternum, ipsa Dei Sapientia communit? Sequantur post hos et alii divini et prophetici libri, quorum primus est ille qui dicitur Jesu Nave, cui auctoritatem dat ipsum et proximum quod ab Evangelio auctoritatem meruit, Deuteronomium...Sequitur hunc Judicum liber, quem canonicum facit proximus, et praecedens eum, de quo egimus, liber, qui supra scriptis testimoniis jam de Canone esse probatus est...Quod si et Apostolus consulatur, cujus verbis omnibus vos fidem integram dare, sicut supra probatum est, necessitas ipsa compellit, audietis eum in Epistola ad Hebraeos inter alios Patres, fidem Judicum istorum praedicantem, et eidem libro auctoritatem canonicam dantem, cum dicit: Et quid adhuc dicam? Deficiet enim me tempus enarrantem de Gedeon, Barach, Samson, Jephte, qui certe, antequam reges Judaeis praeessent, eisdem Judaeis non regum, sed judicum nomine praefuerunt. Dehinc parvus, sed ab ipso Evangelio confirmatus liber Ruth sequitur, sicut in genealogia legitur Salvatoris...Booz inquit, genuit Obeth ex Ruth. Quae cum alienigena esset, qualiter viro Judaeo juncta sit, liber tantum ille exponit, qui, sicut dictum est, canonicam auctoritatem ab Evangelio meruit. Hinc ad Samuelis et Regum libros stylus festinet, et credentibus pariter atque incredulis, eos non tantum prophetica, sed et evangelica auctoritate firmissime subnixos esse demonstret...Ecce ista omnia de libris Regum veritas protulit, et idcirco eos veraces esse ostendit. Currat inde sermo ad prophetas, ac primo evangelico prophetae Isaiae ipsum Evangelium testimonium ferat...Sequitur Jeremias, quem vere prophetam et cujus verba ut prophetica suscipienda esse Evangelium non tacet...Ezechielem etiam canonicum apostolica Pauli verba faciunt, qui in Epistola secunda ad Corinthios ex eodem propheta introducit Deum loquentem...Danielem quoque inter prophetas vos suscipere, ejusque scripta esse prophetica negare, eadem vos et saepe nominata evangelica auctoritas cogit: Cum, inquit Christus in Evangelio, videritis abominationem desolationis quae dicta est a Daniele propheta, stantem in loco sancto, qui legit, intelligat)...Post hos magnos et velut principales prophetas, procedamus simul et ad XII qui minores dicuntur, non inferiori auctoritate, sed librorum quantitate, et universos non simul, neque confuse, sed sigillatim et distincte canonicos esse probemus... Osee... Joel... Amos... Abdia... Jona... Michaeae... Nahum... Habacuc... Sophonia.... Aggaeo... Zachariam... Ultimus in ordine duodecim prophetarum sed auctoritate non inferior, Malachias sequitur… Hinc ad Job...Jam vero psalmorum auctoritatem...Et de libris Salomonis (Libris vero ejus, hoc est Proverbiis, Ecclesiasti, Carminibus, id est Canticis canticorum)...Libro quoque illi, qui Hebraice Dabrehaiamin, Graece Paralipomenon...Esdrae etiam volumen...Ultimus in agiographis, hoc est sanctae Scripturae libris, sequitur liber Esther, cui auctoritatem aliorum agiographorum auctoritas confert. Si enim illi ab Hebraica veritate originem trahentes hunc socium, et paris auctoritatis in eodem Hebraico Canone habuerunt, sequitur, quia nullo eorum librorum excepto, omnes pari modo suscipi debuerunt. Sed non solum Christianis, sed et ipsis Judaicis litteris attestantibus, omnes juxta suprascriptum ordinem libri, a libro Job usque ad hunc, de quo agitur, librum Esther, eo scilicet non excluso, sed addito, paris auctoritatis sunt. Igitur absque distinctione aliqua, omnes aequaliter suscipi debuerunt. Quod quia ita est, cum Christus, apostoli et prophetae auctoritatem praecedentibus, et huic libro paribus libris suis testimoniis dederint, indubia ratione cogente, huic quoque libro dignitatem similem contulerunt. Restant post hos authenticos sanctae Scripturae libros, sex non reticendi libri Sapientiae, Jesu filii Sirach, Tobiae, Judith, et uterque Machabaeorum liber. Qui etsi ad illam sublimem praecedentium dignitatem pervenire non potuerunt, propter laudabilem tamen et pernecessariam doctrinam, ab Ecclesia suscipi meruerunt. Super quibus vobis commendandis, me laborare opus non est. Nam si Ecclesia alicujus pretii apud vos est, ejus auctoritate aliquid, saltem parum quid, a vobis suscipiendum est. Quod si (sicut Judaeis de Moyse Christus dixit) ejus Ecclesiae non creditis, quomodo verbis meis credetis? Ecce qui non nisi soli Evangelio vos credere dicebatis, jam rogo ut non nisi soli Evangelio credatis. Nam sicut in primis dixi: Si soli Evangelio creditis, necessario toti huic quod auditis, Veteri Instrumento credetis. Fert enim Evangelium omnibus, quos supradixi, testimonium, eisque auctoritatem canonicam dat, cum sermones suos eorum sermonibus confirmat.”
“Praemonstratensian abbot and ecclesiastical writer; b. Harvengt (?), near Mons (Belgium), early 12th century; d. Bonne-Espérance, April 11 (13?), 1183. He received a good classical education, probably at the cathedral school at Cambrai. He entered the monastery of Bonne-Espérance and in 1130 was made prior under the first abbot, Odo. […] In 1158 he succeeded Odo as abbot. Under Philip's rule the abbey prospered, the collection of manuscripts continued, and intellectual activity among the monks flourished. His writings reveal a vast knowledge of the ancient classics, the Bible, and the writings of the Church Fathers. He stands as a distinguished representative of prescholastic Augustinian philosophy. Many of his works were written for the education and inspiration of his own monks. ”
“Philip adhered to the authority of the Hebrew canon and rejected the Apocrypha from canonical status. ”
- William Webster, The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha, Part 3: From Jerome to the Reformation, link: https://christiantruth.com/articles/apocrypha3/
“Sequitur in foliolis: Aiunt libri Hebraei Salomonem quinquies tractum fuisse per plateas civitatis, poenitentiae causa. Item aiunt eum venisse in templum quod aedificaverat cum quinque virgis, et dedit eas legisperitis ut verberaretur ab illis. Qui communi accepto consilio dixerunt, quod in unctum Domini non mitterent manum. Inde frustratus ab illis, a se ipso est depositus de regno. Haec in foliolis. Omnes quidem Scripturas quae apud Hebraeos in canone continentur, Hieronymus de Hebraeo transtulit in Latinum, in quibus non est invenire quod Salomon poenitentiae causa per plateas civitatis tractus fuerit vel legisperitis virgas ad se verberandum praebuerit. Reliquae autem Scripturae quae apud illos sunt, apocryphae sunt, quarum auctoritas non est idonea ad ea quae in contentionem venerint roboranda. Unde et Jesu filii Syrac liber, et Judith, et Tobiae, et primus Machabaeorum qui apud illos sunt, quia in canone eorum non habentur ab ipsis inter apocrypha computantur. Si quos autem alios libros dicunt se habere quos poenitentiam Salomonis asserant continere, non est his libris credendum, cum ex ipsorum ore Judaeorum tale testimonium proferatur, ut quidquid non est in canone, dignum fide nequaquam habeatur. Denique Josephus Judaicae scriptor antiquitatis tale asserit se legisse, nec didicit ex Scriptura, sive canonica, sive apocrypha Salomonem poenituisse. Unde manifeste colligitur quia non est a Judaeis alienum mentiri; sed peculiare satis, et domesticum est eis vel negare quod verum est, vel affirmare quod falsum est. Propter quod et Hieronymus a Sophronio compulsus est psalmos Davidicos juxta Hebraicam transferre veritatem, quia videlicet cum Sophronius cum quodam Hebraeo disputaret, et quaedam adversus eum testimonia de psalmis juxta Septuaginta interpretes proferret: Hebraeus garriens et illudens illi Hebraicas litteras nescienti per singula pene verba, dicebat in Hebraico vel non haberi quod habebatur, vel haberi quod non habebatur. Sequitur in foliolis: Verba Salomonis postquam sponte amiserat regnum scribentis Ecclesiasticum (cap. XLVII): Salomon imperavit in diebus pacis cui subjecit Deus omnes hostes ut conderet domum in nomine ipsius, et caetera quae in eodem capitulo subsequuntur. Ecclesiasticum Salomon non scripsit sicut Augustinus in decimo septimo libro De civitate Dei et ante Augustinum multis in locis Hieronymus dixit. Hunc quidem librum Hieronymus, ut ait, Hebraicum reperit, non Ecclesiasticum ut apud Latinos sed Parabolas praenotatum. Cui, ut ait, juncti erant duo alii, Ecclesiastes et Cantica canticorum, ut scriptorum eorum similitudinem, Salomonis, non solum librorum numero sed et materiarum genere coaequaret. Propter hanc itaque eloquii similitudinem, ut Salomonis Ecclesiasticus diceretur, apud imperitos consuetudo obtinuit, sed antiquiores, et sapientiores dicunt eum esse Jesus filii Syrac, qui sicut longe superius dictum est, tempore Simonis summi pontificis fuit.”
- Philip of Harvengt, Responsio De Damnatione Salamonis. Patrologia Latina 203:659.
“Radulphus was a tenth century theologian. In his commentary on Leviticus, he stated that the books of Tobit, Judith and Maccabees were useful for reading in the Church, but were not considered to be authoritative since they were not considered canonical.”
- William Webster, The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha, Part 3: From Jerome to the Reformation, link: https://christiantruth.com/articles/apocrypha3/
“In the tenth age we have Radulphus Flaviacensis, a divine of high account, both with Trithemius and Sixtus Senensis, for his abilities in all kind of learning, but specially for his knowledge of the Holy Scriptures; who, in his Commentary upon Leviticus, speaking of the historical books of the Old Testament that are of absolute and perfect authority in the Church, maketh an express exception against the books of Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees, as being none of that number, but belonging to an inferior sort of books, that were of a lesser and imperfect authority. Nor will it be any argument either against him or us, if it should be objected, that in the same place he mentioneth the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus to be written in the like style with the Proverbs and the Canticles; for the like style makes them not of the like authority, no more than the histories of Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees, made them authentic or canonical histories of the Old Testament.”
- Bp. John Cosin, A Scholastical History of the Canon of Holy Scripture, OXFORD: John Henry Parker, Chapter XII.
“In sacra Scriptura species dictionis quatuor sunt: historica, prophetica, prouerbialis, & simpliciter docens. Historia est praeteritarum rerum narratio, ut in quinque libris Moysi. In quibus licet res de quibus agitur, plenae sint figuris: historialiter tamen lagislator ea vel à Domino iussa , vel à se & à populo illo completa esse pronunciat. Item Iesu Naue liber, Iudicum, Ruth, Regum , Paralipomenon, Ezras, Esther, quatuor Euangelica , Actus Apostolorum, ad diuinam historiam pertinent. Nam Thobias, Iudith & Machabaeorum, quamuis ad instructionem Ecclesiae legantur, perfectam tamen non habent autoritatem. Prophetica locutio est, cum futura praedicuntur. Ista in Psalmis reperitur; Isaia, Ieremia, Iezechiele, Daniele, duodecim Prophetis. Haec plano sermone nonnulla pronunciat, ut est illud Isaiae: Ecce virgo concipiet, & pariet filium. In quam plurimis prouerbiali utitur, ut idem de eadem re: Exiet virga de radice esse,& flos de radice eius ascendet. Prouerbialis species est figurata locutio, aliud sonans & aliud sentiens, & dt moribus tractans. Nam & prophetiae (ut diximus) hanc sibi saepe assumunt: sed tamen praecipuae morali doctrinae, asscribitur. Haec in prouerbiis Salomonis accipitur, in Canticis Canticorum, in Sapientia, in Ecclesiastico , Iob autem pàrtim hisoricus, partim propheticus, partim vero prouerbialis inuenitur. Ecclesiastes quoq; prouerbialis in parte; sed in maiori simplicê doctrinam prosequitur. Simplex doctrina est, quae de fide ac moribus simpliciter docet”
- Radvlphi Flaviacensis, Leuiticum Moysi, Liber Decimusquartus, Praefatio.
“Abbot of Fulda, Archbishop of Mainz, celebrated theological and pedagogical writer of the ninth century, born at Mainz about 776 (784?); died at Winkel (Vinicellum) near Mainz on 4 February, 856. He took vows at an early age in the Benedictine monastery of Fulda, and was ordained deacon in 801. A year later he went to Tours to study theology and the liberal arts, under Alcuin. He endeared himself to his aged master, and received from him the surname of Maurus in memory of the favourite disciple of St. Benedict. After a year of study he was recalled by his abbot, became teacher and, later, head-master of the monastic school of Fulda. His fame as teacher spread over Europe, and Fulda became the most celebrated seat of learning in the Frankish Empire. In 814 he was ordained priest. […] In 822 Rabanus was elected abbot, and during his reign the monastery enjoyed its greatest prosperity. He completed the new buildings that had been begun by his predecessor; erected more than thirty churches and oratories; enriched the abbey church with artistic mosaics, tapestry, baldachina, reliquaries, and other costly ornaments; provided for the instruction of the laity by preaching and by increasing the number of priests in country towns; procured numerous books for the library, and in many other ways advanced the spiritual, intellectual and temporal welfare of Fulda and its dependencies. […] In 845 he was reconciled with the king and in 847 succeeded Otgar as Archbishop of Mainz. His consecration took place on 26 June. He held three provincial synods. […] Mabillon and the Bollandists style him "Blessed", and his feast is celebrated in the dioceses of Fulda, Mainz, and Limburg on 4 February. He was buried in the monastery of St. Alban at Mainz, but his relics were transferred to Halle by Archbishop Albrecht of Brandenburg. Rabanus was probably the most learned man of his age. In Scriptural and patristic knowledge he had no equal, and was thoroughly conversant with canon law and liturgy. His literary activity extended over the entire field of sacred and profane learning as then understood. Still, he cannot be called a pioneer, either as an educator or a writer, for he followed in the beaten track of his learned predecessors. […] Most of his works are exegetical. His commentaries, which include nearly all the books of the Old Testament, as well as the Gospel of St. Matthew and the Pauline Epistles — a commentary on St. John is probably spurious — are based chiefly on the exegetical writings of St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St. Gregory the Great, St. Isidore of Seville, Origen, St. Ambrose, and St. Bede.”
“The NT canon = the usual list of 27 books, first attested by Athanasius, Epistle 39. No surprises.
The OT canon = the Jewish canon + Tobit, Judith, 1–2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach). And the books of Daniel and Esther no doubt include the deuterocanonical additions.
There is no mention of Baruch, which is the other deuterocanonical book accepted at the Roman Catholic Council of Trent. During Rabanus' days, Jerome's translation of Jeremiah was becoming dominant, so it is possible—I would say likely—that Rabanus read an edition of Jeremiah without Baruch. Of course, the edition of Theodulf did include Baruch, but the edition of Alcuin did not. […] In this regard, it is interesting that Rabanus separates Lamentations from Jeremiah, putting it in the poetry section rather than the prophets section.
Rabanus says there are 45 OT books. Roman Catholics today count 46, but if you take away Baruch, you get the 45 of Rabanus. Augustine had counted 44 books, but he didn't name Lamentations, no doubt because he considered it a part of the book of Jeremiah. (Augustine probably also considered Baruch a part of Jeremiah.)
The next chapter (2.54) covers the authorship of the canonical books, and contains several interesting comments.”
Pronuntiantur autem lectiones in Christi ecclesiis de Scripturis sanctis. Constat autem eadem sacra Scriptura ex veteri lege et nova. Vetus lex illa est, quae data est primum Iudaeis per Moysen et prophetas, quae dicitur Vetus Testamentum. Testamentum autem dicitur, quia idoneis testibus, utique a prophetis scriptum est atque signatum. Nova vero lex Evangelium est, quod dicitur Novum Testamentum, quod per ipsum Filium Dei Christum et per suos apostolos dedit. Illa lex vetus velut radix est, haec nova velut fructus ex radice. Ex lege enim venitur ad Evangelium. Siquidem Christus, qui hic manifestatus est, ante in lege praedictus est, immo ipse locutus in prophetis, sicut scriptum est: 'Qui loquebar, ecce adsum', legem praemittens velut infantibus paedagogum, Evangelium vero perfectum vitae magisterium iam adultis omnibus praestans. Ideo in illa operantibus bona terrae promittebantur, hic vero sub gratia ex fide viventibus regnum caeleste tribuitur. Evangelium autem dicitur bonum nuntium, et re vera bonum nuntium, ut qui susceperint filii Dei vocentur. Hi sunt ergo libri Veteris Testamenti, quos ob amorem doctrinae et pietatis legendos recipiendosque Ecclesiarum principes tradiderunt. Primi namque legis, id est Moysi, libri quinque sunt: Genesis, Exodi, Levitici, Numeri, Deuteronomium. Hos secuntur historici libri sedecim, Iesu Nave scilicet et Iudicum libri singuli, sive Ruth, Regum etiam libri quatuor, Paralipomenon duo, Tobii quoque et Hesther et Iudith singuli, Aezrae duo et duo Machabaeorum. Super hos prophetici libri sedecim sunt: Isaias, Hieremias, Ezechiel et Daniel libri singuli, Duodecim quoque prophetarum libri singuli; et haec quidem prophetica sunt. Post haec versuum octo libri habentur, qui diverso apud Hebraeos metro scribuntur, id est: Job liber, et liber Psalmorum et Proverbiorum et Ecclesiastes et Cantica canticorum sive Sapientia et Ecclesiasticus, Lamentationesque Hieremiae. Sic quoque complentur libri Veteris Testamenti quadraginta quinque. Novi autem Testamenti primum quatuor Evangelia sunt, Matthaei, Marci, Lucae, Iohannis. Hos quattuordecim Pauli apostoli epistolae sequuntur, quibus etiam subiunctae sunt septem catholicae epistolae: Iacobi, Petri, Iohannis et Iudae; Actus quoque duodecim Apostolorum, quorum omnium signaculum est Apocalypsis Iohannis, quod est revelatio Iesu Christi, qui omnes libros et tempore concludit et ordine. Hi sunt libri canonici septuaginta duo, et ob hoc Moyses septuaginta elegit presbiteros qui prophetarent; ob hoc et Iesus, Dominus noster, septuaginta duos discipulos praedicare mandavit. Et quoniam septuaginta duae linguae in hoc mundo erant diffusae, congrue providit Spiritus sanctus, ut tot libri essent, quot nationes, quibus populi et gentes ad perficiendam fidei gratiam aedifcarentur.”
“Theologian, native of Scotland, but the date and place of his birth are unknown; d. 1173 and was commemorated on 10 March in the necrology of the abbey. He was professed at the monastery of St. Victor under the first Abbot Gilduin (d. 1155) and was a disciple of the great mystic Hugo whose principles and methods he adopted and elaborated. His career was strictly monastic, and his relations with the outer world were few and slight. He was sub-prior of the monastery in 1159, and subsequently became prior. […] His reputation as a theologian extended far beyond the precincts of his monastery, and copies of his writings were eagerly sought by other religious houses. Exclusively a theologian, unlike Hugo, he appears to have had no interest in philosophy, and took no part in the acute philosophical controversies of his time; but, like all the School of St. Victor, he was willing to avail himself of the didactic and constructive methods in theology which had been introduced by Abelard. […] His works fall into the three classes of dogmatic, mystical, and exegetical. In the first, the most important is the treatise in six books on the Trinity, with the supplement on the attributes of the Three Persons, and the treatise on the Incarnate Word. But greater interest now belongs to his mystical theology, which is mainly contained in the two books on mystical contemplation, entitled respectively "Benjamin Minor" and "Benjamin Major", and the allegorical treatise on the Tabernacle.”
“Richard, a native of Scotland, was a disciple of Hugh of St. Victor and eventually prior of the monastery. He died in A.D. 1155. He was a highly influential theologian. He shared the same opinion on the canon as that documented by Hugh. He listed the canonical Old Testament books according to the Hebrew rendering at twenty-four in number and stated that the Apocryphal books of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith and the Maccabees, though authorized for reading in the Church, were not received as canonical.”
“Contemporary to him [i.e. - Hugo de S. Victore] was Richardus de S. Victore, a Scottish-man, and a Canon Regular in the same abbey of S. Victor’s at Paris, where he was sometimes likewise the Prior among them. Many learned and excellent writings of his are extant, and among the rest his Collections, or Four Books of Exceptions, wherein he followeth his fellow Hugo for the number of the canonical books of Scripture in all things,—adding with him, that the others of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees, had not the authority of the canon, though they were privileged to be read in the Church: which is the same thing, that we say still in our [Anglican] Articles of Religion. S. Bernard giveth us no particular catalogue of the Scriptures in all his works: but he lived in great amity and unity with these three last authors; and we may justly presume, that neither he, nor any doctor of the Church in his time, was of other mind.”
“Omnis divina Scriptura in duobus Testamentis continetur, Veteri videlicet et Novo. Utrumque Testamentum tribus ordinibus distinguitur, Vetus Testamentum continet legem, et prophetas et agiographos. Novum autem: Evangelia, Apostolos, Patres. Primus ordo Veteris Testamenti, id est, lex quam Hebraei Torath nominant, Pentateuchum, id est quinque libros Moysi continet hoc ordine: Primus est Bresith, id est Genesis; secundus Hessesmot, id est Exodus; tertius Vagethra, qui est Leviticus; quartus Vagedaber, qui est Numeri; quintus Adabarim, qui est Deuteronomion. Secundus ordo est Prophetarum. Hic continet octo volumina: Primum, Josue Hennum, id est filium, Num, qui et Josue, et Jesus Nave, et Jesus nuncupatur; secundum, Soptim, qui est liber Judicum; tertium, Samuel, qui est primus et secundus Regum; quartum, Malachim, qui est tertius et quartus Regum; quintum, Isaiam; sextum, Jeremiam; septimum, Ezechielem; octavum, Thareastra, qui est liber duodecim prophetarum. Tertius ordo est agiographorum. Hic continet novem libros. Primus est Job; secundus Psalterium; tertius Maslot, qui Graece Parabolae, Latine Proverbia sonat; quartus Celeth, qui est Ecclesiastes; quintus Sira sirim, id est Cantica canticorum; sextus Daniel; septimus Dabreniamin, qui est Paralipomenon; octavus Esdras; nonus Esther. Omnes vero numero viginti quatuor. Sunt praeterea et alii libri, ut Sapientia Salomonis, liber Jesu filii Sirach, et liber Judith, et Tobias, liber Machabaeorum, qui leguntur quidem, sed non scribuntur in Canone.”
- Richard of St. Victor, Tractatus Exceptionum: Qui continet originem et discretionem artium, situmque terrarum, et summam historiarum; distinctus in quatuor libros. Book II, CAP. IX. De duobus Testamentis. P.L. 177:193.
ca 1075–1129. Low Countries and Germany. Benedictine. Oblate (ca 1082) and then monk (ca 1091) of the Abbey of St. Laurent in Liège, and priest (1108), before being exiled to Siegburg and becoming Abbot of St. Heribert at Deutz, oppo- site Cologne (1120). An important and proliic theologian in various genres, whose historical works include biographies of saints and a descrip- tion of the 1128 ire at Deutz. His reputation as a chronicler is based on the now discredited view that he composed the Chronicon Sancti Laurentii Leodiensis. However he did write a Libellus (now lost), recounting the history of St. Laurent from its origins until 1095, the principal sources of which would have been → Anselm of Liège and → Sigebert of Gembloux.”
Today we become acquainted with another 12th-century Benedictine monk. His name is Rupert of Deutz, a city near Cologne, home to a famous monastery. Rupert himself speaks of his own life in one of his most important works entitled The Glory and Honour of the Son of Man [De gloria et honore filii hominis super Matthaeum],which is a commentary on part of the Gospel according to Matthew. While still a boy he was received at the Benedictine Monastery of St Laurence at Lieges as an "oblate", in accordance with the custom at that time of entrusting one of the sons to the monks for his education, intending to make him a gift to God. Rupert always loved monastic life. He quickly learned Latin in order to study the Bible and to enjoy the liturgical celebrations. He distinguished himself for his moral rectitude, straight as a die, and his strong attachment to the See of St Peter. Rupert's time was marked by disputes between the Papacy and the Empire, because of the so-called "Investiture Controversy" with which — as I have mentioned in other Catecheses — the Papacy wished to prevent the appointment of Bishops and the exercise of their jurisdiction from depending on the civil authorities who were certainly not guided by pastoral reasons but for the most part by political and financial considerations. Bishop Otbert of Lièges resisted the Pope's directives and exiled Berengarius, Abbot of the Monastery of St Laurence, because of his fidelity to the Pontiff. It was in this monastery that Rupert lived. He did not hesitate to follow his Abbot into exile and only when Bishop Otbert returned to communion with the Pope did he return to Liège and agree to become a priest. Until that moment, in fact, he had avoided receiving ordination from a Bishop in dissent with the Pope. Rupert teaches us that when controversies arise in the Church the reference to the Petrine ministry guarantees fidelity to sound doctrine and is a source of serenity and inner freedom. After the dispute with Otbert Rupert was obliged to leave his monastery again twice. In 1116 his adversaries even wanted to take him to court. Although he was acquitted of every accusation, Rupert preferred to go for a while to Siegburg; but since on his return to the monastery in Liege the disputes had not yet ceased, he decided to settle definitively in Germany. In 1120 he was appointed Abbot of Deutz where, except for making a pilgrimage to Rome in 1124, he lived until 1129, the year of his death. A fertile writer, Rupert left numerous works, still today of great interest because he played an active part in various important theological discussions of his time. […] Christ is always the centre of the exegetic explanations provided by Rupert in his commentaries on the Books of the Bible, to which he dedicated himself with great diligence and passion. […] Thus, he rediscovers a wonderful unity in all the events of the history of salvation, from the creation until the final consummation of time: "All Scripture", he says, "is one book, which aspires to the same end (the divine Word); which comes from one God and was written by one Spirit" (De glorificatione Trinitatis et procesione Sancti spiritus I, V, PL 169, 18). […] Dear friends, from these rapid allusions we realize that Rupert was a fervent theologian endowed with great depth. Like all the representatives of monastic theology, he was able to combine rational study of the mysteries of faith with prayer and contemplation, which he considered the summit of all knowledge of God.”
“In the Churches of Germany, at this time, was Rupert abbot of Tuits, a very grave and learned author; and, though Cardinal Bellarmine, and some other later writers in the Church of Rome, lay the common aspersion of an heretical or erroneous doctor upon him, because he agreeth not with them in their new doctrine of transubstantiation in the Sacrament, yet Pererius more ingenuously acknowledgeth and commendeth him for a good Catholic. Of the book of Wisdom this Rupertus writeth expressly, ‘that it is not in the canon;’ and, to a sentence brought out of that book, he answereth plainly, ‘that it is no canonical Scripture.’ By which answer the books of Tobit and Judith, and the Son of Sirach, and the Maccabees, are likewise excluded; for they belong no more to the authentic canon of the Bible, than the book of Wisdom doth. Again, in his discourse upon the twenty-four Elders in the Revelation, though he applieth them to the twelve Judges of Israel, and the twelve Apostles of Christ, yet there he approveth of the other interpretation, (often before alleged out of the ancient Fathers,) which herein alludeth to the twenty-four books of the Old Testament. And how could he approve of that number, if that number of books had been defective, or the new Roman Catalogue held then to be canonical?”
“De quo utrum aliquando per Christum misericordiam consecutus sit, per quam salvati et liberati sumus, hodieque nonnulli dissertant, pro eo quia videlicet nusquam canonica Scriptura testatur illum egisse poenitentiam. In eo duntaxat qui inscribitur liber Sapientiae, de illo sic scriptum est: Haec (subauditur sapientia) illum, qui primus formatus est a Deo, pater orbis terrarum: cum solus esset creatus, custodivit, eduxit illum a delicto suo, et dedit illi virtutem continendi omnia. Verum haec Scriptura neque de canone est; neque de canonica Scriptura sumpta est sententia haec, quomodo caetera quae de patribus in eodem libro cum laude sapientiae commemorantur; verbi gratia, haec venditum justum, subaudis Joseph, non dereliquit, et reliqua.”
- Rupert of Deutz, Commentariorum In Genesim, Book III, Cap. 31. Patrologia Latina 167:318A-318B.
“In his commentary on the Book of Revelation, in his remarks on the twenty-four elders, he [Rupert of Deutz] applied that number to the books of the Old Testament canon, as did Primasius, Haymo of Halberstadt and Ambrose of Autpert before him.”
“Et in circuitu sedis sedilia viginti quatuor, et super thronos viginti quatuor seniores sedentes circumamicti vestimentis albis, et in capitibus eorum coronae aureae. Sicut in sede regnum Dei, sic in sedilibus judiciariam sanctorum intelligimus potestatem, qua scriptum est: Judicabunt sancti nationes. Quare autem numero viginti quatuor ostenduntur seniores in sedilibus sedentes? Super hoc diversa Patrum expositio est. Nam alii (quorum beatus Hieronymus unus et notissimus) libros priscae legis viginti quatuor hic per totidem seniores figuratos intelligi volunt. Alii nonnulli Ecclesiam per geminum Testamentum de patriarchis et apostolis generatam in eisdem senioribus intelligunt, aut certe illos qui perfectionem operis, quae senario numero commendatur, clara Evangelii praedicatione consummant. Nam quater seni viginti quatuor faciunt. Nos autem et hunc et illum sensum non inutilem approbantes, nihilominus tamen de majestate Scripturarum certum aliquid proferre conemur.”
- Commentary of Rupert, Abbot of Deutz, Apocalypsim Joannis Apostoli Commentariorum, Book III, Cap. IV. Patrologia Latina 169:907C-908A
“Nicephorus (Patriarch of Constantinople 806-815) drew up a Chronography reaching from Adam to the year of his death (829), to which he appended a canon catalogue, the origin of which has not been clearly settled, but which may perhaps be located in Jerusalem. Whether it is older that 850 (so Jülicher) remains open to question. It is striking that in the enumeration of the NT books the Revelation of John is not present. The catalogue of the Old and New Testament books is followed by that of the antilegomena (which contains the Revelation of John) and of the apocrypha. Next to each book is the count of its stichoi (lines).”
“There is, however, another important list of the Holy Scriptures which is referred with great probability to Antioch. This is found in a short Compendium of History (Chronographia) compiled by Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople, in which it occurs after the list of the patriarchs of Antioch. To the title of each book is added the number of lines {stichoi) which it contained according to the ancient mode of writing. From this circumstance the list is known as the Stichometry of Nicephorus, but its contents and arrangement show that it must be assigned to a very early date, probably in the 4th century. The books are ranged in three classes, (1) ‘The Divine Scriptures received (or used) in the Church and which have been canonized,’ (2) ‘ Those which are disputed,’ (3) ‘ The Apocryphal.’ To the first class belong all the books of the Hebrew Canon except Esther with the addition of Baruch (22 in all); and all the received books of the New Testament except the Apocalypse. The second class comprises in the Old Testament Maccabees (3), Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the Psalms of Solomon, Esther, Judith, Susanna, Tobit; and in the New Testament: the Apocalypse of John, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Gospel according to the Hebrews. The third class includes among other books Enoch...the Ascension of Moses...and in the New Testament...the Epistles of Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp and the Shepherd.
This Stichometry of Nicephorus appears to have been widely circulated. It was translated into Latin by Anastasius of Rome in an ecclesiastical history, and was combined with the Festal Letter of Athanasius in the Synopsis of Holy Scripture, which commonly passes under the name of that great father. When viewed in connexion with the other catalogues of the biblical books which were sanctioned by the Greek Church, it completes the picture of the confusion which was allowed to remain within it as to the exact limits of the canonical writings.”
“The so-called List of the Sixty Books is found attached to certain manuscripts of the Questions and Responses of Anastasius of Sinai (c. 650) and is probably from about the same time. In it nine books are named as lying ‘outside the sixty.’ Besides the ones shown on the table [i.e.- , Third and Fourth Maccabees are named in this inferior class. After that, there follows a list of disapproved books under the heading ‘apocrypha.’”
“Among other titles which were given to the Bible in the Greek Church was that of ‘The Sixty Books.’ The enumeration which suggested this title has been preserved in a list of the Holy Scriptures which is still found in some ancient MSS. The list is styled ‘Of the Sixty Books and those which are without (i.e. not included in) them.’ It contains the Pentateuch (5) ; the Historical Books (7); the Poetical Books (5); and Ezra (1) ; the Lesser Prophets (12) ; the Greater Prophets (4); the Gospels (4), the Acts(1), the Catholic Epistles (7), the Epistles of St Paul (14). Those which are without the Sixty are [listed in the quotation provided above]. It is possible that the number (sixty) may not always have been made up in the same way but under any circumstances the list is a remarkable monument of the permanence of the doubts entertained from an early time in the Eastern Church as to the canonicity of Esther. The total omission of the Apocalypse is yet more worthy of notice. Nothing could more significantly express the division of opinion about the book than the fact that the author of the Catalogue does not place it among the apocryphal or the acknowledged books. The catalogue which has been just quoted is sometimes ascribed to ANASTASIUS SINAITA, Patriarch of Antioch. The evidence in support of this opinion as to its authorship is wholly untrustworthy ; and though it may possibly have been derived from some Syrian source, it is perhaps more natural to refer its origin to Asia Minor. ”
“And the following writings outside the sixty [canonical books]: The wisdom of Sirach, Maccabees (I), Maccabees (II), Maccabees (III), Maccabees (IV), Esther, Judith, Tobit.
And the following apocryphal (writings): Adam, Enoch, Lamech, The Patriarchs, The Prayer of Joseph, Eldad and Modad, The Testament of Moses, The Assumption of Moses, The Psalms of Solomon, The Revelation of Elias, The Vision of Isaiah, The Revelation of Zephaniah, The Revelation of Zechariah, The Revelation of Ezra, The History of James, The Revelation of Peter, The Circuits and Teachings of the Apostles, The Epistle of Barnabas, The Acts of Paul, The Revelation of Paul, The Teaching of Clement, The Teaching of Ignatius, The Teaching of Polycarp, The Gospel according to Barnabas, The Gospel according to Matthias.”
- Anastasius of Sinai (middle of the Vile), so-called List of Sixty Books.
“Theologian and controversialist, b. at Saffron Waldon, Essex, England, about 1375; d. at Rouen, France, 2 Nov., 1430; from his birthplace he was commonly called Waldensis. He entered the Carmelite Order in London, and pursued his studies partly there and partly at Oxford, where he took degrees, and spent a number of years in teaching, as may be gathered from the titles of his writings (the actual works being for the greater part lost), which embrace the whole of philosophy, Scripture, Canon Law, and theology, that is, a complete academical course. He was well read in the classics and the ecclesiastical writers known at the beginning of the fifteenth century, as is proved by numerous quotations in his own writings… in England he took a prominent part in the prosecution of Wycliffites and Lollards, assisting at the trials of William Tailor (1410), Sir John Oldcastle (1413), William White (1428), preaching at St. Paul’s Cross against Lollardism, and writing copiously on the questions in dispute (‘De religione perfectorum’, ‘De paupertate Christi’, ‘De Corpore Christi’, etc.). The House of Lancaster having chosen Carmelite friars for confessors, an office which included the duties of chaplain, almoner, and secretary and which frequently was rewarded with some small bishopric, Netter succeeded Stephen Patrington as confessor to Henry V and provincial of the Carmelites (1414). Of his numerous works only the ‘Doctrinale antiquitatum fidei eccleaisæ catholicæ’ has permanent value. It is in three parts, the first of which might be termed ‘De vera religione’, the second bears the title ‘De sacramentis adversus Wiclefistas’ etc., and the last ‘De Sacramentalibus’. The first two were presented to the pope, who on 8 August, 1427, expressed his satisfaction, encouraging the author to continue his useful and learned undertaking, and communicating to him the text of the Bull condemning the errors of Wyclif ‘Dudum ab apostolorum’… It is a complete apologia of Catholic dogma and ritual as against the attacks of the Wycliffites, and was largely drawn upon by the controversialists of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries”
“Thomas taught that the Church of his day accepted only twenty-two books of the Old Testament to be of canonical authority. He cited Jerome’s judgment from his prologue to the book of Kings called the Prologus Geleato.”
“Dicendum tamen sicut prius de libris, quod cum Ecclesia jam creverit in perfectum virum, quamuis sit AEQUE POTENS, UT OLIM; non tamen datur ei crescere, ut olim, secundum staturam (a): scilicet, quod tres species habeat, longitudinem, latitudinem, & altitudinem, sive profunditatem; secundum quas tres, etiam ante mortem Joannis Evangelistae, Civitas Ecclesiae describitur esse dimensa. Et hoc aequaliter: & mensus est civitatem (inquit) de arundine aurea per stadia duodecim millia, praefigens scilicet Ecclesiae futurae duodecim volumina in Scriptura & authoritate Canonica, secundum quod recitat super lib. Regum, in prologo galeato, Hieronymus. 'Quomodo (inquit) viginti duo elementa sunt, per quae scribimus hebraice omne quod loquimur, & eorum initiis vox humana comprehenditur; ita viginti duo volumina supputantur, quibus quasi literis & exordiis in Dei doctrina, tenera adhuc & lactens viri justi eruditur infantia. Primus eorum vocatur Bresith, quem nos Genesim dicimus &c.' Haec Hieronymus. Sed hujus Civitatis longitudo, latitudo, & altitudo, aequalia sunt, dicit textus. Ergo sicut secundum latitudinem, quae est charitas, non amplius potest crescere, quam penes Deum & proximum; nec penes altitudinem sive profundum ejus, quae est spes in omnium remuneratorem; quomodo potest augere sibi longitudinem, quae est fides catholica, ultra numerum quatuordecim articulorum contentorum in Symbolo, in uno libro vigintiduorum voluminum sparsim descripto? maxime dicente ibi Spiritu Sancto in conclusione omnis Scripturae Canonicae: 'Qui vult, accipiat aquam vitae gratis. Contestor ego omni audienti verba prophetiae libri hujus: Si quis apposuerit ad haec, apponet Deus super illum plagas scriptas in libro isto, & si quis diminuerit de verbis libri prophetiae hujus, auseret Deus partem ejus de libro vitae'”
- Thomae Waldensis, Doctrinale Fidei Catholicae, Tomus Primus, Articulus Secundus, cap. 2, col. 353. First published in Venice 1757. Republished in 1967 by Gregg Press Limited.
“Fourteenth-century Scholastic philosopher and controversial writer, born at or near the village of Ockham in Surrey, England, about 1280; died probably at Munich, about 1349. He is said to have studied at Merton College, Oxford, and to have had John Duns Scotus for teacher. At an early age he entered the Order of St. Francis. Towards 1310 he went to Paris, where he may have had Scotus once more for a teacher. About 1320 he became a teacher (magister) at the University of Paris. During this portion of his career he composed his works on Aristotelean physics and on logic. In 1323 he resigned his chair at the university in order to devote himself to ecclesiastical politics. […] In philosophy William advocated a reform of Scholasticism both in method and in content. The aim of this reformation movement in general was simplification. This aim he formulated in the celebrated "Law of Parsimony", commonly called "Ockham's Razor": "Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate". With this tendency towards simplification was united a very marked tendency towards skepticism a distrust, namely, of the ability of the human mind to reach certitude in the most important problems of philosophy. Thus, in the process of simplification he denied the existence of intentional species, rejected the distinction between essence and existence, and protested against the Thomistic doctrine of active and passive intellect. His skepticism appears in his doctrine that human reason can prove neither the immortality of the soul nor the existence, unity, and infinity of God. These truths, he teaches, are known to us by Revelation alone. In ethics he is a voluntarist, maintaining that all distinction between right and wrong depends on the will of God. William's best known contribution to Scholastic philosophy is his theory of universals, which is a modified form of Nominalism, more closely allied to Conceptualism than to Nominalism of the extreme type. The universal, he says, has no existence in the world of reality. Real things are known to us by intuitive knowledge, and not by abstraction. The universal is the object of abstractive knowledge. Therefore, the universal concept has for its object, not a reality existing in the world outside us, but an internal representation which is a product of the understanding itself and which "supposes" in the mind, for the things to which the mind attributes it, that is it holds, for the time being, the place of the things which it represents. It is the term of the reflective act of the mind. Hence the universal is not a mere word, as Roscelin taught, nor a sermo, as Abelard held, namely the word as used in the sentence, but the mental substitute for real things, and the term of the reflective process. For this reason Ockham has been called a "Terminist", to distinguish him from Nominalists and Conceptualists. Ockham's attitude towards the established order in the Church and towards the recognized system of philosophy in the academic world of his day was one of protest. He has, indeed, been called "the first Protestant". Nevertheless, he recognized in his polemical writings the authority of the Church in spiritual matters, and did not diminish that authority in any respect.”
“It is easy to find illustrations of the imperfect authority of the Apocrypha. William of Ockham (died ca. 1349) speaks for many when he subordinates the Apocrypha, comparing them to the Patristic writings, and says that they ‘are read for the edification of the people but not for the establishment of doctrine.’”
- Floyd C. Medford, The Apocrypha in the Sixteenth Century: A Summary and Survey, Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church, Vol. 52, No. 4 (December, 1983), pg. 344, link: https://www.jstor.org/stable/42973978
“Secundum Augustinum, ut habetur Dist. Ix in diversis captis, Scriptura divina est litteris et expositionibus omnium episcoporum et aliorum preponenda. Ita ut solis Scriptoribus biblie deferendus sit hic timor et honor, ut non credantur errare in aliquo: quails honor et timor nulli deferendus est post ipsos. Secundum Hieronymum etiam in prologo in libris Proverb. Et Gregorium in Moralibus liber Judith, Tobiae, et Machabeos, Ecclesiasticus, et liber Sapie non sunt recipiendi ad confrimandum aliquid in fide. Dicit enim Hieronymus sicut Gregorius: Judith, (et) Thobie, et Machabeos libros legit quidem eos Ecclesia, sed inter canonicas Scripturas non recipit.”
- Guillelmus de Occam O.F.M., Opera Plurima (Lyon, 1494-1496), Dialogus de Impero et Pontificia Potestate, Liber iii, tractus i, cap. 16.
“Secundum Augustinum, ut habetur Dist. Ix in diversis captis, Scriptura divina est litteris et expositionibus omnium episcoporum et aliorum preponenda. Ita ut solis Scriptoribus biblie deferendus sit hic timor et honor, ut non credantur errare in aliquo: quails honor et timor nulli deferendus est post ipsos. Secundum Hieronymum etiam in prologo in libris Proverb. Et Gregorium in Moralibus liber Judith, Tobiae, et Machabeos, Ecclesiasticus, et liber Sapie non sunt recipiendi ad confrimandum aliquid in fide. Dicit enim Hieronymus sicut Gregorius: Judith, (et) Thobie, et Machabeos libros legit quidem eos Ecclesia, sed inter canonicas Scripturas non recipit.”
- Guillelmus de Occam O.F.M., Opera Plurima (Lyon, 1494-1496), Dialogus de Impero et Pontificia Potestate, Liber iii, tractus i, cap. 16.
“Dominican cardinal, philosopher, theologian, and exegete; born 20 February, 1469 at Gaeta, Italy; died 9 August, 1534 at Rome. He [Cardinal Cajetan] came of noble stock, and in early boyhood was devout and fond of study. Against the will of his parents he entered the Dominican Order before the age of sixteen. As a student of Naples, Bologna, and Padua he was the wonder of his fellow-students and preceptors. As bachelor of theology (19 March, 1492), and afterwards master of students, he began to attract attention by his lectures and writings. Promoted to the chair of metaphysics at the University of Padua, he made a close study of the prevailing Humanism and Philosophism....[Cajetan was] made master of sacred theology, and for several years expounded the "Summa" of St. Thomas, principally at Brescia and Pavia, to which latter chair he had been called by the Duke of Milan, Ludovico Sforza. After two years he resigned and repaired to Milan, whence in 1500 Cardinal Oliviero Caraffa procured his transfer to Rome. In 1501 he was made procurator general of his order and appointed to the chairs of philosophy and exegesis at the Sapienza. On the death of the master general, John Clérée, 1507, Cajetan was named vicar-general of the order, and the next year he was elected to the generalship. With foresight and ability, he devoted his energies to the promotion of religious discipline, emphasizing the study of sacred science as the chief means of attaining the end of the order. His encyclical letters and the acts of chapters promulgated during his term of office bear witness to his lofty ideals and to his unceasing efforts to realize them….He was himself a model of diligence, and it was said of him that he could quote almost the entire "Summa" from memory.…To Clement VII he was the "lamp of the Church", and everywhere in his career, as the theological light of Italy, he was heard with respect and pleasure by cardinals, universities, the clergy, nobility, and people.”
- Volz, John. "Tommaso de Vio Gaetani Cajetan." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 3. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. Link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03145c.htm
“Cajetan wrote a commentary on all the canonical books of the Old Testament which he dedicated to the pope. He stated that the books of the Apocrypha were not canonical in the strict sense, explaining that there were two concepts of the term ‘canonical’ as it applied to the Old Testament. He gave the [above] counsel on how to properly interpret the decrees of the Councils of Hippo and Carthage under Augustine.”
- William Webster, The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha, Part 3: From Jerome to the Reformation, link: https://christiantruth.com/articles/apocrypha3/
“Franciscan, cardinal, and Primate of Spain, born at Torrelaguna in New Castile, 1436; died at Roa, near Valladolid, 1517. He was educated at Alcalá and Salamanca and, having graduated in canon and civil law, went to Rome in 1459 where he practised for some years as a consistorial advocate. Having attracted the notice of Sixtus V, that pope promised him the first vacant benefice in his native province. This proved to be that of Uzeda, which Carillo, Archbishop of Toledo, wished to bestow upon one of his own followers. Ximénez asserted his claim to it and for doing so was imprisoned by the archbishop, first at Uzeda and afterwards in the fortress of Santorcaz. He was released in 1480, after six years' confinement, and transferring to the Diocese of Sigüenza, became grand vicar to Cardinal Gonzalez, the bishop of that see. In 1484 he resigned this office to become a Franciscan of the Observantine Congregation in the Friary of St. John at Toledo. From there, after his profession, he was sent to Salzeda, where he was later elected guardian. In 1492, on the recommendation of Cardinal Mendoza, Archbishop of Toledo, he was appointed confessor to Queen Isabella, which post he accepted on condition that he might still live in his monastery and follow the religious life, only appearing at Court when sent for. About the same time he was elected provincial of his order in Castile, which office he held for three years. In 1495 he was chosen to succeed Mendoza as Archbishop of Toledo, to which post the chancellorship of Castile had been joined by Ferdinand and Isabella. Ximénez refused the dignity out of humility, and persisted in his refusal for six months, only consenting at length to accept the position in obedience to the express command of the pope. As archbishop he continued to live as a simple Franciscan, devoting a large portion of his vast revenues to the relief of the poor and the ransom of captives. […] As chancellor he was obliged to take a prominent part of the affairs of the State, where his prudence and wisdom were of great value to his country. He gained renown also as a patron of learning, and about the year 1504 founded the University of Alcalá, to fill the professorial chairs of which he procured some of the most distinguished scholars from Paris, Bologna, and Salamanca. Such was the esteem in which this new university was held that all the religious orders in Spain, except the Benedictines and Hieronymites, established houses at Alcalá in connection with it. King Ferdinand visited the university in 1514 and highly approved of all that Ximénez had done. In 1502 the archbishop undertook the publication of the first Polyglot Bible, called the Complutesian, Complutum being the Latin name for Alcalá. This Bible had a great influence on subsequent biblical study; it was dedicated to Leo X, and its compilation occupied Ximénez fifteen years, being completed in 1517, only four months before his death, and costing him about £25,000 ($125,000). The restoration of the ancient Mozarabic Rite at Toledo was another of his projects. For its celebration he added, in 1500, a special chapel to his cathedral and established a college of priests to serve it. Later on similar institutions arose at Valladolid and Salamanca; at Toledo its use continues to the present day. […] In his public life he was sternly conscientious, and fearless of the consequences to himself, in the performance of what he thought to be his duty, whilst in private he carried his austerities and mortifications so far as to endanger his health. In morals he was above reproach and most exact in all the observances of his religious state.”
“The Complutensian Polyglot was the first Bible to be printed and published in all its original languages—Greek, Hebrews, and Chaldean, as well as the Latin Vulgate—and it is one of the great achievements both of early printing and of humanist scholarship. The project of the Cardinal of Spain, Francisco Ximenes de Cisneros, it was printed at Alcala (in latin, Complutum) in six folio volumes in the years 1514 to 1517 but was not actually published until 1522. Ximenes dedicated the work to Pope Leo X.
“At the dawn of the Reformation the great Romanist scholars remained faithful to the judgment of the Canon which Jerome had followed in his translation. And Cardinal Ximenes in the preface to his magnificent Polyglott Biblia Complutensia-the lasting monument of the University which he founded at Complutum or Alcala, and the great glory of the Spanish press-separates the Apocrypha from the Canonical books. The books, he writes, which are without the Canon, which the Church receives rather for the edification of the people than for the establishment of doctrine, are given only in Greek, but with a double translation.”
“At vero libri extra canonem: quos Ecclesia potius ad aedificationem populi quam ad autoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam recipit. Graecam tamen habent scripturam: sed cum duplici latina interpretatione: altera beati Hieronymi: altera interlineari de verbo ad verbum: eo modo quo in caeteris. ”
“For the rest, it is not yet agreed in what spirit the Church now holds in public use books which the ancients with great consent reckoned among the Apocrypha. Whatever the authority of the Church has ought to do…Yet it is of great moment to know in what spirit the Church approves anything. For allowing that it assigns equal authority to the Hebrew Canon and the Four Gospels, it assuredly does not wish Judith, Tobit and Wisdom to have the same weight as the Pentateuch.”
“Caeterum quo animo nunc Ecclesia habet in usu publico, quae veteres magno consensu numerabant inter Apocrypha, nondum satis constat. Nos sane quicquid Ecclesiastica comprobarit autoritas, simpliciter, ut Christiano dignum est amplectimur. -- Magnis certe refert, quid quo animo comprobet Ecclesia. Ut enim parem autoritatem tribuas Hebraeorum voluminibus, et 4 Evangeliis: certe non vult idem esse pondus Judith, Tobiae, et Sap. libris, quos Moysi Pentateucho. ”
“That last line, in the Toronto translation, goes: ‘the Spirit of the church knows whether or not the church has accepted these books as of equal authority with the others.’ By the way, you'll notice that Erasmus omitted Esther from the canon and included it in this dubious category. That's sort of surprising, since Jerome includes Esther in the canon, and Erasmus was such a devotee of Jerome's. Athanasius (and some other Fathers) omit Esther form the canon and includes it in a list of books to be read by catechumens.
It's interesting to think about Erasmus composing this passage in 1533, after Karlstadt had published his book on the canon, when these issues were very much in the air. Erasmus had already been censured in the mid-1520s by the theological faculty of Paris for his reckless (in their view) statements on the NT books of Hebrews, James, and 2Peter. This later passage from 1533 seems to be treading pretty carefully, leaving the matter open to the church to decide, which Erasmus apparently thinks hasn't happened yet. For those loyal to Rome in the early sixteenth century, the status of the deuterocanonical literature remained an open question. Only in 1546 did the Council of Trent declare them all fully canonical. Even then, there seems to have been substantial debate at the Council and the delegates apparently did not intend their pronouncement to settle the matter (according to O'Malley, pp. 91–92). It looks like what had been intended as a working position became established law.”
“Intra hunc numerum conclusit priscorum autoritas Veteris Testamenti volumina, de quorum fide nephas esset dubitare. Nunc vero receptus est in usum ecclesiasticum et Sapientiae liber, quem quidam suspicantur esse Philonis Iudaei, et alius qui dicitur Ecclesiasticus, quem putant esse Iesu filii Sirach. Receptus est et liber Thobiae, et Iudith, et Hester, et Macchabeorum libri duo. Receptae sunt et duae historiae quae Danieli adnexae sunt, altera de Susanna, altera de Belo et Dracone, quas Hebraei non habebant. Sed Hieronymus testatur se vertisse ex aeditione Theodotionis. Caeterum an ecclesia receperit hos libros eadem autoritate que caeteros, novit ecclesiae spiritus.”
“Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples (c. 1450–1536) taught philosophy at the University of Paris from around 1490 to 1508, and then applied his erudition and textual scholarship to biblical studies and religious reform. Lefèvre traveled to Italy in 1491, 1500, and 1507. On his first journey, he sought out Ermolao Barbaro, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Marsilio Ficino, Angelo Poliziano, and other famous humanists. He himself became famous for the many introductions, commentaries, and editions relating to philosophical works he published in Paris. These repackaged the full range of philosophical studies, from his early interests in mathematics and natural magic, to the entire curriculum of university logic, natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and metaphysics.
Early modern scholars, from Francesco Patrizi da Cherso in the sixteenth century to Johann Jacob Brucker in the eighteenth, hailed Lefèvre as a leading humanist, particularly praising his replacement of scholastic questions with humanist eloquence.”
- Oosterhoff, Richard J., "Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2025 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), link: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lefevre-etaples/
“Jacobus Faber Stapulensis was a sixteenth century theologian and Doctor at the University of Paris. In referring to the Apocrypha he followed Jerome in stating that those particular books were not considered part of the canon and consequently did not possess the authority of the canonical Scriptures, though they were useful for the edification of believers.”
“Ecce quomodo connectit Hieronymus Pastorem libro Sapientiae, Ecclesiastico, libro Judithae, et Tobiae, eandem tribuens, ei auctoritatem, quia eandem continent ad aedificationem pietatis virtutem, sed et hos omnes solum nominat Apocryphos, quia de canone non sunt, et in prima supremaque Ecclesiae auctoritate in alia tamen apocryphorum plane demnadorum non sunt; sicut nec liber Henoch, sed in prima apocryphorum nota, et laudabilissima post S. Eloquia significacione.”
- Jacob Faber Stapulensis, Praef in Libri Trium Virorum et Virg. Spiritual.
“Jean Driedo was a sixteenth century theologian and member of the faculty of the Catholic University at Louvain who condemned Luther’s teachings in 1519. He stated that the Apocryphal books were not considered part of the Old Testament canon. The Church used them for the purposes of edification but they did not carry the same authority as the canonical books, which alone were used for the confirmation of the doctrines of the faith.”
“Hieronymus potest sibi ipsi esse contrarius, ut doceat in prologo galeato, libros illos extra canonem inter Hagiographa collocari. Quod si non placeat mêdosum esse codicem, quem nec Erasmus emendauit, dicemus duplicia esse apud Hebræos Hagiographa, sicut & in superioribus diximus, duplicia esse apocrypha. Hagiographa, id est, sanctorum scripta, quæ dam sunt, quorum auctoritas idonea est ad corro borandum ea, quæ sunt fidei: hujus generis sunt Hagiographa in canone Bibliae. Alia vero sunt Hagiographa quorum auctoritas ad assertiones Fidei corroborandas non est idonea, quamvis habeantur vera et sancta, sicut habentur Hieronymi et Augustini scripta, quae vocantur Hagiographa. Et hujus generis apud Hebr. sunt historiae Judith et Tobiae, etiam Ecclesiasticus, et Maccab. primus: quos sane libros quamvis habeant et legant, non tamen inter canonicos libros connumerant, sed inter Apocrypha, non quod falsi sint, sed quod tales sint, quorum occulta origo non claruit toti eorum Synagogae; 3m autem et 4m. Esdr., 2m. Maccab., trium puerorum Hymnum, Susannae, ac Belis Draconisque historias, aut non habent, ant prorsus rejiciunt, et confictas tradunt....Ecclesia tamen Christiana propter auctoritatem veterum quorundam Sanctorum, qui leguntur usi fuisse testimoniis ex hujusmodi historiis, easdem pia fide legit, et non prorsus rejicit, nec contemnit, tametsi non pari auctoritate recipiat illos libros cum Scripturis canonicis.”
- Jean Driedo, De Ecclesiasticis Scripturis et Dogmatibus Libri quator. fol. XXI-XXII.
“Scriptural commentator and preacher, better known by his Latin name FERUS, b. in Swabia, 1497; d. at Mainz, 8 Sept., 1554. At an early age he joined the Franciscan Order. He was educated at Cologne. His application and proficiency to study were very distinguished, and laid the foundation of that extensive acquaintance with Holy Scripture and the Fathers at which he afterwards excelled. At a chapter held in the Convent at Tübingen in 1528, he was appointed professor of rhetoric and belles-lettres, scriptor, and preacher. His sermons in the churches of Mainz soon gained a high reputation for learning and eloquence. Subsequently at a chapter celebrated in the Convent at Mainz in 1540, he was elected definitor of the province and appointed to the arduous post of Domprediger (preacher in the cathedral), which he continued to occupy till his death. By his unflagging zeal and energy he preserved his order and the clergy from the wiles of the Lutherans; and it was principally due to his preaching that Mainz remained steadfast in the Catholic Faith. Not even his enemies disputed his title of being the most learned preacher in Germany in the sixteenth century.”
“In his book, The Examination of Those Who Were to Be Ordained for the Sacred Ministry of the Church, John Ferus listed the books of which he says comprised the Old Testament canon. He included the books of the Apocrypha among that list. In so doing he made a distinction between those that were truly canonical and authoritative and the Apocrypha which he said was not canonical but was useful for private reading in one’s own home.”
“Quae sunt veteris testamenti volumina? Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numerorum liber, Deuteronomium, Josue, Judicum, Ruth, Regum libri iv., Paralipomenon libri ii., Esdrae libri iv., Tobias, Judith, Hester, Job, Psalterium, Proverbia, Ecclesiastes, Cantica Canticorurn, liber Sapientiae, Ecclesiasticus, Esaias, Hieremias, Threni, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, liber Duodecim Prophetarum, Machabaeorum ii. Horum aliqui olim dicebantur Apocryphi, (id est, occulti,) propterea quod domi quidem et privatim, pro suo cujusque animo, fas esset eos legere: in Ecclesia autem publice non recitabantur, nec quisquam eorum auctoritate premebatur.] Sunt (autem hi libri Apocryphi,): 3 et 4 Esdr., Tobias, Judith, liber Sapientiae, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, et Macchabaeorum libri duo. Omnes alii dicuntur canonici, quia sunt irrefutabilis auctoritatis etiam apud Judaeos. Omnes (igitur) libri veteris testamenti numero (sunt) xxxvii., (hoc est,) canonicorum xxviii., Apocryphoruum ix. Olim vero in Ecclesia Apocryphi publice non recitabantur, nec quisquam auctoritate eorum premebatur; sed domi quidem et privatim, pro suo cujusque animo, fas erat illos legere.”
- John Ferus, In Examine Ordinand.: Censur. Diaconandorum.
“Johannes Petreius, a German printer, died in Nuremberg on Mar. 18, 1550; his day and year of birth are unknown. Petreius was the foremost publisher of scientific books in the sixteenth century. The most famous book to emerge from his press was De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (1543) by Nicholas Copernicus, but Petreius also printed books by such important authors as Regiomontanus, Girolamo Cardano, Johannes Schöner, Peter Apian, Witelo, and Ptolemy of Alexandria. When Georg Joachim Rheticus went to visit Copernicus in 1539, he brought several books with him, as presents, including the Petreius editions of Apian’s instrument book and Witelo’s book on optics. The suspicion is that Rheticus was trying to show Copernicus what a fine printer Petreius was, so that Copernicus might choose Petreius as publisher for his own book. And that is exactly how things turned out. A detail from the Regiomontanus book shows the typical Petreius imprint, embellished by a fine example of Petreius' ability to print complicated astronomical diagrams”
“Five years later, in 1527, a scholar-typographer in Nuremberg, Johann Petreis, issued his revision of the Vulgate. Petreius corrected the readings when the manuscripts that he used did not agree with each other. For disagreeing readings he made conjectures from the Hebrew and Greek texts. Consequently, Petreius primarily used the Hebrew original as a means in the text-critical establishment of original readings of the Vulgate.”
“A Dominican, born 1470 at Lucca, Tuscany; died 24 Aug., 1541, at Lyons, one of the leading philologists and Biblicists of his day. At sixteen he took the religious habit at Fiesole, where he studied under the direction of Savonarola and other eminent professors. In acquiring the Oriental languages, then cultivated at Florence, he displayed unwonted quicksightedness, ease, and penetration. His genius, industry, and erudition won him influential friends, among them the Cardinals de'Medici, subsequently Leo X and Clement VII. As a sacred orator his zeal and eloquence kept abreast with his erudition and were as fruitful. Summoned to Rome by Leo X, he taught at the recently opened free school for Oriental languages until his patron's death (1521). […] The merit of his "Veteris et Novi Testamenti nova translatio" (Lyons, 1527) lies in its literal adherence to the Hebrew, which won for it the preference of contemporary rabbis and induced Leo X to assume the expenses of publication. After the pontiff's death these devolved on the author's relatives and friends. Several editions of it, as well as of the monumental "Thesaurus linguæ sanctæ" (Lyons, 1529), were brought out by Protestants as well as Catholics.”
“In listing the canonical books, the Talmud excludes the Apocrypha and is precisely the same in content as that given by Jerome and which is inferred from the writings of Josephus in the first century. This brings us back to Aquila, who, as we have seen, translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek under the auspices of Palestinian Judaism. Therefore he would have followed the traditional canon of the Jews of the twenty two or twenty four books, as expressed by Jerome and the baraita of the Talmudic writings, thereby excluding the Apocrypha. Additionally, there were other Greek versions of the Scriptures which did not include the Apocrypha such as that produced by Theodotion.”
“Although preserved in the Babylonian Talmud, this passage is generally understood as a baraita, that is, a tradition from the tannaitic period, 70 CE-200 CE….It is a very important reference because it clearly identifies the writings that make up the twenty-four book collection of sacred writings for the Jews and assumes a threefold division of the biblical canon.”
- Lee M. McDonald, The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995), p. 76.
“Josephus, born about AD 37, was perhaps the most distinguished and most learned Jew of his day. His father was a priest and his mother was descended from the Maccabean kings. Given the best possible education, he proved to be something of a prodigy…What is particularly interesting about the statement of Josephus is the clear distinction between the canonical books which were completed in the time of Artaxerxes, and those written later which were not considered worthy of like credit ‘because the exact succession of the prophets ceased’. The idea evidently is that the canonical books were either written (or accredited) by the prophets, but that when the prophetical era was over, no more books suitable for the Canon were written…Josephus commits himself to a fairly precise date for the closing of the Canon. Artaxerxes Longimanus reigned for forty years, 465 to 425 BC. Ezra came to Jerusalem in the seventh, and Nehemiah in the twentieth, year of his reign (Ez. 7:1, 8; Ne. 2:1). In addition to Josephus there are several other witnesses who point to the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, with occasionally a reference to the ministries of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, as the time of the collection, completion and recognition of the Old Testament Canon.”
- John Wenham, Christ & the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), pp. 134-136.
“The Jewish canon not only included a clear threefold division of a specific number of books, but their identity was well established as well. Obviously, if Josephus and others could say the canon consisted of twenty-two or twenty-four books they knew which books they were. The question is, would a canon limited to twenty-two or twenty-four books allow for the inclusion of any works of the Apocrypha? The historical facts reveal the answer to be no. To begin with, the specific books that made up the canon of the Hebrew Old Testament can be deduced from Josephus’ comments. His is the earliest extant evidence we possess of the books of the canon. […] Josephus writes that the canon consisted of the five books of Moses, thirteen of the Prophets and four of what he referred to as hymns to God and precepts for human life. It is clear that this perspective was one held for a long time by the Jews, who considered these twenty-two books alone to be of divine origin and were careful to preserve the integrity and number of them. In fact, so great was their veneration of these books, they were willing to die for them. Surely, such a commitment implies a conviction that these books alone were truly canonical. In addition, it is clear that the canon referred to by Josephus did not include the books of the Apocrypha, and that he considered the canon to be closed. He states that the twenty-two books were written in the specific span of time from Moses to Artaxerxes and no books written after this time were considered inspired. He mentions other books written after the prophets, which were not considered by the Jews to carry the same authority, that is, they were not inspired and were, therefore, not canonical. This is a clear reference to a number of the Apocryphal books.”
“When Josephus speaks of twenty-two books, he probably refers to exactly the same documents as the twenty-four of the traditional Jewish reckoning, Ruth being counted as an appendix to Judges and Lamentations to Jeremiah. His three divisions might be called the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. His first division comprises the same five books as the first division of the traditional arrangement. But his second division has thirteen books, not eight, the additional five being perhaps Job, Esther, Daniel, Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah. The four books of the third division would then be Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs. It is impossible to be sure, because he does not specify the books of the three divisions one by one. It is unlikely that Josephus’ classification of the books was his own; he probably reproduces a tradition with which he had been familiar for a long time, having learned it either in the priestly circle into which he was born or among the Pharisees with whose party he associated himself as a young man.”
- F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988), pp. 33-34.
“He [Josephus] records a test of their canonicity. He mentions the standard which, apparently, in current Jewish opinion, all books satisfied that were included in the Canon. No historical writings, it seems, belonged to it which were deemed to have been composed later than the reign of Ahasuerus. The mention of this particular limit seems to be made expressly with reference to the book of Esther, in which alone the Artaxerxes of Josephus (the Ahasuerus of the Hebrew book of Esther) figures. Thus we learn that a popularly accepted test, that of date of composition, however erroneously applied, determined the question of canonicity. In the first cent. A.D., the impression prevailed that the books of the Canon were all ancient, that none were more recent than Ahasuerus, and that all had long been regarded as canonical. The same limit of date, although not so clearly applied to the poetical books, was, in all probability, intended to apply equally to them, since they combined with the books of the prophets to throw light upon the same range of history. That such a standard of canonicity as that of antiquity should be asserted, crude as it may seem, ought to be sufficient to convince us that the limits of the Canon had for a long time been undisturbed.”
- Herbert Edward Ryle, The Canon of the Old Testament (London: MacMillan, 1904), pp. 174-175.
