Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger (16 page)

The canonical books of the Old Testament are therefore
twenty-two in number, equal in number to the letters of the Hebrew alphabet.
Beside these there are also other books of the same Old Testament, which are
not canonical and which are read only to the catechumens. These are…[lists the
disputed books and the Book of Esther]…these are not canonical.

So much then for the books of the Old Testament, to
the canonical and the non-canonical.... Of the New Testament....
[423]

Pseudo-Athanasius follows essentially the same list as
Athanasius’
Thirty-ninth Festal Letter
.
[424]
It divides the Old Testament into canonical
and non-canonical writings. The canonical writings correspond to the number of
the letters in the Hebrew alphabet, while the noncanonical writings are read
only to catechumens. Unlike Athanasius’
Thirty-ninth Festal Letter,
the
Apocrypha is not mentioned.

Apostolic Canons (late fourth/early fifth century)

The Eighty-fifth canon contained a rather odd Old Testament
list. It includes all the Protocanonical books (including Esther), along with
three books of Maccabees and possibly Judith.
[425]
The book of Sirach was appended to the list
as a recommended book.

Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita (ca. 500)

Although attributed to Denis the Areopagite (mentioned by
the Apostle Paul in Acts 17:34) the author of the works bearing this name was
almost certainly a sixth century Christian. Pseudo-Dionysius’
The Divine
Names,
which became quite popular in the early Church, especially in the
middle-ages, was a major influence on the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas.

Pseudo-Dionysius unquestionably accepted the Deutero-canon.
[426]
The books are used
so extensively in
The Divine Names
that to enumerate the references
would go quite beyond the scope of our survey.

The So-Called Decree of Gelasius (ca. 366–523)

There is much dispute over the exact nature of this work.
Breen writes,

“This decree is not found the same in the different
codices. It is by some scribed to Damasus (AD 366–384); by others to Gelasius
(AD 492–496); and by others to Hormisdas (AD 514–523). Cornely believes that it
was originally a decree of Damasus that was afterwards enlarged by Gelasius.
All agree that it was an authentic promulgation from the Roman see in that
period.”
[427]
  It
lists the “true divine Scripture” which are “universally received” by the
Church. The whole Deuterocanon is listed.

Pope Anastasius II (August 23, 498)

Pope Anastasius II quotes Sirach with the formal
appellation, “It is written” in his
Letter to the Bishops of Gaul,
titled
Bonum Atque Iucundum.
It is followed by a quote from the Gospel
of John with no qualification or distinction between the two.”
[428]

Jerome’s rejection of the Deuterocanon was vanquished only
for a time. His
Latin Vulgate
grew in popularity; so much so that by the
sixth century it had replaced the
Old Latin
translation as
the
biblical text for anyone who could read. This growth in the popularity and the
authority of the
Latin Vulgate
cast a glow of credence onto Jerome’s
accompanying prefaces because of their proximity to the sacred text.
[429]

From the sixth Century through to the tenth, Christian
writers, as a rule, accepted the Deuterocanon as divine Scripture. Those of
scholarly acumen recognized that Jerome, the greatest biblical scholar of
antiquity, held a different canon than that received by the body of the
Christian Church. Others may repeat Jerome on occasion during this period, but
they never reject the Deuterocanon. The few exceptions to the rule are isolated
and are usually the products of private speculation, by persons who sometimes
reject Protocanonical books as well.

As we turn our attention to the late Patristic period, let
us begin by inquiring what the great biblical codices of antiquity tell us
about the subject at hand.

The Great Codices

In layman’s terms, a codex (pl. codices) is a collection of
several books written and compiled in leaf form and bound together, as opposed
to the scroll, which contains only a few writings on one continuous roll of
paper. The codex offered ancient Christianity the ability to include several
books in a single volume. Varying in size and usage, the codex has been used by
Christians since the first century. In terms of scriptural codices, three stand
out in quality and antiquity; these are sometimes referred to as the great
codices (Aleph, A, and B). These codices are quite large and constructed
primarily for public reading in a church;
[430]
meaning, of course, that (unlike a single
manuscript) they express the collective mind of an entire body of Christians
spread over a vast period of time, rather than the opinions of any single
author, however learned. The earliest of the great codices was likely copied at
the beginning of the fourth century. The others date from the fifth and sixth
centuries, but likely reflect the views of an earlier period.
[431]

The following chart is a summary of the contents of these
early and important codices.
[432]
The order of the books has been rearranged to aid the modern reader in
comparing the contents of one codex to that of another. The titles and
nomenclature of various books have also been modernized for the same purpose.
The disputed books are in italics, and the blank spaces represent those books
that are absent from a given codex.

Table Notes: These lists are based on Henry B. Swete’s
Introduction
to the Greek Old Testament (KTAV, 1978).  [1] The Codex Ephraemi
Rescriptus was once a complete copy of the Septuagint composed around the fifth
century. However, it was taken apart, partially erased and used over again.
Today, it survives only in parts. The original order of its books cannot be
determined.  [2] The Codex Basilano-Vaticanus (N) and Codex Venetus (V)
appear to be two halves of an original codex. They were compiled in the eighth
century (Swete, Introduction, 130).  [3] The Codex Alexandrinus contains
some late Christian additions. For example, the Psalms of Solomon (which Hengel
argues was never part of the LXX) and the Odes (that contain prayers from the
New Testament) were added in the fifth century. See Hengel, Septuagint, 58 FN
3, 59. [H] The Septuagint includes 1-2 Sm and 1-2 Kgs under the heading 1-4
Kgs.

Notice that none of these Codices restricts itself to the shorter
Hebrew canon. Instead, all five include some, many, or all, of the disputed
books. Significantly, Wisdom, Sirach, Tobit, and Judith are represented in
all
three
of the great codices. Baruch and 1 Maccabees are present in two of
the three. Only 2 Maccabees found acceptance in but one of the three great
codices.
[433]
Although
we do not find complete agreement here (several Protocanonical books are also
missing from some of the codices), there is a substantial concurrence among
these texts in favor of the larger
canon.        

Because the books have been reordered, there is an
additional matter of importance which the chart above does not illustrate;
namely, that the books of Deuterocanon are thoroughly intermixed among the
others in all five of these codices. None separates the Deuterocanonical books
or differentiates among them in any way, indicating that the compilers
understood these sections to be authentic parts of the same inspired corpus.

Leontius of Byzantium (ca. 485–543)

Born in Constantinople, Leontius became a monk and at one
time flirted with the Nestorian heresy, only to return to orthodoxy and become
a firm supporter of the Council of Ephesus. He spent some time in Jerusalem,
engaged in debates, and returned back to Constantinople.

Protestant apologists often appeal to Leontius as a
supporter of the Protestant canon because he composed a list of canonical books
which excluded the Deuterocanon.
[434]
As we saw with Rufinus and others, however, changes in
terminology since the days of the Fathers can sometimes create a misleading
impression on modern readers. As Breen notes:

It can be said of him [Leontius], as of Cyril [of
Jerusalem], that exclusion from
canonicity
was not with him
exclusion from
divinity.
With them the
divine
books of the Old
Testament were arranged in two classes
canonical
and
non-canonical
.
They used the latter as divine Scriptures without according them the
pre-eminence of canonicity. Leontius used in several places quotations from
deuterocanonical works as
divine Scripture
.
[435]

Leontius’ usage of the Deuterocanon makes his own opinion
clear. For example, he explicitly quotes three of the disputed books as Scripture.
[436]
  He also uses
the book of Wisdom to confirm the doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Son.
[437]
 
Unfortunately, apologists misunderstand Leontius’ list (along with those of
other Fathers adopting the three-fold division of religious literature) by
importing a modern understanding of “canon” into a text which is actually
employing the word in quite a different sense. Suffice it to say that for
purposes of this discussion, what matters is whether or not a given book was
thought to have received Divine inspiration; if it was so considered then that
book is undoubtedly to be read as God’s own word—whether the term “canonical”
has been attached to it or withheld.

Pope Gregory I (the Great) (540–604)

Gregory came from a wealthy Christian family in Italy. He
excelled in grammar, rhetoric, and dialectic and became Prefect of the city of
Rome. At the age of thirty, he resigned his post as Prefect, became a monk, and
was assigned to the post of permanent ambassador to the Court of Byzantium. He
stayed in Constantinople for six years before being recalled to his monastery
in Rome around the year AD 585 or 586. Not long after his return, Gregory
published a set of lectures based on the Book of Job and known as the
Magna
Moralia
. When Pope Pelagius II died in 590, Gregory was elected his
successor. His pontificate lasted fourteen years until his own death in AD 604.
Gregory the Great’s accomplishments are far too numerous to be mentioned here,
but this short summary will suffice for our purposes.

Anti-Catholics invariably point to Gregory when searching
for an early, authoritative figure who rejected the Deuterocanon. Some even argue
that Pope Gregory’s alleged “rejection” represents a definitive (even
infallible) pronouncement which was later contradicted when the Catholic Church
accepted the Deuteros in spite of him. A closer examination reveals that
Gregory never rejected the Deuterocanon to begin with, and that the Church,
which has always accepted the Deuteros, has not contradicted itself in this
matter at all.

Believe it or not, anti-Catholics base this entire claim on
a single qualifying phrase concerning a passage in 1 Maccabees. Here are
Gregory’s words:

With reference to which particular we are not acting
irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the
edification of the Church, we bring forth testimony. Thus Eleazar in the
battle smote and brought down an Elephant, but fell under the very beast that
he killed.
[438]

Note first, that Gregory is not rejecting the Deuterocanon
as a whole; in fact, he does not even reject 1 Maccabees. What he is actually
doing is anticipating questions on the subject (acknowledging the widespread
influence of Jerome’s ideas) and pausing to establish that the example he will
offer is still valid, even for those who accept Jerome’s point of view.
[439]
Catholic apologist
Arthur Sippo expresses it this way:

So St. Gregory…accepted the moderate view that the
Deuteros were ‘ecclesiastical.’  But notice that he is not apologizing
for using 1 Maccabees.  He is not saying that it is of no value but rather
that he felt the necessity of using this book despite doubts about its
canonicity.  This is very significant.  The inspired character of 1
Maccabees showed through despite the doubting of mere men.

Elsewhere, Gregory’s own usage reflects his acceptance of 1
Maccabees and the rest of the Deuterocanon. He cites the Deuterocanonicals in a
manner indistinguishable from Scripture throughout his works. For example,
Gregory quoted Tobit without qualification and introduced it with the words,
“Hence, it is wisely said...”
[440]
He makes extensive use of Sirach, often quoting it among the
Protocanonical books of Scripture without distinction or qualification.
[441]
He also counts
Sirach as the work of Solomon.
[442]
For this reason, Gregory often introduces quotes from Sirach
as the sayings of a “wise man” and the “voice of Wisdom.”
[443]
These quotes were made with the solemn introduction,
“It is written,” about fifteen times. Gregory uses the book of Wisdom almost as
frequently as Sirach, citing Wisdom without qualification about twenty-eight
times. Wisdom is quoted with the formula, “It is written” about sixteen times.
Gregory quotes from every book of the Deuterocanon except Judith and Baruch.
[444]

This single, isolated qualification of Maccabees, in which
Gregory anticipates a possible objection from the Jeromists, does not
constitute a rejection, especially in light of his use of the Deuterocanon in
his works. Even if it did, however, a single offhand comment—almost a
parenthesis—in an early work would not constitute a papal pronouncement on the
subject; to argue that it would betrays profound ignorance about how the pope’s
teaching authority is actually held to work. First of all, in order to teach
with papal authority a man must actually
be
pope—and there is
considerable doubt as to whether Gregory had yet been elected when the above quotation
was penned. As Arthur Sippo notes:

…the Moralia [or Commentary on Job] was started in 578
AD while St. Gregory was in Constantinople and he completed the last section
(Book XXXV) in 595 AD.  According to Rev. James Barmby DD (in NPNF 2nd
Series volume XII, St. Gregory, page xxxi) it was ‘in a great measure written
during his residence in Constantinople.’  St. Gregory was Pope from 590
to 604 AD.  Hence this work was started twelve years before he was Pope
and was mostly composed before he assumed that office.  In no way could
this be considered an official magisterial document.  It is a work of
private speculation and has no authority beyond the scholarship used in its
composition.

Secondly, even if the dates are wrong and Gregory did happen
to have written this book during his pontificate, the passage in question still
could not be held to constitute an infallible statement. The pope judges
infallibly when he acts in his official capacity as chief teacher of the
universal Church, not every single time he opens his mouth. In order for his
teachings to be infallible, in other words, he must actually
be teaching
.
He must (in the words of the
First Vatican Council
) be making a
definitive judgment on a matter of faith or morals. Yet here, Gregory is only
acknowledging that some people may not agree with his appeal to 1 Maccabees.
Gregory’s statement says nothing about making the views of these critics
binding upon the whole Church. Any claim, therefore, that Gregory infallibly
rejected the book of 1Maccabees is a mere grasping at straws.

Primasius, Bishop of Adrument (Justiniapolis)
(527–565)

Anti-Catholics frequently list Primasius as a Father who
rejected the Deuterocanon. This is based on a passage from his
Commentary on
the Book of Revelation
in which he wrote:

The twenty-four elders are the books of the Old
Testament which we receive of that number as possessing canonical authority.
[445]

This interpretation of Revelation is Jerome’s, not
Primasius.
[446]
However, Primasius’ adoption of Jerome’s interpretation of Revelation does not
mean that he also adopted Jerome’s view of the canon. Had Primasius adopted
Jerome’s canon, he would have rejected the Book of Baruch as Jerome forcefully
did in his
Preface to the Book of Jeremiah
. Yet in his work
The
Incarnation of Christ,
Primasius states that the sacred Scriptures [L.
Scripturam sacram] predicted the Incarnation of Our Lord—and then he
immediately quotes the famous passage from Baruch:
[447]

This is our God, and there shall no other be accounted
of in comparison of him. He found out all the way of knowledge, and gave it to
Jacob his servant, and to Israel his beloved. Afterwards he was seen upon earth,
and conversed with men.
[448]

Such a statement could not have been made by a man who (as
Protestant apologist claim) denied the authority of the book of Baruch.
Primasius may have passed on the opinion of Jerome in regards to the
interpretation of Revelation, but any belief that he followed him in denying
the Deuteros is based solely on prejudice.

Dionysius Exiguus (the Little) (d. 544)

The date of Dionysius’ birth is unknown, but it is fairly
certain that he died around the year AD 544. He was a friend of Cassiodorus
(see below). Dionysius’ contribution to Church history is his compilation of
Church documents and decrees in a body of work known as the
Collectio
Dionysiana
. In his
Codex Canonum Ecclesiasticarum,
Dionysius
includes the canons of the Council of Carthage, which affirmed the
Deuterocanon.
[449]

Junilius Africanus (d. ca. 551)

Junilius Africanus (not to be confused with Julius
Africanus) offers an unusual listing of the canon. In his work
De Partis
Divina Legis
, I. 3-7, Junilius divides and subdivides the books of
Scripture into various degrees of authority.
[450]
According to Junilius’ rendering, the
Historical Books of “perfect authority” are the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges,
Ruth, , Kings, four Gospels, and the Acts. The books of “intermediate”
authority are Chronicles, Job, Judith, Esther, and Maccabees. Junilius notes of
this second class:

They are not included among the Canonical Scriptures,
because they were received among the Hebrews only in the secondary rank as
Jerome and others testify.
[451]

The Prophetic Books of “perfect authority” are the Psalms,
the sixteen Prophets, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes. The Book of Revelation is
doubted in the East. The second “intermediate” category contains the Song of
Songs and the Book of Wisdom. Of the Didactic books, there are Sirach, the
fourteen Epistles of Paul, First Peter, and First John. Among the second category
are James, 2 Peter, Jude, and 2 and 3 John.

Junilius’ strange list is notable in that it is the first
attempt to understand the canon of Scripture in terms of utility.
[452]
  The Apostle
Paul states, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for
reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.”
[453]
Although all Scripture is equally inspired,
not every book is equally profitable or useful in confirming doctrine. The Book
of Genesis, for example, is as inspired as Esther because the Holy Spirit is
the primary author of both, but Genesis is certainly more
useful
for
teaching, reproof, and training than Esther is. Junilius confuses utility with
inspiration; therefore; there are different categories of Scripture. Junilius’
list is clearly the product of his own theological speculations and represents
nothing more than a historical curiosity.