Posted on 07/11/2010 11:07:54 AM PDT by Gamecock
Catholics and Protestants disagree regarding the exact number of books that belong in the Old Testament Scriptures. The dispute between them is over seven books, part of what is known as the Apocrypha: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Wisdom (Wisdom of Solomon), Baruch, Tobit, Judith, and additions to Daniel and Esther.1 However, there are a number of reasons why the Old Testament Apocrypha should not be part of the Canon, or standard writings of Scripture.
1. There are no clear, definite New Testament quotations from the Apocrypha by Jesus or the apostles. While there may be various allusions by the New Testament to the Apocrypha, there are no authoritative statements like "thus says the Lord," "as it is written," or "the Scriptures say." There are references in the New Testament to the pseudepigrapha (literally “false writings”) (Jude 14-15) and even citations from pagan sources (Acts 17:22-34), but none of these are cited as Scripture and are rejected even by Roman Catholics. In contrast, the New Testament writers cite the Old Testament numerous times (Mt. 5; Lk. 24:27; Jn. 10:35) and use phrases such as "thus says the Lord," "as it is written," or "the Scriptures say," indicating their approval of these books as inspired by God.
2. Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture by referring to the entire accepted Jewish Canon of Scripture, “From the blood of Abel [Gen. 4:8] to the blood of Zechariah [2 Chron. 24:20], who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation (Lk. 11:51; cf. Mt. 23:35).”
Abel was the first martyr in the Old Testament from the book of Genesis, while Zecharias was the last martyr in the book of Chronicles. In the Hebrew Canon, the first book was Genesis and the last book was Chronicles. They contained all of the same books as the standard 39 books accepted by Protestants today, but they were just arranged differently. For example, all of the 12 minor prophets (Hosea through Malachi) were contained in one book. This is why there are only 24 books in the Hebrew Bible today. By Jesus referring to Abel and Zacharias, He was canvassing the entire Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures which included the same 39 books as Protestants accept today. Therefore, Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture.
3. The "oracles of God" were given to the Jews (Rom. 3:2) and they rejected the Old Testament Apocrypha as part of this inspired revelation. Interestingly, Jesus had many disputes with the Jews, but He never disputed with them regarding the extent of the inspired revelation of God.2
4. The Dead Sea scrolls provide no commentary on the Apocrypha, but do provide commentary on some of the Jewish Old Testament books. This probably indicates that the Jewish Essene community did not regard them as highly as the Jewish Old Testament books.
5. Many ancient Jews rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Philo never quoted the Apocrypha as Scripture. Josephus explicitly rejected the Apocrypha and listed the Hebrew Canon to be 22 books. 3 In fact, the Jewish Community acknowledged that the prophetic gifts had ceased in Israel before the Apocrypha was written.
6. The Catholic Church has not always accepted the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha was not officially accepted by the Catholic Church at a universal council until 1546 at the Council of Trent. This is over a millennium and a half after the books were written, and was a counter reaction to the Protestant Reformation.4
7. Many church Fathers rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture, and many just used them for devotional purposes. For example, Jerome, the great Biblical scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate, rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture though, supposedly under pressure, he did make a hurried translation of it. In fact, most of the church fathers in the first four centuries of the Church rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Along with Jerome, names include Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius.
8. The Apocryphal books were placed in Bibles before the Council of Trent and after, but were placed in a separate section because they were not of equal authority. The Apocrypha rightfully has some devotional purposes, but it is not inspired.
9. The Apocrypha contains a number of false teachings (see: Errors in the Apocrypha). (To check the following references, see http://www.newadvent.org/bible.)
10. The Apocryphal books do not share many of the chararacteristics of the Canonical books: they are not prophetic, there is no supernatural confirmation of any of the apocryphal writers works, there is no predictive prophecy, there is no new Messianic truth revealed, they are not cited as authoritative by any prophetic book written after them, and they even acknowledge that there were no prophets in Israel at their time (cf. 1 Macc. 9:27; 14:41).
Sources
This is an important point.. The reason trent had to seal a canon was because various LOCAL church councils had declared different books as canonical . What was considered inspired in one district may not be in another ..
Trent knew that they had to seal the canon because it was being questioned and they knew they needed certain books to tie some of their non biblical doctrine that was at the heart of the reformation
I do not much think God cares how comfortable you are with His judgement.
Read the OT..Noah,and Sodom come to mind easily
God is the author of life and is sovereign over it
Even though educated Christendom included them for over a thousand years!
Reason 1 - Luther said so.
Reason 2 - Calvin said so.
Reason 3 - Zwingli said so.
Heretics HATE the TRUTH.
1. Wealth and luxury.
2. Power and control.
3. Crazy and juvenile.
And those that follow them wish to taken seriously?
You ignore the reality of Greek-speaking Jews - of whom there were quite a few in the Second Temple period - in fact, this group may have constituted a majority of the Jewish population.
The Greek Bible - specifically the Greek edition of the Jewish Scriptures - was not translated by ethnic Greeks in Greece. It was translated by Jews living in Egypt.
The Jews never accepted any of them as canonical
Incorrect. The Jews living in Judaea who did not read Greek did not accept them. The majority of the Jews in the world at the time used the Septuagint as their standard translation. The reason why the New Testament was written entirely in Greek (when almost all the authors were fluent in Aramaic and even Hebrew) was because the most of the world's Jews used Greek as their daily language.
the most important point is all the canonical books are Christocentric.. the apocrypha are not..
If the book of Esther or the Song of Songs can be described as Christocentric, then any deuterocanonical work can easily be described likewise.
RnMomof7:
And I don’t think he is comfortable with you making him out be a killer. God does not kill, he allows people free will and thus bad things can happen, but I don’t suscribe to the absolute Double Predestination that you do that makes God a killer.
I have read those passages and understand them differently, at least with respect to God Killing. God allowing things to happen, yes, I accept that but not that God Kills.
The canon, by definition, was the list of books accepted universally by the Church as books that were read publicly in the liturgy.
While Trent did the work of actually defining the full list, the Council's list was not drawn out of thin air, but from the immemorial practice of the Church.
In the Catholic sense of Scripture, Scripture as publicly proclaimed in worship is absolutely central - as opposed the the central place of Scripture in Protestantism as private devotional reading.
This does not mean that Protestants do not publicly read the Scriptures in their liturgies or that Catholics do not privately study them. It is a matter of emphasis.
Diamond:
1) Yet, he wrote the commentary as bishop of Rome, and his commentary was used into the later Middle Ages as the standard commentary on Job for the entire Western Church, so I don’t think it can be regarded as merely his personal opinion. While he did teach that the book was useful for edification, along the lines of Jerome, the fact remains that his denial of ‘strict’ canonical status to 1 Maccabees long after the Councils of Hippo and Carthage is in direct contradiction to what the earlier Roman Church decreed under Innocent I, who confirmed the books sanctioned as canonical by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage. It is inconceivable to me that Gregory the Great would have ever purposefully expressed a view that he knew was contrary to that which had been authoritatively established by the Church.
My response: Yes Pope Gregory wrote a biblical commentary that was among the standards for the Catholic Church, at least the Latin Church, for centuries. However, it is possible for a Pope, even one named Gregory the Great, to write a Biblical commentary as a theologian and biblical scholar and not write it as Bishop of Rome under infallibility. For example, Pope Benedict recently wrote and excellent book entitled “Jesus of Nazareth” as a personal theologian which he reflected on certain Gospel Passages about Christ. In no way was the Pope saying, and he says this up front, that his work is to be seen as the only way to interpret the Gospels that he was writing on. Catholic biblical scholars have freedom to interpret passages as long as they do not contradict Dogmas or Defined Doctrines, so there are boundaries which they can’t go beyond without being subject to Correction.
2) With regard to Nicea II, that Council also reaffirmed the canons of the Trullan Council called the Quinisext Council, and in doing so affirmed the canons of Athanasius, Amphilocius and Basil the Great on the canon, all of whom rejected the majority of the Deuterocanonical books as being canonical. See Canon 1:
“... and those both of the six holy Ecumenical Councils and of the ones assembled regionally for the purpose of setting forth such edicts, and of those of our holy Fathers...’ which is a direct reference to the Quinisext/Trullan Council. Nicea II considered the decrees of the Council of Trullo to have promulgated decrees of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.
My response:
Canon 1 from II Nicea (787 AD, cited from newadvent.org) states in part…
“Seeing these things are so, being thus well-testified unto us, we rejoice over them as he that has found great spoil, and press to our bosom with gladness the divine canons, holding fast all the precepts of the same, complete and without change, whether they have been set forth by the holy trumpets of the Spirit, the renowned Apostles, or by the Six Ecumenical Councils, or by Councils locally assembled for promulgating the decrees of the said Ecumenical Councils, or by our holy Fathers. For all these, being illumined by the same Spirit, defined such things as were expedient. Accordingly those whom they placed under anathema, we likewise anathematize; those whom they deposed, we also depose; those whom they excommunicated, we also excommunicate; and those whom they delivered over to punishment, we subject to the same penalty. And now let your conversation be without covetousness, cries out Paul the divine Apostle, who was caught up into the third heaven and heard unspeakable words.
Ancient Epitome: We gladly embrace the Divine Canons, viz.: those of the Holy Apostles, of the Six Ecumenical Synods, as also of the local synods and of our Holy Fathers, as inspired by one and the same Holy Spirit. Whom they anathematize we also anathematize; whom they depose, we depose; whom they cut off, we cut off; and whom they subject to penalties, we also so subject.”
Canon, as it is being used in II Nicea 787 does not mean or refer to the “Biblical Canon”. If you read carefully, what this and other Canons are talking about is what is to be believed from the Six Ecumenical Councils, of which Trullan was not, and then the Local synods and canons from them which directed how the various Churches were to implement the Decrees from the Ecumenical Councils. Remember, II Nicea was called to deal with Iconoclasm which was seen as a heresy distorting the Incarnation. So read in particular the statement “or by Councils locally assembled for promulgating the decrees of the said Ecumenical Councils.
So while St. Athanasius and St. Basil the Great may have not favored all the Deuterocanoncials, they were in the minority in the Eastern Church and as noted, there view did not prevail in the Western Church. In fact, as I noted before, the Eastern Orthodox OT canon is actually larger than the Catholic OT canon by sometimes 3 books [3 and 4 Macabees and 3 Esdras, using St. Jerome’s Vulgate terminology or what you refer to as 1 Esdras], which brings me to your final concern.
3) Don’t forget ‘Greek Esdras (Septuagint Esdras I) which was accepted for the first five centuries of the Church, and then excluded at Trent. It seems to me, though, that either the Councils were contradicting themselves, or, and you allude to it, there were two senses of the term ‘canonical’, and that the deuterocanonical books were not to be regarded as canonical in the strict sense, but were to be regarded as useful for edification and reading in the Churches.
My response:
With respect to the book “1 Esdras”, I think there is some different terminology being used. Please see link below
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05535a.htm
The Catholic Church in the West never accepted what you are calling Esdras 1 as St. Jerome took the Septuagint Esdras 1 and divided it into 4 distinct Books, 1 and 2 Esdras in Jerome’s Vulgate terminology, are called Ezra and Nehemiah in today’s English Bibles. So, what Protestants today call 1 and 2 Esdras, is what St. Jerome in the Vulgate referred to as 3 and 4 Esdras and those books were never part of the OT canon in the Latin-Western Catholic Church as evidenced by the OT canon lists of Rome 382 AD, Hippo 393 AD, Carthage 397 AD and Carthage again in 419 AD.
On the other had, 3 Esdras using Vulgate Terminology/ 1 Esdras using Protestant Terminology and the LXX terminology which included Ezra, Nehemiah and what Jerome referred to as 3 Esdras in one book, was included in the OT canon list of Origen in the early 3rd century, reflecting the Alexandrian Tradition. Given its placement in the LXX, and despite St. Athanasiaus and St. Basils views, what you are calling 1 Esdras is still part of the Greek Orthodox OT canon, or most of the Orthodox Churches, along with 3 and 4 Maccabees and in some cases, Psalm 151 as well.
No, Amish. They do use the KJV. They also speak English in the markets.
The Amish do not consider the Apocrypha scripture. The Apocryoha were included between the Old and New Testaments in the Luther Bible and the KJV and were never considered scripture. Luther attached the following title to the section: "Apocrypha: These Books Are Not Held Equal to the Scriptures, but Are Useful and Good to Read".
"Anglicans never accepted your restricted Jewish canon."
The OT belongs to the Jews.
I never said it was their standard, simply that they use it.
The Apocrypha was denoted as such, not deuterocanon. The Apocrypha was included in a separate section and was not considered canon, neither was it considered as part of the OT. KJV Bibles w/o the Apocrypha are not considered abridged, since none of the scriptures have been left out.
How true! I have not the time nor the inclination to address each of your "proofs" individually. Rather, I will respond to one which is striking in it's dishonesty and guilty of twiting context beyond recognition.
7. Jerome calls anyone who claimed he rejected the canonicity of the Deuterocanonicals, “a fool and a slanderer.” The diabolical practice of referring to the Deuterocanonicals as “apocrypha” (a word otherwise used to represent “hidden books” which were not canonical at all) has led some uneducated or deceitful Protestants to proclaim that various founding fathers rejected the Deuterocanonicals, where they were actually rejecting books such as “The apocalypse of Moses,” and “the Book of Enoch.”
Unless I am mistaken (I welcome a correction) the "a fool and a slanderer" quote was from a reply AGAINST RUFINUS and had nothing to do with the entirety of the Deuterocanonicals. Rather, it concerned a single book - Daniel.
What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. (Against Rufinus, II:33.
........................................................
In reference to Daniel my answer will be that I did not say that he was not a prophet; on the contrary, I confessed in the very beginning of the Preface that he was a prophet. But I wished to show what was the opinion upheld by the Jews; and what were the arguments on which they relied for its proof. I also told the reader that the version read in the Christian churches was not that of the Septuagint translators but that of Theodotion. It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact, but that of those who read the version. We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? (Against Rufinus, II:33.
JEROME "A FOOL AND A SLANDERER" - IN CONTEXT
I would certainly hope the remainder of your arguments are more able to withstand scrutiny than this one.
OLD REGGIE:
Depends how you interpret “What sin did I committ by following the judgement of the Churches” as the extra stories in Daniel that were in question where the ones from the LXX and thus the Deueterocanonical, at least as it relates to the LXX version of Daniel. And it seems that the question here was the version of the LXX that contained tehe stories of Susanah, etc. In no place did he reject the other Deuterocanonicals as by the time that was written, Jerome was already workin on his Vulgate Translation which included the 7 Deueterocanonicals.
In the end, St. Jerome followed the “judgement of the Church” and included the Deueterocanicals that were listed in the “Western Church” in his Latin Vulgate Translation. So perhaps it is your context that is not in line with history. So, in the light of history, it is reasonable to believe that Jerome was defending the inclusion of the Deueterocanonicals in the Canon. Had he only included the stories in the quote you site, then your point may have more validity.
So a question to you, as a Unitarian, why do you even care as you reject the Christological Doctrines of the Catholic and Orthodox CHurch as well, and most Confessional Protestants as well, although there are some here that have some “wackadoo CHristological views” that frequent here.
The historical evidence really does seem very clear. There was no consensus, even among the most important Roman Catholic scholars (Jerome & Aquinas, come to mind)about the full and final authority of the Apocryphal books...(even the name “2ndary Canon” (Deuterocanonical) coming from Trent indicate they don’t have the same authority as the the rest of the biblical-era books).
It was ONLY when Luther and Calvin and other Protestants agreed with one ancient wing of Catholic scholarship—that the Apocryphal books were OUT, that the Italians at Trent got dogmatic had to decide that “Oh yeah, yes they are!”
If you want to defend, for example, the laughable fairy-tale of Tobit, magical fruits and death-dealing demons and all (things absent the Bible) go ahead. But remember, Protestants stand with a lot of very serious Roman Catholic scholars who came before Trent...
Oh, but I forgot, THE Church never makes mistakes...
When an Amish believer picks up a Bible to read, it is almost always the German-language Lutherbibel. They would use the KJV the way a Catholic would - as a cross-reference or a study aid.
The Apocrypha was included in a separate section and was not considered canon, neither was it considered as part of the OT.
The 39 Articles of the Church of England describe the deuterocanon as a part of the canon, but ascribe to them a secondary status. The 1552 Book of Common Prayer uses them as part of its lectionary for liturgical Scriptural reading. The KJV does use the term Apocrypha, but these books were part of the KJV and the BCP service up until 1826.
KJV Bibles w/o the Apocrypha are not considered abridged, since none of the scriptures have been left out.
The KJV was published as a single work in 1611 including the deuterocanon. Any edition that only includes part of the KJV is abridged. That's the definition of abridged - parts of the original complete text are deliberately omitted.
Not at all. It depends entirely of the claim "7. Jerome calls anyone who claimed he rejected the canonicity of the Deuterocanonicals, “a fool and a slanderer.”
Is, or is not, that a false claim?
In the end, St. Jerome followed the “judgement of the Church” and included the Deueterocanicals that were listed in the “Western Church” in his Latin Vulgate Translation. So perhaps it is your context that is not in line with history. So, in the light of history, it is reasonable to believe that Jerome was defending the inclusion of the Deueterocanonicals in the Canon. Had he only included the stories in the quote you site, then your point may have more validity.
Totally irrelevant!
So a question to you, as a Unitarian, why do you even care as you reject the Christological Doctrines of the Catholic and Orthodox CHurch as well, and most Confessional Protestants as well, although there are some here that have some “wackadoo CHristological views” that frequent here.
Several responses come to mind, some of them not very polite.
Why do you care what my motivation is?
You are correct in that "...there are some here that have some “wackadoo CHristological views". That observation would include Catholics, Protestants, and others.
You may note my tag "I am a Biblical Unitarian". And no, I have no intention of explaining what that means to me.
They are not considered scripture and are thus not canon. From Article VI: "And the other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine. Such are these following:
The Third Book of Esdras.
The Fourth Book of Esdras.
The Book of Tobias.
The Book of Judith.
The rest of the Book of Esther.
The Book of Wisdom.
Jesus the Son of Sirach.
Baruch the Prophet.
The Song of the Three Children.
The Story of Susanna.
Of Bel and the Dragon.
The Prayer of Manasses.
The First Book of Maccabees.
The Second Book of Maccabees.
"Any edition that only includes part of the KJV is abridged. That's the definition of abridged - parts of the original complete text are deliberately omitted."
What was omitted was never considered Scripture. So, it is not abridged scripture.
Oh, you caught me... In repeating the same argument so many times, my memory glossed over a distinction: The quote from Jerome refers not to the whole of the deuterocanonical books, but merely to the Deuterocanonical portions of Daniel.
But it’s a distinction without a difference: Those portions of Daniel are the ones Protestants and Jews malign as “apocryphal,” and which Catholics call “deuterocanonical.” So the Protestant position that Jerome sides with them is sunk. Further, Jerome’s explanation, in full context, extends to the complete list of deuterocanonicals, even if Rufinus only attacked Jerome on the case of Daniel.
But why would Rufinus attack on Daniel, rather than the whole of the Deuterocanonicals? Does that suggest that Rufinus only objected over Daniel, allowing us to discern through Rufinus that at least some early Christians didn’t accept the Deuterocanonicals? Hardly. It means Rufinus thought that his attack over Daniel was stronger, since Daniel was regarded as a prophet; the other dueterocanonicals were regarded as Khetuvim. (Here, however, Rufinus had fallen into a trap, since the Jews regarded Daniel as Khetuvim, like Job, even though he was a prophet.)
The original criteria for what was considered canonical was whether a book was read publicly in worship - hence the Articles' need to retain some ambiguity.
What was omitted was never considered Scripture.
Ah, but it was - by many. And regardless, the KJV as a complete published work included the deuterocanonicals. Any version that deliberately removes part of that work is an abridged version, by definition. This is like saying that an edition of the Federalist that leaves out the parts that were superseded by subsequent Constitutional amendments is not abridged because it has subsequently been decided by persons who are not the original editors that these portions are no longer relevant.
OLD REGGIE:
I have no intention of caring for your explanation of what a Biblical Unitarian is, just for the record. The question still is why are you, a Unitarian, so interested in the question of the NT Canon and the Catholic Church’s view of the Canon, which has historical legitimacy over the Protestant one. My conjecture is that you are a lapsed Catholic and thus have an axe to grind, of course, my conjecture could be off but my Sicilian blood usually does not fail me when sensing where people are coming from and you appear to be a lapsed Catholic with an axe to grind. .
Now back to the point at and, ST. Jerome is accurate, if you understand the context. He did question them while he was working on his translation and studying under Jewish scholars who were pushing the “Hebrew only books”, or what we now know is, Books that were only in Hebrew that they [Jewish Scholars] at that time were aware of as the findings at Qumran show that the Jewish-Essenes group did in fact have Hebrew translations of most of the Deuterocanonicals.
Jerome questioned whether the Deuterocanonicals should be included. On that point we can say “Yes”. What he did not do given the Councils that occurred after the Synod in Rome in 382, which drew up the list of canonical books in Rome and that list was the 46 OT canon, including the 7 Deueterocanoncals [even the OP by Gamecock in footnote 4 admits as much], i.e the Councils of Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 397, was challenge the authority of the Catholic Church once those Councils had all been accepted by Rome, which was the case during the time of Pope Innocent I whose letter to the Bishops in Gaul circa 405 AD corresponds to the time of St. Jerome’s letter that you cited.
Thus, given the entire context of that period in the History of the Catholic Church, it is true that 1) Jerome at 1 point questioned whether the Deuterocanoncals were “Canon” and 2) Given the Decrees of by 405, 3 Different Synods/Councils, and Pope Innocent I’s confirming said Councils, Jerome in humility submitted to the authority of the Church and accepted the 7 Deuterocanonicals as “Canon” which leads to the fuller context of his letter to Rufinus, who at one time was a close friend and ally of St. Jerome but several Letters between the 2 men dated circa 395 to 402 clearly illustrate a breach between the 2 men.
good post.
But it’s a distinction without a difference: Those portions of Daniel are the ones Protestants and Jews malign as “apocryphal,” and which Catholics call “deuterocanonical.” So the Protestant position that Jerome sides with them is sunk. Further, Jerome’s explanation, in full context, extends to the complete list of deuterocanonicals, even if Rufinus only attacked Jerome on the case of Daniel.
But why would Rufinus attack on Daniel, rather than the whole of the Deuterocanonicals? Does that suggest that Rufinus only objected over Daniel, allowing us to discern through Rufinus that at least some early Christians didn’t accept the Deuterocanonicals? Hardly. It means Rufinus thought that his attack over Daniel was stronger, since Daniel was regarded as a prophet; the other dueterocanonicals were regarded as Khetuvim. (Here, however, Rufinus had fallen into a trap, since the Jews regarded Daniel as Khetuvim, like Job, even though he was a prophet.)
FYI:
Rufinus of Aquileia (340-410) was a friend of Jerome, and, like Jerome, he departed from Italy to live in the East. For many years he lived in monasteries in Egypt and in Palestine, acquiring the learning of the Eastern churches. Towards the end of his life he returned to Italy and occupied himself in translating works of the earlier Greek Fathers into Latin. His Exposition of the Creed was an original work, but it shows the influence of the Greek church (and of Jerome) in several places. In his discussion of the canon, reproduced below, he follows the Greek Fathers and Jerome in excluding the Apocrypha from the canon of Scripture.
36. [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.
37. 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, 2 which the Hebrews reckon two; Paralipomenon, 3 which is called the book of Days [Chronicles], and two books of Ezra, 4 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.
38. But it should also be known that there are other books which are called not "canonical" but "ecclesiastical" by the ancients: 5 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," 8 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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.