Disputed Books of the Old Testament
The table below shows which of the disputed Old Testament books are included in Christian catalogs of canonical books up to the eighth century.
Y indicates that the book is plainly listed as Holy Scripture;
N indicates that it is placed in an inferior class of books;
M indicates that the terminology of the author may be construed as a reference to the book as Holy Scripture.
S indicates that the author does not mention the book in his catalog, which implies its rejection.
KEY Esth. - Esther/ Bar. - Baruch/ Eccl. - Ecclesiasticus/ Wisd. - Wisdom of Solomon/ Tob. - Tobit/ Jud. - Judith/ Mac. - First and Second Maccabees/
1. Greek Authors. Date Esth. Bar. Eccl. Wisd. Tob. Jud. Mac. Melito 160 S S S S S S S Origen 225 Y M S S S S N Cyril of Jerusalem 348 Y Y N N N N N Council of Laodicea 363 Y Y S S S S S Athanasius 367 N Y N N N N S Gregory of Nazianzus 380 S S S S S S S Amphilocius of Iconium 380 M S S S S S S Epiphanius 385 Y S N N S S S Stichometry of Niceph. 550 N Y N N N N N Synopsis of Sac. Scrip. 550 N S N N N N S Leontius 590 S S S S S S S List of the Sixty Books 650 N S N N N N N John of Damascus 730 Y S N N S S S
2. Syrian Greek. Date Esth. Bar. Eccl. Wisd. Tob. Jud. Mac. "Apostolic Canons" 380 Y S N S S M Y
3. Latin Authors.* Date Esth. Bar. Eccl. Wisd. Tob. Jud. Mac. Hilary of Poitiers 360 Y M S S M M S Cheltenham List 360 Y M S M Y Y Y Rufinus 380 Y M N N N N N Jerome 390 Y M N N N N N Augustine 397 Y M Y Y Y Y Y 3rd Council of Carthage 397 Y M Y Y Y Y Y Codex Claromontanus 400 Y M Y Y Y Y Y Letter of Innocent I 405 Y M Y Y Y Y Y Decree of Gelasius 550 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Cassiodorus 560 Y M Y Y Y Y Y Isidore of Seville 625 Y M Y Y Y Y Y
* NOTE: The Latin authors often subsumed the book of Baruch under Jeremiah, and so do not name it separately
Disputed Books of the New Testament
The table below shows which of the disputed New Testament books and other writings are included in catalogs of canonical books up to the eighth century.
Y indicates that the book is plainly listed as Holy Scripture;
N indicates that the author lists it in a class of disputed books;
M indicates that the list may be construed to include the book as Holy Scripture;
X indicates that the book is expressly rejected by the author.
S indicates that the author does not mention the book at all, which implies its rejection.
KEY TO BOOKS Heb. - Epistle to the Hebrews/ Jas. - Epistle of James / Jn. - Second and Third Epistle of John/ Pet. - Second Epistle of Peter / Jude - Epistle of Jude / Rev. - Revelation of John/ Shep. - Shepherd of Hermas/ Apoc. - Apocalypse of Peter/ Barn. - Epistle of Barnabas / Clem. - Epistle of Clement /
1. Greek & Latin Date Heb. Jas. Jn. Pet. Jude Rev. Shep. Apoc. Barn. Clem. Muratorian Fragment 170 S S M S Y Y X N S S Origen 225 Y N N N N Y S S S S Eusebius of Caesarea 324 Y N N N N N X X X S Cyril of Jerusalem 348 Y Y Y Y Y S S S S S Cheltenham list 360 S S Y Y S Y S S S S Council of Laodicea 363 Y Y Y Y Y S S S S S Athanasius 367 Y Y Y Y Y Y X S S S Gregory of Nazianzus 380 Y Y Y Y Y S S S S S Amphilocius of Iconium 380 Y N N N N N S S S S Rufinus 380 Y Y Y Y Y Y X S S S Epiphanius 385 Y Y Y Y Y Y S S S S Jerome 390 Y Y Y Y Y Y S S S S Augustine 397 Y Y Y Y Y Y S S S S 3rd Council of Carthage 397 Y Y Y Y Y Y S S S S Codex Claromontanus 400 M Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y S Letter of Innocent I 405 Y Y Y Y Y Y S X S S Decree of Gelasius 550 Y Y Y Y Y Y X S S S Isadore of Seville 625 Y Y Y Y Y Y S S S S John of Damascus 730 Y Y Y Y Y Y S S S S
2. Syrian Date Heb. Jas. Jn. Pet. Jude Rev. Shep. Apoc. Barn. Clem. Apostolic Canons 380 Y Y Y Y Y S S S S Y Peshitta Version 400 Y Y S S S S S S S S Report of Junilius 550 Y N N N N N S S S S
Interesting, but quite irrelevant. The Sixth Ecumenical Council gave the African Code of 419 universal force, thus settling the matter.
Namely, the key is incorrect and misleading.
S indicates that the author does not mention the book in his catalog, which implies its rejection.
That is faulty logic. Jesus Himself doesn't mention all the books of the Old Testament as we know them. Would anyone suggest that He was rejecting Chronicles or Nehemiah?
Secondly, the listing is NOT accurate. For example, Origen DOES discuss some of the Deuterocannonical writings that your list supposedly says he didn't.
"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; and you add that the forger has had recourse to something which not even Philistion the play-writer would have used in his puns between prinos and prisein, schinos and schisis, which words as they sound in Greek can be used in this way, but not in Hebrew. In answer to this, I have to tell you what it behoves 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.Origen,To Africanus, 5
Origen is defending the Greek version of Daniel (which the Protestant reformers of the 1500's removed), as well as the story of Bel and the Dragon.
Later, Origen writes:
"Wherefore I think no other supposition is possible, than that they who had the reputation of wisdom, and the rulers and elders, took away from the people every passage which might bring them into discredit among the people. We need not wonder, then, if this history of the evil device of the licentious elders against Susanna is true, but was concealed and removed from the Scriptures by men themselves not very far removed from the counsel of these elders." Origen,To Africanus,9
Origen gives his explanation to why the Greek version of Daniel was removed from the Hebrew Bible. Origen definetely considers it Scriptures.
How about this? "But he ought to know that those who wish to live according to the teaching of Sacred Scripture understand the saying, 'The knowledge of the unwise is as talk without sense,' [Sirach 21:18] and have learnt 'to be ready always to give an answer to everyone that asketh us a reason for the hope that is in us.’ [1 Pt 3:15] " Origen, Against Celsus, 7:12
Can we agree that Origen considered Sirach as Scripture?
"Tobias (as also Judith), we ought to notice, the Jews do not use. They are not even found in the Hebrew Apocrypha, as I learned from the Jews themselves." However, since the Churches use Tobias, you must know that even in the captivity some of the captives were rich and well to do. Tobias himself says, "Because I remembered God with all my heart; and the Most High gave me grace and beauty in the eyes of Nemessarus, and I was his purveyor; and I went into Media, and left in trust with Gabael, the brother of Gabrias, at Ragi, a city of Media, ten talents of silver" (Tobias, 1:12-14). Origen, To Africanus, 13
Origen speaks highly of Tobit. Elsewhere, he says "And it is written..." the formula used to describe a Scriptural passage.
"But that we may believe on the authority of holy Scripture that such is the case, hear how in the book of Maccabees, where the mother of seven martyrs exhorts her son to endure torture, this truth is confirmed; for she says, ' ask of thee, my son, to look at the heaven and the earth, and at all things which are in them, and beholding these, to know that God made all these things when they did not exist.'" [2 Maccabees 7:28]" Origen, Fundamental Principles, 2:2
2 Maccabees is SCRIPTURE! Boy, Martin Luther would not be happy to hear this quote from Origen...
He also writes similarly about Wisdom as well. Thus, just in Origen, the website you post is woefully inadequate for those in search of the truth...
Regards
Thanks for the detail on the questionable books.