CHAPTER IX
THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM THE END OF THE FIFTH CENTURY TO THE END OF THE TWELFTH CENTURY
The Hexaplar version of Syriac Scriptures made by Paul of Tella, in 616, contains all the deuterocanonical works.
DIONYSIUS, surnamed the Little, approved the catalogue of Scriptures promulgated by the Council of Carthage in 419, which embraced all the deuterocanonical works.
CASSIODORUS, writing for his monks a sort of introduction to the Holy Scriptures, sets forth three catalogues of Holy Books.
The first list is that of Prologus Galeatus, the helmeted prologue of Jerome. The second list is the Canon of St. Augustine from his Doctrina Christiana, which we have already reproduced in full. The third list of Cassiodorus is identical with the catalogue of the Vulgate, except a slight variation in the order of the books.
Cassiodorus was more reverential than critical. He plainly received all the deuterocanonical books, and failed to see any repudiation of them in the celebrated Prologue of Jerome. He certainly can be claimed as a witness of a tradition in the sixth century, which accorded to the deuterocanonical books the quality of divinity.
It is evident that, in the East, in the sixth and seventh centuries, the deuterocanonical books were held to be canonical, since the schismatic churches of the Chaldean Nestorians, the Jacobite Monophysites, Syrians, Ethiopians, Armenians and Copts, all have the deuterocanonical Scriptures in equal place with the other divine books.
It is needless to attend to the absurd catalogue of Junilius Africanus, an obscure bishop of Africa in the sixth century. This list places Chronicles, Job, and Ezra with Tobias, Judith, Esther, and Maccabees among the non-canonical books.
His opinion represents the tradition of no church or sect, nor is it found in any writer of note, and is rejected by everybody.
An unfavorable testimony is found in the work “De Sectis” of Leontius of Byzantium, a priest of Constantinople in the sixth century. He drew up a canon of only the protocanonical books excepting Esther, and declared that, “these are the books which are held canonical in the Church.” Leontius lived many years in the monastery of St. Saba, near Jerusalem, and the ideas of the Church of Jerusalem are reflected in his works. It can be said of him, as of Cyril, 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 Scripture without according them the pre-eminence of canonicity. Leontius used in several places quotations from deuterocanonical works as divine Scripture.
The opponents of our thesis cite at this juncture St. Gregory the Great.
In the Moral Treatises XIX. 21, citing a passage from Maccabees, he prefaces the citation by saying: “We shall not act rashly, if we accept a testimony of books, which, although not canonical, have been published for the edification of the Church.”
In the phraseology of St. Gregory canonical signified something over and above divine. It signified those books concerning which the whole world, with one accord, united in proclaiming the word of God. The other books were divine, were used as sources of divine teaching by the Church, but there was lacking the authoritative decree of the Church making them equal to the former in rank. The Jews of old made such distinction regarding the Law and the Hagiographa. All came from God, but the Law was pre-eminent. The influence of St. Jerome was strong upon St. Gregory. The tradition of the Church drew him with it to use freely, as divine Scripture, the deuterocanonical books; while the doubts of Jerome moved him to hesitate in his critical opinion to accord to these books a prerogative of which Jerome doubted. Had the Church not settled the issue in the Council of Trent, there would, doubtless, be many Catholics yet who would refuse to make equal the books of the first and second Canons. Christ established a Church to step in and regulate Catholic thought at opportune times, and her aid was needed in settling, once for all, the discussion of the Canon of Scripture. This isolated doubt from St. Gregory reflects merely a critical opinion, biased by Gregory’s esteem for St. Jerome. To show what was St. Gregory’s opinion as a witness of tradition, we need only examine the following references:
Eccli. 2:14.
Com. on Job. Bk. I. 36
Eccli. 2:16.
Ibid. 55.
Sap. 1:7.
Ibid. Bk. II. 20.
Eccli. 24:8.
Ibid.
Eccli. 32:26.
Ibid. Bk. III. 13.
Eccli. 11:27.
Ibid. 16.
Sap. 12:15.
Ibid. 26.
Eccli. 4:24.
Comment. on Job, Bk. IV. 32.
Eccli. 21:1.
Ibid. 39.
Eccli. 2:1.
Ibid. 42.
Eccli. 1:33.
Ibid. 61.
Sap. 9:15.
Ibid. 68.
Sap. 9:16.
Ibid. Bk. V. 12.
Sap. 4:11.
Ibid. 34.
Eccli. 5:4.
Ibid. 35.
Sap. 9:15.
Ibid. 58.
Sap. 7:26.
Ibid. 64.
Sap. 12:18.
Ibid. 78.
Sap. 2:24.
Ibid. 85.
Sap. 5:21.
Ibid. Bk. VI. 14.
Sap. 16:20.
Ibid. 22.
Tobias 4:16.
Ibid. 54.
Eccli. 12:8.
Ibid. Bk. VII. 29.
Eccli. 2:16.
Ibid. 45.
Sap. 11:24.
Ibid. Bk. VIII. 31.
Sap. 9:15.
Ibid. 12.
Eccli. 34:7.
Ibid. 42.
Sap. 9:15.
Ibid. 50.
Eccli. 40:1.
Ibid. 55.
Sap. 5:6.
Ibid. 76.
Eccli. 1:13.
Ibid. 88.
Sap. 2:12.
Ibid. Bk. IX. 89.
Eccli. 7:40.
Ibid. 92.
Sap. 6:7 et 9.
Ibid. 98.
Tob. 4:16.
Ibid. Bk. X. 8.
Eccli. 7:15.
Ibid. 28.
Eccli. 1:13.
Ibid. 35.
Eccli. 34:2.
Ibid. Bk. XI. 68.
Sap. 3:2
Ibid. Bk. XII. 6
Sap. 12:18.
Ibid. 14.
Sap. 17:10.
Ibid. 46.
Eccli. 11:27.
Ibid. Bk. XIII. 48.
Eccli. 10:15.
Ibid. Bk. XIV. 19.
Eccli. 22:2.
Ibid. Bk. XV. 5.
Sap. 1:4.
Ibid. 9.
Eccli. 3:22.
Ibid. Bk. XVI. 8.
Sap. 9:15.
Ibid. Bk. XVII. 39.
Eccli. 22:6.
Ibid. Bk. XVIII. 2.
Sap. 1:11.
Ibid. 5.
Sap. 5:8, 9.
Ibid. 29.
Eccli. 2:5.
Ibid. 40.
Eccli. 38:25.
Ibid. 68.
Sap. 9:15.
Ibid. 71.
Eccli. 15:3
Ibid. Bk. XIX. 9.
Sap. 4:8, 9.
Ibid. 26.
1 Maccab. 6:46.
Ibid. 34.
Eccli. 30:24.
Ibid. 38.
Eccli. 14:5.
Ibid.
Sap. 12:18.
Ibid. 46.
Eccli. 5:4.
Ibid.
Sap. 9:15.
Ibid. Bk. XX. 8.
Eccli. 2:11, 12.
Ibid. 51.
Eccli. 4:18, 19.
Ibid.
Eccli. 1:13.
Ibid. 56.
Eccli. 18:15, 17.
Ibid. Bk. XXI. 29.
Eccli. 20:32.
Ibid. Bk. XXII. 7.
Sap. 7:15.
Ibid. Bk. XXIII. 31.
Eccli. 10:15.
Ibid. 44.
Sap. 3:5.
Ibid. 52.
Eccli. 2:1.
Ibid. Bk. XXIV. 27.
Sap. 3:7.
Ibid. 49.
Eccli. 32:1.
Ibid. 52.
Sap. 6:5.
Ibid. 54.
Eccli. 5:4.
Ibid. Bk. XXV. 6.
Sap. 8:5.
Ibid. Bk. XXVI. 17.
Sap. 6:17.
Ibid.
Eccli. 3:22.
Ibid. 27.
Sap. 9:15.
Ibid. Bk. XXVII. 45.
Sap. 17:10.
Ibid. 48.
Eccli. 3:17.
Ibid. 53.
Sap. 2:24.
Ibid. Bk. XXIX. 15.
Sap. 7:24.
Ibid. 24.
Eccli. 5:7.
Ibid. 54.
Sap. 9:15.
Ibid. Bk. XXX. 15.
Eccli. 15:9.
Ibid. 74.
Eccli. 10:15.
Ibid. Bk. XXXI. 87.
Sap. 12:18.
Ibid. Bk. XXXII. 9.
Eccli. 10:15.
Ibid. 11.
Eccli. 29:33.
Ibid. 19.
Sap. 3:7.
Ibid. Bk. XXXIII. 7.
Eccli. 5:6, 7.
Ibid. 23.
Eccli. 21:10.
Ibid. 55.
Sap. 5:6.
Ibid. Bk. XXXIV. 25.
Eccli. 27:12.
Ibid.
Eccli. 32:1.
Ibid. 53.
Eccli. 10:9.
Ibid.
Sap. 2:8, 9.
Ibid. 55.
It is needless to go through the entire works of St. Gregory. These passages, taken from the books of his Exposition of Job, are a good specimen of his use of deuterocanonical Scripture. And no man can say that Gregory considered these books as merely pious treatises. He introduces his frequent quotations from them by the solemn formulas: “It is written,” etc., and oft declares them the Scripture of God. Gregory received the Scriptures, where he learned his faith, from the Catholic Church; hence, in drawing from his fund of Scriptural knowledge, he made no distinction in practice between the books of the first and second Canon. The fact that Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus are most used by him, results from the richness of their moral teaching; they were adapted to his scope. Quotations from all the deuterocanonical books except Judith and Baruch are found in his works; but the proving force of these quotations covers all these books, because it gives evidence that he received the edition of Scripture, in which they all stood on equal footing. The question of canonicity was to him more of a question of discipline. He was willing to receive all the books since the Church used them; but he did not essay to decide the exact degree of inspiration of the several books.
In the seventh century, three celebrated Fathers flourished in Spain. First among these is St. Isidore of Seville.
We find the following valuable testimony in the sixth book of the Etymologies of St. Isidore, 3–9: “The Hebrews, on the authority of Ezra, receive twenty-two books of the Old Testament, according to the number of their letters; and they divide them into three orders, The Law, The Prophets, and The Hagiographa. The first order, The Law, is received in five books, of which the first is Beresith, that is, Genesis; the second is Veelle Semoth, that is, Exodus; the third is Vaicra, that is Leviticus; the fourth is Vajedabber, that is Numbers; the fifth is Elle hadebarim, that is Deuteronomy. The second order is that of The Prophets, in which is contained eight books, of which the first is Josue ben Nun, which is called in Latin, Jesus Nave; the second is Sophtim, that is Judges; the third is Samuel, that is the first of Kings; the fourth is Melachim, that is the second of Kings; the fifth is Isaiah; the sixth, Jeremiah; the seventh, Ezechiel; the eighth, Thereazar, which is called the twelve prophets, who on account of their brevity are joined to one another, and considered as one book. The third order is of the Hagiographers, that is the writers of holy things, in which order are nine books, of which, the first is Job; the second, the Psalter; the third, Misle, that is the Proverbs of Solomon; the fourth is Coheleth, that is Ecclesiastes; the fifth is Sir Hassirim, that is the Canticle of Canticles; the sixth is Daniel; the seventh, Dibre hajamim, that is the Words of the Days, that is Paralipomenon; the eighth is Ezra; the ninth is Esther. These taken together, five, eight, and nine, make twenty-two books, as were computed above.
“Some enumerate Ruth, and Cinoth which is called in Latin, the Lamentations of Jeremiah, with the Hagiographa, and make twenty-four books, according to the twenty-four Ancients, who assist before the Lord.
“There is a fourth order with us of those books of the Old Testament, which are not in the Hebrew Canon. The first of these is Wisdom; the second, Ecclesiasticus; the third, Tobias; the fourth, Judith; the fifth and sixth, the Maccabees. Although the Jews separate these and place them among the Apocrypha, the Church of Christ honors them and promulgates them as divine books.” In this list Baruch is not explicitly mentioned, being considered a part of Jeremiah.
In his treatise De Ecclesiasticis Officiis, Bk. I. XI. 4, 5, 7, St. Isidore writes thus: “In the first place, the books of the Law, that is of Moses, are five, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Sixteen historical books follow these, viz., Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, two of Ezra, Tobias, Esther, Judith, and the two books of Maccabees. Then there are sixteen prophetical books, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, and the twelve minor Prophets. After these come eight books in verse, which are written in various kinds of metre in Hebrew. They are Job, the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, the Book of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and the Lamentations of Jeremiah, and thus there are made up forty-five books of the Old Testament.… These are the seventy-two canonical books, and on this account Moses elected the elders, who should prophesy. For this cause, the Lord Jesus sent seventy-two disciples to preach.”
The number here agrees with the number of the Council of Trent, but there is a slight variation, in that St. Isidore considers Baruch a part of Jeremiah, and detaches Lamentations as a separate book. Excepting this slight variation, the testimony of Isidore well represents the belief of the Church of his age. The first testimony quoted also explains the writings of preceding Fathers, in constituting a twofold order of books of the Old Testament: those that were in the Canon of the Hebrews, and those that were not, but which by the Church were honored and promulgated as divine books. The first were often called by the Fathers the canonical books of the Old Testament, and in excluding the deuterocanonical works from this order, they left them in the second order of Isidore.
In his prologue to the books of the Old Testament, I. 7, 8, we find the following: “Of these (the historical books), the Hebrews do not receive Tobias, Judith, and Maccabees, but the Church ranks them among the Canonical Scriptures. Then follow also those two great books—books of holy teaching, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus; which, although they are said to be written by Jesus the son of Sirach, nevertheless, on account of the similarity of diction, are called of Solomon. And these are acknowledged to have, in the Church, equal authority with the other Canonical Scriptures.”
ST. ISIDORE does not represent tradition, when he states that Wisdom is said to be the work of Sirach. He was there explaining a fact, and had only the warrant of his own critical knowledge on which to rely; but the fact itself he received from the Church, and this was that the Church of his day made equal those books that she afterwards proclaimed equal by solemn decree in the Council of Trent.
The second witness for the Church of Spain, in ST. ILDEFONSUS, the disciple of St. Isidore, afterward Archbishop of Toledo, who died in 669. In his Treatise on Baptism, Chapter LXXIX. he received the Canon of St. Augustine, in St. Augustine’s identical words, with perhaps the addition of one word to strengthen the authority of the deuterocanonical books.
ST. EUGENE, bishop of Toledo, who died in 657, sets forth the Canon of St. Isidore in Latin verse.
There is sometimes invoked against us the authority of St. JOHN DAMASCENE, a priest of Damascus, who flourished about 730 A. D. He has drawn up a catalogue of the books of the Old and New Testaments: concerning the former he says: “It is to be observed that there are twenty-two books of the Old Testament, according to the letters of the Hebrew language.” The only deuterocanonical works which he mentions are Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, of which he declares that “they are excellent and useful, but are not numbered, nor were they placed in the Ark.”
The Damascene is evidently simply stating the status of the deuterocanonical books with the Jews, and in this he is influenced by the extravagant ideas of St. Ephrem. His own judgment of the books is set forth in his declaration that they are excellent and useful, and one could legitimately make the inference from his testimony: Therefore, the Church receives them, because they are excellent and useful, even though not in the Canon of the Jews. His practice warrants the inference, for he quotes both Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus as divine Scripture.
At the beginning of the ninth century NICEPHORUS, Patriarch of Constantinople, drew up (in his Stichometry) a catalogue of books, which contains twenty-two books. In this list, Baruch finds place, while Esther is passed over in silence. After the list of the canonical books of the Old and the New Testaments, there is placed a list of ἀντιλεγόμενα which comprises The Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, The Psalms of Solomon, Esther, Judith, Susanna and Tobias. This list has a close affinity to the Synopsis of the Pseudo-Athanasius, and is of no worth in establishing the tradition of the Church of Constantinople, for at that very time, in virtue of the decree of the Council in Trullo, the Canon of the Carthaginian Council was adopted by the Greek Church. Nicephorus, like many of his time, held in great veneration the ancient documents, which had been preserved. He most probably reproduced here some old writing without essaying to judge its critical value.
PHOTIUS has placed in his Syntagma Canonum, the eighty-fifth Canon of the Apostles, the sixtieth Canon of Laodicea, and the twenty-fourth Canon of Carthage.
From the fact that he receives the decree of the Council of Carthage, it is evident that he is at one with us on the question of the Canon. He evidently believed that the curtailed canons were completed by the decree of Carthage.
Even after its defection from Rome, the Greek Church has always received the deuterocanonical books. To this Zonaras and Balsamon testify.
When, in the seventeenth century, CYRIL LUCAR endeavored to introduce protestant ideas into the Greek Church, he failed to expel from the Canon the deuterocanonical books. Against him the members of the Council of Jerusalem decreed that, “following the rule of the Catholic Church, we call Holy Scripture all those books which Cyril received from the Council of Laodicea, and in addition those books which Cyril, unwisely, ignorantly, or rather maliciously called Apocryphal, viz., Wisdom of Solomon, Judith, Tobias, the History of the Dragon (deuterocanonical fragment of Daniel), The History of Susanna (idem), The Maccabees, and The Wisdom of Sirach. We judge that these should be enumerated with the other genuine books of Holy Scripture, as genuine parts of the same Scripture.”
In the council which Parthenius, Patriarch of Constantinople held in 1638 at Constantinople, in which sat two other patriarchs and one hundred and twenty bishops, a synodical letter was drawn up and sent to the provincial synod convened at Jassy, in which the opinion of Cyril Lucar, who expunged from Holy Scripture holy and canonical books, and as such received by the holy synods, is declared to be heresy, breathing forth from all parts, and utterly contrary to the orthodox faith. In later centuries, protestant ideas have invaded in some part the Russian Church to the extent that Philaretes (†1868) authorized the following catechismal text, and this was approved by the Synod.
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 Hebrew tongue. Athanas. Ep. XXXIX. de Test. [Fest.]; 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.
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 book of Psalms: 15. The Proverbs of Solomon: 16 Ecclesiastes, also by Solomon: 17. The Songs 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 no notice taken, in this enumeration of the books of the Old Testament, of the book of Wisdom, of the Son of Sirach, and certain others?
A. Because they do not exist in Hebrew.
Q. How are we to regard these last named books?
A. Athanasius the Great says, that they have been appointed by the fathers to be read by proselytes, who are preparing for admission into the Church.”
Philaretes was a disciple of Cyril Lucar, and introduced many protestant ideas into the Russian Church; but in the days when the tradition of that Church was worth aught, it was not so. All the Churches of the East were in accord in accepting the deuterocanonical books.
Up to recent times the CODEX AMIATINUS, was believed to date back to the middle of the sixth century. M. de Rossi has demonstrated that this manuscript was copied in the first years of the eighth century in the Monastery of Wearmouth, in Northumberland, by the monks of the Anglo-Saxon Ceolfrid.
It was given to Pope Gregory II. in 716. It is considered the finest Codex in all this world of the Vulgate of St. Jerome. It contains all the protocanonical and deuterocanonical books, uniting Baruch with Jeremiah, and making explicit mention of the same. This is important in proving force, since it represents the text of Scripture brought into England by the missionaries of Gregory the Great.
In the first years of the ninth century, ALCUIN, by order of Charlemagne, made an edition of the Scriptures.
The CODEX PAULINUS or Carolinus, preserved at the Basilica of St. Paul outside the walls of Rome, executed in the ninth century, contains Alcuin’s recension, in which we find all the deuterocanonical books except Baruch. The CODEX STATIANUS or VALLICELLIANUS in the Vallicella Library at Rome, and other manuscripts called the Bibles of Charlemagne, at Zurich, Bamberg, and in the British Museum, contain the same list of Alcuin’s revised books. Moreover, Alcuin has drawn up a complete Canon of both protocanonical and deuterocanonical books in the following verses:
hoc quinque libri, retinentur Codice Mosis,
Bella ducis Josue, seniorum et tempora patrum.
Ruth, Job, et Regum bis bini namque libelli;
Atque Prophetarum sancti bis octo libelli;
Carmina præclari Christi patris hymnica David,
Et tria pacifici Salomonis opuscula regis.
Jungitur his Sophiæ Jesu simul atque libellus,
Et Paralipomenis enim duo nempe libelli.
Hinc Ezræ, Nehemiæ, Hester, Judith atque libelli
Et duo namque libri Machabæa bella tenentes.
Matthæi et Marci, Lucæ liber, atque Joannis
Inclyta gesta tenens salvantis sæcula Christi.
Sanctus Apostolicos Lucas conscripserat Actus;
Bis septem sancti per chartas dogmata Pauli,
Jacobi, Petri, Judæ et pia dicta Joannis:
Scribitur extremo Joannis in ordine tomus.
Hos lege, tu lector felix, feliciter omnes,
Ad laudem Christi propriamque in sæcla salutem.”
“Tres Salomon libros mirabilis edidit auctor,
His duo junguntur per paradigma libri;
Quorum quippe prior Sapientia dicitur alma,
Notatur Jesu nomine posterior
Hinc Paralipomenonis adest sacer ille libellus,
Qui veteris Legis dicitur epitome
Hinc Ezrœ Nehmiœ, Judith, Hesterque libelli;
Tunc Tobiæ pietas, angelus, actus, iter.
Inclyta nam binis Machabæa bella libellis
Scribuntur, victis gentibus et populis.
Hæc est sancta quidem Legis Scriptura Vetustæ,
Divinis tota quæ titulis redolet.”
Some endeavor to shake Alcuin’s authority for the deuterocanonical books by citing a passage from the eighteenth paragraph of his first book against Elipandus. This Elipandus had cited, in support of Adoptionism, the text from Ecclesiasticus 36:14: “Miserere, Domine, plebi tuæ, super quam invocatum es nomen tuum, et Israel quem coæquasti primogenito tuo.” Alcuin replies: “In the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, the aforesaid sentence is read, of which book blessed Jerome and Isidore positively testify that it is placed among the apocryphal, that is to say, the doubtful books.”
In relation to this testimony, we must first observe that Alcuin errs in stating that Isidore placed Ecclesiasticus among the Apocrypha. A close examination of his works reveals no such statement; he is a plain advocate of Ecclesiasticus and all the other deuterocanonical works. We know what was the opinion of Jerome, and what were its causes. The present question, therefore, is: did Alcuin adopt the opinion of Jerome? We answer this question in the negative, on the clearest evidence. To say nothing of the complete lists of Scripture in the verses already quoted, to say nothing of the recension of all the books of the Catholic Canon, in the edition prepared by Alcuin for Charlemagne, we have clear and express statements from Alcuin that Ecclesiasticus is divinely inspired Scripture. We select the following passages:
Eccli. 5:8.
De Virtutibus et Vitiis, XIV. XVIII.
“Delay not to be converted to the Lord, and defer it not from day to day.”
“The saying is read in the divinely inspired Scriptures, ‘Son, delay not to be converted to the Lord; because thou knowest not what the coming day may bring forth.’ … These are the words of God, not mine.”
In the fifteenth chapter of the same treatise, he quotes Ecclesiasticus three times as authoritative Scripture. In the eighteenth chapter this passage occurs:
“Eccli. 18:30–31.
De Virtutibus et Vitiis, XVIII.
“Go not after thy lusts, but turn away from thy own will. If thou give to thy soul her desires, she will make thee a joy to thy enemies.”
“Holy Scripture, therefore, admonishes us, saying.” ‘Go not after thy lusts, but turn away from thy own will. If thou give to thy soul her desires, she will make thee a joy to thy enemies.’ “
If words mean anything, Alcuin’s position was that Ecclesiasticus was divinely inspired Scripture, and the word of God. The Council of Trent asks no more than this for the book. In practical usage Alcuin made no difference between the two classes of books. The passage objected to by our adversaries relates only to Ecclesiasticus, and we honestly claim to have shown that Alcuin did not make his own the opinion of St. Jerome. To reconcile the aforesaid passage with Alcuin’s real belief, we must observe that it occurs in a controversial work directed against Elipandus, the heretical Archbishop of Toledo. In that treatise, his aim was to obtain victory over his opponent, and to that purpose, he was willing to use every argument that would have any weight, even though it did not express his personal conviction. Elipandus had quoted a passage from Ecclesiasticus that seemed to make for Adoptionism. Alcuin first endeavors to weaken the adversary’s position by throwing the doubt of St. Jerome on the book, and then directly meets the objection by explaining the passage. Such mode of dealing with adversaries characterizes the writings of many of the Fathers. In the treatise, De Virtutibus et Vitiis, Alcuin speaks as a calm exponent of the Church’s doctrine, and draws his materials from the commonly received deposit of Holy Scripture of that time.
In face of all this, it is nauseating to find the protestant writer Home placing Alcuin among those who testify that the apocryphal (deuterocanonical) books form no part of the Canon of divinely inspired Scripture.
The CODEX TOLETANUS, of Toledo in Spain, which, according to critics, dates back to the eight century, contains all the deuterocanonical books except Baruch.
THE CODEX CAVENSIS, of the Abbey of La Cava near Salerno, contains all the deuterocanonical books. This manuscript is probably of Spanish origin, of the end of the eighth or beginning of ninth century. It contains the text of Jerome.
THEODULF, Bishop of Orleans, contemporary with Alcuin, made a recension of the books of Scripture, of which two copies are in the National Museum at Paris, and another is preserved in the Cathedral at Puy. In the Bible of Theodulf all the deuterocanonical books find place.
VENERABLE BEDE wrote an allegorical exposition of the book of Tobias, and in his use of Scripture makes no distinction between protocanonical and deuterocanonical books.
Against the authority of Bede two objections are raised. In his treatise, De Temporum Ratione, he writes as follows: “Thus far divine Scripture contains the series of events. The subsequent history of the Jews is exhibited in the book of Maccabees, and in the writings of Josephus and Africanus, who continue the subsequent history down to the time of the Romans.”
According to our adversaries, Bede here draws a sharp distinction between divine Scripture and the mere profane history of the books of Maccabees. In dealing with this objection, we place first of all that it leaves the canonicity of all the deuterocanonical books, except the Maccabees, intact. This is self evident since he is speaking of historical books alone. In the second place, we must interpret the obscure passages of a writer according to his certain position, revealed in his other works. Now Bede has quoted all the deuterocanonical books in the solemn formulas, customary in introducing divine Scripture. Did he therefore reject Maccabees, he would disagree with himself, and be absurdly inconsistent. We believe, therefore, that in distinguishing Maccabees from the other historical books of divine Scripture, he merely wishes to point out that it does not alone continue the series of historical events from Ezra to the era of the Romans. Up to the time of Ezra, indeed, not all historical events were written, but enough was written to form a continuous chain of chief events, and no other writings contain the events of those times except the Holy Books, which follow each other in a certain historical series. But after Ezra a great lacuna occurs in the history of the Jews down to the time of the Romans, which is only partly bridged over by the combined data of Maccabees, Africanus, and Josephus. The second book of Maccabees covers a period of only about sixteen years; the first, of about forty. They are partly synchronous, and combined would not cover a period of over fifty years. Hence Bede could not say that divine Scripture contained the series of events down to the Roman epoch. He, therefore, drew a distinction between Maccabees and the preceding historical books, not from the nature of the books, but from the fact that the Scriptural history of the Jews became broken at Ezra, and the fragment of it which existed in Maccabees had to be supplemented by the two cited authors.
The second objection is taken from Bede’s commentary on the Apocalypse, Chapter 4. Therein he states: “The six wings of the four animals, which are twenty-four, signify so many books of the Old Testament, in which the authority of the evangelists is confirmed, and their truth is corroborated.”
It is pitiably absurd to make Bede, who throughout his vast works has quoted the deuterocanonical books side by side, and in equal place with the protocanonical Scriptures, reject them on the warrant of this one passage. It is Bede’s evident opinion here to consider the protocanonical books as a class by themselves, without detracting from the divinity of the deuterocanonical works. The classing of the protocanonical works in a distinct class, was warranted by patristic literature, and this diligent student of patrology drew therefrom a mystic argument, without throwing doubt on the deuterocanonical books, which formed a class by themselves. The last factor in removing this class distinction, and making the two classes perfectly equal, was the decree of the Council of Trent.
In our review of these centuries, we can not notice every writer who has written, relating to the books of Holy Scripture. We shall content ourselves with adducing representative men as the exponents of the Church’s belief through these ages.
RHABANUS MAURUS follows on the question of the Canon St. Isidore of Seville. As Rhabanus was a faithful follower of the Fathers of the Church, his Canon may be called the Canon of tradition of this century. In his work, De Institutione Clericorum, Chap. LIII. he formulates the following Canon: “These are, therefore, the books of the Old Testament; in love of doctrine and piety the chief men of the Churches have handed down that these should be read and received. The first are of the Law, that is, the five books of Moses, viz., Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. There follow these fifteen historical books, viz., Josue, and the books of Judges, or Ruth (as one of them is called), the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Tobias, Esther and Judith, two of Ezra and Two of Maccabees. With these are sixteen prophetic books. There follow eight books in verse, which are written in different kinds of metre with the Hebrews, that is the book of Job, the book of Psalms, and Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and the Lamentations of Jeremiah.” After giving the complete Canon of the New Testament, he continues: “These are the seventy-two canonical books and on this account Moses elected seventy elders as prophets; and Jesus, Our Lord, sent seventy-two disciples to preach.” The testimony of Rhabanus is identical with that of Isidore of Seville, and is valuable inasmuch as it evidences that the teachers of the Church found in St. Isidore a concise statement of the Church’s belief. Rhabanus wrote commentaries on Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith and the two books of Maccabees.
WALAFRID STRABO, must also be added to the advocates of the Catholic Canon.
In his Glossa Ordinaria, he has adopted the commentaries of his master Rhabanus Maurus, on Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, and the Maccabees; he has adopted Bede’s commentary on Tobias, and reproduces the text of Baruch without commentary with this preface: “The book which is called Baruch is not found in the Hebrew Canon, but only in the Vulgate edition, as also the Epistle of Jeremiah. For the knowledge of the readers, they are written here, for they contain many things relating to Christ, and the last times.”
The influence of St. Jerome was strong in Walafrid. He has inserted in his Glossa the prefaces of St. Jerome concerning the deuterocanonical books. That these prefaces find place in his work, would not prove that he adopted Jerome’s views, for the prefaces are printed in the Clementine edition of our own day. In the obscurity of the age when Walafrid lived, men, with reverence, accepted the writings of the great saints, suspending judgment when they were in contradiction with other approved data. He testifies that Baruch is in the Vulgate of his time, and that it contains much that is good. It is equivalent to say: “The Church receives this book, but I know not what degree of divinity she accords it.”
With full right, therefore, Pope Nicolas I., writing to the bishops of Gaul in 865, speaks of the catalogue of Scripture of Innocent I. as the law of the universal Church: “—if the Old and New Testaments are to be received, not because they are to be found in a code of Canons, but because there exists a sentence of Holy Pope Innocent, concerning their reception, it follows that the decretal letters of Roman Pontiffs are to be received, even though not embodied in the code of Canons.” We have before seen that the decree of Innocent I. is identical with the catalogue of the Council of Trent. Nicolas here places as a truth conceded by all that the decree of Innocent was the law of the Church on Scripture.
In the tenth century, doubts again arose in the Western Church, founded solely on the authority of St. Jerome. On one side stood the use of the Church and the testimony of tradition; on the other, the declarations of Jerome, the “doctor of doctors.” Hence doubt arose and uncertainty in many minds, and many were the attempts to reconcile Jerome with the belief and usage of the Church. These doubts endured down to the time of the Council of Trent.
It would be impossible to pass in review over all the writings of these ages. We can only signalize some representative men of both sides. We find that the great body of the Church’s teachers preserved the old belief and tradition, and the few who, through an excessive adhesion to St. Jerome, broke away from the common belief suffice not to break the consensus of tradition. We find that most of those who follow the opinion of Jerome try to reconcile him with the Church, by according to the deuterocanonical books a place among the Holy Books, just short of certain canonicity. By this, they strove to harmonize the universal usage of the Church with Jerome’s rejection of these books from the Canon.
NOTKER BALBULUS opens the tenth century with an unfavorable testimony. In his work, De Interpretibus Divinæ Scripturæ, Chap. III., he has the following obscure statement: “Of the book which is called the Wisdom of Solomon, I have found no author’s exposition, except some testimonies (therefrom) explained in relation to other books. The book is totally rejected by the Hebrews, and is by Christians considered uncertain, nevertheless, since on account of the utility of its doctrine, our forefathers were accustomed to read it, and the Jews have it not, it is called with us Ecclesiasticus. What thou believest of this, it behooveth thee to believe also of the book of Jesus the son of Sirach, except that this latter is possessed and read by the Hebrews.… The priest Bede wrote some things on Tobias and Ezra, more pleasing than necessary, since he has striven to convert simple history into an allegory. What shall I say of the books of Judith, Esther and Paralipomenon? By whom, or how shall they be explained, since their contents are not intended for authority, but only as a memorial of wonderful things? This thou mayest also suspect of the Books of Maccabees.” (Patrol. L. Migne, 131, 996.)
There is no precedent in the writings of Jerome, or of any one else for the opinion of this monk. It is the sole testimony of one man against the Church. Any testimony that places Paralipomenon among the deuterocanonical books may well be set aside without further argument. It is simply the case of a man, admirable in other things, who erred on this subject.
In the collections of the decrees of Councils and Popes, collected in the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth centuries, the Canon of Innocent I. or of Gelasius always finds place. The collection of Canons of the Church of Spain, published by Gonzalez from a Codex of 976 contains the decree of Pope Innocent. BURCHARD OF WORMS (†1025), IVES OF CHARTRES (†1117), and GRATIANUS (†1155) have received the decree of Gelasius. These collections formed the basis of the discipline of the Church, and show us plainly the place given to the deuterocanonical books to have been, in fact, not inferior to that accorded them in the Church to-day.
At the beginning of the twelfth century, ST. STEPHEN HARDING, Abbot of Citeaux, made a recension of the Latin Vulgate. In this recension of the year 1109 we find all the books of the Catholic Canon.
GISLEBERT, Abbot of Westminister (†1117), in his “Dispute of A Jew with A Christian,” defends the authority of Baruch: “Although that which the book contains is not found in the book which bears the name of Jeremiah, nevertheless, Jeremiah has produced the data; for he who wrote this book wrote not otherwise than under the dictation of Jeremiah.” (P. L. Migne, 159, 1026–1027.) Although there is here an error of fact, nevertheless, the abbot is true in his defense of the authority of the book, which Catholic belief of his day adopted.
An ANONYMOUS WRITER of the middle of the twelfth century, writing upon the reading of the Bible, expresses himself thus: “Besides the aforesaid (the protocanonical books), there are five books which are called by the Hebrews apocryphal, that is to say hidden and doubtful, but the Church honors these and receives them. The first is Wisdom; the second, Ecclesiasticus; the third, Tobias; the fourth, Judith; the fifth, Maccabees.” (P. L. Migne, 213, 714.)
This is the exact Catholic position, which endured and lived down every opposing agency.
AEGIDIUS, deacon of Paris (†1180?) sets forth the Catholic position on the Canon in the following Latin verses:
Qui tamen excipit hos: Tobi, Judith, et Machabæus,
Et Baruch, atque Jesum, pseudographumque librum
Sed licet excepti, tamen hos authenticat usus
Ecclesiæ, fidei regula, scripta Patrum.
Scito quod ista Dei digito digesta fuerunt.
Altus hic est puteus, grandis abyssus inest.
Patrol. Lat. Migne, 212, 43.
PETER OF RIGA, the friend of Aegidius, endorses the Catholic Canon in the following verses:
“Lex antiqua tenet cum quater octo decem.
Isti terdeni libri sunt et duodeni
Antiquæ legis, si numerando legis.
Quinque Moys; Josue; Judex; Paralipomenon; Job
Bis bini Regum; Ruth; David; et Salomon;
Ezechiel; Daniel; Isaias; Jeremias;
Esdras; Philo; Sirach; plena vigore Judith;
Hester amœna genis; Tobias; et Macchabæi;
Scripta prophetarum sunt duodena simul;
Nempe Neemiæ dedit hospitium liber Esdræ;
Et Ruth judicibus hospita facta subest;
Scriptorisque sui Baruch librum Jeremias
Post libri recipit posteriora sui.”—P. L. Migne, 212, 23.
In this testimony, Peter adopted the erroneous opinion of some that Wisdom was written by Philo, the Jew; but the value of his opinion is not impaired by this error since, in such opinion, he is not a witness of the Church’s belief.
PETER OF BLOIS (†1200) adopts the following testimony verbatim from St. Isidore of Seville: “There is a fourth order with us of the books of the Old Testament, of the books that are not in the Hebrew Canon, the first of these is Wisdom; the second, Ecclesiasticus; the third, Tobias; the fourth Judith; the fifth and sixth, Maccabees. These books, the Jews place apart among the apocrypha; but the Church of Christ honors them among the divine books and promulgates them.” (P. L. Migne, 207, 1052.) This may be called the common opinion of the time. It is always enunciated with the certainty and boldness of men conscious that they have no adversary among the teachers of the Church. It is never challenged, never denied: those who depart from it, at most, only try to pare away a little of the equality of the books of the second Canon, to be in line with Jerome.
HONORIUS, the celebrated theologian of Autun (†1120?) in his Gemma Animae, Chap. cxviii, establishes the mode in which the Holy Books are to be read in the divine office, in which testimony, he has the following: “These books are authentic, and these are to be read in the divine offices.… From the Kalends of August up to September, let there be read the Parables of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, The Canticle of Canticles, and The Book of Wisdom, all of which Solomon wrote, and Ecclesiasticus, which Jesus the Son of Sirach composed. From the Kalends of September, for two weeks, let there be read the book of Job, which he composed; then for a week the book of Tobias, which he wrote. Then for a week, let there be read the book of Judith, which she or Achior wrote.… From the Kalends of October to the Kalends of November, let there be read the books of Maccabees; the first of which, Simon the pontifex wrote, and its last part John his son is said to have written; but the second book, Philo, the Jew, taught by the Greeks, is known to have written.” (P. L. Migne, 172, 736, 737.)
In these testimonies Baruch is not explicitly mentioned, because it was always considered a part of Jeremiah. It is evident that this theologian is not advancing an individual opinion here, but practically ordering the reading of books which the Church read as Holy Scripture. His opinion of the authorship of the second book of Maccabees is worthless, since there he is not a witness, but a critic, and a very poor one in this case.
JOHN BELETH, the theologian of Paris (1180), in his Rationale Divinorum Officiorum, establishes the same order of reading of the Scriptures.
PETER COMESTOR (†1178) has a testimony favorable to us. In the history of the book of Joshua, Praef., he has the following: “Job, David, three books of Solomon, Daniel, Paralipomenon, Ezra, Esther, Sapientia, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobias, Maccabees are called the Hagiographa (al. Apocrypha), because their author is unknown; but since there is no doubt of their truth, they are received by the Church.” (P. L. Migne, 198, 1260.) Great confusion exists in this age in the use of Hagiographa and Apocrypha. Many confounded these terms, as this author did here, if the text of Migne is right. They seem to have wished to reconcile Jerome with the Church by attributing to the word apocryphal, the sense of a book, whose message was received by the Church, but whose author was unknown.
A peculiar testimony is found in that part of Peter’s history which treats of the history of the Book of Daniel. In the 13. Chapter he states: “There follows the history of Susanna, which the Hebrew (text) does not contain in the Book of Daniel. It calls it a fable, not that it denies the history, but because it is falsely stated there, that the priests were stoned, whom Jeremiah testifies to have been burned; and because we fable it to have been written by Daniel, whereas it was written by a certain Greek.” The loose ideas of inspiration then prevailing, made it possible for this uncritical mind to believe that historical falsehood could exist in Scripture.
A testimony unfavorable to the Book of Wisdom is found in the writings of RUPERT, Abbot of Deutz. In his Commentary on Genesis, Chap. 31, he denies the canonicity of Wisdom: “Concerning whom (Adam), whether he ever obtained through Christ mercy, by which we are saved and freed, certain ones in these days discuss, for the reason that nowhere does the canonical Scripture testify that he did penance. Only in the book, which bears the title of Wisdom, it is thus written concerning him: She (Wisdom) preserved him, that was the first formed by God, the father of the world, when he was created alone, and she brought him out of his sin, and gave him power to govern all things. (Sap. 10:1–2). But this Scripture is not of the canon, nor is that sentence taken from canonical Scripture.… What, therefore, is therein said: ‘She brought him out of his sin, and gave him power to govern all things,’ is more readily rejected than received.” (P. L. Migne, 167, 318.)
In his Commentary on Jeremiah, Rupert mentions not Baruch (Ibid.); and he omits all the deuterocanonical fragments from Daniel, (Ibid.). In his work De Divinis Officiis, he renders clear testimony that all the deuterocanonical books were read side by side with the books of the first Canon as divine Scripture, and then throws a doubt on Tobias and Judith: “These two volumes are not in the canon with the Hebrews, but, on the authority of the Nicene Synod, they are adopted for the instruction of the Church.” (P. L. Migne, 170, 332.)
In his work, De Victoria Verbi Dei, speaking of the causes of Aman’s wrath, as set forth in the deuterocanonical Twelfth Chapter of Esther, he contrasts the data with the protocanonical Third Chapter of the same book, saying: “But a greater and more certain cause of this hate and great wrath is that which the truth of Scripture asserts thus: ‘Mardochai alone did not bend the knee and adore Aman.’ “ (P. L. Migne, 169, 1384.)
It is evident, therefore, that the deuterocanonical data are not ranked as the truth of Scripture. In the same work, from the Seventh to the Twenty-sixth Chapter, Rupert discourses on the books of Maccabees, which he clearly recognizes as divine Scripture. (P. L. Migne, 169, 1428–1442.)
We find in Rupert a man strongly imbued with the opinions of Jerome, of whose writings he had been an assiduous reader. Jerome was the classical authority of those days on Scripture, and it is not strange that Rupert, his disciple, should have adopted some of his opinions. Like his master, he is not consistent, and in his practical use of Scripture regularly quotes the deuterocanonical books as divine Scripture. He breaks away from the common voice of tradition, when he denies the divinity of the same. It was only the safeguarding power of the Holy Spirit, acting through the Church, that saved these books against the authority of Jerome, who was the great authority on Scripture in the middle age. This protection of God permitted an occasional word against the divinity of the aforesaid books.
HUGH OF ST. VICTOR also adopts the opinions of the Prologus Galeatus. In his prefatory remarks, De Scripturis et Scriptoribus Sacris, after giving the list of the protocanonical books, he continues: “All, therefore, make twenty-two. There are besides certain other books, as the Wisdom of Solomon, the Book of Jesus the Son of Sirach, The Book of Judith, Tobias, and the Maccabees, which are read, but are not written in the Canon.”
After enumerating the books of the New Testament, the decretals of Popes, and the writings of the Fathers, among whom the first in place is Jerome, he continues: “But these writings of the Fathers are not computed in the text of the divine Scriptures, just as we have said that there are books which are not embodied in the Canon of the Old Testament, and yet are read, as the Wisdom of Solomon and other books. The text, therefore, of Holy Scripture, as one body, is principally made up of thirty books. Of these twenty-two books are comprised in the Old Testament, and eight in the New. (Hugh made one book of the thirteen Epistles of Paul, and another book of all the Catholic Epistles). The other writings are, as it were, adjuncts, and deductions from the foregoing.” (P. L. Migne, 175, 15, 16.)
In his Prologue, De Sacramentis, he manifests the same views: “There are, besides, in the Old Testament certain other books, which are read, indeed, but are not within the Corpus Scripturarum, or in the authentic Canon. These are Tobias, Judith, Maccabees, and that which is inscribed the Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus.”
Hugh is also a Jeromist of a pronounced type. All that the Church had done up to his time was to place these books before the faithful as Scripture. She had not defined the exact degree of their inspiration. It is only concerning this degree of inspiration that Hugh errs. He testifies to the presence of the books in the divine deposit. The degree of their inspiration was yet an open question; in judging of this degree, he went with his great master Jerome, and excluded the books of the second Canon from an equality with the first. The authority of Hugh of St. Victor was great in the Church; and, doubtless, he contributed much to keep up the uncertainty which was finally removed by the Council of Trent. It was not with those writers a question of the rejection of the deuterocanonical books—these books had a place in the deposit of the sacred literature of the Church—but it was a question of equality with the other books; and on this point some limited the authority of the books to something less than canonicity.
RUDOLPH OF FLAVIGNY (†1155), divides the books of Scripture into four classes, historical, prophetical, books of proverbs, and books of simple doctrine. He places Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus with protocanonical books in the fourth class, but declares that “Tobias, Judith and Maccabees, although read for the instruction of the Church, have not perfect authority.”
That the books should be read in the Church, was the Church’s work, infallible and uniform; she preserved them for her children, because they were divine: the fluctuation of individual opinions regarding their exact degree of inspiration was the work of man. As long as the main point, the deliverance of the message of these books to the people, was safeguarded, the Church could permit the conflict of individual opinions in the speculative order, till, in her own good time, she declared authoritatively what character she had always given to these books.
PETER OF CLUNY, surnamed the Venerable, is by some quoted as an adversary of the deuterocanonical books. In his letter against Peter of Bruys and his sect, called the Petrobrusiani, after enumerating the protocanonical books, he continues: “There remain besides these authentic books of Holy Scripture six other books which are not to be passed over in silence, viz., Wisdom, the Book of Jesus Son of Sirach, Tobias, Judith, and the two books of Maccabees. Although these do not reach the sublime dignity of the preceding, nevertheless, on account of their laudable and very necessary doctrine, they have merited to be received by the Church. There is no need that I should labor in commending these to you. For if ye value the Church in any wise, ye will receive something, at least a little, on her authority. But if (as Christ said of Moses to the Jews) ye will not believe Christ’s Church how will ye believe my words?” (P. L. Migne, 188, 751.)
Viewed in a proper light, this text has nothing unfavorable to the complete Canon. Peter is arguing with men who boasted that they received only the Gospels, and he asks them to receive the other books on the authority of the Church. There is a perfect accord in all these exponents of Catholic thought in stating that the Church received the deuterocanonical books. The only difference of opinion that existed regarded the rank and dignity of these books. They received and used them; some of these writers hesitated to pronounce the last word regarding the canonicity of these books, because the Church had not yet defined the question. That Peter, the Venerable, in limiting the dignity of these books, did not deny their divine inspiration, is evident from his copious quotations from all of them, as divine Scripture. Witness a few examples. In the aforesaid treatise, speaking of the Book of Maccabees, he declares: “But of Judas Maccabæus, the excellent leader of the Hebrews, the truthful Scripture commemorates that, after the destruction of the pagan army, he took the sword of the general Apollonius whom he had slain, and fought with it all his days.” 1 Maccab. 3.
In the same treatise, he establishes from the II. of Maccabees, “that it is a holy thought to pray for the dead, that they may be released from their sins.” 2 Maccab. 12:46.
In his Thirty-fourth Epistle, quoting the sixth verse of the twenty-second chapter of Ecclesiasticus, he says; “That divine philosopher saith: ‘A tale out of time is like music in mourning.’ “
In his treatise against the Jews, Chapter II., he proves the divinity of Christ from the authority of Baruch: “And although these things should suffice to prove the divinity of Christ to even brute beasts, let the Prophet or prophetic man come forth, Baruch the notary or colleague of Jeremiah. Let him come forth, and, although he draws his spirit from another, nevertheless it is from the prophetic heart of Jeremiah, and therefore as of one spirit with the Prophet, let him state, not in enigmas, but lucidly and openly, what he thinks of the divinity of Christ. This man manifestly, after many things said of God, adds: ‘This is our God, and there shall be 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.’ “ Baruch 3:36–38.
In the same treatise, Chapter IV., he declares thus: “Who is it that in a certain one of your books speaks by the wise man: ‘My memory is unto everlasting generations’ (Eccli. 24:28?) Is it not God? Verily it is God.” The Council of Trent asks no more than is substantially declared in these passages, and by its everlasting sanction, it has made canonical the books that Peter considered divine.
JOHN OF SALISBURY follows Jerome on the Canon. In Epistola CXLIII. he declares thus: “Since, therefore, concerning the number of the books, I read many and different opinions of the Fathers, following Jerome, a doctor of the Catholic Church, whom I hold most approved in establishing foundations of Scripture, I firmly believe that, as there are twenty-two Hebrew letters, thus there are twenty-two books of the Old Testament, arranged in three orders … And these are found in the Prologue to the Book of Kings which Jerome called the Galeatum Principium of all Scripture.… But the Book of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobias, and Pastor, as the same Father asserts, are not in the Canon, neither is the book of Maccabees, which is divided in two.” (P. L. 199; 125, 126.)
In the same work, he speaks again of the deuterocanonical books thus: “Concerning Tobias, Judith, and the Book of Maccabees, which are not received in the Canon, by whom they were written, the common opinion does not teach us, neither do the followers of Philo mention them; but since they build up faith and religion, they are piously admitted.’ Philo wrote the Book of Wisdom, and it is called Pseudographus; not that he wrote falsely, but because he falsely entitled it; for it is called the Wisdom of Solomon, whereas, it was not written by Solomon, but is called of Solomon, on account of its style and excellent moral teaching. Jesus Son of Sirach wrote Ecclesiasticus, which also, from the similarity of its style and moral teaching, is called Solomon’s.”
The practice of John of Salisbury is in direct opposition to his theory here announced. His works are full of quotations from the deuterocanonical Scriptures as divine Scripture. He was infected by a sort of hero worship towards St. Jerome, somewhat similar to that which in our day set in towards St. Thomas, which is in itself neither to the glory of the saint, nor conformable to the truth. Without sufficient depth or critical acumen to penetrate the question and form a comprehensive judgment of it, John paid a blind allegiance to his master, and, at the same time, made much use of these very same books as Scripture. Jurare in verba magistri was the motto of these schoolmen, and often they extolled the opinions of the master over the voice of tradition. The error of John, then, is due to defect of proper investigation, and to an excessive addiction to the opinions of St. Jerome.
Support Site Improvements