Most of us take it for granted to have a copy of Bible and do not bother to know how we got it. The question how the list of Old Testament books was determined hardly comes to our mind, until some of our non-Catholic friends pointed to us the difference in number of books between our Old Testament and theirs. The Catholic Old Testament is longer by seven books: Tobith, Judith, Baruch (with letter of Jeremiah), Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus), Wisdom and 1 and 2 Maccabees. It has also extra chapters and verses in Daniel and Esther. The total number of Catholic Old Testament books is 46 (or 45 if we combine Jeremiah and Lamentation) while that of Protestant is 39. Based on this difference, they may also accuse that Catholic Church added those seven books in the sixteenth century at the Council of Trent. Hence a knowledge of historical background of our Old Testament is necessary to really understand the matter.
During Jesus time, the Jews
did not officially have a list of inspired books or canon. The word
"canon" comes from Greek "kanon" meaning a measuring rod. The Hebrew
speaking Jews in Palestine are generally known to use 24 books (now
known as Palestinian canon) which they divided in three divisions:
the Law (5 books of Moses or Pentateuch); the Prophets (4 former and
4 latter prophets) and the Writings (11 books). The Sadducees most
likely did not accept Daniel as Dan 12:2 supports resurrection which
they denied (Mark 12:18). Others, like Samaritans, accept only (their
version of) Pentateuch as Scripture to this day. The Jewish historian
Josephus wrote (c. 90 CE) that Jews recognized 22 books, divided in
three divisions: 5 books of Moses, 13 books of the Prophets and the
remaining 4 books. Note the difference in the number of books in
second and third divisions and since he did not name them one by one,
one can only speculate whether they are condensed form of 24
Palestinian canon or not. The Essenes at Qumran community, who lived
at the same time with our Lord might not accept Esther. On the other
hand Greek speaking Jews used a longer Scripture which is known as
Septuagint. The word Septuagint means "seventy" which (according to
legend) was the number of elders of Israel who did the translation
into Greek at Alexandria, Egypt. It differs textually with
Palestinian canon and is divided into four divisions: the Law,
Historical books, Poetical and Wisdom books and finally books of the
Prophets. Compared to the Palestinian canon, it has extra books which
now exist in Catholic Old Testament. It is commonly believed that
after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 CE, the Jews
under the leadership of Yohanan ben Zakkai decided at Jamnia (or
Javneh) to adopt the Palestinian Canon as scripture. Whether Jamnia
council really happened is still under debate and even if it did, the
Jewish Canon was not settled down in the first century. The
encyclopedia of Judaism, page 117 says that the limit of the third
part (Writings) was not finalized until mid of second century. In
addition, the Palestinian canon was also not accepted by Ethiopian
Jews who accept Septuagint (minus Ecclesiasticus) to this day
(Encyclopaedia of Religion, Vol. 2, page 174). In any case,
Christians have no reason to accept Jewish canon declared after our
Lord ascension.
Which Scripture was known to Jesus, His followers and the first Christians? The answer is they knew both Palestinian Canon and Septuagint. Greek speaking Jews also lived in Palestine and known as Hellenists (Acts 6:1). However all New Testament writers mostly used Septuagint whenever they quoted from Old Testament. It is not a matter of convenience (both used Greek), because at few places they still quoted from Palestinian canon (translated into Greek). As mentioned above, Septuagint has textual difference compared to Palestinian canon. A good example is the famous prophecy about Jesus virgin birth in Isaiah 7:14 quoted in Matthew 1:23. The Palestinian canon does not say "virgin" but "young woman" while the Septuagint does say "virgin" (note that both Hebrew and Greek have different words for virgin and young woman).
While the Jews might already decide their canon in the first century, the first Christians may and may not share the same view. Justin Martyr (c 160 CE) regarded Septuagint as Scripture and so did his counterparts Iranaeus and Tertullian. Tertullian also considered the book of Enoch (not part of Septuagint) as inspired. On the other hand Melito, bishop of Sardis (c 170 CE) recognized Palestinian canon minus Esther. Origen (CE 185-254) list of Old Testament books comprises of Palestinian canon but also includes Letter of Jeremiah from Septuagint. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria in 367 gave the same list as Origen but he included Baruch and omitted Esther. He considered other extra books from Septuagint as having inferior grade. The list of Old Testament books given at Council of Laodicea (c 363) follows that of Athanasius with Esther put back again in the list. Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem from 348 to 386 follows Origen's list but included Baruch while Gregory of Nazianzus (c 330 - 390) followed that of Athanasius. Jerome (346 - 420) gave us the well known Latin translation of Bible known as Vulgate. He also had doubt on extra books from Septuagint but he included them in his Latin translation and referred them as apocrypha. On the other hand his younger contemporary, Augustine (CE 354 - 430) followed Septuagint and listed 44 books which agreed with today's Catholic Old Testament of 46 books. The difference in total number is because he combined Lamentation and Baruch (with Letter of Jeremiah) with Jeremiah. In 382 Pope Damasus approved his list at Council of Rome. It was then declared at Church Council in Hippo (Augustine's see) in 393 and subsequently reaffirmed at third Council of Carthage, a provincial council in 397. The fourth council of Carthage in 419 again confirmed the same list of Old Testament. The same councils also declared the canon of New Testament 27 books. In conclusion those 46 books of Catholic Old Testament (together with 27 books of New Testament) were declared in fourth century not in sixteenth century. Whilst it is a true fact that those 7 books were first disputed and came into canon at later state, the same also applies to Esther and to some New Testament books (2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, James, Hebrews, Revelation). It is also a fact that the councils at Hippo and Carthage are not ecumenical councils, hence they did not speak for the whole church. This is shown by the difference of some of the manuscript of the Bible made in and after 4th century. Yet it also shows that the issue of canon of scripture is not an issue that divided Christianity which requires an ecumenical council.
The following are deuterocanonical books found in some of Bible manuscript made in and after 4th century. Codex Sinaiticus (4th century) has Tobith, Judith, 1 & 4 Maccabees, Wisdom and Sirach. While Codex Vaticanus (4th century) has Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Tobit, Baruch and Letter of Jeremiah. 6th century Codex Alexandrinus has Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Tobit, Judith, 1-4 Maccabees, Wisdom and Sirach.
After about one thousand one hundred years, the issue of Christian canon of Bible re-appeared during Reformation in sixteenth century. Martin Luther in his German translation placed the seven books as appendix and did not considered them (following Jerome) equal to the other 39, but still useful and good to read. He also disliked Esther and also did not consider 4 books of New Testament (Jude, James, Hebrews and Revelation) equal to the other 23. Most of Protestant Old Testament now excludes those 7 books, while some may have them inserted between Old and New Testaments. The majority of Protestants do not regard them as inspired and call them Apocrypha. Thus they consider only 39 books as inspired which agrees with 24 books of Palestinian canon (the difference in number comes from different way of dividing books). As a response to Reformation, Catholic Church held an Ecumenical Council at Trent where one of the decision was reaffirming the canonicity of those 46 books. Those 7 disputed books now known to Catholics as deuterocanonical or latter canon books, while the other 39 are protocanonical or former canon books. For Catholics, the canon of Scripture was finalized in this (ecumenical) Trent council. No one, not even pope, can add or drop any book into or from the Bible.
The main reason why Protestants reject deuterocanonical (or apocryphal in their term) books is they support teachings peculiar to Catholic Church, like praying to the dead (2 Mac 12:45-46) and almsgiving for sin expiation (Tobit 12:9). Yet the majority of Jews who do not accept 2 Maccabees still pray to the their dead, a common practice even during Jesus time. Proverb 16:6 says (NIV) that "through love and faithfulness sin is atoned for" which is close to Tobit 12:9. Other common reason is Jesus and New Testament writers never quoted from them. True, but they too never quoted from Esther, Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs. It is also worth to note that Jesus words in John 7:38 quoted from Scripture cannot be found in any Old Testament books (ours or theirs) and so are James 4:5 and Matthew 2:23. Jude 9 and 14 quoted from two books which are not accepted as inspired, Ascension of Moses and Enoch (the latter is accepted by Ethiopian Church as inspired). Indirectly, there are quotations from some deuterocanonical books. For example, pagan immorality in Rom 1:18-32 echoes Wisdom 12-14, and the attitude of Jews criticized by Paul in Rom 2:1-11 has affinities with Wisdom 11-15. The writer of Hebrews might refer to 2 Mac 6:18 to 7:41 when he wrote about torture which some endured through faith (Heb 11:35-38). Thus the non-existence of quotation in New Testament is not the criteria to reject Deuterocanonical books.
In Luke 24:44 Jesus said that He fulfilled prophecies in the Law, the Prophets and Psalms. Does it show that He followed the Palestinian three divisions of Bible (Law, Prophets and Writings)? However Psalms is just one book of the third division which also (in Palestinian canon) includes Daniel and this book does have prophecy about Him (Dan 7:13). It is unlikely Jesus forget this fact. Luke 24:44 might even indicate that Jesus placed Daniel as one book of the Prophets or in other word He followed Septuagint division. In other occasions, the Law represents not only 5 books of Moses but also Isaiah (1 Cor 14:21) and Psalms (Rom 3:10-19). It shows that Jesus and others did not follow three fold divisions of Palestinian canon.
Other common argument is taken from Luke 11:50-51 where Jesus said (NIV): "Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary." Since Abel is mentioned in the Genesis (Gen 4:8) and Zechariah in the 2 Chron 24:20-22, those two being the first and the last books according to Palestinian canon, does it show that Jesus recognized the Palestinian canon? However, parallel verse in Matthew 23:35 says that Zechariah was son of Barachiah, while Zechariah in 2 Chron 24:20-22 was son of Jehoiada, thus they are unlikely to be the same person. Protestant scholar, F.F. Bruce acknowledged this problem but still insisted that they are the same person.
Anti-Catholic writer Boettner wrote about the deuterocanonical books that ìnone of the writers claim inspiration for their works, and some explicitly disclaim it. Yet the same also applies to most of books of the Bible. Most of them do not explicitly claim inspiration. He also pointed some historical errors like Nebuchadnezzar is called as king of Assyrians (Judith 1:1-7), while actually he is king of Babylon. In answer, the book is not historical book so Judith was not a historical character (her name means Jewess) and by combining Assyrians and Babylonians together, it represents the enemies of Israel (both kingdoms conquered Israel) and encourages the reader to rely on Godís way of deliverance, even through a unreliable way to human standard (i.e. through a woman).
Former Catholic McCarthy wrote that the author of 2 Maccabees says that the book is the abridgment of another manís work (2 Maccabees 2:23). Yet the third Gospel also claims the same, i.e. second hand information put in written form (Luke 1:1-4). He also claimed that no prophet lived in Palestine during the time Deuterocanonical books were written. However, nobody can prove that all books of the Bible were and must be written by prophets as God can inspire anybody. Protestant apologist, Josh Mc Dowell wrote in his best seller, Evidence that Demands Verdict Vol. 1, that books of Bible were written by various people, from king (David) to fisherman (Peter), from prophet (Ezekiel) to tax collector (Matthew), hence not all of them are prophets.
Former Catholic William Webster wrote that Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria and Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem (in 4th century) did not include apocryphal books in their lists. In fact Athanasius did include Baruch and omitted Esther (cif Ref. 2 page 78-79), while Cyril also included Baruch and Letter of Jeremiah (ibid, page 80-81). Their lists neither agree with Catholic's nor Protestant Old Testaments. He continued twisting the history by writing that the list given by Melito in 2nd agrees with Palestinian canon, while in fact it did not have Esther (ibid, page 71). He made similar false claims about the list produced by Origen (which in fact included Letter of Jeremiah) and by Gregory of Nazianzen (which in fact omitted Esther). He cleverly did not list the name of those who accepted apocryphal books, in order to make Catholic Church look fail in history test as the title of his book indicates.
The authors of Roman Catholics and Evangelicals Chapter 9, says that the earliest Septuagint may not have the seven deuterocanonical books (same statement was also made by W. Webster). This claim is speculative and cannot be proved unless a manuscript of that period has been found. The available Septuagint manuscripts were produced by Christians but the inclusion of deuterocanonical books in Septuagint has been accepted even by prominent Protestant scholar F.F. Bruce. For comparison, the oldest existing manuscript of Palestinian canon is that of Dead Sea scrolls; yet it does not include Esther. Thus if they are consistent, they should drop Esther from their Bible. The authors also wrote that no Greek manuscript has the same list with that of Trent, even Codex Vaticanus does not have Maccabees. Yet the difference in lists is not unexpected because councils at Carthage and Hippo are not ecumenical councils. The later Codex Alexandrinus of 5th century has all four Maccabees. It is worth it to mention that the same also applies to New Testament books. There were different versions of New Testament books before and even after the fourth century. If they can tolerate them, why do they fail to do so for the Old Testament canon? They (and also W. Webster) also argue that because the councils held in Hippo and Carthage were not ecumenical councils, then the decision is not binding on the whole church. Quite true, but ironically they have no problem in accepting the list of New Testament books declared by the same councils as binding. They did not realize that before Reformation, the issue of canon of Bible is not an issue that divided Christians. Even during the Reformation, Cardinal Cajetan of the Catholic Church (Lutherís opponent) did not consider deuterocanonical books as equal to the rest of Old Testament books. It became a dividing issue during the Reformation which prompted the (ecumenical) Council of Trent to declare the limit of both Old and New Testament books. The same authors also said that the apocryphal books are not prophetic books unlike the other 39 books. They donít bother to mention what kind of prophecy the book of Esther has. Esther and Song of Songs are the two Old Testament books where the name of God is not mentioned at all. They also said that Jewish teachers acknowledged that the prophetic line ended in the fourth century (page 168) in which they quoted supporting statement made by Josephus (in Against Apion) and other Jewish source. Yet it is ridiculous to rely on uncanonical book of non-Christian Josephus and of others to determine the limit of Christian canon. They quoted Rom 3:2 to support the decision of (Jewish) Jamnia council in 70 CE. If that is what Paul meant, then why is it he (and other New Testament writers) quoted from non-biblical source like 2 Tim 3:8, Jude 9 and 14?. On page 171, they made the same mistake as W. Webster by stating that Cyril of Jerusalem and Origen rejected all apocryphal books. They also question why some books like Prayer of Manasseh were not accepted by Council of Trent (page 172). Those books were never accepted by earlier councils in Laodicea, Rome, Hippo and Carthage. On page 173, the authors wrote that the correct view of Canon should be "Church discovers Canon and is Child of Canon", not "Church determines Canon and is Mother of Canon". However, if (Catholic) Church discovered the Canon then why did she never include the Epistle from Laodicean mentioned in Col 4:16 (which Paul treated as equal to that to Colossians) as one book of the New Testament? Saying that this epistle is equal to Paul 's epistle to Ephesians (some of its manuscript do not have "in Ephesus" in Eph 1:1) is speculative and cannot be absolutely proved (history shows only heretical Marcion in the second century treated epistle of Ephesian equal to Laodicean). If she is the daughter of Canon, why is it she existed even before New Testament books were written, which the authors also acknowledged?
In conclusion Catholics accept the authority of the Church, the foundation and pillar of truth (1 Tim 3:15) whom our Lord promised to be protected from gates of hades (Matthew 16:19) ,to determine the canon of Scripture, both Old and New Testaments.
REFERENCE:
This article was updated on 19 September 1996, for comments/questions contact W. Hartono, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Back to local TOC