Tractatus de divina traditione et Scriptura

On the origin of the controversy concerning the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament.

« It is not to be denied that concerning some books of the Scripture of the Old Testament a controversy at some time existed even within the bounds of the Church; but we contend, 1°. that questions of any moment concerning the ecclesiastical canon of the Scriptures of the O. T. were not raised before the fourth century; 2°. that this controversy did not take its origin from the Tradition of our forefathers, but from the comparison instituted between the Scriptures of the Church and the Scriptures of the Hebrew canon, which was chiefly promoted after the widely diffused Hexaplar edition of Origen. »

We say two things in the thesis: that there was no controversy of any moment concerning the books called deuterocanonical before the fourth century; and then that the opposition took its rise not from Tradition but from the comparison of the Scriptures of the Church with the Hebrew Scriptures.¹. Or rather, we employ a twofold argument by which the later origin of the controversy is demonstrated: first a negative one from the silence of antiquity, then a positive one from the source of this controversy.

I. The question is one of ecclesiastical history, or more particularly of the history of dogmas: whether the controversy which we know to have existed to some extent in the fourth century and afterwards concerning some books of the Old Testament was derived from an earlier time, and consequently whether the same state of the question already obtained in the third and second centuries. Documents of the second and third centuries survive in sufficient number for the truth of the fact to be explored from them.

1°. It is established from the preceding theses X and XI that for the first three centuries all these books were among the Scriptures of the Churches and were held in the same reckoning as the protocanonical books; but no memory of controversy or doubt exists down to the beginnings of the fourth century. Yet with so frequent a citation of these books among the Fathers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries — Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian and others (see th. X) — it is not credible that a controversy, if any had already existed, would never have been indicated; especially since the diversity between the books of the Church and the books among the Hebrews was very well known at least to some, and above all to Origen, and since they did not omit to note doubts concerning other books here and there numbered among the Scriptures, as Tertullian concerning the book of Enoch (On the Apparel of Women, bk. I, ch. 3.)²; the same Tertullian concerning the Shepherd of Hermas (On Modesty, chs. 10, 20), the Muratorian fragment (Galland, II, p. 208), and Origen (hom. 8 on Num., vol. II, p. 294; hom. 1 on Ps. 37, ibid., p. 681; on Matth., tract 30, ibid., p. 872), and from the third century on concerning the deuterocanonical books of the N. T. also, as Origen (in Eusebius, VI, 25). Nay, the very manner of the private doubt of Julius Africanus concerning the parts of Daniel and the manner of Origen's reply clearly indicates that as yet no controversy concerning the number of the sacred books arising from the diversity of the ecclesiastical and the Hebrew codex had been heard in the Church (see p. 409, note).

2°. I have said that no memory of controversy or doubt concerning these books exists down to the fourth century. For Melito in the 2nd century (Eusebius, IV, 26) and Origen in the 3rd (Eusebius, VI, 25, and in the Philocalia, ch. 5) did indeed set down a canon comprehending only the protocanonical books; but in it their purpose was not to enumerate the books received by the Church, but only to teach which and how many books were admitted even by the Jews.

As regards Origen the matter is perfectly clear from his express words. "It is not to be ignored that the books placed in the Testament (ἐνδιαθήκους), as the Hebrews have handed them down, are twenty-two, as many as is among them the number of the letters... but these twenty-two books according to the Hebrews are the following" etc. The same is then evident from the very manner of numbering; for not only does he studiously preserve the number of the Hebrew letters, and to this end — as is established was done among the Jews but by no means among Christians — joins several books into one; but he also indicates the titles solemn among the Hebrews for each: Genesis "among the Hebrews from the beginning of the book Bresith;.,. Judges, Ruth among them in one Sophetim; I and II Kings, among them one book Samuel" etc. Finally, that not this Hebrew canon but another ampler canon was acknowledged by Origen as obtaining among Christians, is established from his express doctrine in the epistle to Africanus and from the manner in which he uses all the books of Holy Scripture (above, p. 411.)³.

That the same was Melito's design — namely to designate the books admitted by the Jews — is gathered from the circumstances. For Onesimus the Bishop, for whom Melito composed both the catalogue and extracts from the books indicated in the catalogue, desired to learn how many and of what sort were the books among the Synagogue. Concerning the books of the Old Testament, I say, Onesimus inquired and Melito answered, neither of them concerned in any way with the books of the New Testament; and from the Law and the Prophets the former requested extracts "concerning the Saviour and our whole faith," and this from zeal for faith and doctrine for fighting on behalf of the Christian religion (περὶ τῆς αἰωνίου σωτηρίας ἀγωνιζόμενος). But Melito, "having set out to the East and to the very place in which these things (i.e. those things which Onesimus sought) were preached and done, diligently inquired into the books of the O. T. (nothing of the New Testament) and wrote out their index."

But a) so solicitous a zeal concerning the books of the Old Testament only, and to know accurately what things are in those books concerning the Saviour and the Christian religion, and the ardour for fighting on behalf of this eternal salvation, for which Onesimus is praised by Melito, plainly indicate the polemic scope of defending the Christian religion against the Jews, and of demonstrating its truth from the books admitted by the Jews themselves — as was done at the same age and in the same Asia Minor in an extensive work by Justin, who held the dialogue with Trypho at Ephesus, as Eusebius testifies, bk. IV, ch. 18. For this scope it was certainly requisite to have a clear view of the canon of the Jews, as Justin and afterwards Origen warned (cf. above, p. 408). b) That Melito set out to Palestine to know the books of the O. T. not by chance because thence the Christian religion and preaching took their beginning, but because there the revelation and history of the Old Covenant had been given and enacted, likewise persuades that he inquired into the canon of the Jews; for when he says that he set out to the place in which those things were preached and done, it is just as if he said that he approached the very people among whom that ancient preaching was first made. For concerning the number of the books he could learn something not from the place but from the people.⁴. The Christian canon Melito and Onesimus, Bishops of Asia Minor where the Apostles Peter, Paul and John had founded Churches, assuredly already had in clear view from elsewhere; nor was there need to visit the place where those ancient things had been preached and done, and there "diligently to learn the books of the Old Testament." c) In the Christian canon handed down from the Apostles Melito did not have only those books which he described in the canon received from the Jews, as far as is established from the manner in which in the "Key of Holy Scripture" he cites the deuterocanonical books without distinction equally with the protocanonical as parts of Holy Scripture (see above, p. 411). Finally d) who were the Christians of the mid-second century who admitted only the protocanonical books? Among the Churches of the Gentiles, or those constituted according to their rite, Melito would not have found any Scripture other than that everywhere handed down from the Apostles in the Greek Alexandrian edition; Judaizing Christians in Melito's time ⁵ there were none any longer except of the heretical sects. But among these he certainly did not seek the canon; and if that were contended, it would be all one to us whether he had taken the catalogue of the sacred books from these sects or from the Jews. Let it stand, therefore, as we have said, that Melito made a review of the Jewish and not the Christian canon. That Eusebius says Melito composed a catalogue of the books of the O. T. which are confessed among all, των ὁμολογουμενων, creates no difficulty; for that distinction into ὁμολογουμενους and ἀμφιβαλλομενους as regards the books of the O. T. is to be referred not to Melito's age but to Eusebius's.

The Muratorian fragment (Galland, II, p. 208) exhibits a catalogue not of the Old but of the New Testament. Concerning the books of the O. T. nothing else is found there, except that together with the books of the New Testament there is reckoned among the Scriptures "Wisdom written by the friends of Solomon in his honour."

That the singular doubt of Africanus contributes nothing to indicate a controversy already arisen at that time, but belongs rather to the opposite side, we have already demonstrated above.

In the Apostolic Constitutions, bk. II, ch. 57, the purpose is not to describe the complete canon of the Scriptures, but summarily to indicate the books to be read in the assembly. For how else is it that neither the protocanonical Ruth and Esther nor in the N. T. any of the Catholic epistles are named? For the rest, as far as that general manner of indication permits, all the deuterocanonical books of the O. T. can also be found comprehended there.⁶ For where it is said that the books to be read are those pertaining to the return from exile (τα της ἐπανοδου,) there can easily be understood not only the books of Esdras, but also all the histories written after Artaxerxes (cf. Josephus, Against Apion, II, ch. 8). That by the name of Solomon five books are comprehended (i.e. also Wisd. and Ecclus.) appears from the Constitutions themselves, bk. IV, ch. 11; VI, chs. 15, 30, etc., where Ecclus. and Wisd. together with Prov. are cited with the express name of Solomon also; that the book of Baruch is included under Jeremias in the usual manner is established from bk. V, ch. 20; VI, ch. 23.

The 85th apostolic canon does not belong here, since by the agreement of the critics it is far later than the third century.

No certain memory of any controversy, therefore, exists before the fourth century.

II. We think that the first occasion of the inquiry — for which the use and practice of the Churches in receiving all these books of the O. T. no longer seemed to suffice, whence doubts were excited among some teachers as to whether equal certainty held concerning the books not extant in the Hebrew canon — and thus the controversy in its beginning, is to be traced back to Origen's review and comparison of the Scriptures as they stood in the Greek and ecclesiastical edition, with the Hebrew text.

1°. This is proved from the synchronism of the rise of the controversy with the amplest diffusion of the Origenian review. From the end of the third century to the middle of the fourth, the Hexaplar edition of Origen — in which whatever was lacking in the Hebrew text was marked transfixed with obeli — had been propagated in such a way that not only was it "reserved in the books of the learned" (Jerome, to Sunnia and Fretela, ep. 106, n. 2), but it had occupied all the libraries of the Churches; and if anyone wished to abolish it, as St Jerome says, "he would be compelled to condemn all the libraries of the Churches; for scarcely one or another book was found which did not have them" (to Augustine, ep. 112, n. 19); and already "all the Churches of Christ, of the Greeks and Latins and Syrians and Egyptians alike, read this edition under asterisks and obeli" (Jerome, preface on Dan., vol. V, p. 622). But with so great a propagation of these copies with their obeli, there was at the same time set as it were a provocation to inquire more diligently by what right so many things were read in the ecclesiastical edition which were not acknowledged by the Hebrews. Yet at this very time was first heard the division of the books of the Old Testament into ὁμολογουμενους, which were confessed among all, and ἀντιλεγομενους, which were contradicted — which Eusebius, bk. VI, ch. 13, a man assiduous in the works of Origen, perhaps first explicitly declared. There is added that this controversy and distinction of the books kept itself within the limits of the Greek Church, where the Greek edition alone obtained, and was propagated with the Origenian signs in the libraries of the Churches. On the contrary in the West the ecclesiastical Latin edition, derived long before Origen's review from Greek copies still destitute of that furniture of signs, persevered in public use without the Origenian signs at least down to St Jerome.⁷. For what Jerome himself says concerning the Latin readers of the Origenian codices is to be understood of Greek codices propagated also among the Latins. Hence that same old Latin edition, containing the deuterocanonical books intermingled without any distinction with the protocanonical, by a happy and most strong rampart as it were kept off from the teachers of the Western Church the invasion of that controversy and hesitation. In fact we never see any dissension in the West except in St Jerome, who evidently rests on the comparison with the books of the Hebrews, and some indication of the controversy transferred from the Greeks in Hilary and Rufinus. Anyone already sees that both the condition of the Greek edition of the Scriptures at the time when the first trace of the controversy occurs, and the different state of the question in West and East conspiring with the very different state of the ecclesiastical edition in either part of the Church, is a vehement indication, if not a certain demonstration, that the controversy took its rise from the occasion we have named.⁸.

2°. To persuade the same origin of the controversy, let it be allowed to add an observation which may at least stand in place of a conjecture. It seems strange that quite a number of the Greek teachers do not reckon the book of Esther, which is without doubt in the Hebrew canon, with the canonical books, but with those which have been called into question (ἀντιλεγομενοι). So Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, Amphilochius, the Athanasian Synopsis, Leontius, Nicephorus. On the contrary, the book of Baruch, which for a long time now is no longer extant among the Hebrew Scriptures, they place in their catalogues by express name among the books admitted by all — Athanasius, the 60th Laodicean canon, Cyril of Jerusalem, Nicephorus of Constantinople (among the Byzantine writers after the chronography of Syncellus, in Pithou, codex canonum, p. 348; in Montfaucon, Bibliotheca Coisliniana, p. 204); others comprehended Baruch under the name of Jeremias, as is established from the manner of the citations. In the same way they refer the deuterocanonical parts of Daniel among the books placed beyond doubt, as is clear both from the Pseudo-Athanasian Synopsis and Chrysostom (vol. VI, p. 389) and from the citations. Yet this whole very singular manner of placing one book which, except for a few chapters, is in the canon of the Hebrews, among those which are not among the Hebrews, and thus among the ἀντιλεγομενους; and conversely of numbering another book which is not extant in Hebrew, and the still further parts of a third book lacking in the Hebrew canon, with the books admitted among the Hebrews, and thus as ὁμολογουμενους — this whole manner of distribution, I say, finds its fullest explanation on the hypothesis that Origen's Hexaplar edition was the norm for those teachers in the appraisal of the canon; and with this hypothesis not admitted, it can scarcely be explained.

For Origen had found the book of Baruch translated into the Greek tongue by the LXX interpreters, and therefore applied signs to it not as to a book lacking but as to one extant in the Hebrew text. This is established from the celebrated Chisian codex, from which Simon de Magistris edited the book "Daniel according to the LXX." There, p. 112, after Jeremias stands the book of Baruch "according to the LXX."⁹. Now there the single lines are not transfixed with the obelus, as happens in books not found in Hebrew; but on the contrary only here and there in certain places is the difference of the LXX version from the Hebrew text indicated by obeli — a Hebrew text, therefore, which we rightly gather was still at Origen's disposal. So a learned man, prefect of the Chisian library, testified to me. "Obeli are found only here and there in certain places, lemnisci very rarely." Moreover, in the Syriac Hexaplar codex of the Ambrosian library there exist various readings of this same book of Baruch from Theodotion with Origenian signs added (Eichhorn, Repertorium, vol. III, p. 170). Theodotion therefore had made a Greek version, and consequently the Hebrew text must be said to have still survived in the second century. Thereto are added for confirmation the sayings of the ancients. By Origen himself in the catalogue which he describes as adopted from the Hebrews (Eusebius, VI, 25) is placed "Jeremias with the Lamentations and the epistle (i.e. with our ch. VI of Baruch) in one book"; in the Apostolic Constitutions, bk. V, ch. 20, it is affirmed that even at that time (the third century) Baruch was customarily read in the synagogues, and Epiphanius (perhaps from Origen) places Baruch among the books which the Jews returning from exile had (Haeres., VIII, n. 6).

Further, the parts of Daniel which no longer survive in Hebrew Origen found, no otherwise than the book of Baruch, translated by the LXX, and marked them not with obeli but partly with lemnisci, partly left them without sigla, that they might be designated as extant in the Hebrew text, as the same Chisian codex makes plain, from which Simon de Magistris edited the version of Daniel according to the LXX and according to Theodotion with the Origenian signs. That Theodotion translated those parts into Greek is otherwise established (for it is according to Theodotion that we have them in our Vulgate); but that there existed also a version of Aquila and Symmachus de Magistris gathers from the Chisian codex itself, in which to the first verses of ch. 13, i.e. the history of Susanna, are added lemnisci with the letters A. Σ. Θ., by which is signified that the three interpreters Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion agree in sense with the LXX (Daniel according to the LXX, pp. 77, 81).

In this state, therefore, of the Hexaplar edition ¹⁰. it is not strange that Baruch and the deuterocanonical parts of Daniel were placed among the books admitted by all by the teachers for whom that edition was the norm. But on the contrary the beginning of the book of Esther in the Hexaplar edition was the dream of Mardochai (in the Vulgate ch. XI) ¹¹, prefixed with obeli through the whole chapter, as still appears now in the Arundel codex edited by Ussher (Syntagma on the LXX version etc., London 1655, pp. 111–112). But the obeli signified that the passage was not extant in the Hebrew text. Hence it readily followed that, with that Hexaplar norm once set up, the same teachers should simply number the book of Esther among the ἀντιλεγομένους.

3°. Finally, with great agreement those teachers who indicate this controversy concerning the deuterocanonical books appeal to the number of the 22 Hebrew letters, and by this very manner of numbering show that they depend on the Hebrew reckoning. So number the books not only those who evidently exhibit the Hebrew canon, as Origen, Epiphanius, Hilary, whom Cassiodorus, Bede, Anastasius Sinaita the younger, Primasius and Agobard imitate; but the same numbering is insisted on also by others who treat of the books insofar as they are received among Christians by unanimous consent, as Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, the Athanasian Synopsis — and they indicate that joining together of several books into one which they had learned from Origen was observed in the reckoning of the Hebrews. Nay, they even expressly signify at times that the reason for placing a book among those admitted by all or among the controverted depends on whether that book is or is not in the Hebrew canon. Thus the author of the Athanasian Synopsis first places Esther among the books which are not reckoned in the canon, yet are read to the catechumens; then subjoins: "some of the ancients however have said that among the Hebrews Esther also is placed in the canon, but Ruth on the other hand is reckoned as one book with the book of Judges, and thus the number 22 of the books which are in the canon among them is again filled up." But whether any book is admitted in the canon of the Hebrews or otherwise, those same teachers understood chiefly from the Hexaplar signs of Origen. All things considered, therefore, the first occasion of the controversy seems to be wholly traceable to that edition of Origen.¹².