IV. Generally Rejected Prior to Trent

An important point in the Christian Era was reached with Jerome’s Vulgate. He was the first to use the term Apocrypha to mean the Greek additions in the Septuagint; he recognized only the Hebrew Old Testament Scriptures as canonical. ^{14Jerome, Preface to Samuel and Kings, in A Select Library of Nicene and Post—Nicene Fathers (hereafter abbreviated to NPNF) 2nd series, vol. 6, pp 489, 490.} But under pressure Jerome hastily yet reluctantly translated the Greek books of Judith and Tobit. In reality he disparaged the reading of the Apocrypha.PFF1 80.1

“Let her understand that they (the Apocrypha) are not really written by those to whom they are ascribed, that many faulty elements have been introduced into them, and that it requires infinite discretion to look for gold in the midst of dirt.” ^{15Jerome, Letter 107 (to Laeta), in NPNF, 2nd series, vol. 6, p. 194.}PFF1 80.2

Feeling was running strongly in favor of the other books of the Apocrypha. Ere long these were added to Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, though information as to the extent of Jerome’s revision of the Old Latin of some of these texts is very meager. It was this enlarged Vulgate that later received official recognition, under pain of anathema, at the Council of Trent in 1543. with revision from Clement VIII in 1592. ^{16Orr, op. cit., p. 462; E. Schürer, “Apocrypha,” in The New Schaff—Herzog, vol. 1, p. 216.}PFF1 80.3

1. ILLUSTRIOUS FIGURES REJECT GREEK APOCRYPHA

Now, with rapid steps, let us traverse the centuries from Melito in the second century, on to the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century, noting the succession of illustrious figures who reject the Greek Apocrypha and hold to the original Hebrew canon. ^{17One such survey of source quotations giving various lists of the books of the Bible is given by Brooke Foss Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, Appendix D, pp. 51—571.} Note the array:PFF1 80.4

Melito, bishop of Sardis, whose record is preserved by Eusebius, lists only the books of the Hebrew canon as canonical. ^{18Eusebius, The Church History of Eusebius, book 4, chap. 26, in NPNF, 2nd series, vol. I, p 206. The phrase translated “Wisdom also” in this edition really means “even Wisdom,” so that when he enumerates “the Proverbs of Solomon, also called Wisdom,” he is giving two names for one book, not inserting the Apocryphal book called Wisdom. See the translator’s footnote 36 on page 206 and the reference to this usage on page 200 and note 17.} Irenaeus (d. 202) and Tertullian (d. 230) differentiate between the “canonical” and “apocryphal” books, but they meant the apocalyp writings. ^{19Davies, op. cit., p. 180. Note the difference between “The Apocrypha” and “apocryphal writings”; see pp. 73, 74.} Origen (d. c. 254) expressly states that the canonical books admitted by Jews and Christians were twenty—two in number—the same as the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. ^{20Eusebius, Church History, book 6, chap. 25, in NPNF, 2nd series, vol. 1, p. 272. “When among the Fathers and rabbis the OT is made to contain 22 [not 24] books, Ruth and Lam are joined respectively to Jgs and Jer.” (Davies, op. cit., p. 181 Brackets in the original.)} Hilary of Poitiers (d. 367) in like fashion named and numbered the Old Testament canon as twenty—two, although he states that some by adding Tobit and Judith make the number agree with the 24 letters of the Greek alphabet. ^{21Hilary, Prologus in Librum Psalmorum, sec. 15, in J. P. Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina (hereafter referred to as Patrologia Latina, abbreviated to PL), vol. 9, col. 241.} Athanasius (d. 373) limited them to the twenty—two (although he included Baruch and the epistle with Jeremiah). ^{22Letters of Athanasius, 1. Festal Letters, “From Letter XXXIX,” in NPNF, 2nd series, vol. 4, p. 552; Schürer, op. cit., p. 215.} But these are not all.PFF1 81.1

Gregory Nazianzen, or Gregory of Nazianzus (d. 391), excludes the Apocrypha and lists the twenty—two canonical books. ^{23Gregory Nazianzen, Epe (Carmina), book 1, section 1, no. 12, in Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca (hereafter referred to as Patrologia Graeca, abbreviated to PG), vol. 37, cots. 473, 474; see also Westcott, op. cit., p. 547.} Jerome (d. 420) also, in his Prologus Galeatus (Helmeted Preface) to the books of Samuel and Kings, addressed to Paula and Eustochium, gives us a catalog of the Old Testament books identical with ours, and excludes as Apocryphal all books outside this canon. ^{24Jerome, Preface to Samuel and Kings, in NPNF, 2nd series, vol. 6, p 489, 490; see also his preface to Daniel, on pages 492, 493, the summary of the Preface to Tobit and Judith, on page 494, and his Letter to Laeta, p. 194; Davies, op. cit., p. 181.} The same is true of Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386), in his Catecheticak Lectures, who lists twenty—two and urges avoidance of the Apocryphal, and of Epiphanius (d. 403), who omits the Apocrypha in his Liber de Alensuris et Ponderibus (Book Concerning Weights and Measures). ^{25Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 4, secs. 33, 35 in NPNF, 2nd series, vol. 7, pp. 26, 27; Epiphanius Liber de Mensuris et Ponderibus, chap. 4, in Migne, PG, vol. 43, col. Z44; see also Westcott, op. cit., p. 443.}PFF1 81.2

2. INTRODUCED UNDER INFLUENCE OF AUGUSTINE

But when we come to Augustine (d. 430) seven disputed books are introduced into the canon—Tobit, Judith, the two books of Maccabees, the Apocryphal 1 Esdras, Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus—in his work On Christian Doctrine; ^{26Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, book 2, chap 8, in NPNF, 1st series, vol. 2, pp. 538, 539. Augustine mentions “the two of Ezra,” or Esdras. The footnote in NPNF says, “Tat is, Ezra and Nehemiah,” which would be in accord with the modern Catholic Bibles. But Augustine, who used the Septuagint, evidently included the Apocryphal Esdras, for he cites an incident from that book. (City of God, book 18, chap. 36, NPNF, 1st series, vol. 2, p. 382.) The numbering of the books of Ezra in different versions of the Bible leads easily to confusion. In Protestant Bibles we have only one book of Ezra and the book of Nehemiah. These two books are named in the modern Catholic Bible editions first and second Esdras respectively. But in the Vulgate both combined went under the name of 1 Esdras, whereas in the Septuagint they are the 2 Esdras or Esdras B. Besides these two canonical books of Ezra, there exist two Apocryphal books—one of them even classed as pseudepigraphical—which are not in the Protestant canon. In modern Catholic Bibles if added they classify under 3 and 4 Esdras. In the Vulgate we find them under 2 and 3 Esdras, and the earlier of the two was already in the Septuagint as Esdras A. (See J. H. Lupton Introductions to 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras in Apocrypha edited by Henry Wace), vol. 1, pp. 1—k 71. The following diagram visualizes & line—up:} and in his celebrated City of God he cites not only the canonical books of the Hebrews but also the Apocrypha. ^{27See the index of texts cited, in NPNF, lit series, vol. 2, p. 615.} Notwithstanding opposite theories, the ordinary practice of Western theologians was to use the Apocryphal writings as they did the canonical. The Synods at Hippo (393) and Carthage (the 3rd, 397), held under Augustine’s influence, included the Apocrypha. ^{28Schürer, op. cit., p. 215.}PFF1 82.1

Though the opinion of Augustine was followed by many, on the other hand many of the most learned of the fathers and later writers from the fourth century on to the time of the Council of Trent held the opinion that some or all of the books in dispute were Apocryphal: Gregory Nazianzen, Anastasius, patriarch of Antioch (d. 559), Leontius (fl. 6th century), Junilius commonly known as Junilius Africanus, sixth—century ecclesiastical writer, Gregory the great (d. 604), the Venerable 500:735), John of Damascus (d. 754), Alcuin (d. 804), Rupert 12th century), Peter Mauritius, Hugh—of—St—Victor, the Saxon——(1141), Richard of S,—.Victor (d. 1173), John of Salisbury (1182), Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274), Hugo, the Cardinal (13th century), Nicholas of Lyra (d. 1349), William of Occam, of Oxford (14th century), and Thomas Anglicus (15th century), Paul of Burgos (d. 1435), Alphonso Tostatus (d. 1454), Cardinal Ximenes (d. 1517), Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Faber Stapulensis of Paris Id. 1537), Luis Vives (d. 1540), Erasmus (d. 1536), and even Cardinal Cajetan (d. 1534). ^{29Based on Archibald Alexander, The Canon of the Old and New Testaments, pp. 56—65; Westcott, op. cit., gp. 459—461, 466, 467, 471 and especially Appendix D; Samuel Davidson, The Canon of the ible pp. 90—112.} Outside the Roman church, the Waldenses rejected the Apocrypha, but retained them in the Bible as useful although noncanonical.PFF1 83.1

3. PRE—REFORMATION AND REFORMATION REJECTION

In the pre—Reformation period Wyclif showed himself the forerunner of the Reformation in this as in other matters, and applied the term Apocrypha to all but the recognized canonical books of the Old Testament.” ^{30M’Clintock and Strong, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 291.} The churches of the Reformation went back generally to the Hebrew canon, giving only qualified sanction to the reading and limited ecclesiastical use of the Apocrypha—for instruction, but not to establish doctrine. The early English versions (Tyndale, Coverdale) included the Apocryphal books but separated them from the canonical writings. ^{31Orr, op. cit., p. 462.} Carlstadt was evidently the first Protestant to pay special attention to the canon, siding with Jerome in designating the added writings as Apocryphal, or noncanonical. ^{32Schürer, op. cit., p. 215.}PFF1 83.2

4. LUTHERAN, ANGLICAN, AND CALVINIST POSITIONS

Midway between the supporting Romanist and rejecting Calvinist positions is that of the Anglican and Lutheran churches. Luther placed the Apocrypha between the Old and the New Testament, with the statement:PFF1 84.1

“Apocrypha; that is, books which, although not estimated equal to the Holy Scriptures, are yet useful and good to read.” ^33Ibid.PFF1 84.2

Article VI of the Thirty—nine Articles of the Church of England explains the Anglica attitude:PFF1 84.3

“And the other bookes, (as Hierome sayth) the Churche doth reade for example of lyfe and instruction of manners: but yet doth it not applie them to establishe any doctrene.” ^{34Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, vol. 3, pp. 490, 491.}PFF1 84.4

The Calvinistic objection is recorded in the Westminster Confession:PFF1 84.5

“The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the Canon of the Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.” ^{35Ibid., p. 602; see also Grant, op. cit., p. 117.}PFF1 84.6

Although the Reformers did not consider the Apocrypha canonical and did not use them to support any point of dogma, they were still combined as a separate collection in the Bible, bound between the Old and the New Testament. But there was a growing opposition in Protestant circles, which found strong expression in a remark by Lightfoot.PFF1 84.7

“In a sermon preached before the House of Commons in 1643 the well—known scholar Lightfoot complained of the custom of printing the Apocrypha between the books of the Old and New Testament.’Thus sweetly and nearly should the two Testaments join together, and thus divinely would they kiss each other, but that the wretched Apocrypha doth thrust in between.’ ‘Like the two cherubins in the temple—oracle,’ the end of the Law and the beginning of the Gospel would touch one another, did not this patchery of human invention divorce them asunder.’” ^{36George Salmon, “General Introduction,” Apocrypha (Wace ed.), vol. 1, p. xxxvii.}PFF1 84.8

5. EVIDENCE ON APOCRYPHA SUMMARIZED

We therefore conclude that these Apocryphal works are not canonical, as evidenced by the following considerations:PFF1 85.1

(1) The original Hebrew Bible does not include them, though in Old Testament times the oracles of God were committed to the Jews. Romans 3:2PFF1 85.2

(2) There is no conclusive evidence that any of them were composed originally in the Hebrew language. Certainly almost all of them, probably all, were written originally in the Greek, which was not employed by the Jews until after the penning of their inspired writings had ceased, and the canon of the Old Testament had been closed.PFF1 85.3

(3) Only the Old Testament as the Protestants now have it (but numbered as either twenty—two or twenty—four books) was received as inspired in the Hebrew canon. The Apocryphal additions in the Septuagint were never officially sanctioned by the Jews, and have been completely rejected by them through many centuries to the present day. 20 B.C. TO c. A.D. 50) spoke against adding to the law of Moses, and Josephus (d. c. A.D. 100) expressly declared, “Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty.” ^{37Josephus, Against Apion, book 1, chap. 8, in Loeb Classical Library, Josephus, vol. 1, p. 179. On the twenty—two, see p 81, note 20; see also Orr, op. cit., p. 461.}PFF1 85.4

(4) There is silence respecting these writings in the New Testament. They are never quoted by Christ and the apostles. ^{38A few passages are regarded by some as showing sufficient similarity as to indicate the authors’ familiarity with the Apocrypha in the Septuagint, but there are no direct references to the Old Testament Apocrypha. See Davidson, op. cit., p. 54; Orr, op. cit., p. 461.}PFF1 85.5

(5) The writers of the Apocrypha sometimes claim inspiration, and confess to a lack of the prophetic gift. (1 Macc. 4:46; 9:27; 14:41.)PFF1 85.6

(6) The Apocrypha teaches doctrines at variance with the Scriptures—superstitious quackery, deceit, purgatory, reincarnation, and prayers for any of the dead. (Judith 9:10; Tobit 5:12, 13; 6:1-8; Wisdom 8:19, 20; Baruch 3:4; 2 Macc. 12:43-46.)PFF1 85.7

(7) The Apocrypha contains historical errors, inconsistencies, and fictitious stories and events. (For example: 1 Maccabees 8; Additions to Esther 11:2-4; Bel and the Dragon.)PFF1 85.8