Canon – Being Taught that We may Teach

Introduction

What is a canon?

A canon is a standard, principle, or criterion by which something is judged. The word itself could possibly have originated from a Hebrew word; see Gregory p15.

How is the term used in theology?

It is used to refer to those documents which are considered to be inspired by God.

How did the church decide this?

The canon of the Old Testament was simply received from the Jews. The canon of the New Testament was decided on after a long process.

Explain the process of how the early church came to regard the Bible we know today as the canon of divinely inspired writings?

First, Jesus came to earth as the revelation from God. (John 1:1) He taught the people everything that His Father had given Him to teach. When Jesus came to the end of His ministry, He handed off His mission to His disciples. The disciples carried on where Jesus left off and continued to teach and preach about the kingdom of God. Because the teaching of Jesus was handed down from one person to another, it came to be called “tradition.” Paul warns the Thessalonian believers to keep away from anyone who leads an unruly life and does not live according to the tradition which you received from us. (2 Thessalonians 3:6) Tschackert writes;

Primitive Christians received the apostolic message by word of mouth as well as by pen and passed it on orally from generation to generation by public preaching and catechetical instruction. Naturally, therefore, they considered and called the entire and complete message “tradition” (traditio from tradere, “to hand on”) regardless of the form in which it was delivered or preserved.

What happened next?

As time went on and the apostles died off, there was a growing need to preserve the teaching of Jesus. In those days, many people would set forth doctrines claiming that their teaching was a tradition handed down from Jesus or the apostles. The early church struggled hard against these false teachers. The crying need was for some way to authenticate what was really and truly from Jesus and the apostles and what wasn’t. Congar writes;

But the further the Church moved forward from the apostolic age, the more necessary it became in discussion with the heretics to be supported by a “tradition” the authenticity of which was guaranteed by reference to a document which came incontestably from the apostles themselves, and hence by reference to apostolic writings. (Tradition and Traditions, 34)

How did these first Christians resolve this issue?

The church developed a three pronged point of reference for knowing what was truly apostolic:

apostolic creed,
apostolic Scripture, and
apostolic succession. (p111)

What was the apostle’s creed?

The churches of this time developed many written statements of faith very similar to the doctrinal statements or statements of faith seen in contemporary churches. They used these creeds as brief and easy summaries of apostolic teaching. This was especially useful for adults who came to faith and wanted to join the church. These people would be taught the truths contained in these short creeds. Once they had learned these truths, they would be baptized and make a public profession of their faith before the entire church. Because the churches of this time had so much respect for the church at Rome, many churches conformed their creed to the one in use at Rome. Over time, this became known as the apostles creed. more

What was apostolic Scripture?

This is the effort to have a canon or an official list of documents which are really and truly apostolic.

What was apostolic succession?

This was also a way of being sure that a given teacher was teaching the apostolic faith. If such a teacher had been ordained by an apostle, then there was more confidence that his teaching was also apostolic. As time went on, a given teacher would trace his ordination back to someone who was ordained by an apostle. In this way, he established himself as an authentic teacher of what the apostles had taught.

When was the canon, as we know it today, officially determined?

There is no such date. The fixing of the canon was a long process that took hundreds of years, and controversy over this continues to the present day. This long process gave rise to the terms protocanonical and deuterocanonical. The first are those books about which there was no dispute. The deuterocanonical books are those books which protestants often call apocryphal.

Old Testament

Is there any reference to something like a canon in the Old Testament?

Yes, consider what Moses said:

It came about, when Moses finished writing the words of this law in a book until they were complete, that Moses commanded the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying, “Take this book of the law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may remain there as a witness against you. (Deuteronomy 31:24-26)

Here we have reference to a collection of writings and a command to preserve them. This is the same spirit which led the people of God to identify and preserve those writings in which they heard the voice of God. We read something similar with respect to Joshua;

The people said to Joshua, “We will serve the LORD our God and we will obey His voice.” So Joshua made a covenant with the people that day, and made for them a statute and an ordinance in Shechem. And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of God; and he took a large stone and set it up there under the oak that was by the sanctuary of the LORD. Joshua said to all the people, “Behold, this stone shall be for a witness against us, for it has heard all the words of the LORD which He spoke to us; thus it shall be for a witness against you, so that you do not deny your God.” Then Joshua dismissed the people, each to his inheritance. (Joshua 24:24-28)

Another instance of this is Samuel who wrote down the laws of the kingdom and placed it before YHWH which means in the ark of the covenant. (1 Samuel 10:25) Later, the book of the law was discovered in the temple by Josiah. (2 Kings 22:8) Finally, consider this passage from Isaiah:

Seek from the book of the LORD, and read: Not one of these will be missing; None will lack its mate. For His mouth has commanded, and His Spirit has gathered them. He has cast the lot for them, and His hand has divided it to them by line. They shall possess it forever; from generation to generation they will dwell in it. (Isaiah 34:16-17)

On this verse, Havernick comments (p20):

In fine, we have to notice here the passage in Isaiah 34:16 where we read of a סֵפֶר יְהוָה. Gesenius remarks here “the poet seems to contemplate the placing of his oracle in a collection of oracles and holy writings from which posterity might judge of the correctness of his prediction.” In this case, the expression must relate to prophecies delivered at another time and such referring to the object of the prophet viz the destruction of Edom were to be found already in the Pentateuch. It accords well also with Isaiah’s habit of referring to the exact coincidence of other prophecies in support of his own (Isaiah 42:9; 45:19; 46:10 48:5, 6). The mode however in which this Book of Jehovah is introduced, as one well known and which the people are exhorted to search דרש, cf. ἐραυνᾶτε τὰς γραφάς (John 5:39) as well as the general appellation “Book of Jehovah” Jehovah’s revelations can be satisfactorily explained only on the supposition that the reference here is to a publicly known collection of the Scriptures.

What writings were contained in the ark of the covenant?

In Exodus 25:16, God commands Moses to place “the testimony” (הָעֵדֻת אֲשֶׁר אֶתֵּן אֵלֶיךָ׃) in the ark. This was the decalog which God had given Moses on Mt Sinai. This corresponds to what we read elsewhere. (1 Kings 8:9; Hebrews 9:4) In Deuteronomy 31:24-26, Moses commanded the Levites to place the book of the law next to the ark, not inside it.

When did the Jews finally settle on their canon?

Whether the Jews had a closed canon is not entirely clear.

What is a closed canon?

This is a canon to which no additional books or documents are to be added.

Are there any other reasons to believe that the Jews had a closed canon or were they willing to include other documents in their canon?

First, Havernick notes (p29) that the book of Ecclesiasticus (180bc) was not admitted to the canon even though it claimed to be canonical. Why did the Jews not include this book in their canon? He concludes that this was because the canon was closed at that time; no further books were to be added to it no matter what claims they made for themselves.

Second, Havernick points to a comment in this same book where the author refers to the Law, the Prophets, and the other books:

Whereas many great teachings have been given to us through the law and the prophets and the others that followed them, on account of which we should praise Israel for instruction and wisdom; and…

He argues that the author’s use of these three divisions of the Jewish canon shows that, at this time, the canon was closed. Oesterley, however, argues (p1) that because the author did not use the term Kituvim or Hagiographa for the last of these divisions, this shows that he did not understand this part of the Jewish canon to be closed. Havernick disagrees and finds the terms for this last division in a later chapter of this book. First, he notes that Sirach refers to the first division of the Jewish canon as the law.

He allowed him to hear his voice, and led him into the dark cloud, and gave him the commandments face to face, the law of life and knowledge, so that he might teach Jacob the covenant, and Israel his decrees. (Sirach 45:5)

Second, he finds the prophets:

There were those who ruled in their kingdoms, and made a name for themselves by their valor; those who gave counsel because they were intelligent; those who spoke in prophetic oracles; (Sirach 44:3)

Finally, the third division is also named:

those who composed musical tunes, or put verses in writing;

Havernick concludes (p30):

This much, at least, is certain that this book makes mention of these as the only parts of the canonical documents and this is sufficient to annihilate all uncertainty as to whether the book recognizes a completed Canon.

In the Jewish Encyclopedia, Schmidt argues (p146) that Chronicles was the last book of the Jewish canon. He points to Jesus’ comment:

For this reason also the wisdom of God said, ‘I will send to them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and some they will persecute, so that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.’ (Luke 11:49-51)

Jesus refers to the beginning of the canon by referencing Abel, and to the end of the canon by referencing the execution of Zechariah which is given us in 2 Chronicles 24:20-22. Dunbar points out that Zechariah is not chronologically the last martyr named in the Old Testament. The reason he is mentioned here is because Chronicles was, by New Testament times, understood to be the last book in the Hebrew Bible. “The Biblical Canon,” in Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon, p306.

What other evidence exists that by the time of the New Testament, the Jewish canon was closed?

Further evidence comes from Josephus; see below.

New Testament

Is there any evidence that the New Testament authors knew they were writing Scripture?

First, the idea of a canon was not something new. The Jewish religion was based on a canon; see chapter 106. Daniel refers to it as “the books.” (Daniel 9:2) Jesus and the apostles frequently quoted from these Scriptures as is clear from all their references to “the law and the prophets,” the “Scripture” or the “Scriptures.” Warfield writes (p204):

In order to obtain a correct understanding of what is called the formation of the canon of the New Testament, it is necessary to begin by fixing very firmly in our minds one fact which is obvious enough when attention is once called to it. That is, that the Christian church did not require to form for itself the idea of a “canon,”—or, as we should more commonly call it, of a “Bible,”—that is, of a collection of books given of God to be the authoritative rule of faith and practice. It inherited this idea from the Jewish church, along with the thing itself, the Jewish Scriptures, or the “Canon of the Old Testament.” The church did not grow up by natural law: it was founded. And the authoritative teachers sent forth by Christ to found his church, carried with them, as their most precious possession, a body of divine Scriptures, which they imposed on the church that they founded as its code of law.

Second, the apostles were directly appointed by Jesus as His successors in the work of the kingdom of God. Consider these two passages:

If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst. (Matthew 18:15-20)

Right before His ascension, Jesus says this to His disciples:

So when it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you.” And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples then rejoiced when they saw the Lord. So Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.” (John 20:19-23)

This means that the apostles had authority in the Christian church to teach in the name of Jesus Himself. On another occasion, Jesus says, “The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.” (Luke 10:16) To those gathered in the house of Cornelius, Peter preached:

We are witnesses of all the things He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They also put Him to death by hanging Him on a cross. God raised Him up on the third day and granted that He become visible, not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God, that is, to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead. And He ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead. (Acts 10:39-42)

This means that Jesus’ disciples went forth with a message that was from God. It was just as authoritative as the canon of Scripture already in their hands. When they spoke, they knew they were communicating the word of God to the people. Finally, note that Peter himself explicitly calls Paul’s letters Scripture.

Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:14-16)

This shows that the apostles knew that they were adding to the canon that already existed.

Philo

Does Philo give us any information regarding the canon?

Philo died around 50ad; he does not give us a canon list. What is noteworthy, however, is that while he constantly quotes from the Bible, there are no quotations anywhere from the apocryphal books. See Ryle p303.

Josephus

What about Josephus?

The first document giving us a list of Old Testament books is from Josephus (p476 §8). It is dated 97ad; his canon is the same as the Jewish canon:

(38) For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another [as the Greeks have], but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; (39) and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; (40) but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life. (41) It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; (42) and how firmly we have given credit to those books of our own nation, is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything to them, to take anything from them, or to make any change in them; but it becomes natural to all Jews, immediately and from their very birth, to esteem those books to contain divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be, willingly to die for them. (43) For it is no new thing for our captives, many of them in number, and frequently in time, to be seen to endure racks and deaths of all kinds upon the theatres, that they may not be obliged to say one word against our laws and the records that contain them; (44) whereas there are none at all among the Greeks who would undergo the least harm on that account, no, nor in case all the writings that are among them were to be destroyed; (45) for they take them to be such discourses as are famed agreeably to the inclinations of those that write them; and they have justly the same opinion of the ancient writers, since they see some of the present generation bold enough to write about such affairs, wherein they were not present, nor had concern enough to inform themselves about them from those that knew them: (46) examples of which may be had in this late war of ours, where some persons have written histories, and published them, without having been in the places concerned, or having been near them when the actions were done; but these men put a few things together by hearsay, and insolently abuse the world, and call these writings by the name of Histories.

Westcott draws (p28) three conclusions from this:

The Sacred Writings were distinctly limited in number; and this number (it appears) was admitted by universal consent.
The reign of Artaxerxes (c. 450bc) was regarded as the extreme limit of the Divine history (i.e. according to Josephus, the book of Esther).
The books were esteemed Divine, and this without any distinction between the three classes into which they were divided (Law, Prophets, Psalms, or, to use the technical term, Hagiographa, i.e. Holy Writings).

Another document, in this regard, is the Bryennios List (here) which agrees with the list of Josephus given above.

Why is Josephus important for our understanding of the canon?

Josephus gives us further evidence that canon, at the time of Jesus, was considered to be a closed canon. See Havernick (p31) and Hengstenberg (p198).

Whatever the Jews thought about their canon, clearly the apostles did not think of the canon as closed.

Correct.

Muratorian Fragment

What was the Muratorian Fragment?

This is another very early witness to the canon; but this time, the canon of the New Testament. It is dated no later than 170ad. It is called a fragment because the document was clearly damaged and part of it is missing. This list of books includes as canonical the apocalypse of Peter. Some books are missing from the document, but this is due to the fact that the document itself is damaged. (p222) Otherwise, the books included are the same as the New Testament canon in use today.

Melito of Sardis

Which individuals spoke to the issue of which books belong in the canon?

The first Christian reference to a canon is found in the writings of Melito of Sardis (§177) around 170ad. This man is interesting because he actually went to Palestine to seek information on the Jewish canon. (p224) He writes (§13):

“Melito to his brother Onesimus, greeting: Since thou hast often, in thy zeal for the word, expressed a wish to have extracts made from the Law and the Prophets concerning the Savior, and concerning our entire faith, and hast also desired to have an accurate statement of the ancient book, as regards their number and their order, I have endeavored to perform the task, knowing thy zeal for the faith, and thy desire to gain information in regard to the word, and knowing that thou, in thy yearning after God, esteemest these things above all else, struggling to attain eternal salvation.

Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave [Joshua son of Nun], Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books [includes both books of Samuel]; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras [or Ezra and would include Nehemiah].

What differences are there between this list and the canon used in the churches today?

First, Melito’s list does not include the deutero-canonical books or what we know today as the apocrypha. It’s not clear if Melito includes the Wisdom of Solomon. His list could be read this way “…the Proverbs of Solomon, also called Wisdom, Ecclesiastes,…” Or it could be that by Wisdom here, Melito is referring to the actual book known as the Wisdom of Solomon. See Stuart on this p259.

Second, Melito learned this list from copies of the LXX. Stuart writes (p258):

It seems quite probable, if not altogether certain, from the names of the books, as given by Melito, and from their order, that he learned them by consulting a Greek copy or copies of the Scriptures, and not a Hebrew one. Neither the names, in some cases, nor the order, nor the classification, compares altogether with the Hebrew, but rather with the Version of the Seventy; yet in some respects, not even with the Septuagint as we now have it in our printed copies. But in making the four books of Samuel and Kings into one book with one and the same designation, viz Kings he plainly follows the Septuagint; in placing Chronicles next to them, he does the same, but here it is far from certain that the Hebrew at that time differed in respect to this from the Septuagint. The sequel of his catalogue differs, as to order, both from the Jewish and Septuagint lists of the books of the Old Testament which have come down to us; as also from the order of these books as given by Origen, Jerome, and others. But as I have already remarked, the order of classification has always been subject to variation in the second and third classes of the Hebrew books; and that of Melito helps to confirm this view of the subject.

Third, Melito’s list does not include Esther or Lamentations although Lamentations may have been lumped in with Jeremiah.

Origen

What were Origen’s thoughts on this issue?

Origen (§187) has a great deal to say on the canon; see chapter 25. Westcott writes that “the testimony which Origen gives to the books of the New Testament is more complete than any which has been yet obtained.” Origen acknowledges that there were reservations with 2-3 John, James, and 2 Peter. He also notes the difficulty with knowing the author of Hebrews which may have caused some to doubt its canonicity:

Peter has left one Epistle generally acknowledged; and perhaps a second, for that is disputed. John wrote the Apocalypse and an Epistle of very few lines; and, it may be, a second and third, since all do not admit them to be genuine.’ Of the Epistle to the Hebrews, he writes, that ‘the thoughts are the thoughts of the Apostle Paul; … but who it was who wrote the Epistle, God only knows certainly.’ Elsewhere he quotes the Epistles of James and Jude, but at the same time alludes to the doubts entertained as to their right to be classed among the Christian Scriptures. (p365)

Origen’s canon of the Old Testament agrees with the current Protestant canon with one exception. He includes the letter of Jeremiah which is also included in the Roman Catholic canon. Westcott suggests (p135) that Origen thought this letter was in the Jewish canon because he found it in the LXX. It is also not clear if Origen is giving his own personal view of what was canonical or if he was simply stating the opinions of others.

Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus

Are we able to learn anything about the canon from the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus manuscripts?

Yes, these manuscripts (appendix B) are noteworthy in that they all include the books now known as apocryphal. Codex Vaticanus, for example, includes Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1-2 Maccabees, and the additions to Esther and Daniel. None of these appear in the Protestant canon of the Bible while they are all in the Roman Catholic canon. Another manuscript is the Codex Claromontanus (bottom of p308). This manuscript contains the letters of Paul. Between Philemon and Hebrews, however, some scribe inserted a list of the Old and New Testament books. For the Old Testament, 1&2 Chronicles are left out, while Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, 1, 2, 4, Maccabees, Judith, and Tobit are included. In the New Testament, both Thessalonian letters are missing as well as Philippians. The Shepherd (§168), the Acts of Paul, and the Revelation of Peter are included.

Why did these manuscripts include the deuterocanonical books?

Because they were following the LXX.

Eusebius

What light did Eusebius shed on this question?

With regards to the New Testament, Eusebius (§161) writes (p155):

Now we have come to this point, it seems reasonable that we should give a summary catalogue of the writings of the New Testament which we have indicated. And first then we must place the holy quaternion of the Gospels, which are followed by the narrative of the Acts of the Apostles. After these we must reckon the [fourteen] Epistles of Paul; and next to them we must ratify the Epistle circulated as the former of John, and in like manner that of Peter. After these books we must place—if at least such a view seem correct—the Apocalypse, the judgments on which we shall set forth in due course. And these are reckoned among the books “acknowledged.

Among the controverted books which are nevertheless well-known [and used] by most, we class the Epistle circulated under the name of James, and that of Jude, as well as the second Epistle of Peter, and the so-called second and third of John, whether they really belong to the Evangelist or possibly to another of the same name.

We must rank among the spurious the account of the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter. And besides these the Epistle circulated under the name of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and moreover, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if such a view seem correct, which some, as I said, reject, while others reckon it among the books “acknowledged.” We may add that some reckoned in this division also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, to which those Hebrews who have received [Jesus as] the Christ are especially attached. All these then will belong to the class of “controverted” books.

It has been necessary for us to extend our catalogue, even to these latter works [in spite of their questionable authority], having distinguished the writings which, according to the tradition of the Church, are true and genuine and universally acknowledged, and the others besides these which though they are not in the Testament (Canonical), but in fact controverted, are yet constantly recognized in most of the ecclesiastical writers, that we might be acquainted not only with these but also with the writings brought forward by heretics in the name of the Apostles as containing the Gospels of Peter and Thomas and Matthias and some others, or the Acts of Andrew and John and the other Apostles, which no one in the different successions of ecclesiastical writers has deigned to mention. And further also, the character of the language which varies from the Apostolic spirit, and the sentiment and purpose of their contents, wholly discordant with true orthodoxy, clearly prove that they are forgeries of heretics; whence we must not even class them among the spurious books, but set them aside as every way monstrous and impious.’

Clearly, this father divided the Bible books into three categories of Acknowledged, Controverted, and the Heretical. Westcott explains (p150) these terms:

A book was canonical if its authenticity was undisputed and its author had apostolic authority;
A book was controverted if it failed in either one of these conditions;
A book was spurious if it failed both of these.

About the acknowledged books, Westcott writes (p151):

As to the class of ‘acknowledged’ Books, one remark only is necessary. He [Eusebius] speaks generally of ‘the Epistles of Paul,’ without noticing the Epistle to the Hebrews specially in any place. But both from his general usage and from his former mention of ‘the fourteen Epistles of Paul,’ it seems certain that he looked upon it himself as ‘acknowledged.’ In other words, for him, like Origen, the uncertainty was simply as to ‘who wrote it;’ but whoever wrote it, he received the book as stamped with the spirit and sanction of the Apostle.

About the controverted books, Westcott writes (p151):

The second class of ‘controverted’ Books includes all those which claiming inspiration or apostolicity had obtained a partial reception in the Church. This class is again subdivided. Some were popularly admitted, though their claims were not beyond question either as to authenticity (2 Peter) or as to apostolicity (James, Jude, 2, 3 John). If 2 Peter were written by the author whose name it bore, then it was canonical. On the other hand, it was allowed that James, Jude, 2, 3 John, were written by men of that name, but it was doubted whether they were Apostles or possessed of Apostolic authority. These formed the first group. They were controverted, but yet used. The second group was made up of books, which, in the opinion of Eusebius, were positively deficient in one or other of the conditions of a canonical writing. Two of these still remain, the Shepherd and the Epistle of Barnabas; the others have been lost, and it is impossible to form any opinion as to their character. With regard to these two, it might have been plausibly urged that if the Shepherd was an authentic work of a friend of St Paul, its internal claims to inspiration must be admitted: that if the Epistle was by the ‘Apostle’ then it also was canonical. But Eusebius decided that both were certainly not works of Apostolic men, and therefore, in his sense, spurious.

Unfortunately, Eusebius gives us little information about the Old Testament. Westcott writes (p153):

Eusebius has left no express judgment on the contents of the Old Testament. In three places he quotes from Josephus, Melito and Origen, lists of the books (slightly differing) according to the Hebrew Canon. These he calls in the first place ‘the Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament, undisputed among the Hebrews;’ and again, ‘the acknowledged Scriptures of the Old Testament;’ and, lastly, ‘the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament.’ In his Chronicle he distinctly separates the Books of Maccabees from the ‘Divine Scriptures and elsewhere mentions Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom as ‘controverted’ books. On the other hand, like the older Fathers, he quotes in the same manner as the contents of the Hebrew Canon passages from Baruch and Wisdom. On the whole, it may be concluded that he regarded the Apocrypha of the Old Testament in the same light as the books in the New Testament, which were ‘controverted and yet familiarly used by many.’ The books of the Hebrew Canon alone were in his technical language ‘acknowledged.’

Athanasius

Certainly the great Athanasius would have said something on this topic.

Athanasius (§163) also published a canon list. His list of Old Testament books is the same as the current Protestant canon with the exception that it includes Baruch and the letter to Jeremiah and excludes Esther. He writes (p552):

4. There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second [Ezra & Nehemiah] are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.

5. Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.

6. These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me3.’

7. But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple.

Westcott comments (p161):

The language of Athanasius shows that he had no knowledge of Hebrew, and it is obvious how easily errors might arise as to the exact contents of the Hebrew Bible. At least there can be no doubt that Athanasius intended (like Melito and Origen) to give the Books of the Old Testament which were received by the Jews.

What is noteworthy about Athanasius’ teaching here?

We note the three tiered approach to the inspired books which is not unique to Athanasius. There are those books which are canonical, those books which are to be read for instruction in Godliness, and those books which are “inventions of heretics.” This is why the deuterocanonical books are so often quoted by various church fathers and even called “Scripture” but, for all that, they were not reckoned to be worthy of inclusion in the canon.

Wordsworth (p220):

This statement of Athanasius on the “Canon of Holy Scripture” is very important, coming as it does from one who had been about forty years a Bishop of the Church, and was in communion with all the faithful in the East and West. It may be said that it represents the judgment of the Church Catholic in the fourth century on the question, “What Books are to be received as Canonical, i.e. as Divinely-inspired Scripture?”

Cyril

What about Cyril?

Another church father, named Cyril of Jerusalem (§168), gives the same list as Athanasius but he includes Esther. Cyril’s list is included in a series of lessons which he gave to his catechism class who were preparing for baptism and making public profession. In lecture 4, Cyril gives (p26) a list of the canonical books:

Of these, read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than thyself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench [trespass] thou not upon its statutes. And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if thou art desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them. For of the Law the books of Moses are the first five, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. And next, Joshua the son of Nave [Nun], and the book of Judges, including Ruth, counted as seventh. And of the other historical books, the first and second books of the Kings are among the Hebrews one book; also the third and fourth one book. And in like manner, the first and second of Chronicles are with them one book; and the first and second of Esdras are counted one. Esther is the twelfth book; and these are the Historical writings. But those which are written in verses are five, Job, and the book of Psalms, and Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, which is the seventeenth book. And after these come the five Prophetic books: of the Twelve Prophets one book, of Isaiah one, of Jeremiah one, including Baruch and Lamentations and the Epistle [the letter of Jeremiah]; then Ezekiel, and the Book of Daniel, the twenty-second of the Old Testament.

It differs from the Protestant canon in its inclusion of the book of Baruch and the letter of Jeremiah. This “letter of Jeremiah” is included in Roman Catholic Bibles as chapter six of the book of Baruch. It is not certain whether “Daniel” here includes the additions to Daniel; i.e. The Prayer of Azariah (or Abednego), The Song of the Three Young Men (or Song of the Three Holy Children), Susanna (or Daniel and Susanna), and Bel and the Dragon. Daubney says (p160) it almost certainly would have included these additions. Later church fathers named Epiphanius (§169) and Hilary (§174) gave lists that do not differ significantly from Origen, Athanasius, or Cyril; see p89 and here.

Gregory of Nazianzus

What is the canon list of Gregory Nazianzus?

This man was an eastern father (§166). His canon list does not include the deuterocanonical books with the exception that his book of Jeremiah may have included Lamentations, Baruch, and the Epistle of Jeremiah. He also leaves Esther out. His list of books in the New Testament is the same as the currently received canon. After giving this list, he writes (p166):

You have all [the Books]: if there be any besides these, it is not among the genuine [Books].’

Amphilochius

Who was Amphilochius?

There is very little information about this man’s life even though he was regarded by his contemporaries as the foremost man in the Eastern Church after his friends Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nazianzus. (p103)

What did he say about the canon of Scripture?

He basically says the same thing as Gregory Nazianzus. Westcott writes (p167):

You may not,’ Amphilochius writes, ‘safely believe every book which claims to be Scripture … Some are of intermediate value, and near (so to speak) to the words of truth; some, again, are spurious and very perilous … Therefore I will enumerate separately the inspired Books …’ He then gives a list of the Books of the Old Testament exactly the same as that of Gregory; but continues, ‘some add Esther to these.’ The order of the Books of the New Testament which he gives is the same as before, but he adds three important notes to the ‘controverted’ Books. ‘Some affirm,’ he says, ‘that the Epistle to the Hebrews is spurious, speaking not well, for the grace [i.e. the revelation which it gives] is genuine.’ Further, ‘some say that we ought to receive seven Catholic Epistles, but others three only, one of James, one of Peter and one of John. Some again include the Apocalypse of John [in the Bible], but the greater number, on the other hand, say that it is spurious. This,’ he concludes, ‘will be the most truthful Canon of the Inspired Scriptures, which if you shall obey you will escape the snares of the world …’

Westcott notes both that the influence of Eusebius is obvious and that, in their writings, both Amphilochius and Gregory of Nazianzus quote Baruch and the additions to Daniel as on the same level as the canonical books.

Epiphanius

What does this father teach us about the canon of the Bible?

This father (§169) was a learned man who understood five languages: Hebrew, Syriac, Egyptian, Greek, and a little Latin. He gives us a canon list listing the same books as above but he does include Esther. Westcott notes (p172) that He did include the letter of Jeremiah and Baruch, although in another place he notes that the letters of Baruch are not found in the Hebrew Bible.

He is equally inconsistent or uncertain with regard to Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus. ‘These,’ he says, ‘occupy a doubtful place. They are useful, and still they are not reckoned among the acknowledged Books, nor were they ever placed in the Ark of the Covenant (i.e. received as Scripture by the Jews).’ Yet again after enumerating summarily all the Books of the Old and New Testaments,* he adds, ‘and the books of Wisdom, that of Solomon, and of the son of Sirach, and generally all divine writings.’ It is evident that he wishes to combine the practice of the early Fathers with their direct teaching. He will sacrifice nothing which had even the appearance of authority; and this characteristic of the man gives weight to his repeated statement that the Books of the Old Testament ‘were twenty-seven, counted as twenty-two.’ The Hebrew Canon was that which he, like all the other Greek Fathers, wished to mark as definitely authoritative; though he admitted to a second place the books which had been sanctioned in some measure by Christian usage.

Schaff says (p928) that there are “innumerable errors and contradictions in his writings.”

Jerome

What about Jerome?

Jerome was uniquely positioned to give us good information on this subject. First, he knew the Hebrew language. Second, he lived in Palestine with close contact with the Jewish scholars of the day. Jerome originally used the LXX as his text of Scripture, as all Christians of the time did, but he came to understand the priority of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. Because of his convictions on this, he learned the Hebrew language; see the story in Farrar (p182).

Did Jerome ever give us his understanding of the extent of the canon?

Yes, he wrote a preface to his translation of Samuel and Kings in which (p489) he says this:

That the Hebrews have twenty-two letters is testified by the Syrian and Chaldæan languages which are nearly related to the Hebrew, for they have twenty-two elementary sounds which are pronounced the same way, but are differently written. The Samaritans also employ just the same number of letters in their copies of the Pentateuch of Moses, and differ only in the shape and outline of the letters. And it is certain that Esdras [Ezra], the scribe and teacher of the law, after the capture of Jerusalem and the restoration of the temple by Zerubbabel, invented other letters which we now use, although up to that time the Samaritan and Hebrew characters were the same. In the book of Numbers, also, where we have the census of the Levites and priests, the mystic teaching of Scripture conducts us to the same result. And we find the four-lettered name of the Lord in certain Greek books written to this day in the ancient characters. The thirty-seventh Psalm, moreover, the one hundred and eleventh, the one hundred and twelfth, the one hundred and nineteenth, and the one hundred and forty-fifth, although they are written in different metres, have for their acrostic framework an alphabet of the same number of letters. The Lamentations of Jeremiah, and his Prayer, the Proverbs of Solomon also, towards the end, from the place where we read “Who will find a brave woman?” are instances of the same number of letters forming the division into sections. And, again, five are double letters, viz., Caph, Mem, Nun, Phe, Sade, for at the beginning and in the middle of words they are written one way, and at the end another way. Whence it happens that, by most people, five of the books are reckoned as double, viz., Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Jeremiah, with Kinoth, i.e., his Lamentations. As, then, there are twenty-two elementary characters by means of which we write in Hebrew all we say, and the compass of the human voice is contained within their limits, so we reckon twenty-two books, by which, as by the alphabet of the doctrine of God, a righteous man is instructed in tender infancy, and, as it were, while still at the breast.

The first of these books is called Bresith, to which we give the name Genesis. The second, Elle Smoth, which bears the name Exodus; the third, Vaiecra, that is Leviticus; the fourth, Vaiedabber, which we call Numbers; the fifth, Elle Addabarim, which is entitled Deuteronomy. These are the five books of Moses, which they properly call Thorath, that is law.

The second class is composed of the Prophets, and they begin with Jesus the son of Nave, who among them is called Joshua the son of Nun. Next in the series is Sophtim, that is the book of Judges; and in the same book they include Ruth, because the events narrated occurred in the days of the Judges. Then comes Samuel, which we call First and Second Kings. The fourth is Malachim, that is, Kings, which is contained in the third and fourth volumes of Kings. And it is far better to say Malachim, that is Kings, than Malachoth, that is Kingdoms. For the author does not describe the Kingdoms of many nations, but that of one people, the people of Israel, which is comprised in the twelve tribes. The fifth is Isaiah, the sixth, Jeremiah, the seventh, Ezekiel, the eighth is the book of the Twelve Prophets, which is called among the Jews Thare Asra.

To the third class belong the Hagiographa, of which the first book begins with Job, the second with David, whose writings they divide into five parts and comprise in one volume of Psalms; the third is Solomon, in three books, Proverbs, which they call Parables, that is Masaloth, Ecclesiastes, that is Coeleth, the Song of Songs, which they denote by the title Sir Assirim; the sixth is Daniel; the seventh, Dabre Aiamim, that is, Words of Days, which we may more expressively call a chronicle of the whole of the sacred history, the book that amongst us is called First and Second Chronicles; the eighth, Ezra, which itself is likewise divided amongst Greeks and Latins into two books; the ninth is Esther.

And so there are also twenty-two books of the Old Testament; that is, five of Moses, eight of the prophets, nine of the Hagiographa, though some include Ruth and Kinoth (Lamentations) amongst the Hagiographa, and think that these books ought to be reckoned separately; we should thus have twenty-four books of the old law. And these the Apocalypse of John represents by the twenty-four elders, who adore the Lamb, and with downcast looks offer their crowns, while in their presence stand the four living creatures with eyes before and behind, that is, looking to the past and the future, and with unwearied voice crying, Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, who wast, and art, and art to come.

This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a “helmeted” introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees I have found to be Hebrew, the second is Greek, as can be proved from the very style. Seeing that all this is so, I beseech you, my reader, not to think that my labors are in any sense intended to disparage the old translators. For the service of the tabernacle of God each one offers what he can; some gold and silver and precious stones, others linen and blue and purple and scarlet; we shall do well if we offer skins and goats’ hair. And yet the Apostle pronounces our more contemptible parts more necessary than others. Accordingly, the beauty of the tabernacle as a whole and in its several kinds (and the ornaments of the church present and future) was covered with skins and goats’-hair cloths, and the heat of the sun and the injurious rain were warded off by those things which are of less account. First read, then, my Samuel and Kings; mine, I say, mine. For whatever by diligent translation and by anxious emendation we have learnt and made our own, is ours. And when you understand that whereof you were before ignorant, either, if you are grateful, reckon me a translator, or, if ungrateful, a paraphraser, albeit I am not in the least conscious of having deviated from the Hebrew original. At all events, if you are incredulous, read the Greek and Latin manuscripts and compare them with these poor efforts of mine, and wherever you see they disagree, ask some Hebrew [a Jew] (though you ought rather to place confidence in me), and if he confirm our view, I suppose you will not think him a soothsayer and suppose that he and I have, in rendering the same passage, divined alike. But I ask you also, the handmaidens of Christ, who anoint the head of your reclining Lord with the most precious ointment of faith, who by no means seek the Savior in the tomb, for whom Christ has long since ascended to the Father—I beg you to confront with the shields of your prayers the mad dogs who bark and rage against me, and go about the city, and think themselves learned if they disparage others. I, knowing my lowliness, will always remember what we are told. “I said, I will take heed to my ways that I offend not in my tongue. I have set a guard upon my mouth while the sinner standeth against me. I became dumb, and was humbled, and kept silence from good words.”

What conclusions can we draw from this?

Here we get a clear distinction between the canonical and the deuterocanonical (or “apocryphal”) books of the Old Testament. The Catholic Encyclopedia argues (last lines of p341) that Jerome “never either categorically acknowledged or rejected the deuterocanonical books as part of the Canon of Scripture, and he repeatedly made use of them.” Jerome, however, clearly says that they “are not in the canon.”

Is it true that Jerome repeatedly makes use of the deuterocanonical books in his writing?

Yes, it is true. The reason is simply that Jerome had a great deal of respect for these books even while he did not accord them a place in the canon. Westcott writes (p183):

But while Jerome thus drew a clear line between the books of the Hebrew Bible and the later additions to it, he still reserved for the Apocrypha an ecclesiastical use, quoting them, as Hilary did before him, with marked respect, and even as ‘Scripture.’ In this he followed the example of Athanasius, and furnished a rule which it were to be wished that the Western Churches had universally followed.

This is also the position taken by the Belgic Confession in article 6.

Augustine

What was Augustine’s opinion on the canon?

Augustine laid the groundwork for the full reception of the apocryphal books as canonical. He was interested in the issue of the canon shortly after his conversion probably because he had previously fallen in with the Manichees who made use of many different apocryphal books claiming to be Scripture. He lists the canonical books in his book On Christian Doctrine (p41):

13. Now the whole canon of Scripture on which we say this judgment is to be exercised, is contained in the following books:

Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; one book of Joshua the son of Nun; one of Judges; one short book called Ruth, which seems rather to belong to the beginning of Kings; next, four books of Kings, and two of Chronicles,—these last not following one another, but running parallel, so to speak, and going over the same ground. The books now mentioned are history, which contains a connected narrative of the times, and follows the order of the events.

There are other books which seem to follow no regular order, and are connected neither with the order of the preceding books nor with one another, such as Job, and Tobias, and Esther, and Judith, and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Ezra [Ezra & Nehemiah], which last look more like a sequel to the continuous regular history which terminates with the books of Kings and Chronicles.

Next are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David; and three books of Solomon, viz., Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. For two books, one called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus, are ascribed to Solomon from a certain resemblance of style, but the most likely opinion is that they were written by Jesus the son of Sirach. [Augustine later withdrew this idea] Still they are to be reckoned among the prophetical books, since they have attained recognition as being authoritative.

The remainder are the books which are strictly called the Prophets: twelve separate books of the prophets which are connected with one another, and having never been disjoined, are reckoned as one book; the names of these prophets are as follows:—Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; then there are the four greater prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel.

The authority of the Old Testament is contained within the limits of these forty-four books.

That of the New Testament, again, is contained within the following:—Four books of the Gospel, according to Matthew, according to Mark, according to Luke, according to John; fourteen epistles of the Apostle Paul—one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews: two of Peter; three of John; one of Jude; and one of James; one book of the Acts of the Apostles; and one of the Revelation of John.

What is noteworthy about Augustine’s comments here?

First, we find the deuterocanonical books included: Wisdom, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, and 1-2 Maccabees. Augustine’s list likely includes the additions to Esther and Daniel along with the letter of Jeremiah and Baruch. Neither is there any hint in the listing of books that Augustine regards them as special or unique.

Second, from the opening comment, it is not certain that Augustine intends his list here as a list of books which he thinks are strictly canonical. Notice his statement that it is on this list of books, that “this judgment is to be exercised.”

To which judgment is he referring?

Apparently Augustine did not regard every book in his “canon” as equally authoritative. This is strange to us because we think of all the books of the canon as being of equal authority. Augustine, however, did not think this way. Note how in this paragraph (p41), he gives two rules for judging which books of the canon are to be given pride of place:

But let us now go back to consider the third step here mentioned, for it is about it that I have set myself to speak and reason as the Lord shall grant me wisdom. The most skillful interpreter of the sacred writings, then, will be he who in the first place has read them all and retained them in his knowledge, if not yet with full understanding, still with such knowledge as reading gives,—those of them, at least, that are called canonical. For he will read the others with greater safety when built up in the belief of the truth, so that they will not take first possession of a weak mind, nor, cheating it with dangerous falsehoods and delusions, fill it with prejudices adverse to a sound understanding. Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of catholic churches; and among these, of course, a high place must be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles. Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal.

Clearly, Augustine is using the word “canon” in a broad sense to include all those books which are regarded as “sacred writings” and as containing truth from God. Now among these writings, the theological student needs to judge which deserve pride of place and which are of less value. This leads to the idea that he agreed with the distinction, which we’ve seen in the other fathers, between those books which were canonical and those books which were edifying to be read in the church. Augustine uses the word “canonical” to include both of these categories.

Did Augustine understand the difference between the narrower Jewish canon and a canon that included the deuterocanonical books?

Yes, he did. Consider this paragraph (p262) where he says that Christians regard the books of the Maccabees as canonical, whiles the Jews do not.

1. After these three prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, during the same period of the liberation of the people from the Babylonian servitude Esdras also wrote, who is historical rather than prophetical, as is also the book called Esther, which is found to relate, for the praise of God, events not far from those times; unless, perhaps, Esdras is to be understood as prophesying of Christ in that passage where, on a question having arisen among certain young men as to what is the strongest thing, when one had said kings, another wine, the third women, who for the most part rule kings, yet that same third youth demonstrated that the truth is victorious over all. For by consulting the Gospel we learn that Christ is the Truth. From this time, when the temple was rebuilt, down to the time of Aristobulus, the Jews had not kings but princes; and the reckoning of their dates is found, not in the Holy Scriptures which are called canonical, but in others, among which are also the books of the Maccabees. These are held as canonical, not by the Jews, but by the Church, on account of the extreme and wonderful sufferings of certain martyrs, who, before Christ had come in the flesh, contended for the law of God even unto death, and endured most grievous and horrible evils.

In this paragraph, he writes of the Hebrew canon and the Christian canon (p95):

Let us omit, then, the fables of those scriptures which are called apocryphal, because their obscure origin was unknown to the fathers from whom the authority of the true Scriptures has been transmitted to us by a most certain and well-ascertained succession. For though there is some truth in these apocryphal writings, yet they contain so many false statements, that they have no canonical authority. We cannot deny that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, left some divine writings, for this is asserted by the Apostle Jude in his canonical epistle. But it is not without reason that these writings have no place in that canon of Scripture which was preserved in the temple of the Hebrew people by the diligence of successive priests; for their antiquity brought them under suspicion, and it was impossible to ascertain whether these were his genuine writings, and they were not brought forward as genuine by the persons who were found to have carefully preserved the canonical books by a successive transmission. So that the writings which are produced under his name, and which contain these fables about the giants, saying that their fathers were not men; are properly judged by prudent men to be not genuine; just as many writings are produced by heretics under the names both of other prophets, and more recently, under the names of the apostles, all of which, after careful examination, have been set apart from canonical authority under the title of Apocrypha. There is therefore no doubt that, according to the Hebrew and Christian canonical Scriptures, there were many giants before the deluge, and that these were citizens of the earthly society of men, and that the sons of God, who were according to the flesh the sons of Seth, sunk into this community when they forsook righteousness, Nor need we wonder that giants should be born even from these. For all of their children were not giants; but there were more then than in the remaining periods since the deluge. And it pleased the Creator to produce them, that it might thus be demonstrated that neither beauty, nor yet size and strength, are of much moment to the wise man, whose blessedness lies in spiritual and immortal blessings, in far better and more enduring gifts, in the good things that are the peculiar property of the good, and are not shared by good and bad alike. It is this which another prophet confirms when he says, “These were the giants, famous from the beginning, that were of so great stature, and so expert in war. Those did not the Lord choose, neither gave He the way of knowledge unto them; but they were destroyed because they had no wisdom, and perished through their own foolishness.”

He makes a comment here (p209) regarding the books of Solomon:

1. David therefore reigned in the earthly Jerusalem, a son of the heavenly Jerusalem, much praised by the divine testimony; for even his faults are overcome by great piety, through the most salutary humility of his repentance, that he is altogether one of those of whom he himself says, “Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.” After him Solomon his son reigned over the same whole people, who, as was said before, began to reign while his father was still alive. This man, after good beginnings, made a bad end. For indeed “prosperity, which wears out the minds of the wise,” hurt him more than that wisdom profited him, which even yet is and shall hereafter be renowned, and was then praised far and wide. He also is found to have prophesied in his books, of which three are received as of canonical authority, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. But it has been customary to ascribe to Solomon other two, of which one is called Wisdom, the other Ecclesiasticus, on account of some resemblance of style,—but the more learned have no doubt that they are not his; yet of old the Church, especially the Western, received them into authority,—in the one of which, called the Wisdom of Solomon, the passion of Christ is most openly prophesied. For indeed His impious murderers are quoted as saying, “Let us lie in wait for the righteous, for he is unpleasant to us, and contrary to our works; and he upbraideth us with our transgressions of the law, and objecteth to our disgrace the transgressions of our education. He professeth to have the knowledge of God, and he calleth himself the Son of God. He was made to reprove our thoughts. He is grievous for us even to behold; for his life is unlike other men’s and his ways are different. We are esteemed of him as counterfeits; and he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness. He extols the latter end of the righteous; and glorieth that he hath God for his Father. Let us see, therefore, if his words be true; and let us try what shall happen to him, and we shall know what shall be the end of him. For if the righteous be the Son of God, He will undertake for him, and deliver him out of the hand of those that are against him. Let us put him to the question with contumely and torture, that we may know his reverence, and prove his patience. Let us condemn him to the most shameful death; for by His own sayings He shall be respected. These things did they imagine, and were mistaken; for their own malice hath quite blinded them.” But in Ecclesiasticus the future faith of the nations is predicted in this manner: “Have mercy upon us, O God, Ruler of all, and send Thy fear upon all the nations: lift up Thine hand over the strange nations, and let them see Thy power. As Thou wast sanctified in us before them, so be Thou sanctified in them before us, and let them acknowledge Thee, according as we also have acknowledged Thee; for there is not a God beside Thee, O Lord.” We see this prophecy in the form of a wish and prayer fulfilled through Jesus Christ. But the things which are not written in the canon of the Jews cannot be quoted against their contradictions with so great validity.

But as regards those three books which it is evident are Solomon’s and held canonical by the Jews, to show what of this kind may be found in them pertaining to Christ and the Church demands a laborious discussion, which, if now entered on, would lengthen this work unduly. Yet what we read in the Proverbs of impious men saying, “Let us unrighteously hide in the earth the righteous man; yea, let us swallow him up alive as hell, and let us take away his memory from the earth: let us seize his precious possession,” is not so obscure that it may not be understood, without laborious exposition, of Christ and His possession the Church. …

In this paragraph (p215), Augustine seems to use the word canonical in its narrower sense as referring to the Jewish canon:

1. But in that whole time after they returned from Babylon, after Malachi, Haggai, and Zechariah, who then prophesied, and Ezra, they had no prophets down to the time of the Saviour’s advent except another Zechariah, the father of John, and Elisabeth his wife, when the nativity of Christ was already close at hand; and when He was already born, Simeon the aged, and Anna a widow, and now very old; and, last of all, John himself, who, being a young man, did not predict that Christ, now a young man, was to come, but by prophetic knowledge pointed Him out although unknown; for which reason the Lord Himself says, “The law and the prophets were until John.”1 But the prophesying of these five is made known to us in the gospel, where the virgin mother of our Lord herself is also found to have prophesied before John. But this prophecy of theirs the wicked Jews do not receive; but those innumerable persons received it who from them believed the gospel. For then truly Israel was divided in two, by that division which was foretold by Samuel the prophet to king Saul as immutable. But even the reprobate Jews hold Malachi, Haggai, Zechariah, and Ezra as the last received into canonical authority. For there are also writings of these, as of others, who being but a very few in the great multitude of prophets, have written those books which have obtained canonical authority, of whose predictions it seems good to me to put in this work some which pertain to Christ and His Church; and this, by the Lord’s help, shall be done more conveniently in the following book, that we may not further burden this one, which is already too long.

Here (p246) is another showing that Augustine knew that Judith was not in the Jewish canon:

1. At this time, Cyrus king of Persia, who also ruled the Chaldeans and Assyrians, having somewhat relaxed the captivity of the Jews, made fifty thousand of them return in order to rebuild the temple. They only began the first foundations and built the altar; but, owing to hostile invasions, they were unable to go on, and the work was put off to the time of Darius. During the same time also those things were done which are written in the book of Judith, which, indeed, the Jews are said not to have received into the canon of the Scriptures. Under Darius king of Persia, then, on the completion of the seventy years predicted by Jeremiah the prophet, the captivity of the Jews was brought to an end, and they were restored to liberty. Tarquin then reigned as the seventh king of the Romans. On his expulsion, they also began to be free from the rule of their kings. Down to this time the people of Israel had prophets; but, although they were numerous, the canonical writings of only a few of them have been preserved among the Jews and among us. In closing the previous book, I promised to set down something in this one about them, and I shall now do so.

Church Councils

What was the first church council to deal with the issue of the canon?

The first council to address this matter was the synod of Laodicea (363ad). It laid out sixty canons governing the administration of the church. (p122) The very last canon gives a list of which books are canonical. This list agrees with the lists given above from Origen, Athanasius, Cyril, Epiphanius, and Hilary. In the New Testament, it does not include Revelation. There is some discussion about the authenticity of this list; see Westcott’s comments (p170) on this.

Then the council of hippo (393ad) addressed this issue. The canons of this council are lost; all of them, however, were confirmed and restated by the first council of Carthage (397ad) and then by the second council at Carthage. (419ad) Both of these councils

The important thing to note here is the immense influence of Augustine.

This council was believed to be called by Augustine and was convened in the city of Hippo in Northern Africa. The council was not primarily to decide biblical canon but it was one of the items on the agenda along with topics such as the ordination process and status of clergy as well as other matters dealing with the liturgy. The summary of what was decided, called the Brevarium Hipponense, was accepted and reaffirmed at subsequent councils.

Roman Catholic:

What does the Roman Catholic church teach with regards to this point?

They teach that the church identified which books were canonical and assigned this status to them. Thus, the canon of Scripture relies for its authority on the church by which they mean the Roman Catholic church.

What is the canon according to the Roman Catholic church?

The council of Trent gave this list (p18):

They [the canonical books] are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon [Chronicles], the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles [Song of Solomon], Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, with Baruch; Ezekiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee [Hosea], Joel, Amos, Abdias [Obadiah], Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Sophonias [Zephaniah], Aggaeus [Haggai], Zachariah, Malachi; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse [Revelation] of John the apostle.

Do the Protestant churches accept this list?

They accept the list of New Testament books but not the list of the Old Testament books. All Protestant churches reject the books which Roman Catholics call deuterocanonical.

What are these deuterocanonical books?

1&2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (also known as Sirach), Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah (also known as Baruch 6), Additions to Daniel (The Prayer of Azariah, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon), Additions to Esther, 1,2,3 Maccabees. The Belgic Confession teaches:

Article 6: We distinguish between these holy books and the apocryphal [Roman Catholics prefer the term deuterocanonical] ones, which are… The church may certainly read these books and learn from them as far as they agree with the canonical books, but they do not have such power and virtue that one could confirm from their testimony any point of faith or of the Christian religion. Much less can they detract from the authority of the other holy books.

Why do Roman Catholics hold these books to be canonical?

Because all Roman Catholics must submit to the decision of their teaching magisterium. The magisterium has declared these books to be canonical, and this decision is to be received with as much respect as the very word of Scripture itself.

Why do Protestants reject these books as canonical?

Protestants do not submit to the teaching magisterium of the Roman Catholic church; and therefore, are not bound by its decisions. Protestants have chosen to accept the Old Testament canon as the Jews have given it to us.

Do the Jews not accept the deuterocanonical books as canonical?

They do not.

Earlier, you said that the Roman Catholic church identified which books were canonical and assigned this status to them. Thus, the canon of Scripture relies for its authority on the Roman Catholic church. How do Roman Catholics defend this idea?

Cardinal Wiseman writes (p39):

The investigation whereby he [any protestant] can reach the conclusion that the sacred volume put into his hand is really the Word of God is of a twofold character. In the first place, before any Protestant can even commence the examination of that rule which his religion proposes to him, he must have satisfied himself that all the books or writings collected together in that volume are really the genuine works of those whose names they bear and that no such genuine work has been excluded, so that the rule be perfect and entire. Then in the second place, he must satisfy himself by his own individual examination that this book is inspired by God.

The cardinal then goes on to argue that Protestants have no possible way of knowing with any kind of certainty which books of the Bible are canonical and which aren’t. Roman Catholics, however, do have certainty because they rely on the infallible teaching magisterium of their church to identify which books are inspired and which aren’t.

Above you said that the canonical books were recognized to be such by the church at large. Why are the Roman Catholics not satisfied with this?

Roman Catholics believe that we must have infallible certainty on this matter. Wiseman goes on (p47):

The authority then of history or of ecclesiastical tradition [to tell us which books are canonical], independently of the divine force allowed it by the Catholic, can prove no more than the genuineness or truth of the Scripture narrative but to be available as a proof of inspiration, it must carry us directly to the attestation of the only witnesses capable of certifying the circumstance. It may be true that the Church or body of Christians in succeeding times believed the books of the New Testament to be inspired; but if that Church and its traditions be not infallible, that belief goes no farther than a mere human or historical testimony; it can verify therefore no more than such testimony ever can that is outward and visible facts such as the publication and consequently the legitimacy of a work. The only way in which it can attest the interior acts which accompanied its compilation is by preserving the assurances of those who besides God could alone be witnesses to them. Now ecclesiastical history has not preserved to us this important testimony for nowhere have we it recorded of any of these writers that he asserted his own inspiration. And thus by rejecting tradition as an infallible authority is the only basis for the inspiration of Scripture cut away.

The Catholic Encyclopedia writes (p7) this:

Going further, the Catholic controversialists showed their opponents [Protestants] that of this very Bible, to which alone they wished to refer, they could not have the authentic canon nor even a sufficient guarantee without an authority other than that of the Bible. … There is not, in fact, any sufficient guarantee for the canon of the Scriptures, for the total inspiration or inerrancy of the Bible, save in a Divine testimony which, not being contained in the Holy Books with sufficient clearness and amplitude, nor being sufficiently recognizable to the scrutiny of a scholar who is only a scholar, does not reach us with the necessary warrant it would bear if brought by a Divinely assisted authority, as is, according to Catholics, the authority of the living magisterium of the Church. Such is the way in which Catholics demonstrate to Protestants that there should be and that there are in fact Divine traditions not contained in Holy Writ.

How do we know that the Bible really is what we claim for it? The Bible itself doesn’t identify which books belong in the canon.

True enough; the early church recognized which books were inspired and which weren’t, and we accept their testimony. Farrar writes (p35):

If it be asked, then, on what authority we accept as canonical the sixty-six books of our Scriptures, many will reply, ‘on the authority of the Church.’ But this answer simply means, by the general consensus of Christians; for it can hardly be said that the whole Church, as such, has pronounced any opinion on the Canon. As regards the Old Testament, the Christian Church accepted the conclusions of the Jewish Synod of Jamnia and that synod simply reflected the critical and spiritual ability of Rabbis who were far from being unanimous, were bound in an impossible system, and were by no means free from error. The churchmen assembled at Laodicea and Carthage exercised no independent judgment on their books, nor was their critical knowledge other than elementary. No ecumenical council has formally considered the question of the Canon, but only two provincial synods. Even had they been ecumenical we know from history, and are expressly warned by our own Church, that general councils, ‘forasmuch as they be an assembly of men whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God, may err and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God.’ St. Gregory of Nazianzus, one of the most learned, profound, and eloquent of the Fathers, who himself presided at the second ecumenical council, was so far from regarding councils as infallible that he had the lowest opinion of their deliberations and said that he had never seen a good result from any synod. Luther said, ‘The Church cannot give any more authority or power than it has of itself. A council cannot make that to be of Scripture which is not by nature of Scripture.’ It follows then that the decision as to what books are or are not to be regarded as true Scripture, though we believe it to be wise and right, depends on no infallible decision. It must satisfy the scientific and critical as well as the spiritual requirements of each age. When the Council of Trent, a small assembly in which there were very few men of high linguistic or critical attainments, declared on the authority of Pope Eugenius IV that six books of the Apocrypha were to be ‘received and venerated’ with the same feeling of devotion and reverence as all the books of the Old and New Testaments, the Reformed Churches rightly ignored their authority and laid it down as a principle that ‘any man may reject books claiming to be Holy Scripture if he do not feel the evidence of their contents.’ The anathemas of the Council of Trent are as complete a matter of indifference to the free conscience as those of the Synod of Jamnia.

It appears then, that by rejecting Roman Catholic tradition, we also reject our current canon of the Bible?

No, we are indebted to tradition for our current canon of Scripture, but this has nothing to do with Roman Catholic tradition. The Roman Catholic church did not exist at this time. The mistake here is to identify the catholic Christian church of the first century with the present day Roman Catholic church.

One more thing; if the church gave us the Bible then isn’t the church superior to Scripture and standing in judgment on it?

If the decision of the early church made a given book to be Scripture, then the church is superior to Scripture. If the church recognized which books were Scripture and called them what they already were, then Scripture is superior to the church. Imagine that someone might pick a diamond out of a pile of common stones. The person didn’t give the diamond its beauty; she simply recognized it as such. The church is not above Scripture but is the servant of Scripture. It is misleading to say that the Bible grew out of the church. Congar writes:

It would then be wrong to see in the fixing of a Scriptural canon an event which would suppose, which would confirm, a superiority of the Church over Scripture. The Church did no more than recognize certain writings as apostolic and by the same token recognize them as regulating her faith and life. It was for her a matter of assuring and affirming her apostolic reference. (Tradition and Traditions 39.)

But if the church existed long before we had a Bible then how can the Bible regulate the church? What regulated the church before there was a Bible?

It is true that the church existed long before the Bible was organized into a canon of sixty-six books as we have it today. Nevertheless, we must distinguish between the apostolic tradition; i.e. the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, and our current Bible, made up of the sixty-six books. The contents of the Bible (i.e. the apostolic tradition) existed long before there was an actual written book called The Bible. The contents of our written Bible was the content of the apostolic preaching, and it was this gospel message which gave birth to the church. The New Testament is simply the apostolic tradition written down.

Is there any other objection to this idea that we must accept Roman Catholic tradition if we are to accept our Bibles?

Yes, it is called the popish circle.

What do you mean by popish circle?

I mean to assert that sometimes Roman Catholic apologists argue in a circle.

How?

By using Scripture to support the idea that their teaching magisterium is infallible and then using the infallibility of the magisterium to identify the canon of Scripture. For instance, Roman Catholics will use texts like the following to prove that the Roman Catholic teaching magisterium is infallible:

Matthew 28:19-20 (where Christ instructed the Church to preach everything He taught)
John 16:13 (where Jesus promised the teaching and leading of the Holy Spirit)
1 Timothy 3:15 (the church is the pillar and ground of the truth).
Luke 22:32 (Jesus’ prayer for Peter’s faith),
John 21:15-17 (Feed my sheep…)
Matthew 16:18 (You are Peter…)

When he is asked how he knows that the Bible is a divine revelation and which books make up the Bible, he points to the infallible teaching magisterium. William Cunningham (p154):

[Roman Catholics] commonly allege that it is only from the testimony of the Church that we can certainly know what is the Word of God, and what is its meaning; and thus they are inextricably involved in the sophism of reasoning in a circle; that is, they profess to prove the infallibility of the Church by the authority of Scripture; while, at the same time, they establish the authority of Scripture, and ascertain its meaning, by the testimony of the Church, which cannot err.

Francis Patton (p134):

The doctrine of the infallibility of the Church is a very convenient belief I grant and not absurd either. The only question is whether there is evidence in support of it. Convenient, of course, for consider. The Protestant asks in regard to a mooted doctrine, What do the Scriptures teach? The Anglican asks the same question, but he also asks What do the Church Fathers say? What has been the faith of the Church from the beginning? It was not strange then that a certain clergyman who left the Anglican Church and went over to Rome said to his quondam [previous] brethren Your religion is salvation by scholarship alone. The Roman Catholic, however, cannot get away from the Bible as the ultimate authority so long as he appeals to the Bible in support of the infallibility of the Church. Suppose then that a young man is seeking light on this subject and wishes first of all to know where the true Church is to be found. To what disinterested authority can he appeal? No other than the Bible. How shall he interpret the Bible? Shall he ask a Protestant minister? No, he says for he would be biased. Shall he ask a Roman Catholic priest? No, for I know what his answer would be. I must read the Bible for myself in the light of my own reason. That is to say, in order to determine whether he should become a Protestant or become a Roman Catholic, he must act on the principle that the Bible is the only rule of faith; and in the exercise of the right of private judgment, which amounts to saying that a man has to be a Protestant in order to become a Catholic.

John Owen (p507):

[Roman Catholics] say the Scripture hath its authority from the church, I ask, How shall I know that there is a church? For if I be one that own no such thing as the Scripture (which the church is persuading me to believe), withal I own no such society as the church; and how will they prove there is such an one, but by the Scripture? For I, who am supposed to acknowledge no church, do acknowledge no authority it hath, and shall not take its own word. And yet if I grant there be a church, how shall I know that such a company of men as pretend to be the church are really so? I shall not take their own testimony; I am not satisfied in their being witnesses to themselves. And if they will prove themselves to be the church by the Scripture, then either the Scripture must have authority, as to me, before the church, or else they prove one obscure thing by another. If they say there be certain signs and marks of the church inherent in it, by which it may be known, — alas! I know not those marks but by the Scripture, which describes the church. If they say the Spirit witnesseth by those marks that this is the church, why may not I say the same of the Scripture; and so, that be known without the testimony of the church to be the word of God, as well as the church to be the church of God? And yet, after all this, granting this society of men to be the church, how shall I know that this church is infallible? And if I know it not to be so, I am not so mad as to build my faith upon its authority. If they say, “Because it is governed by the Holy Spirit,” how shall I know that? for it is not obvious to me that it is. If they say, “Because Christ hath promised that it should,” I ask, Where? where can it be but in the Scripture? Sure, then, the Scripture must be owned, and have its authority, as to me, or their proof is invalid, and they do but trifle instead of arguing.

See also Wylie (p246) and lecture III in Salmon.

How do Roman Catholics defend the inspiration of the Bible without arguing in a circle?

One Roman Catholic tract attempts this (the tract’s statements are indented).

The Catholic method of finding the Bible to be inspired is this. The Bible is first approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired. From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work.

This is true.

Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, particularly the New Testament, and particularly the Gospels. We examine the account of Jesus’ life and death and his reported resurrection.

This also is true. This is an apologetic argument that both Protestants and Roman Catholics use to prove the inspired nature of Scripture. The argument is that if Jesus did miracles, then His claim to be a bearer of divine revelation is true. So far all are in agreement. The second premise is;

One thing he said He would do was found a Church, and from both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not at this point in the argument as an inspired one) and other ancient works, we see that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of all we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, teaching authority, and, as a consequence of the last, infallibility. Christ’s Church, to do what he said it would do, had to have the note of infallibility.

This is just false. There’s no such church to be found in the New Testament.

We have thus taken purely historical material and concluded that there exists a Church, which is the Catholic Church, divinely protected against teaching error. … That Church now tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because it is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority (that is, one set up by God to assure us of the truth of matters of faith, such as the status of the Bible) that the Bible is inspired do we begin to use it as an inspired book.

Here we can at least grant that this is not a circular argument. Obviously, there are very few scholars, even Roman Catholic scholars, who would defend the idea that Jesus founded the Roman Catholic church. However, this argument is, in logical terms, valid. This argument does not base the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. The tract goes on to say;

On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible as history. From that we conclude an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. It all reduces to the proposition that, without the existence of the Church, we could not tell if the Bible were inspired.

If we simply accept the consensus of the early church as to which books belong in the canon of Scripture, can we ever be infallibly certain that the books we are reading are inspired? Isn’t it possible that the early church erred and included an uninspired book or left out a book which really was inspired?

We do not have infallible certainty and it is possible that the church erred in its list of books. In this matter, we rest confident that God has provided us with exactly those books which He intended for us to have. We take our stand on the promise that Jesus gave us when He said that He would send the Spirit and that this Spirit would guide us into the truth:

“But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. “He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. “All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you. (John 16:13-15)

Why do you believe that there is no error in Scripture when you are not even really sure which books belong in the canon?

Because infallible certainty is not required in this matter. If we needed infallible certainty, we wouldn’t end up believing much of anything. What we can be infallibly certain of is that God will lead us into the truth and will protect us from error.

Previously, you gave various canon lists which showed that the early church fathers did not accept the deuterocanonical books as part of the canon. Why don’t Roman Catholics respect this?

They disagree with the premise; i.e. that the early church fathers did not accept the deuterocanonical books as part of the canon.

On what basis do they make this claim?

They point to the LXX and to the way the church fathers used the deuterocanonical books as proof that they did regard them as part of the canon. Koch writes (p189):

The [Roman Catholic] Church does not discriminate between protocanonical and deuterocanonical books, for the apostles used the Septuagint and regarded all the books that it contains as sacred. Hence the Church, having received these books from them, is bound to preserve the whole number intact. Protestants follow the Jews and call the deuterocanonical books “apocryphal,” not authentic, and uninspired. In so doing they are opposed to the whole of Christian antiquity. The Fathers of the Church (Cyprian, Tertullian, Ephrem, Augustine) quote all the books now contained in the canon without any distinction, and in the Roman catacombs there are paintings representing scenes from the deuterocanonical books, such as Tobias and Maccabees.

Did the church fathers quote the deuterocanonical books as Scripture?

Yes, they did, even while they recognized that such books were not part of the canon. this is because the early church had a three tiered understanding of the canon. There were the protocanonical books which everyone agreed were inspired by God. Then, there were the dueterocanonical books which were understood to be edifying and good to be read but not to be used in support of theology. See my comments under Jerome above.