Introduction

Inspired by this blog post.

Have you ever noticed that the Catholic Bible has more books than the Protestant Bible? You may ask, "Why does that even matter?"

It matters because if those extra Catholic books are part of the Bible, then the Bible supports Catholic doctrines like purgatory and prayer for the dead - which is kind of a big deal for Protestants who believe in Sola Scriptura!

Mark Driscoll (Protestant Pastor), in How Were the Old Testament Books Chosen as Scripture? Among the chief critics was the Catholic monk Martin Luther, who pointed out that praying to saints, paying indulgences to the church, and purgatory were not found in the Bible. In an effort to defend themselves, the Catholic Church... found some support for its unbiblical doctrines in the apocrypha...

GotQuestions (Protestant website): excerpt from What are the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books? The Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals support some of the things that the Roman Catholic Church believes and practices which are not in agreement with the Bible. Examples are praying for the dead, petitioning "saints" in Heaven for their prayers, worshipping angels, and "alms giving" atoning for sins.

Bible.org (Protestant website), in HOW WE GOT THE BIBLE: Canonicity The Apocrypha includes some specific Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory and prayer for the dead (2 Maccabees 12:39-46), and salvation by works (almsgiving – Tobit 12:9).

So why do Catholics have these extra books in their Old Testament, and Protestants exclude them? How did we get the table of contents for the Old Testament anyway?

Trying to find the answer to such questions can leave your head spinning.

You may have started on the Protestant website, Bible.org, which claims:

Bible.org, in HOW WE GOT THE BIBLE: Canonicity The Council of Jamnia (A.D. 90) officially recognized our 39 Old Testament books...

But then as you dug deeper, you'd see Protestant website Answers In Genesis, which notes:

Answers in Genesis, "Why 66? The Canon of Scripture", 10:52 mark in video It's now generally accepted that Jamnia actually wasn't a council, it certainly didn't pronounce on the Jewish canon.

As you continue digging, you see popular Protestant pastor Mark Driscoll, who note that Catholics inserted those extra books into their Bible in 1546:

Mark Driscoll, in How Were the Old Testament Books Chosen as Scripture? Both Jews and Christians rejected any of the apocryphal books as divinely inspired sacred Scripture until the Catholic Council of Trent in 1546... In an effort to defend themselves, the Catholic Church voted to insert new books into the Bible, more than a millennium after the Old Testament canon had been closed and the apocryphal books had been rejected as Scripture.

But further research leads you to this Protestant website GotQuestions, which notes that those extra books weren't inserted in 1546, but instead were already included in THE bible that Christianity used for over a thousand years prior to the Reformation (the Latin Vulgate), starting around 400 AD.

GotQuestions: excerpt from What is the Catholic Bible? However, under tremendous pressure from Rome, Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate, included the Apocrypha, despite Jerome’s insistence that the Apocrypha did not belong in the Bible. The Latin Vulgate became the dominant and officially sanctioned Catholic Bible, and remained that way for around 1200 years. Thus, the Apocrypha became a part of the Catholic Bible.

So you browse GotQuestions some more, and see them note that the Jews never accepted these extra books as part of the Bible:

GotQuestions: excerpt from What are the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books? The nation of Israel treated the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books with respect, but never accepted them as true books of the Hebrew Bible.

But then you see Protestant Historian Bruce Shelley say that actually, the Jews outside of Palestine often accepted these books as part of their Bible.

Bruce L. Shelley, Church History in Plain Language, Third Edition, page 60 [The] debate centers around the fact that Jews in Palestine in the early years of Christianity had a canon corresponding to the thirty-nine books of the Protestant Old Testament... Beyond Palestine, however, Jews were more inclined to consider as Scripture writings not included in this list of books. The Greek translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint was especially influential in making known certain books of the Apocrypha because it included these books along with the Old Testament books accepted in Palestine.

How do you separate fact from fiction?

Does this not leave you scratching your head, echoing Pilate in John 18:38 as he says... "What is truth?"

Let us review Protestant claims about how the Old Testament canon was developed, and why their list without the extra Catholic books is the correct list.

Protestant Claims

Claim: Early Church Fathers did not treat Deuterocanon as Scripture

Sources of Claim

GotQuestions: excerpt from What are the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books? The early Christian church debated the status of the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals, but few early Christians believed they belonged in the canon of Scripture.

GotQuestions: excerpt from What is the Catholic Bible? Should the Apocrypha be included in the Bible? There was significant debate in the early Christian church, with a majority of the early church fathers rejecting the idea that the Apocrypha belonged in the Bible.

GotQuestions: excerpt from How and when was the canon of the Bible put together? While there was undeniably some debate in regards to the Old Testament canon, by A.D. 250 there was nearly universal agreement on the canon of Hebrew Scripture.

Mark Driscoll, in How Were the Old Testament Books Chosen as Scripture? These books are also known as the apocrypha... while these books were read by some of God’s people, they were treated like popular Christian books in our own day, such as those by C. S. Lewis; they were never accepted as Scripture, for many reasons... Both Jews and Christians rejected any of the apocryphal books as divinely inspired sacred Scripture until the Catholic Council of Trent in 1546.

Answers in Genesis, "Why 66? The Canon of Scripture", 16:26 mark in video Now it's true that some of the early Church leaders beyond the New Testament quoted from the Apocrypha, though compared to their use of the Old Testament very rarely, but there’s no evidence that they treated them as Scripture.

Blueletterbible.org, in Don Stewart, Why Were the Books of the Old Testament Apocrypha Rejected as Holy Scripture by the Protestants? In the early years of the church it drew up various lists of the books it considered to be Old Testament Scripture. The books of the Apocrypha do not appear on any list until late in the fourth century. This demonstrates the acceptance of these writings was not immediate... While a few of the early leaders of the church accepted some of the books of Apocrypha as Scripture, most of the great church leaders did not-Athanasius, Origen, and Jerome, to name a few. Many great church leaders spoke out against the Apocrypha. Those who do cite the Apocrypha as Scripture were few in number. It is also worth noting that none of the church fathers that quoted the Apocrypha as Scripture knew any Hebrew.

John Piper, in Why We Believe the Bible Session 1 Our order follows the Greek translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint, but the earliest Christian witnesses as well as Josephus and Philo (who used the LXX but did not accord the Apocrypha authority) show that the Apocryphal books included in the LXX were not counted as canonical.

Fact Check

There is plenty of evidence in the writings of the Church Fathers that they considered the Deuterocanonical books (part of what Protestants refer to as Apocrypha) to be Scripture. The Protestant claims here are demonstrably false from the writings of the Church Fathers themselves.

Clement of Alexandria (~198 AD)

Origen (~240 AD)

Cyprian of Carthage (250 AD)

quotes from Book of Wisdom 4:11 as "the Holy Spirit teaches by Solomon" in Treatise 7, Section 23

quotes from Sirach 2:1,4-5 as "Holy Scripture teaches and forewarns, saying" in Treatise 7, Section 9

quotes from Tobit 12:8 as "thus Holy Scripture instructs us, saying" in Treatise 4, Section 32

Basil of Caesarea (~364 AD)

quotes from Sirach 27:11 as "What Scripture says is very true" in Hexaemeron, Homily 6, Section 10

Hilary of Poitiers (~367 AD)

quotes from 2 Maccabees 7:28 as "clear sense of Scripture... as the Prophet says" in On the Trinity, Book IV, Section 16

Athanasius (~367 AD)

quotes from Wisdom 1:11 as "words in holy Scripture" in Apologia Contra Arianos (Part I), Chapter 1, Section 3

Gregory of Nazianzus (~390 AD)

quotes from Judith 5:6 as "in the Scripture" in Oration 45, Section XV

Augustine (~390 AD)

includes the entire Deuterocanon under the title of "the whole canon of Scripture on which we say this judgment is to be exercised, is contained in the following books" in On Christian Doctrine, Book II, Chapter 8, Section 13

Jerome (~390 AD)

quotes from Wisdom 2:23 as one of "three proofs from Holy Scripture" in Letter 51, Sections 6 & 7

quotes from Sirach 13:2 as "for does not the scripture say" in Letter 108, Section 21

quotes from Baruch 5:5 as a saying "of the prophets" in Letter 77, Section 4

Gregory of Nyssa (~395 AD)

quotes from Wisdom 1:4 as "the Scripture tells us" in On Virginity, Chapter 15

Ambrose (397 AD)

Tyrannius Rufinus (400 AD)

quotes from Baruch 3:35-37 as "the Prophet foretold when he said" in Commentary on the Apostles' Creed / The Creed of Aquileia, Section 5

John Chrysostom (407 AD)

quotes from Sirach 10:9 as "from the holy Scripture" in Homily 48 on the Gospel of John, John 7:8, Section 3

See more in this appendix.

Claim: Jews never accepted the Deuterocanon as part of the Hebrew Bible

Sources of Claim

GotQuestions: excerpt from What are the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books? The nation of Israel treated the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books with respect, but never accepted them as true books of the Hebrew Bible.

Fact Check

Even the Protestant book Church History in Plain Language debunks this - stating that Jews outside of Palestine tended to accept the Deuterocanon.

Bruce L. Shelley, Church History in Plain Language, Third Edition, page 60 [The] debate centers around the fact that Jews in Palestine in the early years of Christianity had a canon corresponding to the thirty-nine books of the Protestant Old Testament... Beyond Palestine, however, Jews were more inclined to consider as Scripture writings not included in this list of books. The Greek translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint was especially influential in making known certain books of the Apocrypha because it included these books along with the Old Testament books accepted in Palestine.

What was the Hebrew Bible, anyway? The Jews did not declare a canon list until well after the time of Christ. Indeed, many scholars believe the Jews declared their canon list in response to the growing Christian sect, which had adopted the Septuagint as its Old Testament and had begun including New Testament writings as Scripture.

There is evidence that the Jews after the time of Christ may have removed scriptures (such as the Deuterocanon). There are several passages in the New Testament where the author quotes a missing Old Testament passage (James 4:5, John 7:38, Matthew 2:23, 1 Corinthians 15:45, Luke 24:46, Mark 9:12, 1 Corinthians 2:9, Hebrews 11:37). Justin Martyr (~160 AD) gave examples of passages of Scripture that the Jews in his day had removed from their Hebrew Scriptures, but that were still available in the Septuagint (Greek translation) - Justin believed these passages were removed because they pointed to Jesus as Christ. Origen (~240 AD) also noted that the Hebrew Scriptures the Jews had in his day were missing some of the Deuterocanonical books, and particularly were missing any passages that cast the Jewish elders in a negative light - and he accuses them of removing those scriptures. Augustine (~400 AD) notes that the Jews had perverted or omitted passages of scripture that are evidence for the Christian faith. Isidore (~600 AD) also notes that the Jews removed passages of Scripture pointing to Christ. (For more information and citations for the above, review the appendix titled "Missing Scriptures").

Claim: Protestants inherited their OT Canon from the Jews

Sources of Claim

GotQuestions: excerpt from What is the Catholic Bible? The early Protestant Reformers, in agreement with Judaism, determined that the Apocrypha did not belong in the Bible, and therefore removed the Apocrypha from Protestant Bibles.

Bible.org, in HOW WE GOT THE BIBLE: Canonicity The Council of Jamnia (A.D. 90) officially recognized our 39 Old Testament books... Josephus, the Jewish historian (A.D. 95), indicated that the 39 books were recognized as authoritative.

Christianity Today, in How We Got Our Bible: Christian History Timeline [A.D.] 90 and 118: Councils of Jamnia give final affirmation to the Old Testament canon (39 books)

Focus On The Family, in How Did We Get the Bible? Now the question remains about how the Christian church ultimately put the parts of the Bible together. This really relates to the New Testament, as the Old Testament was already accepted and codified in the books accepted by the Jewish people as divinely inspired.

Fact Check

It's important to ask "which" Jews do the Protestants claim to inherit their canon from?

Bible.org cites Josephus (who was born after Jesus' death) as a witness to their 39 book canon. Protestants argue that Josephus excludes the Deuterocanon as authoritative when he says all prophecy ceased after the time of Artaxerxes (the timing of the book of Esther).

Josephus, Against Apion, 1.41 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...

The problem with accepting Josephus here is that both Protestants and Catholics accept the authority of the New Testament, which states Josephus was wrong. John the Baptist was a prophet, and more than a prophet (Luke 7:26). Clearly prophecy did not cease after the time of Esther. Josephus, who denied the authority of the New Testament, has no authority in Christianity.

Bible.org and Christianity Today also cite the Council of Jamnia. For a time, scholars thought this council around 90 AD was where Judaism established their canon. However as Protestant website AnswersInGenesis notes, modern scholars now generally believe that was not the case - this council did not proclaim the canon for the Jews.

Answers in Genesis, "Why 66? The Canon of Scripture", 10:52 mark in video It's now generally accepted that Jamnia actually wasn't a council, it certainly didn't pronounce on the Jewish canon.

Nobody knows the exact date the Jews established their canon. Their first five books were clearly established early on, but the rest tended to be a loose collection of writings. The Jews did not have a declared canon before Christ. The Judaism that Protestants claim to have inherited scripture from must be the Judaism from after Christ - the Judaism that rejected Jesus as Messiah and rejected the New Testament books as authoritative.

Protestants are being inconsistent - why accept the authority of these post-Jesus Jews on their shortened Old Testament, but not on their rejection of the New Testament?

Protestants run into a similar dilemma when they talk about their canon of the New Testament. They tend to accept the authority of early church councils on the New Testament Canon:

GotQuestions: excerpt from How and when was the canon of the Bible put together? For the New Testament, the process of the recognition and collection began in the first centuries of the Christian church... The Council of Hippo (AD 393) and the Council of Carthage (AD 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative.

Bible.org, in HOW WE GOT THE BIBLE: Canonicity ...the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) recognized the 27 books in our New Testament today as inspired.

Christianity Today, in How We Got Our Bible: Christian History Timeline [A.D.] 397 Council of Carthage establishes orthodox New Testament canon (27 books)

John Piper, in Desiring God's Why We Believe the Bible The first list known to us with all 27 books is in the Festal Letter of Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria in ad 367. This list was affirmed by the Synod of Hippo in 393.

BiblicalTraining.org, in What criteria were used to determine the canon of Scripture? Ultimately, what happened was that these letters circulated and more and more groups of Christian people were edified by these writings and came to witness together that these writings were from God. The Church used these writings and was deeply edified by them; they were believed over time that they were from God, and so the final acceptance of the recognition of the 66 books of the Bible as Scripture took place at the Senate of Carthage in A. D. 397. That is not to say that prior to that there was not wide recognition of most of the Bible (we are talking here mostly about the New Testament; the Old Testament Books were never in question because of the dominical approval in Luke 24 when Christ says the Law, the Prophets and the Writings). Some of the New Testament books took longer for them to accept, but most of them were accepted by the first century. There were some that took longer: 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Hebrews. Those took longer. But by 397, at the council of Carthage, they were accepted by the Church and have been ever since as canonical.

But these same councils Protestants use to defend the canon of the New Testament declared the canon of the Old Testament to include the Deuterocanon (which Protestants call Apocrypha). Why do Protestants accept the authority of these councils on the canon of the New Testament, but not on the canon of the Old Testament?

Claim: Protestants inherited their OT Canon from early Eastern Christians

Sources of Claim

Bruce L. Shelley, Church History in Plain Language, Third Edition, page 60 [The] debate centers around the fact that Jews in Palestine in the early years of Christianity had a canon corresponding to the thirty-nine books of the Protestant Old Testament... Beyond Palestine, however, Jews were more inclined to consider as Scripture writings not included in this list of books. The Greek translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint was especially influential in making known certain books of the Apocrypha because it included these books along with the Old Testament books accepted in Palestine. Early Christians also differed, then, over the question of the Apocrypha. Believers in the eastern portion of the Roman Empire, nearest Palestine, tended to agree with the Jews in that area. In the West, however, Christians under the influence of Augustine, the well-known bishop of Hippo, usually received the Apocrypha as part of the canon of Scripture. During the sixteenth-century Reformation most Protestants accepted the view of early eastern Christians and rejected the Apocrypha as canonical. The Roman Catholic church, following Augustine, accepted the books. And that is how the churches differ to this day.

Fact Check

Shelley notes the geographical division within Christianity, stating that Protestants inherited their canon from the early Eastern Christians who rejected the Deuterocanon.

This is false. From all the historical records surviving to the present day, there is not a single example of the modern Protestant canon being used until the English civil war in the 1640s, well after the Reformation.

Historical Records diverging from modern Protestant canon

Around 170 AD, Melito of Sardis gives an Old Testament list which excludes Lamentations, Nehemiah, and Esther (Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, Book IV, Chapter 26, Section 14)

Also dating from around 170 AD, the Muratorian fragment gives a New Testament list which excludes James, 1 & 2 Peter, Hebrews, and 3 John and includes the Book of Wisdom.

Around 240 AD, Origen gives a New Testament list excluding Revelation (Homilies on Joshua, 7.1), and an Old Testament list for the Jews which excludes the 12 minor prophets and includes the Epistle of Jeremiah - part of the book of Baruch (Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, Book VI, Chapter 25, Section 1-2).

Around 350 AD, Cyril of Jerusalem gives a New Testament list excluding Revelation, and an Old Testament list including the book of Baruch (Catechetical Lecture 4, sections 35-36).

Around 367 AD, Hilary of Poitiers gives an Old Testament list which includes the Epistle of Jeremiah - part of the book of Baruch, and notes that some accept Tobit and Judith (Expositions of the Psalms, 15).

Also around 367 AD, Athanasius in a letter gives the first full New Testament list comprising all 27 books. He also gives an Old Testament list, including Baruch and excluding Esther. He says Esther, the book of Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Tobit, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermes were called non-Canon but profitable for instruction in the word of godliness (Letter 39).

Around 382 AD, the Council of Rome was held which gave the full New Testament list, and gave an Old Testament list including the full Deuterocanon (Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, the Book of Wisdom, etc) (Decretum Gelasianum, Damasine List, Section II).

Around 385 AD, Epiphanius of Salamis gave an Old Testament list which included Baruch. He also noted two more books of disputed canonicity, Sirach and the Book of Wisdom - which he later on called 'divine writings' (Panarion viii. 6 and Panarion lxxvi. 5).

Around 390 AD, Gregory of Nazianzus gave a New Testament list excluding Revelation, and an Old Testament list excluding Esther (Concerning the Genuine Books of Divinely Inspired Scripture).

Also around 390 AD, Augustine gave the full New Testament list, and gave an Old Testament list including the full Deuterocanon (Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, the Book of Wisdom, etc) (On Christian Doctrine, Book II, Chapter 8, Section 13).

Also around 390 AD, Jerome argues the Book of Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Tobit, and 2 Maccabees should be placed among the Apocryphal writings (Prologue to the Books of the Kings).

Note that Jerome did not explicitly exclude Baruch. Indeed, later Jerome quotes from Baruch as a prophet (Letter 77, Section 4). It's reasonable to assume that Jerome included Baruch as tacked on to the end of Jeremiah, a common practice in that day.

Equally important is that regardless of Jerome's private opinions, he submitted to the authority of the church, and included the full Deuterocanon (Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, the Book of Wisdom, etc) in his Latin Vulgate translation, fully counting them as scripture.

Here's Jerome submitting on Judith based on the authority of the Nicene Council, even if he does not personally approve of the book:

Jerome's Preface to Judith Among the Hebrews the Book of Judith is found among the Hagiographa, the authority of which toward confirming those which have come into contention is judged less appropriate. [...] But because this book is found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request...

Here's Jerome discussing multiple versions of the book of Daniel that were available, and how he submitted in selecting the one used by the churches - even if he did not believe that translation was good.

Jerome's Apology Against Rufinus, Book II, Section 33 What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us.

Here is Jerome noting that the Jews of his day exclude Tobit from Divine Scriptures - but then submitting to the authority of the church in including it.

Jerome's Preface to Tobit ...the book of Tobias, which the Hebrews exclude from the catalogue of Divine Scriptures, being mindful of those things which they have titled Hagiographa. I have done enough for your desire, yet not by my study. For the studies of the Hebrews rebuke us and find fault with us, to translate this for the ears of Latins contrary to their canon. But it is better to be judging the opinion of the Pharisees to displease and to be subject to the commands of bishops...

Here's Jerome quoting from the Book of Wisdom as Holy Scripture:

Jerome's Letter 51, Sections 6 & 7 For in the book of Wisdom, which is inscribed with his name, Solomon says: "God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of His own eternity." [Wisdom 2:23]... Instead of the three proofs from Holy Scripture which you said would satisfy you if I could produce them, behold I have given you seven.

And finally, here's Jerome quoting from Sirach as scripture:

Jerome's Letter 108, Section 21 ...for does not the scripture say: "Burden not yourself above your power?" [Sirach 13:2]

Around 393 AD, the Council of Hippo was held which gave the full New Testament list, and gave an Old Testament list including the full Deuterocanon (Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, the Book of Wisdom, etc) (Canon xxxvi).

Around 397 AD, the Council of Carthage was held which gave the full New Testament list, and gave an Old Testament list including the full Deuterocanon (Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, the Book of Wisdom, etc) (Source).

Around 400 AD, Tyrannius Rufinus gave an Old Testament canon list which excluded most of the Deuterocanon - except just like Jerome, note that he did not exclude Baruch (Commentary on the Apostles' Creed, sections 37 & 38). It is likely he included Baruch in his list as tacked on the end of Jeremiah, a common practice at that time - as he quotes earlier in the same work from Baruch as they sayings of a prophet (section 5).

Rufinus did not count the rest of the Deuterocanon as Apocrypha - rather, he counted them among the scriptures (as part of the Word of God), but he called them "Ecclesiastical" rather than "Canonical". He said they should be read in the churches, though not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine. They were separate from the Apocrypha, which were not scriptures, and should not be read in the churches (section 38).

Also, Rufinus argued that removing the Deuterocanonical parts of the scriptures would not be a "correction of error" - which gives us confirmation that he indeed included the Deuterocanon as scriptures that weren't to be cut out.

Rufinus' Apology Against Jerome, 2.33 In all this abundance of learned men, has there been one who has dared to make havoc of the divine record handed down to the Churches by the Apostles and the deposit of the Holy Spirit? For what can we call it but havoc, when some parts of it are transformed, and this is called the correction of an error? For instance, the whole of the history of Susanna, which gave a lesson of chastity to the churches of God, has by him been cut out, thrown aside and dismissed. The hymn of the three children, which is regularly sung on festivals in the Church of God, he has wholly erased from the place where it stood. But why should I enumerate these cases one by one, when their number cannot be estimated?

Around 419 AD, another Council of Carthage was held which gave the full New Testament list, and gave an Old Testament list including the full Deuterocanon (Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, the Book of Wisdom, etc) (Canon 24).

During this period of time, for about a thousand years Jerome's Latin Vulgate (which included the Deuterocanon) was the bible of Christianity.

Somewhere between 600-1000 AD, the Jewish Masoretes publish their text + canon. This canon matches the modern Protestant Old Testament canon - though these Jews reject the entire New Testament as authoritative.

Around 1442 AD, the Council of Florence was held which gave the full New Testament list, and gave an Old Testament list including the full Deuterocanon (Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, the Book of Wisdom, etc) (Session 11-4 February 1442).

Around 1534 AD, Protestant Martin Luther published his Bible translation. In it, he moves Deuterocanon to the end of his Old Testament and labels them "Apocrypha" (Apocrypha introduction, Luther’s Bible). Similar to his Old Testament Apocrypha, he was skeptical of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation, and stuck them at the end of his New Testament, saying "Up to this point we have had to do with the true and certain chief books of the New Testament. The four which follow have from ancient times had a different reputation" (Preface to the Epistle to the Hebrews). He also notes that in his judgment, Esther deserves to be excluded from the Old Testament canon more than the rest of the Deuterocanon (Bondage of the Will, Section XLVI).

Even with Luther being against these Old Testament and New Testament books, he didn't remove them from his Bible translation - he just shifted them to the end of each Testament.

Around 1546 AD, the Catholic Council of Trent was held, which again proclaimed the canon including the full Deuterocanon (Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, the Book of Wisdom, etc) (The Fourth Session, DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES).

Around 1547 AD, John Calvin blasted the Council of Trent, including their proclamation of canon. Calvin says that Catholics give full authority to the Deuterocanonical books, which lets them "prove Purgatory", "the worship of saints", and "exorcisms". He identifies the Deuterocanon as "ecclesiastical books, which might indeed be read to the people, but were not entitled to establish doctrine", as he says Ruffinus and Jerome did. He also notes that he is not "I am not one of those, however, who would entirely disapprove the reading of those books" (Acts of the Council of Trent with the Antidote, ON THE FOURTH SESSION).

Note that in Calvin's list of ecclesiastical but not canonical books, he lists the Deuterocanon... but leaves off Baruch. Ruffinus and Jerome (whom Calvin quotes) likewise leave off Baruch. This is intriguing because Calvin quotes from Baruch, calling him a prophet - just like Ruffinus and Jerome. Calvin even goes so far as to say that it is likely Paul, in his letter 1 Corinthians, borrowed from Baruch (Commentary on Corinthians - Volume 1, 1 Corinthians 10:19-24, Section 20). From this evidence, it appears Calvin accepted Baruch as canon as part of Jeremiah.

Around 1572 AD, the Protestant Church of England's Thirty-Nine Articles gave an Old Testament list that put the Deuterocanon not on the same level as the rest of the canonical books - the Deuterocanon was to be read for example of life and instruction of manners, but not used to establish doctrine (Article 6). The Deuterocanon was however still a part of the Holy Scriptures, and was included in the Church of England's King James Bible of 1611.

Around 1642 AD the English Civil War broke out, and it lasted until 1649 AD. The Long Parliament of 1644 decreed that only the Hebrew Canon would be read in the Church of England, and in 1647 the Westminster Confession of Faith was issued which decreed a 39-book Old Testament, with the Deuterocanon excluded completely from the Bible.

With the restoration of the monarchy to Charles II of England (1660-1685), the Church of England was once again governed by the Thirty-Nine Articles, and thus emphatically maintained that the Deuterocanon is part of the Holy Scriptures and is to be read with respect by her members (but not used to establish any doctrine).

The modern Protestant bible most widely in use by Presbyterians, Baptists, and many other groups is descended from the Church of England's temporary list, propagated during their civil war in the 1640s. Never before then had a Christian had a collection of the Holy Scriptures that matched the modern Protestant list.

Claim: New Testament never quotes from or alludes to the Deuterocanon

Sources of Claim

GotQuestions: excerpt from What are the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books? The New Testament quotes from the Old Testament hundreds of times, but nowhere quotes or alludes to any of the Apocryphal / Deuterocanonical books.

Mark Driscoll, in How Were the Old Testament Books Chosen as Scripture? While the Old Testament is quoted roughly three hundred times in the New Testament, none of the apocryphal books are ever quoted in the New Testament or even alluded to, with the exception of a very debated section of Jude.

Bible.org, in HOW WE GOT THE BIBLE: Canonicity The Apocrypha is never quoted as authoritative in scriptures. (Although Hebrews 11:35-38 alludes to historical events recorded in 2 Maccabees 6:18-7:42).

John Piper, in Desiring God's Why We Believe the Bible According to one count by Roger Nicole, the New Testament quotes various parts of the Old Testament as divinely authoritative over 295 times, but not once do they cite any statement from the books of the Apocrypha or any other writings as having divine authority. (“New Testament Use of the Old Testament” in Revelation and the Bible, ed. Carl Henry [London: Tyndale Press, 1959], pp. 137-141)

Blueletterbible.org, in Don Stewart, Why Were the Books of the Old Testament Apocrypha Rejected as Holy Scripture by the Protestants? Though the New Testament cites directly, or alludes to, almost every book of the Old Testament as Scripture, it never cites the Apocrypha as being God's Word... If the writers of the New Testament considered the Apocrypha to be Scripture, we would certainly expect them to refer to it in some way. However we find no direct quotations. This is in contrast to over 250 quotations from the authoritative Old Testament Scriptures. The fact that the present canon was repeatedly quoted as being divinely authoritative as well as the absence of any direct quote is another indication of the extent of the canon - it did not include the Apocrypha.

Fact Check

If absence of New Testament quotations is intended to prove the Deuterocanon as non-canonical, then the same logic suggests the absence of New Testament quotations of Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Nehemiah, Obadiah, Nahum, Esther, the Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes proves those books are also non-canonical.

This is nonsense, and neither Catholics nor Protestants would accept this argument against the canonicity of Esther / etc.

Regardless, the Deuterocanon is actually referenced numerous times in the New Testament. The Protestant King James Bible (1611), which includes the Deuterocanonical books, even included these cross-references.

Sirach 7:14 and Matthew 6:14-15/Mark 11:25

Wisdom 2:15-22 and Matthew 27:41-43

Tobit 4:15 and Luke 6:31/Matthew 7:12 (see citation in scan of original 1611 KJV here)

Tobit 4:7 and Luke 14:13

1 Maccabees 4:59 and John 10:22 (The feast of dedication mentioned in the Gospel of John was established in the time of the Maccabees, and is known today as Hanukkah.)

Romans and the Book of Wisdom, clay and the potter (Wisdom 12:12 -> Romans 9:20, Wisdom 15:7 -> Romans 9:21, Wisdom 12:20 -> Romans 9:22)

Wisdom 9:13 and Romans 11:34

Sirach 35:8 and 2 Corinthians 9:7

Wisdom 7:26 and Hebrew 1:3

2 Maccabees 7:7 and Hebrews 11:35 (This is the only example in the Greek Old Testament of people experiencing torture and not acceptable deliverance for hope of a better resurrection)

Tobit 12:15 and Revelation 8:2 (Seven angels standing before God is not mentioned anywhere else in the Greek Old Testament except this passage in Tobit)

Claim: The Deuterocanon denies being inspired

Sources of Claim

Bible.org, in HOW WE GOT THE BIBLE: Canonicity The Apocrypha never claims to be inspired (“Thus saith the Lord” etc.) – In fact, 1 Maccabees 9:27 denies it.

Fact Check

1 Maccabees 9:27 There had not been such great distress in Israel since the time prophets ceased to appear among the people.

From this verse, Protestants argue that Maccabees identifies itself as uninspired, since prophets ceased to appear and thus Maccabees wasn't written by a prophet.

The problem with this argument is that by the same logic, the Psalms and Lamentations aren't inspired.

Psalm 74:8 They said in their hearts, ‘Destroy them all! Burn all the shrines of God in the land!’ Now we see no signs, we have no prophets, no one who knows how long...

Lamentations 2:9 Sunk into the ground are her gates; he has removed and broken her bars. Her king and her princes are among the pagans; priestly instruction is wanting, And her prophets have not received any vision from the LORD.

This argument is invalid - Protestants and Catholics both agree Psalms and Lamentations are inspired.

Claim: Catholics inserted books into the Bible at the Council of Trent in 1546

Sources of Claim

Mark Driscoll, in How Were the Old Testament Books Chosen as Scripture? Both Jews and Christians rejected any of the apocryphal books as divinely inspired sacred Scripture until the Catholic Council of Trent in 1546. At that time, the Catholic Church was facing a growing protest movement (now known as Protestantism) that denounced some of the church’s teaching as unbiblical. Among the chief critics was the Catholic monk Martin Luther, who pointed out that praying to saints, paying indulgences to the church, and purgatory were not found in the Bible. In an effort to defend themselves, the Catholic Church voted to insert new books into the Bible, more than a millennium after the Old Testament canon had been closed and the apocryphal books had been rejected as Scripture. Why? Because it found some support for its unbiblical doctrines in the apocrypha and, rather than changing its doctrines, it instead chose to change its Bible.

Bible.org, in HOW WE GOT THE BIBLE: Canonicity The Apocryphal books are 15 books written in the 400 years between Malachi and Matthew. They record some of the history of that time period and various other religious stories and teaching. The Catholic Bible (Douay Version) regards these books as scripture. The Apocrypha includes some specific Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory and prayer for the dead (2 Maccabees 12:39-46), and salvation by works (almsgiving – Tobit 12:9). Interestingly, the Catholic Church officially recognized these books as scripture in A.D. 1546, only 29 years after Martin Luther criticized these doctrines as unbiblical.

Fact Check

Even GotQuestions, a Protestant website, establishes this claim as rubbish. As GotQuestions notes, these books were included in the Bible for over a thousand years prior to the Council of Trent.

GotQuestions: excerpt from What is the Catholic Bible? However, under tremendous pressure from Rome, Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate, included the Apocrypha, despite Jerome’s insistence that the Apocrypha did not belong in the Bible. The Latin Vulgate became the dominant and officially sanctioned Catholic Bible, and remained that way for around 1200 years. Thus, the Apocrypha became a part of the Catholic Bible.

The Latin Vulgate was the bible of Christianity for over a millennia. Catholics inserted nothing, they merely formally accepted what had been the standard of the Church for over a thousand years.

Claim: Jerome proved that the Apocrypha should not be part of the Bible

Sources of Claim

GotQuestions: excerpt from What is the Catholic Bible? However, under tremendous pressure from Rome, Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate, included the Apocrypha, despite Jerome’s insistence that the Apocrypha did not belong in the Bible. The Latin Vulgate became the dominant and officially sanctioned Catholic Bible, and remained that way for around 1200 years. Thus, the Apocrypha became a part of the Catholic Bible.

Fact Check

Jerome believed in the "Hebraica Veritas" - the truth of the Hebrew Scriptures. By his day, the church was primarily using the Septuagint (Greek translation of Old Testament made before the time of Christ). When Jerome obtained the Hebrew Scriptures from the Jews of his day at great cost, he was surprised to find that there were numerous differences.

For example, Jerome saw that Psalm 8:2 in the Jew's Hebrew Scripture said "Out of the mouth of babes and infants you have ordained strength ", while in the Septuagint the Christian Church was using it said "Out of the mouth of babes and infants you have ordained praise ". Jerome concluded that since the original Old Testament was in Hebrew, the difference must be attributable to an error that popped up in the translation of the Septuagint - thus the superiority of the Hebrew Scriptures over the Septuagint.

As Jerome continued in his translations of the books of the Bible, he noted several instances of this occurring - and each time, he found the Hebrew Scriptures to be superior. This led him to proclaim the following challenge:

And further, I give a challenge to my accuser. I have shown that many things are set down in the New Testament as coming from the older books, which are not to be found in the Septuagint; and I have pointed out that these exist in the Hebrew. Now let him show that there is anything in the New Testament which comes from the Septuagint but which is not found in the Hebrew, and our controversy is at an end. - Jerome, in his Apology Against Rufinus, Book II, Section 34

Modern scholarship has shown Jerome was wrong, and his challenge was met. The New Testament authors (and Christ himself) accepted the Septuagint as authoritative and used it frequently. We know this because the Septuagint, in addition to including the Deuterocanon, has numerous minor textual differences from the Hebrew Scriptures of the Jews (the Masoretic Text).

In Matthew 21:16, Jesus quotes Psalm 8:2 saying "Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies you have ordained praise". In the Septuagint translation, Psalm 8:2 also says "ordained praise". However the Hebrew Scriptures (Masoretic Text) says "ordained strength".

1 Peter 4:18 quotes the Septuagint Proverbs 11:31 as "If the truly righteous is scarcely saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?". The Hebrew says, "If the righteous is repaid on earth, how much more the wicked and the sinner!"

Hebrews 11:21 quotes the Septuagint Genesis 47:31 with Jacob bowing in worship over the head of his staff, while the Hebrew has Jacob bowing over the head of his bed.

Hebrews 10:5-7 quotes the Septuagint Psalm 40:6-8 as "a body have you prepared for me", while the Hebrew reads as "you have given me an open ear".

Acts 13:41 quotes the Septuagint Habakkuk 1:5 starting with "Look, you scoffers", while the Hebrew starts with "Look among the nations".

Acts 7:42-43 quotes the Septuagint Amos 5:25-27 as "You took up the tent of Moloch and the star of your god Rephan", while the Hebrew reads as "You shall take up Sikkuth your king, and Kiyyun your star-god".

Acts 8:32-33 quotes the Septuagint Isaiah 53:7-8 as "In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken away from the earth.", while the Hebrew reads as "By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living".

James 4:6 quotes the Septuagint Proverbs 3:34 as "opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble", while the Hebrew reads similarly but with different underlying word-concepts as "scorns the scornful but he gives grace to the lowly".

In the book "Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey" (pages 25-32), by Protestant authors G. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, we see that of the 386 times that the New Testament explicitly quotes from the Old Testament, 340 of those are from the Septuagint translation. [Another resource.]

Jerome was but a single man and missed these examples, while we've had countless scholars pore over the texts to find these. Jerome, based off what he found, determined the Septuagint to be an errant translation of the Hebrew Scriptures he obtained from the Jews. Because the Deuterocanonical books were found in the Septuagint but not in the Hebrew Scriptures he obtained from the Jews, he doubted the authenticity of the Deuterocanonical books.

With the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls, we've learned even more new details. Jerome had thought the Septuagint was a bad translation of the Hebrew Scriptures he obtained from the Jews, which he thought were closer to the original because they were in the original language. From the Dead Sea scrolls, we've learned that the Septuagint was not a bad translation of an ancestor of the Masoretic Text, but a good translation of the Pre-Septuagint Hebrew text - one of several Hebrew text traditions of the Old Testament we've found remnants of in the Dead Sea scrolls. More information on this available in the appendix on the Pre-Septuagint.

Regardless of Jerome's beliefs, he did submit himself to the Church, and accepted the Deuterocanon as scripture. He included the Deuterocanon in his Bible translation, quoted from the Book of Wisdom and Sirach as scripture, and quoted from Baruch as a prophet.

Archibald Alexander: Influential Presbyterian from the 1800s

Book: Canon of the Old and New Testaments Ascertained, or The Bible Complete without the Apocrypha and Unwritten Traditions

In "Canon of the Old and New Testaments Ascertained, or The Bible Complete without the Apocrypha and Unwritten Traditions", we see a work by 19th century Presbyterian theologian, Archibald Alexander that has become a common reference for modern Protestants on Old Testament canon.

In this work, Alexander makes the argument that "these books [the Deuterocanon] were not received as canonical by the Christian Fathers, but were expressly declared to be apocryphal." Let us examine his specific claims in support of this statement.

Note that being Protestant, he refers to the Deuterocanon as the Apocrypha - but his use of the term Apocrypha is meant to describe the Deuterocanonical books, and was not intended to include the many other works that are Apocrypha.

Here is the relevant section from his work, quoted in full. Following the quotation of his work, we will examine the validity of his claims.

Canon of the Old and New Testaments Ascertained, or The Bible Complete without the Apocrypha and Unwritten Traditions SECTION IV. TESTIMONIES OF THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS, AND OF OTHER LEARNED MEN DOWN TO THE TIME OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT, RESPECTING THE APOCRYPHA. THE fourth argument is, that these books were not received as canonical by the Christian Fathers, but were expressly declared to be apocryphal. Justin Martyr does not cite a single passage, in all his writings, from any apocryphal book. The first catalogue of the books of the Old Testament which we have, after the times of the apostles, from any Christian writer, is that of Melito, bishop of Sardis, before the end of the second century, which is preserved by Eusebius. The fragment is as follows: "Melito to his brother Onesimus, greeting. Since you have often earnestly requested of me, in consequence of your love of learning, a collection of the Sacred Scriptures of the Law and the Prophets, and what relates to the Saviour, and concerning our whole faith; and since, moreover, you wish to obtain an accurate knowledge of our ancient books, as it respects their number and order, I have used diligence to accomplish this, knowing your sincere affection towards the faith, and your earnest desire to become acquainted with the word; and that striving after eternal life, your love to God induces you to prefer these to all other things. Wherefore, going into the East, and to the very place where these things were published and transacted, and having made diligent search after the books of the Old Testament, I now subjoin and send you the following catalogue:--"Five books of Moses, viz., Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, or Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Twelve [prophets] in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra." Origen also says, "We should not be ignorant, that the canonical books are the same which the Hebrews delivered unto us, and are twenty-two in number, according to the number of letters of the Hebrew alphabet." Then he sets down, in order, the names of the books, in Greek and Hebrew. Athanasius, in his Synopsis, says, "All the Scriptures of us Christians are divinely inspired; neither are they indefinite in their number, but determined, and reduced into a Canon. Those of the Old Testament are, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Job, the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel." Hilary, who was contemporary with Athanasius, and resided in France, has numbered the canonical books of the Old Testament, in the following manner: "The five books of Moses, the sixth of Joshua, the seventh of Judges, including Ruth, the eighth of first and second Kings, the ninth of third and fourth Kings; the tenth of the Chronicles, two books; the eleventh, Ezra (which included Nehemiah;) the twelfth, the Psalms. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth; the twelve Prophets the sixteenth; then Isaiah and Jeremiah, including Lamentations and his Epistle, Daniel, Ezekiel, Job, and Esther, making up the full number of twenty-two." And in his preface he adds, that "these books were thus numbered by our ancestors, and handed down by tradition from them." Gregory Nazianzen exhorts his readers to study the sacred books with attention, but to avoid such as were apocryphal; and then gives a list of the books of the Old Testament, and according to the Jewish method, makes the number two-and-twenty. He complains of some that mingled the apocryphal books with those that were inspired, "of the truth of which last," says he, "we have the most perfect persuasion; therefore it seemed good to me to enumerate the canonical books from the beginning; and those which belong to the Old Testament are two-and-twenty, according to the number of the Hebrew alphabet, as I have understood." Then he proceeds to say, "Let no one add to these divine books, nor take any thing away from them. I think it necessary to add this, that there are other books besides those which I have enumerated as constituting the Canon, which, however, do not appertain to it; but were proposed by the early Fathers, to be read for the sake of the instruction which they contain." Then, he expressly names as belonging to this class, the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, and Tobit. Jerome, in his Epistle to Paulinus, gives us a catalogue of the books of the Old Testament, exactly corresponding with that which Protestants receive: "Which," says he, "we believe agreeably to the tradition of our ancestors, to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit." Epiphanius, in his book concerning Weights and Measures, distributes the books of the Old Testament into four divisions of five each. "The first of which contains the law, next five poetical books, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs; in the third division he places Joshua, Judges, including Ruth, first and second Chronicles, four books of Kings. The last five, the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel. Then there remain two, Ezra and Esther." Thus he makes up the number twenty-two. Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catechism, exhorts his catechumen diligently to learn from the church, what books appertain to the Old and New Testaments, and he says, "Read nothing which is apocryphal. Read the Scriptures, namely, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, which were translated by the seventy-two interpreters." And in another place, "Meditate, as was said, in the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, and if you wish it, I will give you their names." Here follows a catalogue, agreeing with those already given, except that he adds Baruch to the list. When Baruch is mentioned as making one book with Jeremiah, as is done by some of the Fathers, it is most reasonable to understand those parts of Jeremiah, in the writing of which Baruch was concerned, as particularly the lii. chapter; for, if we understand them as referring to the separate book now called Baruch, the number which they are so careful to preserve will be exceeded. This apocryphal Baruch never existed in the Hebrew, and is never mentioned separately by any ancient author, as Bellarmine confesses. This book was originally written in Greek, but our present copies differ exceedingly from the old Latin translation. The Council of Laodicea forbade the reading of any books in the churches but such as were canonical; and that the people might know what these were, a catalogue was given, answering to the Canon which we now receive. Origen barely mentions the Maccabees. Athanasius takes no notice of these books. Eusebius, in his Chronicon, speaks of the History of the Maccabees, and adds, "These books are not received as divine Scriptures." Philastrius, an Italian bishop, who lived in the latter part of the fourth century, in a work on Heresy says, "It was determined by the apostles and their successors, that nothing should be read in the Catholic church but the law, prophets, evangelists," &c.--And he complains of certain Heretics, "That they used the book of Wisdom, by the son of Sirach, who lived long after Solomon." Chrysostom, a man who excelled in the knowledge of the Scriptures, declares, "That all the divine books of the Old Testament were originally written in the Hebrew tongue, and that no other books were received." Hom. 4. in Gen. But Jerome, already mentioned, who had diligently studied the Hebrew Scriptures, by the aid of the best Jewish teachers, enters into this subject more fully and accurately than any of the rest of the Fathers. In his general Preface to his version of the Scriptures, he mentions the books which he had translated out of Hebrew into Latin; "All besides them," says he, "must be placed among the apocryphal. Therefore, Wisdom, which is ascribed to Solomon, the book of Jesus the son of Sirach, Judith, Tobit and Pastor, are not in the Canon. I have found the first book of Maccabees in Hebrew, (Chaldee;) the second in Greek, and, as the style shows, it must have been composed in that language." And in his Preface to Ezra and Nehemiah, (always reckoned one book by the Jews,) he says, "Let no one be disturbed that I have edited but one book under this name; nor let any one please himself with the dreams contained in the third and fourth apocryphal books ascribed to this author; for, with the Hebrews, Ezra and Nehemiah make but one book; and those things not contained in this are to be rejected, as not belonging to the Canon." And in his preface to the books of Solomon, he speaks of "Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus; the former of which," he says, "he found in Hebrew, (Chaldee,) but not the latter, which is never found among the Hebrews, but the style strongly savours of the Grecian eloquence." He then adds, "As the church reads the books of Judith, Tobit, and the Maccabees, but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so, also, she may read these two books for the edification of the common people, but not as authority to confirm any of the doctrines of the church." Again, in his preface to Jeremiah, he says, "The book of Baruch, the scribe of Jeremiah, is not read in Hebrew, nor esteemed canonical; therefore, I have passed it over." And in his preface to Daniel, "This book among the Hebrews has neither the history of Susanna, nor the Song of the three Children, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which we have retained lest we should appear to the unskilful to have curtailed a large part of the Sacred Volume." In the preface to Tobit, he says, "The Hebrews cut off the book of Tobit from the catalogue of Divine Scriptures." And in his preface to Judith, he says, "Among the Hebrews, Judith is placed among the Hagiographa, which are not of authority to determine controversies." Rufin, in his Exposition of the Creed, observes, "That there were some books which were not called canonical, but received by our ancestors, as the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom of the Son of Sirach; of the same order are the books of Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees." Gregory the First, speaking of the testimony in the Maccabees, respecting the death of Eleazer, says, "Concerning which thing we do not act inordinately, although we bring our testimony from a book which is not canonical." Augustine is the only one among the Fathers who lived within four hundred years after the apostles, who seems to favour the introduction of these six disputed books into the Canon. In his work On Christian Doctrine, he gives a list of the books of the Old Testament, among which he inserts Tobit, Judith, the two books of Maccabees, two of Esdras, Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus. These two last mentioned, he says, "are called Solomon's, on account of their resemblance to his writings; although it is known that one of them was composed by the son of Sirach: which deserves to be received among the prophetical books." But this opinion he retracted afterwards. Augustine was accustomed to the Greek and Latin Bibles, in which those books had been introduced, and we must suppose, unless we would make him contradict himself, that he meant in this place merely to enumerate the books then contained in the sacred volume; for in many other places he clearly shows that he entertained the same opinion of the books of the Old Testament as the other Fathers. In his celebrated work of "The City of God," he expresses this opinion most explicitly--"In that whole period, after the return from the Babylonish captivity, after Malachi, Haggai, Zachariah and Ezra, they had no prophets, even until the time of the advent of our Saviour. As our Lord says, the law and the prophets were until John. And even the reprobate Jews hold that Haggai, Zachariah, Ezra, and Malachi, were the last books received into canonical authority." In his commentary on the xl. Psalm, he says, "If any adversary should say you have forged these prophecies, let the Jewish books be produced--The Jews are our librarians." And on the lvi. Psalm, "When we wish to prove to the Pagans that Christ was predicted, we appeal to the writings in possession of the Jews; they have all these Scriptures." And again, in the work first cited, "The Israelitish nation, to whom the oracles of God were entrusted, never confounded false prophecies with the true, but all these writings are harmonious." Then in another work, in speaking of the books of the Maccabees, he says, This writing the Jews never received in the same manner as the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, to which the Lord gave testimony as by his own witnesses." And frequently in his works, he confines the canonical books to those properly included in this threefold division. He also repeatedly declares that the canonical Scriptures, which are of most eminent authority, are the books committed to the Jews. But in the eighteenth book of the City of God, speaking of Judith, he says, "Those things which are written in this book, it is said, the Jews have never received into the Canon of Scripture." And in the seventeenth book of the same work, "There are three books of Solomon, which have been received into canonical authority, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles; the other two, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, have been called by his name, through a custom which prevailed on account of their similarity to his writings; but the more learned are certain that they are not his; and they cannot be brought forward with much confidence for the conviction of gainsayers." He allows that the Book of Wisdom may be read to the people, and ought to be preferred to all other tracts; but he does not insist that the testimonies taken from it are decisive. And respecting Ecclesiasticus, he says when speaking of Samuel's prophesying after his death, "But if this book is objected to because it is not found in the Canon of the Jews," &c. His rejection of the books of Maccabees from the Canon is repeated and explicit. "The calculation of the times after the restoring of the temple is not found in the Holy Scriptures, which are called canonical, but in certain other books, among which are the two books of Maccabees. The Jews do not receive the Maccabees as the Law and the Prophets." It may be admitted, however, that Augustine entertained too high an opinion of these apocryphal books, but it is certain that he did not put them on a level with the genuine canonical books. He mentions a custom which prevailed in his time, from which it appears that although the apocryphal books were read in some of the churches, they were not read as Holy Scripture, nor put on a level with the canonical books; for he informs us that they were not permitted to be read from the same desk as the Canonical Scriptures, but from a lower place in the church. Innocent the first, who lived about the same time, is also alluded to as a witness to prove that these disputed books were then received into the Canon. But the epistle which contains his catalogue is extremely suspicious. No mention is made of this epistle by any writer for three hundred years after the death of Innocent. But it is noways necessary to our argument to deny that in the end of the fourth and beginning of the fifth century, some individuals, and perhaps some councils, received these books as canonical, yet there is strong evidence that this was not the opinion of the universal church; for in the council of Chalcedon, which is reckoned to be oecumenical, the Canons of the council of Laodicea which contain a catalogue of the genuine books of the Old Testament, are adopted. And it has been shown already that these apocryphal books were excluded from that catalogue. But it can be proved that even until the time of the meeting of the Council of Trent, by which these books were solemnly canonized, the most learned and judicious of the Popish writers adhere to the opinions of Jerome and the ancients; or at least make a marked distinction between these disputed books and those which are acknowledged to be canonical by all. A few testimonies from distinguished writers, from the commencement of the sixth century down to the era of the Reformation, shall now be given. It deserves to be particularly observed here that in one of the laws of the Emperor Justinian, concerning ecclesiastical matters, it was enacted, "That the Canons of the first four general councils should be received and have the force of laws." Anastasius, patriarch of Antioch, in a work on the Creation, makes "the number of books which God hath appointed for his Old Testament" to be no more than twenty-two; although he speaks in very high terms of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus. Leontius, a learned and accurate writer, in his book against the Sects, acknowledges no other canonical books of the Old Testament, but those which the Hebrews received; namely, twelve historical books, five prophetical, four of Doctrine and Instruction, and one of Psalms; making the number twenty-two as usual; and he makes not the least mention of any others. Gregory, who lived at the beginning of the seventh century, in his book of Morals, makes an apology for alleging a passage from the Maccabees, and says, "Though it be not taken from the canonical Scripture, yet it is cited from a book which was published for the edification of the church." Isidore, bishop of Seville, divides the canonical books of the Old Testament into three orders, the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa; and afterwards adds--"There is a fourth order of books which are not in the Hebrew Canon of the Old Testament." Here he names these books, and says, "Though the Jews rejected them as apocryphal, the church has received them among the canonical Scriptures." John Damascene, a Syrian Presbyter, who lived early in the eighth century, adheres to the Hebrew Canon of the Old Testament, numbering only two-and-twenty books. Of Maccabees, Judith and Tobit, he says not one word; but he speaks of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as "elegant and virtuous writings, yet not to be numbered among the canonical books of Scripture, never having been laid up in the ark of the Covenant." Venerable Bede follows the ancient method of dividing the books of the Old Testament into three classes; but he remarkably distinguishes the Maccabees from the canonical books by classing them with the writings of Josephus and Julius the African. Alcuin, the disciple of Bede, says, "The book of the son of Sirach was reputed an apocryphal and dubious Scripture." Rupert, a learned man of the twelfth century, expressly rejects the book of Wisdom from the Canon. Peter Mauritius, after giving a catalogue of the authentic Scriptures of the Old Testament, adds the six disputed books, and says, "They are useful and commendable in the church, but are not to be placed in the same dignity with the rest." Hugo de S. Victore, a Saxon by birth, but who resided at Paris, gives a catalogue of the books of the Old Testament, which includes no others but the two-and-twenty received from the Jews. Of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit and Judith, he says, "They are used in the church but not written in the Canon." Richard de S. Victore, also of the twelfth century, in his Books of Collections, explicitly declares, "That there are but twenty-two books in the Canon; and that Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees, are not esteemed canonical although they are read in the churches." Peter Lombard, in his Scholastic History, enumerates the books of the Old Testament, thus--Five books of Moses, eight of the prophets, and nine of the Hagiographa, which leaves no room for these six disputed books; but in his preface to Tobit he says expressly, that it is "in no order of the Canon;" and of Judith, that "Jerome and the Hebrews place it in the apocrypha." Moreover, he calls the story of Bel and the Dragon a fable, and says that the history of Susannah is not as true as it should be. In this century also lived John of Salisbury, an Englishman, a man highly respected in his time. In one of his Epistles, he treats this subject at large, and professes to follow Jerome and undoubtedly to believe that there are but twenty-two books in the Canon of the Old Testament, all which he names in order, and adds, "That neither the book of Wisdom, nor Ecclesiasticus, nor Judith, nor Tobit, nor the Pastor, nor the Maccabees, are esteemed canonical." In the thirteenth century, the opinion of the learned was the same, as we may see by the Ordinary Gloss on the Bible, in the composition of which many persons were concerned, and which was high approved by all the doctors and pastors in the western churches. In the preface to this gloss, they are reproached with ignorance who hold all the books, put into the one volume of Scripture, in equal veneration. The difference between these books is asserted to be as great as between certain and doubtful works. The canonical books are declared, "To have been written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost; but who were the authors of the others is unknown." Then it is declared, "That the church permitteth the reading of the apocryphal books for devotion and instruction, but not for authority to decide matters of controversy in faith. And that there are no more than twenty-two canonical books of the Old Testament, and all besides are apocryphal." 6Thus we have the common judgment of the church, in the thirteenth century, in direct opposition to the decree of the Council of Trent in the sixteenth. But this is not all, for when the writers of this Gloss come to the apocryphal books, they prefix a caution, as--"Here begins the book of Tobit, which is not in the Canon;"--"Here begins the book of Judith, which is not in the Canon," and so of every one of them; and to confirm their opinion, they appeal to the Fathers. Hugo, the Cardinal, who lived in this century, wrote commentaries on all the Scriptures, which were universally esteemed; in these he constantly keeps up the distinction between the canonical and ecclesiastical books: and he explicitly declares that "Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, Judith, Tobit, and the Maccabees, are apocryphal,--dubious,--not canonical,--not received by the church for proving any matters of faith, but for information of manners." Thomas Aquinas also, the most famous of the schoolmen, makes the same distinction between these classes of books. He maintains that the book of Wisdom was not held to be a part of the Canon, and ascribes it to Philo. The story of Bel and the Dragon, he calls a fable; and he shows clearly enough that he did not believe that Ecclesiasticus was of canonical authority. In the fourteenth century no man acquired so extensive a reputation for his commentaries on the Bible, as Nicholas Lyra, a converted Jew. In his preface to the book of Tobit, he says, " That having commented on all the canonical books, from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation, his intention now was to write on those books which are not canonical." Here he enumerates Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobit, and the Maccabees; and then adds, "The canonical books are not only before these in time but in dignity and authority." And again, "These are not in the Canon, but received by the church to be read for instruction in manners, not to be used for deciding controversies respecting the faith; whereas the others are of such authority that whatever they contain is to be held as undoubted truth." The Englishman, William Occam, of Oxford, accounted the most learned doctor of his age, in his Dialogues, acknowledges, "That that honor is due only to the divine writers of Scripture, that we should esteem them free from all error." Moreover, in his Prologues, he fully assents to the opinion of Jerome and Gregory, "That neither Judith, nor Tobit, nor the Maccabees, nor Wisdom, nor Ecclesiasticus, is to be received into the same place of honour as the inspired books; "for," says he, "the church doth not number them among the canonical Scriptures." In the fifteenth century, Thomas Anglicus, sometimes called the Angelical Doctor on account of his excellent judgment, numbers twenty-four books of the Old Testament, if Ruth be reckoned separately from Judges, and Lamentations from Jeremiah. Paul Burgensis, a Spanish Jew, who, after his conversion to Christianity, on account of his superior knowledge and piety, was advanced to be bishop of Burgos, wrote notes on the Bible, in which he retains the same distinction of books which has been so often mentioned. The Romanists have at last, as they suppose, found an authority for these disputed books in the Council of Florence, from the Acts of which they produce a decree in which the six disputed books are named and expressly said to be written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Though this Canon were genuine, the authority of a council sitting in such circumstances, as attended the meeting of this, would have very little weight; but Dr. Cosins has shown that in the large copies of the acts of this council no such decree can be found, and that it has been foisted into the abridgment by some impostor who omitted something else to make room for it, and thus preserved the number of Canons unchanged, while the substance of them was altered. Alphonso Tostatus, bishop of Avila, who, on account of his extraordinary learning, was called the wonder of the world, has given a clear and decisive testimony on this subject. This learned man declares, "That these controverted books were not canonical, and that the church condemned no man for disobedience who did not receive them as the other Scriptures, because they were of uncertain origin, and it is not known that they were written by inspiration." And again, "Because the church is uncertain whether heretics have not added to them." This opinion he repeats in several parts of his works." Cardinal Ximenes, the celebrated editor of the Complutensian Polyglot, in the preface to that work, admonishes the reader that Judith, Tobit, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Maccabees, with the additions to Esther and Daniel, which are found in the Greek, are not canonical Scriptures. John Picus, the learned count of Mirandula, adhered firmly to the opinion of Jerome and the other Fathers on the subject of the Canon. Faber Stapulensis, a famous doctor of Paris, acknowledges that these books are not in the Canon. Ludovicus Vives, one of the most learned men of his age, in his commentaries on Augustine's City of God, rejects the third and fourth books of Esdras, and also the history of Susannah, and Bel, as apocryphal. He speaks in such a manner of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus as to show that he did not esteem them canonical; for he makes Philo to be the author of the former, and the son of Sirach of the latter, who lived in the time of Ptolemy about an hundred years after the last of the Prophets; and of the Maccabees, he doubts whether Josephus was the author or not; by which he sufficiently shows that he did not believe that they were written by inspiration. But there was no man in this age who obtained so high a reputation for learning and critical skill as Erasmus. In his exposition of the Apostles' Creed and the Decalogue, he discusses this question respecting the canonical books, and after enumerating the usual books of the Old Testament, he says, "The ancient Fathers admitted no more;" but of the other books afterwards received into ecclesiastical use, (naming the whole which we esteem apocryphal,) "It is uncertain what authority should be allowed to them; but the canonical Scriptures are such as without controversy are believed to have been written by the inspiration of God." And in his Scholia on Jerome's preface to Daniel, he expresses his wonder that such stories as Bel and the Dragon should be publicly read in the churches. In his address to students of the Scriptures, he admonishes them to consider well, "That the church never intended to give the same authority to Tobit, Judith and Wisdom, which is given to the five books of Moses or the four Evangelists." The last testimony which we shall adduce to show that these books were not universally nor commonly received, until the very time of the Council of Trent, is that of Cardinal Cajetan, the oracle of the church of Rome. In his commentaries on the Bible, he gives us this as the rule of the church--"That those books which were canonical with Jerome should be so with us; and that those which were not received as canonical by him should be considered as excluded by us." And he says, "The church is much indebted to this Father for distinguishing between the books which are canonical and those which are not, for thus he has freed us from the reproach of the Hebrews, who otherwise might say that we had framed a new Canon for ourselves." For this reason he would write no commentaries on these apocryphal books; "for," says he, "Judith, Tobit, Maccabees, Wisdom, and the additions to Esther are all excluded from the Canon as insufficient to prove any matter of faith, though they may be read for the edifying of the people." From the copious citations of testimonies which we have given, it is evident that the books in dispute are apocryphal, and have no right to a place in the Canon; and that the Council of Trent acted unwisely in decreeing, with an anathema annexed, that they should be received as divine. Surely no council can make that an inspired book which was not written by inspiration. Certainly these books did not belong to the Canon while the apostles lived, for they were unknown both to Jews and Christians. Sixtus Sinensis, a distinguished Romanist, acknowledges that it was long after the time of the apostles, that these writings came to the knowledge of the whole Christian church. But while this is conceded, it does not terminate the controversy, for among the many extraordinary claims of the Romish church, one of the most extraordinary is the authority to add to the Canon of Holy Scripture. It has been made sufficiently manifest that these apocryphal books were not included in the Canon during the first three centuries; and can it be doubted whether the Canon was fully constituted before the fourth century? To suppose that a Pope or a Council can make what books they please canonical, is too absurd to deserve a moment's consideration. If, upon this principle, they could render Tobit and Judith canonical, upon the same they might introduce Herodotus, Livy, or even the Koran itself.

Historical Claims reviewed

Claim: Justin Martyr does not cite from the Deuterocanon - and thus considered them Apocrypha

The first piece of evidence Archibald exhibits in support of his statement "these books were not received as canonical by the Christian Fathers, but were expressly declared to be apocryphal" is that of Justin Martyr.

Archibald Justin Martyr does not cite a single passage, in all his writings, from any apocryphal book.

With this logic, a book not quoted by Justin Martyr (~160 AD) would not be considered canonical. In Ante-Nicene Fathers vol. 1, reviewing Schaff's Index of Scripture References for those cited by Justin Martyr, we see Justin Martyr quoted from only 24 Old Testament books and 13 New Testament books. Are we to argue for a 37 book Bible canon?

Alexander also fails to note that Justin Martyr identified that believers of Christ use the Septuagint (which includes the Deuterocanon), but Jews have started using a smaller set of passages of Scripture (the Hebrew texts) in which they have removed many Scriptures.

Justin Martyr But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy [king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying; but since I am aware that this is denied by all of your nation, I do not address myself to these points, but I proceed to carry on my discussions by means of those passages which are still admitted by you. For you assent to those which I have brought before your attention, except that you contradict the statement, 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive,' and say it ought to be read, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive.' - Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 71

Finally, Alexander is being extremely selective. While focusing on just Justin Martyr's (~160 AD) lack of quotes from the Deuterocanon, he fails to acknowledge that Justin's predecessors and contemporaries explicitly did quote from the Deuterocanon.

Clement of Rome (~80 AD) quotes from the deuterocanincal Book of Wisdom in his Letter to the Corinthians 27:5

Clement of Rome By the word of his might [God] established all things, and by his word he can overthrow them. 'Who shall say to him, "What have you done?" or who shall resist the power of his strength?' [Wis. 12:12 / Wis. 11:21]

Polycarp of Smyrna (~135 AD) quotes from the deuterocanonical Book of Tobit in his Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, Chapter 10

Polycarp of Smyrna Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood [1 Pet. 2:17]. [...] When you can do good, defer it not, because 'alms delivers from death' [Tob. 4:10, 12:9]. Be all of you subject to one another [1 Pet. 5:5], having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles [1 Pet. 2:12], and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed [Is. 52:5]!

Irenaeus (~189 AD) quotes from the deuterocanonical Book of Baruch in his Against Heresies 4:26:3

Irenaeus Jeremiah the prophet has pointed out that as many believers as God has prepared for this purpose, to multiply those left on the earth, should both be under the rule of the saints and to minister to this [new] Jerusalem and that [his] kingdom shall be in it, saying, 'Look around Jerusalem toward the east and behold the joy which comes to you from God himself. Behold, your sons whom you have sent forth shall come: They shall come in a band from the east to the west... God shall go before with you in the light of his splendor, with the mercy and righteousness which proceed from him' [Baruch 4:36 - 5:9]

Claim: Melito does not include the Deuterocanon in his list of canon - and thus considered them Apocrypha

The next piece of evidence Archibald exhibits in support of his statement "these books were not received as canonical by the Christian Fathers, but were expressly declared to be apocryphal" is that of Melito of Sardis.

Archibald The first catalogue of the books of the Old Testament which we have, after the times of the apostles, from any Christian writer, is that of Melito, bishop of Sardis, before the end of the second century, which is preserved by Eusebius. The fragment is as follows: "Melito to his brother Onesimus, greeting. Since you have often earnestly requested of me, in consequence of your love of learning, a collection of the Sacred Scriptures of the Law and the Prophets, and what relates to the Saviour, and concerning our whole faith; and since, moreover, you wish to obtain an accurate knowledge of our ancient books, as it respects their number and order, I have used diligence to accomplish this, knowing your sincere affection towards the faith, and your earnest desire to become acquainted with the word; and that striving after eternal life, your love to God induces you to prefer these to all other things. Wherefore, going into the East, and to the very place where these things were published and transacted, and having made diligent search after the books of the Old Testament, I now subjoin and send you the following catalogue: - "Five books of Moses, viz., Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, or Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Twelve [prophets] in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra."

This quote comes from a secondary source dated ~324 AD, Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, Book IV, Chapter 26, Section 14.

Melito's list, preserved by Eusebius, does indeed exclude the Deuterocanon. However, it also excludes Lamentations, Nehemiah, and Esther - are we to argue that those three books are not canon?

Both Protestants and Catholics can agree that Melito's list was not complete.

Claim: Origen does not include the Deuterocanon in his list of canon - and thus considered them Apocrypha

The next piece of evidence Archibald exhibits in support of his statement "these books were not received as canonical by the Christian Fathers, but were expressly declared to be apocryphal" is that of Origen.

Archibald Origen also says, “We should not be ignorant, that the canonical books are the same which the Hebrews delivered unto us, and are twenty-two in number, according to the number of letters of the Hebrew alphabet.” Then he sets down, in order, the names of the books, in Greek and Hebrew... Origen barely mentions the Maccabees.

This quote also comes from the same secondary source dated ~324 AD, Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, Book VI, Chapter 25, Section 1-2. Let us review the quote in full.

Origen The twenty-two books of the Hebrews are the following: That which is called by us Genesis, but by the Hebrews, from the beginning of the book, Bresith, which means, 'In the beginning'; Exodus, Welesmoth, that is, 'These are the names'; Leviticus, Wikra, 'And he called'; Numbers, Ammesphekodeim; Deuteronomy, Eleaddebareim, 'These are the words'; Jesus, the son of Nave, Josoue ben Noun; Judges and Ruth, among them in one book, Saphateim; the First and Second of Kings, among them one, Samouel, that is, 'The called of God'; the Third and Fourth of Kings in one, Wammelch David, that is, 'The kingdom of David'; of the Chronicles, the First and Second in one, Dabreïamein, that is, 'Records of days'; Esdras, First and Second in one, Ezra, that is, 'An assistant'; the book of Psalms, Spharthelleim; the Proverbs of Solomon, Meloth; Ecclesiastes, Koelth; the Song of Songs (not, as some suppose, Songs of Songs), Sir Hassirim; Isaiah, Jessia; Jeremiah, with Lamentations and the epistle in one, Jeremia; Daniel, Daniel; Ezekiel, Jezekiel; Job, Job; Esther, Esther. And besides these there are the Maccabees, which are entitled Sarbeth Sabanaiel.

First, note the end of the quote, where Origen includes some of the Deuterocanon with his statement "besides these there are the Maccabees." Archibald writes this off as Origen barely mentioning the Maccabees, but it's significant.

Second, note the beginning of the quote, where Origen identifies the list as "the twenty-two books of the Hebrews." The Hebrews was referring to the Jews of his day, who had rejected Christianity and Jesus.

Origen knew that the Jews of his day had an Old Testament which had some differences to the Christian text - indeed, his most significant work was a book identifying those differences (see Appendix Origen's Asterisks). In his letter to Africanus, Origen notes that every Church of Christ use the Septuagint and include the Deuterocanon, but that the Jews are missing the Deuterocanonical books. Origen has made careful study of this, so in his debates with the Jews he ensures he only quotes to them from the scripture they accept. For his part, Origen thinks the elders of the Jews (who rejected Jesus) removed every passage of scripture that cast them in a negative light.

Excerpts from Letter from Origen to Africanus In answer to this, I have to tell you what it behooves us to do in the cases not only of the History of Susanna, which is found in every Church of Christ in that Greek copy which the Greeks use, but is not in the Hebrew, or of the two other passages you mention at the end of the book containing the history of Bel and the Dragon, which likewise are not in the Hebrew copy of Daniel; but of thousands of other passages also which I found in many places when with my little strength I was collating the Hebrew copies with ours. [...] And I make it my endeavor not to be ignorant of their various readings, lest in my controversies with the Jews I should quote to them what is not found in their copies, and that I may make some use of what is found there, even although it should not be in our Scriptures. [...] Wherefore I think no other supposition is possible, than that they who had the reputation of wisdom, and the rulers and elders, took away from the people every passage which might bring them into discredit among the people. We need not wonder, then, if this history of the evil device of the licentious elders against Susanna is true, but was concealed and removed from the Scriptures by men themselves not very far removed from the counsel of these elders. [...] What I have said is, I think, sufficient to prove that it would be nothing wonderful if this history were true, and the licentious and cruel attack was actually made on Susanna by those who were at that time elders, and written down by the wisdom of the Spirit, but removed by these rulers of Sodom, as the Spirit would call them. [...] Where you get your lost and won at play, and thrown out unburied on the streets, I know not, unless it is from Tobias; and Tobias (as also Judith), we ought to notice, the Jews do not use. They are not even found in the Hebrew Apocrypha, as I learned from the Jews themselves. However, since the Churches use Tobias, you must know that even in the captivity some of the captives were rich and well to do. Tobias himself says...

As for Origen himself, he clearly believed the Deuterocanon were scripture - he explicitly quotes them multiple times, identifying them as holy scripture.

Origen, in De Principiis, Book II, Chapter 1, Section 5 But that we may believe in the authority of holy Scripture that such is the case, hear how in the book of Maccabees, where [...] she says, "I ask of you, my son, to look at the heaven and the earth, and at all things which are in them, and beholding these, to know that God made all these things when they did not exist." [ 2 Maccabees 7:28 ]

Origen, in On Prayer Chapter 6 For the Scripture says that after they had prayed, the prayers of them both were heard in the sight of the glory of the great Raphael, and he was sent to heal them both [ Tobit 3:16-17 ].

Origen, Homily 20 on Jeremiah, 7.3 I want to give an example from Scripture of righteous lack of faith in an agreement in order to demonstrate that man can call upon faithlessness in act. Judith made an agreement with Holophernes that though she would leave for certain number of days to pray to God, she also would present herself after these days at the marriage bed of Holophernes.

Origen, in Homily 16 on Jeremiah, 6.2 But we reproach both those who repent and those who convert, though the Scripture says : 'Do not reproach a man who turns away from sin.' [ Sirach 8:5 ]

Origen, in Homily 1 on Leviticus, 1.3 ...But it is time for us to use the words of holy Susanna against these wicked presbyters, which indeed those who deny the story of Susanna excise from the list of divine books. But we both receive it and aptly use it against them...

So while Archibald holds up Origen's list as proof that "these books were not received as canonical by the Christian Fathers, but were expressly declared to be apocryphal" - we instead see that Origen was merely identifying the list of the Jews of his day, and fully believed in the Deuterocanon as holy scripture.

Claim: Athanasius does not include the Deuterocanon in his list of canon - and thus considered them Apocrypha

The next piece of evidence Archibald exhibits in support of his statement "these books were not received as canonical by the Christian Fathers, but were expressly declared to be apocryphal" is that of Athanasius.

Archibald Athanasius, in his Synopsis, says, "All the Scriptures of us Christians are divinely inspired; neither are they indefinite in their number, but determined, and reduced into a Canon. Those of the Old Testament are, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Job, the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel." [...] Athanasius takes no notice of these books [the Deuterocanon].

Archibald attributes this list in a work called The Synopsis of Sacred Scripture to Athanasius, though scholars now generally agree it was written in the 6th century by a clergyman.

However in Athanasius's Letter 39, sections 4 and 7, we see another list. Note that in this list, Athanasius includes the Deuterocanonical book of Baruch. He excludes Esther, as well as the rest of the Deuterocanon, from canon - though he notes that they are appointed by the Fathers to be read for instruction in the word of godliness (and thus not to be removed from the Bible).

Athanasius, Letter 39 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 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... 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...

So while Archibald holds up Athanasius' list as proof that "these books were not received as canonical by the Christian Fathers, but were expressly declared to be apocryphal" - we instead see that Athanasius included Baruch, excluded Esther, and did not completely discard the rest of the Deuterocanon as modern Protestants do. It's a far cry from his statement that 'Athanasius takes no notice of these books'.

Claim: Hilary does not include the Deuterocanon in his list of canon - and thus considered them Apocrypha

The next piece of evidence Archibald exhibits in support of his statement "these books were not received as canonical by the Christian Fathers, but were expressly declared to be apocryphal" is that of Hilary of Poitiers.

Archibald Hilary, who was contemporary with Athanasius, and resided in France, has numbered the canonical books of the Old Testament, in the following manner: "The five books of Moses, the sixth of Joshua, the seventh of Judges, including Ruth, the eighth of first and second Kings, the ninth of third and fourth Kings; the tenth of the Chronicles, two books; the eleventh, Ezra (which included Nehemiah;) the twelfth, the Psalms. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth; the twelve Prophets the sixteenth; then Isaiah and Jeremiah, including Lamentations and his Epistle, Daniel, Ezekiel, Job, and Esther, making up the full number of twenty-two.” And in his preface he adds, that "these books were thus numbered by our ancestors, and handed down by tradition from them."

Again Archibald cuts the quote short. Here is the quote in full:

Hilary of Poitiers, Expositions of the Psalms (Tractatus super Psalmos), 15 The reason for reckoning twenty-two books of the Old Testament is that this corresponds with the number of the [Hebrew] letters. They are counted thus according to old tradition: the books of Moses are five, Joshua son of Nun the sixth, Judges and Ruth the seventh, first and second Kings the eighth, third and fourth [Kings] the ninth, the two of Chronicles make ten, the words of the days of Ezra the eleventh, the book of Psalms twelfth, of Solomon the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs are thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth, the Twelve Prophets sixteenth, then Isaiah and Jeremiah (with Lamentations and the Epistle) and Daniel and Ezekiel and Job and Esther complete the number of the books at twenty-two. To this some add Tobit and Judith to make twenty-four books, according to the number of the Greek letters, which is the language used among Hebrews and Greeks gathered in Rome.

Note that the Epistle of Jeremiah, which is part of the Deuterocanonical book of Baruch, is included. Also note at the end he says "to this some add Tobit and Judith", another two Deuterocanonical books. Add to this the fact that elsewhere Hilary quotes from Deuterocanonical 2 Maccabees explicitly as scripture.

Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book IV, Section 16 Such suggestions are inconsistent with the clear sense of Scripture. "For all things", as the Prophet says [2 Maccabees 7:28], "were made out of nothing"

So while Archibald holds up Hilary's list as proof that "these books were not received as canonical by the Christian Fathers, but were expressly declared to be apocryphal" - we instead see that Hilary actually believed much of the Deuterocanon was scripture.

Claim: Gregory Nazianzen does not include the Deuterocanon in his list of canon - and thus considered them Apocrypha

The next piece of evidence Archibald exhibits in support of his statement "these books were not received as canonical by the Christian Fathers, but were expressly declared to be apocryphal" is that of Gregory Nazianzen.

Archibald Gregory Nazianzen exhorts his readers to study the sacred books with attention, but to avoid such as were apocryphal; and then gives a list of the books of the Old Testament, and according to the Jewish method, makes the number two-and-twenty. He complains of some that mingled the apocryphal books with those that were inspired, "of the truth of which last," says he, "we have the most perfect persuasion; therefore it seemed good to me to enumerate the canonical books from the beginning; and those which belong to the Old Testament are two-and-twenty, according to the number of the Hebrew alphabet, as I have understood." Then he proceeds to say, "Let no one add to these divine books, nor take any thing away from them. I think it necessary to add this, that there are other books besides those which I have enumerated as constituting the Canon, which, however, do not appertain to it; but were proposed by the early Fathers, to be read for the sake of the instruction which they contain." Then, he expressly names as belonging to this class, the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, and Tobit.

This quote is from Gregory Nazianzen's poem, Concerning the Genuine Books of Divinely Inspired Scripture. Again, let us review the full quote.

Concerning the Genuine Books of Divinely Inspired Scripture (poem) The divine oracles should always on the tongue and in the mind be rehearsed. For God will indeed give a reward for this labor, so that you may obtain light from anything hidden, or, what is far better, that you may be spurred by God to greater purity, and thirdly, be called away from the cares of the world by such study. But let not extraneous books seduce your mind. For many malignant writings have been disseminated. Accept, o friend, this my approved number. These are all twelve of the historical books, of the most ancient Hebrew wisdom: First there is Genesis, then Exodus, Leviticus too. Then Numbers, and the Second Law. Then Joshua and Judges. Ruth is eighth. The ninth and tenth books [are] the acts of Kings, and [the eleventh is] Chronicles. Last you have Ezra. The poetic books are five: Job being first, then [the Psalms of] David; and three of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Canticles and Proverbs. And similarly five of prophetic inspiration. There are the Twelve written in one book: Hosea and Amos, and Micah the third; then Joel, and Jonah, Obadiah, Nahum also, and Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, Haggai, then Zechariah, and Malachi. All these are one. The second is of Isaiah. Then the one called as an infant, Jeremiah, Then Ezekiel, and the gift of Daniel. I count therefore, twenty-two of the ancient books, corresponding to the number of the Hebrew letters. Now