What did the Church Fathers think of the Old Testament canon? In any discussion of the extent of the Old Testament canon, the answer to that question is important. There are many issues that are central to our discussion of the extent of the canon. This discussion is on whether the Deuterocanonicals (The books of Wisdom, Judith, 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Sirach also known as Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, and Baruch) which are seven books that Catholic and the Orthodox Church have, are part of the Bible (and other sections that are supplements to the books of Daniel and Esther, that are not in Protestant Bibles). Did the Church Fathers think that these books were inspired Scripture? That is the issue I will tackle in this study.
Before I do that I will briefly address some objections that Protestants will use for saying that the Deuterocanonicals are not Scripture. Then I will address the subject on whether the Church Fathers accepted the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture.
There are several reasons that Protestants use for rejecting the Deuterocanonicals, and they belittle them by using the term ‘Apocrypha’ in reference to these books. Ron Rhodes is a former co-host of ‘The Bible Answer Man’ and an author of a book which supposedly teaches Evangelicals how to ‘share the Good News with Catholics’. After giving his analysis that the 66 books of the Old Testament and New Testament apparently pass the test but the Deuterocanonicals do not, he concludes with the following statements:
1) The books were not written by prophets or apostles of God.
2) The books do not ring with the sense of "thus saith the Lord."
3) The books contradict doctrines revealed in the pages of the Old and New Testaments.
4) While some church fathers used the books for devotional purposes, the books nevertheless fail to have the transforming effects of the Old and New Testaments.
5) The books, for the most part, were not accepted on a broad scale by the people of God-at least not until 1500 years later when the Catholic Council of Trent pronounced them canonical. Ron Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics, Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, Oregon, 2000, p. 42.
Measuring the Apocrypha against these tests shows the Apocrypha falls far short of the Old and New Testaments.
It is not the purpose of this essay to address the first four arguments substantively. Those arguments have been addressed in other essays. My purpose in this study is to address the Fifth one. Briefly though, I will comment on each of them before I specifically go into the Fathers on the issue:
1) Who is Rhodes to determine what a prophet is? Where does the Bible say that in order to be Scripture, it must be written by a prophet? Where is Esther mentioned as a prophet? Is there any hint that 1st and 2nd Chronicles are written by prophets? Where does Ecclesiastes come off as ‘prophetic’? Mark and Luke were neither prophets or apostles, so that would eliminate some New Testament books as well. Besides that, the Book of Wisdom, one of the books that Rhodes rejects as non-prophetic, specifically says this about how evil people will speak of someone who is God’s Son who will be put to death:
18 for if the righteous man is God's son, he will help him, and will deliver him (See Mt. 27:43) from the hand of his adversaries. 19 Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. 20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected."
If this is not prophetic about God’s Son, I don’t know what is.
Besides that, as we will see, many of the Fathers that Rhodes allege deny the Scriptural status of the Deuterocanonicals, will speak of the writers of those books as 'prophets', thus verifying their Scriptural status.
2) What objective criteria does Rhodes use to say that these books do not ring with the sense of ‘thus saith the Lord’? When one reads 2nd or 3rd John, or 1st and 2nd Chronicles, or the letter of Philemon, or Ecclesiastes does one just say, "This is definitely God’s Word"? No, it is only one's tradition that one has come to believe in, that says that this is God’s Word, and this is not. Otherwise, the Rhodes approach is pure subjectivism based on feelings alone. This 'criteria' is similar to the Mormons 'burning in the bosom' mentality of identifying Scripture (which they use to 'validate' the Book of Mormon.) No one can honestly say, "Well, this feeling comes to me, when I read the Letter of Paul to Philemon, it rings: ‘thus saith the Lord.’" When one reads the book of Numbers, and all the dietary laws that are there, or the genealogies, where does one get a feeling this says ‘thus saith the Lord?’ This is purely a subjective bias of Rhodes with no objective criteria given.
3) The idea that the Deuterocanonicals contradict Scriptural Doctrines is another purely subjective assertion by Rhodes. Any criteria applied to the Deuterocanonicals as contradicting other Scriptures can be applied to other New and Old Testament books. In fact there are many books written by Protestant Scholars who will recognize 'apparent' contradictions within the New and Old Testament 66 books. They will rightly say that they are only ‘apparent contradictions’, not real contradictions. Books have been written by Protestants (and Catholics as well) to explain why one Scripture does not contradict another one both in fact and in doctrine. For example, James 2:24 and Romans 4:3 seem to teach different doctrines on salvation and whether one is saved by faith alone or by faith plus works. However, all Christians recognize the fact that both James and Romans are Scripture, and there must be a way to reconcile those Scriptures. One can find many things in Scriptures that can appear to be contradictory. Christians make an attempt to reconcile, or explain how the various Scriptures can be reconciled. The style of writing must be taken into account when studying the biblical texts. However, when it comes to the Deuterocanonicals, Protestants will see one passage that they can jump on and automatically say "See, that is not Scriptural and it contradicts other Scriptures. Therefore it is not Scripture." They make no effort at all to see how the Deuterocanonical passages that they claim contradict other passages can be reconciled while at the same time they will jump hoops to reconcile apparent discrepancies between non-Deuterocanonical books. Protestants will often times even misrepresent what the Deuterocanonical book teaches, misrepresent the teaching on the matter in the New or Old Testament, and then say ‘voila’, the "Apocrypha" contradicts Scripture. (In fact that is what Rhodes did in his book, p. 38) This proves nothing against the Deuterocanonicals.
4) The idea that in order to be Scripture it must transform the lives of believers is another subjective criteria. If I look at 2nd Maccabees 7, we see heroic displays of virtue, where those who knew what God’s laws were, and refused to violate the laws that God had given them, instead of violating that law subjected themselves to torture and eventually death, with their Mother also refusing to violate God’s law. They looked forward to the 'resurrection of life'. That is a very New Testament concept. I have never been called to that type of thing, and I hope to never have to, but this example is transformative to me. I go through nothing like that, but nonetheless that example encourages me to do what God wants me to do. The book of Wisdom’s prophecy of Christ in Wisdom 2:12-20 encourages me with even further evidence that Christ fulfills prophecy. The example of Judith helps to transform my life. The book of Wisdom and Sirach gives further evidence of good wisdom that transforms lives. True, not all portions of the Deuterocanonicals transform lives. That is like many portions of the rest of the Bible, such as Ecclesiastes ("all is vanity"), Philemon, the portions of Scripture that have lots of names without commentary, rules about dietary laws, in and of themselves don’t seem to transform lives. That does not mean that if a passage does not transform lives, it is not inspired Scripture.
5) The focus of this study is how the Fathers viewed the Deuterocanonical books. A strong part of the basis for the Protestant argument against the Deuterocanonicals is that many Fathers denied the inspiration and Scriptural status of the Deuterocanonicals. There is a range of Protestant views, but officially, they are unanimous in denying the inspiration of the Catholic books. The Westminster confession of faith in their treatment of the canon specifically repudiate the canonicity of those books and just sees them as secular books (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1, Section 3). The Anglican Articles (The 22nd article of the Thirty Nine Articles) refers to these books as instructional and edifying, but also specifically deny their inspiration and can never be used to establish or confirm doctrine.
Norman Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, 1995, p. 162, write:
Further, as Norman Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie have noted, it is clear that some church fathers used apocryphal books for devotional or preaching purposes, but did not consider them as canonical. One can demonstrate respect for a book without necessarily considering that book canonical. Many of the early Fathers of the Christian church spoke out against the Apocrypha, including Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and the great Roman Catholic Bible translator, Jerome, (A.D. 340-420), the greatest biblical scholar of the early medieval period and translator of the Latin Vulgate, explicitly rejected the Apocrypha as part of the canon. He said the church reads these books "for example and instruction of manners" but does not "apply them to establish any doctrine."
Ron Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics, Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, Oregon, 2000, writes under the subtitle "Many Church Fathers Denied the Apocrypha" , p. 35:
Even though certain church fathers spoke approvingly of the Apocrypha, then there were other early church fathers-notably Origen, Jerome, Athanasius, and Cyril of Jerusalem that denied their inspiration and canonicity. So merely quoting some church fathers in favor of the Apocrypha is not a convincing argument.
Geisler and Rhodes bank their whole argument on the idea that if the Fathers did not put the Deuterocanonicals on the list of the canon, ipso de facte, that Father rejected the inspiration of those book: If it is not in the canon, it is not inspirational:
Citations of the church fathers in support of the canonicity of the Apocrypha are selective and misleading. While some Fathers accepted their inspiration, others used them only for devotional or homiletical (preaching) purposes but did not accept them as canonical. Geisler, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, p. 161 write
This study will show that the whole presumption behind this statement is false. The presumption that if it is not in the canon, it is not inspired Scripture is the whole presumption behind Geisler’s statement. That assumption is the one that is misleading. Because as I will document thoroughly in this study, those Fathers who left the Deuterocanonicals off the list of a canon, did not in any way shape or form ever deny those books inspiration, and did not merely use them for devotional purposes, but used these books as Scripture and called them Scripture. Forcing the 20th century presumption that canon = inspiration is a false premise, as we will see.
William Webster speaks of many Fathers who denied the Deuterocanonicals' Scriptural status and thus were contrary to the Councils that affirmed the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture:
There are major fathers in the Church prior to the North African Councils who rejected the judgment of these councils such as Origen, Melito of Sardis, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzen, Hilary of Poitiers, Epiphanius, Basil the Great, Jerome, Rufinus and a host of others.....
Webster also writes in reference to the term ‘canon’:
This is why I believe that the term canonical in the early Church had 2 meanings, one broad in the sense that it encompassed all the books which were permissible to be read in the Church and another narrow which included only those books which were authoritative for the establishment of doctrine.
(This article can be found here: http://www.christiantruth.com/canon.html He also gave a response to Dr. Art Sippo, a Catholic Apologist, who argues for the Deuterocanonicals, here: http://www.christiantruth.com/sippocanon.html I will give Dr. Sippo’s articles down below). Webster thus in addition argues that for many Fathers the Deuterocanonicals were permissible to be read, but weren’t of the same authority as Scripture to establish or confirm doctrine. He actually hints at something which will exactly explain why he is wrong on whether the Fathers think that the Deuterocanonicals were inspired. He admits that the term ‘canon’ in many cases only refers to those books that are ‘read in the Church’. It does not necessarily mean that if it not in the ‘canon’, that it is not inspired. We will examine the repercussions of this admission later on. The other authors, Geisler and Rhodes argued on the basis of the Fathers having canons that ignore the Deuterocanonicals, that they rejected the inspiration of those books. Nevertheless, Webster’s theory in effect is that the Fathers who denied them as Scripture treated them as the 22nd Anglican article suggested.
The comments of Webster, Rhodes and Geisler, (in reference to whether the Fathers saw the Deuterocanonicals as inspired Scripture or not) we will see, are contrary to the truth. First, as JND Kelly, the respected Protestant historian writes, the Church from its inception did accept the Deuterocanonicals, even before any Catholic Council declared them to be Scripture. Kelly, whose book 'Early Christian Doctrine' is standard in many Protestant seminaries, admits that the Deuterocanonicals were commonly accepted by the early church as scripture (pages 53-55). Kelly writes:
It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the [Protestant Old Testament] . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or Deutero-canonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was . . . the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. .. . most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew.. . . In the first two centuries. . . the Church seems to have accepted all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture. Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement and Barnabas. . . Polycarp cites Tobit, and the Didache [cites] Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon [i.e., the Deuterocanonical portions of Daniel], and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary" (JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 53-54).
The People of God as a whole, did accept the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture. Now in this essay, I will concentrate on a minority of Fathers. Many Fathers did accept the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture without qualifications. My focus in this paper will be to concentrate on the minority of Fathers that the varying Protestant apologists concentrate on in 'proving' that they did not accept the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture. We will first see a statement from the Father that does seem to indicate that they do not accept the Deuterocanonicals as canonical Scripture. Then we will see how they viewed the Deuterocanonicals in their quotations and references. This is not so much on whether the Council of Carthage which affirmed the Deuterocanonical books as Scripture, was seen as infallible when Rome confirmed it in the early 5th century. Art Sippo has written on the infallibility of the earlier Councils via their confirmation by the Popes in the 5th century here: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3517/kanon.html He has responded to the Webster piece I gave earlier. Sippo’s response to the Webster piece can be found here: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3517/webster.html and then he gave a response to Webster’s rebuttal here: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3517/sippo/webster1.html That will not be the focus here. My focus is that we will see that the Church Fathers unanimously treated them as Scripture, even if at the same time these very Fathers suspected that they were not canonical.
Nowadays we see no difference between the term 'canon’ and Scripture. The main assumption that the Protestant (such as Rhodes and Geisler, though Webster did take a slightly different approach) makes is since these books were termed by some Fathers as non-canonical, they are thus unscriptural. In fact we saw that argument above. However, we will see that except Jerome himself, those who had reservations about their canonical status, still considered them as Scripture, even though they termed them non-canonical. And we will see in practice even St. Jerome quoted them and even called those books Scripture. The Fathers quoted these Scriptures authoritatively to establish and confirm doctrines, contrary to Geisler, Rhodes, and Webster.
How is a Catholic to respond to what sometimes seem as contradictory statements from some Fathers? Some Catholics will say that these Fathers are just inconsistent in their practice and theory: They say one thing and do another. In this theory when they speak of the books as a whole they term the Deuterocanonicals as unscriptural, but in reality they do quote them as Scripture. This theory has the Father treating them in theory different from its practice. Another more likely theory that seems to makes more sense that may explain this only seeming discrepancy is that though these Fathers termed these books as non-canonical, they still termed them as Scriptural. Thus, they were thus not inconsistent. While they denied these books ‘canonical’ status, in fact they treated them just as authoritative as other Scriptural books. Catholic Apologist Mark Bonocore, writes (in an email) the following theory explaining this seeming discrepancy (email, July 29, 2001):
We must remember what Sacred Scripture was originally for. Originally, it was not supposed to be one book ("the Bible") that we could carry around and use for our personal interpretation or personal prayer life. Indeed, this was not even possible until the invention of printing many centuries later (which made the Protestant reformation possible). Rather, the canon of Scripture's original and primary purpose was in the service of the various Liturgies of the Church. In this, we must remember that ...up until the 4th or 5th Century ...each city-church possessed its own Liturgy (its own form of the Mass), complete with its own liturgical calendar. And so, while the city-church of Rome might celebrate the feast day of a particular saint or martyr on March 1st, the city-church of Corinth might celebrate something else on that day (the feast of another saint), while the city-church of Antioch might celebrate still another feast. And so, the readings for this same Liturgical date were different in each city-church. And, indeed, since there were just so many days in the year, each city-church used readings from different Scriptural books throughout the year ...and, in many cases, some books were simply not used (e.g. the Epistle of James or 2nd Maccabees, in many places); and for the simple reason that they did not fit in with the yearly Liturgical schedule of a particular city-church. And so, ... When some fathers speak of a particular book as "non-canonical," they do not necessarily mean that it is not inspired or authoritative. Rather, in many cases, they merely mean that it is not used in the Liturgy of their particular city-church ...thus it is a "hidden book" ("apocrypha"), which could be read privately for edification but not in the Liturgy itself (the public worship of the Church --"Lex orendi, lex credendi"). For example ... To this day in the Greek Orthodox Church, the Book of Revelation is not read in the Liturgy. You will never hear it at their Mass (or as they term it ‘Liturgy’). Yet, the Greek Orthodox would **never** say that Revelation is not Sacred Scripture or that it is uninspired. Yet, they will sometimes speak of it as "non-canonical" because it has no place in the "canon" of their Liturgy (e.g. a **canonized** saint is so-called because they have been granted feast days within our **Liturgical** calendars). So, throughout Church history, the word "canonical" has been used in several ways. It does not always mean what Martin Luther and the Protestants mean when they speak of a book being canonical or non-canonical. Rather, "non-canonical" can mean that:
Mark’s theory seems to fit the evidence on most of the Fathers that had any reservations about the Deuterocanonicals. When these books are not on a list of the canon of a particular Father, it does not mean that they are less inspired, but only that these books were not read in the Liturgy in their area. They are sometimes termed 'Ecclesiastical.' In reference to these Fathers who indeed rejected their canonical status, the Deuterocanonical books seem more likely to fit the third category that Mark mentioned: These Fathers only mean that they are not read in the Liturgy, and are thus not in the canon, but still are inspired Scripture. Just because they are not in the canon does not reject their Scriptural status!!! We will see that these very Fathers quote them as inspired Scripture. This theory would mean that the Fathers are not contradicting themselves: In fact it is true that none of the Fathers, even St. Jerome, ever deny their inspiration. You will see that the Fathers who questioned them, never termed them as ‘Apocryphal’ in the sense that Protestants say they are (the standard term that Protestants use when speaking of them). None of the Fathers said that they were ‘against Scripture’, or contradicted Scripture, or had historical or doctrinal errors, as Geisler and Rhodes argue. When the Fathers spoke of real ‘apocryphal’ books, they would say those books have errors. They don't term the Deuterocanonicals as having errors. Mark’s theory satisfactorily explains how they could speak of them as ‘non-canonical’ while still seeing them as Scripture. When using the term ‘Apocrypha’ the Fathers would generally use that term in reference to non-Deuterocanonical books (although we do see St. Cyril of Jerusalem and St. Hilary of Poitiers use that term for the Deuterocanonicals, they also recognized them as Scripture, and surely did not give them the meaning that Protestants do in declaring them uninspired).
1) a book is heretical (e.g. the Gospel of Thomas), or
2) That it is a good book with historical and spiritual merit, but uninspired (e.g. the Shepherd of Hermas), or
3) That it is an inspired book, but not used in the Liturgy of a particular city-church or even in the Liturgy of many city-churches (e.g. Revelation or 2 Maccabees).
Even if one does not accept this theory, one will see that the Fathers unanimously treated these books in practice as Scripture. That is what I will show in this study. Whether one accepts the theory that the Fathers are inconsistent in practice and theory, or one says that because one says a book is not 'canonical' does not deny its inspiration, and it is still Scripture, the fact is that the Fathers, even those who allegedly 'reject' these books, unanimously refer to these books as Scripture.
Before we go into the Fathers as a whole, I want to address one other argument that is often used to deny the Deuterocanonicals Scriptural status. A commonly used argument is that the Jews decided the Old Testament canon, and that canon excluded the Deuterocanonicals. They will quote Romans 3:1-2 which says:
1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God.
As one example, Norm Geisler in his book writes that this Scripture gives validation for the Jews to determine Scripture.
The Jewish scholars at Jamnia (c. A.D. 90) did not accept the Apocrypha as part of the divinely inspired Jewish canon. Since the New Testament explicitly states that Israel was entrusted with the oracles of God and was the recipient of the covenants and the Law (Rom. 3:2), the Jews should be considered the custodians of the limits of heir own canon. And they have always rejected the Apocrypha. Norman Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, p. 169.
The Jews were indeed through Moses and the prophets given the Word of God and preserved it. Now, does that mean that the Jews were entitled to determine the limits of the Old Testament after they rejected their Messiah? That is a question that must be determined. First, however, the Romans text does not say that the Jews would override the Church established by Christ in determining the canon. The specific point that Paul speaks of here is the advantage of circumcision. Circumcision was necessary to enter the old covenant family of God. At the same time, the Jews were entrusted in the old covenant with the oracles of God as well. However, Paul goes on to write that circumcision is no longer necessary to enter the covenant with God (Rom. 3&4, cf., Gal. 3, 4, 5). The basis on which he makes his statement on the oracles is in reference to circumcision. As Paul makes the tie-in with the Jews being entrusted with the oracles of God with circumcision, which is done away with as a necessity for entrance into God’s family, it is a tremendous stretch to say that this gives the Jews the Ok to determine the extent of the canon, while ignoring the Church that Jesus established. Just as circumcision is done away with as a necessity, so the Jews no longer had the authority to determine the extent of the canon. The Church that accepted Jesus and who Jesus gave authority to bind and loose on earth that which is in heaven (Mt. 16:18, 18:18) certainly had more authority to determine the extent of the canon. Jesus or Paul did not give the Pharisees the authority to determine the canon. Of course, in the Old Covenant, the Jews had been entrusted with God’s inspired Scripture, but Romans 3:2 does not mandate that the Church accepts whatever Judaism proclaimed as its canon. Of course the Sadduccees had one canon. The Pharisees had another canon. The Greek speaking Jews had another canon. We know from history that the Ethiopian Jews had and maintain a different canon. There was no unanimous Jewish canon in Jesus’ time anyway (we will see this further below). Judaism proclaimed that the New Testament was not from God so why would they be given authority over the Old Testament canon? In fact there are prophetic texts in the Deuterocanonicals, such as Wisdom 2:12-20 which point to Jesus, which the Jews who wanted to reject Jesus would like to exclude from Scripture that Christians can use as proof that Jesus is Messiah.
If Romans 3:2 applies to the Jewish ability to determine the Old Testament, why would it not apply to the New Testament as well? After all, the ‘oracles of God’, as spoken by Jesus himself were given to the Jews first. He spoke to the Jews. The apostles preached to the Jews first. It was only after a vision and through Peter’s authority did the message begin to be preached to the Gentiles (Acts 10, 11, 15). Paul went to the Jews first. An important question is, if Christians were bound to follow the Jewish Rabbis, 60 years after they rejected Jesus and their decision on the canon of the Old Testament, what if they changed their decision now? At what point did the Church have authority? Not 33 or 34 AD? Not 65 AD? Not 90 AD? Not in the 2nd or 3rd century? Not even now? If we were bound to follow the Jewish rabbi's assessment of the canon, applying to the Old Testament, it must apply to the New Testament as well. Norman Geisler certainly doesn’t accept their verdict on the New Testament canon so why does he accept their mandate on the Old Testament one? Again, the Jews were given the oracles of God directly from Jesus himself. Of course most Jews rejected Jesus and those who try to apply Romans 3:2 to the Old Testament, but forget what they say in rejecting the New Testament, are inconsistent. In fact Jesus gave the Church the power to proclaim to his followers the extent of the canon, through the binding authority given it (Mt. 16:18, 18:18): Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Whatsoever, would include the canon that had not been decided by the Jews in any case. Christianity should not be subject to the whims of those who rejected Jesus.
Nonetheless, what is the main assumption behind the rush to accept the Hebrew canon of 39 books? It is that the Protestants agree with the Hebrew canon that most of the Jews ultimately accepted. Through such authors as Beckwith, they argue that the Jewish canon was settled by the First century, and therefore, Christianity should accept it because it was settled by them. Now, was the canon of the Old Testament settled by the 1st century? Some say that Josephus claims that the canon was settled by his time (70 AD) or so, and there was ‘no prophet’ after the time of Ezra. The assumption is that the Council of Jamnia finalized what had already been true: The Hebrew canon that Protestants have. There had been a period of 400 years or so, according to Josephus, that there were no prophets. Not only is that presumption wrong with the Deuterocanonical prophets, but the New Testament prophets. However, the presumption that Judaism had settled on those assumptions are false. AC Sundberg, a Lutheran historian shows that there are several things wrong with each of those assumptions. He has written several works on this issue. (Here is an article online that discusses this issue. http://department.monm.edu/classics/Speel_Festschrift/sundbergJr.htm References that I give here are available online at this url.)
We have some writings from early second century which shows that in no way as of even 120 AD was it settled on what was the inspired writing for the Jews. Included in this writing is 4 Ezra, written approximately 120 AD. Sundberg points to these facts in Ezra 4:
The oblique reference to seventy other books in 4 Ezra raises the question of extra-canonical books. Apocalyptic writings appeared in Judaism from the Maccabean times to the end of the first century C.E. According to the consensus, these were completely ignored (except for Daniel) by the rabbinical leaders. However, they enjoyed great popularity among some circles. Clearly, the writers and readers of these books did not hold that inspiration had ceased. Also for Greek-speaking Jews of the Diaspora, especially in Alexandria, the canon was thought to have been considerably enlarged. The influence of these additional writings circulating in Alexandrian and Diaspora Judaism was greatly felt in early Christianity. There are quotations from a number of these writings in the New Testament. According to Jerome, Matt. 27.9 quotes an apocryphal writing of Jeremiah. 1 Cor. 2.9, according to Origen, and Eph. 5.14, according to Epiphanius, quote the apocalypse of Elijah. Jude 14-16 names and quotes Enoch 1.9. There are quotations from unknown sources in Jn. 7.38; Lk 11.49 and Jas. 4.5 f. Without making direct quotations, Sirach 5.11 is used in Jas. 1.19; 2 Macc. 6-7 in Heb. 11.35 f.; the Assumption of Moses in Jude 9 (according to Origen). 2 Tim. 3.8 cites the Book of Jannes and Jambres. Probably Heb. 11.37, "they were sawn asunder," refers to the Martyrdom of Isaiah. It is evident, therefore, that the New Testament writers made use of a wider selection of Jewish writings then the Hebrew canon (Pfeiffer 1941:66).
The consensus agreed that Christians had already adopted their scriptures and separated from Judaism before the Council of Jamnia. Since the church became increasingly Greek, it was the Septuagint, with its additional books, that they adopted. 4 Ezra has a fabulous story of Ezra and five companions rewriting (by inspiration) ninety-four books, twenty-four of which were to be published for the reading of the worthy and the unworthy (the Hebrew canon). He also was to keep seventy books to deliver to the wise, "For in them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the stream of knowledge." Thus, 4 Ezra (ca. 120 C.E.) is the earliest witness to the closed Hebrew canon of twenty-four books. However, so far as this author was concerned, inspired writing was not limited to the canonical books; he viewed another seventy books also as inspired and to held in secret by the wise for understanding, wisdom and knowledge. 21
The main argument that we have between Catholics and Protestants is “What are the inspired writings?” If we look back at both the Church Fathers and the Jewish writers it is not enough to ask what the extent of the canon is, as it has several meanings. Thus, the canon is not the extent of inspired writing. As we will later see, this point applies not only in reference to the Fathers, but also the Jews of the era that we are examining. We see that the Jews in both the 1st and 2nd centuries AD saw many other writings as being inspired than that which is in the canon. And of course, even the canon itself was larger in the Diaspora. Also, the above shows that the Christians were not dependent upon a Christ-rejecting Jewish Council of Jamnia, 60 years after Jesus was crucified, to give them their list of the books of the Bible, which of course not only excluded the Deuterocanonicals, but also the New Testament. Christians had already accepted the Septuagint which happened to include the Deuterocanonicals.
Another common presumption is that the only canon in Palestine was the Hebrew canon which excluded the Deuterocanonicals. However Sundberg shows that this is not true. (For information sake, the Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Old Testament which included the Deuterocanonicals):
It has become evident that the Septuagint circulated in Palestine. This inference was suggested to Semler (1771:1.124-128) by the use of the Septuagint in the earliest Christian writings of the New Testament. As noted, Murabaât produced fragments of six Minor Prophets (Micah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephniah and Zechariah) in Greek. Barthélemy has shown that the text of these fragments, assigned to the end of the first century C.E., is most probably a recension of the Septuagint and is very similar to Justins Old Testament quotations (Barthélemy 1953). This shows that a Greek text type used among Christians of the second century was current among Jews in Palestine in the first century C.E. Similarly, K. Stendahl (1954:177-180) has provided support for Swetes suggestion that the venue for the text of the New Testament quotations from the Old is to be found in a Palestinian Septuagint tradition. Pfeiffer was probably right saying that the Christians took their Old Testament in Greek before the closing of the canon at Jamnia. But the implication of the above is that the Greek Old Testament adopted by the Christians was received from Palestinian rather than Diaspora Judaism (Cross 1995:128, n. 2).
Thus, the presumption that in Palestine the only canon that was circulated was the Hebrew canon is proved false. Even at the center of the Jewish rabbis the Septuagint was heavily circulated.
Now there were several books that Catholics would term as ‘apocryphal’ that were not included in the Septuagint:
The supposition that, since all profane literature was in Greek in Alexandria, it was natural to regard all writings translated from Hebrew or Aramaic as sacred also is insupportable. It does not account for the inclusion in the Christian Old Testament of books written in Greek, such as Wisdom of Solomon and 2 Maccabees. Likewise, the books we term Pseudepigrapha that were composed in Hebrew or Aramaic, such as Enoch, Jubilees and Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, were not included despite their Semitic origin.
The Christian Old Testament included these Deuterocanonical books, but distinguished those books that Catholics accept, from real apocryphal books such as Enoch and Jubilees.
Sundberg gives further evidence that the Jews were not settled on the canon even in the first century:
There are evidences of a continued use of this apocryphal literature in rabbinic literature of later times. Sirach is quoted three times in the Talmud as scripture. It is twice quoted with the introductory formula, "for so it is written in the Book of Ben Sira."35 Ben Sira is also sometimes quoted as "Writings" when the rabbis were proof-texting, e.g., "This matter is written in the Pentateuch as written. . . , repeated in the Prophets, as written. . . , mentioned a third time in the Hagiographa, as written, (here Sirach 12.15 is quoted), it was learned in the Mishnah, . . . ."36
Thus even well after Jamnia in the second century, the Talmud indicates that the book of Sirach (Ben Sira means the Book of Sirach, which is a Deuterocanonical book) is Scripture.
Thus, the main presumptions that Protestants have in reference to the Old Testament Hebrew canon are false: Christians had independently from the Jews adopted the Greek Septuagint, which included the Deuterocanonicals. Also, the Jews’ Old Testament was not settled either prior to or even after the Council of Jamnia, approximately 90 AD, 60 years after Jesus established authority. Whatever canon there was, indeed that was not to be the extent of that which was inspired. Thus, in the unlikely event that Jews who rejected Jesus had authority over the Church to determine the extent of Old Testament Scripture, what they had was not settled anyway. As we have seen, in some quarters Sirach was referred to as Scripture in the second century, doing away with the 39 book canon theory in any case.
Now with this background look at the issue, we will look at each of the Fathers that Protestants use to supposedly reject the Deuterocanonicals Scriptural status. One thing that we will see that some Fathers, especially St. Jerome and Origen, did the study of the Old Testament with Jews who had an influence on them. As the Jews did ultimately reject the Deuterocanonicals, they did create a more negative outlook on those books for those Fathers. However we will see that in practice, even with that influence, those Fathers still treated the Deuterocanonical books as Scripture. Here I am ignoring many Fathers who treated them as Scripture without question. A bulk of the work that follows comes from investigation of the Schaff edition of the Church Fathers, 38 volumes, the Anti-Nicene Fathers and Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers (Heretoforward it shall be noted as ANF, NPNF2 or 1). There will be other citations from other sources as well, and those will be noted, but most of the quotes come from the Schaff, 38 volume edition.
Supposedly Origen spoke against the Deuterocanonicals. We are going back to the Third century here. Origen gives his version of the ‘canonical’ books.
" 'It should be stated that the canonical books, as the Hebrews have handed them down, are twenty-two; corresponding with the number of their letters.' Farther on he says: '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, Dabreiamein, 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, Me-loth; 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[Baruch 6]; Daniel, Daniel; Ezekiel, Jezekiel; Job, Job; Esther, Esther. And besides these there are the Maccabees, which are entitled Sarbeth Sabanaiel." Origen, Canon of the Hebrews, Fragment in Eusebius' Church History,6:25[A.D. 244],in NPNF2,I:272
Origen approximately a century and a half before the Councils of Rome and Carthage, identified Scripture as he saw it. Though he is quoted by the Protestant apologists as being anti-Deuterocanonical, and does not mention all the Deuterocanonical books, he does put Baruch and the two Maccabees books in the canon. Remember, canonical does not necessarily mean all that is Scripture. We will see this in his following statements.
"In all these cases consider whether it would not be well to remember the words, 'Thou shalt not remove the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set.' Nor do I say this because I shun the labour of investigating the Jewish Scriptures, and comparing them with ours, and noticing their various readings. This, if it be not arrogant to say it, I have already to a great extent done to the best of my ability, labouring hard to get at the meaning in all the editions and various readings; while I paid particular attention to the interpretation of the Seventy, lest I might to be found to accredit any forgery to the Churches which are under heaven, and give an occasion to those who seek such a starting-point for gratifying their desire to slander the common brethren, and to bring some accusation against those who shine forth in our community." Origen, To Africanus, 5 (ante A.D. 254), in ANF,IV:387
Origen notes that the Scriptures that are in the Church are different from the Hebrew Scriptures. Thus, he speaks approvingly of the Septuagint, which contains all the Deuterocanonical books. Now, Africanus had written to Origen that the passage was a forgery. Let us see how Origen responds:
2. You begin by saying, that when, in my discussion with our friend Bassus,I used the Scripture which contains the prophecy of Daniel when yet a young man in the affair of Susanna, I did this as if it had escaped me that this part of the book was spurious. You say that you praise this passage as elegantly written, but find fault with it as a more modern composition, and a forgery; and you add that the forger has had recourse to something which not even Philistion the play-writer would have used in his puns between prinos and prisein, schinos and schisis, which words as they sound in Greek can be used in this way, but not in Hebrew. In answer to this, I have to tell you what it behoves 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. For in Daniel itself I found the word "bound" followed in our versions by very many verses which are not in the Hebrew at all, beginning (according to one of the copies which circulate in the Churches) thus: "Ananias, and Azarias, and Misael prayed and sang unto God," down to "O, all ye that worship the Lord, bless ye the God of gods. Praise Him, and say that His mercy endureth for ever and ever. And it came to pass, when the king heard them singing, and saw them that they were alive." Or, as in another copy, from "And they walked in the midst of the fire, praising God and blessing the Lord," down to "O, all ye that worship the Lord, bless ye the God of gods. Praise Him, and say that His mercy endureth to all generations." [The Song of the Three Children, found in Daniel 3 of the Catholic Bible] But in the Hebrew copies the words, "And these three men, Sedrach, Misach, and Abednego fell down bound into the midst of the fire," are immediately followed by the verse, "Nabouchodonosor the king was astonished, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellors." For so Aquila, following the Hebrew reading, gives it, who has obtained the credit among the Jews of having interpreted the Scriptures with no ordinary care, and whose version is most commonly used by those who do not know Hebrew, as the one which has been most successful. Of the copies in my possession whose readings I gave, one follows the Seventy, and the other Theodotion; and just as the History of Susanna which you call a forgery is found in both, together with the passages at the end of Daniel, so they give also these passages, amounting, to make a rough guess, to more than two hundred verses. Origen,To Africanus, 5 (ante A.D. 254), in ANF,IV:386
Notice that Origen defends the use of the passage in Daniel 3 that Catholics have, the Song of the 3 children, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon, as found in Daniel 13 and 14 of the Catholic Bible. He says that Bel and the Dragon and Susanna, Daniel 13 and 14 and only found in the Catholic Bible, is found in every single Church of Christ. Origen himself acknowledges that all Churches use these books. And in which way? He notes that he refers to them as Scripture. His opponent said it was a forgery. He corrects his opponent. It is not a forgery, but he notes his own use of them as Scripture.
Why did the Jews remove them from their Scriptures? Origen speaks of why he thinks that the passage on Susannah was removed. The Jews did not want passages showing elders being condemned. In the story of Susannah, Susannah is lusted after by two elders, who attempt to sexually assault her. Daniel comes to her defense and condemns the elders. Here is Origen’s theory on why the Jews threw out these Scriptures:
Let us see now if in these cases we are not forced to the conclusion, that while the Saviour gives a true account of them, none of the Scriptures which could prove what He tells are to be found. For they who build the tombs of the prophets and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, condemning the crimes their fathers committed against the righteous and the prophets, say, "If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets."[2] In the blood of what prophets, can any one tell me? For where do we find anything like this written of Esaias, or Jeremias, or any of the twelve, or Daniel? Then about Zacharias the son of Barachias, who was slain between the temple and the altar, we learn from Jesus only, not knowing it otherwise from any Scripture. 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. Origen,To Africanus,9(ante A.D. 254),in ANF,IV:389
Thus, Origen speaks of the validity and the true Scriptural status of the Deuterocanonical portion of Daniel. He says that Christians don’t have to doubt its veracity. He claims the Jews just concealed and removed it from their Scriptures for the sake of protecting their elders. The Church does not participate in this concealment, as Origen indicates, as it is true Scripture.
And I make it my endeavour 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. For if we are so prepared for them in our discussions, they will not, as is their manner, scornfully laugh at Gentile believers for their ignorance of the true reading as they have them. Origen, To Africanus, 5(ante A.D. 254),in ANF,IV:387.
The only reason that he doesn’t use the passages with the Jews is because they don’t accept them. However, when speaking to Christians, he not only defends their Scriptural status, but refers to them as such. Now we will look at how he treats the Deuterocanonicals:
"But he ought to know that those who wish to live according to the teaching of Sacred Scripture understand the saying, 'The knowledge of the unwise is as talk without sense,' [Sirach 21:18] and have learnt 'to be ready always to give an answer to everyone that asketh us a reason for the hope that is in us.’ [1 Pt 3:15] " Origen, Against Celsus, 7:12 (A.D. 248),in ANF, IV:615
Origen terms Sirach, Sacred Scripture. In order to live according to Sacred Scripture we must heed Sirach, according to Origen. That is self-explanatory. This book is Scripture.
[A]s is written in the book of Tobit: 'It is good to keep close the secret of a king, but honourable to reveal the works of God,' [Tobit 12:7]--in a way consistent with truth and God's glory, and so as to be to the advantage of the multitude." Origen, Against Celsus, 5:19(A.D. 248),in ANF,IV:551.
He uses the phrase, "As is written", in reference to Tobit. The phrase "It is written" always is a reference to Scripture, both in Scripture itself as well as its use by the Fathers. Thus, Origen sees Tobit as Scripture.
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, "Because I remembered God with all my heart; and the Most High gave me grace and beauty in the eyes of Nemessarus, and I was his purveyor; and I went into Media, and left in trust with Gabael, the brother of Gabrias, at Ragi, a city of Media, ten talents of silver" (Tobias, 1:12-14). Origen, To Africanus, 13 (ante A.D. 254), in ANF, IV:391.
Though the Jews don’t use it Origen notes that the Church uses both Tobias (or) Tobit, and Judith. He quotes from Tobit, just as he does the rest of Scripture.
But that we may believe on the authority of holy Scripture that such is the case, hear how in the book of Maccabees, where the mother of seven martyrs exhorts her son to endure torture, this truth is confirmed; for she says, ' ask of thee, 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, Fundamental Principles, 2:2 (A.D. 230),in ANF, IV:270
Notice that it is not on Origen’s authority, but on the authority of the Scripture of Maccabees, that God made all things out of nothing. This is proof of the doctrine that God made everything out of nothing. He calls Maccabees Holy Scripture and uses it to prove doctrine.
[T]he Wisdom of Solomon, a work which is certainly not esteemed authoritative by all. In that book, however, we find written as follows: "For thy almighty hand, that made the world out of shapeless matter, wanted not means to send among them a multitude of bears and fierce lions.' [Wisdom 11:17] Origen, Fundamental Principles, 2:2 (A.D. 230), in ANF, IV:270.
He quotes from Wisdom as though it is authoritative as Scripture, which of course the Jews don’t find as authoritative.
And that which is written about wisdom, you may apply also to faith, and to the virtues specifically, so as to make a precept of this kind, "If any one be perfect in wisdom among the sons of men, and the power that comes from Thee be wanting, he will be reckoned as nothing " or "If any one be perfect in self-control, so far as is possible for the sons of men, and the control that is from Thee be wanting, he will be reckoned as nothing; (Wisdom 9:6) Origen, Commentary on Matthew, 4 (ante A.D. 254), in ANF, IX:427.
He quotes from Wisdom as a matter of factly presenting truth from Scripture about faith.
The term is written is the book of Wisdom, another clear reference to its Scriptural status.
And as a general principle observe the expression "behind"; because it is a good thing when any one goes behind the Lord God and is behind the Christ; but it is the opposite when any one casts the words of God behind him, or when he transgresses the commandment which says "Do not walk behind thy lusts." (Sirach 18:30) And Elijah also in the third Book of Kings, says to the people "How long halt ye on both your knees? If God is the Lord, go behind Him, but if Baal is the Lord, go behind him." (1 Kings 18:21) Origen, Commentary on Matthew 23 Origen, 22, in ANF, IX:463 AD 254
Origen notes that what Sirach says, is a commandment of God. That is Scripture. If it was merely something that was not Scripture, it could not be a commandment from God. Then he quotes Elijah from the Book of Kings in the same vein. No distinction in authority between the two books.
Thus, the Protestant apologists who argue that Origen spoke against the Books and did not view the Deuterocanonical books as Scripture, are wrong. Though it is true that some of these books (only some of these books, as some are canonical) are not termed 'canonical', that is irrelevant. The question is whether he saw these books as Scripture. Origien clearly terms these books as Scripture, according to Origen himself. He also uses these books to teach doctrine.
St. Athanasius, in the Festal letter number 39, gives a list of the canon. Now, of the Deuterocanonicals he does term Baruch as a canonical book. He does exclude the other Deuterocanonicals. He also excludes Esther. So Protestants pointing to him is of no use as his list does not match the Protestant canon. However, as we will also see with St. Cyril of Jerusalem and others, the list of the canon is not all of inspired Scripture, and because books are excluded from the canon does not necessarily mean that they are not Scripture.
St. Athanasius says this about the Deuterocanonicals:
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... Athanasius the Great: Part of Festal Letter 39 (c. 367 A.D.)[2]
Mark Bonocore elaborates on the possible meaning of St. Athanasius excluding the Deuteros from the canon itself:
In regard to Athanasius, what I think we need to consider is that, in his Epistle 39, he is speaking as the Patriarch of Alexandria --a **liturgical** office. What he seems to be doing, therefore, is defining the ***Liturgical*** canon for the Alexandrian Patriarchate (a diocese including all of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis in Palestine ...and, by association, Ethiopia). Such an address by a reigning Patriarch can only be Liturgical in nature, and would not ...at this time ...address the inspiration or lack of inspiration of a particular book. In this, what cannot be denied is that the Egyptian and Libyan Church **did** believe the books of Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, etc. to be inspired Scripture. They were unquestionably included in the Alexandrian Septuagint from pre-Christian times; and remain in the Biblical canon of the Ethiopian Jews to this very day. (Email from Mark Bonocore, August 2, 2001)
Thus, the theory that we saw at the beginning of this paper, that the term ‘canon’ sometimes only means ‘those books that are read in the Liturgy’ will most seem to fit St. Athanasius when we see him in practice. He is not meaning to describe through the term ‘canon’ the full extent of Scripture. That is what the Protestant apologists falsely assume when he gives us the list. St. Athanasius refers to the Deuterocanonical books according to my count 46 times, as noted in the index of Schaff, NPNF2, Volume 4, which does not in fact give all his writings. Here is a sampling of some of St. Athanasius' citations and references to the Deuterocanonicals:
"[T]he sacred writers to whom the Son has revealed Him, have given us a certain image from things visible, saying, 'Who is the brightness of His glory, and the Expression of His Person;' [Heb 1:3] and again, 'For with Thee is the well of life, and in Thy light shall we see lights;' [Ps 36:9] and when the Word chides Israel, He says, 'Thou hast forsaken the Fountain of wisdom;' [Baruch 3:12] and this Fountain it is which says, 'They have forsaken Me the Fountain of living waters' [Jer 2:13]" [3] Athanasius the Great: Defense of the Nicene Faith,2 (A.D. 351), in NPNF2, IV:158.
He terms the Sacred Writings, which include Hebrews, Psalms, and Jeremiah, with Baruch as well. He refers to Baruch as Sacred Writings which are thus, inspired Scriptures. The Word, or Sacred Scripture, chides Israel through Baruch.
"And where the sacred writers say, Who exists before the ages,' and 'By whom He made the ages,’ [Heb 1:2] they thereby as clearly preach the eternal and everlasting being of the Son, even while they are designating God Himself. Thus, if Isaiah says, 'The Everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth;’ [Is 40:28] and Susanna said, 'O Everlasting God;' [Daniel 13:42-Susanna] and Baruch wrote, 'I will cry unto the Everlasting in my days,' and shortly after, 'My hope is in the Everlasting, that He will save you, and joy is come unto me from the Holy One;' [Baruch 4:20,22]" Athanasius the Great: Discourses Against the Arians, 1:4 (A.D. 362), in NPNF2, IV:313
In the same breath that St. Athanasius speaks of Sacred Writings in Isaiah and Hebrews, he speaks of the Story of Susanna, only found in the Catholic Bible, and Baruch. He speaks in the same language of the other three Biblical citations. He preaches here on the doctrine of the Son’s eternal status. He makes no distinctions between the books. Unquestionably St. Athanasius sees these writings as Scripture, as only Scripture can be termed authored by ‘sacred writers.’
[I]t is written that 'all things were made through the Word,' and 'without Him was not made one thing,’ [John 1:3] and again, 'One Lord Jesus, through whom are all things,’ [1 Cor 8:9] and in Him all things consist,’ [Col 1:17] it is very plain that the Son cannot be a work, but He is the Hand of God and the Wisdom. This knowing, the martyrs in Babylon, Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, arraign the Arian irreligion. For when they say, 'O all ye works of the Lord, bless ye the Lord,', they recount things I heaven, things on earth, and the whole creation, as works; but the Son they name not. For thy say not, ‘Bless, O Word, and praise O Wisdom; to shew that all other things are both praising and are works’; but the Word is not a work nor of those that braise but is praised with the Father and worshipped and confessed as God.’ [Daniel 3:57-Three Youths] Athanasius the Great: Discourses Against the Arians, 2:71 (A.D. 362), in NPNF2, IV:387.
This passage of the three youths in the furnace is found in the Catholic Bible, not the Protestant Bible. It is preceded by the passage "It is written" which applies only to Scripture. St. Athanasius refers to Colossians, 1st Corinthians, and John in the same breath as referring to the Deuterocanonical portion of Daniel. He is using this passage to say that Jesus is not a creation, but is confessed as God. This is an important doctrinal point he is establishing. He makes no distinction between the inspiration of these books. He is showing through the Deuterocanonical passage, proof of the doctrine of Jesus deity.
Daniel said to Astyages, 'I do not worship idols made with hands, but the Living God, who hath created the heaven and the earth, and hath sovereignty over all flesh;' [Daniel 14:5-Bel & the Dragon]" Athanasius the Great: Discourses Against the Arians, 3:30 (A.D. 362),in NPNF2, IV:410.
Here is another Deuterocanonical part of Daniel not contained in the Protestant Bible.
"But if this too fails to persuade them, let them tell us themselves, whether there is any wisdom in the creatures or not? If not how is it that the Apostle complains, 'For after that in the Wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God?’ [1 Cor 1:21] or how is it if there is no wisdom, that a 'multitude of wise men' [Wisdom 6:24] are found in Scripture? for 'a wise man feareth and departeth from evil;’ [Prov 14:16] and 'through wisdom is a house builded;’ [Prov 24] and the Preacher says, 'A man's wisdom maketh his face to shine;' and he blames those who are headstrong thus, 'Say not thou, what is the cause that the former days were better than these? for thou dost not inquire in wisdom concerning this.’ [Eccl 8:1,7:10] But if, as the Son of Sirach says, 'He poured her out upon all His works; she is with all flesh according to His gift, and He hath given her to them that love Him,'[Sirach 1:8,9]" [7] Athanasius the Great: Discourses Against the Arians, 2:79 (A.D. 362), in NPNF2, IV:391
Here he quotes Wisdom and Sirach along with other Scriptural books. The reference to Wisdom is termed ‘Scripture’. In the same breath that he quotes from Ecclesiastes that the Preacher ‘says’, He says that the Son of Sirach ‘says’. He can refer to them in one breath as 'non-canonical' while still quoting them as Scripture. These books were not read in the Liturgy, but were still seen as Scripture and inspired.
Since, however, after all his severe sufferings, after his retirement into Gaul, after his sojourn in a foreign and far distant country in the place of his own, after his narrow escape from death through their calumnies, but thanks to the clemency of the Emperor,- -distress which would have satisfied even the most cruel enemy,-- they are still insensible to shame, are again acting insolently against the Church and Athanasius; and from indignation at his deliverance venture on still more atrocious schemes against him, and are ready with an accusation, fearless of the words in holy Scripture, 'A false witness shall not be unpunished;’ [Proverbs 19:5] and, 'The mouth that belieth slayeth the soul;' (Wisdom 1:11) we therefore are unable longer to hold our peace, being amazed at their wickedness and at the insatiable love of contention displayed in their intrigues. [Athanasius the Great: Defence Against the Arians, 3 (A.D. 362), in NPNF2, IV:101
Here St. Athanasius speaks of the fearless words of Holy Scripture. First he quotes Proverbs and then he quotes the Book of Wisdom. He thus terms Wisdom as ‘the fearless words of Holy Scripture.’ He uses it against his enemies. Obvious, even his enemies recognized the Book of Wisdom as the 'fearless words of Holy Scripture'. It is almost amazing to think that some people will use St. Athanasius as an important benchmark of rejecting the Deuteros, but either are ignorant of or conveniently ignore the fact that the Saint himself uses the term ‘fearless words of Holy Scripture’ in reference to the Book of Wisdom.
Let us not fulfill these days like those that mourn but, by enjoying spiritual food, let us seek to silence our fleshly lusts(Ex. 15:1). For by these means we shall have strength to overcome our adversaries, like blessed Judith (Judith 13:8), when having first exercised herself in fastings and prayers, she overcame the enemies, and killed Olophernes. And blessed Esther, when destruction was about to come on all her race, and the nation of Israel was ready to perish, defeated the fury of the tyrant by no other means than by fasting and prayer to God, and changed the ruin of her people into safety (Esther 4:16) [Athanasius the Great: Letter 4, 2 (A.D. 333), in NPNF2, IV:516.
St. Athanasius refers to the need to go to spiritual food to overcome fleshly lusts. He calls Judith 'Blessed', and shows how her example shows how to overcome fleshly lusts through prayers. He also terms Esther 'Blessed'. Thus, he keeps the books and persons of Esther and Judith at the same level of inspiration. Again, no distinction.
The Spirit also, who is in him, commands, saying, 'Offer unto God the sacrifice of praise, and pay to the Lord thy vows. Offer the sacrifice of righteousness, and put your trust in the Lord (Sir. 18:17).') [Athanasius the Great: Letter 19, 5 (A.D. 333), in NPNF2, IV:546
The Holy Spirit inspires Scripture, as all Christians agree (2 Tim. 3:16). St. Athanasius sees the Scripture of Sirach where the Spirit 'commands', through the book of Sirach. If Sirach was unscriptural, how could it 'command'? Obviously St. Athanasius sees Sirach as Scripture.
But this wearied them, for they were not anxious to understand, 'for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory(1 Cor. 2:8).' And what their end is, the prophet foretold, crying, 'Woe unto their soul, for they have devised an evil thought, saying, let us bind the just man, because he is not pleasing to us’(Wis. 2:12). The end of such abandonment as this can be nothing but error, as the Lord, when reproving them, saith, 'Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures(Mt. 22:29).’ [Athanasius the Great: Letter 19:5 (A.D. 347), in NPNF2, IV:546
St. Athanasius terms the Book of Wisdom as written by a prophet. He terms Wisdom 2 as speaking of Jesus, as he was crucified. This is right in the midst of his quotations of 1 Corinthians and the book of Matthew. He quotes his opponents, just as Jesus alludes to his opponents in Matthew, of not knowing the Scriptures. Just as Jesus reproves the Sadduccees for not ‘knowing’ Scripture, Athanasius reproves them for not knowing Wisdom, which is obviously Scripture.
According as the wisdom of God testifies beforehand when it says, "The devising of idols was the beginning of fornication." (Wis. 14:12)Against the Heathen, 9 (A.D. 347), in NPNF2, IV:9.
Here we see St. Athanasius arguing against idolatry, using the book of Wisdom. He calls it 'the wisdom of God'. He uses the passage to teach against idolatry. Again, he sees this as authoritative in reproving idolatry.
With the actual outlook of St. Athanasius on those books in practice, it is obviously a misreading of St. Athanasius in the 39th festal letter to say that his list of the canon is meant to be a list of all the Books that he considers Scripture. Included here we have seen citations from Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, and the Deuterocanonical portions of Daniel. He calls the books Scriptures, calls the books as written by prophets, and uses it in proving doctrine. A side note is that as I said earlier he does not list Esther as part of the canon, and is ‘noncanonical’ but he does refer to the book a couple of times in the Schaff edition. (NPNF2, Vol. 4, pp. 516, 531) He does not say ‘It is written’ about Esther and makes no distinguishing from that book from other ‘canonical’ books. That is the same way he mostly refers to the Deuterocanonical books. He doesn’t feel he has to ‘prove’ they are Scripture, he assumes it. He quotes it in support of what he is saying, without the need in many cases to say "It is written" or ‘As scripture says’. That is the same way he mostly refers to the non-Deuterocanonical books (without saying ‘As Scripture says’ or "it is written’, or ‘fearless words of Scripture.’) That is the same as with other Fathers. In this study, I am going to those type of quotes because those are more explicit in identifying those passages as Scripture. Many times St. Athanasius doesn’t say those distinguishing comments at all (i.e. ‘Scripture says’, or ‘It is written’) but takes for granted that the Deuterocanonicals are Scripture (the same way he speaks of the Protocanonicals). He goes to these noncanoncal books but still considers them Scripture. All these books are Scripture, and treated as Scripture, so it is obvious that the term ‘canon’ does not mean ‘the full extent of Scripture.’ Most likely, the term is used only in reference to its use in a liturgical context, as indicated by Mark Bonocore. In fact this theory that the term ‘canon’ by St. Athanasius only refers to those books read in the Liturgy, makes perfect sense with the book of Esther. He excluded Esther from the liturgical canon. In fact, since the book of Esther never even uses the word ‘God’ it would make perfect sense to not use it in the Liturgical worship where worship of God is the focus. However, that does not mean that St. Athanasius saw either Esther or the Deuterocanonicals as uninspired. We’ve seen St. Athanasius use words unhesitatingly ascribing the Deutercanonicals as the ‘fearless words of Holy Scripture.’
Let us look at what St. Cyril sees as the canon. Remember, the extent of the canon does not necessarily mean the extent of Scripture.
35. Of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than thyself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench[6] thou not upon its statutes. And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if thou art desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them. For of the Law the books of Moses are the first five, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. And next, Joshua the son of Nave[7], and the book of Judges, including Ruth, counted as seventh. And of the other historical books, the first and second books of the Kings[8] are among the Hebrews one book; also the third and fourth one book. And in like manner, the first and second of Chronicles are with them one book; and the first and second of Esdras are counted one. Esther is the twelfth book; and these are the Historical writings. But those which are written in verses are five, Job, and the book of Psalms, and Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, which is the seventeenth book. And after these come the five Prophetic books: of the Twelve Prophets one book, of Isaiah one, of Jeremiah one, including Baruch and Lamentations and the Epistle[9]; then Ezekiel, and the Book of Daniel, the twenty-second of the Old Testament. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Volume 7, Lecture 4:35, p. 25.
Now he does include the Deuterocanonical book of Baruch, but excludes the rest of the Deuterocanonical books. He does even use the term ‘apocryphal’ in reference to the other Deuterocanonical books not in the canon and says not to have anything to do with them, and not to read them. Again, these are the books not to ‘be read in the Churches’, thus with a Liturgical function from which they are excluded. Thus, as in Athanasius, he is only speaking of those books that are read in the Liturgy. That is what the canon is. But what about the idea that he said to not even read the ‘apocryphal’ books? Cyril himself does not give an explanation on what he means.
It is possible that at the time, there were certain books, not in the canon, that were able to be twisted in an unorthodox manner, by those opponents of the Catholic Church. It is possible that the Deuterocanonicals were twisted by some. We know that many years later, there were some times where even some of even the protocanonical books were forbidden to be read for short periods of time because Scriptures were being twisted for heretical purposes. However, that doesn’t mean that the books noted aren’t Scripture. In fact we see that Cyril saw those books (the Deuterocanonicals) as Scripture. He in fact not only reads from those books but used them as a teaching tool. Now let us look at how Cyril actually treated the Deuterocanonicals:
For thou knowest that the words which come next in the Creed teach thee to believe in Him "Who ROSE AGAIN THE THIRD DAY, AND ASCENDED INTO HEAVEN, AND SAT DOWN ON THE RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER." I suppose then certainly that thou rememberest the exposition; yet I will now again cursorily put thee in mind of what was then said. Remember what is distinctly written in the Psalms, God is gone up with a shouts; remember that the divine powers also said to one another, Lift up your gates, ye Princes(Ps. xxiv. 7), and the rest; remember also the Psalm which says, He ascended on high, tie led captivity captive(Ps. lxviii. 18); remember the Prophet who said, Who buildeth His ascension unto heaven(Amos ix. 6); and all the other particulars mentioned yesterday because of the gainsaying of the Jews. 25. For when they speak against the ascension of the Saviour, as being impossible, remember the account of the carrying away of Habakkuk: for if Habakkuk was transported by an Angel, being carried by the hair of his head (Bel and the Dragon, 36, or Daniel 14:36), much rather was the Lord of both Prophets and Angels, able by His own power to make His ascent into the Heavens on a cloud from the Mount of Olives. Wonders like this thou mayest call to mind, but reserve the preeminence for the Lord, the Worker of wonders; for the others were borne up, but He bears up all things. Remember that Enoch was translated (Heb. 11:5); but Jesus ascended: remember what was said yesterday concerning Elias, that Elias was taken up in a chariot of fire (2 Kings ii:11); but that the chariots of Christ are ten thousand-fold even thousands upon thousands (Ps. ixviii. 17. ): and that Elias was taken up, towards the east of Jordan; but that Christ ascended at the east of the brook Cedron: and that Elias went as into heaven (1 Mac. 2:58); but Jesus, into heaven: and that Elias said that a double portion in the Holy Spirit should be given to his holy disciple; but that Christ granted to His own disciples so great enjoyment of the grace of the Holy Ghost, as not only to have It in themselves, but also, by the laying on of their hands, to impart the fellowship of It to them who believed. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Volume 7, Lecture 14:24-25 p. 101
Here, St. Cyril quotes as support of the doctrine of the ascension of Jesus, that the prophet Habakkuk was carried by an angel in the Deuterocanonical portion of Daniel (Bel and the Dragon). This gives at least some kind of Biblical precedent, or support for Jesus’ resurrection. This is established through this Deuterocanonical passage in Daniel, according to St. Cyril. At the same time Maccabees is referred to in the same breath just as other Old Testament passages. St. Cyril thus makes no distinction from ‘inspired’ protocanonical vs. ‘uninspired’ deuterocanonicals. Thus, not only is St. Cyril reading from it, thus not only ‘having something to do with’ the Deuterocanonicals, but establishing doctrinal points from two different Deuterocanonical passages.
31. He endued with wisdom the soul of Daniel, that young as he was he should become a judge of Elders. The chaste Susanna was condemned as a wanton; (Daniel 13:34-41, or Susanna 41-45); there was none to plead her cause; for who was to deliver her from the rulers? She was led away to death, she was now in the hands of the executioners. But her Helper was at hand, the Comforter, the Spirit who sanctifies every rational nature. Come hither to me, He says to Daniel; young though thou be, convict old men infected with the sins of youth; for it is written, God raised up the Holy Spirit upon a young stripling (Daniel 13:45, or Susanna 45); and nevertheless, (to pass on quickly,) by the sentence of Daniel that chaste lady was saved. We bring this forward as a testimony; for this is not the season for expounding. Nebuchadnezzar also knew that the Holy Spirit was in Daniel; for he says to him, O Belteshazzar, master of the magicians, of whom I know, that the Holy Spirit of God is in thee Daniel 4:9). One thing he said truly, and one falsely; for that he had the Holy Spirit was true, but he was not the master of the magicians, for he was no magician, but was wise through the Holy Ghost. And before this also, he interpreted to him the vision of the Image, which he who had seen it himself knew not; for he says, Tell me the vision, which I who saw it know not (Dan. 2:26, 31). Thou seest the power of the Holy Ghost; that which they who saw it, know not, they who saw it not, know and interpret. 32. And indeed it were easy to collect very many texts out of the Old Testament, and to discourse more largely concerning the Holy Ghost. But the time is short; and we must be careful of the proper length of the lecture. Wherefore, being for the present content awhile with passages from the Old Testament, we will, if it be God's pleasure, proceed in the next Lecture to the remaining texts out of the New Testament. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Lecture XVI:30-31 Volume 7, p. 123.30. And again in Ezekiel, And he brought me in a vision by the Spirit of God into Chaldaea, to them of the captivity (Ezek. 11:24). and other texts thou heardest before, in what was said about baptism; Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you (Ezek. 36:25), and the rest; a new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you (Ezek. 36:26); and then immediately, And I will put My Spirit within you (Ezek. 36:27). And again. The hand of the Lord was upon me, and carried me out in the Spirit of the Lord (Ezek. 37:1).
There is a reason that I give a large background to the citations of Cyril of Jerusalem. He is speaking of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit and in the midst of his other citations from Daniel, he refers to the Deuterocanonical portion of it as proof of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. He uses the particular term "It is written" before he quotes Daniel 13, a Deuterocanonical book. St. Cyril thus unambiguously refers to this passage as Scripture. He next refers to Daniel 13:45, (or Susanna 45) which is in the Catholic Old Testament. He brings proof of the doctrine from the Old Testament, and thus uses the Deuterocanonical portion of Daniel as proof of doctrine. This is one of the ‘many’ texts that he uses in the Old Testament. He doesn’t say, ‘well, this passage is of less authority than the other ones.’ He also quotes from the portion of Daniel that Protestants accepts ane makes absolutely no distinction in authority between those portions of Daniel.
2. The Divine Nature then it is impossible to see with eyes of flesh: but from the works, which are Divine, it is possible to attain to some conception of His power, according to Solomon, who says, "For by the greatness and beauty of the creatures proportionally the Maker of them is seen" (Wis 13:5). He said not that from the creatures the Maker is seen, but added proportionably. For God appears the greater to every man in proportion as he has grasped a larger survey of the creatures: and when his heart is uplifted by that larger survey, he gains withal a greater conception of God. 3. Wouldest thou learn that to comprehend the nature of God is impossible? The Three Children in the furnace of fire, as they hymn the praises of God, say "Blessed art thou that beholdest the depths, and sittest upon the Cherubim" (Song of the Three Children, 32, or in Daniel 3, between verses 23 and 24, there are 68 verses, of which this is verse 32. This is part of the Deuterocanonical portion). Tell me what is the nature of the Cherubim, and then look upon Him who sitteth upon them. And yet Ezekiel the Prophet even made a description of them, as far as was possible, saying that every one has four faces, one of a man, another of a lion, another of an eagle, and another of a calf; and that each one had six wings (Ezek. 1:6-11), and they had eyes on all sides; and that under each one was a wheel of four sides. Nevertheless though the Prophet makes the explanation, we cannot yet understand it even as we read. But if we cannot understand the throne, which he has described, how shall we be able to comprehend Him who sitteth thereon, the Invisible and Ineffable God? To scrutinize then the nature of God is impossible: but it is in our power to send up praises of His glory for His works that are seen. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, NPNF2, Lecture IX:2-3, Volume 7, p. 51.
Here, St. Cyril of Jerusalem is out to prove the power of God. He points to both the Book of Wisdom and the Deuterocanonical portion of Daniel as proof of his power. He uses those passages to prove the veracity of the Creed where it says: "We believe in one God, the Father, Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, and of all things visible and invisible;". He uses this very text to, as St. Cyril says "to comprehend the nature of God." He matter of factly intersperses the use of Ezekiel with the Song of the Children (as found in the Deuterocanonical portion of Daniel 3) and the Wisdom of Solomon as proof for doctrine. Thus, he treats these passages just as the rest of Scripture.
Learn then thine own weakness; learn from this instance the mightiness of God: for He hath numbered the drops of rain [Job 36:27], which have been poured down on all the earth, not only now but in all time. The sun is a work of God, which, great though it be, is but a spot in comparison with the whole heaven; first gaze steadfastly upon the sun, and then curiously scan the Lord of the sun. Seek not the things that are too deep for thee, neither search out the things that are above thy strength: what is commanded thee, think thereupon [Sir. 3:21-22]. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Lecture VI:4, Volume 7, p. 34.
Right after quoting the prophet Job, he tells his readers what to focus on. He is so sure of the reliability of the Scriptural message of Sirach, that he just repeats Sirach’s message to his readers. He is sure of the message being Scripture, so just the repetition of Sirach’s message suffices to instruct.
Hear the Prophet saying, 'This is our God, none other shall be accounted of in comparison with Him. He hath found out every way of knowledge, and given it to Jacob His servant, and to Israel His beloved. Afterwards He[she] was seen on earth, and conversed among men' [Baruch 3:35-37]. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 9:15(A.D. 350),in NPNF2, VII:68
Just as St. Athanasius saw the author of the Deuterocanonical book of Wisdom as a prophet, St. Cyril also sees Baruch as a prophet. Thus, this is clearly Scripture in St. Cyril's eyes.
Clearly St. Cyril, though denying the Deuterocanonicals ‘canonical’ status, did not deny them Scriptural status. He saw prophets writing them, and used them to teach doctrine. He uses the qualifying phrase "It is written", which is only used of Scripture, to the Deuterocanonicals. Although these books are not read in the Liturgy, he not only reads from these books in general, but uses these books as teaching tools from Scripture that those he is instructing also assume these book’s Scriptural status.
Here St. Hilary gives us the list of the Old Testament:
[T]he Old Testament is reckoned as consisting of twenty-two books...so that of Moses there be five books...with the Lamentations and the Letter [Baruch 6-Epistle of Jeremiah], and Daniel...bringing the number of the books to twenty-two. It is to be noted also that by adding to these Tobias and Judith, there are twenty-four books, corresponding to the number of letters used by the Greeks." Hilary of Poitiers, Prologue to the Psalms,15 (A.D. 365), in JUR, 1:383
Here in St. Hilary’s list of the Old Testament, he includes in his list the books of Tobit and Judith. True, he does not give a list of all the Deuterocanonical books, but he gives us an indication that his list of Old Testament books is not limited to the Hebrew Scriptures.
They say that the Father has prescience of all things, as the blessed Susanna says, 'O eternal God, that knowest secrets, and knowest all things before they be' [Daniel 13:42-Susanna]" Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, 4:8 (A.D. 359), in NPNF2, IX:73.
He calls Susanna "Blessed." He uses her saying to prove that the Father has prescience of all things. Thus, he is proving doctrine from Susanna. He uses Susanna to prove God’s Omniscience, a foundational doctrine. It is thus accorded Scriptural status.
As you have listened already to Moses and Isaiah, so listen now to Jeremiah inculcating the same truth as they:--'This is our God, and there shall be none other likened unto Him, Who hath found out all the way of knowledge, and hath given it unto Jacob His servant and to Israel His beloved. Afterward did He shew Himself upon earth and dwelt among men.' [Baruch 3:36-38] Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, 4:42 (A.D. 359), in NPNF2, IX:84
Notice how St. Hilary begins the passage. He already describes that his listeners have already heard Moses and Isaiah. In the same way that Moses and Isaiah speak, so does Jeremiah. What book is St. Hilary referring to? Jeremiah speaks through Baruch in the same manner as he speaks through the book "Jeremiah", but also Moses and the prophet Isaiah. Baruch is of Scriptural status, according to St. Hilary.
Such suggestions are inconsistent with the clear sense of Scripture For all things, as the Prophet says [ref 2 Maccabees 7:28], were made out of nothing; it was no transformation of existing things, but the creation into a perfect form of the non-existent." Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, 4:16 (A.D. 359), in NPNF2, IX:76
What is the clear sense of Scripture? What Maccabees says is clear Scripture and is the word of a Prophet, according to St. Hilary. It proves that God made everything out of nothing. This very important doctrine, according to St. Hilary, is proved through the Prophet who writes Maccabees, which he identifies as Scripture. Thus not only does St. Hilary affirm Prophet Status for a Deuterocanonical book, but Scriptural status.
Then, while the devout soul was baffled and astray through its own feebleness, it caught from the prophet's voice this scale of comparison for God, admirably expressed, 'By the greatness of His works and the beauty of the things that He hath made the Creator of worlds is rightly discerned' [Wisdom 13:5]." Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, 1:7 (A.D. 359), in NPNF2, IX:42
The book of Wisdom, another Deuterocanonical book, is said to be written by a prophet, according to St. Hilary. The Prophet who writes in Wisdom proves the greatness of God. Again, Wisdom is clearly Scripture.
Thus, we see that St. Hilary allude to three prophets in the Deuterocanonicals as authors of Baruch, Maccabees and Wisdom. He explicitly calls these books Scripture. He uses these books to teach Doctrine. Another supposed anti-Deuterocanonical Father actually strongly affirms these book’s Scriptural status.
Mr. Webster in his piece on the canon also claimed that St. Basil denied the Deuterocanonical’s canonical status. I emailed him asking for a specific citation. He did not provide a book in which St. Basil made this statement, but did write that St. Basil did make such a statement that can be found at Pholocalia, chapter 3. I could not verify that. However, since his other citations of the Fathers did have them leave out the Deuterocanonicals when they provided the ‘canon’, I presume that there is such a statement made by St. Basil. However, I do not have the contents of this specific citation. Nonetheless, since St. Basil is used by Webster to be another Father that supposedly rejected the Deuterocanonicals, I decided to look into him as well. How is he in practice? One thing for sure: I found nothing from him (or any Father) denying the inspiration of the Deuterocanonical books. In the index of NPNF2, volume 8, Basil the Great refers to the Deuterocanonicals 21 times. Here are some samples:
"What Scripture says is very true, 'As for a fool he changeth as the moon.' [Sirach 27:11] Basil, Hexaemeron, 6:10 (A.D. 370), in NPNF2, VIII:88
St. Basil quotes from Sirach and directly calls it Scripture. Nothing need be commented on: This Deuterocanonical book is Scripture.
Standing and sitting, I apprehend, indicate the fixity and entire stability of the nature, as Baruch, when he wishes to exhibit the immutability and immobility of the Divine mode of existence, says, 'For thou sittest for ever and we perish utterly.' [Baruch 3:3] Basil, On the Holy Spirit, 6:15 (A.D. 375), in NPNF2, VIII:10
Here he goes to Baruch who proves the immutability of God. This is clearly an important doctrine being established. The context is of the Holy Spirit and his immutability. Thus, Basil has no qualms in seeing Baruch as Scriptural proof for the immutability of God.
But the Spirit is believed to have been operating at the same time in Habakkuk and in Daniel at Babylon, [ref Daniel 14:35-Bel & the Dragon] and to have been at the prison with Jeremiah,[ref Jer 20:2] and with Ezekiel at the Chebar. [ref Ez 1:1] Basil, On the Holy Spirit, 23:54 (A.D. 375), in NPNF2, VIII:35
Here Baruch shows how the Holy Spirit operated with Habakkuk in the Deuterocanonical portion of Scripture, along with other Scriptures. St. Basil’s reference to Habakkuk in the Deuterocanonical portion of Scripture is spoken of matter of factly and in the same breath of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Absolutely no differentiation at all between the Scriptures.
Furthermore if he calls the Holy Ghost a creature he describes His nature as limited. How then can the two following passages stand? "The Spirit of the Lord filleth the world;" [Wisdom 1:7] and "Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? "[Psalm 139:7] But he does not, it would seem, confess Him to be simple in nature; for he describes Him as one in number. And, as I have already said, everything that is one in number is not simple. And if the Holy Spirit is not simple, He consists of essence and sanctification, and is therefore composite. Basil, Lettter VIII, 10 (A.D. 375), in NPNF2, VIII:121
Here, St. Basil refers to the Holy Spirit’s omnipotence. This very important doctrine of God is proven by quoting not only the Psalm, but also the Book of Wisdom. He calls it a Scriptural ‘passage.’ Thus, doctrine again is established through the Deuterocanonicals by St. Basil.
For what extent of time is needed by Him who "upholds all things by the word of His power", (Heb. 1:3) and works not by bodily agency, nor requires the help of hands to form and fashion, but holds in obedient following and unforced consent the nature of all things that are? So as Judith says, "Thou hast thought, and what things thou didst determine were ready at hand." (Judith 9:5-6) Basil, On the Holy Spirit, 8, 19 (A.D. 375), in NPNF2, VIII:13
St. Basil uses Judith to demonstrate how God uses people to uphold all things by his power. Again, the Deuterocanonical is used interchangeably with other Scriptures to prove doctrine.
The inner man consists of nothing but contemplation. The kingdom of the heavens, then, must be contemplation. Now we behold their shadows as in a glass; hereafter, set free from this earthly body, clad in the incorruptible and the immortal, we shall behold their archetypes, we shall see them, that is, if we have steered our own life's course aright, and if we have heeded the right faith, for otherwise none shall see the Lord. For, it is said, into a malicious soul Wisdom shall not enter, nor dwell in the body that is subject unto sin [Wisdom 1:4]. Basil, Lettter VIII, 12 (A.D. 375), in NPNF2, VIII:122
St. Basil here shows the importance of holiness to see God. The phrase, "It is said", is used in a way very similarly to "It is written", a clear reference to Scripture, and he refers to the book of Wisdom. He uses Wisdom to prove that in order to see God, we must free ourselves from earthly desires by putting on that which comes from above and rightly heed the faith.
St. Gregory Nazianzen here gives us his list of books for the canon:
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 Josue and Judges. Ruth is eight. Ninth and Tenth the Acts of Kings and Paralipomenon. Last you have Esdras. The poetic books are five: Job being first, Then David, and three of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Canticle and Proverbs. And five prophetic, likewise inspired. There are the twelve written in one book: Osee and Amos, and Micheas the third; Then Joel, and Jonas, Abdias. And Nahum, and Habacuc, and Sophonias, Aggeus, and Zacharias, Malachias. All these are one. The second is Isaias. Then the book called Jeremias, of the New-born Babe. Then Ezechiel, and Daniel’s gift. I reckon, therefore, twenty-two old books, Corresponding to the number of the Hebrew letters. St. Gregory of Nazianzen, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota, 1979, Poems, Book 1, Section 1, 12, Vol. 2, p. 42.
His canon excludes all of the Deuterocanonicals. His list of the Old Testament canon is identical to the books of Athanasius. Just as Athanasius excluded the book of Esther, he excludes the book of Esther as well. Thus, Esther is non-canonical as well as the Deuterocanonical books. But in no way was this list meant to be an exclusive list of the Scriptures. According to the Schaff index of references, we see that he quotes and refers to each of the Deuterocanonical books in a similar way as he treats the rest of Scripture except 1st Maccabees, (He does refer to 2nd Maccabees) which he does not quote or refer to. BTW, St. Gregory also gives us a list of New Testament books, which happens to exclude the book of Revelation. However, as noted with all the other Fathers, he does not write that "these are the only books that are inspired", or ‘there are no other books that are Scripture". In the Schaff index, there are absolutely no quotations or references to the book of Esther. However, that does not mean that the book of Esther is not Scripture, just as his lack of reference to 1st Maccabees does not indicate that as well. St. Gregory in the index of Schaff’s Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, in fact refers to Deuterocanonical books 27 times. This include the following passages:
Here am I, my pastors and fellow-pastors, here am I, thou holy flock, worthy of Christ, the Chief Shepherd,(1 Pet 5:4) here am I, my father, utterly vanquished, and your subject according to the laws of Christ rather than according to those of the land: here is my obedience, reward it with your blessing. Lead me with your prayers, guide me with your words, establish me with your spirit. "The blessing of the father establisheth the houses of children," (Sirach 3:9) and would that both I and this spiritual house may be established, the house which I have longed for, which I pray may be my rest for ever, (Psalm 132:13,14) when I have been passed on from the church here to the church yonder, the general assembly of the firstborn, who are written in heaven (Heb. 12:23). St. Gregory Nazianzen: In Defense of His Flight to Pontus, VIII, NPNF2, Vol. 7, p. 227.
He teaches using the exact words of Sirach to teach on the need to pastor the flock. He mixes it with all kinds of other passages that are Scripture, including 1 Peter, Psalms and Hebrews with no distinction of ‘inspired’ vs. ‘uninspired.’.
Again, the same passage in Sirach is used, and he writes ‘God says’ through Sirach:
God doth not so; but saith Honour thy father and thy mother, which is the first commandment with promise; that it may be well with thee; and He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. Similarly He gave honour to good and punishment to evil. And, "The blessing of a father strengtheneth the houses of children" (Sirach 3:9), but "the curse of a mother uprooteth the foundations." (Sirach 3:1), See the equality of the legislation. There is one Maker of man and woman; one debt is owed by children to both their parents. St. Gregory Nazianzen, The Fifth Theological Oration , VI, NPNF2, Vol. 7, p. 340.
In the same place where St. Gregory refers to the Commandment of Honoring the parents, and where God says this in this Exodus passage is, the phrase "God Says" similarly, is applied to two passages in Sirach which is directly quoted from and is similarly authoritative as the passage of one of the Ten Commandments!! The legislation of Sirach thus equals the legislation of the Ten commandments. Hardly a belittling of these books but a strong affirmation of their Scriptural status.
And how shall we preserve the truth that God pervades all things and fills all, as it is written "Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord (Jer. 23:24)" and "The Spirit of the Lord filleth the world" (Wisdom 1:7) if God partly contains and partly is contained. For either He will occupy an empty Universe, and so all things will have vanished for us, with this result, that we shall have insulted God by making Him a body.... St. Gregory Nazianzen: The Second Theological Oration, VIII, NPNF2, Vol 7, p. 291.
In the same vein that St. Gregory Nazianzen refers to Jeremiah to prove that God is omnipotent, he refers to Wisdom, as that which is written, that proves the very doctrine of God’s omnipotence. The Spirit fills the world, showing his omnipotence. He uses the term ‘It is written’ to refer to both the Jeremiah passage and the Wisdom passage as both Scriptures, that both prove this very important doctrine.
After speaking of the Passover, and how the Lamb was slain, he speaks of the Scriptural account of the plagues in Egypt. St. Gregory Nazienzen writes:
Then the last and gravest plague upon the persecutors, truly worthy of the night; and Egypt mourns the firstborn of her own reasonings and actions which are also called in the Scripture the "Seed of the Chaldeans" (Judith 5:6) removed, and the children of Babylon dashed against the rocks and destroyed; (Psalm 138:9). and the whole air is full of the cry and clamour of the Egyptians. St. Gregory Nazianzen: The Second Oration on Easter, XV, NPNF2, p. 428.
He specifically refers to the passage in Judith as Scripture. He says "In the Scripture" with the quotation from Judith. St. Gregory speaks for himself that the book is Scripture. He interchangeably goes from Scripture to Scripture in his treatment of passages with no distinction of one being of less inspiration.
How did God sustain her? Not by raining down manna, as for Israel of old (Ex. 16:14), or opening the rock, in order to sustain to give drink to His thirsting people (Ex. 18:6) or feasting her by means of ravens, as Elijah 1 King 17:6), or feeding her by a prophet carried through the air, as He did to Daniel when a-hungered in the den (Daniel 14:33(Bel and the Dragon, V:33). St. Gregory Nazianzen: On the Death of the Father, 30, NPNF2, Vol. 7, p. 265.
Here St. Gregory shows how God sustains His people. He treats in the same way the passages about God providing for Israel of his provision of manna to provide for his people as prophet Habbakuk getting carried through the air in Daniel 14, or Bel and the Dragon, only found in the Catholic Scriptures. No distinction in authority between Exodus and this Deuterocanonical passage.
And, I will give the kingdom to one who is good above Thee.(1 Sam. 15:28) ... Words of God, speaking to Saul about David. Or again, Do good, O Lord, unto the good(Psalm 125:4) ... and all other like expressions concerning those of us who are praised, upon whom it is a kind of effluence from the Supreme Good, and has come to them in a secondary degree. It will be best of all if we can persuade you of this. But if not, what will you say to the suggestion on the other side, that on your hypothesis the Son has been called the only God. In what passage? Why, in this:--This is your God; no other shall be accounted of in comparison with Him, and a little further on, after this did He shew Himself upon earth, and conversed with men.(Baruch 3:35,37) St. Gregory Nazianzen: The Fourth Theological Oration, XIII, NPNF2, p. 314.
In this passage St. Gregory speaks of the Word of God in both the Psalm and 1st Samuel. What Scriptural passage does he prove that the Son of God is the Only God? He refers to Baruch in two passages to prove that the Son is called God. If that is not establishing and confirming doctrine through the Deuterocanonicals I don’t know what does.
Thus, we have another ‘anti-Deuterocanonical’ Father citing a Deuterocanical book as Scripture. St. Gregory applies the tell-tale sign of Scripture, ‘It is written’ to a Deuterocanonical book. He says ‘God says’ through a Deuterocanonical book. He uses these books to teach fundamental doctrines on the essence of God. St. Gregory on the contrary affirms the Scriptural status of the Deuterocanonical books.
Rufinus gives us a list of Old Testament books that does seem to exclude the Deuterocanonicals.
But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not 'Canonical' but 'Ecclesiastical:' that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees. In the New Testament the little book which is called the Book of the Pastor of Hermas (and that) which is called the Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter; all of which they would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they have named 'Apocrypha.' These they would not have read in the Churches. These are the traditions which the Fathers have handed down to us, which, as I said, I have thought it opportune to set forth in this place, for the instruction of those who are being taught the first elements of the Church and of the Faith, that they may know from what fountains of the Word of God their draughts must be taken" (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, NPNF2, Vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), Rufinus, Commentary on the Apostles' Creed 36, p. 557."And therefore it seems proper in this place to enumerate, as we have learnt from the tradition of the Fathers, the books of the New and of the Old Testament, which according to the tradition of our forefathers, are believed to have been inspired by the Holy Ghost, and have handed down to the churches of Christ. Of the Old Testament, therefore, first of all there have been handed down five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; then Jesus Nave, (Joshua the son of Nun), the Book of Judges together with Ruth; then four books of Kings (Reigns), which the Hebrews reckon two; the book of Omissions, which is entitled the Book of Days (Chronicles), and two books of Ezra (Ezra and Nehemiah), which the Hebrews reckon one, and Esther; of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; moreover of the twelve minor Prophets, one book; Job also and the Psalms of David, each one book. Solomon gave three books to the Churches, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles. These comprise the books of the Old Testament.....
Here, Rufinus terms these books ‘non-canonical’. However, in a little different fashion, he says that these books are read in the Churches. That is different from how St. Athanasius and St. Cyril approached these books, who termed them not only non-canonical, but also not to be read in the Churches. And Rufinus says that they are not used to confirm doctrine. Now, Rufinus is not a heavily indexed writer in the NPNF edition, in comparison to others already noted. So the documentation for him on the Deuterocanonical books, is less than others I have already noted. However, it must be noted that 23 of the 39 books of the Old Testament Protestant canon, Rufinus does not refer to or quote as well. Nonetheless, in the two quotations of the Deuterocanonicals available, he treats them as Scripture.
That Book of Wisdom also which is read to us as the work of Solomon says: "Into a malicious soul wisdom shall not enter, nor dwell in the body that is subject to sin.(Wisdom 1:4-5) For the Holy Spirit of discipline will flee deceit and remove from thoughts which are without understanding.
Rufinus matter of factly quotes the book in teaching morals. He uses Wisdom to teach discipline.
For it is evident that the Son, not the Father, became incarnate and was born in the flesh, and that from that nativity in the flesh the Son became "visible and passible." Yet so far as regards that immortal substance of the Godhead, which He possesses, and which is one and the same with that of the Father, we must believe that neither the Father, nor the Son, nor the Holy Ghost is "visible or passible." But the Son, in that He condescended to assume flesh, was both seen and also suffered in the flesh. Which also the Prophet foretold when he said, 'This is our God: no other shall be accounted of in comparison of Him. He hath found out all the way of knowledge, and hath given it unto Jacob His servant and to Israel His beloved. Afterward He shewed Himself upon the earth, and conversed with men.' [Baruch 3:36-38]" Rufinus of Aquileia, The Apostles Creed, 37-38 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, III:545
We should notice that in the very book, The Apostles Creed, where Rufinus had given a canon which supposedly rejected the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture, and is not used to confirm doctrine, he quotes from Baruch as Scripture to confirm doctrine!!! I give the background to the quotation of Baruch for a purpose. The background is the speaking of the incarnation of Jesus. He speaks of ‘the immortal substance’ of the Godhead. Baruch, a Deuterocanonical book is quoted as written by a prophet, and is thus inspired. Remember Rhodes objection that the reason why the Deuterocanonicals are not Scripture because they are not prophetic? Well, Rufinus, who supposedly rejected the Deuterocanonicals calls Baruch a prophet, as we have seen other Fathers who supposedly rejected the Deuterocanonicals do the same thing. Rufinus is yet another Father who thus verifies he is speaking of Scripture.
Between 578 and 595 AD, in "The Moral Teaching", St. Gregory wrote the following on what is ‘canonical’. He wrote this, or at least began this work (with no notes dividing the time he was in Rome from the time from Constantinople), according to the notes of Rev. James Barmby, in NPNF2, Vol. 12, Prolegomena p. XV, from Constantinople (prior to assuming the role of Pope). Thus, he is speaking of the canon from Constantinople where he was located. The following says that 1st Maccabees is not in ‘the canon.’ Notice he does not say that 1st Maccabees is ‘uninspired’ or not Scripture.
With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed" (1 Macc. 6.46). (Joseph Gildea, Gregory the Great, A Synthesis of Moralia in Job (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 1991, Part 1, Book 3, p. 126.)
Remember, just because he is terming it non-canonical does not mean it is not Scripture. Again, he began this work in 578 and ended in 595. He began being Pope only in 590 AD and reigned to 601 AD. This book is divided into two parts, with each one having six books. This book is only part one, and only book three. Thus, this passage is done in the first quarter of his whole work, well before he was Pope, where he is in Constantinople, where Maccabees is not part of the canon. As we have seen with other Fathers who did not put these books in their canon, he still refers to these books as Scripture. Notice, even here, while he is in Constantinople, he does not term it Unscriptural, or uninspired. In Constantinople at the time, he most likely was only speaking of the canon in that area, which only consists of what is read in the Liturgy. The canon that he is speaking of is not the full extent of Scripture, as we saw with St. Athanasius and the other Fathers. Now, to go on to what he thought of the Deuterocanonical books in the very work where the above passage is cited. Did he consider the Deuterocanonical books as Unscriptural, which Protestants who make much hay about the reference to 2nd Maccabees as ‘uncanonical’, assume? Let us check this very work. The following quotes, not found in the Schaff NPNF2 edition, volume 12, which has some of St. Gregory the Great's writings. I take these quotes from Joseph Gildea, St. Gregory the Great, A Synthesis of Moralia in Job (New York: Peter Lang Publishing) 1991. I will put the book, part and page number as taken from the book:
Pride is of course the root of all evil, of which it is said, as Scripture bears witness: Pride is the beginning of all sin. (Sirach 10:26) Moreover; proliferating from this poisonous root as its first offspring are seven capital sins: vainglory, envy, anger malancholy, avarice, gluttony, lust. For because he grieved that we were held in bondage by these seven derivatives of pride, on that account our Redeemer, full of the spirit of sevenfold grace, joined spiritual battle for our liberation. St. Gregory the Great, A Synthesis of Moralia in Job, Part 1, Book 3, p. 85.
The former, it is said by Holy Scripture: Do not become like the horse and the mule which have no understanding (Psalm 31:9). The proud effort of the latter is blamed when it is said: Seek not the things that are too high for thee, and search not into things above thy ability (Sirach 3:22). To the former it is said: Mortify your members which are upon the earth: fornication, uncleanness, lust, eveil consupiscence (Col. 3:5), to the latter it is said: Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy and vain deceipt (Col. 2:8) St. Gregory the Great, A Synthesis of Moralia in Job, Book 1, Part 3, 21, p. 116
Here is the same book and same part (Book 1, Part 3) as the mentioned quote which some Protestants will use to say that St. Gregory denies the Scriptural status of Maccabees. However, in the very same part of the same book, St. Gregory calls Sirach Scripture. Sirach is ‘Scripture bearing witness.’ Maccabees is in the very same category of books as Sirach on every list known to us. Not only does Scripture bear witness, but he affirms this even more when he teaches on morals, that Sirach is termed 'Holy Scripture' in the very same category as Psalms and Colossians. These two passages in and of themselves give further evidence that St. Gregory clearly shows that when he speaks of uncanonical, that does not mean that the book is ‘unscriptural.’ On the contrary, St. Gregory positively affirms Sirach, the very same category of books from which Maccabees comes, as Scripture.
Hence it is that with difficulty is eternal rest attained by the powerful who are surrounded by numberless hosts of lieges and bound with the tight coils of a great variety of concerns. In this regard Scripture says A most severe judgment shall be for them that bear rule. (Wisdom 12:6) Hence Truth says in the Gospel: Unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required (Luke 12:48). It rarely happens that those who possess gold strive for eternal rest, inasmuch as Truth himself says: How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God (Mt. 19:25). St. Gregory the Great, A Synthesis of Moralia in Job, Part 1, Book 4, 3, p. 133.
Here we have St. Gregory term in the immediate book and part that is right after his denying the canonicity of a Deuterocanonical book (while at the same time affirming their Scriptural status), at the same time declare affirmatively, the Book of Wisdom, which is in the very category of books as Maccabees, as ‘Scripture says.’ Thus, we have yet another Deuterocanonical book, the book of Wisdom, in the immediate vicinity of the very same part of this book of Morals where Protestants quote to claim that Pope Gregory deny the inspiration of the Deuterocanonicals, termed yet again as Scripture.
I quote here again in the same book and part of the book (Book 1, Part 3) from St. Gregory:
He is king over all the children of pride (Job 41:25). It is written: Pride is the beginning of all sin ( Sirach 10:15).
St. Gregory the Great, A Synthesis of Moralia in Job, Part 1, Book 3, 2, P. 87.
In this regard it is written: By the envy of the devil, death came into the world (Wisdom 2:24). For when the decay of envy has corrupted the vanquished heart, exterior indications show how greatly mad impulses provoked the mind. St. Gregory the Great, A Synthesis of Moralia in Job Part 1, Book 3, 7, p. 96.
Anger indeed killeth the foolish : and envy slayeth the little one (Job 5:2 ). Since it is written: But thou, Lord, judgest with tranquility (Wisdom 12:18), we must particularly take note that as often as we restrain our turbulent emotions by the virtue of mildness, we are trying to return to the likeness of our Creator. St. Gregory the Great, A Synthesis of Moralia in Job Part 1, Book 3, 9, p. 98.
By anger life is lost although wisdom may seem to be retained, as it is written: anger destroyeth even the wise (Sirach 32:26), for indeed the confused mind is not effective even if it is able to judge anything wisely. By anger righteousness is abandoned, as it is written: The anger of man worketh not the justice of God (Jer. 9:14). St. Gregory the Great, A Synthesis of Moralia in Job Part 1, Book 3, 9, p. 98.
We have Pope St. Gregory, in the very same Part and book of his work on the book of Morals, that we have focused on (where he denies the canonicity of a Deuterocanonical book) affirm the Scriptural Status of these books an additional four times, where the quotations of these books are preceded by the phrase It is written. As we have seen that phrase is an even more unmistakeable reference to these books as Scripture.
For hence it is said by Solomon: If a man live many years , and have rejoiced in them all, he must remmeber the darksome time, and the many days: which, when they shall come, the things past shall be accused of vanity (Eccl. 11:8). Hence again it is written: In all thy works, remember thy last end, and thou shalt never sin (Sirach 7:40). St. Gregory the Great, A Synthesis of Moralia in Job, Part 1, Book 2, 32, p. 82.
For now any sinner casts away the fear of God and yet lives, blasphemes and yet prospers, because the merciful Creator in seeing does not wish to punish the one whom he wishes to correct by waiting of him as it is written: Thou overlookest the sins of men for the sake of repentance (Wisdom 11:24). But when the sinner is looked upon hereafter, he shall be no more, because when the strict judge precisely examines his deserts, the guilty one is not equal to the torments. St. Gregory the Great, A Synthesis of Moralia in Job, Part 2, Book 1, 11, p. 204.
Observe how through his angels he comes down to establish misdeeds and immediately strikes the evildoers. And he who is patient, who is mild, of whom it is written: But thou, Lord, judgest with tranquility, of whom (Wisdom 12:18) it again is written: The Lord is a patient rewarder (Sirach 5:4), Gregory the Great, A Synthesis of Moralia in Job, Part 2, Book 4, 15, p. 289
Three more times in the book of Morals we see the Scriptural identifying phrase It is written.
In this one book of Morals, St. Gregory refers to the Deuterocanonical books approximately 37-40 times in the same way as other Scriptures. He takes for granted their Scriptural status. Not one quote did I see where St. Gregory treat them as anything but Scripture. This includes many more times where he used the Scripture identifying phrase It is written before giving the quote, but for space purposes I have not given further quotes. The evidence that St. Gregory provides is overwhelming: The Deuterocanonical books are Scripture and any attempt to read one quote which denies the ‘canonical status’ of the Deuterocanonical book, and go with that as denying Scriptural status, is absolutely false. These books are undoubtedly Scripture and any attempt to use Pope St. Gregory ag