The Deuterocanon

Contents

Part 1: History Of The Deuterocanon

The Jewish Old Testament Canon 3
The Qumran Community And The Deuterocanon 6
Philo And The Deuterocanon 6
Jewish Authority Over The Canon 7
Early Church Use And The First Rejection Of The Deuterocanon 9
The Blood Of Abel Argument 16

Part 2: The Deuterocanon In The Protocanon

Protocanonical References To The Deuterocanon 24

Maccabees In The Protocanon 25
Messianic Prophecy In Wisdom 29

Part 3: The Cessation Of Prophecy

Introduction 31
Protocanonical Arguments For Cessation Of Prophecy 32
Protocanonical Arguments Against Cessation Of Prophecy 34
Deuterocanonical Arguments For Cessation Of Prophecy 35
Deuterocanonical Arguments Against Cessation Of Prophecy 36
Early Church Evidence 38
1st And 2nd Century Jewish Evidence 40
Rabbinic Evidence 43
Conclusion 47

Part 4: Lists Containing Books

Josephus (37 - 100 AD) 48

Melito of Sardis (100s - 180 AD) 53
Julius Africanus (160 - 240 AD) 55
Origen (184 - 253 AD) 56

1
Athanasius (293 - 373 AD) 58
Cyril of Jerusalem (313 - 386 AD) 62
Hilary of Poitiers (315 - 368 AD) 63
Gregory of Nazianzus (329 - 390 AD) 64
Amphilochius of Iconium (339-340 - 394 AD) 66
Epiphanius of Salamis (310 - 403 AD) 67
Jerome (342-347 - 420 AD) 69
Rufinus of Aquileia (344-345 - 411 AD) 72
Augustine of Hippo (354 - 430 AD) 75
Other Lists 78
The Reformers’ Use Of The Deuterocanon 79

Part 5: Attestation To The Deuterocanon As Scripture

Introduction 81
Wisdom of Solomon 81
Baruch 102
Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) 106
1st And 2nd Maccabees 113
Judith 117
Tobit 119
Deutero Daniel 124

Acknowledgements 127

2
 Part 1: History Of The Deuterocanon

The Jewish Old Testament Canon

Today, many people think the Septuagint is an early ‘Christian’ translation of the Old Testament
but this is not true. It was a translation authorized by the Jews for Jews into the Greek language.
It became the de facto Old Testament Bible that Jews used when Greek became the lingua
franca of the Mediterranean basin following the time of Alexander the Great. When Jesus and
the New Testament writers quoted and referenced the Septuagint, they were simply following
the norm of what was authoritative. After all, why would they quote from the Septuagint if the
Septuagint was widely rejected by their audience at the time? Timothy Michael Law, the co-
editor of the Oxford Handbook of the Septuagint, writes: “The Deuterocanonical books were
included in the Septuagint… It would be a mistake to imagine that they had never been read as
divine Scripture.”

The New Testament has 77 instances where it favours the Septuagint over the Masoretic Text
whereas it has only 6 where the Masoretic Text is favoured. Joseph Dodson, the associate
Professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary, says: “Scholars for at least three centuries
have found value in comparing the Deuterocanonical book of Wisdom and Romans.” Protestant
New Testament scholar David A. deSilva writes: “New Testament authors weave phrases and
recreate lines of arguments from apocryphal books into their new texts. They also allude to
events and stories contained in these texts. The word ‘paraphrase’ frequently provides
adequate description of the relationship.”

New findings at the time included fragments of a manuscript in the ‘Cave of Horror’ at Nahal
Hehal which belongs to the Greek recension of the 12 Minor Prophets (Stendahl 1954:177;
Cross 1995:47-148; and Lewis 1989). A large cache of Aramaic and Greek documents of the
Bar Kokhba era were purchased from tribesmen (Cross 1995:48). All the legible manuscripts
found in Cave 7 at Qumran are in Greek, one being the Letter of Jeremy (VanderKam 1994:36).
Among the horde of manuscript fragments in Cave 4 were leather fragments of two Septuagint
manuscripts, one of Leviticus the other of Numbers (Cross 1995:34, n. 3).

So the evidence of the use of Greek among the Jews in the Holy Land shows that the
Septuagint had circulated in the Holy Land for a long time by the first century AD and the Holy
Land Jews were quite Hellenized by the 1st century AD, particularly Jerusalem. The Jews in the
Holy Land can be viewed as bilingual, Aramaic and Greek speakers, so the argument of
Christians adopting a Hellenized Alexandrian canon is false.

It has been demonstrated that multiple of the Deuterocanonical books were originally written in
Hebrew, which makes the likely origin in the Holy Land, not Alexandria.

The Kaige Recension is a copy of the Septuagint dated to the end of first century BC, produced
by the Pharisees then edited to more closely resemble the Hebrew manuscripts. It included

3
Baruch and Deutero Daniel in its contents. They revised the Greek Bible to sync with the
protorabbinic text. The Kaige Recension would not have included Baruch and Deutero Daniel if
the Pharisaic canon was fixed and excluded these texts from its canon. So even by the late 1st
century BC, there was not an authoritative canonical list agreed upon even among the
Pharisees. The Kaige Recension completely destroys the idea that the Pharisees held to the
Protestant canon and the idea of a closed rabbinic canon.

Other sects like the Sadducees rejected all the Scriptures except the Torah, the Qumran
community rejected Esther but accepted Tobit, Sirach, Enoch and some of their own writings,
while the Essenes accepted 2 Deuterocanonical books including many other writings. Some
people claim the Essenes had a problem with Esther because they used the Solar calendar
which caused the holyday of Purim to fall on a Sabbath but this theory has been proven wrong
in an archeological discovery showing that they did celebrate Purim. The Pharisees in the 1st
century were divided between the 2 schools of Hillel and Shammai and we aren’t sure if they
agreed on the same canon. The undefined canon for the Jews can even be seen in the
Babylonian Talmud. Tractate Bava Kamma 92b quotes Sirach 12:15 as belonging to the division
of the writings of the Old Testament: “And it is triplicated in the Writings, as it is written: All fowl
will live with its kind, and men with those like him (Book of Ben Sira 13:17).”
(https://www.sefaria.org/Bava_Kamma.92b.13?ven=William_Davidson_Edition_-
_English&vhe=Wikisource_Talmud_Bavli&lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en) Even among the rabbis
of the 1st century, there are disputes over Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther and other similar
books in the Old Testament canon.

There are also numerous other examples of Jewish sources citing Deuterocanonical books as
Scripture. Sirach is referred to elsewhere as Scripture numerous times:

Chagigah 13a.2: “The Gemara comments: Until here, you have permission to speak; from this
point forward you do not have permission to speak, as it is written in the book of Ben Sira:
Seek not things concealed from you, nor search those hidden from you. Reflect on that which is
permitted to you; you have no business with secret matters.”
(https://www.sefaria.org/Chagigah.13a.2?ven=William_Davidson_Edition_-
_English&vhe=William_Davidson_Edition_-
_Vocalized_Aramaic&lang=bi&with=About&lang2=en)

Bava Batra 98b.6: “Support for this is as it is written in the book of Ben Sira: I have weighed
everything in the pan of a balance scale and I have not found anything inferior to bran; but
inferior to bran is a son-in-law who lives in his father-in-law’s house; and inferior to a son-in-law
is a guest who brings in a guest; and inferior to a guest is one who answers a matter before he
listens.” (https://www.sefaria.org/Bava_Batra.98b?ven=William_Davidson_Edition_-
_English&vhe=William_Davidson_Edition_-_Vocalized_Aramaic&lang=bi)

Disputes concerning Song of Songs continued into the 2nd century. In addition to disputes
among the rabbis concerning the sacredness of this book, there appears to also have been
abuse. The rabbinic text Sanhedrin 101a corrects those who use the Song of Songs in a

4
profane manner: “He who recites a verse from the Song of Songs and treats it as a [secular] air,
and one who recites a verse at a banquet table … brings evil upon the world”. Eventually, a
ruling needed to be made, seemingly by Rabbi Akiva, the head of the rabbinical school in
Jamnia sometime between 132 and 135 AD. After listing the opinions of rabbis who disputed or
affirm the Song of Songs and a few other books, Akiva made his judgment, as we read in
Mishnah Yahayim. 3:5: “Heaven forbid. No man in Israel ever contended regarding the Song of
Songs … for the whole world is not worth the day when the Song of Songs was given to Israel
… for the Song of Songs is the most sacred of all of them [the Writings]”.

Akiva’s hyperbolic statement that no man in Israel ever disputed the sacredness of the Song of
Songs was intended to state comprehensively that the Song of Songs is sacred and that is the
end of the dispute. Why did Akiva believe it was time to end the disputes? Before Akiva,
Judaism didn’t have a single official Old Testament text. Different Jews used different texts.
Many used the Septuagint, the preferred Old Testament text quoted in the New Testament, but
others used different texts and translations, much like Christians will use different English
translations and texts today. However, there became a need to unify Judaism and adopt a
single official Hebrew text that all Jews would use. This text would later be called the Masoretic
Text. This was a problem however because the Masoretic Text would never become the
standard if rabbis continued to dispute about certain books it contained, so Akiva put an end to
any rabbinical doubts. As one rabbinical text puts it, Avot R. Nathan, 1:4, puts it: “… [The] Song
of Songs [was] ‘hidden’ until the men of the Great Assembly declared [it] to be written in the
‘holy spirit’”.

Timothy H. Lim in his book The Formation of the Jewish Canon writes: “Paul belonged to a
Jewish sect that had a canon that was determined but not yet defined. We do not know the
extent of his canon. Paul’s letters were occasional and the Scriptural texts that he cited and
used were determined largely by the circumstances in which he fighting.” In his book On The
Jewish Canon, scholar Geoffrey Hahneman says: “The writings, the remaining element after the
law and the prophets, still appear undefined to New Testament writers.”

Some Protestant apologists claim the Deuterocanon isn’t legitimate because it wasn’t found in
the Targums, which are Aramaic paraphrases of the Old Testament, written between the 1st
century BC to 1st century AD which included virtually all of the Hebrew books of the bible,
including Esther, but none from the Deuterocanon originally written in Hebrew [Sirach, Tobit,
and possibly 1st Maccabees, Judith, Baruch and parts of Wisdom], despite all of them having
been written before the Targums were penned.

However, these Targums also don’t include Ezra, Nehemiah or the book of Daniel. Also, the
earliest Targum is from the 1st century and it only summarizes the Torah. Later Targums that
don’t include the Deuterocanonical books, like Targum Jonathan, date from the 3rd century and
would only reflect later Rabbinic Judaism’s rejection of the Deuterocanon, not the contents of
the Septuagint in the 1st century or what Jews and Christians accepted as Scripture at that
time. This is a good example of why we can’t use arguments from silence.

5
 The Qumran Community And The Deuterocanon

Norman Geisler and following commentators make the claim that an absence of a commentary
at Qumran means they rejected it as Scripture but this is an argument from silence and doesn’t
fit with the rest of the facts.

● There weren't fragments of all the Old Testament books discovered.

● Out of the hundreds of books found, there was the Deuterocanonicals but the claim is
only the canon is found in special parchment and script.
● The implication is commentaries are only given to Protocanonical books although
Geisler doesn’t explicitly state that.
● There are 21 results for fragments with commentary.
(https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/search#q=composition_type_pare
nt_en:'Pesher')
● Cave 1 has fragments from Micah, Zephaniah, Psalms.
● Cave 3 has a fragment from Isaiah.
● Cave 4 has fragments from Isaiah A, B, C, D, E, Hosea A, B, Micah, Nahum, Zephaniah,
Psalm A and B.
● Cave 4 also included an unidentified commentary, so it could or could not be a biblical
text, a eschatological commentary, commentaries on the periods A and B and a second
eschatological commentary, so all non biblical.
● The presence of non biblical books that aren’t Scripture proves that receiving a
commentary does not denote canon. Even if the Deuterocanon had commentaries, it
wouldn’t prove anything and they could be dismissed just as the non biblical books are
dismissed in these commentaries.
● Obviously the majority of the Protocanon is not represented by the commentaries, they
are very sparse. Only Isaiah, the Psalms and minor prophets Micah, Zephaniah, Hosea,
Nahum and Habakkuk get some commentary. Only 7 of the 39 Protocanonical books
have commentaries.
● We cannot judge which books were accepted at all by this and ironically, the fact that the
Deuterocanonical books don’t receive commentaries puts them more in line with the
majority of Protocanonical books. The sample size for commentaries is just too small.

Philo And The Deuterocanon

The claim is made that Philo didn’t accept the Deuterocanon because he never mentioned them
and it is also said that because he was from Alexandria, he would have known about some of
the Deuterocanon because they were apparently written there.

This is an argument from silence. For an argument from silence to work, you have to show that
the author is stipulating every condition, all those things and only those things that satisfy a
particular condition. Then if a thing is not stipulated, we could use it as evidence it is not part of
that condition, for example if a person says all these books and only these books are Scripture.

6
There are many conceivable reasons he may not have mentioned anything from them. He may
not have quoted because he didn’t get the opportunity or feel the need. Silence doesn’t tell us
the reason.

● Even though Philo quotes lots from the Protocanon, 2050 times in all, but 2000 of those
are from the Pentateuch, there are only 50 quotes to cover all of the prophets and
writings. Only 2.439% of his quotes come from outside the Torah, so it is actually more
surprising when he does quote from books outside the Torah.
● Despite the claim he does, Philo doesn’t quote from all the Protocanonical books.
● Philo never quotes from Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Lamentations,
Ezekiel and Daniel.
● We can reformulate the question as: “Doesn’t Philo’s silence on
Ruth/Esther/Ecclesiastes/Song or Songs/Lamentations/Ezekiel/Daniel scream for
explanation when he quoted the Old Testament so much?” Obviously not.

Jewish Authority Over The Canon

Another claim is that the Pharisees had unique authority by being in “the seat of Moses” in
Matthew 23 but it was the “Pharisees and the Scribes” and the Scribes were from varying
Jewish sects so the Pharisees aren’t unique in this regard. However, it would not matter
anyways since the Pharisees themselves did not agree on the canon of Scripture or even hold
to the Protestant canon, as proven by the Kaige Recension.

Another claim is that Ezra closed the Hebrew canon along with other learned men at a meeting
called the Great Synagogue, however the earliest evidence of this alleged event comes 600
years later, in the 2nd century after Jesus. It’s not mentioned in any book of the bible and not
even in non-biblical witnesses like Josephus or Philo. The idea of the Great Synagogue meeting
is mythical. Another popular myth is the Council of Jamnia/Jabneh in 90 AD closing the
canon, even though we have no evidence that this occurred. There is no evidence that any list
of books were drawn up at Jamnia. The debates over the rest of the canon continued long after
the first century, yet again proving that there was no fixed or closed canon.

One of the earliest pieces of evidence for the Deuterocanon ironically comes from a person
who, despite his hostility toward Christianity, nevertheless attests to a few truths of the budding
faith, including the acceptance of the Deuterocanon. After the First Jewish Revolt (66 - 73 AD),
the rabbinical school in Jamnia became the center for Jewish religious and political thought. The
destruction of the Jerusalem Temple during the First Revolt left Judaism in a precarious
position, since it was impossible for the Jews to follow all the cultic requirements of the Old
Testament ceremonial law without the presence of the Temple. Two paths laid before the
nation. They could either stage a second revolt and rebuild the Temple or redefine Judaism
from a cultic religion to a religion of the book. Rabbi Akiva ben Joseph (37 - 137 AD), the head
of the school during the first decades of the second Christian century, endorsed both paths.
Rabbi Akiva is known for endorsing the false messiah Simon bar Kokhba. According to Akiva,

7
the messiah promised in Numbers 24:7 who would defeat the Romans, rebuild the Temple and
rule as the messianic king was personified in a man named Simon bar Kokhba. Akiva’s
endorsement of bar Kokhba changed the complexion of the Second Jewish Revolt (132 - 135
AD), turning it from a popular uprising into a messianic movement. Large numbers of Jews and
even pagans joined the revolt, but a small segment known as the Christians refused to take
part, since it would entail rejecting Jesus as the true messiah. As a result, the Jews saw
Christianity not only as a heresy but sedition also. However, everyone saw Bar Kokhba was not
being the messiah and the consequences of the failed Second Revolt were horrific. Simon bar
Kokhba was killed, Rabbi Akiva was martyred and the reprisals by the Romans almost wiped
out Judaism.

The second path Akiva endorsed included the redefinition of Judaism along non-sacrificial lines,
at least until the Temple was restored. To do so, Akiva used a creative style of biblical
interpretation to read into the Hebrew text whatever he needed. The only problem was that the
Jews never had a single normative biblical text. Therefore, the first order of business was to
adopt a single text for the Rabbinical Bible.

Sirach himself, writing around 200 BC, also seems to believe that he was writing an inspired
work, writing that he was led to write down God’s Wisdom and that all Wisdom comes from God.
Speaking in the voice of divine wisdom, Sirach wrote: “I went forth like a canal from a river and
like a water channel into a garden. I said, ‘I will water my orchard and drench my garden plot’;
and behold, my canal became a river, and my river became a sea. I will again make instruction
shine forth like the dawn, and I will make it shine afar; I will again pour out teaching like
prophecy, and leave it to all future generations. Observe that I have not labored for myself
alone, but for all who seek instruction” (24:30–34). The book of Sirach teaches “All wisdom
comes from the Lord and is with him forever” (1:1) and later we find divine wisdom saying, in
Sirach 24:28–31: “I will again pour out teaching like prophecy” for “all future generations.”
Doesn’t this suggest that Sirach’s teachings came “from the Lord” and the book is claiming to be
a prophetic writing that is written for all future generations. That certainly sounds like a claim to
inspiration. It would not be possible for Sirach, or anyone else for that matter, to claim
inspiration when the Old Testament canon was supposedly closed centuries earlier and
prophecy was no longer possible.

Sirach also doesn’t divide Scripture into subdivisions like later Rabbinical Judaism either. When
the Book of Sirach was translated to Greek in 150 BC, a preface was attached which yet again
gave no indication of a closed canon. The Prologue of Sirach mentions the “Law, the Prophets
and other books” on 3 occasions, each time the translator was unable to provide a name for the
third category later known as “The Writings”. In 100 BC, in the Books of the Maccabees, we find
again no hint at the idea of a closed canon or a canon that resembles the Protestant Old
Testament. There is no evidence whatsoever of a fixed canon prior to Christ, never mind a
canon that resembles the Protestant Old Testament.

Philo of Alexandria, living around the time of Christ, also appears to have no knowledge of a
fixed canon. Some Protestants raise the objection to the Deuterocanon that Philo never quoted

8
from the Deuterocanon but 2000 of Philo’s 2050 Old Testament citations are found in the Torah,
with only 2% of his citations being from the rest of the Old Testament. Philo didn’t quote from
numerous other canonical OT books.

Some Protestants point to the Jews being entrusted with the oracles of God (Romans 3:2) but
this does not mean the canon was fixed/closed at any point, it simply indicates the Jews
received revelations while the Gentiles didn’t. It can simply refer to the fact that the Jews had
Scriptures, it doesn’t mean that they had the full canon or that the canon was fixed. Protestants
force the interpretation of the canon into this verse when Paul is just making the point that the
Jews had an advantage over the Gentiles in the past due to being God’s chosen people.

We don’t refer to Jewish beliefs after Christ as having any theological sway, so why should it
have any sway over our beliefs on the canon? God guides the body of the Church to the truth,
not other peoples while not guiding the Church. Furthermore, as we see throughout the Old
Testament, Jews are clearly no longer the people entrusted with the oracles of God.

Matthew 28:18-20, NKJV: 18. And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has
been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19. Go therefore and make disciples of all the
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20. teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you
always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

Christ, His Church and the apostles who he gave authority to aren’t given all authority and all
knowledge of everything except the canon of Scripture. You cannot say that everything has
been given from the Father to the Son except for whatever has already been given to the old
covenant people; obviously the canon and which books are Scripture is included in this.

Early Church Use And The First Rejection Of The Deuterocanon

1st Clement (Wisdom, Judith, Tobit, Deutero Esther) and Polycarp (Tobit) cited from the
Deuterocanon and even the Jewish historian Josephus used 1st Maccabees in his Antiquity of
the Jews, book 12, chapter 5.1-3 and Deutero Esther in book 11, chapter 6, which further
proves that the Deuterocanon was in the 1st century Septuagint. The author of Hebrews
referencing 2nd Maccabees 7 in Hebrews 11:2 also assumes that its 1st century readers are
aware of 2nd Maccabees text and treats it as sacred history, affirming 2nd Maccabees as
Scripture. The various allusions to Wisdom and Sirach in the New Testament also show that the
New Testament writers’ Septuagint that they had access to contained the Deuterocanonical
books. The Kaige Recension also included Baruch and Deutero Daniel, so we can be sure the
Septuagint in the 1st century contained all of the Deuterocanonical books.

There is dispute over who wrote the books of Solomon (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs,
Wisdom of Solomon, and Sirach). At first glance, this last grouping might seem odd because the
son of Sirach wrote Sirach, not Solomon. Why would Sirach be counted among the books of

9
Solomon? The early Church Fathers noticed this problem and knew Solomon didn’t write
Sirach, just as they knew that the book of Wisdom was not a direct composition of Solomon.
Some even believed Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher, put the book together. If we
want to get technical, even the books that were written by Solomon weren’t totally Solomon’s
work. For example, Proverbs includes the words of Agur (Proverb 30:1-6) and Lemuel (Proverbs
31:1-9). So if Solomon didn’t write all of the “books of Solomon,” why did the early Fathers
group these books under that title? For the ancients, Solomon’s notoriety for wisdom made him
in one sense the patron of these books because all of them were influenced by him in either
content or style. This is clear when reading sections of Proverbs, Wisdom and Sirach one after
the other.

Therefore, these 5 books became known as those “of Solomon.” This type of grouping under a
person’s name shouldn’t be too surprising. We see a similar thing happening with the book of
Psalms. The Psalms are often called “the Psalms of David.” And indeed, David did write a
majority of the Psalms, but, like Solomon’s Proverbs, other people contributed as well, such as
Moses (Psalm 89), Solomon (Psalms 71 and 126), the sons of Core (Psalm 41-48, 83, 84, 86),
Eman (Psalm 87), Ethan (Psalm 88) and Asaph (Psalm 49, 72-82). David became known for his
Psalm and therefore the books of Psalms were called “the Psalms of David.” Jeremiah also had
a group of books, namely, the book of Jeremiah, Baruch, and the Letter of Jeremiah. The early
Church often referred to these three works as “of Jeremiah” even though they knew that Baruch
wrote Baruch. So, who then wrote the “books of Solomon?” Tradition affirms that Solomon is the
substantial human author of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs. Sirach and Wisdom
are “of Solomon” largely because they share the same eloquence and style as those of
Solomon.

One Protestant claim is that the early Church was ignorant of Hebrew and Jewish tradition and
blindly followed the Septuagint. The accusation of blindly following the Greek Septuagint is false
since there are some instances who believed 1 Enoch, Assumption of Moses or Ascension of
Isaiah was Scripture, yet none of these are found in the Septuagint. The accusation itself
provides no evidence regardless. Also, the early Church had many highly educated Jewish
converts since its very beginning, and they weren't ignorant of Hebrew and Jewish tradition.

The New Testament also provides no indication of a fixed number of books, and doesn’t divide
Scripture into 3 divisions as recognized by later Rabbinical Judaism. As Lee McDonald, one of
the world’s foremost scholars on the Deuterocanon and a Protestant Baptist, says: “The book of
Malachi only implores its listeners to remember the law of Moses, which would be strange if
there was already a fixed set of writings by Ezra called the prophets at this time.”

Furthermore, even if it did provide an indication of a fixed number of books, that wouldn’t
necessarily exclude the Deuterocanonical books. The Apostolic Fathers and the early Church all
the way up until Jerome never treated or believed the Deuterocanonical books were anything
less than inspired Scripture. An exception would be Africanus but Origen refuted him by stating
Tobit and Judith is used in every single church.

10
When we hear the claim that there are no explicit citations of the Deuterocanonical books as
Scripture in the 2nd century, this is working in strict filters. This is only surviving documents that
contain quotations from the Old Testament and it only counts formal quotations and only those
explicitly cited as Scripture. In reality, quotation can include correspondence of thought, allusion,
loose quotation (which can be deliberate so they can adapt the quote to context) and strong
quotation. In academia, explicit citing as Scripture tends to be the only recognised type for
determining canon but this isn’t very realistic and much of the Protocanon wouldn’t be able to be
legitimized this way. References to Scripture should be looked at on a case by case basis in
light of the author’s intent rather than just discarded as allusions and hence not too authoritative.

According to a study by Gary Michuta, in the 2nd century some of the Church fathers don’t
quote any of the Protocanon according to that criteria and at the very lowest, 49% of the
Protocanon isn’t cited. On average per writer, 82% of the Protocanon is never quoted according
to this criteria and for most of the Protocanonical books, no Christian ever doubted the
canonicity.

We cannot use a perceived interpretation of a 22 book canon as an interpretive key for the rest
of the evidence; otherwise you are favoring one tentative piece of evidence above all the rest
rather than looking at all the evidence and working out why the list was formulated in the first
place. You also cannot view all the evidence through our lens of canon and apocrypha when the
writer’s usage may be three divisions. You cannot assume one thing as a sole interpretive key
because we don’t know what the Church fathers would intend to be an interpretive key, such as
saying ‘it is written’, which we have to assume based on all the evidence rather than
presuppose as an interpretive key before looking at all the evidence.

Additionally, Clement’s work Stromata between 198 and 203 AD explicitly quotes the
Deuterocanon as Scripture. Unless someone argues the view of the fathers suddenly changed
on the stroke of midnight from 2nd to 3rd century, we have effective explicit affirmation of the
Deuterocanon as Scripture in the 2nd century.

When Lee McDonald visited Rome, he was asked who got the canon right and answered that
that Catholics did because the Deuterocanonical books were there originally and were used
abundantly by the fathers.

Objecting to the Deuterocanon began with Jerome. He believed the Hebrew manuscripts to be
superior to the Septuagint because he thought the Hebrew manuscripts go back to the original
whereas the Septuagint is simply a translation. This meant he thought whatever is in the
Hebrew manuscript (Hebrew Masoretic Text) is authentic and whatever isn’t in the Hebrew
manuscript isn’t authentic. This resulted in Jerome calling the books that weren’t in the Rabbinic
Scriptures apocrypha. It was only Jerome breaking the consensus of the early Church that the
Deuterocanonical books were inspired which led councils to re-establish that the Deuterocanon
were indeed inspired Scripture and that it was handed down reliably from Jesus and the
Apostles.

11
It was only by the 1940’s where Jerome’s idea was able to be proven wrong and based on a
misunderstanding, because there isn’t one Hebrew text like he thought that goes back to the
original. At Qumran we found multiple texts in Hebrew and Greek that were also present in the
first century, so there wasn’t a single text tradition. It was the Rabbis who adopted a single
normalised text and others disappeared. We also found that certain portions (not entire, Books
of Kings and Samuel have this trait) of the Septuagint are actually a very literal translation of a
lost Hebrew text so it might actually be a much better rendering than what we find in the
Hebrew. Parts of the Septuagint preserve remnants of a more ancient Hebrew textual tradition
that is now lost.

The Masoretic Text is a very good and authentic witness to other more ancient texts but it
underwent a process of development before reaching its final form during the middle of the 2nd
century AD. Jerome unwittingly pitted one authentic textual tradition (Masoretic Text) against all
other authentic texts. Despite numerous Church councils affirming the Deuterocanon as
Scripture, Jerome’s innovation and publication of the Vulgate helped Jerome's opinion circulate
through the Latin West and his high scholarly status influenced many generations to come.
Jerome’s Vulgate replaced the Old Latin translation by the 6th century and became the main
text to read by anyone who could read Latin. The Vulgate’s popularity & authority gave
credibility to Jerome’s preface he attached. Scholars at the time, who admired Jerome because
he was one of the greatest scholars of antiquity, were prone to adopt some sort of Jerome’s
view. Many scholars tried to find a middle ground between Jerome and the Church and although
many were aware of Jerome’s position, they themselves continued using the Deuterocanon as
inspired Scripture.

In the words of Francis Gigot: “If now we inquire into the causes of this persistent division
between the ecclesiastical writers of the Middle Ages, we shall find that its main, if not its
exclusive cause, is the influence which the views of St. Jerome exercised upon the minds of
many Doctors of that period” [Francis E. Gigot, General Introduction to the Study of the Holy
Scriptures, page 68]

With regards to Protestants, Martin Luther said: “...as St. Jerome says, it is not found in a
Hebrew version, the language in which all the books of the Old Testament are written" and
John Calvin said that Jerome expressed “the common opinion of earlier times” and appealed to
Jerome’s authority on numerous other occasions. Anglican Protestantism's Article 6 of the 39
Articles (1562) also appealed to Jerome.

We can demonstrate that Jerome and his followers were wrong based on those 20th century
Dead Sea Scrolls discoveries, so the reformers’ main reason to reject the Deuterocanon was
because Jerome and other people disagreed on the canonicity and everyone who followed
Jerome’s reasoning has been proved to have made a big error in judgment. The case for why
Protestants rejected the Deuterocanon completely falls flat based on manuscript evidence
uncovered in the 20th century. Rufinus himself denounced Jerome at the time by stating the
Deuterocanon has been used in all of the churches and that there have been Jewish converts

12
that know Hebrew and Jewish traditions yet none of them ever challenged the canon. Jerome
could not refute his great friend Rufinus on this point.

The Jews were still waiting for the advent of the new Elijah (John the Baptist) [Malachi 4:5 &
John 1:19-25] and the new Moses (Jesus). Since many prophets in the Old Covenant were
inspired by God to write books, it’s not unthinkable for them to have believed these 2 prophets
could write books as well, so closing the Hebrew canon before the prophets’ advent would be
bizarre. Ancient Judaism before the 1st century in its various forms would not have closed their
canon. Only after various Jewish sects disappeared, the complete revamp of Judaism as we
know it and the destruction of the 2nd temple were they led to the opportunity and mindset to
close their canon.

Another indication that Scripture could be written after Malachi comes by way of 2 ancient texts
found in the Judean desert. Both of the fragments are from the book of Sirach. One was
discovered in a casement within the East fortress wall of Masada (MasSir, Mas1h), which dates
to sometime between 10 BC and AD 50. The other fragment comes from Qumran (2QSir),
which contained portions from Sirach 6. It was found in Cave 2 and it dates to sometime
between 50 BC and 1 BC. What is significant about these 2 fragments is that the texts are laid
out in a special stichographic format that is used almost exclusively for poetic biblical passages.
(Reference: See Emmanuel Tov, Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible and Qumran: Collected Essays
(Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 126–127). Tov adds: “This [stichographic] arrangement probably implies
that Ben Sira was considered to be biblical, not necessarily by the Qumran community, but
by the scribes of 2QSir and MasSir…” (Emmanuel Tov, The Background of the Stichometric
Arrangements of Poetry in the Judean Desert Scrolls, FN 6, page 409).

The fact that 2 copyists from 2 separate Jewish communities (likely pre-Christian communities)
copied Sirach using this special format indicates an acceptance of Sirach as Sacred Scripture.
We also should note that fragments of the Deuterocanonical books of Tobit (4Q197–200) and
the Epistle of Jeremiah (Bar. 6) (7Q2) were also discovered at Qumran. For further detail, see
The Case for the Deuterocanon, pages 102–106.

Later Rabbinical Judaism’s decision to reject the Deuterocanonical books as Scripture and
close the canon in the 2nd century should not be regarded as an authoritative position for
Christians to adhere to. After all, they also rejected the Gospels as inspired Scripture and
rejected Jesus as the Messiah. They did not have the Holy Spirit when they made these
decisions so why would we conclude that they had the authority when they made their decision
on Scripture? They have no authority over Christians.

The Mishnah and Talmud speak of the cessation of prophecy but the Mishnah is a codification
of Jewish traditions and beliefs codified around 250 AD and the Mishnah and Gemara together
form the Talmud around 600 years after Christ. Rabbi Akiva is most often cited as deciding
which oral traditions were and weren’t included in the Mishnah, so any belief of the “cessation of
prophecy” would reflect specific Jewish beliefs of a later time and not the belief various Jews
held in the centuries before.

13
It is true that the New Testament doesn’t explicitly quote from the Deuterocanon (even though
Wisdom 2:18, which prophecises Christ, and 2 Maccabees 7’s usage proves that it was
considered Scripture) but many books in the Old Testament weren’t quoted in the New
Testament either, such as Song of Solomon and Esther.

In Jesus’ day, the Septuagint was the Old Testament. So a move away from the Septuagint
had to take place by the Jews in the Post-Jerusalem-fall era, and such a movement did take
place. In 70 AD, the Jewish Temple was destroyed. Differing strains of Judaism died out except
the synagogue-based Pharisees, which became the forerunner of today’s Rabbinic Judaism.

It was during Akiva’s time as chief rabbi that a single normative text was first adopted, which
corresponds roughly to the Hebrew Masoretic Text that we have today. Jewish scholar Louis
Ginzberg claims that the reason Akiva repudiated the use of the Greek Septuagint and the
Deuterocanon was the desire to disarm Christians, especially Jewish Christians, who drew their
‘proofs’ from the Apocrypha. Akiva certainly would not have felt bad to get rid of Scriptures
which, in previous centuries, made favourable comments (1 Maccabees 8) towards the
Romans, now the main enemy of Akiva, and Scriptures (Wisdom 2) that explicitly condemned
the Jewish leaders’ role in the crucifixion, thus disarming a major text in Christian apologetics at
the time.

This, in combination with the Christians refusing to follow Akiva’s messiah in the Second Jewish
Revolt could have caused Akiva to have a growing disdain towards Christianity. The Christians
continued the use of the Septuagint, which meant that the differences between the Masoretic
Text and the Septuagint was incompatible with Akiva’s interpretive method of Scripture
(“inclusion and exclusion” method), so Akiva had to reject the Greek Septuagint and accept the
Hebrew Masoretic Text and therefore reject any books that was not found in the Masoretic Text
at the time. This is the most likely reason Rabbinic Judaism rejects the Deuterocanonical books
today; not because they had sufficient reason to believe that it wasn’t inspired Scripture at the
time but instead because Akiva and his peers had to reform Judaism at the time for their liking
and thus had to disregard anything that stood in their way. The Deuterocanon was outside of
the newly adopted normative text. The failure of the Bar Kochba revolt left the Jewish leadership
in disarray and Judaism’s ‘reformation’ didn’t reach uniformity in the Jewish world until a much
later time.

Justin Martyr (100 - 165 AD) wrote: “But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who
refuse to admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy
[king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to
observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations
effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who
was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being
crucified, and as dying; but since I am aware that this is denied by all of your nation, I do
not address myself to these points, but I proceed to carry on my discussions by means of
those passages which are still admitted by you. For you assent to those which I have

14
brought before your attention, except that you contradict the statement, `Behold, the virgin shall
conceive, 'and say it ought to be read, `Behold, the young woman shall conceive.' And I
promised to prove that the prophecy referred, not, as you were taught, to Hezekiah, but to this
Christ of mine: and now I shall go to the proof.” (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, section 71,
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01286.htm)

Justin Martyr claims that the Jews no longer follow the interpretation of the Septuagint and that
the Jews removed passages and gives the example of certain verses from Ezra/Jeremiah. He
also claimed Isaiah being sawn in 2 was removed, which seems to indicate that he thought the
Jews removed the “Ascension of Isaiah”, even though Justin is wrong on this point. It appears
that there was a lot of confusion on Justin’s part, as he didn’t know exactly what was removed,
by which Jews and where. The chaos after the 2nd Jewish Revolt might have made it hard to
have a clear picture of what Judaism was going through at the time.

With regards to the book of Enoch, it is true that Jude 14 cites a prophecy from Enoch. Certain
first century Jewish sects (like the Qumran community) believed that Enoch was Scripture but
Enoch was not found in the Septuagint, the Old Testament the new Testament writers preferred
to use. Enoch fell out of popularity to be read, which is in stark contrast to how the
Deuterocanon has been treated throughout the early Church.

Tertullian cited Enoch as Scripture but he had to defend his stance on this. Tertullian wrote: “I
am aware that the Scripture of Enoch… is not received by some…” (On the Apparel of
Women, chapter 3, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0402.htm) Tertullian's reason for
accepting it was because of its presence in Jude and not because it circulated in the Church as
divine Scripture.

Origen wrote with regards to the Book of Enoch: “And in a most confused manner, moreover,
does he adduce, when examining the subject of the visits of angels to men, what he has
derived, without seeing its meaning, from the contents of the Book of Enoch; for he does not
appear to have read the passages in question, nor to have been aware that the books which
bear the name Enoch do not at all circulate in the Churches as divine, although it is from this
source that he might be supposed to have obtained the statement, that "sixty or seventy angels
descended at the same time, who fell into a state of wickedness."” (Contra Celsum, book 5,
chapter 54, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04165.htm)

Origen rejects the authority of the Book of Enoch and would not allow it in debate because “the
books which bear the name of Enoch do not at all circulate in the Churches as divine.” This is
essentially the same rationale Origen used against Julius Africanus; the Deuterocanon is to be
accepted because it is read in every Church of Christ, as divine Scripture. Origen rejects Enoch
for the opposite reason: It didn’t “circulate in the Churches as divine.”

Those who opposed the Deuterocanon did so in spite of the fact that it was read as Scripture in
the Church. The real apocrypha, however, was opposed precisely because the Church did not
read it as Scripture. The few early Christians who did accept the true apocrypha failed to

15
overturn the near universal belief and practice of the Church. The true Apocrypha was always
on the outside looking in whereas the Deuterocanon was on the inside looking out from the very
beginning. The Deuterocanon’s substance and origin is different than true apocryphal writings; it
persisted and thrived because it always circulated in the churches as divine, contrary to the real
apocryphal writings. The earliest condemnation of these books came centuries after they were
written by enemies of Christianity, not from inside Christianity. No early Christians held to the
Protestant canon and it took until the mid 2nd century with the reformation, long, long after the
apostolic period, for the Protestant version of the canon to first be put forward. Even then,
Anglican and Protestants were not easily willing to give up the canon because it was so
fundamentally entrenched in Christian tradition.

If nearly all early Christians unanimously agree on an issue, you have to incorporate it in to your
beliefs because going against nearly all the early Christians on any issue shows you must be
mistaken somehow due to the guiding of the body of the Church by the Holy Spirit and in order
not to fall into the idea that the Apostles were disastrous at passing on the truth.

The Blood Of Abel Argument

The argument is made that the New Testament gives bookends for the Old Testament
internally.

Luke 11:47-51, NKJV: 47. Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets, and your
fathers killed them. 48. In fact, you bear witness that you approve the deeds of your fathers; for
they indeed killed them, and you build their tombs. 49. Therefore the wisdom of God also said, ‘I
will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and persecute,’ 50. that
the blood of all the prophets which was shed from the foundation of the world may be required
of this generation, 51. from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who perished
between the altar and the temple. Yes, I say to you, it shall be required of this generation.

Matthew 23:29-36, NKJV: 29. “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you
build the tombs of the prophets and [a]adorn the monuments of the righteous, 30. and say, ‘If
we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the
blood of the prophets.’ 31. “Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons
of those who murdered the prophets. 32. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. 33.
Serpents, brood[b] of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? 34. Therefore,
indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and
some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, 35. that on
you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to
the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the
altar. 36. Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

The focus is on the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah. Roger Beckwith wrote: “Abel’s
martyrdom is the first and comes near the beginning of the first book of the canon (Genesis);

16
Zechriah’s martyrdom is the last and comes near the end of the last book (2nd Chronicles). All
the martyrdoms from Abel to Zechariah are equivalent to all the martyrdoms from 1 end of the
Jewish bible to the other end of Jewish bible. If someone asked why Jesus doesn’t extend his
catalogue of martyrdoms beyond the bounds of the canon, Luke gives a clear answer, Jesus is
not speaking of all the righteous blood without distinction, but of all the righteous blood of
prophets and prophecy, as the Jews knew that it virtually ended with the book of Chronicles...”

Premise 1: Jesus identifies Abel (martyred in Genesis) and Zechariah (martyred in 2nd
Chronicles).

However, we don’t know immediately which Zechariah Jesus is referring to. There are 6
possible candidates for who this Zechariah might be:

1. Zechariah, the son of Baruch. (Jewish Wars, Book 5, 4.334)

2. Zechariah, the son of Jeberechiah. (Isaiah 8:2-4)
3. Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada. (2 Chronicles 24:20)
4. Zechariah, the son of Berechiah. (Zechariah 1:1)
5. Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist.
6. An otherwise unknown contemporary called Zechariah who was martyred.

Jesus’ Zechariah has 6 identity markers:

1. Zechariah was a righteous man. (“righteous blood shed upon earth”)

2. He was a prophet. (“blood of all the prophets shed upon earth”)
3. He was martyred in the Temple area. (“Between the altar and temple building”; “between
the sanctuary and the altar”)
4. He was the son of Berechiah. (“Zechariah, son of Berechiah”)
5. He is somehow well-fitted to be paired with Abel.

He may have been a contemporary of Jesus’ audience but this is only if “whom you murdered”
is taken literally regarding his audience. The context of Matthew says “woe to you, scribes and
Pharisees… you testify against yourselves, you are the sons of those who murdered the
prophets” and “you” seems to keep referring to those he is speaking to but it could be
interpreted as they and their forefathers together, since they share the same guilt of their
fathers, so it could be understood either way.

Candidate 1: Zechariah, son of Baruch/Bareis/Bareiskaios

In Jewish Wars, book 4, chapter 5, Josephus wrote: “And now these zealots and Idumeans
were quite weary of barely killing men, so they had the impudence of setting up fictitious
tribunals and judicatures for that purpose; and as they intended to have Zacharias 1 the son of
Baruch, one of the most eminent of the citizens, slain, - so what provoked them against him
was, that hatred of wickedness and love of liberty which were so eminent in him: …So two of
the boldest of them fell upon Zacharias in the middle of the temple, and slew him”

17
This is at the beginning of the first Jewish revolt (around 67-68 AD), after the time of Jesus. This
candidate fulfills Markers 1 and 3 and we do not know about 3. He fails on markers 4 and 5;
Berechiah and Baruch are different names and Jesus wasn’t making a prophecy either. There is
no clear reason why he’d fit with Abel. Candidate 1 definitely isn’t right because he died many
decades after Jesus.

Candidate 2: Zechariah, son of Jeberechiah

This Zechariah was 1 of the 2 faithful witnesses to Isaiah’s prophecy concerning Maher-Shalal-
Hash-Baz (Isaiah 8:2-4). Jeberechiah is the fuller form of Berechiah. We don’t have any other
information. Candidate 2 is silent on Markers 1, 2 and 3, fulfills 4 and fails on 5. It wouldn’t make
any sense to refer to this candidate in the context.

Candidate 3: Zechariah, son of Jehoiada

This is the candidate that the Protestant theory assumes and puts forward.

2nd Chronicles 24:20-22, NKJV: 20. Then the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of
Jehoiada the priest, who stood above the people, and said to them, “Thus says God: ‘Why do
you transgress the commandments of the Lord, so that you cannot prosper? Because you have
forsaken the Lord, He also has forsaken you.’ ” 21. So they conspired against him, and at the
command of the king they stoned him with stones in the court of the house of the Lord. 22. Thus
Joash the king did not remember the kindness which Jehoiada his father had done to him, but
killed his son; and as he died, he said, “The Lord look on it, and repay!”

Candidate 3 fulfills markers 1, 2 (he was a Priest and spoke from God), 3. He fails marker 4 but
protestants say that Jesus may be referring to Zechariah’s grandfather named Berechiah when
he said “son of…”. However, we know that Jehoiada was married to Jehosheba (2nd Chronicles
22:11), so Zechariah's maternal grandfather was King Jehoram (Joram). Nowhere are we told
who Jehoiada’s father was and if Jesus was referring to Zechariah's grandfather, how would
Jesus’ listeners know this was his grandfather if we aren’t told anywhere?

He would be fine on marker 6 if the second premise of the argument is true that 2nd Chronicles
is the last book of the canon but a better reason to compare Abel with Candidate 3 is Genesis
4:10, “the voice of your brother’s blood is crying to Me from the ground” and 2nd Chronicles
4:22, “May the LORD see and avenge”, could mean that the blood of these two is particularly
worthy of retribution. This fits perfectly with Matthew and Luke’s context because “all of this will
fall upon this generation”. The killing of Abel in the wilderness and the killing of Zechariah in the
temple.

In summary, Protestants make the leap to say “son of…” refers to the individual's paternal
grandfather but it appears very unlikely since we have no idea what his grandfather's name was
and other people most likely wouldn't have known either. Furthermore, if Jesus did refer to this

18
individual, it would be more likely because the Scripture talked about Abel and this Zechariah in
the Old Testament being worthy of retribution, which would make sense in the context.

Candidate 4: Zechariah the Prophet, son of Berechiah

The prophet Zechariah fulfills Markers 1, 2 and 4 and regarding marker 3; there is a later belief
in Targums on Lamentations 2:20 that he was martyred in Temple but this is a very weak
source and Scripture is silent on Zechriah’s death. It isn’t clear why he’d be compared to Abel.

Candidate 5: Zechariah, father of John the Baptist

This candidate fulfills marker 1, as we see in Luke 1:6, marker 2, he was a priest and the Holy
Spirit made him prophecy in Luke 1:67. For marker 3, the apocryphal Protoevangelium of
James from 150 AD, chapter 23, states he was martyred in the temple. In Origen’s commentary
on Matthew 10:18, he says Zechariah was slewn between the temple and altar. A third tradition
held by Egyptian Ophites also claims this. All of them state for different reasons why and how
the killing occurred but all three of them agree that this Zechariah was killed in a temple. Also, a
monument was discovered in 2003 in Kidron valley which contains a 4th century inscription:
“This is the tomb of Zechariah, the holy martyr, the holy priest, the father of John”. Scripture is
Silent on marker 4 but this would make sense because by saying “son of Berechiah” in 1st
century, everyone would have known at the time who this person was and realistically candidate
4 and 5 would be the only 2 candidates so far that everyone would have known Berechiah was
the father of. This candidate fulfills marker 6 because Abel is a martyr in the early times and this
Zechariah could have been one of the martyrs in current times.

Candidate 6: An unknown Zechariah

Jesus and the Apostles don’t only refer to things written in Scripture and not every single thing
in history is written down in Scriptures. For example, if Luke didn’t record in 13:1 or 13:4 those
two events, we would have never known about it. Not all contemporary events are necessarily
recorded. Jesus also calls Abel a prophet but Scripture doesn’t say anywhere that Abel was a
prophet, so it’s possible Zechariah could be referring to someone the contemporaries knew
about but not written down anywhere who clearly fulfills all the markers.

Now that we have addressed and shown the flaws in the first premise, let’s look at the second.

Premise 2: 2nd Chronicles is the last book in Rabbinic canon according to traditional
order.

The Rabbinic document Bava Bathra 14b, in about the 2nd century, says: “…Ezra recorded his
book and the genealogies of Chronicles up to his own time. This supports Rav, as Rabbi Judah
said, “Rav said – ‘Ezra did not go up from Babylonia until he recorded his genealogy, and then
he went up’” And who concluded (the book of Chronicles)? Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah”

19
So, in terms of composition, Chronicles is dated last according to Bava Bathra. However, this
document is not found amongst the codified oral traditions of the Jews.

Lee McDonald wrote: “That this tradition is classified as a baraita from the Tannaitic period and
did not find a place in the Mishnah suggests that the text had not yet received widespread
approval by the closure of the codification of the Mishnah around 200 C.E.” McDonald tells us
that because it was not included in the Mishnah, even in the 2nd century this particular
document was not well received amongst the Jews.

There are some Christian lists around the time this document was made or even earlier, some
of which were attempting to reproduce the Rabbinic canon and order of the books (bolded in the
table). We don’t see these lists place Chronicles at the end.

Name Date Source Last 3 Books Listed

Melito of Sardis 170 AD Eusebius, Church History, 4.26 Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra-Nehemiah

Origen of Alexandria 240 AD Eusebius, Church History, 6.25 Daniel, Job, Esther

Cyril of Jerusalem 350 AD Catechetical Lectures, 4.33-37 Jeremiah (Baruch, Lamentations,

Epistle), Ezekiel, Daniel

Hilary of Poitiers 360 AD Exposition on the Psalms, 15 Ezekiel, Job, Esther (Some add
Tobit and Esther)

Cheltenham List 360 AD Unknown Daniel, Ezekiel, 12 Minor Prophets.

Council of Laodicea 363 AD False 60th canon Jeremiah (Baruch, Lamentations,

Epistle), Ezekiel, Daniel

Athanasius 367 AD 39th Festal Letter Jeremiah (Baruch, Lamentations,

Epistle), Ezekiel, Daniel

Gregory of Nazianzus 389 AD Carmina Dogmatica, 1.1.12 Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel

Amphilochius of Iconium 380 AD Iambics for Seleucus Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel

Epiphanius of Salamis 385 AD Panarion, 1.1-46 1 Ezra, 2 Ezra, Esther

Epiphanius of Salamis 385 AD On Weights and Measures, 4 Ezekiel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther

Jerome 391 AD Preface to the Book of Kings Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther

Augustine of Hippo 397 AD On Christian Doctrine, 2.8 Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel

3rd Council of Carthage 397 AD 3rd Council of Carthage Nehemiah, 1st and 2nd Maccabees

Rufinus of Aquileia 400 AD Exposition of the Creed Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel

Codex Claromontanus 400 AD Stichometric List in Codex Esther, Job, Tobit

Claromontanus

Pope Innocent I 405 AD Letter to Exsuperius Ezra-Nehemiah, 1st and 2nd

Chronicles

20
 Pope Gelasius I 550 AD Decree of Gelasius Esther, Judith, 1st and 2nd
Maccabees

Pseudo Athanasius 550 AD Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel

Apostolic Canons 300- Apostolic Canons Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel

400s AD

Isidore of Seville 500s AD Etymologies Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther

Codex Amiatinus 500s AD Latin Codex A Esther, Ezra, 1st and 2nd
Maccabees

John of Damascus 730 AD Exposition of the Orthodox Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther

Faith, 4.17

Nicephorus I of 700s AD Etichometry of Nicephorus Ezekiel, Daniel, 12 Minor Prophets.

Constantinople

Pope Innocent I ends with Chronicles but his grouping doesn’t like up with any tradition and he
wasn’t trying to recreate the Rabbinical order. He seems to have just randomly ordered the list.
He also included Tobit, Judith and 1st and 2nd Maccabees. Aside from this, none of the lists
place 2nd Chronicles at the end.

With regards to Hebrew Codices, Chronicles is first put at the end in the 13th century and from
the 14th century onwards, that becomes uniform.

Codex Date Last Book of the Writings

Aleppo Codex c. 930 AD Ezra-Nehemiah

Leningrad Codex c. 1008 AD Ezra-Nehemiah

Adath Deborim 1207 AD Ezra-Nehemiah

Orient. 2201 1246 AD Chronicles

Codex No. 1 1280 AD Chronicles

Paris No. 1-3 1286 AD Chronicles

Harley 5710-11 Late 1200s AD Ezra-Nehemiah

Harley 1528 1325 - 1374 AD Chronicles

Orient 2375 1200s AD Chronicles

Harley 5710-11 1200s AD Ezra-Nehemiah

Harley 1528 1448 AD Ezra-Nehemiah

MS Orient 2626-28 1483 AD Ezra-Nehemiah

21
 Orient 2091 1300s AD Chronicles

Add. 15252 1300s AD Chronicles

Orient 4227 1400s AD Chronicles

Orient 2212 1586 AD Chronicles

5 Early Printed Editions of the Hebrew 1488; 1491 - 93; 1492 - Chronicles
Bible 94; 1521; 1525 AD

So, the 2 great codices, Aleppo and St. Petersburg, place Ezra-Nehemiah last.

Adath Deborim from the early 1200s says the about the order: "Know (God give thee
understanding) that the Hagiographa (the Writings) are divided into 11 sections: Chronicles,
Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ruth, SoS, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra. But the
Babylonians have altered this order: some place Chronicles at the end of the volume, others
place the Scroll of Esther at the end of the volume. Now, we intend to begin with the first of
these books, Chronicles, according to the order of the land of Israel; for this order is the right
and true one and all who copy the Holy Scriptures, in Babylonia and elsewhere, will return to
this order."

So, the Babylonians have two traditions, one of them puts Chronicles at end and the other
places Esther at the end, so they’re not united, while Israel places Chronicles first in writings. In
summary, Bava Bathra 14b alone gives Chronicles as the last book. Every early Christian writer
who tried to recreate the Rabbinic order ended with Ezra/Nehemiah or Esther, not Chronicles
and the oldest Hebrew codices end with Ezra/Nehemiah, not Chronicles. These confirm the
Israel order and one of the Babylonian orders; there is no affirmation of the second Babylonian
tradition where Chronicles is last.

Timothy Stone comments: “The evidence is late and scant, but from what survived the Talmudic
and Masoretic orders for the Writings in the Jewish tradition are the only two attested prior to the
12th century CE. In the case of Baba Bathra 14b, the Talmudic order (which places Chronicles
last) is not found again until the 12th century. From the end of the 9th century CE, the Masoretic
order (which places Chronicles first) alone is well attested for at least the next 200
years… ...Following the decline of the Masoretes in the 11th century CE, the Writings' stability
eventually gave way to a variety of orders; this does not mean that there was not an ancient
order or orders that had remained fixed for some time. In this context in the 12th century CE,
when the order of the Writings is being unmoored, Adath Deborim... reveals the utmost concern
to preserve the right and true order of the Masoretes, which is "according to the land of Israel"
as opposed to those from Babylon and elsewhere which place Chronicles or Esther last… ...
Eissfeldt and others, arguing for the Palestinian origin for this order, gain some support, albeit
extremely late, from Adath Deborim and most importantly from the questionable nature of the
hypothesis that the Masoretic order developed from the Talmudic. All available evidence
supports the idea that the Masoretes faithfully preserved the ancient traditions.”

22
Further evidence against 2nd Chronicles being last is that 2nd Chronicles ends the same way
Ezra starts. Scholars have speculated how and why and one theory, which seems credible and
possible, is that at one time during the transmission of the text, 2nd Chronicles was attached to
Ezra-Nehemiah. The theory suggests that they were originally one document, hence the last
verses of 2nd Chronicles are almost identical to the first verses of Ezra because when the texts
were separated, it needed to repeat those 2 things. These repeated verses at the end of
Chronicles are called ‘catch-lines’, which in ancient times were often placed at the end of a
scroll to facilitate the reader’s passing on to the correct second book-scroll after completing the
first. This scribal device was employed in works that exceeded the scope of a single scroll and
had to be continued on another scroll. If this is true, we have Scriptural evidence that Ezra came
after 2nd Chronicles and 2nd Chronicles couldn't possibly be last because Ezra and Nehemiah
must have followed it. There is also no indication that Chronicles was part of Ezra-Nehemiah
and thus “the last book” if Ezra was designated as the last book. It’s a separate book, explicitly
before Ezra.

The blood of Abel argument, which has no basis in Church history and originated with Johann
Echhorn in 1780, fails on both premises to show that this passage is intending to give a canon.
It originated so late because no one prior to this read the passage as giving a canon,
immediately discrediting the interpretation as baseless, and because by the 18th century, every
printed edition of the Hebrew bible listed Chronicles as the last book. It was the printing tradition
which led Echhorn to put Matthew 23 and Luke 11 together with 2nd Chronicles. Even Echhorn
himself admitted that the ancients likely did not have a fixed order: “...perhaps as little in ancient
as in modern times was the precise identical position of single books in the general series
universally observed…”

23
 Part 2: The Deuterocanon In The Protocanon

Protocanonical References To The Deuterocanon

The Protocanon refers to the Deuterocanon authoritatively numerous times, repeating

information from the Deuterocanon, showing that it is divine revelation.

Wisdom and Hebrews

Wisdom 7:27, NABRE: 27. Although she is one, she can do all things, and she renews
everything while herself perduring; Passing into holy souls from age to age, she produces
friends of God and prophets.

Wisdom 8:1, NABRE: 1. Indeed, she spans the world from end to end mightily and
governs all things well.

These are echoed in Hebrews, where the writer shows that it is Jesus, who made all the world,
spans the world and governs all things.

Hebrews 1:2, NKJV: 2. has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has
appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds

Hebrews 1:3 NKJV: 3. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation
of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification
for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

We also see further exact phrase references to Wisdom in Hebrews.

Wisdom 7:23, NABRE: 23. unhampered, beneficent, kindly, Firm, secure, tranquil, all-
powerful, all-seeing, And pervading all spirits, though they be intelligent, pure and very subtle.

Wisdom 7:24, NABRE: 24. For Wisdom is mobile beyond all motion, and she penetrates and
pervades all things by reason of her purity.

Wisdom 18:15-16, NABRE: 15. Your all-powerful word from heaven’s royal throne leapt into
the doomed land, 16. a fierce warrior bearing the sharp sword of your inexorable decree, And
alighted, and filled every place with death, and touched heaven, while standing upon the earth.

Hebrews 4:12-13, NABRE: 12. For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than
any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and
marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13. And there is no
creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom
we must give account.

24
The Word of God is described by a metaphor of a sharp sword, identical to how we see Wisdom
is described.

Tobit and Revelation

Tobit 12:15, NABRE: 15. I am Raphael, one of the seven angels who stand and serve
before the Glory of the Lord.”

Tobit 12:12, NABRE: 12. Now when you, Tobit, and Sarah prayed, it was I who presented the
record of your prayer before the Glory of the Lord; and likewise whenever you used to bury
the dead.

Revelation 8:2-4, NABRE: 2. And I saw the seven angels who stand before God, and to
them were given seven trumpets. 3. Then another angel, having a golden censer, came and
stood at the altar. He was given much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of
all the saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne. 4. And the smoke of the
incense, with the prayers of the saints, ascended before God from the angel’s hand.

Tobit is presenting a bold claim, that there are 7 angels who stand in the presence of God and
who participate in the offering up of the prayers of the saints. There is no other book in any Old
Testament canon of Catholics, Protestants or Jews which includes this detail, yet according to
the New Testament, it is true that there are 7 angels who stand in the presence of God who are
responsible for presenting the prayers of the saints before God and hence that knowledge was
truly from God and Tobit must be Scripture.

Maccabees In The Protocanon

Hebrews 11 discusses Maccabees in a way that shows us 2nd Maccabees is Scripture, as it

was considered Scripture by the inspired writer. Not only this but it also shows that the audience
accepted, considered and understood Maccabees to be Scripture.

The chapter lists many Biblical figures and details martyrdoms.

Hebrews Reference Figure(s) Scripture

Hebrews 11:4 Abel Genesis 4:4:4

Hebrews 11:5 Enoch Genesis 5:21-24

Hebrews 11:7 Noah Genesis 6:13-22

Hebrews 11:8-12, 17-19 Abraham Genesis 12:1-4, 8; 13:3, 18; 18:1-9

Hebrews 11:11 Sarah Genesis 17:19; 18:11-14; 21:1

25
 Hebrews 11:19 Isaac Genesis 21:12; 22:1-10; 27:27-29

Hebrews 11:20-21 Jacob and Esau Genesis 27:27-29; 48:1, 5, 16, 20

Hebrews 11:22 Joseph Genesis 50

Hebrews 11:23-39 Moses Exodus 2:2, 10-11, 15

Hebrews 11:30 Joshua Joshua 6:20

Hebrews 11:31 Rahab Joshua 2:9; 6:23

Hebrews 11:32 Gideon Judges 6-7

Hebrews 11:32-24 Barak Judges 4-5

Hebrews 11:32-24 Samson Judges 13-16

Hebrews 11:32-24 Jephthah Judges 13-16

Hebrews 11:32-24 David 1st Samuel 16, 17; 2nd Samuel 8, 10

Hebrews 11:33 Daniel Daniel 6:22

Hebrews 11:34 The Three Youths Daniel 3:23

Hebrews 11:35, 38 Elijah 1st Kings 17:23

Hebrews 11:35 Elisha 2nd Kings 4:36

Hebrews 11:35 ? ?

Hebrews 11:37, 38 Jeremiah Jeremiah 20:2; 37:15

Hebrews 11:37 Zechariah 2nd Chronicles 24:20-22

Hebrews 11:37 Isaiah The Ascension of Isaiah, 5:1-14

Hebrews 11:38 Miscellaneous Prophets 1st Kings 18:4

Hebrews 11:35-37, NKJV: 35. Women received their dead raised to life again. Others were
tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection. 36. Still
others had trial of mockings and scourgings, yes, and of chains and imprisonment. 37. They
were stoned, they were sawn in two, were tempted, were slain with the sword. They wandered
about in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented—

We have three markers for those mentioned in verse 35:

1. They were tortured.

2. They refused release to save their lives.
3. They were in hope for resurrection.

26
However, nowhere in the Protestant canon is there found anyone who was tortured, refused
release and in the hope of the resurrection. Not all of Hebrews 11 necessarily has to be
referring to Scripture because the chapter could also refer to the “Ascension of” texts which
aren’t Scriptural but all of the figures included in the chapter are found in Scripture. It would be
bizarre to suddenly use a non-biblical character that Scripture does not attest to as an example
when it used countless of biblical characters everywhere surrounding it.

The story of these martyrs is found in Maccabees with Eleazar, the mother and seven children.
Gary Michuta compiled 50 Protestant commentaries which agree that Hebrews 11:35 refers to
2nd Maccabees. (http://www.handsonapologetics.com/50%20%20COMMENTARIES.pdf#)

2nd Maccabees 7:1-2, NKJV: 1. It happened also that seven brothers and their mother were
arrested and were being compelled by the king, under torture with whips and cords, to partake
of unlawful swine’s flesh. 2. One of them, acting as their spokesman, said, “What do you intend
to ask and learn from us? For we are ready to die rather than transgress the laws of our
fathers.”

Verses 3-6 then detail the first brother being tortured to death.

2nd Maccabees 7:7-9, NKJV: 7. After the first brother had died in this way, they brought
forward the second for their sport. They tore off the skin of his head with the hair, and asked
him, “Will you eat rather than have your body punished limb by limb?” 8. He replied in the
language of his fathers, and said to them, “No.” Therefore he in turn underwent tortures as the
first brother had done. 9. And when he was at his last breath, he said, “You accursed wretch,
you dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to an
everlasting renewal of life, because we have died for his laws.”

So they were tortured, could’ve stopped torture by disobeying God but they didn’t, and they
hoped for a better life (i.e. resurrection, eternal life). Following this in the chapter, all of them
were tortured, could have stopped torture if they abandoned their faith and they looked forward
to the resurrection and eternal life.

Hebrews uses the Greek word “martureó” 7 times; 7:8, 7:17, 10:15-16, 11:2, 11:4, 11:5 and
11:39. (https://biblehub.com/greek/3140.htm) The word means well attested, to testify, to
witness, a good report. When Hebrews uses the word martureó, in the following 5 examples, it
quotes from the Old Testament affirming what’s being said:

● Hebrews 7:8, NABRE: 8. Here mortal men receive tithes, but there he receives them, of
whom it is witnessed that he lives.
This quotes Psalm 110:4, already quoted in Hebrews 5:6 and 6:20 before.
● Hebrews 7:17, NABRE: 17. For He testifies: “You are a priest forever According to the
order of Melchizedek.”
This is a formal quote of Psalm 110:4.

27
 ● Hebrews 10:15-16, NABRE: 15. But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He
had said before, 16. “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days,
says the Lord: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,”
This quotes Jeremiah 31:33.
● Hebrews 11:4, NABRE: 4. By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than
Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his
gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks.
This is quoting Genesis 4:8-10.
● Hebrews 11:5, NABRE: 5. By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death,
“and was not found, because God had taken him”; for before he was taken he had this
testimony, that he pleased God.
This verse quotes Genesis 5:24. The LXX specifically says he was pleasing to God.

So in the previous 5 examples, Old Testament passages/truths are well attested/affirmed as

being Biblical. In Hebrews 11, verse 2, it says “For by it the elders obtained a good testimony
(martureó).” The “ancients/elders” he is about to mention is of good testimony. Hebrews 11:39
says: “And all these, having obtained a good testimony (martureó) through faith, did not receive
the promise.”

Hebrews creates an “inclusio”. In the introduction, it says the people they are going to list are
well attested and at the ending of chapter, they repeat again that all the people listed are well
attested. This would indicate that all of the figures themselves are Biblical figures being
affirmed.

In other words, the other 5 passages in Hebrews affirms passages/verses/facts are biblical. This
doesn’t necessarily mean all the events in the lists, as can be seen from Verse 37 saying “…
they were sawn in two”, which seems to hint towards the book Ascension of Isaiah. This
interpretation is warranted (people, not passages) since it specifically says the people
themselves are well attested to, and not the events themselves. The martyrs in Maccabees are
considered a member of sacred Scripture. By saying “well attested to in Scripture”, the goal of
Hebrews 11 is to remind Jewish Christians of the amazing faith of the elders/people of the
ancients. The way they are well attested is because the figures are all found in Scripture.
Otherwise, how do we know the Maccabean martyrs (as figures) were well attested of? He has
to be citing something authoritative, meaning the text that he is citing from, 2nd Maccabees,
must be Scripture, otherwise they aren’t attested to.

One objection is the Isaiah example being in non-Scripture but this doesn't matter because
Isaiah is in real Scripture and we know he is well attested of. You could cite from non-
authoritative books about a biblical figure but you can’t cite from a non-authoritative book about
non-biblical figure.

Another common response is that the author of Hebrews is writing under inspiration of the Holy
Spirit so that’s how we know with authority but the writer is citing these things to remind the
people of previous believers’ amazing faith and citing previous authority. So this assumes that

28
they all fully believe and fully trust the Scripture it was written within previously and you can’t
fully believe and trust Scriptures written about people 200 years ago and the amazing faith they
had if you don’t quote from authoritative scriptures that are trustworthy and believed by
everyone. The only way for everyone to already have known before the epistle of Hebrews with
absolute certainty that these people were already well attested of before God is if it was written
in inspired Scripture, hence Maccabees is Scripture.

Messianic Prophecy In Wisdom

Wisdom 2:12-20 contains a very clear Messianic prophecy. Verse 18 specifically says:

Wisdom 2:18, NABRE: 18. For if the righteous one is the son of God, God will help him and
deliver him from the hand of his foes.

This parallels Matthew 27:43, where the Jewish leaders taunts that God will save the Son of
God during the crucifixion:

Matthew 27:43, NKJV: 43. He trusted in God; let Him deliver Him now if He will have Him; for
He said, ‘I am the Son of God.’ ”

There is no passage in the Protestant Old Testament where the Jewish leaders would have
quoted where God would save the Son of God. Some people would say it is citing Psalm 22:7-8
but that Psalm doesn’t say “God will save the Son of God”, only Wisdom says that God will save
the righteous Son of God. Matthew is quoting the Psalm and Wisdom.

Notice that Wisdom 2:17 takes the truthful claim to be the “Son of God” a condition for God
delivering him. This is obviously about a very specific Son of God figure because prophets and
the like are many times called the sons of God in the Bible but God didn’t always deliver them
from their foes.

Also, the Jewish leaders wouldn’t cite Wisdom if they didn’t believe it was Scripture. It makes no
sense why they would use this passage against Jesus to mock him if they didn’t believe it’s
authoritative or even a predictive sacred text, otherwise, their taunt would have been
meaningless, perhaps even blasphemous, since it would then have amounted to a demand for a
miraculous rescue that God never promised. Only a recognized inspired text would have given
these words power and avoided blasphemous presumption. If you went to the crucifixion of a
false messiah and you quoted the book of Enoch, for example, and said “if you are the Son of
God, God will save you”, people would look at you and wonder what you are talking about
because Enoch isn’t Scripture.

The combination of using Psalm 22 and Wisdom 2 shows that the chief priests, scribes and
elders understood both of the texts to be messianic and used it interchangeably with one
another, indicating that it is indeed Scripture. This is in contrast to the New Testament writers

29
citing Enoch or ancient Roman/Greek writings where it is merely flickers of the truth. Even the
prophecy of Enoch is just God coming in judgement with his evils to repay the evil doers’ works.
The Book of Wisdom provides detailed and accurate information beyond mere flickers of the
truth. Instead, it completely lifts the veil.

The New Testament refers to almost every verse mentioned in Wisdom 2:

● Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us; he sets himself against our
doings, (Matthew 23:1-4, 13-33)
● Reproaches us for transgressions of the law (Matthew 15:6, John 7:19, et al.)
● and charges us with violations of our training. (Matthew 12:3, 5, 19:4, 23:31, Mark 12:26,
John 7:19, etc.)
● He professes to have knowledge of God (Matthew 11:27, Luke 10:22, John 10:15,
12:50, et al.)
● and styles himself a child of the LORD. (Mark 14:36, John 5:20)
● To us he is the censure of our thoughts; (Matthew 9:4, Mark 2:8, Luke 5:22, 11:17, et al.)
● merely to see him is a hardship for us, Because his life is not like other men’s, and
different are his ways. (Matthew 7:28-29, 15:2, and 22:16; Mark 1:22; Luke 4:32)
● He judges us debased; (Matthew 23:27-28, et al.)
● he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. (Matthew 23:3)
● He calls blest the destiny of the just (Matthew 5:10)
● and boasts that God is his Father (Matthew 11:27, John 5:17, 6:32, 40; 8:19, 49, 54,
etc.)
● Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him. (Matthew
27:40-42, 49)
● For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of
his foes. (Matthew 27:43)
● With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his
gentleness and try his patience. Let us condemn him to a shameful death;
(Deuteronomy 21:22, Galatians 3:13, Hebrews 12:2)
● for according to his own words, ‘God will take care of him’. (Matthew 4:11, 26:53)
● These were their thoughts, but they erred; for their wickedness blinded them, (Matthew
15:14, 23:16-26)
● And they knew not the hidden counsels of God; (John 8:55, 1 Corinthians 2:8, 1 John
2:4)
● neither did they count on a recompense of holiness nor discern the innocent souls’
reward. (John 7:49)
● For God formed man to be imperishable; the image of his own nature he made him. (1
Corinthians 15:45)

30
 Part 3: The Cessation Of Prophecy

Introduction

Protestants claim that the Deuterocanonical books cannot be Scripture because of a “cessation
of prophecy”. There are many different theories that fall under the argument surrounding
cessation:

1. All prophecy whatsoever ceased.

2. All prophecy coming from people publicly known as prophets ceased.
3. All prophets ceased.
4. The great prophets ceased but lesser prophets continue.
5. All prophets in the Tanakh ceased so that no further prophets could be added.
6. All prophets and prophecy ceased but prophetic, inspired Scripture didn’t.
7. All prophets and inspiration ceased but different prophetical non-scriptural utterances
continued.

What is meant by “ceased” is also ambiguous:

1. Prophets and/or prophecy ceased entirely never to return.

2. Prophets and/or prophecy ceased entirely but it can and did return.
3. Prophets and prophecy as a continuous phenomenon ceased but it continued in a
discontinuous fashion.
4. The gift of prophecy given to prophets ceased and was given to people not known as
prophets.
5. Old Covenant prophets ceased and the gift of prophecy was transferred to the prophets
of the New Covenant.
6. One part of a prophetic group ceased but prophecy continued with the rest of the group,
such as when a prophet died but prophecy continued through his school of prophets or
the oracles given through the High Priest's breastplate and Urim and Thummim ceases,
but the High Priest continues to make prophetic utterances.

Any combination of these could be “cessation of prophecy”. Additional clarifications also need to
be made:

● Is every person who authors an inspired work a prophet?

● Is every author of inspired Scripture publicly recognized as a prophet or can people not
known as prophets compose inspired prophetic Scripture?
● Does the cessation of prophecy necessarily entail the cessation of inspiration?

It also must be established who held to the cessation idea, when and why:

31
 ● Was this universally accepted among all the first century sects of Judaism, including
Christianity?
● Of those sects that accepted, what authority ought to be given to their view and why?
● Did their belief in the cessation of prophecy theory drive the canon or did the canon drive
the cessation of prophecy theory?
● When did the theory come about? Was it revealed by God or was it the product of
Jewish or Christian tradition?

The overall idea of “cessation of prophets” cannot be invoked because it is ambiguous and
people hold many different views as to what it means. The reason it is ambiguous is because
the evidence isn’t clear to support it.

Protocanonical Arguments For Cessation Of Prophecy

Amos 8:11-12

Amos 8:11-12, NKJV: 11. “Behold, the days are coming,” says the Lord God, “That I will send
a famine on the land, Not a famine of bread, Nor a thirst for water, But of hearing the words of
the Lord. 12. They shall wander from sea to sea, And from north to east; They shall run to and
fro, seeking the word of the Lord, But shall not find it.

Firstly, the passage is ambiguous and doesn’t clearly tell us which one of the types of cessation
of prophecy it will be so it doesn’t support any particular idea. It doesn’t tell us when it will start
or end or whether it will be temporary or permanent.

Micah 3:6-7

Micah 3:6-7, NKJV: 6. “Therefore you shall have night without vision, And you shall have
darkness without divination; The sun shall go down on the prophets, And the day shall be dark
for them. 7. So the seers shall be ashamed, And the diviners abashed; Indeed they shall all
cover their lips; For there is no answer from God.”

Context explains these verses because the previous verse, 3:5, tells us about prophets who
abuse their vocation as prophets:

● Micah 3:5, NKJV: 5. Thus says the Lord concerning the prophets Who make my people
stray; Who chant “Peace” While they chew with their teeth, But who prepare war against
him Who puts nothing into their mouths:

It isn’t talking about all prophets and nothing here establishes a cessation of prophecy from
Malachi for 400 years.

Malachi 4:4-5

32
Malachi 4:4-5, NKJV: 4. “Remember the Law of Moses, My servant, Which I commanded him
in Horeb for all Israel, With the statutes and judgments. 5. Behold, I will send you Elijah the
prophet Before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.

Nothing here speaks directly about any cessation of prophecy or period of cessation. This is
being read back into the text.

Isaiah 63:11

Isaiah 63:11, NKJV: 11. Then he remembered the days of old, Moses and his people, saying:
“Where is He who brought them up out of the sea With the shepherd of His flock? Where is He
who put His Holy Spirit within them,

The idea here is that the Holy Spirit being within the people would be the prophets and
prophecy and Isaiah is talking of this as a thing of the past. Then how is Isaiah giving this
prophecy? This Holy Spirit mentioned here is about the divine presence or manifestation of God
during the Exodus.

Zechariah 13:2

Zechariah 13:2, NKJV: 2. “It shall be in that day,” says the Lord of hosts, “that I will cut off the
names of the idols from the land, and they shall no longer be remembered. I will also cause the
prophets and the unclean spirit to depart from the land.

This is again referring to false prophets, not all prophets or prophecy, hence associated with the
unclean spirit rather than the Holy Spirit which a true prophet would be associated with. The
Greek septuagint also translated prophets as “ψευδοπροφήτας”, false prophets, showing that
pre-Christian Judaism understood it to be talking about false prophets.

Psalm 74:9

Psalm 74:9, NKJV: 9. We do not see our signs; There is no longer any prophet; Nor is there
any among us who knows how long.

Psalm 74:9 says there was no prophets at that time yet the inspired Scripture (that very verse)
was written, so Scripture can also be written when there are no prophets.

Lamentations 2:9

Lamentations 2:9, NKJV: 9. Her gates have sunk into the ground; He has destroyed and
broken her bars. Her king and her princes are among the nations; The Law is no more, And her
prophets find no vision from the Lord.

33
This is speaking of a cessation of prophets but both of these are speaking about the destruction
of the first temple which led to the exile, referring to a punishment God gave His people during
the exile. This is only a temporary cessation, as there were prophets during and after the exile,
and cannot be the cessation referred to after Malachi.

Joel 2:28-29

Joel 2:28-29, NKJV: 28. “And it shall come to pass afterward That I will pour out My Spirit on all
flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your old men shall dream dreams, Your
young men shall see visions. 29. And also on My menservants and on My maidservants I will
pour out My Spirit in those days.

Nothing is said of cessation of prophecy or a period of silence, this is inferred back on to the
text. Joel is talking about an outpouring of the spirit and we know from Acts 2 that this began
with Pentecost.

Protocanonical Arguments Against Cessation Of Prophecy

Daniel 9:24

Daniel 9:24, NKJV: 24. “Seventy weeks are determined For your people and for your holy city,
To finish the transgression, To make an end of sins, To make reconciliation for iniquity, To bring
in everlasting righteousness, To seal up vision and prophecy, And to anoint the Most Holy.

Most Christians would hold that this verse is referring to the days of the Messiah; it lists certain
things that will be accomplished during the days of the Messiah such as to finish the
transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting
righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy.

Firstly, it doesn’t mean that all prophecy will cease when it is sealed up or prophecies about the
Messiah because there can be prophecies of His second coming. Since we get prophets and
visions in the new covenant age, it must mean that the call of the prophets of the old covenant
ceases. This means that all the way up until the Messiah, vision and prophecy will not be sealed
up and cessation of prophecy will only happen then, not after the time of Malachi.

Luke 16:16

Luke 16:16, NKJV: 16. “The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom
of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it.

Jesus says "The law and the prophets were until John (the Baptist)", which means all the way
up to His own time and Malachi was not the last. This means the period of the Law and the
Prophets would include the time of the Deuterocanonical books. If all prophets and prophecy

34
ceased hundreds of years before Christ, we would expect that the arrival of a prophet or
prophetic utterances would be greeted with surprise or opposition. However, the New
Testament speaks as if this were an ordinary occurrence, like when people believed John the
Baptist and Jesus were prophets. We have no record of anyone objecting that they couldn’t be
prophets because prophecy ceased or any record of people disputing whether or not prophecy
started back up again. No one had this in mind.

Deuterocanonical Arguments For Cessation Of Prophecy

Daniel 3:38

Daniel 3:38, NABRE: 38. We have in our day no prince, prophet, or leader, no burnt offering,
sacrifice, oblation, or incense, no place to offer first fruits, to find favor with you.

This is the song of the 3 children in the furnace (also found in the Protocanonical Daniel) during
the Babylonian captivity. They are singing this praise of God decrying the fact that at this time
there was no prophet. This doesn’t teach a 400 year cessation of prophets or prophecy. This fits
well with the temporary cessation of Psalm 74:9 and Lamentations 2:9.

1 Maccabees 4:45-46 and 14:41

1 Maccabees 4:45-46, NABRE: 45. They decided it best to tear it down, lest it be a lasting
shame to them that the Gentiles had defiled it; so they tore down the altar. 46. They stored the
stones in a suitable place on the temple mount, until the coming of a prophet who could
determine what to do with them.

1 Maccabees 14:41, NABRE: 41. and that the Jewish people and their priests had decided the
following: Simon shall be their leader and high priest forever until a trustworthy prophet arises.

Maccabees is not talking about prophecy ceasing for hundreds of years until the Messiah would
come, it is actually speaking about a prophetic lull, which happens throughout salvation history
as we saw previously with Psalm 74:9 and Lamentations 2:9. 1st Maccabees 4 and 14 even
gives directions for people that would last until a prophet would come, so there was a prophetic
lull at the time of Maccabees but it didn't say prophecy ceased for hundreds of years.

Also, the writer of Maccabees was writing after the events that took place to describe them, so
there’s no problem to say God can inspire someone to write it and you don’t have to be a
prophet to write Scripture regardless. God can inspire anyone, such as Mark, Luke and
Nehemiah, and the inspired Scriptures don’t have to contain prophecies, like Esther. Proto-
canonical Esther doesn’t even mention God. In these passages, they are also clearly expecting
the arrival of a prophet, which would be impossible on the cessation of prophets or prophecy
theory.

35
1 Maccabees 9:27

1 Maccabees 9:27, NABRE: 27. There was great tribulation in Israel, the like of which had not
been since the time prophets ceased to appear among them.

Maccabees equates the present distress to when the prophets ceased to appear in Israel. This
isn’t a clear period of cessation and Josephus helps disprove this reading when he paraphrases
1 Maccabees 9:27 in Antiquities, 13.1.5: "And when this calamity of the Jews was become so
great, as they had never had experience of the like since their return out of Babylon." When we
compare the texts, we can see that Josephus is attesting to this period being the Babylonian
captivity, meaning 1 Maccabees 9:27 is harkening back to that. This isn’t a surprise given we
have already seen similar in Psalm 74:9, Lamentations 2:9 and Daniel 3:38.

Deuterocanonical Arguments Against Cessation Of Prophecy

2 Maccabees 15:11

2 Maccabees 15:11, NABRE: 11. When he had armed each of them, not so much with the
security of shield and spear as with the encouragement of noble words, he cheered them all by
relating a dream, a kind of waking vision, worthy of belief.

Here Judas Maccabeus relates a dream and gives a predictive prophecy about the divine
assistance they will receive in conquering the Greeks that are about to invade Jerusalem and it
comes true. How could Judas believe he received a vision and then give a prophecy when
visions and prophecies have stopped way back at the time of Malachi?

2 Maccabees 15:17

2 Maccabees 15:17, NABRE: 17. Encouraged by Judas’ words, so noble and capable of
instilling valor and stirring young hearts to courage, they determined not merely to march, but to
charge gallantly and decide the issue by hand-to-hand combat with the utmost courage, since
city, sanctuary and temple were in danger.

Everyone believed it to be true; there was no doubt prophecy could occur.

Sirach 24:29-31

Sirach 24:29-31, NABRE: 29. For deeper than the sea are her thoughts, and her counsels,
than the great abyss. 30. Now I, like a stream from a river, and like water channeling into a
garden— 31. I said, “I will water my plants, I will drench my flower beds.” Then suddenly this
stream of mine became a river, and this river of mine became a sea.

36
Sirach describes his work as a river that diverts wisdom from the law of Moses, becoming a
massive sea and is intended for future generations to come. The wisdom found in the law that is
like a sea (Sirach 24:26-27) that is so deep no-one can find its bottom, his teachings too
become a sea (Sirach 24:31) with the same kind of depth. He also says he is pouring forth
instruction “like prophecy”.

Sirach 24:33

Sirach 24:33, NABRE: 33. Again I will pour out instruction like prophecy and bestow it on
generations yet to come.

This again undermines the idea that prophecy was finished and even though someone might
object that it is “like” prophecy, his instruction is identical to the law of Moses, so it is prophecy.

Sirach 33:16-18

Sirach 33:16-18, NABRE: 16. Now I am the last to keep vigil, like a gleaner following the grape-
pickers; 17. Since by the Lord’s blessing I have made progress till like a grape-picker I have
filled my wine press, 18. Consider that not for myself only have I labored, but for all who seek
instruction.

As a gleaner, he is able to accomplish the same thing as the grape-pickers in filling the wine
press, just as if he had been one of the grape-pickers himself. According to cessation, after
Malachi, there are no grapes to pick.

Preface to Sirach

In the Greek preface to Sirach, his grandson writes: “Such a one was my grandfather, Jesus,
who, having devoted himself for a long time to the diligent study of the law, the prophets, and
the rest of the books of our ancestors, and having developed a thorough familiarity with
them, was moved to write something himself in the nature of instruction and wisdom, in
order that those who love wisdom might, by acquainting themselves with what he too had
written, make even greater progress in living in conformity with the divine law.” He was moved
to write it but if prophecy ceased, how could he be moved to write in the nature of instruction
and wisdom?

He also writes: “Many important truths have been handed down to us through the law, the
prophets, and the later authors; and for these the instruction and wisdom of Israel merit praise.”
This is who he developed thorough familiarity with. They gave instruction and wisdom through
inspiration and Sirach gave instruction and wisdom through being moved. The preface also
assumes that the Jews who are reading the preface would agree.

Wisdom 7:27

37
Wisdom 7:27, NABRE: 27. Although she is one, she can do all things, and she renews
everything while herself perduring; Passing into holy souls from age to age, she produces
friends of God and prophets.

Here, the book of Wisdom shows that God’s divine Wisdom produces friends of God and
prophets from age to age, i.e. in every age. If prophecy had ceased and the age of the writer
had no prophets, how would the writer tell us this?

Early Church Evidence

The Church fathers and early Christian writers never spoke about the cessation theory and they
are extensive in contradicting it. We would not see all the early Christians contradict the
cessation theory if it was true; they would teach it and would not affirm the Deuterocanon.

Justin Martyr (100 - 165 AD)

● Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 52: “you will not venture shamelessly to assert, nor can
you prove it. For though you affirm that Herod, after whose [reign] He suffered, was an
Ashkelonite, nevertheless you admit that there was a high priest in your nation; so that
you then had one who presented offerings according to the law of Moses, and observed
the other legal ceremonies; also [you had] prophets in succession until John, (even
then, too, when your nation was carried captive to Babylon, when your land was
ravaged by war, and the sacred vessels carried off); there never failed to be a
prophet among you, who was lord, and leader, and ruler of your nation. For the Spirit
which was in the prophets anointed your kings, and established them. But after the
manifestation and death of our Jesus Christ in your nation, there was and is nowhere
any prophet”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01284.htm)

Justin Martyr clearly believes there was no cessation of prophecy. He even points out that they
had prophets during the Babylonian captivity and clearly affirms there was succession. He also
says that this gifts was transferred to Christians:

● Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 82: “"For the prophetical gifts remain with us, even to the
present time. And hence you ought to understand that [the gifts] formerly among your
nation have been transferred to us.”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01286.htm)

The Jews also must have believed this, otherwise Justin Martyr couldn’t have used this in an
argument against the Jew Trypho.

Origen of Alexandria (185 - 254 AD)

38
 ● Contra Celsus, book 7, chapter 8: “For never have any of those who have not embraced
our faith done anything approaching to what was done by the ancient prophets; and in
more recent times, since the coming of Christ, no prophets have arisen among the Jews,
who have confessedly been abandoned by the Holy Spirit on account of their impiety
towards God, and towards Him of whom their prophets spoke.”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04167.htm)

It is clear that Origen understands the transference of prophecy which seems to imply that there
was always this transference and never an extended period of cessation because to make this
argument, there would have to be no possibility of cessation, otherwise Jews could appeal to
this and the argument would be invalid. In this paragraph he also quotes from Wisdom, a book
apparently written in the 400 years of silence.

Lactantius (240 - 320 AD)

● Divine Institutes, book 4, chapter 11: “When the Jews often resisted wholesome
precepts, and departed from the divine law, going astray to the impious worship of false
gods, then God filled just and chosen men with the Holy Spirit, appointing them as
prophets in the midst of the people, by whom He might rebuke with threatening words
the sins of the ungrateful people, and nevertheless exhort them to repent of their
wickedness; for unless they did this, and, laying aside their vanities, return to their God,
it would come to pass that He would change His covenant… On account of these
impieties of theirs He cast them off for ever; and so He ceased to send to them prophets.
But He commanded His own Son, the first-begotten, the maker of all things, His own
counsellor, to descend from heaven, that He might transfer the sacred religion of God to
the Gentiles, that is, to those who were ignorant of God, and might teach them
righteousness, which the perfidious people had cast aside.”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/07014.htm)

God continuously sends prophets for people to repent and eventually after not heeding their
word He sends His Son and transfers the holy religion of God to the nations. There’s no
cessation here, it is clear that God stopped sending prophets at the time of Jesus following a
continual sending of prophets prior to that. Lactantius gets this from Matthew 21:33-43.

Athanasius of Alexandria (293 - 373 AD)

● On the Incarnation of the Word, chapter 40.2-3: “For when He that was signified had
come, what need was there any longer of any to signify Him? When the truth was there,
what need any more of the shadow? For this was the reason of their prophesying at all
— namely, till the true Righteousness should come, and He that was to ransom the sins
of all. And this was why Jerusalem stood till then — namely, that there they might be
exercised in the types as a preparation for the reality. 3. So when the Holy of Holies had
come, naturally vision and prophecy were sealed and the kingdom of Jerusalem
ceased.”

39
 (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2802.htm)

Athanasius is alluding to Daniel 9:24, which we used earlier as counter evidence against
cessation. It occurs at the time of the Messiah when vision and prophecy are sealed.

● On the Incarnation of the Word, chapter 40.3-4: “For kings were to be anointed among
them only until the Holy of Holies should have been anointed; and Jacob prophesies that
the kingdom of the Jews should be established until Him, as follows:— "The ruler
Genesis 49:10 shall not fail from Juda, nor the Prince from his loins, until that which is
laid up for him shall come; and he is the expectation of the nations." 4. Whence the
Saviour also Himself cried aloud and said: "The law and the prophets prophesied until
John."”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2802.htm)

He starts from the prophecy in Daniel then continues to the prophecy there will always be a
prince coming from Judah then the expectation of the nations comes and it ceases and so ties
all of those into when Jesus said the laws of the prophets were until John.

● On the Incarnation of the Word, chapter 40.4: “If then there is now among the Jews king
or prophet or vision, they do well to deny the Christ that has come. But if there is neither
king nor vision, but from that time forth all prophecy is sealed and the city and temple
taken, why are they so irreligious and so perverse as to see what has happened, and yet
to deny Christ, Who has brought it all to pass?”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2802.htm)

Athanasius applies the cessation of prophecy spoken of in Daniel 9 to the coming of the
Messiah and he assumes that up until that point, prophets were continuous all the way up until
the time of Jesus.

1st And 2nd Century Jewish Evidence

Philo of Alexandria (25 BC - 50 AD)

● On the Migration of Abraham, parts 34-36: “I am not ashamed to relate what has
happened to me myself, which I know from having experienced it ten thousand times.
Sometimes, when I have desired to come to my usual employment of writing on the
doctrines of philosophy, though I have known accurately what it was proper to set down,
I have found my mind barren and unproductive, and have been completely unsuccessful
in my object, being indignant at my mind for the uncertainty and vanity of its then
existent opinions and filled with amazement at the power of the living God, by whom the
womb of the soul is at times opened and at times closed up; and sometimes when I have
come to my work empty I have suddenly become full, ideas being, in an invisible
manner, showered upon me, and implanted in me from on high; so that, through the

40
 influence of divine inspiration, I have become greatly excited, and have known neither
the place in which I was nor those who were present, nor myself, nor what I was saying,
nor what I was writing for then I have been conscious of a richness of interpretation, an
enjoyment of light, a most penetrating sight, a most manifest energy in all that was to be
done, having such an effect on my mind as the clearest ocular demonstration would
have on the eyes. That then which is shown is that thing so worthy of being beheld, so
worthy of being contemplated, so worthy of being beloved, the perfect good the nature of
which is to change and sweeten the bitternesses of the soul, the most beautiful
additional seasoning, full of all kinds of sweetnesses, by the addition of which, even
those things which are not nutritious become salutary food; for it is said, that "the Lord
showed him (Moses) a tree, and he cast it into the water," that is to say, into the mind
dissolved, and relaxed, and full of bitterness, that it might become sweetened and
serviceable.”

It is very difficult to read Philo without concluding that he thought inspiration and prophecy was
possible as well as he himself being inspired to write things, which would make no sense if
prophecy had ceased.

As John Levison writes on page 202 of his book Philo’s Personal Experience and the
Persistence of Prophecy: “Philo's account of his own inspiration in Migr. 34-35 bears a strong
family resemblance to the descriptions of prophetic inspiration that he offers elsewhere in his
writings... The implication of these correspondences, of course, is that Philo considered himself
the rightful heir of the prophets. He offers no indication of inconsistency between prophetic and
personal experience of inspiration, nor does he give the slightest hint that there may be anything
inferior about his own experience." He continues on page 209 that Philo’s "experiences, as he
crafts their retelling, bear all the marks of prophecy. His experiences, as he carefully recounts
them, contain no indications of inferiority in comparison with the experiences of the Hebrew
Prophets... Instead of distancing himself from the prophets, then, by distinguishing his
experience from theirs, Philo does just the opposite - he paints his experience with the same
hues as the inspiration of the Prophets.”

Philo believes not only that inspiration was clearly possible but that he himself was inspired.

Josephus (37 - 100 AD)

● Against Apion, 1.41: “From Artaxerxes up to our own time every event has been
recorded, but this is not judged worthy of the same trust, since the exact line of
succession of the prophets did not continue.”

Josephus was talking about the continuous historical account written by prophets but was not
affirming cessation of prophecy.

Through his work he called many people prophets from his own time:

41
 ● “Cleodemus the prophet” (Antiquities, 1.240-41)
● John Hyrcanus (Antiquities, 3.218)
● Judas (Jewish War 1.78-80; Antiquities, 13.311-13)
● Menahem (Antiquities, 15.373-79) and Simon (Jewish War, 2.112-13; Antiquities,
17.345-48)

He also spoke of the Sign Prophets. These which include:

● Theudas (Antiquities, 20.97-99)

● An unnamed group (Jewish War, 2.258-60; Antiquities, 20.167-68)
● The “Egyptian” (Jewish War, 2.261-63; Antiquities, 20.169-72)
● An unnamed man under Festus (Antiquities, 20.188)
● An unnamed man under Felix (Jewish War, 2.258-60; Antiquities, 20.167-68)
● An unnamed man in 70 A.D (Jewish War, 6.283-87)
● Jonathan (Jewish War, 7.437-50; Life of Josephus, 424-25)
● Onias (Antiquities, 14.22-24)
● Pollion and Samaias (Antiquities, 14.172-76; 15.3-4, 370)
● Pharisees in the Court of Herod the Great (Antiquities, 17.41-45)
● Jesus, Son of Anaias (Jewish War, 6.300-309)

He explicitly calls Cleodemus and John Hyrcanus by the title prophet. The clearest example is
Hyrcanus, whose prophecies he writes about and Josephus says he is in touch with the deity.

Furthermore, Josephus describes himself in ways that would lead us to think he thought of
himself as a prophet. Per Bilde writes: “Although the word προφήτης [prophet] does not appear,
this text clearly present Josephus as a prophet: "...but I come to you as a messenger (άγγελος)
of greater destinies..." (3.400, cf. 405). here, Josephus obviously claims to have functioned as a
prophet. However, the crucial question is whether we may be allowed to claim a connection
between his performance as a prophet and his role as a writer of history. A hint in this direction
may be found in the fact that, in Bell. 3.350-354, Josephus clearly relates his former (prophetic)
"nightly dreams, in which God had foretold him the impending fate of the Jews and the destinies
of the Roman sovereigns" (351) with his status as Jewish priest: He was an interpreter of
dreams and skilled in divining the meaning of ambiguous utterances of the Deity; a priest
himself and of priestly descent he was not ignorant of the prophecies in the sacred books”

Josephus identifies the temporary cessation period in the Babylonian exile and further proof that
Josephus didn’t believe in the cessation of prophecy comes from Antiquities where he
paraphrases 1 Maccabees. It’s interesting that whenever Josephus brings up 1 Maccabees, for
example setting aside the stones, Josephus omits “until a prophet shall come” because
Josephus believed the prophets continued through to his own day. In the passage about much
fear in Israel since the prophecy ceased, Josephus said this occurred during the Babylonian
captivity.

2nd Baruch (100 AD)

42
 ● 2 Baruch, 85:3: “But now the righteous have been gathered And the prophets have fallen
asleep, And we also have gone forth from the land, And Zion has been taken from us,
And we have nothing now save the Mighty One and His law.”

The work is named after Baruch and claims to be an eyewitness account of the destruction of
Jerusalem by Babylon. It further claims to have revelations concerning the period of exile and
the end times. The context shows us the writer is speaking of those who were led into Babylon,
as we see in 2 Baruch 84:4: “Your brethren also have they bound and led away to Babylon, and
have caused them to dwell there.” This again fits with the idea that this particular period had a
cessation of prophecy in accordance with Psalm 74:9, Lamentations 2:9, Daniel 3:38, 1
Maccabees 9:27 and Antiquities 13.1.5.

Rabbinic Evidence

The best place to find a well defined idea of cessation of prophecy among Jewish people would
be the Rabbinic evidence yet nothing can be found.

B. Baba Bathra

● b. Baba Bathra 12b reads: “Said R. Abdimi of Haifa, "From the day on which the house
of the sanctuary was destroyed, prophecy was taken away from prophets and given over
to sages.”

This is from around the 3rd or 4th century AD. Aside from the fact that this Jewish tradition is
quite late, it doesn’t teach that prophets or prophecy ceased. It says the opposite; after the
destruction of the temple, “prophecy was taken away from prophets and given over to sages.”
Prophecy didn’t cease; it just wasn't the exclusive property of prophets anymore. In case there
is any doubt about sages prophesying, the next line, which is almost always omitted by
cessation theorists, places this interpretation beyond doubt:

● “So are sages not also prophets? This is the sense of the statement: even though it was
taken from the prophets, it was not taken from sages. Said Amemar, "And a sage is
superior to a prophet: 'And a prophet has a heart of wisdom' (Ps. 90:12).”

What we see here is a transference of prophecy, not its extinction. This is mirrored by Micah
3:5-7, where God withdrew the gift from prophets who prophecised it continued for Micah and
the other prophets.

Micah 3:5-7, NKJV: 5. Thus says the Lord concerning the prophets Who make my people
stray; Who chant “Peace” While they chew with their teeth, But who prepare war against him
Who puts nothing into their mouths: 6. “Therefore you shall have night without vision, And you
shall have darkness without divination; The sun shall go down on the prophets, And the day

43
shall be dark for them. 7. So the seers shall be ashamed, And the diviners abashed; Indeed
they shall all cover their lips; For there is no answer from God.”

Later in the same text, Baba Bathra says: “Since the Temple was destroyed, prophecy was
taken away from the prophets and was given to lunatics and small children. ...Thus it happened
to Mar b. R. Ashi, who was standing in the market of Mehuza and heard a lunatic say that the
future head of the college in Suria would be Tibumi (Mar's name was Tibumi).... And what in
regard to the children? For example, the little daughter of R. Hisda was sitting on the knee of
her father, and Rabha and Rami b. Hama were sitting opposite. and to the question of her
father, "Whom of them would you like to marry?" she answered, "Both of them."”

Here, lunatics and a little girl (people not known as prophets, further supporting the narrative)
give prophecy and it comes true, despite prophecy apparently having ceased according to those
who hold the theory.

Seder Olam Rabbah

● “That is Alexander the Macedonian who ruled for 12 years. Until that time there were
prophets prophesying by the Holy Spirit; from there on (Prov. 22:10) "bend your ear and
listen to the words of the wise," inform you. From this you learn that an elder is a man
who has acquired wisdom.”

This echoes what we heard in Baba Bathra 12b but the difference is Seder Olam Rabbah
specifies the date at which this occurs and this would be within the period of the supposed 400
years of cessation.

Y. Taanith

● y. Taanith 2.1: “Rab Samuel bar Inia [3rd century] said, in the name of Rab Aha, "The
Second Temple lacked five things which the First Temple possessed, namely, the fire,
the ark, the Urim and Thummim, the oil of anointing and the Holy Spirit [of prophecy]"...
As it is written, '[Go up to the hills and bring wood and build the house], that I may take
pleasure in it and that I may appear in my glory, [says the Lord]' (Hag. 1:8). "'And that I
may appear in my glory' is written without the expected he [Hebrew letter representing
the numeral five] which refers to the five things of the First Temple which were lacking in
the last Temple.”

He knows that there were 5 things missing from the temple because there was a Hebrew letter
missing in the quote from Haggai and since that letter has the numerical value of 5, he
concluded that there must be 5 things missing. Regardless of how dubious this logic is, he does
say that there was in fact 5 things missing.

The Jerusalem Talmud

44
 ● y. Makkot. 2:6, III.3.A: “And I shall appear in my glory' is written, lacking the expected he,
referring to the five ways in which the latter temple was less than the former temple.
"And these are they: "Fire, ark, Urim and Thummim, anointing oil, and Holy Spirit."”

Another from the same source:

● y. Horayot. 3:2, II.1.DD: “These are the five things in which the latter house of the
sanctuary was less than the former one, and these are they: fire, ark, Urim, Thummim,
and holy anointing oil [none of which was available in the Second Temple].”

● b. Yoma 1:8, II.3.E-F (Neusner translation): “It is to indicate that in five aspects, the first
sanctuary differed from the second: in the ark, the ark cover, the Cherubim, the fire, the
Presence of God, the Holy Spirit [prophecy], and the Oracle Plate'? Say: they were
present, but they did not do so much good as they had." or the Rodickson translation:
"This is to hint that five (the numeral value of h ) things were missing in the second
Temple. What are they? The ark, the mercy-seat, the cherubim, the heavenly fire, the
Shekhina, the Holy Spirit, and the Urim and Tumim. So we see there was no heavenly
fire in the second Temple at all? We may say. it was there, only it did not assist in
consuming.”

The list of 5 things differs between the sources and only some mention about the Holy Spirit or
prophecy. All but one mention the Holy Spirit and the reading of most suggests prophecy. Some
also contradict other Jewish sources, for instance Josephus, who was much closer to these
events, who said the urim and thummim were not lost and were continued to be used in
Antiquities, 3.214: “Now the essen and the sardonyx ceased to shine 200 years before I
composed this work, since God was displeased at the violation of the laws. Concerning them we
shall speak at a more appropriate time, but now I shall turn to the following account.”

Tosefta Sotah

● 13:3A: “For our Rabbis have taught: When Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi died, the
Holy Spirit departed from Israel; nevertheless, they made use of the Bath Kol.”

What the Bath Kol is is highly disputed but this text isn’t telling us the Holy Spirit departed
completely, rather just diminished. This is supported elsewhere:

● 10:1 A2 B: “When righteous people come into the world, good comes into the world and
retribution departs from the world.. And when they take their leave from the world,
retribution comes into the world, and goodness departs from the world... When bad
people come into the world, retribution comes into the world, and goodness departs from
the world.. And when they depart from the world. goodness comes back into the world,
and retribution departs from the world.”

45
This theme is expanded upon throughout the document and is also seen throughout the
Scripture in regard to certain figures. These include:

● Joseph (Genesis 30:5; Exodus 1:6, 8-20)

● Jacob (Genesis 45:6; Genesis 47:23)
● Miriam (Numbers 20:1-2)
● Aaron (Numbers 21:1)
● Moses (Joshua 5:12)
● Joshua (Judges 2:7; Judges 3:8)
● Samuel (1 Samuel 7:13, 1 Samuel 25:1; 1 Samuel 28:1)
● Elijah, for whom prophecy died among his followers (2 Kings 2:2-3, 2 Kings 2:16)
● Elisha (2 Kings 6:23; 2 Kings 13:20)
● Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi (All detailed within the document.)

Given this theme, if you get to Tosefta Sotah 13:3A without the context, it can appear to support
cessation when it doesn’t. In fact, in Tosefta Sota 15:3, a rabbi’s death causes the glory of the
Torah to cease on three occasions. The glory of the Torah also ceases due to negative
occurrences in Tosefta Sota 14:3 and 14:8. Note how it would also be impossible for it to cease
if it wasn’t there immediately prior to that event.

● 14:3b says: "When those who went about whispering in judgment multiplied, conduct
deteriorated, the laws were perverted, and the Holy Spirit ceased in Israel".

This not only proves that the other instances of ceasing aren’t permanent but it also gives us
proof there was no permanent cessation. This also proves again that the Holy Spirit was in
Israel just prior to this, which was around the early 1st century. The reason it kept ceasing was
because when righteous people come and leave, the Holy Spirit returns and ceases.

● 13:3 C-D: “Sages gathered together in the upper room of the house of Guria in Jericho,
and a heavenly echo [bath kol] came forth and said to them, There is a man among you
who is worthy to receive the Holy Spirit. but his generation is unworthy of such an honor.'
They all set their eyes upon Hillel the elder. And when he died, they said about him.
"Woe for the humble man, woe for the pious man, the disciple of Ezra. Then another
time they were in session in Yabneh and heard an echo [bath kol] saying, "There is
among you a man who is worthy to receive the Holy Spirit, but the generation is
unworthy of such an honor." They all set their eyes upon Samuel the Small.”
● 13:4 A-D: “At the time of his death what did they say? "Woe for the humble man, woe for
the pious man, the disciple of Hillel the Elder!" Also he says at the time of his death,
"Simeon and Ishmael are destined to be put to death. and the rest of the associates will
die by the sword, and the remainder of the people will be up for spoils. After this, great
disasters will fall…”

Again we see the same pattern of the coming and departing when the righteous come and die.
We clearly Hillel and Samuel the Small received the Holy Spirit, so there could not have been a

46
total cessation. Furthermore, Samuel the Small, who lived in the last two decades of the first
century, gives a prophecy on his deathbed which apparently comes true, meaning not only did
he receive the Holy Spirit but he also prophesied, in the immediate context of this text. John
Levison writes: “Interpreted within its literary context, t. Sot. 13.2-4 is an affirmation that, which
the presence once again of the righteous in the first century CE, the Holy Spirit could reappear
following its temporary withdrawal after the death of the latter prophets.”

Conclusion

There isn’t a consensus as to when the supposed cessation took place, if at all. There are many
supposed inspired works and many writings about prophecy made all throughout Jewish history.
Varying dates for the Spirit leaving or any kind of cessation given are 587 BC (Destruction of the
Temple), 520-522 BC (Haggai), 520 BC (Zechariah), 445 BC (Malachi), 465-424 BC (Artaxerxes
on the flawed reading of Josephus) and 334-323 BC (Alexander the Great). It could not possible
be a widely, let alone universally, recognised tradition.

Many modern scholars date the book of Daniel and some of the Psalms, 44, 74, 79 and 83, to
the Maccabean period and this is also a view held by sources such as John Chrysostom,
Theodoret and others. It is also possible that the composition of Scripture continued after the
deaths of the prophets but that would still be inspired writing in the time of supposed cessation.

The cessation of prophets wouldn’t necessarily mean the cessation of inspired writing, even
though inspired writing is prophetic insofar as it reveals something about God but not all
Scripture is written by someone known to be a prophet, for example Ezra, who was a priest and
scribe, and Nehemiah, a cupbearer for the king. This is also true about some of the writers of
Proverbs, as we find in Proverbs 30:1 and 31:1.

In the book Scripture, Inspiration and Infallibility, Dewey M. Beegle writes on pages 246-249:
“The book of Ruth was passed on orally for a long period before it was put into written form. It is
exceedingly doubtful that the prophets had a significant part in its oral transmission or its
recording. It is just as doubtful that Esther or Job was written by the prophetic tradition. In the
light of all this evidence, much of it from the biblical text itself, is one warranted in ascribing all
the Old Testament canon to the prophetic tradition?” So, Ruth could definitely still be Scripture
even with a cessation of prophecy. It still would not follow that the Deuterocanon could not be
Scripture if a 400 years cessation was true as it would also eliminate Protocanonical books.

47
 Part 4: Lists Containing Books

Josephus (37 - 100 AD)

The idea of a canon is read back into Josephus. In Against Apion 1.37-40, he writes: “Naturally,
then, or rather necessarily - seeing that it is not open to anyone to write of their own accord,
nor is there any disagreement present in what is written, but the prophets alone learned, by
inspiration from God, what had happened in the distant and most ancient past and recorded
plainly events in their own time just as they occurred. among us there are not thousands of
books in disagreement and conflict with each other, but only twenty-two books, containing the
record of all time, which are rightly trusted. Five of these are the books of Moses, which contain
both the laws and the tradition from the birth of humanity up to his death; this is a period of a
little less than 3,000 years. From the death of Moses until Artaxerxes, king of the Persians
after Xerxes, the prophets after Moses wrote the history of what took place in their own times in
thirteen books; the remaining four books contain hymns to God and instructions for people on
life. From Artaxerxes up to our own time every event has been recorded, but this is not
judged worthy of the same trust, since the exact line of succession of the prophets did
not continue.”

● Josephus never uses the word canon in any of his books, let alone the passage. The
first use of the term “canon” was by Athanasius in 346-356.
● Josephus never defines the sacred or separates it from the non sacred and never
defines inspired histories from non inspired histories.
● There is a mistranslation in the most famous translation of Josephus, by William Whiston
in 1736, which has contributed to confusion. Against Apion 1.38 in Whiston reads: “but
only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly
believed to be divine.” The words “to be divine” are not part of Josephus and if we
consult all the critical editions from the 1880s to modern day of Against Apion, no one
translates it this way; those words are never found in the Greek text. This means the
distinction of setting the books apart as divine is added to the text and wasn’t in the
original intention.
● Josephus mentions inspiration in the previous paragraph. Against Apion 1.37 says:
“Naturally, then, or rather necessarily - seeing that it is not open to anyone to write of
their own accord, nor is there any disagreement present in what is written, but the
prophets alone learned, by inspiration from God, what had happened in the
distant and most ancient past and recorded plainly events in their own time.” His
understanding of inspiration here is regarding the task of providing accurate and
authentic history. He’s not talking about divine authority, sacred texts or anything to do
with giving a sacred canon.
● Josephus has to defend the accusation from the Greeks that Jews are a recent race, by
showing that the history of the Jews have been recorded from long before the first
Greeks started recording their own history, which only really started around the time the
Persian King Xerxes invaded Greece. The point that Josephus has to show was that

48
 before that time, the history of the Jews have been recorded as accurately as possible
(since there’s an exact line of prophets), while after this point the history is less
trustworthy (comprehensive) since the exact line of prophets stopped. This doesn’t
exclude the possibility that prophets wrote these books.
● He’s not dividing histories into those written by prophets and not which wouldn’t make
sense in light of 37 because he says in 37 that only prophets are inspired to write them.
● Josephus doesn’t actually give a list of books, he only gives numbers and descriptions.
This doesn’t make sense if he’s giving a canon because the whole point of giving a
canon is to delineate which books are in the canon.
● Josephus doesn’t name a single book. How can you specify a canon if you don’t give a
single name? The whole point of a canon is to be specific and give names of books.
● Because he never identifies titles, the scholars who assert he did give a canon give
totally different interpretations of which books he meant.

Before ‘Against Apion’, Josephus wrote The Jewish War and Antiquities. In Against Apion 1.1-3,
Josephus explains how Antiquities goes through Jewish histories and the purpose of Against
Apion is to refute the Pagans who said Antiquities wasn’t accurate because the Greek historians
never reported the same events. He aims to show why Greek historiography is bad, why others
are better and why in particular Jewish histories are better. He says that Greek historiography is
all recent history and they didn’t keep contemporary records. This is the actual reason for the
list.

● Only chief priests and prophets take care of sacred histories at start of 1.37 (“seeing that
it is not open to anyone to write of their own accord”, “but the prophets alone learned, by
inspiration from God”) and 1.29: “But that our ancestors took the same, not to say still
greater, care over the records as did those just mentioned, assigning this task to the
chief-priests and prophets, and how this has been maintained with great precision down
to our own time - and, if one should speak with greater boldness, will continue to be
maintained - I shall try to indicate briefly.” So he is arguing they have way higher
standards than the Greeks.
● So, in this context, when we read the original passage: “among us there are not
thousands of books in disagreement and conflict with each other, [referring to the Greek
historiography] but only twenty-two books, containing the record of all time, which are
rightly trusted.”
● Why on earth would he suddenly go from talking about Greek history books to which
books were in the inspired canon?
● He says they “contain the record of all time” but the alleged Old Testament canon he’s
talking about doesn’t because obviously “all record” of history didn’t end with Artaxerxes.
● This context shows why the Whiston translation adding “judged to be divine” biases the
reading because without that, there’s absolutely nothing to suggest that’s what he
means without it.

Now see what Josephus meant by most trusted.

49
 ● Against Apion 1.2: “However, since I see that a considerable number of people pay
attention to the slanders spread by some out of malice, and disbelieve what I have
written on ancient history...”
“τήν άρχαιολογίαν ύπ' έμού γεγραμμένοις άπιστούντας τεκμήριόν τε.”
“Disbelieve” is not refusal to give religious assent, it means not sound historically.
● Against Apion 1.4: “I will employ as witnesses for my statements those judged by the
Greeks to be the most trustworthy on ancient history as a whole.”
“δέττών μέν ύπ' έμούλεγομένων μάρτυσιι τοίς άξιοπιστοτάτοις είναι περίπάσης
αρχαιολογίας.”
Most trustworthy here means superior, he’s obviously not talking about the Greeks
thinking they are divine or giving them religious assent.
● Against Apion 1.161: “However, it is necessary to satisfy also the inquiry of those who
disbelieve the records among the barbarians and see fit to believe only Greeks.”
“Δεί δ' άρα καί τών άπιστούντων μέν τοίς βαρβάροις άναγραφαίς μόνοις
δέτοοίς"Ελλησι πιστεύειν άξιούντων.”
Here it is used both positively and negatively and it is in regards to historical soundness,
the same context as the paragraphs up to the passage in question.

In Against Apion 1.40, when talking about what the prophets wrote, he tells us what they wrote
in regard to contemporary history, not Scripture, because the entire context of this book is about
the superiority of Jewish historiography to Greeks: “From the death of Moses until Artaxerxes,
king of the Persians after Xerxes, the prophets after Moses wrote the history of what took place
in their own times in thirteen books; the remaining four books contain hymns to God and
instructions for people on life.”

● If Josephus really meant Scripture, then the canon interpretation gets into an issue
because not all the prophets wrote contemporary history so the canon wouldn’t be the
same, as they claim.
● The interpretation that he instead means historical books is solid because there are
exactly 22 books that record this time period, which fits perfectly with the context and his
aims of the book, to vindicate what he had written in Antiquities and Jewish history with
the 22 books. Josephus numerates 22 books of sacred history, hymns and precepts
recorded from the time of creation to the time of Artaxerxes.
● Against Apion 1.41: “From Artaxerxes up to our own time every event has been
recorded, but this is not judged worthy of the same trust, since the exact line of
succession of the prophets did not continue.” The canonical interpretation says that
he is distinguishing the canonical from the noncanonical here and the prophetic from the
non prophetic. Belief/trust here is nothing to do with faith, as we saw before it is about
historical soundness. The reason they are not of the same trust is “since the exact line of
succession of the prophets did not continue”. The reason they are not of the same
calibre is because there wasn’t an exact succession of prophets. It’s not because they
weren’t written by prophets or he would contradict himself from earlier in 1.37 a couple
paragraphs earlier. It can only mean for historical reliability and cannot mean what the
canonical interpretation claims.

50
Objection: He means exact succession of prophets.

This can’t be right because the only time he ever mentions succession is in 1.41 and if he meant
it as canon, the idea that religiously it has to be exact succession to be reliable is not in those 22
books, there were times where there was no prophet so that exact succession didn’t happen.
Additionally, we very rarely see any times there is exact succession from one to another. He has
to mean reliability separate from Scripture.

● This interpretation would also require an exact succession of prophet written histories for
this canon, meaning the canon is either different or wrong.
● Steve Mason, one of the foremost Josephus experts, says that if we read Antiquities,
Josephus knew once you reach Artaxerxes at the end of the 22 books, history becomes
discontinuous due and hence wrote the exact succession ended: “...as soon as he is
finished with the biblical narrative at the time of Artaxerxes (to A. J. 11.296). Immediately
thereafter, Josephus briefly summarized the high-priestly succession for the following
century (11.297-303) and then jumps ahead to Alexander the Great (ca. 334 BCE.), who
appeared "at about this time" - a century later (11 304)! The chronological gap papered
over by this characteristic phrase....and the chronological unevenness of the remainder
of the Antiquities alerts us to Josephus' personal knowledge that his continuously
connected sources up to this point, the "records" are exhausted.”
● Josephus writes many times that Antiquities was written on the basis of the sacred
Scripture, chronicling the history of the Jews throughout this time.
● Against Apion 1:1: "Through my treatise on Ancient History [Antiquities of the
Jews]... I consider that, to those who will read it, I have made it sufficiently clear
concerning our people, the Judeans, that it is extremely ancient and had its own original
composition, and how it inhabited the land that we now possess; for I composed in the
Greek language a history covering 5,000 years, on the basis of our sacred books."
● Against Apion 1.54: "In my Antiquities, as I said, I have given a translation of our
sacred books."
● Antiquities 1.5: "For it is going to encompass our entire ancient history and constitution
of the state, translated from the Hebrew writings."
● Antiquities 1.12: "For not even he [the high priest] anticipated me in obtaining the
entire Scripture"
● Antiquities 1.13: "Countless are the things revealed through the sacred Scriptures..."
● Antiquities 1.17: "This narrative will, therefore, in due course, set forth the precise
details of what is in the Scriptures according to its proper order."
● Antiquities 2.246: "As for myself, I have delivered every part of this history as I found
it in the sacred books."
● Antiquities 3.81: "but I am under a necessity of relating this history as it is described in
the sacred books."
● Antiquities 20.261: "and all according to what is written in our sacred books; for this
it was that I promised to do in the beginning of this history."

51
 ● This means that if Josephus held to the 22 book canon, then it should end at the reign of
Artaxerxes but it doesn’t. Since Antiquities continues through the Maccabean period and
Antiquities is based on Scripture, then it follows that the sacred books continued past
Artaxerxes through the Maccabean period.
● 1.29: "But that our ancestors took the same, not to say still greater, care over the
records as did those just mentioned, assigning this task to the chief-priests and
prophets, and how this has been maintained with great precision down to our own time
- and, if one should speak with greater boldness, will continue to be maintained - I shall
try to indicate briefly."
● Against Apion 1.9: “But that our ancestors took the same, not to say still greater, care
over the records as did those just mentioned, assigning this task to the chief-priests
and prophets, and how this has been maintained with great precision down to our
own time…” The prophets and chief priests continued to take care of Scriptures to the
time of Josephus. If proper written histories ceased at Artaxerxes, how can he assert
prophets and chief priests took care of it until his own time? There are no prophets on
the view that prophecy ceased.

Some protestants argue that he’s only talking about the care of sacred Scripture and he’s not
saying that the sacred books of the Jews contained a history all the way till his own time. This is
true but he does say that in other places. Antiquities 1.11-12: “On the other hand, Eleazaros,
second to none of the high priests among us, did not begrudge the aforementioned king the
enjoyment of this advantage. He would by all means have declined unless it had been our
tradition to hold nothing in secret of the things that are beautiful. And I truly thought that it was
fitting for myself to emulate the magnanimity of the high priest and to suppose that even now
there are many who are eager for knowledge similar to the king. For not even he anticipated me
in obtaining the entire Scripture, but those who were sent to Alexandria to translate it
transmitted this portion alone, namely of the law.” He’s saying the chief priest only gave the
Pentateuch and Josephus is going to do better and give the entire Scripture in Antiquities. In the
next line he explains how much history he’s going to give: “Countless are the things revealed
through the sacred Scriptures, since, indeed, the history of 5,000 years is embraced in
them, and there are all sorts of unexpected reversals and many vicissitudes of wars and brave
deeds of Generals and changes of governments.” If the sacred Scriptures only goes up to the
time of Artaxerxes, this falls way short of 5,000 years.

Another prominent Josephus scholar and translator, John Barclay, writes: “Josephus is here
speaking in approximate terms. According to Josephus’ own reckoning, 4306 years elapsed
from the creation of the world until the destruction of the First Temple in 586 BCE., 4719 years
until the death of Judah the Maccabee, and 4977 years until the publication of the Ant[iquities].”
If he meant up until the reign of Artaxerxes, then 5,000 would be a massive overestimation
rather than a sensible approximation, by rounding up to the nearest century.

● Josephus may have believed his work could be put alongside the sacred Scripture since
he said it continued to our time, not that it was totally closed.

52
 ● Josephus saying “the exact line of prophets ceased” means it is a more likely
interpretation that more prophets arose, since he doesn't actually deny prophets coming
after that.
● Josephus reports of John Hyrcanus as a prophet, proving he didn’t believe prophecy had
ceased. He further confirms this in Jewish Wars: “So, just where both the historical
writers of this type and our own prophets finished, there I shall establish the beginning
of my account. Josephus, War 17-18”. It is clear he still believes prophets in his own
day.
● His timeline runs seamlessly from Artaxerxes to afterwards, showing he didn’t think this
was the end of the time of the canon or Scripture; he talks about the historical record up
until Artaxerxes because Greek historiography starts upon the invasion of Artaxerxes.
● When Josephus does argue what is contained in the sacred books of the jews he says in
his preface to the Antiquities: “Accordingly, I thought it became me both to imitate the
generosity of our high priest, and to suppose there might even now be many lovers of
learning like the king; for he did not obtain all our writings at that time; but those who
were sent to Alexandria as interpreters, gave him only the books of the law, while there
were a vast number of other matters in our sacred books. They, indeed, contain in
them the history of five thousand years; in which time happened many strange
accidents, many chances of war, and great actions of the commanders, and mutations of
the form of our government.”
● Hungarian protestant scholar Jószef Zsellengér notes in Deuterocanonical and Cognate
Literature Studies, volume 5, that Josephus did cites 1 Esdras and the deutero sections
of Esther as Scripture: “We can suppose that he (Josephus) used the LXX version of
Esther and 1 Ezra, he also mentioned the story of Darius’ Bodyguards and treated them
as Scripture.”
● The only books that enjoyed religious trustworthiness across the whole Jewish diaspora
were the 5 books of Moses. The Sadducees and Samaritans rejected the rest.
● Josephus is not in line with the Talmud which in bb 12b argues that prophecy ceased
with the destruction of the temple in 587 BC, which would exclude some Protocanonical
books. This means that the Jewish tradition is not in line with Josephus.
● Protestants also bring up the phrase in Josephus “the books that were laid up in the
temple” but Josephus does not specify which books these were so we can’t say which
he affirms as Scripture.

Melito of Sardis (100s - 180 AD)

Eusebius (260-265 - 339 AD) recorded: “12. But in the Extracts made by him the same writer
gives at the beginning of the introduction a catalogue of the acknowledged books of the Old
Testament, which it is necessary to quote at this point. He writes as follows: 13. Melito to his
brother Onesimus, greeting: Since you have often, in your zeal for the word, expressed a wish
to have extracts made from the Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour and
concerning our entire faith, and has also desired to have an accurate statement of the ancient
book, as regards their number and their order, I have endeavored to perform the task, knowing

53
your zeal for the faith, and your desire to gain information in regard to the word, and knowing
that you, in your yearning after God, esteem these things above all else, struggling to attain
eternal salvation. 14. Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things
were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them
to you as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus,
Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of
Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes,
Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book ; Daniel,
Ezekiel, Esdras. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books. Such
are the words of Melito.” (Church History, book 4, chapter 26.12-14,
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250104.htm)

● The word “extracts” is significant because if Melito was really travelling to the Holy Land
to know what the canon was, how would he, as a bishop, not know which books were
read in his own church? It is impossible he could be that ignorant. Also, why would it
take Onesimus’ inquiry to motivate Melito to find out which books are in the Old
Testament? Why wouldn’t this venerable bishop by his own accord want to figure out
what God’s Word is? And if the Jewish canon really has been closed for hundreds of
years, how would people be ignorant of what the Jews accepted as Scripture even after
all this time, especially when the early Christians themselves had very highly educated
Jewish converts?
● Why would Melito have to travel all the way to the Holy Land to work out which books
are read as Scripture by Christians? Why not consult Christian communities in the area
when supposedly the canon was already established and used by Christians? Melito
most likely travelled to the Holy Land because it was better to get authoritative
statements from the source/origin of Rabbinical Judaism instead of asking a local Rabbi
his opinion at the time.
● Why did he go all the way to the Holy Land just to find out which books were in the
canon? Jewish-Christians relations being hostile wouldn’t make sense. Asking what
books are in the Old Testament canon isn’t an offensive issue and it is more likely that
rabbis would want to answer what they regard as the true Old Testament canon. Before
this, there had already been dialogue between Christians and Jews, such as between
Justin Martyr and Trypho and with others. The most likely reason the large Jewish
population in Sardis couldn’t tell Melito the canon is because they weren’t sure and there
were differences among them, so the solution would be to go to the cradle of Judaism,
the Holy Land.
● The list that he receives doesn’t even correspond to the protestant Bible or the modern
rabbinic Bible. It’s missing Esther, Nehemiah and it includes Wisdom, although a
possible explanation for why this in this list could be that it is an alternative name for
Proverbs and Esdras was likely referring to Ezra and Nehemiah. His omission of Esther
however is not controversial, it is recognised and it is obvious.
● First bold section tells us what Extracts is, it’s a proof text from the law and the prophets
that speak to Jesus as Saviour and the faith. In other words, an apologetic work that
can be used as proof text for evangelising. Even fiercely anti-Catholic Protestant

54
 historian Philip Schaff calls attention to this point in his work The Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers.
● Protestant scholar Arthur McGiffert says on Extracts: “The nature of the work is clear
from the words of Melito himself. It was a collection of testimonies to Christ and to
Christianity, drawn from the Old Testament law and prophets. It must, therefore, have
resembled closely such works as Cyprian's Testimonia, and the Testimonia of Pseudo-
Gregory, and other anti-Jewish works, in which the appeal was made to the Old
Testament-the common ground accepted by both parties-for proof of the truth of
Christianity. Although the Eclogae of Melito were not anti-Jewish in their design, their
character leads us to classify them with the general class of anti-Jewish works whose
distinguishing mark is the use of Old Testament prophecy in defense of Christianity.”
● Gary Michuta says: “Onesimus in his zeal for the Faith needed to know which books
could be used in Christianity’s defense. Using the same texts is extremely important. As
Origen wrote only a few decades later, the Jews “scornfully laugh at Gentile believers”
when they quoted texts that differ from their Rabbinic Bibles. Melito’s list was to help
Onesemus avoid such scornful laughter.”
● This explains why Melito only ever lists Old Testament books and never speaks about
the New Testament. If he were presenting a canon, it would make sense for him to
present the full canon.
● There is nothing else in his writing that hints that giving the Christian canon would fit in
with the book. What would be the point when Jews reject it? He would have to appeal to
their own canon, hence he does.
● Why would you randomly insert what you think the canon is, with no explanation, in a
book directed at Jews?
● This confusion seems to correlate with the probable closing of the canon around AD
130, where we start to see formation of codification of Jewish belief and writings,
expulsion of writings and the revolt, in which Akiva identified bar Kokhba as the Messiah
from Numbers 24:17. Because the revolt failed and Hadrian began severe persecution of
Jews, the Mishnah was eventually closed in AD 200, meaning at Melito’s time, there was
still ambiguity as to the canon and writings. Melito would have been aware of the
transformation Judaism was going through and thus needed to visit their authorities to
find out their canon.
● Esther is often omitted and disputed by the rabbinic literature, which would explain why it
is missing from Melito’s list.

Julius Africanus (160 - 240 AD)

Julius Africanus’ discussion with Origen over Susanna isn’t regarding the legitimacy of the book,
he disputes whether it was a later addition, arguing from the text itself why it’s not legitimate,
such as arguing Greek word plays prove it was written later in Greek. He never mentions canon.

● For his argument to work, he must believe the rest of the text was written in Hebrew. The
belief of Origen and Africanus was that it was written in Babylon; this was before

55
 Porphyry in his work “Against the Christians” argued Daniel was written later in the
Greek period. This all means that aside from this ‘portion’ that Africanus singles out, he
believes the rest is legitimate.
● He then argues some smaller objections, such as how Joakim’s wife could be sentenced
to death in captivity, how the impoverished Jews could have a mansion with a garden,
that no prophet repeats another prophet word for word and a general difference in style.
He says: “From all this I infer that this section is a later addition.”
● Origen thoroughly refuted all the points Africanus made, demonstrating his objections
about not finding elements in Hebrew and just in Greek undermines the entirety of
Christian Scripture. Origen is also specifically an authority on this matter, being the
father of textual criticism.
● He also dismisses the minor arguments, including replying that Daniel sometimes
prophesied from inspiration when he rebuked the elders. He chastised Africanus for
insulting this Scripture by saying it is not worthy because it is used in the churches,
which is Origen’s major criteria. He also gives Protocanonical references to demonstrate
prophets did quote other prophets word for word.
● He responds to Africanus saying the Jews don’t have the text by pointing out Africanus
uses a phrase from Tobit, which is a book the Jews don’t have and nor is it found in the
Hebrew apocrypha. He then uses Nehemiah to disprove one of his minor arguments by
showing people did well for themselves in captivity.
● He brushes aside the idea that there is a difference in style between Susanna and the
rest of Daniel, saying he doesn’t see it.

Origen (184 - 253 AD)

Eusebius wrote: “When expounding the first Psalm, he [Origen] gives a catalogue of the sacred
Scriptures of the Old Testament as follows: "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.” (Church History, book 6, chapter 25, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250106.htm)

● Firstly, canonical is a mistranslation. ‘Canonical’ doesn’t appear in writings until

Athanasius and the Greek here means covenanted books.
● Origen then gives the books, starting with the Greek, Hebrew, then what the Hebrew
means: “Farther on he says: 2. The twenty-two books of the Hebrews are the following:
That which is called by us Genesis, but by the Hebrews, from the beginning of the book,
Bresith, which means, 'In the beginning'; Exodus, Welesmoth, that is, 'These are the
names'; Leviticus, Wikra, 'And he called'; Numbers, Ammesphekodeim; Deuteronomy,
Eleaddebareim, 'These are the words'; Jesus, the son of Nave, Josoue ben Noun;
Judges and Ruth, among them in one book, Saphateim; the First and Second of Kings,
among them one, Samouel, that is, 'The called of God'; the Third and Fourth of Kings in
one, Wammelch David, that is, 'The kingdom of David'; of the Chronicles, the First and
Second in one, Dabreïamein, that is, 'Records of days'; Esdras, First and Second in one,
Ezra, that is, 'An assistant'; the book of Psalms, Spharthelleim; the Proverbs of Solomon,

56
 Meloth; Ecclesiastes, Koelth; the Song of Songs (not, as some suppose, Songs of
Songs), Sir Hassirim; Isaiah, Jessia; Jeremiah, with Lamentations and the epistle in one,
Jeremia; Daniel, Daniel; Ezekiel, Jezekiel; Job, Job; Esther, Esther. And besides these
there are the Maccabees, which are entitled Sarbeth Sabanaiel.”
● At this point in time, the rabbis did not accept the book of Esdras, only Ezra and
Nehemiah which they combined into one book. Notice Origen has Esdras 1 and 2 in
one, Ezra, which suggests that the Christians had Ezra and Nehemiah separated into 2
books, meaning the book of Esdras would be Esdras 3.
● Scholars suggest Origen omitted Baruch by mistake because it fits his description better
than the epistle of Jeremiah.
● Origen supplies the Hebrew name of the book of Maccabees, suggesting that it was still
being copied and circulated by rabbis in the 300s.
● This list omits the 12 minor prophets.
● Gary Michuta theorises that Origen counted the books, it made 21, so added Maccabees
so that it would equate to 22 letters of Hebrew alphabet although adding a qualification
that Maccabees is outside of the computation.
● Even without other sources, it is doubtful that this is Origen’s personally held list
because of how much he says “according to the Hebrews/Hebrew tradition”.
● The Catechetical School in Alexandria, where Origen taught, focused their study on the
allegorical meaning of Scripture. Origen’s Commentary on the Psalms most certainly
followed this penchant by finding a mystical allegorical correspondence between the
number of letters of the Hebrew alphabet and the number of books that the Jews
accepted. It’s a descriptive list of Rabbinic Judaism, theoretical and not actual, and he
rejects it elsewhere.
● The amount of quotes where Origen refers to the Deuterocanon books as Scripture is
huge, again and again clearly quotes the Deuterocanon as divinely inspired Scripture.
● It is clear the Deuterocanonical books are used to confirm doctrine and are equal with
the canon. In First Principles 1.2.5 he says: “Let us now ascertain how those statements
which we have advanced are supported by the authority of holy Scripture” and quotes
Wisdom 7:25-26 alongside Paul in Hebrews. He also does an exegesis of Wisdom 7:25-
27 to establish divine attributes in First Principles 1.2.9, using those same texts to
establish the same thing in Against Celsus 8.14. He uses Sirach to prove free will, Judith
to show the extent of Christ being the light of all men and Wisdom to show doctrine of
sin.
● Africanus attacked Susanna on linguistic grounds, Origen defends Susanna on
linguistics and especially Christian usage. After addressing Africanus’s concerns about
the wordplay, Origen reminds him that Susanna (and, by extension, the rest of the
Deuterocanon) is found and read as Scripture “in every Church of Christ.” Origen
acknowledges that Jews did not currently accept Susanna or the other books of the
Deuterocanon but the Church receives them as Scripture so we can have confidence in
their authenticity. Origen actually mocks the idea that Christians ought to reject any
portion of Scripture because it is not accepted by the Jews. This defence is in Origen’s
work History of Susanna.

57
 ● Origen writes: “And, forsooth, when we notice such things [portions of Scripture not
found in Hebrew manuscripts], we are forthwith to reject as spurious the copies in use in
our Churches, and enjoin the brotherhood to put away the sacred books current among
them, and to coax the Jews, and persuade them to give us copies which shall be
untampered with, and free from forgery! Are we to suppose that that Providence which in
the sacred Scriptures has ministered to the edification of all the Churches of Christ, had
no thought for those bought with a price, for whom Christ died; whom, although His Son,
God who is love spared not, but gave Him up for us all, that with Him He might freely
give us all things? 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.’”
Origen was not making an empty claim. His extensive travels throughout the Christian
world makes him a credible witness to the Church’s practice. Furthermore, Origen’s
claim of ubiquity would have been both obvious and readily verifiable for his original
audience.
● Origen claimed that it was in all the churches. If the Deuterocanon was a later addition to
the Scriptures, it would require that the apostles totally and entirely failed to pass on the
truth as they had been commissioned and that the understanding of what is inspired
Scripture must have been corrupted almost instantly after the death of the Apostles on a
universal scale.
● In Origen’s Homilies on the Book of Numbers, he suggests that catechumens should
read the “divine volumes”, starting with Esther, Judith, Tobit, Wisdom, as well as the
Gospels, the writings of the apostles, and the Psalms, leaving difficult books like
Numbers and Leviticus for last.
● Despite its formal quotation in Jude, Origen rejects Enoch because it did not circulate as
divine Scripture in the Church: “…the Apocrypha Enoch, of which the Apostle Jude cites
in his epistle, is not received among the Church’s Scriptures.”

Athanasius (293 - 373 AD)

Protestants focus exclusively on Athanasius’ 39th festal letter without considering the rest of his
work. It reads: “4. There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I
have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their
respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus,
after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun,
then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being
reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and
second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are
similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next
Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned
as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the
epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old
Testament. 5. Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are,
the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the

58
Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three;
after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order.
The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the
Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the
Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that
to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John. 6. These are fountains of salvation, that they
who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the
doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For
concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, 'You err, not knowing the
Scriptures.' And He reproved the Jews, saying, 'Search the Scriptures, for these are they that
testify of Me Matthew 22:29; John 5:39.' 7. But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of
necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but
appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in
the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther,
and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the
Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being read; nor is
there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who
write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a
date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple.”
(Festal Letter 39, part 4-7, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2806039.htm)

● Athanasius didn’t believe in the two layer system of canonical and apocrypha like we do
today; he believed in the three divisions. These are "those that are canonized",
(κανονιζόμενα) "those that are read", (άναγινωσκομένα) and "those that are hidden"
(τών αποκρύφων).
● When it comes to the word “canon”, we shouldn't put our modern understanding, where
canon is all inspired Scripture, back into history as how they might have used it, since
canon does not automatically mean all inspired writings for them.
● “Canon” for Athanasius seems to be referring to books that are accepted by Jews or
Christians to be able to confirm doctrine and canon doesn't strictly refer to what he
considers to be inspired Scripture. The category of “those that are read”, Deuterocanon,
is used for Christians to instruct them, since the Christians accepted it as inspired
Scripture. This is the only interpretation that fits all of the facts, considering the fact that
Athanasius in his writings referred to the Deuterocanon as inspired Scripture and used it
to confirmed doctrine, something only Scripture can be used to do.
● Some protestants claim the middle section was only used for edification but this isn’t true
in the writings of the Church fathers, including Athanasius, and how could books with the
Holy Spirit as their primary author merely be used for edification and nothing else? When
the Spirit was speaking through these words, why wouldn’t it be able to be used for
doctrine?
● When citing the passages in his work, he cites them authoritatively and the works are
not towards new Christians, they are in the middle of apologetics works on controversy
towards others who are already informed on canon issues.

59
 ● Athanasius affirms that the category “those that are read” can confirm doctrine when he
says it is necessary for us to be in union with the Word who is incorruptible and eternal
in order for us to stay off out natural inclination for corruption, using Wisdom. He uses
the Deuterocanonical books alongside the canon to demonstrate doctrine.
● Athanasius suggests that the books he listed (whether it be Old Testament or New
Testament) can be used to “put to shame” individuals. Christians obviously accept the
entire New Testament so that's why the New Testament was listed, while regarding the
Jews, they disputed some of the Old Testament.
● He particularly likes using Wisdom 7:25-27, explicitly as Scripture, in many places to
defend doctrine and defend others who believe in doctrine. He relies on the middle
section in his writings to confirm Christian doctrine and appeals to them to demonstrate
his positions in rich dogmatic writing.
● The list couldn’t affirm the protestant canon anyway because it includes Baruch.
● His inclusion of Baruch and exclusion of Esther suggests that the Jews in Alexandria
might not have fully adopted the normative rabbinic canon, still accepting Baruch while
doubting Esther.

Even without all the time he affirms the Deuterocanon as Scripture in his usage, the festal letter
isn’t good evidence without the context. The 39th festal letter was near the end of his life; it is
unlikely that the Christians didn’t know the canon the whole time and were misinterpreting
Athanasius’ work the whole time and it took all that time until the 39th festal letter for him to give
them an ‘interpretive key’ as protestant scholars call it in relation to the rest of his writing.
According to the protestant scholars, the festal letter is necessary to understand what he thinks
of the canon (since they disregard his other writings as telling us what he believes) so according
to them, he never explained in all his writings up until the 39th festal letter what he even
believed even though he used it in apologetics.

● We can see the Deuterocanon books are not apocrypha according to Athanasius.
● “But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity” tells us that he puts the
second category with the first and they share an affinity with the canon; they are both
approved by fathers, both pertain to the Godly Word and teaching while he writes
apocrypha are inventions of heretics.
● He places it in a second category in the first place because for the first category, the
Godly Word is preached and in the second, it is for catechesis, instruction, in the Godly
Word, which according to Athanasius the fathers said. Origen says similar about this
category so this idea may be supported by people such as him. Origen explains: “when
some such reading from the divine books is recited, in which there seems to be nothing
obscure, they gladly receive it, for example, the brief books of Esther, Judith or even
Tobit, or the precepts of the book of Wisdom. But if the book of Leviticus is read to him,
his mind immediately stumbles and he flees from it as from something that is not his own
food.” The Deuterocanon may have been used because it was easier to consume for
newer Christians. “That is why, as in the physical illustration, the food some have in the
Word of God is milk, that is, the clearer and simpler doctrine. This normally consists in
moral instruction, which is customarily given to those who are starting out in divine

60
 studies and who are receiving the first elements of a rational education.” (Homilies on
Numbers, book 27, chapter 1.2) Esther, Tobit, Judith and Wisdom are divine books that
are easier for new Christians.
● This likely explains why Athanasius excluded Esther from the first section and put it in
the second but included Baruch in the first. This gives lots of explanatory power as to the
difference between “those that are canonized” and “those that are read” as
evangelisation and catechesis and solves the questions that arise from the festal letter,
including his opening to the canonised works: “6. These are fountains of salvation, that
they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain." It also explains a line
regarding the canonised books: "For concerning these the Lord put to shame the
Sadducees, and said, 'Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.' And He reproved the
Jews, saying, 'Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me." This would
also link to the opening in regard to specifically evangelisation to Jews: "4. There are,
then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is
handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their
respective order and names being as follows.” He is clearly trying to reproduce the
books used by the Hebrews, the same as Origen: “'It should be known that, according
to Hebrew tradition, there are twenty-two canonical books, the same as the number
of the letters in their alphabet....`The twenty-two books according to the Hebrews are
these…” (Church History, book 6, chapter 25.1,
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250106.htm)
● This also explains why Baruch was in the first category. Around this time, Christians had
a common belief that Jews held to Baruch and read it in the synagogues as Scripture:
“XX. For even now, on the tenth day of the month Gorpiæus, when they assemble
together, they read the Lamentations of Jeremiah, in which it is said, The Spirit before
our face, Christ the Lord was taken in their destructions; Lamentations 4:20 and Baruch,
in whom it is written, This is our God; no other shall be esteemed with Him. He found out
every way of knowledge, and showed it to Jacob His son, and Israel His beloved.
Afterwards He was seen upon earth, and conversed with men. And when they read
them, they lament and bewail.” (Apostolic Constitutions, book 5, chapter 20,
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/07155.htm)
● This also explains why Esther wasn’t included because communities such as the
Qumran didn’t seem to accept Esther, which is why it wasn’t found in the dead sea
scrolls. This also explains why Melito didn’t include it in his supposedly “Christian” Old
Testament list. Rabbinical debate over Esther continued for a long time, such as in the
Babylonian Talmud (Meg. 7a): “Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: (the scroll of)
Esther does not make the hands unclean. Are we to infer from this that Samuel was of
the opinion that Esther was not composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit? How
can this be, seeing that Samuel has said that Esther was composed under the
inspiration of the holy spirit?-It was composed to be recited (by heart), but not to be
written.” Rabbi Samuel ben Judah and Rab Judah date to the 3d century c.e.: “and we
read in Sanh. 2 that Levi ben Samuel and Rabbi Huna ben Hiyya were repairing the
mantles of the Scrolls of Rabbi Judah's College. On coming to the Scroll of Esther, they

61
 remarked, "0, this Scroll of Esther does not require a mantle." Thereupon he reproved
them, "this too savours of irreverence."”
● Origen also lists Esther last in his list, indicating some sort of significance to Esther in
evangelisation to Jews.
● All this information coheres and enlightens us on everything involved in the festal letter
while also being consistent with all the other writings of Athanasius, which cannot be
said for the Protestant claims about Athanasius. It also shows continuity and consistency
with his predecessors Melito, Dionysius (who he quotes from when exegeting Wisdom),
Origen and Alexander of Alexandria.

Cyril of Jerusalem (313 - 386 AD)

Cyril uses the Protocanon and Deuterocanon together in significant ways. He wrote: “33. Now
these the divinely-inspired Scriptures of both the Old and the New Testament teach us. For the
God of the two Testaments is One, Who in the Old Testament foretold the Christ Who appeared
in the New; Who by the Law and the Prophets led us to Christ's school. For before faith came,
we were kept in ward under the law, and, the law has been our tutor to bring us unto Christ. And
if ever thou hear any of the heretics speaking evil of the Law or the Prophets, answer in the
sound of the Saviour's voice, saying, Jesus came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it. Matthew
5:17 Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testament, and
what those of the New. And, pray, read none of the apocryphal writings : for why do you, who
know not those which are acknowledged among all, trouble yourself in vain about those which
are disputed? Read the Divine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, these
that have been translated by the Seventy-two Interpreters. ...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 yourself 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 thou not upon its statutes. And of the Old Testament, as
we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if you are 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 , and
the book of Judges, including Ruth, counted as seventh. And of the other historical books, the
first and second books of the Kings are among the Hebrews one book; also the third and fourth
one book. And in like manner, the first and second of Chronicles are with them one book; and
the first and second of Esdras are counted one. Esther is the twelfth book; and these are the
Historical writings. But those which are written in verses are five, Job, and the book of Psalms,
and Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, which is the seventeenth book. And
after these come the five Prophetic books: of the Twelve Prophets one book, of Isaiah one, of
Jeremiah one, including Baruch and Lamentations and the Epistle ; then Ezekiel, and the Book
of Daniel, the twenty-second of the Old Testament. 36. Then of the New Testament there are
the four Gospels only, for the rest have false titles and are mischievous. The Manichæans also
wrote a Gospel according to Thomas, which being tinctured with the fragrance of the evangelic
title corrupts the souls of the simple sort. Receive also the Acts of the Twelve Apostles; and in

62
addition to these the seven Catholic Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude; and as a seal
upon them all, and the last work of the disciples, the fourteen Epistles of Paul. But let all the rest
be put aside in a secondary rank. And whatever books are not read in Churches, these read not
even by yourself, as you have heard me say. Thus much of these subjects.” (Catechetical
Lecture 4, parts 33-36, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310104.htm)

Once again, Cyril is an example of someone who does not use the same binary as we use
today. He holds to 3 divisions; the 22 books, those that are read and apocrypha. He affirms
elsewhere in his work that the 2nd category is also inspired Scriptures.

● His list of 22 includes Baruch.

● He explains why he singles out these books in the prologue to the Catechetical lectures:
“10. Attend closely to the catechisings, and though we should prolong our discourse, let
not your mind be wearied out. For you are receiving armour against the adverse power,
armour against heresies, against Jews, and Samaritans , and Gentiles. You have many
enemies; take to you many darts, for you have many to hurl them at: and you have need
to learn how to strike down the Greek, how to contend against heretic, against Jew and
Samaritan. And the armour is ready, and most ready the sword of the Spirit : but thou
also must stretch forth your right hand with good resolution, that you may war the Lord's
warfare, and overcome adverse powers, and become invincible against every heretical
attempt.” (Procatechesis (Prologue), part 10,
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310100.htm)
● The idea of producing lists as a part of prooftexts for evangelising to Jews has already
been seen with Melito and Athanasius. The chief critics to respond to at the time were
the Jews and Cyril was from Jerusalem. This seems to be the emphasis of these works,
while also covering heretics.
● When we look at the context, we see this emphasis on responding to Jews: "And if ever
thou hear any of the heretics speaking evil of the Law or the Prophets, answer in the
sound of the Saviour's voice, saying, Jesus came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it."
● He never suggests they are inferior and it is clear it is a list to show which books should
be used to combat the Jews, as Cyril clearly said.

Hilary of Poitiers (315 - 368 AD)

Hilary writes in his Preface to the Psalms: “And this is the cause that the law of the Old
Testament is divided into twenty-two books, that they might agree with the number of letters.
These books are arranged according to the traditions of the ancients, so that five are of Moses,
the sixth is of Jesus Nave, the seventh is Judges and Ruth, the first and second of Kings form
the eighth; the third and fourth (of Kings) form the ninth; the two books of Paralipomenon form
the tenth; the discourses of the days of Ezra form the eleventh; the book of Psalms, the twelfth;
Solomon's proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Canticle of Canticles form the thirteenth, fourteenth
and fifteenth; the twelve Prophets form the sixteenth; while Isaiah, then Jeremiah, the
Lamentations and the Epistle, Daniel, Ezechiel, Job, and Esther complete the number of twenty-

63
two books. To some it has seemed good to add Tobias and Judith, and thus constitute twenty-
four books according to the Greek alphabet.”

Scholars all say Hilary was dependent on Origen for this and since we know what the intention
of Origen’s list was to provide names to correspond to the Hebrew alphabet, that is already a
strong indication of Hilary’s intent. The school of Alexandria were more accustomed to an
allegorical and mystical understanding of Scripture so this fits with Origen’s context. Jerome
said that Hilary imitated borrowed from Origen in his commentaries on Psalms, from which this
list is from and in the previous paragraph, Hilary was investigating the mystical uses of the
number 8 in Scripture. In his preface, he writes: “And this is the cause that the law of the Old
Testament is divided into twenty-two books, that they might agree with the number of letters.”
He is affirming that the ancients divided the OT in this way to correspond with the alphabet,
giving context for when he gives his own twenty-two book list.

● When speaking of the Greek alphabet, Hilary writes: "...then Jeremiah, the Lamentations
and the Epistle, Daniel, Ezechiel, Job, and Esther complete the number of twenty-two
books. To some it has seemed good to add Tobias and Judith, and thus constitute
twenty-four books according to the Greek alphabet".
● If Hilary is giving us the canon, why does he then say non canonical books can be added
to correspond with an alphabet? Does the real canon depend on what alphabet you
have? Hilary of Poitiers wasn’t concerned about which books were in the canon, he was
concerned about the correspondence of numbers and letters and books
● It tells us rabbinical Judaism continued to copy and hold to Tobit and Judith when they
could be added to the list, which would be strange if Tobit and Judith were never held as
Scripture by Jews.
● Why is the 22 preferred over the 24 canon of the Greek alphabet? Just because it fits
with the narrative that is assumed before reading Hilary’s writing? We shouldn’t really
get into saying he believes either the list of 22 or the list of 24. Making authoritative
statements is hazardous to one’s credibility and it would be a fallacy of irregular
quotation to say he believes either.

To determine Hilary’s actual canon, we must look at his usage, where he affirms Tobit, Judith,
Sirach (in the very same prologue with the formal introduction “according to that which is
spoken”), Wisdom (in the very same work quoted as coming from the prophet and Solomon),
Baruch and 1-2 Maccabees and uses Deuterocanon books to affirm doctrine. If Hilary’s actual
canon was the 22 books which exclude Tobit, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch and 1-2
Maccabees or the 24 books which exclude Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch and 1-2 Maccabees, why
does he affirm those books as Scripture in his writings?

Gregory of Nazianzus (329 - 390 AD)

Gregory of Nazianzus wrote: “The divine oracles should always on the tongue and in the mind
be rehearsed. For God will indeed give a reward for this labor, so that you may obtain light from

64
anything hidden, or, what is far better, that you may be spurred by God to greater purity, and
thirdly, be called away from the cares of the world by such study.... But let not extraneous books
seduce your mind. For many malignant writings have been disseminated. Accept, O friend,
this my approved number. These are all twelve of the historical books, of the most ancient
Hebrew wisdom: First there is Genesis, then Exodus, Leviticus too. Then Numbers, and the
Second Law. Then Joshua and Judges. Ruth is eighth. The ninth and tenth books [are] the acts
of Kings, and [the eleventh is] Chronicles. Last you have Ezra.The poetic books are five: Job
being first, then [the Psalms of] David; and three of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Canticles and
Proverbs. And similarly five of prophetic inspiration. There are the Twelve written in one book:
Hosea and Amos, and Micah the third; then Joel, and Jonah, Obadiah, Nahum also, and
Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, Haggai, then Zechariah, and Malachi. All these are one. The second
is of Isaiah. Then the one called as an infant, Jeremiah, Then Ezekiel, and the gift of Daniel. I
count therefore, twenty-two of the ancient books, corresponding to the number of the Hebrew
letters. Now count also those of the new mystery. Matthew wrote the miracles of Christ for the
Hebrews, Mark for Italy, Luke for Greece; John for all, the great herald, who walked in the
heavens. Then the acts of the wise apostles. Of Paul there are fourteen epistles. And the seven
catholic, [which include] one of James, two of Peter, three of John also; and Jude is the
seventh. You have them all. And if there are any beyond these, they are not genuine.”

● This list omits Esther and Revelation, which was a book debated a lot at the time, but
Gregory himself likely accepted Revelation because he referred to John as the great
herald, who walked in the heavens, so likely the author of Revelation and affirming of it
because he obviously affirms John was an inspired author.
● In Oration 43:70, he wrote: “Come then, there have been many men of old days
illustrious for piety, as lawgivers, generals, prophets, teachers, and men brave to the
shedding of blood. Let us compare our prelate with them, and thus recognize his merit.
Adam was honoured by the hand of God, and the delights of Paradise, Adam, Enos,
Enoch, Abraham, Rebeckah, Jacob, Job, Moses, Aaron, Joshua, Judges, David,
Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, the three children, Jonah, Daniel and the struggle of the seven
Maccabees, who were perfected with their father and mother in blood, and in all kinds of
tortures. Their endurance he rivalled, and won their glory.” In Oration 43:75, Gregory
wrote: “I now turn to the New Testament, and comparing his life with those who are here
illustrious, I shall find in the teachers a source of honour for their disciple.” Here he
makes no distinction counting the books alongside the New Testament.
● Gregory constantly affirms the Deuterocanonical books as Scripture and uses them to
confirm doctrine, meaning he held them to be Scripture in the fullest sense.
● The best way to reconcile the list with all the rest of his writing is to assume the list were
those that were indisputable, which would also especially explain why on this list,
Revelation was absent.
● We see later lists that are similar in composition to this where it lists the undisputed
Scripture, books of some dispute and rejected books.
● Gregory is also aware he is not appealing to Church usage and this is his own extraction
as to his personal beliefs.

65
 Amphilochius of Iconium (339-340 - 394 AD)

Amphilochius doesn’t appeal to church usage like Gregory, who was likely his cousin. He wrote:
“But this especially for you to learn is fitting: not every book is safe which has acquired the
venerable name of Scripture. For there appear from time to time pseudonymous books, some of
which are intermediate or neighbours, as one might say, to the words of Truth, while others are
spurious and utterly unsafe, like counterfeit and spurious coins which bear the king's inscription,
but as regards their material are base forgeries. For this reason I will state for you the divinely
inspired books one by one, so that you may learn them clearly. I will first recite those of the Old
Testament. The Pentateuch has Creation, then Exodus, and Leviticus, the middle book, after
which is Numbers, then Deuteronomy. Add to these Joshua, and Judges, then Ruth, and of
Kingdoms the four books, and the double team of Chronicles; after these, Esdras, one and then
the second. Then I would review for you five in verse: Job, crowned in the contests of many
sufferings, and the Book of Psalms, soothing remedy for the soul, three of Solomon the Wise:
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticle of Canticles. Add to these the Prophets Twelve, Hosea first,
then Amos the second, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, and the type of Him who three days suffered,
Jonah, Nahum after those, and Habakkuk; and ninth, Zephaniah, Haggai, and Zechariah, and
twice-named angel Malachi. After these prophets learn yet another four: The great and fearless
Isaiah, the sympathetic Jeremiah, and mysterious Ezekiel, and finally Daniel, most wise in his
deeds and words. With these, some approve the inclusion of Esther. Time now for me to recite
the books of the New Testament. Accept only four Evangelists, Matthew, then Mark, to which
Luke as third add; count John in time as fourth, but first in sublimity of dogma. Son of Thunder
rightly he is called, who loudly sounded forth the Word of God. Accept from Luke a second book
also, that of the catholic Acts of the Apostles. Add to these besides that Chosen Vessel, Herald
of the Gentiles, the Apostle Paul, writing in wisdom to the churches twice seven epistles, one to
the Romans, to which must be added two to the Corinthians, and that to the Galatians, and to
the Ephesians, after which there is the one to the Philippians, then those written to the
Colossians, to the Thessalonians two, two to Timothy, and to Titus and Philemon one each, and
to the Hebrews one. Some call that to the Hebrews spurious, but they say it not well; for the
grace is genuine. What then is left? Of the Catholic epistles some say seven, others only three
must be accepted: one of James, one of Peter, one of John, otherwise three of John, and with
them two of Peter, and also Jude's, the seventh. The Apocalypse of John, again, some approve,
but most will call it spurious. This would be the most unerring canon of the divinely inspired
Scriptures.”

● Like Athanasius and Cyril, he divides the Scripture into two sections with apocrypha in a
third.
● He doesn’t divide based on Church usage, he gives his own opinion.
● Non inclusion of a book does not entail rejection.
● The list doesn’t include Lamentations and says some approve of Esther, which is a
distinctly rabbinic doubt because they argued it for centuries and Christians recognise
this in the evangelism to Jews lists while Christians themselves rarely disputed it and it is
cited very commonly without any denotation of doubt. 1st Clement even cites Judith and
Esther in AD 80.

66
 ● He says some doubt the epistle of Hebrews, 2nd and 3rd John, 2nd Peter and
Revelation.
● Like Gregory, he seems to be constructing a list that is undisputed by all rather than the
genuine one, hence the final line: “This would be the most unerring canon of the divinely
inspired Scriptures.”
● He is the second earliest father to use the word canon in reference to a list of Christian
Scriptures.
● Lee McDonald writes: “After listing his books, Amphilochius concludes, "This is perhaps
the most faithful [lit., "unfalsified"] canon [kanon] of the divinely inspired Scriptures." The
use of the optative with the particle an suggests both an element of doubt and a
statement of what he hopes will obtain in the churches.”
● Only 3 sermons that definitely belong to Amphilochius remain and even they cite
Deuterocanon, such as Wisdom 4:2 and Baruch 3:38, which shows that his non-
inclusion of them was not because of rejection.

Epiphanius of Salamis (310 - 403 AD)

Epiphanius of Salamis was very influential to Jerome. His work ‘Panarion’ was a work against
most every heresy. The first list that is cited is from On Weights and Measures, chapter 4:
“Therefore in this manner the books also are counted as twenty-two; but there are twenty-
seven, because five of them are double. For Ruth is joined to Judges, and they are counted
among the Hebrews (as) one book. The first (book) of Kingdoms is joined to the second and
called one book; the third is joined to the fourth and becomes one book. First Paraleipomena is
joined to Second and called one book. The first book of Ezra is joined to the second and
becomes one book .So in this way the books are grouped into four "pentateuchs," and there are
two others left over, so that the books of the (Old) Testament are as follows: the five of the
Law---- Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy----this is the Pentateuch, otherwise
the code of law; and five in verse----the book of Job, then of the Psalms, the Proverbs of
Solomon, Koheleth, the Song of Songs. Then another "pentateuch" (of books) which are called
the Writings, and by some the Hagiographa, which are as follows: Joshua the (son) of Nun, the
book of Judges with Ruth, First and Second Paraleipomena, First and Second Kingdoms, Third
and Fourth Kingdoms; and this is a third "pentateuch" Another "pentateuch" is the books of the
prophets----the Twelve Prophets (forming) one book, Isaiah one, Jeremiah one, Ezekiel one,
Daniel one ----and again the prophetic "pentateuch" is filled up. But there remain two other
books, which are (one of them) the two of Ezra that are counted as one, and the other the book
of Esther. So twenty-two books are completed according to the number of the twenty-two letters
of the Hebrews. For there are two (other) poetical books, that by Solomon called "Most
Excellent," and that by Jesus the son of Sirach and grandson of Jesus---- for his grandfather
was named Jesus (and was) he who composed Wisdom in Hebrew, which his grandson,
translating, wrote in Greek----which also are helpful and useful, but are not included in the
number of the recognized; and therefore they were not kept in the chest, that is, in the ark of the
covenant.”

67
 ● This adds Wisdom and Sirach, which he qualifies with “which also are helpful and useful,
but are not included in the number of the recognized; and therefore they were not kept in
the chest, that is, in the ark of the covenant.” Since we have heard that the 22 book
computation is a rabbinic computation from Origen and others, we can assume his
qualification is pertaining to the Jews not recognising them.
● “The chest, that is, in the ark of the covenant” could be a metaphor or analogy for the
sacred books of the Jews but this phrase has unclear meaning.

In Panarion, section 2, heresy 8, 6.1-4, he gives his second list: “By the time of the captives'
return from Babylon these Jews had acquired the following books and prophets, and the
following books of the prophets: [lists the Protocanonical books with Baruch and the Epistle]...
And they [the Jews] have two more books of disputed canonicity, the Wisdom of Sirach
and the Wisdom of Solomon, apart from certain other apocrypha. All these holy books also
taught Judaism the things kept by the law until the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

● Here again he discusses the disputed canonicity of Sirach and Wisdom.

● This list is very clearly talking about Judaism and its historic reception of sacred texts
and even in his listing of the books the Jews accumulated before the return from the
Babylonian captivity, he includes Baruch and the epistle.
● “Apart from certain other apocrypha” shows us that the canon he’s giving isn’t a
restrictive Jewish canon and there are more disputed writings.

His third list is also from the Panarion, heresy 76, refutation of proposition 5, 22.5: “For if thou
were begotten of the Holy Ghost, and taught by the Apostles and Prophets, this should you do:
Examine all the sacred codices from Genesis to the times of Esther, which are twenty-seven
books of the Old Testament, and are enumerated as twenty-two; then the four Holy Gospels...
and the books of Wisdom, that of Solomon, and of the Son of Sirach, and in fine all the books of
Scripture [Greek, "divine writings"], and realize that you have come to us with a name,
'ingenerate,' which Scripture [Greek, divine Scripture] never mentions.”

● This is a partial, incomplete list so clearly isn’t meant to give the canonical list of
Scripture.
● It does however include Sirach and Wisdom in Scripture, which should actually be
translated here as "the divine writings".
● Since in this part he is not saying what the heresy believes, it seems like he is affirming
Sirach, Wisdom and perhaps more books just in this one statement.
● So, Epiphanius’ first list enumerates only the 22 books, the second enumerates the
books that the Jews accepted up to the time they came back from the Babylonian exile
as well as the 2 disputed books and apocrypha and the third gives reference to all
Scripture as well as enumerating the 22, citing Esther, Wisdom, Sirach all as the divine
writings without ruling out more as well.
● Epiphanius invalidates the Arian Anomoeans’ use of the term “ingenerate” because it is
never used in the “divine writings.” What are the “divine writings” that are capable of
validating it? The 22 books of the Old Testament (from Genesis to Esther), the New

68
 Testament, Wisdom, Sirach, and others. Unlike the list given in Against Judaism that
reproduces the rabbinic canon, against the Arians Epiphanius appeals to the Christian
canon, which includes the books of Wisdom, Sirach, and others.
● Epiphanius in his other writings affirms the Deuterocanon extensively and he does not
restrict himself to the 22 book Protocanon when talking about doctrine. He never assigns
the Deuterocanonical books to the apocrypha.
● Epiphanius even assigned Wisdom and Sirach to the New Testament in Panarion 76.5.

Jerome (342-347 - 420 AD)

Jerome is the first Church father who rejected the Deuterocanon and classified it as apocrypha,
although he still included Deuterocanon in his translation of the Bible, the Vulgate, due to the
unanimous Church acceptance of it as Scripture. Jerome believed his Hebrew text was the
genuine Biblical text and that the others were dependent on it. In his preface to the Books of
Samuel and Kings, he wrote: “...This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a "helmeted"
introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured
that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom,
therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of
Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon. The first book of
Maccabees I have found to be Hebrew, the second is Greek, as can be proved from the very
style. Seeing that all this is so, I beseech you, my reader, not to think that my labours are in any
sense intended to disparage the old translators.”

Jerome divides the books into a twofold system of inspired and apocrypha. He accepts any
book in the Hebrew text and rejects any book that isn’t in his Hebrew text.

● In his prologue to Jeremiah, he writes: “And the Book of Baruch, his scribe, which is
neither read nor found among the Hebrews, we have omitted, standing ready, because
of these things, for all the curses from the jealous, to whom it is necessary for me to
respond through a separate short work.” He again rejects it based on the Hebrew text
and also acknowledges the backlash he will get from Christians for omitting Baruch.
● In his prologue to Daniel, Jerome writes: “Therefore, I have shown these things to you as
a difficulty of Daniel, which among the Hebrews has neither the history of Susanna, nor
the hymn of the three young men, nor the fables of Bel and the dragon, which we,
because they are spread throughout the whole world, have appended by banishing and
placing them after the spit (or "obelus"), so we will not be seen among the unlearned to
have cut off a large part of the scroll. I heard a certain one of the teachers of the Jews,
when he derided the history of Susanna and said it to have been forged by an unknown
Greek, to propose that which Africanus also proposed to Origen, these etymologies to
come down from the Greek language ..By these and arguments of such kinds he
exposed (or "accused") the apocryphal fables in the book of the Church.” He again
rejects them due to the Hebrew text but still includes the additions to Daniel in his

69
 translation because they were widely held and read in all the churches. He simply puts
an obelisk next to the section.
● In Jerome’s preface to Solomon, he writes: “Therefore, just as the Church reads Judith,
Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them to the canon of Scripture;
So let the Church read these two volumes, for the edification of the people, but not to
support the authority of ecclesiastical doctrines.” Again he recognises that they were
read in the Church but adds his own point to say they aren’t used to confirm Scripture.
However, as we have seen with all the other earlier fathers, they were used to confirm
Scripture in the churches.
● Again with Esther, Jerome uses the Hebrew text to determine corruption: “The Book of
Esther stands corrupted by various translators. Which (book) I, lifting up from the
archives of the Hebrews, have translated more accurately word for word.”
● In his preface to Tobit: “The book of Tobit, though not in the canon, is all the same used
by the men of the Church, and he [it?] mentions Jonah when Tobit says to his son, "my
son, I am old and ready to leave this life. Take your sons and go to Media, my son. For I
know what the prophet Jonah has said about Nineveh: she will be destroyed.”
● When Jerome wants to appeal to a Deuterocanonical text, he uses the fact that every
Christian holds the text to be authoritative.

Towards the end of his works, Jerome wrote in his prologue to Tobit: “I do not cease to wonder
at the constancy of your demanding. For you demand that I bring a book written in Chaldean
words into Latin writing, indeed the book of Tobias, which the Hebrews exclude from the
catalogue of Divine Scriptures, being mindful of those things which they have titled
Hagiographa. I have done enough for your desire, yet not by my study. For the studies of the
Hebrews rebuke us and find fault with us, to translate this for the ears of Latins contrary to
their canon. But it is better to be judging the opinion of the Pharisees to displease and to be
subject to the commands of bishops.” Jerome was demanded to write many translations at the
demand of bishops but near the end, he writes “contrary to their canon” when referring to the
Latin speaking people, noting the Rabbinic canon is different and there isn’t one authentic
canon. He knows that this isn’t the authentic canon of the Church.

● He rejects Judith again based on the Hebrew text but in his prologue to Judith, he again
refers to the conflict between the church’s canon and the Hebrew text canon of the
bishops’ demands: "Among the Jews, the book of Judith is considered among the
apocrypha... Moreover, since it was written in the Chaldean language, it is counted
among the historical books [inter historias computatur]." "But since the Nicene Council is
considered to have counted this book among the number of sacred Scriptures
[sanctarum Scripturarum], I have acquiesced to your request (or should I say
demand!)..." There isn’t anything in the surviving documents of the Nicene Council about
canonisation of a list so it is unclear what Jerome is referring to. It is possible that he just
knew the canon of the Church was that and the Council would accept and support that
canon. The quote “or should I say demand!” again suggests this translation and method
is due to the demand of bishops.

70
On rare occasion however, Jerome uses the Deuterocanon to confirm Scripture even though he
states clearly he does not believe it to be canonical. He most likely used it to confirm Scripture
because he recognised that the Church held definitively that it is Scripture and he can use it
legitimately to prove his points to his audience because the audience hold it to be Scripture.

● A huge portion, close to a majority, of his usage comes from informal quotations, i.e.
quotations without any recognition of what text is being cited or whether he’s making any
emphasis on what the text is saying or whether it means something.
● Jerome’s use of the Deuterocanon is flat and unattractive. You don’t find many informal
quotations in early fathers but Jerome does plenty in that style. It is rare that Church
fathers do this, but it can be seen in some where they speak of the status of the
reception of the book, i.e. that some dispute it, which indicates the Church father in
question accepts it. Jerome does the opposite, for example in Letter 54.16: “In the book
of Judith — if any one is of opinion that it should be received as canonical — we
read of a widow wasted with fasting and wearing the sombre garb of a mourner, whose
outward squalor indicated not so much the regret which she felt for her dead husband as
the temper in which she looked forward to the coming of the Bridegroom. I see her hand
armed with the sword and stained with blood. I recognize the head of Holofernes which
she has carried away from the camp of the enemy. Here a woman vanquishes men, and
chastity beheads lust. Quickly changing her garb, she puts on once more in the hour of
victory her own mean dress finer than all the splendours of the world.” (Letter 54, part
16, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001054.htm)
● He does the same in his commentary on Haggai 1.5-6: “Likewise, those who simply do
not drink, thirst, as in Judith (if you want to receive this book) and the children thirst.”
● He clearly says Wisdom is not of Solomon but sometimes uses it as if it was, carelessly,
like in Homily 42 on Psalm 127: “'Your wife shall be like a fruitful vine in the recesses of
your home.' It is Solomon who says that he longed to make wisdom his bride. (Wisdom
8:2)”
● He also clearly did not accept Baruch but in a very rare instance, he cites it as Scripture
in his Homily 92 on Psalm 41: “In another place in Scripture, we read appropriately
of the Son: 'They have forsaken the fountain of wisdom'; [Baruch 3:12] and of the
Holy Spirit, in turn: 'He who drinks of the water that I will give him, the water shall
become in him a fountain of water, springing up unto life everlasting.' (John 4:14-15) The
evangelist explains, at once, that the Savior said this of the Holy Spirit. From the
testimony of these texts, it is established beyond doubt that the three fountains of the
Church constitute the mystery of the Trinity.”
● He also uses other books he otherwise rejected, such as Sirach.
● He started using the Deuterocanon more favourably later on life and quoting it more
positively, possibly because he realised the Church was set on it as Scripture, although
he never relented in his opinion.
● His more positive use of the Deuterocanon could suggest he possibly changed his mind
but he never stated that and it is more likely he even though he was opposed to it, he
was just less emphatic.

71
 Rufinus of Aquileia (344-345 - 411 AD)

Rufinus was a close contemporary of Jerome, who he was united in admiration for Origen with,
and is the first Christian to assign the Deuterocanon to the apocrypha in accordance with
protestants today. Rufinus defended Origen from criticism of Jerome later on and often softened
Origen’s writing to make it more in accordance with regular belief. He wrote: “This then is the
Holy Ghost, who in the Old Testament inspired the Law and the Prophets, in the New the
Gospels and the Epistles. Whence also the Apostle says, “All Scripture given by inspiration of
God is profitable for instruction.” 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 been 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. Of the New there are
four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; the Acts of the Apostles, written by Luke; fourteen
Epistles of the Apostle Paul, two of the Apostle Peter, one of James, brother of the Lord and
Apostle, one of Jude, three of John, the Revelation of John. These are the books which the
Fathers have comprised within the Canon, and from which they would have us deduce the
proofs of our faith. 38. 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.”

Rufinus holds to the 3 divisions of Scripture, canonical, ecclesiastical and apocrypha. He

believes the same idea that some are for use in catechesis and some for evangelisation. Like
previous examples, the second category seems to be a subset of the first category.

● His canonical list omits Lamentations, Baruch and the epistle.

72
● He may have bundled books under Jeremiah, especially considering an apparent
leaving out of Lamentations.
● Usage is hard to see with Rufinus because most of Rufinus’ writing is translations of
other writings, which he is better known for than his own original authorship.
● As an ardent defender, diligent student and admirer of Origen so it is highly likely
Rufinus got his views and fully shared his views on the canon with Origen. He never
departs from Origen’s teaching and Origen on this teaches extensively that the books
are Scripture and uses them to confirm and demonstrate doctrine.
● In translation work, he quotes Baruch as Scripture from the prophet Jeremiah in two
works and also Lamentations.
● Even from what little writing we have of Rufinus, he twice quotes Sirach, 34:9 and 11:30,
in his commentary on the 12 Patriarchs, explicitly as coming from Scripture and sacred
Scripture.
● He calls them ecclesiastical books but none of the documents we have prior to this in
lists does someone call the second category ecclesiastical (although some documents
may have been lost that do). Gary Michuta can only find one instance of a Church father
describing the second category of books as ecclesiastical. Predictably it is Origen,
through a passage that comes via Rufinus’ translation.
● As Rufinus followed Origen, explicitly in this case, we need to determine what Origen
meant by ecclesiastical books: “The term ἀσώματον, i.e., incorporeal, is disused and
unknown, not only in many other writings, but also in our own Scriptures. And if any one
should quote it to us out of the little treatise entitled The Doctrine of Peter, in which the
Saviour seems to say to His disciples, "I am not an incorporeal demon," I have to reply,
in the first place, that that work is not included among ecclesiastical books; for we
can show that it was not composed either by Peter or by any other person inspired
by the Spirit of God.” (De Principiis, preface, chapter 8,
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04120.htm)
● He tells us these books are composed by a person inspired by the Spirit of God and the
term ecclesiastical itself also tells us it is Scripture.
● Rufinus departs from the regular view that the second category is for instruction of
doctrine for the Christian community rather than for evangelisation of the Jews by
saying: “...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.” (Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed, part 38,
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2711.htm)
● It isn’t clear whether he means the second category couldn’t be used to confirm doctrine
within the Church or to everyone but the second view doesn’t seem to make sense given
at the start of the book, he quotes 2 Timothy 3:16: “Whence also the Apostle says, All
Scripture given by inspiration of God is profitable for instruction.” (Commentary on the
Apostles’ Creed, part 36, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2711.htm) So, as long as
Rufinus believes something is Scripture, it can be used for instruction. This view only
makes sense on the less restrictive view because if there was no situation where this
Scripture could be used for instruction, he would be violating 2 Timothy 3:16 even
though he cites it.

73
 ● Earlier in his commentary, Rufinus uses the same illustrations that Athanasius, Origen
and others used that are taken from the 7th chapter of the book of Wisdom to
demonstrate doctrine in regard to the relationship of the Father to the Son. Would
Rufinus be inconsistent with his own teaching by using the Deuterocanon for instruction
while saying it cannot be used for instruction? The second view would necessitate this.

Objection: He’s not directly quoting Wisdom in that example so could just be using it
because it’s a long used illustration from the Church fathers to teach trinitarian doctrine.

This objection actually backfires because as this was used by lots of fathers in controversies
and against the Arians etc, it only shows how commonly used it was in Christendom and when
that was the case, Rufinus would be aware of it so the objection only bolsters the case.

● This also gives another problem as Rufinus would be saying in this case that all the
fathers who use this to confirm doctrine also say it can’t be used to confirm doctrine, so
you cannot have it both ways.
● The less restrictive view solves that issue and would also be the same as his master
Origen.
● It fits with his quoting of 2 Timothy 3:16 where they are affirmed as Scripture that can
confirm doctrine.
● Term ecclesiastical fits better, i.e. they can be used to confirm doctrine within the
ecclesia, the church.
● It explains why he included Baruch and the epistle in the canonical category.
● The less restrictive view also brings Rufinus’ list in line with all the other lists, where the
second category is for in-house instruction of doctrine.
● Rufinus denounced Jerome’s actions and outright defended the Deuterocanon: “Which
of all the wise and holy men who have gone before you has dared to put his hand to that
work? Which of them would have presumed thus to profane the book of God, and the
sacred words of the Holy Spirit? Who but you would have laid hands upon the divine
gift and the inheritance of the Apostles? There has been from the first in the
churches of God, and especially in that of Jerusalem, a plentiful supply of men who
being born Jews have become Christians; and their perfect acquaintance with both
languages and their sufficient knowledge of the law is shown by their administration
of the pontifical office. In all this abundance of learned men, has there been one who has
dared to make havoc of the divine record handed down to the Churches by the
Apostles and the deposit of the Holy Spirit? For what can we call it but havoc, when
some parts of it are transformed, and this is called the correction of an error? For
instance, the whole of the history of Susanna, which gave a lesson of chastity to the
churches of God, has by him been cut out, thrown aside and dismissed. The hymn of
the three children, which is regularly sung on festivals in the Church of God, he has
wholly erased from the place where it stood. But why should I enumerate these cases
one by one, when their number cannot be estimated?” (Apology Against Jerome, book 2,
part 32-33, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/27052.htm)

74
 Augustine of Hippo (354 - 430 AD)

Augustine affirms all the Deuterocanonical books. The list in question comes from Christian
Doctrine, where he writes: “Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the
judgment of the greater number of Catholic churches; and among these, of course, a high place
must be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive
epistles. Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following
standard: to prefer those that are received by all the Catholic churches to those which some do
not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the
sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller
number and those of less authority. If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the
greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not
a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be
looked upon as equal. 13. Now the whole canon of Scripture on which we say this judgment is
to be exercised, is contained in the following books:— Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis,
Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; one book of Joshua the Son of Nun; one of Judges;
one short book called Ruth, which seems rather to belong to the beginning of Kings; next, four
books of Kings, and two of Chronicles — these last not following one another, but running
parallel, so to speak, and going over the same ground. The books now mentioned are history,
which contains a connected narrative of the times, and follows the order of the events. There
are other books which seem to follow no regular order, and are connected neither with the order
of the preceding books nor with one another, such as Job, and Tobias, and Esther, and Judith,
and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Ezra, which last look more like a sequel to the
continuous regular history which terminates with the books of Kings and Chronicles. Next are
the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David; and three books of Solomon,
viz., Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. For two books, one called Wisdom and the
other Ecclesiasticus, are ascribed to Solomon from a certain resemblance of style, but the most
likely opinion is that they were written by Jesus the son of Sirach. Still they are to be reckoned
among the prophetical books, since they have attained recognition as being authoritative. The
remainder are the books which are strictly called the Prophets: twelve separate books of the
prophets which are connected with one another, and having never been disjoined, are reckoned
as one book; the names of these prophets are as follows:— Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah,
Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; then there are the
four greater prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel. The authority of the Old Testament is
contained within the limits of these forty-four books. That of the New Testament, again, is
contained within the following:— Four books of the Gospel, according to Matthew, according to
Mark, according to Luke, according to John; fourteen epistles of the Apostle Paul— one to the
Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two
to the Thessalonians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus, to Philemon, to the
Hebrews: two of Peter; three of John; one of Jude; and one of James; one book of the Acts of
the Apostles; and one of the Revelation of John. 14. In all these books those who fear God and
are of a meek and pious disposition seek the will of God. (Christian Doctrine, book 2, chapter
8.12-14, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/12022.htm)

75
● Augustine divides Scripture into the two categories like most people do today.
● In City of God, he writes: “Let us omit, then, the fables of those Scriptures which are
called apocryphal, because their obscure origin was unknown to the fathers from whom
the authority of the true Scriptures has been transmitted to us by a most certain and
well-ascertained succession. For though there is some truth in these apocryphal
writings, yet they contain so many false statements, that they have no canonical
authority. We cannot deny that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, left some divine writings,
for this is asserted by the Apostle Jude in his canonical epistle. But it is not without
reason that these writings have no place in that canon of Scripture which was preserved
in the temple of the Hebrew people by the diligence of successive priests; for their
antiquity brought them under suspicion, and it was impossible to ascertain whether these
were his genuine writings, and they were not brought forward as genuine by the persons
who were found to have carefully preserved the canonical books by a successive
transmission. So that the writings which are produced under his name, and which
contain these fables about the giants, saying that their fathers were not men, are
properly judged by prudent men to be not genuine; just as many writings are produced
by heretics under the names both of other prophets, and more recently, under the
names of the apostles, all of which, after careful examination, have been set apart from
canonical authority under the title of Apocrypha. There is therefore no doubt that,
according to the Hebrew and Christian canonical Scriptures, there were many giants
before the deluge, and that these were citizens of the earthly society of men, and that
the sons of God, who were according to the flesh the sons of Seth, sunk into this
community when they forsook righteousness.”
(City of God, book 15, chapter 23, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120115.htm)
● Augustine tells us that we know the canon through the fathers (Christian and rabbinic)
who discern which books were canonical and which books weren’t, handing down in an
authentic tradition, carefully keeping apart authoritative Scripture and apocrypha.
● Augustine also clearly knows which books were accepted by the Jewish tradition too, as
he says in City of God: “We see this prophecy in the form of a wish and prayer fulfilled
through Jesus Christ. But the things which are not written in the canon of the Jews
cannot be quoted against their contradictions with so great validity. But as regards
those three books which it is evident are Solomon's and held canonical by the Jews, to
show what of this kind may be found in them pertaining to Christ and the Church
demands a laborious discussion, which, if now entered on, would lengthen this work
unduly.” (City of God, book 17, chapter 20,
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120117.htm) Augustine believes Wisdom and Sirach
have authentic prophecies of Christ but says they are not held as canonical by the Jews.
● In Contra Faustum, he says: “You are so hardened in your errors against the testimonies
of Scripture, that nothing can be made of you; for whenever anything is quoted against
you, you have the boldness to say that it is written not by the apostle, but by some
pretender under his name. The doctrine of demons which you preach is so opposed to
Christian doctrine, that you could not continue, as professing Christians, to maintain it,
unless you denied the truth of the apostolic writings. How can you thus do injury to your
own souls? Where will you find any authority, if not in the Gospel and apostolic writings?

76
 How can we be sure of the authorship of any book, if we doubt the apostolic origin
of those books which are attributed to the apostles by the Church which the
apostles themselves founded, and which occupies so conspicuous a place in all lands,
and if at the same time we acknowledge as the undoubted production of the apostles
what is brought forward by heretics in opposition to the Church, whose authors, from
whom they derive their name, lived long after the apostles?” (Contra Faustum, book 33,
chapter 6, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/140633.htm) Augustine is criticising
Faustus for denying the authenticity of apostolic writings because of his doctrine and
prefers doctrine to tell him what is authentic. He then says we know the authorship of the
Gospels because we have those names being attributed to the Apostles by the church
which the Apostles themselves founded. This is also held across all of Christendom
because he says “occupies so conspicuous a place in all lands”.
● The belief in authorship becomes more certain as it becomes more general as time
progresses. “How is the authorship ascertained in each case, except by the author's
having brought his work into public notice as much as possible in his own
lifetime, and, by the transmission of the information from one to another in
continuous order, the belief becoming more certain as it becomes more general,
up to our own day; so that, when we are questioned as to the authorship of any
book, we have no difficulty in answering? But why speak of old books? Take the
books now before us: should any one, after some years, deny that this book was written
by me, or that Faustus' was written by him, where is evidence for the fact to be found but
in the information possessed by some at the present time, and transmitted by them
through successive generations even to distant times? From all this it follows, that no
one who has not yielded to the malicious and deceitful suggestions of lying devils, can
be so blinded by passion as to deny the ability of the Church of the apostles— a
community of brethren as numerous as they were faithful — to transmit their
writings unaltered to posterity, as the original seats of the apostles have been
occupied by a continuous succession of bishops to the present day, especially
when we are accustomed to see this happen in the case of ordinary writings both in the
Church and out of it.” (Contra Faustum, book 33, chapter 6,
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/140633.htm)
● “Now that all Faustus' calumnies have been refuted, those at least on the subjects here
treated of at large and explained fully as the Lord has enabled me, I close with a word of
counsel to you who are implicated in those shocking and damnable errors, that, if you
acknowledge the supreme authority of Scripture, you should recognise that
authority which from the time of Christ Himself, through the ministry of His
apostles, and through a regular succession of bishops in the seats of the
apostles, has been preserved to our own day throughout the whole world, with a
reputation known to all. There the Old Testament too has its difficulties solved,
and its predictions fulfilled.” (Contra Faustum, book 33, chapter 6,
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/140633.htm)
● This is very similar to the idea he gave earlier in Christian Doctrine: “Now, in regard to
the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of Catholic
churches; and among these, of course, a high place must be given to such as have been

77
 thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles.” (Christian Doctrine,
book 2, chapter 8.12, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/12022.htm)
● He always repeats the methodology of antiquity, ubiquity (appearing everywhere or of
being very common), consensus.
● In On the Predestination of the Saints, he writes: “And since these things are so, the
judgment of the book of Wisdom ought not to be repudiated, since for so long a course
of years that book has deserved to be read in the Church of Christ from the station of the
readers of the Church of Christ, and to be heard by all Christians, from bishops
downwards, even to the lowest lay believers, penitents, and catechumens, with the
veneration paid to divine authority. ...But if any wish to be instructed in the opinions of
those who have handled the subject, it behooves them to prefer to all commentators the
book of Wisdom, where it is read, "He was taken away, that wickedness should not alter
his understanding;" because illustrious commentators, even in the times nearest to the
apostles, preferred it to themselves, seeing that when they made use of it for a testimony
they believed that they were making use of nothing but a divine testimony”. (On the
Predestination of the Saints, chapter 27-28,
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15121.htm)
● Augustine was a prominent figure in the councils of Hippo and Carthage.

Other Lists

Bryennios List

This is a list discovered by Philotheos Bryennios in 1873 of unknown authorship in a Greek

manuscript copied in the 11th century which has the Aramaic name then the Greek but the
Aramaic is transliterated in Greek letters, dated anywhere between the 2nd to 5th century. Lee
McDonald estimates it is from the middle 4th century while F. F. Bruce surmises it is from the
late 2nd century. It is described as odd in style and list content by most scholars. The list is as
follows: “Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Joshua, Deuteronomy, Numbers, Ruth, Job, Judges,
Psalms, 1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings, 1-2 Chronicles, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs,
Jeremiah, the Twelve, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, 1-2 Esdras, Esther.” No apparent subdivisions in
the list and aspects appear similar to Epiphanius so it may have borrowed from him or he may
have borrowed from it. As we cannot determine usage, coherency, purpose, it is hard to define
what the list is actually meant to represent so it cannot be cited as an authority. We can’t cite
something as affirming of a canon when we don’t even know if it’s a canon list.

The Cheltenham List

The Cheltenham List, otherwise known as the Mommsen List or the Mommsen Catalogue, was
discovered in 1886 in a 10th century manuscript. The very same scholar, Theodor Mommsen,
also discovered another copy of the same list in a manuscript from the 9th century. The list
dates to around 365 AD. The list gives the names of each book and the number of lines. It
reads: "Here begins the index of the Old Testament; Genesis, Lines 3,700; Exodus, Lines

78
3,000; Numbers, Lines 3,000; Leviticus, Lines 2,300; Deuteronomy, Lines 2,700; Joshua Naue,
Lines 1,750; Judges, Lines 1,750; 7 books total Lines 18,100; Ruth Lines 250, Of Reigns book
1, Lines 2,300; Of Reigns book 2, Lines 2,200; Of Reigns book 3, Lines 2,550; Of Reigns book
4, Lines 2,250; They total Lines 9,500; Paralipomena book 1, Lines 2,040; book 2, Lines 2,100;
Of Maccabees book 1, Lines 2,300; book 2, Lines 1,800; Job, Lines 1,800; Tobit, Lines 900;
Esther, Lines 700; Judith Lines, 1,100; Of David Psalms, 151 Lines 5,000; Of Solomon, Lines
6,500; Major Prophets, Lines 15,370 four in number; Isaiah, Lines 3,580; Jeremiah, Lines 4,450;
Daniel, Lines 1,350; Ezekiel, Lines 3,340; Twelve Prophets, Lines 3,800; All the lines will be in
number, Lines 69,500."

● It says “The Books of Solomon”, which is ambiguous. Either the 3 books or 5, adding
Sirach and Wisdom, could be what the list affirms but since the line count is 6500, it
seems likely that there are the 5 books, especially in comparison to the line counts of
other books given in the list.
● The list also says Jeremiah, which could include Lamentations, Baruch and the epistle or
not. The line count doesn’t help to clarify this.
● It appears to accept 151 Psalms rather than 150 Psalms.
● The list potentially affirms, as canon, all 7 Deuterocanonical books.
● At the end, it says: “But as in the Revelation of John it is said: 'I saw twenty-four elders
casting their crowns before the throne' [Rev. 4:10]. Our predecessors show that these
are the canonical books and that the elders have said this.” This paragraph can’t mean
24 books because it gave more than 24 books.
● The list has a lot in common with the North African fathers like Cyprian of Carthage,
Augustine and the North African councils so is from North Africa before the councils and
since we know this information and its time, around 365 AD, it has evidentiary value.

The Reformers’ Use Of The Deuterocanon

Many of the reformers who formalised the protestant canon (although many had varying canons
of their own because not all subscribed to Luther) such as Martin Luther (1483-1546), Melchior
Hoffman (1495-1543), Conrad Grebel (1498-1526), Dirk Philips (1504-1568), Balthasar
Hubmaier (1480-1528), Hans Denck (1495-1527), Pilgram Marpeck (1495-1556), David Joris
(1501-1556), Peter Walpot (1521-1578) and Peter Riedemann (1506-1556) who rejected the
regular canon cited Deuterocanonical books as Scripture including with formal introductions and
to demonstrate doctrine in their writings. What this shows is that the protestant Old Testament
canon as a norm emerged out of magisterial protestantism.

● Luther gave his first rejection of the Deuterocanon in a debate with Johan Eck on
purgatory in which Eck used 2 Maccabees.
● Prior to his debate with Eck, in a response to Sylvester Prierias, Martin Luther cited the
Deuterocanon after saying explicitly that he was only going to cite canonical Scripture.
● Early protestant Bibles all cross reference the apocrypha with the New Testament.

79
 ● One of the reasons Luther rejected the Deuterocanon was because he couldn’t find it in
the Targums, which we also addressed earlier.

John Wycliffe

John Wycliffe, the first man to bring the Bible into middle English, has no relevance to the canon
of Scripture, being too late, but his treatment of the Deuterocanon is interesting.

● Wycliffe’s Bible translation was heavily influenced by Jerome, using Jerome heavily in
his preface.
● He mentions Jerome mentioning that the Council of Nicaea accepted the Book of Judith
as Scripture in both his preface and preface to Judith.
● He includes the Deuterocanon in his Bible intermixed without distinction even though in
his preface, he rejects it as part of the Bible at all and only to be used for edification,
which he takes from Jerome.
● He says Baruch is a prophet and the Book of Baruch gives prophecy.
● In the Poverty of Christ, he cites Sirach in a positive sense without qualification or
distinction.
● In the same work, he quotes from Wisdom authoritatively authoritatively in an argument
to disarm opponents. He also then quote 2 Corinthians, with no distinction.
● In De Postate Pape, he formally quotes Sirach 4 times, including as words of Scripture.
● He often quotes the Deuterocanon in and among Protocanon quotes.
● In De Ente Praedicamentali, he hinges an argument on the authority of Scripture and
uses Sirach 18. In the same work, he calls a quote from Sirach Scripture multiple times.
● In his sermon Labora sicut bonus miles Christi, he says “Scripture testifies” and cites
Wisdom 11.
● In On The Eucharist, he references Baruch against elements of worshipping an image,
as an anti Catholic swipe.
● In Opus Evanglicum, book 3, he quotes 2 Maccabees 5 in an argument against the
papacy. In the same work, he says Solomon prophesied in Wisdom 2.
● This shows that earlier Catholic opponents could and would quote and use the
Deuterocanon.

80
 Part 5: Attestation To The Deuterocanon As Scripture

Introduction

The extensive attestation of each Deuterocanonical book by the Church fathers throughout the
centuries proves that the Deuterocanon was accepted as Scripture by the earliest Christians.
Unless someone was to suggest that the Apostles were disastrously bad at passing on the truth
of Christ and the Holy Spirit to those who came after them, we have to accept that the
Deuterocanon is Scripture based on the wide and extensive attestation. Furthermore, the only
way we can know what is in the canon of Scripture is by looking at the acceptance and
reception of the books by the Church and if this same method by which the Protocanon was
accepted also affirms the Deuterocanon, then we must also accept that.

Wisdom of Solomon

St. Barnabas (74 AD)

Protestant Philip Schaff writes: “This apocryphal book is thus quoted as Scripture, and
intertwined with it.”

● The Letter of Barnabas (74 AD), chapter 6.7: “ Since, therefore, He was about to be
manifested and to suffer in the flesh, His suffering was foreshown. For the prophet
speaks against Israel, "Woe to their soul, because they have counselled an evil counsel
against themselves,saying, Let us bind the just one, because he is displeasing to us.”
[Wisdom 2:12]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0124.htm)

Clement of Rome (27 - 97 AD)

● Letter to the Corinthians (96 AD), chapter 27:5: “By the word of his might [God]
established all things, and by his word he can overthrow them. `Who shall say to him,
"What have you done?" or who shall resist the power of his strength?' [Wis. 12:12]”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm)
● Letter to the Corinthians (96 AD), chapter 3.4: “nor acts a part becoming a Christian, but
walks after his own wicked lusts, resuming the practice of an unrighteous and ungodly
envy, by which death itself entered into the world. [Wisdom 2:24]”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm)

Clement seamlessly wove together words from Wisdom of Solomon and the Psalms into one
text, showing that he viewed both as being authoritative.

81
 ● Letter to the Corinthians (96 AD), chapter 27:5-7: “"Who shall say unto Him, What have
you done? Or, Who shall resist the power of His strength?" [Wisdom 12:12] When, and
as He pleases, He will do all things, and none of the things determined by Him shall
pass away. [Matthew 24:35] All things are open before Him, and nothing can be hidden
from His counsel. "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows His
handy-work. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night shows knowledge. And
there are no words or speeches of which the voices are not heard." [Psalm 19:1-4]”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm)

Tertullian (160 - 240 AD)

● Concerning the Soul, chapter 15: “...there are our Christian authorities. We are taught
by God concerning both these questions--viz. that there is a ruling power in the soul,
and that it is enshrined in one particular recess of the body. For, when one reads of God
as being “the searcher and witness of the heart” [Wisdom 1:6] when His prophet is
reproved by His discovering to him the secrets of the heart; when God Himself
anticipates in His people the thoughts of their heart… [Matthew 1:4] when David prays…
[Psalms 51:12] and Paul declares… [Romans 10:10] and John says, [1 John 3:20]
when, lastly…[Matthew 5:28]--then both points are cleared fully up, that there is a
directing faculty of the soul…”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0310.htm)

Tertullian said they are taught by God about the topic and then proceeds by giving the answers
through inspired Scripture and quotes Wisdom.

● Against the Valentinians, chapter 2: “Our instruction comes from the “porch of Solomon”,
who had himself taught that “the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart”.
[Wisdom 1:1]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0311.htm)

● Prescription against Heretics, chapter 7: “Besides, the face of the Lord is patiently waited
for by those who “seek Him in simplicity of heart”, as says the very Wisdom — not of
Valentinus, but — of Solomon.” [Wisdom 1:1]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0314.htm)

Hippolytus of Rome (170 - 235 AD)

Hippolytus uses Wisdom as inspired Scripture to show prophecy about Jesus.

● Against the Jews, part 9: “I produce now the prophecy of Solomon, which speaketh of
Christ, and announces clearly and perspicuously things concerning the Jews; and those
which not only are befalling them at the present time, but those, too, which shall befall
them in the future age, on account of the contumacy and audacity which they exhibited
toward the Prince of Life; for the prophet says, "The ungodly said, reasoning with

82
 themselves, but not aright," that is, about Christ, "Let us lie in wait for the righteous,
because he is not for our turn, and he is clean contrary to our doings and words, and
upbraids us with our offending the law, and professes to have knowledge of God; and he
calls himself the Child of God."” [Wisdom 2:1-12]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0503.htm)

Origen of Alexandria (185 - 254 AD)

● De Principiis, book 1, chapter 2.5: “Let us now ascertain how those statements which we
have advanced are supported by the authority of holy Scripture. The Apostle Paul
says, that the only-begotten Son is the "image of the invisible God," and "the first-born of
every creature." And when writing to the Hebrews, he says of Him that He is "the
brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person." Now, we find in the
treatise called the Wisdom of Solomon the following description of the wisdom of
God: "For she is the breath of the power of God, and the purest efflux of the glory of the
Almighty." Nothing that is polluted can therefore come upon her. For she is the
splendour of the eternal light, and the stainless mirror of God's working, and the image of
His goodness.” [Wisdom 7:25-26]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04121.htm)
● De Principiis, book 1, chapter 2.9: “Let us see now what is the meaning of the
expression which is found in the Wisdom of Solomon, where it is said of Wisdom that
"it is a kind of breath of the power of God, and the purest efflux of the glory of the
Omnipotent, and the splendour of eternal light, and the spotless mirror of the working or
power of God, and the image of His goodness." These, then, are the definitions which he
gives of God, pointing out by each one of them certain attributes which belong to the
Wisdom of God, calling wisdom the power, and the glory, and the everlasting light, and
the working, and the goodness of God. He does not say, however, that wisdom is the
breath of the glory of the Almighty, nor of the everlasting light, nor of the working of the
Father, nor of His goodness, for it was not appropriate that breath should be ascribed to
any one of these; but, with all propriety, he says that wisdom is the breath of the power
of God. Now, by the power of God is to be understood that by which He is strong; by
which He appoints, restrains, and governs all things visible and invisible; which is
sufficient for all those things which He rules over in His providence; among all which He
is present, as if one individual. And although the breath of all this mighty and
immeasurable power, and the vigour itself produced, so to speak, by its own existence,
proceed from the power itself, as the will does from the mind, yet even this will of God is
nevertheless made to become the power of God. Another power accordingly is
produced, which exists with properties of its own — a kind of breath, as Scripture says,
of the primal and unbegotten power of God, deriving from Him its being, and never at
any time non-existent.” [Wisdom 7:25-27]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04121.htm)
● De Principiis, book 2, chapter 9.1: “Now if this were the case, then certainly created
things could neither be restrained nor administered by God. For, naturally, whatever is
infinite will also be incomprehensible. Moreover, as Scripture says, "God has arranged

83
 all things in number and measure;" and therefore number will be correctly applied to
rational creatures or understandings, that they may be so numerous as to admit of being
arranged, governed, and controlled by God.” [Wisdom 11:20]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04122.htm)

● Contra Celsus, book 1, chapter 2.10-14: “Let us now examine the expression, Wisdom
is the purest efflux of the glory of the Almighty; and let us first consider what the
glory of the omnipotent God is, and then we shall also understand what is its efflux…
In the third place, wisdom is called the splendour of eternal light. The force of this
expression we have explained in the preceding pages, when we introduced the
similitude of the sun and the splendour of its rays, and showed to the best of our power
how this should be understood. To what we then said we shall add only the following
remark. That is properly termed everlasting or eternal which neither had a beginning of
existence, nor can ever cease to be what it is. And this is the idea conveyed by John
when he says that God is light... But wisdom is also called the stainless mirror of the
ἐνέργεια or working of God. We must first understand, then, what the working of the
power of God is. It remains that we inquire what is the image of His goodness; and here,
I think, we must understand the same thing which we expressed a little ago, in speaking
of the image formed by the mirror. For He is the primal goodness, doubtless, out of
which the Son is born, who, being in all respects the image of the Father, may certainly
also be called with propriety the image of His goodness.” [Wisdom 7:25-27]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04121.htm)
● Contra Celsus, book 8, chapter 14: “We, however, have learned who the Son of God
is, and know that He is the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person,
and the breath of the power of God, and a pure influence flowing from the glory of the
Almighty; moreover, the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the
power of God, and the image of His goodness. We know, therefore, that He is the Son of
God, and that God is His father. And there is nothing extravagant or unbecoming the
character of God in the doctrine that He should have begotten such an only Son; and no
one will persuade us that such a one is not a Son of the unbegotten God and Father.”
[Wisdom 7:25-26]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04168.htm)

● Homilies on Leviticus, book 12, chapter 4.1: “...but only Jesus my Lord came pure into
the world in this birth and "was not polluted in his mother." For he entered "an
uncontaminated body." [Wisdom 8:20]

● Homilies on Luke, book 3: “The holy word of Scripture has promised, "He is found by
those who do not test him, and he appears to those who do not doubt him.” [Wisdom
1:2]
● Homilies on Luke, book 21: “The Lord himself says, "He gave me true knowledge of
those things that are: to know the reason for the world, and the workings of the
elements; the beginning and the end and the midpoint of the ages; the changing of the
seasons and the passing of the months; the rotation of the years and the abode of the

84
 stars; the natures of animals and the fury of beasts; the power of spirits and the thoughts
of men; the varieties of trees and the power of their roots.” [Wisdom 7:17-20]

● Homilies on Numbers, book 20, chapter 2.2: “...but those about whom it is written: "But
the sons of adulterers will be imperfect, and the seed of unlawful intercourse will be
banished.” [Wisdom 3:16]
● Homilies on Numbers, book 27, chapter 1.3: “And so, when some such reading from the
divine books (divinorum voluminum) is recited, in which there seems to be nothing
obscure, they gladly receive it, for example, the brief books of Esther, Judith or even
Tobit, or the precepts of the book of Wisdom. But if the book of Leviticus is read to
him, his mind immediately stumbles and he flees from it as from something that is not his
own food.”

In this passage, Origen also affirms the Deuterocanonical books Judith and Tobit.

● Commentary on Song of Songs, book 1, chapter 2: “In these places, therefore, and in
many others you will find that Divine Scripture avoided the word 'passion' and put
'charity' or 'affection' instea ...[quotes Proverbs 4:6, 8]... And in the book is called the
Wisdom of Solomon it is written of Wisdom herself: 'I became a passionate lover of her
beauty.'” [Wisdom 8:2]

● Commentary on Romans, book 3, chapter 3.1: “For the present time, however, it is
indeed as the Scripture says, "A corruptible body weighs down the sou and this earthy
tent depresses the thoughtful mind," [Wisdom 9:15] from which it follows that "there is
no one who has understanding" and "no one who seeks God.”

Cyprian of Carthage (200 - 270 AD)

● Letter 61, part 1: “...since the Lord speaks, saying…[Jer. 3:15] And again it is written;
“Whoever despises discipline is miserable” [Wisdom 3:11]; and in the Psalms also the
Holy Spirit admonishes and instructs us, saying…[quotes Psalms 2:12]”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050661.htm)

● Letter 80, part 2: “And again, where the sacred Scripture speaks of the tortures which
consecrate God's martyrs, and sanctify them in the very trial of suffering: "And if they
have suffered torments in the sight of men, yet is their hope full of immortality; and
having been a little chastised, they shall be greatly rewarded: for God proved them, and
found them worthy of Himself. As gold in the furnace has He tried them, and received
them as a sacrifice of a burnt-offering, and in due time regard shall be had unto them.
The righteous shall shine, and shall run to and fro like sparks among the stubble. They
shall judge the nations, and have dominion over the people; and their Lord shall reign
forever".” [Wisdom 3:4-8]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050680.htm)

85
● Treatise 2, part 1: “The Holy Spirit says in the Psalms…[quotes Psalm 2:12]. And
again: [quotes Psalm 49:16-17]. And again we read: “He that casts away discipline is
miserable” [Wisdom 3:11] And from Solomon we have received the mandates of
wisdom, warning us: [quotes Proverbs 3:11-12].”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050702.htm)
● Treatise 2, part 10: “...since Holy Scripture says, "What has pride profited us? Or what
benefit has the vaunting of riches conferred upon us? And all these things have passed
away like a shadow".” [Wisdom 5:8-9]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050702.htm)

● Treatise 7 (248 AD), book 3, part 15: “In Genesis [it says], `And God tested Abraham
and said to him, "Take your only son whom you love, Isaac, and go to the high land and
offer him there as a burnt offering... "' [Gen 22:1-2] ... Of this same thing in the Wisdom
of Solomon [it says], `Although in the sight of men they suffered torments, their hope is
full of immortality...' [Wis. 3:4]. Of this same thing in the Maccabees [it says], `Was not
Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness'" [1
Macc. 2:52; see James. 2:21-23]”

● Treatise 11, part 1: “In the cxiiith Psalm it is shown that "the idols of the heathen are
silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have a mouth, and speak not; eyes have
they, and see not. They have ears, and hear not; neither is there any breath in their
mouth. Let those that make them be made like them." Also in the Wisdom of Solomon:
"They counted all the idols of the nations to be gods, which neither have the use of eyes
to see, nor noses to draw breath, nor ears to hear, nor fingers on their hands to handle;
and as for their feet, they are slow to go. For man made them, and he that borrowed his
own spirit fashioned them; but no man can make a god like himself. For, since he is
mortal, he works a dead thing with wicked hands; for he himself is better than the things
which he worships, since he indeed lived once, but they never." [Wisdom 15:15-17] In
Exodus also: "You shall not make to you an idol, nor the likeness of anything." [Exodus
20:4] Moreover, in Solomon, concerning the elements: "Neither by considering the
works did they acknowledge who was the workmaster; but deemed either fire, or wind,
or the swift air, or the circle of the stars, or the violent water, or the sun, or the moon, to
be gods. On account of whose beauty, if they thought this, let them know how much
more beautiful is the Lord than they. Or if they admired their powers and operations, let
them understand by them, that He that made these mighty things is mightier than they."
[Wisdom 13:1-4]” [Wisdom]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050711.htm)

● Treatise 12, book 2 chapter 14: “In the Wisdom of Solomon: "...[Quotes Wisdom 2:12-
20]" Also in Isaiah: "..." Concerning this very thing it was foretold in Exodus: "..." Also in
the Gospel: "...”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050712b.htm)

86
Cyprian cited numerous prophecies about Jesus and handles Wisdom the same as rest of
inspired Scripture.

Methodius (250 - 311 AD)

● Banquet of Ten Virgins, Discourse 1, chapter 3: “And in the Book of Wisdom, a book
full of all virtue, the Holy Spirit, now openly drawing His hearers to continence and
chastity, sings on this wise, “Better it is to have no children, and to have virtue, for the
memorial thereof is immortal; because it is known with God and with men. When it is
present men take example at it; and when it is gone they desire it: it wears a crown and
triumphs for ever, having gotten the victory, striving for undefiled rewards”.” [Wisdom
4:1-2]
● Banquet of Ten Virgins, Discourse 2, chapter 3: “And that you may not take refuge
behind a safe wall, bringing forward the Scripture which says, 'As for the children of
the adulterers, they shall not come to their perfection,” [Wisdom 3:16]

Eusebius of Caesarea (265 - 340 AD)

● Book Preparation of the Gospel, book 7, chapter 2: “So Solomon speaks in Proverbs.
And the words also which follow are somewhere spoken in Wisdom's own person:
'But what wisdom is, and how she came into being, I will declare, and will not hide
mysteries from you; but I will trace her out from the beginning of creation.' To which he
afterwards adds: 'For she is an understanding spirit, holy, alone in kind, [same word
as only begotten] manifold, subtil, freely moving, clear, undefiled, . . . all-powerful,
all-surveying, and going through all intelligent, pure, and most subtil spirits. 'For
wisdom is more moving than any motion; she penetrateth and passeth through all things
by reason of her pureness. For she is a breath of the power of God, and a clear
effluence of the glory of the Almighty: therefore doth nothing defiled find entrance into
her. For she is an effulgence from everlasting light, an unspotted mirror of the
working of God, and an image of His goodness. . . . And she reaches from end to
end with full strength: and sweetly doth she order all things.' Moreover, the sacred
Scripture introduces this divine Word in various ways as sent from the Father for
the salvation of mankind: and so it relates that it was He who showed Himself to
Abraham and to Moses and to the other prophets beloved of God, and taught them so
many things in oracles, and prophesied the things to come, whenever it mentions that
God or the Lord appearedand entered into converse with the prophets.” [Wisdom 7]
(https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_pe_07_book7.htm)
● Book Preparation of the Gospel, book 11, chapter 14: “And there is this again of the
same author, 'God by Wisdom founded the earth, and by understanding He
prepared the heavens.' The following also is said to be the same author's: 'And all
things that are either secret or manifest I learned: for Wisdom, the artificer of all
things, taught me.' Then he adds, 'But what wisdom is, and how she came into being, I
will declare, and will not hide mysteries from you, but will trace her out from the
beginning of creation.' And afterwards he gives such explanations as the following: 'For

87
 she is a spirit quick of understanding, holy, alone in kind, manifold, subtil, freely
moving, clear in utterance, unpolluted, . . . all-powerful, all-survey ing, and
penetrating through all spirits, that are quick of understanding, pure, most subtil.
For wisdom is more mobile than any motion; yea, she pervadeth and penetrateth all
things by reason of her pureness. For she is a breath of the power of God, and a clear
effluence of the glory of the Almighty. Therefore can nothing defiled find entrance into
her. For she is an effulgence from everlasting light, and an unspotted mirror of the
operation of God, and an image of His goodness. . . . And she reacheth from end to end
with full strength, and ordereth all things graciously.' Thus the Scripture speaks: but
Philo the Hebrew, explaining the meaning of the doctrine more clearly, represents it in
the manner following:” [Wisdom 7]
(https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_pe_11_book11.htm)

Athanasius of Alexandria (293 - 373 AD)

● De Sententia Dionysii, chapter 9: “And Dionysius accordingly acted as he learned from

the Apostles. For as the heresy of Sabellius was creeping on, he was compelled, as I
said before, to write the aforesaid letter, and to hurl at them what is said of the Saviour in
reference to His manhood and His humiliation, so as to bar them by reason of His
human attributes from saying that the Father was a son, and so render easier for them
the teaching concerning the Godhead of the Son, when in his other letters he calls Him
from the Scriptures the word, wisdom, power, breath [Wisdom 7:25], and brightness of
the Father.”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2801.htm)
● De Sententia Dionysii, chapter 15: “'For never was there a time when God was not a
father.' And this he acknowledges in what follows, 'that Christ is for ever, being Word
and Wisdom and Power. For it is not to be supposed that God, having at first no such
issue, afterwards begot a Son, but that the Son has His being not of Himself but of the
Father.' And a little way on he adds on the same subject, 'But being the brightness of
light eternal, certainly He is Himself eternal; for as the light exists always, it is evident
that the brightness must exist always as well. For it is by the fact of its shining that the
existence of light is perceived, and there cannot be light that does not give light. For let
us come back to our examples. If there is sun, there is sunlight, there is day. If there is
none of these things, it is quite impossible for there to be sun. If then the sun were
eternal, the day also would be unceasing. But in fact, as that is not so, the day begins
and ceases with the sun. But God is light eternal, never beginning nor ceasing. The
brightness then lies before Him eternally, and is with Him without beginning and ever-
begotten, shining in His Presence, being that Wisdom which said, I was that wherein he
rejoiced, and daily I was glad in his presence at all times Proverbs 8:30.' And again after
a little he resumes the same subject with the words, 'The Father then being eternal, the
Son is eternal, being Light of Light: for if there is a parent there is also a child. But if
there were not a child, how and of whom can there be a parent? But there are both, and
that eternally.' Then again he adds, 'God then being light, Christ is brightness; and being

88
 Spirit, for God is a Spirit John 4:24 — in like manner Christ is called the breath, for He is
the breath of the power of God [Wisdom 7:25].'”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2810.htm)

● Defence of the Nicene Definition, chapter 6.25: “Know then, O Arians, foes of Christ, that
Theognostus , a learned man, did not decline the phrase 'of the essence,' for in the
second book of his Hypotyposes, he writes thus of the Son: —The essence of the Son is
not one procured from without, nor accruing out of nothing , but it sprang from the
Father's essence, as the radiance of light, as the vapour of water; for neither the
radiance, nor the vapour, is the water itself or the sun itself, nor is it alien; but it is an
effluence of the Father's essence, which, however, suffers no partition. For as the sun
remains the same, and is not impaired by the rays poured forth by it, so neither does the
Father's essence suffer change, though it has the Son as an Image of Itself.” [Wisdom
7:25-26]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2801.htm)

● Against The Heathen, book 1, chapter 17.3: “3. And I am disposed to think that they
have recounted the passions and the actions of the gods even in spite of themselves.
For since they were endeavouring to invest with what Scripture calls the
incommunicable name and honour of God them that are no gods but mortal men, and
since this venture of theirs was great and impious, for this reason even against their will
they were forced by truth to set forth the passions of these persons, so that their
passions recorded in the writings concerning them might be in evidence for all posterity
as a proof that they were no gods.” [Wisdom 14:20-21]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2801.htm)
● Against The Heathen, book 1, chapter 3.44: “But Himself being over all, both Governor
and King and organising power, He does all for the glory and knowledge of His own
Father, so that almost by the very works that He brings to pass He teaches us and says,
By the greatness and beauty of the creatures proportionably the maker of them is seen
[Wisdom 13:5].”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2801.htm)
● Against The Heathen, book 9, chapter 4: “According as the wisdom of God testifies
beforehand when it says, The devising of idols was the beginning of fornication”
[Wisdom 14:12]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2801.htm)
● Against The Heathen, book 1, chapter 44.3: “For as by His own providence bodies grow
and the rational soul moves, and possesses life and thought, and this requires little
proof, for we see what takes place — so again the same Word of God with one simple
nod by His own power moves and holds together both the visible universe and the
invisible powers, allotting to each its proper function, so that the divine powers move in a
diviner way, while visible things move as they are seen to do. But Himself being over all,
both Governor and King and organising power, He does all for the glory and knowledge
of His own Father, so that almost by the very works that He brings to pass He teaches

89
 us and says, “By the greatness and beauty of the creatures proportionably the maker of
them is seen”” [Wisdom 13:5]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2801.htm)
● Against The Heathen, book 1, chapter 11.1: “But of these and such like inventions of
idolatrous madness, Scripture taught us beforehand long ago, when it said , "The
devising of idols was the beginning of fornication, and the invention of them, the
corruption of life. For neither were they from the beginning, neither shall they be forever.
For the vainglory of men they entered into the world, and therefore shall they come
shortly to an end. For a father afflicted with untimely mourning when he has made an
image of his child soon taken away, now honoured him as a god which was then a dead
man, and delivered to those that were under him ceremonies and sacrifices. Thus in
process of time an ungodly custom grown strong was kept as a law. And graven images
were worshipped by the commands of kings. Whom men could not honour in presence
because they dwelt afar off, they took the counterfeit of his visage from afar, and made
an express image of the king whom they honoured, to the end that by this their
forwardness they might flatter him that was absent as if he were present. Also the
singular diligence of the artificer did help to set forward the ignorant to more superstition:
for he, perhaps, willing to please one in authority, forced all his skill to make the
resemblance of the best fashion: and so the multitude, allured by the grace of the work,
took him now for a god, which a little before was but honoured as a man: and this was
an occasion to deceive the world, for men serving either calamity or tyranny, did ascribe
unto stones and stocks the incommunicable Name.” [Wisdom 14:12-21]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2801.htm)

● Apologia Contra Arianos, part 1, chapter 3): “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 [Proverbs 19:5; Wisdom 1:11], 'A false witness
shall not be unpunished;' and, 'The mouth that belies slays the soul;' we therefore are
unable longer to hold our peace”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/28081.htm)

● Discourse 2 Against the Arians, chapters 45-46: “And this difference divine Scripture
recognises, saying concerning the creatures, 'The earth is full of Your creation,' and 'the
creation itself groans together and travails together ;' and in the Apocalypse it says, 'And
the third part of the creatures in the sea died which had life;' as also Paul says, 'Every
creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving ;'
and in the book of Wisdom it is written, 'Having ordained man through Your wisdom,
that he should have dominion over the creatures which You have made [Wisdom 9:2].'
And these, being creatures, are also said to be created, as we may further hear from the
Lord, who says, 'He who created them, made them male and female ;' and from Moses
in the Song, who writes, 'Ask now of the days that are past, which were before you since
the day that God created man upon the earth, and from the one side of heaven unto the
other [Deuteronomy 4:32].' And Paul in Colossians, 'Who is the Image of the Invisible
God, the Firstborn of every creature, for in Him were all things created that are in

90
 heaven, and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or
dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created through Him, and for Him,
and He is before all.”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/28162.htm)
● Discourse 2 Against the Arians, chapter 32) [293-373 AD]: “For such illustrations and
such images has Scripture proposed, that, considering the inability of human nature to
comprehend God, we might be able to form ideas even from these however poorly and
dimly, and as far as is attainable. And as the creation contains abundant matter for the
knowledge of the being of a God and a Providence ('for by the greatness and beauty of
the creatures proportionably the Maker of them is seen [Wisdom 13:5]’), and we learn
from them without asking for voices, but hearing the Scriptures we believe, and
surveying the very order and the harmony of all things, we acknowledge that He is
Maker and Lord and God of all”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/28162.htm)

● On the Incarnation of the Word, chapter 3.2: “For because of the Word dwelling with
them, even their natural corruption did not come near them, as Wisdom also says :
God made man for incorruption, and as an image of His own eternity; but by envy of the
devil death came into the world.” [Wisdom 6:18]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2802.htm)
● On the Incarnation of the Word, chapter 4: “as Wisdom Wisdom 6:18 says: The taking
heed to His laws is the assurance of immortality;”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2802.htm)
● On the Incarnation of the Word, chapter 4.6: “For man is by nature mortal, inasmuch as
he is made out of what is not; but by reason of his likeness to Him that is (and if he still
preserved this likeness by keeping Him in his knowledge) he would stay his natural
corruption, and remain incorrupt; as Wisdom [Wisdom 6:18] says: The taking heed to
His laws is the assurance of immortality;”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2802.htm)
● On the Incarnation of the Word, chapter 5.1-2: “...by counsel of the devil, turned to the
things of corruption, became the cause of their own corruption in death, being, as I said
before, by nature corruptible, but destined, by the gracefollowing from partaking of the
Word, to have escaped their natural state, had they remained good. 2. For because of
the Word dwelling with them, even their natural corruption did not come near them, as
Wisdom also says : God made man for incorruption, and as an image of His own
eternity; but by envy of the devil death came into the world.” [Wisdom 2:23-24]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2802.htm)

Basil the Great (300 - 379 AD)

● Basil the Great (Letter 38, part 8) [300-379 AD]: “Since then, as says the Lord in the
Gospels, John 14:9 he that has seen the Son sees the Father also; on this account he
says that the Only-begotten is the express image of His Father's person. That this may
be made still plainer I will quote also other passages of the apostle in which he calls the

91
 Son "the image of the invisible God," and again "image of His goodness;" not because
the image differs from the Archetype according to the definition of indivisibility and
goodness, but that it may be shown that it is the same as the prototype, even though it
be different.” [Wisdom 7:26]
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3202038.htm

Pope Damasus I (305 - 384 AD)

● Fragments of Letter to the Eastern Bishops (374 AD): “...(we assert) also that the Son is
not unlike (the Father) in work, unlike in power, or unlike in anything, or that he has his
existence from elsewhere, but that he was born of God, not as false, but that he was
generated as true God from true God, true light from true light, so that it should not be
thought of as diminished or different, since the Only-Begotten has "the splendor of
eternal light" [Wisdom 7:26]; because in the order of nature neither light can be
without splendor nor splendor without light; (he is) also the image of the Father, since he
who has seen him has also seen the Father…”

Epiphanius of Salamis (310 - 403 AD)

● Panarion, section 2, heresy 26, 15.7: “in another passage the Holy Spirit says
prophetically, both for the ancient and for the future generations, 'Blessed is the barren
that is undefiled, which hath not known the bed sinfully; and the eunuch which with his
hand hath wrought no iniquity.'” [Wisdom 3:13-14]
● Panarion, section 4, heresy 44, 18.1: “But [he will go on to say] Jesus' body has risen
even with the flesh it had, and with its bones, as Thomas was convinced. We [for our
part] shall say, 'But Christ's body was not 'by the will of a man [John 1:3], 'of the pleasure
accompanying sleep," (Wisdom 7:2) "conceived in iniquities and begotten in sins.' It was
'of the Holy Spirit, the power of the Highest and the Virgin"... And thus the sage, Sirach,
said, 'When a man dieth is it said, He shall inherit creeping things, snakes, and worms."
And David in the eighty-seventh Psalm said... And for one who care to gather them from
the Scriptures, there are other passages of the same kind.”
● Panarion, section 4, heresy 43, 44.2: “[The Lord] taught it through Solomon in a
book entitled Wisdom." [But it did,] I shall say, because the enemy of all good came,
and from envy bewitched the man who had been created free to choose the good, and
had received this ordinance 'For God created man for immortality and made him an
image of his own eternity.' Indeed, 'God made not death, nor doth he rejoice in the
destruction of the living.' but through envy of the devil death entered the world,' as
Wisdom testified through Solomon.”
● Panarion, section 4, heresy 30, Against the Quartodecimans, 29.6: “Some, however, say
that Christ was carried in the womb months, fifteen days, and four hours. They are
alluding to Solomon's saying "compacted in blood for a time of ten months"” [Wisdom
7:2]
● Panarion, section 4, heresy 43, Against the Origenists, 39.4: “Thus God ordered the
creation in such a way that it would exist and endure, as Wisdom proves [by saying]

92
 'God hath created all things to exist, and sound are the origins of the world, in them is no
portion of destruction.” [Wisdom 1:14]
● Panarion, section 6, heresy 54, Against the Pneumatomachi, 1.4: “I often have
discussed this extensively, and have given authoritative proof, at considerable length,
in every Sect, that he is called 'Lord,' with the Father and the Son. For the 'Spirit of the
Lord fills the whole world' - the 'Spirit of Truth,' the Spirit of God.” [Wisdom 1:7]

● Ancoratus, chapter 2: “So in saying the only true God," he has led us into unity, that no
longer "may we be subject to the elements of the world," that polytheism may not still be
among us, and that the thoughts of men may not fall apart to such fornication, but to the
unity of the only true God: for the first fornication was the invention of idols,” says
Scripture." [Wisdom 14:12]

Cyril of Jerusalem (313 - 386 AD)

● Catechetical Lecture 9, part 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 proportionably the Maker of them is seen. 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.” [Wisdom
13:5]
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310109.htm
● Catechetical Lecture 9, part 16: “These points my discourse has now treated at large,
having left out many, yea, ten thousand other things, and especially things incorporeal
and invisible, that you may abhor those who blaspheme the wise and good Artificer, and
from what is spoken and read, and whatever you can yourself discover or conceive, from
the greatness and beauty of the creatures may proportionably see the maker of them
Wisdom 13:5, and bending the knee with godly reverence to the Maker of the worlds,
the worlds, I mean, of sense and thought, both visible and invisible, you may with a
grateful and holy tongue, with unwearied lips and heart, praise God and say, How
wonderful are Your works, O Lord; in wisdom have You made them all”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310109.htm)

● Catechetical Lecture 12, part 5: “But when this the greatest of the works of creation was
disporting himself in Paradise, the envy of the Devil cast him out. The enemy was
rejoicing over the fall of him whom he had envied: would you have had the enemy
continue to rejoice?” [Wisdom 2:23-24]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310112.htm)

● Catechetical Lecture 16, part 19: “A mighty ally and protector, therefore, have we from
God; a great Teacher of the Church, a mighty Champion on our behalf. Let us not be
afraid of the demons, nor of the devil; for mightier is He who fights for us. Only let us

93
 open to Him our doors; for He goes about seeking such as are worthy and searching on
whom He may confer His gifts.” [Wisdom 6:16]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310116.htm)

Hilary of Poitiers (315 - 368 AD)

● On Trinity, book 1, part 7: “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
has made the Creator of worlds is rightly discerned.” [Wisdom 13:5]

Gregory of Nazianzus (329 - 390 AD)

● Oration 24, part 1: “And at the outset, let us express our gratitude that it is at such an
opportune moment and according to God's good measures, who orders and regulates all
things by weight and measure, that we have returned to you…” [Wisdom 11:20]

● Oration 28, part 8: “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," [Jeremiah 23.24]
and The Spirit of the Lord filleth the world,” [Wisdom 1.7]

● Oration 29, part 17: “For we have learnt to believe in and to teach the Deity of the Son
from their great and lofty utterances. And what utterances are these? These: God-The
Word-He That Was In The Beginning and With The Beginning, and The Beginning. "In
the Beginning was The Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,"
[John 1:1] and "With Thee is the Beginning," [Psalm 110:3] and "He who calleth her The
Beginning from generations." [Isa 41.4] Then the Son is Only-begotten: The only
"begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, it says, He hath declared Him." [John
1:18] The Way, the Truth, the Life, the Light. "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life;" and
"I am the Light of the World." [John 7:12; 9:5] Wisdom and Power, "Christ the Wisdom of
God, and the Power of God." [1 Cor 1:24] The Effulgence, the Impress, the Image, the
Seal; "Who being the Effulgence of His glory and the Impress of His Essence," [Heb
1:31 and "the Image of His Goodness," [Wisdom 7:26] and "Him hath God the Father
sealed." [John 7:27] all which are clearly spoken of the Son, with all the other
passages of the same force, none of which is an afterthought, or added later to the
Son or the Spirit, any more than to the Father Himself...There never was a time when He
was without the Word, or when He was not the Father, or when He was not true, or not
wise, or not powerful, or devoid of life, or of splendour, or of goodness.”

● Oration 44, part 4: “But since through the envy of the evil one death entered the world
and fraudulently seduced mankind, this is why God becomes man and suffers with our
suffering and through encasement in flesh becomes poor so that by his poverty we might
become rich…” [Wisdom 2:24]

94
Gregory of Nyssa (335 - 395 AD)

● Against Eunomius, book 2, part 9: “And since such a kind of generation was not
sufficient to implant in us an adequate notion of the ineffable mode of subsistence of the
Only-begotten, Scripture avails itself also of the third kind of generation to indicate the
doctrine of the Son's Divinity, — that kind, namely, which is the result of material efflux,
and speaks of Him as the "brightness of glory," the "savour of ointment," the "breath of
God;" illustrations which in the scientific phraseology we have adopted we ordinarily
designate as material efflux.” [Wisdom 7:25]
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/290102.htm

Ambrose of Milan (339 - 397 AD)

● Exposition of the Christian Faith, book 1, chapter 7, part 49: “The prophets say: "In
Your light we shall see light;" and again: "Wisdom is the brightness of everlasting
light, and the spotless mirror of God's majesty, the image of His goodness."
[Wisdom 7:26] See what great names are declared!”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/34041.htm)

Rufinus of Aquileia (340 - 410 AD)

● Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed, part 8: “Then further it is to be observed that no

creature can be such as its Creator. And therefore, as the divine substance or essence
admits of no comparison, so neither does the Divinity. Moreover, every creature is of
nothing. If therefore a spark which is so unsubstantial but yet is fire, begets of itself a
creature which is of nothing, and maintains in it the essential nature of that from which it
springs, (i.e. the fire of the parent spark), why could not the substance of that eternal
Light which ever has been because it has in itself nothing which is not substantial,
produce from itself substantial brightness? Rightly, therefore, is the Son called only,
unique. For He who has been so born is only and unique. That which is unique can
admit of no comparison. Nor can He who made all things be like in substance to the
things which He has made. This then is Christ Jesus, the only Son of God, who is also
our Lord.” [Wisdom 7:26]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2711.htm)
● Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed, part 8: “...why could not the substance of that
eternal Light which ever has been because it has in itself nothing which is not
substantial, produce from itself substantial brightness? Rightly, therefore, is the Son
called only, unique.” [Wisdom 2:22, 26]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2711.htm)

Jerome (342-347 - 420 AD)

● Letter 14, part 6: “And if he be not perfect when he has promised God to be so, his
profession is a lie. But the mouth that lies slays the soul.” [Wisdom 1:11]

95
 (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001014.htm)

● Commentary on Jeremiah 4, part 18: “For they boast that God's law, counsel and
speech will remain with their priests, wise men and pseudoprophets, although
Scripture says, "Wisdom will not enter a deceitful soul” [Wisdom 1:8]

● Homily 61 on Psalm 15: “In Wisdom, too, a book attributed to the fame of Solomon,
we find: 'God is witness of his reins, and the sure observer of his heart and the listener to
his tongue'...”

Council of Serdica (344 AD)

● “None of us denies that He was begotten; but we say that He was begotten before all
things, whether visible or invisible; and that He is the Creator of archangels and angels,
and of the world, and of the human race. It is written, ‘Wisdom which is the worker of all
things taught me,’ and again, ‘All things were made by Him.’” [Wisdom 7]

Augustine of Hippo (354 - 430 AD)

Augustine wrote: “...if you acknowledge the supreme authority of Scripture, you should
recognise that authority which from the time of Christ Himself, through the ministry of His
apostles, and through a regular succession of bishops in the seats of the apostles, has been
preserved to our own day throughout the whole world, with a reputation known to all” (Contra
Faustum, book 33, part 9, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/140633.htm)

Before moving on to quotes only regarding Wisdom, Augustine affirmed it alongside all the other
Deuterocanonical books in his writings.

● On Christian Doctrine, book 2, part 13: “Now the whole canon of Scripture on which
we say this judgment is to be exercised, is contained in the following books:— Five
books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; one book
of Joshua the Son of Nun; one of Judges; one short book called Ruth, which seems
rather to belong to the beginning of Kings; next, four books of Kings, and two of
Chronicles — these last not following one another, but running parallel, so to speak, and
going over the same ground. The books now mentioned are history, which contains a
connected narrative of the times, and follows the order of the events. There are other
books which seem to follow no regular order, and are connected neither with the order of
the preceding books nor with one another, such as Job, and Tobias, and Esther, and
Judith, and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Ezra, which last look more
like a sequel to the continuous regular history which terminates with the books of Kings
and Chronicles. Next are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of
David; and three books of Solomon, viz., Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes.
For two books, one called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus, are ascribed to
Solomon from a certain resemblance of style, but the most likely opinion is that they

96
 were written by Jesus the son of Sirach. Still they are to be reckoned among the
prophetical books, since they have attained recognition as being authoritative.”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/12022.htm)

● On The Holy Trinity, book 2, chapter 8, part 14: “Let us therefore say nothing of those
who, with an over carnal mind, have thought the nature of the Word of God, and the
Wisdom, which, "remaining in herself, makes all things new," whom we call the only
Son of God, not only to be changeable, but also to be visible.” [Wisdom 7:27]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130102.htm)
● On The Holy Trinity, book 4, chapter 20, part 27: “What wonder, therefore, if He is sent,
not because He is unequal with the Father, but because He is "a pure emanation
(manatio) issuing from the glory of the Almighty God?" For there, that which issues, and
that from which it issues, is of one and the same substance. For it does not issue as
water issues from an aperture of earth or of stone, but as light issues from light. For the
words, "For she is the brightness of the everlasting light," what else are they than, she is
light of everlasting light? For what is the brightness of light, except light itself? And so co-
eternal, with the light, from which the light is. But it is preferable to say, "the brightness of
light," rather than the light of light; lest that which issues should be thought to be darker
than that from which it issues.” [Wisdom 7:26]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130104.htm)
● On The Holy Trinity, book 4, chapter 20, part 27: “Scripture meets that other thought,
whereby that light which issues might seem darker than that from which it issues; and it
has removed this surmise by saying, "It is the brightness of that light," [Wisdom 7:27]
namely, of eternal light, and so shows it to be equal. For if it were less, then it would be
its darkness, not its brightness; but if it were greater, then it could not issue from it, for it
could not surpass that from which it is educed. Therefore, because it issues from it, it is
not greater than it is; and because it is not its darkness, but its brightness, it is not less
than it is: therefore it is equal. Nor ought this to trouble us, that it is called a pure
emanation issuing from the glory of the Almighty God, as if itself were not omnipotent,
but an emanation from the Omnipotent; for soon after it is said of it, "And being but one,
she can do all things." [Wisdom 7] But who is omnipotent, unless He who can do all
things? It is sent, therefore, by Him from whom it issues; for so she is sought after by
him who loved and desired her. "Send her," he says, "out of Your holy heavens, and
from the throne of Your glory, that, being present, she may labor with me;" [Wisdom
9:10] that is, may teach me to labor [heartily] in order that I may not labor [irksomely].
For her labors are virtues. But she is sent in one way that she may be with man; she has
been sent in another way that she herself may be man. For, "entering into holy souls,
she makes them friends of God and prophets;" [Wisdom 7] so she also fills the holy
angels, and works all things fitting for such ministries by them.”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130104.htm)
● On The Holy Trinity, book 4, chapter 20, part 28: “The Son, therefore, is not properly
said to have been sent in that He is begotten of the Father; but either in that the Word
made flesh appeared to the world, whence He says, "I came forth from the Father, and
have come into the world;" or in that from time to time, He is perceived by the mind of

97
 each, according to the saying, "Send her, that, being present with me, she may labor
with me." [Wisdom 9] What then is born (natum) from eternity is eternal, "for it is the
brightness of the everlasting light;" [Wisdom 7] but what is sent from time to time, is that
which is apprehended by each.”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130104.htm)
● On The Holy Trinity, book 11, chapter 11: “and as Holy Scripture also witnesses, has
regulated all things in measure, and number, and weight.” [Wisdom 11:20]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130111.htm)
● On The Holy Trinity, book 13, chapter 16: “to whom Holy Scripture says in another
place, "But You, O Lord, mastering Your power, judgest with calmness."” [Wisdom
12:18]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130113.htm)
● On The Holy Trinity, book 14, chapter 1: “that Holy Scripture says, "The multitude of
the wise is the welfare of the world."” [Wisdom 6:24]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130114.htm)

● City of God, book 14, chapter 7: “What we assert let us prove from Scripture. The
apostle "desires to depart, and to be with Christ." [Philippians 1:23] And, "My soul
desired to long for Your judgments;" or if it is more appropriate to say, "My soul longed to
desire Your judgments." And, "The desire of wisdom brings to a kingdom." [Wisdom
6:20]”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120114.htm)
● City of God, book 17, chapter 20: “But it has been customary to ascribe to Solomon
other two, of which one is called Wisdom, the other Ecclesiasticus, on account of
some resemblance of style — but the more learned have no doubt that they are not his;
yet of old the Church, especially the Western, received them into authority — in
the one of which, called the Wisdom of Solomon, the passion of Christ is most
openly prophesied.”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120117.htm)

Augustine also affirms Sirach in this passage.

● City of God, book 19, chapter 4: “as we read in the true book of Wisdom, "The
corruptible body weighs down the soul, and the earthly tabernacle presses down the
mind that muses upon many things?" [Wisdom 9:15]”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120119.htm)
● City of God, book 19, chapter 27: “For as reason, though subjected to God, is yet
"pressed down by the corruptible body," [Wisdom 9:15] so long as it is in this mortal
condition, it has not perfect authority over vice, and therefore this prayer is needed by
the righteous.”

● On Christian Doctrine, book 2, part 13: “who are rebuked by Holy Writ in these terms:
"For if they were able to know so much that they could weigh the world, how did they not
more easily find out the Lord thereof?" [Wisdom 13:9]”

98
 (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/12022.htm)
● On Christian Doctrine, book 4, part 5: “And, therefore, Scripture does not say that the
multitude of the eloquent, but "the multitude of the wise is the welfare of the world."
[Wisdom 6:24]”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/12024.htm)

● Sermons on the New Testament, 68.2: “But you will say, "The Father both 'was,' and
was before the Word." What are you looking for? "In the beginning was the Word." What
you find, understand; seek not for what you are not able to find. Nothing is before the
beginning. "In the beginning was the Word." The Son is the Brightness of the Father. Of
the Wisdom of the Father, which is the Son, it is said, "For He is the brightness of the
Everlasting Light." [Wisdom 7:26]”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/160368.htm)

● Of Holy Virginity, part 43: “has it not been most openly said, "And when I knew that no
one can be continent unless God give it, this also itself was a part of wisdom, to know
whose gift it was?"” [Wisdom 8:21]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1310.htm)

● On the Predestination of the Saints, book 2, chapter 43: “And of continency it is read in
the book of Wisdom, whose authority has been used by great and learned men
who have commented upon the divine utterances long before us; there, therefore, it
is read, "When I knew that no one can be continent unless God gives it, and that this
was of wisdom, to know whose gift this was." [Wisdom 8:21]”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15122.htm)

● Of the Morals of the Catholic Church, chapter 16, part 28: “What, then, is taught in the
following words: "She displays the nobility of her birth, having her dwelling with God?"
[Wisdom 8:3] …what could be more concordant than those words of the prophet:
"With You is wisdom which knows Your works, which was present at the time of Your
making the world, and knew what would be pleasing in Your eyes?" [Wisdom 9:9] …and
the prophet says, "Who knows Your mind, unless You give wisdom?" and a little after,
"The things pleasing to You men have learned, and have been healed by wisdom."
[Wisdom 9:17-19]”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1401.htm)
● Of the Morals of the Catholic Church, chapter 16, part 29: “and the prophet says, "The
Holy Spirit of knowledge will shun guile." [Wisdom 1:5] …and the prophet says, "You
send Your Spirit from the higher." [Wisdom 9:17]”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1401.htm)

● Reply to Faustus, book 12, chapter 44: “In the book of Wisdom it is prophesied of the
Jews: "Let us condemn him to an ignominious death; for he will be proved in his words.
If he is truly the Son of God, He will aid him; and deliver him from the hand of his

99
 enemies. Thus they thought, and erred; for their wickedness blinded them." [Wisdom
2:18-21]”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/140612.htm)

● Concerning the Nature of Good, Against the Manicheans, chapter 24: “Those things
which our faith holds and which reason in whatever way has traced out, are fortified by
the testimonies of the divine Scriptures, so that those who by reason of feebler
intellect are not able to comprehend these things, may believe the divine authority, and
so may deserve to know. But let not those who understand, but are less instructed in
ecclesiastical literature, suppose that we set forth these things from our own intellect
rather than what are in those Books. Accordingly, that God is unchangeable is written in
the Psalms: "You shall change them and they shall be changed; but Thou yourself art
the same." And in the book of Wisdom, concerning wisdom: "Remaining in herself,
she renews all things." [Wisdom 7:27]”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1407.htm)

● Answer to Petilian the Donatist, book 3, chapter 29, part 34: “But who is there that is
made up of deceit, whom we know that the Holy Spirit flees from, in accordance with
the Scripture, [Wisdom 1:5]”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/14093.htm)
● Answer to Petilian the Donatist, book 3, chapter 31, part 36: “so long they were involved
in deceit; and so the Holy Spirit, according to the Scripture, was fleeing from them.
[Wisdom 1:5]”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/14093.htm)

● On the Soul and its Origin, book 3, chapter 2: “and you are aware how terribly the
Scripture has spoken on this subject: "The Holy Spirit of discipline will flee from the
man who feigns." [Wisdom 1:5]”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15083.htm)

● Tractates on John, tractate 12, part 10: “"God made not death," says the Scripture, "nor
delights He in the destruction of the living; but He created all things to be." But what says
it here? "But by the devil's envy, death entered into the whole world." [Wisdom 1:2]”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701012.htm)
● Tractates on John, tractate 21, part 2: “Where that which the Scripture says of the
same wisdom: "For it is the brightness of the eternal light?" [Wisdom 7:26] Where what
was said of it again: "It powerfully reaches from the end even to the end, and orders all
things sweetly"? [Wisdom 8:1]”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701021.htm)

● Letter 164, chapter 3, part 6: “As to the first man, the father of mankind, it is agreed by
almost the entire Church that the Lord loosed him from that prison; a tenet which must
be believed to have been accepted not without reason, — from whatever source it was
handed down to the Church — although the authority of the canonical Scriptures

100
 cannot be brought forward as speaking expressly in its support, though this seems to be
the opinion which is more than any other borne out by these words in the book of
Wisdom. [Wisdom 10:1-2]”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102164.htm)

Augustine also affirms Wisdom as Scripture by using it to confirm doctrine. This can be seen in:

● City of God, book 12, chapter 25, uses Wisdom 8;1 to show that God imposed order
upon creation.
● City of God, book 14, chapter 3, uses Wisdom 9:15 to refute that the flesh is the cause
of all vices and ill conduct.
● City of God, book 17, chapter 20, gives Wisdom 2:12-21 as a prophecy of Christ’s
passion.
● On The Holy Trinity, book 2, chapter 5, uses Wisdom 8:1 to show the Holy Spirit, and
God, is omnipresent.
● On The Holy Trinity, book 2, chapter 8, uses Wisdom 7:27 to refute those who think the
Son is changeable.
● On The Holy Trinity, book 3, chapter 1, uses Wisdom 16:24-25 and 8:1 to show angels
are God’s intermediaries.
● On The Holy Trinity, book 4, chapter 13, uses Wisdom 8:1 and 7:24-25 to show there
are limits to demonic knowledge.
● On The Holy Trinity, book 4, chapter 20, uses Wisdom 9:10 to show the Son was sent by
the Father into the world.
● On The Holy Trinity, book 4, chapter 20, uses Wisdom 7 to show the Son is co-eternal
and equal to the Father.
● On The Holy Trinity, book 11, chapter 11, uses Wisdom 11:21 to show that creation is
made with such precision that it can be used for theology.
● Of the Morals of the Catholic Church, chapter 16, uses Wisdom 8:3 to show coequality
of the Son with the Father.
● Concerning the Nature of God, Against the Manicheans, chapter 29, uses Wisdom 7:24-
25 to show the Son cannot be defiled.
● Treatise Concerning the Correction of the Donatist, book 9, chapter 41, uses Wisdom
5:1 to show the final judgement.
● Reply to Faustus the Manichean, book 12, part 44, uses Wisdom 2:18-21 to show Christ
is prophesied of the Jews.
● Reply to Faustus the Manichean, book 22, part 8, uses Wisdom 7:26 to prove the Son is
not made.
● Answers to the Letters of Petilian the Donatist, book 2, chapter 26, uses Wisdom 1.5 to
show that the sinfulness of the Eucharistic minister does not change the validity of the
Sacrament.
● On Baptism, Against the Donatists, book 2, chapter 10, uses Wisdom 12:10 to say God’s
judgment fulfilled against the Donatists.
● On Christian Doctrine, book 2, chapter 21, uses Wisdom 13:9 to condemn astrology.

101
 ● On the Merits and the forgiveness of Sins, uses Wisdom 2:24 to show original sin was
not imitation of Adam.
● Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints, chapter 43, uses Wisdom 8:21 to show no
one can be content apart from God.
● Treatise on Faith and the Creed, chapter 3, uses Wisdom 7:27 to show the Son is
immutable.
● Against Julian, book 6, chapter 16, uses Wisdom 9:5 to prove concupiscence.
● Letter 119, quotes Wisdom 7:26.
● Letter 147, part 47, uses Wisdom 7:27 and also alludes to 2nd Maccabees 7:28.
● Letter 164, appeals to Wisdom 10:1-2.
● Letter 170, appeals to Wisdom 7:26.
● Letter 185, part 50, quotes Wisdom 1:5.
● Letter 187, part 7, quotes Wisdom 7:24-25 to show Christ, as God, is omnipresent.
● Sermon 212 For Recent Converts, On the Presentation of the Creed, quotes Wisdom
7:27 to establish the Son’s omnipotence.
● Selected Sermons on the New Testament, sermon 2, uses Wisdom to show all things
were made, selected and governed by the Son.
● Sermon on Selected Lessons in the New Testament, sermon 67, part 11, uses Wisdom
7:26 to show the Son is co-eternal with the Father.
● Sermon on Selected Lessons in the New Testament, sermon 68, part 2, uses Wisdom
7:26 to prove that neither the Father or the Son existed before the other.
● Tractates on John, tract 1, part 13, uses Wisdom 11:21 to show creation extends down
to measure, number and weight.
● Tractates on John, tract 20, part 13, uses Wisdom 7:26 to confirm the co-eternality of the
Son.
● Tractates on John, tract 21, part 1, uses Wisdom 9:15 to confirm concupiscence.
● Tractates on John, tract 21, part 2, uses Wisdom 7:26 and 8:1 to confirm aspects of the
Trinity.

Baruch

It must also be noted that Baruch was often reckoned as part of Jeremiah.

Athenagoras of Athens (133-150 - 190-200 AD)

● Plea for Christians, chapter 9: “If we satisfied ourselves with advancing such
considerations as these, our doctrines might by some be looked upon as human. But,
since the voices of the prophets confirm our arguments — for I think that you also, with
your great zeal for knowledge, and your great attainments in learning, cannot be
ignorant of the writings either of Moses or of Isaiah and Jeremiah, and the other
prophets, who, lifted in ecstasy above the natural operations of their minds by the
impulses of the Divine Spirit, uttered the things with which they were inspired, the Spirit
making use of them as a flute-player breathes into a flute — what, then, do these men

102
 say? "The Lord is our God; no other can be compared with Him [Baruch 3:36]." And
again: "...[Isaiah 44:6]." In like manner: "...[Isaiah 43:10-11]. And as to His greatness:
"...[Isaiah 66:1]".”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0205.htm)

Clement of Alexandria (150 - 215 AD)

● The Instructor (Paedagogus), book 2, chapter 3: “Excellently, therefore, the Divine

Scripture, addressing boasters and lovers of their own selves, says, “Where are the
rulers of the nations, and the lords of the wild beasts of the earth, who sport among the
birds of heaven, who treasured up silver and gold, in whom men trusted, and there was
no end of their substance, who fashioned silver and gold, and were full of care? There is
no finding of their works. They have vanished, and gone down to Hades.” [Baruch 3:16-
19]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02092.htm)

Tertullian (160 - 240 AD)

● Scorpion’s Antedote, chapter 8: “For they remembered also the words of Jeremias
writing to those over whom that captivity was impending: "And now you shall see borne
upon (men's) shoulders the gods of the Babylonians, of gold and silver and wood,
causing fear to the Gentiles. Beware, therefore, that you also do not be altogether like
the foreigners, and be seized with fear while you behold crowds worshipping those gods
before and behind, but say in your mind, Our duty is to worship You, O Lord".” [Baruch
6:3-6]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0318.htm)

Irenaeus of Lyons (130 - 202 AD)

● Against Heresies (189 AD), book 5, chapter 35, part 1: “Jeremiah the prophet has
pointed out that as many believers as God has prepared for this purpose, to multiply
those left on the earth, should both be under the rule of the saints and to minister to this
[new] Jerusalem and that [his] kingdom shall be in it, saying, `Look around Jerusalem
toward the east and behold the joy which comes to you from God himself. Behold, your
sons whom you have sent forth shall come: They shall come in a band from the east to
the west. . . . God shall go before with you in the light of his splendor, with the mercy and
righteousness which proceed from him'”. [Baruch 4:36-5:9]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103535.htm)

Cyprian of Carthage (200 - 270 AD)

● Treatise 12, book 3, part 29: “Also in Baruch: For the time shall come, and you shall
seek me, both you and those who shall be after you, to hear the word of wisdom and of
understanding; and you shall not find me.” [Baruch 4:28]

103
 (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050712c.htm)

Athanasius of Alexandria (293 - 373 AD)

● Defence of the Nicene Definition, chapter 12: “...therefore the 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 Hebrews 1:3;' and
again, 'For with You is the well of life, and in Your light shall we see light ;' and when the
Word chides Israel, He says, 'You have forsaken the Fountain of wisdom [Baruch 3:12];'
and this Fountain it is which says, 'They have forsaken Me the Fountain of living waters.'
And mean indeed and very dim is the illustration compared with what we desiderate; but
yet it is possible from it to understand something above man's nature, instead of thinking
the Son's generation to be on a level with ours. For who can even imagine that the
radiance of light ever was not, so that he should dare to say that the Son was not
always, or that the Son was not before His generation? Or who is capable of separating
the radiance from the sun, or to conceive of the fountain as ever void of life, that he
should madly say, 'The Son is from nothing,' who says, 'I am the life John 14:6,' or 'alien
to the Father's essence,' who, says, 'He that has seen Me, has seen the Father ?' for the
sacred writers wishing us thus to understand, have given these illustrations; and it is
unseemly and most irreligious, when Scripture contains such images, to form ideas
concerning our Lord from others which are neither in Scripture, nor have any religious
bearing.”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2809.htm)

Epiphanius of Salamis (310 - 403 AD)

● Panarion, section 4, heresy 37, part 2.1: “Those who are offshoots of Noetus himself,
and those who derive from, make much of this doctrine, and try to establish their insane
teaching from the following texts. Among them are God's words to Moses, 'I am the God
of your fathers...' They said accordingly, 'We therefore know him alone. If Christ came
and was born, he himself is the Father, he himself is the Son. Thus the same God is the
God who is forever, and who has now come- as the Scripture says, 'This is they God,
none other shall be accounted God besides him. He hath found out every way of
understanding and given it to Jacob his servant and Israel his beloved. Afterwards, he
appeared on earth and conversed with men.” [Baruch 3:20]
● Panarion, De Fide 16.2: “The Spirit testimony manifest; to testify that his holy flesh is
dear to the Father and the Holy Spirit and proved by them; to declare the Father's
approval of the Son's incarnation; to make it evident that the Son is a true Son; and in
fulfillment of the Scripture, "And after these things he appeared on the earth and
consorted with men.” [Baruch 3:38]

Cyril of Jerusalem (313 - 386 AD)

104
 ● Catechetical Lecture 11, part 15: “And would you know that He who was begotten of the
Father, and afterwards became man, is God? Hear the Prophet saying, This is our
God, none other shall be accounted of in comparison with Him. He has found out every
way of knowledge, and given it to Jacob His servant, and to Israel His beloved.
Afterwards He was seen on earth, and conversed among men.” [Baruch 3:36-38]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310111.htm)

Hilary of Poitiers (315 - 368 AD)

● On Trinity, book 4, chapter 42: “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 no other accounted of in comparison with him, who has found all the way of
knowledge and gave it to Jacob his servant and to Israel his beloved. Afterwards, he
was seen upon earth and conversed with men.” [Baruch 3:36-38]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/330204.htm)
● On Trinity, book 5, chapter 39: “Jeremias was endowed with a similar prophetical
power, and thus informed us that the nature of the only-begotten God was inseparable
from the nature of God the Father, when he declared: 'This is our God, and there shall
no other be accounted of in comparison of him, who has found all the way of knowledge
and gave it to Jacob his servant and to Israel his beloved. Afterwards, he was seen on
earth and conversed with men.'” [Baruch 3:36]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/330205.htm)

Gregory of Nazianzus (329 - 390 AD)

● Oration 30, part 14: “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. This addition proves clearly that the
words are not used of the Father, but of the Son; for it was He Who in bodily form
companied with us, and was in this lower world.” [Baruch 3:35, 37]

Rufinus (340 - 410 AD)

● Commentary on the Apostles' Creed, part 5: “Which also the Prophet foretold when he
said, This is our God: no other shall be accounted of in comparison of Him. He has
found out all the way of knowledge, and has given it unto Jacob His servant and to Israel
His beloved. Afterward He showed Himself upon the earth, and conversed with men.”
[Baruch 3:35-38]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2711.htm)

Augustine of Hippo (354 - 430 AD)

105
 ● City of God, book 18, chapter 33: “Also in another place he says, "This is my God, and
there shall none other be accounted of in comparison of Him; who has found out all the
way of prudence, and has given it to Jacob His servant, and to Israel His beloved:
afterwards He was seen on the earth, and conversed with men." Some attribute this
testimony not to Jeremiah, but to his secretary, who was called Baruch; but it is more
commonly ascribed to Jeremiah.”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120118.htm)

● Reply to Faustus, book 12, chapter 43: “And what Jeremiah says of wisdom plainly
applies to Christ: "Jacob delivered it to his son, and Israel to his chosen one. Afterwards
He appeared on earth, and conversed with men."” [Baruch 3:37-38]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/140612.htm)

Augustine also uses Baruch to confirm doctrine, also affirming it as Scripture.

● Reply to Faustus the Manichean, book 12, part 43, gives Baruch 3:37-38 as a prophecy
of Christ.

Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)

The Didache (70 AD)

● The Didache, 4:5: “You shall not waver with regard to your decisions [Sir. 1:28]. Do not
be someone who stretches out his hands to receive but withdraws them when it comes
to giving [Sir. 4:31]”

Clement of Alexandria (150 - 215 AD)

● The Instructor (Paedagogus), book 1, chapter 8: “At this stage some rise up, saying that
the Lord, by reason of the rod, and threatening, and fear, is not good; misapprehending,
as appears, the Scripture which says, And he that fears the Lord will turn to his heart;
Sirach 21:6…”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02091.htm)
● The Instructor (Paedagogus), book 2, chapter 5: “A fool raises his voice in laughter",
Sirach 21:20 says the Scripture; but a clever man smiles almost imperceptibly.”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02092.htm)

Origen of Alexandria (185 - 254 AD)

● De Principiis, book 2, chapter 8.3: “Now the north wind is described in holy Scripture
as cold, according to the statement in the book of Wisdom, That cold north wind…”
[Sirach 43:20]
● (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04122.htm)

106
● Contra Celsus, book 7, chapter 12: “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 learned to be ready
always to give an answer to every one that asks us a reason for the hope that is in us.”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04167.htm)
● Contra Celsus, book 8 chapter 50: “For the divine word says: What is an honourable
seed? The seed of man. What is a dishonourable seed? The seed of man.” [Sirach
10:19]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04168.htm)

● Homilies on Genesis, book 12, chapter 5: “"For hear what the Scripture says: "Prick the
eye and it will bring forth a tear; prick the heart and it brings forth understanding."”
[Sirach 22:19]

● Homilies on Exodus, book 8, chapter 4: “And, therefore, the prophet mourns over us
whom he sees fluctuating in inconstancy like this and says, "Woe to the double-minded,"
[Sir 2:12] and again, "For how long do you limp in both your knees?"” [Sirach 2:12]

● Homilies on Judges, book 3, chapter 2: “Moreover, each one of us, even if he is small,
even if he is very small, even if he is of no value in secular terms, he can labor under the
vice of pride; and nothing is so foul and detestable, as Scripture says, as "a proud
pauper and a lying rich man.” [Sirach 25:4]

● Homily 9 on Ezekiel, book 2: “"For what does the Scripture say? "Why are earth and
ashes proud?" and: "In his life he cast forth his bowels"” [Sirach 10:9]
● Homily 5 on Ezekiel, book 4, chapter 1: “Therefore, I fear God's judgment and I keep
before my eyes this ordering of the judgment that is contained in the Scriptures. I bear
in mind the saying: "Do not lift a weight that is too heavy for you" [Sirach 13:2]; and also
the following: "Do not seek to be judge, since you may not be able to take away
iniquities.” [Sirach 7:6]

● Homilies on Numbers, book 11, chapter 24: “Therefore, from these few things which we
have brought forth, if any are diligent in the study of the divine Scriptures, they can
very easily assemble distinctions from other passages as well. "For if a wise man hears,"
it says, "not only will he praise the word, but he will add to it.” [Sirach 21:15]

● Commentary on Romans, book 1, chapter 18.7: “But out of both sides' support, the duty
of choice is preserved. For the matter is not done by force nor is the soul moved in either
of the two directions by compulsion. Otherwise neither blame nor virtue could be
ascribed to it, nor would the choice of the good earn a reward or the turning aside to evil
merit punishment. Instead the freedom of will is preserved in the soul in all things, so
that it may turn to what it wants, just as it is written, "See, I have set before you life and

107
 death," [Deuteronomy 30:15] "fire and water." [Sirach 15.16-17]. Life, therefore, is
Christ, and death refers to the last enemy, the devil.”

Dionysius the Great (190 - 265 AD)

● Books on Nature, part 3: “But listen to the divine oracles: “The works of the Lord are in
judgment; from the beginning, and from His making of them, He disposed the parts
thereof. He garnished His works for ever, and their principles unto their generations”.”
[Sirach 16:26-27]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0612.htm)

Cyprian of Carthage (200 - 270 AD)

● Treatise 7, part 9: ““Holy Scripture teaches and forewarns, saying, “My son, when you
come to the service of God, stand in righteousness and fear, and prepare your soul for
temptation”. And again: “In pain endure, and in your humility have patience; for gold and
silver is tried in the fire, but acceptable men in the furnace of humiliation”.” [Sirach 2:1-5]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050707.htm)

● Treatise 12, book 3, part 96: “In Solomon, in Ecclesiasticus: "Be not hasty in thy
tongue, and in thy deeds useless and remiss." And Paul, in the first to the Corinthians:
"The kingdom of God is not in word, but in power." Also to the Romans: "Not the hearers
of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified."”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050712c.htm)

Cyprian quotes “Solomon, in Ecclesiasticus” 10 times in Treatise 12, book 3 interchangeably in

between other inspired Scriptures.

● Letter 5, part 2: “...or there remains more than what is yet seen to be accomplished,
since it is written "Praise not any man before his death" [Sirach 11:28]; and again, "Be
faithful unto death, and I will give you a crown of life." Revelation 2:10 And the Lord also
says, "He that endures to the end, the same shall be saved". ]Matthew 10:22]”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050605.htm)

Alexander of Alexandria (250 - 326 AD)

● Ecclesiastical History, book 1, chapter 3: “Not that the Son of God is unbegotten, for the
Father alone is unbegotten; but that the ineffable personality of the only-begotten God is
beyond the keenest conception of the evangelists and perhaps even of angels.
Therefore, I do not think men ought to be considered pious who presume to investigate
this subject, in disobedience to the injunction, ' Seek not what is too difficult for you,
neither enquire into what is too high for you.'” [Sirach 3:21]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/27021.htm)

108
 ● Ecclesiastical History, book 1, chapter 3: "For if the knowledge of many other things
incomparably inferior is beyond the capacity of the human mind, and cannot therefore be
attained, as has been said by Paul, ' Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither have
entered into the heart of man, the things which God has prepared for them that love
Him ,' and as God also said to Abraham, that the stars could not be numbered by him ;
and it is likewise said, ' Who shall number the grains of sand by the sea-shore, or the
drops of rain ?' how then can any one but a madman presume to enquire into the nature
of the Word of God?" [Sirach 1:2]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/27021.htm)

Athanasius of Alexandria (293 - 373 AD)

● Letter to the Egyptian Bishops, chapter 3: “And although, again, he conceal his natural
falsehood, and pretend to speak truth with his lips; yet are we 'not ignorant of his
devices,' but are able to answer him in the words spoken by the Spirit against him; 'But
unto the ungodly, said God, why dolt thou preach My laws?' [Psalm 50:16] and, 'Praise
is not seemly in the mouth of a sinner [Sirach 15:9]".”
● Discourse 2 Against the Arians, chapter 79: “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 has
given her to them that love Him Sirach 1:9-10,'”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/28162.htm)

Epiphanius of Salamis (310 - 403 AD)

● Panarion, section 2, heresy 13, part 8.1: “If a man who is an utter fool hears it from them
he will be easily captivated by their lie, believing that they have taught him something
sublime (Scripture says, "Every bird flocketh with its kind, and a man will cleave to his
like.” [Sirach 13:16]
● Panarion, section 3, heresy 42, Scholion 70a: “Who will get out onto a cliff, fulfilling
Scripture's 'He that is evil to himself, to whom will he be good.” [Sirach 14:5]

● Ancoratus, chapter 12: “Therefore, the Spirit is not alien from God, the one who
searches the depths of God. For if the divine Scripture finds fault with us, saying:
"What has been appointed to you, think on these things, and there is no need for you [to
think on] the hidden things," and "do not seek the things higher than you, and do not
inquire into things deeper than you," then shall we say also concerning the Holy Spirit
that rather in vain and not rather in genuineness he searches the depths of God?”
[Sirach 3:22]
● Ancoratus, chapter 18: “For behold, in many ways the divine Scripture teaches us:
calling good a poor and wise child; and, "Good was Samuel with God and men" (1
Samuel 2:26); and, "Good was Saul son of Kish from the tribe of Benjamin, highest of all
Israel over shoulders and above" (1 Samuel 9:2); and, "It is good to go to a house of
feasting" (Ecclesiastes 7:2); and, "Open, Lord, heaven, your good treasure"
(Deuteronomy 28.12); and, "A good word over a gift" (Sirach 18.17); and, "Good is the

109
 living dog over the dead lion" (Eccles 9.4); and, "Good are two over one" (Ecclesiastes
4:9) ; and, "Good is the end of words over the beginning" (Ecclesiastes 7:8); and, ' If you
who are wicked know to give good gifts to your children," (Matthew 7:11) speaking about
the fish and bread.”

Gregory of Nazianzus (329 - 390 AD)

● Oration 7, part 1: “But even in my tears and admiration I must respect the law which
regards such matters: nor is this alien to our philosophy; for he says The memory of the
just is accompanied with eulogies [Proverbs 10:7 LXX], and also, Let tears fall down
over the dead, and begin to lament, as if thou hadst suffered great harm thyself” [Sirach
38:16]

● Oration 32, part 21: “If you have the word of understanding, answer, says Scripture,
and no one will hold you back; if not, put a curb on your lips.” [Sirach 5:12]

Cyril of Jerusalem (313 - 386 AD)

● Catechetical Lecture 6, part 4: “learn from this instance the mightiness of God: for He
has 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 you,
neither search out the things that are above your strength: what is commanded you,
think thereupon Sirach 3:21-22.”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310106.htm)

● Catechetical Lecture 13, part 8: “And, since they are many, and the rest of our time is
narrowed into a short space, listen now to a few of the more important as time permits;
and having received these beginnings, be diligent and seek out the remainder. Let not
your hand be only stretched out to receive, but let it be also ready to work. God gives all
things freely. For if any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God who gives James 1:5,
and he shall receive. May He through your prayer grant utterance to us who speak, and
faith to you who hear.” [Sirach 4:31]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310113.htm)

Jerome (342-347 - 420 AD)

● Homily 2, On Psalm 5: “Where is my pride? Suddenly turned into ashes. 'Why are dust
and ashes proud?' [Sirach 10:9]”

● Commentary on Jeremiah, book 1, Jeremiah 1:7-8: “He says, 'You should not consider
your age, for (as you learn from another prophet) understanding is gray hair for
men…” [Sirach 25:4]

110
 ● Commentary on Ezekiel, book 13, 45.10: “All of this we should observe not only in
business and in daily life but in guarding justice in everything, as Scripture says, "You
shall make a balance and a weighing beam by your words…” [Sirach 28:29]

Augustine of Hippo (354 - 430 AD)

● City of God, book 21, chapter 9: “For we read in the ancient Scriptures, "The
vengeance of the flesh of the ungodly is fire and worms." [Sirach 7:17]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120121.htm)
● City of God, book 22, chapter 22: “which Scripture says must be given a child, "beating
him on the sides lest he wax stubborn," [Sirach 30:12]”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120122.htm)

● On Christian Doctrine, book 2, chapter 31: “Scripture, as I judge, expresses

detestation in that place where it is said, "There is one that shows wisdom in words, and
is hated;"” [Sirach 37:20]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/12022.htm)
● On Christian Doctrine, book 3, chapter 17: “the commands given in Scripture about
loving and ruling a wife are not to be taken literally, but figuratively; and if he has
determined to keep his virgin unmarried, he tries to put a figurative interpretation on the
passage where it is said, "Marry your daughter, and so shall you have performed a
weighty matter." [Sirach 7:27] Accordingly, another of our rules for understanding the
Scriptures will be as follows”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm)

● Of Holy Virginity, part 31: “according to the Scriptures, the others are below both in
work and wages, both in vow and reward, let what is written straightway come into their
mind, "By how much you are great, by so much humble yourself in all things: and you
shall find favor before God."” [Sirach 3:18]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1310.htm)

● The Enchiridion, chapter 66: “the saying of Scripture holds good: "A heavy yoke is
upon the sons of Adam, from the day that they go out of their mother's womb, till the day
that they return to the mother of all things."” [Sirach 40:1]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1302.htm)

● Of the Morals of the Catholic Church, chapter 24, part 45: “than those words of the
prophet, "He who despises small things shall fall by degrees." [Sirach 19:1]”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1401.htm)

● On Nature and Grace, chapter 33: “All sin, then, is also pride, even as Scripture says,
Pride is the beginning of all sin." [Sirach 10:13] …Truly then is it said, "Pride is the

111
 commencement of all sin;" [Sirach 10:13] and, "The beginning of pride is when a man
departs from God." [Sirach 10:12]”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1503.htm)

● On Marriage and Concupiscence, book 1, chapter 32: “when he does what the
Scripture enjoins, "Go not after your lusts;" [Sirach 18:30]”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15071.htm)

● On Grace and Free Will, chapter 31: “This is the purport of what the Scripture says: "If
you will, you shall keep the commandments;" [Sirach 15:15]”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1510.htm)

● On the Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, book 2, chapter 14, part 48: “the Holy Spirit
recalls us, when He says by the prophet, "My son, do not add sin upon sin, and say,
The mercy of God is great;" and, "Do you not know that the patience of God invites you
to repentance?"” [Sirach 5:5-6]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/16012.htm)

● Tractates on John, tractate 25, part 15: “what, I ask, says the Scripture to him? "Why
is dust and ashes proud?" Why proud! Let the Scripture tell why. "Because in his life he
put forth his inmost parts." [Sirach 10:14-15]”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701025.htm)
● Tractates on John, tractate 53, part 7: “Let us, therefore, listen together to the
admonition and to the words of Scripture: "Seek not out the things that are too high for
you, neither search the things that are above your strength."” [Sirach 3:21]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701053.htm)

Augustine uses Sirach to confirm doctrine, hence holding it to be Scripture, and examples of this
are:

● City of God, book 17, chapter 20, gives Sirach 36:1-5 as a prophecy of Christ.
● City of God, book 21, chapter 9, uses Sirach 7:17 to prove that the damned are
punished in soul and body.
● City of God, book 21, chapter 14, uses Sirach 40:1 to support infant baptism.
● The Enchiridion, chapter 66, uses Sirach 40:1 to confirm infants after baptism still suffer
effects of sin.
● Answers to the Letters of Petilian the Donatist, book 2, chapter 85, uses Sirach 15:16-17
to prove free will.
● On Nature and Grace, Against Pelagius, chapter 33, uses Sirach 10:13 to show every
sin is from pride.
● Treatise on Grace and Free Will, chapter 2, uses Sirach 15:11 as proof of free will.
● Homilies on the First Epistle of John, homily 9, part 4, uses Sirach 1:28 to show fear and
charity must precede justification.

112
 ● Of the Morals of the Catholic Church, chapter 23, uses Sirach 2:4-5 and 27:6, alongside
Proverbs, to show what the mother of the 7 martyred sons knew regarding fortitude from
what was written in Scripture.

1st And 2nd Maccabees

Hippolytus of Rome (170 - 235 AD)

● Commentary on Daniel, part 11: “Since, then, the angel Gabriel also recounted these
things to the prophet, as they have been understood by us, as they have also taken
place, and as they have been all clearly described in the books of the Maccabees,”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0502.htm)

Origen of Alexandria (185 - 254 AD)

● Contra Celsus, book 8, chapter 46: “What need is there to quote all the princes and
private persons in Scripture history who fared well or ill according as they obeyed or
despised the words of the prophets? ...And the books of the Maccabees relate what
punishments were inflicted upon those who dared to profane the Jewish service in the
temple at Jerusalem.”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04168.htm)

● Commentary on Romans, book 8, chapter 1.2: “...and as was Mattathias, of whom it is

written in the book of First Maccabees, "He was zealous for the law of God and his
heart was stirred and his fury ascended".”

● De Principiis, book 2, chapter 1.5: “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,
"I 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”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04122.htm)

● Origen (Commentary on John book 1, chapter 18: “In the third place a beginning may be
that out of which a thing comes, the underlying matter from which things are formed.
This, however, is the view of those who hold matter itself to be uncreated, a view which
we believers cannot share, since we believe God to have made the things that are out of
the things which are not, as the mother of the seven martyrs in the Maccabees
teaches, [2 Maccabbees 7:28] and as the angel of repentance in the Shepherd
inculcated.”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101501.htm)

113
Cyprian (200 - 270 AD)

● Letter 54, part 3: “...since Holy Scripture meets and warns us, saying, ...[quotes
Habakkuk 2:5], And again: "...[quotes 1 Maccabbees 2:62-63], And again…[quotes
Psalm 37:35]”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050654.htm)

● Treatise 4, part 4: “Also in the same place: "The bow of the mighty men has been made
weak, and the weak are girt about with strength." Of this same thing in the Maccabees:
"It is just to be subjected to God, and that a mortal should not think things equal to God."
Also in the same place: "And fear not the words of a man that is a sinner, because his
glory shall be filth and worms. Today he shall be lifted up, and tomorrow he shall not be
found; because he is turned into his earth, and his thought has perished.” [2 Maccabees
9:12, 1 Maccabees 2:62-63]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050712c.htm)

● Treatise 7 (248 AD), book 3, part 15: “In Genesis [it says], `And God tested Abraham
and said to him, "Take your only son whom you love, Isaac, and go to the high land and
offer him there as a burnt offering... "' [Gen 22:1-2] ... Of this same thing in the Wisdom
of Solomon [it says], `Although in the sight of men they suffered torments, their hope is
full of immortality...' [Wis. 3:4]. Of this same thing in the Maccabees [it says], `Was not
Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness'" [1
Macc. 2:52; see James. 2:21-23]”

● Treatise 11, part 11: “What, indeed, do we find in the Maccabees of seven brethren,
equals alike in their lot of birth and virtues, filling up the number seven in the sacrament
of a perfected completion? Seven brethren were thus associating in martyrdom.” [2
Maccabees 7]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050711.htm)

● Treatise 12 (248 AD), book 3, part 53: “In the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians:
“We see now through the glass in an enigma, but then with face to face. Now I know
partly; but then I shall know even as also I am known”. Also in Solomon, in Wisdom:
“And in simplicity of heart seek Him”. Also in the same: “He who walks with simplicity,
walks trustfully”. Also in the same: “Seek not things higher than yourself, and look not
into things stronger than yourself”. Also in Solomon: “Be not excessively righteous, and
do not reason more than is required”. Also in Isaiah: “Woe unto them who are convicted
in themselves”. Also in the Maccabees: “Daniel in his simplicity was delivered from the
mouth of the lions”. Also in the Epistle of Paul to the Romans:”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050712c.htm)
● Treatise 12 (248 AD), book 3, part 4: “Of this same thing in the Maccabees: It is just to
be subjected to God, and that a mortal should not think things equal to God.” [2
Maccabees 9:12]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050712c.htm)

114
 ● Treatise 12 (248 AD), book 3, part 17: “In the Epistle of Paul to the Romans: The
sufferings of this present time are not worthy of comparison with the glory that is to come
after, which shall be revealed in us. Of this same thing in the Maccabees: O Lord, who
hast the holy knowledge, it is manifest that while I might be delivered from death, I am
suffering most cruel pains of body, being beaten with whips; yet in spirit I suffer these
things willingly, because of the fear of your own self. Also in the same place: You
indeed, being powerless, destroy us out of this present life; but the King of the world
shall raise us up who have died for His laws into the eternal resurrection of life. Also in
the same place: It is better that, given up to death by men, we should expect hope from
God to be raised again by Him. For there shall be no resurrection to life for you. Also in
the same place: Having power among men, although you are corruptible, you do what
you will. But think not that our race is forsaken of God. Sustain, and see how His great
power will torment, you and your seed. Also in the same place: Do not err without cause;
for we suffer these things on our own accounts, as sinners against our God. But think
not that you shall be unpunished, having undertaken to fight against God.” [2
Maccabees 6:30-7:19]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050712c.htm)

Epiphanius of Salamis (310 - 403 AD)

● Panarion, section 2, heresy 30, part 26: “...thus because of the frequency with which
Israel had to flee from its enemies, the holy Jeremiah said of it, 'And if thou passest over
to the Citians, there also shalt thou have no rest" (Isa 23:12). Now anyone can see that
Citium means the island of Cyrus, for Citians are Cypriotes and Rhodians. Moreover, the
Cyriote and Rhodian stock had settled in Macedonia; thus Alexander of Macedon was
Citian. And this is why the Book of Maccabees says, 'He came out of the land of the
Citians." (1 Maccabees 1:1). Alexander of Macedon was of Chitian descent.”

Augustine of Hippo (354 - 430 AD)

● City of God, book 18, chapter 36: “From this time, when the temple was rebuilt, down to
the time of Aristobulus, the Jews had not kings but princes; and the reckoning of their
dates is found, not in the Holy Scriptures which are called canonical, but in others,
among which are also the books of the Maccabees. These are held as canonical,
not by the Jews, but by the Church, on account of the extreme and wonderful
sufferings of certain martyrs, who, before Christ had come in the flesh, contended for the
law of God even unto death, and endured most grievous and horrible evils.”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120118.htm)

Hilary of Poitiers (315 - 368 AD)

● On Trinity, book 4, chapter 16: “But the revelation of the divine Scriptures does not allow
this explanation. According to the Prophet, everything has been made from nothing [2
Maccabees 7:28], and no existing matter has been changed into anything else, but that

115
 which was not was created and is complete.”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/330204.htm)

Jerome (342-347 - 420 AD)

● Against the Pelagians, book 2, part 30: “Daniel, the prophet, says to Nabuchodonosor...
of whom it is written: 'He raiseth up the needy from the earth, and lifts up the poor out
of the dung-hills, that he may place him with the princes, with the princes of his people....
Hearken to the prophet, who says: 'All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing
before him.'... His works are all true, and His ways justice, and He can humiliate the
proud.. Antiochus Epiphanius, a very cruel king, overturned the altar and caused justice
itself to be trampled underfoot, because it was permitted by the Lord; the reason given
is: 'because of many sins.' Therefore, he did not do simply what he himself wanted to do,
but what God permitted, because of the sins of the people. Moreover, the passage
continues, stating that he did not do this by his own strength, but at the command of Him
who ordered it to be done. Moreover, as far as the words are concerned that David uses
in his prayers, such as: 'We have sinned, we have done wickedly... as well as Daniel,
and all the prophets, spoke them, not in reference to themselves who were holy men...
Daniel himself will reply to this view of yours, and will say: 'While I was yet praying and
confessing my sins and the sins of the people of Israel.'...hearken to the same prophet:
'Seventy weeks are shortened upon thy people and thy holy city…” [2 Maccabees 5:17]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/30112.htm)

Augustine of Hippo (354 - 430 AD)

● Of the Morals of the Catholic Church, chapter 23, part 43: “But these Scriptures
present to me a woman of amazing fortitude, and I must at once go on to her case.
This woman, along with seven children, allowed the tyrant and executioner to extract
her vitals from her body rather than a profane word from her mouth, encouraging her
sons by her exhortations, though she suffered in the tortures of their bodies, and was
herself to undergo what she called on them to bear.” [2nd Maccabees 7]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1401.htm)

Augustine also uses Maccabees to confirm doctrine, which also affirms it is Scripture.

● On the Care of the Dead, uses 2nd Maccabees 12:43-46 to confirm prayers for the
dead.
● Concerning the Nature of God, Against the Manicheans, chapter 26, uses 2nd
Maccabees 7:28 to show creation ex nihilo.
● On the Psalms, Psalm 91, chapter 19, uses Maccabees to show God does not forsake
those in trial.

116
 Judith

Clement of Rome (27 - 97 AD)

● Letter to Corinthians (96 AD), chapter 55:5-6: “The blessed Judith, when the city was
under siege, asked the elders to permit her to go to the enemy’s camp. So she exposed
herself to danger and went out for love of her country and her besieged people, and the
Lord delivered Holophernes into the hand of a woman. To no less danger did Esther,
who was perfect in faith, expose herself, to deliver the twelve tribes of Israel from
imminent destruction.”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm)

Clement cited 2 examples for his readers in Corinth to encourage them, the first was Esther,
with Judith being the 2nd figure. It would be a very odd attempt to encourage your readers to
cite Esther in the same breath as Judith if she wasn’t a Biblical figure found in authoritative
inspired Scripture. Clement believed Judith’s story to be of religious importance where God
blessed her.

Clement of Alexandria (150 - 215 AD)

● Stromata, book 2, chapter 7: “And he that is near the Lord is full of stripes." [Judith 8.27]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02102.htm)
● Stromata, book 4, chapter 19: “But Judith too, who became perfect among women, in
the siege of the city, at the entreaty of the elders went forth into the strangers' camp,
despising all danger for her country's sake, giving herself into the enemy's hand in faith
in God; and straightway she obtained the reward of her faith — though a woman,
prevailing over the enemy of her faith, and gaining possession of the head of Holofernes.
And again, Esther perfect by faith, who rescued Israel from the power of the king…”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02104.htm)

Tertullian (160 - 240 AD)

● On Monogamy, part 17: “They will have plainly a specious privilege to plead before
Christ — the everlasting "infirmity of the flesh!" But upon this (infirmity) will sit in
judgment no longer an Isaac, our monogamist father; or a John, a noted voluntary
celibate of Christ's; or a Judith, daughter of Merari; or so many other examples of
saints.”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0406.htm)

Origen of Alexandria (185 - 254 AD)

● Commentary on John, book 2, chapter 16: “Now a name is given to God; He is said to
be the God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob. He, then, who infers from the saying,
"The life was the light of men," that the light is for no other than for men, ought also to

117
 conclude that the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob is the
God of no one else but these three patriarchs. But He is also the God of Elijah, [2 Kings
2:14] and, as Judith says, [Judith 9:2] of her father Simeon, and the God of the
Hebrews. By analogy of reasoning, then, if nothing prevents Him from being the God of
others, nothing prevents the light of men from being the light of others besides men.”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101502.htm)

● Homily 13 on Ezekiel, book 1, chapter 6: “But if someone who reads in the Scriptures
thinks that it has been said as though about men, let the spiritual man understand more
deeply and be judged by no one [1 Corinthians 2:15]. For certain things are recognized
about Nebuchadnezzar king of the Assyrians [Judith 1:1], which do not agree with his
person.”

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

● On Martyrdom, book 16 chapter 3: “...And Judith, too, having offered holy prayer,
overcame Holofernes with the help of God, and so a single woman of the Hebrews
brought shame to the house of Nabuchodonosor. Further, Ananias and Azarias and
Misael became worthy to be heard and to be protected by the blowing of a wind bringing
dew, which prevented the flame of the fire from being effective. And the lions in the den
of the Babylonians were muzzled through the prayers of Daniel. And Jonas, too…”

Athanasius of Alexandria (293 - 373 AD)

● Discourse 2 Against the Arians, chapter 32: “But God is not as man, as Scripture has
said; but is existing and is ever; therefore also His Word is existing and is everlastingly
with the Father, as radiance of light.” [Judith 8:16]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/28162.htm)

● Festal Letter 4, chapter 2: “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… Therefore blessed Moses…”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2806004.htm)

Gregory of Nazianzus (329 - 390 AD)

● Oration 45, part 15: “Then the last and gravest plague upon the persecutors, truly worthy
of the night; and Egypt mourns the first-born of her own reasonings and actions which
are also called in the Scripture the Seed of the Chaldeans removed, and the children of

118
 Babylon dashed against the rocks and destroyed; and the whole air is full of the cry and
clamour of the Egyptians…” [Judith 5:6]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310245.htm)

Ambrose of Milan (340 - 297 AD)

● On Widowhood, chapter 7, parts 37-42: “By the example of Judith is shown that
courage is not wanting in widows; her preparation for her visit to Holofernes is dwelt
upon, as also her chastity and her wisdom, her sobriety and moderation. ...But in order
to learn the dispositions of ripe widowhood, run through the course of the Scriptures.
From the time when her husband died she laid aside the garments of mirth, and took
those of mourning. Every day she was intent on fasting except on the Sabbath and the
Lord's Day and the times of holy days, not as yielding to desire of refreshment, but out of
respect for religion. For this is that which is said: "Whether you eat or drink, all is to be
done in the name of Jesus Christ," [1 Corinthians 10:31] that even the very refreshment
of the body is to have respect to the worship of holy religion. So then, holy Judith,
strengthened by lengthened mourning and by daily fasting, sought not the enjoyments of
the world regardless of danger, and strong in her contempt for death."
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3408.htm)

Augustine of Hippo (354 - 430 AD)

● On Nature and Grace, chapter 36: “He then enumerates those "who not only lived
without sin, but are described as having led holy lives — Abel, Enoch, Melchizedek,
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joshua the Son of Nun, Phinehas, Samuel, Nathan, Elijah,
Joseph, Elisha, Micaiah, Daniel, Hananiah, Azariah, Mishael, Mordecai, Simeon, Joseph
to whom the Virgin Mary was espoused, John." And he adds the names of some women
—"Deborah, Anna the mother of Samuel, Judith, Esther, the other Anna, daughter of
Phanuel, Elisabeth, and also the mother of our Lord and Saviour, for of her," he says,
"we must needs allow that her piety had no sin in it."”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1503.htm)

Tobit

Polycarp of Smyrna (69 - 155 AD)

● Letter to the Philadelphians (135 AD), chapter 10:2: “Stand fast, therefore, in these
things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith,
loving the brotherhood [1 Pet. 2:17]... When you can do good, defer it not, because
`alms delivers from death' [Tob. 4:10, 12:9]. Be all of you subject to one another [1 Pet.
5:5], having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles [1 Pet. 2:12], and the Lord may
not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is
blasphemed [Isa 52:5]!”

119
Polycarp, the student of John, is citing the book of Tobit as he gives instructions to the
Philadelphians, citing Tobit together with other inspired Scriptures, this shows that Polycarp, a
student of John, saw the book of Tobit as equal to other Inspired Scriptures, and used it to
instruct Christians.

Clement of Rome (27 - 97 AD)

● 2nd Epistle, chapter 16: “Good, then, is alms as repentance from sin; better is fasting
than prayer, and alms than both; "charity [love] covers a multitude of sins", [1 Peter 4:8]
and prayer out of a good conscience delivers from death. Blessed is every one that shall
be found complete in these; for alms lightens the burden of sin.” [Tobit 4:10]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1011.htm)

Clement of Alexandria (150 - 215 AD)

● Stromata, book 1, chapter 21: “At this period, too, occurred the sign of Jona; and
Tobias, through the assistance of the angel Raphael, married Sarah, the demon having
killed her seven first suitors; and after the marriage of Tobias, his father Tobit recovered
his sight. (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02101.htm)
● Stromata, book 2, chapter 23: “This Scripture has briefly showed, when it says, "What
you hate you shall not do to another".” [Tobit 4:15]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02102.htm)
● Stromata, book 6, chapter 12: “having heard the Scripture which says, "Fasting with
prayer is a good thing." [Tobit 12:8]”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02106.htm)

Clement was only 1 generation removed from the apostles, receiving, as he wrote in Stromata:
“the shadow and outline of what he had heard from men… who persevered the true tradition of
the blessed John and Paul… the holy apostles, from father to son, even to [his] time.”

Hippolytus of Rome (170 - 235 AD)

● Fragments from the Scriptural Commentaries of Hippolytus, Commentary on Susanna,

part 55: “"For even now the angel of God". He shows also, that when Susannah prayed
to God, and was heard, the angel was sent then to help her, just as was the case in the
instance of Tobias and Sara. For when they prayed, the supplication of both of them
was heard in the same day and the same hour, and the angel Raphael was sent to heal
them both [Tobit 3:17].”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0502.htm)

Origen of Alexandria (185 - 254 AD)

120
 ● Contra Celsus, book 7, chapter 12: “Then, knowing that there was a secret and mystical
meaning in the passage, as was becoming in one who was leaving, in his Epistles, to
those who were to come after him words full of significance, he subjoins the following,
Behold, "I show you a mystery"; which is his usual style in introducing matters of a
profounder and more mystical nature, and such as are fittingly concealed from the
multitude, as 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", — in a way consistent with truth and
God's glory, and so as to be to the advantage of the multitude.”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04165.htm)

Origen took a passage from the New Testament and uses the Book of Tobit to explain it.

● De Principiis, book 3 chapter 2.4: “And the apostle says that "God put it into the heart of
Titus". That certain thoughts are suggested to men's hearts either by good or evil angels,
is shown both by the angel that accompanied Tobias…”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04123.htm)

● Origen to Africanus, part 13: “Where you get your "lost and won at play, and thrown out
unburied on the streets," I know not, unless it is from Tobias; and Tobias (as also
Judith), we ought to notice, the Jews do not use. They are not even found in the
Hebrew Apocrypha, as I learned from the Jews themselves. However, since the
Churches use Tobias, you must know that even in the captivity some of the captives
were rich and well to do. Tobias himself says, "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." And he adds, as if he were a rich
man, "In the days of Nemessarus I gave many alms to my brethren. I gave my bread to
the hungry, and my clothes to the naked: and if I saw any of my nation dead, and cast
outside the walls of Nineve, I buried him; and if king Senachereim had slain any when he
came fleeing from Judea, I buried them privily (for in his wrath he killed many)." Think
whether this great catalogue of Tobias's good deeds does not betoken great wealth and
much property, especially when he adds, "Understanding that I was sought for to be put
to death, I withdrew myself for fear, and all my goods were forcibly taken away.”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0414.htm)

● On Prayer, book 11, chapter 1: “This is clear from the case of Raphael offering a rational
sacrifice to God for Tobias and Sara. For the Scripture says that after they had prayed,
the prayers of them both were heard in the sight of the glory of the great Raphael, and
he was sent to heal them both.” [Tobit 3:24-25]

Cyprian of Carthage (200 - 270 AD)

121
 ● Treatise 3, part 35: “be earnest in righteous works, whereby sins may be purged;
frequently apply yourself to almsgiving, whereby souls are freed from death.” [Tobit
12:9]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050703.htm)

● Treatise 8, part 2: ““The Holy Spirit speaks in the sacred Scriptures, and says, "By
almsgiving and faith sins are purged."” [Tobit 12:9]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050708.htm)
● Treatise 8, part 5: “Raphael the angel also witnesses the like, and exhorts that alms
should be freely and liberally bestowed, saying, "Prayer is good, with fasting and alms;
because alms does deliver from death, and it purges away sins.” [Tobit 12:8-9]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050708.htm)
● Treatise 8, part 20: “Be rather such a father to your children as was Tobias. Give useful
and saving precepts to your pledges, such as he gave to his son; command your
children what he also commanded his son, saying: And now, my son, I command you,
serve God in truth, and do before Him that which pleases Him; and command your sons,
that they exercise righteousness and alms, and be mindful of God, and bless His name
always."” [Tobit 14:10-11]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050708.htm)

● Treatise 12, book 1, part 20: “as the seven angels who stand and go in and out before
the face of God, as Raphael the angel says in Tobit” [Tobit 12:15]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050712a.htm)
● Treatise 12, book 3, part 1: “Of this same matter in Tobit: And I said to Tobias, My son,
go and bring whatever poor man you shall find out of our brethren, who still has God in
mind with his whole heart. Bring him hither, and he shall eat my dinner together with me.
Behold, I attend you, my son, until you come.” [Tobit 2:2]
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050712c.htm)

● Epistles 51, part 22: “But I wonder that some are so obstinate as to think that repentance
is not to be granted to the lapsed, or to suppose that pardon is to be denied to the
penitent, when it is written, Remember whence you are fallen, and repent, and do the
first works, Revelation 2:5 which certainly is said to him who evidently has fallen, and
whom the Lord exhorts to rise up again by his works, because it is written, Alms do
deliver from death, [Tobit 4:10] and not, assuredly, from that death which once the blood
of Christ extinguished, and from which the saving grace of baptism and of our Redeemer
has delivered us, but from that which subsequently creeps in through sins.”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050651.htm)

Athanasius of Alexandria (293 - 373 AD)

● Apologia ad Constantium, chapter 17: “What then will the accuser answer? Or rather
what will all prudent and true Christians say? Let your Majesty ask the opinion of such:

122
 for it is written of the other, 'The foolish person will speak foolishness ;' but of these, 'Ask
counsel of all that are wise [Tobit 4:18].”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2813.htm)

● Apologia Contra Arianos Part I, chapter 11: “And they are not ashamed to parade the
sacred mysteries before Catechumens, and worse than that, even before heathens :
whereas, they ought to attend to what is written, 'It is good to keep close the secret of a
king [Tobit 12:7];' and as the Lord has charged us, 'Give not that which is holy unto the
dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine [Matthew 7:6].”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/28081.htm)

Jerome (342-347 - 420 AD)

● Commentary on Ecclesiastes, 8.2-4: “It is his commandments, therefore, that must be

kept, and his will that must be carried out. This is also what is written in the Book of
Tobit: "It is good to conceal the secret of the king."”

Augustine of Hippo (354 - 430 AD)

● On Christian Doctrine, book 3, chapter 18: “as is proved by Tobit's prayer when he was
married to his wife. For he says: "Blessed are You, O God of our fathers, and blessed is
Your holy and glorious name for ever; let the heavens bless You, and all Your creatures.
You made Adam, and gave him Eve his wife for an helper and stay. . . . And now, O
Lord, You know that I take not this my sister for lust, but uprightly: therefore have pity on
us, O Lord." [Tobit 8:5-7]”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm)

● On Man's Perfection in Righteousness, chapter 13: “He adds: "Holy Tobit also said,
'Fear not, my son, that we have to endure poverty; we shall have many blessings if we
fear God, and depart from all sin, and do that which is good.'" [Tobit 4:21]”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1504.htm)

Examples of Augustine affirming Tobit as Scripture by using it to confirm doctrine can be seen
in:

● City of God, book 1, chapter 13, uses Tobit 12:12 to show the burial of the dead being
pleasing in the sight of God.
● City of God, book 13, chapter 22, uses Tobit to show that angels can appear to be
material.
● On the Care of the Dead, uses Tobit 2:7 and 12:12 to show that care for the dead
pleases God.
● Letter 36, appeals to Tobit 12:8.
● Letter 140, part 29, quotes Tobit 12:12.
● Letter 158, references Tobit.

123
 ● Letter 237, the Priscillianists cite Tobit 12:7 as authority.

Deutero Daniel

Irenaeus of Lyons (120 - 180 AD)

● Against Heresies, book 4, chapter 5, part 2: “For our Lord and Master, in the answer
which He gave to the Sadducees, who say that there is no resurrection, and who do
therefore dishonour God, and lower the credit of the law, did both indicate a resurrection,
and reveal God, saying to them, "Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of
God." "For, touching the resurrection of the dead," He says, "have ye not read that which
was spoken by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of
Jacob? And He added, "He is not the God of the dead, but of the living; for all live to
Him." By these arguments He unquestionably made it clear, that He who spake to
Moses out of the bush, and declared Himself to be the God of the fathers, He is the God
of the living. For who is the God of the living unless He who is God, and above whom
there is no other God? Whom also Daniel the prophet, when Cyrus king of the
Persians said to him, "Why dost thou not worship Bel?" did proclaim, saying,
"Because I do not worship idols made with hands, but the living God, who
established the heaven and the earth and has dominion over all flesh." Again did
he say, "I will adore the Lord my God, because He is the living God." He, then, who was
adored by the prophets as the living God, He is the God of the living; and His Word is He
who also spake to Moses, who also put the Sadducees to silence, who also bestowed
the gift of resurrection, thus revealing [both] truths to those who are blind, that is, the
resurrection and God [in His true character].”

Tertullian (160 - 240 AD)

● Against Idolatry, chapter 18: “For if that were the case, of course men of such holiness
and constancy would instantly have refused the defiled dresses; and it would instantly
have appeared that Daniel had been no zealous slave to idols, nor worshipped Bel,
nor the dragon, which long after did appear.
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0302.htm)

Origen of Alexandria (185 - 240 AD)

● Origen to Africanus, parts 1-2: “Your letter, from which I learn what you think of the
Susanna in the Book of Daniel, which is used in the Churches… In answer to this, I
have to tell you what it behooves us to do in the cases not only of the History of
Susanna, which is found in every Church of Christ in that Greek copy which the
Greeks use, but is not in the Hebrew, or of the two other passages you mention at the
end of the book containing the history of Bel and the Dragon, which likewise are not in

124
 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.”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0414.htm)

● Homilies on Leviticus, book 1, chapter 1, part 3: “But it is time for us to use the words of
the holy Susanna against these wicked presbyters, which indeed those who deny the
story of Susanna excise from the list of divine books. But we both receive it and aptly
use it against them when it says, "Everywhere there is distress for me."”

● Homilies on Joshua, book 22, chapter 6: “It is said to him by the prophet, 'The seed of
Canaan and not of Judah, beauty has seduced you.”

Irenaeus of Lyons (130 - 202 AD)

● Against Heresies (189 AD), book 4, chapter 26, part 3: “Those . . . who are believed to
be presbyters by many, but serve their own lusts and do not place the fear of God
supreme in their hearts, but conduct themselves with contempt toward others and are
puffed up with the pride of holding the chief seat [Matt. 23:6] and work evil deeds in
secret, saying `No man sees us,' shall be convicted by the Word, who does not judge
after outward appearance, nor looks upon the countenance, but the heart; and they shall
hear those words to be found in Daniel the prophet: `O you seed of Canaan and not of
Judah, beauty has deceived you and lust perverted your heart' [Dan. 13:56]. You that
have grown old in wicked days, now your sins which you have committed before have
come to light, for you have pronounced false judgments and have been accustomed to
condemn the innocent and to let the guilty go free, although the Lord says, `You shall not
slay the innocent and the righteous' [Dan. 13:52, citing Ex. 23:7]”
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103426.htm)

Hippolytus of Rome (170 - 235 AD)

● Commentary on Daniel (204 AD): “What is narrated here [in the story of Susannah]
happened at a later time, although it is placed at the front of the book [of Daniel], for it
was a custom with the writers to narrate many things in an inverted order in their
writings. . . . [W]e ought to give heed, beloved, fearing lest anyone be overtaken in any
transgression and risk the loss of his soul, knowing as we do that God is the judge of all
and the Word himself is the eye which nothing that is done in the world escapes.
Therefore, always watchful in heart and pure in life, let us imitate Susannah.”

Cyprian of Carthage (210 - 258 AD)

● Letter 55 (253 AD), part 5: “So Daniel, too, when he was required to worship the idol
Bel, which the people and the king then worshipped, in asserting the honor of his God,
broke forth with full faith and freedom, saying, `I worship nothing but the Lord my God,
who created the heaven and the earth' [Dan. 14:5]”

125
Epiphanius of Salamis (310 - 403 AD)

● Ancoratus, chapter 25: “Behold the name of "Son of God." Then there is no ignorance
concerning this. And before the time in the oven, [it says] that "Daniel was full of the Holy
Spirit and said, 'I am clear of her blood,' and they turned their attention to the tribunal";
and he, being filled with the Holy Spirit, judged the elders.” [Deutero Daniel 13:45-49]

● Panarion, section 2, heresy 30, part 31.2: “This is why David says, 'Thine eyes did see
my unbaked substance"...He thus represented what is detached from a man for
insemination as a thing of exactly the same shape and said- to give it in Greek
translation - 'the unbaked substance." In other words, he said, 'Thine eyes did see' the
unformed substance yet in the womb, or before the womb' -"God knoweth all things
before they be," (Deutero Daniel 13:42) as the Scripture says.”

126
 Acknowledgements
This document draws from the excellent work of Gary Michuta, Trent Horn, Joe Heschmeyer,
William Albrecht and Practical Apologetics, all of whom we recommend heavily on this topic
through writing, presentations and debates.

127