HOW BARUCH CAN DEFEAT THE CASE FOR CHRISTIANITY
The early Church accepted Baruch, according to nine of the ten Fathers that Kruger cites, let alone all the other Fathers. The first and only Father we know of who may have rejected Baruch is Jerome, 360 years after Christ.
Jerome again evidences this in what he tells us about Baruch. He is really a tenth witness to the Church’s unanimous position; he just may not agree with it, so he ends the unanimity. Jerome is very clear that “the Hebrews” reject Baruch, but pointedly does not say that the Church rejects Baruch. Instead, he gives clear evidence that his Christian peers do not agree with the Jews:
And the Book of Baruch, his scribe,[1] 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. And I suffer because you think this.[2]
Nowhere does Jerome mention a single predecessor who agrees with the Jewish view. If read carefully, he does not even say that he agrees with it. For the purposes of this book, I assume he does, but he does not actually say so (and he accepts Baruch as Prophecy in other writings).
So (a) focus on Baruch, not Apocrypha, and (b) understand that (in the case of Fathers who make no express mention of the name Baruch) the Book of Baruch was considered part of the Book of Jeremiah by the early Church (similar to how Susanna was considered part of Daniel, or Ruth was considered part of Judges, or even how Lamentations was also considered part of Jeremiah).[3] Eight of Kruger’s ten Fathers expressly quote verses from Baruch as Scripture, or Prophecy, or the word of God, etc. A few specifically say that the quotes came from the Book of Baruch, but others say that the quotes came from Jeremiah.
A citation from the Book of Baruch as coming from Jeremiah is confirmation that the Father did, in fact, see it as part of Jeremiah. The canon list is the proof that (like everyone else) he thought that Jeremiah was “canon.” Thus, the citation is just proof that the Jeremiah on his canon list included Baruch, too.
Note that the canon list case for Baruch has something that even Susanna did not: Baruch is explicitly mentioned by name as a canonical Book on several lists.
Athanasius separates Baruch from Jeremiah, and his canon list expressly declares Baruch to be Scripture (and not in his third category).[4]
Rufinus (a) does not list Baruch as Ecclesiastical, and (b) in the exact same book, (see Section 38) he quotes from Baruch. “Which also the Prophet foretold when he said, This is our God: … Afterward He showed Himself upon the earth, and conversed with men.” (Baruch 3:35-37).[5]
Origen quotes from Baruch as part of his homily on Jeremiah: “… about which it is written: Hear Israel. Why is it that you are in the land of enemies … If you have walked in the way of God, you would have dwelt in peace forever.” (Baruch 3:9-13).[6]
Hilary of Poitiers lists Jeremiah as canon and quotes from Baruch as Jeremiah, e.g., “…listen now to Jeremiah inculcating the same truth as they:— This is our God … Afterward did He show Himself upon earth and dwelt among men. … Jeremiah proclaims God seen on earth and dwelling among men…” (Baruch 3:35-37).[7]
Eusebius does not have his own Old Testament canon list, but he cites to Baruch as inspired prophecy, e.g.: “It is prophesied that the God of the Prophets…will some Day afterwards be seen on Earth, and mingle among Men. I need add nothing to these inspired words, which so clearly support my argument.” (Baruch 3:29-37).[8]
Epiphanius’ Christian list (in his Panarion) does not specifically mention Jeremiah or Baruch, but his reference to 27 Books is read by all to incorporate the 27 Books on his Jewish list in the same work, which does mention Baruch by name as part of Jeremiah. He then quotes from Baruch as Scripture throughout the same book: “But the scripture says…he alone is Son by nature, not grace—for “He hath found out every path of understanding” (Baruch 3:32) and “none shall be declared his equal.”” (Baruch 3:35).[9]
Gregory of Nazianzus lists Jeremiah as canon and quotes from Baruch (without naming a Book), e.g.: “Since I have …solved in the mass the objections and oppositions drawn from Holy Scripture, … yet we have not yet gone through the passages in detail, because of the haste of our argument. … In what passage? Why, in this: This is your God; … after this did He show Himself upon earth, and conversed with men.” (Baruch 3:35-3:37).[10]
Cyril of Jerusalem specifically lists Baruch as canon in his list.[11]
Melito lists Jeremiah but is not known to have ever mentioned Baruch or to have quoted from the Book (he also does not list Lamentations, so the only way for his list to include Lamentations is to apply the logic that the Book of Jeremiah included Lamentations, the exact same logic as for Baruch). There is citation evidence from others contemporaneous with Melito, as well as the general evidence about use of the Septuagint (the names on Melito’s list are the Septuagint names of Books, not the Hebrew), which point to the inclusion of Baruch.
Jerome alone may reject Baruch. He actually never says so expressly, and he seems to accept it in some writings (e.g., calling Baruch a prophet in Letter 77, 4).[12] But for the purposes of this book, I grant that Jerome stands for the rejection of Baruch.
Now another brief interlude on wordsmithing. We are often told that the name Jeremiah on some ancient canon list includes Lamentations because Lamentations was often included as “part of Jeremiah.” Exactly! Just as Lamentations was “always canon,” so was Baruch. It is literally the exact same claim, although the evidence is sometimes different. Compare and contrast:
Why is Lamentations canon? “Lamentations was attached to the Book of Jeremiah… Therefore, its canonical status was not in doubt.”[13]
Why do some claim Baruch is “not really” canon? “The Roman Catholic Deuterocanon also includes Baruch, but we have seen that in this early period this work was often considered a part of Jeremiah.”[14]
Note carefully the stress put on this in one quote and the dismissiveness put on it in the other, even though the situation is identical.
Does it matter that the Fathers considered Baruch part of Jeremiah? In a discussion about whether the early Church accepted Apocrypha as Scripture, it most certainly does: they accepted Baruch because they accepted Jeremiah. Does it matter if the Fathers were “mistaken” to think that Baruch was part of Jeremiah? No, not in the slightest. We are discussing whether Apocrypha were canon to the early Church and the answer is that Baruch was canon. There endeth all discussion. If you believe that it was a mistake, and that there is a good reason to get rid of it or place it in a separate section of the Bible, that is up to you (and will be discussed a bit later)—but the point is that it was/is a later theological decision. The evidence (all from Kruger’s witnesses, I remind you) does not identify anyone who felt that way until Jerome, and as far as I could find, no one else felt that way until after at least 450 AD (30 years after Jerome’s death). The early Church accepted Baruch.[15]
Something else is also clear, when we look solely at Baruch and not at the Apocrypha as a group: with respect to Baruch (and, in fact, Susanna, as briefly mentioned above) there is no third category (the three categories being Scripture, not Scripture, and something in between = Apocrypha), no Ecclesiastical, no “only to be read and not to be used to confirm doctrine,” nothing like that at all. Baruch is either full canonical Scripture or it is not, and it is that way for every single Father, including Athanasius, Rufinus, and Jerome (the three Fathers most often cited as support for a “third category” of Books), and also including Epiphanius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus, Amphilochius of Iconium,[16] and the Apostolic Canons[17] (additional Fathers occasionally cited as support for a third category).[18]
A claim that the Apocrypha were only ever “Ecclesiastical” and never considered full Scripture by the early Church is as easily disproven by the canon lists as Kruger’s claim that the Apocrypha were never accepted at all.
My point in covering this at the beginning is to stress that it does not matter how many canon lists someone claims to have that (they say) show that the Protestant/Jewish canon was the early Church’s canon. The lists actually show the exact opposite. Just focus on Susanna and Baruch, and you will see that the claim is provably false. In fact, the canon lists prove that the early Church’s Scriptures differed from the “Jewish canon” and included Apocrypha—at the very least, Susanna and Baruch.
Note that I said “provably false.” The claim can be disproved using the claimant’s own evidence and their own standards of proof. And the case for Christianity can be lost just as easily over Baruch as with Susanna.
CANON LISTS AND BARUCH
Below is a chart of every canon list, and whether Baruch is canon on each. For Christians, it is unanimous, except for Jerome.
| FATHER/LIST/BOOK | Year | BARUCH CANONICAL? | NAME |
| MELITO OF SARDIS | 170 | CANON FOR JEWS? | JEREMIAH |
| MURATORIAN CANON (NT LIST) | 170 | N/A | N/A |
| CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA | 203 | CANON | JEREMIAH |
| ORIGEN (JEWISH LIST) | 220 | NOT FOR JEWS? | BARUCH? |
| ORIGEN (LETTER) | 248 | N/A | N/A |
| ORIGEN (CITATIONS) | 250 | CANON | BARUCH |
| EUSEBIUS (CITES W/ APPROVAL) | 324 | CANON | JEREMIAH |
| CODEX CLAROMONTANUS | 349 | CANON | JEREMIAH |
| CODEX VATICANUS | 350 | CANON | BARUCH |
| CODEX SINAITICUS | 350 | CANON | BARUCH |
| CYRIL OF JERUSALEM | 350 | CANON | BARUCH |
| ST CATHERINE’S SYRIAC MS 10 | 350 | CANON? | JEREMIAH |
| CHELTENHAM LIST | 360 | CANON? | JEREMIAH? |
| ATHANASIUS | 367 | CANON | BARUCH |
| HILARY OF POITIERS | 367 | CANON | JEREMIAH |
| GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS | 380 | CANON | JEREMIAH |
| AMPHILOCHIUS OF ICONIUM | 380 | CANON | JEREMIAH |
| THE APOSTOLIC CANONS | 380 | CANON | BARUCH |
| EPIPHANIUS PANARION 8.6.1-4 | 385 | CANON FOR JEWS | BARUCH |
| EPIPHANIUS PAN. 76.22.5 | 385 | CANON | BARUCH |
| JEROME (HELMETED PREFACE) | 390 | NOT CANON | BARUCH |
| EPIPHANIUS DE MENS. 4-5 | 392 | NOT FOR JEWS | BARUCH |
| THE COUNCIL OF HIPPO – 70 BISHOPS | 393 | CANON | JEREMIAH |
| AUGUSTINE | 397 | CANON | JEREMIAH |
| THE COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE – 44-48 BISHOPS | 397 | CANON | JEREMIAH |
| JEROME (SOLOMON) | 398 | NOT CANON | BARUCH |
| RUFINUS | 400 | CANON | JEREMIAH |
| JEROME (TOBIT/JUDITH) | 404 | NOT CANON | BARUCH |
| POPE INNOCENT I | 405 | CANON | PROPHETS (JER.) |
| THE COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE – 217 BISHOPS | 419 | CANON | JEREMIAH |
| CODEX ALEXANDRINUS | 450 | CANON | JEREMIAH |
| CODEX EPHRAEMI RESCRIPTUS | 450 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN |
So, given what the evidence actually is, how did Kruger come to be citing witnesses who disprove his claim? My guess is that Susanna and Baruch were pieces of trivia rattling around in the back of his brain, and he simply never realized that the trivia ruined his case. It takes an actual opponent digging through the evidence to point out that the footnotes in the canon debate are the smoking gun that defeats the case for Christianity.
Kruger is not exceptional for making this mistake. Nearly all canon scholars trivialize and then promptly forget the smoking gun. Kruger is exceptional because he entered the arena to make the case for Christianity. His footnote is the foundation of his proof of Christian beliefs, so his error is not just the usual mistaken detail buried in one footnote among hundreds.[19]
Often, the verbal gymnastics involved in the canon debate are so pervasive that authors even go on to fool themselves. Take, for example, The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity by Edmon L. Gallagher and John D. Meade—a book we know Kruger read, since he gives the book a nice little blurb on the back cover:
‘Gallagher and Meade have provided a useful and much-needed tool in the study of the biblical canon. No doubt it will be a key resource for anyone wishing to explore the reception history of either the Old or New Testament.’ Michael Kruger, Journal of Theological Studies.[20]
Consider an early mention of Baruch in Gallagher and Meade. It is, of course, in a footnote (footnote 18, Chapter 1, p. 5):
The Roman Catholic deuterocanon also includes Baruch, but we have seen that in this early period this work was often considered a part of Jeremiah. In this way, it was also included by Augustine, but also by other Christians who did not include the other books of the deuterocanon (i.e., Tobit, Judith, etc.). The term deuterocanonical was coined by Sixtus of Siena in his Bibliotheca Sancta (Venice, 1566, p. 10). The term refers to books that were not recognized as authoritative until a later time, and for Sixtus the deuterocanonical books include more books and sections of books than are commonly included under that label today.
That footnote is so misleading (inadvertently, I am sure) that, apparently, Kruger could read it without realizing what it does to his beloved model. Even worse, it is so misleading that the authors contradict themselves in their own footnote. They begin by saying:
The Roman Catholic deuterocanon also includes Baruch, but we have seen that in this early period this work was often considered a part of Jeremiah. [21]
In other words (in better words!), since it was considered part of Jeremiah, it was inarguably[22] considered canon by everyone, except for Jerome and only except for Jerome. Yet the authors minimize this crucial fact, which is actually an important point not to be missed.
In this way, it was also included by Augustine, but also by other Christians who did not include the other books of the deuterocanon (i.e., Tobit, Judith, etc.).
In other words, Baruch was an Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical book that was included on every single canon list except for Jerome’s. Note the editorial choice to mention Augustine by name rather than someone centuries earlier—that, too, is part of the dismissiveness. They are not wrong, but they are also not stressing that it was always accepted by everyone. In fact, among the many that get confused by this endless dismissiveness are the gentlemen who wrote the footnote, because they go on to say:
The term deuterocanonical was coined by Sixtus of Siena in his Bibliotheca Sancta (Venice, 1566, p. 10). The term refers to books that were not recognized as authoritative until a later time…[23]
At a minimum, the term Deuterocanonical expressly encompasses both (a) “books that were not recognized as authoritative until a later time” (if such is true) and (b) Baruch. Thus, the authors instantly forgot what they had just said about Baruch and what it and its history do to most such generalized claims about Apocrypha and Deuterocanonical books (even just definitions).[24]
So, that is what happens. We have Level One (understanding that Baruch was accepted as a matter of trivia) moving up to Level Two (a generalization about the Apocrypha that ignores Baruch as mere trivia) then becoming the basis for Level Three (a claim that the generalization is entirely true)—which is easily disproved by opponents who investigate Level One.
I could continue endlessly with all the examples I have found, but to keep this short I will pick a random one instead. Consider this, from William Webster at www.christiantruth.com/articles/canon/, which was carefully selected by performing a sophisticated statistical analysis of the leading global archive of all known discussions of the Apocrypha (i.e., this was the first thing at the top of my Google search): “Origen and Athanasius who were from Alexandria both reject the Apocryphal books as being canonical. There are a couple that Athanasius does receive such as Baruch but he mistakenly thought such a work was part of canonical Jeremiah.” Webster structured his thoughts as “Bold statement that is not true. And here is my own trivialized proof that it is false.” Such a technique is not dishonest or even necessarily deceptive—after all, every book with footnotes does this on practically every single page. “The sky is blue. Footnote: Except when it is not, such as when there is cloud cover.”
However, in some contexts this way of thinking can become very misleading. And here, the fact to remember is that the canon lists are clear evidence that the Fathers and the early Church accepted Apocrypha. No matter how many times you hear something like Webster’s first sentence, Webster’s second sentence makes it clear that Athanasius, the “Father of the Canon,” is actually an example of how every single Father accepted at least some of the Apocrypha. What Webster’s two sentences combine to say is not that Athanasius rejected all of the Apocrypha (though that is what he expressly stated in the first sentence), but that Athanasius’ acceptance of Apocrypha like Baruch was “mistaken.” Those are not the same thing!
And again we see how authors forget ‘mere details’ when they use this confusing thought structure: read both of Athanasius’ and Origen’s lists carefully and you will see that both expressly include the Epistle of Jeremiah.[25] That makes something of a mockery of Webster’s claim that “both reject the Apocryphal books as being canonical” – because both Athanasius and Origen expressly accept that one.[26] Webster mistakenly forgot to note that his belief is that Origen was also “mistaken,” not just Athanasius.
Now of course, this particular confusion is just one example of how the canon can undermine the case for Christianity, and we are discussing what might only be Kruger’s first attempt. He or someone else could go back down to Level One (i.e., the actual evidence, rather than relying on an abstraction or a generalization) and try to build an argument that remembers Susanna and Baruch and is based on all the evidence, including all the earlier writings (beyond just the canon lists), etc. What would happen then?
They would always lose, just not as instantly as Kruger did with his first attempt. Such is my opinion, anyway! But decide for yourself. For the love of God—literally, for the love of God—do not let my personal views keep you from considering the evidence properly. Tweak whatever I miswrote and figure out the actual truth. That, after all, is the only part of this that matters.
This book is not concerned with the theological decision of what modern Christians should accept as “the” canon, and it is not an argument with anyone. It is just a review of the evidence, with a focus on what the evidence would then be held to prove, given the claims made in the case for Christianity—where the evidence for the Apocrypha is never trivial and never to be dismissed or handwaved away. Whatever it is, it is.
Of course a Protestant has every right to claim that the evidence is not enough to prove that the Books were really accepted, and does not prove that the Books were authentic Apostolic teaching, etc.—but understand that the opponents in the case for Christianity do not care about whether Apocrypha should be “Scripture.” They are introducing the Apocrypha into the discussion so that the Protestant will testify that the evidence is insignificant, unreliable, or insufficient. Because as soon as the Protestant is done testifying to that, the skeptics are going to compare it to the evidence in the case for Christianity, to show the judge that the Protestant “admits” that the case for Christianity is not proved. It is this comparison of (a) whatever the evidence for the Apocrypha is, to (b) the evidence being cited in the case for Christianity, that (c) determines whether there is really enough evidence to prove that Jesus Christ rose from the dead—e.g., whether we have the true authentic Apostolic eye-witness testimony that we claim to have.
The rest of this book goes through all the evidence in order to unconfuse people about what the evidence for the Apocrypha actually is, show how it interrelates, and how it would be used in an actual case for Christianity. In effect, I have reviewed the “evidence file” for the case for Christianity. This is my report on what one aspect of the case would entail and what you would need to be ready to deal with.
With that, let’s get started and finally move on to the initial overview.
[1] Jeremiah may have been illiterate, and the Book of Jeremiah was actually written by Baruch as his scribe. This interconnected “dual authorship” is at the heart of the practice of calling Baruch “Jeremiah” (and similar practices shared by Lamentations and the Epistle (Baruch Chapter 6)). The Book of Baruch does not pretend to be by Jeremiah and begins by saying “And these are the words of the book, which Baruch … wrote in Babylon.” On the other hand, Jeremiah is an anthology that collects shorter writings; so as with Susanna and Daniel, the question is whether Baruch is part of the collection. Sorting all that out is an issue for a later discussion; at the moment, all we care about is that the early Church considered the Book of Baruch to be part of the Book of Jeremiah. I.e., Baruch was canon to the early Church, every bit as much as the “rest of” Jeremiah.
[2] www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_preface_jeremiah.htm
[3] See below for additional citation evidence for the practice in the period between Christ and the year 200. As for the Jews before Christ, many experts believe that the same person translated (from Hebrew into Greek) Jeremiah, Baruch, and the Epistle, which would also be evidence that they were on the same scroll. There is even a piece of possible Biblical evidence: in Daniel 9:2, Daniel explicitly mentions Jeremiah and, then, in 9:5 and 9:8, may have quoted from Baruch (i.e., the Baruch part of Jeremiah) in his prayers. (Compare Daniel 9:8 “O Lord, to us belongeth confusion of face, to our kings, to our princes, and to our fathers, because we have sinned against thee” and Baruch 1:15-17: “15And ye shall say, To the Lord our God belongeth righteousness, but unto us the confusion of faces, …, 16And to our kings, and to our princes, and … to our fathers: 17For we have sinned before the Lord”). There are other possible quotes and allusions by Daniel as well. (But like everything else with the canon discussion, the Biblical evidence is debated.)
[4] See www.bible-researcher.com/athanasius.html.
[5] Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed, 5, www.newadvent.org/fathers/2711.htm
[6] Homily 7 on Jeremiah, 3.3, not available online. Origen’s situation is more complicated than I allude to above. He is the first to separate Baruch from Jeremiah, and his list (which is a Jewish list, not a Christian one—see later discussion) does not specifically mention it by name. It does mention the Epistle of Jeremiah (Baruch Chapter 6, to Catholics), which makes the absence of Baruch odd. Many think it is a copyist’s mistake: either both should be off the list or on it, in the usual practice. On the other hand, he may have meant to leave it off the Jewish list as not being canon to the Jews, which (as will be discussed) does not mean that he does not accept it as canon for Christians. It makes sense to me that he (as the first to separate Baruch) might do so because he knew that the Jews did not accept it, without realizing (at the time of his writing) that they also rejected the Epistle—but no one else ever mentions that idea, so perhaps I am wrong. In any event, there is nothing in Origen’s writings to show that he did not consider Baruch part of the Christian canon. He cited to it 16 times, including the “it is written” noted above (which notably occurs in a homily on Jeremiah, without mentioning whether he takes it from Jeremiah or Baruch). See also the discussion in Chapter 3, footnote 68, p. 87 of Gallagher and Meade.
In addition, note that Athanasius states that Baruch was handed down to him in the Church at Alexandria more than a century after Origen (a predecessor of his in the Church at Alexandria)—evidence that Origen continued to teach Baruch as canon for Christians. See his statement at www.bible-researcher.com/athanasius.html.
[7] On the Trinity, 4, 42 (www.newadvent.org/fathers/330204.htm).
[8] Demonstratio Evangelica, 6.19 www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/eusebius_de_08_book6.htm.
[9] Panarion, Section 4, Heresy 49, Arians, 53, 7 (not available online).
[10] Oration 30, 13 (Fourth Theological Oration) Section 1 www.newadvent.org/fathers/310230.htm
[11] www.bible-researcher.com/cyril.html
[12] The letter is available at www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001077.htm
[13]www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/stewart_don/faq/right-books-in-old-testament/question17-new-testament-quote-old-testament.cfm.
[14] Gallagher and Meade, p. 5 (as will also be discussed below).
[15] As with Susanna, there is no real debate on this. In fact, it is often acknowledged in the footnotes of Protestant books on the canon (see e.g., Gallagher’s blog, where he notes offhand that “Rufinus had assumed the presence of Baruch within Jeremiah” (www.sanctushieronymus.blogspot.com/search/label/Baruch). However, as I discuss below, it is often done in a dismissive way that leads to confusion, such as we see with Kruger, Gallagher and Meade, etc.
[16] His list only says Jeremiah, but he cites to Baruch in other works (Homily 1, On the Nativity, 1.2.50-52, not available online) as “other sayings of the prophet,” i.e., Jeremiah.
[17] A list that is part of a book called the Apostolic Constitutions. The list merely says “the 16 books of the prophets,” but that number would presumably include Jeremiah, with Baruch as part of Jeremiah. The book elsewhere cites to Jeremiah and Baruch repeatedly, e.g., Book 6, 4, 23 (“For says He [God]: … And again: Blessed are we, O Israel, because those things that are pleasing to God are known to us.” Baruch 4:4), even mentioning that the Jews of 380 AD still accept Baruch: “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 … and Baruch, in whom it is written, “This is our God; … Afterwards He was seen upon earth, and conversed with men.” And when they read them, they lament and bewail…” (Baruch 3:35-37). Book 5, 3, 20. www.Newadvent.org/fathers/07156.htm and www.newadvent.org/fathers/07155.htm
[18] As with Susanna, the first support for such a categorization of Baruch would come either in the Middle Ages or, perhaps, even after the Reformation (Sorry, but I could not find any mention of when precisely that first occurs. I found no evidence for it before 450 AD).
[19] In fact, Kruger’s peers, students, and even enemies (let alone proofreaders and fact checkers) are also so accustomed to seeing the usual erroneous statements that (as far as I know) no one even noticed the problem it creates.
[20] I agree entirely with the blurb, and as you will see many times below, the book is my go-to reference for canon lists. It is another five-star must-read, despite all my arguing with their opinions. Just read the book carefully and sort wheat from chaff—as you should do with any book, including this one. If it matters to someone trying to find an exact citation, my copy is from Oxford University Press, first paperback edition, 2019.
[21] Gallagher and Meade’s use of the phrase “often considered a part of Jeremiah” is accurate, but note that those who did not consider it part of the Book of Jeremiah (such as Athanasius) still believed it was Scripture as the Book of Baruch. The only possibility I have found for someone agreeing with Jerome before 450 AD (a generation after Jerome’s death) is noted in passing by Gallagher’s blog (www.sanctushieronymus.blogspot.com/search/label/Baruch), referencing a colophon (a note left by a monk who copied Jerome’s Biblical translations) that “dates to maybe the fifth century” and “comes in a manuscript containing Jerome’s version of Jeremiah, without Baruch.” However, even if the fifth century dating of the colophon is correct, it still might not be before 450 AD, which is the referential end date for this book. (Note that what we are looking for are Bibles or canon lists or other notes that can be shown to exclude the “Old Latin” Book of Baruch, which was sometimes included with Jerome’s (newer Latin) translation of Jeremiah. See e.g., the Codex Cavensis (or Biblia de Danila), which has both, per Gallagher and Meade, p. 256.)
[22] As noted above, I speak of an actual case for Christianity. That a scholar can argue anything is inarguable, just as it is for lawyers. In actual cases, however, the point is reached where the judge tells both to shut up. The evidence for Baruch is inarguable by any judicial standard.
[23] Note, incidentally, that a claim that “the Apocrypha were recognized as authoritative at a later time” itself implies that the rest of the canon was, somehow, recognized earlier. But there was no Ecumenical Council that recognized the Protestant canon either. The only way to try to claim that Apocrypha came later is if the Protestant canon was canon earlier, which is to acknowledge that consensus is the standard for judging the early Church’s canon, whether Old Testament, New Testament, or Apocrypha. Below, we will see Kruger make the point that only consensus determined the New Testament canon.
[24] A neutral definition of the Deuterocanon is just the Books Catholics accept and Protestants do not. Anyone varying from a neutral definition always seems to go on to fool themselves.
[25] The Epistle of Jeremiah is included as chapter 6 of the Catholic Book of Baruch, but historically it is a separate writing that has its own unique history and evidentiary support (and is not a minor piece of it, despite being set off as only one chapter: it is 73 verses long, more than half as long as the “rest of” the Book of Baruch’s 140 verses).
[26] See www.bible-researcher.com/origen.html and www.bible-researcher.com/athanasius.html. I will discuss other problems involved with citing to Origen later.
