33 AD TO 200 AD
33 AD TO 200 AD
We begin with canon lists, where a Father from the early Church may have provided a list of the Books of the Bible. From Gallagher and Meade (p. 27):
The Greek canon lists from the first four centuries attest a very stable collection that consistently mirrored the Jewish canon.[1]
Well there we go, debate settled. But then they give us a footnote that says:
For a possible exception, see … the Latin list in the Codex Claromontanus, which scholars sometimes interpret as a translation from an early fourth-century Greek list.
The Codex lists the Book of Wisdom (and all the other Apocrypha). So, that is a possible exception to the idea that the lists consistently mirrored the Jewish canon, addressed in a footnote. Now, back to the main text:
Of course, such a statement oversimplifies the reality, as chapter 3 shows. But chapter 3 will also show that the early Greek lists always have the same core books-constituting nearly the entire Jewish canon-with, perhaps, an additional book or two. … It is possible that Melito of Sardis includes the Wisdom of Solomon, but his statement is open to varying interpretations, and neither the Wisdom of Solomon nor any of the other deuterocanonicals is included in any of the other early Greek lists, with one exception: the Apostolic Canons…
It is possible that the Book of Wisdom was included on Melito’s list. They tell us that, otherwise, it is not included on any other list, with one exception: the Apostolic Canons list. Well, there is also the Codex Claromontanus list, alluded to only in a footnote, without mentioning that it, too, lists the Book of Wisdom. This arrangement conveniently allows this powerful “only one exception” statement to be made.
Regardless, we are now up to three possible mentions on Greek lists. Is three a lot?
Well, they do not define “early Greek lists,” but their book’s table of contents for Greek lists has 11 lists mentioned. One of those, however, is Eusebius, whose list is of the New Testament Books, not the Old (so, only ten lists for our purposes). Plus, there is the Claromontanus list (not in Greek but thought to be a copy of a Greek list) that they have relegated to an earlier footnote, which would bring it up to 11 again.
Meanwhile, another one of their Greek lists is from Epiphanius, who clearly lists the Book of Wisdom on his Christian list and states that it is “in dispute” among the Jews on his Jewish lists (and for there to be a dispute, some Jews must accept it). You can debate what to do with that if you want, but the point is that it says the Book of Wisdom right there on the Christian list. Yet, it is not even mentioned, presumably by simple mistake.[2]
So that is now four out of 11 that may include the Book of Wisdom—again, much of it is debatable, like everything in this context always is. But my point is just that Wisdom may be pretty well attested on the Greek lists if you (a) count up lists yourself, (b) track through each of the dismissive references to the Book of Wisdom in Gallagher and Meade’s paragraph, (c) correct for some strange omissions, and (d) remember several things that Gallagher and Meade do not explain or highlight for you.
That is also before we point out problems with many of the Greek lists that do not include the Book of Wisdom. E.g., Origen’s canon list is for the Jews and not Christians; one list (Bryennios, discussed below) has since been debunked after Gallagher and Meade published their book; and the evidence for the list from the Council of Laodicea is much debated.
The Book of Wisdom may well be on half of the Greek lists.
And that is just Greek lists. Five of the eight Latin lists include the Book of Wisdom, as does the one Syriac List.
Then add additional possible lists (like the contents of the four surviving Bibles from the early Church, all of which include the Book of Wisdom). Next, consider the debated dating of some of the lists (which may not be as early as Gallagher and Meade believe they are). Etc.
All of this ends with the Book of Wisdom on a healthy majority of the lists. In fact, the word “Wisdom” is inarguably included on every single Christian list until 350 AD, and all but one of those references is definitely to the Book of Wisdom. That is a claim that, for example, the canonical book of Esther cannot make.[3]
It honestly should not take so much work for a reader to understand that the lists give us a pretty good prima facie (“on the face of it”) case for the Book of Wisdom. Whether the case stands up to scrutiny, or is enough to include the Book of Wisdom in the canon, is for us to decide once we see all the evidence, but my point is that even works like that of Gallagher and Meade—works on the scholarly end of the spectrum, and by no means a partisan sectarian screed—are not stressing the point that there is a very good case that might be made for the Book of Wisdom from nothing but the canon lists. Instead, they are (1) explaining away references as they appear and not giving a reader the big picture and (2) focusing on Apocrypha, not specific books like the Book of Wisdom.
But that is not the only problem. There are two Apocrypha with a canon list case to be made that is even better than the case for the Book of Wisdom:
The book of Jeremiah would not only be the short Greek version of the book (as opposed to the longer Masoretic Text version) but would usually include additional, brief compositions, such as Lamentations, Baruch, and the Epistle of Jeremiah. The books of Esther and Daniel would feature the expansions known in the Septuagint versions of these books. (p. 27) [4]
Gallagher and Meade told us that the Greek lists “consistently mirrored the Jewish canon”—but, actually, they always differed from it. Even when they shared the same nominal table of contents, two Apocrypha were always included on Christian lists.
This is an absolutely crucial point, which is why I keep repeating it: the names on the lists are the same, but they refer to different things, and the names on the Greek lists include Apocrypha. If you ask an Englishman to list his three favorite sports, that he says “football” does not mean that he agrees with an American whose list also says “football.” The eight consecutive matching letters that spell out the word “football” would seem to imply that they share an interest in the same sport, but that is an optical illusion. If you look at what they truly meant, their lists are not identical at all.
And once again, we read a little farther and immediately see the importance of keeping this straight:
The different versions of … Daniel, and even the additional compositions included with Jeremiah … were probably all considered to be issues of the textual form of these books, rather than matters of the canonicity of books. So, whereas we might say that such elements distinguish the Christian canon from the Jewish canon, probably most early Christians would not have thought about the matter in these terms, but rather would have seen the two canons as equivalent, though Christians and Jews use different versions of some of the books.
This is simply not the hypothetical that Gallagher and Meade are making it out to be. These exact facts still exist today. A substantial majority of Christians (Catholics and Orthodox) consider those “alternate versions” as canon, while Jews do not. Nothing has changed, and those groups do not think that their canons are equivalent. Nor do Catholics and Protestants, which is, after all, the exact same dispute. The table of contents of a Catholic Bible says “Daniel;” the table of contents of a Jewish or Protestant Bible says “Daniel;” but the books differ, and neither side accepts the other’s version as equivalent.
In fact, the New Testament is 7,957 verses, while the Old (without Apocrypha) is 23,145—so, the Christian Bible is 26% “additional material.” The Catholic Daniel has 173 “additional verses” compared to the 357 verses of the Protestant/Jewish version. The Catholic Daniel has 33% additional material, considerably more than the “additional material” added to the Jewish Bible. So do we see the Christian Bible as mere “textual variation” of the Jewish Bible? Why not, if even more variation within Daniel was allegedly seen that way?[5]
Regardless, the names have two meanings. One meaning includes Apocrypha, while the other one does not. That Jews and Christians agreed upon the non-Apocrypha portion of Daniel is irrelevant when discussing Apocrypha: we take the canonicity of that part of Daniel as a given. For our purposes, the Christian and Jewish lists are not the same, because the words did not have the same meaning to the original authors on the relevant point.
No one should confuse themselves about this. In a better world, an ancient Christian list that says Daniel should have “[and Susanna]” added in brackets by the modern author; an ancient Christian list that says Jeremiah should have “[and Baruch]” added. Because that is what the ancient list actually said to its author and to its audience: to them, the word Daniel included Susanna. What he meant is the same as “and Susanna;” he just did not think in modern (Protestant) linguistic terms.
Recall that, earlier, we saw Gallagher and Meade say that “It is possible that Melito of Sardis includes the Wisdom of Solomon, but his statement is open to varying interpretations.” In that context, they certainly seem to understand that disparate meanings for the word “Wisdom” should matter to how you read a list! But now, they have switched sides and are emphasizing the name being the same, while soft pedaling the different meanings.
Moreover, they are doing so as part of making broad “next level” claims. On the first level, yes, they note the basic facts about Wisdom, Daniel, and Jeremiah being effectively on the lists (albeit, often dismissively).
Then, they go up another level and generalize about the data. At that level, they are claiming that “The Greek canon lists … consistently mirrored the Jewish canon” and “early Christians … would have seen the two canons as equivalent.” In the context of the Apocrypha, those are not accurate conclusions that can be relied upon. Two additional books are clearly on the Christian lists, and a third is on them a majority of the time.
So, what happens is:
Level One: “The book of Jeremiah … would usually include additional, brief compositions, such as … Baruch… The books of Esther and Daniel would feature the expansions known in the Septuagint versions of these books.” Gallagher and Meade, above.
Level Two: “The Greek canon lists … consistently mirrored the Jewish canon” and “early Christians … would have seen the two canons as equivalent.” Gallagher and Meade, above.
Level Three: “the dominant position … was an acceptance of the Jewish Old Testament canon and not the Apocrypha…both the Jewish “church” and the first centuries of the Christian church widely adopted the Old Testament books and not the Apocrypha.” Kruger Ch. 6 FN11.
Focus on the evidence (Level One) so that you can avoid the “not entirely accurate” abstractions and generalizations (Level Two) that others mistakenly rely on (Level Three). Abstractions and generalizations are not facts and should not be the foundation of your arguments and beliefs.
Notice also, that Kruger et al. actually try to claim that (on the Apocrypha) the Protestant canon is supported by both the early Church and the Jews. But that is manifestly impossible because the two groups inarguably disagreed on Susanna and Baruch. Similarly, Gallagher and Meade say the canons were mirrored and equivalent: the words were identical, but with respect to Apocrypha, the meanings were diametrically opposed.
The reason to keep focusing on this is that Gallagher and Meade go on to say that (p. 28-29):
One might interpret this evidence from the canon lists in different ways. Sundberg and those of a similar mindset acknowledge that some Christians began to limit their Old Testament to the books of the Jewish canon, but they believe this reflects a development in Christian thinking, that earlier Christians would have generally considered the deuterocanonical books as canonical. Sundberg thinks the fourth-century lists innovate in their advocacy of the Jewish canon for the church. …Other scholars believe that … the Christian Old Testament canon began in conscious accord with the Jewish canon, and only later-especially in the Latin West-did the religious value and liturgical use of the deuterocanonical books secure them a place in canonical lists. …
We will discuss the evidence and arguments at length, with respect to each book separately. But consider, before we even get into it, that on two Books, you already know for certain who wins the debate. Two Apocrypha (Deuterocanonical) books were considered canonical by the early Church and can only have been eliminated later. That is not my opinion, nor is it a “Catholic” belief—it was Gallagher and Meade who already told us the facts one single page earlier. On page 27 (see the two previous quotes above the one just quoted), they tell us that two Deuterocanonical Books were textual variants from the “Septuagint versions,” which were being used by the Christians, including the Fathers making the canon lists.
Yet on pages 28-29 (the ones just quoted) they tell us that the Deuterocanonical books were “only later” added to the canon.[6] Even though they know the facts, they keep confusing the issue, all while referring to Susanna and Baruch dismissively—and, thus, they get general statements wrong and confuse readers. And they are not alone! Nearly every book discussing the Apocrypha and the canon confuses things.
With that as background, let us refocus on the case for Christianity. For example, when discussing the Apocrypha, Gallagher and Meade note the lack of mentions on canon lists (a topic which I will ignore for a moment and return to shortly) and lack of early citations (their use of “early” in this context means before the canon lists). From page 19:
… judging an ancient author’s canon from the citations found in his work is a precarious methodology, which is part of the reason the biblical canon lists presented later in this book serve such a valuable purpose. When investigating the period before the lists, we have no choice but to look at citations, but we should acknowledge their limited value in establishing the boundaries of an ancient scriptural collection. After all, apparently no Dead Sea Scroll cites the Book of Genesis.
First off: “we have no choice but to look at citations.” That is a mighty interesting sentiment regarding the examination of evidence. It is almost enough to make one suspect that the citation evidence is not in favor of Gallagher and Meade’s deeply cherished beliefs.
But the real point for the moment is that last sentence: “no Dead Sea Scroll cites the Book of Genesis.” That is also mighty interesting to consider, particularly when encountering claims that “we have found no cites from the Jews to X,” or that “the early Church did not cite a Book until Y year,” or that “the Apostles did not cite to Z Book of the Old Testament.” It is possible they saw the other books as Scripture but never had a need to cite to them, just as the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls never had a need to cite to Genesis.
But also, that is just an example of not citing to something. What about the opposite? Does referring to something repeatedly as the Divinely-inspired word of God truly have “limited value?” In fact, some of the citations are entire Sermons on the Apocrypha delivered by Bishops (not just individual Priests, and we find Bishops with 800 local parishes under them). The passage from Scripture was read to the congregation, and then they preached upon it, using the Scripture to make their point for that Sunday. Does that really have “limited value” in showing what the Church accepted as Scripture?
Even more so: some citations are full-blown Scriptural commentaries, going through the Bible line by line and analyzing it, just with the Scripture in question being an Apocrypha. That would certainly seem to have some value in determining what was Scripture to those writing/reading the commentary.
Some citations are, indeed, found in an ancient author’s works and are the usual “as it is written” citation to a sentence in the Apocrypha, quoted as support for an argument or discourse on a subject that is not really about the Apocrypha. But not all: others are enormously more indicative of whether a Book was seen as Scripture and are pretty solid evidence all by themselves.[7] The only way to notice such things is to look at the evidence, see what it is, then decide afterwards.
Specifically, Gallagher and Meade are concerned with the lack of citations from the first two centuries (p. 29):
The lack of formal citation [to the Apocrypha] continues for the first couple of centuries of Christian history: according to Oskar Skarsaune, until Clement of Alexandria at the end of the second century, Greek Christian writers formally cite the deuterocanonical books only twice, both of which are quotations by Irenaeus of Baruch, which would have formed part of the book of Jeremiah at that time. Such evidence suggests to some scholars that the Christian Old Testament canon began in conscious accord with the Jewish canon, and only later-especially in the Latin West-did the religious value and liturgical use of the deuterocanonical books secure them a place in canonical lists.
To repeat, we have citations only from Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria.[8] That is it—just those two guys. Two and only two.
It is absolutely amazing that there are fools out there who actually think the Apocrypha were Scripture to the earliest Christians, when in the first two centuries of Christianity, they were only cited by a measly two Fathers!
That is, unless we consider the equally foolish fools who think that the Bible should include the four Gospels (all four Gospels, and only those four: the Fourfold Gospel, an absolutely crucial point for Bible-based Christians, and quite possibly the single most crucial point, in terms of the canon):
The Fourfold Gospel was widely – not universally – accepted from the end of the second century. Irenaeus of Lyon in Gaul, about 180 CE, provides the pre-eminent testimony, to which we will give attention in a moment. Shortly after Irenaeus and on the other side of the Roman empire, Clement of Alexandria notes incidentally in a discussion of the Gospel according to the Egyptians that this latter work is not among the four Gospels passed down to us… (p. 32).
The exact same two fellows—Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria—who first assured us that Apocrypha were Apostolic teaching are also the very ones who first assure us that the Fourfold Gospel is Apostolic teaching.
Suddenly, the “pre-eminent testimony” of Irenaeus seems like a pretty good thing. Note the emphasis on the books being “widely” accepted “on the other side of the Roman empire” during the same timeframe and how persuasive that makes the case sound. It is, of course, the exact same basis for making the exact same case for the books of the Apocrypha.
Some scholars consider these statements by Irenaeus demonstrating the authority of the four Gospels to be a weak attempt to establish a new opinion, while others, on the contrary, think his statements reveal an attempt to explain what Irenaeus had received as the church’s traditional view. In other words, some scholars think this passage from Irenaeus demonstrates the novelty of the idea of the fourfold Gospel, others think it demonstrates its antiquity. This debate is a symptom of the difficulty of interpreting the evidence earlier than Irenaeus. (p. 33).
Here, we have the same dispute as with the Apocrypha. The earliest certain written support for the Fourfold Gospel comes at the exact same time from the exact same people, and some of that came in the exact same Books.
But of course, that is just the Fourfold Gospel; surely, we have endless citations to each individual Gospel that clearly prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that each and every single Father before Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria accepted at least one of the canonical Gospels, right?
No, of course not. Page 34:
As for early comments on the Gospels, we have very uncertain evidence in the collection of early Christian writings now known as the Apostolic Fathers, mostly from the late first or second century. These documents perhaps feature some interaction with written Gospels, but on this point scholars disagree. For the most part, when these writings cite the words of Jesus, we cannot be sure whether they have access to one of our Gospels, to some other written source, or to oral tradition.
And that is the case for the Gospels, let alone the Apocrypha. To set a standard that demands specific and inarguable citations from the very early Church is unreasonable to the point of being utterly irrational—yet, of course, we find people arguing against the Apocrypha on that basis, such as the scholars Gallagher and Meade cited precisely five pages earlier.
There are allusions and references to the Apocrypha going back to 1 Clement (Clement of Rome, not Alexandria) and the Didache, the earliest non-Biblical Christian writings still extant. 1 Clement references Wisdom (Ch. 27), Sirach (Ch. 59), Tobit (Ch. 61), Judith (Ch. 55), and the additions to Esther (Ch. 55); the Didache references Sirach (Ch. 4) and Tobit (Ch. 1). (See below for more detail on the specific references.)
When you combine those (and other such evidence, like Polycarp), with the clear citations from Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria and others before 200 AD, you end up with an argument for acceptance “back to the Apostles” comparable to what every Christian considers persuasive when arguing for the Gospels and the other books of the New Testament.
The evidence is also the same, or even better, when compared to the Old Testament. Psalms (by far the most referenced Old Testament book) is “perhaps referenced” by 15 Fathers before 200 AD, per www.biblindex.org/citation_biblique/search, but one source is Jewish (Philo), one gnostic, and another is just a category for “anonymous” scraps of paper. Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Melito, Justin Martyr, the Shepherd of Hermas, and others from the “only allusions/not full citations” era are most of the rest (and they all appear to make allusions to Apocrypha, as well—or in the case of Melito, appear to put Apocrypha on his canon list). Then, we get to Irenaeus and the full-citation era—exactly the same as the Apocrypha and the Gospels.
But that is for Psalms, which was referenced 686 times as often as Nahum (so far more in one single average year than Nahum was referenced in 400 years). Clement of Alexandria is the first to make even the slightest allusion to Nahum. Before then, it had been ignored entirely for 200 years.[9] He is also the first full citation for many other books, including Esther. Not all canonical Books are cited by 200: the earliest citation to the Song of Songs was from Tertullian in 207-213 AD.[10] Song of Songs is a “Poetic” Book, the same category as Sirach and Wisdom, and we find clear citations to both Sirach and Wisdom (from Clement) before we find clear citations to Songs (which neither Irenaeus nor Clement ever cite, per www.biblindex.org/citation_biblique/search.)
So, by any fair, comparable standard, the clear citations to the Apocrypha come early, not late.
Our survey has shown that the second century was the decisive time for the formation of the fourfold Gospel … The end of the century witnessed the solidification of the fourfold Gospel in the writings of Irenaeus, followed not long after by less enthusiastic but no less definitive testimony from Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen. (p. 39).
All of those named also cited to multiple Apocrypha as Scripture, of course. But more to the point: Gallagher and Meade sure love citation evidence when the topic is the Gospels! Suddenly, the writings of Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen are “definitive testimony” that “witnesses” to the “solidification” of the Bible. Judging an ancient author’s canon from the citations found in his work is no longer “a precarious methodology.” Forgotten are all directives to “acknowledge their limited value in establishing the boundaries of an ancient scriptural collection.”
But why should we believe that these “late” witnesses are passing on authentic knowledge of the true Scriptures that they had received from those they succeeded? Let’s focus on Irenaeus and quote from Kruger this time:
One of the most influential voices in the early church was Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons and disciple of Polycarp. Writing soon after Justin Martyr (c. 170-180), Irenaeus quotes New Testament books extensively… There is no indication that he rejects the unmentioned New Testament books (2 Peter, 3 John, and Jude); the extant writings of Irenaeus simply do not refer to them. …. Irenaeus’s defense of the fourfold Gospel… appears to draw upon tradition that has been entrenched within the church for quite some time.…Given that Irenaeus appears to have known Justin’s works (and maybe Justin himself), and certainly knew Polycarp, it is possible that he received this tradition from them. … [from a footnote:] Irenaeus also affirms that Polycarp knew Papias … which suggests that he may also be a source of this fourfold Gospel tradition… (p. 228-229).
We should apply all of that to the Apocrypha:
“There is no indication that he rejects the unmentioned Apocrypha; the extant writings of Irenaeus simply do not refer to them.”
“Irenaeus’s defense of the Apocrypha… appears to draw upon tradition that has been entrenched within the church for quite some time.…”
“Given that Irenaeus appears to have known Justin’s works (and maybe Justin himself), and certainly knew Polycarp, it is possible that he received this tradition from them. … Irenaeus also affirms that Polycarp knew Papias … which suggests that he may also be a source of the tradition of accepting the Apocrypha.”
And Polycarp and Papias learned at the feet of John, so they take us directly back to the Apostles, the Evangelists, and the teachings of Jesus Christ Himself. (Much more on this aspect of Irenaeus, Polycarp and Papias below.)
Kruger goes on to say that (p. 201):
… we should also remember that disagreements and debates among early Christians were not necessarily detrimental to the church or its ability to recognize the canonical books. Indeed, such debates would have encouraged critical thinking about these texts, deeper reflection on their content, and more vigorous historical investigation into their origins. Robert Grant argues that a number of early church fathers— Papias, Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and others – were astute “literary critics” who carefully analyzed the literary merits and historical origins of canonical and noncanonical books… As a result, they took the task of distinguishing between canonical and apocryphal books very seriously, giving us reason for greater confidence in their final conclusions.
And p. 263:
The ability of Patristic writers to distinguish between scriptural books and merely useful books is particularly evident in the writings of Clement of Alexandria and Origen. Both of these men were intellectual giants, widely read and familiar with vast amounts of literature beyond the Scriptures— which they often put to use in their various theological treatises. …
And from p. 286:
The above examples are merely a sampling of pre-fourth-century attitudes toward the extent of the canon. They reveal that the early stages of the canon were not a wide-open affair where newly produced apocryphal literature could have easily found a welcome home, but were marked by concern to affirm only books from the apostolic time period.
No doubt about it: he makes a mighty persuasive case for both the New Testament, and the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the canon.
Our focus is on what the earliest Church (before 200 AD) actually accepted. The evidence is from books dedicated to fighting heresy and manuals to instruct Christians; they were written by the giants of their era, authors of “fundamental importance” (Gallagher and Meade, p. xv), located in widely dispersed locations across the Empire. The authors had learned of Christian tradition from the lines back to the Apostles—lines as short as Polycarp learning from John, Papias learning from John, and Justin Martyr, who may well have entered the Church before some books of the New Testament were even written. They and their audience “took the task of distinguishing between canonical and apocryphal books very seriously, giving us reason for greater confidence in their final conclusions.” They were all “marked by concern to affirm only books from the apostolic time period.”
That is what people say about this evidence when the topic is the case for Christianity, the Gospels, or the New Testament. It is a powerful, compelling case—right up until they deny it all when asked about the Apocrypha instead.
[1] For the sake of simplifying discussion, authors write as if the Jewish canon was continuously identical to the Protestant canon, but that is disputed, both as to what Books were named in the canon (until long after Christ) and what texts the names actually referred to. For example, Josephus does not actually identify the Books of his “canon,” although it is generally assumed that he included Esther; but then, he uses the long form of Esther (the Apocrypha portion) in Antiquities 11, 6, not the shorter Masoretic/modern Jewish/Protestant version. Thus the definition is conclusory and can cause problems, as we have seen with “Apocrypha.” Regardless, the modern Jewish canon is almost always what people mean by the term “Jewish canon,” unless they say otherwise, even when speaking of Josephus and his era.
[2] Epiphanius’ lists in his Panarion are dated before the Apostolic Canons (per Gallagher and Meade), so the dates given the lists do not explain why Gallagher and Meade fail to mention them.
[3] And arguably a few other Books cannot make, since Wisdom is not the only debatable reference on Melito’s List (and other lists). But in this book, I will generally ignore debates over what Esdras meant, whether Lamentations was included (except to note that Baruch has the same claim to be included), who the 12 Minor Prophets were, etc.
[4] Note, again, that this is what all the canon experts say—it is not an argument. They merely try to dismiss the facts, which means that people miss the implications.
[5] Whether I would say Protestants and Catholics have the same Daniel depends on context. An outsider asking whether all Christians accept Daniel? Sure, all Christians accept Daniel. I.e., Daniel and not Susanna is the focus of the question and the answer. But what of someone converting to Christianity asking if all Christians accept Daniel? We have completely different versions of Daniel; it is important to read the right one. I.e., Susanna or lack thereof is the focus of the question and answer. There is not one answer to these questions, or one mindset; it varies by context. Why not expect it to vary long ago as well?
[6] Remember that to argue that Susanna and Baruch were not canonical would be to argue against Daniel and Jeremiah as canon. If Daniel and Jeremiah were canon, then so were Susanna and Baruch. If Susanna and Baruch were not canon, then neither were Daniel and Jeremiah. E.g., Origen is the very first person to separate Baruch and Jeremiah. Until then, every single person in the early Church saw them as one united whole. For Susanna, the first separation occurs after Jerome, due to Jerome’s influence.
[7] Such as the ten-page letter from Origen discussing the canonicity of Susanna in detail, of course.
[8] Clement cited to at least Baruch, Judith, Tobit, the Maccabees, Wisdom, and Sirach; Irenaeus at least to Baruch and Susanna. (Irenaeus also alludes to the Book of Wisdom (Against Heresies 4, 38, 3), but it is not a full citation. The Martyrology of Polycarp may also have been written by Irenaeus and alludes to 2 Maccabees.) Those are full citations; allusions and references to Apocrypha go back to 1 Clement, the Epistle to the Corinthians written by the other Clement (Clement of Rome), possibly while Disciples were still alive and before some of the New Testament had even been written. He included references to Judith, the “additions to Esther,” Wisdom, Sirach, and Tobit.
[9] Of course, despite never being cited even once by the early Christians, Nahum was still clearly accepted as canon by the early Christian Church because they considered it to be part of the book of the Twelve Minor Prophets – just like they thought that Susanna was part of Daniel, Baruch was part of Jeremiah, etc.
[10] There are much earlier allusions and such in the Odes of Solomon (www.gnosis.org/library/odes.htm; per Wikipedia, a “majority of scholars believe it to have been written by a Jewish Christian… between AD 70 and 125”), just as there are such early allusions to the Apocrypha as well (see e.g., discussions of 1 Clement, Polycarp’s possible references to Tobit, etc.). In fact, the Odes of Solomon themselves allude to the Book of Wisdom many times (e.g. 6, 10 re: Wisdom 1:7).
