350 AD-450 AD
350 AD-450 AD
Let’s consider the evidence for the Canon at the start of 350 AD. We, of course, have no formal declaration, so our standard is consensus.
Susanna and Baruch are clearly still canon and have been unanimously so for more than three centuries—far longer than the United States has existed.
Wisdom is very nearly the same: the word is on Melito’s list, and the Book is listed on the Muratorian canon and in the Codex Claromontanus, the only certainly-Christian canons to date. There is a massive amount of citation evidence and Biblical evidence, plus it is part of both fourth century Great Uncial Codices.
The other five Apocrypha (Sirach, Tobit, Judith, and 1 and 2 Maccabees) are not far off from that. They are not on Melito’s list, which is a point against them if, indeed, Melito’s list is a Christian list. And the Muratorian canon does not mention them, which is meaningless (as a New Testament list, it is merely helpful for Wisdom that it is on it). But the other five Apocrypha are also on the Codex Claromontanus list, and that is the only certain Christian list to include the Old Testament. They also have citation evidence and Biblical evidence that ranges from “acceptable in comparison” to “very strong.” Sirach, Tobit, and Judith are all included in both of the surviving Codex Bibles, while 1 and 2 Maccabees are included in one and missing in one.[1]
There are some mentions of Apocrypha being disputed, for example the (now long ago) exchange of letters among Origen and Africanus on Susanna. Eusebius (324 AD) says, “[Clement of Alexandria, in his Stromata] makes use also in these works of testimonies from the disputed Scriptures, the so-called Wisdom of Solomon, and … Sirach…”[2] Clement and Eusebius, however, both accept Wisdom, so what is meant by “disputed Scriptures” is not clear.
Another example is from Origen (253 AD):
… we have spoken to the best of our ability in the preceding pages, for the sake of those who are accustomed to seek the grounds of their belief in our religion, and also for those who stir against us heretical questions, and who are accustomed to bandy about the word matter, which they have not yet been able to understand; … it is to be noted that we have nowhere found in the canonical Scriptures, up to the present time, the word matter used for that substance which is said to underlie bodies. … And if this word matter should happen to occur in any other passage, it will never be found, in my opinion, to have the signification of which we are now in quest, unless perhaps in the book which is called the Wisdom of Solomon, a work which is certainly not esteemed authoritative by all. In that book, however, we find written as follows….[3]
Origen is clearly speaking to heretics and others who do not accept Wisdom as Scripture. For himself, in the same work, he quotes from it ten times that I found, citing to it specifically as Scripture in Bk 2,Ch 3, Sec 6; Bk 2,Ch 9, Sec 1; and Bk 3, Ch 1, Sec 14; in addition, Bk 1, Ch 2, Sec 5-13 is an extensive discourse on the Book of Wisdom after he had clearly indicated its Scriptural status in Bk 1, Sec 2, Ch 9.
In sum, before the coming of the canon lists after 350 AD, there is actually very little to debate. It seems that a consensus exists that all the Apocrypha are Scripture, with some rumblings in some cases and no rumblings at all in others. In fact, the idea that a consensus did not exist is not consistent with the standards we see applied to the New Testament canon, or the canonicity of Esther, or the rest of the Old Testament canon.
The Apocrypha compare well to the Jews and their canon. At 350 AD, the Jewish canon has the number of Books (22) from Josephus; a list from the Talmud (if correctly dated to before 350) that may not be consistent with what Josephus may have been thinking; plus inconsistent lists from Christians listing the Jewish canon (Melito, possibly, and Origen), that among them exclude Esther, possibly mention the Book of Wisdom, mention the Epistle of Jeremiah (Baruch Ch. 6), and attribute some sort of status to the Books of the Maccabees. Jewish citation evidence is presumably growing,[4] and certainly Christian citations evidence Jewish acceptance of all the Books of the Jewish canon by this date. But when we make fair comparisons, we see that Christian citations also evidence the Apocrypha in very comparable ways.
And let’s compare with the New Testament again. Kruger (p. 269-273):
… James clearly did not enjoy the same popularity in the early church as the core New Testament books (like Paul’s epistles), as is evidenced by the paucity of explicit Patristic citations of the book. However, its impact can be seen more indirectly as it appears to have influenced a number of other early Christian writings, such as 1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas. In addition, James is cited by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria wrote a commentary on it which is now lost, and it was recognized as canonical Scripture by Origen, who cites it frequently and refers to it as from “James, the brother of the Lord.” Eusebius acknowledges that some had doubts about it, but counts it among the canonical books “known to most,” and the letter is fully received by Jerome, Augustine, and the councils of Hippo and Carthage. Moreover, as noted above, we possess several early manuscripts of James: P20, P23, P100 are all third century and suggest that the book was known and used by early Christians. While James’s canonical path was not as smooth as that of other books, these factors give no reason to doubt its place in the canon.
The Book of James has 279 citations (www.biblindex.org/citation_biblique/search) through 350 AD. Wisdom has 758, Sirach 431, 1 Maccabees 471, 2 Maccabees 213, Baruch 103, Susanna 235, Tobit 75, and Judith 28.
Since our last check-in at 200 AD, Kruger notes some later Fathers: “Origen, who cites it frequently” cites to James 83 times. Compare that with 270 to Wisdom, 130 to Sirach, 40 to 2 Maccabees, 40 to Tobit, and 108 to Susanna. “Eusebius acknowledges that some had doubts about it, but counts it among the canonical books “known to most””—acknowledging doubts is also the worst that Eusebius has to say about any Apocrypha (e.g., “[Clement of Alexandria, in his Stromata] makes use also in these works of testimonies from the disputed Scriptures, the so-called Wisdom of Solomon, and … Sirach…”). And while Eusebius never provides his own Old Testament canon, he cites to Apocrypha as Scripture himself and cites canon lists that include Apocrypha with approval, as discussed above. Total citations from Eusebius tally to: 1 Maccabees 394, 2 Maccabees 132, Wisdom 206, Sirach 86, Baruch 44, and the Epistle of James 48.[5]
Looking ahead in time beyond 350 AD, Kruger mentions Augustine and the councils of Hippo and Carthage: all accepted all of the Apocrypha. Jerome accepted only Susanna, but we could replace his name with many others who accepted any or all of the other Apocrypha, such as Rufinus and Athanasius who accept Baruch, or Epiphanius who accepts Sirach and Wisdom, Pope Innocent I who accepts all of them, etc.
Jude. … we have good reason to think that this letter stems from apostolic circles and would therefore contain apostolic teaching. Like the book of James, Jude was also largely overlooked by many Patristic authors. Of course, as with many of these “disputed” books, the small size of the writing becomes a significant factor in why these books have received less attention. Jude is particularly small-containing only 602 words-which makes the lack of extant evidence for the book less surprising. Also, according to Jerome, Jude’s use of Enoch may explain why some had doubts about it. Nevertheless, Jude’s reception is remarkably positive: it was included in our earliest canonical list (the Muratorian canon), Tertullian acknowledged it as apostolic Scripture, “Clement of Alexandria clearly cited it and wrote a commentary on it,” Origen received it as fully canonical, and Eusebius placed it firmly in the canonical Catholic Epistles as a book “used publicly with the rest in most churches.”
Alas, all attempts to search for citations on the Book of Jude lead to errors in the database search form that I am stuck using, so I have no data for you. I agree with Kruger that citations should be judged per verse, but at the same time, bear in mind that the New Testament works are also cited many times more often than Old Testament works (Kruger tells us that, overall, Christians cited to the New Testament up to fifty times as often as the Old (p. 224)).
But since I have no numbers for Jude, I will mention that James had 279 citations out of 108 verses—so 2.58 citations per verse at 350 AD. Susanna, at 3.67, is even better; Wisdom is close at 1.74. The historical works (which are not comparable at all) come in at 0.08-0.51; Sirach totals 0.31 and Baruch 0.48—all respectable given that this is a comparison of Old Testament to New Testament..
Also, as noted before, that first sentence (“we have good reason to think that this letter stems from apostolic circles and would therefore contain apostolic teaching”) is particularly illuminating in comparison to Baruch. The first citations to Jude come decades after Irenaeus quoted 200 words of Baruch and certified it as authentic Apostolic preaching. And the citations to Jude come from Fathers who are early, certainly—but without the “one single step removed from John” that Irenaeus had. By any fair standard, Baruch has much better evidence for being Apostolic teaching than Jude.
Perhaps no book has had a more difficult journey into the canon than 2 Peter. … Hippolytus also seems to show knowledge of it…. Origen cited it six times and clearly received it as canonical Scripture, and Eusebius considered it to be part of the “disputed” books in the canon that were nevertheless known to most of the church. Despite some initial hesitancy toward 2 Peter from some quarters of the church, in the end it was widely received by such figures as Jerome, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Augustine.” Thus, even with its slow start, it is important to remember that 2 Peter still has significantly more support for its inclusion in the canon than the best of those books that have been rejected.
That last point is interesting: there is a large gap between this evidence and the rejected New Testament Books, and yet the Apocrypha seem similar and, in some cases, better evidenced than 2 Peter. Compare the six citations from Origen (www.biblindex.org/citation_biblique/search says 42, including allusions) to Origen’s cites to Apocrypha: 1 Maccabees 8, Judith 15, Baruch 15, 2 Maccabees 40, Tobit 40, Susanna 108, Sirach 130, Wisdom 270. Augustine accepted all the Apocrypha; the other named Fathers accepted only a few each (and Jerome only Susanna). But note the use of new names and how Kruger is changing the Fathers he mentions as he goes. That is not to dismiss his evidence for 2 Peter, which I certainly agree is sufficient (albeit less than for Baruch, as shown above). My point is that the list of Fathers for individual Apocrypha need not always include the same names either.
2 and 3 John. … Irenaeus (Haer. 3.16.18) and Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 2.15.66) attribute at least 1 John to John the son of Zebedee, there is solid external support for the traditional view that the apostle is the author of all three letters. … Polycarp appears to know both 1 and 2 John, and there are also reasons to think that Ignatius knew 2 John. By the end of the second century, our first canonical list, the Muratorian fragment, mentions at least two of the epistles of John (and possibly all three). Irenaeus received at least the first and second epistle, and Clement of Alexandria cited from 2 John and wrote commentaries on 2 and 3 John that are now lost. Hippolytus accepted at least 1 and 2 John (but is silent about 3 John), Cyprian was familiar with 2 John, and Dionysius of Alexandria mentions 2 and 3 John quite confidently as canonical Scripture. Although Origen recognized that some had doubts about 2 and 3 John, it appears most in his day regarded the two letters as genuine-including Origen himself. By the time we reach Eusebius in the fourth century, as noted above, 2 and 3 John have found a firm home as part of the seven “Catholic Epistles.” Hill has made the case that the reception of two tiny epistles like 2 and 3 John by the third century, though they were not used as much as other books, suggests that they were likely bound together with 1 John (and maybe other Johannine works) at a much earlier point. In other words, we are hard-pressed to think that these two letters would have made it into the Catholic Epistles if they had been circulating independently and were latecomers to the canonical scene. Their historical and textual association with the other Johannine works-even though they were not cited as frequently—is the best explanation for their preservation and eventual reception.
Hippolytus accepted Baruch, Wisdom, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Tobit, and also wrote a full Scriptural commentary on Susanna. Cyprian accepted Sirach, Wisdom, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Susanna (those quotes I reviewed), and maybe Tobit and Baruch (he made citations to them per the database, but I could not access what he said). Dionysius accepted Sirach, Wisdom, Tobit (all of which I reviewed), and maybe Susanna.
But also notice the critical importance of being bound together with John’s works. 1 John is accepted; therefore, these other two letters that are claimed to be from John have a chance. And that acceptance is based on the testimony of Irenaeus and Clement, which “is solid external support.” The mere fact that Polycarp “appears to know” both 1 and 2 John is notable, as well. (All extremely relevant to the case for Baruch.)
By any reasonable analysis, the Apocrypha have very comparable evidence to the case for these New Testament Books.
But now, during the period 350-400 AD, we are going to find divisions among the canon lists.
First, why the 50-year explosion of lists after 350? As always, it is debated. But one inarguable influence was that the persecutions had ended, and things were settling down. People had time and energy to devote to such things and could now be Christian without fear. Accordingly, there was a natural impulse to come together and seek unity and orthodoxy in a way that was not feasible before (e.g., the First Ecumenical Council was held at Nicea in 325 AD). As part of that, people wanted one official list, and various “proposals” were put forth (I put the word proposals in quotes because they are clearly a combination of “this is the history as I understand it,” “this is how my Church here does it,” and “this is how I think everyone should do it”).
I cannot imagine that anyone disagrees with me so far. But then, why the divergence among these lists? Personally, I submit that it is because some of the feelings toward Jews (and vice versa) lessened as the persecutions stopped. Recall that Hippolytus wrote that “when the two peoples [Jews and Pagans] conspire to destroy any of the saints, they watch for a fit time, and enter the house of God while all there are praying and praising God, and seize some of them, and carry them off, and keep hold of them, saying, Come, consent with us, and worship our Gods; and if not, we will bear witness against you. And when they refuse, they drag them before the court and accuse them of acting contrary to the decrees of Caesar, and condemn them to death.”
Hippolytus was one of many of the earlier Fathers killed by persecution. From the usual suspects through 300 AD (the names we have heard often): Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus (possibly), Origen (died later from injuries), Hippolytus, Cyprian—all martyred. Clement of Alexandria, Africanus, Tertullian—not martyred.
The metric is 70% martyred. Seven out of ten died agonizing deaths.
In such circumstances, facing the shockingly likely and extremely real threat of a horrifyingly painful death, with Jews seen as lying frauds and hateful murderers conspiring against them, few Christians would have conceived of or explored the concept of a canon matching what the Jews themselves accepted, if in fact the Jews had themselves agreed on a single unified canon.[6] After the Edict of Milan, the concept starts to find support. I personally believe that is causation, not just correlation.
That is my belief, and of course, I could be wrong. But I find it notable that it is Cyril in Jerusalem who is the first creator of this new batch of lists—and the first that seems to almost match the modern Jewish canon;[7] Athanasius in Alexandria (a city with a gigantic Jewish population) comes soon after with a list that is also close, and puts other books in a separate category. A generation later (380+ AD), many more lists come from elsewhere, some of them with something like the same idea—although always differing in details.
Of course, there is a reaction to all this, leading others to produce lists that are not as tied to the restrictive Jewish-oriented lists. In point of fact, part of the reason for so many lists (relative to the period before 350 or after 400) is precisely that people are disagreeing: they are having an argument. The question of “why so many lists?” is part and parcel of the question of why the lists disagree.
In the midst of all this comes Jerome, who is not so much different in his limited canon lists as he is forceful in explaining and defending the “why” of his lists. Thus, his real innovation is the express concept: Hebraica Veritas.
The North African Councils are then held, where large numbers of Bishops reject Jerome’s view and the restrictive approach, and vote for a broader canon, including all the Apocrypha. After this, things settle down again.
With respect to the Apocrypha, the canon debate in the early Church is a 50-year period, and the canon list period is 70 years. For the first 350 years, there is no real debate, and after 400, there is no real debate. Gallagher and Meade cut off their book in 405 AD, thereby avoiding listing the 419 Council of Carthage, with 217 Bishops attending, which accepted all the Apocrypha. Perhaps they see the Pope’s list in 405 as the true end rather than Carthage: after all, both lists include all the Apocrypha and are just approving the lists accepted at the two earlier African Councils (Hippo 393 AD, Carthage 397). But the Pope’s and the Council’s confirmations seem to be the only lists between 400 and 550 AD.[8]
Once we focus on dates, we see just how limited these lists are; they represent only one brief period in the early Church. Otherwise, lists are few and far between. Melito’s list was just a personal letter, seemingly unknown to anyone, until Eusebius republished it for the world to see; the Muratorian fragment is a scrap of paper written in barbaric Latin that is thought to be translating an early Greek list of unknown provenance. After that, Origen gives a list of Jewish Books, cut and pasted by Eusebius, so that we still have it.[9] That is it. That is the entirety of list evidence before the edict of Milan. After 400, there is the Pope and a Council agreeing with earlier councils. Then, there is silence until 550.
In addition, the debate over Apocrypha occurs only via lists. There are no extensive debates that I could find. We have the letters and apologies regarding Susanna. Otherwise, it is just a few acknowledgments and mentions of disputes (out of thousands of mentions of Apocrypha) plus the varying lists.
Meanwhile, the lists disagree: that “all the Apocrypha” are not accepted on many lists is true, but that is not the same as saying the lists reject the Apocrypha. They all accept some: the only question is which.
In fact, the debate clearly does not extend to all of the Apocrypha. Everyone accepts Susanna, and everyone except Jerome accepts Baruch. That is not debate—that is absolute unanimity for one and unanimity but one (maybe) for the other. Any change for those Books comes later, after 450 AD.
Most lists accept Wisdom, and in particular, the early lists may be unanimous in that. And even just “counting lists, not Fathers” does not really result in a negative vote for even the Maccabees (we would have to debate what is included in the count, but it is not hard to get to a 50-50 count for all the Apocrypha across all the lists).
Moreover, once we account for the weight of Councils (early Councils with dozens of Bishops each, the last Council with over 200) the “list case, but counting the actual numbers of Fathers” actually shows overwhelming acceptance of all the Apocrypha.
I submit that the evidence shows clear consensus before 350 AD, 50 years of low-level debate, and clear consensus after 400 AD. I also submit that the evidence shows (a) a broad canon that (b) some try to limit with restrictive canon lists after 350, leading to (c) reactionary canon lists defending the broad canon, and ending with (d) overwhelming numbers in support of a broad canon. When exactly Jerome’s influence grows and (perhaps) begins to upset that consensus is a matter for those who research the Middle Ages.
Those are my views and conclusions. Right or wrong, between 350 and 400 AD, the canon lists flourish.
[1] Again, 2 Maccabees is missing in both, but it seems like scholars believe it was in Sinaiticus.
[2] Church History 6, 13, 6: www.newadvent.org/fathers/250106.htm
[3] de Principiis 4.33. www.newadvent.org/fathers/04124.htm
[4] I have done no research on Jewish citations, so that is solely a guess.
[5] As discussed above, for Susanna, Judith and Tobit, he also cites Origen’s response to Africanus with approval, which included support for Susanna, Judith, and Tobit within it.
[6] The persecution of Jews also abated and that might explain why any of their own canonical differences started to disappear as well.
[7] He specifically includes Baruch and implicitly includes Susanna.
[8] See e.g., www.bible-researcher.com/canon8.html
[9] Eusebius wrote shortly before the explosion in lists. Perhaps it is Eusebius publishing Melito’s, Origen’s and Clement’s lists that touches everything off. The lists differ, after all, so maybe people wanted to settle the differences.
