Rufinus Canon List
Rufinus Canon List
400 AD: Rufinus:[1] His list implicitly includes Baruch and Susanna as canon. As for the other Apocrypha, “there are other books which were called by our predecessors not ‘canonical’ but ecclesiastical.’ Thus, there is Wisdom…Sirach … Tobit … Judith and the books of the Maccabees. They desired that all these should be read in the churches, but that appeal should not be made to them on points of faith.” Gallagher and Meade note that, “Despite Rufinus’s assertion that his predecessors labelled this category ecclesiastical, we have no evidence for this designation prior to Rufinus’s own canon list.”
Otherwise, this is my last opportunity in this book to point out the enormous importance of focusing on Susanna and Baruch. Gallagher and Meade tell us that Jerome’s and Rufinus’ “disagreement revolved around which textual form of the canonical books … but they agreed completely on which books were canonical.” First, they did agree that Susanna was canon—which is not at all what Gallagher and Meade actually think they are saying.
And second, the statement that “they agreed completely on which books were canonical” is also false, because of Baruch. Was Baruch part of their canon, yes or no? For Rufinus: yes; for Jerome: no. Given those answers, the statement “they agreed completely on which books were canonical” is simply false and misleading.[2] They agreed completely that Jeremiah was canonical. They disagreed completely over whether Baruch was canonical.
“Textual form” is only relevant when discussing Jeremiah. They agree on Jeremiah despite differences in the “textual form.” They disagree on Baruch despite the attempt to distract us with talk of the “textual form of Jeremiah.”
With that, I have to resign the field: it is now up to you to fight that battle whenever you read these things. Just be relentless; do not let people confuse you. There are very good reasons why courts allow lawyers to tell a scholar (i.e., an expert witness) to “shut up and answer the question, yes or no?” Use that power yourself (politely, of course), as it can clarify things in a hurry.
Lastly, Rufinus says that “They desired that all these should be read in the churches, but that appeal should not be made to them on points of faith,” but note that his sponsor, Bishop Chromatius of Aquileia, was both reading them in the Churches and making repeated appeals to Apocrypha on points of faith.
[1] www.bible-researcher.com/rufinus.html
[2] Of course, to Gallagher and Meade, the mutual inclusion of Jeremiah is an important point. My point is that the way they discuss these things is part of what confuses the issue on Baruch.
