Origen’s Jewish List
Origen’s Jewish List
The first is the list from Origen.[1] It is a Jewish list. On the face of it, it is merely telling us what the Books of the Hebrews are. Whether that meant (to Origen) that the list was also an exclusive list of the Books of the Old Testament for Christians, is not stated in the excerpt from Origen that Eusebius gives us. Eusebius himself may think so, but that is his opinion, not Origen’s.[2] And why Eusebius may have thought that is unknown.
To me, Origen’s views are not in doubt, thanks to the letter on Susanna. The list says absolutely nothing about the Church at all—not one single word of Origen’s mentions the early Church or the Christian Bible. The list is missing the “from there to the Christian Old Testament” logic that is crucial to the canon debate, whereas the letter addresses the debate head on.
By now, you either agree or you do not. However, there is also one more thing to consider: this list of Books of the Hebrews is a different list. It does not match Melito’s list or the Talmud’s list.[3] This matters not only as direct differences in the Christian canon (for anyone who takes the lists as meant to be the Christian canon, it is a different canon from both Melito’s and the modern Jewish/Protestant canon) but also an indirect difference. For anyone who thinks the Christian canon should match the Jewish canon, Melito and Origen are evidence that the Jews either have changed their canon several times or disagree about their canon. By this 250 AD-ish period, we have three different “Hebrew canons” from Melito, Origen, and the Talmud.[4] There is a conceptual problem that the early Christians cannot be matching “the” Jewish canon because there seem to be variations in that canon; and there is a practical problem for the case because there is also no actual proof that there was “a” canon at all. The evidence shows Jewish canons, plural, not the canon.
We will find the same thing with later lists, as well—a frequently changed list of Books accepted as canon by the “Jews” themselves.
[1] Discussed earlier, and available at www.bible-researcher.com/origen.html. Origen also begins a divergence in canon lists: there are New Testament lists that will make no mention of the Old Testament/the Jews/the Apocrypha at all. So for my purposes, there is rarely a reason to mention them, although books discussing the entire canon do so in detail. That people sometimes blend these New and Old Testament canon discussions together in their own mind may help explain why Eusebius often appears as a separate item in discussion of lists, even when the topic is confined to the Old Testament/Apocrypha – for which he himself produced no such list.
[2] Gallagher and Meade say it is clear that Eusebius thought so, citing to a different book by Gallagher, which I have not read. No English translation I have read of Eusebius’ works really convinces me on that point, but I do not view it as important enough to make a big deal out of it (or to learn Greek, for that matter). If Eusebius actually thought so, he was wrong, based on all the actual writings of Origen I have seen (and part of the reason I am dubious about Gallagher’s view of Eusebius’ thoughts is that Eusebius himself saw the letter to Africanus and gave it his approval; at most Eusebius seems inconsistent or (my vote) not a stickler for detail). In legal terms the writings of Origen are evidence, Eusebius’ opinions are “hearsay” and not admissible into evidence, particularly when there is direct evidence available from Origen himself that contradicts Eusebius’ opinion. This is not a legal matter, of course, but there are very good reasons why that is the rule when your money, property, and freedom are at stake.
[3] Origen includes Esther, Melito does not. Origen did not include the “Twelve Minor Prophets,” but everyone agrees that was a mistake (his or Eusebius’) since no one else ever left them out (so not at all like Melito leaving out Esther). Origen expressly includes the Epistle of Jeremiah (but does not mention Baruch). Melito uses the Septuagint term for Jeremiah and so probably includes both. There are also possible issues with their mutual references to Esdras, which I will ignore, as I always do in this discussion (it just complicates things and does not really matter to the Apocrypha (meaning the Catholic Apocrypha) discussion). And there are the Maccabees, unmentioned by Melito but mentioned by Origen, even if the meaning of the mention is debatable and uncertain. (Note that for this purpose I treat Melito’s as a Jewish list.)
[4] In addition to other Christian lists (discussed elsewhere), there is also physical evidence of alternative canons that continued for centuries. Jerome obtained Hebrew texts of Sirach, Tobit, Judith (Aramaic), and 1 Maccabees. Nachmanides (ca. 1194-1270 AD) also used an Aramaic text of Wisdom in his Commentary on the Pentateuch (the “Introduction,” and in 1:7, 8, 11).
