The Codex Claromontanus
The Codex Claromontanus
The last of our lists before 350, and our first inarguably Christian canon list, is the Codex Claromontanus.[1] Gallagher and Meade tell us that scholars generally date it to the fourth century, or even earlier (with the inevitable disagreement noted), and they give it a date of “early fourth century,” which is the date I use as well (but note that they picked a late date for this one: want to guess whether it contradicts their own deeply cherished beliefs?). Thus, it is the one list that would come before 350.
The list includes all the Apocrypha (and Esther, which makes it the first inclusion of Esther on a list that is clearly Christian). Jeremiah is listed, without Baruch being mentioned. However, if you look at the numbers (it is a stichometric list, with line counts for all the Books), I believe it is clear enough that it is included (Gallagher and Meade just say it is probably included), and I believe the same line counting information shows that Susanna is part of Daniel (Gallagher and Meade do not mention that aspect). The Apocrypha are interspersed among the Books of the Protestant canon and are not set off separately or noted differently—again, evidence against a “third category.”
The early fourth century dating for the list is, essentially, contemporaneous with Eusebius. The list could be seen as conflicting with Eusebius on some points and agreeing with Eusebius on others (Susanna, Baruch, Wisdom, maybe the other Apocrypha). It is also contemporaneous with Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. And it is in agreement with them on including most of the Apocrypha, parting ways only on the Maccabees (in part, since the Codices disagree, too).
Perhaps all these lines of evidence match up quite well. After all, there are also those who guess that the Codices were part of the 50 “Eusebian” Bibles that Eusebius produced at Constantine’s order, and here we have a list counting up all the lines of the Books of the Bible, which would seem useful for such an enterprise. Still, the list, the Bibles, and what we read of Eusebius’ own views in his writings do not match perfectly.
One can speculate from these data points in any direction one wants; the real key is to distinguish the facts from the speculation. And the fact is that the Claromontanus List includes all the Apocrypha as canon.
With that, let’s finally move on to the citation evidence.
