(As we make our way through the Sirach in the readings for Mass, also called Ecclesiasticus, a deuterocanonical book in the canon, considered 'apocryphal' by the Protestants, here is a fine meditation by new contributor Peter Bartholomew on why both the protocanon and deuterocanon are all canonical in the true Catholic sense. A good lead up to considering our Lenten reading regime! Editor)
Christians believe that God has revealed Himself to us in a very unique way. Unlike Muslims, who see their holy book, the Koran, as being directly dictated by God to Mohammed, Christians hold to a much more dynamic view of divine inspiration. As a result, the Bible is something of a mess. It is authored by many different individuals with different styles. To make matters worse, each divinely inspired author often seems to contradict other divinely inspired authors with regards to factual, moral, and theological questions.
Given this state of affairs, it is a daunting, but absolutely necessary task to discern which books do and do not belong in the canon of Scripture. Unfortunately, this critically important matter has led to serious disagreement between Catholics and Protestants. Catholics hold that the Bible contains 73 books, whereas Protestants hold that it contains only 66. The disputed books that are absent in the Protestant canon are: Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Wisdom, and first and second Maccabees. In addition to this, Protestants also reject portions of the book of Daniel and the book of Esther. The controversy even extends to the proper naming of these books, with Catholics referring to them as the "Deuterocanon" whereas Protestants refer to them derogatorily as the "Apocrypha."
What reasons do Protestants have for rejecting these books? Some reject them on the basis of alleged errors and contradictions within the texts, claiming that no inspired book could contain such difficulties. But this isn't a particularly strong argument, as it could just as easily be made against the books which Catholics and Protestants agree on. Many skeptics claim that both the books of the Old and New Testament contain errors and contradictions. However, when these Protocanonical texts are interpreted charitably, it becomes clear that the alleged errors and contradictions can be resolved. But if charity can be extended to the Protocanon in resolving its difficulties, then the same can be done for the Deuterocanon. When this is done, it becomes clear that the alleged problems with these texts can also be resolved.
This argument against the inspiration of the Deuterocanon is clearly quite weak. As such, most Protestants do not make it their primary line of attack on the inspiration of these writings. Instead, they appeal to the Jewish tradition, which, they claim, was unanimous in rejecting these texts before the coming of Christ, instead holding to the shorter Protestant canon. However, there is little evidence for this claim.[1] As Gary Michuta, a leading expert on the Deuterocanon, writes: "Judaism was composed of as many as twenty-four distinct parties or 'denominations', as it were, in the first century A.D., and each of these parties seems to have had its own distinctive theology and its own preferences in matters of canonicity. Most students of the New Testament already know that the party of the Sadducees had the narrowest views in this regard, accepting only the Pentateuch as indisputably sacred. The borders were equally indistinct on the other end of the spectrum, with some Jewish groups willing to use a canon larger than that received by today's Catholics."[2] Furthermore, some Jews, such as the Essene sect, clearly accepted the books of the Deuterocanon before the coming of Christ.[3]
What this shows is that any claim about there being a settled Jewish canon prior to the time of Jesus is clearly false. In fact, there was no consensus with regards to the canon of Scripture among the Jews until the time of Rabbi Akiba, who came in the mid-second century, well after the time of Christ.[4] By that time, the Jewish tradition was so far diverged from Christianity that citing it as an authority for Christians to follow is hopelessly misguided. As such, we cannot look to Judaism to inform our knowledge of the canon.
A better source of guidance would be the Church fathers, that is, the earliest Christian writings that we possess outside of the New Testament. What do they have to say on the matter? Fortunately, their witness is quite clear.
Clement of Rome, who was bishop of Rome in the late first century, quotes multiple times from the Deuterocanon in his writings, and there is ample evidence that he accepted it as Scripture. For instance, he writes in 1 Clement 55: "Many women also, being strengthened by the grace of God, have performed numerous manly exploits. The blessed Judith, when her city was besieged, asked of the elders permission to go forth into the camp of the strangers; and, exposing herself to danger, she went out for the love which she bore to her country and people then besieged; and the Lord delivered Holofernes into the hands of a woman. Esther also, being perfect in faith, exposed herself to no less danger, in order to deliver the twelve tribes of Israel from impending destruction. For with fasting and humiliation she entreated the everlasting God, who sees all things; and He, perceiving the humility of her spirit, delivered the people for whose sake she had encountered peril."[5] Clement links the Deuterocanonical story of Judith, who is specifically described as being "blessed", with that of Esther, a Protocanonical figure. He seems to make no distinction whatsoever in telling these two stories. To Clement, it seems that Judith was just as much a part of sacred history as was Esther. This is hugely significant, since Clement is such an early source. How could the first century bishop of Rome have already found himself divorced from apostolic teaching with regards to the canon, given that he was a contemporary of the apostles?
And Clement of Rome is hardly alone in accepting the Catholic canon. For instance, Clement of Alexandria, who died around the year 150, is extremely clear in accepting the Deuterocanon. As Michuta writes: "Clement, in his writings, affirms in the strongest possible language the inspiration and scriptural status of the Deuterocanon. Baruch he understood as the words of the prophet Jeremiah. He refers to it plainly as 'Divine Scripture.' Clement also quotes the book of Sirach and calls it Scripture five times. The book of Wisdom Clement lauds as 'the Divine Wisdom.' Tobit is also quoted as Scripture in Stromata 2.23. There is simply no dispute; this tremendous apologist, so close in time to the Apostles themselves, honored the Deuterocanon as the inspired Word of God."[6]
The later fathers also accept the Deuterocanon. For example, St. Augustine writes in his book On Christian Doctrine: "For two books, one called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus, are ascribed to Solomon from a certain resemblance of style, but the most likely opinion is that they were written by Jesus the son of Sirach. Still, they are to be reckoned among the prophetical books, since they have attained recognition as being authoritative."[7] Earlier on in the same passage, Augustine describes Tobit, Judith, and 1 and 2 Maccabees as being part of the canon as well.[8] What is interesting about this particular quote is that Augustine specifically clarifies that these books "have attained recognition as being authoritative." Augustine is making clear that his acceptance of these books is not just his own private position. Rather, it is the consensus view of the early Church. On the basis of this and other evidence, the Protestant scholar J.N.D. Kelly has been forced to concede: "For the great majority of the fathers, the Deuterocanonical writings ranked as scripture in the fullest sense."[9] Even St. Jerome, who was nearly alone among all the fathers in rejecting the Deuterocanon, nonetheless included those books in his Latin translation of the Bible, the Vulgate. This was because he knew that they were regarded by the rest of the early Church as Scripture.
For those of us who wish to get back to the faith that Jesus founded and passed on, this testimony should matter very much to us. Those theologians, scholars, and saints closest to Jesus held firmly to the inspiration of the Deuterocanonical books. Certainly, those concerned that Catholicism is loaded with pagan accretions and other teachings not apostolic in nature have nothing to fear in accepting the Deuterocanon.
But even this evidence may not be enough for some. The testimonies of the early Christians, however wise they might be, are only the words of men, not God, after all. What evidence do these books themselves give of their divine origin? The decisive answer to that question comes in the second chapter of the Deuterocanonical book of Wisdom. Wisdom 2:12-20 contains the following fascinating prophecy: "Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training. He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; for if the righteous man is God's child, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. Let us test him with insult and torture, so that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected."
Now, compare this passage with Matthew 27:39-43: "Those who passed by derided him, shaking their heads and saying, 'You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross.' In the same way the chief priests also, along with the scribes and elders, were mocking him, saying, 'He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he wants to; for he said, 'I am God's Son.'"
The degree of overlap between the two passages is remarkable. The author of the book of Wisdom, inspired by the power of the Holy Spirit, was the only Old Testament author to predict that the Messiah would be mocked for calling Himself the Son of God. Protestants have (justly) pointed to the prophecy of the crucifixion in Psalm 22 as evidence of the divine inspiration of that text. But if the messianic prophecy in Psalm 22 is strong evidence of its divine origin, why can't the same be said for the prophecy in the book of Wisdom?
These arguments give us good reason to affirm the Deuterocanon as Scripture. But it must be said that ultimately, discerning the canon of Scripture is far too grave of a duty for the unguided human intellect. Jesus did not wish to burden our weak and darkened minds with so great of a task. On the contrary, He gave us an authority that can never fail to guide us with regards to both the identification of and the interpretation of scripture. That authority is the Catholic Church, against which the gates of hell shall never prevail.
[1] Many Protestants dispute this by quoting passages in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus that seem to imply a universal acceptance of the Protestant canon among first century Jews. However, these quotes are not what they seem. For a discussion, see Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger (1st ed.), 50-56.
[2] Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, 13
[4] See Michuta, 67-72
[5] 1 Clement 55, as quoted in Michuta, 58
[6] Michuta, 85
[7] Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book 2, 13, as quoted by Michuta, 154
[8] Ibid.
Comments