Transcript

Protestants and Catholics have the same New Testament, but they disagree about the contents of the Old Testament.

Protestant Old Testaments have 39 books, whereas Catholics have 46, with the inclusion of Tobit, Judas, Sirach, Baruch, Wisdom, First and Second Maccabees, and portions of Daniel and Esther.

But what kind of Old Testament did the first Christians have?

That's the question I wanna answer in today's episode.

So before we start, it's important to avoid two extremes when approaching this issue.

First, it's not accurate to say Christians unanimously agreed about these books of the Old Testament until Martin Luther and other Protestant reformers tried to move these Catholic books from the Old Testament, from the Bible, to create their own Protestant Bibles.

There was a dispute among some Christians in the early church because Rabbinic Jews rejected these books' scriptural status.

The fact that they were controversial is why in 1566, a Jewish convert to Catholicism named Sixtus of Sienna created a three-tiered classification system for the books of the Old Testament.

At the top was the protocanon, the 39 books of the Old Testament that Catholics and Protestants agree are the inspired word of God.

At the bottom were the apocrypha, works that both Catholics and Protestants did not regard as the inspired word of God, books like the Book of Enoch.

But between the protocanon and the apocrypha were a group of books Catholics believed to be inspired, but Protestants did not.

Sixtus called these the deuterocanonical books, or the second canon, although many Protestants would say they should just be treated as apocrypha, the hidden books.

For more on why these books are not apocrypha, see my rebuttal to Allen Parr's video, Five Reasons Why the Apocrypha is Not Inspired.

So Catholics should acknowledge the dispute about these books, but they should not grant a Protestant overreach.

That's the other extreme I wanna talk about on this, that other overreach being the idea that the early church simply didn't know if these books were scripture.

There's a lot that can be said about the deuterocanonical books of scripture, and I'll probably return to the topic in future episodes.

Today, I just wanna focus on a single question: Did the first Christians think the deuterocanonical books were scripture?

And by first Christians, I mean those who lived before the Council of Nicaea in AD 325.

One mistake Protestants make when answering this question is to just report canonical Old Testament lists of books that were created throughout church history and say that these canonical lists show what early Christians believed about the Old Testament canon.

But this ignores another important set of data: How did those first Christians use these deuterocanonical books in their own writings?

Most of those Christians don't give us a canonical list of scripture, but we can see which books they thought were scripture based on whether they avoided those books or cited them in a particular way, and we can see how they did this with several of the deuterocanonical books of scripture.

In my previous episode on neglected argument for sola scriptura, I showed that the fathers of the first two centuries before St. Irenaeus rarely cited the New Testament as scripture.

Their primary source of apostolic authority was not apostolic writings; it was apostolic succession in the form of following authentic bishops.

They were much more likely to cite from the Old Testament if they wanted to make a scriptural point, which for them also included the deuterocanonical books of scripture.

In his work, The Case for the Deuterocanon, Gary Michuta cites dozens of examples of this, and here are just a few from the church fathers before Nicaea.

In the first century, Clement of Rome used the Book of Wisdom to confirm God's sovereignty, and he said Judith was on par with Esther as having grace from God.

In the second century, Athenagoras said that Baruch represented the writings of a prophet and used his writings to confirm monotheism.

Irenaeus likewise said Baruch contained a prophecy of the incarnation, and Irenaeus cites Tobit with other New Testament authors.

Hippolytus said the Book of Wisdom contains the mysteries of Christ.

In the third century, Clement of Alexandria called Sirach scripture, used the Book of Wisdom to prove martyrdom leads to sanctification, and said Second Maccabees fulfilled prophecy.

Cyprian said Wisdom and Sirach were scripture and cited Sirach and Tobit to defend almsgiving and the role of angels in prayer.

Tertullian used Maccabees to prove the Sabbath was temporary and used Wisdom for the doctrine of the soul against Marcion.

Finally, Alexander of Alexandria accused his opponents of disobeying a rule that's found in the Book of Sirach.

And real fast, at this point, a lot of people would say in a video, Here's a word from our sponsor, but I love that our supporters are so generous, we don't need sponsorships.

We can just focus on sharing and defending the Catholic faith.

And if you wanna help us to keep doing that, please hit the subscribe button and support us at trenthornpodcast.com, where for as little as $5 a month, you get access to bonus content and you make all of this possible without any sponsorships.

And now, back to the episode.

As I said, there's a lot more that can be covered on this subject, such as the false claim that all first-century Jews rejected the deuterocanonical books, as well as what the church fathers after Nicaea thought of them.

You may recall my response to Protestant scholar Michael Horton that Protestants tend to cite voices from the fourth and fifth centuries to prove their doctrine of sola scriptura, which doesn't help their case because these later fathers also believed in distinctly Catholic doctrines and said that they were completely biblical.

I also noticed that Protestant critics of the Catholic Old Testament tend to focus on church fathers from this same period to argue against the deuterocanonical books, especially focusing on St. Jerome.

I'll save those authors for a future episode.

But for now, I just wanna point out that it just seems odd for Protestants to champion fourth and fifth century church fathers on something like the deuterocanonical books of scripture or sola scriptura but then ignore those same fathers who explicitly defend many uniquely Catholic doctrines, like Marian dogmas, the mass, the papacy, the existence of purgatory, seeking the intercession of saints.

But they have to primarily cite from these later sources because no church father before the fourth century denied the deuterocanonical books of scripture or restricted their use in any way.

All Protestants can cite during this earlier time period to support their view are things like canon lists such as the Berenios Canon List which, according to Luke Stevens, may actually be from the fourth century.

They also cite an alleged Christian Old Testament canon from Melito of Sardis in the second century and Origins Comments on the Old Testament that he wrote in the third century.But even if these two authors did deny the deuterocanonical books of scripture, they would be a minority opinion in the first 300 years of church history, so Protestants shouldn't portray them as being representative of how the church viewed the deuterocanon.

But that's not even the case, because neither of those early Christian voices said the deuterocanonical books were not scripture.

Protestants have to infer that conclusion from the absence of these books in the canons or numberings of the New Testament from Melito in origin.

And in some cases, the inference is just not well-grounded at all.

For example, here is Protestant Wes Huff admitting the deuterocanon was popular in the early church, before saying that some church fathers like Melito of Sardis rejected it.

It's clear that there have been Christians since its earliest inception who did consider a lot of what would eventually be labeled the deuterocanonical books as scripture.

At the same time, let me pause, because there was very little doubt extremely early on concerning the 66 books agreed upon by modern Protestants and Catholics.

Those were always considered scripture.

The discussion then is about the other books.

While it's not unanimous that these other books held the authority as scripture, I think we can clearly see that these books were nonetheless being copied and read as valuable Christian documents.

The Jews in this ancient period likewise considered these writings as valuable, but they did not consider them as scriptural.

Arguments were made by those like Melito of Sardis, Origin, Athanasius, and many others that Paul's statement in Romans chapter three, verse two, that the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God was reason to omit almost all of the deuterocanonical books as divinely inspired scripture.

Except Melito and Origins say no such thing.

Romans 3:2 isn't even a good argument for claiming that the Jews get to decide the contents of the Old Testament.

Romans 3:1-4 says, Then what advantage has the Jew?

Or what is the value of circumcision?

Much in every way.

To begin with, the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God.

What if some were unfaithful?

Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God?

By no means.

Romans 3:2 says nothing about the authority of the Jewish people to determine the canon of scripture.

Paul is merely saying that even though Jews and Gentiles are guilty of committing grave sin, Jews have an advantage over the Gentiles because God gave them divine revelation.

The Protestant scholar N.T.

Wright says, Nowhere else in early Christian writings are Israel's scripture designated as God's oracles.

N.T.

Wright and fellow Protestant A.T.

Robertson say Paul's use of the peculiar phrase, the oracles of God, may mean Paul was talking not about scripture per se, but just about the general concept of divine revelation.

The passage doesn't say anything about scripture, and we're not obligated to follow the lead of rabbis who rejected the New Testament anyways.

If they couldn't see Jesus being prophesied in the Old Testament, then it's not surprising they might be mistaken about other aspects of what constituted the Old Testament, including the deuterocanonical books, books like the Book of Wisdom, which explicitly prophesies Jesus Christ in its second chapter.

So let's look at what Melito and Origin do say on the matter.

We'll start with Melito, who in the second century wrote a work entitled Extracts.

The Protestant historian Philip Schaff called it a collection of testimonies to Christ and Christianity in which appeal was made from the Old Testament, the common ground accepted by both parties.

The extracts has been lost, but the fourth century church historian Eusebius quoted its introduction where Melito says he went east and came to the place where these things were preached and done and learned accurately the books of the Old Testament.

Going east refers to going to Israel and Melito's list of the Old Testament books lacks the deuterocanonical books of scripture.

But this isn't surprising because many second century Jews of that period rejected the deuterocanonical books of scripture.

The Protestant citation of Melito only helps their case if Melito was listing the Christian canon of the Old Testament, not the Jewish canon.

Now, Gavin Ortlund is skeptical of the claim that Melito's canon was Jewish in origin rather than Christian.

Some people try to wriggle out of this, just like they'll try to wriggle around Jerome.

They'll try to wriggle out of this by saying that Melito is- is just reporting the Jewish canon rather than advocating for this canon as a Christian canon.

This is probably one of the weaker arguments I've heard about this.

Melito introduces this canon list as concerning our entire faith, and he calls them the books of the Old Testament, which Jews would never call their scriptures.

This is a Christian Old Testament, uh, going back very early.

But Melito's goal in the extracts was to defend Christianity, our faith, using sources any Christian or Jew would accept.

And this is a conclusion many scholars also agree with.

In his book Hebrew Scripture and Patristic Biblical Theory, Edmund Gallagher writes, Most scholars have been willing to attribute Melito's list ultimately to Jewish sources.

Roger Beckwith, who defends the Protestant canon of the Old Testament, says that the similarities between Melito's list and the Jewish canon represent, quote, exceptional knowledge of Jewish tradition.

The fact that Melito went all the way to Israel, the eastern place, instead of asking the Jews in Sardis about the Old Testament canon shows that there was not a consensus among second century Jews about the canon of the Hebrew Bible.

The Baptist author Lee McDonald writes, Not all Josephus scholars agree with Josephus' account that all Jews everywhere both know and would die for these 22 sacred books.

Why did Melito not go across the street and talk to the nearest Jew to find out if the matter was well-known long before his time?So the evidence most likely points to Melito writing a list of what the Jews consider to be the Old Testament canon, and used that for his apologetic works in the extracts.

That explains why Melito had to go and do special research to answer this question, instead of just saying what Christians had always believed about the matter.

Now, we don't have enough of Melito's writings to know what he thought about using these books, the deuterocanonical books, but we do have enough data from Origen to know that he certainly did not reject the deuterocanonical books of scripture.

Origen often cited non-scriptural works, but he was very careful to distinguish them from scripture.

For example, Origen said, Books which bear the name Enoch do not at all circulate in the churches as divine.

Although they may not have been read in churches, some Christians did think Enoch was inspired, but as Gary Michuda shows in The Case for the Deuterocanon, Enoch's trajectory of acceptance diminishes as church history progresses, and it's eventually banned, whereas respect for the deuterocanon grows and becomes more common over time.

Origen himself widely used the deuterocanon when he referred to Sirach, Wisdom, Judith, Deutero-Daniel, and Maccabees as either scripture or holy scripture.

Michuda lists almost three dozen occasions of Origen citing the deuterocanon as scripture, and nearly three dozen cases of Origen using the deuterocanon to confirm doctrine.

Origen also said that, The Jews do not use Tobit, but this book is read in all the churches.

And Origen used Deutero-Daniel in a theological discussion with Julius Africanus.

Africanus is really the only source during this period that denied a deuterocanonical work, but that's only because he thought the longer part of Daniel was not inspired due to his belief in it being written in Greek rather than Hebrew.

So given all this data, why think that Origen denied the deuterocanonical books?

Well, Protestants usually cite where Origen says this, The canonical books as the Hebrews have handed them down are 22, corresponding with a number of their letters.

Origen then lists the modern Hebrew canon, but without the minor prophets, which may have been omitted as a typographical error and does not include the deuterocanonical books.

But the problem with relying on Origen's list is that it's an allegorical explanation for the number of books in the Old Testament canon as handed on by the Jews, not Christians.

Origen even made a habit of, quote, Investigating the Jewish scriptures and comparing them with ours and noticing their various readings.

As Jeffrey Hanneman says in his study of the biblical canon, Both lists that Melito and Origen presented are clearly Jewish catalogs and not Christian ones.

He then makes this observation: Origen noted, for instance, that the Jews did not use Tobit and Judith, to which the churches did appeal.

Origen appears to have suggested confinement by Christians to the Jewish canon only for polemical purposes with Jewish opponents.

A similar need may lie behind Melito's list, for he is known to have made a collection of testimonies from the Jewish canon.

So Origen and Melito are talking about the Jewish canon, and references to 22 books of the Jewish canon refers to how Jews tried to allegorize the number of books in their canon based on the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet, which would give rise to different Jewish canons based on different ways to try to make this allegory work.

Now, another point to mention is that if being present in either Melito or Origen's lists were necessary for a book to be canonical, then the books of Esther and Lamentations would be disqualified because they're absent from both lists.

In The Old Testament in Early Christianity, author Earle Ellis leans towards the probability that the Book of Esther, quote, was not recognized as scripture by Melito's informants.

Finally, we should ask, did the earliest Christian Bibles reject the deuterocanonical books of scripture?

The fourth century Codex Sinaiticus, one of the earliest most complete Christian Bibles, contains most of the deuterocanonical books of scripture.

The fact that it doesn't contain all of them, though, isn't surprising because Sinaiticus also lacks many protocanonical books, including Joshua, Samuel, and Kings.

The fourth century Codex Vaticanus has all the deuterocanonical books except 1 and 2 Maccabees.

The late Protestant author Norm Geisler thinks this shows that the compiler of that codex did not accept the deuterocanonical books.

But by that logic, Vaticanus also didn't accept the protocanonical books because that codex is missing Paul's letters to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon.

Finally, the fifth century Codex Alexandrinus contains all of the deuterocanonical books, and those books are placed next to the other protocanonical books.

The deuterocanonicals are not relegated to the manuscript's appendix with the truly apocryphal works like the Psalms of Solomon.

It's no wonder that the Protestant scholar J.N.D.

Kelly said that for the great majority of early Church fathers, quote, The deuterocanonical writings ranked as scripture in the fullest sense.

If you'd like to learn more about this topic, check out Gary Michuda's book, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, published by Catholic Answers Press, my book, The Case for Catholicism, which has a chapter devoted to the Old Testament canon, and also check out my debate on the Protestant Old Testament canon with Steve Christy, all of which are linked in the description below.

Thank you guys for watching, and I hope you have a very blessed day.