Book One: On the Sacred and Apocryphal Books

Chapter Twenty: On Apocryphal Books

Having explained the canon of the sacred books and having defended it, with the brevity suitable to intention of this work, from the arguments of the adversaries, there remains for us to say a little about those books that, although they have seemed canonical to some, are yet rightly and deservedly named not canonical but apocryphal.

So, the term ‘Apocrypha’ is Greek and signifies a thing that is concealed and hidden, since ‘apocryptein’ means to hide, and ‘apocrypha’ means a hiding place.

Further, Ecclesiastical writers do not always use this name in the same way. For sometimes they call those Scriptures apocryphal of which it is not certain whether they are canonical and divine, although it is sufficiently clear that no errors are found in them. Thus Jerome in his Galeatic Prologue wants all the books that are not in the canon to be numbered among the apocryphal ones. But sometimes they call apocryphal the books that have errors admixed. Thus does Origen use the word in his Homily 1 on the Song of Songs, and Jerome in his letter to Laeta, about the education of her daughter, and Augustine in City of God bk.15 ch.23. This meaning is followed by Gelasius in his decree on the Ecclesiastical books and he calls the books apocryphal that were produced by heretical authors, or certainly by suspect ones.

But as to what the gloss on the Holy Roman canon dist.15 says, that those books are called apocryphal whose author is unknown, this is not probable, for then many sacred books would be apocryphal, as the book of Judges, of Ruth, of Job, of First Maccabees and many others whose authors are unknown, which however is contrary to the Church’s way of speaking. For whoever heard that a canonical book was apocryphal?

Several apocryphal books are enumerated by Gelasius, as is contained in Holy Roman canon 15, and by Innocent I epist.3, by Athanasius in his Synopsis, and by Eusebius Hist. bk.3 ch.25, but for the most part they are not extant. Those that are extant are these: the Prayer of Manassas, which is usually annexed to Chronicles, and which for this reason we seem able to call apocryphal, or not certainly canonical, because it is not part of any sacred book nor placed by name in the canon by any Council, or Pontiff, or Father above cited; nor is it contained in the Hebrew or Greek edition but only in the Latin one.

Apocryphal also is the 151st Psalm of David, which Athanasius mentions in his Synopsis and it is found in the Greek Psalters. But I call this psalm apocryphal because the Council of Laodicea canon 59, and the Roman Council under Gelasius, and the Council of Trent sess.4, by name place 150 psalms in the canon.

Again there is an appendix to the book of Job, which is only contained in the Greek codices. For the Council of Trent sess.4 wanted only those books to be held as canonical that were contained in the Latin Vulgate edition. Besides Blessed Jerome in his Questions on Genesis showed that what is contained in that appendix, that Job was of the stock of Esau, is false, since he was of the stock of Hus, who was son of Nachor, brother of Abraham, as is said in Genesis ch.22. Add that the appendix rests for support most of all on ch.36 of the book of Genesis, where Jobab is numbered in the posterity of Esau; but the Hebrew name proper to Job is far other than the Hebrew name found in Genesis ch.36. Apocryphal too seem to be the short preface that is prefixed to the Lamentations of Jeremiah; for it is not in the Hebrew codices, nor in all the Latin ones, and it is not touched on by the expositors.

Nor should the book of Hermas, which is called the Shepherd, be reckoned any less apocryphal. For although Origen thought it was divinely inspired, bk.10 on the epistle to the Romans, and although testimony from the same book is brought forward by Tertullian, book on Prayer, by Irenaeus bk.4 ch.37, by Clement of Alexandria Stromateis bk.6, by Athanasius in his book on the Decrees of the Synod of Nicea, by Cassianus coll.3 ch.12, and although Eusebius Hist. bk.3 ch.3 judged the same book to be useful, as did Ruffinus on the Creed and Jerome in his book on Ecclesiastical Writers on Hermas; yet nevertheless it is not reported in the canon by any Synod, and Gelasius rejected it from the canon with expressive words in his decree on Ecclesiastical books; and Athanasius in his Synopsis, and the same Athanasius in his book on the Decrees of the Synod of Nicea, and Theodoret Hist. bk.1 ch.18 say that the Arians, who sought testimony from this book, sought testimonies from a non-­‐canonical book.

Lastly are apocryphal the third and fourth books of Maccabees, and the third and fourth books of Ezra. And indeed about the fourth book of Maccabees the thing is plain, since it is only mentioned by name by Athanasius in his Synopsis, and he put it outside the canon. But the fourth book of Ezra is indeed cited by Ambrose in his book on the Good of Death, and in book two on Luke, and in epist.21 to Horatianus; yet without doubt it is not canonical, since it is reported in the canon by no Synod, and is not found either in Hebrew or in Greek, and finally it contains in ch.6 certain fables about the fish of Enoch and Leviathan, which the seas could not contain, and which are the foolishness of the Talmudist Rabbis. Therefore one has to wonder what came into the mind of Genebrard, in his Chronology p.90, that he should want this book too to belong to the canon.

But about the third book of Maccabees there is greater difficulty, since Clement in the Canons of the Apostles canon 84 reports in the canon three books of Maccabees. Nor is there less difficulty about the third book of Ezra; for there is in the Greek codices a book which is called First Ezra, and the books that are called by us First and Second Ezra are called Second Ezra in Greek. Wherefore it is likely that the ancient Councils and Fathers, since they place in the canon two books of Ezra, understand all three under the name of two books. For they were following the Septuagint version, by which our three books are called the two books of Ezra. Add too that this third book of Ezra is cited by Athanasius in oration 3 Against the Arians, by Augustine City of God bk.18 ch.36, by Clement of Alexandria Stromateis bk.1, by the author of the incomplete work of the Homily on Matthew, and by St. Cyprian in his epistle to Pompeius.

As far as the first difficulty is concerned, it seems probable that the canon is not Clement’s. For Pope Zepherinus, fifteenth from Peter, in epist.1 hands down that there were only 70 canons of the Apostles, or, as other codices say, 60. But Humbert in his book Against Nicetas only recognizes 50, while this canon is the 84th. And certainly Zepherinus knew better how many were the canons of the Apostles than any later authors. Wherefore not without cause did Gelasius in Holy Roman canon dist.15 put the Canons of the Apostles among the apocrypha, which he seems to have done because some of the books were corrupted or added by heretics. Nor is it an obstacle that in canon 2 of the canons called those of the Sixth Synod, 85 canons of the Apostles are approved; for those canons are not from the true Sixth Synod but from some other Council celebrated later, which the Supreme Pontiff Sergius, who was then seated [on the Roman see], not only did not approve but even rejected, as is clear in Bede in his book on the Six Ages, on Justinian.

Next in this canon 84 the canonical books are enumerated and some are omitted that are certainly canonical, as the books of Ezra, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the Apocalypse, which seems to be a thing of no little moment. For the Church, which existed after the Apostles, did not learn which books were canonical and which were not from anywhere else than from the tradition of the Apostles.

Further, the fact that Clement very exactly held to the Apostolic traditions, since indeed he had lived a long time with the Apostles Peter and Paul, is testified to by Irenaeus bk.3 ch.3 and by Eusebius Hist. bk.5 ch.6; therefore the books that are not put by Clement in the canon seem absolutely not to be canonical. Therefore either the books of Ezra, Tobit, Judith, the Apocalypse are not canonical, or that decree is not Clement’s. But as to what some say, that the Apocalypse was omitted by Clement because it had not yet been written at his time, they cannot prove this. For John wrote the Apocalypse at the end of the rule of Domitian, as Irenaeus teaches bk. 5 at the end; but Clement died in the third year of Trajan, as Jerome teaches in this book on Illustrious Men. Clement therefore could have seen the Apocalypse.

Next, is not the Gospel of John put in this canon 84? But that the Apocalypse was written before the Gospel is testified to by several very grave authors. Eusebius Hist. bk.5 ch.24 says, “They say that John, almost up to the last age of his life, preached, without anyone’s Scripture, the Gospel evidence.” Athanasius in his Synopsis says, “The Gospel according to John was preached by John the Beloved Apostle when he was an exile on the island of Patmos, and afterwards it was published by him at Ephesus.” Epiphanius in Heresy 51, which is of the Alogi, writes in expressive words that the Gospel was published by John after he was 90 years old and after his return from Patmos.

Theophylact, Euthymius, Bede, and Rupert in the preface to their commentaries on John teach with common consent that the Gospel of John was written and published by John either in Patmos or after his return from Patmos. Nor is repugnant to this what Dionysius the Areopagite writes in his epistle to John living in exile; for Dionysius calls John the Sun of the Gospel and his Theology heavenly, not because of any writing which was then extant under the name of John, but because of John’s divine and admirable preaching.

Besides in this same canon 84 are numbered among the sacred books not only the third of Maccabees but also two epistles of Clement and the Apostolic Constitutions of the same Clement; which books, however, the Church has never recognized as sacred. But if the canon truly were Clement’s the Church could not, without great temerity, fail to receive those books, since Clement was Supreme Pontiff and either he himself composed the canons of the Apostles or, as is truer, committed to writing canons composed by the Apostles; but it is not lawful for the Church to refuse Apostolic or even Pontifical laws, save only those that, because they served the time rather than the truth of dogmas, are now certainly agreed to have been abrogated, as is the law about not eating blood and suffocated animals.

To the other difficulty I reply that although in the Greek codices the two books of Ezra are our three, yet not for this reason do the old Councils and the ancient Fathers, who put two books of Ezra in the canon, understand our three by the name of the two. For many of the ancients, as Melito, Epiphanius, Hilary, Jerome, Ruffinus, when expounding the books of the Old Testament, openly followed the Hebrews, not the Greeks, but the Hebrews do not have the third book of Ezra. Next, nothing from this third book is ever read in an Ecclesiastical service; which is an argument that already for a long time the book has not been held in the number of the sacred books. Further Gelasius in the Roman Council of seventy bishops puts only one book of Ezra in the canon. By which one book he without doubt understands our two, since, as Jerome testifies in his preface to Ezra, they were contained in one volume. Therefore Gelasius in expressive words rejected the first book that is found among the Greeks.

Finally, Jerome in his preface to Ezra openly indicates that the third and fourth books of Ezra are not only not possessed by the Hebrews but are not even contained in the Septuagint. Wherefore although certain Greek codices had three volumes of Ezra in two books, the more correct codices did not. Further the old Fathers sometimes use testimonies taken from this book, which we too do not confess to be a useless book, but they do it rarely and they never call it sacred and divine.

Robert Bellarmine’s: Controversies of the Christian Faith – Volume 1: On the Word of God — HOME