Did the 1st Century Church Accept the Deuterocanonical books?

score:4

The Deuterocanonicals belong to an era before Christ was born. The text of the OT was written over about 1,000 years. The last prophetic book, Malachi, was written a little before 400 B.C. None of the writings during the 400 year period from then till Christ was born were accepted as Scripture by Judaism, but accepted as valuable for understanding Jewish history and culture. They came to be known as "the Deuterocanonical books".

Let me quote from this site: http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-council-of-jamnia.htm re. Jewish views on such matters:

"In 90 AD, the council of Jamnia was unimportant in determining the Jewish Canon. It was not a major council like Nicea, but a small collection of rabbinic Jewish leaders. They did not gather to determine the canon of the Old Testament, but rather limited their discussion to the books of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon. Roman Catholics and Orthodox leaders misrepresent history when they make claims that the Canon of the Old Testament was not fixed until the council of Jamnia in 90 AD... There was clearly a fixed canon long before Jesus was born."

So, what would that fixed canon be? Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai managed to escape Jerusalem before its destruction in A.D. 70 and received permission to rebuild a Jewish base in Jamnia. It was there that discussion of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon in the Hebrew Bible was discussed and those books formally accepted, although we have no complete surviving record of these debates. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/omitting-the-maccabees/

But here is what Philo says:

"Flavius Josephus, the famous Jewish historian, a priest and a nobleman, wrote an important treatise in defence of the Jews. It was entitled 'Contra Apionem', and is dated circa AD 100" and quotes parts related to the canon [of Hebrew scriptures]. It deduces from this that "There are several things to note from these remarks of Josephus. (i) For him the canon whose verbal form was inviolable was closed and in fact had been closed from the time of Artaxerxes (465-425 BC) - essentially the time of Malachi. "The number of 'reliable' books which allow for no alteration and are the code on which Jewish life is based... is final... and a sharp line is drawn between them and the numerous records of the period after Artaxerxes which cannot be fully trusted" (Katz, p.76). (ii) This closed canon was a canon of 22 books arranged in three parts - 5 books of Moses, 13 of the prophets and 4 of hymns and practical precepts... his OT canon would be identical with ours irrespective of how he arranged the books within it." (p.28).

This is the historic evidence before the Catholic church was established, and long before the canon of the NT was sorted. The Protestant view includes as canonical those Hebrew books that were quoted from in the NT. This is another reason for the Protestant OT canon differing from the Catholic OT canon, for the Catholics were happy to use material that was never referred to in the NT. In a nutshell, Flavius Josephus's writing about the Hebrew [OT] canon, circa AD 100, is what Protestants go by.

That canon was closed by the time of Jesus. The only issue is whether post-Malachi writings should be included - Catholicism says 7 of them should. But neither Catholics nor Protestants decided the original canon of the OT. The Jewish nation had that sorted before Christianity ever began! Two Church Councils (Hippo, AD 393 & Carthage, 397) had a canon of 46 books for the OT and 27 for the NT, just what the later Protestants had in 1529, though the 7 Deuterocanonicals were put by Luther into an Appendix at the end of the Bible. The settled canon was exactly the same back then as for the much later Council of Trent in 1563. Only from around 1826 the Protestants stopped including the Apocrypha, even as an Appendix. But the Council of Nicaea in 325 had nothing to do with the canon of scripture. See also http://www.ntcanon.org/ http://www.letusreason.org/rc15.htm

The Deutercanonicals belong to the era before Christ was born. The 1st Century Church did not accept them as sacred scripture, though they knew about them.

Anne 25666

Upvote:1

On the idea of quoting or referencing books as proving they are or should be part of the canon, this is a very weak argument. We all know about Paul quoting from non-scriptural books, but no one argues that an Athenian or Cretian book was somehow not included as God-breathed scripture.

For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Acts 17:28

One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. Titus 1:12

What are they missing? Here's Peter.

Above all, you must realize that no prophecy in Scripture ever came from the prophet’s own understanding, or from human initiative. No, those prophets were moved by the Holy Spirit, and they spoke from God. 2 Peter 1:20-21 NLT

The OT prophets spoke from God. This is what set the OT canon apart from all other books, even the ones that might have been used within the books of the OT canon.

But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled. Acts 3:18

Do we find this idea in the very early church? If we do, it will be clear that the very early church rejected what came to be called the Deuterocanonical books.

The Muratorian Fragment written about 170 CE says this, delineating how to tell the difference; that is, the OT prophets were completed and the NT apostles was also the only accepted books based on their timeframe.

But Hermas wrote the Shepherd (74) very recently, [7c] in our times, in the city of Rome, (75) while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the [episcopal] chair (76) of the church of the city of Rome. [7d] (77) And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but (78) it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among (79) the Prophets, whose number is complete, [8] or among (80) the Apostles, for it is after [their] time. Muratorian Fragment

Melito about the same time also picks up this definition of what is and what is not scripture. Note how Melito refers to these as "our ancient books" about "our whole faith".

“Melito to his brother Onesimus, greeting. Since you have often earnestly requested of me, in consequence of your love of learning, a collection of the Sacred Scriptures of the Law and the Prophets, and what relates to the Saviour, and concerning our whole faith; and since, moreover, you wish to obtain an accurate knowledge of our ancient books, as it respects their number and order, I have used diligence to accomplish this, knowing your sincere affection towards the faith, and your earnest desire to become acquainted with the word; and that striving after eternal life, your love to God induces you to prefer these to all other things. Wherefore, going into the East, and to the very place where these things were published and transacted, and having made diligent search after the books of the Old Testament, I now subjoin and send you the following catalogue:—“Five books of Moses, viz., Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, or Wisdom,18 Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Twelve [prophets] in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra.” Canon of the Old and New Testaments Ascertained, Part I, Section IV. Alexander, Archibald. Quoting from Eusebius.

Melito's OT canon is the same as the protestant canon, sans Esther, which, since he mentions it elsewhere, is merely an overlook.

We back up further to Josephus who again for the OT defines what is valid and to which Melito in the early church will define.

“We have not, therefore, a multitude of books disagreeing and conflicting with one another; but we have only twenty-two, which contain the record of all time and are justly held to be divine. 2. Of these, five are by Moses, and contain the laws and the tradition respecting the origin of man, and continue the history down to his own death. This period embraces nearly three thousand years. 3. From the death of Moses to the death of Artaxerxes, who succeeded Xerxes as king of Persia, the prophets that followed Moses wrote the history of their own times in thirteen books.678 678 [footnote] These thirteen books were:—

Joshua.
Judges and Ruth.
Samuel.
Kings.
Chronicles.
Ezra and Nehemiah.
Esther.
Isaiah.
Jeremiah and Lamentations.
Ezekiel.
Daniel.
Twelve Minor Prophets.
Job. As will be seen, Josephus divided the canon into three parts: first, the Law (five books of Moses); second, the Prophets (the thirteen just mentioned); third, the Hagiographa (Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles). The division of the canon into three such parts is older than Josephus; at the same time, his division is quite different from any other division known. Jerome’s is as follows:—
Law: five books of Moses.
Prophets: Joshua, Judges and Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Lamentations, Ezekiel, Twelve Minor Prophets (eight books).
Hagiographa (Holy writings): Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Daniel, Chronicles, Ezra, Esther (nine books). The division which exists in our Hebrew Bibles differs from this of Jerome’s only in transferring Ruth and Lamentations to the third division, and thus making twenty-four books. This is held by many to be a later form, as remarked above, but as Strack shows, it is rather the original. In the LXX., which is followed in our English Bible, the books are arranged, without reference to the three divisions, solely according to their subject-matter. The peculiar division of Josephus was caused by his looking at the matter from the historical standpoint, which led him to include in the second division all the books which contained, as he says, an account of events from Moses to Artaxerxes. The other four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the regulation of the life of men.
From the time of Artaxerxes to our own day all the events have been recorded, but the accounts are not worthy of the same confidence that we repose in those which preceded them, because there has not been during this time an exact succession of prophets.679 679 The Artaxerxes here referred to is Artaxerxes Longimanus who reigned b.c. 464 to 425. It was under him that Ezra and Nehemiah carried on their work and that the later prophets flourished. Malachi—the last of them—uttered his prophecies at the end of Artaxerxes’ or at the beginning of Darius’ reign. It was commonly held among the Jews that with Haggai, Zachariah and Malachi the prophetical spirit had departed from Israel, and the line was sharply drawn, as here by Josephus, between them and the writers of the Apocrypha who followed them.
How much we are attached to our own writings is shown plainly by our treatment of them. For although so great a period has already passed by, no one has ventured either to add to or to take from them, but it is inbred in all Jews from their very birth to regard them as the teachings of God, and to abide by them, and, if necessary, cheerfully to die for them.” The Church History of Eusebius, Book III, Chapter X. Commentaries 678 and 679 (indented) by Philip Schaff.

For Peter, Melito, and others, the key distinction to determine the OT canon is to ask if it was written during the time of a valid prophetic line? Indeed, Maccabees itself will reference this and thus define itself as non-canonical.

It was a time of great trouble for Israel, worse than anything that had happened to them since the time prophets ceased to appear among them. 1 Maccabees 9:27

“So they tore down the altar, and stored the stones in a convenient place on the temple hill until there should come a prophet to tell what to do with them.” (1 Maccabees 4:45b-46).

“And the Jews and their priests decided that Simon should be their leader and high priest for ever, until a trustworthy prophet should arise…” (1 Maccabees 14:41).

So, to answer the OP, no the early church did not accept the Deuterocanonical books as scripture. They are not, like what is scripture, God-breathed, written during a time of a valid prophetic line.

SLM 12802

Upvote:1

I'm curious if any citations exist that suggest the 1st Century Church (or 2nd) supported the Deuterocanon.

Jesus and the NT Authors never explicitly quote from the Deuterocanonical books... nor do they explicitly quote from Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon. However, as shown in another question/answer, even the King James Bible showed numerous New Testament passages referencing Deuterocanonical passages.

Additionally, one must consider that the Bible for the early church was the Septuagint, which includes Deuterocanonical books.

The Masoretic Text (which excludes the Deuterocanonical books) has numerous minor textual differences from the Septuagint. And yet, throughout the New Testament we see many examples of where the inspired authors quote the Old Testament explicitly from the Septuagint, where the Masoretic Text gives a divergent reading.

In Matthew 21:16, Jesus quotes Psalm 8:2 saying "Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies you have ordained praise". In the Septuagint translation, Psalm 8:2 also says "ordained praise". However the Hebrew Scriptures (Masoretic Text) says "ordained strength".
1 Peter 4:18 quotes the Septuagint Proverbs 11:31 as "If the truly righteous is scarcely saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?". The Hebrew says, "If the righteous is repaid on earth, how much more the wicked and the sinner!"
Hebrews 11:21 quotes the Septuagint Genesis 47:31 with Jacob bowing in worship over the head of his staff, while the Hebrew has Jacob bowing over the head of his bed.
Hebrews 10:5-7 quotes the Septuagint Psalm 40:6-8 as "a body have you prepared for me", while the Hebrew reads as "you have given me an open ear".
Acts 13:41 quotes the Septuagint Habakkuk 1:5 starting with "Look, you scoffers", while the Hebrew starts with "Look among the nations".
Acts 7:42-43 quotes the Septuagint Amos 5:25-27 as "You took up the tent of Moloch and the star of your god Rephan", while the Hebrew reads as "You shall take up Sikkuth your king, and Kiyyun your star-god".
Acts 8:32-33 quotes the Septuagint Isaiah 53:7-8 as "In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken away from the earth.", while the Hebrew reads as "By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living".
James 4:6 quotes the Septuagint Proverbs 3:34 as "opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble", while the Hebrew reads similarly but with different underlying word-concepts as "scorns the scornful but he gives grace to the lowly".

Finally, we can also look at how the early church fathers quoted from these books themselves. Did they treat them the same as other scripture? In a word - yes.

(AD ~80) Clement of Rome

quotes from Wisdom 12:12/11:21 in the same breath as Matthew and Psalms [Letter to the Corinthians 27:5]

(AD ~135) Polycarp of Smyrna

quotes from Tobit 4:10/12:9 in the same breath as 1 Peter and Isaiah [Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, Chapter 10]

(AD ~189) Irenaeus

quotes from Daniel 13:52 as "they shall hear those words, to be found in Daniel the prophet" [Against Heresies Book IV, Chapter 26, Section 3]
quotes from Baruch 4:36-5:9 in the same breath as Isaiah [Against Heresies Book V, Chapter 35, Section 1]

(AD ~198) Clement of Alexandria

quotes from Sirach 21:6 as "the Scripture which says" [The Paedagogus (The Instructor), Book I, Chapter 8, Section 1]
quotes from Tobit 12:8 as "the Scripture which says" [The Stromata, Book VI, Chapter 12, Section 7]
Wisdom 6:17-18 and 16:26 in the same breath as Romans and Matthew [The Paedagogus (The Instructor), Book II, Chapter 1, Section 4]
Baruch 3:13 in the same breath as Jeremiah [The Paedagogus (The Instructor), Book I, Chapter 10, Section 3]

Given that your question explicitly states only the 1st or 2nd century, I'll stop here - just know that the examples continue multiplying as you continue on, there's many from Hippolytus (AD ~204), Origen (AD ~240), Tertullian (AD ~240), Cyprian of Carthage (AD ~250), and so on.

emeth 1239

Upvote:2

There are a number of verses in the NT that are believed to be references to OT verses from the deuterocanonical books. It may be difficult for the average reader to see this, but biblical scholars do. A good example is Hebrews 11:35 "Women received back their dead, raised to life again. There were others who were tortured, refusing to be released so that they might gain an even better resurrection." referring to the account in 2 Maccabees 7.

So, if some writers of the NT referred to to deuterocanonical books, do you think it would be safe to say that the early church considered them scriptural?