Why Do Catholic Bibles Have More Books? (A Response to the Roman Catholic View of the Canon)

In a previous post, I discussed the claim of many Roman Catholics that we cannot have the canon of scripture (a definitive list of what’s in the Bible) without the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church. I pointed out that there was no magisterial definition from Rome until the 16th century at the Council of Trent, and that few Roman Catholics would claim that the church had no Bible until that time. I then off-handedly claimed that in any case, the canon of Old Testament books that was defined at the Council of Trent did not match the canon that Jews of today and of the time of Jesus used (the Roman Catholic canon includes additional books in the Old Testament such as Baruch and Wisdom).

Because my point that the Jews held to a different canon than Roman Catholics (the Jewish canon matches the protestant Old Testament canon) was not central to my argument, I did not provide citations or arguments to justify it. A reader brought this up to me, so I thought I should provide some evidence for my claims.
The Hebrew Bible at the Time of Jesus

The earliest evidence supports that the Jews held to a canon of either 22 or 24 books, with some books consolidated together into one book (such as the 12 minor prophets, etc). Jews of today recognize a 24 book canon. These two numbers most probably do not represent different canons, but a different way of numbering the same books (putting Ruth with Judges and Lamentations with Jeremiah would reduce the number from 24 to 22). In an case, this canon excluded the deuterocanonical books (a term often used for the additional books in the Catholic Old Testament, meaning “second canon”) and seems to match the current Jewish (and protestant) canon of the Hebrew scriptures.

The earliest reference we have at present to a Jewish canon is probably from Josephus, who mentions a canon of 22 books at around 97 A.D.:
“For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another [as the Greeks have], but only twenty-two books, which contain all the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine… It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time” (Flavius Josephus, Against Apion, 8).

The Glossa Ordinaria (1498 A.D.), the standard Bible commentary of Western Europe, refers to both numbers (22 and 24) as being used by the Jews and provides an explanation from Josephus for why they are different:
“There are, then, twenty-two canonical books of the old testament, corresponding to the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet, as Eusebius reports, in book six of Ecclesiastical History, that Origen writes on the first Psalm; and Jerome says the same thing more fully and distinctly in his Helmeted Prologue to the books of Kings: ‘All the books are divided into three parts by the Jews: into the law, which contains the five books of Moses; into the eight prophets; and into the nine hagiographa. This will be more clearly seen shortly. Some, however, separate the book of Ruth from the book of Judges, and the Lamentations of Jeremiah from Jeremiah, and count them among the hagiographa in order to make twenty-four books, corresponding to the twenty-four elders whom the Apocalypse presents as adoring the lamb.’ These are the books that are in the canon, as blessed Jerome writes at greater length in the Helmeted Prologue to the books of Kings.”

The New Testament evidence strongly implies that its authors (as well as Jesus) used the shorter, Jewish canon. It does this by how it references the canonical and deuterocanonical material (although there are far less references to the latter, and many that are claimed are questionable). In regard to the deuterocanon, Matthew 11:28-30 seems to use language parallel to Sirach 51:26-27. Hebrews 11:35 seems to reference events written about in 2 Maccabees 7. However, these and other passages which might be argued to be referencing the apocrypha never use the terms that other New Testament passages use when referring to scripture.

Deuterocanonical stories are referred to in the New Testament off-hand and with little fanfare, similar to how Paul quotes pagan poets to illustrate his point but never implies that they are inspired (Acts 17:28).

The regular canonical books are referred to quite differently. Note how the New Testament references the universally accepted books and compare that to its references of the deuterocanon:
“David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared…” (Mark 12:36 ESV)
“which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand…” (Acts 1:16 ESV)
“The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your fathers through Isaiah the prophet…” (Acts 28:25 ESV)
“As indeed he [God] says in Hosea…” (Romans 9:25 ESV)
“All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet…” (Matthew 1:22)

The Church’s View of the Canon of the Old Testament

The earliest Christian list of Old Testament books, the Bryennios List (dating to around 100 A.D.), excludes the deuterocanonical books. Before long though, many in the church did accept them as scripture. This can best be explained by the Church’s use of the Greek Septuagint and Latin Vulgate, both of which included them. However, the Septuagint also contained other books, and the Vulgate included notes claiming that the deuterocanonical books were not scripture.

However, it is not the case that all of the fathers accepted the deuterocanon. While that number grew leading up to Trent, it was not the church’s universal view. Numerous theologians and fathers whom the Roman Catholic Church claims as their own rejected the books that Rome now declares to be scripture. For instance, Athanasius, in his 39th Festal Letter, calls those who teach that apocryphal books are scripture are in error and should be condemned. He then defines the canon as excluding the deuterocanonical books, with the exception of Baruch, perhaps because it was sometimes considered as being part of Jeremiah in the Greek Septuagint, which was the translation Athanasius most likely used.

Similarly, Jerome, who translated the Bible into Latin from Greek and Hebrew (making him one of the few post-apostolic fathers to know Hebrew), notes in his translation that the deuterocanonical books are not scripture. This knowledge he seemingly learned from the Jews who taught him Hebrew. His translation– which became known as the Vulgate– became Rome’s official Latin Bible at the Council of Trent– although it rejected its authors view of the canon and declared anathema on any who held the same view.
Even Gregory the Great, in a book published while he was pope (Morals on the Book of Job, in Vol. 11, parts III and IV, Book XIX.34), rejected the deuterocanonical books, meaning that Trent anathematized a view that was taught by a pope. Gregory was apparently unaware of the apostolic tradition that the Roman Catholic Church would claim was always believed by the church and is to be defended by the successor of Peter. Origen and Cardinal Cajetan (who interrogated Luther for his anti-romanist beliefs) also rejected the deuterocanonical books, among numerous others.

Why then, did so many church fathers and theologians accept the deuterocanonical books as scripture? One major reason is that the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) often included these books. Christians who were more familiar with Greek than Hebrew would have called the Septuagint their Bible. As Christians became less connected with the Jewish roots of their faith, and indeed as animosity increased between Jews and the mostly gentile Christians, Christians would not be aware of the Jewish view of the canon. Exceptions included fathers such as Jerome and Melito of Sardis, who interacted directly with Jews and also denied the deuterocanonical books were scripture (it is of note that Melito and Athanasius didn’t consider Esther to be part of the canon, and little by way of explanation is offered for this omission. Perhaps the lack of mention of God in Esther caused misgivings in regard to its canonicity). Once the Greek Septuagint gave way to the Latin Vulgate in the West, Christians would still have been reading the deuterocanonicals in their Bible, although its translator’s rejection of these books helped spur debate in the Roman Catholic Church over the canon right up to the Council of Trent.

Although the Septuagint perhaps influenced the acceptance of the deuterocanonicals, it is not a good argument for Catholics to claim that the Septuagint contained the genuine Old Testament canon, since manuscripts of the Septuagint also included books that even Catholics deny are scripture, such as 3 and 4 Maccabees (the Eastern Orthodox Church, however, because of their continued use of the Septuagint, do include these books in their Bibles). Further, the provincial councils of Hippo (393 A.D.) and Carthage (397 A.D.), which were heavily influenced by the non-Hebrew speaking Augustine, seemed to claim the Old Testament canon that Trent did (the names of the books are the same), but quite probably promulgated a different one. This is because these councils used the Septuagint, which contains a different 1 and 2 Esdras than the Vulgate (which is the Bible that the Council of Trent used). The New Catholic Encyclopedia claims that Trent “definitively removed it [the material found in the Septuagint version of 1 Esdras] from the canon” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, II:396-97). In other words, Trent created a canon that neither the early church, the Eastern Orthodox (using the Septuagint), nor the Jews accepted.

While much of the ancient period is shrouded in mystery, particularly in regard to these issues, enough evidence can be gathered to demonstrate how weak the Roman Catholic position on the canon is. If one does not simply assume the authority of the Roman Catholic magisterium, the weight of the evidence will lead this one to reject Rome’s claims in regard to the canon.