There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two
books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the
number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being
as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that
Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun,
then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first
and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as
one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one
book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these
there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song
of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one
book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations,
and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus
far constitutes the Old Testament. (NPNF2 4:552)
Note:
Athanasius excludes
the book of Esther
Athanasius includes
the book of Baruch
Athanasius’s exclusion of Esther and inclusion of
Baruch in the canonical category may reflect Jewish practice. For example,
Melito of Sardis omitted Esther from the books accepted by the Jews in
Palestine, and Epiphanius of Salamis states that Baruch was still read in the
synagogues of his day. (Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger [rev
ed.; El Cajon, Calif.: Catholic Answers Press, 2017], 345 n. 193)
Melito of Sardis (d.
c. 170), Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 4, 26, 12-14
“Melito to his brother Onesimus, greeting: since you
have often, in your zeal for the word, expressed a wish to have extracts made
from the law and the prophets concerning the Saviour and concerning our entire
Faith, and have also desired to have an accurate statement of the ancient
books, as regards their numbers and their order, I have endeavoured to perform
the task, knowing your zeal for the Faith, and your desire to gain information in
regard to the word, and knowing that you, in your yearning after God, esteem
these things above all else, struggling to attain eternal salvation.
Accordingly when I went east and came to the place where these things were
preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and
send them to you as written below. Their names are as follows: of Moses, five books:
Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of
Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of
Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah,
Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From which
also I have made extracts, dividing them into six books.”
Such as the words of Melito.
Melito’s list omits the book of Lamentations, Nehemiah
and Esther—it is possibly even includes the book of Wisdom. Even if Lamentations
and Nehemiah are present (being included in other books), as some have argued,
the omission of Esther remains unaccountable. Later Christian lists of the
rabbinic canon will also point to doubts concerning Esther. (Michuta, Why
Catholic Bibles are Bigger, 336 n. 126)
Some argue that Melito could not have had contact with
the synagogue because dialogue between Jews and Christians had all but ceased
due to tensions between the two groups. Antagonism indeed existed, but dialogue
did nevertheless continue, as we saw in Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho the
Jew written only a few years earlier. Moreover, Melito’s inquiry would be
for information, not debate, and there is no reason to expect the rabbis to be
antagonistic. When the two prospects of either inquiring as the synagogue in
Sardis or making the arduous trek to Palestine to receive essentially the same
answer are considered, Melito certainly would have chosen the former. If the
Jews in Sardis were so antagonistic as not to answer Melito’s inquiry, what
hope would there be of an answer being secured among the rabbis in Palestine? We
do know that Jewish/Christian dialogues, as evidenced in the writings of the
early Fathers, continued unabated throughout the first several centuries of the
Church. They were pointed, but they continued. (Ibid., 336-37 n. 127)
Epiphanius of Salamis,
“Judaism,” 6:1
6,1 By the time of the captives’ return from
Babylon these Jews had gotten the following books and prophets, and the
following books of the prophets: (2) 1. Genesis. 2. Exodus. 3. Leviticus. 4.
Numbers. 5. Deuteronomy. 6. The Book of Joshua the son of Nun. 7. The Book of
the Judges. 8. Ruth. 9. Job. 10. The Psalter. 11. The Proverbs of Solomon. 12. Ecclesiastes.
13. The Song of Songs. 14. The First Book of Kingdoms 15. The Second Book of
Kingdoms. 16. The Third Book of Kingdoms. 17. The Fourth Book of Kingdoms. 18.
The First Book of Chronicles. 19. The Second Book of Chronicles. 20. The Book
of the Twelve Prophets. 21. The Prophet Isaiah. 22. The Prophet Jeremiah, with
the Lamentations and the Epistles of Jeremiah and Baruch. 23. The
Prophet Ezekiel. 24. The Prophet Daniel. 25. I Ezra. 26. II Ezra. 27. Esther.
(3) These are the 27 books given the Jews by God. They are counted as 22,
however, like the letters of their Hebrew alphabet, because ten books are
doubled and reckoned as five. But I have explained this clearly elsewhere. (4)
And they have two more books of disputed canonicity, the Wisdom of Sirach and the
Wisdom of Solomon, apart from certain other apocrypha. (The Panarion of
Epiphanius of Salamis: Book I (Sects 1-46) [trans. Frank Williams; Nag Hammadi
and Manichaean Studies 63; Leiden: Brill, 2009], 28-29)
Athanasius’ Use of the Apocrypha to Support “Primary”
Doctrines: Divinity of Jesus and the Consubstantiality of the Father and the
Son
Again, when the
Bishops said that the Word must be described as the True Power and Image of the
Father, in all things exact4 and like the Father, and as unalterable, and as
always, and as in Him without division (for never was the Word not, but He was
always, existing everlastingly with the Father, as the radiance of light). . .
(Defense of the Nicene Definition, 5, 20 [NPNF2 4:163])
For she is a
reflection of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an
image of his goodness. (Wisdom 7:26 NRSV)
Thus they have called
the Father the Fount of Wisdom [Baruch 3:12] and Life, and the Son the Radiance of the Eternal
Light, and the Offspring from the Fountain, as He says, ‘I am the Life,' and,
‘I Wisdom dwell with Prudence' (John xiv. 6; Prov. viii. 12). But the
Radiance from the Light [Wisdom 7:26], and Offspring from Fountain, and Son
from Father, how can these be so fitly expressed as by ‘Coessential?' And is
there any cause of fear, lest, because the offspring from men are coessential,
the Son, by being called Coessential, be Himself considered as a human
offspring too? perish the thought! not so; but the explanation is easy. For the
Son is the Father's Word and Wisdom; whence we learn the impassibility and
indivisibility of such a generation from the Father . For not even man's word
is part of him, nor proceeds from him according to passion; much less God's
Word; whom the Father has declared to be His own Son, lest, on the other hand,
if we merely heard of ‘Word,' we should suppose Him, such as is the word of
man, impersonal; but that, hearing that He is Son, we may acknowledge Him to be
living Word and substantive Wisdom. (De Synodis, Part III, 41 [NPNF2 4:472)
For she is a
reflection of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an
image of his goodness. (Wisdom 7:26 NRSV)
You have forsaken the
fountain of wisdom. (Baruch 3:12 NRSV)
