Eusebius (writing 150 years
later) calls Melito’s List “a catalog of the acknowledged books of the Old Testament”—but
that is Eusebius' view of Melito’s view, which is not necessarily Melito’s view
(nor Eusebius’ view either).
Regardless, the actual contents
of the letter raise several issues:
1.
Esther is missing. This could be a mistake (by
the Jews, Melito, or Eusebius), but there are lists that do not include Esther,
and lists the note that it is disputed, plus we know that objections to Esther
were raised among the Jews until they settled on their canon. When there are
reasons to think that it might have been intentional, then the burden of proof
is on those claiming it was an unintentional mistake; and in this case, there is
no evidence that it was a mistake. What Melito thought of things that are not on
the list is ambiguous (as it also is for the Apocrypha).
2.
Five Apocrypha are not mentioned (Tobit, Judith,
Sirach, and 1 and 2 Maccabees). If it is a Christian list (i.e., intended by
Melito to list the books for Christians as well), that would be some negative
evidence against them, although not conclusive (they could be part of Melito’s
idea of the “New” Testament for example). If it is just a Jewish list, then by
itself it would not be meaningful regarding the question of what the early
Church accepted.
3.
Two Apocrypha (Susanna and Baruch) are
implicitly included because of the Septuagint names for Daniel and Jeremiah.
That is the evidentiary view. Alternative speculation exists, varying by
whether (a) the list (and Books form which the extracts were made) came from Christians,
in which case they probably were included or (b) it came from Jews, in which
case, perhaps they were not, except that (c) from the titles it seems that the
Jews (if Jews they were) gave Melito the Septuagint Books (which, then, would
probably include these Apocrypha). Perhaps the Jews he got them from accepted
the Septuagint; perhaps these were the only Greek translations they had; or
perhaps they wanted to sell the “wrong” books that no Jews wanted; etc. Who
knows.
4.
One Apocrypha (Wisdom) may be mentioned—the wording
is unclear; in fact, the ancient manuscripts themselves can differ on the key
words. It could be a reference to Proverbs, which was sometimes called “Wisdom,”
but it might not. More on that below.
5.
Several “canonical” Books are missing, but the
guess is they were included as parts of other works (Nehemiah are part of
Esdras, Lamentations as part of Jeremiah, etc.). Such presumptions are fine,
and we may agree with them (I do, and all these combined Books are seen in the
Septuagint), but the same presumptions should be applied to Susanna and Baruch.
6.
On the other hand, Melito lists Ruth separate
from Judges. This is interesting, since so much is made of Judges and Ruth
being combined when Josephus’ numbering is discussed, etc. But between the time
of Josephus’ list and Origen’s explanation (he is the first to claim that they
were combined in one Book, and he comes later), we have this list separating
the books. This is one more aspect of how weak the claim is that Judges and Ruth
were one Book, when compared to Jeremiah and Baruch, or Daniel and Susanna. (Matthew
Mark McWhorter, Canon Crossfire: Does the Protestant Bible Blow Up the Case
for Christianity? [2025], 145-47)
On the question of whether Melito’s list contains the Wisdom
of Solomon or Proverbs:
Something that we non-translators
can see for ourselves from the list is that if this reference does mean
Proverbs, it would be the one and only Book given two names on the list. No
other canon list ever refers to Proverbs as Wisdom either. (Ibid., 147 n. 220)
