Chapter 26

The Early Church and the Deuterocanon

From the Apostolic Fathers to the North African Councils

If you want to know what the earliest Christians believed about the deuterocanonical books, you don't need to guess. You don't need to speculate. You just need to read what they wrote. And when you do — when you actually sit down and survey the writings of the earliest church fathers, from the generation that personally knew the apostles all the way through the great councils of the late fourth and early fifth centuries — the picture that emerges is overwhelming. The early church treated the deuterocanonical books as Scripture. Not as useful background reading. Not as interesting but uninspired literature. Scripture. Full stop.

This chapter tells that story. We are going to walk through the early centuries of the church, father by father, and ask a simple question: How did these men use the deuterocanonical books? Did they quote them the way they quoted Genesis and Isaiah and the Psalms? Did they appeal to them as authoritative — using them to settle theological disputes, to refute heretics, to teach Christian doctrine? Or did they treat them as secondary, dubious, or merely human compositions?

I think the evidence will surprise many Protestant readers. It certainly surprised me when I first encountered it. Because the standard Protestant narrative — the one most of us grew up hearing — goes something like this: "The early church was divided about the deuterocanonical books. Some fathers accepted them; others rejected them. The matter wasn't settled until the Council of Trent in 1546, when the Catholic Church officially 'added' them to the Bible." That narrative is simply not true. As we'll see, the vast majority of early church fathers accepted the deuterocanonical books as inspired Scripture and used them that way in their writings. The dissenting voices — the fathers who expressed reservations — were a small minority, and their reservations were almost always influenced by contact with the rabbinic Jewish community, which (as we explored in Chapter 12) had its own reasons for narrowing the canon.

Let me be clear about what this chapter is and isn't. This chapter surveys the patristic evidence — how the church fathers actually used the deuterocanonical books. The detailed treatment of the North African councils and their formal canon lists belongs to Chapter 28. The great debate between Jerome and Augustine over the Hebraica veritas — the question of whether the Hebrew canon should determine the Christian canon — belongs to Chapter 27. Here, we are laying the groundwork by demonstrating the broad consensus that existed before those debates crystallized. We're asking: What was the default position of the early church?

The answer, as we'll see, is that the default position was acceptance.

The Apostolic Fathers: The Generation Closest to the Apostles

The best place to start is with the men who knew the apostles — or who were taught by those who knew them. These writers are known as the Apostolic Fathers. There is no official list of who counts as an Apostolic Father, but the group generally includes Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, the author of the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache (an early church manual), the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Letter to Diognetus.¹ These men are not just ancient. They are uniquely important because their proximity to the apostles gives them a special kind of authority as witnesses. If the apostles handed down a specific collection of Old Testament books to the churches they founded, these men — the apostles' students and successors — would be the ones most likely to know what that collection included.

So what do we find? We find that the Apostolic Fathers freely and naturally used the deuterocanonical books as Scripture — with no hesitation, no disclaimers, and no signs that they considered these books to be in any way inferior to the rest of the Old Testament.

Clement of Rome (c. AD 80–100)

Clement of Rome was the third bishop of Rome after the apostle Peter. Several ancient accounts tell us that Clement was baptized by Peter himself.² Sometime around AD 80, Clement wrote a letter from Rome to the church in Corinth — a letter we call 1 Clement. This letter was so highly regarded by the early church that it was read publicly in worship alongside the New Testament writings for centuries.

In this letter, Clement quotes the deuterocanonical book of Wisdom at least twice, treating it as inspired Scripture without any qualification or distinction from the protocanonical books.³ There is also a probable allusion to Wisdom 11:21 or 12:12 in 1 Clement 27:5–7, which is immediately followed by a quotation from Psalm 19. If Clement is indeed quoting Wisdom here — and many scholars believe he is — then the introductory formula and the seamless transition to the Psalms would show that Clement placed Wisdom on the same level as the Psalms.⁴

But there's more. In 1 Clement 55:2–6, Clement references the book of Judith and the deuterocanonical version of Esther as sacred texts. He holds up Judith and Esther as examples of women who were "strengthened by the grace of God" and performed great deeds of courage.⁵ This is exactly how the letter to the Hebrews holds up the Maccabean martyrs among the Old Testament saints (Hebrews 11:35 — treated in detail in Chapter 20). Clement uses deuterocanonical figures in precisely the same way that the New Testament author uses them: as inspired examples of faith and courage.

Think about the significance of this for a moment. Here is the bishop of Rome, a man who probably knew Peter personally, writing one of the earliest Christian letters outside the New Testament — and he treats the deuterocanonical books as Scripture without batting an eye. There is no sign whatsoever that Clement is aware of any controversy about these books, any question about their status, any reason to distinguish them from the rest of the Old Testament.

Polycarp of Smyrna (c. AD 69–155)

Polycarp was a disciple of the apostle John. Irenaeus tells us that Polycarp was personally instructed by the apostles and appointed bishop of Smyrna by them.⁶ In his Letter to the Philippians, Polycarp quotes the deuterocanonical book of Tobit to explain the spiritual efficacy of almsgiving: "When it is in your power to do good, withhold it not, for almsgiving delivers from death" (compare Tobit 4:10; 12:9).⁷ Just as the author of Hebrews uses Wisdom 7:26 to explain a Christological point (Hebrews 1:3 — see Chapter 20), Polycarp uses Tobit to make a moral and theological point. He doesn't hesitate. He doesn't qualify. He just quotes it as Scripture.

The Didache (c. AD 70–120)

The Didache, or "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," is one of the oldest Christian documents outside the New Testament. It appears to show knowledge of the deuterocanonical tradition, particularly in its ethical instruction. Scholars have noted points of contact between the Didache and Sirach, suggesting that the author drew on this deuterocanonical wisdom tradition as part of his instruction to new believers.⁸

The Epistle of Barnabas (c. AD 70–130)

The Epistle of Barnabas — a theological treatise exploring the relationship between Christianity and Judaism — also references the deuterocanonical literature, quoting from the Wisdom tradition and referencing material found in the broader Septuagint collection.⁹

The Shepherd of Hermas (c. AD 100–160)

The Shepherd of Hermas was one of the most popular Christian writings in the early centuries. Scholars have identified several points of contact with the deuterocanonical books, including possible allusions to Sirach and Tobit.¹⁰ The opening words of the First Commandment — "First of all, believe that God is one, who made all things and finished them, and made all things out of nothing" — echoes the theology of creation ex nihilo that finds its most explicit Old Testament expression in 2 Maccabees 7:28, a deuterocanonical text.¹¹ The doctrine of creation out of nothing is implied in some protocanonical passages (Genesis 1:1; Psalm 124:8; Romans 4:17), but only 2 Maccabees 7:28 teaches it with complete clarity.

As Michuta observes, there are "no signs of hesitancy among these early apostolically informed writers about using the deuterocanon. They never disparaged, distinguished, or in any way qualified these books when they used them. The deuterocanon is used as Scripture and not rejected as apocrypha."¹² This matters enormously. If the apostles had taught these men that certain books were not Scripture — that certain books were merely human writings, useful for reading but not authoritative — you would expect to see some trace of that teaching in their writings. You would expect qualifications. You would expect disclaimers. Instead, we find nothing of the sort. The deuterocanonical books are woven into the fabric of the earliest Christian literature as naturally as any other part of the Old Testament.

The Second and Third Centuries: A Growing Consensus

As we move beyond the Apostolic Fathers into the second and third centuries, the picture only gets clearer. The major church fathers of this period — writers who shaped the theology and practice of the church for centuries to come — overwhelmingly accepted and used the deuterocanonical books as Scripture.

Justin Martyr (c. AD 100–163)

Justin Martyr is a pivotal figure in our story for several reasons. Born to pagan parents, Justin became a Christian around AD 130 — right around the time of the Second Jewish Revolt and Rabbi Akiba's rejection of both the New Testament and the deuterocanonical books (as explored in Chapter 12). Justin's writings, especially his Dialogue with Trypho, show us a Christian writer who is aware that the Jews have been altering their Scriptures and narrowing their canon — and who firmly rejects the rabbinic changes.

Justin is the first Christian writer we know of who explicitly recognizes that the rabbis had adopted a different collection of sacred texts than the Christians.¹³ In his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin accuses the Jews of having removed passages from the Scriptures that testified to Christ — an accusation that aligns remarkably well with the argument developed in Chapters 12–17 of this book about Akiba's deliberate alterations to the Hebrew text. Justin notes that the sacred texts being read in the synagogues of the diaspora were "in a state of transition," which fits well with what we know about the slow implementation of Akiba's revised canon after the Second Revolt.¹⁴

For our purposes, the important point is this: Justin shows no inclination whatsoever to follow the rabbinic lead and narrow the Christian canon. To the contrary, he treats the broader collection of the Septuagint — including the deuterocanonical material — as the church's Bible. The fact that the rabbis had rejected certain books was, for Justin, evidence of rabbinic corruption, not evidence that Christians should abandon those books.

Irenaeus of Lyon (c. AD 130–202)

Irenaeus was bishop of Lyon in Gaul (modern France). As a young man, he had listened to Polycarp of Smyrna — who, as we noted above, was a disciple of the apostle John. This means Irenaeus was only two generations removed from the apostles themselves. His great work, Against Heresies, is one of the most important theological treatises of the early church.

Irenaeus unquestionably accepted the deuterocanonical books as Scripture. Eusebius reports that Irenaeus quoted Wisdom 6:18–19 with approval in Against Heresies 4.38.3.¹⁵ In his Demonstration of Apostolic Teaching, Irenaeus quoted Baruch at length as an extended prophecy of the Incarnation — treating it as a genuinely prophetic text inspired by God.¹⁶ This is the passage from Baruch 3:36–38 that speaks of God appearing on earth and living among humans — one of the most explicitly Christological texts in the deuterocanon (discussed in Chapter 23). For Irenaeus, this text was not merely "useful reading." It was prophecy. It was Scripture pointing to Christ.

Tertullian (c. AD 160–225)

Tertullian, the fiery North African theologian sometimes called "the father of Latin theology," was another firm supporter of the deuterocanonical books. Catholics and Protestants both agree that Tertullian accepted the deuterocanon as inspired Scripture — there is really no dispute about this.¹⁷

In his On the Soul, Tertullian alludes to Wisdom 1:6 as coming from divine revelation.¹⁸ In his Prescription Against Heretics, he cites Wisdom to establish a theological point.¹⁹ In his Against Marcion, he uses Wisdom 2:12 as a proof text — drawing on the famous passage about the righteous sufferer (which we discussed in detail in Chapter 21 as a Messianic prophecy) to demonstrate that the Creator God was not an adversary of Christ.²⁰ In his Answer to the Jews, Tertullian extols the zeal of Joshua and the Maccabees without distinction or qualification, treating both as figures in the same inspired history.²¹

Tertullian also did something that is particularly significant for our broader argument. He challenged heretics to consult the apostolic churches — the churches that the apostles had personally founded — where the authentic writings of the apostles were still read. These apostolic churches, Tertullian argued, were repositories of the authentic Scripture.²² And what Scripture did these apostolic churches possess? The Septuagint — including the deuterocanonical books.

Hippolytus of Rome (c. AD 170–235)

Hippolytus was a presbyter in Rome during the early third century. Despite his complicated relationship with the Roman church (he was, for a time, an anti-pope before being reconciled), Hippolytus was an important theologian and prolific writer. He unquestionably accepted the deuterocanon as Scripture and used the deuterocanonical books to establish doctrine.²³ For example, he appealed to passages from Susanna and Tobit as proofs that God immediately hears the prayers of the righteous.²⁴ In The Anti-Christ, he quotes 2 Maccabees 2:6ff as fulfilling the prophecies of Daniel, using Antiochus Epiphanes as a model of the Antichrist.²⁵

Clement of Alexandria (c. AD 150–216)

Clement of Alexandria was one of the great early Christian intellectuals. He studied and taught at the famous catechetical school of Alexandria, and like Irenaeus, he was only one generation removed from the apostles. He wrote that he had received "the shadow and outline of what he had heard from men who persevered the true tradition of the blessed John and Paul, the holy apostles, from father to son, even to his time."²⁶

Clement's acceptance of the deuterocanon was emphatic and unambiguous. In his writings, he affirms "in the strongest possible language the inspiration and scriptural status of the deuterocanon."²⁷ There is simply no dispute about this. Clement quotes nearly every deuterocanonical book at one time or another and calls them "Scripture" in so many words. In The Instructor alone, he quotes Sirach as "Scripture" at least five separate times, and he interspersed deuterocanonical quotations with protocanonical ones seamlessly — quoting Sirach alongside Proverbs, Isaiah, Matthew, and 1 Corinthians as parts of the same inspired corpus.²⁸ In his Stromata, he quotes Tobit 4:15 as "Scripture" and uses Wisdom 3:1–6 to demonstrate that both suffering and martyrdom are forms of sanctification.²⁹

This matters because Clement was not some marginal figure on the fringes of the church. He was the head of the most prestigious theological school in early Christianity. He was one generation from the apostles. And he treated the deuterocanonical books as nothing less than the inspired Word of God.

Cyprian of Carthage (c. AD 200–258)

Cyprian, bishop of Carthage in North Africa, was a skilled rhetorician who converted to Christianity and became one of the most influential bishops of his era. Like Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus, Cyprian is firmly in the pro-deuterocanonical camp, often explicitly quoting the deuterocanon as "divine Scripture" and using it to confirm doctrine.³⁰

Cyprian's usage is especially notable because of how naturally he weaves the deuterocanonical books into his arguments. In his Against the Jews, he quotes Tobit alongside Genesis, the letters of Paul, and Proverbs without any distinction. In his Exhortation to Martyrdom, 2 Maccabees is cited between Romans and Deuteronomy. Both 1 and 2 Maccabees are quoted right alongside protocanonical sources, "with no hesitation or expectation of contradiction." Cyprian clearly considers both the deuterocanon and the protocanon "to be equally authoritative portions of the same inspired corpus."³¹

In his Against the Jews 2.14, Cyprian quotes Wisdom 2:12 — the famous passage about the suffering righteous one — alongside Isaiah and Exodus and the Gospels as a prophecy concerning Christ. And in Against the Jews 2.1, he uses Sirach 24:3–7 as a proof that God established Christ as the firstborn.³² These are not casual references or passing allusions. Cyprian is using the deuterocanonical books to establish core Christological doctrine — the kind of thing you do only with texts you consider to be divinely inspired.

The First Dissenter: Julius Africanus

The first Christian writer to dispute any part of the deuterocanon was Julius Africanus (c. AD 160–231), and even his objection was extremely narrow. Africanus did not reject the deuterocanon as a whole. He objected specifically to the story of Susanna — the deuterocanonical addition to Daniel — and he did so on linguistic grounds. He believed that a wordplay in the Greek text of Susanna could not have existed in a Hebrew original, which led him to conclude that Susanna was originally written in Greek and was therefore not part of the authentic book of Daniel.³³

What makes Africanus's objection most interesting is not the objection itself but the response it provoked from Origen — one of the greatest scholars in the history of the church.

Origen: The Scholar Who Defended the Deuterocanon

Origen of Alexandria (c. AD 185–254) is one of the most complex figures in our story. He was the greatest biblical scholar of the early church, the pioneer of textual criticism, and the creator of the Hexapla — a massive six-column manuscript comparing the Hebrew text, the Septuagint, and other Greek translations. Protestants sometimes appeal to Origen as a father who "rejected" the deuterocanon, but this claim collapses under scrutiny.

When Julius Africanus challenged the authenticity of Susanna, Origen responded with a vigorous defense — and the grounds of his defense are especially important for our argument. Origen did not simply argue that Susanna was linguistically sound (though he made that case too). His primary argument was based on Christian usage. Susanna, Origen pointed out, was "found in every Church of Christ" — read as Scripture in the liturgy of every Christian community he knew of.³⁴ This was not an empty claim. Origen had traveled extensively throughout the Christian world, which made him a uniquely credible witness to the church's universal practice.

Origen then made a statement that goes to the heart of the matter:

And, forsooth, when we notice such things [portions of Scripture not found in Hebrew manuscripts], we are forthwith to reject as spurious the copies in use in our Churches, and enjoin the brotherhood to put away the sacred books current among them, and to coax the Jews, and persuade them to give us copies which shall be untampered with, and free from forgery! Are we to suppose that that Providence which in the sacred Scriptures has ministered to the edification of all the Churches of Christ, had no thought for those bought with a price, for whom Christ died?³⁵

The force of Origen's argument is remarkable. He is saying: Should we really throw out the books that every church of Christ reads as Scripture, just because the Jews no longer accept them? Should we really let the rabbinic community — which rejected Christ — define the boundaries of the Christian Bible? The Scriptures are a set collection, given by the apostles, that no one is permitted to change. Origen clinched his argument by quoting Proverbs 22:28: "Thou shalt not remove the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set."³⁶

Who were these "fathers" who set the unalterable landmarks of sacred Scripture? As Michuta observes, Origen could not have meant the previous heads of the catechetical school in Alexandria — they did not have the authority to regulate what was read in "all the churches of Christ," nor would their decisions be unalterable. Only the apostles had the authority to set these unalterable "ancient landmarks."³⁷

Now, it is true that Protestants sometimes point to two other pieces of evidence from Origen to argue that he "rejected" the deuterocanon. First, in his First Principles, Origen qualifies his use of the book of Wisdom by noting that it is "a work which is certainly not esteemed authoritative by all."³⁸ Second, in a passage from his Commentary on the Psalms preserved by Eusebius, Origen provides a list of twenty-two Old Testament books that omits the deuterocanon.³⁹

Both of these arguments are far weaker than they appear. Regarding the first: Origen's statement is literally true. Not everyone did accept the authority of Wisdom at that time — Jews rejected it, and at least a few Christians like Africanus had doubts. But the real question is how many Christians Africanus represented. As we have seen, Origen's own argument against Africanus was that any rejection of the deuterocanon represented a privately held opinion at odds with the universal practice of the church. And here is the clincher: both before and after the passage in First Principles where he supposedly casts doubt on Wisdom, Origen quotes from it and describes the quotes as "Scripture."⁴⁰

Regarding the list in Eusebius: Origen's actual Commentary on the Psalms is lost, so we have only the brief excerpts Eusebius chose to include. The list reproduces "the canonical books, as the Hebrews have handed them down" — that is, it is a list of the Jewish canon, not a list of what Origen himself considered to be Christian Scripture.⁴¹ Origen composed this list for the same reason Melito of Sardis had composed his list a century earlier — to help Christians understand what books the Jews accepted, so that Christians could engage Jews in dialogue using texts that both sides would recognize. This is entirely different from saying that Origen believed Christians should limit their Old Testament to the Jewish collection. In fact, his robust defense of Susanna and his extensive use of the deuterocanonical books throughout his writings prove the opposite.

The numbers tell the story. In Michuta's survey of early Christian usage, Origen explicitly affirms the divine authority of the deuterocanon at least thirty times and uses it to confirm doctrine at least thirty-two times in his other writings.⁴² This is not a man who rejected the deuterocanon. This is a man who, like every other major church father of his era, treated the deuterocanonical books as inspired Scripture.

The Fourth Century: More Fathers, More Evidence

As we move into the fourth century — the era of the great ecumenical councils, the Christological controversies, and the first formal canon lists — the evidence continues to grow.

Alexander of Alexandria (d. AD 328)

Alexander, the bishop who mentored the great Athanasius, saw no distinction in status between the deuterocanonical book of Sirach and the protocanonical letters of Paul. In a surviving fragment, he quotes Sirach's "injunction" alongside 1 Corinthians to confirm the important doctrine of God's incomprehensibility — treating both texts as equally authoritative portions of Scripture.⁴³

The Council of Nicaea (AD 325)

The first and greatest of the ecumenical councils, Nicaea, was called primarily to address the Arian heresy — the denial of Christ's full divinity. The council left no official record of having attempted to settle questions of canonicity.⁴⁴ However, Jerome believed that Nicaea ruled in favor of the book of Judith, and Cassiodorus seems to suggest that the Nicene Fathers took up the issue of the Christian canon.⁴⁵ What is most significant is that the Nicene Fathers used the deuterocanonical book of Wisdom extensively in their theological formulations against Arianism. The key text was Wisdom 7:25–26, where Wisdom (understood as the Son) is described as the "radiance" (apaugasma, ἀπαύγασμα) of the eternal light (understood as the Father). This analogy from Wisdom 7:26 runs throughout Athanasius's Orations Against the Arians and even found expression in the Nicene Creed itself, where it speaks of the Son being "God from God, Light from Light."⁴⁶

Let that sink in. The language of the Nicene Creed — the most important creedal statement in Christian history, affirmed by Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants alike — draws on imagery from a deuterocanonical book. If the Nicene Fathers believed Wisdom was merely a human composition unworthy of canonical status, would they have used it to formulate the creed that defines Christian orthodoxy?

Aphraates the Persian (c. AD 280–345)

Aphraates is one of the oldest Syrian Fathers. In his surviving work, Demonstrations, he refers to the martyrdoms of the Maccabees and quotes Sirach 29:17 without segregating these quotations from those taken from the protocanon. He uses them without qualification or distinction.⁴⁷

Methodius of Tyre (d. c. AD 311)

Methodius, bishop of Philippi, suffered martyrdom around AD 311. Like those who preceded him, he fully embraced the deuterocanonical books as inspired Scripture capable of confirming doctrine, quoting Sirach and Wisdom in his theological works.⁴⁸

Lactantius (c. AD 250–326)

Lactantius, a North African convert to Christianity who later became tutor to Emperor Constantine's son, left a surviving reference from the deuterocanon: a quotation from Sirach which he uses, in his Institutes, to confirm doctrine in an authoritative manner.⁴⁹

Dionysius the Great (d. c. AD 265)

Dionysius was the bishop of Alexandria and a student of Origen. Although only a few of his works have survived, even from these fragments we can readily demonstrate his acceptance of the deuterocanon. He quotes from Tobit and other deuterocanonical books without any hesitation or qualification.⁸⁸

The Council of Antioch (AD 269)

The Council of Antioch was convened to condemn the anti-Trinitarian heresy of Artemon as introduced by Paul of Samosata. An official letter sent from the council to Dionysius of Rome and Maximus of Alexandria contains a quotation introduced with the formal formula "It is written," followed by what appears to be a quotation from the ninth chapter of Sirach. If this identification is correct, then the Council of Antioch is the earliest known local council to officially use a deuterocanonical book in an authoritative manner — treating it as Scripture capable of settling a doctrinal dispute about the nature of Christ.⁸⁹

Archelaus (d. c. AD 277)

Little is known about Archelaus other than that he was bishop of Mesopotamia. In his debate with the heretic Manes (the founder of Manichaeism), Archelaus uses Wisdom 1:13 against Manes's contention that death did not begin in time but was part of God's nature. By using this quotation, Archelaus demonstrates an expectation that both Manes and his wider readership would accept the book of Wisdom as an authoritative source — one capable of confirming doctrine.⁹⁰ This is a subtle but important point. When you cite a text in a debate, you assume that your opponent will recognize its authority. Otherwise, the citation would have no argumentative force. The fact that Archelaus cited Wisdom against a heretic shows that Wisdom's scriptural status was taken for granted.

Hilary of Poitiers (c. AD 310–367)

Hilary, the "Athanasius of the West," was a fierce opponent of Arianism. Like the Eastern fathers, he used the deuterocanonical books in his anti-Arian writings, quoting from Wisdom and Sirach alongside the protocanonical books to establish Trinitarian doctrine.⁵⁰

Lucifer of Cagliari (d. AD 370)

Lucifer, the combative bishop of Cagliari in Sardinia, also used the deuterocanonical books extensively in his polemical works, citing Wisdom and other deuterocanonical texts to confirm doctrine in his writings against the Arians.⁵¹

Cyril of Jerusalem (c. AD 313–386)

Cyril of Jerusalem is sometimes cited by Protestants as a father who "rejected" the deuterocanon because of his list in the Catechetical Lectures, which limits the catechumen (new believers preparing for baptism) to the books of the Jewish canon plus Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah. But Cyril's list needs to be read in context. He was advising new believers, and his counsel was cautious and pastoral — he did not want to burden soon-to-be Christians with contested works. He recommended the books that he felt were beyond any dispute. This is entirely different from rejecting the deuterocanonical books.⁵²

And here is the telling point: Cyril himself used the deuterocanonical books in the very same Catechetical Lectures where he gave his restrictive list. He quotes from the deuterocanon as inspired Scripture — showing that his list was more pastoral guidance for beginners than a definitive statement about the limits of the canon.⁵³

Athanasius and the Festal Letter 39: A Closer Look

No discussion of the early church and the deuterocanon would be complete without a careful examination of Athanasius's Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter (AD 367). This letter is one of the most frequently cited documents in Protestant arguments against the deuterocanon — and also one of the most frequently misunderstood.

Athanasius (c. AD 295–373) was the bishop of Alexandria and the great champion of Nicene orthodoxy against the Arian heresy. It was the custom in ancient Alexandria for the bishop to circulate a letter to the churches of Egypt each year to help prepare the faithful for the Easter season. In his Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter, Athanasius addressed a practical problem: suspicious books — "so-called apocryphal writings" — had been circulating among the churches, mixed in with the sacred texts. Athanasius wished to separate undoubted Scripture from apocrypha.⁵⁴

His letter divides religious literature into three categories — and this three-fold division is the key to understanding his position correctly:

Category 1: "Canonized" books — the books of the Old and New Testaments. For the Old Testament, Athanasius lists all the protocanonical books, plus Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah, but he omits Esther. He states that "in these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these."⁵⁵

Category 2: Books "appointed by the Fathers to be read" — Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas. Athanasius says these are not included in the "canon" but are "appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness."⁵⁶

Category 3: Apocrypha — described as "the figment of heretics who arbitrarily write books, to which they assign dates, that by the specious semblance of antiquity they may find occasion to deceive the simple."⁵⁷

Now, the Protestant argument runs like this: since Athanasius placed the deuterocanonical books (Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Tobit) in Category 2 rather than Category 1, he must have considered them non-canonical and therefore non-inspired. But this argument has a serious problem. It assumes that Athanasius's three-fold division maps neatly onto our modern two-fold division (inspired/canonical vs. uninspired/apocryphal). It doesn't.

Here is the decisive evidence: Athanasius himself, in his other writings, quotes the deuterocanonical books as inspired Scripture capable of confirming doctrine. The evidence is extensive:

In Against the Heathen 1.17.3, Athanasius cites Wisdom 14:21 as "Scripture." In the same work (2.44), he appeals to Wisdom 13:5. In On the Opinion of Dionysius 9, he introduces Wisdom 7:25 as coming "from the Scripture." In Four Discourses Against the Arians 2.32, he quotes the deuterocanon explicitly as "Scripture." In the same work (2.35), he quotes Wisdom 13:5 as Scripture. In Four Discourses Against the Arians 2.45, he cites Wisdom 9:2 within a series of citations from "divine scriptures." In the Letter of the Council of Egypt 3, he quotes Wisdom 1:11 as "holy Scripture" and later in the same chapter quotes Psalms 49:16 and Sirach 15:9 as the words of the Holy Spirit. In his letter to Alexander of Thessalonica, he cites Sirach 30:4 as "holy Scripture." And perhaps most significantly, in Four Discourses Against the Arians 2.35, he quotes Judith 8:16 as "Scripture."⁵⁸

This is a man who is supposedly "rejecting" the deuterocanon? This is a man who quotes Wisdom as "Scripture," Sirach as the words of the "Holy Spirit," and Judith as "Scripture" — in his most important theological works, against the most dangerous heresy of his era? If Athanasius really believed the deuterocanonical books were mere human compositions, incapable of establishing doctrine, his behavior is inexplicable. You don't settle the most consequential theological dispute in Christian history by quoting texts you consider to be uninspired.

The most likely explanation is that Athanasius's three-fold division does not correspond to our modern two-fold division. His Category 1 ("canonized") represents books that even the Jews accepted — books that could be used in apologetic disputes with non-Christians because their authority was universally recognized. His Category 2 represents additional books that the Christian church valued as inspired Scripture but that the Jews had rejected. His Category 3 represents actual forgeries and heretical writings. In other words, Categories 1 and 2 together correspond to what we would call "canonical Scripture," while Category 3 corresponds to what we would call "apocrypha."⁵⁹

This interpretation is confirmed by Athanasius's own words. He says that the Category 2 books should be read by those who "study to learn the Christian doctrine" — which is a far cry from Jerome's later suggestion that they should be read "for edification" but not "for the confirmation of ecclesiastical doctrines." Athanasius is saying these books teach Christian doctrine. Jerome is saying they cannot be used to establish it. The difference is enormous.⁶⁰

It's also worth noting that Athanasius's "canonical" list does not match the Protestant Old Testament. He includes the deuterocanonical book of Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah in his Category 1 (canonical books), and he excludes the protocanonical book of Esther, placing it in Category 2. This means Athanasius's list cannot be used to support the Protestant canon — it actually differs from the Protestant canon in two directions, including a deuterocanonical book and excluding a protocanonical one.⁶¹

Other Eastern Canon Lists: Amphilochius, Gregory, and Epiphanius

Several other Eastern fathers from the late fourth century produced canon lists that are sometimes cited against the deuterocanon. Each deserves brief comment, though the overall pattern is the same: the lists are more nuanced than Protestant apologists usually acknowledge, and the same fathers who produced these lists also used the deuterocanonical books as Scripture in their other writings.

Amphilochius of Iconium (c. AD 340–394) produced a descriptive list that represents the books he felt were most certainly Scripture. The deuterocanon is omitted, and even Esther is included only with the qualification, "with these, some approve the inclusion of Esther." This is not a definitive rejection of the deuterocanon — it is a cautious description of which books were beyond all dispute.⁶² And yet Amphilochius himself quotes Baruch 3:38 as "the prophet's voice" in his Oration I.2 — the very book he omitted from his list.⁶³

Gregory of Nazianzus (c. AD 329–390) produced a list in his Carmina dogmatica that omits the deuterocanon. Like Amphilochius, his list is theoretical and pastoral — it expresses his own opinion about which books are most certain. And like Athanasius, Cyril, and the others, Gregory uses the deuterocanon elsewhere in his works as inspired Scripture capable of confirming doctrine. For example, he quotes Sirach 3:10 with the introduction "And if you also accept this saying..."⁶⁴

Epiphanius of Salamis (c. AD 310–403) produced not one but three separate lists of Old Testament books — and they don't agree with each other. His first list (in Against Judaism) includes Baruch and treats Wisdom and Sirach as questionable. His second list (in Against the Anomoeans) includes Esther, Wisdom, Sirach, and possibly others as divine Scripture. His third list (in On Weights and Measures) includes Esther but excludes Baruch, Wisdom, and Sirach.⁶⁵ The fact that Epiphanius's own lists contradict each other shows how fluid and unsettled these theoretical lists were — and why we should not treat any single list as a definitive statement of what the early church believed.

The Misuse of Canon Lists: A Critical Assessment

At this point, I want to step back and address a broader methodological problem with how Protestant apologists have used these canon lists. The standard Protestant argument goes something like this: "Several early church fathers produced lists of Old Testament books that omit the deuterocanon. Therefore, the early church rejected the deuterocanon."

This argument is deeply flawed, for several reasons that Michuta has identified with great precision:⁶⁶

First, the argument is not a broad-based appeal to the usage of the early church fathers. It is an appeal to a handful of selected fathers — a small minority — and within their writings, to a single work, and within that single work, to the list it contains. The vast body of these same fathers' other writings, in which they quote the deuterocanon as Scripture and use it to confirm doctrine, is simply ignored.

Second, the lists themselves don't agree with each other. Cyril includes Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah; Athanasius includes Baruch but excludes Esther; Amphilochius accepts Esther with qualification but omits Baruch; Gregory omits both Esther and Baruch; Jerome includes Esther and omits the entire deuterocanon. If these lists are supposed to attest to the Protestant canon, they do a remarkably poor job of it — because none of them (except Jerome's) actually matches the Protestant canon.⁶⁷

Third, these lists were composed for specific purposes — usually apologetic or pastoral — that do not amount to a definitive rejection of the deuterocanon. Melito's list reproduces the rabbinic Bible for the purpose of Christian-Jewish dialogue. Origen's list reproduces "the canonical books, as the Hebrews have handed them down" — the Jewish canon, not necessarily the Christian one. Cyril's list advises catechumen to focus on undisputed books. Athanasius's list separates books that even Jews accept from books that only Christians accept. None of these purposes amounts to a blanket rejection of the deuterocanon as uninspired literature.

Fourth, and most tellingly, the same fathers who produced these restrictive lists also quoted the deuterocanonical books as inspired Scripture in their other writings. Origen explicitly affirms the divine authority of the deuterocanon at least thirty times. Athanasius quotes it as "Scripture" and as "the words of the Holy Spirit." Cyril uses it in his Catechetical Lectures. Gregory quotes it to confirm doctrine. If these men truly believed the deuterocanon was uninspired apocrypha, their behavior is incoherent. The far more plausible explanation is that their lists represent something different from what modern readers assume — and that their actual practice of quoting the deuterocanon as Scripture reflects their genuine belief about its status.⁶⁸

Augustine and the Deuterocanon

While the detailed debate between Jerome and Augustine is the subject of Chapter 27, we need to note briefly here that Augustine of Hippo (AD 354–430) — the most influential theologian in the Western church — fully and unambiguously accepted the deuterocanonical books as canonical Scripture.

Augustine's approach to the canon was grounded in the principle of apostolic tradition. In his On Christian Doctrine (2.8.12), he explained his criterion: the canon should be determined by the judgment of the greater number of catholic (universal) churches, with special weight given to churches that had been "the seat of an apostle" or that had received apostolic letters. Augustine then provided a list of Old Testament books that is identical to the Catholic canon — including all the deuterocanonical books.⁶⁹

Augustine's reasoning is important. He was not imposing a new canon on the church. He was observing which books were actually read as Scripture in the churches that had the strongest historical ties to the apostles — and he found that these churches universally included the deuterocanonical books. The canon, for Augustine, was not determined by the Hebrew text or by the rabbinic tradition. It was determined by the church's practice — a practice that the Holy Spirit had guided since the apostolic age.

In his City of God, Augustine explicitly defended the inspiration of the Septuagint (including the deuterocanonical books) and argued that where the LXX differs from the Hebrew, the LXX may contain a deeper or divinely intended meaning. Of 1 and 2 Maccabees, Augustine wrote that these books "are held as canonical, not by the Jews, but by the Church, on account of the extreme and wonderful sufferings of certain martyrs."⁷⁰ He showed no embarrassment at having a different canon than his Jewish contemporaries. The church had received these books from the apostles, and that was authority enough.

Augustine also taunted would-be Arians using the theology of Wisdom 7:26. The analogy of brightness from light — drawn from this deuterocanonical text — was so powerful that Augustine challenged: "Give me then here a fire without brightness, and I believe you that the Father ever was without the Son."⁷¹ The deuterocanon was not peripheral to Augustine's theology. It was central to it.

The Quantitative Evidence: Counting the Witnesses

Numbers don't tell the whole story, but they do tell an important part of it. Michuta's comprehensive survey of early Christian writings produced striking results.⁷² He organized the evidence into categories based on Paul's description of inspired Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16 — dividing the data into positive and negative categories for both explicit confirmation of inspiration and the use of the deuterocanon to confirm doctrine.

The results were lopsided in the extreme. For Category A — explicit confirmation of the deuterocanon as inspired Scripture — Michuta identified 209 instances from 109 sources by 33 different authors. For Category -A — explicit denial of the deuterocanon's inspiration — he found only 5 instances from 5 sources by 2 authors. And those explicit denials came late, near the end of the fourth century. Almost all of them came from a single figure: Jerome.⁷³

For Category B — the use of the deuterocanon to confirm doctrine — Michuta identified 235 instances from 130 sources by 33 authors. For Category -B — explicit denial of the deuterocanon's ability to confirm doctrine — he found only 4 instances: Julius Africanus, Rufinus, Jerome, and an unnamed semi-Pelagian.⁷⁴

These figures are remarkable. They show "a clear and unmistakable consensus" in the early church that the deuterocanon was divine Scripture.⁷⁵ The claim that "the early church was divided about the deuterocanon" is, frankly, misleading. The early church was about as "divided" on the deuterocanon as it was on the deity of Christ — that is to say, there was a small minority of dissenters, but the overwhelming consensus was clear.

The Deuterocanon and the Christological Controversies

One of the most powerful pieces of evidence for the early church's acceptance of the deuterocanon is how it was used in the great Christological and Trinitarian controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries. When the church was fighting for the very definition of who Jesus is — when the deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity were being hammered out against fierce heretical opposition — the church fathers consistently turned to the deuterocanonical books as Scripture capable of settling these fundamental doctrines.

The most important text was Wisdom 7:25–26, where Wisdom (understood as the pre-incarnate Son) is described as "the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of his goodness." The church fathers used this text to establish crucial Trinitarian points: that the Son is God, consubstantial with the Father; that the Son is begotten or generated from the Father, just as brightness is from light; and most importantly, that the Son is co-eternal with the Father, since brightness cannot exist without the eternal Light, and the eternal Light cannot exist without its brightness.⁷⁶

This analogy from Wisdom 7:26 runs throughout the first book of Athanasius's Orations Against the Arians. It led Augustine to taunt would-be Arians by saying, "Give me then here a fire without brightness, and I believe you that the Father ever was without the Son."⁷⁷ And as we noted above, this analogy from Wisdom even found expression in the Nicene Creed itself — "God from God, Light from Light."

Michuta raises a penetrating question: "How can human apocrypha contain knowledge of the pre-incarnate Son, the relationship between the Father and the Son, the Incarnation, the divinity of Christ, and the eternal generation of the Son from the Father?" And further: "Given that the Fathers used the deuterocanon to confirm doctrine against several Christological and Trinitarian heresies, and also used it in defining and teaching Trinitarian theology, is it really possible for the deuterocanon to be widely considered uninspired human apocrypha incapable of confirming doctrine?"⁷⁸

I think the answer is obvious. It is not possible. The early church would not have used mere human compositions to define the most important doctrines in Christian history. The fact that they turned to Wisdom to establish the deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity tells us everything we need to know about how they regarded these books.

The North African Councils: A Preview

The detailed treatment of the councils of Hippo (AD 393), Carthage (AD 397, 419), and later Florence and Trent belongs to Chapter 28. But I want to briefly preview their significance here, because these councils represent the culmination of the patristic consensus we have been surveying.

The councils of Hippo and Carthage, following Augustine's criteria, produced formal canon lists that include the deuterocanonical books. These were not innovations. They were formal recognitions of what the church had been doing all along. As the Protestant theologian F.F. Bruce acknowledges, the formal pronouncements of these African councils "did not impose any innovation on the churches; they simply endorsed what had become the general consensus of the churches of the West and of the greater part of the East."⁷⁹

The Council of Carthage in 419 declared: "It is decreed that nothing but the canonical Scripture may be read under the name of divine scriptures. The canonical scriptures are the following..." — and then listed the protocanon and deuterocanon of the Old and New Testaments. The council added: "for we have received from the Fathers, that thus should be read in the Church."⁸⁰ That final phrase is crucial. The council was not inventing a new canon. It was affirming what had been "received from the Fathers" — the same apostolic tradition that Origen had appealed to in his debate with Julius Africanus, the same tradition that Tertullian had pointed to when he challenged heretics to consult the apostolic churches.

Though these were local councils, their witness was far-reaching. Their decisions were subsequently confirmed by Pope Innocent I in AD 405, who issued a canon list identical to the one from Hippo and Carthage.⁸¹ The African Code — the collection of canons from these councils — was later given what the Protestant theologian Henry Percival called "quasi-ecumenical authority" when it was adopted by the Council of Trullo and later ratified by the Seventh Ecumenical Council, the Second Council of Nicaea.⁸²

As we will explore in more detail in Chapter 28, Jerome's innovative idea that the deuterocanon was apocryphal was met by a series of decrees that reaffirmed the historic Christian Old Testament. The councils spoke. Jerome's position was the innovation; the councils' position was the tradition.

The Argument from Ubiquity

Before we close this chapter, I want to highlight what I consider to be one of the most powerful arguments for the deuterocanon's inclusion in the Christian Bible — an argument that emerges directly from the evidence we have surveyed. Michuta calls it "the argument from ubiquity," and it goes like this:⁸³

The belief that the deuterocanon is inspired Scripture appears everywhere in the early church. It is confirmed by examining the writings of individual church fathers scattered across the entire ancient Christian world — Rome, Milan, Smyrna, Scythia, Greece, Gaul (France), Syria, North Africa, Egypt, Palestine, Macedonia, Sardinia, and Asia Minor.⁸⁴ It is confirmed by the findings of local councils and decrees (Hippo, Carthage, and Rome). It is confirmed by Origen's testimony that the deuterocanon was read in "every Church of Christ." It is even confirmed, indirectly, by the fact that Rabbi Akiba rejected the deuterocanon and the New Testament together in AD 132 — which shows that the deuterocanon was already so closely identified with Christian Scripture in Palestine that the rabbis treated them as a package.⁸⁵

The strength of this argument is that it rules out the possibility that some individual or group of individuals invented the notion of the deuterocanon being inspired Scripture after the apostolic period. If that had happened — if, say, some local church had decided on its own to insert the deuterocanon into its liturgical readings — we would expect to find this innovation appearing first in a single locality and then spreading gradually to other locations. We would see a point of origin and a pattern of diffusion. Instead, what we find is the exact opposite: the deuterocanon appears everywhere, from the very beginning, with no discernible point of origin — because there was no point of origin other than the apostles themselves.

Origen understood this when he quoted Proverbs 22:28: "Thou shalt not remove the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set." Cyril of Jerusalem understood this when he counseled his catechumen: "Far wiser and more pious than yourself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books."⁸⁶ Even Rufinus — who is frequently cited as a witness against the deuterocanon — understood this when he appealed to "the divine record handed down to the Churches by the Apostles and the deposit of the Holy Spirit."⁸⁷

The apostles handed down the Scriptures to the churches they founded. Those Scriptures included the deuterocanonical books. The church received them, read them as Scripture, quoted them as Scripture, used them to settle doctrinal disputes, and formally affirmed them in council after council. That is the testimony of the early church.

Rufinus: A Misunderstood Witness

Before we reach our conclusion, we need to address one more figure who is frequently cited as a witness against the deuterocanon: Rufinus of Aquileia (c. AD 345–411). Rufinus is the other name besides Jerome that Protestants often invoke as evidence that the early church rejected the deuterocanon. In his Commentary on the Apostles' Creed, Rufinus introduced a distinction between "canonical" books and "ecclesiastical" books — a distinction similar to (though not identical with) Jerome's distinction between libri canonici and libri ecclesiastici. The deuterocanonical books, in Rufinus's scheme, were "ecclesiastical" — books that could be read in the churches but that were not of the highest canonical rank.⁹¹

However, Rufinus is a much more complicated witness than Protestant apologists usually acknowledge. First, like Athanasius, Rufinus operates with a three-fold classification of religious literature (canonical, ecclesiastical, apocryphal) rather than the two-fold classification we use today. His "ecclesiastical" books are not equivalent to what we mean by "apocrypha." They are books that the church reads in worship — which is precisely what you do with Scripture, not with uninspired human compositions.

Second, and more importantly, Rufinus himself appeals to the apostolic origin of the deuterocanon's inclusion in the church's Scriptures. In a revealing passage from his Apology Against Jerome, Rufinus writes: "In all this abundance of learned men, has there been one who has dared to make havoc of the divine record handed down to the Churches by the Apostles and the deposit of the Holy Spirit?"⁹² This is an extraordinary statement. Rufinus is explicitly saying that the Scriptures — including the deuterocanonical books that the churches read — were "handed down by the Apostles" and constitute a "deposit of the Holy Spirit." Whatever his theoretical distinction between "canonical" and "ecclesiastical" books, his actual language attributes apostolic origin and divine authorship to the collection that includes the deuterocanon.

Third, the dating of Rufinus's Commentary on the Apostles' Creed is important. It was likely written after Jerome's prefaces to the Vulgate books, which means Rufinus may have been influenced by Jerome's innovative position. If so, Rufinus's distinction is not independent evidence of a widespread earlier tradition — it is evidence of Jerome's influence on a contemporary.

In sum, Rufinus is a much weaker witness against the deuterocanon than he is usually made to appear. His theoretical classification is ambiguous. His actual language attributes apostolic and divine origin to the church's full collection of Scripture. And his testimony may reflect Jerome's innovative influence rather than an independent tradition.

The Geographic Breadth of the Consensus

One final point deserves emphasis before we close. The early church fathers who accepted the deuterocanon as Scripture were not concentrated in a single geographic area. They were scattered across the entire known world. Clement of Rome wrote from Italy. Polycarp wrote from Asia Minor. Irenaeus wrote from Gaul (modern France). Tertullian and Cyprian wrote from North Africa. Clement and Origen wrote from Alexandria in Egypt. Hippolytus wrote from Rome. Aphraates wrote from Persia. Athanasius wrote from Egypt. Alexander wrote from Egypt. Archelaus wrote from Mesopotamia. Methodius wrote from Lycia. Lactantius wrote from North Africa and later from the imperial court. Hilary wrote from Gaul. Lucifer wrote from Sardinia. Augustine wrote from North Africa.⁹³

This geographic breadth is itself powerful evidence. As we observed earlier, if the acceptance of the deuterocanon had been an innovation — if some individual or group had invented the idea that these books were inspired Scripture after the apostolic period — we would expect to see the innovation appearing first in a single locality and then spreading outward. We would see a center and a periphery. Instead, we find the acceptance of the deuterocanon everywhere, from the very beginning, with no discernible center of origin. The only explanation that accounts for this universal acceptance from the earliest period is that the apostles themselves handed down these books as part of the Scriptures.

Conclusion: What the Early Church Actually Believed

Let me summarize what we've found in this chapter. From the apostolic fathers through the fifth century, the overwhelming consensus of the early church was that the deuterocanonical books are inspired Scripture — not a secondary class of merely "useful" literature, but Scripture in the full Pauline sense of "God-breathed" writings capable of "teaching, reproof, and training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16).

The positive witnesses include: Clement of Rome, Polycarp, the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyprian, the Council of Antioch, Archelaus, Methodius, Lactantius, the Council of Nicaea (implicitly), Alexander of Alexandria, Athanasius, Aphraates, Hilary, Lucifer of Cagliari, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil the Great, Ambrose, John Chrysostom, Augustine, and the councils of Hippo and Carthage.

The negative witnesses — those who explicitly denied the inspiration of the deuterocanon — amount to essentially one figure: Jerome. Julius Africanus objected to a single book (Susanna) on narrow linguistic grounds, and Origen demolished his argument. Rufinus introduced a distinction between "canonical" and "ecclesiastical" books, but even he appealed to the apostolic origin of the deuterocanon's inclusion in the church's Scriptures. The Protestant narrative that "the early church was divided" about the deuterocanon is a misrepresentation of the evidence. The early church was not divided. It had a clear and overwhelming consensus — and that consensus included the deuterocanonical books.

In Chapter 27, we will examine the one great dissenting voice — Jerome — and the debate he provoked with Augustine over the Hebraica veritas. In Chapter 28, we will examine the formal council decisions in greater detail. But the foundation has been laid here: the early church received the deuterocanonical books as Scripture, used them as Scripture, and formally affirmed them as Scripture. Any Protestant who takes the witness of the early church seriously must reckon with this evidence.

I believe the evidence demands a verdict. The deuterocanonical books belong in the Bible — not because the Catholic Church says so, but because the apostles handed them down, the church received them, and the early fathers unanimously treated them as the inspired Word of God.