CANON
272
CANON
the O. T. all the deuteros find a place. The sixth-
century Biblical MS. known as the "Codex Claro-
montanus" contains a catalogue to which both
Harnack and Zahn assign an Alexandrian origin,
about contemporary with Origen. At any rate it
dates from the period under examination and com-
prises all the deuterocanonical books, with IV Mach-
abees besides. St. Hippolytus (d. 236) may fairly
be considered as representing the primitive Roman
tradition. He comments on the Susanna chapter,
often quotes Wisdom as the work of Solomon, and
employs as Sacred Scripture Baruch and the Maeha-
bees. For the West African Church the larger canon
has two strong witnesses in Tertullian and St.
Cyprian. All the deuteros except Tobias, Judith,
and the addition to Esther, are Biblically used in
the works of these Fathers. (With regard to the
employment of apocryphal writings in this age see
under Apocrypha.)
(3) The Canon of the O. T. during the fourth, and first half of the fifth, centurij. — In this period the posi- tion of the deuterocanonical literature is no longer as secure as in the primitive age. The doubts which arose should be attributed largely to a reaction against the apocryphal or pseudo-Biblical writings with which the East especially had been flooded by heretical and other writers. Negatively, the situa- tion became possible through the absence of any Apostolic or ecclesiastical definition of the Canon. The definite and inalterable determination of the sacred sources, like that of all Catholic doctrines, was in the Divine economy left to gradually work itself out under the stimulus of questionings and opposition. Alexandria, with its elastic Scriptures, had from the beginning been a congenial field for apocryphal literature, and St. Athanasius, the vigi- lant pastor of that flock, to protect it against the pernicious influence, drew up a catalogue of books with the values to be attached to each. First, the strict canon and authoritative source of truth is the Jewish O. T., Esther excepted. Besides, there are certain books which the Fathers had appointed to be read to catechumens for edification and instruction; these are the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Esther, Judith, Tobias, the Didache, or Doctrine of the Apostles, the Shepherd of Hermas. All others are apocrypha and the inven- tions of heretics (Festal Epistle for 367). Following the precedent of Origen and the Alexandrian tradition, the saintly doctor recognized no other formal canon of the O. T. than the Hebrew one ; but also, faithful to the same tradition, he practically admitted the deutero books to a Scriptural dignity, as is evident from his general usage. At Jerusalem there was a renascence, perhaps a survival, of Jewish ideas, the tendency there being distinctly unfavourable to the deuteros. St. Cyril of that see, while vindicating for the Church the right to fix the Canon, places them among the apocrypha and forbids all books to be read privately which are not read in the churches. In Antioch and Syria the attitude was more favoura- ble. St. Epiphanius shows hesitation about the rank of the deuteros; he esteemed them, but they had not the same place as the Hebrew books in his regard. The historian Eusebius attests the widespread doubts in his time; he classes them as antilegomena, or dis- puted writings, and, like Athanasius, places them in a class intermediate between the books received by all and the apocrypha. The 59th (or 60th) canon of the provincial Council of Laodicea (the authenticity of which however is contested) gives a catalogue of the Scriptures entirely in accord with the ideas of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. On the other hand, the Oriental versions and Greek MSS. of the period are more liberal; the extant ones have all the deutero- canonicals and, in some cases, certain apocrypha. The influence of Origen 'sand Athanasius 's restricted
canon naturally spread to the West. St. Hilary of
Poitiers and Rufinus followed their footsteps, exclud-
ing the deuteros from canonical rank in theory, but
admitting them in practice. The latter styles them
"ecclesiastical" books, but in authority unequal to
the other Scriptures. St. Jerome cast his weighty
suffrage on the side unfavourable to the disputed
books. In appreciating his attitude we must re-
member that Jerome lived long in Palestine, in an
environment where everything outside the Jewish
Canon was suspect, and that, moreover, he had an
excessive veneration for the Hebrew text, the He-
braica Veritas as he called it. In his famous "Pro-
logus Galeatus", or Preface to his translation of
Samuel and Kings, he declares that everything not
Hebrew should be classed with the apocrypha, and
explicitly says that Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobias,
and Judith are not on the Canon. These books, he
adds, are read in the churches for the edification of
the people, and not for the confirmation of revealed
doctrine. An analysis of Jerome's expressions on
the deuterocanonicals, in various letters and prefaces,
yields the following results: first, he strongly doubted
their inspiration; secondly, the fact that he occa-
sionally quotes them, and translated some of them
as a concession to ecclesiastical tradition, is an in-
voluntary testimony on his part to the high stand-
ing these writings enjoyed in the Church at large,
and to the strength of the practical tradition which
prescribed their reading in public worship. Obvi-
ously, the inferior rank to which the deuteros were
relegated by authorities like Origen, Athanasius. and
Jerome, was due to too rigid a conception of canon-
icity, one demanding that a book, to be entitled to
this supreme dignity, must be received by all, must
have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and must
moreover be adapted not only to edification, but
also to the "confirmation of the doctrine of the
Church", to borrow Jerome's phrase.
But while eminent scholars and theorists were thus depreciating the additional writings, the official atti- tude of the Latin Church, always favourable to them, kept the majestic tenor of its way. Two documents of capital importance in the history of the canon constitute the first formal utterance of papal author- ity on the subject. The first is the so-called "Decre- tal of Gelasius", de recipiendis et non recipiendis librix, the essential part of which is now generally attributed to a synod convoked by Pope Damasus in the year 382. The other is the Canon of Innocent I, sent in 405 to a Gallican bishop in answer to an inquiry. Both contain all the deuterocanonicals, without any distinction, and are identical with the catalogue of Trent. The African Church, always a stanch sup- porter of the contested books, found itself in entire accord with Rome on this question. Its ancient version, the Veins Latino (less correctly the Itala), had admitted all the O. T. Scriptures. St. Augustine seems to theoretically recognize degrees of inspira- tion; in practice he employs protos and deuteros without any discrimination whatsoever. Moreover in his "De Doctrina Christiana" he enumerates the components of the complete O. T. The Synod of Hippo (393) and the three of Carthage (393, 397, and 419), in which, doubtless. Augustine was the leading spirit, found it necessary to deal explicitly with the question of the Canon, and drew up identical lists from which no sacred books are excluded. These councils base their canon on tradition and liturgical usage. For the Spanish Church valuable testimony is found in the work of the heretic Priscil- lian, "Liber de Tide et Apocryphis"; it supposes a sharp line existing between canonical and uncanoni- cal works, and that the Canon takes in all the deu- teros.
(4) The Canon of the O. T. from the middle of the fifth to the close of the seventh century. — This period
