[First, from the instrumental efficient cause.]
[First, from the instrumental efficient cause.]
A priori we produce three arguments: (1) From the instrumental efficient cause. Every canonical book of the Old Testament was written by a prophet by impulse and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The books listed in § 67 were not written by the prophets. Therefore they are not canonical. The major premise is proved from the following scriptural statements. Luke 16:29: “They have Moses (the leader of all the prophets) and (the rest of) the prophets.” That is, they have the writings of Moses and the prophets published by impulse of the Holy Spirit. Luke 24:27: “Beginning with Moses and the prophets, He interpreted to them in all the Scripture the things concerning Himself.” Luke 24:44: “It is necessary that everything written about Me in the Law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms be fulfilled.” Acts 3:[24]: “All the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and those who came afterward, also proclaimed these days” (that is, in what they wrote). Rom. 16:26: “… which is disclosed through the prophetic writings.” Eph. 2:[20]: “You are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets.” Heb. 1:1: “Formerly, in many and various ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets” (whose prophecies are still extant in their writings). 2 Pet. 1:19: “We have the prophetic word made more sure” (as it is recorded in their writings). 2 Pet. 1:21: “Because no prophecy ever came by impulse of man, but, moved by the Holy Spirit, holy men of God spoke.” In these and other parallel statements of Scripture, the writing of the Old Testament is called prophetic Scripture, prophetic speech, and “God-breathed writing” (2 Tim. 3:16) because it was written and published by prophets at the inspiration and impulse of the Holy Spirit. Therefore it is the essential, proper, and necessary requirement for a canonical book of the Old Testament that it be written by a prophet at the inspiration and impulse of the Holy Spirit.
The minor premise is proved from the adjunct of time, because those books we listed were written after the time of Malachi, the last prophet of the Old Testament. From Malachi until John the Baptist, one can point out no prophet among the people of Israel; therefore he concludes the prophetic writing of the Old Testament. He seals it, as it were, with a prophecy about John the Baptist (Mal. 3:1), who would inaugurate the New Testament with his preaching of the Gospel and administration of Baptism. From that same foundation Josephus lifts up the canonical authority of those books when he argues in Contra Apion., bk. 1: “Those books that were written after the time of Artaxerxes Longimanus the Jews did not consider [to belong] in the canon of sacred books” because Ezra set the canon of sacred books, and his time did not extend beyond the time of Artaxerxes Longimanus. Josephus says, “From the time of Artaxerxes until now, individual books certainly were written, but not of the same trustworthiness that applies to the earlier ones, because there was not that definite succession of prophets.”
** After Artaxerxes there was no accurate succession of prophets, as Eusebius witnesses (Hist., bk. 3, c. 10). The last of the prophets was Malachi, according to Jerome (on Isaiah, bk. 13, c. 49) and Augustine (De civit. Dei, bk. 17, c. 24). The controversial books, however, were written after the time of Artaxerxes and Malachi. **
Here we can cite what Bellarmine concludes: “The account of Esther cannot be referred to the time of Artaxerxes Memnon since among the Hebrews it was in the canon of sacred books, to which canon books written after the time of Artaxerxes do not belong” (De verbo Dei, bk. 1, c. 7, § Sed adversus, etc.). Therefore he presupposes that the prophets wrote the canonical books before the time of Artaxerxes, which is quite true.