The author of De mirabilibus scripturae.
The author of De mirabilibus scripturae.
Two hundred years after Junilius came the author of De mirabilibus scripturae.9 In bk. 2, last chapter, he excludes the Books of the Maccabees from the authority of the divine canon.
§ 97. We could adduce more testimonies of the ancients in favor of confirming our opinion; however, it is evident that those have been corrupted by the Papists by adding, removing, and changing. (1) By adding. In the Canones apostol., the last canon considers the catalog of the canonical books. Although three books of the Maccabees are included in it, yet there is no mention of Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, Tobit, and Judith, as all the editions witness. But the Jesuit Franciscus Turrianus published a Greek volume of the councils with the constitutions of the apostles, in bk. 8 of which this list is contained, to which he has added “Judith 1” (see Franciscus Junius, preface to Index expurgat.).
(2) By removing. After Antoninus had presented his opinion about the canonical books, part 3, title 18, c. 6, § 2, he added: “And regarding this it is held in [Jus canonicum,] dist. 15, c. sancta Romana, as well as in Thomas and Lyra,” namely, that on the basis of these books no one can argue effectively, just as also from the rest. However, there is nothing like this in that chapter today, except that perhaps someone may wish to refer to that point where it says, “The Roman Church repudiates those writings that Jerome repudiates.”
(3) By changing. In Jerome’s preface on the Books of Tobit and Judith, hagiographa is substituted for apocrypha. He says, “The Book of Tobit, which the Hebrews separate from the list of divine Scripture, they join to those that they call the ‘hagiographa.’ “Elsewhere: “Among the Jews, the Book of Judith is read among the hagiographa, whose authority is considered less proper for corroborating those things that come into contention.” Among the Jews, however, the hagiographa, or holy writings, establish a certain class of canonical books. Therefore if the Books of Tobit and Judith are numbered among the hagiographa, how are they excluded from the canon? In the actual text of Jerome there is written in the margin: “Elsewhere it is read ‘apocrypha.’ “Brito likewise says, “Apocrypha has another letter.” The same thing is proved by Lyra on the basis of the Glossa ordinaria [and] by Ambrosius Catharinus (Annotat. in dogm. Cajetan., bk. 8). The prologue to the Glossa ordinaria, which also uncovers the source of the error, [says] that “this happened because of the devotion of those who were writing.” Bellarmine responds to this contradiction in the text of Jerome that arose from that corruption (De verbo Dei, bk. 1, c. 10, § Ad locum):
The Jews had two kinds of hagiographa, some within the ark, some outside it, as Epiphanius teaches in his book De mensur. et ponder. Those that were within the ark are called hagiographa to distinguish them from the historical and prophetic volumes. And these were considered canonical. Jerome speaks about them in the Prologus galeatus. Those that were outside the ark were called hagiographa to distinguish them from the canonical and sacred books. Jerome speaks about these in his preface to Tobit and Judith.
We add that the latter kind of hagiographa, because they were outside the ark,10 can hardly be placed among the testamentary or canonical books.
§ 98. Moreover, the Papists themselves grant to us the assent not only of the Israelite church (as we have seen earlier, § 74) but also of the earliest teachers of the Christian Church. Sixtus Senensis, Bibl. sanctae, bk. 1, sect. 1:
The early fathers of the Church considered those controversial books (Tobit, Judith, Ecclesiasticus, etc.) as apocryphal and noncanonical. First, they allowed them to be read by the catechumens alone, who were not yet ready for a catholic lection. Then, as time passed, they allowed them to be read among all the faithful not to confirm dogmas but only to instruct the people. Because these books were read publicly in the Church, they were called “ecclesiastical.”
(All of this Sixtus wrote in truth, but he adds this: “Finally, they wanted those books to be taken into the Scriptures of unbreakable authority.” In this he is begging the question and not at all offering the truth.) Bellarmine, De verbo Dei, bk. 1, c. 20, § Ad alteram: “Epiphanius, Hilary, and Rufinus clearly followed the Hebrews in setting forth the canon of Scripture.” Canus gives the same testimony (Locor. theol., bk. 2, c. 10-11). Concerning Jerome, Bellarmine writes: “I admit that Jerome was of the same opinion (with the Hebrews)” (op. cit., c. 10, § Postrema). But the Hebrews’ judgment on the canon conforms to ours, not to that of the Papists. Melch. Canus, Locor. theol., bk. 2, c. 10, f. 39: “Melito, who went to the East to inquire about this subject, finally discovered by careful investigation that these books had to be rejected from the canon of the Old Testament. Origen teaches the same thing, as Eusebius indicates (bk. 4, c. 26); but Eusebius himself also teaches the same thing (bk. 6, c. 11). The Damascene and Athanasius, whom many theologians have followed, were not unfriendly to this opinion.” In these words of Canus, note that he concedes that the Damascene here votes along with us. This is something that Stapleton dared to deny (De auctor. script., bk. 2, c. 4, § 1). He says, “I also quote the Damascene, who in De orth. fid., bk. 4, c. 18, now lists in the canon the books that formerly were doubtful.” More correctly, Ederus writes (Oeconom. biblic., bk. 1, p. 22, tab. 4): “In De orth. fid., bk. 4, c. 18, the Damascene divides the catalog of books of the Old Testament into this order (in fact, he followed the canon of the Jews and at the end adds): ‘The Books of Wisdom and Sirach are beautiful, but they are not found among the prophetic books nor were they put into the ark.’ “Clitovaeus, commentary on that passage of the Damascene: “John of Damascus excluded those six books from the number of canonical books.” Why, then, does Stapleton so confidently declare that the Damascene counted them among the canonical books? In the passage cited before, which we just now mentioned, Bellarmine admits that Jerome held the same opinion as we do. Ambrosius Catharinus denies this and says, “I admit that Jerome calls them apocryphal, but he is speaking according to the canon of the Hebrews” (Annot. advers. Cajet., § De libr. Maccab., ad lit. I). But let Bellarmine respond for us, loc. cit.: “That which others respond is not true, that Jerome says only that they were canonical among the Jews. Certainly, in the Prologus galeatus Jerome counts the Book of the Shepherd and simultaneously says that they all are not in the canon. Thus he is not speaking about the canon of the Jews.”