The exceptions of the Papists: First, that the canon of the Jews must be distinguished from that of Christians.
The exceptions of the Papists: First, that the canon of the Jews must be distinguished from that of Christians.
§ 100. Now that we have adduced these arguments to confirm our opinion, the Papists produce the following exceptions to be able to give some sort of a response.
(I) “We must distinguish between the canon of the Hebrews and that of Christians. The fathers who exclude the controversial books from the canon are speaking about the canon of the Hebrews, not of the Christians.” Marianus Victor (scholia on Epistle 116 of Jerome), Ambrosius Catharinus (Annot. adversus Cajet., § De lib. Maccab.), and Costerus (Enchirid., title De libr. canon.) propose this.
We respond. (1) It is obviously false that each and every one of those fathers whose testimonies we cited in a long series is speaking only about the canon of the Hebrews, as is demonstrated by examining their testimonies and seeing them with one’s own eyes. The Council of Laodicea prescribes which books ought to be read as canonical in the Church of the Christians. Melito went to the East to learn carefully and thoroughly the books of the Old Testament. He surely would have done this in vain had he established one canon for Jews and another for Christians. We can learn the same thing clearly from the words of Athanasius, Cyril, Rufinus, Jerome, and others. What is more clear than those words of Lyra in his commentary on Ezra: “The Books of Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees are not in the canon, neither among the Jews nor the Christians”?
(2) Bellarmine himself acknowledges the worthlessness of this distinction: “What others respond is not true, that Jerome is merely saying that these were canonical among the Jews. Surely in the Prologus galeatus Jerome counts the Book of the Shepherd and says that they all at the same time are not in the canon. Therefore he is not speaking about the canon of the Jews” (De verbo Dei, bk. 1, c. 10).
(3) If the canon of the Christians is different from that of the Jews in this sense—that besides the truly canonical books that alone are effectual “for proving doctrines of faith” the Christian Church has accepted some that are to be read usefully for the edification of behavior—we concede such a distinction. We add, however, that this acceptance of the Church by no means causes these books to be able to be considered as canonical books in the proper sense and as produced by divine inspiration.
(4) Genebrardus of Paris recognizes that one cannot suitably distinguish between the canon of the Jews and that of the Christians. He claims in his preface to Chronogr. ad Arnoldum Pontanum: “There were two canons of the Jews: one published by men of the Great Synagogue—Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, Haggai, etc.—the other published in the Seventh Synod of Jerusalem [that was] held in regard to translating the Scriptures and sending the seventy-two translators11 to Ptolemy Philadelphus.” They try to prove that this latter canon of the Jews agrees with the canon of the Christians from Epiphanius, De mensur. et ponderibus, bk. 1. Yet Epiphanius there declares in clear words: “The twenty-two genuine books and other apocryphal books were sent to King Ptolemy of Egypt,” and this agrees with the former canon. A comparison of texts shows that someone has twisted what Genebrardus adds: “In Contra Apion., bk. 2, Josephus quoted certain words of Ecclesiasticus.” Josephus did not quote Ecclesiasticus. Even if he had, that would not make it canonical, because he also quotes laws from Plato. What conclusion Josephus reached about the truly canonical books shines more brightly than the sun from Contra Apionem, bk. 1.