Irish Theological

Quarterly http://itq.sagepub.com/

Inventing the Apocrypha: The Role of Early Latin Canon Lists

Thomas O'Loughlin
Irish Theological Quarterly 2009 74: 53
DOI: 10.1177/0021140008098844

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://itq.sagepub.com/content/74/1/53

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Pontifical University, St. Patrick's College, Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland

Additional services and information for Irish Theological Quarterly can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://itq.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://itq.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Jan 21, 2009

What is This?
Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on January 10, 2012
 Irish Theological Quarterly
74 (2009) 53–74
© 2009 Irish Theological Quarterly
Sage Publications, Los Angeles, London,
New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC
DOI: 10.1177/0021140008098844

Inventing the Apocrypha: The Role

of Early Latin Canon Lists1
Thomas O’Loughlin
University of Wales, Lampeter
The Western churches have long had disagreements as to what books form the ‘canon’ of
the Old Testament, and, therefore, which books can be used in theological argument. This
article argues that this dispute is itself a function of earlier disputes in the late patristic and
early medieval periods, and explores how the solution to those disputes left a legacy of con-
fusion that fuelled the Reformation and later debates. This exploration is focused on the
canon listings that were produced as part of the patristic and early medieval debates.

KEYWORDS: apocrypha, Augustine, biblical canon, deuterocanon, Jerome

I sidore of Seville (d. 630) concluded his own listing of the canonical
books with this definition of the apocrypha:

The above are the writers of our sacred books, those through whom
the Holy Spirit was speaking for our erudition; and they wrote the rule
of belief and the precepts of living. Beyond these there are other vol-
umes called ‘the apocrypha.’ They are called this, a word which means
‘secret,’ because they come with doubts attached to them. Their ori-
gins are hidden, or they were not known to the Fathers from whom the
authority of the most true and most certain scriptures has come down
to us through a well-known succession. And although some truth is
found in these works, nonetheless they have no canonical authority
because there is also much in them that is false. Therefore, prudent
people rightly judge that these books are not to be accepted as having
been written by the people whose names are attached to them. There
are many such works under the names of the prophets, as well as more
recent works that have been produced by heretics under the names of
the apostles, but after diligent examination these works have been

1. I wish to thank my colleagues in the Forum Patristicum in Lampeter for comments on an

earlier version of this article.

53

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on January 10, 2012

54 IRISH THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

removed by canonical authority from circulation and put in the class

named ‘apocrypha.’2

This is a splendidly confused piece of writing. It somehow touches every

supposed binary opposition that can be found in discussions of canonicity:
canonical / non-canonical; inspired / non-inspired; received / non-received;
closed list / open list; rule of faith and living / texts that lead astray;
orthodoxy / heresy; inerrancy / falsehood; and canonical / pseudepigraphal.
The canon—presumably the one Isidore has just given—is the fixed, and
exclusive, list of those writings that are the genuine products of their named
authors, inspired by the Holy Spirit; they are inerrant in their contents and
so orthodox, known to the tradition and trustworthy, and they are vehicles
of unlimited truth. On the other hand, the ‘apocrypha’ do not have inspira-
tion, are from doubtful sources, lead people astray, and should be shunned
using the fail-safe device: ‘if in doubt, leave it out,’ and this regulation is a
matter touching canon law and the authority of bishops.
However, this definition is even more demanding of those who embrace
the canon. It condemned those who received the canon to a Herculean
labour that has lasted for more than a millennium. If a book is ‘in the
canon,’ then it must be the genuine work of the putative author, and
doubts about authorship or the integrity of the book must be countered. If
a book is ‘in the canon,’ then any suggestion that the book’s contents lack
inerrancy must be countered.3 In effect, this means that there must be no
contradiction within the entire body of works on the list, and further
implies that every sentence must be demonstrably consistent with every
other sentence, which then entails that each sentence can be read consist-
ently alongside any other sentence and whatever meaning is derived must
be considered a valid extrapolation.4 If a book is ‘in the canon,’ then any
other attack on its message or utility must be countered as an attack on
the divine act of revelation itself, for in these works we have not only
inspiration in a general sense, but the works of the Holy Spirit. And,
lastly, in staking so much worth on the contents of the books on the list,
one is committed to the defence of the content of the books, and of the
list, as a defence not only of orthodoxy, but indeed of access to divine

2. Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae, ed. W. M. Lindsay (Oxford: Clarendon, 1911), 6, 2, 50–53.

Translations, unless otherwise noted, are my own.
3. See Thomas O’Loughlin, ‘The Controversy over Methuselah’s Death: Proto-chronology
and the Origins of the Western Concept of Inerrancy,’ Recherches de Théologie Ancienne et
Médiévale 62 (1995): 182–225.
4. I have explored these notions in three articles: Thomas O’Loughlin, ‘Julian of Toledo’s
Antikeimenon and the Development of Latin Exegesis,’ Proceeding of the Irish Biblical
Association 16 (1993): 80–98; Thomas O’Loughlin, ‘Biblical Contradictions in the
Periphyseon and the Development of Eriugena’s Method,’ in Iohannes Scottus Eriugena and
the Scriptures, eds. Carlos Steel, James McEvoy, and Gerd van Riel (Leuven: Leuven
University, 1996), 103–126; and Thomas O’Loughlin, ‘Res, tempus, locus, persona:
Adomnán’s Exegetical Method,’ Innes Review 48 (1997): 95–111.

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on January 10, 2012

 EARLY LATIN CANON LISTS 55

truth. Isidore, probably unwittingly, was placing all his theological eggs in
one basket!
Why, however, should the writings of this seventh-century Spanish
bishop appear in even a brief study of the apocrypha? While Isidore is a
familiar figure to early Latin medievalists, he is virtually unknown in
either contemporary scripture studies or theology? The reason is simple:
Isidore is a funnel-figure in the history of Latin theology.5 He gathered up,
synthesized, and summarized as seemingly consistent coherent positions,
what could be found over four centuries of Latin writing; and then, encap-
sulated in encyclopaedic works, transmitted these with simplicity and
brevity to subsequent generations. What would become standard western
approaches to matters as diverse as Christian chronology and the
Eucharist, christology and the apocrypha, took their shape in his writings.6
Later generations would use his works—and often his phrases became
mutated into maxim-like short-hand—as the sources of their fundamen-
tal assumptions, and that ‘common knowledge’ would live on in debate
long after the period of theologians’ direct acquaintance with Isidore’s
writings. Isidore has often been described as a ‘Janus figure,’7 but he is also
a ‘watershed figure’: he separates later debates which took place within
very firm parameters of theological argument—in this case about the
characteristics of what constituted the nature of the scriptures—from the
rich variety of earlier patristic writers.
What is clear in the above quotation, which is Isidore’s most succinct
statement about the theological nature of the scriptures, is that it was to a
large extent formulated using the logical device of assuming that there was
contradictory opposition between the category ‘scripture’ and the category
‘apocrypha,’ namely, they opposed each other in all respects without over-
laps.8 But if the existence of so-called ‘apocrypha’ did much to shape the
West’s view of the canonical scriptures, I would further argue—and this is
the purpose of this article—that it is not without significance that the
above statement was put forward in the context of a canon, a list, of bib-
lical books; and that the existence of several widely known lists did much
to form Isidore’s thinking.

5. See Thomas O’Loughlin, Teachers and Code-Breakers: The Latin Genesis Tradition,
430–800 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1999), 245–271.
6. See my article, forthcoming, in the Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle, s.v. ‘Isidore’;
Jesús Solano, Textos Eucaristicos Primitivos (Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos,
1952), 2, 695–707; Thomas O’Loughlin, ‘Christ as the Focus of Genesis Exegesis in Isidore
of Seville,’ in Studies in Patristic Christology, eds. Thomas Finan and Vincent Twomey
(Dublin: Four Courts, 1998), 144–162.
7. In the sense that Isidore looks directly back to the late classical Mediterranean-focused
world of earlier Christian writers, and forward to the early medieval world focused on north-
western Europe.
8. The key logical tool used by the writers of this period was the Square of Opposition, with
its tendency in actual use to force evidence into immediately opposed contraries and
explain the universe in chains of binary oppositions.

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on January 10, 2012

56 IRISH THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

The Origins of the Lists

Why, in the later fourth century, Latin lists of the canonical books
appeared—in synodal legislation and in the writings of theologians such
as Augustine—is far from clear. The extent of the canon had already been
an issue for Greek writers—since the time of Marcion—and in many of
those writers the question of whether or not a particular text was genuine,
and so worthy of consideration as scripture, recurs frequently.9 In this
Greek environment, the debates and doubts seem to focus around what
belongs to the New Testament canon, and especially the epistles that
should be included. The canon of the Old Testament seems to be, com-
paratively, unproblematic.
However, in the Latin world the situation appears to be exactly the
reverse. There was little or no debate as to what constituted the contents
of the New Testament: in the canon lists to which Isidore might have had
access there is no argument whatsoever about its contents.10 The issues
debated all focused on the extent of the canon of the Old Testament, and
the character of some of its books. It was this debate about the Old
Testament that lies in the background to Isidore, and, indeed, it is the
same debate that surfaced again at the Reformation bequeathing a prob-
lem that still hovers in the background of debates on the nature of the
scriptures today.11
There is some evidence that the question of the canon of the Old
Testament was a matter of concern for Hilary of Poitiers (c.315–367).12
However, by the 380s, for reasons unknown to us, two biblical concerns
had come to prominence. First, doubts over the quality of the current
Latin translations as an accurate text of the scriptures. This led Pope
Damasus to commission his linguistically gifted secretary, Jerome, to
prepare an improved version. An act, as we shall see, that would have important
consequences for the question of the canon of the Old Testament.
Second, there seems to have been some concern over the content of the
canon of the Old and New Testaments, for at a synod in 382, presided over
by Damasus and with Jerome as secretary, we find the first Latin list of
biblical books being formally promulgated.13 The list is, in itself, in no way

9. See Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and
Significance (Oxford: Clarendon, 1987), 113–141. Reading Eusebius’s Historia ecclesiastica,
for example, one is frequently taken on an excursion whose aim is to demonstrate the
canonicity of this or that item which today is taken as part of the New Testament.
10. See Appendix Two, below.
11. See Henry H. Howorth, ‘The Origin and Authority of the Biblical Canon according to
the Continental Reformers,’ Journal of Theological Studies 8 (1907): 321–365 and 9 (1908):
188–230; this older work is still the best guide in that he gives full weight to the value of
early medieval Latin evidence.
12. See Henry H. Howorth, ‘The Influence of St Jerome on the Canon of the Western
Church,’ Journal of Theological Studies 11 (1910): 321–347 at 325–326.
13. Text is from Henry Denzinger, C. Bannwart, and J. B. Umberg, Enchiridion Symbolorum,
14th ed. (Freiburg: Herder, 1922), 35–36.

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on January 10, 2012

 EARLY LATIN CANON LISTS 57

extraordinary: it contains all those books of the Septuagint that were to

be found in Latin. The actual text may have been drawn up by Jerome, but
one wonders why the promulgation of such a list was believed necessary.
This list has an interesting structure:

Here begins the order of the Old Testament:

Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book;
Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua, one book;
Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books; Chronicles,
two books; The Psalter, one book; [the books] of Solomon, three
books [namely] Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; [and]
likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus, one book.
Here begins the order of the prophets:
Isaiah, one book; Jeremiah, one book along with Baruch and like-
wise with his Lamentations; Ezekiel, one book; Daniel, one book;
Joel, one book; Obadiah, one book; Hosea, one book; Amos, one
book; Micah, one book; Jonah, one book; Nahum, one book;
Habbackuk, one book; Zephaniah, one book; Haggai, one book;
Zachariah, one book; Malachi, one book.
Likewise the order of the histories:
Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Judith, one book; Esther, one
book; Esdras, one book; [the books] of the Maccabees, two books.

While its contents are in line with Latin usage, there is one point where
it is unclear. There is mention of only one book of ‘Esdras’ which is prob-
ably a reference to Ezra and Nehemiah. Once those texts are examined
and then compared with the Septuagint, some questions would arise as
to what exactly the canon contains under the name ‘Esdras.’ Jerome, we
presume, was entirely happy with this list in 382; soon, however, he would
begin to express serious doubts about it.
By 392, Jerome was living in Bethlehem, and from the concluding chap-
ter of his De uiris illustribus completed in that year we know that he was
working on the revision of the Latin version of the scriptures and that he
was becoming increasingly concerned about the canon of the Old
Testament. This concern was the result of his decision that it was the
rabbinic Jewish canon—defined linguistically as the existence of a work in
Hebrew—that was the only genuine canon, and that the Church’s usage
was not sufficient to declare a work to be part of sacred scripture. While
he expressed this concern in many places, his inclusion of this opinion in
the prologues he wrote for the Old Testament books, which were trans-
mitted with his translations of those books, would not only diffuse his
opinions far more widely than any comparable short pieces of writing
about scripture, but their inclusion alongside the sacred texts gave them a
wholly unmerited authority within a tradition where the notion of
‘authority by association’ was tantamount to an intellectual law.

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on January 10, 2012

58 IRISH THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

In the prologue to the books of the Kings,14 Jerome makes his position
clear: he has translated into Latin those works that he could find in
Hebrew. They are the works ‘we value’ and those which are not in this cat-
egory should be placed among the ‘apocrypha’ (quidquid extra hos est inter
apocrypha esse ponendum). This is, so far as I can ascertain, the earliest use
of the term ‘apocrypha’ in the sense in which is it used in modern bibles.
He then proceeds to list books that should be so considered:

Therefore Wisdom which is commonly attributed to Solomon, the

book of Jesus Ben Sira, and Judith, and Tobit, and The Shepherd
(Pastor), are not in the canon (non sunt in canone). Likewise, I have
found the first book of the Maccabees in Hebrew, the second in
Greek.

Jerome makes clear that the language of composition is the criterion of

canonicity, and further along he used the famous phrase that he has
worked from ‘the Hebrew truth’ (de Hebraica ueritate). On this basis he was
willing not just to state what was in the canon, but also what was excluded
from the canon. However, we also see another criterion at work in the
case of the book of Wisdom: it is pseudonymous and so is excluded. To the
neat minds who worked out the details of Jerome’s paradigm this would
mean that those books which were included in the canon must be gen-
uinely attributed, while to doubt the attribution in the title was tanta-
mount to doubting canonicity.
One strange item in this prologue is his mention of The Shepherd, which
presumably points to the early Christian writing by Hermas and reference
to it here among Old Testament works seems out of place. However,
Jerome’s antagonism to it may stem from another aspect of his theological
belligerency: The Shepherd takes a far more measured view of forgiveness
of sins committed after baptism than did Jerome, and this may have
prompted him to include it here for good measure as belonging to the
books which should be hidden.
Jerome’s most famous prologue dealing with the matter of the Old
Testament canon is that which prefaces the books of Solomon which he
held to be Proverbs, Ecclesiastes (Qoheleth), and the Song of Songs.15
There he listed again those books which he believed were ‘not received
among the canonical scriptures’: Sirach, Wisdom, Judith, Tobit, and both
books of the Maccabees. And, with reference to the two books of
Maccabees he uttered another phrase destined to become a theological tag
at the time of the Reformation: these books ‘are read for the edification of

14. Text from Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem, eds. Bonifatius Fischer, Jean
Gribomont, H. D. F. Sparks, Walter Theile, Robert Weber and Roger Gryson, 4th ed.
(Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), 365.
15. Ibid., 957.

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on January 10, 2012

 EARLY LATIN CANON LISTS 59

the people, but not for the confirmation of the authority of the churches
doctrines (legat ad aedificationem plebes, non ad auctoritatem ecclesiasticorum
dogmatum confirmandam).’16 In other prologues Jerome expressed other
doubts about particular books or parts of books, but his fundamental direc-
tion remained the same. Jerome’s desire to produce a more reliable—
whatever that means17—version of the scriptures in Latin; the route to
this lay with adherence to the Hebrew text, therefore that text became for
him also the guide to canonicity and authority.
Jerome was aware that he was departing not only from the practice of
the churches in his proposed canon, but also in his use of an archaeologi-
cal criterion rather than the ecclesial test of acceptance and use. In the
reaction he provoked, Jerome brought the question of the Old Testament
canon to a new prominence within the western church. However, before
looking at that reaction, it is worth noting how quickly Jerome’s views
became widely known.
The explicit evidence for this comes from Rufinus’s Commentarius in
symbolum apostolicum which was produced in the first years of the fifth
century, probably in 404. It is a small apologetic commentary on the west-
ern creed which invokes a wide range of Old Testament testimonia (proof
texts; literally ‘witnesses’) to explain the various articles. Under the arti-
cles concerning belief in the works of the Spirit, Rufinus looked at what
Christians believed about the scriptures. Since, he argues, all scripture is
inspired (basing himself on 2 Tim 3:16), Rufinus held that it was useful to
set out the order of the books of both Testaments ‘as we have received
them from the fathers … according to the tradition of our forefathers and
which are inspired by the Holy Spirit and delivered to the churches of
Christ.’18 This statement, which explicitly links canonicity with inspiration,
appears to be a silent rebuke to Jerome in that it stresses the tradition of
use by the churches and an appeal to the authority of ‘the fathers’ as the
guide to the canon. However, in the list Rufinus gives, he followed
Jerome’s reduced canon, and adds at the end: ‘Thus the number of books
is completed.’19 What then of the six books which Jerome had excluded?
These Rufinus declares are not to be considered ‘canonical’—which in
this context means inspired by the Holy Spirit—but ‘ecclesiastical.’ He
seeks to confirm this designation by the title given by Latins to Sirach:
Ecclesiasticus. This, says Rufinus, was a name intended to tell us about the
character of the book, not about the author.20 Rufinus accepts these works
as having some value, but they have not the value of the canonical works,

16. For the later use of this phrase, see the articles by Howorth already cited.
17. See W. Schwartz, ‘The Meaning of Fidus interpres in Medieval Translation,’ Journal of
Theological Studies 45 (1944): 73–78.
18. Commentarius in symbolum apostolicum, 36. Unless otherwise noted, all patristic texts are
taken from Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina.
19. Ibid., 37.
20. Ibid., 38.

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on January 10, 2012

60 IRISH THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

which as inspired, alone can confirm the declaration of our faith.21

Rufinus is not, however, willing to place the six books within the category
of the ‘apocrypha.’ He notes that in addition to the six books there is:

The little book called The Shepherd or ‘Of Hermas’ (Hermae) and
that which is called The Two Ways or The Judgement of Peter. All
these, the fathers desire to be read in the churches, but not cited as
authority in matters of faith; the other writings they have named
‘Apocrypha’ and will not have them read in the churches.22

The Augustinian Reaction

The most significant figure to oppose Jerome’s views on the canon was,
undoubtedly, Augustine. While Augustine was not fearful to name opponents
whom he considered to be heretics, such as Pelagius, he was more tactful
when he believed that an orthodox theologian was mistaken. So it is
without mentioning the name of Ambrose that Augustine corrected some
aspects of his cosmology, and likewise he does not mention Jerome in chal-
lenging his views on the canon. However, writing between 420 (Jerome’s
death) and 426 (when he finished the De ciuitate Dei) Augustine drew
attention to the importance of the Septuagint to the churches.23 His
argument is directed against anyone who should hold that unless a book or a
variant is witnessed in Hebrew it has no authority in the Church, and
Augustine goes so far as to hold that just as the Spirit inspired the Hebrew
writer, so too the Spirit inspired the seventy translators and hence the trans-
lation can have the authority which the churches have always granted it.24
But while ‘Jerome the presbyter’ is praised by name as a translator, from the
details of how those who oppose the value of the Septuagint wish to mark
up texts with asterisks and obeli, it is clear that Jerome who adapted and
employed this system for biblical texts was his target all along.25
The first counterblast to Jerome occurred while Augustine was the
principal teacher, but not yet bishop, of Hippo at a synod held in 393 that

21. Ibid., 37.

22. Ibid., 38; the listing of alternative titles suggests that these works were not as common
at this period as Rufinus’s comment that ‘the fathers wished them read’ would suggest; the
exact identification of what these works are is beyond the scope of this article, however, see
Kurt Niederwimmer, The Didache (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), 6, who examines this state-
ment in more detail.
23. Augustine, De ciuitate Dei, 18,43.
24. See A. Wasserstein and D. J. Wasserstein, The Legend of the Septuagint from Classical
Antiquity to Today (Cambridge: CUP, 2006), 95–131, and especially at 126.
25. On this system, see Jerome’s Prologus to Job (Fischer, et al. Biblia, 731). In his excellent
translation of the De ciuitate Dei R.W. Dyson states that ‘no such texts have survived, and
Augustine is our only authority for their existence.’ This is simply incorrect: not only have
we Jerome’s explanation of the system, but it has survived into the printed editions of the
Vulgate, for example, alongside Dan 3:24–90. This system was but a specifically biblical
application of the Notae sententiarum, for which the best guide is still Isidore, Etymologiae 6,21.
(See R. W. Dyson, The City of God against the Pagans [Cambridge: CUP, 1998], 885, n. 128;
Fischer, et al. Biblia, 1348–1351).

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on January 10, 2012

 EARLY LATIN CANON LISTS 61

attracted bishops from across Latin North Africa. We know of Augustine’s

presence and influence because he tells us in his Retractationes that the
assembled bishops from ‘the whole of Africa’ asked him to preach to them,
and this was the origin of his book De fide et symbolo.26 The synod
confirmed the traditional list, and consequently it has the same content
as that from Rome in 382. However, it is not merely a repetition of the
earlier list, but a new composition. This can be seen in that (1) it removes
any possibility of the doubt about Wisdom, and (2) the slur of pseudo-
nymity is removed from Sirach: so unlike the text from 382, this explic-
itly lists: Salomonis libri quinque (the five books of Solomon).27 This (legal)
canon also became one of the increasing number of such (legal) canons
that were repeated again and again by synods within the intention of
establishing them as part of the accepted legislation of the church. We
find the list from 393 repeated in a synod of 397 and again in 419. From
these synods the list became an intrinsic part of the (legal) canonical
collections destined to become a standard item in Latin canon law.28
Equally important for theologians was Augustine’s book on exegesis/
education, the De doctrina christiana, most of which he wrote in 396. This
work was to become in subsequent centuries a fundamental work of Latin
theology in that it set out an educational framework of studies, located the
study of scripture at the centre of that curriculum, and gave guidance as to
its interpretation.29 The student is to study all the scriptures; and as to
their canon, he should follow ‘the authority of the majority of catholic
churches among which are surely those that have deserved to have apos-
tolic sees and to have received epistles.’ Indeed, the student is to prefer
those ‘accepted by all the catholic churches to those which some do not
accept.’30 The canon is only considered in terms of ecclesial acceptance,
and there is no mention of language or textual history.
The list itself is the standard one except for the explanation of Wisdom—
a book to which Augustine was deeply attached—and Sirach.31 After not-
ing the three books by Solomon, Augustine continues:

As to those other two books, one named Wisdom and the other
Ecclesiasticus, these are said to be Solomon’s because of a certain

26. Augustine, Retractationes, 1,16.

27. Pontifical Biblical Commission, Enchiridion biblicum: documenta ecclesiastica sacram scrip-
turam spectantia, 2nd ed. (Rome: Editiones Arnodo, 1954), 8–9.
28. It was from this continuity that the biblical canon of the Council of Trent emerged.
29. See Eugene Kevane, Augustine the Educator (Westminster, MD: Newman, 1964); and
Thomas O’Loughlin, ‘Early Medieval Introductions to the Holy Book: Adjuncts or
Hermeneutic?’ in Studies in Church History 38: The Church and the Book, ed. R.N. Swanson
(Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer, 2004), 22–31.
30. Augustine De doctrina christiana, 2,8,12.
31. This can be seen by examining the lemmata in the Vetus Latina Database; and see
Thomas O’Loughlin, ‘The Mysticism of Number in the Medieval Period before Eriugena,’
in The Perennial Tradition of Neoplatonism, ed. John J. Cleary (Leuven: Leuven University,
1997), 397–416.

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on January 10, 2012

62 IRISH THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

similarity of style. However, Jesus the son of Sirach is asserted most

consistently to have written them. And indeed they must be
counted among the prophetical books, because they have merited
recognition for their authority.32

Augustine closed the list with this unambiguous comment: ‘In all these
books those who fear God, and are humble in their devotion, seek the will
of God.’33
The stage was now set for those who came afterwards and who viewed
their own work as simply comprehending and communicating the great
masters. Later teachers saw Jerome and Augustine taking diametrically
opposed positions on a matter which both seemed to declare to be of cen-
tral importance; yet both of these ‘greats’ were orthodox; both were regarded
as prodigies in their writings’ volume and genius; and both were soon
regarded as saints. What was a lesser light, a humble schoolmaster to do?

The Schoolmasters’ Reaction

Faced with contradictions within their authorities, or opinions which

seemed to defy tradition, the invariable responses of those who came in
the wake of Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine—that group of less famous,
and now largely forgotten, theologians that I refer to collectively as ‘the
schoolmasters’34—was, firstly, to seek a fudge that apparently reconciled
the opinions, and, secondly, to repeat earlier positions as if there was no
divergence of opinion.
We have already seen an example of the first reaction in the work of
Rufinus. He wanted to keep Jerome’s omission of the books from the list
of those with doctrinal authority—no doubt because he had a deep appre-
ciation of Jerome’s philological skills; yet at the same time he wanted to
adhere to Augustine’s ecclesial criterion of canonicity—no doubt because
of his deep appreciation of the nature of the Church as the work of the
Spirit. But this dual adherence, to Jerome and Augustine, hides a depar-
ture from both. He was not willing to include the six books questioned by
Jerome within the category of the ‘apocrypha’; but neither was he willing
to grant them the full status of inspired scripture which was the conse-
quence of Augustine’s position. His fudge was to invent the label ‘ecclesi-
astical’—a fudge parallel to that of some contemporary Roman Catholics
who use the concept of a ‘deuterocanon’—and leave the question
of the inspiration of the book undefined, yet implicitly denied. When

32. Augustine, De doctrina christiana, 2,8.13.

33. Ibid., 2,9.14.
34. See Thomas O’Loughlin, Teachers and Code-Breakers; and Thomas O’Loughlin,
‘Individual Anonymity and Collective Identity: The Enigma of Early Medieval Latin
Theologians,’ Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie Médiévale 64 (1997): 291–314.

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on January 10, 2012

 EARLY LATIN CANON LISTS 63

textbooks raise tricky problems and then fudge their answers, all that is
achieved is the generation of even more doubts among their readers!
Just a year after Rufinus wrote, we have an example of the other strategy:
repetition without comment in the letter (‘Consulenti tibi’ of 405) of Pope
Innocent I to Exuperius, bishop of Toulouse. He cites the list of the Synod
of Hippo of 393—the point of contact is his reference to Salomonis libri
quinque—and declares simply that these are the books received in the
canon. Innocent goes on to point out that there are other books—he does
not use the word ‘apocrypha’—which are damned from the church, but all
these works are pseudonymous, written ‘under the name’ (sub nomine) of
the apostles or evangelists, but not included in the New Testament
canon.35 Interestingly, Innocent’s letter mentions a work by James the Less
(Iacobi minoris) which has often been seen as a reference to the text we
call the Protoevangelium of James.36
Another variant on the strategy of ignoring the problem is found in
Eucherius (ob. c.450), bishop of Lyons. His two handbooks, written osten-
sively to help his sons with their preaching, were produced to simplify the
exegesis of scripture by using fixed methods to solve problems—and
were popular for centuries.37 However, in the longer of the two works, the
Instructiones, which presents exegetical problems under the heading of the
biblical book in which they arise, there is not a single problem from any of
the six books whose authority was questioned by Jerome. This is, of course,
an argument from silence: but it is not as if there were not problems in those
six books similar to problems elsewhere, and so it is a fairly voluble silence.
It appears that Eucherius was prepared to tackle questions about particular
books, but he was not willing to offer an opinion on whether or not a book
was canonical.
The first writer who openly acknowledged the difference between
Jerome’s position and that of the majority was Cassiodorus (485/90–c.580).
In his Institutiones he was not only concerned with the canon for the pur-
poses of the curriculum, but also as a problem within his library—the great
library of Vivarium—and in the production of pandects: single codices
containing the whole of the Old and New Testaments, albeit, as he
remarks, written in a very small hand.38 Cassiodorus first gives Jerome’s list

35. The argument involved here is circular: the works are not in the canon, but they are
named to the apostles—so the attribution must be mistaken; equally, they are pseudony-
mous, so they cannot contain genuine revelation, and so are excluded from the canon. This
sort of reasoning with regard to pseudonymous texts is a reflection of the first stages of the
apologetic need to defend any work that is already in the canon from the charge of
pseudonymity.
36. See Oscar Cullmann, ‘Infancy Gospels,’ in New Testament Apocrypha, eds. E. Hennecke
and W. Schneemelcher (London: SCM, 1963), 1, 368.
37. See Thomas O’Loughlin, ‘The Symbol Gives Life: Eucherius of Lyons’ Formula for
Exegesis,’ in Scriptural Interpretation in the Fathers: Letter and Spirit, eds. Thomas Finan and
Vincent Twomey (Dublin: Four Courts, 1995), 221–252.
38. Cassiodorus, Institutiones, 1,12,3, ed. R. A. B. Mynors ([Oxford: Clarendon, 1937]).

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on January 10, 2012

64 IRISH THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

of 22 Old Testament books, and notes that when added to the 27 books of
the New Testament we get 49; plus 1 for the unity of the Trinity, we get
50.39 This points to the jubilee during which God forgives transgressions
and remits the sins of the penitent.40
In the following chapter Cassiodorus gives Augustine’s list which he
tells us is taken from De doctrina christiana, and then he notes that the total
number there also has mystical significance. The next chapter then claims
to give the list according to the Septuagint, but it is, in fact, the standard
Latin list and is identical with that given for Augustine.41 Faced with two
saints and two lists—although it is clear from elsewhere in the Institutiones
that his own operative list was that of Augustine—Cassiodorus’s action
was to reproduce each list faithfully, but without criticism of either.42 But
what about the inevitable students’ question: which is right? Cassiodorus’s
response was to spin the question thus:

We have decided that all three types of division ought to be

appended, in order that after careful consideration and inspection
they may seem not to conflict but rather to make one another mutu-
ally intelligible. Although many fathers—that is St Hilary, bishop of
the city of Poitiers, and Rufinus, priest of Aquileia, and Epiphanius,
prelate of Cyprus—and the men assembled at the synod of Nicaea
and at that of Chalcedon have made statements on this matter
which are not contradictory but varying, all of them, however,
through their divisions have adapted the sacred books to appropriate
mysteries, just as it is generally agreed to have been the case in the
harmony of the Evangelists, in whom the faith in events is uniform
and the manner of speaking divergent.43

Cassiodorus was unwilling to lose any scrap of information, so he

recorded everything; but his fear of making a mistake or of impugning one
of the fathers crippled him into indecision. He came to theology late in
life, having spent most of his career in law and diplomacy: these skills now
provided his solution. He laid out each case with care, pointed out the
advantages of each, but left the decision to the judge. Unfortunately, his
students were looking to Cassiodorus as a magister, a magistrate, not as a
counsel. And so the confusion rumbled on: what has started as the idio-
syncratic position of Jerome was gaining momentum in each generation as
an unresolved problem within the Latin church.

39. See Appendix One below.

40. Cassiodorus, Institutiones, 1,12,2.
41. References can be found in Appendix One, below.
42. See Cassiodorus, Institutiones, 1,8,15.
43. Cassiodorus, Institutiones, 1,14,3, trans. Lesley Webber Jones, An Introduction to the
Divine and Human Readings (New York: Columbia University, 1946), 102.

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on January 10, 2012

 EARLY LATIN CANON LISTS 65

Other examples from the sixth century would add nothing new to the
debate—one could look at Junilius Africanus to see someone following
Jerome or to the Decretum Gelasianum to see a restatement of the canon
(in both senses) of the Roman synod of 382—but do demonstrate that the
question of the status as scripture of the six books was now a vibrant one
throughout the Latin West.44 And so we return to the Janus-faced Isidore
who embodied the confusion and whose attempt to solve it created yet
more difficulties. In his very short introductory guide to the scriptures, In
libros ueteris ac noui testamenti prooemia, Isidore omitted Tobit, Judith, and
1 and 2 Maccabees, but included Wisdom and Sirach considering both to
be Solomonic.45 In his most widely used work, the Etymologiae, he
excluded all six books, and, as we have seen, created clear water between
such books and the inspired, inerrant, and true scriptures. Having failed to
decide between the masters, a new principle, what might be called ‘the
principle of theological parsimony,’ came into play: if there is a doubt about
a document, consider it optional and leave it out for caution’s sake—its
benefits cannot be that important anyway or no one would doubt its place.
When Isidore’s behaviour is compared with the vigour of Jerome’s and
Augustine’s arguments, it cannot but be seen as puerile.

Conclusion

These early Latin lists are now long forgotten within the active mem-
ory of theology; however, it is my contention that their legacy is still with
us. Any mention of the notion of ‘apocrypha’ still, usually, provokes the
opening remark that it is an ill-defined category: it includes many works
that some Christians consider canonical alongside works that none
include in their bibles or liturgy. It still causes confusion in discussions
about scripture between churches (look at the plethora of editions of the
New Revised Standard Version) and within individual churches (Roman
Catholics sometimes use the neologism ‘deuterocanonical’ in an attempt
to allay Protestant concerns, yet it is a concept alien to their formal docu-
ments and, more importantly, their liturgy).
This confusion is all the more surprising given that these early teachers
and list-makers were consciously intent on removing doubts and trouble-
some questions: indeed, the horror of ambiguity could be said to be the
greatest weakness in theologians like Eucherius, Cassiodorus, and Isidore.
Their confusion is a product of one of their most deeply held beliefs about
themselves and the nature of their work. They were disciples of the great
masters: Jerome and Augustine. Their respect for these authorities, coupled
with their unwillingness ever to declare one or other of them simply wrong,

44. See Appendix One for the corresponding lists.

45. Here he is following the position of those (legal) canonical lists that assert, following
the African synod of 393, that Solomon wrote five books (Salomonis libri quinque).

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on January 10, 2012

66 IRISH THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

meant that they were condemned to produce seeming reconciliations

which merely hid basic incompatibilities. If one tries to hold to both
Jerome’s authority in the prefaces found in codices of the scriptures and at
the same time accept Augustine’s attitude to those books, alongside a trad-
ition of canon law about their inclusion, one simply postpones confronting
the basic questions. The schoolmasters assembled opinions, catalogued
ideas, and produced lists: it would be later western theologians that would
confront all that was implied in their ‘workarounds.’ However, in so far as
these list-makers produced this confusion, propagated in generations of
teaching, they can be said to have been the inventors of the category of
‘biblical apocrypha.’

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on January 10, 2012

 Appendix One

Latin Lists of the Canonical Books of the Old Testament Compared

Key to the table:

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on January 10, 2012

1. Council of Rome 382.

2. Works which are excluded by Jerome in his prologues.
3. Rufinus, Commentarius in symbolum apostolorum, 37–38.
4. Council of Hippo 393, canon 36.46
5. Augustine, De doctrina christiana, 2,8,13.47
6. Pope Innocent I, ‘Consulenti tibi’ (405).48
7. Eucherius, Instructiones.49
8. The Decretum Gelasianum.50
9. Cassiodorus, Institutiones, 1,12 (Jerome’s order).51
10. Cassiodorus, Institutiones, 1, 13 (Augustine’s order).
11. Cassiodorus, Institutiones, 1,14 (The Septuagint’s order).
12. Junilius, De partibus diuinae legis, 1,3–6.52

46. The text is taken from the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s Enchiridion biblicum: documenta ecclesiastica sacram scripturam spectantia, 2nd ed., Rome, 1954,
8–9. This canon was repeated by the Council of Carthage of 419 (canon 29).
47. This part of De doctrina christiana was written c.396–397 (see J. J. O’Donnell, ‘Doctrina Christiana, De,’ in Augustine through the Ages: An Encyclopedia,
ed., A.D. Fitzgerald [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999], 278–280).
48. The text is taken from Enchiridion biblicum, 9–10.
49. The list is compiled from the tituli under which he deals with various difficult questions.
50. Early-sixth century.
51. Mid-sixth century.

67
52. Mid-sixth century.
 13. Isidore, In libros ueteris ac noui testamenti prooemia, 1–13.53

68
14. Isidore, Etymologiae 6,1.54

155 256 357 458 559 660 761 8 9 10 11 1262 1363 14

Gen ● M ● M ● ● ● ● ● ● A ● ●
Exod M M A
Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on January 10, 2012

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Lev ● M ● M ● ● ● ● ● ● A ● ●

Num ● M ● M ● ● ● ● ● ● A ● ●

53. Early-seventh century.

54. Early to mid-seventh century.
55. See note 13 of the main text.
56. Unlike the other columns which indicate the books included in the canon, this column indicates those books which Jerome wanted to exclude and
against which he provided ‘health warnings.’
57. In this list for Rufinus, ‘M’ denotes that he attributes books to Moses; ‘S’ denotes that he considered these three books as written by Solomon; ‘P’ denotes
the group of ‘the twelve prophets’ which he does not name individually; and ‘E’ denotes ‘Ecclesiastical Books’ which are distinct from ‘Canonical.’
58. In this column ‘S’ denotes the five books of Solomon about which no further information is given; ‘P’ denotes ‘the twelve prophets’ about which no fur-
ther information is given.
59. In this list for Augustine, ‘M’ designates that he said that these are a unity as the five books written by Moses; ‘S’ denotes that he considered these three
books as written by Solomon; ‘J’ denotes that he considered these two books as written by Jesus ben Sirach; and ‘P’ denotes the group of ‘the twelve prophets’
which he stated were always found together. Augustine makes no attempt to suggest that there are varying degrees of canonicity.
60. In this column ‘S’ denotes the five books of Solomon about which no further information is given; ‘P’ denotes ‘the sixteen prophets’ about which no fur-
ther information is given.
61. The information in this column is inconclusive as it presents only those books to which Eucherius devoted questions. An omission in this column does
not mean, therefore, that Eucherius did not consider a book canonical.
62. Junilius does not give a single list but breaks the books into various classes: history, prophecy, proverbial works, and doctrine. He does, however, follow-
ing Jerome, consider the Old Testament canon to be made up of two parts: first, those books which are recognized by the Jews; and second, those which are
not. The latter form a separate list of ‘added’ works; and, as such, Junilius is the first to adopt, albeit without the name, the notion of ‘deuterocanonical’
books. Those about which he knows of no query are designated ‘A’ in this list, those about which he knows there are queries (always from Jerome in the case
of the Old Testament) are designated ‘B’.
63. In this column ‘S’ indicates the book of Solomon, ‘Sl’ indicates the two books which Isidore knows may not be Solomonic, but which he wishes to asso-
ciate with Solomon nonetheless; and ‘X’ denotes those books which Hebraei non recipiunt, ecclesia tamen eosdem inter canonicas scripturas enumerat.
 Dent ● M ● M ● ● ● ● ● ● A ● ●

Josh ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● A ● ●

Jgs ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● A ● ●

Ruth ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● A ● ●
64
1 Sam ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● A ● ●

2 Sam ? A
Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on January 10, 2012

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

1 Kgs ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ? ● ● A ● ●

2 Kgs ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ? ● ● A65 ● ●

1 Chr ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● B ● ●

2 Chr ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● B ● ●
66 67 68 69
Ezra ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● B ● ●

Neh ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● B ● ●
70
1 Esd
71
2 Esd

64. Cassiodrous simply says ‘Samuel’ and there is no indication that he intends to state that Jerome considered all four books of Kings as canonical.
65. Junilius is aware of the nomenclature problem between the Hebrew Text and the Septuagint in Sam–Kgs.
66. The text says: ‘Esdrae l. 1’ which in all probability refers to Ez and Neh.
67. Rufinus refers to these as ‘the two books of Ezra which the Hebrews count as one.’
68. Cassiodorus refers to the book of Ezra ([liber] Ezrae): there is no indication that he thought that Jerome thought of two canonical books here.
69. Cassiodorus here explicitly refers to two books which strengthens the argument that he believed Jerome only thought of Ezra, and not Neh, as canonical.
70. This book is found in the Septuagint but it is not mentioned by any Latin writer, although this may be due to a confusion of names. In the Septuagint
there are two books of Esdras: ‘the First Book of Esdras’ which corresponds to ‘the Third Book of Esdras’ in the Vulgate; and ‘the Second Book of Esdras’
which corresponds to Ezra and Neh (which are called the ‘First and Second Books of Esdras’ in the Vulgate). So someone, e.g. Cassiodorus, might have seen
a Septuagint list with ‘two books of Esdras’ and a Vulgate list with the same entry and assumed they referred to the same thing. See the additional table below.
71. This work is found in many Vulgate manuscripts, and with 3 Esd was relegated to an appendix in the post-Tridentine editions of the Vulgate (see Fischer
et al., Biblia, 1930; and Bruce M. Metzger, ‘The Fourth Book of Ezra,’ in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, ed. J. H.

69
Charlesworth [London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1983], 517–524).
 X72

70
Tob ● X E ● ● ● ● ● ● X
Jth ● X E ● ● ● ● ● ● B X X
Esth ● Q73 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● B ● ●

Job ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● B ● ●
74 75
Pss ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● A76 ● ●

Prov S S S S S77 S78 S79 S80 A S

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on January 10, 2012

● ● ●

Qoh ● S S S S ● S S S A S ●

Song ● S S S S ● S S S S B S ●

Wis ● X E S J S ● SI81 S B S● X
Sir ● X E S J S ● S SI S A S● X
Isa ● ● ● ● P ● ● ● ● ● A ● ●
82
Jer ● ● ● ● P ● ● ● ● A ● ●
83 84
Lam ● ● ● ●

72. In this column ‘X’ denotes those book which Isidore believed were not to be found in Hebrew and which the Jews considered ‘apocrypha,’ but he notes:
‘ecclesia tamen Christi inter diuinos libros et honorat et praedicat.’
73. Q in the column indicates a book over which Jerome expressed concern over parts of the text.
74. The Decretum specifies this book as containing 150 psalms.
75. Cassiodorus refers to the ‘[book of] David.’
76. Junilius specifies this book as containing 150 psalms.
77. In this column ‘S’ denotes that the Decretum holds these three books to be Solomonic.
78. Cassiodorus is ambiguous as to which books he considered Jerome believed to have been by Solomon (‘S’ in this column), moreover because of the con-
fusion of Ecclesiates (i.e. Qo) with Ecclesiasticus (i.e. Sir) the textual tradition has him attribute Sirach to Solomon adding further confusion to the issue of
authorship.
79. Cassiodorus merely says that Augustine held that there were three books by Solomon (‘S’), but without specifying them.
80. Cassiodorus states that the Septuagint considered five books to be Solomonic (‘S’), and he names them individually.
81. Cassiodorus states that Augustine held that there were three books by Sirach (‘SI’), but without specifying them.
82. Jer, Lam, and Bar are mentioned by name but thought of as a single book.
83. Refinus does not mention either Lam or Bar in his list.
84. The Decretum states that it is Jer cum Cinoth, i.e. ‘with Lam.’
 85
Bar ● Q
Ez ● ● ● ● P ● ● ● ● ● A ● ●

Dan ● Q ● ● ● P ● ● ● A ● ●

Hos ● P P P P ● P86 P87 ● A ● ●

Joel ● P P P P ● P P ● A ● ●

Amos P P P P P P A
Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on January 10, 2012

● ● ● ● ●

Obad ● P P P P ● P P ● A ● ●

Jon ● P P P P ● P P ● A ● ●

Mic ● P P P P ● ● P P ● A ● ●

Nah ● P P P P ● P P ● A ● ●

Hab ● P P P P ● P P ● A ● ●

Zeph ● P P P P ● P P ● A ● ●

Hag ● P P P P ● P P ● A ● ●

Zech ● P P P P ● P P ● A ● ●

Mal ● P P P P ● P P ● A ● ●

1 Mac ● X E ● ● ● ● ● ● B X X
2 Mac ● X E ● ● ● ● ● ● B X X
88
3 Mac
4 Mac

85. This book is found in both the Septuagint and the Vulgate (albeit in different arrangements), but it is not mentioned in any list, and indeed is absent in
several families of Vulgate manuscripts (see Fischer et al., Biblia, 1255; and P. P. Saydon, ‘Baruch,’ in Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, eds. B. Orchard,
E. F. Sutcliffe, R. C. Fuller, and R. Russell [London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1953], 596).
86. Cassiodorus refers to these simply as ‘the twelve prophets.’
87. Cassiodorus refers to ‘the twelve prophets’ and then names them individually.

71
88. Both 3 Mac and 4 Mac are found in the Septuagint, but are not mentioned by any Latin writer.
 The Problem of References to ‘Two books of Esdras’89

72
LXX Vulgate Modern Reference Names

Esdras A III Esdras 3 Esd

(present in only (now: placed in the
Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on January 10, 2012

a few codices) Vulgate’s appendix)

Esdras B I Esdras Ezra
II Esdras Nehemiah
IV Esdras 4 Esd
(present in only (now: placed in the
a few codices) Vulgate’s appendix)

89. See note 70 above.

 EARLY LATIN CANON LISTS 73

Appendix Two

A Selection of Latin Lists of the Canonical Books of the New

Testament Demonstrating that There is No Dispute Regarding
Contents

Key to the table:

A. Augustine, De doctrina christiana, 2,8,13.

B. Council of Hippo 393, canon 36.
C. Pope Innocent I, ‘Consulenti tibi’ (405).
D. The Decretum Gelasianum.
E. Cassiodorus, Institutiones, 1,12 (Jerome’s order).
F. Cassiodorus, Institutiones, 1,13 (Augustine’s order).
G. Cassiodorus, Institutiones, 1,14 (the Septuagint’s order).
H. Junilius, De partibus diuinae legis, 1,3–6.
I. Isidore, In libros ueteris ac noui testamenti prooemia, 1–13.
J. Isidore, Etymologiae, 6,1.

A B C D E F G90 H I J
Matt ● ● ● ● ● ● ● A ● ●

Mark ● ● ● ● ● ● ● A ● ●

Luke ● ● ● ● ● ● ● A ● ●

John ● ● ● ● ● ● ● A ● ●

Act ● ● ● ● ● ● ● A ● ●

Rom P91 P92 P93 P94 P95 P96 ● A P97 P98

1 Cor P P P P P P ● A P P
2 Cor P P P P P P ● A P P
Gal P P P P P P ● A P P
Eph P P P P P P ● A P P

90. It might appear that this column could not be applicable for the New Testament, but
Cassiodorus presents the second half of this chapter as if the Septuagint also contained the
New Testament; presumably he used ‘Septuagint’ as a term which covered any biblical
manuscript in Greek.
91. In this column ‘P’ denotes Paul: Augustine believed there was a corpus of 14 letters by Paul.
92. In this column ‘P’ denotes Paul: the council considered Paul the author of 13 letters, but
then added ‘eiusdem ad Hebraeos’ thereby indicating a question which must have been in
the minds of some of the bishops but which also was in agreement with Augustine who we
know was present from his own writings (Augustine, Retractationes, 1,16).
93. In this column ‘P’ denotes Paul: Innocent states that there were 14 letters by Paul with-
out giving further information.
94. In this column ‘P’ denotes Paul: the Decretum has a corpus of 14 letters by Paul.
95. In this column ‘P’ denotes Paul: Cassiodorus held that Jerome believed that there was a
corpus of 14 letters by Paul.
96. In this column ‘P’ denotes Paul: Cassiodorus held that Augustine believed that there
was a corpus of 14 letters by Paul.
97. In this column ‘P’ denotes Paul: Isidore held there was a corpus of 14 letters by Paul.
98. In this column ‘P’ denotes Paul: Isidore held there was a corpus of 14 letters by Paul.

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on January 10, 2012

74 IRISH THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

Phil P P P P P P ● A P P
Col P P P P P P ● A P P
1 Thess P P P P P P ● A P P
2 Thess P P P P P P ● A P P
1 Tim P P P P P P ● A P P
2 Tim P P P P P P ● A P P
99
Titus P P P P P P ● A P P
Phlm P P P P P P ● A P P
Heb P ● P P P P A P P
Jas ● ● ● ● ● ● ● A ● ●

1 Pet ● ● ● ● ● ● ● A ● ●

2 Pet ● ● ● ● ● ● ● A ● ●
100 101
1 John ● ● ● ● ● ● ● A ● ●

2 John ● ● ● JP ● ● A ● ●

3 John ● ● ● JP ● ● A ● ●
102
Jude ● ● ● ● ● ● A ● ●

Apoc ● ● ● ● ● ● ● B103 ● ●

THOMAS O’LOUGHLIN was born in Dublin in 1958 and is currently

Professor of Historical Theology in Lampeter. His work concentrates on
how Christian understanding changes in the process of transmission from
situation to situation over time; and, in particular, how the theology of the
Latin churches evolved in the late patristic and early medieval periods.
Address: Department of Theology and Religious Studies, University of
Wales, Lampeter, Ceredigion SA48 7ED, UK. t.o.loughlin@lamp.ac.uk

99. Cassiodorus believed that the Septuagint contained two letters to Titus, but there is no
mention of a letter to the Hebrews.
100. The Decretum makes a distinction between two ‘Johns’: 1 Jn it holds to be the work of
John the Apostles; while 2 Jn and 3 Jn are held to be the work of another man: John the
Presbyter (‘JP’).
101. There is mention of only one letter of John ‘ad Parthos.’
102. The Decretum tries to identify this Jude further as ‘Jude the Zealot.’
103. Junilius knew that Eastern Christians (Orientales) had doubts about the canonicity of
this book.

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on January 10, 2012