Here is his paper:
Answers in Genesis : A Look at the Canon
How Do We Know that the 66 Books of the Bible Are from God?
by Bodie Hodge on January 23, 2008
https://answersingenesis.org/the-word-of-god/a-look-at-the-canon/
First, how does he enumerate them?
Tobit
Judith
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus (Book of Sirach)
1 Esdras
2 Esdras
Baruch
Letter of Jeremiah
Additions to Esther
Prayer of Azariah
Suzanna (often inserted as Daniel 13)
Bel and the Dragon
Prayer of Manasseh
The Roman Catholic 1 and 2 Esdras are King James Ezra and Nehemiah. In Russian Bibles, these are however 2 and 3 Esdras, and their 1 Esdras is neither in RC nor regular OT section of King James. Letter of Jeremiah is, in RC Bibles Baruch 6. This makes for two groups, books that can be discussed in canon lists of books, and book parts that are not so discussed.
Books:
Tobit
Judith
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus (Book of Sirach)
Baruch (considered to have sometimes been reckoned part of Jeremiah and therefore not discussed)
Book parts:
Letter of Jeremiah (Baruch 6)
Additions to Esther (in Esther)
Prayer of Azariah (in Daniel 3 if we mean prayer of the three young men or canticle of the three young men)
Suzanna (often inserted as Daniel 13)
Bel and the Dragon (Daniel 14)
Prayer of Manasseh (in II Chronicles 33)
Now, as to the discussion:
Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate in the 5th century made it abundantly clear that the Apocrypha were not Scripture, even though they were included with the Vulgate. But like many other ancient pieces of literature, Jerome felt it worthy to be translated into Latin, the common tongue of the day. Even many early Church Fathers such as Melito, Origin, Athanasius, Cyril, and others rejected the Apocrypha.
He also made it clear that this was his opinion as a researcher, and that it was not shared by the bishops of the Catholic Church, and that he included these because they considered them canon.
Jews, before and during the time of Christ, often used the Septuagint (whether it contained the Apocrypha or not) but never classed the Apocrypha as Scripture for various reasons.3 One such reason is that it never claimed to be Scripture, unlike other books of the Bible that claim such things. Even one of the apocryphal books affirms there was no one speaking on God’s behalf at that time (1 Maccabees 9:27) when it says: “There had not been such great distress in Israel since the time prophets ceased to appear among the people.”
Not all canon books do affirm in the text to be speaking on God's behalf. Genesis doesn't. St. Luke's Gospel doesn't.
Again, there is speaking on God's behalf as a prophet, which is different from recording with God's protection from error. The latter is not incompatible with author excluding himself from the former.
Today, the Roman Church views 12 of the Apocryphal books as Scripture and has included them in their Bible translations (New American Bible, New Jerusalem Bible). The books that are excluded are 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh. This happened in A.D. 1546 at the Council of Trent.
1 and 2 Esdras are on the contrary included, and prayer of Manasseh is a book part, not excluded.
Some have claimed that apocryphal books were recognized as full scriptural canon by the Church as far back as the First Synod of Hippo in A.D. 393 with Augustine. There are no extant records of this Synod, so no one can say exactly what was decided, though the summary offered by the Council of Carthage in A.D. 397 is assumed to be generally accurate. However, the Synod of Hippo was regional, as was the following Council at Carthage where this new canon was approved; hence, it didn’t hold authority over the whole of the Roman Church.
The council of Rome was also regional, meaning one in 382 AD.
Decree of Council of Rome (AD 382) on the Biblical Canon
by Dr Taylor Marshall
https://taylormarshall.com/2008/08/decree-of-council-of-rome-ad-382-on.html
Only one seemingly lacking is Baruch, and that one can be explained by being in Rome 382 considered a book part.
It wasn’t until A.D. 405 that Pope Innocent I endorsed the Apocrypha—after the Council of Carthage—even though Jerome (who translated the Bible and Apocrypha into Latin and was also Catholic) strictly opposed it as Scripture.
I think 382 was earlier than 405.
Catholic Cardinal Cajetan around the time of the Reformation in the 16th century A.D. reveals that there were two different levels of canon in the Roman Church (a strict canon and non-official canon that was still useful for teaching in the church) ...
That was his opinion, out of respect for St. Jerome
This shows that the official fully inspired Old Testament canon accepted by the Roman Church was the same as the canon being used by the Protestants and Jews until the Council of Trent; at this point in time the second canon books were fully promoted to the position of inspired canon by the Roman Church.
No, it shows there were variations within Catholicism up to Trent.
The community who copied the Dead Sea Scrolls never referred to the Apocrypha as “It is Written” or “God Says” as they did with other canon books.
Do they refer to them at all?
Jesus never rejected the Jewish Canon (which was the same as the Protestant O.T.); Jesus never quoted from the Apocrypha as Scripture.
The Jewish canon which clearly was as Protestant OT was that of Jamnia, it was not universal in Jesus' time, and there are lots of other books He never is written to have quoted, which are in the OT.
Philo, Jewish philosopher, refers to all but 5 O.T. books and never quotes from the Apocrypha.
So, he didn't refer to all OT books either.
The New Testament writers do not quote from the Apocrypha as Scripture.
When do they quote Esther as such?
The Council of Jamnia drew up a list of canonical books for Judaism at the time—the Apocrypha are excluded.
The same council that banned Christians.
Josephus, Jewish Historian, never lists the Apocrypha as Scripture.
He felt bound by Jamnia, and half included another change by it : the total between Flood and birth of Abraham is given as 292 years, but the detail he gives for the generations in Genesis 11 (which reflects what he learned as a boy before Jamnia) adds up to nearly as much as Roman martyrology for Christmas day.
The first verifiable canon listing from the Church Fathers was found in the writings of Melito of Sardis and the Apocrypha are missing.
So is Esther.
Another listing by Athanasius lists canon books, but the Apocrypha are missing.
So is Esther.
Jerome, who translated the Bible into Latin, opposed the Apocrypha as Scripture, though he translated it.
He obeyed the bishops in submission and they did not share his opinion.
Rufinius lists the Canon books, and the Apocryphal books are not among them.
Could not verify.
Cyril of Jerusalem rejected the Apocrypha.
Could not verify.
Council of Laodicea rejects most of the Apocrypha except Baruch.
And they reject the Apocalypse as well.
Regional Synod of Hippo, influenced by Augustine, is the first listing of the Apocrypha as Scripture and approved at the regional Council of Carthage (397). See the discussion above on Hippo.
Yeah, see above.
Gregory the Great, Pope of Rome, in his writings denies Maccabees as canonical but still says it is useful according to Roman Catholic patristics scholar, William Jurgens.
A decent reference would be, not William Jurgens, but the places in St. Gregory's work where this is so. This is not given, and unlike St. Gregory's work, William Jurgens' isn't for free on the web.
Pastoral Rule, all four books, no F presence on Maccabees, dito a pdf on Dialogues. Letters would be one page per extant letter. Moralia in Job has 35 books, each a page.*
Council of Florence declares the Apocryphal books are canonical.
Based on Rome 382 and Carthage 397.
Catholic Cardinal Cajetan (who opposed Luther) points out that there are two levels of inspiration, and the Apocrypha, Judith, Tobit, books of Maccabees, Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus were the lesser of inspiration and seen as non-canon books.
Personal opinion.
Polyglot Bible of Cardinal Ximenes (approved by Pope Leo X) published.
The polyglot makes a feature of showing the Hebrew text. "Apocrypha" are excluded for this practical reason.
Protestant Reformation retains the Jewish canon and that of Jerome and many others with no Apocrypha.
And hereby innovates. Especially Calvinists who do not even reserve a place for the "Apocrypha" in a separate section.
The Council of Trent finalized the Roman Church additions of the Apocrypha as full canon.
In line with councils of Rome 382 and Carthage 397, the first councils to list all of the 27 NT books.
It may seem as if I were nitpicking, and as if the majority opinion prior to Trent were "anti-apocrypha", but the examples were so chosen by Bodie Hodge, it was those I was concerned to refute.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Mardi Gras
1.III.2022
* I verified a pdf with all of Moralia in Hiob in Latin. No Maccabees there.
