Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Word of God · Book I: On the Canonical Books
Chapter 20: On the apocryphal books
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. I, De Verbo Dei, Book I: On the Canonical Books of Scripture. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
The canon of the sacred books being explained, and (according to the brevity of the work undertaken) defended against the arguments of the adversaries, it remains that we say a few things about those books which, though they have seemed canonical to some, are yet rightly and deservedly named not canonical, but apocryphal.
Now the word Apocryphus is Greek, and signifies a hidden and secret thing; since indeed [apokryptein] is to conceal, [apokryphon] a hiding-place. But ecclesiastical writers do not always use this word in the same way. For sometimes they call apocryphal those Scriptures of which it is not certain whether they are canonical and divine, even though it be sufficiently established that no errors are found in them. So Jerome in the Helmeted Prologue will have all those books which are not in the canon to be numbered among the apocryphal. But sometimes they call apocryphal those books which have errors mixed in them. So Origen uses this word homily 1 on the Canticle; Jerome in the epistle to Laeta On the instruction of a daughter; and Augustine book 16 [15] of the City of God chapter 23. Following which signification, Gelasius, in the decree On Ecclesiastical books, calls those books apocryphal which were published by heretical, or at least suspected, authors.
But what the Gloss on the canon Sancta Romana, distinction 15, says — that those books are called apocryphal whose author is unknown — is not probable; for then many sacred books would be apocryphal, as the book of Judges, Ruth, Job, the first of Maccabees, and very many others whose authors are unknown, which nevertheless is abhorrent to the usage of speech of the Church. For who ever heard that a canonical book is apocryphal?
Very many apocryphal books are enumerated by Gelasius (as is had in distinction 15, canon Sancta Romana), by Innocent I epistle 3, by Athanasius in the Synopsis, and by Eusebius book 3 of the History chapter 25; but for the greatest part they are not extant. Those which are extant are these: The Prayer of King Manasses, which is wont to be annexed to the books of Paralipomenon, which therefore we seem able to call apocryphal, or not certainly canonical, because it is not a part of any sacred book, nor is it placed by name in the canon by any Council, Pontiff, or Father cited above; nor is it had in the Hebrew or Greek, but only in the Latin edition. Apocryphal also is the 151st Psalm of David, which Athanasius mentions in the Synopsis, and which is found in the Greek Psalters. Which Psalm I call apocryphal, because the Council of Laodicea canon 59, the Roman Council under Gelasius, and Trent session 4 place by name in the canon 150 Psalms.
Likewise apocryphal is the appendix of the book of Job, which is had only in the Greek codices. For the Council of Trent, session 4, willed only those books to be held canonical which are had in the Latin Vulgate edition. Besides, blessed Jerome, in his Questions on Genesis, shows that it is false which is had in that appendix, that Job was of the stock of Esau, whereas he was of the stock of Hus, who was the son of Nachor, the brother of Abraham, as is said Genesis 22. Add that this appendix rests chiefly on the authority of chapter 36 of the book of Genesis, where Jobab is numbered among the posterity of Esau; but [the Hebrew name of Job] is a far different name, proper to Job himself, from [the Hebrew Jobab] which is had in Genesis chapter 36. Apocryphal also seems to be the little preface which is prefixed to the Lamentations of Jeremiah; for it is neither in the Hebrew codices, nor in all the Latin, and is not touched by the expositors.
No less to be reckoned apocryphal is the book of Hermas, which is entitled the Shepherd. For although Origen thought it divinely inspired, book 10 on the epistle to the Romans, and although testimonies are brought from it by Tertullian in the book On prayer, Irenaeus book 4 chapter 37, Clement of Alexandria book 6 of the Stromata, Athanasius in the book On the Decrees of the Nicene Synod, and Cassian Conference 15 chapter 12 — and although Eusebius judged this same book useful, book 3 of the History chapter 3, as did Rufinus on the Creed, and Jerome in the book On Ecclesiastical Writers, in Hermas — nevertheless it was neither by any Synod placed in the canon, and in express words Gelasius rejects it from the canon in the decree On Ecclesiastical books, as does Athanasius in the Synopsis; the same Athanasius also in the book On the Decrees of the Nicene Synod, and Theodoret book 1 of the History chapter 18, say that the Arians, who sought testimonies from this book, sought testimonies from a non-canonical book.
Lastly apocryphal are the third and fourth books of Maccabees, and also the third and fourth of Esdras. And indeed concerning the fourth of Maccabees the matter is clear, since it is only named by Athanasius in the Synopsis, and by him placed outside the canon. But the fourth of Esdras is indeed cited by Ambrose in the book On the good of death, and book 2 on Luke, and in epistle 21 to Horatianus; yet without doubt it is not canonical, since it is reckoned in the canon by no Council, and is found neither in Hebrew nor in Greek, and finally contains in chapter 6 certain fabulous things about the fish Henoch and Leviathan, which the seas could not hold — which are the dreams of the Rabbinical Talmudists. And so it is to be wondered what came into the mind of Genebrard, that he would have this book too pertain to the canon, in his Chronology page 90.
But concerning the third of Maccabees there is greater difficulty, since Clement in the Apostolic canons, canon 84, reckons three books of Maccabees in the canon. Nor is the difficulty less concerning the third of Esdras; for in the Greek codices it is that which is called the first of Esdras, and those which among us are called the first and second are in the Greek called the second of Esdras. Wherefore it is likely that the ancient Councils and Fathers, when they place in the canon two books of Esdras, understand under the name of two books all three. For they followed the version of the Seventy Interpreters, among whom our three are named two books of Esdras. It is added also that this third of Esdras is cited by Athanasius oration 3 against the Arians, by Augustine book 18 of the City of God chapter 35, by Clement of Alexandria book 1 of the Stromata, by the Author of the Unfinished Work homily 1 on Matthew, and by Saint Cyprian in the epistle to Pompey.
As to the former difficulty, it seems probable that that canon is not Clement's. For Zephyrinus, the fifteenth Pope from Peter, in epistle 1 hands down that there were only seventy canons of the Apostles, or as other codices have, sixty; and Humbert, in the book against Nicetas, acknowledges only fifty; but this is the eighty-fourth. And certainly Zephyrinus knew better how many the canons of the Apostles were than any of the later men. Wherefore not without cause Gelasius, distinction 15 canon Sancta Romana, placed the canons of the Apostles among the apocrypha, which he seems to have done on account of some, either corrupted or added, by the heretics. Nor does it stand in the way that in the canons which are called those of the Sixth Synod, canon 2, the 85 canons of the Apostles are approved; for those canons are not truly of the Sixth Synod, but of some other Council celebrated afterward, which the Supreme Pontiff Sergius, who then sat, not only did not approve, but even reproved, as is plain from Bede in the book On the six ages, in Justinian.
Then in this canon 84 the canonical books are numbered, and certain are omitted which are most certainly canonical, as the books of Esdras, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and the Apocalypse — which thing seems to be of no small moment. For the Church which was after the Apostles learned from no other source which books are canonical and which are not, than from the tradition of the Apostles. Moreover that Clement most exactly held the Apostolic traditions, since he had long lived with the Apostles Peter and Paul, Irenaeus witnesses book 3 chapter 3, and Eusebius book 5 of the History chapter 6. Therefore those books which are not placed in the canon by Clement seem absolutely not canonical. Accordingly, either the books of Esdras, Tobias, Judith, and the Apocalypse are not canonical, or that decree is not Clement's. But what some say — that the Apocalypse was omitted by Clement because it was not yet written in his time — they cannot prove. For John wrote the Apocalypse toward the end of the reign of Domitian, as Irenaeus teaches book 5 at the end; but Clement died in the third year of Trajan, as Jerome teaches in the book On Illustrious Men. Clement therefore could have seen the Apocalypse.
Then, is not the Gospel of John placed in this very eighty-fourth canon? But that the Apocalypse was written before the Gospel, very many most grave authors testify. Eusebius book 3 of the History chapter 24: “They hand down,” he says, “that John, almost to the last time of his life, preached the Gospel without any writings of Scripture.” Athanasius in the Synopsis: “The Gospel according to John,” he says, “was both preached by John the Apostle and beloved, when he was an exile on the island of Patmos, and afterward published by the same at Ephesus.” Epiphanius heresy 51, which is that of the Alogians, writes in express words that the Gospel was published by John after the 90th year of his life, and after his return from Patmos.
Theophylact, Euthymius, Bede, and Rupert, in the prefaces of their Commentaries on John, teach by common consent that either in Patmos, or after the return from Patmos, the Gospel of John was written and published. Nor does that contradict these which Dionysius the Areopagite writes, in the epistle to John living in exile; for Dionysius calls John the Sun of the Gospel, and speaks of his heavenly Theology, not on account of any writing then extant under John's name, but on account of his divine and admirable preaching.
Moreover in this same canon 84 there are numbered among the sacred books not only the third of Maccabees, but also the two epistles of Clement, and the Apostolic Constitutions of the same Clement; which books nevertheless the Church never acknowledged as sacred. But if that canon were truly Clement's, the Church could not, without great rashness, refuse to receive these books, since Clement was Supreme Pontiff, and either himself composed the canons of the Apostles, or (which is truer) committed to writing those composed by the Apostles; and it is not lawful for the Church to refuse the Apostolic laws, or even the Pontifical, save only those which it is certainly established are now abrogated, as serving the time rather than the truth of doctrines — such as that about not eating blood and things strangled.
To the other difficulty I answer: although in the Greek codices the two books of Esdras are our three, yet not on that account did the ancient Councils and the old Fathers, who place in the canon two books of Esdras, understand under the name of two our three. For many of the ancients — as Melito, Epiphanius, Hilary, Jerome, and Rufinus — in expounding the canon of the Old Testament, openly followed the Hebrews, not the Greeks; but the Hebrews do not have the third of Esdras. Then nothing out of this third book is ever read in the Ecclesiastical office; which is an argument that for a long time now that book has not been held in the number of the sacred. Besides, Gelasius, in the Roman Council of seventy Bishops, places only one book of Esdras in the canon; by which one, without doubt, he understands our two, which, as Jerome testifies in the preface to Esdras, are contained in one volume. And so in express words Gelasius rejected that former one which is among the Greeks.
Finally blessed Jerome, in the preface to Esdras, openly signifies that the third and fourth of Esdras are had not only not among the Hebrews, but not even among the Seventy. Wherefore, although certain Greek codices had three volumes of Esdras in two books, yet the more correct did not have them. Moreover the old Fathers sometimes use testimonies drawn from this book, which we too confess not to be useless; but they both do this rarely, and nowhere call it sacred and divine.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
caput xx. / De libris Apocryphis. Sacrorum librorum canone explicato, ac pro instituti operis brevitate ab adversariorum argumentis defenso, restat ut de libris istis pauca dicamus qui tametsi nonnullis cano¬ nici visi sint, tamen jure ac merito, non ca¬ nonici, sed apocryphi nominantur. Igitur vox Apocryphus Graeca est, et rem occultam ac reconditam significat ; siquidem cr.noy.pvTTTZLv celare est yy.Trov.p-jyh latibulum. Porro ecclesiastici Scriptores non semper eodem modo hanc vocem usurpant. Interdum enim vocant Scripturas apocryphas eas, quas non est certum an sint canonicae et divinae, etiam si satis constet nullas in eis errores inveniri. Sic Hieronymus in prolog. Galeato vult, eos omnes libros qui non sunt in canone, esse inter apocryphos numerandos. Interdum autem vocant apocryphos libros eos, qui er¬ rores admixtos habent. Sic utitur hac voce Origenes homil. 1. in Gant. ; Hieronymus in epistol. ad Laetam de institut. fil . , et Augustinus libr. XVI. de Civitate Dei cap. 23. Quam significationem secutus Gelasius in decreto de libris Ecclesiasticis, eos libros vocat apocryphos, qui sunt editi ab auctori¬ bus haereticis, vel certe suspectis. Quod autem Glossa in can. Sancta Roma¬ na, distinet. 15. dicit, apocryphos voeari eos (1) Apoc. I, 3.; XXII, 7. 116 LIBER I. libros, quorum auctor ignoratur; non est probabile : nam tunc multi libri sacri essent apocryphi, ut liber Judicum, Ruth, Job, primus Machabaeorum, et permulti alii, quorum auctores ignorantur, quod tamen abhorret ab usu loquendi Ecclesiae. Quis enim unquam audivit, librum canonicum esse apocryphum ? Enumerantur libri apocryphi plurimi a Ge- lasio, ut habetur distinet. 15. can. SanctaRo- mana , ab Innocentio I. epist. 3. ab Athanasio in Synopsi, et ab Eusebio.lib.III.histor.cap. 25, sed magna ex parte non exstant. Qui ex¬ stant hisunt: Oratio Regis Manasse, quae solet annectilibris Paralipomenon, quam ideo apo¬ crypham, aut non certo canonicam dicere posse videmur, quia non est pars alicujus li¬ bri sacri, nec ponitur nominatim in canone ab aliquo Concilio, vel Pontifice, vel Patre supra citatis ; nec habetur in Hebraea aut Grseca, sed solum in Latina editione. Apo¬ cryphus quoque est Psal. 151. Davidis, cu¬ jus meminit Athanasius in Synopsi, et inve¬ nitur in Graecis Psalteriis. Quem Psalmum apocryphum dico, quia Concilium Laodice- num canone 59. Concilium Romanum sub Gelasio, et Tridentinum sess. IV. nominatim ponunt in canone CL. Psalmos. Item apocrypha est appendix libri Job, quae tantum habetur in Graecis codicibus. Concilium enim Tridentinum sess. IV, eos tantum libros canonicos haberi voluit, qui in Latina vulgata editione habentur Praeter¬ ea B. Hieronymus in quaest. in Genes, os¬ tendit, falsum esse quod in illa appendice habetur, Job fuisse de stirpe Esau, cum fue¬ rit de stirpe Hus, qui fuit filius Nacbor fra¬ tris Abrahae, ut dicitur Genes. XXII. Adde quod illa appendix nititur potissimum aucto¬ ritati cap. XXXVI. libri Geneseos, ubi nume¬ ratur Jobab inter posteros Esau : at longe al¬ iud nomen est 21^ quod est proprium ipsius Job, quam nili quod habetur in Genes, cap. XXXVI. Apocrypha quoque esse videtur praefatiuncula, quae praefigitur Threnis Hie- remiae ; nam nec e^t in Hebraeis codicibus, nec in omnibus Latinis, et ab expositoribus non attingitur. Nec minus apocryphus censendus est liber Hermetis, qui inscribitur Pastor. Tametsi enim eum divinitus inspiratum esse putave¬ rit Origenes lib. X. in epistol. ad Roman., et ex eodem testimonia proferant Tertullia¬ nus libro de oratione, Irenaeus libro IV. cap. 37. Clemens Alexandrinus lib. VI. Strornat. Athanasius in libr. De Decret. Aiccence Sy¬ nodi ; Cassianus, Coli. XV. cap. 12. Et eum- dem librum utilem judicaverit Eusebius lib. III. Histor. cap. 3. Ruffmus in Symbolum, et Hieronymus in libr. De Scriptorib . Eccle- siast. inHermete; nihilominus tamen necab ulla Synodo relatus est in canonem, et diser¬ tis verbis eum a canone rejicit Gelasius in decr. de libr. Ecclesiast., et Athanasius in Synopsi, idem etiam Athanasius in lib. de decret. Nicaenae Synodi, etTheodoretus libr. I. Histor. cap. 18. Arianos, qui ex hoc li¬ bro testimonia petebant, dicunt ex libro non canonico testimonia petiisse. Postremo apocryphi sunt liber tertius et quartus Machabaeqrum, necnon tertius et quartus Esdrae. Et quidem de quarto Macha- baeorum res perspicua est, cum solum nomi¬ netur ab Athanasio in Synopsi, et ab eodem extra canonem ponatur. Quartus autem Es¬ drae citatur quidem ab Ambrosio lib. de bo¬ no mortis, et lib. II. in Lucam, ac in epis¬ tol. 21. ad Horatianum; tamen sine dubio non est canonicus, cum a nullo Concilio re¬ feratur in canonem, et non inveniatur neque Hebraice, neque Graece, ac demum conti¬ neat cap. VI. quaedam fabulosa de pisce He- noch et Leviatham, quos maria capere non poterant, quae Rabbinorum Thalmudistarum somnia sunt. Itaque mirandum est, quid Ge- nebrardo venerit in mentem, ut hunc etiam librum ad canonem pertinere vellet, in Chro- nologia sua pag. 90. At de tertio Machabaeorum major difficul¬ tas est, quoniam Clemens in canon. Apostol. cqnon. 84. refert in canonem tres libros Ma¬ chabaeorum. Nec minor est difficultas de lib. III. Esdrae : nam in Graecis codicibus ipse est qui dicitur primus Esdrae, et qui apud nos dicuntur primus et secundus, in Graeco di¬ cuntur secundus Esdrae. Quocirca verisimile est, antiqua Concilia et Patres, cum ponunt in canone duos libros Esdrae, intelligere no¬ mine duorum librorum omnes tres. Seque¬ bantur enim versionem septuaginta Inter¬ pretum, apud quos tres nostri, duo libri Es¬ drae nominantur. Accedit etiam, quod cita¬ tur hic tertius Esdrae ab Athanasio orat. 3. contra Arianos, ab Augustino lib. XVIII. De Civitate Deic,<vp. 35. aClemente Alexandrino lib. Stromat. 1. ab Auctore operis imperfecti homil. 1. in Matth., et a Sancto Cyprianoin epist. ad Pompejum. Quod ad priorem difficultatem attinet, pro¬ babile videtur, canonem illum non esse Cie- CAPUT XX. 117 mentis. Nam ZephirinusPapa XV, a Petro in epist. 1 . tradit, solum septuaginta fuisse ca¬ nones Apostolorum, vel ut alii Codices ha¬ bent sex aginta : Humbertus autem in libr. cont. Nicetam non agnoscit nisi quinqua¬ ginta: at iste est octuagesimus quartus. Et certe melius noverat Zephirinus quot essent Apostolorum canones quam ulli posteriorum. Quocirca non sine causa Gelasius distinet. 15. can. Sancta Romana, posuit inter apo¬ crypha canones Apostolorum, quod propter aliquos, vel corruptos, vel additos ab haere¬ ticis fecisse videtur. Nec obstat, quod in ca¬ nonibus, qui dicuntur VI. Synodi, canon, secundo approbentur 85. canones Apostolo¬ rum : nam illi canones non sunt vere sextae Synodi, sed cujusdam alterius Concilii pos¬ tea celebrati, quod summus Pontifex Ser¬ gius, qui tunc sedebat, non solum non ap¬ probavit, sed etiam reprobavit, ut patet ex Beda in libr. de sexaetat. in Justiniano. Deinde in isto canone 84. numerantur li¬ bri canonici, et omittuntur quidam, qui cer¬ tissime sunt canonici, ut libri Esdrae, Tobiae, Judith, Sapientia, Ecclesiasticus, Apocalyp¬ sis, quae res non minimi momenti esse vide¬ tur. Nam Ecclesia quae post Apostolos fuit, non aliunde didicit qui libri sint canonici, et qui non sint, quam ex traditione Apostolo¬ rum. Porro Clementem exactissime tenuisse Apostolicas traditiones, quippe qui cum A- postolis Petro et Paulo diu vixerat, testantur Irenaeus lib. III, cap. 3., et Eusebius lib. V. histor. cap. 6. ergo qui libri a Clementenon ponuntur in canone, absolute canonici non videntur. Proinde vel libri Esdrae, Tobiae, Judith, Apocalypsis non sunt canonici, vel decretum illud non est Clementis. Quod au¬ tem quidam dicunt, ^Apocalypsim omissam a Gemente quia nondum scripta erat ejus tempore, probare non possunt. Nam Apoca- lypsim Joannes scripsit ad finem imperii Do¬ mitiani, ut docet Irenaeus lib. V. extremo : Clemens autem obiit anno 3. Trajani, ut do¬ cet Hieronymus in lib. de vir. illustr. Potuit igitur Clemens Apocalypsim videre. Deinde, nonne in hoc ipso canone octua- gesimo quarto ponitur JoannisEvangelium? At Apocalypsim ante Evangelium scriptam fuisse, plurimi gravissimique auctores tes¬ tantur. Eusebiuslib.III. hist. cap. 24. « Joan- nem, inquit, tradunt usque ad ultimum pene vitae suae tempus, absque ullius Scripturae indiciis Evangelium praedicasse. » Athana- sius in Synopsi : « Evangelium, inquit, se¬ cundum Joannem, et praedicatum est a Jo- anne Apostolo et dilecto, cumexulinPathmo insula, et postea ab eodem editum Ephesi.» Epiphanius haeres. 51. quae est Alogorum, disertis verbis scribit, editum esse Evange¬ lium a Joanne post 90. annos vitae ejus, et post reversionem ipsius e Pathmo. Theophylactus, Euthymius, Beda, et Ru- • pertusPraefation. Commentar in Joann., com¬ muni consensu docet, aut in Pathmo, aut post reditum a Pathmo, Joannis Evangelium scriptum editumque esse. Neque his repu¬ gnat quod scribit Dionysius Areopagita in epist. ad Joann. in exilio agentem : vocat enim Dionysius Joannem Evangelii Solem, et coelestem ejus Theologiam, non ob scrip¬ tionem aliquam, quae tunc exstaret nomine Joannis, sed ob divinam et admirabilem ejus praedicationem. Praeterea in isto eodem canone 84. nume¬ rantur inter sacros libros, non solum tertius Machabaeorum, sed etiam epistolae duae Cle¬ mentis, et constitutiones Apostolicae ejusdem Clementis : quos tamen libros Ecclesia nun¬ quam pro sacris agnovit. At si ille canon vere esset Clementis, non possetEcclesia sine magna temeritate hos libros non recipere, siquidem Clemens' summus Pontifex erat, et canones Apostolorum vel ipse condidit, vel quod verius est, ab Apostolis conditos litteris commendavit : non autem licet Ecclesiae Apostolicas leges, vel etiam Pontificias recu¬ sare, nisi tantum eas, quas, quod tempori potius quam veritati dogmatum inservirent, jam abrogatas certo constat , qualis est illa de sanguine et suffocato non come¬ dendo. Ad alteram difficultatem respondeo : etsi in Graecis codicibus duo libri Esdrae sint no¬ stri tres : tamen non propterea Concilia an¬ tiqua et veteres Patres, qui in canone po¬ nunt duos libros Esdrae, intelligere nomine duorum nostros tres. Nam multi Veterum, ut Melito, Epiphanius, Hilarius, Hierony¬ mus, Ruffinus in canone exponendo Testa¬ menti veteris, aperte secuti sunt Hebraeos, non Graecos : Hebraei autem tertium Esdrae non habent. Deinde nihil ex hoc tertio libro in Ecclesiastico officio unquam legitur : quod argumentum est, a longo jam tempore non fuisse eum librum habitum in numero sacro¬ rum. Praeterea Gelasius in Concilio Romano LXX Episcoporum unum tantum Esdrae li¬ brum ponit in canone. Quo uno sine dubio nostros duos intelligit, qui ut Hieronymus testatur praefat. in Esdram, uno volumine continentur. Itaque disertis verbis Gelasius 118 LIBER I. priorem illum, qui est apud Graecos, reje¬ cit. Denique Beatus Hieronymus praefat. in Esdram aperte significat, tertium et quartum Esdrae non solum apud Hebraeos non haberi, sed ne apud LXX quidem. Quare, licet •quidam codices Graeci haberent tria volumi¬ na Esdrae in duobus libris ; correctiores ta¬ men non habebant. Porro veteres Patres utuntur interdum testimoniis ex hoc libro petitis, quem et nos non inutilem esse fate¬ mur, sed et raro id faciunt, et nusquam sa¬ crum et divinum appellant. i * CONTROVERSIARUM DE VERBO DEI