Canon of the Old Testament

The Greek kanon means primarily a reed, or measuring-rod: by a natural figure it was employed by ancient writers both profane and religious to denote a rule or standard. We find the substantive first applied to the Sacred Scriptures in the fourth century, by St. Athanasius; for its derivatives, the Council of Laodicea of the same period speaks of the kanonika biblia and Athanasius of the biblia kanonizomena. The latter phrase proves that the passive sense of canon — that of a regulated and defined collection — was already in use, and this has remained the prevailing connotation of the word in ecclesiastical literature.

Often, it is said that the expression “deuterocanonical books” was created by the Fathers of the Council of Trent (1545-1563). That is not correct. But it is true that the expression was used for the first time by a theologian connected with that council, Sixtus of Siena (1520-1569) in his De divinis nominibus bibliothecae sanctae published in 1566.1 Sixtus was a Jew converted to Christianity. He became a Franciscan, then a Dominican. In the beginning of his book, he asks the question: “what are the canonical and apocryphal Scriptures and authors” (canonicae et apocryphae scripturae et scriptores quid sint). In his answer, he makes a distinction between three categories of books:

  1. the canonical books of the first order, which he calls “protocanonical”
  2. the canonical books of the second order, in other words “deuterocanonical”
  3. and the “apocryphal” books, “apocryphae,” the meaning of which is of two kinds, “duobus modis:” first, there are the canonical books the authors of which are uncertain; secondly, there are the books the authority of which is uncertain, such as 3-4 Ezra, 3-4 Maccabees, and others; they cannot be used either in the dogmatic field nor for public edification, but are reserved for private reading, at home, “privatim et domi.”

According to Sixtus, the authority of the protocanonical books was never discussed in the Catholic Church and they have been always used in an authoritative manner in dogmatic problems; he does not list these books, except the five books of Moses and the four gospels. He gives many more details about the deuterocanonical books: in the Old Testament, those are Esther, Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Wisdom of Solomon, Ben Sira, Prayer of Azariah, Hymn of the Three Children, Susanna, Bel, 1-2 Maccabees; according to him, those books were not known during the apostolic ages by all the Church; they were read by the catechumens at the time of Athanasius, then they were used for public edification, as Rufinus tells.2

Sixtus innovates. Before him, in conciliary decrees the books he calls protocanonical and deuterocanonical were mixed together. For instance, canon 36 of the Council of Carthage (397 AD) speaks about Solomon’s books, which are said to be three, four or five according to the variant readings of the manuscripts. These books are quoted between the Psalter and the Twelve Prophets. If there are only three, these are necessarily Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs, which are canonical books; but, if they are four, Wisdom, a deuterocanonical book, is included; if they are five, Wisdom and probably Ben Sira, both deuterocanonical, are included. In the same list, Tobit and Judith are quoted between Daniel and Esther. Nevertheless, the list finishes with 1-2 Maccabees.3 Much later, in 1442, one of the decrees of the council of Florence, the Bulla unionis coptorum, quotes Tobit and Judith between Nehemiah and Esther; Wisdom and Ben Sira between Song of Songs and Isaiah; Baruch between Jeremiah and Ezekiel.4 In 1546, the Council of Trent gives the same list.5

Before the word “deuterocanonical,” was there another word for saying the same thing? Sixtus’ text furnishes an interesting indication: the theologian says that the books of the second order “were called in the past ecclesiastical, ecclesiastici, and called by us deuterocanonical.” Who, in the past, has spoken about ecclesiastical books? In the days of the Council of Trent, two theologians, the Dominican Pietro Bertano and the Augustinian Girolamo Seripando, suggested that it is necessary to distinguish two categories of books. First, the authentic and canonical ones, on which our faith depends (authentici et canonici et a quibus fides nostra dependeat); secondly, the books merely canonical, which are suited to teaching and useful for reading in the churches (canonici tantum quique ad docendum idonei et ad legendum in ecclesiis utiles sunt).6 Certainly, here, the word “ecclesiastic” is not present. But in his treatise De libris sacrae scripturae (1546), the same Girolamo Seripando makes a distinction between the canonical and authentic books, the authority of which is able to confirm ecclesiastical dogmas (canonici et authentici [… ) quorum auctoritas valeat ad confirmanda dogmatica ecclesiastica), and the canonical and ecclesiastical books, which are to be read for edification, but are not authentic, that is are not sufficient in order to confirm ecclesiastical dogmas, (canonici et ecclesiastici [… }legendi scilicet ad aedificationem plebes, non autem [… ) authentici, hoc est tanquam sufficientes per se ad confirmanda dogmata ecclesiastica).

To the second category belong Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ben Sira, Maccabees, 1-2 Ezra, Baruch. To establish this point, Girolamo Seripando quotes patristic authorities, above all Jerome’s Prologus in libris Salomonis. In fact, in this text, speaking about Ben Sira and Wisdom, the Latin Father explains that

the Church reads Judith, Tobit and Maccabees, but does not receive them among canonical Scriptures; in the same way, the Church must read these two books for public edification, but not in order to confirm the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas (sicut ergo Iudith et Tobi et Machabeorum libros legit quidem eccIesia, sed inter canonicas scripturas non recipit, sic et haec duo volumina legat ad aediftcationem plebes, non ad auctoritatem eccIesiasticorum dogma tum confirmandam).8

Does Sixtus refer to Girolamo Seripando and, beyond him, to Jerome? In his text, he quotes only Rufinus and his Expositio symboli, in which Rufinus makes a distinction between canonical books (canonici), and ecclesiastical books (ecclesiastici, § 36).9 Those are: Wisdom, Ben Sira, Tobit, Judith, Maccabees. According to him, the churches agree that all those books are to be read, but they cannot be produced in order to confirm the authority of faith (quae omnia legi quidem in ecclesiis voluerunt, non tamen proferri ad auctoritatem ex his fidei confirmandam). Nevertheless, this idea is closely related to Jerome’s proposal. One can even wonder whether Sixtus is not referring to Jerome, more than to Rufinus, when he makes a distinction between the confirmation of dogmas and the teaching of people (dogmatum confirmatio […J populi instructio). These words are quite close to the distinction made by Jerome in his Prologus in libris Salomonis between the confirmation of the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas (auctoritas ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmanda) and public edification (aedificatio plebes).

However, a point must be underlined: Rufinus asserts that the books of the second category “have been called by the elders not canonical, but ecclesiastical” (non canonici, sed ecclesiastici a maioribus appel/ati sunt). Are the words “ecclesiastical books” attested before Rufinus? Unfortunately, they do not occur in any text, either Latin or Greek. That does not mean that Rufinus is a liar, but only that there are big gaps in our knowledge of ancient data. Then, is it possible to go back in time before Rufinus? In his Letter to Africanus, Origen reminds Africanus that the story of Susanna is “in circulation in all Christ’s Church”, as well as Bel and the Dragon (§ 3). He speaks also about the Christian manuscripts offering the hymn of the three children which are “in circulation in the churches”, about the Greek additions to Esther (§ 5), about the end of Job (§ 6), and about Tobit and Judith, that the Jews do not use contrary to the churches (§ 19). Origen thinks that it is impossible to change the manuscripts and the texts that “are in circulation in the churches”.10 Certainly, the Greek word ecclesiastikos does not occur in Origen’ Letter, but the idea is present.

However, one thing is certain: the expression “ecclesiastical books” is Christian, not Jewish. But all the “ecclesiastical” books are Jewish. Some of them are translated from Hebrew, such as 1 Maccabees, Ben Sira, Judith and some passages of Tobit; others from the Aramaic language, such as most of Tobit and the beginning of 2 Maccabees; others have been written in Greek, such as Wisdom, most of 2 Maccabees and 3-4 Maccabees.11 Therefore, there is a contrast, perhaps a contradiction, between the Christian term and the Jewish origin. Is it possible to account for this contrast? Here, the patristic and rabbinic data have to be taken into account.


Facing the deuterocanonical/ecclesiastical books, the Fathers do not all behave in the same way. Some of them list them among the others biblical books, without classifying them in a special category. But more often, they enumerate them separately. In the second century, Melito of Sardis quotes Solomon’s Proverbs, “alias Wisdom”.12 Perhaps this book is really Proverbs; in that case, Melito does not list any deuterocanonical works. But maybe it is Wisdom, which, should then be the only deuterocanonical book indicated by Melito in his list. Around 400 AD, according to John Chrysostom, in the Protheoria of his Synopsis, the books belonging to the exhortative manner are Proverbs, Ben Sira (that is Ecclesiasticus), Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs.13 In the text which follows the Protheoria, 1-2 Chronicles is followed by 1-2 Ezra, Esther, Tobit, Judith, Job, Wisdom, Proverbs, Ben Sira, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, and the Twelve. Among the Latins, Cheltenham’s list and Gelasius’ Decree quote the deuterocanonical books on a level equal with the canonical ones.14 The same occurs in Augustine: Tobit, Esther, Judith and 1-2 Maccabees are quoted between Job and 1-2 Ezra (De doctrina christiana II 8,13).15


When they comment on the Bible or give quotations of it, the Fathers often consider the deuterocanonical books as Scripture. Wisdom is quoted as Scripture by Clement of Rome, Tatian, the letter To Diognetus, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian and others. Here are the deuterocanonical books that Origen quotes as Scripture in his treatise De Principiis: 2 Maccabees 7:28 (in II 1,5); Wisdom 11:20 (in II 9,1 and IV 4,8) and 15:11 (in III 4,1); Tobit 5:4 (in III 2,4) and 13:18 (in II 3,5); Ben Sira 6:4 (in II 8,4); 16:21 (in IV 3,14); 43:20 (in II 8,3); Susanna 42 (in III 1,2 et III 1,17). More often, the Fathers deal with the deuterocanonical books separately. The lists that they give are more or less numerous. According to Origen, who describes the canon of the Hebrews, there is only one book “outside” the canonical books: the Maccabees, the Hebrew title of which is Sarbethsabanaiel a title on which much has been written.16 Thanks to Jerome who, in the so-called Galeatus prologue, tells that he has found 1 Maccabees in Hebrew and 2 Maccabees in Greek, one can identify the “Maccabees” with 1 Maccabees.17

A short list containing only two books appears in Epiphanius, Panarion I 8,6,1-4: Wisdom and Ben Sira, which are said to be “in dispute” and form a category that Epiphanius distinguishes from the apocryphal books.18 In his treatise De mensuris et ponderibus (§ 4), the same Epiphanius calls those two books “useful” and “beneficial”.19 According to Josippus (end of the fourth century AD), Esther and Maccabees are “outside” the canonical books.20 During the first part of the eighth century, according to John Damascenus, the two Wisdoms, Solomon’s and that of Ben Sira, are said to be “virtuous” and “beautiful”, but they are not included among the canonical books.21 On the Latin side, Hilarius of Poitiers (middle of the fourth century AD) asserts that Tobit and Judith are “added” books (additi): they probably are deuterocanonical books.22


Another short list is attested around 600. According to the Barberinianus gr. 317, twenty-two books are common to Hebrews and Christians; then, the list criticizes “some” for not mentioning the “remaining” books, which are Solomon’s Wisdom, called also Panaretos, Esther, Tobit and Judith.23 To the first short list, this list adds Wisdom and Esther. One can be surprised by the mention of Esther, since this book belongs to the Hebrew canon. But, in ancient Christianity, the status of this book is threefold. Esther often belongs to the Christian canon. Sometimes, among Greek and Syriac authors, such as Melito, Gregory Nazianzenus, Amphilochius Iconiensis and the ancient Peshitto, Esther does not belong to the canon.24 And last, according to Athanasius, Pseudo-Athanasius (§ 2,41-46,74), Josippus, and Pseudo-Nicephorus, Esther is neither canonical nor apocryphal: it belongs to the socalled deuterocanonical category.25 It even happens that a Father contradicts himself. Origen, who quotes Esther as Scripture in his De Principiis (III 2, 4), but, when he is living in Caesarea, refers to it on a level with Tobit, Judith and Wisdom.26


Athanasius enumerates five books: Wisdom, Ben Sira, Esther, Judith and Tobit.27 The same list is given by Pseudo-Athanasius (Synopsis, § 2 and 4146).28 Among the Latin Fathers, Rufinus enumerates what he calls the ecclesiastical books: the two Wisdoms, that is Solomon’s and Ben Sira’s, Tobit, Judith and “Maccabees’ books,” probably 1-2 Maccabees.29 In the Galeatus prologue, Jerome speaks about the two Wisdoms, Judith, Tobit, 1-2 Maccabees.30 Around 600, Isidorus of Seville tells that “the Hebrews do not receive” Tobit, Judith and 1-2 Maccabees, but adds that “the Church includes them among canonical Scriptures.” He gives closely related information on Wisdom and Ben Sira.31


A large list with nine books is given by the Oxoniensis Baroccianus 206 list: here, the “outside” (few) books are numbered from one to nine: Solomon’s Wisdom, Ben Sira’s Wisdom, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, Esther, Judith, Tobit.32

Another large lists are attested. Around 900, Pseudo-Nicephorus list 13 Maccabees, Wisdom, Ben Sira, Solomon’s Psalms and Odes, Esther, Judith, Susanna and Tobit.33 He probably counted those ten books as eight, 1-3 Maccabees being only one book. According to Pseudo-Athanasius (fifth century?), there are thirteen deuterocanonical books (§ 74): Wisdom, Ben Sira, Esther, Judith, Tobit, 1-4 Maccabees, “Ptolemaics”, Solomon’s Psalms and Ode (in the singular), Susanna.34 This list offers two strange features: first, 1-4 Maccabees together with Ptolemaics, which is probably 3 Maccabees, since this book tells the story of a Ptolemaic king; second, Susanna, which, as a rule, goes with Daniel. One can notice that the same author, Pseudo-Athanasius, offers a medium list (§ 2 and 41-46) as well as a large one (§ 74).

In sum, the deuterocanonical books are characterized by variability. This point has been already underlined in the case of Esther, which either belongs to the canon or not, or is a deuterocanonical book. Other variations can be pointed out. First, there are changes among the titles: Proverbs is called Wisdom by Melito and Panaretos Sophia by Hegesippus, Irenaeus and “the entire choir of the Elders”.35 Nevertheless, here, the book could be Wisdom. Conversely, Panaretos is the title given to Wisdom by Epiphanius (De mensuris et ponderibus 7), John Damascenus, Pseudo-Athanasius and Baroccianus gr. 317 list. Ben Sira is called Wisdom by Origen (De Principiis II 8,3), Panaretos by Jerome and Proverbs in a Hebrew manuscript that Jerome knows (Prologus in libris Salomonis).36 One can lose his way!

There are also variations in terminology. Jerome who, as a rule, distinguishes deuterocanonical books and apocryphal ones, eventually ranks the former among the latter in the Galeatus Prologue.37 In the Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae (fifth or sixth century), Timothy calls apocryphal Tobit, Wisdom and Ben Sira and asserts that Judith belongs to the Hebrew canon.38 PseudoAthanasius calls the deuterocanonical books “contested” ones. He borrows this word from Eusebius, but the latter used it only for books of New Testament and apostolic ages (Historia ecclesiastica III 3,6 and 25,3). Once, speaking about Tobit, Origen says that the Jews “contest” it, (De Oratione 14). Thus, a lot of confusion is created. A final variation and confusion is to be noted. The Fathers agree that the deuterocanonical books are “useful” and “beneficial” (Epiphanius, De mensuris et ponderibus 4). But they do not agree on how to define that usefulness. Origen, Athanasius and Pseudo-Athanasius advise the beginners or the catechumens to read these books. In the apostolic canon 85, their reading is recommended to young people, who are not necessarily the same as the catechumens.39 According to Rufinus (Expositio symboli 34-36) and Jerome (Prologus in libris Salomonis), the deuterocanonical books are of use for public edification, but not to confirm the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas. Therefore, maybe the readers of the deuterocanonical books have changed their views through time and space.


Is it possible to get out of this confusion? Eric Junod said twenty years ago that the Fathers distinguish three categories of books: the “testamentary” books, the “apocryphal” books, and the “other books”, those that Catholics nowadays call deuterocanonical and Protestants, apocryphal.40 Junod has demonstrated that the words “testamentary” and “apocryphal” went back to the Greek-speaking Jews. But he says that he cannot draw the same conclusion with regard to the “other books,” because the Fathers never give the name of that third category. Is that assertion sure? As has been said before, in his De oratione 14, Origen claims that the Jews “speak against Tobit as not being testamentary”. That could suggest that, for Greek-speaking Jews, Tobit was a “contested book.” But has that term a Jewish origin? First, the technical word “contested” does not occur in Origen, as it will later in Eusebius, but only the verb in the plural. Secondly, using this verb, Origen gives his point of view concerning the Jews, but he does not claim to quote their opinion literally. Therefore, it seems that this text does not give us definitive evidence.

Elsewhere, Origen is more useful. According to him, Josippus, Baroccianus gr. 206 list, and canon 85 quoted in the Constitutiones Apostolorum (VIII 47,85), there are books which are “outside” the deuterocanonical ones. Certainly, there is not any “outside” book in Hellenistic Judaism. But that expression points to the books which the rabbinic tradition calls םינֵּוֹציחִ, “outside”. B.Sanhedrin 100b tells that, according to an anonymous tanna, those outside books were heretical. But the passage goes on to quote a saying from Rab Yosef ben Chiyya (around 320): “it is forbidden to read the book of Ben Sira,” in other words Ecclesiasticus. Then a discussion between Yosef and his pupil Abaye follows on the reasons for that ban. Certainly, this passage has given rise to much debate: does it forbid only the public reading of Ben Sira, or also the private one? Are the םינֵּוֹציחִ books a homogeneous category or do they contain different kinds of books, for instance Jewish apocrypha, heretical books, Christian books? Whatever is said on these points, it is certain that Ben Sira belonged to the םינֵּוֹציחִ at the beginning of the forth century, and perhaps before. If one establishes a connection between this information and the patristic data, the םינֵּוֹציחִ books can be listed as follows: around the beginning of the fourth century, Ben Sira (according to Yosef), Esther (according to Josippus), Maccabees (according to Origen and Josippus). Here, Maccabees is either the first or the first and the second. During the sixth century, according to the list in Baroccianus gr. 206, there are nine: Wisdom, Ben Sira, 1-4 Maccabees, Esther, Judith, Tobit.

Another suggestion can be made. One can notice that several Fathers (Origen, Athanasius, Rufinus, Jerome) assert that deuterocanonical books are valid for reading. Pseudo-Athanasius (§ 2,41,74) even makes a distinction between the “canonical books”. Therefore, the question is: could the expression “read books” or “only read books” be an ancient and Jewish technical indication? Apparently, in the rabbinic tradition, there is no category of books called םיאוֹרקֶ or םיאוֹרקֶם (possibly with the addition of ךְא), different from “written books” (םיבִוֹתּכֵ). Nevertheless, in the same rabbinic tradition, the verb “to write” contrasts with several other verbs. Some of those oppositions do not matter for our subject, as “to read” versus “to translate” or “to read” versus “to recite by heart” (y.Megillah 74d). On the other hand, there is a contrast between “to read” versus “to write”, different from the opposition between ירקֶ and בִיתּכֵ in the t.Megillah 2,5, around 150, Rabbi Meir went to Assya to intercalate the year; in that place, he did not find a scroll of Esther written in Hebrew. So he wrote a scroll out of memory and then he went, probably to the synagogue, and read Esther from the new scroll. In b.Megillah (3b), around 200, Rabbi leaves the study of the Torah in order to listen to the reading of Esther and, according to rabbi Nahman b. Isaac (around 350), the reading of the Esther scroll is equivalent to the recitation of the Hallel. In the same treatise (7a), Mar Samuel, around 250, asserts that it has been said that Esther is for reading, not for being written. Thus, in those texts, it seems that there are two kinds of books: the former, such as the Torah, are available for public reading and study; the latter, such as Esther, are only valid for private reading and are not to be studied. Here, one must remember that Fathers of the first centuries had not written commentaries on deuterocanonical books nor pronounced homilies. Maybe they had inherited some Jewish practices. To summarize: perhaps, some of the deuterocanonical books are the result of Jewish books which were read, but not studied. Esther is one of those books; then, later, because of the development of the Purim liturgy, Esther became one of the so-called םיבִוֹתּכֵ; on the other hand, Ben Sira, which was written to be studied as the Greek translator’s prologue tells, had exchanged its canonical status for the status of an unstudied book.

One can ask a last question: are deuterocanonical books a homogeneous category? Are the “outside” books identical to the “read books?” Do the Hebrew or Aramaic books belong to the same category as the Greek ones? In the list of Baroccianus gr. 206, all the deuterocanonical books are grouped together. But we are in a late period, around the sixth century. Two centuries before, according to Josippus, Esther and Maccabees belong to the same category: the “outside books.” At the same time, according to rabbinic tradition, Ben Sira also belongs to that category. Some time before, Origen says the same about Maccabees. Here, there is an argument for the literary unity of some of the books. But can we generalize and assume that the other books, Judith, Tobit, Wisdom and the entire collection of Maccabees were also a unity? Judith and Tobit were written either in Hebrew or in Aramaic: perhaps these books can be put in the same category as Esther, 1 Maccabees and Ben Sira. But, the other books were written in Greek. Therefore, to come to the same conclusion, we must suppose that the Greek-speaking Jews read these books, but did not study them. This implies, first, that they behaved as the Hebrew-speaking Jews in Jerusalem and Babylon, secondly, that they had some “read” books, which Jerusalem and Babylon did not have. These two points are plausible, but not really demonstrated.

In conclusion, let us return to Sixtus of Siena. The deuterocanonical books he enumerated were Esther, Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Wisdom of Solomon, Ben Sira, Prayer of Azariah, Hymn of the three children, Susana, Bel, 1 and 2 Maccabees. Apparently, six or seven of these thirteen books or biblical passages do not belong to the “outside” books or the “read” books: Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Prayer of Azariah, Hymn of the three children, Susanna, Bel, perhaps 2 Maccabees. But Origen explains that Susanna, Bel, Tobit and Judith were in circulation in the churches, and that Wisdom is useful for beginners.41 Moreover, 2 Maccabees perhaps belongs to the socalled “Maccabaics,” about which Origen and Josippus spoke. Finally, Prayer of Azariah and Hymn of the three children are parts of Greek Daniel: 3:24-45 and 3:51-90. Nevertheless, there is a contrast between the deuterocanonical books of modem times and those of ancient times. It can be explained as follows: among the Christians, Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah were grouped with Jeremiah and Lamentations; Susanna and Bel with Daniel. On the other hand, among the Jews, Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah were probably autonomous books, but we have no information about their literary status.42 Were they “outside” books or “read” books? Were they connected to biblical books only by Christian Fathers? We do not know.

(The Books of the Maccabees: History, Theology, Ideology, Gilles Dorival, pp. 1-10)

1 G. Bedouelle, “Le canon de l’ Ancien Testament dans la perspective du concile de Trente,” in Le canon de I’Ancien Testament.

2 The beginning of Sixtus’ text has been published again in Bedouelle, “Le canon,” 280-82.

3 Conciliae Africae, a. 345-a. 525 (ed. C. Munier, CCSL 149, Turnhout: Brepols 1974) 43.

4 Les eoneiles reeumeniques. Les Deerets. Tome II-I : Nicee I II Latran V (ed. G. Alberigo, Paris: Cerf 1994) 1170-71.

5 Les eoneiles reeumeniques. Les Deerets. Tome II-2 : Trente II Vatican II (ed. G. Alberigo, Paris: Cerf 1994) 1350-53.

6 Bedouelle, “Le canon,” 264-65. The text of the two theologians can be read in Societas Goerresiana, Coneilium Tridentinum (tome 5, Freiburg: Herder 1901ss.) 7, 1. 1114 (= Bedouelle, n . 32).

7 Text published by Bedouelle, “Le canon,” 277-79.

8 Biblia sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem (ed. R. Weber and R. Gryson, Stuttgart: Deutsche BibelgeseUschaft 1969, 19944 ) 957.

9 Rufin d’ AquiJee, Expositio symboli (ed. M. Simonetti, CCSL 20, Tumhout: Brepols 1961) 170-71.

10 Origene, La Lettre aAfricanus sur l’histoire de Suzanne (ed. N. de Lange, SC 302, Paris: Cerf 1983) 522-73.

11 M. Harl, G. Dorival and O. Munnich, La Bible grecque des Septante du judaj’sme hellt!nistique au christianisme ancien (Paris: Cerf 1988, 19942) 84-86. In fact, there is much debate among scholars on that point.

12 Melito, Eklogai, quoted by Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History IV 26,12-14 (ed. G. Bardy, SC 31, Paris: Cerf 1952).

13 John Chrysostom, Synopsis, PG 56: 313-85 (Protheoria, 313-317). The Synopsis and its authenticity are discussed by G. Dorival, Qu’est-ce qu’un corpus litteraire? Recherches sur Ie corpus biblique et les corpus patristiques (Leuven: Peeters 2005), 53-93: “chapitre 3. L’ apport des Synopses transmises sous Ie nom d’ Athanase et de Jean Chrysostome a la question du corpus litteraire de la Bible.”

14 The list of Cheltenham has been published by T. Mommsen, “Zur lateinischen Stichometrie,” Hermes 21 (1886) 142-46; Gelasius’ Decree, by E. von Dobschiitz (TU XXXVIII 4, Leipzig: Hinrichs 1912).

15 Augustinus, De doctrina christiana (ed. J. Martin, CCSL 32, Turnhout: Brepols 1962) 39-40.

16 Origen, Commentary on Psalm 1 quoted by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History VI 25 (ed. G. Bardy, SC 41, Paris: cerf 1955).

17 Biblia sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem, 365.

18 Epiphanius, Panarion (ed. K. H611, GCS 25, Leipzig: Hinrichs 1925) 191-192

19 Epiphanius, De mensuris et ponderibus, PG 43: 244.

20 Josippus, Hypomnesticon I 25, PG 106: 32.

21 John Damascenus, De fide orthodoxa, PG 94: 1180.

22 Hilarius, Tractatus super psalmos, Instructio psalmorum 15 (ed. A. Zingerle, CSEL 22, Turnhout: Brepols 1891) 3-19.

23 Dorival, Qu’est-ce qu’un corpus litteraire, 95-108: “chapter 5. Le document synoptique du Barberinianus gr. 317 (III 36).”

24 See Melito, Eklogai (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History IV 26,12-14); Gregory Nazianzenus, Poems I 12, PG 37: 472-74; Amphilochius Iconiensis, Iambs to Seleucos 251-319, PG 37:1577-1600.

25 Athanasius, Festal letter 39 (a. 394), PG 26: 1436-40 and 1176-80; Pseudo-Athanasius, Synopsis, PG 28: 284-437; Josippus, Hypomnesticon, PG 106: 32; Pseudo-Nicephorus, Chronographia (ed. T. Zahn, Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons, 2/1, Erlangen and Leipzig: Deichert 1890) 299.

26 Origen, Homelies on Numbers 27, 1, 3 (ed. L. Doutreleau, SC 461, Paris: Cerf 2002) 272-73.

27 Athanasius, Festal letter 39.

28 Pseudo-Athanasius, Synopsis, PG 28: 284-437.

29 Rufinus, Expositio symboli 36 (ed. Simonetti) 170-71.

30 Biblia sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem, 365.

31 Isidorus, In libros Veteris et Novi Testamenti Proemia, PL 83: 157-58.

32 Zahn, Geschichte, 291-92.

33 Pseudo-Nicephorus, Chronographia (ed. Zahn) 299.

34 Pseudo-Athanasius, Synopsis, PG 28: 288-437.

35 According to Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History IV 22, 9 (ed. G. Bardy, Paris: Cerf 1952).

36 Biblia sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem, 957.

37 Biblia sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem, 364-66.

38 Ed. F.e. Conybeare (Oxford: Clarendon 1898) 66.

39 Ed. B.M. Metzger, Constitutions apostoliques VIII 47,85 (SC 336, Paris: Cerf 1987) 306-09.

40 E. Junod, “La fonnation et la composition de l’ Ancien Testament dans I’eglise grecque des quatre premiers siec1es,” I.e canon de l’Ancien Testament, 105-51.

41 Origen, Letter to Africanus 3-6 and 19; Homelies on Numbers 271,3.

42 La Bible d’Alexandrie. Baruch, Lamentations, Lettre de ,bernie (eds. I. Assan-Dhote & J. Fine, Paris: Cerf 2005) 22, 50 and 297.