The Epistemological Primacy of the Word and the Historical Question of Canon

The question of how the Christian Church received, recognized, and codified the sacred scriptures represents one of the most critical battlegrounds in historical theology. From a Protestant perspective, the biblical canon is not an artificial construct imposed upon the faithful by ecclesiastical administrative decrees; rather, it is the organic recognition of the self-authenticating, divinely inspired Word of God by the community of faith under the providential guidance of the Holy Spirit1. According to this bibliology, the church is the creature of the Word (creatura verbi), meaning that the divine proclamation of the Gospel creates, sustains, and governs the church, rather than the church creating, validating, or determining the authority of the Word4. This fundamental distinction shapes the entire historical inquiry into the development of the biblical canon.

 

For centuries, Roman Catholic apologetics has promoted a historical narrative suggesting that the biblical canon was permanently closed and dogmatically settled in the late fourth century by a series of regional councils in North Africa, acting under the authority of the Bishop of Rome9. This narrative asserts that the church lived in undisturbed canonical uniformity for over a millennium until the Protestant Reformers allegedly removed books from the Bible during the sixteenth century10.

 

However, rigorous historical analysis of patristic, medieval, and pre-Reformation sources reveals that this claim is anachronistic and historically untenable2. The historical record demonstrates that there was no universally binding, dogmatically defined, ecumenical canon of scripture until the Roman Catholic Church reacted to the Protestant Reformation at the Council of Trent in 15469. Prior to the sixteenth century, the Christian Church operated with a highly fluid and debated canonical boundary, particularly regarding the status of the Old Testament Apocrypha—writings also known as the deuterocanonical books2. Throughout this lengthy intertestamental and medieval epoch, a continuous chain of the church’s most eminent theologians, bishops, and even popes explicitly rejected the apocryphal books from the canon of faith, aligning themselves with the Hebrew canon that Protestants would later formalize during the Reformation1.

 

The Hebrew Foundations: The Preservation of the Oracles and the Cessation of Prophecy

To understand how the Christian Church received its scriptures, one must first examine the boundaries of the Old Testament as recognized by Jesus Christ and his apostles2. The historical community of Israel was entrusted with the “oracles of God” (Romans 3:2), and by the time of the first century, Palestinian Judaism recognized a precise, authoritative collection of books known as the Tanakh, structured into the Law (Torah), the Prophets (Nevi’im), and the Writings (Ketuvim)1. The historical boundaries of this Hebrew canon did not include the Greek-only writings that would later be labeled the Apocrypha1.

 

A primary reason for the exclusion of these later books from the Hebrew canon was the deep-seated historical conviction within Judaism that inspired prophecy had ceased in Israel after the era of the Persian king Artaxerxes, specifically with the deaths of the last Hebrew prophets: Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi3. This historical reality is documented by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus in his late first-century treatise Against Apion, where he writes that the complete history written since Artaxerxes has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records, because there had not been an exact succession of prophets since that time21. Josephus notes that during the many ages that had already passed, no one had been so bold as to add anything to the scriptures, to take anything from them, or to make any change in them, as it was natural for all Jews to esteem these books as containing divine doctrines21.

This cessation of prophecy is explicitly lamented within the Apocrypha itself, as seen in the First Book of Maccabees, which refers to a time when there was no longer a prophet in Israel11. Consequently, the intertestamental Jewish books written in Greek—such as Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch, and 1 and 2 Maccabees—were never curated by or authored by recognized prophets of God, and they were never accepted into the Hebrew canon2.

 

Crucially, Jesus Christ and the writers of the New Testament consistently reinforced the boundaries of the Hebrew canon2. In his teachings, Jesus refers to “the Law of Moses, and the Prophets, and the Psalms,” utilizing the standard tripartite division of the Hebrew Bible18. Furthermore, while the New Testament writers quote the canonical Hebrew scriptures hundreds of times as divinely authoritative, using formulas like “it is written” or “the Holy Spirit says,” they never once cite any apocryphal book as divinely inspired scripture2.

 

The early Christian Church inherited this specific Hebrew canon as its authoritative Old Testament, even as it began to make use of the Septuagint—the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible produced in Alexandria, Egypt, starting in the third century BCE1. Because the Septuagint manuscripts historically bound the Greek apocryphal works together with the translated Hebrew books for literary convenience, a functional tension arose within the early Church regarding the precise boundaries of the Old Testament1.

 

Modern historical scholarship has thoroughly dismantled the long-held myth of the “Council of Jamnia” (c. 90 CE) as a formal rabbinic council that closed the Hebrew canon1. Rather, as historians like Lee Martin McDonald have demonstrated, Jamnia was an informal rabbinic discussion, and the boundaries of the Jewish canon continued to be discussed well into the second century CE1. What remains clear is that by the time the rabbinic community settled their canon, it did not include the Greek-only texts that some early Christians, relying on the Septuagint, continued to use for reading and moral instruction1.

 

The Septuagintal Ambiguity and the Earliest Patristic Canon Lists

 

As the early Church expanded into the Greek-speaking Greco-Roman world, the reliance on the Septuagint led to varying practices among Christian communities1. However, when early Christian scholars sought to establish the exact boundaries of the Old Testament canon for theological defense against Jewish interlocutors, they consistently reverted to the Hebrew canon, deliberately excluding the apocryphal additions1.

 

The earliest known Christian attempt to compile an official Old Testament canon list was undertaken by Melito, the bishop of Sardis, around 170 CE1. Seeking accuracy, Melito traveled to the Levant to investigate the books recognized by the Jewish communities there23. His findings, preserved by the fourth-century church historian Eusebius of Caesarea in his Ecclesiastical History, outline a canon that corresponds to the Hebrew Bible and excludes the apocryphal works23. Melito lists the five books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kingdoms, two books of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job, and the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Twelve minor prophets, Daniel, and Ezekiel18.

 

Scholars observe that Melito’s list shows the structural influence of the Septuagint in its ordering—such as placing Ruth with Judges and Chronicles with Kingdoms—yet it distinctively excludes the apocryphal works of the Septuagint, with the possible exception of “Wisdom,” which many patristic writers used as an alternative name for the Book of Proverbs rather than the distinct Greek Book of Wisdom25. Notably, Melito also omitted the Book of Esther, illustrating that the Christian recognition of the Old Testament was still undergoing an organic process of codification28.

 

In the third century, Origen of Alexandria further reinforced this Hebrew foundation23. Despite making homiletic and devotional use of various Greek writings, Origen acknowledged that the canonical books of the Old Testament were twenty-two in number, matching the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet25. Origen’s list, though it included the Letter of Jeremiah as part of Jeremiah, excluded the Books of Maccabees, placing them outside the core twenty-two books25.

 

This linguistic and canonical standard was also upheld by Cyril, the bishop of Jerusalem, in the fourth century25. In his famous Catechetical Lectures, composed around 350 CE, Cyril provided an uncompromising warning to his catechumens to avoid non-canonical writings, instructing them to read the divine scriptures of the twenty-two books of the Old Testament that had been translated by the seventy-two interpreters25. Cyril explicitly structured his Old Testament list around the twenty-two Hebrew books, counting Ruth with Judges, Lamentations, Baruch, and the Epistle with Jeremiah, and Ezra-Nehemiah as a single unit25.

 

Although Cyril made illustrative and moral references to some apocryphal books in his broader writings, he did not treat them as canonical or authoritative for confirming Christian doctrine, demonstrating that early patristic usage of a book did not automatically equate to canonical validation31.

 

The Tripartite Classification of Christian Literature: Athanasius and Rufinus of Aquileia

The fourth century witnessed a concerted effort by the Church’s leading bishops to bring administrative and theological order to the biblical canon, largely in response to the proliferation of gnostic and heretical books13. It is during this era that we find the earliest attempts to explicitly define both the Old and New Testament boundaries1. Rather than producing a monolithic, closed canon, these fathers established a tripartite categorization of Christian literature that fundamentally supports the Protestant approach to the Bible9.

 

The most celebrated canonical document of this period is the Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter of Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria, written in 367 CE30. While Athanasius is historically renowned for providing the first extant list that matches the modern twenty-seven-book New Testament canon, his treatment of the Old Testament and his theological categories are of profound significance1. In this letter, Athanasius outlines three distinct classes of religious books:

 

• The Canonized Books: These are “the springs of salvation, so that someone who thirsts may be satisfied by the words they contain. In these books alone the teaching of piety is proclaimed”29. His Old Testament list consists strictly of the twenty-two books of the Hebrew canon, though he excludes Esther1.
• The Read/Ecclesiastical Books: These are books that “have not been canonized, but have been prescribed by the ancestors to be read to those who newly join us and want to be instructed in the doctrine of piety”1. In this category, Athanasius places the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, the Didache (or Teaching of the Apostles), and the Shepherd of Hermas1.
• The Apocryphal Books: These are heretical fabrications that are to be avoided entirely29.

 

This tripartite division proves that the early Church did not possess a simplistic, binary view of literature as either “canonical Bible” or “useless heresy”9. The books of the Apocrypha were classified as highly useful, historical, and devotional reading for the edification of new believers, but they were explicitly barred from the canon of authoritative scripture used to establish doctrine9.

 

This precise distinction was later echoed in the West by Tyrannius Rufinus of Aquileia in his Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed, written around 404 CE33. Rufinus, an Italian monk who translated major Greek patristic works into Latin, brought Eastern theological insights to the Western Church36. In his commentary, Rufinus systematically outlines the biblical canon, explicitly adopting the tripartite division34. After enumerating the books of the Hebrew Old Testament and the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, Rufinus declares that there are also other books which the fathers call not canonical but ecclesiastical, including the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Tobit, Judith, and the books of the Maccabees14. Rufinus explains that while the fathers would have these read in the churches, they were not to be appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine14. Rufinus’s testimony proves that the Western Church, at the dawn of the fifth century, recognized that the apocryphal books were subordinate, human writings that lacked the divine inspiration required to establish the articles of the Christian faith14.

 

Philological Rigor and the Latin Vulgate: Jerome’s Hebraica Veritas and the Prologus Galeatus

The most decisive figure in the historical development of the Latin biblical canon was Jerome of Stridon, the premier biblical scholar of late antiquity19. Tasked by Pope Damasus I in the late fourth century to produce a standardized, authoritative Latin version of the Bible—which would become known as the Latin Vulgate—Jerome relocated to Bethlehem to study Hebrew directly under Jewish rabbis19. Through his intensive textual labor, Jerome became convinced of the Hebraica Veritas (the Hebrew Truth): the absolute textual authority of the Hebrew manuscripts over the Greek Septuagint translations19.

 

When Jerome translated the Books of Samuel and Kings around 391 CE, he wrote his famous Prologus Galeatus (“Helmeted Preface” or “Helmeted Prologue”), which served as a defensive armor for his translation project against his critics15. In this highly programmatic text, Jerome outlines the twenty-two books of the Hebrew Bible, linking them to the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet, which he calls the elements through which divine doctrine instructs the tender infancy of the righteous15. Jerome writes:

 

“This prologue to the Scriptures may serve as a helmeted introduction [galeatum principium] to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so we may be able to know that whatever is outside of these is set aside among the apocrypha. Therefore, Wisdom, which is commonly ascribed to Solomon, and the book of Jesus son of Sirach, and Judith and Tobias, and The Shepherd are not in the canon.”15

Jerome was the first major Western scholar to systematically apply the term “Apocrypha” to these disputed writings11. In his Preface to the Books of Solomon (addressed to Bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus), Jerome further clarifies the operational stance of the Christian Church toward these texts, stating that as the Church reads the books of Judith, Tobit, and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine16.

 

Jerome also outlined the linguistic reality that while the Hebrews have twenty-two letters, five of these letters are double (having final forms: Chaph, Mem, Nun, Phi, Sade), which explains why some divided books like Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah could be counted separately to yield twenty-seven books, yet they correspond to the same underlying Hebrew canon20. He compared this numbering to the twenty-four elders in the Apocalypse of John who adore the Lamb, representing the books of the ancient Law under different numbering schemas40.

 

Although he reluctantly included translations of Judith, Tobit, and the additions to Daniel and Esther in his Vulgate due to heavy ecclesiastical pressure, he explicitly prefaced them with warnings regarding their non-canonical status, maintaining that they did not possess divine authority2. Jerome’s scholarship established a permanent benchmark in the Latin West: the translation of the Bible used by the Western Church for the next thousand years contained internal, self-correcting prefaces that explicitly denied canonical authority to the Apocrypha2.

 

Epiphanius of Salamis and the Greek Patristic Synthesis

In the Greek-speaking East, Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 315–403 CE) provided a parallel witness to the Hebrew canon22. Born in Palestine and educated in Egypt, where he received monastic training, Epiphanius became the bishop of Salamis in Cyprus in 366/367 CE22. His monumental polemical work, the Panarion (c. 376 CE), and his treatise On Weights and Measures (392 CE) contain valuable insights into early Christian canon lists22.

Epiphanius drafted four distinct canon lists, all of which reflect the structural constraint of the Hebrew alphabet and its twenty-two letters20. He notes that there are twenty-two names of letters, but because five of them have double forms (the medial and final forms of Chaph, Mem, Nun, Phi, and Sade), twenty-seven books are found in the Old Testament, matching the Hebrew alphabet’s internal structure20. Epiphanius includes the traditional thirty-nine books of the Protestant Old Testament, grouped under various double-count configurations20.

 

Crucially, Epiphanius categorizes the books of Wisdom and Sirach as “disputed” and separate from the canon proper22. In On Weights and Measures, he writes that while these books are “useful” and “beneficial,” they are placed aside and were never included in the Hebrew chest of scriptures22. While his lists uniquely count the Book of Jeremiah as including the Lamentations, Baruch, and the Epistle of Jeremiah as a single unit, his overarching system excludes the broader apocryphal corpus from the canonical theopneustos category20.

 

Patristic and Medieval Theological Classifications of Scriptural Literature

• Authority Category

• Canonical (Canonici)

• Ecclesiastical (Ecclesiastici)

• Apocryphal (Apocryphi)

 

The Regional Scope of the North African Assemblies: Augustine’s Ecclesiastical Pragmatism

 

While Jerome defended the Hebraica Veritas in Bethlehem, a different canonical perspective emerged in North Africa under the influence of Augustine of Hippo40. In his treatise De doctrina Christiana (On Christian Doctrine), Augustine provided a canon list that included several apocryphal books, such as Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, and 1 and 2 Maccabees47. Augustine’s list influenced the local regional synods of Hippo (393 CE) and Carthage (397 and 419 CE), which promulgated lists containing these apocryphal works46.

 

The Synod of Hippo convened on October 8, 393 AD, in the city of Hippo Regius (modern Annaba, Algeria)46. This gathering formed part of the annual synodal cycle in the North African Church, where provincial bishops met regularly to address ecclesiastical matters—a practice that eventually became so burdensome that it was modified in 407 AD46. Augustine attended this synod in his capacity as a priest, having been ordained two years prior by Bishop Valerius, who was also in attendance46.

 

The synod’s acts are no longer extant in full, but its canons were preserved and summarized in the Breviarium Hipponense, which was later incorporated into the Third Council of Carthage in 397 AD46. Canon 36 of the Hippo synod promulgated an enumeration of the sacred scriptures for liturgical reading, which explicitly listed Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, and the two books of Maccabees alongside the Hebrew canon46.

 

In 419 AD, another council met at Carthage to compile and confirm all previous North African canons, creating the Code of Canons of the African Church51. This collection, translated into Greek, was later received by the Eastern Church at the Council of Trullo (692 AD) and the Second Council of Nicaea (787 AD), which granted these regional disciplinary canons a quasi-ecumenical administrative status51. However, this administrative reception did not imply dogmatic equivalence9. The Eastern Church continued to follow Athanasius and John of Damascus, recognizing that the North African lists represented a liturgical catalog for reading rather than a dogmatic definition of inspired scripture14.

 

Furthermore, Augustine and the North African bishops did not possess the linguistic or textual expertise of Jerome40. Augustine, who was largely ignorant of Hebrew and struggled with Greek, relied heavily on the Old Latin versions translated from the Septuagint47. He operated with a much looser, broader definition of the term “canonical”2. For Augustine, “canonical” simply meant books that were traditionally read in the churches and held in high esteem, rather than books that were strictly inspired and infallible for the establishing of doctrine2.

 

In De doctrina Christiana, Augustine advised his readers to follow the judgment of the greater number of catholic churches, giving priority to those that have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles50. Augustine’s lists were also prone to errors; he originally ascribed Wisdom and Sirach to Solomon, a mistake he was forced to correct in his later Retractions48.

 

The regional synods of Hippo and Carthage possessed zero authority to decree a universally binding canon for the global Church2. Their decisions were localized administrative actions aimed at stabilizing the liturgical reading of scriptures in North Africa, which had been disrupted by regional schisms and heresies46.

 

The Western Church continued to manifest immense diversity in its canonical practice, demonstrating that the North African decisions were never received as universally binding dogmatic definitions9.

 

Comparison of the Old Testament Canons: Jerome vs. Augustine

• Criterion

• Source Text

• Canon Boundary

• Apocrypha Status

• Linguistic Basis

• Eccl. Scope

The Medieval Chain of Testimony: From Gregory the Great to Thomas Aquinas

 

Throughout the medieval period, the Western Church experienced a profound tension2. On one hand, the liturgical manuscripts of the Vulgate included the apocryphal books; on the other hand, Jerome’s prefaces remained embedded in those same manuscripts, constantly warning readers that these books were not canonical2. Consequently, the vast majority of medieval scholars and Church authorities followed Jerome’s scholarly judgment, maintaining the distinction between the canonical Hebrew books and the ecclesiastical apocrypha2.

 

The most devastating historical refutation of the Roman Catholic claim that the canon was closed in the fourth century is the explicit testimony of Pope Gregory the Great, who served as the Bishop of Rome from 590 to 604 CE17. In his famous commentary on the Book of Job, titled Moralia in Job, Gregory brings forward a historical quotation from the First Book of Maccabees regarding Eleazar’s heroic death in battle17. Before quoting the passage, Gregory issues an explicit apology to his readers, acknowledging that 1 Maccabees is not canonical scripture17:

“With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edifying of the Church, we bring forward testimony.”17

This statement is of monumental significance17. Here, an active Bishop of Rome, writing as the supreme shepherd of the Western Church, explicitly declares that the First Book of Maccabees is not canonical17. Gregory’s testimony proves that the Bishop of Rome did not believe the regional synods of Hippo and Carthage, or any alleged decrees by earlier popes like Damasus I or Gelasius, had dogmatically canonized the Apocrypha9. Gregory’s view perfectly mirrors the Protestant distinction between books that are canonical and books that are merely edifying14.

This rejection of the Apocrypha represents a continuous chain of theological consensus throughout the Middle Ages10:

 

• Isidore of Seville (7th Century): Isidore repeated the distinction that while the Hebrew canon consisted of only twenty-two books, the Church embraced a fourth category of books, which although the Jews separate among the Apocrypha, the Church of Christ honors and preaches among the divine books for moral instruction, but not for dogmatic authority14.
• John of Damascus (8th Century): The primary systematic theologian of the Eastern Orthodox Church, in his An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, listed the twenty-two books of the Hebrew canon and explicitly rejected Wisdom and Sirach as non-canonical14.
• Rabanus Maurus (9th Century): The highly learned Archbishop of Mainz, who wrote commentaries on nearly all the books of the Old Testament, listed the canonical Old Testament books at forty-five (following Augustine’s count for reading) but maintained that while the Hebrew canon consisted of twenty-two books, the extra books were not received as canonical by the Jews14.
• Hugh of St. Victor (12th Century): The prominent mystical theologian and scholastic writer explicitly stated that there are also in the Old Testament certain other books which are indeed read in the church but are not inscribed in the body of the text or in the canon of authority, such as the books of Tobit, Judith, the Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus10.
• Peter of Blois (12th Century): The statesman and theologian listed the canonical books by name according to the Hebrew rendering and stated that while the Jews rejected the apocryphal books of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, and Maccabees, the Church received them as a fourth category of books, distinct from the core authoritative scriptures14.
• Thomas Aquinas (13th Century): The preeminent scholastic theologian of the medieval Roman Church, in his Summa Theologiae, followed Jerome’s categorization, noting that the apocryphal books had doubtful authors and were not authoritative for confirming matters of faith14.

 

This historical evidence demonstrates that for fifteen centuries, the Christian Church recognized a clear hierarchy of scriptural authority2. The apocryphal books were appreciated for their historical and moral value, but they were never elevated to the status of divinely inspired, infallible, dogmatic scripture2.

 

The Pre-Tridentine Boundary: Cardinal Cajetan and the Humanist Crisis

Even on the very eve of the Protestant Reformation, the highest scholarly and administrative authorities within the Roman Catholic Church continued to defend the Hebrew canon and reject the apocryphal books9. The most prominent example is Thomas Cardinal Cajetan, a leading Dominican theologian, papal legate, and the chief Roman opponent of Martin Luther9. Cajetan was the papal representative tasked with examining Luther at Augsburg in 1518, and he helped draft the papal bill of excommunication against the reformer9.

 

In 1532—just fourteen years before the Council of Trent’s decree on the canon—Cajetan published his Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament, which he dedicated to Pope Clement VII9. At the conclusion of his commentary, Cajetan wrote:

“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus.”9

Cajetan goes on to address the common confusion of his day, issuing a warning that is fatal to modern Roman Catholic claims of a pre-Reformation canon9:

 

“Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment… these books are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful… By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”9

Cajetan’s commentary is a remarkable historical document9. It proves that at the highest levels of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, immediately prior to the Council of Trent, the following theological truths were recognized:

 

First, Jerome’s Prologus Galeatus was still received as the authoritative standard for the Old Testament canon9.

 

Second, any previous council (such as Carthage or Florence) that had listed the apocryphal books as “canonical” had done so in a loose, non-dogmatic sense, meaning they were approved for liturgical edification rather than dogmatic proof9.

 

Third, the boundaries of the authoritative, dogmatic biblical canon were still considered open and reformable9. Cajetan was never excommunicated or condemned for this view; in fact, his commentaries were published with papal approval, demonstrating that his position represented the mainstream scholarly consensus of the Roman Church on the eve of the Reformation9.

Furthermore, Cajetan questioned the authority of certain New Testament books, especially Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation1. He opposed the Pauline authorship of the Letter to the Hebrews44. Because of these New Testament views, Cajetan was fiercely attacked and eventually censured by the Paris Faculty, but he was never censured for his views on the Old Testament canon and his rejection of the Apocrypha, which was a perfectly permissible position within the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent dogmatized the broader list in 15469.

 

The Protestant Recovery and the Novelty of the Council of Trent

When the Protestant Reformers initiated their theological reforms in the early sixteenth century, they operated on the principle of sola scriptura—the belief that the written Word of God alone is the ultimate, infallible authority for Christian faith and practice8. To implement this principle, the Reformers realized they had to return to the pure sources (ad fontes) of the Christian faith, which required identifying the exact boundaries of the divinely inspired scriptures8.

 

Martin Luther’s theology was fundamentally built upon the power of the Word of God8. In his lectures on the biblical creation account in Genesis, Luther emphasized that creation, preservation, and governance are all accomplished by God’s spoken, uncreated Word (creatura verbi)7. In his pastoral care, Luther demonstrated immense confidence in the Word’s solo activity4. In a famous sermon preached in Wittenberg upon his return from the Wartburg Castle, Luther stated that he simply taught, preached, and wrote God’s Word, but used no physical force4. He remarked that while he slept, or drank Wittenberg beer with his friends Philip Melanchthon and Nicolaus von Amsdorf, the Word so greatly weakened the papacy that no prince or emperor ever inflicted such losses upon it4. “I did nothing,” Luther declared, “the Word did everything”4. He noted that while we have the jus verbi (the right to preach the word), we do not have the executio (the power to force faith), which belongs to God alone58.

 

Following the scholarly precedents of Jerome, Athanasius, Rufinus, and Cajetan, the Reformers accepted the twenty-two books of the Hebrew canon as the sole authoritative Old Testament1. In his 1534 German Bible, Martin Luther did not “remove” the apocryphal books; rather, he gathered them together, placed them in a separate section between the Old and New Testaments, and added a preface stating that they were “useful and good to read” but were not to be held as equal to the canonical scriptures1. The early English translations—such as the Coverdale Bible, the Geneva Bible, and the original King James Version of 1611—followed this identical Protestant practice, retaining the Apocrypha in a separate, subordinate section for historical and moral instruction, but refusing to apply them to establish any doctrine1.

 

Key Historical Bible Translations and the Placement of the Apocrypha

Bible Edition & Date

• Latin Vulgate (4th-16th c.)

[cite: 9, 14, 39]

• Luther Bible (1534)

[cite: 1, 12]

• Geneva Bible (1560)

[cite: 1, 59]

• King James Version (1611)

[cite: 1, 12, 59]

• Council of Trent Vulgate (1546)

[cite: 9, 10, 56]

The Roman Catholic Church reacted to the Protestant Reformation at the Council of Trent10. During the council’s Fourth Session in April 1546, the gathered bishops faced a profound theological dilemma10. Under the pressure of Protestant polemics, Roman Catholic theologians had repeatedly resorted to the apocryphal books to justify doctrines that were entirely absent from the Hebrew scriptures—most notably, the defense of purgatory and prayers for the dead, which relied heavily on 2 Maccabees 12:45-4610. If the Roman Catholic Church conceded to the historical consensus of Jerome and the Hebrew canon, they would lose their scriptural proof-texts for these lucrative and dogmatic medieval doctrines10.

 

To solve this dilemma, the Council of Trent took a historically unprecedented step9. Breaking with fifteen centuries of patristic and medieval scholarship, the council officially declared the apocryphal books to be fully sacred and canonical, elevating them to equal authority with the Hebrew scriptures10. By pronouncing an anathema on anyone who rejected the apocryphal books, the Roman Catholic Church effectively anathematized many of its own greatest historical scholars, including Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Rufinus, Jerome, Pope Gregory the Great, and Cardinal Cajetan9. Trent’s action was not the preservation of an ancient, closed canon; it was a modern, defensive innovation designed to protect medieval dogmas against the self-authenticating power of the canonical Word of God10.

 

Confessional Codification: The Thirty-Nine Articles and the Westminster Standards

In response to the Roman Catholic Council of Trent, the various Protestant traditions codified their position on the biblical canon in their historic confessions of faith, grounding their bibliology in the historical consensus of the early Church2.

 

The Church of England outlined its position in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, finalized in 157155. Article VI, titled “Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation,” was added to the confession in 1562, as the original 1552 draft lacked the concluding part concerning the specific canon list and the Apocrypha56. Article VI explicitly sides with Jerome’s historical distinction56:

 

“Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.”55

Article VI then lists the thirty-nine books of the Hebrew Old Testament and explicitly appeals to Jerome to define the status of the Apocrypha56:

 

“And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following: The Third Book of Esdras, The Fourth Book of Esdras, The Book of Tobias, The Book of Judith, The rest of the Book of Esther, The Book of Wisdom, Jesus the Son of Sirach, Baruch the Prophet, The Song of the Three Children, The Story of Susanna, Of Bel and the Dragon, The Prayer of Manasses, The First Book of Maccabees, The Second Book of Maccabees.”56

This Anglican position represents a faithful preservation of the historic Western tradition, allowing for the reading of the Apocrypha for historical and moral edification while strictly denying them any dogmatic authority59.

 

A more uncompromising Protestant stance was codified by the Puritan divines at the Westminster Assembly in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647)2. Recognizing the danger of Roman Catholic errors, the Westminster Assembly excluded the Apocrypha from any ecclesiastical status2. Chapter 1, Section 3 of the Confession states2:

 

“The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.”2

The Confession also emphasized the preservation of the original languages in Chapter 1, Section 8, stating that the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek, being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so that, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them64.

 

This confessional commitment explains the language used in the Westminster Shorter Catechism Question 2, which asks what rule God has given to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him, and answers: “The Word of God, which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only rule…”62. Because the Apocrypha was still physically bound inside the covers of many Protestant Bibles at the time for historical reference, the Divines chose the word “contained” to guard against the apocryphal additions, separating the pure, inspired Word of God from the human writings that surrounded it2.

 

Epistemological and Theological Conclusions

The historical investigation into the development of the biblical canon demonstrates that there was no universally binding, dogmatically closed, official canon of scripture prior to the Reformation era2. For fifteen centuries, the Christian Church operated with a clear distinction between the authoritative canonical books of the Hebrew Bible and the subordinate, ecclesiastical books of the Apocrypha2. The Roman Catholic assertion that the canon was settled in the late fourth century is refuted by the historical testimony of many of the Church’s most authoritative figures—including Jerome, Pope Gregory the Great, and Cardinal Cajetan—all of whom explicitly rejected the apocryphal books from the canon of faith16.

Consequently, the Protestant Reformers did not innovate or remove books from the Bible1. Rather, they restored the biblical canon to its original, divinely intended boundaries, aligning themselves with the Hebrew canon recognized by Jesus Christ and his apostles, as well as the scholarly consensus of the historic Church1. The Council of Trent’s decision to dogmatize the Apocrypha was a defensive and reactionary innovation that broke with history to preserve medieval theological additions9. In contrast, the Protestant confessions anchored their faith in the supreme, sufficient, and self-authenticating Word of God, recognizing that the church does not create or authenticate the Bible, but is forever built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone4.

Works cited

1. What Books Were Removed from the Bible? – Uncanon, https://uncanon.app/learn/what-books-were-removed-from-the-bible
2. Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 1 Part 8 – Confessional Bibliology, https://confessionalbibliology.com/2025/02/24/westminster-confession-of-faith-chapter-1-part-8/
3. SUMMARY OF WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH, CHAPTER 1: “OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURE” – Western Reformed Seminary, https://www.wrs.edu/assets/docs/Courses/Westminster_Doctrine_Scripture/Summary_WCF_Ch-1.pdf
4. ‘The word did everything’ – LCMS Reporter – The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, https://reporter.lcms.org/2017/the-word-did-everything/
5. The Seed | Modern Reformation, https://www.modernreformation.org/resources/articles/the-seed
6. Luther and Pastoral Care – Lutheran Reformation, https://lutheranreformation.org/theology/luther-pastoral-care/
7. LUTHERAN WORLD – Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, https://ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/NelsonOneChurchandtheLutheranchurches.pdf
8. The Real Engine Room of the Reformation – The Gospel Coalition, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/real-engine-room-of-reformation/
9. Thomas Cardinal Cajetan’s Old Testament Canon – Three Pillars Blog, https://threepillarsblog.org/church-history/thomas-cardinal-cajetans-old-testament-canon/
10. The Apocrypha – Evidence Unseen, https://evidenceunseen.com/world-religions/roman-catholicism/the-apocrypha
11. Differences between Catholic and Protestant bibles (Serious discussion) : r/Protestantism – Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/Protestantism/comments/1ksmysi/differences_between_catholic_and_protestant/
12. I’ve done a lot of research on different Christian denominations but I cannot find a simple answer to this question. Every google result has a different answer from a different bias. So here’s my question: Why did protestants remove books of the bible? – Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/5nrrxl/ive_done_a_lot_of_research_on_different_christian/
13. The Apocrypha – The Gospel Coalition, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/the-apocrypha/
14. The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha: Part 3: From Jerome to the Reformation – Christian Resources, https://christiantruth.com/articles/apocrypha3/
15. Prologus Galeatus – Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prologus_Galeatus
16. The Apocrypha I. This study sets forth academic information and scriptural arguments, the latter being most reliable. II. apocry, https://assets.ctfassets.net/b35n9zcxpc4l/2pswt5x3JkmgW7yG0OakYZ/06ea30a43df144fe1ebff488e9a43d4a/Apocrypha.pdf
17. Gregory the Great, the Deuterocanon, and Papal Infallibility – Orthodox Christian Theology, https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2016/01/25/gregory-the-great-the-deuterocanon-and-papal-infallibility/
18. Which canon did the Early Church recognize? – Christianity Stack Exchange, https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/80280/which-canon-did-the-early-church-recognize
19. Prologus Galeatus – Grokipedia, https://grokipedia.com/page/prologus_galeatus
20. The Biblical Theory of Epiphanius (Part 1) – LXX Studies – WordPress.com, https://septuagintstudies.wordpress.com/2017/07/04/the-biblical-theory-of-epiphanius-part-1/
21. Scripture Canon Lists, https://thecalvinist.net/files/Canon_Lists.pdf
22. The Canon of Epiphanius of Salamis – Biblical Scholarship – WordPress.com, https://biblicalscholarship.wordpress.com/2020/05/18/the-canon-of-epiphanius-of-salamis/
23. A Plea for Honesty about the Canon of the Bible – Right Reason, https://www.rightreason.org/2014/a-plea-for-honesty-about-the-canon-of-the-bible/
24. Deuterocanonical books – Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books
25. Are The Jewish Apocrypha Inspired Scripture? [Part 4] – Answering Islam, https://www.answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/apocrypha4.html
26. Melito of Sardis – Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melito_of_Sardis
27. Melito of Sardis – Early Christian Writings, https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/info/melito-cathen.html
28. Eusebius, EH.4.26: Melito of Sardis – stylos, http://www.jeffriddle.net/2019/10/eusebius-eh426-melito-of-sardis.html
29. What Is a Canon? | Bible Interp, https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/what-canon
30. Athanasius – The Development of the Canon of the New Testament, http://www.ntcanon.org/Athanasius.shtml
31. Cyril of Jerusalem and Canon of Old Testament | Viva Catholic – WordPress.com, https://vivacatholic.wordpress.com/2007/10/10/cyril-of-jerusalem-and-canon-of-old-testament/
32. A New Fragment of Athanasius’s Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter: Heresy, Apocrypha, and the Canon* | Harvard Theological Review | Cambridge Core, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/harvard-theological-review/article/new-fragment-of-athanasiuss-thirtyninth-festal-letter-heresy-apocrypha-and-the-canon/A089F889895A8B49B6848A177978D7D4
33. Rufinus of Aquileia, A Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed – CatholicLibrary.org, https://catholiclibrary.org/library/view?docId=/Fathers-EN/npnf.000076.LifeAndWorksOfRufinusWithJeromesApologyAgainstRuf.ACommentaryontheApostlesCreed.html&chunk.id=00000005
34. Biblical Canon of Rufinus of Aquileia – The 4 Marks, https://4marksofthechurch.com/biblical-canon-of-rufinus-of-aquileia/
35. What is the Apostles’ Creed of the third or fourth century A.D.? | NeverThirsty, https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-qa/qa-archives/question/what-is-apostles-creed-third-or-fourth-centuries-ad/
36. Tyrannius Rufinus – Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannius_Rufinus
37. Rufinus’ Commentary on the Creed | PDF | Biblical Canon | Septuagint – Scribd, https://www.scribd.com/document/736939142/Rufinus-Commentarius-in-Symbolum-Apostolorum-en-J-N-D-Kelly-1955-ACW-020
38. Creedal Christians: The Apostle’s Creed | by Luke J. Wilson | The Sacred Faith – Medium, https://medium.com/thesacredfaith/creedal-christians-630538e2f134
39. Biblical Canon of Jerome of Stridon – The 4 Marks, https://4marksofthechurch.com/biblical-canon-of-jerome-of-stridon/
40. Jerome on the Canon of Scripture – Bible Research, https://www.bible-researcher.com/jerome.html
41. Jerome and the Deuterocanonicals | Catholic Answers Podcasts, https://www.catholic.com/audio/ddp/jerome-and-the-deuterocanonicals
42. https://grokipedia.com/page/prologus_galeatus#:~:text=The%20title%20Prologus%20Galeatus%2C%20translating,Isaiah%2059%3A17%2C%20emphasizing%20the
43. Prologus Galeatus – Philip Schaff – Christian Classics Ethereal Library, https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc09/encyc09.html?term=Prologus%20Galeatus
44. Cajetan’s view on the canon – Christianity Stack Exchange, https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/94317/cajetans-view-on-the-canon
45. Cajetan on the OT Canon – Our Beans, http://sanctushieronymus.blogspot.com/2017/02/according-to-wikipedia-thomas-cardinal.html
46. Synod of Hippo – Grokipedia, https://grokipedia.com/page/Synod_of_Hippo
47. Augustine’s Canon List – stylos, http://www.jeffriddle.net/2016/05/augustines-canon-list.html
48. St Augustine on the Canon of Scripture – Bible Research, https://www.bible-researcher.com/augustine.html
49. Augustine and the Canon | Dr. Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament, https://claudemariottini.com/2007/05/22/augustine-and-the-canon/
50. St. Augustine: On Christian Doctrine, in Four Books, https://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine/doctrine.ix_1.html
51. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 3/The Canons of Carthage/Introductory Note – Wikisource, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nicene_and_Post-Nicene_Fathers:_Series_II/Volume_XIV/Additional_Canons_3/The_Canons_of_Carthage/Introductory_Note
52. CHURCH FATHERS: Council of Carthage (A.D. 419) – New Advent, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm
53. Rebuttal to Johnny Bravo: Christian Scholars refuting the status of, https://answeringislam.blog/bravo7/
54. Revelation and the Bible – Eurasia Education Foundation, https://eurasia.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Revelation-and-the-Bible-Full-Book.pdf
55. BELIEFS – The Good Shepherd Anglican Church, http://goodshepherdoa.org/new-page-1
56. Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles – Article VI (Part 1) | The North American Anglican, https://northamanglican.com/exposition-of-the-thirty-nine-articles-article-vi-part-1/
57. Luther’s Creation Theology – Perspective Digest, https://www.perspectivedigest.org/archive/20-2/luthers-creation-theology
58. The Word Did It All: The Power of God’s Word in Church Reformation, https://sb.rfpa.org/the-word-did-it-all-the-power-of-gods-word-in-church-reformation/
59. Faithful to the Fathers | The North American Anglican, https://northamanglican.com/faithful-to-the-fathers/
60. Scripture (39 Articles, 6-8) | Anthony Smith, https://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2019/03/14/scripture-39-articles-6-8/
61. Article 6 — Of the Sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for salvation – Church Society, https://www.churchsociety.org/resource/article-6-of-the-sufficiency-of-the-holy-scriptures-for-salvation/
62. The Westminster Assembly and Romanism – Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, https://www.fpchurch.org.uk/publications/the-free-presbyterian-magazine/7488-2/october-1998/article-the-westminster-assembly-and-romanism-rev-donald-beaton-107/
63. The Apocryphal and Deuterocanonical Books – Tabletalk Magazine, https://tabletalkmagazine.com/article/2018/01/apocryphal-deuterocanonical-books/
64. Page:Westminster Confession of Faith.pdf/5 – Wikisource, the free online library, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Westminster_Confession_of_Faith.pdf/5