HistoricalChristian.Faith

Did the early church accept the Apocrypha out of ignorance of Hebrew and the Hebrew canon?

Type: supporting argument (off-timeline) · Assessment: weak — for the interpretation it serves (that patristic acceptance of the deuterocanon is explained by ignorance: the Fathers knew only Greek, found the extra books bound into the Septuagint, and — unaware of the narrower Hebrew canon and the Jewish background — wrongly assumed they were Scripture, so the wider canon is an artifact of linguistic ignorance plus the early Judaism/Christianity schism rather than a considered judgment). The thesis rests on three true planks — the Greek Fathers did work mostly from the Septuagint, the Septuagint did carry the disputed books, and Hebrew literacy was genuinely rare — but its load-bearing part is a correlation claim (the least-Hebrew-educated Fathers endorsed the books; the Hebrew-literate rejected them), and that claim fails in both directions. The single most Hebrew-competent ancient, Origen — who compiled the Hexapla and knew the Hebrew canon precisely — defended the Greek Susanna against Julius Africanus and used the disputed books as Scripture; Jerome, the one Hebraist Latin Father, translated Tobit and Judith and cited Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch in his own voice; while non-Hebraists reached the narrow list by simple inquiry into Jewish practice (Melito "going East," Gregory of Nazianzus). And the framing miscasts considered judgments as naive error: Augustine fixed his canon by breadth of churchly reception while in open correspondence with Jerome about the Hebrew–Greek gap, and Rufinus answered the premise head-on — the early church, "especially" at Jerusalem, had "a plentiful supply" of bilingual Jewish-born Christians who never moved to excise the Septuagint's Susanna or the Song of the Three Children · advanced by James White and Mike Winger

Related arguments: reading the patristic witness — see also does the Fathers' word "canon" mean the modern definition? (sound); what did the "ecclesiastical" (read-but-not-canonical) category mean? (sound); does quoting a book "as Scripture" prove a Father held it canonical? (plausible); did the early church build doctrine only on the undisputed books? (contested); is the canon "discovered, not decided," so patristic use was honest error? (contested); did "not canonical" encode a substantive authority judgment, not a mere filing category? (contested); had the word "apocrypha" drifted to "inspired-but-hidden" by Trent? (weak); are the "twenty-two / twenty-four" book-counts alphabet-numerology, not canon boundaries? (weak).

See also: Should Augustine's canon witness be discounted because he was "no biblical expert" and could not read Hebrew, unlike Jerome? (weak) — the Augustine-specific instance of this thesis; Did later evidence undercut Jerome's grounds for a Hebrew-only canon? (sound that his grounds were undercut; the canon conclusion left open) — the Hebraist's side of the same theme; and Were the Jews "entrusted with the oracles of God" (Romans 3:2)? (contested) and Did the early church reject the deuterocanon as Scripture? (contested), which weigh the substantive Hebrew-canon question this argument's genetic explanation is parasitic on but distinct from.

The sub-claim here is a genetic one: not "the Hebrew canon is the right canon" (a substantive thesis the other ot-canon arguments weigh) but "the Fathers who received the wider canon did so only because they were ignorant" — a sociological explanation of how the longer canon arose, which can fail even if the narrow canon turns out to be right.

The claim

Two modern Protestant apologists give the thesis its sharpest form. James White, debating Gary Michuta on whether the Apocrypha is Scripture, traces the wider canon to a failure of knowledge:¹

Evidently some in the early church, ignorant of the Old Testament canon and the backgrounds of the people of Israel assumed that since some or all of the Apocryphal books appeared in their Greek translations then they must be canonical. Those early writers who knew the most about the Old Testament did not make this mistake. Remember, very few of the early church writers knew the Hebrew language. There is a division/schism between Judaism and Christianity very early on … without knowing the Hebrew language, and without knowing the backgrounds that are so important to proper exegesis of biblical texts, it is easy to see how that kind of ignorance could take place.

Mike Winger presses the same explanation, and states its load-bearing corollary outright — that the canon judgment tracks Hebrew competence:²

… they didn't speak Hebrew, they spoke Greek … At some point, these Apocrypha books, probably later on, entered into this Greek compendium of Jewish works. The Jews knew this wasn't scripture … But if you weren't familiar with Judaism or Jews, and all you knew was Greek, and you didn't know the Hebrew, and you saw this, you might think that these were scripture — just being ignorant … the least educated about Hebrew and about the original languages, the least educated of the Fathers were the ones who endorsed the Apocrypha, because they just assumed that the Jews did — but they were wrong about that. And the ones that were educated and knew the languages, they were the ones that rejected it. So it just seems to be some confusion that's a result of the unfortunate separation of Christianity and Judaism.

The argument has a true core and a load-bearing extension, and they must be kept apart. The core is a set of real historical facts about linguistic background. The extension is the explanatory claim built on them: that those facts caused a mistaken canon judgment, evidenced by a correlation — "least educated in Hebrew → endorsed the Apocrypha; educated in the languages → rejected it." Everything the thesis adds beyond the bare facts rides on that correlation, so it is the correlation that has to be tested.

The evidence for: the planks that are true

Three premises under the argument are sound, and the assessment keeps every one of them. (1) The Greek-speaking church did read and reason from the Septuagint, and the New Testament itself quotes the Old in its Greek form far more often than not. (2) The Septuagint codices did carry the disputed books interspersed among the others, with no caution-label marking them off. (3) Hebrew literacy among the Fathers was genuinely rare — Origen and Jerome are the conspicuous exceptions precisely because almost no one else in the Greek or Latin church could read the language at all. So the picture of a church whose working Bible was a Greek text containing the deuterocanon, read by men who could not check it against a Hebrew scroll, is not invented. The question is only whether those facts explain the wider canon as a mistake — and that is a further claim, which the facts by themselves do not establish.³

Where it breaks (1): the correlation fails on the Hebraist side

The thesis predicts that the Fathers who knew Hebrew rejected the disputed books. The two ancients who actually knew Hebrew did not.

Origen is the decisive counter-instance, because he is the most Hebrew-competent figure in the whole period — he built the Hexapla, the six-column synopsis that mapped the Greek against the Hebrew column by column, expressly to know where they diverged. By the thesis's logic he, of all people, should have purged the Greek additions. He did the opposite. When Julius Africanus wrote to challenge the story of Susanna — one of the Greek additions to Daniel, absent from the Hebrew — as no genuine part of Scripture, Origen answered with a vigorous defense of the longer Greek text the churches read in worship, arguing that the church's received text was not to be surrendered to the shorter Hebrew. He cited Tobit, Sirach, Baruch, the Maccabees, Wisdom, Judith, and Susanna outright as Scripture across his sermons, and named Susanna's place "in the list of divine books" directly. His verdict was double — a "No" by Hebrew enumeration, a working "keep" of the books the church read — but the half the thesis needs (Hebrew knowledge → rejection) is exactly the half he refutes: the one man who knew the Hebrew canon best argued for retaining the disputed Greek material.⁴

Jerome, the lone Hebraist of the Latin church and the argument's own hero, is no clean witness for it either. He did draw the hard line in his prefaces — the books are "not in the canon" — but his practice was far more mixed: he translated Tobit and Judith into Latin, quoted Sirach as "Holy Scripture says," cited Wisdom under "it is written," ranked Baruch among "the trumpets of the prophets," and noted that the church read Judith. So even the Hebraist whose authority the argument borrows did not simply reject the books and walk away. Hebrew competence did not produce a clean rejection in the one Latin Father who had it.⁵

Where it breaks (2): the correlation fails on the Greek-only side too

The mirror prediction is that the Fathers who knew only Greek endorsed the wider canon. But the narrow, Hebrew-sized list was reached by Greek-speakers who knew no Hebrew — they got there not by reading the language but by the much simpler expedient of asking what the Jews kept. Melito of Sardis (c. 170), a Greek bishop in Asia Minor with no evidence of Hebrew, drew up the earliest Christian Old-Testament list — and it is Hebrew-sized, omitting Tobit, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, and the Maccabees — reached by travelling "to the East … where these things were preached and done" and learning the books "accurately." Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 389), a Greek-speaking Cappadocian, gives one of the narrowest lists of all, twenty-two books "corresponding to the number of the Hebrew letters," dropping even Esther. Neither needed Hebrew to reach the short canon; inquiry into Jewish usage was enough, and it was available to any Greek-reader who cared to make it. The thesis's implicit claim — that only a Hebraist could have known the books "the Jews kept" — is false: the information was a question away.⁶

This cuts deeper than a tally of exceptions. The thesis needs ignorance of the Hebrew canon to be the mechanism of the wider canon. But a long line of Fathers knew the narrower Hebrew list — they transmitted it themselves — and still read and kept the disputed books, in a graded "read but not for doctrine" tier rather than a naive equation with Scripture: Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Rufinus, and others relay the Hebrew enumeration and then place the deuterocanon in a second rank, read in the churches. Their inclusion of the books was not ignorance that a narrower Jewish list existed — they recite it — but a considered decision about what status to give books the church already used. Knowing the Hebrew canon and using the deuterocanon were, for much of the church, simply not in tension.⁷

Where it breaks (3): "ignorance" miscasts considered judgments

Even where a Father read no Hebrew, his reception of the books was often a reasoned judgment on a stated criterion, not the linguistic accident the thesis describes. Augustine is the test case, and the argument's own preferred specimen — White and CARM make him the ignorant non-Hebraist whose "Yes" should be discounted. But Augustine did not fix his canon by mistaking a Greek scroll for the Hebrew one. He fixed it by an explicit rule — prefer the books "received by all the catholic churches," weighing breadth and antiquity of churchly use (On Christian Doctrine II.8.12) — a criterion for which Hebrew philology is simply not decisive. And he was not unaware of the Hebrew–Greek question: he corresponded with Jerome about it directly, pressing the case for the Septuagint's authority in the famous exchange over Jonah's gourd, and deferring to Jerome's learning on points of language while declining to follow him on the canon. A man who debates the translator of the Hebrew about the standing of the Greek is not a man ignorant that the question exists. His "Yes" was a vote on a different criterion, not a blunder for want of Hebrew.⁸

The same holds across the "using" Fathers. Hippolytus reads Wisdom as "the prophecy of Solomon which speaketh of Christ"; Lactantius cites Sirach as Solomon's testimony to the Word of God; Irenaeus quotes the additions to Daniel as prophetic Scripture. These are doctrinal, christological uses — the books pressed into service as prophecy of Christ — not the inert by-product of a misread codex. Winger's image of the deuterocanon as books that "probably later on, entered into this Greek compendium of Jewish works," stumbled upon by Greek-readers who "might think" them Scripture, also gets the history backwards: the Septuagint was not a curiosity the Fathers ignorantly inherited but the apostolic-era church's actual Bible, the very text the New Testament authors quote — so the church's use of it rests on apostolic precedent, not on a failure to know a Hebrew alternative many of them demonstrably did know.⁹

Where it breaks (4): the contemporary rebuttal — Rufinus on the bilingual church

The thesis's master-premise — "nobody knew Hebrew, so they could not have known better" — was contested in its own century, by a writer inside the very controversy. When Jerome defended his project of correcting the Old Latin against the Hebrew, Rufinus of Aquileia answered that the church had never lacked men competent to judge:¹⁰

There has been from the first in the churches of God, and especially in that of Jerusalem, a plentiful supply of men who being born Jews have become Christians; and their perfect acquaintance with both languages and their sufficient knowledge of the law is shewn by their administration of the pontifical office. In all this abundance of learned men, has there been one who has dared to make havoc of the divine record handed down to the Churches by the Apostles and the deposit of the Holy Spirit? … the whole of the history of Susanna, which gave a lesson of chastity to the churches of God, has by him been cut out, thrown aside and dismissed. The hymn of the three children, which is regularly sung on festivals in the Church of God, he has wholly erased from the place where it stood.

Rufinus's point is precisely the one the ignorance-thesis needs to be false: the early church — at Jerusalem above all — had a steady supply of bilingual Jewish-born Christians, fully at home in Hebrew and the law, who could have moved to excise Susanna or the Song of the Three Children from the Greek text the church read, and never did. The longer text the church used was not, on this account, a thing accepted only by men who knew no better; it stood unchallenged in a church that included men who knew the Hebrew best of all. (Rufinus's own argument has its weaknesses — he leans on the legend that the seventy translators worked in separate cells under direct inspiration, and treats the Septuagint as an apostolic deposit Peter himself delivered — and those props do not bear the weight he puts on them. But the sociological core, that the early church was not uniformly ignorant of Hebrew and that its bilingual members did not reject the longer readings, stands independent of the legend and lands squarely on the thesis's premise.)¹⁰

Rufinus's sociological point is corroborated by modern scholarship on the language map of Roman Palestine — and, tellingly, on ground the ignorance-thesis's own proponents concede. Saul Lieberman's Greek in Jewish Palestine, Erwin Goodenough's studies of the Greek dress of Palestinian Judaism, and above all Martin Hengel's demonstration that Hellenization had gone so deep by the New Testament period that the old "Palestinian versus Hellenistic Judaism" partition no longer holds, describe a first-century Judaea in which Greek was widely spoken. Weighing the Jerusalem ossuary epitaphs — of which "a good third were written in Greek" — Hengel puts the Greek-mother-tongue share of the population "at around 10-20% as a minimum," and judges Greek "no less established among the leading families of Jerusalem than in the scriptoria and the bazaars of the city." A Greek-only Christian, on this picture, met no wall of language between himself and a Jew who could tell him which books the synagogue kept — exactly as Melito found by simple inquiry. So the bilingualism deflates the thesis's "they could not have known better" premise cleanly. But the point cuts both ways, and the tension is worth keeping in view rather than flattening. When Gary Michuta pressed this very evidence in cross-examination — would White grant "the findings of Goodenough … that … first-century Judaism in Palestine involved bilingual people speaking Greek" — White granted it at once, and answered with a concession of his own: "I've never even suggested that the reason there is a massive division between Jews and Christians was because of a linguistic barrier … the division was not a linguistic division … It was, sadly, an interpersonal division." That answer undercuts the thesis's own mechanism — if language was never the barrier, "they didn't know Hebrew" cannot be what produced the wider canon — yet it does not hand the substantive question to the other side either. That Greek-speaking Christians could have consulted the Jews about their canon does not establish that the Jewish canon was authoritative for the church: proximity and a shared tongue are not deference, and a hostility that was interpersonal and rhetorical, not linguistic, could hold two communities apart even where neither lacked the words to speak. The bilingual-Palestine evidence closes the "couldn't have known" gap the thesis needs; it leaves the deeper dispute — whether the church ought to have measured its Old Testament by the synagogue's — exactly where the rest of the timeline finds it.¹¹

Adversarial assessment

What holds. The factual scaffolding is sound and is kept: the Greek church read the Septuagint, the Septuagint carried the deuterocanon, and Hebrew literacy was rare. So the church's familiarity with the disputed books, and the ease with which a Greek-reader would encounter them as part of Scripture, are genuinely explained by the linguistic situation. To that extent the thesis names something real.

Where it fails. But familiarity is not the same as a mistaken verdict, and the explanatory claim — that the wider canon is an artifact of ignorance — does not survive the evidence. Its load-bearing correlation breaks in both directions: the Hebraists (Origen, and Jerome in practice) did not reject the books, and the narrow list was reached by Greek-only Fathers (Melito, Gregory of Nazianzus) who simply inquired into Jewish usage — so neither "knew Hebrew → rejected" nor "knew only Greek → accepted" holds. The mechanism the thesis posits, ignorance that a narrower Jewish list existed, is contradicted by the many Fathers who recite that list and keep the books anyway, in a graded tier. And "ignorance" miscasts the actual reasoning on display — Augustine's reception-criterion, argued in open correspondence with Jerome about the Hebrew–Greek gap; the christological, doctrinal use of the books as prophecy of Christ; the apostolic precedent of the Septuagint the New Testament itself quotes. Rufinus's contemporary rebuttal closes the gap the argument needs, pointing to the bilingual Jewish-Christian presence that could have corrected any error and did not.

Two questions, two answers. Is the substantive Hebrew-canon position right? — that is the live dispute this whole timeline traces, weighed on the Romans 3:2, patristic canon-lists, and Jerome's reasons pages, with no clear winner. But is the wider canon explained by ignorance? No. One can hold the narrow canon to be correct and still find the genetic story false: the Fathers who received the longer canon were not, by and large, men who would have rejected it had they only known Hebrew — the Hebraists among them didn't, and the non-Hebraists who reached the short list show that knowing Hebrew was never the operative variable.

Assessment

Weak. As an account of why the church was familiar with the deuterocanon — a Greek-reading church whose Bible contained the books — the thesis names true facts. But as the explanation it is offered to be, that the wider canon is an artifact of linguistic ignorance rather than a considered judgment, it does not hold. Its load-bearing correlation — least educated in Hebrew endorsed, language-educated rejected — fails on both sides: the most Hebrew-competent ancient, Origen, defended the Greek Susanna and used the disputed books as Scripture; Jerome in practice translated and cited them; while Greek-only Fathers reached the narrow list by plain inquiry into Jewish usage (Melito, Gregory of Nazianzus). The mechanism it posits — ignorance that a narrower Jewish canon existed — is contradicted by the Fathers who recite that canon and keep the books in a graded tier; and its "ignorance" framing miscasts considered judgments (Augustine's reception-criterion, argued face-to-face with Jerome; the doctrinal use of the books as prophecy of Christ; the Septuagint the New Testament itself quotes). A contemporary inside the controversy, Rufinus, met the premise directly: the early church had "a plentiful supply" of bilingual Jewish-born Christians who never moved to excise the Septuagint's longer readings. What is left of the argument is the genuine, unresolved question it is parasitic on — whether the church ought to measure its Old Testament by the Hebrew — which is decided, if at all, on the merits, not by reducing the church's verdict to a failure to know the language. (The Augustine-specific form of the charge is weighed on the "no biblical expert" page, also weak; the Hebraist's side of the same theme on the "wrong for his reasons" page, sound as to his grounds though the canon question itself stays open.)

Sources