Gary G. Michuta - Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger

Is it true that the Old Testament canon was complete and closedlong before the first word of the Deuterocanon was written? Does the NewTestament provide evidence for a closed Old Testament canon? Do theDeuterocanonical books themselves contain proofs of this supposed fact?

All of these claims have been made through the years byProtestant apologists attempting to defend the canon of Luther and Calvin; andif any of these allegations were, in fact, proved valid then there really mightbe good reason to question the traditional Christian bible overthrown by Protestantism.These claims, however, are not truea fact that may be firmly established by acareful and unbiased examination of the historical record and the otherevidence at hand. Any bible-loving Christian will want to make such anexamination, surely, rather than run the risk of spurning a set of books whichmay, in fact, contain Gods own holy Word.

Let us begin by examining the claim that theDeuterocanonical books themselves provide evidence for a closed, pre-existingHebrew canon.

The Book of Sirach (200150 BC)

The Book of Sirach (also called Ecclesiasticus)is the oldest of the Deuteros, written in Hebrew (most likely in Palestine)sometime around the beginning of the second century before Christ. This grandson also addeda Greek preface to the book which refers several times to the existingScriptures of that day. Does this preface show, as some have claimed, that thecanon was already closed by then and excluded, therefore, Sirach itself?

Some Protestant apologists have argued that thisintroduction speaks of the Law, the Prophets, and the Writingsa three-folddivision of the Old Testament corresponding to the three-fold division inmodern Jewish bibles (Hat-Torah, Nebiim, wa-Kthubim)and implying thatthis same modern division was already present when Sirach (oldest of theDeuteros) was new. Unfortunately, this line of reasoning greatly overstates theevidence. Sirachs introduction never speaks of the Law, the Prophets and theWritings; it speaks only of the Law, the Prophets, and the other booksavery unusual piece of language if the now-established terms were already inuse. Indeed, in three attempts to reference Scripture in this fashion, Sirachsgrandson fails even once to apply what later became the recognized phraseology. Furthermore, such avery vague name as the other books may suggest a deliberate vaguenessand, in fact, recalls the similar ambiguity employed by some of the earlyChurch Fathers in the decades before a universally recognized New Testamentcanon was promulgated. At the very least, such an indistinct category cannot besaid to effectively exclude much of anything.

Moreover, in at least two places, perhaps more, Sirachindicates that he did, in fact, believe his book to contain the wisdom thatcomes only from the Lord, and that it could take a place among the other booksof Scripture (Sir Preface, Sir 24:28-31; cf. Sir 1:1; 6:37; 16:24-25;). These claims bear witnessto the fact that Sirach and his grandson, along with their contemporaries inPalestine and Egypt, could not have believed that the contents of Scripturewere yet fixed and/or that the composition of inspired literature was no longerpossible. After all, all of todays Christians are fully agreed that there wasdefinitely a great deal of Scripture yet to come in Sirachs timetwenty-twowhole books of New Testament writing! The idea that Sirachs introductionimplies a closed canon by 200 BC really implies that the canon of Scripture wasclosed once, then reopened in apostolic times, before being re-closedagain at the death of the Apostle John; an inelegant picture of Gods planof revelation to say the least.