ROGERS, MELITO & WISDOM

A Review of Anthony Rogers’ “Melito and the Wisdom of Pseudo-Solomon”

Uploaded to Academia.edu on 12/14/24[1]

I’d like to begin this review by noting that although Rogers and I engage in our own respective spheres of apologetics, I do not believe there is sufficient grounds for determining – with any degree of certainty – whether Melito lists a deuterocanonical book or not. I am open to either possibility because I believe that Melito’s list is an example of Christian-Jewish polemics in which Melito is attempting to inform Onesimus which books can be used for the purpose of Christian evangelism. Therefore, the list is important for understanding the development of the rabbinic bible but tells us little about the Christian canon.

Rogers’ paper – Melito and the Wisdom of Pseudo-Solomon – does not appear to be a finished product, his citations are incomplete, and his thought is rather haphazard. The paper suffers from a heavy reliance on secondary sources, which are often received uncritically.[2]

The paper begins with a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia (1908) to the effect that Melito only lists protocanonical books, minus Esther. Rogers provides a rather lengthy footnote to this quotation, which reads:

“When Ried says that Melito’s list contains only the protocanonicals, he is acknowledging that Melito’s list is the same as that of Jews and Protestants and does not include what Rome refers to as Deutero-Canonical, i.e the Apocrypha.”[3]

He then adds that this “admission” should sound “surprising” coming from a Roman Catholic scholar. What is surprising, however, is Mr. Rogers’ statement that Melito’s list is “the same as” the final form of the rabbinic and Protestant bible. The quote from Reid explicitly states that Esther is not among the protocanonical books cited.[4]  The quote from Reid suggests that he may not have believed Wisdom was a deuterocanonical book, but he could not have meant the Melito’s list is “the same as” the Protestant Old Testament canon.

Later in the same footnote, Rogers interacts with Trent Horn over the nature of Melito’s work and list. Even though this topic directly impinges upon what Melito’s list represents, Rogers buries the question in a lengthy footnote dismissing it as Horn’s attempt to “mitigate the force” of Melito omitting the Deuterocanon. Aside from the fact that this is an appeal to motive, Rogers’ charge is not convincing. Melito’s Extracts, which includes his list, falls within the genre of Christian-Jewish polemics, which Reid notes, a few lines after the end of Rogers’ quote:

“It should be noticed, however, that the document to which this catalogue was prefixed is capable of being understood as having an anti-Jewish polemical purpose, in which case Melito’s restricted canon is explicable on another ground.”[5]

In case one is tempted to accuse Reid of also trying to “mitigate the force,” we find the following quoted in a footnote in Phillip Schaff’s and Henry Wace’s Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, which reads:

“…The nature of the work [Extracts] is clear from the words of Melito himself. It was a collection of testimonies to Christ and to Christianity, drawn from the Old Testament law and prophets. It must, therefore, have resembled closely such works as Cyprian’s Testimonia, and the Testimonia of Pseudo-Gregory, and other anti-Jewish works, in which the appeal was made to the Old Testament—the common ground accepted by both parties—for proof of the truth of Christianity. Although the Eclogæ of Melito were not anti-Jewish in their design, their character leads us to classify them with the general class of anti-Jewish works whose distinguishing mark is the use of Old Testament prophecy in defense of Christianity (cf. the writer’s article on Christian Polemics against the Jews, in the Pres. Review, July, 1888, and also the writer’s Dialogue between a Christian and a Jew, entitled ʼΑντιβολη Παπισκου καί Φιλωνος, New York, 1889).”[6]

Surely Schaff and Wace – who exhibit a considerable anti-Catholic bias – are not trying to “mitigate the force” of the absence of these books in Melito. Ascertaining the purpose and genre of Melito’s Extracts is key to understanding what Melito’s list is intended to represent. If Extracts is a Christian-Jewish apologetics work then the books listed represent the “common ground accepted by both parties” (i.e., Christianity and rabbinic Judaism). The contents, therefore, may or may not correspond to the Christian “canon.”[7] Therefore, if Melito’s Wisdom is a reference to a deuterocanonical book, it is problematic only for those who deny the Christian reception of the Deuterocanon.

Mr. Rogers appears to assume that the rabbinic “canon” did not undergo any development over the centuries, and it was universally received and recognized by both Jews and Christians. These assumptions raise several tensions for Rogers’ interpretation of Melito.

After reproducing the fragment from Eusebius, Rogers writes:

“Some have claimed that Melito’s list does not include Lamentations or Nehemiah, but most recognize that Lamentations was included with Jeremiah and that the combination Ezra-Nehemiah is what Melito and others in the ancient church referred to as Esdras.”[8]

Rogers cites my work Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger (Rogers, p. 2, FN 3). It’s unclear why he needed to cite me (or anyone for that matter), since these books simply aren’t mentioned (as Rogers’ reproduction of the list illustrates). For the sake of disclosure, I will quote the relevant texts in both editions of Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, since Rogers’ citation neglected to mention which edition he is referencing. In the first edition (2007), I wrote:

“We ought to take a closer look at Melito’s list, as well, before moving on. A moment’s reflection reveals that it does not line up with the Protestant canon at all. It omits the books of Lamentations, Nehemiah, and Esther—and includes the Book of Wisdom. Even if Lamentations and Nehemiah are present, as some have argued, under the other titles broadly defined, the omission of Esther remains unaccountable.”[9]

Footnote 106 reads:

“Some dispute whether “also Wisdom” [Gk. e kai sophia] refers to the Book of Wisdom or an alternative title for the Book of Proverbs. See Bruce, F. F., The Canon of Scripture (InterVarsity Press, 1988), 71.”

I soften my stance on the identity of Wisdom in the 2017 revised edition of Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, which reads:
“Melito’s list frequently appears as a witness for the shorter Protestant canon, even though the contents of Melito’s list is different.”

FN 127 reads:

“Melito’s list omits the books of Lamentations, Nehemiah, and Esther—and it possibly even includes the Book of Wisdom. Even if Lamentations and Nehemiah are present (being included in other books), as some have argued, the omission of Esther remains unaccountable. Later Christian lists of the rabbinical canon will also point to doubts concerning Esther.”

Rogers has stated that Melito’s list is “the same as” the Protestant canon, yet it omits three protocanonical books found in all Protestant bibles and possibly includes a deuterocanonical book which is generally omitted. Rogers attempts to resolve these tensions in different ways. Regarding the omission of Lamentations and Nehemiah, Rogers argues that since these books were commonly combined with the books of Jeremiah and Ezra, they were virtually included under the same titles. Fair enough. There is no evidence of the sacredness of these books being disputed in the second Christian century nor within mainstream Judaism or Christianity. They were indeed commonly combined with these books. Esther is another story. The sacredness of Esther is famously disputed in rabbinic literature that dates to the time of Melito and afterwards.[10] It is omitted in some early Christian lists as well.[11] Esther [and Nehemiah] were not found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.[12] Moreover, Esther wasn’t typically combined with other books as is the case with Lamentations and Nehemiah.[13]

Rogers argues that the omission of Esther was accidental. He attempts to raise the antecedent probability of an accidental omission by noting that Eusebius’ fragment of Origen’s list omits the Twelve minor prophets, whose sacredness was never denied. He therefore asserts that someone must have accidentally omitted Esther, whether it be Eusebius, or Melito’s source, or a copyist.[14] Although the universal acceptance of the Twelve does show that a mistake was made, the error would have to come from Eusebius or a copyist of Eusebius for Rogers’ argument to work, since only he reproduced fragments from both authors. It’s doubtful whether Eusebius is the one who omitted the Twelve.[15] Moreover, there is no manuscript evidence to support a copyist error in either text. How then can Rogers be so certain that Esther must have been included in Melito’s list? After noting some of the eccentricities of the list, Rogers notes:

“…the books that Melito listed are all part of the traditional Jewish canon and the Protestant Old Testament, with the possible exception of “Wisdom”.

Rogers’ certainty appears to be derived from the contents of the final form of the rabbinic / Protestant canon being anachronistically read back into Melito. These later canons included Esther. Therefore, Melito’s list must have originally included (or he intended to include) Esther.

This approach also leads Mr. Rogers to assume that only Lamentations was virtually included with Jeremiah, even though the deuterocanonical books of Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah (Baruch 6) had gained a wide acceptance among eastern and western fathers and – like Lamentations – were explicitly and virtually included in several early lists with Jeremiah.[16] Even granting that Baruch’s reception in rabbinic Judaism was considerably weaker than that of Lamentations, its inclusion under Jeremiah was fairly well established in Christian circles. If Melito is giving a Christian Old Testament list, as Rogers believes, why is the omitted protocanonical book of Lamentations virtually included, while the deuterocanonical books of Baruch and the Epistle are excluded? If one wishes to make Melito cohere with early Christian lists, there is no justification. If, however, one is attempting to make Melito’s list cohere with the final form of the Protestant canon then it would be justified, as well as being circular and ad hoc.[17]

“Proverbs, and the Wisdom”

Mr. Rogers now addresses the main point of the paper, the meaning of Melito’s words “ἡ καὶ Σοφία.” According to Rogers:

“Since the word “wisdom” in this list of canonical Scripture is mentioned in connection with Solomon, the word cannot refer to the Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sirach, and this leaves only two known possibilities…”[18]

When Rogers says “connection” he apparently means authorship. Since Jesus ben Sira was the author of the Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sirach, it would therefore be excluded. But did Melito mean “authorship?”[19] The header “Of Solomon” may refer to books that were commonly associated with Solomon due to their style, in which case Sirach could be included.[20] Indeed, Eusebius himself quotes Sirach 11:28 as from the “Proverbs of Solomon,” even though he knew that Solomon is not its author.[21]

Rogers, however, doesn’t believe “the Wisdom” refers to Sirach or the Wisdom of Solomon. He offers two reasons why he believes that it is an alternative name for Proverbs. Rogers references F. F. Bruce (Canon of Scripture, p. 71), who states:

“None of the writings in the ‘Septuagintal plus’ is listed: the ‘Wisdom’ included is not the Greek book of Wisdom but an alternative name for Proverbs. According to Eusebius, Hegesippus and Irenaeus and many other writers of their day called the Proverbs of Solomon ‘the all-virtuous Wisdom.’”[22]

Later Rogers quotes Stuart Moses to the same effect:

“The Romish church will find…in this almost primitive father, but a very slender

support, (indeed none at all, but the contrary), for their deutero-canon. If it be said, (as it has been), that the clause in Melito Σαλομωνοσ Παροιμιαι η και σοφια means the Proverbs of Solomon, and also Wisdom, (i.e. the Wisdom of Solomon, one of the

Apocryphal books), the reply to this suggestion is easy. ‘Nearly all the ancients’,

remarks Valesius on this passage, ‘called the Proverbs of Solomon Wisdom, and

sometimes Σοφιαν πανειρετον.’ Accordingly Dionysius of Alexandria, calls the book of Proverbs η σοφη βιβλοσ; Cap. 28, Catena in Jobum. The author of the Jerusalem

Itinerary, speaking of a certain chamber in Jerusalem, says that, “Solomon sat there,

and there he wrote Sapientiam,’ i.e. the book of Proverbs. Melito means then merely to say, that the work of Solomon called παιροιμιαι, had also the name of σοφια.”[23]

If we outline the argument, it runs like this:

P1. The book of Proverbs was known by an alternative title “the all-virtuous wisdom” (and similar titles).

P2. Melito speaks of “Wisdom”

C. Melito is proposing “Wisdom” as an alternative title for Proverbs.

This argument is hampered by several difficulties.

First, the truth of the first premise is disputable. The Baptist canonical scholar Lee Martin McDonald, in his work, The Formation of the Old Testament Canon, argues that Eusebius is not giving an alternative title for Proverbs, but a description of the inspiration that produced the book. McDonald explains:

“…the focus here is only on Proverbs and the special wisdom in it, that is, the divine wisdom given to Solomon. In 4.22.9, Irenaeus is not citing the Proverbs by a different name (Wisdom), but rather he is magnifying the wisdom with which Solomon wrote the Proverbs… The passage in Irenaeus that Eusebius is citing is not a reference to a book at all, but rather to divine wisdom. The text in Hist. eccl. 4.22.9 is only saying that Solomon exercised “all-virtuous Wisdom,” but it is not the same as we see in Hist. eccl. 4.26.12–13.”[24]

McDonald continues:

“Interestingly, Clement of Rome introduces a quote from Prov 1:23–33 with words similar to those in Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 4.22.9): “For thus says his [God’s] all-virtuous Wisdom” (Greek: οὕτως γάρ λέγει ἡ πανάρετος σοφία, 1 Clem. 57.3). Solomon’s name is not mentioned there, but the focus is on divine wisdom and Clement is citing Proverbs.”[25]

Michael V. Fox likewise notes:

“Among the early Christian writers the book [of Proverbs] was called variously “Wisdom,” “All-Virtuous Wisdom,” “The Wisdom Book,” and “Wisdom the Teacher” (references in Toy). These designations are not titles (they are not found in any MSS of Proverbs) but rather descriptions of the book’s contents.”[26]

If the “all-virtuous Wisdom” (and the other titles) are a description of the contents of Proverbs, it is a powerful affirmation of Proverb’s divine inspiration, but it is not (contra Rogers, Bruce, and Stuart) an alternative title for the book. Unfortunately, Mr. Rogers doesn’t interact with McDonald or Fox, but only quotes secondary sources in support of his first premise.

Second, there is a problem with the middle term. Even if one concedes (contra McDonald and Fox) that the “all-virtuous Wisdom” is an alternative title for Proverbs. The “all-virtuous Wisdom” (or the other presumed alternative titles) do not make up the middle-term of the argument. It still needs to be demonstrated that Melito’s “Wisdom” is the abbreviated form of “the all-virtuous Wisdom” or “the Wisdom Book.” The argument assumes that it is the same, which raises the next difficulty.

Third, the argument, in its current form, only raises the possibility that Proverbs could be Melito’s Wisdom, but it falls short of a demonstration. The argument needs to be much stronger to do that. For example, it would be more successful if it proposed:

P1. The “all-virtuous Wisdom” is the exclusive alternative title for Proverbs.

P2. Melito lists “[the all-virtuous] Wisdom.”

C. Melito’s [all-virtuous] Wisdom is an alternative title for Proverbs.

However, this stronger version of the argument is impossible because the “all-virtuous Wisdom” is not an exclusive alternative title for Proverbs, but it is also used for the Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach. In this regard, Schaff and Wace notes:

“This phrase (πανάρετος σοφία) was very frequently employed among the Fathers as a title of the Book of Proverbs. Clement of Rome (1 Cor. 57) is, so far as I know, the first so to use it. The word πανάρετος is applied also to the apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon, by Epiphanius (de mens. et pond. § 4) and others. Among the Fathers the Book of Sirach, the Solomonic Apocrypha, and the Book of Proverbs all bore the common title σοφία, “Wisdom,” which well defines the character of each of them; and this simple title is commoner than the compound phrase which occurs in this passage (cf. e.g. Justin Martyr’s Dial. c. 129, and Melito, quoted by Eusebius in chap. 26, below).”[27]

As Crawford Toy, in his commentary on Proverbs, likewise notes:

“By early Christian writers the book [of Proverbs] was commonly called Wisdom or All-virtuous Wisdom ἡ πανάρετος σοφία names which were also given to Ben-Sira (Ecclesiasticus) and Wisdom of Solomon.”[28]

Jerome, who initially opposed the canonicity of Wisdom and Sirach, is aware of Sirach being called the “all-virtuous book:”

“There is also the ever-virtuous [πανάρετος] book of Jesus son of Sirach, and another which is a pseudepigraph, inscribed Wisdom of Solomon.”[29]

Epiphanius of Salamis tells us that both the Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach are called ἡ Πανάρετος:

“For there are two (other) poetical books, that by Solomon called “Most Excellent,” [ἡ Πανάρετος λεγομένη], and that by Jesus the son of Sirach and grandson of Jesus—- for his grandfather was named Jesus (and was) he who composed Wisdom in Hebrew, which his grandson, translating, wrote in Greek…”[30]

Eusebius himself call Sirach “all virtuous” [πανάρετος] in the Demonstration of the Gospel:

“And after him a second Onias, followed by Simon, in whose day flourished Jesus, son of Sirach, who wrote the excellent book called Wisdom [ὁ τὴν καλουμένην πανάρετον 

Σοφίαν συντάξας].”[31]

The appeal to alternative titles for Proverbs does little to disambiguate Melito’s “Wisdom.” Indeed, it allows for the possible inclusion of Sirach in addition to the Wisdom of Solomon.

Rogers’ second argument appeals, once again, to the final form of the rabbinic canon:

“Since Melito’s list in all other respects comports with the contents of the Jewish canon, the latter would be the most natural conclusion if we had nothing more to go on. But there is more, and that more points in the same direction.”

But, as we have seen, Rogers’ claim that Melito comports with the final form of the rabbinic and Protestant canon comes about only after a series of ad hoc adjustments: Nehemiah is virtually included under Esdras (Ezra); Lamentations is virtually included under Jeremiah; the books of Baruch and the Epistle are not also  virtually included under Jeremiah; and that someone accidentally blundered by omitting the book of Esther.[32] Only then does Mr. Rogers arrive at his “natural conclusion” that “Wisdom” is the alternative title for Proverbs.  But even if Melito’s list did otherwise perfectly comport with the Protestant canon without the need for such moves, it still doesn’t prove his point, since he has not ruled out the possibility to the contrary. Indeed, Mr. Rogers’ methodology would define out of existence any counter-evidence in any list as long as it can be somehow squared with the later Protestant canon. 

Rogers takes up Stuart’s second point:

“…Stuart says that the Greek eta (η) is to be understood as a relative pronoun rather than as an indicator of the article. While some manuscripts accent the eta as if it were an article (ἡ), others do not, and it is evident that the Greek version before Stuart was read as the relative pronoun.”

The Greek text in question is “ἡ καὶ Σοφία.”[33] The eta can be, as Stuart and Rogers states, either an article (the Wisdom), or a relative pronoun (which is Wisdom). In addition to Rogers, one could also argue the Greek word kai can also be interpreted in two different ways. As McDonald notes:

“The καί in the passage is usually translated “and,” that is, as a connective as in “Solomon’s Proverbs and the Wisdom,” signifying two books attributed to Solomon (Proverbs and Wisdom of Solomon). It can also be translated as an explicative as in “Solomon’s Proverbs, even (or that is) Wisdom.” In this case, it signifies only one book, namely Proverbs.”[34]

Returning to the meaning of the eta, Rogers notes:

“…some manuscripts accent the eta as if it were an article (ἡ), others do not, and it is evident that the Greek version before Stuart was read as the relative pronoun …”

Given that the difference between (ἡ and ἥ) is so minute, one would expect to find a diversity of manuscript variants in this regard. Indeed, if the word “Esther” can be inadvertently omitted by copyists – as Mr. Rogers proposes – how much more a single accent mark! The appeal to the pre-critical text Moses Stuart had in front of him is meaningless to our discussion. One must look at the standard critical edition of Eusebius by E. Schwartz, who gives his preferred reading as “ἡ καὶ Σοφία” with the eta accented as an article (“and the Wisdom”). It’s not surprising, as we suspected, that Schwartz supplies the following variant texts in his critical apparatus: “ἡ καὶ B; ἥ καὶ AT1; καὶ D; καὶ ἡ TeERM, was Weisheit ∑, quea et Λ.”[35] Rogers is on stronger ground in noting that Rufinus’ Latin renders the text as: “Salomonis Proverbia quae et Sapientia (“Proverbs of Solomon, that is Wisdom”). Although the textual evidence weighs slightly in favor of eta being an article, we cannot be confident in this reading due to the minute differences in accenting. This also applies to Rufinus’ translation, since it too is liable to error either through a faulty source text or the slip of the eye. I will leave it to the reader to decide.

Rogers also notes a third opinion proposed by Meade and Gallagher:

“…the titles in Melito’s list are all anarthrous, suggesting that the Greek eta in the phrase ἡ καὶ Σοφία (as printed by Schwartz) might not be an article but could be either a relative pronoun (ἥ; as in Rufinus’s translation, and attested in some Greek manuscripts, according to Schwartz’s apparatus) or a conjunction (ἤ; ‘or’).”[36]

Meade’s and Gallagher’s statement is not entirely accurate: The title for the twelve minor prophets (τῶν δώδεκα) has an article.[37] But even if all titles were anarthrous, it could equally be argued that since none of Melito’s titles use a relative pronoun or a conjunction (ἤ; ‘or’) or propose an alternative title, the eta is likely an article.

Why Proverbs?

Since Mr. Rogers proposes “Wisdom” as an alternative title for Proverbs under the heading: Disambiguating Wisdom, he doesn’t explain why Melito needed to supply an alternative title in the first place.[38] Certainly Esdras (Ezra) with all the different works that are commonly grouped under that name (Nehemiah, 1 [3] Esdras, 2 [4] Esdras or the Apocalypse of Ezra, etc.) is more in need of being disambiguated with an alternative title, yet Melito simply gives: Esdras. What other Proverbs could have circulated as being “of Solomon” than the book of Proverbs? Moreover, how could “Wisdom” being so vague and common, help disambiguate the identity of Proverbs? Rogers does not tell us.

It is here that Sirach becomes an attractive candidate for “Wisdom.” Jerome tells us (Preface to the Books of Solomon) that Hebrew Sirach had the title מִשְלֵי (Latin parabolas), the same Hebrew title as the book of Proverbs. Moreover, we learned from Jerome in the fourth century that the other books of Solomon, Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs were also joined to Hebrew Sirach “…as though it made of equal worth the likeness not only of the number of the books of Solomon, but also the kind of subjects.”[39] Had Melito given Onesimus Hebrew titles (and he meant to include Sirach), he would have said, “Of Solomon, Proverbs (Mashal) and Proverbs (Mashal), Ecclesiastes (Kohelet) and Song of Songs (Shir ha-Shirim).” Clearly, Proverbs (Mashal) needed to be disambiguated. But since Melito gives his titles according to the Septuagint, he could give (if he included Sirach): “Of Solomon, Proverbs and the Wisdom…” since Sirach’s Greek title was “the Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach” (LXX). Furthermore, Sirach gained positive reception in the Jewish Diaspora and even within some circles of rabbinic Judaism, not to mention Christian fathers from both the east and west.[40] If such were the case, Proverbs would need to be differentiated from Sirach. If not, why provide an alternative title for Proverbs?

We now turn our attention to Rogers’ conclusion:

“The evidence best supports the conclusion that Melito’s reference to ‘Wisdom’ is just a further reference to the book of Proverbs. The inclusion of Wisdom, therefore, in this earliest of all Canon lists that has come down to us from a Christian, is not an exception to the otherwise complete exclusion of the Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphal books that Rome later formally adopted as canonical.”

The conclusion completes the circle in Rogers circular reasoning: Rogers first adjusts Melito’s list to conform to the final form of the rabbinic bible (and standard form of the Protestant canon) by virtually including Lamentations, Nehemiah, and Esther, excluding Baruch and the Epistle, and interpreting “Wisdom” as an alternative title for Proverbs. Melito is then used here in the conclusion to affirm the antiquity of the same canon.

It is also puzzling what Mr. Rogers means when he speaks of “the otherwise complete exclusion of the Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphal books that Rome later formally adopted as canonical.” Surely, he is aware – even if we restrict our inquiry to the first four centuries of the Church – that there are other Christian lists that affirm deuterocanonical books (i.e., Origen, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Hilary of Poitiers, Pseudo-Laodicea, Cheltenham/Mommsen list, Augustine, Damasus, Hippo-Regius (393), Carthage III (397)).

On a final note, Rogers does his readers a disservice by couching the issue of the Old Testament Deuterocanon (“Apocrypha”) as a Protestant vs. “Rome” dispute. Trent wasn’t the only ecclesiastical body to affirm the Deuterocanon against Protestant claims. The Orthodox also affirmed these books at the Synod of Jerusalem (1672), which was signed by all five Orthodox patriarchs.[41] Moreover, Protestantism did not uniformly reject the Deuterocanon. Only the magisterial Reformers degraded the books to sub-canonical status. The Radical Reformers accepted the Deuterocanon as inspired Scripture and even cited it against the magisterial reformers. Even within the magisterial camp, some considered parts of the Deuterocanon as being, in some sense, inspired Scripture. It appears that it was only after the Council of Trent that Protestantism became unified in its opposition against the Deuterocanon and began to speak dogmatically against it in its confessions.[42]

Conclusion

As I mentioned at the outset of this paper, I’m currently undecided on the question of what is “Wisdom” in Melito’s list. Although Anthony Rogers’ paper failed to persuade me either way on the issue, the research that I conducted for this reply is now making me lean slightly towards the idea that it is a second book, perhaps Sirach or the Wisdom of Solomon. Although it is contestable, “ἡ καὶ Σοφία” (with the eta accented as an article “and the Wisdom”) is the preferred reading in Schwartz. Melito gives his book titles from the Septuagint and both Sirach and Wisdom could be abbreviated as “ἡ Σοφία” where Proverbs is not called “Wisdom” in the LXX, but ΠΑΡΟΙΜΙΑΙ. Proverbs is elsewhere in Christian writings called “the all-virtuous Wisdom” etc., but so are Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon. These introductions, however, are not alternative titles for which there is no manuscript evidence (Fox), but descriptors of the Wisdom in which they were composed (McDonald). Sirach makes an attractive candidate for Melito’s “Wisdom” in that it has as strong of a reception in rabbinic Judaism as Esther (Beckwith), which is strong enough for Mr. Rogers to insist it must have been present in the list, even though it was omitted. Sirach would also provide additional explanatory power: it would explain why Melito placed it under “Of Solomon,” why Melito needed to differentiate Proverbs from Sirach, and why the title “Wisdom” was sufficient for the task, and also why Sirach could be associated with Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs (Jerome). Melito’s list would also, by omitting Esther and including Sirach, cohere with contemporary rabbinic discussions about the sacredness of both books and it would also be bringing Melito’s book title count to twenty-two, which coheres with the early rabbinic computation of twenty-two sacred books.

Table 1

If one looks at Melito’s list in terms of how he uses the nominative and genitive titles, we find the following:

1-5 Μωυσέως πέντε, (gen, singular + number)

 Γένεσις (nom, singular)

Ἔξοδος (nom, singular)

Ἀριθμοὶ  (nom, singular)

Λευιτικὸν (nom, singular)

Δευτερονόμιον, (nom, singular)

  • Ἰησοῦς Ναυῆ, (nom, singular)
  • Κριταί, (nom, plural)
  • Ῥούθ, (nom, singular)
  • Βασιλειῶν τέσσαρα, (gen, plural + number) [titled as a series]
  • Παραλειπομένων δύο, (gen, plural + number) [titled as a series]

Ψαλμῶν  (gen, plural, no number)

11 Δαυίδ, (gen, plural + nom, singular)[43]

Σολομῶνος  (gen, singular, no number)

12 Παροιμίαι (nom, singular)

ἡ καὶ Σοφία, (nom, singular)

13 Ἐκκλησιαστής, (nom, singular)

14 Ἆισμα Ἀισμάτων, (nom and gen)

15 Ἰώβ, (nom, singular)

Προφητῶν (gen, plural, no number)

16 Ἡσαΐου (gen, singular, no number)

17 Ἱερεμίου (gen, singular, no number)

18 τῶν δώδεκα ἐν μονοβίβλῳ (gen, plural “in one book”)

19 Δανιήλ, (non-declinable)

20 Ἰεζεκιήλ, (non-declinable)

21 Ἔσδρας· (nom, singular)

The pattern Melito uses is: subheading (usually using the genitive), the number of books under the subheading, and a breakdown of the individual titles (usually using the nominative case).

The first subheading is the genitive “Of Moses.” Melito adds the number five followed by a breakdown of the individual book titles in the nominative. He provides the individual titles likely to apprise Onesimus of the atypical order (Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy) and that the five books are to be counted individually.

The subheading “of Kingdoms” provides the number four but omits the individual titles either because the titles are part of a series (1-4 Kingdoms / ά-δ Βασιλειῶν) and/or because he wishes to indicate that all four are to be counted as one book.

The subheading “Of Omissions,” like “Of Kingdoms” provides the subheading plus number without individual titles likely for the same reasons.

The subheading “Of Psalms” does not provide a number, probably because only one title is provided (David). This would suffice to exclude all other psalms (e.g., the Psalms of Solomon).

The subheading “Of Solomon” does not provide a number. Unlike the previous subheading, the omission of a number cannot be because there is only one title included under the heading. Proverbs, Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes are undoubtedly included as well. The absence may be because it had not become a common convention to associate the books of Solomon with a specific number (as is the case with the books of Moses being known as “the five books” or Pentateuch) or more likely Melito intends for each individual title to be counted as a separate book. If “and the Wisdom” is a separate book and not an alternative title for Proverbs, the total number of titles listed by Melito would equal the common rabbinic computation of twenty-two books.

The subheading “Of Prophets” is puzzling. It is undoubtedly a subheading, but Melito does not assign a number to this category. Instead, he lists individual books. Only the twelve minor prophets receive a number, “Of the Twelve in one book” (τῶν δώδεκα ἐν μονοβίβλῳ). Either a specific number has yet to be conventionally assigned to the Prophets or Melito wishes Onesimus to understand that all the prophets (including the Twelve) are to be counted as five books.[44] When the contents of this subheading is stipulated, Melito breaks his pattern. Instead of listing the titles using the nominative, as he has done with previous individual titles. He gives Isaiah and Jeremiah as genitives (“Of Isaiah” and “Of Jeremiah” respectively). Daniel and Ezekiel are indeclinable, but they certainly would be included under the category “Of Prophets.” Why the change? It is tempting to see “Of Jeremiah” an indication that more than one work is included under this title (i.e., Lamentations, Baruch, and the Epistle). Before Origen, these books were widely quoted by Christians as coming from “Jeremiah.” It would also provide a solution for the tension of Lamentations, a book universally received both in Christianity and rabbinic Judaism, being omitted in this list. However, we have seen that the genitive is used for only a single work (i.e., “Of Psalms, David”). Moreover, if the genitive “Of Jeremiah” signals the presence of unnamed combined works, what would “Of Isaiah” indicate? It seems best, therefore, simply to state that “Of Prophets” is intended to serve as a subheading for the individual titles listed and that if other titles are intended to be included under Jeremiah, the use of the genitive does not lend support.[45]

Copyright © 2025 Gary Michuta. All rights reserved. For private use only. Permission required from the author for any public use or distribution or publication.

[1] Anthony Rogers’ paper can be accessed at: https://www.academia.edu/126226412/Melito_and_the_Wisdom_of_Pseudo_Solomon?email_work_card=title&li=0

[2] For example, Rogers’ citation of my book Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger is incomplete making it impossible to know which edition he is referencing (Rogers, p. 2 FN 3).

[3] Rogers, p. 1 FN 1.

[4] When Mr. Rogers refers to the Protestant canon, he is speaking of the final form of the Protestant canon that was eventually adopted by some of the magisterial Protestants and later became its universal norm. See Matthew J. Korpman’s “The Protestant Reception of the Apocrypha” in The Oxford Handbook of the Apocrypha, ed. Gerbern S. Oegema, Oxford University Press), 2021. pp. 74-95.

[5] Reid, George. “Canon of the Old Testament.” In The Catholic Encyclopedia: An International Work of Reference on the Constitution, Doctrine, Discipline, and History of the Catholic Church, edited by Charles G. Herbermann, Edward A. Pace, Condé B. Pallen, Thomas J. Shahan, and John J. Wynne. Vol. I–XV. New York: The Encyclopedia Press; The Universal Knowledge Foundation, 1907–1913.

[6] Eusebius of Caesaria. “The Church History of Eusebius.” In Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, translated by Arthur Cushman McGiffert, Vol. 1. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890. p. 206, FN 6.

[7] The word “canon” is placed in quotes since it would be anachronistic to use it to describe Melito’s list, which dates to around AD 170. The earliest indisputable use of canon to describe the contents of Scripture is found in Athanasius’ Defense of the Nicene Definition (De Decretis), 18, which dated between AD 350-356 (cf. Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 1987. p. 292. Also, Meade and Gallagher, The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity: Texts and Analysis (Oxford; Oxford University Press), 2017. p. xx). It’s use – in this fashion – seems to be distinctly Christian. The Jews of the second Christian century spoke instead of the sacredness of a book rather than its canonicity (Lee Martin McDonald. The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority. Grand Rapids, MI: Hendrickson Publishers, 2011. p. 25-26, 58.

[8] Rogers, p. 2.

[9] Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger: The Untold Story of the Lost Books of the Protestant Bible (Pinkney, MI: The Grotto Press), p. 75-76.

[10] See m. Eduyoth 5.3; m. Yadaim 3.5; Tosefta Yadaim 2.14; b. Megillah 7a; b. Sanhedrin 100a. As Roger Beckwith notes: “…[Esther] is in the same position as Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], of which the received view, not just the opinion of individuals, was that it did not make the hands unclean (Tos. Yadaim 2.13).” (Beckwith, Roger T. The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism. London: SPCK, 1985. p. 279).

[11] Athanasius does not place Esther on the same tier as the “canonized books” (Festal Letter 39.4); Gregory of Nazianzus omits it entirely (Carm. 1.12.5); Amphilochius lists Esther with the comment “some add Esther” (Iambi ad Seleucum 2.51–88), Pseudo-Athanasius (Synopsis of Sacred Scripture) places Esther among the second category of books outside the canon stating: “However, some of the ancients have said that, among the Hebrews, Esther is held to be canonical.” Origen (Hist. eccl. 6.25.2), Epiphanius (Weights and Measures, 4 and 23), Hilary of Poitiers (Prologue in the Book of Psalms 15), and Jerome (Preface to the Books of Samuel and Kings) places Esther at the end of their lists.

[12] Fragments of Ezra were found, but not Nehemiah. The absence of Nehemiah may be due to its length. It simply did not survive the ages. McDonald believes that the arguments for the inclusion of Nehemiah due to the presence of Ezra is “…anachronistically flawed and is not well supported. See arguments against the presence of Nehemiah at Qumran in Davies, Scribes and Schools, 154, 197; and VanderKam, ‘Ezra-Nehemiah.’” (McDonald, 2011, p. 128, FN 32). Regarding Esther, McDonald writes: “All of the HB books, except perhaps Esther and Nehemiah, have been found at Qumran. In the case of Esther, it is likely that it was never considered as a sacred text among the Covenanters at Qumran not just because no portion of it was found there, but more importantly, it is not cited, quoted, or alluded to in any of the literature found at Qumran, and the festival of Purim, which is central to the later use of the book, is not mentioned in any of the calendar texts at Qumran.” (McDonald, Lee Martin. The Formation of the Biblical Canon. Vol. I & II. London; Oxford; New York; New Delhi; Sydney: Bloomsbury; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: An Imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2017. 1.139).

[13] Rogers incorrectly argues that “There is no evidence that anyone ever combined Esther with another book” (Rogers, p. 2, FN 5). Pseudo-Athanasius (Synopsis of Sacred Scripture), however, states “…so Esther is also included with some other book [εἰς ἕτερον ἕν], and by this means they would still complete the number of their canonical books at twenty-two.” (English translation accessed here: https://www.bible-researcher.com/sss.html). The vagueness of this rather singular late fifth or early sixth century pseudonymous writing gives us reason to doubt it’s testimony. Nevertheless, there is (contra Rogers) some evidence Esther was combined. This, however, is not applicable to Melito since he does not state that he is giving a twenty-two-book list. Curiously, Melito’s list only reaches the number of twenty-two if his “and the Wisdom” refers to a second book. If Esther is combined with “some other book” his list provides only twenty-one titles, a very atypical number for rabbinic Scripture. Moreover, it would require the impossible task of demonstrating that such a combination commonly occurred in the late second Christian century. Rogers wisely does not pursue this line of argument arguing instead that Esther’s omission was accidental. Roger Beckwith, who, like Rogers, wishes to affirm the Protestant Old Testament canon is on stronger ground arguing that Melito purposefully omitted Esther due to the influence of second century rabbinic disputes over the book (Beckwith, Roger T. The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism. (London: SPCK), 1985, p. 322).

[14] Rogers, p. 2 and FN 6.

[15] Origen, apparently accidentally omitting the Twelve minor prophets, only reaches his designated number of twenty-two books through the inclusion of Maccabees (Hengel, Martin, Roland Deines, and Mark E. Biddle. The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Problem of Its Canon. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2002. p.11).

[16] The Scriptural use of Baruch by such early Church fathers as Irenaeus of Lyon, Athenagoras, Hippolytus of Rome, Cyril of Jerusalem, Didymus the Blind; Epiphanius, Hilary of Poitiers, Gregory of Nazianzus, Amphilochius, Ambrose, Augustine, Rufinus, Jerome, as well as by heretics (e.g., Pelagius, Coelestius, and the Meletians). The early Greek fathers (Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Methodius of Olympus) quoted Baruch as coming from Jeremiah. It is only in the third century (with Origen) does Baruch begin to be distinguished from Jeremiah. Baruch, the Epistle, or both are explicitly included in several early lists (Origen, Athanasius (“canonized” tier), Cyril of Jerusalem, Hilary of Poitier, Ps-Council of Laodicea (Canon 60), Epiphanius (Panarion 1.1.8.6; Weights and Measures, 3-5, although they are omitted in Weights and Measures, 22, etc.). They may also be virtually included in other lists (e.g., the Bryennios List, Rufinus, the Apostolic Canons, Gregory of Nazianzus, Amphilochius, Damasus, Hippo-Regius, Carthage III, Carthage XIV; Innocent I). Baruch and the Epistle are present in Codex Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, and the reconstructed text of the Sinaiticus (See Redditt, Paul L. “Baruch, Book of.” In The Lexham Bible Dictionary, edited by John D. Barry, David Bomar, Derek R. Brown, Rachel Klippenstein, Douglas Mangum, Carrie Sinclair Wolcott, Lazarus Wentz, Elliot Ritzema, and Wendy Widder. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016), as well as the Theodotion (Kaige Recension), Aquila, Old Latin, Syriac Peshitta, and the Syro-Hexaplar. Perhaps most significant of these is a fragment of Baruch under the heading of Aquila is found in the Codex Barberinus (LXX86). Aquila, who was a disciple of Rabbi Akiva in the early 2nd Christian century, produced his translation as a Greek translation of the Hebrew rabbinic Bible. This fragment may indicate that, at least in some rabbinic bibles circulating at the time of the Melito included the book of Baruch.

[17] The early Anabaptists believed Baruch and the Epistle were inspired – as was the rest of the Deuterocanon – along with John Calvin, who apparently believed that Baruch was an authentic part of the canonical Scripture and did not include it among the Apocrypha. See Korpman, 2021 p. 78. It was later, after the Council of Trent reaffirm the canon, that Protestantism hardened its stance against the “Apocrypha.”

[18] Rogers, p. 3.

[19] Strictly speaking, the words “of Solomon,” does not mean that the work is solely the product of Solomon. Proverbs is attributed to Solomon even though it is not entirely Solomonic, just as Psalms is attributed to David even though many are not Davidic. Perhaps it is better to see “of Solomon” as referring to a group or sub-category of books. Melito seems to use the genitive as headers in his list (“of Moses,” “of Kingdoms,” “of Omissions,” “of Psalms,” “of Solomon,” “of Prophets”) with the only exceptions being Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the Twelve, which are genitives listed under the header “of Prophets.” Otherwise, all other book titles are in the nominative. If this is so, then “of Solomon” would not refer to authorship – any more than the books of Kingdoms were written by “kingdoms” or the books of Omissions were written by someone named “omission” – but it would reference a group of books under the popular category of Solomon. See Table 1.

[20] Augustine notes that the grouping of Wisdom and Sirach among the book of Solomon was already an ancient custom: “But it has been customary to ascribe to Solomon other two, of which one is called Wisdom, the other Ecclesiasticus, on account of some resemblance of style,—but the more learned have no doubt that they are not his; yet of old the Church, especially the Western, received them into authority (City of God, 17.20.1). Earlier, Origen witnesses to Sirach’s inclusion among the books of Solomon as a customary practice: “In the book which among us is usually considered to be among the books of Solomon and is called “Ecclesiasticus,” but among the Greeks is called ‘The Wisdom of Jesus, son of Sirach,’ it is written: “All wisdom is from God.” (Origen. Homilies on Numbers. Edited by Christopher A. Hall, Thomas C. Oden, and Gerald L. Bray. Translated by Thomas P. Scheck. Ancient Christian Texts. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2009., p. 112. Homily on Numbers, 18.3.2). The earliest reference to Sirach coming from Solomon appears to be Clement of Alexandria (Stromata 2.5) “Accordingly it is rightly said in Solomon, ‘Wisdom is in the mouth of the faithfully [Sirach 15:10].’” (ANF, 352) (δὲ ἀρετῶν μήτηρ ἡ πίστις. εἰκότως οὖν εἴρηται παρὰ τῷ Σολομῶντι σοφία ἐν στόματι πιστῶν / Merito ergo dictum est apud Salomonem: Sapientia est in ore fidelium). The Stromata is dated between AD 198-203 only a few decades after Melito. As also Cyprian of Carthage (Epistle 3.2; 59:20; 64:2; Cyp., Ad Fortunatum 9; Cyp., Ad Quirinium 2.1; 3:6, 12, 16, 41, 53, 96, 97, 109; 113); Origen (First Principles 4.1.26; Hom. Num. 18.3.2; Hom. Jos. 11.2); Gregory of Nazianzus (Orat. 16.3); Hilary of Poitiers (Tract. in XIV. Ps. 14; Tract. in Ps. LXVI. 9). The Cheltingham List (Mommsen Catalog) probably groups Sirach under “Solomon” (Ellis, Old Testament, 25; Meade and Gallagher, 2017, p. 235 FN 89). The Decree of Damasus (382) attaches Wisdom and Sirach to the three books of Solomon and the decrees of Hippo Regius (393); Carthage III (397); Innocent I (401); Carthage XVII (419) include it with the five books of Solomon.

[21] Eusebius of Caesaria. Preparation of the Gospel, 12.34.

[22] Bruce, p. 71.

[23] Moses, Stuart, Critical History and Defense of the Old Testament (New York: Mark H. Newman, 1845), p. 257, as quoted in Rogers, p. 4.

[24] McDonald, 2017, 1.318-319.

[25] McDonald, 2017, 1.319.

[26] Anchor Yale Bible Commentary p. 53

[27] Eusebius of Caesaria. “The Church History of Eusebius.” In Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, translated by Arthur Cushman McGiffert, Vol. 1. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890., p. 200, FN 4.

[28] Emphasis mine. C.H. Toy. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Proverbs (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark), 1899, p. v.

[29] Preface to the Book of Solomon. The English translation gives “ever-virtuous book,” Jerome imports the Greek panaretos into his Latin text: “Fertur et πανάρετος Iesu filii Sirach liber, et alius ψευδεπιγραφος, qui Sapientia Solomonis inscribitur.” (“Prologus Hieronymi in Libris Solomonis.” In Weber-Gryson, Biblia Sacra Vulgata. 5th edition (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft), 2007. p. 957.

[30] Epiphanius, Weights and Measures, 4 (Epiphanius’ Treatise on Weights and Measures: the Syriac Version, ed. James E. Dean, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press), 1935. p. 18.

[31] Eusebius of Cæsarea. The Proof of the Gospel: Being the Demonstratio Evangelica of Eusebius of Cæsarea. Edited by W. J. Sparrow-Simpson and W. K. Lowther Clarke. Translated by W. J. Ferrar. Translations of Christian Literature: Series I: Greek Texts. London; New York: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; The Macmillan Company, 1920. (Demonstatio Evangelica, Book 8, chapter 2), 2.128. Greek text from I.A. [Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller 23. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1913]. P. 380, ln. 14-15.

[32] Melito’s eccentric book order and numbering – as Rogers himself notes in Page 2 of his article – also places it out of conformity with Jewish and Christian lists. This too should lower one’s confidence in using the later lists to correct the faults of Melito.

[33] According to the preferred text given in the standard critical Greek text of Eusebius (i.e., E. Schwartz Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der erstern drei Jahrhunderte (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich’sche Buchhandlung), 1903. Band 9, p. 388).

[34] McDonald, 2017, 1.318.

[35] Schwartz, 1903, 9.388. The same critical text is used for the Loeb Classical Library series in which Lake translates it as “the Proverbs of Solomon and his Wisdom…” (Kirsopp, Lake. “Preface.” In The Ecclesiastical History and 2: English Translation, edited by T. E. Page, E. Capps, W. H. D. Rouse, L. A. Post, and E. H. Warmington, translated by Kirsopp Lake and J. E. L. Oulton, Vol. 1. The Loeb Classical Library. London; New York; Cambridge, MA: William Heinemann; G. P. Putnam’s Sons; Harvard University Press, 1926–1932, 1.394).

[36] Edmon L. Gallagher and John D. Meade, The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity (Oxford University Press, 2017), p. 81 quoted in Rogers, p. 4.

[37] There are a few relatively rare examples where the twelve minor prophets are listed without an article (The Council of Laodicea, canon 60, “ιηʹ Δώδεκα προφῆται,” Pseudo-Athanasius Synopsis “Προφῆται δώδεκα, εἰς ἓν ἀριθμούμενοι βιβλίον, although later in the text it is given with the article).

[38] Rogers, p. 3.

[39] (Emphasis mine). “Quorum priorem et hebraicum repperi, non Ecclesiasticum ut apud Latinos, sed Parabolas praenotatum; cui iuncti erant Ecclesiastes et Canticum canticorum, ut similitudinem Salomonis, non solum librorum numero, sed et materiarum genere coaequaret.” (Weber-Gryson, Biblia Sacra Vulgata, p. 957 ln 13-17). If such ambiguity existed in the fourth Christian century when the rabbinic canon was more widely received and better defined, how much more confusion would exist in the second Christian century when rabbinic Judaism was formed a mere generation earlier?

[40] Despite Akiva ben Yoseph’s rejection of Sirach (Tos. Yadayim 2:13; y. Sanhedrin 28a), it is nevertheless quoted (often by memory) as Scripture in rabbinic literature (b. Hagigah 13a; y. Hagigah 77c; b. Yebamot 63b; Genesis Rabbah 8:2b). Sirach is quoted in b. B. Qamma 92B as coming from the Writings (Ketuvim). Fragments of Sirach were found at Qumran and Massada. Both sites have texts from Sirach (2QSir and MasSir [Mas1h]) that uses a stichographic layout that is usually reserved for biblical texts (Emmanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Fortress Press, 2012), p. 201-202). Skehan and Di Lella note: “This procedure [the stichographic layout], usually reserved for books that were later received as canonical, is another indication of the special reverence the Essenes and others who were Palestinian Jews accorded to The Wisdom of Ben Sira” (Skehan, Patrick W., and Alexander A. Di Lella O.F.M. The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes, Introduction and Commentary. Vol. 39. Anchor Yale Bible. New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 39.20.). It’s pre-rabbinic acceptance is evinced by its presence in the Greek Septuagint (all major codices) and its Christian reception in later translations (Old Latin, Syriac, Syro-hexaplar).

[41] The Confession of Dositheos (Chapter VI) (March 16, 1672). See the Old Testament in Eastern Orthodox Tradition, 127).

[42] For a good overview, see Matthew J. Korpsman, “The Protestant Reception of the Apocrypha” in The Oxford Handbook of the Apocrypha, ed. Gerbern S. Oegema (Oxford University Press), 2021, pp. 74-80.

[43] Cyril – και βιβλος Ψαλμων,  Laodicae –  Βίβλος Ψαλμῶν; Athanasius Bίβλος Ψαλμῶν; Greg naz – Ἔπειτα ∆αυΐδ; Amphilocius – Ψαλμῶν τε βίβλον; Apostolic Canons – ἕν· Ψαλμοὶ ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα; Epiphanisu – δεκάτη τὸ Ψαλτήριον, Panarion /  Ψαλτήριον ∆αβιτικὸν, ἔχον ψαλμοὺς ρναʹ· οὗ ἡ ἀρχὴ, ἤγουν ὁ πρῶτος ψαλμός·

[44] The next earliest list to assign a number to the books of the Prophet is Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386), but this number may be merely a part of Cyril’s running count of books (Catechetical Lectures 4.33). Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 323-390) is more certain when he states, “And similarly five of prophetic inspiration…” (“Καὶ πένθ’ ὁμοίως Πνεύματος προφητικοῦ).

[45] Melito concludes his list with Ἔσδρας, which corresponds to several Hebrew manuscript traditions which concludes with Ezra-Nehemiah (most notable the Aleppo and Leningrad (St. Petersburg) codices, as well as Adath Deborim, Harley 5710-11, Model Cox, Arundel Orient, Add. 15251, Ms Orient 2626-28).

Leave a comment