Also Including Analysis of Josephus’ and Philo’s Views, Jewish  Scholars at Jamnia (c. AD 90), and the Qumran Community

Norman L. Geisler (1932 – 2019) was an American evangelical Protestant theologian, philosopher, and apologist. He obtained an M.A. in theology from Wheaton College and a Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University, and made scholarly contributions to the subjects of classical Christian apologetics, systematic theology, philosophy of religion, Calvinism, Catholicism, biblical inerrancy, Bible difficulties, biblical miracles, the resurrection of Jesus, ethics, and other topics. He wrote or edited more 90 books and hundreds of articles.

Dr. Geisler was the Chairman of Philosophy of Religion at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (1970–79) and Professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary (1979–88) and a key figure in founding the Evangelical Philosophical Society. He also co-founded Southern Evangelical Seminary. He was known as an evangelical Thomist and considered himself a “moderate Calvinist”. He was not an anti-Catholic (i.e., he didn’t deny that Catholicism was fully a species of Christianity).

This is one of a series of comprehensive replies to his book, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (co-author, Ralph E. MacKenzie, graduate of Bethel Theological Seminary-West; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 1995). It’s available online in a public domain version, which has no page numbers, so I will utilize page numbers from my paperback copy, for the sake of full reference. I consider it the best Protestant critique of Catholicism (especially in terms of biblical arguments) that I have ever found, from any time period. The arguments are, for the most part, impressively presented, thought-provoking, respectful, respectable, and worthy of serious consideration (which I’m now giving them).

I’ll be concentrating on the eight sections of Part Two: “Areas of Doctrinal Differences” (202 pages). These installments will be listed and linked on my Calvinism & General Protestantism web page, in section XVII: “Catholics and Protestants” (second from the end). Dr. Geisler’s and Ralph MacKenzie’s words will be in blue. My biblical citations are from RSV.

*****

Actually, all that the arguments used in favor of the canonicity of the apocryphal books prove is that various apocryphal books were given varied degrees of esteem by different persons within the Christian church, usually falling short of canonicity. Only after Augustine and the local councils he dominated mistakenly pronounced them inspired did they gain wider usage and eventual acceptance by the Roman Catholic Church at Trent. This falls far short of the kind of initial, continual, and complete recognition of the canonical books of the Protestant Old Testament and Jewish Torah (which exclude the Apocrypha) by the Christian church. It exemplifies how the teaching magisterium of the Catholic church proclaims infallible one tradition to the neglect of strong evidence in favor of an opposing tradition because it supports a doctrine that lacks any real support in the canonical books. (p. 165)

Geisler wars against himself here, as I will now proceed to demonstrate. He claims that the “evidence” supports the Protestant OT canon. He cites in its favor the advocacy (or supposed advocacy) of “Jerome . . . Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius” (p. 166). These are the same four fathers that he had already cited on page 162 as being “opposed” to the deuterocanon; and he cites the same four — for the same purpose — for a third time on page 169, and three (minus Origen) on page 171. I have four responses to this:

1) Merely repeating a falsehood makes it no more true or no less false than it was in the beginning. In my installment #4 I already dealt with Jerome, Athanasius, and Origen (and will address St. Cyril’s views in due course as well), and showed that a straight description of their view as “opposed” is unwarranted. If Geisler were so sure and confident about patristic consensus, surely he could cite many more Church fathers on his side, but as it is he names merely four men, three times. This certainly suggests a great weakness in his position, since if more support existed, as is required in this debate, surely he would have brought it forward.

2) Even if Dr. Geisler were correct about the views of these four men (which I deny), “four Church fathers do not a patristic consensus make.” It’s silly to even imply such a thing; in fact, it is an insult to the intelligence of any reader who has studied the Church fathers and/or who understands how the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox think about their authority. We regard a consensus of the Church fathers as highly significant, in terms of what is likely true. But four Church fathers obviously don’t constitute a consensus. There are at least fifty major Church fathers (I think most would agree). So four out of fifty is a mere 8%, if we use the estimate of fifty.

3) Dr. Geisler’s and other Protestant’s defenses of the “protocanon” of the OT relies precisely on the widespread consensus of the Church fathers. This is why they accept the books that they do; and we fully agree as far as these books go; we simply think seven more should be included. But Geisler applies a glaring double standard. When he writes elsewhere about patristic support for the protocanon (such as in his book How We Got the Bible), he names many Church fathers, and assumes that this makes a strong case (as indeed it does). Yet then when it comes to opposition (or supposed opposition) to the deuterocanon, he can only come up with four. This won’t do. Consensus is what it is, and four men isn’t that. Geisler himself refers above to “initial, continual, and complete recognition of the canonical books of the Protestant Old Testament” and “strong [patristic] evidence.” Thus, the very fact that he produces so many in one case and only four in the other, proves that his point of view (i.e., the standard Protestant one) is so weak that it ought to be rejected.

4) It’s an old, obnoxious, Protestant apologetical tactic, I’m afraid — and I’m in a good position to be aware of this, as a Catholic apologist these past 35 years — to make a great deal of one or a few exceptions to the rule, if many Church fathers cannot be produced in support of a particular novel and late-arriving Protestant view. In discussions of the OT canon, St. Jerome is always highlighted by the Protestant apologist, even though his opposition is not uniform or consistent; and St. Augustine (widely considered the greatest Church father in both camps) is minimized, because he strongly advocated the Catholic and Orthodox view. Protestants themselves usually try to argue from the consensus of the Church fathers regarding many doctrines, so it’s silly — and even embarrassing — to assume that one (Jerome) or just four fathers is definitive as to the deuterocanon. But this is what is done: if no consensus can be found, then they major on the minors and discuss just a few. But this is contrary even to their own ostensible patristic outlook and is self-defeating.

I’ve already in this series given documentation on this score from Jerome, Athanasius, Origen, Clement of Rome, The Shepherd of Hermas, and The Didache, and I’ll proceed now with many more citations, showing where the patristic consensus actually lies. It’s no mystery. For example, Anglican patristics scholar and Principal of St Edmund Hall, Oxford, J. N. D. Kelly (1909-1997) states:

The Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church . . . always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha, or deutero-canonical books. (Early Christian Doctrines, New York: Harper & Row, 2nd edition, 1960, p. 53)

In the first two centuries at any rate the Church seems to have accepted all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture. Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement and Barnabas, . . .  Polycarp cites Tobit, and the Didache Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary. (p. 54; see primary references in the online book, linked above)

Kelly goes on (pp. 54-55) to cite Augustine (“whose influence in the West was decisive”), Hilary, John Chrysostom, Origen, and Theodoret as of essentially the same opinion. That adds (including The Shepherd of Hermas, that I noted) up to at least 15 Church fathers or early treatises in favor of the deuterocanon. He also names others as opposed (Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzus, Epiphanius, Rufinus, Melito, and John Damascene). So that is — so far — 15 “pro” and 7 “con”: a 2-to-1 ratio or 68.2% to 31.8%: which is clearly a consensus towards the “pro” view, as verified also by his broad description of the view of the early Church.

Catholic apologist Gary Michuta documents the views of Church fathers in this respect in great depth, in his books, Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger (Port Huron, Michigan: Grotto Press, 2007) and The Case for the Deuterocanon: Evidence and Arguments (Livonia, Michigan: Nikaria Press, 2015). Here is a handy summary of the views of many fathers not mentioned above (and many that were listed as “opposed”):

1) Athenagoras cites Baruch 3:36 alongside citations of Isaiah, not indicating any difference. (Bigger, 76-77; Case, 112)

2) The Catacombs (2nd-3rd centuries) includes images drawn from Susannah, Bel and the Dragon, and Tobit (Bigger, 79-80)

3) Dionysius the Great cites Tobit and Wisdom and introduces Sirach as “divine oracles.” (Bigger, 98-99)

4) Archelaus, bishop of Mesopotamia, cites Wisdom 1:13 as an authority on doctrine. (Bigger, 99-100)

5) Lactantius cites Sirach to confirm doctrine. (Bigger, 101-102)

6) Aphraates the Persian refers to the martyrdoms of the Maccabees and quotes Sirach 29:17, seemingly not distinguishing them from the authority of the books of the protocanon. (Bigger, 103)

7) Alexander of Alexandria cites Sirach alongside 1 Corinthians, regarding the doctrine of God’s incomprehensibility. (Bigger, 104-105)

8) Cyril of Jerusalem includes Baruch in his protocanon, and stated that the deuterocanonical books, though “secondary” could be read in churches. He himself cited Wisdom and Sirach for doctrinal instruction and considered the deuterocanonical sections of Daniel as authentically part of that book, and sometimes cited them with the introduction, “It is written . . .”(Bigger, 114-117)

9) Basil the Great cites Judith, Wisdom, Baruch, and the deuterocanonical chapters of Daniel in a manner no different than the rest of Scripture (Bigger, 121-12)

10) Gregory Nazianzus  cites Baruch 3:35-37 concerning the Trinity and often cites Wisdom and Sirach without qualification. He regards the deuterocanonical chapters of Daniel as part of that book. He introduces a passage from Judith as having been taken from “Scripture.” In the context of listing great figures of the Old Testament, he includes the seven Maccabean martyrs. Then he goes on to cite examples in the New Testament, suggesting all as part of what Holy Scripture describes. (Bigger, 122-125)

11) Epiphanius was inconsistent. He compiled three list of canonical books, but they disagree with each other (as to the status of Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, Sirach, and Wisdom. In his work, Adversus Haereses 76.5 he even describes Wisdom and Sirach as among “the books of Scripture” and he does this in other places as well, and wrote of Wisdom, that it “has come from the mouth of the Holy Spirit.” He introduces Maccabees and the “extra” sections of Daniel with the formula, “It is written . . .” He describes Baruch as part of the “Scriptures.” (Bigger, 127-130)

12) Ambrose views Baruch as part of Jeremiah. He cites Tobit as a prophetic book. He quotes Wisdom as “Scripture”, with the introduction of “It is written . . .” (as he does also with 2nd Maccabees),  and writes that Wisdom contains the words of the Lord. He calls Sirach “Scripture” and accepts the deuterocanonical sections of Daniel as part of that book. (Bigger, 131-133)

13 Rufinus refers to Baruch as the words of Jeremiah. He refers to Sirach as both “Scripture” and “sacred Scripture.” Wisdom is said to contain prophecy. He regards the entire (Catholic) book of Daniel as the “deposit of the Holy Spirit.” (Bigger, 134-138)

14) John Cassian quotes Sirach and Wisdom as “Scripture.” (Bigger, 165-166)

15 Vincent of Lerins refers to Sirach as one of “the divine oracles” alongside Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. (Bigger, 166-167)

16) Leontius cites Sirach, Wisdom, and Baruch as Scripture. He utilizes Wisdom to affirm the consubstantiality of the Son. (Bigger, 173-174)

17) Gregory the Great introduces Wisdom with “It is written . . ” about sixteen times. (Bigger, 175-178)

18) Isidore of Seville listed as “books of the Old Testament” and “divine books” Wisdom, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, and 1 and 2 Maccabees, refers to “seventy-two canonical books.” In his Prologue to the Old Testament he mentions that “the Hebrews do not receive Tobias, Judith, and Maccabees, but the Church ranks them among the Canonical Scriptures . . . these are acknowledged to have, in the Church, equal authority with the other Canonical Scriptures.” (Bigger, 181-183)

19) John Damascene described Wisdom 3:1 as “divine Scripture” and Baruch in the same way, in a quote appearing between Psalms 14:7 and 137:1. He uses 2nd Maccabees to support the doctrine of God’s omniscience. (Bigger, 189-190)

20) Methodius states that Wisdom is “a book full of virtue, the Holy Spirit openly drawing his hearers” and cites Wisdom and Sirach as “Scripture” (Case, 118-119)

21) Gregory Nyssa describes Wisdom 1:4 as “Scripture.” (Case, 123)

22) Didymus the Blind cites Tobit 12:8-9 as “divinely-inspired Scripture,” Judith as part of the “Old Testament,” Sirach as “Scripture.” (Case, 123)

23) Theophilus of Alexandria cites Wisdom 1:7 as “Scripture.” (Case, 134-135)

24) Sulpitius Severus describes Tobit and the Maccabees as “Scripture.” (Case, 135)

25) Cyril of Alexandria cites Sirach 3:22 as “Sacred Scripture” and Baruch and Wisdom as “Scripture.” (Case, 136)

The eminent Protestant Church historian Philip Schaff (1819-1893; see much more about him), editor of the standard 38-volume set of the Church fathers, in his History of the Christian Church, Vol. 2 (of 8), leaves little doubt as to the history of the Old Testament canon, including the books disputed by Protestants:

The canon of the Old Testament descended to the church from the Jews, with the sanction of Christ and the apostles. The Jewish Apocrypha were included in the Septuagint and passed from it into Christian versions. . . .

The Catholic canon thus settled remained untouched till the time of the Reformation when the question of the Apocrypha and of the Antilegomena was reopened . . .

Soon after the middle of the fourth century, when the church became firmly settled in the Empire, all doubts as to the Apocrypha of the Old Testament and the Antilegomena of the New ceased, and the acceptance of the Canon in its Catholic shape, which includes both, became an article of faith. The first Ecumenical Council of Nicaea did not settle the canon, as one might expect, but the scriptures were regarded without controversy as the sure and immovable foundation of the orthodox faith.

Philo does indeed quote a lot of Scripture. He makes about 2,000 quotations in all. . . . [but] out of these 2,000 quotations 1,950 of them come from the first five books of the Bible known as the Pentateuch. The remaining 50 quotations come from the rest of the Old Testament. (The Case for the Deuterocanon: Evidence and Arguments, Livonia, Michigan: Nikaria Press, 2015, 70-71)

Philo, in his extant works, makes no mention of Ezekiel, Daniel, or the Five Rolls [i.e., Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther]. Since, however, even Sirach mentions Ezekiel, Philo’s silence about him is undoubtedly accidental; consequently, his failure to name the other books can not be taken as a proof that they were not in his canon.

In Josephus . . . we meet with variations in the history which suggest textual sources not now at hand  . . .

*

That Josephus used the Additions after the recension A. is universally acknowledged. (p. 204)

The history has received the confirmation of the Talmudic tradition, and Josephus accorded it an apparently unlimited confidence. (p. 478)

Josephus (“Contra Ap.” i. 8), about the year 100, counted twenty-two sacred books. . . . It is not known with certainty what books were included. It is probable, however, that Lamentations and Baruch formed one book with Jeremiah, and . . . Esther still seems to have had its additions.

The so-called Council of Jamnia (c. A.D. 90), at which time this third section of writings is alleged to have been canonized, has not been explored. There was no council held with authority for Judaism. It was only a gathering of scholars. This being the case, there was no authorized body present to make or recognize the canon. Hence, no canonization took place at Jamnia. (From God to Us: How we Got our Bible, co-author William E. Nix, Chicago: Moody Press, 1974, 84)

As Athanasius includes Baruch and the ‘Letter of Jeremiah’ . . . so he probably includes the Greek additions to Daniel in the canonical book of that name, and the additions to Esther in the book of that name which he recommends for reading in the church, . . . Only those works which belong to the Hebrew Bible (apart from Esther) are worthy of inclusion in the canon (the additions to Jeremiah and Daniel make no appreciable difference to this principle) . . .

*

In practice Athanasius appears to have paid little attention to the formal distinction between those books which he listed in the canon and those which were suitable for the instruction of new Christians [he cites Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, and Tobit] . . . and quoted from them freely, often with the same introductory formulae – ‘as it is written’, ‘as the scripture says’, etc. [footnote 46: He does not say in so many words why Esther is not included in the canon . . . ] (Bruce, ibid., 79-80)

The church merely discovered which books God had determined (inspired) to be in the canon. Vatican I appears to agree . . . [he cites its words] . . . even Catholic dogma admits that the church only received and recognized the canon but did not actually cause or produce it. (p. 192)

Norman L. Geisler (1932 – 2019) was an American evangelical Protestant theologian, philosopher, and apologist. He obtained an M.A. in theology from Wheaton College and a Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University, and made scholarly contributions to the subjects of classical Christian apologetics, systematic theology, philosophy of religion, Calvinism, Catholicism, biblical inerrancy, Bible difficulties, biblical miracles, the resurrection of Jesus, ethics, and other topics. He wrote or edited more 90 books and hundreds of articles.

Dr. Geisler was the Chairman of Philosophy of Religion at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (1970–79) and Professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary (1979–88) and a key figure in founding the Evangelical Philosophical Society. He also co-founded Southern Evangelical Seminary. He was known as an evangelical Thomist and considered himself a “moderate Calvinist”. He was not an anti-Catholic (i.e., he didn’t deny that Catholicism was fully a species of Christianity).

This is one of a series of comprehensive replies to his book, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (co-author, Ralph E. MacKenzie, graduate of Bethel Theological Seminary-West; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 1995). It’s available online in a public domain version, which has no page numbers, so I will utilize page numbers from my paperback copy, for the sake of full reference. I consider it the best Protestant critique of Catholicism (especially in terms of biblical arguments) that I have ever found, from any time period. The arguments are impressively presented, thought-provoking, respectful, respectable, and worthy of serious consideration (which I’m now giving them).

I’ll be concentrating on the eight sections of Part Two: “Areas of Doctrinal Differences” (202 pages). These installments will be listed and linked on my Calvinism & General Protestantism web page, in section XVII: “Catholics and Protestants” (second from the end). Dr. Geisler’s and Ralph MacKenzie’s words will be in blue. My biblical citations are from RSV.

*****

On page 162 Dr. Geisler contended that “in the early church” there were “many who vehemently opposed” the deuterocanonical books, over against “some” who had a “high regard” for them. He claimed that among those who opposed the canonicity of the deuterocanon were St. Jerome (c. 343-420), St. Athanasius (c. 297-373), and Origen (c. 185-c. 254). I shall consider each in turn.

There are several anomalies in St. Jerome’s treatment of the deuterocanon, and his viewpoint on the canon of the Old Testament is not quite as clear-cut as many assume it to be. My good friend and fellow Michigander apologist Gary Michuta, in his excellent book, Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger (Port Huron, Michigan: Grotto Press, 2007), observed about St. Jerome (pp. 149-150; my own footnote numbering):

He . . . flatly denies that Tobit is part of the canon, [1] although elsewhere he cites it without qualification! [2] . . . Jerome adopts the popular convention in his Letter to Oceanus by quoting Baruch as a voice made by “the trumpets of the prophets.” [3] Sirach is both rejected and quoted as Scripture, [4] although it is formally quoted [5] and occasionally used without qualification. [6] Wisdom is also occasionally formally quoted. [7] Jerome even attributes the passages from Wisdom to the Holy Spirit. [8] Maccabees is used without distinction. [9] Jerome at times alludes to the Deuterocanonical sections of Daniel in his letters. [10] Deuterocanonical passages from Esther are likewise quoted. [11] . . . he lists Judith as one of the virtuous women of sacred Scripture . . . [12].

[1] Prologue to John.
[2] Commentary in Eccles. 8.
[3] Letter 77:4.
[4] Commentary on Isaiah, Book 2, 3:12; Letters 77:6: 108:22; 118:1; 148:2,16,18.
[5] Commentary on Jeremiah, Book 4, 21:14; Commentary on Ezekiel, Book 6, 18:6; and Letter 64:5.
[6] Commentary on Isaiah, Book 8, 24:4; Commentary on Ezekiel, Book 6, 18:6; Letter 57.1 To Pammachius; and Letter 125.19, To Rusticus.
[7] Commentary on Isaiah, Book 1, 1:24; Commentary on Zechariah, Book 3, 14:9; and Commentary on Malachi, 3:7 ff.
[8] Commentary on Galatians, Book 1, 3:2 . . . and Breviarium in Psalmos, Ps 9.
[9] Against Pelagians, Book 2:30; Letter 7, To Chromatius, Jovinus and Eusebius.
[10] Letter 3, 1 To Rufinus the Monk; Letter 22,9-10, To Eustochium; Letter 1, 9 to Innocent.
[11] Letter 48, To Pammachius, 14.
[12] Letter 65,1.

Gary Michuta again illustrated the complexities and anomalies of St. Athanasius’ view (pp. 110-112; footnote numbering my own):

Athanasius quotes both Baruch and Susanna right along passages from Isaiah, Psalms, Romans, and Hebrews; he makes no distinction or qualification between them [1]. Wisdom also is used as an authentic portion of sacred Scripture:

But of these and such like inventions of idolatrous madness, Scripture taught us beforehand long ago, when it said, ‘The devising of idols, as the beginning of fornication, and the invention of them, the corruption of life . . .’ [Ws 14:12] [2]

And later in the same work:

For since they were endeavouring to invest with what Scripture calls the incommunicable name . . . [3]

This reference to the “incommunicable name” comes from Wisdom 14:21 . . .

Athanasius quotes another passage from Wisdom as constituting the teachings of Christ, the Word of God. He undoubtedly uses it to confirm doctrine. [4] In another argument against Arians, he calls both the Protocanonical Proverbs and the Deuterocanonical Wisdom “holy Scripture” . . . [5] . . .Athanasius also quotes the book of Sirach without distinction or qualification, in the midst of several other scriptural quotations. [6] . . . Athanasius calls the Book of Judith Scripture. [7] Tobit is cited right along with several Protocanonical quotations [8] , and even introduced with the solemn formula “it is written.” [9]

[1] Four Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse 1.12.
[2] Against the Heathen, 11.1. Emphasis added.
[3] Against the Heathen, 1, 17.3.
[4] On the Incarnate Word, 4.6; 5.2.
[5] Defense Against Arius, 1, 3.
[6] Life of Anthony, 28 and Apology Against the Arians, 66.
[7] Four Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse 2.35 . . .
[8] Defense of Constantius, 17. Tobit is cited after Matthew and Isaiah.
[9] Defense Against Arius, Part 1, 11.

The great Protestant Bible scholar F. F. Bruce confirms Michuta’s analysis:

As Athanasius includes Baruch and the ‘Letter of Jeremiah’ in one book with Jeremiah and Lamentations [in his list of the OT canon], so he probably includes the Greek additions to Daniel in the canonical book of that name, and the additions to Esther in the book of that name which he recommends for reading in church [but doesn’t list as a canonical book] . . .

In practice Athanasius appears to have paid little attention to the formal distinction between those books which he listed in the canon and those which were suitable for instruction of new Christians. He was familiar with the text of all, and quoted from them freely, often with the same introductory formula — ‘as it is written’, ‘as the scripture says’, etc. (The Canon of Scripture, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1988, 79-80; my bracketed comments, based on the larger context of Bruce’s analysis)

Catholic apologist “Matt1618” produced a magnificent treatise, “Did Some Church Fathers Reject the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture?” He states about Origen:

[H]e does put Baruch and the two Maccabees books in the canon. . . . he speaks approvingly of the Septuagint, which contains all the Deuterocanonical books. . . . Origen defends the use of the passage in Daniel 3 that Catholics have, the Song of the 3 children, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon, as found in Daniel 13 and 14 of the Catholic Bible. He says that Bel and the Dragon and Susanna, Daniel 13 and 14 and only found in the Catholic Bible, is found in every single Church of Christ. Origen himself acknowledges that all Churches use these books. And in which way? He notes that he refers to them as Scripture. His opponent said it was a forgery. He corrects his opponent. It is not a forgery, but he notes his own use of them as Scripture. [To Africanus, 5]

Origen protests the fact that  that these portions of Daniel now found only in Catholic Bibles, were “removed from the Scriptures.” [To Africanus, 9]  Here are more relevant passages from Origen:

But he ought to know that those who wish to live according to the teaching of Sacred Scripture understand the saying, ‘The knowledge of the unwise is as talk without sense,’ [Sirach 21:18] and have learnt “to be ready always to give an answer to everyone that asketh us a reason for the hope that is in us.” [1 Pt 3:15]  [Against Celsus, 7:12]

[A]s is written in the book of Tobit: ‘It is good to keep close the secret of a king, but honourable to reveal the works of God,’ [Tobit 12:7]–in a way consistent with truth and God’s glory, and so as to be to the advantage of the multitude.” [Against Celsus, 5:19]

“Matt1618” comments: “He uses the phrase, ‘As is written’, in reference to Tobit. The phrase ‘It is written’ always is a reference to Scripture, both in Scripture itself as well as its use by the Fathers. Thus, Origen sees Tobit as Scripture.”

Tobias [Tobit] (as also Judith), we ought to notice, the Jews do not use. They are not even found in the Hebrew Apocrypha, as I learned from the Jews themselves.” However, since the Churches use Tobias, you must know that even in the captivity some of the captives were rich and well to do. Tobias himself says, “Because I remembered God with all my heart; and the Most High gave me grace and beauty in the eyes of Nemessarus, and I was his purveyor; and I went into Media, and left in trust with Gabael, the brother of Gabrias, at Ragi, a city of Media, ten talents of silver” (Tobias, 1:12-14). [To Africanus, 13]

But that we may believe on the authority of holy Scripture that such is the case, hear how in the book of Maccabees, where the mother of seven martyrs exhorts her son to endure torture, this truth is confirmed; for she says, ‘ ask of thee, my son, to look at the heaven and the earth, and at all things which are in them, and beholding these, to know that God made all these things when they did not exist.’ [2 Maccabees 7:28]” [Fundamental Principles, 2:2]

And that which is written about wisdom, you may apply also to faith, and to the virtues specifically, so as to make a precept of this kind, “If any one be perfect in wisdom among the sons of men, and the power that comes from Thee be wanting, he will be reckoned as nothing ” or “If any one be perfect in self-control, so far as is possible for the sons of men, and the control that is from Thee be wanting, he will be reckoned as nothing; (Wisdom 9:6) [Commentary on Matthew, 4]

“Matt1618” summarizes:

The Protestant apologists who argue that Origen spoke against the Books and did not view the Deuterocanonical books as Scripture, are wrong. Though it is true that some of these books (only some of these books, as some are canonical) are not termed ‘canonical’, that is irrelevant. The question is whether he saw these books as Scripture. Origen clearly terms these books as Scripture, according to Origen himself. He also uses these books to teach doctrine.

There are some important reasons why citing these church councils does not prove the Apocrypha belonged in the canon of the Christian church. First, these were only local councils and were not binding on the whole church. Local councils have often erred in their decisions and have been overruled later by the universal church. . . . 

The books accepted by these Christian councils may not have been the Same ones in each case. Hence, they cannot be used as evidence of the exact canon later infallibly proclaimed by the Roman Catholic Church in A.D. 1546. . . .

The Council of Rome did not list the same books accepted by Hippo and Carthage. It does not include Baruch, thus listing only six, not seven, of the apocryphal books later pronounced canonical by the Roman Catholic Church . . . Trent lists it as a separate book. (pp. 162-163; including some of footnote 13)

Wikipedia, “Book of Baruch” refutes this:

Pope Innocent I (405 AD), the Council of Rome (382 AD), the Synod of Hippo (in 393), followed by the Council of Carthage (397) and the Council of Carthage (419) mention Jeremiah as a canonical book without mentioning Baruch, but it is commonly accepted that the absence of specific mention of Baruch in canon lists circulating in the West cannot be interpreted as an assertion that the Book of Baruch was non-canonical[;] only that it is being assumed within Jeremiah. Most of the Church Fathers considered Jeremiah as a single book, along with Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle.

F. F. Bruce stated that the Councils of Hippo in 393 (“along the lines approved by Augustine”) and the Third Council of Carthage in 397,

appear to have been the first church councils to make a formal pronouncement on the canon. When they did so, they simply endorsed what had become the general consensus of the churches in the west and of the greater part of the east. In 405 Pope Innocent I embodied a list of canonical books . . . it too included the Apocrypha. The Sixth Council of Carthage (419) re-enacted the ruling of the Third Council [397], again with the inclusion of the apocryphal books. (Ibid., p. 97)

Dr. Geisler’s trepidation about local councils is rectified (at least in Catholic eyes), by the oversight of Rome (Council of 382 and Pope Innocent’s proclamation of 405). In Catholic ecclesiology and authority, popes or councils in Rome overseen by him, can make decrees that confirm and ratify other local councils and make their decrees part of the universal magisterium. The Council of Trent reasserted the Catholic biblical canon on an even higher magisterial level, but the canonical lists had been the same in all five of these early councils and papal pronouncements (influenced by the great St. Augustine) between 382 and 419. Geisler tried unsuccessfully to undercut this impressive unanimity by majoring on the minors (a mistaken view regarding Baruch).

Norman L. Geisler (1932 – 2019) was an American evangelical Protestant theologian, philosopher, and apologist. He obtained an M.A. in theology from Wheaton College and a Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University, and made scholarly contributions to the subjects of classical Christian apologetics, systematic theology, philosophy of religion, Calvinism, Catholicism, biblical inerrancy, Bible difficulties, biblical miracles, the resurrection of Jesus, ethics, and other topics. He wrote or edited more 90 books and hundreds of articles.

Dr. Geisler was the Chairman of Philosophy of Religion at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (1970–79) and Professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary (1979–88) and a key figure in founding the Evangelical Philosophical Society. He also co-founded Southern Evangelical Seminary. He was known as an evangelical Thomist and considered himself a “moderate Calvinist”. He was not an anti-Catholic (i.e., he didn’t deny that Catholicism was fully a species of Christianity).

This is one of a series of comprehensive replies to his book, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (co-author, Ralph E. MacKenzie, graduate of Bethel Theological Seminary-West; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 1995). It’s available online in a public domain version, which has no page numbers, so I will utilize page numbers from my paperback copy, for the sake of full reference. I consider it the best Protestant critique of Catholicism (especially in terms of biblical arguments) that I have ever found, from any time period. The arguments are impressively presented, thought-provoking, respectful, respectable, and worthy of serious consideration (which I’m now giving them).

I’ll be concentrating on the eight sections of Part Two: “Areas of Doctrinal Differences” (202 pages). These installments will be listed and linked on my Calvinism & General Protestantism web page, in section XVII: “Catholics and Protestants” (second from the end). Dr. Geisler’s and Ralph MacKenzie’s words will be in blue. My biblical citations are from RSV.

*****

The fact that the New Testament often quotes from the Greek Old Testament in no way proves that the apocryphal books contained in the Greek manuscript of the Old Testament are inspired. (p. 161)

I would respond in two ways:

1) Arguably the NT does cite the deuterocanon (even quite a bit), depending on how one defines “citation” (a complex issue that I dealt with in depth in #2 of this series). See my three-part listing of no less than 171 proposed examples (one / two / three).

2) If a Bible translation is cited as authoritative and inspired, and it includes sections that (possibly) happen not to be cited, it follows straightforwardly that the non-cited portions are also regarded as inspired and canonical (in this instance, books contained in the Greek Septuagint translation of the OT). One, therefore, has to determine which books were included in the Septuagint.

It is not certain that the Septuagint (LXX) of the first century contained the Apocrypha. The earliest Greek manuscripts that include them date from the fourth century A. D. (p. 161)

The great Protestant Bible scholar F. F. Bruce, in his book, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press, 1988), devotes a twelve-page chapter to the Septuagint. In listing the books included in it, he includes the deuterocanonical books, Judith, Tobit, a “considerably expanded edition” of Esther, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (aka Sirach), Baruch, History of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon (portions of an expanded book of Daniel), and 1 and 2 Maccabees, which “form a sort of appendix” (pp. 47-48).  This includes all seven books of the deuterocanon (called “Apocrypha” by Protestants), as well as additional chapters for Esther and Daniel.

With regard the issue of the content of the Septuagint in the first century AD, an argument is made by Catholic apologist Gary Michuta:

Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph (A.D. 37-135) . . . became the head of a rabbinical school located in the city of Jamnia during the first decades of the second Christian century. After the First Jewish Revolt (A.D. 66-73), the school in Jamnia became the center for Jewish religious and political thought. . . .

Until then, the Jews never had a single normative biblical text. The Old Testament circulated in many different translations and recensions, the most popular being the Greek translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint. Therefore, the first order of business was to adopt a single normative Hebrew text, thus setting the limits of the rabbinical Bible. It is here that Rabbi Akiba inadvertently tips his hand with regard to the Deuterocanon.

In a work called Tosefta Yadayim, 2:13, Akiba says: “The Gospels and heretical books do not defile the hands. The books of ben Sira, and all other books written from then on, do not defile the hands” (2:13).

The phrase “do not defile the hands” refers to a non-sacred text. Sacred texts require ritual hand washing after they were touched. Non-sacred texts do not. Therefore, Akiba is stating that the texts listed are not sacred (i.e., they are not Scripture).

Since the Gospels appear to be mentioned, Akiba’s remarks are in regard to the Christian scriptures. What’s fascinating here is that Akiba’s rejection of the New Testament as Scripture also includes the rejection of the “books of ben Sira and all other books written from then on.” The book of Sirach (ben Sira) is the oldest book of the Deuterocanon (or what Protestants call the Apocrypha). Therefore, this decree rejects the whole of the Deuterocanon as inspired Scripture.

This declaration suggests two very important points. First, there must have been a significant number of Jewish Christians that accepted the Deuterocanon as Scripture prior to Akiba’s remark (i.e., before A.D. 132) for Akiba to associate it with the Christian scriptures. Second, Akiba must have believed that there existed a real possibility that non-Christian Jews may accept it as sacred Scripture as well. Otherwise, there would be no need for his ruling.

Although Rabbi Akiba had no love for Christianity, he nevertheless reveals a point commonly disputed by non-Catholics: namely, that the earliest Christians did indeed hold the Deuterocanon to be Sacred Scripture, just as they did the Gospels and the New Testament. Akiba doesn’t argue the point; rather, he assumes it and legislates against it. (“The False Prophet and the Deuterocanon,” Catholic Answers Magazine, 10-27-16)

This scenario is reflected in the entry, “Akiba ben Joseph,” by Luis Ginzberg, in the Jewish Encyclopedia (1906):

Akiba was the one who definitely fixed the canon of the Old Testament books. He protested strongly against the canonicity of certain of the Apocrypha, Ecclesiasticus, for instance (Sanh. x. 1, Bab. ibid. 100b, Yer. ibid. x. 28a), . . . To the same motive underlying his antagonism to the Apocrypha, namely, the desire to disarm Christians—especially Jewish Christians— who drew their “proofs” from the Apocrypha, must also be attributed his wish to emancipate the Jews of the Dispersion from the domination of the Septuagint, the errors and inaccuracies in which frequently distorted the true meaning of Scripture, and were even used as arguments against the Jews by the Christians.

It follows that the Septuagint at this time (early 2nd century) contained the deuterocanonical books. Geisler’s uncertainty on that point seems quite unwarranted. Also in this early period, St. Clement of Rome, in his epistle, written c. 80 AD in Greek, referred to the deuterocanon that was part of the Greek Septuagint, four times:

1 Clement 3 . . . nor acts a part becoming a Christian, but walks after his own wicked lusts, resuming the practice of an unrighteous and ungodly envy, by which death itself entered into the world.

Wisdom 2:24 but through the devil’s envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his party experience it.

***

1 Clement 27 . . . By the word of His might He established all things, and by His word He can overthrow them. Who shall say unto Him, What have you done? Or, Who shall resist the power of His strength? . . .

Wisdom 11:21 For it is always in thy power to show great strength, and who can withstand the might of thy arm?

Wisdom 12:12 For who will say, “What hast thou done?” Or will resist thy judgment? . . .

In 1 Clement 55, Judith is compared to Esther and described as one who was “strengthened by the grace of God” — and is called “blessed Judith”. In the same section, Clement also makes reference to the additional  chapters of Esther that are only in the deuterocanon. He wrote, “For with fasting and humiliation she entreated the everlasting God, who sees all things; and He, perceiving the humility of her spirit, delivered the people for whose sake she had encountered peril.” This must be derived from those additional chapters, since the rest of the book (that Protestants exclusively accept) never mentions God at all. St. Clement appears to be citing Esther chapter 14 and descriptions of God’s deliverance of the Jews in passages such as 10:6, 9 and 16:21.

The Shepherd of Hermas (Greek, c. 140), in Book II, Commandment 1, states, “First of all, believe that there is one God who created and finished all things, and made all things out of nothing.” This is never stated explicitly in the Protestant Old Testament. But it is in the deuterocanon:

2 Maccabees 7:28 . . . look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed. . . .

The Didache (Greek, c. 140), chapter 4,  states, “Be not a stretcher forth of the hands to receive and a drawer of them back to give.” This appears to be a citation of Sirach 4:31: “Let not your hand be extended to receive, but withdrawn when it is time to repay.”