The Septuagint and Deuterocanonical Books 

The Intertestamental Period: Setting the Stage 

Many Christians are unaware that over 400 years elapsed between the writings of Malachi and Matthew. During this “Intertestamental Period,” Hebrew life underwent radical changes. Understanding this period is essential for making sense of much of the New Testament. This era, often called a time of “divine silence,” saw no new prophetic writings until the coming of John the Baptist. Yet, through historical texts often referred to as the “Deuterocanonicals,” we gain valuable insights into this time. 

Clarifying “Catholic” 

When I use the term “Catholic,” I do not limit it to Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. Instead, I emphasize catholicity—universality—in the tradition of St. Vincent of Lerins: “That which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.” 

Use of “Protestant” 

Anglo-Catholicism, while shaped in part by the events of the Reformation, roots itself in the historical continuity of the Church catholic—universal in scope and grounded in apostolic tradition. The term “Protestant” generally refers to those movements that broke entirely with the medieval Church and embraced doctrines such as sola scriptura and sola fide, often rejecting the sacramental, liturgical, and ecclesial frameworks of historic catholicity. 

Anglo-Catholics, however, affirm the Church in England (the “English Catholic Church”) as a continuation of the ancient catholic and apostolic Church in England, which preceded Roman Catholicism in the British Isles, not a new or “Protestant” foundation. This continuity is evidenced by the maintenance of apostolic succession, the sacraments, and the faith and creeds of the undivided Church. While recognizing the need for reform—much of which was addressed by the English Reformation—Anglo-Catholics reject the notion that such reforms severed the catholic identity of the Church in England. 

Historically, the Oxford Movement of the 19th century revived and emphasized this identity, demonstrating that the Church in England’s theology and practice could align with the ancient Church while still affirming the necessary correctives of the Reformation – correctives based on the Scriptures and the faith of the early Church as expressed in the Church Fathers. This middle way, or via media, honors both the catholic heritage and these necessary correctives, making “catholic” a more fitting designation than “Protestant” for those who embrace this perspective. 

As an Anglo-Catholic, I am compelled to affirm the value of the Deuterocanonical books for instruction and spiritual edification, consistent with the teaching of Article VI of the 39 Articles of Religion, which commends these books for “example of life and instruction of manners” (see more below). Though excluded by many Protestants, these texts have long been considered an integral part of the Church’s understanding of Scripture. 

The Deuterocanonicals: Definitions and Context 

What Are They? 

The Deuterocanonicals include seven books and portions of Esther and Daniel, along with additional texts recognized within the Anglican tradition. These are: 

• Wisdom 

• Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 

• Tobit 

• Judith 

• Baruch 

• 1 & 2 Maccabees 

• Prayer of Manasseh 

• 1 Esdras 

• 2 Esdras (also referred to as 3 Ezra and 4 Ezra) 

• Additions to Esther (e.g., the prayers of Mordecai and Esther) 

• Additions to Daniel (e.g., Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, and Song of the Three Young Men) 

These writings are found in the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) but not in the Masoretic Text (Hebrew Bible). “Deuterocanon” means “second canon,” signifying their later addition to the broader scriptural tradition. 

Protestants often refer to these as “Apocrypha” (meaning “hidden”), but this term is misleading. These texts were widely known and included in the earliest Christian Bibles, such as Codex Sinaiticus, which also contains other writings later deemed non-canonical (e.g., The Shepherd of Hermas). 

Misconceptions About the Jewish Canon 

Many Protestants argue that the Deuterocanonicals are absent from the Jewish canon. However, the concept of “the” Jewish canon is anachronistic. At the time of Christ, there were competing canons: 

• The Sadducees accepted only the Torah. 

• The Pharisees adhered to a canon similar to the modern Hebrew Bible. 

• Diaspora (Hellenistic) Jews often followed the Septuagint. 

Historical evidence suggests that the Jewish canon did not solidify until after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, long after the birth of Christianity. Even then, disputes about certain books persisted, as noted in rabbinic literature. 

Historical Reception of the Deuterocanonicals by Early Christians 

The early Church’s reception of the Deuterocanonicals underscores their importance in Christian theology and practice. Clement of Rome, in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, references the wisdom literature found in Wisdom and Sirach. Irenaeus of Lyons frequently cited Deuterocanonical texts to support his theological arguments, particularly regarding God’s providence and human salvation. Origen also affirmed their use in Christian teaching, and his biblical hexapla¹ includes the Deuterocanonicals as part of the Septuagint. 

These examples demonstrate that the Deuterocanonicals were widely respected and utilized by the early Church Fathers. 

Liturgical Use of the Deuterocanonicals 

The Deuterocanonicals played a prominent role in the liturgy of the early Church, a tradition that continues in Anglicanism today. Passages from these books are included in Anglican lectionaries, especially during Advent and Lent, emphasizing their moral and spiritual insights. For example, Wisdom 3:1-9 is often read at funerals for its powerful message of hope in eternal life. This liturgical incorporation affirms their value as sacred texts that deepen Christian worship and understanding. 

Comparison with Pseudepigrapha 

A common Protestant concern is the conflation of the Deuterocanonicals with pseudepigraphal texts, such as the Book of Enoch. However, these categories are distinct. While the Deuterocanonicals were included in the Septuagint and recognized by early Christians, pseudepigraphal writings were often excluded due to dubious origins or lack of widespread acceptance. This distinction is crucial in understanding the historical and theological legitimacy of the Deuterocanonicals within the Christian canon. 

The Role of the Council of Trent 

The Council of Trent (1546) formally affirmed the Deuterocanonicals as part of the biblical canon, responding to Protestant rejection during the Reformation. This decision was not an innovation but a reaffirmation of the Church’s longstanding use of these texts. In contrast, Protestant reformers like Martin Luther relegated the Deuterocanonicals to an appendix, influenced by their exclusion from the Masoretic Text. Trent’s declaration underscores the Church’s role in safeguarding the integrity of Scripture. 

Cultural and Theological Contributions of the Deuterocanonicals 

The Deuterocanonicals have significantly influenced Christian doctrine and spirituality. 2 Maccabees provides a profound theology of martyrdom, emphasizing resurrection and divine justice (see more below). Wisdom and Sirach offer rich moral teachings, shaping Christian understandings of virtue and ethics. These texts also highlight God’s providence and the hope of eternal life, themes that resonate deeply within the Christian tradition. 

Theological Unity of Scripture 

The Deuterocanonicals complement the broader biblical narrative, enriching key themes such as divine providence, prayer, and eschatology. For instance, Tobit emphasizes God’s guidance in everyday life, while Judith celebrates divine deliverance. These texts bridge the Old and New Testaments, providing a fuller picture of God’s redemptive plan and preparing the way for the Gospel. 

The Septuagint and the Masoretic Text 

The Septuagint (LXX) is often considered a better reflection of the Old Testament than the Masoretic Text (MT) for several reasons: 

1. Historical Priority: The Septuagint was translated in the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE, predating the MT by many centuries. It reflects a textual tradition of the Hebrew Bible that existed before the MT’s standardization in the 7th to 10th centuries CE. 

2. Use in Early Christianity: The Septuagint was widely used by early Christians, including the authors of the New Testament, who often quoted it directly, even when it diverged from the MT. 

3. Textual Variations: The Dead Sea Scrolls have shown that some readings in the Septuagint align more closely with earlier Hebrew texts than the MT, suggesting that the LXX preserves a more ancient tradition in certain cases. 

4. Theological Insights: The Septuagint sometimes reflects theological emphases not found in the MT. A notable example is Isaiah 7:14, where the Septuagint translates the Hebrew word almah as “virgin” (parthenos), aligning with the Christian interpretation of the prophecy about the Virgin Mary and the birth of Christ. The MT uses a term that can mean “young woman,” which some argue is less specific. The choice of parthenos in Isaiah 7:14 is particularly significant because it provides a clear messianic interpretation that resonates with the New Testament portrayal of Christ’s miraculous birth. The Septuagintal version is what Matthew quotes from in Matthew 1:23. The MT’s less specific term does not carry the same theological weight, which is why the Septuagint’s translation has been central to Christian theology. 

5. Preservation of Deuterocanonicals: The Septuagint includes the Deuterocanonical books, which are absent from the MT but were widely regarded as Scripture by early Christians. 

6. Canonical Consistency: The LXX’s broader canon reflects the liturgical and theological practices of early Christianity, bridging the gap between the Old and New Testaments. 

Did St. Augustine Add the Deuterocanon to the Septuagint? 

A Protestant argument sometimes claims that St. Augustine added the Deuterocanonicals to the Septuagint, and therefore, the Bible Jesus likely used did not contain these books. This claim, however, is not historically tenable. 

First, the Septuagint predates Augustine by centuries. It was produced in the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE in Alexandria and was widely used by Hellenistic Jews. By the time of Christ, it was already established as a significant version of the Scriptures, and it included the Deuterocanonicals. 

Second, New Testament authors frequently quoted from the Septuagint, often using it even when it differed from the Masoretic Text. This suggests that the Septuagint, with its broader canon, was widely recognized and utilized within the early Church. 

Third, St. Augustine’s advocacy for the Deuterocanonicals did not involve “adding” them to Scripture but defending their longstanding use in the Christian community. Augustine’s support reflects the prevailing practice of the early Church, as seen in the decisions of regional councils like the Council of Hippo (393) and the Third Council of Carthage (397), which affirmed the inclusion of the Deuterocanonicals in the canon. 

Modern biblical scholarship supports the view that the Deuterocanonicals were an integral part of the Septuagint well before Augustine’s time. As early as the 2nd century BCE, these texts were included in Greek manuscripts. The argument that Jesus would have used a Septuagint excluding these books is therefore unfounded and contradicts historical evidence. 

Jesus and the Hebrew Canon 

One common Protestant argument against the Deuterocanonicals is that Jesus Himself implicitly affirmed the limits of the Hebrew canon. This claim often rests on His statement in Matthew 23:35, referencing martyrs “from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah.” Protestants interpret this as evidence that Jesus endorsed the traditional Hebrew Bible, which begins with Genesis (Abel’s story) and ends with Chronicles (Zechariah’s story in the Hebrew order). However, this argument warrants closer scrutiny. 

Some argue that Jesus’ reference to martyrs from Abel to Zechariah (Matthew 23:35; Luke 11:51) implies an endorsement of the Hebrew canon. However: 

1. Jesus’ reasoning for selecting these examples is not explained in the text. 

2. The identification of Zechariah is ambiguous, possibly referring to a prophet from a different era.² 

3. The order of books in the Hebrew Bible was not fixed; some ancient arrangements placed Chronicles earlier. 

4. Even if Jesus referenced the Hebrew canon, this would not preclude the authority of the Greek Old Testament, which the New Testament authors frequently quoted. 

The Role of the Deuterocanonicals in Developing the Doctrine of Resurrection 

The Deuterocanonicals, particularly 2 Maccabees, played a critical role in developing the Jewish doctrine of the resurrection. While the Hebrew Bible contains sparse references to physical resurrection, 2 Maccabees 7 provides a vivid and theological reflection on resurrection tied to martyrdom. The story of a mother and her seven sons, who accept death rather than violate God’s law, demonstrates an explicit hope in bodily resurrection. One son declares, “The King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life, because we have died for his laws” (2 Maccabees 7:9). 

This theology of resurrection shaped Second Temple Judaism and provided a framework for understanding Jesus’ own resurrection. The development of this doctrine through the Deuterocanonicals was essential in expanding Jewish eschatological thought. Without these writings, the Jewish understanding of personal resurrection might have remained underdeveloped, as the Hebrew Bible’s references to resurrection (e.g., Isaiah 26:19, Daniel 12:2) are limited and often ambiguous. 

By introducing the concept of resurrection as a divine reward for faithfulness—even unto death—the Deuterocanonicals bridged a crucial theological gap. The steadfast hope of resurrection expressed in 2 Maccabees and reinforced in Wisdom (e.g., Wisdom 3:1-9, which speaks of the righteous being in the hand of God) prepared the way for the central Christian proclamation of Jesus’ victory over death. The resurrection of Christ, foundational to Christian faith, resonates deeply with this Deuterocanonical emphasis on divine justice and the restoration of life. 

The Deuterocanonicals also influenced the wider Jewish community’s eschatological expectations during the Second Temple period. Groups like the Pharisees, who affirmed resurrection, drew upon the theological insights of these texts. Thus, the intellectual and spiritual soil for Jesus’ resurrection was cultivated, in part, through the hope and imagery articulated in the Deuterocanonicals. Far from being tangential, these books were instrumental in shaping the trajectory of Jewish thought that made the event of the resurrection not only comprehensible but theologically profound. 

The Church’s Authority and the Canon 

A key debate concerns whether the Church merely recognized the authority of biblical books or actively determined the canon. From an Anglo-Catholic perspective, the Church’s role was not passive but divinely guided in determining the canon. The Anglo-Catholic tradition affirms that Christ entrusted the Church with the authority to bind and loose (Matthew 16:19), which includes defining the Scriptures. 

To claim the Church merely “recognized” authority undermines its role as the Body of Christ, through which the Holy Spirit works. The very process of canonization—debating, discerning, and codifying—reflects the Church’s active participation in revealing God’s Word. Without the Church’s authority, the question of which books belong in the canon becomes arbitrary. 

Moreover, the early Church Fathers viewed the Church’s authority as central to the canon. St. Augustine famously said, “I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.” This sentiment underscores the Catholic-minded view that Scripture and Church tradition are inseparable. It is through the Church’s Spirit-guided discernment that the canon was determined, not merely discovered. 

The Protestant approach, which dismisses certain books as uninspired based on post-Reformation criteria, assumes a self-authenticating canon. This perspective is historically untenable; the canon’s development required centuries of ecclesial deliberation. By contrast, the Anglo-Catholic understanding affirms that the Church, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, has the authority to define the boundaries of Scripture. 

The 39 Articles and the Apocrypha 

Article VI of the 39 Articles of Religion states: “In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.” It goes on to list the canonical books and separates the Apocrypha, which it commends for reading “for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine.” 

From an Anglo-Catholic perspective, this article reflects the balance between Protestant and Catholic influences in Anglicanism. While the Apocrypha is not held as doctrinally definitive, its liturgical and devotional value is affirmed. The Anglican lectionary includes readings from these texts, recognizing their role in spiritual formation. This reflects the broader Catholic tradition of valuing the Deuterocanonicals as part of the Church’s patrimony. 

The Anglo-Catholic view stresses that the Apocrypha’s inclusion in the liturgy and its moral instruction demonstrate the Church’s broader understanding of divine revelation. The distinction made in Article VI does not diminish the importance of these texts but highlights the Church’s nuanced approach to their use. 

The Protestant Rejection of the Deuterocanonicals 

Martin Luther considered the Deuterocanonicals “good for reading” but not inspired. However, he also questioned books like Hebrews, James, and Revelation for theological reasons. This approach—basing canonicity on one’s theology—undermines the claim of sola scriptura. How can Scripture be the sole authority if theology determines what counts as Scripture? 

Conclusion 

The arguments against the Deuterocanonicals often rely on circular reasoning or inconsistent standards. If the same criteria used to exclude these books were applied to the Protestant canon, many of its books would also be disqualified. Ultimately, the Church’s authority, not subjective arguments, determined the canon. As both Catholics and Protestants affirm, tradition plays a crucial role in identifying God’s inspired Word. 

1. The Hexapla was a six-columned critical edition of the Hebrew Scriptures created by Origen in the 3rd century CE. It compared the Hebrew text, its Greek transliteration, and four Greek translations, including the Septuagint, making it an invaluable tool for early biblical scholarship and the study of textual variations.  ↩︎
2. Some manuscripts and interpretations associate this “Zechariah, son of Barachiah,” with the Minor Prophet Zechariah (Zechariah 1:1). However, the context of being killed “between the temple and the altar” matches more closely with Zechariah son of Jehoiada in 2 Chronicles 24:20-22. The ambiguity arises because Jesus might have referred to Zechariah son of Jehoiada, whose martyrdom is recorded, but intentionally linked him with another figure (like the prophet Zechariah, son of Berechiah). This could reflect either textual transmission issues or symbolic allusion to a broader tradition of righteous prophets. 
     ↩︎