Eusebius of Caesarea cites Wisdom as a divine oracle;[244] and after adducing several passages from Proverbs, subjoining to them others from the same book with the introductory formula “these are also said to be the same writers,” he concludes with “such is the scripture.”[245] Sirach is cited as Solomon's along with various passages from Proverbs.[246] After quoting Baruch, he says, “there is no need to appeal to the divine voices, which clearly confirm our proposition.”[247] The additions to Daniel are also treated as Scripture.[248]
Basil of Caesarea[249] had a canon agreeing with that of [pg 093] Athanasius. Along with the usual books reckoned as belonging to the canon, he used the apocryphal productions of the Old Testament. Thus the book of Wisdom (i. 4)[250] is quoted by him. So are Sirach (xx. 2);[251] Baruch, (iii. 36)[252] called Jeremiah's; Judith (ix. 4);[253] and Daniel (xiii. 50).[254]
Gregory of Nazianzus[255] puts his list into a poetical form. In the Old Testament it agrees with Athanasius's exactly, except that he mentions none but the canonical books. Like Athanasius, he omits Esther. In the New Testament he deviates from Athanasius, by leaving out the Apocalypse, which he puts among the spurious.[256] He does not ignore the apocryphal books of the Old Testament, but quotes Daniel xiii. 5.[257]
Amphilochius of Iconium[258] gives a metrical catalogue of the Biblical books. The canon of the Old Testament is the usual one, except that he says of Esther at the end, “some judge that Esther should be added to the foregoing.” He notices none of the apocryphal books. His New Testament canon agrees with the present, only he excludes the Apocalypse as spurious; which is given as the judgment of the majority. He alludes to the doubts that existed as to the epistle to the Hebrews, but regards it as Pauline; and to the number of the catholic epistles (seven or three).[259] The concluding words show that no list was universally received at that time.
Epiphanius[260] follows Athanasius in his canon. As to the number of the Old Testament books, he hesitates between twenty-two and twenty-seven; but the contents are the same. At the end of the twenty-seven books of the [pg 094] New Testament, Wisdom and Sirach are mentioned as “divine writings;” elsewhere they are characterized as “doubtful.”[261] His practice shows his sentiments clearly enough, when Sirach (vii. 1) is introduced with “the Scripture” testifies[262]; vii. 9 is elsewhere quoted[263]; Wisdom (i. 4) is cited as Solomon's;[264] Baruch (iii. 36) is introduced with, “as the Scripture says,”[265] and Daniel (xiii. 42) is quoted with, “as it is written.”[266] He mentions the fact that the epistles of Clement of Rome were read in the churches.[267]
Didymus of Alexandria[268] speaks against 2 Peter that it is not in the canons.[269]
Chrysostom[270] does not speak of the canon; but in the New Testament he never quotes the last four catholic epistles or the Apocalypse. All the other parts he uses throughout his numerous works,[271] including the Apocrypha. Thus he introduces Wisdom (xvi. 28) with “Scripture says.”[272] He quotes Baruch (iii. 36, 38);[273] and Sirach (iv. 1.).[274]
Didymus of Alexandria[275] cites Baruch (iii. 35) as Jeremiah,[276] and treats it like the Psalms.[277] Daniel (xiii. 45) is also quoted.[278] He says of Peter's Second Epistle that it is not in the canon.
Theodore of Mopsuestia[279] was much freer than his contemporaries in dealing with the books of Scripture. It seems that he rejected Job, Canticles, Chronicles, and the Psalm-inscriptions; in the New Testament the epistle of [pg 095] James, and others of the catholic ones. But Leontius's account of his opinions cannot be adopted without suspicion.[280]
The canon of Cyril of Alexandria[281] does not differ from Athanasius's. Like other writers of the Greek Church in his day he uses along with the canonical the apocryphal books of the Old Testament. He quotes 1 (iii.) Esdras (iv. 36) with “inspired Scripture says.”[282] Wisdom (vii. 6) is introduced with, “according to that which is written.”[283] In another place it has the prefix “for it is written” (i. 7);[284] and is treated as Scripture (ii. 12).[285] Sirach (i. 1) is cited.[286] Baruch also (iii. 35-37) is introduced with, “another of the holy prophets said.”[287]