Edmon Gallagher: Jerome's Prologus Galeatus and the OT Canon in North Africa

The OT canon as articulated by Jerome in his famous Prologus Galeatus (Praef. lib. Sam. et Reg.) has several unusual features. Perhaps the most striking of these is its use of the term ‘apocrypha’ for all non-canonical books, including those that much later received the title “deuterocanonical”. An examination of Jerome’s œuvre reveals that he generally holds the deuterocanonicals in much higher esteem than one could infer from his Prologus Galeatus: his citations from them throughout his career along with certain very positive statements (e.g., Praef. Jud.; Praef. lib. Sal. Iuxta Hebraeos) demonstrates Jerome’s approval of their edifying character and even liturgical function. His declaration that they are ‘apocrypha’, therefore, demands an explanation. Two popular theories will not work: there is no evidence that Jerome changed his mind about these books during the course of his career, nor that he used the term ‘apocrypha’ in a softened sense meaning only ‘non-canonical’. His heightened rhetoric against the deuterocanonicals in the Prologus Galeatus should be seen in the context of general Christian canonical theory. Athanasius (Ep. fest. 39) and Rufinus (Symb. 38) formed a middle category of books that were neither canonical nor apocryphal, and included within this category largely the same books that Jerome declares ‘apocrypha’. Jerome likely saw no problem with such a classification, though he makes no explicit statements in its favor. These same books were declared fully canonical by two North African councils in the last decade of the fourth century (Hippo in 393, Carthage in 397) and by Augustine in 397 (Doctr. chr. 2.13). This paper will suggest that Jerome’s assertion in the Prologus Galeatus that the deuterocanonicals are ‘apocrypha’ was a reaction against the canonical sentiments coming out of North Africa in the late fourth century. As Jerome saw some Christians expanding the OT canon beyond the borders of the Jewish Bible, he took the opportunity presented by his “Helmeted Preface” to contend the more forcefully for the normativity of the Hebraica veritas.