Origen on the Canon

In expounding the first Psalm, he sets out the list of the sacred Scriptures of the old covenant, writing word for word as follows: “It should not be overlooked that the books of the covenant, as the Hebrews hand them down, are twenty-two, the same as the number of letters they have.” [a]

Then, after some other remarks, he goes on: “The twenty-two books of the Hebrews are these. The one we call Genesis, but which the Hebrews call, from the beginning of the book, Bresith, which means ‘In the beginning.’ Exodus, Ouellesmoth, which means ‘These are the names.’ Leviticus, Ouikra, ‘And he called.’ Numbers, Ammesphekodeim. Deuteronomy, Elleaddebareim, ‘These are the words.’ Joshua son of Nun, Iosouebennoun. Judges and Ruth, in one book among them, Sophteim. First and Second Kingdoms, one book among them, Samouel, ‘the one called by God.’ Third and Fourth Kingdoms in one, Ouammelchdavid, which means ‘the kingdom of David.’ First and Second Chronicles in one, Dabreiamein, which means ‘words of days.’ First and Second Ezra in one, Ezra, which means ‘helper.’ The book of Psalms, Spharthelleim. The Proverbs of Solomon, Meloth. Ecclesiastes, Koelth. The Song of Songs — not, as some suppose, Songs of Songs — Sirassireim. Isaiah, Iessia. Jeremiah, with Lamentations and the Letter, in one, Ieremia. Daniel, Daniel. Ezekiel, Iezekiel. Job, Iob. Esther, Esther. Outside these there are the books of the Maccabees, which are entitled Sarbethsabanaiel.” [b]

These he sets down in the work already mentioned. In the first book of his commentary on the Gospel according to Matthew, keeping to the Church’s rule, he testifies that he knows only four Gospels, writing as follows: [d] “I have learned by tradition about the four Gospels, which alone are undisputed in the Church of God under heaven, that the first to be written was the one according to Matthew, who was once a tax collector but later an apostle of Jesus Christ. He published it for those who had come to faith from Judaism, composed in Hebrew letters. The second is the one according to Mark, who wrote it as Peter guided him; and Peter, in his general letter, acknowledged him as his son, saying, ‘She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, greets you, and so does Mark my son.’ [e] The third is the one according to Luke, the Gospel praised by Paul, written for those who came from the Gentiles. Last of all is the one according to John.” [f]

In the fifth book of his Expositions of the Gospel according to John, the same writer says this about the letters of the apostles: “But he who was made sufficient to be a minister of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit — that is, Paul, who fully preached the gospel from Jerusalem and round about as far as Illyricum — did not even write to all the churches he had taught; and even to those he wrote to, he sent only a few lines. [g] Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of Hades will not prevail, has left one acknowledged letter — and let us grant a second too, for it is disputed. [h] Why should I speak of the one who leaned back on the breast of Jesus, John, who has left one Gospel, though he confessed that he could write so many that not even the world could contain them? He also wrote the Apocalypse, but was commanded to keep silent and not to write the words of the seven thunders. He has also left a letter of very few lines — and let us grant a second and a third, since not everyone says they are genuine. But the two of them together are not a hundred lines long.” [i]

Besides this, in his Homilies on the Letter to the Hebrews, he discusses it as follows: “The character of the diction of the letter entitled To the Hebrews does not have the unskilled manner of speech of the apostle, who confessed himself unskilled in speech, that is, in expression; the letter is more Greek in the composition of its diction, [j] as anyone who knows how to judge differences of phrasing would admit. And again, the thoughts of the letter are wonderful and not second to the acknowledged apostolic writings; anyone who pays attention to the reading of the apostolic writings would agree that this is true.” [k] Then, after other remarks, he adds: “If I were to give my own opinion, I would say that the thoughts are the apostle’s, but the phrasing and the composition belong to someone who remembered the apostle’s teaching and, as it were, made notes on what his teacher had said. So if any church holds this letter to be Paul’s, let it be commended for this too; for it was not without reason that the men of old handed it down as Paul’s. [l] But who wrote the letter, God truly knows. The account that has reached us is that some say Clement, who became bishop of the Romans, wrote the letter, and others that it was Luke, who wrote the Gospel and the Acts.” But let this be enough on these matters. [m]