"The traditional categories used to distinguish the necessity of God’s existence from the necessity of creation and salvation are absolute and hypothetical necessity....scholastics commonly understood a thing as absolutely necessary when its contrary involves a contradiction, considered in itself. For example, all geometrical truths are absolutely necessary...Not so with things that are hypothetically necessary. In contrast, for many scholastics, a thing is merely hypothetically necessary when its contrary involves no contradiction, considered in itself, but the contrary of which becomes contradictory with the addition of a hypothesis or condition that is not essential or intrinsic....In light of this distinction, we can see why the absolute necessity of God’s act entailed by God’s simplicity does not make the hypothetical necessity of creation (or salvation, and so forth) absolutely necessary. For although God wills to create, and God’s will is identical with God’s essence, and God’s essence is absolutely necessary, creation is not, and indeed could not, be absolutely necessary unless it were self-existent since, despite its absolutely necessary conditions, the contrary of its existence involves no contradiction, considered in itself. Precisely because creation is necessary in virtue of some extrinsic condition, precisely because the essence of creation does not involve existence, can no strength or number of necessitating conditions make creation absolutely necessary." (Daniel J. Pedersen and Christopher Lilley, "Divine Simplicity, God’s Freedom, and the Supposed Problem of Modal Collapse", Journal of Reformed Theology, Vol. 16 [2022], pgs. 131-133)
Apr 14, 2023
The Importance of Romans 9:14 for Understanding Paul's Argument
"What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid." (Rom. 9:14 KJV)
Greek Text: τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν μὴ ἀδικία παρὰ τῷ θεῷ μὴ γένοιτο
When many people read through Romans 9, they fail to grasp the importance of what Paul is arguing against. They don't see that the rhetorical objections and questions that Paul emphatically denies (which is a characteristic of Paul's letters in the NT) do help us to understand exactly what Paul is arguing for. Such is the case with Romans 9:14. I would contend that understanding verse 14 accurately helps us to also understand what it was in verses 6-13 that gives rise to such an objection that there is with God. An important question for proponents of Arminianism and a "Corporate Election" reading of Romans 9 to answer is this: what give rise to the objection in 9:14? Would Paul's teaching teach God elected Israel over Edom (represented by Esau in verse 13, according to their interpretation) or that God elected a people based on their faith in Christ give rise to that idea that God is ἀδικία? Does this fit with Paul's logic and argumentation? I wish to explore that question briefly in this article.
First of all, it is crucial to understand that the objection of verse 14 is framed by Paul in such a way in which the question will have a negative answer. This is seen by Paul's use of μὴ rather than οὐκ (which he often does when answering a question with μὴ γένοιτο; see Rom. 3:3-5; 9:14; 11:1, 11). The difficulty here is that the question is supposed to be an objection by a hypothetical opponent of Paul. At the same time, Paul's own denial of the idea that there is unrighteousness with God comes to subtly express itself in the question itself (v. 14). Paul does a similar thing in Rom. 3:5.
Recognizing this helps us to understand what is meant by the term ἀδικία. It shows that there could be two meanings to the word: Paul's and the opponent's. Arminian scholar and theologian Brian Abasciano contends that it refers to "unfaithfulness to the divine promises to Israel" (Paul's Use of the Old Testament in Rom. 9.10-18, pg. 171ff.). If this is the case, Arminians have an easy way out of the problem I posed above, namely what in 9:6-13 gave rise to the objection of verse 14.
On the contrary, I believe that John Piper's (who I do not agree with on everything, to be sure) interpretation of ἀδικία as referring to "a disposition and conduct which contradict truth, namely, that he is glorious above all creation and worthy of all honor, thanks, and trust." (The Justification of God, pg. 94) is more plausible, because of the following reasons which Piper lays out in his book:
[1]. The term occurs in Rom. 1:8, 29; 2:8; 3:5; 6:13; 9:14; 1 Cor. 13:6; 2 Cor. 12:13; 2 Thess. 2:10-12; 2 Tim. 1:9. What these verses show is that ἀδικία is not merely the opposition of "righteousness" (dikaiosune) but also is opposed to aletheia ("truth"), as seen in Rom. 3:5
[2]. The term is used in 2 Thessalonians 2:10, 12 as follows: "And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness (ἀδικία) in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved...That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness (ἀδικία)." Here Paul places an antithesis between "belief in the truth" and ἀδικία.
[3]. Romans 1:18 says "For God’s wrath is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and unrighteousness (ἀδικία) of people who by their unrighteousness (ἀδικία) suppress the truth". Once again there is an antithesis placed between ἀδικία and the truth that God is worthy of glory and praise (Rom. 1:21)
[4]. In Romans 2:8 it says "But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness (ἀδικία), indignation and wrath." The antithesis is seen once again.
[5]. In 1 Cor. 13:6, it says that love "does not rejoice at wrongdoing (ἀδικία), but rejoices with the truth."
[6]. Finally, in Rom. 3:4-7, there is a parallel between verse 5 ("But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness (ἀδικία) of God, what shall we say?") and verse 7 ("But if through my lie God's truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?"). The person who is guilty of ἀδικία is living a lie, in contrast to "God's truth" (v. 7).
Therefore, as Piper says, "the particular usage of ἀδικία seen in 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12; Rom. 1:18; 2:8; 3:5; 1 Cor. 13:6 is very probably the one Paul has in view in Rom. 9:14. If so, his assertion would be that God cannot be faulted with a disposition or conduct that contradict the truth of who he is." (The Justification of God, pg. 95)
Finally, the fact that Paul uses γάρ in front of verses 15 and 17 (where he cites from Ex. 9:16 and 33:19b), shows that he views these verses as an answer to the objection being raised in verse 14.
Romans 9: Individual or Corporate Election? (Summary Notes from Piper and Schreiner)
(Note: This is an article summarizing some of the issues under debate. It is not meant to be a comprehensive study)
Arminians and other opponents of the Reformed Church very commonly interpret Romans 9 (particularly, Paul's argument about Jacob and Esau in verses 10-13) as speaking of corporate election to historical privileges, rather than individual election to eternal salvation. Piper and Schreiner give a number of counter-arguments to this interpretation which show its inconsistency.
John Piper's Four Counter-Arguments
[1]. The Significance of 9:1-5: In order to understand what Paul is saying in verses 6-13, we need to keep in mind that they function as a response to the problem that Paul raised in verses 1-5, namely that so many ethnic Israelites are "cut off from Christ". This language of being "cut off" is commonly used for a person who is unconverted our outside the covenant of grace (the substance of which contains regenerate people, while the outward administration encompasses both true and false believers; see WCF 7.6). See passages such as Numbers 15:30-31; Galatians 1:8 (?); Romans 11:19-24. Why would Paul be moved to "great sorrow and unceasing anguish" (9:2) simply because Israel failed to inherit its historical privileges/blessings? Rather, Paul's concern is over the wrath of God being poured out upon Israel.
Furthermore, the privileges which Paul says belong to the Israelites (adoption, glory, the giving of the law, the covenants, the service of God, the promises, the patriarchs, and the Messiah) have to do with eternal salvation:
The giving of the law had reference to the salvation of Israel (Exodus 19:6; 29:45; 32:13; 33:19).
Th service of God had reference to the salvation of Israel. Paul here uses the term λατρεία, which is commonly used in the LXX to refer to the priestly service of offering the sacrifice, or at least encompassing it (1 Chronicles 28:13; cf. Heb. 9:6), which no doubt was for the purpose of the atonement of Israel's sins as a nation (Exodus 29:35-37; Leviticus 4:20, 26; 5:10), as well as the sins of the High Priest himself.
The fathers - Romans 11:28 is a key text for understanding why the "fathers" or "patriarchs" (as some translations havae it) are listed as being among Israel's blessings: "As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes."
The glory - When Paul uses the term δόξα without any modification or qualification (as he does here in 9:4b), it often refers to future, eschatological glory (Rom 2:10; 8:18; 9:23; Colossians 3:4; 2 Cor. 4:17).
We could also add to this Romans 10:1, where Paul says that his desire for Israel is "that they might be saved." Romans 9:33 expresses a similar idea.
[2]. The Significance of Rom. 9:6b - In 9:6b, Paul says οὐ γὰρ πάντες οἱ ἐξ Ἰσραὴλ οὗτοι Ἰσραήλ - "for they are not all Israel, which are of Israel." Piper argues that οὐ modifies the second part of the clause (οὗτοι Ἰσραήλ), rather than the phrase πάντες οἱ ἐξ Ἰσραὴλ. He argues this based on the similarity in syntax with how οὐ is placed in Rom. 7:15 (The Justification of God: , pgs. 65-66)
Paul's main goal in verses 6-13 is to defend the principle he has put forth in 6b, namely that God has made distinctions witihin Israel. Saying that God elected the nation of Israel (Isaac/Jaob), rather than Edom (Esau), does not serve Paul's purpose of explaining the election of God within Israel. It does not serve Paul's argument in showing that the word of God hasn't failed in spite of widespread Jewish unbelief.
Abasciano responds by insisting that the idea of distinctions within Israel, or of "choosing a remnant" is corporate in its language. Schreiner responds by saying "The same flaw applies to Abasciano’s discussion of the remnant. The remnant consists in those who have a circumcised heart in Israel (see Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4). They are the true people of God that reside in the corporate entity called Israel. Furthermore, I am puzzled why God needs to choose a remnant on Abasciano’s terms. After all, corporate election is only secured when individuals believe. Why do we need a remnant within the corporate group when, according to Abasciano, individuals benefit from corporate election by believing? On his terms we have two groups where corporate election is validated by faith (Israel as a corporate group and the remnant), which seems like an unnecessary multiplication of entities.
It should also be noted that the election of Israelites from within physical Israel cannot refer to merely historical privileges, since all physical Israelites possessed those. Therefore, Paul is talking about the issue of eternal salvation.
[3]. The vocabulary and structure of Romans 9:6b-8 -
6b - For all the ones from Israel, these are not Israel
(-) 7a neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are all children
(+) 7b but in Isaac shall your seed be called (Gen. 21:12)
(-) 8a That is, the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God
(+) 8b but the children of promise are counted as seed.
The "that is" clause at the beginning of verse 8a shows that Paul is beginning to clarify his argument in verses 6b-7. 8b corresponds to 7b, while 8a corresponds to 6b and 7a. In these verses, Paul makes a parallel between (physical) "Israel" and "children of the flesh", while also making a parallelism between (spiritual) "Israel" and the "children of God". This shows that Paul is still dealing with the issue of salvific distinctions within Israel. Moreover, Paul constantly uses the phrase "children of God" in reference to true believers (Rom. 8:16-17, 21; Ephesians 5:1; Philippians 2:15), which shows once again the Paul is dealing with the issues of salvation and eternal destinies.
Abasciano himself recognizes the chiasmic parallel relationship between 6b and 7a (Brian J. Abasciano, Paul's Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9:1-9: Intertextual and Theological Exegesis [PhD thesis, University of Aberdeen: 2004], pg. 318).
This particular portion of Paul's argument concludes in his statement that "the children of the promise are reckoned as seed." Galatians 3:26 says "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.", and in verse 29 it says "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." This shows that there is an identity between "children/sons of God" and "seed of Abraham", and confirms that Paul has more in mind here than just historical or theocratic national privileges.
One should also compare Romans 9:6-8 with Romans 2:25-29, which have a similar line of thought. In Romans 2, Paul teaches that not every person who is physically circumcised is inwardly circumcised in the heart. Similarly, Paul says in Romans 9 that not every person in physical Israel is a part of the true, spiritual Israel.
The Schreiner-Abasciano Debate on Romans 9
Abasciano's Understanding of "Corporate" Election: "I want to make it clear that when I speak of Romans 9 as containing corporate rather than individual election, I am speaking of the primary orientation of election, which of necessity must include individuals in its purview to some extent.7 But this in no way implies a traditional concept of individual election and actually undercuts much of Schreiner’s argumentation.....The important question that Schreiner fails to address is: How do the corporate and individual aspects of election relate to each other? Which is primary? If corporate election is primary, then it is the group that is the focus of election, and individuals are elect only in connection with the group. If individual election is primary, then individuals are separately the focus of election, and the group is elect only as a collection of elect individuals. Thus, either the corporate focus of election determines the identity and benefits of the individual based on participation in the group, or the individual focus of election determines the identity and benefits of the group based on the individuals who have been grouped together according to their similar individual characteristics/status...To speak of election as corporate rather than individual means that the primary focus of election is the community and that the individual is elect only secondarily as a member of the community" (Brian J. Abasciano, "Corporate Election in Romans 9: A Reply to Thomas Schreiner, JETS 49/2 [2006], pgs. 352-353, 358)
Brian Abasciano's view of corporate election (where individuals are taken into account, but the corporate aspect is the primary focus or "bent" of the decree of election) reminds me of the Dutch Remonstrant view which was (rightly) rejected by the Synod of Dort:
"That the will of God to save those who would believe and would persevere in faith and in the obedience of faith, is the whole and entire decree of election unto salvation, and that nothing else concerning this decree has been revealed in God's Word. "(Canons of Dort, First Head of Doctrine, Rejection 1)
Schreiner's Rebuttal: "Corporate election, in Abasciano’s scheme, works as follows. God chooses that there would be the Church of Jesus Christ. Then individuals choose to be part of this corporate group, that is, the Church. But let us imagine for a moment that no one chooses to believe, which is logically possible. If this were to be the case, the corporate group would have no one in it. The Church would be an empty set. God has chosen a thing, but there is no substance to what he has chosen. In fact, if no one believes it would not even exist. Indeed, until individuals believe on Abasciano’s scheme, there is no one in the corporate group at all. If the corporate group is filled up on the basis of individuals believing, then it follows that the corporate group God has chosen is a nullity until people believe. All corporate election means, then, is that God chose that when people believed they would be part of the Church. God only chose that the entity called the Church would exist, but the fundamental issue, according to Abasciano, is the faith decision of individuals." (Thomas Schreiner)
Paul's Use of Exodus 33:19 in Romans 9
(Taken from John Piper, The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23 [Baker Books, Grand Rapids: 1993, pgs. 75-89]
"What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." (Rom. 9:14-16)
In verse 15, the apostle Paul quotes from Exodus 33:19, the immediate OT context of which is as follows:
"And the Lord said unto Moses, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken: for thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name. And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory. And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy." (Exodus 33:17-19)
The Context of Exodus 32-34
"First of all, the chapters have been placed within an obvious theological framework of sin and forgiveness. Chapter 32 recounts the breaking of the covenant [the golden calf incident]' Chapter 34 relates its restoration. Moreover, these chapters are held together by a series of motifs which are skillfully woven into a unifying pattern. The tablets [of the ten commandments] are received, smashed in chapter 32, recut, and restored in chapter 34. Moses' intercession for Israel begins in chapter 32, continues in chapter 33, and comes to a climax in chapter 34 [verses 9-10]. The theme of the presence of God which is the central theme of chapter 33 joins, on the one hand, to the prior theme of disobedience in chapter 32, and, on the other hand, to the assurance of forgiveness in chapter 34 [verses 6 and 9]." (Brevard Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical-Theological Commentary, pg. 557ff)
The Context of Exodus 33:12-34:9
There are two themes in this section. One is Moses' plea to God that He would go with Israel to the promised land in Israel's midst (33:12b-13, 15-16). The other theme is when Moses prayers to know God's character and to see His glory (33:13-18), the latter of which is answered in 33:19 and 34:6-7. Moses asked that God would show mercy to a "stiff-necked people" (33:5). This seeming presumption and boldness of Moses' request is what grounds his desire to see the glory of God (33:13, 18). This desire of Moses to see and know God's glory is understood as Moses' desire to see a confirmation of the willingness of God to show mercy upon the idolatrous Israelites. Thus, these two themes (God's mercy to Israel and God's personal revelation of Himself to Moses) are closely related to one another.
The Vocabulary and Grammar of Exodus 33:19b
The important thing to understand of Ex. 33:19b ("I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy") is an example of a Hebrew tautology-expression known as the idem per idem. Other examples of this are seen in Scripture (the following are more literal renderings of the Hebrew text):
"I pray, Lord, send now by the hand you will send." (Exodus 4:13)
"Bake what you will bake, boil what you will boil." (Exodus 16:23)
"They went about where they went about." (1 Samuel 23:13)
"Shall I make you go with us while I go where I go." (2 Samuel 15:20)
"Sojourn where you sojourn" (2 Kings 8:1)
The reason why this idiom is used is to reinforce the freedom of the subject to perform an action in the way they please. So when God says "I will be merciful to whom I will be merciful", it is for the purpose of stressing His freedom and sovereignty in the choice of who He will show mercy towards, and whom He will be gracious towards.
Throughout Scripture, there is a parallel and close relationship between grace and mercy (Ex. 34:6; Joel 2:13; Psalm 86:15; 111:4; 2 Kings 13:23; Isaiah 27:11; 30:18), so we shouldn't see too much distinction here between these two concepts in Ex. 33:19b.
Some have noted the use of the verb racham ("to show mercy") in Lamentations 3:32 and Isaiah 54:8-10 as expressing the idea that God's covenant with His people is the formal grounds for His bestowal of mercy. According to this view, God's chesed (loving kindness or covenant faithfulness, as some interpret the word) is the primary reason why He shows mercy.
Deuteronomy 7:7-9 seems to go against such a conclusion: "It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the Lord set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but it is because the Lord loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the Lord has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. Know therefore that the Lord your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations."
Here, the Old Covenant itself appears to be grounded in God's action primarily, and thus in the freedom of God.
The Glory and Name of the LORD in Relation to Ex. 33:19b
We now come to examine the relationship of Ex. 33:19b with 18-19a: "And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory. And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy."
It is my contention that verse 19b ("I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious....") does not ground the revelation of God's name and glory, but rather is itself the revelation of God's glory and name. I base this on two arguments:
1) There is a similarity in the idem per idem here in Ex. 33 and this same formula as found in Ex. 3:14, where the name of the LORD is revealed to Moses at the burning bush.
2) This same pair of words ("be gracious" and "show mercy") is also found in Exodus 34:6-7, which is undoubtedly an explication of God's nature and character, but also is similar in its language and meaning to Ex. 33:19 as a whole (Abasciano admits the parallel between the two passages, Paul's Use of the Old Testament in Rom. 9.10-18: An Intertextual and Theological Exegesis, pg. 141). The indefiniteness (similar to the idem per idem here) which is used in Ex. 33:19 is also seen when we compare 34:6-7 and 20:5-6.
The similarities here are quite clear. What is also important (and particularly interesting) is the fact that the phrases "those who hate me" and "those who love me and keep my commandments" are removed in Ex. 34:6-7. When the character of God in showing mercy is revealed to Moses in that passage, the character of the objects of God's mercy/wrath is entirely omitted.
These arguments show that Exodus 33:19 (and obviously 34:6-7 as well) functions itself as the revelation of God's glory and name to Moses, rather than being the ground for that revelation.
Apr 9, 2023
Why I Will No Longer Endorse James White
"Some Oneness writers have gone so far as to say, “To say that God is three persons and find substantiation for it in the Scripture is a work in futility. There is literally nothing in the Bible that supports God being three persons.” However, as the Church throughout the ages has seen fit to reject the modalistic presentation, there must obviously be some reason for this. Such reason is found in the teaching of Scripture itself. The Bible presents a number of categories of evidence that demonstrates the existence of three Persons all sharing the one being that is God. First, the Persons are described as personal; that is, the attributes of personhood and personal existence are ascribed to the three. Secondly, clear distinctions are made between the Persons, so that it is impossible to confound or confuse the three. The second Person, the Son, is described as being eternal (as is the Spirit, but in this context, given the denial of the eternal nature of the Son by the Oneness position, and the acceptance of the eternality of the Spirit by the same group, this point is more tangent to the issue) and is differentiated in this pre-existence from the Father. Finally, we see real and eternal relationships between the Persons (the opera ad intra.) One of the characteristics of personal existence is will. Few would argue the point in relationship to the Father, as He obviously has a will. So too, the Son has a will, for he says to the Father in the Garden, “not as I will, but as you will.” (Matthew 26:39) The ascription of will to the Persons indicates the ability to reason, to think, to act, to desire – all those things we associate with self-consciousness. As we shall see later, there is a difference between nature and person, and one of those differences is the will. Inanimate objects do not will; neither do animals. Part of the imago dei is the will itself." (https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/oneness-pentecostalism/the-trinity-the-definition-of-chalcedon-and-oneness-theology/)
James R. White wrote these words in April of 1988. He claims that there are three wills in God, and also that will is a property of person, rather than a property of nature. This also leads to the Monothelite heresy. This is why I no longer endorse Dr. White's debates or his writings, because of statements like this. If the Reformers or Puritans were alive today, they would have condemned White as a heretic. For the past few years, I use to recommend White's materials to people, but I can no longer do that in good conscience due to White's beliefs about the Trinity that are unorthodox.
In a 2011 debate with the Unitarian heretic Roger Perkins, James White openly states (in front of a crowd of people, who think that White is representing the traditional Trinitarian position) that there are three centers of consciousness of God, which also demonstrates White's misunderstanding of what defines divine personhood (the biblical and historically orthodox definition of which is "an individualization of a rational nature", which was adopted by Boethius and Aquinas) and the term hypostasis.
Apr 8, 2023
A Refutation of the Alexandrian Canon Hypothesis
One popular argument made by Roman Catholic apologists and defenders of the Apocrypha is that Jesus and the apostles would have considered these extra books as inspired scripture since they quote from the Septuagint in the New Testament. This argument is, of course, founded on the presupposition that the Septuagint at the time of Christ and prior contained the Apocryphal books. This is very similar to the Alexandrian canon hypothesis, which posits that the Hellenistic Jews of Alexandria (and sometimes the Jews of the Diaspora are included) during the Second-Temple period had a larger canon than the Pharisaic Jews in Palestine/Jerusalem. This argument has a number of problems with it, which will be addressed in detail here.
[1]. We would ask that the Papists define what they mean by the “original” Septuagint. Do they mean at the time of the seventy translators themselves, during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, later during the time of Christ, or somewhere in between? The LXX originally (at the time of Ptolemy II) only included the Law of Moses, if the Letter of Aristeas may be believed in this respect. Lee MacDonald acknowledges this multiple times in his book on the canon (pg. 115), which is again cited below.
[2]. The Alexandrian canon hypothesis (hereafter known as ACH) is based on the assumption that the Jews in the Diaspora (Alexandria itself included) would have looked to Alexandria rather than Jerusalem for knowledge of the canon. In other words, Alexandria, rather than Jerusalem, became the new “Mecca”of Judaism (as Sundberg says in his book The Old Testament of the Early Church [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964]). Philo reports Agrippa as saying “And I am, as you know, a Jew; and Jerusalem is my country, in which there is erected the holy temple of the Most High God….Concerning the holy city I must now say what is necessary. It, as I have already stated, is my native country, and the metropolis, not only of the one country of Judaea, but also of many.” (On the Embassy to Gaius, 36, [trans. C.D. Yonge]). Acts 2:5-13 shows that during the time of Christ, Jerusalem was regarded as the center of Judaism. Therefore, the Diaspora Jews would have followed Jerusalem in the matter of canon (Sundberg, Old Testament, pg. 52).
[3]. Philo and Josephus both used the Septuagint, and yet did not view the Apocryphal books as inspired (this is especially true in the case of Josephus).
[4]. Lee Martin MacDonald (who is oftentimes sympathetic to the Apocryphal books), Hebert Ryle, and F.F. Bruce rightly recognize the noticeable lack of evidence for any separate canon in Alexandria amongst the Hellenistic Jews:
“The biggest problem with the theory of the Alexandrian canon is that there are no lists or collections one can look to in order to see what books comprised it. Pfeiffer himself acknowledged that no one knows what the canon of the Alexandrian and other Diaspora Jews was before the LXX was condemned in Palestine, ca. 130 CE. Long ago E. Reuss concluded that we know nothing about the LXX before the time when the church made extensive use of it. That includes the condition of the text and its form as well as its extent. Another problem with the Alexandrian canon theory is that it has not been shown conclusively that the Alexandrian Jews or the other Jews of the Dispersion were any more likely to adopt other writings as sacred scriptures than were the Jews Palestine in the two centuries BCE and the first century CE. Further, there is no evidence as yet that shows the existence of a different canon of scriptures in Alexandria than in Palestine from the second century BCE to the second century CE….Since the communications between Jerusalem and Alexandria were considered quite good during the first century BCE and CE, it is not certain that either the notion or extent of divine scripture would be strikingly different between the two locations during the period before 70 CE…Although the Jews of the Dispersion were more affected by Hellenism than were the Jews of Palestine, there is little evidence to show that this influence also affected their notion of scripture or the boundaries of their scriptures.” (Lee Martin MacDonald, The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2007], pg. 102)
“The inclusion of the so-called Apocryphal books in the LXX version is sometimes alleged to be a proof, that the Alexandrian Jews acknowledged a wider Canon of Scripture than their Palestinian countrymen. But this is not a legitimate inference. Our copies of the LXX are derived from Christian sources; and all that can certainly be proved from the association of additional books with those of the Hebrew canon, is that these other books found favor with the Christian community. Doubtless, they would not have thus have found favor with the Christians, if they had not also enjoyed high repute among the Jews, from whom they were obtained along with the undoubted books of the Hebrew Canon. The fact, however, that, neither in the writings of Philo, nor in those of Josephus–Jews who both make use of the LXX version–have we any evidence favoring the canonicity of the Apocryphal books, is really conclusive against their having been regarded as Scripture by Greek-speaking Jews before the second century A.D.” (Herbert Edward Ryle, The Canon of the Old Testament [London: MacMillan and CO., 1904], pg. 156)
“It has frequently been suggested that, while the canon of the Palestinian Jews was limited to the twenty-four books of the Law, Prophets and Writings, the canon of the Alexandrian Jews was more comprehensive. There is no evidence that this was so: indeed, there is no evidence that the Alexandrian Jews ever promulgated a canon of scripture.” (F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1988], pgs. 44-45)
[5]. It is true that some of the best extant manuscripts containing the Septuagint include some of the Apocryphal books. These manuscripts are Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Alexandrinus. Each of these codices contain the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, and Sirach. However, there are also important differences between these three LXX manuscripts in terms of what books are included. Specifically, Codex Vaticanus does not contain the books of the Maccabees, Codex Sinaiticus only includes 1 and 4 Maccabees (omitting 2 and 3 Macc.), and Codex Alexandrinus contains all four books of the Maccabees. None of these manuscripts agrees exactly with the Roman Catholic canon that is used today or that was defined by the Council of Trent.
One objection to all of this would be the presence of the Kaige recension, a LXX revision from the 1st century BC that includes the book of Baruch and the three chapters added to Daniel (Song of the Three, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon). However, there is no evidence to suggest that this was universally and uniformly accepted by mainstream Jews, nor that it was used as such by the NT writers (though some of their citations of the LXX in the NT do bear some similarities to it).
Rufinus of Aquileia on the OT Canon
“This then is the Holy Ghost, who in the Old Testament inspired the Law and the Prophets, in the New the Gospels and the Epistles. Whence also the Apostle says, All Scripture given by inspiration of God is profitable for instruction. And therefore it seems proper in this place to enumerate, as we have learned from the tradition of the Fathers, the books of the New and of the Old Testament, which, according to the tradition of our forefathers, are believed to have been inspired by the Holy Ghost, and have been handed down to the Churches of Christ. Of the Old Testament, therefore, first of all there have been handed down five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Then Jesus Nave, (Joshua the Son of Nun), The Book of Judges together with Ruth; then four books of Kings (Reigns), which the Hebrews reckon two; the Book of Omissions, which is entitled the Book of Days (Chronicles), and two books of Ezra (Ezra and Nehemiah), which the Hebrews reckon one, and Esther; of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; moreover of the twelve (minor) Prophets, one book; Job also and the Psalms of David, each one book. Solomon gave three books to the Churches, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles. These comprise the books of the Old Testament. Of the New there are four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; the Acts of the Apostles, written by Luke; fourteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, two of the Apostle Peter, one of James, brother of the Lord and Apostle, one of Jude, three of John, the Revelation of John. These are the books which the Fathers have comprised within the Canon, and from which they would have us deduce the proofs of our faith. But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not Canonical but Ecclesiastical: that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees. In the New Testament the little book which is called the Book of the Pastor of Hermas, [and that] which is called The Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter; all of which they would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they have named Apocrypha. These they would not have read in the Churches.” (Rufinus, Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed, 37-38)
Amphilochius of Iconium and Epiphanius on the OT Canon
Amphilochius of Iconium
Amphilochius is known especially for his close friendship with St. Basil of Caesarea during the fourth century. There is a poem of his, known as the Iambi ad Seleucum, which has survived to the present day (though many used to think it was by Gregory of Nazianzus). The total poem is composed of 340 lines, in which Amphilochius discusses things such as the rule of faith (lines 181-319), and how to live a godly life in the service of Christ (lines 8-180).
“Besides this, it is most important that you know this also: not everything is to be considered certain which offers itself as venerable Scripture. For there are those written by false men—as is sometimes done. As regards books, there are several which are intermediate and near to the doctrine of truth, so to speak, but there are others, however, which are spurious and extremely dangerous, like false seals and spurious coins, which do indeed have the inscription of the king, but which are counterfeit, and made out of base material. On account of this, then, I shall enumerate for you the individual books inspired by the Holy Spirit, and in order that you may know the thing clearly, I will begin with the books of the Old Testament. The Pentateuch contains Genesis, then Exodus, Leviticus, which is the middle book, after that Numbers and finally Deuteronomy. To these add Joshua and Judges; after these Ruth and the four books of Kings, Paralipomenon equal to one book; following these first and second Esdras. Next I will recall to you five books: the book of Job, crowned by the struggles of various calamities; also the book of Psalms, the musical remedy of the soul; the three books of the Wisdom of Solomon, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, and the Canticle of Canticles. I add to these the twelve prophets, first Hosea, then Amos, and after that Michah, Joel, Abdiah, and Jonah, the type of the three days of the Passion, after these Nahum, Habacuc, then the ninth Sophonias, Haggai and Zachariah and the angel with two names, Malachi. After these, know the other prophets thus far to be four: the great and undaunted Isaiah, Jeremiah, inclined to mercy, and the mystic Ezechiel, and Daniel, most wise in the happenings of the Last Things, and some add Esther to these.” (Iambi ad Seleucum, ln. 251-288)
None of Gary Michuta’s usual ways of explaining away canonical lists will work here to serve his purpose. It is obvious that Amphilochius is addressing the Christian canon here, since he is enumerating the books for the purpose of Seleucus being able to know which books are inspired, which leads to the next point: this is most likely an exhaustive canonical list, rather than a descriptive list (categories coined by Michuta). Amphilochius does have an intermediate category of books that are indeed non-canonical but still useful for reading and instruction. He does not specify in any way what books are included in this “middle” category.
Amphilochius’ list is quite close to the Protestant canon, with the possible book of Baruch, which he may have thought was part of the inspired book of Jeremiah, since he cites it in a few places elsewhere in his writings. His view on Esther is a bit ambiguous, but he does seem to clearly place it in the first category of inspired and canonical books, since he does not ever say it spurious or merely “useful for reading”, but not inspired in and of itself.
“Amphilochius's canon list of the books of the Old and New Covenants essentially reflects the contemporary Protestant Bible except for the probable inclusion of Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah, since these works were considered to be from the prophet himself. He did not include any of the deuterocanonical books in his list. Amphilochius drafted his canon list for two purposes: (1) to teach one the useful way of life and how to worship God, and the converse, how to escape from the traps of the world; and (2) to teach which books only appear to bear the king's inscription but actually are forgeries and very unsafe. Amphilochius believed that this exclusive list of books was vital to promoting piety and protecting the church from heresy and therefore he called it 'the most truthful canon of the divinely inspired Scriptures'.” (Gallagher and Meade, The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity: Texts and Analysis, pg. 157)
Epiphanius of Salamis
Epiphanius is an interesting case when it comes to his views on the OT canon, since he includes three different lists throughout his writings (and also a fourth passage which, though it is not a list strictly speaking, is also of value here). These lists disagree with one another on a couple of the books and their canonicity. The lists do, however, agree in numbering the canon of the OT as being composed of twenty-seven books (though Epiphanius notes that the Jews say that there are twenty-two).
The first list of Epiphanius, from Panarion 8.6, is listing the canon of the Jews (at the time of the return from the Babylonian exile), rather than the canon of the Christians (as Michuta rightly states). It is therefore not as relevant as the other three passages are for our discussion here.
It appears to be uncertain whether or not Epiphanius accepted the books of Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon. He explicitly states that they are “useful and beneficial, but they are not offered up to the number of the specified books. Therefore neither were they placed in the ark, that is, in the ark of the covenant” (De mensuris et ponderibus 4-5), but also numbers them among the “divine scriptures” when arguing against the Arian heretic Aetius (Panarion 76.22.5). It is probable that Epiphanius considered the book of Baruch to be canonical, since it is listed as part of Jeremiah in two out of three of his canon lists.
-
This page contains a list of the articles I have written in particular subjects. The page is very big, so I have provided some jump links be...
-
[The following is taken from the Select Disputations , 5:277-339] Before I approach the Problems, I define both the "what" and t...
-
Robert Bellarmine Perhaps one of the best Roman Catholic scholars and apologists in history would be Robert Bellarmine. His tome De Contro...
