Are Church Father Writings a Reliable Guide to the Canonicity of the ‘New Testament’ ?

Gilit Bock and David Ison, Director,Shma-Israel.org

Concerning the authority of the ‘New Testament’, a commonly-stated reason for its superiority over or co-equality with the Hebrew Tenach is that God inspired the ‘church fathers’ to write attestations for it. In this article we evaluate the legitimacy of this doctrine. (Our purpose is to put the Tenach properly at the rosh and to show that the ‘New Testament’ is just testimony concerning the Tenach.)

Persons of Messianic faith, in general, seem to evince a personal creed favouring Protestant tenets over Roman Catholic ones. The reasons for this are varied, but the end result is that most Messianics seem resolved to distance themselves in various ways and forms from the inevitable historicity of the Roman Catholic Church. We, of course, not being Roman Catholic, do not desire to promote doctrines of the Vatican. Instead, we seek to identify the authentic historical rôles played the Papacy and its Bishops, specifically, their influence on the ‘New Testament’ canon. There exists a theory in Protestantism that the Canon of the ‘New Testament’ was not determined by the Roman Catholic Church in its Third Council of Carthage in AD 397, but ostensibly by a process of ‘natural selection’ acting upon the various texts that were circulating in the first and early second-century. To support this idea, it is reasoned that the ‘church fathers’ referred to selected quotations taken from these texts as Scripture.

In Part I of this series1 we proved that, in Ephesians 4:26, the Apostle Paul wrote commentary, or Midrash, on the Hebrew scriptures instead of originating some new commandment. In this article, we show that the ‘church father’ writings can not confer canonicity.

Did the Church Fathers Characterise Apostolic Writings as ‘Scripture’?

One Messianic author states the following, in order to advance the idea that the ‘New Testament’ had already been formed by the end of the first-century: 2

“In his Epistle of Polycarp, chapter 12 we read,

For I trust that ye are well versed in the Sacred Scriptures, and that nothing is hid from you; but to me this privilege is not yet granted. It is declared then in these Scriptures, “Be ye angry, and sin not,” [a quote from Ps. 4:5] and “Let not the sun go down upon our (sic) wrath” [quoted from Eph. 4:26] (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol 1, p. 35).

In this epistle, written about 50 years after the death of John, we see Polycarp juxtaposing with a book from the Hebrew Scriptures and referring to both as the “Sacred Scriptures.” ” 3

HoshanaRabbah.org tells us that Polycarp equated Paul’s epistle with Scripture. Now, in the first place, if you believed that Polycarp’s phrase, “sacris literis” (sacred or esoteric literature) means the Word of God (translated above, albeit incorrectly, as Sacred Scriptures)4, then you would be obliged to admit that Polycarp, according to his own words, is not “well versed” in it. Naturally, it is conundrum to confer ‘church father’ status upon anyone who admits he does not know the Bible! A more reasonable approach is to assume that sacris literis does not connote Holy Scripture, but refers to something else.

Neither Greek nor Latin has an independent term meaning Scripture, to refer exclusively to holy writings. The words translated as Scripture are just ordinary words for “writings, literary collections, pieces of text, or words drawn”. It is left completely to the context or to an associated adjective, such as holy, to contra-distinguish the type of writings. Therefore, the reader must be ready to discern, whenever encountering the term Scripture translated from Latin or Greek, whether the sense Holy Scripture was actually intended. In Polycarp’s reference to the Psalm and to Paul’s epistle, the actual phrase in Latin is given as “Modo, ut his scripturis dictum est ...” The Latin word scriptura, although forming the root of the English word representing exclusively holy writings, in Latin has no such qualification. It means merely, “a piece of writing, composition, a testamentary disposition”. 5 Other English words that are derived from scriptura are manuscript, conscript, postscript, prescription, inscription, and superscription (see Luke 20:24). Even the term script, itself, refers to handwriting in general. Thus, to interpret “It is declared then in these scriptures..” to mean exclusively holy writings depends on an artificially narrow interpretation.

Moreover, the idea proposed by Natan Lawrence of HoshanaRabbah.org, that scripturis means Holy Scriptures in this case, depends, even by his own admission, upon its contextual proximity to the alleged reference to Sacred Scriptures(sacris literis). However, the term used in this expression, literae, is defined as “written monuments, literature, books, literary works”.6 Sacris appears with literis and connotes dedicated (to any god), consecrated (even for pagan purpose)7, in contrast to the Latin sanctus, which is “holy” according to a more Biblical perspective. To prove this, we refer to a pristine specimen of Latin usage from this time period. In Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (AD 405), the word used for holy is sanctus (holy, sacred, pure, just, virtuous).8

Therefore, in order to give the actual sense of Polycarp’s original words,9 the translation ought to read, “For I trust that you are well-versed in the esoteric literature and nothing is hidden from you; as for me, however, it is not granted (Confido enim vos bene exercitatos esse in sacris literis et nihil vos latet; mihi autem non est concessum)”. To comprehend this corrected reading we must understand that idolatry and occult worship were a routine part of the Corinthian culture, and the tendency of some in the Christian community to be drawn toward those practices is even discernible in Paul’s epistles.10 If then, Polycarp says they are “well-acquainted with the sacris literis” (esoteric literature, in this context), then it is completely reasonable that he should say its hidden mysteries and illuminations were not granted to him. After this statement, he appeals to a different set of writings, quoting the Psalm and Paul’s Midrash of Torah in Ephesians 4:26.11 In summary, because scripturis properly means writings and because sacris literis means anything but holy in the manner that Polycarp used it, the assumption that he designated Paul’s words as Holy Scripture is completely meritless.

Next, the author lists the following ways in which the ‘church fathers’ have ostensibly characterised ‘New Testament’ writings as Scripture. This is in an apparent hope that by appealing to the church fathers’ endorsement as such, he can prove these writings are on equal par with the Hebrew Tenach: 12

• The Scriptures; or after the example Fathers [sic], the Book (Papias, chap. 1)
• The New Testament (Origen [185-254 A.D.], as quoted by Eusebius, Ecc. Hist. 6.25)
• The Divine Instrument (Tertullian [150-220 A.D.] adv. Marcion, 5.13)
• The Sacred Digest (Ibid., 4.13)
• The Divine Oracles; or again, the Evangelist and the Apostles (Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7 pp. 706,757; Ignatius, Epis. to the Philad. chap. 5; Epis. to Dignet. chap 11; Justin Martyr, Great Apol. chap. 67; Tertullian, de Graec. Script. chap. 36; Apol. chap. 39; Hippolitus the Martyr, on Antichrist, chap. 58); after the example of [Messiah], who called the Old Testament ‘the Law and the Prophets’

Given in this list are some cryptic terms which, even if their usage could be indisputably connected to ‘New Testament’ books, would nonetheless fade into oblivion as to their intended characterisation of the books. Such spurious and uncertain allusions to writings can hardly be construed as unequivocal endorsement for canonisation. Notwithstanding this fact, we undertook to scrutinise each of the examples cited as evidence above, not only in English translations but also in their original Greek and Latin. The results were astonishing.

(1)the Book(Papias, chap. 1)

The only existing writings of Papias are the few fragments of his “An Exposition of the Lord’s Reports” (c. AD 125) which remain in quotations by other ‘church fathers’. Among these, a singular reference to books is quoted by both Eusebius and Jerome. Papias recounts that his habit was to search out persons that could tell him what the Apostles or Presbyters said, “For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice.”. 13 His assessment of the books hardly reflects the way one should esteem what he considered to be Holy Scripture. Moreover, the word translated book is the Greek βιβλιος (Eusebius) or the Latin libri (Jerome), both of which are the common word for any type of book, sans qualifying adjective. In summary, contrary to HoshanaRabbah.org’s claim, the phrase the Scriptures is not found anywhere in these fragments; moreover, the reference to books has no connotation as Scripture.

(2) The New Testament; Origen (AD 185-254; as quoted by Eusebius, Ecc. Hist. 6.25 )

The only place in this chapter of Eusebius that the words New Testament appear is as follows:

“7. In the fifth book of his Expositions of John’s Gospel, he [Origen] speaks thus concerning the epistles of the apostles: “But he who was ‘made sufficient to be a minister of the New Testament, not of the letter, but of the Spirit’, that is, Paul, who ‘fully preached the Gospel from Jerusalem and round about even unto Illyricum,’ did not write to all the churches which he had instructed and to those to which he wrote he sent but few lines.” ” 1415

The words ‘New Testament’ appear exclusively in a quote of one of Paul’s epistles (2 Corinthians 3:6), here given for the purpose of identifying the apostle. Origen makes a statement about the extent of Paul’s writings, but nowhere labels them as ‘New Testament’. The quoted verse itself states that the ‘New Testament’ (καινης διαθηκης) is that to which Paul is a servant(διακονους). The more logical assumption is that he is a servant of the ‘new covenant’ rather than of a set of books, a fact which is overwhelmingly recognised by 19th through 21st-century Bible translators. 16 Moreover, F. F. Bruce, a much-quoted scholar on the subject of ‘New Testament’ canonisation, and a proponent of the Protestant point of view, states categorically that this chapter of 2 Corinthians is not referring to a canon of scripture, saying,

“... but the existence of books of the old covenant does not demand the existence of books of the new covenant. Paul, in 2 Corinthians 3:14, speaks of ‘the reading of the old covenant’, meaning the reading of the law in the synagogue services, but while he speaks in the same context of the new covenant which supersedes the old, there can be at that stage no ‘reading of the new covenant’, except in so far as the law and the prophets can be read in the light of their fulfilment in the gospel. Paul indeed contrasts the written text of the old covenant with the unwritten form of the new covenant ...” (italics in original) 17

Additionally, if it is a canon of scripture to which Origen refers, then there is a menacing problem for those using this statement as proof of its early establishment. Origen is also quoted in this chapter as saying that Paul wrote but “few lines” and that a second epistle of Peter is “doubtful”. The only other writings acknowledged by him are four gospels: one by Matthew (which he says was “written in the Hebrew language”), and the others by Mark, Luke, and John; one epistle of John (for of the other two it is said that “not all consider them genuine”); and an epistle to the Hebrews.18 This is quite an abbreviated “canon”, meaning that it was not fully formed by the middle of the third century. Aside from this, we reiterate that he does not ever label Paul’s writings ‘the New Testament’, as claimed by HoshanaRabbah.org.

(3) The Divine Instrument ; Tertullian (AD 150-220, Adv. Marcion, 5.13)

We were unable to find any reference to divine instrument in Tertullian’s Adversus Marcion, 5.13. In this text, the Latin instrumentum appears once, in the passage, “Quantas autem foveas in ista vel maxime epistula Marcion fecerit, auferendo quae voluit, de nostri instrumenti integritate parebit”, translated as “But what serious gaps Marcion has made in this epistle especially, by withdrawing whole passages at his will, will be clear from the unmutilated text of our own copy”. He writes concerning Paul’s epistle to the Romans, and calls it simply epistula, a written communication, a letter. He says the excisions made by Marcion can be verified by comparison to “nostri instrumenti”, or, the one at our disposal. Nostri is the Latin our; it is not divine. Moreover, throughout this chapter, in reference to Paul’s letter to the Romans, Tertullian invariably references only what the “apostle” says. This he does without denoting the words as Scripture. There is no indication that he considered these words as anything more than valuable testimony of an apostle.

Tertullian does use the word instrumentum in Adversus Marcion 4.1, as follows:

“... [Marcion] has contrived a sort of dowry, a work entitled Antitheses because of its juxtaposition of opposites, a work strained into making such a division between the Law and the Gospel as thereby to make two separate gods, opposite to each other, one belonging to one instrument (or, as it is more usual to say, testament), one to the other, and thus lend its patronage to faith in another gospel, that according to the Antitheses. ... for the new testament is made very concise, and is disentangled from the intricate burdens of the law. ... And in another place: Behold, the days will come, saith the Lord, when I will make for the house of Jacob and the house of Judah a new testament, not according to the testament which I ordained for their fathers in the day upon which I took to me the ordaining of them, so as to bring them out from the land of Egypt. Thus he indicates that the original testament was temporary, since he declares it changeable, at the same time as he promises an eternal testament for the future. For by Isaiah he says: Hearken to me and ye shall live, and I will ordain for you an eternal testament, ...” 19

We have included a rather extensive passage here in order to show that the context of these statements gives no other meaning to the word instrumentum or testamentum than that of “covenant”. It is made exquisitely clear by Tertullian’s quote 20 of Jeremiah 31:31-32 that he is not speaking of any body of writing, but rather of ‘old’ and ‘new’ covenants. Even so, respected scholars such as F. F. Bruce have attempted to use this passage to advance their conjecture that Tertullian was the first ‘church father’ to use the term ‘New Testament’ in reference to a canon of Apostolic Scripture. 21 This is non-sequitur. Even his use of the term Gospel here could be construed as referring to a body of literature, if taken sufficiently out of context. But we must note that in the same paragraph, Tertullian uses the identical word no fewer than three times to refer to the teachings of Marcion (the words Law and Gospel are not capitalised in the original Latin) 22. We are sure that F. F. Bruce and others have not claimed that there is a Gospel of Marcion in the ‘New Testament’ canon.

HoshanaRabbah.org alleges that Tertullian equated Paul’s epistle to a Divine Instrument. However, no such phrase exists in the passage referenced. This, taken together with the other difficulty, namely that Tertullian elsewhere uses instrument to refer to covenant, and not a collection of books, shows that the allegation as it is given is completely invalid.

(4) The Sacred Digest; Tertullian (AD 150-220, Adv. Marcion, 4.13)

Similarly, we were unable to locate sacred digest anywhere in Tertullian’s Adversus Marcion, 4.13, nor do the words sacred and digest appear together in the whole of the third volume of Schaff’s Ante-Nicene Fathers. 23 The only use of the Latin sanctus in chapter 13 is in a quote from Psalm 3:4, “and He heard me out of His holy mountain”.

The phrase sacram ecclesiae vestem does appear, but it is impossible that it is sacred digest. Instead, it is speaking of a sacred garment. Tertullian attempts to explain why there are twelve apostles and compares them to the twelve gems of Aaron’s vestment, “as if they [the twelve apostles] were to be gems to shed lustre upon the church’s sacred robe, which Christ, the High Priest of the Father, puts on ...”. 24 He is not speaking of any ‘New Testament’ writings in this passage.

(5) The Divine Oracles; or again, the Evangelist and the Apostles (Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7 pp. 706,757; Ignatius, Epis. to the Philad. chap. 5; Epis. to Dignet. chap 11; Justin Martyr, Great Apol. chap. 67; Tertullian, de Graec. Script. chap. 36; Apol. chap. 39; Hippolitus the Martyr, On Antichrist, chap. 58); after the example of [Messiah], who called the Old Testament ‘the Law and the Prophets’.

As to utilisation of the term “divine oracles” by Clement of Alexandria (late second century) to refer to the writings of the ‘New Testament’, we discover the phrase twice in his work, The Stromata. One is:

“If, then, according to Plato, it is only possible to learn the truth either from God or from the progeny of God, with reason we, selecting testimonies from the divine oracles, boast of learning the truth by the Son of God, prophesied at first, and then explained.” 25

The phrase “prophesied at first, and then explained”, suggests two possibilities for the identity of what he terms divine oracles: the prophets of the Hebrew scriptures or the writings which reveal the coming and preaching of the Son of God. This can be unambiguously resolved by the author’s previous use of the term,

“ ‘For not unjustly,’ say the divine oracles, ‘are the nets spread for birds; for they who are accomplices in blood treasure up evils to themselves.’ ” 26

This is a quote of Psalm 1:17-18, albeit a Septuagint reading which differs from the Hebrew. So, we see that in both instances Clement has spoken of divine oracles in the context of the Hebrew scriptures, and do not find the term used in instances in which he is referring to the ‘New Testament’ writings alone, either in this text or in the remainder of his compilations. Therefore, this cannot be stated as any proof that the ‘church fathers’ considered the ‘New Testament’ writings as Scripture.

It is also said that the ‘New Testament’ writings were referred to by Ignatius as the “Evangelist and the Apostles”. However, the only reference to apostles(αποστολοις) by Ignatius in his Epistle to the Philadelphians, Chapter 5, is the following:

... while I flee to the Gospel as to the flesh of Jesus, and to the apostles as to the presbytery of the Church. And let us also love the prophets, because they too have proclaimed the Gospel, and placed their hope in Him, and waited for Him;...” 27

It is clear from the context that Ignatius is making reference to the apostles as persons (the presbytery of the Church) and not as a term for their writings. Likewise the word Gospel is used in the sense of the message of the good news, not the books currently called by that name, else he could not say that the prophets proclaimed the Gospel. It must be noted that there is also a longer version of this chapter, as indeed there exists for each of the seven Ignatius epistles that are accepted as genuine. The longer versions are generally considered to be spurious and yet the shorter are not to be deemed as “absolutely free from interpolations” nor of “undoubted authenticity”. 28 Even allowing references from the clouded longer version, it states the following:

For there is one God of the Old and New Testament, “one Mediator between God and men,” for the creation of both intelligent and sensitive beings, and in order to exercise a beneficial and suitable providence [over them]. There is also one Comforter, who displayed His power in Moses, and the prophets, and apostles. All the saints, therefore, were saved by Christ, ... 29

Again, we direct the reader to the fact that the Greek διαθηκη (diatheke) is properly interpreted as covenant, rather than testament, so that the correct translation is that there is one God of the “old and new covenant”. But our attention is drawn here to the use of the word apostles, since this is purported to be a reference to the “New Testament”. The author of the spurious epistle alludes to the Comforter displaying power in Moses, the prophets, and the apostles, and follows this with the conclusion, “All the saints, therefore, were saved by Christ...”. There is no mistaking that the context itself limits the sense of apostles to actual persons, saints according to the author, eliminating its use as a synonym for “New Testament writings”.

Next, the unnamed author sometimes referred to as Mathetes (disciple), is said to have used the term the Evangelist and the Apostles to refer to the ‘New Testament’ writings in his Epistle to Diognetus. The term Evangelist does not appear. There are three instances of the term Apostles, as follows:

“... but having been a disciple of theApostles, I am become a teacher of the Gentiles. ... and He [the Word], being despised by the people [of the Jews], was, when preached by the Apostles, believed on by the Gentiles. ... Then the fear of the law is chanted, and the grace of the prophets is known, and the faith of the gospels is established, and the tradition of the Apostles is preserved, and the grace of the Church exults; which grace if you grieve not, you shall know those things which the Word teaches, by whom He wills, and when He pleases.30

The first two instances are plainly references to persons. The third speaks of the tradition of the Apostles being preserved. It is not stated how this is accomplished. To assign this as a reference to a “set of scriptures” requires a unique interpretation. It should be noted that the final conclusion of this lofty sentence is that it is the grace of the Church (not any written document) that is the instrument by which one shall know what the Word [Yeshua] teaches. Thus, this passage is more an endorsement of the Roman Catholic Magisterium 31 than of the ‘New Testament’ .

Another instance of a ‘church father’ said to have referred to the Apostles in a context suggesting the meaning of Scripture is Justin Martyr in his Great (or First) Apology. In Chapter 67 we find one instance of the word Apostles:

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; ...

In this chapter Justin Martyr is chronicling the weekly activity of the “church”. He says that on the day dedicated to the Sun,32 they met together to partake of the Eucharist 33 and also they read from the writings of the prophets and the memoirs of the apostles. The word used to refer to the writings of the prophets is συγγραμματα(sugrammata), meaning a body of literature. However, the word used in relation to the apostles’ writings, απομνημονευματα(apomnemoneumata), means specifically something recounted or related from memory.34 If indeed, by the time of Justin Martyr (AD 150), a canon of ‘New Testament’ writings was already determined, recognised and, in effect, finalised, would this not have been the perfect opportunity for him to utilise the proper name for these “New Testament Scriptures”? Why does he, instead, refer to them as recollections, reverberations, or testimonies of the apostles, as distinct from the body of literature of the prophets? By delineating the writings of the prophets from the memoirs of the apostles, a differentiation, or contrast is made between them, rather than the proposed correlation of the Apostles as equating to Scripture.

In regard to the next two references: Tertullian, de Graec. Script. chap. 36: we were unable to identify any writing by Tertullian bearing this title, nor anything documented as being to or about the Greeks or Greek writings (or scriptures). Apol. chap. 39: Tertullian’s Apologetics, chapter 39 does not contain the word Evangelist nor Apostles, being instead a treatise on the “peculiarities of Christian Society”. 35

Lastly, Hippolytus (early third century ) in his Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, Chapter 58, uses the term Apostles once, in the following discourse with a decidedly anti-Semitic demeanour:

They did slide, therefore, in all things, as they were found to be in harmony with the truth in nothing: neither as concerns the law, because they became transgressors; nor as concerns the prophets, because they cut off even the prophets themselves; nor as concerns the voice of the Gospels, because they crucified the Saviour Himself; nor in believing the apostles, because they persecuted them. At all times they showed themselves enemies and betrayers of the truth, and were found to be haters of God, and not lovers of Him; and such they shall be then when they find opportunity: for, rousing themselves against the servants of God, they will seek to obtain vengeance by the hand of a mortal man. (emphasis added)

Since it is said “nor in believing the apostles, because they persecuted them”, it is evident that, once again, the word apostles is utilised in terms of persons, not writings. That is, unless one accepts that Hippolytus is referring to the Jewish people persecuting the writings of the Apostles and not the Apostles themselves, which is absurd.

Conclusion

We have investigated each of these proposed proofs that the ‘church fathers’ referred to the writings of the apostles in such a manner as to make veiled allusions to their being an accepted collection of ‘New Testament’ writings having the same authority as the Tenach. The results fell into only three categories: (1) the reference cited either did not exist at all, or the words referenced were absent from the cited writing, (2) the words referenced, in context, either did not have the meaning that the author had ascribed to them or had exactly the opposite meaning, or (3) the words referenced, in context, were sufficiently vague as to be useless as any proof of the author’s contention. We were frankly incredulous that not one of these references proved to establish the connection that was claimed. In summary, if this is the best evidence that can be presented that the ‘church fathers’ affirmed the “New Testament’s” authority, then the only reasonable conclusion is that they did not and had nothing whatsoever to do with this process.

With respect to the ‘New Testament’ canon, Messianics and Protestants alike are desirous to prove that the ‘church fathers’ established and formed its authority, in order to preclude the possibility of it having been accomplished by the Roman Catholic Magisterium 36 in AD 397. The picture they would have us to believe is that these Bishops acted as ‘robed stenographers’ who merely reported on what had already been a fait accompli for many decades. The evidence we have herein examined makes no such case. However, even if this were the case, one would also be compelled to think that the ‘church fathers’ were not agents of the Roman Catholic Church, and that Roman Catholic history does not extend earlier than the beginning of the fourth-century, in order to argue that ‘New Testament’ authority was not conferred by the Holy See.

The Significance of ‘Church Father’ References to Other Writings

A fundamental tenet of the logic employed by HoshanaRabbah.org and others is that an endorsement by church fathers produces Holy Scripture. Applying that standard, then, we would be obliged to accept other writings which they endorsed but which were subsequently rejected by the Bishops’ Council of Carthage in AD 397. Proponents of the idea that the “New Testament” canon formed outside of the influence of the Catholic Church shrewdly omit the numerous references by the church fathers to such works as the Epistle of Clement of Rome, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Epistle of Polycarp, and the Apocryphal books. They recite certain quotations from ‘church father’ writings that conform to the finalised canon, and exclude other ones, in order to create the impression that the ‘church fathers’ only valued the same books that were eventually accorded canonical status.

Scholarly writers, such as F. F. Bruce, will admit that there exist references to other literature, but rely upon a flexible definition of writings to make this artificial distinction. They say that the ‘New Testament’ passages are referred to as scripture, whereas the other literature is simply termed writings. But, as we have shown, the Greek word graphe and the Latin scriptura are words that mean writing and nothing more in their original form. Some translators of ‘church father’ documents have, without any express indication in the original, assigned a meaning of Scripture when the ‘father’ refers to a “New Testament” piece and writing whenever the text refers to something else. This sort of misleading practice is unacceptable under secular rules of academic honesty and all the more reprehensible when done by those who profess to love the truth.

In relation to ‘church father’ references to other writings, Origen (AD 230-254) cited several writings of other ‘church fathers’. “Four times he quotes from Clement of Rome’s 1 Epistle, and three times from the Epistle of Barnabas”, according to Metzger.37 “He makes numerous references to the Shepherd of Hermas, and on one occasion, in his later years, he describes it as ‘a work which seems to me very useful, and, as I believe, divinely inspired’ (Comm. in Rom. x. 31, written about 244-6)”. 38 Furthermore, in one instance Origen refers to the Epistle of Barnabas by the term τη Βαρναβα καθολικη επιστολη (Barnabas’ Catholic, or General Epistle), and does not differentiate its status from that of ‘New Testament’ books mentioned in the same passage,39

Now in the general Epistle of Barnabas, from which perhaps Celsus took the statement that the apostles were notoriously wicked men, it is recorded that “Jesus selected His own apostles, as persons who were more guilty of sin than all other evildoers.” And in the Gospel according to Luke, Peter says to Jesus, “Depart from me, O Lord, for I am a sinful man.” Moreover, Paul, who himself also at a later time became an apostle of Jesus, says in his Epistle to Timothy, “This is a faithful saying, that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the chief.” [emphasis added]

Irenaeus (AD 120-202) also cited works as authoritative which are not included in the ‘New Testament’ canon. In his voluminous Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies), he demonstrates a high esteem for the First Epistle of Clement. Irenaeus begins Chapter II making the argument that heretics follow neither Scripture nor tradition,

“When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures (Scripturis),40 they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures (Scripturarum), as if they were not correct, nor of authority...” 41

He proceeds, in Chapter III, to demonstrate the authority of writings (scriptura), by tracing apostolic succession (which concords exactly with the doctrine of Papal succession claimed by the Roman Catholic Church 42),

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. ...

In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, ... From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. [emphasis added]

This is a perfect example of selective translation. Scriptura43 is translated document, since it is known, post facto, that this scriptura was not afterward declared to be Scripture. However, Irenaeus refers to this Epistle of Clement within a context of establishing the authority and authenticity of the Scriptures (writings) by which one would refute heresies. Irenaeus continues in this vein, moving to the writings of another ‘church father’,

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. ... There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. [emphasis added] 44

Irenaeus says that Polycarp, in his Epistle and always, taught those things which were handed down by the Church and which alone are true. Of these words, we can say in earnest that Irenaeus actually advocates potentiorem principalitatem45 (the pre-eminent authority) of the Roman Church (Magisterium).46 This he summons with no direct reference to any books of the Bible. Nevertheless, this passage is more persuasive testimony that the writings of Clement and Polycarp merit designation as authoritative, and thus Scripture, than anything we have seen of the alleged categorisations of ‘New Testament’ writings to be Scripture by the ‘Church Fathers’. This means that if the Church fathers intended to characterise anything as inspired literature, it took place in this passage, as Irenaeus states definitively that Clement of Rome stands nobly ready to defend the Traditions of the Apostles. Clement, whom he places in this work together with Polycarp, precedes even the writings of the ‘New Testament’ canon itself, for the purposes of his appeal. He presents their epistles as the strong tower of faith by which heretical instruction should be overcome. How can this be considered anything less than an endorsement of inspiration of the highest magnitude, for a collection of writings that today finds no place in the ‘New Testament’ canon?

Later, Irenaeus quotes from another ‘church father’,

Truly, then, the Scripture declared, which says, “First of all believe that there is one God, who has established all things, and completed them, and having caused that from what had no being, all things should come into existence:” He who contains all things, and is Himself contained by no one. Rightly also has Malachi said among the prophets: “Is it not one God who hath established us? Have we not all one Father?” In accordance with this, too, does the apostle say, “There is one God, the Father, who is above all, and in us all. Likewise does the Lord also say: “All things are delivered to Me by My Father; [italics added] 47

The first quote, in italics above, is from the Shepherd of Hermas.48 It is introduced as scriptura,  49 which this time the translator does render as Scripture. Of greater significance is that this reference is followed by excerpts from the prophet Malachi (Malachi 2:10), the apostle Paul (Ephesians 4:6) and the words of Yeshua (Matthew 11:27). There is no qualification made as to the relative authoritativeness of these four sources; each being placed on at least an equal estimation by the wording of the paragraph. If one accepts the premise that juxtaposition of textual quotations along with Tenach references, and labelling as scriptura equates to an endorsement of a writing as Scripture, then by that same measure, the Shepherd of Hermas should have been included in the canon.

And finally, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas do appear as part of the oldest existing ‘New Testament’ manuscript, the Codex Siniaticus, which was written between AD 330-350. HoshanaRabbah says that the ‘New Testament’ canon was settled before the first or early-second century by the apostles themselves or the consensus of the ‘church fathers’. How is it then, that in this codex, two books appear that are notpart of that settled collection? Does the evidence actually support the idea that the contents of the canon were well-recognised and their knowledge widespread? Or, does it not, in fact, tell us what all the other evidence has thus far told us, that no single, established canon of ‘New Testament’ writings existed until the final determination was made at the end of the fourth century?

Extending the scope of our analysis to ‘Old Testament’ period, we encounter further difficulty in relation to the Apocryphal books. Protestants do not accept these as part of the canon, but they were recognised and accepted in the finalised canon of AD 397. The ‘church fathers’ routinely quote from these books alongside the Tenach and the canonical ‘New Testament’ books, without qualification. Clement of Rome quotes from the books of Wisdom, and Judith; Polycarp from Tobit; Ignatius (longer version) from Susanna; Irenaeus from Wisdom, Baruch, Sirach and Susanna. The Epistle of Barnabas quotes Wisdom alongside the Tenach; as does the Shepherd of Hermas from Tobit and Sirach; Clement of Alexandria from Judith, Tobit, Wisdom, and Baruch (calling each Scripture)50, and Sirach. Tertullian quotes from Tobit, Wisdom, Baruch, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon. Origin devotes an entire letter (to Africanus) to defending the Apocryphal books, especially Susanna, appeals to 2 Maccabees as the authority of holy Scripture,51 and terms Sirach, holy Scripture.5253

If we examine any copy of the Bible today (Catholic Bibles excepted), we will find that it contains 66 books from Genesis to Revelation, that are believed to be the in-errant word of God. How is it, then, that the ‘church fathers’ form a reliable guide to what constitutes Scripture, since they say the Apocryphal books are Scripture, which are not in our Bibles? The only way this could be is that the books were authoritative, and someone removed them, or they never were authoritative and the ‘church fathers’, because they endorsed them,are not reliable guides of canonicity at all. So, which is the case?

It has been said that the Protestant Canon of the ‘New Testament’ was fashioned by means of the authority conferred to each of its books by the ‘church fathers’. Later, according to this belief, the Roman Catholic Church merely formalised this compendium. The Apocryphal books underwent precisely the same process: first, they were cited as holy Scripture by the ‘church fathers’ and later designated formally as part of the Biblical canon by the Catholic Church in AD 397. This circumstance presents the following dilemma. If it is a sin to question the books of the ‘New Testament’ canon today, why is it not heresy that the Protestants have removed the Apocryphal books from the Bible?

It will be said by non-Catholics that the reasons for the removal of the Apocrypha are substantial, if not overwhelming. The reasons given will be that the contents of these books disagree with some dearly-held doctrinal tenets, and by this it is deemed justifiable to remove them. HoshanaRabbah questioned both the motives and the purpose of Messianic elders who voiced their suspicions about a ‘New Testament’ book, condemning their inquiry in the strongest of terms. And yet, from its opening paragraphs, HoshanaRabbah.org’s exposition celebrates the Bible’s current contents (66 books without Apocrypha) not realising that, by so doing, it endorses the same distrust for once-canonical books that it also condemns. In effect, if the Reformers removed the Apocrypha, that is acceptable to HoshanaRabbah. However, if Monte Judah, or any other Messianic leader, raises genuine concerns about the canonicity of the Book of Hebrews, citing Torah-based, dearly-held, doctrinal tenets, that, we are told, could send one to perdition.

In this document, we have endeavoured to show that the ‘church fathers’ were no certain guide to the authority or canonicity of the books of the ‘New Testament’. And we trust that, by this time, we have cast significant doubt upon that notion. We have examined each of the claims that have been set forth by HoshanaRabbah and others suggesting that the ‘church fathers’ referred to the books of the ‘New Testament’ canon as Scripture. Of the references in this list that actually existed as cited, the words in their original language, evaluated in context, were not found to unambiguously attribute Scriptural authority to anything. Furthermore, we presented instances of the ‘church fathers’ referring to non-canonical books in terms that more persuasively characterised these extra-biblical writings as authoritative than anything in the present canon. Lastly, we demonstrated that the ‘church fathers’ routinely referred to the historically-canonical Apocryphal books, which were inserted by the Roman Catholic Church but are rejected by Protestants, as authoritative, and even as holy Scripture. Having shown that the ‘church fathers’ were not reliable arbitors of canonicity, this question arises: Is it proper under any circumstances at all to re-examine the Roman Catholic-recognised compendium made in AD 397? 54

Appendix A: The Meaning of the Latin word “Sacris”

‘Sacris’ comes from the root ‘sacer’. The Elementary Latin Dictionary of Lewis provides the following entry:

sacer cra, crum, adj. with sup. 1 SAC-, dedicated, consecrated, devoted, sacred: aedes: aedificia: locus: iura sacerrima lecti, O.: luctus late, V.: aurum, L.: tus, O.: ales (as regarded in augury), V.: tempus, H.: commissum, a crime against religion: vitis (sacred to Bacchus), H.: robur, O.: aqua, H.: fontes, V.: sacer interpresque deorum Orpheus, H.: sacro Dianae celebris die, H.: terra sacra deorum est: Sacra Iovi quercus, O.: Cereri Polyphoetes, V.: mensis Manibus, O. — As nom prop.: legiones in Sacrum montem secessisse, to the Sacred mount (on the right bank of the Anio, three miles from Rome), L.: Sacra via, Holy street (between the Forum and the Capitol): Ibam forte viā Sacrā, H. — Regarded with reverence, holy, awful, venerable: silentium, H.; cf. ut sacrosancti habeantur, quibus ipsi dii neque sacri neque sancti sunt, L. — Devoted, forfeited, accursed, given over: sacer esto, H.: eum, qui cuiquam nocuerit, sacrum sanciri, L.: ut eius caput Iovi sacrum esset, L. — Accursed, execrable, detestable, horrible, infamous: Auri fames, V.: Remi Sacer nepotibus cruor, H.

A perusal of these examples where the word is found in literature reveals that it is used in reference to augury (divination) and to pagan deities such as Bacchus, Orpheus, Diana, Iovi (Jove, Jupiter), and Polypoites. Sample usage of sacer, from the definition above: sacer interpresque deorum Orpheus, “Orpheus, sacred [one] and medium of the gods”; sacro Dianae celebris die, “the celebrated, sacred day of Diana”; terra sacra deorum est: Sacra Iovi quercus, “Earth is sacred of the gods: the oak leaves are sacred to Jupiter”. This is why we say esoteric literature instead of sacred scripture in the translation of Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians.

Appendix B: Latin Versus Greek in Church Father Writings

Concerning the Epistle of Polycarp: Each of the Greek manuscripts, which are known to exist today, ends at chapter nine; therefore, “most” of chapters 10-14 are known from manuscripts in Latin. All but the last sentence of chapter 13 is quoted in Greek by Eusebius, however Schaff deems there to be “considerable force” to arguments contending that this chapter has been “interpolated”. 55

Adversus Haereses by Irenaeus exists also in Latin, as opposed to Greek manuscripts. A Greek version survives exclusively in quotations by Hippolytus and Epiphanius. The Latin version is attested in the writings of Tertullian, which dates it to the early third-century or prior. 56

Appendix C: The Roman Catholic Magisterium

The Roman Catholic Magisterium has been cited as the authority demonstrated by the words of the ‘church fathers’. For those having no background in Roman Catholic doctrine, this is a foreign term. Therefore, it is impossible to recognise, in the writings of the ‘church fathers’, the principle of Christian authority resting in the traditions and declarations of the ‘church’ rather than in Scripture. Here we present illustrative excerpts from The Catholic Encyclopedia in order to define this important historical reality.

Is all revealed truth consigned to Holy Scripture? or can it, must it, be admitted that Christ gave to His Apostles to be transmitted to His Church, that the Apostles received either from the very lips of Jesus or from inspiration or Revelation, Divine instructions which they transmitted to the Church and which were not committed to the inspired writings? Must it be admitted that Christ instituted His Church as the official and authentic organ to transmit and explain in virtue of Divine authority the Revelation made to men? The Protestant principle is: The Bible and nothing but the Bible; the Bible, according to them, is the sole theological source; there are no revealed truths save the truths contained in the Bible; according to them the Bible is the sole rule of faith: by it and by it alone should all dogmatic questions be solved; it is the only binding authority. Catholics, on the other hand, hold that there may be, that there is in fact, and that there must of necessity be certain revealed truths apart from those contained in the Bible; they hold furthermore that Jesus Christ has established in fact, and that to adapt the means to the end He should have established, a living organ as much to transmit Scripture and written Revelation as to place revealed truth within reach of everyone always and everywhere.

Holy Scripture is therefore not the only theological source of the Revelation made by God to His Church. Side by side with Scripture there is tradition, side by side with the written revelation there is the oral revelation. This granted, it is impossible to be satisfied with the Bible alone for the solution of all dogmatic questions. ... There is not, in fact, any sufficient guarantee for the canon of the Scriptures, for the total inspiration or inerrancy of the Bible, save in a Divine testimony which, not being contained in the Holy Books with sufficient clearness and amplitude, nor being sufficiently recognizable to the scrutiny of a scholar who is only a scholar, does not reach us with the necessary warrant it would bear if brought by a Divinely assisted authority, as is, according to Catholics, the authority of the living magisterium of the Church.

...the same texts which show us Christ instituting His Church and the Apostles founding Churches and spreading Christ's doctrine throughout the world show us at the same time the Church instituted as a teaching authority; the Apostles claimed for themselves this authority, sending others as they had been sent by Christ and as Christ had been sent by God, always with power to teach and to impose doctrine as well as to govern the Church and to baptize. Whoever believed them would be saved; whoever refused to believe them would be condemned. It is the living Church and not Scripture that St. Paul indicates as the pillar and the unshakable ground of truth. ... Someone must bring [the Bible] within reach and no matter what be done the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities between the word of God and his reading. ...the Apostles and consequently their successors have the right to impose their doctrine; whosoever refuses to believe them shall be condemned, whosoever rejects anything is shipwrecked in the Faith. [emphasis added] 57

Appendix D: Reference to Catholic Magisterium in Irenaeus’ Adversus Haereses

Although portions of this book have been reconstructed from other ‘church father’ writings, the complete text is available only in Latin.

In paragraph 1, Chapter III, Book III of Irenaeus’ Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies) it says:

Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his, qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quae est ab Apostolis traditio. (emphasis added)

translation:

For it is imperative that every church should consent to this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by the [faithful traditions] that everywhere exist. (emphasis added)

Church is given here by Ecclesiam, which is capitalised in the original text. Church, thus, is a proper noun because it refers to the Magisterium, i.e., that which was instituted by Christ and delegated to his apostles. This is sometimes referred to as apostolic tradition or rule of faith passed down from the apostles.

Found within the same chapter, two paragraphs later,

Et Polycarpus...haec docuit semper quae ab Apostolis didicerat, quae et Ecclesiae tradidit, et sola sunt vera...

translation:

But Polycarp... having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. ... (as we quoted in this article)

Appendix E: Discernible Proclivity toward Idolatry in I Corinthians 8:7

Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. I Corinthians 8:7, KJV

This passage is translated incorrectly. The original text of this passage is

αλλ ουκ εν πασιν η γνωσις τινες δε τη συνηθεια εως αρτι του ειδωλου ως ειδωλοθυτον εσθιουσιν και η συνειδησις αυτων ασθενης ουσα μολυνεταιWescott-Hort 1881 Greek New Testament

One problem is with the term ασθενης (asthenes). The Gingrich Greek Lexicon gives various meanings, such as weak, bodily sick or ill, or unimpressive.

In the Hebrew version of this verse, it reads

אַךְ לֹא כֻלָּם קָנוּ הַדַּעַת הַזֹּאת כִּי־יֵשׁ אֲשֶׁר לִבָּם פֹּנֶה אֶל־אֱלִילִים עַד־הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה וְאֹכְלִים מִזִּבְחָם אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיבוּ לֶאֱלִיל עַד־אֲשֶׁר לִבָּם הַנָּבוּב יִטַּמָּא
Salkinson-Ginsburg Hebrew New Testament, 1886

The idea conveyed in the Hebrew says,

“Yet, not everyone has this knowledge, but some are, to this very day, being drawn toward idols, and eat of the sacrifices offered to them, such that their frail decency is contaminated.”

We say frail here, using it as a synonym for feeble, because that is the sense conveyed in II Corinthians 10:10,

For his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful; but his bodily presence is weak (feeble, fragile).

Here, ασθενης (asthenes) is translated weak, projecting a sense of frailty, weakness in the sense of not sustaining, unable to restrain. Looking again to I Corinthians 8:7, the lexicon entry for συνειδησις (suneidesis) gives moral consciousness, conscience, scruples. For this reason, the Hebrew version of this passage states literally, “...such that their hollow hearts are contaminated”. Here, the Hebraic idea of heart is moral guide, voice of conscience. Following that definition, we have, “their frail [sense of] decency is contaminated”.

The idea that the Corinthians were “to this day” being drawn to idolatry is much more evident in the Hebraically-corrected rendering of the passage, and is more consistent with the Torah teaching that idolatry is something from which to abstain.