PART TWO THE EARLY CHURCH
PART II: THE EARLY CHURCH
INTRODUCTION: THE CERTAIN EXPLAINS THE UNCERTAIN
There is a basic rule to follow when we encounter something ambiguous in someone’s writing. We are told to do it with such famous authors as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—consult any book on interpreting the Bible, such as When Critics Ask by Geisler and Howe. They list the common mistakes that critics of Christianity make, with mistake number five being:
Neglecting to interpret difficult passages in light of clear ones.
But this rule is not unique to Christian exegesis. In any field, in fact in every field, we are all trained to leverage established facts to draw conclusions about situations where our information is incomplete or ambiguous. We use what is certain to shed light on what is uncertain.
A doctor uses the proven facts of a patient’s known medical history to interpret ambiguous test results and make a diagnosis. Scientific researchers use proven facts to analyze experimental data and draw conclusions. Financial analysts use historical market data to understand the current market situation, for which they can only have incomplete data. And so on and so on.
Always and everywhere, we use the certain to judge the uncertain. Understanding the written word is no different. Ambiguous statement: “The manager wrote that the project was ‘on track’ but did not mention the deadline.” Certain information: “The project plan clearly states the deadline is next Friday.” Interpretation: “Based on the confirmed deadline, “on track” means the project is progressing as expected to meet the Friday deadline.”
Using the certain to interpret the uncertain is a simple rule, well understood and universally applied—except when it arrives at an answer we do not like.
To start, how should we interpret what Origen says:
But it is time for us to use the words of … Susanna…which indeed those who deny the story of Susanna excise from the list of divine books…[1]
Origen indicates that Susanna was excised from the list of divine Books. Does that mean that Origen believed that the true Old Testament is the one from which Susanna had been excised? That the Christian Church was wrong to consider Susanna as Scripture? That Susanna was in a separate third category and not to be relied upon?
Of course not. When viewed in light of Origen’s letter on Susanna, the answer is inarguable. Origen is not distinguishing between the Jewish canon and Apocrypha because he believes the Apocrypha are false but because he thinks the Jewish canon is wrongly incomplete. (In fact, the Homily I just quoted later goes on to state Origen’s view plain as day: “But we both receive it and aptly use it against them”—by which he means against the Jews).
So, then, how should we interpret what Origen also says?
the canonical books, as the Hebrews have handed them down, are twenty-two, corresponding with the number of their letters…And outside of these there are the Maccabees…[2]
That quote is from Origen’s canon list. You will find many telling you that the list is meant to be the Christian Old Testament. Because it is in “list form,” it is given precedence. Because the quote from Eusebius does not say otherwise, it is taken as a given that Origen lists the Hebrew canon for the purpose of having Christians defer to it and accept it as the true Christian Old Testament. Origen’s letter is dismissed as insufficient because it is not a list; e.g., a footnote which claims that it only “seems to suggest” what it says.
But it is the letter and not the list that would guide any unbiased judge. Origen gave us his own views in detail in his letter; we are not getting them third-hand and without context (as, unfortunately, we get with the list, which was “cut and pasted” by Eusebius). The views in the letter are directly on point, expressing his opinions on the exact particulars of the canon debate. Origen’s letter:
1. States in plain language that he understands the Church’s Scriptures do not match the books of the Jewish canon, because the Church’s Scriptures are correct and the Jewish Scriptures are wrong.
2. States with approval that the Church accepts Tobit, Judith, and Susanna, while the Jews do not. That is accepting three Apocrypha, including two full Books. Both Books that he says the Church accepts are then not mentioned on Origen’s list of “the Books the Hebrews accept.”
3. Utilizes Tobit (which the Jews do not even consider Apocrypha) to confirm that Susanna—part of Daniel—should be Christian Scripture.
4. Explains his view that the reason that the differences exist between Christian and Jewish Scriptures is because the Jewish leaders “pretended to the Jews … deceived the wives of their countrymen. … hid from the knowledge of the people … took away from the people every passage … concealed and removed from the Scriptures…”
Origen’s letter is certain; the list is ambiguous. The answer is to look to Origen’s letter to explain the ambiguities on the list. If we do so, we then know from Origen’s own words that he did not believe that the Christian Old Testament should match a list of “books of the Hebrews.” In particular, we know that it can only be the Christian list if it includes Tobit and Judith because Origen told us “Tobias (as also Judith), we ought to notice, the Jews do not use. They are not even found in the Hebrew Apocrypha, as I learned from the Jews themselves. However, since the Churches use Tobias…” In this case, the list did not include them, so this is the Jewish list. Thus, it is incomplete for Christians. It is only a list of what the Hebrews accept.
Is Origen saying that the Maccabees are Scripture to the Jews or not? No one knows. But, when read in light of the letter on Susanna, it is clear that Origen would never be saying that being “outside of these [the Jewish list he had given]” means that they are, therefore, not Christian Scripture—whatever the Jews think is separate from what Christians think. Instead, he seems to indicate that the Jews of his acquaintance “sort of” acknowledge the Books of the Maccabees, somehow, in a way that they do not acknowledge Tobit or Judith. Perhaps they at least call them Apocrypha, or maybe different Jewish groups have different opinions on them.[3]
As we move on, the point is that at least some in the early Church rejected the idea that they should accept only the Jewish canon as the “Old Testament.” They believed that the Church possessed the true Old Testament, not the Jews. The question is not whether that view existed, it is how far it extended. What to make of it all is ultimately for you to decide, but at a minimum, the existence of this view is a crucial key to understanding the evidence:
(1) A quote from an early Church Father identifying the Jewish canon, or distinguishing between the Jewish canon and the Christian Old Testament, is not itself evidence that the Apocrypha are not accepted, lower, less trustworthy, less central to the faith, or not to be relied on. If we look at what else the Father tells us, we may see that all the Father is really saying is that (in his view) the Jews were wrong to reject them.
(2) Similarly, that people in the Church also disagree about accepting Apocrypha meant nothing to Origen. People like Africanus are just wrong (to Origen). That Origen acknowledges the existence of Africanus’ opinions does not alter the status of Apocrypha in Origen’s mind—it does not become inferior just because Africanus has concerns. Thus, that a Father notes that a writing is disputed within the Church is not, by itself, a reason to conclude that (to that Father) it is of a different stature—which, again, often becomes clear as we look at other quotes from that Father.[4]
But also (3), we will find Fathers saying that there are tiers of Scripture and “only Ecclesiastical” books or denying any authority at all to certain Apocrypha. Such people also exist—we just have to be careful not to automatically impose their views on other Fathers (or vice versa).
Sorting sheep from goats is the goal here: we just want to find out what people were really thinking, doing, and saying.
[1] 238 AD, Homilies on Leviticus, Homily 1, 3. From the Gary Wayne Barkley translation, available on Amazon at: www.a.co/d/1bL4LkG.
[2] Eusebius, Church History, Volume VI, Chapter 25 (www.bible-researcher.com/origen.html). Not to be overlooked is that Origen knew a Hebrew name for the Books of Maccabees—“Sarbeth Sabanaiel”—so he would appear to have obtained this information from the Jews themselves. Also of note is that the Jews of his time still knew the Books of the Maccabees, but the Jews of the Middle Ages had to be reintroduced to it, as discussed above.
[3] Origen states his own view (and evidences the Christian view) on the Maccabees on other occasions, e.g., Against Celsus 8, 46: “What need is there to quote all the princes and private persons in Scripture history who fared well or ill according as they obeyed or despised the words of the prophets? … And the books of the Maccabees relate what punishments were inflicted upon those who dared to profane the Jewish service in the temple at Jerusalem.” www.newadvent.org/fathers/04168.htm.
[4] Kruger agrees—when discussing the New Testament canon. “Throughout early Patristic testimony about the canon, the church fathers occasionally acknowledge that a particular book is “disputed” by some. A well-known example is Origen’s comments on 2 and 3 John in which he acknowledges that “not all say that these are genuine.” Although Hahneman uses this comment to point out that universal agreement on these epistles has not yet been achieved, he entirely overlooks the implications of Origen’s comments in the other direction, namely, that apparently most Christians do consider them genuine— including Origen himself. The phrase “not all say” indicates that Origen is simply noting exceptions to a more broadly established trend. Thus, it is misleading to use this passage as evidence that John’s letters were not regarded as canonical. That is more than this language can bear. At most, it reveals that in certain quarters of the church some disagreements over these books continued to occur (which is hardly surprising).” (P. 265-266).
