The Protestant Canon Among the Church Fathers?

Truth Unites exists to promote gospel assurance through theological depth.

Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai.

SUPPORT:

FOLLOW:

MY ACADEMIC WORK:

PODCAST:

DISCORD SERVER ON PROTESTANTISM

CHECK OUT SOME BOOKS:

00:00 - Introduction

[jonathanhnosko]

For those of you interested in the references he likely has in mind...

Jerome (Prologue to Samuel and Kings in the Vulgate): "Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees I have found to be Hebrew, the second is Greek, as can be proved from the very style."

Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures 4.35-36): "Far wiser and more pious than yourself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books...which, if you are desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them...But let all the rest be put aside in a secondary rank. And whatever books are not read in Churches, these read not even by yourself, as you have heard me say.”

Athanasius of Alexandria (39th Festal Letter): "There are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd."

Gregory Nazianzus (Poem I.1.12 as per PG 37.472-4): "Let your mind and tongue dwell on the divine words. For God has given these rewards for the effort, a little light by which to see some hidden thing, or, better still, to be spurred on in purity by God’s awesome commands, or thirdly, by such concerns to draw your heart from earthly things that your mind might not be taken captive by strange books (for they are many and full of evil) receive, my friend, this, my list of their approved number...Any beyond these are not genuine."

John of Damascus (On the Orthodox Faith 4.17): "All-Virtuous Wisdom, however, that is to say, the Wisdom of Solomon – and the Wisdom of Jesus, which the father of Sirach composed in Hebrew but which was translated into Greek by his grandson, Jesus son of Sirach – these are indeed admirable and full of virtue, but they are not counted, nor were they placed in the Ark."

Yes, these are individual fathers, but Cyril, Athanasius, and Gregory are contemporary patriarchs of 3 of the 5 ancient sees making public declarations and it seems no one felt the need to correct them directly.

[Аландейлен]

Jerome? The guy who wrote the Latin Vulgate? The one with 73 books?

[codenametemplar]

Until Jerome and other church fathers accepted the 73 books canon by the council of Rome in 384AD and from that moment onward st Jerome quotes the deuterocanonical. He quotes wisdom a lot.

[jonathanhnosko]

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you for outlining that there is indeed patristic precedent for the protestant old testament or, perhaps to put it more modestly, that there is an ancient and remarkably consistent tradition of viewing the protocanon as distinct in status from all other works. This is such a welcome addition to the dialogue, which sadly often lacks this point.

[emilyhaha]

Except when St. Jerome translated the Bible he included those books because the pope told him to- he recognized the authority of the pope.

[minagelina]

I was an interfaith group, and because of the catholics and orthodox and their emphasis on tradition of the church and the church fathers, Ive been listening to more of what they had to say. The more I listen, the more Im convinced of Sola Scriptura in the sense that the Bible is the final authority. Of course now we have concern over what that is comprised of. So here we are going back to what the cburch fathers have said about the topic of which books are Scripture. Its enough to make my head hurt.

[DevinMork]

I bought into the Deuterocanon when I found all the early church fathers quoting from them as authoritative sources grounding their theological arguments.

It's witness to that the mind of the church at the time was "these documents fall under the category of "Scripture."

[tonywallens]

This is true, however there seems to be very little justification even still for having the shorter canon. Just seems to be a historical artifact that was once decided based on faulty grounds and Protestants inherited it but won’t let it go. Hence the need for a Church to settle these issues, not a Jerome or an Athanasius or a Luther, but the Church

[josephrogish]

“All these Fathers disagreed with a 73 book canon.” You gotta take the next step in that line of thinking though. *Despite having their own personal disagreements, they saw it as better to maintain church unity by submitting to their own bishops/episcopal hierarchy, who are guided by the Holy Spirit, rather than superimposing their own beliefs about what books belonged in Scripture.*

[jmisssjb]

Jerome is the only name he referenced for the same 66 book cannon. The others are NOT the 66 book cannon. Also, he forgets that Jerome SUBMITS TO THE CHURCH and ACCEPTS the 73 book cannon.

[crisgon]

It was Jerome's opinion but he eventually recognized them as he quoted them as scripture later on. Jerome submitted to the Church. Agustine was a firm believer in the Catholic canon, but it is funnt that Gavin doesn't quote him on this.

[__.Sara.__]

I would love for you to have a conversation with Michael Knowles, who is a Catholic! I'm going to recommend you to his team 😊 I love the way the church father graphics popped in, too 😄

[pepeinno]

No Church Father ever rejected the Canon of the Church.

[Americanheld]

There’s no real way of getting around the fact that Martin Luther wanted books removed because they didnt support his theology. And then they were arbitrarily removed in 1850s to save on printing costs.

The side of Sola Scriptura edited the bible because they thought they knew better.

The irony.

[d.h.]

Except the Church chose the Septuagint (Greek) list of OT books in AD 382, which the Lord used as well. St Jerome was a priest and scholar, but he was subject to authority, too.

[jonathanhnosko]

For those of you curious about the seeming reference to the East as the Eastern Orthodox Canon you might be interested to learn, as I have from some Orthodox scholars, that their communion has no formally recognized canon at all.

Also, the deuterocanonical works (often termed anagignoskomena or "worthy to be read") are often seen as "secondary in rank" to the protocanon, similar to the protestant view, compared to the all or nothing approach almost entirely unique to Rome.

Lastly, in his 1830 "Longer Catechism of the Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church" Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow enumerates the books of the Old Testament based on the near total consensus of Cyril of Jerusalem and Athanasius of Alexandria. Each includes one book that the other does not. John of Damascus is mentioned as a corroborating witness and later synthesizer of their views into a consolidated whole.

[bman]

Remember that St. Jerome didn’t exactly believe in the Protestant canon either. He believed in the Catholic versions of Daniel and Esther.

“What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:29–68, RSV-CE], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant” (Against Rufinius by St Jerome 11:33 [A.D. 401]).
Quote source: Catholic Answers

[lukasmakarios]

Really?! I didn't know that.
So who, when and why did they decide to use the Septuagint, even though the Jews preferred the shorter canon? Tell me more.

[richardounjian]

If the "East" is "shorter" why do they have 81 books in their Bible? Actually, what you won't find is ANY Patristic support for protestant theology because it was contrived 500 years ago.

[notavailable]

If the reformation was against the Catholic church, and the reformation didn't remove books, then why do Orthodox have a longer canon too? You would think they would independently develop the shorter canon for the same obvious reasons that protestants did. Serious question, I don't know enough to say for sure myself.