Analyzing SoCal Preston's Main Constructive Argument from his Previous Canon Debate

In his previous debate on the canon (link to debate), David "SoCal" Preston did what few folks who advocate for the Apocrypha are willing to do: he took the affirmative for his own position.  In a previous post on this blog (link to post), I analyzed Preston's rebuttal arguments presented during that debate.  However, as he was affirmative, he also offered what he viewed as a constructive case for his position.

I'm not here to nitpick every speak-o.  I know that I make them myself in debates, and they do not go to the core of the substance.  For example, Preston started his presentation by framing the question as "Is the Scripture Apocrypha," when he meant (of course) "Is the Apocrypha, Scripture?" While this was not Preston's first debate, this sort of transposition speak-o is totally normal due to nerves and the pressure of the situation. He restated the topic correctly two minutes later.

At a high level, Preston used the majority of his time doing other things besides making his affirmative case.  Out of twenty minutes, there was some vague appeal to past practices (which lasted about two minutes), a more pointed appeal to historic acceptance of Tobit and Sirach (which again lasted about two minutes), and finally a section of alleged NT usage (which lasted about four minutes).

The breakdown of Preston's arguments is as follows:

• 10:00 to 12:00 Personal Background
• 12:00 to 19:15 Definitions of Apocrypha, Scripture, and Hagiographa

Here are a few points I noted in his comments:

- the "literal" definition of Apocrypha "is simply 'hidden or secret'" (~13:10) citing Colossians 2 and Ephesians 3:9

- definition of the Greek word that Preston says is equivalent to Apocrypha provided by "The Use of the Apocrypha in the Christian Church," by W. H. Daubney (link to book, link to page).

- Summarizes as "what I want you to understand is: the word 'Apocrypha' in its literal sense means 'hidden'" (~15:05) and adds that this is how he is using the term in the debate

- defines Scriptures as "holy writings"

- asserts that the Jews third category of "writings" is "called hagiographa"

- argues that the "hagiographa" has less authority in Judaism

- cites Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (eds. John McClintock, ‎James Strong)(cited material can be found here) entry on Hagiographa for the idea that the Hagiographa had a lower authority among the Jews and also for the idea that Hagiographa and Apocrypha were sometimes used interchangeably in the medieval period 

Although couched as definitions, it did seem that Preston tried to springboard from these definitions to try to establish his case.  That jump was to say that the Apocrypha are sometimes called Hagiographa, the Ketuvim portion of the Hebrew Scriptures were sometimes called Hagiographa, the Ketuvim are sometimes held as having a lower authority in Judaism, with the implied (if not stated) conclusion being that the Apocrypha are part of this "lower authority but still inspired Scripture."  It's not an argument that in any way logically follows, and he does not make the argument explicit, so it's hard to be too tough on Preston for this point. 

• 20:00 to  22:00 Reformers, Councils, and Church Fathers

- Claims that they "talked out of both sides of their mouth"

- Claims Coverdale says that Judith is Scripture

- Claims King James says that Ecclesiasticus is part of the Old Testament

- Makes a sweeping and vague claim about fathers and councils and points people to William Heaford Daubney's book "the Use of the Apocrypha in the Christian Church, and Gary Michuta's book, "Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger," before mentioning his debate opponent's book 

I assume Preston is being honest about his personal assessment of the evidence.  The problem is that his assessment is far off.  As mentioned in my previous post (link), the problem is that Preston's analysis is flawed.  He seems to be stuck on the rigid idea that if the word "Scripture" or "Old Testament" is used by someone to describe a book of the apocrypha, they must mean by it the same thing that he means by it.  So, the result is that he thinks that various authors are contradicting themselves.  In some cases, this is simply because he has a wrong understanding of what the authors mean by "Scripture."  In other cases, the problem is bigger.  For example, in the other post, we covered how the Coverdale claim is not supported by the evidence.

• 22:00 to 24:15 Preston argues that Tobit and Sirach: 

- were used as Scripture by Jews,

- were found in the Dead Sea caves,

- accepted by fathers, 

- accepted by councils, and

- present in the LXX.

Here, at least, Preston offers some claims that should be evaluated.  The biggest problems with Preston's claims are that "used as Scripture by Jews" is not identical to being part of the canon of Scripture of Palestine orthodox Jews in the first half of the first century.  That's something Preston doesn't and can't establish.

Fragments of Sirach and Tobit were found in the Dead Sea caves.  Of course, Enoch, Book of Giants, the Temple Scroll and multiple fragments of the Book of Jubilees were found there as well. At least one Greek fragment of the Epistle of (Ps.)- Jeremy was found as well.  Not all of the materials found in the caves has been dated. 

Acceptance by the fathers is also a mixed bag as well.  Certainly not all the fathers accepted Sirach and Tobit as being inspired Scripture in the sense we mean today.  Likewise, not all the church councils included them.

The canon of the LXX is not easy to unwind.  As late as the fourth century, we have multiple authors saying that Sirach and Tobit were not included in the LXX.

• 24:15 to 45 shuffling with slides
• 24:45 to 26:00 Metonyms Explained
• 26:00 to 30:30 Example(s) of NT usage

This section seemed to be the place where Preston had the most potential to prove his case.

A. Sirach

A1. Ephesians 5:14-15 

Ephesians 5:14-15 (KJV) Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light. See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise,

Cf. Sirach 13:13

Sirach 13:13 (KJV) Observe, and take good heed, for thou walkest in peril of thy overthrowing: when thou hearest these things, awake in thy sleep.

John Gill offers: "some think the apostle refers to Isaiah 9:2; others to Isaiah 26:19; others to Isaiah 60:1; some are of opinion the words are cited out of an apocryphal book of Jeremy, or from some writing now lost."

For reference:

Isaiah 9:2 (KJV) The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.

Isaiah 26:19 (KJV) Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.

Isaiah 60:1 (KJV) Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee.

Isaiah 60:1 seems to be the most common link, from other commentators.  Of course, it's not necessary to assume that Ephesians 5 is citing anything prior. 

Pros and Cons to Preston's Position:

There are the thematic elements of "walking and awaking" close together in the text Preston uses.  However, the more dominant theme of illumination (present in Isaiah 60:1 and Isaiah 9:2) is missing from the text Preston cites

Perhaps a more significant problem for Preston is that the "arise" part of Sirach 13:13 does not seem to be original.

Sirach 13:13 (RSV) Keep words to yourself and be very watchful, for you are walking about with your own downfall.[c]

[c: Other authorities add When you hear these things in your sleep, wake up! 14 During all your life love the Lord, and call on him for your salvation.]

In fact, the CEB, DRA, GNT, NABRE, NCB, and RSV/NRSV varieties all do not include the additional material about waking. (see here)

The NETS version (available here) brackets the "wake up" portion and incorporates it with the other bracketed material of vs. 14. At p. 715-16, the reader's introduction of the NETS Sirach section explains:

For Sirach, I have used the Göttingen edition of Joseph Ziegler (Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Litterarum Gottingensis editum XII.2: Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965]). In his critical text, Ziegler places verses from a later Greek recension (GKII; see below) in smaller typeface, and I have followed his judgments as to what constitutes GKII. ...  

One additional matter that both the NETS translation of Ben Sira and the NRSV had to deal with was the presence of the later Greek recension. In the process of the textual transmission of the Greek, a number of proverbs were added to the book, and this recension is usually designated GKII. For the most part, the NRSV puts readings from this Greek recension in footnotes leaving in the main text only GKI (= OG), that is, the translation of the author’s grandson, who rendered the Hebrew text into Greek. In the NETS translation, I have worked in analogous fashion both to Ziegler and to how NETS has handled similar cases elsewhere. GKII passages appear in the running text where they should be located. I have set them off by (a) marking them with square brackets at the beginning and end of each line and (b) by placing them in italics.

So, no, this is not a quotation or allusion by Jesus to Sirach.

A2. Ephesians 5:16

Ephesians 5:16 (KJV) Redeeming the time, because the days are evil. 

Cf. Sirach 4:20

Sirach 4:20 (KJV) Observe the opportunity, and beware of evil; and be not ashamed when it concerneth thy soul.

There's not much to say about this one.  It just seems to have some vague similarity.  Hardly worthy of a rebuttal.

A3. Ephesians 5:33

Ephesians 5:33 (KJV) Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

Cf. Sirach 26:24

Sirach 26:24 (KJV) A dishonest woman contemneth shame: but an honest woman will reverence her husband.

There is a similar idea of a woman reverencing her husband in Ephesians 5:33 and the text Preston cites.  However, once again, this text does not seem to be original.  Verses 19-27 are omitted by the RSV. (see note here)  Moreover, among the versions that provide a translation of the text, the correct translation seems to be about a daughter's modesty (see the examples here), which moves the text farther from being parallel to Ephesians 5:33. The NETS version, mentioned above, similarly brackets vss. 19-27, but translates the text as "A shameless woman will exhaust dishonor, but a decorous daughter will revere even her husband." This is slightly closer to the KJV of Ephesians 5:33.  However, since this is a later recension to Sirach, it should be of no concern to us, as it cannot be something Paul was citing.

(slide with references)

B. Wisdom

B1. James 4:5

James 4:5 (KJV) Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?

Cf. Wisdom 1:4-5

Wisdom 1:4-5 (KJV) For into a malicious soul wisdom shall not enter; nor dwell in the body that is subject unto sin. For the holy spirit of discipline will flee deceit, and remove from thoughts that are without understanding, and will not abide when unrighteousness cometh in.

Cf. Wisdom 6:23

Wisdom 6:23 (KJV) Neither will I go with consuming envy; for such a man shall have no fellowship with wisdom.

John Gill states:

Some think that the apostle refers to a particular passage of Scripture in the Old Testament, and that he took it from Genesis 6:5 as some; or from Exodus 20:5, as others; or from Deuteronomy 7:2 or from Job 5:7 or from Proverbs 21:10 others think he had in view some text in the New Testament; either Romans 12:2 or Galatians 5:17 and some have imagined that he refers to a passage in the apocryphal book: "For into a malicious soul wisdom shall not enter; nor dwell in the body that is subject unto sin." (Wisdom 1:4) and others have been of opinion that it is taken out of some book of Scripture then extant, but now lost, which by no means can be allowed of: the generality of interpreters, who suppose a particular text of Scripture is referred to, fetch it from Numbers 11:29 but it seems best of all to conclude that the apostle has no regard to any one particular passage of Scripture, in which the following words are expressly had, since no such passage appears; but that his meaning is, the sense of the Scripture everywhere, where it speaks of this matter, is to this purpose: 

The two cited passages cited Preston seem to suggest that sin (especially envy) is antithetical to wisdom. By contrast, the Scripture being cited is one that talks about the spirit of man. 

Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Job 5:7 Yet man is born unto trouble, as the sparks fly upward.

Pro 21:10 The soul of the wicked desireth evil: his neighbour findeth no favour in his eyes.

Num 11:29 And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the LORD'S people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit upon them!

For a few seconds (starting at 28:38), Preston offered the following slide:

This slide provides a list of phrases from Sirach and phrases from the New Testament (especially James) that Preston thinks are similar.  He didn't go through them in detail.

There were some obvious (and some less obvious) typographic errors in the chart.  The cited phrases from the NETS | KJV are (I think, and sometimes with more context added by me):

Sirach 15:6 "Gladness and a garland of rejoicing"  | James 1:12 "crown of life" (Cf. Rev. 2:10)

Sirach 1:28 "double heart" | James 1:8 and 4:8 "double minded" 

Sirach 4:26 "do not be ashamed to acknowledge your sins" | James 5:16 "confess your faults"

Sir. 20:3 "and he who admits freely will be kept from disparagement" | James 5:16 "confess your faults"

Sir. 43:26 "by his word all things hold together" | Colossians 1:17 "by him all things consist"

Sir. 51:30 "Accomplish your work" | James 1:25 "doer of the work"

Sir. 14:1 "pain of sins" | James 5:20 "multitude of sins" (Cf. 1 Peter 4:8 and Jeremiah 30:14)

Sir. 18:21 "before you fall ill, humble yourself" | James 4:10 "humble yourselves" (cf. 1 Peter 5:6 and Jeremiah 13:18)

Sir. 15:12 "Do not say, 'it was he who led me astray'" | James 1:13 "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God"

Sir. 20:15 "reproach" | James 1:5 "upbraideth not" 

Sir. 11:1 "A humble person's wisdom ..." | James 1:9 "brother of low degree" (Cf. Luke 1:52 and Psalm 62:9)

Sir. 43:3 "burning heat" | James 1:11 "burning heat" 

Sir. 34:2 "grasps a shadow" | James 1:17 "shadow of turning"

Sir. 5:11 "quick in your hearing" | James 1:19 "swift to hear"

Sir. 11:4 "the putting-on of clothes" | James 2:2 "goodly apparel ... vile raiment"

Sir. 19:3 "decay and worms" | James 5:2 "motheaten"

Some of these parallels are not particularly close at all.  Others at least have a similar expression conveying a similar thought.  Preston didn't go through the slide in detail, which is probably for the best, since it is not especially impressive.

B2. James 1:5

James 1:5 (KJV) If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

Cf. Wisdom 7:13

Wisdom 7:13 (KJV) I learned diligently, and do communicate her liberally: I do not hide her riches.

This was based on the word "liberally."  The big problem, of course, is that the one communicating wisdom (if that's what's being communicated) is someone learned it.  There are plenty of canonical Scriptures that say that God gives wisdom.

During Cross-Examination, Preston brought up additional texts. 

C. 2 Esdras

C1. Luke 11:49

Luke 11:49 (KJV) Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:

Cf. 2 Esdras 1:32

2 Esdras 1:32 (KJV) I sent unto you my servants the prophets, whom ye have taken and slain, and torn their bodies in pieces, whose blood I will require of your hands, saith the Lord.

2 Esdras seems to be retrospective, whereas Luke is prospective.  This makes sense if, as is usually believed, 2 Esdras was written after Luke.  However, it makes much less sense the other way around.

C2. Matthew 23:37-38

Matthew 23:37-38 (KJV) O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

Cf. 2 Esdras 1:30 and 33

2 Esdras 1:30 (KJV) I gathered you together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings: but now, what shall I do unto you? I will cast you out from my face.

2 Esdras 1:33 (KJV) Thus saith the Almighty Lord, Your house is desolate, I will cast you out as the wind doth stubble.

This should probably be combined with the preceding one, as they are part of a similar thought.  I think it's reasonable to find literary dependency here.  On the other hand, 2 Esdras seems to say that God actually did do the gathering - there is no mention of the "ye would not" that is present in Jesus' speech.

2 Esdras 1:30-33 reminds me of another apocryphal work, which likewise adopts the famous expression from Jesus' mouth for its own purpose.

3 Nephi 10:5-6:

5 And again, how oft would I have gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, yea, O ye people of the house of Israel, who have fallen; yea, O ye people of the house of Israel, ye that dwell at Jerusalem, as ye that have fallen; yea, how oft would I have gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens, and ye would not.

6 O ye house of Israel whom I have spared, how oft will I gather you as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, if ye will repent and return unto me with full purpose of heart.

Of course, 3 Nephi was composed in the 1800s, so it is simply literary dependency on the New Testament, which was accessible to its author, much as the gospels were accessible to the author of 2 Esdras.

C3. Matthew 20:16

Matthew 20:16 (KJV) So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

Cf. 2 Esdras 8:3

2 Esdras 8:3 (KJV) There be many created, but few shall be saved.

There is some thematic similarity here, as to the number of saved being "few." 

Conclusion

My own conclusion from the above is that Preston offered precious little to go on in terms of an actual constructive case for his canonical view.  For the bulk of the Apocryphal books and parts in the KJV, Preston offered no substantial argument at all.  For Tobit, Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon, and 2 Esdras, Preston offered a relatively weak case.  On the other hand, Preston was tackling a challenge that few from his side are willing to attempt: making a positive case for the Apocrypha.  In that, we can laud his attempt.  However, I cannot agree with his time allocation nor do I find any real strength in his arguments.

Did Augustine Change his Mind on the Canon?

In his Revisions (aka Retractiones), Augustine offers a number of corrections to his previous work.  He is the only author that comes to mind as having engaged in such systematic self-criticism.  The recent translation of his works "The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century," uses the title "Revisions," while some others have used "Retractions."  Retractions is a more natural cognate, but Revisions is probably more accurate as an overall description of his work.

One of the revisions he proposes relates to his Two Books on Genesis Against the Manichaeans.  The citation is Revisions, First Book, 10 (9), section 3, he writes (p. ):

Again, I do not seem to have been correct in referring to what is written, Why are earth and ashes proud? (Sir 10:9), as prophetic words, because they are not read in the book of someone who we are certain ought to be called a prophet.

The reference is to what Augustine said in On Genesis: A Refutation of the Manichees, Book II, 5 (6) (trans. from the WSAT21 series, vol. I/13, p. 74):

When the soul was being watered by such a spring as that, it had not yet "cast out its innards" through pride. The beginning, you see, of man's pride is to apostatize from God (Sir 10:12); and since his swelling out through pride to exterior things has put a stop to his being watered from that interior spring, he is very properly jeered at by these words of the prophet, and told: What has earth and ashes to be proud of, since in its lifetime it has cast out its innards? (Sir 10:9).

Later on, in Revisions, Second Book, 4 (31), section 2, he writes (p. 113):

In the second book, concerning the author of the book that many call the Wisdom of Solomon, namely, that Jesus Sirach wrote it just as he did Ecclesiasticus, I afterwards learned that this was not as agreed upon as it was said to be by me, and in all probability the book's author is not discoverable.

When I said, "The authority of the Old Testament is confined within these forty-four books," I referred to the Old Testament according to the Church's customary way of speaking. The Apostle, however, seems to refer only to what was given on Mount Sinai as the Old Testament.

Finally, in Revisions, Second Book, 20 (47), he writes (p. 128):

In the first [book], then, it did not occur to me that what I said about the manna--that it tasted in each person's mouth as he himself wished it to-- could not be demonstrated by any text apart from the Book of Wisdom, which the Jews do not accept as having canonical authorship. 

The "first [book]" in question is found in Augustine's works as Letter 54, and the specific citation is Letter 54,3,4. (trans. from the WSAT21 series, Letter 54, p. 212)

It also serves as a comparison in that in the earlier people the manna tasted in the mouth of each one as the individual wanted, just as that sacrament by which the world is conquered has a different taste in the heart of each Christian.

What's particularly interesting here is that Augustine's original argument does not hinge on Jewish acceptance of his argument.  He's writing to Januaris and the section is dealing with the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Why is Jewish acceptance relevant? The only answer staring us in the face is a tacit acknowledgment that Jerome is right about the canon.  Maybe the churches read and use Sirach and Wisdom, but they do not have full canonical status to establish doctrine.  Likewise, Wisdom is neither a book by Solomon (as originally thought by the North African councils) nor even a book by Jesus Ben Sira (as had been speculated).  Instead, it's a book of uncertain authorship, despite its obvious claims to be by Solomon.

Michuta on the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals in 1 Clement

Beginning around page 56, Michuta tries to argue that "the earliest Christians considered the Deuterocanonical books to be divinely inspired."  His first example is 1 Clement - a book whose authorship is unknown, but is sometimes ascribed to Clement of Rome.

Michuta argues that 1 Clement 3:4 "quotes Wisdom 2:24." (p. 57)

1 Clement 3:4
For this cause righteousness and peace stand aloof, while each man hath forsaken the fear of the Lord and become purblind in the faith of Him, neither walketh in the ordinances of His commandments nor liveth according to that which becometh Christ, but each goeth after the lusts of his evil heart, seeing that they have conceived an unrighteous and ungodly jealousy, through which also death entered into the world.

Wisdom 2:24 states: "Nevertheless through envy of the devil came death into the world: and they that do hold of his side do find it." While Wisdom 2:24 is a possible reference here, a more obvious one is Romans 5:12, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

Likewise, James 4:1-3 states: "From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts."

Indeed, the very next verses of 1 Clement provide a canonical basis for the jealousy argument, for it continues (vs. 4 is the last verse of 1 Clement 3):

1 Clement 4:1-7
For so it is written, And it came to pass after certain days that Cain brought of the fruits of the earth a sacrifice unto God, and Abel he also brought of the firstlings of the sheep and of their fatness. And God looked upon Abel and upon his gifts, but unto Cain and unto his sacrifices He gave no heed. And Cain sorrowed exceedingly, and his countenance fell. And God said unto Cain, Wherefore art thou very sorrowful and wherefore did thy countenance fall? If thou hast offered aright and hast not divided aright, didst thou not sin? Hold thy peace. Unto thee shall he turn, and thou shalt rule over him. {This last phrase has also been translated: Be at peace: thine offering returns to thyself, and thou shalt again possess it.} And Cain said unto Abel his brother, Let us go over unto the plain. And it came to pass, while they Were in the plain, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and slew him. Ye see, brethren, jealousy and envy wrought a brother's murder.

Thus, it is a stretch to say that 1 Clement 3:4 "quotes" from Wisdom 2:24, even if a few identical words can be be found there.

Michuta further asserts that 1 Clement 27:5-7 "is a quote from (or at least an allusion to) Wisdom 11:21 or 12:12." (p. 57)

1 Clement 27:5
Who shall say unto Him, What hast thou done? or who shall resist the might of His strength? When He listeth, and as He listeth, He will do all things; and nothing shall pass away of those things that He hath decreed. All things are in His sight, and nothing escapeth His counsel, seeing that The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament proclaimeth His handiwork. Day uttereth word unto day, and night proclaimeth knowledge unto night; and there are neither words nor speeches, whose voices are not heard.

Wisdom 11:21 states: "For thou canst shew thy great strength at all times when thou wilt; and who may withstand the power of thine arm?" and Wisdom 12: 12 states "For who shall say, What hast thou done? or who shall withstand thy judgment? or who shall accuse thee for the nations that perish, whom thou made? or who shall come to stand against thee, to be revenged for the unrighteous men?"

But again, the canonical books have similar statements (in fact, Wisdom is probably based on the canonical books to a significant extent):

 Job 9:12 "If he would take away, who shall turn him back? or who shall say to him, What hast thou done?" Job 9:19 "For indeed he is strong in power: who then shall resist his judgment?" Daniel 4:32 "and all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he does according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and there is none who shall withstand his power, and say to him, What has thou done?" Isaiah 46:10 "Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:" Acts 1:7 "And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power." Psalm 148:6 "He has established them for ever, even for ever and ever: he has made an ordinance, and it shall not pass away." Romans 9:18-19 "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?" Matthew 5:11 "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Job 34:21 "For he surveys the works of men, and nothing of what they do has escaped him." Psalm 19:1-3 "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims the work of his hands. Day to day utters speech, and night to night proclaims knowledge. There are no speeches or words, in which their voices are not heard."


Michuta further points out that 1 Clement 55:2-6 makes reference to the person Judith. (pp. 58-59) Michuta also points out that the author of 1 Clement uses Judith as a first example and Esther as a second example. These are just used as historical examples of "Many women being strengthened through the grace of God have performed many manly deeds." (1 Clement 55:3).  These examples come after the author's reference to pagan examples: "But, to bring forward examples of Gentiles also; many kings and rulers, when some season of pestilence pressed upon them, being taught by oracles have delivered themselves over to death, that they might rescue their fellow citizens through their own blood. Many have retired from their own cities, that they might have no more seditions." (1 Clement 55:1)

While we definitely hold Esther to be canonical, we do not know whether the author of 1 Clement had the same view, as Esther was the least well received of the canonical Old Testament books.  In other words, the pairing of Judith with Esther may be a double-edged sword - but in any case, the book is not cited as Scripture.

- TurretinFan

N.B. In this post, generally the Old Testament quotations are taken from Lancelot Brenton's translation of the Septuagint, since it is unlikely that the author of 1 Clement would have had access to the Hebrew originals.

Old Testament Canon: Patristic Use of Isaiah 3:9-10 or Wisdom 2:12?

William Albrecht has a video titled "Patristics and Scripture:Wisdom 2:12" (link).  It's an attempt to argue for the canonicity of the book, The Wisdom of Solomon.  In that video Albrecht says:

The book of Wisdom, a canonical book of Scripture, was a book that was employed quite often by the early church.  Wisdom is a book that can be found in the Septuagint canon, and was a book that was debated upon by early factions within Judaism, and it's a book that was part of the most ancient catalogs of historical Scripture that existed - that exist as well - continue to exist to this day. The book of Wisdom was also considered the historical word of God in the earliest Christian councils that were inspired by the Holy Spirit in determining the canon of Scripture.

The book of Wisdom is an intertestamental book, pseudonymously ascribed to Solomon in the name of the book ("The Wisdom of Solomon"). Although the text of the work itself does not mention Solomon's name, Wisdom 7:1-12, seems to be a clear allusion to Solomon's request for wisdom (rather than riches or power), and the author claims to be the king described.  Thus, this book is rightly regarded as pseudonymous, ascribed to King Solomon, but not written by him.

Saying that the book is "found in the Septuagint" canon is true if you mean that today's Septuagints include it.  If you mean that all ancient Septuagints included it, you would be mistaken.  Recall that Cyril of Jerusalem taught a Septuagint canon that did not include Wisdom of Solomon (link).

Albrecht claims it was "debated upon by early factions within Judaism."  I would love to see any documentation of this supposed debate.  Even the Essene sect, whose cave-preserved texts at Qumran are so valuable to Old Testament textual criticism, did not preserve any copies of this book (although they apparently include at least parts of some version of Sirach, Tobit, and the Epistle of Jeremiah, and numerous other non-canonical works, including a significant amount of so-called wisdom literature).  There is no doubt today that the book was originally written in Greek, and New English Translation of the Septuagint acknowledges this fact in the introduction to the book (link).

The Jewish Encyclopedia has this to say:

Apocryphal book written in Alexandria about the middle of the first century B.C. That it was composed in Greek by an Alexandrian Jew has been conclusively shown by Freudenthal ("J. Q. R." iii. 722-753). The book has neither an introductory verse nor a regular conclusion. In fact, it consists of three independent parts which have no real connection, and which treat of subjects altogether different, a fact clearly recognized by Bretschneider, Eichhorn, and others, but disputed by Grimm ("Kurzgefasstes Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apocryphen des Alten Testaments," vi. 9-24, Leipsic, 1860) and his followers.

(source)

As quoted above, Albrecht stated: "The book of Wisdom was also considered the historical word of God in the earliest Christian councils that were inspired by the Holy Spirit in determining the canon of Scripture." I'm not trying to pick on Albrecht's grammar, but if he's suggesting that the councils of Hippo and Carthage that adopted the book of Wisdom were "inspired," then he's mistaken.  More than that, none of the bishops at those councils would have thought themselves inspired, and neither Albrecht's church nor any other has judged those councils to be inspired.  If means that the councils of Hippo and Carthage judged that the book of Wisdom was inspired, perhaps - although perhaps those councils were more concerned with what was ecclesiastical (i.e. to be read in the churches) rather than with what was inspired by God.

In the King James Version, Wisdom 2:12 reads: "Therefore let us lie in wait for the righteous; because he is not for our turn, and he is clean contrary to our doings: he upbraideth us with our offending the law, and objecteth to our infamy the transgressings of our education."

In the Douay-Rheims Bible, Wisdom 2:12 reads: "Let us therefore lie in wait for the just, because he is not for our turn, and he is contrary to our doings, and upbraideth us with transgressions of the law, and divulgeth against us the sins of our way of life."

Albrecht appears to be reading from the Revised Standard Version, where Wisdom 2:12 reads "2 "Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training."

What Albrecht has overlooked is that Isaiah 3:10-11 in the LXX (translated to English by Lancelot Brenton) states: "Woe to their soul, for they have devised an evil counsel against themselves, saying against themselves, Let us bind the just, for he is burdensome to us: therefore shall they eat the fruits of their works. Woe to the transgressor! evils shall happen to him according to the works of his hands."

After quoting the RSV translation of Wisdom 2:12, Albrecht says:

This clear prophecy of our God, of our Savior, of our Lord Christ Jesus, this clear prophecy was adored and preached from consistently in the early, historical Christian church.

It looks more like a general statement about the righteous than about Jesus specifically.  Remember that Wisdom is Sapiential literature, like Proverbs or Sirach.  Most of the description of the righteous could probably be applied to Jesus, but it is not even clear that the author intended to speak of the future.

Albrecht goes on to quote Ambrose of Milan (340-397) as supposedly referencing Wisdom 2:12 (in his Exposition on Psalm 35, at section 3) and seemingly ascribing it to Jesus.  The provided quotation has Ambrose saying "The Lord reproaches the Jews, "I made myself poor for you, I suffered for you, and you have raised impious hands, saying, 'Let us rid ourselves of the righteous one, because he is useless to us." The italics are the words perceived as coming from Wisdom 2:12.  Nevertheless, the same idea is found in LXX Isiah 3:10, quoted above.  Furthermore, Isaiah 3, but not Wisdom 2, includes a first person address from the Lord.

Albrecht then quotes from Athanasius (296-373) as supposedly referencing Wisdom 2:12 (apparently from Letter 19) and seemingly ascribing it to a prophet.  The text says "And what their end is, the prophet foretold, crying, 'Woe unto their soul, for they have devised an evil thought, saying, let us bind the just man, because he is not pleasing to us.'"  (link to source)  Here it is definitely a reference to LXX Isaiah 3:10.  The "Woe unto their soul" is from Isaiah but not from Wisdom.

Albrecht then says "Athanasius was clear, he was clear that the book of Wisdom was prophetic, was Scripture."  No. Albrecht has misunderstood Athanasius.

Athanasius wrote (in Letter 19 - alternative translation here):

But this displeased them. They were not anxious to understand, for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. (l Cor. 2,8.) And what is the end of these, the prophet before pronounced, saying, Woe unto their souls, for they have devised an evil thought, saying, let us bind the just man, because he is not pleasing to us (Is. 3,9.10). The end of such abandonment as this is nothing but error, as the Lord, when reproving them, saith, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures. (Mat.22,29) 

Albrecht is misidentifying a reference to Isaiah 3 as a reference to Wisdom 2.  The "Woe unto their souls" (from Isaiah, not Wisdom) is a good clue, as well as the fact that "the prophet" is normally Isaiah, just as "the apostle" is normally Paul, in the patristic literature.

We don't have to guess or try to infer whether Athanasius thought that Wisdom was canonical.  In his 39th Festal Letter, Athanasius is explicit that the Wisdom of Solomon is not in the canon of Scripture:

But for the sake of greater accuracy I add, being constrained to write, that there are also other books besides these, which have not indeed been put in the canon, but have been appointed by the Fathers as reading-matter for those who have just come forward and wish to be instructed in the doctrine of piety: the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobias, the so-called Teaching of the Apostles [the Didache], and the Shepherd [of Hermas]. 

Albrecht then quotes from the "Epistle of Barnabas" as supposedly referencing Wisdom 2:12 (chapter 6) where the author seems to ascribe the text to a prophet. "Forasmuch then as He was about to be manifested in the flesh and to suffer, His suffering was manifested beforehand. For the prophet saith concerning Israel; Woe unto their soul, for they have counseled evil counsel against themselves saying, Let us bind the righteous one, for he is unprofitable for us." As above, the prophet here is surely Isaiah (link to source).

Albrecht then quotes from Cyril of Alexandria (376 – 444) as supposedly referencing Wisdom 2:12 (Commentary on John Book 18, Chapter 12, on John 18:12) seemingly ascribing the text to a prophet. The text states "For the Jews were bent on showing to us, that that was indeed truly spoken of them which the prophet put into their mouths: Let us bind the righteous Man, for He is useless unto us. " (link to source)  But yet again, this is a reference to LXX Isaiah, not Wisdom.

Albrecht's mistake is somewhat understandable.  A number of patristic sources have the wrong citation or some ambiguity about the citation, due to the fact that the reading at LXX Isaiah 3 is different from the MT and Vulgate.  Nevertheless, Albrecht is wrong, and he should withdraw his claims.

-TurretinFan