Augustine and Jerome: Authority and the OT Biblical Canon (Jerome)

Jerome

Jerome came to a different conclusion on the content of the Old Testament. He limited his list to the canon the Jews accepted consisting in 22 or 24 books (the same as our 39). The reason for this is that Jerome approached the question of the Old Testament canon from a different vantage point than Augustine. He had “retired to the Holy Land in 386 to devote himself to his work on the Bible and its exegesis—textual revision, translation and commentaries. His interests were primarily literary and philological rather than philosophical.”[1] Jerome’s advantage over Augustine was being immersed in the original language of the Old Testament, Judaism, and working with diverging Hebrew and Greek manuscripts when making translations of various Old Testament books. Augustine on the other hand did not even know Hebrew.

Today it may seem a given that a text should be analyzed in its original language and context, but this was not always the case. “In the late fourth century however, the climate could not have been more different. The leading Latin biblical scholars of the day looked askance at ‘Hebrew verity’ as a working hermeneutical concept.”[2] In many ways, Jerome went against the grain in declaring that one should give priority to the Hebrew text even though notable predecessors (and Augustine inconsistently) held to the principle of going back to the original for insight.[3]

A major difference contributing to Jerome favoring the Hebrew text over the Septuagint (and by extension the having a different canon list) was his understanding of the Septuagint itself. As Jerome worked with the Septuagint, he began to realize “how problematic the Septuagint text was; not only was there a wide divergency between different versions of the Septuagint, but the Septuagint, on which all Latin translations were based, differed in many points from the Hebrew one wich had become the official one.”[4] In other words, he discovered the Septuagint differed among its own versions and with the Hebrew! If the Septuagint as a whole was supposed to be authoritative in the way Augustine thought it was, it made no sense that it diverged from the Hebrew and even among its own copies.

Jerome’s reasoning for going back to the Jewish source was not at odds with apostolic authority. In fact, “one of his chief arguments to his fellow Christians was that he had found that the Septuagint omits certain passages which are quoted from the Old Testament by Christ and the apostles…Jerome felt it was shocking that such errors should be accepted through force of habbit.”[5] When writing an apology for himself against Rufinus he maintains:

I do not condemn, I do not censure the Seventy, but I am bold enough to prefer the Apostles to them all. It is the Apostle through whose mouth I hear the voice of Christ, and I read that in the classification of spiritual gifts they are placed before prophets (1 Cor. xii. 28; Eph. iv. 11), while interpreters occupy almost the lowest place.[6]

But I was encouraged above all by the authoritative publications of the Evangelists and Apostles, in which we read much taken from the Old Testament which is not found in our manuscripts. For example, ‘Out of Egypt have I called my Son’ (Matt. ii. 15): ‘For he shall be called a Nazarene’ (Ibid. 23): and ‘They shall look on him whom they pierced’ (John xix. 37): and ‘Rivers of living water shall flow out of his belly’ (John vii. 38): and ‘Things which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man, which God hath prepared for them that love him’ (1 Cor. ii. 9), and many other passages which lack their proper context. Let us ask our opponents then where these things are written, and when they are unable to tell, let us produce them from the Hebrew. The first passage is in Hosea, (xi. 1), the second in Isaiah (xi. 1), the third in Zechariah (xii. 10), the fourth in Proverbs (xviii. 4), the fifth also in Isaiah (lxiv. 4). Being ignorant of all this many follow the ravings of the Apocrypha, and prefer to the inspired books the melancholy trash which comes to us from Spain.[7]

What Jerome resisted in his mind was certainly not apostolicity. In fact, he took this as extremely weighty since one of his main arguments depended on the Septuagint leaving out passages the apostles quoted. His annoyance stems more from many in the church accepting flawed copies because they were accustomed to. Even Augustine displayed this tendency when he told Jerome:

To be honest, I would prefer you to translate the canonical books of Scripture for us from the Greek text which is known as the Septuagint. I feel that many problems would arise if your translation began to be read regularly in many churches, because the Latin churches would be out of step with the Greek ones, especially as anyone who puts forward objections will easily be proved wrong when the Greek text is produced, for Greek is the language almost universally known…it would be almost impossible to get hold of the Hebrew texts to use in defence of the point which he objected [emphasis mine].[8]

Still, could it be there is a problem for Jerome when it comes to apostolic authority? It was mentioned earlier that Jerome acknowledged to Augustine that the apostles often used the Greek text over the Hebrew and yet Jerome prioritized the Hebrew. How was he able to reconcile this with his appeal to the apostles referring to passages that do not appear in the Septuagint? Is it consistent to follow apostolic use in one instance and not the other? Jerome’s understanding is further complicated when in some places Jerome rejects the basis for the Septuagint’s authority (the legend of the seventy) as a lie, says the Septuagint has errors and explicitly defends his prioritizing of the Hebrew while in other places he appears shocked that it would be suggested that he is undermining the Septuagint’s authority!

Earlier in Jerome’s career, Martin Hengel acknowledges that Jerome had taken a milder stance towards the legend of the seventy. Jerome thought the differences in the text could have been due to style or that “[the translators] must not necessarily have been ‘inspired’, although he still refers positively here to the translators ‘who translated filled with the Holy Spirit, for that they certainly were’. Later he is much more reserved on this point.”[9] It is this kind of discrepancy that has led scholars to disagree on whether or not Jerome actually denied the authority of the LXX. Still, the following shows that later Jerome did not see the translators as prophetic and thought the legend itself was a fraud:

I do not know whose false imagination led him to invent the story of the seventy cells at Alexandria, in which, though separated from each other, the translators were said to have written the same words. Aristeas, the champion of that same Ptolemy, and Josephus, long after, relate nothing of the kind; their account is that the Seventy assembled in one basilica consulted together, and did not prophesy. For it is one thing to be a prophet, another to be a translator. The former through the Spirit, foretells things to come; the latter must use his learning and facility in speech to translate what he understands…I do not condemn, I do not censure the Seventy, but I am bold enough to prefer the Apostles to them all. It is the Apostle through whose mouth I hear the voice of Christ, and I read that in the classification of spiritual gifts they are placed before prophets (1 Cor. xii. 28; Eph. iv. 11), while interpreters occupy almost the lowest place.[10]

It should be further noted “Jerome is also the only author in the early church who repeatedly emphasizes that the Seventy did not translate all of the Hebrew Scriptures of the prophets, but only the five books of Moses.”[11]

Add to this that Josephus, who gives the story of the Seventy Translators, reports them as translating only the five books of Moses; and we also acknowledge that these are more in harmony with the Hebrew than the rest. And, further, those who afterward came into the field as translators—I mean Aquila and Symmachus and Theodotion—give a version very different from that which we use.[12]

Did this mean Jerome thought the LXX had absolutely no authority? It is probably best to view Jerome’s understanding of the Septuagint as a different kind of authority. Hints of this are revealed when we notice Jerome is not only enraged over the idea that he himself would retract the value of his work from the Hebrew in a letter, but the thought that he would try to undermine the Septuagint is unimaginable.

It is this same man, then, who wrote this fictitious letter of retractation in my name, making out that my translation of the Hebrew books was bad, who, we now hear, accuses me of having translated the Holy Scriptures with a view to disparage the Septuagint…Am I likely to have said anything derogatory to the seventy translators, whose work I carefully purged from corruptions and gave to Latin readers many years ago, and daily expound it at our conventual gatherings; whose version of the Psalms has so long been the subject of my meditation and my song? Was I so foolish as to wish to forget in old age what I learned in youth? All my treatises have been woven out of statements warranted by their version. My commentaries on the twelve prophets are an explanation of their version as well as my own…[13]

We are indeed left confused if we understand the Septuagint to be authoritative to Jerome in only one possible way (as inspiration or prophecy). It would look as though Jerome was undermining the Septuagint’s authority and should be unable to deliver his defense in good conscience. He is unwaveringly in support of his translation from the Hebrew and unapologetic in regards to correcting the errors from the Septuagint, and earlier we saw that he rejected the basis for the Septuagint’s authority in the legend of the seventy, and yet he wants to show he is in support of the Septuagint and its authority? If all of this is to be taken as true, then a different understanding of the Septuagint’s authority must be in view.

In The Monk and the Book, Megan Williams discusses two sections in Jerome’s commentaries on the Prophets that are valuable in helping us see what kind of authority Jerome saw the Septuagint as having. “First, Jerome discusses the literal and historical sense of the passage under exegesis, then its allegorical or spiritual meaning.” She goes on to explain that to Jerome these are separate exegetical traditions where the literal and historical sense is derived from the Hebrew and the allegorical from the Septuagint. “The elucidation of the literal and historical sense provides the necessary preconditions for allegorical interpretation.”[14] Jerome uses the Hebrew as the main authoritative text that limits the range of interpretation. In sum, the Septuagint was subordinate, but not without authority in so far as it was rightly used by the church or depended on the apostles in interpretation.

The meanings that Jerome…considered most valuable were those extracted by the Alexandrian tradition of allegory. Only such imaginative transpositions of the biblical text to the situation of the church, or the individual Christian soul, could give life to material that on its surface seemed obsessed with the events of the distant past.[15]

Understanding the authority of the Septuagint as being in the allegorical interpretive role, alongside his affirmation of apostolic authority, explains why Jerome was able to maintain the Septuagint had errors and was often inaccurate without being open to the critique of holding a double standard when it came to appealing to the apostles. He rejected parts of the Septuagint because the apostles did, and could easily accept apostolic use in other areas. However, elsewhere it is apparent that he wrongly thinks the “apostolic men” only quoted from the LXX when it was not at odds with the Hebrew text. That is, if Jerome means to say that where the Hebrew text and the Septuagint differ they do not use the Septuagint, he is incorrect. Although, it could be that Jerome is aware of the apostles using the Septuagint where there are literal textual differences, but thinks there is an implicit allegorical or spiritual interpretive meaning present that the apostles utilized in interpretation. If this is the case, then Jerome is not as blatantly incorrect after all and is instead acknowledging the apostolic (as opposed to the translators’) inspired prerogative to bring out additional or already contained allegorical meaning in a text. This is not to say he does not think he or others in the church can identify allegorical meanings in the text (as we already have seen, he believes they can), but he does not assign the church, the translators and himself the same level of authority as an inspired prophet or apostle.

When Jerome’s understanding of the authority of the Septuagint and the Hebrew is applied to the question of why Jerome was able to accept only the books in the Hebrew canon and not those he deemed apocryphal, his reasoning can be summed up as follows: 1) The apostles did not accept the whole Septuagint as authoritative (even though the apostles specifically quote from parts of it[16]) and only used what was also found in the Hebrew. There is no reason coming from the apostles to accept more than what the Jews already have. 2) He did not believe in the legend supporting the Septuagint’s authority and so he did not need to understand them as prophetic or inspired and thus having the same sort of claim on his conscience as an apostle would. 3) He knew there were no books composed beyond the first five books of Moses. So, even if the Seventy did have unique inspiration, they would not have translated the apocryphal books. 4) The apostles included Christological material that the Septuagint copies the church used did not. This undermined the foundation of the Septuagint’s authority as literal and historical and by extension other parts of it. Finally, 5) Jerome understood that the real reason many in the church accepted the Septuagint, its additions and detractions was through force of habit and despite any historical or factual claims to the contrary.

---

[1] Caroline White, The Correspondance (394-419) Between Jerome and Augustine of Hippo (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1990), 2.

[2] Andrew Cain, The Letters of Jerome: Asceticism, Biblical Exegesis, and the Construction of Christian Authority in Late Antiquity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009) 64-65.

[3] Jerome. “Jerome’s Apology for Himself Against the Books of Rufinus.” Edited by Philip Schaff. In A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church Series II Vol 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), 1.13.

[4] Caronline White, 36.

[5] Ibid., 37.

[6] Jerome, Jerome’s Apology for Himself Against the Books of Rufinus, 2.24.

[7] Ibid., 2.25.

[8] Augustine, Ep.92, Edited by Caroline White, 92.

[9] Hengel, 48-49.

[10] Jerome, Jerome’s Apology for Himself Against the Books of Rufinus, 2.24.

[11] Hengel, 49.

[12] Jerome. “Preface to the Book of Hebrew Questions” Edited by Philip Schaff. In A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church Series II Vol. 6 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993).

[13] Jerome, Jerome’s Apology for Himself Against the Books of Rufinus, 2.24.

[14] Megan Hale Williams, The Monk and the Book: Jerome and the Making of Christian Scholarship (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2006), 114-120.

[15] Ibid., 128.

[16] The New Testament writers do not quote from the apocryphal books even though the books from the Hebrew canon are, with the possible exception of Enoch. However, there are occasions when the New Testament writers will allude to these other books as well as pagan works on occasion.

Augustine and Jerome: Authority and the OT Biblical Canon (Augustine))

Augustine

In his book On Christian Doctrine, Augustine gives the following list for the books of the Old Testament canon:

Now the whole canon of Scripture on which we say this judgment is to be exercised, is contained in the following books:—Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; one book of Joshua the son of Nun; one of Judges; one short book called Ruth, which seems rather to belong to the beginning of Kings; next, four books of Kings, and two of Chronicles—these last not following one another, but running parallel, so to speak, and going over the same ground. The books now mentioned are history, which contains a connected narrative of the times, and follows the order of the events. There are other books which seem to follow no regular order, and are connected neither with the order of the preceding books nor with one another, such as Job, and Tobias, and Esther, and Judith, and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Ezra, That is, Ezra and Nehemiah which last look more like a sequel to the continuous regular history which terminates with the books of Kings and Chronicles. Next are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David; and three books of Solomon, viz., Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. For two books, one called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus, are ascribed to Solomon from a certain resemblance of style, but the most likely opinion is that they were written by Jesus the son of Sirach. Still they are to be reckoned among the prophetical books, since they have attained recognition as being authoritative. The remainder are the books which are strictly called the Prophets: twelve separate books of the prophets which are connected with one another, and having never been disjoined, are reckoned as one book; the names of these prophets are as follows:—Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; then there are the four greater prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel. The authority of the Old Testamentis contained within the limits of these forty-four books.[1]

All of the books accepted by the Jews are included (Lamentations is often put as part of Jeremiah and 1 and 2 Esdras with Ezra and Nehemiah) along with those not found in the Hebrew Scriptures (Tobias, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, possibly Esdras, Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus). In contrast, Jerome was the first to refer to these books as “apocryphal” and accepted a canon very close to the Hebrew. This brings us to wonder what Augustine’s reasons for his list might have been.

Interestingly, Augustine differentiates the additional books, Judith excepted, from the others in that no prophet was present to have written them. This is gathered from his City of God when he talks about the prophetic voices that were around before the time of Christ. He ends the prophetic voice at Malachi, Haggai, Zechariah and Ezra and then resumes it on the eve of the nativity, beginning with the father of John the Baptist:

But in that whole time after they returned from Babylon, after Malachi, Haggai, and Zechariah, who then prophesied, and Ezra, they had no prophets down to the time of the Saviour’s advent except…when the nativity of Christ was already close at hand; and when He was already born…But even the reprobate Jews hold Malachi, Haggai, Zechariah, and Ezra as the last received into canonical authority.[2]

This rules out the possibility for a prophetic authorship for his additional books.

At another point, Augustine speaks of the church’s acceptance of Maccabees, not because of prophetic authorship, but on account of the martyrdom of certain Jews before Christ.

From this time, when the temple was rebuilt, down to the time of Aristobulus, the Jews had not kings but princes; and the reckoning of their dates is found, not in the Holy Scriptures which are called canonical, but in others, among which are also the books of the Maccabees. These are held as canonical, not by the Jews, but by the Church, on account of the extreme and wonderful sufferings of certain martyrs, who, before Christ had come in the flesh, contended for the law of God even unto death, and endured most grievous and horrible evils.[3]

On the surface, Jewish martyrdom is a strange canonical criterion. Still, this statement is said in the wider context of Augustine’s understanding of authority. Prophetic authorship was not a determinant in this case, and he did not accept the limited Jewish canon. Clearly, he did not base his decision on a commitment for going back to the source—or perhaps he conceived of going back to a different source: apostolic authority, giving it the ability to recognize significance in inspired works that are not valued for prophetic reasons, but for others such as martyrdom. In this interpretation of Augustine, martyrdom is not a foundational criterion, but apostolic authority is, with martyrdom as simply part of the rational ones with authority have for recognition. With this understood, what is meant when it is said that Augustine uses apostolic authority as foundational? What is apostolic authority?

In a letter to Jerome, Augustine requests Jerome explain why the Hebrew is preferred over the Greek text. He asks this as he appeals to the fact that the apostles use the Greek over the Hebrew, a fact even acknowledged by Jerome who still prefered the Hebrew.

Would you be so kind as to explain what you believe to be the reason why, in many cases, the authority of the Hebrew manuscripts differs from that of the Greek text, known as the Septuagint? For this text is of great importance, seeing that it was so widely diffused and was used by the apostles—a fact which is proved not only by the text itself but which I remember you also confirmed.[4]

This is a significant point. If the apostles themselves used the Septuagint authoritatively, why depend on Jewish sources instead? In a response to Faustus, Augustine further shows us how he understands apostolic authority and its significance.

Will he take our apostles as witnesses? Unless he can find some apostles in life, he must read their writings…Or if he produces his own manuscripts of the apostolic writings, he must also obtain for them the authority of the churches founded by the apostles themselves, by showing that they have been preserved and transmitted with their sanction. It will be difficult for a man to make me believe him on the evidence of writings which derive all their authority from his own word, which I do not believe…The authority of our books, which is confirmed by the agreement of so many nations, supported by a succession of apostles, bishops, and councils, is against you. Your books have no authority, for it is an authority maintained by only a few, and these the worshippers of an untruthful God and Christ. [5]

Augustine is responding to a claim that Manichaeus was an apostle of Christ. After showing that one only knows of Christ from the Jews and the fulfillment of prophecy, he moves on to apostolic witness as he considers the possibility of a heretical sect producing its own “apostolic writings.” In the previous quote we saw that Augustine thinks apostolic use of the Septuagint is key in deciding its authority. In this response to Faustus we see he believes apostolic authority extends beyond only what they wrote to their witness contained in the churches they founded. This apostolic truth is seen in the form of the church’s agreement supported by apostolic succession, bishops and counsels. This leads us into the other reason Augustine had for accepting the Septuagint, and by extension, additional books. When talking about what method one should use when deciding which books are canonical, he appeals to the church’s usage probably based in it being founded by the apostles and remaining within the line of succession.

Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of catholic churches; and among these, of course, a high place must be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles. Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal.[6]

Here Augustine is explaining how someone in his time should judge which books should be considered canonical (canon 1). Earlier, he had mentioned an authority based off of agreement, but really there was no clear agreement on which books of the Old Testament were authoritative in a fixed sense yet. This didn’t happen until the council of Trent, which utilized earlier councils Augustine had contributed to. Under the criteria Augustine gives here, the books Jerome accepts would be accepted since those in the Hebrew canon were more or less accepted by the entire church. What about books that were not accepted by the entire church? In that case, one was to defer to those with the greatest authority. Augustine did not conceive of a situation where those with the greater authority were at odds with the majority, but in such a case the two were to be seen as equally valid in making a decision.

Church usage is a problem for Augustine’s view since there wasn’t a clear agreement on which books were canonical and mere church usage of certain books was inconsistent since there was no “agreement between the codices which of the Apocrypha to include.”[7] Different Septuagint copies contained different books. Roger Beckwith points out that even though Origen himself thought the additional books were inspired, as far as the authenticity of the texts went he could only appeal to “the uniform usage of the church, and on the question of the canonicity of the Apocrypha the usage of the church was not uniform. All that was agreed was that the Apocrypha were to be read and esteemed, not that they were to be treated as Scripture.”[8] As an example, the book of Wisdom (one of Augustine’s accepted texts) is put forward. In De Principiis 4.33, Origen is clear that not everyone considers Wisdom authoritative. He makes a claim with the same implicit consequence when it comes to Tobit too. If in Augustine’s day there was no consensus on which books were even read (depending on which Septuagint copy they had) in addition to which were inspired, then appealing to wider church usage and authoritative church usage may not be helpful depending on how widespread the problem was.

One of the biggest reasons Augustine had for accepting the authority of the Septuagint was his dedication to the spurious legend of the seventy. Augustine’s version of the legend says that Ptolemy of Egypt asked the high priest Eleazar to send him the Scriptures and then translators. Seventy(2) translators were sent from the twelve tribes and their Greek translation ended up being called the Septuagint. The more legendary material can be found when he elaborates:

It is reported, indeed, that there was an agreement in their words so wonderful, stupendous, and plainly divine, that when they had sat at this work, each one apart (for so it pleased Ptolemy to test their fidelity), they differed from each other in no word which had the same meaning and force, or, in the order of the words; but, as if the translators had been one, so what all had translated was one, because in very deed the one Spirit had been in them all. And they received so wonderful a gift of God, in order that the authority of these Scriptures might be commended not as human but divine, as indeed it was, for the benefit of the nations who should at some time believe, as we now see them doing.[9]

Earlier it was mentioned that Augustine admitted there were no prophets until the advent of Christ, starting with the father of John the Baptist. Now it is evident he ascribes divine authority to the seventy-two Jewish translators. In the next chapter he even calls them prophetic “For the same Spirit who was in the prophets when they spoke these things was also in the seventy men …so that assuredly they could also say something else, just as if the prophet himself had said both, because it would be the same Spirit who said both”. This appears to be either a blatant contradiction with what was said in book XVII of City of God, or a sudden change of mind. “Basically, the only difference between prophets and translators consists in the fact that the former prophesied earlier.”[10] Then again, it may be more reasonable to qualify Augustine as having the understanding that the Seventy translators had a prophetic interpretative authority so as to distinguish them from those who provided completely new revelation.

Augustine prizes the idea that the translators miraculously came up with the same meaning by divine power—a divine power that could not possibly be in error. When the Jews and Jerome pointed out several errors in the Septuagint, Augustine made appeals to the legend itself by the authority of the church’s reception of it! After all, “no one should be preferred to the authority of so many men”.[11] Jerome is singled out, charitably, as “a man most learned, and skilled in all three languages, who translated these same Scriptures into the Latin speech, not from the Greek, but from the Hebrew” and yet, in the end, it is the legend that is accepted by the church that holds weight with Augustine and not the understanding of a single scholar or the complaints of the Jews. And yet, the legend accepted by Augustine and the church–was just a legend and only true as far as a translation in Greek was probably delivered to Egypt—though not even of any books beyond the first five books of Moses were translated.

Augustine could not get beyond the authority of “so many men” and told Jerome of his unflinching support of the Seventy translators in a letter along with his disbelief in the idea that “so many Latin and Greek authorities” could be wrong.[12] Jerome was not impressed. After revealing his annoyance over Augustine’s misunderstanding about the critical marks in his translation from the Greek (indicating where it diverged from the Hebrew), he attacks Augustine’s appeal to the work of the Seventy by pointing out that Augustine was not even privy to their work untainted and so he could not even know what was truly correct and so was not in a place to discount the work of Hebrew scholars like himself. After all, according to Jerome, if Augustine was consistent and truly devoted to the Septuagint, he would not be reading the Septuagint copy “corrupted by Origen…a Christian, especially when he has removed those additions which came from the edition of a Jew and a blasphemer after Christ’s passion” and further, Augustine should take precautions and “not read what is preceded by an asterisk—in fact [he] should delete such passages from [his] copy”[13] since they would only serve to obscure the authority of the Seventy.

Having already been ever so graciously confronted by Jerome about the differences between the Hebrew and Greek text, Augustine was faced with a dilemma. He could admit there were errors in the Septuagint and turn his back on the legend received by many in the church, or somehow reconcile the differences, some of which seemed to exclude the other in plain meaning. To resolve the difficulty, Augustine chose to believe in a dual inspiration without denying the legend of the Seventy.

…Whatever is found in both editions, that one and the same Spirit willed to say through both, but so as that the former preceded in prophesying, and the latter followed in prophetically interpreting them; because, as the one Spirit of peace was in the former when they spoke true and concordant words, so the selfsame one Spirit hath appeared in the latter, when, without mutual conference they yet interpreted all things as if with one mouth.[14]

This understanding in isolation allows for the Spirit to say something new through the Seventy or enable an interpretation by the translators that went beyond the literal sense contained in the Hebrew. In order to read Augustine’s statement about there being no prophets until the father of John the Baptist and accept his words on the “prophetic” translating power of the Seventy consistently, one would have to understand his statement as referring to the Seventy as having a uniqueinterpretive prophetic authority and not that they were each prophets in their own right delivering new revelation.

Augustine’s resolution presupposes the truthfulness of the legendary account and seeks to explain the discrepancies between the Greek and Hebrew. One could say he seeks to make his pre-established dedication to the Septuagint internally consistent. In the end, “the Bishop of Hippo paid little attention to the historical objections of the scholar from Bethlehem, i.e. that the Seventy translated only the Pentateuch and not all the Scriptures, or that they were only translators and not inspired…”[15]

Augustine’s reasons for accepting additional books to Jerome can be summarized as follows: 1) He bases his understanding in apostolic authority which can be understood through the writings of the apostles as well as the collective understanding and agreement of the church (apostolic succession, bishops, councils and probably an informal, yet evident, majority agreement). Through the writings of the apostles Augustine noticed that they often quoted from the Septuagint authoritatively and so it seemed reasonable that the Septuagint had apostolic sanction and by extension all the additional books contained in it. As far as a collective agreement on canonical lists is concerned, there was none and so he devised a practical way an individual in his time could decide which books to ascribe authority to. The inquisitor ought to accept the books that are considered authoritative by the most number of churches and those church’s with the most authority (perhaps referring to their antiquity). 2) He believed the legend of the Seventy translators was true, and that they were uniquely inspired by the Holy Spirit when it came to interpretation. Since this was the case, differences between the Hebrew and Greek were explained as the Holy Spirit further interpreting what the prophets of long ago were inspired to say in their time. He could easily accept additional books to the Hebrew as inspired by them since he also did not accept Jerome’s understanding that not all the books were translated. Finally, 3) Augustine could not comprehend the thought that so many learned authorities used within the church including the Seventy themselves could all be mistaken and that one man, Jerome and the Jews could be right.

---

[1] Augustine. “Christian Doctrine.” Edited by Philip Schaff. In A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church Series 1 Vol. II (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), 2.8.13.

[2] Augustine. “City of God.” Edited by Philip Schaff. In A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church Series I Vol. II (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), 17.24.

[3] Ibid.,18. 36.

[4] Augustine. “Ep.71” Edited by Caroline White. In The Correspondance (394-419) Between Jerome and Augustine of Hippo (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1990), 93.

[5] Augustine. “Reply to Faustus the Manichaean.” Edited by Philip Schaff. In A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church Series IVol. IV (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), 13.4-5.

[6] Augustine, Christian Doctrine, 2.8.12-13.

[7] Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church: and its Background in Early Judaism (Oregon: Wipf and Stock Pub, 1985), 383.

[8] Ibid., 394.

[9] Augustine, City of God, 16.42.

[10]Martin Hengel, The Septuagint As Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Problem of its Canon (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 53.

[11] Augustine, City of God, 16.43.

[12] Augustine, Ep.71, Edited by Caroline White, 92.

[13] Jerome, Ep.112, Edited by Caroline White, 133-134.

[14] Augustine, City of God, 16.43.

[15] Hengel, 52.

Augustine and Jerome: Authority and the OT Biblical Canon (Intro)

Introduction

We live in an era of a fractured church, torn between conflicting doctrines and authorities. One of these conflicts is over the content of Scripture itself. While there is general agreement on the content of the New Testament, the church has not reached a consensus with its Old Testament canon, although each denomination seems settled on the matter. Canonical lists differ significantly between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant churches and it is easy to miss that some of our most cherished beliefs held today have been influenced by notable figures and trends from the past.

After defining canonical, I will examine two devoted contemporaries— Augustine and Jerome—in their disagreement over which books were considered part of the Old Testament canon. Once I have overviewed some of their influences and reasons for taking their stances, I will consider their reasons and make a case for which canon is more substantive and should be adopted by the church today.

Canon

Before launching into a discussion on the books Augustine and Jerome accepted into their Old Testament canon, it is important to establish what is meant by canon in this paper. Dr. Lee McDonald recognizes that “In its popular use today, canon speaks primarily of a closed collection of sacred Scriptures that Jews and Christians believe had their origins in God and are divinely inspired.”[1] This leaves us with the problem of what to call those books believed to be divinely inspired, but have not been fixed by any counsel or Christian group. This is where McDonald acknowledges that Sheppard’s distinction between canon 1 and canon 2 proves useful.

In this paper, I will be using canon 1 to refer to those books thought to be inspired or having the status of Scripture within Christendom without being standardized or fixed by the church of its time. One could say that some books in this category are in the process of being fixed by a council or by some other means, but this is not always the case as some books that were once considered authoritative by certain groups are not anymore. Canon 2 will refer to “a perpetual fixation or standardization, namely, when the books of the Bible were fixed or standardized.”[2]When I analyze Augustine and Jerome’s Old Testament canons, it will be with a canon 1 concept in mind. When their positions and reasons are considered in relation to what he church today should accept, it is a canon 2 that will be in view. In other words, given Augustine and Jerome’s reasons for accepting the books they did (canon 1), which books should we consider fixed or standardized as sacred Scripture (canon 2)?

The Landscape

As the message of Christ spread throughout the gentile world, canonical confusion developed over the Old Testament. At times, it was to such an extent that some Christian leaders, such as Melito, bishop of Sardis, sought out the Jews. The church began within Judaism, so the natural conclusion was that early Christianity would inherit the Old Testament from the Jewish community. But this begs the question: ought the Jews be relied upon when establishing Christian Scripture? There was another issue as well. Many relied on the authority of the Septuagint (LXX)—the Old Testament translated into Greek by the legendary 70 (LXX) who supposedly independently arrived at the same translation and were believed by some to be inspired in their own right.

Furthermore, the LXX was widely used by the apostles themselves in the New Testament, and it often had significantly different wording than the Hebrew in some areas. There were also other books and additions to existing books that were not found in the Jewish canon, but appeared in some of the Septuagint copies. Many thought the Jews had tampered with their own Scriptures to avoid the truth of Christianity. This was the world of Augustine and Jerome (347-430 AD) who lived when ideas on the church’s authority and what constituted Scripture were still in flux, serving as a beginning for the views we hold dear today. The two will serve as teachers, enabling us to challenge and further understand what we consider canonically fixed.

---

[1] Lee Martin McDonald, The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority(Peabody: Hendrickson Pub Inc, 2007), 38.

[2] Ibid., 55.

Kevin DeYoung: Tradition Still Requires An Interpretation

Kevin DeYoung has put up a very helpful article over at The Gospel Coalition regarding the interpretation of tradition. It's an argument that has been made many times here at this blog, but a good refresher never hurts. Follow the link below.

Tradition Still Requires Interpretation

A New Essay By Mike Horton On Sola Scriptura

In this month's issue of Modern Reformation magazine, Mike Horton argues for the classic Protestant understanding of Sola Scriptura, and reminds us that the Mainline Reformers have always had to argue against two extremes, Rome and the Anabaptists (or "Radical Reformers"). Since both of these positions are alive and well today (and since Roman Catholic and Orthodox apologists have a tendency to lump all Protestants together under the radical or Anabaptist view), this article is timely and helpful.

Dr. Horton's essay is available for free here.

Celebrant: All our problems

People: We send to the cross of Christ.

Celebrant: All our difficulties

People: We send to the cross of Christ.

Celebrant: All the devil’s works

People: We send to the cross of Christ.

Celebrant: All our hopes

People: We set on the risen Christ.

Celebrant: Christ the Son of Righteousness shine upon you and scatter the darkness from before your path; and the blessing of God Almighty, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, be among you, and remain with you always.

A Defense of The Active Obedience of Jesus Christ

In this post we are going to take up the Defense of Christ's Active obedience. This is an important doctrine for understanding justification by faith alone and there have been some who even claim to be “Reformed” who reject this doctrine. Christ's Active obedience is Christ's perfect obedience with respect to the Law of God and this is imputed to us when we first have saving faith in Christ. This is distinct from but not separate from Christ's passive obedience which is Christ allowing himself to be the just satisfaction for our sins on the cross. Both the active and passive obedience of Christ are given to us in our justification. If we do not have both the passive and active obedience of Christ no one can be saved. The active obedience of Christ is a very important topic because it has to do with the Gospel. It is a sad thing that many in the church are either ignorant of this doctrine or they explicitly reject this doctrine. So it is more than fitting that we look at the scriptures to establish this essential doctrine of the Christian faith.

One way to prove active obedience is to start with the assumption of the truth of the doctrine of justification by faith alone (Rom. 4:1-8). In the Reformed doctrine of justification one is entirely righteousness to inherit eternal life without adding any works of their own to their justification. However, the Bible teaches that one needs to follow the Law perfectly to obtain heaven so this means that when we are justified by faith alone we have to be imputed a persons perfect Law keeping. As the scriptures teach there is only one person who followed the Law of God perfectly and that is Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:19; 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15). Therefore, when we are justified by faith we are imputed the perfect law keeping of Jesus Christ. The controversial step in this line of reasoning is that we have to follow the Law perfectly in order to obtain heaven. So let us look to God's word to support that in order to be justified one needs to follow the Law perfectly:

Luke 10:25-28 25 And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" 26 He said to him, "What is written in the Law? How do you read it?" 27 And he answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself." 28 And he said to him, "You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live."

This verse teaches that if we follow God with all our ability then we will inherit eternal life. If we sin just once we have failed to love God with all of our ability and this means that the Law does not just require relative obedience for eternal life but perfect perpetual obedience for eternal life. When Jesus says “do this, and you will live” he does not mean physical life but eternal life because in context that was the question asked to him by the Lawyer (v. 25). Therefore, to enter into heaven one has to be perfectly righteous. Mark 12:28-34 is another passage that is similar to Luke 10 but Mark shows us that the requirement of perfection cannot merely be substituted or satisfied by sacrifices:

“28 And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, "Which commandment is the most important of all?" 29 Jesus answered, "The most important is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' 31 The second is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these." 32 And the scribe said to him, "You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him. 33 And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices." 34 And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions.”

This section of scripture sheds light on a very important principle: Obedience is better than sacrifice (v. 33). This means that any sacrifice cannot be a mere replacement of perfect law keeping because obedience to the Law is better than sacrifice. Many people who reject active obedience do so on the basis that we do not need perfect law keeping imputed to us because all we need is Jesus' sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins, but verse 33 teaches that sacrifice cannot be a replacement of obedience because obedience is valued more by God. Rather in order for us to be right before God we need sacrifice and perfect obedience to be credited to our account. So we cannot say that the passive obedience can replace the active obedience because both the passive and active obedience are both necessary conditions for us to be right before God. Another passage that shows us that God requires perfection is Matthew 5:48 which says

“48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

There verse could not be any clearer in communicating this: God requires us to be morally perfect just like he is morally perfect. God does not grade on a curve he expects perfect obedience to his Law because his perfect nature demands it. It is therefore, established that to do the Law one needs to follow it perfectly because this is what God requires. In order for a human being to be justified one has to follow the Law as Romans 2:13 teaches

“13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.”

In order for a human being to be justified before God he has to do the law and as I have shown to do the Law means to follow it perfectly. However, only one person has followed the Law perfectly and that is Jesus Christ. So the only way for us to be justified is to be imputed Christ's perfect law keeping. This is one clear way to prove active obedience and it is legitimate because it is a clear and necessary inference from the Bible like the Trinity and the two wills of Jesus Christ. But there are actually texts that seem to explicitly affirm that Christ's perfect obedience to the Law is imputed to us, one clear example of this is Romans 5:19:

“19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.”

This is one of the clearest verses on Active obedience. This verse clearly teaches that the basis of us being imputed righteousness is Christ's perfect obedience. In other words, this verse teaches that the ground of our righteousness is the imputation of Christ's obedience to the Law. This cannot be a infused righteousness because of the fact that infused righteousness is logically incompatible with the objection that Paul anticipates in Romans 6:1 “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?” This is an objection that could only arise if in fact Paul was teaching a legal imputation of righteousness through grace by faith alone. Lastly, the preceding context also gives us a strong indication that Paul is working with a legal context (Rom. 4:5-8; 5:1). Therefore, this verse clearly is teaching that Christ's obedience is the legal basis by which we are imputed righteousness. Another verse like 1 Corinthians 1:29-31 helps us connect the dots by teaching that Christ's righteousness is our righteousness, it reads as follows:

29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. 30 He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption. 31 Therefore, as it is written, "Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord."

This verse is used to show us that the righteousness of Jesus Christ is our righteousness. In other words, this verse shows us that it is Christ's righteousness that makes us righteous. The context suggests this strongly because it emphasizes that we cannot boast before the Lord and the only way this would be true is if the perfect righteousness we had for entering heaven was not our own righteousness but the righteousness of Jesus Christ, then and only then would we not be able to boast in ourselves, but only in the Lord for he is our righteousness. And we receive the righteousness of the Lord by faith as Paul teaches in Philippians 3:8-9

“8 Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith-”

Paul counts all of his accomplishments and all of his good deeds as loss by only trusting in Christ and receiving the righteousness from God. Paul says that he has no righteousness of his own, but rather he has the righteousness from God by faith in Christ. Paul cannot trust in his active obedience anymore for righteousness but the only active obedience he can trust in for his justification is Christ' righteousness. For if we were to ever trust in our own law keeping for righteousness we would all be doomed. There would be no hope in this life if we did not have Christ's righteousness because we fall into sin every day, we are so very far from perfection. This is why I am so deeply moved by the words of Dr. J. Gresham Machen shortly before he died he sent his final telegram to his friend Professor John Murray. The words of the telegram were these: "I'm so thankful for the active obedience of Christ. No hope without it." There is so much significance and truth packed into Machen's last words to John Murray. The fact is that without Christ's righteousness there is no hope because our own best righteousness is like fifthly rags. It might not be today and it might not be tomorrow but someday we will all die. And in your last dying breath, the moment right before you go, do you want to die knowing that you are about to go before a holy God with just your daily sins? Or would you rather die knowing that you have been imputed with Christ' perfect righteousness? For the Apostle Paul and Machen the answer to this was clear we must only rely on Christ and his perfect righteousness because without it there is simply no hope in this life.