Sunday, November 24, 2019

Athanasius' Use of the Apocrypha/Deuterocanon: Proof Athanasius Did Not Hold to Sola Scriptura


Many Protestant apologists (e.g., James White) claim that Athanasius(297-373) held a view of Scripture similar to that of Reformed Protestants (i.e., it being formally sufficient and the ultimate authority, with all other authorities [e.g., creeds; traditions] being subordinated to such). On the topic of Sola Scriptura itself, see:


I have a brief discussion of Athanasius therein. Interestingly, Athanasius made comments about the Apocrypha (“Deuterocanonical books”) in a way that would “trigger” John Calvin et al. As Gary Michuta, a Catholic apologist, noted:

He not only explicitly calls the deuterocanonical books “Scripture” [198], but he uses them to confirm doctrine both in defense of the Faith against pagans and against his most vociferous opponents, the Arians. For example, Athanasius quotes Wisdom 6:18 as a proof that knowledge of God leads to immortality [199]. In his work, Concerning the Opinion of Dionysius, 9, Athanasius defends the orthodoxy of Dionysius by using Wisdom 7:25 [200]. In his work, Defense of the Nicene Definition, 5, 20, Athanasius explains that the fathers of the Council of Nicaea wished to define the relationship of the Son to the Father using images from Wisdom 7;26 [201]. He even uses Baruch and Wisdom to explain the consubstantiality of the Father and Son [202]!

Notes for the Above

[198] For example, Athanasius in his work Against the Heathen, 1, 17, 3, cites Wisdom 14:21 as “Scripture” and later in the same work (Against the Heathen, 2, 44), he places the words of Wisdom 13:5 on the lips of the Son in On the Opinion of Dionysius, 9, Wisdom 7:25 coming “from the Scripture.” He also quotes the deuterocanon explicitly as “Scripture” in the anti-Arian work, Four Discourses Against the Arians, 2, 32, which seems to quote Wisdom 13:5 as Scripture in our Discourses Against the Arians, 2, 35, he quotes Judith 8:16 as “Scripture.” And in Four Discourses Against the Arians, 2, 45, he cites Wisdom 9:2 within a series of citations from “divine scriptures.” Even more telling is his use of the deuterocanon in the Letter of the Council of Egypt, 3, that quoted Wisdom 1:11 as “holy Scripture” and later in the same chapter quotes Psalms 49:16 and Sirach 15:9 as the words of the Holy Spirit. Also, in his letter to Alexander of Thessalonica (284-305) Athanasius cites Sirach 30:4 as “holy Scripture.”

[199] Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, 4.

[200] Athanasius writes, “And Dionysius accordingly acted as he learned from the apostles. For as the heresy of Sabellius was creeping on, he was compelled as I said before, to write the aforesaid latter, and to hurl as them what is said of the Savior in reference to his manhood and his humiliation, so as to bar them by reason of his human attributes from saying that the Father was a son, and so render easier for them the teaching concerning the Godhead of the Son, when in his other letters he calls him from the scriptures the word [John 1:1], wisdom [1 Cor. 1:24, 30], power [1 Cor. 1:24], breath [Wis. 7:25], and brightness of the Father [Wis. 7:26; Heb. 1:3].”

[201] Athanasius wrote, “Again, when the bishops said that the Word must be described as the true power and image of the Father, in all things exact and like the Father, and as unalterable, and as always, and as in him without division (for never was the Word not, but he was always, existing everlastingly with the Father, as the radiance of light.” Compare this with Wisdom 7:26: “For she [God’s wisdom] is a reflection of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image of his goodness.”

[202] “Thus they have called the Father the Fount of Wisdom (Bar. 3:12) and Life (Ps. 36:9; Prov. 13:14), and the Son the Radiance of the Eternal Light (Wis. 7:26), and the Offspring from the Fountain, as he says, ‘I am the life,’ and, ‘I wisdom dwell with prudence’ (Prov. 8:12; John 14:6). But the Radiance from the Light, and Offspring from Fountain, and Son from Father, how can these be so fitly expressed as by ‘coessential’ [homoioousios]? And is there any cause of fear, lest, because the offspring from men are coessential, the Son, by being called coessential, be himself considered as a human offspring too? Perish the thought! Not so; but the explanation is easy. For the Son is the Father’s word and wisdom; whence we learn the impassibility and indivisibility of such a generation from the Father . . . [Athanasius concludes later in the next paragraph] . . .though we know God to be a Father, we entertain no material ideas concerning him, but while we listen to these illustrations and terms, we think suitably of God, for he is not as man, so in lie manner, when we hear of ‘coessential’, we ought to transcend all sense, and, according to the proverb, ‘understand by the understanding what is set before us’ (Prov. 23:1); so as to now, that not by will, but in truth, is he genuine from the Father, as Life from Fountain, and Radiance from Light.” (Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger [2d ed.; El Cajon, Calif.: Catholic Answers Press, 2017], 122, 345-47)