Lee Martin McDonald on the Disadvantages of a Closed Canon

  

What are some disadvantages of a closed canon? A closed canon may indicate Deism; that is, God created the world and then left it to spin on its own without any guidance. A closed book unfortunately has suggested to some that God’s mouth has been muted for virtually 2,000 years. A closed canon may imply that many books once considered inspired and revelatory are unimportant or threatening because they were eventually not included in the canon. The phenomenon of exclusion does not mean the early compositions on the “fringe of the Bible” are discarded, irrelevant for historical and theological insights, or pseudepigraphical (many books in the canon are pseudepigraphical; that is, David did not write all the Davidic Psalms and Solomon did not write Proverbs). (Lee Martin McDonald, The Formation of the Biblical Canon, 2 vols. [London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017], 1:xix)

 

Joseph Smith (August 1844): Important Teachings of the Bible Were Removed Before Its Completion

  

Upon my return from Amherst conference, I resumed the translation of the scriptures. From sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many important points, touching the salvation of man, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was complied. It appeared self-evident from what truths were left, that if God rewarded every one according to the deeds done in the body, the term "heaven," as intended for the saint's eternal home, must include more kingdoms than one. According on the 16th of February, 1832, while translating St. John's gospel, myself and elder Rigdon saw the following VISION. ("History of Joseph Smith," Times and Seasons 5, no. 14 [August 1, 1844]: 592)

 

Addressing the Thief on the Cross (Again)

Some Protestants appeal to the case of Cornelius as evidence that one can be regenerated without water baptism. On this, see, for e.g., Refuting Jeff McCullough ("Hello Saints") on Baptismal Regeneration, where I discuss Cornelius, show Luke in the Acts of the Apostles did not believe Cornelius was regenerated until he received water baptism, and how the earliest Christian discussion of Cornelius (Irenaeus of Lyons in Against Heresies) understood it in the same way, too. Another such purported example of someone being regenerated without water baptism is that of the thief on the cross, the proverbial "ragged doll" of much of Protestant eisegesis for many things, including a form of sola fide.

Contrary to one conscious fraud (see below), I have addressed the thief on the cross and whether it can be used as a proof-text against baptismal regeneration and/or in favor of sola fide a few times on this blog; for e.g.:

James B Prothro (RC) on the Penitence of the Thief on the Cross

 

Welsh Anti-Mormon David Williams (Protestant) Admitting that None of the Protestant Groups Do Not "have the gospel doctrine in its purity" (1846)

 

Jeff McFadden, One Baptism (2006): The thief on the cross

 

Excerpts from David C. Kimball, "On The Necessity of Baptism as a Means of Salvation" (1846)

 

George Reynolds on the Thief on the Cross and Water Baptism

 

Parley P. Pratt Defending Baptismal Regeneration (June 1840)

 

Matthew W. Bates on the Thief on the Cross

 

The Good Thief on the Cross

Contrast this with what this idiot who, on a daily basis, has to fight his conscience each day to justify his apostasy has to say:

Firstly, one can easily do a search of my blog to see I have addressed the thief on the cross and I have defended the "radical" view. Here you go Daniel:

site:scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com "thief on the cross"

Until I met Daniel, I honestly thought lawyers were intelligent. Daniel sure makes Lionel Hutz seem honest and competent.

Maybe we should ask what was the early Christian view of the thief on the cross vis-a-vis water baptism? On this, see the following from the Dimond Brothers (and before anyone dismisses them as being formal Sedevacantists and [pretty consistent] Feenyites (*), remember that is the genetic fallacy):

Jesus' Descent Into Hell & The Baptism Of The Good Thief

This allows me to share the following video from Lutheran Satire:

(*) on the topic of baptism of desire, a recent book has come out that is a must-read on the topic for those interested in the theology and history of baptism, sacramental theology, and related topics (e.g., extra ecclesiam nulla salus):

Anthony R. Lusvardi, Baptism of Desire and Christian Salvation (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2024)

Unlike Daniel Ortner, I have read scholarly books and articles on water baptism and its development in Catholic sacramental theology. He is out to lunch if he thinks he can Catholic-explain to me. As always, keep his poor kids who are the victims of spiritual abuse by Daniel and Jessica in your prayers.

One has to give Ortner credit: he makes bogus statement with a lot of confidence. However, for those who know him and his arguments how they are fraudulent, just like his man-made blasphemous Protestant theology. For other instances of his being called upon his deceptive claims, see, for e.g.:

Does Colossians 1:25-26 Teach Sola Scriptura?

Comments on Luke 24:44 and Luke 11:50-51//Matthew 23:35

Also see the following where Travis Anderson engaged both Daniel Ortner and Tim Jackson; you will see that Ortner's understanding of both the Bible and the Book of Mormon to be piss poor:

Daniel Ortner, Tim Jackson join a debacle.

Jerry D. Grover, Jr., on Alma 52:33 and 56:9

Interacting with John L. Sorenson, "The Significance of the Chronological Discrepancy Between Alma 52:33 and Alma 56:9" (FARMS, 1990), Jerry D. Grover wrote the following, arguing that there is no discrepancy between these two passages:

 

Potential Defugalty of Helaman’s epistle and Mormon’s Abridgment

 

In 1990, John Sorenson pointed out what, on first impression, appears to be a chronological discrepancy involving an epistle written by Helaman in the latter part of the 29th year (Reign of the Judges) inserted into the Book of Mormon and the associated abridgement by Mormon involving the same time period. Namely, in the epistle to Moroni₁, Helaman indicates that in the 26th year (Alma 56:7) Helaman marched at the head of two thousand young men originating from Lamanites converted previously by Ammon “to the city of Judea, to assist Antipus, whom ye had appointed a leader over the people of that part of the land” (Alma 56:9). In Mormon’s abridgment Alma 53:22-23, he indicated that Helaman:

 

“did march at the head of his two thousand stripling warriors, to the support of the people in the borders of the land on the south by the west sea. And thus ended the twenty and eighth year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi.”

 

Thus, it would appear that the same event is being recounted by Mormon as occurring in the latter part of the 28th year, while Helaman recounts it as happening in the 26th year, so if this event is the same, then there is at least a 2-year discrepancy in the chronology.

 

Miner (2020) rebuts this apparent discrepancy by indicating that the mention of the movement of Helaman’s army prior to the end of the 28th year was, in summary, just a retrospective summary of military activity along the west coast (including Alma 53:8), as it was preceded fairly close in the text by a summary of activity along the east coast (Alma 53:6-7).

 

Book of Mormon Central (2021) characterized Alma 53:10–22 as a digression/flashback that lets readers know about some key events that were happening on another war front, which events began in the 26^th year but clearly continued into the 28th year—the very year which Mormon was discussing before and after the digression (Alma 52:19; 53:23). While Helaman’s initial march to the southwest war front occurred in the 26th year (Alma 56:9), his efforts “to support” the war effort in this area (including lots of additional marching to and from locations in this region) continued into the 28th year and even beyond (Alma 57:5–6).

 

While the retrospective theory is a reasonable interpretation to explain the proposed discrepancy, it is also constructive to look in some detail as to whether the march by Helaman in the 26th year is potentially consistent with Mormon’s record, and to see if there is a possible movement by Helaman before the end of the 28th year that is also consistent with Mormon’s record, therefore not requiring the retrospective theory.

 

The period of time bracketed in Mormon’s abridgment as the 26th year runs from Alma 52:1-15. During that time on the east front, Amalickiah, the head of the Lamanites, was killed, and initially Moroni₁was not on the east coast front (presumably in Zarahemla). Ammoron (who replaced Amalickiah) gathered a large number of men and “marched forth against the Nephites on the borders by the west sea,” thus Moroni₁could not go to the east coast front as he had to go against the Lamanites who were upon them “in the borders of the land by the west sea.” No mention is made of the specific battles or engagements involving Moroni₁on the borders of the land by the west sea. It is indicated that prior to Moroni1 departing from that area to the land of Bountiful, at the latter end of the 26th year he had “established armies to protect the south and the west borders of the land” and Mormon writes that at the end of the 26th year the Nephites were “in dangerous circumstances.”

 

The period of time bracketed in Helaman’s epistle for the 26th year is found in Alma 9:7-20 and involves him first assembling and marching with his 2000 warriors to the city of Judea to assist Antipus at the city of Judea, whom Moroni₁had appointed leader of the people in that part of the land. Antipus had recently been involved in battles and lost men, and in the process lost the land and city of Manti, Zeezrom, Cumeni, and Antiparah. Ammoron had commanded the Lamanites to maintain the cities that they had taken, and to take no further action against Judea. Judea is not located on the west seashore, as it is later indicated that the Nephite armies had to march towards the seashore from Judea, with the city of Antiparah between Judea and the west coast. Judea does appear to be in some proximity to the southern border (as the city of Manti is known to be located close to the southern border).

 

So thus, the information from Helaman is consistent with Mormon, namely that there had been an encroachment by the Lamanites and the taking of some cities, Mormon was not specific in his description of where, but battles against the Lamanites were indicated. He had established and sent armies (one of which was Helaman) to the south and west borders of the land to help protect the area. Thus, it would seem that Helaman’s arrival in Judea was towards the end of the 26th year, after there had been battles with the Lamanites.

 

There is no record from Mormon involving the western front for the 27th year as Moroni₁had arrived and was active on the east sea front. Thus, there could be no potential discrepancies with Helaman’s record.

 

Moroni₁remained on the eastern front during the 28th year. The commentary that may relate to the 28th year in the west area in Mormon’s abridgment is Alma 53:8-23. Mormon commented that on the “west sea, south, while in the absence of Moroni₁,” because of some “intrigue amongst the Nephites, which caused dissensions among them, [the Lamanites] had gained some ground…, [and] had obtained possession of a number of cities in that part of the land” (Alma 53:8). This geographic reference is a bit awkward textually and may be better interpreted as a specific recognized area such as “West Sea South” as there was no capitalization and punctuation in the original Book of Mormon dictation. This statement by Mormon does seem to be a retrospective statement that goes back to the time that Moroni₁had departed, which was sometime likely in the middle of the 26th year. It would seem to also be consistent with the Lamanites taking the land and city of Manti (which land would include “some ground”) which is on the south border, and Zeezrom, Cumeni, Antiparah, and an unnamed city on the seashore after Moroni₁left, and prior to the arrival by Helaman. The named cities all appear to be at elevation as the Lamanites would have to march “down” from there to Zarahemla (Alma 56:25) so were also probably considered on the southern boundary area, and not on the seashore like the unnamed city. So, these would seem to be the cities that Mormon was referring to that fell to the Lamanites just after Moroni₁had left for the eastern area. Further evidence that these were the cities referred to is that when Antiparah fell (actually abandoned), the “people” from there fled to other Lamanite held cities, indicating the people of this Nephite city had allegiance to the Lamanites, consistent with Mormon’s statement of “intrigue amongst the Nephites which caused dissensions among them.” Sorenson interprets this statement to not be retrospective, and that these cities must have fallen sometime in the middle or latter part of the 28th year, which clearly would not make sense, and would force one to look for an error in chronology. It does seem fairly clear that the statement regarding the fall of the cities at least is retrospective.

 

After the brief retrospective statement, Mormon proceeds to give a brief history of the people of Ammon, their pacifistic oath, and the covenant of their 2000 sons to fight for liberty. It is after this discussion that Mormon makes his statement that Helaman and the 2000 stripling soldiers marched “to the support of the people in the borders of the land on the south by the west sea” prior to indicating the end of the 28th year.

 

Thus, it does seem that this discussion by Mormon is retrospective and is looking at events earlier than the 28th year. However, it is useful to see if there was a potential march by Helaman in the 28th year that might satisfy a non-retrospective approach to the interpretation of this portion of the text. For Helaman’s epistle the 27th and 28th year are not differentiated and runs from Alma 56:20 to Alma 57:5. Just prior to the end of the 28th year, Helaman had returned to the city of Judea and prepared to attack the city of Antiparah. The people of Antiparah ended up abandoning the city and it “fell into our hands.”

 

Thus, there may have been a march of Helaman and his men to “support the people” and the city of Antiparah was located in the proper location, namely on the borders of the land south by the west sea. Thus, there does not appear to be an unresolvable chronological disparity involving Mormon’s abridgment and the epistle of Helaman. (Jerry D. Grover, Jr., Calendars and Chronology of the Book of Mormon [Tecumseh, Mich.: Challex Scientific Publications, 2023], 156-58)

 

Addressing Some Comments Regarding "Baptismal Regeneration"

 Curtis Jeremiah Boddy (who thinks any singular book of the Bible is formally sufficient [e.g., Obadiah, I kid you not] to give you an idea of how dumb he is) shows he is indeed a dim-wit with the following:

 

(Boddy has me blocked on f/b so I got this image from a friend).

 

Couple of things:

 

1.     I never claimed baptismal regeneration (hereafter BR) is the silver bullet proving Mormonism. Source please?

2.     Not all, but a majority, of Lutherans hold to BR; there are many Presbyterians who reject it, and even believe it to be theological heresy (e.g., The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, founded by Ian Paisley).

3.     BR is important as it shows that, if one does not believe in the Great Apostasy, but rejects BR, then, to a man, the early Christians were teaching soteriological heresy. Even critics of the doctrine (e.g., William Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, pp. 95-96) admit that, from the 2nd century onwards, it was the unanimous belief of the patristics. The rejection of BR is a theological novelty (unless you want to include the Gnostics, but their rejection of BR was informed by their view that matter is inherently evil, etc).

4.     BR is also important as, if one is consistent, it has theological ramifications; for e.g., man still has a free-will to choose God, even after the fall, justification is in some sense transformative, ergo, it could be lost through heinous sin (“mortal sin” as our Catholic friends would say), etc.

5.     What gave rise to infant baptism initially was anthropology—see, for e.g., Origen’s commentaries on Leviticus. It was only when infant baptism became more mainstream (e.g., during the time of Augustine [354-430]) did defenders of infant baptism emphasize BR in support of such a practice (as a modern e.g., see Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Faith Alone, 2d ed [2009], p. 545). Furthermore, there were those who did teach BR but did not hold to infant baptism (e.g., Tertullian, On Baptism). For a discussion on baptism in early Christianity, including a detailed study of the origin and development of infant baptism, see Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009) (in fact, my advice to Boddy would be read a book—you give Paul Gee a run for their money in terms of lowest IQ people on the Internet). Further, just because something can be abused (for a Latter-day Saint, the emergence infant baptism [cf. Moroni 8 in the Book of Mormon]) does not mean that the concept of BR  is likewise corrupt or questionable. This is fallacious thinking, so I will urge Boddy to read a book on logic someday, once he masters Spot goes to the Park. Christadelphians hold to Sola Scriptura (at least they purport to be); should I therefore impute something negative to Reformed Protestants like Boddy who hold to Sola Scriptura in light of this? Should I claim that Sola Scriptura cannot truly be the formal doctrine of the Reformation as it can be abused by groups that hold to a Socinian Christology and reject the ontological (that means "real" Jeremy) existence of Satan & Demons? The argument, again, has an IQ less than 70 (avoiding the term a lot of Americans do not like).

 

TLDR: Curtis (Jeremiah) Boddy is an idiot.

 

To see something that is representative of my work on baptismal regeneration (note: nowhere do I say this is the "silver bullet" that proves Mormonism [and BR is not the only topic I write about supporting LDS claims--see my works on Christology, plurality of Gods, the nature of justification, the "ground" of justification, creatio ex materia vs. ex nihilo, critique of the Protestant understandings of Heb 10:10-14 and John 19:30, etc]), see:

Refuting Jeff McCullough ("Hello Saints") on Baptismal Regeneration

Baptismal Regeneration is explicitly biblical, and that is why the patristics would just use the Bible to support it (albeit, sometimes coupled with typology from the Old Testament). This leads us to any other irony: this shows that "Mormonism," is closer to "biblical Christianity" than the false Protestant theologies of Boddy et al. who reject the doctrine, and, further, shows that they must reject the clear, perspicuous witness of the Bible on this central issue (note: the perspicuity of the Bible on central doctrines [of which the instrumental of justification would be one] is an important "building block" of sola Scriptura).

Of course, that coward and liar, Daniel Ortner, “liked” that post. Do note: he refuses to debate me on this or any other topic. Again, do pray for his kids who are the victims of spiritual child abuse by him and especially Jessica.

David P. Wright on Some of the Literary Structures in Alma 30

  

Alma 30:47:

 

One of the Book of Mormon's formal characteristics is embedding, where each phrase in a series of phrases is grammatically or logically dependent upon the phrase just before it, thus forming a chain of linked phrases. For example, in Alma's description of Korihor's curse (Alma 30:47) we find a five-member embedded structure:

 

a Therefore, if thou shalt deny again,

b behold, God shall smite thee,

c that thou shalt become dumb,

d that thou shalt never open thy mouth any more,

e that thou shalt not deceive this people any more.

 

The first two phrases are members of a conditional ("if-then") phrase. Phrase c develops b with a result clause conjoined with the word "that" describing the effect of the smiting; phrase d develops c, also with a result clause similarly conjoined, describing or defining the effect of being dumb; and finally he concludes with another similar result clause describing what happens when one cannot open one's mouth. One of the literary effects of this particular embedded structure is a feeling of focusing. From the general condition of denial one moves to the specific result of being smitten. This is then defined further as becoming dumb. Temporal limits are then set for the curse: Korihor will never open his mouth any more. The final clause fleshes out the description by giving the ultimate rationale for the curse. (David P. Wright, "Review of The God-Inspired Language of the Book of Mormon: Structuring and Commentary (1988), by Wade Brown," FARMS Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 1, no. 1 [1989]: 13)

 

Alma 30:28:

 

Another feature of Book of Mormon narrative is listing.

 

This may be termed a type of parallelism. Korihor describes the means by which the church leaders have oppressed the people (Alma 30:28):

 

and have brought them to believe

by their traditions,

and their dreams,

and their whims,

and their visions,

and their pretended mysteries

 

The repetitive structure is clear whether one sees it visually listed as here or reads it in customary verse-paragraph form. One of the effects of this list is to halt the reader in the middle of Korihor's criticism and hear more emphatically the anti-Christ's criticisms. They become drum beats accentuating his charges. The reader becomes more aware of his negative character hearing plainly his sacrilegious mixing of the pure forms of religious knowledge, i.e., traditions, dreams, and visions, with impure forms, i.e., whims and pretended mysteries. (Ibid., 13-14)

 

Alma 30:24-26:

 

The last example from Alma 30 shows the statement-counterstatement form (30:24-26).

 

a Ye say that this people is a free people,

b behold, I say these are in bondage

c Ye say that those ancient prophecies are true,

d behold, I say that ye do not know that they are true

e Ye say that this people is a guilty and a fallen people

f because of the transgression of a parent,

g behold, I say that a child is not guilty because of its parents.

h And ye also say that Christ shall come,

i but, behold, I say that ye do not know that there shall be a Christ.

j And ye say also that he shall be slain for the sins of the world—

 

Korihor first makes a statement about what the people believe (a, c, e, h) and then refutes it (b, d, g, i). The last item in the series contains only a statement (j) with no refutation, but this is intuited by the momentum of the passage. The third statement contains an extra explanatory tag (f) not found in the other cases. Each statement contains the initial elements "ye ... say that." The counterstatements begin with "behold, I say that." This form, much like the list in the previous example, sets up a rhythmic expectation. Its tempo is much slower than the list's, but it draws the reader's attention to its message just as well. This form which sets ideas off against one another is particularly apt as a miniature reflection of the larger political and religious conflict between Korihor and Alma. (Ibid., 14-15)

 

Lee Martin McDonald on the Canon and the 22 Letters of the Hebrew and 24 of the Greek Alphabets

  

Some Christians, who acknowledged the sacredness of the twenty-two book Hebrew canon of scriptures, also found a way to accommodate the rabbinic acceptance of the twenty-four-book canon adopted by the Jews. For example, the author of the Gospel of Thomas (ca. 100-140 CE, and perhaps later) says that “Twenty-four prophets spoke in Israel, and they have all spoken to you [Jesus]” (Gospel of Thomas 52). This passage may also refer to the OT books acknowledged as Scripture among early Christians, which if so would make it the earliest known Christian document to identify a specific number of books in the Christian OT. Interestingly, Hilary of Poitiers (d. 367 CE) mentions the twenty-two books of the OT in accordance with the Hebrew alphabet, but then added Judith and Tobit because the Greek alphabet has twenty-four letters! (Lee Martin McDonald, The Formation of the Biblical Canon, 2 vols. [London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017], 1:84)

 

Robert Sungenis (RC) on Colossians 2:13-14 and Supersessionism

  

Colossians 2:13-14 states:

 

“And even when you were dead in transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he brought you to life along with him, having forgiven us all our transgressions; 14 obliterating the bond against us, with its legal claims, which was opposed to us, he also removed it from our midst, nailing it to the cross.”

 

This tells us that our sins were forgiven when the “bond against us, with its legal claims that were opposed to us” was “obliterated” and “removed from our midst,” and it was done when Christ was nailed to the cross. The word “obliterating” is the Greek εξαλειψας, an aorist participle of εξαλειφω, used five ties in the NT, which means “blotted out” or “wiped away” (Ac 3:19; Ap 3:5; 7:17; 21:4).

 

The phrase “bond . . . with its legal claims” is the Greek χειρογραφον τοις δογμασιν, which literally is, “handwriting of ordinances.” While “handwriting” is a hapaxlegomena, it is probably an allusion to the law written by God’s own fingers (e.g., Exodus 31:18: “When the Lord has finished speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets of the commandments, the stone tablets inscribed by God’s own finger”).

 

The word “ordinances” is the Greek δογμα, which appears five times in the NT and refers to a legal decree (cf. Lk 2;1; Ac 16:4; 17:7; Ep 2:15; Cl 2:14). Especially important here is the companion verse, Ephesians 2:15:

 

“. . . through his flesh, abolishing the law with its commandments and legal claims, that he might create in himself one new person in place of the two . . . “

 

The clause “abolishing the law with its commandments and legal claims” is the Greek τον νομον των εντολων εν δογμασιν καταργησας. The word καταργησας is an aorist participle from καταργεω, which means, “to nullify, cancel, destroy, abolish, do away with.” So we have the same teaching as Colossians 2:13-15. The Law, the Commandments, both have legal claims against us, that is, they convict us of sin. But they were, “abolished, cancelled, nullified” at the time Christ offered his flesh on the cross.

 

When something has “legal” claims against us, there are only two ways to mitigate its claims:

 

1) to obey the legal claims to the fullest thereby satisfying the law’s demands.

2) to nullify the legal claims by nullifying the legal entity in which they exist.

 

Since no one after Adam could completely fulfill the law’s legal claims, the God-Man, Christ, fulfilled them, and by that obedience, which was consummated on the cross (Gal 3;13), Christ nullified the legal claims of the law against humanity and replaced that covenant with its own covenant, the New Covenant.

 

We see the same truth in St. Paul’s other teachings [in Rom 3:19-20; 4:13-16; 5:20; 6:14-15; 7:6-7] (Robert Sungenis, Supersessionism is Irrevocable: Facing the Ambiguities, Compromises, and Heresies in Recent Catholic Documents Regarding the “Old Covenant” [State Lina, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2024], 434-35; comment in square brackets added for clarification)

 

More Proof that Tim Jackson is an idiot and Daniel Ortner is Conscious Liar

My friend Travis Anderson recently engaged Tim "the Tard" Jackson and Daniel Ortner:

Daniel Ortner, Tim Jackson join a debacle.

In this interaction, you will see that Tim Jackson is an idiot, pure and simple, who has never read the Book of Mormon, is clueless about exegesis, and can only divert when asked to support his own theology. No wonder he will not engage me in a moderated debate on the Priesthood of All Believers (his obsession when attempting to engage LDS) because he would be destroyed. Further, it proves, as I have said many times before, that Daniel Ortner is a conscious liar and a fraud. But do not take my word for it: listen to the interaction. Daniel, for someone who was LDS for years, should know his arguments are bogus, but anything to silence his conscious convicting him of the great error he has made by becoming a Protestant.

Lee Martin McDonald on Athanasius's 39th Festal Letter (AD 367)

  

As late as the mid-fourth century, when Athanasius published his twenty-seven book list of NT scriptures in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter, his list was not universally accepted in the rest of the Roman Empire or even in his homeland in Egypt in his lifetime. Universal approval of that list took much longer. (Lee Martin McDonald, The Formation of the Biblical Canon, 2 vols. [London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017], 1:68)

 

It is interesting that he omits Esther as did several church fathers . . . and also that the occasion for this listing of books in the HB that he accepts as the church’s OT is that some church fathers continued “to mix them [apocryphal books] up with the divinely inspired Scripture” and he wanted to present his own views on the matter. He acknowledges that others have included books that he himself rejects in his OT canon and largely, but not completely follows the books of the HB and not in the Tanak order, but following more the LXX order. He also includes Baruch and the Epistles of Jeremiah which are not included in the HB. (Ibid., 321)

 

4. Synopsis scripurae sacrae (ca. 350-370). Similar to Athanasius is the anonymous Synopsis scripturae sacra, which was reproduced in the works of Athanasius, but was probably not written by him. The author lists in accordance with the Hebrew alphabet a twenty-two book canon that separates Judges and Ruth and omits Esther. The author specifically rejects Esther as “not canonical” along with the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Judith, and Tobit. (Ibid., 321)

 

Pretty much everything that was believed to be true in the early Christian churches was also believed to be inspired. When Paul, for instance, admonishes the Corinthians, he claims to have the Spirit (1 Cor 7:40). This is not unlike others in the early church, such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Irenaeus who also claimed inspiration. For example, Clement of Rome asserts that Paul wrote with “true inspiration” (1 Clem. 47.3), but later claims that he also wrote his letter “through the Holy Spirit” (1 Clem. 63:2). Ignatius of Antioch claims that he took was speaking through the Spirit (Phld. 7.1b-2). The term “inspired” was not used exclusively of scripture in the early church, but was reflected in the whole church as we see also in the fourth century Abercius who speaks of a church council’s decision as “inspired judgment” (Vita Abercii 76). (Lee Martin McDonald, The Formation of the Biblical Canon, 2 vols. [London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017], 1:69-70)

 

 

Athanasius was probably the first to use the term canon (κανων) in reference to a closed body of sacred literature, and he also appears to be the first to list the twenty-seven books of our current NT canon, though in a different order (the Catholic Epistles follow Acts and precede Paul). As he indicated in the cosign comments, one should not conclude from the use of the verb κανονιζομενον (“canonized” or “listed”) in Athanasius’s letter that all current and subsequent church leaders agreed fully with his catalogue of sacred texts. He unhesitatingly accepted the book of Revelation as part of his biblical canon, but several other churches in the East did not agree with him. Cyril of Jerusalem and Gregory of Nazianzus, for example, left it out, and even today, as we saw above, the Greek Orthodox lectionary does not include readings from Revelation. While the canon set forth by Athanasius ultimately prevailed in the majority of the churches in succeeding centuries—it was adopted with the help of Augustine at the church councils of Hippo )393) and Carthage (397, 416)—there is no evidence, however, that Athanasius’ letter had a determining impact on all of the churches of his day whether in the east or even in his own region of Egypt, but it is likely that his list was reflective of the majority of churches with which he was acquainted in his generation. Certainly the list was not something that he himself created, but it reflected the books that most, not all, of the Christians acknowledged as Scripture. The multiple manuscript discoveries in Egypt from this time and later periods do not support the pervasive influence of Athanasius’ list even in Egypt but as in most cases, there was considerable overlap. Not until almost seven hundred years later was the book of Revelation universally accepted into the NT canon of most churches, though many churches appear to have simply ignored it if we consider the content of the surviving manuscripts. We saw above the considerable difference in the number of manuscripts containing the Gospels, Acts, Paul, and the Catholic Epistles was compared to Revelation. (Lee Martin McDonald, The Formation of the Biblical Canon, 2 vols. [London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017], 2:306-7)

 

Robert Sungenis (RC) on Hebrews 8:13 and Supersessionism

  

. . . Hb 8:13’s “vanishing” of the covenant refers to when Jeremiah was writing this prophecy. That is, in 600 BC the “old covenant” was already beginning to vanish from the scene, especially since the next major event in Isarel’s history is the Babylonian captivity. It would be completely vanished when the New Covenant in Christ replaced it, which occurred at Christ’s crucifixion.

 

However, some have argued that while Hebrews 8:8-13 does indeed speak of a New Covenant, the Greek text of vr. 13 (ἐν τῷ λέγειν καινὴν πεπαλαίωκεν τὴν πρώτην· τὸ δὲ παλαιούμενον καὶ γηράσκον ἐγγὺς ἀφανισμοῦ) says that the old is near vanishing, not that it has vanished. They then note that Hebrews was written decades after the Crucifixion, drawing the anti-supersessionist conclusion that the “Old Covenant” did not “vanish away” at the Crucifixion. This explanation begs the question as to when the interlocutor thinks the “old” covenant will “vanish away.” Even if it was the case that the “old” vanishes away a few more decades after Hebrews was written, the fact is, it will have thus vanished away and thus will be revoked at that time, in the first century AD. (Robert Sungenis, Supersessionism is Irrevocable: Facing the Ambiguities, Compromises, and Heresies in Recent Catholic Documents Regarding the “Old Covenant” [State Lina, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2024], 430-31)

 

C. Hampton Price (1938) on Problems with the Common View that God Appearing in Bodily Form was Merely a "Theophany"

  

The Catholic Church teaches that God merely “assumed” a body for the sake of manifestation whenever He was seen by man. There are numerous inconsistencies in this statement which should be considered before going further with the Catholic conception of God—if a belief in an “immaterial” God is accepted.

 

When God manifested Himself to man there were three possible explanations regarding his body: (1) He created it for the particular manifestation; (2) He occupied the body of some individual already on this earth; or, (3) He must have appeared in His true form.

 

Let us consider these three possibilities: It is not unreasonable to believe that God would find it necessary to create a body for Himself each time He desired to appear to man Had He done this it would have been necessary for Him to create many bodies as we know that He appeared many times. What would have become of the bodies “In which” He was seen? Would it not be detracting from the glory and power of God to say that it was necessary for Him to do this when He could have kept one body for all manifestations? And yet had He used only one body what became of the body between manifestations? It certainly wouldn’t have gone on living for there would have been no spirit to give it life. God’s spirit could not have remained in the body for this would have necessitated His having a body! And a body is contrary to Catholic doctrine. Would God have occupied the body of some human being on earth, the original spirit or “soul” returning after He had used it for the purpose of manifesting Himself to mankind? Need the unreasonableness of this assumption be further pointed out?

 

Let us assume for a moment that He did not use the body of some individual already on earth or the body He procured from some other source. Would HIs entire spirit have entered the body? If such were the case He could not have been everywhere present since HIs spirit would have entered a body. This would have been, and would be today, a direct contradiction to Catholic doctrine which teaches that God is everywhere present at all times. However, how would a “volume” of 8,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cubic miles of an “immaterial substance” reasonably and logically fill a body of human size? On the other hand, if only a part of His spirit had entered the body He would have been divided (since part of his spirit would have been in the body, the remaining part being outside the body) something again in direct contradiction to Catholic doctrine. Need it be pointed out how unreasonable it would be to maintain that a fraction of God’s spirit could have given life to a body and moved from place to place, while the remaining portion would have filled the entire universe?

 

There remains only the third alternative: God must have had a body of HIs own!! And if He had it then He has it now. Although this conclusion contradictions Catholic doctrine and may be termed “blasphemous,” it is in accord with and as we have seen in chapter 2, substantiated by scripture and reason. (C. Hampton Price, Concerning God [1938], 41-42)

 

Further Reading:

Lynn Wilder vs. Latter-day Saint (and Biblical) Theology on Divine Embodiment