Philo and canon of Old Testament

Philo Judaeus (c. 20 BC to 50 AD), was Jewish philosopher, writer and a leader of Jewish community in Alexandria, Egypt.    As Greek speaking Jew he obviously knew Septuagint or LXX (translation of Jewish Scripture into Greek).  Did he already recognize three-fold division of Jewish Scripture (Law, Prophets and Writings) and never quote from deuterocanonical books (this means his copy of LXX did not have deuterocanonical books)?  In one of his works Philo wrote about Jewish ascetic sect, Therapeutae. Ascetics are those who dedicate their life to a pursuit of contemplative ideals and practices extreme self denial of worldly pleasure or self-mortification for religious reasons:

And in every house there is a sacred shrine which is called the holy place, and the monastery in which they [Therapeutae] retire by themselves and perform all the mysteries of a holy life, bringing in nothing, neither meat, nor drink, nor anything else which is indispensable towards supplying the necessities of the body, but studying in that place the laws and the sacred oracles of God enunciated by the holy prophets, and hymns, and psalms, and all kinds of other things by reason of which knowledge and piety are increased and brought to perfection.  

Philo, On the Contemplative Life, 3(25)

C.D. Yonge: The Works of Philo, Hendrickson Publishers, page 700

What Philo wrote is the practice of a Jewish sect (not that of the Jews in Alexandria) and the text does not give clear evidence they recognized three (or more) divisions of their scripture.  While in all his extant works Philo did not quote from deuterocanonical books, neither did he quote from Ezekiel, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentation, Ecclesiastes, Esther and Daniel (source: P.R. Ackroyd and C.A. Evans: The Cambridge History of the Bible.  From the Beginnings to Jerome, page 148 and The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. 2, page 117.  Refer also to the scripture index in C.D. Yonge: The Works of Philo, pages 913-918). Note that except Ezekiel the rest belong to the Writings.  There is also evidence that Philo quoted other books as attested in his other work:

This is what the lawgiver in one passage says, while declaring the will of God, that, “thou shall complete the number of thy days,” . . . . This is what enigmatically implied in other expressions, where the holy writer says that such a man “shall deserve blessings both at his coming in and going out;” . . .

Philo, On Rewards and Punishments, 19(111,113)

C.D. Yonge: The Works of Philo, Hendrickson Publishers, page 675

Baptism and Salvation

Catholics believe that Justification is conferred in Baptism (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church # 1992, # 2020) and Baptism is necessary for the salvation of those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for it (cf. ibid # 1257).  Most Protestants and “Bible only” Christians, on the other hand, reject the necessity of Baptism for simple reason: nothing can be added to the faith in Christ, their only requirement for Salvation.  They generally consider Baptism to be symbol or public declaration of one’s faith in Christ – ironically neither of them has scriptural support.  Some Lutheran churches and Church of Christ also believe in the necessity of Baptism for our salvation.  What does Scripture say about Baptism?

He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned

Mark 16:16

There are two arguments from those who reject the necessity of Baptism on this verse.  The first one is the authenticity of the verse is questionable because some manuscript of Mark Gospel do not have Mark 16:9 – 20 (known as longer ending of Mark Gospel while Mark 16:1-8 is the shorter ending).  Ironically those who say so, still keep these twelve verses in their Bible as integral part of Mark Gospel.  If they reject their authenticity, then to be consistent they should erase them from their Bible.  In the second argument, since in the second part of verse only those who do not believe will be condemned then “to be saved” in the first part should be linked only to “he who believes”.   However if this is the case then the verse should read: “he who believes will be saved and is to be baptized“.  

Scripture also compares Baptism with the event when Noah and his children were saved through water:

…  when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

1 Peter 3:20 – 21

Those who reject the necessity of Baptism will argue that it was the ark, not the water that saved Noah and his children.  Hebrews 11:7 says that by faith Noah built the ark that saved his household.  Again Catholics do not deny that faith is necessary and in fact, is the beginning of salvation.  But the ark itself must go through the water and that’s what the verses say.  Noah and his children who were inside the ark were saved through the water.  We can only relate “through water” with Baptism and the verse says that Baptism does save.

From the lips of Jesus we have His testimony made during his conversation with Nicodemus:

Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

John 3:5

Directly after this, Jesus and His disciples went to Judea to baptize (John 3:22).  The Catholic Church interprets the phrase “born of water and spirit” as referring to Baptism, through which we are born again to become part of God’s family and a member of Christ’ body (i.e. His Church).  Protestants and “Bible only” Christians, on the other hand, consider this verse as scriptural support for “being born again Christians” but relate it not to Baptism but to acknowledging Christ as personal Lord and Saviour, usually through saying sinner’s prayer. 

If Baptism is necessary why Jesus Himself did not baptize (John 4:2)?  John 4:2 indeed says that only His disciples baptized but certainly they would not have done so without His command.  The fact that He Himself did not baptize does not rule out its necessity.  In 1 Corinthians 1:17 Paul wrote that Christ did not send him to baptize but to preach the gospel.  Does it indicate that Baptism is not important?  No doubt that Paul’s main mission is to preach the gospel (Acts 22:15) and the fact that baptism can be performed by anyone is the reason why Paul baptized only a few.  If Paul did not consider its necessity why was he baptized directly after his conversion and being healed from his blindness (Acts 9:18, 22:16)?  Other standard argument against the necessity of Baptism is the criminal on the cross to whom Jesus promised to be with Him in paradise (Luke 23:43) without being baptized.  But Baptism is necessary for the salvation of those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for it.  God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments (Catechism of the Catholic Church # 1257).  Those who died for the sake of their faith before being baptized are baptized by their death for and with Christ (ibid # 1258).   The Catholic Church refers this Baptism as Baptism of Blood.   Others, like criminal on the cross in Luke 23:43 and the catechumens (those who are in the process to become Catholics) who die before their baptism receive what the Church refers as Baptism by Desire (ibid # 1259).

Origen and Canon of New Testament

One of the early lists of New Testament books was given by Origen (c. 185 to 251 AD), scholar and author.  It was preserved in Church History, written by Eusebius (c. 260 to 339 AD), bishop of Caesarea and first historian of the Church.

In his first book on Matthew’s Gospel, maintaining the Canon of the Church, he [Origen] testifies that he knows only four Gospels, writing as follows: “Among the four Gospels,  which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language.  The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter, who in his Catholic epistle acknowledges him as a son, saying, ‘The church that is at Babylon elected together with you, saluteth you, and so doth Marcus, my son.’ And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John.”

In the fifth book of his Expositions of John’s Gospel, he [Origen] speaks thus concerning the epistles of the apostles: “But he who was ‘made sufficient to be a minister of the New Testament, not of the letter, but of the Spirit,’ that is, Paul, who ‘fully preached the Gospel from Jerusalem and round about even unto Illyricum,’ did not write to all the churches which he had instructed and to those to which he wrote he sent but few lines. And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, ‘against which the gates of hell shall not prevail,’ has left one acknowledged epistle; perhaps also a second, but this is doubtful. Why need we speak of him who reclined upon the bosom of Jesus, John, who has left us one Gospel, though he confessed that he might write so many that the world could not contain them? And he wrote also the Apocalypse, but was commanded to keep silence and not to write the words of the seven thunders.  He has left also an epistle of very few lines; perhaps also a second and third; but not all consider them genuine, and together they do not contain hundred lines.”

In addition he [Origen] makes the following statements in regard to the Epistle to the Hebrews in his Homilies upon it: “That the verbal style of the epistle entitled ‘To the Hebrews,’ is not rude like the language of the apostle, who acknowledged himself ‘rude in speech’ that is, in expression; but that its diction is purer Greek, any one who has the power to discern differences of phraseology will acknowledge.  Moreover, that the thoughts of the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged apostolic writings, any one who carefully examines the apostolic text will admit.’ Farther on he adds: “If I gave my opinion, I should say that the thoughts are those of the apostle, but the diction and phraseology are those of some one who remembered the apostolic teachings, and wrote down at his leisure what had been said by his teacher. Therefore if any church holds that this epistle is by Paul, let it be commended for this. For not without reason have the ancients handed it down as Paul’s.  But who wrote the epistle, in truth, God knows. The statement of some who have gone before us is that Clement, bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, and of others that Luke, the author of the Gospel and the Acts, wrote it.” But let this suffice on these matters.

Eusebius, the Church History 6:25

Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. 1

Origen’s list has four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), Acts, Paul’s epistles (how many is not specified), Hebrews (of which he questioned its writer), one epistle of Peter, one of John and Revelation (or Apocalypse).  The list considers 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John as disputed books and does not mention James and Jude.   Origen defended the use of only four Gospels and listed a number of heretical Gospels like Gospel according to Egyptian and according to twelve Apostles (cf. Homily 1 on Luke) but he nevertheless still cited apocryphal gospels in his works.

But if a person accepts these words: My mother the Holy Spirit, has recently taken me and carried me up to the great Mount Tabor. [from Gospel according to the Hebrews]

Origen, Homily on Jeremiah 15.4.2

I have read elsewhere as if the Savior was speaking – and I question whether it was someone who was a figure for the person of the Savior or it was appended in his memory or if this may be truly what he said – The Savior there says, “Whoever is near me is near fire; whoever is far from me, is far from the kingdom.” [Gospel of Thomas 82]

Origen, Homily on Jeremiah 27.3.7

In de Principiis 2.1.5 he cited Shepherd of Hermas as Holy Scripture though he was aware that some despised the book (de Principiis 4.1.11).  According to F.F. Bruce (cf. the Canon of the Scripture page 193) Origen was the first known Christian writer to cite 2 Peter. 

Irenaeus and Church of Rome

Irenæus (c. 115 to 202 AD) was one of Church Fathers and bishop of Lyons (in present day France), then part of Roman Empire.  His major writing is Against Heresies, or Adversus haereses.  He wrote in Greek but only fragments are found in the writings of other Church Fathers.  We have complete manuscript in Latin translation made in c. 200 AD.  His other extant work is Proof (or Demonstration) of the Apostolic Preaching, of which we have translation in Armenian, discovered in 1904.  In Against Heresies, he wrote the following about the Church of Rome:

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy [2 Timothy 3:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles.

Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 3.2-3

Extracted from Anti Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1