What church father and what (apocryphal) book?

MJ. Smith · 2024-12-28T09:22:33+00:00

There was an error rendering this rich post.

from my reading

In many cases, one Father embraces a 22-book list (Old Testament), but his authentic works cite as Scripture deuterocanonical books (or even, in one rare case we have found, an apocryphal book rejected by Jews and all Christians today), as if Scripture.

Neither Perplexity not Gemini are able to do any better than my initial guesses, both of which could proven to be wrong. (think 1 Enoch which is canonical to the Christian Tewahedo Orthodox Church and the Jewish Beta Israel). I have a hint that Clement of Alexandria is a possibility which I'm tracking down.

Does anyone have an answer or a hint for me to follow up on?

Find more posts tagged with

Resources

Accepted answers

MJ. Smith

I finally found it, perhaps …

At the turn of the second and third centuries, Clement of Alexandria includes in his Selections from the Prophets 2.1; 53.4, the two passages 1 En. 19.3 and 7.1–8.3; quotes 2 Esdras (4 Ezra) 5:35 as ‘Esdras the prophet’ (Stromata 3.16, or 3.100.3); quotes the lost Apocalypse of Zephaniah as ‘Zephaniah the prophet’ (Stromata 5.11, or 5.77.2) and what may be the lost Apocalypse of Elias as ‘Scripture’ (Exhortation 10.94.4); and makes a number of other references to such books, including two to the Assumption of Moses with the expression ‘the initiates (μύσται) say’ (Stromata 1.23, or 1.153.1 and 1.154.1), the ‘initiates’ being perhaps those initiated into secret writings.235
En. Enoch
235 Another reference of Clement’s to the Assumption of Moses is mentioned above on p. 396, and there is a fourth in Stromata 6.15, or 6.132.3. He also refers to 1 Enoch 16.3 (Stromata 5.1, or 5.10.2).
Roger T. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (London: SPCK, 1985), 396–397.

All comments

DMB

It's hard to interpret the quoted text absent the author, since the early Fathers weren't shy about using apocrypha (both OT and NT), with a loose use of 'scripture'. I'm halfway thru https://www.logos.com/product/184855/the-canon-debate?queryId=92106b373a257605162a99e68cfac434 which is quite good (but too expensive in Logos format). Tertullian comes closest (Enoch), linking the Pastoral 'scriptures' in the use of Enoch.

Mark Allison

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1350886#Comment_1350886

I'm surprised you think Logos's version of The Canon Debate is too expensive at $52 when Amazon is selling it for $4995.00 :-)

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1350891#Comment_1350891

My Amazon has it for $36 which is what I paid. You need to switch Amazons (smiling).

Actually, on your page, cliking the Kindle and then the hardback, fixes the hardback price.

I am getting tired of Logos selling at list (gotta pay for all those subscriber moochers)..

Mark Allison

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1350897#Comment_1350897

Yeah, there's a big difference in price between the Kindle version and the hardcover :-)

MJ. Smith

I finally found it, perhaps …

At the turn of the second and third centuries, Clement of Alexandria includes in his Selections from the Prophets 2.1; 53.4, the two passages 1 En. 19.3 and 7.1–8.3; quotes 2 Esdras (4 Ezra) 5:35 as ‘Esdras the prophet’ (Stromata 3.16, or 3.100.3); quotes the lost Apocalypse of Zephaniah as ‘Zephaniah the prophet’ (Stromata 5.11, or 5.77.2) and what may be the lost Apocalypse of Elias as ‘Scripture’ (Exhortation 10.94.4); and makes a number of other references to such books, including two to the Assumption of Moses with the expression ‘the initiates (μύσται) say’ (Stromata 1.23, or 1.153.1 and 1.154.1), the ‘initiates’ being perhaps those initiated into secret writings.235
En. Enoch
235 Another reference of Clement’s to the Assumption of Moses is mentioned above on p. 396, and there is a fourth in Stromata 6.15, or 6.132.3. He also refers to 1 Enoch 16.3 (Stromata 5.1, or 5.10.2).
Roger T. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (London: SPCK, 1985), 396–397.

DAL

Thanks! I have that resource 👍 The Canon Debate will be on my wishlist for now.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1351252#Comment_1351252

Yep … Canon Debate's Logos price point is bit hefty. But to whet your 'critical' appetite (critical as in Bible criticism), one of the authors points out the Marcion's slice-and-dice of some version of Luke, looks a whole lot like Luke's slice-and-dice of Mark, so-called 'Q', etc. An interesting point.