​2 Peter in the Canon at the Council of Nicaea

This paper was originally presented at the 2018 Covenant Theological Seminary's annual theology conference. That paper was then revised and used in the Midwest Evangelical Theological Society's 2018 meeting where it received a runner-up in the student paper competition. 

---

In Gene Green’s commentary on Jude and 2 Peter, he quickly turns his attention to the debates swirling around whether 2 Peter is authentic or not. He writes, “However, not a few in both ancient and modern times have questioned the authenticity of the letter. They declare this to be a pseudonymous writing, possibly written during the second century, which placed the name Peter in the opening greeting and added the personal notes enumerated above as part of the mechanism of pseudepigraphy.”[1] Indeed, the catholic epistle of 2 Peter has not fared well in inclusion to the canon of scripture.[2] Commentators have argued about its authenticity from a variety of angles, including its shared linguistic features with Jude, the references made by the author as having been present at the transfiguration, for example, as well as a comparatively poorer attestation among the church fathers to other New Testament works. Representing a common argument against canonicity, Jülicher contends that “2 Peter is not only the latest document of the New Testament, but also the least deserving of a place in the Canon.”[3] Donald Guthrie suggests “this is the most problematical of all the New Testament epistles because of early doubt regarding its authenticity and because internal evidence is considered by many to substantiate those doubts. In short, the majority of scholars reject it as a genuine work of the apostle.”[4]

Among the reasons for doubting its authenticity, the lack of use of 2 Peter among the church fathers seems to be the most damning. For example, its absence from the famous Muratorian Fragment might as well settle the matter that this epistle is not authentic and therefore should not be considered as canonical.

Unfortunately, Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code has influenced this related discussion of canonicity more than any work of fiction should. From this book, many believe the early church fathers at the Council of Nicaea decided which books should be included in the canon. For example, Dan Brown in The Da Vinci Code writes:
 
"More than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament, and yet only a relative few were chosen for inclusion -- Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John among them.
Who chose which gospels to include?" Sophie asked.
"Aha!" Teabing burst in with enthusiasm. "The fundamental irony of Christianity! The Bible, as we know it today, was collated by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine the Great."[5]  

Thankfully, Dan Brown’s influence in this area is waning, though the claim has not ceased to retain its social capital among the popular climate of the day. Notably, Brown does not come up with such a claim out of thin air – but is picking up on a cue that has been made in academia.  Brown’s claim can be attributed to the what is known as the Bauer Hypothesis, and more specifically, the Bauer-Ehrman hypothesis. It states that so-called “Orthodox Christianity” was not the original Christianity, but rather one of many Christianities. Bauer claims that heresy, as the church defines it today, preceded orthodoxy. Therefore, orthodoxy, as we think of it, was simply the beliefs of those with the power to record and impose our so called “orthodoxy.” The Gospels and epistles like 2 Peter we know as part of the canon are simply one collection of many competitors which had just as much, if not more, historical claim to be the “original” Christianity.

Why does this even need to be mentioned? Has not The Da Vinci Code’s use of the Bauer-Ehrman hypothesis’ been debunked? They have, and by great scholars. Writing back in 2004, a year after The Da Vinci Code came out, Darrell Bock responded with his own popular level work, Breaking the Da Vinci Code.[6] And more recently, responding to the other veins of this argument, Andreas Köstenberger and Michael Kruger make a thorough critique of the Bauer-Ehrman Hypothesis in The Hersey of Orthodoxy.[7] Kruger likewise has made a compelling argument for the closing of the New Testament canon prior to the Council of Nicaea in his more recent work Canon Revisited.[8] Again, on the same note, Charles Hill, in his book Who Chose the Gospels,[9] has argued compellingly that the Gospels existed early, contra the direct claims of a church conspiracy theory similar to was is espoused by Dan Brown, Elaine Pagels,[10] Walter Bauer[11] and Bart Ehrman.[12]

Despite Ehrman’s own admission that the Council of Nicaea did not decide the canon, this council, the first ecumenical council in church history, does, in fact, provide some oft-overlooked insight into this discussion of canon and 2 Peter. What does the council of Nicaea teach us, if anything about this? The council provides us with an inside look into the shape and contours of orthodoxy at this time and similarly, the extent of the canon. For example, if Nicaea uses passages of the canon as scripture and as authoritative, we can discern to a certain degree the extent of the canon. If the council references, quotes, or alludes to 2 Peter in council’s documents, it would help demonstrate that 2 Peter has always been considered canonical, and by extension, authentic by early church fathers, as well. Furthermore, if a council as large as Nicaea make a scriptural reference to 2 Peter, it would hold more weight than just one church father standing alone.

Nicaean Orthodoxy
Though the reports of the number of bishop’s present vary among the sources and writings about the council, the number that is often used and favored is 318.[13] Nicaea opened on May 20, 325, and completed the council’s decree on the Trinity on June 19, though the council continued until August 25.[14] During that time, the council produced the carefully crafted Nicaean Creed, twenty church canons, and a synodal letter. Every word which was produced reflects the careful and long deliberation of the first ecumenical church council. We know well that even the smallest of letters, the “iota” in the comparison homoousios vs. homoiousios, made a significant difference which affects the contours of Christianity to this day. The total sum of words officially produced is less than 3500.[15] The study, care, and deliberate nature of the words chosen give more weight to lexical aspects of this paper’s argument as well as the way Nicaea quoted scripture. That is to say, if Nicaea quotes or alludes to 2 Peter, scripturally and with discernable probability, then it may very well be that that what is not found in a single quotation or use among a church father was to be found among an entire council. The questions at this juncture are, what scriptures does Nicaea reference and do they include 2 Peter?

The Council of Nicaea
The canons at Nicaea allude to a variety of passages which are so loose and common it is difficult to know which passage is in view with any certainty.[16] The few scripture references made directly in the canons of the Council of Nicaea are 1 Timothy 3:6-7, Psalm 14:5, and Proverbs 26:11. There may be more to the use of Proverbs 26:11 than is commonly thought. It says:

Like a dog that returns to its vomit is a fool who repeats his folly (ESV).

This passage is quoted in canon 12 which states:
 
As many as were called by grace, and displayed the first zeal, having cast aside their military girdles, but afterwards returned, like dogs, to their own vomit, (so that some  spent money and by means of gifts regained their military stations) [.][17]
 
It has been assumed that Proverbs 26:11 is in view by the council, and because this has been assumed, it has gone unexamined. This assumption is made likely because 1) there are shared features of a quotation between canon 12 and Proverbs 26:11 and 2) Proverbs 26:11 is canonically and historically prior to its appearance in 2 Peter 2:22, meaning that it is usually assumed the older quotation is in view when considering intertextual uses.[18] What has been overlooked is that 2 Peter 2:22 quotes from Proverbs 26:11:
 
It has happened to them according to the true proverb, “A dog returns to its own vomit,” and, “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.

In fact, there is sufficient reason to think that canon 12 is not actually alluding to Proverbs 26:11, as has long been assumed, but 2 Peter 2:22. The lines of evidence fit under the following headings: First, by comparing the use of language between the texts, second by investigating how it is used interpretatively and third, by examining the writings of those church fathers near and around the time of the council to establish whether they would have preferred one text over another or had knowledge of the supposed lately written 2 Peter.
 
Language Comparison: Greek
The creeds and canons of Nicaea have been preserved in Greek and Latin. 2 Peter is undoubtedly quoting Proverbs 26:11, but is it possible that Peter did not have the LXX in view? Here are how the three texts compare:
 
The LXX reads of Proverbs 26:11:[19]
ὥσπερ κύων ὅταν ἐπέλθῃ ἐπὶ τὸν ἑαυτοῦ ἔμετον καὶ μισητὸς γένηται οὕτως ἄφρων τῇ ἑαυτοῦ κακίᾳ ἀναστρέψας ἐπὶ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἁμαρτίαν [11a] ἔστιν αἰσχύνη ἐπάγουσα ἁμαρτίαν καὶ ἔστιν αἰσχύνη δόξα καὶ χάρις
 
2 Peter 2:22 of the Greek NT:[20]
συμβέβηκεν αὐτοῖς τὸ τῆς ἀληθοῦς παροιμίας· κύων ἐπιστρέψας ἐπὶ τὸ ἴδιον ἐξέραμα, καί·  ὗς λουσαμένη εἰς κυλισμὸν βορβόρου.

And the canon 12 of the Council reads:[21]
έπί τόν οίκείον έμετον άνανδραμοντες ώς κύνες

We can note that canon 12 and Proverbs match in word order for επι τον and use the same word for vomit, εμετον. The word order for dog, κυων, has changed substantially, though. The LXX begins with κυων, while canon 12 ends with it. Additionally, the plural form of the word is used in canon 12 rather than the singular form in Proverbs.

One can also note a large unparalleled portion (seen after 11a) of the LXX with either of the other texts. During the writing of the LXX scribes added some writing to explain the meaning and smooth out difficult readings. This expansion is discernible and noted, but the inserted portions actually affect the original meaning they intended to clarify.[22] The reason for this expansion is noted by Brenton:
 
One difficulty which they had to overcome was that of introducing theological ideas, which till then had only their proper terms in Hebrew, into language of the gentiles, which till then had terms for no religious notions except those of the heathens. Hence the             necessity of using many words and phrases in new and appropriate senses.[23]

Canon 12 uses the same Greek word for “vomit” as the LXX, εμετον, rather than 2 Peter’s word choice of εχεραμα. This, however, does not prove its reference to Proverbs. This word Peter uses is one of the many hapax legomena’s which appear in this epistle. In fact, this word appears only handful of times outside of the New Testament in this form, a total of six times in Greek works spanning several centuries.[24]

The Greek of canon 12 is not overwhelmingly in favor of alluding to 2 Peter, though it also is not clearly favoring Proverbs 26, either. Fortunately, however, there is the Latin text of canon 12 to consider, as well.
 
Language Comparison: Latin
The Latin text used for comparison is the Latin Vulgate. Though this translation came after Nicaea, it accurately represents Jerome’s work to create a Latin text based from the Hebrew text and older Latin texts, the Vetus Latina, for how one would likely translate the Hebrew of Proverbs 26.[25]

The Latin Vulgate of Proverbs 26:11 reads:[26]
 
sicut canis(1) qui (x) revertitur(5) ad (2) vomitum(4) suum (3) sic inprudens qui iterat stultitiam suam
 
The Latin Vulgate of 2 Peter 2:22 reads:
 
contigit enim eis illud veri proverbii canis(1) reversus(5) ad(2) suum(3) vomitum(4) et  sus lota in volutabro luti
 
Canon 12 reads:
 
Canes(1) ad(2) suum(3) votiumm(4) reverse(5)
 
Canon 12 and 2 Peter use a closer form for the word we translate as “return,” rervusus, over Proverbs’ use, which comes as revertitur. A few words, such as suum and votiumm, are shared by all three. The reading of the texts distinctly favors 2 Peter over Proverbs 26 as far as word order is concerned. 2 Peter and canon 12, at this juncture, appear to have more in common with one another than Proverbs 26 and canon 12.[27] The hapax legomena of 2 Peter makes no difference in the Latin translation. On the lexical level, alone, there is certainly room to consider that the Greek has space for 2 Peter to be considered as a text canon 12 has in view. When this is paired with the Latin, which does favor a 2 Peter reading, the cumulative effect increases the probability.
 
Interpretation and Use of the Text
The next item to consider is the manner in which canon 12 uses the text in question. Proverbs 26:11, in its literary and historical context, describes “the fool” as one who makes unwise decisions or simply demonstrates characteristics of a foolish lifestyle[28] in the covenant context of Israel.[29] The way in which 2 Peter makes its intertextual use of Proverbs 26 sharpens its use with much greater specificity and condemnation.[30] In their context, each passage should be understood very differently. Peter’s purpose underscores apostates and false teachers as the ones that are like dogs who return to their own vomit.[31] Interestingly, canon 12 matches the context of 2 Peter much closer than Proverbs 26:11. The canon, making its pronouncement of those who have returned to their military posts, have, in essence, abandoned the faith.[32] Their use is not like Proverbs 26, solely, which warns against a lifestyle of folly.[33] Rather, it is strikingly in the same vein as Peter’s use of Proverbs. Additionally, there is certainly a departure from the Proverbs 26:11 in the LXX wherein the additional scribal insertions obscure the meaning so that it shifts significantly.[34] All in all, 2 Peter’s meaning appears to be exactly what is used in canon 12 over that of Proverbs 26.

Writing of Church Fathers
The writings of church fathers, particularly of those that were present at the Council of Nicaea and living around that time, bear a significance on this issue.[35] At least a few Ante-Nicene fathers also knew of 2 Peter. Hippolytus, living between 170-236, quotes 2 Peter 2:22 in his book The Refutation of All Heresies[36] as does Lactantius, living between 260-335, in his book The Divine Institutes.[37] If the church leaders who were at Nicaea knew of 2 Peter, established by their writings and quotations, then it can be suggested that their knowledge of 2 Peter, specifically of 2:22, is indeed what the Council had in mind when writing canon 12.

Eusebius of Caeseria, present at the council, certainly knows of 2 Peter as he includes it in his canon lists among the disputed (but not spurious) books.[38] Though its presence among the disputed books is often taken as evidence against 2 Peter, he does not himself dispute the book. In fact, its presence shows that Eusebius willfully did not include it in his other categories of spurious or heretical writings.

Athanasius, who was present at the proceedings of Nicaea, not only lists 2 Peter among his famous 39th Easter Festal Letter in 367, but also quotes from 2 Peter. Not just a different portion of 2 Peter, but from the exact text in question. In his book, History of the Arians, he writes this in section 29: Relapse of Uracius and Valens:

First of all, they persuade Urascius, Valens and their fellows to change sides again, and like dogs to return to their own vomit, and like swine to wallow again in the former mire     of their impiety [.][39]

This quotation is undoubtedly from 2 Peter 2:22 as the second half of the quotation does not appear in Proverbs 26:11.[40] It is in a similar context of speaking against false teachers and apostates like canon 12 does. This does not mean that Athanasius knew of 2 Peter and this use at Nicaea, necessarily. Perhaps he learned of the book later, we cannot say with absolute probability. But it does suggest this use of 2 Peter, contemporary to Nicaea, is not alien or foreign in any way and lends credibility that canon 12 did indeed have 2 Peter in view rather than Proverbs 26.
 
Conclusion
In summary, the knowledge that the church fathers knew of 2 Peter, even though less than other books, cannot be quickly dismissed. The Greek of the canon 12 does not allow enough room to altogether dismiss the possibility 2 Peter was not in view, and the Latin does seem to favor a reading of 2 Peter over that of Proverbs. Additionally, how the scripture cited in canon 12 favor 2 Peter as do later writings by church fathers present at Nicaea. The bishops and church leaders representing Christianity at this council likewise suggest that if canon 12 did indeed quote from 2 Peter, then it is more substantial than a single church father’s quotation or canonical list of some kind. It means that Nicaean orthodoxy held 2 Peter in special regard, one which is beyond the fringes of the canon or undeserving of inclusion. If indeed canon 12 intentionally quotes 2 Peter 2:22 as scripture, it reveals itself as another piece of external evidence, though small, to 2 Peter as part of the canon and recognized broadly at the time the first ecumenical council.
 

Bibliography
 
Bauckham, Richard. Jude - 2 Peter. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1983.
 
Bauer, Walter. Orthodoxy and Heresy in the Early Church. 2nd ed. Sigler Press, 1996.
 
Bock, Darrell L. The Missing Gospels: Unearthing the Truth Behind Alternative Christianities. Nashville: Nelson Books, 2006.
 
Brenton, Lancelot Charles Lee. The Septuagint Version: Greek and English. Grand Rapids, MI: Regency Reference Library/Zondervan Pub. House, 1986.
 
Brown, Dan. The Da Vinci Code. New York: Doubleday, 2003.
 
Burn, A. E. The Council of Nicaea: A Memorial for Its Sixteenth Centenary. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1925.
 
Davis, Leo Donald. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1990.
 
Ehrman, Bart D. Lost Scriptures: Books That Did Not Make It into the New Testament. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
 
Fox, Michael V. Proverbs 10-31 -Anchor Bible: A New Translation With Introduction and Commentary. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009.
 
Green, Gene L. Jude & 2 Peter: Baker Exegetical Commentary On the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008.
 
Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. Downers Grove, IL: InterVaristy Press, 1990.
 
Hill, Charles E. Who Chose the Gospels?: Probing the Great Gospel Conspiracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
 
Hippolytus. The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Vol. 5. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2012.
 
"History of the Arians." In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, edited by Philip Schaff, by Athanasius, 270-302. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2012.
 
Jobes, Karen H., and Silva Moises. Invitation to the Septuagint. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2015.
 
Jülicher, Adolf, and Janet Penrose. Ward. An Introduction to the New Testament. London: Smith, Elder, 1904.
 
Kelly, Joseph F. The Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church: A History. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2009.
 
Kruger, Michael, and Andreas J. Köstenburger. The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture's Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity. Wheaton: Crossway, 2010.
 
Kruger, Michael J. Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books. Wheaton: Crossway, 2012.
 
Lactantius. The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Vol. 7. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2012.
 
Longman, Tremper, III, ed. Proverbs. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006.
 
Metzger, Bruce M. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.
 
Pagels, Elaine H. The Gnostic Gospels. New York: Random House, 1979.
 
Peterson, Robert A. "Apostasy." Presbyterion 19, no. 1 (1993): 17-31.
 
"Proverbs." In The Expositor's Bible Commentary, edited by Tremper Longman, III, by Allen P. Ross, 47-252. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006.
 
Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Septuaginta: Id Est Vetus Testamentum Graece Iuxta LXX Interpretes. Revised ed. Vol. 2. Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006.
 
SJ, Henryk Pietras. The Council of Nicaea (325): Religious and Political Context, Documents, Commentaries. Roma: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2016.
 
Tanner, Norman P., ed. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. Vol. 1. London: Sheed & Ward, 1990.
 
Thesaurus Linguae Graecae: Vomit. Report. University of California.
 
Tova Forti, "Conceptual Stratification in LXX Prov 26,11: Toward Identifying the Tradents Behind the Aphorism," Zeitschrift Für Die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 119, no. 2 (2007): 244, accessed December 5, 2017, ATLA Religion Database [EBSCO].
 
Waard, Jan De. Biblia Hebraica: Proverbs (Biblia Hebraica Quinta). American Bible Society, 2009.
 
Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008.
 
Waltke, Bruce K. The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 15-31. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub., 2005.
 
Warfield, Benjamin B. "The Canonicity of 2 Peter." Southern Presbyterian Review 33, no. 1 (January 1881): 45-75.
 
Weber, R., ed. Biblia Sacra Vulgata: IUXTA VULGATAM VERSIONEM. Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994.

***

[1] Gene L. Green, Jude & 2 Peter Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 139.

[2] I am aware that there are there are some in canonical discussion who prefer to use a distinction between canon and scripture. However, this is not a helpful distinction as it allows room for books in the canon to be viewed as not scriptural, which has not been the view of the church. Otherwise one must contend that somewhere in church history were books believed to not be scriptural, but canonical and recognized as such. See Lee Martin McDonald, The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 55-58.

[3] Adolf Jülicher and Janet Penrose Ward, An Introduction to the New Testament (London: Smith, Elder, &, 1904), 241.

[4] Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990), 805.

[5] Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 231.

[6] Darrell L. Bock, The Missing Gospels: Unearthing the Truth Behind Alternative Christianities (Nashville: Nelson Books, 2006).

[7] Michael Kruger and Andreas J. Köstenburger, The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture's Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010).

[8] Michael J. Kruger, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012).

[9] Charles E. Hill, Who Chose the Gospels?: Probing the Great Gospel Conspiracy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010).

[10] See Elaine H. Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels (New York: Random House, 1979).

[11] See Walter Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in the Early Church, 2nd ed. (Sigler Press, 1996).

[12] Ehrman writes, “[T]he New Testament itself is the collection of books that emerged from the conflict, the groups of books advocated by the side of disputes that eventually established itself as dominant and handed the books down to posterity as ‘the’ Christian Scriptures.” Emphasis his. Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Scriptures: Books That Did Not Make It into the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 1-5.

[13] Eusebius of Caesarea records 250; Athanasius, who was secretary Alexander of Alexandria at the time, records 300. The number assigned, typically 318, Davis suggests comes from the number of Abraham’s armed servants in Genesis 14:14. Leo Donald Davis, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1990), 57-58.

[14] Joseph F. Kelly, The Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church: A History (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2009), 21-24.

[15] The word count varies depending on the Greek or Latin text.

[16] For example, the phrase, “two or three witnesses” that appears in Canon 2 does not give us enough to know where it comes from. It could be Matthew 28:16, Deuteronomy 19:15, or even 2 Corinthians 13:1.

[17] Canon 12. Norman P. Tanner, ed., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1 (London: Sheed & Ward, 1990).

[18] For example, Jesus quotes Genesis 2:24 in Matthew 19:5. Similarly, when Paul writes in Ephesians 5:31, it is assumed he is thinking of Genesis over Jesus using Matthew.

[19]Alfred Rahlfs, ed., Septuaginta: Id Est Vetus Testamentum Graece Iuxta LXX Interpretes, Revised ed., vol. 2 (Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006), 232.

[20]2 Peter 2:22 Bruce M. Metzger, Novum Testamentum Graece, ed. Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, and Carlo M. Martini, 28th ed. (2012). I have also taken into consideration any discussion of textual criticism around Proverbs 26:11, which, if present with alternative readings, would make the conclusions drawn in this study less probable. After consulting the Biblia Hebraica Quinta, the critical apparatus is absent of any comment or variants listed for 26:11. See Jan De Waard, Biblia Hebraica: Proverbs (Biblia Hebraica Quinta) (American Bible Society, 2009).

[21] Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils.

[22]Tovi comments on this expansion saying, “Thus, the scorn heaped upon the fool by the Hebrew aphorism is replaced by the scorn for the failure of the sinner in the Greek Version.” Tova Forti, "Conceptual Stratification in LXX Prov 26,11: Toward Identifying the Tradents Behind the Aphorism," Zeitschrift Für Die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 119, no. 2 (2007): 244, accessed December 5, 2017, ATLA Religion Database [EBSCO].

[23] Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton, The Septuagint Version: Greek and English (Grand Rapids, MI: Regency Reference Library/Zondervan Pub. House, 1986), 814. Jobes and Silva also note that the translators of the LXX had to face a variety of translation decisions and problems. Facing these linguistic choices also allows room for why some idioms and metaphors were smoothed out, explained, or even avoided. Karen H. Jobes and Silva Moises, Invitation to the Septuagint (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2015), 87-89.

[24] Cyrillius Alexandrinus uses this word in this form four times, more than any other person outside of the New Testament. Next to him is Athanasius’s two uses of the word. Thesaurus Linguae Graecae: Vomit, report (University of California).

[25] It is sometimes assumed that Jerome made a translation of both the LXX and the Hebrew, thus giving us multiple “Vulgates,” of a sort. However, as noted by Weber, “In the Old Testament, most books are Jerome’s translations made from Hebrew; but the Psalter is an old-Latin text which was corrected by Jerome to agree with the Greek text of Origen’s Hexapla, while some books (Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Barach and Maccabees) are pure Old-Latin and untouched by Jerome. In the New Testament, all books have an Old-Latin base, but this base; has been revised in light of the Greek with varying degrees of thoroughness – in the Gospels rather hurriedly, in most other books more carefully.” R. Weber, ed., Biblia Sacra Vulgata: IUXTA VULGATAM VERSIONEM (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), 29.

[26] I have included the numerical markers to make it easier to compare word order, though they are obviously not present in the original text.

[27] Canon 12 of Nicaea does change the spelling for dog, from canis to canes, but this sheds no light onto either text which is preferred.

[28] Tremper Longman, III, ed., Proverbs (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006), 467.

[29] In particular, those who persist in their folly. "Proverbs," in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, ed. Tremper Longman, III, by Allen P. Ross (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006), 213.

[30] Gene L. Green, Jude & 2 Peter: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 306.

[31] Robert A. Peterson, "Apostasy," Presbyterion 19, no. 1 (1993): 18-19.

[32] Henryk Pietras SJ, The Council of Nicaea (325): Religious and Political Context, Documents, Commentaries (Roma: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2016), 168. Dean places canon 12 under the heading of “difficulties caused by schism and heresy.” A. E. Burn, The Council of Nicaea: A Memorial for Its Sixteenth Centenary (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1925), 49.

[33] Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 10-31 -Anchor Bible: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009), 796.

[34] Waltke notes that 2 Peter 2:22 is much closer to the MT than the LXX. Bruce K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 15-31 (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub., 2005), 339. Wallace likewise notes that the first line of 2 Peter 2:22 is not quoted exactly as it is found in the LXX. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008), 55.

[35] Origen, though not living around the time of the Council of Nicaea, joins the chorus of church fathers who knew of 2 Peter and quote it as scripture. See Benjamin B. Warfield, "The Canonicity of 2 Peter," Southern Presbyterian Review 33, no. 1 (January 1881): 46.

[36] The Refutation of All Heresies. Book IX, Chapter II. Hippolytus, The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, vol. 5 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2012), 125.

[37] The Divine Institute. Book IV, Chapter XVIII. Lactantius, The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325., ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, vol. 7 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2012), 119.

[38] Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), 205.

[39] History of the Arians was written in 358 AD. "History of the Arians," in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ed. Philip Schaff, by Athanasius (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2012), 279.

[40] The second half comes from an unknown source, though it has been suggested it comes from Heraclitus. In either case, it acts as a control to know from which source Athanasius is citing. Richard Bauckham, Jude - 2 Peter (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1983), 279-280.