A canon question for Protestants

[Pwrlftr]

I do not know if we have actual manuscripts from the Alexandrian Council, or from the Council of Jamnia for that matter. I would imagine that if any are existent, they would be in Vatican archives. Early church records, which do go back to the councils of Hippo and Carthage do exist however, and this information comes from them. i.e., the books deemed inspired. (I HAVE NOT SEEN THESE RECORDS)
Deacon Ed B

Thanks for your post.

A lot of folks on both sides of this issue will speak of an Alexandrian canon but when I read Bruce, Beckwith, MacDonald or others, they seem to be of the opinion we really don’t know what books were in the early Jewish septuagint (ie. the Alexandrian canon).

 

[bogeydogg]

Considering that Jesus quoted Tobit (golden rule) and Hebrews 11 references Maccabees I think we have pretty good reason to believe that these works were at least considered of some value in first and second century Palestine. I t is also worth mentioning that, while I do not have any specific knowledge as such, I have never heard one single scholar, Protestant or Catholic, who denies the existence of the so-called Alexandrian Canon. It is my understanding that the reason that the books which some call apocryphal are included in the AC is because those who translated the Hebrew writings into Greek were Greek scholars who made no differentiation between what would have been Scripture to the Jews and what would not. It also worth noting that even among the Jews there was wide disagreement. Some Jews, according to Johnathan Kirsch, argued that no post-exilic writings should be included as Scripture. Some argued that Wisdom Writings were not on par with Torah. Some argued that the only Scripture was Torah. So to say that there is this Canon or that Canon is a little misleading. As I understand it, the ECF’s in dealing with OT simply took what was most widely accepted among the Jews as Scripture and used it as OT Canon. I have also read repeatedly that the reason the Church does not recognize the Protestant exclusion of the Deuteros is that the Rabbis who excluded these books did so around 90 AD and as such were post-Christ and did so, as can be seen in the MT, to discard some of the Prophesies about Messiah.

 

[Pwrlftr]

"bogeydogg:

Considering that Jesus quoted Tobit and Hebrews 11 references Maccabees I think we have pretty good reason to believe that these works were at least considered of some value…

I don’t disagree that the deutero’s may have been considered to have some value but a simple allusion or a quote doesn’t indicate anything at all about the source being quoted.

bogeydogg:

I t is also worth mentioning that, while I do not have any specific knowledge as such, I have never heard one single scholar, Protestant or Catholic, who denies the existence of the so-called Alexandrian Canon.

Beckwith, Bruce, and MacDonald all deny the existence of an Alexandrian canon.

McDonald writes, there is no evidence that the Jews of Alexandria held to a broader canon than those in Palestine:
MacDonald:

The biggest problem with the theory of the Alexandrian canon is that there are no lists or collections one can look to in order to see what books comprised it. Pfeiffer himself acknowledged that no one knows what the canon of the Alexandrian and other Diaspora Jews was before the LXX was condemned in Palestine, ca. 130 CE. Long ago E. Reuss concluded that we know nothing about the LXX before the time when the church made extensive use of it. That includes the condition of the text and its form as well as its extent. Another problem with the Alexandrian canon theory is that it has not been shown conclusively that the Alexandrian Jews or the other Jews of the Dispersion were any more likely to adopt other writings as sacred scriptures than were the Jews Palestine in the two centuries BCE and the first century CE. Further, there is no evidence as yet that shows the existence of a different canon of scriptures in Alexandria than in Palestine from the second century BCE to the second century CE….Since the communications between Jerusalem and Alexandria were considered quite good during the first century BCE and CE, it is not certain that either the notion or extent of divine scripture would be strikingly different between the two locations during the period before 70 CE…Although the Jews of the Dispersion were more affected by Hellenism than were the Jews of Palestine, there is little evidence to show that this influence also affected their notion of scripture or the boundaries of their scriptures.

F.F. Bruce confirms these conclusions when he says:
Bruce:

It has frequently been suggested that, while the canon of the Palestinian Jews was limited to the twenty-four books of the Law, Prophets and Writings, the canon of the Alexandrian Jews was more comprehensive. There is no evidence that this was so: indeed, there is no evidence that the Alexandrian Jews ever promulgated a canon of scripture.

I don’t intend to post every source I have but here are two. I am sure there are others that disagree, especially because MacDonald mentions at least one but states that Pfeiffer made the admission that we don’t have any idea what the contents of the LXX was before it was condemned in Palestine.

It is my understanding that the reason that the books which some call apocryphal are included in the AC is because those who translated the Hebrew writings into Greek were Greek scholars who made no differentiation between what would have been Scripture to the Jews and what would not.

I’ve heard/read the same thing.

It also worth noting that even among the Jews there was wide disagreement. Some Jews, according to Johnathan Kirsch, argued that no post-exilic writings should be included as Scripture. Some argued that Wisdom Writings were not on par with Torah. Some argued that the only Scripture was Torah. So to say that there is this Canon or that Canon is a little misleading.

I’m not sure I would phrase the above quote the way in which you did but for the most part, I agree with you.

As I understand it, the ECF’s in dealing with OT simply took what was most widely accepted among the Jews as Scripture and used it as OT Canon.

Certainly that is what Melito did and he did not include the deutero’s in his canon.

I have also read repeatedly that the reason the Church does not recognize the Protestant exclusion of the Deuteros is that the Rabbis who excluded these books did so around 90 AD and as such were post-Christ and did so, as can be seen in the MT, to discard some of the Prophesies about Messiah.

I assume you are talking about the council of Jamnia, am I right?

If so, the three folks that I mentioned above, Beckwith, Bruce, and MacDonald all state that there is no evidence that Jamnia even discussed the deutero’s. These are only three sources and I am sure there are other opinions out there but do you know of any evidence that somehow demonstrates that at Jamnia the Jews discussed and rejected the deutero’s?

 

[bogeydogg]

I am not a scholar on OT compilation. It is my understand that Canon as such was not an idea with which the Rabbis would have been familiar. Certainly the Torah and scrolls like Isaiah would have been of great importance but as there were no bound single ‘this is the Canon’ among the Jews I think the requirement of finding out what was Canon and not Canon is a little specious. Also I have heard Gene Scott, who I know is pretty far out there but was a great scholar, suggest that even among dispersed groups in Ethiopia there was a different collection of books. I don’t know what his source for information would be and do not offer this as proof that such a thing existed. What I am saying is that these books were extant in first century and that there does appear to be some difference of opinion on what was and was not accepted as Canon at the time.

BTW, the reason I mentioned Jesus quoting Tobit is that Jesus professed a “jot and tittle” faith in the Scripture and also claimed to be truth itself so any reference he made to a book would have to be taken with great seriousness.

 

[Jolly_Joe]

If I may kind of jump in here, there’s been a lot of side issues being talked about but it doesn’t seem to me there’s been a real answer to the original question as far as where does the Protestant canon come from.

I believe the source is really rather obvious, and often overlooked. There is certainly extensive support for the Jewish canon of the Old Testament among the early fathers. The reformers had an extensive knowledge of the early fathers. But in any case the obvious source is none other that Saint Jerome in the Latin Vulgate.

If you take the Protestant canon, you find it is in perfect agreement with Jerome. Take Martin Luther, he certainly questioned some of the New and Old Testament books for they did not seem to him to point to Christ, but in the end. You have the Old Testament canon complete, the New Testament canon complete and those books which Jerome called apocrypha but which were included in the pages of the Vulgate.

Luther set them apart and labeled them. You had to read Jerome’s prefaces in the Vulgate to know what was and wasn’t apocrypha. Jerome spelled it out clearly in his preface to Kings.

That’s also why the Protestant Apochrypha has three more books than the Catholic canon, the Protestants included all the books normally found in the Vulgate. For some reason the Catholics no longer include 1 and 2 Esdras (3 and 4 Esdras in the Vulgate) nor the Prayer of Manasseh.

Anyway, it probably seems a bit strange, but I’m pretty convinced that the ultimate decisive source of the Protestant canon is the Latin Vulgate.

JJ

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

With all of the different opinions of “Jewish scholars” and different Protestant “scholars” as to the existence or non existence of records and or manuscripts, I am forced to say that being a totally orthodox Roman Catholic, believing that the Church is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and believing in the doctrine of infallibility I do accept the Canon as defined by the Church Councils. Just because infallibility was not defined until over a thousand years later, does not mean that it did not exist prior to the dogma being proclaimed.
Deacon Ed B

 

[MarcoPolo]

Sproul is arguing that since the Church is made of men it is capable of error and thus cannot, by definition, be considered to be infallible. The collecting though, according to Sproul, was so guided by the Holy Spirit that no error was made.

BTW, I think this inconsistent too, this is Sproul’s opinion not mine.

I hope it is only Sproul’s and not yours too, because claiming that man is fallible UNLESS he is compiling the Canon is a man-made tradition of itself.

 

[MarcoPolo]

So, if the book is not obviously fraudulent, is historically accurate , is Apostolic (again this is Tradition as well so go fig), has certain Authorship (Tradition), and is consistent in it’s teaching with Church Doctrine (Tradition) then it is said to be self-authenticating.

So apparently, the protestants argument (and again I am protestant for now) is that a book is self-authenticating if Tradition holds it is authentic.

What authoritative body would various Protestant denoms cite as the arbiter of what books were accurate and consistent with Church doctrine. After all, there was debate in the early days on books that made the Canon (like Revelation) and books that didn’t (Like the Protoevangelium of James).

 

[MarcoPolo]

But in any case the obvious source is none other that Saint Jerome in the Latin Vulgate.

You had to read Jerome’s prefaces in the Vulgate to know what was and wasn’t apocrypha. Jerome spelled it out clearly in his preface to Kings.

To clarify on Jerome, a couple points must be made.

• Jerome submitted to the authority of the Catholic Church in translating the Vulgate, and so he included the Deuterocanon. His personal prefaces did not have authoritative value.
• Elsewhere Jerome was known for citing the books of the Deuterocanon as Divine Scripture.
• Some of the time he was favorable to the Deuterocanon, and some of the time he wasn’t. During times he wasn’t, he was met with opposition…for instance in a debate against Rufinus if I am not mistaken.

Also, I think I saw in here a reference to the council of Jamnia. I don’t think that was a council. Jamnia was a school that taught against the Deuteros and the books of the New Testament as well.

 

[inthecloud]

Sproul is arguing that since the Church is made of men it is capable of error and thus cannot, by definition, be considered to be infallible. The collecting though, according to Sproul, was so guided by the Holy Spirit that no error was made.

BTW, I think this inconsistent too, this is Sproul’s opinion not mine.

Add another one. Is really a silly concept.

a.) What manuscripts of the Alexandrian canon are extant today?

b.) When do they date back to?

c.) Does anyone such as a Philo or Josephus (Jewish source) (I know these two didn’t and actually provide some evidence that there never was an Alexandrian canon) list the contents of the Alexandrian canon in a letter? If so, who did and can you provide the source for this letter

The only more or less fixed canon at that time was the one of the Pharisees. By Rabbi Hillel. For other Jewish sects it was either “Sola Torah” or a flexible canon that was growing even in Jesus time. Including the Jews of the Diaspora.

After 70 AD only two Jewish sects were left standing. The Christians and the Pharisees. The former needed a expanded canon, it was necesary for them to demostrate a continous revelation till Jesus. The latter needed a restrictive canon for the opposite reasons
As simple as that. I know its a secular explanation, that does not uses G-D or the church but that is the most logical and acurate explanation I have heard. From secular Jewish scholars.

 

[Jolly_Joe]

It should also be mentioned concerning Jerome and the Protestant canon that the Glossa ordinaria spelled out in most clear manners ther apocryphal books and was the standard book used throughout the Roman Catholic Church for teaching.

So you have Jerome clearly laying out the canon, you also have the standard textbook clearly laying out the canon. And it should be noted that canon was used in more than one sense. In the sense of useful for reading the apocryphal books were in the canon and continued to be used by such groups as the Lutherans for reading in the church. You even have a reference in that sense of one of the apocryphal books as scripture in the Lutheran Book of Concord. But in matters of settling disputes, of doctrine, in that tighter sense, it’s pretty clear what was taught throughout the Roman Catholic Church at the time and in that the Apocryphal books were excluded.

If you want to write history otherwise, you’d have to explain why the seminaries used a book as the textbook that would have been heretical. But of course holding to the narrower canon was not heretical. And it can be clearly seen as taught by Pope Gregory the Great and many others.

It’s too bad that politics caused the Council of Trent to, in a horribly split vote remove the distinction, as have many revisionist historians.

In any case, the proof is in the Glossa ordinaria what was actually believed and taught among the learned within the Church.

JJ

 

[MarcoPolo]

In any case, the proof is in the Glossa ordinaria what was actually believed and taught among the learned within the Church.

Is this the same Glossa Ordinaria based on the Vulgate? Written in the 9th century??

 

[Pwrlftr]

Add another one. Is really a silly concept.

Why exactly is Sproul’s belief “silly”?

 

[Pwrlftr]

pwrlftr:

a.) What manuscripts of the Alexandrian canon are extant today?

b.) When do they date back to?

c.) Does anyone such as a Philo or Josephus (Jewish source) (I know these two didn’t and actually provide some evidence that there never was an Alexandrian canon) list the contents of the Alexandrian canon in a letter? If so, who did and can you provide the source for this letter

inthecloud:

The only more or less fixed canon at that time was the one of the Pharisees. By Rabbi Hillel. For other Jewish sects it was either “Sola Torah” or a flexible canon that was growing even in Jesus time. Including the Jews of the Diaspora.

After 70 AD only two Jewish sects were left standing. The Christians and the Pharisees. The former needed a expanded canon, it was necesary for them to demostrate a continous revelation till Jesus. The latter needed a restrictive canon for the opposite reasons
As simple as that. I know its a secular explanation, that does not uses G-D or the church but that is the most logical and acurate explanation I have heard. From secular Jewish scholars.

I’ve heard the same thing. However, I have yet to find evidence that the Jews in Alexandria (up to and prior to the time of Christ) ever accepted a larger canon. By evidence, I am talking about what I had posted above.

I hear people talk about it but as far as I know, the evidence seems sketchy.

 

[grandfather]

I

To the best of my knowledge the only extant manuscripts of the septuagint we have are all Christian copies that date to the fourth century ad. So I don’t know of any extant manuscripts of the supposed Alexandrian canon.

.

I have never heard of scriptural manuscripts this old. Does anyone know where they are?

 

[Pwrlftr]

I have never heard of scriptural manuscripts this old. Does anyone know where they are?

I do believe the codex Vaticanus is in the Vatican library. I don’t know for sure where the codex Sinaiticus or the codex Alexandinus are stored.

 

[Jolly_Joe]

Is this the same Glossa Ordinaria based on the Vulgate? Written in the 9th century??

That would probably be the one, but it’s really not correct to say written in the 9th century. There are really multiple authors and it would be more correct to say assembled or produced or complied as one work. It was the standard textbook.

While it’s primary use was as an explanation of the text, it also had more extensive explanations and introductions of such things as which books were and were not scripture. And, Martin Luther followed the textbook perfectly.

I don’t know of an easily available online copy, certainly nothing in English, but there might be. Latin copies of both volumes are on google books.

greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00CAiy

Speaks of the issue.

JJ

 

[MarcoPolo]

it also had more extensive explanations and introductions of such things as which books were and were not scripture.

Here’s an excerpt from your link:
*The importance of the Glossa ordinaria relative to the issue of the Apocrypha is seen from the statements in the Preface to the overall work. …citing the testimonies of Origen, Jerome and Rufinus…These prologues to the Old Testament and Apocryphal books repeated the words of Jerome. *

Sounds to me like it just translated Jerome’s prefaces, which everyone knew the Church rejected on matters of the Deuterocanon. Not to mention Origen and Rufinus both cited the Deuterocanon as Scripture… And we already addressed Jerome.

 

[Jolly_Joe]

I’m sorry somehow you seem to be desiring an argument or something about I’m not sure what. Deal with Jerome? What in the world does that have to do with the question of what the sources of the Protestant canon are?

The education of him and the books Martin Luther had were in quite good agreement as to canon.

He would also have been familiar with Erasmus’ position on canon, which also agreed as far as I can tell with Jerome. But Erasmus’ Greek textbook would not have dealt with the Old Testament canon. That was in some other of Erasmus’ publications.

The original question had to do with where did the Protestant canon come from. I believe those things I cite are the sources of it. Because those are the sources that Martin Luther would have followed. And basically Protestant canons follow Luther. Though 1 and 2 Esdras was missing from the Apocryphal section of Luther’s bible (3 and 4 Esdras in the Vulgate and they were in an appendix) and those books are generally included in the Protestant Apocrypha.

Do you disagree with my assessment of where the Protestant canon came from, or are you just trying to argue over whether or not it is ultimately correct?

JJ

 

[MarcoPolo]

And basically Protestant canons follow Luther.

Do you disagree with my assessment of where the Protestant canon came from, or are you just trying to argue over whether or not it is ultimately correct?

I apologize…I was simply refuting some of the assertions you made starting in post #71. I agree with you that Protestant canons follow Luther.