Canon of Scripture

[anthony022071]

Mark Shea actually responded to the articles by saying:

As one can see, Jerome did not change his mind about the deuterocanonicals, at least not based on his letter to Rufinus. Even Mark Shea admits that he was wrong about this issue.

Jerome said that he was only repeating the opinions of the Jewish scholars,not his own opinions. He deferred to the authority of the bishops and the pope as to what books should be read by the Church.
Jerome freely quotes the Deuterocanonicals as scripture in his own writings,as the links I provided show.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Philthy,

Going back many posts, we started talking about how the Jews were entrusted w/ the oracles of God and yet, didn’t have an infallible authority to guide them.

You gave a brief response which included several points, than I think we both dropped the subject.

However, I am curious to know how the Jews could recognize what is and isn’t scripture and yet not have any infallible authority to guide them?

What is your opinion on this? How did the Jews know what was and wasn’t scripture?

 

[Pwrlftr]

Jerome said that he was only repeating the opinions of the Jewish scholars,not his own opinions. He deferred to the authority of the bishops and the pope as to what books should be read by the Church.
Jerome freely quotes the Deuterocanonicals as scripture in his own writings,as the links I provided show.

Quoting them and believing them to be inspired are two different things.

What do you make of the retraction by Shea?

 

[peary]

Philthy,

However, I am curious to know how the Jews could recognize what is and isn’t scripture and yet not have any infallible authority to guide them?

How did the Jews know what was and wasn’t scripture?

Why would protestants accept what the Jews decided on the canon of the OT when they themselves were anti-Christian and anti-Hellenistic? Why did protestants believe that the Jews had more authority over what was the inclusion of sacred scripture than the Church?

 

[XPICTIANOC]

first christians used gree translation of Tanah, called as Septuaginta ( LXX - in latin 70) so… it should be obvious that not canon from Yamne but Septuagina is christian Old Testament.

oh I almost forgot… books called as deutero-canonics are not only in OT but in NT too, so why protestant acknoladge d-c books in NT but dont in OT?

 

[anthony022071]

< "The issue was Theodotion’s (a known heretic) translation of Daniel which was being used by the churches. The translation was faulty, wasn’t based on the Septuagint, and condemned by the “right judgment of the churches”, but the reader can see that this in no way applies to the decision on canon made at the local councils of Hippo and Carthage.

Jerome goes on to say that he is merely stating Jewish opinion against these books. Although this was the view he espoused, he was not the originator, and it put him in the uncomfortable position of arguing with the Jews on this." >

The issue that concerns us is not what translations of the Deuterocanonicals were the best,but whether Jerome,and the Church at that time,thought that the Deuterocanonicals should be accepted as scripture and used by the Church. And it is obvious that they were accepted and being used. How could Ray Aviles honestly say that Jerome “espoused” the opinions of the Jews,when Jerome said that he was not expressing what he thought but what the Jewish scholars were saying. That’s a lie on Ray’s part.

< "Shea reiterates his error here:

‘As St. Jerome said, it is upon the basis of “the judgment of the churches” and no other that the canon of Scripture is known, since the Scriptures are simply the written portion of the Church’s apostolic tradition.’ " >

What error? There’s no error in that.

 

[jmcrae]

Philthy,

Going back many posts, we started talking about how the Jews were entrusted w/ the oracles of God and yet, didn’t have an infallible authority to guide them.

They also had (and continue to have) a variety of different canons of Scripture. The notion of “Bible” doesn’t really mean the same thing to them as it does to us; they don’t bind all of the books under one set of covers. They have the Torah (the first five books of our Old Testament), which for some of them encompasses all that is needed to be read out in the Synagogue - that is, that’s their Bible. Then some groups also have the Wisdom and the Prophets, and they also read out from these books in the Synagogue, but not all groups have these, and not all groups have the same books in their Wisdom and in their Prophets.

 

[mgrfin]

Perhaps God is speaking to you but you do not recognize His voice.

It took me a long time to discern when God was trying to tell me something.

When He would say speak, I was afraid and remained quiet. I didn’t want people to get mad.

But I learned to recognized the voice of God. When I know it is God prompting me, I go with it. It always turns out well.

I struggled the most when God said, “Shut up.”, because I thought, “If I just explain this, they will understand.” But now, I remind myself that I cannot explain anything about God. It’s the Holy Spirit who reveals God.

Do you really think God does not interact with individuals?

How does God use each of us to witness to non-Christians if He is not with us guiding our speech and even our mannerisms?

It is when we strike out on our own instead of waiting on the Lord that we strike out trying to witness.

By ‘speech’ I mean speech. What we understand by communication.

Who knows when God is guiding us; how do we read our own mannerisms? Do I think God is interacting with individuals? Yes, by way of Divine Providence, but I don’t believe He is guiding’ me in the same way as He guided St. Paul, or St. Peter.

It gets very dangerous when we start interpreting our feelings for God’s speech.

It is ironic that you accept your form of personal guidance, but you don’t accept the Holy Spirit guiding the Catholic Church, keeping her free from error, just as Jesus promised.

You’re not consistent. That in itself is proof of God not interacting with individuals in a direct, personal way. If He doesn’t speak and guide his Church, then how can I expect him to do that with me.

peace

 

[Pwrlftr]

< "The issue was Theodotion’s (a known heretic) translation of Daniel which was being used by the churches. The translation was faulty, wasn’t based on the Septuagint, and condemned by the “right judgment of the churches”, but the reader can see that this in no way applies to the decision on canon made at the local councils of Hippo and Carthage.

Jerome goes on to say that he is merely stating Jewish opinion against these books. Although this was the view he espoused, he was not the originator, and it put him in the uncomfortable position of arguing with the Jews on this." >

The issue that concerns us is not what translations of the Deuterocanonicals were the best,but whether Jerome,and the Church at that time,thought that the Deuterocanonicals should be accepted as scripture and used by the Church. And it is obvious that they were accepted and being used. How could Ray Aviles honestly say that Jerome “espoused” the opinions of the Jews,when Jerome said that he was not expressing what he thought but what the Jewish scholars were saying. That’s a lie on Ray’s part.

< "Shea reiterates his error here:

‘As St. Jerome said, it is upon the basis of “the judgment of the churches” and no other that the canon of Scripture is known, since the Scriptures are simply the written portion of the Church’s apostolic tradition.’ " >

What error? There’s no error in that.

Read post 285.

 

[Ginger2]

Who knows when God is guiding us; how do we read our own mannerisms?

Learning to discern between the voice of God and our personal ambitions takes practice and a desire to please God first above all else. You have to be willing to deny your own goals, because often God’s plans take you elsewhere.

I often ask God to make it crystal clear, so that there is no way I mistake my desires for His will. Then I simply trust. Even when it looks like things are going in the wrong direction, I keep trusting and praying and resist trying to control the situation.

.It gets very dangerous when we start interpreting our feelings for God’s speech.

That’s a lesson we see over and over again in Scriptures. Sarah tried to make God’s will happen by giving Hagar to Abraham. It caused a lot of misery that would have been avoided if she had trusted God instead of taking matters into her own hand.

I generally know when God is speaking to me, thru me or using me in some way - after the fact. I am usually totally under aware until afterwards. I know by the end results. Then in total surprise I say, “Wow, look what God did!” and give thanks and praise because it is so far beyond my abilities.

It is amazing how much God will accomplish thru mere human beings when we are willing and learn to trust God to do the work.

 

[Philthy]

Philthy,

Going back many posts, we started talking about how the Jews were entrusted w/ the oracles of God and yet, didn’t have an infallible authority to guide them.

You gave a brief response which included several points, than I think we both dropped the subject.

However, I am curious to know how the Jews could recognize what is and isn’t scripture and yet not have any infallible authority to guide them?

What is your opinion on this? How did the Jews know what was and wasn’t scripture?

I think it was pointed out by someone else that they had several canons. My simple answer is that I don’t know. Scripture certainly doesnt tell us. The issue is a little different in that the “Law” is contained in the Pentateuch while the prophetic books do not speak to the essence of what compromises the moral life. All agreed that the Pentateuch was canonical. I dont find it particularly relevent to reconciling your issues.

 

[Philthy]

You are either careless w/ your words here or are playing dumb since I am sure you know that there is no protestant pope/magesterium. So, it is no equivication to reply that no such authority for protestantism exists since it doesn’t.

I think I am being careful with my words, but I can tell I am beginning to anger you again. I dont mean to cause you angst. My question was prompted by this statement you made - which I quoted for you each time:

pwrlftr:

“…so the issue of what the canon is wasn’t settled until during the reformation for either side.”

This statement by you implies that the canon was settled during the reformation for both Catholicism and Protestantism. Do you agree or disagree that that is a necessary conclusion based on that statement? :ehh: The meaning of the statement hinges on the word “until”.
If you still agree with the statement, then I simply want to know how, exactly, it was “settled”.
If you disagree with the statement then I ask you, "Do you believe that the canon is “settled”? This again produces 2 options:
A YES answer circles us all the way back to HOW you arrive at the yes answer, how was it revealed to you?
A NO answer means that you don’t actually believe that God, in His Sovereignty, has revealed the canon to the church even though you claimed to believe that. Right? Am I making sense?
It cant just all be out there - at least I cant make sense of it. Not that my making sense of it is important or an indication that the fault lies with you. As I have said repeatedly the problem could be with me.
If you now realize, however, that perhaps you weren’t as careful with your words when you made that “until” statement then I understand completely. But to leave that statement out there and still cling to the notion of “God’s Sovereignty revealing the canon to the church” without being able to identify how you recognize God having accomplished this becomes fairly meaningless IMHO.

For my church, presbyterian, you can google the Westminster Confession if you are curious

Oh, OK. I’m not too familiar with it but I will check it out. Thanks!

 

[Pwrlftr]

They also had (and continue to have) a variety of different canons of Scripture. The notion of “Bible” doesn’t really mean the same thing to them as it does to us; they don’t bind all of the books under one set of covers. They have the Torah (the first five books of our Old Testament), which for some of them encompasses all that is needed to be read out in the Synagogue - that is, that’s their Bible. Then some groups also have the Wisdom and the Prophets, and they also read out from these books in the Synagogue, but not all groups have these, and not all groups have the same books in their Wisdom and in their Prophets.

Well, there is a threefold division of the Jewish canon but it’s all the same canon. The law, the prophets, and the hagiographa or psalms.
Luke 24:44:

Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms (hagiographa) must be fulfilled.”

Beckwith OT Canon:

The books of the Hebrew Bible are arranged in three sections: the Law, the Prophets and the Hagiographa. This mode of arrangement is frequently mentioned in the Talmud, but goes back to a much earlier period. There is evidence from well before the Christian era that the canonical books were already grouped in three distinct categories.

Beckwith, Roger T.: The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism. London : SPCK, 1985, S. 108

We see the threefold divsion described below:
Beckwith:

Figure 1. The Three Sections
The Law Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy

The Prophets
Joshua (+)
Judges
Samuel (+)
Kings
Jeremiah (+)
Ezekiel
Isaiah (+)
The Twelve Prophets

The Hagiographa
Ruth +
Psalms +
Job (+)
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes (+)
Song of Songs +
Lamentations
Daniel +
Esther
Ezra–Nehemiah +
Chronicles
Beckwith, Roger T.: The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism. London : SPCK, 1985, S. 157

The threefold division of the Jewish canon doesn’t indicate two or three seperate canons but only one canon.

I guess I’m not to interested in what a synagogue may or may not include in it’s lectionary since we know for a fact that there is no evidence of any of the deutero’s being laid up in the temple.

Now, back to the original question:
Romans:

Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.

What does it mean to be entrusted w/ the oracles of God?

If you are entrusted w/ something, wouldn’t that ordinarily mean you know what it is you are entrusted with?

 

[Pwrlftr]

I think it was pointed out by someone else that they had several canons. My simple answer is that I don’t know. Scripture certainly doesnt tell us. The issue is a little different in that the “Law” is contained in the Pentateuch while the prophetic books do not speak to the essence of what compromises the moral life. All agreed that the Pentateuch was canonical. I dont find it particularly relevent to reconciling your issues.

I appreciate your answer.

But it’s incorrect to say that the threefold division of the OT or Jewish canon implied more than one canon. The books laid up in the temple included the law, the prophetes, and the psalms or hagiographa.

I do think this is relevant, at least tangentially to our discussion. The Jews were entrusted w/ the oracles of God and they had no infallible authority to give them the canon.

Anyway, the “I dont’ know” answer is perfectly good.

 

[Philthy]

I went to google and found the Westminster Confession of 1646. I think I now understand your position and I will try to summarize it here:

You believe that God, in His Sovereignty, revealed the canon of Scripture to the church through the Westminster Council. They subsequently propogated this canon to the faithful through the Westminster Confession of 1646 at which point the canon of Scripture became “settled”. This is how you learned of the canon of Scripture, and you believe (like Sproul) that every book they listed belongs in the canon and there are no books missing either. Despite that last point, you (and Sproul) do not believe that God’s Sovereignty was infallibly manifest to this council but simply believe, apart from God’s Sovereignty, that they arrived at a perfect, though fallible, canon.
How’d I do!? PS - dont miss post 309

 

[Philthy]

I appreciate your answer.

… the “I dont’ know” answer is perfectly good.

Oh, I am the master of the “I dont know” - I use it frequently.

 

[Pwrlftr]

I think I am being careful with my words, but I can tell I am beginning to anger you again. I dont mean to cause you angst. My question was prompted by this statement you made - which I quoted for you each time:

This statement by you implies that the canon was settled during the reformation for both Catholicism and Protestantism. Do you agree or disagree that that is a necessary conclusion based on that statement? :ehh: The meaning of the statement hinges on the word “until”.
If you still agree with the statement, then I simply want to know how, exactly, it was “settled”.
If you disagree with the statement then I ask you, "Do you believe that the canon is “settled”? This again produces 2 options:
A YES answer circles us all the way back to HOW you arrive at the yes answer, how was it revealed to you?
A NO answer means that you don’t actually believe that God, in His Sovereignty, has revealed the canon to the church even though you claimed to believe that. Right? Am I making sense?
It cant just all be out there - at least I cant make sense of it. Not that my making sense of it is important or an indication that the fault lies with you. As I have said repeatedly the problem could be with me.
If you now realize, however, that perhaps you weren’t as careful with your words when you made that “until” statement then I understand completely. But to leave that statement out there and still cling to the notion of “God’s Sovereignty revealing the canon to the church” without being able to identify how you recognize God having accomplished this becomes fairly meaningless IMHO.

Oh, OK. I’m not too familiar with it but I will check it out. Thanks!

I’ll get back to you on this. I’ll try to summarize my thoughts and yes, I suppose I was a little careless too.

You can’t apologize or worry about everytime you think you have annoyed me. You are doing fine and from time to time we are going to grate on each others nerves no matter how charitable you or I may try to be. So far, I don’t think either one of us has stepped over the line or even come close. We don’t agree with each other so there is bound to be a little friction here and there.

The way I look at this forum is it gives me a chance to learn and clarify my thoughts. I have bad arguments from time to time and am wrong from time to time. Not every good argument is correct and not every bad argument is false. So, in short, don’t worry about it.

Anyway, there is no one protestant authority that decides anything at all for all protestants.

During the reformation, all the reformers (as far as I know) chose Jerome’s canon over the council of Trent. Since then protestants by and large have rejected the larger OT canon.

I can discuss some of the reasons why one may reject the larger canon if you would like.

 

[Pwrlftr]

I went to google and found the Westminster Confession of 1646. I think I now understand your position and I will try to summarize it here:

You believe that God, in His Sovereignty, revealed the canon of Scripture to the church through the Westminster Council. They subsequently propogated this canon to the faithful through the Westminster Confession of 1646 at which point the canon of Scripture became “settled”. This is how you learned of the canon of Scripture, and you believe (like Sproul) that every book they listed belongs in the canon and there are no books missing either. Despite that last point, you (and Sproul) do not believe that God’s Sovereignty was infallibly manifest to this council but simply believe, apart from God’s Sovereignty, that they arrived at a perfect, though fallible, canon.
How’d I do!?

I don’t believe any of the reformers or creeds are infallible, so there could be a mistake which is a natural consequence of not being infallible.

I would say you did pretty good. Somehow I think that statement is going to come back and haunt me.

 

[anthony022071]

Read post 285.

Ray Aviles said:

< “Yet, it was Theodotion’s version Jerome refers to when he mentions the “judgment of the churches” and not their decision on canon” >

To which I say: so what? Mark Shea quoted Jerome to show that Jerome followed the judgment of the churches. Ray tries to undermine Mark’s argument by pointing out that Jerome was talking about the issue of a translation,but he misses the larger points that the Deuterocanonicals were already being used by the churches as scripture,and Jerome went along with the judgement of the churches.

< “The issue was Theodotion’s (a known heretic) translation of Daniel which was being used by the churches.” >

Jerome was ungrudgingly obedient to the See of Rome,so he would have had to accept whatever books that the See of Rome did.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Ray Aviles said:

< “Yet, it was Theodotion’s version Jerome refers to when he mentions the “judgment of the churches” and not their decision on canon” >

To which I say: so what? Mark Shea quoted Jerome to show that Jerome followed the judgment of the churches. Ray tries to undermine Mark’s argument by pointing out that Jerome was talking about the issue of a translation,but he misses the larger points that the Deuterocanonicals were already being used by the churches as scripture,and Jerome went along with the judgement of the churches.

< “The issue was Theodotion’s (a known heretic) translation of Daniel which was being used by the churches.” >

Jerome was ungrudgingly obedient to the See of Rome,so he would have had to accept whatever books that the See of Rome did.

Shea wrote an article that said Jerome defended the deuterocanonicals later in his life and gave a quote from Jerome to prove this. Ray showed Shea the error and Shea admitted he was wrong. Shea admitted he was wrong.
Shea:

“…[F]rom what I read of the critique of my article on the apocrypha in the materials forwarded me, it would appear that **I did indeed misread Jerome **(not wilfully, as the article suggests, but nonetheless erroneously). That is, it would appear that Jerome, although he did include the deuterocanon in his Vulgate, did so grudgingly and never really bought the idea they should be in the canon of Scripture. That’s the breaks. I make mistakes. It does not mean everything I’ve written is worthless, it doesn’t even mean that the central point of my article–that the only authority we have for canonizing Scripture is the Church and not some guy named Ray Aviles–is wrong. But it certainly does mean that St. Paul is emphatically right when he urges us “test everything, hold on to what is good.” I’m as prone as the next guy to passing on pseudo-knowledge. So are James Swan and Ray Aviles.”

So, Shea apparently believes he was in error. It’s clear to me Shea was in error.

The issue of the OT canon wasn’t settled in Jerome’s time. Before each of the deuterocanonicals in the vulgate, Jerome placed his preface calling into doubt the canonocity of the 7 books. The issue of the OT canon wasn’t settled for the See of Rome until Trent. Mark Shea even admtis this in his article. Mark says “In that thousand years (between Trent and Carthage/Hippo), it was quite on the cards for believers to have some flexibility in how they regarded the canon.”
The earlier councils were provincial in nature and were not binding on the church universal.

This article (Shea’s) in it’s entireity can be found at:
envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html

What do you think of Mark Shea admitting he was wrong?