Protestant Consensus?

[Andreas_Hofer]

michaelp:

1. The list of accepted OT books in Christ’s day was made up of a three fold division (the Law, the prophets, and the writings). The Deuterocanonical is not contained in any of these. The NT refers to this division.
2. When a writer would quote from a book out of one of these divisions (Law, Prophets, and writings) it was an affirmation of the entire division. That is why the Saducees accepted one full division (Law) and not the others. Christ and the apostles confirmed the other divisions by quoting from representative books. If only one book from the Deuterocanonicals was quoted from as Scripture, this would give much validity to the ENTIRE division. But there is not a single quotation of a Deuterocanonical book AS SCRIPTURE.

Which LXX are you referring to?

I still contest that 2) is begging the question. Since the deuterocanonicals do not fit into what you believe belongs in the three-fold division, you consider them non-canonical. But groups that did consider them scriptural would have read them within the same mindset of Law, Prophets, and Writings. Do you really imagine that groups which quoted Deuterocanonical and Apocryphal books in the same manner as other Scripture had some sort of division like Law, Prophets, Writings, and More Writings? It seems entirely conceivable to me that believers in the inspiration of Wisdom and Sirach would have grouped them with the other books of their kind - in the Writings.

Your 3) also doesn’t make much sense to me. The ancient world did not normally keep books in codices. Even at the time of Augustine it was more likely that Scripture scholars were working from a library of scrolls and not a single book. Canonicity was not decided on a basis of “groups” or “divisions”, rather it was decided for each individual book - which is why lists of those “divisions” have differing contents.
Besides, the Christian community outgrew the Jewish divisions of the Old Testament. If we believed there were some binding authority to those groupings, we never would have moved Daniel from Writings to Prophets, or vice versa in the case of Chronicles. In fact, we even created our own new category of Historical books; unless, of course, your church still reads the book of Joshua under the rubric of Prophets.

As to which LXX one might be referring to, I’m referring to no single version. That’s one of the biggest issues in the argument about canon. There was no canon. No LXX canon, no Hebrew canon (despite the overblown mentions of Jamnia). Different communities of Jews and different communities of Christians all read different sets of books. Canonization is a long, slow process. The latest redactions of some of the Prophetic books were immediately post-Exile, and the main bodies of those works had already existed for another century or two, yet we find that even 500 years later at the time of Christ there was still contention over their canonicity (the Sadducees did not accept them). With the Jewish community working that slowly, can you really expect books written less than 200 years before Christ to already have a crystal-clear place in a canon that did not yet exist?

That is why the argument from any canon at the time of Christ fails - no canon(s) existed. Jamnia was a start for the Jews. The Christians were also just beginning. Enoch, Jubilees, the Shepherd of Hermas, pseudepigrapha and pseudoevangelia abounded, and through the march of centuries greater consensus was reached over which books were actually inspired. Lists compiled in the 300s reflect far better what the universal Church accepted as Scripture because the seminal churches of the 40s, 50s, even 100s, had no universal consensus.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Hi Michael!

michaelp:

Jesus never quoted from Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ruth, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Obadiah, or Nahum. Should we accept them? Why or why not?

No, because they were indisputable part of the accepted Scripture of Christ’s day (Jews, Protestants, and Catholics all agree).

No, we should not accept them?? I’m confused.

. Catholics must see the evidence in light of Rome. Protestants do not have any obligation to see evidence in light of anything . . .

That’s true. That’s certainly a big reason why there are so many conflicting and contradictory interpretations of the same words, each one equally valid since no one has the authority to say that another’s interpretation is incorrect. Each must be considered equally correct, especially when the reader has prayed beforehand for guidance from the holy Spirit and is convinced in his heart that if he were wrong the holy Spirit would convict his heart.

It is true that many Protestants study issues in light of their tradition forcing the evidence to fit their agenda and preconceptions, but this does not necessarily have to be the case. That is why Protestants, generally speaking, can study issues with much more objectivity.

No one reads scripture in a vacuum. Every single individual scripture reader reads it through some lens. There is no such thing as a tabula rasa no matter how vehemently individual readers may fancy themselves to be one.

My Bible that I use now is the NET Bible (www.netbible.org). It contains the Apocrypha on the web. This does not mean that they believe it to be inspired, but valuable. That is the way that the majority of scholars, even Catholic, viewed the Deuterocanonical books throughout history.

I will provide you with much evidence for this if you would like.

K!

How do you believe that the “Spirit led body that has both individually and conllectively the witness and power of the Holy Spirit within them” functions as the upholder, protector and defender of the truth (1 Tim 3:15) in the world today?

Through His power changing lives.

I’m not clear on how this answers my question. Could you please elaborate??

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[funkyhorn]

michaelp:

Here is my method with the New Testament: Whatever books that were written by an Apostle or close associate of an apostle (so that a living Apostle could validate), written in the first century, contain religious value, did not contradict previous revelation, and/or were accepted by the majority of the Body of Christ, I accept. I do not see the Body of Christ as an institutional authority, but as a Spirit led body that has both individually and collectively the witness and power of the Holy Spirit within them (what you seem to right off as purely subjective, meaning of no value).

So if you’re willing to accept whatever the majority of the Body of Christ accepted in terms of the NT, then why not the OT?

michaelp:

Therefore, there is no comparison. The canon of Christ’s day, the Palestinian Canon, did not include the Deuterocanonical books and Christ and the Apostle’s affirmed that canon.

The Apostles obviously used a greek translation. Whether we agree that it contained the deuteros or not is besides the point. But I should hope that we can safely agree, based on the overwhelming bias in numbers of references (80%) to the greek translation in the NT, that the Apostles used the greek rather than the hebrew. Its hard to argue here that Jesus and the Apostles affirmed the “Palestinian canon” since it was written in hebrew and they overwhelmingly refered to the greek in their own inspired writings.

Now, concerning the “Palestinian canon”, there were actually about 3 different canons floating around in Palestine at that time *in addition * to the Alexandrian canon and they were all different. The OT canon was disputed at that time by the Jews and it is still disputed today. We can see this in the Ethiopian Jews today who use the same OT canon as Catholics.

The Jews never universally settled on a canon, but the Christian Church DID! You’re willing to follow the consensus of the early Church to determine your NT, but then you reject that SAME consensus in determining your OT. You appeal to that consensus when it is convenient for you, but then ignore it when it becomes inconvenient. In reality it isn’t the consensus of the early Church you follow, but rather, Protestant tradition. These guidelines you follow for canonicity contradict each other and aren’t valid.

 

[josiah]

Catholic4aReasn:

Hi josiah!

I think it might be more accurate to say that the Bible is “inerrant” rather than “infallible”.

In any case, the Bible is inerrant in that which is was intended to teach. The Bible was never intended to be used as a history or geography textbook.

In Christ,
Nancy

Hi Nancy how are you?
Nancy I guess my reply to your last respones is if we can’t trust the Bible in areas of history or geography then how can I trust it in more important areas of eternal life and salvation?

In love
Josiah

 

[Church_Militant]

josiah:

Let’s look at how Christ declared the Hebrew canon.
Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spoke unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

Luke 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
Here in the above verse, Jesus divides the written word of God into three categories. The Hebrew Bible, known by the acronym TaNaKh, has these three divisions, first the Torah, the first five books of Moses, second the Nevi’im or Prophets, and third the Ketuvim or Writings. Christ was appearing to the disciples shortly after His resurrection and He was expounding to His disciples on the testimony of the scriptures about Himself, from one end of the Bible to the other. From the beginning at Moses; next to the prophets; and then on to the last division that began with Psalms; Christ explained from the Hebrew Bible, the TaNaKh, how it revealed Him to be the Messiah.

Next,

Jesus seems to exclude the Apocrypha in his statement in Luke 11:51 - “from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who perished between the altar and the temple. Yes, I say to you, it shall be required of this generation” (NKJV).

Christ uses the expression “from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah,” The death of Abel is recorded in Genesis, the first book in the Hebrew canon. The death of Zechariah is included in 2Chronicles, which appears troublesome since Zechariah was not chronologically the last martyr mentioned in the Bible ( Jer. 26:20-23). However, Zechariah is the last martyr we read of in the Old Testament according to Jewish canonical order ( II Chron. 24:20-22), which was apparently recognized by Jesus and his hearers. The traditional Jewish canon was divided into three sections (Law, Prophets, Writings), and an unusual feature of the last section was the listing of Chronicles out of historical order, placing it after Ezra-Nehemiah and making it the last book of the canon. In light of this, the words of Jesus in Luke 11:50-51 reflect the settled character of the Jewish canon (with its peculiar order) already established in his day. This is also baloney because we know that Job is the oldest book in the Bible, yet the order is not set according to historical order. Also…under your premiss all the historical books go out the canonical window…It just doesn’t work dude.

One last thing to consider:

Matt. 5:18 For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled.

A Catholic Bible commentary says the following about the above verse:

*jot or tittle: *“Jot” refers to yôd, the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet; “tittle” is a slight serif on a Hebrew letter that distinguishes it from another, similarly formed letter.
Source: The New Jerome Bible Commentary, copyright 1990, 1968, by Prentice Hall, Inc., ISBN 0-13-614934-0, page 641.
So it would seem, based on the above Catholic commentary, that Catholics do, in fact, accept that Christ was referring to scripture in the Hebrew language, and NOT a Greek translation!

Peace and love to you.
I hope this makes some sense

Josiah

Just because ONE commentary says something doesn’t mean that all Catholics buy into it…or even the Church itself. You are using one commentary…If we did the same to you you’d go nuts because there are probably hundreds of non-Catholic commentaries out there and you won’t agree with all of them either. So…who’s right? you don’t know…and very likely the one you quoted is one that lacks any semblance of magisterial approval. What does Rome say…they’ve long since settled this issue and yet you reject it. Who will we trust? Not someone who espouses doctrines that came into being during the reformation and from some guy who comes in to attempt to confuse people by using sources that SEEM to agree with his premiss. How do we know that you aren’t quoting totally out of context…something i’ve seen Kent Hovind and any number of non-Catholics do in an attempt to disparage the Catholic Church…

 

[Church_Militant]

People…There IS NO such thing as a Protestant consensus. This is an oxymoron.

 

[michaelp]

All,

There seems to be a lack of understand of how serious the Deuterocanonical controvery was until the 16th century. Rather than detail it all out for you on this post, I will refer you to this website that clearly evidences that their was no concensus concerning the Deuterocanonical books until the Reformation.

Rather than reading through the entire website, just browse through it quickly. It will be enough to show you how much in limbo the Deuterocanonical books truly were. The only view that seems to come close to a “consensus” was that no one was sure whether or not the Deuterocanonicals were part of Scripture. Most Catholic scholars simply placed them, at best, as a secondary canon (hence, Deuterocanonical.

christiantruth.com/apocryphaintroduction.html

Enjoy! And have a good night.

Michael

 

[josiah]

Church Militant:

Just because ONE commentary says something doesn’t mean that all Catholics buy into it…or even the Church itself. You are using one commentary…If we did the same to you you’d go nuts because there are probably hundreds of non-Catholic commentaries out there and you won’t agree with all of them either. So…who’s right? you don’t know…and very likely the one you quoted is one that lacks any semblance of magisterial approval. What does Rome say…they’ve long since settled this issue and yet you reject it. Who will we trust? Not someone who espouses doctrines that came into being during the reformation and from some guy who comes in to attempt to confuse people by using sources that SEEM to agree with his premiss. How do we know that you aren’t quoting totally out of context…something i’ve seen Kent Hovind and any number of non-Catholics do in an attempt to disparage the Catholic Church…

The fact that I used a Catholic commentary is irrelevant. Whoever wrote that commentary is correct whether he is a catholic, protestant, mormon or whatever. The point is that Christ was referring to a Hebrew text.

The fact that the Jewish canon isn’t in chronological order doesn’t matter. Read the book of Daniel and you’ll soon notice that the chapters aren’t written in chronological order. So, if you have a problem with that then take it up with the author of that book. Dude.

If it is so obvious that the apocrypha is inspired. Why did it take 1,546 years before the Catholic church officially declared it inspired.Hmmm.

If you have basic reading and grammatical skills then you will be able to determine if I have taken anything out of context.

 

[Veritas]

michaelp:

Quoted from: christiantruth.com/Apocryphapart1.html
“One of the reasons Roman Catholics argue for a broader canon is that the oldest extant manuscripts of the Septuagint do contain a number of Apocryphal books. . . If inclusion of a book in the manuscript proves its canonicity, as Roman Catholics assert, then 3 and 4 Maccabees were canonical.”

One error that you seemingly keep falling into is the use of non-Catholic sources for “Catholic” reasoning. It is, unfortunately, extremely common for non-Catholics to misunderstand Catholic reasoning. I recommend using Catholic sources, such as Catholic Answers.

The “Catholic” argument presented above misrepresents the Catholic position. So refutation of this red herring proves nothing. No Catholic (or at least none that I have read) claims that inclusion in a codex “proves its canonicity” or inspiration. Half a dozen posters have said this to you. Why you keep raising this issue is baffling.

However, inclusion in a codex does provide witness of the first rank that certain books were widely (but not definitively) considered as scriptural. I say “not definitively” because neither the Jews nor the Christians had a formal mechanism for determining divine inspiration in place during the first 3 centuries after Christ.

Similarly, the obvious fact that there wasn’t a formal canon among Jews or Christians at this time is fully consistent with the Catholic position. It was one reason why the church acted at the end of the 4th century to set a Christian canon.

 

[michaelp]

One error that you seemingly keep falling into is the use of non-Catholic sources for “Catholic” reasoning. It is, unfortunately, extremely common for non-Catholics to misunderstand Catholic reasoning. I recommend using Catholic sources, such as Catholic Answers.

I am only referring to the LXX because its supposed canon has been used many times on this thread.

I am with you though. I would not use it to argue the Catholic position. I would just punt to the authority of the Church. But then the argument changes.

Thanks for the implicit affirmation concerning the invalidity of the argument from the LXX. It shows honesty.

The “Catholic” argument presented above misrepresents the Catholic position. So refutation of this red herring proves nothing.

It can only be a red herring if I introduced it. I did not.

However, inclusion in a codex does provide witness of the first rank that certain books were widely (but not definitively) considered as scriptural.

I suppose by the use of the word “codex” you are referring to the Alexandrian manuscripts that we are discussing (A, B, and Aleph), right?

If so, that is right. It shows that one cannot use the LXX to argue for the inclusion of the Greek division of books.

I say “not definitively” because neither the Jews nor the Christians had a formal mechanism for determining divine inspiration in place during the first 3 centuries after Christ.

They did not need one. There was never any significant doubt as to what books were included in the OT among the orthodox Jews living in Palistine in Christ’s day.

Formal mechanisms are only necessary when there is controvery. Therefore, this demonstrate that there was not any controvery about the status of the canon in Christ’s day. It was made up of the Law, Prophets, and writings (Psalms). The Deuterocanonical books are not included in these divisions.

Similarly, the obvious fact that there wasn’t a formal canon among Jews or Christians at this time is fully consistent with the Catholic position. It was one reason why the church acted at the end of the 4th century to set a Christian canon.

The Roman Catholic Church did not formally decide on a canon until 16th century in reaction to the Reformers. Until then, there was much debate and disagreement.

Read this article. It clearly demonstrates that there was much controversy about the Deuteros until the Reformation. Read it for its historical references rather than the authors traditional affiliation. At the very least, you will learn where I am coming from when I say that there was no consensus until the 16th century.

Hope you are doing well.

Michael

 

[funkyhorn]

michaelp:

The Roman Catholic Church did not formally decide on a canon until 16th century in reaction to the Reformers. Until then, there was much debate and disagreement.

Read this article. It clearly demonstrates that there was much controversy about the Deuteros until the Reformation. Read it for its historical references rather than the authors traditional affiliation. At the very least, you will learn where I am coming from when I say that there was no consensus until the 16th century.

josiah:

If it is so obvious that the apocrypha is inspired. Why did it take 1,546 years before the Catholic church officially declared it inspired.Hmmm.

OK, both of you need to stop spreading that piece of misinformation. You’re both refering to Trent as the event where the Church “officially” declared the canon of Scripture, being that it was allegedly the first ecumentical council to address the canon, implying that it was only in response to the Protestant canon.

THIS IS NOT TRUE! Even if you aren’t willing to submit to the consensus of the Early Church, there can be no denying that the ECUMENICAL Council of Florence in the 11th session on February 4th, 1442 infallably declared the canon of Scripture…80 years before the Protestant Reformation!

In that 11th session, it was declared:

…We, therefore, to whom the Lord gave the task of feeding Christ’s sheep’, had abbot Andrew carefully examined by some outstanding men of this sacred council on the articles of the faith, the sacraments of the church and certain other matters pertaining to salvation. At length, after an exposition of the catholic faith to the abbot, as far as this seemed to be necessary, and his humble acceptance of it, we have delivered in the name of the Lord in this solemn session, with the approval of this sacred ecumenical council of Florence, the following true and necessary doctrine…

…It professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament — that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel — since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.

Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John…

 

[Church_Militant]

josiah:

The fact that I used a Catholic commentary is irrelevant. Whoever wrote that commentary is correct whether he is a catholic, protestant, mormon or whatever. The point is that Christ was referring to a Hebrew text. Baloney! This is circular reasoning at it’s worst! It is only correct according to YOU…

The fact that the Jewish canon isn’t in chronological order doesn’t matter. Read the book of Daniel and you’ll soon notice that the chapters aren’t written in chronological order. So, if you have a problem with that then take it up with the author of that book. Dude. No …You make one argument for something and then when we refute it (which isn’t really very hard since most all of your info is from poor scholarship and biased writiings anyway), you come back and say it doesn’t matter. That’s just wrong…

If it is so obvious that the apocrypha is inspired. Why did it take 1,546 years before the Catholic church officially declared it inspired.Hmmm. It DIDN’T! Are you blind? The canon was set by the council of Carthage in 397 and the matter closed in 405 by Pope Innocent I. All Florence and Trent did was to RE affirm that decision for the sake of the reformation rockheads.

If you have basic reading and grammatical skills then you will be able to determine if I have taken anything out of context.

Since no one here just jumped up and said that they happen to have that particular commentary there at hand…(Probably because it’s some lame liberal piece of work written by someone who isn’t a decent Catholic anyway. From the sound of it…) there’s no way to tell if you’re quote is in context. Of course you WOULDN’T happen to go out and get a copy of the CCC and read that because you know full well it won’t jive with your other biased sources.

I’d appreciate it if you’d mind your manners and not attempt to be insulting. I read really well and I’ve probably read more Prot & Evangelical lit than you’ll ever read…along with the whole Word of God. I don’t have to twist anything to make my case for the Catholic Church. Your whole argument about Trent is lame because you IGNORE the fact that that council as well as Florence both simply restated and reaffirmed the decision of Carthage… Like it or not you are wrong.

I’m gonna let the wise remark slide this time, but if it happens again I’ll report you in a flash and you can go bother the JWs or Mormons. I haven’t insulted you EVER…and there’s no reason to get slick mouthed when someone answers your allegations with facts. If you feel like you’re not getting anywhere with us…there is probably another non-Catholic forum that would be delighted to hear your “war stories”.
Pax vobiscum,

 

[michaelp]

OK, both of you need to stop spreading that piece of misinformation.

You can read the information yourself on NewAdvent.com. Write the editor and let him know that you are a qualified teacher or bishop and you want to make a statement of interpretation . . . oh, wait . . . you can’t; you are not allowed, right? Well, I will . . .

You’re both refering to Trent as the event where the Church “officially” declared the canon of Scripture, being that it was allegedly the first ecumentical council to address the canon, implying that it was only in response to the Protestant canon.

It was the first council to declare with the authority of the infallible church the canon, right?

Take a look here:

New Advent:

“The Tridentine decrees from which the above list (canon including the Apocrypha) is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal. Being dogmatic in its purport, it implies that the Apostles bequeathed the same Canon to the Church, as a part of the depositum fedei.”

Concerning the controversy up until then the New Advent says:

“In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals.”

Again, if you want to see a detailed study of the Church’s acceptance and rejection of the Deuteros, read either your New Advent Encyclopedia (www.newadvent.org – look up "canon: Old Testament). Or for more detail, go here: christiantruth.com/apocr…troduction.html

Hope you all are having a good Sunday. Everyone at my house is sick .

Michael

 

[funkyhorn]

michaelp:

Write the editor and let him know that you are a qualified teacher or bishop and you want to make a statement of interpretation . . . oh, wait . . . you can’t; you are not allowed, right? Well, I will . . .

I’m glad you’ll be taking care of that !

michaelp:

Take a look here:

New Advent:

“The Tridentine decrees from which the above list (canon including the Apocrypha) is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal. Being dogmatic in its purport, it implies that the Apostles bequeathed the same Canon to the Church, as a part of the depositum fedei.”

Concerning the controversy up until then the New Advent says:

“In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals.”

Again, if you want to see a detailed study of the Church’s acceptance and rejection of the Deuteros, read either your New Advent Encyclopedia (www.newadvent.org – look up "canon: Old Testament). Or for more detail, go here: christiantruth.com/apocr…troduction.html

And if you look at New Advent’s website under Infalliblity, it will list ecumenical councils as infallible. And if you look under Ecumenical Councils, it lists Florence as the 17th Ecumenical Council. Florence was an ecumenical council and it named all of the Catholic Canon as divinely inspired.

And all of this is besides the point anyhow. As Church Militant already stated above, the deuteros have always been included in the canon. Florence and Trent simply restate what has already been accepted. Look, even J.N.D Kelly acknowledges that the deuteros were always included…

“It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books” (Early Christian Doctrines, 53), which are rejected by Protestants."

michaelp:

Hope you all are having a good Sunday. Everyone at my house is sick

Sorry to hear about that. Feed them lotsa vitamins. Thats what I do. My wife is kicking me off my computer now . I don’t know when I’ll be back…it may be a while .

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Well, I’ve read through part I of your article, michaelp, and so far I’ve got these problems with it.

First, while it is unclear to what extent the author’s predispositions influence his conclusions, it is pretty clear that he is not an unbiased source - he is not writing to the scholarly communitya bout his findings, rather he is writing against Roman Catholic apologists.

Second, he never makes a clear case for a closed canon. As far as sources from around the time of Christ, he has two. These are admittedly authorities, but are only two. I could pick two sources from Christian antiquity (which receives far less attention in this article than Jewish - for some reason the Talmud, written a half millenium after Christ, is supposed to have relevance to the canon as received by the first Christians) and get widely varying results. Some would be in agreement, others would all yield different tables. As I see it, though, these authorities are supposed to be backed by other evidence.
For instance, the fact that the writer of Ecclesiasticus did not consider himself to be writing Scripture. Unless the author has serious delusions about the arrogance of ancient Jews, this comment is entirely irrelevant to the question of canon. In fact, if the author must consider his book divinely inspired Scripture on par with that which has come before, we can also exclude the entire New Testament; an excellent example of this comes when Paul makes a comment regarding a seemingly closed canon (2 Tim 3) and does not place his letter within it - interesting parallel? No one sits down to write Scripture. It takes a long, long time to become Scripture. Especially given that modern scholarship holds the prophetic books to be mostly not the works of a single author (the prophet) but a compilation of sayings assembled by the school of his disciples, this theory of the writing of Scripture would thus hold that a bunch of men sat down one day and decided to write a new book to add to the corpus of Scripture.
Furthermore, testimony from Josephus places the end of prophecy, and thus the close of the canon, in the end of the 5th century BC. But this means that Josephus, an eminent scholar, was mistaken as to the age of Daniel by 250-300 years. Therefore even Jews who held to his dating for the cessation of prophecy could have mistakenly believed in the authority of other more recently written books when the margin of error on dating was that large. But invoking a cessation of prophecy ignores the reality of Orthodox Jewish belief in levels of inspiration (this coming from the Yale-educated Orthodox Jewish scripture scholar who taught my course on prophets).
Not all inspiration is on the same level. In fact, the three divisions of the Tanakh each carry a different level of authority, beginning with Torah and ending with Kethuvim. Perhaps it comes from notions as to the authority of antiquity, or perhaps it is the same impulse that lead the ben Sirach to differentiate his work from previous ones, i.e. the knowledge that new books do not begin as scripture. But an acknowledgment of a different level of inspiration from Scripture does not mean an absence of inspiration. The task of interpretation, as seen in apocalyptic literature as well as midrashim of the rabbis, is also an inspired enterprise. Not on par with the inspiration, of Scripture, but inspired nonetheless. A classic example of this inspired interpretation comes from the Qumran Essenes. The interpretation of Scripture in that community was held to be a direct revelation to the teacher of righteousness. As time marches on, more established works slowly climb the ladder toward “canonical” inspiration, which is what led to the eventual acceptance of the Kethuvim, for instance.

.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

cont…

Now, Qumran presents problems for this scholar’s assertions about canon because the scrolls of that community (Dead Sea Scrolls) directly contradict his assertion that only “canonical” works were quoted as scripture. In fact, the commentaries (pesherim) on books outside of the “Hebrew Canon” are worded in just the same way as those on other Scriptures: “It is written…the interpretation is…” One of the world’s main authorities on these Scrolls, Eugene Ulrich (under whom I have also studied), wrote an article on canonization of Scripture (“From Literature to Scripture” - it’s no longer on our electronic reserves, so I don’t have a link for it; I guess you’ll have to either trust me or ignore me on this one)which does debunk the “two canon theory” but not in the way your article would hope. It continues to assert a lack of uniformity while claiming that there was no canon at the time of Christ. Noting about 4 or 5 different collections regarded as Scripture by various communities of Jews, and the wholesale lack of agreement on textual variants (meaning, which version of a book), Ulrich chooses to focus more on the process of canonization than on the form of a canon that he does not see in existence.

I’ll just post as I go with the other sections of the article

 

[michaelp]

Andreas Hofer:

cont…

Now, Qumran presents problems for this scholar’s assertions about canon because the scrolls of that community (Dead Sea Scrolls) directly contradict his assertion that only “canonical” works were quoted as scripture. In fact, the commentaries (pesherim) on books outside of the “Hebrew Canon” are worded in just the same way as those on other Scriptures: “It is written…the interpretation is…” One of the world’s main authorities on these Scrolls, Eugene Ulrich (under whom I have also studied), wrote an article on canonization of Scripture (“From Literature to Scripture” - it’s no longer on our electronic reserves, so I don’t have a link for it; I guess you’ll have to either trust me or ignore me on this one)which does debunk the “two canon theory” but not in the way your article would hope. It continues to assert a lack of uniformity while claiming that there was no canon at the time of Christ. Noting about 4 or 5 different collections regarded as Scripture by various communities of Jews, and the wholesale lack of agreement on textual variants (meaning, which version of a book), Ulrich chooses to focus more on the process of canonization than on the form of a canon that he does not see in existence.

I’ll just post as I go with the other sections of the article

Hey Andreas,

The main thing that I wanted to make clear with regards to this article is that there was very little consensus about the Deuteros until the 16th century. (Although, I do think that the rest of the article is very good. I do believe that the evidence drives the conclusion, not the bias).

Having read part two, can you at least concede that there was much debate about the Deteros inclusion and inspiration until the 16th century?

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Furthermore, testimony from Josephus places the end of prophecy, and thus the close of the canon, in the end of the 5th century BC. But this means that Josephus, an eminent scholar, was mistaken as to the age of Daniel by 250-300 years. Therefore even Jews who held to his dating for the cessation of prophecy could have mistakenly believed in the authority of other more recently written books when the margin of error on dating was that large. But invoking a cessation of prophecy ignores the reality of Orthodox Jewish belief in levels of inspiration (this coming from the Yale-educated Orthodox Jewish scripture scholar who taught my course on prophets).

I don’t get this. Are you telling me that you believe that the book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century B.C.? That is a postition that is only held among the most liberal scholars who attempt to explain the clear prophecies in Daniel. Is this the position of the RC Church?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

michaelp:

I don’t get this. Are you telling me that you believe that the book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century B.C.? That is a postition that is only held among the most liberal scholars who attempt to explain the clear prophecies in Daniel. Is this the position of the RC Church?

I don’t know that the Church has a position on the dating of books. What I do know is that the profile of apocalyptic literature makes that later dating compelling. Apocalyptic is crisis literature. It tends to be projected back using a sage foretelling the future regarding the end times. The end times are actually now. Daniel’s use of the 4 empires and a 5th motif squares well with the Hasmonean empire (soon to be realized) as the 5th. Daniel also deals with interpretation, not prophecy. The shift to the interpreting angel begins in the latest of the minor prophets but only finds its full expression after the “cessation of prophecy” in the apocalyptic literature (which flourished from ca. 200 b.c. to a.d. 200). If the book is a work of apocalyptic, which the Jewish filing of Daniel under the Writings would suggest, then I don’t see why a later dating necessarily does harm to it.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

michaelp:

Hey Andreas,

The main thing that I wanted to make clear with regards to this article is that there was very little consensus about the Deuteros until the 16th century. (Although, I do think that the rest of the article is very good. I do believe that the evidence drives the conclusion, not the bias).

Having read part two, can you at least concede that there was much debate about the Deteros inclusion and inspiration until the 16th century?

Michael

Yes I can concede that, especially as I am not one to try to assert the authority of Carthage, Hippo, Rome, et al. I am content with placing infallible definition of the canon right where the Church claims it - at Trent.

I have to ask, though, what that does to your claim to base your canon on the consensus of the early Church. The article makes a point of showing two sides to the controversy all the way up to Jerome. This would indicate a lack of consensus. By the time the general consensus claimed by the article came into existence, the Church had moved well beyond the bounds of Protestant orthodoxy, so why accept the opinion of men who were wrong on most everything else? You would probably have to fall back on that Jewish canon, which you might be comfortable doing but I still contend that canon did not exist at such an early date.

Also, why does the writer confine his treatment of the Augustinian faction after Jerome to Aquinas plus just a couple others. Whereas before he had documented the opposing view, from Jerome to the Reformation he doesn’t seem to want to include it. Aren’t we owed at least an attempt at an explanation of the seemingly unwarranted action of the fathers at Trent? I wouldn’t expect a council with so much disregard for history and scholarship (as the article contends) to feel a need to retain more books of Scripture. Such an irresponsible group of clerics would be fully aware that it could just make its case from Tradition and ecclesiastical authority, especially since this would take far less effort than consulting all those scholars that didn’t get invited to begin with. So what’s the hidden story? What’s their angle?