The Canon Question

Jan 23rd, 2010 | By Tom Brown | Category: Featured Articles

“I would not have believed the gospel, unless the authority of the Catholic Church had induced me.” (St. Augustine, Contra Ep. Fund., V, 6.)

Contents:

I. The Canon Question
II. Diversity of Theories

A. Self-Attestation and the Testimony of the Holy Spirit
B. The Original Hebrew Old Testament
C. New Testament Apostolic Authorship
D. Widespread Acceptance by the Early Church
E. That Which Preaches Christ: A Canon Within a Canon

III. Authority to Answer the Question
IV. Conclusion

I. THE CANON QUESTION.

As Christians, how is it that we know we are saved by the death and resurrection of the incarnate Son of God? For those raised as Christians, the Sunday School sing-song answer “for the Bible tells me so” may come to mind, and this fairly well summarizes the Protestant teaching on the communication of saving truth. The Belgic Confession, an historical expression of the Reformed faith used widely in Dutch denominations, asserts that we know God by the beauty of creation, and “more openly by his holy and divine Word.”¹ The Westminster Confession of Faith, widely adopted by Presbyterian denominations with traditionally Scottish origins, contains a comparable teaching: while the “light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable,” we still need revealed truth to possess the “knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation.”² Regarding this revelation, the Westminster Confession holds that God chose “to commit the same wholly unto writing.”³

A Portion of the Hexapla

But this answer, that we know saving truth from the Bible, pushes the question back. What is the Bible? Our previous two articles, Hermeneutics and the Authority of Scripture and Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, and the Question of Interpretive Authority, explored aspects of this question, including what we believe about the Bible, and our notion of the Bible as inerrant truth. In this paper I intend to explore another aspect of the question “What is the Bible?,” and this I will refer to as the Canon Question: “By what criterion do we know which texts comprise the Bible?” This is an essential question all Christians should be able to answer, but, in my experience in discussing this with other believers, it is to many a foreign subject matter. Without understanding why we believe the Gospel of Mark, or the Epistle of James, or the book of Esther to be among those writings inspired by the Holy Spirit, we cannot give a principled reason why we believe these books to be Scripture. Without any principled reason why we believe these books to be Scripture, we have no principled reason or basis for knowing what is the deposit of faith, and thus cannot give an answer to ‘everyone who asks us to give a reason for the hope we have.’⁴

In this article, I argue that Reformed theology is intrinsically incapable of answering the Canon Question. The confessional and classical Reformed answer to the Canon Question, which will be considered in depth in section II.A., relies upon the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit in the heart of each believer to give assurance of a text’s canonicity. I will argue that since any two Spirit-filled Christians who are new to Scripture might not agree that any given text is canonical, this test is of dubious reliability, and thus cannot be our ultimate measure of Scripture. The inherent subjectivity of this classical Reformed basis for the canon has led to a variety of different answers to the Canon Question, each seeking a more objective basis for identifying God-breathed texts. These various efforts to articulate an objective test for the canon are not mutually exclusive. They can be summarized as follows: the Old Testament canon is that set of Hebrew texts that were canonized by Jewish leaders of Jerusalem around the time of Christ; the New Testament canon is defined as those books which are immediately or mediately of Apostolic authorship; and finally, the canon is defined as those books which received widespread acceptance in the early Church (until a certain point in time). I will explore these topics, as well as Martin Luther’s view that the canon properly consists of those Old and New Testament books which “preach Christ,” in the remainder of section II. There, I shall argue that, given the Reformed assumption that whatever authoritatively testifies to the canonicity of Scripture must be more authoritative than Scripture, each of them necessarily places extra-biblical evidence above Scripture in its effort to objectively identify the canon. This places something from outside of Scripture above Scripture, and thereby violates the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura.

In Section III, I argue that the very process of answering the Canon Question violates sola scriptura. This is because answering the question must involve extra-Biblical human judgment. This judgment is placed over Scripture because it defines the canon. By placing this judgment above the sole permitted infallible authority, the process of answering the question violates sola scriptura. As I will conclude, the fundamental problem for the sola scriptura position is that it has no way of determining the canon that is faithful to its own concept of authority.

II. DIVERSITY OF THEORIES.

Over the centuries since the Protestant Reformation, a variety of theories have sprung up that attempt to articulate an objective test for determining a text’s canonicity. The answers to the Canon Question that I describe here are comprehensive of the Protestant positions, although not exhaustive. Outlying variants on these theories abound, but the principal theories in use by Reformed and evangelical scholars are included below.⁵ These principal theories share the characteristics of purporting to reach their conclusion objectively, and (although being different tests) of reaching the same 66-book conclusion. The late Covenant Seminary professor R. Laird Harris believed that there is room within Protestant scholarship for multiple, and perhaps even competing, principles for determining the same canon:

[S]everal differing views concerning the principle of determination of the canon–views not necessarily exclusive–have been held through the centuries, and there is room for some differences of opinion on this point. . . . It is freely acknowledged that the views on canonicity here expressed are not the only views held by conservative Biblical scholars.⁶

For Harris, having a variety of canon theories within the Protestant academy is tolerable, so long as they each yield the 66-book Protestant canon. But as Dr. Flesseman-van Leer has rightly observed, those who accept the traditional canon of Scripture today cannot legitimately defend it with arguments that played no part in its original formation.⁷ Post hoc rationalization of such a critical point as the formation of the canon would be like painting a target around one’s arrow that is already embedded in the wall. If a rule which has led some to the 66-book canon proves false, or fails to be truly objective, the remedy is not to find a new rule allowing us to reach the same conclusion. Instead, to be intellectually honest, we must find the rule that is ultimately right and true, and accept where it leads us, wherever it leads us.

Besides those Protestant theologians who tolerate competing canon theories but themselves only advance one criterion of canonicity, other theologians are willing simultaneously to use a plurality of criteria to reach the same conclusion. For example, Harris determines the extent of the Old Testament canon by following “[t]wo lines of approach,” “one historical and the other an appeal to authority.”⁸ He writes, “[b]y both methods it can be seen that these Apocryphal books cannot properly be included in the sacred canon.”⁹ That is, Harris is willing to use a plurality of theories, ones which he views as complementary, to reach his conclusion about the canon of Scripture.¹⁰ While using plural criteria to accumulate evidence in favor of a text’s inclusion in the canon would be proper to the extent that each criterion is valid and consistent with one’s overall scriptural paradigm, it would be improper to the extent that any one component criterion was not. That is, for the Protestant, a theory that proves incompatible with sola scriptura cannot be salvaged merely by tying it together with a more defensible theory. Bearing in mind that each Protestant theory must be internally consistent with sola scriptura, I will now take them up in turn.

A. SELF-ATTESTATION AND TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT:

The Classical Reformed View:

The classical and confessional Reformed answer to the Canon Question stresses that the Holy Spirit is our immediate assurance of the canon’s truth, and also notes that the reliability of Scripture appears from within Scripture itself. This answer varies somewhat from source to source in its particular emphasis, but the assurance of the Holy Spirit is a clear common theme. In the course of the Reformation, Calvin was an early advocate for this position, which later became solemnized by the Reformed confessional standards.¹¹ He taught that for the reader enjoying the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit, Scripture is self-attesting (i.e., it says on its own to this reader that it is Scripture):

[T]hose whom the Holy Spirit has inwardly taught truly rest upon Scripture, and that Scripture indeed is self-authenticated; hence it is not right to subject it to proof and reasoning. And the certainty it deserves with us, it attains by the testimony of the Spirit. For even if it wins reverence for itself by its own majesty, it seriously affects us only when it is sealed upon our hearts through the Spirit. Therefore, illumined by his power, we believe neither by our own nor by anyone else’s judgment that Scripture is from God; but above human judgment we affirm with utter certainty (just as if we were gazing upon the majesty of God himself) that it has flowed to us from the very mouth of God by the ministry of men. We seek no proofs, no marks of genuineness upon which our judgment may lean; but we subject our judgment and wit to it as to a thing far beyond any guesswork!¹²

Calvin also likens asking the Catholic’s question, “how can we be assured that [Scripture] has sprung from God without recourse to the decree of the church?,” to asking “whence will we learn to distinguish light from darkness, white from black, sweet from bitter?”¹³ For John Calvin, it is as apparent as black is from white which books are to be included in the canon: “Indeed, Scripture exhibits fully as clear evidence of its own truth as white and black things do of their color, or sweet and bitter things do of their taste.”³ His answer, then, is that we can be assured that Scripture is of God simply by looking at it, just as we can tell black from white simply by looking at it.

The traditional Reformed confessions also did not neglect to answer the Canon Question.¹⁴ According to the Belgic Confession, we are to receive the books of the Protestant canon, and all taught within them,

“not so much because the church

receives and approves them as such

but above all because the Holy Spirit

testifies in our hearts

that they are from God,

and also because they

prove themselves

to be from God.

For even the blind themselves are able to see

that the things predicted in them

do happen.”¹⁵

Similarly, in the words of the Westminster Confession,

[O]ur full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority [of Scripture], is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.”¹⁶

What makes this classical and confessional position attractive, from the Reformed perspective, is its immediate reliance on God to lead Christians to His revealed truth. We do not have to accept the canonical texts “so much because the church receives and approves” them, but because we are convinced immediately by the Holy Spirit. There are no middle men to muddy the waters. By doing this, the Reformed confessions mean to avoid subordinating infallible Scripture to a fallible mediate human authority. This is essential to the Reformed system because if Scripture were subordinate to fallible human authority, its contents could be erroneous, thus rendering Scripture unreliable. And if Scripture were unreliable, it could not act as our sole infallible authority over all matters of the faith.

However, since any two Christians might not agree that any given book is (or is not) canonical even where they reflect carefully on the testimony of the Holy Spirit as they approach it, this test lacks objectivity and reliability. We should be able to verify the reliability of this classical Reformed canon criterion in the following way. If the classical Reformed canon criterion were true and we set various candidate texts, like books or passages from the New Testament, apocryphal works, or revered writings from the early Church Fathers, in front of new Christians who have the Spirit but have never read the Bible, they would all pick out the same books or passages as canonical. If Calvin’s black-from-white claim is true, our hypothetical new Christians attempting to discern canonical books from non-canonical would come to one conclusion. If we could run this hypothetical test, and we obtained a result that was successful less than 100% of the time, or even less than the vast majority of the time, at identifying the one true canon, this would show that this test is not a reliable test for determining the canon of Scripture.

Something close to this hypothetical test has already been run. In the early centuries of Christian history, the many faithful Christians in close communion with the Holy Spirit, and who did not yet have a determined canon for their Bible, did not conclude that the Protestant 66-book canon is correct. We have evidence that many early Church figures, including St. Augustine himself, supported the inclusion of the deuterocanonical texts within the canon. Not one single source from this period articulates the Protestant canon.¹⁷ Following the Reformation, before the first generation of Reformers had died, the alleged black-from-white clarity regarding which books belong in the canon also failed to produce universal agreement.¹⁸ These cases from history are evidence that the Reformed answer to the Canon Question does not provide a reliable method for determining the canon. This is deeply problematic, since assurance in the canon is the foundation of the sola scriptura paradigm.

Part in parcel with Calvin’s view that the Holy Spirit testifies in our hearts to the veracity of the canon, Calvin rejects the essential role of the Church in identifying the canon. In his Institutes, he starts with the proposition that Scripture obtains its authority directly from God, and not from the Church:

But a most pernicious error widely prevails that Scripture has only so much weight as is conceded to it by the consent of the church. . . . For they mock the Holy Spirit when they ask: Who can convince us that these writings came from God? . . . . Who can persuade us to receive one book in reverence but to exclude another, unless the church prescribe a sure rule for all these matters?¹⁹

As an initial matter, Calvin misstates the Catholic position by stating that, according to the Catholic Church, Scripture has its authoritative weight accorded to it by the Church. Rather, the Catholic position is that Scripture has divine authority because it is God-breathed, the Holy Spirit having inspired the texts’ authors. That is, Scripture has divine authority because of its divine author, not because of the role of God’s Church in producing it. As the Catholic Church decreed during the First Vatican Council:

These [73] books the Church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the Church.²⁰

This belief is reflected also in the dogmatic work Dei Verbum, written by Pope Paul VI in 1965:

Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testament in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.²¹

These texts prove that the Catholic Church does not maintain that the Scriptures have only so much weight as is accorded to them by the Catholic Church. Rather, as the Catholic Church explains, the authority of the Scriptures derives from their being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, with God as their author.

Furthermore, regarding Calvin’s view of the relationship between the Church and Scripture, he merely asserts, but does not demonstrate, that the Catholic Church’s position would mock the Holy Spirit. He claims to find such mocking in the belief that one cannot be persuaded to receive one book and exclude another without the Church prescribing a sure rule. Why would the Church’s prescribing a “sure rule” for knowing Scripture be a mockery of the Holy Spirit? Because for Calvin, our obtaining assurances from the Church would necessarily exclude obtaining assurances from the Holy Spirit. This is because, as shown in the quotation from Calvin cited above, he has created a false dichotomy between the Church and the Holy Spirit. For him, these two sources of assurance cannot work in a confluent way. For obvious reasons, once one accepts this dichotomy, one comes to favor the Holy Spirit option, making the option of seeing the Church as a source of assurance a mockery.

Calvin’s rhetorical question: “Who can persuade us to receive one book in reverence but to exclude another, unless the church prescribe a sure rule for all these matters?” also misstates the Catholic teaching. The Catholic Church does not claim that a person cannot be persuaded to receive or exclude a book without the Church prescribing a sure rule. One could accept or reject a book without the benefit of a “sure rule” from the Church, as occurred throughout the early Church. Rather, apart from Magisterial guidance concerning the canon, it would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, for all believers independently to come to complete agreement about the canon without each believer receiving miraculous enlightenment from the Holy Spirit. Christ has given authority to the Magisterium in such a way that grace builds on nature. That is, the visible government of the Church, being guided by the Holy Spirit, does not nullify, but fulfills, our natural need for visible government in the supernatural society that is the Church. But, the Church and the Holy Spirit do work together to assure us of the scriptural canon. As St. Augustine said, “I would not have believed the gospel, unless the authority of the Church had induced me.”²²

Calvin next argues that the Church itself is grounded upon Scripture, and not the other way around:

But such wranglers are neatly refuted by just one word of the apostle. He testifies that the church is “built upon the foundation of the prophets and apostles.” If the teaching of the prophets and apostles is the foundation, this must have had authority before the church began to exist.²³

Note the significance of Calvin’s addition of the word “teaching” to his restatement of Ephesians. But St. Paul actually says that the Church is built on the foundation of the prophets and the apostles themselves. For Calvin, a teaching has authority, not the teacher. He treats Paul’s statement that the Church is “built upon the foundation of the prophets and apostles” as referring to a set of teachings, not any persons.

Calvin’s whole doctrine of Scripture revolves around this insertion of the word “teaching” into St. Paul’s statement to the Ephesians, and upon seeing the teacher as having authority derived from the teaching only insofar as he holds to that teaching. But it is the prophets and apostles themselves who were given divine authority. Consider Matthew 7:29, in which we are told that Jesus “taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.” Jesus taught as one ‘with authority,’ not as one ‘with words with authority.’ Words of law do not have authority in isolation from their source, but are authoritative because of their relationship to their source. For example, the U.S. Constitution is not authoritative apart from its source, but represents the authority of the People who promulgated it. Likewise, the words of the Bible are authoritative because of their relation to their authors, especially their divine Author. The Church is not founded upon these words, the teachings of prophets and apostles, but upon the prophets and apostles themselves based on their divine authority. Because of the prophets’ and apostles’ divine authorization, we can know the teaching they transmitted to be divine in origin.

Further Refinement of Self-Attestation:

In his work, Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures, theologian Herman Ridderbos provides a modern Reformed articulation of the confessional view. In line with Calvin, he argues that canonical texts are self-attesting (or self-witnessing) to the reader who is aided through faith by the Holy Spirit to see Scripture for what it is.²⁴ Ridderbos also issues a noteworthy critique of the various proposed Protestant criteria of canonicity other than the classical Reformed position. He sees these as little or no better than the Catholic view, which, he says, effectively places the Church over Scripture, because they too put something over Scripture. He explains:

For no New Testament writing is there a certificate issued either by Christ or by the apostles that guarantees its canonicity, and we know nothing of a special revelation or voice from heaven that gave divine approval to the collection of the twenty-seven books in question. Every attempt to find an a posteriori element to justify the canon, whether in the doctrinal authority or in the gradually developing consensus of the church, goes beyond the canon itself, posits a canon above the canon, and thereby comes into conflict with the order of redemptive history and the nature of the canon itself.²⁵

In this context, Ridderbos uses a priori to mean knowledge that has nothing but the canon as its starting point. His claim, then, is that if any part of a canon test depends on something outside of the canon (what he calls “a posteriori” elements)–for example, on the consensus of the Church–this explanation has placed some extra-Biblical authority “above” the canon. Within the framework of sola scriptura, this is a commendably logical observation. If Scripture is the sole infallible authority of the faith, and everything else is subordinate in authority to Scripture, then the basis for determining the canon cannot be any authority but Scripture. The working principle here is that an authority is only as authoritative as that on which it is founded. Each of the criteria listed below within the remainder of section II, most of which Ridderbos takes up with particularity, falls prey to this claim. Lessons of history, use by Hebrew-speaking Jews of the time of Christ, prophetic and apostolic authority, and the like–each of these involve criteria by which a text is judged to be canonical that is extra-canonical, so goes beyond the canon itself, and thus posits a canon above the canon.

Here is Ridderbos’s riddle then, which he believes Calvin’s view has solved: how can we determine the canon, which does not fall from Heaven, without relying on extra-canonical evidence? Riddberos sees the need to avoid the use of extra-canonical evidence, because doing so would, under the Calvinist assumption, place the confirming evidence over the canon, which would violate sola scriptura. Given Calvin’s assumption, Ridderbos needs to find evidence for the contents of the canon that is located in or derived from the canon itself. Ridderbos sees the Reformed answer to both the riddle he presents and the Canon Question this way:

Reformed theologians do not justify the acceptance of the canon by appealing to a “canon within the canon.” Nor do they appeal to its recognition by the church or to the experience of faith or to a recurring, actualistic understanding of the Word of God as canon. . . .

. . .

Calvin appealed not only to the witness of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of believers but above all to the self-attestation of the Scriptures. The divine character of the Bible itself gives it its authority This divine character is so evident that anyone who has eyes to see is directly convinced and does not need the mediation of the church. . . . [As] Karl Barth wrote, ‘The Bible makes itself to be canon.’

Corresponding to this objective principle of the self-attestation of Scripture, from its inception Reformed theology has expressly distinguished the subjective principle of the testimonium Spiritus Sancti. . . . He opens blind eyes to the divine light that shines in the Scriptures. Later Reformed theology has correctly emphasized the fact that the internal witness of the Spirit is not the basis for but the means by which the canon of Scripture is recognized and accepted as the indubitable Word of God.²⁶

From this we see that his view consists of two elements: (1) that Scripture is self-attesting, (2) via the Holy Spirit leading the reader to recognize it as canonical.²⁷ The first element, if taken on its own, would certainly answer Ridderbos’s riddle. If some quality of Scripture allows it to attest to its own canonicity, then there is no need to resort to evidence that is external to Scripture in order to define Scripture.²⁸ Thus, nothing is placed “above” the canon, leaving Scripture as our final authority. The second element also plays a vital role; it explains why it is not the case that the entire world recognizes Scripture’s own attestations, why the world does not see the black from the white. In Ridderbos’s own terms, the first element of the test of canonicity is objective and the second element is subjective.

But prior to Calvin, the Church never used this method to recognize a book as belonging to the canon. The Church recognized books as canonical on the basis of their having been inspired by the Holy Spirit.²⁹ In its process of identifying which books possessed this quality, the Church never employed a private, individualistic means. Instead, it relied upon councils of the Church confirmed by the Bishop of Rome.³⁰ Again, as one cannot legitimately defend the canon with arguments which played no part in its original formation, Calvin’s novel elements cannot explain how Church reached its present canon.³¹

Also, the subjective aspect of Ridderbos’s theory renders the entire test too subjective to be reliable. This is because each text’s objective quality, self-attestation, is only evident to an observer to the extent that he subjectively experiences the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit. Just as a building cannot be more sturdy than its foundation, the Reformed answer to the Canon Question is no more objective than its most subjective part. Here, the objective quality is not merely supported or enhanced by the subjective, but is entirely dependent upon it. Using the Reformed frame, if two people disagree in their view of which texts are (objectively) self-attesting as Scripture, they can only settle their disagreement by calling into question the degree to which (subjectively) the Holy Spirit is testifying in their interlocutor’s heart. In this way the classical Reformed theory is too subjective to be a reliable basis for assuring believers which texts belong in the Bible.

That the Reformed test is too subjective to be reliable because new Christians considering candidate texts would not reach the same conclusion when applying it, has already been discussed above. This also appears from the views of Luther himself. Remember that according to Ridderbos, the objective element of the Bible’s “divine character [is] so evident that anyone who has eyes to see is directly convinced and does not need the mediation of the church.”²⁶ But Luther’s subjective interpretation of the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit regarding Scripture led him, at least at times in his life, to some different conclusions than Calvin about certain of our New Testament books.³² Neither was Luther alone in his day in doubting the canonicity of certain New Testament works.

Calvin knew of and addressed conflicting conclusions about the canon in the introductions to his commentaries on Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, and Jude. In one instance Calvin called into question which spirit was working in the doubters’ heart. In his argument for the inclusion of the book of Hebrews in the canon, Calvin says, “I, indeed, without hesitation, class [Hebrews] among apostolical writings; nor do I doubt but that it has been through the craft of Satan that any have been led to dispute its authority.”³³ Calvin is explaining that Satan undoubtedly is involved in a case where some are denying what he finds to be canonical. We see that under the classical Reformed view, in a case of dispute, a failed meetings of the minds on what is self-attesting is explained at the subjective level.

What of the reply that since all Protestants agree on the canon, this is evidence that these 66 books properly comprise the canon, objectively reached? First, the premise that all Protestants agree on the canon is false. The classical Lutheran position does not agree with the Reformed view of the canon, in that Lutheranism creates a canon-within-a-canon, relegating some books to a secondary place. This position distinguishes a homologouna from an antilegomena, i.e., never-disputed books from disputed books such as Jude and Revelation. Unlike the Reformed canon, which is a proper source for the formation of dogma in its entirety, only the never-disputed books may be used for the defintion of dogma within a classical Lutheran view.³⁴ Further, to the extent that Protestants see themselves as lineal descendants of pre-Reformational proto-Protestants, it cannot be said that “Protestants” have agreed on the canon throughout the Church’s history. As I discuss elsewhere, many biblical texts have been rejected at one time or another by various Church Fathers. Finally, widespread agreement amongst today’s Protestants does not disprove the objective canonical quality of the deuterocanonical books since the vast majority of Protestants have never read them. Today’s average Protestant does not study why he has the Protestant 66-book canon, and does not independently decide if the Bible handed to him is correct. Rather, he accepts as an a priori of his Protestant faith that the 66-book canon is correct. Belief that the 66-book canon is right is part and parcel with the small cluster of unifying evangelical Protestant beliefs. Since it is a unifying principle for most Protestants, we would hardly expect to see anything but universal agreement; thus we can draw no lessons about the canon from this widespread agreement.

With Ridderbos’s answer to the Canon Question, we have no way of knowing whether the Holy Spirit is permitting a reader to recognize a text as canonical, or is simply permitting a reader falsely to perceive it as Scripture. We cannot tell since we would necessarily have to appeal to Ridderbos’s subjective element in order to know which of these actions the Holy Spirit is engaged in when, for example, He permits Catholics to recognize the deuterocanonical texts as Divine. If the Holy Spirit is simply permitting Catholics falsely to perceive them as Scripture, as Protestants must maintain, then Protestants have no objective criteria by which to distinguish this act of the Holy Spirit from cases in which He is permitting readers to recognize a text as canonical. And such a test is surely a kind of ad hoc opportunism in which it is claimed that the Holy Spirit is doing whatever I am doing, even if many others are doing many things contrary to what I am doing.

To resolve the disputes that lingered in spite of his supposedly objective test, Calvin employed a potpourri of fall-back arguments to shore up his teaching that the Holy Spirit allows a reader to perceive directly what belongs to the canon of Scripture. According to Ridderbos, Calvin distinguished Scripture from what did not belong to Scripture, “not simply by appealing to the witness of the Holy Spirit as some infallible, inward arbitrator, but he appealed to the fact that the authority of those books has been recognized from the church’s inception, that they contain nothing unworthy of an apostle of Christ, and that the majesty of the Spirit of Christ is everywhere apparent in them.”³⁵ Thus he utilizes four different factors, culled from reason and not revelation, to settle the disputes in favor of his ‘objective’ conclusions.³⁶ Calvin is not alone in finding the need for supplemental arguments to support the supposedly objective, self-attesting, black-from-white criterion for determining the canon. The renowned 20th-century Reformed theologian F. F. Bruce, in employing his own supplemental arguments, said that “[i]t is unlikely . . . that the Spirit’s witness would enable a reader to discern that Ecclesiastes is the word of God while Ecclesiasticus is not.”³⁷

This ‘appeal to external facts’ reveals something about Reformed thinkers’ discomfort with relying too heavily on the supposedly objective self-attestation method of discerning the canon. This ‘appeal to external facts’ also is in tension with Calvin’s and Ridderbos’s position that sees using evidence outside of Scripture to determine Scripture as effectively placing that evidence over Scripture, and Calvin’s potpourri use of fall-back argumentation.³⁸ Calvin, in using reason and historical proof to determine the canon (for example, by appealing to “those books” that have “been recognized [as canonical] from the church’s inception”), is either contradicting his principle that no evidence outside of Scripture can determine the canon, or is refining his principle in an ad hoc fashion.

But without the external appeal, Calvin’s position is left only with the two elements mentioned above: self-attestation and the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit. However, as we have seen, the self-attestation element effectively collapses into the subjective element–the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit–when faced with disagreements about the canon. Because what then remains is too subjective a test to yield a single canon if put before a hypothetical test group of new faith-filled Christians, it cannot bind us to a single set of texts as certainly belonging in the Bible.

B. THE ORIGINAL HEBREW OLD TESTAMENT:

Another Protestant answer to the Canon Question, used either as an independent criterion of canonicity or as a supplement to other criteria, holds that the canon of the Old Testament is that which originally was in use by Hebrew-speaking Jews. The timeframe of this hypothetical ‘original’ canon will go back as far as the historical evidence will support the idea of a closed Hebrew canon. Dr. Harris, a noted Reformed Old Testament scholar, put forward this view in an extensive treatment of Old Testament history in his book Inspiration and Canonicity of the Scriptures.³⁹

Starting with a discussion of the Hebrew manuscripts in use amongst modern biblical Scholars, Harris states: “Our English Old Testament depends largely on medieval Hebrew manuscripts from about A.D. 900 and following. These Hebrew manuscripts contain our familiar 39 Old Testaments books.”⁴⁰ He then attempts to proceed back through history, as early as can be traced, to determine the original Hebrew canon. The Babylonian Talmud lists the Hebrew books accepted in about A.D. 200, the time of its writing. These align with the 39 Protestant books of the Old Testament.³ Harris also presents a litany of early Christian writers who discussed Hebrew canons quite similar to the 39-book Protestant Old Testament.⁴¹

A test of canonicity that relies on such extra-Biblical evidence as what the Jews of A.D. 200 (or any other time) accepted as canonical falls subject to the critique of Ridderbos, noted above.⁴² Without biblical warrant to craft such a test, it remains extra-Biblical. Therefore, its application would be a canon above the canon and thus violate sola scriptura according to Ridderbos’s criteria. A major problem with this canon theory is that it grants to the Jewish leaders of Jesus’ day an authority which, it claims, if possessed by the Church, would undermine the authority of Scripture. But it would be ad hoc to allow a Jewish magisterial authority to determine the canon while claiming that a determination of the canon by way of Catholic magisterial authority would undermine the authority of Scripture.

The ‘Original Hebrew’ Canon:

Setting aside its extra-biblicality and focusing on its application, the ‘Original Hebrew Canon’ answer to the Canon Question leads to additional problems.

First, there is no historical basis to conclude that any one Jewish group had the authority to pronounce and close the canon for other Jewish groups, or that any one of them could conclude the canon for Christianity. While there was a body of Scribes sitting “in the chair of Moses” who may have had the authority to rule on the contents of, and eventually to close, the canon of the Old Testament, the fact remains that differing groups of Jews at the time of the founding of Christianity accepted different canons.⁴³ Harris admits that the Essenes probably accepted for their canon, in addition to the generally accepted texts, “other books written by members of their own sect.”⁴⁴ While Harris and Bruce reject claims from within academia that the Sadducees accepted only the Pentateuch as canonical,⁴⁵ Bruce goes on to explain that the Samaritans held exactly that belief: “As for the Samaritans, their Bible was restricted to the Pentateuch⁴⁶.”

The Diaspora Jews, on the other hand, used the Greek Septuagint, which included the deuterocanonical texts as well as some apocryphal texts.⁴⁷ Harris dismisses this problem by denying that history can prove that the canon used by Jews of the Diaspora (what Harris calls the Alexandrian canon) included the deuterocanonical texts:

That our present Septuagint copies have a variant canon really proves nothing about the Alexandrian canon of A.D. 50 much less the Alexandrian canon of around 200 B.C., when the Septuagint was translated, for in those vital centuries there were three major factors which surely affected such questions.⁴⁸

What follows is Harris’s explanation of how it might have come to pass that the modern Septuagint does not match the earlier Septuagintal canon, which presumably would have matched the ‘original Hebrew canon’ that Harris is pursuing. Firstly, says Harris, the temple was destroyed in A.D. 70, but until that time “the canon would naturally be defined at Jerusalem for all the Jewish world.”⁴⁹ In other words, while the views of dispersed Jews are not authoritative in determining the Old Testament canon because of their distance from the Jewish center of gravity, for Harris, the views of those Jews in the Holy City are binding. Harris does not expand his claim beyond opining that the canon “naturally” would have come from Jerusalem. Harris does not show that the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem decided anything regarding the deuterocanonical texts prior to AD 90. He does not show that they formally made a conclusion regarding the canon that was binding on all Jews.

No authority within Scripture, and no argument from reason, requires Christians to abide by the speculative conclusions of the first-century Pharisaic leaders from Jerusalem, some of the very ones who had Christ put to death. The definitive reason why the Septuagint was accepted by the Church is because it was accepted by the Apostles. Even if the non-Christian Jews of A.D. 40 had ruled against the Septuagint, that would not in any way change its acceptance by the Church. After all, the authority for the Church flows from Christ to His Apostles, not to the determinations of non-Christian Jewish leaders.

Secondly, Harris argues, early “Christians throughout the Roman Empire naturally used the Greek, as the New Testament language evidences. They therefore naturally appealed to the Greek Old Testament,” while the “Jews in self-defense argued that some of the Messianic passages were mistranslated.”³ The “Jews retreated into the Hebrew while the Christians took over the Septuagint.”³ Along these same lines, Bruce notes the Jewish disdain for the Christians’ thorough appropriation of the Septuagint: “the Jews became increasingly disenchanted with it. The time came when one rabbi compared ‘the accursed day on which the seventy elders wrote the Law in Greek for the king’ to the day on which Israel made the golden calf.”⁵⁰

Why, then, as Harris implies, is the opinion of the non-converting Jews more reliable than the opinion of those who converted to Christ and widely used the Greek Septuagint? For Harris, the answer is because “the Christians did not have the regulative effect of ancient history to help them retain a proper view of the canon.”⁴⁹ By this, he means that early Christians lost their grounding in Hebrew tradition, and thus lost the guiding benefits this tradition would have provided. Here we have a striking statement from Harris. He must believe that the “regulative effect of ancient history” (that is, tradition) could maintain the non-Christian Jews in truth about the canon, while the “regulative effect” of the Holy Spirit did not preserve the Church from the grave error of canonizing spurious texts. There are important presuppositions implicit in Harris’s position. He views the first century Church with the eye of an ecclesial deist, meaning he does not see God as actively protecting the Church from error.⁵¹ It is as if, for Harris, either the Apostles had no authority to determine for the Church what is her Old Testament Canon, or the Christians of the first century already had departed from what the Apostles had declared to be the authoritative Old Testament canon. For whatever reason, Harris believes that the early Christians were not guided by tradition, while the non-Christian Jews were.

The rapid and ubiquitous way in which Christians made use of the Septuagint is more reason, not less, to trust its contents. These Christians’ use of the Septuagint indicates their conviction that it was authentically divine, and therefore authoritative. Absent the doubts of ecclesial deism, the widespread use of the Septuagint by first-century Christians reveals not only that this was the Old Testament of the early Church, but also that it therefore remains authoritative today.

Harris’s third point about the Septuagintal canon is that, with the advent of the codex (i.e., bound book) replacing the scroll, early Christians found the need to fill up the scores of empty pages of valuable paper in their bound Bibles. To do this, Harris argues, they “[n]aturally” would “fill it with helpful devotional material.”⁵² This, he concludes, led to a conflation of helpful books with scared books. The extent of Harris’s historical evidence for his view is that it seems to him the only plausible explanation for these texts’ survival in spite of a lack of support from the early Church Fathers.

First, Harris is wrong about an absence of support from the early Church in favor of the Septuagint. He asserts that “from considerable testimony of the first four centuries,” the “Apocryphal books were not then received into the canon of the Christian church.” After repeating the views of Origen and Melito in favor of the Jewish rendering of the Old Testament canon, he goes so far as to say that “[t]he single voice of antiquity in favor of the Apocrypha is that of Augustine and the Councils of Hippo (A.D. 393) and Carthage (397).”⁵³ But Harris had just stated that there were some uses of Baruch by the fathers, and some other exclusions of Esther.⁵⁴ Further, Origen’s own canon was not the same as the Protestant canon, as Harris also admits. Origen argues at length against Africanus regarding the validity of Susanna, and he also confirms Tobit and Judith:

Where you get your “lost and won at play, and thrown out unburied on the streets,” I know not, unless it is from Tobias; and Tobias (as also Judith), we ought to notice, the Jews do not use. They are not even found in the Hebrew Apocrypha, as I learned from the Jews themselves. However, since the Churches use Tobias, you must know that even in the captivity some of the captives were rich and well to do.⁵⁵

We see from Origen’s support for Tobias, as well as from the fathers who supported the inclusion of Baruch, that Augustine and the Councils of Hippo and Carthage were not alone in antiquity in favoring the inclusion of deuterocanonical texts. It is also unlikely that two councils of the early church–Hippo and Carthage, A.D. 393 and 397 respectively–would draw within their list of sacred books what had to that point been universally rejected. If even a majority of the Church’s leaders had rejected those books, their inclusion in the canon by St. Augustine (b. 354) and the North African councils would have created an uproar. But history records no such reaction. For this reason, Harris’s claim that with “one voice,” “all the important witnesses in the early church to about A.D. 400 . . . insist that the strict Jewish canon is the only one to be received with full credence”⁵⁶ is false, as Bruce agrees. Bruce sees that the Councils of Hippo and Carthage “did not impose any innovation on the churches; they simply endorsed what had become the general consensus of the churches of the west and of the greater part of the east.”⁵⁷ So widely held was the belief in the deuterocanonical books, that Bruce writes, “[i]n 405 Pope Innocent I embodied a list of canonical books in a letter addressed to Exsuperius, bishop of Toulouse; it too included the Apocrypha.”⁹

Second, even if there was an absence of support from the early Church in favor of the Septuagintal texts, as Harris claims, Harris does not give any reason to rule out the possibility that the Holy Spirit preserved these texts and guided the Church to include them. Harris implicitly presumes that the Holy Spirit did not act this way in the early Church, and instead offers the speculation that these books exist because they were filling in empty pages. This speculation or hypothesis has no more support than the deisitic assumption of the Holy Spirit’s non-intervention upon which it is based. Rather, the Septuagintal texts’ early appearance in the Church, opposition-less acceptance, and widespread propagation by Christians lead to the conclusion that these very Jewish books had been in use by Alexandrian Jews. The evidence I have provided here indicates that, at the time of Christ, Samaritan, Essene, and Alexandrian Jews used a canon different from the 39-book Protestant canon. Even the rabbis at Jamnia, who famously debated in the year A.D. 90 about which books were prophetic, gave the opinion that Ezekiel should be “withdrawn.”⁵⁸

As I have shown, Harris’s claim that there was an absence of support from the early Church is based on a weak hypothesis, and fails to account for contrary evidence. His historical claim that there was nothing but a single voice from antiquity favoring the inclusion of the deuterocanonical texts is demonstrably incorrect. His arguments to explain the eventual inclusion of deuterocanonical texts in Christian use–that they filled empty space in Biblical scrolls; that the Greek Septuagint that supported them lacked the regulative effect of Jewish tradition; and that the original Septuagint from before the temple’s destruction would have matched what the first-century Pharisaic leaders from Jerusalem used–are based on unreliable speculation and give undue regard for Jewish tradition. It remains that a major problem for the ‘original Hebrew canon’ theory is the lack of historical basis to conclude that any one Jewish group had the authority to pronounce and close the canon for other Jewish groups, or that any one of them could close the canon for Christianity.

The second reason that the ‘original Hebrew canon’ theory fails to answer the Canon Question is that it simply pushes back the question. By what criterion was the original Hebrew canon determined? Unless the answer to this deeper question can objectively produce a complete list of books belonging to the Old Testament canon, the ‘original Hebrew canon’ theory cannot be our criterion for determining the Old Testament canon. One theory Harris considers is that the Jews accepted as canonical those texts which were written by Prophets.⁵⁹ However, as he notes, six books in the Old Testament are of unknown authorship: Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, and Job. He takes comfort that “[n]ot only is it true that it cannot be shown that these books were not written by prophets, there is some evidence that they were.”⁶⁰ But if the test of canonicity that the Jews applied was ‘prophetic origin,’ then either these books were known to be prophetic, or were prematurely canonized, since their authorship was unknown. Harris later states that the “Books of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther are more problematical [than Job]. . . . We cannot prove that Ezra, Nehemiah and the author of Esther (Mordecai?) were prophets.”⁶¹ Harris believes, and I think reasonably, that the books must have been known to be prophetic when treated as Scripture, even if the authors’ identities are not known to us today. But if this is our defense of the canon, we are left once again relying on Jewish tradition in the formation of canon. And if we are relying on Jewish tradition, then we have no reason not to accept the tradition of the Alexandrian Jews who accepted the deuterocanonical texts. Because looking for the ‘works written by Prophets’ does not objectively produce a list of Old Testament scriptures, it does not answer the Canon Question.

Concerning whether the deuterocanonical books meet the ‘written by Prophets’ test, Harris rejects them first on an historical ground: [t]hey were all composed after the period when prophecy was recognized to have departed from Israel.⁸ But he does not state by whom prophecy was “recognized to have departed from Israel.”

There is no non-Christian authority who can establish this claim for Christians and the Church. There are only competing claims from an uncertain and distant period in history. Even if it is possible that, as a matter of history, the Jews in Christ’s time believed that the canon was closed before the deuterocanonical texts were written, there is no evidence that the Jews had made any such determination prior to the time of Christ, or even prior to Jamnia. Neither the majority, the Pharisees, those in Jerusalem, or some other group had the authority to do so for Christians. Were they to have made a conclusion on the canon, it would have been no more binding on the Christian than is their belief that Jesus of Nazareth is not the Christ.

Finally, the ‘original Hebrew canon’ theory must be rejected because not one of the early Church Fathers who were in favor of using the extant Hebrew text certainly pointed to the 39-book Protestant Old Testament. Among the early Church Fathers used by Harris to support his theory that the early Church sought the ‘original Hebrew’ to determine the proper canon are Jerome and Origen. Jerome, as is well known, made certain observations in the prefaces to his translations of certain deuterocanonical texts indicating his opinion that the Jews rejected them as non-canonical. But even granting the widely recognized authority of St. Jerome, his concerns about the deuterocanonical books do not indicate that the Church of his day accepted only the 39 books of the Protestant Old Testament.

Ultimately, Jerome explicitly stated his acceptance of the Church’s Old Testament over and against the opinion of the Hebrew scholars under whom he had studied. For example, in his preface to Tobias, he says:

For the studies of the Hebrews rebuke us and find fault with us, to translate this for the ears of Latins contrary to their canon. But it is better to be judging the opinion of the Pharisees to displease and to be subject to the commands of bishops.⁶²

His clear conviction is to be subject to the ruling of a Catholic bishop as opposed to the conclusions of Jewish Hebrew scholars. This same conviction appears in Jerome’s prolouge to Judith. There he states:

Among the Hebrews the Book of Judith is found among the Hagiographa, the authority of which toward confirming those which have come into contention is judged less appropriate. Yet having been written in Chaldean words, it is counted among the histories. But because this book is found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request, indeed demand.³

Clearer still is Jerome’s work Against Rufinus. In it he writes:

What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us.”⁶³

From this we see clearly that Jerome, for all his studies with Hebrew scholars, did not hold to a 39-book Old Testament canon that matches the Protestant canon. In each of the three instances I have given, we see what Jerome’s actual test of canonicity was: that which matched the Church’s determination of the canon. Harris’s heavy reliance upon Jerome to support the ‘original Hebrew canon’ theory, therefore, is badly misplaced.

Origen, upon whom Harris also relies, while apparently a proponent of the “true Hebrew” texts, did not teach what is now the Protestant Old Testament canon.⁶⁴ Origen excludes the twelve minor prophets from his own listing. Harris explains this conflict with his canon theory by speculating that the omission was merely an oversight by Origen.³ But even if it were a scholarly error to leave out the Minor Prophets while listing the Hebrews’ canon as Origen understood it, Origen included in his listing the Letter of Jeremiah, a text from the Septuagint that is not part of the Palestinian Hebrew canon.⁶⁵ Bruce similarly explains this inconsistency with the Protestant Old Testament by speculating that Origen’s inclusion was by oversight. This use of one’s pre-existing conclusions to determine what must be “oversight” and what must be accurate scholarship is the kind of post hoc rationalization to which I referred earlier. Only by painting the target around one’s arrow, rather than making judgments in a principled way, can one use Jerome and Origen in defense of the Protestant Old Testament canon.

Harris next examines the works of Melito, a second-century Bishop who travelled to Palestine to record the Hebrew canon.⁹ However, he too does not record a Hebrew canon aligning with the 39-book Protestant canon. Specifically, Melito omits the book of Esther.⁶⁶ In fact, concerning Harris’s strong claims of universal use by the early Church Fathers of the Hebrew-now-Protestant Old Testament, there is an abundance of contrary evidence. Athanasius includes Baruch and the deuterocanonical additions to Daniel.⁶⁷ Cyril includes Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah, and excludes Esther.⁶⁸ Gregory of Nazianzus omits Esther.³ Amphilochies notes of his fellow scholars that only “some include Esther.”³ Epiphanius includes the Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach.⁶⁹ Theodore of Mopsuestia denies the divine inspiration of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes,³ as well as Job, Song of Songs, and Ezra⁷⁰. Tertullian, who accepted “the whole instrument of Jewish literature,” and who gives the impression that he knows exactly what it contains, uses an Old Testament that is “evidently co-extensive with the Septuagint (including the ‘Septuagintal plus’).”⁷¹ He accepted Wisdom, the Letter of Jeremiah, and the Greek ‘additions’ to Daniel as authentic.³

Esther is a particularly difficult case for the advocate of the ‘original Hebrew canon’ theory to make from history. Of all the Old Testament books that the Church Fathers variously excluded from the lists of Old Testament books, Esther is the book most commonly omitted. Further, all of the Old Testament books, or fragments from them, have been found in the Dead Sea scrolls except Esther.⁷² Full or fragmentary portions of Tobit, Jubilees, and Enoch have also been found amongst the Dead Sea scrolls.⁷³

Harris’s theory, that the Hebrew canon both matched the Protestant 39-book Old Testament and was used by the Church until Augustine came around, does not fit with the historical evidence. In fact, while there was no universal consensus among the early Church Fathers about the complete list of divinely inspired Hebrew books, there was a consensus among them that certain deuterocanonical Septuagintal (Greek) texts must necessarily be included. So widely was this held, Bruce writes, that:

Jerome’s dependence on Jewish instructors increased the suspicion of some of his Christian critics who were put off in any case by such an innovation as a translation of the sacred writings from Hebrew (with its implied disparagement of the divinely-inspired Septuagint).⁷⁴

The translation from ancient Hebrew biblical texts was mistrusted, while the Greek Septuagint was seen as divinely inspired. As we have already seen, the Septuagint contained deuterocanonical texts as well as the 39 books of the Protestant Old Testament. Therefore, Harris is not right on both points, namely, that the Hebrew canon around the time of Christ matched the Protestant Old Testament and that the Hebrew canon was the Old Testament canon used by the Church until Augustine’s time.

Accepted by the New Testament:

Finally, Harris says, we can use the New Testament itself as historical evidence of what texts should be in the Old Testament canon.⁷⁵ He argues that the books of the Old Testament were referenced in the New by Christ and the Apostles, and thus we can be certain of their canonicity: “Christ and the apostles have authenticated for us the thirty-nine Old Testament books and strictly avoided the seven Apocrypha.”⁷⁶ Harris supports this claim by noting that the New Testament “cites almost all of the Old Testament books, often by name.”⁷⁵

One problem with that claim is that the New Testament also cites “scripture” whose referent we cannot even identify. To give an example, “[w]e have no idea what ‘the scripture’ is which says, according to James 4:5, ‘He yearns jealously over the spirit which he has made to dwell in us.'”⁷⁷ If the criterion of the Old Testament canon is ‘that which the New Testament treats as Scripture,’ then we have here a grave problem, for in that case our Old Testament canon is incomplete. Also, the New Testament is full of themes and even direct phraseology from the deuterocanon. While there are dozens of these uses, here are two short examples.⁷⁸ The mention in Revelation 1:4 of the seven angels petitioning before the Throne in Heaven is a reference to Tobit 12:15: “I am Raphael, one of the seven angels who enter and serve before the Glory of the Lord.” Similarly, Jesus’s reference to the “gates of hell” in Matthew 16:18 may be a reference to Wisdom 16:13: “For you have dominion over life and death; you lead down to the gates of the nether world, and lead back.” Careful examination of the Septuagint shows that Christ and the Apostles did not “strictly avoid” the seven deuterocanonical books.

In addition to the New Testament citation of “scripture” that is now lost, and the many references from the New Testament to deuterocanonical texts, the ‘adopted by the New Testament’ canon criterion faces one other major flaw. Judges, Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs are not cited in the New Testament, and so would fail to satisfy this criterion of canonicity and drop from our canon. Harris states that they are probably omitted from the New Testament “because of their brevity.”⁷⁵ But this is no assurance of the propriety of including these five books, and no assurance of the propriety of excluding from the New Testament other brief texts circulated in Hebrew before or at the time of Christ.

If we develop from reason the canon rule that the New Testament’s use of Old Testament texts canonizes them, then we could similarly develop a rule canonizing these texts in the same form in which Christ and the Apostles used them. That is, if the New Testament’s acceptance of Old Testament texts instructs us about which texts we are to include in the Old Testament canon, then certainly its use of the Septuagint should be instructive regarding the authenticity and authority of the Septuagint, in the eyes of the early Church. According to Catholics United for the Faith, 86 percent of the New Testament quotes of the Old Testament are from the Greek Septuagint.⁷⁹ If the Apostles had believed that the Septuagint contained uninspired texts, it seems that the Apostles would not have used it as their source of Scripture in composing the New Testament texts. But the Apostles did use the Septuagint in their teaching and writing. Therefore, the Apostles believed that the Septuaginal collection was the authoritative source of Scripture of the Old Covenant. It is ad hoc to acknowledge that Jesus and the Apostles treated the Septuagint as the written word of God, but then to deny tout court the canonicity of the books included in the Septuagint. We can imagine that if Christ lived in a time and place where the King James Bible was available, His use of it would be taken today by English Protestants as a divine seal on its canon. Bruce reaches an unsupported conclusion to get around this problem:

When we think of Jesus and his Palestinian apostles, then, we may be confident that they agreed with contemporary leaders in Israel about the contents of the canon. We cannot say confidently that they accepted Esther, Ecclesiastes or the Song of Songs as scripture, because evidence is not available.⁸⁰

But there is no indication from history that the Jewish leaders in Israel at that time had rejected the deuterocanonical texts. As said above, we know that the New Testament authors–who, prior to the establishment of the New Covenant, would have been obedient to the Jewish leaders–widely used the Septuagint when they quoted the Old Testament. And, as also has been said, the Septuagint contained the deuterocanon as well as other texts beyond the the 39 books of the Protestant Old Testament. There is no evidence that there was an immediate change at the time of Christ’s death and resurrection among the Apostles in the use of the Septuagint. If they widely used it when quoting the Old Testament, then without such an immediate change, it seems to follow that they must have widely used it prior to Christ’s death and resurrection. So we have no reason to believe that the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem had, by the time of Christ, ruled against the Septuagint or the deuterocanonical texts. Otherwise, the deliberation of the rabbis at Jamnia in A.D. 90 about whether the deuterocanonical books were canonical would have been unnecessary. If Jesus and His apostles agreed with the contemporary Jewish leaders in Israel regarding the Jewish canon, then it is likely that these leaders either accepted deuterocanonanonical texts or had reached no conclusion concerning them.

In this section we have seen a number of reasons why the ‘original Hebrew canon’ theory fails to provide an objective listing of the Old Testament scriptures binding on Christians, and therefore fails to answer the Canon Question. There is no historical basis to conclude that any one Jewish group had the authority to pronounce and close the canon for other Jewish groups, or that any one of them could conclude the canon for Christianity. We find not one of the early Church Fathers adopting a 39-book Old Testament canon. In addition, the New Testament identification of the Old Testament cannot be the basis for the Protestant Old Testament canon because it proves too much and too little. The New Testament has many texts which quite probably are references to the deuterocanon, and also identifies as “scripture” a line of text the source of which is still completely unknown. The New Testament does not identify five books which Protestants do treat as canonical. The historical evidence also indicates that the deuterocanonical texts were still accepted at the time of Christ. We have no evidence that there was an ‘original Hebrew canon’ matching the 39-book Protestant canon.

C. NEW TESTAMENT APOSTOLIC AUTHORSHIP:

Another proposed canon test, this one tailored for the New Testament texts, maintains that the proper test for canonizing the New Testament is apostolic authorship, or at least apostolic origin. For example, William A. Sanderson and Carl Cassel have concluded that “the test of canonicity applied by the early church was apostolic authorship.”⁸¹ According to Ridderbos:

For the communication and transmission of what was seen and heard in the fullness of time, Christ established a formal authority structure to be the source and standard for all future preaching of the gospel.⁸²

On this point the Catholic heartily will agree. And Ridderbos acknowledges that Jesus appointed an apostolate for this purpose.⁹ He goes on to make the claim:

we can establish that the apostles’ role in the history of redemption was unique and unrepeatable. Because they not only received revelation but were also the bearers and organs of revelation, their primary and most important task was to function as the foundation of the church. To that revelation Christ binds His church for all time; upon it He founds and builds his church.⁸³

With some of this the Catholic will agree. The Apostles, in accord with their commission from Christ, were to be the foundation of the Church. So they were, in one sense, unique and unrepeatable. But for Ridderbos, the Apostles were only to “function as the foundation of the Church.” The Apostles themselves are not the foundation of the Church; they are mere receptacles of a message that is the foundation. This is similar to the error made by Calvin that I addressed above in Section II.A., in which he saw the “teaching” of the prophets and Apostles as the foundation of the Church. To Ridderbos, then, the divine message received by the Apostles is the only thing that they were to pass on to the Church. For Catholics and Orthodox, by contrast, Christ also gave to the Apostles an authority to preach and teach in His Name, and with His authority, as His representatives. And this missional and magisterial authority can be, and is, passed down through the laying on of hands by the Apostles or those whom they have ordained.

For Ridderbos, Christ founded His Church upon revelation, rather than upon the Apostles themselves. Ridderbos’ position implies that authority within the Church was restricted only to the divine message delivered by Christ, wherever that message was communicated. Relevant at present is the implication this view has on the test for canonicity. If the revelation qua revelation were our authority, and the Apostles were (historically) simply its “bearers and organs,” then authority within the Church passed with the communicated revelation, leaving no authority with the succesor bishops whom the Apostles put in place.

This suggests the following answer to the Canon Question: those books which contain the authoritative revelation given to the Apostles belong to the canon. Some have gone to extensive lengths to prove that the New Testament corpus is from the Apostles either directly or via an amanuensis.⁸⁴ But Ridderbos rejects this answer to the Canon Question, “because we can no longer establish with historical certainty what in a redemptive-historical sense is apostolic and what is not.”⁸⁵ The nature of apostolicity was not limited to the twelve Apostles, and we are uncertain of the number or identity of persons who were in some way or other ‘apostolic.’ According to Ridderbos, as “historical judgments cannot be the final and sole ground for the church’s accepting the New Testament as canonical,” this method will not do.⁸⁶

But Harris and Bruce both argue that Apostolic authorship is a necessary criterion of New Testament canonicity.⁸⁷ Harris states, “The Lord Jesus did not, in prophecy, give us a list of twenty-seven New Testament books. He did, however, give us a list of the inspired authors. Upon them the church of Christ is founded, and by them the Word was written.”⁸⁸ But this position faces two insurmountable problems.

First, its primary premise is incorrect. Christ did not give us a list of inspired authors, as Harris claims. Harris may have in mind the synoptic Gospels’ listings of “the twelve apostles,” but these listings do not, of course, include the Apostle Paul. Besides this, the synoptics do not identify the Apostles as “inspired authors.”⁸⁹ If they did, or if we are to assume this attribute of apostolicity from reason, then it would seem that all of the Apostles’ writings were inspired, not just some of their writings. If that were the case, then we would have already lost some of Scripture, since we can be sure that there were other Apostolic writings besides those that have been canonized. For example, Paul wrote a letter to the Church at Laodicea which is no longer extant.⁹⁰ Because there is no God-given list of “inspired authors” just as there is no God-given list of the New Testament books, the Protestant can only reach the conclusion that the twelve Apostles were inspired authors through the use of reason or extra-Biblical sources.

Second, this position, that Christ gave a list of inspired authors who wrote out the Word, must be able to prove Paul’s actual apostolicity in order to defend his epistles as having apostolic authorship. But Paul’s apostolicity cannot be settled without resort to Tradition. This position also must defend the ultimate apostolic origin of Mark, Luke, Acts, Hebrews, James, and Jude, books whose apostolic authorship is known only through Tradition. For the sake of brevity I will give an example of a Reformed defense of just one of these books. Harris notes that many scholars doubt the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter, which “has less external evidence in its favor than do any of the other books.”⁹¹ However, he notes, “there is no evidence that it is not by Peter, except debatable questions of style, and eventually the ancient church was convinced of its authorship.”³

But from the absence of evidence that 2 Peter was not written by Peter, we cannot reach the conclusion that 2 Peter was written by Peter, unless we resort to reliance upon Tradition. If Harris means to rely upon Tradition, as his words about the eventual conviction of the ancient Church imply, then without being ad hoc, he would also need to accept the deuterocanonical books. This is because the ancient Church eventually came to the conviction that the deuterocanonical books were canonical, as shown by the determinations of the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, already discussed above. Also, and of note, Origen, on whom Harris places great weight in concluding that the Protestant rendering of the Old Testament canon is correct, notes wide doubts in his day about 2 Peter’s Petrine authorship.⁹² Harris is being ad hoc by using Origen when it suits him, and rejecting Origen when it does not. This wide doubt abut 2 Peter’s authorship is itself “evidence that 2 Peter was not by Peter,” which evidence Harris denies exists (“there is no evidence that it is not by Peter, except debatable questions of style”). Also, because Origen wrote in the first half of the third century A.D., we can see how late in time the “eventual conviction” on which Harris relies was in coming.

It is striking that Harris would look to the eventual conviction of the ancient Church. If the ancient Church did not have a conviction about 2 Peter’s canonicity at the point in time closest to that epistle’s composition, then its later-reached conclusions would only become less reliable with the passage of time. Memories of actual authorship would have faded, and opportunities for the inclusion of ‘urban legend’ would have expanded exponentially. That is, the Church’s Traditions would have become less reliable unless the Holy Spirit gave a special grace to the Church to be preserved from error. But if this is Harris’s position, it is again a resort to the ad hoc, because as a Reformed theologian he would deny that the Holy Spirit preserved the Church from error in any other area.

As Ridderbos notes, the position that the early Church accepted what was of apostolic origin “fails to explain why the Epistle to the Hebrews was (again) finally accepted in the West, in spite of the fact that its Pauline authorship was most strongly doubted just by those who were most instrumental in gaining its acceptance, that is, by Jerome and Augustine.”⁹³ That is, Ridderbos admits that during the original process of the formation of the New Testament canon, the criterion of Apostolic origin was not being applied. He also notes that this criterion cannot account for the rejection of the Didache, which was widely accepted in the early church and claimed apostolic origins for itself.³ Finally, the spurious letter of Paul to the Laodiceans “had a place in many manuscripts in the West and apparently around A.D. 600 was still accepted as Pauline by Pope Gregory.”³ For these reasons, this test of canonicity cannot be employed objectively without resort to “debatable” “historical judgments” as the “final and sole ground for the church’s accepting the New Testament as canonical.”⁹⁴

As we have seen in this section, ‘Apostolic origin’ as a criterion of canonicity for the New Testament fails to provide an adequate answer to the Canon Question. It requires the use of extra-Biblical historical evidence in determining the canon, because Scripture does not list which ‘apostles’ wrote canonical books, does not list Paul with the listing of other Apostles, ad does not guarantee the apostolic authorship of a number of New Testament books. This answer to the Canon Question is not what Jerome and Augustine applies when they simultaneously accepted Hebrews’ canonicity and denied its Pauline authorship. The Apostles, and not merely the message deposited with them, were the foundation of the Church. But the ‘Apostolic origin’ canon criterion makes the assumption that the books containing the Apostolic message are the foundation of the Church and as such belong to the canon. Unless we rely upon tradition and fallible historical judgments to define the canon, we cannot prove with certainty which books are of apostolic origin, or which persons possessed the nature of apostolicity such that their writings would be canonized. For these reasons, this answer to the Canon Question is unreliable and, given the Reformed assumption that whatever authoritatively testifies to the canonicity of Scripture must be more authoritative than Scripture, places Scripture ‘under’ fallible extra-Biblical evidence.

D. WIDESPREAD ACCEPTANCE BY THE EARLY CHURCH:

A fourth criterion used in Reformed and evangelical writings on the canon is that widespread reception of a text by the early Church infallibly establishes its canonicity.⁹⁵ This reception or acceptance, these scholars maintain, is evidence that the Holy Spirit specially and infallibly led the Church to accept a text as canonical.³ According to Harris, Bruce would even have it that the canon of the New Testament was first settled by a general consent of the whole Church, and recognition of inspiration of the scriptural texts only came later as a “corrollary” of canonicity.⁹⁶ Ridderbos addresses the Church’s acceptance of the canon this way:

Within the history of Protestant dogma as well, certain utterances have been made that appear to imply ecclesiastical infallibility with respect to the acceptance of the canon. It has been argued . . . that the church received a special gift of the Holy Spirit to enable it to establish the canon by infallibly distinguishing inspired from noninspired writings.

. . . .

Another Protestant viewpoint is that the church’s consensus about the canon arose of itself and so is the clearest proof that in establishing the canon, the church was guided by special providence; history itself, so to speak, offers the evidence for the canonicity of the New Testament. That consensus of the church, or rather that absolute authority acquired by the writings of the New Testament everywhere and without dispute, is then thought to guarantee the canonicity of these [New Testament] writings.⁹⁷

It would be ad hoc to claim that the “church” infallibly established the canon through widespread acceptance while otherwise being unable to arrive at any infallible conclusions, without a principled basis for affirming infallibility in the one case and denying it in all others. If the Church was not infallibly preserved from error in its early teachings on ecclesiology, iconography, justification, etc., there is no reason to believe it was so preserved from error when its canon came into widespread acceptance. To maintain otherwise would be a textbook case of special pleading. Ridderbos himself rejects this answer to the Canon Question, writing:

From the standpoint of the Reformation . . . reference to the church’s infallibility clearly was never intended to be understood as a basis for the canonicity of the New Testament. The very fact that such infallibility or inspiration is accepted solely with respect to the establishment of the canon and is thus to be qualified as an ad hoc inspiration or infallibility proves that the real order here is just the opposite.⁹⁸

That is, according to Ridderbos, claiming that the “church” could infallibly establish the canon by widespread acceptance denies the traditional Reformation understanding that the canon is the basis for any infallibility enjoyed by the Church. If the traditional Reformed view that the Church is infallible only insofar as it teaches Scripture is true, then the Church cannot infallibly declare (by widespread acceptance or otherwise) what is Scripture. Either the Church has authority to reach binding doctrinal conclusions, such as the extent of the canon, or it lacks this authority across the board, and thus cannot make any binding determination on the canon.

Besides this logical error, there are other problems within a sola scriptura framework with claiming as a criterion for canonicity that we accept those texts that received widespread acceptance by the early Church. Even if wide acceptance and liturgical use by the early Church would indicate a text’s canonicity, according to Ridderbos, considerations of historical acceptance were not used in the original process of forming the canon.⁹⁹ He returns from this assertion to his premise that the books were accepted because the Church was certain that these “particular books had been received from the hand of the Lord himself.”³ He says elsewhere:

Yet it is absolutely incorrect historically to imagine that the process of selecting certain writings and of rejecting others took place automatically without argument and debate and so bears visibly the mark of a divine work. It is an undeniable fact, for example, that James, Hebrews, and 2 Peter could not acquire general recognition until the fourth century, that until the sixth century the Syrian church rejected Revelation and of the Catholic Epistles accepted only James, 1 Peter and 1 John, at the same time giving an apocryphal third epistle to the Corinthians a fixed place in the ecclesiastical canon. [Et cetera.]³⁸

There simply was no single corpus of texts universally accepted by the Christians of the early Church. The famous Vincentian canon, “that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all,” cannot be of avail to Protestants in defining the canon, because before or after the Reformation there has never been universal acceptance of the Protestant canon.

Bruce, in his section “Tests in the Apostolic Age” from his chapter “Criteria of Canonicity,”¹⁰⁰ sums up what appears ultimately to be his answer to the Canon Question this way:

By an act of faith the Christian reader today may identify the New Testament, as it has been received, with the entire ‘tradition of Christ.’ But confidence in such an act of faith will be strengthened if the same faith proves to have been exercised by Christians in other places and at other times–if it is in line with the traditional ‘criteria of canonicity.’ And there is no reason to exclude the bearing of other lines of evidence on any position that is accepted by faith.¹⁰¹

That is, like Ridderbos, Bruce believes that the Protestant canon as it stands should be accepted as an a priori. But he is also willing to make use of any other evidence that will support the act of faith by which one initially recognizes the Protestant books as belonging to the canon. The prerequisite to using a supplemental canon criterion, including that which has been believed by “Christians in other places and at other times,” seems to be that it yield the conclusion that the canon as it stands in the Protestant Bible is correct. The measure of universal (or at least widespread) acceptance does not tell us which Christians, and from what times, get a vote in this election which is used as “evidence” to prop up confidence in the Protestant canon. It cannot explain why the views of Jerome or Origen should count toward ‘widespread recognition,’ whereas the views of Augustine, or the councils of Hippo and Carthage should not. It cannot explain without resort to ad hoc stipulation why widespread acceptance by the fourth century (or some other early time) is authoritative while the consensus of today’s 1.5 billion Catholic and Orthodox Christians regarding the deuterocanon is not.

E. THAT WHICH PREACHES CHRIST: A CANON WITHIN A CANON:

Lastly I will consider Luther’s own answer to the Canon Question, as well as other early Lutheran permutations. Luther answers the Canon Question by looking internally at the teachings of candidate books themselves. “‘What preaches and urges Christ’ was for Luther the criterion of apostolicity and canonicity.”¹⁰² That is, Luther started with Christ, the heart of the Gospel (or his own understanding of Him) and then reflected upon various texts to determine whether or not they preached and urged Christ. If so, they were canonical.

But Luther’s canon criterion has problems too. Objectively applied, this test would seem to allow ancient Christian art to be “canonical,” so long as it urges Christ. However, to give a more familiar shape to the outcome of this test, Luther relies on the Holy Spirit’s movement in his heart to perceive what is ‘preaching Christ.’ In this way, Luther’s view is similar to the theory in section II.A. addressed above. But if Luther’s canonicity test is a version of the Reformed view presented in section II.A., Luther’s application of it, as I shall now show, should be especially disturbing to proponents of Calvin’s view.

Luther spoke boldly against the value and even reliability of certain books that all Protestants treat as canonical. Within the Old Testament, Luther found Christ preached with special clarity in Genesis, Psalms, and Isaiah.¹⁰³ However, according to Bruce, when challenged by the passage in 2 Maccabees supporting prayers for the dead, “that they might be delivered from their sin,”¹⁰⁴ Luther “found a ready reply in Jerome’s ruling that 2 Maccabees did not belong to the books to be used ‘for establishing the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas”¹⁰⁵. Bruce goes on to quote Luther thus: “I hate Esther and 2 Maccabees so much that I wish they did not exist; they contain too much Judaism and no little heathen vice.”⁹ Notice Luther’s special animus toward Esther; if the Spirit’s movement in his heart to see Christ preached is the measure of canonicity, there would be no principled basis for accepting Esther and rejecting Second Maccabees. Notice also that Jerome, while excluding 2 Maccabees, did accept Esther as fit for establishing doctrine. So if Luther “found a ready reply” from Jerome, it was only in an ad hoc fashion. It is worth recalling here that Calvin believed that “Scripture exhibits fully as clear evidence of its own truth as white and black things do of their color, or sweet and bitter things do of their taste.”¹³ To explain Luther’s animus toward Esther, among other books, Calvin would either have to deny that the Holy Spirit was aiding Luther in seeing black from white, or would have to admit that the canonicity of at least some texts is not as plain as black is from white or sweet is from bitter.

If Luther’s perception of the internal witness of the Holy Spirit about some New Testament texts were the measure of canonicity, the New Testament too would have to be altered. He said of Revelation that it “lacks everything that I hold as apostolic or prophetic.”¹⁰⁶ Further, he said of Revelation, “For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras; I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.” Readers may be familiar with Luther’s description of James as a “right strawy epistle.”¹⁰⁷ Because at some point in his life Luther did not see the Divine character of several books included in the New Testament canon, if his perception of the internal witness of the Holy Spirit were the measure of canonicity, several books have been wrongly included in the New Testament.

His German New Testament prefaces also set off Hebrews and Jude as lesser books, for he “did not recognize in them the high quality of ‘the right certain capital books.'”¹⁰⁸ This view of a collection that gets at the heart of the Gospel, and lesser books that do not, naturally results in a “canon within the canon.”¹⁰⁹ For Luther, as for Lutherans today, “the ‘inner canon’ is a Pauline canon,” along with the Gospels.¹¹⁰ This test, coupled with Luther’s opinion against certain books, raises a difficulty for the canon-within-a-canon position. There is no principled standard to determine when a dispute about a book’s getting at the heart of the Gospel, or doing so in a lesser or disputed way, puts a text outside of the inner canon. Even if there were such a standard, it would be extra-biblical and, from the perspective of sola scriptura, effectively superior to the canon. That is because this procedural mechanism has the power, through its narrowness or broadness, to control what will and what will not be in the canon.

The Lutheran theologian W. G. Kümmel follows Luther’s approach. To him, the New Testament books are canonical only to the extent that each is in accord with the norm of the Christian faith, which is the “central proclamation” of the New Testament.¹¹¹ This position gives rise to a circularity problem: the canon is defined by what preaches Christ, and we know Christ through the canon of Scripture. For this theory to work, we first have to know Christ from some other source besides the Scriptures in order to determine the canon. Hence comes the need for special revelation of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the individual considering whether a given text preaches Christ. As Ridderbos says of the canon-within-a-canon view:

The final decision as to what the church deems to be holy and unimpeachable does not reside in the biblical canon itself. Human judgment about what is essential and central for Christian faith is the final court of appeal.¹¹²

That is, by basing the canon on a human determination of what is “holy and unimpeachable,” the human determination is placed above the Bible. Scripture is relegated to a position secondary to human judgment. This characteristic of Luther’s answer to the Canon Question is indistinguishable from the supposed position of the Catholic Church, which depends on the judgments of the Church to determine the canon. For this reason, ‘that which preaches Christ’ as a criterion of canonicity also fails to provide an objective answer to the Canon Question.

III. AUTHORITY TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.

In our quest to determine how we know which texts are divinely revealed, we have found no answer to the Canon Question that does not itself violate sola scriptura by using some criterion external to Scripture to establish which books belong to Scripture. But even if one of the considered criteria could objectively yield a canon without resorting to extra-biblical evidence, the Protestant position suffers a deeper deficiency. As I shall argue, the advocate of sola scriptura, by the terms of his own doctrine, lacks the authority even to give an answer the Canon Question.

The doctrine of sola scriptura maintains that the Bible is to be the Christian’s sole infallible authority. The sine qua non (‘that without which’) of the Reformation is that no Church or other human judgment can be placed over Scripture. Power over the canon is power over Scripture itself because it is the power to eradicate a necessary part of the canon or to add a spurious part to Scripture. So the Reformed position is not any more compatible with the Church or other human judgment being placed over the canon than it is compatible with their placement over Scripture itself.

But the very act of answering the Canon Question inherently involves an extra-Biblical fallible human judgment, unless one is preserved from error by the Holy Spirit. This fallible human judgment, by defining the criterion of canon, exercises power over the canon itself. And as I just noted, power over the canon is power over Scripture. Therefore, absent the Holy Spirit’s preserving one from error, to answer the Canon Question is to exercise power over Scripture, and to place one’s judgment over Scripture. So to answer the Canon Question is to violate the doctrine of sola scriptura by placing something over the Christian’s sole infallible authority. If Protestants see the Catholic Church as placing herself ‘over’ Scripture simply by articulating the canon of Scripture, so too they should see answers to the Canon Question culled from human reason or extra-Biblical evidence as being ‘over’ Scripture. Since Protestants see the former as violating sola scriptura, there is no principled reason not to see the latter as a violation of sola scriptura.

If I propose a test for determining the canon of Scripture, I must have some basis for the claim that my test is objectively true. Analogously, first-century Christians could not address the question “Is Jesus the Messiah?” without first knowing how, or by what measure, the Messiah would be recognized. And that measure had to have some foundation before it could be accepted. Indeed, this foundation for measuring whether a person was actually the Messiah was established through the revelation of prophets, who themselves had to be tested for reliability and accuracy.¹¹³ Likewise, the test that a given Christian community uses to define its canon of Scripture must have a reliable basis. The Catholic or Orthodox Christian will point to the work of the Holy Spirit in the visible Church as the basis for his articulation of the canon, which work is seen in sacred tradition.¹¹⁴ But because the Protestant system rejects basing the canon of Scripture on tradition or any other authority, and rejects that the Holy Spirit works infallibly through the visible Church, it must find some other basis for whatever test or criterion leads to the 66-book canon. If the basis for the Protestant articulation of a canon test is man’s reasoning, then the canon produced is no more reliable than the fallible reasoning that is at its base.

R. C. Sproul has recognized this rationale. He famously has stated that the classical Protestant position does not see the Church as having infallibly defined the canon. According to Sproul, unlike the Catholic position, which maintains that we have an infallible collection of infallible books, and unlike the modern critical scholars’ position, which maintains that we have a fallible collection of fallible books, we actually have “a fallible collection of infallible books.”¹¹⁵ He reasons that because the Church is fallible, “it’s possible that wrong books could have been selected,” but he doesn’t “believe for a minute that that’s the case.”³

Sproul’s own personal confidence, the source of which he does not articulate, does not solve the fundamental problem his understanding of the “historic Protestant position” presents to spiritual descendants of the Protestant Reformation. If it is possible that wrong books were included in the canon, then it is also possible that right books could have been omitted. In this theological environment, our confidence in and obligation to submit to any scriptural text extends only as far as our confidence in the propriety of the text’s inclusion in the canon in the first place. In other words, we can have no more confidence in the infallibility of the content included than we have in the process by which it was included. But in the Protestant scheme, because the process which yielded the canon is fallible, Protestantism cannot have complete confidence in the content of its canon.

A fallible collection of infallible books cannot function as a binding authority, for “what can be more absurd than a probable infallibility, or a certainty resting on doubt?”¹¹⁶ I am reminded of my recent purchase of a “1080” pixel television. I learned that my old DVD player sends out something like 480 pixels. Just as my 480 pixel DVD player cannot yield a 1080 pixel image on my TV, so too my fallible collection of Bible books cannot yield infallible assurance. Again, the text of Scripture can be no more binding than is our conclusion of which texts are to be included. The irony is that the Protestant Reformation was originally premised on Scripture’s ultimate demand for submission, which submission was supposed to lead to certainty and orthodoxy.¹¹⁷

Like Sproul, Ridderbos rejects the Catholic view that the Church has the authority to define the canon. He attempts to maintain the fallibility of the Church without admitting to the fallibility of the canon as Sproul did. First, Ridderbos admits that “Catholic theology explicitly distinguishes the authority of the canon quoad se (“as to itself”) and quoad nos (“as to ourselves”), that is, the authority of Scripture in itself is not dependent on that of the church; only our acceptance of that authority, including recognition of the canon, is.”¹¹⁸ The Catholic Church does not take merely pious texts and convert them to authoritative, divine texts, but rather it determines, in a way that is binding on the faithful, what is already of divine origin, and as such, authoritative. By recognizing the quoad se/quoad nos distinction early on, Ridderbos means fairly to avoid the false claim that the Catholic Church believes Scripture’s authority to be dependent on, and subsidiary to, the authority of the Church.

But what he admits with the one hand, he seems to take away with the other. His objection to Catholic theology is that “the church exceeds its competence by placing itself beside, if not above, the canon.”³ He tells us that if we take Augustine’s famous quote, “I would not have believed the gospel, unless the authority of the Church had induced me,” to mean “that the recognition of the canon by believers rests on the authority of the church, then the church, in fact, usurps the place that properly belongs to the canon alone, thus, at the very least, equating its authority with that of the canon.”³ But a believer’s confidence in the canon resting on the authority of the Church does not place the Church beside or above the canon any more than a believer’s confidence resting on his subjective reflection upon the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit in his heart places his heart beside, if not above, the canon. Therefore, if Ridderbos’s critique of the Catholic Church’s relationship to scripture is accurate, then his own view of canonics would be subject to the same critique.¹¹⁹

The Church does, with its authority, lead believers to accept the Bible, and this in no way places the Church’s authority ‘above’ the canon’s authority. If a mother explains to a child that he is to obey his father as head of the household, the mother has not thereby usurped her husband. If a captain of soldiers instructs his men to obey a particular order of their General, he has not thereby equated his own authority to the General’s authority. Likewise, if we believe the authority of Scripture on the basis of the Church’s authority, the Church has not thereby equated its authority to the Bible’s divine authority.

Returning now to the solution the Protestant must seek out, he must put forward an objective canon criterion having an authority above man as its foundation. The problem for Reformed theology with accepting that recognition of the canon rests on the authority of the Church flows from its preceding rejection of apostolic succession. As Ridderbos puts it:

The Roman Catholic idea is really that apostolic authority has been transmitted to the church and that the church is empowered by its head to make pronouncements about the canon, as well as tradition, that are themselves apostolic and canonical pronouncements. This notion we hold to be again in direct opposition to the history of redemption, in which apostolic power is entirely unique in character and is not capable of repetition or succession.¹²⁰

But this claim that apostolic power is incapable of repetition is unsubstantiated. The original Apostles shared the characteristics of having been instructed by Christ personally, and having been sent, or commissioned, by Christ. It is true that the group of people who personally were instructed by Christ cannot increase in size today. In that sense, the original Apostles were a unique group, not capable of succession as ‘original Apostles.’ But if this explains Ridderbos’s conclusion, that “apostolic power is entirely unique in character and not capable of repetition or succession,” then he has glossed the distinction between being an ‘original Apostle’ and possessing ‘apostolic power.’ The authority that flows from being sent by Christ is an authority capable of repetition or succession, and can be bestowed on those who were not immediate disciples of Christ. That this distinct apostolic power can be handed down is thoroughly supported by Scripture and the writings of the early Church Fathers, as shall be discussed here in great detail in subsequent articles.

The canon did not fall from the sky as one collection, of course. As I argued in section II, under sola scriptura, the canon could not be the product of criteria that rely upon evidence external to Scripture, for such evidence would thereby be placed over the canon. And even if the Reformed system could articulate a canon criterion that did not rely upon extra-Biblical evidence, the very process of articulating a canon criterion would violate sola scriptura by subordinating Scripture to an extra-Biblical criterion. The fundamental problem, then, for the sola scriptura position is that it is left without any way of determining the canon that is faithful to its own paradigm of authority.

IV. CONCLUSION

Before Christians can ask the world to accept the Bible as God’s perfect revelation of truth, we must be able to answer the Canon Question: “By what criterion do we know what comprises the Bible?” But, as I have argued, Reformed theology is intrinsically incapable of answering this question. In spite of partially relying on a supposedly objective element–the self-attesting quality of true Scripture–the classical Reformed answer to the Canon Question ultimately depends upon the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit in the heart of each believer to resolve disputes where the objective measure does not produce agreement. For this reason, given the classical Reformed answer to the Canon Question, it is the subjective inward testimony of the Holy Spirit that must ultimately give assurance of a text’s canonicity. But since any two Christians who enjoy the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit, and who are new to Scripture, might not agree that a given text is canonical, this test is too subjective to be reliable. And because the inner-testimony criterion of Scripture is not reliable, it cannot be our final guide to determining the canon of Scripture.

In this article, I have considered a variety of proposals for reformulating the classical Reformed position to be more objective. But whether measuring Scripture by the ‘original’ Hebrew canon, by the books which are of Apostolic origin, or by those books which received widespread acceptance in the early Church, the criterion would necessarily rely upon extra-Scriptural evidence. I have also here examined Luther’s view that Scripture can be identified as that which preaches Christ; this criterion too necessarily relies upon extra-Scriptural evidence, namely, the individual determination of what preaches Christ. The Protestant critique of the Catholic Church’s view of its relationship to Scripture is that the Catholic Church effectively places itself ‘over’ Scripture by having the power to define the canon. But this critique would apply with equal force to any criterion that measures Scripture by extra-Biblical means. The means would be placed ‘over’ Scripture, and thus violate the doctrine of sola scriptura, which allows no other infallible authority besides Scripture itself.

Finally, the very process of answering the Canon Question violates sola scriptura. That doctrine permits no infallible authority in the Christian’s life save Scripture. But a person answering the Canon Question must employ fallible human judgment to craft the rule by which Scripture’s contents are to be selected. This judgment is extra-Biblical, and is placed over Scripture because it defines the canon. By placing this judgment above the sole permitted infallible authority, the process of answering the question violates sola scriptura.

A canon criterion that judges the canon based on Scripture’s internal attributes will always be of dubious reliability because it depends on subjective human judgment. A canon criterion that judges the canon based on evidence external to Scripture violates sola scriptura, or the Reformed assumption that necessarily accompanies sola scriptura that whatever authoritatively testifies to the canonicity of Scripture must be more authoritative than Scripture, by placing extra-Biblical evidence effectively above the Bible, which is to be the believer’s sole infallible authority. Therefore, every criterion available to Reformed theology to answer the Canon Question will either be of dubious reliability or in violation of sola scriptura (and hence not available to Reformed theology). The fundamental problem, then, for the sola scriptura position is that it is left without any way of determining the canon that is faithful to its own paradigm of authority.

I finish with a challenge, and one I offer with a heart longing for Christian unity. Approach your pastor, or the most knowledgeable Reformed teacher or theologian you know, and ask him how he is certain that the Protestant canon is correct. Ask him which answer to the Canon Question he follows, and why he chose that theory over the others. Wrestle together with him until you have found an answer that both yields the 66-book Protestant canon, and does not rely on subjective bosom-burning or extra-Biblical canon criteria. Let us pray to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit from the depth of our hearts for Christian unity.

1. Belgic Confession of Faith, art. 2, available here. [↩]
2. Westminster Confession of Faith [hereinafter WCF], ch. I, sec. 1. [↩]
3. Id. [↩] [↩] [↩] [↩] [↩] [↩] [↩] [↩] [↩] [↩] [↩] [↩] [↩] [↩] [↩] [↩] [↩] [↩] [↩]
4. See 1 Peter 3:15. [↩]
5. Examples of some other variants are given in Ridderbos, p. 1. E.g., Johann Salomo Semler, author of Abhandlung von freier Untersuchung des Kanons (1771-1775), determined from his studies that what is canonical is “the list of books that might be read [by the early church] in public worship, the books that the bishops thought were the most suitable and in the best interests of good order.” Hermann Diem taught that the test of canonicity is that which “permits itself to be preached.” Ridderbos, p. 6. Ernst Käsemann sees the New Testament texts as contradictory and not the Word of God until such time as the Holy Spirit uses them to lead believers, “in an always new and contemporaneous way,” to gospel truth. Id. quoting Käsemann, Begründet der neutestamentliche Kanon die Einheit der Kirche? (1951-1952), p. 21. [↩]
6. Harris, pref. [↩]
7. Cited in F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (1988) [hereinafter Bruce], p. 275. [↩]
8. Harris, p. 178. [↩] [↩]
9. Id. [↩] [↩] [↩] [↩] [↩]
10. As another example of using a plurality of criteria of canonicity, Bruce uses the “subsidiary criteria” of antiquity and orthodoxy to measure what he views as the original criterion of canonicity–apostolicity. Bruce, p. 255-256, 259. Since apostolicity as a criterion of canonicity is not testable in the present day, because we cannot decisively conclude of which texts the apostles approved, Bruce needs both “subsidiary criteria” to identify the canon. This leaves Bruce in the same place as Harris, i.e., determining the canon by following ‘two lines of approach.’ [↩]
11. Belgic Confession, art. 5; WCF ch. I, sec. 5. [↩]
12. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion [hereiafter Institutes], book I, ch. 7, sec. 5. [↩]
13. Institutes, book I, ch. 7, sec. 2. [↩] [↩]
14. However, the question is infrequently taken up elsewhere. As Harris noted, “It is rather strange that more attention has not been given in theological studies to questions of canonicity.” R. Laird Harris, Inspiration and Canonicity of the Scriptures (A Press, 1995) [hereinafter Harris], p. 123. [↩]
15. Belgic Confession of Faith, art. 5. [↩]
16. Westminster Confession, I.V. [↩]
17. See Section III.D. below. [↩]
18. See Section III.D (discussing the lack of universal agreement in the early church), and III.E (noting Martin Luther’s inability to detect the influence of the Holy Spirit in the book of Revelation). [↩]
19. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, book I, ch. 7, sec. 1. [↩]
20. First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Ch. 2, Para. 7. [↩]
21. Dei Verbum, ch. 3, para. 11. [↩]
22. St. Augustine, Contra Ep. Fund., V, 6. [↩]
23. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, book I, ch. 7, sec. 2, quoting Ephesians 2:20 (emphasis added). [↩]
24. Herman N. Ridderbos, Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures (Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 1988), intro ix. [↩]
25. Ridderbos, p. 35, emphasis added. [↩]
26. Ridderbos, p. 9. [↩] [↩]
27. Cf. Belgic Confession, art. 5. [↩]
28. Although, were it so simple, this position would seem strikingly similar to the canon falling from Heaven. [↩]
29. See Dei Verbum, art. 11; St. Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians, ch. 45; St. Irenaeus, Adv. Her., bk. 2, ch. 28; St. Ambrose, On the Holy Spirit, bk. 3, ch. 16. [↩]
30. Fr. Henry G. Graham, Where We Got the Bible? Our Debt to the Catholic Church (Tan, 2004), p. 38-39. [↩]
31. See Ellen Flesseman-van Leer, cited in F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, p. 275. [↩]
32. See section III.D. below for more on Luther’s view. [↩]
33. John Calvin, The Epistle to the Hebrews, the Argument. [↩]
34. See Christian Cyclopedia, Canon, Bible (Concordia Publishing House, 2000), available here. [↩]
35. Ridderbos, p. 10. [↩]
36. Ridderbos here admits that “Calvin’s reasoning may be open to criticism.” Id. [↩]
37. Bruce, pp. 281-282. [↩]
38. Ridderbos, p. 35. [↩] [↩]
39. (A Press, 1995.) [↩]
40. Harris, p. 130. [↩]
41. Harris, pp. 130-133. [↩]
42. See supra, part III.A. [↩]
43. For a discussion of the Jewish authority that likely existed to rule on the canon in the early days of Christianity, see the Catholic Encyclopedia article, Canon of the Old Testament, available here. [↩]
44. Harris, p. 182, quoting William H. Green, General Introduction to the Old Testament, the Canon (New York, Scribner, 1899), p. 124. [↩]
45. Harris, p. 182; Bruce, p. 40. [↩]
46. Bruce, p. 41. [↩]
47. The deuterocanon is that collection of canonical Old Testament writings in the Catholic Bible which Protestant writers commonly refer to as the “apocrypha.” By “apocryphal” here, I mean texts which both Protestants and Catholics would agree are outside the canon. As no original manuscript of the Septuagint exists, scholars have the burden of reconstructing its original contents through later manuscripts, most importantly the Codex Vaticanus (See here), Codex Alexandrinus (See here), and Codex Sinaiticus (See here). [↩]
48. Harris, p. 182-183. [↩]
49. Harris, p. 183. [↩] [↩]
50. Bruce, p. 50. [↩]
51. Cf. Bryan Cross, Ecclesial Deism, Called to Communion. “Ecclesial deism is the notion that Christ founded His Church, but then withdrew, not protecting His Church’s Magisterium (i.e., the Apostles and/or their successors) from falling into heresy or apostasy. Ecclesial deism is not the belief that individual members of the Magisterium could fall into heresy or apostasy. It is the belief that the Magisterium of the Church could lose or corrupt some essential of the deposit of faith, or add something to the deposit of faith.” [↩]
52. Harris, p. 184. [↩]
53. Harris, p. 186. [↩]
54. Harris, p. 185. [↩]
55. Origen, Letter to Africanus, available here. [↩]
56. Harris, p. 187. [↩]
57. Bruce, p. 97. [↩]
58. Bruce, p. 35. That is, “withdrawn, probably, from the synagogue calendar of public readings,” which could not be done to true divine prophecy. Id. [↩]
59. Harris, p. 154, ff. [↩]
60. Harris, p. 171. [↩]
61. Harris, p. 173. [↩]
62. The Vulgate prologues are available here. [↩]
63. Against Rufinus II.33 [A.D. 402]. [↩]
64. Cf. Harris, p. 131. [↩]
65. Bruce, p. 75. [↩]
66. Bruce, p. 71. [↩]
67. Bruce, p. 79. [↩]
68. Bruce, p. 81. [↩]
69. Id. Peculiarly, he includes these with his New Testament books! [↩]
70. Theodore of Mosuestia, Catholic Encyclopedia. [↩]
71. Bruce, p.84. This ‘Septuagintal plus’ is Bruce’s term for the Greek writings that are not part of the Palestinians’ Hebrew text. [↩]
72. Harris, p. 139; Bruce, p. 39. [↩]
73. Bruce, p. 39. [↩]
74. Bruce, p. 89. [↩]
75. Harris, p. 136. [↩] [↩] [↩]
76. Harris, p. 288. [↩]
77. Bruce, p. 52. [↩]
78. Further examples are available here. [↩]
79. Available; here. [↩]
80. Bruce, p. 41. His preceding paragraphs discuss the views of the Essenes and Samaritans on the Jewish canon, so the “then” seems misplaced. [↩]
81. Harris, pref. [↩]
82. Ridderbos, p. 13. [↩]
83. Id., emphasis added. [↩]
84. E.g., Harris, p. 260, ff. [↩]
85. Ridderbos, p. 31. [↩]
86. Ridderbos, p. 32-33. [↩]
87. Harris, p. 233, ff.; Bruce, p. 256, ff. [↩]
88. Harris, p. 247. [↩]
89. Matthew 10:1-4; Mark 3:13-19; Luke 6:12-16. [↩]
90. Colossians 4:16. [↩]
91. Harris, p. 240. [↩]
92. Harris, p. 270. [↩]
93. Ridderbos, p. 45. [↩]
94. See Ridderbos, p. 32-33. [↩]
95. E.g., Keith Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura (Canon Press, 2001), p. 319. [↩]
96. Harris, p. 124. [↩]
97. Ridderbos, p. 34, emphasis added. [↩]
98. Ridderbos, p. 34. [↩]
99. Ridderbos, p. 43. [↩]
100. Bruce, p. 255. Note the plurality of tests in these titles. [↩]
101. Bruce, p. 283. [↩]
102. Ridderbos, p. 3. See also Bruce, p. 102; Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther (Fortress Press, 1966), p. 83. [↩]
103. Bruce, p. 102. [↩]
104. 2 Maccabees 12:45 ff. [↩]
105. Bruce, p. 101, citations omitted. [↩]
106. Quoted in Bruce, p. 244. [↩]
107. R. Laird Harris, pp. 57-58. This was said in the preface to his 1522 edition of the New Testament. Luther, comparing James to the ‘main’ books of the New Testament, said it was “really an espistle of straw, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel in it.” Ridderbos, p. 3. [↩]
108. Bruce, p. 243. Here Luther shows a favor for the what-preaches-Christ criterion of canonicity over the ‘widespread acceptance’ criterion, since he does not set off 2 Peter or 2 and 3 John in the same way. Bruce, p. 244. [↩]
109. See Ridderbos, p. 4. [↩]
110. Bruce, p. 244. [↩]
111. Ridderbos, p. 5, quoting W. G. Kümmel, Notwendigkeit und Grenze des neutestamentlichen Kanons (ZTK, 1950), p. 312. [↩]
112. Ridderbos, p. 7. [↩]
113. Cf. Deuteronomy 18:21-22: “If you say to yourselves, ‘How can we recognize an oracle which the Lord has spoken?,’ know that, even though a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if his oracle is not fulfilled or verified, it is an oracle which the Lord did not speak. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously, and you shall have no fear of him.” [↩]
114. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 1117. [↩]
115. R. C. Sproul, Now That’s a Good Question! (Nelson, 1996), p. 81-82. [↩]
116. John Henry Cardinal Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (U. of Notre Dame Press, 1989), p. 80. As if responding directly to R. C. Sproul’s qualifying statement that he doesn’t “believe for a minute that” wrong books were selected, Cardinal Newman went on rhetorically: “I believe, because I am sure; and I am sure, because I think.” [↩]
117. Here the words of Catholic convert Peter Burnett, California’s first governor, are worth noting:

     But it did seem to me that those who reject Tradition, under the idea of attaining greater certainty, did, indeed, increase the uncertainty; not only by destroying a part of the law itself, but by attacking the credibility of the only proper and reliable witness to the inspiration and authenticity of the entire canon of Scripture. Peter Hardeman Burnett, The Path Which Led a Protestant Lawyer to the Catholic Church, p. 36.

     [↩]

118. Ridderbos, p. 33. [↩]
119. See also Neal Judisch, Calvin on ‘Self-Authentification’, Called to Communion. [↩]
120. Ridderbos, p. 33-34, internal citations omitted. [↩]

Tags: Authority, John Calvin, Luther, Reformed Theology, Sola Scriptura, The Canon

847 comments
Leave a comment »

1. St. Joseph’s Vanguard And Our Lady’s Train » Blog Archive » The Canon Question | Called to Communion January 23rd, 2010 10:33 pm :

   […] The Canon Question | Called to Communion. Share: […]

2. Jonathan Brumley January 24th, 2010 3:14 pm :

   Thanks for all the work you put into this article, Tom. I’ve read all the top hits when you search for Apocrypha on Google. You pretty much countered every argument I read.

   I am trying to understand how the Catholic position is better than the Protestant position. Basically the question is, how do you know what declarations/decisions/teachings of the Magisterium are infallible/inspired/God-breathed, and which are not?

   For instance, I am confused about the difference between Trent and the earlier councils of Hippo and Carthage. How was and how is a council determined to be infallible? And is the “council” at Jerusalem (recorded in Acts) determined to be infallible, or not? (The reason I ask about Jerusalem is that it doesn’t show as one of the 21 Great Ecumenical Councils on NewAdvent).

   How do we know what the declarations of the infallible councils really were? I am asking for a formal answer, but also a practical one – there are a couple of websites that record the texts of the councils (like this one: https://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum01.htm), but where is an authoritative version, and why?

   Along these lines, how does the Orthodox Church determine which books are in the canon?

   A further question is how do we know what is the correct interpretation of the Magisterium’s teachings? Are the teachings of the Magisterium considered perspicuous, unlike scripture? For instance, I have read Exsurge Domine, but I find it really difficult to understand which of the statements are errors in themselves being condemned, and which statements are actually corrections of Luther’s errors. (Exsurge Domine may not be considered infallible, so that may be a bad example).

   I am hoping you have straightforward answers to these questions.

   Also, this isn’t entirely on topic, – so I will be happy with a pointer to an earlier or later article if a long response isn’t due on this thread.

3. Tom Brown January 24th, 2010 4:38 pm :

   Dear Jonathan,

   Thanks for reading, and for the comment. It sounds like you don’t take umbrage with my critique of the Reformed position on the canon so much as you are concerned that a tu quoque reply may be in order. You said, “I am trying to understand how the Catholic position is better than the Protestant position. Basically the question is, how do you know what declarations/decisions/teachings of the Magisterium are infallible/inspired/God-breathed, and which are not?”

   I attempted to demonstrate how the Reformed position cannot answer the Canon Question within the Reformed system’s own framework and limitations, viz. sola scriptura. Bearing that in mind, a primary difference between the positions, and a reason why the Catholic position is able to answer the Canon Question where the Reformed position is not, is that the Catholic Church can answer the Canon Question within its own framework. The Catholic Church does exist in a doctrinal environment which rejects as a source of infallible authority anything but Scripture. Therefore, the Catholic Church can articulate the scope of the canon without resting on fallible human determinations. Rather, it can make the bold claim that the Holy Spirit has actively guided the Church to a determination of the canon without admixture of error. The Reformed can make this claim too, and some do as I noted in section II.D, but this claim is ad hoc in that it denies the possibility that the Church was preserved from error in any other regard.

   Then, I think you are asking, how do we know which of the Catholic Church’s teachings are infallible? How is it that the Catholic avoids the same position of building a claim of infallible truth (i.e., the Bible’s contents) on a fallible human judgment (i.e., the determination of the Bible’s scope)? Because the Catholic Church believes that certain determinations of the Magisterium are preserved from error. And unlike the Reformed system, this teaching authority can itself articulate which teachings are infallible and which are not.

   About which council teachings are infallible, and about Orthodoxy’s answer to the Canon Question, I will need to answer these questions tomorrow evening (I’m at the airport about to catch a flight), or leave it to one of my fellows to answer.

   Peace in Christ,
   Tom

4. Jeff Holston January 25th, 2010 3:36 am :

   This Canon question is so foundational, I’m very happy to see it being addressed it in such a substantive manner. As a new convert myself (April ’09) I can say that the Canon issue was very pivotal in my learning to understand the need for a living Magisterium, and to appreciate how that Magisterium has functioned, down through the centuries, to guard the truth and to proclaim it.

   Kudos, and keep up the good work!

   Pax Christi,
   Jeff Holston

5. Tysen Woodlock January 25th, 2010 4:55 am :

   It is a question (i.e. the canon issue) that I find fascinating, even though I am no longer a Christian, and in fact no longer a believer at all. It is similar to the issue of authority in a political context, which has even to this day has not been definitively resolved to the satisfaction of many.

6. Ken Temple January 25th, 2010 10:09 am :

   Hi Tom,
   You certainly put a lot of work into this on the canon.

   Footnote # 72, Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]

   The reference looks like 11. There is no “11” or I cannot find it. Could you tell us where you get this reference? I cannot find “Against Rufinus 11” at ccel nor newadvent.

   Sincerely,
   Ken Temple

7. Tim A. Troutman January 25th, 2010 11:39 am :

   Ken,

   It should be II as in Book 2 chapter 33. Thanks for pointing that out.

8. Tom Brown January 25th, 2010 1:18 pm :

   Ken and Tim,

   Thanks for pointing that typographical error out and getting to the bottom of it. I’ve corrected the document accordingly. Ken, it’s nice to think that some people really do check out our citations! They take effort, but make a world of difference in the final product.

   Peace in Christ,
   Tom

9. Tom Brown January 25th, 2010 1:21 pm :

   Jeff, thank you for the kind note. I agree that this is a pivotal issue, and I hope that our Reformed readers will take note.

   If you are Reformed and want to understand better why some of us have chosen to “Pope,” or if you want to challenge others to stop them from doing so, I believe you would be spending your time well to read up on this matter of the canon.

   Peace in Christ,
   Tom

10. Amy Jo Garner January 25th, 2010 4:21 pm :

    I feel like I stepped into the Great Canon Debate when I started checking my RSS feeds today! This here and a Reformed/Calvinist perspective over at Parchment and Pen.

    Tom, I was trained at a Nazarene university and came to the same conclusions you have here. I’ve not figured out how so many of my Protestant brothers and sisters have come to other conclusions. This issue, among others, led me from Protestantism to Anglicanism. I have not yet made the leap to the Catholicism — a few nagging issues keep me from it.

    Thanks for the well-written and well-cited post!

11. Jeremy Tate January 25th, 2010 8:40 pm :

    Tom,

    Excellent article. I don’t know how you were able to summarize every reformed theory of the canon and prove it to be unworkable without writing a 300 page book. Every self consciously reformed Christian needs to read this. Personally, you’re point about Calvin inserting the word “teachings” into Ephesians 2:20 was extremely helpful. You’re right, the text says “they” were the foundation, but to Calvin it was merely their teachings.

    Great work! Jeremy

12. JJS January 26th, 2010 1:29 am :

    Tom,

    Question: Why is the Catholic’s claim that “the church determines the canon” NOT tantamount to placing the church above Scripture, while the Protestant’s claim that “the Spirit’s inward testimony determines the canon” IS tantamount to placing that testimony above Scripture?

    In other words, if a Catholic can say that Scripture is above the church, why can’t the Protestant say that Scripture is above the Spirit’s inward testimony?

13. Jonathan Brumley January 26th, 2010 9:42 am :

    Hi Tom,

    Yes I am wondering if a tu quoque argument is in order. Or, rather, I’d like to understand why not.

    “The Reformed can make this claim too, and some do as I noted in section II.D, but this claim is ad hoc in that it denies the possibility that the Church was preserved from error in any other regard.”

    Another way of saying it – I am trying to understand why the Catholic belief is less ad hoc. I don’t completely understand the boundaries of the infallibility of the Magisterium, but whatever those boundaries are, are not those boundaries also ad hoc?

    Why, for instance, are the pope’s statements infallible only when meeting certain criteria (e.g. the statement must define a matter of faith of morals). Why is it only the pope who makes infallible statements, and not just any bishop of the Church? Are not all these boundaries ad hoc? How did the Church come to the conclusion that these boundaries of certainty were correct, without Christ establishing the boundaries in the first place? (Or did He?)

14. St. Joseph’s Vanguard And Our Lady’s Train » Blog Archive » An Open Letter to James White to Engage in the Canon Discussion January 26th, 2010 10:30 am :

    […] (Reformed Baptist Protestant apologist) James White, inviting him to engage the arguments of the Canon of Scripture article at CalledToCommunion.com: Dear Mr. […]

15. The Canon Question – is it falliable? | The Church of Jesus Christ January 26th, 2010 1:00 pm :

    […] Okay, start here: […]

16. Tom Brown January 26th, 2010 1:40 pm :

    Dear Jason,

    Thanks for contributing. You asked:

    Why is the Catholic’s claim that “the church determines the canon” NOT tantamount to placing the church above Scripture, while the Protestant’s claim that “the Spirit’s inward testimony determines the canon” IS tantamount to placing that testimony above Scripture?

    I’m not attempting to argue that there is such a distinction, since I don’t see a need for the distinction in my overall argument. I imply this through a qualification I made in a few places, including this preface:

    There, I shall argue that, given the Reformed assumption that whatever authoritatively testifies to the canonicity of Scripture must be more authoritative than Scripture, each of them necessarily places extra-biblical evidence above Scripture in its effort to objectively identify the canon.

    The assumption to which I referred is seen in various places in the article, for example, in the quotation accompanying footnote 26. I am speaking of an assumption made by the Reformed that does not exist within Catholicism. Like I said in the article, “If Protestants see the Catholic Church as placing herself ‘over’ Scripture simply by articulating the canon of Scripture, so too they should see answers to the Canon Question culled from human reason or extra-Biblical evidence as being ‘over’ Scripture. Since Protestants see the former as violating sola scriptura, there is no principled reason not to see the latter as a violation of sola scriptura.”

    In this way, there is no need to make a distinction between the Catholic and Reformed views about which you were asking. My point is not that there is a distinction, but that the Reformed view is internally inconsistent or is ad hoc to see the the Catholic Church as placing herself “over” Scripture while denying that its own methodology of determining the extent of the canon is “over” Scripture.

    It may help to add why the Catholic Church does not see itself as being “over” Scripture for having deliberated upon the extent of the canon. This is because the Catholic Church sees herself as having cooperated with the Holy Spirit in articulating the canon. Please see the text accompanying footnotes 21 – 23 for more on this. As she sees herself cooperating with the Holy Spirit, being guided into truth, the Catholic Church does not have the power to add or subtract from the canon, because to do so would exceed her power. (This is analogous to Pope John Paul II’s declaration that the Church has no authority to ordain women. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.)

    I hope this clears up the question for you. Please let me know if not.

    Peace in Christ,
    Tom

17. JJS January 26th, 2010 2:12 pm :

    Tom,

    Thanks for your reply. You write:

    My point is not that there is a distinction, but that the Reformed view is internally inconsistent or is ad hoc to see the the Catholic Church as placing herself “over” Scripture while denying that its own methodology of determining the extent of the canon is “over” Scripture.

    But are really only saying that the Reformed view, while as plausible as the Catholic one, suffers from a silly inconsistency? Can this whole thing be resolved if I simply grant that the Catholic view preserves Scripture’s authority over the church, but it’s just that I don’t agree with it, but prefer my own equally valid position?

18. Tim A. Troutman January 26th, 2010 2:47 pm :

    Jason,

    Hope I’m not intruding. If the Reformed view suffers from inconsistency then it is not as plausible as the Catholic view because the Catholic view is consistent.

19. JJS January 26th, 2010 3:39 pm :

    Hey Tim,

    OK, but if we sheepishly acknowledge our inconsistency, are we good? During this season of ecumenicity, there’s no reason to unnecessarily celebrate our differences, right?

20. Barrett January 26th, 2010 3:50 pm :

    Gentlemen,

    Reformed guy becoming Catholic here. For the sake of clarifying what is the issue here, Tom, is your charge that the Reformed accusation against Catholics–that Catholics put something external over the Scripture in determining the canon–is inconsistent, since they replace the Magisterium with internal testimony of the Holy Spirit? Or is it that the Reformed position on the canon–i.e., Scripture’s self-authenticating nature, with the Holy Spirit testifying with and by the word–is inconsistent with the facts of history/personal experience?

    Jason, which of these do you hear Tom saying? Neither of these but something else?

    Just trying to understand the exchange here.

    Pax,
    Barrett

21. Tom Brown January 26th, 2010 4:12 pm :

    Dear Barrett,

    Thanks for engaging in the conversation. My reply to Jason involved the first of the two arguments you noted, though both appear (though in slightly different form and wording) in my article.

    Peace in Christ,
    Tom

22. Tim A. Troutman January 26th, 2010 4:33 pm :

    Jason – sorry I didn’t see what you were driving at. I’ll lay low and let you and Tom hash it out for a bit :-)

23. Tom Brown January 26th, 2010 4:39 pm :

    Dear Jason,

    You said the following in reply to my comment that the Reformed position is either internally inconsistent or ad hoc:

    But are really only saying that the Reformed view, while as plausible as the Catholic one, suffers from a silly inconsistency? Can this whole thing be resolved if I simply grant that the Catholic view preserves Scripture’s authority over the church, but it’s just that I don’t agree with it, but prefer my own equally valid position?

    I am ‘really’ saying that the Reformed position is either internally inconsistent or ad hoc. I am not saying that the Reformed view is “as plausible as the Catholic one.” I think you mistook this for what I did say, which was: “I’m not attempting to argue that there is such a distinction, since I don’t see a need for the distinction in my overall argument.”

    Further, I deny that (if granted) this is a “silly inconsistency.” The Reformation is built on the foundation of sola scriptura, specifically, that the Bible is the Christian’s highest or ultimate authority on all matters of the faith. The Reformers rejected their (human) ecclesial authorities because, in the Reformers’ opinion, those ecclesial authorities had usurped Scripture. I have argued that if consistent and not ad hoc, the Reformed system would also need to reject whatever methods it has used to articulate the content of the canon of Scripture, because these methods would similarly usurp Scripture. Without a measure or determinant of the canon there can be no known corpus of Scripture, and without a known corpus of Scripture, there can be no sola scriptura. Without sola scriptura, once one has rejected sacramental ecclesial authority, one is left with no ecclesial authority at all. That is why I do not see it as a silly inconsistency, but as a critical one.

    Regarding your question of whether “this whole thing be resolved if [you] simply grant that the Catholic view preserves Scripture’s authority over the church, but it’s just that [you] don’t agree with it, but prefer [your] own equally valid position?”, I say that the Catholic system does not preserve Scripture’s authority over the Church, but rather that Catholic ecclesiology preserves a proper understanding of the Church’s cooperative relationship to Scripture.

    Peace in Christ,
    Tom

24. Tom Brown January 26th, 2010 7:23 pm :

    Dear Jonathan,

    A tu quoque response is not in order because the Catholic position is not internally inconsistent or ad hoc with regard to the determination of the canon, whereas the Reformed position is internally inconsistent or ad hoc. I see now that your concern is with the latter possibility: “I am trying to understand why the Catholic belief is less ad hoc.”

    If we assume for the sake of discussion that out of these two possibilities the Reformed position is ad hoc, then let me reiterate in what way it would be ad hoc. It would be ad hoc for the Reformed position to maintain that “no evidence outside of Scripture can determine the canon,” as it necessarily must, but simultaneously to allow extra-Biblical criteria such as the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit, or conclusions about the widespread acceptance of the early Church, to determine the extent of the canon.

    Contrariwise, the Catholic Church is not ad hoc in its method of determining the canon. The Catholic Church believes that she was aided by the Holy Spirit in deliberating upon those texts that were claimed to be divinely inspired, and in selecting the correct ones from that set. She believes that her bishops have authority from Christ to reach such theological conclusions. Since the Catholic method of determining the canon is entirely consistent with the Church’s own ecclesiology, the Church is not being ad hoc in allowing for this deliberative process and conclusion about the canon. Note here that it is not the fallibility of the Reformed method that makes it subject to the inconsistency-or-ad-hoc criticism, so any supposed fallibility within the Catholic position would not thereby make it ad hoc.

    You did ask about infallibility, though, so let me touch on that here. When the boundaries of infallibility are determined, they are determined by the Catholic Church. This is entirely consistent with the Catholic Church’s view of the teaching authority given to her by Christ. The boundaries are not always clearly defined, and in many areas of theology are still open to debate. The boundaries do not need to be clearly defined in all areas, because it is the episcopate, not its “teaching,” that holds authority over Christians. (Recall my discussion in section II.A. of Calvin’s insertion of “teaching” to Ephesians 2:20.) The faithful can look to their bishop, and trust in his absolution of sin, for their assurance of being in a state of grace. This is their concern, not formulaic accession to infallible teaching.

    For more on the subject of infallible teachings and the Catholic Church, I know at least one good reference: Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.

    The pope is not the only agent of the Magisterium who can teach infallibly – the Bishops when speaking in a General Council can also do so. In either case, this only occurs when addressing immediately revealed truths, as Ott addresses in much greater detail. Note that their articulation of such Truth is not necessarily an infallible and perspicuous articulation – it could possibly be said better, but is truth nonetheless. These teachings on the teaching of Truth are not themselves ad hoc because their articulation is within the teaching authority that the Catholic Church understands herself to have been given by Christ. To be ad hoc, the Catholic Church would need to believe that she only had authority to teach in a way that binds consciences on theological subjects A, B, and C, but then also to teach in a binding way on her own teaching authority.

    Last, you asked: “How did the Church come to the conclusion that these boundaries of certainty were correct, without Christ establishing the boundaries in the first place? (Or did He?)” By way of the Church, Christ did establish boundaries of certainty, because He gave the Church its teaching authority when he commissioned and anointed the Apostles. Because their episcopal successors can act in persona Christi in leading the Church, the Church is not ad hoc when it does the likes of defining the canon, or defining what is infallible revelation, binding dogma, common teaching of the faith, mere theological opinion, etc.

    I hope this has been a helpful start at cracking the surface of this topic. A separate post may be in order, and certainly I hope that we will tend to these matters in more depth in a future article.

    Peace in Christ,
    Tom

25. Andrew McCallum January 27th, 2010 12:42 am :

    It would be ad hoc for the Reformed position to maintain that “no evidence outside of Scripture can determine the canon,” as it necessarily must, but simultaneously to allow extra-Biblical criteria such as the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit, or conclusions about the widespread acceptance of the early Church, to determine the extent of the canon.

    Tom,

    You have raised lots of issues in your lengthy essay, but for now let me just address this one. You seem to be understanding us to say that the internal evidences are all that should be used to determine canonicity outside the context of the Church. But we do believe that it was the Church who made just these sorts of judgments. When the Church received the canon she did not flip coins to determine which books were in and which were out. The books that were received by the Church really did have the stamp of Apostolicity and the Church saw this and received them. There were internal evidences for the books because God inspired them, and the Church then by the Spirit’s power recognized them.

    The exact books of the canon are not defined in Scripture but this does not obviate the general principle of sola scriptura. As an analogy take the US Constitution. We believe that the Constitution is the final bar of authority for all legal/civil matter in the US. We thus believe in sola-constitution so as to speak. Now if someone were to ask me how the elements of the constitution were determined I would appeal to the process by which the Founding Fathers defined the Constitution. But I would not use the Constitution to determine the elements of the Constitution, would I? But the fact that I in some sense appeal to something outside of the Constitution does not obviate my principle of sola constitution. The Constitution is still the final bar of authority even though I do not appeal to the Constitution when determining the elements of the Constitution. OK so far? All right, then the same basic idea holds for the Bible. I believe insola scriptura. in that the Scriptures is the final bar of authority for spiritual matters, but that does not mean that I am violating sola scriptura. by appealing to something (i.e. the Church) outside the Scriptures to determine the elements of Scripture.

    Your Calvin quotes should not be taken as an all encompassing apologetic. If you are going to look for a specific apologetic against Catholicism I would go to someone whose purpose this was. I think you would better off quoting someone like Mathieson as Bryan did in the last big essay. From my standpoint both Protestant and Catholic appeal to the Church as the vehicle God used to form the canon. Four conceptual possibilities here are:
    1) An infallible God worked through an infallible Church to produce the canon
    2) An infallible God worked through a fallible Church to produce the canon
    3) A fallible God worked through a fallible Church to produce the canon
    4) A fallible God worked through an infallible Church to produce the canon.

    I hope no sane person would choose option #4. Liberals often adopt or lean towards #3. Conservative Protestants generally understand #2 to be correct, while conservative Catholics see #1 as being true.

    Now I now you will disagree with #2, but I would point out that #2 will produce an infallible canon just as much as #1 will. For this reason I would say that the Church being infallible is superfluous if what we are aiming for is assurance and infallibility of the canon. Note I am not arguing here that the Church is not infallible at this point, only that she does not need to be infallible for the canon to be infallible. The adoption of position #2 above does not (and has not) produced an epistemological crisis among the Reformed.

    …the premise that all Protestants agree on the canon is false.

    Yes, I agree. In fact most protestants don’t agree on the canon and don’t even care about the canon. However, in previous threads I have argued that there is no disagreement among the Reformed on the canon. And actually I think it could be argued that there is no disagreement among Evangelicals on the matter. For all the epistemological problems that Evangelicals have in other areas, on the canon they are solid. At least I cannot remember ever hearing of an Evangelical scholar who expressed any sort of doubt on this matter.

26. Mateo January 27th, 2010 1:11 am :

    RCIA candidate here. Grew up in the Church of Christ. I was talking about the canon issue a while back with my brother, and he asked me, “You may know what books belong in the canon because the Catholic Church tells you, but how do you know you can trust the Catholic Church?” For some background information, my brother, I think, doesn’t really believe in the Reformed view that, as you explain, “the Holy Spirit [working in an individual person] is our immediate assurance of the canon’s truth.” But he does believe (or at least the Churches of Christ as a whole seem to believe) “that the reliability of Scripture appears from within Scripture itself,” in the sense that the Bible canon can be proven through its fulfilled prophecies, endorsement from Jesus or the Apostles (which you responded to in your article), historical accuracy, etc. Basically, he’s asking (and I’m asking): If one has to have a teacher to tell him what the right canon is (since reason alone isn’t enough and results in different conclusions and subjectivity), does he not also have to have someone to tell him to trust the teacher? It seems like perhaps a never-ending cycle. I have thought of responses, but they’re all pretty vague. What would you say about this issue?

27. Tom Brown January 27th, 2010 1:37 am :

    Dear Mateo,

    Fellow RCIA candidate here. Thanks for your involvement here. You asked:

    If one has to have a teacher to tell him what the right canon is (since reason alone isn’t enough and results in different conclusions and subjectivity), does he not also have to have someone to tell him to trust the teacher? It seems like perhaps a never-ending cycle.

    In a few of my responses above, I’ve touched on distinctions between my critique of sola scriptura and the Catholic view. I want to be clear that the reason-alone-isn’t-enough-and-results-in-different-conclusions-and-subjectivity point you raised, while a problem for sola scriptura, is not a problem to the Catholic. I wonder if what I wrote to Jonathan in #24 above explaining why this is not a problem for the Catholic clears up the issue for you. If not, please just let me know which part there isn’t clicking or seems wrong.

    The Catholic can trust the successors of the Apostles. They are successive bearers of the testimony of the Truth of Christ that the Apostles themselves once bore and took to the nations. We can trust them as our teachers, and we can have confidence in their remaining in the truth, because they were sent and anointed by Christ. There is no vicious cycle in this understanding. I can believe the successor bishop today just like I could have believed the Apostle John nearly 2,000 years ago.

    Peace in Christ,
    Tom

28. T Ciatoris January 27th, 2010 6:44 am :

    Hi Andrew,

    I wouldn’t push the Constitution analogy too far. The Constitution was not written inerrantly under divine inspiration (pace some people I know!), and it is revisable under certain conditions. The ultimate bar of authority (in theory) is not the Constitution but the people of the United States, as the Constitution itself says in the Preamble: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” I think you’ll see from this why I get very nervous about comparing the composition and function of the Constitution to the Church’s recognition of the canon. Also, “sola constitutione” isn’t quite right even within the analogy, not only because the Constitution is founded on the authority of the people, fallible, and revisable, but because there exists a (very fallible!) “living magisterium” of sorts to interpret it authoritatively—the Supreme Court. In any event, I don’t think the Constitution analogy is going to get us very far.

    Now for the important part. You wrote:

    From my standpoint both Protestant and Catholic appeal to the Church as the vehicle God used to form the canon. Four conceptual possibilities here are:
    1) An infallible God worked through an infallible Church to produce the canon
    2) An infallible God worked through a fallible Church to produce the canon
    …

    And then:

    Now I now you will disagree with #2, but I would point out that #2 will produce an infallible canon just as much as #1 will. For this reason I would say that the Church being infallible is superfluous if what we are aiming for is assurance and infallibility of the canon. Note I am not arguing here that the Church is not infallible at this point, only that she does not need to be infallible for the canon to be infallible.

    You are, of course, correct that “#2 will produce an infallible canon just as much as #1 will.” I take it that Tom would readily agree that this is possible. But Tom has shown that, while internally consistent, this is ad hoc. So pointing out that #2 is a possibility without showing that it is not ad hoc does not really engage Tom’s argument.

    To be a little tongue-in-cheek, I’d find #2 more convincing if I opened Matthew 28 and read, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and produce an infallible New Testament of divinely inspired writings, then infallibly collect them,” or if I read in John 16, “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you to the infallible identification of the canon of Scripture.” Failing that, I think Tom’s right: #2 is certainly possible, but it’s ad hoc.

    in Christ,

    TC
    1 Cor 16:14

29. Jonathan Brumley January 27th, 2010 7:23 am :

    > 3) A fallible God worked through a fallible Church to produce the canon

    That is a funny statement. In defense of liberal Christians, I don’t know any who believe in a “fallible” God! But it would probably be correct to say that many liberals believe that an _infallible_ God worked through a fallible Church to produce a _fallible_, (but inspiring) canon.

30. Jonathan Brumley January 27th, 2010 7:55 am :

    Tom, thank you for the further explanation in #24.

31. Tom Brown January 27th, 2010 1:19 pm :

    Dear Andrew,

    You pulled out a quote of mine from this combox, and then said: “You have raised lots of issues in your lengthy essay, but for now let me just address this one. ” And then you levied a criticism: “You seem to be understanding us to say that the internal evidences are all that should be used to determine canonicity outside the context of the Church. But…”

    Please consider reading the full article, or at least the portions of my article where I raise the one issue you think you are addressing. You should at least read Sections I and III, as well as the sub-section of section II that applies to the perspective you intend to defend or address — in this case I believe that is section II.A. In this case, you misapprehend what I “seem to be understanding” based on the statement of mine from the combox. In the article, I go in depth into addressing the classical and confessional Reformed position, and how it consists of both an objective and a subjective element. I argue from there in a way that leads up to my statement that you quoted, but I won’t repeat all that here.

    As for your Constitution analogy, I embrace the analogy, and see your understanding of its as false. You said:

    We believe that the Constitution is the final bar of authority for all legal/civil matter in the US. We thus believe in sola-constitution so as to speak. Now if someone were to ask me how the elements of the constitution were determined I would appeal to the process by which the Founding Fathers defined the Constitution. But I would not use the Constitution to determine the elements of the Constitution, would I?

    As “TC” noted, the Constitution is not the “final bar of authority” in the United States. He noted that the Constitution was formed by the People. I would add that the Constitution has an Article III creating a judiciary that within the first generation came to interpret the Constitution over the other branches of government, and more importantly for our purposes has an Article V that allows for amendment by the Congress or a convention raised by the states. What you can amend at will you are superior to. So the Constitution cannot be the final bar of authority where it has an authority that can amend it. Further, the Constitution is a discrete unitary writing, not composed of “elements” (as you say) like the Bible is comprised of disparate texts written by many authors, some unknown, over the course of many centuries and even in several languages. The Constitution identifies itself (see, e.g., the Supremacy Clause), and is unmistakable in its scope. So you would use the Constitution to identify itself, because you have one piece of paper that says at the top: “We the people . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution.” I like the analogy to Scripture, because both are discussions of the relationship between an authoritative text and a system of governance. But in all these ways that I have noted, the Constitution does not and cannot lend support to the idea of sola scriptura.

    You also criticized my sourcing, although you did not demonstrate where I misrepresented the Calvinist apologetic against Catholicism. Since I don’t know which Calvinist argument I should have included, I can’t tell how many more sources you would have me read. You said:

    Your Calvin quotes should not be taken as an all encompassing apologetic. If you are going to look for a specific apologetic against Catholicism I would go to someone whose purpose this was. . . . I think you would better off quoting someone like Mathieson [sic] as Bryan did in the last big essay.

    Again, please do read the essay. You will see that I not only made use of Calvin, but also heavily relied upon Ridderbos, Harris, and Bruce. Each of these authors addressed the Catholic view, but you will kindly note that I am not arguing against the Reformed critique of Catholicism. I am critiquing the Reformed view of the canon. So to an extent their critique of Catholicism is irrelevant to my premise. I left Mathison out because it added nothing to my argument, and was extensively covered in our last article, as you noted. I left out other Protestant authors whom I have read on the canon as well, because at some point you have to limit citations.

    You said: “Four conceptual possibilities here are: . . . ” Please review the section where I discussed R. C. Sproul’s view on the fallibility of the canon. He takes up your possibilities in his work, which I cited.

    You said: “For all the epistemological problems that Evangelicals have in other areas, on the canon they are solid. At least I cannot remember ever hearing of an Evangelical scholar who expressed any sort of doubt on this matter.”

    Let me repeat here what I said about this in the article, because it may be worth repeating:

    Today’s average Protestant does not study why he has the Protestant 66-book canon, and does not independently decide if the Bible handed to him is correct. Rather, he accepts as an a priori of his Protestant faith that the 66-book canon is correct. Belief that the 66-book canon is right is part and parcel with the small cluster of unifying evangelical Protestant beliefs. Since it is a unifying principle for most Protestants, we would hardly expect to see anything but universal agreement; thus we can draw no lessons about the canon from this widespread agreement. (See supra section II.A.).

    I realize it’s a long article, but that had to be, because so many issues can spin off from my single argument. I hope you will get a chance to sit down and read it all.

    Peace in Christ,
    Tom

32. Spencer January 27th, 2010 10:18 pm :

    Tom,

    Thanks for writing this article. I can tell you’ve really put thought and work into it, and it’s quite helpful in addressing most of the Reformed arguments concerning the canon. Being Reformed myself, I don’t necessarily agree with the conclusion you come to, but I think your critiques of the arguments are good. There is one argument that (forgive me if you’ve addressed this and I somehow missed it) I don’t think was covered in the article that I’m wondering what you think of. It was articulated by Dr. James White in his Scripture Alone, and it basically goes like this: we have certainty about the canon of Scripture based on God’s purposes in giving it. Scripture tells us that God’s Word will not return void (Isaiah 55:10-11) and we know from the use of the Old Testament by the New Testament writers that the Word of God is intended to be used by the people of God. If God has inspired various books for the encouragement and instruction of His people, then it necessarily follows that He would guide His people (the Church) to recognize these books. Thus, we have certainty in our knowledge of the canon based on God’s purposes, and not the Church’s recognition of the canon. In his view, the declarations of the canon by the Church hierarchy were only later official recognitions of what God’s people had already been led to realize.

    I can see a few holes in this view (though not nearly so much as in some other Reformed views on the canon), but I’m wondering what you think of it. It’s somewhat unique; I don’t think I’ve seen it used anywhere else.

    Pax Christi,

    Spencer

33. Mateo January 28th, 2010 12:26 am :

    Tom,

    You definitely answer part of my question when you say, “Since the Catholic method of determining the canon is entirely consistent with the Church’s own ecclesiology, the Church is not being ad hoc in allowing for this deliberative process and conclusion about the canon.” The fact that the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church is more consistent with regard to the canon (and many other areas, like doctrine and Church governance) than many or all Protestant Churches helps us to have a basis for having faith in the Bible, the written Word.

    The other aspect of my question may even be slightly off topic. While we have a basis for believing in the Bible, what basis do we have for believing in the Catholic Church? For my brother especially, we avoid subjectivity with regard to the Bible (i.e., there is one, definitive Catholic canon as opposed to differing, individual, non-definitive views about the canon as there were with the reformers), but the question of which church is the right one is still up in the air. How can we know that the Catholic Church really does go back to Jesus without having to rely on our own, personal, subjective judgment (which is what we’re criticizing them, the Protestants, for doing with regard to the canon? Or are we?)?

34. Tim A. Troutman January 28th, 2010 10:01 am :

    Spencer,

    The theory you are proposing in no way leads us to believe that the Protestant 66 book canon is correct. If God did lead the Church into selecting the correct canon, which we believe He did, then it is the 73 book canon that the Church has always affirmed. (See our arguments under the “Nature of the Church” in our Note to Readers .

35. Tim A. Troutman January 28th, 2010 10:05 am :

    Mateo,

    The basis for believing the Catholic Church is, aside from our ecclesiological arguments that I referred to in #34, apostolic succession. We will have a lead article on that topic in a few months, but we believe in the Church which is in objective succession from the apostles, i.e. the rightful heirs to the gospel. The critique of the Protestant claim does not apply to our recognition of the Church because our recognition has objective criteria that in no way depends on our private interpretation of Scripture.

36. Andrew McCallum January 28th, 2010 10:10 am :

    Tom,

    You pulled out a quote of mine from this combox, and then said: “You have raised lots of issues in your lengthy essay, but for now let me just address this one. ” And then you levied a criticism: “You seem to be understanding us to say that the internal evidences are all that should be used to determine canonicity outside the context of the Church. But…”

    I went through your points but I cannot answer everything in your essay without giving an essay length answer back. If we cannot break your essay down then I cannot explain where I think you have gone wrong. I was trying to speak to your 2.A point which is what I think you were focusing on in post #24. If I have to answer all your points at once, then I give up.

    You and TC are reading way too much into my analogy. The Constitution calls itself the “supreme law of the land.” Now if someone where to ask me about the appropriate elements of the Constitution I would refer him to something outside the Constitution. If he were to tell me I was being inconsistent by appealing to something outside the Constitution if the Constitution was the supreme law of the land, I would say that he has misunderstood the concept of the supreme law of the land. So likewise I say that the Bible is our supreme law spiritually or is the final bar of authority. Now if someone asks me what the appropriate elements (books) of the Bible are I would appeal to something outside of the Bible. If they tell me I’m being inconsistent I tell them that they don’t understand the concept of being the final bar of authority (sola scriptura).

    OK, so maybe that’s not a helpful analogy for you – fine. So let me just state bluntly that sola scriptura does not obviate the appeal to something outside scripture. The Church received the canon. We have no issues stating this. We are appealing to a source outside of Scripture but we are not contradicting sola scriptura. I hope this makes sense why this is true, but if not ask me.
    I did read all of your Calvin quotes.

    I did not want to comment on them all one by one because my point was the same with all of them. Calvin was not attempting a comprehensive apologetic to Catholics here. He has a Protestant audience here, and even when he speaks of Catholics he is speaking to Protestants with assumptions that none of us Reformed folks are going to question. But you are raising issues concerning the relationship between the Church and the canon that are not at issue when Protestant speaks to Protestant. They are good questions but Calvin does not address them. It would be the similar situation if an atheist read Calvin. He would think that Calvin was crazy and he would think that your answer to Calvin was crazy too. You and I share a great many assumptions concerning God, his revelation to us, etc that the atheist would reject. So we must have a different approach to the atheist when he asks us about Scriptures. And likewise Protestants need a different approach to the question of canon when we speak to Catholics than when we are writing to teach and encourage other Protestant about Scripture (which is what Calvin does in The Institututes and other works). I don’t mind talking about the other writers, but let’s do Calvin first.

    I would not use Sproul as representative of the Reformed position. We have talked about his position here a number of times. It’s just not the way the Reformed go about the question in general. If you don’t believe me try asking some of your Reformed friends who have thought through the canon question.

    It would be ad hoc to claim that the “church” infallibly established the canon through widespread acceptance while otherwise being unable to arrive at any infallible conclusions, without a principled basis for affirming infallibility in the one case and denying it in all others. If the Church was not infallibly preserved from error in its early teachings on ecclesiology, iconography, justification, etc., there is no reason to believe it was so preserved from error when its canon came into widespread acceptance.

    This point does sort of get to my cases #1 through 4 which I hoped you might take up. It is not ad hoc to hold that the production of the Scriptures in infallible while other action of the Church are not. God promised that the production of the Scriptures were theopneustos so our claiming infallibility for the Scriptures via the agency of the Church stems from God’s promise that Scriptures are His words. But he never said that tradition was theopneustos and the RCC does not claim that tradition is inspired. There is a distinction between Scripture and tradition and thus we distinguish the work of the Church in receiving the canon and her forming traditions outside of Scripture. Could there be any more principled distinction than that God distinguishes the Scriptures? Now you may be able to come up with some reason why you think that de fide pronouncements of the Church are infallible, but I think you can hardly say that there is no principled distinction between the Church’s work in receiving inspired books and her work in writing uninspired traditions.

37. Randy January 28th, 2010 11:10 am :

    Spencer,

    The theory is OK. It does seem to lead to a 73 book cannon. If you don’t want a 73 book cannon that is a problem. The other feature of the argument is there are close parallels that can be draw with other doctrines. For example, the papacy and apostolic succession. To make the argument work you need to either accept generally that whenever God guides His people to recognize doctrine X that becomes strong evidence that X is true. It makes a lot of sense. But if you accept this principle and you know history it is going to make you Catholic. It is very close to the catholic notion of sacred tradition.

    So I find it interesting that James White adopts this position. He must know that he is basically adopting Catholic thinking when he appraoches the cannon question that way. He has been invited to participate in this discussion. I hope he does.

38. Devin Rose January 28th, 2010 11:13 am :

    Spencer,

    Following up on Tim’s reply, I would also argue (against James White’s claim) that knowing which “Church” God revealed the true canon to is problematic since the two most ancient Churches, the Catholic and the Orthodox, have different canons and the set of Protestant Communities have yet another (different) canon.

    Why would God allow his children to get the canon wrong for 1500 years?

39. Tim A. Troutman January 28th, 2010 11:21 am :

    Andrew,

    The Church received the canon. We have no issues stating this.

    Andrew, we agree with you. But your “Church” is “whoever agrees with what I believe about the bible” and so is it any wonder that the “Church” in your mind received the Protestant canon?

    This article is built on the arguments we made for the nature of the Church. Your conception of Church was refuted in the ecclesiological arguments referenced above. Please refer to those and if you disagree with us, then refute our arguments on those threads.

40. herbert January 28th, 2010 11:27 am :

    Andrew, I am mostly just a reader (not a commentor) at C2C. But I just want to quickly ask you one brief question. In your last comment you wrote:

    Could there be any more principled distinction than that God distinguishes the Scriptures?

    “Which Scriptures are valid Scriptures?” Is the question here, correct? Is your query, then, not a textbook case of begging the question? Are you not assuming “the Scriptures” to be what you hold them to be despite the fact that “what the Scriptures are” is the very thing in question?

    Any clarification would be deeply appreciated.
    herbert

41. Bryan Cross January 28th, 2010 1:04 pm :

    Spencer, (re: #32)

    Thanks for your comments. Perhaps I can help answer your question. You wrote:

    There is one argument that […] I don’t think was covered in the article that I’m wondering what you think of. It was articulated by Dr. James White in his Scripture Alone, and it basically goes like this: we have certainty about the canon of Scripture based on God’s purposes in giving it. Scripture tells us that God’s Word will not return void (Isaiah 55:10-11) and we know from the use of the Old Testament by the New Testament writers that the Word of God is intended to be used by the people of God. If God has inspired various books for the encouragement and instruction of His people, then it necessarily follows that He would guide His people (the Church) to recognize these books. Thus, we have certainty in our knowledge of the canon based on God’s purposes, and not the Church’s recognition of the canon.

    The argument is (roughly) the following :

    (1) If we know God’s purposes in giving the canon, then we can have certainty regarding which books belong to the canon.

    (2) We know God’s purposes in giving the canon.

    Therefore,

    (3) We know which books belong to the canon. [from (1) and (2)]

    Then the conclusion is:

    (4) The 66 books of the Protestant Bible, and only those books, belong to the canon.

    There are at least three problems with this argument, for a Protestant.

    First, you can’t get to (3), from (1) and (2), unless you fill in more precisely what you know about God’s purposes in giving the canon. If, for example, you know that one of God’s purposes in giving the canon was to give the 66 books, and only the 66 books, found in Protestant Bibles , then you could go from (1) and (2), to (3), and from (3), to (4). But, then there would be no point of the argument, because you would have loaded the conclusion into the second premise, and so the argument would be question-begging.

    If, however, you don’t know that giving the 66 books (and only those books) found in Protestant Bibles was one of God’s purposes in giving the canon, but instead know that God gave the inspired books (whichever ones those are) for the purpose of instructing His people, that does not entail (3). Nor does (4) follow.

    Second, if given what we know about God’s purposes in giving the inspired books “it necessarily follows that He would guide His people (the Church),” then Protestants will need to abandon ecclesial deism. It would be ad hoc to maintain that God will guide His Church to recognize the canon, but not guide His Church to recognize orthodoxy from heresy between 451 to 1517. (There is plenty even before 451 in the Church’s belief and practice that Protestants reject, as I point out in my ecclesial deism article.)

    Third, if given what we know about God’s purposes in giving the inspired books “it necessarily follows that He would guide His people (the Church) to recognize these books”, then the books recognized would be the Catholic canon, not the Protestant canon. The criterion used at Trent was primarily: Which books are used in the liturgy in the universal Church? In the liturgy, after each reading the lector says, “The Word of the Lord.” So the question was, which books are used in the liturgy (as the “Word of the Lord”) throughout the Church universal? And the answer to that question is the canon declared infallibly at Trent. Those books had been used in the liturgy of the universal Church for over a thousand years. So if, given (1) and (2), “it necessarily follows that He would guide His people (the Church) to recognize these books”, then the conclusion of the argument would not be (4); rather, it would be the Catholic canon.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

42. Ken Temple January 28th, 2010 2:57 pm :

    Tom,
    Your main point in the OT Apocrypha section (mostly on Jerome) was that no church father held to the exact 39 book canon of the Protestant OT. It must be pointed out that Trent’s (1545-1563) decision on the Apocrypha was the first ecumenical church wide council decision on the canon, and that it also disagreed with Hippo (393) and Carthage (397). ( on the issue of 1-2 Esdras) The New Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges the differences and says that Trent “definitely removed it from the canon”, “it” meaning the material found in the LXX version of 1 Esdras. (Volume II: 396-397) 2 Esdras was the real Ezra and Nehemiah together; and Jerome corrected that mistake and separated them into separate books. In Trent, 1 Ezdras is Ezra and 2 Esdras is Nehemiah; but the LXX and Augustine and Hippo and Carthage included other additions that were deemed not canonical by Trent. How could Trent infallibly declare to be non-canonical what popes a thousand years earlier had accepted?

    But, many early church writers/fathers disagreed with most of the current RCC Apocrypha – Athanasius, Jerome, Origen, Melito of Sardis, and also Gregory bishop of Rome wrote that Maccabees is not canonical and Cardinal Cajetan also.

    Regarding Jerome, below are the two clearer statements about most of the RCC Deutero-canonicals (Apocrypha). These are clearer statements from Jerome than the ones you reference from prefaces to Tobit and Judith. There, Jerome seems to be saying he is submitting to the bishops orders to translate them into Latin, not that they are canonical.

    In his commentary on Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus,(In the Preface to Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon) Jerome states:

    “As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures , so let it also read these two Volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church.”

    https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vii.iii.x.html
    (In the Preface to Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, 393 AD)
    This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a “helmeted” introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon. “

    From Jerome’s Preface to Samuel and Kings:
    https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vii.iii.iv.html

    (Emphasis mine)

43. Tom Brown January 28th, 2010 5:46 pm :

    Dear Spencer,

    Thank you for bringing up Dr. White’s position. It is similar to some of the views I addressed in the paper, and is prone to some of the same criticisms. I rest on Bryan’s able response, and look forward to hearing what you think.

    Peace in Christ,
    Tom

44. Tom Brown January 28th, 2010 6:11 pm :

    Dear Andrew,

    You said, “If I have to answer all your points at once, then I give up.” Okay, if you read my section II.A., then my response to your statement that I “seem to be understanding [you] to say that the internal evidences are all that should be used to determine canonicity outside the context of the Church” is this: that is not what I am saying, or what I seem to be saying. I said that:

    The classical and confessional Reformed answer to the Canon Question stresses that the Holy Spirit is our immediate assurance of the canon’s truth, and also notes that the reliability of Scripture appears from within Scripture itself.

    And this:

    Ridderbos provides a modern Reformed articulation of the confessional view. In line with Calvin, he argues that canonical texts are self-attesting (or self-witnessing) to the reader who is aided through faith by the Holy Spirit to see Scripture for what it is.

    And this:

    From this we see that his view consists of two elements: (1) that Scripture is self-attesting, (2) via the Holy Spirit leading the reader to recognize it as canonical.

    So the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit is intrisic to the process. I argue this at length in section II.A. The role of the Church is taken up in section II.D. I noted in the preface to section II that the theories were not mutually exclusive.

    I don’t think I did read way too much into the Constitution analogy, but attempted to show why it was helpful as a model of text-defining-culture. Maybe it proves too much against your view, but I did not take it too far. As I said, the Constitution identifies itself for what it is, unlike the Bible.

    You said: “So let me just state bluntly that sola scriptura does not obviate the appeal to something outside scripture. The Church received the canon. We have no issues stating this. We are appealing to a source outside of Scripture but we are not contradicting sola scriptura.”

    I’m glad to understand your view here, because it helps narrow in on our point of disagreement. You disagree with Herman Ridderbos, then. I addressed your statement in the following paragraph. Could you please tell me with which premise or conclusion you disagree? That would help me to focus my response:

    But the very act of answering the Canon Question inherently involves an extra-Biblical fallible human judgment, unless one is preserved from error by the Holy Spirit. This fallible human judgment, by defining the criterion of canon, exercises power over the canon itself. And as I just noted, power over the canon is power over Scripture. Therefore, absent the Holy Spirit’s preserving one from error, to answer the Canon Question is to exercise power over Scripture, and to place one’s judgment over Scripture. So to answer the Canon Question is to violate the doctrine of sola scriptura by placing something over the Christian’s sole infallible authority. If Protestants see the Catholic Church as placing herself ‘over’ Scripture simply by articulating the canon of Scripture, so too they should see answers to the Canon Question culled from human reason or extra-Biblical evidence as being ‘over’ Scripture. Since Protestants see the former as violating sola scriptura, there is no principled reason not to see the latter as a violation of sola scriptura.

    Again, I look forward to focusing in on the part of this paragraph about which we are not in agreement. If your point on “theopneustos” will come to bear, I will take it up then, otherwise please remind me I still owe a response. I’m short on time at this moment.

    Regarding Sproul’s position not being a Reformed position, I agree to an extent, which is why I started with the classical Reformed position. However, I think Sproul’s position may gain popularity. I note that Sproul is Reformed, and is ordained in one of the more conservative Reformed denominations in the U.S. (the PCA). A recent “Parchment and Pen” blog post has staunchly supported the view as well. There is no one monolithic Reformed view, of course. I can take on the classical Reformed view, and I’m happy to interact with your Reformed view, but I can’t say Sproul’s view is un-Reformed, just that it is not the classical Reformed view.

    Peace in Christ,
    Tom

45. Spencer January 28th, 2010 6:21 pm :

    Bryan,

    Thanks for the response. You said:

    First, you can’t get to (3), from (1) and (2), unless you fill in more precisely what you know about God’s purposes in giving the canon. If, for example, you know that one of God’s purposes in giving the canon was to give the 66 books, and only the 66 books, found in Protestant Bibles , then you could go from (1) and (2), to (3), and from (3), to (4). But, then there would be no point of the argument, because you would have loaded the conclusion into the second premise, and so the argument would be question-begging.

    The argument doesn’t assume the number (or identity) of the canonical books in the premises; the purpose of the argument is to demonstrate that we need not accept the infallibility of the Church to know the canon with certainty.
    Your summary of the argument is good, and I think Dr. White’s point is to show that God’s purposes in giving Scripture are sufficient to assure us that the canon was recognized correctly by the Church. Of course, this leads to the problem you pointed out, which is that the canon recognized by the Church seems to be the Catholic canon (Dr. White addresses this in his book a few pages later, but doesn’t exactly make the case that the early church rejected the Apocryphal books in any widespread way).

    Second, if given what we know about God’s purposes in giving the inspired books “it necessarily follows that He would guide His people (the Church),” then Protestants will need to abandon ecclesial deism. It would be ad hoc to maintain that God will guide His Church to recognize the canon, but not guide His Church to recognize orthodoxy from heresy between 451 to 1517. (There is plenty even before 451 in the Church’s belief and practice that Protestants reject, as I point out in my ecclesial deism article.)

    Scripture is the guide of the Church, and it is what makes Christians sufficient, trained for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17). God guides the Church–but He does so through Scripture. It is a misstatement of this argument to say, “God granted the Church infallibility on the canon, but then didn’t do it after that.” That would indeed be ad hoc. The argument, though, is not centered on what the Church is doing but on Scripture and God’s guiding the Church to recognize it.

    To offer my own criticism of the argument, as you and other commenters have pointed out, the argument seems to fail primarily because it doesn’t square with the actual facts of what happened in Church history. I am not certain whether or not it is completely logical, but Dr. White’s ideal situation of the Church being led to recognize the canon is not what happened. At least some people in the early Church (such as St. Augustine) saw 1 & 2 Maccabees as being canonical. There was some uncertainty, at least early on, about whether or not Revelation, 2 & 3 John, and a few others books, were canonical. A Protestant could argue that the Church’s gradual recognition of these books fulfills Dr. White’s argument that the Church, though not infallible in herself, would be led by God to recognize the canon, but the Church also recognized (at various times) the Apocryphal books. Even if it can be shown that some, or even most, Christians rejected the Apocryphal books, the fact that there was uncertainty and debate for so long (Dr. White quotes Cardinal Cajetan as denying the canonicty of the Apocrypha, or at least casting doubt on it) doesn’t speak well of this view. And even if the reception of the Apocryphal books was a minority view, that would hardly prove that they are not canonical for the Protestant, given that the Protestant view on so many other things (baptism, justification, etc.) is certainly the minority view in Church history. The eventual rejection, too, of books like the Gospel of Peter and the Shepherd of Hermas, held to be canonical by some in the early Church, doesn’t seem to prove (from this argument, at least) that they were uncanonical–according to the Reformed view, the Church very early strayed from New Testament polity and doctrine on the sacraments and justification. I can certainly see the strength of the position that is being advocated in this article.

    However, I have another question (my apologies if I seem inconsistent on kind of arguing both sides…) about the Catholic position. The Council of Trent was the first ecumenical council summoned under the Pope to recognize the canon, wasn’t it? And if so, how would the Christians before Trent know with certainty what the canon was?

    Pax Christi,

    Spencer

46. Tim A. Troutman January 28th, 2010 6:40 pm :

    Ken,

    How would Trent infallibly declare to be non-canonical what popes a thousand years earlier had accepted?

    Which popes and where and in what capacity, exactly, did they do such a thing? Assuming, for the sake of the argument, that you’re right – if an ecumenical council doesn’t have the authority to do such a thing, then how did Martin Luther have the authority to do it? (Note: a pope getting the canon wrong is perfectly compatible with Catholic theology. I know you know this; just not sure why you’re bringing it up.)

    At best your argument is an appeal to several individuals, none of whom, including the pope, carry the full authority of the Church. The lack of convergence among individual Catholics in the early Church is a well known fact, and the article mentions this. All the more reason to believe in the Catholic canon – it was delivered to us by the Church and not the university (unlike the Protestant canon).

47. Andrew McCallum January 29th, 2010 12:50 am :

    So the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit is intrisic to the process.

    Tom,

    The way I would state this is that Protestants will speak of the various internal evidences that demonstrate that it is the Word of God. The books of the Bible were not just picked at random, they really do evidence the hand of God on them and we can see it. There certainly is quite a bit of discussion of such things in Reformed and Protestant literature. If an author has no reason to be discussing it, the role of the Church may not be mentioned. But we fully realize that if a Muslim or an atheist or a Catholic reads such a passage he will have objections over things that would not have been a point of contention with a Protestant reader. So you as a Catholic are bringing up the specific issue of the Church and we should not then talk about the internal work of the Spirit in His Word unless we also speak of the role of the Church. I think F.F. Bruce does this. He speaks of the various internal evidences of the Scriptures, but he then moves to the fact that these evidences were used by the Early Church to authenticate the various canonical books. So when you as a Catholic ask me about how we got the canon I would not want to refer you to a Protestant work that only spoke about the internal evidences of divine authorship unless the author placed these evidences within the context of the Church.

    You disagree with Herman Ridderbos, then.

    Here is Ridderbos from his work, Revelation and the Bible:
    “The Church cannot “make” or “lay down” its own standard. All that the Church can lay down is this, that it has received the Canon as a standard and rule for faith and life, handed down to it with absolute authority.”

    Ridderbos teaches here that it is the Church who receives the canon. I’m not sure about the quote from Ridderbos that you refer to. Perhaps he was critiquing another position? At face value it would seem to contradict what I have just quoted from him, but I don’t have access to the work you cite. Anyway, I agree with what Ridderbos says in my quote of him above.

    But the very act of answering the Canon Question inherently involves an extra-Biblical fallible human judgment, unless one is preserved from error by the Holy Spirit. This fallible human judgment, by defining the criterion of canon, exercises power over the canon itself. And as I just noted, power over the canon is power over Scripture. Therefore, absent the Holy Spirit’s preserving one from error, to answer the Canon Question is to exercise power over Scripture, and to place one’s judgment over Scripture. So to answer the Canon Question is to violate the doctrine of sola scriptura by placing something over the Christian’s sole infallible authority. If Protestants see the Catholic Church as placing herself ‘over’ Scripture simply by articulating the canon of Scripture, so too they should see answers to the Canon Question culled from human reason or extra-Biblical evidence as being ‘over’ Scripture. Since Protestants see the former as violating sola scriptura, there is no principled reason not to see the latter as a violation of sola scriptura.

    Well again, if it’s a matter of our individual judgment over the canon then we are all going to have different canons. But if like Ridderbos in my quote, we see that the Church received the canon and received it with absolute authority then we will reject the concept of each of us making our own judgment on the matter. And to qualify the statement about absolute authority, from my standpoint the difference between Catholic and Protestant is just where the locus of this absolute and infallible authority lies. Does it lie with the Church herself or does it reside just with God who works through the Church?

48. Andrew McCallum January 29th, 2010 1:04 am :

    Herbert says this: “Which Scriptures are valid Scriptures?” Is the question here, correct? Is your query, then, not a textbook case of begging the question? Are you not assuming “the Scriptures” to be what you hold them to be despite the fact that “what the Scriptures are” is the very thing in question?

    Herbert,

    I assume you are speaking of the differences between Catholic, EO, and Protestant on the canon. I did not want to get into that with Tom because it seems like at the outset we can simplify the matter somewhat if we are just speaking of the Protocanonicals. But concerning what you would speak of as the Dueterocanonicals, it appears to us that while they did enjoy popularity in some geographies such as North Africa, there is little consensus during the Medieval Era as to the canonicity of these works. Tom talks about Jerome not arguing for the exact same canon than the Protestants, but there is little unqualified support for these additional books at this point and really through the Middle Ages.

    So we can talk about the Protocanonicals as standing unquestioned after the time of Athanasius, but we cannot say the same of the Apocrypha/Dueterocanonicals.

49. Ken Temple January 29th, 2010 1:47 am :

    Thanks Tom and Tim for some interaction.

    the question should have been “could” —

    How could Trent infallibly declare to be non-canonical what popes a thousand years earlier had accepted?

    I guess I was assuming that some Popes did approve of the canons of Hippo and Carthage later in the fourth and fifth Centuries. Roman Catholic apologetics claim there was a council of Rome in 382 where Pope Damasus approved of the same canon as Hippo and Carthage.

    Was there a council of Rome in 382?

    If 1 Esdras was wrong at Rome, Hippo, and Carthage, and corrected by Trent, doesn’t that prove the whole infallibility of the Pope doctrine wrong?

    Maybe the question should have been, “how could Trent declare to be non-canonical what some popes and earlier councils had accepted?”

    The point is, Trent changed the earlier canons of Hippo and Carthage, on the Esdras issue, and that, according to RCC theology means that God was not guiding the Church infallibly for many centuries on that issue.

    if an ecumenical council doesn’t have the authority to do such a thing, then how did Martin Luther have the authority to do it? In RCC theology the ecumenical council does have that authority; but not in Protestant theology. Truth is more important than the person/position/office itself, for humans. Neither Popes nor councils are infallible; only the word of God, the Scriptures are infallible.

    Note: a pope getting the canon wrong is perfectly compatible with Catholic theology. I know you know this; just not sure why you’re bringing it up.)

    Actually, I did not know that that would be compatible with Catholic theology. If a Pope is speaking in his pastoral capacity / office as Shepherd of the Church, and on the faith and moral issues, it would presumably be an ex cathedra statement, right?

    Anyway, the main point is that you are claiming that God is guiding infallibly the church all through history, according to your view, isn’t that Ecclesial Deism when he let 1 Esras go for so long as thought to be canonical?

    And wasn’t that Ecclesial Deism when the Arians were in charge for 60 years ??

50. Ken Temple January 29th, 2010 1:54 am :

    Bryan wrote:

    It would be ad hoc to maintain that God will guide His Church to recognize the canon, but not guide His Church to recognize orthodoxy from heresy between 451 to 1517. (There is plenty even before 451 in the Church’s belief and practice that Protestants reject, as I point out in my ecclesial deism article.)

    If God allowed the Arians to get control and promote heresy for 60 years ( after 325 – 400 ?? I am not taking time to look it all up; you know what I mean); then who’s to say He cannot allow RCC doctrines and practices and heresies to be promoted from 451 to 1517?

51. Tim A. Troutman January 29th, 2010 10:27 am :

    Spencer,

    The Council of Trent was the first ecumenical council summoned under the Pope to recognize the canon, wasn’t it? And if so, how would the Christians before Trent know with certainty what the canon was?

    The councils of Rome and Carthage, though not ecumenical, were ratified by a pope and did affirm the 73 books of the Catholic canon in the 4th century.

    The canon, for the early Christians, simply meant the books which were allowed to be read in the liturgy. The canon never has been a collection of books to base the faith on. Christianity is not a ‘religion of the book’ like Islam or Judaism. This is an important point because had sola scriptura actually been believed in the early Church, we would have expected that the very first thing the Church would ever do is to clarify the canon, but this barely seems to be on their radar. Given sola scriptura, how could the Church hold a council on the Trinity when they didn’t know which books, alone, were inspired and authoritative ?

52. Devin Rose January 29th, 2010 10:33 am :

    Spencer,

    I would add to Tim’s reply that the Ecumenical Council of Florence in the 1400s [NB: before the Reformation] also listed the canon, though it did not dogmatically decree it (as Trent did a century later).

53. Randy January 29th, 2010 11:09 am :

    Ken,
    Actually, I did not know that that would be compatible with Catholic theology. If a Pope is speaking in his pastoral capacity / office as Shepherd of the Church, and on the faith and moral issues, it would presumably be an ex cathedra statement, right?
    He needs to be intending to bind the consciences of all Catholics on the matter. Most teaching, even in papal encyclicals, does not meet this criteria.

    Anyway, the main point is that you are claiming that God is guiding infallibly the church all through history, according to your view, isn’t that Ecclesial Deism when he let 1 Esras go for so long as thought to be canonical?
    If 1 Esras was a central point of the faith that would be a problem. I don’t see it. It does not prove Ecclesial Deism when the church struggles to reach clarity on a matter. God can let us struggle and not let us fall.

    And wasn’t that Ecclesial Deism when the Arians were in charge for 60 years ??
    It sure looked bad than. But we often are tempted towards deism whne troubles arise in our personal lives. It is not surprising that some might be tempted to believe that when troubles arise in the life of the church. But we believe God is in charge as a matter of faith. History bears this out. God does preserve His church through any storm. The storm ends up proving Him faithful.

54. Tim A. Troutman January 29th, 2010 11:23 am :

    Ken,

    You said:

    In RCC theology the ecumenical council does have that authority; but not in Protestant theology. Truth is more important than the person/position/office itself, for humans. Neither Popes nor councils are infallible; only the word of God, the Scriptures are infallible.

    You said the “scriptures are infallible” which just begs the very thing in question in this article. Which Scriptures and how do you know? Given Protestant theology, the only way you can know which Scriptures are infallible is through fallible means, hence the inconsistency we’re pointing out. Instead of showing why your position is not inconsistent, you’re trying to show a contradiction in Catholic theology. Even if you succeed, you are still left with the problem of inconsistency.

    If a Pope is speaking in his pastoral capacity / office as Shepherd of the Church, and on the faith and moral issues, it would presumably be an ex cathedra statement, right?

    Yes, if he pronounces it as binding on all of the faithful. If you can show that the pope did this regarding the inerrancy of a book that Trent rejected as errant, then you will show him to be in contradiction with Trent. Also note that “canonical”, especially at that time, did not mean “part of the book which alone is inerrant and constitutes the sole basis for our faith,” but rather meant that it was eligible to be read in liturgy.

    I’m not saying one way or the other because I’m just not very studied on the subject, but it is quite possible, maybe even probable, that they were answering two very different questions in regards to the canon at Trent and the earlier councils.

    And wasn’t that Ecclesial Deism when the Arians were in charge for 60 years ??

    We don’t believe in Ecclesial Deism; we don’t believe God ever left His Church nor will He.

55. Ken Temple January 29th, 2010 11:58 am :

    Yes, if he pronounces it as binding on all of the faithful.

    How does the RCC determine that? The precise definition was created in 1870 right? At the time of their decisions, pronouncements, encyclicals, etc. – they always intended everything to be binding on all Roman Catholics. Otherwise, why would they write a bull or encyclical? What is the purpose if it is not binding and not spoken from “the chair of Peter”? The explanation of the Papal doctrines and dogmas doesn’t make sense at all.

    Take Boniface VIII’s statement in Unam Sanctum in 1302 AD- “It is necessary for salvation for every living creature to be submitted to the Roman Pontiff.” Sounds pretty binding.

    Those conditions about intentions being read back into history honestly seem to be an “escape hatch” to justify anything in the past that might not be true in the future upon further investigation.

56. Tim A. Troutman January 29th, 2010 1:18 pm :

    Ken,

    This thread is about the canon; we need to cut off the papal infallibility conversation. Please see Newadvent, for example, on infallibility if you want to research it.

    I think we need to re-stress that our posts shouldn’t be taken as open invitations to attack the Church in every area where one think she’s wrong. They are invitations to dialogue on the particular issues at hand, in this case the canon, and to mutually pursue truth. I’m not saying that your comments were totally irrelevant – I’m just trying to steer the conversation back on track. If I continue to answer these questions, then we’ll get far off topic. Thank you for understanding.

57. K. Doran January 29th, 2010 3:19 pm :

    I second Tim’s request for the thread to remain as directly on topic as possible. With all of the work that you guys have done in dividing up the arguments between Protestants and Catholics into easily digestible chunks with well-defined segues between them, there is no need for our attentions to meander through seemingly-related but (for the moment) tangential issues. At issue is (a) whether there is a contradiction between sola scriptura and certainty regarding the canon, and less importantly, (b) whether the actual Protestant canon was built through any of the rules by which its apologists claim it was, or whether there are exceptions to each of these rules making the exact choice of books ad hoc.

    I believe that Tom has conclusively answered both (a) and (b) in the affirmative, and it remains to the Protestant interlocutors to: (1) delve into the details of his argument without introducing general attempted tu quoques that can only be answered in the later articles that have not yet been posted on this site (or answered through some research of your own — come on guys!), and (2) to discuss the related spiritual and ecclesiastical (or maybe even personal) ramifications of Tom’s article. Both (1) and (2) are interesting and on topic — I applaud that which has appeared in those categories thus far.

    Sincerely,

    K. Doran

58. Ken Temple January 29th, 2010 5:52 pm :

    Tim and all –
    Ok, I will try to stick to the issue of the canon, but you guys are too restrictive, in my opinion; as all of these issues relate to each other. Your criterion for what is relevant and what isn’t relevant is very difficult to follow, because of the nature of how these issues are historically inter-related in church history and Roman Catholic vs. Protestant issues.

    My post still awaiting moderation is on the canon and Jerrome’s statement on the superiority of the Hebrew over the LXX (end of Book II, 34, Apology for himself against the books of Rufinus)

    and

    On Book II, 33 – that “the judgment of the churches” Jerome is talking about is about using the Theodotian version rather than the LXX of Daniel.

59. Tom Brown January 30th, 2010 4:25 pm :

    Dear Ken,

    I’m sorry that I’ve been away from internet access for two days. If you have any questions about Tim’s concerns, or about our desired scope of this combox, please e-mail me at any time. You said:

    Your main point in the OT Apocrypha section (mostly on Jerome) was that no church father held to the exact 39 book canon of the Protestant OT. It must be pointed out that Trent’s (1545-1563) decision on the Apocrypha was the first ecumenical church wide council decision on the canon, and that it also disagreed with Hippo (393) and Carthage (397).

    Speaking technically, it is irrelevant to my main point what Trent decided. Trent post-dated the Reformation, of course, and my argument is about the canon and the Reformation. Please note that I do not have an “Apocrypha” section. Also, you treat the Aprocrypha as if it is a discrete set of texts that neatly go together. There is no such set. There is a set of deuterocanonical texts, but I am not sure if this is the exact set of texts to which you refer when you discuss the Apocrypha.

    Regarding the Church Fathers you noted who did not accept the Catholic canon, including your take on Jerome, I rest on what I said to you by e-mail:

    My primary contention is that it offends the doctrine of sola scriptura to define the canon by an extra-Biblical measure. Under this doctrine, one should reject a canon criterion that essentially measures the canon by fallible, extra-Biblical historical evidence. I agree completely with Ridderbos on this point.

    You seem intent on proving that some of the early Church Fathers, and the later Cardinal Cajetan (a popular talking point for Protestant apologetics), did not stand behind the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. That’s not relevant to my point that sola scriptura cannot essentially depend on fallible, extra-Biblical historical considerations, so I believe that getting into that historical debate would only distract us from the more fundamental point dividing us Catholics and Protestants on the canon of the Bible.

    Peace in Christ,
    Tom

60. Tom Brown January 30th, 2010 6:31 pm :

    Dear Andrew,

    We’ve been discussing my argument in this article that, from the classical Reformed view, the Holy Spirit is intrinsic to the canon-formation process. You responded:

    The way I would state this is that Protestants will speak of the various internal evidences that demonstrate that it is the Word of God. The books of the Bible were not just picked at random, they really do evidence the hand of God on them and we can see it. . . . So you as a Catholic are bringing up the specific issue of the Church and we should not then talk about the internal work of the Spirit in His Word unless we also speak of the role of the Church. I think F.F. Bruce does this. He speaks of the various internal evidences of the Scriptures, but he then moves to the fact that these evidences were used by the Early Church to authenticate the various canonical books. So when you as a Catholic ask me about how we got the canon I would not want to refer you to a Protestant work that only spoke about the internal evidences of divine authorship unless the author placed these evidences within the context of the Church.

    I think your canon criterion is that evidence of canonicity, including (but not limited to) the role of the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit, should only be discussed within the context of the role of the Church in determining the canon. Also, I think you are challenging my summarization of the classical and confessional Reformed position by saying that I read books meant for other Reformed people who already understood the broader context, so I wound up taking them out of context.

    The works I cited in this article were not so limited in their scope or their intended audience. Besides, I come from the Reformed position, so am familiar with the context of these readings—I speak the language, if you will. Please note that I separately addressed in section II.D. the position that the determinations of the early Church define the canon. There I cited Bruce as an advocate of this position, just as you have cited him here in the combox. Since my response to that position (that the widespread acceptance of the Church defines the canon) is contained within the article, I will not repeat it here.

    How would you describe the relationship between the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit and the eventual “widespread acceptance” of the early Church? My opinion, which I laid out in the article, is that the classical and confessional Reformed view cannot use the testimony of the Holy Spirit as mere supporting evidence of the determination of the Church.

    Your quote from Ridderbos does not demonstrate that he believed the Church to reflect upon various evidence, including the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit, and then to determine the canon. In that quote he is only saying that the Church “received” (in the passive voice) the canon, as if it came in one piece. So he is not saying that the Church played a part in determining the canon. As I showed from his writings from several places (and I hope you can read the source some day, to see that it is not taken out of context), he believed that using “the gradually developing consensus of the church” to justify the canon “goes beyond the canon itself” and thus “posits a canon above the canon” contra “the order of redemptive history and the nature of the canon itself.” (Ridderbos, Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures, p. 35.)

    You said that if “the Church received the canon and received it with absolute authority then we will reject the concept of each of us making our own judgment on the matter.” Not to be a ninny, but the use of the passive voice when discussing the Canon Question can lead to confusion. From what or whom did the Church receive the canon? If we can simply assume that the Church ‘did receive’, then we’ve side-stepped the Canon Question completely.

    Peace in Christ,
    Tom

61. Tom Brown January 30th, 2010 6:39 pm :

    Dear Ken,

    You said: “Your criterion for what is relevant and what isn’t relevant is very difficult to follow, because of the nature of how these issues are historically inter-related in church history and Roman Catholic vs. Protestant issues.”

    In the context of addressing an argument, I define relevancy as that which makes a proposition more or less likely to be true. For example, if I argue that sola scriptura is invalid for the reasons given in this paper, then the truth or fallacy of papal infallibility is not relevant because papal infallibility does not make any of my premises more or less likely to be true. I agree that these things are all related in that the Reformation arose from the context of Catholicism, but that doesn’t make any particular point about Catholicism related to every particular argument against Protestantism. I hope that helps clear things up.

    Peace in Christ,
    Tom

62. Bryan Cross January 30th, 2010 6:44 pm :

    Ken (re: #50),

    In response to my comments in #41, you wrote:

    If God allowed the Arians to get control and promote heresy for 60 years ( after 325 – 400 ?? I am not taking time to look it all up; you know what I mean); then who’s to say He cannot allow RCC doctrines and practices and heresies to be promoted from 451 to 1517?

    I recommend that you read the ecclesial deism article. Christ’s remaining with His Church, the pillar and bulwark of truth, and the Spirit guiding her into all truth, does not mean that no individual person, parish, diocese or group of dioceses can fall into error. It means that the universal Church will never believe or teach [either in ecumenical council or by the one holding the keys of the Kingdom] as definitively to be believed or held, an error in matters of faith or morals. While many bishops were favorable toward Arianism in the fourth century, Arianism was never taught by the Church universal or by the Pope, as definitively to be held by all Catholics, nor was it ever believed by the Church universal, even though it was believed in certain parts of the Church.

    By contrast, many of the Catholic beliefs and practices that Protestants rejected in the sixteenth century had been believed by the Church universal for over a millennium, and some had been taught by the Church universal as definitively to be held by all the faithful. For this reason, insofar as Protestantism rejects such beliefs and practices, it presupposes ecclesial deism.

    As I pointed out in my previous comment, the criterion used at Trent to determine the canon was primarily: Which books are used in the liturgy in the universal Church? In the liturgy, after each reading the lector says, “The Word of the Lord.” So the question was, which books are used in the liturgy (as the “Word of the Lord”) throughout the Church universal? And the answer to that question is the canon declared infallibly at Trent. Those books had been used in the liturgy of the universal Church for over a thousand years. To reject those books, is therefore to presuppose ecclesial deism, because to reject those books, one must believe that Christ allowed the universal Church, for a thousand years, to declare falsely in the liturgy that these books were “the Word of the Lord”. Doubting the faithfulness of Christ in the ordinary Magisterium of the Church is no less a sin against faith than doubting His faithfulness in the extraordinary Magisterium. And that’s why it is consistent that Protestants deny the authority of both the ordinary and the extraordinary Magisterium. (For an explanation of the difference between these two, see paragraph 25 of Lumen Gentium.) This (objective) sin of rejecting the Church and her teaching and governing authority is an (objective) sin against faith. The reason why rejecting the Church is rejecting Christ (Lk 10:16), is precisely because ecclesial deism is false. And the reason why it is a sin to reject the Church and her divinely-appointed authority, is because doing so is to disbelieve what Christ has promised to do in and through His Church, never leaving her or forsaking her, being with her to the end of the age, preserving her as the pillar and bulwark of truth, and never allowing the gates of hell to prevail against her.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

63. Ken Temple January 30th, 2010 6:49 pm :

    Hi Tom, (and Tim and Bryan and other CtoC blogmasters)

    Tom – Thanks for your answers and emails! They are thorough and clear and I appreciate you taking time to answer me.

    You wrote:
    Speaking technically, it is irrelevant to my main point what Trent decided.

    It honestly seems that any point I seek to make is deemed as irrelevant.

    Your main point is that the Protestant views of how we know which books belong in the canon depends on fallible human, subjective things like historical evidence and the internal witness of the Holy Spirit:

    1. The internal witness of the Holy Spirit. (you cited Calvin, WCF, Belgic Confession for this) But, this is a principle derived from Scripture – “My sheep hear My voice, and they follow Me.” John 10:27ff

    I John 2:27 seems to teach this also, that believers have an anointing of the Holy Spirit to be able to discern truth from error (because John taught them and they have at least some, if not most of the written Scriptures) are able to recognize the truth and don’t need an extra teacher in an infallible sense to make decisions for them, when they can read and understand the truth from Scripture themselves. They need teachers/pastors/elders to expound the word (Ephesians 4:11-12, I Timothy 3, 2 Timothy, I Peter 5:1-5; Titus), but they don’t need a teacher in the RC sense of an “infallible Magisterium” to tell them dogmatically what is the truth, because they have the truth, the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit, and can discern. If we are growing spiritually and submitted to the Spirit, 1 Cor. 2:14-16 says we have discernment and the mind of Christ. Galatians 4:6 and Romans 8:16 also teach us that we have the Holy Spirit and He testifies with our spirit that we are children of God. If we are His children, His sheep, then we can hear His voice in the Scriptures and discern what is God-breathed and what is not. Whatever is God-breathed is canon/standard/rule/criterion.

    2. Early church testimony/ historical evidence (ie. Matthew is from apostle Matthew; Mark wrote for Peter ( Papias, Irenaeus, Eusebius) and statements such as Tertullian proposing that Barnabas wrote Hebrews (because he was a Levite (Acts 4:36 – details of the temple, chapters 7-10), “son of encouragement” – with 13:22 – brief letter of exhortation; and the fact that Barnabas is called an apostle in Acts 14:4; 14:14. That Luke wrote under Paul’s apostolic authority, etc. That John actually wrote Gospel of John, 3 letters, Revelation, and Peter wrote 2 epistles, etc. Jude and James were eventually accepted because of their internal qualities of being “God-breathed” and because they were the brothers of Jesus and James was the first bishop of Jerusalem in Acts 15 and he is called an apostle in Galatians 1:19 and I Cor. 15:7. We don’t mind depending on the early church for this information, because we have no other evidence that contradicts this; unless one wants to become liberal and give up faith in Christ, which is impossible for a true believer. (John Henry Newman seemed to talk about this in one of his essays – become either RC or unbeliever; he said Protestantism is no middle ground. By the way, does anyone know where that is? I cannot find it again, I forgot where I read it.)

    3. Apostolic authorship or association with an apostle or under an apostle’s direction or approval. We know this from # 2 mostly, but also from internal indicators.

    4. Internal self-attestation of the books themselves being “God-breathed”. They have the inherent quality of being Theopneustos. (“God-breathed”- 2 Timothy 3:16) This, along with no. 1, are usually used together for Protestants.

    You are saying those 4 (or others that other Protestants may have come up with) are fallible means of knowing, (because 1 and 4 are subjective and 2 and 3 are the historical evidence/early church testimony, which is outside of Scripture itself; ie, not actually written out explicitly in the text for every 66 book of the Protestant canon.

    Therefore, your claim is that it violates Sola Scriptura, because Sola Scriptura is the view that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith for the church, but we use fallible means like historical evidence and the early church testimony (RCC = “tradition”) and fallible human subjective means like, “the Holy Spirit tells me in my heart”.

    Do I understand you right?

    My answer to that is that Sola Scriptura, as understood by Luther, Calvin, the WCF and other Reformed and conservative Protestants all the way to today have never claimed that Sola Scriptura included within it the requirement that all historical background knowledge about a book had to be written out explicitly in the text of a book. For example, Paul identifies himself in all his letters, but he doesn’t always write in every book, “This whole letter is the God-breathed word of God.” Matthew does not say, “I, Matthew-Levi, the former tax-collector and disciple of Jesus Christ, am writing this to you.” Mark does not say in his text, “I am John Mark, writing down the sermons of the apostle Peter and this is God-breathed Scripture and therefore canon”, etc.

    Your demands on the texts of the Bible are too high, and they were never part of the definition of Sola Scriptura. Historical evidence and sound reason and the testimony of the Holy Spirit are good enough, because our knowledge is always fallible because we are fallible humans, and our faith is human faith and trust in an infallible God and a perfect Christ and an inerrant/infallible text of Scripture. We don’t need infallible knowledge or certainty because we don’t trust in ourselves. We are trusting with mustard seed faith in the infallible God who wrote the infallible texts.

    Trent post-dated the Reformation, of course, and my argument is about the canon and the Reformation.

    But Trent was the RCC response/reaction to the Reformation, right? It seems pretty connected to me.

    My point is that Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397) and the so called “Council of Rome” in 382 under Damasus had a different canon than Trent did of those disputed books ( Apocrypha or Deutero-canonicals). (I Esdras) Trent changed what was understood by some parts of the Church and some leaders of the Roman Catholic Church for centuries, and we are all admitting that it was not clear to everybody at the same time, because of the statements that I showed you from Jerome, and Athanasius ( he clearly called most of the books of the current RCC Deutero-canonicals, “good for edification, but not in the canon” – Festal letter 39); just as Jerome did. They accepted those 3 sections of Daniel (Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, and the Prayer of the 3 Hebrew Children) because the manuscripts available to them at that time had them embedded in the text; and Baruch because the LXX Greek was attached to the LXX Jeremiah. ( I suppose. It is well known that the LXX of Jeremiah is very bad and no credible scholar relies on it over the Hebrew.) The others (Tobit, Judith, 1-2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach) were rejected by Jerome and Athanasius, Melito of Sardis, Origen, Gregory the Great (601) (maybe only Maccabees, I don’t know what Gregory thought about the others), and Cardinal Cajetan (1520s, at the time of Luther). There are others, but I mention only a few of the more prominent ones.

    Please note that I do not have an “Apocrypha” section.

    True, I was just calling it that myself without having to go back and spend time on your exact title of your section. Ok, I was talking about the “B. THE ORIGINAL HEBREW OLD TESTAMENT” section and the area where you have three footnotes, about Jerome and the references to Daniel (Apology for himself Against the books of Rufinus), Tobias, and Judith. The section where you discuss Jerome and footnotes 70, 71, and 72.

    Also, you treat the Aprocrypha as if it is a discrete set of texts that neatly go together. There is no such set.

    Enlighten me on exactly what you are getting at; as you may be thinking of a few minor points of different set of books, that both RCC and Protestants reject; or NT Apocrypha, or the Pseudopigripha, etc.

    There is a set of deuterocanonical texts, but I am not sure if this is the exact set of texts to which you refer when you discuss the Apocrypha.

    It is the same thing, right? – those books, written in the Inter-testamental period, (400 BC- around the time of Christ) accepted by Hippo and Carthage and were later pronounced at Dogma as “Deutero-canonicals” at Trent; minus 1 Esdras. Protestant call them “the Apocrypha” and Roman Catholics call them “Deutero-canonicals”; right?

64. Tom Brown January 30th, 2010 8:30 pm :

    Dear Ken,

    Thank you for taking up the points in my section II. My main point is not that Protestants depend on subjective things to determine the canon, but that is close. I summarized my point in the article’s penultimate paragraph – I refer to reliability vice subjectivity as a problem. I will take up your comments on my section II in turn, but I also refer you to my critical section III, in which I argued that even to answer the Canon Question violates sola scriptura.

    1. You defended the internal-witness-of-the-Holy-Spirit canon criterion as itself being derived from Scripture. You mentioned, “My sheep hear My voice, and they follow Me” and the passage in 1 John 2 about our knowing truth from the anointing of the Holy Spirit.

    As I argued, this method of determining the canon lacks reliability, and has been refuted by historical experience. If I told you that I believe the Book of Wisdom to be God-breathed (which I do), how would you refute this? Is the Holy Spirit leading me to its truth, or merely permitting me to believe it to be true? The Protestant 66-book canon did not appear until the 16th century. If that is the true canon, and if the Holy Spirit leads true believers to the canon, then we would have to conclude that God the Holy Spirit had a reason to wait for over 15 centuries before leading us into this important truth.

    2. I think that you defended the canon criterion that accepts that which received widespread acceptance from the early church Early or that which was written by an apostle by stating generally that historical evidence supports the books in the Protestant Bible. That the testimony of the Church Fathers supports the likes of Mark’s writing for Peter is not in dispute. But how do you respond to my argument that, within the framework of sola scriptura, the use of such extra-Biblical testimony to define the canon places something outside of Scripture above Scripture? If you’re going with apostolicity, who were official “apostles” for this purpose, and how do you know? With what degree of confidence can you demonstrate that Mark, Luke, Acts, Hebrews, James, and Jude were apostolic? If this is the measure of canonicity, we can only be as confident in the canonicity of these texts as we are in their apostolic authorship.

    3. If your #3 was distinct from #2, I’m not sure what you were arguing in #2.

    4. Finally, you argue that the Biblical books themselves possess the inherent quality of being God-breathed. I took this up in #1 above.

    You then restated my position and asked if you had it right. Except that I spoke of reliability vice subjectivity, I think your restatement is accurate.

    You said:

    My answer to that is that Sola Scriptura, as understood by Luther, Calvin, the WCF and other Reformed and conservative Protestants all the way to today have never claimed that Sola Scriptura included within it the requirement that all historical background knowledge about a book had to be written out explicitly in the text of a book. . . .
    Your demands on the texts of the Bible are too high, and they were never part of the definition of Sola Scriptura. Historical evidence and sound reason and the testimony of the Holy Spirit are good enough, because our knowledge is always fallible because we are fallible humans, and our faith is human faith and trust in an infallible God and a perfect Christ and an inerrant/infallible text of Scripture. We don’t need infallible knowledge or certainty because we don’t trust in ourselves.

    Regarding whether the doctrine of sola scriptura includes within its reach the evidence considered when determining the canon, do you disagree with my definition of the doctrine of sola scriptura? I take it that your answer is “no”, since you say that my demands on the texts of the Bible are too high. You seem to be agreeing with R. C. Sproul in your belief that our knowledge of the contents of the infallible Bible rest on fallible human determinations. I addressed this in the article as follows:

    If it is possible that wrong books were included in the canon, then it is also possible that right books could have been omitted. In this theological environment, our confidence in and obligation to submit to any scriptural text extends only as far as our confidence in the propriety of the text’s inclusion in the canon in the first place. In other words, we can have no more confidence in the infallibility of the content included than we have in the process by which it was included. But in the Protestant scheme, because the process which yielded the canon is fallible, Protestantism cannot have complete confidence in the content of its canon.

    I would be curious to hear your response to this. How compelling is this view of the canon for non-Christians to whom we witness, and whose trust we hope to win?

    Quickly, regarding the canons of Hippo, Carthage, and Trent, Carthage and Hippo do not need to agree perfectly with Trent for my point to stand. They show that the 4th century Church did not use a Protestant 39-book Old Testament. Note that Trent’s attention to the canon wasn’t an exercise in futility; the previous councils had not been General (universal), so were not binding on the entire Church.

    Quickly, regarding the word “apocrypha,” its use can lead to confusion, as I am confused by yours. If you mean to refer to the texts accepted by Catholics but rejected by Protestants, it might help to refer instead to “the Catholic deuterocanon,” or even “the so-called deuterocanon” if you prefer. There are other texts that both Protestants and Catholic would call apocryphal. When the original KJV included apocryphal books (for edifiication), it included the deuterocanon plus other texts.

    Peace in Christ,
    Tom

65. Andrew McCallum January 31st, 2010 5:07 pm :

    Tom, you said:
    I think your canon criterion is that evidence of canonicity, including (but not limited to) the role of the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit, should only be discussed within the context of the role of the Church in determining the canon.

    Tom,

    We all we have to address the issue of the role that the Church played in God’s work of writing of Scriptures and their collection in the canon. The Church’s role is inescapable and the Protestant who speaks of relying on his judgment to determine the canon is just being less thn intellectually honest IMO.

    Also, I think you are challenging my summarization of the classical and confessional Reformed position by saying that I read books meant for other Reformed people who already understood the broader context, so I wound up taking them out of context.

    Here I just wanted to point out that in many Protestant writings the role of the Church is not under consieration because there is no point of dispute to be resolved. For one Protestant speaking to another, if they are already in agreement about the role of hte Church in receiving the canon, the discussion will likely focus on the criteria that an inpried book demoinstrates or does not demonstrate. In such cases the writer is not trying to defend any and all critiques of the formation of the canon. We fully realize that a Muslim or an atheist or a Catholic will have objections which just are not being addressed in the work under consideration. So it’s not that I don’t think you should be considering Calvin for instance, just that you should note that what is there may not be camprehensive apologetic on the matter of the reception of the canon.

    How would you describe the relationship between the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit and the eventual “widespread acceptance” of the early Church?

    There is a very real sense in which the “proof” of the fact that God has inspired certain texts is that they do what God intended them to do. God has promied that His Word will accomplish certain things. If those promises never came true then these promises would be rather hollow. So God does impress on the life of the individual believer such proofs and these proofs are the same ones that believers have experienced for 2000 years. They are the same promises that we hear the ECF’s speak of so many centuries ago. But the methodology by which the texts were collected was not some sort of collective consciousness of all believers, it was by the peculiar work of the Church that God accomplished this. I don’t find any contradiction between speaking of God’s using the Bible to transform the life of the individual believer and His work in establishing the collection of the books that are inspired through the agency of His Church.

    You said that if “the Church received the canon and received it with absolute authority then we will reject the concept of each of us making our own judgment on the matter.” Not to be a ninny, but the use of the passive voice when discussing the Canon Question can lead to confusion. From what or whom did the Church receive the canon? If we can simply assume that the Church ‘did receive’, then we’ve side-stepped the Canon Question completely.

    This passive consturction was just what many of the ECF’s used to describe the role the Church played in the formation of the canon. Athanasius’ discussions on the matter come to mind.

66. Ken Temple January 31st, 2010 8:06 pm :

    Hi Tom,
    For clarification –

    What does this mean?

    “I refer to reliability vice subjectivity as a problem.”

    vice ? I don’t understand this sentence and the way the word “vice” is used.

    Sincerely,
    Ken Temple

67. Tom Brown January 31st, 2010 11:31 pm :

    Dear Ken,

    After I wrote my draft for this article, one of my editors told me to take out the word “vice” because it was a lawyer word, not used in regular parlance. I reluctantly agreed, but then neglected that advice in the combox. I guess he was right!!!

    By “vice” I mean “as opposed to” or “in place of.” It’s a minor point, but I was not simply critiquing the classical Reformed criterion for being subjective, but for being unreliable (specifically, for being subjective to the point of being unreliable).

    Peace in Christ,
    Tom

68. Tom Brown January 31st, 2010 11:52 pm :

    Dear Andrew,

    I’m having a hard time pinning down the canon criterion you believe Christians (or the Church) have (has) properly applied. You told me that “We all we have to address the issue of the role that the Church played in God’s work of writing of Scriptures and their collection in the canon.” But I am not arguing about whether we have to address the role of the Church in the process. I agree that we do have to address it. My question is how do you address it? In other words, if someone were to ask you why Christians believe book X, Y, and Z are of the set of infallible books, what would your answer be?

    Based on a previous comment, I thought it was your view that a text is canonical if the Church came to accept it as canonical. But from your most recent comment, it seems that you rely primarily on the “proof” of inspiration that appears from texts doing “what God intended them to do” – that is, you rely on some internal quality of a text to attest to its own divine inspiration and thus canonicity. Is this your view, that the canon is measured primarily by its internal qualities, and secondarily by the Church’s recognition of those qualities?

    Thanks for the clarification of your point that I should note where source authors were not intending to be comprehensive. I rest on my earlier statement that the authors I cited were intending comprehensively to address the matter of the canon, either by writing a sort of survey on the topic or by writing very much with intellectual opponents in mind. In my reading of Calvin on the canon, I am left with the clear impression that he has the Catholic view, critique, or challenge in mind and is attempting to meet it with his own arguments. He was a lawyer, and the way he goes about writing on the canon is definitely a lawyerly way (e.g., “But a most pernicious error widely prevails…”). He is meeting what he understands to be the Catholic position head on. This part of our discussion is probably not helpful to the reading audience. What would be helpful is if you could show where I have misrepresented or underrepresented what is the full Reformed view of the canon.

    When I asked from what or whom did the Church receive the canon, you replied: “This passive [construction] was just what many of the ECF’s used to describe the role the Church played in the formation of the canon. Athanasius’ discussions on the matter come to mind.” This does not answer my question. I didn’t mean to criticize you (or Athanasius) for using the passive voice, but really, I’m curious who the actor is in these discussions about the Church having received the canon.

    Peace in Christ,
    Tom

69. Andrew McCallum February 1st, 2010 9:59 am :

    Tom said:
    But I am not arguing about whether we have to address the role of the Church in the process. I agree that we do have to address it. My question is how do you address it?

    Tom – You have quoted a number of Reformed folks who have spoken of the internal testimony of the Spirit as evidence of the inclusion of a given book into the canon. And you seem to be treating these quotes as if the writer is presenting a comprehensve apologetic to you. So what I’m pointint first is that the role that the Church played may not be the subject under consideration in such disucssions, and second that we Protestants are not trying to avoid the role that the Church played in bringing the canon into formation.

    So on the “how” question – In the 4th paragraph in Section III. you say, The Catholic or Orthodox Christian will point to the work of the Holy Spirit in the visible Church as the basis for his articulation of the canon, which work is seen in sacred tradition. 140 But because the Protestant system rejects basing the canon of Scripture on tradition or any other authority, and rejects that the Holy Spirit works infallibly through the visible Church, it must find some other basis for whatever test or criterion leads to the 66-book canon. If the basis for the Protestant articulation of a canon test is man’s reasoning, then the canon produced is no more reliable than the fallible reasoning that is at its base.

    So I am disagreeing with your assessment of the Protestant mindset above. We also believe that God established the canon via the work of the Holy Spirit through the visible Church. The point of distinction between us from what I can see is where the locus of infallibility lies. Is it the Church which is given a special charism of infallibility or is it God who works infallibly through a fallible Church to produce an infallible canon? We see no reason to be ascribing infallibility to the Church to determine infallibility any more than we need to accord infallibility to the individual writers of the books. So for instance, Luke did not need to be infallible in his own person to write an infallible book if God who inspired Him is working through the process. So likewise the Church did not need to be infallible to comprehend God’s purpose in the canon if God who worked through the Church via the agency of the Holy Spirit is infallible.

    Now delving further into the “how” question we get all of the analysis of the criteria that the various theologians of the Early Church used to understand whether a given book should be understood to be part of God’s Word. F.F. Bruce goes into great detail as to what characteristic that ECF’s saw in the canonical texts to assure them that these books were what God intended to be part of the canon. There is a an internal testimony to these books, that is, they show the marks of God’s hand on them rather than just the hand of man. Another way of saying this is that ECF’s did not pick the texts of Scripture at random, they picked them because they had the umistakable hand of God on them. It is these internal criteria that often get discussed by Protestant writers.

    I’m curious who the actor is in these discussions about the Church having received the canon.

    I’m not sure what you mean by this. The “actors” who did the receiving were the theologians of the Early Church.

70. Ken Temple February 1st, 2010 1:29 pm :

    Hi Tom,
    I only have time to deal with some of what you wrote, I am dividing it in to manageable units for me, as I have to go out of town for my work/job.

    You wrote, (see below) following my reference to 1 John 2:27, that the Holy Spirit does give us discernment to know truth from error; so we can discern which books are true and which are not, but that does not discount hard study, historical research, backgrounds, language studies, sound exegesis, and spiritual maturity. Although all believers have the Holy Spirit, that is not an excuse for laziness or putting subjective “the Holy Spirit told me” over sound exegesis and context and historical background studies. And 1 Cor. 2:14-16 teaches that spiritual discernment is for the mature, and so the people of God still need godly teachers to teach them the Scriptures. (elders/pastors/teachers – Ephesians 4:11-12; I Timothy 3, Titus 1:5ff; Acts 14:23)

    You wrote,
    As I argued, this method of determining the canon lacks reliability, and has been refuted by historical experience.

    Actually, I think that the facts below show otherwise.

    If I told you that I believe the Book of Wisdom to be God-breathed (which I do), how would you refute this?

    The book of Wisdom claims to have been written by Solomon, and it was written sometime in 1-2 century BC; since Solomon lived around 931 BC, this makes it is a false writing because of this pseudonym. (see reference below – it is deceptive to claim the author is Solomon “Thou has chosen me to be king, and to build the temple”, etc. This makes it not “Theopneustos”.

    The Jews reported that prophesy stopped from around 430 BC (Nehemiah, Malachi and Chronicles being the last books written of the OT); and Christians believe it started back up with the ministry of John Baptist. The Gospels even use key verses from the book of Malachi for John’s ministry, as if to say “this is where prophesy left off; and we are starting it back up again” – Malachi 4:6 (Luke 1:17) and 3:1 (quoted in Mark 1:2 and Matthew 11:10, 14; Luke 1:76; 7:27)

    “Although the author’s name is nowhere given in the text, the writer was traditionally believed to be King Solomon because of references such as that found in IX:7-8, “Thou hast chosen me to be a king of thy people, and a judge of thy sons and daughters: Thou hast commanded me to build a temple upon thy holy mount…” The formulation here is similar to that of Ecclesiastes I:12, “I, Koheleth, was king in Jerusalem over Israel,” which also fails to denote Solomon by name, but leaves no doubt as to whom the reader should identify as the author. The early Christian community showed some awareness that the book was not actually authored by Solomon, as the Muratorian fragment notes that the book was “written by the friends of Solomon in his honor.” The traditional attribution of The Book of Wisdom to Solomon has been soundly rejected in modern times. Says the Catholic Encyclopedia: “at the present day, it is freely admitted that Solomon is not the writer of the Book of Wisdom, which has been ascribed to him because its author, through a literary fiction, speaks as if he were the Son of David.” Although the book of Wisdom is also called the Wisdom of Solomon, it was most likely composed centuries after the death of King Solomon.”
    Scholars believe that the book represents the most classical Greek language found in the Septuagint, having been written during the Jewish Hellenistic period (the 1st or 2nd century BC). The author of the text appears well versed in the popular philosophical, religious, and ethical writings adopted by Hellenistic Alexandria.” (Wikipedia entry on the Wisdom of Solomon) I don’t have time for deeper research into the book; and someone would need to show evidence that refutes what this article is saying.
    It may have devotional value and some general truth; but it does not seem to be “God-breathed”. I have not studied it in depth; I just looked at it again on line to get a feel for it.

    Is the Holy Spirit leading me to its truth, or merely permitting me to believe it to be true?

    If it is not “God –breathed” or canonical; then the Holy Spirit is not leading you to think it is truth. God is sovereign and permits lots of things to happen that are not His moral/prescriptive will.

    I am just asking the question, no offense is intended:
    Did you come to believe that the “Wisdom of Solomon” was inspired before you submitted to the Bishop of Rome as infallible, or afterward?

    If afterward, please don’t be offended, I am only asking questions; then you are probably following the supposed infallible judgment of Trent (and Vatican I) on this; in spite of the historical evidence. Is this true?

71. JJS February 2nd, 2010 4:02 pm :

    Andrew/Ken,

    You both bring up interesting points (and I am glad you two have the tanacity to stick with these dialogues — I usually fade out after a few days).

    Andrew, my guess is that Tom will respond to your question, “Did Luke need to be infallible in his person in order to write an infallible gospel?” by saying something like, “No, he didn’t, and neither are we claiming the the bishops of the CC are infallible in their persons. In fact, we are saying the exact same thing about their infallibility as we are saying about Luke’s, namely, that it is only exercised under certain conditions (such as when each is acting in his official capacity).” That said, though, I think your overall point stands: God doesn’t need the human agent to be infallible in order for him to bring about his will infallibly. If he did, then wouldn’t every act of God’s providence require an infallible creature to bring it to pass? Was that sparrow that fell to the ground infallible?

    Ken: You’re pinpointing the exact concerns I and others have with Rome, namely, that they tend to dismiss objections by invoking a kind of Catholic VanTilianism. So if you say that the word dikaioo doesn’t mean what they say it means, but it means something like acquittal, they will say, “Well, we don’t go to pagan Jewish or liberal German lexicographers to determine what the words in OUR Book mean. We are the ones with the authority to determine what dikaioo means.” Same with many of the historical objections to Rome’s claims like, say, that popes after Honorius routinely declared him to be a heretic. I guess what I’m saying is that for all Rome’s claims about the benefits of being able to pinpoint via an appeal to history the bishops who still hold apostolic authority, they sometimes seem to dismiss the same kinds of historical inquiry when it fails to yield the conclusions they agree with.

72. Tom Brown February 2nd, 2010 6:46 pm :

    Dear Andrew,

    In the portion of my writing that you quoted, I was not speaking of a “Protestant mindset.” I was speaking instead of Protestant doctrine. If you believe that I have misstated or misinterpreted that doctrine, please let me know. I reached these conclusions in my article:

    (1) The Protestant system rejects that the Holy Spirit works infallibly through the visible Church.
    (2) The Protestant system cannot base the canon of Scripture on tradition or any other authority, because doing so would place such authority above Scripture.
    (3) We can only have as much confidence in the Protestant canon as we have in the process by which it was delivered to us.

    You said in reply that the canon comes through the Holy Spirit acting through the visible Church. The distinction you gave, as I understood it, was that God works infallibly through a fallible Church in giving us our canon. But as I said of R. C. Sproul’s position, we can have no more assurance in the canon than we have in the process by which it was delivered to us. I agree that God can deliver a work through the fallible Church that is free from error. But what is your assurance that this particular teaching was transmitted without error through the fallible Church? If we deny that the Holy Spirit preserved the Church from error when teaching us about the faith, it is ad hoc to claim that the Church was preserved from error in delivering the canon.

    I think your answer might be that we have “all of the analysis of the criteria that the various theologians of the Early Church used.” But their analysis is highly debatable, as you can see from my discussion with Ken about how to handle Jerome, or what conclusions to draw from Jerome’s works. F. F. Bruce does not solve this problem, and instead ultimately relies upon other criteria to settle disputes left in place after a survey of the early Church Fathers’ works. (I discussed Bruce’s treatment extensively; please let me know if you think I got him wrong). If you rely instead (or additionally) on the internal testimony of the canonical books, how do you respond to my comments about the inherent unreliability of this method (see, e.g., the text accompanying footnote 18 and the two paragraphs above that)?

    You said, “Another way of saying this is that ECF’s did not pick the texts of Scripture at random, they picked them because they had the u[n]mistakable hand of God on them.” If that is so, why is it that not one single early Church Father articulated a canon that matched the Protestant Old Testament? Does that not disprove your theory that the canonical books, unlike the non-canonical, bear testimony of the “unmistakable hand of God”?

    Peace in Christ,
    Tom

73. K. Doran February 2nd, 2010 6:50 pm :

    JJS,

    Plenty of Catholics accept that Honorius taught heretical doctrines. We just see absolutely no convincing evidence that he attempted to teach them infallibly. See Dom John Chapman’s work, the Condemnation of Pope Honorius:

    https://www.archive.org/stream/a620530200chapuoft#page/n5/mode/2up

    Sincerely,

    K. Doran

74. Tim A. Troutman February 2nd, 2010 6:51 pm :

    Jason,

    I haven’t been following the dialogue closely between Andrew, Ken, and Tom, so maybe I’m missing something or re-stating something that has already been said, but the analogy you reference is insufficient. The problem isn’t whether or not God can effect an infallible process or inerrant result through (ordinarily) fallible means. I’m sure Tom never claimed that so I think you are beating up a straw man.

    The problem is inconsistency and a lack of several key principled distinctions. Protestantism says that we trust God to use the Church to recognize the canon, on which we will base our faith, but we will not trust anything else the Church says if we consider her, according to our private judgement, to contradict anything contained in that canon (which she told us about). The Catholic faith, in contradistinction, trusts both the Church, qua Church, and the canon. This is internally consistent.

75. Tom Brown February 2nd, 2010 7:16 pm :

    Dear Ken,

    I think that the Spirit-leads-believers-to-truth method of determining the true canon is unreliable and has been refuted by historical experience. I do not see how adding a layer about the Christian’s duty to study carefully solves this problem.

    You have found studies and apologetics on the canon, and know a good deal about the canon, but this does not change the fact that not one single early Church Father articulated a canon matching the Protestant 39-book Old Testament. That would leave someone taking your view in the position of choosing sides between you (a devout Christian studied in matter of canonics) and the early Church Fathers (presumably devout Christians, also studied in this matter, and much closer in time to the historical data upon which you rely).

    Also, if you are settling the debate by analysis of historical data, a critical problem arises. You have thereby placed analysis of historical data above the canon, and thus violated sola scriptura. I argued this at length in this article. Please let me know if you’re not sure what I’m getting at, or let me know why you think I am incorrect.

    Our example of the Book of Wisdom plays this thought process out. One could go with the presentation of historical evidence you gave, or one could accept the majority view of the early Church. But either way, from the Protestant point of view, one going through this process has placed historical analysis above the canon in order to determine the extent of the canon. This is Ridderbos’s view that I gave in the text accompanying footnote 26. I believe his is a conservative and traditional Reformed view.

    You talked about the history of the Book of Wisdom, and argued that it can’t be God-breathed because it is pseudonymous. Even if we were to agree here that the Catholic Church is left with trouble on its hands in defending its canonical books, this does not in any way free the Protestant system from the critiques I have articulated in this article and combox. I have to keep returning to this point, Ken: your paragraphs of historical facts and quotes do not address the argument I have made in my article. I think we can believe in Rome’s claims for ecclesiological and philosophical reasons as well as for historical reasons. But this is not the place for that historical debate.

    Peace in Christ,
    Tom

76. Andrew Preslar February 2nd, 2010 7:38 pm :

    Jason,

    I am particularly intrigued that you invoke the criterion of scientific hermeneutics vis-a-vis the Church’s doctrine of justification. As the development of that science now stands, the classical Reformed construal of justification is the exegetical equivalent of Confederate banknotes. For example, one of the most respected exegetes in the field of NT studies has been cited to the effect that:

    Dunn (“The Justice of God,” 17) notes that appreciation for the OT and Jewish context of Paul’s thought “would have short-circuited the old Reformation disputes: … Is ‘the righteousness of God’ subjective genitive or objective genitive? … And does the equivalent verb ‘to justify,’ mean ‘to make righteous’ or ‘to count righteous’? … Once we recognize that righteousness and justification are the language of relationship it becomes evident that both disputes push unjustifiably for an either-or answer.” (Cited by Scott Hahn, Kinship by Covenant, 467.)

    The Catholic Church can definitely live with a both-and on this count (e.g., we never denied the legal dimension of justification).

    In connection with your claims about the Catholic Church’s appropriation of biblical scholarship, I have several times indicated what it is about the Church that renders her better equipped to discern the meaning of Sacred Scripture than any individual commentator or school of commentary. Yet you continue to put this kind of argument forward as though the Catholic appeal to principles of understanding the Word of God, over and above scientific commentary, were simply ad hoc. This is misleading. It is true that any Protestant appeal to knowledge of the Word of God over and above scientific exegesis would be ad hoc (e.g., confessionalism), given Protestant ecclesiology. But it is precisely the Catholic Church’s self-understanding and her teaching concerning the nature of the Church that renders her exposition of the truth of Scripture (over and above, and when necessary contrary to, the opinions of scholars ) non-question begging. The Church, as a whole, is the Body of Christ, having the mind of Christ, and therefore knows the things of Christ in a pre-eminent way. The Church’s apprehension of the Word is not reducible to human opinion, arrived at by means of critical historiography and critical exegesis of ancient texts, although it uses human opinions, and is conversant with them (e.g. the opinions of the best contemporary NT scholarship).

    Honorius is within the pale of Catholic dogma concerning infallibility. What he actually wrote in addressing the monothelite controversy was condemned by later councils, but his teaching was not formally heretical; instead it seems that he fundamentally misunderstood the issues and consequently misspoke, as described in the book to which K Doran referred earlier in this thread.

77. Tom Brown February 2nd, 2010 7:41 pm :

    Dear Jason,

    I hear you about staying with drawn-out and nuanced discussion. I hope we can both get our tenacity on! The nuances can be infinitely consequential, notwithstanding their being nuances.

    Similar to what I just said to Andrew, I agree with you that “God doesn’t need the human agent to be infallible in order for him to bring about his will infallibly.” My contention is not that God cannot deliver untainted truth through fallible actors. My argument is that we have no assurance reliable enough to bind our consciences that the Protestant canon is true. (I also argue that it is ad hoc, but I won’t repeat that here.)

    I’m not perfectly clear about your dismissal of the Catholic “VanTilian” view of authority and history. She believes what she believes, and is ready to stand or fall by her claims of truth. Would you have her rub her hands together when delivering a teaching and admit something like, “gee, we could be wrong about this?” I doubt that Protestants are any more open to historical evidence offered up against its own canon, e.g., historical evidence supporting the exclusion of Esther or Revelation from the canon.

    The Catholic Church does not insist, as some other religions do, that an opponent shut his mouth when raising an historical objection. I have a relative who was excommunicated from a particular Reformed denomination for questioning its teaching, but this heavy-handedness is not the Catholic way (and thankfully, this is very, very rarely the Protestant way). Instead the Catholic Church argues about and interacts with historical data. And these debates are out there for all to read, not hidden away. The Catholic Church highly espouses the principle of freedom of conscience, and would not bind any person’s conscience who could not accept her own view of history based on that person’s view of history. She instead works with such a person and prays with them and hopes they can come to agreement on whatever the dispute is. This has been my experience, and in large part explains why it has taken me six years to come around to entering the Catholic Church.

    Peace in Christ,
    Tom

78. Ken Temple February 2nd, 2010 9:01 pm :

    Hi Tom,
    Thanks for the good discussion!

    You wrote:
    Also, if you are settling the debate by analysis of historical data, a critical problem arises. You have thereby placed analysis of historical data above the canon, and thus violated sola scriptura. I argued this at length in this article. Please let me know if you’re not sure what I’m getting at, or let me know why you think I am incorrect.

    I understand your point; do you see my point? Sola Scriptura never required all historical facts and background of books to be in the text; so if a historical fact is true in real space and time, then that truth/fact is not over or above Scripture, it is merely knowable apart from the text itself. So, it does not violate Sola Scriptura. For example, that Mark wrote Peter is not explicity written out in the text of Mark. This is no problem for Sola Scriptura, because Sola Scriptura never required all historical background knowledge to be in the text. When Luther said at his trial at the Diet of Worms, “Unless I am convinced by Holy Scripture or evident reason, I will not recant, because Popes and councils have erred and contradicted one another” (my paraphrase from memory)

    He was pretty much assuming the same canon as Protestants. (with doubts about James as strawry as compared with Galatians and Romans; and doubts about Revelation and Esther, etc.)

    Sola Scriptura only says that Scripture is the only infallible source or authority for faith and practice; not that it is the only source of all knowledge. Studying the background of a book, etc. does not put those facts and evidences above Scripture, it merely confirms. If it is real history, it is true. So those facts about the historical background of different books, while not in the text, if true and historical are still true. Truth is truth; in Scripture, nature, history, space, mathematics, etc. There is a lot of truth that is not spelled out in Scripture.

    Sola Scriptura was that Scripture rules over Popes and councils decisions and interpretations and all the interpretations of doctors and early church father must be subjected again to the light of God’s holy word, the Scriptures.

    I will try to interact with more of what you wrote later.

79. Tom Brown February 2nd, 2010 9:59 pm :

    Dear Ken,

    I argued in the paper that for Protestantism to be consistent, it has to see any extra-Biblical evidence that is needed to define the canon as being above the canon, and thus as violating sola scriptura. This is because Protestantism faults Catholicism as placing herself over the canon by exercising a power to define the canon. If you exercise your judgment in a way that defines the canon, you are placing your judgment “over” the canon in the same way you would say the Catholic Church places herself “over” the canon.

    You said: “Sola Scriptura never required all historical facts and background of books to be in the text.” I’m not trying to claim that it ever did. I’m saying that to be consistent, an advocate of sola scriptura cannot tolerate defining the canon with evidence that is extra-Biblical, because by its own terms this would place that evidence above the canon. Ridderbos has this spot on.

    You said: “if a historical fact is true in real space and time, then that truth/fact is not over or above Scripture, it is merely knowable apart from the text itself. So, it does not violate Sola Scriptura.” But Ken, the real question is how do we know what is true, or perhaps how certain can we be of truth. History does not tell us what is in the canon. The canon of infallible writ is a theological construct. You cannot know that Esther is canonical in the same way you can know that General Lee fought at Gettysburg. You can know that the Book of Esther has a certain history, but this does not lead you to the theological conclusion that it is of God. You have to apply (1) human reason to (2) your criterion of canonicity to reach that conclusion!

    You said: “Sola Scriptura only says that Scripture is the only infallible source or authority for faith and practice; not that it is the only source of all knowledge.” Ken, I know this – I defined the doctrine this way repeatedly in my article (!). I am not arguing that you violate sola scriptura simply on account of Scripture being the “only source of knowledge.” I’m arguing that you violate the terms of sola scriptura by what you do to reach a canon in spite of Scripture not giving you a canon (explicitly)—when you apply human reason to your criterion of canonicity. Please reconsider the paragraphs around footnote 26, and this, from section III. Tell me, which premise or conclusion do you disagree with here?:

    The doctrine of sola scriptura maintains that the Bible is to be the Christian’s sole infallible authority. The sine qua non (‘that without which’) of the Reformation is that no Church or other human judgment can be placed over Scripture. Power over the canon is power over Scripture itself because it is the power to eradicate a necessary part of the canon or to add a spurious part to Scripture. So the Reformed position is not any more compatible with the Church or other human judgment being placed over the canon than it is compatible with their placement over Scripture itself.

    But the very act of answering the Canon Question inherently involves an extra-Biblical fallible human judgment, unless one is preserved from error by the Holy Spirit. This fallible human judgment, by defining the criterion of canon, exercises power over the canon itself. And as I just noted, power over the canon is power over Scripture. Therefore, absent the Holy Spirit’s preserving one from error, to answer the Canon Question is to exercise power over Scripture, and to place one’s judgment over Scripture. So to answer the Canon Question is to violate the doctrine of sola scriptura by placing something over the Christian’s sole infallible authority. If Protestants see the Catholic Church as placing herself ‘over’ Scripture simply by articulating the canon of Scripture, so too they should see answers to the Canon Question culled from human reason or extra-Biblical evidence as being ‘over’ Scripture. Since Protestants see the former as violating sola scriptura, there is no principled reason not to see the latter as a violation of sola scriptura.

    Peace in Christ,
    Tom

80. K. Doran February 3rd, 2010 10:05 am :

    Ken,

    To second what Tom is saying, he is _not_ arguing that Protestantism is inconsistent because it affirms knowledge from sources outside of scripture. He is arguing that Protestantism is inconsistent because it simultaneously faults Catholics for using extra scriptural sources (the authority of popes and councils) to define the canon, while Protestants themselves use extra-scriptural sources (history, scholarship) to define the canon. Both Protestants and Catholics use extra-scriptural sources to define the canon. If your definition of sola scriptura allows for the Protestant use of extra-scriptural sources to define the canon, then you must let Catholics use extra scriptural sources to define the canon. But if you will not let Catholics use extra-scriptural sources to define the canon, then you cannot let yourself use extra-scriptural sources to define the canon.

    So we leave you with the question: will you let Catholics use extra scriptural sources to define the very canon itself? If you will not, then why do you let your compatriots use extra scriptural sources to define the canon? If you will, then why won’t you let us use extra scriptural sources for anything other than defining the canon?

    Sincerely,

    K. Doran

81. Tom Riello February 3rd, 2010 10:32 am :

    K. Doran,

    Very well put! I remember one scholar (I do not recall who, why do I forget such things!!!) saying, “The Protestant Reformation did not do away with authority, it just shifted authority from the Church to the Academy.”

    I think that is a fair assessment, even though that was not the intention of the Reformers. The rejection of the Church’s authority created a vacuum and that vacuum was filled by the academy to come in and reconstruct and deconstruct Jesus, Paul, the early Church etc… and all to the whims of the guild that held sway at the time (how many quests for the historical Jesus are we up to now?).

82. Philologus February 3rd, 2010 12:10 pm :

    Tom,

    I agree wholeheartedly, and find it quite ironic watching Protestant apologists of the 20th century and our own times struggling against scripture’s and greater Nicene Christianity’s detractors, many of whom are themselves Protestants utilizing a methodology that is the logical result of Reformation principles and which the Protestants themselves, perhaps even more ironically, use to rebut the unique historical, biblical and systematic-theological claims of the Roman Catholic Church.

83. K. Doran February 3rd, 2010 2:34 pm :

    Hey Tom,

    Thanks, and I hear ya. When I was a doubtful of the Church’s authority I always looked to other sources to replace it. The ideal non-magisterial sources are deep scholars who lead exemplary moral lives, and (if one believes in miracles) have experienced or mediated miracles of one sort or another. But too many of these ideal sources turned out to be Catholic saints who recognized Church authority themselves; so I couldn’t ignore Church authority any longer. Our separated brethren are right to look for some authorities in their lives, including authorities that can help them identify the all-important canon of scripture. Let’s pray that they will get to know the Catholic saints, and by these lesser authorities be lead to the greater authority of the magisterium itself. . . and by that greater light be lead more fully into the mystery of the one great light, our Lord.

    Sincerely,

    K. Doran

84. Ken Temple February 3rd, 2010 9:05 pm :

    Ken,
    To second what Tom is saying, he is _not_ arguing that Protestantism is inconsistent because it affirms knowledge from sources outside of scripture.

    K. Doran, Actually, yes he is. Seems like it to me; right Tom?

    He is arguing that Protestantism is inconsistent because it simultaneously faults Catholics for using extra scriptural sources (the authority of popes and councils) to define the canon, while Protestants themselves use extra-scriptural sources (history, scholarship) to define the canon.

    Except the claim of the RCC is not just “using extra-biblical sources”, but it is claiming that these are infallible extra-biblical sources; and they give extra assurance, infallible certainty and knowledge and assurance. See how hard it is to discuss the issue without also bringing in the RCC claim of infallibility? I say we can find fault with the RCC because it has make mistakes, added false doctrines, and also claimed an authority to itself, late in history (1870) and then reads back into all history that claim and explains it under the canopy of “development of doctrine” ( Newman, etc.)

    Both Protestants and Catholics use extra-scriptural sources to define the canon. If your definition of sola scriptura allows for the Protestant use of extra-scriptural sources to define the canon, then you must let Catholics use extra scriptural sources to define the canon.

    You and your church can (and already has done – they have already defined these things as dogmas for themselves; and also make the claim over all human creatures – Boniface VIII’s Unam Sanctum) do whatever you want; but not without criticism; I guess that is what you mean.

    But if you will not let Catholics use extra-scriptural sources to define the canon, then you cannot let yourself use extra-scriptural sources to define the canon.

    I disagree. It is not an equal analogy. We are fine with the early church history as history if nothing credible contradicts the facts. But yours is a claim to infallibility; and it is was a big claim, claiming infallibility is almost like claiming to be God. (Only God and His Word is infallible)

    So we leave you with the question: will you let Catholics use extra scriptural sources to define the very canon itself? If you will not, then why do you let your compatriots use extra scriptural sources to define the canon? If you will, then why won’t you let us use extra scriptural sources for anything other than defining the canon?

    Again, we don’t stop you from making it your case; you mean, I think, that we make an unfair argument. But, again, you left out that word infallible; a big claim; and so, your claim is much bigger than just wanting to be free from criticism for using extra-Biblical sources. Because it is more than that; your Church is actually claiming infallibility on the canon, and you are saying if that is true and if the early got it right on the NT, why no be unified and submit to all the other stuff? I.e. – that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth and we have to repent of our rebellion and submit to the Pope in order to be saved. (Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctum) I know Vatican 2 softened all that, (but it is a clear contradiction to the history of the anathemas and the tradition of “no salvation outside the church”, ) but that is the clear implication of all the RCC apologetics. And in order to be saved in RCC theology, one must believe all the dogmas, transubstantiation, Mary’s PV, IC, and BA, etc. To believe in any of those things, and other things like indulgences and treasury of merit, purgatory, and praying to Mary and relics and NT priests, etc. to us, is like going against Scripture, reason, and truth.

    Tom Reillo wrote:
    I think that is a fair assessment, even though that was not the intention of the Reformers. The rejection of the Church’s authority created a vacuum and that vacuum was filled by the academy to come in and reconstruct and deconstruct Jesus, Paul, the early Church etc… and all to the whims of the guild that held sway at the time (how many quests for the historical Jesus are we up to now?).

    I cannot understand this kind of argument – that kind of academic approach comes from no faith at all in God or the miraculous in Scripture and so, that is not even Christianity at all.

85. Tom Brown February 3rd, 2010 10:46 pm :

    Dear Ken,

    No, I am not arguing that Protestantism is inconsistent for affirming knowledge from sources outside of Scripture. Please read my previous comment to you, in which I explained this at length.

    Regarding your concerns over infallibility, the Reformers did not reject the Catholic Church because the Church claimed infallibility. The Reformers rejected the Catholic Church because they saw her as placing herself “over” Scripture. If you reject Catholicism because she makes claims of infallibility, you are having your own private Reformation, not the Reformation that Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and their fellows had. Catholicism binds consciences with respect to the canon. Protestantism does this too whether or not it claims the canon is infallible.

    You said: “I say we can find fault with the RCC because it has make [sic] mistakes, added false doctrines, and also claimed an authority to itself, late in history (1870) and then reads back into all history that claim and explains it under the canopy of ‘development of doctrine’ ( Newman, etc.)” Ken, comments like this one are irrelevant to the point in discussion here, specifically my arguments about the doctrine of sola scriptura. Please refrain from this type of rhetoric, because I cannot rebut it here without steering the entire course of the discussion badly off course.

    Ken, what do you think of my point that history does not record the canon the way it records that General Lee was at Gettysburg? You appear still to be speaking of history as if it yields the canon. You then said: “claiming infallibility is almost like claiming to be God. (Only God and His Word is [sic] infallible).” Random House defines “infallible” this way: “absolutely trustworthy or sure.” If I tell you it is an infallible truth that the sun will rise tomorrow, I have said something absolutely trustworthy or sure. I have not thereby almost claimed to be God. Again, you are claiming a basis for rejecting Catholicism that differs from the Reformers’ basis for rejecting Catholicism.

    I still hope to hear your interaction with my previous comment, which is a partial repeat of the parts of my overall argument that applies to the position I think you are taking.

    Peace in Christ,
    Tom

86. K. Doran February 4th, 2010 10:19 am :

    Dear Ken,

    Many reformers do not believe that the Church’s definition of the canon should be used to provide certainty about the canon. They fear this would place the Church “over” scripture (we Catholics disagree, of course). But the same logic would declare that the use of historical analysis and the scholarship of professors to provide _certainty_ would place these authorities “over” scripture. If you are willing to concede that your use of historical analysis and the scholarship of professors leaves you with an uncertain, fallible table of contents, then we can move to a different stage of the argument. But if you believe that your scholarship has given you a completely certain, infallible table of contents, then we are left with the point that I made in #80, in summary of Tom’s argument.

    Do you believe that your scholarship has given you complete certainty about the table of contents of scripture? Compete certainty about every book that should be included and every word (even the ones that vary across early manuscripts) that belongs in every book? If yes, then By The Reformed Definition Of “Over” Scripture, you have made your scholarship “over” scripture as well. If you don’t believe that you have such complete certainty, then we are in the “fallible canon of infallible books” part of the argument, which I recommend you then read in Tom’s post above.

    I won’t have time to interact more, but I wish you the best in your search for truth!

    Sincerely,

    K. Doran

87. Tom Riello February 4th, 2010 10:35 am :

    Ken,

    I am not sure what you cannot understand about what I wrote. I do not think it is a coincidence that the historical/critical approach, redactionary criticism, historical quest for Jesus etc… all began in the Protestant University especially in Europe. Better minds than mine have suggested that the Enlightenment also has its roots in the Protestant Reformation (again, in no way am I saying that Luther or Calvin intended this or thought this was going to happen, but the law of unintended consequences holds place). I think Bart Erhman is a good example of what happens when one does not have the support of the Church to define the faith. He was Moody trained and a self-described fundamentalist. He then went off to Princeton where he learned things contrary to his Moody training. Instead of having the foundation of the Church to support him, he, by his own admission, came to the place where he does not accept the claims of Christ, nor does he accept the canon established by the Church.

88. Ken Temple February 4th, 2010 2:53 pm :

    Tom wrote:
    No, I am not arguing that Protestantism is inconsistent for affirming knowledge from sources outside of Scripture. Please read my previous comment to you, in which I explained this at length.

    Thanks Tom ( and K. Doran and Tom R.)

    I was just trying to keep it simple; I am not as smart in my words or formulation of arguments or logic as you guys are; you seem to have said that Protestantism violates the principle of Sola Scriptura because it relies on extra-biblical sources to even know what Scripture is; and that is inconsistent, in your view, with the principle of Sola Scriptura, right?

    Regarding your concerns over infallibility, the Reformers did not reject the Catholic Church because the Church claimed infallibility.

    They did, later, as a result of their rejection of what you write in your next sentence. You are right, but they rejected the infallibility claim as a result of your next sentence, which I think is true.

    The Reformers rejected the Catholic Church because they saw her as placing herself “over” Scripture.

    Yes, you are right on this, but wasn’t it both? They rejected the RCC as the final authority to interpret Scripture, since in the minds of the Reformers; they had added things and made wrong interpretations. (issues relating to justification, indulgences, penance, and then other things were questioned also, like purgatory and the treasury of merit and relics, etc.) Questioning the RCC’s interpretations on the issues of indulgences and justification caused questioning the authority of the church, which later led to asking questions about the canon. Don’t you think?

    If you reject Catholicism because she makes claims of infallibility, you are having your own private Reformation, not the Reformation that Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and their fellows had. Catholicism binds consciences with respect to the canon. Protestantism does this too whether or not it claims the canon is infallible.

    Not trying to have my own private Reformation at all. The Reformation started over penance and indulgences, and the RCC defended herself and it grew from there; eventually resulting in questioning the infallibility of the church and pope, which was not formal dogma yet, but was growing and defended when questioned. Right? Justification issues of interpretation led to the authority and Sola Scriptura issue.

    You said: “I say we can find fault with the RCC because it has make [sic] mistakes, added false doctrines, and also claimed an authority to itself, late in history (1870) and then reads back into all history that claim and explains it under the canopy of ‘development of doctrine’ ( Newman, etc.)”
    Ken, comments like this one are irrelevant to the point in discussion here, specifically my arguments about the doctrine of sola scriptura. Please refrain from this type of rhetoric, because I cannot rebut it here without steering the entire course of the discussion badly off course.

    Ok, sorry, I am not trying to be harsh or spew “rhetoric”; but it does seem like where all this leads and that is the ultimate goal of RC apologetics, that is, creating doubt about the canon under Protestant Sola Scriptura thinking, which leads to the result that this argument would convince the Protestant/Evangelical to have to accept the 1870 dogma under the development theory and then cross the Tiber to conversion to the RCC. Newman said something like “there is no middle ground”, one either has to convert to Rome or become an atheist/agnostic/loose his faith. (something like that) Does anyone know where that is? I read somewhere at the Newman reader web site, but cannot find it again.

    But you are correct that defending that would require lots of time and space.

    Ken, what do you think of my point that history does not record the canon the way it records that General Lee was at Gettysburg? You appear still to be speaking of history as if it yields the canon.

    If something really happens in history, then it is truth and reality, (that it happened), right?

    I just don’t see any credible reason to doubt whether Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark under Peter’s apostolic authority or that Peter really wrote 2 Peter in real time and space history before he was executed in 67 AD under Nero; or that Peter wrote 1 Peter and had Silvanus clean up his grammar and/or Peter spoke it to him and Silvanus was his amanuensis. ( I Peter 5:12) or that Hebrews is “God-breathed”, whether written by Barnabas, Luke, Silas, or Apollos.

    I guess, the key is “in the same way” – I don’t know much about Gettysburg, except that is was the largest battle of the Civil War and took place in a field in Pennsylvania and it was the bloodies of all the battles.

    Do you mean that Gettysburg had lots of eyewitness testimony and many people writing it down as it happened, whereas the canon is testified by people years after the fact. Papias (died around 140) is testifying that Mark wrote Gospel of Mark for/under Peter; so that is almost 80 years later. And the record of that is from Irenaeus ( AD. 200); and then Eusebius (325 ) – I am guessing you are saying the way the historical records have come to us are different and not as reliable for the canon issues as for Gettysburg. Is that right?

    You then said: “claiming infallibility is almost like claiming to be God. (Only God and His Word is [sic] infallible).” Random House defines “infallible” this way: “absolutely trustworthy or sure.”

    I thought it was, “incapable of error”, “incapable of making a mistake”. To be fallible means we make mistakes, as shown by my bad grammar and typing errors by your [sic] additions. So, to be infallible is incapable of making a mistake.

    If I tell you it is an infallible truth that the sun will rise tomorrow, I have said something absolutely trustworthy or sure. I have not thereby almost claimed to be God.

    True; why the need for using the word “infallible” with respect to our subjective knowledge? This much doubting and skepticism leads to madness of the brain and obsession.

    This is the point that C. Michael Patton makes in his article on the canon at Parchment and Pen:
    https://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/01/why-i-believe-the-canon-is-fallible-and-am-fine-with-it/#more-3727

    “For example, I believe that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. I prepare each day with this belief in mind. Each night, I set my alarm clock and review my appointments for the following day, having a certain expectation that the next day will truly come. While I have certainty about the sun rising the next day, I don’t have infallible certainty that it will. There could be some astronomical anomaly that causes the earth to stop its rotation. There could be an asteroid that comes and destroys the earth. Christ could come in the middle of the night. In short, I don’t have absolute infallible certainty about the coming of the next day. This, however, does not give me an excuse before men or God for not believing that it will come. What if I missed an early appointment the next day and told the person “I am sorry, I did not set my alarm clock because I did not have infallible certainty that this day would come.” Would that be a valid excuse? It would neither be a valid excuse to the person who I was supposed to meet or to God.”

    Later, he talks about the character played by Bill Murray in the movie, “What about Bob?” – and shows how destructive too much doubting and skepticism brings. “how do you know for sure?” is what I hear all the time from RC apologists and my personal friend, Rod Bennett, author of Four Witnessess: The Early Church in Her Own Words (Ignatius, 2002). (he was one my groomsmen in my wedding in 1988; and became RC in 1996.

    Again, you are claiming a basis for rejecting Catholicism that differs from the Reformers’ basis for rejecting Catholicism.

    I answered that above; I agree with you on the initial reasons for the Reformation, and I agree with the Reformers; but I think that the second (rejecting infallibility) results from the rejection of the first (putting the church over the canon, and interpretations). And since the second results from the first, then they go together, right? And then the other issues are part of that whole cluster of issues; ie. Justification, Indulgences, purgatory, treasury of merit, prayers to saints and Mary, etc.

89. Ken Temple February 4th, 2010 3:54 pm :

    Tom, is this what you are talking about in your previous comment?

    But Ken, the real question is how do we know what is true, or perhaps how certain can we be of truth. History does not tell us what is in the canon. The canon of infallible writ is a theological construct. You cannot know that Esther is canonical in the same way you can know that General Lee fought at Gettysburg. You can know that the Book of Esther has a certain history, but this does not lead you to the theological conclusion that it is of God. You have to apply (1) human reason to (2) your criterion of canonicity to reach that conclusion!

    I understand what you are getting at; ie, “how do we know what we know” – epistemology. Yes, we have to ultimately use human reason to make our decisions. But if the human reason is not helped by the Holy Spirit’s work of regeneration, and then the process of renewing the mind, then that human reason is faulty. But our faith and decisions, if caused by God, are not bad in themselves. Remember John 10:27 and I John 2:27 – “Me sheep hear My voice” and “you have no one to teach you (infallibly), because you have the anointing of the Holy Spirit and He gives you discernment to know the truth.” (my paraphrase)

    I don’t think it places my reason or human power over the canon; it is merely the means/agency by which we connect to intellectual truths. You used your human reason to decide that the RCC was the true church and converted; fine; that is relying on your reasoning powers also. You will likely say, “that is the Tu Quogue “you too” argument, so we won’t allow it. I don’t understand why it cannot be allowed as relevant. It is not ad homeminem, just the fact that we all use our minds to exercise faith and make decisions. We all ultimately make our decisions by human reasoning and thinking. Having faith includes thinking.
    Even Romans 14:5 speaks of this, “Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.”

90. Tom Brown February 4th, 2010 7:32 pm :

    Dear Ken,

    We are going in circles a little bit. Please tell me with which premise or conclusion from my block quote in #79 you disagree. In answer to your question about what I am saying, I am saying this:

    I argued in the paper that for Protestantism to be consistent, it has to see any extra-Biblical evidence that is needed to define the canon as being above the canon, and thus as violating sola scriptura.

    We agree that the Reformers rejected the Catholic Church because they saw her as placing herself “over” Scripture. A lot of things happened as a result of this, certainly including the Reformers’ rejection of the Catholic claim to the charism of infallibility. But my point in that block quote in #79, is about the need for consistent rejection of things that are “over” Scripture. Until you address that part of my argument, I think talk of infallibility is a distraction.

    Ken, please note that I did not accuse you of spewing rhetoric. “Rhetoric” doesn’t have to be a pejorative term, and I didn’t mean it that way. I meant it this way: “the use of language.”

    You said about my Gettysburg example and people’s handling of history: “If something really happens in history, then it is truth and reality, (that it happened), right?”

    This is key: the proper scope of the canon is not something that happened in history. You gave examples, like that Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark. That is something that happened. But you cannot get from [Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark] to [the Gospel of Mark is canonical] without an intermediate step. This step is not epistemology either (that’s another distracting point). The intermediate step is your having to apply (1) human reason and (2) your criterion of canonicity. If we found another letter by Mark, would you say that got wrongfully left out of the Bible? Why is Mark’s authorship a proof of canonicity? If we found out that someone other than Mark wrote that Gospel, would you exclude it?

    You said about recognizing the leadings of the Holy Spirit to determine the canon: “I don’t think it places my reason or human power over the canon; it is merely the means/agency by which we connect to intellectual truths.” Here, I think, is the inconsistency in rejecting the Catholic Church’s being “over” Scripture while simultaneously placing yourself “over” Scripture. If you are not “over” Scripture by studying the texts and their history, and by listening to the leadings of the Holy Spirit, of what is the Catholic Church guilty in determining the canon? She can equally claim that she has been a “means/agency by which we connect to intellectual truths.” You have simply replaced the Church’s judgment for your own. Note that I am not opposed to the use of human reason (as I used human reason in deciding to become Catholic, like you said). I am arguing that you can’t have it both ways, rejecting the Catholic Church for using human reason in determining the canon while permitting yourself to use the same. I have a reason to trust the Church over myself or any individual, because she was given certain promises and graces by Christ and the Holy Spirit.

    Peace in Christ,
    Tom

91. T. Needham February 9th, 2010 4:03 am :

    You mention circularity of the argument in the “preaching Christ” section. I think circularity can also be applied to self-authentication and to historical issues.

    Regarding self-authentication, if Scripture is the sole reliable source of infallible Truth on which Christianity is based (sola scriptura), then how can the authenticity of the content of scripture be measured if not by the standard of the Truth which it reveals? That is to say, Scripture is the source of the Truth which is the (objective) standard by which the authenticity of its content is measured.

    Another problem with self-authentication: without a definitive inspired table of contents, if we (only) know the canon of Scripture through self-authentication, then not only do the books currently recognised as Scripture need to be assessed to be certain they are authentic, so also every other book in existence needs to be assessed to be sure they are not scripture.

    Regarding recourse to historical sources, Protestants consider legitimate those historical sources with which they agree; they then go on to use these sources to legitimise their position. (Circularity.)

    “.. because the Holy Spirit testifies in our hearts that they are from God.”
    “Those that the Holy Spirit has inwardly taught truly rest upon Scripture, … ”
    The problem with relying on the guidance of the Holy Spirit on this matter is that it either leads to something of the Catholic position of infallibility (but instead of Magisterium, you have Individuals), or else the Holy Spirit is redundant (since the Holy Spirit cannot guide unto falsehood).

92. Ken Temple February 9th, 2010 12:30 pm :

    Tom and others, thanks for your patience and interaction. I could not spend time on this until now.

    Tom’s block quote from # 79:
    The doctrine of sola scriptura maintains that the Bible is to be the Christian’s sole infallible authority. The sine qua non (‘that without which’) of the Reformation is that no Church or other human judgment can be placed over Scripture. Power over the canon is power over Scripture itself because it is the power to eradicate a necessary part of the canon or to add a spurious part to Scripture. So the Reformed position is not any more compatible with the Church or other human judgment being placed over the canon than it is compatible with their placement over Scripture itself.
    But the very act of answering the Canon Question inherently involves an extra-Biblical fallible human judgment, unless one is preserved from error by the Holy Spirit. This fallible human judgment, by defining the criterion of canon, exercises power over the canon itself.

    I don’t think recognizing the canon because of its existence as a collection of “God –breathed” books, is exercising power over it. It is just recognizing reality and truth that is already there. Each book was written separately to different communities, by several different authors. The Romans were persecuting them. Communication was very hard. Churches didn’t have all of them all at once. The Romans burned many manuscripts, especially from 250-312 AD. The historical process of getting them all under one cover is understandable. The codex was just coming into being; many scholars believe that the Christians invented the codex form. Before that they were scrolls and individual sheets of papyri and / or vellum (animal skins).

    And as I just noted, power over the canon is power over Scripture.

    I disagree with the premise; we don’t have power over the canon. Scripture is canonical because it is “God –breathed” ( 2 Tim. 3:16) “Canon” is a human category collecting all the God-breathed together under one cover or listing. It meant “standard”, “rule”, ‘criterion”.

    Therefore, absent the Holy Spirit’s preserving one from error, to answer the Canon Question is to exercise power over Scripture, and to place one’s judgment over Scripture.

    I disagree that to answer the Canon Question is to exercise power over Scripture. We just recognize and witness to and affirm and testify and discern and the early church discovered that it is “God-breathed”, because the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the canonical books. (2 Peter 1:19-21)

    So to answer the Canon Question is to violate the doctrine of sola scriptura by placing something over the Christian’s sole infallible authority.

    I understand why you think that; but I disagree that we violate the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

    If Protestants see the Catholic Church as placing herself ‘over’ Scripture simply by articulating the canon of Scripture, so too they should see answers to the Canon Question culled from human reason or extra-Biblical evidence as being ‘over’ Scripture. Since Protestants see the former as violating sola scriptura, there is no principled reason not to see the latter as a violation of sola scriptura.

    The early got some things right and some things wrong. It was the promise of Jesus to send the Holy Spirit of Truth to teach the apostles all things, and guide the apostles into all the truth ( John 14:24; and 16:12-13) that shows us that the apostles wrote the Scriptures down. We agree with Athanasius in 367 AD on the canon of the NT; (and Origen probably also had the same canon in 250 AD.) We are just looking at the history and tradition and testing it by the word of God. Whatever agrees with Scripture is true, and whatever does not agree is not true.

    As Gregory of Nyssa wrote:
    “We make the Holy Scriptures the canon and rule of every dogma; we of necessity look upon that, and receive alone that which may be conformable to the intention of those writings.” ( From “On the Soul and Resurrection”)

    And Basil –
    “Therefore, let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.” (letter 189)
    ===============================================================
    We are going in circles a little bit.

    That is the nature of apologetics.

    Please tell me with which premise or conclusion from my block quote in #79 you disagree.
    see above
    In answer to your question about what I am saying, I am saying this:
    I argued in the paper that for Protestantism to be consistent, it has to see any extra-Biblical evidence that is needed to define the canon as being above the canon, and thus as violating sola scriptura.

    No, it does not have to see that as above the canon, and it does not violate Sola Scriptura. Especially since the 27 did not drop from the sky in one “codex” or “book”. We acknowledge the process of the early history of the church.

    We agree that the Reformers rejected the Catholic Church because they saw her as placing herself “over” Scripture. A lot of things happened as a result of this, certainly including the Reformers’ rejection of the Catholic claim to the charism of infallibility. But my point in that block quote in #79, is about the need for consistent rejection of things that are “over” Scripture. Until you address that part of my argument, I think talk of infallibility is a distraction.

    Not trying to distract; rather pointing out that the RCC does not only use extra-biblical sources; but claims that they are also infallible, and that claim was not dogma until Trent and Vatican I, and it honestly seems like anachronism and as you mentioned, “drawing a circle” around something before you shoot at it and claim that already hit the target. Only the Scriptures are infallible, because they are God’s word. John 17:8; 17:17.

    Ken, please note that I did not accuse you of spewing rhetoric. “Rhetoric” doesn’t have to be a pejorative term, and I didn’t mean it that way. I meant it this way: “the use of language.”

    Sorry; I apologize. I didn’t mean it pejorative either. It appeared that I offended you by that statement.

    You said about my Gettysburg example and people’s handling of history: “If something really happens in history, then it is truth and reality, (that it happened), right?”
    This is key: the proper scope of the canon is not something that happened in history. You gave examples, like that Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark. That is something that happened. But you cannot get from [Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark] to [the Gospel of Mark is canonical] without an intermediate step.

    I see now. . . umm . . . I guess I would add, “Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark under Peter’s direction, who was carried along by the Holy Spirit to write it ( 2 Peter 1:20), so because it is God-breathed, it is canonical. Canon is a result of being “God-breathed”. It is self-attesting to those who have the Spirit and are mature – I John 2:27; John 10:27; I Cor. 2:14-16; Galatians 4:6.

    This step is not epistemology

    Seems like it to me, honestly.

    either (that’s another distracting point). The intermediate step is your having to apply (1) human reason and (2) your criterion of canonicity. If we found another letter by Mark, would you say that got wrongfully left out of the Bible?

    No, I don’t think it is a distracting point; it is the essence of the RCC apologetic argument to get Protestants to return to Rome. (Both epistemology and infalliblity and assurance for canon and the right interpretaion and unity of history and love of history; along with desire for deeper thought and rejection of shallowness of modern Evangelicalism)

    No, I don’t believe anything got left out or added wrongly. (of the 66 books that Protestants believe) That hypothetical of finding a letter by Mark is not really worth worrying about. Why waste time with “what if another letter by Mark was found?” That is similar to the overboard desire for infallible certainty like the “what about Bob?” syndrome that C. Michael Patton talked about.
    He wrote for Peter, an apostle; that’s good enough. The internal character and spiritual quality of the book of Mark (that it is “God-breathed”) is more important than the fact that Mark wrote it.

    Why is Mark’s authorship a proof of canonicity? If we found out that someone other than Mark wrote that Gospel, would you exclude it?

    As long as it is inspired / God-breathed, and under Peter’s direction, doesn’t really matter. We have testimony from Papias, Irenaeus, Eusebius, and probably others like Origen and Tertullian. That’s good enough. Again, this kind of extreme skepticism and need for infallible assurance in my own subjective opinion and “what if” stuff can be too introspective and damaging to faith, and sometimes waste time.

    You said about recognizing the leadings of the Holy Spirit to determine the canon: “I don’t think it places my reason or human power over the canon; it is merely the means/agency by which we connect to intellectual truths.” Here, I think, is the inconsistency in rejecting the Catholic Church’s being “over” Scripture while simultaneously placing yourself “over” Scripture. If you are not “over” Scripture by studying the texts and their history, and by listening to the leadings of the Holy Spirit, of what is the Catholic Church guilty in determining the canon?

    The Holy Spirit guided the early church on the NT; but it was not the Holy Spirit who lead Trent to define the OT deuteron-canonical books. Trent was reacting to Luther and Calvin and the Reformation. The OT canon took longer to come to the RCC making a dogmatic claim about those that are called “deteuro-canonical” books. But it seems clearer from earlier history, the three-fold Tanakh of the Jews and Jesus (Luke 24:44; 11:51-52); Josephus (Against Apion 1:8); Jerome, Athanasius, Melito of Sardis, Origen, Gregory, Cajatan, etc. and that Maccabees itself admitted the spirit of prophesy had ceased in Israel at the time of the Persians (around when Malachi and Chronicles were written); and the fact that Malachi ends with prophesies about the forerunner to the Messiah and they are some of the main quotes affirming John the Baptist’s ministry; – all this combined shows the Protestant canon is correct. The struggle with Esther (because God’s name is not mentioned) and inclusions of the embedded parts of Daniel in the LXX are understandable. Those that knew Hebrew knew the other books were not canonical.

    She can equally claim that she has been a “means/agency by which we connect to intellectual truths.” You have simply replaced the Church’s judgment for your own. Note that I am not opposed to the use of human reason (as I used human reason in deciding to become Catholic, like you said). I am arguing that you can’t have it both ways, rejecting the Catholic Church for using human reason in determining the canon while permitting yourself to use the same. I have a reason to trust the Church over myself or any individual, because she was given certain promises and graces by Christ and the Holy Spirit.

    I can have humble confidence that we are right on the canon over Trent, for Trent was reacting to Luther and Calvin and used their fallible human knowledge and fears to dogmatically put down the Reformation. Those promises and graces are for the people of God and local churches who hold to the Scriptures. When the RCC started neglecting Scriptural truths regarding justification and salvation and adding works and penance, indulgences, and water baptism as a justifying act, and Marian practices, and ideas about relics and visiting graves and praying to dead saints; they drifted from the Scriptures. Since they didn’t hold to the Scriptures, they could no longer claim those promises.

    Peace in Christ,
    Tom

    I wish you peace also – Romans 5:1 – “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God . . . ” . . . Romans 5:9 “Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.”
    John 14:27

    Romans 4:1-16

    Ken T.

93. Tom Brown February 10th, 2010 12:30 am :

    Dear T. Needham,

    Thanks for contributing. I’m not sure I completely follow you in your first point about self-authentification. Your second point on self-authentification, that all non-scriptural books need to be held to the same measure, doesn’t strike me as a problem for the Reformed. They can say that every book not in Scripture does fail to authenticate itself as being scriptural.

    Peace in Christ,
    Tom

94. Tom Brown February 10th, 2010 1:57 am :

    Dear Ken,

    Thank you for the response, and do not concern yourself about having to tend to life for a few days.

    I’m glad that we got down to the premise of my argument with which you disagree. That helps hone this discussion a lot, as was evident from the first half of your reply. You said in essence that recognizing the canon is not exercising power over it. I argued that this exercise over Scripture occurs where one has the power to eradicate a necessary part or add a spurious part to Scripture. To avoid my scenario, you would have to maintain that no exercise of judgment is occurring. I think that is your claim (I’m not trying to corner you). You said, “It is just recognizing reality and truth that is already there.” So to you, Protestants do not exercise judgment (and thus power) over Scripture because they know it for what it is like you see red and know it’s red without applying judgment. I hope I am fairly characterizing your position.

    If there is no exercise of judgment to determine which books belong to the canon, and we just recognize the reality and truth of the Bible for what it is as it sits there on our lap, then your position seems indistinguishable from the “canon falls from Heaven” possibility that I mentioned in my paper. I’ll summarize my response from the article: the Church never used this method to define the canon until the time of the Reformation; and what is self-attesting and what is not self-attesting is too subjective to be reliable. Calvin himself employed a variety of fall-back arguments to support the Protestant canon when faced with this position of uncertainty.

    You answered my words (“for Protestantism to be consistent, it has to see any extra-Biblical evidence that is needed to define the canon as being above the canon, and thus as violating sola scriptura”) with this reply: “No, it does not have to see that as above the canon, and it does not violate Sola Scriptura. . . . We acknowledge the process of the early history of the church.”

    You have not argued against my position, but merely contradicted it, which makes it hard to respond. (In all seriousness, and no offense intended, I grasped the difference between arguments and contradictions only after watching this silly, sarcastic video, especially from :30 seconds to the one minute mark: here.) Given your other comments, I think your argument against my claim of extra-Biblical evidence is that you are not looking to extra-Biblical evidence at all, but seeing Scripture for what it is. But I am puzzled by your saying that you acknowlege the process of the early history of the Church. In what way do you do that? If Scripture can by known by “just recognizing [the] reality and truth that is already there,” what place is there for historical evidence from the early Church? Could something appear to be Scripture, until writings from the early Church persuade you otherwise? Or vice versa? If so, that would appear to contradict your claim that you know Scripture by “just recognizing [the] reality and truth that is already there.”

    Regarding whether we can know the canon from history (like we can know that Gen. Lee was at Gettysburg from history), you said:

    “I see now. . . umm . . . I guess I would add, “Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark under Peter’s direction, who was carried along by the Holy Spirit to write it ( 2 Peter 1:20), so because it is God-breathed, it is canonical.” Your addition does not allow us to know the canon from history like we know that something really happened from history. History doesn’t record that Peter was carried along by the Holy Spirit when having his amanuensis write, and history does not even record with certainty that Mark was Peter’s amanuensis. There is evidence of it from history, but if we rely on that, you’re right back to having to respond to Ridderbos’s argument about using a posteriori evidence to determine the canon.

    You asked: “That hypothetical of finding a letter by Mark is not really worth worrying about. Why waste time with ‘what if another letter by Mark was found?'” I am not worried about the possibility. I am asking the purely hypothetical question to see whether you are willing to follow your canon criterion–that whatever is apostolically written is Scriptural–whereever it takes you. My questioning is not “extreme skepticism” and not based on a “need for infallible assurance” but rather an effort to pin down exactly what measure you use to determine the canon. I am having a hard time finding precisely your answer to the Canon Question because you seem to shift to a different canon criterion when I raise arguments against any one you mention, or else you employ ad hominems against Catholicism for its acceptance of doctrines with which you disagree.

    You said: “The Holy Spirit guided the early church on the NT; but it was not the Holy Spirit who lead Trent to define the OT deuteron-canonical books.” How do you know this? You talked about what you think motivated the Catholic Church, but that doesn’t prove what the Holy Spirit was up to, both because you may be wrong about the Church’s motivations, and because the Holy Spirit could lead the Catholic Church to the right conclusion in spite of ill-founded motives. As I’ve said, there is not one single instance of the Protestant canon being articulated prior to the Reformation, so you would have to believe that the Holy Spirit led the Church into all truth in the 16th century, but not before, and for most Christians (stuck in Catholicism or Orthodoxy), not after.

    Peace in Christ,
    Tom

95. Devin Rose February 11th, 2010 10:42 am :

    Ken,

    You wrote: “We acknowledge the process of the early history of the church. We have testimony from Papias, Irenaeus, Eusebius, and probably others like Origen and Tertullian. That’s good enough.”

    Tagging onto what Tom responded, why on earth should we accept the testimony of (some guys) named Papias, Irenaeus, Eusebius, and the others? These are 2nd and 3rd century folks, not Apostles. Who says that they were led by the Spirit; after all, they held to false teachings rejected by Protestants.

    You wrote: “When the RCC started neglecting Scriptural truths regarding justification and salvation and adding…water baptism as a justifying act,”

    Baptismal regeneration is found everywhere in the writings of the Christians in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries. Yet you are saying we should accept the testimony of these same men to give us confirmation of the canon? Why should we? They got something as simple as symbolic-baptism wrong.

96. T. Needham February 11th, 2010 6:29 pm :

    Dear Tom,

    Thank you for your reply. Maybe my first point wasn’t clear … tbh, maybe I’m not so clear on it myself, because as to how the books of scripture “self-authenticate” is somewhat unclear (to me at least). As far as I see it, the books of scripture contain information (inspired, infallible …). But for this information to be authenticated (as inspired, infallible, true etc.) then it must be assessed or measured against a standard (is this not so?). E.g. how can one say that the books of scripture contain infallible Truth (or how can one authenticate this), unless this Truth can be independently known, so that the contents of scripture can be measured against it. But for the Reformed, and those of a similar persuasion, the only source of such information is scripture itself. Any other source is fallible, and therefore no use in authenticating the infallible Truth that is taught in scripture. Therefore, in self-authenticating, only scripture can provide the infallible Truth by which the authenticity of this same Truth can be verified.

    If there is something wrong with what I have said, maybe you (or someone) could clear up how “self-authentication” works for the Reformed.

    As for your second point, “They can say that every book not in Scripture does fail to authenticate itself as being scriptural” – it is very true that they can “claim” this. But the question is, can they demonstrate that EVERY book not in Scripture has been tested? And I do mean EVERY BOOK (and letter) etc that has been written in the last two millenia. Maybe there is just one, somewhere, that has been missed? Is this demonstrable?

    God Bless,
    T. Needham.

97. Ken Temple February 11th, 2010 7:05 pm :

    Tom,
    Thanks
    You wrote:
    “. . . or else you employ ad hominems against Catholicism for its acceptance of doctrines with which you disagree. “

    I thought ad hominem arguments were against people, not against a system or doctrine or set of dogmas.
    Please show me specifically how they are ad hominem.

    The Monty Python skit was very funny and I agree with that in principle. I am not offended.

    I am learning some new things, (Latin terms, argumentation terms – “tu quoque”, etc.) and I thank you for challenging me to think.

    I guess what I hear you saying is that I am employing a mixture of all the arguments that you addressed in your paper – the historical arguments that Protestants use ( I am summarizing from memory – too much to go back over and pressed for time right now – “Fallback arguments” – Calvin; and Harris) ; and the “self-attestation” argument or “the internal witness of the Holy Spirit” (WCF, Ridderboss).

    Is that what you are saying? That I cannot logically use both?

    _____________________________________
    Devin,
    Thanks for the question. That is the ultimate question for us Baptists who want to honor church history, right?
    When I do Biblical exegesis of the texts of the relevant passages in the Bible, believer’s baptism (disciple’s baptism; that is a person must understand they are a sinner and repent and trust Christ and all that He is in order to be saved; and then that person is baptized.) IMHO, the Baptist view is the most scriptural. But, one can see how later generations misunderstood texts like John 3:5 and Titus 3:5 ; Acts 2:38 and I Peter 3;21 to think it was baptismal regeneration. Baptist exegesis is better, but just a surface reading could lead them to interpret those texts that way. Justin Martyr around 150 seems to be the first. After that, if just took off. It seems clear that infant baptism became a tradition later and then more entrenched with the developed understanding of Augustine and inherited original sin.

    I don’t know why many in the Early Church got that wrong (that we have records of), but they do seem to believe in some kind of baptismal regeneration. I believe they got it right on the NT canon eventually; but were wrong on baptismal regeneration. I don’t know why and I cannot explain it. That is a question I have, and would like to study it further.

    I have been a missionary for 18 years and have seen people coming from another religion (Islam) to Christ, but they think that water baptism does something to them; they bring baggage from their ritual religion with them; it seems like a part of natural human thinking; that the get a blessing or grace or somehow the water cleanses their souls. (like the ex opere operato doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church) Human religion is like that. In Islam, as in Judaism, ritual washing is very important. ( Mark 7 / Matthew 15) Other religions are ritualistic also. Things like animism, Magic, superstition, saying formulas and rituals, washings, etc. are all part of human religions. All religion is like that. Maybe that is what Paul means when he talks about the “elementary principles of this world” ( Galatians 4:9; Colossians 2:20) The young believers in a missionary context coming to Christ from a religion that is very external oriented and legalistic and ritualistic need discipleship in the word of God; just as the Galatians and Colossians and Corinthians were in need of constant teaching.

98. T. Needham February 11th, 2010 7:55 pm :

    One such example: If Paul (or another apostle) wrote a letter to the Laodiceans –

    “And when this letter has been read among you, have it read also in the church of the La-odice’ans; and see that you read also the letter from La-odice’a.” (Colossians 4:16)

    – can a Protestant demonstrate that this is/is not inspired scripture using a process of self-authentication? If this cannot be demonstrated, then this ‘letter to the Laodiceans’ cannot be ruled out as inspired scripture. It follows, then, that the extent of the canon cannot be known by a process of self-authentication.

99. Tom Brown February 12th, 2010 2:25 am :

    Dear Ken,

    Thank you for the sacrifices you have made as a missionary in non-Christian lands. I did not know that about you. I hope you and Devin find a chance to discuss religious practice, and whether it is inherently bad like you seem to think it is.

    You are right about ad hominems against people, so I should have said “employ ad hominems against Catholics for their acceptance of doctrines with which you disagree.” It is, as I think you know, an argument that attacks a premise based on a trait or (unrelated) belief of the person advocating the premise. So I am advocating as a Catholic believer that Protestantism cannot answer the Canon Question. You have made several replies like this one:

    When the RCC started neglecting Scriptural truths regarding justification and salvation and adding works and penance, indulgences, and water baptism as a justifying act, and Marian practices, and ideas about relics and visiting graves and praying to dead saints; they drifted from the Scriptures.

    I doubt you mean it this way, but this is an attempt to refute my premise (that Protestants can’t answer the Canon Question) by criticizing my (unrelated) beliefs. We all know that you believe Catholics and I drifted from the Scriptures. But it is irrelevant to the arguments I have presented in this paper. Therefore, I think it is a form of ad hominem. I’m not a philosopher either, so I might have this a bit off, but I’m certain that noting that Catholics visit graves is not going to get us further to resolving our differences over the Canon Question.

    Thank you for giving me a chance to clarify what I am saying about the mixture of the arguments. I am not saying that you cannot use more than one criterion to answer the Canon Question. I noted in section I of the article that the theories I cover are not mutually exclusive. But I had to take them up one at a time for clarity. I think we need to take them that way in this discussion too. I would like to stay on one claim, be it self-attestation, or historical proof, until we have gone down to the bones of our disagreement. It’s hard if when things get really contentious one of us gets to tack to another direction. I should note that I referred to Calvin as using “fallback” arguments because I believe they were not his primary tool for determining the canon, and believe he would deny that these fallbacks would affect his canonical conclusions reached by using his primary method–the testimony of the Spirit revealing self-authenticating Scripture.

    Peace in Christ,
    Tom

100. Tom Brown February 12th, 2010 2:34 am :

     Dear T. Needham,

     Consider the hypothetical that the Gospel of Mark says in Mark 1:’46’: “this book is canonical. That would be a strong step toward self-authentication. The Reformed know, of course, that no book in the Bible says something like that of itself. But they emphasize the virtuous qualities of the Biblical books, their perfection, how they all work together, etc. In their view, these qualities implicitly say for a text what my example about Mark 1:46 would have said explicitly.

     But you say “aha, that’s no authentication, that’s just a claim that an external source needs to verify!” Here, and I go into this in section II.A., but here, the classical and confessional Reformed add that the Holy Spirit bears inward testimony to those of faith that allows them to perceive Scripture with the above qualities as being Scripture.

     If we are on the same page to this point, I’ll just note that this is where I step in with my argument, that this method of reliance on the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit is unreliable to verify the canonical from the non-canonical. It also (in theory) requires a special revelation to each believer.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom

101. Devin Rose February 12th, 2010 8:42 am :

     Ken,

     I appreciate the humility and honesty your exhibited in your response to my comment. I don’t want to pull the thread off the topic of the canon, so I may respond to your comment more fully on my blog at some point in the near future. If I do, I will post back here with a link to the post so that we can discuss it more over there if you desire.

     In Christ,
     Devin

102. T. Needham February 12th, 2010 12:23 pm :

     Dear Tom,

     I understand better now. Thanks. Regarding “self-authentication”, I think I was expecting something a little more rigorous. I suppose they claim that this process (inward testimony) also “verifies” that the canon is complete without being able to formally rule out all other works, such as the above mentioned “letter to the Laodecians.”

     Thanks for clearing up the confusion,

     God Bless,

     T. Needham

103. Ken Temple February 12th, 2010 12:59 pm :

     Tom,
     Thanks for clarifying on ad homimen. I would humbly maintain that those issues that I(and other Protestants) bring up about RCC theology and practice are still issues of truth, the gospel, sound doctrine and right practice, and not arguments against people. Your point about the canon is the linchpin of RC apologetics that seeks to get Protestants to come to unity with the RCC and the Pope. I cannot go there down that path; ie, I cannot agree that just because the early church got the NT canon right, that they got everything else right about indulgences, penance, ex opere operato, sacerdotal powers, icons, statues, prayers to Mary, dogmas of Mary (PV, IC, BA), treasury of merit, purgatory, baptismal regeneration, Trent on justification, Apocyrpha (Deutero-canonicals), Pope, Newman’s development of doctrine, etc. – I cannot agree because of all those issues that I bring up are unbiblical and wrong. Obviously, to us; and we sincerely believe we are right. It is a matter of truth vs. unity. We don’t want unity at the expense of truth. We sincerely see the desire for this unity with the Pope as compromising on truth. Unity is important (John 17; Ephesians 4) but Biblical unity is always “unity around the truth”.

104. Tom Brown February 12th, 2010 9:55 pm :

     Ken,

     My article presents my argument about the Canon Question, and this comment box is a place to refute or support my argument. When your responses to my arguments include your belief that Catholic theology is wrong on issues like Marian devotion or Baptismal regeneration, I conclude that you are attempting (at least in part) to refute my argument by noting other perceived errors in Catholic theology. If you are meeting my argument by listing perceived errors, whether you mean it or not, you are arguing against me (a person). And that is an ad hominem. Mind you, an ad hominem is no crime, but because debates in comboxes are naturally long and problematic, I think we should avoid them.

     My argument is not an apologetics “linchpin . . . that seeks to get Protestants to come to unity with the RCC.” As an argument, it can seek nothing. It’s just an argument, and it can either be refuted or not. While we’re at it, replying to the argument by saying that the argument is being made to convert Protestants is an ad hominem. It’s not relevant to the argument why I’m making the argument.

     You said: “I cannot go there down that path; ie, I cannot agree that just because the early church got the NT canon right, that they got everything else right about indulgences, penance, ex opere operato, sacerdotal powers, icons, statues, prayers to Mary, dogmas of Mary (PV, IC, BA), treasury of merit, purgatory, baptismal regeneration, Trent on justification, Apocyrpha (Deutero-canonicals), Pope, Newman’s development of doctrine, etc.” I note that this is the fourth comment to mention Mary, but my argument has nothing to do with Mary or these other Catholic teachings you find troubling. I think you’re saying that because you find a slew of wrong teachings within Catholicism, you can’t go down the path of considering my argument on the Canon Question. But I am not asking you to accept all those Catholic teachings because the early Church got the canon right. I am saying that the Protestant doctrine cannot answer the Canon Question within its own framework. It is irrelevant to the question of whether sola scriptura can answer the Canon Question that you believe Catholic teachings are unbiblical.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom

105. K. Doran February 12th, 2010 11:35 pm :

     Ken,

     You need to get clear about the fact that some Protestants believe that the Catholic Church places itself “above” scripture by binding its members to believe in the particular Catholic canon.

     Do you agree with these Protestants? If so, then what is the Catholic Church doing that the Protestant bodies are not? Why does our team of Bishops denigrate scripture’s authority by marking the boundaries of the canon, while your team of protestant historians and academics elevates scripture’s authority by marking the boundaries of the canon? I would like an answer to the question that doesn’t mention Mary or indulgences. Are you an apologist, or are you here to understand? If the latter, then please give a forthright answer to the main question, as it has been repeatedly stated to you.

     Sincerely,

     K. Doran

106. St. Joseph’s Vanguard And Our Lady’s Train » Blog Archive » The Protestant Dilemma on the Canon of Scripture February 13th, 2010 2:52 pm :

     […] follow like Purify Your Bride. He seems to be the last person trying to refute the argument. We had this interesting exchange which I wanted to highlight over here so that it did not pull the thread off-topic over […]

107. Nick February 13th, 2010 11:13 pm :

     While I am way late to this discussion, I would suggest a slight correction:

     The original article states: “Athanasius includes Baruch and the deuterocanonical additions to Daniel.”

     This should be corrected to also include another book, the Letter of Jeremiah, as his “39th Festal Letter” clearly states: “Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book;”
     https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2806039.htm

108. Ken Temple February 16th, 2010 11:09 pm :

     Dear K. Doran,
     Thanks for the spirited challenge!
     You wrote:
     You need to get clear about the fact that some Protestants believe that the Catholic Church places itself “above” scripture by binding its members to believe in the particular Catholic canon.
     I realize that officially, the Roman Catholic Church denies that it puts itself “over” the Bible. “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. “ CCC, 86.
     However, it does seem to put itself over Scripture in a practical way, for it claims that it birthed the NT, caused the NT, decided which books were canon, etc. and that it has final and sole authority to interpret the Scriptures.
     “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.”47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.” CCC # 85 (My emphasis) 85 seems to contradict 86.
     Also many Roman Catholics and apologists do seem to say this. Peter Kreeft in his apologetics wrote: “Sola Scriptura violates the principle of causality, that an effect cannot be greater than its cause”, “for the successors of the apostles, the bishops of the Church, decided on the canon, the list of books to be declared scriptural and infallible . . . If the Scripture is infallible, then its cause, the Church, must also be infallible.” (Peter Kreeft, Fundamentals of the Faith, p. 274-275; cited in Geisler and McKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences; p. 183.
     Rod Bennett, in his book, Four Witnesses, several times implies and suggests this when saying that the Bible did not exist in the early decades of Christian history; and to me, gives the impression, just like Dan Brown does in his Da Vinci Code and other books, that the canon suddenly appears in 325 or 367 (Athanasius) or by 400 AD. They fail to mention that most of the NT books are mentioned separately early on in the earliest records, beginning around 100 AD. “The Bible was still being born”, and “the Bible was not even finished in their time” (especially pp. 259-260) While technically accurate, leaving out the fact that they were written early on ( 45-68 AD) separately, gives people the wrong impression. They were individual scrolls written to different places separately, different contexts. It took a while to get them all under one codex or “book cover”. But they were already inspired when they were written and so they were already “canon”.
     Pontificator, (Al Kimel), on his blog claimed that it didn’t matter if Ephesians and 2 Peter were not written by Paul or Peter and written around 125 or 150, etc. because the Roman Catholic makes them Scripture, so it didn’t matter to him. I wish he still had that article up; apparently he took it down.
     “The anonymous author of Hebrews probably was not an Apostle. John of the Apocalypse probably was not John, son of Zebedee. And then we have to acknowledge the critical problem of pseudonymity. The Apostle Matthew may not have written the gospel attributed to him. The Apostle Paul may not have written Ephesians and the Pastorals. The Apostle Peter may not have written his two letters; etc. The question of authorship of many books of the New Testament is a hotly contested matter in scholarly circles. Surely Atwood knows all of this, but without mention.”

     “If the historical evidence leads us to conclude that God employed the convention of pseudonymity in his sacred writings, who are we to complain? who are we to judge? I stand by the Word of God as confessed by his one holy catholic and apostolic Church.”
     Do you agree with these Protestants? Yes; it seems the Magisterium’s authority is a claim to be over the Scriptures in a practical way.
     If so, then what is the Catholic Church doing that the Protestant bodies are not?
     We say that the canon existed when each book was written (about 45 AD – 68 AD) [I believe all the NT books, except Jude (80 AD) were written before 70 AD, even John, Revelation, and his 3 epistles], even though they were not collected under one codex or book cover. When they were written they were inspired, God-breathed, therefore they were “canon” because they were inspired. They already existed long before Irenaeus and Tertullian and Athanasius quoted from them.
     Why does our team of Bishops denigrate scripture’s authority by marking the boundaries of the canon, while your team of protestant historians and academics elevates scripture’s authority by marking the boundaries of the canon?
     Because the RCC claims to have decided what was canon and not; and the Protestants say we merely discovered what was already canon.
     We believe that Jesus Himself marked the boundaries of the canon – the OT – Luke 11:51-52 – “from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah the priest” (from Genesis to Chronicles) Luke 24:44 – Law of Moses, Prophets, and the Psalms (Poetic books, writings) – Scripture itself ends in Malachi with prophesies about John the Baptist and it picks up again in the NT with John Baptist, quoting from Malachi. (Malachi 3:1; 4:5-6 quoted in Luke 1:17; Mark 1:2; Matthew 11:10, 14; Luke 1:76; 7:27)
     Josephus confirms the Protestant OT canon in Against Apion 1:8. Romans 3:2 points to the advantage of the Jews and that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.
     Jerome confirms most of it. He clearly rejected Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom as canonical. He acknowledged the sections of Daniel that were not found in Hebrew.
     I just found something new:
     “But among other things we should recognize that Porphyry makes this objection to us concerning the Book of Daniel, that it is clearly a forgery not to be considered as belonging to the Hebrew Scriptures but an invention composed in Greek. This he deduces from the fact that in the story of Susanna, . . . But both Eusebius and Apollinarius have answered him after the same tenor, that the stories of Susanna and of Bel and the Dragon are not contained in the Hebrew, but rather they constitute a part of the prophecy of Habakkuk, the son of Jesus of the tribe of Levi. Just as we find in the title of that same story of Bel, according to the Septuagint, “There was a certain priest named Daniel, the son of Abda, an intimate of the King of Babylon.” And yet Holy Scripture testifies that Daniel and the three Hebrew children were of the tribe (p. 493) of Judah. For this same reason when I was translating Daniel many years ago, I noted these visions with a critical symbol, showing that they were not included in the Hebrew. And in this connection I am surprised to be told that certain fault-finders complain that I have on my own initiative truncated the book. After all, both Origen, Eusebius and Apollinarius, and other outstanding churchmen and teachers of Greece acknowledge that, as I have said, these visions are not found amongst the Hebrews, and that therefore they are not obliged to answer to Porphyry for these portions which exhibit no authority as Holy Scripture.” (my emphasis, Jerome’s Preface to Daniel, translated by Gleason Archer. I left out some stuff because of space, discussion of Greek words, See
     https://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/jerome_daniel_02_text.htm)
     Also cited in Geisler and McKenzie: Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences; Baker, 1995; p. 170.

     So it seems Jerome even rejected those sections of Daniel embedded in the Greek LXX of Daniel.
     John 17:8 gives the principle for the NT, the words of the Father were committed to Jesus and Jesus commits them to the apostles and He sends the Holy Spirit to lead them and guide them into all the truth. ( 14:16-17; 14:25-26; 15:26-27; 16:12-13; 16:14-15)
     I would like an answer to the question that doesn’t mention Mary or indulgences.
     The RCC seems to put itself over the Scripture, even though it officially claims it does not. The Protestants maintain that the church must obey and submit to Scripture, and is under Scripture.
     Are you an apologist, or are you here to understand? Both. I Peter 3:15 commands me to be an apologist as does Jude 3 and Philippians 1:6. I would be lying if I said I was not. All Christians are supposed to be involved in apologetics to some degree. I have to be in defending the faith against Islam. But I also learn a lot from interaction with serious and intelligent and sincere Roman Catholics like yourselves and I do sincerely seek to understand.
     If the latter, then please give a forthright answer to the main question, as it has been repeatedly stated to you.
     I hope these answers are forthright enough for you.

109. Tom Brown February 16th, 2010 11:37 pm :

     K. Doran and Ken,

     I think the last comment from K. Doran challenging Ken started steering away from the argument in this article. Specifically, if the discussion comes to be about whether the Catholic Church is right or wrong in her view of the role of the episcopate in the formulation of canon, then the discussion is off topic. This article is about whether the Protestant system and sola scriptura are consistent with the Protestant measuring of the canon and Protestant formulation of criteria by which to measure the canon. Please do what you can to steer your comments back on the course of this argument. Thanks!

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom

110. K. Doran February 17th, 2010 12:35 am :

     Tom,

     Ken seems to hold simultaneously that the Catholic method of formulating the Canon violates sola scriptura and that the Protestant method of formulating the canon does not violate sola scriptura. He has defended the latter in ways that have little to do with your actual argument. Thus, I thought to emphasize this by asking him to explain how the Catholic could possibly be violating sola scriptura (in the formulation of the canon). Anything he claims that Catholics do with our episcopal magisterium to violate sola scriptura in canon formulation is just something that Protestants do with their academic magisterium, and thus they violate sola scriptura as well. I don’t know why this isn’t clear. You can’t claim that A implies B when Catholics Bishops do it but A does not imply B when Protestant scholars do it. For whatever reason, Ken still thinks we are talking about: (a) whether the Catholic bishops got the canon right, or (b) whether the words some Catholic apologists have used suggest that we place ourselves over scripture. We are talking about neither of these things. Ken: we are talking about whether the protestant formulation of the canon by your academic magisterium violates sola scriptura. It is obvious to me that it does. If it is not obvious to you that it does, maybe you can ask yourself why you believe that a bunch of Catholic bishops sitting down and formulating the canon violates sola scriptura. Any reason you give for the latter is bound to be a reason to believe that Protestants have violated sola scriptura in formulating the canon as well. Tom: I’m not trying to steer Ken towards (a) or (b) above, but away from those. If I am being ineffective, just let me know and I will say no more.

     Sincerely,

     K. Doran

111. Ken Temple February 17th, 2010 9:52 am :

     Dear K. Doran,
     Thanks for the continued interaction.

     You wrote:
     Ken: we are talking about whether the protestant formulation of the canon by your academic magisterium violates sola scriptura.

     No; we don’t have an academic magisterium. That is your wording.

     The books are “canon” (criterion, standard, rule, measuring rod) because they are already “God-breathed” and already existed, already written, revealed by 70 AD or 96 AD. They did not have to be collected together under one book cover in order to make them “canon”, but they were through the historical process of sifting and discerning, and discovering. The Romans were persecuting them and burning the Scriptures. It is understandable why some are not mentioned as often as others in the earliest decades after the apostles.

     So, we Protestants share in the history of the early church; we are “catholic” with a little c, in that sense. But, we do have the advantage of history and; we believe that the NT books are clear and self-authenitcating. (as I wrote a lot about that above, from I John 2:27; John 10:27; and I Corinthians 2:14-16) The OT books are also self – authenticating, using all the information above. (Jesus, Malachi ‘s prophesies being quoted in the NT about John the baptist, the Jews, Josephus, Jerome, etc.)

     We don’t violate Sola Scriptura, because Sola Scriptura never said that we cannot use historical background investigation and knowledge to understand when and by whom a book was written. SS never said that it was the only source of knowledge.

     The RCC violated SS by elevating itself over Scripture as the sole final authority and infallible interpreter and determiner of what is right and wrong (Mary, indulgences, etc.) and adding the deutero-canonicals at Trent. (and Augustine mistakenly thought they were inspired and canonical – he didn’t know Hebrew and didn’t like Greek either) Others quote from them sometimes; but 200 years from now, reading scholar papers that quote both from the Scriptures and other works and what other scholars say does not mean the author treats them all equally or as inspired ( ie, the scholarly quotes or using other books)

     The early church was not Roman Catholic; the canon consensus by folks like Jerome and Athanasius did not violate SS, but they actually were following the principles of SS to arrive at their conclusions.

112. Tim A. Troutman February 18th, 2010 6:35 pm :

     Ken,

     You’ve basically just asserted the opposite of what the article argues; you haven’t refuted any of the arguments. e.g. Your argument regarding Augustine’s lack of Hebrew ability as a cause for his believing the DC books were inspired – if you had read the article carefully, you would know that Origen already refuted that error (that only books where we possess the original in Hebrew were canonical) against Africanus. Furthermore, this is the fourth time you’ve mentioned Mary on a post that doesn’t have anything to do with her.

113. K. Doran February 18th, 2010 8:21 pm :

     Ken,

     I don’t think you’re interested in having a conversation, in learning anything, or in evaluating critically your own position. You are gaining nothing from my interaction, so I will sign off. I wish you the best.

     Sincerely,

     K. Doran

114. lojahw February 19th, 2010 1:07 am :

     Was Jesus’ audience confused about which books he meant he when he told them to “search the Scriptures”? Not at all. There is no indication anywhere in the New Testament that anyone ever questioned which books made up the Hebrew canon. Was there a secret dispute among the Jews of Jesus’ day about which books constituted the Scriptures? There is not even a hint of such an important controversy in the New Testament.

     In Luke 24:44 Jesus said, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” What is interesting about Jesus’ three-fold division of the Old Testament (OT) is that it totally agrees with the extra-biblical first century testimony of Josephus; and that, in turn, agrees with the official count of OT books the early church fathers unanimously accepted over the next few centuries. According to this reckoning, there were 22 books in the Hebrew canon: one for each letter of their alphabet, wherein the minor prophets were grouped as “the twelve” and twelve other books were combined in pairs. Suggestions that the Hebrew canon was uncertain in Jesus’ day are without Scriptural or historical basis.

     It is true that the names of the canonical OT books listed by different church fathers vary slightly, but that’s because in trying to list 22 books they sometimes forgot which books were paired, occasionally leaving out Esther and listing another book in its place. How many people do you know who would not forget the name of at least one OT book when trying to list them? Moreover, how many would always remember the specific books paired by the Jews? Occasionally, a church father separated a couple of the pairs and listed 24 books in the Hebrew canon – but no one before Augustine ever counted more books than that.

     So why late in the fourth century did Augustine suddenly count the deuteros as Scripture? By what criteria did he justify these additions? He decided that canonicity should be based on how many churches in his day accepted a particular book (On Christian Doctrine 2.8). Depending on where one lived or with which churches one had contact, the answer varied. Perhaps that explains why there have been so many different canons since Augustine’s day. Until the Council of Trent the Vulgate was produced with varying numbers of books (Cardinal Cajetan is just one example of a late Catholic bishop who defended the early church fathers’ canon). Even today, different Eastern Orthodox churches use different canons. Taking a vote among churches is not a reliable way to define the canon of Scripture.

     Augustine also suggested that books like the Maccabees should be accepted “on account of the extreme and wonderful sufferings of certain martyrs.” However, as Norman Geisler observed: that would qualify Foxe’s Book of Martyrs to be counted as Scripture! Augustine’s criteria for canonicity are not persuasive.

     The article gives the impression that the Septuagint (LXX) was a fixed collection of books that included all of the deuteros and that the Roman Catholic Old Testament canon is the same as that of the LXX. Not true. In fact, the original LXX (ca. 280 B.C.) included only the Pentateuch. Furthermore, none of the earliest extant LXX MSS include 2 Maccabees, yet 4 Maccabees appears in the codex Sinaiticus. If, on the other hand, one argues for the full so-called Alexandrian Jewish canon, then the Council of Trent left out several books that the Eastern Orthodox have preserved in their canon(s)! The argument from the Septuagint either proves too much or too little. That the Samaritans had a truncated canon only confirms the Jews’ assessment of their spiritual deterioration.

     The Essenes had copies of the books of Enoch and Jubilees, as well as Tobit and Sirach, but none of the other deuteros. What does this tell us? merely that the Greek-speaking Jews kept eclectic collections of their literature. The Essene collection of books suggests that they recognized more than one kind of canon. The Community Rule was highly authoritative for life at Qumran, but it was not considered to be Scripture. The presence of the books of Enoch, Tobit, and Sirach at Qumran don’t mean that they considered these books to be Scripture. One could say that the Essenes recognized three canons: Scripture, the “Community Rule” (a forerunner of the various monastic “rules” that flourished in later centuries), and a wider literary canon encompassing books that were of cultural or historic value.

     It can be argued that a similar distinctions of canons were developed in the early Church: a Scriptural canon; an ecclesiastical canon (which included the Odes and other works, such as the Apostolic Constitutions of Hippolytus, as well as the canons of the Ecumenical Councils); and a broader literary canon, including the deuteros, the Shepherd of Hermas, etc. For example, Rufinus wrote: “But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not ‘Canonical’ but ‘Ecclesiastical:’ that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees. … These they would not have read in the Churches” (Commentary on the Apostle’s Creed, 36). Jerome’s Preface to the Book of Kings lists these books as “amongst the Apocryphal writings.” Yet, Jerome, a model churchman, obeyed his superior’s command to translate the deuteros into Latin, without changing his opinion about them being outside of the Scriptural canon. Athanasius charitably wrote that the deuteros were “appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness.” Origen’s opinions are not to be trusted since he was condemned for unorthodoxy. John of Damascus wrote: “These are virtuous and noble, but are not counted nor were they placed in the ark.” The point is that the early church allowed and even encouraged the reading of the deuteros while distinguishing them from the canon of Scripture. The fact that certain church fathers and New Testament passages allude to or quote the deuteros does not prove their Scriptural canonicity any more than Paul’s quotes from Greek poets or a Cretan prophet argue for their canonicity.

     What happened at the Council of Trent? The final vote at Trent on the canon was: 24 yea, 15 nay, and 16 abstentions. The Council of Trent just used Augustine’s voting strategy, substituting bishops for churches, and the result was not an impressive confirmation of the leading of the Holy Spirit! But Trent also did not finish the task: they didn’t even vote on 3 & 4 Esdras, 3 Maccabees, or the prayer of Manasseh, all in the LXX canon. Furthermore, IF as the article argues, Church councils approved by the Bishop of Rome determined which books were inspired by the Holy Spirit, the historical fact that there were many versions of the Vulgate (including those agreeing with Cardinal Cajetan’s canon) demonstrate that the Church had no fixed canon for fifteen centuries! So the Roman Catholic canon of Scripture did not exist for 1500 years and the one proclaimed by Trent was not final! Hence, the assertion that only a church council approved by the Bishop of Rome is able to infallibly recognize which books were inspired by the Holy Spirit begs the question.

     Also problematic is the tension between the accepted inspiration of Scripture by the Holy Spirit and the choice of certain books by Augustine and the Council of Trent. There can be no falsehood in God-breathed Scripture (cf. Psalm 119:160; John 17:17). But the deuteros don’t measure up. For example, the Wisdom of Solomon bears false witness against Solomon that he wrote the book (in Greek, by the way, centuries after Solomon died), and it teaches heretical views (e.g., the pre-existence of the human soul, a late Hellenistic philosophical opinion). Furthermore, the additions to Daniel and Esther are condemned by Proverbs 30:5-6, “Every word of God is tested . . . do not add to His words lest He reprove you, and you be proved a liar.” The additions to Esther call Haman a Macedonian, in direct contradiction to the authentic Hebrew text which identifies Haman as an Agagite (from a totally different region of the world). Careful study of the deuteros yields more examples that fall under the judgment of Proverbs 30:6. So not only is the Roman Catholic canon not final, it also calls fallible books infallible. So much for infallible authority.

     Finally, we can have high confidence in the canonicity of the 66 books of the Protestant Bible based on the following objective criteria: 1) the book was recognized as Scripture by Christ and/or the apostles; OR 2) the book has an authentic apostolic connection (written by an apostle or a trusted church leader in apostolic times); AND 3) the work reliably teaches God’s truth, not contradicting other Scripture; AND 4) the book has been continuously preserved for use by the Church. These criteria are attested to by both Scripture and church history.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

115. Ken Temple February 19th, 2010 9:19 am :

     Tim,
     What exactly would an Evangelical Protestant who believes that Sola Scriptura is true, have to write in order for it to be a valid refutation of what this article is claiming? (as all RC apologetics does – start with the canon and go from there. )

     I gave the quotes from Scripture that show that God’s people hear His voice and have discernment and the anointing of the Holy Spirit. (John 10:27; I John 2:27; I Cor. 2:14-16)

     I showed Jerome’s quote on the Greek LXX sections in Daniel. (see above, I reproduce part of it here)

     “. . . as I have said, these visions are not found amongst the Hebrews, and that therefore they are not obliged to answer to Porphyry for these portions which exhibit no authority as Holy Scripture.”

     I also showed that the quotes in the NT from Malachi (the last writing prophet of the OT era, around 430 BC; also Chronicles written about that time – harmonizes with what Jesus said about the OT canon in Luke 11:51-52 – “all the prophets”, “from the blood of Abel (Genesis) to the blood of Zechariah the priest” (Chronicles). The quotes from Malachi are the last verses in the book and the last verse in the OT – Luke 1:17 – John the baptizer fullfilled that prophesy. Josephus confirms the OT canon in Against Apion 1:8, etc.

     I admit that we share the same early church history. Luther and Calvin never meant SS to mean that all knowledge has to come directly from Scripture, or that the early church was completely wrong on everything. We love the saints, the martyrs, Polycarp, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Cyprian, and great writers like Tertullian and Origen (although some heresies); and great leaders like Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Augustine and Jerome too! They got some things right and some things wrong.

     We believe the NT canon and the doctrine of the Trinity are Biblical and the early history is important and shows us where they got things wrong and what things they got right when we compare with Scripture. What’s wrong with that?

     If the NT books were written from 45 AD – 70 or 96 AD; and they were “God-breathed” at the time of writing (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-21), why is process of discovering that, given the nature of the books being letters written to specific locations and gospels for specific locations (and Acts for Theophilus; and Rev. for 7 churches in Asia Minor) ; given the persecution of the church for the first 3 + Centuries and burning of scrolls by the Romans and difficulty of copying at that time, etc. why are all these factors taken together not a good argument for our position?

     Some of the NT books show us the importance of the apostolic principle of writing down the gospel and truths so that future generations would have the records of the “faith once for all delivered to the saints” – some of the writers make it clear that they write, in order that they may know for sure and have confidence about what happened and know that they have eternal life ( Luke 1:4; I John 5:13) and Peter writes so that after he dies the believers will be able to remind themselves in the truth ( 2 Peter 1:12-21; 3:1 – If Peter was really a universal Pope in the RC sense, seems he would have included this info in his letter before his death. Nothing on it. He called himself “fellow -elder” in I Peter 5:1) and Paul writes so that Tim. would know how to lead the church and they would know how a local church should behave and have elders, etc. ( I Tim. 3:14-15).

     Paul, in writing Galatians, when he says, “I now say to you again” ( Galatians 1:8-9) is saying “by writing, I am saying” with apostolic binding Scriptural authority. These statements are scriptural indications that SS is true; and is also taught in principle in Scripture. We acknowledge the historical process of human discovery and collecting the individual books and letters into one “cover” (codex) – Many scholars believe that it was the Christians who invented the codex.

     All of these things together point to Sola Scriptura, and the canon existence (48-70 or 96 AD) vs. the canon discovery process (150 Muratorian Canon; 200 Tertullian and Irenaeus (most of NT); 250 Origen’s list; 367 Athanasius) does not violate SS, because it never said all background knowledge and historical knowledge must be contained in Scripture explicitly. Why is accepting that the early church got it right on the NT canon and the Trinity, but wrong on some other things a problem? They were not perfect, as you admit, and the infallibility doctrine came along much much later and is read back in history by the DD of theory of Newman (we sincerely believe this; I am not trying to be ad hominem or “mean”).

     Anyway, I tried.

116. Ken Temple February 19th, 2010 9:27 am :

     Tim,
     I will go back and look at what you said about Origen and Hebrew and Africanus. I don’t remember that part; but I did read the whole thing; and I even printed it out so I could read it better – I don’t well with 30-40 page paper on computer screen.

117. Tim A. Troutman February 19th, 2010 3:00 pm :

     Ken,

     What exactly would an Evangelical Protestant who believes that Sola Scriptura is true, have to write in order for it to be a valid refutation of what this article is claiming?

     He would need to show that either the premises are false, or that the conclusions do not follow from the premises.

     What you appear to be doing in this latest reply is arguing the case for sola scriptura (which is the same as solo scriptura as shown in this article) but Tom is not arguing against sola scriptura.

     Anyway, I tried.

     What are you trying to do? It seems to me that you’re trying to show that the Protestants have good reasons for their canon. We know you have (what you believe to be) good reasons. Marcion could give a lot of good reasons for his canon as well.

     But are you trying to critically evaluate your own position? When I was a Protestant, my biggest hurdle intellectually was that I knew the Bible was true, but I also knew that I couldn’t give any good answer for why I knew that. I couldn’t give an answer for the canon. Protestantism doesn’t have such an answer (as this article shows). But Catholicism does.

118. JJS February 20th, 2010 5:21 pm :

     Ken,

     The books are “canon” (criterion, standard, rule, measuring rod) because they are already “God-breathed” and already existed, already written, revealed by 70 AD or 96 AD.

     But if the bishops of the early church themselves didn’t hold this rationale for canonicity, then it’s a bit dodgy when we Protestants use it. In other words, we can’t come up with a theory to justify our canon, and then import it back into the early church. If those guys were laboring to determine which books should be recognized as canonical, then it’s not fair for us to simply say, “The books were canonical the moment they were written, full stop.”

119. Ken Temple February 20th, 2010 8:13 pm :

     Jason,
     Thanks for joining in the conversation!

     How do we know they did not use that as a reason? “That”, meaning, “the existence of a written document from an apostle or under an apostle’s authority or direction that has the quality of being ‘God-breathed’ “, etc.? What I mean is that early Christian writers say things like “it has come down to us that Mark, wrote a gospel for Peter, interpreting his sermons”, etc. If it really happened in history that Mark wrote for the apostle Peter in say, 45-50 AD, and Peter was a disciple and apostle of Jesus Christ and had His word ( John 17:8) and Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to bring to their remembrance all things and lead them into all the truth(John 14, 16) , then Mark’s gospel was God-breathed, therefore, “canon” ( criterion, rule, standard, principle). Same for Matthew, Luke-Acts, John, Paul’s letters, Peter’s letters, James, Jude, Hebrews (Barnabas or Apollos or Silas or Luke ?), John’s letters, Revelation. They belong in the list/collection because they were the written inspired record of what Jesus promised to reveal to them. ( John 14:16-17; 14:26; 15:26-27; 16:12-14; 17:8)

     It is a difference between

     existence ontologically in real time and space (God-breathed when written, if God-breathed when written, then it was “canon (1)” at the time it was written); 45-70 AD or 45-96 AD

     vs. historical process —
     when it was discovered or discerned or witnessed to as canon (canon 2) – process of discerning through trials of persecution and burning of books by the Romans and –

     responding to Marcion’s heresy (140-150 AD); Montanism (about 135-177 AD), Muratorian canon (140-150 AD); Irenaeus – quoted most of the NT books as Scritpure (200 AD); Tertullian ( around 200-220 AD – also quoted most of the NT books as Scripture); Origen (250 AD – same as our 27 NT books); Eusebius – 325 AD; Athanasius – 367 AD – 27 NT books.

     I don’t understand why you think that is “import[ing] it back into the early church”- Didn’t they mostly discern them based on
     1. existence with # 2-4 also true,
     2. claim to be by an apostle or under an apostle’s authority,
     3. internal consistency with the “rule of faith”/sound doctrine/ truth/ inspiration of the Holy Spirit,
     4. wide acceptance by churches and communities.

     Gnostic gospels and other books were in existence, but they did not have the internal characteristics of truth or inspiration or being God-breathed. They knew they were not true by the Gnostic teachings (for example, Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of Judas and Apocalypse of Peter)

     Aren’t those the general reasons that the early church gave for “canon” ?

120. Tom Brown February 21st, 2010 3:48 pm :

     Dear “lojahw”,

     Thank you for your contribution. While it was filled with historical detail, it was only in your last paragraph that you touched on the Protestant method of determining the canon. This is what my article and this discussion are about. You said we can have “high confidence” in the Protestant canon based on four criteria (with a confusing use of conjunctives). But (1) you did not take up my argument in section III, that even to craft the criteria by which we determine the canon in fact violates sola scriptura because you are thereby exercising a power over the canon by choosing which criteria to apply and how to apply them. Also, (2) I take your “high confidence” language as a partial concession to my argument in section II and these comments, that the commonly used Protestant criteria for determining the canon are not reliable enough to bind our consciences. “High confidence” does not bind consciences, and if our consciences are not bound by the (external) scope of the canon, they cannot be bound by the (internal) contents of the Bible. Furthermore, (3) while I argued against the consistency with sola scriptura of your four proposed criteria in section II, you did not address any of my arguments. Finally, (4) you did not even propose the classical and confessional Reformed position, that the self-authenticating nature of Scripture, in conjunction with the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, allows us to identify Scripture. This leaves you defining the canon via a method not used by the fathers of the Reformation, but still reaching their same conclusion, as if by post hoc rationalization. It also leaves you subject to Ridderbos’s critique:

     Every attempt to find an a posteriori element to justify the canon, whether in the doctrinal authority or in the gradually developing consensus of the church, goes beyond the canon itself, posits a canon above the canon, and thereby comes into conflict with the order of redemptive history and the nature of the canon itself. (Ridderbos, p. 35.)

     This is all what I’ve said in my article, but I’m repeating it here because you either did not read or follow the article, or you chose not to address my arguments in this combox but instead to use the combox for your own historical critique of the Catholic canon.

     You stated that there is no scriptural or historical basis for suggesting that the content of the Hebrew canon was uncertain in Jesus’s day. This is incorrect. Please read my section II.B., in which I discuss the mutually exclusive views of certain Jewish groups regarding the content of the canon. You yourself noted the Pentateuch-only premier version of the Septuagint from 280 B.C. I also noted in section II.B. the way that Reformed scholars have addressed these facts.

     You mention Cardinal Cajetan and the early Church fathers’ canon as if it aligns with the Protestant Old Testament. But as I described in the article, not one of these figures gives us the Protestant Old Testament, their various ways of getting to the number 22 notwithstanding.

     I think you are making a tu quoque argument, that Augustine used an unreliable method to determine the canon (i.e., basing canonicity on widespread acceptance). This, of course, does not relieve the problem of the unreliability of the Protestant method(s) of forming the canon. But as for St. Augustine, the Catholic canon is not formed on St. Augustine’s canon, nor on St. Augustine’s criterion, but instead on the determination of the Magisterium. If one accepts the proposition that the Holy Spirit guides the Magisterium into Truth on matters of doctrine and morals, then this is perfectly reliable. If one rejects the proposition, then it is not relevant to argue further that Augustine’s method was unreliable.

     You said that my article gave you the impression that the Septuagint was fixed and in line with the Catholic canon, and then showed my claim not to be true. But you attack a straw man. My very first mention of the word “Septuagint” noted the Diaspora Jews’ use of the Septuagint that included deuterocanonical and apocryphal texts. I treated this all at length in section II.B. The argument I am making is that Protestants who would determine the canon based on the “original Hebrew” are left either with “too much” or “too little” (to use your words). I am not arguing that the Septuagint’s scope supports the Catholic canon, so I am not left having proved too much or too little.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom

121. Ken Temple February 22nd, 2010 9:53 am :

     Tom,

     Every attempt to find an a posteriori element to justify the canon, whether in the doctrinal authority or in the gradually developing consensus of the church, goes beyond the canon itself, posits a canon above the canon, and thereby comes into conflict with the order of redemptive history and the nature of the canon itself. (Ridderbos, p. 35.)

     “goes beyond” – all historical background knowledge does not have to be in the written text itself. Sola Scriptura never said all historical knowledge about the books must be in the books themselves. Sola Scriptura never rejected all tradition; only that all tradition must be held up to the light of Scripture and tested by Scripture.

     “posits a canon above the canon” – I don’t see that – that is like your “power over the canon” – it does not follow that the list or discovery of all the books is somehow “above” the canon or “has power over the canon”.

     how does it come into conflict with the order of redemptive history?

     how does it conflict with the nature of the canon itself? What does Ridderboss mean by “the nature of the canon itself” ?

     What were the reasons that the early church gave that are not “a posteriori” (does Ridderboss mean “arguing after the facts; “from after”; “from effect to cause”?

     Did they not say their reasons were
     1. apostolic authority (written by an apostle or under an apostle’s authority or by a close associate with the apostles and/or Jesus. James and Jude are half brothers of the Lord.
     2. Inspiration or Internal doctrines / according to the rule of faith ( pre-Nicean/apostles creed summary – Irenaeus; Tertullian, Origen, Athanasius. When they say Gnosticism in them, those were rejected.
     3. acceptance by the churches spread throughout the empire

     In a sense all historical research into causes are “a posteriori” arguments – arguing “from afterward” – that is the nature of history.

122. Tom Brown February 23rd, 2010 2:03 am :

     Dear Ken,

     For Ridderbos, the offense is not in going beyond the canon itself [alone]. He uses that phrase there because if the element justifying the canon came from the canon itself, it would not go beyond the canon. The trouble is both that the elements are extra-Biblical and canon-defining. They are above the canon because they are canon-defining. An artist or author has power over (and is thus ‘above’) his work because he has the power to add a part or take a part away or modify any part of his work. Same with a lawmaker drafting a piece of legislation. Same with anyone with the power to take away from or add to the Bible.

     I know sola scriptura never said that all historical knowledge about the books of the Bible must be in the books themselves. It says that Scripture is the final authority for all matters of the faith. But if you are using historical evidence to define the canon–if you are using historical analysis as your criterion of the canon–you have justified the canon with something extra-canonical. As we’ve talked about already, the trouble here is that history does not tell us “Mark is canonical” like it tells us “Lee fought at Gettysburg.” To get to “Mark is canonical” you apply (1) your human reason to (2) your criterion of canonicty, which apparently makes great use of historical evidence. Note that neither the (1) nor the (2) are historical evidence themselves. It is these things, not the historical evidence that become the “canon above the canon.” They put you above the canon.

     You said the following:

     “posits a canon above the canon” – I don’t see that – that is like your “power over the canon” – it does not follow that the list or discovery of all the books is somehow “above” the canon or “has power over the canon”.

     If the Catholic Church is ‘over’ Scripture simply by articulating the canon of Scripture, then how is the power to define the canon (by articulating the criterion by which certain books are in or out) not also a power ‘over’ Scripture? You say that “discovery” of the books is not necessarily “above” the canon; the Catholic claim is essentially that the Church “discovered” the canon through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But the Reformers left the Catholic Church precisely because they believed that the Catholic Church had placed itself “above” Scripture. I think you have to maintain either that no one is “over” Scripture by having the power to articulate the canon (or “discovering” the canon), or that both Catholics and Protestants have placed themselves “over” Scripture for having this power (or making this discovery).

     Ridderbos’s use of “canon” is nuanced, so hard for me to recreate well here. He uses it both to refer to the canon of Scripture and to the rule of faith. He is a faithful Reformed theologian; I highly recommend his work for anyone trying to understand this issue better. I gave my interpretation of what Ridderbos means by “a posteriori” in the article.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom

123. lojahw February 24th, 2010 4:50 pm :

     Dear Tom,

     You seem to have misunderstood my post. The history I described was intended to show that you have over-simplified the facts related to how the canon of Scripture has been recognized in and by the Church. You cannot simply dismiss the 22 book Hebrew canon because it doesn’t fit your model, nor can you ignore the historical facts related to the variants used by the Church throughout its history. The canon published by Council of Trent represents just one variant of several that persist in the global Church. Can you explain why using the original Hebrew proves too little or too much?

     In response to your assertion that there are no objective criteria from Scripture itself on the canon, I listed a few. Your assertion in section III that such criteria violates sola scriptura is just as mistaken as a Protestant’s assertion that Urban VIII’s condemnation of Galileo conflicts with the doctrine of papal infallibility. The definition of sola scriptura does not address the boundaries of the canon, but rather it focuses on how the Church should use the Scriptures it has received from the prophets and the apostles.

     You wrote:

     even to craft the criteria by which we determine the canon in fact violates sola scriptura because you are thereby exercising a power over the canon by choosing which criteria to apply and how to apply them.

     On the contrary, since Scripture itself identifies certain books as Scripture, affirming their canonicity is required by (not in violation of) sola scriptura. Please note that the verb form of the noun for “Scripture” is translated “it is written” – hence, wherever the New Testament quotes the Old with this phrase, it should be understood: “it is inscripturated.” Surely you don’t call this criterion ad hoc: it is the basis for most of the canon. What the prophets and apostles called the word of God and/or Scripture has never been open for debate by either adherents of sola scriptura or any other orthodox Christian. Please explain why you think this would not be binding on Christians?

     Furthermore, Scripture explicitly teaches certain attributes of Scripture that must be affirmed by anyone who practices sola scriptura. For example: Scripture teaches that Scripture is “God-breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20-21), true and free from falsehood (Psalm 119:160; Prov. 30:5-6; John 17:17), unbreakable (Isa. 55:10-11; John 10:35; Tit. 1:2), and lasts forever (Isa. 40:8; Matt. 5:18; 24:35; 1 Pet. 1:25). On what basis do you call these criteria ad hoc? Which of the church fathers did not associate these attributes with canonical Scripture? Again, why would these definitions given by the Word of God not be binding on Christians?

     Moreover, it can be inferred from Scripture that authentically preserved teachings of the apostles and prophets (upon whom the Church is founded), i.e., such books that exhibit the attributes listed above are canonical books. On what grounds do you call this criterion ad hoc? Which of the church fathers did not accept the books received from the prophets and apostles as canonical (cf. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1)? Your mention of spurious forgeries and lost books has no bearing on the authentic canon. No one ever claimed that everything ever written by the apostles and prophets was canonical, just as no one ever claimed that all papal writings have been infallible. Whatever books have been lost were by definition non-canonical, for the apostle Peter agreed with the prophet Isaiah that “the word of the Lord endures forever.” What therefore was lost cannot be counted with “the word of the Lord.”

     What I’m saying is that Scripture explicitly identifies most of the canonical books as well as the attributes of canonical books in general. Based on these objective criteria, we can have high confidence that certain books are or are not canonical. You have not refuted my arguments against the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. Augustine himself testified against the canonicity of some of deuterocanonical works: “the purity of the canon has not admitted these writings, not because the authority of these men who pleased God is rejected, but because they are not believed to be theirs” (cf. Civitas Dei 18.38). The “Wisdom of Solomon” was not written by Solomon nor were the additions to Daniel written by Daniel – hence, these should not be considered canonical (cf. Proverbs 30:5-6, regarding adding to God’s “tested” words).

     You chide me for not defending your selected quotations from certain Reformers re: the canon; however, their subjective statements were not meant so much to define the canon as to affirm the divine inspiration of the Bible. Calvin rightly questioned which Ecumenical Council defined the canon of Scripture; he accepted the same Old Testament Law and Prophets and Psalms (a synecdoche representing Josephus’ 4 books of “hymns to God”) that Jesus and his first century contemporaries recognized as canonical. (BTW – your article glosses over the objective statement from the Belgic confession: “they prove themselves to be from God. For … the things predicted in them do happen”) Defining the canon is not the same as affirming the inspiration of the books contained in it. Yet, even if such statements are used by some to define the canon (as Mormons do), any ultimate appeal to the Reformers or to such subjective arguments would be a violation of sola scriptura. Rather, I am being consistent with sola scriptura by appealing to the teaching of Scripture which the Reformers recognized as the highest authority.

     Section IIB of your article is simply not consistent with the historical facts. The history I recounted (which you have not refuted) vindicates my arguments. The Jews and the Church did develop more than one kind of canon: one for Scripture and others for community and literary purposes. You conflate the various functional canons. The so-called LXX “canon” you appeal to is an ivory-tower construct representing a range of books found among the many manuscripts that have survived, covering multiple functions within the faith communities of its day. The use of the LXX “canon” in Christian Bibles prior to the Council of Trent is anything but consistent (the list of books among the copies varies noticeably). Luther and King James included the deuteros in their Bibles and Calvin referred to them in his Institutes, but none of them considered the deuteros equal to Scripture. In other words, neither quoting nor including the deuteros in an edition of the Bible supports their canonicity.

     If you insist that a universal council approved by the bishop of Rome was required to define the canon, there never was one (Trent was not Ecumenical). I recommend that you read some recent scholarship on this topic, e.g.,: Bible manuscripts: 1400 years of scribes and scripture, by Scot McKendrick and Kathleen Doyle (2007), and Manuscripts of the Greek Bible, by Bruce Metzger (1981).

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

124. Tom Brown March 2nd, 2010 1:45 am :

     Dear “lojahw”,

     You claim to have provided objective criteria by which the scriptural canon can be known. But none of your methods are reliable enough to have produced the Protestant canon, at least until the time of the Reformation. If a method is truly objective and reliable enough to bind the believer’s conscience, surely it would have produced the Protestant canon before the time of Luther. I take all of the disputes about the scope of the canon that went on until after Luther as evidence that methods at least up until that time were not objective, not able to produce a canon with enough reliability to bind consciences.

     In your first comment you noted that early scholars of the Church all listed 22 books, though sometimes they forgot which books were paired. I replied that not one of them gives us the Protestant canon. You also mentioned other historical points, like about Augustine and Trent. Augustine was unreliable, you said, beacuse he simply took a vote of the churches around him to see which texts were accepted as canonical. I replied that your criticism of Augustine doesn’t relieve your problem of the unreliability of the Protestant canon. Trent was unreliable, you implied, because of a high number of negative votes and abstentions when the Catholic canon was under vote. But Trent occurred after the Reformation, of course, so can’t be relevant to my arguments and conclusions. You said that Scripture does not record people being confused over what Jesus meant when he discussed searching the Scriptures. I referred you to the part of my article in which I explained that there was great uncertainty in the time of Christ amongst Jewish groups about what constituted “Scripture.” You said that I give the impression that the Septuagint was fixed and Catholic. Now you have raised the point again that I am appealing to a fictitious or “ivory tower” view of the Septuagint. But I had already responded to this complaint by noting that my very first reference to the Septuagint defines it in a way so as to avoid the mistake you made. Please refer back to my previous comment if you missed my reply there. Please help me to avoid all of this repetition. We are not covering ground because you are not reading my responses with any care, but looking to score points in favor of your talking points.

     Now you say that I misunderstood your post, the history you described, and that I have oversimplified the canon process, that I have “simply dismiss[ed] the 22 book Hebrew canon because it doesn’t fit [my] model.” Unless you are claiming that the 22-book Hebrew canon aligned with the modern Protestant Old Testament, I’m not sure what you mean. I have dismissed nothing. I am happy to point you to the sources I used in reaching the conclusion that not one single source from the Church until the time of the Reformation used an Old Testament that aligns with the Protestant Old Testament. What do the “historical facts related to the variants used by the Church throughout its history” have to do with it? See, this is a problem for the descendents of the Reformation, who have nothing but the Scripture to look to as their ultimate authority. This is not a problem for the Catholic Church, who believes that she has teaching authority enduring through and transcending variants of the Bible used by the Church throughout her history. For Protestantism, the mere existence of variants throughout the history of the Church presents a critical problem.

     You asked me to explain why “using the original Hebrew proves too little or too much.” This was in response to my previous comment, in which I said:

     The argument I am making is that Protestants who would determine the canon based on the “original Hebrew” are left either with “too much” or “too little” (to use your words). I am not arguing that the Septuagint’s scope supports the Catholic canon, so I am not left having proved too much or too little.

     This is because “The New Testament has many texts which quite probably are references to the deuterocanon, and also identifies as “scripture” a line of text the source of which is still completely unknown. [That would be too much for the Protestant.] The New Testament does not identify five books which Protestants do treat as canonical. [That would be too little for the Protestant.] The historical evidence also indicates that the deuterocanonical texts were still accepted at the time of Christ. We have no evidence that there was an ‘original Hebrew canon’ matching the 39-book Protestant canon.” (Section II.B., above, for this quote and a full explanation of its claims.)

     You said in response to my conclusion that sola scriptura does not leave the Protestant with enough room even to craft a criterion by which the canon is defined: “The definition of sola scriptura does not address the boundaries of the canon, but rather it focuses on how the Church should use the Scriptures it has received from the prophets and the apostles.” I think my definition of sola scriptura is uncontroversial, that “Scripture is the sole infallible authority of the faith.” This doctrine doesn’t focus on anything, but defines contra Catholicism that the Bible alone is our final and infallible authority on matters of the faith. So while you’d be right to say that it does not emphasize the boundaries of the canon per se, this is no reason to claim that the doctrinal act of defining the scope of the canon is exempt from the reach of sola scriptura. The scope of the canon is a matter of the faith, and therefore must ultimately come from Scripture or be subordinate to Scripture (but Scripture can’t be subordinate to Scripture).

     You said that “since Scripture itself identifies certain books as Scripture, affirming their canonicity is required by (not in violation of) sola scriptura.” I agree that it is a matter of faith that the Pentateuch is scriptural, and this needing to be based on nothing more than New Testament references. But Scripture’s identification of “certain books” as scriptural does not get you to the 66-book canon, and does not get you to a closed canon. You talked about the “it is written” test — what of my argument about James 4:5 that I make in section II.B.? Regarding the claim that what is identified as scripture by the prophets or apostles is Scripture, you said “Please explain why you think this would not be binding on Christians?” I think that because, given James 4:5, your claim would require us to admit that a portion of Scripture has been lost!

     You said, “You have not refuted my arguments against the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books.” Nor will I in this combox, because your argument is not relevant to my premises or conclusions, that is, even if your arguments were true, they would not make my points more or less likely to be true. It would do this combox a disservice to derail the arguments I have raised by getting into arguments you want to raise. Such arguments are contrary to our commenting guidelines, and you would be kind to refrain from raising them with each comment.

     And wrapping up a few final matters, I did not chide you, and I did not selectively quote Reformed authors. I want to the summit of Calvin’s work on the canon, and poured over four of the best Reformed works on the canon that exist. They handle the same passages from Calvin’s Institutes to talk about the Reformed view on the Canon. You tell me I “glossed over” a part of the Belgic Confession in my article. I find this frustrating because I quoted in block quotation the very line you claim I glossed over — I wonder if in fact you find it a “gloss over” because I failed to exposit that line in the way you would care to see. Finally, you said, “Section IIB of your article is simply not consistent with the historical facts. The history I recounted (which you have not refuted) vindicates my arguments.” You recounted no history that I did not refute, at least none relevant to the arguments or conclusions of my article. I’m not certain what you are talking about here.

     I’m going to sea later this week for a while and won’t have computer access from the ship. I hope I have time to address your reply before I leave, but beg your patience if I don’t.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom

125. lojahw March 3rd, 2010 1:23 am :

     Dear Tom,

     Thank you for your kind response. Please allow me to address a few of your points:

     Your emphasis on the exactness of the canon gives the impression that because Scripture itself does not explicitly identify every book in the canon there is nothing to bind the conscience of a sola scriptura Protestant. I beg to differ. At a minimum, every book that Scripture affirms as Scripture is binding on the Protestant’s conscience – and those books are extremely important for all Christians.

     You say that there are 5 OT books that cannot be verified as canonical by Scripture? I disagree, but for the sake of argument, can you tell me which doctrines necessary for salvation are lost without those books?

     Regarding the 22 book Hebrew canon, you assert a wider “Alexandrian canon” which is sheer fiction (see F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, 1988; also Roger Beckwith’s, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, 1985). Your assertion of “great uncertainty” in the time of Christ is based on the existence of books for which there are no affirmations of authority in the first century, any more than the presence of the Epistle of Barnabas or 2 Clement in the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus MSS affirms their Christian canonicity. On the contrary, the mix of canonical and noncanonical books points to the importance of the Scriptural criteria for distinguishing between them.

     The Church’s unanimous witness to the 22 book canon (27, when counting the double Hebrew letters) for several centuries is undeniable, even though errors arising from copies (we don’t have the originals) and/or mental lapses occasionally dropped Esther. For example, Eusebius records Origen’s canon as 22 books, but only lists 21. Where was the error made? Not likely in Origen’s original? In Eusebius’ copy? Perhaps in a later scribe making one of the derivative copies of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History? What do Protestants lose doctrinally if Esther is left out of the canon?

     I’ll grant that the LXX version of the book of Jeremiah found probably included Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah, but there is no evidence that Jesus and the Apostles considered these additions to be canonical: they are not quoted as Scripture, and quotes from Jeremiah in the NT follow the Masoretic text (cf. Matt. 2:18; 1 Cor 1:31; etc.). Regardless, there is no combination of OT books within the universally recognized formula based on the letters of the Hebrew alphabet that would encompass the deuteros as the Council of Trent did.

     I disagree that James 4:5 is a reference to lost scripture. The Greek text can be interpreted in two ways: 1) “the spirit that dwells in us desires in accordance with envy” (this agrees with the context in James 4 re: conflicts caused by envy; see Exod. 20:17 or Num. 5:14, re: “a spirit of jealousy,” or Prov. 6:34, “for jealousy enrages a man”); or 2) “He jealously desires the Spirit which He has made to dwell in us” (cf. Exod 34:14; Deut. 4:24, 5:9, 6:15; 32:16, 21; Josh 24:19; Psa 78:58; Psa 79:5). So instead of referring to lost Scripture, James 4 could refer to multiple passages of Scripture depending on how one interprets the Greek. Your argument breaks down wherever more than one passage of Scripture could be the source of a NT quotation (which is not really all that rare).

     Regarding NT quotes of the deuteros, can you give any clear example of one that identifies a deutero as canonical? Of the many so-called deutero quotes I’ve seen, they’re either quotes like those of Paul from non-canonical sources or they have clearly canonical antecedents.

     What you call a critical problem for Protestants does not seem to be critical when you consider what both history and Scripture can tell us about the canon.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

126. Questions of canon « יהוה מלך March 3rd, 2010 10:59 am :

     […] Questions of canon 2010 March 3 tags: Canon, Catholicism, Reformed by Richard Tom Brown from over at Called to Communion has posted a very thought provoking article interacting with the Reformed view of canonicity. It can be found here. […]

127. Tom Brown March 4th, 2010 1:15 am :

     Dear “lojahw”,

     I’m not sure what you mean about my “emphasis on the exactness of the canon.” If the canon is not known exactly, you have a grave problem, for you may include a text that is spurious, or leave out a text that is canonical. As a Calvinist, I followed the classical Reformational hermeneutic that Scripture is to be interpreted by Scripture. If you don’t have an exact canon, given that hermenutic, this would call into question any Protestant effort at biblical exegesis. A missing text could give an essential qualification to a text you are using; or you could be using a spurious text to qualify a part of Scripture. That’s the problem also with your claim that “At a minimum, every book that Scripture affirms as Scripture is binding.” That’s the problem with you asking, “What do Protestants lose doctrinally if Esther is left out of the canon.” You seem to be following, are at least tolerating, the canon-within-a-canon approach, which I discussed in section II.E. You have the Protestant equation backwards when asking ‘what do you lose doctrinally?’ — the doctrine follows the canon, not the canon follows the doctrine. That’s critical. You couldn’t be sure what you’ve gained or lost unless you were certain about the scope of the canon.

     You said: You say that there are 5 OT books that cannot be verified as canonical by Scripture? I disagree, but for the sake of argument, can you tell me which doctrines necessary for salvation are lost without those books?

     Please see my text accompanying footnote 95. I list them there and discuss how Harris treats the matter. I’ll use this point to reply to your comment that while the Septuagint included Baruch, there’s no evidence that the Septuagint-quoting Jesus or Apostles accepted Barch as Scriptural. Likewise, there’s no clear evidence they accepted the five uncited books I mention in my article.

     You said: “Regarding the 22 book Hebrew canon, you assert a wider “Alexandrian canon” which is sheer fiction.”

     Please see my text accompanying footnote 50, and continuing on in that section. There I take up in detail Prof. Harris’s treatment of what he refers to as the Alexandrian canon, and his explanations for why there were extra books beyond what appear in the Protestant Bible. Also, I take up elsewhere Bruce’s own attempt at addressing what he calls the “Septuagintal plus” — the Hebrew portions that are in the Protestant Old Testament plus books the Protestants consider apocryphal. You discussed the absence of proof that the “plus” books were ever considered authoritative — that means we’re back to our discussion of whether the Protestant or the Catholic position is strengthened by doubt about the scope of the canon in the early Church. My premise has been that there was debate and dispute in the early Church about the scope of the canon. You can read the conclusions I reach from the premise in the article.

     I’m not sure you answered my question about whether you are claiming the 22 books to be equivalent to the Protestant Old Testament. If so, I wonder what you make of my assertion that not a single source until the Reformation took that view of the Old Testament? You use arguments to explain away the Fathers not listing your books as the 22 books. I already addressed in my article, like that mental lapses explain away the omission of texts you consider canonical. But does it not seem like a stretch to say that not one single Father got it right — that they all had problems like mental lapses?

     Your claim that James 4:5 is a quotation of some passage of Scripture or other, though we’re not sure which passage, and that it could be one of a variety depending on how we translate the Greek, is puzzling. You do not seem to be claiming that it’s a direct translation of the extent text we have of any of yor “confer” references. So we either have a misquotation in James or a proper quotation in James of a text that has not properly survived to the modern day. Could it not be that James uses the word “scripture” in a looser sense than we would mean the term now (and looser than the sense in which the word ‘scripture’ is used elsewhere)? I don’t think you can say that, though, since you’ve tied the identification of the canon to places in Scripture that refer to ‘scripture’.

     Regarding the deuterocanonical texts, please see my text accompanying footnote 94 and following, and also note the source I mention within my footnote 94. From your comment I think a reminder is in order. The Catholic Church does not identify the canon based on what Christ cited, so these possible references to the deuterocanon are not given to establish with certainty that the deuterocanon is scriptural. These possible references to the deuterocanon show that the Protestant method of treating as Scripture that to which Christ and the Apostles refer leaves uncertainty.

     You said: “What you call a critical problem for Protestants does not seem to be critical when you consider what both history and Scripture can tell us about the canon.”

     Let’s review. My premise has been “that Reformed theology is intrinsically incapable of answering the Canon Question.” It’s classical way of answering the question is not reliable, and the other methods I discussed all rely upon evidence that is not in Scripture, so placed ‘above’ Scripture to whatever extent the Catholic Church is seen as ‘above’ Scripture. You have not answered the Canon Question in a way that leads one reliably to the 66-book Protestant canon, you have not explained how you have the authority to articulate a criterion by which the canon is measured, and you have not avoided the problem that using your interpretation of historical evidence to define the canon places something outside of Scripture (viz., your interpretation) above Scripture. You are thus left subject to Ridderbos’s able critique, which I address at length in the article.

     I regret that I will be departing in the morning for an 8-day trip, so please excuse any delay in my response.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom

128. lojahw March 5th, 2010 6:00 pm :

     Dear Tom, Welcome back from your voyage!

     Regardless of whether or not any doctrine depends on the book of Esther, it has an important place in the Hebrew canon because it documents God’s sovereign protection of His chosen people (including the Messiah’s lineage). Therefore, leaving behind my foolish question about Esther, let’s consider how Scriptural criteria demonstrate that the 39 books complete the Old Testament canon and avoid spurious texts.

     First, Scripture tells us that the “oracles of God” prior to Jesus were entrusted to the Jews (Rom. 3:2). Aside from our theological differences with the Jews, we cannot deny that they have done an amazing job of preserving God’s Word bequeathed to them by the OT prophets. Josephus, a first century Jew sympathetic to Jesus, wrote the following:

     For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another [as the Greeks have], but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who reigned after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life. Against Apion 1.8

     As I said in my first post: Jesus’ audience knew which books He meant by “the Scriptures.” It is elementary to identify Josephus’ four books of “hymns to God” (Psalms) and “precepts for the conduct of human life” (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs). According to Josephus, the 13 OT canonical books covered the time from the death of Moses until Artaxerxes (when Esther was written). The deuteros were written centuries later. Knowing that the Jews paired the books of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Judges/Ruth, Ezra/Nehemiah, and Jeremiah/Lamentations, and grouped “the Twelve” minor prophets, the remaining books, including Esther (which Josephus attests to elsewhere), exactly fill out the Protestant and Jewish OT canon.

     Since Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would lead the Apostles into all the truth, there should be no doubt that they handed down the entire canon of OT Scripture in the 39 (22) books. None of the “oracles of God” were lost. You assert that a wider “Alexandrian canon” existed in Jesus’ day; however, no document containing such a “canon” exists – so you appeal to three Christian codices from the fourth and fifth centuries that include a variety of non-canonical books, such as 3&4 Esdras, 3&4 Maccabees, Psalm 151, the Odes, and the Epistle of Athanasius to Marcellinus on the Psalms, as well as the deuterocanonical books, 1&2 Clement, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Psalms of Solomon. If one insists that any of these three codices constitutes a “canon,” either the “canon” falls short of the 46 books claimed by Rome, or it includes too many (and the deutero texts vary considerably). Regardless, a diverse collection of books from the fourth and fifth centuries in no way constitutes a canon, much less a first century canon.

     Consider this analogy: a sister inherited some valuable jewelry and keeps it along with some cheap jewelry she picked up over the years. She even wears both kinds of jewelry at the same time, but she always knows which pieces are the “real thing.” So it was with the LXX: it was a Greek translation, first of the Pentateuch, and later of both canonical books received from the prophets, to which were added non-canonical books written in the last two centuries before Christ. But as Josephus demonstrates, there never was any doubt which were the “real jewels.” The “Palestinian canon” – which was a real canon, because it was actually published – testifies to the books that Jesus’ disciples recognized as the OT Scriptures. In the ensuing centuries there were ambivalent attitudes in the Church toward the deuteros: some renounced them altogether, others quoted from them freely; some forbid them to be read in the Churches, some allowed them. Regardless of one’s personal feelings about the deutero’s, however, it is a terrible mistake to assume (as Augustine did at one point) that the expanded collections under the auspices of the Greek LXX replaced the original inspired Hebrew canon.

     Melito, Origen, and Jerome all heeded the Scriptural criterion by going to the Jews to ask which books belonged in the Old Testament canon. Moreover, this “rule” or “canon” of the Old Testament was consistently followed by the church fathers until Augustine – and beyond – notably by John of Damascus, Cardinal Cajetan, and the Reformers. Human errors in copying the various lists (e.g., listing 21 of 22 claimed books, including Esther and leaving out “the Twelve”) and other misunderstandings (e.g., regarding the “inspiration” of the Greek LXX) cannot supercede the authority of the “oracles of God” entrusted to the Jews. There were at least nine church fathers from the second through the fourth centuries who endorsed the shorter canon: six explicitly listed Esther, including Jerome and Rufinus, who agreed book-for-book with the Protestant canon. On the other hand, there is no document containing the so-called 46 book “Alexandrian canon” promoted by Rome. The late fourth century Councils of Hippo and Carthage only list 43 of the 46 books (and add “Psalms of Solomon”), and neither Augustine nor the Council of Rome list all 46 books.

     Re: spurious texts, Scripture teaches that “God-breathed” books (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20-21) are true and free from adulteration (Psalm 119:160; Prov. 30:5-6; John 17:17), unbreakable (Isa. 55:10-11; John 10:35; Tit. 1:2), and last forever (Isa. 40:8; Matt. 5:18; 24:35; 1 Pet. 1:25). The deuteros were never recognized by the Jews as “divine” books; all of them fail one or more of these criteria, and hence must be excluded from the canon. (E.g., How is it possible to bind one’s conscience to the assertion in the additions to Esther that Haman was a Macedonian and to the Hebrew text claim that he was an Agagite?)

     BTW: James 4:5 is one of many NT quotes which are not word-for-word equivalents of the original OT reference. It is not surprising that a Jewish writer from Galilee like James would give a free translation of a familiar Hebrew text into Greek for the audience of his epistle. In addition, paraphrasing or summarizing OT passages in the NT is not unusual (e.g., compare Matt. 5:33 with Deut. 23:21-23). On the other hand, allusions or quotes not identified as Scripture could be from any source – whether the deuteros or Jude’s quotes from Enoch or Paul’s quotes from pagans.

     The debated books are called “deuterocanonical” because they constitute a second “canon” or a list added onto the original canon. To claim otherwise is to rewrite history; and to claim that the Holy Spirit has guided the Roman and the Orthodox Church regarding them is to suggest that the Holy Spirit is the author of confusion since West and East never have agreed on the canon. Only the Protestant OT canon is consistent with both the Scriptural criteria of canonicity and the consensus of the early church fathers.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

129. Spencer March 8th, 2010 1:30 pm :

     Since Tom is gone at present, if anyone else can answer this question it would be helpful. I’m sorry if this has already come up in the discussion, I haven’t read every post. But how did a Jewish man before the time of Christ know that 2 Chronicles (for instance) was canonical? Would you say that the Jewish church was infallible, or did he only have a fallible knowledge of the canon?

     Pax Christi,

     Spencer

130. Tim A. Troutman March 8th, 2010 10:02 pm :

     Spencer, check out the sola/solo thread beginning at comment 733. Dr. Liccione and Dr. White discuss this very issue.

131. Spencer March 8th, 2010 11:50 pm :

     Tim,

     Thanks for the reference. Dr. Liccione and Dr. White were not primarily talking about the canon, though; the only time that I noticed it being explicitly referenced was when Dr. Liccione said:

     Until the Pharisee/Sadducee/Essene split developed in the century or so before Christ, the two primary matters of dispute were how to apply the Law when in cases where it was not explicit, and how much weight to give the post-Mosaic “prophets” and the “wisdom literature.” Such disputes could not be resolved in the OC, which is why the Jews never developed a biblical “canon” beyond the Pentateuch until the challenge of Christianity caused them to.

     Would you agree with this? And if this was the case under the Old Covenant, how could Jesus refer to the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms as Scripture (Luke 24:44-45)? I mean, He Himself would know, being divine, but He seems to assume that His disciples already viewed these as Scripture. Or do you agree that there was not a certainty about the canon in the OC like there is in the NC?

     Pax Christi,

     Spencer

132. Tim A. Troutman March 9th, 2010 10:06 am :

     Spencer,

     Sorry, I was thinking their discussion involved the canon more. I agree with Dr. Liccione’s statement. A couple of things need to be considered in relation to that question. One is that the Jews under the OC thought of the Scriptures in a different sort of way than Protestants or even Catholics do now.

     I would argue that the way the Jews approached the canon issue was something similar to the way the early Church did. You’ll notice, as I pointed out in my post on Nicaea and the canon, that the question of the canon wasn’t even on the table until several centuries after Christ. This is inconceivable given modern western thought on the subject.

     For the early Church, and (I suspect) for the OC Jews, the ‘canon’ was simply those books which could licitly be read in liturgy. For the Jews, this was the synagogue, and for the early Christians, it was the Synaxis. The canon was not as neatly defined because in both cases, the visible people of God was so clearly identifiable that there was really no need. Even with the Pharisee/Sadducee/Essene split, there was never any confusion about the actual nation of Israel.

     For the Jews, worship wasn’t merely the synagogue – or else the canon would have been more important. Worship was centered around the temple cult, except for the Essenes. Likewise, for the early Christians, the Synaxis wasn’t the pinnacle of Christian worship; it was (and is) the Eucharistic liturgy.

     So in short, I think the answer of how an OC Jew could be certain of the canonicity of a particular book will evade us because the question itself is anachronistic.

133. St. Joseph’s Vanguard And Our Lady’s Train » Blog Archive » Cannonading the Canon March 10th, 2010 11:02 pm :

     […] ad hoc, as Tom Brown (and I) claim that the Protestant position is? Here are Tom’s responses: https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/01/the-canon-question/#comment-6190 […]

134. Andrew Preslar March 11th, 2010 2:07 pm :

     Tim,

     Sounds a lot like the Orthodox approach to canonicity. In general, its a non-issue. Special circumstances, e.g., the growing influence of the sect of “Christians” for the first-century Jews and the schismatic movements in Western Christendom during the 16th century, call for special consideration of such things. Otherwise, its more like canonicity by osmosis.

135. Chaka March 14th, 2010 3:43 pm :

     Lojahw wrote:As I said in my first post: Jesus’ audience knew which books He meant by “the Scriptures.” It is elementary to identify Josephus’ four books of “hymns to God” (Psalms) and “precepts for the conduct of human life” (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs).

     Chaka replies:Even if i were to agree with you that Jesus’ audience knew which book He meant by “the Scriptures” ,you still have not demostrated the twenty two books Josephus had in mind are the only scriptural books accepted by Jesus ‘audience or are even identical with the 39 books accepted by Protestants.The Fourth book of Ezra written btw the close of the first century AD and early second century AD demonstates that not all Jews of Josephus’ day believed that the inspired writings was limited to twenty four books:

     ” But if I have found grace before Thee, send the Holy Spirit into me, and I shall write all that hath been done in the world since the beginning, which were written in Thy law, that men may find Thy path, and that those who will live in the latter days may live.”… And when thou hast done, some things shalt thou publish, and some things shalt thou show secretly to the wise. Tomorrow this hour shalt thou begin to write.”.. In forty days they wrote two hundred and four books.And it came to pass, when the forty days were fulfilled, that the Highest spoke, saying, “The first that thou hast written publish openly, that the worthy and unworthy may read it. But keep the last seventy, that thou mayest deliver them only to such as be wise among the people; for in them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the stream of knowledge.” [14:22.26.44-47]

     While the Mishnah demostrates that there were disputes among first century Palestinian Jews over the canonicity of the book of Ecclesiastes, Songs of songs and Esther.For example in Mishnah Yadayim we find the following quote:

     “All Holy Scriptures defile the hands. Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes defile the hands. Rabbi Judah says, ‘Song of Songs defiles the hands but there is a dispute regarding Ecclesiastes.’Rabbi Jose says, ‘Ecclesiastes does not defile the hands, and there is a dispute about Song of Songs.’ Rabbi Simeon says, ‘[The status of] Ecclesiastes is one of the lenient rulings of the School of Shammai, and one of the strict rulings of the School of Hillel.’ Rabbi Simeon ben Azzai said, ‘I have a tradition from the seventy-two elders (of the Sanhedrin) that on the day when Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah was appointed head of the Academy, it was decided that Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes defile the hands.’Rabbi Akiva said, ‘God forbid! No one in Israel disputed about Song of Songs, saying that it does not defile the hands. For all of eternity in its entirety is not as worthy as the day on which Song of Songs was given to Israel, for all the Writings are holy, but Song of Songs is the Holy of Holies. And if they disputed at all, they disputed only regarding Ecclesiastes.’ Rabbi Yohanan ben Joshua the son of Rabbi Akiba’s father-in-law said, ‘As according to Ben Azzai, so did they dispute and so did they determine [that both Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes are included in the canon].'”[3:5]

     Lojahw wrote:”Melito, Origen, and Jerome all heeded the Scriptural criterion by going to the Jews to ask which books belonged in the Old Testament canon”

     Chaka replies:Melito’s list is not identical with the the 39 books accepted by Protestants.Esther is not mentioned in it while it includes the Book of Wisdom(See Eusebius’ Chuch History 4.26.13-14).On Origen view on the deuterocanonical ,I will suggest you read his leter to Africanus.There you will see that Origen knew of the Church having an Old Testament canon larger than that accepted by the Jews.That canon includes the deuterocanonical books and of course Origen accepted those books.For example,look at the following quote from that letter:

     “. You begin by saying, that when, in my discussion with our friend Bassus, I used the Scripture which contains the prophecy of Daniel when yet a young man in the affair of Susanna, I did this as if it had escaped me that this part of the book was spurious. You say that you praise this passage as elegantly written, but find fault with it as a more modern composition, and a forgery; and you add that the forger has had recourse to something which not even Philistion the play-writer would have used in his puns between prinos and prisein, schinos and schisis, which words as they sound in Greek can be used in this way, but not in Hebrew. In answer to this, I have to tell you what it behooves us to do in the cases not only of the History of Susanna, which is found in every Church of Christ in that Greek copy which the Greeks use, but is not in the Hebrew, or of the two other passages you mention at the end of the book containing the history of Bel and the Dragon, which likewise are not in the Hebrew copy of Daniel; but of thousands of other passages also which I found in many places when with my little strength I was collating the Hebrew copies with ours”[2]

     “. And in many other of the sacred books I found sometimes more in our copies than in the Hebrew, sometimes less”[3]

     ” But probably to this you will say, Why then is the History not in their Daniel, if, as you say, their wise men hand down by tradition such stories? The answer is, that they hid from the knowledge of the people as many of the passages which contained any scandal against the elders, rulers, and judges, as they could”[9]

     On St.Jerome.I think someone has already commented on him accepting the deuterocanonical books in an earlier post.

     Lojahw wrote:Moreover, this “rule” or “canon” of the Old Testament was consistently followed by the church fathers until Augustine – and beyond – notably by John of Damascus, Cardinal Cajetan, and the Reformers.

     Chaka replies:Many passages from Church authors from the first four centuries could be quoted to show that they accepted the deuterocanonical books as Scripure.For Example,see the following quote from St.Irenaeus,a second century father, in which he treats the History of Susanna as a part the book of Daniel:

     “. Those, however, who are believed to be presbyters by many, but serve their own lusts, and, do not place the fear of God supreme in their hearts, but conduct themselves with contempt towards others, and are puffed up with the pride of holding the chief seat, and work evil deeds in secret, saying, No man sees us, shall be convicted by the Word, who does not judge after outward appearance (secundum gloriam), nor looks upon the countenance, but the heart; and they shall hear those words, to be found in Daniel the prophet: O you seed of Canaan, and not of Judah, beauty has deceived you, and lust perverted your heart. You that are waxen old in wicked days, now your sins which you have committed aforetime have come to light; for you have pronounced false judgments, and have been accustomed to condemn the innocent, and to let the guilty go free, albeit the Lord says, The innocent and the righteous shall you not slay. Of whom also did the Lord say: But if the evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delays his coming, and shall begin to smite the man-servants and maidens, and to eat and drink and be drunken; the lord of that servant shall come in a day that he looks not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, and shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers”. [Against Heresies 4.26.3]

     Peace with love from Africa,
     Chaka

136. lojahw March 15th, 2010 12:35 pm :

     Please accept my apologies, but post 128 following my comments about Esther should be replaced as follows (got caught in cyber traffic):

     Let’s consider how Scriptural criteria demonstrate that the 39 books complete the Old Testament canon and avoid spurious texts.

     First, it is important to recognize that Scripture teaches a number of “non-negotiables” about itself. The Apostles affirmed that all Scripture is “God-breathed,” that in the Scriptures “men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Tim. 3:16; 1 Cor. 14:37; 2 Pet. 1:20-21). “Thus says the Lord” and similar phrases throughout Scripture remind us of this truth. Scripture also claims to be wholly true and without error (cf. Psalm 119:160; John 17:17), as well as free from adulteration and false pretense: “Every word of God is tested … Do not add to His words lest He reprove you and you be found a liar” (Prov. 30:5-6; cf. Tit. 1:2). Scripture is also unbreakable: it never fails, it cannot be denied, and it cannot be contradicted (Isa. 55:10-11; John 10:35). Finally, the word of the Lord lasts forever (Isa. 40:8; Matt. 5:18; 24:35; 1 Pet. 1:25). The above criteria may be applied objectively to various sources of evidence in order to confirm or reject a particular book’s canonicity. For example, when Scripture quotes a book that has been lost, it can be concluded that the lost book is not Scripture because it did not last forever. Likewise, if a text contradicts a book that meets all the above criteria, that text cannot be “God-breathed.” Moreover, adulterated texts (such as the additions to Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah) are disqualified from the canon based on the teaching of Proverbs 30:5-6 and Titus 1:2.

     Secondly, Scripture tells us that the “oracles of God” prior to Jesus were entrusted to the Jews (Rom. 3:2). Aside from our theological differences with the Jews, we cannot deny that they have done an amazing job of preserving God’s Word bequeathed to them by the OT prophets. Josephus, a first century Jew sympathetic to Jesus, wrote the following:

     For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another [as the Greeks have], but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who reigned after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life. Against Apion, 1.8.

     Jesus’ audience knew which books He meant by “the Scriptures.” It is elementary to identify Josephus’ four books of “hymns to God” (Psalms) and “precepts for the conduct of human life” (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs). According to Josephus, the 13 OT books of the prophets covered the time from the death of Moses until Artaxerxes (when Esther was written). The deuteros were written centuries later. Knowing that the Jews paired the books of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Judges/Ruth, Ezra/Nehemiah, and Jeremiah/Lamentations, and grouped “the Twelve” minor prophets, the remaining books, including Esther (which Josephus attests to elsewhere), exactly fill out the Protestant and Jewish OT canon.

     Since Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would lead the Apostles into all the truth, there should be no doubt that they handed down the entire canon of OT Scripture in the 39 (22) books. None of the “oracles of God” were lost. The so-called “Alexandrian canon” did not exist in Jesus’ day, nor is there any document listing such a “canon.” Instead, some appeal to three Christian codices from the fourth and fifth centuries that include a variety of non-canonical books, such as 3 Esdras, 3&4 Maccabees, Psalm 151, the Odes, and the Epistle of Athanasius to Marcellinus on the Psalms, as well as the deuterocanonical books, 1&2 Clement, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Psalms of Solomon. If one insists that any of these three codices constitutes a “canon,” either the “canon” falls short of the 46 books claimed by Rome, or it includes too many books (and, please note that the deuterocanonical texts vary considerably). Regardless, a diverse collection of books from the fourth and fifth centuries in no way constitutes a canon, much less a first century canon.

     Consider this analogy: a sister inherited some valuable jewelry and keeps it along with some cheap jewelry she picked up over the years. She even wears both kinds of jewelry at the same time, but she always knows which pieces are the “real thing.” So it was with the LXX: it was a Greek translation, first of the Pentateuch, and later of both canonical books received from the prophets, to which were added non-canonical books written in the last two centuries before Christ. But as Josephus demonstrates, there never was any doubt which were the “real jewels.” The “Palestinian canon” – which was a real canon, because it was actually published – testifies to the books that Jesus’ disciples recognized as the OT Scriptures. In the ensuing centuries there were ambivalent attitudes in the Church toward the deuterocanonical books: some renounced them altogether, others quoted from them freely; some forbid them to be read in the Churches, others allowed them. Regardless of one’s personal feelings about these books, however, it is a terrible mistake to assume (as Augustine did at one point) that the expanded collections under the auspices of the Greek LXX replaced the original inspired Hebrew canon. The so-called “Alexandrian Canon” is a red herring that ignores the fact that the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem made all binding decisions in Judaism. The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 destroyed all their records, but not the knowledge of their canon as repeatedly attested by Josephus and Jews through the following centuries.

     Melito, Origen, and Jerome all heeded the Scriptural criterion by going to the Jews to ask which books belonged in the Old Testament canon. Moreover, this “rule” or “canon” of the Old Testament was consistently followed by the church fathers until Augustine – and beyond – notably by John of Damascus, Cardinal Cajetan, and the Reformers. Human errors in copying the various lists (e.g., listing 21 of 22 claimed books, including Esther and leaving out “the Twelve”) and other misunderstandings (e.g., regarding the “inspiration” of the Greek LXX) cannot supercede the authority of the “oracles of God” entrusted to the Jews. There were at least nine church fathers from the second through the fourth centuries who endorsed the shorter canon: six explicitly listed Esther, including Jerome and Rufinus, who agreed book-for-book with the Protestant canon (Rufinus attested to the canonicity of Lamentations – but not Baruch – in his commentary on the Apostle’s Creed). On the other hand, there is no document listing the so-called 46 book “Alexandrian canon” promoted by Rome. The late fourth century Councils of Hippo and Carthage only list 44 books (omitting Lamentations and Baruch, but mentioning 5 books of Solomon, which might include the Psalms of Solomon listed in the Codex Alexandrinicus). Furthermore, Augustine and the Council of Rome also list only 44 books (omitting Lamentations and Baruch). Interestingly, Augustine’s On Christian Doctrine, which addresses the criteria of canonicity, was written after the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage, and never even mentions councils.

     Taking all of the above into consideration, the deuterocanonical books were never recognized by the Jews as “divine” books, and all of them fail one or more of the criteria defined in scripture about scripture (e.g., How can it be true that Haman was a Macedonian, according to the additions to Esther, yet an Agagite, according to the original Hebrew text?). Therefore, these books must be excluded from the canon.

     Finally, the debated books are called “deuterocanonical” because they constitute a “second canon” or a list added onto the original canon. To claim otherwise is to rewrite history; and to claim that the Holy Spirit has guided the Roman and the Orthodox Church regarding them is to suggest that the Holy Spirit is an author of confusion since West and East never have agreed on the canon. Only the Protestant OT canon is consistent with both the Scriptural criteria of canonicity and the consensus of the early church fathers.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

137. Tom Brown March 16th, 2010 1:16 am :

     Dear “lojahw”,

     Thank you for your patience in awaiting my response. I’m back on dry land now.

     You mentioned a variety of characteristics that Scripture attributes to itself, and then claimed that they could be objectively applied “to various sources of evidence in order to confirm or reject a particular book’s canonicity.” Without being circular, how does the criterion that “all Scripture is God-breathed” yield a canon of Scripture? You said that “adulterated texts (such as the additions to Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah) are disqualified from the canon based on the teaching of Proverbs 30:5-6 and Titus 1:2.” I’m not sure what these verses show in this discussion.

     You mentioned yet again that the Church Fathers described an enumeration of 22 books in the Hebrew Bible. But you still have not answered my question about whether you think the books to which they were referring are identical to the modern Protestant Old Testament canon.

     You said: “Since Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would lead the Apostles into all the truth, there should be no doubt that they handed down the entire canon of OT Scripture in the 39 (22) books.”

     I do not at all see how your conclusion follows from your premise, or exactly what your conclusion means. Please explain. I don’t follow your further argumentation about the absence of a settled canon in later centuries after Christ’s life. Do you believe that the “all truth” to which Christ referred had to have been fulfilled within the lifetime of the Apostles? That is, do you believe any non-repeat truth-claim made after the time of the Apostles to be spurious? Wouldn’t that then include any articulation of a canon that followed the death of the last Apostle, as well as any articulation of doctrine about Scripture itself?

     You said: “The so-called “Alexandrian Canon” is a red herring that ignores the fact that the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem made all binding decisions in Judaism.”

     Please note my section II.B., in which I discuss at length what you call a “fact.” For example, I said: “there is no historical basis to conclude that any one Jewish group had the authority to pronounce and close the canon for other Jewish groups, or that any one of them could conclude the canon for Christianity.” Where does Scripture tell you that the Sanhedrin teachers made such decisions binding on all of Judaism, and what of my historical claims that all of Judaism was not so bound?

     You said: “Finally, the debated books are called “deuterocanonical” because they constitute a “second canon” or a list added onto the original canon. To claim otherwise is to rewrite history [etc.]”

     If you mean this as a critique of included deuterocanonical books, I’m not sure where you’re getting your facts, or at least how you’re handling them. The term does not mean that the texts included within the deuterocanon were “added onto the original canon” any more than “New Testament” means a list improperly added onto the original canon. It means those books which are not protocanonical. It means second (not secondary) like 2 Corinthians means the second letter of St. Paul to the Church at Corinth. It does not mean of secondary importance, or secondary to the real deal, any more than 2 Corinthians is of secondary importance, or secondary to the real epistle, of 1 Corinthians. It’s a Catholic term originally, so I fail to see ‘history-rewrite’ that occurs in my taking up this view.

     My brother, we’ve been around and around, and I’m beginning to wonder whether you’ve been reading my replies, whether you’ve read my article, and whether you are interacting here in the spirit of mutual pursuit of Truth. I can’t help but think that my last thoughts in my last comment to you need to be repeated again:

     Let’s review. My premise has been “that Reformed theology is intrinsically incapable of answering the Canon Question.” It’s classical way of answering the question is not reliable, and the other methods I discussed all rely upon evidence that is not in Scripture, so placed ‘above’ Scripture to whatever extent the Catholic Church is seen as ‘above’ Scripture. You have not answered the Canon Question in a way that leads one reliably to the 66-book Protestant canon, you have not explained how you have the authority to articulate a criterion by which the canon is measured, and you have not avoided the problem that using your interpretation of historical evidence to define the canon places something outside of Scripture (viz., your interpretation) above Scripture. You are thus left subject to Ridderbos’s able critique, which I address at length in the article.

     Until you’re prepared to address this thesis, these points, I don’t see what fruit will be borne for our readers, for you, or for me, from this endless wrangling over your take on Josephus, Cardinal Cajetan, and other selected figures from early Church History. That’s how I see things now; I’d like to learn how you’re seeing things.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom

138. lojahw March 16th, 2010 9:36 pm :

     Dear Tom,

     Thank you for your comments. I’m responding while a bit compromised from having surgery on my ankle today: 3 breaks & a severe dislocation, 9 screws and a plate.

     What I’ve posted has been intended to respond to your challenge for objective criteria of canonicity from Scripture. The function of a canon is two-fold, to include and exclude. Scripturally defined attributes provide criteria for recognizing what books are legitimately part of the canon. “All Scripture is God-breathed” is just one of a number of attributes Scripture identifies about itself. Therefore, Rom. 3:2, Prov. 30:5-6, and other passages about Scripture provide non-circular objective criteria for assessing what is Scripture and what is not.

     Please reread post 136. The 22 books of the Hebrew Bible as described by Josephus and the church fathers are indeed identical to the Protestant OT Canon. The five books of Moses have always been recognized as: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. It is easy to correlate these and other OT books with NT quotes of OT scripture (an objective process). Josephus listed 13 books written by those he identified as the “prophets who reigned after Moses” covering the time “from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes.” These books cannot have included any of the deuteros since the latter were written centuries after Artaxerxes. By reviewing the Hebew canon and the lists from Melito, Origen, and Jerome, these 13 included: Joshua, Judges/Ruth, 1&2 Samuel, 1&2 Kings, 1&2 Chronicles, Esther, Job, Ezra/Nehemiah, Isaiah, Jeremiah/Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, and “the Twelve” minor prophets. Jerome and Rufinus listed these books explicitly as canonical. The remaining 4 books of hymns and precepts for the conduct of living are the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs.

     You wrote:

     Do you believe that the “all truth” to which Christ referred had to have been fulfilled within the lifetime of the Apostles?

     I do. Otherwise, Jesus’ promise would not have been fulfilled. Tertullian said the same thing 1800 years ago. The canon is not an additional truth, but a recognition of the divine revelation passed down by the Apostles to the Church, which sufficiently teaches all the truth necessary for the salvation of all generations after Christ.

     You wrote:

     “there is no historical basis to conclude that any one Jewish group had the authority to pronounce and close the canon for other Jewish groups, or that any one of them could conclude the canon for Christianity.”

     On what basis do you deny that the Sanhedrin had the authority to pronounce and close the canon for all Jews? Furthermore, on what basis do you deny that the Sanhedrin had the authority to pronounce and close the canon in Palestine where Jesus and His disciples lived and in which the Church was born? The NT leaves no doubt about the authority of the Sanhedrin in Jesus’ day (cf. many references to “the Council” of chief priests and elders in the Gospels as well as Acts 4, 5, 6, 22, 23).

     You wrote:

     You have not answered the Canon Question in a way that leads one reliably to the 66-book Protestant canon,

     I have only dealt with the OT canon so far, which is the area that is debated, and I have demonstrated how one reliably recognizes the 39 OT books. The article implies that because different church fathers did not articulate exactly the 39 Hebrew books, that the method is not reliable. I have answered that the method is reliable, but individuals made mistakes.

     you have not explained how you have the authority to articulate a criterion by which the canon is measured,

     I yield to the authority of Scripture, not my own authority. Using Scriptural criteria defining the attributes of Scripture, anyone can examine the historical and textual evidence and conclude that the 39 books in the Protestant canon are canonical. Likewise, using the same Scriptural criteria, anyone can examine the historical and textual evidence and conclude that there are no other books that belong in the canon.

     you have not avoided the problem that using your interpretation of historical evidence to define the canon places something outside of Scripture (viz., your interpretation) above Scripture.

     Do you not recognize the difference between criteria and evidence? The criteria are defined by Scripture, the evidence (both internal and external) do not have “power over Scripture.” The criteria for murder are defined by the law, the evidence in any particular case involving murder is not “over” the Law.

     I will post some comments about assumptions separately.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

139. lojahw March 16th, 2010 9:39 pm :

     Dear Tom,

     I’d like to comment on some assumptions.

     In contrast to the article’s focus on alleged Protestant subjective criteria of canonicity, the Belgic Confession identifies objective criteria by which the Scriptures are shown to be divinely inspired: “they prove themselves to be from God. For … the things predicted in them do happen.” Indeed, the NT writers again and again point to the fulfillment of OT prophesies attested to by eyewitnesses as objective proof that what they write as well as the OT prophecies themselves are of divine origin. On this basis, the early church fathers were able to declare NT books as divinely inspired Scripture long before any formally approved canon existed. Similarly, Protestants are justified in recognizing those books as having divine authority independent of a canon formally approved by any particular church authorities. Two millennia of objective scrutiny has upheld the authenticity of the books included in the Protestant canon and affirmed the objective judgments against those books that are not included. Protestants affirm both the objective bases of canonicity, as presented in both the Belgic Confession and in Scripture itself, and the subjective witness of the Holy Spirit. There is no conflict. Protestants, like the church fathers, recognize the binding authority of the scriptures apart from any formal or final canon approved by church authorities. If, however, the issue is that this criteria does not result in a complete canon, read on.

     You wrote:

     As a Calvinist, I followed the classical Reformational hermeneutic that Scripture is to be interpreted by Scripture. If you don’t have an exact canon, given that hermenutic, this would call into question any Protestant effort at biblical exegesis. A missing text could give an essential qualification to a text you are using

     Your theory is not entirely true. Although there are passages of Scripture that are open to further qualification (e.g., what it means that God made the heavens and the earth in six days), there are also truths taught by other passages of Scripture that are not open to essential qualification. For example, there are passages in Scripture that clearly teach that God is One, and that He created all things. There are also passages about Christ that allow no “essential qualification” (e.g., that Christ was crucified, died, and was buried, and that He was bodily resurrected on the third day). While the Scriptures do not exhaustively teach these truths, they are sufficiently clear to “bind our consciences,” just as the second-century “Rule of Faith” was binding on churches which claimed to be apostolic centuries before the Council of Nicea and subsequent councils officially adopted the Creed. Moreover, the essential truths of Trinitarian faith can be shown to be clearly taught by the books that meet the objective criterion of the Belgic Confession.

     Re: Luther’s “canon-within-a-canon,” Jesus and the Apostles recognized a canon of the Law as well as a canon of the Prophets (canons within the greater canon of Scripture). Different passages of Scripture address different subjects. For example, the genealogies in Numbers don’t add or take away from passages of Scripture that teach about Christ’s resurrection. The purpose of Luther’s canon-within-a-canon was not to exclude books from the greater canon of Scripture but to identify what he called “apostolic” books within the canon which he thought clearly “teach Christ.” Hence, a “canon-within-a-canon” view simply makes distinctions within the canon based on subject matter, as Jesus and the Apostles did. Likewise, there are even larger literary “canons” of both Jewish and Christian works beyond the bounds of Scripture. The Essenes, the early Christian codices, and other literary works claimed by Jews and Christians throughout their histories attest to such larger canons, if such collections can rightly be called “canons,” since they were open to future additions from their respective communities. The article fails to distinguish between the general Greek literary canon of the Jews and the OT canon (maintained by the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, whose records – but not the understood boundaries of the OT canon – were utterly destroyed in A.D. 70).

     BTW: James 4:5 is one of many NT quotes which are not word-for-word equivalents of the original OT reference. It would not be surprising for a Jewish writer from Galilee like James to give a free translation of a familiar Hebrew text into Greek for the audience of his epistle. In addition, paraphrasing or summarizing OT passages in the NT is not unusual (e.g., compare Matt. 5:33 with Deut. 23:21-23; and 1 Cor. 2:9 with Isaiah 64:4). In Rom. 12:19 (quoting Deut. 32:35), Paul even uses an Aramaic targum on the verse in Deuteronomy. On the other hand, allusions or quotes not identified as Scripture could be from any source – whether the deuteros or Jude’s quotes from Enoch or Paul’s quotes from pagans.

     I believe that the 66 books recognized by Protestants sufficiently teach the essential truths of the faith (cf. CCC 188-193) and that arguments against that canon are simply speculative and/or partisan.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

140. lojahw March 16th, 2010 10:06 pm :

     Dear Chaka,

     Greetings from the USA! A few comments on your post:

     Re: 4 Esdras. This is an apocryphal Christian era book not even written by a Jew. It has never had much credibility, so any quote from it might as well have come from the Da Vinci Code.

     On what basis do you think your reference to the Mishnah is first century? There are no extant copies of the Mishnah that go back that far. Debates among diaspora Jews centuries later are not unlike debates between Roman Catholics and Orthodox about the canon today.

     Re: Melito’s canon, I addressed that in other posts. Origen’s response to Julius Africanus on Greek additions to the Hebrew text shows an unfortunate gullibility – but don’t forget that Origen was condemned by the Church for some of his unorthodox teachings. I wouldn’t recommend using Origen as a reliable source of truth (his historical testimony about people and events is of value, but his theological perspective is often questionable).

     Re: church father quotes of non-canonical texts. Quotes alone do not imply doctrinal authority as Scripture. Irenaeus does not call his quote “Scripture.” Paul quoted pagans in the NT to illustrate a point, just as Irenaeus did. That said, I think the Greek church fathers were at a disadvantage relying on Theodotion’s and other Greek versions of the OT books, not realizing what texts were significantly altered from the Hebrew originals. Remember Proverbs 30:5-6, “Every word of God is tested … Do not add to His words lest He reprove you and you be found a liar.”

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

141. Tom Brown March 16th, 2010 11:35 pm :

     Dear “lojahw”,

     I am sorry to hear of your injury and pray for your speedy recovery.

     You have not demonstrated that Scripture’s articulation of characteristics of Scripture can also act as criteria of canonicity. You have not demonstrated that the Truth “all Scripture is God-breathed” shows us which texts are God-breathed. It is a circular claim, because the articulation of a characteristic (e.g., Scripture is God-breathed) presupposes a knowledge of what exactly is Scripture. I more than imply in my article that the absence of any single Church father articulating the Protestant canon disproves the theory that we can know the canon objectively and reliably from history. You claim that the 22-book canon of Josephus et al. matches the Protestant Old Testament. But not one single early figure articulated a Protestant Old Testament canon, as I explained in the article, and as all of the Reformed canonics scholars I surveyed agreed. Certainly if any of them thought that Josephus or any Church Father articulated the Protestant Old Testament canon, they would have used that in support of their Protestant view. But none of them do, because they all recognize what you seem unwilling to concede: that not one single source from the early Church articulated an Old Testament canon that matches the Protestant Old Testament. You say your method is reliable even though “individuals made mistakes” — how is a method reliable (and your results sound) if no figure in the early church reached your results? Explaining away that they were all in error hardly makes your method seem objectively reliable. It seems like post hoc rationalization. If “anyone can examine the historical and textual evidence and conclude that the 39 books in the Protestant canon are canonical,” then why is it that no one (without mistakes) was able to do so until the time of the Reformation?

     When you responded about the idea of Christ leading the Apostles into “all truth,” you said two conflicting things. First you said this reaching of all truth had to have happened within the Apostles’ lifetime, but then you said that the Church later ‘recognized’ the truth of the canon. I see no distinction between a gradual leading into all truth, and an eventual recognition of truth. You seem to conflate public revelation with the leading into all truth, which I would maintain was gradual and was a process of recognition not a process of revelation. Christ did lead the Church into all truth concerning the canon, but this truth was not reached until well after the death of the last Apostle. Either way you’re viewing things here, I fail to see your conclusion that “there should be no doubt that [the Apostles] handed down the entire canon of OT Scripture in the 39 (22) books.”

     Regarding Jewish authority, I stand by me evidence in the article, which showed three different Jewish groups with three different accepted canons. I’m not sure why you’re asking me on what basis I deny the Sanhedrin’s authority over all of then-Judaism, since it was orginially my assertion. It is incumbent upon you to show my assertion false, not incumbant upon me to show the cause of my denial (which, besides, I have already shown in the article). On what basis do you claim that the Jews who happened to have jurisdiction over the lands in which Christ and the Apostles primarily dwelled also had authority over all of Judaism? It does not follow. Likewise, you could not say that the Roman government had secular authority over Japan because the Roman government had secular authority over the lands in which Christ and the Apostles primarily dwelled.

     Regarding your query about whether I know the difference between evidence and criteria, I referred to “your interpretation of historical evidence,” and not evidence simpliciter. It is your interpretation of which texts have characteristics such as “God-breathed” that is in practice your criterion of canonicity. It is this, your interpretation, your applied criterion, that has power over the canon, because (if not applied in a post hoc fashion) it has the power to add to or detract from sacred writ. And by the way, the law defines the “elements” of murder, not the criteria. Anyone with the power to define and redefine the elements of murder has power over the lawProtestants affirm both the objective bases of canonicity, as presented in both the Belgic Confession and in Scripture itself, and the subjective witness of the Holy Spirit.” Yes, you are right. Now you’re coming around to my secion II.A. Please read my argument there to find out what is deficient about this view, specifically about the subjective element collapsing into the supposedly objective when scrutinized.

     Your claim that some passages of Scripture are not subject to qualification (so we needn’t worry even if some other passages of Scripture were missing) is puzzling. The Protestant in me sees your position as an extreme outlier, an affront to the Reformed belief in the necessary unity and completeness of the Word of God. If we only had James and the Gospels, but no Pauline epistles, you might be inclined to say that James 2:24 (“You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.”) allows for no “essential qualifications.” No, the classical Reformed hermeneutic cannot work with an incomplete canon.

     Luther’s view of the canon within a canon absolutely does not “simply makes distinctions within the canon based on subject matter,” as if it is some exercise in taxonomy. Lutherans believe, as I discussed in the text accompanying footnote 36, and in my section II.E., that the undisputed books can be used for the development of doctrine, while the others cannot. So for the purpose of doctrinal formulation — a critical purpose — Lutherans do indeed exclude books from the “greater canon.”

     Were it a different subject matter, I would find humorous your charge that disputes over the canon are speculative or partisan. This would be humorous because it was this issue that changed my “party” (so my motives could not have been partisan). I changed because I realized that the classical Reformed position was internally inconsistent.

     What do you hope to accomplish here? You seem steadfast in the claim that criteria like “all Scripture is God-breathed” lead believers objectively and reliably to your 66-book canon. You seem steadfast in the claim that the early Church fathers, while none of them articulated the Protestant Old Testament canon, all believed in the Protestant Old Testament canon. I present evidence or arguments against your claims, but you revert back to your claims. I think for whatever reason we lack a mutual desire for the pursuit of truth in this conversation, and therefore question its utility. We are wearing down our keyboards, and I am wearing down my wife’s patience, but still we make no progress. Do you want to score points in this discussion, or do you want to pursue the truth? I want to pursue the truth. I spent probably a few hundred hours writing this article which exposes all of my canonical analysis that I went through as I chose to leave my previously held Reformed beliefs and enter the Catholic Church. I have spent years pursuing truth on this topic, and herein lies my conclusions. So I can only reach further for the truth if my premises or conclusions here are directly confronted. The hallow claim that I found boiled down to “we know Scripture when we see it” brought me to this place, so it’s certainly not going to get me out of this place now.

     And this may be the last time I say it, but I would still today walk away from Catholicism if I could find a way to see sola scriptura as true. I have come to love the Catholic Church, but if sola scriptura were true, as truth, I would love it more than what I admire about Catholicism (which would have to be false if sola scriptura were true). I hope that similarly, for the sake of truth, you would be willing to consider becoming Catholic if you came to believe that sola scriptura is false.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom

142. St. Joseph’s Vanguard And Our Lady’s Train » Blog Archive » Waiting for the Proof of Sola Scriptura March 17th, 2010 10:28 pm :

     […] Tom Brown over at Called to Communion has an honest quote: And this may be the last time I say it, but I would still today walk away from Catholicism if I could find a way to see sola scriptura as true. I have come to love the Catholic Church, but if sola scriptura were true, as truth, I would love it more than what I admire about Catholicism (which would have to be false if sola scriptura were true). […]

143. Garret Graves March 18th, 2010 2:17 am :

     Hi Tom
     I can’t do as well as lojawh- but I took a crack at your article here if you want to come over and comment. I was hoping to run into you at Devin’s blog again, but you disappeared!
     God bless,
     Garret

144. lojahw March 18th, 2010 5:21 pm :

     Dear Tom,

     Thank you for your kind words & prayers – I’m facing 6 months of recovery, trusting in the Lord.

     I can assure you that my desire is to seek the truth. In that pursuit of the truth, I would appreciate your responses to the following:

     1) I gave 2 examples of church fathers who exactly identified the Protestant canon. Have you read Rufinus’ canon? Have you read Jerome’s Preface to the book of Kings (OT canon) and his letter to Dardanus (NT canon)? Jerome explicitly articulates the Protestant canon, and was routinely appealed to by Reformers and others, including Cardinal Cajetan, for more than 1000 years. Why do you continue to ignore them and berate me for accepting a canon which “no church father” ever articulated? And have you no response to the evidence I’ve provided that your cited sources of longer canons were no better than the shorter OT canons?

     2) I have repeatedly listed a group of Scriptural criteria of canonicity, which you keep truncating to “God-breathed” and call it a circular argument. That’s not being honest with what I gave you. The qualifying criteria cannot be separated from the initial claim of “God-breathed” – but you insist on ignoring the qualifying criteria altogether.

     Re: your assertion that these criteria require interpretation, can you be more specific? I have quoted Proverbs 30:5-6 many times (“Every word of God is tested … Do not add to them lest He reprove you and you be found a liar?) – what personal interpretation of that text would exercise authority over Scripture?

     Re: evidence vs. criteria. Please explain how the qualifying passages of Scripture alluded to in support of “God-breathed” confuse evidence and criteria. For example: Proverbs 30:5-6? Or Isaiah 40:8 (with respect to “lost books”)?

     3) I have based my responses on primary sources – you continue to argue from secondary sources: what someone has said about the Septuagint or what a certain Protestant has said about the canon. Where are your primary sources that provide the canon you claim existed in the first century? I followed all your footnotes and they provided no primary sources from the first century. I gave you Josephus and NT attestation for the Hebrew canon and the basis of authority for the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. Can you show primary sources that refute them? If not, you are entitled to your opinion, but you should not claim more than that (unless you want to appeal to the authority of your partisan position).

     You wrote:

     You seem to conflate public revelation with the leading into all truth, which I would maintain was gradual and was a process of recognition not a process of revelation.

     Do you argue that Jesus’ Apostles did not know and pass down all truth necessary for salvation? How is recognition by later generations of what was passed down by the Apostles a “new truth”? Poor communication during centuries of persecution complicated the process, but there was no new revelation of truth centuries after the fact.

     Re: essential qualification of passages of Scripture. I think you misunderstood my point. The unity of the Scripture affirms the consistency and coherence of all that it teaches, the completeness affirms that it covers all truth necessary for salvation. My point was that within the completeness of doctrine there are many individual doctrines which are articulated not by every passage of Scripture, but sufficiently by a few, e.g., that One God created all things. Ever since the second century orthodox Christians have summarized the essential doctrines in a Rule of Faith or a Creed. The point is that affirmation of those truths does not depend upon every passage of Scripture; and that those passages which proclaim them do so unequivocally. Hence, adding more text to Scripture cannot make essential qualifications of those truths. (BTW- this relates to the perspicuity of Scripture. It doesn’t take a divinely authorized interpreter to realize that the Bible teaches that Jesus died on a cross, was buried, and rose again bodily on the third day.)

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

145. Tom Brown March 19th, 2010 2:13 am :

     Dear “lojahw”,

     1) I did not notice your two examples of Church Fathers exactly identifying the Protestant canon. You had me confused with your talk of 22 book lists — sometimes it seemed you meant that to be synonymous with the Protestant Old Testament canon, and other times it seemed you recognized that while the number 22 was common for scholars, it didn’t necessarily equate to the Protestant Old Testament.

     First, let me repeat what I just recently said:

     But not one single early figure articulated a Protestant Old Testament canon, as I explained in the article, and as all of the Reformed canonics scholars I surveyed agreed. Certainly if any of them thought that Josephus or any Church Father articulated the Protestant Old Testament canon, they would have used that in support of their Protestant view. But none of them do.

     These authors dealt in Jerome and Rufinus too, so I am skeptical that you have found the Protestant 39-book Old Testament canon where these Reformed scholars missed it. As for Jerome, I took this up in my article. You have not rebutted what I said in the article, but separately (here in the combox) proffered your own theory that Jerome supports your canon. Then you demand my response to your theory. As a procedural matter, I think you should be interacting with my article in this combox, as opposed to me interacting with theories you put forward. Here’s what I quote from Jerome in my article, and you can read my analysis and other quotes in the surrounding text:

     What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us.”

     Besides, even if you had one scholar in the fourth century who suggested the Protestant Old Testament canon, how does that show that your canon is self-identifying? What of the many others scholars, and many centuries (before and after Jerome), that were without Jerome’s canon?

     2) I have not kept truncating your criteria to “God-breathed” but have given it as an example — a fine examplar of your overall criteria. How am I being dishonest with what you gave me? I’m not sure which “qualifying criteria” you think I am ignoring.

     How do your criteria require interpretation? Well, it’s like this. You cannot get from “All Scripture is God-breathed” [or whatever other criteria you want to use] to “James is canonical” or “Esther is canonical” without at least one intermediate step, and that step will inherently involve interpretation. That interpretation ultimately holds the trump. Please note that adding other criteria to the equation will not eliminate the need for analysis. Unless the criteria is “James is canonical” then there will always be interpretation of the criterion involved before you can reach the conclusion “James is canonical.” Try this out: explain in a few sentences to a hypothetical non-believer how they can be assured that James is a part of the Christian Bible. The explanation will involve either deference to another’s interpretation, your own interpretation, or a combination of the two.

     I don’t understand your evidence vs. criteria question, since you were asking if I knew the difference between the two, and now you are asking about how I could think you are confusing the two. I’m confused.

     3) It’s a cop-out to say that I am basing my arguments only on secondary sources. First, I have quoted and cited heavily from primary sources (once even in this comment). Second, I am using your Reformed theologians as secondary sources to make sure that I am treating the specifically Reformed handling of the primary sources in a fair way. I had to do this to avoid being accused of criticizing a straw man. Troublingly, you asked me: “Where are your primary sources that provide the canon you claim existed in the first century?” This is troubling because it shows that you are arguing against my claim of a certain canon in the first century, even though I have never made this claim. To be clear, let me state: I do not believe that any canon, or even the concept of a Christian canon, existed in the first century. Such a claim would be absurd, since the Gospel of John was likely written close to the year 100 AD.

     You said: Do you argue that Jesus’ Apostles did not know and pass down all truth necessary for salvation? How is recognition by later generations of what was passed down by the Apostles a “new truth”?

     This is getting off topic. My point (on topic) is that the Apostles did not hand down a canon, because one did not exist at that time. So while Christ did lead His Church into “all truth” by eventually having the Church recognize the canon, it did not happen within the Apostles’ lifetimes (many were dead by the time the last of the New Testament was written). Your question inserted “necessary for salvation” to the discussion we had been having. Of course they passed down “all truth necessary for salvation” — they didn’t withhold that last key element necessary for salvation. Recognition by later generations of what was passed down is not a “new truth”, but a recognition. This is ‘doctrinal development’ properly understood, so I commend you and our agreement. But remember your original claim that sparked this strand of conversation: Since Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would lead the Apostles into all the truth, there should be no doubt that they handed down the entire canon of OT Scripture in the 39 (22) books. Why is the canon something that had to be revealed as necessary for salvation, and not something that could have been recognized by later generations?

     Last, regarding your discussion of perspicuity and the unity of Scripture, I appreciate the Reformed view that “within the completeness of doctrine there are many individual doctrines which are articulated not by every passage of Scripture, but sufficiently by a few” But this leaves you right back facing my original complaint. If you could have an incomplete canon in your hands, then you can’t form doctrine from that collection of texts under the Reformed hermeneutic, because an omitted part could qualify another part in an essential way.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom

146. lojahw March 20th, 2010 1:30 pm :

     Dear Tom,

     If you’ll bear with me, I’m trying to understand what you mean by:

     You cannot get from “All Scripture is God-breathed” [or whatever other criteria you want to use] to “James is canonical” or “Esther is canonical” without at least one intermediate step, and that step will inherently involve interpretation. That interpretation ultimately holds the trump.

     The crux of your argument seems to be the possibility of relying on a human interpretation of some criteria not articulated by Scripture. In other words, an honest and capable person might choose “yes” or “no” on the basis of some criteria which Scripture does not use to define itself. An example might be Augustine’s reason for accepting the Maccabees: “on account of the extreme and wonderful sufferings of certain martyrs” (City of God 18:36). Of course, nowhere does Scripture give this as a criterion for its contents, and I would agree with you that this is not a reasonable approach to discerning Scripture.

     But you also seem to dismiss historical record as a valid mechanism to evaluate whether a particular book or books meet the criteria that Scripture defines. I don’t understand why, for example, if Scripture says the “oracles of God” prior to Christ were entrusted to the Jews, that you will not admit the historical record of what Jews in Jesus’ day and in the centuries following both published (as Josephus did) and told Christians about the canon of those “oracles of God.” Apart from impeaching the historical witnesses, the words of Josephus and the church fathers do not admit the kind of “interpretation” that you suggest is necessary. Moreover, it shouldn’t matter how many “steps” one takes to ascertain whether or not something Scripture says about itself is true of a particular book. It is legitimate to question the basis of one’s human judgment, but once the reasonable objections have been answered, to accept the use of human judgment (we are, after all, commanded to love God with all our minds as well as our hearts, souls, and strength). Surely you do not suggest that all intellectual processes are excluded from applying sola scriptura?

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

147. Chaka March 20th, 2010 3:23 pm :

     Lojahw wrote:4 Esdras. This is an apocryphal Christian era book not even written by a Jew. It has never had much credibility, so any quote from it might as well have come from the Da Vinci Code.

     Chaka replies:4 Esdras is a Jews apocalyptic book with Christain additions.The passage which i quoted from that work is of Jewish orgin.The catholic encyclopedia has this to say about that book in its acticle on it:

     “The main portion (iii-xiv) is undoubtedly the work of a Jew — whether Roman, or Alexandrian, or Palestinian, no one can tell; as to its date, authors are mostly widely at variance, and all dates have been suggested, from 30 B.C. to A.D. 218; scholars, however, seem to rally more and more around the year A.D. 97”

     When you talk of credibility I dont really understand what you have in mind.If by credibility you mean that the author was not really the Prophet Ezra or was not really written in the Prophet Ezra’s time then I agree with you that the work is not credible in this sense.But this in no way rules out the possibility that the religious views expressed in that work where shared by some of the authors kinsmen/countrymen in those times.Thats what my argument was about in quoting that work. That the work “demonstates that not all Jews of Josephus’ day believed that the inspired writings was limited to twenty four books”.

     Lojahw wrote:On what basis do you think your reference to the Mishnah is first century? There are no extant copies of the Mishnah that go back that far. Debates among diaspora Jews centuries later are not unlike debates between Roman Catholics and Orthodox about the canon today

     Chaka replies:The passage I quoted has nothing to do with “Debates among diaspora Jews centuries later “.Rather,it has to do with debates among the School of Hillel and the School of Shammai.Both schools dates back to first century Judaism.But i guess you doubt the historical testimony of that passage.Now,leaving aside whether the mishnah reflects first century Jewish beliefs or not.You would agree with me that the saying of the early rabbis which are found in the Mishnah where collected in the second century AD/Early third century.In this way,even if the sayings in the mishnah does not go back to the first century AD they atleast shows that in the second century/early third century AD they were still debates among the Jews on which book belongs to Scipture.

     Lojahw wrote:Melito’s canon, I addressed that in other posts. Origen’s response to Julius Africanus on Greek additions to the Hebrew text shows an unfortunate gullibility – but don’t forget that Origen was condemned by the Church for some of his unorthodox teachings. I wouldn’t recommend using Origen as a reliable source of truth (his historical testimony about people and events is of value, but his theological perspective is often questionable

     Chaka repies:I was not the one who first put Origen foward “as a reliable source of truth” but you when you wrote:”Melito, Origen, and Jerome all heeded the Scriptural criterion by going to the Jews to ask which books belonged in the Old Testament canon”.I ony pointed out to you with quotes from Origen that, contrary to your claim,he accepted the Deuterocanonical books.I guess if I were to point out to you with quotes from Jerome that ,contrary to your claim,he too accepted the Deuterocanonical books you would likewise say that Jerome’s statement in such passages ” shows an unfortunate gullibility” .Why do you think it is the ancients that are gullible and it is not you that is wrong?

     Lojahw wrote:church father quotes of non-canonical texts. Quotes alone do not imply doctrinal authority as Scripture. Irenaeus does not call his quote “Scripture.” Paul quoted pagans in the NT to illustrate a point, just as Irenaeus did.

     Chaka replies:My brother read that passage again carefully.In St. Ireanues eyes the History of Susanna is part of the book of Daniel.Or do you want to argue that St.Ireanues does not consider the book of Daniel as a Scriptural book?You also sounded like one who would believe that the early fathers accepted the Deuterocanonical books if only passages could be presented from the works of the fathers in which they call passages from the Deuterocanonical books “Scripture”.Numerous quotes of this kind can be made from the writtings of the fathers.Take a look at this few examples.

     “At this stage some rise up, saying that the Lord, by reason of the rod, and threatening, and fear, is not good; misapprehending, as appears, the Scripture which says, ‘And he that feareth the Lord will turn to his heart'[Sirach 21:6]”[Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor ,I:8 ]

     “[H]aving heard the Scripture which says, ‘Fasting with prayer is a good thing'[Tobit 12:8].”[ Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, 6:12 ]

     “But the case stands not thus; for the Scriptures do not set forth the matter in this manner. But they make use also of other testimonies, and say, Thus it is written: ‘This is our God, and there shall none other be accounted of in comparison of Him. He hath found out all the way of knowledge, and hath given it unto Jacob His servant (son), and to Israel His beloved. Afterward did He show Himself upon earth, and conversed with men'[Baruch 3:25-38].” [Hippolytus, Against the Noetus, 2]

     “But that we may believe on the authority of holy Scripture that such is the case, hear how in the book of Maccabees, where the mother of seven martyrs exhorts her son to endure torture, this truth is confirmed; for she says, ‘ ask of thee, my son, to look at the heaven and the earth, and at all things which are in them, and beholding these, to know that God made all these things when they did not exist'[2 Maccabees 7:28].” [Origen, Fundamental Principles, 2:2]

     “But he ought t0 know that those who wish to live according to the teaching of Sacred Scripture understand the saying, ‘The knowledge of the unwise is as talk without sense'[Sirach 21:18], and have learnt ‘to be ready always to give an answer to everyone that asketh us a reason for the hope that is in us'[1 Pt 3:15].” [Origen, Against Celsus, 7:12 ]

     “And thus Holy Scripture instructs us, saying, ‘Prayer is good with fasting and almsgiving'[Tobit 12:8].”[ Cyprian, Treatise 4,32 ]

     “Holy Scripture teaches and forewarns, saying, ‘My son, when thou comest to the service of God, stand in righteousness and fear, and prepare thy soul for temptation'[Sirach 2:1,4]. And again: ‘In pain endure, and in thy humility have patience; for gold and silver is tried in the fire, but acceptable men in the furnace of humiliation.[Sirach 2:5].”[ Cyprian, Treatise 7,9 ]
     “But listen to the divine oracles: ‘The works of the Lord are in judgment; from the beginning, and from His making of them, He disposed the parts thereof. He garnished His works for ever, and their principles unto their generations'[Sirach 16:24-25].” [Dionysius the Great, On Nature, 3]

     “[D]oes not the scripture say: ‘Burden not thyself above thy power'[Sirach 13:2]?” [Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 ]

     Lojahw wrote:That said, I think the Greek church fathers were at a disadvantage relying on Theodotion’s and other Greek versions of the OT books, not realizing what texts were significantly altered from the Hebrew originals.

     Chaka replies:The Greeks were not alone.The latin Church fathers,like the Greeks,treated the addition part of Daniel and other Deuterocanonical books as Scripture.See for example Tertullian who considered the book of Baruch as part of the book of Jeremiah:

     “For they remembered also the words of Jeremias writing to those over whom that captivity was impending: ‘And now ye shall see borne upon men’s shoulders the gods of the Babylonians, of gold and silver and wood, causing fear to the Gentiles. Beware, therefore, that ye also do not be altogether like the foreigners, and be seized with fear while ye behold crowds worshipping those gods before and behind, but say in your mind, Our duty is to worship Thee, O Lord'[Baruch 6:3]. ” [Tertullian, Scorpiace, 8 ]

     Good’ol Origen was it making up things in the third century when he pointed out to Africanus that Deuterocanonical books such as the History of Susanna can be found in every Scripture used in every Church of Christ.

     Peace with love,
     Chaka

148. Tom Brown March 21st, 2010 12:31 am :

     Dear “lojahw”,

     I’m glad we at least partially agree that it is not reasonable (or reliably effective) to pick a criterion for determining the canon, and then deciding “yes” or “no” for each candidate text. And thanks for the chance to explain a little more about my meaning when I said that you need an intermediate interpretive step. Specifically, you wonder why I “dismiss the historical record,” and you seem to be under the impression that history can answer questions where interpretive judgment might be unreliable. This reminds me of the discussion I was having with Ken at #79 and following, where I discussed Gettysburg. I do not dismiss the historical record at all, but it does not alleviate you of your use of private judgment in analyzing whether, based on your criterion, a given book is canonical.

     You mentioned this:

     I don’t understand why, for example, if Scripture says the “oracles of God” prior to Christ were entrusted to the Jews, that you will not admit the historical record of what Jews in Jesus’ day and in the centuries following both published (as Josephus did) and told Christians about the canon of those “oracles of God.”

     First, notice that you are using interpretive analysis to decide what texts the critereion ‘oracles of God entrusted to the Jews’ would have us include in the canon. You have concluded that the Jews in the centuries following the days of Christ could still bear testimony about the canon that is binding upon Christians. This is intermediate anlaysis. (And note that I addressed this matter of post-Christ Jews directly in my section II.B.)

     Second, notice that to the criterion you choose to use from Scripture, you have added an element or two so that the criterion makes a little more sense. You added “prior to Christ” because your judgment informs you that you need that element for the rule you see there to make sense. This is because as you are reading the verse about the oracles of God, the verse cannot mean to include oracular statements in the time following Christ. Also, I think you implicitly added that “oracles” means “written Scripture” even though it could simply be a reference to the Prophets, who very clearly were entrusted to the Jews.

     I’m not sure why you noted that it doesn’t matter how many steps need to be taken, as I said nothing about that. My point is that you are taking interpretive steps. James is not canonical because the Bible says “James is canonical” — it is canonical, I think you would say, because the Bible says things about what books are canonical, and you have interpreted those things in such a way that James winds up included. Do that in one step or eight, my point remains the same, viz., that you are interpreting your criteria. Sure, interpretation and use of reason is permissible. Catholicism loves these things. My point is that your interpretation holds the trump. If you say the Catholic Church is “over” Scripture because it has power to add or subtract from the canon, then you are “over” Scripture because you have power to add or subtract from it based on your individual interpretation of your criteria when deciding which books are in and which are out.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom

149. lojahw March 21st, 2010 2:23 pm :

     Dear Tom,

     In section II, you assert, based on a quote from Jerome’s response to Rufinus:

     From this we see clearly that Jerome, for all his studies with Hebrew scholars, did not hold to a 39-book Old Testament canon that matches the Protestant canon.

     Your quote(s) of Jerome need be interpreted in light of his own canon (Preface to the Book of Kings) and the contexts of the quotes you gave. First, Jerome used the term “hagiographa” to mean “biographies of saints” (hagios is the Greek word for saints). Biographies of saints are not in an of themselves authoritative for doctrine. Indeed, Josephus, in the first century wrote the following about the books after the reign of Artaxerxes, including the hagiographa of which Jerome spoke:

     It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time … [but with respect to the twenty-two books] during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be willingly to die for them. Against Apion

     Jerome’s comments on the books of Tobias and Judith as “hagiographa” do not challenge the Jews’ lower esteem for them than for the “twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine.” As for the reference to the Nicene Council, it published no canon of Scripture nor is there any record from it indicating acceptance of Judith as canonical. At best, Jerome’s comment about Nicea (which was before his time) might indicate that someone at the Council might have considered Judith as canonical. Moreover, a number of church fathers after the Council of Nicea, including Gregory Nazianzus, Athanasius, Jerome, and John of Damascus did not regard Judith as canonical.

     More telling, however, is what the context of the quoted text Against Rufinus says:

     In reference to Daniel my answer will be that I did not say that he was not a prophet; on the contrary, I confessed in the very beginning of the Preface that he was a prophet. But I wished to show what was the opinion upheld by the Jews; and what were the arguments on which they relied for its proof. I also told the reader that the version read in the Christian churches was not that of the Septuagint translators but that of Theodotion. It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact [that the LXX version was condemned], but that of those who read the version [i.e., the fault was of those who read the expanded version as if it were the original]. We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. Apology Against Rufinus, II.33

     Observations: Jerome was facing accusations from multiple quarters. 1) Jerome references his Preface to the book of Daniel, which is important for interpreting what Jerome is saying against Rufinus; 2) Jerome clearly says: “the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ.” When Jerome then says, “What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches,” the antecedent for “judgment” is “the right judgment of the churches of Christ” which condemned the LXX variants. Jerome’s final statement: “the man who makes this a charge against me” cannot refer to his endorsement of the LXX. It may refer back to the first line: “my answer will be that I did not say that he [Daniel] was not a prophet … but I wished to show what was the opinion of the Jews” [that Daniel was a prophet]. To interpret Jerome’s final phrase: “I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us,” requires reading what he wrote in his Preface to the book of Daniel (which he cites above in Rufinus, II.33):

     But among other things we should recognize that Porphyry makes this objection to us concerning the Book of Daniel, that it is clearly a forgery not to be considered as belonging to the Hebrew Scriptures but an invention composed in Greek. This he deduces from the fact that in the story of Susanna, where Daniel … [employs] a wordplay appropriate to Greek rather than to Hebrew. But both Eusebius and Apollinarius have answered him after the same tenor, that the stories of Susanna and of Bel and the Dragon are not contained in the Hebrew … For this same reason when I was translating Daniel many years ago, I noted these visions with a critical symbol, showing that they were not included in the Hebrew. And in this connection I am surprised to be told that certain fault-finders complain that I have on my own initiative truncated the book. …. And since all the churches of Christ, whether belonging to the Greek-speaking territory or the Latin, the Syrian or the Egyptian, publicly read this edition with its asterisks and obeli [indicating that it is not in the original], let the hostile-minded not begrudge my labor

     In other words, Jerome translated into Latin the full LXX text including the stories of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon, but noted those sections “with a critical symbol, showing that they were not included in the Hebrew.” Some then complained that Jerome’s Latin translation truncated the book of Daniel because the readers in the churches skipped over the sections marked with the critical symbols. Let the reader beware when a text is not in the original (cf. Prov. 30:5-6). Going about to Against Rufinus II.33, “I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us,” now makes sense: Jerome explained in his Preface “what they commonly say against us,” i.e., he explained that he did not truncate the Greek additions, but rather he marked them to forewarn the reader that these sections were not original. Jerome apparently did not want to force his opinion on those who read his translation, but he did want them to know that the additions were not in the Hebrew.

     In conclusion, none of the quotes cited by the article show that Jerome considered the “Septuagint plus” to be canonical.

     In Section II you also wrote:

     Not one single source from this period [first four centuries]articulates the Protestant canon.

     I provided separately the canons of Jerome and Rufinus which refute this statement. In light of these 2 early witnesses to the Protestant Canon, and the testimony of Josephus plus nine early church fathers supporting the 22 book OT canon with minor variations, your arguments against the Protestant canon need to be rethought. The church fathers before (and after) Augustine, as well as the Reformers rightly heeded Romans 3:2 in following what has clearly been the Jews’ OT canon for at least two millennia. I would appreciate your comment.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

150. lojahw March 22nd, 2010 4:41 pm :

     Dear Chaka,
     You wrote:

     If by credibility you mean that the author was not really the Prophet Ezra or was not really written in the Prophet Ezra’s time then I agree with you that the work is not credible in this sense.But this in no way rules out the possibility that the religious views expressed in that work where shared by some of the authors kinsmen/countrymen in those times.

     Similarly, should we consider the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Judas as credible alternatives to the Gospels of Matthew or John? Was there a possibility that the religious views expressed in the apocryphal gospels were shared by some of the authors’ kinsmen/countrymen in those times? Yes! Someone kept these so-called gospels in circulation for a long time. The possibility of people believing in various “urban legends” (and their equivalents) does not turn a story-telling forger into a credible source. Josephus, on the other hand has always been considered a credible first century Jewish historian, apart from his tendency to present an idealized picture of his people, the Jews. Admittedly Josephus’ statement stretched the truth a little: “but it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these [22] books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be willingly to die for them.” There are always some people on the fringe of any group; so, yes, it is possible that some Jews did not “immediately from birth esteem” only those 22 books as divine. Still, which person is more credible: Josephus, who used his real name and is a widely respected authority on Jewish history and culture or the faker story-teller who falsely used a famous prophet’s name as a platform for publishing his personal fantasies?

     the saying of the early rabbis which are found in the Mishnah where collected in the second century AD/Early third century.

     The text you quote is from the Megillah 7a in the Babylonian Talmud, which dates to the fifth century, not the second or third (the Palestinian Talmud does date to the time you claim). Also, it is debated whether or not it was intended to have any impact on the Jewish canon. The fact that the schools of Hillel and Shamai existed for many centuries doesn’t tell us when the rabbis in your quote lived. My source places Rabbi Judah in the late third century, but like the quote from 4 Esdras, this quote is irrelevant to what books Jesus and His Jewish disciples recognized as Scripture. The most reliable historical source closest to their time and place, Josephus, is a more reliable witness than a rabbi who lived in the diaspora more than 200 years later.

     I ony pointed out to you with quotes from Origen that, contrary to your claim,he accepted the Deuterocanonical books.

     Please forgive me for not directly responding to your quotes last time. The quotes from Origen only relate to the Greek additions to Daniel, not to the seven deuterocanonical books. And, as I said previously, Origen was a complex character. His correspondence with Julius Africanus on this subject did not change his own canon of 22 books, but it does provide insight into the usage of the LXX translation of the OT in the Greek-speaking churches of his day. Jerome, a century later commented that Origen agreed that the tale of Susanna and the fable of Bel and the Dragon were not in the original Hebrew. In view of that fact, Origen’s response to Africanus is very odd: “Are we to suppose that the same Providence that in the sacred Scriptures has ministered to the edification of all the Churches of Christ, had no thought for those bought with a price, for whom Christ died … that with Him He might freely give us all things? ‘Thou shalt not remove the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set.’” Ep. Africanus 5. It is odd that Origen recognized that the Greek text was significantly different than the original, yet he said: “Thou shalt not remove the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set” (quoting Prov. 22:28). In other words, Origen placed more weight on the recent history of the LXX than on the original Hebrew from which it came, with additions. He seems to be saying, “Don’t upset the churches that are used to reading this Greek version with its additions; God will preserve them from error.” Jerome, a century later, was caught in a similar controversy, and his answer (regarding his Latin translation) was that he included the extra stories with asterisks and obeli so that the reader would know which texts were authentic and which were not (keeping the ancient boundaries). Still, Jerome was criticized by some Latins for “truncating” the book of Daniel because readers in their churches skipped over the added stories when they saw the asterisks and obeli markings. Remember Proverbs 30:5-6, “Every word of God is tested …. Do not add to His words lest He reprove you and you be found a liar.” Origen should have heeded both of Solomon’s warnings: 1) not to move the ancient boundary (the Hebrew text); and 2) not to add to God’s words.

     2 summary thoughts:
     1) Quoting a work does not imply canonical authority. I often say: “as Augustine (other some other writer) wrote…” without implying that I consider him of equal authority to Scripture. Quite a few church fathers quoted the deuteros, but do not mistake those quotes to mean that they have “like authority” to the Scriptures.

     2) How could the Church consistently omit 7 “divine” books for four centuries, and then decide that those books which Josephus placed among the books “not of like authority” to the 22 should suddenly be called “divine books”? It is the consensus of 9 successive church fathers through the fourth century publishing 22 book OT canons from the Jews (cf. Rom. 3:2) that agrees with the Protestant canon. As I wrote earlier: Jerome and Rufinus exactly articulated the Protestant canon. How do you argue that they were wrong?

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

151. Chaka March 27th, 2010 3:37 pm :

     My brother Lojahw,
     It seems we are going in circles here so I would concentrate alone on your two(2) summary thoughts .

     Lojahw 1st Summary:Quoting a work does not imply canonical authority. I often say: “as Augustine (other some other writer) wrote…” without implying that I consider him of equal authority to Scripture. Quite a few church fathers quoted the deuteros, but do not mistake those quotes to mean that they have “like authority” to the Scriptures.

     Chaka relies:No one is saying quoting a work does imply canonical authority.We have to look at the way and manner these works are quoted.Now when the fathers were quoting Scritures they use formulas such as :”the scriptures says”,”it is written”,”the Lord says”,”the divine oracles says”,”the Lord says through the prophet”,”the prophet of the Lord says”.If we turn to the works of the Early fathers who lived in the first three centuries it would be discovered that they use these formulas for both the duetros and protos(See some of the quotes in my earlier post).Futher more,in their works the fathers qouted the deutros in between the protos in a way which suggests that they considered them as being of equal footing with the protos.See for example this qoute from St.Clement of Rome in which passages from the book of Wisdom are quoted in between the book of Job and the book of Psalms:

     “Do we then deem it any great and wonderful thing for the Maker of all things to raise up again those that have piously served Him in the assurance of a good faith, when even by a bird He shows us the mightiness of His power to fulfil His promise ? For [the Scripture] saith in a certain place, “Thou shalt raise me up, and I shall confess unto Thee; ” and again, “I laid me down, and slept; I awaked, because Thou art with me;” and again, Job says, “Thou shalt raise up this flesh of mine, which has suffered all these things.” Having then this hope, let our souls be bound to Him who is faithful in His promises, and just in His judgments. He who has commanded us not to lie, shall much more Himself not lie; for nothing is impossible with God, except to lie. Let His faith therefore be stirred up again within us, and let us consider that all things are nigh unto Him. By the word of His might He established all things, and by His word He can overthrow them. “Who shall say unto Him, What hast thou done? or, Who shall resist the power of His strength?” [Wisdom 12:12,ll:22]When and as He pleases He will do all things, and none of the things determined by Him shall pass away? All things are open before Him, and nothing can be hidden from His counsel. “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handy- work. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge. And there are no words or speeches of which the voices are not heard.” Since then all things are seen and heard [by God], let us fear Him, and forsake those wicked works which proceed from evil desires; so that, through His mercy, we may be protected from the judgments to come. [St.Clemment of Rome,Epistle to the Corinthians 26-28:1]

     Lojahw 2nd Summary:How could the Church consistently omit 7 “divine” books for four centuries, and then decide that those books which Josephus placed among the books “not of like authority” to the 22 should suddenly be called “divine books”? It is the consensus of 9 successive church fathers through the fourth century publishing 22 book OT canons from the Jews (cf. Rom. 3:2) that agrees with the Protestant canon. As I wrote earlier: Jerome and Rufinus exactly articulated the Protestant canon. How do you argue that they were wrong?

     Chaka replies:The Church did not consistently omit 7 “divine” books for four centuries.I have told you and have shown you with some examples that the fathers of the first three centuries considered the duetros as Scripture.Yes they were doubts in some sections about the canonicity of some Old testament books but the same applies to several New Testament books such as the Apocalypse of John,Epistle of Jude,Epistle to the Hebrews,Second and Third John.Would you say because several fathers in the first four centuries were in doubt about the canonicity of those New Testament books that you would not consider them as Scripture?On what basis do you accept the Church’s judgment on New Testament canon and reject her judgment on the books of the Old Testament canon?

     On a passing note when Origen wrote:“Thou shalt not remove the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set” (quoting Prov. 22:28).I think he was refering to the fact the duetros such as the addition of Daniel have always been accepted by Christains before his time so it would be wrong to now remove them from the Scripture that is in use in the churches because they cannot be found in the Scripture that is in use in the Synagogue.
     Peace with love.Your brother in Christ ,
     Chaka

152. Tom Brown March 28th, 2010 5:35 pm :

     Dear “lojahw”,

     Thank you for your patience in awaiting my reply to your comment about St. Jerome. My premise about St. Jerome was not quite that he (in your words against me) “considered the ‘Septuagint plus’ to be canonical.” What I did say was this: “But even granting the widely recognized authority of St. Jerome, his concerns about the deuterocanonical books do not indicate that the Church of his day accepted only the 39 books of the Protestant Old Testament.” While I do not deny that St. Jerome expressed his scholarly opinion against the deuterocanonical texts, I maintain that his final measure of the canon was to accept the judgment of the Church (which had accepted the deuterocanon).

     But note this. I fear we are headed into a lengthy, familiar, and perhaps tired discussion of St. Jerome’s views of the canon, the significance of his having been influenced by Hebrew-Jewish scholars, etc. (And then maybe a discussion of Rufinus, influenced by his once-beloved Jerome.) I’ve seen this played out before, and I imagine you have as well. My fear is based on my opinion that this will shed little or no light on the present discussion of the Canon Question. In that spirit, let me concede to you for the purposes of this discussion the following. Let us suppose that in his academic opinion, Jerome believed that the Old Testament canon was properly constituted only of the 39 books presently in the Protestant Old Testament.

     Where would that leave you, with respect to the Canon Question? What is it to you if one Hebrew scholar of the fourth and fifth centuries held an opinion against the Septuagint? What if I am wrong that ‘not one single scholar supported the Protestant canon’ — and instead one scholar did? Nine fathers with minor variations hurt your cause, not help it, because your cause maintains that Scripture is self-attesting, black-from-white, etc. If they all got it wrong, albeit just slightly wrong, it makes it appear that Scripture is not quite as self-attesting as we might hope. Why did no one before Jerome get it right? Why did Jerome accept the additions to Daniel that you now reject? Where did he stand, or where do you stand, with respect to disputed passages like John 8 (let he who is without sin cast the first stone)?

     My claim that not one pre-Reformational scholar advocated the Protestant Old Testament went to the weight of my argument against the Protestant canon criteria that looks to the original Hebrew Old Testament. It was not the crux of my argument by any means.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom

153. C.J. Williams March 30th, 2010 1:01 am :

     A very well written, thorough critique. However, it seems to me that your charge of subjectivity is not entirely balanced, nor does it take into account the full position of the WCF. In WCF I:5 the other factors (besides the inward testimony of the Spirit) that “move and induce” us to a “high and reverent esteem” for the Scriptures are to be given their due weight. They are mentioned in WCF not to dismiss them but to include them as things that support and help interpret the inward testimony of the Spirit. This factors into your hypothetical situation of two new believers who have no experience with the Scriptures likely ending up with different judgments about what is canonical. Such a first encounter with the Scriptures, even if it is with the Spirit’s inward testimony, does not happen in a historical vacuum or without any supporting evidence/guidance from the believing community. Just as the teaching of the church is a normal means for understanding Scripture, yet such teaching does not displace the primacy of Scripture itself, so it seems the teaching of the church may be an aid for discerning the canon without being that which determines the canon. None of this, in my view, detracts from the Holy Spirit’s testimony being the determinative factor. On one hand you caricature the Reformed position on the Spirit’s testimony as almost a direct, supernatural event in a historical vacuum, but surely the Spirit’s work takes place through means, by teaching, etc., in many such contexts. On the other hand you end up at a position where the Spirit’s testimony is an entirely subjective and therefore irrelevant thing, having almost no place in canonical discernment, but the Spirit’s work is still objectively real even when disagreements remain due to our lack of knowledge or Christian maturity. I truly enjoyed this piece and found it thought provoking, but I also think you may not have given a full, balanced view of the WCF’s position. In any case, thank you for a good, engaging post! I’ll be visiting here more often.

     WCF I:5
     We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

154. Tim A. Troutman March 30th, 2010 9:39 am :

     CJ, welcome to CTC and thanks for the comments. It seems to me that your response is to Tom’s (secondary) subjectivity critique rather than to his primary critique of the Protestant approach to the canon, namely that in order to define the canon with binding authority, one must use extra-biblical sources thereby violating the premise of sola scriptura. Catholicism is not subject to this same critique because the Catholic Church has never affirmed sola scriptura.

     The recent podcast on the canon might be helpful to catch the summary of Tom’s argument. I’ll let him respond to your critique of his secondary argument but I hope you’ll take the time to either re-read the article and respond to the primary argument or listen to the podcast and do likewise.

155. Tom Brown March 31st, 2010 1:02 am :

     Dear C.J.,

     Thank you for the comment, and for the compliments, and for the thoughtful critique. I look forward to hearing your reaction to my response.

     You are critical that my charge of subjectivity lacks a full consideration of the Westminster position. Specifically, you note that the Westminster Confession provides what you call “other factors” to aid us in recognizing Scripture. First a procedural point, second a substantive one:

     Procedural Point. I think I did give the classical Reformed position a full airing, even on this point. The article is not, of course, an exposition of the Westminster Confession, but of Reformed thinking on the canon (to the extent that reasonable length limitations permit). In my article I quoted in full the nearest parallel portion of the Belgic Confession to what you cited of the Westminster Confession. (Text accompanying footnote 16.) I had both in mind, and cited your section I.V. itself, but used the Belgic for two reasons: (1) I grew up in the CRC, and (2) I wanted to avoid over-pandering to the Westminster/PCA segment of our reading audience. Also, and bearing in mind that Calvin was forging the “classical Reformed” position long before the Reformed Confessions were written, I quoted from Calvin some ideas that I believe worked their ways into the portion of the Westminster you quoted (e.g., his argument for the authority of books recognized from the church’s inception). (Text accompanying footnote 37 ff.)

     Substantive Point. Let me start by repeating the quote you are addressing:

     We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts. (WCF, I.V.)

     As I read you, I think your point is this: the new believer does not come to Scripture in a spiritual vacuum such that merely some kind of bosom burning guides him to what is canonical. These “other factors” guide him too. These things, you say, do not displace the primacy of Scripture, or of the determinative necessity of the Holy Spirit’s testimony. I hope this is a fair characterization of your argument.

     First, I note that in the Westminster’s own language, while the ‘other factors’ evidence what is the Word of God, them “notwithstanding”, to reach infallible assurance we need the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit. Where are you left without this inner testimony, which was the focus of my argument? Under the terms of the Westminster, you are left with something short of a “full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority” of the 66 books in the Protestant Bible. If that is so, then you do not have a collection of books that can bind the conscience of other believers or of yourself.

     Second, and similarly, I rest on the comments I made against Calvin’s arguments that I referred to as “fall-back arguments” in the article. Regarding “the testimony of the Church,” it is an appeal to an external fact outside of Scripture that is used to define the canon, so is contradictory to sola scriptura. Regarding “the heavenliness of the matter,” “majesty of the style,” etc., these are simply characteristics of Scripture that my hypothetical new believer should be able to see and recognize and thus reach the same conclusions as others. So my hypothetical stands under the full light of the Westminster, perhaps with the exception that the new believer depends on “the testimony of the Church” to reach the right conclusion. If that is determinative — if that explains why some got it right and others got it wrong, then it is determinative. And if the testimony of the Church is determinative of the canon, then the Church of your ecclesial perspective is as much “over” the canon as you see the Church of the Catholic ecclesial perspective as being “over” the canon.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom

156. Doug B. March 31st, 2010 11:52 am :

     First, I have been reading on this subject recently and this is one of the best articles I’ve seen. Thanks!

     Second, it seems to me that most of the RC arguments that work well against Protestant views do not narrow the field much further for seekers. Here, for example, if one agreed that the canon issue is sufficiently troublesome for Protestants that it excludes them from consideration among the branches of the Christian faith, how would this aid them in picking from Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, or perhaps even Anglicanism? I realize this is not precisely the topic here, but since other branches have different canons from Roman Catholicism as well as Protestantism, do you think the canon question can settle these disputes as well?

     P.S. Hi Andrew! Greetings from NC. :)

157. Andrew Preslar March 31st, 2010 5:38 pm :

     Hey Doug! I re-found your blog a while back and have enjoyed reading it. The irenic, RC–Protestant discussions at Soul Device are exemplary.

     For anyone who likes this kind of thing, and you know who you are, I recommend a bit that Doug, as a Protestant contributor, had published in the book, The Best Catholic Writing 2006:

     The Existence of Chuck Norris

     My take on your question, which is a biggie, is bound to be inadequate, or at best incomplete, but here it is anyway:

     The canon question does not, in itself, exclude Protestants from being a particular church, the lack of apostolic succession (which deprives them of the Eucharist) does.

     As to disagreements among particular churches (or putative particular churches), I would check to see if there are any, among the churches you named, that considers itself to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that Christ founded. Then I would check to see if any among those churches, claiming to be the one Church, features a functioning Magisterium, which still settles disputes in the old way; namely, by convening an Ecumenical Council and promulgating definitive teaching, stated as binding upon everyone, everywhere, for all time.

     As far as I can tell, there is only one church that has been doing that (or even claiming to do that) during the last millennium. So, as regards the canon question and “aid … in picking from” RC, EO, etc., it is at least noteworthy that the Catholic Church alone (you know, the one that the man on the street calls “the Catholic Church”) has promulgated definitive teaching on this disputed matter.

158. Lojahw March 31st, 2010 11:12 pm :

     Dear Tom,

     Thank you for your response. May I summarize re: the OT canon? (I can address the NT canon separately)

     In section III, you state: “The Catholic or Orthodox Christian will point to the work of the Holy Spirit in the visible Church as the basis for his articulation of the canon, which work is seen in sacred tradition.” Because there are undeniable inconsistencies between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox canons, the above statement lacks credibility. Truth taught by the Holy Spirit is coherent and consistent.

     Ridderbos needs to find evidence for the contents of the canon that is located in or derived from the canon itself.

     With respect to the OT canon, Romans 3:2 testifies that “the oracles of God were entrusted [aorist passive, completed action]” to the Jews. Moreover, the “oracles of God” as cited in Hebrews 5:12 refers to the whole of divine revelation (not just the prophets), just as the citations by Jesus and the other NT writers refer to all three divisions of the Hebrew canon. Furthermore, the first century testimony of Josephus refutes the assertion that there was no standard OT canon in Jesus day: ““but it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these [twenty-two] books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be willingly to die for them.” Josephus likewise excludes all other Jewish books from the canon, describing them as “not of like authority” to the twenty-two books. Moreover, that Josephus listed the number and not the names of these books indicates that they were widely recognized, as were Paul’s epistles in the early church, when cited by number and not by name in the NT canons. Furthermore, the identity of the twenty-two books with the 39 books in the Protestant OT canon is virtually certain based on common knowledge of the Jewish books available in the first century.

     When we think of Jesus and his Palestinian apostles, then, we may be confident that they agreed with contemporary leaders in Israel about the contents of the canon. [but] … We cannot say confidently that [Jesus and his disciples] accepted Esther, Ecclesiastes or the Song of Songs as scripture, because evidence is not available.

     To the contrary, the inescapable conclusion from the testimony of Josephus and other Jews and church fathers is that the above mentioned books were among the “twenty-two” books to which the church fathers attested, just as Titus and Philemon were understood to be among the thirteen epistles of Paul. Esther was numbered among Josephus’ prophets, and Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs were among Josephus’ books containing “precepts for the conduct of living.” There are no reasonable substitutes from the Jewish collection of the day that satisfy both the time frame (between Moses and Artaxerxes) and the subject matter specified in Against Apion.

     Also, the well-established structures of Jewish authority in the time of Christ belies the assertion that the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem lacked the authority to fix the Hebrew canon. For example, Acts 5:21 witnesses to “the Council, even all the Senate of the sons of Israel.” The “center of gravity” theory given by the article is no more than a strawman. Finally, the article’s ad hominem argument against the Hebrew canon linked to “the Pharisaic leaders from Jerusalem, some of the very ones who had Christ put to death” is shown to be false by Josephus’ own favorable report of Jesus.

     The evidence I have provided here indicates that, at the time of Christ, Samaritan, Essene, and Alexandrian Jews used a canon different from the 39-book Protestant canon.

     There is no evidence “at the time of Christ” of any Jewish “canon” other than the one published by Josephus, and that canon is consistent with the Protestant canon. The books recognized by the Samaritans are irrelevant. Indeed, Jesus told the Samaritan woman: “You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews” (cf. John 4:24). I have explained elsewhere that the Essene collection of books can hardly be considered a canon (e.g., the Community Rule and other books used by the Essenes had authority, but not for doctrine). Finally, the Alexandrian Jews never published a single canon, and until the fourth century no codex was able hold all of their books, so the notion that Jews anywhere used an authoritative “canon” containing the deuterocanon is purely speculative. To the contrary, both Scriptural and historical testimony strongly indicates that the Hebrew OT canon of the first century as described by Josephus was the canon used by Jesus and His disciples. The musings of two or three rabbis well over a century after Christ are irrelevant to the canon question: history records that from Josephus forward, the Jews have consistently identified the same OT canon without any variation.

     “Not one single source from this period [the early centuries of the Church] articulates the Protestant canon.”

     As I wrote elsewhere, the canons of Jerome and Rufinus clearly refute this claim. Moreover, the minor variations in the other seven early church canons are miniscule compared to the unprecedented addition by Augustine in the late fourth century of 7 books that simply don’t fit into any twenty-two book OT canon. In fact, Calvin comments on the testimony of at least nine early church fathers from Melito to Jerome in his Acts of the Synod of Trent with the Antidote 4, where he contrasts the “consensus of the ancient church” against Trent’s “promiscuously” incorporating the deuterocanonical books into the canon.

     the Septuaginst contained the deuterocanon as well as other texts beyond the 39 books of the Protestant Old Testament”

     The notion that the LXX “contained the deuterocanon” overlooks the fact that no codex (book) was able to contain that many books until the fourth century. One might have a copy of the Greek Pentateuch (the original LXX), a copy of the major Prophets in Greek, a copy of the Psalms in Greek, etc., without ever reading any of the deuterocanonical books. The fact that the Old Latin text was poorly translated (and thus “mistrusted,” as the article says) is no reason to question the Hebrew originals. As seen above, there is no basis for the claim that Greek speaking Christians used the Greek translations of all Jewish books as Scripture.

     “Christians’ use of the Septuagint indicates their conviction that it was authentically divine, and therefore authoritative”

     The historical conviction that the LXX was divinely inspired only applied to the original translation of the Pentateuch. There were at least four widely divergent Greek OT versions in the days of the early church, and not all churches used the same version: there was no one Greek version that was considered to be “the inspired” version for all fifty-two or more books of the “Septuagint-plus.” Moreover, there have always been distinctions between the authority of the books included in the “Septuagint-plus.” For Roman Catholics to argue otherwise is self-defeating, vis a vis 3 & 4 Maccabees, the Odes, 3 & 4 Esdras, and other books not recognized by them. With respect to the book of Daniel, Jerome wrote: “I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ.” If the churches of Christ rightly condemned the Septuagint version of books that differed from the original Hebrew books, on what basis do Roman Catholics support them today?

     On the other hand, the church fathers often encouraged Christians to read the deuteros for private instruction (cf. Rufinus, Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed 36), and some even allowed them to be read publicly in churches (cf. Jerome’s Preface to the Books of Solomon). Regardless, as Jerome and the other church fathers consistently testified: these books are “not for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas.”

     If even a majority of the Church’s leaders had rejected those books, their inclusion in the canon by St. Augustine (b. 354) and the North African councils would have created an uproar. But history records no such reaction.

     There was no uproar for the simple reason that the church fathers did not “reject” those books, but often accepted them as “not of like authority.” Moreover, Augustine was such a towering figure in the late fourth century Church that his opinion swayed two or three local councils. Those who did accept the deuteros with “like authority” to the proto-canonical books apparently forgot the “rule” articulated by the earlier Muratorian canon (ca. A.D. 170) which said that late-coming books, regardless of how edifying or inspirational they were, “cannot be read publicly to the people in church . . . among the prophets, whose number is complete. . . . .” As Josephus and others testified, the OT prophets were counted from Moses to the time of Artaxerxes (cf. 1 Macc. 4:46; 9:27; 14:41), and regardless of how edifying other books might be, such books were “not of like authority” with the earlier writings. Consistent with Eph. 2:20, this criterion eliminates all OT books written after the fifth century B.C. Malachi, the last OT prophet, concludes with a prophecy that points directly to the first prophet in the NT: John the Baptist (cf. Mal. 4:4-6; Matt. 11:14; 17:11-12; Mark 9:11-13). Any writing between Malachi and John the Baptist does not belong “among the prophets, whose number is complete.”

     Either the deuterocanonicals always were God’s Word and the Jews mistakenly never recognized them as such, or the Jews were right to exclude them and it was Augustine who was mistaken centuries later to consider them among the “God-breathed” books. Four centuries of consistent testimony by the church fathers supports the latter judgment: the Jews were right. As Proverbs 22:28 says: “Do not move the ancient boundary which your fathers have set.”

     We have evidence that many early Church figures, including St. Augustine himself, supported the inclusion of the deuterocanonical texts within the canon. …

     As I’ve stated previously: mere usage/acceptance of other sources by church fathers does not connote “like authority” with the Scriptures. Furthermore, if any particular person might appear to indicate deuterocanonical authority, how could such private judgment settle the matter? It’s ironic that the article cites a condemned heretic (Theodore of Mopsuestia) for rejecting several canonical OT books. His private judgment carries no weight here. It is also strange that the scholars consulted for the article not only overlook the OT canons of Jerome and Rufinus, but also conclude that “only some include Esther,” when, in fact, the church fathers in this period who included it outnumbered those who did not two-to-one!

     As mentioned earlier, until the fifth century Codex Alexandrinus, no extant copy of the OT includes all of the deuterocanonical books listed by the Council of Trent – yet that codex also includes 3 & 4 Maccabees, 1 & 2 Clement, etc. By what objective criterion are texts counted or excluded from the “deuterocanon”? Since no published canon prior to the Council of Trent lists 46 OT books, was there no valid OT canon until the sixteenth century? And, since the Council of Trent did not even vote on all of the books in the LXX, is the question of the OT canon still unresolved? No credible Christian authority would agree with that, yet the East accepts the books that Trent set aside for a future vote.

     The article makes an effort to position Jerome on the side of the deuterocanonical books. However, as mentioned previously he never regarded them as “of like authority” to Scripture, and, except for Tobit and Judith, he never translated any of the other deuterocanonical texts, including the additions to Esther. A careful reading of Jerome’s prologue to Tobit gives the impression that he considered his translation to be a professional favor rather than an act of ecclesiastical obedience to two otherwise obscure bishops. His quote about the Nicene Council accepting Judith is surely mistaken since the Council published no comment on Judith and the de facto leader of the Council, Athanasius, denied Judith’s canonicity. (“Hagiographa” are biographies of saints, which convey no intrinsic canonical merit.) As I wrote re: Jerome’s comments on the additions to Daniel, he clearly marked them with asterisks and obeli in the Vulgate to distinguish them from the original text, enabling the churches to use them as appropriate, but “not for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas.”

     from section II.A: the Catholic position is that Scripture has divine authority because it is God-breathed, the Holy Spirit having inspired the texts’ authors.

     We agree on this; however, Protestants consider a number of things about the deuterocanonical texts to be incompatible with the “God-breathed” character of Scripture. “God-breathed” Scripture would not contradict itself like the additions to Esther contradict the original Hebrew (Haman could not have been both a Macedonian and an Agagite). It is also inconceivable that a forgery written many centuries after Solomon could be considered “God-breathed” (cf. Wisdom of Solomon 9:7-8,). Moreover, no “God-breathed” Scripture would falsely teach: “Better is the wickedness of a man than a woman who does good” (Sirach 42:14). Etc. Protestants cannot reconcile such things with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

     In conclusion, the great preponderance of evidence favors the Protestant OT canon based on the Hebrew canon published in the first century by Josephus, which agrees with the consensus of the early church and the teaching of the Scriptures.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

159. Tom Brown April 1st, 2010 1:36 pm :

     Dear Doug,

     It is good to hear from you. I appreciate the compliment, and hope this work will draw more attention, study, and writing to the subject.

     You noted (and I think, in a nice sense of the word, complained) that my critique of the Protestant view of the canon didn’t also show why the conclusion for the seeker would be Catholicism. You also asked if I thought the Canon Question can settle the disputes of Anglicans, Orthodox, and Catholics.

     I did not argue for becoming Catholic in this article because I did not want to blur issues. Discernment is difficult, and part of the difficulty comes from the conflation of various decisions. In my own discernment, consideration of the canon was very much part of a bifurcated process. I started by realizing that my own answers and views on matters of authority were based on a canon that I could not defend within my own framework.

     Then I had to face the similarly daunting task of deciding what to do from there. Realizing that to stay Christian without sola scriptura I was left with episcopal choices, I considered all three of the episcopal ecclesial bodies you mentioned. But that decision had nothing to do with whether the Reformed could answer the Canon Question. Any one of the apostolic traditions, if true, did not have a problem answering the Canon Question. So I would not use the Canon Question both to criticize the Reformed faith and to ‘prove’ Catholicism. I do not think an argument needs to be able to do both in order to be worth discussing.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom

160. Doug B. April 1st, 2010 6:07 pm :

     Andrew / Tom,

     Thanks for responding guys. I was not trying to get into an entire religion-choosing discussion but I realize that’s how it sounded. :) Nor was I trying to critique the article for not doing so (even in a nice way!). I guess I am seeing if the conversation can be extended to the other branches. If all you desired was to point out Protestant deficiency, then I think you did an excellent job. I am wondering how a person would look at the other branches who make similar claims to apostolic authority but then have their own canons. I guess, following Andrew, that it would have to be decided on other grounds.

     My main issue is that I am looking at whether or not an appreciation for the role of the early church drives one to Roman Cathoilicism (as many seem to argue), or whether it only succeeds in arguing against Protestantism.

161. Tom Brown April 11th, 2010 11:51 pm :

     Dear Doug,

     I think you would need to decide between apostolic ecclesial bodies on grounds other than the Canon Question, although it can shed light on the matter. Would a look at the early Church tend to lead one to Catholicism? I think so, but the degree of similarity between Catholicism and Orthodoxy should tell you something about how difficult it would be to look to the Fathers and go, “aha, Catholicism is true!” or “aha, Orthodoxy is true!” More helpful to me was an exploration of how Catholicism and Orthodoxy have played out over history, in light of their claims about themselves.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

162. Tom Brown April 11th, 2010 11:57 pm :

     Dear “lojahw”,

     It is my opinion that we have only gone in circles, and my opinion that further blow-by-blow refutations of each other’s claims will not be helpful to the readers. So I will let your last comment be the last substantive word on the matter, and for those looking for a reply, will merely point readers to my article proper, and to my comment #152.

     I’m sorry we didn’t make better progress for all the ink spilled. I really am.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

163. Neal Judisch April 12th, 2010 12:03 am :

     Tom,

     Don’t feel bad about the lack of progress. I think “lojahw” is supposed to stand for “Let’s Only Just Advance Hypothetically Weekends.” So I think you can anticipate making more headway come Monday.

     (Okay, really, really stupid joke. It’s tired and I’m late. But I made me laugh, and that’s the main thing.)

164. Lojahw May 4th, 2010 11:45 am :

     Dear Tom,

     Since my previous post on the NT canon was dropped, please accept the following. Post 158 addresses the OT canon.

     Ridderbos needs to find evidence for the contents of the canon that is located in or derived from the canon itself.

     The Belgic Confession cited by the article does not fully explain how one discerns the canon; however, it does attest to the following Scriptural criteria of canonicity by which the canon can be identified:
     1) The text is an authentic and authoritative witness of the apostles and the prophets upon which the Church has been built (Article 3; cf. 1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 2:20; Eph. 4:11; 2 Pet. 1:20-21). Most of the books of Scripture are self-attesting and cited as divine revelation by the prophets and apostles in the books themselves.
     2) The text is true in every respect: “we believe without a doubt all things contained in them . . . because the Holy Spirit testifies in our hearts that they are from God and they prove themselves to be from God . . . [for] the things predicted in them do happen” (Article 5; cf. Psalm 119:160; Prov. 30:5-6; Isa. 55:10-11; John 10:35; John 17:17; Tit. 1:2). Moreover, “Whatever does not agree with the canonical books must be rejected” (Article 7; note: Article 4 lists the 66 canonical books, about which “there can be no quarrel.” Article 6 encourages reading and learning from other sources “as far as they agree with the canonical books”).
     3) The text, after God “commanded his servants, the prophets and apostles, to commit this revealed Word to writing” (Article 3; cf. Exod. 34:27; Jer. 30:2; Rev. 1:11), has always endured, for “the Word of the Lord abides forever,” and “it is forbidden to add to or subtract from the Word of God” (Article 7; cf. Isa. 40:8; Prov. 30:5-6; Matt. 5:18; 24:35; 1 Pet 1:25; Rev. 22:18-19). Corollary: so-called “lost scriptures” must be excluded from the canon; they did not “abide for forever.”

     Re: Section II.A, Self-attestation and the Holy Spirit.
     Most of Scripture is self-attesting (claiming to communicate God’s words), and it is authenticated by eyewitness testimony in either the same book or in other books of Scripture. This evidence is “located in” the canon itself. For example, the NT routinely identifies contemporary events as the fulfillment of OT prophesies, which are therein cited. Moreover, evidence confirming Jesus’ own prophesies concerning His passion, resurrection, and ascension is found in the Gospels and Acts. Such NT prophesies are evidence that “God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, . . .” (cf. 1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11). Prophets were indeed appointed in the church, distinct from the OT prophets. Moreover, this fact relates directly to the teaching that the church has “been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone” (cf. Eph. 2:20). It can therefore be concluded that the Gospel writers, including Mark and Luke, were among the prophetic witnesses upon whom the church has been built. Because of the divine authorization of the prophets and apostles, we can be confident that the teaching they transmitted is of divine origin.

     Similarly, evidence of canonicity is also derived from Scripture by means of authoritative citations in the self-attesting books which identify other books as Scripture. For example, Jesus’ promise that the Holy Spirit would guide His apostles into all the truth applies to Peter’s recognition of Paul’s letters as Scripture (cf. John 16:13; 2 Pet. 3:15-16). The Apostle Paul in turn recognizes the Gospel of Luke as Scripture (cf. Luke 10:7; 1 Tim 5:18). Moreover, authoritative citations of OT books by Christ and the apostles and prophets provide further evidence of canonicity. Based on self-attestation, authentication, and authoritative citations in other books, the vast majority of the sixty-six books of the Bible can be recognized as canonical.

     Yet, the work of the Holy Spirit is necessary for subjective acceptance of divine revelation. The “natural man” does not accept divine revelations because “they are foolishness” to him (cf. 1 Cor. 2:14-16). However, when moved by God’s Spirit, objective declarations and fulfillments of divine revelation evoke subjective responses of faith. As the Westminster Confession states: “our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority [of Scripture], is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.” However, in contrast to Mormon practice, this statement in no way undermines the objective basis of the subjective response of faith. The Bible is the authoritative story of God’s revelation of His glory and His redemption in history: it is “His story”; but not everyone accepts it.

     Re: Section II.C on New Testament Apostolic Authorship:

     the Protestant can only reach the conclusion that the twelve Apostles were inspired authors through the use of reason or extra-Biblical sources.

     If your definition of sola scriptura excludes reason or extra-Biblical sources, you misrepresent it. The Westminster Confession (1.7) commends the use of “ordinary means” in order to sufficiently understand what is necessary for the faith – including recognizing the canon.

     Since Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would guide the apostles into all the truth (John 16:13), and Eph. 2:20 tells us that the church has been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, and since Scripture itself identifies apostles beyond the twelve, we therefore confidently accept the books written by the apostles: Matthew, John (5 books), Peter (2 books), Paul (13 books; “called as an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God,” cf. Acts 9:15; 1 Cor. 1:1; etc.), James (an “apostle” and a “pillar of the church,” cf., 1 Cor. 15:7; Gal. 1:19; 2:9), and Jude (one of the twelve; cf. Luke 6:16; John 14:22; Acts 1:13; 1 Cor. 9:5; Jerome, Letter 53.9). To affirm the book of James is to accept the writings of an “apostle” and a founding “pillar of the church.” At this point, 26 NT books have been shown to share in the divine authorization of the prophets and apostles.

     Note: Harris’ assertion that Jesus “gave us a list of the inspired NT authors” is justified in that the authority of Luke’s list of the twelve extends to his attestation of the apostles Paul and Barnabas (cf. Acts 14:4, 14). Moreover, any Scripture that attests to the NT authors, including Mark and Luke (cf. Acts 12:12, 25; 2 Tim. 4:11; Philem. 1:24; 1 Pet. 5:13), can rightly be attributed to Jesus since the Spirit of God is identified with the Spirit of Christ (cf. Rom. 8:9). The historical testimony of the early church fathers is an example of the “ordinary means” by which the identities of the NT authors is verified. Thus, the testimonies of Papias, Justin Martyr, and the Muratorian Canon verify the identities of all NT authors except for Hebrews and 3 John. Hebrews will be addressed below; the internal evidence of John’s Gospel, together with his epistles confirms that 3 John is indeed the apostle’s work.

     the position that the early Church accepted what was of apostolic origin “fails to explain why the Epistle to the Hebrews was (again) finally accepted in the West, in spite of the fact that its Pauline authorship was most strongly doubted just by … Jerome and Augustine.”

     The above statement mistakenly assumes that if Paul didn’t write Hebrews it could not be apostolic; but Paul was not the only apostle who could have written the Epistle. Indeed, if it were written by the apostle Barnabas (cf. Acts 14:4, 14), as often suggested, its apostolic origin is still valid. Moreover, it is not necessary that the actual writing be done by an apostle, as Paul’s frequent use of an amanuensis shows (cf. Rom. 16:22). The majority of the church fathers accepted a Pauline origin (including Augustine, cf. On Christian Doctrine 2.8), some suggesting that the style indicated that perhaps Luke translated Paul’s thoughts from Aramaic into Greek. The church fathers considered “interpreters” of the apostles to be valid apostolic sources. For example, Origen wrote: “If I gave my opinion, I should say that the thoughts are those of the apostle [Paul], but the diction and phraseology are those of someone who remembered the apostolic teachings, and wrote down at his leisure what had been said by his teacher. Therefore if any church holds that this epistle is by Paul, let it be commended for this. For not without reason have the ancients handed it down as Paul’s” (Ecclesiastical History 6.25.13). Clement of Alexandria and Jerome noted that some disputed Pauline authorship because “it is not titled with his name,” to which they replied that it was better not to tout the name of “the Apostle to the Gentiles” in a letter to the Hebrews. Because the testimony of the church since the first century has affirmed the apostolic authority and authenticity of Hebrews, the uncertainty about the exact identity of its author should not be held against it any more than OT books such as Judges and Kings (called “former prophets”) should be rejected because of the anonymity of their authors.

     As demonstrated above, the three broad criteria listed at the beginning of this post have been used to identify all 27 books of the NT canon. Moreover, these criteria also can be used to show that non-canonical texts, such as the Didache, 1 &2 Clement, and the spurious Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans, should not be considered “of like authority” to the “God-breathed” books of Scripture.

     But from the absence of evidence that 2 Peter was not written by Peter, we cannot reach the conclusion that 2 Peter was written by Peter, unless we resort to reliance upon Tradition.

     Since 2 Peter is introduced with the words: “Simon Peter, a bond servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,” to deny Peter’s authorship it is to call 2 Peter a forgery. Moreover, the early church, beginning with Clement of Rome accepted 2 Peter as genuine. Also, the church fathers beginning with Papias mention at least two “interpreters” of Peter: Mark and Glaucias. The most reasonable explanation for the textual differences between 1 & 2 Peter is that Peter used an “interpreter” during his last days in Rome not used for his first epistle. Relying on historical testimony is different than relying on doctrinal traditions that arose long after the apostles were gone.

     Yes, questions were raised in the third and fourth centuries about some of the NT books, prompting Eusebius and other church fathers to list such books as antilegomena (disputed books). But truth is always questioned: each question must be examined on its own merits. For example, some Eastern third century clerics took personal issue with Revelation because of its teaching on the millennial reign of Christ. But the canonicity of a book is not subject to personal theological biases, including those of Martin Luther! Others avoided Revelation because of Montanist abuses of it. Following that logic, Paul’s epistles should be excluded because of their abuse by Marcion! Since first and second century church fathers attest to the authenticity of books such as the Epistle to the Hebrews and 2 Peter, we would do well to avoid chronological snobbery, and to heed the proverb: “do not move the ancient boundary which your fathers have set” (Prov. 22:28). Arguments against the canonicity of the NT books inevitably fall short upon careful examination.

     You also raised a question about the authenticity of John 7:53-8:11. Although neither Mark 16:9-20 nor John 7:53-8:11 are found in the earliest manuscripts, both passages have survived with notations about their questioned authenticity (following the practice of Origen and Jerome, who used asterisks and obeli to identify LXX passages not found in the Hebrew). However, unlike the LXX additions to Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah, these NT passages do not contradict the Gospels and they are present in some ancient Greek manuscripts, whereas the LXX additions are highly inconsistent with the originals and never appear in any Hebrew manuscript. As long as these passages are not used for establishing doctrine, their annotated presence in the Bible does not violate the practice of sola scriptura.

     Re: Section II.D The relationship between acceptance and canonicity must be examined on a case by case basis and is therefore well beyond the scope of this thread. As for the infallibility of the Church (which I believe is a mistaken notion), I do not think infallibility is necessary for recognizing infallible divine revelation. When Scripture says: “Thus says the Lord,” and demonstrates the fulfillment of such a prophesy, there are no reasonable grounds to deny such a word from God is infallible. Lacking any credible demonstration that the 66 book canon is flawed, I am satisfied that it is the authentic and authoritative Word of God handed down by the Apostles and Prophets to the Church. Indeed, as the Belgic Confession asserts: none of the major branches of Christ’s Church quarrel about the 66 books.

     Re: Section II.E on a canon-within-a-canon. I won’t argue about this theory because it was never widely adopted by the Reformation or by Reformed theology.

     In Section II.A, you wrote:

     apart from Magisterial guidance concerning the canon, it would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, for all believers independently to come to complete agreement about the canon without each believer receiving miraculous enlightenment from the Holy Spirit.

     Human agreement never guarantees truth. Furthermore, even those who have pledged allegiance to your Magisterium have not always agreed that everything it teaches is true (e.g., Humanae vitae). Since there has never been a particular canon of Scripture agreed to by the whole Church, the pertinent question is not how to get “all believers” to agree, but rather how to discern the true canon. I have given one answer.

     In the conclusion to your article you wrote:

     “By what criterion do we know what comprises the Bible?” But, as I have argued, Reformed theology is intrinsically incapable of answering this question.

     In response, I have refuted your arguments and have shown that the 66 book Protestant canon is sufficiently ascertained by Scriptural criteria that are consistent with the Reformers’ confessions. If you think I have erred, please explain.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

165. Tom Brown May 6th, 2010 12:16 am :

     Dear “lojahw,”

     You have now provided two lengthy treatises on how you would determine, by Testament, the canon. With them, I will let you have the last substantive word. I am generally opposed to using the comment box to provide lengthy alternate or competing theories on the topic that is at hand. I prefer to have it as a place to engage critically with the articles premises or conclusions. We are not breaking new ground than is already addressed in the main article or the comments. I again rest on the article proper and the comments above.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

166. Lojahw May 8th, 2010 9:59 pm :

     Dear Tom,

     Thank you for your response. Given the concluding statement from your article blockquoted above in the context of my posts, it would seem that I indeed “broke new ground” that was not covered in the article. My lengthy responses were the most appropriate way I could think of to address the numerous premises and conclusions of your article.

     Your silence in response to my invitation for you to show how my posts have erred seems to indicate that I have successfully refuted your premises and conclusions.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

167. Tom Brown May 9th, 2010 12:49 am :

     Dear “Lojahw”,

     I left room for misunderstanding when I said we were not breaking new ground. I meant to say that we are not covering new ground as we try to resolve your disagreements. Truly novel ground vis-a-vis the topic of the canon belongs elsewhere than in this article’s comment box. It belongs in a separate article.

     We are recovering the same ground as we attempt to talk trough your critiques. The responses I have to give you now I have already given you, or I have met your points directly in the article proper. That’s why I thought it was well time simply to let you have the last word and be done with it. Saying that you choose to interpret my “silence” as proof of your “success” in ‘refuting’ my arguments is immodest of you. I did not cry silence, but explicitly rested on all the previously spilled ink. If you are here to score points, or chock up a victory, you are in the wrong forum. My colleagues and I, and many of our readers, are here to explore truth by peeling back layers of disagreement one by one to get to the truth. In our exchange, I’m afraid I had come to the point of running through the motions of this repetitious exchange for the sake of denying you the opportunity to claim victory from my silence, which, when I chose to give it up, is precisely what occurred.

     I’ll let readers go back through the exchange and decide whether I left some valid point on the table. If one is found, please let me know and I would be happy to try to clear the air.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

168. Matthew Anderson May 26th, 2010 8:13 am :

     It is interesting to me that you begin your paper with a quote from Augustine, who actually spoke in certain instances quite clearly about how the church should discern the canon. Below is an example. If the modern Catholic view of papal authority is true, why did Augustine have to develop a multifaceted approach like this? Why did he even feel the liberty to theologize or speculate about such a critical issue? In my opinion, when one actually reads the church fathers they will discover that the theological method(s) of that age are distinguishable and operate on a different set of assumptions than modern Catholic apologists typically suggest.

     “Those which are accepted by the whole of catholic churches will be placed before those writings which some (churches) do not accept. Concerning the issue of books which are not universally accepted, those which are admitted by the largest number of churches and the most important churches will be placed before those which are admitted by fewer churches and churches of lesser authority. Finally, there are certain books which are accepted by the majority of churches and some others which are accepted by important churches, in these cases I deem that both must be given the same authority.” – Augustine, On Christian Doctrine (2.8.12)

169. Tom Brown May 27th, 2010 1:03 am :

     Dear Matthew,

     Were you able to read the Canon Question article, or are you just commenting based on the title and the Augustinian quote at the top? It’s hard to know what your qualm is with either the article or Augustine’s approach based on what you’ve written. I can tell you don’t care for the Catholic view on the development of doctrine, but that is quite another discussion entirely. (One at which I’m sure we’ll arrive one day, Lord willing.)

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom

170. Joe May 27th, 2010 10:10 am :

     Not to get into an irrelevant “tit-for-tat” dual over St. Augustine quotes, specifically from the work cited by Matthew, but in “On Christian Doctrine” (Book 2, Chapter 8), St. Augustine lists the books of the Old Testament that he considers inspired and canonical and makes no distinction between them in regards to “rank” of inspiration.

     “Now the whole canon of Scripture on which we say this judgment is to be exercised, is contained in the following books:— Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; one book of Joshua the son of Nun; one of Judges; one short book called Ruth, which seems rather to belong to the beginning of Kings; next, four books of Kings, and two of Chronicles— these last not following one another, but running parallel, so to speak, and going over the same ground. The books now mentioned are history, which contains a connected narrative of the times, and follows the order of the events. There are other books which seem to follow no regular order, and are connected neither with the order of the preceding books nor with one another, such as Job, and Tobias, and Esther, and Judith, and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Ezra, which last look more like a sequel to the continuous regular history which terminates with the books of Kings and Chronicles. Next are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David; and three books of Solomon, viz., Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. For two books, one called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus, are ascribed to Solomon from a certain resemblance of style, but the most likely opinion is that they were written by Jesus the son of Sirach. Still they are to be reckoned among the prophetical books, since they have attained recognition as being authoritative. The remainder are the books which are strictly called the Prophets: twelve separate books of the prophets which are connected with one another, and having never been disjoined, are reckoned as one book; the names of these prophets are as follows:— Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; then there are the four greater prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel. The authority of the Old Testament is contained within the limits of these forty-four books. That of the New Testament, again, is contained within the following:— Four books of the Gospel, according to Matthew, according to Mark, according to Luke, according to John; fourteen epistles of the Apostle Paul— one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews: two of Peter; three of John; one of Jude; and one of James; one book of the Acts of the Apostles; and one of the Revelation of John.”

     It should be noted that Baruch was considered part of Jeremiah for the most part as well. So, I’m not sure how relevant the earlier quote, taken from the same work by the same Father and Doctor of the Church plays into this discussion.

     For that matter, neither quotes, I think, are relevant to the thrust of Tom Brown’s article in the first place, since, ultimately, this is about the authority of the Church in regards to the Canon of Scripture. No doubt, St. Augustine would not have schismed from the Church because of a disagreement with the Canon as solidified at Trent had he lived that long. The point of the quote that Tom chose to prefix his article was to show that it was the authority of the Church to which St. Augustine understood as the authority that he submitted to… and any of his writings suggest that he did not view the Sacred Scripture alone as the authority of the Church. If that quote by St. Augustine was an honest one, then any dispute over the canon in his time would not be the cause of his separation from the Church, for it was the visible Apostolic authority of the Church that he recognized and submitted to.

     Basically, making attempts to turn St. Augustine into a Protestant because of Tom’s choice to use St. Augutine to prefix his article is irrelevant to the article itself and completely misses the point.

     Hopefully, we can move beyond focusing on the St. Augustine Red Rover game and focus on the actual points made in the article.

171. Lojahw May 28th, 2010 10:46 pm :

     This brief exchange on Augustine and the Church brings up some interesting points for discussion.

     First, the Church has never spoken with one voice on the canon. No Ecumenical Council ever published a canon, and the councils that did, gave different answers. Augustine didn’t get his canon from the church. The 7th century Council of Trullo favored local freedom to choose the canon, resulting in the diversity of Orthodox Bibles today, ranging from the Russian Orthodox, whose Bible looks like the Protestant Bible, to the Greek Orthodox, whose Bible includes books beyond the canon published by Trent. The history of the canon runs between two poles: that of Jerome (followed by notables such as Pope Gregory I, John of Damascus, Cardinals Ximenes and Cajetan); and that of Augustine, with those who followed him. The Council of Trent, interestingly, decided not to tackle the question of Jerome’s concept of an inferior “ecclesiastical canon” versus Augustine’s “all books in the canon are of like authority.”

     Although Augustine said he believed in Christianity because of the Church, he said one should discern the canon by asking the churches to vote (he didn’t expect all churches to vote the same). Some churches he gave more weight to than others, but he never explained how that would work in practice. For example: Who decides how much weight to assign to each church’s vote? How many votes does the seat of an apostle get? How many votes does a basilica such as Ambrose’s in Milan get? Which churches are allowed to vote (can Donatist churches vote?)? Do the churches vote in each century? And, since when does a vote decide what is true?

     So Augustine’s main criterion for canonicity was the vote of all the churches. Secondly, he said that the suffering of martyrs was a criterion for canonicity (On Christian Doctrine 2.8), thereby justifying his support of the Maccabees. But why not therefore include the Martyrdom of Polycarp, or that of Perpetua, or for that matter, Foxe’s Book of Martyrs?

     The article doesn’t address these criteria which Augustine used to ignore the early church fathers before him. Nor does it address his theory about the differences between the Septuagint and the Hebrew originals (that the Holy Spirit “inspired” the translators to make significant changes in the text, just as the words of Jeremiah differed from those of Isaiah). Hence, though Peter wrote that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of interpretation, Augustine assumes that a translator can significantly change the meaning of the Scriptural texts by adding and removing significant portions of text! Do you think the Apostles would agree with that?

     If that’s the criteria for canonicity that produced the canon used by Trent, there must be a better answer. In fact, the lack of any clear answer from the Church throughout history suggests that Scriptural criteria of canonicity be revisited:

     1) Is the text true (“Thy Word is Truth,” John 17:17)? Excludes pseudepigrapha and contradictory texts.
     2) Has the text endured (“The word of the Lord abides forever,” 1 Pet. 1:25)? Excludes lost books.
     3) Does the text authentically represent the prophets and apostles upon whom the Church has been built (Eph. 2:20; cf. John 16:13; Rom. 3:1-2)? Excludes books not written in the times of the prophets and apostles. Scripture proclaims that one of the advantages of the Jews is that they were entrusted with the “oracles of God” – why not accept the list they have given in every century since the first?
     4) Has the text been protected from addition, subtraction, or change? (Prov. 30:5-6; Rev. 22:18-20)

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

172. Tim A. Troutman May 28th, 2010 11:43 pm :

     Lojahw,

     The Church did give a clear answer on the canon at Trent.

173. Tom Brown May 28th, 2010 11:57 pm :

     Dear “Lojahw”,

     I do not think the last two comments on Augustine should be an excuse to stump for points you find interesting that do not interact with the premises or arguments of my article. Matthew made his one contribution, and my reply was that I wasn’t sure what his point was vis-a-vis this article. So that “exchange” doesn’t really bring up “some interesting points,” does it? You’re just using the opportunity to share with everyone what you want to say on Augustine and the canon, even though we’d already reached the “you can have the last word” phase. We have to keep the discussions carefully in order to give them any chance of having a meaningful influence in people’s pursuit of truth.

     I see some problems in your comment. Your first main paragraph contains demonstrably false claims about councils, the contrary position to which is contained in my article. Your ‘who decides’ questions about Augustine’s criterion are good ones. I would turn them around on your position, for your own criteria are equally prone to such questioning. If Augustine’s claims require a kind of judicial analysis and determination, it only reinforces the need for the Church to settle the canon (if it is ever to be settled).

     “The article doesn’t address these criteria which Augustine used to ignore the early church fathers before him.” Since Augustine did not use any criteria [in order] to ignore the early Fathers, there is nothing to address. Why would he use criteria to ignore people? This doesn’t make sense. But you prompt a procedural question: if I didn’t bring it up, why are you bringing it up? Are you trying to disprove a premise or falsify a conclusion of mine by bringing up this supposed absence? If so, it’s not clear what premise or conclusion is in your sights.

     I am struck by your admission that there is a “lack of any clear answer from the Church throughout history” on the canon. Now we shall sit, you say, in judgment on the Canon, because the Church has not been able in the two millennia before to get the Canon right. We must revisit our criteria to get to the bottom of this idea that there must be some way to discern the scope of the Bible. This is incredible coming from a Protestant, because you would be admitting either (1) that the Church prior to our time placed false confidence in their canon because they lacked a clear answer to the Canon Question, or (2) that you are engaged in post hoc rationalization by creating fresh criteria to get to the same Canon we’ve always had.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom

174. Nathan May 29th, 2010 2:15 am :

     Unless “Lojaw” has evidence to show that the Russian Orthodox are using a Protestant canon, his claim should be disregarded. The only canon variation among the Orthodox I am aware of is that the Ethiopians still use (I believe) Enoch. If the Russian Orthodox bible looks like the Russian Protestant bible, it’s because the latter uses the translation of the former.

175. Lojahw May 29th, 2010 11:06 am :

     Dear Tom,
     Thank you for your response. I believe my comments are appropriate given the statement in section A of the article:

     The Catholic or Orthodox Christian will point to the work of the Holy Spirit in the visible Church as the basis for his articulation of the canon, which work is seen in sacred tradition.

     It seems fair to point out that the above premise, and indeed, the methodology for determining the canon chosen by Trent, are problematic. The Catholic and Orthodox have adopted different canons, indeed, Russian Orthodox Bibles use the same books as Protestants.

     You assert that I made “demonstrably false claims about councils.” How so? No Ecumenical Council published a canon of Scripture. Did the councils which did publish a canon agree? No. Trullo and the Reformed Synods are examples of Church councils that differed from the councils of Carthage, Rome, and Trent. Do only those councils which agree with Trent count? You won’t find support for such a position among Orthodox and Protestants.

     Given that there are different canons recognized within the Church, it is reasonable to inquire about those differences – indeed, the criteria of canonicity used. The questions about Augustine’s criteria do not “require a kind of judicial analysis and determination” – their flaws are self-evident. And can you explain how the Scriptural criteria I gave are “equally prone to such questioning”? Moreover, these are not “my” personal criteria, but those which Scripture clearly states about itself.

     You asked why Augustine would use his personal criteria of canonicity to ignore the church fathers before him. Have you a better explanation other than his personal criteria for Augustine’s promotion of his own 44 book canon over the 22 book canon around which his predecessors focused?

     we shall sit, you say, in judgment on the Canon, because the Church has not been able in the two millennia before to get the Canon right

     You draw an incorrect inference from my statement about the diversity of canons represented in the history of the Church. I didn’t say that none of the canons were right; I merely commented that the “Church” has not unanimously agreed which one is right. All branches agree to the canonicity of the books in the Protestant canon; but there is no agreement on the extra books. And, I’m suggesting that the “judgment” on the extra books is not dependent on personal opinions and votes of churches, but on application of demonstrated Scriptural criteria of canonicity to those books.

     you would be admitting either (1) that the Church prior to our time placed false confidence in their canon because they lacked a clear answer to the Canon Question, or (2) that you are engaged in post hoc rationalization by creating fresh criteria to get to the same Canon we’ve always had.

     Since the “Church” has allowed more than one answer to the question of the canon, I’m merely saying that it is reasonable to evaluate the merits of the differing answers – and that Scripture provides valid criteria for identifying its contents.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

176. Tom Brown May 29th, 2010 1:36 pm :

     Dear “Lojahw”,

     If you were interacting with my section A, it would have been clearer to say so. And if you’re back to making debates about the canon, then I seem to have blown my effort at giving you the last word. I will not explain again how the supposedly scriptural criteria you gave require interpretation, because we’ve been over that point many times in this combox and by e-mail. I keep coming back to my view that interpretation is necessary, and you keep denying the claim and saying your hoped-for outcome is self-evident. See, e.g., ##137, 138, 139, 141, 144, 145, 146, and 148. In mid-March I said what I have to say now. From my points about interpretation of data being necessary to define the canon, you jumped over to Jerome, and later on with an accusation that I think Reformed people think they can’t use reason. I think you can use reason, but that if you do and if reason defines the canon, it is over Scripture, and by being over Scripture, is inconsistent with sola scriptura. Then you say that I must be twisting the definition of sola scriptura, because the Reformers never would have had in mind a definition that is internally inconsistent. Around and around we go.

     I addressed ecumenical councils on the canon in the article. You are making a contrary claim without support and in contradiction to what I’ve asserted in the article. I believe it is your move to demonstrate a rebuttal if you think one is appropriate. To deny my claims is not argument but contradiction. See here. If you’re hanging your hat on the claims of Reformed Synods, we are very much talking past each other when we talk about Councils of the Church. The measure is not councils that agree with Trent at all, but councils that are properly constituted and in sacramental unity with the Catholic Church.

     You presume without warrant that Augustine was shifting from a 22-book to a 44-book canon–that this was a novelty. Again, this is old ground. Here’s how this discussion goes: I will note the lack of evidence for a Protestant O.T canon in Augustine’s time, and the widespread acceptance without challenge to Augustine’s view, along with the agreement of two regional councils contemporary with Augustine; you will say “Jerome” and that the Jewish scholars always used the number 22, and will note the preferabilty of Jewish testimony to Christian. We’ve been through this, and it’s in my article. None of this gets at my thesis, about the lack of authority within the sola scriptura paradigm to define the canon.

     I deny that Reformed and Catholics and Orthodox are all “branches” of the “church.” This is a critical point. We have been following a careful sequence of articles here at Called to Communion because some groundwork needs to be laid before later discussions can be profitably held. For example, we can’t talk about Augustine’s view that the canon is shown by the unanimous consent of the churches if we disagree about what he had in mind by ‘churches.’ Please read Bryan’s excellent article, Christ Founded a Visible Church, to see a rebuttal of the claim that we are all just branches. Since we are not all branches, the Reformed movement’s novel introduction of a canon other than that used by the Catholic Church is of no moment — it’s no more a problem than the introduction of a second ‘bible’ by Mormonism.

     If Scripture provides valid criteria for identifying its contents, why has the church (as you see it) allowed more than one answer, and not reached unanimous agreement? Why evaluate the merits of different answers? Shouldn’t we instead evaluate the merits of different claims about objective measures? How can I have confidence in the Bible my parents handed to me as a child if the church isn’t sure what answer to give to the Canon Question?

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom

177. Tim A. Troutman May 29th, 2010 2:01 pm :

     Let’s suppose for the sake of the argument (as if any real dialogue is happening here) that Trent wasn’t ecumenical. Where do Protestants get the idea that only an ecumenical council is authoritative? Who made that up?

     Which ecumenical council said that only ecumenical councils before the Reformation have authority to define the canon?

     And Lojah, brother, let’s be honest. We all know that if an ecumenical council had affirmed the 73 books of the bible, then you’d just reject that council. You reject several ecumenical councils and certain aspects of (probably) every ecumenical council ever held. So don’t pretend like it would mean anything to you that an ecumenical council never mentioned it until Trent. That’s dishonest.

     By the way, the Protestants breaking off from the Church doesn’t invalidate Trent as an ecumenical council anymore than the Arians breaking off invalidated Chalcedon.

     You’re making a lot of bad arguments. It’s better not to make any argument than to make a bad argument.

178. Joe May 29th, 2010 2:21 pm :

     Nathan,

     No need. I have a Russian Orthodox friend who, predictably, has a Russian Orthodox Bible. Like you said, unless the Russian Protestants (very, very few indeed) are using the same canon as the Russian Orthodox, they are not using the same Bibles. The Russian Orthodox Bible has so-called “apocryphal” books in them, just as does the Catholic Bible… books that Protestants reject as not inspired.

179. Lojahw May 29th, 2010 4:03 pm :

     Tim, re: Church councils. I mentioned the Ecumenical Church councils to illustrate the point that the “Church” never unanimously published a canon of Scripture. It is a fact that there have been no truly ecumenical councils since the Great East-West Schism. Eastern Orthodox and Protestants do not accept the Council of Trent as representing the ecumenical – universal – Church. This fact is independent of whether or not Ecumenical Councils have that authority. The legitimacy of Trent’s canon is at the heart of this combox: if it can be shown to be flawed, Trent’s authority is brought into question. Regarding both your & Tom’s comments on councils and branches of the Church, please be aware that the views of CtC differ from those you have invited into dialogue. It would be a grave mistake to claim that the Orthodox and Protestants are not part of the Church, and if they are, that their views don’t count.

     Nathan, Re: Russian Orthodox, Bruce Metzger’s An Introduction to the Apocrypha, page 194, says that the Most Holy Governing Synod of Moscow omitted the Apocrypha in 1839. However, Russia has been through many upheavals, and it’s quite possible that they have changed over the last century. I’ll concede the point; however, noting that the Orthodox do not recognize the same canon as Trent’s.

     Tom,
     I won’t rehash everything you just wrote, but I think your assumptions regarding reason are worth revisiting:

     I think you can use reason, but that if you do and if reason defines the canon, it is over Scripture, and by being over Scripture, is inconsistent with sola scriptura.

     I disagree with your assertion that the use of reason means that reason sets itself as an authority over the canon. You have agreed that sola scriptura allows the use of reason for understanding what is necessary for faith. Therefore, since the extent of Scripture is required for understanding the faith, reason cannot be excluded from recognizing the canon according to sola scriptura. The crucial point is that when reason is used in a way that agrees with Scripture, it is under – not over – Scripture. Reason is merely a God-given tool for people to evaluate criteria from Scripture to recognize what is and what is not canonical. The authorities that reason appeals to are in the text of Scripture and in extra-biblical sources, such as historical testimony. What sola scriptura requires is that an external authority not be allowed to contradict Scripture.

     Reason can be used either to agree with Scripture or to disagree with it. When one uses reason in agreement with Scripture, e.g., asserting that “God made the heavens and the earth,” this places reason under Scripture, not over it. When one uses reason to contradict Scripture, e.g., “Christ did not rise bodily from the dead, because that is an incredible claim,” that is placing reason over Scripture. Likewise, one places reason over Scripture when one says “an angel of God may not always tell the truth” because in the book of Tobit Raphael claimed at one point to be “Azarius the son of the great Ananias” (this contradicts the teaching of Scripture that Satan, not God, is the father of lies). It is important to distinguish between the right use of reason under Scripture, and the wrong use of reason as an authority over it. Similarly, using reason in agreement with Scriptural criteria of canonicity is not exercising authority over Scripture, but submitting to it.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

180. Tim A. Troutman May 29th, 2010 5:34 pm :

     Lojahw,

     “It is a fact that there have been no truly ecumenical councils since the Great East-West Schism.”

     No that is not a fact its an opinion that most Christians would disagree with. Even if it was true though, it’s still irrelevant. You reject councils prior to the Eastern split. Again, you’re better off not making any arguments than making bad ones.

181. Tim A. Troutman May 29th, 2010 5:36 pm :

     By the way, Lojah,you still didn’t answer my question. “Which ecumenical council said that only ecumenical councils before the Reformation have authority to define the canon?”

182. David Pell May 29th, 2010 6:27 pm :

     It is a fact that there have been no truly ecumenical councils since the Great East-West Schism.

     There is no “East-West” schism. This kind of geographical rhetoric makes Reformed Protestants feel better about not being part of the Catholic Church. They can look at the “Eastern” churches and use them as an excuse for not having to be in communion with the see of Peter and not submitting to the ecumenical councils that have taken place since the 11th century. In reality, the “great schism” does not exist along geographical lines, but, as always, along “I don’t want to submit to authority” lines. This is why so many eastern rites exist within the Catholic Church. These Eastern Catholics either never entered into schism or were soon reconciled. They know that the orthodox (lowercase c) of the East were always in communion with the see of Peter. The Catholic Church has always been and remains catholic.

183. John Thayer Jensen May 29th, 2010 7:01 pm :

     I stumbled across this discussion a week or so ago and have found it fascinating. It seems to me many of the conversations are talking past one another.

     @”Ken Temple” – suppose absolutely convincing historical proof came along that, say, the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew and that Matthew was, indeed, a disciple and apostle of Jesus. Would that make it ‘canonical’ (I think that, by ‘canonical,’ the Protestants here mostly mean ‘inspired’ – I take ‘canonical’ to mean ‘may be read at Mass’)? If so, why? How would you know?

     When I was a Protestant (Calvinist in the Dutch Reformed tradition – New Zealand Reformed Churches, to be specific), I recall asking my pastor, and his brother, who later became our pastor, about the canon. That was something like 25 years ago. We were all Van Tillians, and his response, after a shrug of the shoulders, was that it had to be ‘presupposed’ – which left me a little puzzled. It is, perhaps, not too surprising that, ten years later, I became a Catholic.

     I would be interested in answers to the question not just from Ken Temple but from other Protestants. If it were knowable with human certainty that one of the apostles wrote a book that we now have – would that ensure that it was inspired? If so, why?

     jj

184. Devin Rose May 29th, 2010 11:15 pm :

     Just to offer some information on a small point raised above: I was confused about the Russian Orthodox canon as well but I asked a Russian Orthodox priest recently about it, and he said that they accepted the 7 deuterocanonicals as well 3 & 4 Maccabees. He didn’t seem certain about whether Psalm 151 was considered equal to the rest of canonical Scripture (but it’s not many verses and just summarizes David being called and later slaying Goliath).

185. Devin Rose May 29th, 2010 11:27 pm :

     If I could point out one more small thing: It is a fact that there have been no truly ecumenical councils since the Great East-West Schism. Eastern Orthodox and Protestants do not accept the Council of Trent as representing the ecumenical – universal – Church.

     I mentioned previously in comment #52 that the Ecumenical Council of Florence in the 1400s (prior to the Reformation) affirmed the same 73 book canon (though not dogmatically). To deny that this Council was Ecumenical is problematic because Greek Orthodox bishops attended and the reunion of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches was made. Yes, it is true that the reunion was never consummated as Constantinople was finally overcome by the Muslims a few years later, but the reality of this pre-Reformation Ecumenical Council that affirms the same 73 book canon stands.

186. Tom Brown May 30th, 2010 12:10 am :

     Dear “Lojahw”,

     You said: “Regarding both your & Tom’s comments on councils and branches of the Church, please be aware that the views of CtC differ from those you have invited into dialogue.”

     Having realized that our views on ‘branches’ and the meaning of “Church” differ, I invited you to read the article we put up on ‘branches’ and “Church,” and to take any arguments there. The deeper parts of the discussion that need to occur between Reformed Christians and Catholics are essentially impossible to have without first laying the groundwork we’ve been attempting to lay. Since we’ve put our views on branches and the Church into the public view for debate, it would seem unfair to argue against the canon based on your meaning of “church,” and then criticize us now for not being willing to accept different meanings of “church.” We mean what we mean, and you are welcome to disagree with our reasons for so meaning in the article that covered that topic.

     You said: “You have agreed that sola scriptura allows the use of reason for understanding what is necessary for faith. Therefore, since the extent of Scripture is required for understanding the faith, reason cannot be excluded from recognizing the canon according to sola scriptura.”

     Your “since” clause in your conclusion is question-begging. Do you see how you have presumed that which you are trying to prove (i.e., the truth of sola scriptura) and used it as a premise to reach your conclusion?

     You said: “What sola scriptura requires is that an external authority not be allowed to contradict Scripture.”

     But you can only determine what contradicts Scripture by interpreting Scripture. I wonder what you think of Keith Mathison’s assertion that “All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture.” (Keith Mathison, Sola Scriptura: The Difference a Vowel Makes, Modern Reformation (Mar/Apr 2007).) I think he’s generally right. It is fantastic to think that in defining the canon you only use external authorities that do not contradict Scripture. It is a fantasy because you are really using authorities that your fallible human reason has determined not to be contradictory to Scripture, and there will be great variety between your reasoning and the reasoning of all other Christians. Also, and separately, your logic is circular — you have to know what Scripture is before you can determine what external measures are consistent with Scripture and therefore usable in determining the canon.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom

187. Tom Brown May 30th, 2010 12:13 am :

     Dear John,

     Welcome to Called to Communion, and thank you for engaging in the discussion. It is interesting to hear what your pastor told you. I think there’s a certain intellectual honesty in the Protestant stating that the contents of the canon is to be presupposed. Of course, there’s a convenience there that wasn’t available to the Reformers, so I would engage that response with history.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom

188. John Thayer Jensen May 30th, 2010 12:35 am :

     I think there’s a certain intellectual honesty in the Protestant stating that the contents of the canon is to be presupposed.

     Yes – and very Van Tillian :-) We were presupposing things left, right, and centre. In the event, I cannot say that it was instrumental in my becoming a Catholic. Increasing knowledge of history, together with Newman, and then Ronald Knox, did that – well, with a little help from the Holy Spirit.

     But I really would like to know what people would say about my question. If you knew a writing had apostolic authorship – why would that make it inspired – or canonical in the sense that a Protestant means it?

     It seems to me that the fact of a writing being inspired requires, itself, revelation. I can examine a document all I want, can tell whether it is true, inspiring (that is, moves me to higher things) – but how can I know that it comes from the Holy Spirit?

     And that is, I think what is being discussed here when we talk about a particular writing being canonical – that it is, indeed, ‘theopneustos’

     I think the answer would have to be something like the question how I have come to believe that the Catholic Church is Christ’s Body. I do all my due diligence, but in the end, the Holy Spirit gives me the gift of faith.

     And that is what, I think, would have to be said about the Bible itself, from a Protestant point of view. Only it seems to me much more difficult to come to that point only about the Bible. If I look at history, I see Jesus, and from Him I see a church – only from that church do I see the Bible. So I believe in the Bible because I believe in the church. And when it comes to the church, I have to find some point of unity somewhere – which, as you have pointed out, is difficult to see in Sola Scriptura, because as soon as two believers disagree – who sorts them out? I concluded: ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia

     jj

189. Tap May 30th, 2010 1:18 pm :

     After being corrected by Nathan, Lojahw, claimed again that Russian Orthodox a similar canon to protestants. Anyone interested in a canon chart can see one at the bottom of the page here:

     https://www.bombaxo.com/canonchart.html

     The Russian Orthodox canon most certainly does not look protestant.

190. Lojahw May 30th, 2010 3:52 pm :

     Dear Tom,
     Setting aside the question of “branches” and the meaning of “Church,” let’s focus on your arguments.

     Your charge that using Scripture to determine criteria for canonicity is begging the question was refuted in my posts #158 and 164. Most of Scripture is self-attesting and/or attested to be divinely inspired Scripture by authors of self-attesting Scripture. My argument is based on that premise, and that such Scripture gives the criteria by which the canon can be identified. Since you have not refuted my previous arguments, your charges of begging the question and circular logic are unsubstantiated.

     Re: Keith Mathison’s assertion that “All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture.” The Apostle Peter said: “But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation” (2 Pet. 1:20). Are you implying that Mathison contradicts Peter? If so, then he must be wrong. If not, then the correct interpretation of Scripture (what was meant by the author) can be objectively distinguished from false interpretations. On this basis, Scriptural statements such as “The Lord is our God, the Lord is one” (Deut. 6:4), and “Thy Word is truth” (John 17:17), and “The word of the Lord endures forever” (1 Pet. 1:25) are not a matter of personal interpretation. To contradict these statements is to contradict the truth, and it should be concluded that Scripture does provide objective criteria of canonicity. Your musings about my methodology being fantasy are only a smoke screen.

     You didn’t respond to my demonstration of reason and other sources being rightly used under the authority of Scripture. Do you accept my examples? If not, please explain.

     I would appreciate your response to the following:

     Your argument seems to be that Protestants should accept 7 more books plus certain additions to Esther and Daniel (and only these) as canonical simply because in 1546 a group of 45 delegates at the Council of Trent voted 24 yea, 15 nay, while 16 abstained on the canon question, and the bishop in Rome at the time approved their decision. While demanding objective criteria of canonicity from Protestants, you offer none for your own position. What are your objective criteria of canonicity?

     On one hand you accuse Protestants of subjective methodology, on the other you reject objective arguments. The function of a canon is both to include and to exclude. Do you deny that books can be objectively excluded from Scripture because they contradict what God has taught through His prophets and apostles?

     For example:
     Scripture teaches: “Thy Word is truth” (John 17:17), and Satan is the father of lies (John 8:44).
     The angel Raphael told Tobias’ father: “I am Azarias the son of the great Ananias” (Tob. 5:18)
     Later, Raphael changed his story: “I am the angel Raphael, one of the seven, who stand before the Lord.” (Tob. 12:15)
     It is self-evident that Raphael could not be telling the truth in both of the above situations (they are mutually exclusive claims). In fact, it can be objectively argued that Raphael could not be one of God’s holy angels, because making false statements is characteristic not of God, but of the devil, the father of lies (John 8:44). Yet the Catholic Church expects the reader to accept what the book of Tobit says as true. Since Tobit expects its readers to accept false statements as true, this book cannot be accepted as representing God’s infallible truth.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

191. Tom Brown May 30th, 2010 4:54 pm :

     Dear “Lojahw”,

     My charge that you had begged the question was based on this statement of yours: “Therefore, since the extent of Scripture is required for understanding the faith, reason cannot be excluded from recognizing the canon according to sola scriptura.” My charge is not un-substantiated based on other comments you have made. The question begging is right there in black and white. You are using as a premise the claim that “the extent of Scripture is required for understanding the faith,” and using that premise in an attempt to argue for your conclusion that “the extent of Scripture is required for understanding the faith.” That’s a logical fallacy, called “begging the question.”

     As for self-attestation, which I agree you have tried to press several times, my reply remains the same. Your #158 can be your final word on the matter since I had already covered the ground in the main article and in my comments. I think you are cheeky to come back now and say “since you have not refuted my previous argument…” You were cheeky in your triumphalism in #166 too, and I gave my reply in #167.

     But since you seem nearly hell-bent on pressing the point I will ask this question. From what authority did you get your fundamental premise, that “Most of Scripture is self-attesting and/or attested to be divinely inspired Scripture by authors of self-attesting Scripture”?

     You gave an interesting way to employ 2 Peter 1. I am not implying that Keith is contradicting 2 Peter 1:20. The passage continues, …”for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.” That is, the reliable handling of Scripture comes not from private judgment, but from those led by the Holy Spirit. Do you believe your pastor is led by the Holy Spirit when he or she interprets the scriptures?

     But while we’re at it, from what authority did you get this interpretive principle of Scripture, that “the correct interpretation of Scripture” is that which “was meant by the author”? It is not inherently obvious that authorial intent is the fundamental hermeneutic.

     I think you are calling out my “smokescreen” because you think some texts or other of Scripture stand out so plainly that no interpretation is necessary. Do I have that right? You gave as an example of such a plain text, “The Lord is our God, the Lord is one.” You think there is no interpretation involved in this text? I think there is tremendous interpretation necessary when handling this and Trinitarian texts (and today is the feast of the Most Holy Trinity, by the way). The verse on its own is certainly true, just as Christ’s scriptural statement that “The Father and I are one” is true. But the two passages (along with others) serve essential co-qualifying roles. You cannot remove human interpretation from the process. So I’ll stick with my assertion, that “It is a fantasy because you are really using authorities that your fallible human reason has determined not to be contradictory to Scripture, and there will be great variety between your reasoning and the reasoning of all other Christians.”

     You said: “You didn’t respond to my demonstration of reason and other sources being rightly used under the authority of Scripture. Do you accept my examples? If not, please explain.”

     I have no idea what you’re talking about. Perhaps I responded and you didn’t catch it. I try to respond to everything you say, at least with a response like, “I’ve already responded.” We are running out of instances where that is not my reply. Please stop charging me with non-responsiveness, and just ask what you would like to hear from me. If you are not truly interested in my response, please stop asking.

     You said this:

     Your argument seems to be that Protestants should accept 7 more books plus certain additions to Esther and Daniel (and only these) as canonical simply because in 1546 a group of 45 delegates at the Council of Trent voted 24 yea, 15 nay, while 16 abstained on the canon question, and the bishop in Rome at the time approved their decision. While demanding objective criteria of canonicity from Protestants, you offer none for your own position. What are your objective criteria of canonicity?

     First, as a point of order, your attempted summation of my argument is in bad form. You should not attempt to coin your interlocutor’s arguments in derogatory or condescending language. That just slows this entire process down by leaving me with the burden of restating what you said in more fair, balanced language. I don’t have much time, and I’m giving a disproportionate amount of it to this now-tired discussion. I won’t bother fixing your false assertion that Catholicism relies on Trent for its canon. Others have already corrected that just recently, and you have ignored those comments.

     Second, also as a point of order, that is not my argument. My argument is clearly stated in the article, and essentially has nothing to do with whether or not Protestants should accept the deuterocanon. I did not want to write an apologetics piece for Catholicism, and think I succeeded in that. I am pretty confident that by this point you realize my argument is not here but elsewhere, so I am frustrated that you restated my argument this way.

     Third, you are not attempting to interact with my premises or arguments if you are trying to draw out from me Rome’s criteria. But besides, I have already given these indirectly in my article. Maybe you would do well to re-read the article right about now. The issue is not your criteria versus Rome’s criteria; rather, the issue is your authority to set and apply criteria versus Rome’s ability to set and apply criteria. The criteria we each identify are actually quite similar. It’s the process and authority pieces that differ entirely. Do you get that difference I’m trying to draw out?

     Brother, I admit that my patience is worn down. I am tired of hearing you run the Book of Tobias through the mud. You are dabbling in a standard you would not want applied against yourself, or perhaps, if such a standard were applied against yourself, you would obstinately ignore the problem. Genesis gives two differing creation accounts. How would you feel if I sat here and “objectively argued” for its exclusion? Or should we exclude Leviticus because it claims that hares are unclean on account of their chewing the cud (hares don’t chew cud)? There’s an entire website devoted to such obnoxious attacks on Holy Writ. Now, you can come back with defenses of these passages, just like I would. My point is that many passages in the Bible might appear to have objective errors, but through proper handling and interpretation, we understand properly. So I don’t know how to engage a denier of Tobias on this point. I don’t know how to get you to see that you are interpreting everything, and that your interpretations are prejudiced to fit your preconceived worldview.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom

192. Lojahw May 30th, 2010 7:18 pm :

     My comments on Ecumenical Councils generated a lot of responses. Some follow-up:

     I stand by my statement that no Ecumenical Council ever published a canon of Scripture (Devin, see my comments below about Florence). That said, I had no intention of implying that Ecumenical Councils carry intrinsic infallible authority. Only councils that are consistent with the teaching of Christ and the prophets and apostles upon whom the Church has been built have authority by virtue of their teaching the apostolic faith. Hence, the robber council, the iconoclastic council, etc., were rightly rejected by the Church. Other councils involving various constituents of the Church are likewise subject to the same criteria of consistency with the teaching of the founders of the Church. Tim has suggested that there are 21 ecumenical councils according to the RCC, but that opens another can of worms for another thread… I’ll merely say here that Col. 1:18, 24 equates the body of Christ with the Church, and therefore any council that does not represent the whole body of Christ does not merit the title, ecumenical. Note: Vatican II recognized Protestants and EO’s as members of the body of Christ, so that should not be disputed here.

     I also said that there have been no truly Ecumenical Council after the Great Schism in 1054. My use of the term “East” related to the historical context, not the changing affiliations of smaller groups of Orthodox in the intervening centuries. However, since 1054 there have always been EO Churches (as well as Protestants) not represented in any so-called Ecumenical Council.

     Re: The Council of Florence, which council do you mean? Do you mean the Council called by Eugene IV that started in Basel, but after Eugene tried to dissolve it, the delegates – including his own legate and most of his cardinals – stayed and summoned the pope to Basel to withdraw his statement of dissolution, and to sign a statement that declared that a pope could not dissolve or more a general council without their approval. Eugene IV complied and the council reinstated Haec sancta synodus from the earlier Council of Constance which made popes subject to general councils. Or maybe you’re referring to the later sessions of the council which was moved to Ferrara after the pope agreed to pay all expenses for Jacobite delegates to come from the east? Then again, maybe you’re referring to the part of the council that moved to Florence in 1439 while some delegates remained in Basel, claiming it to be the legitimate council? Even though Orthodox delegates came, the Orthodox Church does not recognize this as an Ecumenical Church. Read on. . . .

     This last council is the one which the Council of Trent referred to for the canon, but interestingly, when this question came up some of the bishops claimed that the decree of Florence was not a true conciliar decree, being issued after the Greeks had left and lacking the words Sacro approbante concilio. After the legates sent to Rome found the original bull and verified that it was in “proper form” for a conciliar decree, the document was unfortunately lost. The further question, whether in the decree of Trent anything should be said about the status of books within the canon (that is, whether the deuterocanonical books should be accepted on equal footing with the canon fidei), was left to one side. Writing on 16 February 1546, the day after the debate, the legates reported to Rome that there was general agreement not to enter into that question (Acta, x, 382).

     In summary, the Council of Florence voted on the canon after the Orthodox delegates left, and the Council of Trent left open the question whether the Church should accept Jerome’s “ecclesiastical canon” or Augustine’s canon where all books were considered on equal footing.

     Sources: The General Councils: A History of the Twenty-One Church Councils from Nicaea to Vatican II, by Christopher M. Bellitto, New York: Paulist Press, 2002. pp. 89-91.

     The Cambridge Hstiory of the Bible: The West from the Reformation to the Present Day, Greenslade, S.L. editor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963. pp. 201-202.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

193. Devin Rose May 30th, 2010 8:07 pm :

     Lojahw,

     So as not to derail this discussion, if you want to engage in the side-discussion of demonstrating how no passages from the 66 books you accept as Scripture are contradictory, swing over to my blog where I made a post challenging your position using Psalm 137. https://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2010/05/30/the-canon-of-scripture-and-the-holy-hand-grenade-of-antioch/

194. Joe May 30th, 2010 11:54 pm :

     “Vatican II recognized Protestants and EO’s as members of the body of Christ, so that should not be disputed here.”

     There is a particular way the Church understands this, I’m absolutely positive it isn’t the same way you think it should be understood, otherwise you wouldn’t have posted the comment in the first place. Secondly, how the Eastern Orthodox churchs are viewed by the Church is miles apart with how the Protestant ecclesial communities are viewed (one is the distinction I made in this very sentence, not sure if you picked it up).

     “I’ll merely say here that Col. 1:18, 24 equates the body of Christ with the Church, and therefore any council that does not represent the whole body of Christ does not merit the title, ecumenical.”

     Colossians 1:18, 24 does not speak of which Councils that were to be held in the future would be infallible and which weren’t, first of all. As to your conclusion I ask, “says who? you?”. I’m guessing the answer is “yes, me!”.

     As for the rest, I’m not sure how you think that makes the Catholic canon null and void and the Protestant canon infallible. Nor am I sure how that bears any relevance to the original article or the questions asked of you. I suppose it’s difficult for one standing outside the Church, who doesn’t understand how the Church works and who looks at it as if it were the equivalent to a secular organization, to make heads or tails of their studies of Church history. Reading Church history, from any author, willfully trapped in the Protestant (anything-but-Catholic) paradigm, doesn’t really help matters for that person comes to those studies with his own conclusions and forces everything he reads to match those conclusions (throwing out anything that makes his conclusions untenable). Ironically, it’s the same problem with the Protestant shuffle (switching congregations on a dime when Pastor Bob’s sermon doesn’t quite gel with Joe Protestant’s interpretation of his Bible). Without first coming to grips with the fact that Apostolic Succession is something that is tangible vs. the intangible “my interpretation of scripture” (the former “objective”, the latter “subjective”), understanding the councils and how they operate pre- and post- schism can be quite difficult, if not impossible.

195. Sean May 31st, 2010 10:09 am :

     Lojhaw,

     You said:

     That said, I had no intention of implying that Ecumenical Councils carry intrinsic infallible authority. Only councils that are consistent with the teaching of Christ and the prophets and apostles upon whom the Church has been built have authority by virtue of their teaching the apostolic faith.

     What you are really saying is, “Only councils that are consistent with the interpretation of the teaching of Christ and the prophets and apostles that I accept have authority by virtue of their teaching what I believe the apostolic faith contains.”

     In other words, you have set yourself up as the judge of whether or not ecumenical councils teach the truth based on your being able to judge them against what you think the bible says.

196. Tom Brown May 31st, 2010 12:00 pm :

     I hope to tie Sean’s reply directly into the canon topic.

     The Protestant accepts only those councils (or those parts of councils) that agree with his interpretation of Scripture, which interpretation is heavily influenced by his preconceived paradigm. And in doing so, because he retains control over what rules of the faith stand or fall, he has set himself up as his own ecclesastical authority. In the same way, his conclusions about what books belong in the Bible relate to what agrees with his preconceived paradigm. And in doing so, he has set himself up as his own ecclesiastical authority vis-a-vis Scripture. Barring a claim that the Holy Spirit infallibly guides him to the right conclusion about the canon, he has effectively placed himself over Scripture. This is a great irony. He may not make the judgments himself, in that he may defer to the judgments of scholars who are like-minded. But this does nothing to detract from the authority he ultimately wields over sacred writ.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom

197. Sean May 31st, 2010 2:07 pm :

     Tom,

     Yes. It is basically saying, “The Church councils are only infallible in instances where they interpret scripture the way I interpret scripture and the canon is correct because I think it is correct.”

198. Devin Rose May 31st, 2010 4:24 pm :

     Lojahw,

     So as not to derail this thread on the messiness of Ecumenical Councils, I made a blog post asking whether you can trust Ecumenical Councils’ decrees: https://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2010/05/31/can-you-trust-ecumenical-councils/

199. Lojahw May 31st, 2010 6:30 pm :

     Dear Tom,
     Thank you for your patience and for pointing out my carelessness in begging the question. I would appreciate the opportunity to explain again what I was trying to say:

     From what authority did you get your fundamental premise, that “Most of Scripture is self-attesting and/or attested to be divinely inspired Scripture by authors of self-attesting Scripture”?

     The authorities behind my premise are Jesus and the authors of the canonical books who so claim to present “the word of the Lord” and to recognize other books as Scripture: e.g.,
     Many passages in the Gospels and other canonical books identify other texts as Scripture; e.g., Matthew 21:42 – Jesus identifies and quotes Psalm 118 as “Scripture.” If Jesus calls something Scripture, agreeing with Him that it is Scripture is not exercising authority over Scripture, but assenting to its authority. To exercise authority over Scripture in this case would be to deny that Psalm 118 is Scripture (canonical).
     Luke 24:44-45 – Jesus identifies the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms as Scriptures that must be fulfilled. To deny that these books are canonical is to countermand Jesus and the Scriptures. To agree that they are canonical is to assent to the authority of Scripture.
     Moreover, Jesus and the NT writers consistently used the phrase “it is written” and equivalent phrases (such as “He has said” or “the Holy Spirit says”) to authoritatively cite Scripture (in Greek the phrase“it is written” is the verb form of the noun translated “scripture”). “The Scripture says,” “it is written,” and equivalent phrases are used of: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Samuel, Kings, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Micah, Habakkuk, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, and all the letters of Paul.
     2 Pet. 1:20-21 further identifies the written prophecies left by “holy men who spoke from God” as Scripture. All of the OT prophets from Moses to Malachi claim to have passed on “the Word of the Lord” (self-attesting) and their prophecies were fulfilled (authenticated) according to various canonical books, including Ezra/Nehemiah, Kings, Chronicles, and the NT Gospels and Acts. In addition the prophetic words and miracles of the prophets Elijah and Elisha are recorded in Kings and Chronicles, making those books self-attesting. Job and Judges also record the words of God. Likewise, the Gospel writers record Jesus’ prophecies in the Gospels, Acts, a few Epistles, and Revelation (these books are self-attesting by virtue of their claim to record divine revelation). The fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecies in the Gospels and Acts authenticate that the prophecies recorded therein qualify as “prophecies of Scripture.”

     No external “authority” is required to recognize the above – simple observation of the Scriptures themselves is sufficient. When the Reformers wrote about self-attestation and the Holy Spirit, they were merely affirming what they observed in the Scriptures: “we believe without a doubt all things contained in them . . . because the Holy Spirit testifies in our hearts that they are from God and they prove themselves to be from God . . . [for] the things predicted in them do happen.” This observation was not meant to define the extent of the canon, but to affirm that there are self-attesting Scriptures from which the extent of the canon can be deduced “by ordinary means.” Apart from the Holy Spirit, the “natural man” does not accept divine revelations because “they are foolishness” to him (cf. 1 Cor. 2:14-16).

     Thus, most of the canonical books are identified by internal evidence apart from any external authority. Moreover, the above books provide all the criteria of canonicity required to identify the extent of the canon. Scripture, not I, claims: “Thy Word is Truth,” and “The word of the Lord endures forever,” etc. I agree with you that Scripture often qualifies its texts with other passages; that’s what we Protestants call “the analogy of Scripture.” And thus, all Scripture cannot be recognized by a single criterion, but must be consistent with the statements it makes about itself (that it is “God-breathed,” that it is true, that it endures forever, etc.) Any book that lacks these attributes cannot rightly be called Scripture (by deductive proof; e.g., based on “All Scripture is God-breathed” and “God cannot lie,” a text that is false cannot be from God and hence is not canonical).

     Re: your comments on 2 Pet. 1:20-21, are you saying this passage teaches that everything said by the holy men who spoke for God can only be interpreted by certain people? That God’s communication with people through prophets needs a secondary special filter that human to human communication does not?

     Re: standards of truth, Its interesting that whenever this topic comes up in conversations with Roman Catholics, the standards of truth are always questioned (i.e., arguing for lower standards), but no one ever has ever offered an example from canonical Scripture that compares with the obvious flaws in the deuterocanonical books. Your examples from Genesis and Leviticus don’t involve self-contradictory statements (which by definition cannot both be true, as the example from Tobit illustrates). Should we exclude complementary testimony in courts of law because two witnesses do not repeat each other’s statements verbatim? Scripture uses complementary testimony to reinforce the credibility of eyewitness accounts – if every account said exactly the same thing, the authors could be charged with collusion. There is no true contradiction in either Genesis or Leviticus (Archer Gleason and others have written excellent books refuting many so-called contradictions in the Bible).

     The right use of reason under the authority of Scripture affirms what Scripture teaches about itself. Your charge that reason used to identify Scripture is exercising authority over Scripture would only be true if that reason and the sources appealed to contradicted what the above self-attesting/authoritatively-cited Scriptures teach. Your comment?

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

200. Joe May 31st, 2010 10:30 pm :

     Lojahw,

     “The authorities behind my premise are Jesus and the authors of the canonical books who so claim to present “the word of the Lord” and to recognize other books as Scripture: e.g.,
     Many passages in the Gospels and other canonical books identify other texts as Scripture…”

     There is no mention of the Hellenization of Palestine, especially in the area of Galilee, of the Jews at the time and how the Septuagint was widely used by the Jews. Nor is there a mention of the many references to the deuterocanonical writings in the words of Christ, St. Paul, and the other Apostles in the Protestant accepted New Testament canon. But, to mention those things is a digression from the actual question itself. Though those things are not irrelevent, those things alone do not “prove” that one book is infallible and another is not.

201. Lojahw June 1st, 2010 5:51 pm :

     Joe wrote: Though those things [regarding the history of the Jews from the time of the prophets until Jesus’ day] are not irrelevent, those things alone do not “prove” that one book is infallible and another is not.

     Re: infallibility, one can assert that those books which record the words that “holy men spoke from God” are infallible, by virtue of the fact that “God cannot lie.”

     As for books that are not recognized by Christ and the canonical authors as “the Word of God” or Scripture (which is a synonym for the “word of God”), it may be possible even for books outside of the canon to be inerrant (that’s a goal of most authors and publishers!). On the other hand, books which are demonstrably fallible cannot be called “the word of God” because “God cannot lie” and His Word “is truth.” His Word is not merely somewhat true or sometimes true; His Word given by His Spirit to prophets totally retains His integrity, else it would not be God’s Word.

     Christ and the canonical authors are the ultimate authorities for whatever is necessary for our faith. If you can’t trace it to the founding fathers, its not part of the “faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” I can’t imagine that God would make it so difficult to understand what is necessary that a special group of men would have to “translate” not only to each language but into different words (interpretation) within each language to make the meaning for what is necessary understandable. The concept that what is necessary for the faith requires special interpretations only revealed to certain people reminds me of the Gnostics that the early church rejected.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

202. John Thayer Jensen June 1st, 2010 10:20 pm :

     Joe wrote: Though those things [regarding the history of the Jews from the time of the prophets until Jesus’ day] are not irrelevent, those things alone do not “prove” that one book is infallible and another is not.

     Re: infallibility, one can assert that those books which record the words that “holy men spoke from God” are infallible, by virtue of the fact that “God cannot lie.”

     As Lojahw said, human books may be infallible. I may write a book of simple arithmetic that is infallible. The ‘canon’ issue, when the word ‘canon’ is used by Protestants, seems to me fundamentally to be equivalent to ‘inspired’ – or possibly ‘inspired and designated for our use by God as the standard for measuring our faith.’

     And – Lojahw to the contrary notwithstanding – Protestants do not seem to me to argue for the canonicity of the Bible. They assume it. All subsequent apparent arguments are really question-begging/arguments in a circle.

     jj

203. Joe June 2nd, 2010 11:07 am :

     “Christ and the canonical authors are the ultimate authorities for whatever is necessary for our faith.”

     So, in your view, the deuterocanonicals must be part of the canon and Luther and the Reformers were wrong to remove the books of Scripture that is quoted by Christ (in the words ascribed to Him by the authors of the Gospels) and the Apostles (and their disciples, i.e. St. Mark and St. Luke) in the NT canon?

     Please remember that it was Luther and the Reformers that began plucking and tossing out Sacred Writ that was accepted by all Catholics and Orthodox Christians as inspired. Catholics and Orthodox didn’t “add” anything to Scripture, Luther and the Reformers “removed” it. To deny this is to deny plain history.

     Earlier you incorrectly appealed to the Russian Orthodox Bible. You haven’t returned to that argument because it was soundly refuted. The Russian Orthodox Bible contains, not only all of the deuterocanonical books of the Catholic Bible, but even more (3 & 4 Maccabees, for example).

     The Protestants decided to go with the Jewish canon that wasn’t a canon at all until approximately 100 years after Christ ascended into Heaven. From the Early Church perspective, authentic Christianity (the Church) was the continuation and perfection of Judaism, the New Jerusalem identified throughout the Old Testament. In other words, the Judaism that was known after the Crucifixion up until modern-day had it’s beginnings at the Cross. When they crucified their Messiah, they schismed from their “Church”. So the Protestant theory that Christians need to follow the Jewish canon that didn’t appear until a century after Christ was nailed to the Cross by His people is to say that it was better to follow the will and command of the (vehemently anti-Christian) schismatic Pharisees that comprised the Sanhedrin in exile than to follow the Early Church, including the Apostles themselves, that used the Septuagint as their unofficial canon of the Old Testament.

     In fact, one can see in St. Justin Martyr’s “Dialogue with the Jew Trypho” that in the early second century, about the time that the remaining Pharisees comprised the Jewish canon, the Jews had already begun the dubious task of changing Sacred Scripture to eliminate, as best they could, Christological typology and/or direct references to Jesus Christ, the Messiah in the Old Testament. This goes above and beyond the vehemently anti-Christian Pharisees at the time removing the Greek books of Sacred Scripture (a historical reading of the Septuagint and it’s genesis would be fruitful to see why it was wrong for them to do so), for St. Justin, in his dialogue points to genuine manipulation on their part of Scriputre they accepted. This is what Luther and the Reformers were in favor of? Deliberately manipulated texts over the Old Testament used frequently by the Early Church and not abandoned by Christians accept by Luther and the Reformers 1500 years later? That’s what you are arguing for?

     The St. Jerome question over the Jewish canon, I’m sure, is the next objection to be proposed. But St. Jerome did eventually “come around”. The Vulgate, originally translated by St. Jerome, contains the deuterocanonicals, as you know. He also accepted later that he was wrong to believe that we should adhere to the the Jewish canon.

     But you are right, Christ (by His Holy Spirit) and the Apostles are the ultimate arbiters of what is and what is not canonical. I don’t think you’ll find a Catholic that disagrees with that statement. We believe that Christ chose His Apostles to take charge over the vineyard from the those who were God had previously given charge to sit on the seat of Moses. We believe that they received authentic authority from Christ, their Head, to lead the Church, the New Jerusalem, and they as shown throughout the New Testament had the divine authority to appoint others their successors. We believe it is those successors today who still maintain that divine authority granted by Christ to His chosen Apostles, and it was those successors who defined the Canon, by the guidance the Holy Spirit.

     Because Luther and the Reformers did not fall within the line of succession from the Apostles, they had no divine authority over the Church. Thus, what they considered canonical (or, rather, not canonical) was irrelevant to Christians. What they accepted as canonical (and what Protestants still accept today) is as relevant to Christians as to what the Manicheans accepted as inspired, because both had the same amount of divine authority to declare it… none. They didn’t speak for Christ or the Apostles because they simply could not.

204. Lojahw June 2nd, 2010 7:39 pm :

     jj wrote: “Protestants do not seem to me to argue for the canonicity of the Bible. They assume it.”
     I would add that most Christians of whatever stripe “assume the Bible” and do not argue for the canonicity of the books in it.

     Devin chided me elsewhere for not responding to the so-called contradictions in Genesis 1-2 and Leviticus, so if anyone is interested:

     Genesis 1-2
     What contradictions do you see between Genesis 1 & 2? Is it the fact that Genesis 1 is a high-level summary of all of creation whereas Genesis 2 focuses in on Adam and Eve? No contradiction there. Is it the introduction of “plants of the field” in Genesis 2 that are not mentioned in Genesis 1? No contradiction there. Is it that Hebrew verbs do not have a past-perfect tense, so context must differentiate between simple past and past-perfect in Gen. 2:19? In view of Genesis 1, Genesis 2:19 is most reasonably translated: “the Lord God had formed every beast” prior to Genesis 2. Are there any other so-called contradictions between Genesis 1 & 2?

     Leviticus 11:6 (cf. Deut. 14:6-7) “chew the cud” is an expression to describe redigestion of food already ingested. Cows regurgitate food into their mouths from multiple stomachs to be chewed again before passing back to complete the digestive process of more fibrous materials. Rabbits also re-digest their food, but often at night using a process called caecotrophy which involves re-ingesting partially digested food that has been excreted. Because the function is similar, but the process is different from that of cows, rabbits are sometimes called “pseudo-ruminants.” Knowing this, would rabbits be more appetizing or less? See https://jas.fass.org/cgi/reprint/78/3/638.pdf and/or https://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con055.asp

     It is helpful also to remember that errors/uncertainties introduced by transcription (copies) and translation do not count as contradictions in the original sources, nor do examples lacking scientific precision (e.g., the circumference of a circle reported as three times the diameter), etc.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

205. Tom Brown June 2nd, 2010 11:46 pm :

     Dear “Lojahw”,

     You said “Only councils that are consistent with the teaching of Christ and the prophets and apostles upon whom the Church has been built have authority by virtue of their teaching the apostolic faith.” Where do you get this rule? Who decides whether a council has taught the apostolic faith?

     I asked: “From what authority did you get your fundamental premise, that “Most of Scripture is self-attesting and/or attested to be divinely inspired Scripture by authors of self-attesting Scripture”?”

     The question gets at the heart of my article, and much of your answer was not directly responsive. You restated what you’ve already said many times about some texts identifying other texts as Scripture, about Jesus identifying other texts as Scripture, about the phrase “it is written.” Notice that my question wasn’t “how do you know which books are in the Bible,” but how do you know the rule you are applying is the right rule — from what authority do you get your premise?

     I think this part of your comment is the extent of your answer to my “from what authority do you get your rule” question, your other discussion about Scripture being the “how you know which books” part. You replied: “The authorities behind my premise are Jesus and the authors of the canonical books who so claim to present “the word of the Lord” and to recognize other books as Scripture.

     But notice that this set of authorities [i.e., Jesus and the authors of the canonical books claiming to present the word of the Lord and recognizing other books as Scripture] never give your premise, that ‘Most of Scripture is self-attesting and/or attested to be divinely inspired Scripture by authors of self-attesting Scripture.’ So it’s really your premise, derived from your reason. My reasoning might have a different emphasis, maybe a more Augustinian one that looks to widespread acceptance in the early Church. Who decides which rule is the right rule? Scripture never gives your rule or Augustine’s. So an extra-Scriptural rule is needed to define Scripture.

     I’ll answer your question about 2 Peter 1 when you answer the one I asked. ;-)

     I complained about your running the Book of Tobias through the mud, and stated that you would not tolerate similar treatment to parts you do accept as Holy Writ. Specifically, I said, “You are dabbling in a standard you would not want applied against yourself, or perhaps, if such a standard were applied against yourself, you would obstinately ignore the problem.”

     You replied that the examples I gave in Genesis and Leviticus were not self-contradictory like you claim Tobias to be. You miss my point entirely, that you are applying a standard to the Catholic Christian Scripture that you would not tolerate being applied to your own. Elsewhere you’ve said that Scripture cannon contain error — a reasonable opinion is that Levitcus contains scientific error and that Genesis is self-contradictory between its creation accounts (these are not my opinions). What does non-consistent witness testimony in court have to do with this? Witnesses in court are not held to the standard of infallibility, and you yourself said error disqualifies a text from Scripture. You have authors defending against so-called errors in Scripture. Great! I’m sure many reasonable people disagree with them. For those people, applying the standard you are applying to Tobias would leave them excluding Genesis, Leviticus, and many other books. Are they unreasonable in their conclusions, or do you deny some people the use of reason in deciding upon what canon to follow?

     As for what Devin said to you elsewhere, please take it up in that same elsewhere! By throwing out your opinion here, you add confusion to this thread, because readers can’t follow to what you are responding (and would be left reading you out of the context of the discussion).

     What is the purpose of your statement about original errors vs. transcription errors? What if I wrote back to you that Tobias must just have a transcription error because I know otherwise that it is Scripture?

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom

206. Lojahw June 3rd, 2010 7:09 pm :

     Dear Tom,

     From your response, you seem to be thinking about a different question than the one I repeated from you and then answered. You wrote:

     From what authority did you get your fundamental premise, that “Most of Scripture is self-attesting and/or attested to be divinely inspired Scripture by authors of self-attesting Scripture”?

     By your response in #205, you seem to be asking: what is the rule by which one concludes that when Jesus calls a book Scripture that it really is Scripture? Or perhaps you are saying that the prophets who claim that what they said is “the word of the Lord” or its equivalent have no authority? Or that when Jesus or another NT author calls various books Scripture that their word doesn’t have authority? I made an observation, not a premise. I really don’t get your point:

     So it’s really your premise, derived from your reason.

     What is your problem with my reasoning that if Jesus calls something Scripture that I should accept it as Scripture? All I’ve said is that anyone can observe the fact that the majority of the canonical books clearly say that they have recorded “the word of the Lord” and/or that they are called Scripture. This is not a premise. If you think my observation is wrong, please explain. I gave a specific answer to your specific question.

     Regarding your second point:

     So an extra-Scriptural rule is needed to define Scripture

     Just because you can think of extra-Scriptural rules to define your canon does not mean that it is not possible to limit the criteria of canonicity to those things which Scripture claims for itself. You have yet to explain why the criteria that I identified from Scripture are extra-Scriptural. Are you saying that the act of reading such things in Scripture as “Thy Word is Truth” and “God cannot lie” and concluding that these things are true of God’s Word is an extra-Scriptural rule? Are you saying that one needs a special extra-Biblical “decoder ring” to understand such statements by Scripture? I just really don’t know where you are coming from. I have given you specific counter-examples to Mathison’s quote. Merely asserting that these examples are subject to Mathison’s quote is not enough. Either your interpretation of Mathison or his quote is wrong by virtue of the counter-examples I have given. Sure, the lack of Hebrew vowel points make some OT texts subject to interpretation, but those cases are limited and mitigated by context.

     Regarding Councils, consistency with the apostolic faith is a necessary application of John 16:13, “the Holy Spirit will guide you [the apostles] into all the truth, and Jude 3, “contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints,” and 2 John 9-10, “if anyone comes to you and does not bring the teaching of Christ, do not receive him.”

     Regarding the self-contradictory statements in Tobit, you wrote:

     you are applying a standard to the Catholic Christian Scripture that you would not tolerate being applied to your own.

     Come again? I have demonstrated that there are plausible explanations for the so-called contradictions you think are in Genesis and Leviticus (and Gleason Archer gives a better answer about the rabbits: the way they eat gives the appearance of “chewing the cud;” when the Pentateuch was written descriptions based on human observations were normal, such as the sun rising and setting). Your argument rests on private interpretation; e.g., it is possible for someone to interpret Scripture in such a way as to be contradictory (or as you put it: “I’m sure many reasonable people disagree with them”). Disagree with what? That their explanations are invalid? If you think so, please explain. By your argument, contradiction is in the eye of the beholder. That’s relativism (if contradiction is in the eye of the beholder, so is truth). The fact that there is a plausible explanation of the texts (consistent with the rules of grammar and vocabulary) in question in Genesis and Leviticus is unlike the statements in Tobit for which no plausible explanation exists. If you think that such an explanation exists for the example from Tobit, please speak up. In the meantime, don’t say that I wouldn’t tolerate my own standard being applied to my canon.

     Your only explanation of Tobit so far is that these two statements suffer from an error in transcription. What is the error? That Raphael claimed to be an angel (stated many places in Tobit)? or that Raphael told Tobias’ father that he was Azarias the son of the great Ananias. Neither example fits the profile of a “transcription” error. Transcription errors occur when letters or words or phrases are miscopied, not when whole sentences are inserted that don’t exist in the original. You seem to be grasping at straws.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

207. Lojahw June 3rd, 2010 9:08 pm :

     Joe wrote:

     So, in your view, the deuterocanonicals must be part of the canon and Luther and the Reformers were wrong to remove the books of Scripture that is quoted by Christ (in the words ascribed to Him by the authors of the Gospels) and the Apostles (and their disciples, i.e. St. Mark and St. Luke) in the NT canon?

     Joe, you’re begging the question. And your view of history ignores the first four centuries before your list was recognized by anyone. Why do you ignore the judgment of those closest in time to the apostles? Luther and the Reformers were merely restoring what the founding fathers passed down as the canonical books. Plucking out? More like restoring what had been encrusted by accretion over the centuries. I accepted the update on the Russian Orthodox Bible, which apparently changed since the Most Holy Governing Synod of Moscow omitted the Apocrypha in 1839. So what? The fact remains that taking Protestants and the early church out of the record still leaves multiple canons on the table. Why should an EO accept your canon instead of his? For example, by what objective criteria do you reject 3 Esdras or Psalm 151?

     The Protestants decided to go with the Jewish canon that wasn’t a canon at all until approximately 100 years after Christ ascended into Heaven.

     You beg the question again. Josephus’ first century canon represented the founding fathers of the Church who were all Jews. You have no basis from which to refute Josephus’ statement that the 22 book canon was so well established that it was taught to all Jews from the time they were born. Such a statement implies that multiple generations prior to Josephus had accepted this canon – which included the generation of Jesus and the apostles.

     one can see in St. Justin Martyr’s “Dialogue with the Jew Trypho” that in the early second century, about the time that the remaining Pharisees comprised the Jewish canon, the Jews had already begun the dubious task of changing Sacred Scripture to eliminate, as best they could Christological typology

     Once again, you beg the question. Justin Martyr used the Greek LXX, which as scholars agree, both removed and added significant swaths of Hebrew texts. You also assume that the LXX was a trusted translation, yet Jerome wrote: “I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ.” If the churches of Christ rightly condemned the Septuagint version of books that differed from the original Hebrew books, on what basis do Roman Catholics support them today? Justin rightly argued that the LXX correctly translated the Hebrew “alma” (young woman) as parthenos (virgin) – which is a legitimate translation; but that does not justify all the deviations of the LXX from the Hebrew.

     You wrote:

     [Jerome] also accepted later that he was wrong to believe that we should adhere to the the Jewish canon.

     You’re confused: Jerome never said that he was wrong. His canon – included in his Vulgate translation – was published in 405, long after Augustine’s canon and the local councils had accepted the deuterocanonical books. He never changed his mind on the canon, even though he translated Judith and Tobit as favors to a couple of obscure bishops. So what if the Vulgate included books which Jerome never said were of equal authority to his “helmeted” canon? Luther’s Bible and the King James Bible had them as well. For that matter, the fifth century Codex Alexandrinus included a fourth century letter from Athanasius as well as 1 & 2 Clement. All that proves is that any given “Bible” does not necessary represent a canon.

     We believe it is those successors today who still maintain that divine authority granted by Christ to His chosen Apostles, and it was those successors who defined the Canon, by the guidance the Holy Spirit

     “We” in your statement does not represent all of the body of Christ (cf. Col. 1:18, 24). The apostles’ successors, particularly those who came four centuries later, didn’t have the right to overrule the canon passed on by their Messianic Jewish founding fathers. Luther and the Reformers were justified in appealing to the founding fathers of the Church on the canon.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

208. Tom Brown June 3rd, 2010 11:06 pm :

     Dear “Lojahw”,

     I think at this point we need to redouble our efforts at remaining charitable. We need to work hard at remaining patient.

     As you see things, every book in the Bible is in their for some explicable reason, though not all necessarily for the same reason. When you say, “book X is in the Bible because Jesus identified it as ‘Scripture'” that conclusion only follows if you have as a premise that all books Jesus identifies as “Scripture” are canonical. You must be creating a premise — you’re not simply making an observation. I am asking from what authority you get that premise. You are deriving the premise from reason, but it is theoretically possible that your premise contains a flaw, which flaw could yield a flawed canon.

     What if I found a book that the [Protestant] Bible identifies as Scripture that is not canonical? What if I found a linguistic study demonstrating that the word “scripture” as used by Jesus or other biblical authors does not always mean to refer to Sacred Writ, but sometimes has a less profound meaning? If I read you right, then you should be willing to admit that if I found those things (I’m not trying to trick you) your canonical rule would no longer hold.

     You mention other observations, like that some books say they contain the word of the Lord. But your permise can’t be that any book so claiming would be canonical, because we know apocryphal works claim to be the word of the Lord, right? So it’s not as simple as an observation. You’re doing more, as Christians always have.

     You asked why I think the criteria you use are extra-Scriptural. I think that when our Lord refers to something as Scripture, his words are not extra-Scriptural. But as I said above, those words are not your criteria simplicter. “God cannot lie.” Agreed. But a canon that truth does not make, nor does it get one single book in on its own.

     Let’s step back a minute and look at this Tobit discussion. You can’t hold back from engaging in a brass-tacks argument about a book’s merits or demerits. But if this discussion devolves into an argument over the historical or textual-critical aspects of given books, we’ve lost the bubble. The discussion, like the article, is about canon criteria. The truth is that I don’t know about your Tobit issue because I’ve never researched it. I am frustrated by your demands for an explanation, as if one is procedurally necessitated by your arguments. You say I’m grasping at straws, but I think you don’t realize that I’m not even grasping.

     By your own terms, you gave a “plausible explanation” for what some might call errors in books of the Bible. You then say I’m resting on private interpretation because I think that reasonable people might disagree with the defenses you gave. But what trouble is it to you if reasonable people might disagree, since your standard is “plausible explanation”? What if I am able to find a “plausible explanation” for the supposed errors in Tobit? You have simultaneously presented two different and mutually incompatible explanations of Levitcus and the Rabbit example. Both are plausible, but not both can be correct. That sounds like private interpretation, and sounds like reasonable people disagreeing. Is this all it takes to get past a perceived error in a book, such that it is still eligible to remain in your canon?

     May the Peace of Christ be with you,
     Tom

209. Lojahw June 4th, 2010 1:24 pm :

     Dear Tom,

     It would help if you would plainly state your argument. Your clarification makes it sound like your argument is over a legality, that is, my use of the words “canon” and “canonicity” which you appear to claim are “trademarks” of your Church. My focus is not on who has the rights to use these words, but rather to draw attention to their meaning, their function. Both Scripture and canonicity have well-understood meanings in the context of Christian dialogue. Therefore, to ask me to justify how texts that Jesus calls Scripture are canonical and carry the authority associated with it is, to put it mildly, obtuse. Are you saying that “Scripture” in the context of NT and Christian dialogue does not necessarily imply canonicity? If so, that would be news to every Christian I know. All communication involves context and accepted norms of grammar and vocabulary – you seem to challenge all of these in your attempt to prove that “all appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretation of Scripture.” I have no desire to argue that point ad infinitum.

     What if I found a linguistic study demonstrating that the word “scripture” as used by Jesus or other biblical authors does not allows mean to refer to sacred writ, but sometimes has a less profound meaning?

     Hypothetical arguments don’t prove anything. There are a finite number of citations in the Bible to “the word of God” and “Scripture” and their equivalents. Lacking a real example of your hypothetical premise, you are merely making an argument for argument’s sake.

     But your permise can’t be that any book so claiming would be canonical, because we know apocryphal works claim to be the word of the Lord, right?

     Your strawman of my premise omits all the attendant attributes that Jesus, the prophets, and the apostles gave about “the word of God.” All books in the Protestant canon have all the attributes that Jesus, the prophets and the apostles identified with “the word of God.” I gave an example of an apocryphal book (the Shepherd of Hermes) that claims inspiration, but disqualifies itself by teaching the heresy of adoptionism, in contradiction to John 1, Phil. 2, and Colossians 1.

     What if I am able to find a “plausible explanation” for the supposed errors in Tobit? You have simultaneously presented two different and mutually incompatible explanations of Levitcus and the Rabbit example.

     I don’t follow your conclusion that the explanations I gave are “mutually incompatible” – one recognizes a pseudo-ruminant function of rabbits based on scientific observation of rabbits, another recognizes that the pattern of a rabbit’s jaw movement resembles that of animals that chew the cud. Those explanations are complementary, are not mutually incompatible. My point is that some so-called contradictions are based on not having enough information. The additional information found about rabbits explains why Leviticus would classify rabbits as animals that “chew the cud.” The example from Tobit is not lacking any pertinent information: two mutually exclusive statements were made by Raphael. It is not a matter of opinion whether both can be true or not – the fundamental principles of truth are violated in any claim that both of those statements could be true.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

210. Lojahw June 5th, 2010 9:30 am :

     Dear Tom,

     Your post raises a few questions:

     The Church did authoritatively define the canon when Pope St. Damasus I with the Council at Rome in A.D. 382 decreed “of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun.”

     If this is so, why did Pope Gregory I later deny the canonicity of the deuteros?

     This same canon (which is the same canon defined at the Council of Trent) was affirmed by the Council of Hippo (393), the third Council of Carthage (397), and the sixth Council of Carthage (419). These were each subsequently approved by the bishop of Rome, showing that they were in agreement with the Apostolic See whose decisions served as the authoritative touchstone for the universal Church.

     Ditto, the previous question. Since Pope Gregory I was the bishop of Rome after the above Councils, why did he deny the canonicity of the deuteros?

     St. Jerome had disagreed about the deuterocanonical books, but he submitted himself to the authority of the Church.

     Pope Damasus died in 384, yet Jerome’s “helmeted” canon was published in 405. I don’t disagree that Jerome submitted to the authority of various bishops in the Church, but there is no record that he recanted his canon published in 405. On what basis do you claim that Jerome recanted?

     If your scenario were true, why did three contemporaries of Luther support Jerome’s shorter canon? For example, Cardinal Ximenes’ preface to the 1514 edition of the the Complutensian Polyglot; and Johannes Petreius’ 1527 edition of Jerome’s Vulgate, specifying at the beginning of each deuterocanonical book that it is not canonical; and Cardinal Cajetan’s Commentary, agreeing with Jerome as well. A number of other notables between Damasus and Trent followed Jerome’s judgment as well, including John of Damasus, the Venerable Bede, etc. A careful study of history seems to challenge your interpretation of these things.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

211. Tom Brown June 10th, 2010 9:33 pm :

     Dear “Lojahw”,

     I have stated my arguments over and over again. I’m not sure what you mean when you say that I’m arguing over a legality. We’re arguing over knowledge, how we come to it, and how we apply what we have of it, but that does not make my argument legalistic, nor does alleged legalism invalidate my argument.

     You said,

     Therefore, to ask me to justify how texts that Jesus calls Scripture are canonical and carry the authority associated with it is, to put it mildly, obtuse.

     Brother, I have been asking how we recognize a given text to be Scriptural (i.e., divinely inspired and part of the canon) since the very title of my article (i.e., “The Canon Question”). If that’s obtuse, who is more obtuse, he who asks the question, or he who has spent innumerable hours trying to respond? Perhaps you just miss my point that the word “scripture” as used in the Scripture does not necessarily mean that a book is divinely inspired and properly part of the canon. Words can have various and differing meanings. So, whether or not this is news to you and your friends, I am saying that the use of the word “scripture” within the Scriptures does not necessarily mean that the referrent is part of Sacred Scripture. Do you see how, in assuming that “scripture” means the referrent to be divinely inspired and part of the canon, that you’ve done interpretation without even realizing it?

     I am not attempting to prove that all appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture. I merely asked you what you thought of Mathison’s view, because your response would have helped me frame my further discussion. I am saying that you put things in the canon only according to a certain rule or other, whether or not you realize you are applying a rule. Putting something in the canon and calling it divinely inspired because Christ says in a book of the Bible that something is “scripture” is following a rule.

     You have no interest in arguing ad infinitum. I’m not sure what to do with that. You seem interested in coming back with responses favoring your view. To avoid the ad infinitum, do you want me to stop pressing a point when you have bypassed my argument and merely restated your own views? That doesn’t seem like a productive, truth-bearing approach.

     You won’t engage in hypotheticals because they don’t prove anything. I’m not sure what to do with that either. The hypothetical is a remarkably fruitful (and efficient, something we could use) tool for one person to understand that perimeter and texture of another’s claims. If you won’t answer my questions merely because they are hypothetical, you are unwilling to help me along in understanding you. Are you afraid you’ll get pinned down to one particular spot that might prove untenable later?

     You said:

     All books in the Protestant canon have all the attributes that Jesus, the prophets and the apostles identified with “the word of God.”

     It is news to me if your claim is that all canonical books have all the attributes of canonicity that you have been describing. Before you talked of some books that were more certain that led us (a little less directly) to others. Some books are in because of the number 22, others because Christ called them Scripture. Is it your position that all canonical books have all the attributes of canonicity, or only that some have all of certain attributes (e.g., error-free). How do you know which attributes all have to have, and which only some have to have?

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

212. Tom Brown June 10th, 2010 9:44 pm :

     Dear “Lojahw”,

     Re: #210, I do not claim that Jerome recanted. I claim that Jerome submitted himself to the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. He was legitimately expressing his academic opinion on an issue that was, at the time, still open for discussion. This was his privilege as a Catholic, and a work he did well. If Catholics have argued for positions that are (now) confluent with Protestant positions, that doesn’t make them Protestant, and doesn’t validate the Protestant position. It only shows either that they were debating something still within the permissible realm of debate, or they were being disobedient.

     It is my opinion that with the remainder of your comment you seek to make arguments in the form of questions. Then you end with, “A careful study of history seems to challenge your interpretation of these things.” Note that this is not a conclusion (“seems to challenge”) and you never argued this matter since you only asked questions.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

213. Lojahw June 14th, 2010 6:56 pm :

     Dear Tom,

     Thank you for your posts.

     Your post #211 failed to address my challenge in #209 to provide an example where the translations “scripture,” “the word of God,” etc. do not refer to a “God-breathed” canonical work. I well understand the issues related to the semantic range and referents of words within the context in which they are used. The word ‘tip’ in the statement: “I gave a tip to the waiter for his good service” has a different referent than in: “My friend gave me a tip about the stock market.” Context in each case, as in the uses of the words and phrases in the Bible translated “scripture,” “the word of God,” etc., makes clear the proper referent. There is simply no basis for your assertion that the words translated “Scripture,” “the word of God,” etc., do not necessarily refer to “God-breathed” Scripture (you can be assured if such an example existed, it would have been exploited by many foes of Christianity).

     Coming back to your comments about interpretation, all communication depends on interpretation. So what? you still have not provided an example where the application of criteria Scripture provides about itself, e.g., “All Scripture is God-breathed,” “Thy word is truth,” and “The word of the Lord endures forever,” exercise authority over scripture. You have not answered my challenge that interpretation does not necessarily exercise authority over its source. You have not shown how my use of the Scriptural criteria of canonicity exercise authority over Scripture.

     You wrote:

     It is news to me if your claim is that all canonical books have all the attributes of canonicity that you have been describing.

     Your subsequent comments confuse attributes with authoritative testimony. Jesus, the prophets, and the apostles give authoritative testimony for the canonicity of most books of the Bible by referring to them as “the word of God,” “Scripture,” etc. Authoritative testimony is not a criterion, but a confirmation that those books meet the necessary criteria. Those books, as well as the others in the Protestant canon, have all the attributes of “God-breathed scripture,” e.g., “Thy word is truth,” “the word of the Lord endures forever,” etc. All of these books are consistent with the character of God, who cannot lie, who is eternal, who is holy, etc.

     Re: Jerome. Your article and Bryan’s response to Christopher assert that Jerome accepted the deuterocanonical books as equal to the canonical books recognized by the Jews (below is from the article):

     Ultimately, Jerome explicitly stated his acceptance of the Church’s Old Testament over and against the opinion of the Hebrew scholars under whom he had studied.

     Your post #212 seems to conflict with the article, and is consistent with my previous assertions that the shorter canon was accepted at least until the Council of Trent based on the testimony of Jerome as well as such later notables as Gregory I, John of Damascus, the Venerable Bede, Cardinal Ximenes, and Cardianal Cajetan. Is that what you are saying? If so, then you agree with my previous statements that the Church has historically tolerated multiple canons (and still does, since the RCC still recognizes EO Churches).

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

214. John Thayer Jensen June 14th, 2010 9:30 pm :

     Your post #211 failed to address my challenge in #209 to provide an example where the translations “scripture,” “the word of God,” etc. do not refer to a “God-breathed” canonical work

     Lojahw – the words ‘my house’, when I use them, refer to a thing which is, in fact, my house. But knowing what the words refer to doesn’t tell you anything about my house except that it is (1) a house, and (2) mine. It doesn’t tell you where it is, how many rooms it has, what it’s made of, etc.

     The ‘canon question’ is not what the word ‘Scripture’ refers to, but rather what its contents are – and how you know what those contents are. You could claim that my house has six bedrooms – but unless you had some convincing argument for knowing that, others may not believe you.

     If I understand what you have written, you appear to believe that you know how many bedrooms my house has because you have inspected it. It is possible for you to inspect my house, since it is a physical object and you are as able to recognise a bedroom as I am. If you’ll just hop on a ‘plane to New Zealand, I will gladly show you around :-)

     Or you could ask me, or ask someone else who knows. That’s knowing by tradition – by faith, in fact.

     You cannot know what is in Scripture by inspection, because you either have to know the ‘street address’ (to press the analogy) of Scripture – what books it contains – which is the very question being discussed – or else you could inspect every ‘house’ – every book that has a claim to being Scripture (Book of Mormon; Qur’an; the notes I write saying “these notes are Scripture”) – but whereas I believe you can recognise a bedroom when you see one, I am afraid I have no confidence in your ability to recognise Scripture. I have talked to too many Mormons who tell me I can recognise their book as Scripture by the burning in the bosom I feel.

     Or you can ask someone who has good reasons for knowing, because the Author of Scripture promised that knowledge – the Church.

     Which leaves, of course, the question of whether the Church has, indeed, received such promises. That’s a different – and essential – question – but not the Canon Question.

     jj

215. Lojahw June 15th, 2010 9:07 am :

     Dear jj,

     Analogies have limits, and a collection of books is not at all like a house with an address and rooms. You also misunderstand my argument if you equate it to a process of inspection. Jesus, the prophets and the apostles are the authorities upon whose testimony I (and the Church!) rely. The key question is authorship: did the Holy Spirit inspire the writings of forgers and contradictory witnesses?

     Proverbs 14:5 says, “A trustworthy witness will not lie, But a false witness utters lies.” Why do you call those who wrote forgeries in the names of Jeremiah and Solomon trustworthy authors of divine Scripture? Why do you trust the testimony of an angel who lies to Tobias’ father about who he is?

     As I’ve said before, the Church has not spoken with one voice on the canon. The Body of Christ, which is the Church, recognizes only the 66 books of the Protestant canon in common. Protestants have not added any counterfeit books to the canon as Mormons have; but the question is, why have you accepted counterfeits? God cannot lie, but the deuterocanonical books do not reliably tell the truth. To claim that your sectarian views alone represent the Church is mistaken.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

216. Tim A. Troutman June 15th, 2010 11:15 am :

     John – good points and a good analogy. It is quite clear that you understand Loajah’s assertions well.

217. Joe June 15th, 2010 9:51 pm :

     I was determined not to comment on this thread again, because I think it’s ran itself out. In a strange sense, however, the dialogue does spin around the heart of the canon question in perpetuity… so, it never completely departs from it. It’s a strange contradiction, but I guess it just proves that truth can never really be obscured regardless of how many red herrings are tossed about.

     Lowjah, I think I get it now. You cannot avoid equivocating the Hebrew Scriptures with the Hebrew canon, and that’s why you aren’t fully grasping the comments that St. Jerome eventually had a “come to Jesus” in regards to accepting the Church’s judgement over his own.

     Evidently, you trust St. Jerome’s judgement, or at least the judgement that you perceive. So, if that perception of St. Jerome’s judgement is so infallible, you should be able to trust him on other topics for consistency sake, no? What’s your take on this? If you don’t agree with him on his vigorous defense of that teaching, why would you make the mistake of agreeing with him on your perception of his disobedience on the canon? Just curious.

218. Tom Brown June 20th, 2010 10:14 pm :

     Dear “Lojahw”,

     May I use your real first name? I think it would help us to have a more personal, open, honest discussion than one that is held with pseudonyms.

     You said that I did not reply to your challenge in #209 to show where Christ used “scripture” in a way other than you have had in mind. You did not make the challenge, brother, but just stated that you would not deal in hypotheticals. To that statement of yours I certainly did reply. Again, you are stuck trying to argue about the validity of a given canon rule, when I am trying to argue about the validity of the very making of canon rules. We will not stop talking past each other until we can both understand that this article and my argument are about the making of canon rules, not the validity of any proposed rule.

     You say that I have not shown how your use of Scriptural criteria of canonicity exercises authority over Scripture. This is puzzling because it has been the central tenet of my comments to you over the past couple of months. How have you missed it? My Section III is devoted to this claim (do a ctrl+f for “over Scripture” for a quick look) . If you do not agree, it would be proper to show which premises or conclusions you feel are wrong. It is not sufficient to say that I have failed to show what I claimed to show — I would appreciate it if you stopped employing this rhetorical tool (i.e., the ‘you have failed to show’). I can only be charged with failing to show something where I bear the burden of demonstrating it.

     You said that I confused attributes with authoritative testimony. Is not the authoritative testimony you noted in the New Testament a testimony about attributes? If not about attributes, about what is this testimony? The testimony is not “The Book of James is canonical.” So for you to conclude that James is canonical based on the testimony, there must be testimony about an attribute of James. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that Jesus essentially says “James is canonical” when he says “word is truth” (etc.) leading you to conclude that James should be included in the canon.

     Re: Jerome, what I have said does not conflict with the article. Jerome had a personal opinion about the status of the deuterocanon, and Jerome submitted himself to the Church (which held the deuterocanon to be on even status with the other canonical texts). You think there is conflict because you have not separated the individual’s opinion from the opinion of the Chuch. Analog: a Catholic scientist today believes that evolution is true (or false; doesn’t matter for this hypothetical analogy); the Church leaves this partially open for differing opinions; and the Church later settles the question contrary to the scientist’s opinion. If the scientist lived (like Jerome) in submission to the Church, we would hardly say his opinion for (or against) evolution proved that he was in conflict with the Catholic Church (and it would be wild to say that the Church “really” believed the scientist’s opinion even though it later reached the opposite position in Council). Likewise Jerome. Were various opinions on canonics and Sacred Scripture permitted prior to Trent? Within certain boundaries of impermissible variance, I think the answer is “yes.” Does this mean the Church accepted the “shorter canon” up until Trent? No — that is absurd, for the reasons my article shows and as we have discussed. You need to untangle the singular opinion of scholar Jerome from the view of the Catholic Church writ large. You give him such weight; it’s very puzzling and illogical.

     Finally, you argue that because the “RCC” recognizes the “EO churches”; (and because various Orthodox churches have different canons from the Catholic canon); therefore, the Catholic Church presently tolerates multiple canons. Depending on what you mean by “tolerate” I believe your conclusion does not follow. If you believe that the “recognition” made by the Catholic Church of the various Orthodox churches means that the Catholic Church believes these disparate churches’ theological conclusions to be true, your premise is wrong. The Catholc ‘recognition’ does not mean this.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

219. Joe June 21st, 2010 8:30 am :

     Lojawh,

     Do you know the reasons why the Eastern Orthodox churches are considered churches by the Church and why the Protestant ecclessial communities are not?

     I think that when you find the correct answer to this question, you will at once realize that the differences in the Catholic canon to the books that comprise many of the Eastern Orthodox Bibles is irrelevant to the point that you are trying to make. It wasn’t the fact that Luther and the Reformers removed several books (and various chapters and verses) from the Sacred Scriptures that was the cause of the Protestant schism.

     Tom, I apologize for taking the bait and adding to the confusion. I’m just trying to point out that some of the propositions made in the counter argument are either irrelevant or illogical (which, I think, is what you have been doing as well). I’ll butt out now.

220. Lojahw June 21st, 2010 9:00 pm :

     Dear Tom,

     You asked about my login “Lojahw” (Lover of Jesus and His Word). I set up this Google login for theological blogs years ago. I appreciate your allowance of this login in this context; it would be confusing to use my given name inside a post and “Lojahw” on the post itself. I do strive to be open and honest.

     You wrote:

     I am trying to argue about the validity of the very making of canon rules

     I assume you refer to the following from your article, Section III:

     Power over the canon is power over Scripture itself because it is the power to eradicate a necessary part of the canon or to add a spurious part to Scripture. … the very act of answering the Canon Question inherently involves an extra-Biblical fallible human judgment, unless one is preserved from error by the Holy Spirit. This fallible human judgment, by defining the criterion of canon, exercises power over the canon itself. And as I just noted, power over the canon is power over Scripture.

     Your premise that the capacity to err is power, and that such power amounts to authority is faulty. A weakness is power?? The capacity to err is not a power, and power is not the same as authority. If I wrongly assert that 2+2=5, that does not give me either power or authority over numbers – I am simply mistaken and anyone could show me my error by putting 2 apples with more 2 apples = 4 apples. However, if I say that 2+2=4, my conclusion is based on the authority of the rules of numbers and arithmetic. You have been unable either 1) to point out that the criteria observed from Scripture are wrong or 2) that the facts or logic I have offered are wrong or 3) shown that the Holy Spirit has not preserved me (or Jerome, et al.) from error – ergo, human “fallibility” appears not to be a factor in this case. (That’s what I meant about hypotheticals – show me where human judgment in this case is faulty.)

     Put another way: You sound like a traffic cop who pulls over a driver and says, “You were going 110 miles per hour,” and the surprised driver says, “According to my speedometer, I was going 55.”
     But the cop says, “I have the authority to judge these things, you do not; and, besides, your speedometer shows that your car can go up to 110 mph, therefore, you broke the law.”

     You assert that fallible human judgment is incapable of recognizing the canon based on what Scripture reveals about itself. But you cannot show how the judgment of Jerome, Rufinus, Gregory I, et al., regarding the canon is faulty or how the Holy Spirit did not preserve them from error. You assert that these church fathers eradicated necessary parts of the canon of Scripture, but that simply begs the question. How much falsehood can come from the Holy Spirit? Is not forgery false witness? Do you believe that the Holy Spirit inspired a faker to claim that he was Solomon in the so-called Wisdom of Solomon? Do you think the Holy Spirit inspired the angel Raphael to lie about his identity to Tobias’ father? If such things cannot be attributed to the Holy Spirit, then neither can the books in which they are found be called God’s Word.

     You seem to be under the mistaken impression that Jesus essentially says “James is canonical” when he says “word is truth” (etc.) leading you to conclude that James should be included in the canon.

     You misrepresent and/or have ignored what I wrote in posts #158, 164, etc.). I won’t repeat myself here.

     Re: Jerome, you have made 2 poor assumptions: 1) that Jerome’s ecclesiastical obedience to his superiors implies that he also yielded his personal conviction that the deuteros were not part of the canon; and 2) that the whole Church required assent to Augustine’s canon in that era. Both are contradicted by the historical record, as I have cited previously.

     Re: EO, my statement was not that the RCC recognized multiple canons, but: “the Church has historically tolerated multiple canons (and still does, since the RCC still recognizes EO Churches).” In other words, EO Churches are part of the Church and they recognize canons that differ from the RCC; ergo, the Church universal recognizes multiple canons.

     I would still appreciate your answers to the following: Have I understood you correctly?
     1) You don’t think that statements like “Thy Word is truth” and “God cannot lie” apply to canonical books.
     2) You don’t accept that “the word of God” with confirming testimony is evidence of canonicity.
     3) You don’t accept that what Jesus and the apostles call “Scripture” is canonical.
     4) You believe that taking statements about books as “the word of God” and “Scripture” by Jesus, the OT prophets, and the apostles, to refer to canonical books amounts to exercising “fallible human judgment” over Scripture.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

221. Lojahw June 22nd, 2010 2:44 pm :

     Dear Joe,

     I well understand the reasons that the EO Churches are considered by the RCC to be part of the Church: apostolic succession being the chief one (yes, I’ve read Ratzinger’s Dominus Iesus). Those reasons do not change the fact that the universal Church, including EO Churches, uses multiple canons of Scripture.

     BTW – the Anglican Church considers its clergy to share in historic apostolic succession, notwithstanding Rome’s partisan rejection of their holy orders after England broke from Rome. It is interesting how later traditions have in certain circles superceded the truly “apostolic traditions” – those that can be traced to the apostles and the Church in their day – and the importance of abiding in the apostles’ teaching. As the early Church recognized, the label “Apostolic Church” belongs to those:

     “who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine.” Tertullian – The Prescription Against Heretics, 32.

     The test of an Apostolic Church (whether or not it could trace its origin to “apostolic men”) in the early Church was adherence to the regula fidei, a forerunner of the AD 325 Nicene Creed. The Anglican Church, like most other Protestant Churches subscribes to the doctrines codified by the Council of Nicea; so, both from historic laying on of hands traced to the apostles and teaching the doctrine of the apostles, the Anglican Church is no less apostolic than EO churches or any other “apostolic” Church.

     For Protestant observers, the RCC canon is just one example of the relativism that Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) decries in Dominus Iesus, because this canon was not taught by the apostles, but was introduced centuries later by a pagan convert to Christianity. The Protestant Reformers merely reclaimed the OT canon received from their Jewish founders, the Apostles, rather than accepting as “apostolic” a “tradition” started by Augustine four centuries later. Don’t get me wrong: Augustine was a great Christian teacher, and I appreciate many things that he wrote, but he was not infallible.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

222. Donald Todd June 23rd, 2010 6:16 pm :

     I was going to spend a while responding to this item and have turned it over several times. Not coming from a Reformed/Presbyterian position, I realized that I did not need to respond to it under that circumstance, but was free to respond to it from a different perspective.

     My issue was that I would read the Scripture and it would say one thing, and my denomination (and a lot of others with similar and dissimilar theological positions) would say something else. The clear thrust of the words, no matter how difficult, were still clear, even if unwelcome in some quarters.

     The Last Supper in the Synoptics, John 6 and 1st Cor 12 were all clear about the Eucharist being Jesus’ Body and Blood, and importantly with Paul, even a deadly blasphemy if improperly taken. I could not figure out how one could blaspheme a symbol. However the reality of Jesus’ Presence in Bread and Wine was denied. As John 6 noted, “who could believe that?” (I could.)

     John 20:23 was clear about the forgiveness or retention of sin. I am a sinner in need of salvation. Yet this item was denied. I found I believed it but there was no one in my church able to apprehend it let alone bring it to me.

     The Sermon on the Mount appeared to give direction to service in imitation of God. Paul talked about running the race to the end. Paul talked about working out one’s salvation in fear and trembling. James talked about his faith being seen through his works. In Acts the apostles recognized the legitimate needs of the Greek-speaking Jews and founded the deacons to care for their needs. Jesus was clear about the value of even of cup of water being given to one of His own. The reality of faith and works as the two-bladed scissors that CS Lewis wrote about seemed clear to me. Yet, it was denied. But I believed that I needed to express my faith in action because faith without works is dead.

     Some people are very gifted. I am not so much gifted but it appeared to me that claiming Scripture as the realm of Protestantism realism – even recognizant of the huge differences within Protestantism – and then denying the reality of what is said puts a terrible crimp in that claim. No matter what was being said, someone had an aversion to it. Jesus said it therefore it could not be true. Wow!! How does one put one’s faith in that kind of a position? Or perhaps who was one putting one’s faith in?

     I wanted to know the truth and, having had the benefit of an amazing conversion, I assumed that what Scripture was telling me was true. I believed that the Angel of Death visited Egypt, sparing those whose door posts were marked by the blood of the lamb. I believed that Moses under God’s direction parted the Red Sea. I believed that Jesus made Lazarus rise from the dead. I believed that the water was changed to wine at a particular wedding. I believed that Jesus physically rose from the dead.

     I believed Jesus when, in John 6, a lot of His followers stopped following Him because of what He said. But the church I attended did not believe what He said, and I found it was more important to find the place where Jesus’ words were believed than it was to stay put. My own assumption is that it was grace that brought that recognition about, and grace that permitted me to find that place where Jesus’ words are believed.

     That determination was arrived at by lots and lots of prayer and lots and lots of reading. It did not matter what verbal gymnastics were used by whoever was avoiding the clear words coming out of Jesus’ mouth. What mattered to me was what Jesus was saying.

     He told me that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church. Here I am, a Catholic, and the Catholic Church believes the words of Scripture which were so heavily militated against in the place where I was at.

     Thanks be to God the Father through our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

223. Tom Brown June 27th, 2010 11:46 pm :

     Dear “Lojahw”,

     That’s too bad about pseudonyms.

     When I say I am discussing the validity of the very making of canon rules, I am referring to the entirety of my article on the Canon Question. What you quoted is one part of my critique of the Protestant position.

     My premise is not that “the capacity to err is power.” Rather, my premise is that, under the Protestant paradigm, power over the canon is power over Scripture. It is by this premise that Protestants levy one of their criticisms of the Catholic Church. I am arguing that Protestants do no better because they exercise a power over the canon. To help you with my quote, take out “necessary” and “spurious” — then you should get my meaning. If you have the power to craft rules of canonicity, you have the power to add or remove from Scripture, because an alteration of the criteria will alter the outcome.

     You say “You have been unable to…” I had just asked you not to use this rhetorical tool where I do not bear the burden of proof. Your #1 can be dismissed because it’s about particular criteria, not the making of criteria itself. Please re-read my # 218. Ditto for your #2 — the burden is not on me to show that your logic (about any one criterion) is wrong, but rather the burden is on you to demonstrate that you have the authority to set up rules of canonics. Ditto for your #3. If the burden were on me to show that you have not been preserved from error in your own making of a canon, you would be in an unassailable position from mere procedure of debate alone.

     Imagine a Church wherein we could each reach a conclusion about the canon, and the burden would be on others to prove our conclusions to be wrong!

     You said:

     You assert that fallible human judgment is incapable of recognizing the canon based on what Scripture reveals about itself.

     No, I said that if one uses one’s judgment to determine the canon, one has exercised power over the canon, which is an exercise of power over Scripture itself. I have deep gratitude for the power of reason given by God to man, so do believe that we can reach some right conclusions about Scripture through the use of our reason, our fallen state notwithstanding. But ultimately, because of our fallen state, to reach consensus in truth, we depend necesarrily upon the operation of the Holy Spirit. I think this is irrefutable for the Reformed frame. If anything, given their theological emphasis on man’s depravity, the Reformed should not even accept that human reason can reach any truth on the canon by use of reason apart from a necessary particular grace.

     You disagree that Jerome’s obedience to his superiors would entail (“imply”) a yielding of his personal conviction on a matter of scholarly opinion. What does obedience look like if not that one would obey in an instance where one’s opinion is contrary to that of the superior? I’m puzzled how it is that my ‘assumption’ was a poor one.

     I do not believe the Church required assent to Augustine’s opinion at that time. Re-read what I said, especially my analogy about the Catholic scientist. You will see that I say an obedient Catholic who holds a later-contradicted opinion can hardly be said not to be a faithful Catholic. We can hardly say he disagreed with the Catholic faith, but at the same time we are not obliged to accept his opinion as an accurate expression of the Catholic faith.

     Re: the Orthodox views on canonics, your restatement is precisely what I criticized. You create a figment when you discuss “the Church universal” and by that mean that the Catholic Church tolerates the canonical views of the separated eastern brethren.

     Re: your list of questions, action-packed with implications about my beliefs, but rather which seemed aimed at drawing me out to argue your particular canonical rules, instead of your ability to make rules (which is my thesis, you’ll kindly note):
     1) It doesn’t sound like you’ve understood me correctly. That those statements apply to the canonical books is beside the point. The point is that you are exercising power over the canon when you decide based on these descriptions of attributes of canonicty which books belong in the canon.
     2) Again, it doesn’t sound like you’ve understood me correctly. Some Scripture describing itself or other parts of Scripture as “the word of God” — with or without other corroborating evidence — is “evidence of canonicty.” My point is that you can’t reach conclusions from mere evidence without exercising power over the canon, which is an exercise of power over Scripture.
     3) Again, you have me wrong. Assuming He means by “Scripture” what we mean by the word “Scripture” today, what Jesus has truly called Scripture is Scripture. But you can’t get to “James [etc.] is canonical” without at least two very critical intervening exercises of human judgment. (1) You would need grounds for infallible certainty that Christ actually made the statement (without an impermissible a priori acceptance of a book as canonical), and (2) you would need to show that you weren’t trading in an equivocation (i.e., the word-meaning fallacy).
     4) I’m not sure if you have me right or wrong, because I’m not sure what you mean. If you mean that I believe that those evidences of canonicity do not let you conclude “James [etc.] is canonical” without an intervening exercise of human judgment, then you’ve got me right.

     “Lojahw”, I think we’ve made no progress since you came back for more discussion after my giving you the last word. As I said in my previous comment, “We will not stop talking past each other until we can both understand that this article and my argument are about the making of canon rules, not the validity of any proposed rule.” I have invested substantial time in this effort with you, and regret that we have not been able to meet on a substantive level. I am in a season in life where I am preparing for a lengthy deployment into a combat zone, and have just had family friends lose their husband/father in an automobile accident. So I am keenly sensitive to how little time we have in life. I can’t keep expending mine talking in circles with you. If you want to discuss the making of canon rules, the topic of my article, I am here to discuss. If you want to score points or argue about the validity of your own canon rules proper, I still do not believe this is the proper forum.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

224. Tom Brown June 27th, 2010 11:52 pm :

     Dear Donald,

     Thank you for sharing at CtC! Your words were very encouraging, and I recommend them to all of our readers. I especially liked this: ” I could not figure out how one could blaspheme a symbol. ” I think Calvin and Luther realized this tension, as you can see in their efforts at seeking a via media between the Zwinglians and the Catholics.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

225. Joe Palmer June 28th, 2010 9:08 am :

     Lohjaw,

     I well understand the reasons that the EO Churches are considered by the RCC to be part of the Church: apostolic succession being the chief one (yes, I’ve read Ratzinger’s Dominus Iesus). Those reasons do not change the fact that the universal Church, including EO Churches, uses multiple canons of Scripture.

     Right. So, you agree then, that not strictly adhering to the Catholic canon is not the reason why an ecclessial community is not called a Church. The reasons are a detatchment from traditional Christian teaching, primarily (because it is foundational) because of a lack of traceable Apostolic Succession and, therefore, an inability to effect the Sacraments. But also because a complete denial of or an incomplete view of the efficacy and reality of the Sacraments… a denial of Apostolic truth and teaching. That handles the irrelevant argument you posited in regards to multiple canons for Christian churches (not ecclessial communities; ‘churches’ being understood in their proper sense).

     As for your rendering of what it means to be “Apostolic”. Your argument is not new, nor can it be proven. If you’re saying that the Church got their interpretation of “Apostolic” wrong by the time the Nicene Creed was composed at the Council, then we need to sound the alarm and have all Presbyterians stop reciting the Creed immediately. At least you are being intellectually honest by making this implication, but that intellectual honesty needs to be followed through with action. The one way to come to speaking issues like these are to be forthright, and by admitting that the Council Fathers who composed the Nicene Creed inserted their incorrect understanding of “Apostolic” into the Creed, we are actually entering new ground in dialogue.

     You cite Tertullian to support your claim that Council’s rendering of “Apostolic” was wrong. But surely you realize that Tertullian had more than just that quotation on the topic. Surely you must also know that there were men such as St. Ignatius of Antioch, taught by a disciple of the Apostles, one generation set apart from the Apostles themselves, who rather clearly defined “Apostolic” on Catholic and E/O terms… and it appears nothing like the argument you’re intending to make based off of your understanding of what Tertullian meant in that one quotation.

     As far as the Anglicans, it’s much more complex than what you’ve described here. So, I don’t think I need to treat it very much. Let’s just say, in a similar fashion as your use of Tertullian’s quotation, you are trying to view a complex situation through one dimension to make your argument stick, but that isn’t being as honest as you could be if you’d do a bit more research. I’m not here to teach you though. I’m just trying to illustrate how your arguments are either irrelevant to Tom’s article or they are illogical (based off of fragmented data), or both. I really think it would be wonderful if the conversation turned to what Tom has in his article.

     God bless,
     Joe Palmer

226. Joe Palmer June 28th, 2010 9:17 am :

     Hi Tom,

     I think we’ve made no progress since you came back for more discussion after my giving you the last word.

     I think that, by Lowjah implying that the Council Fathers “got it wrong” on the term “Apostolic” in the Nicene Creed, we have made some progress. It’s the first I’ve heard from a Reformed Christian that the Nicene Creed contains language that is incongruent with authentic Christianity. Don’t you agree? Usually the debate is that Catholics and E/O misunderstand the meaning of “Apostolic” in the Nicene Creed, thus it is impossible to discuss it properly with them because they are applying and holding to their own foreign interpretation of it. Lowjah’s intellectual honesty on that part is a breakthrough, I believe.

227. Lojahw June 30th, 2010 12:49 pm :

     Dear Donald,
     You wrote: “The clear thrust of the words, no matter how difficult, were still clear, even if unwelcome in some quarters.”
     Related to this combox, the words “Scripture” and “the word of the Lord” attributed to books in the canon seem not to have a “clear thrust.” Why not?

     Are you aware that the RCC is not the only Church to recognize the “real presence” of Christ, and that transubstantiation is not the only possible way to understand the “real presence”? And what hermeneutic rule requires that Christ’s words in the particular passages you refer must be taken literally whereas in so many other cases Jesus uses figures of speech (e.g., “I am the door” and “I am the vine”)? How do you understand John 6:35, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.” Is “comes to Me” a metaphor for “eats” and is “believes in” a metaphor for “drinks My blood”? When you read John 6 in context it is clear that Jesus is not talking about the Last Supper, but about people believing in Him. In verse 63 Jesus says, “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.” If Jesus’ words are life, how then can you say that people who do not literally eat Jesus’ flesh and drink His blood “have no life”? The “disciples” who withdrew (v. 66) were those who did not believe – i.e., they did not believe that Jesus came down from heaven, that “everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life,” etc.

     Moreover, do you understand what the Council of Chalcedon (the Fourth Ecumenical Council) decreed about Christ’s “two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation”? In other words, since Christ’s body retained all the properties of mortal human flesh, it was not possible in the Last Supper for his flesh and blood at the last supper to be invisibly transferred into the bread and wine that he held in his hands. It always amazes me how many RCC converts refer to this single interpretation of Scripture as the reason for their conversion, yet they don’t mind that other RCC dogmas contradict the “clear thrust of the words” of Scripture (e.g., Genesis 3:15, veneration of images – note Micah 5:13 in the context of Messianic prophecy, etc.).

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

228. Lojahw June 30th, 2010 12:50 pm :

     Dear Joe,

     Re: the “Apostolic Church” & multiple canons, you’re forgetting that EO Churches use canons differing from yours. My argument works even without Protestants in the mix. There never has been a single canon agreed to by all authorities in the universal Church.

     You wrote:

     If you’re saying that the Church got their interpretation of “Apostolic” wrong by the time the Nicene Creed was composed at the Council, then we need to sound the alarm and have all Presbyterians stop reciting the Creed immediately.

     You misunderstood me, Joe. I didn’t say that the Church got their interpretation of “Apostolic” wrong when the Council added the last section of the Creed, but that your current interpretation is debatable. The council that added the words “apostolic church” left no official records explaining what they meant. Do you disagree that the Apostolic Church is the Church founded by the apostles, and that it continues in the teaching of the apostles? This is what Presbyterians understand the Creed to mean – the same as Tertullian.

     You seem to confuse Ignatius of Antioch with Irenaeus, who not only wrote about apostolic succession, but also wrote: “For it is unlawful to assert that they [the apostles] preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles.” Since no Church father in the first four centuries ever claimed the 44 books in Augustine’s late fourth century OT canon, those who use Augustine’s canon present themselves as “improvers of the apostles.”

     You dismiss the Anglican claims to apostolic succession as being “complex” – well, yes, history is complex. That same history challenges your simple trust in apostolic succession. Do you have any idea how many bishops who claimed apostolic succession were Arian heretics? Trusting in procedures and “pedigrees” rather than the substance of the faith is foolish. The Apostolic Church is the Church founded by the apostles, which continues in their apostolic teaching.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

229. Lojahw June 30th, 2010 12:52 pm :

     Dear Tom,
     Your equivocations obscure things.
     The RCC Magisterium’s claim of unique authority to interpret Scripture differs from the canon question; comparing that to the Protestants’ canon doesn’t follow.
     Also, since the canon itself is not Scripture, your assertion “power over the canon” = “power over Scripture” is debatable.

     You keep ignoring the fact that a large part the canon was explicitly identified by the founders of the Church. Protestants have accepted all the books explicitly identified by the founders (e.g., Christ, the prophets and the apostles) as canonical (e.g., as Scripture and/or “the word of God”), so there is no basis for your charge that Protestants exert “power over the canon” with respect to most of the canon. Furthermore, you have failed to show any case where the founders of the Church ever used the term “scripture” and phrases like “God said” for referents of questionable canonicity – hence, your argument is empty.

     Moreover, Scripture (not Protestants) provides the rules of canoncity; e.g., “All Scripture is God-breathed” and “God cannot lie” and “Thy Word is truth,” etc. Since Protestants did not make up these rules, and the entire contents of the Protestant canon are accepted by the universal Church the question of human judgment unaided by the Holy Spirit is limited to those books omitted for which there is no consensus.

     With respect to those disputed books, it is ironic that you bring up the role of the Holy Spirit in discerning the canon, yet you accept a canon wherein the authors and angels openly lie about their identity (e.g., the Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, and Tobit), wherein suicide is considered “noble” (2 Maccabees), wherein Nebuchadnezzar is erroneously identified as ruling the Assyrians from Nineveh (Judith), and wherein women are overtly denigrated (Sirach). Why do you attribute such things to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? Truly God-breathed Scripture reflects His nature and character; but your canon includes books that have the attributes of ordinary, fallible, human books. Scripture teaches that: God cannot lie (Tit. 1:2); suicide is shameful (1 Sam. 31:4-5; Matt. 27:5); the Holy Spirit is not the spirit of error (1 John 4:6); and God blesses male and female alike (Gen. 5:1-2; 1 Cor. 11:7-12; 1 Pet. 3:7).

     Given your canon, it is understandable that you would think that human judgment cannot tell the difference between canonical and non-canonical books.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

230. Tom Brown June 30th, 2010 11:11 pm :

     Dear “Lojahw”,

     It appears you still do not “want to discuss the making of canon rules, the topic of my article,” or cannot escape what feels like verbatim repetition, so I am going to stick with the last paragraph of my #223. I thought you could do better. I don’t “keep ignoring” anything. That’s combative language. You would do better here just to point out the deficiencies you see in arguments. Your “you have failed to show” is exceedingly off-putting. I’ve asked you a number of times not to use such tricks when I do not bear the onus probandi. The argument you find empty is, as I have already said, one I did not make. I presented a hypothetical you refused to answer. If you refuse to conform to some basic ground rules of civil discourse, please do not continue to comment.

     It is interesting that you think the canon (i.e., scope) of Scripture is not Scripture.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

231. Devin Rose July 1st, 2010 12:30 pm :

     Lojahw,

     Regarding Since no Church father in the first four centuries ever claimed the 44 books in Augustine’s late fourth century OT canon, those who use Augustine’s canon present themselves as “improvers of the apostles.”

     You have claimed many times that “Augustine’s canon” in the “late fourth century” was an innovation which swayed the Church’s teaching on the canon due to his great stature. Yet the two most important mostly-complete biblical manuscripts that are extant–the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus–both contain deuterocanonical books, and these codices are from the _mid 300s_ when, if I recall correctly, Augustine was but a young lad and far from even his conversion to Christ.

     So your implication that St. Augustine came up with this (deuterocanonical-containing) canon and swayed the rest of the Church with it is false. The deuterocanonical books are found in the earliest mostly-complete biblical manuscripts we possess, which precede Augustine.

     This is a small point, and one that doesn’t help to get to Tom’s actual argument (which you have not addressed), but since you persist in making this erroneous implication it needs to be corrected so others realize that Augustine didn’t come up with this canon “in the late fourth century.”

232. Donald Todd July 1st, 2010 3:55 pm :

     Lojahw,

     Thank you.

     The idea behind this thread is “by what criterion do we know which texts comprise the Bible?”

     Tim Brown does an excellent job of examining the various ideas behind “scripture.”

     I came at it from a different direction, lacking the precision of Luther or Calvin, although I managed to read them, and compare what they did with what they said. I read the scriptures, thought that they had to be relatively self-explanatory for the average person, and found arguments such as those you present in 227 above. The arguments I found were either specious or had no bearing on what I was reading and asking.

     Genesis 14:18. Then Melchisedec, the king of Salem, bought out bread and wine, for he was a priest of the Most High God.

     Genesis 22:8. Abraham replied, “God Himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering.”

     Exodus 12 notes the Passover ritual. Each family must procure an unblemished lamb. The night of the Passover the lamb was to be eaten.

     Exodus 16:15: But Moses told them, “This is the bread which the Lord has given you to eat” in regard to the manna in the desert on the way to the promised land.

     In Psalm 110:4. The Lord has sworn, and he will not repent: You are a priest of the order of Melchisedec.

     My argument was that my church did not recognize the clear intent of Scripture. Given your response, you did not recognize it either. That was what drove me to search. That is why I read Luther, Calvin and more than I now remember. It is why I read a history of the Scripture. How did Scripture get to me? Now I have it, how am I to understand it? Acts 9:34-40 is a pretty accurate description of how it was to be seen. The apostle taught the Ethiopian by opening the Scripture (in this case the old testament) to him.

     When I read the synoptics on the Last Supper, I saw John’s gospel. When I read Paul’s note in 1 Cor 11, I saw the synoptics and John’s gospel. I saw something else as well. Jesus was not offering a bargain, He was stating a fact. “Take and eat, this is My Body.” And taking a cup, He gave thanks and gave it to them, saying, “All of you drink of this; for this is My Blood of the new covenant, which is being shed for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

     That appeared to me to be no different than John 6:54. “Amen, amen, I say to you unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His Blood, you shall not have life within you. He who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has life everlasting, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

     He finished up by noting, “Does this scandalize you?”

     1st Corinthians 11 finds Paul correcting people who unworthily take communion. He notes “therefore whoever eats this bread or takes this cup unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” Such a person eats and drinks judgment to himself. Paul is describing blasphemy.

     The thrust of scripture from Genesis and Exodus into the Psalm is that something stupendous is happening. There are bits and pieces of a not yet complete picture. Hints of something wondrous and amazing beyond comprehension. Those things involve a priest, a meal of bread and wine, a Passover meal of an unblemished lamb which is intended to be eaten, and manna – food for a journey to the promised land. They are the frame of the picture for a Priest, a Passover of the unblemished Lamb of God Who is the meal of Bread and Wine intended to be consumed which is the supernatural food for the journey to the supernatural Promised Land. Body and blood, soul and divinity is the Catholic description of that Meal. It meets the criteria set up by scripture but then the ultimate Author of scripture is Himself fulfilling what He moved His apostles and prophets to write so it should fulfill that criteria.

     Tim’s attempt to determine what criterion needs to be determined to know which texts comprise the Bible is exemplified above. What we are required to understand is “wrong criterion, wrong interpretation.”

     Nicolai Grundtvig, a Swedish Lutheran theologian (1783-1872) wrote that scripture is not the foundation of faith. “I have discovered a truth; we do not discover the Church in Scripture, we discover the Scripture in the Church.” What Grundtvig discovered was Lutheranism in the Scripture. (Two Centuries of Ecumenism, George Tavard, page 27)

     But what did Luther discover? Luther wanted to lose James because James contravened Luther’s position on faith (which was found not only denying good works but also found purchase in Luther’s idea of communion involving the faith of the congregation, aka consubstantiation). Since we are looking at the who behind the canon, Luther wanted to kill off a couple of books. James who notes that faith without works is dead, ran contrary to Luther’s interpretation of Paul who wrote “you are saved by faith through grace, and not by works lest any man boast.” Luther would have dumped James ‘epistle of straw’ if he could have gotten away with it as well as the apocalypse.

     The beginning of this article is much more proficient on Calvin than I will ever be. It stands on its own.

     What I wrote was quite clear. My intent was to note that my previous denomination was adversarial in regard to large swathes of scripture. In fairness, they were the offshoot of an offshoot of an offshoot and had adopted ideas like the 66-book bible from others. That particular issue of how they got the 66-book bible did not vex them into any kind of examination of “why” or “how” they got it. They loved Luther as long as they were not required to follow him in any meaningful way.

     What passes for the “real presence” in other churches was something I was aware of. My Episcopal friends are able to see the Eucharist as a symbol or as the real presence, with no definition of what either “real” or “presence” means. It means whatever they decide it means.

     A Presbyterian with whom I was in a bible study would prepare himself for communion. He saw it as a symbol, which would appear to be something different than how Calvin saw it.

     However, the authority to confect the sacrament was given to the same people who determined the canon. I read about the Pentecost after the Ascension, and about the rabbis in 99AD. I understood who had the authority (and responsibility) to determine the canon and who did not. I understand that there were both very good books or letters and very bad books or letters which were reviewed. Many good items were rejected not due to content but due to authorship. The people Jesus entrusted with the authority used it, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to determine the canon of the Church. No burning bosoms, no individual inspiration of the Holy Spirit confirming “my” decision. No new books of scripture, ala the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrines and Covenants, etc.

     While I came from a different location than the principals of this site, we arrived at a common destination and we were all able to recognize it as the destination we were looking for.

     You asked what hermeneutic rule requires that Christ’s words in the particular passages I referred to must be taken literally? I am a son of the Church that Jesus founded on the apostles. Those whose task it is to interpret scripture properly have the obligation of bringing me the Truth which the Holy Spirit Who guides the Church brings to light. In the case of the Eucharist, I arrived at the right interpretation and discovered those whose job it is to get specific had done so long before I ever was graced to handle the answer to that question, and they did it both better and more fully than me. (It was part of de-poping myself. I no longer had to be the authority for all things in and of Christ. Truthfully, it was never my job in the first place, or the second place. I only had to agree and, moved by grace, put it into practice.)

     Did I see that where I was? A bit here and there. Yet the big things were obscured or avoided, ala the Eucharist and the value of human life made in God’s image and likeness.

     Augustine reminds us that ubi Petri, ibi ecclesiam (where Peter is, there is the Church). Peter is in Rome. Me too. Hard row to get there. Worth everything.

233. Lojahw July 5th, 2010 9:02 pm :

     Dear Devin,
     You don’t seem to understand the difference between a codex and a canon. The codices you refer to are collections of Judeo-Christian literature, and every codex included different books. Moreover, no codex prior to Augustine included all of 44 of the books in his canon; nor did any codex within centuries after Augustine conform exactly to his canon. A canon is a “rule” that defines a list of books of “like authority.” The canons of the church fathers were lists of books that they considered divinely authoritative for the church; and none one of the canons before Augustine came even close to listing 44 books. Have you forgotten that Luther’s Bible included all the books listed by the Council of Trent, but Luther identified only 66 of them as “canonical”? A collection does not define a canon, rather, the canon defines how one views the books in any given collection.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

234. Lojahw July 5th, 2010 9:04 pm :

     Dear Tom,
     From your post, it appears that we are simply not able to communicate with each other. You assert that the any use of human judgment with respect to the canon amounts to exercising power over Scripture; I explained why I don’t think that’s true and I’ve asked in what way does human judgment exercise authority over Scripture in this case? It doesn’t look like we’ve made any progress understanding each other.

     Your response to my point about equivocation is just an example of how we are talking past each other.

     It is interesting that you think the canon (i.e., scope) of Scripture is not Scripture.

     I agree that the canon can refer to both the scope/extent and the substance of Scripture, but scope is not the same as substance. Rather than prolong the frustration between us, I’ll bow out.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

235. Casey Guy July 20th, 2010 1:16 am :

     Hi Tom,

     At the end of section D you write, “Either the Church has authority to reach binding doctrinal conclusions, such as the extent of the canon, or it lacks this authority across the board, and thus cannot make any binding determination on the canon.” Are you summarizing Ridderbos’ line of thinking with this statement and if so, in what sense is it a ‘logical error’?

     Thanks

236. Tom Brown July 20th, 2010 1:47 am :

     Dear Casey,

     Thank you for reading and commenting.

     I think the conclusion I reached is reachable directly from Ridderbos’s writing on this topic; he was not an advocate of the position I critiqued in subsection D. To understand better the dichotomy you quoted, consider a little more this statement I also made:

     “It would be ad hoc to claim that the “church” infallibly established the canon through widespread acceptance while otherwise being unable to arrive at any infallible conclusions, without a principled basis for affirming infallibility in the one case and denying it in all others.”

     Any possibilities besides the dichotomy I gave would be subject to this ad hoc criticism. I’m curious, is this a theory for the canon for which you would advocate, and if so, do you believe that my dichotomy was false?

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

237. Casey Guy July 21st, 2010 8:37 am :

     Hi Tom,

     Thanks for the clarification. I think your dichotomy is valid; I was just having some difficulty following your argument. Personally, I would place myself in the same camp as St. Augustine as one induced by the authority of the Church to believe the Gospel.

     Great article.

238. Online Content Review: Sola Scriptura « DriscollWatch September 8th, 2010 4:49 pm :

     […] “By what criterion do we know which texts comprise the Bible?” I encourage you to read this wonderful article at Called to Communion. It is quite long but does a thorough job of explaining the problem and how […]

239. Apocrypha - Christian Forums December 4th, 2010 3:24 pm :

     […] […]

240. How John Calving Made me a Catholic -by Dr. David Anders - Page 3 - Christian Forums December 6th, 2010 1:50 pm :

     […] if the authority of the Catholic Church had not induced me to do so." (contra. ep fund. V, 6). The Canon Question | Called to Communion So all are loved, yes, but all should come home to the catholic church which is firmly rooted in […]

241. Mark Morales January 14th, 2011 6:46 pm :

     Can’t one be warranted in the correctness in the Canon by mere religious experience plus the use of reason.

     First part, religious experience. For example, I have prayed to the God of the Bible and religious experience confirms that the God I just prayed to has in fact responded to my prayers. Then, as a result of this religious experience, I am inclined to think that there is something special about this book. In fact, I think that this book must be connected with the One True God. I eventually think that this book is divinely inspired.

     Second part, I use reason. Then I hear the objection that other religions also use subjective experience as a basis for asserting the divine quality of their text. I know that I too am using this basis, but it doesn’t seem like an altogether bad reason for such a belief. However, I reasonably come to think that subjective experience cannot be the only basis- so I use my reason to assess the claims of the Christian religion versus the claims of other religions. Reasons leads me to the Christian religion. Therefore, I stick with my beliefs about the Bible.

     I am not Catholic, but I do consider myself a Christian. Therefore, I hold no view of an infallible teaching authority. I am asked why I believe in the correctness of the Canon when historically it had to be decided upon by the Church, and the decision could be fallible since the Church (on my view) is fallible in it’s own teaching capacity. And my reply would be: I believe in the correctness of the Canon for reasons that do not make reference to an infallible teaching authority- like religious experience (which led me to believe that the source of this book was in fact divine) and the use of reason (which affirmed my previous belief, and my philosophical assessment of the claims of other religions which showed me that I could not in good conscience believe them). Is there reason to think that these two claims would not be enough to warrant belief in the correctness of the Canon?

     I am actually a Catholic, and I think that there are biblical reasons for thinking that God in fact established One True Church with the ability to teach infallibly (the Roman Catholic Church), and Biblical reasons for thinking that Sola Scriptura is false (the falsity of Sola Scriptura would follow from the truth of God’s having established One True Church with an infallible teaching magisterial authority). . However, the reasons/objections being discussed here and in the other forums seem to be largely philosophical ones, and I have not yet found them to be very convincing- though this might be just because I do not understand them (which I’m okay with, and welcome correction of my understanding).

     Best,
     Mark

242. Grudem on the Canon: Say It Ain’t So! « Arthad's Blog March 3rd, 2011 11:16 pm :

     […] Called to Communion: The Canon Question, by Tom Brown […]

243. Brent March 15th, 2011 12:01 pm :

     Mark (#241)

     To make sure I’m understanding you correctly, you are saying (with some questions for clarification):

     Religious experience can lead me to the truth of the Bible (Protestant/Catholic)?

     Reason can get you to the truth of Christianity versus other religions?

     At this point I am going off of experience and reason. Can I conclude that all Muslims, Jews, and Buddhist either (1) lack the appropriate religious experience or (2) are be unreasonable?

     At this point, I am not holding to a belief in the Canon but a belief in God (in general–which motivates my prayer to the “God” of the Bible to begin with) Jesus Christ found in the Scriptures, and believe that it is more reasonable to believe these things than any other faith.

     Okay, that seems all right (even despite my question about other faiths). However, what I don’t have is any basis qua canons to distinguish between various versions of the Canon. It would not be within reason to argue that let’s say my Gideon’s N.T. is all I need because that is the book I was holding when I was praying (that book will reference other books that are not found in it). What if, per accidens, I was holding a Jehovah’s Witness Bible and read only a passage in the N.T. (like St. Augustine’s “tolle, lege“). It also doesn’t answer the question regarding the books of the Bible in the Catholic O.T. versus Protestant O.T. Lastly, this method would only work post-canon, but how does this work for a 1-4th century Christian?

     No, once I’ve established the two premises you have put forth, I then need to determine how I can determine which canon is correct. I could hold each canon and pray and ask God, “Tell me which one is it?”, but that doesn’t seem reasonable. In fact, as I look carefully at the way my Bible is put together, I notice that there is an organizational structure that is extrinsic to the text itself. In other words, the chapters, versus, and order of the books have a pedagogical purpose. Who is doing that? Hmmmm….
     This query will inevitably lead me into a study of history, and also a careful reading of the Bible itself (just in case it gives the answer). Besides the “table of contents”, I see no evidence in the text that the Scripture references the Canon specifically. So, I have to find out where it came from. I do notice in Scripture the establishment of a Church, and witness the Church pronouncing what the canon is.

     At this point, I can either (1) trust the Church and implicitly or explicitly accept her teaching authority to do so or (2) I can reject her authority and accept the canon ad hoc, but I stated that I wanted to be guided by reason so (2) is untenable. The other option would be to find another canon defined by another church, but this could lead me back to reasonably exclude their claims (Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Protestant canon) an ahistorical or incoherent grounds. Which leaves me with (1).

244. Mark March 15th, 2011 12:39 pm :

     “Religious experience can lead me to the truth of the Bible (Protestant/Catholic)?”- no, what I’m saying is this, praying to the God of the Bible (God as described in the Bible) resulted in a religious experience. This religious experience loosely leads me to thinking that there is something really special about this book- afterall, If the God I prayed to (the one described in the Bible) really did respond to me, then I must at least think that the God that this book talks about actually exists, and that this book probably correctly describes Him. So, I think that these books are inspired, and have no warranted attitude about the possibility of other inspired books, suppose I have not thought about it until I came onto CTC.

     “Reason can get you to the truth of Christianity versus other religions?”- No, but reason can probably show some other religions to be false, just because they make claims which can be shown false by the use of reason. Christianity does not propose anything which can be shown false by use of reason.

     But, then somebody asks me why I believe that these books are inspired, and I say what I have just said above. But then they ask, ‘but it was decided by persons at some point, and you think these persons are fallible right?’. I’ll say yes, and then he’ll say, ‘well then, there might be more inspired books. And I’ll say sure, ‘I never said I couldn’t be wrong, I just said that I have reason to believe that these books are inspired’. And when you ask me why I believe that ‘these’ books are inspired, I will re-explain the religous experience/reason scenario. BUT then you will ask for some strong basis for discriminating inspired from non-inspired, and I will remind you that I have done no such discrimination. Again, I never heard such challenges until just now, so I have something like a ‘privelege of the naive starting position’.

     [I am being a bit loose here, and am not proposing a sort of deductive reasoning. I think I am describing something closer to inferential warrant. ]

     MAYBE what I have said so far has the strange consequence of making it look like, form what I have said so far, that a person will have warrant for believing in the inspiration of whatever ‘first collection’ of books they happen to run into. And maybe that’s a reason for thinking that this is the wrong way to go about it, but I am just trying to follow my philosophical conscience here, and that is why I am asking honest questions. There are probably lots of other considerations bearing on this issue that I don’t understand, on the epistemological situation and what not, and I am open to discussing them.

     ALSO, maybe the introduction of the historical situation introduces a rational duty on me to decide between versions of collections of books. This actually looks plausible, but I’m not quite sure how to spell it out. Maybe someone on here might help get this philosophical discussion going.

     Best,
     Mark

245. Brent March 15th, 2011 2:38 pm :

     Mark,

     Thanks for your comments:

     Are you arguing for a type of invincible ignorance for a belief in the canon of books I happen to be holding when I have (1) a religious experience and (2) reason confirms that experience? That’s fine, but I think you are describing a position that becomes less invincible as time goes on. In fact, it sounds a lot like the issues in the early church where churches had parts of the canon or even non-canonical texts (1 Clement) which necessitated the Church action in closing and defining the canon.

     I would imagine in (2), there would be some analysis of the historical claims of Christianity (birth of Christ, death, resurrection, etc.) This would inevitably lead to questions about the nature of the Bible itself in comparing it to the Koran, Buddhist texts, etc. Your invincible ignorance seems less plausible from what we might expect as a reasonable analysis of the claims of Christianity would entail in (2). To which you said,

     ALSO, maybe the introduction of the historical situation introduces a rational duty on me to decide between versions of collections of books.

     Given that you are grounding your belief in the activities in (2) it would seem highly unlikely that you would not encounter any evidence that would introduce a “rational duty” on your part to decide between version of the canon.

     God bless.

246. Mark March 16th, 2011 5:25 pm :

     Brent,

     I don’t think (2) would necessarily require any special sort of serous thinking about the nature of the Bible. If I found these books, and they talked about a God who saves, and I prayed, and had the religious experience, then wouldn’t I be justified in just believing that these books were divinely inspired- this seems reasonable.

     If by , ‘becomes less invincible as time goes on’, you mean that the person is going to have some rational duty to compare versions of the Canon once they are more ‘informed’ about the historical situation (the existence of competing claims about which books are inspired/uninspired), then I think I agree. After being ‘informed’, to just go ahead and choose to stick with the first collection they happened to run into without considering the possibility that theirs is wrong, seems unreasonable.

     However, this person would not be irrational in sticking with their Canon (nor did you say they would be), if they stick with their Canon simply because they find no reason to stick with any other. Afterall it was this set of books (and not that set) which led to this religious experience. It’s not as though one can return to the pre-conversion state and start all over.

     The important thing I wanted to point out was this: it looks like I have inferrential warrant for belief that this set of books is divinely inspired, and I have it without some Canon theory. HOWEVER, I think that this warrant is seriously changed when the person becomes ‘informed’ of the historical situation as I said above.

     I just wanted to bring some clarity to the philosophical aspects of this discussion.

     Best,
     Mark

247. Brent March 17th, 2011 6:38 am :

     Mark,

     I had noticed your question/suggestion here had gone unnoticed, and I thought it was an interesting position. Since your position is philosophical, examining the argument closely is important. You originally said,

     However, I reasonably come to think that subjective experience cannot be the only basis- so I use my reason to assess the claims of the Christian religion versus the claims of other religions. Reasons leads me to the Christian religion.

     I’m still unclear as to what this looks like. Would you mind clarifying? If you aren’t interested in discussing this further that is fine, but I thought it would be interesting, relevant to the thread, and maybe helpful to someone who has struggled with the same question/issue and reads through the comments.

     Peace

248. Mark March 17th, 2011 3:10 pm :

     Brent,

     (Re: 247)

     I just thought that if we were going to point out the necessity of some Canon theory, then we should point out the context where it would be required. What I have tried to show is that it doesn’t necessarily come up for anybody who believes that some set of books is divinely inspired- b/c the lack of some propositional attitude about a Canon theory does not make it the case that they have no inferential warrant for believing that some set of books is divinely inspired. And believing that some set of books is divinely inspired doesn’t count as a Canon theory in any robust sense, I think.

     Example:
     The inferential warrant would have two sources, religious experience and use of reason. There are probably a thousand ways this could go, but let’s just imagine how it might go. Take Mark, who is a protestant (I am actually Roman Catholic). Mark hears about these books that alot of people think are divinely inspired. Somebody gives him a copy of these books (he get’s the Protestant set of books), he reads them, and then he decides to pray to Jesus, whom the book says is God. Suppose he has joy and peace in his soul that has no natural cause- it is supernaturally caused. From this he thinks, ‘wow, God just totally responded to my prayers. I bet there is something right about these books- afterall, I prayed to Jesus, and I got a response. So Jesus is probably God just as these books say He is. Wait a minute…what if these books are partially right. Well, actually no, that doesn’t seem right…well, it’s not the case that I have supernatural reason to doubt the truth of these books (religious experience only works in their favor), but what about natural reasons to doubt these books. Do these books make any claims that are contrary to reason. (Mark does some studying apologetics) O look, actually the Bible is totally in line with rational thinking, and actually rationality sort of points me toward Christianity. (Also, mark has seen that some other religions seem to propose things which reason has shown to be false). Good rational study of the human condition actually makes it look like Christianity has the right sorts of answers to the most important questions in life, and it fuflills all the deepest desires that man has always had.

     Analysis:
     Now at the end of all this, there is Mark, and he has these beliefs. One of those beliefs is that this set of books is divinely inspired. He has this belief, and he does not have any belief about Canon theories. This person would have knowledge that this set of books is divinely inspired. Afterall he is justified. He does believe it. And it is true, these books ARE divinely inspired. (imagine for the moment that he has not robust irrevocable opinion about the inspiration of some other books). So it looks like he has knowledge of the divine inspiration of books without having any Canon theory.

     Example 2:
     Now suppose that instead, he had initially run into the Catholic Canon (the full canon, I believe). It seems that he would have the same sort of warrant, and the same sort of knowledge. BUT, the content of his warrant would be different and of his knowledge would be different, BECAUSE there would be more books.

     The Question:
     I think that the important question is this: at which point does one need a Canon theory? When does one become subject to some rational duty to compare versions of the Canon. And how exactly does this work out? Is it okay if I just stick with my version, if I find no positive support for your Canon? After all, it was this set of books, and not that one, which led to my religious experience. I said earlier that this might give us the ‘strange’ consequence of making it the case that each person should go with (at least initially) the first version of the Canon they happen to run into. And that might be a reason for rejecting it, but that is worth discussing in some detail.

     Best,
     Mark

249. Michael Liccione March 17th, 2011 6:53 pm :

     Mark:

     You write:

     Now at the end of all this, there is Mark, and he has these beliefs. One of those beliefs is that this set of books is divinely inspired. He has this belief, and he does not have any belief about Canon theories. This person would have knowledge that this set of books is divinely inspired. Afterall he is justified. He does believe it. And it is true, these books ARE divinely inspired. (imagine for the moment that he has not robust irrevocable opinion about the inspiration of some other books). So it looks like he has knowledge of the divine inspiration of books without having any Canon theory.

     If one defines ‘knowledge’ as ‘justified true belief’ and leaves things at that, your analysis is sound enough. But as I’m sure you know, that definition runs into Gettier problems. A strong criterion of justification is needed to “de-gettierize” the definition of knowledge as justified true belief.

     Thus, e.g., I define ‘knowledge’ as believing a true factual statement, where a TFS is a statement P it would be unreasonable to deny, because there is a reliable method M for verifying P, and M has been used (by somebody) to verify P. By that definition of knowledge, your hypothetical Mark can have a well-founded opinion that the Protestant canon is what conservative Protestants say it is, but not knowledge to that effect. That’s because there is no consensual method in revealed theology, as distinct from the formal and empirical sciences, for distinguishing between well-founded opinions and articles of faith. On my account, the latter would indeed be truths about what the apostolic deposit of faith contains, but they can only qualify as knowledge of said deposit if their verification by a reliable M consists in their backing by infallible ecclesial authority. Even then, their truth in themselves, as distinct from their truly expressing the apostolic deposit, can only be apprehended by the assent of faith, not of knowledge.

     Best,
     Mike

250. Mark March 17th, 2011 7:16 pm :

     Mike,
     (Re: 249)

     I know about the Gettier problems, I definitely should have been careful about mentioning knowledge. You’re formulation of knowledge is interesting, and I will have to do some thinking about it, but maybe I can try and understand some of your comments without totally understanding that theory. You’re short paragraph is a bit loaded, so let me try and understand.

     “That’s because there is no consensual method in revealed theology, as distinct from the formal and empirical sciences, for distinguishing between well-founded opinions and articles of faith.

     Firstly, what do you mean when you say- there is no consensual method in revealed theology for distinguishing between well-founded opinions and articles of faith. The distinction between ‘well-founded opinions’ and ‘articles of faith’, is one I’m not sure how to cash out for my hypothetical Mark example. How it’s cashed out for someone in his position might be different from, what someone else means by those terms and who does not have a basically protestant paradigm. For example, for Mark, it might mean the difference between things which are obviously deducible from Scripture and things which can be reasonably inferred.

     “On my account, the latter would indeed be truths about what the apostolic deposit of faith contains, but they can only qualify as knowledge of said deposit if their verification by a reliable M consists in their backing by infallible ecclesial authority.”

     I’m not sure what the ‘latter’ is. I’m not exactly sure why ‘backing by an infallible ecclesial authority’ should be a requirement for P’s being a suitable candidate for the content of knowledge (in revealed religious truths).

     “Even then, their truth in themselves, as distinct from their truly expressing the apostolic deposit, can only be apprehended by the assent of faith, not of knowledge.

     I just don’t know what this means, and it’s mostly a fault of my having not read the Grammar of Assent. I actually do plan on reading GOA eventually, and would love to do some coursework. I am studying philosophy at UCLA, and graduate this year. I may do an M.A. at CUA in the future, so maybe I will have the chance to studying GOA under a scholar, which would be awesome.

     Best,
     Mark

251. Brent March 17th, 2011 8:33 pm :

     Mark,

     Thanks for the examples:

     (Mark does some studying apologetics) O look, actually the Bible is totally in line with rational thinking, and actually rationality sort of points me toward Christianity….

     What does he do here? Check the internet? To consider the “context” to have some type of “inferential warrant for believing that some set of books is divinely inspired” we probably should tease out the context more. Right?

     After all, it was this set of books, and not that one, which led to my religious experience.

     I grew up Protestant, low-church. This was sort of our implicit mindset. But, it wasn’t because we did (1) and (2) in #245, only (1).

     That aside, to Mike’s point, even if one were simply studying the canon as a historical question (pretending that I’m a disinterested atheist in the religious content), one would come to the conclusion that the decision has come down to a number of claimant authorities (Mormon, Catholic, Reformed, etc.). This would evidence the lack of consensus in theology of a method for distinguishing between well-founded opinions and articles of faith; and the disinterested atheist may use a historical method for determining the canon which might reduce it significantly because of some questions about Hebrews, II & III John and others. In this case, we might have the historian’s canon, but we wouldn’t have the Christian canon. To get that, and an article of faith (we believe this Bible to be the Bible and not that one) would require an infallible ecclesial authority (even if it were just in that one act of acting). Which is why the “canon question” causes many protestants to begin considering the CC.

     Regards

252. Michael Liccione March 18th, 2011 6:30 am :

     Mark (#252):

     You wrote:

     The distinction between ‘well-founded opinions’ and ‘articles of faith’, is one I’m not sure how to cash out for my hypothetical Mark example. How it’s cashed out for someone in his position might be different from, what someone else means by those terms and who does not have a basically protestant paradigm. For example, for Mark, it might mean the difference between things which are obviously deducible from Scripture and things which can be reasonably inferred.

     It’s important to “cash out” the concepts of opinion, knowledge, and faith consensually in order to assess competing theological IPs without begging the question. If we can’t do that, then we are forced to conclude not only that there is no theologically neutral interpretation of the relevant dataset, but also that there is no non-question-begging way to assess theological IPs against each other. So before I unpack the above-cited concepts further, I need to know what you think about that.

     Best,
     Mike

253. Mark March 18th, 2011 1:25 pm :

     Mike,

     (Re252)

     “It’s important to “cash out” the concepts of opinion, knowledge, and faith consensually in order to assess competing theological IPs without begging the question. If we can’t do that, then we are forced to conclude not only that there is no theologically neutral interpretation of the relevant dataset, but also that there is no non-question-begging way to assess theological IPs against each other.”

     I’m not exactly sure what you mean. I don’t know how setting up these concepts in a way that we can agree is necessary to compare IP’s in a non-question begging way. My remark was just that the phrase might have different weight within one paradigm than within the other. Maybe you can set them up in a way that people within both paradigms can agree on, and then go from there, that would be good I think.

     I originally questioned this distinction because the phrases were contained in the earlier sentence which began as, ‘That’s because…’. The sentence said that there was no consensual method in revealed theology for distinguishing between a (articles of faith) and b (well founded opinion). So what I am trying to find out is exactly what those two mean, and my concern was that those terms could perhaps be used in a way that doesn’t work-out on my view. Maybe one view of what those terms mean (maybe the correct view) won’t make sense under the set of assumptions that I’m currently working on in this ‘Mark example’.

     So, I’m not exactly sure what you might be setting out to do. You can either explain it again for me, or just go ahead and start it, and I’ll either 1) let you know if I’m catching on, or 2) let you know that I’m not.

     Best,
     Mark

254. Blogs to Follow Friday, Bryan Cross Eats Your Lunch Edition | St. Joseph's Vanguard May 13th, 2011 9:01 am :

     […] was still Protestant when the blog began, but subsequently he became Catholic. His article on the canon question is devastating. I invited Reformed Baptist apologist James White to try to rebut it, but he never […]

255. Dennis J. Reidy May 29th, 2011 7:14 pm :

     I didn’t read the entirety of the comments, but did anyone address the issue of the millions of people who, throughout history, were illiterate and therefore could not read the Bible? How could they determine the canon of Sacred Scripture?

     More importantly, to what authority could they resort when confronted with someone’s teaching that the canon consists of any specific number of books?

     Number two: Many in the Reformed tradition “accept Christ” at an early age. Are we to believe that the Holy Ghost guides them into a correct understanding of what the canon consists of? How do they test whether prior generations “got it right”? Are they somehow less Christian than Protestant theologians?

256. Brent May 31st, 2011 11:40 am :

     Dennis,

     Very good comment. The Protestant epistemic situation seems to undoubtedly reduce to the “haves” and the “have nots”; the “illuminati” and those in the dark. Further, and a point which you draw out, it would seem evident that a Christian way of knowing the truth should/would work universally–any time and any place. That said, a sola scriptura position seems awfully difficult when (a) there is no Scripture available or (b) the canon has not been closed yet. I think it naturally forces one into a cessationist position because without a Church that has always existed from the beginning then one has to come up with an artificial “closing” of that Church which was gifted to write the canon to begin with. Thus, you close the canon by a kind of generational accident not through any ecclesial process, and the result is the conclusion you wanted from the beginning (a supremely begging the question kind of movement).

     While this works as an argument, I think it is disingenuous to history and ironically extra-biblical which seems to undermine the premise of that whole sola thingamagigger…

257. Lojahw June 1st, 2011 5:27 pm :

     Dear Dennis,
     If Jesus said something is Scripture, would you believe it? Does it make a difference whether you read it yourself or if you hear someone else read what He said? How about if one of Jesus’ apostles called certain books Scripture? Would you believe him? What if you listened to a reading of one of the prophets who said, “Thus says the Lord”? It would be appropriate for you to verify that such books were authentic, and that they reflect the character of God. (BTW: sola scriptura encourages the use of “ordinary means” to learn about the faith, which implies normal means of inquiry).

     In the case of the Old Testament, it would be appropriate to ask the Jews (the original recipients) if they considered these books to be authentic and normative (canonical). In the case of the New Testament, it would be appropriate to ask those who came after the apostles if they considered these books to be authentic and normative. As a result, if you are open to the Holy Spirit, you would accept the 66 books of the Bible as canonical.

     For example, one who reads or hears Jesus quote the words of “the prophet Daniel” in Matthew 24 should assume that the book of Daniel is canonical. Knowing what the book of Daniel says (whether by reading it or hearing it read), you would learn that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of Babylonia, ruling from Babylon. Because Jesus treated Daniel’s book as normative, you trust that Daniel told the truth. Suppose you then hear someone read the book of Judith. What would you think when that book calls Nebuchadnezzar the king of Assyria, who ruled from Nineveh? Which book is telling the truth? The book of Daniel or the book of Judith?

     Did the Jews ever consider Judith to be canonical? No. Why consider it to be canonical when the people who wrote it do not? Now, suppose you heard that Augustine said the way to find out if a book is canonical is to have the churches vote, and whichever books had the most votes (and/or the votes of the most prestigious Churches) were thereby considered canonical? But when would such a vote take place? If the vote took place before Augustine’s time, Judith wouldn’t make it; yet it did at the 16th century at the Council of Trent. Does a vote determine whether God inspired a book? I don’t think so.

     Canonicity must be recognized as proceeding from God, who is Truth. Whatever is false (including pseudonymous books claiming to be written by famous men such as Solomon) cannot be from God. Therefore, whoever claims such books are canonical has failed to recognize what is from God and what is from men. (That’s not to say there is no value in any books other than the Bible; to the contrary, there is much to be learned from them – but they fall short of the high standard of divinely inspired Scripture.)

     Re: your question about those who come to Christ at a young age. Why must such children “have a correct understanding of what the canon consists of?” As they mature they will be able to learn more about the “whole counsel of God” and what is expected of Jesus’ disciples, but what did the apostle Paul say one must do to be saved? “Believe in the Lord Jesus … and you shall be saved.” As even your catechism teaches, the fundamentals of the faith are covered in the brief baptismal creed.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

258. Shawn C. Madden June 13th, 2011 2:48 pm :

     Called to Communion, the Canon Question

     First let’s dismiss the erroneous information.

     Jamnia. There was no council at Jamnia that decided the Jewish canon around A.D. 100. Even the Jerome Biblical Commentary, v. 2, 522 notes that, “It has been proposed that about 90-100 the council of the rabbis at Jamnia settled once and for all time the definitive list of inspired books, namely, ‘the Palestinian canon,’ consisting of the books now called protocanonical. Recently this thesis has been subjected to much-needed criticism (J.P. Lewis, JBR 32 [1964] 125-32) . . . Although [some Christian authors seem to think in terms of a formal church council at Jamnia, there was no formal ‘council of Jamnia.’”

     Whenever someone does discuss the ‘Septuagint’ they need to define it. The original translation of 250 B.C. was just the Torah—the other books were translated later so strictly speaking the ‘Septuagint-LXX’ is the Torah alone. On the other end, the most popular modern edition of the Septuagint is Rahlfs and contains more than the books found in modern Catholic Bibles, i.e., 3-4 Maccabees and the apocryphal (even by Catholic definitions) Esdra. Furthermore, the great manuscripts of the Greek Bible, Vaticanus, Sinaiaticus, and Alexadrinus, differ from each other and from modern Catholic bibles.

     But, more to the point, it is often implied that the LXX (sans definition) was the Bible of the Greek speaking Jews, the Hellenistic Jews. Your site implies that strongly. But, there was never a Jewish collection known as the Septuagint unless you limit that to the Torah, as mentioned above. There was no collection or Jewish canon that matches today’s Catholic Old Testament. H. B. Swete (An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 24) notes that “The writer of the prologue to Sirach . . . uses words which imply that ‘the Law, the Prophets, and the rest of the books’ were current in translation.” Martin Hengel has noted in his The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Problem of its Canon, 20, “The assumption of an ‘Alexandrian canon’ that the early church adopted without deliberation and to a degree seamlessly is an eighteenth- and nineteenth-century hypothesis that has proved to be a wrong turning.” Robert Beckwith’s monumental work (The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and its background in Early Judaism), 382 notes, “. . . manuscripts of anything like the capacity of Codex Alexandrinus were not used in the first centuries of the Christian era, and since, in the second century AD, the Jews seem largely to have discarded the Septuagint in favour of revisions or translations more usable in their controversy with the church (notably Aquila’s translation), there can be no real doubt that the comprehensive codices of the Septuagint, which start appearing in the fourth century AD, are all of Christian origin.”

     But now, let’s test the hypotheses concerning the canon question and the two approaches.

     If I understand your contention correctly (correct me if I am wrong), the Protestant position fails because, being based on the theological foundation of sola scriptura, if a canon of Scripture is not found in Scripture then you have an automatic failure of the system.

     Now, given that the canon that is most under debate is the OT/TNK canon the question is then, do the NT writers anywhere indicate what the TNK canon is? And, to keep it out of the sola scriptura question, we will assume that the Gospels are an accurate reflection of apostolic oral teaching. In Matthew 23.35 Jesus notes, “so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous bloodshed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.” The Jerome Biblical Commentary notes that the mentioning of Zechariah is from 2 Chronicles 24.20-22, and “is the last victim of murder in the Hebr Bible, in which the books of Chronicles stands last.” This excludes the books of Maccabees and the murders found in there. Luke 24.44 gives the extent of the canon as “the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.” Beckwith, along with most scholars, understands ‘Psalms’ as a shorthand for the third division of the Jewish canon. A question could arise then is there any Jewish writers at this time (or earlier) that show this same canonical arrangement and limit. There are in fact three. The earliest is Jesus, son of Sirach, in the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus, refers to “the law and the prophets and the other books of our fathers.” There has been a discussion as to whether or not ‘the other books’ was a closed canon but Beckwith points out that the son of Sirach made of point of distinguishing his grandfather’s work from the three divisions that have been recognized as authoritative (378). Philo, a Hellenistic first century Jewish philosopher, in his De Vita Contemplativa refers to “(the) Laws, and (the) Oracles given by inspiration through (the) prophets, and (the) hymns, and the other books whereby knowledge and piety are increased and completed.” Here again is the threefold division of the Hebrew Bible. He repeats the phrase of the son of Sirach, appending to Hymns ‘the other books.’ Another first century Jewish writer, Josephus, the historian, writes in his Contra Apion that “For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from, and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life.” Notice a few things here. He has the same threefold division as the son of Sirach, Philo, and Luke. Like Philo he gives the head of the third division the term ‘hymns’, a synonym for Psalms, and, like Philo, he note similarly that they are “whereby knowledge and piety are increased and completed.” Note also that Josephus gives a definite number as to the extent of the canon. Jerome and Origen both note that the number is related to the Hebrew alphabet with obvious combinations. Eusibius cites Josephus also. Most scholars identify with the Psalms, the “precepts for the conduct of human life” as Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes and Proverbs. That would fit Philo’s ordering and nomenclature and so too the son of Sirach’s. Notice also that in Josephus’s ordering the book of Daniel is in the Prophets, as per Matthew 24.15. This would leave Chronicles, not the last book of the whole corpus, but rather of the Prophets, indicating that Jesus’s statement in Matthew 23.35 is not meant to cover the whole of the TNK but rather the historical section as its seems that Josephus, Philo, the son of Sirach, and Jesus have the same canon and ordering in mind.

     So, here we have the ‘teachings of the apostles (written as an accurate reflection of an oral tradition)’ telling very clearly the extent and contents of the TNK. And the teaching is given without reference to a council or a definitive proclamation. The canon at the time of Sirach, Philo, Jesus, and Josephus was known, recognized, accepted by all of Judaism without the felt need to refer to an authoritative pronouncement.

     That leaves the NT question then unsettled. At least to an extent. Again, if the NT is an accurate reflection of authentic apostolic teaching then in 2 Peter we have an endorsement of Paul’s writings by Peter.

     But there is the larger question that should be addressed before the Catholic position is discussed as it bears on it directly. It goes to the definition of εκκλεσια. Does that word pertain exclusively to an authoritative priestly hierarchy to which others give unquestioning obedience in all decisions or does that word pertain to all of those who have faith in God in the provision that he made through Jesus and his sacrifice on the cross? Acts 15 indicates that the decision was that of the apostles, the elders, and the whole church. Now, before you try to point out to me the source of the English word ‘priest’ being from ‘presbyter’ you yourselves need to set forth your own understanding of the difference between ‘πρεσβυτερος’ and ‘ιεριυς’. Me, I suggest you use the Greek words transliterated. As for my definitions, a πρεσβυτερος should be translated into English with ‘elder’ and ιερευς should be translated with ‘priest.’ As you probably well know, those two Greek words get interchanged illegitimately in the Douay-Rheims (James 5.14 for instance). How does the Latin translate the Greek words, one might ask? One might also ask if a πρεσβυτερος was not also always a ιερευς, but then, why would the NT writers distinguish the two? Which of those two has a sacerdotal office and which does not?

     With that distinction in mind I would make the argument that the early church, like the Jews at the time of Jesus, came to recognize (with noted discussion or disagreements) what was text inspired by God. This was a general, wide spread agreement. Disagreements were minor and resolved by the wider discussion and recognition—not unlike what we find with Jesus and the other Jews of his day. In that vein the Catechism uses the word ‘discern’ (discernere) and it was by ‘the apostolic Tradition’ which, I have shown, calls for the shorter canon. Trent uses the phrase the books ‘that are received by this Synod’ (qui ab ipsa Synodo suscipiuntu).

     Now my point on the Catholic position, that is, a church council has to authoritatively declare what is and what is not Scripture. Again, correct me if I understand incorrectly.

     By that argument then, the church was without Scriptures for either 400 years (local council decision—which, by the way, was in disagreement with another local council—Carthage vice Laodicea—or 1600 years, if you believe that a general council is necessary to make such a pronouncement. We would expect then nobody writing anything referencing ‘canonical’ books if the whole church understood that there could be none until someone in authority said that there were such books.

     I would suggest, taking an hint from Jesus in Matthew and Luke about Israel’s acceptance of the TNK canon, that the whole church came to recognize what books were NT Scripture (Jesus had already told them what the extent of the TNK was) early on and did not need nor rely on a authoritative council. A quick look at the index of the Ante-Nicene Fathers shows them quoting freely (yes, some disagreements) without thinking to wait for a council to decide for them what they could use. I myself note what the councils said but do not rely upon them to override a clear teaching of Jesus and the NT writers nor to say, ‘until now no one knew but now you have our authority to use these books.’

     In Christ
     Shawn

259. A Protestant Decimates Sola Scriptura - Christian Forums July 13th, 2011 5:22 pm :

     […] Scot's post and the upcoming book hit right at the heart of two major flaws in Protestantism: In order to trust the Bible you need to trust the Bible's origin. If you say the Catholic Church wasn't given the authority to define doctrines, then neither did she […]

260. Joe Heschmeyer July 22nd, 2011 9:57 am :

     Shawn,

     First off, I want to commend your thoughtful in this, and the charity with which you presented your view. I understand you to be making the following arguments (correct me if I’m wrong, or if there are ones which I missed):
     1. Many versions of the TNK used by Greek-speaking Jews varied from the Catholic Old Testament.
     2. The versions of the TNK which mirror the Catholic Old Testament are of Christian, not Jewish, origin.
     3. We can know which canon Jesus affirms because of His words in Matthew 23.35.
     4. Josephus, Philo, the son of Sirach, and Jesus have the same canon and ordering in mind.
     5. The canon at the time of Sirach, Philo, Jesus, and Josephus was known, recognized, accepted by all of Judaism without the felt need to refer to an authoritative pronouncement.
     6. “General widespread agreement” is how the Church derived Her canon.
     7. Catholics think that the Church must authoritatively confirm the canon for a canon to exist.
     8. The regional councils of Carthage and Laodicea disagree.
     9. The whole church came to recognize what books were NT Scripture (Jesus had already told them what the extent of the TNK was) early on and did not need nor rely on a authoritative council.

     If those are an accurate enumeration of your arguments, here are my responses:
     1. True. There was a lot of variation in the Jewish canon. This is one reason why your # 5 is false.

     2. True. This points to the fact that the early Christians were actually much clearer about the proper canon of Scripture than were the Hellenistic Jews.

     3. False. In Matthew 23:35, Jesus is condemning the Pharisees. In doing so, He’s using the Pharasiac Canon. But in the previous chapter, when He condemns the Sadducees in Matthew 22:23-33, He uses the Sadduccees’ canon. Specifically, He uses the Torah alone to prove the Resurrection (even though the Resurrection is much more easily proven from passages like Daniel 12:1-3, and 1 Samuel 28, and Psalm 16:9-10). That’s because that was the canon used by the Sadduccees. I talk about it on my own blog here: https://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/02/jesus-christ-and-old-testament-canon.html. If you’re looking for a confirmation of a particular canon, look to Acts 17:11, where St. Paul praises the Hellenistic Bereans for reading their Scriptures.

     4. False. The only thing that the passages you cite to have in common is that they all talk about the three-fold TNK ordering: Torah, Nevi’im, and Ketuvim. But every Book of the Catholic Old Testament is either Law (Torah), Prophets (Nevi’im), or Writings (Ketuvim). Both Catholics or Protestants could employ this three-fold ordering if they wanted to; neither do. So showing that the Jews classically put their Scriptures in these three groups doesn’t tell us what Books were in those groups. It’s true that for some Jews (like Josephus, and possibly Philo), the TNK included only the modern Protestant Bible. But this wasn’t the only TNK canon.

     5. False. If the Sadducees used the Pharisees’ canon, Jesus wouldn’t have dealt with them as He did. As you said in #1, there were multiple canons even amongst the Hellenists. There was nothing near canonical unanimity during Temple Judaism.

     6. Partially true. The sensus fidelium is certainly the earliest way we know the canon. But as you yourself noted in #8, the Christians didn’t completely agree. That said, it’s incredibly significant that not a single early Christian seems to have accepted the Protestant Old Testament. I go through a pretty full list of candidates here: https://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2009/10/protestantism-and-early-church-fathers.html

     7. False. The Church doesn’t create Truth, She recognizes It. So the Church simply affirmed the canon of Scripture which most people knew to be true once a vocal minority began to question it. Likewise, She did the same thing with the Trinity, once non-Trinitarian heresies became a threat. In both cases, the underlying belief (the canon of Scripture and the Trinity) were widely believed before the formal definition. And significantly, that canon of Scripture was the Catholic one.

     8. True. Regional councils aren’t infallible, and Laodicea was wrong. But Carthage was right, and significantly, accepted by Pope Damasus I, who commissioned Jerome to make versions of that canon accessible to the Latin-speaking populace.

     9. Sort-of true. Laodicea has the wrong New Testament canon, omitting Revelation. So there really was a need for papal intervention, which we got (see #8, above).

     Significantly, the Church didn’t decide the Old and New Testament canons separately. Both were handled as a unit — for example, in Canon 24 of the Council of Carthage. So I think it would be an error to say that we can take our Old Testament from one place (Jewish consensus, rejected by the Christians) and our New Testament from someplace else (Christian consensus). If Christian consensus is our guide, the Catholic Old Testament is the accurate one. If we’re going to ignore Christian consensus when we don’t like the answer, then let’s at least be honest about it.

     As an aside, this appeal to Christian consensus, to the sensus fidelium, is an appeal to an extra-Biblical Sacred Tradition, whether you acknowledge it or not. It’s an admission that for at least one critical doctrine (“which Books are in the Bible?”), your answer comes outside of the Bible Itself, from the early Christians.

     To summarize: the Jews at the time of Christ didn’t have an agreed upon canon; when there was a general Jewish consensus on the canon, that consensus was rejected by the early Christians; the Christians had a general consensus on the canon of Scripture, and it was the Catholic Bible; the Council of Carthage, Pope Damasus I, and the creation of a Church-wide Vulgate Bible all supported this conclusion. No one prior to the Reformers seems to have used the 66-Book Bible beloved by Protestants.

     God bless you,

     Joe.

261. Rene July 24th, 2011 1:56 am :

     Hi…I was trying to digest some of the material here especially the last comment in defense of the Catholic Canon. I think it is very good…however, I would like to point to the conclusion, namely the last paragraph…: “No one prior to the reformers seems to have used the 66-book…”etc…
     I was just “glancing” through some old “anglican books” and well you know sometimes like Bl. John Henry Newman…they seek both history and the Fathers and well find the well (!); anyways…this Anglican book written in the late 19th century cites several Fathers of the Church and some “quasi-” Fathers of the Church…[heck] even three doctors of the Church in support of the Anglican Thesis, namely that there was a time prior (not to the Reformers, but) to the Council of Carthage of the early fifth century that defended (almost exclusively) the Old Testament canon with the “twenty-two” books namely something like the “Protestant bible”. I just wanted to throw that out there responsibly since I do think that prior to an ecclesiastical statement by the Church in the early centuries there was a consciousness that such investigations were present in their day, therefore it leads us to conclude that although the individual Fathers and Doctors of the Church do not speak for the Church when it is together in a Council, they were at least clearing the ground for a more inspired statement on the canon of the Sacred Scriptures….
     Therefore, has anyone run into such patristic opinions at variance prior to the Council of Carthage or after if? That way we will be clear what led the Church to accept the authority of Carthage and subsequently that of the Scriptures in their entirety and therefore have a valued sense that after the Council of Carthage…such varying opinions among the Fathers practically no longer re-appeared….Unless I find another argument to the Contrary in some old book…then…I just wanted to share this with you.
     The title of the old Anglican book is: ” A Church History” by Chr. Wordsworth, D.D. Bishop of Lincoln, Vol. II. “From the Council of Nicaea, A.D. 325 to the Council of Constantinople, A.D. 381” Third Edition. Longmans, Green & Co. Paternoster Row, London, 1890.

262. The Kingdom of Heaven: A personal relationship with God | St. John July 24th, 2011 8:34 am :

     […] and in favor of the Protestant Bible, in the comments at Called to Communion. His full argument is here, but he essentially makes nine […]

263. Joe Heschmeyer July 24th, 2011 2:49 pm :

     Rene,

     Good question. It’s true that there was some controversy over the precise canon of both the New and the Old Testament. So it would be claiming too much to say that every Father used the exact Catholic Bible, for example. But what is true is that none of the Fathers used the 66-Book Protestant canon. Does that answer your question? God bless,

     Joe

264. Shawn C. Madden July 25th, 2011 3:29 pm :

     Joe,
     1. No, I did not say that. The Greek speaking Jews used the same TNK as the Hebrew speaking (English speaking, Russian speaking, Latin speaking) Jews. The TNK used by the Jews (all of them—same canon) differed from the Catholic, non-Jewish OT canon.
     2. What the Catholics present as the OT is not a TNK nor resembles the Jewish TNK. The books found in what is commonly called Septuagint are Jewish books (canonical and non-canonical) bound together by Christians. The various versions of the Christian produced LXX varied—Vaticanus does not match Alexandrinus, nor the modern Rahfls edition nor the Orthodox books.
     3. Yes. And Luke.
     4. Yes. Of course others disagree as to the ordering—i.e., B19a, Baba Bathra, BHS. My argument is that those four agree.
     5. Yes. Read the documents. No council noted.
     6. For the most part yes. You find early agreement by just about everyone on most of the NT books. Some disagreement and discussion on the others. The councils you note, while I don’t accept them as an authoritative pronouncement they do indicate the state of things historically.
     7. Seems to be the argument you guys (and others) try to make. You point about agreement on the council canons is dispelled by Laodocia. There was not agreement. Jerome, Origen, Cajetan argued against the expanded canon.
     8. Yes. Do you think they agree?
     9. Pretty much yes. Again, councils were good as historical references. To argue any authority in them would take you to Trent and no agreement until then. Cajetan, at the time of Trent, and an major Catholic, argued for the canon of Jerome against the expanded canon.
     As far as the Pharisaic Canon and the Sadducee Canon and the Berean Canon, you are going to have to do better than that blog post. It is conjecture that I have not seen anyone else make. Is there an official Catholic teaching on this or do you have the actual canons of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Bereans to back up your conjecture?
     Show me a ‘Catholic TNK.’ This will be interesting. With that, show me Jewish TNKs or lists that include books not found in the classic TNKs.
     To summarize: the Jews at the time of Christ didn’t have an agreed upon canon; when there was a general Jewish consensus on the canon, that consensus was rejected by the early Christians; the Christians had a general consensus on the canon of Scripture, and it was the Catholic Bible; the Council of Carthage, Pope Damasus I, and the creation of a Church-wide Vulgate Bible all supported this conclusion. No one prior to the Reformers seems to have used the 66-Book Bible beloved by Protestants.
     Your summary is wrong. I have shown clearly that the Jews had one canon (notes from the time of Sirach through Josephus). You alude to a Jewish consensus (surely not Jamnia!-but then, what consensus?). Jerome and Cajetan did follow the TNK followed by Jesus and Protestants.
     Blessing my friend.
     Shawn
     smadden@sebts.edu

265. Lojahw July 26th, 2011 6:58 pm :

     Hi Joe,
     Did you know that 9 church fathers in a row from the second century until Augustine all attested to the Hebrew 22 book canon (following Josephus in the first century)? Perhaps you’ve heard of Cyril of Jerusalem, who attended the Second Ecumenical Council in 381 and wrote this:

     Of these [the LXX books] read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than yourself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes. (Catechetical Lectures 4.35)

     An interesting historical footnote: St. Cyril attended the Second Ecumenical Council, but Damasus did not. I guess someone forgot to tell Damasus about the “two and twenty books” handed down from “the Apostles and bishops of old time.”

     And as far as the minor variants in all those OT canons, have you read about all the variants of the NT text? Does that mean we can’t know what the original NT text said? As a matter of fact, textual scholars claim that all the variants in a large number of samples makes it easier for them to accurately reconstruct the original. So, why can’t you recognize the 39 books in four centuries of early church OT canons?

     And why don’t you believe Josephus when he writes of the Jewish canon of 22 “divine” books from Moses to the time of Artaxerxes? What evidence do you have that he was lying about that? Or that this canon of 22 books was not taught to the Jews from birth in the first century?

     Blessings.

266. Tim A. Troutman July 26th, 2011 8:14 pm :

     St. Cyril includes Baruch in that very same passage as belonging to the canon…

267. Tom Brown July 26th, 2011 9:20 pm :

     Dear “Lojahw,”

     I’m slowing getting back into things after my return from Afghanistan. It seems we’ve picked up roughly where we left off.

     Given that you write from a Protestant frame, I cannot discern your logic in stating, as if it adds weight to your argument, that “9 church fathers in a row” attested to one thing or another or what all have you. What’s a church father in a row?

     Do you agree that testimony handed on from the “Apostles and bishops of old time” adds weight to a given argument? If not, why do you invoke it?

     By my account, you have yet to articulate a theory by which a Protestant can infallibly articulate the canon of infallible Scripture without running afoul of the essential principles of the Protestant Reformation.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

268. Joe Heschmeyer July 26th, 2011 11:14 pm :

     Shawn and Lojahw,

     Both of you share a common assumption in your posts, and I wanted to address that first: this idea that the Jews at the time of Christ had a single canon. Specifically, Shawn, you asked for backup material showing that the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Hellenists had different canons. Fair enough. We agree on what the Pharisees canon looked like.

     The Sadducees’ Canon
     As for the Sadducees, they accepted only the first five Books, the Torah. St. Hippolytus of Rome (170-235 A.D.) said that the Sadducees “do not, however, devote attention to prophets, but neither do they to any other sages, except to the law of Moses only, in regard of which, however, they frame no interpretations.” [source: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iii.iii.vii.xxv.html%5D

     Likewise, Origen (184-253) said that “although the Samaritans and Sadducees, who receive the books of Moses alone, would say that there were contained in them predictions regarding Christ, yet certainly not in Jerusalem, which is not even mentioned in the times of Moses, was the prophecy uttered.” [source: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.ix.i.l.html%5D

     As I explained before, we can know that the Fathers were right about what the Sadducees believed based upon Jesus’ conduct in Matthew 22:23-33. If the Sadducees believed that the rest of the Old Testament was inspired, Jesus could have pointed to verses laying out the Resurrection in explicit terms. Instead, He proves it in a somewhat roundabout way by relying upon Exodus 3:6, which is certainly less than explicit. Doesn’t that strike you as at least a bit odd?

     And I’m not just reading that into this passage. Jerome (347-420) explicitly tells us that He used this passage because of the Saduccees’ rejection of the rest of the Bible:

     “In proof of the resurrection there were many plainer passages which He might have cited; among others that of Isaiah, ‘The dead shall be raised; they that are in the tombs shall rise again’ [Isa 26:29, Septuagint]: and in another place, ‘Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake’ [Dan. 12:2].

     It is enquired therefore why the Lord should have chosen this testimony which seems ambiguous, and not sufficiently belonging to the truth of the resurrection; and as if by this He had proved the point adds, ‘He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.’

     We have said above that the Sadducees confessed neither Angel, nor spirit, nor resurrection of the body, and taught also the death of the soul. But they also received only the five books of Moses, rejecting the Prophets. It would have been foolish therefore to have brought forward testimonies whose authority they did not admit.” [source: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/catena1.ii.xxii.html%5D

     So yes, whether you look to Scripture or the Fathers, you can see that the Sadducees used only a Five-Book Canon.

     The Hellenists’ Canon[s]
     Outside of Israel, the situation is the reverse. As the German Protestant historian, Emil Schürer, says on page 310 of The History of the Jewish People, “It cannot be proved of other books than those of our present [Protestant] canon, that they were ever reckoned canonical by the Palestinian Jews, although the Book of Wisdom was so highly esteemed that it is sometimes cited ‘in a manner only customary in the case of passages of Scripture.’ It was only the Hellenistic Jews who combined a whole series of other books with those of the Hebrew canon. But then they had no definite completion of the canon at all.”

     Even Schürer’s (limited) defense of the Protestant canon establishes my point: the Hellenistic Jews used the Deuterocanon interchangeably with what you would recognize as Scripture, and there’s evidence suggesting that at least one Deuterocanonical Book was used by the Palestinian Jews, as well.

     So your shared assumption that the Jews were all using identical canons of Scripture is easily disproven. Outside of Israel, you have Hellenistic Jews using the Deuterocanon as Scripture. Inside of Israel, you’ve got the Sadducees who deny the Torah, and some Pharisees who seem to think that Wisdom is Scriptural (although it’s impossible to prove for certain).

     Without such a consensus, most of both of your arguments appear to fall apart, and there seems to be little reason to put stock in what the Pharisees thought, when they were but one faction, and significantly, a faction whose teachings and Biblical canon were soundly rejected by their early Christian contemporaries.

     I’ll address both of your points individually next. God bless!

     Joe

269. Joe Heschmeyer July 26th, 2011 11:32 pm :

     Shawn,

     1. Are you suggesting that all of the Jews at the time of Christ used the same canon? If so, that’s incorrect, as my last comment showed.

     2. TNK just means “Law, Prophets, Writings.” Are you saying that the Septuagint used by the early Christians (a) included something other than Law, Prophets, Writings, or (b) simply wasn’t in that order? If it’s (a), a great many of the Hellenistic Jews and early Christians clearly believed that the Deuterocanonical Books were properly Nebi’im and Kethub’im, and you’ve not yet given any reason for us to think that you’re in a position to stand in judgment on this issue. If it’s (b), that point strikes me as irrelevant. Neither of us follows the “Torah, Nebi’im, Kethub’im” order.

     3. To my point, you just said “Yes. And Luke.” But Luke only says that there’s “the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.” He doesn’t say whether the Deuterocanonical Books are or aren’t prophetic. To rely on Luke as you do is to beg the question.

     4. You said, “Of course others disagree as to the ordering—i.e., B19a, Baba Bathra, BHS. My argument is that those four agree.” But again, the question isn’t Book order. It’s which Books. Your argument, that all four of those Jewish canons agree because they all go Torah, then Nebi’im, then Kethub’im would be like me claiming that every library using the Dewey decimal system must contain the same books. You’re conflating form with content.

     5. I don’t know what your response means, or how it responds to what I wrote.

     6. In #6, I had written, “That said, it’s incredibly significant that not a single early Christian seems to have accepted the Protestant Old Testament. I go through a pretty full list of candidates here:https://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2009/10/protestantism-and-early-church-fathers.html.” Am I to take from your response that you recognize and agree that this is true, historically?

     7. Laodicea preceded Carthage, as did Origen. After the Council of Carthage – or more specifically, after the pope acknowledged that Carthage was correct – do you see some other Biblical canon being used in the West? And on this issue, St. Jerome submitted to “the judgment of the churches.” So he acknowledged that he wasn’t the authority, the Church was. If Jerome’s really a standard you want to rely upon, then you should follow his lead.

     8. Since writing my last comment, an Eastern Orthodox reader pointed out to me that since Laodicea doesn’t claim to be exclusive, it’s not incompatible with Carthage, and the Eastern Orthodox acknowledge both as correct. That’s one view. Even if it IS incompatible, that seems to only hurt your own viewpoint – that we can know the canon of Scripture from the widespread Christian consensus. I don’t think you can have it both ways. Either the early Christians agreed, or they didn’t. (You might look back to where I noted that regional councils can err, and have).

     9. Historically, you understand that the consensus came about because of the Council of Carthage, and the adoption of the Carthaginian canon by the pope, correct? Or do you think it happened some other way? As you’ve established pretty well yourself, there wasn’t consensus before Carthage / Damasus, and there was after (with only a handful of exceptions).

     You conclude: “Your summary is wrong. I have shown clearly that the Jews had one canon (notes from the time of Sirach through Josephus). You alude to a Jewish consensus (surely not Jamnia!-but then, what consensus?). Jerome and Cajetan did follow the TNK followed by Jesus and Protestants.”

     But you never showed such a canon. At most, you showed that the early Jews often put their Books in the same general order — although even here, you acknowledged that you’re ignoring the counter-examples. Remember the difference between the Dewey decimal and a list of books. And no, I don’t think that there was an early Jewish consensus, and neither did the early Christians writing at the time. And no, Jerome didn’t follow the TNK used by the Pharisees or the Protestants – he explicitly included the longer (Hellenistic / Catholic) version of Daniel, and defended his decision to do so in Against Rufinus. He translated the Catholic Vulgate! And no, Jesus wasn’t restricted to the Pharisee’s TNK, either. A majority of the passages He quotes are from the Greek version, and specific Biblical prophesies like Hebrews 10:5-7 only make sense if the Greek version is correct. So I think your own summary makes a number of statements without apparent support.

     God bless you,

     Joe.

270. Joe Heschmeyer July 26th, 2011 11:41 pm :

     Lojahw,

     You claim “that 9 church fathers in a row from the second century until Augustine all attested to the Hebrew 22 book canon (following Josephus in the first century).” I’m not sure what this claim means, and you don’t provide me with any specific names, other than St. Cyril.

     St. Cyril explicitly claims that the Septuagint is Divinely inspired, and that the Epistle of Jeremy [Baruch 6] is canonical. He does both of those things in the very same Lecture you’re referring to [source: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.ii.viii.html%5D.

     If the best defender of the Protestant canon is someone who just accepts part of the Catholic Deuterocanon (and treats the rest as Ecclesiastical, not Apocryphal, see Schaff’s fn. 744, supra), then I don’t think it’s we Catholics who have anything to worry about.

     Can you point me to any early Christian who actually used the exact Sixty-Six Books of the Bible which you now use?

     In Christ,

     Joe.

271. Rene July 27th, 2011 12:07 am :

     Hello Joe,
     Thank you for responding…I have been re-reading your post on your defense of the Catholic view and your reference to the Fathers…your book (the one you tackled) is older the one I am reading. Therefore, your blog did help me dispell the abusive sense in which the Fathers can be said to have said things which do not match 100% to their thesis…although they do use the word “perfectly”. The references by the Fathers cited in the book I told you about are almost all of them the same, may be a few differences and more details…Anyways, thank you!
     Now since the I did read the texts and the footnotes and sometimes, there is the tendency to read the footnotes with more attention, there is a footnote in the “Protestant” version of the Fathers by Philp Schaff where in Eusebius’ account of the old testament canon by Origin…your blog say that Maccabees is “cryptic” and you side with the former opinion that it is part of the canon…This is ‘latter’ opinion that Schaff will take and make the contrary argument…, etc…
     For Augustine…you cite his works and I agree how on earth can Augustine be said to support an uncanonical list books which is not Catholic?! Anyways, the reference you offered: (again: the footnote) killed a bit of the point) The footnote (1771) reads that St Augustine “retracted” about the book of Wisdom, etc…
     And then lastly St Athanasius…ok…he is the one that seems a bit explicit, but also is the one that gets me: It is he that says that the other books are non-canonical, etc and something about fire-and brimstone wording about anyone who adds or takes away to this…so although this explicit in him, YES, I agree with you it is neither a 100% listing of the Protestant bible (OT), therefore, your point still holds.

     However, I would like to add something, that I kept on reading in the first chapter of the Anglican book (You can see well the intention of the author), he starts talking Pope Liberius (!) [Good grief] and from there concludes or rather suggests: his history students that from Pope Liberius’ mistake we can learn how to not build our house on quicksand like the irreligious dogma on the infalliobility of the Pope declared by Vatican I! etc…and that by such pondering of this historical point (I call it biblically similar to that of the original St Peter and of Christ and the bible’s message to forgive central!!!) the Church would/should not have declared it…etc.
     However, he continues in his appraisal of St Athanasius and the real controversy of the Arians and he commends how both Arians and Athanasius have the same Scriptures and therefore the same canon, and therefore, how well they did on such matter! Point: St Athansius does make explicit in a letter of the coercion endured by the Pope Liberius to “fall” and side with the Arians (Semi-Arians, etc) and that afterwards, when the Pope was freed he began to lead orthodoxy as his real free self….(I am paraphrasing). So anyways, The same ‘innocence’ still remains how in the Council of Laodicea and the heavily doubtfulness of the canon on Scripture which “supports the protestant bible” still is present and despite that the Anglican author does not fail shrink from saying in a footnote: The Council of Laodicea was under Semi-Arian influence….It goes to say how clesely we are still debating the canon of the Old testament as if history had ceased to continue…? WEll of course that is my opinion and it may be descriptive of my present thought. Keep it up…! (I will stay tuned).
     P.S. Also the council attended by St Cyril of Jerusalem and St Hilary of Poitieres were also under the same Semi-Arian influence…just in case that matters…
     (I will keep reading!)

272. Shawn C. Madden July 27th, 2011 9:26 am :

     Joe,

     1. Yes they did and you are wrong.
     2. The Christian Septuagint contained books not found in the TNK (again, the Jewish Septuagint, strickly speaking was just the Torah). We call them the apocrypha. Order is not an issue if they are not in the TNK, which they aren’t. What do I need for you to think that I am in a position to stand in judgement of the issue? How am I unqualified and you are qualified? Am I not as bright or trained as you? I have given clear evidence from the relevant time period that proves my point (Jesus, Sirach, Philo, Josephus).
     3. Luke is at the heart of the issue. Dismissing that passage flipantly as you do shows that you don’t recognize it for what it is or you are too afraid of the implications. Jesus is pointing to the TNK (which, to be clear in light of your confusion on 1, does not include the apocrypha). It also confirms that Jesus doesn’t distinguish (your made up) different canons for different sects of Jews.
     4. No, I am not. My point was, though order and taxonomy may have differed they had the same books. And they aren’t your books.
     5. You confirmed what I wrote and I confirmed your understanding. Your response shows that you ignore the historical evidence in view of your false premise.
     6. There are many early Christian writers (obviously you acknowledge them) who point clearly to a 22 book canon and away from the expanded canon. Yes, they disagree on a book or two but they point clearly to the TNK of the Jews (including Jesus, Philo, Sirach, and Josephus) and well clear of your expanded canon. To take their disagreements as a means of negating that side of the issue would be like me pointing to the disagreements in the great LXX manuscripts as a complete negation of your theory.
     7. You have found evidence that the pope endoresed Carthage. Interesting. Show me. Cajetan, again, just prior to Trent, is still quoting Jerome and pointing Catholics to his canon and calling on them to follow his canon. I think that you don’t really understand Jerome as you disagree with Cajetan. Laodicea and Origen prior to Carthage, i.e., closer to ‘apostolic tradition’ and following a 22 book canon. Great point! I will use that later!
     8. Thanks for bringing in the Orthodox. By your theory by Carthage all of the church agreed on the canon, but, at the great schism we find a major portion of Christianity following a different canon. What happened? And are you suggesting that Carthage wasn’t regional (and subject, as you say, to error?).
     9. No. You keep ignoring the fact that Cajetan is clear evidence (at very high levels) that the canon was not agreed upon up to Trent. If a pope had endorsed Carthage (show me where) then I would think that a major, educated, respected Cardinal like Cajetan would not make a statement contrary to the concensus.

     Good dialogue Joe. One day you will get it right!

     Lojahw, nice to have a very knowledgeable partner! Good points.

     Heading out on vacation. May not be back for about a week.

     Blessings in Christ my brothers,

     Shawn

273. Joe Heschmeyer July 27th, 2011 11:27 am :

     Rene,

     I’m thankful you were able to get some use out of my blog, and I really appreciate this ongoing dialogue, and your continued contributions. I only wanted to touch on two points you raised:

     For Origen, the problem seems to be that he believed that there were supposed to be 22 Books in the Old Testament canon, and yet he believed in more than 22 inspired Old Testament Books. So he says that there are those 22, and then there are the Books of Maccabees — which he also gives the Hebrew names for. That seems to be treating them as also-inspired Books, even if he doesn’t think they’re in the 22-Book canon.

     The problem isn’t just with the Books of Maccabees, either. Origen has this same problem for “the Twelve Minor Prophets” (the Books of Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi). His 22-Book list doesn’t have room for any of these Books, either, and he leaves them off entirely. In addition to that, he explicitly included “the Epistle of Jeremy” (Baruch 6) as part of the Biblical canon. Obviously, then, Origen’s canon doesn’t very closely resemble that of either Catholics or Protestants. Which is why it’s misleading when Protestants say that Origen held to a 22-Book canon (as Shawn does in comment #258, above) — it makes it sound like Origen held to the same 22 Books Jews today use, and he didn’t.

     For St. Augustine, you might want to re-read footnote 1771. Augustine had said, “For two books, one called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus, are ascribed to Solomon from a certain resemblance of style, but the most likely opinion is that they were written by Jesus the son of Sirach.” What he later retracted was his view that Wisdom was written by Jesus bar Sirach, not that Wisdom was canonical.

     Not only did he not deny its canonicity, but he loved the Book of Wisdom. One of the (Protestant) CCEL editors noted elsewhere that “Augustin seems to make no distinction between Apocryphal and Canonical books. The book of Wisdom was evidently a favorite with him, doubtless on account of its decided Platonic quality.” [source: footnote 67, https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf104.iv.iv.xviii.html?%5D. Obviously, I disagree with the editor that Wisdom is Apocryphal, and so (as he admits) did Augustine.

     So we come back to the same basic conclusion. Some in the early Church (admittedly, not all) used what we would today call “the Catholic Bible,” that precise canon of 73 Books. Others used more or less, but there was eventual agreement that these were the Seventy-Three. In contrast, no one used the modern Protestant Bible, no one affirmed those exact 66 Books. Some were sort of close, but if we’re talking about which Books are inspired by the Holy Spirit and which aren’t, “sort of close” doesn’t really cut it (after all, the Protestant and Catholic Bibles are sort of close, when compared to the Mormon canon of Scripture). So for a Protestant to say that the 66-Book Bible is correct, wouldn’t they have to say that apparently every early Christian was wrong? And do we really feel comfortable claiming that we (somehow) have a better understanding of which Books are in the Bible than those who originally preserved those Books? I think humility alone is reason to embrace the Catholic Bible — it’s the one people who know better than us tell us is correct.

     As I said above, you’ve been great to talk with on this issue. God bless you!

     Joe

274. Joe Heschmeyer July 27th, 2011 2:11 pm :

     Rene,

     I just realized that one of the points I made about Origen was wrong — I had miscounted. Origen lists only 21 Books besides Maccabees, so it’s likely that it was an oversight (either his own or a scribe’s) that omitted the Twelve Minor Prophets. The points about his definite acceptance of the Epistle of Jeremy, and possible acceptance of the Books of Maccabees remain, but I didn’t want to leave you with misleading information. I’ve updated the post, as well.

     God bless,

     Joe

275. Joe Heschmeyer July 27th, 2011 2:38 pm :

     Shawn,

     I’m thankful for this dialogue, and think it has a lot of potential to be constructive. But I think we’d both get a lot more out of it if your arguments were something more than the “Yes they did and you are wrong” variety. Those sort of statements are what we in the legal profession call “conclusory.” They’re just assertions, without evidentiary support.

     My major points were that:

     (A) There wasn’t unanimity within Judaism on the contents of the Jewish canon. The Sadducees used the Torah alone, some Pharisees seem to have accepted the Book of Wisdom, the Hellenists generally used the Catholic Old Testament, etc.

     (B) The TNK is an ordering of Books: Torah (Law), then Nebi’im (Prophets), then Kethub’im (Writings). But simply saying “TNK” doesn’t tell us which Books are authentic Books of Prophesy or other Scriptural Writings.

     (C) To say that the proper TNK is the Protestant Old Testament is to assume your conclusion. At this point, you haven’t provided any evidence that the Books regarded by Jesus or St. Luke as “the Prophets” are the same ones that you would consider “the Prophets.”

     (D) No early Christian owned the Bible you’re describing.

     I’ve back up each of those points, and can continue to do so. In contrast, you’ve simply asserted that the points aren’t true (in fact, that I made them up!), and that your points to the contrary are true.

     Your major point seems to be the one you’ve pointed to in every one of your comments to me so far, that one time (Luke 24:44), Jesus used the phrase “the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms” to refer to the Scriptures. You actually cite this as support that both Jesus and St. Luke supported the Protestant Old Testament. That conclusion doesn’t follow, for the reasons I labelled (B)-(D) above, but let me point out a couple other points why this is a poor place to hang your hat.

     Let’s assume you’re right that in Luke 24:44, Jesus is telling us what the Old Testament canon is, and that He’s referring to the Jewish TNK used today. If that were the case, we’d both be in trouble. Jesus refers to “the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms,” not “the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Writings.” Your logic here would mean that the rest of the Kethub’im other the Psalms wasn’t canonical. That would eliminate the Books of Proverbs, Job, Song of Sons, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles.

     But if Luke 24:44 tells us that the canon is “the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms,” what do we do with Matthew 5:17, Matthew 7:12, Matthew 11:13, Matthew 22:40, and Luke 16:16, in which Jesus refers to the Old Testament simply as “the Law and the Prophets,” with no reference to the Psalms or the other Writings at all? Should we discard even the Book of Psalms? After all, St. Luke himself refers to the Old Testament as “the Law and the Prophets” in Acts 13:15 and Acts 28:23, as does St. Paul in Acts 24:14 and Romans 3:21.

     My point is that if you’re right, Scripture contradicts both Itself and your own canon. Since Scripture doesn’t contradict Itself, you can’t be right. A much more reasonable way of viewing Luke 24:44 is the same way we both view Matthew 5:17: as a casual way of referring to the Old Testament Scriptures. It’s not intended to be a precise statement on the canon.

     In Christ,

     Joe.

     P.S. I apologize for hurting your feeling in my earlier comment. When I said that “a great many of the Hellenistic Jews and early Christians clearly believed that the Deuterocanonical Books were properly Nebi’im and Kethub’im, and you’ve not yet given any reason for us to think that you’re in a position to stand in judgment on this issue, ” I wasn’t trying to say you were stupid. I was trying to say that these were the Books the early Christians regarded as Torah, Nebi’im and Kethub’im, and you’ve not given us any reason to think that those Christians were wrong, other than your own unsupported opinion. That’s not a reflection on you personally — you could be Einstein, and I would still want some sort of evidence. If that came across as uncharitable or arrogant, I sincerely apologize.

276. Rene July 27th, 2011 3:02 pm :

     Thank you for the clarification on Origen and St Augustine…I really misread the context of that footnote and regardless of who was the secondary author of the book of Wisdom, God is the primary and is therefore inspired and therefore canonical….I will keep re-reading and thank you for your careful and responsible response.
     Now since I asked whether there were any other Fathers after the Council of Carthage (iii) et al…that maintain the cumulative [perhaps] list of the deuterocanonical writings …it is brought up that Cajetan “favored” the shortened canon. Is this the Cajetan that “refuted” Luther or is it another….If so, it is either before or after the Council of Trent’s definitive (as universally binding and as Ecumenical) the canon now held…since that may be a theological opinion like St Jerome’s at his time, not necessarily-as “doctrine” and therefore be stated that the Christian Church was as it was before Trent [Luther’s opinion stated in his catechism] and it was called Roman Catholic ever in history as Ecumenical until Trent, which would make Luther’s Church historically older than the Roman Catholic Church [even though Local councils prior called her Roman and despite England’s label]….I am sure this too is just at the Ecumenical Council [perhaps] but it goes to say how further the arguments “seem only” to go against the Catholic Church even when the “Christian Church” recognizes “fallibly” the infallible writings (Bible). Sure thing, humility, prayer centered on truth is a must. Thank you again, (I’ll stay tuned!)
     -Rene

277. Shawn C. Madden July 27th, 2011 3:18 pm :

     Joe, you don’t want me to extrapolate a TNK canon from my arguments but you want to extract (and Sundberg et al) a 1. Pharisee Canon 2. A Sadducee Canon 3. A Hellenistic Canon?! I have shown that the canon from the Hellenistic writers, Josephus and Philo (heck, even Sirach) follow the same TNK used today. Read Josephus and you will see that he notes the first of the last section (called by many the Kethubim) is headed by Hymns. Do you think Hymns means anything other than Psalms? And can you not see that when the NT uses Psalms it means the whole non Torah-Neviim portions? You like your short cuts to a supposed and totally unproved separate canon for the Jewish sects, something not even hinted at in history but refuse to see a Hymns-Psalms-Writings connnection? Josephus said that ‘here are 22 books’ , he didn’t say ‘and here are the five from the Sadducees, et c. I would like you to show me where the early Chrisitians showed a TNK and where they had all of the apocryphal books fit into that taxonomy. It was not my opinion, there is no evidence for such a beast. And to show that you would also have to show where the Jews (from whom I supposed that beast would have been derived) have a TNK with all of the apocrapha in it. And, to match what Jesus was saying, a TNK where the last historical books was Chronicles and not Maccabees (Mt 23 again).

     In Christ

     Shawn
     On vacation soon.

278. Joe Heschmeyer July 27th, 2011 4:46 pm :

     Shawn,

     Hoping to catch you before vacation:

     Regarding whether “the Psalms” could be understood to mean the Ketuvim, sure it could, but only if it’s in a casual and informal way. That’s my original point — you’re reading way too much into that passage. You want to take Jesus’ single reference to “the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms” as outlining a three-fold Pharisaic canon, and ignore His five references to the Old Testament as “the Law and the Prophets.” And as support, you point back to Philo, who has a four-fold canon: “(the) Laws, and (the) Oracles given by inspiration through (the) prophets, and (the) hymns, and the other books.” That Philo distinguishes between the Hymns and the other Books actually seems to undermine your latest point, that these are all the same thing.

     It’s quite reasonable that you don’t take the references to “the Law and the Prophets” to mean that only the Torah and Nevi’im are Scripture. It’s just as reasonable for us Catholics to say that the same logic applies to Luke 24:44. Both you and I agree, along with Philo, that the Old Testament is made up of the Books of the Law, the Prophets, the Psalms, and the other Writings. What we’re disputing is which Books fall into these categories. Luke 16:16 and Luke 24:44 don’t provide us that answer. The Council of Carthage does.

     And maybe it’s because you’re about to go on vacation, but I found this most recent comment particularly dismissive. You simply waved away all the evidence I brought up, without showing it to be false. In fact, more than once you pretended I hadn’t raised any evidence. You began by asking, “you don’t want me to extrapolate a TNK canon from my arguments but you want to extract (and Sundberg et al) a 1. Pharisee Canon 2. A Sadducee Canon 3. A Hellenistic Canon?!”

     But this equivalence is a false one. I provided actual Patristic evidence quoting St. Hippolytus of Rome, Origen, and St. Jerome that the Sadducees used only the first five Books of the Bible. There’s nothing to “extrapolate” – they’ve told us what the Sadducees’ canon was. Same with the Hellenists – I quoted a Protestant historian proving my point. I could quote plenty more Catholics, Protestants, and atheists on this point, because it’s basic history. But since you’ve quoted literally no one for the contrary view, I don’t see the need.

     In contrast, your own logic so far has gone:
     Step # 1. The Old Testament is made up of Law, Prophets, and Writings.
     Step # 2. The only valid Books of the Law, Prophets, or Writings are the ones found in the Protestant Old Testament
     Step # 3. Therefore, the Protestant Old Testament is correct.

     But step #2 there is a bit of a doozy, since it involves assuming your conclusion. All of your evidence so far has proven that the Christians believed in step #1, and that some Pharisees (like Josephus) believed in step #2. But I readily acknowledge that step #1 is true, and that some Pharisees believed in step #2. That ignores the fact that the early Christians, who are a better reflection of the teachings of Jesus, rejected step #2. So there’s really not a similarity between my providing evidence for the various canons, and your providing logical leaps based on your own preset views.

     Likewise, when you refer to my “short cuts to a supposed and totally unproved separate canon for the Jewish sects, something not even hinted at in history,” you do so only by ignoring those direct quotations I provided (and sourced) from Hippolytus of Rome, Origen, and St. Jerome. To recap, the first two were from the second century, and the third is the same Father you’ve pointed to in order to defend your canon, and accused me of not really understanding (in comment # 272). It’s not even that you’re saying the Fathers are wrong; you’re denying the historical evidence for the canon even exists, after I provided you historical evidence.

     This is starting to become something of a pattern: you seem to have simply closed your eyes to contrary evidence. It’s not that you’re debunking it or showing it to be wrong – you’re just claiming that the evidence doesn’t exist. When someone like Jerome takes a view you like (e.g., his initial denial that the Deuterocanon should be part of the canon), you point to him as authoritative. In doing so, you pull this viewpoint out of all context (e.g., that Jerome’s view was opposed by the other Church Fathers, that Jerome ultimately submitted to “the judgment of the churches” rather than his own judgment, and that Jerome ultimately translated and assembled the Catholic Vulgate, including the Deuterocanon). By itself, that’s bad enough – it’s the historical version of proof-texting, pulling a single part of Scripture out of context to prove a doctrine.

     But it’s even worse when, once you’re doing milking that Father for a certain doctrine, you simply ignore him when he says things that you don’t like (e.g., Jerome’s explanation why Jesus used Exodus 4:6 in Matthew 22:23-33 to rebut Sadducees). You did the same thing to Origen. Compare your treatment in #7 on comment 272, where you claim he’s “closer to Apostolic Tradition” than later Fathers or Church Council, with your treatment in the most recent comment, where you simply brush him off as even relevant to history.

     If you genuinely don’t care what the Church Fathers have to say, then just say so. Just admit that the views of the early Christians aren’t important to you –- that no amount of early Christian testimony will ever persuade you — because you think you know better. But if that’s the case, at least have the credibility not to try and exploit the Fathers for cheap doctrinal points. To listen to them only when they confirm your pre-existing biases is neither scholarship nor honest inquiry. It reminds me of those political attack ads that take a few seconds of a speech out of context to misrepresent an opponent’s position. Regardless of your views on the Fathers, as a Christian and a scholar, I think your obligations are something higher than “Gotcha” patristics.

     Hopefully, those aren’t too sharp of words to send you off on your vacation. God bless and bon voyage,

     Joe.

279. Shawn C. Madden July 27th, 2011 4:59 pm :

     Joe,

     Thanks, will read it, will have to catch you later–shoving off!

     Shawn

280. Lojahw July 28th, 2011 12:05 am :

     Welcome back, Tom, and thank you for your service to our country! I pray that your “re-entry” goes well.

     I’m really strapped for time, but I’ll briefly respond to your question: “Do you agree that testimony handed on from the “Apostles and bishops of old time” adds weight to a given argument?”

     As an Anglican, of course I consider testimony that is demonstrably connected with “the Apostles and bishops of old time” to be valuable. I assume you are familiar with the Anglican principle of Scripture, tradition, and reason? Of these, of course, I consider Scripture alone to be the unquestioned authority.

     For me the early church functions as providing testimony/evidence for or against particular understandings of our faith. That doesn’t make them a priori right or wrong, but their opinion is valuable. For example, on the canon, 9 consecutive OT canons published by church fathers from Melito to Jerome all claimed the “twenty-two” books that correspond to the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. According to Josephus, this was a mnemonic used to teach the Jews the canon from infancy – as one teaches one’s children the alphabet from the earliest age, so Josephus claims that the Jews taught their infants the canon.

     The church fathers also provide evidence that the great codices of the fourth century did not represent the canon, because the canons published for at least 50 years after the codices were put into circulation continued to maintain the 22 book formula even though the codices added several other books such as the Shepherd of Hermas and the DCs. (BTW – Hilary’s speculation that Hellenistic Jews in Rome could count 24 books to correspond to the Greek alphabet shows his ignorance of Jewish tradition, wherein Ruth and Lamentations were separated from Judges and Jeremiah, respectively to yield 24 books without resorting to DCs. I guess Hilary didn’t do as much research as Jerome on this topic.). I assume you know the Jewish code where the “Twelve” and other combinations account for the difference between 22 books and the Protestant 39.

     The variations of the early OT canons are much like the textual variants found in the NT MSS. Just as textual scholars claim they can decipher the original text in spite of the variants in the MSS, so it is easy to decipher the original OT canon from the church fathers in spite of their dependence on inferior Greek sources (e.g., the conflation of Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah with the canonical Jeremiah and Lamentations). Thus when 3 of the 9 church fathers separated Ruth from Judges and omitted Esther to keep the count at 22 books, we can reasonably correct their mistake, as we also can Eusebius’ transcription of Origen’s canon which claimed 22 books but only listed 21, missing the “book of the Twelve” minor prophets.

     Blessings.

281. Joe Heschmeyer July 28th, 2011 11:23 am :

     Lojahw,

     I hate to interject, but you’ve twice claimed that “9 consecutive OT canons published by church fathers from Melito to Jerome all claimed the “twenty-two” books that correspond to the letters of the Hebrew alphabet.” I’m curious about this claim:

     (1) Which nine are you referring to?
     (2) Did any of these nine list the Twenty-Two Books in the modern Jewish/Protestant canon? Or did they have a different set of Twenty-Two?
     (3) What do you mean by “consecutive”? Are you only counting those Fathers who you think agree with you? After all, the Councils of Hippo and Carthage — which explicitly acknowledge the Catholic canon — were after Melito but before many of Jerome’s writings on the canon.
     (4) What canon did Jerome produce, if not his Catholic Vulgate?

     God bless,

     Joe.

282. Lojahw July 29th, 2011 12:13 am :

     Ok, Joe, to humor you:
     The 22 books in each of the following (with exceptions noted below, and the order varying from church father to church father, except for the Pentateuch) are:
     Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges/Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra/Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah/Lamentations* (*sometimes appended with the Epistle of Jeremiah, and twice with Baruch based on the LXX copies), Ezekiel, Daniel, the Twelve; Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs.
     1. Melito, in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.26.13-14. He claims 22 books ending with Ezra/Nehemiah; his only deviation from Jewish tradition and the Protestant OT canon was to separate Ruth from Judges and as a result omit Esther (see Jerome’s explanation of Jewish tradition in his Preface to the Book of Kings, listed below).
     2. Origen, in Eusebius, 6.25.2ff. He claims 22 books, but Eusebius’ copy lists 21 ending with Esther, omitting the 12.
     3. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 4.35 in NPNF s2, v7. He claims 22 books ending with Daniel, and appends Baruch & Epistle of Jeremiah to Jeremiah/Lamentations as “one book.”
     4. Hilary of Poitiers, Commentary on Psalms, prol. 15. Claims 22 books, ending with Esther. Like Origen, he counted the Epistle of Jeremiah with Jeremiah/Lamentations as one book. He says that the Hellenistic Jews in Rome might count 24 books, adding Tobit and Judith (he didn’t understand Jewish tradition as Jerome did; the Jewish list of 24 books for those who taught their infants the Greek alphabet was the same as the 22, just separating Ruth and Lamentations from Judges and Jeremiah, respectively).
     5. Athanasius, Festal Letter 39. He claims 22 books, ending with Daniel. Like Melito, he mistakenly separated Ruth from Judges and had to omit Esther to maintain 22 books. Like Cyril, he also used the LXX and counted Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah as one book with Jeremiah/Lamentations.
     6. Gregory Nazianzus, Carmina 1.12.5. He claims 22 books, ending with Daniel. Like Origen, he appends the Epistle of Jeremiah to Jeremiah/Lamentations as “one book.” He is silent on Lamentations (which we know was contained in all of the MSS containing Jeremiah).
     7. Epiphanius, On Weights and Measures, 4. He claims 22 books, ending with Esther. His only aberration is silence on Lamentations (which we know was part of all the MSS containing Jeremiah).
     8. Rufinus, Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed, 36. He claims 22 books, ending with Song of Songs. He, like Epiphanius was silent on Lamentations (which we know was part of all the MSS containing Jeremiah).
     9. Jerome, Preface to the Book of Kings in NPNF s2, v6. He claims 22 ending with Esther. This is the list he calls his “helmeted introduction” to all the OT canonical books – exactly as in the Protestant canon). He also comments on an alternate Jewish tradition which separates Ruth and Lamentations from Judges and Jeremiah, respectively, putting them with the Hagiographa, yielding a count of 24 books.

     The Council of Laodicea (363) also listed 22 books, ending with Daniel. Using the LXX, they listed Jeremiah and Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle as one book.

     My information on the synod of Rome in 382 is that “the result of its deliberations, presided over, no doubt, by the energetic Pope Damasus himself, are lost to us. Some hold they are partially preserved in the Decretum Gelasianum though this is disputed.” If the reconstructed Decree of Damasus is accurate, it would be the first record of a non “22 book” [other than Hilary’s mistaken 24 book canon for Hellenistic Jews in Rome] OT canon.

     The Councils of Hippo and Carthage were led by Augustine. But Augustine’s councils cannot be considered to be independent witnesses to tradition, sharing a common source. The church fathers above that come later than the Council of Rome and Augustine’s councils show that Damasus’ and Augustine’s opinions were not considered normative. And did you know that Pope Gregory the Great denied the canonicity of the Maccabees?

     Blessings.

283. Joe Heschmeyer July 29th, 2011 11:48 pm :

     Lojahw,

     Thank you for humoring me. And I appreciate your candor — you were up front about the fact that these canons look quite different from your own.

     While you’re correct that the version of the Book of Jeremiah which Epiphanius considered canonical included Lamentations, it also included Baruch (including Baruch 6, the Epistle of Jeremy). He says this explicitly in the canon he gives in the Panarion. So his canon is probably identical to that of Origen and Hilary.

     What this means, of course, is that not a single Father you just cited used the Protestant Old Testament, and you’re citing only those ones who you think help your case.

     —

     As for those who help my case, you say that the Councils of Hippo and Carthage don’t count because Augustine presided. I disagree. The fact that the two Councils confirmed his canon shows that they weren’t just a quirky opinion. The other Council Fathers confirmed what he was saying as true. As it is, the Latin and North African Fathers typically treated the Catholic canon as closed — including St. Augustine. It seems that before there was ever a Church Council, or even apologetics outlining the canon, the Catholic canon had taken hold amongst the faithful.

     As for the quote you’re referring to regarding Pope Gregory the Great, it was from his treatise on Job, which was written to Bishop Leander of Constantinople, who didn’t acknowledge Maccabees as canonical. Context matters. For example, I wrote a post talking about 1 and 2 Maccabees, and said “even if it isn’t Scripture, it’s still true.” I wasn’t actually wavering in my faith, just trying to show how Protestant acceptance of the Book shouldn’t turn solely on if It’s in the canon. Gregory appears to be doing something similar to Leander.

     God bless,

     Joe

284. Rene July 31st, 2011 2:24 am :

     Hello again, look what I found! I am sure there many more good sources…but since the issue is about the Fathers of the Church who seem to “contradict” the Church and the Catholic Bible, I figured it would help the whole (structure) presented: <>
     Enjoy and God bless,
     “tolle et lege”
     -Rene

285. Rene July 31st, 2011 2:25 am :

     here is the link again: (may be this time it will appear I am sorry if it does not) https://matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html
     Rene

286. Rene July 31st, 2011 3:34 pm :

     Since my comment is awaiting moderation, please let me get back to you if it is done with the author’s express intention. Thank You,
     -Rene

287. Lojahw August 3rd, 2011 10:54 pm :

     Hi Joe, I’m going to have to take a break (already started to….) but . . . .

     You said that “not a single Father you just cited used the Protestant Old Testament, and you’re citing only those ones who you think help your case.” You must not have been reading carefully. The 22 books are the Protestant canon, and not surprisingly, Jerome, the only one who could read Hebrew was right on. All of the others depended on the Greek versions and its derivatives – they didn’t know any better when they saw Baruch & the Epistle of Jeremiah lumped in with Jeremiah and Lamentations.

     Augustine’s advice seems to be apropos: “but if you convict anything of falsehood, though it have once been mine, in that I was guilty of the error, yet now by avoiding it let it be neither yours nor mine.” (On the Trinity 3.2)

     As for the Councils, do you believe that truth is determined by a vote? I don’t. If you get a group of people together in the presence of a great theologian like Augustine, who’s going to challenge him? He’d just say, let’s take a vote and decide who’s right: you or me? After all, that’s what the Council of Trent did!

     Your illustration on Gregory the Great doesn’t quite work:
     Gregory said:
     “With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony.
     Gregory clearly means that his following quote is from a book “though not Canonical” – that is, he, Gregory believes it is not canonical. He does not say, “from a book which I know you do not believe is canonical” nor does he say as you did, “from a book even if it isn’t canonical.” Though not is not the same. . .

     You said:
     I wrote a post talking about 1 and 2 Maccabees, and said “even if it isn’t Scripture, it’s still true.”
     You’re “even if it isn’t” allows for either position. Gregory’s statement does not.

     Blessings.

288. Joe Heschmeyer August 4th, 2011 11:04 pm :

     Lojahw,

     Sorry, I forgot to address Jerome directly in response to your list, although I did address him above. Namely, when Jerome stated that he didn’t think the Deuterocanon belonged in Scripture, he was slammed by other Fathers (like Augustine), ultimately submitted to “the judgment of the churches,” and went so far as to translate the Vulgate.

     So as a theologian, his inclination was to agree with the position you now believe is correct. But as a faithful son of the Church, he set his individual interpretation aside to submit to the Church. Another way of saying this: when Jerome finally produced an actual canon, it was the Catholic canon, not the Protestant one. So you can’t very well claim to follow the Protestant canon because Jerome did… since Jerome didn’t.

     As for Pope Gregory, I imagine we’ll just have to agree to disagree on what he meant. I think you’re hinging an awful lot of your argument on the precise syntax of a language neither of us speak. This might be an issue of missing the forest for the trees — if Gregory rejected Maccabees, it’s awfully strange that he’s quoting it as support in this letter. So I remain unconvinced by this sentence liberated from all context. Is there anything else in the corpus of Gregory’s writings suggesting a rejection of 1 or 2 Maccabees?

     God bless,

     Joe

289. Joe Heschmeyer August 4th, 2011 11:16 pm :

     Rene,

     That’s a great resource — thanks for sharing that! And I completely forgot to answer your last comment to me (sorry!). The short answer is yes, Cdl. Cajetan argued against the canonicity of the Deuterocanon in the sixteenth century, along with some of the other Christian Humanists. It was part of the general sort of “question everything” attitude that permeated pre-Reformation and Reformation-era Europe. It wasn’t entirely dissimilar to what we saw in the US and around the world during the 1960s — people suddenly throwing off traditional religious beliefs, and calling everything into question. Out of this context came Humanism, the Reformation, and the Council of Trent.

     Some of the Humanists, while preserving a critical attitude, remained Catholic: besides Cajetan, Erasmus is another good example. But the Humanists’ questions, for better or worse, re-opened a lot of settled debates, including on the canon of Scripture. This wasn’t unique to the Catholic side, either: remember Luther’s original canon, in which he wanted to throw out the Books of Hebrews, James, Revelation, etc. It was a troubled time.

     Some Protestant apologists will claim that this meant that the canon wasn’t really settled. But I don’t think that argument carries water, because it involves skipping virtually every Western Christian from the time of Augustine to the time of Cajetan — a “jump” of roughly 1100 years. The real issue relates to why at this particular time in Europe, questions which had been settled for a millennium or more were suddenly reopened, but that’s a lengthy discussion for another time and place.

     In Christ,

     Joe

290. Rene August 10th, 2011 12:33 am :

     Thank you for your answer…(*I did get explicit permission from the author to simply cite him…Matth1618 did his homework…I really like what he did with the Ecumenical Councils and their citation of “Scripture”) so…thanks again…now for some reason I am aligned into this canon issue from the early 20th century books the book I just encountered; it is a Catholic one (I think) it is the following title: “General Introduction to the Study of the Scriptures-Abridged Edition-” by Rev. Francis E. Gigot, S.S., D.D. 1904. Benzinger Brothers. This Abridged Edition gives an edition of the original text on the Canon Issue (Have you ran into it-or the unabridged edition of it?). The author cites also the Patristic citations that are usually argued against the deutero-canonical writings…and admits the controversy and the explicit personal opinion when it comes to St Jerome….he also gives both sides of the story in summary of the issue until the Council of Trent and I ran into Cajetan’s opinion (at brief)…so it seems though that since this snowball was rolling from a long time it seems important that we point to two things though…[as reflection almost] :
     (i)Before the Protestant reformation ‘the novelty’ of the opinion is not really new…since the two opinions almost co-existed…however, it seems to me that since the Church as a Church acted authoritatively since the Council of Rome, Carthage, etc…then some of these early Fathers who point out a Hebrew canon with imperfection of detail…since a book does not explicitly have an index….the Church also tolerated perhaps these controversies….while they lasted…and such controversies existed within the bosom and heart of the Church…however, when it comes to be in theologians who split from the Church and start their own church and own creeds…this opinion of canonicity can be traced back to Catholicity one way or another….so it comes as no novelty the issue of the canonicity of such books. The irony is that theologians as St Jerome and Cajetan stayed Catholic and others unfortunately did not…so if the issue is of importance then it is of more importance for the Catholic.
     (ii) It has also occurred to me that since from the Sacred Scripture themselves, we who live in the New Testament and beyond era…admit more easily of the New Testament as Scripture than the Old Testament taken as Scripture in the New Testament writings…(like St Paul did)….also citing that it is the Church which is the pillar of truth…(Timothy) and Christ being the Rock and St Peter the rock…then it occurs to me (as earlier) that ST John also said that many other things did Jesus said and did and if written there would be no space in the world for such books meanwhile he also state that if the Jews organized themselves into denying Christ’s resurrection and St John recorded that in Scripture then how is it that an incorrupt innocence can be said to exist after the “fullness of time” when the Jews make a definitive canon of the OT at the exclusion of the Greek writings? Can we really trust them more that the apostles (1.) and (2.) can we really trust them more than the New Testament, more than a council of Jews rather than the Council of Catholic Christians? Because if so then the entire New Testament, which is full of almost 300 citations from the Septuagint in Greek must be by a Carthesian doubt granted less inspiration than the Old Testament in Hebrew and all of its “mysterious books” which are indeed inspired. I guess the underlying question is who draws the line? or really who already drew it? and which line is the real line, it is an issue that it is solved by the Middle term of these two questions The Apostles and their successors under the Holy Spirit (It is a within issue)
     God bless,
     -Rene

291. Trosclair September 10th, 2011 2:44 pm :

     Gentlemen,
     I have a question regarding St. Clement of Rome and the NT canon. In his letter to the Corinthians, St. Clement alludes to and quotes from some of the NT epistles. Did he think these NT epistles to be on par with the OT Scriptures? I ask because I have gotten conflicting answers to this question by persons I trust. For instance, Professor Feingold, whom I greatly admire, implies that St. Clement did think them on par with the OT (see his lecture on St. Clement). Yyves Congar says the opposite claiming that the conception of NT Scriptures did not even exist in the first 150 years of the New Covenant (J.N.D. Kelly and Metzger seem to say the same.). Thanks.
     Pax
     Nick T.

292. Tom Brown September 11th, 2011 9:05 am :

     Dear Nick,

     I have not studied the issue of St. Clement’s view specifically, so cannot give a competent answer. My reading of the early Church Fathers on the formation of the canon leaves me an understanding in line with Congar’s, to wit, that during the first generations, the Church did not conceive of the canon — either Old or New Testament — in the full sense that was developed over time. I think it might be confusing to wonder whether the early Church Fathers’ held the apostolic writing ‘on par’ with the Old Testament canon, because, again, the concept of canon was not what it is today. They held the apostolic writings in the highest regard, and paid them great veneration precisely because they believed the Apostles to have been passing on the deposit of faith.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

293. Lojahw September 11th, 2011 4:57 pm :

     Nick,
     It sounds like part of the confusion about Clement of Rome is thinking that attribution of normative authority to particular books presupposes a settled canon (closed list of Scriptural books). That assumption is not warranted. For an early example of attributing normative authority to NT books equivalent to OT books, see 1 Tim 5:18, where Paul introduces a quote from Luke 10:7 together with a quote from the OT, calling both “Scripture.” Similarly, Peter places Paul’s letters on par with OT Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16).

     As for Clement of Rome, he quotes both James and 2 Peter as Scripture (1 Clement 23.3), introduces quotes from Matthew and Hebrews with “it is written” (cf. 13.2, 36:2-4), and cites the normative authority of 1 Corinthians (cf. 47:1-3). Therefore, Clement of Rome explicitly identifies a number of NT books as having equal authority to the OT Scriptures.

     As for recognition of the OT Scriptures, Jesus and the Apostles explicitly or implicitly affirm 32 books (cf., Luke 24:44 and numerous citations in the Gospels, Acts, Romans, and Hebrews). Moreover. a contemporary of the Apostles, Josephus testifies to the same 39 books the Jews have always formally recognized. On the other hand, most of the church fathers could not read or speak Hebrew and consequently, their understandings typically display minor aberrations.

     However, as Paul wrote in Romans 3:2, the Jews were entrusted with these sacred writings, and as the perpetual keepers of the covenants given to their fathers (cf. Rom. 9:4-5), they retained the responsibility and the authority to enumerate the OT canon. For the first four centuries, the church fathers explicitly acknowledged the authority of the Jewish canon by consistently referring to Josephus’ “twenty-two” books, even though their lists of them “lost something in translation.” Of the early church fathers, only Jerome was trilingual and he understood both which books comprised the 22 book canon and the key for deciphering them from pairs and combinations (such as “the 12” minor prophets).

     The church had the responsibility to enumerate the authoritative books of the New Covenant (which took a few centuries to get full consensus on the 27); the Jews had a similar responsibility for the authoritative books of the Old Covenant.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

294. Tom Brown September 11th, 2011 5:30 pm :

     Dear “Lojahw,”

     You circle back to your claim that “the Jews” had some kind of authority to pronounce for the Christian Church the Old Testament canon. This is a common point in Protestant arguments about the canon because of the importance it plays in reaching the Protestant conclusion. However, it, like you, is not able to address my argument above (The Canon Question, sec. II(B).) that there was no single set known as “the Jews” who articulated a single Old Testament canon. You are left with a post hoc selection of just the right set of “the Jews” to yield your intended result: the Protestant Old Testament canon which was known no where within the Christian faith prior to the Protestant Reformation.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

295. Shawn C. Madden September 11th, 2011 9:16 pm :

     Tom,

     A couple of quick notes. The IIB argument is anti-semitic in the extreme. It forgets that Jesus/Jeshua IS a Jew, Peter is a Jew, Paul is a Jew, and they will remain so through eternity. Jesus’s brother, James, even after his conversion, was known as a very observant Jew, as apparently were the rest of the Jewish disciples, even after Pentecost. We, the gentiles, are grafted into a living tree not a dead one. Notice the gates in the New Jerusalem. Jesus is the Messiah of the LORD, the God of Israel. He has come as fulfillment of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants.
     There was no Jewish Septuagint canon. And this has been said before, the books we know as the ‘Septuagint’, ancient and modern, are Christian productions. The Jews never had a canon beyond the 22 books enumerated by Josephus. He is the individual who laid out the different Jewish sects and their theology and yet presented one canon recognized by all of the Jews. Josephus was a Hellenistic Jew, as was Philo. They both attest to the 22 book canon recognized by all Jews at the time of Jesus. And Josephus makes it clear that the 22 book canon had been recognized for centuries. That is the witness of Sirach from the 2nd century B.C.
     Tom, the Jews were the covenant people of the LORD, and, as L. has pointed out, had been entrusted by the LORD with his oracles. The TNK canon was settled long before the incarnation and Jesus referenced its limits in Matt and Luke, limits that decidedly did not include the apocrypha.
     Lojahw laid it out very well and very Scripturally. It is rather you and the Catholics on this site who are left with fictitious constructs to justify a canon not recognized by Sirach, Philo, Josephus, or Jesus. Even Eusibius noted that the Jewish canon was the 22 book canon. Prior to Trent, on this issue, Cardinal Cajetan insisted that in the realm of the canon discussions among Christians, Jerome and his 22 book canon the standared, even against Augustin.
     In Christ
     Shawn

296. Tom Brown September 11th, 2011 9:32 pm :

     Dear Shawn,

     I cannot decypher “IIB.” Please assist, and then please specify how it is anti-semitic. As you do so, please be mindful of our posting rules, particularly with respect to ad hominems.

     Please refer to my section II.(B) above, wherein I discuss scholarship pertaining to the canon used by “the Jews.” In line with that scholarship, I posit that there was no singular group of “the Jews” who could articulate a canon. There were many groups. The Reformed theologians upon whose work I primarily based this article took this issue up with some care; I don’t see how you can get by blowing past the matter.

     Whether Jesus recognized this canon, that canon, or any canon is, of course, a matter easily and verbosely debated; I won’t take it up here other than to note my disagreement.

     Cardinal Cajetan is but one man, a fan favorite for Protestant apologetics artists such as “Lojahw.” He discussed the issue when there was still room for scholarly debates in some prelates. And, as I’ve noted, he was but one man. I don’t see how his agreement with your debatable interpretation of Jerome yields the conclusion that your understanding of what their canon would be stands, “even against” St. Augustine.

     Lastly, please consider reading this article before commenting further. You might find it elucidating, and we could have discussions about the arguments made here, and whether you believe any of my premises or conclusions are debatable.

     In the Peace of Christ,
     Tom B.

297. Bryan Cross September 11th, 2011 9:34 pm :

     Shawn,

     You wrote:

     The IIB argument is anti-semitic in the extreme. It forgets that Jesus/Jeshua IS a Jew, Peter is a Jew, Paul is a Jew, and they will remain so through eternity.

     Let’s try to avoid sloppiness. Arguments cannot forget anything. Only conscious beings can forget. So Tom’s argument does not “forget” anything. Second, arguments are properly judged by their validity (does the conclusion follow from the premises) and by the truth of their premises. They aren’t properly judged by whether they are anti-x, or whether they do not include some fact (e.g. “Jesus is Jewish,” “It is the year 2011,” etc.) So, if you think Tom’s argument in IIB is not a good argument, then you need to show which premise of his argument is false, or how the conclusion of his argument does not follow from the premises of the argument.

     In the peace of Christ,

     – Bryan

298. Tom Brown September 11th, 2011 9:40 pm :

     Dear Bryan,

     Ah, IIB = Section II (B)! Thank you, I was very confused. I thought it was like the next great LXX, and felt entirely ignorant.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

299. Lojahw September 12th, 2011 12:00 pm :

     Tom,
     My conclusions are based on the testimony of the fathers of the church, not on the views of a particular Jewish sect. It is irrelevant that there were minority Jewish sects for which there is no evidence of competing OT canons, other than the Sadducees, whose narrower “canon” Jesus explicitly refuted.

     It is interesting that the two great fourth century codices containing the LXX were composed contemporaneously with Cyril of Jerusalem, who wrote:

     Of these [the LXX books] read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than yourself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes (Catechetical Lectures 4.35).

     Moreover, every other church father who followed Cyril said the same thing – until Augustine came up with his list of 44 books at the end of the fourth century.

     That these “22 books” were well established is attested by Josephus’ claim that they were taught to their young children along with the Hebrew alphabet – that’s where the number 22 comes from. Josephus was born in 37 AD; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the tradition was widely used in the time of Jesus that Jewish children from their earliest years were taught the OT canon together with their alphabet.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

300. Shawn C. Madden September 12th, 2011 3:52 pm :

     Gentlemen,

     I earlier wrote from home, late at night, away from my desk and resources. Perhaps this will do:

     Actually, the Word of God is the Word of God regardless of men or councils of men. Men merely recognize what God has presented. There is no ‘determination’ made other than recognition. The Catechism uses that phraseology. So, recognizing what God has presented to us as his word does not violate sola scriptura as the Scriptures is the Scriptures whatever we say or think.

     As far as the TNK canon, it had been established long before Jesus’ time (Sirach, Philo, Josephus). The Jews, as those ‘entrusted with the oracles of God’ (Romans 3.2) were fully capable or recognizing God’s Word, the TNK, and so declaring their recognition.
     You said that “the fact remains that differing groups of Jews at the time of the founding of Christianity accepted different canons.” This is completely wrong. The person most responsible for our knowledge of the Jewish sects was Josephus and he is very clear that all of the Jews accepted the 22 book canon. I have said this before—he nowhere distinguishes different canons for different Jewish sects. He is emphatially arguing just the opposite conclusion.

     So too when you wrote that “The Diaspora Jews, on the other hand, used the Greek Septuagint, which included the deuterocanonical texts as well as some apocryphal texts.” This is flat out wrong too. There is absolutely no historical evidence for this. Again, just the opposite. Bruce (44ff) completely, and rightly, discounts an Alexandrian canon. Such is also proved by the fact that the two great Hellenistic Jewish writers, Philo and Josephus, both adhere to the 22 book canon.
     The evidence from Sirach, Philo, and Josephus was that the canon was recognized long (Sirch, 2nd century B.C.) before the time of Jesus and the NT writers.
     You hint at the truth here without recognizing it. In quoting Bruce you make the point of the Jews and the Greek translation of the TNK. The rabbi ‘cursed the day the seventy elders wrote the LAW in Greek.’ They wrote ‘LAW.’ Not ‘Septuagint.’ The original (again, and again) Jewish ‘Septuagint’ was only the LAW!

     As I have said many times before, you have to be firm and solid on your definition of the Septuagint/LXX. It was originally the Torah that was translated in 250 B.C. Read the letter of Aristeas. The other books were translated later. And, at no time did the Jews ever put the Greek translations together to form a corpus. There is absolutely no evidence nor hint of evidence for that. The constructing of the LXX that you keep referring to is A CHRISTIAN PRODUCTION dating to 3-400 years after Christ!
     The vast majority of your statements about the LXX are patently false because you don’t have a firm and correct definition of the LXX. And the vast majority of your argument centers around that. And, in my opinion, if not anti-semitic then you are skirting close to the edge of it. You seem to think that the Jews were never God’s Chosen people and had no insite and guidance of the Holy Spirit when it came to discerning the Word of the LORD.

     Sirach, Philo, Josephus and Jesus all attest to the same canon. And it is not the expanded canon of the Roman Catholic church. Those Jews got it right (they agreed with Jesus) and Rome got it wrong (she disagrees with Jesus).
     There was no ‘Septuagint’ of the early church. There were Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures that the church used but there was no one corpus that could be pointed to as the ‘Septuagint.’ You prove that yourself with your reference to the three great manuscripts which are CHRISTIAN PRODUCTIONS and which do not agree with each other!
     You argue against the Holy Spirit guiding the Jews of Jesus day as to the discernment of the TNK!

     You wrote:
     “The evidence I have provided here indicates that, at the time of Christ, Samaritan, Essene, and Alexandrian Jews used a canon different from the 39-book Protestant canon. Even the rabbis at Jamnia, who famously debated in the year A.D. 90 about which books were prophetic, gave the opinion that Ezekial should be “withdrawn.”

     It is wrong on both accounts which has amply been demonstrated by me and Lojahw. Josephus is clear that the Jews, regardless of sect, accepted the same 22 book canon. And, no, the Jews did not give the opinion that Ezekiel should be withdrawn. Here is what they wrote (as quoted in the article):

     As Hillel and Shammai were active at the beginning of our era, their schools were in existence before the fall of Jerusalem, and no known rabbis of Jamnia are mentioned here, it is probable that these discussions pre-date Jamnia. A stonger evidence of early canon discussion is given in the Gemara: In truth, that man, Hananiah son of Hezekiah by name, is to be remembered for blessing: but for him, the Book of Ezekiel would have been hidden, for its words contradicted the Torah. What did he do? Three hundred barrels of oil were taken up to him and he sat in an upper chamber and reconciled them. (https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/00-Introduction/Text/Articles/Newman-CanonJamnia-WTJ.pdf).
     The sources (Sirach, Philo, Josephus, Jesus) do not say how the recognition of the Jewish canon was made—they mentioned it as an accomplished and agreed upon fact. Josephus lays them out without mentioning a council or a decree. And he notes the same canon that Philo, Sirach, and Jesus uses. You are trying to force a 17th century Roman Catholic paradigm on folks when such a paradigm was not used, recognized, nor apparently considered.

     You write, “But if this is our defense of the canon, we are left once again relying on Jewish tradition in the formation of canon. And if we are relying on Jewish tradition, then we have no reason not to accept the tradition of the Alexandrian Jews who accepted the deuterocanonical texts.” Again you are discounting the Holy Spirit leading the Jews and you are again referencing the pure fiction of an Alexandrian canon. You must first prove something before you can use it.
     You wrote, “But there is no indication from history that the Jewish leaders in Israel at that time had rejected the deuterocanonical texts. As said above, we know that the New Testament authors–who, prior to the establishment of the New Covenant, would have been obedient to the Jewish leaders–widely used the Septuagint when they quoted the Old Testament. And, as also has been said, the Septuagint contained the deuterocanon as well as other texts beyond the the 39 books of the Protestant Old Testament.”

     The truth is that there is absolutely no indication from history that the Jews accepted the deutercanonical books as inspired. Nowhere. You have never produced any indication of this other than your fictitious ‘Alexandrian canon’ and your horrible and inaccurate use of the term ‘Septuagint.’ On this your whole thesis rests and consequently falls.

     In Christ,
     Shawn

301. Tom Brown September 12th, 2011 8:34 pm :

     Dear “Lojahw,”

     I said previously that you were not “able to address my argument above (The Canon Question, sec. II(B).) that there was no single set known as ‘the Jews’ who articulated a single Old Testament canon.” Now you present with what I believe is your attempt address the argument. You said:

     “My conclusions are based on the testimony of the fathers of the church, not on the views of a particular Jewish sect. It is irrelevant that there were minority Jewish sects for which there is no evidence of competing OT canons, other than the Sadducees, whose narrower “canon” Jesus explicitly refuted.”

     Waving your hand and saying that you have “conclusions” that are purportedly “based on the testimony of the fathers” does not address my arguments in section II.B. in any fashion. Please refer again to the actual Protestant argument I address and rebut in section II.B. If your rule for formulating a binding infallible [Old Testament] canon is actually the testimony of the Apostles, then we have a different matter to take up than the testimony of “the Jews.”

     You dismiss “minority” sects of Jews by stating that there is “no evidence” of competing Old Testament canons [from them]. I gave at least some evidence in my section II.B., primarily based on my reading of Reformed Old Testament scholars, the citations to which works are woven throughout my writing. So it will not do to state simply that there is “no evidence;” you need to go back and try again. Also, keeping in mind that you admit that the Sadducees used a competing canon, please identify the Biblical text at which Christ explicitly refuted their canon? I recall him speaking of them as a group of Jews, meaning that it would be an improper reference to call some other group of Jews “the Jews.” If you think it is proper, you need to articulate some rule by which you think the Hebrew-speaking Jews of Jerusalem deserve the definite article over and against other Jews.

     You lean on one Church Father, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, but need to read on from your quoted text. He goes on to approve of Baruch from the Septuagint as canonical. He will not support the Protestant canon. It is without basis or premise that you reach the conclusion that St. Augustine ‘came up with’ (as if novel) the canon that during his life was approved by church council without protestation.

     We sit here and pit my interpretation of the Fathers against yours, or my understanding of how the Jewish people handled the Sacred Scriptures (from scant history available). None of this avoids the problem I noted throughout my article, and with extensive particularity in section III, namely that you are applying fallible, non-binding opinion in an effort to reach a binding and infallible canon. This is illogical.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

302. Tom Brown September 12th, 2011 9:13 pm :

     Dear Shawn,

     We should seek brevity where possible. You stated:

     “Actually, the Word of God is the Word of God regardless of men or councils of men. Men merely recognize what God has presented. . . . So, recognizing what God has presented to us as his word does not violate sola scriptura as the Scriptures is [sic] the Scriptures whatever we say or think.”

     This is a non sequitur, and disregards my argumentation. Given that the Word of God is what it is, not because men recognize it, but because of its very nature, it does not follow that men are able to recognize it and articulate it in a binding, infallible list without violating sola Scriptura. Please read the article.

     You continue:

     “You said that ‘the fact remains that differing groups of Jews at the time of the founding of Christianity accepted different canons.’ This is completely wrong. The person most responsible for our knowledge of the Jewish sects was Josephus and he is very clear that all of the Jews accepted the 22 book canon. I have said this before—he nowhere distinguishes different canons for different Jewish sects. He is emphatially arguing just the opposite conclusion.”

     This is not completely wrong, as I have demonstrated in the article. Please consider my arguments therein. You cite to one Jewish historian, Josephus, to disprove my assertion, which relies on the scholarship of a number of theologians, primarily Protestant, cited in the article. While it is difficult to overstate Josephus’ significance to the study of early Church History, I believe you have done it. Even if I agree that he “nowhere distinguishes different canons for different Jewish sects,” it does not follow that there were not different groups of Jews with different canons at the time of the birth of the Church.

     You move on this way:

     “So too when you wrote that “The Diaspora Jews, on the other hand, used the Greek Septuagint, which included the deuterocanonical texts as well as some apocryphal texts.” This is flat out wrong too. There is absolutely no historical evidence for this.”

     I believe that your cohort “Lojahw” provided at least some historical evidence for the assertion in his citation of St. Cyril of Jerusalem who approved the Septuagint, inclusive of Baruch.

     You hotly protested:

     “The vast majority of your statements about the LXX are patently false because you don’t have a firm and correct definition of the LXX. And the vast majority of your argument centers around that. And, in my opinion, if not anti-semitic then you are skirting close to the edge of it. You seem to think that the Jews were never God’s Chosen people and had no insite [sic] and guidance of the Holy Spirit when it came to discerning the Word of the LORD.”

     This is so loose as to be a very poor argument. I think you can do better. If “the vast majority” of my statements fail in the way you state, and “the vast majority” of my argument relies on said failure, you should have no trouble pointing out for me which premises of mine are false or which conclusions are invalid. You have not done that. As for irrational allegations of anti-semitism, badly misplaced in the course of this discussion and on this site, I think you are up against the posting guidelines of Called to Communion. First, unless you are claiming that all people who disbelieve that the Jews are God’s chosen people are anti-semites, your statements are illogical. Second, despite what you believe that I “seem to think,” please refer to what I have actually said. Take my words and identify which of my premises are false, or which of my conclusions are invalid. For the record, I love all semitic people, certainly including God’s chosen people, the Jews.

     Why are you so chagrined to trust “CHRISTIAN PRODUCTIONS”? Christ was a Christian Production, as were the Apostles, the New Testament, your pastor, and you. By what binding, infallible authority do you conclude that the historical recordings of an ancient Jewish historian who wrote after the time of Christ are correct over and against contemporaneous Christian writings?

     With harumph, you conclude: “On this your whole thesis rests and consequently falls.” Apparently you have not read my thesis in this article, The Canon Question, if you believe my “whole thesis” pertains to section II.B. alone. Even if you were right, I believe you have taken up [only] the first of three alternate (not conjunctive) arguments I make against one of five alternate theories put forward by Protestants to address an entirely distinct problem or argument I take up in section III. So, it seems a good bit of hyperbolic drama to state that my whole thesis rests and falls on your reading of Josephus and your deep belief that the Holy Spirit led the ancient Jews of Jerusalem to the number 22 which, to you, comprise the same texts of your Protestant Old Testament.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

303. Trosclair September 12th, 2011 9:17 pm :

     Lojahw,
     Earlier you were defending the thesis that St. Clement of Rome provided evidence for the “normative” nature of the NT documents (e.g. Matt. and Hebrews). Do you discount St. Clement of Rome’s “normative” use of the Book of Wisdom (3:4, 11:21, 12:12)? If so, why do you accept his testimony for the NT testament documents but reject his testimony regarding this Deuterocanonical text? A man who had the teachings of the Apostles still “ringing in his ears” could not identify the Word of God given to him?
     Pax Tecum
     Nick T.

304. Lojahw September 12th, 2011 9:50 pm :

     Tom, I guess I didn’t state my argument clearly enough: your sec. II(B) is a red herring. It doesn’t matter how many sets of Jews there were or how many fictitious canons have been imaged by later scholars because the church fathers consistently pointed to Josephus’ set of 22 books as the Jewish AND Christian OT canon. You have presented no argument that demonstrates the error of their judgment, which is the logical conclusion of reading the Scriptures themselves, including Paul’s testimony in Romans, Jesus’ testimony in the Gospels, and all NT writers together with the church fathers prior to Augustine.

     As to imagined competing Jewish canons you confuse speculation with evidence. You have presented no primary sources to support your assertions that there was any such thing as an Essene or Alexandrian Jewish canon. I can quote tons of scholars who make outrageous claims – such speculations are of no worth in establishing historical truth claims.

     As to evidence that Jesus refuted the reputed Sadducean canon, I cited one high-profile example: Jesus’ claim of the normative authority of the Prophets and Psalms in Luke 24:44. How many of Jesus’ claims of canonical authority beyond the Law do you need?

     As to Cyril’s mistaken understanding of the extent of the “book of Jeremiah” – I have covered that numerous times in this and other threads. He could not read or speak Hebrew and simply didn’t know any better than to accept the Greek translation grouping of Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah with Jeremiah and Lamentations. But that again is a red herring: the point is that Cyril (and all the other church fathers who published OT canons prior to Augustine) believed that the Apostles had handed down “22” OT books which correspond perfectly with Josephus’ list. Your “interpretation” of the church fathers and the Jews does not reasonably explain the historical evidence.

     Certitude is no test of truth.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

305. Joe Heschmeyer September 12th, 2011 10:59 pm :

     Lojahw,

     You wrote:
     It doesn’t matter how many sets of Jews there were or how many fictitious canons have been imaged by later scholars because the church fathers consistently pointed to Josephus’ set of 22 books as the Jewish AND Christian OT canon

     It seems from your comment above that you’ve already conceded that none of the Fathers used the 22 Books Josephus outlines. True, Jerome advocated for it, but (1) that wasn’t the canon of the Bible he himself translated, and (2) none of the earlier Fathers cited to the same 22 Books as Josephus.

     It seems to me that there’s a world of difference between saying, “this Father believed in a 22 Book Old Testament canon,” and “this Father believe in the same 22 Book Old Testament canon as Josephus, and modern Jews, and modern Protestants.”

     I understand that this format invites exaggeration of evidence, but I think it’s charitable to even call it an exaggeration when you go from “no Church Fathers used the same OT canon as Josephus” (the actual historical evidence) to “the church fathers consistently pointed to Josephus’ set of 22 books as the Jewish AND Christian OT canon.” Where’s the evidence for that assertion?

     God bless,

     Joe

306. Lojahw September 12th, 2011 11:23 pm :

     Nick,
     Can you explain your assertions about Clement of Rome authoritatively quoting Wisdom? There is no 1 Clement 11:21 nor a 12:12, and 3:4 merely concatenates phrases from multiple sources without authoritative introduction. Where do you read: “it is written” or the “Scriptures say” or the “Prophet says” in 1 Clement referring to anything outside of the 66 books? (BTW – 2 Clement has long been recognized as spurious.)

     Joe, Your point is well taken that my wording was sloppy, but it is true that there is no way to rationally reconcile the canons listed by the church fathers with any other imagined “competing” Jewish canon prior to Augustine. The fact that all those church fathers attested to the same 22 books with minor variations (picture a target with lots of arrows close to the bulls-eye, but only 1 in the very center – can you not figure out what the archers were aiming at?) Do you accept the ability of textual scholars to accurately reconstruct the text of the NT from the many variants found in the ancient MSS? The reconstruction of the OT canon from the many church fathers prior to Augustine who testified for the 22 book formula is the same kind of problem – and the conclusion always points to the same books that Josephus and every other formal Jewish canon have listed.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

307. Lojahw September 13th, 2011 6:28 am :

     Joe,
     You seem to confuse ‘canon’ with an edition of the Bible. This is precisely what Cyril of Jerusalem addressed when he said of the LXX to accept only the 22 books out of the larger collection included in the codex Vaticanus and codex Sinaiticus which were published when he wrote his Catechetical Lectures. Similarly, Jerome’s Preface to the Book of Samuel and Kings gave a “helmeted” introduction to the OT canon – and this preface was published with the Vulgate which included additional books. Because Jerome wrote this preface in 391, seven years after Damasus died, it is wrong to assert that he changed his mind about the canon to conform with the opinions of Damasus.

     Luther’s Bible also included the Apocrypha, yet he explicitly denied them canonical status. It was common historically to speak of two canons: an ecclesiastical canon and a canon fidei, where only the latter was considered to carry doctrinal authority.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

308. Shawn C. Madden September 13th, 2011 12:17 pm :

     Brevity?! Your article is anything but brief. It borders on the tedious.

     My referencing the Word of God not needing men to confirm it actually goes to the heart of your charge against sola scriptura. You are wanting a council necessary to ‘declare’ what is and is not God’s Word. And you think that council, not being of God’s Word, violates sola scriptura, there being something or someone outside of Scripture to declare scripture.

     Josephus is the key to the point. Eusebius recognized that as did many others. He quoted Josephus at length, ending with what Josephus said of the books outside or the Jewish canon: ‘From the time of Artaxerxes to our own the details have been written but are not considered worthy of equal credence with the rest because there has not been an accurate succession of the prophets.’

     You wrote, ‘Even if I agree that he “nowhere distinguishes different canons for different Jewish sects,” it does not follow that there were not different groups of Jews with different canons at the time of the birth of the Church’ which has been pointed out to you ad naseum has no proof, hint, nor basis in history. It is a fabrication to try to find your canon among the Jews when it has never been there and is not there to this day!

     Your citing and use of the term ‘septuagint/LXX’ shows either a complete lack of familiarity of the academic discussion or your are purposely fudging it to make your point.

     Once again, from the letter of Aristeas, the ‘Septuagint’ was a production of 72 Jewish elders (6 from each tribe) who translated the TORAH into Greek. When speaking of a Jewish Septuagint you have to stick with that definition. Other books were translated into Greek but the Jewish Septuagint proper was only the Torah. And, there is no evidence that the Jews took the Greek books that were not in their canon (22 book-again, see Eusebius’s quote of Josephus) and added them to the canon. No evidence at all.

     One of the authors you quote, F.F. Bruce, makes this point on 44-45, ‘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 Writing, 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 [why would they?]. The reason for thinking that they did, and that it was a more comprehensive canon tha[n] that acknowledge in Palestine, is that Greek-speaking Christians, who naturally took over the Greek Old Testament [notice his term] which was already in existence, took over the Greek version of other books and gave some measure of scriptural status to them also.’

     As to the identification of the popular concept of the Septuagint/LXX, there are the three great manuscripts (which you noted and which I am one floor away from physical copies of), the modern Ralphs edition, and the critical Goettingen edition—all of which are Christian productions. And, each of which have their disagreements with each other. Vaticanus doesn’t contain any of the Maccabbees books.

     On the discussion of the Jewish canon, the canon of Jesus and the NT writers, I will go with the Jews Jesus, Paul, Josephus, Philo, and Sirach when they tell me clearly what their canon is. No my dear friend, we are all heirs through Christ of the Abrahmic promises, grafted onto Israel. Have you not read Romans 11? Try 11.28-31. Jesus is the Messiah of Israel, to whom the promises were made. We are ‘wild olive’ branches grafted into the ‘cultivated olive tree.’

     Have I yet to reference any Jewish writer who came after the time of Christ? Not to my knowledge. Sirach came long before and Philo and Josephus were contemporary.

     You really don’t want to recognize that the Holy Spirit had any to do with the Jews do you?

     Yes, your whole thesis found in II (B) is completely faulty and so completely fails. This has been shown to you many times by myself and Lojahw.

     In Christ,
     Shawn

309. Tom Brown September 13th, 2011 7:47 pm :

     Dear “Lojahw,”

     Is it your contention that the canon of Sacred Scripture can be bindingly and infallibly determined by (using your metaphor) looking at the arrows fired by the early Church Fathers, and from their pattern, deciding where lies the bull’s-eye?

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

310. Tom Brown September 13th, 2011 8:23 pm :

     Dear Shawn,

     Your comments are too long and disorganized; they need to be tightened up for our readers’ benefit. The article is long because the topic is expansive. It might feel tedious to you for any number of reasons. Truth is not always titillating.

     Many of your comments are baseless, and unrelated either to my main article or the points I am trying to make in these comments, which do take a great deal of my time. For example, you say: “You are wanting a council necessary to…[&c.]” and “And you think that council, … [&c.]” I don’t believe I’m wanting or thinking any such thing. Try taking my premises and demonstrating their purported falsity, or my conclusions and showing their invalidity. Otherwise we’ll both make no progress and waste great amounts of time in the process.

     “Josephus is the key to the point. ” What point is that, Shawn?

     “…which has been pointed out to you ad naseum [sic] has no proof, hint, nor basis in history.” Don’t confuse burdens of proof here. I have made an argument and supported it with scholarly citations in the article. It is incumbent upon you to rebut that with evidence that disproves my premise. By stating that Josephus only speaks of one group of Jews, you have not met your burden of proving that there was only one monolithic group of “the Jews,” contra evidence I present in the article. The burden rests with you, sir.

     “It is a fabrication to try to find your canon among the Jews when it has never been there and is not there to this day!” Until you show my premises on this point to be false, I have no burden to ‘find my canon among the Jews.’ My article never purports that ‘my canon’ is among the Jews. If you think I need to demonstrate that, you have quite missed my point. My point is that you cannot infallibly articulate a binding canon without resorting to some outside authority, thereby [here is where I agree with Ridderbos] placing a canon above the canon.

     “Your citing and use of the term ‘septuagint/LXX’ shows either a complete lack of familiarity of the academic discussion or your are purposely fudging it to make your point.” This is a baseless claim not associated with any effort to disprove any one of my premises, or to show the invalidity of any one of my conclusions. Please refrain from this rhetorical tack.

     “And, there is no evidence that the Jews took the Greek books that were not in their canon (22 book-again, see Eusebius’s quote of Josephus) and added them to the canon.” You are begging the question, i.e., assuming the initial point of your argument to be true; and also mistaking who bears the burden of proof, sir. See how you assume it to be true that there was a monolithic group, “the Jews,” and then base your argument on an assumption that your argument is [already proven] true.

     Nice theory by Bruce. What does it do for your position, and what does it do against mine?

     “—all of which are Christian productions. And, each of which have their disagreements with each other. ” I asked in my previous comment why you are so chagrined at “CHRISTIAN PRODUCTIONS.” I don’t see an answer on that point, even though you return to the rhetoric in your most recent comment. By the way, it’s fun to think about your physical proximity to a LXX manuscript.

     “On the discussion of the Jewish canon, the canon of Jesus and the NT writers, I will go with the Jews Jesus, Paul, Josephus, Philo, and Sirach when they tell me clearly what their canon is.” Please show where Jesus and Paul have ‘clearly shown’ the canon. I maintain that you have interpreted their words to discern a canon, and thereby placed your judgment over the canon. Ridderbos’ logic on this point, which I note in my article, is impeccable.

     “You really don’t want to recognize that the Holy Spirit had any to do with the Jews do you?” That is incorrect. Bryan Cross trained me some time ago not to leave questions to do my argumentative work, and it proved to be a valuable lesson. I recommend the point to you.

     “Yes, your whole thesis found in II (B) is completely faulty and so completely fails. This has been shown to you many times by myself and Lojahw.” That is not what you said. You said my “whole thesis” rests on the points which you believe you have destroyed. I showed that section II (B) was far from my “whole thesis.” I am ready to concede, for purposes of this discussion (and for the sake of brevity and peace), the first of my three alternate arguments to section II(B). If we let that point alone and I acted as if it took no sting from the Protestant position on the canon which I critique, we could see where that leaves you.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

311. Trosclair September 13th, 2011 8:51 pm :

     Lojahw,
     St. Clement quotes Wisdom 2:24 in I Clement 3:4 and Wisdom 11:21/12:12 in I Clement 27:5-7 (please forgive the incorrect citation above). Wisdom is cited side by side with the other Old Testament books (e.g. Psalms 19:1-3).

     You wrote to Tom:

     It doesn’t matter how many sets of Jews there were or how many fictitious canons have been imaged by later scholars because the church fathers consistently pointed to Josephus’ set of 22 books as the Jewish AND Christian OT canon. You have presented no argument that demonstrates the error of their judgment, which is the logical conclusion of reading the Scriptures themselves, including Paul’s testimony in Romans, Jesus’ testimony in the Gospels, and all NT writers together with the church fathers prior to Augustine.

     This is inaccurate. There were many Church Fathers prior to St. Augustine who quoted the deuterocanonical documents as Scripture. The following Church Fathers (and Tertullian) lived prior to St. Augustine and treated the deuterocanonical texts as Scripture: St. Clement (Wisdom), Polycarp (Tobit), Athenagoras (Baruch), St. Irenaeus (Wisdom, Deuterocanonical Daniel, Baruch,etc.), Tertullian (II Macc., Wisdom), St. Hippolytus (I Macc.), St. Clement of Alexandria (Tobit, Sirach, etc.), Cyprian of Carthage (Sirach, I Macc., Tobit,), Dionysius the Great of Alexandria (Sirach, Wisdom, Tobit, etc.), Alexander of Alexandria (Sirach), etc. We have less evidence for the NT books of Hebrews and II Peter than we have for the deuterocanonical texts.

     Pax Tecum
     Nick T.

312. Lojahw September 14th, 2011 5:42 pm :

     Nick,
     You apparently didn’t read or understand my post about citations vs. authoritative citations. Aquinas frequently cites Aristotle, but that does not mean he thought Aristotle’s Metaphysics was Scripture. Similarly, the Apostle Paul quoted Greek poets, but did not imply that their works were Scripture. There are many reasons one might quote or cite another writer that have nothing to do with canonicity. Clement of Rome did not cite or quote Wisdom of Solomon as Scripture. Neither of the quotations you cite from 1 Clement identifies the quotes as Scripture or the authoritative words of a prophet. Nor does Polycarp introduce his quotes from Tobit as Scripture or with the authoritative words, “it is written.” Hippolytus only alludes to 1 Maccabees for historical background.

     As for Clement of Alexandria, he quoted lots of things authoritatively, including the pseudonymous (gnostic) Epistle of Barnabas, as well as many quotes from non-biblical sources. His credibility is therefore not without question. I’ve read most of the sources you list and noticed a pattern among those who call some of these books Scripture: they mistakenly say or imply they were written by Solomon or Jeremiah, or a “prophet” (which is true of none of the books you cite). That’s a consequence of their not knowing Hebrew and of their being misinformed about Greek translations which purported to represent the Jewish Scriptures.

     If you want to talk about the OT canon recognized by the church fathers, you must consider those who actually published such canonical lists. They (prior to Augustine) uniformly attest to a “22 book” canon that is consistent with Josephus’ canon. I have noticed that some of the church fathers who published OT canons occasionally refer elsewhere to a book outside their canonical list as Scripture. The best explanation for this without accusing them of inconsistency is to view their use the term in those cases in the sense of an ecclesiastical canon, a la Rufinus’ definition in his Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed. How do you explain the fact that all those church fathers attested to a “22 book” canon, and then Augustine came up with a 44 book canon? What special revelation did Augustine receive that authorized him to “trench on the statutes of the Church” (as Cyril of Jerusalem wrote 50 years earlier)?

     BTW – since you seem to know so much about 1 Clement, why did you ask if he cited any of the NT books as Scripture?

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

313. Lojahw September 14th, 2011 6:05 pm :

     Tom,
     The question we are trying to answer is what books did the Apostles hand down for the Church to use with normative authority? To answer that historical question, it is important to consider all the historical data that is available. Therefore, I do not limit my inquiry to particular sources, but believe it is important to examine all the evidence. In this case, numerous early church fathers attested that the Apostles handed down the Scriptures to the Church, and we have lists from 9 of them prior to Augustine that state what they understood to be those OT Scriptures. The overall consistency of those 9 OT canons with that of Josephus in the first century, as well as the testimony of Jesus and the NT writers, leads me to two conclusions: 1) that they intended to recognize the “22 books” considered to be “divine” from the Jews; and 2) that they were error prone in accurately reporting which books those were due to a number of historical factors, including their lack of ability to read or speak Hebrew and the “coding” of multiple books under a single title. I have high confidence in accepting the 39 books as the OT canon based on comparing the lists of the church fathers with all the available evidence, including the testimonies of Jesus and the NT writers, including Paul in Romans 3 & 9, who asserts that the Jews (after they rejected Christ) still retained the rights to the “oracles of God” and the promises and covenants made with their fathers.

     When comparing the various hypotheses to explain the historical recognition of the OT canon, there is no contest between the “22 books” and Augustine’s unprecedented count of “44 books.” Internal evidence further confirms that at least some of Augustine’s additions really fall short of what the prophets and apostles and Christ claims about Scripture. Your article seems to imply that there is not enough information to verify the Jewish canon, I argue that the available information from Scripture, the church fathers, and the historical works of the Jews is sufficient.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

314. Tom Brown September 14th, 2011 8:03 pm :

     Dear “Lojahw,”

     “The question we are trying to answer is what books did the Apostles hand down for the Church to use with normative authority?” We are not trying to answer that question, although you may be hoping to address the matter on this forum. This comments section is, rather, to discuss my thesis. For ease of reference, it is summarized in the last two paragraphs of section I. (It begins with, “In this article, I argue that Reformed theology is intrinsically incapable of answering the Canon Question.”).

     Which texts Christians are bound to believe as infallible divine revelation is not an historical matter. It would be an historical matter if you could sit as a proverbial fly on every wall throughout time and observe the answer to the question. That is not possible vis-a-vis the Canon Question, assuming that Jesus Christ never uttered what the final canon’s contents would be.

     It appears from your prior comment to me, and the bit in this one about “it is important to examine all the evidence [&c.],” that you need at least one intervening logical step to get to having a canon. You use your own use of reason as the authority for employing that step, viz., ‘where the arrows of the Church Fathers group, thereat must be the true canon.’

     You say that you have “high confidence” in your canon. Since “high confidence” is something short of infallible certitude, I take it you are in agreement with the “fallible collection of infallible books” theory presented by R.C. Sproul. Your use of reason, your high confidence, no matter how carefully studied, crafted, and perfected, will always fall short of infallibility. The Protestant way out of this quandary, which I do not hear you employing, is to resort to claiming immediate individual revelation by the Holy Spirit, i.e., bosom-burning.

     You will kindly note that my article does not imply “that there is not enough information to verify the Jewish canon.” No such implication is necessary to my argument.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

315. Trosclair September 14th, 2011 9:34 pm :

     Lojahw,

     You stated:

     There are many reasons one might quote or cite another writer that have nothing to do with canonicity.

     Sure, but the Church Fathers that I cited either say or imply that the deuterocanonical texts are Scripture. For instance, St. Clement of Alexandria explicitly calls the book of Wisdom the “Divine Wisdom” (Stromata 4.16) and the book of Tobit “Scripture” (Stromata 2.23). St. Cyprian calls Sirach “Divine Scripture” and cites it by saying “it is written” (Letter 5.2). St. Cyprian, again, calls I Maccabees “Scripture” (Letter 54.3). Methodius of Tyre, bishop of Philippi, explicitly calls Wisdom “Scripture” (Discourse 2.3). Tertullian refers to II Maccabees as “Scripture” (Against Hermogenes, 21). Dionysius the Great refers to Sirach as “divine oracles.” St. Hippolytus quotes a passage from Baruch introducing it as “Scripture” (Against Noetus, 2). These witnesses refute your sweeping claim that “the church fathers prior to Augustine” rejected all of the deuterocanonical books.

     As for Clement of Alexandria, he quoted lots of things authoritatively, including the pseudonymous (gnostic) Epistle of Barnabas, as well as many quotes from non-biblical sources. His credibility is therefore not without question.

     You first denied the witnesses of the Fathers prior to Augustine. Now you appear to be saying, sure there were witnesses but they did not speak three languages like Jerome and were not infallible so they do not count. Also, rejecting Clement of Alexandria because he quotes some non-canonical books authoritatively would cast doubt on the inspired book of Jude (he claimed the writer of the Book of Enoch “prophesied” authoriatively)

     How do you explain the fact that all those church fathers attested to a “22 book” canon, and then Augustine came up with a 44 book canon?

     St. Augustine did not “come up” with these books as the witnesses cited above demonstrate. Augustine writes as if the whole Church has accepted them and claims that they have been preserved by the Apostolic successors. Contrast Augustine’s account with Jerome’s frantic attacks against the deut-canon. Jerome protested so vehemently because he knew that the majority of catholics accepted these books as God’s Word. Jerome knew he had to make a strong case because the rest of the Church disagreed with him.

     BTW – since you seem to know so much about 1 Clement, why did you ask if he cited any of the NT books as Scripture?

     The scholars are unanimous about his stance on the OT; the same is not true for his stance on the NT. St. Clement quotes the book of Wisdom along with the book of Psalms without making any distinction between the two texts. Given the fact that the Church Fathers interpreted the contents of Wisdom as prophecies fulfilled by Christ, St. Clement’s citations are evidence that he thought it was God’s Word.

     Pax Tecum
     Nick T.

316. John Thayer Jensen September 14th, 2011 9:54 pm :

     @Lojahw:

     You apparently didn’t read or understand my post about citations vs. authoritative citations. Aquinas frequently cites Aristotle, but that does not mean he thought Aristotle’s Metaphysics was Scripture. Similarly, the Apostle Paul quoted Greek poets, but did not imply that their works were Scripture. There are many reasons one might quote or cite another writer that have nothing to do with canonicity. Clement of Rome did not cite or quote Wisdom of Solomon as Scripture. Neither of the quotations you cite from 1 Clement identifies the quotes as Scripture or the authoritative words of a prophet. Nor does Polycarp introduce his quotes from Tobit as Scripture or with the authoritative words, “it is written.” Hippolytus only alludes to 1 Maccabees for historical background.

     This is quite correct. This is why it seems to me that unless there is an authority independent of Scripture to tell us what Scripture is, we have no way knowing. To say that Jesus quotes this or that Old Testament book runs afoul of two problems: (1) Jesus is quoting but how do you know that means He is telling us what He quotes – much less the whole writing that it forms a part of – is our infallible guide? “It is written…” proves that it is written – and not a lot more; (2) Unless you already know that the Gospels that tell us what Jesus said are Scripture – and authoritative – you can’t even know what Jesus is telling us.

     I’m afraid it really seems to me that you know what is Scripture for the same reason I do: the Church says so. But then it is the Church’s authority I am trusting. I think that St Augustine somewhere tells us that he wouldn’t believe the Bible if the Church had not told him to do so.

     jj

317. Devin Rose September 15th, 2011 2:08 pm :

     John Thayer Jensen and Lojahw,

     To say that Jesus quotes this or that Old Testament book runs afoul of two problems….Unless you already know that the Gospels that tell us what Jesus said are Scripture – and authoritative – you can’t even know what Jesus is telling us.

     In conversation with Lojahw and Shawn Madden on my blog, this same issue came up, as they used as their starting point accepting Matthew and Luke. So their canon discernment process–even if it could provide conscience-binding certainty–has to be bootstrapped with the initial acceptance of two gospels. I made this video explaining why taking two gospels as their starting point is either ad hoc or circular:

     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay3IhvV4eeQ

318. Lojahw September 15th, 2011 6:09 pm :

     JJ, You raise an interesting epistemological question. Do you believe you cannot know anything unless the Roman Catholic Church tells you? I don’t know anyone who lives life that way. Romans 1:21ff. and many other Apostolic teachings affirm that God reveals truth through many means.

     Why do you assert that I cannot trust Jesus at His word that something is Scripture or has normative authority (e.g., “it is written”)? There is no good reason to deny that a particular book is Scripture just because only a few verses are quoted as such: Jesus makes summary statements that the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms are Scripture. I would be sinning against the Holy Spirit to deny that they are Scripture.

     Also, it is not necessary to believe that the Gospels are Scripture in order to believe that they authentically tell us what Jesus said. The testimony of multiple historical witnesses, contemporary and near-contemporary, are sufficient to know that. It is reasonable to conclude that whatever authentically records Jesus’ teaching is canonical.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

319. Lojahw September 15th, 2011 6:14 pm :

     Tom,
     The issue between us is one of epistemology. Unlike you and JJ, I don’t think we are can only know what the Church teaches.

     Your article asserts: “In spite of partially relying on a supposedly objective element–the self-attesting quality of true Scripture–the classical Reformed answer to the Canon Question ultimately depends upon the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit in the heart of each believer to resolve disputes where the objective measure does not produce agreement.”

     The above is a false dichotomy: one can know the Protestant canon ONLY by self-attestation OR by the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit. All you demonstrated is that a particular way of knowing the Protestant canon is not entirely objective. But knowledge is not limited to the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit. You have not proved that the canon is incapable of being known by historical testimony. Either the statement of Cyril of Jerusalem that the Apostles handed down the “twenty-two books” from the Jews is true or it is false. Based on the testimony of many early church fathers, I accept it as true. If it was true then, it is true today. If you believe that all those church fathers were wrong, please explain why.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

320. Lojahw September 15th, 2011 7:20 pm :

     That you for your comments, Nick.

     Re: your quotes of church fathers who cited various deuteros as canonical, I did NOT say that all of the church fathers prior to Augustine rejected ALL of the deuteros. Rather I made the positive claim that the 9 church fathers prior to Augustine who published OT Canons asserted “twenty-two books”( or the equivalent, depending only how they counted them).

     I said that Clement of Alexandria is not a reliable witness because he quotes the Epistle of Barnabas as normative. You claim that Jude claims the writer of the Book of Enoch “prophesied” – I can’t find such a quote. Can you show where Jude says this?

     Re: The citations of Cyprian and the others, how do you know they were not citing them as part of the larger ecclesiastical canon? Re: Tertullian, I see no citation in Hermogenes 21 to Maccabees, nor do I see a citation for Baruch in Hippolytus’ Against Noetus. Please check these references.

     Re: the church fathers who didn’t know Hebrew, I did NOT say that they don’t count. I said that their inaccuracy re: the identity of the 22 books is most reasonably explained due to their ignorance of the Hebrew language. I further said that the collective OT canons from the 9 church fathers sufficiently shows how to correct for their errors.

     Re: Augustine and Jerome, your explanation is laughable. Jerome’s “helmeted” OT canon is anything but “frantic.” As for Augustine, he knew that not all the churches or church fathers agreed with him, so he recommended that votes be taken where particular churches got more votes than others. Based on his towering stature in the African church he presided over the Councils of Hippo and Carthage and persuaded the attending bishops to vote for his canon.

     Re: Clement of Rome and the Wisdom of Solomon, the quotations you cite do not of themselves make any canonical claim. It does not follow that his quotes imply anything about canonicity, nor that the citations of others about Wisdom say anything about Clement’s beliefs about the book.

     Your arguments do not refute the clear statements of the 9 church fathers who published OT canons which substantially agree with the first-century testimony of Jesus, the Apostles, and Josephus.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

321. Fr. Bryan September 16th, 2011 4:25 pm :

     Lojahw –

     Your arguments do not refute the clear statements of the 9 church fathers who published OT canons which substantially agree with the first-century testimony of Jesus, the Apostles, and Josephus.

     For those of us who aren’t able to go back and read each and every word of this thread, could you please repost which fathers these are and where I can find their published Canon so we can catch up?

     It is appreciated!

322. Lojahw September 16th, 2011 5:34 pm :

     Gentlemen:
     Your peculiar epistemology is at odds not only with the Reformers who embraced “the ordinary means” of obtaining knowledge, but also of Jesus, Moses, and the Apostles who taught:

     “by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact is to be confirmed” (Matt. 18:16; Deut. 17:6; 19:15; 2 Cor. 13:1; 1 Tim.5:19; etc.).

     I have identified 9 witnesses who confirm the fact explicitly asserted by Cyril of Jerusalem that the Apostles handed down only “twenty-two” canonical books out of the larger LXX collection in circulation. You simply don’t want to admit that the most reasonable list of books in those 22 constitute the Protestant OT canon. This is an objective response to the question of whether the Protestant canon can be reliably identified in accordance with the teaching of Scripture. The minor errors in the OT canons of the church fathers is best understood as the result of their use of a faulty collection of books in the LXX, not the inability to identify the 22 books with the proper information.

     This OT canon is not refuted by speculative theories (e.g., an alternate Jewish Alexandrian canon, for which there is no plausible evidence) and erroneous statements (e.g., that none of the church fathers identified an OT canon that matches the Protestant canon, yet there is clear evidence that both Rufinus and Jerome did). The fact that the universal Church has accepted these 39 as canonical is also evidence that the testimony of the Holy Spirit has convicted the entire Body of Christ that they should be recognized as the Word of God. The same cannot be said of your alternative.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

323. John Thayer Jensen September 16th, 2011 7:57 pm :

     @Lojahw:

     JJ, You raise an interesting epistemological question. Do you believe you cannot know anything unless the Roman Catholic Church tells you? I don’t know anyone who lives life that way. Romans 1:21ff. and many other Apostolic teachings affirm that God reveals truth through many means.

     No, certainly not. Almost everything I know I know for reasons unrelated to what the Church teaches.

     Why do you assert that I cannot trust Jesus at His word that something is Scripture or has normative authority (e.g., “it is written”)? There is no good reason to deny that a particular book is Scripture just because only a few verses are quoted as such: Jesus makes summary statements that the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms are Scripture. I would be sinning against the Holy Spirit to deny that they are Scripture.

     Also, it is not necessary to believe that the Gospels are Scripture in order to believe that they authentically tell us what Jesus said. The testimony of multiple historical witnesses, contemporary and near-contemporary, are sufficient to know that. It is reasonable to conclude that whatever authentically records Jesus’ teaching is canonical.

     You are quite correct about what you say here – so far so good. What I am suggesting is that your method is seriously limited. You can do just what a Catholic does – view the Gospels and, indeed, the whole of purported Scripture, as history – not, so far, as authoritative or inspired. You can infer from them that this Jesus was, in fact, something more than just a man whose opinions are worth considering – that He was, in fact, a special messenger from God.

     The problem is that seems to me not to buy you a great deal. Jesus quotes some – not all! – books of what we call the Old Testament. OK. Does that mean He is asserting the whole of that book as inspired? Is it authoritative, or is it only the bit He quoted? What about the other books? What about books that most (numerically, at least) Christians have thought Scripture – like Wisdom, 1 & 2 Maccabees, etc? Who is to tell you? Then you still don’t know what to do about the rest of the content of the Gospels, about the rest of the NT, etc.

     What the Catholic does is to take this historical evidence, infer the divine mission of Jesus, infer the historical fact of the sending of Apostles, and infer the historical fact of the establishment of an authoritative, infallible, organised institution called the Church, to which every man ought to listen and which every man ought to obey.

     Identifying the modern descendant of that Church is left as a problem for the student :-)

     jj

324. Trosclair September 17th, 2011 10:47 am :

     Lojahw,
     You stated, “Your arguments do not refute the clear statements of the 9 church fathers who published OT canons which substantially agree with the first-century testimony of Jesus, the Apostles, and Josephus.”

     In the comments above, you finally listed these 9 Church Fathers. I’ve shown you that many Church Fathers explicitly refer to the deuterocanonical as Scripture, but you have insisted on these 9 Church Fathers. All this fuss about “the nine” and it turns out that none of them, save Jerome, are identical with the Protestant canon. There are many things wrong with your defense of the “nine,” but since you have admitted their lists were not identical to the Prot. canon I will leave as is. Any Church Father you have cited, you have qualified his position so that he might fit nicely into your paradigm. Antony Flew said it best, “death by a thousand qualifications.”

     Your method is eerily like that of the Jesus Seminars. They have attempted to reconstruct the “historical Jesus” apart from revelation, a Jesus that fits nicely into their paradigm. Likewise, by rejecting the teachings of the Church, you are attempting to reconstruct an “historical canon.” You have dismissed the fact that the Jews did not have one canon, you have dismissed the testimony of the Church Fathers who disagree with you, you have corrected the “the nine” that supposedly agree with you, and you have dismissed the authority of the Catholic Church.

     You stated, “You claim that Jude claims the writer of the Book of Enoch “prophesied” – I can’t find such a quote. Can you show where Jude says this?”

     Did you look for the quote? Jude is only one chapter. See Jude 14.

     Please ask yourself this question, “Is this really how Jesus expected us to figure out God’s Word? (especially since I accept sola scriptura!)” You and the other gentlemen on this thread are intelligent men, but this is complicated history. The method you have chosen to figure out the books of the Bible would lead me to despair of God’s revelation. Forget infallibility, this method offers no assurance whatsoever. Revelation without clarity and preservation is pointless. J.H. Newman said it best, “Revelation is a heavenly gift, He who gave it virtually has not given it, unless He has also secured it from perversion and corruption” and “some authority there must be if there is a revelation given.” The Church is our only hope if we wish to break out of this vicious epistemological circle of despair.

     Pax Tecum,
     Nick T.

325. Lojahw September 17th, 2011 7:23 pm :

     Hi Bryan, I hope you are well.

     The 9 church fathers who testified for substantially the same OT canon as Josephus are Melito, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Hilary of Portiers, Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzus, Epiphanius, Rufinus and Jerome. Rufinus and Jerome testify exactly to the Protestant OT canon. Counting 39 books as we do all 9 affirm the same books except for 3 who diverge from the Jewish listing Ruth with the book of Judges (and thus drop Esther to retain the count of “22 books”), and variations on the works of Jeremiah, which the Jews identified as the book of Jeremiah with Lamentations. Origen’s list preserved by Eusebius shows evidence of an obvious copying error (claims 22 books but omits “the 12” minor prophets for a total of 21 books).

     Hilary adds another anomaly in an attempt to recognize the Hellenistic Jews in Rome who used the 24 letter Greek alphabet; he speculated that they might add Tobit and Judith. However, Jerome corrects Hilary by explaining the alternate Jewish tradition for a 24 book canon based on separating Ruth and Lamentations from Judges and Jeremiah respectively. Unfortunately, Hilary did not know this and thus introduced unwarranted confusion about the OT canon. Josephus asserts that the OT canon was so ingrained among first century Jews that it was taught to their children “from birth” together with the 22 letter Hebrew alphabet.

     From the writings of the church fathers it is clear they considered the Jews as the legitimate source of the OT canon, even though their language handicap resulted in minor variants. Had the church fathers been Hebrew-literate they would not have made the mistakes they did.

     To JJ’s argument, the only church father who appealed to the authority of the church, Cyril of Jerusalem, explicitly said that the Apostles handed down 22 books out of the larger collection of Greek translations widely used in the church. It is the authority of Jesus and the Apostles which we accept; it is not necessary to appeal to the authority of the church. Indeed, one reason Protestants do NOT appeal to the Church is that the universal Body of Christ does not speak with one voice on this subject.

     Fifty years after Cyril, Augustine suggested the churches take a vote to settle disagreements about the canon. This situation reflects the widespread usage of Codices like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus which were published in Cyril’s time and which were not only inconsistent with each other but also included more than the 22 books Cyril listed (which is why Cyril took pains to exhort his catechumens to read “only these 22 books” out of the LXX – even though he was mistaken about the extent of Jeremiah’s writings). But taking a vote 4 centuries does not nullify the OT canon passed down from the Jews by the Apostles (cf. Rom. 3:2; 9:4-5). Cyril’s testimony stands on the basis of the many witnesses both before and after him – the Apostles handed down “22 books” from the Jews even though the church fathers had some difficulty correctly identifying them. There is no historical evidence of any other OT canon that even comes close to the books that both Jews and Protestants recognize as canonical.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

326. Lojahw September 18th, 2011 4:31 pm :

     Nick,
     By your argument it is hopeless to recover the text of any of the books of the New Testament. Not one “perfect” NT manuscript survives, and yet scholars claim they know with high certainty well over 99.9% of the text. Recovering the intent of the 9 church fathers is actually much easier than recovering the text of the NT. It is more than sufficient that we have their collective testimony with that of Josephus, knowing that the faulty canons were all composed by men who knew no Hebrew and therefore didn’t know any better when they deviated from the Jewish source of their OT canons. What “thousand qualifications” are you referring to??? The “texts” of the 9 only vary in a very few places, which Jerome clearly corrects. BTW, Rufinus also explicitly recognizes the 39 books in his Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed, 19, 37.

     I pointed out in my post to Bryan that the only church father who published a canonical OT list to mention the authority of the Church (Cyril of Jerusalem) clearly stated “twenty-two books” were handed down by the Apostles. How do you explain the explicit statements of the 9 church fathers without impugning their knowledge of the Apostolic tradition passed down re: the OT? Why should your arguments override those who lived so close to the time of the Apostles?

     You offered no response of my challenges other than Jude 14, which is no different than Paul’s quote of a Cretan prophet in Titus 1:12. In any case, both are illustrating teaching points with quotations, but neither source need to be “canonical” – indeed, Paul’s quote is hyperbole. The same can be said for citations of historical events from the Maccabees or quotes from popular literature, like the story of Susanna. As I said previously, there are many kinds of citations which do not imply canonicity in the sense of the OT canons published by the 9 church fathers. Why do you not recognize the existence of an “ecclesiastical canon,” which the history of the Church clearly acknowledges (see Rufinus, et al.)?

     While it is true that revelation is a heavenly gift, to recognize it as such does not depend on the Church. The responsibility of preserving God’s revelation from perversion and corruption has fallen historically to the Jews and to the Church. Had the Jews not preserved the “oracles of God” all those centuries, the Church would never have received an authoritative OT from the Apostles. Your denial of the former is historically and theologically indefensible.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

327. Lojahw September 18th, 2011 5:48 pm :

     BTW, Nick, your assumption that anyone who ‘prophesies’ is uttering normative teaching is refuted by 1 Cor. 14:29, where Paul instructs the prophets in Corinth to judge one another. Not all prophecy, therefore, is normative.

328. Brent September 18th, 2011 8:17 pm :

     Lojahw,

     Let’s do a historical recap:

     *Melito’s list excluded Esther.
     *Origen is suspicious of James, II Peter, II and III John. He also calls the Gospel of Peter, Gospel of the Hebrews, Acts of Paul, I Clement, Epistle of Barnabas, Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas “divinely inspired”.
     *Cyril of Jerusalem and Gregory of Nazianzus exclude the book of Revelation in their New Testament lists.
     *Hilary clearly refers to Baruch in a way on par with Scripture (On the Trinity, 4:42).

     Of course, one could go on. As you can see, if I grant your “witnesses” to your O.T. canon, I end up losing the N.T. canon. The point is that just like the Bible can be made impossible, church history, when used not as a witness to a thing in reality (Christ and His Church), can be made impossible when it is used to try to prove something beyond what it is capable of doing. Just like the Scripture is not perspicuous, church history is not unanimous in such a way that is conscience binding. In other words, dear brother in Christ, one cannot simply adduce from history the divinity or Christ nor the canonicity of the Scripture. Both are of divine origin. Thus, both require a divine agent to bare witness to their reality. In both cases, Christ left us a Church, empowered by the Holy Spirit, to lead us in all truth. She is the “ground and pillar of truth”. Nonetheless, I agree with JJ that there is some work left for the student to do; especially if he has, for no fault of his own, been estranged from that Church which Christ founded.

     Lastly, regarding the “Jesus refers to our canon thesis”, here is a list of passages in the N.T. where Jesus refers to the deuterocanon.

     Through the Immaculate Conception,

     Brent

329. Joe Heschmeyer September 19th, 2011 8:21 am :

     Lojahw,

     (1) Couldn’t your exact same evidence (the nine Fathers you’re looking at) be used to support alternative canons? That is, if Christian group started using a Bible (a) without Esther, or (b) without Lamentations, or (c) with Baruch 6 (the “Epistle to Jeremy”), couldn’t any or all of those groups use the exact same evidence you’ve used as support of their own canon?

     In fact, it seems like it’d be far stronger evidence, since they could colorably claim that some of these nine Church Fathers actually used their canon, while you’re left saying that everyone in the early Church got the canon question wrong.

     (2) The Fathers in question weren’t suggesting that these Books were the only inspired ones. As you said above, there was a distinction between Books considered “canonical” and “ecclesiastical.” Is this a distinction that you hew to? Because it seems that if your question is really which books are inspired?, then the very Fathers you’ve cited would have a very different answer than the one you’ve given.

     (3) I would suggest that it seems you’re not really basing your canon off of Patristic testimony at all, but off of the testimony of a sole Pharisee, Josephus, and perhaps(?) off of a belief that Romans 3:2 gives some sort of perpetual power to “the Jews” to determine the Old Testament canon, even after Christ established His Church. Is this accurate? Or would you really use a different Biblical canon if we could show you that the earliest Christians used one?

     God bless,

     Joe

330. Trosclair September 20th, 2011 7:01 am :

     Lojahw,

     You stated,
     “It is more than sufficient that we have their collective testimony with that of Josephus, knowing that the faulty canons were all composed by men who knew no Hebrew and therefore didn’t know any better when they deviated from the Jewish source of their OT canons.”

     The Jews did not have one monolithic canon. The first explicit rejection of the deuterocanonical texts was promulgated by Rabbi Akiba (a man who thought Bar Cochba to be the Messiah) of the 2nd Jewish revolt in the middle of the 2nd century after Christ. Interestingly, he lumped them together with the Gospels and implied that Christians and many Jews were accepting them as canonical. It was then that many of the Jews, following Rabbi Akiba, accepted the Masoretic Text as definitive. We know that there was no unanimity in the Jewish world regarding the canon because the Dead Sea Scrolls provide evidence to the contrary. Most importantly, it reveals that many Jews accepted the Septuagint which included the Deuterocanoncial texts. This is the same Septuagint that the NT writers cite when referring to the OT. J.N.D. Kelly confirms, “It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the 22 books of the Hebrew Bible of Palestinian Judaism. . . . . The reason for this is the OT which passed in the first instance into the hands of the Christians was not the original Hebrew version, but the Greek translation known as the Septuagint.” (Kelly 53) Jerome was mistaken. He thought that because the Masoretic Text preserved the Hebrew language that it was the ONLY authentic list. The Dead Sea Scroll discovery has revealed his error. This is the consensus of the scholarship, both Protestant and Catholic alike, on the OT canon, e.g. A.C. Sundberg, Bruce Metzger, F.F. Bruce, J.N.D. Kelly, etc. Your theory/argument is not only against the majority of the Church Fathers but is contrary to those who specialize in the formation of the OT canon.

     You stated,
     “How do you explain the explicit statements of the 9 church fathers without impugning their knowledge of the Apostolic tradition passed down re: the OT? Why should your arguments override those who lived so close to the time of the Apostles?”

     You have already admitted that most of “the nine” do not agree with your canon. Why do you keep citing these nine, if you know that they disagree with you? You rely on those Church Fathers who ALMOST agree with you and then attempt to correct them where they disagree with you. There is another problem with your lists. Many of the Fathers you cited, such as Origen, were not saying “this is the list for the CHURCH” but were saying “the present day Hebrews hold this list.” We know this because Origen himself calls some of the Deuterorcanonical texts Scripture. Again, you are dismissing all of the Church Fathers that disagree with you, i.e. Cyprian, Clement of Alexandria, Dionysius, Alexander, Irenaeus, etc. and are attempting to reproduce a canon that fits those books which you have chosen.

     The development of the canon, both the OT and the NT, is an extremely difficult history to decipher through reason alone. It took many centuries before a consensus was reached and declared by the Church. Your “arrow/bull’s eye method” could have hardly bound the consciences of the faithful throughout the centuries. Given the belief that Scripture alone contains ALL of Divine Revelation, the Protestant should be disturbed that most of the faithful have been wrong about the canon itself, i.e. the only infallible guide for the faithful. If this is the method that God left us, then we are on our own.

     In Pace Christi
     Nick T.

331. Pete Holter September 20th, 2011 2:06 pm :

     Greetings, Lojahw!

     Would you agree that Jerome, as a presbyter, would defer to the judgment of bishops in deciding what books belonged in the canon over against any personal opinion that he might hold? I think we have evidence to think that he would.

     You seem to reduce Augustine’s method for determining the canon to a bare vote without consideration of other criteria that would constitute such a vote, as if the vote itself was simply based on uninformed opinion. Would you agree that it is not fair to frame his view in this way?

     I see you have a lot of people responding to you, so don’t feel pressed to answer my questions.

     I hope you have a blessed day!

     In Christ,
     Pete Holter

332. Shawn C. Madden September 21st, 2011 11:53 am :

     Nick,
     You wrote, ‘The Jews did not have one monolithic canon.’

     Nick, one more time, yes they did. Again, Sirach (2nd century B.C.), Philo and Josephus (1st century A.D.), Jesus (as quoted in Luke and Matt.) all point to a singular, monolithic canon recognized by the Jews. And in none of them is found the apocrypha/deuterocanonicals, i.e., they were rejected by those writers.

     Josephus is our primary source for our knowledge of the Jewish sects and he is very clear that they all accepted the 22 book canon—at no time did he distinquish canons among them.

     Concering the Septuagint, you are joining your brothers here in their error. You seem to be using the term that uses Rahlph’s edition which is a modern edition. It differs from the three great manuscripts which in turn differ from each other. Plus, it includes all four Maccabee books—are you arguing that the Jews and the church accepted that canon? When you use the term Septuagint/LXX, as there are several versions of ‘it’, please tell me to which one you are referring—the original of Aristeas (only Torah), Vaticanus (sans Maccabees), Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Goettingen, Rahlphs?

     F.F. Bruce (The Canon of Scripture, 68) makes the point that “Apart from a few fragments from pre-Christian generations, our witnesses to the text of the Septuagint are exclusively Christian.” The Jews never defined a “Septuagint Canon.” To that end on 44-45 we find that he writes, “It has frequently been suggested that, while the canon of the Palestinian Jews was limited to the twenty-four bookd of the Law, Prophets and Writings, the canon of the Alexandrian Jews was more comprehensive. There is no evidence that his was so: indeed, there is no evidence that the Alexandrian Jews ever promulgated a canon of scripture [Philo of Alexandrian never does!]. The reason for thinking that they did, and that is twas a more comprehensive canon tha[n] that acknowledged in Palestine, is that Greek-speaking Christians, who naturally took over the Greek Old Testament which was already in existence, took over the Greek version of a number of other books and gave some measure of scriptural status to them also.”

     Kelly (Early Christian Doctrine) errors in a couple of spots. First, he repeats the error of implying a council at Jamnia. There was no such council. Even Catholic scholars admit this (see Jerome Biblical Commentary, 521-2). Secondly he ignores Josephus, Philo, Sirach, and Jesus who all attest to a closed TNK canon. He cites Josephus but misses the fact that, as stated above, he, a Hellenistic Jew, said that there was one canon accepted by all Jews. Josephus is clear on that and he would have been the one to note a separate canon for each of the sects that he delineated. But, if you accept Kelly’s argument then you have to accept all four Maccabee books. I suspect that you don’t.

     As far as the Dead Sea Scrolls, they in no way imply a larger canon. I would be interested in your argument in that vein. Yes, deutercanonical books were found in the caves but that implies nothing concerning their canonical status. The Rule of Discipline was found in Qumran, does that mean that it was considered canonical?

     In Christ,
     Shawn

333. Lojahw September 24th, 2011 8:22 pm :

     Gentlemen:
     I see two main themes in your recent posts: 1) that objective recognition of the Protestant OT canon is impossible (in spite of my demonstration to the contrary); and 2) that random citations by certain church fathers of books beyond that OT canon refute the “22 book” canon published by Josephus and defended by 9 early church fathers.

     To the first theme: There is no precedent for Protestants to be denied the use of ALL available information to understand the Scriptures and its boundaries. The techniques employed to reconstruct the NT text with extremely high accuracy (from a collection of manuscripts none of which are identical) are easily applied to the “22-piece” puzzle of the OT. The complexity of the NT text is many orders of magnitude greater than that of the “22-book” canon. The historical witnesses together with the evidence contained in the books which authentically record the teaching of Jesus, the Apostles, and the Prophets is more than sufficient to arrive at an objective, consistent, and coherent OT Canon. You have not provided any reasonable argument to the contrary.

     To the second theme: the citations of the church fathers are not all the same. Here are some examples:
     1] Some authors of 22-book canons authoritatively cited books outside of them: these represent appeals to different kinds of authority (e.g., historical, ecclesiastical, etc.).

     1a] For example, Cyril of Jerusalem, who claimed the Apostles handed down an irreformable 22-book canon, cited Wisdom of Solomon as the work of King Solomon. He was mistaken, but nevertheless, he considered Solomon’s quotation to be authoritative, even if the book was not normative for all Christians. A number of other church fathers were also gullible about the authorship of Wisdom, which was falsely claimed to be composed by Solomon in Greek centuries after his time. God is not the author of deception.

     1b] Similarly, Athanasius, in the same Festal Letter in which he listed a 22-book canon, introduces quotes from Sirach and Wisdom as “holy scripture.” Yet, he explicitly says the latter is not part of the OT canon, although the church fathers handed it down “for instruction in the word of godliness.” He therefore appears to recognize at least two kinds of “scripture.” Rufinus, likewise testifies to an “ecclesiastical canon” beyond the canon fidei, which is normative for doctrine.

     2] None of the church fathers were authorized to speak infallibly for the Apostles, so when we read random statements by them about Jewish books not found in the 22-book OT canon we must carefully evaluate the context, the intent, and the credibility of the reference.

     2a] Some church fathers were simply ignorant and gullible – they did not know Hebrew and thus could not figure out which “22 books” were handed down by the Apostles among the larger collection of Greek translations in circulation (besides which, no 2 Christian editions contained the same books, and even the texts of the deuteros therein differ considerably, e.g., short and long versions of Tobit and Sirach). This is clearly the case in the confusion among the 9 OT canons about the extent of Jeremiah’s writings. Jerome corrects those before him who got it wrong [Pete: your question about Jerome following his bishop is refuted by his “helmeted” OT canon published in 391, 7 years after Damasus died.]. The burden is on those who disagree with Jerome. (Moreover, the Epistle Jeremiah explicitly contradicts Jeremiah’s own prophecy about the duration of the Babylonian exile.)

     2b] The Maccabees were quoted by both Josephus and church fathers for historical details; that does not imply canonicity. In answer to Pete: Augustine’s later argument that their inspiring stories about martyrs lacks credibility (and why stop with 2 Maccabees, many other inspiring stories were in circulation). Most of the citations by the church fathers simply do not imply canonicity.

     2c] Also, the negative version of the golden rule was often quoted by church fathers as well as non-Christians (the origin of the quote goes back to Aristotle); so when you see a quote of Tobit 4:15, its authority does not rely on the book Tobit – indeed, scholars believe some negative golden rule quotes are simply paraphrases of Jesus’ positive statement of the rule. Moreover, it is contradictory to ascribe to the Holy Spirit’s inspiration to a book that teaches that God’s angels are liars (cf. Tob. 5:18; 12:15).

     2d] Similarly, Sirach was a popular book among early Christians and was often quoted. However when has the Church ever taught the following moral teaching as normative: e.g., “better is the wickedness of a man than a woman who does good” (Sirach 42:14)?

     Nick, your appeal to explicit rejection of the deuteros in the 2nd century only supports Josephus’ first century closed canon of 22 books. Also your assertion that Jerome accepted only the Hebrew text is mistaken, he accepted the cases where the Apostles used the LXX as valid. With all due respect to J. D. N. Kelly, no document exists that explains how the Essenes viewed the many manuscripts recovered from Qumran. Any claim that all or any particular subset of the Dead Sea Scrolls represented a “canon” equal to that of the Jewish “22 books” is sheer speculation. Shawn is right about this. Moreover, if the “22-books” have any historical validity in the Church as the 9 church fathers claimed, there is simply no room for the deuteros other than writings that can be proven to be written by Jeremiah, and scholars deny that Baruch and the Epistle are his.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

334. Devin Rose September 24th, 2011 9:54 pm :

     Lojahw and gents,

     I might suggest that we leave aside the OT temporarily, since the discussion does not seem to be moving forward, and instead focus on the NT canon.

     Lojahw, how do you come to conscience-binding certainty on the twenty seven books of the NT? What books do you “start” with, and on what basis do you accept them as God-breathed? What is the process by which you then come to accept the others? And whatever your answers to those other questions are, how do you explain the many varying NT lists from the Christians in the first four centuries?

     Hope this is helpful.

335. Tom Brown September 24th, 2011 10:13 pm :

     Dear “Lojahw,”

     If we are to have an exchange that stands a chance of moving forward (either to reconciliation or identification of disagreement hard-points), we need to address each other’s comments. In my last comment to you, briefly, I responded to you by showing that your method of identifying the canon necessarily relies on your [human] reason acting as your authority to arrive at a canon. Also, I said that your “high confidence” in your canon seems to put you in the same boat as R.C. Sproul, who has a “fallible collection of infallible books.” You sidestepped these matters completely in your reply to me. This is an inefficient colloquy.

     Instead of responding to my points, your response was this: “The issue between us is one of epistemology. Unlike you and JJ, I don’t think we are can [sic] only know what the Church teaches.”

     Whether Catholics believe that they can only know what the Church teaches is irrelevant to my thesis. It is about the Protestant’s inability to articulate a binding, infallible canon without running afoul of the Protestant’s own precepts (viz., sola scriptura).

     You quoted a portion of my article: “In spite of partially relying on a supposedly objective element–the self-attesting quality of true Scripture–the classical Reformed answer to the Canon Question ultimately depends upon the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit in the heart of each believer to resolve disputes where the objective measure does not produce agreement.”

     And then you offered the below critique (non apropos to my previous comments, I note):

     “The above is a false dichotomy: one can know the Protestant canon ONLY by self-attestation OR by the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit.”

     Not that you showed it false, but I was not even presenting a dichotomy. I was saying that while Protestants claim to rely on objective Method X to reach their canon, they actually rely on subjective Method Y to fill in where X doesn’t do that job alone. It’s not either-or (a dichotomy), but ultimately-Y-not-X-alone (“depends upon [Y] to resolve disputes where [X] does not produce agreement”).

     “All you demonstrated is that a particular way of knowing the Protestant canon is not entirely objective.”

     Thank you for agreeing that “the self-attesting qualify of true Scripture” method is not entirely objective. We’ll put a check next to Section II.A. for now. I really need you to see my point in Sections I and III, about authority to answer the Canon Question, though.

     “But knowledge is not limited to the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit. You have not proved that the canon is incapable of being known by historical testimony.”

     It is inapt of you to quote from the part of my conclusion reiterating my argument made in Section II.A., and then proclaim that it does not disprove the Protestant argument I address in Section II.B. As for Section II.B., I have made my argument, and it is for you to prove my premises false or my conclusions invalid. You have not proven that the canon is capable of being known to a binding, infallible degree of certainty “by historical testimony.” If are trying to show the attainability of knowledge that is short of binding, infallible certainty, you need to let me know immediately so I can discourse with you about your particular view of Scripture.

     “Either the statement of Cyril of Jerusalem that the Apostles handed down the “twenty-two books” from the Jews is true or it is false. Based on the testimony of many early church fathers, I accept it as true. If it was true then, it is true today. If you believe that all those church fathers were wrong, please explain why.”

     This is a loaded question. Instead of quibbling about “those” Fathers, the “many” whom you find articulating the number 22 — none of whom articulated the Protestant Old Testament — let’s stick to my thesis, which (as the title indicates) is about the Canon Question. How and by what authority do we answer the Canon Question? (To recap: “By what criterion do we know which texts comprise the Bible?”)

     You criterion appears to be your arrow-grouping theory, which you need to fill in details still remaining after your number-22 theory. Thus, you employ your own fallible logic to analyze your own reading of the Church Fathers and Jewish history to reach the number 22, and to fill in what those 22 books must be. This, as you have said, gives you a high degree of confidence. But, surely this does not give you binding, infallible confidence?

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

336. Mark September 24th, 2011 10:34 pm :

     Guys, I think we try to reason backwards, we can arrive at some fruitful insights.

     I. Seeing the inter-relation of our beliefs by subtracting the claim of divine inspiration

     The relevant issue is, I think, partly this. It’s just not clear why the protestant actually believes that the books of the NT are inspired. Exactly what reason does he have, if any, to justify his claim that, ‘S set of books is divinely inspired’. I think we can start to evaluate how this question can be answered within the protestant paradigm if we start to look at the inter-relation of beliefs.

     For example, if my whole theology consists of claims 1-6, and all of my claims 1-5 are consistent and supported by some further reasonable claims, then I am justified in believing claims 1-5. But, what if someone asks me for how I justify my belief in claim 6. This is exactly what is being asked of the protestant, and the belief 6 in this case is ‘S set of books is divinely inspired’. (let us suppose that claims 1-5 are claims like there is a God, Jesus is Who He says He is, etc.)

     Take all the beliefs that the protestant has (‘1-6’). Catholics want to know why protestants believe claim 6, since claims 1-5 (whatever they are), nor any other reasonable claims, seem to support the truth of claim 6. Now, from all those beliefs, take out the following belief, (‘belief 6’, and whatever follows form this belief; since ‘whatever follows’ only follows if the belief from which it follows is true): S set of books is divinely inspired. And since we also have to take out whatever follows from, ‘S set of books is divinely inspired’, we also have to take out important matters of theology which is communicated through the text of S set of books.

     II. What is left once we have done I (taken out divine inspiration, e.g. taken out ‘claim 6’ of protestant theology)

     But then, you might ask, what are we left with? We are left with a set of historical documents. But what follows from merely having a set of historical documents? Well, based on these books which are historical documents, we can reliably come to believe that Jesus is who He says He is. Once we have faith in this, we have reason to come to believe that what He says is true.

     But, just how much has Jesus told is is true. What, from all that He has said, can be gathered in support of divine inspiration of the NT texts.

     III. Trying to work our way back from what we have (II) to what we want (the claim we subtracted in I).

     So, we have faith in Jesus, and faith in his sayings, so far. BUT we still don’t have any support for the claim, ‘S set of books is divinely inspired’. How do we arrive at the truth of the claim, ‘S set of books is divinely inspired’, from the truth of Who Jesus is and the truth of His sayings.

     THIS is where the protestant seems to just have no good answer. Jesus didn’t say that ‘S set of books is divinely inspired’. He didn’t say, ‘the Holy Spirit will reveal to all people who have faith in me that, S set of books is divinely inspired’. So, here is the question: how can you get from the truth about Jesus to the truth ‘S set of books is divinely inspired’?

     IV. How the Catholic does III.

     In III, I put the challenge to protestants. How, you may ask, does the Catholic answer this question?

     Well, in summary, it’s like this: the Catholic (just like the protestants) have the truth about Who Jesus is via historical texts. BUT, here’s what we also have. We have an understanding of the texts that says the following: Jesus said that person P has authority and is guided from error. Secondly, as a matter of historical fact, it turns out that person P made the claim that, ‘person Q is guided from error’. Since person P was guided from error, he cannot be wrong in thinking that person Q is also guided from error. So, it will follow.

     Now, who is person P? Well, perhaps this could be filled in different ways. Perhaps person P should be a group rather than a single person, like all the apostles. Perhaps it can be just Peter. At any rate, Catholics hold the claim that person P was guided form error, and person P made the claim that person Q was guided from error. Person Q would be either the apostles chosen to succeed the original apostles, or else the pope who succeeded Peter the first Pope. And person Q, whoever it was (the apostles, the Pope, or both) made the claim that, ‘ S set of books is divinely inspired’.

     So, there it is. It’s rough, and many here who can, should correct it. But, what you see, is a line of reasoning that goes from the truth about who Jesus is to the truth of the claim that, ‘S set of books is divinely inspired’.

     V. The Challenge

     So, the question for the protestant (as stated at the end of III) remains: why do you believe that, ‘S set of books is divinely inspired’. We grant you the truth about Who Jesus is, but how do you work form that truth to the truth of the claim, ‘ S set of books is divinely inspired’?

     Even if you think the Catholic story is false, it’s still a coherent story that answers the question. It’s a story that, if it is true and all the parts really took place, then it provides just the explanation that is needed. Protestants don’t even have a coherent story, a valid line of reasoning, that tells us why they are justified in their belief that, ‘S set of books is divinely inspired’. Or at least, I haven’t’ seen one.

337. Lojahw September 24th, 2011 10:48 pm :

     Devin, I would be happy to move on to the NT Canon if the CtC contributors are willing to concede that I have objectively defended the Protestant OT canon. However, I do not expect CtC contributors to accept my defense because it entails an admission that Rome’s canon is arguably different than the OT canon handed down to the Church by the Apostles, according to the available historical and Scriptural evidence.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

338. John Thayer Jensen September 25th, 2011 12:40 am :

     @Lojahw:

     I see two main themes in your recent posts: 1) that objective recognition of the Protestant OT canon is impossible (in spite of my demonstration to the contrary);

     I think you have misunderstood something here. I don’t think objective recognition of the canon – Old or New – is impossible to the Protestant. The Mormon has objective recognition of his Scriptures. They are written. Anyone can go and check them out. They are objective. His church tells him what they are.

     What the Catholic says is that you cannot have authoritative recognition of your canon.

     Consider, again, the Mormon. He has, indeed, an authority of a sort – but the question is whether that authority is ordained by God and guaranteed by God.

     Of course both you and we think that his authority is not so ordained or so guaranteed.

     The Catholic claim is that the Catholic Church – when the bishops speak in union with the Pope – is ordained and is guaranteed by God.

     If that claim is true, then there can be an authoritative statement about the canon – and about much else. That is the question whose truth must be decided.

     If that claim is not true, then the Protestant must be his own authority. He may choose this or that ancient writer and believe that the canon recognised by him – or by a number of them – is ordained by God. But his own Protestantism declares that that writer – and all those writers – are fallible. It is ultimately his own choice to believe this set of ancient writers than – say – the Mormon apostles who say they Church fell into apostasy and that Jesus had to bring the truth to the world again via the American native peoples.

     jj

339. John Thayer Jensen September 25th, 2011 12:56 am :

     @Lojahw:

     Devin, I would be happy to move on to the NT Canon if the CtC contributors are willing to concede that I have objectively defended the Protestant OT canon

     Lojahw, the fact that certain writings, which we call the New Testament, quote someone called Jesus as quoting certain other writings which we call the Old Testament – this fact is, apparently, one of your reasons for believing that certain OT books are inspired. Why do you think that the fact that these putative NT writings’ quotes have that authority? Don’t you see that you cannot avoid the NT canon question, either?

     And when you quote certain other post-NT times writers as believing in the canonical status of certain OT writings, why do you think this proves they are canonical – and inspired?

     Don’t you see that you have to start somewhere?

     jj

340. Brent September 25th, 2011 8:44 am :

     Lojahw,

     For the benefit of any readers, you can find a discussion of Sirach 42:14 here. As we have discussed before, one can very easily provide a salutary reading of a number of passages in both the Catholic and the redacted (Prot) O.T., if one so chooses. To go down this road, is to join the atheists in a public display of disaffection for the word of God. Of course you don’t think Sirach is the word of God, but that is besides the point since you are willing to provide a salutary reading of passages in your redacted O.T. that present similar textual and/or cultural problems.

     Moreover, as I have commented elsewhere, your overall method for establishing the canon is eerily similar to the methods of the Jesus Seminar for establishing the concept of the person of Christ. Let us tread carefully lest we equip our enemy in an attempt to defeat our friend.

     In Christ,

     Brent

341. Trosclair September 25th, 2011 10:50 am :

     Devin,
     Agreed. But if I may, I would like to post my final remarks.

     Lojahw and Shawn,
     If we assume the truth of the following claims then your defense of the Prot.-canon is cogent: (1) the Masoretic text is the only canonical list passed down by the Jews, (2) the Greek Septuagint cited by the NT writers did not include the Deuterocanonical texts, (3) the same Church which solidified the NT canon was mistaken when it solidified the OT canon, (4) only the Jewish authorities have the authority to dictate the contents of the OT canon, and (5) the majority of the Church Fathers were mistaken about the status of the Deuterocanonical texts. If all of the above statements are true then your argument is cogent. But the claims are not true. All of the above claims are either false or doubtful. Your argument has only demonstrated Tom’s thesis that without the infallible authority of the Church the consciences of the faithful are not bound. The Divine Inspiration of a particular text must be revealed by Divine Authority, not by inductive argumentation, i.e. the “arrow/bull’s eye method.”

     In Pace Christi,

     Nick Trosclair

342. Trosclair September 25th, 2011 11:37 am :

     Old Testament canon scholar A.C. Sundberg states:

     “But now, it has been shown, Jerome’s case falls hopelessly to the ground since it was based on the misconception that the Jewish canon was the canon of Jesus and the Apostles. Any continuing appeal through the reformers to Jerome and the Hebrew canon comes to this same end. Two different communities were involved in defining canons out of the common material of pre-70 Judaism. And since the church did define her OT canon for herself, what historical claim does the Jewish definition of the canon about the end of the first century have for the church?.. . If Protestant Christianity is to continue its custom of restricting its OT canon to the Jewish canon, then an entirely new rationale and doctrine of canon will have to be described. And any Protestant doctrine of canonization that takes seriously the question of the Christian usage and historical and spiritual heritage will lead ultimately to the Christian OT as defined in the Western Church at the end of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth centuries.”

343. Pete Holter September 25th, 2011 5:42 pm :

     Hi, Lojahw!

     Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.

     Did Damasus require Jerome to recognize the full authority of the deuterocanonical books, and Jerome refuse? I would appreciate the quotations from them if this is your claim, thank you. Most of the correspondence between Jerome and Damasus seems to be centered around questions that Damasus had and that Jerome tried to answer for him. If Damasus had definitively decreed adherence to a particular canon, Augustine would not have allowed his readers the freedom to follow the canon determined by the Churches of greater authority, or the Churches of greater number. This indicates that at some time in 397 (which is after the date of 391 that you had supplied), the canon was not a dogma of the Church. Again, it would be strange for the Bishop of Toulouse (who was himself favored by Jerome) to write to Pope Innocent in the early 400s, asking him for the list of canonical books, if Catholics were already being held to a definitive list. My question to you is, Who determines the content of the faith, according to Jerome? The presbyters or the bishops? I think you will find that Jerome defers to bishops.

     That Augustine highlights a particular value being laid out before us in 2 Maccabees as its preeminent feature doesn’t detract from the inspiration of that book, or serve as its sole basis for canonicity. Augustine would also want to see that it had been read in the Church for a long time and had found acceptance therein. He would have to be convinced that the contents of the book were true and contained no falsehood. And he would be looking to see if other faithful Catholic bishops shared in this evaluation. Would you agree?

     Have a blessed Lord’s Day!

     In Christ,
     Pete

344. Lojahw September 25th, 2011 11:26 pm :

     Dear Tom,

     I didn’t realize you expected me to respond about the validity of using reason. I’m baffled that you object to the use of reason. Reason was most assuredly considered to be a valid tool of the Reformers (you sound like you misunderstand the Reformer’s principles – e.g., the Westminster Confession statements about the use of reason and “ordinary means”).

     Re: your comment about “reason acting as my authority to arrive at a canon” is a mistaken understanding of the role of reason in my epistemology. Reason is a God-given tool to discern the truths that God has revealed. Romans 1 teaches that humans “understand God’s eternal power and divine nature” from observing creation. Such understanding relies on human reason, but reason is not the authority. Jesus chides the Pharisees for lack of understanding the Scriptures. He’s certainly not saying that reason is the authority. What cognitive process does NOT rely on the use of human reason? Both in the case of general revelation and of special revelation, the authority resides in God’s revelation, not in reason which is a tool for understanding revelation. For most of the canon I have relied directly on the authority of Jesus, the Prophets, and the Apostles as recorded in their times. For historical information, I have appealed to credible historical witnesses as historical authorities. I have appealed to the authority of various authorities as sources for objective conclusions. There may be other cases where people rely on reason as the final authority, but not here.

     The intent of my statement that you demonstrated that “a particular way of knowing the Protestant canon is not entirely objective” was that your argument is a straw-man. Using reason to identify self-attesting Scripture is objective. However, I strongly disagree with your insistence that the ONLY objective way to recognize Scripture is to appeal to self-attesting Scripture. That’s the point of appealing to other objective evidence. Your interpretation that Calvin meant to say “all of the Scriptures are self-attesting” is not what he said. Calvin was making a general affirmation that “the Scriptures” are self-attesting. Surely you don’t think that Calvin was unaware of those Scriptures which are not self-attesting? Nevertheless, one statement by one Reformer does not restrict the means Protestants have for objectively recognizing Scripture and its boundaries.

     You don’t seem to appreciate my methodology that starts with the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles and incorporates the other relevant information available to us on the boundaries of the OT canon. My illustration using arrows around a bulls eye was apparently a poor choice. The recovery of the NT text from a collection of imperfect manuscripts is a better illustration, as is a “22-piece” puzzle. Do you really believe that it is impossible to objectively reconstruct a 22-piece puzzle from the “original edition” and 9 copies, one of which contains the key to the 22 pieces based on personal knowledge of the original source? [BTW – it would be nice if you would stop making the false claim that none of the church fathers articulated the Protestant OT canon, particularly as I have repeatedly refuted your error.]Protestants are not limited to only certain sources of information about God’s revelation. I have answered your question how we answer the canon question. The authority, or full [conscience-binding] conviction behind that answer, is, as Calvin said, the Holy Spirit. Moveover, the Holy Spirit indeed convicts me not to accept as canonical books that portray God’s angels as liars, etc.

     Perhaps you could restate your issues?

     My apologies to the others, I’m too strapped for time now to respond to the other posts.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

345. Shawn C. Madden September 26th, 2011 8:01 am :

     Trosclair,

     First, as has been shown, the very Catholic scholar and Cardinal Cajetan appealled directly to Jerome and required that in terms of canon disucssion even Augustine bows to Jerome. So it is not a protestant argument—it involves Catholic scholars and leaders as well.

     Two, Sundberg has been proved wrong by us very many times to the point that you guys have in essence conceeded the TNK of Josephus and Jesus. There is absolutely no historical or theological hint, as has been shown repeatedly, of separate canons for different sects of Jews. Sundberg is fabricating the thesis out of thin air to find his canon. That has been shown.

     Three, Sundberg and you gentlemen are seemingly arguing that the Holy Spirit had nothing to do with the Jews and Israel and so anything that they would say about a canon is of no effect. The truth is the Holy Spirit was (I would argue is, Romans 11) leading the Jewish people in their recognition of the books of the TNK. The evidence for this goes back to at least Sirach, finds itself in Philo and Josephus and is absolutely confirmed by Jesus. Each of the canons by these Jews is in agreement with each other. The church (wider definition) inherited the TNK from the Jews, the children of Israel, the children and inheriters of the promises to Abraham, the followers of the LORD, the God of Israel, the people looking for the Messiah. Lojahw is right, it was the influence of those of the church who too quickly lost any use of Hebrew who failed to recognize (due to lack of tools) the canon that the LORD gave to Israel and the the church inherited.

     As to your other post:
     1. ‘Masoretic text’ is a text critical term, it is better to use the term ‘TNK’ to define the canon recognized by the Jews of the first century. On this, see above.
     2. That the ‘Septuagint’ used by the NT writers included only the TNK books has been shown and F.F. Bruce argued. With him I concur.
     3. The canon, TNK or NT was solidified outside of any body of those who would or think that they could claim authority to ‘declare’ anything. The Word of God is the Word of God regardless of what a man would say. The church came to recognize what God had done in the NT writings. Notice that even Trent and the Catechism go out of their way to use the word ‘recognize’ and not ‘declare.’
     4. I have not, and don’t believe Lojahw has, argued that any Jewish body ‘declared’ anything. Rather I believe it has been you guys who are wanting to set up the (ficticious) council of Jamnia and so argue the church’s authority against it, the Jewish authority. As I argued above, the church inherited the TNK as the Jews had come to recognize it. Including the very Jewish Jesus.
     5. You are correct, the church leaders who argued for the apocrypha/deutercanonicals were gravely mistaken. And Rome (and others) continue in that error.

     My reading of the recognititon of the TNK canon indicates that no one, Sirach to Jesus, ever pointed to an ‘authoritative council’ being necessary for the Jews to recognize what God had gifted them with. That is my hint to the NT—no ‘authoritative council’ is necessary nor can the need for one be found anywhere in scriptures nor do I find any indication that the Lord desired that one be set up nor any evidence that anyone would be ‘infallible’ in their decisions. If you have evidence for that I would be interested in seeing it.

     In the Messiah!
     Shawn

346. Joseph September 26th, 2011 8:52 am :

     Lowjah,

     “Devin, I would be happy to move on to the NT Canon if the CtC contributors are willing to concede that I have objectively defended the Protestant OT canon. However, I do not expect CtC contributors to accept my defense”

     First, why should you not discuss the NT Canon unless the contributors of CtC are willing to concede that your defense is objective? Would it help if they stated that it was objectively flawed? I think they’ve done that already.

     Second, I think that your “defense” (which is really an offense toward the Catholic Canon, not necessarily a defense of the Protestant Canon) is highly suspect because you are justifying the Protestant Canon by generating a litany of doubt on the OT Canon question itself. You have proven that the historical record (i.e. Early Fathers’ writings over several hundred years) are not consistent on the matter, which, if taken as evidence for the definition of the Canon, even disproves the validity of the Protestant Canon. You have also proven, probably unintentionally, that the Canon question cannot even be answered by using the Scriptures themselves (for you have not provided any evidence that the books of the Canon are specified within them). So, essentially, you’ve proven to us that the Protestant Canon neither stands on the Scriptures themselves nor historical record, both of which you have been citing as evidence for the validity of the Protestant Canon. And, I think, this only validates Tom Brown’s article.

347. Lojahw September 26th, 2011 7:15 pm :

     Dear Tom,

     You asked whether I believe the Protestant canon is a fallible list of infallible books. My first reaction is that your question is not valid: infallible means incapable of error, a trait that can only be applied to agents who can act. However, I’m sure that is not your intent. A better word with the same connotations is inerrant: without error. I can affirm the Protestant canon is without error, for all of the books it lists consistently teach truth and holiness, in accordance with the character of their divine author, the Holy Spirit. All major branches of Christianity affirm the normative status of these books – so no book on the Protestant list can be faulted by any orthodox Christian.

     I also believe that the Protestant canon is the only inerrant canon of divine teaching, because the other canons (lists of normative books) held by other branches of the Church include books which contradict the truth and holiness taught by the aforementioned Scriptures (of which I have provided several examples on this thread). For example, that God’s angels are liars is contrary both to God’s Word and His character (cf. Tob. 5:18; 12:15; John 14:6; 16:13; Rom. 3:4; 2 Tim. 2:15; Tit. 1:2). Don’t forget the order of canonical and deutero-canonical: God’s revealed Word cannot be contradicted by what comes later (cf. Deut. 18:29; Gal. 1:8).

     I conclude that the Protestant canon is the only universally normative and inerrant list of inerrant books. If you prefer the term infallible, then I believe the Protestant canon is the only infallible list of infallible books.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

348. Tom Brown September 26th, 2011 8:48 pm :

     Dear “Lojahw,”

     Thank you for answering the Canon Question: “I have answered your question how we answer the canon question. The authority, or full [conscience-binding] conviction behind that answer, is, as Calvin said, the Holy Spirit. Moveover, the Holy Spirit indeed convicts me not to accept as canonical books that portray God’s angels as liars, etc.”!

     This is to say that, after reviewing the objective features of the texts, referring to historical evidence, and using ordinary means of reason, &c, you rely upon the Holy Spirit speaking in your heart to reach conscience-binding certainty about the canon. In all sincerity, let me say that this is very helpful.

     My response is simple: please re-read my section II.A., in which I take up what I call “further refinement of self-attestation.” From here we can stop arguing about section II.B., since you have now touched on a higher issue.

     If you articulated a Church Father who professed the Protestant Old Testament, I missed it. Please share again. If that’s so, objective proof it still (certainly) would not make.

     “Do you really believe that it is impossible to objectively reconstruct a 22-piece puzzle from the “original edition” and 9 copies, one of which contains the key to the 22 pieces based on personal knowledge of the original source?

     Objectivity is a quality obtained by following objective methods. Objective methods are capable of reproduction upon each application. I’m not sure how at all you could objectively reach a conclusion that came out differently nine times over for the original analysts. This would be a contradiction.

     “I didn’t realize you expected me to respond about the validity of using reason. “

     You mistake my expectations. I’m a big fan of reason, a great gift of God. My expectation is that the Protestant’s use of reason be consistent with the Protestant’s own paradigm (viz., sola scriptura). Read section III again to understand the critical argument I offer.

     “What cognitive process does NOT rely on the use of human reason? Both in the case of general revelation and of special revelation, the authority resides in God’s revelation, not in reason which is a tool for understanding revelation.”

     You distinguish revelation and reason by describing the former as authority and the latter as a tool to understand the authority. However, we have no general or special revelation that “[X] set of texts is the canon of Scripture.” So you admit to using a fallible (i.e., capable of making mistakes or being erroneous) tool (i.e., your reason) in order to discern information not immediately given by general or special revelation (i.e., not given to you immediately by the authority). If you had stopped here, and not invoked the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit, you would very much be subject to Ridderbos’s critique, which I described in section II.A.

     Regarding fallible collections of infallible books (which phraseology come from R.C. Sproul), you stated:

     “I can affirm the Protestant canon is without error, for all of the books it lists consistently teach truth and holiness, in accordance with the character of their divine author, the Holy Spirit.
     . . . .
     “I conclude that the Protestant canon is the only universally normative and inerrant list of inerrant books. If you prefer the term infallible, then I believe the Protestant canon is the only infallible list of infallible books.”

     Can you affirm that your affirmation is as certainly free from error as are, say, the contents of Matthew free from error? How is this so if you used fallible (i.e., capable of making mistakes or being erroneous) human reason? (And this was precisely Dr. Sproul’s point, lest you think I’m taking hallow jabs.) I assume your response would be that you receive conviction from Holy Spirit, in which case, I understand your position and, again, no need to probe this area further as we can take up my section II.A.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

349. Closing the Canon in John the Baptist’s Face | St. Joseph's Vanguard September 28th, 2011 9:03 am :

     […] Protestants have taken the tack of claiming that the Jews had closed their canon long before Christ&…, but the argument I present here provides strong evidence against their […]

350. Mark September 28th, 2011 2:27 pm :

     I have an important question.

     Which two particular beliefs are supposed to be linked by A, where A is the Church’s authoritative decision via papal/ apostolic authority.

     The way I tried to nail down the question a few comments up, A is what links (B) our beliefs about Jesus (that are based on reports -from historical documents, the Bible- of what He said) with (C) everything else that is contained in Scripture. BUT, when one has this (B), doesn’t one have the gospel? It is perhaps not all the parts and explanations of the gospel, at least not explicitly (and perhaps just which parts and explanations are necessary/ essential is something that also has to be non- arbitrarily decided, perhaps by appeal to the Church and Scripture). If one does have the gospel from this, then why do you guys think Augustine would say that he wouldn’t believe the gospel unless if were for the Church?

     Another important question- do we need the Church in order to decide which of the books are historically reliable ? IF we do, we have to be careful to not formulate the reasoning in a circular manner, one of which might be the following:
     I. A (which is historically accurate) says B.
     II. B provides good reason for believing C.
     III. C gives good reason for believing in the divine qualities of A.

     A- the books of Scripture
     B- whatever supports the texts and claims of Scripture give to the doctrines of papal infallibility/ apostolic succession (directly, or indirectly); see my part IV of comment #336.
     C- papal infallibility/ apostolic succession

     Now, when someone asks (as I have), why should we trust A to be accurate historically, we cannot just appeal to III. Because we need to already have reason for thinkink A is historically accurate, if we are going to appeal to C.

     If there are no independently sufficient reasons that we are aware of, that tell us why some set of books are historically reliable while the others are not, then the epistemological gap is even bigger than I originally thought. In which case, you really can’t get to a set of doctrine of anything about Christianity (including the facts about what Jesus said), without the Church’s authority.

     Best,
     Mark

351. Lojahw September 30th, 2011 9:12 pm :

     Dear Tom,

     The comments below mostly summarize what I’ve posted previously.

     On Reformation principles (sections IIA & III):
     1) The quote from John Calvin on the role of self-attestation and the testimony of the Holy Spirit for recognizing Scripture is taken out of context. It is not about the canon as such; rather Calvin is responding in 1.7.4-1.7.5 to people who deny that the Scriptures are God’s word. Thus, 1.7.5 is a general affirmation that Scripture is self-attesting and that conviction of its divine authority comes from the Holy Spirit. It is therefore invalid to use this quote as a proof text defining the criterion for the Protestant canon.
     2) The article wrongly presumes that the writings of a few Reformed scholars are normative for all Protestants. For example, Ridderbos’ use of the above citation as quoted in the article is refuted above. Moreover, most orthodox Christians would deny his assertion that “we can no longer establish with historical certainty what in a redemptive-historical sense is apostolic and what is not.”
     3) The article wrongly asserts that “the very process of answering the Canon Question violates sola scriptura. This is because answering the question must involve extra-Biblical human judgment.” First of all, using human judgment does not violate sola scriptura. The Westminster Confession endorses human judgment in making deductions and employing “the ordinary means” [extra-Biblical sources] to discern God’s revelation regarding salvation. Second, it is a well-documented fact that the Reformers often appealed to reason and extra-Biblical sources in their writings. The implication that those who defined sola scriptura violated its principles betrays a sorely mistaken understanding of sola scriptura.
     4) The article implies that the Protestant canon has exercised power over Scripture because of the possibility that it may have excluded a canonical book; but this begs the question. Unless you can prove that this has happened, the use of reason and/or any other criteria to affirm true Scripture and to reject what is not God-breathed Scripture is actually submitting to the authority of Scripture (cf. Deut. 13:1-5; Gal. 1:8-9).
     5) Further, “fallible reason” is capable of giving inerrant answers, as anyone who ever scored 100% on an exam can attest; and when reason is faulty, it can be clearly corrected based on knowledge of facts and principles of logic. Yet, you have not shown where my reasoning is faulty re: the canonical books.

     On reporting of history (sections IIB & IIC):
     1) The arguments in IIB against the Jews being objective witnesses to the OT canon are simply ad hominem attacks: “No authority within Scripture, and no argument from reason, requires Christians to abide by the speculative conclusions of the first-century Pharisaic leaders from Jerusalem, some of the very ones who had Christ put to death.” Here you set yourself above Scripture by denying its authority to define canonical criteria of the Jewish Scriptures. Are you greater than the Apostle who tells us in Romans 3:1-2 that the Jews of his day had the advantage that the “oracles of God” were entrusted to them? On what grounds do you deny this constitutes a Scriptural criterion of OT canonicity? And why should your judgment override the testimony of Josephus and the early church fathers who consistently agreed with Paul by testifying that the OT canon contained 22 books, reflecting the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet?
     2) “There is no historical basis to conclude that any one Jewish group had the authority to pronounce and close the canon for other Jewish groups, or that any one of them could conclude the canon for Christianity.” There need not be a distinction between Jewish groups, because only one Jewish canon was ever published. The article confuses the concept of canon with a loose collection of writings.
     3) “The Diaspora Jews, on the other hand, used the Greek Septuagint, which included the deuterocanonical texts as well as some apocryphal texts.” This assertion is based on sheer speculation. There is zero historical evidence that any Greek translations of Jewish literature outside of the Jewish 22-book canon were considered to be normative by any Jewish authority.
     4) The article falsely claims that none of the church fathers testified to the Protestant Canon. See Rufinus’ Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed 19, 37, and Jerome’s Preface to the Book of Samuel and Kings and his Preface to the Books of Solomon.

     On canonicity:
     1) The article confuses translation with canonicity. Jerome hurriedly translated Tobit and Judith into Latin as a favor for two bishops, but his prefaces listed above which were published in the Vulgate clearly state that none of the “deuteros” were considered by the Church to be equal in authority to the canonical books of the OT. Rather, Jerome claimed their function was “for the strengthening of the people, (but) not for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas.”
     2) The article claims that Paul’s apostolicity cannot be settled without resort to Tradition. That Jesus called and sent Paul as an apostle is confirmed by Scripture: Acts 9:15; 13:2; 14:14; Rom. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:1; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:1; Col 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:1; 2 Tim 1:1; Tit. 1:1; 2 Cor. 12:12. The use of historical testimony to confirm apostolic authorship does not violate sola scriptura, because Jesus Himself declared the teaching of the apostles to be normative (cf. John 13:20; 16:13).
     3) The article cites doubts in the early church about the canonicity of 2 Peter, but such doubts are based on dubious criteria of style and vocabulary which have been ably refuted by scholars through the centuries to the present day. There is amble evidence, both internal and external, to support the authenticity and normative authority of all 27 NT books. In them the teaching of Christ and His apostles has been authentically preserved and handed down to every generation of Christians (“the word of the Lord endures forever” – not so the “lost” books).
     4) Matthew gives a true account of Jesus’ teaching and ministry; and my conviction of this comes from the Holy Spirit – not to me alone but to every generation of Christians since the Apostles, including Clement of Rome. As with 2 Peter many scholars have ably refuted assertions to the contrary.

     One part of your epistemology that I do not understand is your denial of contradictory evidence as a criterion of knowing that a book should NOT be considered divine revelation, and therefore normative. Part of the criteria for discerning Scripture is based on eliminating books that teach things contrary to previously recognized Scripture (cf. Deut. 8:3; 12:28; 13:1-5; Gal. 1:8-9). In discerning the boundaries of Scripture, do you not agree that what contradicts the teaching of Scripture should not be considered normative? Appealing to criteria found in Scripture cannot violate sola scriptura.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

352. Lojahw September 30th, 2011 11:25 pm :

     Mark makes an interesting assertion:
     “Jesus said that person P has authority and is guided from error. Secondly, as a matter of historical fact, it turns out that person P made the claim that, ‘person Q is guided from error’. Since person P was guided from error, he cannot be wrong in thinking that person Q is also guided from error.”

     What did Jesus and person P actually say about being “guided from error”? And how do you know this?

     For the Protestant, the Gospels and Acts are regarded as historically authentic and accurate based on the same criteria historians use for other historical documents. If we accept that assessment, then we accept what those books claim Jesus and the Apostles did and said, from which we infer that the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles which has been preserved in every generation is normative for all Christians (I could quote lots of Scripture here, but it is all well-known). The combination of internal and external evidence confirms the 27 NT books do, in fact, preserve their authentic teaching. The unanimous testimony of the universal Church is part of the evidence, pointing to the work of the Holy Spirit, who seals the conviction in the hearts and minds of all orthodox Christians. Ergo, we believe these 27 books are normative.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

353. Lojahw October 1st, 2011 7:38 am :

     Gentlemen,
     Please accept the following correction to what I posted last night:
     Protestants take the Gospels and Acts at face-value and accepts what those books claim Jesus and the Apostles did and said, from which we infer that the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles which has been preserved in every generation is normative for all Christians (I could quote lots of Scripture here, but it is all well-known).The combination of internal and external evidence confirms the 27 NT books do, in fact, preserve their authentic teaching and should be accepted as historically accurate. The unanimous testimony of the universal Church is part of the evidence, pointing to the work of the Holy Spirit, who seals the conviction in the hearts and minds of all orthodox Christians. Ergo, we believe these 27 books are normative.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

354. Trosclair October 1st, 2011 11:53 am :

     Lojahw,
     For the sake of dialectic, let’s use your method to determine whether or not the book of Hebrews belongs in the Christian canon. As a protestant, I was perplexed by this book. It seems to fail the tests of canonicity, and, yet, all brothers/sisters in Christ accept this book as God’s Word. Using the historical method you have proposed to Tom (“internal and external evidence”?), I think I would have rejected this book as a protestant. So, for the sake of dialectic, what evidence do you propose for the canonicity of Hebrews?

     Shawn,
     Devin has asked us to move on from this topic. I think he is right. We have reached an impasse. If we go any further, our comments will cease to be relevant to Tom’s article. To further complicate the problem, you have brought up many points that I don’t think a Christian can accept, e.g. the Jews continue to possess binding authority for the Christian. Maybe we should continue that conversation on an article that addresses the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 or on the Mosaic Law. Thanks.

     In Pace Christi
     Nick T.

355. Tom Brown October 1st, 2011 9:27 pm :

     Dear “Lojahw,”

     I dislike the rehash of all that has come before. We cannot possibly make progress unless we: (1) have a desire and love for truth, and (2) take issues in turn until they are resolved. Issue hopping is, in my opinion, bad form.

     I asked you to show me the substance of your claim that a Church Father did follow the Protestant OT [which I also noted would not itself provide objective proof for your canon], and you replied with a lengthy treatise that only contained one short response to that, as well as one thing new. I will address those two points in turn.

     (1) “The article falsely claims that none of the church fathers testified to the Protestant Canon. See Rufinus’ Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed 19, 37, and Jerome’s Preface to the Book of Samuel and Kings and his Preface to the Books of Solomon.”

     Rufinus
     First, I note that Rufinius does not even answer the Canon Question the way that you do. Your answer is: after reviewing the objective features of the texts, referring to historical evidence, and using ordinary means of reason, &c, you rely upon the Holy Spirit speaking in your heart to reach conscience-binding certainty about the canon. Rufinus says in the same work you cite: “And therefore it seems proper in this place to enumerate, as we have learned from the tradition of the Fathers, the books of the New and of the Old Testament, which, according to the tradition of our forefathers, are believed to have been inspired by the Holy Ghost, and have been handed down to the Churches of Christ.”

     That is, while you look at internal and external indicia you expect Scripture to have, and then listen for the Holy Spirit speaking in your heart [i.e., bosom-burning], Rufinus looks to the tradition of the Church’s forefathers as to which books are handed down by the Churches as inspired by the Holy Ghost. Therefore, even if you two had the same canon as each other, this would be coincidence, since you reach the canon list by different criteria.

     As to his canon, and my claim that the Protestant Old Testament canon does not appear in the works of any Church Fathers [which claim is not at all essential to my arguments, but which I have made for emphasis], let me agree that you are at least close, but not there. Rufinus, in his second book of Apology to St. Jerome, said:

     For what can we call it but havoc, when some parts of it [the LXX] are transformed, and this is called the correction of an error? For instance, the whole of the history of Susanna, which gave a lesson of chastity to the churches of God, has by him [St. Jerome] been cut out, thrown aside and dismissed. The hymn of the three children, which is regularly sung on festivals in the Church of God, he has wholly erased from the place where it stood. . . “

     (It is this comment, I believe, against which St. Jerome defends in the text I have quoted above fn72.)

     That Rufinus and a few other Church Fathers came close to the Protestant canon, or held the deuterocanon in lower regard than the undisputed books, I readily acknowledge. I desire to proceed smartly from that as a commonly agreed point of truth.

     Jerome
     I have already covered St. Jerome in the article above (section II.B.), which arguments you would be kind to take up before simply asserting that St. Jerome’s (now tired) prefaces settle the matter. In addition, please read my colleague Taylor Marshall’s work on St. Jerome and the deuterocanon: https://cantuar.blogspot.com/2011/09/did-st-jerome-reject-deuterocanoical.html.

     (2) “In discerning the boundaries of Scripture, do you not agree that what contradicts the teaching of Scripture should not be considered normative? Appealing to criteria found in Scripture cannot violate sola scriptura.”

     This requires circular logic, which points at my claim that sola scriptura is internally inconsistent. It is circular (i.e., assumes its conclusion is true in supporting its premise) in that it requires a known corpus of Scripture in order to apply its rule for identifying what is Scripture (“what contradicts the teaching of Scripture should not be considered normative”).

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

356. Lojahw October 2nd, 2011 9:55 am :

     Tom, Thank you for your thoughts on my admittedly lengthy post – I will respond to you later. in the meantime, I’d like to comment on Mark’s earlier post.

     Comment:
     Mark wrote: “Jesus said that person P has authority and is guided from error. Secondly, as a matter of historical fact, it turns out that person P made the claim that, ‘person Q is guided from error’. Since person P was guided from error, he cannot be wrong in thinking that person Q is also guided from error.”

     Consider the canonical implications of the above:
     If ‘person Q is guided from error’ in the same way that Jesus and person P are guided from error, then person Q’s teaching must necessarily be normative. However, the Church has never taught that. Moreover, since the office of Apostle was not perpetuated in their successors, neither was the apostolic charism of truth perpetuated in their successors. The authority and teaching of the successors of P therefore must be subordinate to that of Christ and the Apostles whom He called (including Paul, whom He called after His ascension).

     Note that the Council of Nicea invoked the Scriptures – handed down by the Apostles – to settle the Arian controversy, rather than a simple vote of the Apostles’ successors (whom Mark implied were ‘infallible’). Even the use of votes at Church Councils demonstrates that the successors of the Apostles were fallible; since infallibility of the successors implies no need for a vote – the results would always be unanimous (or if the Church believed that Peter’s successor alone possessed the charism of infallibility, there would never be a reason to hold a Council to handle such doctrinal disputes – the Church would simply ask Peter’s successor for the answer). Just as the authority of the Apostles exceeds that of their successors, so also their teaching must be normative in a way that exceeds that of their successors. This is also a reason why the early church fathers excluded sub-apostolic writings from the NT canon. What is normative or canonical for all Christians in the whole Church for all times, therefore, is limited to the teaching of Christ and His Apostles.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

357. Lojahw October 2nd, 2011 11:18 pm :

     Dear Tom,
     Thank you for your response to my long post (apologies in advance for another in order to answer you). I share your desire and love for the truth. That said, I felt my long review of past material was necessary because you keep bringing up issues I thought had been resolved.

     For example, the article asserts: “the ‘original Hebrew canon’ theory must be rejected because not one of the early Church Fathers who were in favor of using the extant Hebrew text certainly pointed to the 39-book Protestant Old Testament.”

     In other words, your conclusion that the ‘original Hebrew canon’ theory must be rejected depends on the premise that “not one of the early Church Fathers” pointed to the 39-book Protestant OT. But I repeatedly refuted the arguments you used to support your conclusion by giving the example of Rufinus’ and Jerome’s OT canons.

     Yet you then wrote: “If you articulated a Church Father who professed the Protestant Old Testament, I missed it.”

     I again responded with citations of Rufinus and Jerome which “certainly pointed to the Protestant OT.” You now appear to accept the fact that the church fathers believed in the ‘Hebrew OT canon,’ which is precisely my point. It is very telling that you then insist that Protestants must base their canon on the very source (tradition) which guided Rufinus to the OT canon: the very testimony that you reject! However, I have argued that multiple affirmations lead to the Protestant OT canon, among which is what you call “tradition” and I identify by 9 church fathers who articulated that tradition (albeit imperfectly, because 8 of them did not know Hebrew).

     Re: Rufinus’ defense of a corrupted text of Daniel, such textual anomalies are normally not part of a discussion of the “OT Canon.” His enumeration of the books of the OT is the certainly same as the Protestant canon. It makes sense that Rufinus would defend the only version of the OT he could read; however, he mistakenly defended his translation of Daniel on two counts: 1) the legend regarding the “inspired” LXX translation referred only to the Pentateuch; and 2) he was not even reading the expanded edition of the LXX, but rather the popular Greek version of Daniel translated by Theodotion.

     When confronted with the testimony of the only church father, Jerome, who could read Hebrew, you asked me to read an article. The article makes the following points (my refutations are in parentheses):
     1) Jerome changed his mind about the deuteros in 382 when Damasus “canonized these books as inerrant and inspired by the Holy Spirit” (Jerome’s prefaces, which I previously cited, that affirm the Protestant OT canon were written in 391 and 393, respectively; ergo, assertion #1 is false. Damasus’ alleged canon is preserved in a disputed sixth century copy which clearly quotes Augustine after Damasus’s death in 384. Moreover, if Jerome supported all of the the deuteros, why did he only [hurriedly] translate two of them as favors for some bishop friends of his?).
     2) The proof that Jerome submitted to the decree of Damasus is that in 404 he quoted a phrase from Sirach as “Scripture” (Jerome nowhere identifies Sirach by name as canonical. Moreover, he says of Sirach and the other deuteros in his Preface to the Books of Solomon that the Church reads them “for the strengthening of the people, but not for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas.” There are two ways, therefore, of interpreting Jerome’s quote of Sirach: 1) that he mistakenly associated the quote with another book of Scripture; 2) that he referred to Sirach as “scripture” in the sense that it was read by the church “for the strengthening of the people, but not for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas.”);
     3) Jerome wrote in his preface to Judith that the Council of Nicea recognized it as “canonical” (Jerome himself did not consider Judith as “canonical” as he clearly states in his prefaces which I have already cited, both of which were published in the 405 edition of the Vulgate. Furthermore, Jerome was misinformed: the leading bishop at that Council, Athanasius, denied that Judith was canonical. Moreover, prior to the Council of Nicea and for many years afterwards, no church father quoted Judith authoritatively.).
     4) Jerome defended the additions to Daniel in his Apology against Rufinus (the quote given is a snippet, taken out of context; reading the entire preface proves that Jerome merely accommodated the churches by including these stories because they were used to reading them in the Old Latin – yet he marked them by asterisks and obeli to indicate that they were not genuine to the prophet Daniel).
     5) The article concludes with the assertion that by 402-404 Jerome had become a defender of the deuteros (Other than the lone quote from Sirach, there is zero evidence for this assertion in light of Jerome’s clear statement that the deuteros were “not for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas.” Moreover, this latter statement as well the full text of Jerome’s Preface to the Book of Samuel and Kings and his Preface to the Books of Solomon were published in the first edition of the Vulgate in 405. Hence, the Vulgate, often cited as evidence that Jerome accepted the deuteros, actually testifies against their canonicity in at least two places. The article is therefore far from persuasive: Jerome’s OT canon stands.).

     To your second point [which I answered previously], the argument is not circular because Jesus and the Apostles already confirmed the canonicity of the books I refer to. For example, Jesus affirms the canonicity of the book of Daniel in Matt. 24:15. So when Daniel identifies Nebuchadnezzar as the king of Babylonia ruling from its capital in Babylon, the book of Judith contradicts Scripture (according to Jesus) when it identifies Nebuchadnezzar as the king of Assyria ruling from Nineveh. Similarly, just as the Greek translation of Daniel was corrupted (and therefore, not canonical), so also the Greek translation of Esther was corrupted. It asserts a logical contradiction by calling Haman both an Agagite (according to the Hebrew original) and a Macedonian (on another continent). That version thereby impeaches itself.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

358. Shawn C. Madden October 3rd, 2011 12:49 pm :

     Nick,

     If Devin has asked us to move on then why have you left it as a challenge?

     So the ‘Jews’ have non ‘binding authority for the Christian’? The main ‘Jew’ that I have cited is Jesus of Nazareth (Luke 24.44ff). I have cited others, Sirach, Philo, and Josephus to illustrate what Jesus said. It is a shame that that ‘Jew’ has no binding authority for you. He does for me.

     In his name
     Shawn
     majormadd@gmail.com

359. Trosclair October 4th, 2011 7:29 am :

     Shawn,
     It was not a challenge. I was pointing out that your assertions were beyond the scope of this article.

     Lojahw,
     What evidence do you propose for the canonicity of Hebrews? Your answer to this question will clarify the dialectic of the discussion. Thanks.

     In Pace Christi
     Nick T.

360. The Curious Case of St. Jerome | St. Joseph's Vanguard October 5th, 2011 9:01 am :

     […] has come up often in the much-discussed Called to Communion article on the canon. The Protestants enlist him on their side, citing various things he said in rejection or doubt of […]

361. Tom Brown October 17th, 2011 10:08 pm :

     Dear “Lojahw,”

     You said: “You now appear to accept the fact that the church fathers believed in the ‘Hebrew OT canon,’ which is precisely my point. It is very telling that you then insist that Protestants must base their canon on the very source (tradition) which guided Rufinus to the OT canon: the very testimony that you reject!”

     I took up your allegations that Rufinus and Jerome followed the Protestant OT canon, and I took up your question about discerning the boundaries of the canon. I’m not sure how from this I have given you the appearance that I accept that the Church Fathers “believed” in the Hebrew OT canon. I did not insist that Protestants must base their canon on tradition. I compared your answer to the Canon Question with Rufinus’s. Please read that again.

     “Re: Rufinus’ defense of a corrupted text of Daniel, such textual anomalies are normally not part of a discussion of the “OT Canon.” His enumeration of the books of the OT is the certainly same as the Protestant canon. It makes sense that Rufinus would defend the only version of the OT he could read; however, he mistakenly defended his translation of Daniel on two counts: 1) the legend regarding the “inspired” LXX translation referred only to the Pentateuch; and 2) he was not even reading the expanded edition of the LXX, but rather the popular Greek version of Daniel translated by Theodotion.”

     I claim that because Rufinus accepts three independent texts (for they are distinct in form and content, as opposed to ‘bracketed’ verses such as are found in Matthew 17, 18, and elsewhere) that are not part of the Protestant canon, he does not put forward the Protestant canon. Whether this is “normally” part of “the discussion” on the canon is entirely beside the point. That you can explain why he would have followed the Protestant canon if he were more educated &c. misses my rebuttal to your claim about Rufinus entirely. If he was mistaken about Bel and the Dragon, what gives you confidence he was not also mistaken about Esther? Your answer, I assume, is your own carefully study + the Holy Spirit’s burning in your bosom.

     As for your engagement with Taylor’s article, it would have been better placed on his post than here. You are full of clever arguments against him, most of which I could spar for some time off the top of my head, some of which I’d have to invest great time to rebut (as to dating and obeli and such). But since they’re Taylor’s claims, I’d defer to him.

     “To your second point [which I answered previously], the argument is not circular because Jesus and the Apostles already confirmed the canonicity of the books I refer to. For example, Jesus affirms the canonicity of the book of Daniel in Matt. 24:15.”

     This, too, is circular. Your argument goes: Matthew says that Jesus affirms the book of Daniel as canonical, therefore Daniel is canonical. But this only follows is Matthew is canonical. Or else your argument goes: assuming that Matthew is correct in its recitation of what Jesus says, then based on its saying that Jesus affirms the book of Daniel as canonical, therefore Daniel is canonical. That would not be circular, but would instead be based on an extrabiblical presupposition that Matthew is canonical.

     By the way, I think you are playing with fire by dismissing text C because it [apparently] contradicts text B which text A shows Jesus treating as canonical. You find apparent contradictions but are only coming from a limited frame: one man [finite in your education and cognitive ability], in one generation, in one denomination. I say you are playing with fire because of the many Scriptural detractors who gleefully list [apparent] contradictions in numerous places in Sacred Scripture. (I will not give citations here for fear of giving them more business.) The lawyer’s way to counter your argument is to argue that these [apparent] contradictions can be found elsewhere, such that your argument proves too much, but I do not want to go down that rabbit hole.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

362. Week 7 – The Christian Bible « STM College Catechism Class October 21st, 2011 10:35 am :

     […] The Canon Question (A substantive article by Tom Brown on Called to Communion) Share this:TwitterFacebook Uncategorized ← Week 6 – The Problem of Evil […]

363. Devin Rose October 31st, 2011 4:40 pm :

     Shawn and Lojahw,

     I would like to move on to the New Testament, so let’s try this tack.

     It seems that you believe in the OT canon that you do, because the Jews were entrusted with “the oracles of God,” meaning God led the Jewish people to discern which books were inspired during the time of the Old Covenant. Correct?

     If so, wouldn’t it make sense that God would also entrust the New People of God, the early Christian Church, with the (new) “oracles of God,” not the least of which would be the correct discernment of the books of the New Testament?

     Would you agree? Or did God guide the Jewish people to know the OT books but not guide the Church to know the NT books?

364. Shawn C. Madden November 1st, 2011 7:57 am :

     Devin,

     I would agree that the Christian church discerned the books of the NT. Not without debate of course. And I would tend to the TNK paradigm in that none of the writers who identify the TNK canon (Jesus, Sirach, Philo, Josephus) referred to a council or official body that said ‘this is it.’ As far as I am aware neither did the Talmud or later Jewish writers.

     In the Messiah
     Shawn

365. mateo November 1st, 2011 1:00 pm :

     Shawn C Madden writes; I would agree that the Christian church discerned the books of the NT.

     Which “Christian church” discerned the canon? The church founded by Christ, or one of the thousands upon thousands of personal “churches” founded by men and women?

366. Devin Rose November 1st, 2011 4:38 pm :

     Shawn,

     Feel free to interact with Mateo down the branch he is taking. I’d like to take a slightly different line, so you can answer us in parallel.

     For the OT then, God led the Jewish people to the correct set of OT books. He did so not through councils or some official declaration, but just over the centuries, bit by bit, until by some time (let’s say, a bit before Christ), the Jewish people–the People of God of the Old Covenant–had correctly discerned the OT books. And we have conscience-binding certainty in the set they discerned because we believe God led them in their discernment. Do you agree?

     Similarly with the NT, God led the New People of God, the Christian Church (I’m ignoring for now the question that Mateo brought up of who or what exactly that Church was), to discern the books of the NT. And He did so, not through authoritative councils or binding decrees made by the leaders, but, like in the Old Covenant, by guiding the New People of God to know which books were inspired and which were not, bit by bit, over the centuries, until the end result was the twenty-seven books we both accept as inspired in the NT. We have conscience-binding certainty in this set because we believe that God led the Christian Church’s discernment of these books. Do you agree?

367. Shawn Madden November 2nd, 2011 9:00 am :

     Devin,

     ‘Conscience-binding certainty’ is not a phrase I would use.

     So too I would not use such terms as ‘Old People of God’ or ‘New People of God.’ Romans 4 & 9 inform me on this.

     In the Messiah
     Shawn

368. Devin Rose November 2nd, 2011 11:07 pm :

     Shawn,

     Okay, let’s not use “conscience-binding certainty” and instead use “confidence” (or proffer your own word). We can also not use the term People of God if that bothers you. So what about this:

     For the OT then, God led the Jewish people to the correct set of OT books. He did so not through councils or some official declaration, but just over the centuries, bit by bit, until by some time (let’s say, a bit before Christ), the Jewish people had correctly discerned the OT books. Do you agree?

     Similarly with the NT, God led the Christian Church to discern the books of the NT. And He did so, not through authoritative councils or binding decrees made by the leaders, but by guiding the Christian Church to know which books were inspired and which were not, bit by bit, over the centuries, until the end result was the twenty-seven books we both accept as inspired in the NT. Do you agree?

     God bless,
     Devin

369. Shawn C. Madden November 3rd, 2011 7:48 am :

     Nor would I say ‘over the centuries.’ The Torah was recognized at least by the time of Joshua. In captivity Daniel recognizes his older contemporary Jeremiah’s writings as inspired. And, the NT writings were essentially recognized in the second century, again, with some debate.

     In the Messiah
     Shawn

370. Devin Rose November 3rd, 2011 12:35 pm :

     Shawn,

     I don’t want to get bogged down with details that are unimportant, but regarding the time period of OT discernment, the very fact that the OT books were written over the course of many centuries requires that it would take centuries for the Jewish people to discern them. They cannot discern a book as inspired that hasn’t been written yet. So I don’t know why you balk at “over the centuries.” Perhaps you can briefly explain that.

     Focusing on the New Testament, let’s say I spot you the claim that the NT books were “essentially recognized” in the second century. By that I think you mean “the majority of the twenty-seven books had widespread acceptance by the end of the second century, even though several were debated into the third and fourth centuries.”

     Did God guide people in the Christian Church who “essentially recognized” the NT books in the second century?

371. Shawn C. Madden November 3rd, 2011 12:57 pm :

     Devin,

     You seriously appear to be trying to drive me to a point. Why don’t you go ahead and make your point?

     In the Messiah,
     Shawn

372. mateo November 3rd, 2011 2:25 pm :

     Shawn C. Madden writes:

     … the Christian church discerned the books of the NT …

     …the NT writings were essentially recognized in the second century

     You are claiming that some unnamed “Christian church” essentially discerned the canon by the second century. The Marcionites of the second century claimed to belong to the “Christian church”, yet their peculiar canon was apparently rejected by some other church that you have yet to identify.

     Let my rephrase my question to you from my post # 365.

     Which “Christian church” essentially discerned the canon in the second century? Was it the church founded by Christ that essentially discerned the canon, or was that discernment done through a personal church founded by some man or some woman?

     If the church that essentially discerned the canon in the second century was NOT the church founded by Christ, then what church was it? What are the criteria that a second century Christian would have known about that that would have allowed him to identify your unnamed “Christian church” – the church that rejected the canon of the Marcionites?

373. John Thayer Jensen November 3rd, 2011 2:46 pm :

     @Mateo (#372):

     You are claiming that some unnamed “Christian church”…

     I fear that there is a fundamental presuppositional issue here. It seems likely to me that the word ‘unnamed’ here will puzzle Shawn. The name of the Christian Church is just that – the ‘Christian Church.’ And – again, I am putting words into his mouth, or thoughts into his mind – Shawn, correct me if I am wrong – but that Shawn would say that the Christian Church is just that group of persons who discerned the canon that he thinks is correct – and, of course, that Church was the Church founded by Christ – because it discerned the canon.

     This is, of course, circular, and a straightforward matter of private judgement – but it seems to me that is what Shawn thinks. He discerns the Church from the canon, not the canon from the Church. The canon he discerns by private judgement.

     Shawn, pardon me if I am incorrect, and perhaps you can clarify where I am off – if I am.

     jj

374. Devin Rose November 3rd, 2011 3:21 pm :

     Shawn,

     Let me tip my hand so you can see my thought process.

     From reading your comments here and over at my blog over the past months, I got the impression that you believed the Jewish people 1) had discerned the books of the OT, 2) finalized that canon by the time of Christ, 3) came up with the correct (inspired) list of books.

     One of the rationales for belief #3 is that the Jewish people were “entrusted with the oracles of God.” It stands to reason that God would want them to know which books were inspired and which were not. Hence, your belief that the canon discerned by the Jewish people is the true OT canon.

     I am assuming for the sake of argument that your beliefs are true on the OT and the Jewish peoples’ discernment of it. It stands to reason then that, because the New Covenant surpasses the Old, God would likewise ensure that the Christian Church discerned correctly the books of the New Testament.

     Hence my question: “Did God guide people in the Christian Church who “essentially recognized” the NT books in the second century?”

     Or did God not guide them?

375. Shawn C. Madden November 3rd, 2011 3:37 pm :

     First, John and Mateo. John, no not confused. When I say ‘Christian Church’ I throw a broad net and see no denominationally necesary affiliation. So I am not going to say ‘this Church’ or ‘that Church’–I purposefully used lower case ‘c’hurch. The ekklesia of Christ, of the Messiah, knows no such boundaries, then or now.

     Devin, my lesson from the TNK and its recognition of it by God’s People prior to the coming of the Messiah was that, yes, they recognized it but how the LORD ensured that is not stated nor hinted at in Sirach, Philo, or Josephus. So I do agree that somehow the LORD guided the ekklesia of the Messiah to recognize those writings that would join the TNK as inspired by God.

     In the Messiah,
     Shawn

376. John Thayer Jensen November 3rd, 2011 3:56 pm :

     @Shawn:

     First, John and Mateo. John, no not confused. When I say ‘Christian Church’ I throw a broad net and see no denominationally necesary affiliation. So I am not going to say ‘this Church’ or ‘that Church’–I purposefully used lower case ‘c’hurch. The ekklesia of Christ, of the Messiah, knows no such boundaries, then or now.

     OK, my mistake. But in that case, I don’t see how you define ‘Christian Church’ – other than ‘those who call themselves Christians’ – such as Mateo’s Marcionites, who reject much of the NT, or the Mormons, who call themselves Christians, but include the Book of Mormon.

     I am confused!

     jj

377. mateo November 3rd, 2011 6:48 pm :

     Shawn C. Madden writes: When I say ‘Christian Church’ I throw a broad net and see no denominationally necessary affiliation ….

     Shawn, when you throw a net that broad, you are dragging into the “Christian church” the Marcionites, Ebionites, Judaizers, Docetists and every other group that claimed that they were part of the “Christian Church” in the early years of Christianity. So when you say that the “Christian church” essentially discerned the canon in the second century, you are saying nothing at all, unless there is some criteria that establishes why the Marcionites were NOT part of the Christian church.

     jj writes: I don’t see how you [Shawn C. Madden] define ‘Christian Church’ – other than ‘those who call themselves Christians’ …

     My point exactly.

     How should a second century Christian find the answer to the question “What books belong to the canon of sacred scripture?” The second century Christian would need to listen to the men in the church that Christ founded that were authorized to answer that question, and not listen to the men that were not authorized to answer that question.

     Fast forward to our era. The Campbell brothers found their own personal church and name it the “Church of Christ.” Just because the Campbell brothers founded a personal church and named it the Church of Christ, it does not mean that their personal church actually is the church that Christ founded! The Campbell Brothers are no different than Marcion, Luther, Calvin, John Smyth, Chuck Smith or any other man or woman that founded their own personal church and called it a “Christian church”.

     Ironically, there is nothing in a Protestant bible that authorizes men and women to found their own personal churches, and yet, that is exactly what men and women do when they start their own personal “Bible churches.” It is a scandal that the men and women that start their own personal Bible churches don’t actually listen to what their Protestant bibles teach them, namely, that to be obedient to Christ, they need to listen to what the church founded by Christ teaches them or be excommunicated!

     … if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Matt 18:17

378. Brent November 3rd, 2011 7:32 pm :

     Aaron @#105 (in the other thread),

     I moved my comment here because it was more relevant to this thread.

     When I was a Protestant, I would have responded by giving you a list of criteria that made a book Apostolic or not. The Gospel of Thomas and anything by Joseph Smith would have failed that list of criteria. However, what I could not account for is on what grounds, besides reason, did I accept that list of criteria. On the one hand, this is an honest way at it. If a book meets criteria x, y and z then it is canonical. Duh, all Christians should accept that. Right? That’s straight forward. However, the way one makes a judgment regarding the reasonableness of a criteria (or anything) is predicated on the available options–many times predicated on various tools to acquire those options.

     This is why the canon works as the perfect case study for any article of faith–for the canon is just that, an article of faith. No pagan has a compunction to accept the Christian canon just like he or she would have no compunction to accept our claim that Jesus is God.

     I say all this because either the canon is revealed by God or it is not revealed by God. If it is revealed by God, then it must be revealed by God to a someone. Moreover, there is nothing that we know about God that is a part of revealed theology that we know a part from some agent having it revealed to them by God. Not one single article of faith is known a part from God revealing it to someone. They not doubt will have used their reason in concert with the work of the Holy Spirit, but there is a someone nonetheless. Ergo we trust them in lieu of God’s working. So, we are left with two possible conclusions:

     (1) either the canon of Scripture is revealed by God and thus an article of faith
     or
     (2) the canon of Scripture is not revealed by God but is understood by reasonable criteria

     If #2, then no Christian is compelled to hold to the canon. If #1, then we must ask to whom did God reveal the canon? Either way, the force of my note about the reasonableness of a belief comes into play when we think about various Christian dogmas that have lost their footing over time in various Protestant communities. Various methods of theology and discoveries in science have caused rational and reasonable men to doubt the traditional Christian views of various dogmas–not in light of revelation but in the light of reason. And as the Counter-Reformers argued, this is ultimately the ground of Protestant theology (the consequence of throwing off the necessity of the Church (the “who”) for defining dogma).

379. Devin Rose November 3rd, 2011 9:38 pm :

     Shawn,

     (First, please do read Brent’s comment above, as it is germane to one direction I am headed.)

     You said that “So I do agree that somehow the LORD guided the ekklesia of the Messiah to recognize those writings that would join the TNK as inspired by God.”

     This aligns with Brent’s first option above: “(1) the canon of Scripture is revealed by God and thus an article of faith.” God inspired the books of Scripture and then, as you concurred, the Lord guided the Church to recognize those writings.

     There are some different places to go from here, but I’d like to start with another question:

     Did the Lord guide the Church to recognize any other truths [other than the canon that is]?

380. Aaron G. November 4th, 2011 9:03 am :

     Brent RE#378 and Steve G RE #111 (on the other thread),
     Brent, thanks for moving the discussion over here, I was thinking the same thing after my last post. I agree that the way you would have answered as a Protestant was similar to the way I would have. And that may be a satisfactory answer for most but ultimately it was not for me (and you as well I take it), and it signaled the death knell for Sola Scriptura in my mind. Here’s why, and this is the point I was trying to get Ron and Steve G. to see (and from whom I would love a response ):

     Unfortunately when it comes to the Biblical Canon it is much more complicated than 2+2=4. It is more like, does human activity= climate change? The data set is so huge and the presuppositions are so varied that we may believe one answer to the question to be true but we cannot know infallibly. Everyone one of us must admit that it is at least possible that we, or the scientists, or even some or all of the data set itself contain errors. We may not think that to be the case but we at least have to admit that it’s possible in principle.

     So as a Protestant I had to believe that the church ultimately got the Canon right, but I came to realize that outside of any divine protection from error for the church it is at least possible in principle that the church got it wrong, even if I didn’t happen to think so. R.C. Sproul at least admits as much because he sees that this is the only logical conclusion. For me this became untenable. I could not listen to a Pastor preach out of the “Word of God” when I knew that in principle that very book he was preaching from might, in fact, not be the Word of God after all.

     And this issue flows over into many different areas, not least of which is our defense of the Bible to the non-believing world, but that is perhaps a discussion for a different time.

     Shalom,

     Aaron G.

381. Shawn C. Madden November 4th, 2011 12:27 pm :

     Gentlemen,

     You guys really want ekklesia to be a Capital ‘C’hurch that you can readily apply ‘Roman Catholic’ to. You really don’t seem to want to recognize that others outside of Rome can fully and rightly claim the title ‘Christian’. You also seem to be returning to the old saw that you need Rome to tell you anything at all about the ways of God and, if it is not Rome, then it should be labeled ‘heresy’ and those who adhere to such things as ‘heretics.’

     A friend of mine (FB and many e-mails, may be a mutual friend here), Leila, recently posted to FB an article for the Catholic Register, “Top 5 Heresies I Would’ve Believed Without the Authority of the Church” (https://www.ncregister.com/blog/top-5-heresies-i-wouldve-believed-without-the-authority-of-the-church#ixzz1ckc6z04D). You gentlemen are, no doubt, familiar with those ‘heresies.’ Yet, the article claims that the Roman Catholic Church, the church who through active teaching and support and tolerance for popular practice advocates the violation of the first two commandments is the one entity that can tell you what a heresy is. So while fretting over someone struggling with the concept of the Trinity without the benefit of centuries of discussion she relies on a church that actively teaches that there is someone other than God to place your trust and that, despite what the commandment clearly says, it is not only perfectly fine to make a statue, put it in a church, place kneelers and candles in front of it and encourage folks to pray in front of/to it but rather this is to be considered a very pious practice!

     What it seems to boil down in my reading and experience is a church who tells you that you cannot rely upon your own reading of the Word of God and the Holy Spirit in your life because the one is too confusing and the other can’t really be trusted but rather you should rely on an institution whose documents and teaching are fairly inaccessible to the lay person, whose number also by necessity would fill any professors office, and which lend themselves to a much greater variety of interpretations than scripture. For an instance, notice how in recent history Vatican II has been subject to several interpretations and much confusion within your own ranks. Heck, note how a succession of popes has alternately labeled Padre Pio a heretic and a danger and a saint!

     As far as ‘own personal churches’ have you guys even looked around to see all of the shrines and relics and pilgrimage sites, most of which, if they don’t have official sanction of Rome, then they have tacit permission to operate. And would you not assign the term ‘heresy’ to what they present?

     A closer to home example. Mother Angelica. She has in essence formed her own church and joined to herself others who follow(ed) her teachings and admonitions. Scott Hahn of course being one of them (yes, I know, another former Reformed type like you guys). I had the honor of sitting next to Joseph Fitzmeyer in the last lunch of the last meeting between the Roman Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention. Across from him was a nun who was the Vatican representative. Following a suspicion on my part I asked Dr. Fitzmeyer and the nun what they thought about Mother Angelica and Scott Hahn. The two of them (and this is no exaggeration) threw their hands in the air and completely disavowed and separated themselves from Angelica and Hahn. Yet, both groups claim to be faithful representatives of Rome. Which would you enjoin a faithful Catholic to follow? Fitzmeyer or Angelica? So which ‘Church’ are you talking about? Or will you allow such divergences inside Rome but not outside?

     I rather see an article that reports ‘Heresies I would have believed had I not read God’s Word.’ How did Jesus address the questions and problems brought to him? Did he point people to the High Priest and his teachings? The Pharisees? Sadducees? Essenes? Did they each not think that they were to true Qahal of YHWH? If questioned would they not have said as much? And yet, Jesus pointed them to Scripture didn’t he?

     Any organization or individual who claims to be the ‘True Church’ has to be tested against God’s Word. Historical connection doesn’t matter. Notice Matthew 3.9—If God is able to raise up children of Abraham from stones, making the point that genealogy, historical lineage or apostolic succession doesn’t matter so much as adherence to God’s Word, then anyone who wants to require a connection to an organization hasn’t read that passage.

     So round about to the canon question. Again, I have a broad net definition of ekklesia. Yes, it is loose and it is sloppy. And yes it may find in its members those who don’t have a deep or very firm grasp of the deep theological issues, and who may hold some views that you would call ‘heresy’, but it will be made up of those who ‘do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with their God’ and who ‘believe in the only begotten son of God’. And my definition recognizes the ekklesia as all members, not a hierarchical organization centered in one city to which everyone vows loyalty. My encounters with Catholics (even when I was one) always treated the ‘Church’ as the Pope, Cardinals and Bishops, and not the people who were subject to them. Even as I read your writings, ‘Church’ is Rome, not the laity. ‘Church’ is some authoritative entity to whom everyone owes allegiance and submissive loyalty and obedience. That is not my definition. And in that regard as we two use the word ‘church’ we are dealing with two definitons.

     So, from my reading of Jesus in the NT and Sirach and Philo and Josephus and my noting that they pointed to neither council or person who said ‘this is Scripture’ but noted widespread, uniform recognition of what was the TNK, then I also see in early church history fairly quick agreement on what the NT books were by a large number of the members of the ekklesia (not your definition). I am confident in that judgment. As such I don’t have to look for an ‘authoritative’ pronouncement coming from a council or pope saying ‘this is it’. In reality you gentlemen do, but the only instance that fits all of the definitions you want with the requisite universal authority is Trent, leaving you to say that there really was no ‘canon’ until the 17th century.

     In the name of my blessed Messiah!
     שׁלום!
     Shawn
     majormadd@gmail.com

382. mateo November 4th, 2011 2:03 pm :

     Brent writes:

     (1) either the canon of Scripture is revealed by God and thus an article of faith

     or

     (2) the canon of Scripture is not revealed by God but is understood by reasonable criteria

     I would like to address option (2). If the Protestant bible is the only infallible source of revelation that a Christian has access to, then what possible reasonable criteria could exist that would give one an infallible knowledge of the books that belong in the canon?

     The Protestant bible does not contain within itself any scriptures that declare that the books within the Protestant bible, and only the books within the Protestant bible, are the sum total of the inspired revelation of God that has been written down for men. It is because the Protestant bible does not contain a Table of Contents in any of its scripture verses that the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura is a self-refuting absurdity. It seems to me that Tom Brown makes that point in the main article:

     “By what criterion do we know which texts comprise the Bible?” This is an essential question all Christians should be able to answer, but, in my experience in discussing this with other believers, it is to many a foreign subject matter. …

     I shall argue that, given the Reformed assumption that whatever authoritatively testifies to the canonicity of Scripture must be more authoritative than Scripture, each of them necessarily places extra-biblical evidence above Scripture in its effort to objectively identify the canon. … for the Protestant, a theory that proves incompatible with sola scriptura cannot be salvaged merely by tying it together with a more defensible theory.

     If the Protestant bible is the only infallible source of revelation available to a Christian, then any criteria that establishes the canonicity of the scriptures that is outside of scriptures cannot infallibly establish the canonicity of the scriptures without violating the doctrine that the Protestant bible is the only source of infallible knowledge! The canon question shows why sola scriptura is a self-refuting absurdity.

     Tom Brown is correct, the Protestant that tries to infallibly establish the canon of the Protestant bible must abandon the doctrine of sola scriptura before he even begins.

     The reason why the “Reformers” promulgated the novelty of sola scriptura was to justify their rebellion against existing church authority. Through the “Reformer’s” doctrinal novelties of the primacy of the individual conscience and sola scriptura the “Reformers” established their own personal “bible churches” along with a bogus claim that the bible was their sole authority. (Since neither the doctrine of the primacy of the individual conscience nor sola scriptura is taught in the scriptures, the “Reformers” claim that the bible is their only authority is bogus, since they need some authority to support the unscriptural doctrines that are the foundation of their personal “bible churches.”)

     Shawn C. Madden claims that is through the authority of an unnamed “Christian church” that the canon was essentially discerned by the second century. But that unnamed Christian church existed for over a thousand years before “Reformers” started founding their own personal “bible churches”. It seems to me to that Shawn is undermining the novelty of sola scriptura by making this appeal to early church authority, since the novelty of sola scriptura was invented by the “Reformers” to justify rebellion against all pre-existing church authority! As Tom Brown says, “for the Protestant, a theory that proves incompatible with sola scriptura cannot be salvaged merely by tying it together with a more defensible theory.”

     Aaron G writes:So as a Protestant I had to believe that the church ultimately got the Canon right, but I came to realize that outside of any divine protection from error for the church it is at least possible in principle that the church got it wrong, even if I didn’t happen to think so. R.C. Sproul at least admits as much because he sees that this is the only logical conclusion. For me this became untenable. I could not listen to a Pastor preach out of the “Word of God” when I knew that in principle that very book he was preaching from might, in fact, not be the Word of God after all.

     Well said Aaron!

383. John Thayer Jensen November 5th, 2011 2:16 pm :

     @Mateo:

     I would like to address option (2). If the Protestant bible is the only infallible source of revelation that a Christian has access to, then what possible reasonable criteria could exist that would give one an infallible knowledge of the books that belong in the canon?

     Mateo, you know that I am a Catholic – and a convert – and that, indeed, the canon question was one of the reasons I became a Catholic.

     Nevertheless… I wish you could expound here a little on the tu quoque aspect of this.

     It does seem to me possible to argue that we must use reasoning to conclude with moral certainty that the Catholic Church is God’s infallible guide and teacher on earth – and then obey it. To be sure, God then converts the water of moral certainty into the wine of supernatural faith – if I may use the image.

     My Reformed teachers seemed to me to be arguing that, fundamentally, the (Protestant :-)) Bible takes the place of the Church in this formula. Using our human reason we see what good the Bible has done, we see that it speaks of Jesus in ways that elicit Lewis’s “liar-lunatic-Lord” trilemma, we read its contents and we see that we believe, with (only) moral certainty, that it is the word of God – but, if the word, then it must be infallible – so we must obey it.

     I think that is how they would have argued – and then, of course, having made this act of faith, God gives us theological faith.

     To me, of course, the argument seemed far, far stronger that it was the Church that was that teacher – in great part because sola Scriptura was, in fact, private interpretation – and utterly unworkable.

     But I would like to see why the two arguments aren’t parallel – if they are not.

     jj

384. Ray Stamper November 5th, 2011 4:58 pm :

     JJ

     Just an intitial thought. It seems to me that deciding that the 66 books are infallible because of what good the books have done, or because it presents Jesus of Nazareth as a religious figure who requires a decsion regarding his Divinity, does not really speak to the reasons why that particular collection of 66 books might be infallible. Both of those, ISTM, might still be true if the books are generally historically reliable without being infallible. By ignoring the historical origin and compilation of the books as part of the argument for biblical infalliblity (really it should be inerrancy), such an approach seems more akin to bosom burning on the infallibility side of the question. When the Catholic uses his reason and will to discover the Catholic Church, he discovers something in the public historical record with notes, or motives of credibility, which are open to all. In short, he can make a historical case. That does seem to me to constitute a significant difference from the approach you describe. Now I think folks like RC Sproul who end up affirming a fallible collection of infallible books, take an approach (however problematic) which more closely mirrors the Catholic approach. But then, an approach like Sproul’s is just the sort with which a Catholic can dialouge and point out its intrinsic problems (such as explaining how the fallibility of the collection can be known to avoid admission of fallible books, or else glossing the fact that Tradition was relied upon to know the apostolicity (or apostolic approval) of the books themselves, etc). And that kind of discussion can move in a Catholic direction quite quickly.

385. John Thayer Jensen November 6th, 2011 2:51 pm :

     @Ray, #383:
     Thanks, Ray. Yes, I absolutely agree. I remember, long ago, when I was trying to think about matters like this, I asked my (Reformed) minister about the canon, and about sola Scriptura. His reply was that they just had to be presupposed (he was a good Van Tillian :-)).

     The reason I raised the issue was that I thought Mateo above, in #381, was arguing that one would have to have an infallible proof that the (Protestant) Scriptures were infallible – and thus was pushed into an infinite regress. This is, of course, related to the tu quoque problem. At some point you must start with reason. Reason must bring you the point of moral certainty – of the sort of certainty that you are convinced you have a moral duty to act on.

     I vigorously reject any suggestion that such reasoning – if logically followed – can lead to sola Scriptura. I reject it for just the reasons you have given, as well as for its unworkability. I am quite sure that Protestants who think they have reasoned in this way to the Scriptures are, in fact, unconsciously assuming the infallible authority of the Church – at least of the early Christians – to have been guided by God infallibly to choose certain books as themselves the inspired, infallibly Word of God. They then attempt to chop off the branch they are sitting on, leaving the Bible itself hanging in mid-air.

     But what does seem to me clear is that at some point you must have used reason to come to your infallible source. If you needed an infallible guide to come to that infallible source, and then yet another to come to the previous … infinite regress time.

     Ronald Knox’s “Belief of Catholics” freed me. He allowed me to use my reason, to come to believe in God, in Jesus, and finally in the Church – and through that in the Scriptures. I say ‘freed’ me because I had been trapped in a kind of Van Tillian fideism – we must presuppose the validity (and canon) of the (Protestant) Scriptures, indeed, of the existence and nature of God Himself. We are not allowed to use reason at any point to come to these conclusions.

     Thank God for His mercy!

     jj

386. Brent November 11th, 2011 7:07 am :

     Mateo,

     You asked:

     what possible reasonable criteria could exist that would give one an infallible knowledge of the books that belong in the canon?

     I would want to slightly modify this. The question isn’t how I, personally, can have infallible knowledge, but how we can have a belief that is the by product of an infallible process. Once you make that distinction, it turns the first half of your question on its head. If the canon is not revealed by God to someone, then it is not an article of faith. However, the canon has not been revealed to me personally, and thus it is not of necessity known by me infallibly–nevertheless it is known as an infallibly revealed Truth because it was revealed to someone infallibly (we know that by faith). If we know it (the canon) merely by “reasonable criteria”, by definition, we cannot know it infallibly (none of us our fallible in our nature). Now, something can still be true despite our lack of infallibility. However, we have to ask our selves what kind of true statement it is. Is it a statement about sense experience, an act of the intellect or revealed religion. “Reasonable criteria” can provide enough warrant to believe something that falls under the first two domains, but not under the domain of revealed religion. Which, if I understand it correctly, is somewhat the point of Mike’s article.

     That is why, without the Church, there can be no article of faith. We cannot believe a single thing unless there is a preacher, and there is no preacher without one being sent. In fact, when one puts their faith in the faith of the Church, either explicitly as a Catholic or implicitly in many various strands of Protestantism, that faith is grounded in the authority of Christ’s Church–which is His body and has His mind. The early Counter Reformers were quick to note that Protestantism, in its incessant cry of Biblical perspicuity coupled with a throwing off of Magisterial Church authority, consequently grounded theological truth in pure reason. It’s not so much that a Protestant cannot know what John 3:16 means, but that he or I do not claim to understand John 3:16 as it relates to the entire deposit of faith and thus in a very important way leave ourselves open to all kinds of heterodox deductions a part from the living mind of the Church. The canon is the perfect example because if we only know the canon by “reasonable criteria”–which I don’t think we do (even as merely an article of intellectual knowledge), we only have a reasonable rule of faith not a dogmatic rule of faith. This, of course, does not mean that reason and faith are apposed to each other, just demarcates the boundaries of reason as it relates to grace and the power of the Holy Spirit in leading Christ’s Church into all truth. Thus, it would be reasonable for anyone to reject the Christian canon on grounds that reason alone cannot close what reason alone did not compose.

387. mateo November 13th, 2011 2:23 am :

     mateo writes: If the Protestant bible is the only infallible source of revelation that a Christian has access to, then what possible reasonable criteria could exist that would give one an infallible knowledge of the books that belong in the canon?

     John Thayer Jensen asks: I wish you could expound here a little on the tu quoque aspect of this.

     JJ, I’ll give it my best shot. I see right away that in the sentence that I wrote above that I have used the word “infallible”, which was sloppy writing on my part (i.e. “… the Protestant bible is the only infallible source of revelation that a Christian has access to …”).

     JJ, not for your sake, but for the sake of those trying to follow this conversation, I think I need to get a little technical in defining my terms.

     Infallibility is a charism of the Holy Spirit that men can exercise when that gift is given to men by the Holy Spirit. When the charismatic gift of infallibility is exercised by men, what they say or write is known with certainty to be inerrant (without error). I say known with certainty, because the Holy Spirit is the one who is guaranteeing that the words are without error. A Catholic would say that a book that recorded all the de fide definita dogmas of the true church would be a book that is guaranteed by God to be without error.

     Likewise, inspiration is a gift of the Holy Spirit that men can exercise, and when a man writes down words while exercising the charismatic gift of inspiration, what is written down is inspired (literally, God-breathed). God is the author of the words that are God-breathed, and Catholics say that only the scriptures are God-breathed.

     Since the scriptures found in a Protestant bible are but a subset of the scriptures found in a Catholic bible, Catholics would necessarily acknowledge that the scriptures found in a Protestant bible have the quality of being inspired. Since God is the author of what is God-breathed, and because God cannot lie, a knowledgeable Catholic will readily grant that the scriptures found in a Protestant bible not only have the quality of being inspired, they also have the quality of being inerrant. (Of course, to be without error, the translation of the Protestant bible from the original sources must be free from translation errors.)

     To sum up, only people can speak infallibly, but books, because they are not people, cannot speak infallibly. Technically, a book cannot be an infallible source of revelation, because a book is not a person.

     What I should have written is something like this:

     The novelty of sola scriptura is the Protestant doctrine that the only source of knowledge that is guaranteed by God to be inerrant are the words we find written down in the inspired books of the bible, and the only inspired books of the bible are those to be found between the covers of a Protestant bible with a sixty-six book canon.

     Ironically, the sixty-six book canon is not what is contained in a first edition of the King James Bible nor the first edition of the Geneva Bible. Because most Protestant’s now insist upon a sixty-six book canon as being an essential element of sola scriptura doctrine, Catholics object to the doctrine of sola scriptura on those grounds. Which gives us the “canon problem”. The “canon problem” can be resolved, if one believes that there is, in principle, a way to know what belongs in the canon with a certainty that is guaranteed by God.

     Since Protestant “bible churches” that are built upon the foundation of sola scriptura can have no living teaching authority that can offer anything more than learned opinions, not having a closed canon would throw everything into question. What if there are books that are missing from the Protestant bible? Maybe Protestants need to include the Gospel of Thomas in their canon, as some Protestant bible scholars maintain. Or maybe the letters of Paul aren’t inspired, as some Protestants maintain. Or, maybe, just maybe, Luther was right after all, and it was a mistake to claim that the Epistle of James belonged to the canon, along with the Book of Revelation, and all the other books that Luther didn’t see as being inspired by God. Aaron G has it exactly right when he says “I could not listen to a Pastor preach out of the “Word of God” when I knew that in principle that very book he was preaching from might, in fact, not be the Word of God after all.”

     Catholics have other grounds for objecting to the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura apart from the can of worms that this Protestant doctrine opens up in regard to the “canon problem”. The Catholic would also rightly object to claim that the scriptures found in a Protestant bible are only source of knowledge that is guaranteed by God to be inerrant. It is the “only” claim that Catholics object to. Catholics claim that some teachings of the true church that are not explicitly found in scriptures are guaranteed by Got to be inerrant without also having the quality of being inspired.

     Catholics would say that the true church, at the Ecumenical Council of Trent, solemnly defined the canon of the bible. That is an example of a teaching of the true church that is known with certainty to be inerrant, since the Holy Spirit has protected that teaching from being in error. Catholics claim that the Holy Spirit always protects the true church from teaching error when she exercises the full authority of her teaching office.

     So why doesn’t the tu toque argument work? That argument doesn’t work because Catholics make the distinction between what is inerrant without being inspired, and what is inerrant because it is inspired. The Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura is not primarily a doctrine about the inspiration and inerrancy of scriptures, since no Catholic finds the claim that scriptures are God-breathed, and thus inerrant, to be the least bit controversial. Rather, at its core, sola scriptura is a Protestant novelty fabricated by the “Reformers” as a way to deny that any living man could exercise the charism of infallibility. Specifically, the original Reformers were rebelling against the authority of the bishops of the church that they belonged to when they claimed that their consciences could not be bound by any living man under any conceivable circumstance. The Reformers were making the absurd claim that only the Protestant bible could bind the conscience of a Christian. That is an absurd claim since there are no scriptures in a Protestant bible that define the canon of scriptures. It logically follows that if sola scriptura is true, there is no possibility that the canon of scriptures can ever be known with a certainty that is guaranteed by God. Which means that you might as well not believe anything other that what you know by the natural law, since nothing that you or I could propose to be accepted as part of the canon of inspired scriptures can ever be known with a certainty guaranteed by God that it actually belongs to the canon of inspired scriptures.

     A sola scriptura confessing Protestant cannot claim that men within the true church have exercised the charism of infallibility to define the canon, because the sola scriptura novelty was a doctrine invented by the “Reformers” to deny that anyone could exercise the charism of infallibility! Any argument whatsoever that a sola scriptura confessing Protestant could comes up with to define a canon of scriptures that is guaranteed by God to be inerrant is a doomed exercise in futility. Which, as I see it, is really what Tom Brown’s article is about:

     “By what criterion do we know which texts comprise the Bible?” …
     I shall argue that, given the Reformed assumption, that whatever authoritatively testifies to the canonicity of Scripture must be more authoritative than Scripture …

     John Thayer Jensen writes: It does seem to me possible to argue that we must use reasoning to conclude with moral certainty that the Catholic Church is God’s infallible guide and teacher on earth – and then obey it. To be sure, God then converts the water of moral certainty into the wine of supernatural faith – if I may use the image.

     My Reformed teachers seemed to me to be arguing that, fundamentally, the (Protestant :-)) Bible takes the place of the Church in this formula. Using our human reason we see what good the Bible has done, we see that it speaks of Jesus in ways that elicit Lewis’s “liar-lunatic-Lord” trilemma, we read its contents and we see that we believe, with (only) moral certainty, that it is the word of God – but, if the word, then it must be infallible – so we must obey it.

     I think that is how they would have argued – and then, of course, having made this act of faith, God gives us theological faith.

     It seems to me that this is an argument that is claiming that by reason alone, one could come to be a convert that believes in the Gospel. And, that after one becomes a convert to the Christian faith, that God grants to the convert the supernatural gift of theological faith. That argument seems to me to be nothing more than the heresy of semi-Pelagianism. If find this surprising, since the error typically made by Calvinists is not that of embracing the heresy of semi-Pelagianism, but the error of embracing the heresy propounded by Luther.

     Dr. Feingold makes it clear why Luther taught heresy in his lectures on grace that Bryan has linked in the CTC articles Lawrence Feingold on Sanctifying Grace and Actual Grace, and Nature, Grace, and Man’s Supernatural End: Feingold, Kline, and Clark.

     JJ, have you listened to those lectures by Dr. Lawrence? If you have, perhaps we could discuss further the heresy of Luther on one of the CTC threads that Bryan started. I don’t want to sidetrack this thread in to a discussion about actual grace, but do think that it would be necessary to discuss that topic to see why Luther taught heresy. The heresy that Luther taught about actual grace is germane, IMO, about why sola scriptura is false doctrine.

     John Thayer Jensen writes: The reason I raised the issue was that I thought Mateo above, in #381, was arguing that one would have to have an infallible proof that the (Protestant) Scriptures were infallible – and thus was pushed into an infinite regress. This is, of course, related to the tu quoque problem. At some point you must start with reason. Reason must bring you the point of moral certainty – of the sort of certainty that you are convinced you have a moral duty to act on.

     Catholics don’t start with reason alone when discussing every aspect of moral duty. Sure, some moral duties can be known through reason and the natural law. But when it comes to the obligations of moral duty that are known through supernatural revelation, Catholics start with reason aided by actual grace. It is a de fide definita teaching of the Catholic Church that before an adult could ever become a convert to the Christian faith, that God would have to give actual grace to that adult. The adult that needs to convert first needs actual grace in the form of operating grace. This grace is irresistible; it always is efficacious in giving to the adult enlightenment about supernatural matters that his reasoning, unaided by grace, could never obtain. But this enlightenment by operating grace is not enough to allow one to convert. To act on the supernatural enlightenment that one has been given, man needs actual grace in the form of cooperating grace. Cooperating grace is resistible, because man has free will. Man can be willfully obstinate if he chooses to be, and he can choose to not cooperate with God and refuse to go where his enlightened intellect is leading him. A man can also choose to not resist cooperating grace and become a convert to Christianity, but reason alone cannot bring you to the point that you could ever have the moral certainty that you need to convert and accept the Gospel of Christ.

     The scriptures clearly teach that anyone that desires to be a follower of Christ must listen to what the church that Christ founded teaches or be excommunicated. I believe what the church that Christ has founded teaches when she solemnly declares what belongs to the canon of scriptures. I don’t believe that because of the exercise of my reasoning powers unaided by grace, I believe that because my intellect has been enlightened by grace.

     Luther, in the sixteenth century, had as much authority to define the canon of scriptures for all Christians as did Marcion in the second century. Which is to say that neither Luther nor Marcion had any authority whatsoever to teach, in the name of Christ, what comprised the canon of scriptures. If I want to know with certainty what constitutes the canon of scriptures, I need to seek out the church founded by Christ and listen to what she teaches. Luther writes as if everyone should listen and submit to what he is teaching, while at the same time, he is brazenly declaring that no living man has any ability to teach infallibly about matters of the Christian faith! What Luther is asking me to believe is so absurd, that I could not follow him unless I rejected reason altogether.

388. mateo November 13th, 2011 3:29 am :

     Brent, re: your post # 385.

     You present an argument that leads you to this conclusion:

     If we know it (the canon) merely by “reasonable criteria”, by definition, we cannot know it infallibly …

     That is exactly what I am trying to say! The Reformer’s sola scriptura novelty is a primarily a doctrine that denies that any living man can speak with infallible authority under any conceivable circumstance. If I accept the Reformer’s sola scriptura novelty, it logically follows that I can never know with a certainty that is guaranteed by God what the canon of scriptures actually is. Which leads to me to your conclusion:

     if we only know the canon by “reasonable criteria … we only have a reasonable rule of faith not a dogmatic rule of faith

     Right. If, in principle, there is no way that I can ever know with a certainty that is guaranteed by God which books belong to the canon of the bible (if there are any), then I should not bother listening to any Christian that claims that he has a knowledge obtained from his study of the “scriptures”. Why listen to Calvin or Luther if they don’t claim that they have exercised the charism of infallibility when they try and teach me what constitutes the canon of scriptures? If no one can teach infallibly, then no one should listen to either Calvin or Luther when they pontificate upon the “scriptures”, since no one really knows what the scriptures actually are.

     Brent writes: The early Counter Reformers were quick to note that Protestantism, in its incessant cry of Biblical perspicuity coupled with a throwing off of Magisterial Church authority, consequently grounded theological truth in pure reason.

     I agree with that. The Calvinists then reacted to the Counter Reformation by abandoning rationalism and embracing fideism. From one extreme to the other.

389. Johannes November 26th, 2011 10:39 pm :

     @John Thayer Jensen #383

     It does seem to me possible to argue that we must use reasoning to conclude with moral certainty that the Catholic Church is God’s infallible guide and teacher on earth – and then obey it.

     My Reformed teachers seemed to me to be arguing that, fundamentally, the (Protestant :-)) Bible takes the place of the Church in this formula. Using our human reason we see what good the Bible has done, we see that it speaks of Jesus in ways that elicit Lewis’s “liar-lunatic-Lord” trilemma, we read its contents and we see that we believe, with (only) moral certainty, that it is the word of God – but, if the word, then it must be infallible – so we must obey it.

     I think that is how they would have argued – and then, of course, having made this act of faith, God gives us theological faith.

     To me, of course, the argument seemed far, far stronger that it was the Church that was that teacher – in great part because sola Scriptura was, in fact, private interpretation – and utterly unworkable.

     To further strengthen the case of the Church as teacher, place yourself in the position of an inhabitant of the Roman Empire between AD 30 (Jesus’ Passover) and AD 50, listening to any of St Peter, St John, St Paul or any other Apostle, when no text whatsoever of the New Testament had still been written.

     Either you accepted the Apostles as God-inspired infallible teachers, or you were in for a very long wait before becoming Christian. Fifty years at least if you specifically required that St John’s Gospel were put in writing.

     And the Apostles at that time were exactly the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. So, the Protestant position implies that a fundamental change occurred in the Church with the death of the Apostles. While they were living, they were infallible teachers and no written New Testament was essentially needed to come to faith. Once they were gone, no one took their office as infallible teachers and the written Scripture became the only infallible teacher.

390. John Thayer Jensen November 27th, 2011 12:50 pm :

     @Johannes:

     While they were living, they were infallible teachers and no written New Testament was essentially needed to come to faith. Once they were gone, no one took their office as infallible teachers and the written Scripture became the only infallible teacher.

     I remember saying to my wife, when we were in the throes of deciding whether to become Catholics or not, that following our Evangelical friends, one must imagine God, at the death of the last Apostle, lowering down a nice leather-bound Zondervan Bible – with blank spaces for notes – to the Christians of the day, saying, “There! Now you’ve got all you need. Best of luck!”

     Oh, and by the way, you’ll need to learn to read pretty quickly, too…

     jj

391. Brian April 9th, 2012 9:50 pm :

     What does the canon argument “do?” If it is successful, what are the implications? Does it prove Protestantism wrong, or does it just prove Sola Scriptura wrong? Does it prove that the Catholic Church is the true Church?

392. Tom Brown April 9th, 2012 10:15 pm :

     Dear Brian,

     Thank you for commenting. I said of my conclusion in the article that, “the fundamental problem for the sola scriptura position is that it has no way of determining the canon that is faithful to its own concept of authority.” I was not attempting to prove anything else, like that by analyzing the Protestant canon method we could conclude that the Catholic Church is the true Church. (That conclusion would not follow from my article.)

     You asked if the argument proves Protestantism wrong or “just” sola scriptura. I’m curious how Protestantism could stand without sola scriptura and am curious what it would look like without the doctrine, in your opinion.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

393. Brian April 9th, 2012 10:41 pm :

     I apologize if my question goes outside the scope of your article, but maybe we can still talk about what the canon argument actually accomplishes. I used to think that the canon argument simply throws Protestantism into chaos and incoherence; without any objective basis for establishing what is the word of God, Protestant Christianity simply does not get off the ground. But that is only true if Protestantism necessarily entails that one affirm that Scripture is the word of God in the first place. That is a doctrinal commitment, and Protestantism does not really entail doctrinal commitments.

     But I have met a few Protestants who just regard Scripture as non-inspired apostolic documents that reliably tell of a divine message. They are perfectly comfortable with them as historical documents, and that’s it.

     Does the canon argument do more than show that sola scriptura is wrong?

394. Tom Brown April 10th, 2012 7:17 pm :

     Dear Brian,

     Your question is perfectly within the scope of this discussion, so you’re welcome to raise it. I am not (personally) familiar with Protestants who see [all of/their] Scripture as mere historical documents. However, I do not see how the canon argument moves us any closer to unity with such a Protestant. Do you?

     If I could convince a Protestant to see the problem the Canon Question creates for the sola scriptura position — as I once came to see — we could discuss how he is thus left without an authority paradigm (except, arguably, himself as his own authority for matters of faith and morals). The hypothetical Protestant who sees the Bible as a collection of mere historical texts has already given up on having an authority paradigm (except, again, perhaps himself). In that way, the two are in the same spot. I see the Canon Question as apt to get us to that spot, but not itself getting us any further.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

395. Lojahw April 11th, 2012 4:21 pm :

     Dear Tom,
     You wrote:
     If I could convince a Protestant to see the problem the Canon Question creates for the sola scriptura position — as I once came to see — we could discuss how he is thus left without an authority paradigm (except, arguably, himself as his own authority for matters of faith and morals).

     Many months ago I challenged your premise that the canon question creates a problem for sola scriptura, but you appear either not to understand or not to believe that the Reformers never claimed that sola scriptura assigns all authority to Scripture. The five “solas” are about salvation, not about authority for everything. The Reformers heartily agreed with Galileo: “Scripture teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.”

     If you really want to know what the Reformers taught about sola scriptura, you should read what they said instead of limiting your research to what a few contemporary Protestants are saying about it now.

     Here’s a challenge: read John Calvin’s Institutes book 1, chapters 7-8, and also look at the index of all the non-Biblical citations in the Institutes. It is interesting that in chapter 8, Calvin discusses examples of the “evidence” which Scripture carries along with it – including the testimony of the Church! Calvin cites the church fathers hundreds of times – while being a staunch advocate of sola scriptura. Your premise is simply mistaken.

     On the other hand, Calvin recognized that the testimony of the Church is ambiguous. For example, if the pronouncements of the Council of Trent are supposed to be infallible, why did it list Baruch but omit Lamentations from the canon? Why also did the Council of Trent declare the only authorized version of Scripture to be the Vulgate, including its mistranslation of Gen. 3:15 (“she shall crush his head”)? The ripples from the latter error demonstrate why it is important to correctly recognize not only the canonical books but also the canonical texts. No wonder Calvin said that “the full conviction with which we ought to receive [Scripture]” is owed to the testimony of the Spirit!

     Starting with the authority of Jesus Himself and the sources He trusted (e.g., His apostles, which in turn implies that their teaching is canonical) there is plenty of evidence for the canonicity of the 66 books. And yes, some of that evidence is historical – both internal and external – affirming the authenticity and trustworthiness of the Protestant canon. But evidence can only influence the mind; the heart and spirit must be convicted by the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Spirit has spoken clearly to all orthodox branches of Christians about the canonicity of the 66 books; not so about any other books. If you’re looking for authority that does not violate sola scriptura and correctly recognizes the canon, you can stop looking.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

396. Joe Heschmeyer April 11th, 2012 5:24 pm :

     Lojahw,

     (1) I understand and agree with the point that you’re making, distinguishing “solo” from “sola” Scriptura. We can disagree on whether this difference is principled or not, and the Called to Communion guys have plenty worth reading on that score, but your point is fundamentally correct — the Reformers weren’t scared of the Church Fathers, or the idea of the testimony of the Church. They viewed these extra-Biblical sources as an important lens for reading Scripture.

     But where “solo” and “sola” Scriptura stand in harmony, if the term sola Scriptura is to have any meaning at all, is that Scripture is the source of all doctrines. Because if you think you can derive doctrines from outside of Scripture, I fail to see how you believe in sola Scriptura at all. Or put another way, all doctrines can be derived from Scripture, if Scripture is read properly. Is that a fair enough description?

     That’s why the Canon Question is so important. As this conversation has made abundantly clear, the question of the number of Books in the Bible isn’t one that can be solved through simply reading Scripture (even through the right lens). For example, the answer to the question, “Is 2 Peter inspired Scripture?” is not found in 2 Peter, or in any other Book of the Bible. It doesn’t matter how carefully you read 2 Peter, the Book is simply silent on whether it is Scripture or not. So the doctrinal statement “2 Peter is inspired Scripture” is one that can only be affirmed if you move beyond sola Scriptura to permit doctrines not found within Scripture itself. This is undeniably true for all (or nearly all) of the New Testament Books.

     So before we even get into the debate over whether the early Church Fathers affirmed the Catholic or Protestant canon, the very fact that we’re looking to the early Church to set the canon (rather than looking for the inspired Table of Contents) debunks sola Scriptura.

     (2) Now on to the question of which canon is the correct one. You claim that “Calvin recognized that the testimony of the Church is ambiguous.” You’re over-arguing what Calvin “recognized.” He noted that the Early Church Fathers differed on the proper canon. He didn’t claim that the Church was still confused in the 16th century. At the end of Book IV, Chapter 9, of Institutes, he writes:

     “But the Romanists have another end in view when they say that the power of interpreting Scripture belongs to councils, and that without challenge. […] But I again ask, In what council was that Canon published? Here they must be dumb. Besides, I wish to know what they believe that Canon to be. For I see that the ancients are little agreed with regard to it. If effect is to be given to what Jerome says (Præf. in Lib. Solom.), the Maccabees, Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, and the like, must take their place in the Apocrypha: but this they will not tolerate on any account.”

     So there’s no question that Calvin understood that the “Romanists” were against relegating “Maccabees, Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, and the like” to the Apocrypha. And recall that Institutes was published well before Trent. So the idea that the pre-Tridentine Catholic Church had no set canon isn’t even something Her opponents claimed.

     (3) You asked, ” if the pronouncements of the Council of Trent are supposed to be infallible, why did it list Baruch but omit Lamentations from the canon?” Because Lamentations was part of the LXX version of Jeremiah. In saying, “Jeremias, with Baruch,” the Council of Trent made it clear that they meant the Vulgate/Greek version of Jeremiah, not the Hebrew version.

     Are you’re suggesting that anyone understood Trent to mean “the Hebrew version of Jeremiah, with Baruch appended, but not Lamentations or the Epistle of Jeremiah,” instead? How is this an argument against conciliar infallibility, at all?

     (4) You’re over-arguing again when you claim that “there is plenty of evidence for the canonicity of the 66 books,” starting from Jesus and the Apostles. In comment # 306, you conceded that you have to use a “bulls-eye” approach that treats the canons used by the Fathers as close enough… since not a single Church Father used the 66 Book canon you claim the Holy Spirit reveals to all orthodox Christians.

     (5) “But evidence can only influence the mind; the heart and spirit must be convicted by the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Spirit has spoken clearly to all orthodox branches of Christians about the canonicity of the 66 books; not so about any other books.” So you don’t consider St. Augustine orthodox? Actually, let me ask a more basic question: using the rubric you just outlined, were there no orthodox Christians prior to the Reformation?

     And if there were, can you point me to the 66 Book Bible that they used? This shouldn’t be hard, if what you’re saying is even remotely defensible.

     I.X.,

     Joe

397. christie February 6th, 2013 4:58 pm :

     Tom,

     In your article, which is excellent by the way, you wrote:

     “That this distinct apostolic power can be handed down is thoroughly supported by Scripture and the writings of the early Church Fathers, as shall be discussed here in great detail in subsequent articles.”

     Will there be an article on apostolic succession soon?

     Thanks,

     Christie

398. Tom Brown February 6th, 2013 8:32 pm :

     Dear Christie,

     Thank you for the comment. We continue to have an Apostolic Succession article on the slow cooker, but it may be some time still before it is ready. Thanks for your patience!

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

399. Dave February 22nd, 2013 1:27 am :

     Tom,

     Thank you for all the time and effort you and the other writers put toward this site. I’ve benefited a lot from it and am considering taking RCIA. This is a broad question and I haven’t read through all the thread but what did you think was the most compelling case for how a Protestant can id the canon w/out violating Sola Scrip or to put it another way what did you think about the question before you found there was no reasonable answer offered by SS?

     thanks again,
     Dave

400. Tom Brown February 22nd, 2013 8:19 am :

     Dear Dave,

     It is good to hear from you. I took a position in line with Calvin’s (articulated in his Institutes, and reiterated in this article). But I saw the problems with that, and the inconsistencies with sola Scriptura, as they were explained to me be a patient Catholic friend at work. That started a long period of reading Protestants on this subject, trying to find an answer that worked within sola Scriptura.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom

401. Lojahw February 24th, 2013 2:20 am :

     Hi Dave,
     I’ve been out of the loop for a long time, but I saw your comments. I’m curious what is prompting you to consider RCIA?

     I found Tom’s article to be provocative – in fact it led me to an in-depth study of the subject (I ultimately disagreed with his conclusions). In retrospect I don’t think he really understands sola scriptura or Calvin. Sola scriptura, properly understood, claims that Scripture is the only unquestioned source of our faith – not the only source period. I highly recommend chapter 6 of James R. Payton’s Getting the Reformation Wrong. And Calvin does not actually claim that all of Scripture is self-attesting, but rather that there is sufficient internal and external evidence to confirm its divine origin in general. In fact, Calvin includes the testimony of the church in his list of evidence. See Institutes 1.7.4-1.8.13.

     If you do go to RCIA, I would be curious if you can find anyone who can defend the flaws of the deuteros. For example, I have never found answers to why the Spirit of Truth should be considered the author of Judith which flatly contradicts both the book of Daniel and external historical sources about Nebuchadnezzar, or that He should be the author of Tobit in which a holy angel “who stands in the presence of God” lies about his identity, etc. (Where do lies come from?) The usual comeback is to say such flaws are not really flaws or that they are not worse than other alleged flaws in the 66 canonical books. However, it is disturbing that God’s Word should be questioned but not the human authorities who placed flawed books like the above in the canon. I feel like the little boy in the Emperor’s New Clothes, but no one takes me seriously.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw (Lover of Jesus and His Word)

402. Tom Brown February 24th, 2013 6:10 pm :

     Dear “Lojahw,”

     A few points of order are necessary. First, please refrain from the ad hominem inherent in dismissing my argument because I do not “really” get sola scriptura or Calvin. Second, from there please do not impliedly impute to me the positions you think I take (in fact, the positions I take are explicated in this article). As occurred in your comment, this almost invariably leads to straw-man argumentation. Third, to the extent you are seeking to engage in a discussion with Dave over the reasons he is considering RCIA, this is not the place to do it except insofar as his reason is the canon question. Fourth and finally — and we’ve been down this trail before, you and I — this is not the place for an attack on the Deuterocanons, but rather my argument “that Reformed theology is intrinsically incapable of answering the Canon Question.” An article on Called to Communion about the Deuterocanons would no doubt be good to read, but this article is not that.

     You said:

     However, it is disturbing that God’s Word should be questioned but not the human authorities who placed flawed books like the above in the canon.

     Are you arguing that the Catholic and Protestant canons alike may have flawed books because flawed humans placed the books? Or are you presupposing that the Catholic Church (but not the Protestants) has flawed books, ergo its human authorities should be subject to being “questioned” (but not the Protestant human authorities)? Or is there another way to read you here?

     FWIW, a quick Google search reveals that Mark Shea has engaged in the Deuterocanon issues you presented. Maybe you can engage with him if it’s an area of concern for you. https://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0120.html.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

403. Lojahw February 24th, 2013 7:07 pm :

     Dear Tom,
     Please accept my apologies for “drawing outside the lines.” I admit that I’m too far removed in time from this thread to pick it up again, but I appreciate the pointer to Mark Shea’s article on the deuteros.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

404. Christopher Lake February 24th, 2013 7:22 pm :

     Lojawh (re:#401),

     Welcome back to CTC! Good to see you again. I can assure you that Tom understands “Sola Scriptura,” and I’m also confident that he understands Calvin. :-) Tom and I both used to be Calvinists, and we both now attend the same Catholic parish.

     A few years ago, there was a major article on this site that dealt, partially, with “Solo” and “Sola” Scriptura. If you have read that article, then there should be little question that the official contributors at CTC understand the historic Reformed understanding of Sola Scriptura (as well as the contemporary practice of “Solo” Scriptura by some non-Reformed Christians). This article may take some time to load, as there have been 1, 222 comments on it: https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/

405. Lojahw February 24th, 2013 8:27 pm :

     Thank you, Christopher, but I really don’t have a lot of time to re-engage (and, BTW, I participated in the Solo/sola thread). I think it best to say we agree to disagree: Calvin was undoubtedly in the Sola scriptura camp, yet he clearly did not confine his recognition of Scripture to the contents of the books in question (see my previous citation, for example). Let’s just agree to disagree.

     I do think it is interesting that the Holy Spirit has guided the whole Body of Christ universal to recognize the 66 books as canonical, yet from the earliest days of the Church there NEVER has been unanimity on the deuteros. In my paradigm the Holy Spirit guided the Apostles (as Jesus promised) into all the truth, and they handed down a complete deposit of the “faith which was once for all delivered.” A careful reading of history shows that it was Augustine who innovated by proposing a 44 book OT canon over against what Cyril of Jerusalem claimed was only 22 books handed down by the Apostles to the Church. Jerome’s OT canon being written into the Vulgate preserved a remnant in the Church until the Reformation who continued to recognize the 66 book canon. In my view, the Church retained the full deposit of the faith in the 66 books, but erred by going beyond to it.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

406. Stephen February 25th, 2013 5:15 pm :

     Joe (#396),

     You wrote:

     “For example, the answer to the question, “Is 2 Peter inspired Scripture?” is not found in 2 Peter, or in any other Book of the Bible. It doesn’t matter how carefully you read 2 Peter, the Book is simply silent on whether it is Scripture or not. So the doctrinal statement “2 Peter is inspired Scripture” is one that can only be affirmed if you move beyond sola Scriptura to permit doctrines not found within Scripture itself. This is undeniably true for all (or nearly all) of the New Testament Books.”

     Sola Scriptura means that the “all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture” (WCF I.VI). This does not contradict the idea that external evidence can be used to establish a particular writing as Scripture. Sola Scripture amounts to this: Scripture, that which is God-breathed,
     determines the rule of faith. The rule of faith is the doctrinal content of Scripture as the material and formal source, but the table of contents of the canon is not precisely the rule of faith.

     But even if you’re correct that this violates some popular understanding of Sola Scripture, there is no logical contradiction in simply revising Sola Scriptura to be the following: Scripture is determined by both internal and external evidence and once the table of contents of the canon is determined, then we can proceed to determine the rule faith solely from its content. This follows how scholars do research all the time on a particular body of work. Scholars determine the canon of Cicero or the canon of Aristotle and, once thought to be completed, proceed to interpret each person’s body of work. Your criticism of Sola Scripture, if correct, only suggests a revision of the concept; it does not disprove the concept.

     You might say that appealing to external evidence proves the usefulness of non-scriptural evidence to determine the content of Christian beliefs. Obviously, I would have to affirm this. But it isn’t illogical to conclude, after surveying the secondary sources of the 1st century and early Church, that my “revised” definition of Sola Scriptura is correct. Let’s say that from the secondary sources one determines that Jesus was raised from the dead, one determines that He deposited doctrine with his apostles (actually, he deposited a divine interpretation of historical events, namely, the historical event of Christ), one determines which of those writings most likely contain that deposit, one determines the nature of Scripture in those writings, and one adopts my above definition of Sola Scriptura from interpretation. There is nothing logically contradictory in this. It satisfies the Protestant understanding of Scripture. It avoids your criticism.

     Stephen

407. John Thayer Jensen February 25th, 2013 5:54 pm :

     Stephen (#206)

     I think your outline here is correct and is what I would have said as a Protestant when I began considering the canon question. What I think, however, is that it is difficult to avoid concluding from the same external evidence that it is precisely the church that one is trusting. There was not, after all, a New Testament for, at minimum, the first several years. It is because we trust the church that we know what is and what is not Scripture. And because the church itself was not entirely clear on what was in the New Testament for, at minimum, a century or two, and, arguably, up to four centuries, the whole business of identifying the canon rests on identifying the church. And that depends on identifying what sort of thing the church is. Is it those who agree with a set of doctrines? But then you need to know independently what those doctrines are, and to be able, independently, to judge agreement with the doctrines.

     If the church is, on the other hand, an organisation – a new Israel – with a structure, earthly authorities, and so forth – then one need to know how to find out whether an early church writer is in agreement with that church. And then, as it seems to me, one comes down to the principle of unity – ultimately, union with Peter and his successors.

     jj

408. Stephen February 25th, 2013 6:28 pm :

     John,

     Identification of the true Church relies on the collection, identification and interpretation of the secondary sources, which are primarily the early Christian documents. So one must, at least, first recognize the early Christian writings as *reliable* before identifying the Church. Trust in some ecclesiastical authority prior to determining the reliable of the early documents leaves the believer in that authority with no epistemic grounding. The individual’s interpretation of the secondary sources determines the *type* of church Christ established. If there is no support or contradictory support for a magisterial type church, then one has no epistemic grounds to believe in that type of church and any claim to the “requirement” of a Magisterium to produce infallibility is only ad hoc and an argument from convenience. Even if the “Canon Question” is a canon problem, any ad hoc solution from convenience, having no early support from that which must be independently shown reliable, is purely speculative.

     Whether or not there is a canon problem, the RC solution is merely a convenience, not a prescription based on the secondary sources. The imperfection of the Protestant attempts at providing a solution to the canon problem does not support the RC solution. But because this “canon problem” is not really an internal problem among Protestants and the RC solution is universally rejected by Protestants, the criticism does little but call for further research and internal dialogue.

     Stephen

409. Lojahw February 25th, 2013 6:40 pm :

     It’s finaly beginning to come back to me – the greatest point of disagreement I have with the article (and what I believe the Reformers would also have trouble with).

     You can’t violate sola scriptura about something on which it is silent. Sola scriptura protects the authority of Scripture regarding what it teaches – not what it does not teach. That’s why the vast majority of debates about science do not violate sola scriptura: Scripture is not a science text book. Re: the canon, the issue is what does Scripture teach about the canon and canonicity – i.e., what is normative?

     Hence, I disagree with the article’s assertion that it violates sola scriptura to question the canonicity of a book not identified by Scripture as normative. This is exactly what the early Church did with several books of the NT until the Holy Spirit brought unanimity on the 27 books, which it eventually concluded authentically represented the Apostles’ teaching, and therefore were canonical. On the other hand, Jesus and His disciples explicitly or implicitly identified at least 32 OT books and 21 NT books as canonical. It would violate sola scriptura to deny the canonicity of any of them.

     To violate sola scriptura re: the canon, one would either have to 1) deny a source Jesus affirms as normative or 2) deny a truth about the canon that is affirmed by Him or the sources He identifies as normative OR 3) affirm what they deny about the canon.

     For example, Jesus identified the book of Daniel as normative or canonical. So sola scriptura requires one to recognize Daniel as canonical. Moreover, in doing so, Jesus implicitly endorsed whatever the book of Daniel affirms and denied whatever the book of Daniel denies. This is where the deuteros illustrate the sola scriptura principle: since Daniel affirmed that Nebuchadnezzar was king over Babylonia and ruled in Babylon, it violates sola scriptura to contradict that. Well, that’s exactly what the author of Judith does. To be true to sola scriptura, then, one must affirm Daniel and deny the canonical authority of Judith. It is indeed a violation of sola scriptura to claim as normative a book that contradicts the already identified normative sources.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

410. John Thayer Jensen February 25th, 2013 8:21 pm :

     Stephen (#408

     Identification of the true Church relies on the collection, identification and interpretation of the secondary sources, which are primarily the early Christian documents. So one must, at least, first recognize the early Christian writings as *reliable* before identifying the Church.

     Not sure how this helps. The writings of those early Christians we now call heretics may be reliable – in the sense of dating from those who wrote them, etc – but why do we call them heretics? It seems to me we must first have decided who was and who was not the true church in order to do so.

     jj

411. Tom Brown February 25th, 2013 8:33 pm :

     Dear “Lojahw,”

     You appear to have stated a principle to rebut my argument, to wit: “You can’t violate sola scriptura about something on which it is silent.” It would be easier for me to understand your rebuttal if you could take my own argumentation about sola Scriptura and then demonstrate which premise is false or in what way a conclusion does not follow from the premises. I didn’t quite say that “it violates sola scriptura to question the canonicity of a book not identified by Scripture as normative,” so I can’t really respond to where you went from there, as we have a straw-man problem.

     On the other hand, Jesus and His disciples explicitly or implicitly identified at least 32 OT books and 21 NT books as canonical. It would violate sola scriptura to deny the canonicity of any of them.

     This defense is inapt. You don’t know what Jesus or His disciples said unless you presuppose (a priori) that a given text purporting to testify to the words of Jesus or His disciples is true and accurate. I see a fine example of your presupposition at work in this quote: “This is where the deuteros illustrate the sola scriptura principle: since Daniel affirmed that Nebuchadnezzar was king over Babylonia and ruled in Babylon, it violates sola scriptura to contradict that.” If I read you correctly, you are presupposing the Scriptural status of Daniel, and concluding that contradictory texts are not Scripture. You are begging the question.

     If you are arguing that sola scriptura is built on a presupposition that the Bible contains a certain 66 books, I think we could dispense with further debate regarding the Canon Question, and move on to that (more interesting) presupposition. I think that position is close to what Stephen is saying in #406 and #408. Regardless, I think your response will distill down to a discussion of reliable testimony, the authority to interpret it, and the reliability of any given interpretation.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

412. herbert February 25th, 2013 9:22 pm :

     “Lojahw” (re409)-
     I am not attempting to engage you in debate or discussion. However, I have certainly heard your concerns (regarding Nebachudnezzar, etc.) expressed before. I would recommend taking a brief look at this article (https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/9073-judith-book-of), especially taking note of the section found under the heading “Historical Setting,” and I think you will find your concerns regarding the book’s references to Nebachudnezzar summarily put to rest (as you may begin to recognize the cultural reading that a Jew would bring to the text).

413. Lojahw February 25th, 2013 10:16 pm :

     Thank you for your kind reply, Tom.

     My comments were directed to the assertion (Section III):
     “The sine qua non (‘that without which’) of the Reformation is that no Church or other human judgment can be placed over Scripture. Power over the canon is power over Scripture itself because it is the power to eradicate a necessary part of the canon or to add a spurious part to Scripture.”

     My post distinguished the books revealed internally by Scripture to be canonical from those which were not. I explained why it violates sola scriptura to deny the first class, so the only books that could possibly be under discussion in the bolded text above are those not identified by Scripture as normative. If these are not the books referred to above in bold, what is the “power over Scripture” that is the alleged problem?

     I agree that one must assume the books in question are true and accurate, but there are plenty of objective criteria available to historians that have confirmed this assumption. Since the article explicitly accepts objective criteria, this challenge is irrelevant. Re: Daniel and Judith, can you explain how my conclusion begs the question? On what basis do you presume Jesus does not identify Daniel as normative? And even then, on what basis do you deny his prophetic credentials? Did not God divinely reveal His truth to Daniel as documented in his book? Or, on what basis do think Judith does not contradict God’s Word as found in Daniel???

     Furthermore, without rehashing old arguments, I still assert that the 53+ books explicitly or implicitly identified as normative provide sufficient objective criteria for judging the rest. Again, sola scriptura does not deny external testimony as evidence of its authenticity, authorship, or veracity. If you don’t believe it read Calvin’s Institutes 1.7.4-1.8.13. According to Calvin many testimonies external to scripture are part of the “evidence [Scripture] carries along with it” (ibid., 1.7.5).

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

414. Joe Heschmeyer February 25th, 2013 10:29 pm :

     Stephen (#408),

     Good question.

     I don’t want to respond to a straw man, so I appreciate that you providing a definition of sola Scriptura that you’ll defend. You use the Westminster Confession’s definition, that requires that “all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture” (WCF I.VI).

     Using that definition, here’s what I would ask in response to this:

     1) Is knowing whether a particular Book is inspired Scripture one of the things “necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life”?

     2) Assuming that the answer is yes, do we find “2 Peter is inspired Scripture” to be “expressly set down in Scripture”?

     3) Assuming that the answer is no, is “2 Peter is inspired Scripture” something that “by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture”?

     If so, I don’t see how it is. We can deduce from 2 Peter that St. Peter believes everything that he’s saying is true. This, hopefully, is the motivation for every Christian’s apologias. But does that mean, “by good and necessary consequence,” that 2 Peter is inspired? If so, how?

     I understand that “external evidence can be used” if you’re using it to clarify the meaning of an ambiguous passage of Scripture. For example, knowing the historical facts about the destruction of Jerusalem is necessary to understand certain passages of the New Testament, and no believer in sola Scriptura (as far as I know) would object to bringing this historical context in to illuminate an otherwise-obscure Scriptural passage.

     But here, you’re not using external evidence to supplement or clarify a doctrine found (implicitly or explicitly) in Scripture. You’re using external evidence to establish a doctrine not found in Scripture.

     You said that the “rule of faith is the doctrinal content of Scripture as the material and formal source,” but Scripture neither materially nor formally answers the question of whether 2 Peter is inspired. The answer to that question comes entirely outside of Scripture. You also said that “the table of contents of the canon is not precisely the rule of faith.” Sure, the rule of faith is broader than the canon of Scripture, but if the canon question is a doctrine (which is what my first question above is getting at), then it’s part of the rule of faith.

     You then offer a “revision” to sola Scriptura in which “Scripture is determined by both internal and external evidence and once the table of contents of the canon is determined, then we can proceed to determine the rule faith solely from its content.”

     This runs into the same problem above: the canon of Scripture is part of the rule of faith. So it’s still logically self-refuting, unless you decide that the canon of Scripture isn’t a doctrine. It’s also inconsistent and arbitrary, since it establishes sola Scriptura by violating sola Scriptura. On what Scriptural basis can you establish your revised doctrine that all doctrines other than the canon must come from Scripture? The revised standard seems capricious, and not of Christian origin. More specifically, it seems to be exactly what it is: an attempt to work around the inherent problems of sola Scriptura by creating arbitrary exceptions to that rule. But that’s no way to do theology.

     You suggest that this is what scholars of Cicero or Aristotle do, but it’s not. Where do we see scholars using secondary sources only to establish which books Cicero or Aristotle wrote, or to assist in deductions of ‘good and necessary consequence,’ but nothing else?

     God bless,

     Joe

415. Joe Heschmeyer February 25th, 2013 10:31 pm :

     Stephen,

     I should have asked this earlier, but given your “revised” standard, why couldn’t Catholics just create a “revised” standard of sola Scriptura that all doctrines must come from Scripture other than, say, the Assumption of Mary? Is that any more arbitrary than your idea that all doctrines must come from Scripture other than the canon of Scripture?

     I.X.,

     Joe

416. Lojahw February 26th, 2013 12:21 am :

     Interesting comments, Joe.

     What does the Westminster Confession quote have to do with answering the Canon Question?
     “all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture” (WCF I.VI).

     That the Scripture contains “all things necessary” is irrelevant to how one knows what is canonical.

     The above statement does not have to be necessary to be true; so your strawman “necessary doctrine” is false.

     Protestants do not claim that Scripture is “determined” by external and internal evidence, rather it is recognized based on Scriptural criteria together with internal and external evidence. The article claims that the criteria are external; I deny that.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

417. Tom Brown February 26th, 2013 12:31 am :

     Dear “Lojahw,”

     You said: The article claims that the criteria are external; I deny that.

     If you will please reconsider, that is not a fair statement. My article reviews a number of distinguished Reformed works attempting to answer the Canon Question. I am clear in laying out different sections for the different theories put forward in these works. I do not simply claim that [the Protestant view is that] the criteria of canonicity are external.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

418. Lojahw February 26th, 2013 9:56 am :

     Tom wrote:

     You said: The article claims that the criteria are external; I deny that.
     If you will please reconsider, that is not a fair statement.

     May I remind you of the opening words in Section III?
     “In our quest to determine how we know which texts are divinely revealed, we have found no answer to the Canon Question that does not itself violate sola scriptura by using some criterion external to Scripture to establish which books belong to Scripture.” (emphasis added)

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

419. Lojahw February 26th, 2013 9:57 am :

     Thank you for your comments, Hebert.

     According to the Jewish Encyclopedia you referenced:
     “What gained for the book its high esteem in early times, in both the Jewish and the Christian world, was its intrinsic merit as a story, rather than its religious teaching or its patriotism.”

     Even if you think “merit as a story” is a criterion for canonicity, this does not resolves the blatant contradiction between canonical Daniel and Judith. If the author knew that Nebuchadnezzar was not the king of Assyria and ruled from Nineveh he either 1) lied or 2) was signaling to the reader that his story was a farce (the position taken by Mark Shea @ Catholiceducation.org). The other explanation is that the author just didn’t know that Nebuchadnezzar really was king of Babylonia and ruled from Babylon. None of these choices are consistent with the objective criteria of canonicity laid out in Scripture.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

420. Tom Brown February 26th, 2013 10:35 am :

     Dear “Lojahw,”

     Thank you for quoting from my article the point you had in mind. I described internal and external criteria cited by Reformed authorities, so when you paraphrased me as saying “The article claims that the criteria are external,” I did not understand what you were meaning to assert.

     How do you deny my conclusion that none of the answers to the Canon Question avoid “using some criterion external to Scripture”?

     Regarding your comment #419, we are heading into a problem. You are arguing for your position that the Deuterocanonical texts do not belong in Scripture. But this combox is to discuss Reformed answers to the Canon Question, not deficiencies you see in the Catholic canon.

     Regarding your comment #413, which was helpful to me in understanding your position, you said:

     My post distinguished the books revealed internally by Scripture to be canonical from those which were not. I explained why it violates sola scriptura to deny the first class, so the only books that could possibly be under discussion in the bolded text above are those not identified by Scripture as normative.

     Let me reduce this a bit for argument’s sake. If we take a generic text, Text A, and say it contains the words, “I am Scripture,” would you then abide by it? If Text A is written in crayon by my child, and then Text B (which makes the same claim of being Scripture) is a text already in what you accept as the canon, which do you believe to be Scripture? Both, one, the other, neither? Why? From your earlier comment, I understand your position to be that you would pick Text B because it’s Scripture. This is begging the question, i.e., presupposing your position on what’s in the canon is correct, and then building your argument for how you know what’s in the canon based on that presupposition.

     You: “Since the article explicitly accepts objective criteria, this challenge is irrelevant.”

     I don’t follow you. I believe using external criteria is the part that is inconsistent with sola Scriptura, do I don’t see that I “accepted” that you can use such criteria and still be (internally) consistent with sola Scriptura.

     You: “Again, sola scriptura does not deny external testimony as evidence of its authenticity, authorship, or veracity. If you don’t believe it read Calvin’s Institutes 1.7.4-1.8.13.”

     Again, I do not believe sola Scriptura is cured of internal inconsistencies or logical errors just because they’ve been there since the beginning (the 16th century). I do not believe you can dismiss my arguments that way, nor can you demonstrate that I don’t “get” sola Scriptura by pointing to my argument that sola Scriptura is not logical. If you presuppose that sola Scriptura is correct and logical, which would be fallacious, then you could dismiss my arguments that way.

     (I may be offline for the next two days, so please excuse any delays.)

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

421. Lojahw February 26th, 2013 5:39 pm :

     Thank you for your kind response, Tom.

     In order to answer your questions it would help to clarify some assumptions:

     1. The Gospels (and some of Acts, and arguably, other sources such as Paul’s quote in 1 Cor. 11 and parts of Revelation) authentically preserve true accounts of Jesus’ life and teaching.

     2. Jesus is God the Son incarnate; and therefore His teaching as preserved in the above sources is normative for all Christians (I will abbreviate this phrase below using the word “normative”).

     3. If #1 & #2 are true, then whatever Jesus identifies as normative is a source of normative teaching (e.g., since Jesus treats the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms as normative, so should we; similarly, since Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit will lead the Apostles into all the truth, so should we; since, in turn, the Apostle Peter teaches that the letters of one outside of the 12 are Scripture, so should we, etc.). For simplicity’s sake, I’ll call these canonical sources of teaching, and what they teach, God’s Word. (Please hold judgment on the authenticity of other NT books for now.)

     4. If #1-3 are true, then objective criteria of canonicity (what is normative) can be identified by observing what these canonical sources teach. Examples include: God’s Word is true; God’s Word is holy; God’s word is everlasting; God’s word is unalterable; all Scripture is God-breathed – all things that are consistent with God’s nature and character. It is only fitting that whatever God says should be expected to reflect His nature and character.

     5. Secondary criteria can also be inferred from canonical sources, e.g., Jesus’ promise to the Apostles implies that their teaching contains the full deposit of faith for every generation of Christians. Hence, a secondary criteria of canonicity is that any source later than the Apostles is excluded. This excludes all second century and later writings, including your child’s text that says “I am Scripture.”

     The above are criteria, but to claim something meets the criteria requires evidence. For example, if the writings of the Apostles are assumed canonical due to Jesus’ promise (and the supporting witnesses in, e.g, Acts 2:42 and Jude 3), the question is how do we know which books were written by the Apostles? (BTW, “lost books” don’t meet the everlasting criteria of canonicity.) Similarly, although Peter says all of Paul’s letters are Scripture, what is the evidence for the letters we recognize as Scripture? These are matters of evidence. We can debate the merits of the evidence for and against the NT books, but that debate is not about criteria.

     You wrote: “I believe using external criteria is the part that is inconsistent with sola Scriptura.” While keeping the distinction between criteria and evidence, what external criteria of canonicity are you alluding to?

     Re: my comments on Judith, I thought it only fair that I be allowed to respond to Herbert’s challenge.

     As for your assertion that sola scriptura is neither correct nor logical, that would require another thread, would it not?

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

422. Tom Brown February 28th, 2013 10:55 pm :

     Dear “Lojahw,”

     That was a helpful response, thank you. I think our focus is best spent on your first-listed ‘assumption’ (since I see how your other assumptions might follow once Assumption #1 is given):

     The Gospels (and some of Acts, and arguably, other sources such as Paul’s quote in 1 Cor. 11 and parts of Revelation) authentically preserve true accounts of Jesus’ life and teaching.

     I agree, of course, that the Gospels authentically preserve the accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings. But for you, I believe it can be only a presupposition. If it is not a presupposition, but a conclusion based on other evidence, I would like to hear what evidence you have used in reaching this conclusion about our canonical Gospels. Without question-begging or using circular logic, how do you distinguish their character from, say, the Didache?

     Let’s consider your assumption next to an assertion I made in my article. From this and your Assumption #1, the external criteria of canonicity to which I allude is seen (viz., using fallible extrinsic evidence to determine the scope of the infallible canon):

     The doctrine of sola scriptura maintains that the Bible is to be the Christian’s sole infallible authority. The sine qua non (‘that without which’) of the Reformation is that no Church or other human judgment can be placed over Scripture.

     If your assumption (or presupposition) is based on fallible evidence, how can it lead you to infallible conclusions? For the house of sola scriptura can be no stronger than its foundation.

     My assertion that sola scriptura is not logically consistent with the formation of the canon does not require another article because my assertion is — in the main — the argument of my Section III in this article. I don’t mean to go beyond the riverbanks of that section in making my assertion now.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

423. Lojahw March 1st, 2013 12:37 am :

     Thank you for your response, Tom.
     Let me try again to describe the criteria and evidence that is relevant to this dialogue:

     Criteria include things like “whatever Jesus identified as Scripture should be recognized by all Christians as Scripture” and “whatever sources Jesus identified as normative should be considered as normative by all Christians.” I assert that the books that have preserved Jesus’ words – assuming they are authentic (which requires evidence) – not only infallibly identify most of the canonical books, but also the criteria by which all other canonical books can be identified. Moreover, it can be shown that any other books beyond the 66 are not consistent with the criteria defined by Jesus and the sources He identified as normative. I have given examples of both, and you may agree or disagree but in principle you have not demonstrated that sola scriptura is incompatible or inconsistent with the 66 book canon.

     Evidence is that which tends to prove or disprove something. Sources of evidence for the Reformers are the same as for anyone else, including Roman Catholics. Those sources include historical testimony, which indeed support the authenticity of the Gospels. Examples of that evidence include not only extant early manuscripts and the 1000s of manuscripts from the early centuries, but also the quotations from them of near-contemporaries such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, etc. It has been documented that by the end of the second century, every verse in the NT except for a hand-full were quoted by the church fathers. There are also many examples of internal evidence of their authenticity, such as independent accounts of the same events by different authors that are consistent in the essential contents, and embarrassing accounts about the Apostles themselves which testify to their honesty, etc. There are many objective historical and literary criteria for judging the authenticity of ancient documents, and all the books of the Bible have been thoroughly vetted by many scholars since the second century to the present. That is not to say that everyone believes the evidence; however I am baffled by your charge that my confidence in these books rests solely on presupposition.

     You ask how fallible evidence can lead to infallible conclusions? If you are talking about certainty, the Reformers never said evidence alone is sufficient. In fact, Calvin himself famously wrote that our full conviction comes only from the testimony of the Holy Spirit. Are you denying that Protestant Christians have the Holy Spirit? If you are not, then your argument collapses to a straw-man.

     In your last paragraph you mention the “formation of the canon” – in truth, the canon was formed by the Holy Spirit and handed down by the Apostles. Sola scriptura assumes this and then defines how Christians are to relate to it. The fact that every one of the 66 books is consistent with the criteria defined by Jesus and the sources He identified as authoritative refutes your argument that sola scriptura is not consistent with it.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

424. Lojahw March 1st, 2013 10:29 am :

     Let me illustrate what I’m saying about criteria, evidence, and the testimony of the Holy Spirit in confirming the canon:

     1. It can be reasonably inferred from the Gospels that Jesus a) affirmed the normative authority of the Apostles (cf., John 14:26; 16:13), and b) that Peter and Thomas were Apostles.

     2. According to the above criteria, authentic writings about the faith by Peter and Thomas should be considered normative by all Christians.

     3. There is sufficient internal and external evidence to confirm that 1 & 2 Peter were written by the Apostle Peter. For example, the internal testimony in both books is that Peter claimed to write both and the contents are consistent with Peter’s Apostolic experience, such as his witness of Jesus’ transfiguration, and teaching. External testimony for the authenticity of 1 & 2 Peter includes authoritative quotations by Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch near the end of the first century. However, in the fourth century, Eusebius questioned whether 2 Peter was genuine, thus it was disputed for a time. The reason 2 Peter was questioned was that its style differed from 1 Peter. Yet scholars such as A. Q. Morton have concluded by computer cumulative sum analysis that 1 & 2 Peter are linguistically indistinguishable. Also, the subject matter in the two letters is different (persecution vs. false teachers), and the circumstances of writing differed (the 2nd being written in prison, probably dictated to a different scribe than the one who wrote out Peter’s dictation the first time). In summary, it is reasonable to conclude that both letters are authentic, i.e., written by Peter. If authentic, and written by that Apostle, they should be considered normative for all generations of Christians.

     4. The Gospel of Thomas also purports to be written by an Apostle; however, both internal and external evidence refute its authenticity. For example, this book asserts capricious “miracles” by the boy Jesus, including killing people that opposed him. It was also written more than 100 years after Jesus’ ministry. Therefore, it cannot be considered authentic, nor authoritative.

     5. The consistent and unanimous testimony of the Holy Spirit in the Church since the fourth century affirms the canonicity of 1 & 2 Peter and denies that of the Gospel of Thomas. The Holy Spirit also speaks through 1 & 2 Peter to those who read or hear them, providing the full conviction that they are, indeed, the Word of God.

     You asked about the Didache. The best scholars date it mid second century, contemporary with the Gospel of Thomas, more than a century after Jesus’ ministry. It therefore cannot be considered to be an authentic work of the Apostles. Eusebius listed the Didache with the Shepherd of Hermas among the spurious books (cf. EH 3.25.1-7). Athanasius also listed the Didache among non-canonical works, “but valuable for instructing new converts.” Jerome listed it among the “apocrypha.” On the other hand, Origen accepted the Didache, along with the Shepherd of Hermas (which teaches the adoptionist heresy). The preponderance of evidence is against the Didache being the first-hand teaching of the Apostles. Failing the test of authenticity, it cannot be considered canonical.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

425. Eric March 5th, 2013 6:27 am :

     Hi Tom,

     Please carify the difference between authority and inspiration. If the “divinely appointed authority” of the Apostle’s gave weight to their teaching, then how can the “authority” of Scripture be distinct and higher than the Apostle’s “teaching” ? Should we equate authority with inspiration ?

     You wrote:
     These texts prove that the Catholic Church does not maintain that the Scriptures have only so much weight as is accorded to them by the Catholic Church. Rather, as the Catholic Church explains, the authority of the Scriptures derives from their being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, with God as their author.

     See: https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/hermeneutics-and-the-authority-of-scripture/

     It is interesting to note that St. Paul says that the Church is founded on “the Apostles and Prophets,” but Calvin renders it “the teachings of the Apostles and Prophets.” He does not allow the passage say what St. Paul actually says: the men themselves and the authority given to them by God are the foundation of the Church. This divinely appointed authority is what gives weight to their teaching and gives authority to their interpretation, and is thus more foundational to the Church than the teaching itself. This is why St. Paul exhorts the Thessalonians to hold to both the written and unwritten traditions of the Apostles. Nowhere in Sacred Scripture do we find the common Protestant assumption that all the essential information concerning Christ and the Apostles’ teaching would be codified in written form.

     It should be noted, however, that although the authority of the Church’s Magisterium is foundational and binding, the Church still holds the Scripture in the highest place of honor and authority. The Magisterium is the servant of the Scripture, and, as the Catechism says, “with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully.”

     Thanks,
     Eric

426. christie May 6th, 2013 6:18 pm :

     Tom,

     Towards the end of your article you wrote,

     “The canon did not fall from the sky as one collection, of course. As I argued in section II, under sola scriptura, the canon could not be the product of criteria that rely upon evidence external to Scripture, for such evidence would thereby be placed over the canon.”

     I was wondering if you could explain and expound upon that a little further? I know you discuss it a bit when you explain Ridderbos’ opinion on this, but I’m a bit confused why using criteria external to Scripture to determine what is Scripture detracts from Scripture’s sole claim on ecclesial infallibility. Also, what does the term “over the canon” really mean?

     –Christie

427. Tom Brown May 6th, 2013 6:42 pm :

     Dear Christie,

     Thanks for reading and for the question. You might find section III helpful in answering your question. One thing I said there was:

     The doctrine of sola scriptura maintains that the Bible is to be the Christian’s sole infallible authority. The sine qua non (‘that without which’) of the Reformation is that no Church or other human judgment can be placed over Scripture. Power over the canon is power over Scripture itself because it is the power to eradicate a necessary part of the canon or to add a spurious part to Scripture. So the Reformed position is not any more compatible with the Church or other human judgment being placed over the canon than it is compatible with their placement over Scripture itself.

     By “over the canon,” I mean that the evidence used to determine the canon takes on a logically precedent role. Logically, if you have to know A before you can know B (because only A can prove B), then in the sense I am using the article, A would be “over” B. Likewise, if we rely on [A] non-scriptural evidence to determine [B] the scope of the canon or the qualities of sacred writ, we have determined the bounds and qualities of Scripture by way of something fallible. Since fallible A could cause you to have too many or too few texts in B (or to believe the wrong things about B’s qualities), B is only as reliable as A.

     Or, as a house can be no stronger than its foundation, so Scripture can be no stronger than the sources which lead us to our beliefs about Sacred Scripture’s scope and qualities.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

428. Lojahw May 6th, 2013 7:51 pm :

     Dear Tom,
     I think you misunderstand the Reformers’ application of Sola scriptura. To violate Sola scriptura on the canon question, one would have to deny the normative authority of a source that Jesus or the Apostles affirmed to be normative or one would have to claim normative authority for a source that Jesus or the Apostles denied. Sola scriptura merely asserts that Scripture is the only unquestioned authority after the times of the Apostles – so to violate it, one must question the authorities that are the foundation of the Church: the prophets, the Apostles, and Jesus, the cornerstone.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

429. Tom Brown May 6th, 2013 8:15 pm :

     Dear “Lojahw,”

     I do not think that I misunderstand the Reformers’ application of Sola scriptura. I think I have argued for why their doctrine collapses under its own weight.

     You seem to be saying now that there is a corpus of extra-canonical tradition that is wholly reliable to serve as a normative authority — even including the authority to define the scope, and articulate the qualities, of Scripture. Despite that we arrive at different places from there, I’m encouraged to think that we might have this common ground.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

430. Lojahw May 6th, 2013 9:02 pm :

     Dear Tom,
     I don’t recall seeing any quote by the Reformers to back up your assertion that answering the canon question violates their understanding of Sola scriptura. Can you provide any such primary sources – not the secondary sources cited in the article?

     I do not follow your second assertion that my understanding of Sola scriptura implies “a corpus of extra-canonical tradition that is wholly reliable to serve as a normative authority.” Normative means “unquestioned” authority – if it’s not found in or deduced from that which the prophets and the Apostles recorded for all posterity, it is open to question. Therefore, it is fair to question the deuteros, etc.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

431. Tom Brown May 6th, 2013 9:06 pm :

     Dear Eric,

     Thanks for the comment, and sorry for the late approval and response. I appreciate your noting the Catholic position that the “Magisterium is the servant of the Scripture,” as indeed this is a fitting place to keep that belief at the fore.

     I made a little point in the article along the lines of your comment, that Calvin places a gloss over St. Paul’s scriptural writings:

     Note the significance of Calvin’s addition of the word “teaching” to his restatement of Ephesians. But St. Paul actually says that the Church is built on the foundation of the prophets and the apostles themselves. For Calvin, a teaching has authority, not the teacher. He treats Paul’s statement that the Church is “built upon the foundation of the prophets and apostles” as referring to a set of teachings, not any persons.

     Calvin’s whole doctrine of Scripture revolves around this insertion of the word “teaching” into St. Paul’s statement to the Ephesians, and upon seeing the teacher as having authority derived from the teaching only insofar as he holds to that teaching. But it is the prophets and apostles themselves who were given divine authority.

     About your opening question, I do not see a need to equate authority and inspiration. For example, Paul spoke with authority even while distinguishing his (now biblical) comments from being the Lord’s words (1 Cor. 7).

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

432. Tom Brown May 6th, 2013 9:12 pm :

     Dear “Lojahw,”

     I have not asserted that the Reformers stated (in quotable fashion) that they were about contradicting sola scriptura. I have made an argument that the various Reformed answers from various Reformed scholars, including John Calvin himself in his own (well, translated) words, contradict sola scriptura.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

433. christie May 6th, 2013 9:39 pm :

     Tom,

     Thanks for the quick and helpful response. I’m still having a hard time grasping Ridderbos’ argument related to external criteria. I didn’t see him bring in fallibility/infallibility into his argument, and neither did you until towards the end of the article. You wrote, “By “over the canon,” I mean that the evidence used to determine the canon takes on a logically precedent role. Logically, if you have to know A before you can know B (because only A can prove B), then in the sense I am using the article, A would be “over” B.” Does this have to do with the fallibility of the criteria, or is there some other reason that using external criteria violates sola scriptura? And, by “over,” do you mean to imply A would be more authoritative than B somehow? Why do you use the word “over”? I really don’t see why/how relying on the consensus of the church, for instance, as a canon criteria, posits that that criteria is “over” the canon.

     –Christie

434. Lojahw May 6th, 2013 10:01 pm :

     Dear Tom,
     It is easy to present a selective set of arguments on a topic and claim on that basis that there is no way to reconcile it with some other idea. Since the article relies on personal inferences based on secondary sources, I believe it represents a strawman argument. The question is whether there is a reasonable reading of the Reformers themselves that can be reconciled with the canon question. I believe presented such an argument. Can you show how my reconciliation of Sola scriptura with the canon question is invalid without relying on personal inferences from secondary sources, which have no normative authority?

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

435. Tom Brown May 6th, 2013 10:08 pm :

     Dear Christie,

     The problem for sola scriptura that I mean to articulate is simpler than is the infallibility/certainty discussion. (My peers have taken up the more complex discussion of certainty elsewhere, e.g., Andrew Preslar here and Bryan Cross here.)

     The certainty issue would relate to the standard of proof one requires before one is willing to be convinced of a given proposition. However, the use of extrinsic evidence to establish the scope of the canon, or to define the attributes of Sacred Scripture, is problematic to the sola scriptura position regardless of what standard of proof one seeks to apply. That is, even if a Protestant were of the belief that Scripture is fallible at least as handed down, the Protestant would still be unable to define the canon without using some external standard and evidence, and thus is not building his or her rule of faith from scripture alone.

     By “over,” I do not mean that A is more authoritative than B. I mean that it comes first logically, and thus any change in A (e.g., any change in the rule you might apply in deciding how to come to the canon) could alter what you decide makes up B. So to take your example, if you rely on the consensus of the church to define the canon, that might yield a different canon person to person (because the analysis would involve subjective techniques or assessments) or it might yield a different canon than might be produced by a rule that says “when I feel a burning in my bosom while reading a text, I know it’s scripture.” In that way, your choice to rely on the consensus of the church is “over” the canon in that it has affected what is in your canon.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

436. Tom Brown May 6th, 2013 10:37 pm :

     Dear “Lojahw,”

     I’m not going to bite on that one. As you know, the deal here at Called to Communion is that we can discuss the premises and analytical conclusions of the article, but we don’t dismiss each other with rhetorical tricks such as by stating that the other has relied on “personal inferences from secondary sources,” etc. That is a mischaracterization, and (more importantly) is not appropriate here.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

437. christie May 6th, 2013 11:07 pm :

     Tom,

     Okay, thank you, that clarified things for me a bit. In regards to your last statement, “In that way, your choice to rely on the consensus of the church is “over” the canon in that it has affected what is in your canon,” does this violate sola scriptura because the contents of the presumably sole-infallible authority is being determined by a secondary fallible authority? Why does this violate sola scriptura? I guess I still don’t see how the external criteria argument, when boiled down, is any different from your other argument you made towards the very end of the article that the Reformed can’t answer the Canon Question while being faithful to their authority paradigm given their view that any attempt to answer it puts a secondary authority above Scripture.

     –Christie

438. Lojahw May 7th, 2013 9:22 am :

     That’s fine, Tom. However, something is not right about a Roman Catholic telling Protestants how they must interpret what they believe and then rejecting their own explanations of what they believe. I have explained how answering the canon question does not violate Sola scriptura, but you don’t accept it. That’s okay – you can believe what you want about Sola scriptura, but please don’t tell Protestants that your understanding is the only correct interpretation.

     Re: the article’s use of Calvin, 2 misunderstandings:
     The following quote is about our certainty of Scripture (not the canon question): “For even if it wins reverence for itself by its own majesty, it seriously affects us only when it is sealed upon our hearts through the Spirit. Therefore, illumined by his power, we believe neither by our own nor by anyone else’s judgment that Scripture is from God; but above human judgment we affirm with utter certainty (just as if we were gazing upon the majesty of God himself) that it has flowed to us from the very mouth of God by the ministry of men.” (Institutes 1.7.5) As you recently said, the article does not attempt to answer the certainty question.

     The article makes repeated references to external criteria being a problem for Sola scriptura, but it conflates “external criteria” with “external evidence,” which Calvin clearly believed is consistent with Sola scriptura. Among the evidences, which confirm – but do not determine – canonicity, Calvin listed: Scripture’s peculiar property of truth, its beautiful testimony of faith, its antiquity, miracles, prophecy, authenticity, preservation, the testimony of the Church, and the blood of the martyrs (Institutes 1.7.5-1.8.13). Some of these evidences are internal and some are external. Therefore, according to Calvin, external evidence for canonicity does not violate Sola scriptura. A criterion is a rule or principle for evaluating or testing something; evidence is that which demonstrates whether or not the rule or principle applies to the thing being evaluated or tested. The rules for evaluating the canonicity of Scripture are all found in the pages thereof, starting with the words of Jesus and the Apostles.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

439. Eric May 7th, 2013 8:25 pm :

     Tom,

     Thanks for responding. I would include the prophets and apostles as servants of scripture. Their role in producing scripture is similar to someone articulating a precept of natural law without being master over that law. I think your treatment of Calvin, however, is based on some misunderstandings.

     You wrote:
     If Calvin’s black-from-white claim is true, our hypothetical new Christians attempting to discern canonical books from non-canonical would come to one conclusion.

     Response:
     Calvin’s claim needs to be connected to the wider argument in Institutes, Bk.1, Ch.7, Sec. 2 & 5.
     The writings and preaching were certainly ascertained and sanctioned antecedently to the Church. They are the teachings the Church was founded on. He attempts to show the force of his claim through opposites.

     God / Church
     Light / Darkness
     Black / White
     Bitter / Sweet

     It is not the feature of “opposition” that causes him to use these examples. The cause is much deeper and is found in the formal account of identifying each side of the opposites. Take the following example:

     Black / White

     Color is the principle end of sight. Light is the formal intermediary. Light is necessary for identifying and distinguishing colors. This is the heart of Calvin’s claim.

     Scripture / other writings

     Identifying scripture is the end of persuasion (faith). Truth in expression is the formal intermediary. Truth is necessary. When Calvin says that Scripture bears on the face of it as clear of evidence of its truth, it is a claim that the formal intermediary brings true scripture (as end) together with persuasion of heart and mind. On account of sin, the mind and heart is challenged in recognizing the self-attesting truth without the illumination of the Holy Spirit. Light exposes truth wherever it is. Should one conclusion follow in your hypothetical situation ? The answer is no because of the freedom and power of God in affecting and persuading with His light.

     Thanks,
     Eric

440. Christie July 24th, 2013 8:15 pm :

     Tom,

     You wrote at the beginning of the article,

     “In Section III, I argue that the very process of answering the Canon Question violates sola scriptura. This is because answering the question must involve extra-Biblical human judgment. This judgment is placed over Scripture because it defines the canon. By placing this judgment above the sole permitted infallible authority, the process of answering the question violates sola scriptura.”

     How does placing human judgement “above” the sole permitted infallible authority violate sola scriptura? Is it because that judgement becomes as if it were infallible, and so Scripture isn’t the only infallible authority anymore? Or is it because Scripture becomes as if it weren’t infallible, since it is now founded on a *fallible* criterion?

     –Christie

441. Tom Brown July 24th, 2013 8:30 pm :

     Dear Christie,

     Thank you for the comment. Both possibilities you present are valid arguments against sola scriptura. It would be ad hoc for the Protestant to claim that God protected from any possible error the human judgment involved in producing the canon, but that God has not protected other human ecclesial judgments from any possible error. Or, if the judgment involved was not protected from error, then the list of books in the Bible is fallible, which condition would completely erode the foundation for confidence in Sacred Scripture (which, we all would agree cannot be the case). As I said in the article above:

     [T]he very act of answering the Canon Question inherently involves an extra-Biblical fallible human judgment, unless one is preserved from error by the Holy Spirit. This fallible human judgment, by defining the criterion of canon, exercises power over the canon itself. And as I just noted, power over the canon is power over Scripture. Therefore, absent the Holy Spirit’s preserving one from error, to answer the Canon Question is to exercise power over Scripture, and to place one’s judgment over Scripture. So to answer the Canon Question is to violate the doctrine of sola scriptura by placing something over the Christian’s sole infallible authority. If Protestants see the Catholic Church as placing herself ‘over’ Scripture simply by articulating the canon of Scripture, so too they should see answers to the Canon Question culled from human reason or extra-Biblical evidence as being ‘over’ Scripture. Since Protestants see the former as violating sola scriptura, there is no principled reason not to see the latter as a violation of sola scriptura.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

442. Tom Brown July 24th, 2013 9:11 pm :

     Dear “Lojahw,”

     You said:

     The article makes repeated references to external criteria being a problem for Sola scriptura, but it conflates “external criteria” with “external evidence,” which Calvin clearly believed is consistent with Sola scriptura. . . . A criterion is a rule or principle for evaluating or testing something; evidence is that which demonstrates whether or not the rule or principle applies to the thing being evaluated or tested. The rules for evaluating the canonicity of Scripture are all found in the pages thereof, starting with the words of Jesus and the Apostles.

     As you have defined criterion and evidence (which definitions I don’t find problematic), evidence qua evidence is only sensical in the context of a criterion. As with any determination, the process of determining whether a given text is canonical must involve (1) evidence, (2) a standard by which the determination is to be made, i.e., a criterion (or criteria); and (3) a judge to make the determination. Take away #1 and you have a baseless conclusion. Take away #2 and you have an unprincipled (ergo unreliable) conclusion. Take away #3 and you’ve never managed to make the determination, like a case that hasn’t made it to trial. So I am not able to see how external criterion is a problem whereas external evidence is not (or vice versa?).

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

443. Bryan Cross January 8th, 2014 4:18 pm :

     Michael Kruger and James White talk about the canon:

     Update: See also Michael Barber’s comments on the NT Canon:

     Update: in view of Michael Kruger’s self-authenticating claim in “Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books” (Crossway, 2012), new Christians who have not yet read the Bible are welcome to take the test to determine if divinely inspired texts can be distinguished as such from texts that are not divinely inspired.

444. JohnD January 8th, 2014 8:45 pm :

     Bryan (re:#443),

     Interesting discussion, thanks for posting. Would you (and other Catholics around) affirm that there was a widespread, early (2nd century-ish?) Christian affirmation of the inspiration of the books that now both Catholics and Protestants consider inspired?

     Also, James White brings up his “White Question” again, i.e. how could a man living 50 years before Christ know that 2nd Chronicles was inspired? I am confused as to whether or not a Catholic should affirm that a Jew could know this infallibly or if an infallible canon had to wait until the New Testament Church was founded.

     Lastly, what is a proper Catholic response to the “White Question” when the inquirer expresses the sentiment, “If it was good enough for the God and the Jews and the Old Testament canon, then it’s good enough for the New Testament canon.” The implicit argument being: God did not need a church to issue formal declarations in order for His people to Hear His voice and to guide them into the Truth. So, God doesn’t *need* that in the New Testament.

     Peace,
     John D.

445. Fr. Bryan O. January 8th, 2014 9:53 pm :

     John D –

     Regarding the “White Question” I must admit I’m kind of surprised that the apologist he referred to struggled so much with this. The fact is not every Jewish person living 50 years before Jesus accepted the books mentioned as scripture (Isaiah and 2nd Chronicles, I believe). In fact, some Jewish people rejected that they were scripture. Some only accepted the Pentateuch as the Word of God. I think if you re-read the section on the Hebrew Scriptures in the article at the top of the page it will become clearer.

446. Lojahw January 8th, 2014 10:44 pm :

     Fr. Bryon O.,

     More important than what the Sadducees and Samaritans believed to be Scripture is what Jesus and His disciples (all Jewish) believed them to be. On that score, the canonical authority of 36 Old Testament books are affirmed by the New Testament authors.

     Of the remainder, Josephus (first century) attests to a long-established tradition among the Jews: “it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these [twenty-two] books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them.” Based on the further testimony of the church fathers from Melito to Jerome, these “twenty-two” books undoubtedly refer to the only canon the Jews have ever recognized.

     BTW – it is surprising that Augustine ignored this four hundred year tradition and the witness of 6 church fathers in his own life time (Hilary of Poitiers, Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzus, Epiphanius, Rufinus, and Jerome) to declare (by private judgment) his own “forty-four” book OT canon in 397. The anomalies among those canons are due to Greek and Latin speaking fathers who mistakenly attributed Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah to Jeremiah, and their ignorance that the Jews in that era counted Ruth as one book with Judges (thus Athanasius dropped Esther to make room for Ruth in his “twenty-two” book canon).

     BTW, also, 4 of the above “twenty-two” book canons were published AFTER Pope Damasus died in 384.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

447. JD January 9th, 2014 1:01 am :

     JohnD,

     “If it was good enough for the God and the Jews and the Old Testament canon, then it’s good enough for the New Testament canon.” The implicit argument being: God did not need a church to issue formal declarations in order for His people to Hear His voice and to guide them into the Truth. So, God doesn’t *need* that in the New Testament.”

     The counterargument I’ve seen is that since revelation was still unfolding, the deposit of faith was not yet fixed and complete and so there was nothing yet to attach infallibility to. That’s why there wasn’t a fixed canon amongst the Jews, and why they got major things wrong at times which is to be expected since revelation was still happening – that’s why prophets were raised, and Christ and the apostles corrected interpretations.
     Also, the NC is better than the OC and fulfills its shadows – so we would expect some continuity (authority of some sort) as well as something “better” (infallibility tied to Christ as ultimate revelation) as is the case with many OC-NC counterparts.
     The argument you asserted basically leaves people in the same position as when revelation was still unfolding – it’d essentially leave us in the same position with the equivalent of the various opposing Jewish sects/factions and no definitive resolution – but we are not in that position anymore – public divine revelation reached its ultimate end.

448. Lojahw January 9th, 2014 6:42 pm :

     JD –

     “The counterargument I’ve seen is that since revelation was still unfolding, the deposit of faith was not yet fixed and complete and so there was nothing yet to attach infallibility to.”

     Nothing yet to attach infallibility to? Why then did Jesus and His disciples attribute infallibility to the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms?

     Instead of speculating 2000 years after the fact what Jews were thinking, why not read what they actually said?

     “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!” Jesus certainly believed that the OT prophets had said everything they needed to say. It was not necessary to list the OT canon because it was so well known at the time (as Josephus clearly states). It was only after Christianity lost contact with its Jewish roots and the Hebrew language that these things were obscured.

     Josephus also in the first century declares that the prophets had completed the divine deposit of faith by the time of Artaxerxes, as far as the Old Covenant was concerned.

     The author of the book of Hebrews, likewise, recognizes that the Old Covenant was complete and that the New Covenant in Jesus’ blood had been inaugurated to supersede it.

     All one has to do is understand the two-fold revelation of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, the former proclaimed by the prophets, the latter proclaimed by Jesus and the Apostles. This is what Jesus and His disciples taught.

     Just 50 years before Augustine proposed his “forty-four” book canon, Cyril of Jerusalem wrote:

     “Of these [the LXX books] read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than yourself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes.”

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

449. JD January 9th, 2014 11:52 pm :

     Lojahw,

     If the OC was fine and complete on its own, why did the NC come around? You’re not an OT sola scripturist. You read the OT in light of the NT – that was the point of Christ and the Apostles – revelation was still unfolding with what the OT pointed to – hence various Jewish sects were split on canon and held wrong interpretations.

     You cite Josephus but obviously disagree with him that revelation closed at that time or that John the Baptist was not a prophet and Christ was not the Messiah. Josephus was part of the Pharisaic party – obviously he’s going to agree with and argue for their canon – that does not mean other sects weren’t holding other canons.
     Are you disputing that the canon was not fixed/closed/unanimous amongst Jews at Christ’s time? Pretty sure scholarship is all but unanimous on that one now. Christ rebukes the Sadducees on resurrection by citing from their own canon, not the Pharisees’ one which would be much easier to do so with. The NT quotes verses from the Greek OT rather than those same verses in Hebrew OT to make points. You already tried your hand with the ecfs with Joe Heschmeyer (who has many articles on the Greek OT at his blog) – Augustine was not some lone wolf, nor were the councils that followed his position. Cyril says right after your citation:
     “And after these come the five Prophetic books: of the Twelve Prophets one book, of Isaiah one, of Jeremiah one, including Baruch and Lamentations and the Epistle”

     Baruch is not in your OT. Further references to where he cites/alludes Greek OT:
     St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 9, 2 – Song of the Three Children – quotes passage
     St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 14, 25 – Bel. 33 – alludes to passage
     St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 16, 31 – Sus. 45 – quotes passage
     St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 11, 15 – Bar. 3:35-38 – quotes passage as by a prophet
     St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 11, 19 – Sir. 3:22 – quotes passage
     St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 6, 4 – Sir. 3:21-22 – quotes passage
     St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 13, 8 – Sir. 4:31 – alludes to passage
     St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 16, 19 – Wis. 6:16 – quotes passage
     St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 9, 2 – Wis. 13:5 – quotes passage as by Solomon
     St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 9, 16 – Wis. 13:5 – quotes passage

450. Lojahw January 10th, 2014 1:05 am :

     JD –
     You propose a false dilemma: that Jesus, Josephus, and the rest considered the Old Testament canon was complete in no way disqualifies the New – which indeed was prophesied by the prophets. Jeremiah’s prophecy of the New Covenant, “not like the covenant which I made with their fathers . . .,” in fact demands a New Testament canon separate from the Old. That’s why John the Baptist came: to make straight the path for Jesus to bring in the New. The Old legitimizes the New, while the New fulfills the Old.

     If the Old were not complete, how could the New make it obsolete, as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews claims? Christ refutes the Sadducees and their false canon – how does calling something wrong make it authoritative? What evidence do you have to refute Josephus’ claims of a long-standing canon? I’ve spent years reading on the subject and have found no credible scholarship explaining why the testimony of Josephus (or the four centuries of church fathers) should be ignored.

     You appear to ignore my explanation for the confusion about Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah. I acknowledge the minor mistakes made by the church fathers, but so what? As Augustine himself said: “but if you convict anything of falsehood, though it have once been mine, in that I was guilty of the error, yet now by avoiding it let it be neither yours nor mine.” There is no question that Cyril and a number of other church fathers made mistakes regarding the “deuteros” – why don’t you admit it and accept correction?

     As for Cyril’s quotes, what makes them any different than Paul quoting Greek poets? Quotes alone don’t confer canonicity. Josephus himself liberally quotes pagan, deuterocanonical, and other sources while maintaining his commitment to the Hebrew canon. The point is that the unquestioned authority of Scripture differs from whatever authority might be associated with other literature, sacred or otherwise.

     Augustine was a great theologian, but he should have stuck to theology and let others of his peers handle the canon. For example, there is absolutely no question that the Wisdom of Solomon was intentionally pseudonymous. What did Augustine have to say on the subject?

     “But the purity of the canon has not admitted these writings, not because the authority of these men who please God is rejected, but because they are not believed to be theirs,” and “So that, if any writings outside of [the canon] are now brought forward under the name of the ancient prophets, they cannot serve even as an aid to knowledge, because it is uncertain whether they are genuine; and on this account they are not trusted.”

     My question for you, who so revere tradition: why have you chosen to ignore four centuries of canonical tradition in favor of the novelty proposed by Augustine?

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

451. Devin Rose January 10th, 2014 2:51 pm :

     Lojahw,

     Let me add a new book to your reading: When God Spoke Greek.

     The author provides strong evidence against the claim that the Jewish canon was closed (and indisputed) at the time of Christ: https://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2014/01/03/when-god-spoke-greek-a-catholic-reflection/

     Devin

452. Lojahw January 10th, 2014 7:53 pm :

     Hi Devin-

     An interesting idea, but textual evidence re: the use of the LXX in NT quotes and by the early church is irrelevant to the canon question.

     How does Law refute Josephus’ claim that the Jews had a long-established canon in the first century? The marginal opinions of splinter sects and private debates among a few rabbis do not negate the historical testimony of Josephus – unless Law has found some new evidence that shows him to be a liar. You can’t make specific claims like Josephus did about the canon and be ignorant: he told what was common knowledge among his countrymen – like Paul mentioning the 500 witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection.

     It seems that you Roman Catholics are caught up in your paradigm that important matters can only be decided by high-profile councils – but 4000 years of Jewish history show that is not how they do things. Christians who keep looking for Jewish councils will never find anything of substance – the theory of the so-called council of Jamnia was debunked years ago.

     Jesus said: “You search the Scriptures because in them you think you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me.” How could they search the Scriptures if they didn’t know what the Scriptures were? How could Jesus chastise his disciples for being “slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken,” if they didn’t have access to all that the prophets had spoken?

     Re: your theory that John the Baptist and Jesus belong in the Old Testament – really? Why then is there a New Testament? Please reread my post to JD. Your novel ideas go against 2000 years of Church thinking about the Scriptures. Each Testament has its place in the greater canon of Scripture – it’s not an either/or proposition. There are two testaments – one for the Old Covenant and one for the New.

     I also could write a very long post refuting your (and Law’s) thoughts about the LXX, but I’ll simply refer you to the many excellent resources published by Eugene Ullrich and Emmanuel Tov on the LXX and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Fifty years show that for every non MT-alligned text there is at least one MT-alligned text that is just as old. Also Justin Martyr’s LXX proof texts have been debunked. And for a counter-example of NT quotes, consider John 19:37 – “They shall look on him whom they pierced” where the LXX reads: “And they shall look upon me because they have mocked me . . .” (LXX Zech. 12:10).

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

453. JD January 11th, 2014 3:01 am :

     Lojahw,

     “Christ refutes the Sadducees and their false canon – how does calling something wrong make it authoritative?”

     No, the point was he cited from their canon in refuting them on resurrection. It would have been much simpler for Him to use books from the Pharisaic canon to refute them (since those explicitly refer to resurrection) and just say “You have the incomplete canon/books”.

     “What evidence do you have to refute Josephus’ claims of a long-standing canon?”

     Two points. Did Greek Jews in Thessalonica and Berea use Greek OT? If they did, and Paul calls it Scripture, what does that say about the Greek OT?

     Secondly, Dr Michael Barber mentions some evidence here and links to his 3-part essay – heavily sourced – covering the issue of differing canons in Judaism (including Josephus), the ecfs, and the councils.

     “As for Cyril’s quotes, what makes them any different than Paul quoting Greek poets? Quotes alone don’t confer canonicity. ”

     Because Paul did not quote Greek poets as if they were prophets or Scripture.
     Catechetical Lectures, 11, 15 – Bar. 3:35-38 – quotes passage as by a prophet
     Catechetical Lectures, 9, 2 – Wis. 13:5 – quotes passage as by Solomon
     As Barber notes:
     “One of the most striking instances occurs in [Cyril’s] defense of the doctrine of the ascension of Christ into heaven, where he quotes from the apocryphal story of Bel and the Dragon, citing it with other Old Testament passages. Likewise, to defend the unity of God, Cyril cites Sirach with the books of Psalms and Job—making no canonical distinction between them. In yet another place the book of Wisdom is cited as support for Jesus’ divine nature.”

     “why have you chosen to ignore four centuries of canonical tradition in favor of the novelty proposed by Augustine?”

     Augustine was not the lone wolf ecf on the Greek OT in the first 4 centuries.

454. Nick Trosclair January 11th, 2014 9:31 am :

     In the above video, James White states that Catholics have ignored the new responses that he and Michael Kruger have offered regarding the origin of the canon. However, Kruger’s understanding of the development of the canon is neither new, nor does it demonstrate the doctrine of sola scriptura.

     While listening to Kruger’s thesis, I was reminded of Aidan Nichol’s discussion of the formation of the canon in his The Shape of Catholic Theology. Following the thought of Rahner, Nichols describes this formation and his narrative is similar to Kruger’s:

     The sheer emergence of the New Testament books as an expression of the faith life of the primitive Church was itself what enabled the Church to recognize their inspiration. The Church saw her own faith, her own being, reflected in just these books, and that corporate intuition of hers was the discovery of inspiration and so the basis of canonicity. Factors like apostolicity and orthodoxy find their place as elements within this wider picture. On this view, knowledge of the canon is, we might say, connatural to the Church—just as knowledge of a virtue is connatural to the person practicing that virtue. The Church did not determine the canon by a process of inference from facts, but took in its contents in a unique moment of perspicuous awareness of her own identity, the consequences of which stayed permanently with her.

     This theory makes sense, but Kruger and White, I think, fail to see the implications of such a theory. If the primitive Church possessed connatural knowledge of divine revelation, why do sola scriptura-ists reject the central doctrines and practices of that same primitive Church? Just as the contents of the canon were connatural to the Church’s consciousness so were the teachings of apostolic succession and the Eucharistic Sacrifice. She not only saw her own being in the canon, her being was expressed in a visible authority and visible sacraments. It is inconsistent to trust the connatural knowledge of the primitive Church in regards to her texts, but then distrust her knowledge of her own self. And we are not just referring to synods and regional councils. We are talking about widespread belief among all the faithful, sensus fidelium.

     I also noticed another double standard in the discussion. It seems that White is willing to say that the core contents of the canon were fixed by the 2nd century and then the remaining books fell into place in the next two centuries. In other words, he accepts development, i.e. a development of the Church’s awareness of the canon. But regarding the papacy, he rejects the same kind of development. Of course, we see traces of papal authority in the 2nd century, but its development, the Church’s self-awareness, is more clearly seen in the 3rd and 4th centuries. In fact, the development of the papacy parallels that of the canon, at least chronologically speaking. White accepts one kind of development but not another, and he does not offer a principled reason for his discrimination.

455. Benjamin Keil January 11th, 2014 11:52 am :

     Dear “Lojahw” (@446),

     Canonicity is something I know little about and it’s outside of my field of expertise. (Interestingly, for all I know, it’s equally outside of your field of expertise [using a pseudonym prevents me from evaluating your relevant expertise]). But since your meaning in #446 is muddled to me, I’d like to give a quick bit ‘o background and seek some clarification.

     My former Reformed pastor (OPC) and I had more than a few discussions about canonicity. He told me (and I trust him, given that I know him and I know that he possesses credentialed expertise in this area) that the Pharisees and the Sadducees had different Biblical canons. But since he believed in the theory of canonical self-attestation, my (former) OPC pastor’s answer to the “White Question”, then, was that Joe Shepherd (distant ancestor of Joe Sixpack) ;-) living in Israel 50 years before Christ could know if 2nd Chronicles (one of the disputed books) was canonical because it self-attested to its canonical status. (How well that theory explains the fact of Pharisee/Sadducee canonical disagreement is a separate question, obviously). My questions for you, then…

     1) Is it your position that the Pharisees and Sadducees had the same or different (OT) Biblical canon?
     2) Do you believe the (OT) Biblical canon, 50 years before Jesus’ birth, could be known as a fallible list of fallible books, a fallible list of infallible books, an infallible list of fallible books, or an infallible list of infallible books?
     3) Why did you give the answer that you did to 2), and how strongly does that depend on your answer to 1)?

     Your answers to these questions will help me understand your background assumptions, and probably your #446 will consequently make more sense to me. If my questions, etc., are unclear, then let me know and I’ll take a stab at clarifying them. Have a great day!

     Yours Sincerely,
     ~Benjamin Keil

456. Lojahw January 11th, 2014 1:08 pm :

     Dear Benjamin,

     Re: my credentials on canonicity, I published a 200+ page masters thesis on the subject: “Recognizing Scripture and Its Boundaries Beginning with the Words of Jesus.”

     Re: your questions –
     1) Is it your position that the Pharisees and Sadducees had the same or different (OT) Biblical canon?

     The assertion that the Sadducees had a different Biblical canon than the Pharisees is an argument based on silence. Lacking documentation on a specific canon, this is only speculation. That the Sadducees denied the resurrection is clear, but Arian Christians also denied Christ’s divinity, yet accepted the canonicity of the Gospel of John and Paul’s epistles which clearly refute their beliefs. Thus, it is not necessary to postulate a different canon (to JD’s point).

     2) Do you believe the (OT) Biblical canon, 50 years before Jesus’ birth, could be known as a fallible list of fallible books, a fallible list of infallible books, an infallible list of fallible books, or an infallible list of infallible books?

     According to Josephus, the Jewish canon was long-established by the first century, so much so that Jews were taught from early childhood (when they were taught the Hebrew alphabet) that these “twenty-two” books to neither disagree with nor contradict each other (i.e., infallible) and “which are justly believed to be divine.” Thus, the Jewish canon was considered to be fixed and infallible.

     Furthermore, they distinguished these books (covering their history until the time of Artaxerxes) from all other books. Josephus does not say how long this tradition had been in place, but it must have been established in Jesus’ day – which is the only timeframe of interest for Christians. The Jews simply did not question the authority of these books nor the distinction between them and all other books. Lacking any evidence to the contrary, the Jews appear to believe it was “an infallible list of infallible books” – I concur.

     On the other hand, why are Christians so obsessed with the need for an “infallible list of infallible books”? None of the Church councils ever produced such a list: in spite of the claim that the Council of Trent did so, it fallibly forgot to mention Lamentations (yet it listed Baruch and the Wisdom of Solomon, impersonators of famous religious authorities – hardly worthy of unquestioned authority).

     3) Why did you give the answer that you did to 2), and how strongly does that depend on your answer to 1)?

     My answer to 2 is based on historical testimony from a well-respected source. It is independent of my answer to 1.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw (Lover of Jesus and His Word)

457. JDS January 11th, 2014 4:21 pm :

     Lojahw,

     By no means did Trent “forget” Lamentations. Lamentations was (and is) counted as part of the book of Jeremiah in the Vulgate. Thus, even in the Stuttgart edition, which marks Lamentations as “Lam” in the margins and counts its chapters as you or I would be used to, its text follows immediately after that of Jeremiah without a break, and at the end of Lam 5 it reads “explicit liber Hieremiae.”

458. Robert January 11th, 2014 5:40 pm :

     Lojahw #456

     Lacking any evidence to the contrary, the Jews appear to believe it was “an infallible list of infallible books” – I concur.

     Sometimes I think such phrases are a bit anachronistic, and what I mean by that is that for all intents and purposes, the Jews didn’t really ask if the list itself was infallible or not, nor did the early church. They just simply knew that they had the books that God had inspired. There was no doubt.

     In fact, there would be no reason even to speak in such terms until the Roman Catholic Church started saying that we know what the canon is because the Magisterium tells us so, thus putting its own authority above Scripture. Thus the response of “fallible list of infallible books was born” mainly to indicate that Scripture isn’t Scripture because the church says it is but because God says it is.

459. Robert January 11th, 2014 5:54 pm :

     Nick #454

     This theory makes sense, but Kruger and White, I think, fail to see the implications of such a theory. If the primitive Church possessed connatural knowledge of divine revelation, why do sola scriptura-ists reject the central doctrines and practices of that same primitive Church? Just as the contents of the canon were connatural to the Church’s consciousness so were the teachings of apostolic succession and the Eucharistic Sacrifice. She not only saw her own being in the canon, her being was expressed in a visible authority and visible sacraments. It is inconsistent to trust the connatural knowledge of the primitive Church in regards to her texts, but then distrust her knowledge of her own self. And we are not just referring to synods and regional councils. We are talking about widespread belief among all the faithful, sensus fidelium.

     You miss the point. Identification of the canon is not based on interior witness or corporate reception alone. For Kruger and White it is based on three mutually reinforcing ideas:

     1. Internal divine qualities
     2. Corporate reception
     3. Apostolic association

     For the Eucharistic Sacrifice, to even get off the ground with your objection, you would have to prove that the early church universally believed it was a propitiatory offering and that the mode of Christ’s presence is what later became more formally identified as transubstantiation. The first of these is in doubt. Simply because the fathers speak of the Eucharist as a sacrifice doesn’t mean they viewed it as propitiatory. Protestants can easily speak of the Eucharist as a sacrifice of thanksgiving or a sacrifice of praise. In fact, the very term Eucharist means thanksgiving. Second, I don’t know what White believes specifically about Christ’s presence in the sacrament, but scores of Protestants affirm the real presence of Christ, they just don’t affirm transubstantiation.

     In any case, even if I grant that the fathers believed in a propitiatory Eucharistic sacrifice and held to something like transubstantiation, you have a case where you might have corporate reception of these doctrines and the fathers thinking they are perceiving divine qualities in these doctrines. The problem is you don’t have either of those teachings having any apostolic association. They simply aren’t taught in Scripture.

     This would be closely related to the idea of apostolic succession where you have the same problem. In fact the problems are compounded because at least the very earliest fathers made a sharp distinction between themselves and the Apostles, which would call into question any idea that they thought they had the same authority as the Apostles. Second, there is no apostolic association with these doctrines in the actual books we have from the apostles. There is no reason to believe the institutional church would continue on with the same kind of authority, and given the repeated warnings about false teaching, there is every reason to believe that the authority of the successive church could become compromised. There is no hint that this could happen among the apostles.

     I also noticed another double standard in the discussion. It seems that White is willing to say that the core contents of the canon were fixed by the 2nd century and then the remaining books fell into place in the next two centuries. In other words, he accepts development, i.e. a development of the Church’s awareness of the canon. But regarding the papacy, he rejects the same kind of development. Of course, we see traces of papal authority in the 2nd century, but its development, the Church’s self-awareness, is more clearly seen in the 3rd and 4th centuries. In fact, the development of the papacy parallels that of the canon, at least chronologically speaking. White accepts one kind of development but not another, and he does not offer a principled reason for his discrimination.

     My response is similar to the above. You just don’t have papal authority taught in Scripture. You don’t even have the office of pope revealed. Second, historically speaking, the recognition of the canonical core is basically as soon as the gospels and the epistles are written. There is no such recognition of the papacy that early. That’s the “principled distinction.”

460. Lojahw January 11th, 2014 7:24 pm :

     JD –

     I have no problem with your comment that Jesus used the books recognized by the Sadducees to refute their disbelief in the resurrection.

     You also wrote:
     Did Greek Jews in Thessalonica and Berea use Greek OT? If they did, and Paul calls it Scripture, what does that say about the Greek OT?

     I agree that the Jews in Thessalonica and Berea probably used the Greek OT. However, do not confuse the text of Scripture with the canon. The NT authors quoted from both the Greek and from the Hebrew (obvious because their Greek translations sometimes follow the MT Hebrew where it diverges from the LXX). There are loose translations and more literal translations, both of which are found in the LXX. The canon comes into play when talking about books that were outside of the “22” books or added material that was alien to the original, such as the additions to Esther and Daniel. There is no evidence that the Jews in Thessalonica and Berea considered any “deuterocanonical” books or texts to be Scripture.

     Re: Michael Barber, his appeal to the Talmud to suggest that Jews considered Sirach to be Scripture is mistaken: the term Hagiographa simply means “sacred writings” – it can refer to both canonical and non-canonical sacred writings. The Talmud makes use of many sources, not confined to Scripture. He also appears to have misread the scholarly authorities on a number of his other arguments about “myths.”

     Re: Cyril’s quote of the Wisdom of Solomon. Like the other church fathers, Cyril recognized 3 categories of sacred literature: canonical, ecclesiastical, and apocrypha. Cyril’s OT canon is in book 4 of his Catechetical Lectures; the quote you reference is in book 9 of the same work. In describing his OT canon, he distinguishes the twenty-two books from all the rest, including the apocrypha, of which he says “have nothing to do with.” His use of the Wisdom of Solomon in book 9 is compatible with the “second rank” or “ecclesiastical” view held by the church fathers prior to Augustine. Christian preachers and writers often explain their points by appealing to a wide variety of sources – that’s all Cyril was doing. Are you suggesting that Cyril contradicted himself in the same work???

     Re: Augustine breaking with 4 centuries of canonical tradition – every published canon by the church fathers prior to Augustine follows the “twenty-two” book tradition. I listed 6 of them within his lifetime that did so, including 4 who published “twenty-two” book canons AFTER Pope Damasus died in 384. Ignoring history does not change the facts.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

461. Lojahw January 11th, 2014 7:39 pm :

     JDS-

     You said:
     By no means did Trent “forget” Lamentations. Lamentations was (and is) counted as part of the book of Jeremiah in the Vulgate.

     I beg to differ. The ancient Bible codices always have the order: Jeremiah, Baruch, Lamentations, and the Epistle of Jeremiah. However, Trent lists: “Jeremiah with Baruch, Ezechiel . . .”

     To argue that Lamentations was part of the canon of Trent because it was found in copies of the Vulgate is meaningless, because on that basis 4 Esdras, 3 and 4 Maccabees, and other books were also part of the Vulgate. Moreover, each edition of the Vulgate had different contents and order of books until the Sixtine Clementine Edition 100 years AFTER Trent.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

462. Lojahw January 11th, 2014 7:58 pm :

     Robert @ #458.

     Peace – I agree: “for all intents and purposes, the Jews didn’t really ask if the list itself was infallible or not, nor did the early church. They just simply knew that they had the books that God had inspired. There was no doubt.”

     On this I think R. C. Sproul concedes too much. We do not need to talk about a “fallible list of infallible books.” There is simply no evidence of any other authentic books possessing divine unquestioned authority. The early church knew which NT books authentically preserved Jesus’ and the Apostles’ teaching and which books were fake. As I said elsewhere, on the basis of Josephus’ first-century testimony which is consistent both with the testimony of the NT authors as well as the church fathers after them, I believe the infant Church knew also the divinely inspired books of the Old Testament. The loss of Jewish roots and knowledge of the Hebrew language, coupled with the 50+ books identified with the LXX, just caused confusion and mistakes in remembering accurately which books Jeremiah and Solomon really wrote, and that the Jews reckoned Ruth with Judges.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

463. JDS January 12th, 2014 12:47 am :

     Lojahw,

     I didn’t say that the inclusion of Lamentations in copies of the Vulgate (as books such as 3 & 4 Macc were also) meant anything. So your point about those books is irrelevant.

     What I did say is that it is viewed by Trent as part of the book of Jeremiah. It’s not reasonable to think it was excluded from the canon by a Council that quoted it as sacred scripture (e.g. Sess IV, ch 5).

464. Nick Trosclair January 12th, 2014 3:00 am :

     Robert,

     Thank you for your feedback.

     You miss the point. Identification of the canon is not based on interior witness or corporate reception alone. For Kruger and White it is based on three mutually reinforcing ideas: 1) Internal divine qualities 2) Corporate reception 3) Apostolic association.

     The connatural knowledge possessed by the primitive Church entails these three ideas. I did not intend to separate them. I should have been more explicit about that.

     For the Eucharistic Sacrifice, to even get off the ground with your objection, you would have to prove that the early church universally believed it was a propitiatory offering and that the mode of Christ’s presence is what later became more formally identified as transubstantiation. The first of these is in doubt. Simply because the fathers speak of the Eucharist as a sacrifice doesn’t mean they viewed it as propitiatory. Protestants can easily speak of the Eucharist as a sacrifice of thanksgiving or a sacrifice of praise. In fact, the very term Eucharist means thanksgiving. Second, I don’t know what White believes specifically about Christ’s presence in the sacrament, but scores of Protestants affirm the real presence of Christ, they just don’t affirm transubstantiation.

     Yes, I would need to demonstrate that the primitive Church universally accepted this doctrine. I suggest that we move to a more relevant post, possibly Tim Troutman’s “The Church Fathers and Transubstantiation,” if you would like to continue to discuss the patristic evidence for the Sacrifice of the Mass. I find the evidence overwhelming by the second and third centuries. I even think it is clear in the New Testament, which is pertinent to your next comment.

     In any case, even if I grant that the fathers believed in a propitiatory Eucharistic sacrifice and held to something like transubstantiation, you have a case where you might have corporate reception of these doctrines and the fathers thinking they are perceiving divine qualities in these doctrines. The problem is you don’t have either of those teachings having any apostolic association. They simply aren’t taught in Scripture.

     This is a very helpful comment because it reveals how we differ in our first principles. Even if the primitive Church universally accepted a particular doctrine, you would not believe it to be an object of faith unless that said doctrine was also found in Scripture. This entails that the Church’s acceptance of a particular doctrine is superfluous, for you would not accept any doctrine unless you were able to accept that doctrine independent of the Church’s witness. In other words, the Church only has authority when it agrees with your own interpretation of Scripture.

     You are also assuming that a doctrine can have apostolic association only if that doctrine is found in Scripture. You are assuming that the doctrine of sola scriptura is true. In other words, in our current discussion of the canon, you are assuming the doctrine of sola scriptura before the contents of the canon have been demonstrated. This is a problem because you would first have to know which books were Scripture before you knew that Scripture taught the doctrine of sola scriptura. The only way out of this vicious circle is to accept the premise that apostolic association is wider than Scripture, which is to reject the doctrine of sola scriptura.

     This would be closely related to the idea of apostolic succession where you have the same problem. In fact the problems are compounded because at least the very earliest fathers made a sharp distinction between themselves and the Apostles, which would call into question any idea that they thought they had the same authority as the Apostles.

     A clarification is needed. The doctrine of apostolic succession does not conflate the office of Apostle with that of the episcopacy/apostolic successors. The successors of the apostles are just that, successors; they are not themselves Apostles in the strict sense of the Twelve. They participate in apostolic authority without themselves being witnesses of the actual resurrected Christ, which was a qualifying mark of the Twelve.

     Second, there is no apostolic association with these doctrines in the actual books we have from the apostles. There is no reason to believe the institutional church would continue on with the same kind of authority, and given the repeated warnings about false teaching, there is every reason to believe that the authority of the successive church could become compromised. There is no hint that this could happen among the apostles.

     You assert again that apostolic association is only those doctrines found in Scripture. Why do you do believe that apostolic association is found in Scripture alone?

     The Pastoral Letters of Paul, the book of Acts, and First Peter teach that the Apostles handed over their shepherding authority to the bishops of the Church. Certainly, bishops can fail in their apostolic duties, but so did the Apostle Judas. But again, I think we should argue this on a different thread. The important thing to note on this thread is that according to your methodology no amount of patristic evidence is relevant if it cannot first be demonstrated from Scripture.

     My response is similar to the above. You just don’t have papal authority taught in Scripture. You don’t even have the office of pope revealed.

     The primacy of Peter is revealed in Scripture and the primacy of his successors is evident in the second and third centuries and beyond. Again, we would have to argue this on a different thread, possibly Cross’s “The Chair of St. Peter.” But the pertinent point of disagreement is that even if there was universal agreement by every Christian in the early centuries regarding the successor of Peter, you would not accept papal authority as an object of faith. The witness of the Church is superfluous within your paradigm because you only accept what you can deduce from Scripture.

     Second, historically speaking, the recognition of the canonical core is basically as soon as the gospels and the epistles are written. There is no such recognition of the papacy that early. That’s the “principled distinction.”

     This is inaccurate. We do not have clear evidence of a scriptural canon before the second century. There are signs of a canon slowly emerging in the mid-second century, a development that was not complete for the next few centuries. Again, we see a similar process in the Church’s self-awareness of her Petrine primacy. I do not see why Christians should accept the canonical books of the Church, while rejecting the Petrine ministry of the Church.

     I think the most important point to be discussed is our divergent starting points. When I come across a doctrine that is universally supported by the primitive Church, I believe that it is part of the deposit of faith handed on to the saints. On the other hand, your methodology, it seems to me, allows you to reject the teachings of the universal Church if it conflicts with your interpretation of Scripture. This would include the contents of the canon. I would suggest that this is a weakness in the protestant paradigm. Would you agree?

     God bless,
     Nick T.

465. JD January 12th, 2014 3:41 am :

     Lojahw,

     “I have no problem with your comment that Jesus used the books recognized by the Sadducees to refute their disbelief in the resurrection.”

     So you agree there were differing canons amongst various sects at Jesus’ time.

     “There is no evidence that the Jews in Thessalonica and Berea considered any “deuterocanonical” books or texts to be Scripture.”

     Jewish Encyclopedia:
     “The needs of the Hellenistic Jews, whether of Alexandria in particular or of the Greek-speaking Diaspora in general, led to the translation of the Bible into Greek…. and it included works not accepted into the normative Hebrew canon…Of those books excluded from the Hebrew canon but included in the Greek Bibles, the number varies, but the following are found in the fullest collections: I Esdras (Ezra), Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Ben Sira, Judith, Tobit, Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, I–IV Maccabees, and the Psalms of Solomon.”

     Note that “the number varies” – the Greek canon was just as unfixed as the Hebrew was.

     “[Barber] also appears to have misread the scholarly authorities on a number of his other arguments about “myths.””

     Okay. I realize you’ve written a 200 page thesis that I assume has been peer reviewed, but I don’t know if I should just take your word at evaluation of a scholar’s work. Perhaps some of his conclusions are faulty – the primary one I’m concerned with is this notion of a single recognized canon which he addresses in part 1 of his essay with things like:
     “James VanderKam explains, ‘As nearly as we can tell, there was no canon of Scripture in Second Temple Judaism.'” (I am not sure how Barber can misread that statement)
     “After the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, it became clear once and for all that there was no normative Jewish canon in second Temple Judaism”
     “First of all, as we saw earlier, it is quite clear that there was no normative canon in Palestinian Judaism in Jesus day—the notion of a universally accepted “Palestinian canon” is a myth and flies in the face of all the historical evidence. Secondly, we have no reason to think that Jews in the diaspora were any more united on the matter than their Palestinian counterparts”

     But you said above you agree Sadducees had a different canon. So maybe this point is moot now.

     “Cyril’s OT canon is in book 4 of his Catechetical Lectures; the quote you reference is in book 9 of the same work. In describing his OT canon, he distinguishes the twenty-two books from all the rest, including the apocrypha, of which he says “have nothing to do with.””

     You’ve already conceded he did not consider Baruch/Epistle of Jeremiah part of the apocrypha, which you do.

     “Are you suggesting that Cyril contradicted himself in the same work???”

     No, I’m suggesting that your view of his position is not air-tight. Why does he cite the deuteros *to support doctrine* in the midst of non-deutero citations with no qualification or distinction? Why does he cite deuteros with “It is written” and as if from prophets and such language? Let’s hold that he doesn’t think they have Scriptural authority – and now let’s hypothetically assume he did – if he did view deuteros as having Scriptural authority, how would he have cited them differently than how he did?

     “Re: Augustine breaking with 4 centuries of canonical tradition – every published canon by the church fathers prior to Augustine follows the “twenty-two” book tradition.”

     Are you saying all fathers before Augustine did not hold to any deuteros, and also held to every book in the Hebrew canon? That’s false. Further Augustine said:
     “Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of catholic churches”
     Again, he was no lone wolf or maverick.

466. JohnD January 12th, 2014 11:06 am :

     Nick T. (re: #464),

     We do not have clear evidence of a scriptural canon before the second century. There are signs of a canon slowly emerging in the mid-second century, a development that was not complete for the next few centuries.

     Just because the development was not complete and rubber stamped for the next few centuries does not necessitate that there were ANY good candidates for canonicity outside of the accepted New Testament. But it sounds like you agree with the general contention that: The vast majority (core) of the canon was established by end of the 2nd century and the rest was just fine-tuning.

     In #454, you said:

     Of course, we see traces of papal authority in the 2nd century, but its development, the Church’s self-awareness, is more clearly seen in the 3rd and 4th centuries. In fact, the development of the papacy parallels that of the canon, at least chronologically speaking.

     This is interesting. My first inclination was to say you are factually incorrect because 2 Peter refers to St Paul’s epistles as Scripture, Clement and Ignatius quote the New Testament as Scripture, and all of that stuff is much earlier than anything referring to a papacy or Petrine primacy. BUT, then I realized that Catholics make arguments for Petrine Primacy from Scripture itself, so to assert what I said in my previous sentence would beg the question against those arguments. So, it seems that your arguments for parallels between other (universally held?) doctrines and canonicity will always come back to (1) the interpretation of Scripture and (2) the interpretation of Church fathers.

     You state:

     White accepts one kind of development but not another, and he does not offer a principled reason for his discrimination.

     I’m not sure you recognize White’s position. He would certainly dispute any interpretations of Scripture that are presented as origins for the Papacy or Eucharistic sacrifice (e.g. his debates against Sungenis & Butler, Matatics, and Pacwa). Moreover, he disputes the historical claim of an early development (e.g. his radio debate with Matthew Bellisario and in this rebuttal Fr. Pacwa: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ6bLYVD8qM). You can dispute over whether his defenses of those cases are illegitimate. But, in the cases of the Papacy and Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass, White’s principled distinction is that he believes they are NEITHER in Scripture nor consistently held in the early Church. So, in his mind, this is not discrimination, but rather honest scholarly opinion based on fact.

     In the case of Baptismal Regeneration, you may be able to make a better parallel argument.

     Peace,
     John D.

467. Nick Trosclair January 12th, 2014 7:09 pm :

     Hi JohnD,

     Thank you for your feedback.

     Just because the development was not complete and rubber stamped for the next few centuries does not necessitate that there were ANY good candidates for canonicity outside of the accepted New Testament. But it sounds like you agree with the general contention that:The vast majority (core) of the canon was established by end of the 2nd century and the rest was just fine-tuning.

     My point is not that it needed a rubber stamp, but that the acceptance of the canon was a process that took place over several centuries, i.e. the contents of the canon developed. For this reason, we mainly rely on the Church for the acceptance of the canon which developed over time. For example, I do not know who wrote the book of Hebrews. The only reason why I accept this book as canonical is because the Church accepted it in her liturgy throughout the 3rd and 4th centuries and finally universally acknowledged it as canonical. This raises a central question: Why do many Christians accept the development of the canon, yet reject, for example, the development of the primacy of the successor of Peter by the 5th century? In the comments below, I attempt some kind of an answer to this question.

     This is interesting. My first inclination was to say you are factually incorrect because 2 Peter refers to St Paul’s epistles as Scripture, Clement and Ignatius quote the New Testament as Scripture, and all of that stuff is much earlier than anything referring to a papacy or Petrine primacy. BUT, then I realized that Catholics make arguments for Petrine Primacy from Scripture itself, so to assert what I said in my previous sentence would beg the question against those arguments. So, it seems that your arguments for parallels between other (universally held?) doctrines and canonicity will always come back to (1) the interpretation of Scripture and (2) the interpretation of Church fathers.

     I agree with one qualification. I am assuming, unlike the Protestant, that the Holy Spirit will lead the Church into all truth. My faith does not rest on how I interpret every Church Father, although it does provide a strong motive of credibility. More specifically, the clear testimony of the Holy Spirit in the 5th century Church aids me in my reading of the more obscure patristic texts of the 2nd century Church. This might be compared to a Christian reading the Old Testament in light of the New Testament.

     I’m not sure you recognize White’s position. He would certainly dispute any interpretations of Scripture that are presented as origins for the Papacy or Eucharistic sacrifice (e.g. his debates against Sungenis & Butler, Matatics, and Pacwa). Moreover, he disputes the historical claim of an early development (e.g. his radio debate with Matthew Bellisario and in this rebuttal Fr. Pacwa: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ6bLYVD8qM). You can dispute over whether his defenses of those cases are illegitimate. But, in the cases of the Papacy and Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass, White’s principled distinction is that he believes they are NEITHER in Scripture nor consistently held in the early Church. So, in his mind, this is not discrimination, but rather honest scholarly opinion based on fact.

     I think you are making a good point. I was assuming that all parties accepted the fact that apostolic succession and propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass were universally believed by the 2nd and 3rd centuries (The patristic scholars I have read all agree on these two points, so I assumed they were not disputed by White.). But given the fact that White would challenge these points, I should not have used them as examples.

     But I hope that this does not distract us from the main point. It seems to me that the patristic evidence is irrelevant for the Protestant’s assent of faith. Even if the 2nd century Church universally acknowledged that the bishop of Rome was the successor of St. Peter, the Protestant paradigm prohibits the Protestant from seeing such evidence as a motive of credibility (this came up in my dialogue with Robert, see #464). The one exception seems to be the development of the canon. Is it because sola scriptura is lurking behind the patristic arguments offered by the Protestant and the Catholic? This is what I suspect. Do you agree?

     But for the person who believes that the Holy Spirit guides the Church into all truth, the universal acceptance of a particular doctrine by the Church reveals to him that the said doctrine is an article of faith. Catholics and Protestants seem to be asking two different questions. The Catholic asks: Has the Holy Spirit revealed this in the Church? The Protestant asks: Can I trace this back to the God-inspired Scriptures? I think this is the main reason why White rejects doctrinal developments other than that of the canon. Until we can reconcile these two approaches, I do not think that Protestants and Catholics will be reconciled on a doctrinal level.

     In order for dialogue between Protestants and Catholics to be fruitful, we must first determine what “counts” as real evidence for the Protestant and what “counts” as real evidence for Catholics. We must start with some first principles upon which we can build our case. I could spend weeks offering patristic evidence for the universal acceptance of the papacy or apostolic succession, only to be disappointed because my patristic evidence did not matter to my interlocutor.

     God bless,
     Nick T.

468. Lojahw January 12th, 2014 7:37 pm :

     JDS –

     “What I did say is that it is viewed by Trent as part of the book of Jeremiah.“

     How do you know that Trent viewed Lamentations as part of the book of Jeremiah – that is certainly the opposite of what the manuscripts show. Since the Greek and Latin Scriptures always followed Jeremiah with Baruch, you can’t appeal to the Jewish reckoning based on Lamentations always being paired with Jeremiah (until the Megillot were separated later for liturgical reasons). How can a book that is separated by another book – which IS explicitly listed by Trent – from Jeremiah be considered “part of the book of Jeremiah”? It makes no sense. If Trent had only listed Jeremiah, you might claim that the other books were viewed as part of the book of Jeremiah, but that’s not what Trent documented. It would actually make more sense for you to claim that Trent considered Lamentations to be part of Baruch, because it followed Baruch in the Bibles of the day.

     What I’d like to understand is why you believe the works of impersonators should be considered worthy of unquestioned authority (the “Elvis Question’). The Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, the Epistle of Jeremiah are unquestionably written by others than their famous namesakes. As Augustine wrote:

     “But the purity of the canon has not admitted these writings, not because the authority of these men who please God is rejected, but because they are not believed to be theirs,” and “So that, if any writings outside of [the canon] are now brought forward under the name of the ancient prophets, they cannot serve even as an aid to knowledge, because it is uncertain whether they are genuine; and on this account they are not trusted.” (City of God 18.38)

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

469. Robert January 12th, 2014 10:52 pm :

     Nick,

     In other words, the Church only has authority when it agrees with your own interpretation of Scripture.

     The church has authority whether or not I agree with it. But I’m only going to submit to its authority when I agree with it. That is true for any thinking person. This is why, quite frankly, I find the CTC approach to authority quite tiresome. You only remain in submission to the RC Church insofar as you can agree with its interpretation of tradition and Scripture, and the second you could no longer agree, you would either become more of a cafeteria RC such as Nancy Pelosi or you would leave RC altogether. The only people that don’t do this are people such as the followers of Jim Jones who don’t put any thought into their leaders’ teachings, the reasons behind them, etc.

     When faced with a teaching and the rationale for it, you have two basic options:

     1. You agree to it because your reading of the evidence matches the church’s reading.
     2. You agree to it because although your reading doesn’t agree with it, you trust that the church’s reading is better. But you trust that the church’s reading is better because your interpretation of evidence elsewhere shows you that the church’s reading is better. IOW, your reading of Scripture and tradition has told you that it is better to give implicit faith than not to.

     Either way, as a thinking person, you submit to the church only insofar as what it teaches agrees with or is amenable to your own reading of the evidence.The thinking RC is no different than the thinking Protestant. You continue to be RC because the RC continues to be amenable to your own interpretation.

470. Lojahw January 13th, 2014 12:48 am :

     JD –

     You seem to have a common misconception: that the contents of “Bibles” in the early church are equivalent to a canon. The Jewish encyclopedia correctly reports “Greek Bibles” – not Greek canons. It compares the “Hebrew canon” with the Christian “Greek Bibles.”

     There is a big difference. Canons are lists of books recognized as having unquestioned authority – and NO early Bible consisted only of the books listed in the contemporary canons of their day. Every Greek Bible had different numbers books and orders of those books.

     Do you think that 3 Esdras was in any early church canon? Yet it was in every Greek Bible. It was also in the Vulgate, even though it was not in Jerome’s canon, which was published with the Vulgate.

     How about the Apocalypse of Peter? It is in Codex Sinaiticus (though disputed in the 2nd century in Rome and later placed among the apocrypha – forbidden and hidden from Christians).
     Do you think that the Shepherd of Hermas was in any church canon? It was denied in the first canon published at Rome, the Muratorian – yet it is in the Codex Sinaiticus.
     How about 1 and 2 Clement? They’re in Codex Alexandrinus.
     The truth is, the early Greek Bibles did not have a canonical list – canons were published separately by the church fathers: and ALL of them were subsets of the books included in the Bibles of their day.

     The Vulgate was first published with Jerome’s canon, yet it contained several books beyond not only his canon but also Trent’s. 3 and 4 Esdras, 3 and 4 Maccabees, etc.
     Every edition of the Vulgate until the Sixtine Clementine, more than 100 years after Trent, had different contents – just like the early Greek Bibles.

     The early Protestant Bibles ALL included the “apocrypha” even though they were denied canonical status by their publishers.

     So – please do not confuse early “Bible” contents with the Bible canon.

     Also – Whether there were splinter Jewish sects that agreed or disagreed with the mainstream of Judaism is irrelevant. The existence of dissidents does not invalidate Josephus’s first century publication of the long-established Jewish canon.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

471. Lojahw January 13th, 2014 1:07 am :

     Dear Nick, et al.,

     “ If the primitive Church possessed connatural knowledge of divine revelation, why do sola scriptura-ists reject the central doctrines and practices of that same primitive Church?”

     The concept of “connatural knowledge of divine revelation” sounds a bit nebulous, but the rest of the sentence caught my attention re: implied conflicts. I believe many things are debatably projected back on the “primitive church” – i.e., that of the first two centuries.

     E.g. the below items are consistent with the beliefs and practices of Sola scripturists.

     The central doctrines are and always have been focused on Trinitarian affirmations such as those documented in that era by Irenaeus and the Apostles’ Creed.

     The surviving descriptions of the “central” practices of the primitive church are fragmentary. For example, Polycarp’s argument with Rome over Eucharistic practices demonstrates that diversity existed in the primitive church. In fact, quite a few early church fathers attest to a vastly different view of the images than that legislated at Nicea II (787) and the canon of Scripture, as well as a variety of views on the papacy, confession, baptism, etc.

     One is also hard-pressed to find ECF support in the primitive church for purgatory or the veneration of Mary. And, as I’ve shown: 4 “twenty-two” book canons after Damasus’ death before Augustine published his “forty-four” book canon, the claim of universal papal authority at the end of the 4th century is highly debatable.

     As for the “development” of the NT canon, another way of looking at it is “recognition” of the books that authentically preserve the teaching and ministry of Jesus and the Apostles. In the second century, the proliferation of Pseudepigrapha claiming apostles as authors revealed the sharp contrast between them and the authentic first-century books.

     The “process” was one of making sure that the 27 books were authentic witnesses of Jesus’ and the Apostles’ teaching. Some questioned 2 Peter because its style seemed different than 1 Peter – but it was written under different circumstances and naturally, by another amanuensis than 1 Peter, which was written years earlier in a different place and circumstance. Others questioned Revelation, for similar reasons. Others, such as 2 and 3 John (tiny) had to be vetted as well, but, once the Church was convinced of their authenticity, they were recognized as well.

     Sure, no one knows the author of the book of Hebrews, but it’s quite possible that it is the work of the apostle Barnabas (cf. Acts 14:14) or a derived from Paul in some way. Mark and Luke are canonical because they reliably report Jesus’ ministry and teaching – and their records are consistent with those of the apostles (regardless of their sources).

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

472. JDS January 13th, 2014 12:44 pm :

     Dear Lojahw,

     You asked,

     How do you know that Trent viewed Lamentations as part of the book of Jeremiah[?]

     Because it’s the most reasonable conclusion by far. Consider:

     1. The canonicity of the book of Lamentations, as every commentary I’ve checked confirms, has never been questioned among Jews or Christians. I have never seen anyone (until you) question whether Trent intended to include it in the canon. The burden of proof, it seems, is on you.

     2. The Epistle of Jeremiah (=Baruch 6 in modern Catholic Bibles) is also not listed explicitly, yet no one doubts that Trent considers it canonical.

     3. This explains the unique wording of that portion of Trent’s enumeration: “Ieremias cum Baruch,” i.e., the entire Jeremian complex: the Book of Jeremiah, the Lamentations of Jeremiah, Baruch, and the Epistle of Jeremiah.

     4. As I mentioned before, the Council itself quotes Lamentations as inspired scripture. (I mistyped in the last comment—it should have been Session VI, ch. 5, not Session IV. Sorry about that.)

     5. I have checked a few treatments of Trent by anti-Catholic controversialists (Chemnitz, Bungener, another whose name I am frustrated to say I’ve forgotten), and none of them breathe a word about the lack of explicit mention of Lamentations. Is it more reasonable to think that they didn’t notice this, or that they understood the inclusion of Lamentations (along with the Epistle of Jeremiah) under the designation “Jeremiah with Baruch”?

     6. There is a long history of counting Lamentations in just this way, as part of Jeremiah. (You’re right, of course, that Baruch often intervenes between Jeremiah and Lamentations in the earliest manuscripts, and I admit that I don’t know exactly when this ceased to be the most common ordering. That would be an interesting thing to look into.) See below:

     The patristic writers also unanimously follow the Jewish tradition and place Lamentations with Jeremiah in enumerations of the biblical books: thus Origen ([d. 254] Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica VI, 25, 2 [PG 20, 581]) and Epiphanius of Salamis ([d. 403] in Liber de mensuris et ponderibus, ch. 23 [PG 43, 278f.]). In the so-called Prologus Galeatus (PL 28, 597ff.), Jerome [d. 420] names the book of Lamentations neither among the Prophets, nor among the Writings. He does, however, state explicitly that some count Ruth and Cinoth [i.e., Lamentations] with the holy writings and thus arrive at the number of 24 books in the Old Testament, something that evokes for him the tableau of the 24 elders before the throne of the Lamb (Rev 4:4). Since he himself seems to count the book of Ruth with the book of Judges, as well as Lamentations with the book of Jeremiah, he comes to 22 books, the number of letters of the Hebrew alphabet. In Augustine’s canon list ([d. 420 [sic]], de doctrina christiana II, 13) Lamentations gets no distinct mention. This suggests that it had already been completely absorbed in the Jeremian aura (Löhr vi).

     In the Roman conciliar decisions of Florence (1442) and Trent (1546), which for the first time officially fixed the canon of the holy scriptures against the Jacobites and the Reformers (DS 1335; 1502), Jeremiah is in each case listed with Baruch, without the book of Lamentations being named. In this way, the centuries-old tradition of this little biblical writing’s lack of independence was also affirmed as quasi-de iure.

     Ulrich Berges, Klagelieder (Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament; Frieburg, Basel, Wien: Herder, 2002), 33-34.

     7. As I said, this absorption of Lamentations into “Jeremiah” continues to be partially reflected in the modern Stuttgart edition of the Vulgate. No break between Jer and Lam; “here ends the book of Jeremiah” at the end of Lam 5.

     As for the rest of what you wrote, let’s stick to the subject. I only entered the conversation because your claim about Trent struck me as in serious need of correction.

473. Devin Rose January 13th, 2014 2:09 pm :

     Lojahw and friends,

     The discussion is moving faster than I have time to engage in, so I will drop out of it with this one response.

     I would recommend Dr. Law’s book to everyone. He does not seem to be either Protestant or Catholic and so does not have an axe to grind for one side or another. Also, I would pause before thinking that I could debunk a Septuagint scholar on his own turf, especially before reading his book (which is the layman’s introduction to the topic).

     Law’s findings with the Septuagint and Hebrew textual streams reveal that there was not just one golden Hebrew version of the Scriptures, nor that the books were all agreed upon by the Jews, nor that this would happen until after the time of Christ.

     The Jews didn’t *know* there would be a New Testament. Hence closing the canon before the last prophets is unthinkable. Where was the inspired, definitive word that their canon was closed? Nowhere. Nowhere did God say that the Old Covenant canon was *now over* and “time to wait 400 years for the New Covenant.”

     Feel free to have the last word. Keep searching and praying.

     God bless,
     Devin

474. Lojahw January 13th, 2014 10:16 pm :

     Thank you for your very detailed explanation of your position, JDS.

     I questioned Trent’s canon because of its silence on Lamentations juxtaposed with its listing of Baruch. Arguments from silence always leave some level of doubt, particularly in light of the strong historical tradition of placing Baruch between Jeremiah and Lamentation (which survives in many manuscripts). Your suggestion that another tradition overrides the manuscript evidence is not convincing without explicit evidence that Trent actually followed the alternate tradition. Furthermore, the assumption that Florence followed the other tradition suffers from the same weakness as the argument for Trent: it is an argument from silence.

     Your strongest argument (if true) is that Trent explicitly quoted Lamentations as Scripture; however, I could not find the citation in either Session IV or VI. Could you be more specific?

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

475. Lojahw January 13th, 2014 10:34 pm :

     Thank you, Devin, for your comments.

     Since you didn’t answer my question how Timothy Michael Law justified ignoring Josephus’ canonical testimony, I’ll assume he did not offer a good answer. I have yet to find any scholar who has refuted the reliability of Josephus’ account. Moreover, there are no extant documents from the time period that present any different Jewish canons. Since arguments from silence always leave some level of doubt, I trust the historical record that we have.

     There simply are no other documented Jewish canons from the period – so any assertion that there were are sheer speculation for the sake of some of other agenda.

     I strongly disagree that the Jews did not know there would be a “new covenant” coming with its own revelations “not like the covenant which I made with their fathers . . .” (according to Jeremiah). Malachi’s concluding remarks also are clear: “Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming,” says the LORD of hosts (Mal 3:1). The prophets are clear that the coming One would bring a new covenant. Are you suggesting that “new wine” be put into “old wine-skins”?

     The many authorities on the Dead Sea Scrolls and the LXX that I have read concur that there are multiple ancient versions of the Hebrew text. However, the extant Hebrew versions do not explain most of the LXX variants – ergo, scholars are left to speculate how various LXX books came into being. Also, the Hebrew textual variants are nothing compared to the variants found in the NT texts. None of these facts change anything about the canon, so I’m not sure why you bring it up.

     On the other hand, Augustine relied on the premise (according to Justin Martyr and Irenaeus) that every book in the LXX as he knew it (ca. 400 AD) was miraculously translated by the “Seventy” ca. 270 BC. However, the deuteros did not even exist at the time; Lysimachus wrote his Greek additions to Esther ca. 113 BC; and Christians in the second century AD rejected the LXX version of Daniel for Theodotion’s version (written in the same century). Augustine’s arguments for his “forty-four” book canon are a piece of work!

     One thing of which I am certain: the Apostles did not pass down fake “Scriptures” written by “Elvis impersonators” to be received with sacred and canonical authority.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

476. Nick Trosclair January 13th, 2014 11:11 pm :

     Hi Lojahw,

     You wrote:

     One is also hard-pressed to find ECF support in the primitive church for purgatory or the veneration of Mary. And, as I’ve shown: 4 “twenty-two” book canons after Damasus’ death before Augustine published his “forty-four” book canon, the claim of universal papal authority at the end of the 4th century is highly debatable.

     It is important to remember that the Catholic believes all of the above doctrines not because he can deduce all of them from the testimony of the ECF. Instead, he believes them because he can (a) identify the Church that Christ founded and (b) because he can trust that the Holy Spirit leads the Church into all truth.

     As for the “development” of the NT canon, another way of looking at it is “recognition” of the books that authentically preserve the teaching and ministry of Jesus and the Apostles.

     I think my understanding of “development” is equivalent to your understanding of “recognition.”

     Sure, no one knows the author of the book of Hebrews, but it’s quite possible that it is the work of the apostle Barnabas (cf. Acts 14:14) or a derived from Paul in some way.

     I think this is a dilemma for the non-Catholic Christian. Why do you believe that the book of Hebrews is divinely inspired? It seems to me unreasonable to accept its canonicity because it may have been written by Barnabas. The only reason to accept its canonicity and, thus, its divine inspiration is because the Church led by the Holy Spirit recognized its canonicity. Do you agree?

     Mark and Luke are canonical because they reliably report Jesus’ ministry and teaching – and their records are consistent with those of the apostles (regardless of their sources).

     You are equating, I think, the historical reliability of a document with the canonicity and, presumably, the divine inspiration of a document. How do you get from the recognition of the historical reliability of document to its divine inspiration?

     Nick T.

477. Lojahw January 14th, 2014 1:20 am :

     Nick –

     If the founders of the church recognize a book as canonical, then should not all Christians? That covers most of the OT as well as Paul’s epistles (per 2 Pet 3:15) and the Gospel of Luke (cf. 1 Tim. 5:18).

     I apologize if I gave the wrong impression on the rest. No Christian can discern canonicity by himself – he must listen to the community of faith (the global Body of Christ) and the Holy Spirit, as well as consider the criteria of canonicity defined by the founders of the Church. I agree with Calvin that the full conviction by which we ought to receive the Scriptures is owed to the Holy Spirit.

     What I have found in my studies is that it is somewhat easy to eliminate certain books from consideration because they fail to reflect the character of God-breathed Scripture. Thus, I cannot accept fake “Scriptures” written by “Elvis impersonators.” God cannot lie, nor does He condone those who do (remember Ananias and Sapphira?). This eliminates all the second century forgeries in the names of the Apostles, as well as the Jewish Pseudepigrapha (Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, the Epistle of Jeremiah, Enoch, etc.). Your Church anathematizes me for this position. How can I trust a Church which tells me to receive the writing of liars without question?

     BTW – only the 39 OT books are universally recognized as canonical by the Body of Christ. Jerome’s understanding of the OT canon has stood the test of time: those books still have unquestioned authority for all; it is the “Elvis impersonators,” etc. which belong (as Cyril of Jerusalem said) in a “second rank.” That’s not to make them “apocrypha” to be rejected, but neither should they be ascribed unquestioned authority. (e.g., I have to question the authority of books like Tobit in which an angel of God lies about his identity, etc.)

     As for the rest of the NT, since Jesus’ teaching is authoritative for all Christians, any book that authentically preserves it should be a candidate for canonicity, subject to the judgment of the community of faith – the Church – and the personal testimony of the Holy Spirit (cf. Matt. 24:35; John 12:48).

     Moreover, since Jesus promised the 12 that the Holy Spirit, any book that authentically preserves their teaching (e.g., Acts and the epistles, as well as John’s Apocalypse) should also be a candidate for canonicity – subject again to the judgment of the Church and the testimony of the Holy Spirit. I believe there is enough internal and external evidence to explicitly identify all the epistles except for Hebrews with one of the Apostles or Paul.

     I also believe it is plausible that either Paul or the apostle Barnabas wrote Hebrews – since they are both apostles, it is not necessary to know which wrote it. In any case, 1 Clement (near contemporary Christian leader) quotes Hebrews with the authoritative formula, “it is written.” There is no evidence to deny its authentic preservation of apostolic teaching, the Church has accepted it, and the Holy Spirit bears witness to the truths it teaches about Christ and the New Covenant in His blood. Hence I accept it.

     BTW – the distinction between “development” and “recognition,” is that recognition of Scripture takes what is already written and ascribes it the authority it is due as God’s word. Development as used by your Church implies going beyond what is written to define new doctrines not taught by the apostles (e.g., Mary’s immaculate conception; veneration of images, etc.).

     I hope this helps.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

478. JohnD January 14th, 2014 5:25 am :

     Nick T. (re:#467),

     Even if the 2nd century Church universally acknowledged that the bishop of Rome was the successor of St. Peter, the Protestant paradigm prohibits the Protestant from seeing such evidence as a motive of credibility (this came up in my dialogue with Robert, see #464). The one exception seems to be the development of the canon. Is it because sola scriptura is lurking behind the patristic arguments offered by the Protestant and the Catholic? This is what I suspect. Do you agree?

     I think you make a good point in that first sentence. But, it’s unfair to simply suggest sola scriptura is “lurking behind” their patristic/historical arguments without refuting their arguments (not that this is the point of this post).

     In order for dialogue between Protestants and Catholics to be fruitful, we must first determine what “counts” as real evidence for the Protestant and what “counts” as real evidence for Catholics. We must start with some first principles upon which we can build our case. I could spend weeks offering patristic evidence for the universal acceptance of the papacy or apostolic succession, only to be disappointed because my patristic evidence did not matter to my interlocutor.

     Good points here.

     Peace,
     John D.

479. JohnD January 14th, 2014 5:44 am :

     Nick T. (re: #473),

     You said:

     Why do you believe that the book of Hebrews is divinely inspired?

     I think the best Protestant arguments are what Robert explains above when he said: For Kruger and White it is based on three mutually reinforcing ideas: 1. Internal divine qualities 2. Corporate reception 3. Apostolic association. For the Protestant, Hebrews satisfies all of these tests of the early Church. Perhaps you would argue it does not satisfy 3 since it is anonymous, but it does circulate in the bundle of St. Paul’s letters as early as they appear to circulate together. Also, traditional Catholic documents affirm Pauline authorship of Hebrews. At the very least, the book was associated with St. Paul very early.

     How do you get from the recognition of the historical reliability of document to its divine inspiration?

     Your question reveals the paradigm difference. A Reformed Protestant does not “get from” historical reliability to inspiration. He starts with faith in the Word of God because it claims to be God’s Word and his trust is in that claim. For example:

     The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God. [WCF, Chapter 1, IV.]

     For the Catholic, this might appear to be an unacceptable fideism. Nonetheless, the Reformed can produce arguments like “3 mutually reinforcing ideas” to show that their faith does not contradict reason. But, it is obviously not those “3 mutually reinforcing ideas” that make Scripture what it is. Then again, for the Catholic, neither is it the conciliar recognition which makes the Scripture inspired, rather that is just what allows for authoritative identification of what Scripture is.

     In the end, it seems the Reformed accept the idea that God will guide His Church to recognize His Word, but that this can be done without extending Apostolic authority to bishops and councils. Just some more food for thought.

     Peace,
     John D.

480. JDS January 14th, 2014 11:29 am :

     Dear Lojahw,

     Trent, Session VI, chap. 5: “Convert us, O Lord, to Thee, and we shall be converted” (Lam 5.21).

     I frankly wonder whether you’re giving due weight to the cumulative force of my other points. I agree that any of them on its own is insufficient, but when you add up the fact that no one has ever contested the canonicity of Lamentations and the fact that none of the Protestants controversialists seized on the lack of explicit reference to it (presumably recognizing its inclusion with Jeremiah), as I say, it seems the burden is on you. Because the canonical status of Baruch (unlike that of Lamentations) had been questioned, the wording “Jeremiah with [i.e., including] Baruch” makes perfect sense as a designation for the Jeremian complex of Jeremiah, Lamentations, Baruch, and the Epistle of Jeremiah.

     Also, did you consider the quotation from Berges’s commentary carefully? It gives you explicit references to patristic “omissions” of Lamentations: Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica 6.25.1-2 (and, I would add, 4.26.14); Augustine, De doctrina christiana 2.8.13. Above all, the phenomenon of counting Lamentations with Jeremiah is explicitly described by both Epiphanius and Jerome:

     Epiphanius of Salamis, De mensuris et ponderibus 23: “But there is also another little book called qinoth, which is translated the Lamentations of Jeremiah. And it is joined to Jeremiah; it is in excess of the number, being joined to Jeremiah.”

     Jerome, “Prologus Galeatus”: “Whence also five books are counted as double by many: Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra [=Ezra-Nehemiah], Jeremiah with Qinoth, that is, his Lamentations. In this way, therefore, there are twenty-two constituent parts [of the Hebrew Bible]” (PL 28:551-52 [the citation in Berges is a typo: should say PL 28:547ff.]).

     Lastly, Trent is not the only early modern Christian document to employ this convention. Lamentations is also omitted in Article 6 of the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles, which only mentions “Four Prophets the Greater” [Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel]. Do you think the Church of England thereby rejected Lamentations?

481. JDS January 14th, 2014 3:18 pm :

     Dear Lojahw,

     I was able to access an electronic copy of a Bible printed by Franciscus Renner at Venice in 1483. The text of Lamentations is indeed appended to that of Jeremiah with no page break. There is simply a line in a font identical to the rest of the text that reads, “Incipiunt threni idest lamentationes Hieremie que cynoth hebraice inscribuntur” — “Here begin the ‘threni,’ that is, the Lamentations of Jeremiah, which in Hebrew are entitled ‘Qinoth’.” The page headings continue to be entitled “Hieremias” to the end of Lamentations. Baruch follows. Note the similarity of this arrangement to that which I described in the modern Stuttgart edition of the Vulgate. I would add that between Baruch 5 and Baruch 6, there is similarly a line that reads, “Incipit epistola quam misit hieremias ad iudeos qui captiui erant in babylone: cuius epi[stol]e scriptor fuit baruch: propter quod adiungitur eius in libro” — “Here begins the letter that Jeremiah sent to the Jews who were exiles in Babylon; Baruch was this letter’s scribe, on account of which it is adjoined to his book.” The visual format between Baruch 5 and 6 is exactly the same as that between Jeremiah and Lamentations: just as the Epistle of Jeremiah (Baruch 6) was “counted” as part of Baruch, so Lamentations was “counted” as part of Jeremiah.

482. Lojahw January 14th, 2014 5:43 pm :

     For Nick and friends,

     The *Vulgate Question.*

     The Vulgate was first published by the Church in AD 405, and it continued to be the only authorized version of the Bible in the West for more than a 1000 years. And, by the way, Jerome’s OT canon was part of every edition of the Vulgate.

     What OT canon would a Christian living in Europe prior to the Council of Trent, say a 1000 years after the first publication of the Vulgate (1405), consider authoritative and why?

     I could ask a number of related questions, but I’ll hold off for now.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

483. Lojahw January 14th, 2014 6:15 pm :

     Thank you, JDS.

     The version of Trent Session VI, ch. 5 I have reads:
     when it is said in the sacred writings: “Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you,” we are admonished of our liberty when we answer; “Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted,” we confess that we are prevented by the grace of God.

     The quotation is actually from Mal. 3:7, which reads:
     “Return to Me, and I will return to you,” says the LORD of hosts.

     The response does not appeal to Scripture, but to liturgical tradition, which as you point out comes from Lam. 5:21. Since the Council identifies the former quote from sacred scripture, but the latter quote from the liturgy, your conclusion begs the question.

     However, I do congratulate you:
     I was able to access an electronic copy of a Bible printed by Franciscus Renner at Venice in 1483. The text of Lamentations is indeed appended to that of Jeremiah with no page break.

     It seems to me to be a draw. . . Trent does not document its intent behind “Ieremias cum Baruch” nor does the Council explicitly refer to Lamentations as Scripture; however, the textual tradition at that time supports your position.

     Peace,
     Lojahw

484. JDS January 15th, 2014 12:46 am :

     Dear Lojahw,

     Thanks for your congratulations.

     You said, “The response [i.e., the quotation of Lam 5.21 in Trent sess. 4, ch. 5] does not appeal to Scripture, but to liturgical tradition.” That’s a bare assertion. Do you have any evidence for it? By the time of Trent, that text (Lam 5.21) had been cited already for centuries in debates about grace and free will — see, e.g., St Thomas Aquinas, ST I-II.109.6 ad 1 — precisely as a scriptural text, not a “liturgical tradition.” Again, any evidence for the claim, like perhaps a liturgical text in which someone reads the verse from Malachi and the congregation answers with the verse from Lamentations? Otherwise it just seems like you’re speculating.

     Additionally, and I think more importantly in terms of evidence, I’ve raised several important points that you still have not addressed. What do you make of the convention, already more than a millennium old by the time of Trent, of counting Lamentations with Jeremiah? I’ve documented that, I think, quite thoroughly enough: not only is it attested in Melito (via Eusebius, book 4), Origen (via Eusebius, book 6), and Augustine, it is explicitly explained by both Epiphanius and Jerome. So it’s not just “the textual tradition at that time [15th-16th c.]” that supports me: it’s an ancient Christian convention that, while certainly not universal, is awfully well attested.

     I also note that you did not answer my question about the Anglican 39 Articles. No mention of Lamentations there, either. On the logic you apply to Trent (and Florence), shouldn’t you question whether the Church of England accepts Lamentations as canonical scripture? That would seem fair.

     For one last piece of evidence, check out, for example, pp. 216-17, 234-35, 246-47 of this Roman Breviary, which was consciously prepared in accordance with the decrees of Trent. If the Council Fathers at Trent didn’t intend Lamentations under the heading “Ieremias cum Baruch,” why is it still appointed for scriptural reading in the Divine Office?

     Look, if Trent took place in a vacuum, I might agree that the ambiguity about the meaning of “Ieremias cum Baruch” remains unresolved. But I think I’ve more than demonstrated the point. I’ve shown:

     (1) that there is a convention dating from at least the late second century (!) (Melito) of counting Lamentations as part of Jeremiah;

     (2) that this convention was explicitly explained by Epiphanius and Jerome;

     (3) that this convention was still in use in the printing of Bibles just before the turn of the 16th century;

     (4) that Lamentations was used as scripture in the Divine Office as revised according to the decree of Trent;

     (5) that the 39 Articles observe the same convention (unless the Anglican Communion is now suspect of having rejected Lamentations, too!);

     (6) that none of the anti-Catholic controversialists (until you) saw fit to mention the omission of explicit mention of Lamentations; and

     (7) that the aforementioned convention still exists today (Stuttgart Vulgate).

     The simple explanation, of course, is that Trent did not need to “document its intent behind ‘Ieremias cum Baruch'” because no one had ever questioned the canonicity of Lamentations, it was a common convention to count it with Jeremiah, and so no one was in danger of taking “Ieremias cum Baruch” to exclude Lamentations (nor, indeed, the Epistle of Jeremiah). And, so far as I can tell, that’s precisely how everyone did read Trent, until your claim in comment 456.

     If I had a lot of time to burn, I imagine I could continue heaping up the documentary evidence that the Catholic Church never doubted the canonicity of Lamentations leading up to, during, or after the Council of Trent. But I don’t have that kind of time, and it seems a tedious task. On the other hand, if you can find me a complete sixteenth-century Catholic Bible that doesn’t have Lamentations in it, or some document that casts doubt on its canonicity, maybe that would be the beginning of a case for your interpretation.

     Blessings.

485. JD January 15th, 2014 12:55 am :

     Lojahw,

     I’m aware of the distinction. Part of my point with the Greek canon is to show it was not fixed, just as with the Hebrew. You approved of Jewish Encyclopedia differentiating between canon and bibles. Here is what it says on the Greek canon (note it says *canon*):
     “The formation of much of the Greek canon was thus coeval with the emergence of the Hebrew Bible as a sealed collection of sacred literature. The final product, however, diverged from the Hebrew – apart from the problem of the text – in two important respects. It adopted a different principle in the grouping and sequence of the biblical books, and it included works not accepted into the normative Hebrew canon. It must be understood, however, that, with the exception of a few fragments, all extant manuscripts of the Greek Bible are of Christian origin, and while it is reasonable to assume a Jewish prototype, the content and form of the Hellenistic Jewish canon cannot be known with certainty.”

     Cannot be known with certainty.

     “Whether there were splinter Jewish sects that agreed or disagreed with the mainstream of Judaism is irrelevant.”

     It’s quite relevant to your claim there was a unanimous fixed canon amongst Jews at Jesus’ time.

     “The existence of dissidents does not invalidate Josephus’s first century publication of the long-established Jewish canon.”

     You mean the Pharisaic canon, whom Josephus was a part of.

     You seem to like Jewish Encyclopedia:

     “At the same time, there is plenty of evidence to show that the collection of the Ketuvim as a whole, as well as some individual books within it, was not accepted as being finally closed until well into the second century C.E. As noted above, the practice of calling the entire Scriptures the “Torah and Prophets” presupposes a considerable lapse of time between the canonization of the second and third parts of the Bible. The fact that the last division had no fixed name points in the same direction…
     Other indications of lateness in Ketuvim are that the Song of Songs contains two Greek words, as does Daniel which even refers to the break-up of the Greek empire (by name 18:21; 11:2) and which most likely did not achieve its final form before approximately 167 B.C.E. Ben Sira (c. 180 B.C.E.), who shows familiarity with all other biblical books, does not mention Daniel or Esther. The latter book, in fact, seems not to have been accepted among the sectarians of Qumran; at least no fragments of it have yet turned up among the scrolls from the Judean Desert. Indeed, that there was once a certain reserve in respect of the sanctity of the Book of Esther is apparent from rabbinic discussion (Meg. 7a; cf. Sanh. 100a).

     The ambivalent attitude on the part of the rabbis to the Wisdom of Ben Sira is highly significant. The fact that in the middle of the second century C.E. it was necessary to emphasize the uncanonical status of this book (Tosef., Yad. 2:13) and to forbid its reading (TJ, Sanh. 10:1, 28a) proves that the corpus of Ketuvim was still fluid at this time, and that Ben Sira had acquired a measure of sanctity in the popular consciousness. Despite the ban, the book continued to achieve wide circulation. The amoraim even quote from it, employing the introductory terminology otherwise exclusively reserved for Scripture (cf. Nid. 16b di-khetiv; Ber. 55b she-ne’emar). In one instance, a third-generation Babylonian amora actually cites Ben Sira as Ketuvim as opposed to Torah and Prophets (BK 92b).”

     Barber says “the notion of a universally accepted “Palestinian canon” is a myth and flies in the face of all the historical evidence.” (and cites sources) one of which is VanderKam who concludes, “As nearly as we can tell, there was no canon of Scripture in Second Temple Judaism.”
     What historical scholars/works do you use to justify your position?

486. Nick Trosclair January 15th, 2014 1:31 am :

     Hi Lojahw, (re: #477)

     Thank you for your helpful response.

     If the founders of the church recognize a book as canonical, then should not all Christians? That covers most of the OT as well as Paul’s epistles (per 2 Pet 3:15) and the Gospel of Luke (cf. 1 Tim. 5:18).

     That makes sense. However, we do not know who wrote 2nd Peter, as most scholars date its composition to the 2nd century.

     I also believe it is plausible that either Paul or the apostle Barnabas wrote Hebrews – since they are both apostles, it is not necessary to know which wrote it. In any case, 1 Clement (near contemporary Christian leader) quotes Hebrews with the authoritative formula, “it is written.” There is no evidence to deny its authentic preservation of apostolic teaching, the Church has accepted it, and the Holy Spirit bears witness to the truths it teaches about Christ and the New Covenant in His blood. Hence I accept it.

     The early Christians were not so sure about its faithfulness to apostolic teaching. In fact, many Christians were wary of its inclusion in the canon. The author was not an eyewitness of our Lord (Heb. 2:3); the author seems to state that if one willfully sins he may not be forgiven (Heb. 6:4-6/10:26); he also implies that Christ was not always perfect (Heb. 1:5/2:10) etc. Now, these are not difficulties after one understands the book within the context of the whole deposit of faith, but, prima facie, we can see why many were wary of the book. So, ultimately, I accept it as God’s inspired Word because the Church has revealed that is God’s Word. There seems to be no other reason for believing that it is the inspired Word of God. Would you agree that only the final decision of the Church enables the Christian to clearly discern the canonical status of Hebrews? I ask the question because I am not quite sure if you are saying that you trust the Church’s decision regarding the canon because the Church agrees with your assessment of the canon or because you believe that the Church could not have erred in it decision.

     Interestingly, F.F. Bruce denied that Clement of Rome quotes the book of Hebrews as Scripture. Writes Bruce, “Some histories of the New Testament canon have not made it sufficiently plain that for a book to be known and quoted is not tantamount to its being received as canonical. This distinction is well illustrated by the history of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the west. So far as extant records go, it was known and quoted in the west some decades before it was known in the east, but the west was slow in according it canonical status. Clement of Rome knows it so well that he weaves its language into his own, but there is no suggestion in his letter that Hebrews is regarded as canonical or apostolic.” (The Epistle to the Hebrews, Eerdmans Publishing, 23)

     BTW – the distinction between “development” and “recognition,” is that recognition of Scripture takes what is already written and ascribes it the authority it is due as God’s word. Development as used by your Church implies going beyond what is written to define new doctrines not taught by the apostles (e.g., Mary’s immaculate conception; veneration of images, etc.).

     You are assuming that all of the apostles’ teachings are explicitly contained within the Scriptures. The Scriptures and the Church claim the opposite.

     Development is does not entail additional, extrinsic doctrines, but explicit recognition of what had always been implicit. As to your example, just as the Trinity was not explicitly formulated in the first century yet was taught by the apostles, so too the immaculate conception was taught by the apostles although not yet explicitly formulated.

     God bless,
     Nick T.

487. Nick Trosclair January 15th, 2014 1:55 am :

     Hi John D, (re: #478 and 479)

     Thank you for your helpful responses. As to my claim that the protestant could in principle reject a doctrine universally accepted by the Church, you wrote:

     I think you make a good point in that first sentence. But, it’s unfair to simply suggest sola scriptura is “lurking behind” their patristic/historical arguments without refuting their arguments (not that this is the point of this post).

     In principle, a protestant may reject a particular dogma universally accepted by the primitive Church. What principle besides the doctrine of sola scriptura would justify the protestant in rejecting what the Church has universally accepted as divine revelation?

     I think the best Protestant arguments are what Robert explains above when he said: For Kruger and White it is based on three mutually reinforcing ideas: 1. Internal divine qualities 2. Corporate reception 3. Apostolic association. For the Protestant, Hebrews satisfies all of these tests of the early Church. Perhaps you would argue it does not satisfy 3 since it is anonymous, but it does circulate in the bundle of St. Paul’s letters as early as they appear to circulate together. Also, traditional Catholic documents affirm Pauline authorship of Hebrews. At the very least, the book was associated with St. Paul very early.

     I am not sure what “internal divine qualities” looks like. For example, some of the Old Testament books do not come across as having the stamp of divine qualities. Indeed many passages of the New Testament have no discernible divine characteristics.

     “Apostolic association” does not entail canonical status. Clement of Rome and many others were associated with the apostles but were not included in the canon.

     Ultimately, it seems that none of these criteria allow the Christian to discern what is canonical from what is not canonical. And what is not discernible cannot be an object of the intellectual assent of faith. Only the Church who is led by the Holy Spirit makes possible the firm assent of faith because it alone clearly promulgates what books must be accepted as the Word of God.

     Your question reveals the paradigm difference. A Reformed Protestant does not “get from” historical reliability to inspiration. He starts with faith in the Word of God because it claims to be God’s Word and his trust is in that claim.

     Many sources claim to be God’s Word. We must not believe all of them. We must discern which ones are authentically inspired from those that are not.

     For the Catholic, this might appear to be an unacceptable fideism. Nonetheless, the Reformed can produce arguments like “3 mutually reinforcing ideas” to show that their faith does not contradict reason. But, it is obviously not those “3 mutually reinforcing ideas” that make Scripture what it is. Then again, for the Catholic, neither is it the conciliar recognition which makes the Scripture inspired, rather that is just what allows for authoritative identification of what Scripture is.

     Well said. The Church recognizes the inspiration of the Scriptures; she does not cause their inspiration.

     In the end, it seems the Reformed accept the idea that God will guide His Church to recognize His Word, but that this can be done without extending Apostolic authority to bishops and councils. Just some more food for thought.

     It is inconsistent to trust that God would lead his Church to recognize the canon of Scripture but abandon her when she recognizes other doctrines, such as the authority of bishops and councils. Why do you trust that God guided the Church in its decisions regarding the contents of the canon, while also believing that he can abandon her when it comes to the doctrines of the faith? (Please correct me if I have misrepresented your position.)

     Thank you for your thorough and transparent responses, John.

     God bless,
     Nick T.

488. Lojahw January 15th, 2014 9:55 am :

     You can relax, JDS.

     I have conceded that Trent probably implied Lamentations in listing Jeremiah in its canon, based on the preponderance of evidence, including the fifteenth century MS where Lamentations is appended to Jeremiah rather than following Baruch, as it had in earlier centuries.

     However, I do think you are reading too much into Trent Session 6:

     when it is said in the sacred writings: “Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you,” we are admonished of our liberty when we answer; “Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted,” we confess that we are prevented by the grace of God.

     The form is: when it is said in the sacred writings: A, . . . we answer: B. It is stretching the point to claim that because B happens to be found in Lam. 5:21, that the delegates at Trent authoritatively cited B as “sacred writings.” The wording simply says “we answer,” not “we answer as the holy scriptures say:”

     BTW – historically, “sacred writings” were understood by the church fathers to include both canonical and ecclesiastical books. Trent decided not to rule on the debate between Jerome and Augustine on these two categories:

     Hubert Jedin reports: “The majority agreed with the opinion of the general of the Servites, that controverted theological questions [such as the relative authority of the books listed in the canon], which had already been the subject of discussion between Augustine and Jerome, should not be decided by the Council, but should be allowed to remain open questions.” [see .A History of the Council of Trent. Vol. 2. Translated by Dom Ernest Graf. St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1961.]

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

489. Tom Brown January 15th, 2014 10:31 pm :

     Around time 41:30 in the video Bryan posted above, Kruger makes this argument: early unity within the Church regarding part of the canon of the New Testament presents a problem for Catholics because it demonstrates that unity is possible apart from infallible [Catholic] Church declarations.

     The earliest generation of the Church sat at the feet of the Apostles, receiving their teaching directly. Their children were taught the substance of the deposit of the faith by the successors to the Apostles. Even after some passage of time, the overseers (bishops) and presbyters (priests) were in agreement as to the veracity of the writings of the Apostles. This would only present a problem for the Catholic Church’s teaching about the teaching authority of the Magisterium if we assume that the overseers and presbyters were not Catholic. Thus, Kruger has begged the question in making his argument.

     While it is beyond the scope of the present article (and so this combox) to debate whether the early overseers and presbyters were Catholic (or, to be more clear, whether they understood authority within the Church as modern Catholic bishops do), it is worth noting that if they were Catholic, then the early unity presents a problem for Protestant understandings regarding canon. It would mean that agreement about the canon did not form person-by-person based on the type of intensive historical studies men like “Lojahow” have been privileged enough and intelligent enough to undertake. Rather it formed as Catholics understand other (theological) beliefs to have formed — through learning at the feet of the bishops, which bishops were able to remain united in truth by the Holy Spirit.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

490. JDS January 16th, 2014 2:32 am :

     Dear Lojahw,

     You wrote: “I have conceded that Trent probably implied Lamentations in listing Jeremiah in its canon…”

     In #483 you had written, “It seems to me to be a draw. . .”, which led me to believe that you had made no such concession. “Probably” still does not seem to me to correspond with the evidence that’s been presented. But thanks for the clarification.

     You wrote: “However, I do think you are reading too much into Trent Session 6.”

     Very well. I suppose I would start by responding with a tu quoque: I think you’re putting too much weight on the rhetorical form used in the document. The respondemus (“we answer”) is not a technical term distinguishing the quote’s canonical status from that of the Zechariah verse, but simply a rhetorical device of taking holy scripture on “our” own lips. It is certainly not a technical term for introducing liturgical phrases the way scriptum est or the equivalent is often a technical term for scriptural citations.

     But I’ll go beyond that to a positive case. It is not the practice of Councils always and in every case to tag scripture quotations as such explicitly. Just browse through the rest of that same Session. Chapter 4, for instance, just prior to the passage we’re discussing, cites scripture twice, once introduced with scriptum est, once with the scriptural text simply woven into the text of the Council. Is only one of those “explicitly” a citation? If not, then why the suspicion about Lam 5.21, since you now admit that it is meant to be included in Session IV’s list?

     And, while we’re at it, it occurs to me that you may be misreading the syntax in Session VI, ch. 5. Note the sentence structure in Latin:

     Unde in sacris litteris
     cum dicitur: Convertimini ad me, et ego convertar ad vos: [Zech 1.3]
     libertatis nostræ admonemur.
     Cum respondemus: Converte nos, Domine, ad te, et convertemur: [Lam 5.21]
     Dei nos gratia præveniri confitemur.

     Notice the parallels? In sacris litteris applies to both parts. The whole point here is that “in sacred scripture” (in sacris litteris) one encounters testimonies both to human freedom (with which Zechariah exhorts us) and to the dependence of our freedom on prevenient grace (which we confess in the scriptural words of Lamentations, just as we make our own the prayers of the Psalms and other parts of scripture). I certainly think that taking the Lam 5.21 citation as a scriptural one (since Trent did take Lam as scripture after all) is a far more natural and common-sense reading than postulating that it is merely a “liturgical tradition” that just so happens to be a verbatim quotation from a canonical text of the Bible. I’m puzzled by your reluctance to see this.

     The Jedin quote is interesting, and I’m grateful for your sharing it, but I have to say I have difficulty squaring his interpretation with the text of the Council itself, which reads, “But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical [pro sacris et canonicis], the said books entire with all their parts, […] let him be anathema.” Perhaps there’s a way to make this cohere with taking that deuterocanonicals as canon morum but not canon fidei, but it’s hard to imagine how, especially since this section of Session IV is concerned with establishing “what testimonies and authorities [the Council] will mainly use in confirming dogmas [ confirmandis dogmatibus], and in restoring morals [instaurandis…moribus] in the Church.” That sure seems to be a clear statement that all the books listed, deuterocanonicals included, avail for the establishment of dogma, not just for fostering a Christian way of life.

     In any case, I’m really not sure what the Jedin quote has to do with the inclusion of Lamentations under “Ieremias cum Baruch,” which was the only point for which I entered the conversation. Since you now accept its inclusion (as you do, I presume, and quite rightly, in the case of Article VI of the 39 Articles), I’ll now take my leave.

     Blessings in Christ.

491. Lojahw January 16th, 2014 6:40 pm :

     JD –
     Your quote about the Greek canon from the Jewish Encyclopedia states:
     “The formation of much of the Greek canon was thus coeval with the emergence of the Hebrew Bible as a sealed collection of sacred literature.”
     What this is saying is that from a Jewish perspective the Greek canon (i.e., the LXX) was “coeval” as a sealed collection of sacred literature. I.e., it was assumed to include the same “twenty-two” books as the Hebrew canon. The JE then says that the “final product,” i.e., the Greek Bible – under Christian control – “adopted a different principle in the grouping and sequence of the biblical books, and it included works not accepted into the normative Hebrew canon.” This is an accurate description of what the Christians did with the LXX. The JE then correctly states: “with the exception of a few fragments [i.e., those few fragments found at Qumran], all extant manuscripts of the Greek Bible are of Christian origin.”

     The Jewish Encyclopedia clearly is talking about two diverging “Bibles” – the Hebrew and the Christian. It in no way endorses what the Christians did with the LXX collection.

     The background about the Ketuvin (the “Writings”) being finalized in the second century CE, is that the Jews had to reorganize their Scriptures around a liturgical calendar that could no longer involve Jerusalem and the Temple because of their destruction in AD 70 and the crushing Roman defeat of the subsequent Bar Kochba rebellion (AD 132-136). As a result, the Jews designated five small books, the Megillot, for liturgical events no longer dependent on Jerusalem: Song of Songs (Passover), Ruth (Pentecost), Lamentations (the destruction of Jerusalem), Ecclesiastes (Tabernacles), and Esther (Purim). As such, these books needed a place other than the Law and the Prophets. Two of these, Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes, were already separated from the Law and the Prophets.
     By creating this liturgical section, Ruth and Lamentations and Esther were moved from the Prophets (Ruth and Lamentations previously paired with Judges and Jeremiah, respectively; and Esther being counted as one of 13 in Josephus’ list of prophets). As things settled out, the Jews also moved six other books from the prophets to the Ketuvin: Job, Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah, and 1 and 2 Chronicles. Daniel actually straddled two categories by being an administrator in a pagan kingdom as well as being a prophet. The other five made sense to move out of the prophets proper.

     I bring this up to point out that the reorganization of books between categories of the Hebrew Canon in no way changed the total number of canonical books. The fact that the Ketuvin as organized today didn’t finalize until the second century does NOT mean the Hebrew canon itself added or removed any books. Discussions among rabbis about how to treat other Jewish sacred literation also is not relevant to the Hebrew canon.

     I take Barber with a grain of salt. There are many more competent scholars than he on this subject.

     I hope this is helpful.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

492. Lojahw January 16th, 2014 7:14 pm :

     Thank you for your detailed response, Nick.

     Re: the authorship of 2 Peter – if we accept everything scholars write, we should also reject the Pauline authorship of half of his letters as well as the traditional authors of half the books in the Bible. Having read both sides of many of these arguments, I remain convinced of the authenticity of all the books of both testaments (but this is well beyond the scope of this thread). BTW – 1 Clement 23:3 paraphrastically quotes 2 Pet 3:4 as “scripture” (a first century authoritative citation.)

     Re: disputes about Hebrews, you are correct that some early Christians could not reconcile their personal interpretations of certain passages with their beliefs, but theological reflection within the Christian community overcame those early objections. E.g., Hebrews 6 is consistent with Jesus’ parable of the sower: the seed may start to grow in some cases only to die away. I agree that it is necessary for the Body of Christ to recognize Scripture, and that that process in some cases appears to have taken more than a century.

     Your challenge on 1 Clement and Hebrews prompted me to re-examine it. In 36.1-2 he clearly quotes Hebrews 1:3-4 (without a formula), following that in 36.3 with “it is thus written” quoting Hebrews 1:7 and then 36.4 quotes Heb. 1:5. I had considered this group of verses to be an authoritative citation, recognizing that the NT authors do not always follow the order of their sources. However, F. F. Bruce may have a point, since 36.3-4 could be taken as quotes from Psalms 104 and 110, respectively. At any rate, 1 Clement seems to place Hebrews solidly in the first century.

     On the other hand, I don’t share your optimism that the Church is always right. The Apocalypse of Peter and the Shepherd of Hermas were recognized as canonical by some, as well as 1 Enoch and 4 Esdras (e.g., Ambrose). The same criteria that disqualified them applies to some of the deuteros. As I’ve stated elsewhere, it seems incoherent to claim that “Elvis impersonators” have given us “the Word of the Lord.”

     Re: Recognition vs. Development, are you serious about the Trinity being unrecognizable in Scripture?

     Isa. 48:12-13, 16: “I am the first, I am also the last. Surely My hand founded the earth, and My right hand spread out the heavens… From the time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord Yahweh has sent Me, and His Spirit. [The Lord Yahweh has sent the first and the last, the one who founded the earth and spread out the seas; cf. Rev. 1:17-18]

     Matt. 28:19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”

     Luke 1:35 “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.”

     John 15:26 When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me. [Only deity can “send” deity.]

     Eph. 2:17-18 And He [Jesus] came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father.

     The above are five clearly Trinitarian passages of Scripture. On the other hand, what do Scripture or any of the church fathers nearest the apostles say about Mary’s conception or “implied” sinlessness? There’s no comparison. Moreover, Rom. 5:12 teaches, “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned. . .” Scripture is clear that Jesus did not die for His own sins, but for ours (cf. Rom 4:25; 1 Cor. 15:3; 1 John 2:2; 1 Pet. 3:18; Rev. 1:5). For whose sins did Mary die?

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

493. Lojahw January 16th, 2014 7:22 pm :

     Ok, JDS –
     No point in any further discussion – this dialogue has taken its course.

     You should just write me off because I’m clearly anathematized by Trent.

     Peace,
     Lojahw

494. Tom Brown January 16th, 2014 7:49 pm :

     Dear “Lojahw,”

     I think a book-by-book or pericope-by-pericope historical debate is of only limited benefit in this combox. The Canon Question article, above, doesn’t suggest that any one book is or is not within the canon on account of specific historical evidence. Rather, it questions the criteria by which Christians know the identity of revealed truth, and the authority to define the criteria for canonicity in the first place. I do see benefit in the debate when using historical lessons as examples to explore how one or another proposed criterion plays out in practice. But I’m not sure there is benefit in this combox beyond that.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

495. John Thayer Jensen January 16th, 2014 8:22 pm :

     Lojahw (#491)

     What this is saying is that from a Jewish perspective the Greek canon (i.e., the LXX) was “coeval” as a sealed collection of sacred literature. I.e., it was assumed to include the same “twenty-two” books as the Hebrew canon.

     FWIW – not sure it affects any argument – but coaeval/coeval doesn’t mean ‘having the same contents;’ it means ‘existing at the same time.’

     jj

496. Lojahw January 16th, 2014 8:56 pm :

     Dear Tom,
     You wrote:
     the early unity presents a problem for Protestant understandings regarding canon. It would mean that agreement about the canon did not form person-by-person based on the type of intensive historical studies men like “Lojahow” have been privileged enough and intelligent enough to undertake.

     Thank you for your generous complement; you have been a very gracious host. I also want to thank you for inspiring me to research and write my master’s thesis on canonicity. I learned a great deal in the process, and I’ve benefited from the dialogues on your combox.

     On the other hand, I don’t know how to relate your comments about unity and person-to-person to the canon. Four centuries of unchallenged canonical tradition citing a “twenty-two” book canon sounds pretty unified to me. For centuries, the Christians closest to the apostles sat at the feet of bishops who taught the special status of the “twenty-two” books, distinct from the “second rank” of “ecclesiastical” books, or sacred literature. It seems significant to me that this period has special value regarding discerning which books the Apostles handed down with canonical authority.

     The first criterion of canonicity is truth (“Your Word is Truth”), and the facts of history must be considered when discerning truth. Do you agree or disagree, and if the latter, why?

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

497. JohnD January 16th, 2014 9:35 pm :

     Nick T. (re: #487)

     Thanks for your reply.

     In principle, a protestant may reject a particular dogma universally accepted by the primitive Church. What principle besides the doctrine of sola scriptura would justify the protestant in rejecting what the Church has universally accepted as divine revelation?

     That makes sense. Is it also true that, in principle, the RC Church could define doctrine without reference to Scripture or universal acceptance in the primitive church?

     I am not sure what “internal divine qualities” looks like. For example, some of the Old Testament books do not come across as having the stamp of divine qualities. Indeed many passages of the New Testament have no discernible divine characteristics.

     It appears that “internal divine quality” is synonymous with or close to “self-authenticating quality”. Kruger explains that many early Church fathers believed Scripture had this special quality. Here’s a snippet: https://michaeljkruger.com/ten-basic-facts-about-the-nt-that-every-christian-should-memorize-early-christians-believed-that-canonical-books-were-self-authenticating/.

     “Apostolic association” does not entail canonical status. Clement of Rome and many others were associated with the apostles but were not included in the canon.

     Clement fails the “Apostolic association” criteria because the material does not (nor does it claim to) come from the hand/mouth of an Apostle. For example, Mark is said to have been commissioned by (and got his material from) the Apostle Peter to write his Gospel. The same with Luke getting commissioned by St. Paul (some even speculate Hebrews is a transcript of St. Paul’s preaching recorded by Luke).

     Ultimately, it seems that none of these criteria allow the Christian to discern what is canonical from what is not canonical. And what is not discernible cannot be an object of the intellectual assent of faith. Only the Church who is led by the Holy Spirit makes possible the firm assent of faith because it alone clearly promulgates what books must be accepted as the Word of God.

     You seem to dismiss the idea of “mutually reinforcing” tests for canonicity. Even if no single criterion, by itself, allows for discernment of the canon, the 3 criterion proposed by Kruger and White (and used by the early Church they argue) reveals the New Testament quite clearly. If you think otherwise, please specify a book in the NT that fails the criteria or a book outside the NT that passes the criteria.

     Moreover, the *White Question* points out how Jews were able to discern the canon without a visible, infallible magisterium. So, it appears God’s Word can be discerned apart from the RC visible church, right

     It is inconsistent to trust that God would lead his Church to recognize the canon of Scripture but abandon her when she recognizes other doctrines, such as the authority of bishops and councils.

     Unless the person holding to such a position defends the premise that the canon of Scripture is in a different category than other doctrines. White and Kruger, as sola scriptura advocates, would defend precisely such a premise. They would argue true doctrine must be shown from Scripture, and that reveals Scripture and the canon is in its own category in Protestant thinking. It is not a doctrine alongside others. It is the foundation from which all doctrine is derived. It appears to me that you presuppose a Catholic paradigm when calling the Protestants inconsistent. On a Protestant sola scriptura paradigm, it is not inconsistent to place the canon in a separate category (“an artifact of revelation” as some call it). On a Catholic paradigm (with the FPOF as the STM – thanks to Mike Liccione for teaching those terms so clearly), it would be inconsistent to place the canon separate from other doctrines accepted by the universal Church.

     Why do you trust that God guided the Church in its decisions regarding the contents of the canon, while also believing that he can abandon her when it comes to the doctrines of the faith? (Please correct me if I have misrepresented your position.)

     It’s actually not my position. I am merely trying to present the Reformed arguments accurately.

     Peace,
     John D.

498. Lojahw January 16th, 2014 11:38 pm :

     Dear Tom,

     You say you want to discuss “The criteria by which Christians know the identity of revealed truth.”

     Ok, one criterion of canonicity defined by the Apostle Paul is “All Scripture is God-breathed.” That implies that all Scripture reflects God’s character (which is consistent with specific criteria identified elsewhere by the founders of the Church: e.g., God cannot lie; God’s Word is Truth; God’s Word is everlasting; God’s Word is inalterable).

     Criteria both qualify and disqualify things from consideration, yet CtC participants have refused to discuss the negative implications of the above criterion for the books under consideration.

     The Reformers certainly recognized both the positive and negative implications of the criteria of canonicity. If you really want to discuss the criteria of canonicity – which is the subject of the article, can we do it fairly and openly?

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

499. Tom Brown January 17th, 2014 12:06 am :

     Dear “Lojahw,”

     You and I have discussed before the idea that St. Augustine wrought a change. It’s an historical opinion faced with opposing historical opinion. Likewise are the historical opinions on how to count texts, as has come up here before (above). Can we only come to a degree of agreement on the canon, sufficient to bind consciences, by way of immersion in historical sources sufficient to allow a conclusion on the accuracy or inaccuracy of your historical opinion? Graduate-level canon historians won’t all agree. So would it take doctoral studies?

     Of course, no quantum of studying yields universal agreement. So you’re left having to identify your criterion. “What preaches Christ” is not a self-executing or self-interpreting rule. It only pushes the question back.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

500. John Thayer Jensen January 17th, 2014 2:36 am :

     Lojahw (#498)

     Ok, one criterion of canonicity defined by the Apostle Paul is “All Scripture is God-breathed.” That implies that all Scripture reflects God’s character (which is consistent with specific criteria identified elsewhere by the founders of the Church: e.g., God cannot lie; God’s Word is Truth; God’s Word is everlasting; God’s Word is inalterable).

     Isn’t this rather circular? You don’t know if a writing is God-breathed unless you know it is Scripture. And you say you know it is Scripture because it is God-breathed.

     For the matter of that, you know God’s character from revelation – but you have to know what is and what is not revelation in order to know God’s character.

     jj

501. Benjamin Keil January 17th, 2014 9:51 am :

     Dear “Lojahw” (re: 498),

     [O]ne criterion of canonicity defined by the Apostle Paul is “All Scripture is God-breathed.”

     That strikes me as a dangerously ambiguous position to hold. The quotation you identify comes from 2 Timothy, but of course we can’t antecedently know whether or not 2 Timothy is canonical. So you could mean: A) “A sufficient condition of canonicity is that a text is identical to 2 Timothy” (then use 2 Timothy’s canonicity to bootstrap yourself into the “all Scripture is God-breathed” criterion, and then use the “God-breathed” criterion to derive the canonicity of the other 65 or 71 books). I’d be surprised if that’s what you meant, though, since the first principle (i.e., 2 Timothy’s canonicity) is utterly arbitrary.

     Alternatively, you could mean B) “A sufficient condition of canonicity is that a text T is God-breathed” (then use this to epistemically boostrap yourself into knowing that 2 Timothy and the other 65 or 71 books are canonical). If B) is what you’re after, then your first principle doesn’t rest on Paul’s say-so at all (and hence your appeal to Paul is vapid). Maybe Tom can comment here more knowledgably than I, but I believe as a metaphysical principle Catholics can accept something like B). But (and I take it that this is a point of Tom’s article), B) doesn’t help us epistemically; that is, even if you and I agree that “All Scripture is God-breathed”, we’re going to disagree about whether or not Ecclesiasticus is God-breathed. And, more worrisomely, if there is no authoritative resolution to whether or not a given text T is God-breathed, then we’re back with the fallible list of infallible books. (Maybe you’re o.k. with that? Our last interaction left me puzzled as to whether you think a fallible Biblical canon would or wouldn’t be a bad thing. To lay my own cards on the table it should suffice to say that if Protestantism entails a fallible Biblical canon, then the project of deriving Christian orthodoxy and distinguishing it from heterodoxy seems D.O.A.)

     Yours Sincerely,
     ~Benjamin

502. JDS January 17th, 2014 10:12 am :

     Dear Lojahw,

     Clearly I have offended you. Please forgive me.

     You said, I believe sarcastically: “No point in any further discussion – this dialogue has taken its course.”

     I take it that this is in response to my “taking my leave” at the end of my last comment. I did not intend thereby to block a response from you regarding Jedin’s interpretation of Trent Session IV and the difficulties I see in the text of the Council itself for accepting his interpretation. To the contrary, please take my exit as an invitation to have the last word on the subject, which was introduced belatedly and as an aside (you prefaced it in #488 with “By the way”).

     You then said: “You should just write me off…”

     Lojahw, this has nothing to do with you personally. As I said before, I entered the conversation to discuss one very small point about the canon defined by Trent, i.e., whether it “fallibly forgot” (your words in #456) to include Lamentations. I’m sorry that I’m unable to pursue the other topics you’ve proposed to me, but to everything there is a season, and I’m afraid I simply can’t invest any more time in those topics at the moment. I apologize if that disappoints or offends you, but for me it’s a question of prudent use of the time God has allotted me.

     Finally, you said: “…because I’m clearly anathematized by Trent.”

     To be sure, IF the Council of Trent is an authentic articulation of the divine revelation entrusted to the Apostles, and IF one willfully rejects that articulation, knowing it to be authentic or in culpable ignorance of that fact, then one has put oneself in a very serious position of rebellion indeed. However, even if I had some way of being certain that such was your case, I would by no means “write you off.” As it is, I make no claim to read your heart, and I wish you every blessing in Christ Jesus our Lord. You have my prayers and goodwill.

503. Lojahw January 17th, 2014 10:22 am :

     John D wrote:
     Mark is said to have been commissioned by (and got his material from) the Apostle Peter to write his Gospel. The same with Luke getting commissioned by St. Paul (some even speculate Hebrews is a transcript of St. Paul’s preaching recorded by Luke).

     Ultimately, it seems that none of these criteria allow the Christian to discern what is canonical from what is not canonical. And what is not discernible cannot be an object of the intellectual assent of faith.

     The criteria that best apply to Mark’s and Luke’s Gospels is not so much their association with the Apostles (as stated, Clement of Rome also was associated with the Apostles, as were Papias and Polycarp), but more because they authentically recorded the teaching of Jesus, who promised “My words shall not pass away.” This authenticity is attested from the earliest days of the church as well as the overall consistency of their accounts with Matthew’s. As for the criterion that applies to Acts, Luke authentically records the teaching of the Apostles Peter and Paul.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

504. Lojahw January 17th, 2014 10:25 am :

     Dear Tom,

     You wrote: . “What preaches Christ” is not a self-executing or self-interpreting rule. It only pushes the question back.

     I never posed the above as the ultimate criterion for recognizing Scriptures. Could you please respond to my post in #498.

     JJ: It is not a circular argument to assess a work’s consistency with the criteria of canonicity before deciding whether it should be considered to be a candidate for canonicity – that’s the point of criteria.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

505. Devin Rose January 17th, 2014 4:34 pm :

     Lojahw,

     Dr. Law points out that Josephus relied heavily on the Greek Septuagint version of Esther, quoting several of the Greek additions to/differences from the Masoretic Hebrew. Josephus incorporated the Greek additions and changes for the greater historical accuracy they provided, as well as the increased pious/religious content, since the shorter version of Esther is well known for not referencing God.

     He also addresses Josephus’ list and argues that some people put too much confidence in it, since if the Old Testament were universally recognized, there would have been no need for Christian writers in the first four centuries to issue canon lists and discuss them. Yet in fact many differing canonical lists were put forward in those first four centuries by Christians, demonstrating that there was no universally agreed upon Old Testament canon.

     Realize he is not “pro-Catholic” or “pro-Protestant” here. He is just looking at the different sources and data and evidence and pointing out what they logically lead to. It just so happens that they support the Catholic position on the Old Testament canon compared with the Protestant position.

     Devin

506. Lojahw January 17th, 2014 8:20 pm :

     Dear JDS – no offense taken and none intended.

     Peace,
     Lojahw

507. Lojahw January 17th, 2014 8:22 pm :

     Benjamin,
     I apologize for not being more clear – Tim. 3:16 simply provides a nice summary of the characteristics of Scripture: the term “God-breathed” implies Scripture reflects the character of God. e.g.,

     The founders of the Church attest that:
     1. God’s Word is Truth (John 17:17; cf. Psa. 119:160; John 16:13;
     because – God cannot lie, Tit 1:2; cf. Psa. 101:7;
     and because God is light, 1 John 1:5; cf. John 3:19-21;
     God’s word does not contradict itself, Deut. 13:1-3; Gal. 1:8-9);
     2. God’s Word is everlasting (Matt. 5:18; 24:35; Isa. 40:8; 1 Pet. 1:25;
     reflecting that God is eternal, Psa. 90:2; Rom. 16:26);
     3. God’s Word is inalterable (Psa. 89:34; Prov. 30:5-6; cf. Deut. 12:32; Rev. 22:18-19;
     reflectiing that God is unchanging, Mal. 3:6; Isa. 55:11; Jas. 1:17).
     4. God’s Word is holy because He is holy (cf. Lev. 19:2; Psa. 18:30; Isa. 5:24)

     Of course, Jesus declared all authentic records of His own teaching for posterity to be canonical – hence the Gospels; and the same for His Apostles’ teaching (e.g., John 16:13). And Paul declared the authority of the Jews to recognize their own Scriptures (cf. Rom. 3:1-2). Furthermore, the founders of the Church already identified most of the Biblical canon, for which the above criteria are true.

     The above criteria are necessary, but the testimony of the Holy Spirit in the community of faith is the final arbiter. However, any book that is substantially deficient in one or more of the above criteria by definition cannot be a candidate for recognition as Scripture.

     The notion of an infallible canon is a very recent phenomenon. Since the Church didn’t claim one for most of its existence (well over a millennium), why is it so important to you now? If you are so keen on infallibility, how do you defend the deuteros vis-à-vis the above criteria of canonicity defined by the founders of the Church?

     BTW – it is self-defeating for you to argue against the authenticity of 2 Tim.; 2 Pet.; etc. I have plenty of arguments in their favor (beyond the scope of this combox). If they are authentic, then they are canonical because Jesus vested that authority in the Apostles, including the one “untimely born.”

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

508. Lojahw January 17th, 2014 9:33 pm :

     Dear Devin,

     You’re not telling me anything I haven’t already heard or didn’t already know. The additions to Esther (mostly, purported letters) are quite reasonable for Josephus to cite in his history of the Jews. Moses cites the Book of Jashar and the Book of the Wars of the Lord. So what? Neither use – particularly as historical collateral – implies canonicity. Josephus also tells the tale of the guardsmen in 3 Esdras and draws from many sources beyond the Maccabees for that portion of his history. Do you think, therefore, all the sources Josephus used should be considered to be Scripture?

     The argument against Josephus’s canon doesn’t hold water for the simple reason that he did not explicitly name each of the “twenty-two” books. Second, Josephus was not on the top ten list of popular authors for Christians. The Greek and Latin church fathers published their canons because Christians couldn’t read Hebrew and they didn’t know which of the 50+ books in the LXX were considered divinely authoritative. The confusion of the church fathers for which books the Jews considered to be part of “Jeremiah” and not knowing that Ruth was appended to the scroll of Judges explains ALL of the variations among their own “twenty-two” book canons.

     I hope this helps.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

509. John Thayer Jensen January 17th, 2014 9:40 pm :

     Lojahw (#504)

     JJ: It is not a circular argument to assess a work’s consistency with the criteria of canonicity before deciding whether it should be considered to be a candidate for canonicity – that’s the point of criteria.

     But you didn’t say anything about assessing a work’s consistency with the criteria of canonicity. You said that a criterion of canonicity was the work’s being ‘God-breathed.’ Its God-breathed character was said to be itself a criterion of canonicity. But I don’t see how you can know that a work is God-breathed except by knowing that it is part of the canon. How do you know a work is God-breathed if not by knowing that it is part of the canon?

     jj

510. Tom Brown January 17th, 2014 11:24 pm :

     Dear “Lojahw,”

     I’m not sure to what you hope to hear a response. Perhaps we’re in a dance where (A) I’m hoping to see you appreciate that you cannot articulate the criterion for canonicity in a conscience-binding way, or even without being ad hoc or circular; while (B) you’re hoping to see me appreciate certain historical deficiencies you believe you’re extensive studies have led you to see in the Catholic position. I’m not easily bated by comments such as a challenge to my willingness to discuss fairly and openly. The circumstance is that this combox is to discuss the Canon Question as it has been answered within a sola scriptura paradigm, not to discuss a tu quoque about Catholics vs. history.

     I commend Benjamin’s comment:

     And, more worrisomely, if there is no authoritative resolution to whether or not a given text T is God-breathed, then we’re back with the fallible list of infallible books.

     And your response is noteworthy:

     The notion of an infallible canon is a very recent phenomenon. Since the Church didn’t claim one for most of its existence (well over a millennium), why is it so important to you now?

     This does not seem consistent with a Reformed position. Would you agree that you are not necessarily in the main here, relative to Reformed denominations? I could comment more, but I think it might be helpful to identify first whether you think this is or is not a confessional Reformed view.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

511. Lojahw January 18th, 2014 12:24 am :

     Dear Tom,
     You wrote: “you cannot articulate the criterion for canonicity in a conscience-binding way, or even without being ad hoc or circular.”

     Please explain how the criteria of canonicity that I have brought forward for consideration, being articulated by the founders of the Church (I have provided plenty of references):

     a) are not conscience-binding, in the sense that books that fail the criteria cannot be accepted in good conscience as canonical

     b) circular

     Re: conscience-binding. The conscience of every Christian should be bound for:

     a) the books which the founders of the Church (according to the authentic records of their time) recognize as canonical.
     b) the books which authentically preserve the teaching of Jesus and His apostles, confirmed by the testimony of the Holy Spirit in the greater Body of Christ
     c) the books which the Jews recognize as canonical (inferred from (a) above, Luke 24:44-45, and Rom. 3:1-2), confirmed by the testimony of the Holy Spirit in the greater Body of Christ

     JJ – the above, as well as my previous post to Benjamin, should address your questions.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

512. Lojahw January 18th, 2014 10:53 am :

     Dear Tom, et al.

     Let me try to improve my presentation of my last post.

     You wrote [@510]: “you cannot articulate the criterion for canonicity in a conscience-binding way, or even without being ad hoc or circular.”

     It is my premise that the criteria provided by the founders of the Church are neither ad hoc nor circular, and that applying them to the following books, as confirmed by the testimony of the Holy Spirit (cf. John 16:13) within the greater Body of Christ are indeed conscience-binding:

     a) books authoritatively cited by Jesus and His disciples are unquestionably canonical.

     b) books identified as canonical by the Jews, who were entrusted with the oracles of God (cf. Rom. 3:1-2), are canonical. Among these are the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms as explicitly cited by Jesus and His disciples – including by closer examination of internal attestation 33 books of the Old Testament (cf. John 5:39; Luke 24:44-45). External attestation in the first century by Josephus confirms that the Jews recognized 39 of their books as “divine.”

     Note: the consistent testimony of the church fathers from Melito to Jerome citing the Hebrew “twenty-two” book” canon refutes any charge that this is either ad hoc or circular. Furthermore, the Reformers cited Rom. 3:1-2 as justification for their adoption of Jerome’s ancient canon (e.g., William Whitaker, Disputation on Holy Scripture, against the Papists, especially Bellarmine and Stapleton, 1588).

     c) books that authentically preserve the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles for all posterity must be received as canonical (re: Jesus’ teaching see Matt. 24:35; 28:19; John 12:48; re: the Apostles’ teaching see Matt. 10:40; John 16:13; 2 Pet. 3:15; cf. 1 Cor 14:37; 2 Cor. 12:10-12).

     Furthermore, the founders of the Church provided a number of criteria which they claim to be true of all Scripture – by which non-canonical books and texts are disqualified.

     For example: God’s Word is Truth. Therefore, whatever Scripture claims to be true must be true and whatever Scripture denies must be denied.

     1. Jesus and His disciples identified the book of Jeremiah as Scripture.
     2. Jeremiah 29:10 prophesies the 70 year Babylonian exile, which the books of Ezra and Nehemiah confirm historically.
     3. Baruch 6:1-2 claims to be a letter written by Jeremiah, but it claims the exile will last for seven generations. This claim is both historically false and contradicts the true prophet Jeremiah.
     4. Therefore Baruch cannot be Scripture.

     The canonical books also claim God’s Word is not subject to alteration (Psa. 89:34; Prov. 30:5-6; cf. Deut. 12:32; Rev. 22:18-19). The LXX and Vulgate versions of Daniel and Esther contain substantial alterations of the originals. Therefore, the alterations cannot be accepted as canonical.

     Etc.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

513. Benjamin Keil January 18th, 2014 11:21 am :

     Dear “Lojahw” (re: 507),

     Tim. 3:16 simply provides a nice summary of the characteristics of Scripture: the term “God-breathed” implies Scripture reflects the character of God.

     Ah, would I be correct in surmising that you believe “Reflecting the character of God” is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a text T to be canonical? Or are you trying to say that it’s a necessary and sufficient condition?

     Of course, Jesus declared all authentic records of His own teaching for posterity to be canonical

     I’d be curious to know how you’d justify this proposition without any appeal to Scripture. Remember, unless you have some first principle to establish canonicity you can’t appeal to “Scripture” or “what Jesus said” because, lacking a criterion for canonicity, we aren’t epistemically positioned to know which of Jesus’ purported declarations are in fact canonical. Thus you can’t appeal to principles contained in the Gospels, John, and Romans to establish canonicity.

     Furthermore, the founders of the Church already identified most of the Biblical canon, for which the above criteria are true. The above criteria are necessary, but the testimony of the Holy Spirit in the community of faith is the final arbiter. However, any book that is substantially deficient in one or more of the above criteria by definition cannot be a candidate for recognition as Scripture.

     O.k., let me make sure I understand you. I think you believe (but correct me if I’m wrong) that there are three necessary conditions and one necessary and sufficient condition for canonicity. They are
     1) Authentic record of Jesus’ teaching (necessary only)
     2) Authentic record of apostolic teaching (necessary only)
     3) Jewish recognition (necessary only)
     4) Testimony of the Holy Spirit in the community of faith (necessary and sufficient)

     If that’s what you believe, then 3) is going to bork you over inasmuch as the Jews don’t recognize the New Testament at all (We already established, if memory serves correctly, that the Sadducees had one Old Testament canon and the Pharisees had another, so you’ll have to have a non-arbitrary reason to appeal to one Jewish group over against the others. Perhaps you believe that there were no Jewish canonical disputes and they all had the same canon, but then that’s an empirical claim – thus you’re committed to the view that if the right kind of historical evidence were to be uncovered [showing the existence of Jewish canonical disputes], you’d revise your Old Testament canon accordingly). Perhaps you mean that 3) only holds for the Old Testament but not the New Testament – but then you’ll have to come up with some non-arbitrary reason that the Jews’ canonical opinions are authoritative with respect to Old Testament canonicity but not New Testament canonicity (some reason, again, that doesn’t appeal to Scripture since we don’t know which books are canonical [hence authoritative] yet until you’re done constructing your criteria.

     Also, interestingly, your criteria definitely commits you to having a 67 book canon if St. Paul’s letter to Laodicea is ever found (referenced in Col. 4:17). In other words, if some newfound book meets these 4 criteria you’re rationally obligated to include it in your canon. So you view entails an open Biblical canon rather than a closed one, and given what I know of the bounds of Confessional Reformed theology that’s definitely outside the boundaries.

     Further, 4) seems really problematic for a Protestant to claim. Which “community of faith” would count for purposes of establishing canonicity? Catholic? Eastern Orthodox? Orthodox Presbyterian? Doesn’t 4) involve nothing short of positing a limited kind of ecclesial infallibility and (once again) isn’t that outside the boundaries of confessional Reformed thought? (Perhaps you’ll appeal to the visible/invisible church distinction, and say that the latter can’t err, but then I’ll want to know how the amorphous invisible “community of faith” can tell me whether or not Ecclesiasticus is canonical.)

     The notion of an infallible canon is a very recent phenomenon.

     I’m pretty sure that’s actually false, or at the very least that reputable scholars would disagree with you. But lacking expertise I’m not positioned to evaluate your claim.

     Since the Church didn’t claim [an infallible canon] for most of its existence (well over a millennium), why is it so important to you now?

     Because without it I think the project of ultimately separating orthodoxy from heterodoxy is DOA. I believe I said as much in my last comment. Are you perhaps asking how anyone could reasonably believe that separating orthodoxy from heterodoxy is impossible without a fixed canon? The answer to that seems obvious to me, but if you’re really dying to have me spell it out for you I guess I can. Times have changed – what was once not necessary to have theologically “nailed down” is not the same as what is now necessary to have theologically “nailed down”. So given the circumstances that we’re in, deciding theological controversies via any use of Scripture is hopeless if the two persons can reasonably disagree about whether the texts appealed to are, in fact, Scriptural.

     If you are so keen on infallibility, how do you defend the deuteros vis-à-vis the above criteria of canonicity defined by the founders of the Church?

     I’m sorry, I’m just really having trouble with a Protestant appealing to Church authority as justification for the four criteria, given that every Confessional Protestant church I’ve heard of embraces the thesis of ecclesial fallibility. But regardless, I don’t accept the thesis of ecclesial fallibility (since I’m Catholic) and I believe that valid ecumenical councils are incapable (via the power of the Holy Sprit) of propounding error as dogma. I also believe that Trent and Florence were valid ecumenical councils, so their canonical lists are what (epistemically) position me to know the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. If you’re asking about the metaphysics (not epistemics) of canonicity, then that’s something I lack sufficient knowledge of to have an educated opinion.

     BTW – it is self-defeating for you to argue against the authenticity of 2 Tim.; 2 Pet.; etc. I have plenty of arguments in their favor (beyond the scope of this combox).

     I don’t know whether you intended this or not, but it sounds condescending for you to assure me that anything I say about the canonicity of certain books would be “self-defeating”. If I have arguments to make I’d like the occasion to give them; if you have replies I’d like to read them. But if you wouldn’t like me to tell you that any argument you could possibly give on a certain topic would be “self-defeating”, then I’d appreciate your not telling me the same thing. As I said, though, perhaps you did not intend to convey such a message.

     Additionally, I noticed that in Tom’s #510 he wrote:

     [A Biblical canon involving a fallible list of infallible books] does not seem consistent with a Reformed position. Would you agree that you are not necessarily in the main here, relative to Reformed denominations? I could comment more, but I think it might be helpful to identify first whether you think this is or is not a confessional Reformed view.

     And in your #511 reply to him this question was not answered. I share Tom’s sentiment that it would be helpful to know whether or not you believe the “fallible list of infallible books” view of the Biblical canon is within or without the bounds of Confessional Reformed orthodoxy. (Oh, and if you don’t actually believe your canon methodology generates a “fallible list of infallible books”, please let me know. I’m proceeding on the assumption that that’s your view, and I think it’s reasonable given what you’ve written, but if I’ve misunderstood you then I’d want to be corrected.) :)

     Yours Sincerely,
     ~Benjamin

514. Lojahw January 18th, 2014 2:03 pm :

     Dear Benjamin,

     The appeal to authenticity does not depend on the canonicity of the books in question. I.e., if there is sufficient evidence to reasonably believe that the Gospels authentically record the teaching of Jesus, then the implications of that teaching regarding canonicity can be discussed. I assume that Jesus’ teaching is unquestionably authoritative for all Christians; if the evidence shows that certain books authentically record those teachings, the question of canonicity follows. However, it is self-defeating for any Christian to deny the *authenticity* of the documents passed down by the founders of the Church.

     You misread my words “the authenticity” – where you substitute “canonicity.” See my explanation above about the distinction:

     BTW – it is self-defeating for you to argue against the authenticity of 2 Tim.; 2 Pet.; etc. I have plenty of arguments in their favor (beyond the scope of this combox).

     I don’t know whether you intended this or not, but it sounds condescending for you to assure me that anything I say about the canonicity of certain books would be “self-defeating”.
     – –
     Jewish recognition of their Scriptures and Christian recognition of NT Scriptures are both/and, not either/or criteria. It is not arbitrary to accept Jesus’ promise that “whoever receives you [the 12] receives Me” and “the Holy Spirit will guide you [the 12] into all the truth” as authoritative with respect to the New Covenant. Why do you think it’s a problem that the Old Covenant is authoritatively taught in the Old Testament and the New Covenant is authoritatively taught in the New? You and Devin seem to be stuck in the same false dichotomy.

     Re: Paul’s lost letter(s), don’t forgot that both Isaiah and Peter claim that God’s word abides forever, which is not true of any lost writings.

     Are you claiming that the Church actually published an authoritative canon in the first millennium that the universal Body of Christ acclaimed to be infallible? When? Where? The differing EO canons attest that there were no Ecumenical Councils that did so – they consider those Councils to be authoritative for the whole Church. Don’t make assertions from ignorance.

     You seem to miss my point when you write: “I’m just really having trouble with a Protestant appealing to Church authority as justification for the four criteria, given that every Confessional Protestant church I’ve heard of embraces the thesis of ecclesial fallibility.” When I speak of the “founders of the Church” I am referencing the founders identified in Eph. 2:20 – the Apostles and prophets, together with Christ Jesus, the cornerstone. The 4 criteria I listed come from the prophets and the apostles and Jesus in books that THEY declare to be canonical. Why would that be a problem for Protestants?

     Please review my post @ 512 and then ask what questions remain.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

515. John Thayer Jensen January 18th, 2014 2:10 pm :

     Lojahw (#511)

     JJ – the above, as well as my previous post to Benjamin, should address your questions.

     Perhaps I am missing something, but these all seem circular to me:

     a) the books which the founders of the Church (according to the authentic records of their time) recognize as canonical.
     b) the books which authentically preserve the teaching of Jesus and His apostles, confirmed by the testimony of the Holy Spirit in the greater Body of Christ
     c) the books which the Jews recognize as canonical (inferred from (a) above, Luke 24:44-45, and Rom. 3:1-2), confirmed by the testimony of the Holy Spirit in the greater Body of Christ.

     There are basically two criteria here, it seems to me: which books authentically preserve the teaching of Jesus and His apostles – but how can you know which books do that until you know they are Scripture? – and which books have been recognised by the Church – but how can you know that until you know where the Church is?

     This last is, of course, what the Catholic believes – we know which books are Scripture because we know where the Church is. That is, after all, one of the disputes between Protestants and Catholics.

     jj

516. JohnD January 18th, 2014 6:17 pm :

     Benjamin (re: #512),

     I also believe that Trent and Florence were valid ecumenical councils, so their canonical lists are what (epistemically) position me to know the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books.

     So, you would acknowledge that your epistemic position changed substantially after Trent and Florence? Or do you think the canon was infallibly defined prior to then?

     Peace,
     John D.

517. Benjamin Keil January 19th, 2014 10:56 am :

     Dear John D. (re: 516),

     Good question. Brief preliminary remark and then I’ll respond. I’m a professional philosopher but trained neither as a theologian nor a historian. When it comes to the metaphysics or epistemology of the canon that’s something that has some overlap with my own field – but what you’re asking, properly speaking, is a historical question. So it’s fine to ask and I’ll answer as best as I can, but just be aware that there are other (far better!) sources of answers you should consider seeking out for a more informed opinion than my own.

     You wrote:

     So, you would acknowledge that your epistemic position changed substantially after Trent and Florence? Or do you think the canon was infallibly defined prior to then?

     I hesitate to say that it changed substantially (since I don’t know what you intend by that), but it certainly changed. My understanding is that the canonical status of the Apocrypha/deuterocanonical books is definitely something that developed over time. As such, you’ll find some theologians arguing for their canonicity and others against. But in retrospect one can discern a trend in favor of their inclusion, culminating authoritatively in Florence/Trent. Examples: In 405AD you’ve got Pope Innocent I writing a letter containing a canon identical to Trent/Florence (personally authoritative, but fallible). Then the Synod of Hippo and a couple of the Synods of Carthage (late 300s/early 400s AD) contained canon lists identical to Trent/Florence. (These councils are fallible inasmuch as they aren’t ecumenical councils, but now you’ve got regional councils of bishops fixing the canon, so the level of authority they bear is greater.) This culminates in the dogmatic declarations of canonicity found in the ecumenical councils of Florence (~1440s) and Trent (~1550s).

     So was there a substantive epistemic change after Trent/Florence? Well, to the best of my knowledge Trent/Florence were the first ecumenical councils to infallibly proclaim a canon, but they obviously didn’t just sit down one day and dream up a canon that no one had ever heard of before. So it was substantive in that the canon went from fallible to infallible, but it wasn’t a substantive change in that the canon list had been progressing towards what Trent/Florence said for ~1000 years. That is, the canon’s status was already going through lower levels of ecclesial status/authority to higher levels, and went to the highest level with Trent/Florence.

     That’s my take on it. As I said, I’m not an expert (although I’ve done a non-trivial amount of reading on the topic), so take what I just said with appropriately-sized grains of salt. ;-)

     Yours Sincerely,
     ~Benjamin

518. JohnD January 19th, 2014 12:40 pm :

     Benjamin (re:# 517),

     Thanks for the reply. Your analysis seems accurate to me.

     So it was substantive in that the canon went from fallible to infallible, but it wasn’t a substantive change in that the canon list had been progressing towards what Trent/Florence said for ~1000 years. That is, the canon’s status was already going through lower levels of ecclesial status/authority to higher levels, and went to the highest level with Trent/Florence.

     Now, does this analysis apply to the entire canon and not just the deuterocanon? If so, it seems that the Church got along just fine without an infallible definition of the canon for 1500 years. I know Mike Liccione has argued elsewhere on this site that the canon was infallibly defined in the 4th century, though not by an extraordinary act of the magisterium. I’m not sure Bryan Cross’s opinion on the issue or Tom Brown’s. Do you have any more thoughts on that?

     Peace,
     John D.

519. JohnD January 19th, 2014 12:53 pm :

     Tom Brown (re: Original Post),

     You frame the canon question:

     By what criterion do we know which texts comprise the Bible?

     I think its false to assume that there needs to be a single criterion (not that you were necessarily implying this). The strongest argument from the reformed position seems to be what Robert (in #459) explained as White’s and Kruger’s position: that the canon could be known through three mutually reinforcing ideas:
     1. Internal divine qualities 2. Corporate reception 3. Apostolic association. That is, those criteria taken together will lead to the NT canon accepted by the Church.

     Also, you said:

     A fallible collection of infallible books cannot function as a binding authority

     But apparently it can, unless you believe (A) Scripture was not binding on Catholics prior to Trent or (B) that the canon was defined infallibly sometime between the 1st century and Trent. (A) seems false on its face. If you hold (B), I would like to know when exactly the canon was defined and what the argument is for that definition being infallible.

     Peace,
     John D.

520. Lojahw January 19th, 2014 5:32 pm :

     Hi JJ,
     I apologize for not making my assumptions clear. Hopefully, the below helps:

     Assumptions:
     1. Jesus’ teaching has unquestioned authority for all Christians. Corollary: If we can identify authentic records of Jesus’ teaching from His time, then whatever He teaches therein about canonicity is authoritative.
     2. There is sufficient evidence of the authenticity of the four ancient Gospels. Consequently we should accept what Jesus teaches therein about canonicity, including not only His canonical endorsements of the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms (cf. Luke 24:44-45; etc.), but also His affirmation of the canonical authority of the Apostles (cf. Matt. 10:40; John 16:13).
     3. There is also sufficient evidence of the authenticity of the other 23 books comprising the New Testament to accept what the Apostles teach therein about canonicity. This includes Peter’s recognition of Paul’s letters as canonical.
     4. Steps (1 – 3) avoid circularity with respect to discerning canonicity. Recognition of canonicity follows from the authoritative teaching by Jesus and the other founders of the Church (i.e., the apostles and prophets, cf. Eph. 2:20).
     5. Conscience binding conviction of canonicity comes from the testimony of the Holy Spirit within the Church, the Body of Christ. According to Jesus, the Body of Christ is comprised of all of His sheep, i.e., those “who hear My voice and follow Me” (John 10:27); or, as Paul teaches: “all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1:2). Thus, “the testimony of the Holy Spirit within the greater Body of Christ” means substantial agreement throughout the universal Body of Christ. God is not a god of confusion.

     The criteria of canonicity:
     It is my premise that the criteria below, provided by the founders of the Church [i.e., Jesus, the apostles and the prophets] are neither ad hoc nor circular, and that applying them to the following books, as confirmed by the testimony of the Holy Spirit (cf. John 16:13) within the greater Body of Christ are indeed conscience-binding:

     A) Books authoritatively cited by Jesus and His disciples are canonical.

     B) Books identified as canonical by the Jews, who were entrusted with the oracles of God (cf. Rom. 3:1-2), are canonical. Among these are the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms as cited by Jesus and His disciples – including, by examination of internal attestation, at least 33 books of the Old Testament (cf. John 5:39; Luke 24:44-45). External attestation in the first century by Josephus confirms that the Jews had a long-established tradition of a “twenty-two” book canon (39, by modern reckoning).

     Note: the consistent testimony of the church fathers from Melito to Jerome citing the Hebrew “twenty-two” book” canon refutes any charge that this is ad hoc. Furthermore, the Reformers cited Rom. 3:1-2 as justification for their adoption of Jerome’s ancient canon (e.g., William Whitaker, Disputation on Holy Scripture, against the Papists, especially Bellarmine and Stapleton, 1588).

     C) Books that authentically preserve the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles for all posterity must be received as canonical (re: Jesus’ teaching see Matt. 24:35; 28:18-19; John 12:48; re: the Apostles’ teaching see Matt. 10:40; John 16:13; 2 Pet. 3:15; cf. 1 Cor 14:37; 2 Cor. 12:10-12).

     Additional criteria of canonicity:
     The founders of the church also defined 4 basic criteria that the early church utilized in the second century to reject newly written sacred literature falsely claiming to be apostolic. These criteria illustrate what it means that “all Scripture is God-breathed,” and may be applied to other sacred literature:

     God’s Word is Truth (John 17:17; Psalms 119:160)
     Corollary 1: God’s Word does not contradict itself (Deut. 13:1-3; Gal. 1:8-9)
     Corollary 2: God’s Word is not deceitful (Psa. 101:7; Prov. 12:7; cf. Tit 1:2; Psa. 101:7)
     God’s Word is Everlasting (Matt. 5:18; 24:35; Isa. 40:8; 1 Pet. 1:25)
     God’s Word is Inalterable (Psa. 89:34; Prov. 30:5-6; cf. Deut. 12:32; Rev. 22:18-19)
     God’s Word is Holy (cf. Lev. 19:2; Psa. 18:30; Isa. 5:24).

     Note: For those who cannot accept the book of Hebrews as being written by an apostle, it is consistent with the above 4 criteria, making it a candidate for canonicity – and it certainly has substantial agreement of canonicity in the greater Body of Christ as defined at the beginning of this post.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

521. Lojahw January 19th, 2014 5:46 pm :

     For John D & Benjamin,

     I’m curious about:

     I also believe that Trent and Florence were valid ecumenical councils, so their canonical lists are what (epistemically) position me to know the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books.

     An ecumenical council by definition represents the entire church on earth, which no council since Nicea II in 787 can claim. Florence attempted to include the Eastern church, but the Eastern delegation pulled out before any substantive decisions were made.

     In that respect, I agree with the Eastern Church today that calls itself the “Church of the Seven Councils” – because those are the only ones that have a rightful claim to ecumenicity (although, since the decrees of the last were only accepted following 100 years of bloodshed between Christians, it seems presumptuous to claim the Holy Spirit guided them – “God is not a God of confusion, but of peace,” as the Apostle Paul testifies).

     The tie to canonicity is that God’s Word is Truth, and that the Holy Spirit guides into all truth without confusion, such as caused by Pseudepigrapha like the Wisdom of Solomon, the book of Baruch, etc.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

522. John Thayer Jensen January 20th, 2014 2:33 am :

     Lojahw (#520)
     OK, thanks for this. I would myself say that what you have done is to summarise the motives of credibility for the truth of the Scriptures. I have neither the time nor the resources to say why I think this argument works better as motives for believing the authority of the Church – and in the Scriptures as a corollary. But what you have said here is what I have always thought Protestants really did – the motives of credibility lead them to the Scriptures – lead them to the Scriptures, in fact, by leading them to the Church which then leads them to the Scriptures. It does seem to me to give a ‘fallible collection of infallible books,’ but that’s maybe inevitable.

     What I can see no way of accomplishing is to go from that to the idea that the Scriptures and the Church can then somehow be in opposition – such that one might say ‘the Church is in error because the Scriptures say X.’ But that is another question.

     Thanks for the explanation.

     jj

523. Lojahw January 20th, 2014 12:48 pm :

     Hi JJ,

     Please recall that I was responding to Tom’s:
     You wrote [@510]: “you cannot articulate the criterion for canonicity in a conscience-binding way, or even without being ad hoc or circular.”

     I then articulated a reasoned summary of criteria for canonicity in a conscience-binding way without being ad hoc or circular.

     Your response does not follow:

     what you have said here is what I have always thought Protestants really did – the motives of credibility lead them to the Scriptures – lead them to the Scriptures, in fact, by leading them to the Church which then leads them to the Scriptures.

     By starting with the authority of Jesus, I simply outlined a set of criteria of canonicity which is consistent with reason, with the teaching of Jesus, the Apostles, and the Prophets [i.e., the founders of the Church], and with the testimony of the church fathers. If the result of applying those criteria is at odds with the MUCH LATER teaching of your Church, it stands to reason that further discussion is warranted. Are you willing to re-examine your own presuppositions in light of what the founders of the Church of Jesus Christ teach?

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

524. Christie January 20th, 2014 7:36 pm :

     Tom,

     Would you say that before Trent dogmatically defined the canon, that all the Church had was a ‘fallible book of fallible books,’ since before then, there had been no infallible ecclesial authority to do so?

     Sincerely,

     Christie Arnold

525. Benjamin Keil January 20th, 2014 10:44 pm :

     Dear John. D (re: #518),

     I resume my teaching duties at 8AM sharp tomorrow morning (apparently Winter break is over) :-( so hopefully you’ll pardon the brevity of this reply.

     Does this analysis apply to the entire canon and not just the deuterocanon?

     To the best of my knowledge, yes.

     If so, it seems that the Church got along just fine without an infallible definition of the canon for 1500 years.

     That’s a historical claim beyond my expertise, but to say that the Church got along “just fine” strikes me as somewhat of an exaggeration. Nonetheless I assume you’re familiar with the urgent/important distinction? As a matter of history, it seems to me that ecumenical councils tend to deal with what is urgent much more often than what is (metaphysically or epistemically) important. And the reason the canon didn’t get infallibly defined until the 1400s, as I understand things, was that it wasn’t sufficiently urgent until then. But as a matter of (epistemic) importance (rather than urgency), hammering out the canon always was always epistemically important (in, say, 600AD) even when it lacked some degree of urgency.

     As a brief aside, the kind of argument you’re advancing seems suspicious to begin with. You don’t say precisely what follows from the lack of infallible canon for 1400 years, but I think you’re implying that if X wasn’t infallibly defined for 1400 years, and if that turned out o.k., then the lack of an infallible definition for X is o.k. But that simply doesn’t follow: That a proposition wasn’t infallibly defined for X years, and that things turned out o.k, doesn’t mean X isn’t important, or that X never need have been infallibly defined at all. In other words, I reject your line of argument for the same reason (I suspect) you wouldn’t find the following arguments persuasive:
     1) “It seems that the Church got along just fine without an infallible definition of [Christ and the Father’s relationship] for [350] years.”
     2) “It seems that the Church got along just fine without an infallible definition of [whether images of Jesus are blasphemous] for [800] years.”
     3) “It seems that the Church got along just fine without an infallible definition of [the relationship of faith and works in justification] for [1500] years.”
     4) “It seems that the Church got along just fine without an infallible definition of [Papal doctrinal authority] for [1900 years].”

     Each of those proclamations were made at a historic point in time in response to certain historic circumstances – but each of those cases above strike me as important even if they didn’t get infallibly proclaimed for up to 1900 years. In fact, we are now in a time when things will be infallibly proclaimed (in the future, unless our Lord returns) – but the fact that they haven’t yet been infallibly proclaimed, and that we’re o.k., doesn’t mean that those future infallible proclamations won’t need to be made. I hope these thoughts are of some small service as you think through these matters. :-)

     Yours Sincerely,
     ~Benjamin

526. Tom Brown January 20th, 2014 10:45 pm :

     Dear “Lojahw,”

     If I missed your answer, I apologize, but if not, could you please answer this question:

     ” [From my #510] This does not seem consistent with a Reformed position. Would you agree that you are not necessarily in the main here, relative to Reformed denominations?”

     You said in #511 (and essentially the same, but in more detail in #520): “The conscience of every Christian should be bound for: [A, B, and C].”

     It would help me to know your answer to my question above. But in the mean time, I note that your premise regarding how to identify the canon doesn’t seem terribly dissimilar to the Catholic method (although your conclusions differ, of course). Each premise (i.e., “Lojahw’s” and the Catholic Church’s) relies at a foundational level upon [sacred] tradition. Do I miss something?

     But one major point of this article is to challenge the authority by which you can even offer your premise. How do we know your premise is right and, say, Luther’s or Calvin’s or Ridderbos’s or Kruger’s premises are wrong? And the other major point of this article leads me to ask: even if your premise were right, how do we know your analytical application of that premise to various texts yields the correct result? For the premise is not self-authenticating, and you are not necessarily preserved by the Holy Spirit from analytical error.

     You wrote: “if there is sufficient evidence to reasonably believe that the Gospels authentically record the teaching of Jesus, then the implications of that teaching regarding canonicity can be discussed.” This reads like Dr. Kruger, in that it shifts the standard of proof to “sufficient evidence,” and then builds from there (from sufficient evidence) into a conscience-binding norm regarding the canon. I wonder if you, like Dr. Kruger, believe that the canon could still be modified in the future (say, if a new book were found, or if new evidence changed your analysis that led to including a particular book)?

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

527. Jonathan Prejean January 20th, 2014 10:48 pm :

     @JohnD (#519):

     But apparently it can, unless you believe (A) Scripture was not binding on Catholics prior to Trent or (B) that the canon was defined infallibly sometime between the 1st century and Trent. (A) seems false on its face. If you hold (B), I would like to know when exactly the canon was defined and what the argument is for that definition being infallible.

     That’s a classic example of why the Protestant interpretive paradigm creates problems for itself that the Catholic interpretive paradigm doesn’t have. Sola scriptura requires a closed canon to function, since Scripture interprets Scripture and Scripture alone has final authority. Because the authority in Catholicism is the coherence of a triad of authorities, one need not necessarily have a formally closed canon, because the other two authorities always affect the reception of Scripture. That is why, for example, even later additions that do not appear in the original versions of Scripture can nonetheless be accepted as inspired. Indeed, one could argue that the canon hasn’t been formally closed in Catholicism even today, since newly discovered apostolic material could even today conceivably extend the canon (although it is hard to imagine such a situation).

     What is ironic is that the Kruger-White argument actually appeals to the same triad of authority (internal testimony being Scripture itself, apostolic association being Tradition, and corporate reception being the Magisterium). Unfortunately, by appealing to anything other than the internal witness of Scripture to establish Scripture’s authority, they violate sola scriptura. Effectively, the Kruger-White argument is an incredibly convincing refutation of sola scriptura, proving that there is no principled means of defending Scripture’s authority without appealing to the same triad to which Catholics and Orthodox appeal. It just happens to be an ad hoc appeal to that authority.

528. John Thayer Jensen January 20th, 2014 10:49 pm :

     Lojahw (#522)

     I then articulated a reasoned summary of criteria for canonicity in a conscience-binding way without being ad hoc or circular.

     Your response does not follow:

     what you have said here is what I have always thought Protestants really did – the motives of credibility lead them to the Scriptures – lead them to the Scriptures, in fact, by leading them to the Church which then leads them to the Scriptures.

     By starting with the authority of Jesus, I simply outlined a set of criteria of canonicity which is consistent with reason, with the teaching of Jesus, the Apostles, and the Prophets [i.e., the founders of the Church], and with the testimony of the church fathers. If the result of applying those criteria is at odds with the MUCH LATER teaching of your Church, it stands to reason that further discussion is warranted. Are you willing to re-examine your own presuppositions in light of what the founders of the Church of Jesus Christ teach?

     No – I don’t accept your criteria for determining what is Scripture, so if the Catholic canon couldn’t be deduced using those criteria, it would have nothing to do with why I believe the Catholic canon is correct.

     And I did not mean that I thought my understanding of what Protestants do followed from anything. I was just expressing opinion. I apologise if I misled you into thinking I was making an argument for or against something.

     jj

529. Tom Brown January 20th, 2014 10:59 pm :

     Dear John D. (#519),

     I analyze criteria (plural) of canonicity in the article above. See the last paragraph under Section II’s intro, i.e., immediately before Section II.A begins.

     You wrote: “The strongest argument from the reformed position seems to be [such and such].” I’m familiar with Dr. Kruger’s writing on the canon, and do no see any position that has not already been taken up, and is not already addressed in the article above. The question remains: by what authority does Kruger (or White) articulate criteria for canonicity? What is your assurance that they have been preserved from error?

     I’m not sure I can relate to your analysis about the ‘fallible collection of infallible books.’ As JJ said a few comments up, Catholics prior to Trent, like Catholics following Trent, looked to the Church as bearing the authority to teach how we can be saved. A fallible teaching authority cannot be bind the conscience, since it might be in error. The Church’s teachings on Sacred Scriptures, including not only its teachings on the scope of the Scriptures (i.e., canon), but also its teachings about their scope, are reliable, and in fact infallible based on their pronouncement at an ecumenical council. I suspect that’s not the point you were hoping to make though?

     Peace,
     Tom B.

530. Tom Brown January 20th, 2014 11:04 pm :

     Dear Christie (#523),

     No, I wouldn’t put it that way. Please see my previous comment and Benjamin’s comment # 517. I’m not sure I would say that the canon went from fallible to infallible (as he did), but otherwise agree very much with his comment. The reason I don’t think I would put it that way is that it puts it in a Protestant frame, when the question is really a Catholic juridical one. Maybe I’m wrong. But I think I would say (using a Catholic frame) that the canon went from being open to debate to being closed to debate, as with other dogmatic proclamations made by the Magisterium, e.g., Trinitarian or Christological formulations.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

531. Lojahw January 21st, 2014 12:17 am :

     Dear Tom,

     From your #510: Were you saying that not having an infallible canon for most of Church history is inconsistent with a Reformed position? Could you explain?

     My view on the conscience of every Christian being bound for . . . is consistent with Calvin: the Holy Spirit is the One who binds consciences; and my understanding relative to the canon is that the testimony of the Holy Spirit is manifest when there is substantial agreement across the whole Body of Christ re: the criteria of canonicity as listed being met in the books to which they apply (in other words, the criteria for the OT and that for the NT overlap, but are not identical because the covenants differ).

     I’m not sure I understand what you mean that my premises rely on tradition. If you mean that discerning the OT canon relies on accepting the Jewish canonical tradition, I agree – but my premise for relying on that canon is based on Scripture – i.e., a book (Romans) I already believe to be Scripture, based on other canonical testimony (2 Peter), which I in turn believe to be canonical based on Jesus’ own teaching in the Gospels about the teaching authority of the 12.

     Ultimately, all of my premises rely on the teaching of Jesus. Are you saying that’s not enough? Or are you saying that we can’t really know what Jesus or any of the disciples taught apart from the authority of the Church? (if so, I could not disagree more)

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

532. Lojahw January 21st, 2014 12:27 am :

     Dear JJ – you wrote:

     No – I don’t accept your criteria for determining what is Scripture, so if the Catholic canon couldn’t be deduced using those criteria, it would have nothing to do with why I believe the Catholic canon is correct.

     It’s a free country, JJ. Maybe you just don’t like my approach? But if you see any flaws in the criteria (which I drew from many years of reflection on Christ and the Scriptures) could you tell me?

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

533. Lojahw January 21st, 2014 12:51 am :

     BTW, JJ –

     FWIW: I still don’t understand what you said about the Scriptures leading to the Church, etc. The Scriptures lead me to Jesus, not to a particular Church (although they help me recognize some to avoid).

     When the bishop confirmed me, I promised to follow Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. It’s Jesus who saves, not His Body that saves!

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

534. Nick Trosclair January 21st, 2014 1:51 am :

     Hi John D, (re: 497)

     You wrote:

     That makes sense. Is it also true that, in principle, the RC Church could define doctrine without reference to Scripture or universal acceptance in the primitive church?

     When the Church recognizes something to be of the deposit of faith, she usually references Scripture but is not bound to do so. She is not bound to do so because the whole deposit is not contained in the Scriptures.
     Universal acceptance is not necessary because, oftentimes, new heresies arise which help the Church make explicit a doctrine which was only implicit for the faithful. For instance, the Holy Spirit was not explicitly called the third Person of the Trinity by the faithful for the first few centuries. An ecumenical council was needed to settle the disagreement.

     It appears that “internal divine quality” is synonymous with or close to “self-authenticating quality”. Kruger explains that many early Church fathers believed Scripture had this special quality. Here’s a snippet: https://michaeljkruger.com/ten-basic-facts-about-the-nt-that-every-christian-should-memorize-early-christians-believed-that-canonical-books-were-self-authenticating.

     Thank you for the link. The problem is that many of the early Fathers did not recognize these qualities in several NT books, such as Hebrews, II Peter, Revelations, etc. The recognition developed over time, much like other Catholic doctrines developed over time. It is also relevant to note that these qualities were not conspicuous to Luther, as he questioned the canonicity of several NT books (especially James and Hebrews). Karl Barth felt the same tension when he said, “the canon, as a list made by the Church, can be revised, and writings could be added to or subtracted from it.” (cited in Yves Congar’s Tradition of Traditions, p. 40)

     Clement fails the “Apostolic association” criteria because the material does not (nor does it claim to) come from the hand/mouth of an Apostle. For example, Mark is said to have been commissioned by (and got his material from) the Apostle Peter to write his Gospel. The same with Luke getting commissioned by St. Paul (some even speculate Hebrews is a transcript of St. Paul’s preaching recorded by Luke).

     I think there are two problems with the “apostolic association” criteria. First, we are not able to ascertain whether an apostle commissioned several of the NT documents (e.g. Hebrews, II Peter, Revelations, etc.). Second, even if a document was in this way associated with an apostle, how does one get from apostolic association to divinely inspired? We need more information. It would have to be documented that an apostle claimed that the said document was inspired by God. But hardly any (if any) of the New Testament documents claim this. If each NT document fulfilled these two criteria then the NT documents would be “self-athenticating.” But they do not meet these two criteria.

     Moreover, the *White Question* points out how Jews were able to discern the canon without a visible, infallible magisterium. So, it appears God’s Word can be discerned apart from the RC visible church, right.

     The “White question” is not new. It can be answered in two ways, depending on your position regarding the development of the OT canon. First, many would argue that the Jewish canon was uncertain around the time of Christ. I think that this was the case. Thus, the Jews would have been unsure about the contents of the canon. If such was the case, the “White Question” is no threat to the Catholic position.

     However, if it is true that the Hebrew canon was universally accepted by the faithful, then this fact demonstrates the Catholic position. The Church teaches doctrine not only through her bishops but through the universal acceptance of doctrines by the faithful. In other words, the faithful Jew could know the contents of the canon because the whole people of God received it as authoritative. But that is the Catholic position for the NT. Over the centuries the faithful began to accept the 27 book NT canon. This brings us back to the central problem for the protestant position. In the early Church, all of the faithful accepted certain doctrines about the nature of the Church and sacraments which are rejected by the protestant world. Why trust the Church’s acceptance in one doctrine (the canon) but distrust her in another? Either way the “White question” does not pose a problem for the Catholic position.

     Unless the person holding to such a position defends the premise that the canon of Scripture is in a different category than other doctrines. White and Kruger, as sola scriptura advocates, would defend precisely such a premise. They would argue true doctrine must be shown from Scripture, and that reveals Scripture and the canon is in its own category in Protestant thinking. It is not a doctrine alongside others. It is the foundation from which all doctrine is derived. It appears to me that you presuppose a Catholic paradigm when calling the Protestants inconsistent. On a Protestant sola scriptura paradigm, it is not inconsistent to place the canon in a separate category (“an artifact of revelation” as some call it). On a Catholic paradigm (with the FPOF as the STM – thanks to Mike Liccione for teaching those terms so clearly), it would be inconsistent to place the canon separate from other doctrines accepted by the universal Church

     One does not have to assume the Catholic paradigm to recognize inconsistencies in the protestant paradigm. Paradigms can be judged on their own merit. As a protestant, I recognized the inconsistencies of my own paradigm while wearing my protestant lenses. Why accept the contents of the canon while rejecting the universal acceptance of, let’s say, apostolic succession in the 3rd century? To say that the canon is different is a case of special pleading. In fact, one of the criteria in the early Church for inclusion in the NT canon was the rule of faith (regula fidei,), the orthodox faith which the Church has always preserved. But the protestant, when he doubts the Church’s preservation of orthodoxy, questions the Church’s rule of faith, i.e. the very rule which measured the canon.

     Nick T.

535. JohnD January 21st, 2014 6:00 am :

     Tom B. (re: #528),

     I’m not sure I can relate to your analysis about the ‘fallible collection of infallible books.’ As JJ said a few comments up, Catholics prior to Trent, like Catholics following Trent, looked to the Church as bearing the authority to teach how we can be saved. A fallible teaching authority cannot be bind the conscience, since it might be in error. The Church’s teachings on Sacred Scriptures, including not only its teachings on the scope of the Scriptures (i.e., canon), but also its teachings about their scope, are reliable, and in fact infallible based on their pronouncement at an ecumenical council. I suspect that’s not the point you were hoping to make though?

     If the bold section is true, then, on a Catholic paradigm, the canon of Scripture could not bind the conscience of a believer prior to Trent. That is, unless you take option B in the dilemma I proposed in #519, and if that’s the case I’d like to hear the specifics.

     Peace,
     John D.

536. JohnD January 21st, 2014 6:01 am :

     Jonathan (re:#526),

     That’s a classic example of why the Protestant interpretive paradigm creates problems for itself that the Catholic interpretive paradigm doesn’t have.

     Ok, but I don’t see how anything you wrote answers the dilemma I proposed in #519.

     Peace,
     John D.

537. JohnD January 21st, 2014 6:15 am :

     Benjamin (re:#524),

     Thanks for your reply. I wish you well at the start of a new semester. Just a couple quick follow-up comments.

     A Reformed Christian would indeed affirm that the Church got along just fine without any of the infallible definitions you allude to. However, you are correct that I don’t find those arguments persuasive, and so it seems that form of argument for the non-necessity of an infallible canon list is weak. You say:

     As a brief aside, the kind of argument you’re advancing seems suspicious to begin with. You don’t say precisely what follows from the lack of infallible canon for 1400 years, but I think you’re implying that if X wasn’t infallibly defined for 1400 years, and if that turned out o.k., then the lack of an infallible definition for X is o.k.

     My original point was arguing against the Catholic claim that a “fallible list cannot bind the conscience of believers” not that “an infallible list is not necessary”. So, the Catholic faces a dilemma:

     A. The canon was a non-binding teaching prior to Trent.
     A*. The canon was non-binding prior to some date when it was infallibly defined by the ordinary magisterium [I believe Mike Liccione has argued this]
     B. The canon was binding prior to the existence of an infallible list.

     Peace,
     John D.

538. Tom Brown January 21st, 2014 10:44 am :

     Dear “Lojahw” (#531),

     Responding to my suggetsion that your criteria for identifying the canon relied on tradition (similar to the Catholic view), you said:

     I’m not sure I understand what you mean that my premises rely on tradition. If you mean that discerning the OT canon relies on accepting the Jewish canonical tradition, I agree – but my premise for relying on that canon is based on Scripture – i.e., a book (Romans) I already believe to be Scripture, based on other canonical testimony (2 Peter), which I in turn believe to be canonical based on Jesus’ own teaching in the Gospels about the teaching authority of the 12.

     You say that you rely on Jewish tradition in identifying the scope of the Bible, but only because an (apparently Pauline) part of the Bible tells you so. And I think you’re saying that this reliance on the Bible isn’t circular because another (apparently Petrine) part of the Bible tells you so. And this reliance on the Bible also isn’t circular because of your reliance on a red-letter part of the Bible, i.e., words traditionally considered to be authentic words of Christ.

     You know, of course, that I don’t debate the origins of those texts. But I believe them to be the teachings of Paul, Peter, and Christ because sacred tradition, the testimony of our forebears, tells me so. You are relying on testimony of others to confirm for yourself whether Christ actually said (or didn’t) such-and-such about the authority of the Apostles, which in a roundabout way leads you to your 66-book canon. This is an exercise of reliance upon tradition, as interpeted by you.

     In litigation, speaking from experience, testimony from eye witnesses is notoriously bad and unreliable. We must agree at least that such testimony is not perfectly reliable. Do you believe that your conclusions are not perfectly reliable (for that reason), or do you believe that the testimony passed down from our forebears is preserved from error by the Holy Spirit (or is there another possibility — I don’t mean to make a false dichotomy)?

     Re: #510: You said that the notion of an infallible canon was only a “very recent” one, and that the church did not claim a canon for well over a millennium. I might not understand what you mean, but this does not seem consistent with the Reformed positions I describe above, which generally identified a church-accepted canon much earlier, even if they admit disputes endured. To be clear, I don’t mean to nit-pick, but am trying to discern where you are presenting an argument distinct from what I’ve addressed above.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

539. Tom Brown January 21st, 2014 11:04 am :

     Dear John D. (#535),

     Catholics (practically: scholars/theologians) permissibly could debate the scope of the canon in the early centuries of the Church. Regarding whether this lasted until the 4th century or until Trent, I’m not studied enough on this fine point of canon law to disagree with Michael. But certainly to the extent some Catholics believed the issue was open for debate, that was resolved (closed) at Trent.

     I think the argument you’re pursuing (a tu quoque) may be getting off the track of the Canon Question article. For those Catholics whose Bishops taught a canon prior to the 4th century (or Trent), they would have owed ordinary assent to their Bishop’s teaching. You can read more about the categories of belief here, if you’re interested: https://www.ewtn.com/library/theology/summary.htm.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

540. Jonathan Prejean January 21st, 2014 1:09 pm :

     @JohnD (#536):
     The dilemma is false. It doesn’t follow that, because the canon wasn’t infallibly defined that no part.of Scripture had binding authority. It is only a dilemma if one excludes all other authorities, because then the canon itself needs to be authoritative and infallible. Catholics don’t do that, so we don’t face the dilemma.

541. John Thayer Jensen January 21st, 2014 3:30 pm :

     Lojahw (#s 532 and 533)

     Dear JJ – you wrote:

     No – I don’t accept your criteria for determining what is Scripture, so if the Catholic canon couldn’t be deduced using those criteria, it would have nothing to do with why I believe the Catholic canon is correct.

     It’s a free country, JJ. Maybe you just don’t like my approach? But if you see any flaws in the criteria (which I drew from many years of reflection on Christ and the Scriptures) could you tell me?

     and

     BTW, JJ –

     FWIW: I still don’t understand what you said about the Scriptures leading to the Church, etc. The Scriptures lead me to Jesus, not to a particular Church (although they help me recognize some to avoid).

     When the bishop confirmed me, I promised to follow Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. It’s Jesus who saves, not His Body that saves!

     Very briefly, it’s not a matter of not liking your criteria. It’s a matter of what Jesus’s teachings point to. This was my point about saying that I think the Protestant does what the Catholic does, plus one extra step.

     As I said, briefly – I think you can, indeed, see from what Christ said some of His view of Scripture – but in the nature of the case, that means what we call the Old Testament. What He certainly did say was that He was going to establish His Church; that those who heard those whom He sent heard Him; that He sent His Church – the apostles – to baptise and teach; and that those teachings can be considered His Word.

     What the Protestant here does, it seems to me, is to add two things to this:

     1) that he (the Protestant) knows which writings are in fact the teachings of those whom Jesus sent – i.e. that the Protestant knows which writings are in the New Testament canon;

     2) that (somehow, because you can’t derive it from any of those writings nor from the teachings of Jesus) the individual Protestant is now empowered, and, indeed, obliged, to test the teachings of all who claim to be from Jesus by those self-same writings.

     Thus I agree with you that we must start with Jesus – but I think that you leapfrog over the questions of the NT canon and of the Church authority which alone can tell you what that canon is. I think that what Jesus gives us is not the New Testament itself, but the Church, and, through that Church, the New Testament – with the consequent necessity of following that Church’s understanding of the New Testament.

     As Ronald Knox nicely put it in The Belief of Catholics, …[H]e left us, not Christianity, but Christendom.

     jj

542. Christie January 21st, 2014 3:58 pm :

     Tom (#530),

     In a previous comment to me, (#441), you wrote,

     “if the judgment involved was not protected from error, then the list of books in the Bible is fallible, which condition would completely erode the foundation for confidence in Sacred Scripture…”.

     But if the judgment involved prior to Trent was fallible, then wouldn’t the above be true?

     –Christie

543. JohnD January 21st, 2014 4:19 pm :

     Jonathan (re: #540) and Tom,

     Jonathan, you said:

     The dilemma is false. It doesn’t follow that, because the canon wasn’t infallibly defined that no part.of Scripture had binding authority. It is only a dilemma if one excludes all other authorities, because then the canon itself needs to be authoritative and infallible. Catholics don’t do that, so we don’t face the dilemma.

     Ok, but I don’t see how that reply jives with Tom’s statement that:

     A fallible collection of infallible books cannot function as a binding authority

     It seems that you would disagree with Tom. Especially when you say “It doesn’t follow that, because the canon wasn’t infallibly defined that no part.of Scripture had binding authority.”. From my angle, it sounds like Tom (Please correct me Tom if I am wrong here) is saying that is exactly what follows.

     Peace,
     John D.

544. JohnD January 21st, 2014 5:21 pm :

     Nick T. (re:#534),

     Thanks for the reply.

     The problem is that many of the early Fathers did not recognize these qualities in several NT books, such as Hebrews, II Peter, Revelations, etc. The recognition developed over time, much like other Catholic doctrines developed over time.

     But if you apply the principle of development of doctrine, then development is not a problem. The Reformed Protestant could argue that internal divine qualities was a criterion in seed form from the beginning and adduce many passages to show the unique nature of Scripture (c.f. 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:19-20, Hebrews 4:12).

     First, we are not able to ascertain whether an apostle commissioned several of the NT documents (e.g. Hebrews, II Peter, Revelations, etc.). Second, even if a document was in this way associated with an apostle, how does one get from apostolic association to divinely inspired?

     To your first point, Church tradition points to apostolic authorship/association of every single book of the NT (e.g. St. Thomas affirms the Pauline authorship of Hebrews). Protestants can answer your second point as I explained previously: Your question reveals the paradigm difference. A Reformed Protestant does not “get from” historical reliability (here: insert Apostolic association) to inspiration. He starts with faith in the Word of God because it claims to be God’s Word and his trust is in that claim. Also, you said:

     It would have to be documented that an apostle claimed that the said document was inspired by God. But hardly any (if any) of the New Testament documents claim this.

     Or, it could have been handed down by word of mouth and by documentation (e.g. 2 Peter 3:16) that the NT documents were inspired.

     One does not have to assume the Catholic paradigm to recognize inconsistencies in the protestant paradigm. Paradigms can be judged on their own merit. As a protestant, I recognized the inconsistencies of my own paradigm while wearing my protestant lenses. Why accept the contents of the canon while rejecting the universal acceptance of, let’s say, apostolic succession in the 3rd century? To say that the canon is different is a case of special pleading.

     On a Reformed view, the canon is an artifact or revelation. That is, God chooses to reveal and so His speech is in particular places and not others. The canon is not a doctrine alongside others. It is the foundation from which all doctrine is derived. So, for a Reformed Christian, it is not special pleading to place the words that God “breathed out” into a separate category. There is nothing else that falls into that category for them. And, since they hold to sola scriptura, there is no internal inconsistency in them rejecting “universal acceptance” of any particular doctrine. They reject the papacy, apostolic succession, etc. since they argue it is not found in Scripture.

     Sorry for the length. I suppose we should stick to one or two main points since I feel like I’m trying to weave too many things together and therefore lacking clarity.

     Peace,
     John D.

545. Nick Trosclair January 21st, 2014 7:26 pm :

     Hi John D,

     To your first point, Church tradition points to apostolic authorship/association of every single book of the NT (e.g. St. Thomas affirms the Pauline authorship of Hebrews).

     You seem to be saying that the Reformed position relies on the tradition of the Church for the canonical status of the NT books. When the protestant accepts this tradition is he affirming that ecclesial tradition is a source of revelation?

     Protestants can answer your second point as I explained previously: Your question reveals the paradigm difference. A Reformed Protestant does not “get from” historical reliability (here: insert Apostolic association) to inspiration. He starts with faith in the Word of God because it claims to be God’s Word and his trust is in that claim.

     Both the Catholic and Protestant begin with faith in the Word of God. However, I am struggling to follow you in your last statement: “He starts with faith in the Word of God because it claims to be God’s Word and his trust is in that claim.” Do you mean that anything that claims to be God’s Word is in fact God’s Word?

     On a Reformed view, the canon is an artifact or revelation. That is, God chooses to reveal and so His speech is in particular places and not others. The canon is not a doctrine alongside others. It is the foundation from which all doctrine is derived. So, for a Reformed Christian, it is not special pleading to place the words that God “breathed out” into a separate category. There is nothing else that falls into that category for them. And, since they hold to sola scriptura, there is no internal inconsistency in them rejecting “universal acceptance” of any particular doctrine. They reject the papacy, apostolic succession, etc. since they argue it is not found in Scripture.

     Reformed brothers and sisters accept the canon promulgated by the early Church but reject other doctrines promulgated by that same Church because their paradigm entails that all doctrines are found in the canon. It seems that the Reformed man accepts sola scriptura as if it were a self-evident principle in need of no defense—neither a defense from reason nor from revelation. Should not the Reformed man attempt to demonstrate that God has revealed such a doctrine?

     The paradigm of sola scriptura does violence to the ecclesial tradition from which the Reformed have received their Scriptures, for that same ecclesial tradition is a witness which opposes their own paradigm. This paradigm obstructs the eyes of faith because it does not allow the Christian to accept apostolic doctrines which are one with that ecclesial tradition.

     Nick T.

546. Lojahw January 21st, 2014 7:27 pm :

     Dear Tom,
     If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that all history relies on tradition and unreliable eyewitnesses, and therefore we have no reliable knowledge of anything from the past?

     Rather than engage in a lengthy and unfruitful discussion of epistemology, and recalling that the certainty you insist is so important comes from *the witness of the Holy Spirit* as manifested by substantial agreement throughout the Body of Christ (confirming what ordinary enquiry concludes is true about the authenticity and the message of the books in question), have I answered your challenge of providing criteria of canonicity that is neither ad hoc nor circular?

     Re: #510, I still don’t follow – I simply asserted that no *claim* of an *infallible* canon existed for most of Church history – NOT that there were no canons at all (which obviously I would disagree with based on the canons I myself have cited). I believe my understanding is perfectly consistent with that of the Reformers – including denial of the assertion that the canon published by Trent is infallible.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

547. Lojahw January 21st, 2014 7:37 pm :

     Thank you for elaborating, JJ.

     On (1) – I’m not arguing epistemology, but it would be self-defeating for you to argue against the authenticity of the NT books (i.e., that they were written by Jesus’ companions and those close to them). Do you fault Protestants for believing the letters claiming to be written by Peter and Paul were actually written by them, or that the Gospels are not authentic accounts of what actually happened? I don’t believe there is a credible alternative. There’s no point in arguing about how Protestants came to believe those writings are in fact “the teachings of those whom Jesus sent.”

     On (2) – the tests (criteria of canonicity) do not rely solely on the NT – they are common to BOTH Old and New Testaments.
     God’s Word is Truth (John 17:17; Psalms 119:160)
     Corollary 1: God’s Word does not contradict itself (Deut. 13:1-3; Gal. 1:8-9)
     Corollary 2: God’s Word is not deceitful (Psa. 101:7; Prov. 12:7; cf. Tit 1:2; Psa. 101:7)
     God’s Word is Everlasting (Matt. 5:18; 24:35; Isa. 40:8; 1 Pet. 1:25)
     God’s Word is Inalterable (Psa. 89:34; Prov. 30:5-6; cf. Deut. 12:32; Rev. 22:18-19)
     God’s Word is Holy (cf. Lev. 19:2; Psa. 18:30; Isa. 5:24; John 17:17).

     Again, it is self-defeating for you to dismiss Moses, Isaiah, et al. Every book in Jesus’ broad affirmation of the Jewish canon in Luke 24:44-45 and elsewhere is consistent with the above criteria; not so the deuteros.

     Last, to say that Christ gives us only the Church and not His Words is a false dichotomy. That Jesus gave His words (Matt. 24:35) to posterity, and that His disciples preserved them is beyond question. It’s not either/or but both/and. Jesus gave us both the Church and His Words for all posterity.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

548. JohnD January 21st, 2014 8:29 pm :

     Nick T. (re:#545),

     You seem to be saying that the Reformed position relies on the tradition of the Church for the canonical status of the NT books. When the protestant accepts this tradition is he affirming that ecclesial tradition is a source of revelation?

     No. But, corporate reception by the Church is one of the mutually reinforcing ideas used to separate the NT books from any others of that era.

     Do you mean that anything that claims to be God’s Word is in fact God’s Word?

     I will let the Reformed define their own position. The WCF is more clear than I was in Chapter 1, sections IV and V:

     IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.

     V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

     You also said:

     Should not the Reformed man attempt to demonstrate that God has revealed such a doctrine?

     Yes. This is typically done in 3 steps (e.g. James White vs. Patrick Madrid): 1. The Scripture teaches that it is an infallible rule of faith. 2. The Scripture does not refer to another infallible rule of faith. 3. Therefore, the Scriptures are the sole, infallible rule of faith. In step 2, the Reformed Christian will attempt to knock down any texts adduced by his opponent that seek to show the existence of another rule of faith (e.g. 2 Thes 2:15, 1 Tim 3:15, etc.). Sola scriptura is not the topic of this thread, however, you shouldn’t think the Reformed don’t have any arguments for their doctrine, because they do.

     This paradigm obstructs the eyes of faith because it does not allow the Christian to accept apostolic doctrines which are one with that ecclesial tradition.

     This is an assertion. The Reformed have their counter-assertions. For example, they might reply: Authentic apostolic doctrine is only preserved in Scripture.

     Peace,
     John D.

549. John Thayer Jensen January 21st, 2014 8:35 pm :

     Lojahw (#547)

     Thank you for elaborating, JJ.

     On (1) – I’m not arguing epistemology,

     Well, I thought that was precisely what we are arguing – how one can know the contents of the canon infallibly, which seems a prerequisite for any form of sola Scriptura

     but it would be self-defeating for you to argue against the authenticity of the NT books (i.e., that they were written by Jesus’ companions and those close to them).

     I argued no such thing

     Do you fault Protestants for believing the letters claiming to be written by Peter and Paul were actually written by them,

     No. I argue that your reliance on the fact that they are written by an Apostle means that it is the Church – at least the Church in the form of the Apostles – that tells you they are Scripture. Well, actually, I don’t know if it is certain that some letters, e.g. 2nd Peter, were written by Peter. I accept their Scriptural status on the testimony of the Church – as do you, I think.

     or that the Gospels are not authentic accounts of what actually happened?

     Of course not – but that’s not why I think they are Scripture. De Bello Gallico is an authentic account of what happened, but it isn’t Scripture. Much of Eusebius’s history is an authentic account of what happened, but it isn’t Scripture.

     I don’t believe there is a credible alternative. There’s no point in arguing about how Protestants came to believe those writings are in fact “the teachings of those whom Jesus sent.”

     This begs the question. This post is about the fact that we think there precisely is a point in arguing how Protestants can justify their belief (not the same as how they came to believe, which was on the testimony of the Church) that those writings are the teachings of those whom Jesus sent.

     On (2) – the tests (criteria of canonicity) do not rely solely on the NT – they are common to BOTH Old and New Testaments.
     God’s Word is Truth (John 17:17; Psalms 119:160)
     Corollary 1: God’s Word does not contradict itself (Deut. 13:1-3; Gal. 1:8-9)
     Corollary 2: God’s Word is not deceitful (Psa. 101:7; Prov. 12:7; cf. Tit 1:2; Psa. 101:7)
     God’s Word is Everlasting (Matt. 5:18; 24:35; Isa. 40:8; 1 Pet. 1:25)
     God’s Word is Inalterable (Psa. 89:34; Prov. 30:5-6; cf. Deut. 12:32; Rev. 22:18-19)
     God’s Word is Holy (cf. Lev. 19:2; Psa. 18:30; Isa. 5:24; John 17:17).

     Again, it is self-defeating for you to dismiss Moses, Isaiah, et al. Every book in Jesus’ broad affirmation of the Jewish canon in Luke 24:44-45 and elsewhere is consistent with the above criteria; not so the deuteros.

     True – but none of that shows that those writings are God’s Word.

     Last, to say that Christ gives us only the Church and not His Words is a false dichotomy. That Jesus gave His words (Matt. 24:35) to posterity, and that His disciples preserved them is beyond question. It’s not either/or but both/and. Jesus gave us both the Church and His Words for all posterity.

     Absolutely. I made no dichotomy at all. I claim an order – Christ => Church => Scripture. Protestants claim an order something like Christ => Scripture-and-Church (with the unspoken assumption of the right of private interpretation where it appears to the Protestant that Scripture and Church differ).

     jj

550. JohnD January 21st, 2014 9:08 pm :

     Lojahw (re: #503, #521, and #547),

     The criteria that best apply to Mark’s and Luke’s Gospels is not so much their association with the Apostles (as stated, Clement of Rome also was associated with the Apostles, as were Papias and Polycarp), but more because they authentically recorded the teaching of Jesus, who promised “My words shall not pass away.” This authenticity is attested from the earliest days of the church as well as the overall consistency of their accounts with Matthew’s. As for the criterion that applies to Acts, Luke authentically records the teaching of the Apostles Peter and Paul.

     Good points here. I don’t think Clement, Papias, and Polycarp are associated with the Apostles in the same way as Luke and Mark, but I’m having trouble at the moment articulating a clear, principled distinction. I am tempted to say, the former didn’t follow the Apostles around, but that just sounds ridiculous and we don’t really know they didn’t.

     An ecumenical council by definition represents the entire church on earth, which no council since Nicea II in 787 can claim.

     That assumes the Catholic Church as it exists today (and at the Lateran, Florence, Trent, Vatican councils, etc.) is not the Church that Christ founded. If that Church is the only Church with an unbroken pedigree that goes back to the Apostles, then the Orthodox Church does not represent the Catholic Church on earth, but rather a Church in schism from the Catholic Church (though there is a high degree of unity). However, I’m out of my element in those comments and stand to be corrected.

     Every book in Jesus’ broad affirmation of the Jewish canon in Luke 24:44-45 and elsewhere is consistent with the above criteria; not so the deuteros.

     It simply begs the question to say the Deuteros don’t pass the criteria. If you are going to point to apparent errors as proof that they fail the criteria, you will need to prove that the error is real error and not merely an apparent error, which is very hard to do.

     Peace,
     John D.

551. Lojahw January 21st, 2014 9:15 pm :

     Nick wrote:
     the Holy Spirit was not explicitly called the third Person of the Trinity by the faithful for the first few centuries.

     Oh, ye of little faith! Neither understanding the Scriptures nor the church fathers!

     So who did Christians think the Holy Spirit was every time – from the beginning – that they were baptized in the “name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit”?

     Isa. 48:12-13, 16: “I am the first, I am also the last. Surely My hand founded the earth, and My right hand spread out the heavens… From the time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord Yahweh has sent Me, and His Spirit. [The Lord Yahweh has sent the first and the last, the one who founded the earth and spread out the seas; cf. Rev. 1:17-18]

     Matt. 28:19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”

     Luke 1:35 “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.”

     John 15:26 When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me. [Only deity can “send” deity.]

     2 Cor. 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.

     Eph. 2:17-18 And He [Jesus] came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father.

     What did the early church fathers say?

     Clement of Rome, in 1 Clement 13:1, “for the Holy Spirit saith, Let not the wise boast in his wisdom, nor the strong in his strength, nor the rich in his riches; but let him that boasteth make his boast in the Lord.” [as Peter interpreted this and the many other prophecies of Scripture: “men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Pet. 1:20-21) – the same thing that 1 Clement 8:1 says!]

     Again, in 1 Clement 58:2, “For as God liveth, and as the Lord Jesus Christ liveth, and the Holy Spirit, . . . “
     Who was this Holy Spirit, if not God the Spirit?
     Ignatius of Antioch to the Philadelphians (5): “so also did the prophets and the apostles receive from God, through Jesus Christ, one and the same Holy Spirit, who is good, and sovereign, and true, and the Author of [saving] knowledge. Who besides God is good and sovereign and true and the author of knowledge?

     Do you need more quotes? Don’t attribute to the proclamation of a Church council the first instance of belief in the Church.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

552. Lojahw January 21st, 2014 9:55 pm :

     Nick wrote:
     many would argue that the Jewish canon was uncertain around the time of Christ. I think that this was the case.

     You seem to be following a red herring. Just because the Writings (Ketuvim) were finalized in the second century CE, does not mean that the overall contents of the canon changed. The reorganization of the Hebrew canonical books in the second century between the Prophets and the Writings was a consequence of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 and the failed Bar Kochba revolt (AD 132-136). The total number of canonical books did not change: some of the books in the Prophets were simply moved to the Writings.

     Because Jerusalem and the Temple could no longer be the center of the major Jewish feasts,the Jews designated five small books, the Megillot, to be used across the Diaspora for the following liturgical events: Song of Songs (Passover), Ruth (Pentecost), Lamentations (the destruction of Jerusalem), Ecclesiastes (Tabernacles), and Esther (Purim). As such, these books needed a place other than the Law and the Prophets. Two of these, Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes, were already with the Psalms, so they put all of them with the Psalms. As things settled out, they also moved six other books from the prophets to the Ketuvim (the Writings): Job, Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah, and 1 and 2 Chronicles. Daniel actually straddled two categories by being an administrator in a pagan kingdom as well as being a prophet. The other five made sense to move out of the prophets proper.

     I hope this helps.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

553. Lojahw January 21st, 2014 10:12 pm :

     Nick, Nick, Nick.

     So many misunderstandings!
     But the protestant, when he doubts the Church’s preservation of orthodoxy, questions the Church’s rule of faith, i.e. the very rule which measured the canon.

     Do you know who coined the phrase, “the Rule of Faith”? It was Tertullian, who defined it:

     Now, with regard to this rule of faith— that we may from this point acknowledge what it is which we defend— it is, you must know, that which prescribes the belief that there is one only God, and that He is none other than the Creator of the world, who produced all things out of nothing through His own Word, first of all sent forth; that this Word is called His Son, and, under the name of God, was seen “in diverse manners” by the patriarchs, heard at all times in the prophets, at last brought down by the Spirit and Power of the Father into the Virgin Mary, was made flesh in her womb, and, being born of her, went forth as Jesus Christ; thenceforth He preached the new law and the new promise of the kingdom of heaven, worked miracles; having been crucified, He rose again the third day; (then) having ascended into the heavens, He sat at the right hand of the Father; sent instead of Himself the Power of the Holy Ghost to lead such as believe; will come with glory to take the saints to the enjoyment of everlasting life and of the heavenly promises, and to condemn the wicked to everlasting fire, after the resurrection of both these classes shall have happened, together with the restoration of their flesh. This rule, as it will be proved, was taught by Christ, and raises among ourselves no other questions than those which heresies introduce, and which make men heretics. (Prescription Against Heretics 13)

     BTW – Tertullian says in chapter 32 of the same work: “To this test [the “rule of faith”], therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine.”

     Of course all NT books are consistent with the Rule of Faith – the latter derives its authority from the former!

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

554. Jonathan Prejean January 21st, 2014 10:14 pm :

     @JohnD (#543, 544, and 548):

     From my angle, it sounds like Tom (Please correct me Tom if I am wrong here) is saying that is exactly what follows.

     I’d say your angle is skewed. The whole point is that a fallible collection of infallible books alone cannot serve as a binding authority. In other words, a collection of books, such as Scripture, cannot stand alone as an infallible authority if the collection is admittedly fallible, which vitiates its infallible authority qua collection of books.

     But if you apply the principle of development of doctrine, then development is not a problem.

     Sola scriptura cannot develop by definition. If you admit development of sola scriptura, then you admit that it is not a valid authoritative principle on its own terms.

     But, corporate reception by the Church is one of the mutually reinforcing ideas used to separate the NT books from any others of that era.

     It’s either authoritative, or it isn’t. If it’s authoritative, you’ve conceded the Catholic authority principle. If it isn’t, then you’ve admitted (as per the argument above) that sola scriptura is not a valid authoritative principle. That’s why I said earlier that the appeal to corporate reception is necessarily self-defeating.

     This is typically done in 3 steps (e.g. James White vs. Patrick Madrid): 1. The Scripture teaches that it is an infallible rule of faith. 2. The Scripture does not refer to another infallible rule of faith. 3. Therefore, the Scriptures are the sole, infallible rule of faith.

     That assumes that the authority of Scripture doesn’t depend on the parallel existence of any other authority, which just begs the question. If one would already know that Scripture requires other authorities to itself function as an authority, then whether or not Scripture testifies to these other authorities is completely irrelevant, because we should presume that there would be no need for Scripture to say anything. So the conclusion that Scripture’s authority is sole based on 1 and 2 is question-begging. Moreover, even in premise 2, there’s an obvious interpretive difference on whether Scripture teaches other authorities or not, so it’s already a question-begging assertion. Lastly, if the necessity of these other authorities is necessary for Scripture to function as an authority, then even the fact that Scripture teaches its own authority implicitly affirms the authority of those other sources as well. In short, because the assertion of sola scriptura is self-defeating, this argument actually proves the existence of parallel authorities that support the authority of Scripture.

555. Lojahw January 21st, 2014 10:42 pm :

     Nick wrote:
     Reformed brothers and sisters accept the canon promulgated by the early Church but reject other doctrines promulgated by that same Church because their paradigm entails that all doctrines are found in the canon.

     Thank you for acknowledging that the Protestant canon was the one “promulgated by the early Church.” Maybe your particular church taught that “all doctrines are found in the canon,” but the Belgic Confession, Article 5 says:

     “We believe that those Holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God, and that whatsoever man ought to believe unto salvation is sufficiently taught therein.”

     Thus, what is fully contained in Scripture is “whatsoever man ought to believe unto salvation.” And the same confession article 7 says: “we reject with all our hearts whatsoever doth not agree with this infallible rule.” Thus Protestants can practice infant baptism even though it is not taught in Scripture.

     Similarly, the Helvetic Confession, II.2 states:
     Wherefore we do not despise the interpretations of the holy Greek and Latin fathers, nor reject their disputations and treatises as far as they agree with the Scriptures; but we do modestly dissent from them when they are found to set down things differing from, or altogether contrary to, the Scriptures.

     Moreover, the Westminster Confession I.VI states:
     “there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.”

     The Anglican 39 Articles (#6) states the principles of Sola scriptura nicely:

     Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.

     Thus, Scripture is the final authority with respect to salvation, not everything.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

556. Lojahw January 21st, 2014 10:45 pm :

     Peace, JJ, we’re talking past each other. No sense prolonging the misunderstandings.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

557. Lojahw January 22nd, 2014 12:42 am :

     John D,
     Thank you for your comments.

     Another Apostolic endorsement of Luke as Scripture comes from Paul in 2 Tim. 5:18.
     I’m not impressed with claims of “apostolic association” – but if Mark and Luke authentically record Jesus’ teaching in their Gospels, I can trust that criterion of canonicity; and, Acts as authentically recording the teaching of both Peter and Paul, seems compelling to me.

     Re: the EO as schismatic begs the question – who broke off from whom? Also, I find it interesting that Paul chastises the Corinthians for schisms, but he does not conclude therefore that those in schisms are no longer part of the Body of Christ. Indeed he precedes his remarks on the schisms greeting the Church comprised of “all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” ( 1 Cor. 1:2). Moreover, Jesus, defines the sheep of His flock as those “who hear My voice and follow Me” (John 10:27). That the Church = the entire Body Christ is clearly taught by the Apostles; therefore, schism or no schism, all have a place at the Lord’s table.

     Re: deutero’s not passing the “God’s word is truth” – e.g., can you explain why my example regarding Baruch (6:1-2) written centuries after Jeremiah by an impostor in his name, giving a false prophecy about the duration of the Babylonian exile, is not a real error (contradicting both canonical Jer. 29:10 and history as recorded in Erza and elsewhere)? Do you recall what Moses said about false prophets in Deut. 18:18, 22?

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

558. Tom Brown January 22nd, 2014 9:36 am :

     Dear “Lojahw” (# 546),

     If you are relying on a form on your own interpretation of tradition — oral testimony reaching a degree of consensus which you believe confirms the involvement of the Holy Spirit in preserving a text — then I agree you are not engaged in a tautological appeal to Scripture to prove the canon of Scripture. Two things of note. First, your initial appeal to Scripture as evidence of the words of Christ cannot be given the degree of certainty you might later attribute to Scripture, or that would be a tautology. Second, as a structure cannot be stronger than its foundation, then your entire confidence cannot be stronger than your confidence that the red-letter words of the Gospels accurately relay the words of Christ.

     I do not believe that Calvin’s criteria align with yours. In his Institutes, he does not articulate a position that begins with a look to the red letters of the Gospels as mere evidence of the words of Christ, and then build his construct based on an analysis of those letters. Rather, he appeals to a burning of the bossom from the Holy Spirit that allows a believer to see Scripture as one can see black from white. I discuss this in the article.

     RE: # 510, is it your understanding of the Reformed position that it maintains there was no infallible canon (i.e., the canon was possibly wrong and open for debate) until a certain very recent point in time, and that now there is an infallible canon (i.e., not possibly wrong and not open for debate)?

     And re: # 556, this is disappointing. JJ’s comments have been very much on point with the topic of the article.

     Peace,
     Tom

559. Tom Brown January 22nd, 2014 9:55 am :

     Dear Christie (#542),

     You said:

     In a previous comment to me, (#441), you wrote,

     “if the judgment involved was not protected from error, then the list of books in the Bible is fallible, which condition would completely erode the foundation for confidence in Sacred Scripture…”.

     But if the judgment involved prior to Trent was fallible, then wouldn’t the above be true?

     Before I respond, let me note that even if Catholicism shared the logical errors of Protestant canon scholarship, that would not cure Protestantism’s problems here. That is, my above arguments stand even if Catholicism doesn’t escape them. So I hope you would consider those arguments on their own merits, with attempting a tu quoque rebuttal as some kind of rationalization of the Protestant position. (I’m not accusing you of that, but inviting your consideration of this point.)

     I said previously to you (# 530) that I wouldn’t use the fallible/infallible language vis-a-vis the Catholic understanding of canon because that casts the matter in a Protestant frame. The Catholic Church’s judgment had not reached the level of dogma until the point in time at which it did. There would be no loss in confidence in the teaching authority of the Bishop prior to that time, but the same could not be said in a Protestant sola scriptura frame.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

560. Tom Brown January 22nd, 2014 10:01 am :

     Dear John D. and Jonathan (re: ## 543 and 554),

     I agree with Jonathan’s last qualification regarding the Bible alone. Please also see my above comments to Christie, which have related to this line of thought. The fallible-collection argument relates to the sola scriptura paradigm.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

561. JohnD January 22nd, 2014 12:19 pm :

     Jonathan (re:#554),

     I’d say your angle is skewed. The whole point is that a fallible collection of infallible books alone cannot serve as a binding authority. In other words, a collection of books, such as Scripture, cannot stand alone as an infallible authority if the collection is admittedly fallible, which vitiates its infallible authority qua collection of books.

     Thank you for the helpful qualification. I will keep this in mind as I reexamine Tom’s arguments.

     Sola scriptura cannot develop by definition. If you admit development of sola scriptura, then you admit that it is not a valid authoritative principle on its own terms.

     My comment about development was not about sola scriptura.

     It’s either authoritative, or it isn’t. If it’s authoritative, you’ve conceded the Catholic authority principle. If it isn’t, then you’ve admitted (as per the argument above) that sola scriptura is not a valid authoritative principle. That’s why I said earlier that the appeal to corporate reception is necessarily self-defeating.

     Good point. I am not entirely familiar with Kruger’s arguments, so I would have to examine in what context he presents the “3 mutually reinforcing ideas” in order to represent him accurately. However, I can say that any evidential criteria adduced by the Reformed Christian to show the extent of the NT canon is not infallibly authoritative. Their paradigm is most clearly revealed in the WCF, chapter 1, IV and V which I quoted in #548. You and Bryan have argued elsewhere (as well as Tom?) that this is unacceptable fideism. Fair enough. From my angle (which may be skewed), the Reformed Christian rests on faith in the canon produced by the Apostles and received by the Church, the “mutually reinforcing ideas” and other stuff are adduced to show their faith does not contradict reason. But, I cannot attribute that view to Kruger since I haven’t read his books (only some online articles).

     That assumes that the authority of Scripture doesn’t depend on the parallel existence of any other authority, which just begs the question.

     You are correct. I forgot a premise/term in White’s argument. (1) should be stated: Scripture teaches that it is a sufficient, infallible rule of faith. Notice, the Protestant only needs to demonstrate material sufficiency in order for the conclusion to go through (that is, if he can successfully knockdown Catholic arguments against premise 2).

     Thanks for your comments. I appreciate your passionate, thorough defenses of Catholicism on this blog and others.

     Peace,
     John D.

562. JohnD January 22nd, 2014 12:42 pm :

     Logahw (re:#557),

     Thanks for your reply.

     Re: the EO as schismatic begs the question – who broke off from whom? Also, I find it interesting that Paul chastises the Corinthians for schisms, but he does not conclude therefore that those in schisms are no longer part of the Body of Christ. Indeed he precedes his remarks on the schisms greeting the Church comprised of “all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” ( 1 Cor. 1:2). Moreover, Jesus, defines the sheep of His flock as those “who hear My voice and follow Me” (John 10:27). That the Church = the entire Body Christ is clearly taught by the Apostles; therefore, schism or no schism, all have a place at the Lord’s table.

     I am no expert on the “Corinthian schisms”, but I think comments along these lines should be in response to this article .

     [C]an you explain why my example regarding Baruch (6:1-2) written centuries after Jeremiah by an impostor in his name, giving a false prophecy about the duration of the Babylonian exile, is not a real error (contradicting both canonical Jer. 29:10 and history as recorded in Erza and elsewhere)? Do you recall what Moses said about false prophets in Deut. 18:18, 22?

     Honestly, I have no idea how to reconcile the apparent error you cite. I also have no idea how to reconcile a lot of apparent errors in the OT and NT. Perhaps you will insist that this apparent error is more egregious and outrageous than any apparent errors in the 66 books Protestants accept. I don’t know any other answer to give you except for the same one Gary Michuta gave James White in their debate. Here is a link to Michuta explaining his answer in a short article.

     Peace,
     John D.

563. Lojahw January 22nd, 2014 5:51 pm :

     Dear Tom,
     I think you understand my argument wherein we believe that certain books (e.g., the Gospels) authentically preserve Christ’s teaching, and from that we reasonably infer that if Christ taught it, it must be authoritative; however, our conviction that these things are so is based on the testimony of the Holy Spirit. Hence, there is no tautology. On the second point, however, the foundation of the conviction is the Holy Spirit – and there is none stronger. As Paul teaches: ‘no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit’ (1 Cor. 12:3). Recognizing Jesus is Lord is the basis for recognizing His teaching possesses ultimate authority.

     Re: Calvin, I disagree with your reading (as I think I explained a long time ago). Institutes 1.7.4-1.8.13 argues that unbelievers reject the inspiration of Scripture in spite of the evidence for it in general: such as its peculiar property of truth, its beautiful testimony of faith, its antiquity, miracles, prophecy, authenticity, preservation, the testimony of the Church, and the blood of the martyrs. Those sections frame the context for 1.7.5: “Scripture, carrying its own evidence along with it, deigns not to submit to proofs and arguments, but owes the full conviction with which we ought to receive it to the testimony of the Spirit.” Thus the testimony of the Spirit is not confined to a “burning in the bosom” of each individual believer, but it extends to many dimensions – including the testimony of the Church as well as the blood of the martyrs.
     Re: #510, The Reformers did not recognize the canon of Trent as infallible, hence William Whitaker’s book and others against “the papists.” What I originally wrote was there was *no claim* to an infallible canon before Trent declared it’s canon with all the anathemas for whoever did not follow it.

     I would appreciate your answer to the (more basic) question, because it gets to the core of what is conscience-binding and why:

     Were the books of Moses conscience-binding for the Jews in the time of Joshua? Please explain.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

564. Nick Trosclair January 22nd, 2014 7:41 pm :

     Hi John D. (re: #548)

     No. But, corporate reception by the Church is one of the mutually reinforcing ideas used to separate the NT books from any others of that era.

     If an extra-biblical apostolic doctrine were found in the Church’s rule of faith (corporate reception), could the Reformed man accept it as revelation even though it is not found in Scripture? This is a crucial question because if the answer is no, then no dialogue may continue until the paradigm of sola scriptura is debunked. (Meaning, we need to take this to a different post.)

     This is an assertion. The Reformed have their counter-assertions. For example, they might reply: Authentic apostolic doctrine is only preserved in Scripture.

     Yes. However, in principle, the doctrine of sola scriptura obstructs even the possibility that apostolic doctrine could be found in the Church which is not explicit in Scripture. Earlier, in #478 of this dialogue, you stated that it was unfair of me to suspect that the doctrine of sola scriptura lurks behind all the protestant, patristic arguments. I think that we have demonstrated that my suspicions were warranted. The question of sola scriptura is inevitable when discussing the development of the canon. I hope we can discuss the nature of sola scriptura, but it would probably be best to take this discussion to a different post.

     Nick T.

565. Nick Trosclair January 22nd, 2014 7:54 pm :

     Lojahw, (re: #551, 552, 553, and 555)

     Oh, ye of little faith! Neither understanding the Scriptures nor the church fathers!

     This is not helpful for ecumenical dialogue.

     So who did Christians think the Holy Spirit was every time – from the beginning – that they were baptized in the “name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit”?

     I did not say that the ECF of the first few centuries did not believe that the Holy Spirit was God. I said that they did not explicitly talk about Him as the Third Person of the Trinity. There is a difference. None of the quotes you provided are opposed to my original statement.

     Do you know who coined the phrase, “the Rule of Faith”? It was Tertullian, who defined it:…..

     Sure. But the “Rule of faith”, according to Tertullian also entailed apostolic succession which is rejected by the Protestant. Thus, the same “Rule of Faith” which measured the canon also entailed Catholic doctrines such as apostolic succession.

     Of course all NT books are consistent with the Rule of Faith – the latter derives its authority from the former

     That is not quite right. The early Church used the Rule of Faith to distinguish canonical texts from non-canonical texts. The Rule of Faith derives its authority from the Apostles who in turn received it from Jesus Christ.

     Nick T.

566. Christie January 22nd, 2014 9:12 pm :

     Tom (#559),

     I should clarify: I’m a Catholic (entered full communion recently). So I’m definitely not attempting to rationalize the Protestant position — just to understand the Catholic one.

     I’m asking because it does seem that Catholicism shares the same logical errors, if indeed no infallible judgment was made about the canon before Trent. I don’t understand why you wouldn’t use the fallible/infallible language vis-a-vis the Catholic understanding of the canon. Why not? How does that language cast the matter in a Protestant frame?

     Why wouldn’t a regional council’s decision, like Carthage or Hippo, not be looked at with the same skepticism as we do with Sproul’s position — a fallible collection of infallible books. I don’t understand what the “frame” has to do with it; I’m trying to understand how the Catholic position doesn’t fall prey to those pitfalls. And if it does do so, how could that be consistent with the Church’s understanding of divine revelation if it couldn’t be sure that it had the right books as Scripture for roughly 1,000 years before Trent.

     –Christie

567. Tom Brown January 22nd, 2014 10:38 pm :

     Dear Readers,

     In recognition of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, I have decided to suspend comments here until the completion of this special octave, on January 25th. Pending comments will be reviewed at that time, so please, no need to re-post. Please use this time to pray for one another and for Christian unity. Thank you.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

568. JohnD January 26th, 2014 1:30 pm :

     Nick T. (re: #564),

     If an extra-biblical apostolic doctrine were found in the Church’s rule of faith (corporate reception), could the Reformed man accept it as revelation even though it is not found in Scripture?

     The question is confused. The infallible rule of faith for Reformed Christians is not corporate reception, but Scripture alone.

     However, in principle, the doctrine of sola scriptura obstructs even the possibility that apostolic doctrine could be found in the Church which is not explicit in Scripture.

     Not exactly. I would frame it: sola scriptura implies that no doctrine can be known as apostolic outside of Scripture. But, I see your point.

     Earlier, in #478 of this dialogue, you stated that it was unfair of me to suspect that the doctrine of sola scriptura lurks behind all the protestant, patristic arguments. I think that we have demonstrated that my suspicions were warranted.

     I conceded this point in #497, sorry if the concession was unclear.

     Peace,
     John D.

569. Tom Brown January 26th, 2014 2:55 pm :

     Dear readers,

     I have re-opened this combox now that the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity has concluded. Please continue to discuss, and may our dialogue be strengthened, by God’s grace, now that we’ve had this time to pray particularly for Christian unity.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

570. Lojahw January 26th, 2014 3:53 pm :

     Thank you, Tom,

     I appreciated your suggestion to pray for unity, and closing the combox to encourage it.

     I look forward to your response to my post @ 563.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

571. Lojahw January 26th, 2014 3:54 pm :

     Dear Nick – You are right, I apologize for getting carried away in my comments to you. Please forgive me.

     Re: the Holy Spirit, I assume that you did not intend the mere use of that formula. More importantly, do the beliefs expressed by the formula ante-date the formula? Unquestionably, they do. The Holy Spirit was always believed to be God, the Holy Spirit was believed to be a person (as my quotes from Scripture and the ECFs illustrate), and the Holy Spirit is consistently third in the lists of persons in the godhead. Since these beliefs long preceded the formula, the Church did not depend on the formula to recognize the doctrine. That’s my point.

     Re: Tertullian and apostolic churches. False dichotomy: you apparently did not carefully read the quote in my post from Prescription Against Heretics chapter 32 carefully:

     those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine.”

     It is true that Tertullian talks in ch. 20 about Churches which are “the offspring of apostolic [i.e., founded by the Apostles or those succeeding them] churches,” but according to ch. 32, agreement with the Trinitarian “rule of faith” proves a church is just as “apostolic” as any claiming an episcopal pedigree. It’s both/and; not either/or.

     Of course all NT books are consistent with the Rule of Faith – the latter derives its authority from the former

     You wrote:
     That is not quite right. The early Church used the Rule of Faith to distinguish canonical texts from non-canonical texts. The Rule of Faith derives its authority from the Apostles who in turn received it from Jesus Christ.

     Nick, I have read 1000s of pages from the ECFs and later scholars on canonicity, and I cannot recall a single instance where the Rule of Faith was cited as the primary criterion for distinguishing canonical texts from non-canonical texts. Rather, the Rule of Faith is typically cited to distinguish orthodoxy from heterodoxy. Can you give an example to the contrary?

     (1) Many texts do not even touch on the articles of faith expressed in Tertullian’s the Rule of Faith (ca. 220); therefore, the Rule of Faith does not apply to them.

     (2) All of the statements in the Rule of Faith have antecedents in the canonical books.

     (3) Since all of the canonical texts existed prior to the heretical “Christian” Pseudepigrapha, it begs the question to claim that an as-yet unwritten Rule of Faith took precedence over the books that had ALREADY been recognized as canonical (which includes the vast majority of them from the beginning of the second century on).

     (4) Based on #2 & #3, the injunctions of both Moses and Paul (in their respective canonical writings) against contradicting prior revelation, second-century and later heretical works could be (and often were) refuted simply by citing the previously-recognized canonical books. This is exactly what the Council of Nicea did, by citing Scripture passage after Scripture passage to refute the heresy of Arius.

     (5) According to the Muratorian Canon (ca. 170), the early Church believed that if a book does not belong with the prophets or the apostles, it is not canonical. There are multiple ways of arguing that the non-canonical texts do not belong with the prophets or the apostles (e.g., later in time, obvious forgeries, contradictory teaching, etc.).

     The truth is, the early Church had *other criteria* for distinguishing non-canonical texts from canonical texts, so your assertion that the early Church used the Rule of Faith for that purpose begs the question.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

572. Lojahw January 26th, 2014 4:03 pm :

     Thank you for your comments, JohnD.

     You wrote:
     Perhaps you will insist that this apparent error is more egregious and outrageous than any apparent errors in the 66 books Protestants accept. I don’t know any other answer to give you except for the same one Gary Michuta gave James White in their debate.

     Two contradictories cannot both be true. This is one of the first principles of truth. Jer. 29:10 (70 years of exile) is true; Bar. 6:2 (7 generations of exile) is false. According to Moses, Baruch 6 (the Epistle of Jeremiah) was written by a false prophet (cf. Deut. 18:20,22).

     There’s a fundamental difference between outright contradiction and questionable texts. For example, inaccuracies typical of eyewitness accounts do not mean they are untrue (courtroom testimony allows for such minor discrepancies). Similarly, copying errors (including numbers, which were recorded using Hebrew letters with special marks for powers of ten, susceptible to copying errors) are not grounds for repudiating a book’s canonicity. Moreover, interpretive difficulties can almost always be resolved by further study, contradictions cannot. For example: biblical genealogies were written for literary – not chronological – purposes (hence: Jesus the son of David, the son of Abraham – Matthew is saying that Jesus is the Messianic “Son” of David and the seed of Abraham who will bless every family on earth); dating of OT events based on calendars starting in the fall vs. calendars starting in the spring; dating of kings reigns accounting for co-regnums vs. not accounting for them; etc.

     There is no reasonable way to attribute “seven generations” to transcription errors of “seventy years” or to reconcile the contradiction (one church father tried, by suggesting that a generation = ten years; but that’s special pleading). By contradicting both historical fact and a prophecy by the prophet whose name the author has falsely represented himself, Baruch cannot be counted among the books for which Jesus teaches: “Your word is truth.”

     It bothers me when people defend contradictions by suggesting that canonical books are no better – without citing examples. As a strategy, defending a contradiction in a “deuterocanonical” book by impugning the veracity of canonical Scripture is self-defeating. Lowering the standard of truth dishonors both God and His Word.

     Two books that I’ve found helpful are:
     Gleason Archer’s: New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982
     Geisler, Norman L., and Thomas Howe. When Critics Ask: a Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties. Wheaton: Victor Books, 1992.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

573. JohnD January 26th, 2014 4:45 pm :

     Christie (re: #566),

     I’m definitely not attempting to rationalize the Protestant position — just to understand the Catholic one.

     I share your sentiment.

     I don’t understand why you wouldn’t use the fallible/infallible language vis-a-vis the Catholic understanding of the canon…Why wouldn’t a regional council’s decision, like Carthage or Hippo, not be looked at with the same skepticism as we do with Sproul’s position — a fallible collection of infallible books. I don’t understand what the “frame” has to do with it; I’m trying to understand how the Catholic position doesn’t fall prey to those pitfalls. And if it does do so, how could that be consistent with the Church’s understanding of divine revelation if it couldn’t be sure that it had the right books as Scripture for roughly 1,000 years before Trent.

     I tried to ask a similar question (and propose a dilemma) in several comments above (see #’s 519, 535, and 536). The most helpful reply thus far has been Jonathan’s (#554) where he says this:

     The whole point is that a fallible collection of infallible books alone cannot serve as a binding authority. In other words, a collection of books, such as Scripture, cannot stand alone as an infallible authority if the collection is admittedly fallible, which vitiates its infallible authority qua collection of books.

     So, apparently, the Catholic reply is not that a fallible collection cannot be binding, but rather that it cannot be binding on its own without some other legitimate, visible authority to do the binding. Tom also explained this in #539:

     For those Catholics whose Bishops [fallibly] taught a canon prior to the 4th century (or Trent), they would have owed ordinary assent to their Bishop’s teaching.

     .

     Hope some of this is helpful. I look forward to the continuing discussions in this thread.

     Peace,
     John D.

574. Nick Trosclair January 26th, 2014 6:17 pm :

     Hi Lojahw, (re: #571)

     Thank you for your apology. And thank you for your response.

     The early Christians implicitly affirmed the Triune God and the distinct personality of the Holy Spirit. However, because of the lack of explicit declarations, many of the early Christians failed to express the faith in an orthodox manner. The Church’s declarations made the faith explicit so that there would be no doubt in the minds of the faithful. I only emphasize this point because it provides an example of development in the early Church and so sheds light on the nature of the development of the canon. Consider the opinion of the great patristic scholar Dom Gregory Dix:

     The doctrine of the full Deity of the Holy Ghost offers an even clearer illustration. It was defined in 381 against the teaching of Macedonius that the Holy Ghost is not God as the Father and Son are God, but is in some way subordinate and intermediate between God and creatures. There is nothing in the N.T. which clearly indicates that the Orthodox doctrine is certainly right, or which is irreconcilable with Macedonianism in some form. Even the baptismal formula of Matt. xxviii.19 can scarcely be pressed (as it was pressed then) in such a sense, seeing that baptism “in the Name of the Lord Jesus” only is scriptural, and so late as the ninth century was still an officially accepted alternative. St. Athanasius and St. Basil both raised the question of the Third Person, but their controversy was waged with those who had followed them against the Arians. They appealed, naturally, to scripture and tradition, and it is notorious how defective in substance their appeal is found to be when it is closely examined. It is also remarkable that in the works which they wrote to vindicate this doctrine both carefully avoid even once applying the decisive word “God” to the Holy Ghost, though in this they are but following earlier writers, even professed trinitarians like Novatian, and the N.T. itself. St. Gregory Nazianzen, “the theologian” par excellence for the East, under whose presidency the Oecumenical Council of 381 actually defined the doctrine, is explicit that there were by “few” who accepted it in his day and that Athanasius was the first and almost the only doctor to whom God had vouchsafed light on this subject (Orat 21.32). Elsewhere he is even more devastatingly honest with the admission that while the N.T. plainly revealed the Godhead of the Son it no more than “hinted at” that of the Holy Ghost, which was now being plainly revealed in his own day (Orat 31.26). This is some distance from talk of “most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.” It was neither Scripture nor Tradition which imposed the dogma of 381, defined by the most thinly attended and least unanimous of all the assemblies which rank as General Councils, but the living magisterium of the Church of that age. And upon that basis only it is accepted today. That the full doctrine of the Spirit’s Godhead was then believed in some sense “everywhere” we may hope, though the evidence is not reassuring. That it had “always” been believed by some we may suppose, though the evidence is at least defective. That it had previously been believed “by all” is demonstrably untrue. An enormous catena can be formed of ante-Nicene writers from St. Clement of Rome in the first century onwards who are either Macedonian Subordinationists or who definitely make the Holy Ghost a creature. One would have hard work to find one ante-Nicene writer who consistently teaches the full Constantinopolitan doctrine—apart from the Montanist Tertullian!

     As to Tertullian, do you deny that he affirms that the rule of faith is safeguarded by apostolic succession? Again, I hope we do not veer from the main outlines of Tom’s article, but it is indirectly relevant because the development of the canon was measured by the rule of faith. The latter point is relevant to your last critique. You wrote:

     Nick, I have read 1000s of pages from the ECFs and later scholars on canonicity, and I cannot recall a single instance where the Rule of Faith was cited as the primary criterion for distinguishing canonical texts from non-canonical texts. Rather, the Rule of Faith is typically cited to distinguish orthodoxy from heterodoxy. Can you give an example to the contrary?

     According to Lee Martin McDonald (see his magnum opus The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority), the rule of faith played a major role in distinguishing canonical books from non-canonical books. He cites the classic example of Bishop Serapion of Antioch (ca. 200) who at first allowed the Gospel of Peter to be read in the liturgy. However, after he compared it to the rule of faith, he forbade it. (cf. Eusebius’s Church History, Book 6, chpt. 12) In his Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority, Lee Martin McDonald spills a good bit of ink on this process. The bishops and faithful judged the authority of documents according to the rule of faith.

     Nick T.

575. JohnD January 26th, 2014 8:13 pm :

     Logahw (re: #572),

     It bothers me when people defend contradictions by suggesting that canonical books are no better – without citing examples. As a strategy, defending a contradiction in a “deuterocanonical” book by impugning the veracity of canonical Scripture is self-defeating. Lowering the standard of truth dishonors both God and His Word.

     It is evident you did not read the full article I linked to (not that you have to). But, Michuta specifically says it is unbelievers who typically impugn Scripture in this way. For example, he says:

     If the objector is tenacious, he may press the Catholic to come up with an parallel example in the protocanonical Scripture. Of course, no example will satisfy the Protestant objector since the only
     comparable example in the Protocanon would be a real error (since he believes Judith [insert Baruch] to contain errors). A Catholic who attempts to provide an example would play the Atheist taking pot shots as the New Testament.

     So, it is not that Catholics are suggesting “canonical books are no better” but rather that “all Scripture is inspired” even if we can’t understand (or harmonize) certain pieces of it. I already told you that I do not know how to harmonize the apparent error you cite in Baruch. But, as Michuta states, the decision is first made that a book is inspired before it can be declared free from all error (a consequence of inspiration). The early church did not examine the books searching for error and then breath a sigh of relief when they didn’t find any.

     I will get back to you if I find a better specific answer to the apparent error you cite in Baruch.

     Peace,
     John D.

576. Lojahw January 26th, 2014 10:12 pm :

     Thank you again for your comments, JohnD.

     as Michuta states, the decision is first made that a book is inspired before it can be declared free from all error (a consequence of inspiration).

     ‘Sorry I did not address this defense in response to your post (I have in previous posts).

     First, Mitchuta begs the question by assuming that there is in fact, an infallible authority who can declare canonicity irrespective of the criteria of canonicity given by the prophets, the apostles and Christ.

     Second, the prophets and apostles long ago defined criteria to which prophecies/teaching are subject. Related to Baruch 6:1-2, 1) any prophecy that predicts something that is contrary to what happens is false, and the prophet is to be executed; 2) the prophecy/teaching must be consistent with the prior revelation of God to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the prophets – if it attempts to draw people away to another God, another Jesus, another Gospel, the prophet/teacher is to be cursed (Gal. 1:8).

     Mitchuta also argues against a particular view of inerrancy, which is more narrowly held than he admits – as such his argument is a strawman. I never said there could be no unresolved questions about inspired Scripture – I addressed a particular category of error: explicit contradiction.

     Nevertheless, I deny Mitchuta’s assertion that prophecy/teaching is exempt from examination by any criteria before deciding if it is inspired. Mitchuta has no right to dismiss the teaching of the prophets and the apostles for a proposed standard that contradicts them. Why discuss criteria of canonicity, if they don’t count? It is Mitchuta that begs the question.

     I hope this helps.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

577. Lojahw January 26th, 2014 10:22 pm :

     Whoops –
     I forgot to mention that Matthew indeed lists 14 generations from Abraham to David; 14 generations from David to the deportation, and 14 generations from the deportation to Jesus. The only way to count 13 generations is to deny they are inclusive of the first and last names given in each group, and that is an unreasonable demand.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

578. JeffB January 27th, 2014 10:58 am :

     Lojahw,
     As a former studious Protestant for whom canon questions were important in my conversion to Catholicism, I wanted to offer a few suggestions regarding the issue you raised with Baruch 6.

     To me, it depends on how narrowly one reads that statement about seven generations. You seem to be taking it as intending to convey a precise time as in “exactly seven generations, no more, no less.” But it seems perfectly reasonable to me to read it more poetically as representing a fullness of time for the sins committed, rather than a precise number. I don’t read Scripture verses about the Lord owning the cattle on “a thousand” hills as meaning that if there were only 900 hills to be found that Scripture was in error or that if there were 1001, that the Lord didn’t own the cattle on that extra hill. Furthermore, even the wording itself about being “up to” seven generations almost implies that perhaps “at worst” seven generations might be used up but it could be less than that. Not to deflect criticism by playing the tu quoque card, but how do you reconcile the Jeremiah passage with the times presented in Ezekiel 4 (390 years, 40 years)? Are those incompatible? My point is simply that a symbolic or poetic reading doesn’t appear to be unwarranted or forced in any way and preserves harmony between all the various passages.

     Also, you mentioned the Archer book on Biblical difficulties. That’s a good book and as another option regarding Baruch, consider Archer’s first “difficulty” in 2 Chronicles and the last one in 2 Kings. In both cases, he acknowledges a clear discrepancy in the text we have and makes what seem to me reasonable suggestions on how that text could have become corrupted through specific copyist errors. Perhaps a similar reasonable explanation along those lines is relevant for Baruch.

     Finally, please consider that if the error you suggest were truly that obvious, does it make sense that Baruch would ever have been included in the Septuagint or that the ECFs would have been fond of quoting from it? It seems more reasonable to me to think that they didn’t miss a glaring error and that instead the view that there is a contradiction is itself in error.

     I do not know if the Catholic Church has an official position on any supposed reconciling of Jeremiah and Baruch (the passages you cite), so if someone else knows, I will stand corrected if I have misspoken above. However, the above seem to do justice to the idea of harmonizing without violating reason.

     Peace,
     Jeff

579. Lojahw January 27th, 2014 10:34 pm :

     Dear JeffB,

     Thank you for your comments, but like Gary Michuta, you try to force the canonical text to say something that is not there. Matthew lists 14 generations in each section of his genealogy of Jesus, in spite of what the atheist and Michuta say. You, also, trying to find fault with Ezekiel imply that it says something that is just not in the text.

     Ezek 4:5 reads: “For I have assigned you a number of days corresponding to the years of their iniquity, three hundred and ninety days; thus you shall bear the iniquity of the house of Israel.” This verse speaks of Ezekiel bearing the *iniquity of the house of Israel* for 390 years.

     Ezek 4:6 reads: “When you have completed these, you shall lie down a second time, but on your right side and bear the iniquity of the house of Judah; I have assigned it to you for forty days, a day for each year”. This refers to 40 years of *Judah’s iniquity.*

     Neither of these is forward looking to years of punishment (e.g., the exile of *Judah* in Babylon), rather they both look backwards to the “years of their iniquity” of Israel and Judah, respectively. The 390 years of Israel’s iniquity looks back to the time David ascended to the throne, when Abner made Ish-bosheth king over Israel in rebellion to God’s anointed (remember, David, was only king over Judah at first). As I hope you recall, the Chronicles of the kings of Israel are not a pretty sight. The 40 years of Judah’s iniquity refers to the years of their iniquity that precipitated the Babylonian invasion of Judah and the destruction of Jerusalem.

     As for your defense of Baruch: the Epistle of Jeremiah is in NO way “poetic” – it is nothing like the poetry of Lamentations, Isaiah, the Psalms, etc. Your argument, like Michuta’s is special pleading. Michuta says about Judith: “maybe the author intentionally substituted Nebuchadnezzar’s name for the real name on purpose.” Yeah, right. Special pleading. Can you give other examples of literature in that era – other than Pseudepigrapha (written by liars, claiming to be famous religious authorities) – that demonstrate such a practice? Corrupted copies? Really? Multiple verses all corrupted the same way in ALL of the extant copies? No respectable textual scholar would believe that. Was Judith an allegory? If so, why is that the biblical allegories, such as Paul tells in Gal. 4 don’t swizzle the historical references? Allegory does not explain the error, rather it accentuates it – because allegory relies on referents that everyone recognizes.

     I addressed the susceptibility of numerical copying errors in # (the discrepancy Archer addresses between 2 Chronicles and 2 Kings). There is no way to morph seventy years into seven generations based on the Hebrew representation of numbers, and as you said “up to seven generations” is not at all like the specific claim of “seventy years.”
     As for the reason Baruch was included in the LXX, and used by the ECFs, the real Baruch is frequently mentioned in Jeremiah from ch. 32 to the end of the book – Christians who picked up the Greek versions of Jewish sacred literature assumed that Baruch was an appendix to Jeremiah, thus it is found *strikingly* in all of the great 4th and 5th “Bible” codices – BETWEEN Jeremiah and the canonical Lamentations (the Hebrew scrolls traditionally appended the latter to Jeremiah). The pseudonymity of some of the deuteros seems to have been overshadowed by the legendary “glow” of the “divinely inspired” LXX (as Justin Martyr and Irenaeus mistakenly attributed ALL of the Hebrew books – not just the Pentateuch – to the miraculous work of the Seventy in the time of Ptolemy II Philadephus – LONG before the deuteros were even written!).

     Sorry, but you have a long way to go to make a credible argument.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

580. Lojahw January 28th, 2014 1:03 am :

     Dear Nick, (I didn’t see your post #574 until tonight)

     I only emphasize this point because it provides an example of development in the early Church and so sheds light on the nature of the development of the canon.

     I don’t see the connection between the formulaic development of doctrine and the “development of the canon.” Correlation is always a weak argument.

     Dom Gregory Dix:

     There is nothing in the N.T. which clearly indicates that the Orthodox doctrine is certainly right, or which is irreconcilable with Macedonianism in some form.

     I beg to differ: any formulation that denies that the Holy Spirit is God contradicts the canonical texts (it is a strawman to exclude ALL canonical texts); likewise any formulation that denies that the Holy Spirit is personal; and likewise, any formulation that denies the Holy Spirit is one of three persons of the Godhead. The Macedonian heresy taught that the Holy Spirit was created, whereas God, as clearly taught by Scripture, is uncreated. Thus Macedonianism is irreconcilable with the clear teaching of Scripture.

     It is also remarkable that in the works which they [Athanasius and Basil] wrote to vindicate this doctrine both carefully avoid even once applying the decisive word “God” to the Holy Ghost,

     Here we go again: another person who denies a belief unless a specific term or formula is used. If the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is “ranked with the Father,” etc., as Basil teaches, then the Holy Spirit is God. See Basil’s book entitled, “The Holy Spirit.” “The Lord has delivered to us as a necessary and saving doctrine that the Holy Spirit is to be ranked with the Father.” (Ibid. 10.25) “. . . them I charge to preserve the faith secure until the day of Christ, and to keep the Spirit undivided from the Father and the Son, preserving, both in the confession of faith and in the doxology, the doctrine taught them at their baptism.” (Ibid. 10.26) “ we speak of worship in the Spirit as shewing in Himself the Godhead of the Lord.” And “you will in no wise be able to dissever Him from God” (Ibid. 26.64) “to every man that sets aside the Spirit, that his faith in the Father and the Son will be useless, for he cannot even hold it without the presence of the Spirit. For he who does not believe the Spirit does not believe in the Son, and he who has not believed in the Son does not believe in the Father.” (Ibid. 11.27) “Our answer is that the faith in the Spirit is the same as the faith in the Father and the Son. (Ibid. 14.31) “For, it is said, “there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit; and differences of administrations, but the same Lord; and there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.” (Ibid. 16.37) “No man can say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost, and no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed;” (Ibid. 16.38) etc., etc., etc. The Spirit of God, according to Basil is God.

     What about Athanasius? He says about the persons of the Trinity:
     “For this Synod of Nicæa is in truth a proscription of every heresy. It also upsets those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit, and call Him a Creature. For the Fathers, after speaking of the faith in the Son, straightway added, ‘And we believe in the Holy Ghost,’ in order that by confessing perfectly and fully the faith in the Holy Trinity they might make known the exact form of the Faith of Christ, and the teaching of the Catholic Church. For it is made clear both among you and among all, and no Christian can have a doubtful mind on the point, that our faith is not in the Creature, but in one God, Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible: and in one Lord Jesus Christ His Only-begotten Son, and in one Holy Ghost; one God, known in the holy and perfect Trinity, baptized into which, and in it united to the Deity.” (Ad Afros 11)

     That it had previously been believed “by all” is demonstrably untrue.

     So Dom Gregory appeals to the Vincentian canon to discredit the orthodox doctrine? The same can be said about the deity of Christ, based on the historical prevalence of Arianism long after the Council of Nicea. So what? Truth is not decided by votes.

     As to Tertullian, do you deny that he affirms that the rule of faith is safeguarded by apostolic succession?

     I do not deny it; however, he affirms that Churches who agree with the Rule of Faith – regardless of their apostolic pedigree – are counted no less apostolic (Pres. Haer. 32).

     Thanks reminding me of McDonald’s book, which I read years ago. As for the example you give, Eusebius quotes Serapion on the pseudepigraphic Gospel of Peter thus:

     “For we, brethren, receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ; but we reject intelligently the writings falsely ascribed to them, knowing that such were not handed down to us.”

     He also mentions that he perceived in it the heresy of Marcianus, who “contradicted himself” and that he obtained a copy from the Docetae – not a reputable source (!). But it begs the question to assert that the Rule of Faith was Serapion’s deciding factor in rejecting the Gospel of Peter. At any rate, if this the only example you can cite, my point stands.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

581. Lojahw January 28th, 2014 6:30 pm :

     I’m still baffled by the insistence that Christians (and Jews) need a visible infallible authority to define the full set of canonical books in such a way that it can bind their consciences. It would help to have some dialogue around the following question in order to understand the underlying assumptions for the various positions:

     Were the books of Moses conscience-binding for the Jews in the time of Joshua? Please explain.

     JohnD also posed a suggestion that The canon was non-binding prior to some date when it was infallibly defined by the ordinary magisterium

     If that were the case, how would one know when/that the canon was infallibly defined? E.g., if you lived in Alexandria when Athanasius wrote his Festal Letter 39 (367), you would deny the canonicity of the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, etc. However, if you then moved to Milan, where Ambrose was bishop from 374-397, you would be expected to accept the canonicity of 4 Esdras (which Ambrose called “holy Scripture”) as well as the Wisdom of Solomon. Moreover, Irenaeus and Origen referred to the Shepherd of Hermas as Scripture. When does a bishop’s teaching have conscience binding authority – particularly when they disagree among themselves?

     Others say that if a book is in a “Bible” it must be canonical. On that basis, 1 and 2 Clement, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, 4 Esdras, 1 Enoch, etc. should be considered canonical. The Vulgate included 4 Esdras and a number of books not ever formally listed in its own or any other canon. In fact, the Vulgate – the only authorized “Bible” since 405 in the West – included Jerome’s canon, but Bryan @62 claims that the liturgy takes precedence over published canons. By that reasoning, the Apocalypse of Peter should be considered canonical because the Churches of Palestine used it in the 5th century as part of their Easter liturgy (as reported by Sozomen, in his Ecclesiastical History 7.19).

     Indeed, what authority(ies) can bind your conscience?

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

582. Tom Brown January 28th, 2014 10:48 pm :

     Dear “Lojahw” (#563),

     . . . my argument wherein we believe that certain books (e.g., the Gospels) authentically preserve Christ’s teaching, and from that we reasonably infer that if Christ taught it, it must be authoritative; however, our conviction that these things are so is based on the testimony of the Holy Spirit.

     We have walked back what you build your canon formulation upon. You are saying that you rely upon the testimony of the Holy Spirit, which is consistent with classical Reformed theology. Please see my section II.A. I talked about collateral use of “other evidence” arguments in #155 with C.J.

     Were the books of Moses conscience-binding for the Jews in the time of Joshua? Please explain.

     I don’t know what you mean about whether a book was conscience-binding. Were the Jews bound to obey the law as contained in the Torah? They were, because the Jews were obliged to hear God’s prophet, and follow the Chair of Moses. But let’s try to stay focused on how Protestants can answer the Canon Question, okay?

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom

583. Tom Brown January 28th, 2014 11:02 pm :

     Dear Christie (#566),

     Why wouldn’t a regional council’s decision, like Carthage or Hippo, not be looked at with the same skepticism as we do with Sproul’s position — a fallible collection of infallible books. I don’t understand what the “frame” has to do with it; I’m trying to understand how the Catholic position doesn’t fall prey to those pitfalls. And if it does do so, how could that be consistent with the Church’s understanding of divine revelation if it couldn’t be sure that it had the right books as Scripture for roughly 1,000 years before Trent.

     I think the fallible/infallible distinction would be casting the discussion in a Protestant frame if the underlying assumption was that infallible truth is communicated only through the Bible (i.e., sola scriptura), or that all truth claims not contained in an infallibly known infallible Bible are thereby fallible. The local councils would have commanded the assent of the faithful in the local area, because the local bishops would have abided by the council’s conclusions. Other bishops, especially with the passage of time, came to accept and adopt the conclusions of those councils, if they didn’t already believe and teach the substance of the councils’ teachings before then. The faithful around the world (at the time of Hippo), and through the passage of time, had a locus for teaching authority and truth, i.e., the Magisterium of the Church. The Magisterium was the Magisterium prior to and after Trent, and the trust placed by the faithful in the Magisterium was and is not dependent upon Trent infallibly declaring the scope of the canon of Sacred Scripture.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

584. Tom Brown January 28th, 2014 11:12 pm :

     Dear John D. (#573),

     So, apparently, the Catholic reply is not that a fallible collection cannot be binding, but rather that it cannot be binding on its own without some other legitimate, visible authority to do the binding.

     I think you’re generally accurate there. Please see section III, in the article above. There I say a good bit about this, including this paragraph (citations omitted):

     A fallible collection of infallible books cannot function as a binding authority, for “what can be more absurd than a probable infallibility, or a certainty resting on doubt?” I am reminded of my recent purchase of a “1080″ pixel television. I learned that my old DVD player sends out something like 480 pixels. Just as my 480 pixel DVD player cannot yield a 1080 pixel image on my TV, so too my fallible collection of Bible books cannot yield infallible assurance. Again, the text of Scripture can be no more binding than is our conclusion of which texts are to be included.

     Or, as I’ve said elsewhere (and perhaps more helpfully), a building can be no stronger than its foundation. So it’s not that the Catholic is demanding you need “some other visible authority,” but that you need an authority with (well) authority to bind consciences. Something that may or may not be Scripture (i.e., we’re not infallibly sure about that) lacks that authority because it may not be Scripture.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

585. Tom Brown January 28th, 2014 11:32 pm :

     Dear “Lojahw”, Jeff B, others (esp. #578-579),

     The debate about alleged errors is quickly running afield from the topic of the article. Also, this has come up before in the combox, e.g., my #191, 205, or certainly 208:

     Let’s step back a minute and look at this Tobit discussion. You can’t hold back from engaging in a brass-tacks argument about a book’s merits or demerits. But if this discussion devolves into an argument over the historical or textual-critical aspects of given books, we’ve lost the bubble. The discussion, like the article, is about canon criteria.

     So we can talk about how we resolve whether a text contains (internal) error, and we can discuss who is fit to answer such a question. But this combox, this forum, is not the place for hashing out whether – on historical or textual-critical analysis – book X or Y belongs in the Bible. It is a forum for discussing what criteria we use to determine the canon.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

586. Lojahw January 29th, 2014 12:47 am :

     Dear Tom,

     You wrote:
     It is a forum for discussing what criteria we use to determine the canon.
     (I’m happy to leave the debates about particular books behind)

     A fallible collection of infallible books cannot function as a binding authority, for “what can be more absurd than a probable infallibility, or a certainty resting on doubt?”

     The above statement relates to my question about the books of Moses binding the conscience of the Jews. The point is that specific books recognized as infallible because of their endorsement by infallible authorities can bind the conscience; e.g., the books of Moses were able to bind the conscience of the Jews because of the unmistakable hand of God in his ministry and teaching – even though the Jews knew more revelation was coming. For Christians, that infallible authority extends to the books Jesus and the Apostles identify as Scripture.

     My faith is not in “a canon” per se, but in the teaching of God found in the books that the founders of the Church identify as Scripture and those that are consistent with the criteria of canonicity they established – confirmed by the testimony of the Holy Spirit throughout the greater Body of Christ (cf. John 10:27; 1 Cor. 1:2). Infallibility of each of the books of the canon applies to them all as a group. You may well argue that my collection is incomplete, but that in no way impugns the authority of the books I recognize as canonical.

     I reread #155; however, you do not really address my argument there because you argue either/or: either one relies on the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit or one relies on the outward testimony of a particular Church. My argument, by contrast combines: the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit AND the outward testimony of the universal Church AND the criteria of canonicity defined by the prophets, the apostles and Christ. The article assumes there are no credible criteria of canonicity, whereas I have shown there are – NOT my own criteria, but those taught by the founders of the Church. You seem to want to deny or dismiss the criteria.

     This discussion reminds me: do you agree or disagree with Michuta’s argument that the canonicity of a book must be established a priori, therefore any application of the criteria of canonicity to such a book is out of line?

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

587. Tom Brown January 29th, 2014 10:02 pm :

     Dear “Lojahw” (#586),

     The point is that specific books recognized as infallible because of their endorsement by infallible authorities can bind the conscience; e.g., the books of Moses were able to bind the conscience of the Jews because of the unmistakable hand of God in his ministry and teaching – even though the Jews knew more revelation was coming. For Christians, that infallible authority extends to the books Jesus and the Apostles identify as Scripture.

     I agree, but want to make a qualification to avoid a conflation of two issues. And by the way, I’m glad and thankful we have backed up to a point where we could identify common ground, i.e., that we need to identify infallible to yield infallible, or that a building cannot be stronger than its foundation. I think this is an example of helpful dialogue.

     My qualification would be this: when you say the books were able to bind the consciences of the Jews *because* of the unmistakable hand of God in Moses’s ministry and teaching, I think the word “because” is pulling double duty (or needs to, in order for your assertion to be true). The Jews would be conscientiously bound to abide by Moses’s articulation the Law of God (a) *because* it was the Law of God, and (b) because they knew it was the Law of God on account of Moses’s authority to speak as a Prophet of God.

     I don’t impugn the books you regard as canonical, but challenge the authority by which you set the criteria(ion) for canonicity, and the authority by which you analyze and reach conclusions. That is, more or less, the upshot of my article.

     My article does address hybrid models that utilize multiple criteria of canonicity. Piling on doesn’t solve what I argue is the underlying problem, that you lack authority to define the criteria for canonicity, and lack authority to reach analytical conclusions in a binding fashion. The “founders” of the Church (assuming you’re not talking about Christ, the founder) had apostolic authorities you and I lack.

     I haven’t read Michuta here. Your approach of initially approaching books as historical evidence has a certain logic to it, and like I said, avoids a circularity.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

588. Lojahw January 29th, 2014 11:40 pm :

     Dear Tom,
     You wrote:

     when you say the books were able to bind the consciences of the Jews *because* of the unmistakable hand of God in Moses’s ministry and teaching, I think the word “because” is pulling double duty (or needs to, in order for your assertion to be true). The Jews would be conscientiously bound to abide by Moses’s articulation the Law of God (a) *because* it was the Law of God, and (b) because they knew it was the Law of God on account of Moses’s authority to speak as a Prophet of God.

     I realized after I posted the statement that it was poorly worded. What I meant was a) the Jews recognized Moses to be a prophet of God based on the unmistakable evidence of God’s miraculous hand in both his teaching and his ministry *confirmed by* the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit (e.g., no one can say, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the Holy Spirit, 1 Cor. 12:3); b) therefore, the Jews accepted the revelation authentically recorded in Moses’ books to be God’s word. Similarly, Christians recognize Jesus’ authority, and according to His infallible teaching, Christians must accept both the canonicity of the books He cites as Scripture, and the authority of those He explicitly designates as recipients of the Holy Spirit’s guidance into “all the truth” (i.e., the 12 in the upper room). It follows that the teaching of these infallible sources, including the characteristics they ascribe to Scripture, constitute infallible criteria of canonicity. Further inferences can be made, e.g., since Peter declares “all of Paul’s letters” to be Scripture, those books must possess canonical – infallible – authority. Moreover, that it is appropriate to apply those criteria to test/confirm any and all books proposed or declared by later authorities to be canonical.

     Hence, I recognize without question the authorities which Paul describes as the foundation of the Church: the apostles and prophets, with Christ, the cornerstone. All other authorities must meet the standards of canonicity these infallible authorities have defined from the beginning of the Church.

     It would be helpful for you to clarify where you differ with the above.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

589. JohnD January 30th, 2014 1:48 am :

     Logahw (re:#586),

     This will be brief, and I will respond to your extended comments when I have more time.

     Do you agree or disagree with Michuta’s argument that the canonicity of a book must be established a priori

     You may be misunderstanding Michuta. In the article I linked to, he argues that a book is first established as inspired before it is declared inerrant. This does not seem to be a controversial point since no one suggests arriving at inerrancy by fact-checking all the assertions in a book and finding that there’s none (this being quite difficult considering the nature of ancient documentation). So, his point is that, epistemically, inspiration precedes inerrancy. Do you agree?

     Peace,
     John D.

590. Lojahw January 30th, 2014 6:21 pm :

     Dear Tom,

     Since epistemology seems to be important to your argument:

     How does your paradigm, explain how the Jews in Jesus’ day knew that the Psalms were canonical? In Jesus’ conversations both with the Jews and with Satan, He and they clearly assumed that the Psalms were ‘Scripture’ (cf. Matt. 4:6; 21:42; Mark 12:10-11; Luke 4:10; Luke 24:44-45; John 10:34-35). Jesus’ disciples offer many more citations of the Psalms as Scripture.

     In my paradigm, the Psalms have been continuously recognized as canonical by God’s people long before Jesus’ time, and have continued to do so throughout the universal Body of Christ. They should therefore be received as canonical by Christians because of a) the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit AND b) the outward testimony of the universal Church AND c) the consistency of the Psalms with the criteria of canonicity defined by the prophets, the apostles and Christ.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

591. JohnD January 30th, 2014 8:23 pm :

     Tom B. (re: #584),

     Or, as I’ve said elsewhere (and perhaps more helpfully), a building can be no stronger than its foundation. So it’s not that the Catholic is demanding you need “some other visible authority,” but that you need an authority with (well) authority to bind consciences. Something that may or may not be Scripture (i.e., we’re not infallibly sure about that) lacks that authority because it may not be Scripture.

     But then it seems the Protestant can just push this back one step. Parodying your argument, the Protestant can reply: something that may or may not be the Church that Christ founded (i.e, we’re not infallibly sure about that) cannot bind consciences. Dr. White is quick to make this reply in the famous cross-examination period during his debate with Gerry Matatics.

     Peace,
     John D.

592. JohnD January 30th, 2014 9:01 pm :

     Logahw (re: #576),

     I never said there could be no unresolved questions about inspired Scripture – I addressed a particular category of error: explicit contradiction.

     To be fair, there is no explicit contradiction. It is not that Jeremiah says “X” and Baruch says “it is not the case that X”. But, I agree there is an apparent conflict with the two texts.

     Baruch 6:2: And when you are come into Babylon, you shall be there many years, and for a long time, even to seven generations; and after that I will bring you away from thence with peace.

     Jeremiah 29:10: For thus says the Lord: When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place.

     Here are two possible solutions.

     1) “seven generations” refers to the seventy years. Here is the Haydock bible commentray:

     Seven generations; that is, seventy years. (Challoner) — A generation sometimes consisted of seven, ten, fifteen, thirty, thirty-five, fifty, or a hundred years. (Cornelius a Lapide; Menage.) — Eighteen years of the seventy had already elapsed. (Calmet) — Seven is often put for many, (Haydock) or a general number, (Worthington) because so many days form a week. (Haydock) — Grotius substitutes dekadon for geneon, “seven decads,” very properly.

     Now, I don’t know all the citations he’s referencing, so this can seem a bit obscure. I am not expert.

     2) This is just something I came up with off the top of my head. A copyist inserted “seven generations” in place of “seven decades” to suit his own, particular purpose. I don’t know how many old manuscripts of Baruch we possess, but I would guess there is not an ample amount of manuscript evidence to rule out such a hypothesis.

     Perhaps you don’t find (1) or (2) very plausible. That’s fine. But, whether or not the apparent error is a real error does not depend on whether or not you find the proposed solutions plausible. A person who accepts the inspiration of the book will view it as an apparent error and a person who rejects the inspiration of the book (or is very skeptical about it) will view the apparent as real. That is Michuta’s point about bringing up specific texts like this.

     I deny Mitchuta’s assertion that prophecy/teaching is exempt from examination by any criteria before deciding if it is inspired.

     I nowhere see him making that strong of a claim, especially, when you insert the phrase “any criteria”.

     Peace,
     John D.

593. Lojahw January 30th, 2014 10:19 pm :

     Dear JohnD,

     Divine inspiration is not required for books to be without error. There are many books larger than Baruch that are inerrant.

     I also don’t think I’m misreading Michuta. In discussing inerrancy in his book, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger: The Untold Story of The Lost Books of the Protestant Bible, he writes (p. 321):

     And the determination of inspiration must necessarily come before any other question is asked.

     Hence, even if he did not say this in his article, he has certainly espoused the position I deny.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

594. JohnD January 30th, 2014 11:01 pm :

     Lojahw (re:#59),

     In my paradigm, the Psalms have been continuously recognized as canonical by God’s people long before Jesus’ time, and have continued to do so throughout the universal Body of Christ. They should therefore be received as canonical by Christians because of a) the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit AND b) the outward testimony of the universal Church AND c) the consistency of the Psalms with the criteria of canonicity defined by the prophets, the apostles and Christ.

     I think the Catholic can agree with your (a), (b), and (c). And, if the Catholic Church is the one Christ founded, the Catholic is warranted in adding (d) it has been the constant teaching of the magisterium.

     Peace,
     John D.

595. Nick Trosclair January 30th, 2014 11:30 pm :

     Hi Lojahw, (#580)

     You wrote:

     I don’t see the connection between the formulaic development of doctrine and the “development of the canon.” Correlation is always a weak argument.

     Both orthodox teachings and the biblical canon developed within the Tradition of the Church. Why accept one portion of that Tradition as revelation (the canon), while excluding the rest of that Tradition from the category of revelation?

     Regarding Dom Gregory Dix’s reflection on the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, you wrote:

     I beg to differ: any formulation that denies that the Holy Spirit is God contradicts the canonical texts (it is a strawman to exclude ALL canonical texts); likewise any formulation that denies that the Holy Spirit is personal; and likewise, any formulation that denies the Holy Spirit is one of three persons of the Godhead.

     Mr. Dix was not excluding the canonical documents. He was claiming that those documents may be interpreted in many different ways, which corresponds to the patristic witness—the doctrine of the Trinity did not leap off the pages of the NT so easily for the early Christians. I think that you are underestimating the role of tradition in your interpretation of the Scriptures. You and I have the ancient symbols in the forefront of our minds (consciously or not) when we read about the Holy Spirit in both the Scriptures and the Fathers. Certainly, many early Christians understood and believed that the Holy Spirit was God, but that the Person of the Holy Spirit is a distinct Person from the Father and the Son was not explicitly believed by the faithful for several centuries. It took heretical contradiction for that doctrine to become explicit. Like the canon, the Church’s doctrines took time to become explicit teaching.

     Affirming that apostolic succession safeguarded the rule of faith according to Tertullian, you wrote:

     I do not deny it; however, he affirms that Churches who agree with the Rule of Faith – regardless of their apostolic pedigree – are counted no less apostolic (Pres. Haer. 32).

     According to Tertullian then, the preservation of the rule of faith and apostolic succession are inseparable. In other words, the rule of faith is the content of Tradition and apostolic succession is the form of Tradition. This is relevant to the development of the canon because the rule of faith measured the canon for the early Christians (see below). Meaning, apostolic succession, the rule of faith, and the canon are distinct yet inseparable. To receive one as revelation and not the others seems completely foreign to the Catholic.

     You wrote in response to my example of Serapion measuring the canon according to the rule of faith:

     He also mentions that he perceived in it the heresy of Marcianus, who “contradicted himself” and that he obtained a copy from the Docetae – not a reputable source (!). But it begs the question to assert that the Rule of Faith was Serapion’s deciding factor in rejecting the Gospel of Peter. At any rate, if this the only example you can cite, my point stands.

     Bishop Serapion (ca. 200) claimed that he rejected the Gospel of Peter for two main reasons: (1) “such were not handed down to us” and (2) “some things were added” to the “true teaching of the Savior.” According to L. M. Macdonald, what was handed down was the rule of faith from which Serapion also received the true teaching of the Savior. Contemporaries of Serapion (Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc.) use the same language when referring to the rule of faith. Thus, the bishop was relying on the rule of faith to allow or disallow the use of this gospel in the liturgy.

     Also, consider Eusebius’s discussion of the canon and his threefold classification of authoritative books, disputed books, and spurious books. Note that some books were rejected because they were not found in “ecclesiastical tradition.” Neither do they match up with “orthodoxy” nor were they received in the “succession.”

     1. Since we are dealing with this subject it is proper to sum up the writings of the New Testament which have been already mentioned. First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels; following them the Acts of the Apostles.
     2. After this must be reckoned the epistles of Paul; next in order the extant former epistle of John, and likewise the epistle of Peter, must be maintained. After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These then belong among the accepted writings.
     3. Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name.
     4. Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books.
     5. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books.
     6. But we have nevertheless felt compelled to give a catalogue of these also, distinguishing those works which according to ecclesiastical tradition are true and genuine and commonly accepted, from those others which, although not canonical but disputed, are yet at the same time known to most ecclesiastical writers— we have felt compelled to give this catalogue in order that we might be able to know both these works and those that are cited by the heretics under the name of the apostles, including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles, which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers has deemed worthy of mention in his writings.
     7. And further, the character of the style is at variance with apostolic usage, and both the thoughts and the purpose of the things that are related in them are so completely out of accord with true orthodoxy that they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious. (Hist. Eccl. book 3, chpt. 25)

     Note that he relies on the succession of orthodox writers, orthodox faith, and ecclesiastical tradition to determine which books are authoritative, disputed, or spurious. According to L. M. Macdonald, Eusebius is relying on the rule of faith to determine his canonical list.

     I should also point out that even by the time of Eusebius, the canon was not fixed for the Church.

     Nick T.

596. Lojahw January 31st, 2014 7:04 pm :

     Dear Nick,
     According your paradigm, the OT canon developed over centuries; according to mine, it was recognized from the beginning by Jesus and the Apostles, but the Greek- and Latin-speaking church fathers got off track, being confused about which books were actually written by Jeremiah, and how the Jews counted the twenty-two “divine” books in their canon. So, it took time for the Greek- and Latin-speaking Christians to accurately list what the apostles believed from the beginning of the Church. Rufinus and Jerome published accurate lists of the 22 books before Augustine declared his innovation: a “forty-four” book OT canon. (BTW- 4 Church fathers published 22 book OT canons AFTER the Council of Rome in 382, two of those CFs being present at the Council.) It is interesting that 44 is twice the number of canonical books that the Church fathers had taught for four centuries since the time of the Apostles.

     Re: Mr. Dix – “He was claiming that those documents may be interpreted in many different ways, which corresponds to the patristic witness.”
     So what? When any given classroom of students takes a test on material from a textbook, there are always multiple answers. But that in no way proves that the text was ambiguous. Nor does it imply that only the teacher is able to interpret the textbook to point out what it teaches. In most cases, another student can point to the textbook and show the right answers to those who erred. That’s all I’m saying about Scripture and the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer. (cf. Jer. 31:33; Ezek. 36:27).

     Re: the Rule of Faith. “According to Tertullian then, the preservation of the rule of faith and apostolic succession are inseparable.”
     You’re reading into Tertullian more than he says. Just because you believe Apostolic succession is necessary for the maintenance of the Rule of Faith doesn’t make it so. The transmission and preservation of ancient creeds, like that of many ancient writings, has occurred through a variety of sources and means. As I’ve said before, there is nothing in the Rule of Faith that cannot be found or deduced from Scripture (see above about the textbook).

     Re: Serapion. “According to L. M. Macdonald” . . . I find it interesting that you appeal to a Protestant authority; and that you assume that both 1) and 2) are necessary to reject the Gospel of Peter. Nowhere does Serapion appeal to the Rule of Faith: that’s your interpretation. The same can be said of Eusebius’s discourse: he has arrayed a list of reasons for disputing or rejecting various books, but nowhere does he conclude: “These books conflict with the Rule of Faith.” You beg the question that orthodoxy cannot be found in Scripture independent of tradition (recall again my example of the textbook).

     Re: the canon in Eusebius’s day, see above for the OT; for the NT, “development” implies charting new territory where no one has ever gone. But recognizing the NT books as canonical occurred very early – what took so long was getting everyone on the same page. The questions about who wrote what and did a particular book teach things that conflicted with other recognized Scripture took time to sort out. On the other hand, re: the books that Eusebius lists as disputed: a) the Apocalypse was recognized as Scripture by Papias and Clement of Rome; b) 2 Peter, James, and Hebrews, by Clement of Rome; c) 2 John, by Irenaeus; d) and the rest by Clement of Alexandria, ca. AD 200 (cf. Eusebius, EH 6.14.1). Since these books had been recognized as Scripture long before Eusebius’s time, it is not accurate to apply the term “development” to the process of getting everyone on the same page about books previously recognized as Scripture.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

597. Lojahw January 31st, 2014 7:07 pm :

     JohnD wrote:

     1) “seven generations” refers to the seventy years.
     2) This is just something I came up with off the top of my head.
     What you are doing here is called special pleading – in any other context you would not make such arguments. It’s interesting that all of your sources come after the Reformation, and as far as I can tell, they are all Roman Catholic.

     Re: Michuta, see #593.

     In deference to Tom @585 may we put this dialogue to bed? It is not on topic for this combox.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

598. JohnD February 1st, 2014 12:16 pm :

     Lojahw (re: #593),

     Divine inspiration is not required for books to be without error. There are many books larger than Baruch that are inerrant.

     Agreed. I never said otherwise.

     Previously, you said:

     I deny Mitchuta’s assertion that prophecy/teaching is exempt from examination by any criteria before deciding if it is inspired.

     I would like to see some more context of the quote from Michuta’s book, since I don’t own it. But, I would think that he means exempt from examination with regards to error.

     Peace,
     John D.

599. Lojahw February 2nd, 2014 10:43 pm :

     JohnD wrote:
     I would like to see some more context of the quote from Michuta’s book, since I don’t own it. But, I would think that he means exempt from examination with regards to error.

     You are correct that Michuta wants to exempt canonical books “from examination with regards to error.” However, to exempt certain books from examination is to beg the question. How do we know they are canonical? That’s the whole point of criteria of canonicity – the subject of this combox. If there are such criteria, e.g., God’s Word is true, then it is only fitting to expect canonical books to be true, and to expect that books which are manifestly false are not canonical.

     It is interesting that the Apostle Paul did not exempt even his own teaching (or that of an angel from heaven) from examination with regards to truth: “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!” Moreover, if the Apostle John commands us to “test the spirits” in order to distinguish between the Spirit of Truth and the spirit of error, who is Michuta to countermand what the Apostles have commanded? As Paul says elsewhere: “examine everything carefully, hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21).

     Re: the Psalms (#594 referencing #590), you did not answer how the Jews in Jesus’ day knew that the Psalms were canonical. The paradigm presented in the article – that canonicity must be declared by an infallible authority – belies what actually happened with the Psalms. If there is another way – besides that which the article assumes – that the Holy Spirit can reveal the canonicity of particular books, then the direction of this discussion could be significantly altered.

     I’m waiting to hear Tom’s response.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

600. JohnD February 3rd, 2014 9:05 am :

     Bryan and Tom B.,

     I have a new question that combines the “Motives of Credibility” with the “Canon Question” so I wasn’t sure where exactly I should post it, but I will start here (I will post it in the Canon Question as well and let the moderator decide which to be deleted).

     The “motives of credibility” seem to be “that which make the assent of faith reasonable”. They do not appear to be demonstrative arguments (though I suppose they could be used as a premise in an argument). In fact, all of the motives of credibility (miracles, prophecies, the Church, and wisdom/beauty of revelation) can be (and are) counterfeited in false religion. Nevertheless, the existence of counterfeits does not imply the n0n-existence of the genuine, as Trent Horn explains .

     So, my question is, what if a Reformed Christian views canon criteria as “motives of credibility” for what make up the New Testament? If a Catholic’s assent to divinely revealed Truth is made reasonable by the motives of credibility, then isn’t it also the case that a Reformed Christian’s assent to the 27 book canon can be seen as reasonable through motives of credibility?

     In the Canon Question, Tom B. critiques various tests for canonicity, often on the grounds that the tests (a) do not (at least not any single one) lead to a complete 27-book canon or (b) are incompatible with sola scriptura. However, if the canon criteria are viewed as motives of credibility, then it seems they can be combined and synthesized to make the Protestant’s view of the 27-book canon entirely reasonable. For instance, Krueger’s 3 mutually reinforcing ideas of (1) Internal divine qualities (2) Apostolic origin and (3) Corporate reception seem to do the job of establishing the 27-book canon to the exclusion of other books. Each of the 27 books can be found to pass all 3 tests when the ECF’s writings are examined, and no other extant book passes all 3 tests.

     Thoughts?

     Peace,
     John D.

601. JohnD February 3rd, 2014 9:22 am :

     Lojahw (re: #599),

     However, to exempt certain books from examination is to beg the question.

     Human examination, with regard to error, cannot always be complete and sure, especially given the nature of ancient documentation and manuscripts (See again my 2 proposed solutions to the apparent error you cite in Baruch). However, Divinely protected Truth (e.g. Trent’s canons for the Catholic) is always sure.

     If there are such criteria, e.g., God’s Word is true, then it is only fitting to expect canonical books to be true, and to expect that books which are manifestly false are not canonical.

     Correct. But its the manifestly false part that is in question, and is extremely difficult to show given the nature of ancient manuscripts and documentation, as well as other avenues open to the interpreter regarding genre and style.

     It is interesting that the Apostle Paul did not exempt even his own teaching (or that of an angel from heaven) from examination with regards to truth: “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!” Moreover, if the Apostle John commands us to “test the spirits” in order to distinguish between the Spirit of Truth and the spirit of error, who is Michuta to countermand what the Apostles have commanded? As Paul says elsewhere: “examine everything carefully, hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21).

     The Catholic believes that St. John and St. Paul established successors in the Church that Christ founded to ensure the Truth be preserved. Also, some things are evident upon merely human examination, but some required divine guidance.

     Lastly, I think your question to Tom B. is a good one.

     Peace,
     John D.

602. Cletus February 3rd, 2014 1:56 pm :

     Lojahw,
     “However, to exempt certain books from examination is to beg the question. How do we know they are canonical? That’s the whole point of criteria of canonicity – the subject of this combox. If there are such criteria, e.g., God’s Word is true, then it is only fitting to expect canonical books to be true, and to expect that books which are manifestly false are not canonical. ”

     Calvin on 2Peter:
     “If it be received as canonical, we must allow Peter to be the author, since it has his name inscribed, and he also testifies that he had lived with Christ: and it would have been a fiction unworthy of a minister of Christ, to have personated another individual. So then I conclude, that if the Epistle be deemed worthy of credit, it must have proceeded from Peter; not that he himself wrote it, but that some one of his disciples set forth in writing, by his command, those things which the necessity of the times required. For it is probable that he was now in extreme old age, for he says, that he was near his end. And it may have been that at the request of the godly, he allowed this testimony of his mind to be recorded shortly before his death, because it might have somewhat availed, when he was dead, to support the good, and to repress the wicked. Doubtless, as in every part of the Epistle the majesty of the Spirit of Christ appears, to repudiate it is what I dread, though I do not here recognize the language of Peter.”

     What are the criteria you use to build up the NT canon from scratch? Calvin just nixed apostolic authorship as a necessary criteria with 2Peter and just reasons a posteriori (If it be received as canonical, we must allow Peter to be the author).

     “It is interesting that the Apostle Paul did not exempt even his own teaching (or that of an angel from heaven) from examination with regards to truth: “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!””

     How do you determine what Paul actually wrote? Do you agree with scholars that conclude he did not write the pastorals? Why do you exclude writings that also bear his name?

     And of course “what we have preached to you” was his teaching. He was saying to examine if he was to contradict his own teaching. If one was to be ever-skeptical one would not even apprehend his initial teaching (or might reject it as contradicting OT).

     “Moreover, if the Apostle John commands us to “test the spirits” in order to distinguish between the Spirit of Truth and the spirit of error, who is Michuta to countermand what the Apostles have commanded?”

     Do you test the spirits of the statement “test the spirits” and the book it came from? You’re already presupposing the canon to then justify your construction/examination of the canon.

     “As Paul says elsewhere: “examine everything carefully, hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21).”

     Did you examine that statement carefully? More presupposing of the canon to examine the canon.

     Is the canon reformable and open in your view? If not, why is it not taught by any Protestant bodies/confessions as infallible/irreformable?

603. Lojahw February 4th, 2014 12:43 am :

     Cletus wrote:

     1. Calvin just nixed apostolic authorship as a necessary criteria with 2Peter

     Calvin never claimed to be infallible; and many scholars accept Petrine authorship. Having written at different times and circumstances in his life, there is no compelling reason to deny his authorship of the second epistle – having used a different amanuensis in his last imprisonment in Rome than for his first epistle. Of course, the vocabulary and grammar of different amanuenses differ – that Calvin did not consider that explanation should not prejudice anyone.

     Moreover, I never claimed that only books written by apostles could be canonical. Mark and Luke authentically record the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles, and thereby their books are canonical.

     (And in all of your accusations, please don’t forget the inward and outward testimony of the Holy Spirit – in me, one of Christ’s sheep, and in the universal Body of Christ, for these books being canonical).

     2. How do you determine what Paul actually wrote?

     Just because skeptics abound in scholarly ranks does not make them right. I accept all 13 of Paul’s epistles as authentic. Those who challenge the Pauline authorship of the “Deutero-Pauline” letters often appeal to arguments based on style and vocabulary which Kenneth Neumann refuted in his 1990 work on stylostatistical analysis (see Authenticity of the Pauline Epistles in the Light of Stylostatistical Analysis). According to Neumann, “scholars on both sides of the question of authenticity do not use linguistic and stylistic evidence as decisive evidence since they sense that what is valid against the opponent’s use of stylistic evidence is also valid against their own usage.” (I.e., the critical scholars refute each other’s explanations for why a work is genuine or not.) BTW – I wrote a 200+ page thesis on canonicity, and covered this subject in great detail.

     BTW: please accept the above as an answer your later challenge that I “presupposed” 1 Thess. to be canonical. Not at all.

     3. You’re already presupposing the canon to then justify your construction/examination of the canon.

     On what grounds do you accuse me of circular reasoning? You have no idea on what grounds I accept 1 John as authentic and canonical. What are your credentials? Are you able to refute my 200+ page thesis on canonicity? There is sufficient internal and external evidence for the authenticity of every New Testament book.

     4. Is the canon reformable and open in your view?

     Based on my years of study of the subject, I do not believe the canon is reformable – but I’m not infallible and I am willing to listen to arguments to the contrary.

     BTW – I find your tone mildly inflammatory and insulting. I hope you show more charity to others with whom you disagree.

     Peace,
     Lojahw

604. Cletus February 4th, 2014 6:44 pm :

     Lojahw,

     “(And in all of your accusations, please don’t forget the inward and outward testimony of the Holy Spirit – in me, one of Christ’s sheep, and in the universal Body of Christ, for these books being canonical).”

     Yes, the issue is those during the first 4 centuries with the disputed books of NT (as well as during Reformation), and afterwards with the OT and Augustine’s corruption according to you, disagree with you on the canon – according to this criteria then, they were either just foolish or spiritually blinded, whereas you are not. Anyone you disagree with can make the exact same claim you are making to justify their canon. Accordingly, the “universal Body of Christ” is predefined to be those who agree with you on the canon. The EO/RCs do not agree with you on the OT.

     “According to Neumann, “scholars on both sides of the question of authenticity do not use linguistic and stylistic evidence as decisive evidence since they sense that what is valid against the opponent’s use of stylistic evidence is also valid against their own usage.”

     So you rest on a scholar’s analysis to disprove other scholars’ analyses. “decisive evidence” – agreed, historical/linguistic scholarship is not monolithic because of the biases/presuppositions used in analyzing the same raw data – hence erudite scholars reaching differing/opposing conclusions. But that alone doesn’t give you weight one way or the other (“scholars on both sides”) – why side with the conservatives over the liberals in textual criticism? On what basis?

     “please accept the above as an answer your later challenge that I “presupposed” 1 Thess. to be canonical. Not at all.”

     Did you put it through your scholarly filter to make sure it reaches your threshold before considering accepting it, or did you do something similar as Calvin’s a posteriori reasoning to justify it?

     “On what grounds do you accuse me of circular reasoning?”

     Because you were citing something you accept as canonical to then prove/disprove/examine other proposed books of the canon and did not offer any justification for doing so or establishing your starting point. Perhaps you have justification. If your justification is “inner witness” though, it is not very compelling given what I said above. And if it’s more than that you need to avoid falling into Ridderbos’ “canon above the canon” trap Tom outlined.

     “You have no idea on what grounds I accept 1 John as authentic and canonical. What are your credentials? Are you able to refute my 200+ page thesis on canonicity?

     I have no credentials. I recognize that. I also recognize articles of faith are not subject to matters of credentials and shifting scholarly opinions by their very nature. Is your 200+ page thesis published and peer reviewed? Has it become part of the scholarly literature that liberals such as Ehrman and others contribute to who would dispute your conclusions? Even if it was to somehow become a definitive answer to all liberals, it would still not yield more than plausible opinion which would not warrant holding the canon as an article of faith – and which you agree with which is why you still hold your canon out to be reformable in principle.

     “There is sufficient internal and external evidence for the authenticity of every New Testament book. ”

     So you’ve gone through every book to prove it meets your threshold correct? Did you do that for all the books you reject as well? What about disputed passages in the books you receive as canonical?

     “Based on my years of study of the subject, I do not believe the canon is reformable – but I’m not infallible and I am willing to listen to arguments to the contrary.”

     Right, so you base your acceptance of the canon on your years of admittedly fallible study. Scholarship alone cannot answer questions of divine truths or establish articles of faith by its very nature. If the canon is just a matter of well-informed tentative opinion based on the current state of scholarship in fields that are ever developing (philology, textual criticism, history, etc) it is not worthy of giving the assent of faith.

     As to my tone, no harm meant. Apologies if I come across as abrasive.

605. Lojahw February 4th, 2014 9:57 pm :

     Dear Cletus,

     Re: authenticity, there are many arguments and evidences for the books in question, but basically only two against: 1) stylostatistical (which Neumann neutralized in 1990); 2) theological – mostly based on false dichotomies (for the OT books, this involves denial of the supernatural and of divine prophecy). Since (1) is of no consequence and (2) can be refuted on a case-by-case basis for each of the disputed books, the preponderance of evidence favors the authenticity of all 27 of the NT books.

     But you seem to miss my point about scholarship and canonicity: my faith in the authority of the 66 books is based on conviction by the Holy Spirit – AND it is fully consistent with reason based on the available facts and evidence. I don’t have to suppress the cognitive dissonance that seems unavoidable with the EO & RC canons.

     I suggest you go back to post #520 and read forward to get the background for the discussion that you just dropped into, and then you should be able to ask more appropriate questions.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

606. Lojahw February 5th, 2014 12:10 am :

     Dear JohnD,
     I’m not getting notified of your posts and it is difficult to see the combox entries on my laptop, so I’ve missed some (I don’t know why only your posts aren’t coming to me).

     I saw this phrase from you (#601) on a larger monitor: “Divinely protected Truth”
     That claim seems reasonable for the canonical texts based on Jesus’ words in Matt. 5:18; 24:35; and what Isaiah and Peter say about the endurance of God’s Word (Isa. 40:8; 1 Pet. 1:25).

     However, “divinely protected truth” for particular declarations of the Church that go beyond the canonical texts seems to beg the question. I know the “Church” says this is so, but why is that not circular reasoning?

     Also I think your assertion: “the manifestly false part that is in question, and is extremely difficult to show” is greatly overstated. All those textual scholars would be very surprised to hear that they have no right to make the claims they do about discerning the original biblical texts.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

607. John Thayer Jensen February 5th, 2014 2:59 pm :

     Lojahw (#605):

     Butting in on your conversation with Cletus :-)

     You said sometime back that you thought we were talking past one another – but I really wonder if you have understood what I meant by something that I thought important. What I said was that it seems to me – and what you say below highlights it – that your situation is structurally precisely the same as the Catholic’s – but with a difference in the proximal object of faith (if I am using the right words there):

     – the Catholic believes there are the motivations of credibility that point to the Church – but that it is only by the gift of faith from the Holy Spirit that those motivations can be converted to certainty

     – you – and, I suggest, reasonable Protestants – believe there are motivations of credibility, but that they point to the Scriptures (including their canonical status), but that it is only by the gift of faith from the Holy Spirit that those motivations can be converted to certainty.

     That is what it seems to me your comment to Cletus below means:

     Dear Cletus,

     Re: authenticity, there are many arguments and evidences for the books in question, but basically only two against: 1) stylostatistical (which Neumann neutralized in 1990); 2) theological – mostly based on false dichotomies (for the OT books, this involves denial of the supernatural and of divine prophecy). Since (1) is of no consequence and (2) can be refuted on a case-by-case basis for each of the disputed books, the preponderance of evidence favors the authenticity of all 27 of the NT books.

     But you seem to miss my point about scholarship and canonicity: my faith in the authority of the 66 books is based on conviction by the Holy Spirit – AND it is fully consistent with reason based on the available facts and evidence. I don’t have to suppress the cognitive dissonance that seems unavoidable with the EO & RC canons.

     I suggest you go back to post #520 and read forward to get the background for the discussion that you just dropped into, and then you should be able to ask more appropriate questions.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

     I don’t mean anything particular by this, only that I am trying to understand things – and in particular, how you can believe in the Bible without the Church’s authority.
     jj

608. Cletus February 5th, 2014 3:17 pm :

     Lojahw,

     “Re: authenticity, there are many arguments and evidences for the books in question, but basically only two against: 1) stylostatistical (which Neumann neutralized in 1990);”

     Is stylostatistical used by conservative scholars you agree with as well or not? Any method can obviously be inappropriately applied by some, as Neumann points out, but that does not invalidate the method itself. If not, I would like to know what other textual methods conservatives are using that liberals do not as you assert. I have not heard Wallace in his debates with Ehrman just dismiss him with “you disagree with me so you must be only using stylostatistical analysis which Neumann neutralized ” and end the debate.

     And like any method, it will be useful but limited:
     “Kenneth J. Neumann, third, in his the Authenticity of the Pauline Epistles in the Light of Stylostatistical Analysis, assesses the usefulness of 617 possible quantitative criteria of authenticity and eventually rejects all but four as unreliable. Even these four uniquely suitable criteria, however, prove unreliable in practice, identifying the letters to the churches in Rev 2 and 3, for instance, as epistles of Paul. Neumann, regrettably, does not so much as consider the possibility that the Pastorals might prove authentic in his study, whose principal significance, in any event, seems to lie in its unintentional demonstration of the inadequacy of quantitative methods of analysis for the purpose of determining the authorship of the Pauline epistles. ”
     -WRS Journal

     This paper here summed up well the problems with scholarship in analyzing authorship using statistics and stylistics:
     “The Bibliographies of stylistics contain thousands of titles, there is no lack of observed facts; however, the polysemy of concepts, the imprecision of methods, the uncertainty about the very goal of this research hardly make for a prosperous discipline.”

     “Non-traditional authorship attribution studies bring a unique problem to inter-disciplinary studies: who is the authority? who is the experimental spokesman? the group leader? Is it the linguist? the statistician? the computer scientist? the rhetorician? Is it the expert in the field of the questioned work: literature? classics? law? philosophy? religion? economics?”

     “There is a lack of competent and complete bibliographical research and there is little experimental memory. Researchers working in the same subject area of authorship attribution often fail to cite and make use of pertinent previous efforts….Kenneth Neumann’s impressive 1990 dissertation,
     The Authenticity of the Pauline Epistles in the Light of Stylostatistical Analysis, didn’t reference Mascol’s two 1888 articles on the “Curves of Pauline and Pseudo-Pauline Style.”

     “Mealand called Neumann’s heavy reliance on discriminant analysis “problematic””

     The larger point is that these same issues can plague other scholarly disciplines as well which contributes to the disagreements in those fields. We’re not dealing with hard science and deductive truths like in physics or math, but inductive/abductive reasoning in the humanities to make probable conclusions.

     “2) theological – mostly based on false dichotomies (for the OT books, this involves denial of the supernatural and of divine prophecy). Since (1) is of no consequence and (2) can be refuted on a case-by-case basis for each of the disputed books, the preponderance of evidence favors the authenticity of all 27 of the NT books.”

     You can refute the rejection of the supernatural nature of a book? How will you do this? Scholars of the OT such as Dever dismiss the historicity of the OT based on their analysis of secular history and archaeology. Other scholars of the NT dismiss inerrancy for the NT on similar reasons – they are not just relying only on stylostatistical and false dichotomies. As I’ve said, you can attempt to refute all the liberal arguments, but your refutation will be just another opinion added to the scholarly field (if it was to even reach that far), and no one is under any compelling reason to accept your authority as definitive in assenting to the canon as an article of faith. Which you agree with by freely admitting your canon is ever-subject to change based on new things you learn.

     “my faith in the authority of the 66 books is based on conviction by the Holy Spirit – AND it is fully consistent with reason based on the available facts and evidence. I don’t have to suppress the cognitive dissonance that seems unavoidable with the EO & RC canons. ”

     “consistent with reason based on the available facts and evidence” – your analysis of the available facts and evidence you mean. Scholars disagree on how to analyze and what methods to use, as well as even what count as the appropriate pool of facts and evidence to draw from, and of course bring their own biases into their work as well – someone who presupposes secular history takes precedence over the biblical record will come to different conclusions than one who holds the opposite.

     Further, the christians who held to the OT you disagree with were apparently either not illuminated by the HS, or were not using their reason properly and suppressing cognitive dissonance, correct? Same with those christians who doubted certain NT books, or accepted books that were later rejected correct?

609. Lojahw February 5th, 2014 6:33 pm :

     For Cletus, et al.
     Binding canon?

     The Council of Trent’s vote on making the canon binding was 24 in favor, 15 against, and 18 abstentions. Most of the voting delegates at Trent did not believe their canon should be binding on everyone.

     Moreover, the Council of Trent passed over voting on 3 and 4 Esdras, 3 and 4 Maccabees, the Prayer of Manasseh, and Psalm 151, effectively leaving the OT canon open. According to Gary Michuta, three voted against 3 Esdras, eight didn’t vote, and forty two voted to pass over it. So an overwhelming majority of 53 delegates “passed over” the canonicity of 3 Esdras. See Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger 240-41.

     “The further question, whether in the decree of Trent anything should be said about the status of books within the canon (that is, of the deuterocanonical books), was left to one side. Writing on 16 February 1546, the day after the debate, the legates report to Rome that there was general agreement not to enter into that question (Acta, x, 382) and the notice in the official account of the proceedings (Acta, V, 10). . . . The legates cannot have been mistaken when they wrote that there was agreement not to enter into that difficult matter (concordandosi quasi tutti a non entrare in quelle difficolta).” See Greenslade, S. L., editor, The Cambridge History of the Bible (1963), pp. 199-202.

     The point of the above is that the Council of Trent’s decisions and the manner in which they were made substantially weaken the arguments for (a) Rome’s canon being binding for all Christians; (b) the irreformability of Rome’s canon; (c) the asserted equal authority of the “deuteros” and the “proto-canonical” books.

     It’s time to revisit what the church fathers taught about the ‘ecclesiastical’ and ‘canonical’ books, as Rufinus called them. Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Epiphanius, and Rufinus all clearly taught that the former constitute a “second rank” of sacred literature below the canonical books.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

610. Cletus February 5th, 2014 9:17 pm :

     Lojahw,

     “Most of the voting delegates at Trent did not believe their canon should be binding on everyone.”

     Most of the voting delegates also believed the crafting of the decree on Tradition meant partim-partim. Their beliefs do not mean material sufficiency is therefore precluded.

     “So an overwhelming majority of 53 delegates “passed over” the canonicity of 3 Esdras.”

     Passing over does not necessitate an open canon. But even granting that it does, as Jonathan mentioned above, a potentially open canon (or disputed passages in textual criticism) is not catastrophic to the STM-triad view of authority in RCism. It is to a SS view though. Further, because a canon might be open does not mean that the books that were affirmed are therefore reformable or can be removed. In Protestantism there is no such guarantee according to its own principles – hence the unending debates on inerrancy and holding passages hostage to ever-developing field of textual criticism.

     “The point of the above is that the Council of Trent’s decisions and the manner in which they were made substantially weaken the arguments for (a) Rome’s canon being binding for all Christians; (b) the irreformability of Rome’s canon; (c) the asserted equal authority of the “deuteros” and the “proto-canonical” books.”

     You have dismissed the view of Tradition and the sensus fidelium in also recognizing/witnessing to irreformable doctrine. Irreformable doctrine is not limited to conciliar definitions alone. And by going this tu quoque route you basically admit you cannot offer more than opinion in terms of assenting to the canon and are trying to pull Rome into the same boat as you.

     “It’s time to revisit what the church fathers taught about the ‘ecclesiastical’ and ‘canonical’ books, as Rufinus called them. Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Epiphanius, and Rufinus all clearly taught that the former constitute a “second rank” of sacred literature below the canonical books.”

     Some that you list here used such books to support doctrine and cited them in the same way they cite other canonical books with no qualification. None of them held to your precise OT canon. The larger point is that many other fathers did not hold to your canon. It seems that according to you, they were either spiritually blinded or not using reason and suppressing cognitive dissonance.

611. Tom Brown February 5th, 2014 10:16 pm :

     Dear “Lojahw” (#588),

     You’ve said a lot here. Let’s see if we can distinguish our positions cleanly:

     What I meant was a) the Jews recognized Moses to be a prophet of God based on the unmistakable evidence of God’s miraculous hand in both his teaching and his ministry *confirmed by* the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit (e.g., no one can say, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the Holy Spirit, 1 Cor. 12:3);

     I’m not sure what basis you have for stating the premise that Jews were able to come to certainty about Moses’s authority because of an individual-by-individual confirmatory act of the Holy Spirit. “No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord'” does not establish the premise.

     b) therefore, the Jews accepted the revelation authentically recorded in Moses’ books to be God’s word.

     Setting my above comment aside, this conclusion still is problematic. The Jews who knew Moses and observed the miracles of his life and heard that his prophecies were true would have reason to know he spoke for God. That would not ipso facto lead later generations of Jews to to accept a collection of books ascribed to Moses (including a portion that documents Moses’s own death, of course). So it seems you went too fast from your (a) premise to your (b) conclusion, and that this needs more fleshing out. I think what’s missing is how later generations came to trust that the purported books of Moses were more than merely purported, and how they came to trust Moses in the first place (they not having known him, seen his miracles, or listened to him rendering prophecies that were true).

     Similarly, Christians recognize Jesus’ authority, and according to His infallible teaching, Christians must accept both the canonicity of the books He cites as Scripture, [etc.]

     I think the “Similarly” analogy appears to be good and helpful. So I won’t dive more into it here, because I think perhaps we can sort some things out through further dialogue on the above points first.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

612. Tom Brown February 5th, 2014 10:28 pm :

     Dear “Lojahw” (#590),

     To be clear, my argument stands without respect to the Catholic paradigm. That is, I’m not arguing that either the Protestant paradigm is wrong and the Catholic paradigm is right, or vice versa.

     As for Jewish views on the canon before the time of Christ, that is addressed in Section II.B. above, in which I note inconsistent views. It is not my understanding that all groups of Jews before the time of Christ held a consistent belief on the metaphysical nature of the Psalms. I suspect it would oversimplify things to say that the various groups of Jews all ‘accepted as canonical’ the Psalms, as if they all shared a common understanding of the meaning of canonical status.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

613. Tom Brown February 5th, 2014 10:35 pm :

     Dear John D. (#591),

     Your response to my argument is the tu quoque response. Please note that this does nothing to address the arguments I have made regarding Protestant answers to the Canon Question. That is, ex arguendo even if the Catholic position were flawed, that would not in any way serve to cure the Protestant position.

     Regarding the tu quoque itself, please do read Neal and Bryan’s excellent article on this very point: The Tu Quoque. I think you’ll find it very helpful, as would Dr. White.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

614. Tom Brown February 5th, 2014 10:55 pm :

     Dear John D. (#600),

     Regarding motives of credibility, I think here too you might benefit from the Tu Quoque article. I’m thinking in particular of the last paragraph of that article’s section II.A. (viz. “The difference lies fundamentally in the nature of that which is discovered.”). In addition to that suggestion, I have some thoughts on this paragraph of yours:

     In the Canon Question, Tom B. critiques various tests for canonicity, often on the grounds that the tests (a) do not (at least not any single one) lead to a complete 27-book canon or (b) are incompatible with sola scriptura. However, if the canon criteria are viewed as motives of credibility, then it seems they can be combined and synthesized to make the Protestant’s view of the 27-book canon entirely reasonable. For instance, Krueger’s 3 mutually reinforcing ideas of (1) Internal divine qualities (2) Apostolic origin and (3) Corporate reception seem to do the job of establishing the 27-book canon to the exclusion of other books. Each of the 27 books can be found to pass all 3 tests when the ECF’s writings are examined, and no other extant book passes all 3 tests.

     I do not see how this suggested cure resolves my argument that the very process of answering the Canon Question violates sola scriptura. Also, I addressed in my introduction to section II that using a plurality of theories does not resolve the underlying problems with the Protestant answer to the Canon Question. Kruger’s suggestion is nothing new, in this sense. Finally, I argued about post hocrationalizations to arrive at the 66-book canon, which argument would apply to your ‘motives of credibility’ idea.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

615. Tom Brown February 5th, 2014 11:04 pm :

     Dear “Lojahw” and Cletus (circa ## 608-610),

     While quite interesting, I think the debate about how to count noses at Trent is running a bit far off track. Let’s get back to Protestant answers to the Canon Question, and the arguments contained in the article above, if you please. Thank you.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

616. Lojahw February 6th, 2014 12:13 am :

     Dear Tom,

     Re: Jewish views on the canon before the time of Christ & Section IIB . . .
     It is immaterial whether some Jewish sects did not recognize the same canon as Jesus and the Jews who agreed with him did. What is relevant is the canon that Jesus and the Jews who agreed with him recognized as canonical. I’m challenging Section III of the article:

     A fallible collection of infallible books cannot function as a binding authority

     Based on this premise, the article claims there is no way for the books in the Protestant canon to bind the conscience of Protestants – yet, this is exactly the situation with the Jews in Jesus’ day re: the Psalms. Moreover, since Jesus accepted the Jewish canon of his day (the Law, the Prophets, the Psalms, etc.), what is the problem with Protestants accepting the same canon? (Josephus and the church fathers provide sufficient evidence to know what that canon was – and still is. Maybe not “infallible evidence,” but neither “infallible evidence” nor “infallible authority” were necessary criteria of canonicity for Jesus and the Jews of His day – as the Psalms demonstrate.)

     I hope this explanation helps.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

617. Lojahw February 6th, 2014 12:24 am :

     Dear Tom,

     Re: Moses, you brought up the point I was hoping you would comment on: how would later generations know to trust Moses and his books? They had no infallible authority, unless you posit an infallible succession of prophets down to Jesus’ day – which we both know is not true. Hence, I think we must accept some role of the Holy Spirit (not dependent on official channels) to convict succeeding generations of the canonical authority of Moses’ books.

     Similarly, Christians in each generation must be personally convicted of the canonicity of the books handed down as canonical from previous generations going back to Jesus and the Apostles. The only unbroken chain for the OT books that I find going back to the Apostles is the “twenty-two” books (albeit with some minor confusion over details).

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

618. Lojahw February 6th, 2014 7:42 pm :

     JJ wrote:
     the Catholic believes there are the motivations of credibility that point to the Church – but that it is only by the gift of faith from the Holy Spirit that those motivations can be converted to certainty

     If that is so, how do you explain Muslim converts from Christianity? One of the most vocal that I’ve heard (Abdur Raheem Green) is a former Roman Catholic.

     It may be that the Holy Spirit points you to the “Church,” but it does not follow that the “Church” can never err. (The Church as defined by Christ and the Apostles is the universal Body of Christ, which has many members that are united in a few things but also divided in many.)

     The question that needs to be asked re: the canon is “How do you test the spirits to distinguish between the Spirit of Truth and the spirit of error?”

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

619. John Thayer Jensen February 6th, 2014 8:24 pm :

     Lojahw (#618)

     JJ wrote:
     the Catholic believes there are the motivations of credibility that point to the Church – but that it is only by the gift of faith from the Holy Spirit that those motivations can be converted to certainty

     If that is so, how do you explain Muslim converts from Christianity? One of the most vocal that I’ve heard (Abdur Raheem Green) is a former Roman Catholic.

     It may be that the Holy Spirit points you to the “Church,” but it does not follow that the “Church” can never err. (The Church as defined by Christ and the Apostles is the universal Body of Christ, which has many members that are united in a few things but also divided in many.)

     Lojahw – all I was trying to do was to understand your motivations for believing in the Bible, not the motivations of anyone else for doing anything. I’m just trying to see where you are at. It seems to me there is a formal or structural likeness between the two. That’s all.

     jj

620. JohnD February 6th, 2014 8:41 pm :

     Tom B. (re: #613),

     Your response to my argument is the tu quoque response. Please note that this does nothing to address the arguments I have made regarding Protestant answers to the Canon Question. That is, ex arguendo even if the Catholic position were flawed, that would not in any way serve to cure the Protestant position.

     That may sound like a fair reply at first glance, but on further reflection, it is not. The Protestant seeks to point out a hypothetical, internal inconsistency in the Catholic position. That is, you said: “[S]omething that may or may not be Scripture (i.e., we’re not infallibly sure about that) lacks that authority because it may not be Scripture.. To reach that conclusion, it would seem you subscribe to the premise that (1) anything that “may not be” what it claims to be lacks authority. Add to that another premise (2) the Catholic Church “may not be” what it claims to be and out pops the conclusion (3) the Catholic Church lacks authority. So, the Protestant adduces this tu quoque (as you call it) as evidence that (1) is false. And if (1) is false, then your criticism that I cited is unfounded.

     Tom B. (re: #614),

     I do not see how this suggested cure resolves my argument that the very process of answering the Canon Question violates sola scriptura.

     A process of answering the question that assumes extra-biblical infallibility would violate sola scriptura. But, the Reformed position does not posit extra-biblical infallibility as stated clearly in WCF, Chapter 1, Sections 4 and 5:

     The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.

     V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

     Peace,
     John D.

621. JohnD February 6th, 2014 8:45 pm :

     Lojahw,

     In deference to Tom @585 may we put this dialogue to bed? It is not on topic for this combox.

     Sure.

     Peace,
     John D.

622. Eva Marie February 6th, 2014 8:56 pm :

     My Protestant friends have challenged my theology of the canon in much the same way as Lojahw’s #616 put it. How did the Jews of 200BC-200AD have confidence in their canon? And is it possible that we today only have as much confidence as they did? It sure seems more epistemologically satisfying to have certainty from an infallible source, but I can appreciate the argument that we may not have such certainty. I look forward to the continued conversation. Thanks to Lojahw and the Catholoc interlocutors here for your help in clarifying these issues.

623. Lojahw February 6th, 2014 9:29 pm :

     JJ wrote:
     all I was trying to do was to understand your motivations for believing in the Bible

     I am not comfortable with your characterization that the Holy Spirit “points me to the Bible.” Jesus said “When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from The Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me” (John 15:26). I don’t recall either Jesus or the Apostles saying that the Holy Spirit would point people to the Church. When I was confirmed by the bishop, I promised to follow Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. I never promised to follow a Church.

     I have many reasons for believing in the Bible; however, the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit, having drawn me to Christ, binds my conscience regarding His teaching and the teaching of those He endorses (the Apostles and Prophets) that have been preserved for all generations of Christians. I’m not sure that is as close a parallel as you are looking for.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

624. Cletus February 7th, 2014 1:43 am :

     Eva Marie,

     “How did the Jews of 200BC-200AD have confidence in their canon? And is it possible that we today only have as much confidence as they did? ”

     There was not a single fixed canon beyond the Pentateuch amongst all Jewish sects during that time.

     Revelation was still unfolding at that time. It would therefore be expected that they would get things wrong – hence the varying canons as well as the erroneous interpretations which were corrected by Christ/Apostles. By just assuming the NC should be just as “fine” as the OC or that the OC is normative in this area tacitly dismisses the NC as being something better and superior and the pattern of NC fulfillment of OC types and figures. We would expect continuity in one sense (authority of some sort) but also something better given Christ’s promises and the closing of revelation. To say otherwise is to leave us in the same position as the OC Jews and their various opposing factions when revelation still hadn’t been ultimately fulfilled and completely transmitted.

     Related, it wasn’t difficult to identify the boundaries of God’s people in the OC given its focus on physical/ethnic descent. With the NC now open to all peoples being universally called and grafted in, there is now the need to identify that body (no longer via physical/ethnic markers) first before ascertaining the content of revelation – the canon obviously being included in this.

     Further, your friends would need to explain how they can hold to revelation having ended (unlike the OC schema they’re using to justify their position), but the canon can still be fallible (like the OC) and so they are fine just being “confident” in it, but then simultaneously holding it as the sole infallible authority. Jonathan P. touched on that above.

625. John Thayer Jensen February 7th, 2014 3:30 am :

     Lojahw (#623)

     I am not comfortable with your characterization that the Holy Spirit “points me to the Bible.” Jesus said “When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from The Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me” (John 15:26). I don’t recall either Jesus or the Apostles saying that the Holy Spirit would point people to the Church. When I was confirmed by the bishop, I promised to follow Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. I never promised to follow a Church.

     I have many reasons for believing in the Bible; however, the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit, having drawn me to Christ, binds my conscience regarding His teaching and the teaching of those He endorses (the Apostles and Prophets) that have been preserved for all generations of Christians. I’m not sure that is as close a parallel as you are looking for.

     I didn’t say the Holy Spirit points you to the Bible. I said that I thought you were saying that the ‘motives of credibility’ – the arguments you have been making for the canon – point to the Bible; the Holy Spirit confirms for you that this is God’s Word and that following it is what is commanded of you. Is that not correct?

     If so, it seems to me parallel. The Catholic thinks that the arguments you produce actually point to the authority of the Church – but it requires the witness of the Spirit to make this a conviction.

     As I said, I am just trying to understand why you think the Bible is the authoritative Word of God. The arguments you have given, all based on human reason, are not enough, as you say; it takes the witness of the Spirit to turn the water into wine, so to speak. Only what we think is that your arguments actually point to the Church – and to the Bible as the written testimony of Christ through the Church.

     But I am trying to see if that parallellism is correct.

     jj

626. JohnD February 7th, 2014 6:05 am :

     Eva Marie (re: #622),

     1. How did the Jews of 200BC-200AD have confidence in their canon? Catholic apologists answers this question in different ways, so there does not seem to be a consensus. There was no New Testament Church of course, and therefore no Christ-ordained magisterium. Whether the Jews possessed an extra-biblical, infallible knowledge of the canon, I would venture to say most Catholics answer no.

     And is it possible that we today only have as much confidence as they did? Depends what you mean by possible. Logically possible, yes. However, for the Catholic, it is orthodox (and binding) to hold that the Church has infallibly identified the canon of the Old and New Testaments (apart from perhaps 1 question about whether Esdras is Scripture).

     Peace,
     John D.

627. Lojahw February 7th, 2014 10:54 am :

     Dear Eva Marie,
     Thank you for encouraging this dialogue. Our common ground is that we recognize the canonicity of the books passed down by the Apostles for posterity (which excludes lost books, because “the word of the Lord endures forever”). The question is how do we know what those books are?

     There are many sources of knowledge, some of which can be applied (as I’ve attempted to do in this combox) to the books in question. The criteria of canonicity that I’ve described are those ascribed by Jesus, the Apostles, and the Prophets to Scripture. I believe Christians should expect such criteria (e.g., God’s word is true, endures forever, is inalterable, and is holy) to be reflected in canonical books.

     I think discussions re: epistemic certainty inevitably get mired in subjective and/or circular arguments which lead nowhere. Ergo, the example of the Psalms in Jesus’ time and my question about the role of the Holy Spirit.

     Are the Protestant conclusions about canonicity reasonable and consistent with the available facts? I believe they are, the article notwithstanding.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

628. Lojahw February 7th, 2014 11:39 pm :

     JJ wrote:
     I didn’t say the Holy Spirit points you to the Bible.

     Sorry – I misread what you said. I’m not familiar with the phrase “motivations of credibility.”

     Your fairly close. What is missing from your description is the preceding step of the Holy Spirit drawing us to Christ, and consequently His binding of our consciences to the truth and authority of Christ’s teaching and the teaching of those He endorses.

     Also, you use the word “certainty” in your paradigm – which is primarily cognitive; whereas “binding the conscience” is primarily volitional. I have cognitive certainty that “seventy years” is not equivalent to “seven generations,” and that certainty has volitional consequences, e.g., my conscience cannot give volitional assent to the authority of the source which substitutes the latter in place of the former in an ostensible prophesy about the same event.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

629. Lojahw February 7th, 2014 11:43 pm :

     Cletus wrote:

     There was not a single fixed canon beyond the Pentateuch amongst all Jewish sects during that time.

     That’s a mighty bold statement for someone who admits he has no credentials. How do you explain Josephus’s testimony of the well-established Jewish canon, which Jesus Himself would have learned when He learned the Hebrew alphabet like His contemporaries?

     for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be, willingly to die for them. Against Apion 1.8

     It is irrelevant how many sects of Judaism there were – the only canon that matters is the canon which Jesus affirmed and Josephus documented in the first century.

     Cletus also wrote:

     there is now the need to identify that body (no longer via physical/ethnic markers) first before ascertaining the content of revelation – the canon obviously being included in this.

     No argument that the NC had its own revelation – which depended on and recognized the OC as authoritative. Why else did Jesus continually appeal to it? If the extent of the OC revelation was unknown, why did Jesus imply that it was well known (cf. John 5:39; Luke 24:44-45; etc.)? How can you search something that you don’t know its boundaries? And why did the church fathers from Melito to Jerome affirm the “twenty-two” book canon (albeit with some confusion over minor details) which they claim was handed down from the Jews?

     And:

     Further, your friends would need to explain how they can hold to revelation having ended (unlike the OC schema they’re using to justify their position), but the canon can still be fallible (like the OC) and so they are fine just being “confident” in it

     Huh? R. C. Sproul and the other writers cited in the article do not speak for all Protestants.

     Did you read my posts from #520 to the present?

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

630. Lojahw February 8th, 2014 12:27 am :

     Another thought, JJ.

     The Holy Spirit gives me certainty that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, God incarnate, and my Savior. That certainty and the inward work of the Holy Spirit bind my conscience to Him and to His teaching.

     I am a “Lover Of Jesus And His Word”

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

631. Lojahw February 8th, 2014 6:09 pm :

     Question for JJ:

     Is it sufficient that Jesus and His disciples have identified particular books as Scripture, or do you still need the Church to rule on those books?

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

632. Cletus February 8th, 2014 8:05 pm :

     Lojahw,

     “That’s a mighty bold statement for someone who admits he has no credentials.”

     Do you dispute reputable scholars hold the same position? Secondly, what are your credentials? All I’ve seen above is you’ve written a master’s thesis. Is it published? Is it under reputable faculty? If you’re going to play the credentials game, you gotta go big or go home.

     “It is irrelevant how many sects of Judaism there were – the only canon that matters is the canon which Jesus affirmed and Josephus documented in the first century.”

     So you agree there was not a single fixed canon amongst all Jewish sects. Which is what I said. You just dismiss them.

     “Huh? R. C. Sproul and the other writers cited in the article do not speak for all Protestants.”

     Do you disagree with Sproul that you have a fallible canon? No, which is why you said above it’s just your informed opinion based on your fallible analysis and you’re open to changing it in light of new evidence. So the point you were replying to stands.

633. John Thayer Jensen February 8th, 2014 10:15 pm :

     Lojahw (#631)

     Is it sufficient that Jesus and His disciples have identified particular books as Scripture, or do you still need the Church to rule on those books?

     Stipulating that Jesus and His disciples have, indeed, identified particular books as Scripture – something that I do not think is true, but stipulating it for the sake of argument – it is not sufficient to know what books are Scripture. I need to know also that Jesus intends me to understand that Scripture in such a way that if I am convinced the Church and I differ, when push comes to shove, the Church is wrong.

     But as this article is about the very question whether the canon can be known without the Church, and as I do not think it can, this isn’t the place to discuss what I said above. It is the place to discuss whether, indeed, you are correct that Jesus and His disciples have identified those writings and those only as Scripture. I do not think this is the case. But I did want to understand whether that is what you think – and you have said it is. My point is that it does seem to me you have done what the Catholic does – proceed from Jesus and His disciples to what they point to. You think they point to the Scriptures (and thus identify the canon infallibly). The Catholic thinks they point to the Church (which itself identifies the canon infallibly).

     jj

634. Lojahw February 8th, 2014 11:25 pm :

     Ok, Cletus,

     To which Jewish canons are you referring? What primary sources can you cite that document a Jewish canon other than the one Josephus published in the first century? (I know of none.) How do you refute the canon Josephus published as representing first century Judaism? (No scholar I’ve read has ever refuted it – they merely ignore it; but that’s not good scholarship.)

     The article refers to the so-called Alexandrian canon, which was a theory first published in 1771, and debunked in 1964 by A. C. Sundberg. It’s been 50 years and no one has proven Sundberg wrong. It is telling that Philo, the only Alexandrian Jew from the time period, extensively quotes from the same canon published by Josephus (more than 1150 times) – and NEVER quotes from any of the deuteros – yet he also quotes Greek philosophers. What does that tell you about the Alexandrian canon?

     Fallible canon? Can you show me any faults in mine? I’d be happy to compare notes between your canon and mine.

     Peace,
     Lojahw

635. Lojahw February 9th, 2014 12:12 am :

     JJ wrote:

     Stipulating that Jesus and His disciples have, indeed, identified particular books as Scripture – something that I do not think is true.

     That’s an amazing statement, JJ, considering the more than 50 times the word “scripture” is used in the NT, referring to Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Psalms, Isaiah, Micah, Zechariah, etc., etc. Also, considering the canonical authority implied by the formula: “it is written” (the verbal cognate of the Greek word translated “Scripture”), e.g., in Jesus’ responses to the devil when He quotes Deuteronomy, and e.g., in Mark 7:6, where Jesus says: “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR A WAY FROM ME.’” etc., etc. I’ve counted 26 books uniquely identified by Jesus and His disciples as Scripture, 32 based on common knowledge of the prophets recognized by the first century Jews (cf. Luke 24:44-45 for Jesus’ summary of the canon).

     But as this article is about the very question whether the canon can be known without the Church

     You may not like my approach, but in #520 and elsewhere I have described criteria of canonicity that are consistent with the Protestant canon. These criteria are neither ad hoc nor circular nor too subjective: the challenges made by the article. Can you tell me which of the criteria I listed that your Church denies? (As far as I know, I haven’t proposed anything novel or in conflict with the teaching of your Church.) I’m merely saying that there is more than one way to answer the canon question.

     Peace,
     Lojahw

636. Benjamin Keil February 9th, 2014 11:08 am :

     Dear Cletus, (re: #632)

     You wrote:

     …[W]hat are [Lojahw’s] credentials? All I’ve seen above is you’ve written a master’s thesis. Is it published? Is it under reputable faculty? If you’re going to play the credentials game, you gotta go big or go home.

     Since Lojahw ignored your questions in his most recent post (an unscholarly tendency he’s displayed before on this thread), I did a bit of digging. Way back in #456 Lojahw claimed that his thesis was entitled “Recognizing Scripture and Its Boundaries Beginning with the Words of Jesus”. I checked ProQuest (a standard scholarly repository for theses and dissertations) and found no works with that title. (In fairness, though, Proquest can be a bit spotty when it comes to Master’s theses; my own MA thesis, for instance, isn’t on there [although I put it on my personal website and it’s in the Colorado State University library in hardcopy.]) I also Googled and checked Amazon for that title – nothing came up. Matters are complicated, of course, by the fact that Lojahw has chosen to remain anonymous, but suffice it to say that the usual “go-to” places contain no works with the title of Lojahw’s thesis.

     For my money, legit scholars (that is, scholars claiming their own expertise as justification for my accepting their claims) don’t use pseudonyms. So I’ll evaluate Lojahw’s arguments as arguments, but they don’t get any extra credibility by virtue of his claimed expertise (because I can’t verify his credentials). Lojahw, if you’d like to provide your real name, the name of your degree-granting institution, and the year of your degree’s conferral, I’ll amend my position appropriately. But if the past is any indication, Cletus, Lojahw probably won’t do so.

     Yours Sincerely,
     ~Benjamin Keil

637. Lojahw February 9th, 2014 11:49 am :

     Dear Benjamin,

     Since Lojahw ignored your questions in his most recent post (an unscholarly tendency he’s displayed before on this thread)

     What you did not realize is that my response to Cletus was under review before posting in the combox. Some of my comments on this combox have been delayed for several days before posting. Another CtC combox moderated out a number of my posts so that participants got the impression I was not responding. I think you owe me an apology. I’d be happy (within the guidelines Tom has communicated here) to respond to anything you posted which you believe I ignored.

     Also, I never claimed to be a scholar; I simply asked what credentials Cletus has for all of his bold assertions. My thesis is not in distribution by Amazon or any other commercial publisher, being intended for a seminary audience and not for profit. The first printing was typical of master’s theses: 2 copies, one for the seminary in Charlotte, NC, and one mailed to me.

     We’ll see how Cletus answers my response – does he understand what a primary source is and does he know how to distinguish the ordinary use of books from canonical use?

     Peace,
     Lojahw

638. JohnD February 9th, 2014 1:08 pm :

     Lojahw (re: #634),

     It is telling that Philo, the only Alexandrian Jew from the time period, extensively quotes from the same canon published by Josephus (more than 1150 times) – and NEVER quotes from any of the deuteros – yet he also quotes Greek philosophers. What does that tell you about the Alexandrian canon?

     Actually, this is not telling at all when you consider that over 95% of Philo’s quotations are from the Torah (see Michuta’s short reply here .

     Peace,
     John D.

639. John Thayer Jensen February 9th, 2014 3:01 pm :

     Lojahw (#635)

     That’s an amazing statement, JJ, considering the more than 50 times the word “scripture” is used in the NT, referring to Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Psalms, Isaiah, Micah, Zechariah, etc., etc. Also, considering the canonical authority implied by the formula: “it is written” (the verbal cognate of the Greek word translated “Scripture”), e.g., in Jesus’ responses to the devil when He quotes Deuteronomy, and e.g., in Mark 7:6, where Jesus says: “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR A WAY FROM ME.’” etc., etc. I’ve counted 26 books uniquely identified by Jesus and His disciples as Scripture, 32 based on common knowledge of the prophets recognized by the first century Jews (cf. Luke 24:44-45 for Jesus’ summary of the canon).

     Esther? Whoever St Paul is quoting in Acts 17? Many other such issues. The point, Lojahw, is not that Jesus didn’t believe certain books were Scripture, but that I don’t think you can infer the canon from His references.

     You may not like my approach, but in #520 and elsewhere I have described criteria of canonicity that are consistent with the Protestant canon. These criteria are neither ad hoc nor circular nor too subjective: the challenges made by the article. Can you tell me which of the criteria I listed that your Church denies? (As far as I know, I haven’t proposed anything novel or in conflict with the teaching of your Church.) I’m merely saying that there is more than one way to answer the canon question.

     It’s not a matter of liking your approach. It’s that it doesn’t work. It won’t give you the whole Old Testament, and won’t give you any of the New Testament. To start from Jesus as known in history – for you can’t simply presuppose that e.g. the Gospels are Scripture; you have to start by treating them as reliable historical documents – to start from Jesus can give you something about the Old Testament, but not all of it. And it doesn’t at all tell you the status of the New Testament writings. They might be good reliable history; are they inspired? Are any early writings (e.g. Shepherd, Barnabas) inspired? How do you know?

     jj

640. Lojahw February 9th, 2014 7:49 pm :

     JJ wrote:

     The point, Lojahw, is not that Jesus didn’t believe certain books were Scripture, but that I don’t think you can infer the canon from His references.

     You’re missing the point, JJ. I asked you: Is it sufficient that Jesus and His disciples have identified particular books as Scripture, or do you still need the Church to rule on those books?

     This question is not intended to address the whole canon, but to find out if you accept the testimony of Jesus and His disciples that certain books should be considered canonical. That is only the first step of recognizing the canon. If you cannot accept the canonicity of the 32 OT books inferred from those quoted authoritatively by Jesus and His disciples there’s no point in any further discussion.

     Regarding the other books, you don’t sound like you are even willing to consider what I wrote in #520, because I answer step-by-step the questions regarding authenticity for the NT (sorry, the second-century pseudonymous Epistle of Barnabas doesn’t qualify), and how to infer the Protestant canon based on available information.

     Instead of simply dismissing my whole argument, why not tell me where you think the steps in #520 break down?

     Peace,
     Lojahw

641. Benjamin Keil February 9th, 2014 8:11 pm :

     Dear Lojahw, (re: #637),

     You wrote:

     What you did not realize is that my response to Cletus was under review before posting in the combox…I think you owe me an apology.

     What I see is a query from Cletus (#632, Feb 8 at 8PM) and a reply from you (#634, Feb 8 at 11PM) where you completely ignored the issues of your expertise raised by Cletus. If your #634 was not a reply to Cletus’ #632, then I did incorrectly describe your reply. But if then you haven’t yet replied to Cletus’ #632, I’ll be interested to read your response to Cletus’ query about your scholarly credentials whenever you do reply. (Incidentally, this is why it is helpful to begin your comments noting not only the person but also the particular comment to which you are replying – this makes it easier for all involved to keep track of the conversation’s progression, and that way if a comment gets stuck in approval then it’ll be clearer that you haven’t yet replied to a particular comment yet.)

     I’d be happy (within the guidelines Tom has communicated here) to respond to anything you posted which you believe I ignored.

     Way back in #510 Tom Brown asked whether you believed your “fallible list of infallible books” view of the Biblical canon to be within or without the bounds of Reformed Confessional orthodoxy. In your #511 and #512 you did not reply to his query. In my #513 I noted that you had not answered his query. In your #514 you did not reply to the query. In #526 Tom Brown noted that you still had not replied and asked you once again. As far as I can tell, you’ve not responded to Tom’s query. (Your #531 threw the question back to Tom, but didn’t actually answer him inasmuch as Calvin didn’t hold to a “fallible list of infallible books” view of canonicity.)

     I never claimed to be a scholar

     But in #456 you wrote:

     Re: my credentials on canonicity, I published a 200+ page masters thesis on the subject: “Recognizing Scripture and Its Boundaries Beginning with the Words of Jesus.”

     I’m sure you can understand why many on this thread reasonably inferred that you were claiming scholarship on the topic, particularly since you describe your thesis as having been published.

     My thesis is not in distribution by Amazon or any other commercial publisher, being intended for a seminary audience and not for profit.

     I see. Obviously a work need not be published by a for-profit/commercial printer in order to be considered “published”. But describing your thesis as having been published when, apparently, it actually hasn’t been is misleading. That is to say, a thesis’ being bound and placed in your seminary’s library is not what one ordinarily means by saying that you have a published thesis, particularly in the context of academia. It would be more accurate for you to just say that you wrote a 200+ pg master’s thesis.

     The first printing was typical of master’s theses: 2 copies, one for the seminary in Charlotte, NC, and one mailed to me.

     As I wrote in #636, your name, your institution’s name, and the year of degree conferral would really make everyone’s life easier when it comes to verifying your credentials (except, per above, apparently you repudiate any claim to expertise now?) I checked the libraries for Gordon-Cromwell and Reformed Theological seminaries (the former being the largest seminary in Charlotte and the latter being where one would expect a Reformed person to have done graduate work) and neither library has any record of a work with your thesis’ title. Perhaps your thesis is in a departmental library rather than the seminary’s general library or perhaps you went to another seminary altogether. In any event, I’m quite sure that verifying the (purported) credentials of an anonymous internet commentator (who declines to provide information sufficient to verify his academic bona fides) is neither worth my limited time nor within the scope of the article’s thesis.

     Yours Sincerely,
     ~Benjamin Keil

642. Lojahw February 9th, 2014 8:28 pm :

     JohnD wrote:

     Actually, this is not telling at all when you consider that over 95% of Philo’s quotations are from the Torah (see Michuta’s short reply)

     Playing the statistics game misses the point: Philo quotes from all parts of the OT attested by Josephus and Jesus – the Pentateuch, the “former prophets” (including Joshua and Kings) and the latter prophets, as well as Psalms, Proverbs, and Job. More importantly, it offers ZERO support for the theory that Alexandria endorsed a wider canon. There is simply NO evidence of a wider Jewish Alexandrian canon.

     On the other hand, the fifth century Codex Alexandrinus is a Christian “Bible.” According to that “Bible,” do you consider 3 & 4 Maccabees, 3 Esdras, the Odes, Psalm 151, the Psalms of Solomon, 1 & 2 Clement, and the Epistle of Athanasius on the Psalms to be canonical? No contemporary canons list any of these books – exactly the problem with the “Alexandrian Canon theory” – a canon is not a simply a collection of sacred books, but a collection of divinely authoritative books.

     As I said previously, it’s time to reconsider what the church fathers believed about ‘ecclesiastical’ and ‘canonical’ books. For example, Rufinus makes this interesting comment at the end of his canon: “In the New Testament the little book which is called the Book of the Pastor of Hermas, [and that] which is called The Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter; all of which they would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine” (Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed 38). However, no NT canon lists these books. Hence, the church fathers assume that the Old and the New Testaments contain books that are not canonical(Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and Epiphanius also attest to two ranks of accepted sacred literature).

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

643. Cletus February 9th, 2014 8:38 pm :

     Lojahw,

     “How do you refute the canon Josephus published as representing first century Judaism? (No scholar I’ve read has ever refuted it – they merely ignore it; but that’s not good scholarship.)”

     What scholars do is interpret and analyze his witness in context rather than in isolation. That’s good scholarship. Do you dispute that reputable scholars hold that there was not a single fixed canon amongst all Jewish sects in 200Bc-200Ad? I don’t know why you would – you seem to admit as much with:

     “It is irrelevant how many sects of Judaism there were – the only canon that matters is the canon which Jesus affirmed and Josephus documented in the first century.”

     And you claim scholars are dismissive. It’s quite relevant what Jewish sects were operating and what their canon differences may have been if one is asking the question about a single fixed canon.

     “Fallible canon? Can you show me any faults in mine? I’d be happy to compare notes between your canon and mine.”

     Missing the point.

644. JohnD February 9th, 2014 9:30 pm :

     Lojahw (re: #642),

     Playing the statistics game misses the point: Philo quotes from all parts of the OT attested by Josephus and Jesus – the Pentateuch, the “former prophets” (including Joshua and Kings) and the latter prophets, as well as Psalms, Proverbs, and Job. More importantly, it offers ZERO support for the theory that Alexandria endorsed a wider canon. There is simply NO evidence of a wider Jewish Alexandrian canon.

     Philo also fails to quote from Ezekiel, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Daniel, and Esther. And the statistics are important, because if he only quotes from books outside the Torah 40 or 50 times, it cannot be expected that he quote from every single book he believes to be inspired. I agree that this is not evidence of a wider canon, but it can’t be used as evidence that Philo rejected the deuteros. However, I don’t maintain any sharp distinction between the books used by Palestinian Jews and those used by Alexandrian Jews.

     How do you refute the canon Josephus published as representing first century Judaism? (No scholar I’ve read has ever refuted it – they merely ignore it; but that’s not good scholarship.)

     (1) One piece of evidence that Michuta presents (he argues a lot more here) is from an observation made by Francis Gigot. Gigot says that in his Antiquities of the Jews , Josephus claims that he only used “sacred writings” as authorities, yet he freely uses 1 Maccabees and the deutero parts of Esther.

     (2) In the Michuta article I link to above, he states, “Josephus, in his other writings, acknowledges the existence of prophecy or prophetic gifts being exercised after Artaxerxes” and proceeds to give many citations from Rebecca Gray’s work. In principle, if prophecy can be given, then it can be written down, and thus it cannot be declared that the canon is closed prior to such a point. As a side note (if you’re interested), when Sam Waldron debated Michael Brown on the Dividing Line (link), he pressed Michael during the cross-examination to give a principled reason for believing in a closed canon. One of Sam’s points was, if prophesy has not ceased, then a Protestant does not have any good reason for pronouncing that the canon is closed.

     I am not well-researched in this area, so forgive me for constantly punting to Michuta, but I think he makes good arguments on behalf of the deuteros.

     Peace,
     John D.

645. John Thayer Jensen February 9th, 2014 9:54 pm :

     Lojahw (#640)

     You’re missing the point, JJ. I asked you: Is it sufficient that Jesus and His disciples have identified particular books as Scripture, or do you still need the Church to rule on those books?

     Ah, ok, understood. Jesus’s attitude towards certain books does indicate they are Scripture.

     Instead of simply dismissing my whole argument, why not tell me where you think the steps in #520 break down?

     Your three criteria were:

     A) Books authoritatively cited by Jesus and His disciples are canonical.

     In this I could only accept the acceptance by Jesus (I mean, given your view of the Church). His disciples are the Church – but you haven’t shown that they are infallible.

     B) Books identified as canonical by the Jews, who were entrusted with the oracles of God (cf. Rom. 3:1-2), are canonical. Among these are the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms as cited by Jesus and His disciples – including, by examination of internal attestation, at least 33 books of the Old Testament (cf. John 5:39; Luke 24:44-45). External attestation in the first century by Josephus confirms that the Jews had a long-established tradition of a “twenty-two” book canon (39, by modern reckoning).

     Note: the consistent testimony of the church fathers from Melito to Jerome citing the Hebrew “twenty-two” book” canon refutes any charge that this is ad hoc. Furthermore, the Reformers cited Rom. 3:1-2 as justification for their adoption of Jerome’s ancient canon (e.g., William Whitaker, Disputation on Holy Scripture, against the Papists, especially Bellarmine and Stapleton, 1588).

     But this has nothing to do with canonicity unless you have established that some body called “the Jews” had the authority to establish any canon – and since you can’t show absolute unanimity amongst the Jews – you would need to show how to know what happens when Jew opposes Jew.

     C) Books that authentically preserve the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles for all posterity must be received as canonical (re: Jesus’ teaching see Matt. 24:35; 28:18-19; John 12:48; re: the Apostles’ teaching see Matt. 10:40; John 16:13; 2 Pet. 3:15; cf. 1 Cor 14:37; 2 Cor. 12:10-12).

     We seem to me to get now into the whole business of authority-by-scholarship. Which books authentically preserve the teaching of Jesus.

     All that it seems to me is historically certain until you have established an authoritative body is the uniqueness of the Person of Jesus, and His establishment of His Church. You said:

     …sorry, the second-century pseudonymous Epistle of Barnabas doesn’t qualify.

     I don’t see why. I don’t, for the matter of that, see why I Clement doesn’t qualify. Is it the second century bit that you mean? But I Clement may have been written as early as 80. The Shepherd may be 1st Century. I’m not sure Barnabas is 2nd Century. All three are post-70, to be sure. Some have argued that the Apocalypse is post-70, though I think there are good arguments for placing it about 67.

     The point is that the New Testament, unless you can, indeed, accept the authority of the Church, has very fuzzy edges – and in principle is completely amorphous, though I grant much of it, simply on non-authoritative grounds, look good – but that doesn’t suffice to make it certain that it is the Revelation of God.

     jj

646. Lojahw February 9th, 2014 10:35 pm :

     ‘Sorry Benjamin, I assume that if I do not respond to a person’s post, it would be that person that would remind me – not you.

     I tried several times to answer Tom’s #510, but I can’t tell you what my post #’s were, except for #563. Did you see that? (BTW – I’m still waiting for Tom and several others to answer questions I asked weeks ago.)

     As far as referencing the post #, my laptop does not allow me to see every post # (or the text) – the granularity of my scrolling is just not fine enough and the screen height is small. I try to respond to posts that make it into my email, but as Tom told me, WordPress is not perfect with the subscription service, so I don’t even see all of the posts.

     You said: But describing your thesis as having been published when, apparently, it actually hasn’t been is misleading.
     As far as I know, having the thesis bound and placed in the library at the seminary where anyone is welcome to view it amounts to it being published. But my point was that I had read widely on the subject and thought about it deeply. When someone comes into the combox brashly making claims, as Cletus did, it seems reasonable to ask what his credentials are so I can have some idea about his familiarity with the literature – or even see something he wrote on the subject. But Cletus told me he has no credentials, so as far as I know he’s just cherry picking apologetic snippets from various sources and hoping that I won’t call his bluff.

     BTW – my credentials are not important; what is important to me is seeking the truth. So, I’d appreciate it if you would back off unless you have a substantive question of your own about the subject. Tom knows my name, and the seminary is Southern Evangelical Seminary (technically in Matthews, NC, a suburb of Charlotte) – but for this combox I prefer the pseudonym, which stands for “Lover of Jesus and His Word.”

     Peace,
     Lojahw

647. Lojahw February 9th, 2014 10:55 pm :

     Cletus wrote:

     Do you dispute that reputable scholars hold that there was not a single fixed canon amongst all Jewish sects in 200Bc-200Ad?

     You’re asking the wrong question. There are reputable scholars for every viewpoint possible. The Jesus Seminar is full of them – so what? The question I asked you is what primary sources provide evidence of other first century Jewish canons? If there are no primary sources, then, what are the arguments for multiple canons so they can be evaluated? My experience with scholars is that many of them have pet theories and they selectively cite and interpret evidence to support their theories. Each has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. So give me an example.

     For example, if some scholars say the Sadducees only recognized the Pentateuch as canonical, that is irrelevant, because Jesus agrees with Josephus and denies any canon less than the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms. On the other hand, if other scholars point to the Dead Sea Scrolls, of which more than 2/3 are excluded from Josephus’ canon, that argument fails to distinguish between ordinary use and canon. I have lots of sacred literature on my bookshelves, but that doesn’t mean my canon includes everything in my library. Unless there is evidence that first century Jews actually treated other books with “like authority” – to borrow Josephus’s words – there is NO evidence of another canon.

     Fallible canon? Missing the point?
     Sorry – you are the one missing the point. Where is the fault with the Protestant canon? If you can’t find one, you are begging the question.

     Peace,
     Lojahw

648. Benjamin Keil February 10th, 2014 8:49 am :

     Dear “Lojahw” (re: #646,)

     I assume that if I do not respond to a person’s post, it would be that person that would remind me – not you.

     Ordinarily I’d agree with you – but in my #513 I queried you about Tom’s question because I thought your response would be helpful to advancing the discussion. And if Tom asks you a significant question and no effort is made to answer it, it’s perfectly legitimate for another person to point that out.

     I tried several times to answer Tom’s #510, but I can’t tell you what my post #’s were, except for #563. Did you see that?

     I did – thanks for the reference. Having read it carefully and slowly multiple times now I still don’t see any claim of the form “Yes, a ‘fallible list of infallible books’ is beyond the boundaries of Reformed confessionalism because…” or “No, ‘a fallible list of infallible books’ is within the boundaries of Reformed confessionalism because…” You do mention Calvin (perhaps that’s where you thought you replied to Tom’s question?) but Calvin didn’t accept a fallible list of infallible books in the first place – so appealing to his view as an example of the contours of confessional reformed belief gets you nowhere. If you did reply to Tom’s query in #563, I just ain’t seeing it.

     As far as I know, having the thesis bound and placed in the library at the seminary where anyone is welcome to view it amounts to it being published.

     Having a thesis published is a big deal in academic circles because so few theses are published now; there’s just no profit to be made. So if a publishing house had looked at your thesis and did think it was significant enough to merit publication, then that would be kind of a big deal (it’s a big feather to have in one’s academic cap nowadays)! But no, having your thesis bound and placed in a library does not amount to its being published, at least not in a current academic context. It’s certainly not the end of the world, but the claims we make matter (particularly claims about our own scholarship from behind the veil of combox anonymity) and a more accurate way to phrase your accomplishment would be to say that you “wrote” a 200+ pg. master’s thesis. (By the way, my suggestion that you not describe your thesis as having been published is not intended to detract from your accomplishment in writing the dang thing. I’ve got two M.A. degrees myself and I’ve some idea of just how much work is involved in preparing and defending a thesis. So bully for you that you wrote and defended your thesis on canonicity – well done!)

     When someone comes into the combox brashly making claims, as Cletus did, it seems reasonable to ask what his credentials are so I can have some idea about his familiarity with the literature – or even see something he wrote on the subject. But Cletus told me he has no credentials, so as far as I know he’s just cherry picking apologetic snippets from various sources and hoping that I won’t call his bluff.

     That strikes me as a touch uncharitable – surely there’s some significant conceptual space in between Cletus’ having academic credentials (or having written on the subject) and his “cherry picking apologetic snippets…hoping that I won’t call his bluff”. You’re the one with the scholarship in the area, after all, so if he’s advancing a view that no or an extreme minority of reputable scholars hold, then just point that out. But if he’s relying on a view held by a significant number of reputable scholars, then busting chops over his lack of primary source citations isn’t a very productive means of argumentation.

     BTW – my credentials are not important; what is important to me is seeking the truth. So, I’d appreciate it if you would back off unless you have a substantive question of your own about the subject.

     Well, your credentials are (apparently) important (to you) since you’re the one who brought them up. (More accurately, in #455 I said that canonicity was outside my field of expertise and that for all I knew it was outside of yours too. Then in #456 you replied by bringing up your thesis.) Further, your comment to me just defended your inquiry into Cletus’ credentials. So if it’s alright for you to inquire about Cletus’ credentials, it’s equally alright for me to inquire about your credentials. But if “seeking the truth” somehow requires “back[ing] off” about credentials in favor of “substantive question[s]”, then you should probably drop your inquiry into Cletus’ credentials as well.

     Yours Sincerely,
     ~Benjamin Keil

649. Benjamin Keil February 10th, 2014 9:06 am :

     Dear John, (re: #537),

     Just wanted to thank you for a productive and all-around good conversation. I was particularly appreciative of your well-wishes for my new semester. Thankfully teaching has been going well and, in the good news department, my dissertation supervisor just approved the first 1/3 of my dissertation – so now I can begin working on the second 1/3! :-)

     Regardless, in #537, you described a dilemma (trilemma?) faced by Catholics. As I understand things (which, again, isn’t saying much), Catholics wind up on what you identify as (A). (Perhaps you mean “Florence” rather than Trent, though? Trent reaffirmed Florence’s canon). If the OUM (ordinary & universal magisterium) had “proclaimed” (?) a canon prior to that, then I’m not aware of it – but others would know more about this than I do. It’s just a feature of history that 1) it took the Bible itself a long time to be written, and 2) even once the authors finished writing the books/letters, the Church had more urgent matters to deal with (while there were canonical disagreements, they weren’t nearly so prevalent as, say, disagreements about Christ’s relationship to the Father.) But once we get to Florence (reuniting the Eastern and Western hunks of the Church), they address canonicity because they can’t really be reunited if they disagree about the Bible’s table of contents. If memory serves correctly (a small miracle unto itself nowadays!) the Bible’s canon wasn’t one of the particularly controversial matters dealt with by the Council – and in the accounts I’ve read of why the Council was eventually rejected by the Eastern Orthodox, none of them have mentioned canonicity. So maybe that’s a point in favor of the OUM earlier having significantly settled the issue?

     Regardless, thanks for prompting my thoughts even if I haven’t as much free time to write as I’d like. Hopefully once summer comes I’ll have a bit more leisure to engage with the topic again – if so, I’d welcome your thoughts. :-)

     Yours Sincerely,
     ~Benjamin Keil

650. Lojahw February 10th, 2014 6:13 pm :

     Hi JJ,

     In your analysis of #520 you conveniently left out my assumptions and premise:
     Assumptions:
     1. Jesus’ teaching has unquestioned authority for all Christians. Corollary: If we can identify authentic records of Jesus’ teaching from His time, then whatever He teaches therein about canonicity is authoritative.
     2. There is sufficient evidence of the authenticity of the four ancient Gospels. Consequently we should accept what Jesus teaches therein about canonicity, including not only His canonical endorsements of the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms (cf. Luke 24:44-45; etc.), but also His affirmation of the canonical authority of the Apostles (cf. Matt. 10:40; John 16:13).
     3. There is also sufficient evidence of the authenticity of the other 23 books comprising the New Testament to accept what the Apostles teach therein about canonicity. This includes Peter’s recognition of Paul’s letters as canonical.
     4. Steps (1 – 3) avoid circularity with respect to discerning canonicity. Recognition of canonicity follows from the authoritative teaching by Jesus and the other founders of the Church (i.e., the apostles and prophets, cf. Eph. 2:20).
     5. Conscience binding conviction of canonicity comes from the testimony of the Holy Spirit within the Church, the Body of Christ. According to Jesus, the Body of Christ is comprised of all of His sheep, i.e., those “who hear My voice and follow Me” (John 10:27); or, as Paul teaches: “all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1:2). Thus, “the testimony of the Holy Spirit within the greater Body of Christ” means substantial agreement throughout the universal Body of Christ. God is not a god of confusion.

     It is my premise that the criteria below, provided by the founders of the Church [i.e., Jesus, the apostles and the prophets] are neither ad hoc nor circular, and that applying them to the following books, as confirmed by the testimony of the Holy Spirit (cf. John 16:13) within the greater Body of Christ are indeed conscience-binding

     Since you did not challenge the above, the following must be reconsidered:

     In this I could only accept the acceptance by Jesus (I mean, given your view of the Church). His disciples are the Church – but you haven’t shown that they are infallible.

     See assumptions 2-3 above. Moreover, regarding the books Jesus and His contemporaries (Jews and disciples) accept as Scripture, the disciples don’t have to be infallible, but merely reliable witnesses to what Jesus and their Jewish community accepted as Scripture. (See #616 re: the Psalms. If the canonicity of the Psalms was accepted without infallible authority, there is no need for an infallible authority on the other books.) As for the authority of the Apostles, Jesus promised the 12 in John 16:13 that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all the truth. Peter, one of the 12 attested to the infallibility of Paul’s letters in 2 Pet. 3:15-16. And Paul asserted his apostolic authority man times (e.g., Rom. 1:1; etc.). If you can’t trust Christ’s apostles, you can’t trust the Church.

     But this has nothing to do with canonicity unless you have established that some body called “the Jews” had the authority to establish any canon – and since you can’t show absolute unanimity amongst the Jews – you would need to show how to know what happens when Jew opposes Jew.

     Again you ignored what I said about the church fathers’ endorsement of the “twenty-two” book canon. You argument is irrelevant because the Church itself has provided 10 witnesses from Melito to Jerome that the Old Testament canon consisted of “twenty-two” books, just as Josephus claimed was a long-standing tradition among all first century Jews. Moreover, the church fathers clearly say this canon is what the Church received from the Jews. And don’t forget that the Apostle Paul testifies that one of the advantages of the Jews is that they were entrusted with the oracles of God (Rom. 3:1-2). So you are not questioning the Jews, but the Church when you challenge the “twenty-two” book canon.

     Jesus said “by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed” (Matt. 18:16). Whose testimony are you going to believe? The church fathers, or some modern scholar who has a pet theory about the Jewish canon? I’m always amazed that the Church which puts so much faith in tradition has totally dismissed this strong early tradition on such an important topic.

     We seem to me to get now into the whole business of authority-by-scholarship.

     Not at all. See assumptions 1-3 above. Remember Jesus’ statement about two or three witnesses? All of the NT books are corroborated by many more witnesses that they authentically record what Jesus and the Apostles taught based on eyewitness testimony. There are no other books beyond the 27 that have survived (“the word of the Lord endures forever”) that can make these claims.

     I don’t, for the matter of that, see why I Clement doesn’t qualify.

     1 Clement does not qualify for multiple reasons: (1) it was written from Rome to address a situation in Corinth 30 years after Peter and Paul were martyred – there were no apostles in Rome alive at the time; (2) it makes no claim to apostolic authorship (unlike the Apocalypse); (3) it was never recognized as canonical by the greater body of Christ (see my premise, above).

     If you want to challenge me further, please address my whole argument.

     Peace,
     Lojahw

651. Lojahw February 10th, 2014 6:15 pm :

     JohnD wrote:

     One piece of evidence that Michuta presents is: Gigot says that in his Antiquities of the Jews , Josephus claims that he only used “sacred writings” as authorities, yet he freely uses 1 Maccabees and the deutero parts of Esther.

     Gigot has misread Josephus: he never says that he “only used” sacred writings as authorities – in fact Michuta quotes the passage from the beginning of Antiquities of the Jews . Nowhere does Josephus say “only.” Josephus also quotes Greek authors, like Paul. So what?

     if prophecy can be given, then it can be written down, and thus it cannot be declared that the canon is closed prior to such a point.

     This argument is irrelevant because the historical fact is that the canon was closed. You and everyone else are ignoring not only the testimony of Josephus, but also the testimony of four centuries of church fathers closest to the apostles.

     if prophesy has not ceased, then a Protestant does not have any good reason for pronouncing that the canon is closed.

     Ditto, above.

     Peace,
     Lojahw

652. Lojahw February 10th, 2014 6:17 pm :

     Benjamin wrote:
     Well, your credentials are (apparently) important (to you) since you’re the one who brought them up. (More accurately, in #455 I said that canonicity was outside my field of expertise and that for all I knew it was outside of yours too. Then in #456 you replied by bringing up your thesis.) – Since you chastise me for not being charitable to Cletus, do you think your first statement above is charitable? Why did you post it?? As I read your posts, “charitable” is not a word that seems to fit your recent posts to me.

     I am happy not to bring up Cletus’ lack of expertise on the subject in the future. And in the spirit of charity, I withdraw my offhanded comment about his sources, etc.

     As to the “fallible” canon, perhaps you can rephrase the question you think I have not answered. I thought I was clear in saying that Calvin does not teach a “fallible” canon, and if not, what’s the problem? As I answered Cletus: I believe the Protestant canon is without error, if you believe otherwise, show me.

     Peace,
     Lojahw

653. Cletus February 10th, 2014 7:30 pm :

     Lojahw,

     “For example, if some scholars say the Sadducees only recognized the Pentateuch as canonical, that is irrelevant, because Jesus agrees with Josephus and denies any canon less than the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms.”

     So you admit all Jews did not have a fixed single canon. Which is what I said at the beginning. Unless maybe you think those scholars holding such opinions about the Sadducees canon are not “doing good scholarship” as well.

     “On the other hand, if other scholars point to the Dead Sea Scrolls, of which more than 2/3 are excluded from Josephus’ canon, that argument fails to distinguish between ordinary use and canon.”

     It fails to distinguish ordinary use and canon if you presuppose Josephus’ account as being normative for all Jews. The DSS impacted the traditional views of Jewish canonicity and caused re-evaluation.

     “Unless there is evidence that first century Jews actually treated other books with “like authority” – to borrow Josephus’s words – there is NO evidence of another canon.”

     You discount any evidence – or rather you interpret and analyze such evidence contrary to other scholars more credentialed than you – because you presuppose your perspective of Josephus is correct, whereas those other scholars do not.

     “Sorry – you are the one missing the point. Where is the fault with the Protestant canon? If you can’t find one, you are begging the question.”

     No the point is you are reducing the canon to your provisional opinion in evaluating the current provisional state of scholarly opinion. Which does not warrant the assent of faith. Articles of faith are infallible by definition.

654. Lojahw February 10th, 2014 7:57 pm :

     Congratulations on your dissertation progress, Benjamin! What’s the subject?

655. Lojahw February 10th, 2014 9:25 pm :

     More for JohnD on Michuta’s “Difficulties” with Josephus:

     Michuta leaves out some key information from Josephus’s Against Apion. E.g., in 1.1: “Those Antiquities contain the history of five thousand years, and are taken out of our sacred books,” yet in 1.8 he says the twenty-two books are “justly believed to be divine” and their time span is “a little short of three thousand years” . . . [and] “It is true that our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not bee esteemed of the like authority by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time.”

     Gigot wants to make sacred books = Scripture, but that is not what Josephus said and it ignores the context that Josephus establishes in 1.1. Josephus does use the word “Scripture” in the preface to Antiquities, saying he is interpreting the Jewish history “out of the Hebrew Scriptures.” Yet Josephus says the sacred books (e.g., sacred literature) cover 5000 years, but the twenty-two “divine” books only cover 3000 years. This again points to the church fathers who claim canonical books and a secondary rank of other books, which include the “deuteros,” as well as Christian pseudepigrapha, etc. Sacred literature includes both canonical and other classifications, including ‘ecclesiastical,’ disputed (antilegomena) and apocryphal (nothois, or rejected).

     Michuta expends a lot of ink on the question whether prophecy ceased, but Josephus does not argue that prophecy ceased, merely that the twenty-two books covered the time of “exact succession of the prophets” down to Artaxerxes. So, Michuta is merely refuting a strawman.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

656. JohnD February 10th, 2014 9:48 pm :

     Benjamin (re: #649),

     Just wanted to thank you for a productive and all-around good conversation. I was particularly appreciative of your well-wishes for my new semester. Thankfully teaching has been going well and, in the good news department, my dissertation supervisor just approved the first 1/3 of my dissertation – so now I can begin working on the second 1/3!

     I am also very appreciative or your comments throughout the conversation. If you will permit the question, what is your dissertation subject/topic/thesis?

     As I understand things (which, again, isn’t saying much), Catholics wind up on what you identify as (A).

     Later in the conversation, Jonathan and Tom B. drew a distinction that actually embraces (B). They argued that it is not that a fallible collection cannot be binding, but rather that a fallible collection alone could not bind the consciences of the faithful. Tom brought up the point that the local and regional councils would have commanded the assent of faith of the faithful, even if they were not divinely protected from error. I’d be interested to hear your take on that.

     It’s just a feature of history that 1) it took the Bible itself a long time to be written, and 2) even once the authors finished writing the books/letters, the Church had more urgent matters to deal with (while there were canonical disagreements, they weren’t nearly so prevalent as, say, disagreements about Christ’s relationship to the Father.)

     I would agree with both of those contentions. Also, I do not know much about Florence, but if the canon was infallibly defined there, then yes I mean Florence.

     Peace,
     John D.

657. John Thayer Jensen February 10th, 2014 10:42 pm :

     Lojahw (#650)
     No time for much just now. But I would just say that in:

     1. Jesus’ teaching has unquestioned authority for all Christians. Corollary: If we can identify authentic records of Jesus’ teaching from His time, then whatever He teaches therein about canonicity is authoritative.
     2. There is sufficient evidence of the authenticity of the four ancient Gospels. Consequently we should accept what Jesus teaches therein about canonicity, including not only His canonical endorsements of the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms (cf. Luke 24:44-45; etc.), but also His affirmation of the canonical authority of the Apostles (cf. Matt. 10:40; John 16:13).
     3. There is also sufficient evidence of the authenticity of the other 23 books comprising the New Testament to accept what the Apostles teach therein about canonicity. This includes Peter’s recognition of Paul’s letters as canonical.

     you seem to me to be confusing authenticity – that they were written by, more or less, who they seem to be written by and are historically accurate, are honest, etc – with authoritativeness, which is what you are trying to prove.

     I think Jesus did and said pretty much what the Gospels say – not because they are authoritative, but because they seem good history. Even if I accept the authenticity, in this sense, of the rest of the NT, that doesn’t prove them authoritative. I think the Didache authentic – likewise I Clement, Barnabas, Shepherd; I don’t consider them authoritative.

     Gotta run!

     jj

658. Lojahw February 10th, 2014 10:56 pm :

     Cletus wrote: So you admit all Jews did not have a fixed single canon.

     No, I gave two hypothetical examples, and asked you to cite a specific scholar’s work that claims more than one Jewish canon. You claim I “discount any evidence” but neither you nor anyone else in this combox has provided ANY evidence of a Jewish canon other than the one published by Josephus. Conjectures don’t count, and theories are a dime a dozen.

     However, this whole line of argument is irrelevant because the church fathers for four centuries attested to the “twenty-two” book canon – which they say the Apostles handed down from the Jews. Jesus said “by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed” (Matt. 18:16). Whose testimony are you going to believe? The church fathers, or some modern scholar who has a pet theory about the Jewish canon? I’m always amazed that a Church which puts so much faith in tradition has totally dismissed this strong early tradition on identifying the Word of God.

     The Protestant canon is not flawed. Show me a flaw, any flaw, in the Protestant canon.

     No the point is you are reducing the canon to your provisional opinion in evaluating the current provisional state of scholarly opinion. Which does not warrant the assent of faith. Articles of faith are infallible by definition.

     I have no idea what you are talking about. Please answer the question in #616 re: the recognition of the Psalms by the Jews in Jesus day. You seem to claim the Psalms did not warrant the assent of faith, yet Jesus affirmed their faith in them.

     Peace,
     Lojahw

659. JohnD February 11th, 2014 6:04 am :

     Lojahw (re: #651),

     Just a quick reply this morning.

     This argument is irrelevant because the historical fact is that the canon was closed.

     On what basis can a canon be closed if prophecy has not ceased? Even if some people make statements that seem to sound like “the canon is closed”, they are IGNORING the fact that prophesy had not ceased and could still be written down. The canon cannot be de facto closed if there are still prophets and prophesy being given. Do you disagree? Your last reply seems to argue that prophesy doesn’t matter because some people said the canon was closed.

     Peace,
     John D.

660. Lojahw February 11th, 2014 10:26 am :

     Dear JohnD,
     I realized that I mistakenly tied Josephus’s twenty-two books to 3000 of the 5000 years – I guess the two numbers caught my eye last night and I forgot that the 3000 refers to the years from creation to Moses. Nevertheless, Michuta’s arguments do not address Josephus’s clear delineation of the twenty-two divine books from all the rest describing the Jewish history reported in his Antiquities. I saw nothing in Michuta’s arguments to refute Josephus’s account. He begs the question when he suggests ulterior motives for Josephus singling out the twenty-two books, and even if one were to accept his suggestion, the distinction still stands between the authority Josephus asserts for the twenty-two vs. the rest of the books describing the history of the Jews.

     Re: your comment: “Also, I do not know much about Florence, but if the canon was infallibly defined there, then yes I mean Florence.” How would you know the difference between a fallible or infallible canon defined at Florence or even at Trent? As I mentioned previously, not even a majority of the delegates at Trent were convinced about the status of their canon.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

661. Lojahw February 11th, 2014 11:08 pm :

     JJ wrote:
     You seem to be confusing authenticity . . . with authority. . . . I think Jesus did and said pretty much what the Gospels say – not because they are authoritative, but because they seem good history. Even if I accept the authenticity, in this sense, of the rest of the NT, that doesn’t prove them authoritative.

     No confusion.
     I start with the premise that Jesus’ teaching has unquestioned authority for those who, by the Holy Spirit, come to Him in faith.

     Given that, if there are authentic records of His (and those whose authority He endorses), it follows that those records truly represent His teaching (authenticity), and because that teaching is Christ’s it has authority.

     But, like Calvin, I believe that the Holy Spirit must envelop the whole process – the Holy Spirit draws one to Christ in faith; ergo, Christ’s teaching has authority; and on the back end, the Holy Spirit must convict one’s spirit of the authority of the records which preserve the teaching of Jesus and of those whose authority He endorses.

     In other words, recognition of authority at every step depends on the work of the Holy Spirit.
     We know that some things are true by ordinary means; but we trust/have faith in these things by the Holy Spirit. As Paul says: no one can say, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3).

     I hope this helps.

662. Lojahw February 11th, 2014 11:10 pm :

     JohnD wrote:
     On what basis can a canon be closed if prophecy has not ceased?

     Why must a canon be open if prophecy has not ceased? Paul in 1 Cor. 14:29-32 tells the prophets at Corinth that they are subject to other prophets – ergo, a lot (perhaps the vast majority) of prophesy has a function that is not canonical. A lot of prophecy is specific to certain people, places, and circumstances – canonicity is universal in scope.

     Unless you think that prophecy died with the Apostles, by your argument the canon must still be open today. A lot of people have witnessed prophecy in our day – but it wasn’t meant to carry unquestioned authority for everyone.

     However, the argument for the *closed* twenty-two book canon is that the church fathers kept affirming it for four centuries. The Jews never added to it (although they reorganized their books in the second century because they could not continue their liturgical rites at the Temple any more). If the Jews and the church fathers thought it was closed, why are you challenging it?

     BTW – I’d still like to hear how you know a particular canon is infallible.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

663. Lojahw February 12th, 2014 12:34 am :

     Dear Tom,
     I would like to hear how you know a particular canon is infallible.

     E.g., How can you be certain the canon declared at Trent is infallible, since not even a majority of the delegates at Trent were convinced about the status of their canon?

     I’m still trying to understand why you insist that Protestants need to knowthat our canon is infallible in order to bind our conscience.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

664. John Thayer Jensen February 12th, 2014 2:15 am :

     Lojahw (#661)

     I start with the premise that Jesus’ teaching has unquestioned authority for those who, by the Holy Spirit, come to Him in faith.

     Agreed.

     Given that, if there are authentic records of His (and those whose authority He endorses), it follows that those records truly represent His teaching (authenticity), and because that teaching is Christ’s it has authority.

     It doesn’t follow that those writings are Scripture. His teachings, insofar as authentically handed down in those writings, are authoritative, because His. Nothing in this implies that those writings themselves are inspired, have any authority, nor, particularly, that those writings that are not directly showing His teachings have any authority.

     “Those whose authority He endorses” are in fact the Church. That the Church, as endorsed by Him, has authority is what Catholics believe. It is from that authority we know which books are Scripture and that they have authority. You appear to have separated the writings from the Church that has the authority to tell us which they are.

     jj

665. Jonathan Brumley February 12th, 2014 2:40 am :

     Dear Lojahw,

     I’ve been following your posts for a while, and I want to comment in response to #661:

     In other words, recognition of authority at every step depends on the work of the Holy Spirit. We know that some things are true by ordinary means; but we trust/have faith in these things by the Holy Spirit.

     In this last post (and in some before this) you appeal to the Holy Spirit for your faith in Christ, and in recognizing the authentic books of the canon.

     What I want to say is, as a Catholic, recognizing the authority of the Church is also a matter of faith. – and like you said, it is a matter of faith in every step – every humble step which is necessary in the process of submitting to our Lord and His Bride.

     I recognize the infallibility authority of the Church and submit to Her not only because I think this was believed by the early church (Adrian Fortescue’s little book helped me here), but also by what I believe to be the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit. For I know Jesus prayed “that they may be perfectly One”, and compared with what God showed me in the wilderness of Protestantism, I found this prayer realized, most substantially, in the unity of the faith of the Catholic Church.

     The Catholic Church is formed by the successors to the apostles, the bishops, who even today still submit for the sake of unity to the successor to Peter. Protestantism, by contrast, lacks the structure which makes unity possible, and we can see this lack of structure in the division after division that has happened. And what’s worse than these divisions is there seems to be no way for Protestants communities to resolve disagreements with each other. Denominational bodies keep splitting and denominations keep getting smaller. Hundreds of different denominational churches in my city, almost all struggling from lack of membership and funds.

     We know even the canon of scripture is under attack in Protestantism. Each group creates and uses a translation which best supports their beliefs. Even when using the same translation, groups disagree about what it says, while at the same time proclaiming their interpretation as the one that is obviously true. Some churches don’t even recognize the authority of the canon in the same way – nor do they agree on the books. The gospel of Thomas and other gnostic books are making their way into the Episcopal church and other places.

     Compare the confusion of Protestantism with the Catholic Church. Christ has created a structure in the Catholic Church which is directed towards unity. As a fruit of this structure, She has withstood in unity in the face of heresy after heresy, and still She teaches consistently while deepening in Her understanding of God’s revelation.

     In addition to this unity of faith, I can go to any Catholic Church in any city, and I will be united and in communion with my brothers and sisters in Christ. I can share the same table with them. Whereas, with many Protestant denominations, when travelling out of town, I would be hard pressed to even find a group with the same beliefs as my home church. Any unprogrammed NCYM Quakers here? Any exclusive psalmody Presbyterians here? Any women-ordaining but not homosexual affirming Baptists in this town? Any conservative Anglicans still in communion with Canterbury?

     The authority of the Church is supported by scripture and Tradition. As a matter of essentials, there is no need to go farther than the proposition that the Church is “the pillar and foundation of the Truth”, and Jesus’s intercession that the Church be perfectly one – perfectly one, meaning “one faith, one hope, one baptism”. The meaning of this is crystal clear to a Catholic, but for the non-Catholic it takes faith and the testimony of the Holy Spirit to believe that what the Word says actually applies to the visible institution of the Church, which we see before us and among us in all Her imperfection. But unity of faith, as Protestantism has shown us, is not something achievable by man, but only by the Holy Spirit. How can the Church have authority if divided into different groups which preach different things?

     You have brought up Trent and the decision on the canon multiple times in order to put doubt on that decision. But if, like Catholics, you believed in the authority of the visible Church, then it wouldn’t matter to you how many bishops voted in favor of the canon at Trent, or even how firmly their votes were. For the Catholic, simply knowing that the Church came to a decision on the canon at Trent, means by faith we can know that this decision was true – because the Church teaches it, and we because believe Jesus’s promises that He guides us into all Truth (and therefore will not let us go astray), and that the Church remains that foundation of Truth.

     As a scholar, you probably know the story of St. Athanasius and what they say, which is that for a while during the Arian crisis it was “Athanasius against the world”. By God’s grace, despite great opposition, this one bishop carried the faith through the crisis so that the Church could finally come to decision at the Council of Nicaea.

     At Trent and at other councils, there has at times been great opposition to the what became the decision of the Church. But nonetheless, despite opposition, the Church has over and over again shown Her ability to discern and decide, and then eventually rally behind that decision because of faith that the Holy Spirit truly works in the Church.

     If it were about numbers of men, rather than about faith in the Spirit, then we would be doomed. But since it is about faith in the Spirit, the pursuit of unity becomes a matter of humble submission and trust in God’s work.

     The writers and commentators at this website helped me by dispelling as unreasonable some of my initial objections to the Church. Eventually I was able to open my heart to the possibility, which is that God really did establish in the Church a structure which could clearly teach and maintain the unity of faith. Before coming to CtoC, I was full of doubts about all aspects of the faith. I listened to opinion after opinion and my faith just died. But coming to believe that Christ truly speaks through His Bride gave me a rock to stand on – a certainty in God’s revelation, and a realizable hope for the healing to the wounds of division which mar the Body of Christ. Believing in the Church and Her authority was the missing pieces I needed that He could rebuild and restore my faith in Him, in His Word, and in the community of the people of God.

     Lover of Jehovah and His Word – I don’t know your real name, but I would like to suggest (humbly, if I may) a different approach than your current one, which seems like “let’s see whatever I can throw at them to make them doubt their Catholic faith”. Rather, could you direct your discussion here towards real, substantial unity of faith? Can you work with us for this unity?

     You’ve surely spent countless hours replying to commentors here. Let me suggest, in the next day or two, if you are not doing this already, take a portion of the time you have spent here, and kneel and pray with us for the unity of the Church, for healing for the wounds of division which mar the body of Christ. Share with us the sorrow over the wounds to Christ’s Body – pray that we may all come to the humility it takes to seek unity. Then let’s all come back together after prayer and then work together in hope of fulfillment of Christ’s prayer that all Christians be perfectly one.

     Let’s ask the Holy Spirit to be with us and give us the grace that every discussion here at CtoC be a step towards Christ’s call for unity.

     Grace and peace,
     Jonathan Brumley

666. Lojahw February 12th, 2014 10:05 am :

     Hi JJ,

     I should have explained why authenticity matters for canonicity.

     If I believe Jesus’ teaching is authoritative, but I have counterfeit sources claiming to preserve His teaching, e.g., the second-century Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Judas, etc., I cannot treat these sources as canonical. This is the problem the early church addressed by rejecting all the fake gospels, epistles, apocalypses, etc. that proliferated in the second century.

     In other words, if there are strong reasons to suspect the authenticity of an account claiming to be by a prophet or Apostle, they should not be received as a “true” account. Because “God’s word is true,” they should be excluded from the canon.

     As Augustine put it: “But the purity of the canon has not admitted these writings, not because the authority of these men who please God is rejected, but because they are not believed to be theirs.” (The City of God 18.38 )

     I.e., to treat a forgery as authentic is to dishonor both God and “the authority of these men who please God.”

     I hope this helps.

667. Lojahw February 12th, 2014 5:37 pm :

     Sorry, JJ, I should have been clearer about what I meant re: the authorities Jesus’ endorsed.

     Jesus recognized the canonical authority of books and prophets that came before his birth, e.g., the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms.
     Jesus vested canonical authority in His 12 apostles and in Paul (cf. John 16:13; Acts 9:1-16; Rom. 1:1-2; etc.).
     It follows that whatever the Apostles (including Paul) teach has canonical (universal) authority. Therefore, when Paul says that Proverbs is Scripture, all Christians should recognize Proverbs as Scripture, etc.

     You wrote: “Those whose authority He endorses” are in fact the Church.
     But there problems when you try to apply this line of reason to the canon.

     (1) The “Church” is ambiguous, since the Church is comprised of many members – unless every member says the same thing about the canon.

     (2) For four centuries the “Church” – as represented by the church fathers – unanimously attested to a “twenty-two” book Old Testament canon that they say came from the Jews as handed down by the Apostles. Jesus said: “by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed” (Matt. 18:16). There are 10 witnesses from Melito to Jerome who all claim a “twenty-two” book canon. To reject their witness is to reject both the “Church” and Jesus’ standard for confirming facts.

     (3) Jerome enshrined this “twenty-two” book canon (actually 39 books) in the Vulgate, which was the only authorized version of the Scriptures in the western world for more than a 1000 years. The list of 39 OT canonical books was in every copy.

     Thus, for 1500 years the Church attested to a “twenty-two”/39 book OT canon.
     So for 1500 years the Church taught that the true OT canon contained 39 books.

     But your Church now teaches a 46 book OT canon. So either the Church taught a false canon for 1500 years or what was true for 1500 years is no longer true. In the first case, your authority taught what was false; in the second, your authority is guilty of relativism. Which is it?

     Now, I might add, re: (1) that the universal Church recognizes all the books in the Protestant canon as canonical – that is a truth that has stood the test of time.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

668. Lojahw February 12th, 2014 5:39 pm :

     Dear Jonathan,
     Thank you for your long and sincere post.

     I suggest you read my last post to JJ (before this one – #667?) re: the canon.

     Re: a different approach than your current one, which seems like “let’s see whatever I can throw at them to make them doubt their Catholic faith”.
     My perspective is that CtC exists to “make Protestants doubt their faith” – so I am merely defending my faith. So it really is a matter of perspective about what is going on here. More importantly, I am a truth seeker. I am willing to change my beliefs based on what I learn in life and from others. And, I believe that dialogue helps people who hold different positions – both to understand and, by better understanding, to promote community (i.e., unity at some level). There will always be things that people disagree with others about, but we’re all in the same boat. Maybe something I say here will encourage others to seek Christ and His teaching more diligently – whether or not they ever agree with me.

     Unity is not the same as uniformity. Yes – I pray that we all may be one in Christ!

     Blessings,
     Lover of Jesus and His Word (Lojahw)

669. John Thayer Jensen February 12th, 2014 9:32 pm :

     Lojahw (#667)

     Jesus recognized the canonical authority of books and prophets that came before his birth, e.g., the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms.

     A broad claim. E.g. the standard division is Law, Prophets, and Wisdom – either you rely on Jesus recognising the authority of the whole – which then raises the question of, e.g., the deuterocanonical books – or else you can only mean to specify specific books – in which case there are OT books that you would accept that Jesus never refers to or quotes.

     Jesus vested canonical authority in His 12 apostles and in Paul (cf. John 16:13; Acts 9:1-16; Rom. 1:1-2; etc.).

     The John passage is Jesus; the others are indirect and claims by others whose authority you haven’t established. Matthew 28 would be better. Paul isn’t there at the beginning.

     It follows that whatever the Apostles (including Paul) teach has canonical (universal) authority. Therefore, when Paul says that Proverbs is Scripture, all Christians should recognize Proverbs as Scripture, etc.

     Only if you think the Church itself has that authority. If you think only the Apostles specifically (including Judas?) have that authority, then you can’t get Paul’s from Jesus.

     You wrote: “Those whose authority He endorses” are in fact the Church.
     But there problems when you try to apply this line of reason to the canon.

     (1) The “Church” is ambiguous, since the Church is comprised of many members – unless every member says the same thing about the canon.

     Correct, if the Church is, in fact, simply the set of all those who claim the Name of Christ. And in that case, ‘the Church’ is only a figment, not an actual substance.

     But in that case you can’t establish the NT canon – you can’t be sure that any particular book written since Jesus’s death is Scripture.

     If, on the other hand, the Church is an organic unity, with a given structure, and an earthly head as vicar – vice-regent, in other words – of Christ, then ‘the Church’ has a definite meaning, and you can find out who does and who does not disagree with the Church.

     Thus, for 1500 years the Church attested to a “twenty-two”/39 book OT canon.
     So for 1500 years the Church taught that the true OT canon contained 39 books.

     Since the Church never repudiated those books for those 1500 years – and I wouldn’t know if you are even correct about their non-inclusion in Jerome’s Vulgate – this doesn’t prove they were not canonical.

     In any case, my point is not that you can’t know that at least certain books we call Old Testament are, in fact, Scripture; you can’t in fact know, which is far more important to any sola Scriptura view, which books are in the New Testament.

     jj

670. John Thayer Jensen February 12th, 2014 9:35 pm :

     Lojahw (#666)

     If I believe Jesus’ teaching is authoritative, but I have counterfeit sources claiming to preserve His teaching, e.g., the second-century Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Judas, etc., I cannot treat these sources as canonical. This is the problem the early church addressed by rejecting all the fake gospels, epistles, apocalypses, etc. that proliferated in the second century.

     But I see no reason why you can’t consider the Didache, I Clement, Barnabas, and Shepherd as canonical. Some in the early Church did.

     jj

671. Tom Brown February 12th, 2014 10:50 pm :

     Dear “Lojahw” (#616 ff),

     I propose that we redouble our efforts to take this discussion one discrete issue at a time, and that we leave other issues off limits until the issue on the table has been addressed. It is unhelpful, and I think unprofitable to readers, for a pair of interlocutors to hop from one issue to the next without resolution. We would do well, also, to refrain from piling on new comments while we wait for our interlocutor to address an earlier comment.

     Your explanation about an argument you attempt to make for the Psalms (#616) does not clear things up. I’m not sure what about my premise you contend is false, or about my conclusion you contend is invalid. I maintain that “[a] fallible collection of infallible books cannot function as a binding authority.”

     You said (#617):

     you brought up the point I was hoping you would comment on: how would later generations know to trust Moses and his books? They had no infallible authority, unless you posit an infallible succession of prophets down to Jesus’ day – which we both know is not true. Hence, I think we must accept some role of the Holy Spirit (not dependent on official channels) to convict succeeding generations of the canonical authority of Moses’ books.

     I said in earlier comments (e.g., #583) that I did not like using a Protestant frame [i.e., perspective and terminology] to provide the analytical framework for assessing the Catholic authority paradigm. Doing so can yield unwieldly results. The Catholic frame sees that God commissions and preserves ecclesial authorities to guide the faithful to saving truth. We see this in the Chair of Moses and the Chair of St. Peter. As a Catholic, I can’t construct the conversation in terms of the work of the Holy Spirit “not dependent on official channels,” because I believe that God, in His infinite wisdom, created a Church that is officially constituted. As sheep can look to their shepherd, the Catholic believes that God has provided Apostles, and then bishops as guides. None of this is in discussion in the Canon Question article, which is about Protestant answers to the canon question. I addressed your argument that each Christian must “personally” (individually) be convicted of a text’s canonicity at several points in the article.

     Re: #646, I’m not aware of any outstanding questions to be answered.

     Re: #663, and regarding how I know a particular canon is infallible, the line of inquiry is off topic. (See #613 for a very recent example.) Even though it’s off topic, I’ve also more-or-less answered the question above (within this comment) and recently (see, e.g., #583) by discussing the teaching authority of the Church. The quote of St. Augustine that leads this article is a convenient answer as well. Also, I asked that we move on from arguments about counting noses at Trent, as it’s a bit far off track (#615). I “insist” that Protestants need to know their canon is infallible in order to have a bound conscience for reasons stated in the article. I don’t think this is controversial. The WCF articulates that the inward work of the Holy Spirit should give you “full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth” of Scripture (I.V.).

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

672. Tom Brown February 12th, 2014 10:55 pm :

     Dear John D. (#620),

     I’m not sure in what way my answer struck you as ‘not fair,’ a rather strong complaint. You derived an incorrect premise because you read me (and then quoted me) out of context. My conclusion (viz., “because it may not be Scripture”) was stated in the context of a criticism of Protestant answers to the canon question. Regarding the use of a Protestant frame to critique the Catholic position, please see my comments #530, 583, and now just above at #671.

     It is interesting that you agree with me that a sola scriptura Protestant cannot answer the canon question by way of resorting to purported “extra-biblical infallibility.” Please do read my article above, as I address very early on the portion of the WCF you quoted. Since you didn’t state an argument from your quotation (from that section of the WCF), I will rest on what I have written already about that section in my article.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

673. Tom Brown February 12th, 2014 10:57 pm :

     Dear Eva Marie (#622),

     I would ask your Protestant friends how they answer the canon question, and then consider whether their responses have been addressed in my article. If they give an answer you don’t see addressed, I certainly hope you would let us know what they have to say. Remember that Reformed Protestants believe the Bible, without the Magisterium of the Church, to be the supreme judge by which disputes of the faith are to be resolved. See WCF I.X.. Also, do please consider my comment above about the Chair of Moses and the Chair of St. Peter.

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

674. JohnD February 13th, 2014 11:17 am :

     Lojahw (re: 662),

     Why must a canon be open if prophecy has not ceased? Paul in 1 Cor. 14:29-32 tells the prophets at Corinth that they are subject to other prophets – ergo, a lot (perhaps the vast majority) of prophesy has a function that is not canonical. A lot of prophecy is specific to certain people, places, and circumstances – canonicity is universal in scope.

     Good point, but remember that 1 Corinthians is written after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the spiritual gifts (e.g. ability to prophesy) function differently in the NT Church. Moreover, if a true prophet is commissioned by the Lord, there is no principled reason for denying that he could prophesy and that prophecy be written down [or passed down orally] and preserved for the whole church. Josephus speaks of an “exact succession of prophets” but the Lord is perfectly capable of raising up a prophet who is not in “exact succession”.

     However, the argument for the *closed* twenty-two book canon is that the church fathers kept affirming it for four centuries. The Jews never added to it (although they reorganized their books in the second century because they could not continue their liturgical rites at the Temple any more). If the Jews and the church fathers thought it was closed, why are you challenging it?

     I’d be happy to read references to the church fathers who speak of a 22-book closed canon (I assume you have Melito, Origen, Jerome, and Athanasius in mind?). However, such references do not seal the deal since (1) it can be argued that the Jewish canon was not considered closed by the Jews until after the 1st century and (2) other Church fathers cite as Scripture books outside of the 22.

     Peace,
     John D.

675. Jonathan Brumley February 13th, 2014 12:43 pm :

     Lover of Jehovah and His Word,

     Thank you for reading my long post, and responding. Here are my thoughts on your response.

     My perspective is that CtC exists to “make Protestants doubt their faith” – so I am merely defending my faith.

     I think, primarily, the CtC is about asking Protestants to consider some beliefs that they do not currently believe. When I became Catholic, I did not give up anything I believed before. But I gained a Church, and a solid foundation for my faith.

     The most essential belief being proposed here at CtC is the belief that the Holy Spirit has from the beginning been at work in the Church, guiding her into all truth from the moment of Pentecost, up until today. The Protestant position, as I see it, is a negative proposition – it is a proposition that the Spirit has failed the Church and led her into error and heresy. This is fundamentally a position of doubt.

     The Catholic proposition is a “positive” proposition – that the Spirit has guided the Church all along, so that she has never gone astray in the saving faith which she teaches to the people of God, including, particularly, the books which comprise the canon.

     The way I see Trent is that they bishops there grandfathered in the canon on the fact that the Church had read and taught for this canon for more than 1000 years. It is, IMO, unthinkable that God had misled His people for so long, and the bishops who affirmed the canon recognized this. I don’t think it was primarily a scholarly conclusion. Rather, the affirmation of the canon was primarily an act of faith in a living Spirit at work in the Church.

     Unity is not the same as uniformity.

     We’re talking specifically about unity of faith, not uniformity in any lesser thing. Unity of faith is what we are working for.

     More importantly, I am a truth encourage others to seek Christ and His teaching more diligently … Yes – I pray that we all may be one in Christ!

     I too pray for this. Let us ask the Holy Spirit to guide all these conversations, and pray that the result is an increase in faith, hope, and charity for all concerned.

     Jonathan Brumley

676. JohnD February 13th, 2014 12:44 pm :

     Tom B. (re: #672),

     I’m not sure in what way my answer struck you as ‘not fair,’ a rather strong complaint.

     The reason I said that is because your answer does not deal with the hypothetical, internal inconsistency that the Protestant is adducing as evidence against the premise that: anything that “may not be” what it claims to be lacks authority..

     You derived an incorrect premise because you read me (and then quoted me) out of context. My conclusion (viz., “because it may not be Scripture”) was stated in the context of a criticism of Protestant answers to the canon question.

     I apologize for attributing to you a premise you do not accept. However, I still think you may hold to that premise since in #671, you say:

     I maintain that “[a] fallible collection of infallible books cannot function as a binding authority.”

     Assuming that by “fallible” you mean “fallibly known”, I can’t think of why you hold to this premise unless you think everything “fallibly known” is incapable of binding consciences. But, instead of speculating incorrectly, let me just ask you: Why do you believe that a “fallibly known collection of infallible books cannot function as a binding authority”?

     I “insist” that Protestants need to know their canon is infallible in order to have a bound conscience for reasons stated in the article. I don’t think this is controversial. The WCF articulates that the inward work of the Holy Spirit should give you “full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth” of Scripture (I.V.).

     That is not controversial, unless you mean they need to infallibly know that their canon is infallible. If that’s what you mean, then it’s more controversial than you think. If you would permit that a Protestant might fallibly know that his canon is infallible, then this is uncontroversial and I think Lojahw (correct me if I’m wrong, Lojahw) would agree with it. The reason the Protestant would say he “fallibly knows” is precisely because he is a fallible man, and infallibility is not to be had without divine assistance.

     Let me know your thoughts when you have time.

     Peace,
     John D.

677. Seeker of Truth February 13th, 2014 5:48 pm :

     Lojahw (re: #667),

     I have been following this conversation with interest for some time now and have been interested by some of your comments. I thought you have some good points and have been, in general, edified by this discussion.

     However, two comments you made in particular really puzzled me. I don’t mean to divert this whole discussion or bring up all the other issues, but I am just curious about what you mean by two comments you made in that post.

     First, you said that:

     “For four centuries the “Church” – as represeted [sic] by the church fathers – unanimously attested to a “twenty-two” book Old Testament canon that they say came from the Jews as handed down by the Apostles. Jesus said: “by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed” (Matt. 18:16). There are 10 witnesses from Melito to Jerome who all claim a “twenty-two” book canon. To reject their witness is to reject both the “Church” and Jesus’ standard for confirming facts.”

     Perhaps I misunderstand you, but are you saying that until about 400 AD, all Church fathers accepted the protestant old testament? In my reading on this issue, I have seen that there was quite a divergence, and it wouldn’t really be accurate to say that the church fathers either uniformly accepted the protestant OT or the Catholic/EO OT. Here is one post summarizing this (which I believe was specifically referring to posts you had made earlier on this site):

     https://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2012/04/which-books-were-in-early-christian.html

     Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are saying.

     Second, you said that “Jerome enshrined this “twenty-two” book canon (actually 39 books) in the Vulgate, which was the only authorized version of the Scriptures in the western world for more than a 1000 years. The list of 39 OT canonical books was in every copy. Thus, for 1500 years the Church attested to a “twenty-two”/39 book OT canon. So for 1500 years the Church taught that the true OT canon contained 39 books.”

     Perhaps you can clarify what you are saying here. Are you saying that until the 1500’s (i.e., the Council of Trent), Christians used the protestant bible, with the 39 book OT, using Jerome’s original version of the Vulgate? In other words, if I went to a church in, for example, the year 1150, in Rome (or Constantinople) and asked a priest what books were in the Old Testament and were read at mass throughout the year, he would answer that it was the 39 book Old Testament? To be blunt, unless I am misunderstanding what you are saying, that is just historically inaccurate.

     First, as even Protestants who strongly object to the inclusion of the Apocrypha acknowledge, the Catholic Church used Jerome’s version of the Vulgate that INCLUDED the Apocryphal books (over Jerome’s initial objections). See, for example,
     “Prior to the Council of Trent, the Roman Catholic Church had settled on using Jerome’s Latin Vulgate translation. This translation is the one that included the Apocrypha despite Jerome’s objections.”
     https://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVanswers/2011/02-01a.html

     This is just a matter of historical record. If there is evidence in churches in the West, bibles did not include the Apocrypha until the 1500’s, I would be very interested to read about that.

     Second, if you are correct that the universal church accepted the protestant OT for 1500 years until the Council of Trent changed that, why do all the eastern churches accept these books as canonical as well? The Eastern churches had (quite acrimoniously) split from the West 500 years earlier. Why do the Russian Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, etc. all accept the apocryphal as canonical if it wasn’t until the 1500’s that these books were added by the Catholic Church? I can tell you that the Orthodox churches would not have said, “Oh, the Roman Catholics are adding these additional books to their bibles, we should as well.” So, are you saying that the Catholic Church and all the Eastern churches INDEPENDENTLY added these books to their bibles sometime in the last 600 years?
     As I said, I don’t want to bring up all these interesting issues that you have raised on this thread. I just have to ask for clarification on these two points.
     In all the protestant authors whom I have read concerning the canon of scripture (some of whom argue fairly convincingly against the inclusion of the apocrypha), I have never before heard them claim that the Catholic Church in liturgies and daily use used the protestant OT for 1500 years until the Council of Nicea and only held to the 39 OT canon until the 1500’s. If you have evidence to back up that assertion, I suggest that there are many protestant publications that would be more than happy to publish such an article.

     Blessings,

     Seeker of Truth

678. Lojahw February 14th, 2014 6:44 pm :

     Dear Tom,
     You wrote: As a Catholic, I can’t construct the conversation in terms of the work of the Holy Spirit “not dependent on official channels,”

     If that is true, then you cannot explain the canonicity of books like Moses and Psalms recognized by Jesus and the Jews in their day. The point is that canonicity existed before Jesus founded the Church, which contradicts your insistence that canonicity can only be known and bind consciences according to your rules (i.e., section III of the article).

     You also wrote: I “insist” that Protestants need to know their canon is infallible in order to have a bound conscience for reasons stated in the article. I don’t think this is controversial.

     How Protestants know their canon is infallible answered by my post in #520. It is neither ad hoc, circular, nor does it violate Sola scriptura (the claim in section III of the Article). Please tell me how you think #520 falls short of answering the article.

     One point that perhaps I should clarify: knowing that a book is canonical – i.e., meets the criteria of canonicity differs from having one’s conscience bound to the authority due it – the latter requires the inward work of the Holy Spirit, whereas the former can be ascertained by ordinary means. For example, I can know that the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms are canonical based on the testimony of Jesus; however, the Holy Spirit must convict me of their authority in my life (which is precisely Calvin’s point). Like James said: “You believe that God is One; you do well. The demons also believe and shudder” (James 2:19). The article confuses intellectual certainty with volitional commitment. According to your paradigm, the Jews could not have their consciences bound by the canonical authority of the Psalms – and yet they and Jesus did.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

679. Lojahw February 14th, 2014 6:45 pm :

     JJ wrote:

     Jesus recognized the canonical authority of books and prophets that came before his birth, e.g., the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms.

     A broad claim.
     It is Jesus’ claim – not mine, and He and His disciples identify 32 of the books contained in these sections of Scripture. My point is not that we know the extent of Jesus’ canon, but that we can be confident about those 32 books and what Jesus taught about Scripture.

     Jesus vested canonical authority in His 12 apostles and in Paul (cf. John 16:13; Acts 9:1-16; Rom. 1:1-2; etc.).

     The John passage is Jesus; the others are indirect and claims by others whose authority you haven’t established.
     John 16:13 records Jesus promise of infallible truth vested in the Apostles by the Holy Spirit. It is valid to infer the authority of the Apostles based on it – however, as you say, there are numerous other passages which also attest to the authority Jesus vested in them.

     If you think only the Apostles specifically (including Judas?) have that authority, then you can’t get Paul’s from Jesus.

     I never said only the apostles had authority – I’m just saying that Jesus gave us good reason to trust both the Apostles (excepting Judas, who killed himself before Jesus’ resurrection) and Paul. The testimony of Luke in Acts, as well as Paul in his letters, and Peter in his second letter provide ample reason for trusting Paul ‘s authority, including the canonicity of his letters.

     Correct, if the Church is, in fact, simply the set of all those who claim the Name of Christ. And in that case, ‘the Church’ is only a figment, not an actual substance.

     Are you saying that Paul is speaking of a figment when he writes to the Church as “all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1:2)? Are you saying that the Body of Christ is not comprised of all of Christ’s sheep, as He defines them in John 10:27-28? Is the Body of Christ really a figment? Do you deny that Christ Himself is the head of His Body? When did Jesus say that the Church would be led by a visible earthly head? Did He not bequeath the Church to all of the Apostles? God was invisible to His people all the way through the OT – did that make the Jews any less God’s people? And did having a visible king make Israel any better?

     But in that case you can’t establish the NT canon – you can’t be sure that any particular book written since Jesus’s death is Scripture.

     Are you saying that there is serious disagreement about the canonicity of the 27 NT books among all who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? Can you be more specific?

     Since the Church never repudiated those books for those 1500 years

     The same canons published for the first 400 years listed the deuteros as a secondary rank of sacred literature – I didn’t dream this up. The church fathers recognized both ‘canonical’ and ‘ecclesiastical’ books – the latter were to be read, but were not regarded as having “stand-alone” authority to establish doctrine like the ‘canonical’ books.

     I wouldn’t know if you are even correct about their non-inclusion in Jerome’s Vulgate – this doesn’t prove they were not canonical.

     In fact every extant copy of a “Bible” for most of Church history has included both ‘canonical’ and ‘ecclesiastical’ books – the Vulgate included. But Jerome’s canon provided in the Vulgate listed which books were canonical, and he also specifically listed the deuteros accepted 1100 years later by Rome as outside the canon. On the other hand, if having a book in a “Bible” implied it was canonical, then 1 and 2 Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, 3 and 4 Esdras, etc. would be assumed canonical. However, canonicity doesn’t work that way: the list of canonical books must be referenced to distinguish between them and non-canonical books.

     my point is not that you can’t know that at least certain books we call Old Testament are, in fact, Scripture; you can’t in fact know, which is far more important to any sola Scriptura view, which books are in the New Testament.

     Not so – #520 explains how we know all 66 books in the Protestant canon are, in fact, canonical.

     In your next post, you wrote:

     But I see no reason why you can’t consider the Didache, I Clement, Barnabas, and Shepherd as canonical. Some in the early Church did.

     I answered this in #650.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

680. Lojahw February 14th, 2014 6:46 pm :

     JohnD wrote:

     if a true prophet is commissioned by the Lord, there is no principled reason for denying that he could prophesy and that prophecy be written down [or passed down orally] and preserved for the whole church.

     A hypothetical argument cannot override the historical testimony of both the Jews and the church fathers. We must accept that God considered the “twenty-two” books to provide sufficient authority for the coming New Covenant. Can you give me a principled reason for the Jews recognizing the Psalms as Scripture and not the prophesy uttered by Saul, mentioned in 1 Sam. 10?

     such references do not seal the deal since (1) it can be argued that the Jewish canon was not considered closed by the Jews until after the 1st century and (2) other Church fathers cite as Scripture books outside of the 22.

     (1) You can argue anything you want – but on what basis do you argue that the Jews canon was not closed as Josephus testifies in the first century? The reorganization of canonical books in the second century is not evidence of an open canon.
     (2) I’ve already addressed the church fathers’ mistaken assumption that Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah were part of the “book” containing Jeremiah and Lamentation. What other books did the church fathers routinely cite as canonical prior to Augustine’s canon in 397?

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

681. Lojahw February 14th, 2014 6:48 pm :

     Jonathan wrote:

     The Protestant position, as I see it, is a negative proposition – it is a proposition that the Spirit has failed the Church and led her into error and heresy. This is fundamentally a position of doubt.

     I don’t see it that way. The Holy Spirit has led the Church to maintain the essential truths of the faith, e.g., as expressed in the theology of the creeds. The three major traditions agree on these core truths. The Holy Spirit has also led the Church universal to recognize 66 canonical books in common. These books contain the essential truths of the Gospel (are you aware of anything necessary for salvation that is found only in books beyond the 66?).

     On the other hand, it appears that the Church has not always followed the Holy Spirit. For example, the decrees of the Seventh Ecumenical Council fueled 100 years of bloodshed between Christians. I cannot attribute such a thing to the Holy Spirit.

     Similarly, since “every word of God is tested” (Prov. 30:5), I cannot attribute the book of Judith (which blatantly claims Nebuchadnezzar was the king of Assyria ruling from Nineveh) to the Holy Spirit. IMO your idea that the church taught Judith as canonical for 1000 years is based on a misunderstanding of the church fathers’ categories of ‘canonical’ and ‘ecclesiastical’ books. This is not a “scholarly” conclusion – it’s historical fact. Why would Cardinals Cajetan and Ximenes in Luther’s day support Jerome’s canon if the Church had in fact taught otherwise for 1000 years?

     Nowhere does Jesus promise that the Church would infallibly follow the Holy Spirit. He only promised the Holy Spirit would lead the Apostles into all the truth. The above facts, in fact, demonstrate that the successors of the Apostles have not lived up the same standard. I don’t doubt the Apostles, but how do you reconcile the above facts with the leading of the Holy Spirit?

     Protestants (positively) have faith in Jesus and His Word (Scripture). It’s really a question of who do you trust and why? As I’ve said elsewhere, the cognitive dissonance is too great for me to believe some of the things that Rome teaches.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

682. Lojahw February 14th, 2014 6:52 pm :

     Dear Seeker of Truth,
     Thank you for your comments.

     are you saying that until about 400 AD, all Church fathers accepted the protestant old testament?

     I am not saying that, but rather that the church fathers who published OT canons all attested to a “twenty-two” book canon, which was essentially the Jewish canon with minor anomalies caused by two common misunderstandings of the Greek and Latin fathers. The most common misunderstanding was: what were the contents of the “book” ascribed to Jeremiah? The Jewish scroll containing Jeremiah and Lamentations, was found in the Christian LXX MSS as 4 books: Jeremiah, Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle of Jeremiah. Rufinus and Jerome got it right, others were vague (listed only Jeremiah) or listed some variation of these books for Jeremiah. The Jews also paired Ruth with Judges for one of the six pairs that made up the “twenty-two” books – this was misunderstood by Melito, Athanasius, and Gregory of Nazianzus. There also was a transcription error in Eusebius’ copy of Origen’s canon – leaving out the “Twelve” [minor prophets, in “one book”], claiming “twenty-two” books, but listing only 21.

     Are you saying that until the 1500’s (i.e., the Council of Trent), Christians used the protestant bible, with the 39 book OT, using Jerome’s original version of the Vulgate?

     That’s not what I’m saying. Jerome’s canon is a list of canonical books, with a second list of the deuteros, which Jerome explicitly said were outside of the OT canon. This “Helmeted Preface” to the books of the OT, as Jerome called it, is in every copy of the Vulgate. Our problem is that we anachronistically assume that “the Bible” has always contained only canonical books. However, historically, this not the way “Bibles” were made. All of the Bibles before our day contained books that were not in the published canons of the day. I keep saying that it is time to reconsider the church fathers’ view of ‘canonical’ and ‘ecclesiastical’ books – both of which were read in the churches, but only the former was vested with doctrinal authority. The Vulgate, in fact, contained several books beyond the canon of Trent, e.g., 3 & 4 Esdras, 3 & 4 Maccabees, etc. (although its contents, like the ancient Greek Bibles, varied with every printing.)

     why do all the eastern churches accept these books as canonical as well?

     Let me take the above point farther. Rufinus mentions theShepherd of Hermas as well as the Judgment of Peter among the New Testament books (!), even though no church father ever listed them as canonical. He goes on to say: “they would have been read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine.” Thus, Rufinus, who lists 27 books in the NT canon, lists these 2 books – outside of that canon – as “among the NT books.” The point is that the early church included both ‘canonical’ and ‘ecclesiastical’ books in their OT and NT. Our narrow view of the “Bible” is a recent phenomenon.

     I hope this helps.

683. Lojahw February 14th, 2014 6:58 pm :

     Addendum for Seeker of Truth:

     Re: the EO, they accept the books in the OT found in the ancient “Bible” MSS, which is why their Bible is even larger than Rome’s. Since no Ecumenical Council decreed the Scriptural canon, the EO follow the OT and NT accepted by their respective patriarchs (which changes with geography and time).

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

684. John Thayer Jensen February 14th, 2014 9:27 pm :

     Lojahw (#679)

     Are you saying that there is serious disagreement about the canonicity of the 27 NT books among all who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ?

     No, of course not. I am saying that agreement doesn’t constitute authority. I have said – and I think your arguments demonstrate it – that your faith in Scripture is analogous the Catholic’s faith in the Church. You think there are strong, morally compelling, but not infallible in themselves, reasons for believing the Protestant Bible to be coterminous with the written Word of God – and that the gift of faith by the Holy Spirit seals your faith. The Catholic believes there are strong, morally compelling, but not infallible in themselves, reasons for believing that the Catholic Church is God’s mouthpiece in the world, but that, of course, it is the seal of the Holy Spirit that turns that belief into faith. It is, of course, a corollary of that that if the Church defines the canon, it is correct.

     Nothing you have said makes it seem to me that my understanding of your position is incorrect. Of your arguments in favour of the canon, they seem to me in fact to be the same as the ones the Catholic uses to argue for the Church – i.e. your argument basically is that the canon is the set of books recognised by the Church. The problem is that, after the Apostles (including, possibly, St Paul), you have no principled way of identifying what you mean by the Church. Your argument is, at bottom, circular: the canon is those books recognised by the Church, and the Church is those Christians who recognise the canon.

     jj

685. Cletus February 14th, 2014 10:25 pm :

     Lojahw,

     “Conjectures don’t count, and theories are a dime a dozen.”

     As is your theory based on your analysis of Josephus and the fathers. Since you refuse to concede anything on the Jewish sects question, you’ve researched this – who are modern reputable scholars that hold that there were no Jewish sects from 200BC-200AD with differing canons, or that there was a single uniform canon amongst all Jewish sects? I’d be interested to know.

     “Whose testimony are you going to believe? The church fathers, or some modern scholar who has a pet theory about the Jewish canon?”

     You understand you are relying on scholars when interpreting the context and significance of Josephus’ work correct? You are not a Jew living at his time nor are you some blank slate when you read his work – you have your own baggage and presuppositions you are bringing, as do the scholars you filter and judge. And you don’t believe all the church fathers – you select ones you believe, and of the ones you do appeal to, you still reject other beliefs they held with no problem. It’s ad hoc.

     “I’m always amazed that a Church which puts so much faith in tradition has totally dismissed this strong early tradition on identifying the Word of God.”

     You totally dismiss the church fathers that disagree with you, both on the deuteros, as well as ones you appeal to that reflect “minor anomalies caused by two common misunderstandings of the Greek and Latin fathers” – so much for inner witness.
     You also do not interact at all with the fathers you do appeal to when they also cite deuteros in supporting doctrinal claims and also cited them in same manner as they cited canonical Scripture (e.g. Scripture says, It is written, etc) – sometimes in the same breath – with no qualification or distinction.

     “The Protestant canon is not flawed. Show me a flaw, any flaw, in the Protestant canon.”

     Assuming Protestant principles, textual criticism has been showing flaws for centuries, and continues to develop. Do you maintain that *now* Protestantism knows all the “truly inspired” passages from those that aren’t? Seems important for your system not just to identify the inspired books, but also the inspired contents therein for SS to operate coherently. The bigger issue though is it doesn’t matter if its flawed or not – it’s not offered as an article of faith by your own principles.

     “I have no idea what you are talking about.”

     It’s not difficult. Protestantism refuses to identify the scope or extent of the canon as infallible. An article of faith revealed by God is infallible by definition. One doesn’t put faith into self-admitted reformable plausible opinions (even if they happen to be true) – that’s sheer fideism. So I have no reason to hold to the Protestant canon as an article of faith, by its own principles.

     “You seem to claim the Psalms did not warrant the assent of faith, yet Jesus affirmed their faith in them.”

     Christ was an infallible authority and spoke as one claiming such. The Jews screwed up a lot because of fallibility and since revelation was still unfolding. That’s why prophets were raised as well as Christ/Apostles who corrected their erroneous views by divine authority.

686. JohnD February 14th, 2014 11:13 pm :

     Lojahw (re: #680),

     Can you give me a principled reason for the Jews recognizing the Psalms as Scripture and not the prophesy uttered by Saul, mentioned in 1 Sam. 10?

     No, I am not familiar with the passage. Maybe you can let me know what you’re driving at? I’m not saying that all prophecy is Scripture, but rather if true prophets are being raised up, then their prophecies could still be penned and preserved. Sam Waldron, a Reformed (Baptist?) Protestant, argued in the debate that I linked to, that a closed-canon cannot be justified when true prophets can still speak on behalf of God. So, my point was, following Waldron, the Jews could not declare “the canon is closed” while at the same time believing prophesy had been occurring (and still could occur).

     (1) You can argue anything you want – but on what basis do you argue that the Jews canon was not closed as Josephus testifies in the first century? The reorganization of canonical books in the second century is not evidence of an open canon.

     In the Michuta article I cited earlier, he makes many different points (some of which you addressed). I’ll just give three evidences here that I learned from Michuta: (A) Michuta quotes Meyers to the effect that Philo did not believed in prophetic literature being written right up to his present time (I must admit I don’t know who Meyers is). (B) The grandson of Sirach (a jew) believed the book he was translating on par with the sacred Scripture. (C) Hebrews 11:35 alludes to 2 Maccabees when describing the faith of the Jews throughout history. This is evidence for (though it does not necessitate) the idea that the writer of the Hebrews believed Maccabees to be an inspired, authoritative book on par with the other books he refers to.

     (2) I’ve already addressed the church fathers’ mistaken assumption that Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah were part of the “book” containing Jeremiah and Lamentation. What other books did the church fathers routinely cite as canonical prior to Augustine’s canon in 397?

     I’m not very knowledgeable here, but based on what I’ve heard many Catholics claim, there are many deuterocanonical passages quoted as Scripture in the early church. Here is a short video from William Albrecht showing Wisdom 2:12 quoted as Scripture.

     Peace,
     John D.

687. Jonathan Brumley February 15th, 2014 6:51 pm :

     Hi Lover of Jehovah and His Word,

     Re: #681

     Similarly, since “every word of God is tested” (Prov. 30:5), I cannot attribute the book of Judith (which blatantly claims Nebuchadnezzar was the king of Assyria ruling from Nineveh) to the Holy Spirit.

     Lojahw, I think this specific challenge is a new one to me. As soon as I read this, I started searching around for ways that Catholics have harmonized this.

     I’ve encountered a lot of such challenges, which various people have brought up. Even if you limit inspiration to the 66 book Protestant bible is inspired, there are plenty challenges of interpretation and harmonization. This link has an impressive summary of issues. According to this, Genesis alone has 149 historical inaccuracies.

     I once had a stumbling block over whether Jesus rode into Jerusalem on one animal (Mark 11:2, Luke 19:30) or two (Matthew 21). I read about this supposed contradiction on some website, and panicked. It was one of the first such challenges I had encountered. But here I am – as you can imagine, I eventually came to peace on that one. But I learned a humbling lesson from that experience, that I need the help of the Church when I read scripture.

     Let me ask you, have you ever encountered a challenge in the 66-book Protestant Bible? What did you do? Was your response “it can’t be true” – or did you look for ways it can be true? Did you give the inspired book the benefit of the doubt (and assumed you just need to work on the understanding), or did you take the stance of “guilty until proven innocent”?

     And have you taken the same approach with the Book of Judith?

     Nowhere does Jesus promise that the Church would infallibly follow the Holy Spirit. He only promised the Holy Spirit would lead the Apostles into all the truth.

     We don’t have a record of Jesus promising this, but it is reasonable to believe that the early church, and the church fathers, believed in the indefectibility of the Church. Bryan makes a case for this in his article about Ecclesial Deism.

     After Bryan wrote this article, I thought about it for about 2 years. During this time, I considered the indefectibility of the Church, and the various problems I had with different Catholic beliefs. I asked God to show me the truth. And on this website, others, and with friends, I kept finding possible answers to all my questions. Gradually, my skepticism went from “it can’t be true”, to “maybe it is true”, to “I want to believe this”, to “I have to believe this”.

     Grace and peace,
     Jonathan Brumley

688. Lojahw February 16th, 2014 6:01 pm :

     Dear Cletus,
     You seem to be fishing for something that you cannot find on your own, based on a vague notion that there must be some scholars out there that disagree with me. But I’m not going to play that game. I asked you to give me an example of a scholar who defends multiple Jewish canons in the time of Jesus, but instead you threw it back to me to tell you.

     I can see 3 possible outcomes to this line of dialogue:
     (1) You’ll claim any example I provide is a strawman (i.e., anyone I can refute is not one the scholars you were hoping for to support your position).
     (2) You’ll claim that regardless of how many examples I give you, there must be others that I have dismissed – but can you name them? If you could why didn’t you answer my question? If you can’t, you should not accuse me of dismissing someone who is a figment of your imagination.
     (3) You are just fishing, hoping I’ll say something you can find fault with.

     ‘Sorry, but I’m not playing those games. Give me a substantive argument by a reputable scholar who asserts that the Jewish canon was open from 200 BC to 200 AD, and that the early church fathers affirm this belief.

     textual criticism has been showing flaws for centuries, and continues to develop.

     As for alleged faults in the Protestant canon, you apparently don’t realize that finding fault with the canon that is common to both of us (I assume you are Roman Catholic?) is self-defeating. If you argue that the canon shared by all Christians is fallible, there is no infallible canon. I doubt that was your intention.

     Re: textual criticism. Errors of transmission in the text are irrelevant to the canon question. As to actual ambiguities in the text (multiple text types), these also do not negate the canonicity of the books any more than do the paraphrases of OT passages by NT writers. Canonicity is not based on microscopic examination, but rather reasonable standards of testimony, e.g.,s: “by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed” (Matt. 18:16).

     Peace,
     Lojahw

689. Lojahw February 16th, 2014 6:04 pm :

     JJ wrote:

     I am saying that agreement doesn’t constitute authority.

     Agreed. However, you have taken one part of my argument for the canonicity of the 27 NT books out of context and argued on this single point that I cannot establish their canonicity. Your previous post asserted that I had not established the authority of the apostles, etc. So I explained that again. In order to refute the criteria of canonicity I articulated in #520, you need to show that the whole argument is insufficient – you have not done that.

     I’d also appreciate your answer to my previous question (@667): “which is it?”

     Peace,
     Lojahw

690. Lojahw February 16th, 2014 6:06 pm :

     JohnD wrote:

     I’m not saying that all prophecy is Scripture, but rather if true prophets are being raised up, then their prophecies could still be penned and preserved.

     The problem with a hypothetical argument is that it lacks context. Let’s put this in the context of Josephus writing as a Jew after Jesus’ died, was resurrected, and ascended to heaven. Are you saying that the Jews were seriously discussing whether Sirach was a true prophet? There is absolutely no evidence of that anywhere near Jesus’ time. And, are you accusing Josephus of lying that the divine authority of these twenty-two books were so well established – in distinction to the books written after Artaxerxes’ time – that Jewish children were taught the names of these books at the same time they learned their alphabet? Please put your question in context.

     Here’s an analogy: I am an occasional artist and I have at various times painted oil paintings. I have given away most of these paintings (the most recent, a copy of Starry Night for my daughter), and they are complete, if for no other reason than I don’t have access to them to make any refinements. However, I’ve kept a few of my paintings and I still have oil paints in my home, so I have the opportunity and the means to add to my prior work – yet, I decided they were finished, so it is a moot point that I *could* add something to them. Yes, I have started and finished other paintings – but, like the New Covenant, my subsequent paintings did not alter my previous paintings.

     the Jews could not declare “the canon is closed” while at the same time believing prophesy had been occurring (and still could occur).

     See above – you seem to be saying that Josephus was lying. Why would he lie about it?

     (A) Michuta quotes Meyers to the effect that Philo did not believed in prophetic literature being written right up to his present time (I must admit I don’t know who Meyers is). (B) The grandson of Sirach (a jew) believed the book he was translating on par with the sacred Scripture. (C) Hebrews 11:35 alludes to 2 Maccabees when describing the faith of the Jews throughout history. This is evidence for (though it does not necessitate) the idea that the writer of the Hebrews believed Maccabees to be an inspired, authoritative book on par with the other books he refers to.

     (A) Philo waxed eloquent about Greek philosophers, but so what? Paul quoted Greek writers as well. That does not make them “true prophets.”
     (B) In fact, the translator of Sirach wrote that his grandfather, having “diligently studied the law, the prophets, and the other writings of our ancestors, and had gained a considerable proficiency in them, was moved to compile a book of his own on the themes of learning and wisdom, in order that, with this further help, scholars might make greater progress in their studies by living as the law directs.” How is this different than a commentary on Scripture? I know of no commentaries that are considered canonical.
     (C) An allusion by itself never constitutes evidence of canonicity. Paul does more than that quoting pagan philosophers in his sermon on Mars hill. No one claims that those pagan’s books should be considered canonical. Also, the author of Hebrews alludes to an “inspiring” story about a martyrdom – not an “inspired” teaching of doctrine.

     there are many deuterocanonical passages quoted as Scripture

     A careful analysis of such quotes is what led me to the conclusion that we should reconsider what Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Epiphanius, and Rufinus said about recognizing two categories of sacred literature: ‘canonical’ and ‘ecclesiastical.’ What clinched it for me is reading the church fathers who defined their own lists of canonical books, but also “authoritatively” quoted from books that they explicitly exclude from the canon. Unless you believe all of these church fathers to contradict themselves on the canon, the most plausible explanation is that they saw value (though not stand-alone doctrinal authority) in the ‘ecclesiastical’ books.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

691. Lojahw February 16th, 2014 6:11 pm :

     Jonathan, if you insist on writing out the words for “Lojahw” – please use “Jesus” instead of “Jehovah” – I’ve written it out several times for you, hoping you would get it!

     You did not address one of the strongest cases against your assumption that the Church has always perfectly followed the leading of the Holy Spirit into all truth: the Seventh Ecumenical Council. How do you reconcile the 100 years of bloodshed between Christians incited by this Council on an important matter of faith with the leading of the Holy Spirit? There are other examples I can cite, but this one should be of particular interest to you based on things you have said about unity.

     It is interesting that the article prompted you to join the RC Church while it prompted me to do more research and write a master’s thesis on canonicity. Your questions about alleged contradictions, etc., are certainly among the issues addressed in my thesis. Re: Matthew and Jesus riding on two donkeys, have you ever been confused about a pronoun’s referent? The text says they laid their coats on them and He sat on them. The first “them” refers to the donkeys, the second “them” refers to the coats. The text does not say Jesus sat on both of the donkeys.

     FWIW, here are a few reflections on the article after writing my thesis:

     The article asks “By what criterion do we know what comprises the Bible?” This question implies that it is necessary to pick one criterion upon which the Protestant canon is based. However, my post @ #520 presents multiple criteria to answer the Canon Question, which the article claims reformation theology is “intrinsically incapable of answering”. It’s both/and, not either this criterion or that one.

     The article also confuses Calvin’s argument for the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit (which binds the individual’s conscience) with how one knows intellectually what books are canonical. To the contrary, Christians can know intellectually *that* the Psalms are canonical based on Jesus’ calling them Scripture, but it is the Holy Spirit who convicts each Christian of the Psalms’ truth and canonical authority for his own life (Calvin’s point in the Institutes).

     The article further charges that such inward testimony (by the Holy Spirit), being subjective, is incapable of resolving a dispute between Christians who disagree about whether a particular text is canonical. My post @ #520 recognizes, as does Calvin, in Institutes 1.8.12, the “consent of the Church” wherein “so many ages have uniformly concurred in yielding obedience” to the Scriptures. This consent of the Church is one among many evidences Calvin gives that we should know the canon on an intellectual level, even though volitionally, its authority finally rests with the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, the consent of the Church cannot override the fundamental criteria of canonicity given by Jesus, the Apostles, and the Prophets (see also below on the Hebrew canon).

     My post @ #520 makes no ad hoc or circular arguments, and is fully consistent with the teaching of the Reformers, and hence, does not violate Sola scriptura (which, by the way, assumes the canon is known through a combination of ordinary means and conviction by the Holy Spirit within the Body of Christ).

     Most of my posts in this combox have focused on the inaccuracies and misunderstandings found in section IIB. My post in #667 to JJ summarizes my argument from the perspective of the Church:

     (2) For four centuries the “Church” – as represented by the church fathers – unanimously attested to a “twenty-two” book Old Testament canon that they say came from the Jews as handed down by the Apostles. Jesus said: “by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed” (Matt. 18:16). There are 10 witnesses from Melito to Jerome who all claim a “twenty-two” book canon. To reject their witness is to reject both the “Church” and Jesus’ standard for confirming facts.

     (3) Jerome enshrined this “twenty-two” book canon (actually 39 books) in the Vulgate, which was the only authorized version of the Scriptures in the western world for more than a 1000 years. The list of 39 OT canonical books was in every copy.

     Thus, for 1500 years the Church attested to a “twenty-two”/39 book OT canon.
     So for 1500 years the Church taught that the true OT canon contained 39 books.

     But your Church now teaches a 46 book OT canon. Therefore, either the Church taught a false canon for 1500 years OR what was true for 1500 years is no longer true. In the first case, your authority taught what was false; in the second, your authority is guilty of relativism. Which is it?

     How do you answer this question?

     In the peace of Christ,
     Lojahw

692. John Thayer Jensen February 17th, 2014 2:13 am :

     Lojahw (#
     689)

     JJ wrote:

     I am saying that agreement doesn’t constitute authority.

     Agreed.

     Well, and that is the whole point of the original post we are commenting on about the canon. The Protestant has no authority for his canon.

     However, you have taken one part of my argument for the canonicity of the 27 NT books out of context and argued on this single point that I cannot establish their canonicity. Your previous post asserted that I had not established the authority of the apostles, etc. So I explained that again. In order to refute the criteria of canonicity I articulated in #520, you need to show that the whole argument is insufficient – you have not done that.

     No, I don’t. The only thing at issue is authority. By the way, I wasn’t even trying to make that point, only to say that I thought I understood your point: your reasons for the canon are what a Catholic would call ‘motives of credibility;’ they rest for their authority on the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit.

     I’d also appreciate your answer to my previous question (@667): “which is it?”

     I assume you mean:

     Thus, for 1500 years the Church attested to a “twenty-two”/39 book OT canon.
     So for 1500 years the Church taught that the true OT canon contained 39 books.

     But your Church now teaches a 46 book OT canon. So either the Church taught a false canon for 1500 years or what was true for 1500 years is no longer true. In the first case, your authority taught what was false; in the second, your authority is guilty of relativism. Which is it?

     Neither, of course. The Church never taught a 39 book OT as opposed to a 46-book canon. It never denied the deuterocanon. That is why those books are separate in Jerome’s translation. They are still referred to as deuterocanonical.

     jj

693. Brent February 17th, 2014 7:28 am :

     Lojahw,

     Not to side track from your specific discussion or begin a discussion off of the topic of this thread, but I nearly fell out of my chair when I read:

     (2) For four centuries the “Church” – as represented by the church fathers – unanimously attested to a “twenty-two” book Old Testament canon that they say came from the Jews as handed down by the Apostles. Jesus said: “by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed” (Matt. 18:16). There are 10 witnesses from Melito to Jerome who all claim a “twenty-two” book canon. To reject their witness is to reject both the “Church” and Jesus’ standard for confirming facts.

     Let’s grant that for arguments sake. Then wouldn’t you be in a position to necessarily have to accept The Real Presence, the salvific nature of baptism, the Petrine Ministry, and other Catholic dogmas since more than two witnesses attest to those doctrines? You see what you did there? A principle that you believe establishes fact A, may also establish other facts.

     As we have argued here and elsewhere, witnesses establish natural facts. Authorities establish supernatural ones. The women at the tomb confirmed Jesus was a live, the Gospel writers tell us He was Resurrected. The historical facts regarding the canon establish the plausibility of certain narratives being more true or false. God uses the Church to establish the canon as such.

     If you choose you can keep the commandments, they will save you;
     if you trust in God, you too shall live;
     he has set before you fire and water
     to whichever you choose, stretch forth your hand.
     Before man are life and death, good and evil,
     whichever he chooses shall be given him.
     Immense is the wisdom of the Lord;
     he is mighty in power, and all-seeing.
     The eyes of God are on those who fear him;
     he understands man’s every deed.
     No one does he command to act unjustly,
     to none does he give license to sin.

     The Word of the Lord,
     Thanks be to God!

694. JohnD February 17th, 2014 12:51 pm :

     Lojahw (re: #690),

     The problem with a hypothetical argument is that it lacks context. Let’s put this in the context of Josephus writing as a Jew after Jesus’ died, was resurrected, and ascended to heaven.

     I admit that I have presented the argument sloppily so far. Allow me to try and salvage the essence of it.

     And, are you accusing Josephus of lying that the divine authority of these twenty-two books were so well established – in distinction to the books written after Artaxerxes’ time – that Jewish children were taught the names of these books at the same time they learned their alphabet? Please put your question in context.

     I am not accusing him of lying (though Michuta argues that he does exaggerate, especially since this is a polemical work). Let me make two main points

     (1) Josephus’ claim about the “only 22 books” which “contain the records of all the past times” and which are “justly believed to be divine” and which enjoy an “exact succession of prophets” is compatible with other books being inspired that (A) do not come from an “exact succession of prophets” and/or (B) possess other privileges granted to the books that have been around longer.

     (2) Apart from a special revelation (biblical or extra-biblical?), no Jew could consistently declare, “The canon is closed” while at the same time affirming that true prophets could still be raised up. If Jews (Josephus included) thought God had stopped inspiring books, they were clearly mistaken since God inspired the NT documents. So, even if Josephus (and many Jews of his era) believed that God stopped inspiring books after Artaxerxes time, they were incorrect. But, it is also plausible that the Jews held the protocanon in special esteem, and that recognition of the deuterocanon as inspired was not yet universally held or fully accepted (since those books were newer). The fact that certain books might have had to “fight for canonicity” more than others is not evidence that they were never inspired (e.g. Revelation).

     However, I’ve kept a few of my paintings and I still have oil paints in my home, so I have the opportunity and the means to add to my prior work – yet, I decided they were finished, so it is a moot point that I *could* add something to them. Yes, I have started and finished other paintings – but, like the New Covenant, my subsequent paintings did not alter my previous paintings.

     But if you declare they were finished and then take up new paintings, then clearly your painting was not finished to begin with (i.e. the canon was never closed).

     Are you saying that the Jews were seriously discussing whether Sirach was a true prophet? There is absolutely no evidence of that anywhere near Jesus’ time.

     You have studied the evidence much more deeply than I have, so I must defer to you on the sources here. I’d much appreciate answers to the questions below so I can learn more about what I am actually saying =)

     (1) What Jewish sources (outside of the NT) do we have “near Jesus’ time”? To my knowledge, there’s only Philo and Josephus.

     (2) I’ve heard it argued (by William Albrecht in some video or debate) that Rabbis did indeed debate the canonicity of Sirach (and Wisdom too I think). Is that accurate? Do you know what that refers to?

     (3) Michael Barber ( here) claims that the Talmud quotes Sirach as sacred scripture. How is that possible if the Jews never even considered the inspiration of Sirach?

     Philo waxed eloquent about Greek philosophers, but so what?

     Meyers claim is stronger than that. He’s saying Philo believed inspiration could be occurring up to the present day and into the future. Whether he is correct in that assessment of Philo, you would know better than I.

     How is this different than a commentary on Scripture? I know of no commentaries that are considered canonical.

     You make a good point here. I am going to email Michuta about his strong claim here and how he infers that Sirach’s grandson thought the text he was translating was inspired.

     A careful analysis of such quotes is what led me to the conclusion that we should reconsider what Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Epiphanius, and Rufinus said about recognizing two categories of sacred literature: ‘canonical’ and ‘ecclesiastical.’ What clinched it for me is reading the church fathers who defined their own lists of canonical books, but also “authoritatively” quoted from books that they explicitly exclude from the canon. Unless you believe all of these church fathers to contradict themselves on the canon, the most plausible explanation is that they saw value (though not stand-alone doctrinal authority) in the ‘ecclesiastical’ books.

     Interesting. You clearly have studied the issue deeply. So, is there any point in me producing quotes from early Church fathers quoting the deuterocanonicals as scripture? If there is no point in digging up those quotes, then I would like to know why there is no point. If there is a point in digging up those quotes, I would like to know what formulas (“it is written”, “the prophet says”, “the Scriptures say”, etc.) you would accept as decisive quotes from the deuterocanon.

     Peace,
     John D.

     PS – This comment is way too long (my own fault), so perhaps we can zone in on 1 or 2 things to continue the discussion. Lastly, is there a way to read your thesis online at all (perhaps you could upload portions somewhere anonymously if that doesn’t violate anything). I feel like I can learn a lot from your investigations.

695. Jonathan Brumley February 17th, 2014 1:23 pm :

     Hi Lojahw (Lover of Jesus and His Word),

     I apologize for mis-stating your posting moniker – I don’t know why I was thinking the “J” stands for “Jehovah”. Thanks for pointing this out. I was trying to be personal by writing out your moniker, and then didn’t notice the correction in your following posts.

     Thus, for 1500 years the Church attested to a “twenty-two”/39 book OT canon.

     Perhaps we need to agree on what it means for the Church to “attest to” something. There are certain critera for a teaching to be considered dogmatic and irreformable. So, if you want to claim that the Catholic Church has been inconsistent on the canon, then you need to show that the Church has at some point in the past taught irreformably that the Protestant 39-book OT is the true canon, based on Her own criteria for an irreformable teaching.

     One way to show that the Catholic Church has taught a 39-book OT canon is to show an ecumenical council which listed an OT canon which did not include the deuterocanonical books. Another approach is to find a binding papal pronouncement defining a 39-book OT canon. Another approach (much harder I think), is to show a _unanimous_ teaching amongst the Church Fathers, either of a 39-book OT canon, or against the deuterocanonicals.

     Since you haven’t actually yet shown that the Church has taught a 39-book OT canon in an irreformable way, then all you have really shown so far is not the teaching of the Church, but rather the opinion of certain individuals.

     Regarding your statement that the conclusion of an ecumenical council was a cause of bloodshed, and therefore the conclusion was not of the Holy Spirit. I don’t follow how an aftermath of bloodshed disproves the pronouncement of an ecumenical council. It seems in history, there have often been people to disagree with the conclusion of a council. But I don’t see how personal disagreement with a council disproves the authority or inspiration of the council.

696. John Thayer Jensen February 17th, 2014 5:24 pm :

     Jonathan (#695)
     And I think you would also need to show the Church saying that the 39-book OT canon was exclusive of the deutero-canonical books. It would seem not enough merely to say ‘these 39 books are inspired.’ It would seem necessary to say something like ‘these and only these 39 books are inspired.’ As I said to Lojahw in another comment, Jerome’s Vulgate included the deutero-canonical books. It did treat them as a separate section. And the modern Church, by calling them deutero-canonical, does the same.

     jj

697. Cletus February 17th, 2014 7:48 pm :

     Lojahw,

     The following do not agree with your assessment that there was a single fixed canon amongst all Jewish sects and/or your analysis of Josephus’ significance to Judaism as a whole:

     LM McDonald, FM Cross, DM Carr, Rudolf Meyer, John Barton, James VanderKam, Timothy Lim, D. Barthelemy

     Further, ecfs you appeal to held that the Sadducees had a different canon. I am aware of the theory that they were conflating Sadducees with Samaritans. Could be, but the point is it is yet another example of selective ad hoc appeal to them on your part. Jerome, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Origen.

     “As for alleged faults in the Protestant canon, you apparently don’t realize that finding fault with the canon that is common to both of us (I assume you are Roman Catholic?) is self-defeating.”

     A tu quoque is implicit concession of the issue and is not very compelling. But as Jonathan P mentioned above, disputed passages are not catastrophic to the RC triad of authority – it is to SS, as is the more critical issue that there are no books defined as irreformably recognized within Protestantism based on its own principles.

     “Errors of transmission in the text are irrelevant to the canon question.”

     It can influence assessment of authorship – I don’t think you want forged books in your canon.

     “As to actual ambiguities in the text (multiple text types), these also do not negate the canonicity of the books any more than do the paraphrases of OT passages by NT writers.”

     We’re not talking about slight ambiguities or a missing letter here and there. Whole passages are disputed – some can have pastoral/theological impact. I’ve seen Calvinists play up the disputed nature of Lk 23:34 when talking about when it is appropriate to be merciful or pray for enemies. That is just one example.

     “Canonicity is not based on microscopic examination, but rather reasonable standards of testimony, e.g.,s: “by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed” (Matt. 18:16).”

     So canonicity is based on criteria defined in the canon. Cart and horse.

698. Lojahw February 17th, 2014 9:51 pm :

     You got wrapped up in the hazards of interlopers, Brent. You took my quote out of context. I wrote about the testimony of the Church in response to JJ’s assertion that it is the Church who decides what the canon is. In other words, why don’t YOU believe what the Church taught for 1500 years? See #520 if you want to see the criteria for the Protestant canon.

     Interestingly, there is a connection between one of your topics and canonicity that I brought up a month ago:

     Four church fathers published 22 book OT canons AFTER the Council of Rome in 382, two of those church fathers being present at the Council. So either Pope Damasus did NOT declare a longer OT canon as your Church claims he did OR the papacy did not have the authority your Church claims. Which is it?

     BTW – cute quote from Sirach. So you also claim the following is “the Word of the Lord”?

     “Better is the wickedness of a man than a woman who does good” (Ecclus. 42:14)

     .

     Peace,
     Lojahw

699. Lojahw February 17th, 2014 9:52 pm :

     JJ wrote: The Protestant has no authority for his canon.
     All authority comes from God, JJ. My post @ #520 explains how that authority, through the Holy Spirit, applies to the Protestant canon.

     The Church never taught a 39 book OT as opposed to a 46-book canon. It never denied the deuterocanon.

     JJ, the difference between what I’m saying and what you’re saying is the distinction between ‘canonical’ and ‘ecclesiastical’ books. ‘Ecclesiastical’ books were read by the Churches, but they did not have stand-alone authority to establish doctrine (they could be and were used just as any other source would be, in support of such doctrine). It seems that this distinction has been forgotten in all of the canon debates. I have no problem with the deuteros as a valuable resource within sacred literature – I simply agree with Josephus and the early church fathers who believed that the deuteros do not possess “the like authority with the former” books of the Hebrew canon. You call Sirach “the Word of the Lord” – the church fathers and I would not.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

700. Lojahw February 17th, 2014 9:54 pm :

     Thank you, Jonathan, for your comments.

     ‘Good point about an irreformable teaching; however, it seems that 1500 years of formal teaching via the church fathers and by the canon listed in the only authorized version of the Bible in the west has some authority for those, like yourself, who ascribe such authority to the Church. As was stated elsewhere in this combox, Christians during such times (according to your paradigm) are expected to have their consciences bound to the teaching of the ordinary magisterium. So, for 1500 years, the consciences of Christians in the west would be bound by the 22/39 book OT canon; and then suddenly, in 1546 they would have to switch to a 45 book canon (Trent did not mention Lamentations) or be under the curse of the Church. Don’t you think that stretches credulity?

     Re: the Seventh Ecumenical Council, the point is not whether you agree or disagree with it, but if the Holy Spirit is leading the Church – i.e., as Paul describes it: “all everywhere who call upon the name of the Lord,” how do you explain 100 years of bloodshed? It was not wars between Christians and non-Christians – I simply cannot accept that the Holy Spirit created such a tragic result within the Body of Christ.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

701. Lojahw February 17th, 2014 9:56 pm :

     Dear JohnD,

     Josephus would say you misrepresent him in 1B) that other books “possess other privileges granted to the books that have been around longer.” He explicitly says that the books you refer to are “not esteemed of the like authority with the former.”

     I’m having trouble following your “no Jew could . . .” – how do you know that? You are not a Jew, nor did you live in that time, nor do you have a right to project your worldview on them. The “special esteem” of the protocanon vs the deuterocanon is indeed the perspective of the church fathers, but there is no testimony other than Josephus’ and Philo’s in that time re: the latter, and you really are not in position to project your belief-system on them. You can only interpret what they have said, which in Philo’s case is pure silence. You keep projecting the Christian experience on the Jews as if they should view things the same way – but you have no right to do so.

     Re: the painting analogy, my point is that the Old Testament canon (painting) was finished. The New Testament canon is another painting altogether. You want to re-open the OT canon in order to insert the deuteros – but the people who wrote them (the “artists”) never did. There’s an apt saying in Proverbs 22:28: “Do not move the ancient boundary Which your fathers have set.” You want to move the ancient boundary, but you have no right to do so.

     Re: your list of questions.
     (1) you are correct re: Josephus and Philo. There are some 2nd century BC Jews, e.g., the pseudonymous “Aristeas” and a couple of others who wrote about the translation of the Pentateuch into Greek at Alexandria roughly a century earlier.
     (2) Various alleged rabbinic debates about canonicity [mostly about Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, and Esther] are mentioned in the literature, after 200 AD, as I recall. I haven’t spent a lot of time researching them.
     (3) I would need more info about Michael Barber’s claim that the Talmud quotes Sirach as Scripture. I suspect it might be like Gigot’s claim that “sacred book” = Scripture, but such an interpretation is questionable because no Jewish canon ever included Sirach.
     Re: Philo’s beliefs about contemporary inspiration, remember Prov. 22:28.
     Re: quotes by the church fathers from the deuterocanonicals, I’ve probably seen every one you can come up with (I have a list of almost 200 allusions and quotes), so I don’t think anything would be gained. Mistaken attribution is just one factor that must be taken into account (e.g., Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach are often attributed to Solomon because of the genre; Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah are attributed to Jeremiah; additions to Daniel are attributed to Daniel; etc.). My view re: the ‘ecclesiastical’ and ‘canonical’ categories of sacred literature is the most consistent way I’ve seen to explain all of the data. That’s just how I see it – and it is consistent with the explanations and writings of the church fathers in that era.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

702. Lojahw February 18th, 2014 1:19 am :

     Dear Cletus:
     Thank you for the impressive list of scholars on the subject of the Jewish canon. For the sake of brevity, and to address others who have cited Rudolf Meyer, I suggest you read the chapter by Steve Mason and Robert Kraft, “On Joseph on Canon and Scriptures,” in Hebrew Bible, Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, ed. Magne Saebo (1996), pp. 217-235.

     The gist is that Meyer, like most of the other scholars, points to disparate sources such as Ben Sira, the DSS, Philo, etc., to give the impression that the Jews did not have *any* definite canon. Yet, as Mason points out, anyone reading Josephus’s Antiquities by itself would come to the same conclusion – except for the fact that Josephus himself gives a very finite canon in Against Apion, which was written as a deliberate sequel to Antiquities. In fact, going back to Antiquities it is obvious that Josephus really does believe that the succession of prophets has ceased, and there is a discernable seam in the account after those times. The arguments of scholars like Meyers are based on the reasoning that silence from many sources is weightier than explicit historical evidence found in a source which contradicts one’s theory. Disconfirming data cannot simply be ignored.

     Disputed passages are not catastrophic to the RC triad of authority

     So you concede that your canon contains fallible books? (But it doesn’t matter because the RC has other authorities which are infallible?) Really???

     You assert that errors of transmission can influence assessment of authorship. Can you give any examples, other than disputed passages? As far as I know the literature has never cited the kinds of textual differences that would call into question the authorship of entire books (and it would be quite newsworthy if it had ever occurred).

     Disputed passages point to questions of authenticity: like the additions to Daniel and Esther. Bibles today bracket or footnote such passages, but Jesus’ teaching on forgiveness in Matt. 18:20-21 stands regardless of the debate over Luke 23:34 (your Calvinist example simply illustrates selective exegesis on behalf of another agenda).

     So canonicity is based on criteria defined in the canon.

     My argument for the canonicity of the books in the Protestant canon is not circular. Please explain where you find circularity in #520.

     In the peace of Christ,
     Lojahw

703. Lojahw February 18th, 2014 10:16 am :

     Thanks to everyone for the stimulating dialogues, but I’ve got to move on. Among several Lenten projects, I will be teaching a series on the Nicene Creed at Christ Church (Anglican) – looking at its historical context, its Scriptural underpinnings, and its continuing relevance to Christians today.

     For Jonathan and all who pray for the unity of the Church, take heart in our common confession of the faith as articulated in the creeds [recognizing that our Eastern brothers in Christ object to the filioque], and in our common recognition of the canonicity of 66 books of Scripture. We all acknowledge one Lord, one faith, one baptism.

     I’ll leave with you the following comments: Jerome is not among the church fathers attesting that the Church read both ‘ecclesiastical’ and ‘canonical’ books – he listed the former among the Apocrypha. I think he was wrong, and as a result, he polarized the Reformers vs. the Council of Trent. I wish both sides would recognize the ancient perspective: that Protestants would again read the “deuteros” (the Reformers certainly did), and that Roman Catholics would refrain from calling them “the Word of the Lord.”

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

704. Lojahw February 18th, 2014 10:26 am :

     Correction for Cletus: I suggest you read the chapter by Steve Mason and Robert Kraft, “Josephus on Canon and Scriptures,” in Hebrew Bible, Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, ed. Magne Saebo (1996) pp. 217-235.

705. Seeker of Truth February 18th, 2014 11:58 am :

     Hi Lojahw (re: #682 and #683),

     Thank you for your helpful comments. They did help clear up some of the misconception I had about what you were saying.

     Specifically, you said that “The church fathers who published OT canons all attested to a “twenty-two” book canon, which was essentially the Jewish canon with minor anomalies caused by two common misunderstandings of the Greek and Latin fathers. The most common misunderstanding was: what were the contents of the “book” ascribed to Jeremiah?”

     I think this is an important clarification. Your initial comments gave the impression that all of the Church fathers up until Augustine universally accepted the Protestant Old Testament, which is clearly not correct. Instead, there were disagreements about what was included in the canon. Protestants (such as yourselves) contend that while there were disagreements, in general the canon they accepted “centered around” the Protestant canon of today. Catholics will argue that there was a fair amount of diversity and that there was no clear consensus (or one that looked more like an acceptance of the Catholic canon). So, as with other issues in the early Church, the Catholic would argue that it was ultimately up to the authority of the Church and the council to settle the differences. I am guessing a Catholic would argue (although others can correct me), that even if it were the case that a majority of Church fathers up until 400 rejected, for example, rejected the canonicity of Baruch. That is not conclusive. The truth of canonicity is not determined by the opinions of the majority of those claiming to be “Christian,” but by the binding decision of the successor of Peter and the Apostles. So, just as the fact that a vast majority believed in Arianism at one point, does not make it the correct position. The same goes with the particular canonicity of a book of the Old or New Testament. Nonetheless, I think your original formulation about the Church fathers and the acceptance of the canon was misleading. It’s not as if all Christians until Augustine accepted the Protestant canon. The first 400 years of Church history is much more complicated than that. Whether the “consensus” looked more Catholic or Protestant, I think really is debatable. I understand what you were saying now, though. Thanks for the clarification!

     You said: “Jerome’s canon is a list of canonical books, with a second list of the deuteros, which Jerome explicitly said were outside of the OT canon. This “Helmeted Preface” to the books of the OT, as Jerome called it, is in every copy of the Vulgate.” Our problem is that we anachronistically assume that “the Bible” has always contained only canonical books. However, historically, this not the way “Bibles” were made. All of the Bibles before our day contained books that were not in the published canons of the day. I keep saying that it is time to reconsider the church fathers’ view of ‘canonical’ and ‘ecclesiastical’ books – both of which were read in the churches, but only the former was vested with doctrinal authority.”

     Thank you again for the clarification. Your original statement made it seem like you were saying, up until the council of Trent, all Christians accepted only the Protestant OT as canonical, and it was Trent that instituted this novelty. It sounds like you are backing off (or clarifying that position) somewhat.

     With regard to your comment about Jerome’s vulgate, my understanding of the history of this was slightly different (but maybe you can point me to sources that support your view). Specifically, all historians agree that Jerome initially wanted to leave out the Apocrypha because he did not consider them canonical. However, under pressure from the Church, he agreed to translate them and include this in the Vulgate. Also, I think it is universally acknowledged that Jerome included prologues to these books (as well as the other books of the Bible).

     From there, I think there is some disagreement about your presentation of the history of the canon, at least based on my limited knowledge of history (please point me to other historical scholarship that disagree).

     First, Jerome’s Vulgate did not include the Apocrypha in a “different section,” but included it throughout the Bible. No better a source than wikipedia states as much. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha :)
     I remember a lot of other historical books that stated as much, but cannot link to them at the moment. This should just be a matter of simple historical fact, and should be easy to verify or deny.

     Second, while Jerome’s Vulgate did include prologues to the apocrypha (as well all the books of the Bible), I don’t think it was as clear as you make it out to be that the prologues provide that all Apocryphal books are non-canonical and the rest are canonical. For example, Jerome does not describe the book of Baruch as non-canonical, and, I believe, does express his opinion that Hebrews is non-canonical (which influenced Luther’s initial rejection of it, if my memory serves me). So, I don’t think it’s a clear historical statement that Jerome’s prologues clearly defined as canonical the protestant canon, while rejecting the Catholic/EO one.

     Third, after Jerome’s initial vulgate was published, it was reprinted and recopied over many years, often while dropping these prologues. So, over time, in many places throughout the church, the apocryphal books did consider to be canonical. While I think your point is correct that it’s not the case that, as same Catholics would argue, that in the year 1000, for example, the entire Church accepted the 73 book canon as scripture, I think your statement that “for 1500 years the Church accepted the protestant canon” is probably equally or more historically inaccurate. As you acknowledge, these apocryphal books were in all bibles and read in liturgies in churches throughout the world. And, by the year 1672 (the year the EO orthodox church at the Synod of Jerusalem decreed a canon similar to that of the one at Trent), 90+% of Christians worldwide accepted what you would consider to be non-canoncial books as part of the canon.

     What does some clear from history is that after 405, the Churches understanding of the canon continued to evolve and, by the middle ages, many Christians accepted them as canonical, but some did not. Catholics would argue that a vast majority of Christians in the year 1300, for example, accepted them as canonical, and protestants would argue many did not. So, historically it is indisputable that there was some disagreement over the canon among Christians at the time. I tend to think that the Catholic reading of history on this point is closer to the truth than the protestant one. However, it is definitely the case that there were at least SOME Christians who held out questions about the nature of the canon (as there were at the council of Trent).

     Lojahw, as I mention, I have appreciated reading your perspective and your defenses. I do think that your bold claims, at least the way it was originally formulate, that the canon was Protestant for 1500 years is clearly false and distracts from some of your other good points. I understand better what you were saying with some of your clarifications, but I still think the historical accuracy of some of your statements is doubtful. But, I am genuinely open to learning more, so I would be interested to see some of the historical sources you have read to back up these points.

     You also said, “Re: the EO, they accept the books in the OT found in the ancient “Bible” MSS, which is why their Bible is even larger than Rome’s. Since no Ecumenical Council decreed the Scriptural canon, the EO follow the OT and NT accepted by their respective patriarchs (which changes with geography and time).”

     While the EO don’t have the same authority structure that the Western Church does, they still do recognize church authority. You can’t just dismiss, for example, the Synod of Jerusalem, or the fact that all EO leaders will today acknowledge a canon much more similar to the Catholic canon than the Protestant one. While that, in an of itself is not conclusive, I think it calls into serious doubt your original telling of history that “The Church fathers, other than Augustine, accepted the Protestant canon for 1500 years, and it was that blasted Council of Trent that threw things off the rails.” The rest of you arguments about the canon and defending the protestant canon will be much more believable if you discard this demonstrably false telling of history.

     Thanks again for the interesting discussion.

     Blessings,

     Seeker of Truth

706. Seeker of Truth February 18th, 2014 1:57 pm :

     Lojahw,

     One other quick addendum. In your summary statement that the Church held the 22 book canon for 1500 years, you completely glossed over The Council of Rome in 382, the Council of Hippo in 393, the Council of Carthage in 397, Pope Innocent I’s letter to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse in 405, the council at Carthage in the year 419, the 2nd council of Nicea in 787 and the council of Florence in 1442.
     Since you are probably more read on this area of history than I am, what did each of those councils conclude on the issue of the canon and how does that fit into your understanding of the canon up until Trent?
     Thanks again for the interesting dialogue.

     Blessings,

     Seeker of Truth

707. Seeker of Truth February 18th, 2014 2:32 pm :

     Lojahw,

     Sorry, one more addendum. You insightful comments (and this entire article and comments section) have got me thinking!

     I found the following more detailed analysis of a lot of the fathers you mention as suppporting the 22 book canon fairly insightful.
     While it is certainly indisputable that there were a number of fathers in the first 400 years other than just Jerome who called into question the canonicity of some or all of the Apocrypha, Catholics (including the one I linked to) make a fairly convincing case that the story is not as simple as this list of 9 fathers accept the protestant view of scripture and reject the Catholic view. In case you are curious, I just wondered if you had come across similar arguments in your research and your thoughts. Thanks!

     Ignore the first part and just skip to the “A look at the fathers section.” This is by no means a scholarly look at the issue, but I am more interested in the additional citations from these fathers that he presents as providing sort of an interesting counter-balance to the Protestant position on this.

     https://matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html#A Look at the Fathers

708. John Thayer Jensen February 18th, 2014 11:07 pm :

     Lojahs (#699)
     You said you had to move on so not sure you will see this, but in case you do:

     JJ wrote: The Protestant has no authority for his canon.
     All authority comes from God, JJ. My post @ #520 explains how that authority, through the Holy Spirit, applies to the Protestant canon.

     True, but I’m not sure how this helps, unless God has given you personally the canon. I think He has given us the canon, but not to you personally, but through His designated sub-authority: the Church. All authority is from God; that does not imply that all authority is exercised directly by God.

     JJ, the difference between what I’m saying and what you’re saying is the distinction between ‘canonical’ and ‘ecclesiastical’ books. ‘Ecclesiastical’ books were read by the Churches, but they did not have stand-alone authority to establish doctrine (they could be and were used just as any other source would be, in support of such doctrine).

     Unless you know where this distinction was made in your sources – e.g. Jerome – I don’t see how it helps.

     It seems that this distinction has been forgotten in all of the canon debates. I have no problem with the deuteros as a valuable resource within sacred literature – I simply agree with Josephus and the early church fathers who believed that the deuteros do not possess “the like authority with the former” books of the Hebrew canon. You call Sirach “the Word of the Lord” – the church fathers and I would not.

     Only I don’t think you are correct that the Church fathers ‘would not.’

     jj

709. Jonathan Brumley February 19th, 2014 12:07 am :

     Lojahw (Lover of Jesus and His Word),

     I agree with your belief that the Holy Spirit would not inspire a 100 year bloodshed. Surely this violence was inspired partly by the sins of man (wrath, pride) – sins on both sides of the debate. Let us move forward in repentance of the sins of the past, and pray the Church continues to grow in wisdom and understanding. And let us always treat each other with charity. I have appreciated the charity in this discussion.

     Best wishes for your class on the Nicene Creed. I will pray for you and the teaching. I will be giving a short presentation on the Early Church and the formation of scripture tomorrow night, and so I have appreciated the discussion and further thoughts here. Also, I would appreciate your prayers.

     Grace and peace,
     Jonathan Brumley

710. Tom Brown February 19th, 2014 9:46 pm :

     Dear John D. (#676),

     We’re debating my statement that “something that may or may not be Scripture (i.e., we’re not infallibly sure about that) lacks that authority because it may not be Scripture,” which was made in the context of Protestant answers to the canon question. You insist that I am relying on the premise that “anything that ‘may not be’ what it claims to be lacks authority.” That’s a bit broad; I think my underlying premise is narrower. I think I would agree that my underlying premise is, rather, this: any text claiming to be the (infallible) Word of God cannot ipso facto bind our consciences absent validation from God that the text is in fact from Him. We could move from there to say that our confidence in the text’s Divine qualities cannot exceed our confidence in the text’s Divine origins.

     You asked: “let me just ask you: Why do you believe that a ‘fallibly known collection of infallible books cannot function as a binding authority’?”

     I answered this in the article above:

     R. C. Sproul has recognized this rationale. He famously has stated that the classical Protestant position does not see the Church as having infallibly defined the canon. According to Sproul, unlike the Catholic position, which maintains that we have an infallible collection of infallible books, and unlike the modern critical scholars’ position, which maintains that we have a fallible collection of fallible books, we actually have “a fallible collection of infallible books.” He reasons that because the Church is fallible, “it’s possible that wrong books could have been selected,” but he doesn’t “believe for a minute that that’s the case.”

     Sproul’s own personal confidence, the source of which he does not articulate, does not solve the fundamental problem his understanding of the “historic Protestant position” presents to spiritual descendants of the Protestant Reformation. If it is possible that wrong books were included in the canon, then it is also possible that right books could have been omitted. In this theological environment, our confidence in and obligation to submit to any scriptural text extends only as far as our confidence in the propriety of the text’s inclusion in the canon in the first place. In other words, we can have no more confidence in the infallibility of the content included than we have in the process by which it was included. But in the Protestant scheme, because the process which yielded the canon is fallible, Protestantism cannot have complete confidence in the content of its canon.

     A fallible collection of infallible books cannot function as a binding authority, for “what can be more absurd than a probable infallibility, or a certainty resting on doubt?”

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

711. Tom Brown February 19th, 2014 10:13 pm :

     Dear “Lojahw” (#678),

     Regarding the need for “official channels” for acceptance of books like Moses’s or the Psalms, the official channels to which I referred were not merely the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Included in what I meant by “official channels” (which was adopting your earlier terminology, so if we’ve moved too far from that original context to avoid confusion, then I apologize) would be the seat of Moses, those with priestly authority prior to the time of Christ, etc.

     I responded to your #520 with #526, which perhaps you had missed.

     Re: your #703, I pray that God would richly bless you and your students in your teaching on the Nicene Creed, and thank you for the dialogue. More to come one day, God willing!

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

712. Brent February 20th, 2014 7:35 am :

     Lojahw (#698):

     As I have discussed with you in this thread earlier, your effort to make a salutary reading of your canonical books bespeaks of a kind of disaffected disingenuousness when you cannot do it for ours. This, of course, is only from the habit of use. No Protestant, ever, receives book-by-book Spirit-led canonical attestation. If that were the case, imagine a new Christian with skeptical curiosity reading each book of the Bible, waiting for the enlightened “moment” of the Spirit. Nay, the ecclesial authority that binds the Bible in the Protestant traditions imports that attestation into the act of putting the book together. It literally is a by product of organization. The same could be said of a Catholic, ergo, he might “feel” similar affinity and be directed toward certain salutary powers of the intellect.

     The use of hyperbole in the wisdom tradition is robust in Sirach and Proverbs (and in the Gospels). There is much discussion about the context of the verse you cite, just like there is for passages in your canon (which we share) that require similar nuance. If anything, we might ask ourselves how the verse you cite represents a culture that values women in a different way than our own, and that considers offspring in a different way than our own (and family in a different way than our own). It is hard to imagine in our world of equality and feminism where women are paraded everyday as objects to be traded for no-consequence wiles. In the broader context of Sirach and Scripture/Tradition as a whole, the idea that evil is being promoted in the verse as a good is easy dismissed. Instead, exaggeration is being employed to emphasize the way in which a daughter weighs on the soul of a father. In our genderless society, I imagine this nuance is hard to grasp.

     Lastly, for those that live within a Tradition, a line of a text does not prove anything. Just google “weird versus in the Bible” to learn why atheists discredit your Bible. They read it outside of the Tradition, and get it wrong.

713. Lojahw February 22nd, 2014 5:08 pm :

     Dear Seeker of Truth, I don’t have time to address all of your questions, but I hope the following helps:

     Re: “the claim that the canon was Protestant for 1500 years is clearly false.” I never made that claim. I said the church fathers for 4 centuries attested to *a* 22 book canon. I also explained that those 22 book canons differed in minor details, and that Rufinus and Jerome testified to the 22/39 book canon recognized by both the Jews and Protestants. That Jerome’s canonical list of the OT books was in the Vulgate for the next 1100+ years is an historical fact.

     Re: glosses over the Council of Rome (Damasus) – see #596 and #698. Re: Hippo (393), this was Augustine’s home turf; however, the canons were not written down until the 397 Council of Carthage (III) – the same year that Augustine published On Christian Doctrine, including his 44 book canon. The subsequent Council of Carthage (IV) in 416 reaffirmed the canon of (III). The authority of these councils was limited to their African constituents. Re: Innocent I’s letter, if it had the kind of authority that Rome claims, why wasn’t Jerome’s canonical list revised that kept on being published in the Vulgate the same year and in subsequent years? I have seen no Scriptural canon published at Nicea in 787. The Council of Florence is the basis of Trent’s canon, but it seemed to be ignored by high-ranking cardinals, such as Cajetan and Ximenes. If the cardinals ignored Florence’s canon, it must not have been perceived to be authoritative.

     The Vulgate was compiled by others, not Jerome, in 405. He provided the text for the 39 books with their prologues, plus Judith and Tobit, which he translated as a favor for two bishops (plus he said he had heard that the Council of Nicea accepted Judith, although there is no evidence for this). BTW – Jerome says he only set aside 1 night for each of these translations, with the help of a Jew to help him with the Aramaic texts (in which he was not fluent, as he was with Hebrew).

     The other “deuteros” came from the Old Latin version in circulation at the time, based on earlier translations from the Greek LXX. Other than Tobit and Judith, Jerome did not write introductions to the other deuteros, although he commented about them in his canonical prologues. In summary, Jerome did not add the deuteros “under pressure” – others included them, along with his preface that defined the 22 book OT canon. BTW – it was JJ who said the deuteros were in a different section, not me. As far as I know, Jerome’s “Helmeted Introduction” to the OT was always part of the Vulgate, though some of his other prefaces were left out of some editions.

     Jerome believed the book of Hebrews was written by Paul in Hebrew, from which it was translated into Greek (Lives of Illustrious Men, 5). I know of no claim that Jerome rejected its canonicity. Maybe you are thinking of someone else who doubted Paul’s authorship? (There was a debate about its canonicity based on such questions as well as its theology as interpreted by some.)

     Re: disagreements require the church to rule – I believe there is sufficient evidence in the books referenced in Trent’s anathemas (i.e., you are cursed if you do not receive all of these books as canonical) to question its judgment, which is why I revert to the criteria of canonicity given by Jesus, the Apostles, and the Prophets listed in #520.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

714. Lojahw February 22nd, 2014 5:09 pm :

     Thank you, Tom, for your blessings for my class on the creed – and for pointing out #526 – which must have been one of the posts that wordpress did not forward to me.

     Re: Moses and the Psalms, I agree more or less with you about the Jews’ recognition of their books’ canonicity. In particular, I believe that the Great Sanhedrin that met in the “Hall of the Hewn Stones” of the second Temple in Jerusalem (from ca. 516 BC to AD 70) affirmed the 22 book canon that Josephus published. However, when that happened is not recorded.

     Prompted by Cletus, I found Timothy Lim’s 2013 book on the Formation of the Jewish Canon, which gives an interesting perspective on the questions he and JohnD asked. Lim’s understanding of Josephus’ canon is that it was authoritative for the Pharisees in the first century, but not for all Jews (acknowledging Josephus’ hyperbole re: *all* Jews). Lim believes there were no other canons (which, according to him, by definition are closed lists), but rather various “collections of authoritative scriptures” used by sectarians not allied with the Pharisees (e.g., Sadducees, Essenes, etc.). In his view, “by the end of the first century CE there was a determined canon that was accepted by most Jews,” and that ca. 150-250 CE the rest of the Jews under Rabbinic leadership followed suit (he dismisses the occasional later debates of a few rabbis as unimportant).

     Lim’s views noted above support my arguments in #470, 520, 629, 646, etc. – namely, that if we can identify Jesus’ canon, any other sectarian views are irrelevant. Since Paul claimed to be a “Pharisee of Pharisees,” it is reasonable to believe he recognized the canon later published by Josephus; moreover, there are no other “collections of authoritative scriptures” in Lim’s analysis that are consistent with Jesus’ tripartite canon in Luke 24:44-45. Ergo, because Jesus and Paul were undoubtedly “on the same page” about scripture, and Paul (the Pharisee of Pharisees) was on the same page as Josephus, then Jesus’ canon must be the same as that of Josephus.

     In #526, you wrote:

     one major point of this article is to challenge the authority by which you can even offer your premise.

     All of the authorities I cite are recognized by Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants alike. The authority for the OT canon is *Jesus*, as quoted in Luke 24:44-45, and the *Apostle Paul*, teaching in Rom. 3:2 that this privilege belongs to the Jews. This authority is confirmed by the witness of the early church fathers (who explicitly cite the Hebrew canon).
     Moreover, since Paul identifies Proverbs as Scripture, Scripture itself admonishes: “do not move the ancient boundary that your fathers have set” (Prov. 22:28). Yet this is precisely what Augustine did at the end of the fourth century with the OT canon. He and those who voted with him in Hippo and Carthage ignored the twenty-two book boundary set by the fathers and declared a forty-four book canon. Both Rom. 3:2 and Prov. 22:28 were cited by the Reformers in their response to what Calvin characterized as Trent “promiscuously” incorporating the “deuteros” in the biblical canon. Hence, the authorities include Jesus and Paul, together with the Jewish fathers and the early church fathers who set the boundary of the OT.

     You seem puzzled that my criteria in #520 makes use of the testimony of the Church as evidence of facts about the books in question, yet as I pointed out in #691, Calvin himself appeals to the testimony of the Church (Institutes 1.8.12). It is a false dichotomy to pit the testimony of the Church against the authority of Scripture, for Jesus Himself said: “by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed” (Matt. 18:16).” I appeal to witnesses to establish facts, not as authorities over Scripture. It is the Holy Spirit who convicts us of the authority of Scripture.

     From #428: To violate Sola scriptura on the canon question, one would have to deny the normative authority of a source that Jesus or the Apostles affirmed to be normative or one would have to claim normative authority for a source that Jesus or the Apostles denied. Sola scriptura merely asserts that Scripture is the only unquestioned authority after the times of the Apostles – so to violate it, one must question or contradict the authorities that are the foundation of the Church: the prophets, the Apostles, and Jesus, the cornerstone. I claim that Augustine did that.

     You ask:

     how do we know your analytical application of that premise to various texts yields the correct result?

     The testimony of Jesus, the Apostles, the Prophets, the Jews (re: the OT canon), and the Body of Christ universal confirms the canonicity of every book identified in the Protestant canon. See above if you think there is a reasonable case that the OT canon is lacking.

     Finally, the fallible / infallible canon question. My point was that it was unprecedented for the Council of Trent in 1546 to pronounce anathemas on anyone who disagreed with their list of canonical books. There had been many canonical lists before then, but no such claim of an “infallible” list. The Reformers, as noted above, repudiated this claim. However, lacking a claim to infallibility does not mean something is fallible. I do *not* believe the Protestant canon is open to revision, based on the criteria of canonicity outlined in #520 and the available information.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

715. Lojahw February 23rd, 2014 5:14 pm :

     Dear Jonathan,

     Thank you for your best wishes for my class on the Nicene Creed. How was your talk on the formation of scripture?

     I’ve been reviewing the Ecumenical Councils in preparation for my class on the Nicene Creed, and it reminded me of a similarity between the canon question and Nicea II. From my perspective, the Church in both cases transgressed the proverb: “do not move the ancient boundary that your fathers have set” (Prov. 22:28). Both cases demonstrate to me that the Church is not always faithful to the leading of the Holy Spirit.

     In the case of Nicea II, the council moved the ancient boundary set by the authors of Scripture and the early church fathers re: the veneration of images. It is a complex topic, but it harkens back to Moses and the bronze serpent, which the Israelites were to look to and be healed of snake bites in Num. 21:9. However, King Hezekiah destroyed this symbol of Christ because the people had gone too far by burning incense to it (cf. 2Kings 18:4). Again, in Daniel’s time, King Nebuchadnezzar ordered everyone to honor him by bowing down to his image (cf. Dan. 3). Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego refused and were thrown into the furnace, there to be rescued by one who looked like a son of the gods.

     The early church fathers took these examples seriously and assiduously avoided any appearance of veneration of images for the first four centuries, yet later Christians across the empire accepted the pagan practice of honoring the king by venerating statues of him. This widespread practice led some Christians to question why they should not also venerate images of Christ and the saints. Other Christians were scandalized, believing that images of Christ could only represent his humanity, and to venerate his humanity would be blasphemous. Both sides were wrong, having assimilated into their faith the pagan practice of venerating images of their earthly kings. As a result, Christians fought against Christians for 100 years until the reign of Empress Theodora in 842. Meanwhile, two church councils were convened: the first in 754 at Constantinople and the second at Nicea in 787. The rallying cry of Nicea II was: “For the honour which is paid to the image passes on to that which the image represents, and he who reveres the image reveres in it the subject represented.” This belief transgressed the boundaries set by both Scripture and the early church fathers, and the Seventh Ecumenical Council at Nicea presumptuously demanded in the name of God (with attending anathemas) that both images and relics be placed in all churches and thenceforth be venerated by all Christians. May God forgive all who have fallen into this error.

     In the peace of Christ,
     Lojahw

716. Lojahw February 23rd, 2014 5:20 pm :

     Brent,
     I don’t have time to dialogue further about this, but in my view the question of authority really does apply to each passage of Scripture – am I willing to submit to this as God’s Word, or do I have the prerogative to count it less?

     Peace,
     Lojahw

717. Brent February 23rd, 2014 10:29 pm :

     Lojahw,

     I agree! (716)

     That is what happens in the Mass! We hear Scripture, and then it is said:

     “The Word of the Lord”

     We have a chance, a moment in time to respond to what we heard. We can reject it or we can declare:

     “Thanks be to God!”

718. Brandon February 24th, 2014 3:53 pm :

     I’m going to be intentionally cryptic (and I don’t wish to enter into protracted conversation here), but who said,

     It is not that the Church and her Magisterium actually create the canon; even less do they endow the Scripture with its authority, as mistakenly rather than intentionally certain Catholic apologists have sometimes maintained. With this dogma, as with others, Church and Magisterium simply recognize the truth established by God’s action, submit to it, and since they are responsible for it, proclaim it with authority, making it into a Church law.

719. Lojahw February 24th, 2014 7:24 pm :

     Dear JJ, et al.,
     I realized this afternoon that I put forward an anachronistic argument in #667, etc. Here’s my retraction: It wasn’t until the Council of Trent that the Vulgate was declared to be the only authorized version of the Bible in the West. I recalled that the Old Latin continued in parallel with the Vulgate for centuries, perhaps until the Council of Trent. Thus, as you stated in #669 – it is improbable that the Church repudiated the deuteros based on Jerome’s “helmeted” canon that was included in the Vulgate. Rather, the more accurate view is that the Church apparently allowed both Jerome’s view of the canon, at least until Trent (as demonstrated, e.g., by the support it had at the time of the Reformation from Cardinals Cajetan and Ximenes) and the Old Latin Bible’s lack of distinction between the “proto-canonical” and “deuteron-canonical” OT books.

     For Brent, I also realize that my last response to you was incomplete re: the point of my criteria of canonicity in #520. It is not that every Protestant must use these criteria to “vindicate” the canon, but rather that – contra the article – it is *possible* to articulate criteria of canonicity, derived from the authority of Jesus and His teaching, which identify the books of the Protestant canon without violating Sola scriptura. The vast majority of Protestants, like Roman Catholics, recognize the canon accepted by their clergy – whom they assume to have valid grounds for the canon. (As I’ve stated elsewhere, this is consistent with Calvin’s position that the testimony of the Church is one of the evidences of Scripture.) However, I didn’t want this point lost: there is a difference between recognizing *that* certain books are canonical and *personally submitting* to their rightful authority as the Word of God. As stated in #520, I believe the latter requires the (inward and outward) work of the Holy Spirit. Thank you also for your statement of agreement on this point.

     ‘Back to the Nicene Creed!

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

720. Seeker of Truth February 25th, 2014 12:24 pm :

     Dear Lojahw,

     Good luck with your class on the Nicene Creed. I am sure your students will benefit from your passion and knowledge.

     I know things can get busy in “real” life, and it takes a lot of time and patience to engage thoughtfully in these discussions. So, I can understand why you would not have time to continue with this on ongoing basis.

     So, I will just leave a couple brief responses to your comments. Feel free to respond or not as you have time.

     First, you said that you “never made the claim” that “the canon was protestant for 1500 years.” You did clarify that you were referring to a “22 book canon,” that did diverge frequently from the canon that protestants had today.”

     However, after these statements, you said to Jonathan (in #691)
     “So for 1500 years the Church taught that the true OT canon contained 39 books. But your Church now teaches a 46 book OT canon. Therefore, either the Church taught a false canon for 1500 years OR what was true for 1500 years is no longer true.”

     Then, you further stated to Brent (in #698), ” why don’t YOU believe what the Church taught for 1500 years?” in reference to the 39 book Old Testament canon. So, you can see why I might be a little confused. On the one hand you say that you never claim that canon was Protestant for 1500 years, but then in other discussions you say that Church taught a 39 book canon for 1500 years and only changed it at the Council of Trent and was thus inconsistent.

     My point is that, when Catholics try to oversimplify history, and say that for 1500 years we had the Catholic bible with no disagreement, until Martin Luther came along and took out 7 books, it is misleading and clearly false. I’m not saying that Catholics on this board have made that claim, just that it happens in other contexts, occasionally. Similarly, the way you have phrased these questions and comments in this discussion about there “clearly” being a 39 book Old Testament for 1500 years as a way to challenge the consistency of the Catholic positions seems to me equally misleading and just historically inaccurate. I am trying to read into your comments with charity and give you the benefit of the doubt, but I am having a hard time interpreting these statements as anything other than misleading and historically inaccurate. Again, perhaps I am misunderstanding the nature of your statements, but they at least appear, on the surface, to be misleading.

     This is why I mentioned the numerous counsels that you omitted in your broad overview of the church’s attitude toward the canon. I understand that you have various arguments regarding why these canons may not have been binding and were not followed by certain church leaders. However, for anyone trying to do a fair reading of the history of the Church’s attitude toward the apocryphal books and canonicity, it also gives the appearance of cherry picking one’s facts to completely omit them from one’s discussion and talk as if they don’t exist. The existence of these counsels (whether or not they were on “Augustine’s home turf” or ecumenically binding on the entire Church), at the very least calls into question your assertion that a Catholic’s belief in the 46 book canon contradicts what was believed and taught by “the Church… for 1500 years.”

     Re: Jerome’s Vulgate and usage between 450 A.D. and 1500 A.D., are there any historical accounts that you can recommend? As I mentioned, my understanding of the historical usage of Jerome’s Vulgate and the Church’s view toward the apocryphal books over this 1000 year period differs somewhat from yours. So, some recommended, unbiased (to the extent it ever fully can be) reading on this point would be interesting.

     I do believe you are correct that I was mistaken about Jerome having doubts about the canonicity of Hebrews. I was think about a couple of other early writers, as you suggested. Thank you for the correction!

     Just out of curiosity, do you think there is sufficient evidence of contradiction to warrant rejection of all 7 “extra” books (as well as the other books accepted by Eastern church) or just some of them?

     Thanks again for the discussion, Lojahw. Good luck with your class going forward!

     Blessings,

     Seeker of Truth

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

721. Lojahw March 1st, 2014 1:26 pm :

     Dear Seeker of Truth,
     Thank you for your comments and your well wishes. I hope you are as discriminating in your reading of the statements of the “Church” as you are in reading mine. You rightly point out that I slipped in #691 when I wrote “So for 1500 years the Church taught that the true OT canon contained 39 books.” I assume by now you have read my retraction in post #719? The truth is complex, as you have observed. There has never been a universally recognized canon of Scripture. The Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and Protestants all recognize a different canonical list of OT books.

     In light of the lack of agreement on the canon, Roman Catholics appeal to the authority of their “Magisterium,” which put its “infallible” stamp on the 44/46 book OT canon in 1546. The article claims that there is no other way for Christians to resolve the impasse between canons than to accept their authority. However, I believe that we *can* know quite a bit about the canon apart from the “Magisterium.” Moreover, based on the criteria of canonicity defined by the *founders* of the Church (Jesus, His disciples, and the OT Prophets), I believe that we can confidently include certain books and exclude others from the canon. Furthermore, based on applying these criteria to the disputed books, I believe we can conclude that the Council of Trent erred – and that their canon includes books that it is reasonable to deny inspiration by the Holy Spirit.

     For example (I do not claim this holds for all of the “deuteros”):
     1. The Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, has spoken through each of the authors of Scripture.
     2. Therefore all Scripture is true – “Your Word is Truth,” as Jesus affirmed.
     3. The Council of Trent declared the book of Judith to be Scripture.
     4. The book of Judith claims that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of Assyria, and that he ruled from Nineveh (Judith 1:1; cf. 1:7; 2:1, 4; 4:1, 3; 5:18).
     5. However, other books declared to be Scripture by Trent, as well as external historical sources, contradict Judith (e.g., 2 Kings 24:1; 2 Chron. 36:6; Ezra 2:1; Jer. 21:2; Ezek. 26:7; Dan. 1:1; etc.).
     6. Therefore, the book of Judith makes false claims and cannot be attributed to the Spirit of Truth, the Holy Spirit.
     7. Therefore, the book of Judith cannot be canonical.
     8. Therefore, the Council of Trent did not infallibly recognize the OT canon.

     In light of the above, I believe the criteria in #520 can reasonably resolve the differences among canons. There is not a single criterion that covers all Scripture, because God has spoken in “many portions and in many ways” to His people. It is reasonable that the “tie-breaker” for knowing the OT canon is the people to whom God revealed the OT: the Jews. As I mentioned in another post, I believe that the authority behind Josephus’ 22-book canon was the Great Sanhedrin which met in the “Hall of the Hewn Stones” of the second Temple (ca. 516 BC to AD 70). As I have also pointed out, the church fathers closest to the Apostles – for four centuries – strikingly appeal to a 22-book canon (albeit, with some confusion about the details). In contrast, Augustine’s 44-book canon (in 397) reflects a departure from two important canonical traditions held by the Church for the first four centuries: the 22-book OT canon and the recognition of both ‘ecclesiastical’ and ‘canonical’ books. Augustine and others who have agreed with him, in effect “moved the ancient boundary set by the fathers” (cf. Prov. 22:28).

     I wish you well in your ongoing search for truth.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

722. JohnD March 1st, 2014 9:36 pm :

     Lojahw (re: #721),

     4. The book of Judith claims that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of Assyria, and that he ruled from Nineveh (Judith 1:1; cf. 1:7; 2:1, 4; 4:1, 3; 5:18).
     5. However, other books declared to be Scripture by Trent, as well as external historical sources, contradict Judith (e.g., 2 Kings 24:1; 2 Chron. 36:6; Ezra 2:1; Jer. 21:2; Ezek. 26:7; Dan. 1:1; etc.).
     6. Therefore, the book of Judith makes false claims and cannot be attributed to the Spirit of Truth, the Holy Spirit.

     We’ve been down this road before. Apparent errors are not defeaters for the Catholic who has his faith rooted in what he believes is the Church that Christ founded. Since he has already made a decision that the Church is correct, he will find avenues to reconcile the errors (even if they seem strained). Here are two off-the-cuff solutions that I came up with:

     A) The writer of Judith did not intend certain people and place names to correspond directly to people and places of known history. More well-known names/places were chosen for a particular reason unknown to us.

     B) Out of fear or some other specific reason, a scribe changed the real name of the king to Nebuchadnezzar, and he used this throughout the book.

     This is the same way a Protestant might react to when an atheist claims there is a contradiction in the protocanon. Apparent errors cannot serve as defeaters for his belief that all Scripture is inspired.

     As I have also pointed out, the church fathers closest to the Apostles – for four centuries – strikingly appeal to a 22-book canon (albeit, with some confusion about the details). In contrast, Augustine’s 44-book canon (in 397) reflects a departure from two important canonical traditions held by the Church for the first four centuries: the 22-book OT canon and the recognition of both ‘ecclesiastical’ and ‘canonical’ books. Augustine and others who have agreed with him, in effect “moved the ancient boundary set by the fathers” (cf. Prov. 22:28).

     A few comments and questions about this.

     1. Can you explain the difference between ‘ecclesiastical’ and “canonical’ books on your view? Also, would the fact that codex Sinaiticus includes non-canonical books be additional evidence of this distinction in the early church?

     2. ”Augustine’s 44-book canon (in 397) reflects a departure…” I am curious about this because I’ve always heard the council of Rome in 382 cited as the first conciliar stamp of approval on the deuterocanonicals. If that is the case, then Augustine hadn’t even converted yet before these books were deemed canonical. Do you think the decision of this synod came out of utter confusion or disconnect with what was handed down?

     3. Given your established paradigm with a key distinction between ‘ecclesiastical’ and ‘canonical’, what type of (hypothetical?) evidence would qualify as counting in favor of including any of the deuteros in the canonical category?

     Peace,
     John D.

723. Jonathan Brumley March 1st, 2014 10:37 pm :

     Hi Lojahw, (Lover of Jesus and His Truth),

     Why do you think the supposed contradiction in Judith is more problematic than other verses which seem to contradict? Just to use a few examples that atheists bring up:

     * Numbers 25:9 (24,000 died of the plague) , 1 Corinthians 10:8 (23,000 died of the plague)
     * Matt 12:40 (Jesus was in the grave for 3 days and 3 nights), Mark 15:25 and other places, (Christ was in the grave 2 days and two nights)
     * 2 Sam 24:9 vs. 1 Chron 21:5 (The number of fighting men of Israel and Judah, reported by Joab)

     Is there a reason you find the harmonizations for this verse in Judith less credible than harmonizations which have been theorized for supposed contradictions in other books?

724. JohnD March 2nd, 2014 9:29 am :

     Jonathan (re: #723),

     I would advise against that approach of listing apparent errors in the protocanon, since you will never be able to show a protestant something he agrees is comparable. As Michuta points out (in the article I cited in #562), “no example will satisfy the Protestant objector since the only
     comparable example in the Protocanon would be a real error (since he believes Judith to contain errors). A Catholic who attempts to provide an example would play the Atheist taking pot shots a[t] the New
     Testament. “.

     Rather, I think we should continue to point out that apparent errors in the deuterocanon cannot be defeaters to someone who already believes the deuterocanon is inspired. At best, that approach would persuade someone who is agnostic about the deuterocanon.

     Peace,
     John D.

725. Lojahw March 2nd, 2014 11:18 pm :

     Hi JohnD,
     I don’t have much time, but re: Judith, you’re right, we went down that road before – and you are still hanging on to special pleading. You would not give the kinds of explanations you did in any other context.

     Re: your response to Jonathan – the difference is that Protestants don’t have to resort to special pleading to explain alleged contradictions in the canonical books.

     Re: ‘ecclesiastical’ vs ‘canonical’ – I addressed this in #699.
     Re: Augustine and the Council of Rome – I addressed this in #713, #596 and #698.
     Re: hypothetical evidence for the deuteros? Given #520, I can’t think of any. Based on Prov. 22:28, there would have to be reasonable evidence that they were recognized as canonical by the Jews in Jesus’ day (cf. Rom. 3:1-2).

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

726. Lojahw March 2nd, 2014 11:20 pm :

     Jonathan: Minor discrepancies in numbers would not impeach a witness in court, neither should they impeach the Biblical authors. There are a number of plausible explanations for the examples you cite – see the sources mentioned in #572.

     Re: Three days and three nights is a Hebraism that describes a three day period, not necessarily 72 hours. See Esther 4:16 (three days and three nights) and 5:1 (on the third day). We cannot judge the Jews for expressing things differently than we do; the same goes for genealogies, which the Jews use for literary – not chronological – purposes.

     Judith’s error is far more blatant than anything else that has been alleged in the 66 book canon. I have to suspend all reason and logic to accept what it says as true.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

727. Lojahw March 2nd, 2014 11:45 pm :

     JohnD,
     The problem with Michuta’s argument is its reliance on insipient “special knowledge” – i.e., that which can only be known and experienced by those who drink from the stream whose sole source is the RC Magisterium.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

728. Jonathan Brumley March 3rd, 2014 1:55 am :

     Hi Lojawh,

     Regarding this passage in Judith – have you exhausted all possible sources and still not found a compelling explanation? Or have you researched this sufficiently such that you can confidently reject the deuterocanonicals without further prayer and research?

     Jonathan

729. Jonathan Brumley March 3rd, 2014 1:57 am :

     Re: JohnD,

     Good point, and thanks for pointing out this earlier comment I missed.

     Jonathan

730. Seeker of Truth March 3rd, 2014 2:18 pm :

     Dear Lojahw,

     Thank you for the thoughtful reply.

     “Thank you for your comments and your well wishes. I hope you are as discriminating in your reading of the statements of the “Church” as you are in reading mine.”

     Touche! I will certainly be very discriminating in analyzing the claims the Roman Catholic Church (and the EO Church(es). and protestant churches).

     “You rightly point out that I slipped in #691 when I wrote “So for 1500 years the Church taught that the true OT canon contained 39 books.” I assume by now you have read my retraction in post #719? The truth is complex, as you have observed. There has never been a universally recognized canon of Scripture. The Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and Protestants all recognize a different canonical list of OT books.”
     I did read that comment after I posted mine. I just wanted to be clear, because I thought you had backed off the claim earlier, but then restated it. After #719, I think I understand you and we are on the same page.

     “Moreover, based on the criteria of canonicity defined by the *founders* of the Church (Jesus, His disciples, and the OT Prophets), I believe that we can confidently include certain books and exclude others from the canon. Furthermore, based on applying these criteria to the disputed books, I believe we can conclude that the Council of Trent erred – and that their canon includes books that it is reasonable to deny inspiration by the Holy Spirit.”

     Just so I understand you, are you making the stronger claim that if a fair minded person looked at the potential canonical books, using your criteria for canonicity, they would logically conclude that all of the books in the 66 book canon were definitely “in” and all of the books not in the 66 book canon were definitely “out” (i.e., definitely excluding both those books that RC, EO, OO accept but protestants don’t and excluding those none of those groups accept but that some Christians do or did at some point in history). Or, are you making the weaker claim that this hypothetical reasonable person, using your criteria for canonicty, would definitely exclude at least SOME of the RC/EO/OO books (although maybe not all of them), but would not be required to exclude any of the protestant books (this doesn’t mean he would necessarily be required to include all the 66 books, just that under your theory of canonicty, that he would not be required to exclude any of them).

     “In light of the above, I believe the criteria in #520 can reasonably resolve the differences among canons. There is not a single criterion that covers all Scripture, because God has spoken in “many portions and in many ways” to His people.”

     I understand that this is the criteria you have determined for accurately determining canonicity. However, as one raised in the protestant tradition, I have three concerns about this approach:

     1. It seems post-hoc. When protestants set up these criteria, it seems they select the criteria to get the books they have already determined they want, instead of philosophically selecting criteria, and then applying them to all possible books and choosing that which fits. Perhaps it is unreasonable to expect protestants not to do this, but it has always bothered me.

     2. Second, even assuming the crtieria are appropriate, the application of the criteria seems selective. That is, the criteria are applied more harshly to books that the protestant knows “should not” be in the canon, and much more loosely (or forgivingly) to those that he knows “should” be.

     3. I think your criteria are very well thought out. However, each other protestant when addressing this issue comes up with a different set of critera. How do we know which criteria are correct?

     So, while protestants talk like they have an independent “algorithm” based on reasonable criteria for selecting the canon, which they just fairly apply to all possible canonical books and it just so happens that the 66 book canon “pops” out of that algorithm, that description of what they are doing strains credulity when looking at how this actually happens in practice.

     “I wish you well in your ongoing search for truth.”
     Thank you again for your thoughtful comments and your contributions to that search.

     Blessings,

     Seeker of Truth

731. Seeker of Truth March 3rd, 2014 2:37 pm :

     Lojahw,

     As a quick foll0w-up to my above post, one possible set of responses a protestant could make to my three above concerns is:

     1. It genuinely isn’t post-hoc, even thought it might appear that way.
     2. I did apply the criteria fairly and equally to all possible books, and the 66 book canon did pop out.
     3. I can’t explain (or defend) other protestants that have substantially different criteria. But, mine are right and theirs are wrong, so tell me what is wrong with my criteria or how I applied them.

     If those are a protestant’s response (and I have heard variations on those responses on a number of different occasions), you can at least understand why a fair minded person would wonder if this is really the way that Jesus planned for “christianity to be run” so that “they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in Me, and I in You.” John 17:21.

732. JohnD March 3rd, 2014 11:00 pm :

     Lojahw (re: #725),

     you’re right, we went down that road before – and you are still hanging on to special pleading. You would not give the kinds of explanations you did in any other context.

     Guilty as charged. I don’t deny that my off-the-cuff proposals are special pleading. However, it is appropriate to employ such special pleading when a person has more fundamental commitments that lead to the conclusion that Judith contains no absolute errors as opposed to apparent errors.

     So, I think my argument (from Michuta) still stands; adducing apparent errors cannot settle the question of canonicity one way or the other.

     Perhaps you will again reply, “They can settle the question if the apparent errors require special pleading in order to reconcile them.” But that is false, since I could easily concoct a scenario that seems like special pleading and actually turns out to be true.

     BTW, I fully realize this is not a positive case for the deuterocanon. I’m just honestly surprised that you don’t agree with Michuta’s point here. It seems uncontroversial.

     Peace,
     John D.

733. Lojahw March 4th, 2014 12:47 am :

     Dear Seeker of Truth, I hope the following (limited as it is) is helpful:

     “Moreover, based on the criteria of canonicity defined by the *founders* of the Church (Jesus, His disciples, and the OT Prophets), I believe that we can confidently include certain books and exclude others from the canon. Furthermore, based on applying these criteria to the disputed books, I believe we can conclude that the Council of Trent erred – and that their canon includes books that it is reasonable to deny inspiration by the Holy Spirit.”

     You ask if the above is the stronger claim that a fair minded person using the criteria in #520 would logically and definitely conclude the 66 book canon, or the weaker claim, that #520 would definitely exclude at least SOME of the extra RC/EO/OO books. The answer has to be qualified: I believe that #520 rigorously followed supports the stronger claim; however, I don’t expect every “fair minded person” to rigorously follow #520. Therefore, I would expect fair minded persons who, in general, honestly follow #520, to definitely exclude at least some of the extra RC/EO/OO books. From this, I conclude that the RC/EO/OO canons are fallible and require emendation according to criteria not utilized by those who made their canonical decisions.

     To your questions:
     1. Ad hoc? Although my articulation may seem unique, every element in #520 is attested by or can be deduced from the founders of the Church (Jesus, the Apostles and the Prophets), the church fathers, and the Reformers. Is there anything in particular that seems ad hoc to you?

     2. Selective? I don’t think so – much of my 200+ page thesis on canonicity dealt with the challenges raised against the 66 books. Moreover, I believe my responses to challenges raised in this combox demonstrate that I am willing and able to defend the 66 books according to #520.

     3. How do you know a particular set of criteria is correct?
     First, the criteria must recognize the canonicity of books declared to be Scripture by Jesus, His disciples (and their Jewish contemporaries), and the OT prophets.
     Second, the criteria must be reasonably supported by the teaching of Jesus, the Apostles, and the Prophets (e.g., exclude criteria such as churches voting on books “which are not received by all,” and “accounts of the wonderful sufferings of certain martyrs”).
     Third, the criteria must affirm all the marks of canonicity identified by Jesus and the other founders of the church (e.g., God’s word is truth, God’s word is everlasting, God’s word is holy, God’s word is inalterable).
     Fourth, the criteria must be able to account for the canonicity of all the books held by “all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1:2). (This recognizes the role of the Holy Spirit – who indwells all of Christ’s flock – leading the Body of Christ into all truth.)
     Fifth, the criteria can be applied consistently to books both inside and outside of the canon. An example of a criterion that fails this test frequently cited by scholars is: “associated with the Apostles” – this is not implied by Jesus or any of the Apostles, and it fails the consistency test: Clement of Rome, Polycarp, etc. were all associated with the Apostles, but their works are not therefore considered canonical.

     Your last comment about criteria judged by conformity to practice puts the cart before the horse. Practice makes a poor beacon of truth.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

734. Lojahw March 4th, 2014 1:07 am :

     Dear JohnD,
     I’m surprised that you defend special pleading when discussing truth. Do you really believe that?

     The problem I have with the implied “more fundamental commitment” in this case is that depends on circular reasoning. One trusts the infallibility of an authority solely on the basis that it asserts it is infallible.

     How can one tell the difference between apparent errors and real errors?

     BTW – I agree with Michuta that most of the challenges to the veracity of the protocanonical books by RCs seem like playing the Atheist taking pot shots a[t] the New Testament.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

735. Seeker of Truth March 4th, 2014 3:15 pm :

     Hi Lojahw (re: 733),

     Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I understand your perspective, and the responses you gave to my three concerns are similar to the responses that other protestants have given (as I mentioned and outlined in 731).

     As someone raised in the Protestant tradition and now genuinely seeking truth, I have a hard time seeing this explanation of the canon as the way Jesus intended it to be, based on the realities of human disagreements and the history of the Church and competing claims of canonicity.

     As someone who has done some honest digging into how the early church decided which books were canonical and which ones were not, I have found it is not as easy as one would think (or it is sometimes portrayed) to just “fairly” apply a set of principals to various early texts to determine whether they should be in the canon or not. Psychologists talk a lot about the “hindsight bias,” where we think that things that previously happened or were chosen are “obvious” in retrospect. Hindsight is always 20/20, as they say.
     https://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/i-knew-it-all-along-didnt-i-understanding-hindsight-bias.html

     There is a certain view among certain protestants that “of course these books were going to be chosen by the Christian community.” It is just so “obvious.” So, any attempt to look back at history and see why protestants chose to include certain books and exclude others is seen through this lens. I can see how, from a non-protestants perspective, this “independent” application of a set of criteria just looks like a case of “Aha, I knew it all along.”

     This, when coupled with the confirmation bias, plays a fairly large role in what happens when Protestants say they “independently” applied a set of criteria to all potential books and out popped the 66 book canon that they originally believed in in the first place. To put it another way, you will often find protestants, who believe in the 66 book canon, apply this method “fairly.” Then, it just so happen, the criteria will lead them to accept the books they were already philosophically (or pragmatically) committed to accepting and reject the books they were already philosophically (or pragmatically) committed to rejecting. However, I don’t think I have ever seen a Catholic or an EO or an OO (or a secular scholar) take a set of criteria for determining canonicity, fairly apply it, and come out with the 66 book canon. The incentive is clearly strongly to find evidence and interpret data in a way to confirm your own belief in the 66 book canon (as is the Catholic’s incentive to confirm their believe).

     If your stronger claim is really true, don’t you think there would be at least “some” fair-minded non-protestants to come to this same conclusion about the 66 book canon?

     In other words,there are definitely Catholics (and EO, and OO) who become protestant for a whole host of reasons, but I don’t think I have ever heard of one becoming protestant because of a “fair-minded” application of a determination of the canon.

     I understand your perspective and that you genuinely believe that this 66 book canon really does come about from a fair application of reasonable criteria. However, even if you think that your method is clearly the correct one, can you at least see how some other fair-minded people would have some doubts about this method? Maybe not.

     Finally, I have to confess I don’t understand what you mean by this statement:

     “Your last comment about criteria judged by conformity to practice puts the cart before the horse. Practice makes a poor beacon of truth.”

     Blessings,

     Seeker of Truth

736. JohnD March 4th, 2014 11:33 pm :

     Lojahw (re: #734),

     I’m surprised that you defend special pleading when discussing truth. Do you really believe that?

     I don’t subscribe to special pleading as a good and dandy thing in general. Rather, the particular context explained in #732, I don’t think it is a problem that my off-the-cuff explanations (or even more-researched scholarly explanations which I did not reference) seem like special pleading. Most important, I think my main thesis (essentially taken from Michuta) still stands: adducing apparent errors cannot settle the question of canonicity one way or the other. At best, the method of adducing apparent errors could persuade someone who is agnostic about the inspiration of a text, but it ought not to persuade one who already has more fundamental reasons for believing that the text is inspired or not inspired. If you think I am incorrect in that analysis, I would like to hear why, because I think it is uncontroversial.

     The problem I have with the implied “more fundamental commitment” in this case is that depends on circular reasoning. One trusts the infallibility of an authority solely on the basis that it asserts it is infallible.

     I don’t think I’ve argued that way, and I don’t think that sentiment is displayed by the contributors of CtC (see, for example, the motives of credibility thread).

     How can one tell the difference between apparent errors and real errors?

     It depends what text is being examined and what presuppositions are brought to it. If a text is already accepted as God’s word, then there is no way to discern an error, since everything the original author affirms is affirmed by the Holy Spirit, who cannot lie. If a text is uninspired and/or unprotected from error, then it could be examined with various linguistic and historical tools.

     Peace,
     John D.

737. Lojahw March 5th, 2014 10:29 am :

     Dear Seeker of Truth, Thank you for your thoughts. Since the Season of Lent starts today, this will be my last post until we have all proclaimed: He is risen! Christ is risen, indeed!

     I agree with you that the canon is not obvious, otherwise Christians would have all agreed since the beginning. On the other hand, some things are obvious (or should be to all Christians). For example, if Luke accurately records what Jesus said, the Old Testament Scriptures must include the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.

     Likewise, if Jesus and the founders of the Church affirm the canonicity of certain books, then whatever those books teach must be authoritative. For example, Jesus and the Psalmist assert that God’s word is truth. Therefore, any book that teaches what is obviously false cannot be Scripture. In response, JohnD argues that the author of the book of Judith must have had “a good reason” for asserting that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of Assyria and that he ruled from Nineveh. However, neither he nor anyone else I’ve discussed this with has come up with a reasonable explanation. Michuta’s response is that if you believe a book is canonical, you cannot question it – but that’s circular reasoning (which in turn is based on circular reasoning that the RC “Magisterium” infallibly declared Judith to be canonical based on its own assertion of its infallibility). The Apostles teach us to test what is taught (Gal. 1:8-9) and to test the spirits (1 John 4:1). Is it the Spirit of Truth or a spirit of error that is speaking?

     I challenged JohnD to explain why Judith should be taken as an apparent error vs. a real error. The difference between these is critical in the discernment of canonicity. An apparent error has a reasonable or plausible explanation, whereas a real error does not. I assert that the statement in Judith is a real and obvious error. In contrast, every alleged “obvious” contradiction in the 66 books that has been brought forward so far has a reasonable explanation. (And, Michuta is right that a RC making accusations against the 66 books is to play the role of the Atheist.)

     As for the differences, I did an intensive historical study to understand them and why they occurred, what made them persist, and how they might be resolved. You say you have done some “honest digging into how the early church decided which books were canonical and which ones were not.” Do you understand why they said the things they said? For example, why did all of the church fathers for the first four centuries who published OT canons claim a “twenty-two book” canon? Do you also know why they disagreed on minor details of those “twenty-two” books? Could it be that they were trying to follow a tradition based on a language they did not speak?

     Have you studied the church fathers before Augustine? Do you understand why he broke with the “twenty-two” book tradition? What is the basis for his criteria of canonicity? As JohnD said, people often develop “more fundamental commitments” than to a particular canon, and it is such commitments that influence their judgment. In Augustine’s case, I believe it was his belief that the entire LXX was divinely inspired – that the translators actually functioned as prophets – and therefore he rejected Jerome’s project to limit his translation to the Hebrew text and to limit the canon to the Hebrew “twenty-two books.” But is Augustine’s assumption about the LXX valid? If so, why didn’t he argue for all 50+ books in the collection?

     Unless you understand WHY things happened in the past, you will not learn the lessons of history. That’s what I meant by my last statement – the “practice” of Augustine and those who agreed with him conflicted with the “criteria of canonicity” given by the founders of the Church. (It is telling that Augustine himself says the purity of the canon does not admit pseudonymous works, and yet he turns around and accepts the Wisdom of Solomon – which he himself admits is pseudonymous!). He said churches should vote for canonicity on books for which not everyone agreed – and so, that’s what Rome did. But truth is not determined by a vote.

     I encourage you to keep seeking the truth, and be blessed this Lent and Easter season!

     Lojahw

738. JohnD March 5th, 2014 10:32 pm :

     Lojahw (re: #737),

     I don’t think anything you said refutes my main thesis in this discussion about errors: adducing apparent errors cannot settle the question of canonicity one way or the other. At best, the method of adducing apparent errors could persuade someone who is agnostic about the inspiration of a text. I think this thesis is uncontroversial. If a person has a fundamental commitment to the inspiration of a text, then he will not (and ought not) simply discard his fundamental belief when he encounters an apparent error (even one that looks obviously erroneous). Your only response so far is to restate how outrageous and obvious the error is, which means it can’t possibly be reconciled or harmonized with the rest of the biblical data. However, that does not refute my thesis at all, as I will show below.

     An apparent error has a reasonable or plausible explanation, whereas a real error does not. I assert that the statement in Judith is a real and obvious error.

     This is insufficient, since the reasonableness or plausibility of a particular harmonization will be greatly affected (determined?) by a person’s more fundamental commitments. In other words, to someone who accepts Judith as canonical, the possible solutions I listed in#722 will seem plausible/reasonable, while for you they do not.

     Your description of real vs. apparent errors is not entirely off base, but it is insufficient in discussing the canonicity/inspiration of a book. As I said before, I could easily concoct an apparent error for which the proposed solutions seemed wildly implausible and unreasonable, yet one of those solutions actually turns out to be true!

     I know you said you will not respond during Lent, so I wish you well (and will pray for you) and you can respond at your leisure when Easter rolls around.

     Peace,
     John D.

739. Jonathan Brumley March 6th, 2014 12:42 am :

     I assert that the statement in Judith is a real and obvious error.

     I’ve been looking into this some more, and it seems the most common theory (by Martin Luther, some Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and some Jews) is that the author purposely portrayed Nebuchadnezzar as King of Assyria in order to indicate the fictional nature of the story.

     This is from the online Jewish encyclopedia:

     The book begins with a date, “the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar,” and everything moves with the air of a precise account of actual events. But the way in which the narrative at once makes open sport of chronology and history is very striking. Nebuchadnezzar is the king of Assyria, and reigns in Nineveh(!). The Jews, who have “newly returned from the captivity” (iv. 3, v. 19), are in no sense his subjects; indeed, his chief captain has apparently never heard of them (v. 3). Yet the writer of this story was a well-informed man, familiar with foreign geography (i. 6-10, ii. 21-28), and well acquainted with the Hebrew Scriptures (i. 1; ii. 23; v. 6-19; viii. 1, 26; ix. 2 et seq.). It must therefore be concluded either that the principal names of the story are a mere disguise, or that they were chosen with a purely literary purpose, and with the intent to disclaim at the outset any historical verity for the tale. The former supposition is not rendered plausible by any consideration, and fails utterly to account for the peculiarities of the narrative; the latter, on the contrary, gives a satisfactory explanation of all the facts. That is, with the very first words of the tale, “In the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who reigned over the Assyrians in Nineveh,” the narrator gives his hearers a solemn wink. They are to understand that this is fiction, not history. It did not take place in this or that definite period of Jewish history, but simply “once upon a time,” the real vagueness of the date being transparently disguised in the manner which has become familiar in the folk-tales of other parts of the world.

     If author of Judith did not intend it to be a historical account, but rather a story expressing the feelings of the Jewish nation, then the book should be understood more like the Psalms, the Song of Solomon, or like Jesus’s parables, rather than as a historical account like 1 and 2 Chronicles.

740. Lojahw April 20th, 2014 8:44 pm :

     Dear JohnD,
     He is risen! Christ is risen, indeed!

     Your argument re: “more fundamental commitments” reminds me of my conversations with a Muslim imam. Because of his prior “determination” of the inspiration of the Qur’an, he refuses to question anything the Qur’an says. That may work within his closed system, but he has to decide how to reconcile conflicts between the Qur’an and the Bible, particularly in light of the Qur’an’s teaching that the Bible itself – revealed prior to the Qur’an – also claims to be the truth. Similarly, a Roman Catholic’s “prior commitment” to Judith entails even more fundamental commitments than his commitment to the inspiration of Judith, such as the authority of Christ, who personally endorses Daniel and other proto-canonical books that precede and contradict what Judith says about Nebuchadnezzar. Paul addresses this principle in Gal. 1:8-9. It is always prudent to test sources of “inspired teaching” against prior revelation.

     Contradictory statements by Daniel and Judith cannot both be true. A Roman Catholic cannot use the argument that Muslims use regarding conflicts between divine sources (i.e., that the Bible has been corrupted). As a result, Michuta and others resort to special pleading – arguments that are not reasonable and/or are not plausible. Calling something an “apparent error” simply because there is no rational explanation raises serious questions about the prior “determination” of inspiration.

     Because Judith’s flaws are undeniable, the argument shifts to the credibility of the authority which wants to simply dismiss them in deference to its own authority. JohnD, instead of beating around the bush, please address the real question: what did Jesus mean when He, on the night he was betrayed, promised the apostles that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all the truth? What makes you think Jesus promised the Church (which was not yet born when the promise was made) would always teach the truth? The argument typically goes something like this: the Church interprets Jesus’ promise to mean that the Church is infallible, therefore its official pronouncements on faith and morals for all the faithful (such as on the canon) must be true. The obvious circularity of this argument, however, destroys the credibility of any statement the Church makes which does not correspond with reality (such as those made by the book of Judith about Nebuchadnezzar).

     Please also read my response to Jonathan.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

741. Lojahw April 20th, 2014 8:48 pm :

     Dear Jonathan,
     He is risen! Christ is risen, indeed!

     Thank you for your comments on Judith. It is telling that there is no legitimate literary genre or parallel to which Judith may be compared. There is no serious “once upon a time” tale that uses the device found in Judith. Even fairy tales and legends avoid the kind of mangled historical references found in Judith. Jesus’ parables, which are intentionally timeless, have nothing in common with Judith. Moreover, historical fiction places plausible characters and events in recognizable historical settings – unlike Judith. Furthermore, even parody, such as Voltaire’s Candide, has nothing in common with Judith. Consequently, however one characterizes Judith, either it should not be taken seriously (and therefore, not considered canonical) OR it should be taken seriously (and if so, it lacks credibility – and therefore, cannot be canonical). Since Judith is not trustworthy it has no place in the canon. If, as Paul says, stewards of the mysteries of God must be found trustworthy, how much more should the sources of those mysteries (holy Scripture) be found trustworthy?

     Judith is not even in the same league as Psalms, the Song of Solomon, and Jesus’ parables. To claim otherwise would be like placing the Gospel of Thomas alongside the Gospel of John or of Mark as an equal. “Every word of God is tested . . . Do not add to His words or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar” (Prov. 30:5-6). Whoever claims Judith is God’s Word has the burden of proof that Judith preserves the divinely revealed canonical criteria (e.g., truth, holiness, endures forever, and inalterable), and is not merely a story expressing the feelings of the Jewish nation.

     Please also read my post responding to JohnD.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

742. Jonathan Brumley April 21st, 2014 11:44 am :

     Hi Lojahw,

     If I can boil down your argument, you are saying that Judith doesn’t seem to you like parable, legend, historical fiction, or parody; therefore the writer must have intended to relate history. And the author, though intending to relate true history, begins the book with a historical error of the greatest possible magnitude.

     If I understanding you correctly, then the problem I have with this argument is that the conclusion is absurd. We can’t reasonably believe that that a Jewish writer in this time period intended to relate true history and yet began the “history” by confusing the two greatest enemies of the Jewish people (Nebudchanezzar and the kingdom of Assyria).

743. Lojahw April 21st, 2014 10:02 pm :

     Thank you for your comments, Jonathan. You assume Judith was written by a Jew. How do you know it was not written by a Jewish sympathizer? Mohammad wrote lots of sympathetic, but mangled stories about Jewish people and events. The large body of “good intentioned” teaching based on Biblical and non-biblical stories in the Qur’an has no credibility because it contradicts earlier trusted sources – the Scriptures.

     You also ignored my second observation: Judith does not rise to the level of any of the canonical Scriptures you mentioned. There is no precedent for recognizing a mere story expressing the feelings of the Jewish nation as canonical.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

744. Jonathan Brumley April 22nd, 2014 4:33 pm :

     Hi Lojahw,

     You assume Judith was written by a Jew. How do you know it was not written by a Jewish sympathizer?

     Good point, I am making that assumption. However, Wikipedia says the book was “likely written by a Jew”, but even if it wasn’t – does that make the conclusion less absurd, that someone at the time of its writing, intending to write history, started their “history” with a tremendous error like this? Or isn’t it much more likely that the book was not intended as a history, but was intended as a different genre, like many believe?

     There is no precedent for recognizing a mere story expressing the feelings of the Jewish nation as canonical.

     The Psalms express feelings, and we recognize them as canonical. And Judith culminates in a hymn of thanksgiving much like other psalms.

     Otherwise, I’m not sure what to make of this criteria that there must be “precedence” for a specific genre to be in the canon.

745. Lojahw April 22nd, 2014 7:09 pm :

     Thank you again for your comments, Jonathan. My answer yesterday left out an important point. Your argument rests on the absurdity of a serious Jewish author making such an obvious error; however, my earlier post addressed both the serious author who contradicts the truth and the author who does not want to be taken seriously. I said that the latter – an author, who as you describe it, is writing “tongue-in-cheek” – should not be taken seriously, and therefore, has no place among the books of unquestioned authority.

     “Don’t take what I am writing seriously, but *wink-wink* it carries God’s divine authority.” Have you thought about that absurdity?

     BTW – the Greek original ends Judith’s genealogy in ch. 8 with “son of Salamiel, son of Sarasadae, son of Israel.” What Jew would not be offended by identifying Sarasadae as one of the twelve sons of Israel??? Jerome “cleaned it up” to end with “son of Salathiel, son of Simeon, son of Ruben.” So by your reckoning which represents the canonical text: the EO version or the Latin Vulgate?

     You still miss the point about the Psalms – if all you see in them is expressions of Jewish feelings, you are reading them too shallowly. Why did Jesus quote them as prophesying about Himself if they were merely about human feelings?

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

746. Jonathan Brumley April 24th, 2014 3:44 pm :

     Hi Lojahw,

     I do see that you addressed both possibilities of a writer who “wants to be taken seriously” and a writer who is writing in a different genre (“tongue-in-cheek”, as you describe it).

     Something shouldn’t be in scripture if it does not communicate revealed Truth. I think we can agree on this. For instance, the Psalms express not only prophecies of Christ, but also Truths about God and man, in poetic form. CCC 107 summarizes what Catholics should believe about sacred scripture:

     The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

     Furthermore, the catechism says this in CCC 109-110:

     In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.

     In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. “For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.”

     So I think your argument against the inclusion of Judith in the canon rests on your claim that Judith is “merely” an expression of Jewish feelings, and that the story in no way expresses the Truth which God wishes to reveal to us in scripture.

     If this is your claim, then where do we go from here? Do you want to argue that Judith, if not a history, is “merely” an expression of Jewish patriotic feelings? Or do you want me to point out things in the book that I think show Truths about God and man? Or should we look at what Tradition says about the value of this book and wherein lies the inspiration and value for its inclusion in the canon?

     Jonathan

747. Christie April 25th, 2014 7:54 pm :

     Dear Tom,

     I’m curious — do you know why the Eastern Orthodox have more than 73 books in their canon? And does their lack of adherence to Trent create the same issue for them as it does for Protestants, in terms of a ‘fallible book of infallible books’?

     Sincerely,

     Christie

748. Tom Brown April 25th, 2014 8:59 pm :

     Dear Christie,

     As I understand it, there are different canonical collections in use by different groups of Eastern Orthodox Christians. That Eastern Orthodox Christians may not consider Trent to be binding on the canon does not create for them the same problem that rejecting general councils creates for Protestants. It’s an interesting analysis.

     It seems to me that the Council of Trent is rather besides the point when you compare an Eastern Orthodox view of authority (in communicating saving truth) with a Protestant (sola scriptura) view of authority. Even without Trent, the Orthodox Christian is able to levy the same critique as the Catholic against sola scriptura, and can make the same argument about the untenability of a fallible collection of infallible books. That is because both Orthodox and Catholic believe that teaching authority flows through the office of the Bishop. (They differ in their belief about how Bishops settle disagreements, of course, and specifically the role of the successor of St. Peter, but that’s another matter.)

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

749. Lojahw April 26th, 2014 4:31 pm :

     Dear Jonathan: “where do we go from here?”

     It seems to me that you do not yet fully appreciate the distinction between the authoritative Word of God for all posterity (canonicity) and other sacred literature. All legitimate sacred literature shows truths about God and man, but that alone does not make it divinely authoritative. See #520 for how one can distinguish canonical books from other sacred literature.

     As for what Tradition says about the value of Judith, why was it virtually ignored by the church fathers for four centuries if now it is indispensable as God’s Word? Such an argument is merely relativism: what was not indispensable Truth for four centuries of the Church’s life is now. Really??

     What is your argument that the Apostles considered Judith to be canonical? If you have no such argument, on what grounds is its canonicity an integral part of the Apostolic faith and the Apostolic Church? (I grant that the Apostles probably were familiar with Judith, but so was Paul with many non-canonical works – and he even quoted them, but not Judith!)

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

750. Lojahw April 26th, 2014 4:35 pm :

     Dear Tom,

     In your response to Christie, you wrote:

     because both Orthodox and Catholic believe that teaching authority flows through the office of the Bishop. (They differ in their belief about how Bishops settle disagreements, of course, and specifically the role of the successor of St. Peter, but that’s another matter.)

     Since there has never been agreement by all bishops in the Body of Christ, your assertion of their teaching authority on this subject is inadequate. Moreover, any assertion that the authority of the successor of Peter and those who agree with him (i.e., are in communion with him) is sufficient to settle such disagreements is special pleading. On this, EO and Protestants agree.

     If you believe the Holy Spirit leads the Church into the Truth, why is the only universal agreement of the Body of Christ on Scripture that has stood the test of time, i.e., the canonicity of the 66 books, not enough? Of course, the EO believe that an Ecumenical Council is required to officially recognize binding dogma, and no such Ecumenical Council has done that re: the canon. (Neither Trent nor Florence got the Eastern vote on the canon, ergo, neither qualifies as Ecumenical.)

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

751. JohnD April 26th, 2014 9:38 pm :

     Lojahw (re: #740),

     Thanks for the reply, but I still don’t think you’ve given any reason to reject my main thesis in #732, #736, and #738 is wrong. That thesis was: adducing apparent errors cannot settle the question of canonicity one way or the other. At best, the method of adducing apparent errors could persuade someone who is agnostic about the inspiration of a text. At least 5 times you assume that Judith contains a real error as opposed to an apparent error:

     …that precede and contradict what Judith says about Nebuchadnezzar.

     Contradictory statements by Daniel and Judith cannot both be true.

     Because Judith’s flaws are undeniable

     Calling something an “apparent error” simply because there is no rational explanation

     destroys the credibility of any statement the Church makes which does not correspond with reality (such as those made by the book of Judith about Nebuchadnezzar)

     All of those statements beg the question. In response, I deny that Judith contains a real error or a statement that has “no rational explanation”. I gave two possible (though general) explanations in #722. Here’s also a snippet from Jonathan’s post that I find reasonable, “It must therefore be concluded either that the principal names of the story are a mere disguise, or that they were chosen with a purely literary purpose, and with the intent to disclaim at the outset any historical verity for the tale.” In order to declare the error is irresolvable, you would have to show that all of those explanations are false, which is a seemingly impossible task given the data we have.

     JohnD, instead of beating around the bush, please address the real question: what did Jesus mean when He, on the night he was betrayed, promised the apostles that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all the truth? What makes you think Jesus promised the Church (which was not yet born when the promise was made) would always teach the truth? The argument typically goes something like this: the Church interprets Jesus’ promise to mean that the Church is infallible, therefore its official pronouncements on faith and morals for all the faithful (such as on the canon) must be true.

     This is not directly relevant to the discussion. If you want to argue that it’s wrong to have fundamental commitments to the magisterium, there are many places on this website to do so. My point is: given the existence of more fundamental commitments, the question of canonicity cannot be settled by proof-texting apparent errors.

     Peace,
     John D.

752. Christie April 26th, 2014 11:10 pm :

     Tom,

     Thanks for answering my questions! Do you know where I can find information about the canon formation in the Eastern Orthodox church? I just assumed they accepted Hippo, Carthage, etc., and am curious as to how and when they ended up with more books.

     But before Trent the canon was not dogmatically defined, so before Trent it couldn’t have been a infallible collection of infallible books. If they don’t accept Trent then they don’t have a dogmatic/infallible closing of the canon, do they? Just because the adhere to the authority of bishops at regions councils doesn’t mean those councils were protected from error as in a valid ecumenical council ratified by the pope. So I don’t see how they don’t run into the same problem as Protestants.

     –Christie

753. Lojahw April 27th, 2014 9:24 am :

     Thank you for your comments, JohnD.
     You wrote:

     My point is: given the existence of more fundamental commitments, the question of canonicity cannot be settled by proof-texting apparent errors.

     By your argument, one’s personal commitments determine the difference between apparent errors and real errors. Ergo, truth is relative to one’s viewpoint and there is no objective way to distinguish truth from error. One person’s truth is another person’s apparent error. Is that what you are saying?

     And what is your explanation re: the Greek original ending Judith’s genealogy in ch. 8 with “son of Salamiel, son of Sarasadae, son of Israel.” Jerome “cleaned it up” to end with “son of Salathiel, son of Simeon, son of Ruben.” By your reckoning which represents the canonical text: the EO version or the Latin Vulgate?

     Going back to my posts to Jonathan: either the author of Judith intended to be taken seriously, and therefore is in error, OR the author wrote “tongue-in-cheek,” in which case, one should take what he writes with a grain of salt. However, whatever has unquestionable authority – as inspired by the Holy Spirit – is not to be taken with a grain of salt. As Jesus said, “Scripture cannot be broken.” Ergo, Judith is either in error, and thus not canonical, or is not to be taken seriously, and thus not canonical.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

754. Lojahw April 27th, 2014 3:28 pm :

     A couple more thoughts for JohnD:
     To be committed to Judith’s canonicity as a binding dogma is also an example of temporal relativism. Prior to Augustine, not a single church father argued that Judith should be part of the canon (Hilary of Poitiers ca. 360 is the only other church father who commented on Judith with respect to the canon, and then only to say that there were some who supported a 24 book canon – the number of letters in the Greek alphabet – and they included it, but he himself held a 22 book canon). Only after 1546 was the canonicity of Judith made binding – and then only by 24 of 57 delegates (15 against, 18 abstained) voting at the Council of Trent. It is interesting that Rome considers a plurality of so few bishops to bind the whole church. Even then, Judith’s canonicity is only binding for those loyal to Rome. Because the canonicity of Judith was not an article of faith before 1546, it was therefore reasonable and prudent to question its veracity for the first 1500 years of Christianity. To argue that it is improper to question Judith’s veracity after 1500 years raises other legitimate questions about the authority who declared it to be so.

     Your position also entails a gnostic-like epistemology: one must be committed to a special truth – which only Rome possesses – to be convinced that Judith did not error in claiming Nebuchadnezzar was the king of Assyria, who ruled from Nineveh. Without such enlightenment from Rome, there is no rational basis for arguing that this is not an error – or that it should be excused as a literary device for some unknown purpose.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

755. Seeker of Truth April 28th, 2014 11:14 am :

     Dear Lojahw,

     Good to see you again. I hope you had a blessed lent and Easter! The Lord is risen!

     I don’t want to sidetrack this discussion you are having with JohnD, but one comment you made brought up something similar to what we had discussed before. You said:

     “Even then, Judith’s canonicity is only binding for those loyal to Rome.”

     My understanding is that Judith is considered canonical, not only by Catholics in union with the Pope, but also by Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, etc and all Christians except protestants (at least this chart on wikipedia seems to think so):
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Eastern_Church

     If that is right, out of around 2 billion Christians worldwide, about 600-750M reject Judith (1/3) and 1.35 billion (2/3) accept it (just rough estimates).
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members#Largest_denominations_in_the_world

     That doesn’t necessarily answer the question of whether it should be canonical or not, but it does seem to directly contradict your claim that “only those loyal to Rome” accept it and your implication that the Catholic Church is the outlier. If you looked at worldwide Christians today, it seems like Protestants are the outlier (maybe correctly) in whether they accept Judith as canonical. Perhaps I misunderstood the point.

     The only reason I mention it, is because this goes back to the discussion we had earlier about whether the Catholic Church and the Council of Trent are the outliers and go off on a limb in accepting the so-called apocryphal books. I think you make interest points and raise good questions about why it should or should not be accepted as canonical. However, when you start making (what seem to be false) claims about how the Catholic Church and the Council of Trent is “outside the mainstream” or implying that “only” those loyal to Rome accept this book, it detracts from your other good points and questions you are raising. Again, perhaps I am misunderstanding the point.

     Blessing,

     Seeker of Truth

756. Lojahw April 29th, 2014 11:53 pm :

     Hi Christie,
     A short answer to your question about the EO canon is to look at the ancient Bible Codices, especially the fifth century Codex Alexandrinus, which contains all the books recognized by the EO. Because there was no Ecumenical Council, they cite Tradition as the authority for their canon.

     However, basing the canon on the ancient Bible Codices introduces other issues, such as which version of Tobit is canonical – the short version in Vaticanus and Alexandrinus, or the long version in Sinaiticus? Also, if all the contents of those Bibles are believed to be canonical, what about the extra books in the New Testament found in these codices, such as the Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, and 1 & 2 Clement?

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

757. Lojahw April 30th, 2014 10:47 pm :

     Hello, Seeker of Truth.
     I hope you also had a blessed Lent and Easter. Christ is risen indeed!

     The Lenten series I taught on the Nicene Creed was very stimulating, including history & theology, as well as the Biblical foundations of the creed (I had the class read Bible verses for each of the phrases in the creed over the weeks, starting with 6 from a list of about 30 passages in Scripture on the Trinity). I also did additional research on the positions re: the filioque (there are actually 3 positions), although the people who said they wanted to be there to challenge the filioque didn’t make it for that lesson. (I can argue all 3 positions – so it’s not a big deal for me.) It was also fun to incorporate lots of art in my power-point slides, beginning with an icon of Jesus associated with the Creed (bearing the inscription: “Jesus Christ, the Pantokrator,” i.e., “Jesus Christ, the One who holds all things by His power”).

     You questioned my statement: “Even then, Judith’s canonicity is only binding for those loyal to Rome.”

     I didn’t say Judith is not considered to be canonical beyond those loyal to Rome. I said “binding” because fundamentally the EO only considers the Ecumenical Councils to be binding for the whole church. Yes, EOs consider Judith to be canonical, but it is not binding on them in the same way (i.e., by anathemas) it is for Roman Catholics. I’ve been told that many EO view the deuteros like Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Rufinus, and Jerome did: as “ecclesiastical” books: i.e., “they would have been read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine.”

     Please read my response to Christie about how the EO got their canon.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

758. JohnD May 1st, 2014 10:00 pm :

     Lojahw (re: #753-754),

     By your argument, one’s personal commitments determine the difference between apparent errors and real errors. Ergo, truth is relative to one’s viewpoint and there is no objective way to distinguish truth from error. One person’s truth is another person’s apparent error. Is that what you are saying?

     No. A truth that is known and the way someone comes to know it are distinct. One’s fundamental commitments will greatly influence how one comes to know truth, but those commitments do not determine the truth itself. So, I would agree with the following (non-controversial?) reformulation of your first sentence: one’s personal, fundamental commitments determine (or at least greatly affect) how one discerns what is a real error and what is only an apparent error. And I would maintain that nothing else you said in 753-754 refutes my argument about fundamental commitments.

     And what is your explanation re: the Greek original ending Judith’s genealogy in ch. 8 with “son of Salamiel, son of Sarasadae, son of Israel.” Jerome “cleaned it up” to end with “son of Salathiel, son of Simeon, son of Ruben.” By your reckoning which represents the canonical text: the EO version or the Latin Vulgate?

     I don’t have one off hand, and I am not familiar with the issue. I can look into it further if it’s something you think is worth pursuing, but I don’t think it affects my main argument (borrowed from Michuta).

     Going back to my posts to Jonathan: either the author of Judith intended to be taken seriously, and therefore is in error, OR the author wrote “tongue-in-cheek,” in which case, one should take what he writes with a grain of salt. However, whatever has unquestionable authority – as inspired by the Holy Spirit – is not to be taken with a grain of salt.

     I think you are taking advantage of non-specific ideas like “tongue-in-cheek” and “taken with a grain of salt”. I would use neither of those phrases to describe what I (and Jonathan I believe) proposed as a solution in a previous comment. Namely, the author of Judith used the name Nebuchadnezzar in place of an actual historical king that he could not cite at the time (out of fear/danger or some other unknown reason) OR the name of the king was chosen as a literary device for what he represents.

     The rest of your comments address historical questions, which I am willing to discuss. However, they are not directly relevant to my main thesis that: adducing apparent errors cannot settle the question of canonicity one way or the other. At best, the method of adducing apparent errors could persuade someone who is agnostic about the inspiration of a text.. Thus far, your responses to that thesis have been (A) to point out how egregious and outrageous nature of the apparent error and (B) to say that the thesis entails relativism. I don’t think either counterpoint succeeds for reasons I’ve stated in this comment and previous comments. If you feel this is a misrepresentation of what you have argued, I am open to correction.

     Peace,
     John D.

759. Lojahw May 10th, 2014 9:43 am :

     Out of curiosity, what are some of the take-aways from this combox that has prompted so many responses over the last few years? I have enjoyed the stimulating dialogue – so many thanks to Tom!

     One thing that strikes me is that were it not for the Reformation and the subsequent Council of Trent in 1546, this combox would not have been created and the dialogue would be much different. Without the challenge by the Reformers to revisit some of the prevailing assumptions of the day, and without the Council of Trent’s decisive response, accompanied by its pointed anathema for anyone who does not receive its formulation of Scripture, where would we be today?

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

760. Dan Carollo August 28th, 2014 6:01 pm :

     This is a response to Ken Temple’s comment #277 on another article (“The Witness of the “Lost Christianities” ), but has been moved here — since the topic is appropriate to the discussion.

     You say:

     Wrong, the early church or “catholic church” (But not Roman Catholic Church) recognized and discerned the letters of Paul that already existed and were already God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16) as soon as they were written between 49-67 AD, and because they were already God-breathed, therefore infallible and inerrant, they were already the standard/criterion/rule /principle (original meaning of κανων). The early church recognized and discerned and discovered them as canonical Scripture, because they already had the internal quality of God-breathed-ness. Their declaration did not make them canon.

     Through what means did the early church “recognize and discern” the N.T. canon of books as inspired?
     Were they just “obviously” inspired? (That is — obvious to any true, spirit-filled Christian at the time?)

     In other words, if you the SAME candidates for the N.T. Canon were presented to you today in the 21st century, are you saying you could obviously “discern” the canon through your own, simply on the basis of your spirit-filed status as a Christian?

761. Kevin Failoni August 28th, 2014 7:15 pm :

     Don, Did you just ask Ken if they were obviously inspired? They were inspired as they came off the pen. You must understand that the canon of the NT, 27 of the books were already being used and recognized as such. The church put them is a binder. Great. 1 John 2:27 tell believers that they have no need of a teacher, they have the anointing that teaches them all things. Do you think the church illumines scripture to us or the Spirit? Or are you claiming the Roman church is the Spirit of God? The reason the canon was being used is it was determined by Spirit filled believers. Are you denying that the men who were using those scriptures weren’t Spirit Filled?

762. John Thayer Jensen August 28th, 2014 9:39 pm :

     Kevin (#761)
     Joe Believer (about AD90): “Here is a letter that someone says was written by Saul of Tarsus. Oh, here is another that someone says was written by Barnabas. But it’s obvious to me that the one that says it is by Saul/Paul is inspired, whereas the one that claims it is by Barnabas is not. It is obvious to me because … oh, wait a minute! Maybe it isn’t so obvious? How am I supposed to know?”

     jj

763. Lojahw August 28th, 2014 9:50 pm :

     Dear Dan,
     You ask a good question about how Christians “recognize and discern” canonical Scripture. Have you considered the combination of intrinsic and extrinsic factors? For example, because Paul was recognized as an apostle who spoke “the word of God” rather than the word of men (cf. 1 Thess. 2:13), it was enough for his contemporaries to know that these letters were written by him, and not by a second-century forger using Paul’s name (as the Muratorian Canon complains, regarding certain Pseudoepigrapha ca. 170). Nevertheless, the intrinsic qualities of the “word of God” are manifest in his letters: they teach truth, they do not contradict the teaching of Jesus or the other apostles or his own writings, they are enduring throughout every generation, and they exhort their readers to faith in Christ and a life that honors Him. So, Paul’s letters were immediately recognized both because of his authority as an apostle, and because they reflect the character of God’s Word.

     In fact, the early church recognized the books of the New Testament primarily because they believed them to genuinely represent the teaching of the apostles and of Jesus (in the case of the Gospels). The authority of the books thus stems first from the source of their teaching: Christ and the Apostles. When forgeries appeared in the second century in the names of the apostles, Christians almost always repudiated them (with few exceptions, such as the Apocalypse of Peter, which was read in churches in Palestine at least until the fifth century).

     Augustine, in contrast, relied on extrinsic recognition, teaching that churches vote on books that were not universally accepted as canonical (On Christian Doctrine, 2.8.12). He seems to forget his own criterion regarding Pseudepigrapha, that “the purity of the canon has not admitted these writings, not because the authority of these men who please God is rejected, but because they are not believed to be theirs” (City of God, 18.38) Nevertheless, although he recognized Wisdom of Solomon to be a forgery, he argued that it should be added to the canon because it had “attained recognition as being authoritative.” In other words, extrinsic recognition trumps intrinsic faults. In fact, a careful reading of the church fathers shows that the recognition of Wisdom of Solomon in Augustine’s day is largely due to the widespread mistaken belief that it was genuinely written by Solomon. The truth is that no matter how many church fathers believed Wisdom was genuine, it was always and always will be a counterfeit. Its intrinsic falsehood cannot be erased. God cannot lie; ergo, Wisdom of Solomon cannot be “the word of the Lord.”

     Unless a book is both genuinely the word of God (therefore true and without deceit) and recognized as such by the whole community of faith, it is not truly canonical. Only the 66 books meet both criteria for all Christians.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

764. Ken Temple August 29th, 2014 1:13 pm :

     Dan – # 760
     Yes, the NT books were self-authenticating for believers (the quality of “God-breathedness”/inspiration was there, along with wide recognition and use as God-breathed Scripture), though it took some time some a few of them to be recognized by all parts of the Christian world at that time.

     Kevin rightly mentions 1 John 2:27 – I agree. Also John 10:27 – “My sheep hear My voice”.

     Irenaeus and Tertullian, both writing between 180-225 AD, cite most all the NT books as Scripture. Before them, no one else wrote enough or we don’t have their other extant writings if they did – Clement, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Polycarp, Papias, the Didache, the Pseudo-epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas – they didn’t write enough in volume and quantity to be able to know how many other books of the NT they knew about and recognized, or had available to them.

     2 reasons why it took a while for all 27 to be recognized under one “book cover”, etc. I think there are more, but these 2 are the main ones.
     1. The nature of the NT books – they were individual scrolls rolled up and sent to specific places. There was no such thing as a codex form (flat and tied together, which later developed into the binding and what later became our modern form of “book”) until around 200 AD. Many scholars believe it was the Christians who made the codex form more popular, widespread and universal.

     2. The conditions of persecution and the Romans burning many of the copies of the Scriptures in the first 300 years is also a factor as to why it took so long for all areas to get all the indiviudal books.

     I participated in some of these com box discussion years ago. But after a while, it got too overwhelming as to time and keeping up with all the comments.

765. Ken Temple August 29th, 2014 2:18 pm :

     Dan ( # 760 ) and any one else interested.
     The issue that you raise with me, I already discussed it and related issues here in 2010.

     So I don’t have to keep repeating again – because I already hashed things out with others before here in the com boxes (#s 6-8; and # 42-122) (January – February of 2010).

     Looking back over the comboxes, I participated a lot up until around com box # 122 (I think that is Tom Brown’s last answer to me, and I think I gave up after that), but the moderators rejected a lot of my comments as off the subject, and complained that I kept mentioning Mary and the Pope issues. There came a point where I could not understand why they kept saying that I was not addressing the issues of the article, whereas I felt (and still do believe) I was addressing the issues; and so, because of time issues, and how long it took for my comments to be accepted (and some being totally rejected), I gave up. (see in comments # 6-8; and 42-122) I may have commented again after # 122, but I am pretty sure I gave up after that. A guy who goes by “lojahw” commented a lot and it just became too much material to keep up with for me, as I was busy with my own life and work.

766. R.C. August 29th, 2014 6:21 pm :

     Kevin (#761):

     In reply to Don, you asked, “Do you think the church illumines scripture to us or the Spirit? Or are you claiming the Roman church is the Spirit of God?”

     That is not the way to understand it.

     The Holy Spirit, in order to lead Christians into all truth, must have a method or a medium: He must lead us somehow. He cannot lead us by doing nothing or by interacting with us in no way; rather, he must interact with us in some way.

     In order to identify the activity of the Holy Spirit leading the faithful towards a particular truth or away from a particular falsehood, one must be aware of the way that he normally does this. What does it normally look like?

     Various people have proposed different ways that the Holy Spirit normally does this. And for some of these proposals, the claim is that such-and-such a way is not a new thing, but has in fact been the practice of the Church since the beginning.

     But all Christians, whatever way they propose that the Holy Spirit leads us into all truth, argue that Christianity is a knowable religion. Christianity is not some faith which Jesus taught to the apostles but which is now unrecoverably lost in the mists of time. Instead, we all agree that some way exists to know the truths of faith and morals which God desires us to know.

     So, when a many different methodologies for knowing these things are proposed to us, certain tests can help us distinguish the false methodologies from the true:

     1. Can this methodology, even in principle, permit us to know (not merely with confidence, but with warranted confidence) the truths of faith and morals which God desires us to know? (NOTE: I say “permit,” not “compel.” Why “permit?” Because having an authoritative and trustworthy source for truth makes it possible to know what that source teaches…but does not overwhelm the free will of an individual so as to compel them to accept it. We can be confident that many will; but there are “weeds sown among the wheat” and so we know that some will not. So we are not asking whether all of the persons who could accept truth via this methodology in fact opt to do so, but rather whether the methodology even gives them the option. A methodology that does not even give an answer when it is followed will, in the end, deny the follower the option of agreeing or disagreeing, for he does not even know with what to agree or disagree.)

     2. Has the use of this methodology produced doctrinal unity amongst its followers across all divisions of culture, of politics, of nationality, and most importantly, across time, in every era of Christianity? For we know that if the gates of hell have not prevailed, then orthodox Christians have existed in all eras since the Ascension. If we find that a methodology produces a candidate “Christianity” which had no detectable following in, say, the period from 300 to 400 AD, or 700 to 800, then that methodology is suspect.

     3. Was this methodology plausibly usable by Christians in the year 50, the year 100, the year 150, the year 200, the year 250, et cetera, all the way from the Ascension of Our Lord to the present?

     4. Was this methodology actually used, so far as we can tell, in the year 50, the year 100, et cetera, so far as the historical record allows us to determine?

     5. Does this methodology avoid contradicting itself, or does it, whatever its other purported benefits, require a person to ignore glaring internal contradictions?

     Now, the Protestant holds that our methodology, our “way to know the Christian faith,” is something like this: God divinely-inspired 66 books. The Holy Spirit guides the readers of these books to understand them correctly. Therefore, by reading these books under the influence of the Holy Spirit, readers will correctly understand the Christian faith and come to know the things which God intends them to know about faith and morals.

     …pause for a moment…

     Any good Protestant, seeing my description of the Protestant methodology, will object at this point: “Whoa, that’s way, way oversimplified!” And of course I agree: That version is absurd in a variety of cases: What if the Christian in question can’t read? What about translation errors? What about the need to understand historical context and cultural assumptions?

     All of these caveats may be introduced into the overly-simple description in the form of qualifications, in order to make it more accurate. The improved result will be something like this: “God divinely-inspired 66 books. The Holy Spirit guides the readers of these books to understand them correctly, provided that they (list of qualifications and criteria goes here). Therefore, by reading these books under the influence of the Holy Spirit, readers (with the formerly-listed qualifications and criteria) will correctly understand the Christian faith and come to know the things which God intends them to know about faith and morals.”

     And of course we can make guesses about what the qualifications should be: That they are sincere and not trying to avoid the truth; that they really ask the Holy Spirit for guidance; that they obtain whatever knowledge of culture and language is practically available to them to understand the text as well as possible; that they select a local church body for correct doctrinal and not for mere aesthetic reasons and submit to its authority on matters they don’t understand — and that the elders/deacons/pastor/bishops of that local church body are themselves being sincere and asking the Holy Spirit for guidance and are adequately-informed…et cetera, et cetera, et alia, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

     Now, the Catholic critique of all of this is: No matter how carefully you specify the criteria and qualifications, this methodology actually doesn’t pass any of the five tests listed above.

     It doesn’t plausibly offer a way to know what Christianity really is. It doesn’t actually produce agreement about what Christianity is. It couldn’t plausibly have been used during the Apostolic and Early Patristic era. It wasn’t, as a matter of historical evidence, used during the Apostolic and Early Patristic era. And it logically contradicts itself in a variety of ways.

     In short, if that is the actual Christian doctrine for knowing what Christian doctrine is, then Christianity is a lost topic, buried in the dust of history, inaccessible to us. We can reconstruct it from the scraps of evidence we have, but the available evidence is able to be interpreted in so many ways that, while some reconstructions will resemble others in some ways, they’ll all differ in other ways, leaving anyone possessing intellectual humility in varying amounts of doubt about nearly every topic.

     And if that is what Jesus proposed to the Apostles as His intended way for us to “remain one” just as He and the Father are one, then He is not God, or even a particularly wise student of history and human nature. And in that case, we’d all best pack up our hymnals and sleep in on Sundays.

     But He is God. So we need to look elsewhere for our methodology.

     Now the Catholic alternative — what you were asking Don about — is more like this:

     Jesus did not instruct the Apostles to write the 27 books of the New Testament or even to put particular effort into spreading the Old Testament throughout the world. Instead, He installed them by His own authority into offices of authority. Part of the nature of these offices was that they were offices which (a.) could be increased in number as the Church grew, and (b.) had successors, when the current occupants died or were removed.

     The authority He gave to those holding those offices included authority to resolve disputes about faith and morals in the name of the Church, and in His name. This is the meaning of such verses as, “He who hears you, hears Me” and “if they refuse to listen even to the Church, then you shall treat them as a pagan or a tax collector.” By “listening to the Church,” Jesus meant, “listening to those who are in offices of authority such that, when they pronounce their judgment on a matter of faith or morals FOR the whole Church, they are to be understood as The Whole Body Of Christ Speaking Definitively On That Matter.” And since nothing in the Old Covenant is merely abrogated in the New, but is instead fulfilled in some more glorious fashion, these offices fulfill for the New Covenant the priestly and stewardly and fatherly character of various offices of authority in the old, with priests operating under the High Priest, stewards operating as vicars of the King, and fathers of households and tribes — or a diocese — operating under the One God and Father of Us All, from whom all earthly fatherhood stems.

     Now it is in this context that the role of the Holy Spirit in “leading us into all truth” comes into play. No Catholic denies that the Holy Spirit might use extraordinary ways to lead individuals to the truth in certain circumstances, and that this could include an interior illumination which comes from reading the Scriptures. But this is not the normal way for Christians, as a family and community and nation, to be “led into all truth.”

     Rather, Jesus grants to those whom He placed in authority, and to their successors, a special gift of the Holy Spirit which operates when they make decisions as a unified whole (i.e., when they make decisions as “The Church”). The nature of the gift is: “Whatsoever you (collectively) bind on earth, is bound in Heaven; and whatsoever you loose on earth, is loosed in Heaven.” Just as the nature of the Old Covenant offices fulfilled in these New Covenant offices is variously priestly or stewardly or rabbinical or prophetic or fatherly, so we see this notion of “binding or loosing” (or, “locking or unlocking”, or “opening and shutting”) in all of those Old Covenant roles brought forward and fulfilled more gloriously in the New. In the Old Covenant, a priest could include or exclude someone from the community. A rabbi could “bind or loose” the permissibility of a particular behavior according to his teaching. A steward could issue laws and decrees within his realm of authority under the Davidic king…and so on. Likewise, in the New Covenant, these new leadership offices can excommunicate or restore to communion; they can teach that something is immoral or permissible; they can instruct the faithful in their diocese to fast on Tuesdays and Thursdays or on Wednesdays and Fridays. (But this is more glorious, because what the Church binds on earth is bound in Heaven.)

     Now, logic dictates that if every Christian infallibly teaches correctly on faith and morals, they will all agree…but, also, they will all not need one another for anything. There will be no need of visible unity among them; they can each individually read the Bible and although they may all say the same thing about what it means, they will do so as individuals. Each member of the Body of Christ would, in such a system, be truly able to say to every other member, “I have no need of you.” This is the kind of ecclesiology we would expect in a sort of world of octopi, where every member was connected directly to the head. But that is not our world, as we know (a.) from the shape of our bodies, where a finger is connect to the head only through the hand and arm and shoulder and neck; and (b.) from the fact that all Bible-reading individuals do NOT, in fact, infallibly agree about its meaning.

     Likewise, if every bishop infallibly teaches correctly on faith and morals, they will all agree…but also, they will not all need one another for anything. There would be no need of visible unity among bishops; they could each individually interpret the Apostolic Tradition (including the Scriptures) to the faithful in their diocese, and although they might all say the same thing about what it means, they will do so as individuals. Again, this would be an octopus-world. But our world is not that way: Jesus became a human, not an octopus, and the human body is hierarchical, like a directory-tree on a modern computer. And bishops do not, in fact, always agree…so we know by experience that THAT is not how the Holy Spirit leads us.

     How, then, will “The Church” rule as a worldwide whole, when it exerts its authority according to Matthew 18? How will we know that the organization as a whole has spoken (with its guarantee of Heavenly agreement/ratification), and not just some subset of its bishops?

     The answer to that is found in an Old Covenant office, the al bayith or “Chief Steward” or “Head of House.” The role of this steward, under the king, is described in Isaiah 22, and the first occupant of the New Covenant office fulfilling this role is installed into the position in Matthew 16. This office is similar to that of the other stewards except in certain critical details: (1.) He is said to have the “keys of the house/dynasty of the king”; and (2.) he can “bind/loose” what has been “loosed/bound” by other stewards; but what he “binds/looses” cannot be “loosed/bound” by other stewards. Thus, whenever the king is out-of-town or otherwise occupied, the Chief Steward serves as a sort of tie-breaker or final court-of-appeal on matters about which the other stewards might disagree.

     As a consequence, this stewardly office — and its New Covenant fulfillment, the office of the successor of Peter — is crucial to “The Church” as a whole being able to pronounce any final decisions on matters of faith and morals. If a priest, or a collection of priests, asserts that “XYZ is true,” that is not yet “The Church.” And if an objector should happen to appeal the matter to his bishop, even that bishop’s assertion that “XYZ is true” is not yet “The Church” speaking as a whole. But if the “binding/loosing” is appealed to the successor of Peter, and he definitively binds “XYZ is true” with the intent of teaching the whole church, then his “binding/loosing” cannot be “loosed/bound” by any other bishop — just like the Stewards of the House of David. Or, as they used to say in the Patristic era: “Roma locuta, causa finita est.”

     Now, of course, another way for the Whole Church to teach something (and thereby have the special guarantee of their binding/loosing being “bound in Heaven”) is for all, or at least a large sampling, of the bishops to gather in an ecumenical council. But even then, the Chief Steward’s office has a role: If a crowd of Arian bishops get together claiming to be an ecumenical council, excluding the orthodox, it’s the successor of Peter who’ll say, “no, that’s not a real ecumencial council.” Once that office has ratified the council as “the real deal,” we know that it is “the real deal” for, as previously stated, no other bishop can loose what the Petrine officeholder has bound.

     So this, then, is the shape of the answer Catholics give to how the Holy Spirit leads us into truth: The Church decides disputed matters of faith and morals, and when the authority structures of the Church decide in a fashion which is beyond further appeal, then the decision, being final, is protected from error by the Holy Spirit, so that Heaven can be “safe” (if that is the right way to put it) in binding whatever the Church has bound, or in loosing whatever the Church has loosed. The bishops collectively have a role, and in order that there might be finality and unity the successor of Peter has a role.

     All Christians, of course, believe in a gift from the Holy Spirit which guarantees a human church-leader the ability to teach without error. The Apostles used this gift in their teaching, which was always correct, whether delivered “by word of mouth or letter.” Since the New Testament books are either written by Apostles or persons writing on their behalf what they wished written, those books are inerrant. But the Church remains an infallible teacher even after the time of the Apostles through the authority given to her by Christ.

     Please note that this methodology works throughout Christian history, including the day after the Ascension, when the New Testament books were unwritten, and the day after the death of the last Apostle, when the New Testament books were written but not uniformly disseminated and the canon still uncertain.

     And it still works today when men read the words of the Apostles in the New Testament and misunderstand them, or neglect to heed the full Apostolic Tradition because this-or-that aspect of the Apostles’ teaching is non-obvious or ambiguous in the New Testament texts themselves. When that happens, the usual action of the Church is to remind the faithful of the full teaching; and to rule that the Scriptures may not be construed so as to contradict it. (This, you’ll note, doesn’t usually leave open only a single way to construe them; it just prohibits a particular way.)

     So. Where does that leave us?

     Mainly, it leaves us with a methodology of knowing what truth the Holy Spirit intends to lead us into. And, that methodology passes the various tests which such a methodology must pass in order to be a plausible candidate for what Christ intended us to use.

     It can, in principle, work; it does, in practice, permit doctrinal unity: It gives information which can be KNOWN to be the information produced by that methodology.

     It also seems to have worked historically: Those who followed it, agreed with its findings — sometimes in the teeth of their instincts or their own initial incomprehension! Those who held other views, held them only by not following that methodology. And there were no periods when “orthodox Christianity” (as determined by this methodology) inexplicably vanished from the earth for hundreds of years.

     It was usable in every era, and was used in every era. And, it does not contradict itself logically.

     Kevin, does that answer your question?

     Certainly it should answer the following items you raised:

     No, “1 John 2:27” does not teach that anybody and everybody can correctly interpret Scripture inerrantly without benefit of a human teacher, for if it did, the obvious historical falseness of the claim would prove 1 John to not be written with inerrancy, and thus not of Apostolic origin — or else would prove that Apostles could teach wrongly, which really would mean that true Christianity stopped with Jesus Himself and is lost in the mists of time.

     No, Catholics do not claim that “the Roman church is the Spirit of God” but only that the Holy Spirit uses the Magisterial authority of the Body of Christ to teach without error and that this is the normal way by which the Holy Spirit leads us to the truth (although He can also use extraordinary means if He chooses).

     No, the reason the New Testament books were being used by Christians, when they got hold of them, was not because “it was determined by Spirit filled believers” in general (implying that any old layperson with the Spirit could determine it) but rather because those occupying the offices which Christ instituted for determining such things taught the canon to the faithful when the time was right to do so. (And the faithful, knowing that those offices were instituted and graced for that purpose, naturally took this to be information which was bound in Heaven even as it was bound on earth. Thus debate about the canon ceased and did not seriously recur for over a thousand years.)

     And, No, one need not deny “that the men who were using those scriptures [were] Spirit Filled” in order to hold the Catholic view. One need only point out that men who are devout, living holy lives, with impeccable scholarly credentials, and self-evidently Spirit Filled do not, thereby, gain the charism of Inerrant Independent Biblical Interpretation. We know that they don’t have that charism, for if they did, they would all agree with one another. But they do not all agree with one another, so either they are being taught by the Holy Spirit but the Holy Spirit is schizophrenic (very doubtful!), or (as I believe) that is not one of the things the Holy Spirit happens to do, when “filling” them.

     But if the Holy Spirit does not teach us to interpret the scriptures that way, then how does He do so? The answer is: By leading The Church to remember the Apostolic Faith and to teach it to us, and even to tease out from it further conclusions about it using the existing knowledge of the Apostolic Faith as a logician uses true premises to yield a true conclusion. The Church’s Magisterial voice is, in this fashion, the Holy Spirit’s tool-of-choice for “leading us into all truth.” For of course the Church is, actually, the Body of Christ; and her Magisterial voice is in that sense His mouth and His tongue, and it makes perfect sense that Jesus teaches without error.

     Make sense?

767. John Thayer Jensen August 29th, 2014 10:58 pm :

     Ken (#764)

     …the NT books were self-authenticating for believers…

     Is that still the case?

     jj

768. Ken Temple August 29th, 2014 11:54 pm :

     Hi John,
     #767

     Yes, they are still self-authenticating for believers – “My Sheep Hear My Voice” – John 10:27

769. John Thayer Jensen August 30th, 2014 4:05 am :

     Ken (#768)

     Hi John,
     #767

     Yes, they are still self-authenticating for believers – “My Sheep Hear

     My Voice” – John 10:27

     Hmm… Makes me feel a bit sorry for myself. I have been a Christian for nearly 45 years, since I was 27. I read the Bible through at least once a year – NT in Greek for most of that time. I certainly have never had the remotest sense that the New Testament books were
     obviously inspired. Perhaps that means I am self-deceived and am not one of His sheep?

     jj

770. Lojahw August 30th, 2014 5:56 pm :

     Hi JJ:
     I addressed the common misunderstanding about Calvin’s claim of “self-authentication” in #563:
     Institutes 1.7.4-1.8.13 argues that unbelievers reject the inspiration of Scripture in spite of the evidence for it in general: such as its peculiar property of truth, its beautiful testimony of faith, its antiquity, miracles, prophecy, authenticity, preservation, the testimony of the Church, and the blood of the martyrs. Those sections frame the context for 1.7.5: “Scripture, carrying its own evidence along with it, deigns not to submit to proofs and arguments, but owes the full conviction with which we ought to receive it to the testimony of the Spirit.” Thus the testimony of the Spirit is not confined to a “burning in the bosom” of each individual believer, but it extends across many dimensions – including the testimony of the Church, as well as the blood of the martyrs.

     Having said that: to which book are you referring “that claims it is by Barnabas”? The obvious choice, the Epistle of Barnabas, is anonymous, and furthermore, was not written until the apostle Barnabas (cf. Acts 14:14) was long dead. Unlike Paul’s letters, full of references to his contemporaries, who vouched for their authenticity as written by the Apostle Paul, the Epistle of Barnabas has no such authenticating references. It appears to be a series of pious pastoral musings, allegorizing various OT passages (a practice which resulted in the Fifth Ecumenical Council anathematizing Origen).

     Moreover, Epistle of Barnabas contradicts the promises of Christ that “My sheep . . . will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of My hand” and “no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand” (John 10:27-29) and “greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world” (1 John 4:4). Ep. Barn. 4:13 says: “if we relax as men that are called, we should slumber over our sins, and the prince of evil receive power against us and thrust us out from the kingdom of the Lord.” Furthermore, Ep. Barn. even contradicts itself by repeating Christ’s promise in 6:3, “Then again what saith He; And whosoever shall set his hope on Him, shall live forever,” and “whosoever shall eat of these shall live forever; He meaneth this; whosoever, saith He, shall hear these things spoken and shall believe, shall live forever” (11:11).

     Finally, everyone living today should be able to recognize that Epistle of Barnabas is wrong about the end of the world: “Therefore, children, in six days, that is in six thousand years, everything shall come to an end” (15:4).

     There’s no contest comparing Epistle of Barnabas to Paul’s letters.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

771. John Thayer Jensen August 30th, 2014 7:25 pm :

     Lojahw (#770)
     So I take it that you disagree with Ken Temple, for whom, it would appear, it is the individual believer who knows by an internal witness of the Spirit what is and what is not Scripture. You seem to say that what is Scripture is discerned by the Church, and what is not is discerned by the intellect of the individual believer (e.g. contradictions with what the Church has said is Scripture; prophecies that are not fulfilled; etc).

     You did refer to Calvin who “…argues that unbelievers reject the inspiration of Scripture in spite of the evidence for it in general…” But of course rejecting what is, in fact, Scripture, and discerning what is (and what is not??) Scripture are different things.

     It is true that the Epistle of Barnabas is anonymous – but so are three of the Gospels and the Epistle to the Hebrews so I don’t see that that is a problem.

     jj

772. Lojahw August 30th, 2014 7:47 pm :

     Hello, R.C.,
     You write many eloquent words about a methodology that leads people across all times and places to the truths of faith and morals which God desires us to know. However, with respect to the canon question (this combox):

     1. Can this methodology, even in principle, permit us to know (not merely with confidence, but with warranted confidence) the truths of faith and morals which God desires us to know?

     I’ve posted numerous descriptions of a methodology for discerning the canon (it is beyond the scope of this combox to cover all truths of faith and morals).

     2. Has the use of this methodology produced doctrinal unity amongst its followers across all divisions of culture, of politics, of nationality, and most importantly, across time, in every era of Christianity?

     With respect to the canon, the decrees of Roman authorities have not produced canonical agreement amongst all its followers across all divisions, . . . Witness Cardinals Cajetan and Ximenes in Luther’s day, not to mention Christians in the East or Protestants. All Protestants agree to the 66 book canon, and Christians of all traditions agree on the canonicity of those 66 books. BTW – Pope Innocent I omitted Hebrews from the NT canon.

     3. Was this methodology plausibly usable by Christians in the year 50, the year 100, the year 150, the year 200, the year 250, et cetera, all the way from the Ascension of Our Lord to the present?

     See #4 below re: the RC canon. It is plausible that Jesus and the Apostles taught the “twenty-two” book OT canon from the beginning (See Timothy Lin’s book, The Formation of the Jewish Canon. New Haven, Yale University Press, 2013). Lin argues that the first century Pharisees strongly held this canon, and since Paul was a “Pharisee of Pharisees” it is reasonable that he – who was in agreement with the other apostles on all doctrinal matters – taught this canon. See also Cyril of Jerusalem’s fourth century Catechetical Lectures 4.33:

     Of these [the Septuagint books] read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than yourself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes.”

     BTW – the church fathers were so out of touch with the Jewish roots of the Church, that it took Jerome in 390 to correct the mistakes of the previous church fathers’ “twenty-two” book OT canons (as asserted also by Cardinal Cajetan).

     It is also plausible that from the very beginning, the Apostles’ teaching as preserved in their letters, and Jesus’ teaching as authentically preserved in the 4 Gospels, were accepted as canonical as soon as Christians were satisfied that these works were genuine (later disputes over authorship of Hebrews notwithstanding.) Later disputes over interpretation of the antilegomena, of course, were resolved as the orthodoxy of those books were vindicated.

     4. Was this methodology actually used, so far as we can tell, in the year 50, the year 100, et cetera, so far as the historical record allows us to determine?

     As I stated @763, the methodology proposed by Augustine in order to accept books into the canon about which not everyone agreed was not used in the year 50, the year 100, etc. He employed it in 393 & 397 at the Third and Fourth Councils of Carthage (for which Augustine was the plenary speaker).

     And when did a pope first declare the canon finally decreed by Trent? There’s strong evidence that it did not happen with Pope Damasus in 382. Both Epiphanius and Jerome were at the Council of Rome, and yet both published “twenty-two” book canons within the next decade. Moreover, the earliest copy of the so-called Decree of Damasus features fifth century language traced to Augustine, so the claim of a larger canon in 382 is anachronistic.

     BTW – did you know that Pope Innocent I attributed 5 books to Solomon (the accepted 3 plus Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach) and that he omitted Hebrews from the NT canon? How does your methodology answer that?

     5. Does this methodology avoid contradicting itself, or does it, whatever its other purported benefits, require a person to ignore glaring internal contradictions?

     I have posted a number of glaring internal contradictions [in the deuteros] which your methodology requires of Roman Catholics.

     In answer to your question: “Make sense?” – only if you ignore the disconfirming facts.

     In Christ,
     Lojahw

773. Ken Temple August 31st, 2014 11:36 am :

     Hi John Thayer Jensen,
     I would agree with Lojahw in # 770. There is no contradiction between what I wrote and what he wrote; he just expanded my point out to include a lot more details. I think Calvin’s statement is true, that he quoted.

     Although Matthew, Mark, and Luke are technically anonymous, the internal contents (Luke, we statements in Acts, physician on Paul’s missionary team in Colossians 4 and 2 Tim. 4) along with historical witness of the earliest extant evidence we have, as to who they are, is true and indisputable. (Papias (Mark writing for Peter), Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius)

     The internal quality of the contents of the pseudo-epistle of Barnabas show that it is not inspired, because of the things that Lojahw mentioned.

     The internal qualities of God-breathedness and association with Timothy (Hebrews 13:22-23) give self-authenticating witness that the letter to the Hebrews is God-breathed, inspired, therefore canon. There are clues (Levite, “son of encouragment”, Acts 4:36; “letter of encouragment”, details of Leviticus and priests and sacrifices, content similar to apostle Paul’s languge and theology, but didn’t mention himself as the author, which probably because of their conflict earlier, etc. ) that, to me, indicate that Barnabas was the author of this letter and he is actually called an apostle (Acts 14:4, 14), so that, to me is very credible. Tertullian also proposed that Hebrews was written by Barnabas.

774. Ken Temple August 31st, 2014 12:03 pm :

     John Thayer Jensen ( # 769)

     I read the Bible through at least once a year – NT in Greek for most of that time. I certainly have never had the remotest sense that the New Testament books were
     obviously inspired. Perhaps that means I am self-deceived and am not one of His sheep?

     I cannot judge your heart. As for not sensing that the NT are inspired, that is an amazing statement. You don’t sense the Holy Spirit speaking to your heart, as you read and meditate on Scripture, and pray over the contents and commands, principles, and promises? That is amazing. You read the NT in Greek fluently?

     T. F. Torrence (The concept of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers) has shown a definite line of quality from the Canonical Scriptures to the apostolic and early church fathers. It is discernible. John Bugay also has a lot of articles on this issue. (at Triablogue and Beggar’s All)

775. John Thayer Jensen August 31st, 2014 4:32 pm :

     Ken (#773)

     I would agree with Lojahw in # 770. There is no contradiction between what I wrote and what he wrote; he just expanded my point out to include a lot more details. I think Calvin’s statement is true, that he quoted.

     Ah, OK. Thanks. So it’s not simply the witness of the Spirit in your heart. You have to use some understanding as well – what does it say, who wrote it, when, etc?

     But then does certainty actually come through the Spirit’s witness? Is that the final word? If you look at the Epistle of Barnabas, say – and despite Lojahw’s comments on it, I think that it could be harmonised with the rest of Scripture stipulating that it itself was part of Scripture – just as other apparent contradictions frequently brought up by non-Christian commentators – if you look at the Epistle of Barnabas, you would at bottom be relying on the internal witness of the Spirit that it was not, in fact, Scripture – is that right?

     jj

776. Tom Brown August 31st, 2014 5:58 pm :

     Dear Ken,

     Please consider reading section II.A. of the article above, as it relates to what has been discussed over the past few days regarding the self-attestation of the Holy Scriptures. I encourage you to responsd to my arguments that the Reformed approach is ad hoc, especially in and around the paragraph that begins this way: “With Ridderbos’s answer to the Canon Question, we have no way of knowing whether the Holy Spirit is permitting a reader to recognize a text as canonical, or is simply permitting a reader falsely to perceive it as Scripture.”

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom B.

777. John Thayer Jensen August 31st, 2014 6:50 pm :

     Ken (#774

     As for not sensing that the NT are inspired, that is an amazing statement. You don’t sense the Holy Spirit speaking to your heart, as you read and meditate on Scripture, and pray over the contents and commands, principles, and promises?

     Certainly I do. But that doesn’t prove inspiration. I sense the Holy Spirit speaking to me in many circumstances, including reading completely worldly literature. I don’t think that means that, say, a novel by C. S. Lewis is Scripture.

     You read the NT in Greek fluently?

     Yes. My degrees are in linguistics, and my profession for twenty-odd years was as a lecturer in linguistics. To be sure, that in itself doesn’t make me a fluent reader of the Greek NT, but reading it (and meditating on its contents) does.

     The issue here is the special nature of the canon. What I don’t see is how the testimony of the Spirit shows that. He speaks to me from everything in my life (sometimes I listen better than others :-)).

     jj

778. Lojahw August 31st, 2014 7:27 pm :

     Hi JJ,
     “So I take it that you disagree with Ken Temple, for whom, it would appear, it is the individual believer who knows by an internal witness of the Spirit what is and what is not Scripture.”
     – You are correct, JJ. I do not believe that discernment of the canon is left to the individual; indeed, Calvin writes (Institutes 1.7.4): “our conviction of the truth of Scripture must be derived from a higher source than human conjectures.” It is the work of the Holy Spirit in the Body of Christ as a whole that provides discernment of the divine truth and authority intrinsic in the books God desires us to know, believe, and obey. Where you and I differ is in the definition of the Body of Christ: because I believe the catholic Church subsists in “all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1:2), I hold to the canonicity of the 66 books which the Holy Spirit has led all Christians to accept.
     On the other hand, unless the Holy Spirit convicts the individual re: the authority and truth of the canonical writings, the canon means nothing to that person.

     “But of course rejecting what is, in fact, Scripture, and discerning what is (and what is not??) Scripture are different things.”
     – Calvin, ibid., writes: “Nay, although learned men, and men of the greatest talent, should take the opposite side . . . if they are not possessed of shameless effrontery, they will be compelled to confess that the Scripture exhibits clear evidence of its being spoken by God. . . “ (the evidence includes all the items he then lists in the following sections that I mentioned before). Of course, those “possessed of shameless effrontery” may reject God’s Word.

     “It is true that the Epistle of Barnabas is anonymous – but so are three of the Gospels and the Epistle to the Hebrews so I don’t see that that is a problem.”
     – Your argument was between Paul’s letters and the Epistle of Barnabas. I agree with Ken’s post re: the Gospels. What is important is that the books genuinely record Jesus’ and the Apostles’ signs and teaching, not specifically who wrote them. There is sufficient evidence that the Gospels and the Epistle to the Hebrews are genuine – based on both internal and external factors (e.g., the mention of contemporaries of Jesus and the apostles that could and were authenticated by first century Christians, and in turn, by their testimony with later generations). Not only is there is not such evidence for the Epistle of Barnabas, but as I pointed out it contradicts both itself and Jesus’ teaching, and therefore it cannot be canonical.

     You say to Ken: “I think that it could be harmonised with the rest of Scripture stipulating that it itself was part of Scripture – just as other apparent contradictions frequently brought up by non-Christian commentators.” You’re beating an old horse, JJ. I’ve answered every so-called contradiction of canonical Scripture brought up in this combox. Even so, since no reputable scholar believes Epistle of Barnabas is genuine, it cannot be “read with the Apostles” – as the Muratorian Canon says of the Shepherd of Hermas.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

779. Lojahw August 31st, 2014 7:34 pm :

     Dear Tom,
     You write: “With Ridderbos’s answer to the Canon Question, we have no way of knowing whether the Holy Spirit is permitting a reader to recognize a text as canonical, or is simply permitting a reader falsely to perceive it as Scripture.”

     This argument is irrelevant in view of the fact that no one is claiming that individuals have the right to decide what is canonical and what is not. Where you and I differ is in the definition of the Body of Christ: because I believe the catholic Church subsists in “all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1:2), I hold to the canonicity of the 66 books which the Holy Spirit has led all major Christian traditions to accept.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

780. John Thayer Jensen August 31st, 2014 9:41 pm :

     Lojahw (#779)

     …I believe the catholic Church subsists in “all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1:2), I hold to the canonicity of the 66 books which the Holy Spirit has led all major Christian traditions to accept.

     OK – a sort of “Greatest Common Divisor” answer – if all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ are Christians, then Mormons are Christians. To be sure, they add extra books – just like (ex hypothesi) Catholics do – but they do recognise the 66 books that you do (and they are surely major).

     jj

781. Jonathan Brumley August 31st, 2014 11:24 pm :

     Hi Lojahw,

     Regarding our old conversation about Judith, I stumbled across an interesting point in Warren Carroll’s “History of Christendom” volume 1, and that made me want to come back to our conversation about Judith.

     Re-reading your comment, it seems your point was that you considered it an error that the book says that Nebuchadnezzar was the “King” of Assyria, and that he ruled “from Ninevah”. I am curious what translation you have been using, because after reading what Carroll says, I wondered if we are reading similar translations.

     Here is the translation of Judith in the New American Bible, Revised Edition on the USCCB website:

     It was the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who ruled over the Assyrians in the great city of Nineveh.

     Verse 1 says that Nebuchadnezzar ruled over the Assyrians who lived in Ninevah. Warren Carroll’s history confirms that in the 12th year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar (593BC?), the Babylonian Empire did in fact occupy and rule over the city of Ninevah. Even Wikipedia confirms there is archeological evidence that Ninevah was sacked in 612 B.C. by a coalition which included the Babylonian empire, and we see in dates throughout the 6th century B.C., that the Babylonian Empire controlled the area around Ninevah.

     Given these historical corollaries, a few of inferences seem very reasonable to make:
     1. Nebuchadnezzar did rule over the Assyrians who lived in Ninevah (as attested by Judith and external sources)
     2. In the context of Judith, it would be very reasonable to call him King of the Assyrians, because he was, in fact, the King over the Assyrians who lived in Ninevah, and that’s the group of Assyrians that are being talked about in the book. The book never states he was _not_ King of the Babylonians. A modern analogy is that the Queen of England is also called the Queen of Ireland in the context of Northern Ireland, even though most of Ireland is independent.
     3. Being King over Ninevah does not make Nebuchadnezzar is of Assyrian origin, nor does the book ever say he is an Assyrian.
     4. If Nebuchadnezzar was indeed waging military campaigns to the west of Ninevah, then it would make sense that he resided in Ninevah for periods of time during these campaigns.

782. Lojahw September 1st, 2014 2:35 pm :

     Hi JJ,
     You apparently don’t know Mormon theology if you think that they are Christians just because they call themselves the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. In the Apostle Paul’s words, they preach “another Jesus whom we have not preached.” Their Christ was conceived sexually by a father and mother in heaven; they believe his origin is no different than any other human being; they do not believe that he is the “only begotten” of the Father; they do not believe that “apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being;” etc. etc.

     Rather, as Paul says in 1 Cor. 1:2 (I should have quoted the whole verse last time!): “To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours.” The catholic Church indeed subsists in all “those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling . . . who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours.”

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

783. Lojahw September 1st, 2014 2:39 pm :

     Hi Jonathan,
     Good questions about Judith’s identification of Nebuchadnezzar. The LXX (translated) reads thus:

     1:1 “In the twelfth year of the reign of Nabuchodonosor, who reigned in Nineve, the great city”
     1:7 “Then Nabuchodonosor king of the Assyrians sent unto all that dwelt in Persia. . . . “

     Yes, Judith does call Nebuchadnezzar “king of the Assyrians” and verse 1 indeed claims that he “reigned in Nineve” (meaning, he lived in and ruled from) Nineveh. It is special pleading to say that only in this case one should read “reigned in” a place to mean “reigned over,” as is commonly said for kings whose rule extends beyond where they live.

     For example, 2 Sam. 5:5 says of David – “in Jerusalem he reigned thirty-three years over all Israel and Judah.”

     And 2 Chron. 9:30 says: “Solomon reigned forty years in Jerusalem over all Israel.”

     And 1 Kings 16:29 says: “Ahab the son of Omri reigned over Israel in Samaria twenty-two years.”

     And Josh. 13:10, “all the cities of Sihon king of the Amorites, who reigned in Heshbon, as far as the border of the sons of Ammon.”

     And Judges 4:2, “And the LORD sold them into the hand of Jabin king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor”

     Your assertion that Nebuchadnezzar must have resided in Ninevah while waging military campaigns is really stretching the point to justify your presuppositions.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

784. John Thayer Jensen September 1st, 2014 7:11 pm :

     Lojahw (#782)

     You apparently don’t know Mormon theology if you think that they are Christians just because they call themselves the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

     It is not I who consider them Christians. You said you considered “…all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” as Christians.

     So it would seem that your standard for the canon has to depend on knowing who you consider as Christians?

     jj

785. Jonathan Brumley September 1st, 2014 10:27 pm :

     Hi Lojahw, you wrote:

     It is special pleading to say that only in this case one should read “reigned in” a place to mean “reigned over,” as is commonly said for kings whose rule extends beyond where they live.

     I’m confused by this statement, because I don’t see the words “reigned in” in the translations I’m familiar with.

     The NRSV and NABRE both say this:

     It was the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who ruled over the Assyrians in the great city of Nineveh.

     The RSV say basically the same thing, except it replaces “It” with “In”, which seems to be a typo because it doesn’t make a complete sentence.

     Let me make sure I understand you before going on:

     1. Your translation of verse 1 says Nebuchadnezzar “reigned in” Ninevah, and you believe that this is an error because these English words imply that Ninevah was the capital of the Babylonian empire.

     2. You believe the alternate translation of verse 1 provided by the NRSV, NABRE, and RSV translations is not faithful to the LXX Septuagint.

     3. You believe the translation you are using conveys correctly the meaning of the original text of Judith.

     Is this what you are saying? If so, can you tell me which English translation you are using so I can read that source?

786. John Thayer Jensen September 1st, 2014 11:01 pm :

     Lojahw (#782)
     And a PS:

     The catholic Church indeed subsists in all “those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling . . . who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours.”

     If I understand you, I am reduced to discerning ‘…those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus…’ in order to know what the canon is. Once I have discerned the Church, then the Scriptures are the writings that the Church receives. Would that be right?

     Must confess it sounds, formally speaking, quite (Roman) Catholic. The difference between Catholics and non-Catholics comes down to discerning the Church – which is what I have always thought.

     jj

787. Lojahw September 2nd, 2014 6:34 pm :

     Hi JJ,
     “So it would seem that your standard for the canon has to depend on knowing who you consider as Christians?”

     At some level, knowing the canon depends on knowing who is led by the Holy Spirit. And, according to the Apostle Paul, the Holy Spirit indwells all those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours.”

     However, it seems your standard implies that anyone who is not in communion with the Roman Pontiff is not led by the Holy Spirit? That’s a large number of people who fit Paul’s definition of the catholic Church.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

788. Lojahw September 2nd, 2014 6:41 pm :

     Hi Jonathan,
     You can find the LXX English translation side-by-side with the Greek, from which your translations ultimately derive, here:
     https://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/chapter.asp?book=19&page=1

     You seem to insist on your personal interpretation of only those translations that you are most familiar with – that approach is not persuasive. How about letting it go?

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

789. John Thayer Jensen September 2nd, 2014 9:51 pm :

     Lojahw (#787)

     At some level, knowing the canon depends on knowing who is led by the Holy Spirit. And, according to the Apostle Paul, the Holy Spirit indwells all those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours.”

     Understood – and disagree. I don’t think it possible to know who is led by the Holy Spirit – on an individual basis.

     However, it seems your standard implies that anyone who is not in communion with the Roman Pontiff is not led by the Holy Spirit? That’s a large number of people who fit Paul’s definition of the catholic Church.

     This is the core, I think, of our disagreement. I do not agree that being led by the Spirit can tell me what the canon is, I do not think that everyone in formal communion with the Pope is, ipso facto, being led by the Spirit, and I do believe that there are people who are not in formal communion with the Pope who are, nonetheless, being led by the Spirit.

     I think that Jesus set up His Church and that the Church (which is not to say the individual members of it) is being led by the Spirit “into all truth” – that that Church, like the field of wheat and tares, like the dragnet with good and bad fish, that that Church has both saints and sinners in it. To identify that Church I do not believe you can discern who is being led by the Spirit as an individual.

     jj

790. Jonathan Brumley September 3rd, 2014 12:56 am :

     Hi Lojahw,

     You can find the LXX English translation side-by-side with the Greek, from which your translations ultimately derive, here

     Thanks! I was unaware of this site, and it looks like a great resource.

     You seem to insist on your personal interpretation of only those translations that you are most familiar with

     Let’s look at the translation you are using. I was unaware of this site before now.

     So, looking at this translation, does the “point of error” you see in Judith boil down to how the word “ἐβασίλευσεν” is translated? In other words, if the correct translation is that Nebuchadnezzar “reigned in” Ninevah, then verse 1 is historically in error, and if the text could be translated “reigned over”, then verse 1 could be considered historically accurate?

791. Lojahw September 3rd, 2014 6:27 pm :

     Hi JJ,
     I agree with you:
     “I do not think that everyone in formal communion with the Pope is, ipso facto, being led by the Spirit, and I do believe that there are people who are not in formal communion with the Pope who are, nonetheless, being led by the Spirit.

     I think that Jesus set up His Church and that the Church (which is not to say the individual members of it) is being led by the Spirit “into all truth” – that that Church, like the field of wheat and tares, like the dragnet with good and bad fish, that that Church has both saints and sinners in it.”

     Nevertheless, if I am a Christian and all Christians consider 1 John to be canonical, then as an individual, I have a conscience-binding responsibility to “test the spirits” of any so-called spiritual authority as the Apostle exhorts his readers to do. Moreover, when I say: “At some level, knowing the canon depends on knowing who is led by the Holy Spirit,” I include the source of the book in question. If the book expresses things that are out of line with the character of the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of Truth, who is God Himself “who cannot lie,” then I must question the canonicity of that book. For example, when I read Tobit and it tells me that Raphael, an angel who stands in the presence of God, explicitly lies about his identity – that raises red flags. If it doesn’t for you, I’d like to know why not?

     BTW – there’s a difference between discerning the canon as a whole and discerning the spirit of error in a particular book. To take the thought further, a spiritual authority who insists that there is nothing wrong with such a source without any explanation other than “trust me, I have the God-given charism of truth to declare such things” – I as a Christian have to question his credibility. The same applies to any group of Christians who make claims that certain books, which contain glaring issues, are canonical. Their credibility is questionable. I agree that as individuals, no one person or group of Christians can discern the canon (the extrinsic dimension of canonicity requires that it be authoritative for all, not just for one or some) – it does indeed require the Body of Christ, in unity, to recognize the canon as a whole. On the other hand, I respect the judgment of a group of Christians who recognize as canonical all the books which all Christians agree upon. That, to me, is a sign that the Holy Spirit really has guided the Church into all truth.

     The only reason this topic is a matter of debate is that there are more than 3 answers to the canon question (since not all Orthodox agree with each other, and their tradition recognizes more of the LXX books as canonical than either of the other major traditions). Which group gives the most credible answer to the question?

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

792. Lojahw September 3rd, 2014 6:33 pm :

     Dear Jonathan,
     You asked:
     does the “point of error” you see in Judith boil down to how the word “ἐβασίλευσεν” is translated? In other words, if the correct translation is that Nebuchadnezzar “reigned in” Ninevah, then verse 1 is historically in error, and if the text could be translated “reigned over”, then verse 1 could be considered historically accurate?

     No, Jonathan the verb you copied is just the verb translated “reigned” – you missed the preposition and are simply way over your head.

     If it helps, here’s the Latin Vulgate:
     1:1 Anno duodecimo regni Nabuchodonosor, qui regnavit in Assyriis in Nineve civitate magna
     (qui regnavit in Assyriis in Nineve = who reigned in Assyria in Nineveh)
     1:7 . . . Nabuchodonosor rex Assyriorum (Nebuchadnezzar, king of the Assyrians).

     Please let it drop.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

793. Lojahw September 3rd, 2014 6:37 pm :

     More completely:
     1:1 Anno duodecimo regni Nabuchodonosor, qui regnavit in Assyriis in Nineve civitate magna
     (In the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who reigned in Assyria in the great city of Nineveh.)

794. John Thayer Jensen September 3rd, 2014 10:13 pm :

     Lojahw (#791)

     if I am a Christian and all Christians consider 1 John to be canonical…

     I fear we are arguing in a circle here. Who are ‘all Christians?’ The Mormons recognise 1 John to be canonical – but you don’t consider them as Christians.

     It does seem to me you have to define the Church before you can define the Scriptures.

     …there’s a difference between discerning the canon as a whole and discerning the spirit of error in a particular book.

     That depends on whether the book in question is Scripture or not.

     jj

795. Christopher September 3rd, 2014 11:41 pm :

     Lojhaw & JJ,

     I feel as though there is a tendency to conflate “canonical” and “inspired” in these discussions… while the two are related, they are, historically-speaking, not always quite the same thing… that might be worth a look.

     IC XC
     Christopher

796. John Thayer Jensen September 4th, 2014 3:44 am :

     Christopher (#795)

     I feel as though there is a tendency to conflate “canonical” and “inspired” in these discussions… while the two are related, they are, historically-speaking, not always quite the same thing… that might be worth a look.

     Quite correct. ‘Canonical’ means ‘according to rule’ – the Church has judged that these books – which must, for this purpose, be inspired – are standards. ‘Inspired’ means ‘produced under the guidance of the Holy Spirit’ or something like that. Thus all canonical books must be inspired (if the Church, of course, has the guarantee of infallibly judging their inspired status – a matter in dispute, of course; but we are talking only about the meaning of the words). It is, I suppose, at least theoretically possible that there are inspired books which the Church has never judged worthy of the canon.

     But in my discussions with Lojahw I am assuming that what we are discussing is precisely how one can know about whether a book is inspired. The term ‘canonical’ does, indeed, conflate the two. I had felt that for our purposes, it was clear enough what I meant. I doubt there is in Lojahw’s mind any idea that there are inspired books which should not be considered official Scripture.

     Lojahw, would that be correct?

     jj

797. Lojahw September 4th, 2014 6:13 pm :

     Hi JJ,
     You wrote: “Who are ‘all Christians?’ The Mormons recognise 1 John to be canonical – but you don’t consider them as Christians.”

     It’s not my judgment but the Apostle Paul’s that you question. I simply quoted who he identified as the members of the Body of Christ in 1 Cor. 1:2 and why – in his judgment (not mine) – Mormons who accept the teaching of their spiritual authorities do not fit his definition of a Christian (cf. 2 Cor. 11:4). So in your view, is the phrase ‘all Christians’ meaningless? If not, how would you define ‘all Christians’?

     You also wrote:

     …there’s a difference between discerning the canon as a whole and discerning the spirit of error in a particular book.

     That depends on whether the book in question is Scripture or not.

     You only push back the question: how do you know that the spiritual authority who told you it was canonical (and therefore Truth breathed by God, the Spirit of Truth) is not in error? By your reckoning one can only test the spirits of a spiritual authority after one has been told that it is not from God? You previously said that an individual cannot decide, so you must be told. You seem to being saying that individuals cannot practice what the Apostle teaches in 1 John 4:1. Really? Why not?

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

798. Lojahw September 4th, 2014 6:18 pm :

     Hi Christopher,
     You wrote: I feel as though there is a tendency to conflate “canonical” and “inspired” in these discussions… while the two are related, they are, historically-speaking, not always quite the same thing… that might be worth a look.

     I agree that it is important not to conflate “canonical” and “inspired.” For example, Paul accepts the inspiration of prophets in the church at Corinth, but by saying that these prophets are to pass judgment on each other, he demonstrates that inspiration alone does not guarantee normative authority (cf. 1 Cor. 14:29-32).

     Nevertheless, divine inspiration is a prerequisite of canonicity, i.e., to be identified as “the word of the Lord,” or canonical – a book must possess both divine inspiration and normative authority. Do you agree?

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

799. John Thayer Jensen September 4th, 2014 7:24 pm :

     Lojahw (#797)
     The Apostle Paul does not say that Mormons are not Christians. It is your judgement that they do not fit his definition of Christian.

     This discussion is about the canon. Your position is that the canon is what Christians recognise as the canon – but since your judgement of who is and who is not a Christian is based on your interpretation of Scripture, you have reduced the canon question to your say-so. You haven’t given an objective criterion for deciding who is and who is not a Christian.

     This appears to be an impasse for this discussion.

     jj

800. Lojahw September 4th, 2014 8:04 pm :

     Hi JJ,
     Another thought: In order to find common ground, what if the focus were on all Christian Traditions (instead of ‘all Christians’) whose teaching about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can be (objectively) shown to be consistent with the Apostles’ teaching as preserved in the books that can be reasonably traced (irrespective of the canon question) to sources who were first-hand witnesses of Christ’s ministry on earth, and to Paul, Christ’s Apostle to the nations?

     Even more than a century before the Council of Nicea, Tertullian recognized churches as Apostolic – even those that could not physically trace their leaders to the Apostles – that taught Trinitarian orthodoxy, summarized in the “Rule of Faith.” As he wrote in The Prescription Against Heresies 32:

     those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine.”

     I believe that the books commonly recognized as canonical by all ‘orthodox’ Christian Traditions are evidence of the Holy Spirit leading the Church into all the truth.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

801. John Thayer Jensen September 4th, 2014 9:24 pm :

     Lojahw (#800)

     In order to find common ground, what if the focus were on all Christian Traditions (instead of ‘all Christians’) whose teaching about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can be (objectively) shown to be consistent with the Apostles’ teaching as preserved in the books that can be reasonably traced (irrespective of the canon question) to sources who were first-hand witnesses of Christ’s ministry on earth, and to Paul, Christ’s Apostle to the nations?

     It seems to me that this either begs the question, or else is an appeal to the Catholic Church. If you wish to select Trinitarian traditions because they are more in line with the Bible, then it must presuppose that we know what the Bible is – which is precisely the subject of this topic. Alternately, you want to choose the Trinitarian tradition because it is descended from the apostles. But in that case, you need to know how to discern which churches are descended from the apostles as true descendants – essentially the question of apostolic succession. And that can only be known if you know in advance how to discern such descent: those in union with the Catholic Church (in the ordinary sense of the meaning of that phrase) – which is the Catholic claim.

     In short, I do not see how you can identify the canon as those books accepted by the Church unless you already have identified the Church.

     jj

802. Lojahw September 4th, 2014 10:12 pm :

     JJ,
     Before answering your new question about inspired books which should not be considered official Scripture, I’d appreciate your answer to my previous question:

     You quoted me and responded:

     …there’s a difference between discerning the canon as a whole and discerning the spirit of error in a particular book.

     That depends on whether the book in question is Scripture or not.

     You only push back the question: how do you know that the spiritual authority who told you it was canonical (and therefore Truth breathed by God, the Spirit of Truth) is not in error? By your reckoning one can only test the spirits of a spiritual authority after one has been told that it is not from God? You previously said that an individual cannot decide, so you must be told. You seem to being saying that individuals cannot practice what the Apostle teaches in 1 John 4:1. Really? Why not?

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

803. Lojahw September 4th, 2014 10:18 pm :

     Also, JJ, what about my other thought in #800? I’ll even go further and suggest that the books commonly considered canonical for all Christian Churches – rather than Traditions – that teach the orthodox Trinitarian faith (by whatever standard you choose) should be considered in discerning the Holy Spirit’s leading into all truth.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

804. Lojahw September 4th, 2014 10:24 pm :

     ‘Sorry, JJ, I did not see your response in #801. You wrote:
     “If you wish to select Trinitarian traditions because they are more in line with the Bible, then it must presuppose that we know what the Bible is – which is precisely the subject of this topic. Alternately, you want to choose the Trinitarian tradition because it is descended from the apostles. But in that case, you need to know how to discern which churches are descended from the apostles as true descendants – essentially the question of apostolic succession.”

     You do not address what I said – which depends neither on the canonicity of the books nor on Apostolic succession. The following facts can be determined independently of ecclesiastical authority: “whose teaching about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can be (objectively) shown to be consistent with the Apostles’ teaching as preserved in the books that can be reasonably traced (irrespective of the canon question) to sources who were first-hand witnesses of Christ’s ministry on earth, and to Paul, Christ’s Apostle to the nations?”

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

805. Andy September 4th, 2014 11:11 pm :

     Lojahw

     “I believe that the books commonly recognized as canonical by all ‘orthodox’ Christian Traditions are evidence of the Holy Spirit leading the Church into all the truth.”

     A hypothetical question if I may. Suppose a large group of Missouri Synod Lutherans voted to get back to a pure Lutheranism and as he did at one time, reject the books of James, Jude and Revelation. In all other dogma they proclaim to believe as Luther did. Would their rejection of those 3 books be enough declare them to be unorthodox. If not haven’t you created a splitter group veto?

806. Seeker of Truth September 5th, 2014 10:20 am :

     I have been following this thread with interest, but only occasionally commenting. I tend to agree with lojahw’s assessment that Mormons aren’t Christians and that the canon “should” be determined based on the witness of different Christian traditions on the church. However, I will admit that I am troubled by the apparent circular reasoning that different variations on this approach inevitably seems to lead to. For example:

     Premise 1. We know the canon of scripture based on the books accepted by all major Christian groups (lowest common denominator approach, as some have labelled it)

     Premise 2. We know what counts as a “Christian” group based on their acceptance of certain “essential” teachings taught in the canon of scripture.

     At the end of the day, instead of this method being a way to objectively determine the correct canon of scripture, it seems that this could easily become a way to confirm one’s already preconceived determination of the canon (however that came about, either because of the tradition one was raised in or some interior moving of the spirit).

     For example, I know a number of Christians and some small churches that deny that the Old Testament is infallible scripture, since the New Testament replaced the old and the portrayal of God in the Old Testament is not consistent with the God we know from the New Testament. Are they Christians? I’m sure lojahw would respond and thoughtfully explain that this clearly contradicts the teachings of the New Testament (and I agree with that), but we are still left with the circularity problems.

     First, the only way to know that their view is wrong and therefore should not be considered in determining the canon, is because their view is claimed to contradict books that are in the canon.

     Second, even assuming we know that that particular belief is wrong apparent from the circularity problem, is that enough to exclude them from the definition of “Christians”? Those who support adult baptism only believe that those who support infant baptism are “wrong” and vice versa. Yet, most of them don’t consider the other to be not “Christians” because the distinction is not “essential.” But, that just leads us back to the original question of how do we know which doctrines are “essential” and which aren’t for purpose of determining which community counts as “Christian,” for the ultimate purpose of getting a “vote” on what books should be in the canon.

     Thanks all for the respectful and thoughtful discussion. It provides a lot of good food for thought. I have to confess that I can understand some of the appeal of the Catholic or Orthodox view toward authority as it relates to the determination of the canon.

807. donald todd September 5th, 2014 11:50 am :

     #800 Lohjaw

     “I believe that the books commonly recognized as canonical by all ‘orthodox’ Christian Traditions are evidence of the Holy Spirit leading the Church into all the truth.”

     If I am reading this correctly, you have identified the 66-book version of the Bible. Of note, since the promise of the Holy Spirit leading the Church to all truth would seem to be involved in the 73-book version of the Bible, recognizing that the 73-book version preceded the 66-book version by more than a thousand years, what authority would cause you to discard the seven books coming to you from posterity?

     Given the huge and antithetical differences in ‘orthodox’ Christian traditions (I don’t see the reason for a capital ‘t’ tradition outside of Catholicism and Orthodoxy, it being a given that many churches trinitarian or not don’t have or claim to have a tradition of any sort) why would you make that kind of claim?

808. Susan September 5th, 2014 1:07 pm :

     Hello Lojahw,

     I hope my interjecting doesn’t hurt your dialogue with John and any others, but exactly what Andy is drawing attention to above(comment #805)also concerned me when I was in the early part of my conversion, and that is trusting in the Protestant canon as the source for all orthodox Christianity when it was almost lost. If Luther, the man who even Protestant scholars say,introduced the theological novum of sola fide, had gotten his way, Christianity would have been even more altered by not having those three books to appeal to as a source of intrustruction and understanding. It seemed completely ad hoc ,to me , to be confident in Luther’s doctrine of salvation by faith alone when I could conceive of his disliking those particuliar books exactly because they held ideas contrary to the system for which he needed support.
     I wish that I had the transcript from yesterday’s CTC radio program with Dr. Anders because I believe he said that Jesus quoted the deuterocanon. If that is true it is curious that any Christian would not accept the whole cathoic bible as their own. Would you mind giving me your thoughts on this, please? Thank you in advance!

809. John Thayer Jensen September 5th, 2014 4:08 pm :

     Lojahw-
     I’m afraid I’m running out of steam. Very briefly:
     – regarding testing Spirits, you suggested I meant you couldn’t test the spirits until you knew something was not inspired. I would rather say that if you know that something is inspired, then ‘testing the spirit’ means judging the work you know to be inspired. But of course you must know first that it is inspired. If your conclusion that it is inspired stems from your testing, then it is you who have concluded that it is inspired. This is the ‘burning in the bosom’ approach.

     – regarding choosing the Trinitarian tradition, you have said that the Trinity can be shown to be consistent with the Apostles’ teaching looking at the books as historical records. But the problem is that Arianism can also be shown to be consistent with the Apostles’ teaching. We are now reduced to choosing our books based on scholarship – which is pretty much what the Reformation produced. And the scholars disagree.

     I really don’t think there is anything new we can discover about one another’s understanding of the situation here. It comes down, I think we have seen, to one of three positions:

     – I have an infallible internal witness from the Spirit
     – God has appointed an infallible Church
     – We must just do the best we can by studying the records and hope we are right

     jj

810. Lojahw September 5th, 2014 9:39 pm :

     Andy wrote:
     A hypothetical question if I may. Suppose a large group of Missouri Synod Lutherans voted to get back to a pure Lutheranism and as he did at one time, reject the books of James, Jude and Revelation. In all other dogma they proclaim to believe as Luther did. Would their rejection of those 3 books be enough declare them to be unorthodox. If not haven’t you created a splitter group veto?

     Some hypothetical questions are plausible and worth consideration; this one is neither plausible nor worth the time to formulate an answer. It is more plausible to pose the question for the Roman Catholic Church, which has a history of voting on the canon, beginning with Augustine (cf. On Christian Doctrine 2.8.12). After all, the Council of Trent voted on April 8, 1546 [after the Reformation was well underway], to include Tobit, Judith, 1&2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, and Sirach and called them deuterocanonical.

     What if Rome were to change their canon to include books like 3 and 4 Esdras, and 3 and 4 Maccabees, which the Council of Trent did not bring to a vote like they did the other books? Another interesting vote would be for Rome to decide the question between Jerome and Augustine, which, again, Trent left open. For further reading, see Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger (Wixom, Michigan:The Grotto Press, 2007), 240; and Hubert. A Jedin, History of the Council of Trent, Vol. 2, trans. Dom Ernest Graf (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1961), 57.

     On the question of Luther’s brief private (unfavorable) thoughts about James, Jude and Revelation, the Holy Spirit soon corrected him. Having accepted that correction, it is extremely unlikely that any Lutherans would again question their canonicity.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

811. Lojahw September 5th, 2014 10:37 pm :

     # Seeker of Truth wrote:
     “I know a number of Christians and some small churches that deny that the Old Testament is infallible scripture.”

     It seems that my repeated arguments based on the authentic records of Jesus’ and the Apostles’ teaching is going over many heads. My position does not rely on the canon, but on the authority of Jesus and the founders of the Church.

     Such churches seem to ignore the clear teaching of Jesus and the Apostles to the contrary, since Jesus identifies the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms as infallible Scripture, and the Apostles, as recorded in the books that authentically record their teaching (notice that this avoids the circularity that Seeker alleges based on appeals to canon) explicitly identify 33 of the 39 OT books as authoritative Scripture. Cf. Matt. 5:18-19; Luke 24:44-45; etc.

     Also:
     “even assuming we know that that particular belief is wrong apparent from the circularity problem, is that enough to exclude them from the definition of “Christians”?”

     I don’t see how this follows from my clarification that we can infer the Holy Spirit’s work in Christian Churches that teach what Jesus, the Apostles, and the Prophets taught about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as authentically recorded in the books from their times.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

812. Lojahw September 5th, 2014 10:38 pm :

     Hello, Donald.
     You don’t seem to know that the OT canons of 10 church fathers prior to 397 when Augustine published his 44 book OT canon explicitly excluded the books that Augustine added. (BTW – see #772 re: the dubious claim that the Council of Rome in 382 published the longer OT canon). Rather, the tradition attested by 5 church fathers before Augustine was to recognize “Canonical” books and “Ecclesiastical” books, the latter being reclassified by Trent to be “Deuterocanonical” – decades after the Reformers appealed to Jerome (as did Cardinals Cajetan and Ximenes) and the consensus of the early Church for the 66 book canon.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

     Re: “Traditions” – see #803. I’m happy to drop the word.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

813. Lojahw September 5th, 2014 10:53 pm :

     JJ @ 809, You did not address my assertion that 1 John 4:1 applies to all levels of spiritual authority. Before you were told what books were canonical, you made the personal decision to unquestionably trust the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore, your faith in your canon derives from a spiritual authority that is also subject to the test of 1 John 4:1. How do you know that your Church (as defined by Pope Boniface, et al.) possesses infallible spiritual authority? How does 1 John 4:1 apply to the papal bull below?

     E.g., “. . . if either the Greeks or others declare themselves not to be committed to Peter and his successors, they necessarily admit themselves not to be among the sheep of Christ, just as the Lord says in John, ‘there is one sheepfold, and only one shepherd.’” (Boniface VIII, Papal Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302).

     This assertion is in direct opposition to Jesus’ explicit teaching in John 10. According to Jesus, whoever hears His voice and follows Him (not the successors of Peter) is among the sheep of Christ. Moreover, it is undeniable that faithful Greek-speaking Orthodox have followed Christ for as long as there have been Latin-speaking Catholics – and that in 1054 the Eastern (Greek) and Western (Latin) Churches were torn apart. Therefore, Boniface’s argument in 1302 specifically calls out the Eastern Church as an example of those who “necessarily admit themselves not to be among the sheep of Christ.” Moreover, there was no counter “revelation” by any Pope prior to the time of the Reformation or for centuries afterward that excluded them from Boniface’s Papal Bull. Vatican II reinterpreted Unam Sanctam, but for more than half a millennium, any Christian who declared himself not committed to Peter and his successors, was deemed to be “outside the Church.”

     In the peace of Christ,
     Lojahw

814. Lojahw September 6th, 2014 10:10 am :

     For those who have recently joined the conversation, here’s a brief recap of my position.

     First, a hearty thanks to Tom Brown for his very thought-provoking article, which has sustained such a long-lived dialogue, and for his continued support of this combox!

     In my view, the article poses a number of challenges to perceived weaknesses of the basis for the Protestant canon, suggesting that the certainty required for conscience-binding authority of the canon can only come from the Church, led by the Holy Spirit into all truth, as ensured by apostolic succession in unity with the successors of Peter.

     My position, in contrast, is that the canon can be (and has been) discerned without relying on the authority of Rome. This is possible by appealing to the authority of the founders of the Church: Christ, the Apostles, and the Prophets; together with an understanding of canonicity (as defined by the Church’s founders) and a combination of internal and external evidence related to the books in question, as confirmed by the consensus testimony of the Holy Spirit throughout the Body of Christ. In brief, the 66 books commonly accepted as canonical throughout the Body of Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 1:2), comprise the canon. Since identifying the “Church” is subjective, I include all churches which consistently teach what the founders of the Church objectively teach about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

     I avoid circularity by first appealing to the teaching of Jesus, the Apostles, and the Prophets as contained in the books we have – not based on canonicity, but based on these books being authentic records of the teaching of those whom all Christians consider to be the unquestioned authorities for our faith. Ecclesiastical authority is not necessary to affirm authenticity.

     In my view, the way to understand the contents of historical Bibles – as well as “authoritative” quotations of non-canonical books – is to recognize what 5 early church fathers called “Canonical” and “Ecclesiastical” books. The former possess final doctrinal authority, the latter, although read and quoted by the Church (and included in Bibles), do not.

     A common misconception is to equate the contents of any given Bible with the canon. However, every Bible from the 4th century Greek Bible codices to the Vulgate to the King James Bible include both canonical and ‘ecclesiastical’ (by their reckoning) books. For example, Codex Sinaiticus (ca. 350) includes the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, and 1 & 4 Maccabees, in spite of the fact that not one of the 10 OT canons published from the 2nd century until 397 includes any of these books. (Sinaiticus also includes so-called Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, which never made any list of canonical books.) The Vulgate, containing Jerome’s OT canon which explicitly lists the 39 books and identifies the others as ‘Apocrypha’, not only included the deuteros listed above, but also 3 & 4 Esdras, as well as other books, depending on the edition. The King James Bible set apart the “Apocrypha”, but nevertheless included them. The point is that just because a Bible includes particular books does not mean those books are canonical. BTW – Jerome accepted the “Ecclesiastical” designation of the deuteros 8 years after he published his OT canon.

     Another common misconception is that whenever a church father uses the word “Scripture,” he means canonical book. The first definition of both the Greek and Latin words translated ‘scripture’ is “writing” – and the word is used by the church fathers loosely to include the writings of the Stoics (cf. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 5.14) as well as non-canonical sacred literature (e.g., Tertullian identifies Shepherd of Hermas as ‘scripture’, yet he says that it is rightly judged by the churches to be apocryphal – On Modesty 10). Similarly, as Christopher recently pointed out, “inspired” does not necessarily imply “canonical.” Ergo, the church fathers attribute some quotes to the “Holy Spirit” (including those of Greek philosophers!) without invoking canonical authority.

     Finally, I challenge Tom, et al., to apply 1 John 4:1 (test the spirits) to the authorities they consider beyond question: the deuterocanonical books, as well as those who claim apostolic authority within the Roman Catholic Church to declare these books to be canonical. Do these authorities reflect the Spirit of Truth or a spirit of error? I’ve posted a number of examples re: both the deuteros and Church authorities that raise questions about their credibility (e.g., @813 – currently awaiting moderation, 791, 754, etc.).

     See also my posts @772, 667, 563, 520, etc. for more.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

815. donald todd September 6th, 2014 7:01 pm :

     Lojahw #812

     Actually I was aware that there were disputes about which books were canonical. I was also aware that, despite the reservations of such worthies as Jerome, the Church made a decision about what is and what is not scripture. Of note, once the Church made a decision, Jerome accepted it.

     It is always important to know where the authority resides. In this case, it resides with the Church Whose Head and Founder is Christ Jesus.

816. Lojahw September 7th, 2014 3:35 pm :

     Hi JJ,
     In our recent exchanges re: the role of 1 John 4 (test the spirits) in discerning the canon,
     I noticed an interesting parallel between Roman Catholics and Mormons – both are reluctant to practice what the Apostle John teaches with respect to testing spiritual authorities.

     Mormons assume a “burning in the bosom” is a sign that the Holy Spirit affirms their discernment of divine revelation without testing whether or not the “Jesus” taught by their spiritual authorities is consistent with the Jesus taught by the Apostles.

     Roman Catholics, on the other hand, assume that the word from Rome is all they need to accept without question the words of Jesus ben Sirach, et al. For example, when questioned about what looks like evidence of the spirit of error in some of the deuterocanonicals, Roman Catholics cry foul: “You can’t question what Rome has declared to be canonical.” However, as I said in #802, this simply pushes back the question to the spiritual authority who told you to accept these books as the Word of the Lord.

     Protestants, on the other hand, heed the teaching of the Apostles to “test the spirits” to see if a spiritual authority is consistent with the Spirit of Truth (cf. 1 John 4:1-6) or not, and to “examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). The Spirit of Truth completes the process of discernment, because as Calvin wrote: “our conviction of the truth of Scripture must be derived from a higher source than human conjectures.”

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

817. Lojahw September 7th, 2014 3:55 pm :

     Hi Donald,
     What evidence do you have that Jerome accepted the longer canon?

     Jerome, Epiphanius, and Rufinus all published “twenty-two” book canons in 390, eight years after the Council of Rome in 382 (which, by the way, Jerome and Epiphanius both attended).

     Augustine and the Third Council of Carthage published the first 44 book canon in 397 (please note that the canon according to Augustine and every other western source of a longer canon, including the Council Trent, was at most 71 books, not 73 as you claim. Innocent I published a 70 book canon since he omitted Hebrews in the NT).

     In 398, Jerome amended his declaration that books beyond the “twenty-two” were Apocrypha, by agreeing with Rufinus, et al. regarding the distinction between “Canonical” and “Ecclesiastical” books. Commenting about the Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach in his Prologue to the Books of Solomon, Jerome says: “Therefore, just as the Church also reads the books of Judith, Tobias, and the Maccabees, but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also one may read these two scrolls [Wisdom and Sirach] for the strengthening of the people, (but) not for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas.”

     The complete Vulgate, published in 404, included Jerome’s Preface to the Books of Samuel and Kings, which preserved his “twenty-two” book canon for over 1000 years in the “authorized” version of the Bible up to the time of the Reformation. How else do you explain Cardinal Cajetan – in Luther’s day – saying of the canon: “For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome.”

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

818. John Thayer Jensen September 7th, 2014 4:40 pm :

     Lojahw (#813)

     JJ @ 809, You did not address my assertion that 1 John 4:1 applies to all levels of spiritual authority. Before you were told what books were canonical, you made the personal decision to unquestionably trust the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore, your faith in your canon derives from a spiritual authority that is also subject to the test of 1 John 4:1. How do you know that your Church (as defined by Pope Boniface, et al.) possesses infallible spiritual authority?

     Testing the spirits does not apply to all levels of spiritual authority. If someone is known to be an authority, it is for him to judge me, not me to judge him. Once I have determined that the Catholic Church is God’s ordained authority over me, I do not judge it; it judges me. Analogously, you believe the Bible to be God’s authority over you (although it is an authority only in a passive sense); you, therefore, do not ‘test the spirits’ when reading the Bible.

     The question of knowing whether the Catholic Church is that authority is not the subject of this post. The subject of this post is the question of how one can know the canon. If the Church is that authority, then the Church tells us. There may be a post in CtC that discusses how one knows the Catholic Church is that authority. Perhaps Bryan or someone can point that out if you want to discuss the question there.

     jj

819. Covenanter September 7th, 2014 5:33 pm :

     “It is always important to know where the authority resides. In this case, it resides with the Church Whose Head and Founder is Christ Jesus.”

     Does final authority lie in Scripture or in the Church?

     It is my understanding that the author of the Scripture is the Holy Spirit speaking through inspired men. I was taught the Scriptures were the Word of God and the final authority from God Himself.

     I understand that church courts and councils have produced subordinate standards using Scripture as the primary standard, and that that which is subordinate has less authority than that which is primary. For example, the Supreme Court would have authority over a lower Appeals court in USA jurisprudence. The subordinate court would not have authority over the Supreme court. Thus, how could a church court have precedence and authority over the Scripture itself; which many believe and even argue is the Word of God?

820. JohnD September 7th, 2014 5:48 pm :

     Lojahw (re: #814),

     Thanks for the brief recap of your position.

     I’ve posted a number of examples re: both the deuteros and Church authorities that raise questions about their credibility (e.g., @813 – currently awaiting moderation, 791, 754, etc.).

     First, “raising questions” about their credibility does not in any way imply their lack of credibility if such “questions” can be answered. I responded to your #754 in #758 (not sure if you ever saw it).

     In #791, I detect several “raised questions”. You said:

     For example, when I read Tobit and it tells me that Raphael, an angel who stands in the presence of God, explicitly lies about his identity – that raises red flags. If it doesn’t for you, I’d like to know why not?

     The Catholic is not forced to say Raphael “explicitly lies about his identity” in Tobit 5. One suggestion is that Raphael uses human names with various meanings: “the healer of YHWH” and “The goodness of YHWH” or “The grace of YHWH”. Even though Tobit might interpret the names literally, it does not mean Raphael intended them as literal names.

     You also said:

     The same applies to any group of Christians who make claims that certain books, which contain glaring issues, are canonical. Their credibility is questionable. [emphasis mine]

     The part in italics begs the question. Again, see my response in #758; “glaring issues” do not answer the question of a book’s canonicity one way or the other.

     In #813, you allege a lack of credibility based on Boniface VIII’s statements in Unam Sanctam. You said:

     This assertion is in direct opposition to Jesus’ explicit teaching in John 10. According to Jesus, whoever hears His voice and follows Him (not the successors of Peter) is among the sheep of Christ.

     You create the “direct opposition” and beg the question, since you assume that Peter and his successors are not the authoritative head of Christ’s Church. If Christ delegated authority over his Church to Peter and his successors, then to hear and follow Christ is to hear and follow Peter and his successors.

     Vatican II reinterpreted Unam Sanctam

     This is just an assertion. To show a “reinterpretation” in a sense implying contradiction (i.e. the original document meant X and Vatican II said it meant not X) you would need an argument, not just an assertion.

     but for more than half a millennium, any Christian who declared himself not committed to Peter and his successors, was deemed to be “outside the Church.”

     This is a constant teaching of the Catholic Church. Anyone who is not committed to the Church Christ founded is outside the Church in the sense that they are not in full communion with the Church. However, that those persons (i.e. ones not in full communion) may still be saved is also a constant teaching of the Church (e.g. Catechumens who die while preparing to enter the Church).

     So again, “raising questions” about their credibility does not in any way imply their lack of credibility if such “questions” can be answered.

     Peace,
     John D.

821. Lojahw September 7th, 2014 9:43 pm :

     Thank you, JJ, for responding to my question. Since the crux of the issue between us is a disagreement over whether the deutero-canonicals faithfully and fully reflect the character of the Spirit of Truth, it is reasonable to evaluate them according to standards set by those authorities which we hold in common. However, you seem unwilling to accept the authority of Sacred Scripture in this area, by appealing to a “higher authority” – your Church.

     Can you, then, explain how your position honors the authority of 1 John 4:1, which your Church acknowledges is the word of God, in light of the following statement from Dei Verbum?

     This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit.

     Re: “what has been handed on” – the historical facts belie the assumption that the Apostles “handed on” the deuteros as canonical. Moreover, if they were not handed on by the Apostles as canonical, who has the authority to challenge their judgment? If your Church’s teaching office is true to the above statement, it should be willing to reassess what sources are indisputably right and true (an intrinsic characteristic of all canonical books).

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

822. John Thayer Jensen September 7th, 2014 9:48 pm :

     Lojahw (#816)

     Roman Catholics, on the other hand, assume that the word from Rome is all they need to accept without question the words of Jesus ben Sirach, et al. For example, when questioned about what looks like evidence of the spirit of error in some of the deuterocanonicals, Roman Catholics cry foul: “You can’t question what Rome has declared to be canonical.” However, as I said in #802, this simply pushes back the question to the spiritual authority who told you to accept these books as the Word of the Lord.

     Again, this is off-topic. If the Church is what it says, then you are no more in a position to ‘test the spirits’ than you are in a position to ‘test the spirits’ when reading I John 4:1-6 to see if the command there to ‘test the spirits’ is itself from the Spirit. You treat it as an authority. It judges you, you do not judge it.

     This does not constitute an argument for the authority of the Church; this says that I cannot consistently both believe in the authority of the Church and ‘test the spirits’ to see if the Church is correct about, say, claiming that Tobit is Scripture.

     If you wish to discuss whether the Church is what it is, if there is a post on the subject, we can continue that discussion there. I don’t know if there is a post on the subject; perhaps Bryan can enlighten us.

     jj

823. Lojahw September 7th, 2014 10:41 pm :

     Hi JD, It’s been a while – I hope you’ve been well!
     Actually, I did not see #758, so thanks for the pointer!

     You demurred re: the Greek end of Judith (which gives a glaringly erroneous genealogy), but it is certainly germane to the question of the veracity of a “canonical” book to carefully examine its original form (cf. 1 Thess. 5:21). So you think it’s acceptable to allow a Latin translation (ca. 400) which covers over the error to become the “canonical” version? Since the Latin translation came 400 years after the Apostles, it could not have been “handed on” by them (using the words of Dei Verbum).

     Re: Judith – “the author of Judith used the name Nebuchadnezzar in place of an actual historical king that he could not cite at the time (out of fear/danger or some other unknown reason) OR the name of the king was chosen as a literary device for what he represents.” Your first answer lacks credibility in light of the numerous explicit references to kings that were enemies of the Jews and who often had the power to exterminate them (e.g., the husband of Esther). In any case, this Nebuchadnezzar is not the villain of the story, so your explanation doesn’t hold water. Similarly, your suggestion that Nebuchadnezzar could be a literary device for what he represents also makes no sense because he has no particular role in the story other than to set a context. You are over your head asserting such literary devices. Since you don’t seem to have competency in literary criticism, you should let others try to give more plausible explanations.

     Your 3rd point in #758 is that you don’t believe it is appropriate to respond when someone “point[s] out how egregious and outrageous nature of the apparent error [is]”. If that is your position, why are you wasting both of our time? 1 John 4:1 applies more than ever.

     In #820, you said about Tobit:

     The Catholic is not forced to say Raphael “explicitly lies about his identity” in Tobit 5. “One suggestion is that Raphael uses human names with various meanings: “the healer of YHWH” and “The goodness of YHWH” or “The grace of YHWH”.

     No one said you were “forced” to say that Raphael lies about his identity, but calling himself “Azarias, the son of Ananias the great, and of thy brethren” [ἐγὼ ᾿Αζαρίας ᾿Ανανίου τοῦ μεγάλου, τῶν ἀδελφῶν σου] is a lie. Your red herring about the possible meanings of ‘Azarias’ doesn’t eliminate the lie.

     Re: my quote in #813 of Boniface, you say:
     “You create the “direct opposition” and beg the question, since you assume that Peter and his successors are not the authoritative head of Christ’s Church.”
     I don’t follow your logic, JD. Could please tell me where you see Peter in John 10:27-28?
     “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.”
     Are you saying that “My” means Jesus and “Me” means Peter? I don’t recall Jesus ever telling Peter that he would quit being Peter and morph into the person of Jesus.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

824. John Thayer Jensen September 9th, 2014 9:30 pm :

     Lojahw (821)

     Since the crux of the issue between us is a disagreement over whether the deutero-canonicals faithfully and fully reflect the character of the Spirit of Truth…

     Perhaps this explains why we have been talking past one another. The crux of the issue between us is whether we can know what books are in the canon of Scripture by any means other than that of being told it by the (infallible, necessarily, else we could not know) Church.

     … it is reasonable to evaluate them according to standards set by those authorities which we hold in common.

     Except that our respective reasons for holding those authorities in common differ fundamentally; and, most importantly, our respective ways of evaluating anything by those authorities are fundamentally different. To agree to evaluate some books by our private interpretation of others is to beg the question of sola Scriptura (which, again, is off the topic of the canon and how we can know it).

     However, you seem unwilling to accept the authority of Sacred Scripture in this area, by appealing to a “higher authority” – your Church.

     No. I am unwilling to accept that your understanding of Sacred Scripture can be authoritative. And putting ‘higher authority’ in scare quotes is itself both to beg the question whether the Church’s interpretive authority is from Christ, and also to set up a straw man, since the Church does not claim to be a higher authority than Scripture. Finally, calling it ‘my Church’ again begs the question whether it is Christ’s Church.

     Can you, then, explain how your position honors the authority of 1 John 4:1, which your Church acknowledges is the word of God, in light of the following statement from Dei Verbum?

     This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit.

     Because explaining it is not being above it.

     Re: “what has been handed on” – the historical facts belie the assumption that the Apostles “handed on” the deuteros as canonical. Moreover, if they were not handed on by the Apostles as canonical, who has the authority to challenge their judgment? If your Church’s teaching office is true to the above statement, it should be willing to reassess what sources are indisputably right and true (an intrinsic characteristic of all canonical books).

     This begs the question whether the Church has been gifted by Christ with the discernment to know whether the deutero-canonical books were handed on by the Apostles.

     All of your comments are about the question whether the Church has that gift, not about whether the canon can be known with certainty without the Church’s having that gift.

825. Lojahw September 10th, 2014 6:59 pm :

     Hi JJ,
     Thank you for clarifying the issue:

     The crux of the issue between us is whether we can know what books are in the canon of Scripture by any means other than that of being told it by the (infallible, necessarily, else we could not know) Church.

     Part of the problem is the conflation of epistemology (how we objectively know something to be true) with “conscience-binding authority” (subjective recognition of the divine source of what we know). Nevertheless, I agree with Calvin that only the Holy Spirit can convict our consciences re: the divine authority of Scripture. Otherwise, “knowing” is no better than being like the demons who believe God is one.

     You and I might disagree on how the Holy Spirit accomplishes conscience-binding conviction, but we can still discuss epistemology. And, if, as the article insists, there is no “reliable” way to know the canon apart from Rome’s authority, why do all Protestants recognize the same canon – spite of their oft-criticized differences? Maybe your epistemology is deficient.

     If the crux of the issue is simply epistemology: how can we know what books are in the canon of Scripture, I have suggested a number of ways to identify canonical books (and some that are not). For example, there should be no argument about the books the founders of the church recognized as Scripture. But Calvin does not limit the “evidence” of canonicity to one thing, and neither should anyone else. As Jesus said, let every fact be confirmed by two or three witnesses. In his Institutes 1.7.4-1.8.13, Calvin argues that evidence regarding canonicity includes its peculiar property of truth, its beautiful testimony of faith, its antiquity, miracles, prophecy, authenticity, preservation, the testimony of the Church, and the blood of the martyrs. Regarding the testimony of the Church, for example, if a book has been reasonably identified as the authentic work of an Apostle (a founder of the Church) and it has endured (cf. Isa. 40:8; 1 Pet. 1:25), then one can know that it is canonical. Etc.

     I think we agree that the settled testimony of the Church must confirm any assertion of canonicity; but the inverse is not necessarily so. “False positives” by the Church re: canonicity are like false positives with respect to widespread beliefs by the church fathers – duly representing “apostolic succession” in communion with the “Roman See” – that Solomon wrote The Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach, and therefore these books were viewed as having some level of spiritual authority (although even canonists who excluded these books from the canon shared these mistaken views).

     I also suggest that the tests of canonicity are not dependent on recognizing the books they come from as canonical, but on recognizing their authority as the teaching of founders of the Church: Christ Jesus, the Apostles, and the Prophets. It is simply not necessary to ask Rome if the Gospels and Epistles do, in fact, accurately record the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles – and if so, the authority necessary to know the canon rests not with Rome, but with the founders of the Church and common ways of knowing what is true. E.g., since God does not lie, and the author of Wisdom of Solomon falsely represented himself as the great sage, blessed by the Holy Spirit, then his book cannot be from God, and thus not canonical. Likewise, based on the historical testimony of the Church, the four Gospels can be considered to authentically record Jesus’ teaching and ministry, just as the epistles and Acts can be considered to authentically record the Apostles’ teaching – and consequently, being the teaching of the founders of the Church, they are canonical.

     Furthermore, testing the spirits of the books for consistency with the Spirit of Truth vs the spirit of error is a reasonable means of testing for consistency with canonicity – whether or not you agree that it is a valid interpretation of 1 John 4:1. As you said, the question is whether there are “any means other than that of being told it by the . . . Church.” Just because it doesn’t agree with your presuppositions about authority, does not make it invalid as one means for knowing whether a book represents what is indisputably right and true – a given for any book that is canonical. Truth does not have to rely on appeals to authority, yet your epistemology seems to assume that. I can know Jesus is my Savior and Lord apart from the authority of any particular ecclesiastical authority.

     Since the rules of epistemology cannot be different for the canon than for other matters of truth, your assertions about how one must know the canonical books of Scripture are questionable.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

826. John Thayer Jensen September 10th, 2014 10:43 pm :

     Lojahw (#825)

     I agree with Calvin that only the Holy Spirit can convict our consciences re: the divine authority of Scripture. Otherwise, “knowing” is no better than being like the demons who believe God is one.

     I would say that in most areas we can know something with what Catholics call moral certainty – which means knowing something with enough certainty that we have a moral duty to act on it. That level of moral certainty the demons must have – which is why their refusal to act on it is guilty. The level of conviction you are talking about is, I would say, the gift of faith which the Holy Spirit gives.

     … if, as the article insists, there is no “reliable” way to know the canon apart from Rome’s authority, why do all Protestants recognize the same canon – spite of their oft-criticized differences?

     The issue here is, again, it seems to me, one of circularity. You are implicitly defining a Protestant as one who recognises the 66-book canon. A friend of mine is a Unitarian who (as far as I can discern) thinks inspiration a continuum. The word ‘Protestant’ would be applied by many to Mormons – who recognise a very much larger canon. Anglo-Catholics often recognise a 73-book canon.

     As the Catholic says, the only way to know the canon is as the books recognised by ‘the Church’ – but first you must recognise the Church. You have, I think, recognised as Church a larger grouping – basically Catholics, magisterial Protestants, Anglicans, Orthodox – and take the intersection of books that these groups call canonical as the canon.

     Fair enough. But I would say that your definition of what constitutes ‘Church’ is an unconscious assumption that your tradition is correct. You reject those who add (the Mormons) as well as those who subtract (my Unitarian friend) – based on what?

     I do think that is the fundamental question – not this or that doctrine, not the Pope vs Councils. The canon question itself is brought up only to argue that without knowing the Church, you can’t have the Bible as an infallible authority since you can’t know what the Bible is unless you know what the Church is. That, I think, is what you yourself are saying – but you know what the Church is already – but I think your knowledge of what the Church is is circular: the Church is those who accept the Bible and the Bible is that which is accepted by the Church.

     But now we are back into the question of how to recognise the Church – off-topic again, and my fault this time :-)

     jj

827. Lojahw September 11th, 2014 6:55 pm :

     Hi JJ,
     Re: “what has been handed on” – the historical facts belie the assumption that the Apostles “handed on” the deuteros as canonical. Moreover, if they were not handed on by the Apostles as canonical, who has the authority to challenge their [the Apostles’] judgment?

     You wrote: “This begs the question whether the Church has been gifted by Christ with the discernment to know whether the deutero-canonical books were handed on by the Apostles.”

     Since, as you say, epistemology is the crux of this combox, can you explain the fault in that below, which admits, as Calvin did, the testimony of the Church?

     If indeed the Apostles taught the canonicity of books like Wisdom, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees, there should be some evidence of their recognition as canonical by their successors. However, the facts are:

     1. Jesus and the Apostles did not hide the identity of books they considered to be canonical: the authentic records of their teaching identify at least 33 books as canonical – not including any of the above. (Although this is admittedly an incomplete list of canonical books, but read on.)

     2. For almost 4 centuries, from Melito to Jerome, the overwhelming consensus of the church fathers who published canons of Scripture favors the 39 OT books (albeit with a few anomalies, including the possible addition of Epistle of Jeremiah – mistakenly attributed to the Prophet). At the same time, these church fathers not only OMITTED all of the above books, but several of them explicitly EXCLUDED these books.

     3. Irenaeus famously refuted heretics in the second century thus: “It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world” . . . “For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to ‘the perfect’ apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves.” And “when we refer them [the heretics] to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition” (Against Heresies 3.3.1; 3.2.2). According to Irenaeus, if there were a canonical tradition handed on by the Apostles, it would have been known throughout the whole world by the successors of the Apostles. That tradition, from the records of the church fathers, can only be described as a “twenty-two” book canon for almost 4 centuries.

     4. Indeed, Cyril of Jerusalem (ca. 347) wrote: “Of these [the books of the Septuagint] read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than yourself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books.” (Catechetical Lectures 4.33.

     5. Therefore, the evidence suggests that Rome rejects the tradition of the “twenty-two” books which originates from the Apostles.

     6. On the other hand, “handed on” could mean either that the deuteros were “handed on” by the Apostles as “ecclesiastical” books, or that some later church fathers “handed [them] on” as canonical. In either case, the testimony of the Church stands against your conclusions.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

828. John Thayer Jensen September 11th, 2014 11:11 pm :

     Lojahw (#827)

     Re: “what has been handed on” – the historical facts belie the assumption that the Apostles “handed on” the deuteros as canonical.

     This is the following arguments assume that you must have evidence independent of the witness of the Church’s own testimony, and that the Church’s testimony itself is to be judged by you. But that begs the question whether in fact the Church is what it says: “God’s mouthpiece.”

     Note that the testimony of this or that Church father is not identical with the judgement of the Church. The judgement of the Church on those books is plain from things such as Trent. Since the claim of the Church is that it does not add to the deposit of faith, but only explains it, Trent’s canon is claimed to be handed down from the Apostles – whether or not there is extra-ecclesiastical evidence (I do not have the competence to judge the latter question).

     Thus we are still arguing about what the Church is – its locus, character, and mission.

     jj

829. John Thayer Jensen September 11th, 2014 11:27 pm :

     Lojahw – PS – the point is not “this is the canon because the Church says so.” It is “the Catholic has a principled means of knowing the canon; the Protestant has not.”

     jj

830. Lojahw September 12th, 2014 8:52 am :

     Hi JJ,
     Why do you insist on calling Mormons and Unitarians, which deny the Lord Jesus, Protestants? What separates Protestants from these other groups is their denial of the Lord Jesus. After all, JWs recognize the same canon, but not the same Lord Jesus. You insult all of the above by failing to recognize their fundamental theological differences. Please stop.

     Re: “you can’t know what the Bible is unless you know what the Church is” – see #827. I hope you agree that the authorities whose testimonies I cite do indeed represent the Church which was founded by Jesus Christ, and that their testimonies more than satisfy Jesus’ standard for establishing facts “by the mouth of two or three witnesses.” #827 demonstrates how the Reformers justified their exclusion of the deuteros from the canon while avoiding your objection re: recognizing the Church (re: Epistle of Jeremiah, see #579, 512, etc.).

     Blesssings,
     Lojahw

831. Lojahw September 12th, 2014 8:19 pm :

     Hi JJ,
     You wrote: “As the Catholic says, the only way to know the canon is as the books recognised by ‘the Church’” and “The judgement of the Church on those books is plain from things such as Trent.”

     So, by your reckoning the Church did not have a plain judgment until 1546. If it did, you would have pointed to the “plain” answer given earlier. Yet, as R.C. wrote: how does your epistemology work in say AD 150, AD 250, AD 350, etc.? Moreover, if there were a conscience-binding pronouncement of the “Church” prior to 1546, why didn’t the cardinals of the Church in Luther’s time get and submit to that word? Or maybe that’s a counter-example to the article’s assertion that apostolic succession and being in communion with the pope is enough to ensure infallible truth.

     You are evading the fact that your epistemology depends on Trent in 1546 to answer the canon question (and even then two of the books now on your list were omitted by Trent). That’s a pretty sad admission of either the Church’s negligence or ignorance.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

832. John Thayer Jensen September 12th, 2014 8:41 pm :

     Lojahw (#830)

     Why do you insist on calling Mormons and Unitarians, which deny the Lord Jesus, Protestants?

     I don’t insist on calling them anything. I believe you can only deny they are Protestants by a circularity.

     What separates Protestants from these other groups is their denial of the Lord Jesus.

     But they don’t. They all claim they follow the Lord Jesus.

     After all, JWs recognize the same canon, but not the same Lord Jesus.

     Your claim that the Jesus they follow is not the same Jesus is circular. You know ‘which’ Jesus because you follow the Catholic tradition to that extent. Supposing you had a non-arbitrary ground for recognising the canon, even that would not help you, since proving the hypostatic union from Scripture needs tradition; the JWs, as you correctly say, believe that they prove His created status.

     You insult all of the above by failing to recognize their fundamental theological differences.

     Since I do, in fact, recognise their fundamental theological differences, I insult no one.

     Please stop.

     Since I haven’t started what you claim, I have nothing to stop.

     My point, Lojahw, is that you have no principled basis to reject Mormons, Unitarians, or JWs as Protestants. They all derive from the same stream. Your rejection of them is based on (1) your understanding of what books are Scripture; (2) your understanding of their inspired nature; and (3) your understanding of what they teach and of what they deny.

     Re: “you can’t know what the Bible is unless you know what the Church is” – see #827. I hope you agree that the authorities whose testimonies I cite do indeed represent the Church which was founded by Jesus Christ, and that their testimonies more than satisfy Jesus’ standard for establishing facts “by the mouth of two or three witnesses.”

     But I do not and cannot agree. Your choice of those Christian witnesses as representing Christ’s Church, and your rejection of e.g. Mormons, Unitarians, and JWs, is based on your prior belief that you know the canon, its character, and its teaching.

     #827 demonstrates how the Reformers justified their exclusion of the deuteros from the canon while avoiding your objection re: recognizing the Church (re: Epistle of Jeremiah, see #579, 512, etc.).

     It does. It does not demonstrate that their exclusion was correct.

     jj

833. Lojahw September 12th, 2014 9:38 pm :

     JJ @829: the point is . . . “the Catholic has a principled means of knowing the canon; the Protestant has not.”

     I do not follow.
     What is not “principled” about adhering to accepted rules of evidence and accepted standards of truth?
     What about the epistemology I have described is faulty, as I asked in #827? (Please do not give a cryptic answer like: “it is not principled epistemology”)

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

834. John Thayer Jensen September 12th, 2014 9:40 pm :

     Lojahw (#831)

     So, by your reckoning the Church did not have a plain judgment until 1546.

     By no means. The Church’s judgement wasn’t challenged until the Reformation. It then responded in 1546. The Church has never declared as a matter of dogma that angels exist, because no one has ever made it an issue. That does not mean that from the start the Church has known that angels exist.

     how does your epistemology work in say AD 150, AD 250, AD 350, etc.?

     The same way it works in 1546. Some of the pre-Nicene fathers’ statements on what would come to be known as the Trinity would be heretical if stated after 325.

     You are evading the fact that your epistemology depends on Trent in 1546 to answer the canon question (and even then two of the books now on your list were omitted by Trent). That’s a pretty sad admission of either the Church’s negligence or ignorance.

     No, my epistemology depends on trusting the Church. In 1520, say, had I wanted to know what was in the Bible, I would simply have looked. This is neither negligence nor ignorance on the part of the Church. Not everything statable need be stated at every point. I am neglecting to explain here what I did in primary school; it does not mean I don’t know it.

     jj

835. Lojahw September 13th, 2014 10:30 am :

     For JJ @832: “I believe you can only deny they are Protestants by a circularity.”

     JJ, whatever circularity you perceive must be coming out of your own head. I’ve been careful to appeal to the authority of the teaching of the founders of the Church rather than to canon as canon. How can we know their teaching? According to the principle: “let every fact be confirmed by testimony of two or three witnesses.” Moses, Jesus, and Paul all appeal to this principle (cf. Deut. 19:15; Matt. 18:16; 2 Cor. 13:1). The testimony of Christians from the first century to the present confirms that the books of the New Testament do indeed authentically preserve their teaching.

     Re: Mormons, Unitarians, and JWs, you have no right to identify them with Protestants. The identity of Protestants is tied to the principles articulated in the five Solas, which these other groups undeniably repudiate. I.e., Salvation is (1) in Christ alone; (2) through faith alone; (3) by grace alone; (4) for God’s glory alone; (5) according to the Scriptures alone. On #5, by definition, anyone who does not recognize the 66 books as Scripture is not a Protestant (according to the Reformers and all the charter documents of the Reformation). None of the groups you mention adhere to these principles; all repudiate the identity of Christ as taught according to the Scriptures (e.g, see #782 on Mormons; and contrast the beliefs of all 3 with the description of Christ as God, the Creator of all things in John 1:1-3, 14). Please note that although Protestants and Roman Catholics share a common Trinitarian faith, our beliefs rest on the final authority of the 66 books, not on Tradition (which has accumulated “baggage” on top of the Truth of “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints”).

     Re: “principled” epistemology, why do you dismiss the principle articulated by Christ and the Apostles re: facts being confirmed by the testimony of two or three witnesses? Based on their epistemic principle, the Church omitted Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees, from the canon for almost 400 hundred years. Why else would you call these books “deuterocanonical”??? The Apostles clearly didn’t originate that tradition.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

836. Lojahw September 13th, 2014 9:36 pm :

     JJ@834: “In 1520, say, had I wanted to know what was in the Bible, I would simply have looked.”

     Very interesting, JJ, since your Bible in 1520 would have included 3 & 4 Esdras and 4 Maccabees! What makes you think that every book you find in the Bible is canonical? I suggest you reread post #814.

     Blessings,
     Lojahw

837. John Thayer Jensen September 13th, 2014 10:02 pm :

     Lojahw (#835)

     … whatever circularity you perceive must be coming out of your own head. I’ve been careful to appeal to the authority of the teaching of the founders of the Church rather than to canon as canon.

     How does appealing to certain persons – whom you call ‘Church Fathers’ but that presupposes you know what the ‘Church’ is – how does such an appeal tell you in a non-circular fashion who a true Protestant is?

     Mormons, Unitarians, and JWs, you have no right to identify them with Protestants.

     I didn’t say I identify them with Protestants. I don’t see what principled basis you have for denying they are Protestants.

     The identity of Protestants is tied to the principles articulated in the five Solas, which these other groups undeniably repudiate. I.e., Salvation is (1) in Christ alone; (2) through faith alone; (3) by grace alone; (4) for God’s glory alone; (5) according to the Scriptures alone.

     Why?

     …“principled” epistemology, why do you dismiss the principle articulated by Christ and the Apostles re: facts being confirmed by the testimony of two or three witnesses?

     But when there are conflicting witnesses? Catholics (and Orthodox) witness to the ‘deuteros.’

     Why else would you call these books “deuterocanonical”???

     Because the Church uses that term – presumably for the very reasons you have cited: that they are of secondary witness and importance. How does that make them non-canonical?

     The Apostles clearly didn’t originate that tradition.

     Why is that clear? What the Apostles originated is not something you can know without a witness. We are, again, reducing the argument to the question whether the Church is a reliable witness.

     jj

838. John Thayer Jensen September 13th, 2014 10:17 pm :

     Lojahw (#833)

     What is not “principled” about adhering to accepted rules of evidence and accepted standards of truth?

     Because your standard of truth isn’t accepted by all. It is personal. You have chosen certain early writers – whom you call by the tendentious name ‘Church Fathers’ – as your standard of truth. If the Church – meaning the authoritative statement of the bishops when they are in agreement with the Pope – if that Church is what it says it is, then the standard of truth in this case depends on the witness of the Church. But you don’t accept that standard. That standard – if it is well-founded – is principled. It means that we need only to find out what the Church in that sense testifies on the subject to know the truth.

     In your case, your principle is based on a selection of witnesses, but that selection has, so far, no principled basis other than the circular one: these are the writers who are in what you see as the ‘mainstream.’ Your mainstream is, in fact, a selection from amongst the Catholic fathers. But why should their witness be correct? Some fathers did, I am told – I am no expert – treat these books as Scripture.

     ‘Principled’ means, in my understanding, ‘here is a rule by which I can decide the truth of a statement.’ The Catholic has such a principle: the Church’s testimony. You have, indeed, a principle: you think these specific Church fathers rejected these books (there are lots of articles on the Web that would argue that you are conflating ‘rejected’ and ‘treat as distinct from the other books in the Bible; not the same thing). But the selection of those fathers appears to me to be based on the result you want to achieve.

     To illustrate what I mean about the Church’s witness being a principle, suppose – which I do not think can happen, but suppose – the Church were clearly to announce that, say, the Didache is Scripture. Then I would know that it is. I would not research selected early writers.

     Many early writers – as is clear from the fact that not only the Catholic Church but all the Orthodox bodies – treat the deuterocanon as Scripture. It is clear that the belief goes ‘way back. I do not see why you would not think it stems from the Apostles. That these books would have been added to a previously-clear canon by what was, until the 11th Century, the whole Church seems to me incredible.

     jj

839. Patrick November 6th, 2014 9:01 pm :

     Tom,
     Thank you for a fine article. I take issue with your characterization of the Reformed approach to the Canon question. You argue that sola scriptura makes the question insoluble, but you misunderstand two points: 1) You seem to be conflating infallible with certainty, but they are not the same. I would contend that certain knowledge need not come from an infallible source. (Incidentally, even if you accept Hippo and Carthage as infallible, ecumenical councils, the church had no infallible canon for more than three centuries) 2) sola scriptura does not limit all certain knowledge to the Bible, it only asserts that the Bible is the only infallible source that the church currently has. Therefore the church can have certainty about the canon without that knowledge coming from an infallible source. So the Reformer need not violate sola scriptura to settle the canon question.
     I do think the Papist fall into a de facto sola eclessia. The church defines infallibly what is scripture, and the church defines infallibly what that scripture means. This clearly elevates the magisterium above scripture, and in so doing violates the attitudes of the fathers, the apostles, the scripture itself, and Christ.
     Thank you again for your thoughtful post.

840. Andrew Preslar November 13th, 2014 12:24 pm :

     Patrick,

     I cannot speak for Tom, but I do want to address your points in response to his article.

     First, there is no need to conflate infallibility with certainty in order to maintain Tom’s criticisms of the Reformed approach to the canon question. We can indeed have the certainty of knowledge with respect to things that fall within the scope of human reason. But I would argue (and I think that most folks would agree) that the canon of Scripture goes beyond human reason in the sense that we could not deduce it from reason alone. We can (and have) come up with more or less plausible reasons to suppose that the Church (or, alternatively, an individual) is correct in teaching that such and such a writing is divinely inspired, but plausibility or even probability does not amount to certainty. What Catholics maintain is that our certainty of the contents of the canon is the certainty of faith, as distinct from merely natural knowledge, and that it is the divine authority of the Church, specifically the Holy Spirit preserving her from error in matters of faith and morals, that warrants the certainty of faith with regard to the canon and other matters. If, however, the Church does not teach with divine authority, but merely human authority, then we cannot enjoy the certainty of faith with respect to her teachings.

     I agree with your second point to the extent that I too affirm that we can be certain of many things not explicitly stated or deducible from what is explicitly stated in the Bible. But your conclusion (“Therefore the church can have certainty about the canon …”) does not follow from your premise unless the canon of Sacred Scripture is the sort of thing falls within the purview of natural knowledge, such that we can deduce it by reason alone. Perhaps some Protestants have made that argument, but I have yet to see it.

     Finally, your concluding paragraph rests upon the implicit premise that the gift of ecclesial *infallibility* as such elevates the Magisterium above Scripture. You obviously don’t think that the church defining *with certainty* what is scripture elevates the church above Scripture (resulting in sola ecclesia), nor do I suspect that you would have a problem with the church defining *with certainty* what that scripture means (I don’t suppose you insist that every statement in a sermon or confession much be prefaced with “in my opinion”). But if the church can identify the canon and correctly proclaim its meaning with certainty via merely natural knowledge without elevating herself above Scripture, then why suppose that her doing the same via the supernatural gift of infallibility, which grounds the assent of faith, has that effect?

     Towards understanding the Catholic view (or at least this Catholic’s view) of the relation of Scripture and the Church with regard to infallibility and inspiration, you might find the following post helpful: Inspiration and Infallibility.

     Regards,

     Andrew

841. Patrick November 13th, 2014 3:46 pm :

     Andrew,
     Thanks for taking the time to dialogue.
     I’d like to note parenthetically that this conversation takes for granted the necessity of certainty with regard to the canon. That would be an interesting conversation in itself.
     1. To clarify, I take infallibility to be a characteristic of the source of knowledge, whereas certainty is a characteristic of the knower. You say that for the Catholic, his certainty is the certainty of faith, opposed to merely natural knowledge. But this only moves the application of reason back a step. Why do you have faith in the infallibility of the church? Was it divinely revealed to you? No. You reasoned to it. Otherwise you would not think you could persuade me that the Roman Church is infallible. What’s more, I’m not sure your distinction between certainty of faith and merely natural knowledge is useful. Faith is necessary for any knowledge, but reason plays the primary role in determining the legitimacy of faith by testing the object of faith. When it comes to the infallible source of faith, your faith is in the church, mine in the word of God. But surely you think the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church is historically defendable – using reason I presume. So while, within your framework, the canon has been infallibly established, the authority that established that canon has not (not infallibly). At that point, your knowledge is reduced to what you called merely natural knowledge. Hence we see the critical question with regard to faith is the object of faith. And to evaluate that we have to use reason. I simply disagree that the canon of scripture goes beyond reason. In Deuteronomy Israel was commanded to test the things a prophet said, and if they proved false, he was a false prophet, therefore his words were not from God – not canonical. The early church dialogued and argued over whether certain books were canonical. Even Jesus submitted his own ministry to the test of validity when he performed miracles to authenticate his claims (Mark 2). Apparently the canon is within the scope of human reason. I agree with Papists that the Holy Spirit was active in the church when, over the course of many years, the canon of the New Testament was being settled, but that does not make the councils that settled the question infallible. Infallible, within the scope of this discussion, means “cannot err.” Again, it is a characteristic of the source, not the result. This is how Tom has confused infallibility and certainty.
     2. As to my concluding paragraph, I am confused by your comments. The premise that an infallible ecclesia elevates the Magisterium above Scripture was not meant to be implicit – it is exactly what I said. I don’t have a problem with the church defining with certainty either what is Scripture or what it means, but remember there is a difference between certainty and infallibility. And insofar as the Roman church has infallibly defined certain dogmas, they are certainly wrong. Wrong because they arrogate infallibility to themselves, not because they claim certainty. Do you see the distinction?
     For example; I am certain that it is through faith alone, in Christ alone, that man can be justified. But I do not claim I am infallible in so saying. It is the Scripture that is infallible in so saying. And unless I am shown from Scripture to be wrong, I will remain quite certain in that conviction.

     Patrick

842. Andrew Preslar November 13th, 2014 6:40 pm :

     Patrick,

     A few things in response:

     First, I agree that infallibility is a property of the source of knowledge, but only insofar as that source speaks with [actual] divine authority (not every source of knowledge is infallible). What is infallibly taught by that source would be properly described as inerrant. I also agree that certainty pertains to the knower insofar as by faith he receives what has been taught with divine authority, or insofar as by reason he apprehends what falls within the scope and competency of human reason alone. Obviously (at least I think its obvious), there are states of mind that fall somewhere in between certainty (whether natural or graced) and denial, such as doubt and opinion. Whether it is sufficient for Christian faith to only apprehend “thus says the Lord” as a matter of opinion is a further question, as you say, “an interesting conversation in itself” that should be pursued on another thread (perhaps this one).

     There are some points of disagreement that I would also like to address. First, I do believe that the infallibility of the Church has been divinely revealed in Sacred Scripture and Tradition. Insofar as I have accepted the teaching of Scripture by faith, I have at least implicitly accepted the infallibility of the Church by that same faith. But this is of course compatible with there being reasons for faith, and in my case I did have to reason my way to an explicit faith in the infallibility of the Church, long after I had accepted the inerrancy of Scripture. Second, I do not agree that faith is necessary for any (i.e., all) knowledge. Perhaps you could expand on what you mean by that claim. Third, and honing in on the topic of the article, you claimed that the contents of the canon do not go beyond reason. Perhaps you would clarify what you mean by that? In my understanding, this would entail that by means of historical investigation alone, apart from faith, we could conclude with certainty which writings are and which are not inspired by God. But because of your prior claim about faith and knowledge, I hesitate to conclude that this is what you mean. Of course historical reasoning can be legitimately applied to the canon question, but the point I was considering in response to your initial comment to Tom is whether or not such reasoning yields results that are certain. If not, and if one still holds to the canon of Scripture with certainty, then necessarily one goes beyond reason (not *contrary* to reason) in affirming the canon. Finally, I don’t think that Tom has confused infallibility and certainty, at least not in the way you suggest. He uses infallibility as a predicate of the Church, which is in accordance with your statement on how that term should be used. Of course, you do not agree that the Church is infallible, but that hardly implies a confusion on Tom’s part.

     My comment about the implicit premise in your claim that the Catholic position reduces to sola ecclesia was meant to underscore that it is ecclesial infallibility as such that, on your view, subordinates Scripture to the Church. My intention was to point out that this is by no means obvious, and I now add that you have not made an argument to that effect–you have simply assumed this premise, which of course Catholics do not grant. If expounding the Scriptures does not subordinate them to the Church (or to the individual preacher), then why should we suppose that expounding them while protected by the gift of infallibility subordinates Scripture to the Church? Your claim that the Catholic Church arrogates infallibility to herself simply begs the question, since of course we believe that this infallibility is not self-arrogated but rather is a gift from God, conferred upon the Church by the promise of Christ and the presence of the Holy Spirit.

     In response to your question, yes, I do see the distinction between certainty and infallibility. I underscored that very distinction in my previous comment. But what I do not see is how (a) you can deduce the contents of the canon by reason alone, so to hold them with certainty, and (b) how the divine authority and concomitant infallibility bestowed upon the Church in her teaching on faith and morals implies sola ecclesia. In the article to which I linked at the end of my last comment, I briefly explained how ecclesial infallibility is related to inspired (and therefore inerrant) Scripture.

     Finally, Scripture nowhere states that “it is through faith alone, in Christ alone, that man can be justified.” So Scripture cannot be “infallible in so saying.” But your inadvertent arrogation of infallibility to a doctrinal claim of your own devising does illustrate the importance of the gift of ecclesial infallibility. Scripture is not self-interpreting, and one cannot live and die or hang his hopes upon doctrines that necessarily come with an asterisk attached.

     My advice at this point is that, if you want, we should continue discussing the topic of infallibility in relation to the Church and Scripture under the comment thread following my post on that topic (again, see the end of my previous comment in this thread for the link). This thread can then be reserved for direct interaction with Tom’s article.

     Regards,

     Andrew

843. Luis Dizon July 21st, 2018 3:35 pm :

     Hello. I just thought you might be interested to know that Steve Hays over at Triablogue has responded to this article. He makes what I thought were some pretty strong points. Perhaps you might be interested to see what he has said.
     https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-canon-question.html

844. LayAugustine November 11th, 2023 4:27 pm :

     @Louis Dizon,

     That linked article reads like there are only two options – Catholicism or Protestantism. But for me as someone who swam the Tiber and found this article a key starting point, the value of this post was in its identifying the self-refuting nature of Sola Scriptura. If Sola Scriptura is false, there are more alternatives than just Catholicism.

     The alternative Christian options from Church history that still exist include the Oriental Orthodox (Monophysite / Miaphysite Christianity that left the Catholic Church in 431AD), the Assyrian Church of the East (Nestorian, left the Catholic Church in 382 AD), Eastern Orthodox (separated from the Catholic Church after a few reunion attempts after the Council of Florence, but more generally placed at 1054 by scholars), or the Catholic Church. Not one of these churches affirms the Protestant canon, but there is disagreement between them. The Oriental Orthodox have the biggest canon, which includes the Book of Enoch for example.

     Secondly, having recently visited Israel, it’s worth noting that the reason Jews believe the Old Testament canon closes with Malachi is because they believe prophecy ceased at that time. Their view is that for prophecy to occur, the majority of the world’s Jews need to be in the land. They claim this has not been the case since the time of Malachi / Ezra / Nehemiah, meaning that the affirmation of the Jewish canon’s assessment criteria would also nullify the acceptance of the New Testament. So one could reject Sola Scriptura and consider Judaism as a (logical) possibility. Furthermore, the acceptance of the Rabbinic Jewish Old Testament canon in Protestantism implicitly accepts the Rabbinic Jewish criteria for canonicity of prophecy having ceased at the aforementioned time, which itself violates Sola Scriptura (Because it affirms Sola Scriptura plus this presupposition picked up from Rabbinic Judaism to get at least the Old Testament canon) at best and Christianity (because it rejects the New Testament as not containing valid prophecy) at worst.

     A rejection of Sola Scriptura also leaves two other logically possibly monotheistic options – Samaritanism (assuming one rejects the OT canon and goes with the Samaritan Torah) or the breakaway sect from Nestorian Christianity with a new revelation from ‘Gabriel’ to an individual, which is known as Islam.

     So, in sum, a rejection of Sola Scriptura leaves at least seven Monotheistic alternatives, which is much less than the thousands of options within Protestantism. The rejection of Sola Scriptura does not automatically necessitate Catholicism, so whilst the arguments in your linked post against Catholicism can be addressed, the underlying principle still holds in my view.

     Peace of Christ,

     Josh

845. Bryan Cross June 27th, 2024 1:59 pm :

     Joe Heschmeyer, who participated in the discussion in this thread, has produced two videos directly relevant to the topic of this thread:

     St. Cyril of Alexandria, pray for us.

846. Wesley Bancroft September 3rd, 2024 3:23 pm :

     Would love to see a short rebuttal of this video from Gavin. Seem very rudimentary and not super in-depth, but I am sure there are some people on here that could really tear this apart (in a charitable way):

     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRMgYS1Taes&t=2s

847. Jordan September 6th, 2024 3:34 pm :

     Hi Wesley,

     Gavin isn’t directly addressing the question in this article, “By what criterion do we know what comprises the Bible?” so I’ll just caution us not to try to infer too much. From what he does say, he seems to take a position somewhat similar to Calvin’s, i.e. that Christians recognize a text as inspired based on some kind of objective quality of that text. Therefore, an infallible authority is not needed. He compares it to recognizing that 2+2=4 or to Newton recognizing gravity or to Moses recognizing the voice of God out of the burning bush. He doesn’t say what this objective quality is, so I’m not sure how we would evaluate it. He later says, specifically as a pastoral note and not as an argument, that subjective certainty only comes from the Holy Spirit working in the heart of the believer, echoing Calvin.

     As far as I can tell, he doesn’t address the arguments that Tom makes in this article against that position, so they still stand as sound arguments. In addition, his position runs into what we might call the “St. Augustine problem” that is implied in the article and in the comments above. If Scripture has some sort of objective quality that makes it recognizable by Christians, how can we explain someone like St. Augustine believing so strongly that this quality existed in many texts that (according to Gavin) lacked it? Why did he think that the book of Wisdom had this quality? It would be akin to a brilliant mathematician getting an addition problem wrong, and not because of a careless mistake, but as a deeply held, frequently argued belief. And if someone like Augustine can get it so wrong, why would we think Luther or any group of non-authoritative believers got it right?

     He argues at a couple different points that if “a fallible list of infallible books” is a problem for Protestants, then it is also a problem for all Christian churches and denominations. This is because, at some point in Christian history, each church and denomination lacked an infallible list of infallible books. However, it’s the nature of sola scriptura that makes a “fallible list of infallible books” problematic. The Catholic/Orthodox has no problem with existing in a world of fallible lists, because his faith relies on Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the teaching authority of the Church, not on Scripture alienated from these things.

     Peaceful days,

     Jordan