The Hebrew Canon

While those in the Eastern Orthodox Church claim the Jews once had a wider canon than they do now, such a statement far exceeds the actual evidence. Rather, when looking at the evidence, we find that the early Church, "with regard to the Old Testament", "appears to have remained in conscious and intentional accord with the Jewish community”(Ellis). Along with other reasons for thinking this is the case (which will be covered later), there are multiple sources that point us in the direction of a canonical list much like the Protestant and Hebrew Old Testament.

Josephus proves helpful again as he gives his gentile audience some information on the Hebrew Scriptures. "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.” Josephus goes on to explain somewhat the content of these books, their threefold division, along with the time frame in which they were written. From this record as well as what can be gathered from other lists, the content is almost if not exactly what we have in our Protestant Bibles.

Jubillees, a book widely known in the earlier Christian Church and reflected in Christian literature in the mid second century, supports Josephus’ claims. While a significant piece to this discussion is missing in the Ethiopic text, there are several sixth century Greek writers and others from the third century who quote or show that they had access (some independent) to Jubilees. The quotation itself reads something like, "God, as it says, created (22) works in the six days, wherefore also there are 22 letters among the Hebrews and 22 books, and 22 founding fathers from Adam to Jacob." The number twenty-two has shown up again and, is continually mentioned as to assume the contents were well known.

This is a prologue attached to a Greek translation of Jesus, son of Sirach whose Hebrew work originated in Palestine in the early 2nd cent BC. "My grandfather Jesus [devoted himself] to the law and the prophets and the other ancestral books. [In Greek translation] not only this work but even the law itself and the prophecies and the rest of the books differ not a little [from the original]." It would appear that certain books had canonical status, even in the second century (probably even earlier). This passage is significant because it is already translated into Greek and is also divided into three parts just like the canonical books of Josephus and another Jewish historian, Philo.

The passage itself reveals that certain books had canonical status early on. The fact that it was translated into Greek and follows the same three part division as Josephus and Philo makes it likely to have the same content. The absence of any explicit mention of the book titles is nothing unusual. There was no need to list out what was already obvious and common knowledge. Later, we find more specific listings once the content was needed to be clarified to the Gentile Christians.

Even though there are not many early Christian writers who “give a precise list of Old testament books used in their own circles,” there are some that do. For instance, from the East, Melito, bishop of Sardis gives a list around 170AD. He presents a list of Old Testament books, as preserved by Eusebius, in the form of a letter to his friend, Onesimus. He clears up the confusion in his region over the number of books when reports both the name and number of books. His list likely has all of the books in the Protestant canon except for Esther.

Melito says,
"...When I came to the East and reached the place where these things were preached and done, and learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, I set down the facts... These are their names: Of Moses five, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Joshua Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four of kingdoms, two of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, Solomon's Proverbs of Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of the Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Twelve of the Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Twelve [Minor Prophets] in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras."

In this list, Samuel is put in with Kings, Lamentations in Jeremiah, Ezra-Nehemiah are put as Esdras and “Solomon's Proverbs of Wisdom” are most likely another name for Proverbs if we follow the labels of Eusebius, Hegesippus and Irenaeus. The book count will still differ (from the 22) because Samuel and Kings are counted as four, Judges and Ruth as two and the same for Chronicles. This way of numbering gives us a count of 25 books. These differences are explained by the ways in which the books were kept. In the beginning, books were kept on scrolls and sometimes certain books were kept together on one scroll or just divided or ordered differently (differences in order can be seen even later); also, sometimes smaller books were placed in with others.

The list has all of the Old Testament except for Esther. This could be due to a scribal slip or the similar appearance of the words in Greek. There is also the possibility that it was purposely left out since Esther is not found at Qumran either.

Another list of Old Testament books is drawn up by Origin (AD 185-254), “the greatest biblical scholar among the Greek fathers”(Bruce). One of the many works he is known for is his compilation of the Old Testament which is represented in six columns called the Hexapla. One of the columns, the Septuagint, was given particular attention by Origen. Here, he distinguishes between where the Septuagint omits parts of the Hebrew text or adds something not found in the Hebrew text. Such meticulous care shows up in his list of Old Testament books.

Origen says, “We should not be ignorant that there are twenty-two books of the [Old] Testament, according to the tradition of the Hebrews, corresponding to the number of letters in their alphabet…. These are the twenty-two books according to the Hebrew:” Origen follows the “twenty-two” book formula found in the earlier source Jubillees. This lends support to his list going back much earlier. If this is the case, then we have a list (also supported by other lists) possibly predating Josephus.

He then goes on to list these books with the Hebrew names set alongside the Greek ones. The list contains all of the books within the Hebrew and Protestant Old Testament, including Esther. The book of the Twelve Prophets is accidentally dropped out in the process of transmission, but this is clearly an error since Origen needs it to complete his list of twenty-two books.

It is also important to draw attention to the Letter of Jeremiah that is attached, along with Lamentations, to Jeremiah. Scholar Earle Ellis points out that this can either be an appendix to Jeremiah in the Hebrew Bible or a scribal gloss on Origen’s list. His reasons for it being a scribal gloss are compelling. First, the Jews don’t have or read Baruch. Second, when other fourth century lists combine the Letter of Jeremiah and Baruch with Jeremiah, they reflect the content of the Latin and Greek Bibles being used at the time. Lastly, scribal “mending” is known elsewhere and was used to conform texts to the current use.

While it may be the case that we in our modern era do not have an ancient manuscript predating Josephus that explicitly lists the Old Testament books, that should not be a concern. The Palestinian Jews were not confused over the content of their canon and felt comfortable loosely referencing them or assuming the books of Moses upon occasion. Later, when there was confusion over the Hebrew canon in Christian circles, they would go back to Palestine and receive the needed content. In the case of Origen, he received that content along with the “twenty-two” book label present in early referencing.

More Info:
1.For the other greek writers contributing to this view of Jubillee see: John Constantinople, Symeon Logothetes, Georgius Syncellus and Georgius Cedrenus, Origen, Julius Africanus and in the beginning of Credrenus's history.
2. Why else think the Jews didn't use Baruch? Epiphanius and rabbinic tradition excludes Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah from the Hebrew canon.
3.Philo also follows a three fold division. See Philo, De Vita Contemplativa 1f., 25, 28f.
4. Jesus also seems to assume common knowledge of the canonical books when He mentions the Law, Prophets and Psalms in Luke 24:44. Dr. Lee McDonald on p93-100 in The Biblical Canon gives probably one of the best critiques along with two other widely used passages: Luke 11:48-51 and Matthew 23:34-35.
5. 1 and 2 Esdras are Ezra-Nehemiah according to Jerome’s Vulgate. See Bruce
6. Some good support for the Hebrew Old Testament not listed can be found from: Philo, De Vita Contemplativa 1f., 25, 28f, Qumran and Baba Batra.
7. Readers whose LXX copies had I Esdras (alongside of Ezra-Nehemiah), Origen's statement may have been misunderstood and interp to mean that I Esdras was part of the Hebrew canon.


Sources:
Earle Ellis "The Old Testament in Early Christianity"
Josephus "Against Apion"
Roger Beckwith "The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church"
F.F. Bruce "The Canon of Scripture"
...ect

Earle Ellis:
Hebrew/Protestant OT Canon
Scholar E. Earle Ellis says that when looking at the evidence, we find that the early Church, "with regard to the Old Testament", "appears to have remained in conscious and intentional accord with the Jewish community"(Ellis P6). He also lists five reasons why he believes this is the case:

1. The early Christian writings reveal no trace of the friction that supposedly existed with the other Jewish groups over which carried divine authority. This is still the case by the second century. If such a large amount of friction existed between the Jews and Christians over canonical authority, we would expect the disagreement to show up in Justin's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew. It doesn't. Instead, the only differences cited are passages in books from the LXX that Justin thought were deleted from the Hebrew texts by the rabbis.

2. After the Diaspora, when the church was mainly gentile, and the precise extent of the Old Testament books were needed, they sought the "Jewish or Jewish- Christian communities in Palestine" (see Melito in 2nd cent, Origen in 3rd and Jerome in the 4th).

3. "In what has been termed 'the crisis of the Old Testament canon,' the second century church raised questions, in fact, not about the authority of the Old Testament but about its interpretation and

4. the heretic Marcion, who rejected the Old Testament, represented an abbreviation in Christian practice that was uncharacteristic even of heretical movements."

5. Parts of the church gave canonical status to certain Jewish apocryphal books only later. Ellis sees this as an outgrowth "of a popular and unreflective use of these writings, a case of custom triumphing over judgment."

"Centuries of Silence"

The "centuries of silence" are a key stone to the debate over canon lists. If the centuries of silence can be reasonably established, then any books falling into that time can be safely dismissed as non-canonical. Fortunately for Protestants and Jews, a good case for the centuries of silence can be made.

Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian, has been key to our modern understanding of the political, social, and intellectual context of the Bible. In this case, Josephus tells us how many books were in the Jewish canon, somewhat the content, the nature of other historical books, and the existence of the silent period.

In regards to the centuries of silence, Josephus says, "It is true, our history has been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but has not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there has not been an exact succession of prophets since that time (emphasis mine).” Here Josephus gives us the time frame of the centuries of silence and mentions the resulting lack of inspired books during these centuries.

Josephus is writing to inform gentiles about Judaism and defend his antiquities and, in this section, is representing the common Jewish thought on the centuries of silence as well as the nature of the Jewish canonical books. This view is not unique to Josephus. He is a Jewish historian who has done his homework and is himself steeped in Jewish thought and practice which probably have an earlier tradition.

Josephus' claims are further backed up by 1 Macc 9:27 which reads, "So there was great distress in Israel, such as had not been since the time that prophets ceased to appear among them (emphasis mine)." Those in the Maccabean period acknowledged prophecy had ceased and were distressed by it (Also see Macc4:46 and 14:41). This agrees with Josephus' account as does several others. For instance, in 2 Baruch 85:1-3 it is said,

"Know ye, moreover, that in former times and in the generations of old those our fathers had helpers, righteous men and holy prophets; nay, more, we were in our own land, and they helped us when we sinned and they interceded for us to Him Who made us, because they trusted in their works, and the Mighty One heard their prayer and forgave us. But now the righteous have been gathered, and the prophets have fallen asleep, and we also have gone forth from the land, and Zion hath been taken from us; and we have nothing now save the Mighty One and His Law (emphasis mine)."

Yet another source reads, "When the latter prophets died, that is, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, then the Holy Spirit came to an end in Israel" (Tosefta Sota 13:3). The above sources along with those found in later tradition seem to indicate that the centuries of silence are a historical reality that can even be seen within the Eastern Orthodox canon. But this is not all that the Protestant or Jew has in his favor. Apart from the centuries of silence, there is also positive evidence for the books within the current Protestant and Hebrew canon.

More information:
1.Does the Bible give any hint to the coming silence of the prophets? Some point to Zech 13:2-6 and Mal 4:4-6, but these seem unlikely and in my opinion do not have a wider ref. Take a look for yourself.
2. For information on the concept of an echo or "daughter of a voice" see Beckwith P375.
3. Does 2 Esdras (4 Ezra) 14:19-48 imply that none of the inspired books of the canon has a later date than Ezra? Concentrate on v44-47 and see Beckwith p370-371.
4.There are also numerous other less important sources acknowledging the centuries of silence. These are: (a)Seder Olam Rabbah 30, quoting Prov. 22:17, (b) Jer. Taanith 2:1; Jer. Makkoth 2:4-8, (c) Bab. Baba Bathra 12a, and (d) Bab. Baba Bathra 12b (see Beckwith).


Books/sources used:
*Beckwith, Roger "The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church"
*Flavious Josephus "The Completed Works" (Against Apion)
*Rev. Canon R. H. Charles "The Apocalypse of Baruch and the Assumption of Moses"
*Stein, Robert "Jesus the Messiah"
*"The Apocrypha NRSV"

The Canon (Intro)

Intro
It is often leveled against Protestantism that it is divided, confused and desperately in need of returning home- to the Holy Orthodox Church? While Protestants may be used to hearing such claims from their Catholic brothers and sisters, it may come as a surprise to hear the same coming from what seems like the other side of Christendom. Indeed, the world is getting smaller and now Protestants have come face to face with a long lost relative from the great schism between the East and West.

The critique against Protestantism is leveled anew. It is divided, confused and in need of order. Scripture alone is inadequate, and only part of the larger Church tradition. Besides, how can Scripture alone be trusted when Protestantism is missing some of their Old Testament Scriptures?

The charges of possible missing books and conspiracies are not only problems advocates of Scripture Alone are subject to. As far as the danger of tainting God’s sacred word goes, Eastern Orthodoxy is quite liable to the same warning as well as the danger of adding uninspired books to the canon.

One could charge that the infallibility of the Church ensures a reliable canon, but how would one go about showing that Church infallibility is most likely the case? It seems that maybe we ought to look for practical, and in some areas- material indications of Church infallibility, and in the absence or countering of such evidence, the Protestant ought to peer into the past and see what historical support there is for or against his Old Testament canon.

In this blog, I will show that the books now contained within the Hebrew and Protestant Old Testament canon are the books that the Christian Church should accept as canonical based off of historical support and the insufficient evidence needed to deny or add to the list. This will counter one of the critiques against Scripture Alone as well as challenge the Eastern Orthodox view of Church infallibility.

Side Note:
Also, these posts are not meant to cause division, but are a response to some more aggressive Eastern Orthodox people who have caused distress to some fellow Protestants. These posts are also in response to an Orthodox friend who explicitly asked me to make a case for evangelicalism (the canon debate is one step). That said, I must also add that there is much Protestants can learn from the Eastern Orthodox Church and that we should not be so quick to dismiss many of their views on other subjects just because they have made mistakes in other areas.

Approach
There is much to be discussed when it comes to both the Old and New Testament canon. Unfortunately, I will be limiting much of my information to what pertains to the Protestant and Eastern Orthodox discussion. Personally, I love researching the canon and have found it difficult to put this kind of limit into place.

Anyway, here is what I will be covering:
1. The Centuries of Silence
2. The Hebrew Canon
3. The Two Categories of Books
4. The Misunderstandings surrounding Jamnia and the LXX
5. The New Testament Use of Apocryphal Works

Apostolic Succession

I will address this once I am able to give it proper attention. :) I want to be thorough and fair. ...sadly there is that thing called school witch may affect my ability to do this anytime soon.

Acts 15

Is there a good Biblical case for Church infallibility? Some Orthodox friends of mine have attempted to do this by using Acts 15. They like to point out v.28 "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials:" They are quick to say the setup here strongly resembles the seven ecumenical councils and the infallible pronouncement came about through the Church. They use the leader James to further support the Church's authority in order to counter any mention of the apostles. I take issue with this for several reasons: apostolic presence, James' appeal to authority, key differences between the account in Acts and the ecumenical councils, and simple hermeneutics.

Apostolic Presence

Both Protestants and Eastern Orthodox Christians place infallible authority in the apostles. Tension arises between the two views over how this authority is expressed. The Orthodox say apostolic authority lies in the Church itself (see section on apostolic succession) and Protestants limit this kind of authority to the written Word.

That said, the Acts 15 example should have little impact on Protestants who believe apostolic presence is the key ingredient in this situation. Protestants believe there was an infallible pronouncement, but part company when the presence of the Church is offered as the reason for the pronouncement. A different Biblical example needs to be offered in order to show that an infallible pronouncement can occur via the Church councils apart from the bodily presence of the apostles. Unfortunately for Orthodoxy, no such passage exists.

James' Appeal

It has been put forward that one should not think the bodily presence of the apostles was necessary since the Jerusalem Church leader James was present and is not an apostle. First, James' position as a church leader does not detract from the apostolic presence. Second, if what was mentioned is not satisfactory, all one needs to do is look at what James appeals to in order to make his decision.

James appeals to 1) apostolic authority and 2) written tradition. In v.14 James goes back to what Simon Peter said and then in v.15 appeals to the words of the prophets before saying in v.19 "Therefore it is my judgment that..." This successfully counters the attempt to use James' leadership to deflect from apostolic presence as the necessary ingredient.

The Jerusalem church was founded by the apostles, and even though the church had room to make it's own decisions, the real authority was in the apostles, not James. Mark Saucy, a professor at Talbot seminary who has 13 years experience with the Orthodox Church in the Ukraine comments, "James is not even mentioned in Acts 15:4 nor in the final resolution recorded in 15:22 or 16:4. James prestige also was likely a result of his reputed piety in the church, which church history also attests.”

Key Differences

As far as a comparison between the seven ecumenical councils and the decision in Jerusalem is concerned, there are some key differences that are generally not mentioned by those making this comparison. First, authority was not located in the Jerusalem council itself, and second, unlike the ecumenical councils, only two churches are represented in Acts 15.

Authority was not located in the Jerusalem council. Neither James or the church in Jerusalem called the council, nor did they bring Antioch into account. Antioch initiated the meeting because the people from the Jerusalem church were stirring up trouble. The church in Jerusalem responded by telling them what to abstain from food sacrificed to idols...ect, encouragement and assurance that they did not send those people who disturbed them.

Unlike the seven Ecumenical councils, only two churches were represented in Acts 15. Even though adequate church representation can be questioned for the ecumenical councils, this was the intent. We see no such aim in this supposed "early ecumenical council." Instead, it is confined to two churches and does not represent the whole Church body. That is, unless the apostles are the key representative ingredient.

Hermeneutics

When reading the Scriptures and trying to understand the meaning of a passage or what is normative, one must always consider the genre in which the book is written. It would be unwise to read the Proverbs in the same way as Romans. Why? Because each belongs to a different genre and should be interpreted differently. While, using good hermeneutics will not guarantee that we will understand everything we read, it can help us to avoid some major interpretative mistakes.

Since the 1960's , people have more increasingly believed that they not only create the meaning of a text, but also create the text itself (Russel 2006syllabus p8). This is a huge problem in our culture and one that many Eastern Orthodox Christians are quick to point out. They also see our Protestant denominations as chaotic since there are many interpretations.

Each individual looks through his cultural lenses and arrives at his own interpretation. Eastern Orthodoxy is not immune to this either. They too are very much a product of their time. Those after the time of the apostles had their own lenses and influences when dealing with various heresies. This however, will have to make up another post.

One should read all of Acts with the whole in mind. When reading narratives, it is good to read the whole thing in one sitting several times and look for patterns and themes. The entire book should be combed in order to determine whether "specific events form a consistent pattern throughout or if the positive models Luke presents vary from one situation to another. The former will suggest that Luke was emphasizing a normative, consistent principle; the latter, that applications may change from one time and place to the next" (Into to Bib Interp; Klein, Blomberg, Hubbard, p424).

There is no explicit statement in Acts telling us that the Church is infallible. If there were, a different kind of discussion would be appropriate. Instead, it is charged that Church infallibility is implicit within the text. If the idea of Church infallibility is normative and can be found implicitly in the text, then the following criteria should be met:

1) The behavior or emphasis must be repeatedly emphasized within the broader narrative of Acts.

2) The recurring patterns of behavior must also closely align with Luke’s main purpose to be considered normative (Russell p64).

Clearly, Church infallibility does not pass the criteria for being normative. The only way this could be taken as normative would be if Church infallibility were already considered true and the Church interpreted the passage in it's favor. This may bless the hearts of those who already accept Church infallibility, but it should not have the same persuasive power on Protestants.

Questions

Which is worse? Not having certain books from the Old Testament (many of which point to the coming Messiah) in our canon or adding to the message under the New Covenant?

Quick note: Believing in the accuracy of information is different from putting ones faith and trust in God. Here, I will be exploring the reasons we have for thinking Sola Scriptura vs Church infallibility is the way to go. Once we see which system better preserves truth, it is up to us to trust that system.

My Ramblings

Well, here are my ramblings...they are not as complete or organized yet so bear with me and be ready for some upcoming posts.

My View
Note: Here I will just give a brief recap of why I think Sola Scriptura is the best option. I will do this given the assumptions of both systems about apostolic authority and God’s active involvement in human history to give us what we need to know for our faith and growth in Him.

In the very beginning, oral tradition was extremely beneficial and acceptable for an oral culture because 1) There was a smaller group and the information did not circulate to nearly as many churches as it did later. 2) The apostles were still alive to correct misconceptions- and they did. 3) The information was fairly fresh since it was closer to the event.

Later, written tradition became necessary because 1) Over time, memory fails and in this case, the message was passed on to many different areas, cultures and people. 2) With written tradition, there was less room for corruption. 3) The apostles and eye witnesses were dieing and would soon no longer be around to correct misconceptions.

So, why do I think Scripture should be our final authority? I am committed to the idea that the closer one is to the source, the better. In the case of the writings of the apostles and ones closely connected to them, that is as close to the source as we can get. Since we no longer have the apostles here with us, it seems sensible to look towards their writings as our authority.

Further, we can trace these writings in the manuscript tradition and see little mistakes down the line. These mistakes came about even in the possession of the church, but we are able to look back down the line and isolate where the mistakes arose and make the necessary corrections. We have a document that is around 99% reliable. We can not say the same for the EO's particular oral tradition.

Interpretation
Note: This is only in regards to interpreting written tradition

Given that we both accept apostolic authority as from God to the apostles, we must now consider our reasons for thinking there is an added step. I say added because, approaching Scripture from a view of Church infallibility does not stop at saying “Scripture is infallible since it came from an apostle” (our view of infallibility is all based on apostolic authority and written tradition is not the thing in question). People advocating this view go a step further and claim that in addition to the very words of the apostles, the infallibility of the Church is needed to properly interpret the infallible documents.

Why add a step either way? Why need writings when the Church can direct us in the right way? Why need the infallibility of the Church if the inspired writers wrote with the set intention of making the mystery of God’s love known to us? Or wrote in the hopes of clearing up misunderstandings. This is not to say all details will be grasped- just as Church interpretations are not fully grasped by individual’s within the existing “infallible Church.” One must also wonder how conducive this view is to the exposure of errors within it’s system.

Also, how could one committed to the necessity of the Church’s interpretations recognize there is any inconsistency between Scripture and the views of the Church? After all, those exposing such inconsistencies or contradictions are heretical- protestants or ones living in rebellion to the one true apostolic Church. Church interpretations are correct and no matter what contextual or hermeneutical evidence is put forward, the interpretation stands.

Addition and Subtraction
The charges of possible missing books, conspiracies and added books are not only problems advocates of Scripture Alone are subject to. As far as the danger of tainting God’s sacred word goes, both of our systems are liable to the warning. The Protestant may be guilty of taking away from the canon and the “Holy Orthodox” Church of adding to it- just as those preaching circumcision among the Gentiles added to the grace of God.

"I, who advocate Scripture Alone claim that God, in His wisdom and foreknowledge, preserved His crucial message and has directed the canon process."

One could charge that there is no guarantee of such a thing without the infallibility of the Church to ensure a reliable canon. To this I could easily say: “Oh, but God is all powerful and in His goodness preserved this source of His infallible truth.” A person might dislike this answer. However, in response I could just as easily point out that there is no guarantee when it comes to the infallibility of the Church either, to which the person might respond, “Oh, but God is all powerful and in His goodness preserved this source of His infallible truth through the infallibility of the Church.” The problem remains and cuts both ways.

It seems that maybe we ought to look for practical and in some areas- material indications that something ought to be in our canon (given we both take the apostles to have spoken infallibly). I have given my reasons for believing Scripture alone is the best route to take. Now I need reasons to believe in the infallibility of the Church. Merely appealing to the desired goal will not cut it.

Are either or both systems in the wrong on some issues? Possibly, and even on matters apart from the content of the canon. In comparing the two systems, I propose those approaching this matter spend time in prayer before looking to see if: 1)there is any indication that the Church is infallible, 2) the nature of this infallibility or 3) If in the absence of Church infallibility one must necessarily leave either system for the other.