By Whose Authority?

Some time ago, I was having a discussion with an Eastern Orthodox friend of mine concerning the canon. The discussion was enjoyable and hopefully beneficial for both of us. I benefited immensely by being pushed to question some of my basic beliefs about where I was drawing authority from. The following in particular caught my attention:

“Apostolic authority is a good criteria. I agree that its right, in fact its one of the influences that the church had upon its decision to recognize the canon. But first of all, why is it a correct criteria? Is this something you deduced solely by logical means, or is it something you take on authority? If so, whose authority?” [emphasis mine]

By Whose Authority?

These are some great questions. Is our faith a product of logical deduction or are we taking it on authority? If by authority, then by whose? While I hold that God has given us a sense of reason and wants us to use it, reason alone does not make something authoritative in an infallible sense. Infallible authority must come from a source beyond what seems reasonable to fallible human beings and beyond the change of time, customs and ideas.

It is the Holy Spirit who gives something authority. It is also the Holy Spirit who used the apostles (apostolicity) to bring about His message and continues to work in believers to attest to the truth of these writings. Without strong reason to doubt the work of the Holy Spirit, one is justified in believing that the words found in Scripture are from God. In other words, it is the Holy Spirit who makes something authoritative (infallibly), who used the apostles to convey the message of salvation (and/or process of being filled with the Spirit) and who continues to work in believers attesting to the truth of what He uniquely used the apostles to reveal.

Interpretation

True Christian teaching is un-revisable. By true Christian teaching I mean what is actually the case- what God has done in human history, what He has communicated and what He requires for faith and practice. While interpretations can be incorrect and in error, true Christian teaching is not. People make mistakes all the time whether in groups or individually (I may read the Scriptures and make a mistake in interpreting it just as one who is Eastern Orthodox can make a mistake as to the Church’s meaning or even whether he or she should even view the Church as infallible). The chance for error is present for both of our interpretations of what authority is or the authoritative interpretation itself.

Proper basicality, Sola Scriptura, and Ockham's Razor

When we read the Bible we have spontaneous belief formation that what we are reading is God's word. This is what Christian Philosopher Alvin Plantinga calls a "basic belief". Such beliefs have warrant if they produced by cognitive faculties functioning properly in a truth conducive environment with a design plan aimed at the production of true beliefs. Now this particular epistemological view point is externalistic and is pretty contentious view point since the majority of epistemologists are internalist. But despite that fact it seems to me to be the most reasonable alternative since internalistic epistemologists have failed to give sufficient internal grounds for such beliefs as the external world, our memory being reliable, and induction.

Since it seems reasonable to hold to externalistic proper functionalism then we can apply such notions to the reading of scripture. When we read the Bible we often have a belief form in us that makes us think that God is speaking to us in these documents and in the absence of a reason to doubt this we are warranted in thinking that the Old and New Testament is God's word.

Oddly enough Catholics and Eastern Orthodox think that it is a epistemic virtue in it's own right that we have warrant for the canon. This is when their canon argument comes into play. The East or the West will say "you can't justify the canon and this is a problem for your Protestant view point." But if we could be so sly as to turn the tables on them and ask "Why would we want to do such a thing as that?" If the Bible is not already properly basic and there is no reason for thinking it to be God's revelation then why do we need to justify it in the first place. This is because I think the East and the West are presupposing the Protestant view point because they themselves have such a belief formation through the cognitive faculty of the Holy Spirit when they read Holy Scripture. This is why they feel they ought to have an epistemological framework to justify scripture because it is an already had particular of knowledge.

Finally, if this is all true and it seems reasonable to think that it is, then why do we need an authoritative church speaking for God to justify canon? If it is already properly basic and we have good grounds for thinking it true then we don't need to appeal to a church at all. Why are we positing entities beyond necessity? This does seem to be a violation of a basic principle in metaphysics called "Ockham's Razor". This principle says that we shouldn't posit entities beyond necessity. But this is of course this is what the Roman and Eastern church does. So in light of these consideration's it seems that the Protestant position is once again the most reasonable.

NPT

The NT and Apocryphal Works

The NT and Apocryphal Works
Another argument put forward for the canonical status of the Apocryphal books is their citation by the New Testament writers. This, however, is not sufficient to establish the canonical status of these books. If this line of reasoning is followed by Eastern Orthodox apologists, they open themselves up to the same critique leveled against the Protestant of not having all the inspired books in their canon.

It may be true that many apocryphal works are cited, especially by Paul, but this says nothing about their inspirational status. Simply using or quoting from a source does not necessarily lead to inspiration. After all, even pagan sources are sometimes used in the New Testament. Clearly, these pagan sources are not to be viewed as canonical and neither should the Apocryphal writings on the grounds of being used or quoted from.

The non-canonical work that comes the closest to being cited as Scripture, and termed by scholar Dr. Lee McDonald as "a troubling exception", is the book of Enoch. In Jude 1:14-15, Enoch is named as one who “prophesied.” The problem this poses will have to be saved for another time, but for now, it is important to note that this “problem” belongs to both Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant Christians alike. If it is going to be argued that the Protestant is lacking in their canon because of the use of apocryphal texts, those arguing along these lines better be ready to explain why the best candidate for inspiration doesn’t show up in their own canon.


More Info:
1. One example of Paul’s use of hymns originally directed to Zeus can be found in Acts 17.
2. Enoch is present in the Ethiopian canon.
3. Interestingly, the place where Eastern Orthodoxy traditionally places it’s infallible authority (The Seven Ecumenical Councils) does not have a sufficient canon list. The closest is Athanasias’ list which is far from what is needed.

Sources:
1. Translated by Richard Laurence: "The Book of Enoch the Prophet"
2. "The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority" Lee Martin McDonald

Misuderstandings Surrounding Jamnia & the LXX

There are many in the Eastern Orthodox church who would have us believe that the Jews had a more diverse collection of canonical books as represented in the Septuagint before limiting their canon at the synod of Jamnia in response to the Christian threat. This new canon list was supposedly picked up later by Martian Luther and the question is posed at the Protestant: "Why are you only using the books in the Hebrew canon and not the Bible of the early Church?"

Briefly, there are several things wrong with this setup. First, to say that the LXX was the early Church's Bible oversteps for several reasons. We must keep in mind that the early Church did not have one "Bible" as we do today. That is, all of the writings were not kept neatly in one book. Rather, there were a collection of writings. Also, the presence of what we call Apocryphal books in the LXX is easily explained by the high value the Jews placed on these writings at the exclusion of inspiration. It would make sense for them to want these writings translated as well.

Second, calling the LXX the early Church‘s Bible oversimplifies the problem. What is now called the LXX was at first only the first five books of Moses (Pentateuch) which were translated into Greek under Ptolemy II Philadelphus (282-246) and at the latest, toward the end of the middle of the third century.

The name "LXX" was first applied by a Christian when he was referring to the 7(2) translators to indicate what was at first a Jewish collection of writings. The scope of the writings were not yet fully established. Later, the designation LXX was applied to the entire Greek Old Testament. The actual translation of the historical and prophetic books came about gradually over 300 years and into the end of the first century AD. Some of the writings are not even translations at all, but were written in Greek from the beginning.

So, the LXX was not the early Church's "Bible" as we might think of it today. The LXX was a collection of writings and not a representative of the Hebrew canon. At one point, only the five books of Moses were translated and only later were other books added, some of which the question of where the books were translated and by whom they were translated is unknown.

Lastly, the idea that the Jews limited their canon in response to the Christian movement lacks proof. Absolutely none of the Apocryphal books were discussed at Jamnia, probably because there was no conflict over inspiration, and any previous dispute one would expect to see over the attempted removal of inspired books is just not present. One only needs to look at the fuss made at Jamnia over the question of five canonical books to see how rabbinic tradition was not quick to forget or overlook such disputes.

Further, there is still the question of why other books were not thrown out as well. After all, if there is going to be a canon conspiracy against the Christian movement, why not take out the more significant books such as Isaiah or Jeremiah? And why exclude books or appendages that were not used widely by Christians? The most reasonable explanation in light of what was mentioned earlier, is that it was all a matter of date. The Apocryphal writings were written during the centuries of silence and therefore excluded.

Without Jamnia being all our Catholic and Orthodox brothers wish it were, we are left with a lack of evidence leading us to believe the Jews limited their canon in response to the Christian movement. Rather, we find that the canonicity of the Apocryphal books was never in question because they were never thought to be inspired by the majority of Jews.

If the evidence for Jamnia being the deciding point for the Hebrew canon and the clear existence of the Apocryphal books in the early Church's "Bible" is not existent, then why are so many Orthodox and Catholics speaking of these as fact? In his book Orthodox Christian Beliefs About the Bible, Stanley Samuel Harakas, the Archbishop of Iakovos and professor of Orthodox theology at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology says,

"These ten books are found together in the first translation ever made of the Hebrew Bible in the version known as the Septuagint Old Testament. It represents what Jews believed their Scriptures to be about a century before the time of Christ. It was not until after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, toward the end of the first Christian century, that these books were excluded by Jews because they were written in Greek" (46-7).

Here the Archbishop is defending the Apocryphal books of the Old Testament. Notice how he appeals to "the first translation." His statement is misleading to those who do not know of the differences in translation and content. “We possess maybe two, three, or more versions of several of the books that are starkly divergent”(Hengel). At that, there are significant problems with the translation. For instance, the Jeremiah text is drastically abbreviated to an eighth and Job by about twenty percent with an added appendix placing Job as the Edomite king Jobab. In other words, while it is true that the LXX can be referred to as the first "translation," this does little to tell us about which books the Jews thought were canonical and, as will be explained, whether the New Testament writers treated the Apocryphal works as inspired.

Random Personal Note:
I've tried very hard to find some good scholarly Eastern Orthodox sources that use this story. After asking an Eastern Orthodox professor (who simply gave me a handout repeating the story without backup), Orthodox friends of mine who are "into" this sort of thing, searching Link Plus, ATLA and EEBO databases, The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, St. Vladimir's Quarterly and exhausting my Westminster friend's library and databases, I have decided that maybe, just maybe there aren't any. I say "maybe" because I am still paranoid that I might find a source somewhere. However, although frustrated, I am not perfect and probably missed something... still, in all likelihood, I am not addressing a scholarly argument, merely a common story circulating around.

Sad Day. :(

Sources:
1. Martin Hengel "The Septuagint as Christian Scripture"
2. Roger Beckwith "The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church"
3. Stanley Samuel Harkas "Orthodox Christian Beliefs About the Bible"


More Info:
1. The collection of writings in the LXX are diverse and not all of the Apocryphal books are in some of the copies. See Karen H. Jobes and Moises Silvia’s "Invitation to the Septuagint" as well as Martin Hengel’s "The Septuagint As Christian Scripture".

Two Categories of Books

Beyond the positive evidence for the content of the current Hebrew and Protestant canon’s inspirational status, there is also indication that the Jews had two categories of books: those inspired and those merely considered historically valuable. While many of those in the Eastern Orthodox Church view these writings as Holy Scripture, the Jews didn’t and this is supported by other sources as well.

Representing popular Jewish understanding, Josephus explains to his uninformed Gentile readers, “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…” These uninspired books stand quite apart from those books Josephus believes “to contain divine doctrines,” and believes the Jews should persist in, “and if occasion be, willing to die for...” Josephus is clear that there are books considered inspired and those that are just highly regarded, but not as Scripture. Since he has already given us a time frame for when God stopped speaking through the prophets, none of the Apocryphal books accepted by the Eastern Orthodox Church fit into the inspired list.

More Info:
1. See 2Esdras 14:44-45 and Origen’s distinction after his list of canonical books previously mentioned.

Sources:
Josephus
2 Esdras
Origen

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"