Understanding of the Church and Canon (2)

Argument “Against” the Eastern Canon
There is good indication that the Christian should accept as Scripture the books agreed by the majority to be canonical. These include the whole New Testament and all of the content of the Old Testament acknowledged by all of the churches. Beyond these, I eagerly acknowledge (as many Church father’s did) what Protestants call Apocryphal books of the Old Testament to be of high value within the Church but not of the same authority.

I approach the canonical question from what is held in common and defend what is held in common. From there I request evidence for and respond to those who would argue that other books have the same authority as those already universally held. The overall case for books held in common can be found in previous posts. My current understanding of what ought to be in the Christian Old Testament operates on the idea that we inherited our OT from the Jews before the New Covenant era. This content was and is more or less known. I am willing to altar this view if it can be shown that the Jews (majority in Palestine) accepted certain apocryphal books as Scripture in the Old Testament era or that the apostles believed them to be.

Some ideas as to why we should accept the additional books into our canon have been addressed in previous posts. Here I will mention a few I have found in the past to be most weighty and only briefly voice my objections to each.

1) The apostles frequently used apocryphal books in the NT
-This is certainly true and for this reason it is a great benefit to have a copy on hand when reading the Scriptures. However, use does not equal Scripture. There are instances where pagan sources are also used and those are certainly not to be regarded as Scripture.
-I do not see that the apocryphal books are used as Scripture by the apostles. Still, admittedly lingering questions remain in regards to 1 Enoch. This however, is not accepted by the majority of the Christian churches.

2)The LXX was the Churches’ Bible.
-The LXX manuscripts are diverse and are a collection of books from different places from different times and the lists of apocryphal books within the collections differ. There was not one translation circulating around. Beyond this, the historical context of its use must be considered along with my reasons for accepting the books not under question.

3) Some Church Fathers quoted parts of the apocrypha as Scripture
-I reject some of the beliefs of the Church fathers on the canon because I look at what was considered canonical by the majority of the Jews in Palestine before the resurrection and operate on the assumption that the apostles followed that pattern unless indication can be given otherwise. Beyond this, a pattern of canonical confusion in the Church that is not found among the Jews becomes evident as the Gentile Church becomes larger. The confusion is evident internally and is also acknowledged as many sought the East for guidance (it is the Eastern Church that showed more concern in this regard).

4)More books are found at Qumran
-The Jews at Qumran were an extreme exception and should be treated according to their wishes. They disassociated themselves from the rest of the Jewish community thinking the temple was corrupt. Many of the books they used were not regarded as Scripture by the Jews in Palestine. Beyond this, they included books from their own communities that were certainly not accepted by the Christian Church at any time and did not have others such as: Judith, Wisdom, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, 1 and 2 Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh and 3 and 4 Maccabees.
-There is no way to tell (at least according to Daniel J. Harrington, S.J.) whether the fragments of Proverbs, Qohelet, Sirach, Tobit, Letter of Jeremiah and Psalm 151 are “regarded as authoritative or canonical in any sense.”

In sum, I do not approach the question of canon forcing a Protestant perspective (though that is where I initially started having known nothing of the canon and only knowing the books in ours) and wanting to destroy the Eastern Orthodox canon(s). I now start with what seemed to be the case with the Jews (by extension the apostles) and approach other books on a case by case basis and so far, it seems only the Ethiopian Orthodox might potentially be pleased with one of my findings.

Understanding of the Church and Canon (1)

Unity in Christ
I have been asked to spell out my argument against the Orthodox view of the canon in an upcoming post and will do so here. Before I begin, some clarity is in order for my thoughts and purpose for doing these posts:

It is important to recognize that both East and West have the same New Testament books which attest to our one faith centered on the truth of the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and in Him our love for one another. This is where our unity is found, and on this account we are brothers and sisters.

With that said, while presently I have Protestant convictions in many respects my loyalty is to Jesus Christ and His Church. God does not change but one’s perception of how He works in human history might and if compelling evidence pulls us towards a particular setup then we must take it. I do not find myself locked in any particular denomination and am willing to change in accordance with the evidence or in more minor ways for the sake of fellowship.

Why the Canon
My present motivations for studying and sharing research on the canon are 1) the joy of discovering the process God used to bring about His Word in writing, 2) understanding the conditions and ideas in the early Church, 3) understanding my brothers and sisters in the past and present, 4) fellowship and 5) correction and challenging my own understanding. While I do believe the content of the Old Testament found in Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches is not ideal, my intent here is not so much one of zealously attacking and destroying a particular view as it is of understanding, questioning, adjusting and informing in hopes of good feedback. My aim lies in learning and ultimately teaching the truth as I trust it is with several reading these blogs as well.

Melito and the Eastern Canon (1)

When questions arise over what books were considered canonical in the Christian Church Melito, bishop of Sardis is a good place to go. His OT list, as preserved by Eusebius, is the earliest within the Christian Church. Interestingly, the content of this list is curiously close to the Protestant and Hebrew canon. The presence of the apocryphal books found in the LXX are absent, and only in later lists do we begin to see the addition of recensions to Jeremiah-Lamentations and then later on the addition of the apocryphal books.

The content of this and later lists coupled with earlier indications of what the majority of Jews thought to be canonical help illuminate the earliest tradition of the Old Testament canon in relation to the Christian Church. If a good case for the inclusion of the apocryphal books in the Old Testament canon is lacking in early Christian (NT) and Jewish sources, then the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church is not following the earliest canonical tradition. Assuming the evidence for the Hebrew canon provided elsewhere stands, it is the Jews and Protestants who have been true to the earlier tradition in this regard.

Melito's list and the conditions surrounding it not only give us a window into the minds of those in the Church after the NT but also the Jews. What if Melito’s list did contain what Protestants call an “apocryphal” book? This would not only mean that the earliest Christian list of canonical books of the Old Testament contained one, but that the Jewish canon Melito was influenced by did as well which could potential lead us to consider a wider Jewish canon than first thought. Scholars such as De Wette, Lake and McDonald seem to think the Wisdom of Solomon is included in Melito’s list.

Disagreements center on a phrase in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History 4.26.14 where some scholars take the Wisdom of Solomon to be included and others think “his Wisdom” is just another name for Proverbs. After much consideration I have concluded that the Wisdom of Solomon is an unlikely interpretation (though not impossible) and that Proverbs “the All-Virtuous Wisdom” is what is being referred to here. In the upcoming posts I will do my best to present the argument for the Wisdom of Solomon and why the other translation is a better one.

*This does not pose as great of a problem for the Roman Catholic Church who believes her canon to be established by the infallible Church (though there are problems once one questions her infallibility). It does however pose a problem for Eastern Orthodox Christians wanting canonical stability since their canon is not established in any Ecumenical council except maybe in Athanasius’ list- a great disappointment for those hoping to make a case for apocryphal books in their canon.

*I will tie this series of posts together into a response in the future aimed at an argument that was put forward with the intention of scaring the Protestant into the Eastern Orthodox Church based off of canonical considerations.

*"Melito and the Eastern Canon (1)" has had a few additions made to it for clarity.

Today (Jan 7) Is Canon Day!

According to Dr. Fred Sanders, resident theologian of the Torrey Honors Institute at Biola University, St. Athanasius most likely wrote his famous Easter letter of 367 on January 7th. It is in this letter (almost as a passing thought) that Athanasius nearly defines the Canon as we (Protestants) have it today.

Read Dr. Sanders' article here.

Happy Canon Day!

Upcoming

I am currently looking through questions surrounding Melito's list. Some scholars such as Dr. McDonald and De Wette believe he includes the Wisdom of Solomon, while others such as Sundberg and Beckwith reject this idea. My opinion on the matter is still in process (expect an upcoming post) and will be greatly shaped by the information provided by Dr. Lee and Dr. Finley along with whatever else I can collect on my own. It is an interesting topic and if anyone has anything that might aid in the matter the contribution would be much appreciated.

Some of the questions being posed:

Dr. Lee (Notable Expert on Canon)
1) Is the translation: “the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon and his Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job…” that apparent? Only judging from the Greek, is Beckwith and Bruce’s translation reasonably plausible?
2) Granted that the Wisdom of Solomon was common in early Christianity, but isn’t Melito’s list coming from the Jews? Did the Jews in the area he got his list from regard the Wisdom of Solomon as Scripture?
3)I asked my teacher Dr. Finley about Melito’s list and he suggested that it might not be a minority view (or that the subject itself is more controversial). He cites... My question: How big is the disagreement? What other scholars take your view (so far I’ve got De Wette and Lake) and are there others that would side with Beckwith and the rest?

Dr. Finley (Professor and Chair, Old Testament & Semitics)
1) ...you also included that it conforms more closely to Codex B of the LXX and is closer in its titles of books. My question: If it is conforming more closely to LXX titles of books wouldn't the Wisdom of Solomon's addition have a better chance? I ask this because Dr. Lee appeals to the citing of Wisdom along with Proverbs in Vaticanus, Sinaticus and Alexandrinus. How do the titles applied to these books correspond with the title in Melito's list?
2)The ref in Eccl. Hist 4.22.9...is there something in the Greek that might tip us off that it is not being used as a title but rather something more descriptive?

(Greek Professor)
1) According to the Greek, which way would you translate it? What reasons do you see against and in support of the two translations? With the presence of the other sources, how would you translate it?

A Note To The Reader

For anyone who still checks here regularly, I wanted to let you know that the three authors here at By Whose Authority? are all graduate students, and as such we're insanely busy with school work at the moment. I am currently working on several posts that I hope will be ready in the near future, but school must always take priority.

So, our posting will likely continue to be sporadic for the next few weeks, but don't lose heart! We'll be back to normal in no time!

Thank you all for your patience.

Irenaeus (130-200) AD (Cont)

What is the Ground and Pillar of our faith?

"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at least a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed 'perfect knowledge,' as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles..." Shortly after this, Irenaeus mentions the writings handed down by the apostles and work of Paul.
-ANF, Vol.I, Against Heresies, 3.1.1

What is the Tradition that binds and unifies the Church?

"The Church, though dispersed through out the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of our beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father 'to gather all things in one,' and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, 'every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess' to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send 'spiritual wickednesses,' and the angels who tansgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.

As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same."
-ANF, Vol. I, Against Heresies 1.10.1-2.

What if...

"For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?...Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him.
-ANF, Vol. I, Against Heresies 3.4.1; 3.5.1