As I've mentioned in some recent posts (here and here), Eastern Orthodox disagree among themselves about the canon of scripture. Though people often claim that Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics agree in accepting the canonicity of "the Apocrypha", the two groups disagree about which Apocryphal books are to be accepted. The Eastern Orthodox scholar John Breck writes:
"'Deutero-canonical' is the qualification given by Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions to writings considered by the Church to be inspired but having a lesser degree of authority in matters of faith and morals. These include 1-2 [some would add 3-4] Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, and certain additions to Esther and Daniel." (Spirit Of Truth: The Holy Spirit In Johannine Tradition [Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1991], n. 1 on p. 93)
In addition to the disagreements over 3-4 Maccabees, some Eastern Orthodox include other material not mentioned by Breck. Thus, the fact that Roman Catholics and many Eastern Orthodox accept "the Apocrypha", "deuterocanonical books", etc. doesn't prove that they have the same canon. Eastern Orthodox don't even agree among themselves about the canon of scripture. As Jan Alberto Soggin explains, Eastern Orthodox hold a wide variety of views on this subject:
"Even today, moreover, the status of the books in the Alexandrian canon is a matter of controversy among the various Christian churches: while the Roman Catholic church after the Council of Trent accepted the canonicity of the greater part of the Alexandrian canon (but not all; it excluded III Ezra and III-IV Maccabees), some Eastern Orthodox churches maintain an equivocal attitude, while others have included different books in their canon; the Protestants and Anglican churches have generally rejected their canonicity, for the most part merely according them the status of devotional books" (Introduction To The Old Testament [Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1989], p. 19)
When Steve Hays and I have mentioned the existence of multiple canons among the Eastern Orthodox in previous posts, Orthodox has responded by arguing that such disagreements are acceptable, as long as there's agreement on other points. And he claims that one thing all Eastern Orthodox agree about is the acceptance of the books defined as scripture at the synod of Jerusalem in 1672. When I documented (here and here) that not all Eastern Orthodox accept all of those books as scripture, Orthodox ignored some of the sources I cited, distorted some of them, and dismissed one of them, Roger Beckwith, with comments such as the following:
"Jo Bloggs said 'all protestants beat their wives'. Give us good reason not to doubt this fellow Jo Bloggs, who by the way is a biased polemicist against protestants....I am no more impressed with the credentials of Roger Beckwith than you are impressed with Jo Bloggs....My scholar can whup your scholar. Fisticuffs between scholars out the back of the toilet block....LOL, Beckwith is a protestant with a protestant agenda."
Notice, first of all, that comments such as the ones quoted above are commonplace in Orthodox's posts. Such comments don't do much to support Orthodox's conclusions, and they reflect more poorly on Orthodox than they do on the position he's opposing.
And notice that, in the thread in which he makes the comments above, he fails to interact with most of the scholars he's dismissing. He asked me about the significance of my citation of The Blackwell Dictionary Of Eastern Christianity, but he didn't respond to the citation after I explained its significance. He said nothing about my citation of F.F. Bruce.
His response to my citation of Timothy (Kallistos) Ware, in another thread, is problematic, for reasons I explain there. Readers should note the inaccurate claims Orthodox makes about Athanasius and Jerome at the beginning of the thread, claims he eventually had to back away from. When somebody is so wrong about church history so often, what should we conclude?
But what about Roger Beckwith? Obviously, the comparison between Beckwith and some little known person named "Jo Bloggs", who argues that "all Protestants beat their wives", is ridiculous. Beckwith is a well qualified scholar who has produced material of a high quality. His assessment of Eastern Orthodox views of the canon isn't logically in the same category as "all Protestants beat their wives", his assessment is supported by the citation of multiple sources, and other scholars have supported similar conclusions and cited some of the same sources. I gave some examples in the previous thread and will give more below.
Orthodox dismisses Beckwith on the basis that one review of his book at amazon.com refers to that book as "polemical" and refers to Beckwith as "biased and selective". But the same review makes some positive comments about the book, as do other reviews. And why should we make a judgment about Beckwith's discussion of Eastern Orthodoxy based on one review at amazon.com by a little known person ("M A Baxter")? How much does Orthodox know about this person?
Let's apply Orthodox's reasoning against his own position. On the May 8 edition of James White's Dividing Line webcast, a man who claimed to be Eastern Orthodox called in near the end of the program (about half way through minute fifty-five). He said some of the same things I've been saying about the acceptance of the Hebrew Old Testament canon by some Eastern Orthodox. If Orthodox is going to accept the claims of an amazon.com reviewer he doesn't know much about, then why can't we accept the claims of the person who called in to James White's webcast, even though we don't know much about that caller? I've offered much more corroboration of that caller's claims than Orthodox has offered for the claims he's quoting from that amazon.com reviewer.
People can disagree with some of Roger Beckwith's conclusions without dismissing him in the absurd manner in which Orthodox dismisses him. Orthodox refers to Beckwith as "a Protestant with a Protestant agenda", but his work is well-regarded in non-Protestant circles. While disagreeing with the Old Testament canon Beckwith argues for, a Roman Catholic Biblical commentary compiled by some of the foremost Catholic scholars of modern times makes some of the same points about Eastern Orthodoxy that Beckwith does, and it cites Beckwith as a reliable source on the issue we're discussing:
"The Reformers influenced some OT canonical approaches in the Eastern churches. In 1627 Zacharios Greganos, a Greek who had studied at Wittenburg, rejected the deuterocanonical books. Although similar views were held by a few others, the Gk and Slavic branches of the Byzantine church continued to maintain those books. The Synod of Jerusalem, convened at Bethlehem in 1672 by the patriarch Dositheus to repudiate tendencies toward Calvinism, specifically decreed that Tob, Jdt, Sir, Wis, 1-2 Macc, and the additions to Dan are to be considered canonical. At that time the decrees of the synod were intended to be representative of Eastern Orthodoxy as a whole. Within the Gk church, despite occasional demurrals by theologians, the longer OT canon has been accepted, including 2 Esdr and 3 Macc. Since the 19th cent., however, Russian Orthodox theologians generally have not accepted the deuterocanonical books. Yet a Moscow-published Bible of 1956 contains them. A draft statement for the proposed Great Council of the Orthodox Church (Towards the Great Council [London, 1972] 3-4) opts for the shorter canon, as does the negotiation between the Orthodox and the Old Catholics (Beckwith, OT Canon 14)." (Raymond E. Brown, et al., eds., The New Jerome Biblical Commentary [Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1990], p. 1043)
The Eastern Orthodox scholar John Meyendorff wrote:
"The Christian East took a longer time than the West in settling on an agreed canon of Scripture. The principal hesitations concerned the books of the Old Testament which are not contained in the Hebrew Canon ('shorter' canon) and the book of Revelation in the New Testament. Fourth-century conciliar and patristic authorities in the East differ in their attitude concerning the exact authority of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Esther, Judith, and Tobit. Athanasius in his famous Paschal Letter 39 excludes them from Scripture proper, but considers them useful for catechumens, an opinion which he shares with Cyril of Jerusalem. Canon 60 of the Council of Laodicea - whether authentic or not - also reflects the tradition of a 'shorter' canon. But the Quinisext Council (692) endorses the authority of Apostolic Canon 85, which admits some books of the 'longer' canon, including even 3 Maccabees, but omits Wisdom, Tobit, and Judith. John of Damascus (t ca. 753), however, considers Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus as 'admirable,' yet fails to include them in the canon. Therefore, in spite of the fact that Byzantine patristic and ecclesiastical tradition almost exclusively uses the Septuagint as the standard Biblical text, and that parts of the 'longer' canon - especially Wisdom - are of frequent liturgical use, Byzantine theologians remain faithful to a 'Hebrew' criterion for Old Testament literature, which excludes texts originally composed in Greek. Modern Orthodox theology is consistent with this unresolved polarity when it distinguishes between 'canonical' and 'deuterocanonical' literature of the Old Testament, applying the first term only to the books of the 'shorter' canon." (Byzantine Theology [New York: Fordham University Press, 1987], p. 7)
If I were a man in love with a woman, and I were to talk on and on about my neighbour's wife, ('Look how ugly she is', 'look how stupid she is', etc.), and You were my wife, ... what would You think about me? :) ;) [Don't You know that idle banter is one of the first "symptoms" of falling for someone? Think about that for a moment].
ReplyDeleteLucian,
ReplyDeleteYou've given us a vague analogy that could be interpreted in more than one way. Are you criticizing Orthodox, because of his frequent posting in this forum? Or are you criticizing us for frequently responding to him? If it's the latter, then why wouldn't the former also follow from your reasoning? Using your reasoning, our articles on atheism, Roman Catholicism, Islam, and other issues must indicate that we're close to converting to those belief systems as well. Jesus must have been close to converting to the beliefs of the Jewish religious leadership of His day, and Paul must have been close to converting to the position of the Judaizers. Read the book of Galatians, and think of how often Paul criticized his Judaizing opponents. He must have been "falling in love" with their beliefs, according to your reasoning. If an Eastern Orthodox ministry publishes articles arguing against other belief systems, do you apply your reasoning to that ministry? Given that Eastern Orthodoxy is a belief system that influences millions of people, wouldn't you say that we have more reason to comment on its teachings than the man in your analogy has to comment on the characteristics of his neighbor's wife? And wouldn't you say that issues like what the Christian rule of faith should be and how we attain justification are of more significance than issues like whether we think our neighbor's wife is "ugly"? If you think that articles like the one at the beginning of this thread are reminiscent of your analogy about a man and his neighbor's wife, then that doesn't say much for your discernment skills. If we ignored Orthodox's claims rather than responding to them, you'd probably tell us that our ignoring those claims is evidence that we have no answers.
The suggestion that an opponent is close to converting to your belief system, despite his professions to the contrary, is a common tactic used by people who don't have much of substance to offer. It's a tactic Orthodox has tried, and I've seen many Roman Catholics, for example, use it. There's nothing about the tactic that singles out Eastern Orthodoxy. A Roman Catholic, Mormon, Muslim, or atheist could use it with just as much (just as little) significance.
In fact, Lucian, I can tell from your post that you're close to becoming a Protestant. If you deny it, then that sort of denial just proves my point all the more. And if you affirm it, then who can argue with your own admission? And if you don't respond, then you obviously don't have an answer, since what I'm saying is correct.
Canonical means that what is read publicly in Church [i.e., the Church so much loves, trusts and appreciates said book that it 'risks its [spiritual] neck' and the souls of her flock to actually dare read it in public, to its audience :) ].
ReplyDeleteFor instance, every Orthodox Bible has Revelation in it, but we NEVER read it publicly in Church on ANY occasion what-so-ever. (From a friendly discussion with a Roman Catholic believer, I understand that [unlike the Novus Ordo], the Traditional Catholic Liturgy [i.e., the Tridentine] has also no Revelation-readings what-so-ever).
On the other hand, "Psalm 151", or "The Prayer of King Manase" are part of certain Church services, and they're also to be found in prayer-books [for instance, the Orologion].
Likewise, the OT is read not at the Liturgy [from above-mentioned discussion, I understand that neither does the traditional Tridetine ... unlike the Novus Ordo] but only at Vesper-services preceding Great Church Holidays. And, YES, I could find Wisdom- or Sirach-readings in it, for instance.
(All I did was to give You a little advice -- St. Paul himself, whom You make mention of, says "Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.")
ReplyDeleteLucian said:
ReplyDelete"Canonical means that what is read publicly in Church"
No, that's not what "canonical means" in this context. I've cited sources who were discussing the canon in the sense of which books are scripture. That's why some of the sources I've discussed in this thread and the other threads on the canon have distinguished between that which is canonical and that which is read in churches. You can't ignore the contexts that these sources set for their own comments and redefine that context as "what is read publicly in Church". You're not interacting with what I and my sources were addressing.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteDon't try to fight with me while I'm presenting the Orthodox position on things. [Is it not in Your best interest to understand us, since You've already taken upon You the task to write about us? -- "Know Thy enemy!" ;) ].
I admire and appreciate very much the fact that You speek not of Yourself, but from respected Orthodox theologians [admitting that someone, or something, might have a better understanding of things than oneself does is one of the 1st steps to Orthodoxy ;) ]. Still, I think You know -as I also know- that Orthodoxy has defined herself as "the faith believed allways, everywhere, and by all" -- now, please tell me, what impact on "universality, antiquity, and consens" does the phrase "Since the "19th cent"., however, "Russian" Orthodox theologians "generally" have not accepted the deuterocanonical books. " have?
P.S.: regarding Your 1st comment: Don't be so defensive about it ... the 2nd step is denial! :)
Jason's back, whipping the same dead horses again.
ReplyDeleteRe differences in the Alexandrian canon, he continues to ignore that all the early sources that lend support to a shorter canon also disagree about what is included. These sources (who seem to have been influenced by the local Jews) would indicate to any rational person that the Jews had not yet finalized their canon. Only by around 400AD do we start to see agreement on what is in the shorter canon, and that's not because the people of God had sorted it out, it's because the small group of Masoretic scribes had settled on what books they were going to preserve. And that's why Protestants today have agreement on an OT canon, because of what a small group of Masoretes decided to copy.
Then Jason continues on with his sola-scholar rant where all knowledge is to be found in scholars. But instead of stopping hiding behind scholars and coughing up some more primary sources, he works his way onto a third level of indirection, citing scholars about how good his chosen scholars are!
So instead of interacting with the actual primary evidence he invites us into a new discussion about how great Roger Beckwith is or isn't.
Look, I've got a whole list of scholars I can cite to support things I've been saying. I could spam this list all day with their quotes. But I'm not going to do that. You know why? Because it's invalid argumentation. Appealing to scholars is a fallacy.
I gave this challenge to Jason: if he sincerely believes that some Orthodox don't believe the deutero-canonicals are scripture, find one of the many Orthodox discussion forums on the net, and locate some of these real life people. Then we can see if he is validly understanding what Timothy Ware is saying. A practical and simple test for someone who cares about the truth and not just scoring polemical points. But has Jason taken up the challenge? No, instead he wants to overanalyse and read between the lines yet again of what Ware said. Instead he wants to put all his eggs in the basket of Beckwith being an unbiased source, which we know he isn't. If Jason's thesis was correct he should have no trouble tracking down one of these phantom Orthodox Christians who reject the deuterocanonicals as scripture.
Jason reminds me of the Watch Tower organisation. Their publications can cite scholars till the cows come home to support every wacky idea they ever dreamt up. If it was valid argumentation, we would all be JWs by now.
Lucian said:
ReplyDelete"Still, I think You know -as I also know- that Orthodoxy has defined herself as 'the faith believed allways, everywhere, and by all' -- now, please tell me, what impact on 'universality, antiquity, and consens' does the phrase 'Since the '19th cent'., however, 'Russian' Orthodox theologians 'generally' have not accepted the deuterocanonical books. ' have?"
You're missing the context of this discussion. I was interacting with claims made by another Eastern Orthodox poster. Read what I quoted from him in one of the other articles I linked to:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/05/kallistos-ware-contradicts-orthodox.html
Not only is Orthodox wrong in the claims he's made, which is significant by itself, but, in addition to that, think of the further implications of his error. He keeps criticizing Protestants for disagreeing with each other over even minor issues, and he criticizes them for the potential that they would disagree with each other in the future over an issue like the canonicity of 2 Peter. Yet, here we see Orthodox disagreeing with other Eastern Orthodox about the canon of scripture, mistakenly thinking that all Eastern Orthodox agree with him on a portion of the canon, and, thus, mistakenly identifying something as a Tradition accepted by the whole church that actually isn't such. In light of his errors on subjects like this one, why should anybody trust Orthodox's claims about Tradition, what all Eastern Orthodox believe, etc.? He's repeatedly told us that we should trust what he says about Eastern Orthodoxy without documentation, and he's repeatedly told us that even minor disagreements among Protestants are unacceptable. Yet, here he is disagreeing with other Eastern Orthodox about the canon of scripture, making false claims about what other Eastern Orthodox believe, and making a false judgment about Tradition, a judgment that other Eastern Orthodox reject. You may not think that these disagreements among Eastern Orthodox are of much significance, but I was responding to Orthodox, not you. What I've documented has many implications contrary to what Orthodox has argued, and on more issues than the ones I've mentioned above as examples.
Oooo-kaaayyy ... :D ... I g_e_t it ... so it's all a "domestic" cat and mouse fight between You and Orthodox ... I guess You two must be deep into the whole Y.M.C.A. thing ... ooh-kaay ... sorry for disturbing Your little marital strife here ... :D ["In a divorce-case, the ones to hear both parts are the neighbours"]. :D
ReplyDeleteOrthodox has raised the issue of what the ancient Jews and patristic Christians believed about the canon, but that's a different issue than what I was addressing in the article that opens this thread. I've discussed ancient views of the canon with Orthodox in other threads, and he's repeatedly backed away from his initial claims or has left the discussions without interacting with much of what I'd written. Readers shouldn't trust his undocumented assertions about what ancient sources did and didn't do and believe.
ReplyDeleteOrthodox writes:
"Then Jason continues on with his sola-scholar rant where all knowledge is to be found in scholars."
Where did I say that? Scholars don't have to possess "all knowledge" in order to be relevant. For example, some scholars are Eastern Orthodox, so they're relevant to your claims about what all Eastern Orthodox allegedly believe.
You write:
"But instead of stopping hiding behind scholars and coughing up some more primary sources"
You made a claim about what all Eastern Orthodox believe. How is citing Eastern Orthodox sources, which I've done repeatedly, not an example of citing primary sources? And why should we believe that only primary sources are credible? In the past, you've cited sources like Wikipedia and the Catholic Encyclopedia. When you have cited a primary source, like a church father in a discussion about the fathers, you've repeatedly relied on sources like Catholic Answers to tell you what the fathers wrote and to represent the context of those writings accurately. Why is it acceptable for you to keep relying on sources like Catholic Answers, yet I supposedly am wrong to cite such well qualified and widely regarded Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant scholars? Why the double standard? And why are you so undiscerning that you don't recognize these frequent self-contradictions in your posts?
You write:
"he works his way onto a third level of indirection, citing scholars about how good his chosen scholars are"
If you claim that Beckwith is unreliable because he's a Protestant with "a Protestant agenda", then it's relevant for me to cite Roman Catholic scholars agreeing with much of what Beckwith said and citing Beckwith as a reliable source on the specific issue we're discussing. Your failure to see the relevance of my citation of Roman Catholic scholarship in this context is another example of your lack of discernment and/or dishonesty.
You write:
"Appealing to scholars is a fallacy."
Then why have you done it, such as when you appealed to lexicons in our discussion of the Second Council of Nicaea? Or what about when you relied on the Catholic Encyclopedia to provide details regarding the life of Epiphanius? Why didn't you go to the writings of Epiphanius himself to provide those details? But then you would be relying on the scholars who translated his works, the people who published them, etc. So, why didn't you go out and find some manuscripts of Epiphanius on your own, translate them without any help from scholars, etc.?
And if you claim that all Eastern Orthodox agree about something, then how is it a fallacy for me to cite Eastern Orthodox scholars disagreeing with you?
Appealing to scholars isn't a fallacy, and you know it. You aren't consistent with your own professed standards, and those standards make no logical sense.
You write:
"I gave this challenge to Jason: if he sincerely believes that some Orthodox don't believe the deutero-canonicals are scripture, find one of the many Orthodox discussion forums on the net, and locate some of these real life people."
I wasn't aware that the scholars I cited aren't "real life people". What are they? Robots?
And why wouldn't the caller to James White's webcast qualify as a "real life person"?
While Orthodox is now dismissing scholars and telling me to consult people in online forums, here's what he wrote on this subject in an earlier discussion:
"Go ask an Orthodox priest....If what you said was so true, wouldn't you be able to find an Orthodox scholar saying clearly what you claim is true?...If you can find an Eastern Orthodox who says they are not, and he believes that because a priest or Orthodox scholar told him so, then you'll have a valid complaint." (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/05/eastern-orthodox-acceptance-of-hebrew.html)
Some of the Eastern Orthodox sources I've been citing are priests. And notice that Orthodox will tell us to go to a priest at one point, but will later tell us to go to an online forum to see how the people there interpreted what the priest said, but only if they got their information from a priest or scholar. And he suggests at one point that citing scholars is acceptable, as long as they're "clear" on the subject, but he suggests elsewhere that scholars shouldn't be cited at all. It seems that Orthodox is trying to have it both ways, if not three or four ways.
Notice, too, that Orthodox is ignoring the diversity of views that exists on canonical issues in Eastern Orthodoxy. The fact that we find people agreeing with a particular canon in an online forum doesn't prove that other people in other places don't hold another canon.
You write:
"No, instead he wants to overanalyse and read between the lines yet again of what Ware said. Instead he wants to put all his eggs in the basket of Beckwith being an unbiased source, which we know he isn't."
Notice the contradiction between those two sentences. If I'm relying on my reading of Kallistos Ware, then how can I be "putting all my eggs in the basket of Beckwith being an unbiased source"? And I've cited more sources than Ware and Beckwith.
Why would the fact that Beckwith is "biased", as all humans are, refute my use of his material? If you can rely on a biased source like the Catholic Encyclopedia or Catholic Answers, then why can't I rely on a biased source like Beckwith?
Lucian writes:
ReplyDelete"it's all a 'domestic' cat and mouse fight between You and Orthodox"
I was responding to what somebody in this forum (Orthodox) claimed. That's what usually happens in online forums. People interact with the claims of other people. The issues under dispute have larger implications for Eastern Orthodoxy and other subjects, but not every claim made by Orthodox represents what all Eastern Orthodox believe. We have to distinguish between what Orthodox has argued and what Eastern Orthodox in general believe, but it doesn't therefore follow that the discussion is nothing more than the "cat and mouse fight" you refer to. You asked me about something I cited against a claim made by Orthodox, as if I had been discussing "the faith believed always, everywhere, and by all", as you put it. I then pointed out to you that I was responding to a claim made by Orthodox. How, then, is your response above relevant?
I have no idea who this "Jo Bloggs" person is you refer to (I may have missed the reference earlier), but Beckwith? Having read his work, it's a useful compendium but I believe John Barton is correct when he writes:
ReplyDelete"...He is an apologist for a position which he thinks can be vindicated in a debate conducted by the most exacting intellectual standards. True, the alert reader will very soon spot which way the argument is going, and will realize within the first couple of chapters what the conclusion is going to be: that the Reformers were entirely right to accept only the books of the Hebrew canon as their Old Testament, and that in this they were true to the very teaching of Jesus himself. But this does not mean that the question is begged in any formal sense. The problem is really much more insidious, and comes down to that peculiar failure in historical perception which afficts all fundamentalists like a colour-blindness or lack of binocular vision. Its two most salient features are (a) the belief that ancient sources are essentially anthologies of factual information, rather than the product of human minds with interests, weaknesses and, above all, axes to grind; and (b) the assumption that a person intends any proposition that could be thought to follow logically from even his most casual utterances. The first fallacy makes him treat his sources as if they were 'witnesses' in the legal sense: they may 'disagree' about one point or another, but the possibility that they are simply not interested in the canon, or are talking past each other, never occurs to him. The second leads down the all-too-familar road of deducing Jesus' 'teaching' on the Old Testament canon from his use of scriptural quotations and allusions, as though he had delivered instructions on the composition of the canon as part of the gospel itself. In this world of thought, facts are recorded with minute attention, but the argument is often pure fantasy...
No matter how much evidence one assembles, it will never become history if one has no literary sense and no nose for anachronism: the discussion will be skewed from the start. It is, in fact, manifestly impossible to discover the exact limits of the 'canon' of the New Testament Church. For the simple reason that it is a subject about which the first Christians were wholly unconcerned. As James Barr remarks, 'To suppose that they [the New Testament writers] accepted exactly and only the books of the Protestant canon of scripture is wishful thinking' (Escaping from Fundamentalism (SCM Press 1984), p. 42). But the modern conservative* simply cannot believe that a topic of such profound interest to him can have been a matter of religious indifference to Jesus and the apostles.
Biblical conservatives will cite this book for years to come as having 'proved' that Jesus taught us to accept the books of the Hebrew canon, no more and no less, as our Old Testament. But this Jesus is made in their own image: he is not to be found in the New Testament..." Theology: A Monthly Journal of Historic Christianity, Vol. 19, 1987, pp. 63-65.
Of course, Barton has his own ax to grind. So does Barr ("Escaping Fundamentalism").
ReplyDeleteEastern Orthodox writers have a theological agenda too. So this sort of objection is self-canceling.
Care to deal with the actual evidence for a change?
John B said:
ReplyDelete"I have no idea who this 'Jo Bloggs' person is you refer to (I may have missed the reference earlier), but Beckwith? Having read his work, it's a useful compendium but I believe John Barton is correct when he writes"
You then go on to cite a series of assertions made by Barton, assertions that do nothing to refute anything I was arguing. I cited Beckwith regarding modern Eastern Orthodox views of the Old Testament canon. Nothing you cited from Barton suggests that Beckwith is unreliable in the claims he makes about modern Eastern Orthodoxy, claims that he supports with the citation of multiple sources. To illustrate my point, I gave the example of The New Jerome Biblical Commentary agreeing with much of what Beckwith said on the subject in question and citing Beckwith as a reliable source. That Roman Catholic commentary disagrees with some of Beckwith's conclusions on other issues, yet considers him a credible source on the Eastern Orthodox canon, which is why I used the commentary as an illustration of the fact that it doesn't make sense for Orthodox to dismiss Beckwith as "a Protestant with a Protestant agenda".
The "Jo Bloggs" name is one that Orthodox made up. He was comparing Beckwith to a little known person who claims that "all Protestants beat their wives". The comparison is ridiculous, even if you disagree with some of Beckwith's conclusions.
It doesn't seem that you were following the context of this thread. Instead, you apparently saw Beckwith mentioned and wanted to use the opportunity to post some comments about your disapproval of his conclusions on other issues.
What kinds of disadvantages follow for Orthodoxy if there is disagreement between the different parts of the church on the extended OT canon?
ReplyDeleteThe books on which the Orthodox and Catholic Canon differ are 3&4 Esdra and 3&4 Maccabees. (i.e., all of these Churches [the Catholic one & all the Orthodox ones] have all of the books Protestants REJECT except these 4 books just mentioned above, on which books oppinions differ -- and You have to understand here that we don't "reject" the books not in the Canon).
ReplyDelete-----
You make all this fuss about this or that book [not] being in the Canon, and You call out Great Fathers of the Church in supoort of Your theory ... but the heart of the matter is that these books contain actions which Your theology doesn't embrace (praying FOR the dead; prayer TO the Saints; "almsgiving rescues from death"; etc.) and this is the reason behind Your line of Canon-questioning -- SO TELL ME NOW, MY FRIEND, what was the opinion of the Fathers that You say rejected this or that book on the following topics:
- praying FOR the dead
- prayer TO the Saints
- 'almsgiving rescues from death'
?
What did the certain Fathers which were so great "Rejectors" of these books think on, or about, the afore-mentioned topics?
MG said:
ReplyDelete"What kinds of disadvantages follow for Orthodoxy if there is disagreement between the different parts of the church on the extended OT canon?"
There would be disadvantages in terms of not being able to use some arguments that some people, like Orthodox, often use in support of Eastern Orthodoxy or against Protestants. And disagreements over the canon complicate how people think about matters of authority and how they perceive church history and perceive how God guides His people, for example.
Lucian said:
ReplyDelete"The books on which the Orthodox and Catholic Canon differ are 3&4 Esdra and 3&4 Maccabees. (i.e., all of these Churches [the Catholic one & all the Orthodox ones] have all of the books Protestants REJECT except these 4 books just mentioned above, on which books oppinions differ"
No, some Eastern Orthodox disagree with Roman Catholicism about other books as well. You're ignoring what I documented at the beginning of this thread.
You write:
"You make all this fuss about this or that book [not] being in the Canon"
I'm not the one who "made all this fuss". Orthodox came to this forum and criticized Protestants over canonical issues. We responded, and part of that response was a discussion of disagreements over the canon among Eastern Orthodox. When are you going to criticize Orthodox for "making all this fuss"?
You write:
"You call out Great Fathers of the Church in supoort of Your theory"
In addition to evidence from Biblical sources, extra-Biblical Jewish sources, and sources of the patristic era other than "Great Fathers of the Church".
You write:
"the heart of the matter is that these books contain actions which Your theology doesn't embrace (praying FOR the dead; prayer TO the Saints; 'almsgiving rescues from death'; etc.) and this is the reason behind Your line of Canon-questioning -- SO TELL ME NOW, MY FRIEND, what was the opinion of the Fathers that You say rejected this or that book on the following topics"
If the church fathers in question could reject such books without having the motives you attribute to me, and the same is true of some Eastern Orthodox, then why couldn't I likewise reject the books without such motives? I've addressed issues like the ones you raised in other threads, including recent discussions with Orthodox. Consult the archives. As I explained in a recent response to Orthodox, sources like Justin Martyr and Jerome suggest that the Jewish people were honest in arriving at their canonical consensus. You may think that they were honestly mistaken, but it's highly unlikely that books like Tobit and 1 Maccabees were initially widely accepted by them as scripture, then were rejected later. Rather, it seems that such Apocryphal books never had wide acceptance among them.
What kinds of disadvantages follow for Orthodoxy if there is disagreement between the different parts of the church on the extended OT canon?
ReplyDeleteOrthodox has argued that Holy Tradition defines the canon, but Holy Tradition does not uniformly define the canon. Orthodox has yet to tell us where to find the official repository of Holy Tradition, and he has openly stated that he does not need a majority of theologians to agree with him or with each other. Yet, Orthodox constantly makes claims about what all Orthodox agrees. He has gone so far as to state that he does not need councils and papal decrees to be "authoritiative" for him to make his determinations, yet he has appealed to a council from the 17th century. When told he was "appealing" to this council he denies this, yet in the next sentence he says that it faithfully represented Orthodoxy. However, the truth is that Russia did not accept all the canons issued by that council and the council itself was formed to deny what the Genevan Orthodox had formally stated in their theology, because it largely agreed with Calvinism.
For example, Geneva said that they believed in the doctrines of election of the Reformed churches. This council that Orthodox referenced denied this and said that God elects based on foreseen faith. Is this truly the doctrine of all Orthodox? No, for if it was, there would have been no need for the council to deny it and it also overlooks Augustine. Besides I would love to see Orthodox, who likes to say that the Holy Spirit leads his Church into all truth, try to defend that idea from Scripture. It simply can't be done. So, the Holy Spirit has, if this council faithfully represented Orthodoxy, led his church to flatly contradict the doctrine of election taught in Scripture. So, God is contradicting Himself, and Augustine's doctrine of election stands in opposition to the Orthodox church. But aren't all Orthodox supposed to have believed the same things? Is Augustine part of Holy Tradition or not?
Remember, Orthodox has argued that Sola Scriptura is responsible for disagreements in the church and alleges that his view is better, because it is that of the one true church. But his ideas are inconsistent. What is the mechanism or the set of rules by which any one Orthodox person can adjudicate differences between their favorite Church Fathers and theologians when they disagree? How does Orthodox know what the official canon is, when Holy Tradition gives conflicting reports? He denies he needs an official conciliar decree, but then on what basis can he know that the Nicene Creed is correct? What's the use of a council if it doesn't have to be authoritative? What's the use of list from Jerome or a council in 1672 if it doesn't have to be authoritative. Where does Orthodox's view cash out? It cashes out in a place that is functionally no better than the Protestant evangelical, so it is of no advantage to him whatsoever. All he has is a fideistic claim to be part of the "one true Church," but it is only that, a claim.
some Eastern Orthodox
ReplyDeleteWhich part of the word "CHURCH" don't You understand?
I SAID ROMAN-CATHOLIC *CHURCH* AND ORTHODOX *CHURCHES*.
Which part of the fact that we define our faith as that held "EVERYWHERE, ALLWAYS AND BY ALL" do You fail to understand?
Meanwhile, the only books to which no Catholic-and-Orthodox general agreement is to be found are ONLY the 4 I've mentioned:
3rd Ezra; 4th Ezra; 3rd Maccabees; 4th Maccabees.
Either You show me one of these Churches that have psychological problems with other than these 4 books of Scripture, or I suggest You hold Your peace, because, from where I'm standing, I fail to see any point in denying the obvious.
The RC Church needes no further introduction. The OD Churches are as follows: Russian, Romanian, Serbian, (Bulgarian?), Greek, Georgian.
And You still haven't answered my question, friend. (You've managed to magisterially avoid it, but You haven't answered it).
Lucian said:
ReplyDelete“Which part of the word ‘CHURCH’ don't You understand? I SAID ROMAN-CATHOLIC *CHURCH* AND ORTHODOX *CHURCHES*. Which part of the fact that we define our faith as that held ‘EVERYWHERE, ALLWAYS AND BY ALL’ do You fail to understand? Meanwhile, the only books to which no Catholic-and-Orthodox general agreement is to be found are ONLY the 4 I've mentioned: 3rd Ezra; 4th Ezra; 3rd Maccabees; 4th Maccabees….The RC Church needes no further introduction. The OD Churches are as follows: Russian, Romanian, Serbian, (Bulgarian?), Greek, Georgian.”
When you refer to “everywhere, always, and by all”, are you claiming that the canon you’re referring to has been accepted in such a manner? If so, then document that claim. Document how you know how to define “everywhere, always, and by all”, and document that the canon in question meets that standard. And on what basis do you refer to a church as accepting a canon if members of that church, including some of its leaders, reject it? If the “general” agreement you refer to doesn’t prevent some Eastern Orthodox from accepting a shorter canon instead, then why should we consider such an unrequired longer canon the position of the church in question? You made no reference to “general” acceptance in your earlier post. That’s a qualifier you’ve added since then. Are you saying that such “general” acceptance of some books proves that the canonicity of those books is part of the Eastern Orthodox faith? Should we conclude, then, that the Eastern Orthodox who follow a shorter canon are rejecting the Eastern Orthodox faith? If so, then why are such people not being disciplined, and why don’t they realize that they’re rejecting the faith? Don’t these people understand Eastern Orthodoxy? Do they define Tradition differently than you do?
You write:
“And You still haven't answered my question, friend.”
Which question? The one regarding whether I agree with particular church fathers on issues like praying to the deceased? I explained why the question is irrelevant, and you haven’t interacted with what I said. I also told you that you can find my comments on patristic beliefs about such issues in the archives. For example, I recently discussed prayers to the deceased with Orthodox, and I explained why I believe that the practice wasn’t followed by the people of God in the Biblical era or by the earliest church fathers:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/03/in-another-thread-orthodox-wrote.html
I see no reason to conclude that a source like Melito of Sardis, who rejected the Apocryphal books, held the beliefs you referred to. And even among those who did, how would the fact that they held such beliefs refute anything I said? Tell us where the Apocryphal books you’re referring to teach praying to the deceased, and explain why we should accept your assertions about why I reject such books.
And if you’re going to expect me to answer your questions, why do you keep ignoring so many of mine? Why don’t you go back to the beginning of this thread and answer each of my questions that you’ve ignored?
Remember, Orthodox has argued that Sola Scriptura is responsible for disagreements in the church and alleges that his view is better, because it is that of the one true church. But his ideas are inconsistent. What is the mechanism or the set of rules by which any one Orthodox person can adjudicate differences between their favorite Church Fathers and theologians when they disagree? How does Orthodox know what the official canon is, when Holy Tradition gives conflicting reports? He denies he needs an official conciliar decree, but then on what basis can he know that the Nicene Creed is correct? What's the use of a council if it doesn't have to be authoritative? What's the use of list from Jerome or a council in 1672 if it doesn't have to be authoritative. Where does Orthodox's view cash out? It cashes out in a place that is functionally no better than the Protestant evangelical, so it is of no advantage to him whatsoever. All he has is a fideistic claim to be part of the "one true Church," but it is only that, a claim.
ReplyDeleteAnd just in case Orthodox objects to this characterisation, let's be sure we quote him:
I could in theory hold the position that say, only 10% of fathers held my view, and 90% didn't. It doesn't mean the 10% were wrong when the church was led to recognise the truth.
How does he know, if that is the case, using his own standards that the Church was led into the truth? For example if Scripture's doctrine of election is at direct variance with the council from the 17th century that he said faithfully represented Orthodoxy, in fact, contradicts it, and this same council said that the Church is led by God's Spirit into all truth, then which is correct, the council or Scripture? How does he adjudicate the truth when Tradition and Scripture vary and when theologians within Orthodoxy vary? How does he know the minority was right and the majority wrong or vice versa, and, I might add that the council he cited was directed toward a minority in Orthodoxy to rebut them, so, if a minority can disagree with the majority and the minority still be correct, how does Orthodox know who is right, and not just Orthodox himself but those in the councils to whom he refers?
What he's offered so far is this:
All I've got to do is prove to myself enough things to satisfy myself I have the true church. Proving everything isn't feasible nor practical. Proving enough of the important things is all I need to do.
Everything else has come back to this. This is pure fideism. It's ecclesiolotry.
You then go on to cite a series of assertions made by Barton, assertions that do nothing to refute anything I was arguing.
ReplyDeleteIrrelevant since I made no comment either in support of or in opposition to your assertions. You cited Beckwith as an authority and on that basis alone I quoted Barton to give further perspective on the man's work.
Of course, Barton has his own ax to grind. So does Barr ("Escaping Fundamentalism"). Eastern Orthodox writers have a theological agenda too. So this sort of objection is self-canceling.
ReplyDeleteIndeed and a refreshing admission from a Protestant.
Care to deal with the actual evidence for a change?
Since I am not Eastern Orthodox I would not even know where to begin. I leave such to those of that faith.
John B wrote:
ReplyDelete“Irrelevant since I made no comment either in support of or in opposition to your assertions. You cited Beckwith as an authority and on that basis alone I quoted Barton to give further perspective on the man's work.”
Would you explain how what you cited from Barton supposedly gave us “further perspective” on Beckwith’s comments regarding the canon of modern Eastern Orthodox? We already knew that some people disagree with Beckwith’s conclusions on some issues pertaining to the canon of the ancient Jews or what the earliest Christians believed, for example. That’s why I cited The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. I was making the point that even such sources who disagree with some of Beckwith’s conclusions can still consider him correct and worth citing on the specific issue I was addressing. What, of significance, does your citation of Barton add to the discussion?
You began your post by acknowledging that you didn’t know what the “Jo Bloggs” reference was, so you apparently hadn’t been following the context of the discussion. You then went on to comment on Beckwith’s “work” as a whole, but nothing you cited from Barton, even if we accepted all of his assertions, would make my use of Beckwith unreasonable. If you didn’t intend to suggest that I was wrong in my use of Beckwith, and nothing in your citation of Barton suggests that my use of Beckwith was wrong, then I think that my initial response to your post was correct. You seem to have been interested in expressing your disapproval of Beckwith on other issues, and even on those other issues what you quoted from Barton is just a series of unargued assertions.
Yes, You were right in Your instincts from the 1st paragraph of Your last comment. (Glad to see our discussion is finally gettin' somewhere). I.E., a certain individual, or even certain individuals, no matter how "bright" they are, and no matter how high-up the hierarchy they've managed to climb (all bishops are equal, remember? -- we're not RC) has no right to enforce his opinion on others. THE MIND OF THE CHURCH IS THE MIND OF THE ENTIRE CHURCH, TAKEN AS A WHOLE. If You still don't believe me think that Sabellius and Arius were Priests (the last one was very bright too!), Nestorius was a Patriarch, Eutyches was an Archmandrite, Luther and Calvin were great Theologians, etc. (No peasants ever *fathered* heresies). And, as I've said, the only books as to the inclusion of which our canons differ are the four previously mentioned.
ReplyDeleteOther observations (regarding the remaining paragraphs of Your last comment): You know very little about us, and about the Fathers. -- which is O.K. ! (I know very little about Lutheranism, or Calvinism too).
Some links which might be of help to You (to better understand our position on things):
abuian.blogspot.com/2007/03/ot-canon.html --> Roland's commentary.
http://kalvesmaki.com/otcanon.htm
benedictseraphim.wordpress.com/2007/05/20/cutting-to-the-chase-show-me-your-church/
http://kalvesmaki.com/ntcanon.htm
Jason, Steve,
ReplyDeleteYou may have noticed already, but Lucian is not too hot on answering questions.
But there's always tomorrow, Lucian.
Would you explain how what you cited from Barton supposedly gave us “further perspective” on Beckwith’s comments regarding the canon of modern Eastern Orthodox?
ReplyDeleteIn my experience, Beckwith is probably the single most person cited by Protestant apologists on issues involving the Canon. Your own article on your now defunct site relies heavily upon his work. As long as perspective is given that his work isn't without challenge or completely accepted, that's fine. As Steve rightly indicated, all scholars have their own biases which is important to bear in mind. You will note that I did not mention anyone else you cited, but you do tend to cling to Beckwith quite a bit.
We already knew that some people disagree with Beckwith’s conclusions on some issues pertaining to the canon of the ancient Jews or what the earliest Christians believed, for example.
If you did this time, that woud practically be a first. Your article on the Canon, for example, gives no such qualification in citing Beckwith.
You then went on to comment on Beckwith’s “work” as a whole, but nothing you cited from Barton, even if we accepted all of his assertions, would make my use of Beckwith unreasonable.
I see that you still have a habit of injecting into people's statements far more than what they actually said.
" There would be disadvantages in terms of not being able to use some arguments that some people, like Orthodox, often use in support of Eastern Orthodoxy or against Protestants. And disagreements over the canon complicate how people think about matters of authority and how they perceive church history and perceive how God guides His people, for example."
ReplyDeleteWhat specific problems would follow from this? What argument by Orthodox are you criticizing?
Genebridges, you wrote:
ReplyDelete"Besides I would love to see Orthodox, who likes to say that the Holy Spirit leads his Church into all truth, try to defend that idea from Scripture. It simply can't be done. So, the Holy Spirit has, if this council faithfully represented Orthodoxy, led his church to flatly contradict the doctrine of election taught in Scripture."
I assume you are talking about the doctrine of unconditional election of individuals to eternal salvation, which is the position of Augustinian and Reformed theology. Where do you see this doctrine taught in Scripture?
Also, what do you make of 1 Peter 1:2 where it says that there are people "elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father"? This seems to ground election in foreknowledge of some kind.
John B,
ReplyDeleteI assume you’re John Betts. If not, let me know.
You wrote:
“As long as perspective is given that his work isn't without challenge or completely accepted, that's fine…. If you did this time, that woud practically be a first. Your article on the Canon, for example, gives no such qualification in citing Beckwith.”
I don’t think it’s appropriate to mention that a scholar’s work is disputed each time that scholar is cited. You didn’t mention that scholars disagree with John Barton on some issues when you cited him. How many people reading a forum like this one would be so ignorant as to not know that an issue like the Old Testament canon is disputed? My article on the canon you’re referring to was written partially in response to Roman Catholicism. Why would anybody reading such an article not realize that hundreds of millions of Roman Catholics, for example, including Catholic scholars, disagree with Beckwith? I acknowledged that Beckwith’s work is disputed in my discussions with Mike Black (Blackrobe) in the America Online forum where you and I used to post. How could you know what I’ve said about this subject in other forums? Were you present when I discussed this issue on TheologyWeb? I don’t think you were, and I doubt that you followed many of my other discussions of the subject.
You write:
“I see that you still have a habit of injecting into people's statements far more than what they actually said.”
Apparently, you didn’t understand what I was saying. My point was that you weren’t saying anything that would lead us to the conclusion that my use of Beckwith in this thread is unreasonable. And since your citation of Barton doesn’t address my use of Beckwith in this thread, then why did you cite Barton? That’s what I was addressing.
MG said:
ReplyDelete“What specific problems would follow from this? What argument by Orthodox are you criticizing?”
I’m not going to get into a discussion of every issue related to canonical disagreements. Is it your position that there are no problems for Eastern Orthodoxy resulting from disagreements about the canon of scripture? If you acknowledge that it is problematic to some extent, then I don’t think that a discussion of the specific extent to which it’s problematic is worthwhile for me, given my time constraints at this point.
Regarding Orthodox, see what I quoted from him and discussed regarding his claims earlier in this thread and in the threads I linked to at the beginning of this one.
I assume you’re John Betts. If not, let me know.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I thought it was clear that I am.
I don’t think it’s appropriate to mention that a scholar’s work is disputed each time that scholar is cited.
Perhaps not every single time, unless it is relevant to the issue being discussed. Yet when a particular scholar is used so often as an authority, I believe it is also important to mention that fact even if one dismisses the criticism.
You didn’t mention that scholars disagree with John Barton on some issues when you cited him.
Because I didn't cite him as an authority to support anything, but instead as an example that Beckwith's work is not universally praised among Canon scholars.
How many people reading a forum like this one would be so ignorant as to not know that an issue like the Old Testament canon is disputed?
You'd be surprised, regardless of what view on the Canon is advocated. Most people who frequent these blogs and message boards are laymen with little or no education in these matters except what they may have been able to learn on their own.
Why would anybody reading such an article not realize that hundreds of millions of Roman Catholics, for example, including Catholic scholars, disagree with Beckwith?
Exactly my point. It matters not whether Catholics agree or disagree with your article, or anyone else due to beliefs of their faith tradition. Studies on the formation of the Canon transcend denominational lines and examine the historical evidence we have. Your article presented a false picture because you only gave one side as virtual fact. It's fine if you want to say that Beckwith's arguments are superior to Barton's and oh, btw, here's why, but that's not how you've used his work most of the times I've seen you cite it. Your attitude is almost akin to, "Beckwith has spoken, the case is closed".
I don’t think you were, and I doubt that you followed many of my other discussions of the subject.
No, because stalking isn't my forte. The discussions I've seen you cite Beckwith you have failed to acknowledge such, including on AOL, and for certain one place it is noticeably missing is in your article.
John B writes:
ReplyDelete“No, because stalking isn't my forte. The discussions I've seen you cite Beckwith you have failed to acknowledge such, including on AOL, and for certain one place it is noticeably missing is in your article.”
If you’re going to comment on how I supposedly cite Beckwith, then it’s reasonable for me to ask how many of my discussions involving Beckwith you’ve seen. My bringing up that issue isn’t equivalent to expecting you to “stalk” me.
As far as the America Online forum is concerned, if you didn’t see my discussion with Mike Black, or you’re not remembering some parts of the discussion, then that’s not my problem.
You say that you didn’t need to tell people that Barton’s views are disputed, since you weren’t citing him as “an authority”. But if we’re to assume as much ignorance among the readers of our posts as you’re suggesting, then why would it matter whether you intended to cite Barton as “an authority”? What if people reading your post thought that everybody else must agree with Barton’s view of Beckwith, since you didn’t mention that not everybody does? Barton wouldn’t need to be cited as “an authority” in order to be perceived as representing what other people believe. I don’t think that the readers of our posts are as ignorant as you’re suggesting, and if some are, then I don’t think that I should be expected to accommodate such a high degree of ignorance. I doubt that many people who are unaware of the existence of these canonical disputes are following threads like this one. Readers can be expected to realize that people would dispute some of Beckwith’s conclusions without my telling them so.
If you’re going to comment on how I supposedly cite Beckwith, then it’s reasonable for me to ask how many of my discussions involving Beckwith you’ve seen. My bringing up that issue isn’t equivalent to expecting you to “stalk” me.
ReplyDeleteSince most of these discussions are now either inaccessible to the general public or are lost among the millions of pages on the internet, I'll dismiss this as your usual game of distraction. I notice that you didn't mention your article in this, which is very accessible.
You say that you didn’t need to tell people that Barton’s views are disputed, since you weren’t citing him as “an authority”. But if we’re to assume as much ignorance among the readers of our posts as you’re suggesting, then why would it matter whether you intended to cite Barton as “an authority”?
Because if I relied upon Barton as you do Beckwith it would be incumbent upon me to acknowledge in some fashion that his views were not without challenge. This isn't a matter of a respected scholar being challenged by a crackpot, whether we are speaking of Barton or Beckwith. The fact of the matter is that like it or not the scholarly community is divided over the history of the formation of the Canon, with good arguments for both the open and closed Canon theories. Well, good that is when it proceeds from the historical record itself and not from denominational concerns. The former view is more widely held, but this doesn't mean the latter is only a small minority opinion. Citing Beckwith to support your beliefs is deceptive at best.
What if people reading your post thought that everybody else must agree with Barton’s view of Beckwith, since you didn’t mention that not everybody does?
Then they would be confusing one cited example for the whole. While this is possible in such a case I would clarify if it were needed, but it was clear from my post how he was cited. The same cannot be said with how you cite Beckwith, particularly in your article.
I don’t think that the readers of our posts are as ignorant as you’re suggesting
Oh really? So on every subject of theology and history that's discussed on this blog and others, on message boards and elsewhere around the Net, most readers are educated and well-read enough to know exactly what you are speaking of and whether what is posted is accurate or just a fringe view? You have a high view of the general public which simply isn't sustained by the facts.
John B said:
ReplyDelete“Since most of these discussions are now either inaccessible to the general public or are lost among the millions of pages on the internet, I'll dismiss this as your usual game of distraction.”
You commented on my behavior with regard to discussing Beckwith. If you haven’t seen some of those discussions, then your ignorance of what occurred in those discussions is relevant. It’s not my responsibility to keep records of every discussion I’ve participated in related to Beckwith or to ignore my memories of any discussion no longer extant. How is it a “game” of “distraction” for me to tell the readers about your ignorance of some of these discussions and what I know about them?
The direction this discussion has taken has proven what I initially said about your presence here. There’s nothing objectionable in my use of Beckwith in this thread. You were using my mentioning of Beckwith as an opportunity to criticize him on other matters. When I mentioned the irrelevance of those criticisms to this thread, you took the opportunity to criticize me for an alleged pattern of misusing Beckwith elsewhere. What that alleged pattern amounts to is your disapproval of the fact that I didn’t mention that Beckwith’s views are disputed in an article at a web site that I no longer maintain. That article was written largely in response to people who disagree with some of Beckwith’s conclusions (Roman Catholics), so it seems unlikely that the readers would have needed to be told that some people disagree with Beckwith. And I’ve acknowledged that Beckwith’s conclusions are disputed in other contexts. You tell me that it’s a “game” of “distraction” to mention those other contexts, but you don’t explain why.
You write:
“I notice that you didn't mention your article in this, which is very accessible.”
I addressed that article earlier in this thread. I also addressed other contexts in which I’ve discussed Beckwith.
You write:
“Because if I relied upon Barton as you do Beckwith it would be incumbent upon me to acknowledge in some fashion that his views were not without challenge.”
You keep making that assertion, but you give us no reason to agree with it. The fact that I cited Beckwith in an article at my web site without making a comment about other scholars’ views doesn’t prove that I did something wrong on that occasion, much less that I have the sort of pattern of such wrong behavior that you suggested earlier. It’s not my responsibility to assume a high degree of ignorance on the part of the readers of every article or post I write and to accommodate that ignorance by making comments on the fact that what I’m citing is disputed. The article at my web site was written partially in response to the Roman Catholic view of the canon, and I doubt that any of the readers are so ignorant as to think that no Roman Catholic scholars, for example, would dispute Beckwith’s conclusions (or the conclusions of other sources I cited).
You write:
“Then they would be confusing one cited example for the whole. While this is possible in such a case I would clarify if it were needed, but it was clear from my post how he was cited. The same cannot be said with how you cite Beckwith, particularly in your article.”
How is your citation of Barton “clear” in a way in which my citation of Beckwith isn’t? If you’re going to say that it should be obvious to people that not everybody would agree with Barton’s assessment, then I would say the same about Beckwith. The passages I cited from Beckwith in the article you’re referring to repeatedly acknowledge that probability judgments are being made and that other scholars have held other positions. Beckwith uses the word “implies” and refers to what “evidently” happened, refers to how other scholars have “come to think” of an issue differently than he does, and makes reference to the theory of a wider Alexandrian canon. If any reader was so ignorant as to think that there aren’t any disputes over the relevant issues, then reading what I cited from Beckwith should have given him an indication to the contrary. The closing paragraph I quoted from Beckwith refers to how Jesus “evidently” accepted and passed on to His followers a Jewish canon that was the same as the canon of Protestantism. Is it your position that people reading an article I wrote that addresses a dispute between Catholics and Protestants over the canon would conclude that Beckwith’s assessment is undisputed?
You write:
“So on every subject of theology and history that's discussed on this blog and others, on message boards and elsewhere around the Net, most readers are educated and well-read enough to know exactly what you are speaking of and whether what is posted is accurate or just a fringe view?”
I don’t have to think that most users of the web are knowledgeable of every subject related to theology and history in order to think that the general readership in a specific context in which I write will be aware of disputes over the Old Testament canon.
Jason Engwer--
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"I’m not going to get into a discussion of every issue related to canonical disagreements. Is it your position that there are no problems for Eastern Orthodoxy resulting from disagreements about the canon of scripture? If you acknowledge that it is problematic to some extent, then I don’t think that a discussion of the specific extent to which it’s problematic is worthwhile for me, given my time constraints at this point."
I'll start by assuming that the Orthodox disagreement is unproblematic, though I may have to revise this contention and claim something less robust if your arguments are convincing. If you don't have time to engage on this subject, then that's fine. I just wonder how big of a deal it is that there is disagreement about the contents of the canon; Im not sure its an issue, really.
MG,
ReplyDeleteI'll give you a few examples.
Do you consider it problematic to claim that something was spoken by God if it wasn't spoken by Him?
Do you consider it problematic for time to be taken up by canonical disputes among Eastern Orthodox?
Do you consider it problematic for some Eastern Orthodox to draw their theological arguments from sources that they consider infallible, but which other Eastern Orthodox consider fallible?
Do you consider it problematic when one Eastern Orthodox views other Eastern Orthodox as comparable to heretics like Sabellius and Arius because of their canonical disagreements with him (see Lucian's comments earlier in this thread)?
Jason,
ReplyDeleteDo you consider it problematic when one Eastern Orthodox views other Eastern Orthodox as comparable to heretics like Sabellius and Arius because of their canonical disagreements with him (see Lucian's comments earlier in this thread)?
Could you clarify which comment you meant? A quick link will be great.
Rhology,
ReplyDeleteWhenever you want to find something, an easy way to do it is by using the Ctrl F feature on your keyboard (press F while Ctrl is held down). If you put in the word "Arius", for example, you'll be taken to the portion of Lucian's comments I was referring to. Maybe that doesn't work with every computer or every keyboard. I don't know.
Here's the portion of what I had written earlier, which he was responding to:
"Should we conclude, then, that the Eastern Orthodox who follow a shorter canon are rejecting the Eastern Orthodox faith? If so, then why are such people not being disciplined, and why don’t they realize that they’re rejecting the faith?"
Here's what he wrote in response:
"Yes, You were right in Your instincts from the 1st paragraph of Your last comment. (Glad to see our discussion is finally gettin' somewhere). I.E., a certain individual, or even certain individuals, no matter how 'bright' they are, and no matter how high-up the hierarchy they've managed to climb (all bishops are equal, remember? -- we're not RC) has no right to enforce his opinion on others. THE MIND OF THE CHURCH IS THE MIND OF THE ENTIRE CHURCH, TAKEN AS A WHOLE. If You still don't believe me think that Sabellius and Arius were Priests (the last one was very bright too!), Nestorius was a Patriarch, Eutyches was an Archmandrite, Luther and Calvin were great Theologians, etc. (No peasants ever *fathered* heresies). And, as I've said, the only books as to the inclusion of which our canons differ are the four previously mentioned."
He's thus claiming that the longer canon he referred to is part of "the mind of the church", part of the Eastern Orthodox faith, not a matter of freedom. He's comparing the Eastern Orthodox who follow the shorter Hebrew canon to heretics who reject other parts of the Eastern Orthodox faith.
Jason--
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"Do you consider it problematic to claim that something was spoken by God if it wasn't spoken by Him?"
I don't think the books in question would be considered divinely inspired, so I'm not sure this applies.
"Do you consider it problematic for time to be taken up by canonical disputes among Eastern Orthodox?"
I don't think there's any canonical disputes on this subject; it seems from what I know that the different parts of the Church are fine with letting each other have extra books in their extended OT canon.
"Do you consider it problematic for some Eastern Orthodox to draw their theological arguments from sources that they consider infallible, but which other Eastern Orthodox consider fallible?"
I don't think that consensus of the Church considers the extended OT canon to be infallible. Its just considered profitable or useful or venerable or whatever. Theological arguments tend not to depend on the deuterocanon.
"Do you consider it problematic when one Eastern Orthodox views other Eastern Orthodox as comparable to heretics like Sabellius and Arius because of their canonical disagreements with him (see Lucian's comments earlier in this thread)?"
Im not sure if you're interpreting Lucian correctly; but if so, I doubt he's correct. I don't think theres any conflict over whether or not its okay to have different books in the extended OT canon.
MG wrote:
ReplyDelete"I don't think the books in question would be considered divinely inspired, so I'm not sure this applies."
Some Eastern Orthodox do consider books like Tobit and 3 Maccabees inspired, whereas others don't. See my earlier citations of Orthodox's comments and his citation of the 1672 synod of Jerusalem. I ask you again, then, is it problematic to claim that something was spoken by God if it wasn't spoken by Him? If one Eastern Orthodox claims that Tobit and Judith are Divinely inspired scripture, whereas another Eastern Orthodox denies that assertion, is that problematic in the sense I just described?
You write:
"I don't think there's any canonical disputes on this subject; it seems from what I know that the different parts of the Church are fine with letting each other have extra books in their extended OT canon."
The concept that they disagree without having any dispute is unreasonable. Two contradictory positions can't both be correct. People wouldn't be taking a position on such an issue and be writing about it if they had no concern about it. The willingness of people who disagree to remain part of the same denomination doesn't prove that there's no dispute. Read what Orthodox and Lucian have written in response to what I've said about the following of the Hebrew canon by some Eastern Orthodox. Orthodox has been concerned enough about this issue to argue at length (erroneously) that all Eastern Orthodox agree in accepting books beyond the Hebrew canon as scripture. And I've documented how negatively Lucian responded to my mentioning of Eastern Orthodox who disagree with him on the subject. He said that his longer canon represents "the mind of the church". He said that Eastern Orthodox like the ones I cited "have no right to enforce their opinion on others". He then went on to use men like Sabellius and Arius as examples. It doesn't seem that Lucian considers this issue as insignificant as you suggest it is.
You write:
"I don't think that consensus of the Church considers the extended OT canon to be infallible. Its just considered profitable or useful or venerable or whatever."
Then you're disagreeing with Orthodox. He's been citing the synod of Jerusalem of 1672, which describes books like Tobit and Judith as scripture in the same sense as the Hebrew canon. Notice that, in my citations of them, both Timothy Ware and John Meyendorff contrast the view that only the Hebrew canon is Divinely inspired with the view of the synod of Jerusalem.
You write:
"Im not sure if you're interpreting Lucian correctly"
I've gone into detail about what he wrote and the context in which he wrote it. If you think that I'm wrong, then explain why.
You write:
"I doubt he's correct."
Then your disagreement with Lucian is another example of how Eastern Orthodox do dispute such subjects.
You write:
"I don't think theres any conflict over whether or not its okay to have different books in the extended OT canon."
How can you acknowledge that Lucian, an Eastern Orthodox, is in conflict over the issue, then go on, in the next sentence, to tell us that you don't think there's any conflict on the issue among Eastern Orthodox?
Jason wrote:
ReplyDelete“Some Eastern Orthodox do consider books like Tobit and 3 Maccabees inspired, whereas others don't. See my earlier citations of Orthodox's comments and his citation of the 1672 synod of Jerusalem. I ask you again, then, is it problematic to claim that something was spoken by God if it wasn't spoken by Him? If one Eastern Orthodox claims that Tobit and Judith are Divinely inspired scripture, whereas another Eastern Orthodox denies that assertion, is that problematic in the sense I just described?”
Well though the Quinisext Ecumenical Council says that these books are canonical, it doesn’t say they are inspired as far as I know. Ecumenical Councils are the place from which authority is expressed in the Church. Its too bad that some individuals are disagreeing on this subject.
You wrote:
“The concept that they disagree without having any dispute is unreasonable. Two contradictory positions can't both be correct. People wouldn't be taking a position on such an issue and be writing about it if they had no concern about it. The willingness of people who disagree to remain part of the same denomination doesn't prove that there's no dispute. Read what Orthodox and Lucian have written in response to what I've said about the following of the Hebrew canon by some Eastern Orthodox. Orthodox has been concerned enough about this issue to argue at length (erroneously) that all Eastern Orthodox agree in accepting books beyond the Hebrew canon as scripture. And I've documented how negatively Lucian responded to my mentioning of Eastern Orthodox who disagree with him on the subject. He said that his longer canon represents "the mind of the church". He said that Eastern Orthodox like the ones I cited "have no right to enforce their opinion on others". He then went on to use men like Sabellius and Arius as examples. It doesn't seem that Lucian considers this issue as insignificant as you suggest it is.”
Certainly there is disagreement over this issue, but that doesn’t mean that communion is being withheld; and that’s what is crucial to unity in the Orthodox Church. Individual opinions coming into conflict don’t necessarily entail that the Church as a whole has disunity. That’s what I meant by “dispute”; I guess I should have said “Eucharistic disunity”.
You wrote:
“Then you're disagreeing with Orthodox. He's been citing the synod of Jerusalem of 1672, which describes books like Tobit and Judith as scripture in the same sense as the Hebrew canon. Notice that, in my citations of them, both Timothy Ware and John Meyendorff contrast the view that only the Hebrew canon is Divinely inspired with the view of the synod of Jerusalem.”
Yes, it does look like I’m in disagreement with Orthodox on this issue. My understanding is based on (my fallible interpretation of) the Quinisext ecumenical Council, and as far as I know it doesn’t say there that such books are divinely inspired.
You wrote:
“I've gone into detail about what he wrote and the context in which he wrote it. If you think that I'm wrong, then explain why.”
On second thought, it seems like you’re right. Thanks for pointing that out.
You wrote:
“Then your disagreement with Lucian is another example of how Eastern Orthodox do dispute such subjects.”
Though some people may claim that Orthodox don’t disagree about anything and are perfectly in agreement on every point of doctrine, this isn’t true. Things that are outside of the scope of ecumenical councils are up for grabs and not necessary for unity.
You wrote:
“How can you acknowledge that Lucian, an Eastern Orthodox, is in conflict over the issue, then go on, in the next sentence, to tell us that you don't think there's any conflict on the issue among Eastern Orthodox?”
Good point—I guess you got me. I messed up on that sentence and I apologize for misspeaking. What I had been trying to get at is that the different parts of the Church don’t stand in some kind of conflict that destroys their ability to be united in Eucharistic fellowship merely because of different books being in their extended canons. Sorry for the confusion.
Now of course everything I've said has been spoken from the perspective of an individual Orthodox person; so I could be wrong. And I apologize ahead of time if I am.
Does this clear up some of the confusion?
Do you consider it problematic when one Eastern Orthodox views other Eastern Orthodox as comparable to heretics like Sabellius and Arius because of their canonical disagreements with him (see Lucian's comments earlier in this thread)?
ReplyDeleteHuh??
Im not sure if you're interpreting Lucian correctly
Thanks, M.G.
-----
Jason,
following "this one" or "that one" can (and, sometimes, does) lead even to heresy. That was what I was trying to augment here, and to make pretty clear: ORTHODOXY IS ABOUT CONSENSUS: with each-other (in Synods, for example) and with our own ancestors (through Tradition).
The fact that the mind of the entire Church (East, West, Orient) recognizes the books I've mentioned as canonical [minus the 4 I've also mentioned] is clear.
You even asked me about an official list (?) to prove (?) what I'm saying. At first, I thought You were maybe joking, or just being ill-spirited ... but as I read through the commnents, I see You really mean it ... OK ... Here it is: every Romanian Bible ever written (in the last 400-500 yrs, or so ... we weren't a literate people) contains all of the Apocrypha, except 4 Esdra (which some Slavs include as 3 Ezra), 4 Maccabees (we have only 3 of them, and the Catholics got just 2). The LXX Ezra is counted as 3 Ezra, since we split the common one into Ezra & Neemia.
Now, all You have to do is ask a Russian, Greek, Serbian, Bulgarian, and Georgian as to what their Bibles traditionally include as regrads to the Apocrypha.
My point was that all Your complaint about such a huge strife (?) and un-knowingness (?) among us about the extent of the Apocrypha is, practically, zero.
AND READ THE LINKS I GAVE YOU:
abuian.blogspot.com/2007/03/ot-canon.html --> Roland's commentary.
http://kalvesmaki.com/otcanon.htm
benedictseraphim.wordpress.com/2007/05/20/cutting-to-the-chase-show-me-your-church/
http://kalvesmaki.com/ntcanon.htm
I've downloaded the Greek Bible on my computer ages ago, from the official :) site of the Jerusalem Patriarchate, and, guess what? It also contains exactly the same books as the Romanian Bible (though, in a different order), and has only 4 Macc. in an appendix. (2 OD Churches down, 4 more to go). :)
ReplyDeleteMG,
ReplyDeleteYes, I understand what you're getting at, I think, and I agree that Eastern Orthodox can have some significant types of unity while they have disunity on other issues. In my discussions with Orthodox, I've cited Philippians 4:2-3 as an illustration. Both Eastern Orthodox and Protestants can have unity among themselves in some contexts while having disunity in other contexts.
For any readers who might be interested, Steve Hays has written a reply to MG as well:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/05/mg.html