Thursday, May 07, 2009

The Significance Of Other New Testament Canons

Abbreviations

CNT = Bruce Metzger, The Canon Of The New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997)

FGO = Martin Hengel, The Four Gospels And The One Gospel Of Jesus Christ (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 2000)

INT = D.A. Carson and Douglas Moo, An Introduction To The New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2005)

TCD = Lee McDonald and James Sanders, edd., The Canon Debate (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002)



The large majority of the earliest Christians whose writings are extant haven't left us a record of every book they considered scripture. We can identify a portion of their canon, but not its entirety. Martin Hengel observes that "of the second-century Christian writings known to us by title, around 85% have been lost. The real loss must be substantially higher." (FGO, 55) And we wouldn't expect the early Christians to discuss the full extent of their canon in the vast majority of the contexts in which they wrote.

In a recent post, I argued that Athanasius' twenty-seven-book New Testament was held by some of his contemporaries and by some before his time. Origen is the earliest source I'm aware of who advocates the twenty-seven-book canon in the records extant to us. Though Athanasius' Festal Letter 39 from the middle of the fourth century is often cited as the first reference to the twenty-seven-book canon, the evidence suggests that it was advocated at least more than a century earlier. Thus, the plausibility is increased that the twenty-seven-book canon was among the New Testament canons held by the many ante-Nicene sources who haven't left us a record of the full extent of their canon of scripture. Since we only have a partial record of the canon of most of the earliest sources, how close does the portion of their canon we know about come to the twenty-seven-book collection?

Even if a source is known to have held some other canon, it's important to know how different it was. It would be one thing if the earliest Christians had something like a five-book or eight-book collection of scripture. It would be something else if they had a twenty- or twenty-five-book canon, which would fall short of our twenty-seven-book canon by a much smaller margin. When critics of Christianity, or of Evangelicalism in particular, tell us that some Christians held a different canon, it's important to know how different those other canons were. The closer they come to the twenty-seven-book canon, the less significant the objection that's being raised.

Harry Gamble writes:

"It is recognized by all that (1) by the end of the second century the four gospels, the letters of Paul, and 1 Peter and 1 John had acquired very broad use and high authority in almost all regions of early Christianity...it is widely recognized today that Paul's letters were consistently known and used throughout the second century, and by the late second century had become fully and universally established as apostolic scriptures....both the Gospels and the Pauline Letters were shaped into firm collections during the second century" (TCD, 271, 286-287)

Those nineteen documents are nearly identical to the twenty Eusebius refers to as undisputed in his Church History (3:25), which he composed in the late third and early fourth centuries. He writes that his assessment of the documents is derived from "the tradition of the church" (3:25), and he appeals to how the documents were received in earlier generations, so he isn't just describing the state of the canon in his day.

In the research of Franz Stuhlhofer, we have further corroboration of this near agreement between the scholarly consensus Gamble refers to and Eusebius:

"First, drawing on the work of Stuhlhofer, Barton counts the number of times the New Testament (and other) books are actually cited by the Fathers in proportion to each book's length. He discovers there are three clear groups: those New Testament books that are quoted frequently (viz., the four gospels and the major Pauline letters), those quoted less frequently (the rest of the New Testament), and books that are scarcely quoted at all (viz., those that were excluded from the canon). In other words, there is a sharp demarcation in actual frequency of usage between the New Testament books and all other claimants: actual usage was establishing the canon." (INT, 733-734)

Whether we go with Gamble's nineteen books or Eusebius' twenty books, we have the large majority of the New Testament, more than two-thirds of it. But there are problems with how both Gamble and Eusebius arrive at their numbers. Both suggest that the number could be higher.

Eusebius changed his view of Revelation over the years (INT, n. 20 on 734), and he described the book and its acceptance as scripture by the church in different ways in different places in his writings. He'll acknowledge that Revelation could be classified as one of the widely accepted books of the New Testament, but will go on shortly afterward to comment that it could be placed in a lesser category as well (Church History, 3:25). As D.A. Carson and Douglas Moo note, Revelation seems to have been "almost universally recognized as Scripture in the second century" (INT, n. 20 on 734). Its more disputed status later shouldn't prevent us from including it among the widely accepted books in earlier generations. Gamble notes the early widespread acceptance of Revelation and acknowledges that the disputed status of the book that people often refer to arose later in church history (TCD, 289). If we add Revelation to the lists of Gamble and Eusebius, we have twenty and twenty-one books, respectively, that were widely received early on.

Gamble excludes Acts, but not because the evidence is contrary to Eusebius' inclusion of Acts among the undisputed books. Rather, he believes that "The early history of Acts is largely obscure and needs further investigation." (TCD, 288) But Eusebius had access to a lot of sources no longer extant. The relatively few sources who comment on the canonicity of Acts in the earliest generations, such as Irenaeus, are supportive of what Eusebius reports, and, as Gamble notes (TCD, 288), Acts is a companion piece to the gospel of Luke. It seems unlikely that Luke would be so widely accepted without a similar acceptance of Acts. I see no reason to not include Acts among the books widely accepted as canonical early on.

The history of Hebrews is similar to that of Revelation. It was widely accepted in both the West and East early on, but became more controversial later. The later disputed status of the book, referred to by Eusebius and others, shouldn't prevent us from including it among the books widely accepted as canonical early on. Gamble acknowledges some of the sources who accepted the book in early generations (TCD, 289), but neglects to mention others, gives no evidence of any significant early opposition to the document, and seems to read later opposition to the book among some in the West into the earlier generations, without any justification that I can perceive from anything Gamble says. Hebrews ought to be included among the books widely accepted in the ante-Nicene era.

That leaves us with five others: James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude. They all seem to have been less widely accepted early on, but I'm not aware of any reason to conclude that any of them were rejected by the majority in the earliest centuries. Rather, their widespread acceptance in the post-Nicene era, accompanied by some attestation earlier, suggests that they were accepted by a majority even in the ante-Nicene era, though a smaller majority than the other twenty-two books had.

Gamble argues that many people in the early centuries of the church included some books that aren't part of the twenty-seven-book canon we have today. He cites The Shepherd Of Hermas as his primary example, though he also mentions others:

"More widely popular than either of these [First Clement and The Epistle Of Barnabas], however, was the Shepherd of Hermas, which was fully acknowledged as scripture by Irenaeus (Haer. 4.20.2), Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 1.17.29, 2.1.9, 12), and Tertullian (Or. 16). Its strong representation among early Christian papyri discovered in Egypt probably reflects its popularity....the esteem and use attaching to them [documents like First Clement, The Epistle Of Barnabas, The Shepherd Of Hermas, and The Didache] was appreciably earlier, more continuous, and more widespread than to many of the writings that were finally accepted in the canon, including Hebrews, 2 Peter, James, and 2 and 3 John....If the scope of the canon had been determined in the second century, it seems likely that they would have found a place in it." (TCD, 289-290)

Notice, first of all, that Gamble only cites three patristic references to the scriptural status of The Shepherd Of Hermas, which is his primary example. Yet, he doesn't include books like Hebrews and Revelation among those widely accepted early on, even though both had much more early attestation and less opposition. And he even includes Hebrews among the documents that allegedly weren't as well attested as The Shepherd Of Hermas.

Second, notice Gamble's failure to interact with the early opposition to the canonicity of the documents he cites, even though he refers to their "more continuous" acceptance. As Everett Ferguson points out later in the same book in which Gamble wrote those comments (TCD, n. 60 on 308), Tertullian tells us that The Shepherd Of Hermas was excluded from the canon of the Christians of his day (On Modesty, 10). Tertullian's view of the document changed. Gamble cites Tertullian's earlier positive assessment without commenting on his later negative assessment, an assessment Tertullian tells us was shared by the Christians of that era in general. Tertullian's comments are corroborated by Origen, who tells us that The Shepherd Of Hermas wasn't generally accepted by the churches (CNT, 188). The dating of the Muratorian Canon is disputed, but most scholars place it in the second century, and it, too, rejects The Shepherd Of Hermas (CNT, 307). Apparently, the book was accepted only by a minority. I'm not aware of any early source who gives as negative an assessment of any of the books in our twenty-seven-book canon as Tertullian gives us for The Shepherd Of Hermas. Where does an early source tell us that Hebrews, 2 Peter, or Revelation, for example, has been as widely rejected as Tertullian claims The Shepherd Of Hermas has been? I don't know of any such source. Tertullian goes on, in the same document, to refer to Hebrews as more widely accepted among the churches than The Shepherd Of Hermas (On Modesty, 20). Gamble's analysis of The Shepherd Of Hermas is far off the mark, and it's his primary example.

Similar observations can be made about the other documents Gamble cites. Clement of Alexandria would often speak highly of non-canonical documents in one place, but then qualify those comments elsewhere. I've written about that tendency in Clement in another article. To cite an example involving one of the documents Gamble mentions, Clement referred to The Epistle Of Barnabas as inspired and wrote a commentary on it, yet in other passages he criticized the document (CNT, 134 and n. 43 on 134). Though Jerome thought highly of The Epistle Of Barnabas, he refers to it as "reckoned among the apocrypha" (Lives Of Illustrious Men, 6), apparently a reference to a general rejection of the document. Etc. Gamble gives a positive assessment of these documents that he doesn't sufficiently support, and he doesn't interact with the evidence against his assessment.

It seems that twenty-two of the twenty-seven New Testament documents were widely accepted during the ante-Nicene era, five were accepted by a smaller majority, and documents like The Shepherd Of Hermas and The Epistle Of Barnabas were accepted only by a minority. Bruce Metzger discusses which books were accepted by the writers of that era in the documents that are extant, and he concludes that there are twenty-two in Irenaeus (CNT, 155), twenty-three in Tertullian (160), twenty-two and sometimes more in Clement of Alexandria (134-135), twenty-two in Hippolytus (150), etc. The numbers could be higher. Men like Irenaeus and Tertullian don't tell us the full extent of their canon. As Metzger explains, the absence of a reference to a document like 2 or 3 John in Tertullian, for example, doesn't have much significance, since it would be easy for somebody to not cite such a short and unoriginal document, yet consider it scripture (160).

Lee McDonald lists the New Testaments of seventeen fourth-century sources (TCD, 592-595). Almost all of them contain twenty or more of the twenty-seven books.

Most of the New Testament canons that differ from the twenty-seven-book canon don't differ by much. Books like 2 and 3 John significantly increase the percentage of books that were disputed, but they don't make much of a difference in the textual length or theological content of the canon.

And the high number of books in so many of the early canons suggests that it's plausible that the twenty-seven-book canon was held by some Christians even earlier than Origen. If our incomplete knowledge of the canon of men like Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian leads us to the conclusion that they accepted twenty-two or more of the twenty-seven books, then our twenty-seven-book canon isn't too far off, and it may have already been present.

13 comments:

  1. Jason,

    Can you give a short explanation of why Hebrews was disputed?

    ReplyDelete
  2. In section 3:25 of his Church History, Eusebius doesn't mention Hebrews by name in any of the categories of books. He refers to the letters of Paul, and Hebrews could be included there. That would put the number of undisputed books at twenty-one or twenty-two, depending on whether Revelation is included. (Eusebius is inconsistent about Revelation.) Elsewhere (Church History, 3:3), however, he mentions that Hebrews is disputed by some on the basis of its authorship. In another place (Church History, 6:13), he refers to it as disputed without an explanation of the reason. I classify Hebrews as one of Eusebius' disputed books, because of his comments in Church History 3:3 and 6:13 and because of evidence of the book's disputed nature in other sources. But some people classify it as one of Eusebius' undisputed books, since Church History 3:25 implies that status and because the book was so widely accepted leading up to the time of Eusebius. Either way, Eusebius does say that some people dispute the book, and he mentions doubts about its Pauline authorship in that context. Other sources mention that Hebrews is disputed without explaining the reason. And some people questioned its Pauline authorship without rejecting its canonicity.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You're basing this all off the writings of those whom later history would see as the true church or catholic church or whatever term you might want to use. Later history approved of these folks, so it preserved their writings and continued that lineage. If the writings of the non-"orthodox" church groups were taken into account, the view could be very different.

    So you have to sit in the lap of a "catholic" church, in order to slap its face.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The "catholic"church doesn't "approve" of Origen or Tertullian. These are not official church fathers.

    Moreover, to the extent that Jason is citing evidence from the church fathers, he is citing evidence from both the Latin Fathers and the Greek Fathers.

    So on the lap of which "true" church or "catholic" church is Jason sitting: the Eastern Orthodox church or the Roman Catholic church?

    Moreover, given the developments in Roman Catholicism over the centuries, what makes you think the early church fathers would even acknowledge the modern church of Rome as the true church?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Origen and Tertullian were in the catholic church, which is the point. They are a witness to that tradition, and not any of the many other "Christian" groups that existed at the time.

    And the lap he is sitting in, is the idea that there was one catholic church which was the ark of truth. If or where that ark may continue today is another separate question. But those fathers appealed to the practice of that church, over and above other "Christian" groups, as decisive in the Canon.

    For Jason to then appeal to the unity of _only_ people in that one religious community, whose self-proclaimed foundation was apostolic succession, whilst denying that very foundation that gave them an objective differentiator from those other groups, is to do what I said: to sit in a catholic lap to slap a catholic face.

    Now if you want to deny the existence of an apostolic succession through to today, then don't pretend to appeal to a consensus of fathers whose commonality was that very belief in one catholic church. You're going to have to instead throw in every weird heretical, gnostic, marcionite and whatever group into the mix.

    ReplyDelete
  6. David,

    Aside from the fact that you're making assertions that you don't even attempt to support, you're misrepresenting my position and you're raising objections we've addressed in previous threads.

    In my last post in this series on the canon, which I've linked above, I cited the example of Donatist agreement with the twenty-seven-book canon. I haven't just appealed to the church fathers or those who are generally considered part of the mainstream of the ancient church. In other threads, I've discussed corroboration of the authorship, and thus by implication canonicity, of some of the New Testament books by various heretical and non-Christian individuals and groups. See, for example, here and the post here along with the other posts linked within it. I've often discussed corroboration of the New Testament canon from heretical and non-Christian sources, and I intend to discuss that issue again later in this series. I neither said nor suggested that this post you're responding to represents the entirety of my case for the New Testament canon.

    You write:

    "And the lap he is sitting in, is the idea that there was one catholic church which was the ark of truth."

    Where did I say that I'm "sitting in that lap"? I appeal to the testimony of the fathers and other people you consider part of the "one catholic church" as one line of evidence among others. Even if we limit ourselves to those sources from what you call the "catholic church" for the moment, I don't accept their testimony just because they were part of a church that was "the ark of truth". Their participation in the church, which I don't define as you define it, has some relevance, but these sources are credible for other reasons as well. A person can be credible for more than one reason. A Christian of the second century, for example, can be credible to me because he's a Christian, but also because of other factors, such as when he lived, what sources he had access to, etc.

    Steve's citation of Tertullian and Origen is correct, and your response to his comments needs to be argued, not just asserted. As a Montanist, Tertullian was a critic of what Roman Catholics and others would consider the catholic church of that day. Though Tertullian and Origen had some supporters among mainstream Christians, they also had some critics who sometimes referred to them as schismatics or heretics. For example, Jerome writes of Tertullian, "Of Tertullian I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church." (The Perpetual Virginity Of Mary, Against Helvidius, 19) Regarding Origen's treatment by some of his critics, I give some examples here. In light of your claim that "Later history approved of these folks, so it preserved their writings", you may want to take note of the comments, in that post I just linked, concerning the condemnation and destruction of Origen's writings.

    Similar observations could be made about other fathers. Hippolytus wrote of a Roman bishop, Callistus, and those who followed him:

    "The impostor Callistus, having ventured on such opinions, established a school of theology in antagonism to the Church, adopting the foregoing system of instruction. And he first invented the device of conniving with men in regard of their indulgence in sensual pleasures, saying that all had their sins forgiven by himself. For he who is in the habit of attending the congregation of any one else, and is called a Christian, should he commit any transgression; the sin, they say, is not reckoned unto him, provided only he hurries off and attaches himself to the school of Callistus. And many persons were gratified with his regulation, as being stricken in conscience, and at the same time having been rejected by numerous sects; while also some of them, in accordance with our condemnatory sentence, had been by us forcibly ejected from the Church....And withal, after such audacious acts, they, lost to all shame, attempt to call themselves a Catholic Church!" (The Refutation Of All Heresies, 9:7)

    In that same section of the work cited above, Hippolytus tells us that Callistus used the analogy of Noah's ark that you're appealing to: "he affirmed that the ark of Noe was made for a symbol of the Church, in which were both dogs, and wolves, and ravens, and all things clean and unclean; and so he alleges that the case should stand in like manner with the Church" (The Refutation Of All Heresies, 9:7). He rejects Callistus' definition of how the church is like the ark. Men like Hippolytus and Callistus can agree that there's one church, and agree that the church is comparable to Noah's ark in some manner, for example, without considering each other part of the same church and without agreeing with every implication you're drawing from their ecclesiology.

    For another example, read Cyprian's Letter 74 to see how much unity Firmilian thought he had with the Roman bishop Stephen.

    It's possible to classify all of these men as Christians and as part of the same hierarchical church, but not by using their standards. And if you can accept some of their standards on such issues while rejecting other standards they held, why can't we do the same?

    You tell us that Tertullian and Origen "are a witness to that tradition", the tradition of the catholic church as you define it. But they, and others, like Irenaeus, were also witnesses to the beliefs of other individuals and other groups. As Augustine refers to Donatist agreement with the mainstream New Testament canon, so also men like Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen refer to corroboration of various parts of the New Testament canon by heretics and non-Christians. The church fathers aren't just witnesses to mainstream church tradition. They're also witnesses to less popular opinions within the church and the beliefs of those outside the church. Even when they witness to mainstream church tradition, one doesn't have to agree with everything that church believed, or even consider himself part of that church, in order to accept that testimony as historical evidence. I can accept the testimony of Roman Catholic individuals regarding the authorship of a Roman Catholic document, such as a papal decree, without agreeing with all that Roman Catholicism teaches and without being a Roman Catholic myself. Must you be an atheist to accept the testimony of an atheist regarding a historical issue, such as who authored a particular document?

    I've addressed apostolic succession and other issues pertaining to the identity of the ancient church elsewhere. You tell us that "those fathers appealed to the practice of that church, over and above other 'Christian' groups, as decisive in the Canon", but different fathers defined the church in different ways, the fathers cited other lines of evidence for the canon as well, and I haven't denied that the church has been involved in the canonical process.

    Furthermore, it's not as though every source I've cited makes the appeal to the church that you're attributing to them. Rather, you're referring to what some patristic sources said about some of the evidence for the canon, and you're reading your definition of terms like "church" into what they said, in addition to assuming that they were correct and that I must agree with them on that issue in order to accept their testimony on another issue. If Origen makes a comment along the lines of what you're attributing to the fathers, why should I believe that he's defining the church as you define it, that other fathers, like Justin Martyr and Jerome, agreed with him, and that I must accept his assessment on that issue in order to accept his testimony on other issues related to the canon?

    Many of the sources who give us evidence for the canon advocated some form of apostolic succession. But not all of them did. And those who did defined the concept of apostolic succession in a variety of ways. Not everybody who advocated some type of apostolic succession claimed that it was foundational in the manner you're claiming it is. Even if a given source did so, I can consider him credible on some matters without considering him credible about everything. We're all selective in what we do and don't believe in historical sources. Bart Ehrman can believe Clement of Rome's and Irenaeus' testimony about the Pauline authorship of 1 Corinthians without also accepting their beliefs about apostolic succession. Non-Christian scholars frequently accept the testimony of ancient Christians pertaining to issues relevant to the canon, as well as other issues, without agreeing with those sources about apostolic succession and other matters.

    ReplyDelete
  7. DAVID SAID:

    “Origen and Tertullian were in the catholic church, which is the point.”

    By Catholic standards, Origen is a heretic, while Tertullian is both a heretic and a schismatic.

    “They are a witness to that tradition, and not any of the many other ‘Christian’ groups that existed at the time.”

    Tertullian was a witness to Montanism.

    “If or where that ark may continue today is another separate question.”

    To the contrary, the questions are inseparable from a Catholic standpoint. Which church today is the true heir to the “catholic” church of the past? Is it the church of Rome? The Eastern Orthodox church? The Oriental Orthodox church?

    “For Jason to then appeal to the unity of _only_ people in that one religious community…”

    Jason did nothing of the kind. And there are several installments to go.

    “Now if you want to deny the existence of an apostolic succession through to today, then don't pretend to appeal to a consensus of fathers whose commonality was that very belief in one catholic church.”

    There is no consensus of the fathers on the canon. What you have, instead, are earlier and later historical witnesses to the canon.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The Donatists were a disagreement that came out of the catholic church and was substantially within the catholic church, which is a different thing to groups essentially outside the catholic church.

    If all you've documented is when other groups agreed with the catholic church, then you've got a whole lot more documenting left to do.

    Your criteria for who in the 2nd century is credible has more to do with them agreeing with you, than any objective measure of credibility.

    I don't understand the point about Tertullian. He was at one time in the church, and then he left the church. That Jerome says as much only indicates Jerome's strong sense of there being one catholic church, and does nothing to help your case. And whether Origen's beliefs had problems or not is really nothing to do with the topic at hand as well. And if some of Origen's works were destroyed, thanks for proving my point. They history you read in the fathers is in large part the subset of works that the later church wants you to read. Those who belonged to other sects and groups are in large part not preserved.

    "Hippolytus and Callistus can agree that there's one church, and agree that the church is comparable to Noah's ark in some manner, for example, without considering each other part of the same church and without agreeing with every implication you're drawing from their ecclesiology."

    Are you having fun proving my points for me?

    "For another example, read Cyprian's Letter 74 to see how much unity Firmilian thought he had with the Roman bishop Stephen."

    In Letter 74 Cyprian discusses a concept called "the unity of the catholic church". Whatever Cyprian thought of Stephen, there was always a greater issue at stake which was the unity of the catholic church. That was the issue being struggled with, and that was the foundation of their faith. From the same letter 74 "as they who were not in the ark with Noah not only were not purged and saved by water, but at once perished in that deluge; so now also, whoever are not in the Church with Christ will perish outside"

    Have you actually read letter 74? You're not seriously going to claim that Cyprian has some kind of protestant ecclesiology surely? If not, what was your point?

    "And if you can accept some of their standards on such issues while rejecting other standards they held, why can't we do the same?"

    I don't know that I reject the overall thrust of their standards. And isn't the issue the canon? In which case you are advocating that anybody can accept bits of the canon as they see fit as well.

    " The church fathers aren't just witnesses to mainstream church tradition. They're also witnesses to less popular opinions within the church and the beliefs of those outside the church."

    The point being what? Yes they sometimes give clues about what others think, but people are a far better witness to their own beliefs.

    "I can accept the testimony of Roman Catholic individuals regarding the authorship of a Roman Catholic document, such as a papal decree, without agreeing with all that Roman Catholicism teaches and without being a Roman Catholic myself."

    Were that the issue only about authorship, but that is only a tiny part of the question. The real question is what is the word of God, and authorship does not answer that question.

    "different fathers defined the church in different ways"

    And all those ways were consistent with there being one visible church in communion.

    "the fathers cited other lines of evidence for the canon as well"

    Yes they did, but you've got no basis for saying that those other basis are actually valid criteria. Besides which the main criteria was always the usage in the catholic church. Even their other criteria such as authorship was in reality based on the prevailing belief in the church concerning authorship rather than actual documentary evidence of who wrote it.

    "I haven't denied that the church has been involved in the canonical process."

    And the canonical process was done with a belief in one church. Churches looked at the books other churches had if they were catholic. They didn't look to what non-catholic groups were doing. The existence of such a visible organisation provided the basis for a canonical process. Without a fairly sharp delineation between the true church and non-true churches based on a concept of unity, the canonical process could not take place.

    "why should I believe that he's defining the church as you define it, that other fathers, like Justin Martyr and Jerome, agreed with him, and that I must accept his assessment on that issue in order to accept his testimony on other issues related to the canon?"

    If one particular father doesn't comment on one particular issue, it seems reasonable to assume he believed what his contemporaries believed, absent some other evidence. What you're saying is a bit like assuming Jude didn't believe in the resurrection because he didn't specifically mention that in his epistle.

    "Many of the sources who give us evidence for the canon advocated some form of apostolic succession. But not all of them did."

    And Jude doesn't mention the resurrection. Whatever.

    "Not everybody who advocated some type of apostolic succession claimed that it was foundational in the manner you're claiming it is."

    Jude doesn't mention the resurrection as foundational. Whatever. But whether you want it to be foundational, it IS the foundation of the canonical process. Thus your need to sit in a catholic lap to slap it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jason are you an INERRANTIST?

    In the books you referenced on this topic please note that the following authors are NOT INERRANTISTS:

    Bruce Metzger

    Martin Hengel

    And the scholars whose essays appeared in the fourth book you mentioned: William Adler, Peter Balla, John Barton, Joseph Blenkinsopp, François Bovon, Kent D. Clarke, Philip R. Davies, James D. G. Dunn, Eldon Jay Epp, Craig A. Evans, William R. Farmer, Everett Ferguson, Robert W. Funk, Harry Y. Gamble, Geoffrey M. Hahneman, Daniel J. Harrington, Everett R. Kalin, Robert A. Kraft, Jack P. Lewis, Jack N. Lightstone, Steve Mason, Lee M. McDonald, Pheme Perkins, James A. Sanders, Daryl D. Schmidt, Albert C. Sundberg Jr., Emanuel Tov, Julio Trebolle-Barrera, Eugene Ulrich, James C. VanderKam, Robert W. Wall.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Secondly,

    Catholics do not fret as much as Protestants over what is and what is not "canonical" because they believe their church is the one true church led by the Holy Spirit, going back even before the canon. Catholic bishops and theologians chose the canon.

    Of course Protestants think the Catholics were WRONG about a whole lot of things they choose in their church councils, they just happened to be INSPIRED in their choice of books to declare canonical, while all those other decisions of church councils that DECIDED RITUALS, BIBLE INTERPRETATIONS, HOW THE CHURCH WOULD BE RUN, etc. were not inspired.

    Pretty convenient being a Protestant (as Catholics would say, just ask Dave Armstrong over at "Biblical Evidence for Catholicism" what he thinks about the Protestant notion of "Sola Scriptura")

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ed,

    I wasn't discussing Biblical inerrancy. Even if I had been discussing that subject, I could cite sources who don't believe in the concept in order to argue for a point. Do you maintain that inerrantists should never cite sources who aren't inerrantists in any context?

    I deny that the church fathers should be considered Roman Catholic. See here.

    Believing that an ancient source was correct in its canonical conclusions isn't equivalent to believing that the source was inspired. I accept the testimony of many ancient sources on many subjects. I don't have to believe that each of them was inspired.

    Where inspiration is involved in some sense, there can be reasons to believe that one source was inspired while another wasn't, and there can be reasons to think that a given source was inspired in one context without having been inspired in another.

    ReplyDelete