Francis J. Beckwith said...
“John makes a good point: what was Jesus' understanding of what we call the OT? We can, of course, propose accounts that seem to establish the Catholic or the Protestant point of view. But it seems that the evidence fails to conclusively exclude either position (though I think the Catholic position on balance is far more plausible).”
http://romereturn.blogspot.com/2010/01/sola-scriptura-and-scope-of-canon-guide.html?showComment=1264292722100#c2841349357330701161
i) To say that we have to “conclusively” establish one position or another is fairly arbitrary. Can he conclusively establish that the church of Rome is the one true church?
ii) And, of course, Protestants like me don’t think the Catholic position on balance is far more plausible. Just the opposite.
“However, given that fact that the Early Church (with few exceptions) seemed to embrace the deuterocanonical books as Scripture, and the only time any identifiable group of Christians claimed to authoritatively pronoune them as definitively non-canonical is in the 16th century, I think it is wise to err on the side of Augustine and his predecessors and successors rather than with Luther and Calvin and their successors.”
Why is that wiser? Why suppose that Augustine had any special expertise on the issue?
And the fact that his successors merely regurgitate the same arguments doesn’t add any new evidence to the question at hand.
“As J. N. D. Kelly writes in Early Christian Doctrine: It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative by the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than . . . the Hebrew Bible of Palestinian Judaism . . . It always included, though varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocryphal or deutero-canonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was not the original Hebrew version, but the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. . . . In the first centuries at any rate the Church seems to have accepted all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and treated them without question as Scripture.”
Yes, the myth of the Alexandrian canon. Does Beckwith think that Protestants are new to that argument? Does he think they have no counterargument?
Just for starters, you have his fallacious inference from Christian copies of the Old Greek version to pre-Christian copies of the Old Greek version. Also keep in mind that there are different recensions of the LXX.
“It is clear, then, that the burden to exclude the deuterocanonical books is on the Protestant, since the default position historically has been their inclusion.”
i) How does the “historical position” create any truth-conducive presumption? Why wouldn’t his appeal to venerable tradition just be a case of well-entrenched error? Somebody makes the wrong call early in the process, and that misjudgment is simply repeated and codified over time? Indeed, the rubberstamp mentality he appeals to is a very good reason to distrust pro forma traditionalism.
ii) And whose Apocrypha should we include? The Roman Catholic Apocrypha? The Eastern Orthodox Apocrypha? The Ethiopian Orthodox Apocrypha?
“But in order to exclude them, you have to do more than just show there is a plausible case to exclude them. You have to show that there is no good case to include them, for as long as there is a reasonable case that they should be included, a wise person should want to err on the side of having a complete canon.”
Well, if he wants to cast the issue in those terms, then that hypothetical raises an interesting tradeoff.
Which is better? To have a somewhat incomplete canon which is limited to inspired writings, or have a more indulgent canon which adds uninspired writings to the corpus?
Given the OT and NT denunciations of false Messiahs,, false teachers, and/or false prophets, would it really be wiser to equate forgeries with the word of God? Is canonizing a pious fraud really erring on the side of wisdom?
Dominic Crossan is sure that he can make a reasonable case for the Gospel of Thomas. Does Beckwith think the Vatican should also canonize the Gospel of Thomas?
Which is better? To have a somewhat incomplete canon which is limited to inspired writings, or have a more indulgent canon which adds uninspired writings to the corpus?
ReplyDeleteaaah, which is better?
Well, you ask a hard question.
Let me do a "Jesus" thing on you then?
Which is better:::>
Mat 7:20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.
Mat 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?'
Mat 7:23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'
<:::::To do the Will of God in Heaven or just merely call Jesus Lord and go about doing the works of lawlessness?
Oh, and might I add? If there was any time in His teaching the truth about Truth among the people, teaching on purgatory at this time might have been apropos? By so doing this, He could have driven a greater wedge between the Pharisees and Saducees too.
The Apocrypha is not the only problem. Martin Luther considered Revelation to be "neither apostolic nor prophetic" and put it in his Antilegomena. Further, he also questioned Hebrews and the books of James and Jude. My only gripe is the book of James. It's nonsense, theologically.
ReplyDeleteThe story of the woman taken in adultery is a forgery, used by liberals to be soft on sin.
Steve Hays: "To say that we have to “conclusively” establish one position or another is fairly arbitrary. Can he conclusively establish that the church of Rome is the one true church?"
ReplyDeleteI know that Perry Robinson and other staunch Eastern Orthodox would vociferously argue that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the One True Church.
Martin Luther considered Revelation to be "neither apostolic nor prophetic" and put it in his Antilegomena. Further, he also questioned Hebrews and the books of James and Jude. My only gripe is the book of James. It's nonsense, theologically.
ReplyDeleteWhy are Luther's comments even being brought up? The quest for ad fontes sources was a major impetus provoking the textual and historical criticism of sixteenth century scholars, both on the Roman Catholic and Protestant side. Erasmus, Cajetan, and Luther all questioned the apostolic authorship of certain books.
Luther's comment that Revelation was "neither apostolic nor prophetic" was edited out of Luther's preface, by Luther. His later preface to Revelation was much more positive and completely revised. As far as my research has been able to uncover, Luther never explicitly adds Revelation to his list of “chief books.” However, his tone of writing in the 1530-revised preface contains only a remnant of the doubt as to its canonicity. He appears to be certain of its prophetic value in describing the papacy. Luther says, “Because its interpretation is uncertain and its meaning hidden, we have also let it alone until now, especially because some of the ancient fathers held that it was not the work of St. John, the Apostle—as is stated in The Ecclesiastical History, Book III, chapter 25. For our part, we still share this doubt. By that, however, no one should be prevented from regarding this as the work of St. John the Apostle, or of whomever else he chooses.” In fact, if you read the revised preface, Luther used Revelation to combat the papacy.