Francis Beckwith says:
It’s my understanding that the Palestinian Jews rejected the New Testament as well.
Francis Beckwith is fond of these cute little quips. But
they’re intellectually shallow.
i) There’s nothing inconsistent about regarding Palestinian
Jews as more reliable witnesses to the OT canon than the NT canon. God revealed
the OT to the Jews. For centuries, the Jews copied and recopied the OT. A
chain-of-custody. That’s hardly comparable to the NT.
ii) In addition, it’s reasonable to distinguish between
Palestinian Jews and Diaspora Jews. Jews who relied on a Greek edition of the
OT were further removed from the source.
iii) Keep in mind, too, that some NT writers were
Palestinian Jews. So not all Palestinians Jews rejected the NT. Consider Jewish
followers of Jesus who belonged to the 1C church of Jerusalem.
It is not clear how a divided Church tradition helps the Protestant case, since by employing this argumentative strategy you seem to concede the central point of Catholicism: the Church is logically prior to the Scriptures.
Divided tradition applies to “the Church” as well as the
canon. There are divergent traditions regarding the primacy of Rome.
That is, if the Church, until the Council of Trent’s definitive declaration, can live with a certain degree of ambiguity about the content of the OT canon, that means that sola scriptura was never a fundamental principle of authentic Christianity.
i) No. At best that would mean sola scriptura was never a
fundamental principle of Roman Catholicism.
ii) But this isn’t really a question of sola scriptura,
although Beckwith would like to recast it in those terms. If the church of Rome
can live with a certain degree of ambiguity about the canon of Scripture, that
means the church of Rome can live with ambiguity about when or whether God has
spoken. Ambiguity about true and false prophecy. Ambiguity about people
speaking in God’s name without God’s authorization.
If that ambiguity applies to the canon, why not church
councils and papal encyclicals?
After all, if Scripture alone applies to the Bible as a whole, then we cannot know to which particular collection of books this principle applies until the Bible’s content is settled. Thus, to concede an unsettled canon for Christianity’s first 15 centuries, as you do, seems to make the Catholic argument that sola scriptura was a 16th century invention, and thus not an essential Christian doctrine.
i) Needless to say, Protestants don’t think Trent settled
the canon. At best, Trent settled the canon for the church of Rome. And even
then, Trent settled on the wrong canon.
ii) Beckwith fails to draw an elementary distinction
regarding the canon:
iii) Beckwith’s argument is circular. As long as the church
of Rome had a monopoly on western Christendom, then, by definition, sola
scriptura wasn’t fully operative. If a drug cartel controls a city, things
can’t return to normal until the power of the cartel is broken.
iv) Trent didn’t confine itself to the OT canon.
Trent settled a number of other Catholic dogmas. So, by Beckwith’s logic,
Tridentine dogmas were never essential Christian doctrines. Tridentine dogmas were
never fundamental to authentic Christianity.
"Trent settled a number of other Catholic dogmas. So, by Beckwith’s logic, Tridentine dogmas were never essential Christian doctrines. Tridentine dogmas [w]ere never fundamental to authentic Christianity."
ReplyDeleteThat's quite a damaging riposte.
"It’s my understanding that the Palestinian Jews rejected the New Testament as well."
ReplyDeleteJudaism in the first century had two factions. Hellenistic (Alexandria and Roman Empire) and Traditional (Parthia and Palestine). Both cultural divisions can be seen in Acts 2:9-11. Alexandrian/Hellenistic Judaism: "Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome...Cretans" and Traditional("Hebrews") Judaism: "Judea...Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia...and Arabians."
The first Church was a mix of Palestinian and Hellenists as seen in Acts 6:1-2 "Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution."
The Church at Jerusalem acted as the Head of the Infant mostly Jewish Church until Antioch became separate Hellenistic and Gentile Church in Acts 11:22 "The report of this came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch."
All used the Septugiant and the traditional Jews also used the Hebrew canon. To say that the Palestinian Jew Peter didn't accept the Cappadocian Paul's writings goes against II Peter 3:15-16, "just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures."
The New Testament was being copied in Alexandria scriptoriums as early as the first Century as the new Mark papyrus and the Rylands John (P52) Papyrus show. This professional copying used on the Old Testament Septugiant was now being used on the epistles of Paul and the Gospels.
The Jerusalem Talmud was quickly copied after the fall of Jerusalem while the Babylonian Talmud continued for another 1000 years. The exclusion of the New Testament by non-Christian Jews would be not a testimony against the validity of the New Church's own documents. So I fail to see the quip???
In the Lamb
(i) True, but utterly irrelevant. The issue is not if the Jews are "more" reliable on the OT, the issue is whether they are in fact reliable. Beckwith's point is, no they are not. That they might be "more" reliable on the OT, does not alter his point that they are not in fact reliable. I guess Mormons are "more reliable" on the canon than Muslims, but neither are particularly reliable.
ReplyDelete(ii) To make an argument that they are "more removed from the source", you would have to define "more removed" and then show why your definition is actually pertinent to the issue.
Furthermore, it seems to me you are assuming what you want to prove, namely that the Hebrew scriptures are in all cases "the source". But if some of the scriptures are in fact written in Greek, then at least in some cases Greek is "the source" and thus the Palestinian Jews might be regarded as "more removed from the source".
(iii) Rather anachronistic to discuss the writers of the NT accepting the NT as canon, and rather irrelevant to the point anyway.
ccthecc1/12/2013 8:04 AM
ReplyDelete“(i) True, but utterly irrelevant. The issue is not if the Jews are ‘more’ reliable on the OT, the issue is whether they are in fact reliable. Beckwith's point is, no they are not.”
I think you’re substituting your own argument for his. If that’s his point, he failed to express his point clearly. I take the point of his sarcastic statement to be insinuating that it’s arbitrary for Protestants to accept the witness of Palestinian Jews to the OT canon, not to the NT canon.
However, that’s scarcely an arbitrary distinction. Early Christians naturally had a bead on the NT. Most-all of the NT was written to and for Christians. So early Christians would naturally be in better position to know when, where, by whom, and to whom, a NT document was written.
“That they might be ‘more’ reliable on the OT, does not alter his point that they are not in fact reliable.”
i) That begs the question.
ii) Since, moreover, the church inherited the OT canon from the Jews, your denial means the church has the wrong canon of Scripture.
“I guess Mormons are ‘more reliable’ on the canon than Muslims, but neither are particularly reliable.”
i) I don’t think Mormons are more reliable than Muslims on the canon.
ii) Moreover, the comparison is inapt. Mormons are not historical witnesses to the canon. They came along long after the evidence was in.
“(ii) To make an argument that they are ‘more removed from the source’, you would have to define ‘more removed’ and then show why your definition is actually pertinent to the issue.”
i) Are you trying to be obtuse? Jews who rely on a translation of the OT are, by definition, using a secondary source rather than a primary source.
ii) Moreover, copies of the OT were kept in the Temple archives in Jerusalem. That’s the standard of comparison.
iii) Mind you, I’m not assuming that Diaspora Jews had a different canon. There’s no firm evidence for an Alexandrian canon. I merely distinguish between Palestinian Jews and Diaspora Jews because I was responding to Beckwith, who drew that distinction. That was his implicit contrast.
“Furthermore, it seems to me you are assuming what you want to prove, namely that the Hebrew scriptures are in all cases ‘the source’. But if some of the scriptures are in fact written in Greek, then at least in some cases Greek is ‘the source’ and thus the Palestinian Jews might be regarded as ‘more removed from the source.’”
Yes, the OT was written in Hebrew, with a smattering of Aramaic, as well as some foreign loan words. That’s why Jerome and Origen went back to the source.
“(iii) Rather anachronistic to discuss the writers of the NT accepting the NT as canon, and rather irrelevant to the point anyway.”
I didn’t discuss NT writers accepting the canon. Rather, I noted the fact that Beckwith’s dichotomy is a false dichotomy inasmuch as some NT writers were themselves Palestinian Jews, not to mention a major portion of the Jerusalem church. Beckwith always thinks he can wing it with catchy little quips. He lacks specific, accurate, historical background knowledge.
"So early Christians would naturally be in better position to know when, where, by whom, and to whom, a NT document was written."
ReplyDeleteAssuming the philosophy of some kind of hard break. But if you take the philosophy that "the people of God ought to know", without trying to obfuscate it by calling the people of God "Jews" in one year, and a few years later call them "Christians", then you come up with a different result.
"i) That begs the question."
No more so than your posting.
"ii) Since, moreover, the church inherited the OT canon from the Jews, your denial means the church has the wrong canon of Scripture."
Which assumes the Jews were monolithic, which is begging the very question under dispute.
"ii) Moreover, the comparison is inapt. Mormons are not historical witnesses to the canon. They came along long after the evidence was in. "
(a) Everyone came along after the evidence was in, unless you are old enough to have watched Moses pen Genesis.
(b) Making a distinction between a religious sect that denies God's messiah, and another sect that has a different range of problems, is a rather subjective assessment.
"i) Are you trying to be obtuse? Jews who rely on a translation of the OT are, by definition, using a secondary source rather than a primary source. "
Yet again, even after it was pointed out to you, you assume what you want to prove. I'll point it out again, if you don't get it this time, I have to assume your obtusity is deliberate. Some books, considered candidates for the canon were written in Greek. Therefore, unless you beg the question by assuming the outcome, Palestinian Jews who are wedded to the Hebrew, are for these books FURTHER from the source.
Furthermore, you haven't told us why using a translation makes you less able to discern the canon. By that argument, you ought to go ask the Greek Orthodox what the NT canon is rather than trying to figure it out yourself.
"ii) Moreover, copies of the OT were kept in the Temple archives in Jerusalem. That’s the standard of comparison. "
You haven't told us why that's the standard of comparison. Chapter and verse please telling us why its the standard. After you explain that, explain why we should put the NT in the canon, since it was never up to that standard.
ccthecc
ReplyDelete“Assuming the philosophy of some kind of hard break.”
It’s just a fact that living memory dies with the witness(es). That’s only philosophical if you agree with Mary Baker Eddy that death is illusory.
“But if you take the philosophy that ‘the people of God ought to know…’”
Which wasn’t my argument. Rather, I referred to *early* Christians. You’re disregarding the chronological caveat. Are you usually this careless?
“…without trying to obfuscate it by calling the people of God ‘Jews’ in one year, and a few years later call them ‘Christians’, then you come up with a different result.”
“The People of God” was your designation, not mine. As a matter of fact, “Jew” is not an antonym for “People of God.” The Virgin Mary was a Jewess. Does that exclude her from membership in the People of God?
There’s also such a thing as Jewish Christians. You’re positing a false dichotomy.
“No more so than your posting.”
So you admit that you’re begging the question. Thanks for conceding your sophistry.
“Which assumes the Jews were monolithic, which is begging the very question under dispute.”
Actually, I’m just responding to Beckwith on his own terms.
“(a) Everyone came along after the evidence was in, unless you are old enough to have watched Moses pen Genesis.”
I notice that you omit the adjective. I didn’t say “came along after the evidence.” Rather, I said “came along *long* after the evidence.” Are you deliberately sloppy?
“(b) Making a distinction between a religious sect that denies God's messiah, and another sect that has a different range of problems, is a rather subjective assessment.”
That’s not my problem. It was your comparison, not mine. So your comparison turns on a subjective distinction.
“Some books, considered candidates for the canon were written in Greek.”
That’s ambiguous. Are you alluding to books originally written in Greek, or translated into Greek?
“Furthermore, you haven't told us why using a translation makes you less able to discern the canon.”
Actually, I have.
“By that argument, you ought to go ask the Greek Orthodox what the NT canon is rather than trying to figure it out yourself.”
The NT wasn’t given to the Greek Orthodox church. It was given to 1C Christians.
“You haven't told us why that's the standard of comparison.”
Actually, I have.
“After you explain that, explain why we should put the NT in the canon, since it was never up to that standard.”
I didn’t say that was a standard for the NT. Try not to be dense.
CCtheCC,
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think of the question posed in this post regarding the RCC canon: Prayer of Manasseh
"It’s just a fact that living memory dies with the witness(es)."
ReplyDelete1st century Palestinian Jews WERE in living memory. They just chose not to care.
"The Virgin Mary was a Jewess. Does that exclude her from membership in the People of God?"
I take it you have no documentation on her canonical opinions? If not, it can hardly be part of the debate with Beckwith can it?
"I didn’t say “came along after the evidence.” Rather, I said “came along *long* after the evidence.”
You don't consider Moses until the 1st century to be "LONG"?? Wow.
"That’s not my problem. It was your comparison, not mine. So your comparison turns on a subjective distinction."
Well if that's NOT your problem, WHAT IS? You have a habit of making arbitrary assertions. Some people are more or less reliable, Jews of the diaspora vs Palestinian, Christians vs Jews, heretical Jews vs heretical Mormons. But you don't do much to justify any of it. We're all supposed to just bow down to you and accept it?
"That’s ambiguous. Are you alluding to books originally written in Greek, or translated into Greek?"
I never heard of using the term "written" to refer to the process of translation. Are you trying to be difficult?
"Actually, I have. "
No you haven't. And since I take it you don't read Hebrew and Koine as a native, your opinion is worthless, so I don't know why anyone should listen to you. Unless you'd like to retract your bogus and unsubstantiated view.
"The NT wasn’t given to the Greek Orthodox church. It was given to 1C Christians. "
Yeah, but they're dead and you can't consult them. Greek Orthodox still use koine, so I guess they are the authority then? At least by your argument they are.
"Actually, I have."
No you haven't. Just asserting it doesn't count.
"I didn’t say that was a standard for the NT. Try not to be dense."
Again assuming a hard break and a different standard. A position you haven't justified. But I guess we should all just bow down to your unscriptural standards?
ccthecc
Delete“1st century Palestinian Jews WERE in living memory.”
Your sentence doesn’t really scan. “…were in living memory”–as in someone else’s memory of them?
In any event, 1C Palestinian Jews had a living memory of the 1C Palestinian canon.
“They just chose not to care.”
Chose not to care about what?
“I take it you have no documentation on her canonical opinions? If not, it can hardly be part of the debate with Beckwith can it?”
It’s not part of a debate with Beckwith, but part of a debate with you, inasmuch as you drove a wedge between Jews and “the People of God.” Do try to keep track of your own statements.
“You don't consider Moses until the 1st century to be ‘LONG’?? Wow.”
Palestinian Jews didn’t consider Moses *until* the 1C. Rather, they considered him all along.
In any case, you miss the point. You brought up Mormons. Well, in terms of historical knowledge of the canon, 19C Mormons certainly enjoyed no advantage over 19C Protestants in that regard. Indeed, less so inasmuch as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were two very ignorant men.
That’s not comparable to the situation of 1C Palestinian Jews in relation to the OT canon. 19C Mormons aren’t historical witnesses to the canon in the way 1C Jews and Christians were.
“Well if that's NOT your problem, WHAT IS?”
I don’t have a problem. You have.
“You have a habit of making arbitrary assertions. Some people are more or less reliable, Jews of the diaspora vs Palestinian, Christians vs Jews, heretical Jews vs heretical Mormons. But you don't do much to justify any of it.”
Actually, you haven’t justified your assertion that I make unjustified assertions.
“We're all supposed to just bow down to you and accept it?”
Sounds like an excellent policy to me. You’re welcome to start anytime. The sooner the better.
“I never heard of using the term "written" to refer to the process of translation. Are you trying to be difficult?”
The question is whether the Greek apocrypha in extant MSS of the LXX were originally written in Greek, or translated into Greek when they were added to the LXX. That’s the distinction.
“And since I take it you don't read Hebrew and Koine as a native, your opinion is worthless, so I don't know why anyone should listen to you.”
Thanks for your non sequitur.
“Yeah, but they're dead and you can't consult them. Greek Orthodox still use koine, so I guess they are the authority then? At least by your argument they are.”
You just disqualified anyone who doesn’t read Koine Greek as a native. Sorry to break it to you, but Koine Greek isn’t the native tongue of contemporary Greek Orthodox. They speak modern Greek.
“No you haven't. Just asserting it doesn't count.”
Your logical deficiencies aren’t my problem.
“Again assuming a hard break and a different standard.”
It’s not a different standard. Try to master basic concepts like chain-of-custody and historical testimony.
“A position you haven't justified.”
That living memory is perishable doesn’t require any special justification.
“But I guess we should all just bow down to your unscriptural standards?”
I haven’t employed any unscriptural standards. But if you wish to bow down to my scriptural standards, bring a cushion for your knees.
Truth Unites: Looks to me like the 1st paragraph seeks to list the sacred books, and the 2nd paragraph seeks to define an edition thereof that is considered authentic. I don't see the problem, and its really not my problem anyway.
ReplyDelete