tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post8367591230814102565..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: We'll always have Paris...TexasRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-33355541254869099252008-02-26T10:41:00.000-05:002008-02-26T10:41:00.000-05:00As regards Antioch and Alexandria: the first is th...As regards Antioch and Alexandria: the first is the capital of Syria, the other the "homeland" of Philo. <BR/><BR/>The Syriac and Assyrian Churches still exist till today, and are Semitic by nation. Being such, they've inherited the Tanakh in Aramaic on one hand, on the other hand "the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch" (Acts 11:26), so they inherited also Christianity. With this in mind, and taking into considerartion that they didn't even had a NT at first, then a few centuries later they had the Diatessarion, then a few centuries later: the Four Gospels, then, another few centuries later: the Pauline corpus was added ... so, practically, it was THEM, THEIR TaNakhs, and THEIR Jesus for a very long time ... and in this surrounding environment did Christology prosper and flourish. <BR/><BR/>And the Alexandria of Egypt is where the 70 gave us a very deeply spiritual transaltion of the text of the Bible, and where Philosophy and Philo prospered. <BR/><BR/>I was always very aware, while reading various Patristic commentaries on many, many things, that there was somesort of a difference between the two approaches, though both were deeply mystical-allegorical-symbolical ... but I just couldn't put my finger on it ... then, one time, as I was re-reading or re-visiting some dozens of reversion stories from Judaism to Christianity and then back to Judaism, it suddenly (or not so suddenly) struck me: CHRIST. <BR/><BR/>The Alexandrians (where mass-monasticism began, or -better said-: erupted!) were giving all these deeply mystical <B>spiritual</B> interpretations ... whereas the Arabs sought <B>prophecies</B> as if armed with a mystical "metal-detector". <BR/><BR/>It was somesort of an "aha-moment" for me. (I just think that You guys are looking at the whole thing maybe as through a side-angle ... letting the bulk of the matter escape Your central views). Just my two cents anyway ... :-\The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-42548012274050245212008-02-26T09:11:00.000-05:002008-02-26T09:11:00.000-05:00Still, I'm curious about this: I said that Irenaeu...Still, I'm curious about this: <BR/><BR/>I said that Irenaeus believed Christ to have been in his fourties (according to his own interpretation of the words: "thou art not yet 50 yrs of age and thou sayest that thou hast seen even Abraham our father"). You've given me the passage that I was speaking of, which confirms my words, and yet you say that I'm wrong ... I mean: I just don't get it. :-? <BR/><BR/>And yes, I know [and I'm not obviously the only one to do so] that Iraeneus' description of redemption was that of >recapitulation<. And that this is indeed connected with his belief in his advanced, mature age for Christ is something that I've also intuited. And I've interacted with that when I gave You the Solomonic passage about the achieving of wisdom as constituting the true age of man. <BR/><BR/>And no, I did not want to debate You over the canonicity of Wisdom: all that I said about canonicity is that we do have a canon -- I did not ask You to agree with the canon itself, but with the fact that we do possess one. I accept anything that belongs to my faith by ... well: by faith; and not by something else. (I guess that was an obvious statement to make).The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-65108779194845422502008-02-26T08:49:00.000-05:002008-02-26T08:49:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-79012190453958436222008-02-25T21:15:00.000-05:002008-02-25T21:15:00.000-05:00Thesee verses are "sandwiched" by the wise King So...<I><BR/>Thesee verses are "sandwiched" by the wise King Solomon, the son of David [and therefore a triple type of Christ: for Christ was the Son of David, the King of the entire Universe, and the Incarnation of God's Wisdom Itself]... as I said, these verses are "sandwiched" by him into a four-or-five-chapters long Prologue, consisting of this huge, magnificent, and splendidly superbe Messianic Prophecy. (It's simply beautiful).</I><BR/><BR/>1. Did Solomon write this? Where's the argument?<BR/><BR/>2. Messianic prophecy? Where pray, tell, does the New Testament cite Wisdom? <BR/><BR/>3. Steve's already been over that to wit: “The author’s treatment of the suffering and vindication of the child of God [2:13ff] is a homily based chiefly on the fourth Servant Song in Isa 52:12 with some help from earlier and later passages in that book,” ibid. 119-20.<BR/><BR/>So even assuming that we credit Dyer’s Messianic interpretation of this chapter, that would be derivative of OT prophecy, on which Wisdom is literarily dependent.<BR/><BR/>I could quote other examples from Winston’s commentary on this passage to underscore the same point.<BR/><BR/>In other words, what makes it "Messianic," Lvka, is its literary dependence on Isaiah, not its own inspiration. <BR/><BR/><I>You act as if there's a reason NOT to. (And there's none). </I><BR/><BR/>Really? Did I say that?<BR/><BR/>Yet you gave a reason So, there's not a reason...unless there's a reason. <BR/><BR/>And it's at variance with Iranaeus. So you believe something one of the Fathers wrote. Where are the rules for adjudicating conflicts between the Fathers and the rest of your Tradition? We've asked you that before. Where's your answer?<BR/><BR/><I>The Orient believed in a Rabbinic, worthy, advanced age of Christ, of Whom they thought to have lived in Hid fourties (not His fifties, as You say). This is the opinion of Irenaeus and the elders that were with John.</I> Now you're advertising your ignorance of what Iranaeus actually wrote. Here's the text in translation:<BR/><BR/>Chapter XXII.-The Thirty Aeons are Not Typified by the Fact that Christ Was Baptized in His Thirtieth Year: He Did Not Suffer in the Twelfth Month After His Baptism, But Was More Than Fifty Years Old When He Died."<BR/><BR/>"...but they mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age. For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham. For what they saw, that they also expressed; and He whom they beheld was not a mere phantasm, but an actual being of flesh and blood. He did not then wont much of being fifty years old..."<BR/><BR/>Of course, the reason he writes this is due to his apologetic need, for in arguing against his opponents, he is arguing he was truly human and, in view of his recapitulation theology, he lived into what they considered "old age." This is no secret.<BR/><BR/><I>I'm glad to see You [tradition-less] guys so worked up for something that does not belong either to divine revelation, nor to sacred dogma</I><BR/><BR/>A misstatement of the Protestant rule of faith. We affirm Scripture alone is infallible for the faith and practice of the churches. We affirm that tradition is fallible, but useful and to be subjected to the infallible authority of Scripture. <BR/><BR/><I>As for Matthew's Gospel, it does indeed have the lowest percentage of Septuagintal quotes: 80% as opposed to 90% or more, as we see in the rest of the NT Books. -- I didn't say that they quote the LXX exclusively. (There's also about a dozen quotes which follow neither one of the two versions, and are spurious as regards to their origin).</I><BR/><BR/>You've now changed your argument yet again. Here's what you originally stated<BR/><BR/><I>he LXX is also Jewish: please stop acting like Paul's words about the oracles of God and his statement about the Truth coming from the Jews speciffically refer to the MT, as over and against the LXX: Paul quoted the last one shamelessly."</I><BR/><BR/>You're making this appeal in order to infer that the LXX canon is Scripture over and against the MT.<BR/><BR/>But this is a fallacious appeal for the reasons I listed. You've done nothing to overturn those reasons.<BR/><BR/>And here's another one: The LXX is a translation. A translation of a Hebrew exemplar. <BR/><BR/>A translation is only a good translation if it accurately renders the sense of the original exemplar.<BR/><BR/>Orthodoxy traditionally appeals to the LXX as their canonical edition of the OT. <BR/><BR/>But there were three different editions of the LXX in play in major centers of Orthodoxy. <BR/><BR/>So which edition of the LXX is the canonical edition?<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>And Your [obvious] observations about Judaism by and large do not change the truth or or the veracity of my affirmations regarding the Talmud.</I><BR/><BR/>When have the Jews ever considered Sirah canonical? When you can show this, you'll have proven your assertion.<BR/><BR/><I>Antiochians were more interested in getting a typological reading of the text </I><BR/><BR/>The GHM can and does read the text typologically, when the text supports it.<BR/><BR/><I>E.g., an Antiochian interpretation of the Four Rivers of Paradise is that they stand for the Four Gospels; an Alexandrian reading of the same text will reveal that the >surrounded garden< [Paradise] of delight [Eden] is the human heart, and that the four rivers that water it are the Four Cardinal Virtues.</I><BR/><BR/>You've successfully conflated allegory and typology. They are not convertible, and nobody denies that some from the Antiochenes were allegorists. You're also using the Four Rivers as an example, but this comes mainly from <I>iconography.</I> <BR/><BR/>We've been over Antiochene Exegesis here:<BR/><BR/>http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2005/08/antiochene-exegesis.html<BR/><BR/>I look forward to your review.<BR/><BR/><I>Nor do Your [known] observations regarding Daniel being too accurate on one hand demolish the other arguments as regarding his at least questionable historical-geographical references on the other hand.</I><BR/><BR/>Well then, it's up to you to present such arguments. All you've done is make some fact free assertions. You'll find, if you'd care to examine the literature, that the "problem" that higher critics have with Daniel is not the lack of historical and geographical accuracy. Rather, it's the high degree of it. Try again.<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>I think that such an approach to the thinking of these great men does them more justice than that of Classical Protestantism, which was intersted in obatining Unity, and such an Unity would've been impossible without the recourse to the LITERAL meaning of Scriptures</I><BR/><BR/>The GHM does not select for a "literal" meaning of the Scriptures. It does not preselect for any particular reading of the Scriptures. Is it your position that the Apostles exegeted the Scriptures differently? We've been over that before on this blog, see our interactions with Perry Robinson. The GHM accounts for such intertextuality.<BR/><BR/>Steve has already interacted with Enns as well. As Steve has pointed out you can have a good read from Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament as well. I look forward to your review of the latter.<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>LOL! :-) And this coming from you guys, who wrote in a more recent post on this very blog:<BR/><BR/>the famous words of Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men, they "can't handle the truth!"<BR/><BR/>:-) Seriously now ... :-) </I><BR/><BR/>Hmm, here's the context of what Dustin said:<BR/><BR/>12. Factions - one of the characteristics of some false professors is that they are theological nitpickers who use very minor theological differences between believers as a reason for avoiding biblical accountability and discipleship. They will look for microscopic doctrinal reasons to protect their true motive, which is a heartfelt desire to avoid close fellowship with born-again believers because true fellowship, discipleship, accountability, and teaching/preaching eventually exposes their idol-laden heart for what it is, and in the famous words of Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men, they "can't handle the truth!"<BR/><BR/><BR/>Here's what you wrote:<BR/><BR/>“Have You guys watched ‘Jerry Maguire’?” Do You know the sequence in which he makes a fool out of himself by yelling his guts out: "Show me the money!!!" ? Well, that's kinda what I'm asking of You ... just substitute the word "money" with "CONSISTENCY".<BR/><BR/>There's no comparison here. Dustin drew a literary comparison, you are trying to argue for the Orthodox canon...by punting back to us.<BR/><BR/><I>Oh dear friend and great defender of knightly and Victorian values, ... why don't You then begin at this little post over here ? :-)</I><BR/><BR/>We've already been over that. Dyer made a number of anti-Semitic comments. He received his due. Sorry you don't like that. If you have a problem with mockery, then I suggest you not read the taunt songs in Scripture.<BR/><BR/>And if you think that such posts are out of step with "Victorian" and "knightly" values, I suggest you have a very superficial understanding of the values of that era.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-22731794667441920832008-02-25T20:16:00.000-05:002008-02-25T20:16:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-91777057767475679832008-02-25T20:10:00.000-05:002008-02-25T20:10:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-41850689119611255162008-02-25T10:28:00.000-05:002008-02-25T10:28:00.000-05:00LVKA SAID:“Steve, __I'm not ‘making the case for O...LVKA SAID:<BR/><BR/>“Steve, __I'm not ‘making the case for Orthodoxy’ here.”<BR/><BR/>Yes, and it shows. <BR/><BR/>“As for Your last comment, all that I can say is that You weren't paying any attention to what I've previously written (or not complete attention)”<BR/><BR/>To the contrary, my replies to your statements are far more specific and detailed than your vague, evasive, repetitive replies to my statements.<BR/><BR/>“When I said that we *DO* get Orthodoxy mixed together with our mother's milk: that's perfectly true.”<BR/><BR/>I never said it wasn’t, now did I? Rather, I said a Muslim could make the identical claim.<BR/><BR/>“(Do You see me debate You the way You debate me?).”<BR/><BR/>No, I don’t. I cite evidence while you counter with fact-free assertions. So there is, indeed, a notable hiatus between your methods and mine.<BR/><BR/>“If I were to ask You: what's Your stance on topic X, do You honestly think that I would begin to say: ‘No, You're all wrong: here's what You ACTUALLY do or should believe!’ :-?”<BR/><BR/>There are many times when an opponent will resist the damning implications of his own position.<BR/><BR/>“You have said in THIS as well as OTHER posts on this very blog that Orthodoxy doesn't have a Canon. That's simply false. -- as said: I don't expect You to accept it ... but why say such diformities about us !? :-\ (Do You see me saying like enormitiess about You? )”<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you’re just not very bright. The distinction has been explained to you repeatedly. What you have is not a canon, but a set of alternative canons. Multiple-choice canons. <BR/><BR/>“To prove this You've made recourse to things which cannot but help ruin You position. -- You raised these issued in the first place, so it was up to You to prove Yourselves ... wasn't it?”<BR/><BR/>Once again, maybe this debate maxed you out intellectually. All you’ve been doing is to repeat your original allegations, although I (as well as Gene and Jason) have specifically responded to your initial allegations. Instead of offering a counterargument, you merely repeat yourself. You shot your wad very early in this exchange.<BR/><BR/>“Besides, ... I was the one to post the first question, -not to mention that I'm the guest here- so common sense should've told You to answer me first by making a caase for Yourselves in the first place.”<BR/><BR/>I’ve already made a case for my position on the canon. Try my 200pp reply to Blosser, for starters.<BR/><BR/>“As for Daniel, he DOES have GRAVE problems in terms of historical-geographical accuracy. (Augmenting the other side does not annul the first one).”<BR/><BR/>You keep making unsubstantiated assertions. Using caps is not an argument. What we have are a few flimsy objections which Gleason Archer, for one, handily disposes of.<BR/><BR/>“As for these swell God-fearing and OT-Canon-defending guys that You keep mentioning, ... all that I can say (and I did actually already say it) the mere fact that THEY THEMSELVES tried no defense whatsoever on the Apocrypha but resumed to side with the attackers is questionable regaridng their method: their lack of objectivity becomes clear.”<BR/><BR/>Now you’re indulging in armchair psychology. As usual, you’re incompetent to either make a factual case for your own position or present a factual case against the opposing position.<BR/><BR/>“I mean: their defenses of the historical-geographical accuracy of the Books are kinda not what they would want it to be in the first place (they're question-begging at least, or questionable at worse).”<BR/><BR/>Your meager assertion that they are begging the question is itself a question-begging assertion on your part.<BR/><BR/>“Not to mention that when begin to actually attack the Apocrypha, sometimes you just want to yell at the guy:”<BR/><BR/>This is what passes for a reasoned argument on your part? You just want to yell at the guy?<BR/><BR/>“"See your own words in a similar case just discussed for book X! The same line of defense could be as easilly applied here!". --> case in point, my two examples with Tobit versus Genesis 30-31 and Samuel-Kings-Chronicles versus the Maccabees.”<BR/><BR/>I already dealt with your irrelevant examples. Instead of engaging the counterargument, you merely repeat your discredited allegation. Your examples are irrelevant to my own criteria—for reasons I already gave. <BR/><BR/>“Their case against Wisdom based on the use of I-don't-know-what Greek philosophy [therefore post-Macedonian, pertaining to the Maccabean era] can be as easilly made against Ecclesiates. (It's not that hard: YOU should try it! ... and if You're thinking to yourself: "Whoa! Wait! There were *reasons* for me not to buy the argument against Ecclesiates!" , then please try and remember what those reasons were in the first palce, and try to see if a similar case can't be made for Wisdom using the same line of reasoning ... it's really not that hard).”<BR/><BR/>You haven’t begun to make a similar case. You misstate the actual argument against Wisdom, then you assert an analogy with Ecclesiastes, minus the supporting argument. <BR/><BR/>“Have You guys watched ‘Jerry Maguire’?”<BR/><BR/>That’s your idea of a reasoned argument? That’s how you argue for the Orthodox canon?<BR/><BR/>“Just substitute the word ‘money’ with ‘CONSISTENCY’. __You attacked us using weapons which not only that ‘can’, but actually *do* turn against Yoursleves.”<BR/><BR/>We’ve specifically dealt with your charges of inconsistency. You offer no specific counterargument. Instead, you merely repeat your initial, oft-refuted allegation. And you continue to paraphrase your original, oft-refuted allegation, as if, by recycling a fallacious allegation enough times with verbal variants, it suddenly becomes valid.<BR/><BR/>“AS FOR ME, ... me using analogies, similarities, and parallelisms against You,”<BR/><BR/>Except that you never roll up your sleeves and actually detail your alleged analogies, similarities, and parallels. Instead, you merely posit their existence.<BR/><BR/>“My job here is to torture You only within the limits that my faith allows me to do so. No matter how much I would like to lascively hit You over Your stiff noses with "open canons", I can't. :-|”<BR/><BR/>Although you have a fairly decent command of English for a foreigner, reaching for the word “lascivious” (I assume that’s what your illiterate typo has reference to) when describing the way you feel towards three other men (Jason, Gene, and me) carries certain connotations which you might wish to reconsider. But maybe that does, indeed, reveal something about your personal incentives.<BR/><BR/>“Nothing would delight me more than to stay in front of You, clean-shaven, and to say to You, probably while levitating: THERES'S NO SPOON! errrr, ... canon, sorry!”<BR/><BR/>You’re increasing resort to juvenile rhetoric is a good reason for me to delete your comments. I’ll give you one more chance to shape up.<BR/><BR/>“Your anachronistic approach [which, apart from being self-mutilating for Your own views, betrays a certain unhealthy inclination for double standards also].”<BR/><BR/>There’s nothing anachronistic about intertextuality. That’s the way the Bible was originally written. Earliest books foreshadow later books; later books allude to earlier books.<BR/><BR/>“Also: the LXX is also Jewish.”<BR/><BR/>I made the same point in response to Dyer. You’re way behind the curve.<BR/><BR/>“Please stop acting like Paul's words about the oracles of God and his statement about the Truth coming from the Jews speciffically refer to the MT, as over and against the LXX: Paul quoted the last one shamelessly. (Why don't You start doing the same, since You pretend to be their rightful followers who still abide by their uncorrupted ways ... except their extensive use of the LXX.”<BR/><BR/>You’re equivocating over the identity of the 1C LXX. I’ve been over this ground with Dyer. Your repetitious appeal is no improvement over his. <BR/><BR/>“And that of interpreting Scripture, which, of course, is for You GHM or GLM or LHM or whatever ... definitely NOT that of the Apostles, `cause THAT one was way, way, WAY too cooky...)”<BR/><BR/>Gregory Beale and D. A. Carson have edited a 1200 page rebuttal (Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament) to your fact-free claim that Apostolic exegesis is at odds with the grammatico-historical method.<BR/><BR/>“Glad to. Here it is. Hope You will enjoy it every bit as much as I did.”<BR/><BR/>The position of Peter Enns has come under sustained attack by Carson, Beale, and Helm. Are you planning to interact with their critique?<BR/><BR/>As I say, I’ll give you one more chance to say something that marks an actual advance over your original round of objections. One more chance to back up your fact-free assertions with commensurate evidence. One more chance to actually engage the counterarguments that Jason, Gene, and I have written in reply. <BR/><BR/>If, on the other hand, you continue to dish out your warmed over sophistries and sophomoric nit-witticisms, you’ll be deleted.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-16198036589246288862008-02-25T07:11:00.000-05:002008-02-25T07:11:00.000-05:00As regards the Antiochene and Alexandrinian School...As regards the Antiochene and Alexandrinian Schools of thought, You might say that, indeed, the first one was more of literal bent, wheras the other one was more into metaphorical-allegorical meaning ... but, let's face it: the Antiochians were more interested in getting a typological reading of the text (that is, to see Christ there, on the pages of the OT), whereas the Alexandrinians were rather interested in obtaining a more spiritual reading of the text (that is, to learn from it how exactly the union of the human person with this crucified and resurrected Christ takes place). <BR/><BR/>E.g., an Antiochian interpretation of the Four Rivers of Paradise is that they stand for the Four Gospels; an Alexandrian reading of the same text will reveal that the >surrounded garden< [Paradise] of delight [Eden] is the human heart, and that the four rivers that water it are the Four Cardinal Virtues. <BR/><BR/>I think that such an approach to the thinking of these great men does them more justice than that of Classical Protestantism, which was intersted in obatining Unity, and such an Unity would've been impossible without the recourse to the LITERAL meaning of Scriptures. (An allegorical-spiritual-mystical one would've only had disastrous consequences, because -whereas literal meanings CAN'T be many- non-literal ones can be an entire plethora, whose sole rule wopuld've been the unending depths and unlimited vastness of extremely individual opinions). <BR/><BR/>The guys that sought to interpret the Bible literally actually wrote a book ... of absolutely humongous proportions; it's called: the Talmud. (Such fiercely literal interpretations were the appanage of the Pharisaic school; not that of the adepts of the, uhum-uhum, >early Jesus movement< -- gosh, I just *LOVE* how that sounds ... don't You? ). ;D <BR/><I><BR/>1. So, what's your alternative method of interpreting the text? If you have an alternative, present it</I>. <BR/><BR/>Glad to. <A HREF="http://peterennsonline.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/AposExegWTJ-fall%2003-final.pdf" REL="nofollow">Here</A> it is. Hope You will enjoy it every bit as much as I did.The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-68885255870579109022008-02-25T06:35:00.000-05:002008-02-25T06:35:00.000-05:00Do you believe Christ lived into his 50's like Ire...<I>Do you believe Christ lived into his 50's like Irenaeus said? No</I>. <BR/><BR/>LOL :-) You act as if there's a reason NOT to. (And there's none). <BR/><BR/>The West believed in 1 yr of Christ's Messianship. They relied heavily on the Synoptics, and used to relate "I have come to preach a good year of the Lord" with the number of the 12 Apostles as 12 months (moons) and Christ as the Sun of Righteousness. <BR/><BR/>The East believed in some 3 or 4 yrs (three and a half) of Christ's mission. They related the 4 Easters mentioned in John's Gospel with the same number (3.5) from the Apocalypse: "three and a half yrs", "42 moths", "1260 days" -- which huge number kinda reminds us of Daniel's numbers in the last few chapters of hid Book. Not to mention that the very same Daniel speaks of "weeks of yrs" and says: >at the middle of the week shall His life be taken from earth". (7/2 = 3.5) <BR/><BR/>The Orient believed in a Rabbinic, worthy, advanced age of Christ, of Whom they thought to have lived in Hid fourties (not His fifties, as You say). This is the opinion of Irenaeus and the elders that were with John. <BR/><BR/>I personally, Craciun Lucian, as well as almost every other livin', breathin' Orthodox Christian, tend to agree with the majority Tradition, that of 3.5 yrs. (Universality and convergence of opinions are important to us). <BR/><BR/>The reason why I still embrace this view is -besides its universaly acceptance- the wise words befitting a very wise King: <BR/><I><B><BR/>Wisdom 4:8 </B> For honourable age is not that which standeth in length of time, nor that is measured by number of years. <B>9 </B> But wisdom is the gray hair unto men, and an unspotted life is old age</I>.<BR/><BR/>Thesee verses are "sandwiched" by the wise King Solomon, the son of David [and therefore a triple type of Christ: for Christ was the Son of David, the King of the entire Universe, and the Incarnation of God's Wisdom Itself]... as I said, these verses are "sandwiched" by him into a four-or-five-chapters long Prologue, consisting of this huge, magnificent, and splendidly superbe Messianic Prophecy. (It's simply beautiful). <BR/><BR/>I also think that the number of 1 year refers to the last year of Christ's Messianship, after the execution of John the Baptist (if I remember correctly) and the number of 12 months is to be understood as symbolically refering to the 12 Disciples, which gravitate around the Sun of righteousness, which is Christ or God. As for the refference to Christ's age of "not only fifty years of age", it still stands. <BR/><BR/>I'm glad to see You [tradition-less] guys so worked up for something that does not belong either to divine revelation, nor to sacred dogma, but it's merely a [widely-held] pious opinion. --> What next? You're gonna accuse us for not accepting the Assumption? LOL! :-) <BR/><BR/>As for Matthew's Gospel, it does indeed have the lowest percentage of Septuagintal quotes: 80% as opposed to 90% or more, as we see in the rest of the NT Books. -- I didn't say that they quote the LXX exclusively. (There's also about a dozen quotes which follow neither one of the two versions, and are spurious as regards to their origin). <BR/><BR/>And Your [obvious] observations about Judaism by and large do not change the truth or or the veracity of my affirmations regarding the Talmud. <BR/><BR/>Nor do Your [known] observations regarding Daniel being too accurate on one hand demolish the other arguments as regarding his at least questionable historical-geographical references on the other hand.The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-27567783358668861722008-02-24T21:29:00.000-05:002008-02-24T21:29:00.000-05:00"Also: the LXX is also Jewish: please stop acting ...<I>"Also: the LXX is also Jewish: please stop acting like Paul's words about the oracles of God and his statement about the Truth coming from the Jews speciffically refer to the MT, as over and against the LXX: Paul quoted the last one shamelessly."</I><BR/><BR/>1. You really need to brush up on what you know of the Bible. The New Testament quotes from both the Hebrew and Greek texts. It's use of the OT is by no means confined to the LXX. For example, Matthew is known to have used both. For example in 2:15, Matthew uses "son" (which we find in the MT) not "His children"(LXX). Why would he do this? Because Matthew was likely writing to Palestinian Jews or at least to Jews familar with the Hebrew text as well as the Greek.<BR/><BR/>2. Of course Paul quoted from the LXX. We would expect him to do so, since Greek reading/speaking Gentiles were his target audience, not Palestinian Jews. There, we would expect them to be familiar with the LXX, being Hellenistic Jews, over the Hebrew text. Because Paul quoted from the LXX it does not therefore follow he viewed the LXX as superior to the MT. Your inference is fallacious.<BR/><BR/>3. By the way, you're arguing now just like a KJVOnlyist, only instead of the KJV, you're arguing for the LXX.<BR/><BR/>4. It's also fallacious to assume without benefit of argument that the LXX in the first century, in whatever codices, was identical to later versions. If that's what you think, demonstrate it.<BR/><BR/>5. When Paul quotes from the LXX, does he quote from the Apocrypha? If you think he does, by all means show us where.<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>"Why don't You start doing the same, since You pretend to be their rightful followers who still abide by their uncorrupted ways ... except their extensive use of the LXX, and that of interpreting Scripture, which, of course, is for You GHM or GLM or LHM or whatever ... definitely NOT that of the Apostles, `cause THAT one was way, way, WAY too cooky..."</I><BR/><BR/>1. So, what's your alternative method of interpreting the text? If you have an alternative, present it.<BR/><BR/>2. It's simply a fact of history that Antiochene exegetical methods stand as a direct historical antecedent to what we know today as the Grammatical-Historical Method. Antiochene methodology is hardly alien to Orthodoxy.<BR/><BR/><I>"Your Fathers also have some lists of Books to be included in the NT Canon (and those first and second century churches as well: they got thei own lists of what the NT canon should be like). So, ... why not follow their leading primacy on that certain issue as well ?"</I> <BR/><BR/>The Fathers are not our rule of faith. Our argument for canonicity does not require us to agree with everything they said. All you're doing now is committing the illicit totality transfer fallacy. Do you believe Christ lived into his 50's like Iranaeus said? No.<BR/><BR/><I>"Baruch, Epistle, Bel and Dragon, Susana, Song of Three Children, Prayer of Azariah were never excluded from any lists."</I><BR/><BR/>Except for those Fathers who include them in their lists as useful for edification but not for doctrine. Inclusion in a list is not the only criterion for canonicity.<BR/><BR/><I>But none of them have ever dared butchering the Holy Word of God in such a perverted manner that became known to be so very distinctively Protestant.</I><BR/><BR/>Now, you're only begging the question for Orthodoxy, yet again. <BR/><BR/>From my perspective, the Orthodox have butchered the Word of God by adding to it. That is quite perverse.<BR/><BR/><I>Sirach being cited as Scripture in a certain number of places in the Talmud; and the same being copied as Scripture as far as the 12th in Judaism.</I> The canon of the Jews does not include Sirach and never was. That is simply a fact beyond debate. They're the very ones who drew the distinction between that which is canonical and that which is useful for edification and reading.<BR/><BR/>"Sir is one of the deuterocanonical books; it did not fit into the theology of the Pharasaic part of Judaism, which was responsible for fixing the Jewish canon. The book was generally well received in Judaism as is evident from its use in Jewish worship and literature. Its rejection from the Jewish canon may have been partly because of its recent date, but the chief reason is that it was associated with Sadducean literature. Sirach was no Sadducee, but the tone of the work with its preoccupation with cult, the lack of any appreciation for the afterlife, and minimal messianism put it in a class with later Sadducean tenets." (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, p. 542)GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-87091346705540860652008-02-24T19:17:00.000-05:002008-02-24T19:17:00.000-05:00LVKA wrote:"But none of them have ever dared butch...LVKA wrote:<BR/><BR/>"But none of them have ever dared butchering the Holy Word of God in such a perverted manner that became known to be so very distinctively Protestant."<BR/><BR/>First you tell us that Eastern Orthodox "always" maintained the same canon, then you tell us that they sometimes disagree about the canon, but haven't been as "perverted" as Protestants on the matter. And you've given us no reason to believe that rejecting the Apocryphal books is a perversion. But I agree with you that Eastern Orthodoxy is perverted.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"Also: the LXX is also Jewish: please stop acting like Paul's words about the oracles of God and his statement about the Truth coming from the Jews speciffically refer to the MT, as over and against the LXX: Paul quoted the last one shamelessly."<BR/><BR/>As we've explained repeatedly, the versions of the Old Testament you're referring to aren't our only options, and you can't assume that every version of the Septuagint that existed in the apostolic era included no less and no more books than you include in your Old Testament canon.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"Why don't You start doing the same, since You pretend to be their rightful followers who still abide by their uncorrupted ways ... except their extensive use of the LXX, and that of interpreting Scripture, which, of course, is for You GHM or GLM or LHM or whatever ... definitely NOT that of the Apostles, `cause THAT one was way, way, WAY too cooky..."<BR/><BR/>How do you know what the apostles, church fathers, and other historical sources believed without using grammatical-historical interpretation of documents?<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"Your Fathers also have some lists of Books to be included in the NT Canon (and those first and second century churches as well: they got thei own lists of what the NT canon should be like). So, ... why not follow their leading primacy on that certain issue as well ?"<BR/><BR/>You keep ignoring answers that you've already been given. Reread what I said earlier about different claims having different implications. We haven't made the same claims about the canon, the nature of the church, etc. that you've made.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"As for the same Fathers: please don't act shocked if the same Fathers that may quote in certain instances of their writings certain Books as Scripture, which books You hold to bew rejected by them. OR, my favorite: they use passages from them to establish dogam and doctrine."<BR/><BR/>I cited Melito of Sardis as an example. Would you tell us where Melito supported your Old Testament canon? He didn't. Telling us that some fathers Protestants cite "may" have supported one or more Apocryphal books elsewhere in their writings doesn't establish much.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"Baruch, Epistle, Bel and Dragon, Susana, Song of Three Children, Prayer of Azariah were never excluded from any lists."<BR/><BR/>Lists aren't the only means by which a person can indicate what canon he accepts. And when a source like Melito of Sardis does provide a list, and he doesn't discuss whether he included the book additions that you're referring to, we can't assume that he <I>did</I> include them.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"many lists exclude Esther entire"<BR/><BR/>Which lists? The ones produced by your alleged predecessors in early church history? If so, why isn't that more of a problem for you than for us?Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-26239457371061995632008-02-24T17:43:00.000-05:002008-02-24T17:43:00.000-05:00Jason has stated clearly elsewhere that he has no ...<I>Jason has stated clearly elsewhere that he has no problem with such an idea</I>. <BR/><BR/>I have no problem with such a view either. But the fact is that such is not the case. --> My job here is to torture You <B>only within the limits that my faith allows me to do so</B>. No matter how much I would like to lascively hit You over Your stiff noses with "open canons", I can't. :-| Nothing would delight me more than to stay in front of You, clean-shaven, and to say to You, probably while levitating: THERES'S NO SPOON! errrr, ... canon, sorry! :D But, for some reason unbeknownst to me, our faith became "sedentary" about a millennium and some one or two centuries years ago. From that time onward, our Church services, canonical lists, Church Books: Menaions [which also contain readings from the entire Old Testament as we have it until today], Octoichs, Liturgiers, Apostles [Luke, Paul, Catholic Eps, but NO Revelation], Gospels, etc. have become unvarying. Static. Unmoving. Still-standing. We do not possess the diversity which caracterized the first Christian millennium any longer. :-( OK? (Sorry to disappoint You guys. You may sue us if You like). That's what I was trying to express: Your anachronistic approach [which, apart from being self-mutilating for Your own views, betrays a certain unhealthy inclination for double standards also]. <BR/><BR/>I will also reiterate here my little equation: <BR/><BR/>FOURTEEN = ZERO. --> That's the Protestant equation. <BR/><BR/>As before: The Slavs have a certain IV Ezra in their Canon and the Orthodox III and IV Maccabees. <BR/><BR/>In case You are curious about it: the Maccabees are the last books penned down, and their inclusion into the Christian OT Canon mirrors the history of the inclusion of Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles into the Jewish one. As for IV Ezra, it's not in the LXX at all: the Slavs borrowed it from the Latins, since at the date of their conversion to Christianity, there was no Schism. (That's NOT the ONLY thing that they've borrowed from the Latins: You might add Church-architecture and Western-like Liturgies). <BR/><BR/>But none of them have ever dared butchering the Holy Word of God in such a perverted manner that became known to be so very distinctively Protestant. <BR/><BR/>Also: the LXX is also Jewish: please stop acting like Paul's words about the oracles of God and his statement about the Truth coming from the Jews speciffically refer to the MT, as over and against the LXX: Paul quoted the last one shamelessly. (Why don't You start doing the same, since You pretend to be their rightful followers who still abide by their uncorrupted ways ... except their extensive use of the LXX, and that of interpreting Scripture, which, of course, is for You GHM or GLM or LHM or whatever ... definitely NOT that of the Apostles, `cause THAT one was way, way, WAY too cooky...)<BR/><BR/>And, to answer some of Your assertions [about the Church Fathers], as well as some of the assertions previously made [about some first or second century churches who should obviously know better the Canon than the XXth century Russian Church]. I will say this: Your Fathers also have some lists of Books to be included in the NT Canon (and those first and second century churches as well: they got thei own lists of what the NT canon should be like). So, ... why not follow their leading primacy on that certain issue as well ? :-\ <BR/><BR/>As for the same Fathers: please don't act shocked if the same Fathers that may quote in certain instances of their writings certain Books as Scripture, which books You hold to bew rejected by them. OR, my favorite: they use passages from them to establish dogam and doctrine. (Not >morals<, or whatever -- yes, those too, but also dogmas). They may be cited amongst other canonical Scripture (thus implying their canonicity?), or alone (thus implying their sufficience). -- In any case, what's certain is that --as already observed by me before, on this very thread-- Jerome's assertions don't hold water. <BR/><BR/>And, my *personal* favorite: Sirach being cited as Scripture in a certain number of places in the Talmud; and the same being copied as Scripture as far as the 12th in Judaism. <BR/><BR/>And there's no point denying that: <BR/><BR/>-- Baruch, Epistle, Bel and Dragon, Susana, Song of Three Children, Prayer of Azariah were never excluded from any lists. <BR/>-- many lists exclude Esther entire<BR/>-- in any case, whether "in" or "out", Esther is never devoid of its "addtions".The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-43848456279008810252008-02-24T16:39:00.000-05:002008-02-24T16:39:00.000-05:00You quote the Protestantly-used-and-abused quote f...<I>You quote the Protestantly-used-and-abused quote from Jerome ... the only problem is that what he's saying there is unsupported by the consent of the rest of the Fathers:</I><BR/><BR/>How does one know which Fathers are right and wrong? Where can we find the list of rules by which to adjudicate conflicts?<BR/><BR/>1. I also quoted John of Damascus. He denies your canon.<BR/><BR/>On the question of an open canon, Jason has stated clearly elsewhere that he has no problem with such an idea. However, an "open" canon and the canonicity of certain books like the Apocrypha are not convertible ideas.<BR/><BR/>2. I could also quote Athanasius and Cyril, yet their canons didn't agree with yours either. For example, Cyril states the can he gave came from the LXX, but the only Apocryphal books he listed were those of Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah which he mistakenly believed to be part of the Book of Jeremiah itself. It's probably true that he included the additions to Daniel of Bel and the Snake/Dragon, the Song of the 3 Children, and Susanna, but these were commonly associated with Daniel in his day.<BR/><BR/>Athanasius omitted Esther but agreed with Cyril otherwise, and he included Baruch.<BR/><BR/>3. I could quote from Ecclesiasticus, which explicitly denies its own canonical status. So, if it's canonical, it's not part of the canon of Scripture, by its own testimony. This is proof positive that your inclusion of books in the canon rests on nothing but your fideistic commitment to Orthodoxy.<BR/><BR/>4. The fact that the Fathers quote from the Apocrypha doesn't commit them to your view of the canon.<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>You asked me about our Canon, and I've responded to You that YES, VIRGINIA,we *DO* have a Canon. </I><BR/><BR/>No, you responded that you have canon <B>s</B>. They are alike except where they're not.<BR/><BR/><I>For You, uncanonical is the same as heretical, for us, there's a heaven-to-earth difference.,</I><BR/><BR/>This is demonstrably false. We don't deny this books are canonical because they are "heretical." We deny many things are canonical that we view as orthodox. <BR/><BR/><I>No Church Father has ever considered any of the Apocrypha to be heretical: which is more than I can say of the Book of Revelation.</I><BR/><BR/>So what? Many church fathers didn't consider many books canonical you do. That's the issue. I have no problem reading the Apocryphal books but I don't consider them canonical and therefore infallible for the faith and practice of the churches.<BR/><BR/>You, Lvka, have yet to answer this question:<BR/><BR/>Does your theory of inspiration extend to pious frauds? Please explain your answer. <BR/><BR/><I>You have said in THIS as well as OTHER posts on this very blog that Orthodoxy doesn't have a Canon.</I><BR/><BR/>What we've stated is that Orthodoxy's canon is not uniform, for the Orthodox can't agree among themselves. You have, yourself, admitted this in the course of this very thread.<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>As for Daniel, he DOES have GRAVE problems in terms of historical-geographical accuracy.</I><BR/><BR/>Now that you've asserted this, you need to <B>demonstrate,</B> it. Steve stated to you: <BR/><BR/>Once more, it’s not enough for you to *say* something is the case—you need to *show* it. What (alleged) anachronisms are integral to the Danielic narrative?<BR/><BR/>As Steve pointed out, critics typically state that Daniel is too accurate, not that it is inaccurate. <BR/><BR/><I>As for these swell God-fearing and OT-Canon-defending guys that You keep mentioning, ... all that I can say (and I did actually already say it) the mere fact that THEY THEMSELVES tried no defense whatsoever on the Apocrypha but resumed to side with the attackers is questionable regaridng their method: their lack of objectivity becomes clear.</I><BR/><BR/>Oh, well, if it's "objectivity" that's an issue, how exactly are you being more objective?<BR/><BR/><I>Their case against Wisdom based on the use of I-don't-know-what Greek philosophy </I><BR/><BR/>The argument is that Wisdom claims to be of Solomonic origin. Yet it uses Greek philosophy and poetry. The counterclaim is that it is a translation of a Hebrew autograph. So, the question necessarily arises: How could Solomon have written it, and, even if he did not write it, where can we find the sorts of things we would expect from a document of Semitic origin? That makes it a forgery.<BR/><BR/>The argument for a Hebrew origin for Ecclesiastes proceeds on the use of Palestinian writing forms and styles, including Mishnah. There is no hint of knowledge of Greek other than a couple of phrases, which are also found in Semtitic literature. <BR/><BR/>Finally, the Jews did not consider Wisdom canonical; they did accept Ecclesiastes.<BR/><BR/>So, your parallel is utterly disanalogous. There is no "inconsistency" here at all, except in your own deluded thinking.<BR/><BR/>And you've not made a case yet for the canonicity of a single book of the Apocrypha. Go ahead, try Tobit.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-10229940332134122212008-02-24T14:25:00.000-05:002008-02-24T14:25:00.000-05:00Oh yeah, and BTW, guys, I didn't invent this kind ...Oh yeah, and BTW, guys, <BR/><BR/>I didn't invent this kind of approach: the Apostolic, Sub-Apostolic and Cappadocian Fathers were the ones that silenced such fierce heresies like Gnosticism and Arianism by using precisley this method against them, some 1.5 or 2 millennia before any of us here was even born ... :-) It was kinda cool to see the heretics sweat in their own sauce ... <BR/><BR/>As Solomon said: he who prepares another's grave, only ends up falling himself in it. <BR/><BR/>And as our crucified and rejected Teacher once said: a kingdom divided against itself shall soon perish.The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-6985380956965090232008-02-24T13:54:00.000-05:002008-02-24T13:54:00.000-05:00Steve, I'm not "making the case for Orthodoxy" her...Steve, <BR/><BR/>I'm not "making the case for Orthodoxy" here. As for Your last comment, all that I can say is that You weren't paying any attention to what I've previously written (or not complete attention)<BR/><BR/>When I said that we *DO* get Orthodoxy mixed together with our mother's milk: that's perfectly true. (Do You see me debate You the way You debate me?). If I were to ask You: what's Your stance on topic X, do You honestly think that I would begin to say: "No, You're all wrong: here's what You ACTUALLY do or should believe!" :-?<BR/><BR/>You have said in THIS as well as OTHER posts on this very blog that Orthodoxy doesn't have a Canon. That's simply false. -- as said: I don't expect You to accept it ... but why say such diformities about us !? :-\ (Do You see me saying like enormitiess about You? ). <BR/><BR/>To prove this <B>You've made recourse to things which cannot but help ruin You position</B>. -- You raised these issued in the first place, so it was up to You to prove Yourselves ... wasn't it? <BR/><BR/>Besides, ... I was the one to post the first question, -not to mention that I'm the guest here- so common sense should've told You to answer me first by making a caase for Yourselves in the first place. <BR/><BR/>As for Daniel, he DOES have GRAVE problems in terms of historical-geographical accuracy. (Augmenting the other side does not annul the first one). <BR/><BR/>As for these swell God-fearing and OT-Canon-defending guys that You keep mentioning, ... all that I can say (and I did actually already say it) the mere fact that THEY THEMSELVES tried no defense whatsoever on the Apocrypha but resumed to side with the attackers is questionable regaridng their method: their lack of objectivity becomes clear. <BR/><BR/>I mean: their defenses of the historical-geographical accuracy of the Books are kinda not what they would want it to be in the first place (they're question-begging at least, or questionable at worse). -- not to mention that when begin to actually attack the Apocrypha, sometimes you just want to yell at the guy: "see your own words in a similar case just discussed for book X! The same line of defense could be as easilly applied here!". --> case in point, my two examples with Tobit versus Genesis 30-31 and Samuel-Kings-Chronicles versus the Maccabees. Their case against Wisdom based on the use of I-don't-know-what Greek philosophy [therefore post-Macedonian, pertaining to the Maccabean era] can be as easilly made against Ecclesiates. (It's not that hard: YOU should try it! ... and if You're thinking to yourself: "Whoa! Wait! There were *reasons* for me not to buy the argument against Ecclesiates!" , then please try and remember what those reasons were in the first palce, and try to see if a similar case can't be made for Wisdom using the same line of reasoning ... it's really not that hard). <BR/><BR/>Have You guys watched "Jerry Maguire"? Do You know the sequence in which he makes a fool out of himself by yelling his guts out: "Show me the money!!!" ? Well, that's kinda what I'm asking of You ... just substitute the word "money" with "CONSISTENCY". <BR/><BR/>You attacked us using weapons which not only that "can", but actually *do* turn against Yoursleves. As the misfortunate founder of our miserable sect, (a pittyful man of unfortunate descent) once said: "It hurts to strike Your foot against a sting!".<BR/><BR/>You had the right to remanin silent, knowing that everything You say can and *will* be used against You in the court of law. So why didn't You use it? :-\ <BR/><BR/>As for the Canons of both Old and New Testaments: You have attacked one of them using a certain logic ... a logic which not only >can<, but *does* work against Your own NT Canon as well. <BR/><BR/>AS FOR ME, ... me using analogies, similarities, and parallelisms against You, that's not only very easy, but actually *extremely* enjoyable ... and do You know WHY? Becasue, my friends, You are not Atheists :-) Yep: You can't afford Yourselves that luxury! ... Get it? You *DO* believe in God; You *DO* believe in a Canon ... a Canon for whose justification You make recourse to things which elevate the first part of it, but severely damage its second half. :-) And precisely here's where I set the target of my poisonous arrows and deviosly twisted darts. Ain't I a stinker, or what? >:) I really *wouldn't* want to be in Your shoes right now ... <BR/><BR/> ... it's annoying to me how I find myself time and time again speaking to walls ... BUT I'm *honestly grateful* that I wasn't born on the other side of the fence. (You are men of great faith, virtue, devotion and dedication, and I'm glad to see that You are thus, and in this aspect I'm light-yrs away from any of You -- no doubt in my mind `bout it). <BR/><BR/>In my opinion, You should all just bow down before O-"Jay" over there and say: "we beg of You to forgive us, for we've greatly misjudged You! You at least care about us, and are going through all this trouble because You actually love us and want us to be redeemed ... but this little piece of shit over here -daring to call himself an Orthodox Christian!- just does it for a vengeance, to see us squirm and torture! He doesn't even give a damn` *what* will happen to us: there's no such 'blessed' ulterior motive in his sick and twisted mind: he just does it to amuse his own sadistic pleasure!". >:) LOL! >:) AM I JUST *EVIL*, OR WHAT !? >:) Nya-ha-ha! >:)The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-54725698201721147252008-02-24T11:51:00.000-05:002008-02-24T11:51:00.000-05:00LVKA said:"Jason, the Catholics and Monophysited I...LVKA said:<BR/><BR/>"Jason, the Catholics and Monophysited I know ... but of the rest I havent' even heard of. Any claim they might make at authenticity, historicity or succesion is severely questionable and flawed to the bone. I was just wanted to show You that it's not 'just' us, Orthodox, it's ALL of the historical Churches: we're all in this together, it's a world-wide conspiracy out there, going on against You!"<BR/><BR/>I cited some patristic sources, and I cited Lutherans and Anglicans as two modern examples. Melito of Sardis, one of the patristic sources I cited, was bishop of an apostolic church that had been in contact with the apostle John less than a century earlier. If you want us to believe that the view of a twenty-first-century church in Russia, for example, is more significant than the view of a second-century apostolic church in this context, then you'll need to explain why. You'll also need to explain why a church consensus only matters if the church meets your standard of "authenticity, historicity or succesion". Some of the modern groups that disagree with your canon claim apostolic succession. And I don't know what you mean by "authenticity" and "historicity". You'll have to tell us what you have in mind and why we should agree with your standards.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"The fact that the Slavs accept one Book in addition: IV Ezra is one thing; the fact that the Greeks have also a single book in additon: IV Maccabees, is also one thing. The fact that the Protestants reject them in their entirety (and even call them heretical!) and not only that but they reject the LXX as well ... my friend ... there's just no comparison."<BR/><BR/>Yet, you go on to write:<BR/><BR/>"No Church Father has ever considered any of the Apocrypha to be heretical: which is more than I can say of the Book of Revelation."<BR/><BR/>If considering an Apocryphal book heretical puts a Protestant in a different category than the churches you're appealing to, then wouldn't the same be true of the church fathers you refer to who allegedly considered Revelation heretical? If we're to be criticized for considering Tobit heretical, for example, then is the same true of any patristic source who considered Revelation heretical?<BR/><BR/>Regardless, Protestants don't have to consider the Apocryphal books heretical in order to consider them uncanonical. And if we're to be accused of "rejecting the LXX" because we reject the canonicity of the Apocrypha, then are Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, etc. also "rejecting the LXX" when they maintain a canon different from that which is found in some editions of the LXX? Not all editions contain the same books.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"For You, uncanonical is the same as heretical"<BR/><BR/>No, that's not what I've argued, and it's not what I believe.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"I've already repeated numnerous times (even before Your last commment) that You are *obviously biased* in applying a *double standard* by NOT doing with the NT the same as You do to the OT."<BR/><BR/>Different claims have different implications. Since my claims about the canon, the nature of the church, etc. aren't the same as yours, it doesn't make sense to expect me to carry the same burden of proof that you carry. If you ask a Roman Catholic to defend the infallibility of the Pope, it doesn't therefore follow that he can expect you to defend the infallibility of an Eastern Orthodox bishop. My canonical criteria aren't the same as yours.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"Jason dear, the ONLY thing that I want You to accept is that WE *do* have a Canon. I don't want You to agree wit it ('it'=the Canon) ... rather, I would want You to agree with it ('it'=the fact that we do have one). Got it? :-/ Am I making myself clear[er] now?"<BR/><BR/>Who's denied that Eastern Orthodox have a canon in the sense of agreeing about <I>some</I> books? You also agree with Mormons, Protestants, and Jews about some books. It is significant, though, to point out that you also disagree with Mormons, Protestants, and Jews about other aspects of the canon. Similarly, it's significant to point out that Eastern Orthodox disagree with each other about which books belong in the canon, and it's significant to point out that you disagree with other groups, such as Roman Catholics, on the issue.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-63816679083226960452008-02-24T11:49:00.000-05:002008-02-24T11:49:00.000-05:00LVKA SAID:“But what I *DID* ask of You to do, howe...LVKA SAID:<BR/><BR/>“But what I *DID* ask of You to do, however, was to please explain to me *why exactly* should we, as Orthodox (or Catholic, or Monophysite) Christians >have to< interact with those concepts so foreign to our faith as can be, in order for us to establish something within our own religion ... something which has already been established aeons ago, and using a completely and fundamentally different approach.”<BR/><BR/>i) Historical criticism is hardly foreign to the Orthodox faith. For example, Dionysius of Alexandria applied historical criticism to the Apocalypse. I don’t agree with his analysis, but that’s beside the point. The point is that I’m answering you on your own level.<BR/><BR/>ii) Moreover, even if this were foreign to your faith, that’s the problem. My post was directed at Dyer. It would be quite inadequate for Dyer to offer your circular justification for the Orthodox canon: “the reasons for Canonicity in the ancient Churches are those that are.”<BR/><BR/>For Dyer is attempting to persuade Protestants to convert to Orthodoxy. As such, he needs to give us reasons to agree with him.<BR/><BR/>“The same for historical-geographical accuracy: extremely problematic for Daniel, as just one example.”<BR/><BR/>i) Actually, the fundamental problem that the critics have with Daniel is that it’s too accurate, not that it’s too inaccurate. They don’t believe that a man could accurately foresee the distant future. That is why they attempt to redate Daniel to the Maccabean period.<BR/><BR/>ii) I know how conservative scholars like Archer, Baldwin, Hasel, Kitchen, Millard, Waltke, Wiseman, Yamauchi,” &c. defend the historicity of Daniel. But you and Dyer have made no comparable effort to defend the historicity of the Apocrypha. Unless and until you do so, there’s no comparison.<BR/><BR/>iii) How does your assertion that the historicity of Daniel is just as problematic as the historicity of Tobit amount to any sort of argument for the canonicity of Tobit?<BR/><BR/>“Same for Your argument against Wisdom: the very same argument can be safely predicated of Ecclesiates as well.”<BR/><BR/>i) That’s an argument from analogy minus the argument. You have a habit of *saying* things instead of *showing* things. You need to actually show us that the historical objections to Wisdom are comparable to the historical objections to Ecclesiastes. What you keep giving us is a string of screaming assertions in lieu of an argument. It is not enough for you to merely *posit* an analogy. You need to back that up with a point-by-point comparison.<BR/><BR/>ii) I know how conservative scholars like Archer and Garrett defend Ecclesiastes. Where is your parallel argument in defense of Wisdom?<BR/><BR/>iii) Once again, tearing down Ecclesiastes does nothing to build up Wisdom. <BR/><BR/>“And, sadly enough, as until now, You've bravely managed to answer exactly zero of my questions. (You said many things about many things, but that hardly adds up to an answer to ANY of my questions).”<BR/><BR/>If this remark is directed against me, I presented a specific, multi-point response to each of your three questions. You, by contrast, haven’t offered an equally specific counterargument. Not even close.<BR/><BR/>“Canons belong to Churches, since canonical is that which is publicly read or proclaimed in the Church.”<BR/><BR/>Statements like these merely beg the question in favor of Orthodox ecclesiology. <BR/><BR/>“I bore witness for the Romanian and Greek Churches.”<BR/><BR/>Bearing witness to your religious tradition is not any sort of argument for the veracity of your religious tradition. A Hindu or Muslim or witchdoctor can bear witness to his religious tradition.<BR/><BR/>[I said] the same set of books were not “universally read, preached, and received in the Church throughout the ages.” Just consult Metzger on the NT canon for an overview of the agreements and disagreements. <BR/><BR/>“Precisley my point: yet You don't, however, seem to apply to the NT canon the *same* reasoning that You *DO* apply to the OT Canon. :-\”<BR/><BR/>i) No, that’s precisely the polar opposite of your original point. This is what you initially said: <BR/><BR/>““We received the Bible as we received it, and there's no changing that. I've told You even then, and I'm telling You now still, that Canonicity is not established by scientists, or thelogians, but by that book being universally read, preached, and received in the Church throughout the ages.”<BR/><BR/>So you originally asserted the identity of your canon through time, where the very same Bible is handed down from one generation to the next.<BR/><BR/>When I point out that your assertion is demonstrably false, you don’t get to reinvent your original answer and then claim that this is what you were saying all along. <BR/><BR/>ii) You have also failed to show how I have one set of criteria for the OT canon, and another set of criteria for the NT canon. I was responding to you on your grounds, not mine. Try to keep track of your own argument.<BR/><BR/>[I said] That’s demonstrably false. Our earliest MS witnesses to the LXX do not contain the same set of books. <BR/><BR/>“The *exact same* goes for the NT Canon as well, as You Yourself have so diligently observed. (See the previously made point).”<BR/><BR/>i) Since you don’t know the rules of argumentation, I’ll guess I’ll have to give you a remedial course in logic. I’m answering you at the level where you set the bar. This doesn’t commit me to the same assumptions. Here’s your original claim:<BR/><BR/>“I've told You back the, and I have no pain in telling You now still, that every Romanian Bible ever printed, as well as every Greek Bible ever manuscripted or printed had the books that You call Apocrypha in them.”<BR/><BR/>This claim is demonstrably false. And I’ve documented its falsity in response to Dyer.<BR/><BR/>Your response is to punt the issue back to me. But even if that were a genuine problem for the Protestant canon, claiming that we have the same problem you have does nothing to absolve you of your own problem. That is no reason for me to prefer your canon or your rule of faith to my canon or my rule of faith.<BR/><BR/>ii) When I answer you where you yourself set the bar, and you cannot refute my answer, then you already lost your side of the argument. At that point, Orthodoxy ceases to be a contender. You’ve eliminated your own position from the competition by holding it to a standard which it cannot meet.<BR/><BR/>You didn’t refute my answer. Rather, you implicitly concede my answer, but punt it back to me. Yet that diversionary tactic still leaves your own position in tatters.<BR/><BR/>iii) At this juncture you’ve assumed the role of spoiler. Because you lost the race fair and square, you are now attempting to sabotage the chances of anyone else crossing the finish line. Because your racing car crashed and burned, you now attempt to set fire to all the other racing cars. <BR/><BR/>Your philosophy is: if you can’t win, then everyone else should lose.<BR/><BR/>iv) My edition of Scripture was never predicted on the textual identity of every Greek and Hebrew MS. That’s your yardstick, not mine.<BR/><BR/>Unlike Dyer, I can identify what Bible I use, and why. I favor critical editions of Scripture, which employ the methodology of textual critics like Bruce Metzger and Emanuel Tov. <BR/><BR/>Mind you, even the MT or Byzantine text would be adequate most of the time. But an eclectic text is a more accurate approximation of the Urtext. <BR/><BR/>v) Likewise, my canon of Scripture was never predicated on the identity of every codex. <BR/><BR/>“All their defenses need sometimes even up to many leaps of faith. (Take for instance the many things on which anyone just has to agree that no evidence whatsoever exists for them, whether for or against, and just say to believers to accept them as fact, even if they are to some extent unlikely.”<BR/><BR/>You’re attempting to obfuscate the issue. When I cite Fitzmyer presenting evidence against the historicity of Tobit, that is not equivalent to the absence of evidence. <BR/><BR/>“For a better understanding of what I'm saying, please read the defense of Daniel from Tektonics.org. Then, read it again ... do You see what I see?”<BR/><BR/>I don’t need to consult a tertiary source like Tektonics to see how conservative scholars defend Daniel.<BR/><BR/>“When I'll ask a Saracene about what his religion believes about topic X, and he gives me an answer, I will accept it. (Can I do something else ?).”<BR/><BR/>You’re missing the point: the question at issue is not what any given religious tradition believes, but why one ought to believe it—or not.<BR/><BR/>[I said] That is not the basis on which I reject the Apocrypha.<BR/><BR/>“Yeah ... You do! For instance, You reject that there are -say- two creation stories, two flood myths, and that all this has something to do with there being two divine names, corresponding to supposedly Jahvist and Elohimic sources. -- Fine! You probably also reject that there are two different deaths od Saul, described in three places of Holy Writ (two instances are identical).”<BR/><BR/>Either you’re obtuse or you’re obfuscating. You are confounding two distinct issues:<BR/><BR/>a) Do I accept or reject X?<BR/><BR/>b) Do I accept or reject X *on the same basis* that you accept or reject X?<BR/><BR/>Your attempted counterexamples go to (a) rather than (b). You have not begun to show that my criteria are inconsistent.<BR/><BR/>In fact, I specifically explained to you how my criteria differ from the criteria of Wellhausen or the secular critics of Isaiah. <BR/><BR/>“Yet, at the same time, You probably espouse the idead that the Books of the Maccabees are somehow unpure because they describe two different deaths of the King, told in three places. (Interesting coincidence, don't You agree ?).”<BR/><BR/>I reject the inspiration and canonicity of Macabees for the sorts of reasons given in Beckwith, deSilva, et al.<BR/><BR/>“At the same time, You probably reject Tobit for what seems to You like some unpure folk, while, at the same time having no problem accepting Genssis 30-31 as inspired Scripture.”<BR/><BR/>You’re pulling rabbits out of the hat. I’ve never indicated that I reject the inspiration or canonicity of a book because it contains a record of sinners sinning.<BR/><BR/>“You probably also excuse Youself saying: ‘it's different there, `cause it's all God's work, as He Himself later tells to Jacob, after first fooling us for a moment’ ... and yet, for some reason You don't see the events in Tobit through the same lense ... why?”<BR/><BR/>You make up imaginary objections which you impute to your opponents. There’s nothing here I need to respond to since your description is something spun from your own imagination.<BR/><BR/>“That sort of an argument doesn't kinda go too well for Daniel.”<BR/><BR/>Once more, it’s not enough for you to *say* something is the case—you need to *show* it. What (alleged) anachronisms are integral to the Danielic narrative?<BR/><BR/>“Also: all the guys that translated the Bible were problematic: Origen, as You've already pointed out repeatedly [obsesively? ; compulsively?] was a condemned heretic: more to the point, an Origenist, a Hellenist. Lucian, a Lucianist, an Arian. Jerome: entertained an unhealthy view towards the 'Hebraica veritas', also a Filioquist.”<BR/><BR/>I don’t think that Jason or Gene or I have ever cast aspersions on the integrity of Origen’s scholarship or Jerome’s scholarship—although modern scholars are in a position to improve on their scholarly endeavors.<BR/><BR/>If you were paying attention, you’d notice that I brought up Origen’s heretical status in relation to Dyer’s invocation of Origen. Dyer is in no position to quote Origen against the Jews—given Dyer’s theological commitments.<BR/><BR/>“And my point still stands: ALL the ancient Churches share the same positive view towards the books you call Apocrypha, and read and procalim and instruct from them publicly and shamelessly.”<BR/><BR/>Which, if true, would betray a lack of critical judgment.<BR/><BR/>“And our canons ARE the same, with the fringes consisting of 3 and 4 Maccabees and 4 Ezra. [The Ethiopians are -as said- uniquely distinct from anyone else ... don't be envious now! ;-) ]. But, the point holds: the canons are the same even outside our borders: its safe to speak of an Catholic-Orthodox-Monophysite canon.”<BR/><BR/>In other words, your canon is the same…except when it isn’t the same.<BR/><BR/>It’s the same, except when it’s different—and it’s different, except when it’s the same. How do you think this shell game of yours is helping your cause? <BR/><BR/>“Is it ‘an assertion, not an argument’ that we possess an entire plethora of NT codices that do not overlap with eachother.”<BR/><BR/>Actually, they do overlap to a high degree. But they don’t exactly coincide. <BR/><BR/>“Sometimes even with extremely signifficant and easily-manipulable [for those that have an axe to grind] textual differences among them?”<BR/><BR/>Now you’re channeling some of the sensationalistic claims of Bart Ehrman. There are many books and book reviews which shred his sensationalist claims. <BR/><BR/>“Is it ‘an assertion, not an argument’ that the content [not just the textual one, but the very books that these codices contain] of the NT manuscripts vary, just like they do in the case of the OT?”<BR/><BR/>As I’ve repeatedly explained in relation to Dyer, that’s a problem for the Orthodox canon, not for my canon. <BR/><BR/>Trying to poke holes in my canon, even if that exercise were successful, does nothing to plug the leaks in your own canon. <BR/><BR/>“You asked me about our Canon, and I've responded to You that YES, VIRGINIA,we *DO* have a Canon.”<BR/><BR/>Even if you had a uniform canon—which, by your own admission, you don’t—that wouldn’t make your canon the correct canon. Marcion had a canon, too. That doesn’t make his canon the right canon of Scripture.<BR/><BR/>“And that we're not alone in that, but even Catholics and Monophysites -with whom we broke up 1,000 and 1,500 yrs ago- share the same Canon with us. “<BR/><BR/>No, they don’t share the same canon—as you yourself admit, when we pin you to the wall. <BR/><BR/>“That the Canons we have today (OT and NT) had a certain convergent evolution in time is true. AND, AS I'VE ALREADY POINTED OUT, THE VERY SAME LINE OF THINKING CAN BE SAFELY APPLIED TO DESTRUCT, CONSTRUCT & RECONSTRUCT THE New Testament Canon AS WELL. __Friend, we don't ‘return to innocence’, as Enigma (and Vatican II) would want us to. There's no point turning back time. The NT as well as OT canon had their own little evolution over time. Both converged to where they are ‘today’, today meaning in more than a millennium. These limits to which they've converged are neither the ‘bare minimum’, nor the ‘whole shebang’: we don't -for instance- exclude all of the Books proven not to be in the Canon from day one [by way of intersection of various lists], nor do we gather them all together, all the Books that were there in any Canon everywhere [by way of reunion of various lists]. It's a rather more slow-paced and organic evolution.”<BR/><BR/>“You see, both canons varied, in the course of time, between certain limits.”<BR/><BR/>This is diametrically opposed to what you originally said. Here is your initial claim:<BR/><BR/>“We received the Bible as we received it, and there's no changing that. I've told You even then, and I'm telling You now still, that Canonicity is not established by scientists, or thelogians, but by that book being universally read, preached, and received in the Church throughout the ages.”<BR/><BR/>Now, however, you suddenly abandon your Vincentian yardstick for “slow-paced convergent evolution.” “Varied, in the source of time, between certain limits.” <BR/><BR/>You couldn’t be more double-tongued if you were the serpent in the Garden.<BR/><BR/>“For You, uncanonical is the same as heretical.”<BR/><BR/>Once again, this is something you pull out of your hat. The same document can be perfectly orthodox and perfectly noncanonical. I don’t canonize the Westminster Confession. That’s not because I think it’s heretical.<BR/><BR/>“The ONLY thing that I want You to accept is that WE *do* have a Canon.”<BR/><BR/>You have a canon in the same sense that Solomon had a wife. <BR/><BR/>Your problem is not with your canonical bachelorhood, but with your canonical polygamy. You invoke an authoritative church, but when we ask your authoritative church to produce the authoritative canon of Scripture, you equivocate and prevarication.<BR/><BR/>You invoke an authoritative church, but when we ask your authoritative church to produce an authoritative text of Scripture, you hem and haw and punt to the question back to us. <BR/><BR/>Finally, we don’t have endless amounts to time to waste on yet another evasive and duplicitous opponent who refuses to face up to implications of his stated position, even when we answer him on his own grounds, and—instead—resorts to sneak-and-retreat tactics. Unless you’re prepared to debate us in good faith, then I will make you disappear from this blog. We don’t need another dishonest and dishonorable opponent wasting our time. Either shape up or you will go away.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-44082796226740472082008-02-24T08:33:00.000-05:002008-02-24T08:33:00.000-05:00Why should we accept it?Jason dear, the ONLY thing...<I>Why should we accept it?</I><BR/><BR/>Jason dear, the ONLY thing that I want You to accept is that WE *do* have a Canon. I don't want You to agree wit it ("it"=the Canon) ... rather, I would want You to agree with it ("it"=the fact that we do have one). Got it? :-/ Am I making myself clear[er] now? :-|The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-21936988939674157502008-02-24T08:26:00.000-05:002008-02-24T08:26:00.000-05:00Jason, ... "most of them" ? ZER0 = fourteen? I don...Jason, ... "most of them" ? <BR/><BR/>ZER0 = fourteen? I don't get it.The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-76504586780703453912008-02-24T08:24:00.000-05:002008-02-24T08:24:00.000-05:00oh, yeah, and ... Jason! I've already repeated num...oh, yeah, and ... Jason! <BR/><BR/>I've already repeated numnerous times (even before Your last commment) that You are *obviously biased* in applying a *double standard* by NOT doing with the NT the same as You do to the OT. --> No-one here has interacted with that as till now. (Anyone care to?)The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-74501343536984471242008-02-24T08:05:00.000-05:002008-02-24T08:05:00.000-05:00No Church Father has ever considered any of the Ap...No Church Father has ever considered any of the Apocrypha to be heretical: which is more than I can say of the Book of Revelation.The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-10382267599242303122008-02-24T08:03:00.000-05:002008-02-24T08:03:00.000-05:00Jason, The fact that the Slavs accept one Book in ...Jason, <BR/><BR/>The fact that the Slavs accept one Book in addition: IV Ezra is one thing; the fact that the Greeks have also a single book in additon: IV Maccabees, is also one thing. The fact that the Protestants reject them in their entirety (and even call them heretical!) and not only that but they reject the LXX as well ... my friend ... there's just no comparison. <BR/><BR/>No heretical book has EVER made it into ANY Canon: OT <B>or</B> NT. No Apocrypha is heretical; no Apostolic Father is heretical. For You, uncanonical is the same as heretical, for us, there's a heaven-to-earth difference. You see, both canons varied, in the course of time, between certain limits: these limits never included, -say-, The Gospel of Thomas, or that of Marcion, or any other heretical (Gnostic) crap, [as DaVinci and Ellaine Pagels would want us to believe].The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-59032208271132478392008-02-24T07:47:00.000-05:002008-02-24T07:47:00.000-05:00Jason, the Catholics and Monophysited I know ... b...Jason, the Catholics and Monophysited I know ... but of the rest I havent' even heard of. Any claim they might make at authenticity, historicity or succesion is severely questionable and flawed to the bone. <BR/><BR/>I was just wanted to show You that it's not "just" us, Orthodox, it's ALL of the historical Churches: we're all in this together, it's a world-wide conspiracy out there, going on against You! :D :p >:)The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-4837713085089267982008-02-24T07:42:00.000-05:002008-02-24T07:42:00.000-05:00I assume You left Your comment before having the c...I assume You left Your comment before having the chance to read my responses in which I've interacted which Steve and Jason. <BR/><BR/>You asked me about our Canon, and I've responded to You that YES, VIRGINIA,we *DO* have a Canon. And that we're not alone in that, but even Catholics and Monophysites -with whom we broke up 1,000 and 1,500 yrs ago- share the same Canon with us. <BR/><BR/>That the Canons we have today (OT and NT) had a certain convergent evolution in time is true. AND, AS I'VE ALREADY POINTED OUT, <B>THE VERY SAME LINE OF THINKING CAN BE SAFELY APPLIED TO DESTRUCT, CONSTRUCT & RECONSTRUCT THE New Testament Canon AS WELL</B>. <BR/><BR/>Friend, we don't "return to innocence", as Enigma (and Vatican II) would want us to. There's no point turning back time. The NT as well as OT canon had their own little evolution over time. Both converged to where they are "today", today meaning in more than a millennium. These limits to which they've converged are neither the "bare minimum", nor the "whole shebang": we don't -for instance- exclude all of the Books proven not to be in the Canon from day one [by way of intersection of various lists], nor do we gather them all together, all the Books that were there in any Canon everywhere [by way of reunion of various lists]. It's a rather more slow-paced and organic evolution. <BR/><BR/>You quote the Protestantly-used-and-abused quote from Jerome ... the only problem is that what he's saying there is unsupported by the consent of the rest of the Fathers:<BR/><BR/>He says that the "Apocrypha" were called Apocrypha: but no Father ever calles them thus. He says: we don't extract doctrine from them: but the Fathers, -EVEN WHEN SPEAKING TO THE JEWS!- use such famous places as Baruch 3:36-38 or Wisdom 2:12-20. I mean, if not even to prove that Jesus was the Christ of God is dogma, then I don't know what is anymore ... not to mention that, were it for these books to have been considered >suspect< even among Christians, the last thing that ANYONE would do is to cite them in disputes with the ... Jews, of all people! :-\ Do You understand what I'm saying? :-| <BR/><BR/>It's also curious that You cite the famous "Dogmatic" of the Holy Father John Damascene, but could You say "amen" to the list of NT books he provides just a few lines below? He includes the Canons of the Holy Apostles. --> As You can see, by this time the book of Revelation has already made it safely into the Canon [and finally remained there], but the Canon is still not >completely< closed. <BR/><BR/>And no, I'm not Orthodox, I'm Lucian (as you Yourself discovered)The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-87029561181817527742008-02-24T07:14:00.000-05:002008-02-24T07:14:00.000-05:00LVKA wrote:"And our canons ARE the same, with the ...LVKA wrote:<BR/><BR/>"And our canons ARE the same, with the fringes consisting of 3 and 4 Maccabees and 4 Ezra. [The Ethiopians are -as said- uniquely distinct from anyone else ... don't be envious now! ;-) ]. But, the point holds: the canons are the same even outside our borders: its safe to speak of an Catholic-Orthodox-Monophysite canon."<BR/><BR/>In other words, "We agree, except where we disagree." As I said earlier, if you want to argue that some disagreement among Orthodox is acceptable, as long as there's agreement about other elements of the canon, then you'll need to make an argument for that standard rather than just asserting it. And the groups you've named aren't the only ones that exist "outside our borders". Do Lutherans agree with your canon? What about Anglicans? Why should we think that patristic sources such as Melito of Sardis, Julius Africanus, and the council of Laodicea agreed with your canon? If sources such as these don't need to agree with your canon, or only need to agree with most of it, then where are you getting that standard? Why should we accept it?Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.com