Friday, February 22, 2008

We'll always have Paris...Texas

Jay Dyer has been attempting to make a case for the Orthodox canonization of the Apocrypha. One of Dyer’s many delinquencies in this respect is his failure to interact with critical scholarship. Consider, for example, some of what the author of the standard commentary on the apocryphal interpolations to Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah has to say:

“The Additions to Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah consist of those eleven extended passages in the Septuagint which have no counterpart in the Hebrew Bible…On one point virtually all modern scholars agree, namely, all the Additions with one possible exception, are secondary and intrusive, that is, each of them was added after the particular book in question had attained its final form. In other words, with the possible exception of one passage in Daniel, none of these Additions is a ‘survivor’ or witness to a passage that was in the Semitic text of Daniel, Esther, or Jeremiah when that particular book *was first written*,” C. Moore, Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah: The Additions (Doubleday 1977), 3-4.

“How do we know this? Sometimes, as with the Additions to Esther, inconsistencies and contradictions between the canonical and the deuterocanonical portions prove that the Additions had not been had integral part of the book but were added later. Sometimes, as with ‘Susanna,’ ‘Bel and the Snake,’ and, especially ‘The Prayer of Azariah and the Hymn of the Three Young Men,’ the Septuagint (the LXX), in contrast with the later ‘Theodotion’ version, shows what the particular Addition in question was originally separate and circulated quite independently of the biblical book in which it is now found. Other times, such as I Baruch, the presence of certain religious teachings and historical errors argue against the authenticity of the material in question,” ibid. 4-5.

“…the external evidence supports and reinforces the impression drawn from the internal evidence, i.e. there are no ancient Hebrew or Aramaic texts containing any of these additions, no indisputable instances of their being quoted in the Talmud, and no extant Greek translation of them by Aquila, the Jewish convert of the second century AD, who translated the then-current Masoretic text (MT) into slavishly literal Greek,” ibid. 7.

“Perhaps the one incontestable generalization that can be made concerning these Greek Additions [to Daniel] is that, with the possible exception of one passage within the first Addition (i.e. the Prose Narrative [see pp63-65]), all the Additions to Daniel are clearly intrusive and secondary, that is, they were added at various times after what we call canonical Daniel had taken its’ final’ form. Both the external and internal evidence clearly support this conclusion,” ibid. 24.

As for the external evidence, not only are these Additions lacking in the present MT, but there is no manuscript evidence for their existence among the Jews of antiquity. No Jewish writer in the Talmud either quotes or alludes to these specific Additions; nor does Josephus, even though in his Jewish Antiquities (ca. AD 93-94) he provides his readers with other apocryphal stories about the prophet Daniel (Ant. x 11.6-7). Nor has any evidence of them been found among the Dead Sea scrolls, this in spite of the fact that at least seven copies of Daniel, some of them admittedly quite fragmentary, have been found at Qumran, as well as three heretofore unknown stories about Daniel in Aramaic fragments (see p120). Nor do scholars know of any Greek translation of these Additions by Aquila, the second-century Jewish convert to translated the then-current rabbinic text into ridiculously literal Greek (on Aquila, see Roberts, OTTV, 120-1232). All ancient Semitic versions of Daniel, including the Syriac, the Syro-Hexaplar, the Arabic, and the Aramaic, as well as other versions such as the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Ethiopic, Bohiaric, and Sahidic, are clearly based upon the Greek versions, i.e. upon either the Septuagint or “Theodotion”. Finally, Jerome himself (340-420) expressly stated that he knew of no current Semitic text of the additions,” ibid. 24.

The internal evidence certainly corroborates the case made by the external evidence…these generalizations and assertions will be discussed in detail later on at the appropriate places,” ibid. 24.

Beyond these considerations, I’d like to hear Dyer explain and defend which text of Daniel—with special reference to the apocryphal interpolations—represents the authentic text or the official text of the Orthodox church. This is why I ask:

“The longer version of Daniel is known primarily from the Greek, surviving in two rather different editions. The older edition, the ‘Septuagint’ proper, survives in its entirety only in a single manuscript, Codex Chisianus from the ninth century (Codes 87; Papyrus 967 contains chs. 5-14), and in the Syriac translation of Origen’s edition of the Septuagint (Pfeiffer 1949; 4:33,441; Moore 1977: 33). The more recent edition, called 'Theodotion,' displaced the older 'Septuagint' edition in the usage of the Christian church by the late third century, so that all the major codices of what we call the Septuagint actually contain the Theodotion edition Daniel…Theodotion prepared his version in the early second century CE, but appears to have utilized an earlier Greek text of Daniel that differed markedly from the Septuagint (Grelot 1966),” D. deSilva, Introducing the Apocrypha (Baker 2004), 222-223.

“Also debated is the question of Daniel-Theodotion in particular. Some argue that the characteristics of this translation do not fit those found in materials otherwise attributed to Theodotion,” K. Jobes & M. Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint (Baker 2005), 42.

48 comments:

  1. This has nothing to do with the post, but I am having technical difficulties using my "Blogger for Word" in uploading my posts to the internet. I was wondering if any of you guys use it to post?

    It keeps giving me:

    "An error has occurred.

    Unable to find blog or post information. (#404)"

    ReplyDelete
  2. One of Dyer’s many delinquencies in this respect is his failure to interact with critical scholarship.

    1) Why?

    2) How does Your case against them being included in the original, taken from the lips of the very same people that say: "Isaiah was written by three authors and the Pentateuch by four, JEDP", not go against Your own views of Canonicity?

    3) How does Your case against them containing or showing historical errors or inaccuracies not go against Your own view of Canonicity?

    ReplyDelete

  3. 2) How does Your case against them being included in the original, taken from the lips of the very same people that say: "Isaiah was written by three authors and the Pentateuch by four, JEDP", not go against Your own views of Canonicity?


    Actually, this is a problem not for us, but for you. Orthodoxy is hardly immune to the higher critical schools of biblical criticism. We've been over this before on this blog. Indeed, the same is also true of Roman Catholicism. When one thinks of conservative text criticism, one doesn't think of Orthodox or Catholic scholarship.

    Here are just a few examples, Lucian/Lvka:

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/08/liberal-orthodoxy.html

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/08/liberal-orthodoxy-encore.html

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/05/less-conservative-side-of-eastern.html

    And here's a real zinger for you:

    “A consensus exists among scholars that the 6C BC, and more especially the time and place of the Babylonian Exile, was the matrix from which the Hebrew Pentateuch and most of the prophetic books emerged in their final written form,” Historical Dictionary of the Orthodox Church, M. Prokurat et al. (Scarecrow Press 1996), 293.

    Gee, where do you suppose that came from? 19C German higher criticism.

    You see, Dyer (and you) need to interact with critical scholarship precisely because your ecclesiastical betters are promoting it. Dyer is showing us that he holds to views that are contrary to his betters, and yet he's the one holding to a rule of faith that, if he was consistent, would obligate him not to contradict them. So much for the Orthodox rule of faith.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Steve criticized Dyer for his “failure to interact with critical scholarship”. Those of us who contribute to this blog have interacted with the critical scholarship relevant to our canon of scripture. Steve is discussing some criticisms of Dyer’s canon that Dyer would need to address. He isn’t claiming that the existence of such criticisms proves the incorrectness of a canon. And the fact that we reject criticisms of our canon doesn’t prove that we should reject criticisms of Dyer’s canon as well. Not all criticisms are equal. The fact that Isaiah and Tobit are both criticized doesn’t prove that there’s equal reason to accept or reject the two books.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You see, Dyer (and you) need to interact with critical scholarship precisely because your ecclesiastical betters are promoting it.

    And You will have to construct, destruct and reconstruct Jesus simply because Your ecclesiastical betters are promoting it. (Please!).

    The fact that Isaiah and Tobit are both criticized doesn’t prove that there’s equal reason to accept or reject the two books.

    No, it doesn't, does it? But it does seem rather strange to me how --all of a sudden-- Isaiah has all these many people wanting to desperately believe in him, avidly grasping at each and every single grain of hair that they can hold on to, while Tobit has *ONLY* detractors. Kinda odd, don't You agree?

    ReplyDelete
  6. And You will have to construct, destruct and reconstruct Jesus simply because Your ecclesiastical betters are promoting it. (Please!).

    Apparently, you can't follow your own argumentation with respect to your own rule of faith.

    For starters, we've already done this on this blog, many times. Just check the archives.

    Additionally, pointing this out to us does nothing to obviate your own burden of proof.

    Further, we're not the ones that promote a rule of faith that is dependent on the teachings of the Church to canonize the Scriptures by the authority of the Church itself. That would be the High Church rules of faith with respect to Rome and Orthodoxy. As an Orthodox churchman, you're bound to your ecclesiastical betters in a way that we are not. So much for your rule of faith. You tell us all about the alleged deficiencies of our rule of faith, and yet you're preparted to abandon yours when you're more conservative yourself than the members of your own ecclesiastical hierarchy. That's mighty Protestant of you. What a marvelous double standard under which you operate.

    To take just one example, the Jesus Seminar is not our rule of faith, nor does it purport to represent Evangelical Christianity. It never has and has specifically said so. Additionally, the liberals themselves by their own admission have said they do not represent orthodoxy in such matters at all. For example:

    It is a mistake often made by educated persons who happen to have but little knowledge of historical theology, to suppose that fundamentalism is a new and strange form of thought. It is nothing of the kind; it is the partial and uneducated survival of a theology which was once universally held by all Christians. How many were there, for instance, in Christian churches in the eighteenth century who doubted the infallible inspiration of all Scripture? A few, perhaps, but very few. No, the fundamentalist may be wrong; I think that he is. But it is we who have departed from the tradition, not he, and I am sorry for the fate of anyone who tries to argue with a fundamentalist on the basis of authority. The Bible and the corpus theologicum of the Church are on the fundamentalist's side.

    Saucy's footnote cites this from Lake's The Religion of Yesterday and Tomorrow (Boston: Houghton, 1926).

    As a Reformed Baptist, nobody on my side of the theological aisle is promoting anything contrary to our rule of faith, or are you aware of persons holding to the First or Second London Confession that are advocates of liberal text criticism? No? I didn't think so. As a Southern Baptist, those who have have been ejected from our seminaries.

    By way of contrast, the scholars and sources I cited above do purport to represent Orthodoxy, or are the resident scholars of your own seminaries not representative of Orthodoxy? The Rev. Dr. Paul Nadim Tarazi is Professor of Old Testament at St Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary. If you think otherwise, then you'll need to provide a supporting argument.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Friend, I've asked You three questions, out of which You've managed up till now to answer about none. Heck, You haven't even tried! As till now, I haven't said a word about us, or our rule of faith, so I don't understand why You even brought it up in the first place. I've answered Your first round of questions back at me, and I'm not going to continue in doing so. (The first time I forgive, but the second one shows stubbornness).

    I've had a discussion with you guys over here about the Canon ages ago, and I wasn't pleased then (as I am now) at finding myself to be left speaking alone.

    As Orthodox, we receive from our parents the faith mixed together with the mother's milk. This process of transmission based on delivering and receiving is called Tradition. 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. (Were those 'liberals' that You were talking about trying to do that? i.e., to establish the Canonicity of tha book? Or was it something else that they were trying to express there?). :-?

    Regardless, you weren't paying any attention to that. You said that it's not so, because blah-blah-blah. No, my friends, it is so as I'm telling You. (When I ask someone of another religion in what exactly his religion consists, and he explains that to me, I do not try to contradict him about things about which I have no knowledge, but I rather try to listen to what he's saying. You, on the other hand, know anything that there's to know about anything --> I'm really glad for You! But there's no point in talking to the walls, is there?).

    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. (You were asking me insistantly and persistently [obsesively ?] to "present documentary evidence! present documentary evidence", ... so I amused You). --> To my surprise, not even this was good enough for the guy(s) to whom I was talking then. They wanted MORE! "Pepsi -- ask for more". --> But I'm not into the refreshment-drinks business, so I left them talking to themselves (as they've previously done: my presence there was just a literary excuse or literary device that permited them to get the plot going).

    That obsession with "documentary evidence", BTW, is not Biblical. It stems rather from the judicial system of the Western Empire: >verba volant, scripta manent<. (It didn't hurt you if you had some written evidence in a court of law to 'cover' what you were witnessing: some written acts, some written contracts, a signed will, or something...). This legal view was absorbed into religion and it has gotten you where you are today. -- I'm not saying it is bad, or anti-Scriptural, ... I'm just saying it's un-Biblical and its roots are somewhere alse than You might expect or even want them to be.

    ReplyDelete
  8. BTW, since it turns out it is You who is the author of this disgusting post, I just wanted to ask You on a comment there, but that post didn't permit any comments (and, at this point You must understand that I'm a *HUGE* Bugs Bunny fan): Was that trip *REALLY* necessary? Was it, Doc? :-|

    ReplyDelete
  9. Friend, I've asked You three questions, out of which You've managed up till now to answer about none. Heck, You haven't even tried!

    Actually, Jason, Steve, and I have been over this already. There's an archive function on this blog. Why don't you avail yourself of it?

    By way of contrast, you've not mounted a response at all to anything. What you're trying to do, and it's patently obvious, is engage in a diversionary tactic to keep you from dealing with anything Steve wrote or with what is being taught in your own communion.

    As till now, I haven't said a word about us, or our rule of faith, so I don't understand why You even brought it up in the first place.

    Because that's what this question is about. In High Church traditions, the question of the canon is indexed directly to your rule of faith. We've been over this ground already. If you're going to use higher critical theories against us, then you'll need to interact with them on your own side of the aisle too. So far, you've provided nothing, not a single word, along those lines.

    I've answered Your first round of questions back at me

    You must be reading a different thread than I am. Here's your response to me: And You will have to construct, destruct and reconstruct Jesus simply because Your ecclesiastical betters are promoting it. (Please!).

    That's an assertion, not a counterargument.

    As Orthodox, we receive from our parents the faith mixed together with the mother's milk. This process of transmission based on delivering and receiving is called Tradition. We received the Bible as we received it, and there's no changing that.

    1. You can be true to Tradition without tradition being true. So, you've done nothing here to advance your position.

    2. The Orthodox are hardly united on the canon:

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/05/multiple-canons-of-eastern-orthodox.html
    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/05/eastern-orthodox-acceptance-of-hebrew.html
    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/05/kallistos-ware-contradicts-orthodox.html

    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.

    What a marvelously question begging criterion, for this is only true for you as far as it is true that your Church is the one true church. It's also a problem for you, since, to take just one example, no two codices of the LXX are the same, yet the appeal your kind make is the use of the LXX, and even if they are identical what evidence to you have that the Orthodox canon corresponds to pre-Christian editions of the LXX?

    You are an Orthodox believer. You are attempting to defend the Orthodox faith to Protestant believers. As such, you cannot take Orthodox presuppositions for granted. An argument from the authority of “the Church” simply begs the question.

    It's also true that not every book included in the canon was "universally' read and received in the churches throughout the ages, for example, Revelation, and several books in the Apocrypha. Why should we favorthe Eastern Orthodox Canon over, let's say, the Oriental Orthodox canon?

    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.

    The fact that Romanian Bibles had these books printed in them says nothing about the validity of their inclusion in the canon. All we have from you so far in your history on the blogs is your question-begging assumptions about Orthodoxy being one true church. Where's the supporting argument?

    That obsession with "documentary evidence", BTW, is not Biblical.

    1. This is an assertion,not an argument.

    2. When the Bible cites Scripture, it's not citing documentary evidence?

    3. Let's apply this to Dyer's own argumentation for the Orthodox canon. He has tried to use what he believes to be the New Testament's use of the Apocrypha as documentary evidence for his position. He's done the same with Patrisitic citations. You'd better have a chat with Dyer then, since he is proceeding on those grounds.

    ReplyDelete
  10. BTW, since it turns out it is You who is the author of this disgusting post, I just wanted to ask You on a comment there, but that post didn't permit any comments (and, at this point You must understand that I'm a *HUGE* Bugs Bunny fan): Was that trip *REALLY* necessary? Was it, Doc? :-|

    Yes, it was, since

    a. Dyer is a false teacher who warrants mockery. There are many taunt songs in Scripture.

    b. It's Dyer who across multiple blogs advertised his antisemitism and used it as an argument against the Protestant rule of faith. He did, if you'll recall, accuse us of following "wicked, Christ hating Jews."

    Apparently, he's willing to follow Origen, the wicked apostate, but not willing to follow Jews. I guess being a Jew is worse than being an apostate or is apostasy not wicked in the Orthodox communion?

    Here's a tip for future reference, if you don't like a post here, don't read it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. 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.

    The Book of Wisdom palms itself off as a Solomonic writing (e.g. 9:7-8,12), but is clearly pseudepigraphal. Cf. D. de Silva, Introducing the Apocrypha (Baker 2004), 131-33. It’s on a par with the Sibylline oracles.“It was certainly written after the completion of the LXX of the prophets and the Writings (ca. middle of the 2C BC),” Jerome Bible Commentary, R. Brown et al. eds. (Prentice Hall 1990), 510. DeSilva also says “there is a wider debate concerning the date of Wisdom, which has been placed anywhere from 220 BCE to 100 CE,” ibid. 132.

    Tell us, Lvca, does your theory of canonicity and your theory of inspiration extend to pious frauds?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Friend, I've asked You three questions out of which You've answered none. (And the three links You gave me were exactly the ones in which the sadly unfruitful mentally-masturbatory discussion, which I've mentioned earlier, took place). -- Thanks, but: no, thanks.

    I'm gonna repeat my questions here, just for clarity:

    1) Why should O-"Jay"-Simpson over there engage into any discussion on textual-grammatical-historical-higher criticism concerning ANY book of the Holy Bible, when there was no need for that in order to establish that which he had to establish: and namely, their canonicity.

    2) Your back-stabbing of the books not in the Jewish Canon is simply magnificent ... yet, whereas our Canon neither stands, nor falls on such "higher" criticism, Yours, however, does. (Therefore, the reason for my second [unanswered] question).

    3) Same here as at #2, but whereas at #2 I treated the not-all-at-once-penned-down issue, here I approached the historic-geographic errors and/or inaccuracies.

    Can I have my answers now, please? Thank You.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm gonna repeat my questions here, just for clarity:

    I will repeat the answers.

    1) Why should O-"Jay"-Simpson over there engage into any discussion on textual-grammatical-historical-higher criticism concerning ANY book of the Holy Bible, when there was no need for that in order to establish that which he had to establish: and namely, their canonicity.

    1. You have a habit, as I read your history, of insinuating yourself in the middle of ongoing discussions. Why don't you do the elementary work of trying to follow the discussion before making comments? Dyer has already started down that road all on his own, so he's taken that burden of proof upon himself already. If you have a problem with his methods, you need to chat with Dyer and correct him.

    2. Because, as I've already explained to you, to appeal to "the Church" or what you have "received." is simply to beg the question. You and Dyer are Orthodox believers. You are attempting to defend the Orthodox faith to Protestant believers. As such, you cannot take Orthodox presuppositions for granted. An argument from the authority of “the Church” or what was "universally" published or read simply begs the question unless you can document the claims.

    2) Your back-stabbing of the books not in the Jewish Canon is simply magnificent...yet, whereas our Canon neither stands, nor falls on such "higher" criticism, Yours, however, does. (Therefore, the reason for my second [unanswered] question).

    1. Well, one of the criterion for canonicity in the Ancient Church related to authorship, as in the New Testament, Apostolic authorship, or authorship by a close associate of the Apostles. If one of the books, like Wisdom, is, indeed a pious fraud, that's a problem for you, for "the Church" rejected pious frauds as spurious letters and gospels. So, does your Church accept pious frauds?

    2. You've also not answered this question: Why should we accept the Eastern Orthodox canon and not, let's say, the Oriental Orthodox canon?

    3. I'll repeat this answer too. The contributors to this blog have been over this many times in the archives, for we've all interacted with higher criticism at one time or another. You can avail yourself of the archives. This is no less than the third time you've been told that.

    We've argued for the canon of Scripture on the basis of a number of internal and external lines of evidence.

    Our rule of faith does not bind us to our "ecclesiastical betters." Yours, by way of contrast does. Orthodox e-pologists make regularly make claims about what "the Church" has "universally" believed. So, if that's the case, then you need to interact with what representatives of your own communion have said about the canon.

    Instead of doing that, you then run under the skirts of Holy Mother Church, but this does nothing to advance your argument. So, on the one hand, you run to Holy Mother Church, yet you disagree with what representatives of Holy Mother Church, men who themselves are priests have taught and are teaching. Indeed, we've each been told at one time or another to "Go
    ask an Orthodox priest." Well, to take just one example, Rev. Dr. Paul Nadim Tarazi is Professor of Old Testament at St Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary and Kalistos Ware is an Orthodox Priest too. They clearly differ from your answers. So, who are we to believe, you or them?

    And the three links You gave me were exactly the ones in which the sadly unfruitful mentally-masturbatory discussion, which I've mentioned earlier, took place

    Yet again, you can't keep track of your own words. Here is what you said earlier:

    I've had a discussion with you guys over here about the Canon ages ago, and I wasn't pleased then (as I am now) at finding myself to be left speaking alone.

    Now, Lvka/Lucian, unless you are also identical with the blogger known as "Orthodox" you did not participate in two of those discussions. You have a knack of either ignoring what people state or not keeping track of your own argumentation.


    3) Same here as at #2, but whereas at #2 I treated the not-all-at-once-penned-down issue, here I approached the historic-geographic errors and/or inaccuracies.


    Once more, Lvka, we've dealt with those issues many times in the archives of this blog. Here's a novel idea, use the search function. Look through Steve's topical index. We are in the process of labeling articles here too, but we have nearly 3500, and each author has to label his own work, so it is taking time. I'm sorry this inconveniences you.

    Now, why don't you drop the diversionary tactics and interact with the questions put to you here already. For example, does your theory of inspiration and canonicity apply to pious frauds? Please explain your answer.

    ReplyDelete
  14. LVKA SAID:

    [I said] One of Dyer’s many delinquencies in this respect is his failure to interact with critical scholarship.

    “1) Why?”

    For several reasons:

    i) Dyer agreed to enter into a public debate in which he defends the Orthodox position as over against the Protestant position. As such, he assumes a certain burden of proof. It’s insufficient for him to merely urge the Apocrypha on his Protestant opponents. He must make a case for the Apocrypha. He must give us a reason to believe what he believes.

    ii) If he’s going to tell us that we should adopt the Apocrypha, then it’s incumbent on him to identify the Apocrypha. And he can’t identify the Apocrypha until he can identify the text of the Apocrypha. Which text of the Apocrypha represents the authentic, canonical text?

    iii) If, moreover, he’s going to contend that the Orthodox rule of faith confers an epistemic advantage which is lacking in the Protestant rule of faith because the Orthodox rule of faith satisfies our need for religious certainty, then he needs to tell us which text is the official text.

    Does the Orthodox church have an official edition of the Apocrypha? Where is it? What is it? How was it produced?

    “2) How does Your case against them being included in the original, taken from the lips of the very same people that say: ‘Isaiah was written by three authors and the Pentateuch by four, JEDP’, not go against Your own views of Canonicity?”

    Several issues:

    i) Your attempted analogy is disanalogous, because I don’t apply the same criteria to the Apocrypha which the critics apply to Isaiah or the Pentateuch.

    a) For example, critics deny the unified authorship of Isaiah because they deny that any man can see into the distant future.

    For my part, I don’t deny that a man can see into the distant future. And I don’t deny the Apocrypha on that ground.

    b) Likewise, Wellhausen applied a set of armchair criteria to the Pentateuch (e.g. “doublets,” variations in the divine name). These were devised before Biblical archaeology made us more conversant with the literary conventions of ANE literature. I don’t apply Wellhausen’s criteria to the Apocrypha. That is not the basis on which I reject the Apocrypha.

    ii) The Apocrypha never enjoyed anything remotely resembling the status of the Pentateuch or Isaiah in Judaism.

    iii) The historical books, prophetic books, Psalter, and wisdom literature of the OT are literarily dependent on the Pentateuch in a multitude of ways. It would be utterly impossible to compose the Pentateuch during the Babylonian Exile and then slide it into its current sequence. For that literary sequence is literarily indebted to the Pentateuch—like a row of dominoes.

    iv) Put another way, the Pentateuch doesn’t stand or fall on its own. To falsify the Pentateuch, you’d have to falsify the rest of the OT as well as the NT—which regularly attests the Pentateuch. (Ditto: the NT attestation of Isaiah).

    Wisdom, Tobit, Bel & the Dragon, &c., are hardly comparable in that respect.

    “3) How does Your case against them containing or showing historical errors or inaccuracies not go against Your own view of Canonicity?”

    i) Anachronisms can be a telltale sign of forgery. That’s how the False Decretals were exposed.

    (Mind you, a mere anachronism doesn’t automatically falsify a document. Some anachronisms are scribal or editorial modernizations. But if the anachronism is integral to the narrative, then that’s another matter entirely.)

    I don’t object, in principle, to historical criticism. We can’t very well accept at face value everything that claims to be the Word of God. Consider the NT apocrypha or the Intertestamental pseudepigrapha.

    If a document claims to be about a particular time and place, but is demonstrably false in its timing or placement of events, then why wouldn’t that be a reason to doubt its claims? Same thing with authorship. Dead men don’t pen letters.

    ii) I know how conservative Bible scholars defend the books of the Protestant canon. I haven’t seen Dyer mount a comparable defense of the Apocrypha.

    iii) There are many lines of evidence for the authenticity of the canonical books which are nonexistent in the case of the Apocrypha.

    iv) There is also the argument from religious experience. That’s not something I use to convince an outsider. But it figures in my personal belief-system. The canonical books are believable in a way that the apocryphal books are not.

    v) One of my arguments for the Protestant canon is intertextuality. And I just defended the canonicity of the Pentateuch on intertextual grounds. So, yes, I’m using consistent criteria.

    “As Orthodox, we receive from our parents the faith mixed together with the mother's milk.”

    Why couldn’t a Saracen lodge the very same appeal for Islam? “As Muslims, we receive from our parents the faith mixed together with the mother's milk.”

    Continuing:

    “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.”

    Two problems:

    i) If you study early church history you will see that 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. So your own canon comes up short when we measure it by your own yardstick.

    ii) On the other hand, you reject the Palestinian canon, although that was the canon “universally read, preached, and received in the synagogue throughout 2nd temple Judaism.” So you don’t apply your own yardstick to the OT canon.

    “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.”

    That’s demonstrably false. Our earliest MS witnesses to the LXX do not contain the same set of books. I’ve been quite specific in my citation of the textual evidence.

    “That obsession with’documentary evidence’, BTW, is not Biblical. It stems rather from the judicial system of the Western Empire: >verba volant, scripta manent<. (It didn't hurt you if you had some written evidence in a court of law to 'cover' what you were witnessing: some written acts, some written contracts, a signed will, or something...). This legal view was absorbed into religion and it has gotten you where you are today. -- I'm not saying it is bad, or anti-Scriptural, ... I'm just saying it's un-Biblical and its roots are somewhere alse than You might expect or even want them to be.”

    That's a completely ignorant statement. Literacy is an ANE phenomenon. That happens to be its place of origin. It dates to the 4th millennium BC, in Egypt and Mesopotamia, long before the Bible was ever written.

    And why do you think the Bible was written? The Bible itself places great emphasis on the necessity of a written record. A written record of what was said. A written record for posterity.

    ReplyDelete
  15. LVKA wrote:

    "As Orthodox, we receive from our parents the faith mixed together with the mother's milk. This process of transmission based on delivering and receiving is called Tradition. We received the Bible as we received it, and there's no changing that....When I ask someone of another religion in what exactly his religion consists, and he explains that to me, I do not try to contradict him about things about which I have no knowledge, but I rather try to listen to what he's saying....That obsession with 'documentary evidence', BTW, is not Biblical. It stems rather from the judicial system of the Western Empire: >verba volant, scripta manent<. (It didn't hurt you if you had some written evidence in a court of law to 'cover' what you were witnessing: some written acts, some written contracts, a signed will, or something...). This legal view was absorbed into religion and it has gotten you where you are today. -- I'm not saying it is bad, or anti-Scriptural, ... I'm just saying it's un-Biblical and its roots are somewhere alse than You might expect or even want them to be."

    When you refer to a tradition that's been handed down, you're making a historical assertion. That assertion is subject to historical scrutiny. Christianity is a religion involving historical revelation, a religion involving historical figures such as Adam, Jesus Christ, and the apostles. If you want to make an objective case for Christianity or for Eastern Orthodoxy in particular, you need to address history, which involves documentation and reasoning that other people might dispute. When you make historical claims about the canon of scripture or what Eastern Orthodox supposedly have always believed, for example, we aren't limited to your assertions in judging the matter. We can scrutinize your historical claims in light of the historical record. When you make a claim about which books have been included in Bibles over the centuries, that's a historical claim. We can evaluate it as we would evaluate historical claims made about Alexander the Great, Tiberius Caesar, or George Washington. If you don't give us "documentary evidence" to support your claims about the canon, then on what basis are we supposed to accept the historical claims you're making?

    As Gene has explained, we've addressed the canon and Eastern Orthodoxy in previous threads. As we've documented, there is no one canon of scripture that can be shown to have always been held by Eastern Orthodoxy. There are disagreements about the canon among Eastern Orthodox to this day. And 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.

    I don't know how you're defining "documentary evidence", but the Bible frequently appeals to eyewitness testimony and other historical, evidential concepts. Much of the Bible is modeled after ancient historiography. See, for example, Richard Bauckham's Jesus And The Eyewitnesses (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2006). The church fathers you claim as your predecessors often appealed to eyewitness testimony, government documents, and other forms of objective evidence to support their claims. If you want to argue that the Biblical authors and church fathers appealed to such objective standards without doing so "obsessively", as we allegedly do, then you'll need to explain the difference. What's wrong with what we're doing?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Friend, the reasons for Canonicity in the ancient Churches are those that are. I asked You neither to agree with them, nor to disagree with them. 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. [That You don't agree with it is Your own business]. But You were acting as if we've done something wrong by contradicting ourselves, as it were -- or, at least, that was the impression that Your little article left me with. Or am I wrong here in assering that?

    I've also asked You how exactly Your own "higher" ground doesn't under-mine Your own opinions regarding the Canon: the reasons for rejecting books due to composite authorship [assumed by critics] will leave You without the Pentateuch, Isaiah, etc. The same for historical-geographical accuracy: extremely problematic for Daniel, as just one example. What You impute to LXX codices can be as safely predicated of NT codices as well. Same for Your argument against Wisdom: the very same argument can be safely predicated of Ecclesiates as well.

    I'm not asking You to make a case either for or against my religious faith; all that I ask of You is to be internally consistent, and to show me Your self-coherence. I also wanted You to show me where exactly did we behave internally inconsistent and self-incoherent.

    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).

    ReplyDelete
  17. As we've documented, there is no one canon of scripture that can be shown to have always been held by Eastern Orthodoxy. There are disagreements about the canon among Eastern Orthodox to this day.

    Friend, *PLEASE* have the God-given decency to read the comments that I've personally left there, in the combo-boxes of those very posts, and stop re-directing me to them, because

    -- I've already participated in them (as I've told You).

    -- and I've expressly asked You not to re-direct me to them, didn't I?

    The answer to Your statements is clear (and I already gave it there): Canons belong to Churches, since canonical is that which is publicly read or proclaimed in the Church. The Canons of the Churches are those that are: I bore witness for the Romanian and Greek Churches, just to illustrate what I mean by way of a clear example. Since Orthodox Churches throughout the world have the same readings from Scriptures ascribed to any specific day of the year, and since these readings shamelessly contain passasges from the >forbidden books<, there's Your answer right there.

    The Catholic and Monophysite Churches share in the same passion for those same books that Protestants just love to hate: they also read from them aloud in their churches. They also share the same view regarding their canonicity.

    The ONLY difference between ALL of these churches lies on III & IV Maccabees and IV Ezra not being officially accepted by all of them.

    Well ... this and the fact that the Ethiopians have this special uniqueness about everything: canon included.

    ReplyDelete
  18. 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. [That You don't agree with it is Your own business]. But You were acting as if we've done something wrong by contradicting ourselves, as it were -- or, at least, that was the impression that Your little article left me with. Or am I wrong here in assering that?

    You really don't pay any attention to what other people write, do you?

    1. You are, once again, interjecting yourself into the middle of an ongoing discussion with a particular person, namely Jay Dyer and a number of us here. Mr. Dyer has already gone done that road on his own.

    2. You're simply begging the question. Let's suppose for a moment that he needs only appeal to your (Lucian's) methodology? Why should *we* simply let him do that?

    3. Claims about what was "universally" accepted, et.al. are historical claims. Why should we simply accept your assertions? You've given us no reasons to do so.


    I've also asked You how exactly Your own "higher" ground doesn't under-mine Your own opinions regarding the Canon: the reasons for rejecting books due to composite authorship [assumed by critics] will leave You without the Pentateuch, Isaiah, etc. The same for historical-geographical accuracy: extremely problematic for Daniel, as just one example.


    Steve gave a lengthy answer. You have presented nothing, not a word in response. More on that in a moment.

    What You impute to LXX codices can be as safely predicated of NT codices as well.

    1. An assertion, not an argument.

    2. You're also imputing your criterion for canoncity to our own. Our criterion isn't dependent on what was allegedly "universally" read or published in "all" the churches. We need only be able to reasonably reconstruct the autograph. That's basic text crticism, and it's not *higher* criticism, that's *lower* criticism. So, this is a pseudoproblem generated by your own rule of faith projected onto ours, not our own rule of faith or anything controversial with respect to text criticism. You're asking us to be *internally* consistent, we're doing just that. If you think that Steve's argument is internally inconsistent, you need to demonstrate it.

    Same for Your argument against Wisdom: the very same argument can be safely predicated of Ecclesiates as well.

    Our theory of inspiration and canoncity does not extend to pious frauds. Apparently, yours does, or you'd argue otherwise. I'll ask that question again, does your theory of canoncity / authorship allow for pious frauds? If so, on what basis? Did the Ancient Church accept pious frauds into the canon? If so, where's the argument?

    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). This is yet another empty claim without supporting argumentation. If you feel Steve, in his detailed reply, did not answer your questions, it is up to you do *demonstrate it* not merely assert it.

    Friend, *PLEASE* have the God-given decency to read the comments that I've personally left there, Please, Friend, have the God-given decency to keep up with what we've said.

    in the combo-boxes of those very posts, and stop re-directing me to them

    This is a boldfaced lie. You left comments in one and only one of the three threads to which I referred you, this one: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/05/multiple-canons-of-eastern-orthodox.html

    Canons belong to Churches, since canonical is that which is publicly read or proclaimed in the Church. This is not the only criterion for canoncity. We've been over this before too.

    Further, supposing it is, you've given us no reason to accept it. Why should we accept this criterion, and why should we accept the Eastern Orthodox canon in particular?

    The Catholic and Monophysite Churches share in the same passion for those same books that Protestants just love to hate: they also read from them aloud in their churches. You've given us no supporting argument that this is a valid criterion for canoncity.

    They also share the same view regarding their canonicity.

    According to Orthodoxy, Monophysitism is a heresy that has been condemned. So, you accept the canon of heretics? This is cute. Dyer says we should not accept the canon of Christ hating Jews and you say the canon of heretics is acceptable.

    The ONLY difference between ALL of these churches lies on III & IV Maccabees and IV Ezra not being officially accepted by all of them.

    1. Actually, among the Ethiopians, Enoch is canonical too.

    2. Then in that case, the canon is not identical.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 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.

    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. :-\

    That’s demonstrably false. Our earliest MS witnesses to the LXX do not contain the same set of books.

    The *exact same* goes for the NT Canon as well, as You Yourself have so diligently observed. (See the previously made point).

    I know how conservative Bible scholars defend the books of the Protestant canon. I haven’t seen Dyer mount a comparable defense of the Apocrypha.

    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: because other like facts before or after them are mentioned, but they are not). --> 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?

    Why couldn’t a Saracen lodge the very same appeal for Islam? “As Muslims, we receive from our parents the faith mixed together with the mother's milk.”


    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 ?). I've already answered that in one of my previous comments; here it is again:

    When I ask someone of another religion in what exactly his religion consists, and he explains that to me, I do not try to contradict him about things about which I have no knowledge, but I rather try to listen to what he's saying. You, on the other hand, know anything that there's to know about anything --> I'm really glad for You!

    That is not the basis on which I reject the Apocrypha.

    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).

    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 ?).

    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. 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? (Wasn't he sacrificing something to God there? Wasn't God's Holy Angel with him all the time, "under-cover" ?).

    Do You get my point?

    Mind you, a mere anachronism doesn’t automatically falsify a document. Some anachronisms are scribal or editorial modernizations.

    That sort of an argument doesn't kinda go too well for Daniel. (See my third point here).

    There is also the argument from religious experience. That’s not something I use to convince an outsider. But it figures in my personal belief-system. The canonical books are believable in a way that the apocryphal books are not.

    Well ... *THIS* outsider know *EXACTLY* what You're talking about: I feel the exact same thing for the Holy Scriptures: whether OT or NT, Apocrypha or not. (No, I'm NOT saying this in jest, just to tease You,... I really mean it).

    ReplyDelete
  20. Gene, Your responses are beginning to excel the step of non-arguments and are becoming insulting. (As Your little post that I linked at).

    Canon means rule. To be canonical means to be 'regular' or approved. (Approval is not given in secret). It is an approval that that book is apt to be read without any fear to the faithful and that they should be instructed from it: Fit for teaching form it, fit from learning from it ... not just in particular, like non-canonical non-heretical books, but actually to be officially proclaimed and read in the Church for the instruction and edification of the faithful believers. Etc. (What? We don't know the meanings -etymological even- of the words here !?). :-\

    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. The only guy who's OK is Isihie, about whom we know next to nothing ... but what if we were to actually know something about him? >:) ;-)

    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. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  21. An assertion, not an argument

    If I were to answer back to You in the same vein that You seem to answer me, I would have to say that You're a liar Yourself.

    Is it "an assertion, not an argument" that we possess an entire plethora of NT codices that do not overlap with eachother, sometimes even with extremely signifficant and easily-manipulable [for those that have an axe to grind] textual differences among them?

    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?

    ReplyDelete
  22. This is a boldfaced lie. You left comments in one and only one of the three threads

    friend, I'm neither bold, nor a liar. Before calling anyone like that (which, BTW, is not permissible under the rules of common sense -- which You already broke in Your ill post of ill memory) I suggest You re-read them and see that they're interlinked. Responding to one also topuched upon issues raised in the other ones. -- All of which were beside the point and ill-intended, without any curiosity whatseoever about learning or finding out anything true or substantial about us or our faith ... which is OK, after all, I guess ... :-( :-\

    ReplyDelete
  23. Gene, Your responses are beginning to excel the step of non-arguments and are becoming insulting. (As Your little post that I linked at).

    1. If that's the case, then perhaps it's because you deserve it. Why? You've provided strings of question-begging statements - and each of us has demonstrated that to you - and you behave the same way. We're not the problem here.

    2. You've not demonstrated *how* any of the three of us have provided nonanswers. You've merely made the claim. Here's a novel idea, try demonstrating your assertions.

    Canon means rule. To be canonical means to be 'regular' or approved. (Approval means not given in secret). It is an approval that that book is apt to be read without any fear to the faithful and that they should be instructed from it: Fit for teaching form it, fit from learning from it ... not just in particular, like non-canonical non-heretical books, but actually to be officially proclaimed and read in the Church for the instruction and edification of the faithful believers. Etc. (What? We don't know the meanings -etymological even- of the words here !?). :-\

    1. This says nothing about the criterion for canonicity, eg. why these books are fit for teaching and included in the canon.

    2. According to Jerome, to whom Orthodox apologists on this blog have appealed in the past, that which is canonical and that which can be read for instruction and edification are not the same thing.

    "As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two Volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church."

    This is not at all uncommon among the Fathers, including those included in your Holy Tradition. For example, none other than John of Damascus:

    But as a matter of fact, John of Damascus did accept the Hebrew canon:

    "104 Observe, further, that there are two and twenty books of the Old Testament, one for each letter of the Hebrew tongue. For there are twenty-two letters of which five are double, and so they come to be twenty-seven...And thus the number of the books in this way is twenty-two, but is found to be twenty-seven because of the double character of five. For Ruth is joined on to Judges, and the Hebrews count them one book: the first and second books of Kings are counted one: and so are the third and fourth books of Kings: and also the frirst and second of Paraleipomena: and the first and second of Esdra. In this way, then, the books are collected together in four Pentateuchs and two others remain over, to form thus the canonical books. Five of them are of the Law, viz. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. This which is the code of the Law, constitutes the first Pentateuch. Then comes another Pentateuch, the so-called Grapheia, or as they are called by some, the Hagiographa, which are the following: Jesus the Son of Nave, Judges along with Ruth, first and second Kings, which are one book, third and fourth Kings, which are one book, and the two books of the Paraleipomena which are one book. This is the second Pentateuch. The third Pentateuch is the books in verse, viz. Job, Psalms, Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes of Solomon and the Song of Songs of Solomon. The fourth Pentateuch is the Prophetical books, viz the twelve prophets constituting one book, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel. Then come the two books of Esdra made into one, and Esther.

    There are also the Panaretus, that is the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Jesus, which was published in Hebrew by the father of Sirach, and afterwards translated into Greek by his grandson, Jesus, the son of Sirach. These are virtuous and noble, but are not counted nor were they placed in the ark.

    (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-NiceneFathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), Series Two, Volume IX, John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Chapter XVII)."

    http://www.christiantruth.com/Apocryphaendnotes3.html

    3. Claims about what was "universally" and "always" accepted by "all" are historical claims. Yet you provide no documentation for those claims. I'll defer to Steve, yet again, since you didn't bother to interact with him before:

    i) If you study early church history you will see that 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. So your own canon comes up short when we measure it by your own yardstick.

    ii) On the other hand, you reject the Palestinian canon, although that was the canon “universally read, preached, and received in the synagogue throughout 2nd temple Judaism.” So you don’t apply your own yardstick to the OT canon.

    4. Surely authorship is a criterion for canonicity. Steve has touched on this as have I. Who wrote Wisdom of Solomon? Please provide an argument.

    5. Here's the bottom line, Lvca, why should we accept the Eastern Orthodox canon, whatever its content? Why should we accept the authority of the Eastern Orthodox Church?

    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. The only guy who's OK is Isihie, about whom we know next to nothing ... but what if we were to actually know something about him? >:) ;-)

    1. Earlier, you werre advocating the inclusion of Monophysite churches to add weight to your own words, yet here you talk about problems with these due to these persons' heretical beliefs.

    2. To say that there are problems with what these say about the canon's content due to their theological beliefs is largely an exercise in the genetic fallacy.

    3. Notice, now you're entering into the realm of documenting your claims. But earlier you said that that was "unbiblical."

    So, I take it what you're alluding to here is from your past history like this:

    4. In the past, you've said, "THE MIND OF THE CHURCH IS THE MIND OF THE ENTIRE CHURCH, TAKEN AS A WHOLE."

    This is problematic for a number of reasons:

    1. How can we know the Eastern Orthodox Church is, indeed, the one true Church?

    2. How can we verify "the mind of the entire church?" Is this some lowest common denominator of what all Orthodox Christians believe, regardless of their ecclesiastical affiliation or background? If so, where can we find their thoughts documented?

    3. Every appeal to the "the mind of the entire church" is, in fact, an appeal to the minds of individual churchmen.

    4. So, when these churchmen conflict, how can we verify which ones are correct or not? Where are the rules for adjudicating between conflicting statements? In other words, how do we adjudicate between true and false tradition? Remember, Dyer is trying to claim that the Orthodox rule of faith (by way of his argument regarding the canon) confers some sort of epistemic superiority to the Protestant rule of faith. It is somehow conferring certainty in a way that renders our rule of faith inferior.

    ALL the ancient Churches share the same positive view towards the books you call Apocrypha, and read and proclaim and instruct from them publicly and shamelessly.

    You keep repeating this. So what? How is this an argument for their canonicity? Once again, to appeal to "the Church/es" is a circular appeal. You're simply taking your rule of faith for granted. You can be true to tradition and tradition not be true.

    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! ;-) ]

    1. I take it binary logic escapes you. Your canons are not the same if they vary, and, by your own admission they vary.

    What you're doing is repeating your "always, everywhere, read by all" criterion, but Jason pointed this out to you in one of the threads linked above.. He wrote, with respect to your continued statements about what constitutes canoncity:

    No, that's not what "canonical means" in this context. I've cited sources who were discussing the canon in the sense of which books are scripture. That's why some of the sources I've discussed in this thread and the other threads on the canon have distinguished between that which is canonical and that which is read in churches. You can't ignore the contexts that these sources set for their own comments and redefine that context as "what is read publicly in Church". You're not interacting with what I and my sources were addressing.

    and...

    When you refer to “everywhere, always, and by all”, are you claiming that the canon you’re referring to has been accepted in such a manner? If so, then document that claim. Document how you know how to define “everywhere, always, and by all”, and document that the canon in question meets that standard. And on what basis do you refer to a church as accepting a canon if members of that church, including some of its leaders, reject it? If the “general” agreement you refer to doesn’t prevent some Eastern Orthodox from accepting a shorter canon instead, then why should we consider such an unrequired longer canon the position of the church in question? You made no reference to “general” acceptance in your earlier post. That’s a qualifier you’ve added since then. Are you saying that such “general” acceptance of some books proves that the canonicity of those books is part of the Eastern Orthodox faith? Should we conclude, then, that the Eastern Orthodox who follow a shorter canon are rejecting the Eastern Orthodox faith? If so, then why are such people not being disciplined, and why don’t they realize that they’re rejecting the faith? Don’t these people understand Eastern Orthodoxy? Do they define Tradition differently than you do?

    In addition, both Steve and I have pointed out that your statements are demonstrably false. Steve pointed you to Metzger who outlines the controversies.

    Where can we find your responses? Don't tell us we are providing "nonarguments" when we've provided several and you've not yet responded.

    If I were to answer back to You in the same vein that You seem to answer me, I would have to say that You're a liar Yourself.

    Except where I accuse you of duplicity, I actually demonstrate it.

    Is it "an assertion, not an argument" that we possess an entire plethora of NT codices that do not overlap with each other, sometimes even with extremely signifficant and easily-manipulable [for those that have an axe to grind] textual differences among them? 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?

    1. For starters, these are statements you haven't bothered to document to show us you have any knowledge of the material. We might agree, but until you provide documentation, these are mere assertions.

    2. You can't seem to follow your own arguments. You're employing these facts as somehow undermining our position. Yet you don't demonstrate how this is true.

    **That's what makes this claim an assertion not an argument.**

    3. Once again, this isn't a problem for us, it's a problem for your rule of faith. Our criterion isn't completely dependent on what was allegedly "universally" read or published in "all" the churches and our rule of faith is at home interacting with text criticism. We need only be able to reasonably reconstruct the autograph. That's basic text crticism, and it's not *higher* criticism, that's *lower* criticism. So, this is a pseudoproblem generated by your own rule of faith projected onto ours, not our own rule of faith or anything controversial with respect to text criticism. You're asking us to be *internally* consistent, we're doing just that. If you think that Steve's argument is internally inconsistent, you need to demonstrate it.

    4. “No two Septuagint codices contain the same apocrypha, and no uniform Septuagint ‘Bible’ was ever the subject of discussion in the patristic church. In view of these facts the Septuagint codices appear to have been originally intended more as service books than as a defined and normative canon of scripture…There is also no evidence that the ante-Nicene church received or adopted a Septuagint canon,” E. Ellis, The Old Testament in Early Christianity: Canon and Interpretation in Light of Modern Research (Baker 1992), 34-35.

    Ergo, if you're going to argue for the inclusion of the Apocrypha, you need to identify the Apocrypha, and you need to show us how one can identify the text of the Apocrypha. Which text of the Apocrypha represents the authentic, canonical text?

    5. Steve answered all 3 of your questions in detail and, once again, we have made our case for the canon of Scripture in the archives.

    Your reply: You've not answered them. You never, not one time, demonstrated your case. Instead, you try to point to alleged difficulties in our position without bothering to demonstrate how these are difficulties. And, where we've already done that work - you're ignoring it. You've not held up your own burden of proof when asked and that, Lvka, makes you a dishonest opponent.

    Before calling anyone like that (which, BTW, is not permissible under the rules of common sense -- which You already broke in Your ill post of ill memory) I suggest You re-read them and see that they're interlinked. Responding to one also topuched upon issues raised in the other ones. -- All of which were beside the point and ill-intended, without any curiosity whatseoever about learning or finding out anything true or substantial about us or our faith ... which is OK, after all, I guess ... :-( :-\

    Once again, you can't keep track of your own comments, so I'll have to do it for you. You wrote:

    I've had a discussion with you guys over here about the Canon ages ago, and I wasn't pleased then (as I am now) at finding myself to be left speaking alone.

    Now, Lvka/Lucian, unless you are also identical with the blogger known as "Orthodox" you did not participate in two of those discussions. The fact that Jason linked to previous discussions does not say anything about your participation in them. Your name is remarkably absent from those comboxes and the text in them. It is present in one and only one.

    Why don't you try interacting with what is stated, for example, Steve's lengthy post above instead of engaging in these diversionary tactics? We've asked you a number of questions and you've given us no answers.

    ReplyDelete
  24. LVKA wrote:

    "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."

    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?

    ReplyDelete
  25. I assume You left Your comment before having the chance to read my responses in which I've interacted which Steve and Jason.

    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.

    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.

    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:

    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? :-|

    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.

    And no, I'm not Orthodox, I'm Lucian (as you Yourself discovered)

    ReplyDelete
  26. 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! :D :p >:)

    ReplyDelete
  27. Jason,

    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.

    No heretical book has EVER made it into ANY Canon: OT or 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].

    ReplyDelete
  28. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  29. oh, yeah, and ... Jason!

    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?)

    ReplyDelete
  30. Jason, ... "most of them" ?

    ZER0 = fourteen? I don't get it.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Why should we accept it?

    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? :-|

    ReplyDelete
  32. LVKA SAID:

    “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.”

    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.

    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.”

    For Dyer is attempting to persuade Protestants to convert to Orthodoxy. As such, he needs to give us reasons to agree with him.

    “The same for historical-geographical accuracy: extremely problematic for Daniel, as just one example.”

    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.

    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.

    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?

    “Same for Your argument against Wisdom: the very same argument can be safely predicated of Ecclesiates as well.”

    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.

    ii) I know how conservative scholars like Archer and Garrett defend Ecclesiastes. Where is your parallel argument in defense of Wisdom?

    iii) Once again, tearing down Ecclesiastes does nothing to build up Wisdom.

    “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).”

    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.

    “Canons belong to Churches, since canonical is that which is publicly read or proclaimed in the Church.”

    Statements like these merely beg the question in favor of Orthodox ecclesiology.

    “I bore witness for the Romanian and Greek Churches.”

    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.

    [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.

    “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. :-\”

    i) No, that’s precisely the polar opposite of your original point. This is what you initially said:

    ““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.”

    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.

    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.

    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.

    [I said] That’s demonstrably false. Our earliest MS witnesses to the LXX do not contain the same set of books.

    “The *exact same* goes for the NT Canon as well, as You Yourself have so diligently observed. (See the previously made point).”

    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:

    “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.”

    This claim is demonstrably false. And I’ve documented its falsity in response to Dyer.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Your philosophy is: if you can’t win, then everyone else should lose.

    iv) My edition of Scripture was never predicted on the textual identity of every Greek and Hebrew MS. That’s your yardstick, not mine.

    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.

    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.

    v) Likewise, my canon of Scripture was never predicated on the identity of every codex.

    “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.”

    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.

    “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?”

    I don’t need to consult a tertiary source like Tektonics to see how conservative scholars defend Daniel.

    “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 ?).”

    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.

    [I said] That is not the basis on which I reject the Apocrypha.

    “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).”

    Either you’re obtuse or you’re obfuscating. You are confounding two distinct issues:

    a) Do I accept or reject X?

    b) Do I accept or reject X *on the same basis* that you accept or reject X?

    Your attempted counterexamples go to (a) rather than (b). You have not begun to show that my criteria are inconsistent.

    In fact, I specifically explained to you how my criteria differ from the criteria of Wellhausen or the secular critics of Isaiah.

    “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 ?).”

    I reject the inspiration and canonicity of Macabees for the sorts of reasons given in Beckwith, deSilva, et al.

    “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.”

    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.

    “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?”

    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.

    “That sort of an argument doesn't kinda go too well for Daniel.”

    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?

    “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.”

    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.

    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.

    “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.”

    Which, if true, would betray a lack of critical judgment.

    “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.”

    In other words, your canon is the same…except when it isn’t the same.

    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?

    “Is it ‘an assertion, not an argument’ that we possess an entire plethora of NT codices that do not overlap with eachother.”

    Actually, they do overlap to a high degree. But they don’t exactly coincide.

    “Sometimes even with extremely signifficant and easily-manipulable [for those that have an axe to grind] textual differences among them?”

    Now you’re channeling some of the sensationalistic claims of Bart Ehrman. There are many books and book reviews which shred his sensationalist claims.

    “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?”

    As I’ve repeatedly explained in relation to Dyer, that’s a problem for the Orthodox canon, not for my canon.

    Trying to poke holes in my canon, even if that exercise were successful, does nothing to plug the leaks in your own canon.

    “You asked me about our Canon, and I've responded to You that YES, VIRGINIA,we *DO* have a Canon.”

    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.

    “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. “

    No, they don’t share the same canon—as you yourself admit, when we pin you to the wall.

    “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.”

    “You see, both canons varied, in the course of time, between certain limits.”

    This is diametrically opposed to what you originally said. Here is your initial claim:

    “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.”

    Now, however, you suddenly abandon your Vincentian yardstick for “slow-paced convergent evolution.” “Varied, in the source of time, between certain limits.”

    You couldn’t be more double-tongued if you were the serpent in the Garden.

    “For You, uncanonical is the same as heretical.”

    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.

    “The ONLY thing that I want You to accept is that WE *do* have a Canon.”

    You have a canon in the same sense that Solomon had a wife.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    ReplyDelete
  33. LVKA said:

    "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!"

    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.

    You write:

    "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."

    Yet, you go on to write:

    "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."

    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?

    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.

    You write:

    "For You, uncanonical is the same as heretical"

    No, that's not what I've argued, and it's not what I believe.

    You write:

    "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."

    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.

    You write:

    "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?"

    Who's denied that Eastern Orthodox have a canon in the sense of agreeing about some 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.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Steve,

    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)

    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!" :-?

    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? ).

    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?

    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.

    As for Daniel, he DOES have GRAVE problems in terms of historical-geographical accuracy. (Augmenting the other side does not annul the first one).

    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 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).

    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".

    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!".

    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? :-\

    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.

    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 ...

    ... 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).

    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! >:)

    ReplyDelete
  35. Oh yeah, and BTW, guys,

    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 ...

    As Solomon said: he who prepares another's grave, only ends up falling himself in it.

    And as our crucified and rejected Teacher once said: a kingdom divided against itself shall soon perish.

    ReplyDelete
  36. 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:

    How does one know which Fathers are right and wrong? Where can we find the list of rules by which to adjudicate conflicts?

    1. I also quoted John of Damascus. He denies your canon.

    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.

    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.

    Athanasius omitted Esther but agreed with Cyril otherwise, and he included Baruch.

    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.

    4. The fact that the Fathers quote from the Apocrypha doesn't commit them to your view of the canon.


    You asked me about our Canon, and I've responded to You that YES, VIRGINIA,we *DO* have a Canon.


    No, you responded that you have canon s. They are alike except where they're not.

    For You, uncanonical is the same as heretical, for us, there's a heaven-to-earth difference.,

    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.

    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.

    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.

    You, Lvka, have yet to answer this question:

    Does your theory of inspiration extend to pious frauds? Please explain your answer.

    You have said in THIS as well as OTHER posts on this very blog that Orthodoxy doesn't have a Canon.

    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.


    As for Daniel, he DOES have GRAVE problems in terms of historical-geographical accuracy.


    Now that you've asserted this, you need to demonstrate, it. Steve stated to you:

    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?

    As Steve pointed out, critics typically state that Daniel is too accurate, not that it is inaccurate.

    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.

    Oh, well, if it's "objectivity" that's an issue, how exactly are you being more objective?

    Their case against Wisdom based on the use of I-don't-know-what Greek philosophy

    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.

    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.

    Finally, the Jews did not consider Wisdom canonical; they did accept Ecclesiastes.

    So, your parallel is utterly disanalogous. There is no "inconsistency" here at all, except in your own deluded thinking.

    And you've not made a case yet for the canonicity of a single book of the Apocrypha. Go ahead, try Tobit.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Jason has stated clearly elsewhere that he has no problem with such an idea.

    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 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. :-| 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].

    I will also reiterate here my little equation:

    FOURTEEN = ZERO. --> That's the Protestant equation.

    As before: The Slavs have a certain IV Ezra in their Canon and the Orthodox III and IV Maccabees.

    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).

    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.

    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...)

    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 ? :-\

    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.

    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.

    And there's no point denying that:

    -- Baruch, Epistle, Bel and Dragon, Susana, Song of Three Children, Prayer of Azariah were never excluded from any lists.
    -- many lists exclude Esther entire
    -- in any case, whether "in" or "out", Esther is never devoid of its "addtions".

    ReplyDelete
  38. LVKA wrote:

    "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."

    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.

    You write:

    "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."

    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.

    You write:

    "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..."

    How do you know what the apostles, church fathers, and other historical sources believed without using grammatical-historical interpretation of documents?

    You write:

    "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 ?"

    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.

    You write:

    "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."

    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.

    You write:

    "Baruch, Epistle, Bel and Dragon, Susana, Song of Three Children, Prayer of Azariah were never excluded from any lists."

    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 did include them.

    You write:

    "many lists exclude Esther entire"

    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?

    ReplyDelete
  39. "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."

    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.

    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.

    3. By the way, you're arguing now just like a KJVOnlyist, only instead of the KJV, you're arguing for the LXX.

    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.

    5. When Paul quotes from the LXX, does he quote from the Apocrypha? If you think he does, by all means show us where.


    "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..."


    1. So, what's your alternative method of interpreting the text? If you have an alternative, present it.

    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.

    "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 ?"

    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.

    "Baruch, Epistle, Bel and Dragon, Susana, Song of Three Children, Prayer of Azariah were never excluded from any lists."

    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.

    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.

    Now, you're only begging the question for Orthodoxy, yet again.

    From my perspective, the Orthodox have butchered the Word of God by adding to it. That is quite perverse.

    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. 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.

    "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)

    ReplyDelete
  40. Do you believe Christ lived into his 50's like Irenaeus said? No.

    LOL :-) You act as if there's a reason NOT to. (And there's none).

    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.

    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)

    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 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).

    The reason why I still embrace this view is -besides its universaly acceptance- the wise words befitting a very wise King:

    Wisdom 4:8
     For honourable age is not that which standeth in length of time, nor that is measured by number of years. 9  But wisdom is the gray hair unto men, and an unspotted life is old age
    .

    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 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.

    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! :-)

    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).

    And Your [obvious] observations about Judaism by and large do not change the truth or or the veracity of my affirmations regarding the Talmud.

    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.

    ReplyDelete
  41. 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).

    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 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).

    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

    1. So, what's your alternative method of interpreting the text? If you have an alternative, present it
    .

    Glad to. Here it is. Hope You will enjoy it every bit as much as I did.

    ReplyDelete
  42. LVKA SAID:

    “Steve, __I'm not ‘making the case for Orthodoxy’ here.”

    Yes, and it shows.

    “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)”

    To the contrary, my replies to your statements are far more specific and detailed than your vague, evasive, repetitive replies to my statements.

    “When I said that we *DO* get Orthodoxy mixed together with our mother's milk: that's perfectly true.”

    I never said it wasn’t, now did I? Rather, I said a Muslim could make the identical claim.

    “(Do You see me debate You the way You debate me?).”

    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.

    “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!’ :-?”

    There are many times when an opponent will resist the damning implications of his own position.

    “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? )”

    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.

    “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?”

    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.

    “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.”

    I’ve already made a case for my position on the canon. Try my 200pp reply to Blosser, for starters.

    “As for Daniel, he DOES have GRAVE problems in terms of historical-geographical accuracy. (Augmenting the other side does not annul the first one).”

    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.

    “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.”

    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.

    “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).”

    Your meager assertion that they are begging the question is itself a question-begging assertion on your part.

    “Not to mention that when begin to actually attack the Apocrypha, sometimes you just want to yell at the guy:”

    This is what passes for a reasoned argument on your part? 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.”

    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.

    “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).”

    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.

    “Have You guys watched ‘Jerry Maguire’?”

    That’s your idea of a reasoned argument? That’s how you argue for the Orthodox canon?

    “Just substitute the word ‘money’ with ‘CONSISTENCY’. __You attacked us using weapons which not only that ‘can’, but actually *do* turn against Yoursleves.”

    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.

    “AS FOR ME, ... me using analogies, similarities, and parallelisms against You,”

    Except that you never roll up your sleeves and actually detail your alleged analogies, similarities, and parallels. Instead, you merely posit their existence.

    “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. :-|”

    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.

    “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!”

    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.

    “Your anachronistic approach [which, apart from being self-mutilating for Your own views, betrays a certain unhealthy inclination for double standards also].”

    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.

    “Also: the LXX is also Jewish.”

    I made the same point in response to Dyer. You’re way behind the curve.

    “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.”

    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.

    “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...)”

    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.

    “Glad to. Here it is. Hope You will enjoy it every bit as much as I did.”

    The position of Peter Enns has come under sustained attack by Carson, Beale, and Helm. Are you planning to interact with their critique?

    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.

    If, on the other hand, you continue to dish out your warmed over sophistries and sophomoric nit-witticisms, you’ll be deleted.

    ReplyDelete
  43. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  44. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete

  45. 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).


    1. Did Solomon write this? Where's the argument?

    2. Messianic prophecy? Where pray, tell, does the New Testament cite Wisdom?

    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.

    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.

    I could quote other examples from Winston’s commentary on this passage to underscore the same point.

    In other words, what makes it "Messianic," Lvka, is its literary dependence on Isaiah, not its own inspiration.

    You act as if there's a reason NOT to. (And there's none).

    Really? Did I say that?

    Yet you gave a reason So, there's not a reason...unless there's a reason.

    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?

    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. Now you're advertising your ignorance of what Iranaeus actually wrote. Here's the text in translation:

    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."

    "...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..."

    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.

    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

    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.

    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).

    You've now changed your argument yet again. Here's what you originally stated

    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."

    You're making this appeal in order to infer that the LXX canon is Scripture over and against the MT.

    But this is a fallacious appeal for the reasons I listed. You've done nothing to overturn those reasons.

    And here's another one: The LXX is a translation. A translation of a Hebrew exemplar.

    A translation is only a good translation if it accurately renders the sense of the original exemplar.

    Orthodoxy traditionally appeals to the LXX as their canonical edition of the OT.

    But there were three different editions of the LXX in play in major centers of Orthodoxy.

    So which edition of the LXX is the canonical edition?


    And Your [obvious] observations about Judaism by and large do not change the truth or or the veracity of my affirmations regarding the Talmud.


    When have the Jews ever considered Sirah canonical? When you can show this, you'll have proven your assertion.

    Antiochians were more interested in getting a typological reading of the text

    The GHM can and does read the text typologically, when the text supports it.

    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.

    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 iconography.

    We've been over Antiochene Exegesis here:

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2005/08/antiochene-exegesis.html

    I look forward to your review.

    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.

    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.


    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


    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.

    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.


    LOL! :-) And this coming from you guys, who wrote in a more recent post on this very blog:

    the famous words of Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men, they "can't handle the truth!"

    :-) Seriously now ... :-)


    Hmm, here's the context of what Dustin said:

    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!"


    Here's what you wrote:

    “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".

    There's no comparison here. Dustin drew a literary comparison, you are trying to argue for the Orthodox canon...by punting back to us.

    Oh dear friend and great defender of knightly and Victorian values, ... why don't You then begin at this little post over here ? :-)

    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.

    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.

    ReplyDelete
  46. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Still, I'm curious about this:

    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. :-?

    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.

    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).

    ReplyDelete
  48. As regards Antioch and Alexandria: the first is the capital of Syria, the other the "homeland" of Philo.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    The Alexandrians (where mass-monasticism began, or -better said-: erupted!) were giving all these deeply mystical spiritual interpretations ... whereas the Arabs sought prophecies as if armed with a mystical "metal-detector".

    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 ... :-\

    ReplyDelete