Peace to all who participated.

Ehrman/Spong fans: In future threads, you’re going to get a lot more serious response from me. This isn’t an episode of “Fringe.”

Of course it is one thing to say that a certain reading has scholarly merit, and another to say that it is permitted by the freedom due to everyone as readers. Few churches are interested in kicking members out over issues of interpretation, though these often come up as factional markers, during struggles for power and resources within a religious group.

Well you could…but then you would have no way of saying that this canon is any better than some other. Somebody else might just accept on faith the Book of Mormon.

One significance of the Septuagint is that it makes explicit “a virgin shall conceive…” when the Hebrew might be more sensibly interpreted as “a young woman shall conceive…” Of course one could accept the Jewish reading of Isaiah, and accept Matthew’s gloss for reasons other than strict textual accuracy.

Why is speaking Greek such an impossiblity. In the 4th century BC, Alexander the Great conquered much of what was the Eastern Roman empire during the time of Christ and the Apostles. Hellenistic Judaims was the incorporation of the Jewish faith within the context of Greek language and culture. In fact, given that St. Paul was from Tarsus, some 50-100 miles or so west of Antioch would have been part of Hellenistic Judaism, and Hellenistic Judaism was the reason for the LXX translation.

In addition, the NT intself supports Hebrew, Latin and Greek being spoken in Jerusalem during Christ’s passion (c.f. Jn 19:21). I don’t think any Catholic here is making a Vulgate-ism and LXX-ism claim.

The evidence does support the LXX. For example, the Codices of the 4th century Church point to the LXX. The Codex Vaticanus is from the mid 4th century and contains all of the OT books of the LXX, except Gen 1:1-46 is missing, some verses of 2 Samuel are missing, about 30 Psalms are missing and 1 and 2 Macabees are not present. Still, it represents a great witness to the early form of the LXX. The Codex Sinaiticus is another LXX source that is also from the mid-4th century and is close to the same textual style as the Codex Vaticanus.

With respect to St. Jerome and the Vulgate translation [which did become the authoritative text for the Catholic Church for the next 1,000 years or so], he did use extant Hebrew Text of his time to do his OT translation. However, he was called out on the carpet for doing so and his original Translation met much resistance including St. Augustine, who asserted that Jerome’s translation from the Hebrew was “an innovation against the Church’s use of the LXX. In other words, Jerome’s translation was the first to use the Hebrew text extensively as all the Old Latin texts drew from the LXX. While Jerome personally favored the shorter canon (he was in the minority along with Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianazus, Rufinius, and Epiphanius who favored the shorter canon) that found its way into the Masoretic texts, which Protestants adopted, St. Jerome felt bound by the Tradition of the Church and thus included the 7 Deuterocanonicals in his translation. In fact, later in his life, he actually defended the inclusion of the 7 Deuterocanonicals by writing a treatise against Rufinius.

So, again the evidence supports the LXX version being the OT of the early Church and also supports the 7 Dueterocanonicals.

Regards

Just a few comments on some quotes:

“How does a Protestant who deems church councils to be the instruments of an apostate church defend their own idea of canon?”

Such a de-historicized view of the development of the canon(s) seems untenable to me. The alternative is hopeless relativism: “the canon is simply what I say it is.” (More on this in a moment.)

“it appears Tobit and Wisdom were in the LXX”

“the Septuagint contained the deuterocanonicals”

Note that our conception of “in” and “contained” have the idea of a codex (bound book) in view. This was not a reality until the second century at the earliest and more likely not until the fourth century, in terms of its wider use. When one needs to compile a book called “Bible” THEN canonicity becomes crucial; the compiler is forced to decide what will be included or excluded. The other canonical moment is when one must undertake a translation of scripture, qv. Jerome and Luther.

“Jesus and the apostles probably used the Septuagent [sic].”

See above. And has others have pointed out, thinking that Jesus and his apostles were fluent in Greek is really an unimaginable stretch. Certainly though, the gospel writers and Paul knew the Septuagint because they quote from it. I don’t know if this is necessarily the case here, but such comments are often part of a broader rhetoric of “Vugate-only-ism” or “Septuagint-only-ism” (sort of second-cousins to KJV-only-ism).

“Barton does point out that “authoritative texts” were viewed on a sliding scale”

“But the “books” were being read before the Council. The Word of God was being discerned along the way in the churches as they were being read and lived out.”

I think both these statements are helpful. As our buddy L. Wittgenstein pointed out, “meaning is use.” Certainly it’s difficult to argue that Nahum (much less II Maccabees) is just as important to the life of the church as is the Gospel According to John. Your canon is essentially what you hear read/preached from on Sunday. If you belong to a church that does not use a lectionary, I’ll bet your canon is quite small indeed–look through some old church bulletins and see for yourself. And even if your church does use a lectionary, your canon, while broader, is significantly limited by the boundaries a lectionary draws. (There’s a popular fallacy floating around that says the RC lectionary contains the entire Bible–only about 33% of the OT in actuality.)

Thanks iM for virtually calling out the “Council of Jamnia/Yavneh” for what it is: hokum. I agree with your comments on Ehrman–though I admit I was saddened by your support for Witherington–to me they both seem like they’re cut from the same cloth in terms of their pursuit of publicity. In my view, neither draws a pretty picture for biblical scholarship.

God bless,
Martin

He claims that christianity is a religion of the book. Even thou I find his research quite interesting and respect it as a possibility; I don’t agree in his starting point, thus making perfectly understandable why he’s an apostate.

I believe christianity is not a religion and less that is based on a book.

As always I think many will misunderstand my words, but forgive me if I feel compelled to throw a wider perspective that is uncomfortable for traditional views.

Many christian faith statements begins with…

The Bible is the word of God, and is inerrant and infallible (some add in the original texts) and rule of faith and practice (the statement may vary depending on any given religious confession).

This statement gives people like Ehrman a valid point to doubt about everything we believe on ’cause biased or not, he has done a lot of research in the subject of the canon; and liked or not, some of his claims are supported by another well respected christian scholars. (FF.Bruce, Robert Banks to name a few.)

As Ehrman rightly states, we don’t have the originals, only copies of copies of copies. Where Ehrman misses everything is in his initial statement…

WARNING: Here comes a shocker…

Christianity is a faith not based on a book but in Christ, the living Word of God!!!

The Bible (scriptures and canon) is ONE MORE medium that God has used to reveal his word throughout the ages.(The others are prophets, nature, etc).

It’s true that the real meaning of the word of God cannot be understand by a simple reading of the text; if that was possible then all people (specially theology scholars) ought to be devoted, fruit bearing, christians. That’s why we need the Spirit of God, to GUIDE US TO ALL TRUTH. It’s not surprising to listen Jesus say that God obscured his WORD from the wise and intellectual (theology scholars?), but revealed to those who’re as children. Paul dismissed the idea that you can achieve a full revelation of the WORD OF GOD only by intellectual means.

In the OT God promised that he will write his word in our hearts. That speaks of the indwelling word of God (Jesus himself) living in every christian. That’s why Jesus said that there will be no need of teacher cause the living word of God will teach us from within.

Many religious people in our days still believe what the pharisees and greek philosophers used to believed; that knowledge is the key to a mans transformation.That knowledge was found in the scriptures or philosophy.

The bible tells us that knowledge of THE TRUTH (as in Jesus being the way, the truth, and the life) is the beginning of a process (known as sanctification) of transformation. HE AND ONLY HE is Gods revealed truth to humanity.

The book may contain some errors (even the most conservative scholars admit minor errors). But the WORD OF GOD (Jesus Christ revealed trough the Holly Spirit) is still inerrant and infallible.

If God warned us against adding or subtracting a coma from the scriptures, was because he knew that this was possible (and some did it, it will be naive to think that not).

I still believe the Bible is the most valuable resource we have to BEGIN our search and understanding of the WORD OF GOD. But it’s not THE ONLY one and to give the book attributes that only can be given to our Lord is idolatry and could lead some to legalism, some to heresy and others to apostasy.

The tree is known by its fruit… Just do a little history check on the institutional church life and you’ll see what I mean. Even know, the demise of religious “christianity” is rooted in a false foundation.

Have ears to hear?

PEACE & LOVE!