Much of the biblical scholarly world has been buzzing since Feb. 1, when a New Testament professor made a claim during a debate that was news to most everyone who heard it — a first-century fragment of Mark’s Gospel may have been found.
It would be the earliest-known fragment of the New Testament, placing it in the very century of Christ and the apostles.
The claim by Dallas Theological Seminary’s Daniel B. Wallace took place during a debate with University of North Carolina professor Bart Ehrman, an author whose popular books claim the New Testament cannot be trusted because the original manuscripts aren’t in existence.
[blockquote] “…an author whose popular books claim the New Testament cannot be trusted because the original manuscripts aren’t in existence.” [/blockquote]
A claim only the uneducated and ignorant would make.
I regret the need to express it so bluntly, but really, this sort of argument is just snake-oil. We do not have the original manuscripts of ANY ancient document. In fact, for the vast majority of ancient documents, we do not have a copy made within several hundred years of the original. Yet the authenticity of these documents is accepted without question by historians. By contrast, we have far older copies of the New Testament scriptures, and far more of them, than we for any other ancient document. It would be fair to say that the Bible is *hundreds of times* better attested than any other ancient work.
For example:
* Julius Caesar’s works – we have less than a dozen copies, the oldest of which was made about 1,000 years after Caesar wrote them.
* The Histories of Herodotus – we have less than 10 copies, the oldest of which was made more than 1200 years after Herodotus wrote them.
* The plays of Euripides – we have less than 10 copies, the oldest of which was made about 1500 years after Euripides wrote the plays.
Yet historians do not query the authenticity and historicity of each of these works.
By contrast, we have many thousands of copies of the New Testament. Our oldest complete copy of all 29 books dates back to about 200 years after they were all written, and copies of individual books are even older. For example, the oldest complete copy of the Gospel of John was made only about 40 years after John wrote it! The reason for this incredible number of old manuscripts is simple – people wanted the scriptures, even ‘common’ people hungered for them in a way that they did not hunger for the works of Herodotus or Caesar, and hence they made thousands of copies.
This fragment of the Gospel of Mark, if pronounced genuine after careful academic investigation, will be very useful. But the authenticity and historicity of the New Testament scriptures does not depend on it, because those things were already well established.
Well then, I suppose all that is known of Brehon Law, the pan-Gaelic legal system, since although it is supposed to be several thousand years old, it wasn’t written down until Christian missionaries arrived in Ireland.
In fact, Brehon Law appears to be an excellent form of evidence that testifies to the accuracy of oral or verbal transmission of information over many generations.
In any case, there have been detractors of God’s Word from the very beginning. Moses referred to God’s utterance to him that this would happen when he gave his final speech to the Israelites prior to his death and their entry into Canaan.
I think Erhman is dangerous because he appears to be learned. The manuscript argument is absurd.
An odd fundamentalism. Ehrmann never really left the world he now attacks. If all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail.
Some excellent points. A teacher of mine pointed out the history of a town in Turkey as the place where Mary the Theotokos lived. When asked how would they know this without documentation, he pointed out ‘why would they forget it’.
In a sense, the devices that we all are viewing this on are like oral tradition. The original electric charges that made the information are gone, replaced by newer ones (sort of- there is after all a theory that says there is only one electron in the universe that flits through time, but i digress…) that stand in place of the previous copies. The Devices faithfully make new copies continually ( think ‘hit refresh’ ) as the old “pass away”. It’s the information not the artefact that is the critical element. This argument is derived somewhat from art theory as well as information theory but I hope it will be useful.
The linked article is much more about a possibly very important archaeological discovery than it is about Pressor Ehrmann, yet the comments seem to focus on the latter. Any early example of Scripture, however fragmentary, is wonderful news if it can be authenticated. I always took the thrust of Ehrmann’s work to be something other (and more nuanced) than whether Scripture could be “trusted.” It strikes me that he is making the point that human involvement in New Testament writings was substantial and variable, given the vagaries of transcription and translation, and that the discerning reader of Scripture should have some understanding of those fallible human influences in relying on Scripture as a photographically accurate historical record of particular events. I’m sure he would be as delighted as the next Bible scholar if this discovery of an early fragment of Mark proves authentic. One has to hope that the excavation of parking garages and other rather ugly attributes of modern civilisation at least yield some buried treasures of ancient texts that further our knowledge and understanding of early sacred writings.
Somehow I doubt that Ehrmann would be “delighted” if the fragment of Mark proves to be authentic. On the other hand, he might find some joy in having something else to attack!
I agree that having those old documents would be wonderful but they aren’t what shapes faith.
Ehrman seems to teach that there were many “other Christianities” (heresies?) which competed against each other and that the Roman form survives because of the influence of Rome. Chrisitan writings exist apart from scripture and all are equally interesting. I do not think the original manusript would change his mind.
Dr. Seitz is right.
Bart Ehrmann is like many other angry ex-fundamentalists. Alas, he was taught at Moody Bible Institute and even at Wheaton College (I regret to say, as another alum) that if even the slightest error or problem were to be found with the Bible that you couldn’t trust anything in it. That’s nonsense, of course. But actually, crusading skeptics like Ehrmann (or Robert Funk, Dominic Crossan, etc.) who are openly out to debunk Christianity are much less dangerous than pious ex-Christians like Marcus Borg, who as wolves disguise themselves in sheep’s clothing and hence are far more deceptive.
We’ll see if the dating holds up. Chances are that the “fragment” is only that, a mere fragment, like papyrus 52, which only contains a brief snippet of John. The most intriguing thing, of course, would be if this new manuscript of Mark includes the very end of the gospel. As is well known, it is almost certain that Mark originally ended at 16:8. The familiar long ending (not the only one), Mark 16:9-20, clearly is a later addition, reflecting knowledge of the other three gospels, undoubtedly added by a later scribe who felt the original ending too abrupt and puzzling. Naturally, even if not by the original evangelist himself, Mark 16:9-20 is still canonical and is to be accepted as the Word of God, since it was so taken by the consensus of the early Church.
The fact is, we don’t need any new manuscript discoveries, for Ehrmann’s extremely misleading propaganda and bogus claims to be refuted.
David Handy+
#6 — That struck me, too. Who cares what this Ehrmann bloke says and why make him the focus of the news? I’m far more interested in the fragment! But I do tend to be far more interested in religious archaeology than I am in people like Ehrmann.
RE: “It strikes me that he is making the point that human involvement in New Testament writings was substantial and variable, given the vagaries of transcription and translation, and that the discerning reader of Scripture should have some understanding of those fallible human influences in relying on Scripture as a photographically accurate historical record of particular events.”
Right — and such heresy is precisely why the focus from conservative commenters here has focused on the rather silly assertions of Ehrman. Most of us are rather unsurprised over a first-century fragment of a part of the Gospels — we understand that’s certainly possible. So we tend to focus on the heretics who assert that Scripture is not supernaturally inspired by the work of the Holy Spirit through men who wrote it.
Conservatives tend to do that.
Is it really “heresy” for Ehrman to posit that human involvement was “substantial and variable” and that discerning readers should be able to account for “fallible human influences” such as those that arise from transcription and translation errors? It seems to me that that thought can reside comfortably in an orthodox mind. Ehrman has drifted away from his early faith, but for those of us who have kept it, Biblical scholarship can be a powerful reinforcing tool for our understanding of the Gospels.
As for the discovery of ancient shards of early Scripture, although I am at least as “conservative” as Sarah, I, unlike she, am always surprised by these discoveries, whether it be the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Egyptian discoveries of the mid-20th century. I can’t imagine why it makes a hill of beans worth of difference whether one self-identifies as a “conservative” or a “liberal” or anything in between as to why one would not be hugely excited about these finds. The surprise is not that these writings can be dated to the First Century (virtually everyone who studies these things grants that Mark is a First-Century work). The surprise and delight is that we keep finding physical fragments of these works despite the passage of time and that we keep getting closer to the life of Jesus with the physical historical record. Given the scale of modern works and the permanence of our constructions (lots of excavations, concrete, etc.), we are probably unwittingly destroying or sealing away an enormous trove of historical treasure every day, whether here or abroad. That a possibly authentic piece of scripture of earlier vintage than anything we have thus far found, is pulled up is fabulous. Sorry if I can’t contain my enthusiasm.
#10 and #12, I should clarify: I don’t see a problem with people getting excited about finding a new fragment of the New Testament, especially one so early. It is indeed exciting.
However, its worth considering David Handy’s caution at #9: The claims about this fragment need to be checked, and this will take time. There have been false alarms in the past and, unfortunately, this is an area where forgeries occur all too frequently. It may take months or even years before we can have real confidence in this fragment.
Point well made, and well taken, No. 13. My response was more to the idea expressed in No. 11 that if one self-identifies as a “conservative” one should be “rather unsurprised” at these discoveries. The fragility of the media on which these writings are preserved and the general destructiveness and pervasiveness of modern civilization render these finds absolutely noteworthy, I would think, regardless of one’s political or religious self-placements on this or that spectrum of whatever.
I believe the earliest fragment of NT writing (from John) is from the first decades of the Second Century — if John the Elder is the Beloved Disciple is the author of the Fourth Gospel, this would be not long after his death. That fragment is but a verse or so. What we have from Mark is likely on that order.
Christian faith in its Nicene form took centuries to mature. It was based on a single inherited Scripture (‘Law and the Prophets’ — whose venerability was universally held to be tied up with its authority); the Pauline Letters and NT in formation; the Rule of Faith, itself based on them; Catechesis, Baptism, the lived life of homily, practice, memory; defenses of the faith made in the face of Jewish alternatives; Marcion; Arius.
It seems odd to assume a ‘Time Magazine’ perspective that would make a Marcan fragment decisive over against all this. If it turns out the fragment says something about the longer ending, fine. But to decide that Mark is anemic without it is to deconstruct the form of the Gospel witness, which is fourfold — already of great significance for Irenaeus et al in that fourfold form.
RE: “the idea expressed in No. 11 that if one self-identifies as a “conservative†one should be “rather unsurprised†at these discoveries. . . .”
Of course, no such idea was expressed. The idea of “should” didn’t enter into my comment, but then NOVA knows that already.
RE: “Is it really “heresy†for Ehrman to posit that human involvement was “substantial and variable†and that discerning readers should be able to account for “fallible human influences†. . .”
Not for revisionists, it’s not. It’s perfectly fine.
#15–Dr. S, Thanks for throwing in Irenaeus. Very few people know of his contribution to the structure of the NT.
It’s important to remember that the Church has a perspective: from ‘faith to faith’ and ‘faith seeking understanding.’ To forfeit this would be a mistake, a category-error. Like a Coca-Cola drinker wanting to establish that the water in Glenlivet is actually from the Spey River, by independent, ‘scientific’ means. That’s fine, but not if it is meant to ‘prove’ something for the Scotch drinker who had already accepted the matter as truthful from the get-go. Such ‘scientific verification techniques’ might help Coca-Cola drinkers in some way – especially if they have had doubts about whether they were really drinking Coke and not Pepsi and so came to the matter with this mindset. But the church catholic has long held—through debate and testing—that its Gospel substance and form is truthful and sufficient. Indeed the Fourth Gospel makes this point as one of its main contributions, and in this way serves to speak more broadly about the entire fourfold collection (so Trobisch, Bauckham, et al). Bart Erhmann can dispute Glenlivet’s Speyside provenance. But he’s not a Scotch drinker and does not intend to be one. Instead he wants others to opt for Coca-Cola or to question the water in their tipple. He is entitled to his opinion. But the church doesn’t need to get into an ‘away game’ with someone without a taste for Scotch or who has never been to Speyside. (Sorry for the limits of the analogy).
Dr Seitz wrote:
[blockquote] “It was based on a single inherited Scripture (‘Law and the Prophets’—whose venerability was universally held to be tied up with its authority)” [/blockquote]
‘Universally’? I am trying to think of even a single instance where the authority of the Old Testament was held to be based on its venerability. I might have missed something. But in general, the authority of the Old Testament was based on its being authored by Prophets (i.e. men commissioned by God to deliver His words), just as the authority of the New Testament was based on its being authored by Apostles (i.e. men commissioned by God to deliver His words). Scripture was authoritative whether it was delivered by Moses centuries before, or by an Apostle last year.
[blockquote] “Christian faith in its Nicene form took centuries to mature.” [/blockquote]
The Nicene fathers saw themselves as affirming that which the scriptures had taught from the beginning. The Faith had not changed in any way – it was (and is) ‘once delivered’.
What was new was the Arrian heresy, i.e. those who tried to subvert the Apostolic message, and this in turn required explicit declaration by the church that it would not accept that heresy. But the Faith was exactly the same as when the last Apostle left this earth for glory.
[blockquote] “the Pauline Letters and NT in formation” [/blockquote]
The New Testament was in formation as the Apostles were writing it, certainly. But its well to remember that the canon was closed when the last word was written in the last book. At that point, nothing more would or could be added to it.
[blockquote] “It seems odd to assume a ‘Time Magazine’ perspective that would make a Marcan fragment decisive over against all this.” [/blockquote]
I think in fairness to the secular editors, we should acknowledge that they are probably aware that many of their readers are still mired in scholarly views that arose from the German school in the 19th century and came to dominate intellectual discussion of the New Testament in the early 20th century, i.e. that the gospels are unreliable records which were composed centuries after the events they describe. Its easy for us in the church to forget that much of society during the latter 20th century was steeped in this idea, and therefore it is remarkable for many of the readers of Time magazine to think that fragments or entire books can be found which date back at least to the second century or even earlier.
Nowadays the mainstream of scholarship accepts that all four gospels were composed in the first century AD, but this idea is still yet to percolate through to many parts of society.
Many early Christian Fathers assumed that what the Greek Philosophers knew, if remotely wise, they must have cribbed from Moses. The antiquity of the OT is noted with great approval by Origen. Justin cites the OT against Trypho’s interpretation because it is crucial that Christ was attested from great antiquity. In general, Behr captures the point well in the following (from my book, The Character of Christian Scripture):
“Most striking, however, is that in recounting this history, the New Testament writings are not utilized by Irenaeus as the foundation for his presentation. He clearly knows these writings, and regards them as Scripture, as is amply demonstrated by his other work, Against the Heresies, and by the fact that, in the Demonstration, he cites a verse from the Old Testament, attributing it in the form used by the New Testament (e.g., the passage attributed to Jeremiah in Mat 27:9–10, cited in ch. 81). However, in the Demonstration, that Jesus was born from the Virgin and worked miracles is shown from Isaiah and others; while the names of Pontius Pilate and Herod are known from the Gospels, that Christ was bound and brought before them is shown by Osee; that he was crucified, raised, and exulted is again shown by other prophets. The whole account of the apostolic preaching is derived, for Irenaeus, from the Old Testament, which, in turn, implies a recognition of the scriptural, that is, ultimate authority of the apostolic preaching &-8). To gain a better understanding of the Demonstration, it will be useful to consider some earlier Christian writings. The earliest post-apostolic Christian writings that we have, the works of the apostolic fathers, clearly indicate that they know, in varying degrees, some of the writings of the apostles, but with few exceptions, they do not cite these writings or appeal to them as authoritative sources of revelation, that is, as Scripture. Scripture for the apostolic fathers, as in the New Testament itself, refers to the writings of the Old Testament†(John Behr, On the Apostolic Preaching, 8–9; italics original).
In the ante-Nicene fathers the ‘rule of faith’ functions in a robust way even if the scriptures of the NT are not quoted with the citation formula used for the OT, ‘it is written.’
“Christian faith in its Nicene form took centuries to mature” — is not a statement that Nicene Faith is a departure from earlier Christian faith. Irenaeus and Tertullian often capture quite well some of the hard-won distinctions of the 4th century, and all of these go back to biblical attestation. But a declaratory creed is not in the idiom or genre of John 1 or Phil 2 or Prov 8 or Gen 1 or Col 1 or 1 Cor 8. When someone like Yeago, Bauckham, or Rowe argue that Phil 2 captures the logic of the later homoousia they are not saying the word appears, anymore than Athanasius argued that in his very long treatment of Prov 8 in Against Heresies.
There are those who in coming to faith get rather stuck at the stage of looking at the evidence for Christ and the claims about him. I have watched them carefully look into all the dates, read all the contemporary accounts, and weigh all the evidence. Although I don’t think people come to Christ through proof but rather for revelation, the evidence can help them in knowing what gulf they have to jump from established fact. I don’t think the date of Mark’s gospel makes any difference to the truth of it, an early copy will certainly be helpful for those struggling with the claims of our faith. It does sound as though there is a need for proper examination of the claims to the dating of this fragment and peer review of the research and testing done, but nevertheless it would be rather wonderful if this was the earliest text found.
Dr Seitz at #21, I have no difficulty with yoru post. My point was simply that the Nicene fathers considered themselves in the Creed to be summarizing doctrine which had been already been taught in Scripture 250 years earlier.
Dr Seitz, thank you for your response at #20. The references to the Church Fathers are interesting, because they provide some of our earliest evidence of the existence of the Gospel records.
[blockquote] “The antiquity of the OT is noted with great approval by Origen.” [/blockquote]
I agree. But that does not mean that Origen saw the authority of scriptures as deriving from their antiquity per se.
[blockquote] “The earliest post-apostolic Christian writings that we have, the works of the apostolic fathers, clearly indicate that they know, in varying degrees, some of the writings of the apostles, but with few exceptions, they do not cite these writings or appeal to them as authoritative sources of revelation, that is, as Scripture. Scripture for the apostolic fathers, as in the New Testament itself, refers to the writings of the Old Testament†(John Behr, On the Apostolic Preaching, 8–9; italics original).” [/blockquote]
Behr is incorrect, with respect. Leaving aside the fact that the Apostles themselves considered their own writings to be authoritative scripture, it is clear that the Apostolic Fathers Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp placed the Apostles and their writings on the same level or even higher than Old Testament scripture. See 1 Clement 42:1-2; Polycarp 6:3; Ignatius to Phil. chap 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9; to Rom. chap 4; To Trall. chap 7; To Magn. chap 7, 13. This is especially interesting because these men were writing around the turn of the first century, and in some cases had personally known Apostles.
[blockquote] “In the ante-Nicene fathers the ‘rule of faith’ functions in a robust way even if the scriptures of the NT are not quoted with the citation formula used for the OT, ‘it is written.’” [/blockquote]
There is no such “citation formula”. Occasionally the Ante-Nicene fathers use the expression ‘it is written’ when citing the Old Testament, but usually they do not. Nor is there any indication that they saw this as referring to some sort of authority which Apostolic writings (the ‘edicts’ or ‘diagmata’ of the Apostles) did not have. Rather, the attitude of these early Church Fathers is summed up in the following passages:
[blockquote] “But shall I, when permitted to write on this point, reach such a height of self-esteem, that though being a condemned man, I should issue commands to you as if I were an apostle?” [Ignatius to Trall. Chap 3, written 98 – 117 AD] [/blockquote]
[blockquote] “Let us therefore so serve Him with fear and all reverence, as He himself gave commandment and the Apostles who preached the Gospel to us and the prophets who proclaimed beforehand the coming of our Lord;” [Letter of Polycarp 6:3, written 110 – 140 AD] [/blockquote]
Thanks, I’ll leave this discussion for now. My point was made in reference to the welter of convictions that commend the Christian faith, vis-a-vis an exciting marcan fragment and the logic of Bart Erhmann. As for Behr, his published work speaks for itself. No such citation formula for indicating OT scriptures? At any rate, we’ve left the world of a new marcan fragment.
PS-Polycarp is referring to the living voice and not the NT. He even emphasizes this point later, contrasting ‘books’ with the vive voce of John the Elder (so Irenaeus’s recollection). Ignatius, likewise, is speaking of the *office* of apostle (first-generation) as against his own location (and notice ‘the prophets beforehand’ remark). You are merely conflating this apostolic office and living voice with your view of the NT qua NT.
‘taught 250 years earlier’ — no, much, much earlier than that, according to Justin and Irenaeus.
These quotes are helpful. I did not have them to hand earlier.
“I will not hesitate to add also for you to my interpretations what I formerly learned with care from the Elders and have carefully stored in memory, giving assurance of its truth. For I did not take pleasure as the many do in those who speak much, but in those who teach what is true, nor in those who relate foreign precepts, but in those who relate the precepts which were given by the Lord to the faith and came down from the Truth itself. And also if any follower of the Presbyters happened to come, I would inquire for the sayings of the Presbyters, what Andrew said, or what Peter said, or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and for the things which other of the Lord’s disciples, and for the things which Aristion and the John the Elder, the disciples of the Lord, were saying. For I considered that I should not get so much advantage from matter in books as from the voice which yet lives and remains†(From Eusebius’ account of Papias).
Note in this quote: live testimony from known apostles, and Aristion and John the Elder. Living voice. Nothing here in reference to NT as scripture.
And:
“While I was still a young boy I knew you (Florinus, Priest in Rome) in lower Asia in Polycarp’s house when you were a man of rank in the royal hall and endeavoring to stand well with him. I remember the events of those days more clearly than those which happened recently, for what we learn as children grows up with the soul and is united to it, so I can speak even of the place in which the blessed Polycarp sat and disputed, how he came in and went out, the character of his life, the appearance of his body, the discourses which he made to the people, how he related his intercourse with John and with others who had seen the Lord, how he remembered their words, and what were the things concerning the Lord which he had learned from them, and about their miracles, and about their teaching, and how Polycarp had received from eyewitnesses of the word of life, and reported all things in agreement with the Scriptures. I listened eagerly even then to these things through the mercy of God which was given me, and made notes not on paper but in my heart, and ever by the grace of God do I truly ruminate on them†(Irenaeus’ letter to Florinus).
Note: again, living testimony that blessed Polycarp teaches orally. And the emphasis on this teaching as true ‘in accordance with the Scriptures’ (OT). This is just what we expect at this juncture. Irenaeus makes no notes on paper but in his heart. Nothing here refers to NT as scripture. The sole Scripture of great authority is the Christian OT, in accordance with which Polycarp reported the elders’ eyewitness accounts.
Dr Seitzx wrote at #26,
[blockquote] “At any rate, we’ve left the world of a new marcan fragment.” [/blockquote]
Good point, although I suspect you would have been aware when you stated your position that Anglican theologians from an evangelical or reformed standpoint disagree with it! We are not exactly a small minority :o) But I don’t mean to be overly critical because there actually is a connection with the thread, which I refer to below. In any case, a couple of your latest points require comment, just so there’s no misunderstanding of our respective positions:
[blockquote] “Polycarp is referring to the living voice and not the NT” [/blockquote]
To classical reformed theology, they are simply different aspects of the same thing and we see our position as consistent with that of Polycarp.
[blockquote] “Ignatius, likewise, is speaking of the *office* of apostle (first-generation) as against his own location (and notice ‘the prophets beforehand’ remark).” [/blockquote]
No, his words are quite plain in both Greek and English translation: Apostles gives commands, whereas he only gives exhortations. In this, his theology is orthodox – like the other Apostolic Fathers, he never purports to put himself on the same level of authority as the Apostles. And “the prophets beforehand” is again orthodox biblical Christianity – the Apostles describe authority in the Church as deriving from the three-fold source of Christ, the Prophets and the Apostles (i.e. the Old and New Testaments).
Getting back to the topic of the thread, this is why there are literally thousands of copies of the New Testament (or portions thereof) surviving from 2nd century onwards (and, its quite possible that some of those we have are from the first century, hence the interest in this fragment of Mark). Whereas we have only a handful of manuscripts of the Church Fathers, and they are of much more recent origin. Why the disparity? Essentially, because there were many many more manuscripts of the New Testament books to begin with. That in turn is because the writings of the Apostles were seen by the early Church as foundational and essential documents for the whole Church, in a way that the writings of the Church Fathers were not. Of course the patristic writings were valued, just as we value the writings of our own theologians today.
[blockquote] “You are merely conflating this apostolic office and living voice with your view of the NT qua NT.” [/blockquote]
No, I’m merely following the teaching of Christ and his Apostles, which was in turn the standard teaching of the early church. in any case, I agree with you that this is only relevant in so far as it shows the context in which so many copies of the New Testament were originally made, from one of which this fragment of Mark derives.
“Apostles gives commands, whereas he only gives exhortations. In this, his theology is orthodox – like the other Apostolic Fathers, he never purports to put himself on the same level of authority as the Apostles”
No one has said otherwise. That was exactly my point. The teaching of the office of apostle is distinctive and providentially so. (whether this is some special conviction of a certain denominational group I do not know; I was speaking of orthodox, catholic teaching).
You sought to conflate this, in Ignatius, with the NT as text (a finished product ifor the Apostolic Fathers and quoted by them in that form). Ignatius is however clearly NOT referring to NT texts. He is referring to the office of apostle.
“To classical reformed theology, they are simply different aspects of the same thing”
Well and good. But Polycarp is not a member of that subset (‘reformed theology’). He is speaking of the living voice of the apostle, as well he should, with honor, and does not mean by that the text of the NT. The text could not be clearer. Of course in time what he is referring to will take the form you are concerned about — a NT Canon on par with the OT scriptures.
“I suspect you would have been aware when you stated your position that Anglican theologians from an evangelical or reformed standpoint disagree with it”–
No, I was unaware of this. I did not know there was a special ‘evangelical and reformed anglican position’ on the status of the OT, the living tradition of the apostles/elders/disciples, or the canon of the NT as it comes to form.
If Congar, Behr, Von Campenhausen, Flessman-Van Leer, et al are not ‘evangelical and reformed anglicans,’ that does not mean their orthodoxy and catholicity is in question on these matters. Quite to the contrary.
“We must remember that by ‘Scripture’ the Fathers, up to Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Theophilus of Antioch, usually meant the Old Testament. At first this was the only approved and recommended collection of writings. But the paradosis of the Church, faithful to that of the apostles, was precisely this transmission of the Christ-event, as based documentarily on the Old Testament writings and, at the same time, explaining the meaning of these writings†(Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions [London: Burns and Oates, 1966], 31).
Consider the remarks of Flesseman-Van Leer regarding the canon of the Scriptures of Israel in the appeal to the rule of faith, “There is, of course, no need to argue the authority or the extent of the Old Testament, for the Old Testament canon was in practice an already long established fact. For the New Testament books it is different†(Ellen Flesseman-Van Leer, Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church [Assen: Van Gorcum, 1954], 131).
“The Christian Bible is not a completely new formation. Through its “Old Testament†it is linked with Judaism, whose “Scriptures†Christianity took over at the moment of its emergence, and has retained ever since. This was something that happened long before it was possible to speak of a “New Testamentâ€â€ (von Campenhausen, Formation, 1). Also: “The situation is perfectly clear, and should not be disguised: there is still absolutely no “New Testament†which might be placed alongside the “Old Testament†as a collection of documents of similarly binding force. The ancient Jewish Bible is and at first remains the single scriptural norm of the Church, and—even if with varying emphasis—is everywhere recognized as such†(63). And: “It is quite wrong to say that the Old Testament had no authority in its own right for the first Christians, and that it was taken over purely because people saw that it “treated of Christ†or pointed toward him. The critical problem, to which Luther’s well-known but much misused formula supplies an answer, had not yet been posed. The situation was in fact quite the reverse. Christ is certainly vindicated to unbelievers out of the Scripture; but the converse necessity, to justify the Scriptures on the authority of Christ, is as yet nowhere even envisaged†(63–64).
Dr Seitz, I will also respond to your post at #27. I am sure you are aware that your views on these matters are not shared by all Anglicans (to say the least!) so I hope you will pardon me for setting out the other side of the debate. And, this does relate to the milieu of the Gospels:
[blockquote] “‘taught 250 years earlier’—no, much, much earlier than that, according to Justin and Irenaeus.” [/blockquote]
It depends what you mean. Justin and Irenaeus certainly followed orthodox Christian doctrine that the teachings of Christ and his Apostles in the New Testament were prefigured in the Old Testament.
[blockquote] “… from Eusebius’ account of Papias.” [/blockquote]
Indeed. The fragments of Papias are one place in the Apostolic Fathers where you will find some support for your doctrine. But that is hardly a helpful witness for you: Papias’ writings were fanciful, and hence given little if any approval by the other Church Fathers. Consider his version of how Judas died:
[blockquote] “Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out.” [/blockquote]
This cannot be reconciled with the Apostolic account – either Papias is wrong or St Matthew is wrong!
Then there is Papias’ claim to know about a teaching of Christ which the apostles never recorded:
[blockquote] “The days will come in which vines shall grow, having each ten thousand branches, and in each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each true twig ten thousand shoots, and in every one of the shoots ten thousand clusters, and on every one of the clusters ten thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed will give five-and-twenty metretes of wine. …” [/blockquote]
Papias is an excellent example of why the Lord gave the Church written scriptures, and did not leave us to the vagaries of ‘oral tradition’!
You also wrote:
[blockquote] “…and how Polycarp had received from eyewitnesses of the word of life, and reported all things in agreement with the Scriptures. I listened eagerly even then to these things through the mercy of God which was given me, and made notes not on paper but in my heart, and ever by the grace of God do I truly ruminate on them†(Irenaeus’ letter to Florinus).” [/blockquote]
Your characterisation of this letter is built on the erroneous assumption that Irenaeus did not consider the writings of the Apostles to be scripture. To the contrary:
[blockquote] “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith” [Against Heresies, Book III, Chap. 1] [/blockquote]
He makes the point in the very next sentence that it is unlawful to attempt to “improve upon the Apostles”. Thus Irenaeus’ point to Florinus is that he knew Polycarp’s teaching was sound because it was in conformity with the Scriptures, both old and new testament.
Such teaching should not surprise us – the reading of Scripture, both Old and New Testaments, was a central focus of early 2nd century Christian worship:
[blockquote] “And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things”. [Justin Martyr, First Apology, 67] [/blockquote]
Obviously, if the “memoirs of the apostles” are being read in the service each Sunday, the early Church needed many copies of them. We thus come back to the relevance to this thread – there were many copies of the New Testament extant in the early 2nd century AD, and no doubt also in the last quarter of the previous century. It would thus be no surprise if this fragment did turn out to be from the first century AD, but we will have to wait and see.
It’s not a matter of whether Irenaeus believed that the apostolic witness would have as well a textual form (it is contested what ‘scriptures’ mean when Irenaeus uses the term). It is that the very idea of scriptural and textual authority is one the NT can in time claim because the Gospel of Jesus Christ was held to exist within the one Law and Prophets, the Scriptures — so Jesus in Luke 24. Christ isn’t just ‘prefigured in the OT’. He is the Word who inspired all of the OT writings and therefore is the Word speaking now through them. See Irenaeus at numerous points on this matter.
I have never heard Papius dismissed so thoroughly on matters. So the Bishop of Hieropolis also invented in a fanciful way the idea that Peter taught Mark?
“I am sure you are aware that your views on these matters are not shared by all Anglicans (to say the least!) so I hope you will pardon me for setting out the other side of the debate.”
and
“I suspect you would have been aware when you stated your position that Anglican theologians from an evangelical or reformed standpoint disagree with it!”
Both of these statements are thoroughly opaque to me. Which anglicans do you purport to represent? I am not being disingenuous. You make it sound like you are representative of a very clear ‘party line.’ Can you refer me to this?
I routinely teach Reformed students (Westminster Philadelphia). My colleague was Reformed (Brevard Childs). I taught the exegesis of the Church Fathers in Scotland where I held a Chair in the Kirk.
But I have never encountered anyone claiming to represent such a clear position on the matters under discussion who speaks as though his ‘party line’ is well done.
John Behr is certainly one of the preeminent Orthodox scholars of our time. You dismissed his position (it was actually a direct quote from Irenaeus) with, ‘he is wrong.’ I confess I am unsure what position it is that dismisses a preeminent Orthodox scholar (and others alongside him) in the name of a transparently correct ‘reformed and evangelical anglicanism’ — McGrath? Bauckham? Beckwith? who?
“This cannot be reconciled with the Apostolic account – either Papias is wrong or St Matthew is wrong!”
Or, the ‘apostolic account’ of Acts 1:18 is in view.
“Thus Irenaeus’ point to Florinus is that he knew Polycarp’s teaching was sound because it was in conformity with the Scriptures, both old and new testament.”
He knew it was sound, as he clearly states, because of the living testimony and because such testimony was in conformity with the Scriptures (OT). The last phrase in your sentence is your own, not that of Irenaeus, viz., Irenaeus recalls of Polycarp
“the discourses which he made to the people, how he related his intercourse with John and with others who had seen the Lord, how he remembered their words, and what were the things concerning the Lord which he had learned from them, and about their miracles, and about their teaching, and how Polycarp had received from eyewitnesses of the word of life, and reported all things in agreement with the Scriptures.”
This thread is fascinating and informative. It has provided a great deal of valuable information and food for thought. Thanks to the participants and the host.
Dr Seitz, in response to your #29; You wrote:
[blockquote] “You sought to conflate this, in Ignatius, with the NT as text (a finished product for the Apostolic Fathers and quoted by them in that form). Ignatius is however clearly NOT referring to NT texts. He is referring to the office of apostle.” [/blockquote]
Respectfully, you seem to be missing the point of my citation. Ignatius was careful to state that he had no authority to issue commands, as he was not an Apostle. The context is that the Apostles themselves taught that their written words were of equal authority with Old Testament scripture:
[blockquote] “For Scripture says, ‘Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain’, and ‘The worker deserves his wages'” [1 Tim 5:18 – note that in the second quotation, Paul is declaring that the Gospel of Luke is scripture]
“[Paul’s] letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” [2 Peter 3:16]
“I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles.” [2 Peter 2:2]
“In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets.” [Ephesians 3:4-5] [/blockquote]
Hence why Justin Martyr (writing at about the same time as Polycarp) tells us that Christian services were characterised by readings from both Old and New Testament, followed by preaching on those texts.
You also wrote,
[blockquote] “Of course in time what he is referring to will take the form you are concerned about—a NT Canon on par with the OT scriptures.” [/blockquote]
I don’t think you understand what I am concerned about (which is not a criticism, just an observation). My point is that the early Church put the writings of the Apostles on the same level of authority as the Old Testament scriptures (as did the Apostles themselves). That is why they read from both in their services, just as we do today.
[blockquote] “Polycarp … is speaking of the living voice of the apostle, as well he should, with honor, and does not mean by that the text of the NT.” [/blockquote]
I suggest a plain reading of Polycarp indicates differently. He is not just referring to one Apostle but to the teachings of all of them; they were all gone from the earth by the time he wrote; and he referred to their teachings in the same sense as the written teachings of the Old Testament prophets. It will probably assist readers if I quote the passage from Polycarp again:
[blockquote] “Let us therefore so serve Him with fear and all reverence, as He himself gave commandment and the Apostles who preached the Gospel to us and the prophets who proclaimed beforehand the coming of our Lord;” [Letter of Polycarp 6:3] [/blockquote]
Dr Seitz,
1. You wrote at #30,
[blockquote] “If Congar, Behr, Von Campenhausen, Flessman-Van Leer, et al are not ‘evangelical and reformed anglicans,’ that does not mean their orthodoxy and catholicity is in question on these matters. Quite to the contrary.” [/blockquote]
I didn’t comment on that issue – it is a debate for another day and another thread. I was simply pointing out that there are many theologians in the wider Anglican Communion (an awful lot, actually, if you consider how many reformed evangelical Anglicans there are) who see things differently to the way you see them.
2. Re your first paragraph at #32 – I agree. Re your second paragraph:
[blockquote] “So the Bishop of Hieropolis also invented in a fanciful way the idea that Peter taught Mark?” [/blockquote]
Why would we think that? Tacitus (a pagan) and Josephus (a Pharisee) tell us about the existence of Jesus Christ and I accept their testimony, but that doesn’t mean I refer to them for the establishment of Christian doctrine. I don’t believe Papias was giving an accurate account of Apostolic teaching when he assures us that Judas was run over by a chariot, but that doesn’t mean he can’t be right about factual matters.
3. You wrote at #33,
[blockquote] “John Behr is certainly one of the preeminent Orthodox scholars of our time. You dismissed his position (it was actually a direct quote from Irenaeus) with, ‘he is wrong.’” [/blockquote]
Believe it or not, people are allowed to disagree with Behr, just as they are allowed to disagree with anyone. And I did not disagree with the direct quote from Irenaeus but with the slant put on it. Irenaeus is easy enough to access and read in translation (and in the original for those with facility in Greek) – discussing him is little different to discussing the New Testament.
Nor is there any need to widen the debate to a discussion of theology in general, or by counting up how many names of theologians we can each cite… ;o)
4. You wrote at #34:
[blockquote] “Or, the ‘apostolic account’ of Acts 1:18 is in view.” [/blockquote]
That doesn’t work in this case. The Apostolic account in Acts 1:18 can be reconciled with the Apostolic account in Matthew 27:5 (and if it could not be, one or both would have been rejected as Scripture). But the account of Papias cannot be reconciled with Matthew 27:5, so it cannot be accepted.
5. Re your #35, our disagreement about Irenaeus’ letter to Florinus comes down to just one issue: You *assume* that when Irenaeus wrote the word “Scriptures”, he only meant Old Testament scriptures. As I have shown in the citation from Against Heresies, that was not Irenaeus’ belief, nor was it the belief of the early church (as shown by Justin Martyr’s account of the services). It follows that Irenaeus commends Polycarp because his teaching conformed with all of the scriptures, not just the Old Testament.
And finally to recap, the fact that the early Church treated the writings of the Apostles as scripture is important for our understanding of the significance of the Marcan fragment – it tells us *why* such an incredible number of copies of the New Testament books were made. We should not be surprised if it turns out that one of our existing fragments is in fact from the late first century AD.
NoVA at #36, thank you for the feedback. I am gratified to hear it, and I am sure Dr Seitz will be also.
One more thing:
Its easy enough to pick out particular works from the Church Fathers that focus mainly on the Old Testament scriptures. That is particularly so if one concentrates one’s search on apologetic works addressed to those of a Jewish background!
But if a broader view is taken, there are actually many references to the New Testament as scripture in the early Church Fathers. I have already cited some above, but here are more:
1. The Didache is a very early Christian work. It is usually dated from mid-first century AD up to about 100 AD. Whatever, it is clearly older than any of the works we have discussed above, except for the New Testament itself.
The Didache does not refer to the Old Testament scriptures. Rather, the supreme authority is the written Gospel. At Chapter 8 it says to pray “as the Lord commanded in His Gospel, like this:” and then sets out the Lord’s prayer. At Chapter 11, it says when visitors arrive “act according to the decree of the Gospel.” (κατα το δογμα του ευαγγελιου). And at chapter 15 it says “And reprove one another, not in anger, but in peace, as you have it in the Gospel. But to anyone that acts amiss against another, let no one speak, nor let him hear anything from you until he repents. But your prayers and alms and all your deeds so do, as you have it in the Gospel of our Lord.”
2. The so-called ‘Epistle of Barnabas’ is an early Christian work dated to between 70-131 AD. It refers to Matthew 22:14 as scripture:
“…let us give heed, lest haply we be found, as the scripture saith, many are called but few are chosen.” [Ep. Bar. 4:14]
3. Hegesippus the Chronicler wrote about 165 AD, about the time of Polycarp and Justin Martyr. He refers to the Gospels as Scripture:
“With show of reason could it be said that Symeon was one of those who actually saw and heard the Lord, on the ground of his great age, and also because the Scripture of the Gospels makes mention of Mary the daughter of Clopas, who, as our narrative has shown already, was his father.”
Re my earlier comment, Michael, this thread shows the real strength and value of this medium. Poor, ignorant sods like me can gain a wealth of information and insight from knowledgeable people engaged in serious discussion that spans the globe and that is taking place in real time. I can’t imagine doing this any other way. I am very grateful for this kind of experience.
Yes, this is interesting.
Prof Seitz #27 – do you have some rough dates for the accounts and letters from the early writers you quote and reference?
I can’t tell where the misfire is here, even as a longtime teacher. It may be a genre confusion (church historical detail vs dogmatic categorization, e.g., ‘reformed’). There is a clear distinction in the Apostolic Fathers and the ante-Nicene Fathers (increasingly less so, as the NT replaces the living voice) between the apostolic testimony grosso modo and the NT as a canonical text in its present form. The former can for this reason refer to lots of ‘apostolic/presbyteral’ testimony that is nothing to do with the NT writings and their traditional authors (Aristion, Thomas, Philip). I thought this was uncontroversial – because it is. You appear to want a completed first century ‘Nestle-Aland New Testament’ and you want this to be what is referred to in the Church Fathers when they speak of ‘the apostles’ anywhere and everywhere they do that.
It is universally agreed that the term Scripture only very slowly is used in respect of the NT as a canonical entity.
You have for some reason taken recourse in the obviousness of your position within a certain phalanx of Anglican reformed and evangelical teaching, but oddly do not specify that when questioned. Why is that? What ‘school’ of thought do you purport to represent? Who are its teachers and its students?
It is Ash Wednesday. have completed a seven o’clock service and have two more at noon and six.
(I discuss the matters at some length in a review essay of my colleague Richard Bauckham’s excellent book, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, in Nova et Vetera 6, 2008, 513-22. I know of no one who holds the view that ‘scriptures’ in Irenaeus’ reference to Polycarp’s preaching is the ‘NT’)
Your recap: “the early Church treated the writings of the Apostles as scripture”
OF COURSE in time *certain* writings/logia of ‘specific apostles’ will become what is a NT! No one disputes that. It is too obvious to require defense.
OF COURSE the Apostolic Fathers know they are not eyewitnesses and are not ‘Apostles’ in that strict sense. All the Apostles are matryed (except John the Elder?).
The earliest Church Fathers preach the Gospel on the basis of the Scriptures (as did Paul in the synagogue, Jesus in Luke 24). Justin is a parade example (Dialogue 39.6). Justin claims to find the entire Christian message–praise be to God–in the OT Scriptures: ‘For I have demonstrated how Christ has been proclaimed by all the Scriptures [here he obviously follows Luke 24’s paradigmatic Jesus] as king, and priest, and God, and Lord, and Angel, and man, and chief in command, and stone, and child who has been born, and one who has first suffered, then ascended into heaven, and who is coming again in glory in possession of an eternal kingdom” (34.2). Irenaeus speaks the same exact way in Demonstration (see #20 above, which you rejected as a ‘Behr’ error).
You want the word ‘scripture’ to be a cover word for any citation in any early Church Father that happens later–and also not–to find its way into the NT canonical text. That may be dogmatically arguable (no one has any stake in making an apostolic testimony anything but what it is, a living testimony, and the more the merrier, including Aristion, Philip, et al). But it confuses the witness of the Early Church, which is rich beyond measure and invaluable for its close testimony to the Scriptures, the paradosis, apostolic testimony, and the developing NT canon.
Ash Wednesday blessings. In Christ.
Of course, not writing ‘just to Jews’ …
Speaking of Christ as Logos, Irenaeus: “This is He who, in the bush, spoke with Moses and said, “I have surely seen the afflictions of my people who are in Egypt, and I have come down to deliver them.†This is He who ascended and descended for the salvation of the afflicted, delivering us from the dominion of the Egyptians, that is, from all idolatry and ungodliness, and saving us from the Red Sea, that is, from the deadly turbulence of the heathen and from the bitter current of their blasphemy – for in these [things] our [affairs] were pre-formed (promeletao), the Word of God at that time demonstrating in advance, by types, things to come, but now, truly removing us out of the cruel slavery of the heathen, He caused a stream of water to gush forth abundantly from a rock in the desert, and the rock is Himself, and [also] gave [us] twelve springs, that is, the teaching of the twelve apostles; and killing the unbelievers in the desert, while leading those who believed in Him and were infants in malice into the inheritance of the patriarchs, which, not Moses, but Jesus, who saves us from Amalek by stretching out His hands and leading us into the Father’s Kingdom†(Behr, On Apostolic Preaching, p. 70; Demonstration, 46).
Nothing to do with Judaic context here. Rather the theological point–also shared by Origen and Justin–is nicely put by Behr (if I may cite him; translator of the Epideixis and also author of the four volume work, The Way to Nicaea and The Nicene Faith). I have my own version of this concern in The Character of Christian Scripture (Baker, 2011).
Behr in introducing Part Two of the Demonstration writes: “That all of those things would thus come to pass was foretold by the Spirit of God through the prophets, that the faith of those who truly worship God might be certain in these things, for whatever was impossible for our nature, and because of this would bring disbelief to mankind, these things God made known beforehand through the prophets, that, by foretelling them a long time beforehand, when they were fully accomplished in this way, just as they were foretold, we might know that it was God who previously proclaimed to us our salvation†(Behr, On the Apostolic Preaching, p. 68).
Dr Seitz, in response to your #43, #44 and #45,
[blockquote] “… You appear to want a completed first century ‘Nestle-Aland New Testament’ and you want this to be what is referred to in the Church Fathers when they speak of ‘the apostles’ anywhere and everywhere they do that.” [/blockquote]
No, I was quite specific: I took issue with a particular assertion by you: that when the early Church fathers used the term ‘scripture’, they meant ONLY the Old Testament. I have shown that there are many instances where they unmistakably include New Testament documents in the term ‘scripture’, and these occur in the very earliest writings, and regularly thereafter.
[blockquote] “It is universally agreed that the term Scripture only very slowly is used in respect of the NT as a canonical entity.” [/blockquote]
I have no idea what “very slowly” means, and in any case this is shifting the goalposts towards a general discussion of canon, which is a wide field indeed. The issue is your assertion that the early Church Fathers used the word ‘scripture’ to refer only to the Old Testament.
[blockquote] “You have for some reason taken recourse in the obviousness of your position within a certain phalanx of Anglican reformed and evangelical teaching, but oddly do not specify that when questioned. Why is that? What ‘school’ of thought do you purport to represent? Who are its teachers and its students?” [/blockquote]
No I didn’t take any such “recourse” as I see this as an obvious red herring.
[blockquote] “Justin is a parade example (Dialogue 39.6). Justin claims to find the entire Christian message—praise be to God—in the OT Scriptures … Irenaeus speaks the same exact way in Demonstration….” [/blockquote]
I thought I had made clear that we do not differ on that issue. Where we do differ is your claim that Justin and Irenaeus did not recognise the writings of the apostles as ‘scripture’.
[blockquote] “You want the word ‘scripture’ to be a cover word for any citation in any early Church Father that happens later—and also not—to find its way into the NT canonical text.” [/blockquote]
No, my point was as stated above: I disagreed with your assertion that the early Church Fathers only ever used the word “scripture” to refer to the Old Testament (because it was obviously wrong). I also disagreed with a couple of other specific assertions by you, e.g. that the formula “It is written” is regularly used in the Church Fathers to refer to Old Testament scripture (such usage is characteristic of the New Testament, but fairly rare in the Church Fathers).
[blockquote] “Of course, not writing ‘just to Jews’ …[etc]” [/blockquote]
I never wrote ‘just’. However, it is a fact that you have selectively cited from the very few works in the Church Fathers which restrict their citations to the Old Testament, and of those, the most prominent are known to be written to a Jewish audience. In particular that very work on which you place such emphasis, Justin’s “Dialogue with Trypho”, was written to convince a devout Jew of the truth of the Gospel. There is an obvious reason why Justin refers exclusively to the Old Testament in order to do so.
For those interested in reading more about the “church fathers” (i.e. Christian writers of the 1st to 5th centuries) their works can be found online in a few locations. Two in particular:
The Christian Classics Ethereal Library is not user-friendly, but has good copies of many of the works and a lot of background commentary. This is their index page to the “Apostolic Fathers” (however note that this does not include all relevant works from that period): http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.toc.html
Another site with less commentary but much easier to navigate is Early Christian Writings. This is their main index page: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/. I would ignore the dates indicated on that page – many are clearly incorrect (e.g. dating 2 Peter to “100-160 AD”, which precludes even the possibility that Peter may have written it!)
Red herring? Who are these ‘anglican theologians’? (see your comments from the post above; my view on the use of the term ‘scripture’ in the earliest Fathers was also made very clear in that comment; it is the view of my several book publications on this matter as well).
**
“I suspect you would have been aware when you stated your position that Anglican theologians from an evangelical or reformed standpoint disagree with itâ€â€”
No, I was unaware of this. I did not know there was a special ‘evangelical and reformed anglican position’ on the status of the OT, the living tradition of the apostles/elders/disciples, or the canon of the NT as it comes to form.
If Congar, Behr, Von Campenhausen, Flessman-Van Leer, et al are not ‘evangelical and reformed anglicans,’ that does not mean their orthodoxy and catholicity is in question on these matters. Quite to the contrary.
“We must remember that by ‘Scripture’ the Fathers, up to Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Theophilus of Antioch, usually meant the Old Testament. At first this was the only approved and recommended collection of writings. But the paradosis of the Church, faithful to that of the apostles, was precisely this transmission of the Christ-event, as based documentarily on the Old Testament writings and, at the same time, explaining the meaning of these writings†(Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions [London: Burns and Oates, 1966], 31).
Consider the remarks of Flesseman-Van Leer regarding the canon of the Scriptures of Israel in the appeal to the rule of faith, “There is, of course, no need to argue the authority or the extent of the Old Testament, for the Old Testament canon was in practice an already long established fact. For the New Testament books it is different†(Ellen Flesseman-Van Leer, Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church [Assen: Van Gorcum, 1954], 131).
“The Christian Bible is not a completely new formation. Through its “Old Testament†it is linked with Judaism, whose “Scriptures†Christianity took over at the moment of its emergence, and has retained ever since. This was something that happened long before it was possible to speak of a “New Testamentâ€â€ (von Campenhausen, Formation, 1). Also: “The situation is perfectly clear, and should not be disguised: there is still absolutely no “New Testament†which might be placed alongside the “Old Testament†as a collection of documents of similarly binding force. The ancient Jewish Bible is and at first remains the single scriptural norm of the Church, and—even if with varying emphasis—is everywhere recognized as such†(63). And: “It is quite wrong to say that the Old Testament had no authority in its own right for the first Christians, and that it was taken over purely because people saw that it “treated of Christ†or pointed toward him. The critical problem, to which Luther’s well-known but much misused formula supplies an answer, had not yet been posed. The situation was in fact quite the reverse. Christ is certainly vindicated to unbelievers out of the Scripture; but the converse necessity, to justify the Scriptures on the authority of Christ, is as yet nowhere even envisaged†(63–64).
Presumably only a diehard or two is still monitoring this, but let me take the opportunity to plug the new Wycliffe College Center for Scripture and Theology (see http://scripturetheology.ca/). Our May session will include David Trobisch, my former Yale colleague and author of The First Edition of the New Testament; and. The Pauline Letter Collection.
Our October meeting is on The Rule of Faith: Scripture in the Early Church. The Dean of St Vladimir’s Orthodox seminary and world expert on Theodore and Diodore (see his newest OUP volume with translations of all their known writings), John Behr, will be speaker (he is the author of the four-volume Way to Nicaea and The Nicene Faith). Also speaking are Jeffrey Bingham of Dallas Theological Seminary, Irenaeus scholar and general editor of the volumes associated with him; Don Collett of Trinity School for Ministry (Westminster Theological Seminary, MDiv; St Andrews, PhD) offering a reformed perspective on the Rule of Faith.
Dr Seitz,
Briefly, your quotations from Flessman von Leer are misleading as to her actual position, and your other quotes are from those who write in accordance with their theological suppositions: von Campenhausen (a liberal), Congar (a Dominican and RC Cardinal) and Behr (a contemporary Orthodox Priest). I have so far seen no sign that you are familiar with the work of anyone outside your narrow circle. I suggest you start with reading B. B. Warfield, F. F. Bruce, T. C. Hammond, Hermann Ridderbos, Robert L. Plummer and then extend your reading further. Whilst only one of these was Anglican himself, the first four are widely read by evangelical Anglicans, which was my point.
Now I hope we can move on from showing off our knowledge of theologians and actually look at the evidence.
Before I respond further to Dr Seitz, I just want to add two more relevant pieces of original source material:
1. I noted above that the Apostles referred to their own writings as ‘scripture’: In 1 Timothy 5:18, St Paul refers to the Gospel of Luke as scripture, and in 2 Peter 3:16, St Peter describes the letters of Paul as scripture.
A friend has drawn my attention to an additional reference in the Gospel of John:
[blockquote] “Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded (Gr. ‘gegrammena’) in this book. But these are written (Gr. ‘gegraptai’) that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” [John 20:30-31] [/blockquote]
The words gegrammena and gegraptai are the perfect tense of ‘grapho’ – “I write” or “I engrave”, from which we get the word for scripture “graphe”. These are the same words used by the Apostle John at numerous instances where he cites Old Testament scripture: “It is written”. Now, near the end of his book he uses the same terms to describe his own work.
2. The Second Letter of Clement is now agreed to be wrongly ascribed to Clement of Rome, but it is still held to be a genuine letter from an unknown church pastor in the period 140 – 160 AD (and therefore prior to both Polycarp and Irenaeus). At 2:4 it refers to Matthew 9:13 as ‘scripture’.
Dr Seitz wrote
[blockquote] “Red herring? Who are these ‘anglican theologians’? (see your comments from the post above; my view on the use of the term ‘scripture’ in the earliest Fathers was also made very clear in that comment; it is the view of my several book publications on this matter as well).” [/blockquote]
Yes it is a red herring, and now becoming a blatant one. You have found three writers who support your position (Flessman von Leer actually doesn’t) but at no point have you enquired ‘What is their basis for this assertion?’. Rather your attitude seems to be: ‘Whew, someone else has written something in a book, so now I don’t need to think about it’.
But what is worse, you attempt to force that uncritical spirit onto others: you demand that we also must refrain from reading the early Church Fathers, and refrain from reading the Scriptures, and simply accept your quotations.
The issue is that you made a specific assertion that the early Church Fathers only use the term ‘scripture’ to refer to the Old Testament. You are now trying to distract attention from that by demanding a debate about what different theologians may or may not say about that and other issues (the quotes you have given us mostly relate to the broader issue of canon, not to your erroneous assertion).
The points I have made are as follows:
1. The Apostles in several places assert that their own writings have the status and authority of scripture, and indeed in at least three places describe their own writings as ‘scripture’.
2. A series of citations from various patristic works from the Didache through to Irenaeus show that the early church used the term ‘scripture’ to include the Apostolic writings – the gospels and the epistles.
3. The final point, in case I have not made it clear, is that we must assume that the Church Fathers believed in conformity with the Apostles’ teaching before them, unless we read clear evidence to the contrary – after all, that is the claim the Church Fathers themselves made, that their teaching conformed with that of the Apostles. The apostles having taught that their writings were scripture, we are obliged to assume that each of the Church Fathers believed the same, unless and until we see clear evidence to the contrary. So far, I don’t think we have seen that, except in the case of Papias (a witness of doubtful authority), whereas we have seen plenty of evidence the other way.
“I suspect you would have been aware when you stated your position that Anglican theologians from an evangelical or reformed standpoint disagree with itâ€â€”
Who are these? It is not an atagonistic question.
1 Timothy 5:18 refers to Deuteronomy 25.4 does it not?
2 Peter 3:16 is a fascinating text. It would appear to be an occasion where the Letters of Paul are being seen by Peter as like ‘the other scriptures,’ that is, like the scriptures themselves, the OT. I am arguing in my commentary on Colossians that Paul is beginning to be aware that the genre of ‘multiple audience letter’ may well have an afterlife (see Trobisch on this). Whether he regarded his own work as on par with OT scripture is very hard to say since he never speaks on the matter. Where he uses the word, it refers naturally enough to the Law and the Prophets, as with Jesus himself.
I am assuming that you regard the vast preponderance of references to the scriptures in the NT, that is 99.9% as referring to the OT. Romans 15:4 and 2 Timothy 3:15 included.
As for your categorisation of von Campenhausen (a ‘liberal’) — well that is your own narrow view. Jeffrey Bingham of DTS a liberal? Behr a ‘narrow circle’ guy? This is actually a bit sad to read.
I’d say Irenaeus is a bit of a mixed bag. But we are well into the second century by now. As I have indicated: “We must remember that by ‘Scripture’ the Fathers, up to Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Theophilus of Antioch, usually meant the Old Testament. At first this was the only approved and recommended collection of writings. But the paradosis of the Church, faithful to that of the apostles, was precisely this transmission of the Christ-event, as based documentarily on the Old Testament writings and, at the same time, explaining the meaning of these writingsâ€
“The Apostles in several places assert that their own writings have the status and authority of scripture, and indeed in at least three places describe their own writings as ‘scripture’. — not very compelling and unclear what importance this has theologically anyway, apart from some personal convictions you hold with high seriousness.
**
1 Timothy refers to Deut 25.
2 Peter refers to the OT ‘other scriptures’ (OT)
2 Timothy 3 speaks of sacred writings/scripture ‘known from youth’ (OT, not NT, obviously)
Romans 15:4 — obviously OT again
John 20 — your own personal idea based upon an extrapolation of the word for ‘writing’
“Now I hope we can move on from showing off our knowledge of theologians and actually look at the evidence.”
I’m sorry you took it this way. I am a professional theologian and was not seeking to inflate anything. I simply drew on quotes at hand because they are parts of my own published work and I can easily retrieve them. My views on canon are well known and can be read in several books: most recently, The Goodly Fellowship of the Prophets; The Character of Christian Scripture. My position in canon development is very close to that of my colleague Brevard S. Childs — a man usually disparaged by ‘liberal Anglicans’ as too reformed, ‘a calvinist’ etc.
Can you show me where Van Leer has the same views as you do on this topic? Thank you.
John Calvin on 2 Tim 3:15 on “Scripture”:
“First, he commends the Scripture on account of its authority; and secondly, on account of the utility which springs from it. In order to uphold the authority of the Scripture, he declares that it is divinely inspired; for, if it be so, it is beyond all controversy that men ought to receive it with reverence. This is a principle which distinguishes our religion from all others, that we know that God hath spoken to us, and are fully convinced that the prophets did not speak at their own suggestion, but that, being organs of the Holy Spirit, they only uttered what they had been commissioned from heaven to declare. Whoever then wishes to profit in the Scriptures, let him first of all, lay down this as a settled point, that the Law and the Prophets are not a doctrine delivered according to the will and pleasure of men, but dictated by the Holy Spirit.”
“And though he speaks of the Old Testament” —
Scripture and its potential for extension: Blessed, Careful Calvin, on Rom 15:4:
“For whatsoever things, etc. This is an application of the example, lest any one should think, that to exhort us to imitate Christ was foreign to his purpose; “Nay,†he says, “there is nothing in Scripture which is not useful for your instruction, and for the direction of your life.†This is an interesting passage, by which we understand that there is nothing vain and unprofitable contained in the oracles of God; and we are at the same time taught that it is by the reading of the Scripture that we make progress in piety and holiness of life. Whatever then is delivered in Scripture we ought to strive to learn; for it were a reproach offered to the Holy Spirit to think, that he has taught anything which it does not concern us to know; let us also know, that whatever is taught us conduces to the advancement of religion. *And though he speaks of the Old Testament*, the same thing is also true of the writings of the Apostles; for since the Spirit of Christ is everywhere like itself, there is no doubt but that *he has adapted his teaching by the Apostles*, as formerly by the Prophets, to the edification of his people. Moreover, we find here a most striking condemnation of those fanatics who vaunt that the Old Testament is abolished, and that it belongs not in any degree to Christians; for with what front can they turn away Christians from those things which, as Paul testifies, have been appointed by God for their salvation?”
Calvin’s point is consistent with the Early Church’s take, from whence he learned it.
1. there is one scripture
2. the inspiration of God within it will have a future life in the testimony of apostles
3. the ‘writings of the Apostles’ is shorthand for Calvin the ‘NT’
4. Paul does not refer to that
5. but the Church will in time acknowledge an ‘adaptation’ ‘as formerly by the Prophets’ (Calvin’s language)
6. this is for Calvin not the exegesis of Romans 15, or an effort to make the reference to ‘scripture’ Romans 15 mean the NT, but an observation of what will in time be the church’s teaching.
7. the ‘Spirit of Christ’ will make this so.
Amen.
Dr Seitz,
Your continual attempts to drag this into a general discussion of theologians (including repeating questions after I have given you plain answers) accomplishes nothing useful. I do not intend to waste further time on it. In response to your relevant points:
1. You wrote at #54,
[blockquote] “1 Timothy 5:18 refers to Deuteronomy 25.4 does it not?” [/blockquote]
Yes. It also refers to Luke 10:7, and it refers to both as ‘scripture’. See my #37 above.
[blockquote] “2 Peter 3:16 is a fascinating text. It would appear to be an occasion where the Letters of Paul are being seen by Peter as like ‘the other scriptures,’ that is, like the scriptures themselves, the OT.” [/blockquote]
Peter doesn’t say that Paul’s letters are “like scripture”. He says that people misuse Paul’s letters, “as they do the other Scriptures”.
[blockquote] “I am assuming that you regard the vast preponderance of references to the scriptures in the NT, that is 99.9% as referring to the OT. Romans 15:4 and 2 Timothy 3:15 included.” [/blockquote]
Yes – why would you need to ask? The important point is that the Apostles also refer to their own writings as scripture. Since the early Church Fathers (or at least, those that we regard as orthodox) purported to follow the Apostles doctrine, we can be sure that they also regarded both the Old and New Testament as scripture. And that is what we find.
2. You wrote at #55
[blockquote] ““The Apostles in several places assert that their own writings have the status and authority of scripture, and indeed in at least three places describe their own writings as ‘scripture’.—not very compelling and unclear what importance this has theologically anyway, apart from some personal convictions you hold with high seriousness.” [/blockquote]
Its compelling to those who value logic, accuracy, and careful checking of sources. I can’t speak for others.
[blockquote] “2 Timothy 3 speaks of sacred writings/scripture ‘known from youth’ (OT, not NT, obviously)
Romans 15:4—obviously OT again” [/blockquote]
Sure – has anybody suggested otherwise? I know I haven’t, but perhaps you are referring to someone else?
[blockquote] “John 20—your own personal idea based upon an extrapolation of the word for ‘writing’” [/blockquote]
I am sorry, I thought you were familiar with Greek. I also thought that when you referred at #20 above to “the citation formula used for the OT, ‘it is written’”, that you understood the background behind that and the relationship to the word for scripture. My mistake obviously.
3. Thank you for the two citations from Calvin in #58 and #59 which appear to support my point. Mind you, if you really want to discuss Calvin, citations would assist others to look at the passages in context if they wish.
4. At #60, I regret that I just cannot work out what the relevance of this is supposed to be.
“The important point is that the Apostles also refer to their own writings as scripture.”
No they don’t. The very idea is so rare and obscure that *the best you can do is find a reference from 1 source* which is of course quoting the book of Deuteronomy word for word, for the notion. 99.9% of the time the reference to scripture is patently the OT. You would raise the rarest of instances–shall we call it a 1/4 verse in 1 Timothy–to some kind of regula fidei.
Peter. The author is seeking to have his readers view the letters of Paul with the same seriousness as they do the scriptures, and in time that will indeed be so.
John 20 has nothing to do with the beloved disciple wanting to conform to some ideas you will have at T19 in 2012 and your remark about my knowledge of Greek is just adolescent.
Calvin’s citations? Now why would I assume that any reader here–if there still are any–would not know that Calvin wrote commentaries and that these are on biblical books so one can check the quotes by simply looking at the passages in question? I think any remaining readers can work that out.
I fear this exercise–I should think too obvious–may be necessary.
Matthew refers to the Scriptures and he means, obviously, the OT (the quotes are they if we are in doubt). The Apostle does not refer to his work as scripture.
Mark refers to the Scriptures. He does not refer to his work as scripture.
Luke refers to the Scriptures. He does not refer to his work as scripture. Jesus teaches the apostles from the Scriptures about himself.
Acts refers to the Scriptures. It does not refer to itself as scripture.
St Paul’s Letter to the Romans refers to the Scriptures. Paul speaks of sacred writings known from youth. The Apostle does not refer to Romans as scripture.
Ditto the remaining Pauline letters.
Hebrews refers to the Scriptures. The ‘apostolic author’ refers to Scripture. He does not refer to Hebrews as Scripture.
And so forth through to Revelation.
The Apostolic Fathers refer to Scripture. 99.9 per cent of the time they quote the OT as scripture. The development of the NT canon is underway.
Irenaeus quotes Scripture and in The Demonstration it is very clear that he means the OT. In time, this will change and the NT will have achieved a kindred and public recognition of a written status now replacing the vive voce of men like Philip, Aristion, Thomas, and so forth, including those apostles who have works associated with them, now in the 27 book NT.
The Nicene Creed declares that Jesus Christ’s death was ‘in accordance with the Scriptures’ — the reference goes back to 1 Cor 15. St Paul meant there, the Scriptures (OT).
It is important for the creedal profession that a) it is rooted in the NT; b) in the NT’s understanding of the providential work of the Triune God from all time, as attested in the prophetical writings, ‘in accordance with the Scriptures’; c) that this understanding is given to the apostles by the earthly and Risen Lord of the Church (Luke 24).
“to drag this into a general discussion of theologians” —
You wrote this, not I. I stated my professional position (as you say below) and you held up unknown ‘Anglican theologians’ as against it.
“I suspect you would have been aware when you stated your position that Anglican theologians from an evangelical or reformed standpoint disagree with itâ€.
This was not my statement but your own.
Not in relation to the respondent above, but a general comment on the formation of the NT canon (I mentioned above my view on Colossians and its place in the Pauline composition and conception of the afterlife of epistles).
In a chapter of Figured Out (2001) I argued that the reference to the world not being able to contain the ‘books that would be written’ (graphemena biblia) in the final line of John picked up the logic of Ecclesiastes (‘of the making of many books there is no end’) to make a point: testimony requires the assent and conversion of the will, and sufficient has been said. That is, John’s is not the Victorian idea of ‘gosh, we only have this material and think how much more there is!’ but a cautionary remark, akin to Qoheleth, about the sufficiency of what has been recorded (in his idiom, ‘beyond these, be wary’). I argued that John had in mind the sufficiency not just of his testimony, but was referring to a now completed fourfold Gospel collection (Richard Bauckham has argued that John’s Gospel assumes the readers know Mark; David Trobisch has argued that the last line of John is an editorial comment related to the preceding three Gospel witnesses; Codex Sinaiticus reveals a palimpsest indicating ‘according to John’ written under/beneath the final verse, which he believes shows the scribes instinctively thought the Gospel drew to a close with the penultimate verse). My point was an interpretative one, as having to do with John’s larger theological understanding of how knowledge is granted: it will require the Holy Spirit to open the scriptures’ meaning (the OT) which remains veiled in some measure to the apostles before the Resurrection (see 2:22 et al: ‘when therefore when he was raised from the dead his disciples remembered …and they believed the scripture (Ps 69:9)’). As with the OT, so too with the testimony of John and also the fourfold Gospel account. ‘Beware of anything beyond these, of the making of books there is no end’ (Eccles). I was unsurprised to find that Calvin read the final line of John’s Gospel in the same spirit of Ecclesiastes. Sufficient has been written. If one thought otherwise, the world would not contain all the books that could be written.
Brevard Childs has referred to this as ‘canon consciousness’ and in his posthumous The Church’s Guide for Reading Paul, he speaks of the remark in 2 Peter 3:16 as kindred. I am developing this notion in my commentary on Colossians, which is a letter to a congregation Paul has never visited, and one that can be profitably read by another congregation (4:16).
Calvin’s last sentence on John’s last verse:
“… it is our duty, on the other hand, to depend wholly on their testimony, and to desire nothing more than what they have handed down to us; and especially, because their pens were guided by the sure providence of God, that they might not oppress us by an unlimited mass of narratives, and yet, in making a selection, might make known to us all that God knew to be necessary for us, who alone is wise, and the only fountain of wisdom; to whom be praise and glory for ever. Amen.”
It is the wisdom spoken of here that fails to capture or captivate the larger purposes of Bart Ehrmann. We have sufficient for God to do His work of salvation, in the form we have it. Actually, in fairness, I believe he even conceded a version of this at one point himself.
Rest assured, gentlemen, that some of us are still reading and your correspondence, despite the occasional testiness (perhaps I’m mis-extrapolating that) is extremely interesting and valuable for those of us who lack your knowledge and insights. Many thanks.
#67–you’re welcome. The comment here is, like #66, a general one and not directed to details of the previous discussion.
I do a 12 week seminar on ‘From One Scripture to One Creed’. viz., culminating in the 381 Nicene-Constantinople Creed. I recall teaching a course early in my career on the exegesis of the church fathers and being stunned to discover the main biblical text figuring in the run-up to Nicaea. In ‘Against the Arians’ this is absolutely clear, where page after page Athanasius devotes himself to an argument for the credal ‘homoousia’ based virtually entirely on Proverbs 8:22ff. A long line of exegesis and argument from this single OT text precedes him (Origen, Tertullian, Justin, Clement of Alexandria, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, etc). This is of course not to say that key NT texts are not referenced in this long line; they are indeed (John 1; 1 Cor 8; Col 1; Phil 2). It is simply that the language of Proverbs 8 figures crucially in dogmatic accounts of how the Father and Son are related. A modern OT course would say Prov 8:22ff was about ‘wisdom’ and that would be correct. But the Fathers are interested in ontology and so their exegesis moves to dogmatics more reflexively/ineluctably. I mention this in reference to nothing in particular, except that searching for ‘earliest’ NT fragments as crucial for Christian conviction is likely to disproportionalize the way the church catholic actually did its theological and dogmatic thinking. The archaeologizing instinct may run right past the truly important issues at work in the transition from a Single Scripture to the mature faith of 381.
Dr Seitz wrote at #62,
[blockquote] “The important point is that the Apostles also refer to their own writings as scripture.â€
“No they don’t. The very idea is so rare and obscure that *the best you can do is find a reference from 1 source* which is of course quoting the book of Deuteronomy word for word, for the notion. 99.9% of the time the reference to scripture is patently the OT. You would raise the rarest of instances—shall we call it a 1/4 verse in 1 Timothy—to some kind of regula fidei.”
[/blockquote]
This makes no sense. Paul states in 1 Timothy 5:18 that Luke 10:7 is scripture. Peter states in 2 Peter 3:16 that the letters of Paul are scripture. These are just the explicit statements – there is plenty more in NT that accords with it. But in any case, Paul and Peter either have apostolic authority or they do not. If they do, then why do you disagree with them?
[blockquote] “Peter [i.e. 2 Peter 3:16]. The author is seeking to have his readers view the letters of Paul with the same seriousness as they do the scriptures, and in time that will indeed be so.” [/blockquote]
Indeed he is. Since “the author” is the Apostle Peter then there is no “in time” about it. This is the Apostolic teaching, and we have no reason to think that the early Church fathers or any other orthodox Christians ever disagreed with it.
[blockquote] “John 20 has nothing to do with the beloved disciple wanting to conform to some ideas you will have at T19 in 2012 and your remark about my knowledge of Greek is just adolescent.” [/blockquote]
My point was that if you were familiar with Greek you would understand the implications of John 20:30-31 stating that his own written words were “gegraptai”. The equivalent noun (graphe/graphai) always means Scripture in the NT, but I agree that the verbal form is occasionally used for other purposes (the best known example of that is Pontius Pilate: “ho gegrapha, gegrapha”, ‘what I have written, I have written’). But it is nevertheless true that in the vast majority of cases, gegraptai is used in the New Testament to refer to Old Testament scripture. When John uses it of his own gospel, I regard that as of obvious significance.
[blockquote] “Calvin’s citations? Now why would I assume that any reader here—if there still are any—would not know that Calvin wrote commentaries and that these are on biblical books so one can check the quotes by simply looking at the passages in question? I think any remaining readers can work that out.” [/blockquote]
Which doesn’t answer my question: How are the particular quotations which you gave from Calvin supposed to relate to this issue? As best I can tell, they have no relevance. They are of course consistent with Calvin’s teaching that the consent of the church added nothing to the authority of New Testament scripture which it did not already derive from Apostolic authority.
Let’s instead look at what Calvin wrote directly about this topic. His commentary on 2 Peter 3:16 may be found online at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom45.vii.iv.iv.html. I invite readers to read it. Calvin clearly takes the view that 2 Peter 3:16 means what is says, i.e. that Paul’s letters are scripture.
Its probably also helpful to look at Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion (I regret I cannot give an online citation but this book is still regularly re-printed and easy to get hold of):
[blockquote] “For it is not to be accounted of no consequence, that, from the first publication of Scripture, so many ages have uniformly concurred in yielding obedience to it …”. [Calv. Inst. Book I, Chap. 8, sect 12] [/blockquote]
Calvin’s view was that the New Testament scriptures were scripture from the moment they were written.
Dr Seitz wrote at #63
[blockquote] “I fear this exercise—I should think too obvious—may be necessary.
Matthew refers to the Scriptures and he means, obviously, the OT (the quotes are they if we are in doubt). The Apostle does not refer to his work as scripture. Mark refers to the Scriptures. He does not refer to his work as scripture. ….[etc etc etc]”
[/blockquote]
Sure, but so what? You appear to be under the misapprehension that I have argued that Christ and his Apostles did not hold the Old Testament to be scripture – I don’t understand how you got that idea. The fact that the Old Testament was held to be Scripture does not carry any implication that the New Testament is not Scripture, unless there is an explicit statement to that effect. Not only is there no such explicit statement, but we have explicit statements to the opposite effect, i.e. that the writings of the Apostles were regarded as scripture, by themselves and by the early Church.
[blockquote] “The Apostolic Fathers refer to Scripture. 99.9 per cent of the time they quote the OT as scripture.” [/blockquote]
You have no idea what are the relative percentage of references in the Apostolic Fathers and it is certainly nothing like “99.9 per cent” (I have read all of them often enough to know that). I agree that the Apostolic Fathers describe the Old Testament as scripture more often than they so describe the New Testament – that is no more than we would expect. Yet as I have pointed out above by several citations, the Apostolic Fathers do refer to the New Testament as scripture, from earliest times.
[blockquote] “Irenaeus quotes Scripture and in The Demonstration it is very clear that he means the OT.” [/blockquote]
It is not clear at all – that is just your assumption, because it fits in with your preconceptions. As I have shown by direct quotation from Irenaeus, his view was that both the Old and New Testaments were scripture and there is no reason to think he is being inconsistent with himself in the Demonstration just because it suits his purposes to refer to the Old Testament there.
[blockquote] “It is important for the creedal profession that a) it is rooted in the NT; b) in the NT’s understanding of the providential work of the Triune God from all time, as attested in the prophetical writings, ‘in accordance with the Scriptures’; c) that this understanding is given to the apostles by the earthly and Risen Lord of the Church (Luke 24).” [/blockquote]
I have never suggested otherwise. However, the creedal profession does not in any sense rely on your erroneous denial that (a) the Apostles held their own writings out to be scripture and (b) the early Church believed likewise.
Dr Seitz wrote at #65
[blockquote] “….In a chapter of Figured Out (2001) I argued that the reference to the world not being able to contain the ‘books that would be written’ (graphemena biblia) in the final line of John picked up the logic of Ecclesiastes …” [/blockquote]
Noted, although this does not appear to relate to the topic.
Dr Seitz wrote at #66,
[blockquote] Calvin’s last sentence on John’s last verse:
“… it is our duty, on the other hand, to depend wholly on their testimony, and to desire nothing more than what they have handed down to us; and especially, because their pens were guided by the sure providence of God, that they might not oppress us by an unlimited mass of narratives, and yet, in making a selection, might make known to us all that God knew to be necessary for us, who alone is wise, and the only fountain of wisdom; to whom be praise and glory for ever. Amen.†[/blockquote]
Thank you for supporting my position. Calvin’s point is that it was the Apostle (and by implication his fellow-Apostles) who made the choice as to what teachings would be left to us. As you will be aware if you are familiar with Calvin, his position was that all of these decisions were made by the Apostles, that we have nothing except what they left us, and that the Church had everything they left us by the time the last Apostle left this earth.
Dr Seitz wrote at #64,
[blockquote] “to drag this into a general discussion of theologiansâ€â€”
You wrote this, not I. I stated my professional position (as you say below) and you held up unknown ‘Anglican theologians’ as against it.” [/blockquote]
No, you attempted to drag this into a general discussion of theologians, apparently in an attempt to avoid debating the original source documents. As it turned out, your sources were four theologians, none of whom was Anglican! I then referred you to a number of theologians who thought differently to you, including an Anglican who is one of the most influential in the Communion today (Hammond). Yet for some reason you keep repeating your question as though I had never responded to it.
If you were familiar with reformed Anglican theology, you would know that the position I am putting forward (i.e. that the writings of the apostles were treated by the church as scripture from the time they were written) is unremarkable in those circles, which probably include a majority of Anglicans in the world today.
I regret that I am not confident that Dr Seitz is asking these questions because he really wishes to know the answer; but if it assists for the edification of others, and since he is obviously not satisfied with the reference to Hammond, I will give some further detail:
Dr Seitz may not have heard of Leon Morris, but I can assure him that millions of Anglicans all over the world have. Dr Morris was author of several classic volumes in the InterVarsity Press commentary series, and in the Eerdmans New International Commentary on the New Testament series. He was also Principal of Ridley College in Melbourne, Warden of Tyndale House Cambridge, and a visiting Professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School Illinois. He wrote in “The Authority of the Bible Today” (Churchman 75/3 1961):
[blockquote] “Before the apostles were taken away He guided them as they wrote words which should be authoritative for all that came after.
Nobody recognizes this more clearly than the immediate successors of the apostles. “As if by some providential instinct, each one of those teachers who stood nearest to the writers of the New Testament contrasted his writings with theirs, and definitely placed himself on a lower level.â€(1) They see in the apostolic writings the authoritative deposit of truth, and they make their appeal to it. It is important to be clear on this. There never was a time when the Christian Church appealed to any other authority.” [/blockquote]
Dr Morris’ quote is from “A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament” by Brooke Foss Westcott, Bishop of Durham. Dr Seitz may not have heard of +Westcott either. Suffice to say that at one point he was Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge. Dr Morris accurately reflects his beliefs on this matter.
The fourth writer I would like to draw readers’ attention to (after T. C. Hammond, Leon Morris and B. F. Westcott) is Michael Green. It is difficult to summarise Canon Green’s huge corpus of writings, but if Dr Seitz wants to walk into any evangelical Christian bookstore he is likely to find something by him. I believe the last academic position he occupied was Head of Apologetics at Wycliffe Hall Oxford, which is one of two main theological colleges for evangelical ordinands in the Church of England.
Among many other things, Canon Green wrote “The Second Epistle General of Peter and the Epistle of Jude” in the Tyndale commentary series. He writes:
[blockquote] “When this is borne in mind, is it so remarkable that one apostle should mention another’s writings in the same breath as the other Scriptures? Why must we deny the equal applicability of the term ‘Scripture’ to prophetic and apostolic writers when the ultimate authorship of God’s spirit is claimed for both?” [/blockquote]
Then note page 160 where Canon Green is of the view that the letter of Clement of Rome (written during or immediately after the Apostolic period) in at least four places cites both Old and New Testament passages together as “scripture”.
Then at page 161, expounding 2 Peter 3:16, Canon Green writes:
[blockquote] “The point was this. The apostles were conscious that they spoke the word of the Lord (1 Thes. 2:13) as surely as any of the prophets. There is nothing, therefore, unnatural about their placing each other alongside the Old Testament prophets. The same Holy Spirit who inspired the prophets was active in themselves. That is quite enough to explain how Peter could have put Paul alongside the Old Testament writers in this verse.” [/blockquote]
Finally, let’s look at Dean Edward Plumptre, former Professor of New Testament Exegesis at Kings College London. He wrote the Cambridge Commentary on 2 Peter. In his “The General Epistles of St Peter and St Jude” he refers to 2 Peter 3:16 at pages 197-198:
[blockquote] “[As they do also the other scriptures] Few passages are more important than this in its bearing on the growth of the Canon in the New Testament. It shews (1) that the distinctive term of honour used of the books of the Old Testament was applied without reserve to St Paul’s writings; (2) that probably other books now found in the Canon were so recognised. The last inference, though it might be said that the “other Scriptures” did not necessarily mean other writings than those of the Old Testament canon, is confirmed (1) by the use of the term “Scripture” as connected with a quotation from Luke x. 7 in 1 Tim v. 18; (2) by St Paul’s references to “prophetic writings” or “scriptures” as unfolding the mystery which had been hid from ages and generations in Romans xvi. 26, and probably by the tests which he gives in 2 Tim iii. 16 as the notes by which “every inspired Scripture, or writing” might be distinguished from its counterfeit”. [/blockquote]
Anglicans all over the world still read the works of these men (Hammond, Morris, Westcott, Green, Plumptre), and many current theologians base their work on them. If Dr Seitz claims to be completely unaware of them then so be it, but all I can say is that many others are.
I have again restated my position: in the early life of the church there was a) the authority of the inherited and venerable Scriptures, and coming alongside that, b) the testimony of the apostolic voice (much, though not all of which, will constitute a new testament scriptural canon, acknowledged as such in that form in the second century) ; but if your confusion is clearing that ought to be a good thing!
“When this is borne in mind, is it so remarkable that one apostle should mention another’s writings in the same breath as the other Scriptures?”
Why is the question phrased this way, defensively? Of course it is remarkable! One apostle is saying that the Letters of Paul should be ‘mentioned in the same breath’ (Michael Green’s language) as the Scriptures. A marvelous idea, bold and daring, something Paul might himself have drawn back from. But blessed Peter takes this risk. Letters of Paul may indeed come to be acknowledged as a new scripture, and indeed this will be so, when the canon of the NT comes to its providentiallyy guided final form.
“Why must we deny the equal applicability of the term ‘Scripture’ to prophetic and apostolic writers when the ultimate authorship of God’s spirit is claimed for both?â€
Again, why does Michael Green phrase it this way, defensively? The Church will decide precisely *not* to deny equal applicability precisely because they will judge the ‘authorship of God’s spirit’ operative in both. The apostolic voice will be judged to be of the work of the same ‘Holy Spirit who spake by the prophets’ and formal acknoweldgement of that will come in the acknowledgment of the NT canon. This has been my consistent and non-defensive point.
John 21 not on topic? No, very much on topic. A fragment of Mark in the form of several verses somehow decisive for the claims of Christian faith, when measured against the richs of the OT as Christian Scripture and the plumbing of that dogmatic richness by the apostles and the Early Fathers…very much on topic.
“if you are familiar with Calvin”
“if you were familiar with Greek”
This is a bit sad, I must confess.
“Before the apostles were taken away He guided them as they wrote words which should be authoritative for all that came after.
Nobody recognizes this more clearly than the immediate successors of the apostles. “As if by some providential instinct, each one of those teachers who stood nearest to the writers of the New Testament contrasted his writings with theirs, and definitely placed himself on a lower level.â€(1) They see in the apostolic writings the authoritative deposit of truth, and they make their appeal to it. It is important to be clear on this. There never was a time when the Christian Church appealed to any other authority.â€
Fully consistent with everything I have said. Thank you. The Apostolic Fathers recognized the living voice of the apostolic era as crucial and distinctive (see Irenaeus’s recollections and also those of Papias, cited above). This has nothing to do with whether the apostles themeselves blurred a distinction between Scripture and testimony and thought of their witness as ‘Scripture writing.’
Not in relation to the respondent above, but on the dogmatic potential of the Scriptures in Christian apprehension and profession, see Theophilus of Antioch:
Therefore God, having his own Logos innate in his own bowels (quoting LXX Ps 109.3, going back to Hebrew rehem or womb, close to the Gr kolpon [bosom] of John 1:18), generated him together with his own Sophia, vomiting him forth (LXX Ps 44.2) before anything else. He used this Logos as his servant in all things created by him, and through him he made all things (John 1:4). He is called Beginning (Gen 1:1) and Sophia (Prov 8:22) and power of the Most High (Luke 1:35), who came down into the prophets and spoke about the creation of the world and all the rest. For the prophets did not exist when the world came into existence; there were the Sophia of God which is in him and his holy Logos who is always present with him. For this reason he speaks thus through Solomon the prophet: “When he prepared the heaven I was with him, and when he made strong the foundations of the earth I was with him, binding them fast” (Prov 8:27-29) (Theophilus, Ad Autolycum)
On the dogmatic potential of the OT (cont).
Origen takes it that ‘Beginning’ in Genesis 1 (arche) is a title for Christ, confirming this on the basis of Prov 8, by means of a double object, “the LORD made me Beginning of his ways” similiarly Tertullian, “The Lord made me the Beginning of his ways for the creation of his works”. Athenagoras held a view close to this earlier (see Legatio 10:3-4).
For those following the thread on the development of the NT as canon:
Re: 2 Timothy’s reference to ‘sacred writings’ (grammata) and scripture (graphe), and the emergence of canon consciousness, see James Aaageson in a recent publication (The Pauline Corpus, 2004, 25ff). His careful formulation is also shared by BS Childs, The Church’s Guide (2008). The movement from occasional letters to letters-meant-to-circulate (Colossians and Ephesians) to the Pastorals is a gradual one, at the end of which intimations of a character close to that of the received Scriptures of Israel can be glimpsed. The ‘canonical Paul’ becomes the decisive lens through which to understand the Gospel’s emergence and elaborate extension. Childs speaks of “the conclusion of a lengthy historical process of canonization extending most probably into the early second century†and there we also find 2 Peter 3 and the associating of Paul’s Letters with the authoritative Scriptures.
Aageson speaks of this ‘canonical process’ (Concordia College; of LCMS heritage) in 2 Timothy 3:14-16. His formulation is careful and hermeneutically helpful.
“There is little doubt that what the author meant by sacred writings or God-breathed scripture are the scriptures of Israel. Even though we know that authoritative writings are beginning to emerge quite early in the church, it may well be anachronistic to think that the author had in mind a body of church produced writings that were now being referred to as God-breathed. In any case, the text gives us rather direct clues about the utility of scripture (OT) for the author: to make wise for salvation—for teaching, reproof, correction, and training. It may be not too much of a stretch to suggest that as an authoritative Pauline narrative and canonical world began to come into view, it was precisely these types of assertions about the usefulness and the divine authority of the texts that started to have an effect on how the Pauline texts and the good deposit were thought to function†(25-26).
I checked Calvin on 2 Peter 3. His concern is with what it means for Peter to speak of hard and difficult things in Paul’s writings, since, referring to the Scripture, “[it] shines to us as a lamp, and guides our steps.” The mysteries of Christ’s kingdom Peter can say hold obscurities, but these can likewise be overcome by the work of the Holy Spirit. As in Scripture, so in Paul’s letters, as Peter describes them.
I emphasise that the only reason I cited various Anglican authors above was to meet an insinuation that the position I have outlined was unknown in Anglicanism. If this thread is to become no more than citing of secondary authors, then there seems little further point to it. In the end, the primary documents speak for themselves.
Dr Seitz wrote at #73,
[blockquote] “I have again restated my position: in the early life of the church there was a) the authority of the inherited and venerable Scriptures, and coming alongside that, b) the testimony of the apostolic voice (much, though not all of which, will constitute a new testament scriptural canon, acknowledged as such in that form in the second century) ; but if your confusion is clearing that ought to be a good thing!” [/blockquote]
There is no confusion. I think we have both understand from early on where our disagreement lies: I hold that (a) the Apostles viewed their own writings as scripture; and (b) the early Church Fathers also viewed the Apostles’ writings as scripture.
Dr Seitz wrote at #74,
[blockquote] “Why is the question phrased this way, defensively?” [/blockquote]
I don’t think it is. That is just Canon Green’s style when responding to a position commonly held by liberals at that time.
[blockquote] “Of course it is remarkable! One apostle is saying that the Letters of Paul should be ‘mentioned in the same breath’ (Michael Green’s language) as the Scriptures. A marvelous idea, bold and daring, something Paul might himself have drawn back from.” [/blockquote]
On the contrary, it appears consistent with Paul’s own teachings, which is the very point made by Morris, Green and Plumptre.
[blockquote] “But blessed Peter takes this risk.” [/blockquote]
Why should it be a risk? As an Apostle, Peter is authorised to deliver divine teaching to the Church.
[blockquote] “Letters of Paul may indeed come to be acknowledged as a new scripture, and indeed this will be so, when the canon of the NT comes to its providentiallyy guided final form.” [/blockquote]
That is your private opinion. But it is not what Peter wrote, and it is not the opinion of the early Church Fathers.
[blockquote] “The apostolic voice will be judged to be of the work of the same ‘Holy Spirit who spake by the prophets’ and formal acknoweldgement of that will come in the acknowledgment of the NT canon.” [/blockquote]
It depends what you mean by ‘judged’. So far as I am aware, the Church has never taught that it had authority to decide anything about the canon, other than to acknowledge what Christ and his Apostles had always taught. If the act of recognising and agreeing with Apostolic teaching is to be called ‘judging’, then sure, I agree with you.
[blockquote] “A fragment of Mark in the form of several verses somehow decisive for the claims of Christian faith, when measured against the richs of the OT as Christian Scripture and the plumbing of that dogmatic richness by the apostles and the Early Fathers…very much on topic.” [/blockquote]
I don’t think anyone on this thread has suggested that this fragment of Mark is “decisive for the Christian faith”. Why would it be?
Dr Seitz wrote at #76,
[blockquote] “Fully consistent with everything I have said. Thank you. The Apostolic Fathers recognized the living voice of the apostolic era as crucial and distinctive (see Irenaeus’s recollections and also those of Papias, cited above). This has nothing to do with whether the apostles themeselves blurred a distinction between Scripture and testimony and thought of their witness as ‘Scripture writing.’” [/blockquote]
If you agree with Dr Morris then that’s great. But the apostles don’t “blur a distinction”, they declare plainly that it doesn’t exist. In turn, the early Church Fathers acknowledge this (as they were bound to do).
Dr Seitz wrote at #79,
[blockquote] “Childs speaks of “the conclusion of a lengthy historical process of canonization extending most probably into the early second century†and there we also find 2 Peter 3 and the associating of Paul’s Letters with the authoritative Scriptures.” [/blockquote]
In other words, you are now contending that the Apostle Peter did not write 2 Peter. Your taking this position is understandable: When confronted with the plain words of 2 Peter, in the end your only refuge can be to deny that it was authored by Peter, and therefore to deny that it held apostolic authority. And if sustained, such a position does get you out of your bind: If 2 Peter was not in fact authored by the Apostle Peter then it has no authority for Christians.
[blockquote] “Aageson speaks of this ‘canonical process’ (Concordia College; of LCMS heritage) in 2 Timothy 3:14-16. His formulation is careful and hermeneutically helpful. …” [/blockquote]
His ‘formulation’ (i.e. his article) ignores the evidence that both Paul and Peter declared Apostolic writings to be scripture, and that the earliest Church Fathers made similar acknowledgment.
[blockquote] “I checked Calvin on 2 Peter 3. His concern is with what it means for Peter to speak of hard and difficult things in Paul’s writings, since, referring to the Scripture, “[it] shines to us as a lamp, and guides our steps.— [/blockquote]
No, that twists his point. What Calvin actually writes is: “It may, however, be asked, Whence is this obscurity [in Paul’s letters], for the Scripture shines to us like a lamp, and guides our steps?”
Calvin’s point is, in effect: “How can Paul’s writings, being Scripture, be said to be obscure, given that clarity is one of the characteristics of Scripture?” His answer is that all scripture is obscure in some respects to those who do not have the Holy Spirit’s illumination. Hence he concludes: “However the mode of teaching which God has adopted, has been so regulated, that all who refuse not to follow the Holy Spirit as their guide, find in the Scripture a clear light.”
“I emphasise that the only reason I cited various Anglican authors above was to meet an insinuation that the position I have outlined was unknown in Anglicanism.”
You seem to major in insinuations, also as to how the NT writers thought about the status of Scripture and the tole of their own testimony (different in kind, for obvious reasons).
My question was sincere as I teach at the largest anglican evangelical seminary in North America and I was curious who you were saying held views at such odds with my own. BTW, if you are wanting to refer to my professional title it is ‘Professor Seitz.’
“I hold that (a) the Apostles viewed their own writings as scripture; and (b) the early Church Fathers also viewed the Apostles’ writings as scripture”
Near the close of the NT writings, a) it is possible for a single Apostle to associate–not his own testimony but that of another, Paul–with the Scriptures; b) the Apostolic Fathers far more often refer to Scripture and mean by that the ‘Law and the Prophets’ (naturally this would be so, given the unquestioned authority of the venerable Scriptures), than they do the testimony of the apostles, which has of course its own very special and crucial place; c) by the time of the Ante-Nicene Fathers the picture is more mixed, as the NT canon has found its secure place over against the Scriptures, thus constituting with them a Christian Bible in the sense we mean that, d) still in this same period, the dogmatic potential of the OT Scriptures is front and center, and forms a decisive place in debates over the relationship of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
You will search in vain for Calvin registering the kind of emphasis on ‘the apostles viewing their own writings as scripture’ in 2 Peter. His emphasis is elsewhere, as is consistent for his approach, since as you should know he constantly demurs from what he calls undue speculation. It is the perspicuous which interests him, not the speculative.
One of the surprizes Calvin represents for a certain kind of evangelical is his estimate of the use of the OT in the NT. He is well aware of the provisional character of the use, and can refer to it without further ado with language like ‘the Apostle freely renders’ the scriptural text. Psalm 8 or Psalm 2 (both widely accessed in the NT) retain their voice as Christian Scripture for the Church and are not subsumed under the NT usage, which in turn has its own crucial place. There is Scriptural testimony (Psalm 2 is about David, and the divine author builds in a further referentiality regarding David’s greater son; Psalm 8 is about the dignity of mankind in reference to Genesis; it is ‘rendered freely’ by the author of Hebrews, etc). And there is apostolic testimony. They bear witness to different forms of testimony, both with their providential purpose. Even when in time the term Scripture is used to refer to a dual witness, Old and New Testaments, the very existence of the OT as received from the bosom of Israel, unglossed by Christian testimony (‘my God, my God, he cried from the Tree’), serves the purpose of reminding the church of the divine authority acknowledged and received in faith, capable of extension to a second witness. The same principle holds true of the NT. What Peter can say about apostolic testimony not his own, the church can and will say about the NT canon as a whole. (I treat the entire topic at book-length in The Character of Christian Scripture [Baker Academic, 2011]).
Professor Seitz wrote at #81
[blockquote] “You seem to major in insinuations” [/blockquote]
I don’t understand what you mean by this.
[blockquote] “also as to how the NT writers thought about the status of Scripture and the tole [??] of their own testimony (different in kind, for obvious reasons).” [/blockquote]
I do not in any sense “major” in it. I am however used to debating any topic with due rigour and attention to detail.
[blockquote] “My question was sincere as I teach at the largest anglican evangelical seminary in North America and I was curious who you were saying held views at such odds with my own.” [/blockquote]
That is indeed commendable, even in light of the quite small place that North American Anglicanism occupies within the Communion. However, I am very surprised that anyone teaching in an “Anglican evangelical seminary” anywhere in the world would be completely unfamiliar with Hammond, Morris, Green, Westcott or Plumptre. You haven’t heard of them, you don’t know what millions of Anglicans in the world believe, and your citations appear to be mainly from liberal writers. I suppose “evangelical” is a broad enough mantle that anyone can lay claim it.
[blockquote] “BTW, if you are wanting to refer to my professional title it is ‘Professor Seitz.’” [/blockquote]
My apologies. I had not heard of you except on T19, and I just followed what others wrote on different threads. You will appreciate that there are thousands of doctors and professors of various theological disciplines in the world and no-one can keep track of them all.
Prof. Seitz wrote at #82
[blockquote] “Near the close of the NT writings, a) it is possible for a single Apostle to associate—not his own testimony but that of another, Paul—with the Scriptures;” [/blockquote]
No it wasn’t just a single apostle. Paul says the same thing about the Gospel of Luke in 1 Tim 5:18. And all Apostles make clear that they view their own writings as authoritative in the same way as scripture.
[blockquote] “b) the Apostolic Fathers far more often refer to Scripture and mean by that the ‘Law and the Prophets’” [/blockquote]
I don’t know about “far more often”. [Firstly, I tend to use the term “early Church Fathers” rather than Apostolic Fathers – I assume you don’t need me to explain the reason for that] A lot of the time the early Church Fathers don’t write the word “scripture” at all, they simply quote. When they do use the word Scripture it refers to Old Testament somewhat more often than New Testament, although even this statistic is skewed by works like Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho which are aimed at a devout Jewish audience.
In any case, how does this statistic (whatever it may be) help your position? The early Church Fathers refer to the Old Testament as Scripture – so do I. They write “As the scripture says” followed by a quote from the Old Testament – so do I. You don’t appear able to grasp that, just because a person writes that the Old Testament is scripture, does not mean that they are saying the New Testament is not scripture!
[blockquote] “…by the time of the Ante-Nicene Fathers the picture is more mixed, as the NT canon has found its secure place over against the Scriptures …” [/blockquote]
Actually this was when the NT canon had NOT found a secure place. I assume you are referring to late 2nd, 3rd and early 4th centuries. This was when the NT canon came under hottest attack from those (such as Marcionites) who wanted to remove books, and those (such as Gnostics) who wanted to add books. Great confusion was created throughout the church as to which were the books truly of apostolic authorship or sanction, which alone could be authoritative in the Church. Faithful leaders had to conduct special investigations to check the evidence as to which books were or were not of apostolic authority. This is why we find leaders such as Athanasius in 376 AD or Augustine in 397 AD promulgating lists of New Testament books – not because they were daring to declare or judge anything of their own authority, but rather they were telling the church what the evidence said about Apostolic authority.
Prof. Seitz wrote at #83
[blockquote] “You will search in vain for Calvin registering the kind of emphasis on ‘the apostles viewing their own writings as scripture’ in 2 Peter.” [/blockquote]
On the contrary, it is evident in his commentary as discussed above, also in the passage from the Institutes which I quoted. You have already tried to put your own slant on Calvin’s words in the commentary, but as I explained above, that isn’t what he is saying.
[blockquote] “His emphasis is elsewhere, as is consistent for his approach, since as you should know he constantly demurs from what he calls undue speculation. It is the perspicuous which interests him, not the speculative.” [/blockquote]
Since Calvin did not regard the scriptural authority of the New Testament as speculation, this is irrelevant.
Prof. Seitz wrote at #84
[blockquote] “One of the surprizes Calvin represents for a certain kind of evangelical is his estimate of the use of the OT in the NT.” [/blockquote]
But presumably you aren’t including reformed evangelical Anglicans in that category, such as the writers I named above or the millions of Anglicans worldwide who follow that theology, since you admit that you had not heard of them prior to this thread. So you aren’t in a position to make a judgment about them, are you?
[blockquote] “Psalm 8 or Psalm 2 (both widely accessed in the NT) retain their voice as Christian Scripture for the Church and are not subsumed under the NT usage” [/blockquote]
Nobody has suggested otherwise.
[blockquote] “There is Scriptural testimony …. And there is apostolic testimony. They bear witness to different forms of testimony, both with their providential purpose.”
[/blockquote]
In one sense that is correct. The Old Testament testimony comes through the Prophets. The New Testament testimony comes through the Apostles. Both are scripture, but by different dispensations.
[blockquote] “Even when in time the term Scripture is used to refer to a dual witness, Old and New Testaments…” [/blockquote]
There is no “in time” about it when the Apostles themselves teach this. They do not depend on any later judgment of the church for their authority – rather the opposite.
[blockquote] “the very existence of the OT as received from the bosom of Israel, unglossed by Christian testimony (‘my God, my God, he cried from the Tree’), serves the purpose of reminding the church of the divine authority acknowledged and received in faith” [/blockquote]
Of course. Nobody has suggested otherwise.
[blockquote] “What Peter can say about apostolic testimony not his own, the church can and will say about the NT canon as a whole.” [/blockquote]
Peter says it about his own testimony also, just as Paul does, and just as Paul does about the Gospel of Luke. The church indeed bears witness to what the Apostles taught, but the church cannot add anything to their authority. It is the same if I testify to unbelievers about the faith – my witness is valuable and necessary for them, but I personally add no authority whatsoever to that which the message already possesses.
“That is indeed commendable, even in light of the quite small place that North American Anglicanism occupies within the Communion. However, I am very surprised that anyone teaching in an “Anglican evangelical seminary†anywhere in the world would be completely unfamiliar with Hammond, Morris, Green, Westcott or Plumptre.”
This is getting a bit silly. I can’t be asked to know about men you, for reasons of concern about insinuation, have not revealed. I don’t know who you are and so who you understand to be an anglican evangelical of note would have to be revealed, which you for some reason chose not to do until late into the thread. NT Wright, Richard Bauckham, David and Gordon Wenham, Christopher Wright, Anthony Thistleton — these would be people who identify as anglican evangelicals. I was not sure if you meant them. Clearly not.
So in the entirety of the NT canon, we have a single reference to the Letter of Paul by the author of 2 Peter, in which mention is made of ‘the other scriptures’; and we have a quote in 1 Timothy of Deuteronomy, with Luke’s use of that text mentioned. Neither text refers to itself as scripture, and this is the sum total of the evidence for no genre distinction between the Scriptures and the apostolic testimony.
“the quite small place that North American Anglicanism occupies within the Communion” —
Do you happen to have any idea how many Wycliffe College graduates a) have gone into the mission field, b) now have prominent roles in the GS? One thinks, e.g., of the Primate of Kenya, a Wycliffe graduate. Wycliffe College is a sister institution with the seminary in the W Indies and counts Archbishop Drexel Gomez a close friend. In May a conference on covenant will bring the Bishop of Iran, and AB Josiah Idowu-Fearon (Nigeria) back to our campus. Paul Avis from the CofE will also be present. Oliver O’Donovan, John Webster, and Lord Coggin are all former faculty members — as well as Griffith Thomas in an earlier day.
I do not know what to make of someone who believes Hammond and Plumtre are household names but regards Wycliffe College as part of a ‘quite small place’ in global anglicanism.
Prof. Seitz wrote:
[blockquote] “This is getting a bit silly. I can’t be asked to know about men you …” [/blockquote]
Nobody asked you to do anything. You complained that you had never heard of the position I was putting forward. You continually badgered to know names of theologians who taught it (quite why that was relevant to the thread was and is beyond me), and when I pointed out a few of them, you admitted that you didn’t know that, and hadn’t read them.
[blockquote] “So in the entirety of the NT canon, we have a single reference to the Letter of Paul by the author of 2 Peter, in which mention is made of ‘the other scriptures’; and we have a quote in 1 Timothy of Deuteronomy, with Luke’s use of that text mentioned. Neither text refers to itself as scripture, and this is the sum total of the evidence for no genre distinction between the Scriptures and the apostolic testimony.” [/blockquote]
No, Peter didn’t refer to “the Letter of Paul”, he referred to “letters”, clearly more than one. And Paul in 1 Timothy 5:18 doesn’t “mention Luke’s use of Deuteronomy”, he states that Luke 10:7 is scripture. And its not by any means the ‘sum total’ of evidence that the Apostles regarded their own writings as scripture, nor that the early Church Fathers believed the same. Nor did I make any reference to ‘genre’.
[blockquote] “Do you happen to have any idea how many … I do not know what to make of someone who believes Hammond and Plumtre are household names but regards Wycliffe College as part of a ‘quite small place’ in global anglicanism.” [/blockquote]
Which is not what I wrote, but no matter. If you don’t know what to make of it, then try making nothing at all. :o)
“quite why that was relevant to the thread was and is beyond me” — obvious enough as you claimed it was the anglican and evangelical position. Your words:
“I suspect you would have been aware when you stated your position that Anglican theologians from an evangelical or reformed standpoint disagree with it!â€
You were wrong in your suspicion. I had no idea who you were referring to and so asked. Plumptre and Hammond are scholars I have never heard of.
“Which is not what I wrote, but no matter.” You wrote:
“the quite small place that North American Anglicanism occupies within the Communionâ€
Sorry for the typo in #87, it should read:
So in the entirety of the NT canon, we have a single reference to the Letters of Paul by the author of 2 Peter, in which mention is made of ‘the other scriptures’; and we have a quote in 1 Timothy of Deuteronomy, with Luke’s use of that text mentioned. Neither text refers to itself as Scripture, and this is the sum total of the evidence for no genre distinction between the Scriptures and the apostolic testimony.
“your citations appear to be mainly from liberal writers. I suppose “evangelical†is a broad enough mantle that anyone can lay claim it.”
Just as anyone can call anyone ‘liberal’ — BS Childs, Don Collett, Flessman Leer (I never did see you indicate her agreement with your views), Jeffrey Bingam (from that liberal Dallas Seminary stable), Aageson (another liberal from the Missouri Synod), John Behr (a ‘liberal’ Orthodox seminary Dean), Yves Congar (a ressourcement ‘liberal’), Richard Bauckham (a ‘liberal’), David Trobisch (a ‘liberal’), and of course H. v Campenhausen (a ‘liberal’).
I referred to evangelical anglicans above. Are they ‘liberals’?
Prof. Seitz,
Your #90 – 93 contain yet more inaccuracies and incorrect or misleading characterisations of things I have written above. It is becoming tedious to respond to them every day. Your only substantive point in these posts is a minor correction in #92, which does not require further response beyond my #89.
If you can come up with anything else substantive about an issue concerning the fragment of Mark or the place of scripture in the Apostolic church or early church I will be happy to respond to it.
Tedious indeed.
I intrude with some trepidation: but re no. 61, is it not more likely that the Pauline author of I Timothy was referring directly to Deuteronomy 24/25 than to the Gospel of Luke, a work that may have post-dated 1 Timothy or was so nearly contemporaneous as not to be known to the author of Timothy? If there is merit in the underpinnings of this question, I would think I Timothy’s reference to the unmuzzled ox and the workman entitled to his wages supports Professor Seitz’s point that the Hebrew Bible was regarded as honored “Scripture” in a period where the Canon had not been frozen and where there may have been a number of texts and oral recitations in circulation regarding the life and sayings of Christ.