Part I: The Development of the Canon  Which Bible? Which Canon?  Protestant say the Bible contains 66 books: the 39 books of the Old Testament (OT) and the 27 books of the New Testament (NT). They might even be able to name them. Roman Catholics say the Sacred Scripture consisted of 77 books while the Eastern Orthodox say there are 81. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church has an even larger canon. There are other groups, like the Syriac and the Coptic churches which have different canonical criteria. (Halnon n.d.) Rev. Dr. Wil Gafney writes: The Protestant Bible is the shortest and newest of Christian bibles and used by the fewest number of Christians around the world, yet its adherents — particularly in the American context – are the loudest. Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and Episcopal bibles like the original 1611 King James Version of the bible, Martin Luther's revolutionary translation and the earliest manuscript with both testaments, Codex Sinaticus [sic], have 72 to 80 books or more and are read by the vast majority of Christians on the planet, more than a billion and a half people. There is perhaps the most diversity among the Orthodox with Ethiopian Orthodox including Jubilees and the Books of Enoch and some Slav churches including all four Esdrases. (Gafney 2013) The books which Protestants do not accept they call the Apocrypha. F.F. Bruce uses the term Apocrypha to mean ‘spurious works’; (Bruce, The Canon of Scripture 2010, 77) however, the etymology of the term suggests it means ‘hidden books.’ Robert Henry Charles writes concerning the development of the term Apocrypha. How the term 'Apocryphal Books' (άπόκρυφα βιβλία) arose has not yet been determined. It did not, as Zahn (Gesch, des Neutestamentlichen Kanons I. i. 123 sq.), Schurer, Porter, N. Schmidt, and others maintain, originate in the Late Hebrew phrase, ספרים נסתרים, 'hidden books.' But Talmudic literature knows nothing of such a class. The Hebrew word ganas (גנו) does not mean to hide', but 'to store away' things in themselves precious. Indeed, so far is it from being a technical term in reference to non-Canonical writings, that it is most frequently used in reference to the Canonical Scriptures themselves. When writings were wholly without the pale of the Sacred books—such as those of the heretics or Samaritans—they were usually designated hisonim, i.e. ' outside.' (Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English Vol 1 1913, vii) The ancients did not use the term ‘Apocryphal’ in the way we use it today; indeed, Apocryphal never referred to what Protestants today call the Apocrypha. There were books in the Hebrew Scriptures (such as the Song of Solomon) which were considered to have hidden meanings; these books come closer to the idea contained in the ancient term ‘Apocryphal.’ As far as the canon goes, the group Islamic Awareness provides an interesting look into the canonical problem. They list eight different canons of scripture: the Anglican Church, the Armenian Church, the Coptic Church, the Ethiopian (Abyssinian) Church, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Protestant Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Syriac Church. (Islamic Awareness n.d.) They neglected the canon of the Orthodox Tewahedo Church, which is perhaps the largest of all the canonical collections. How curious that it takes the Muslims to tell us the canon of Scripture is not as settled as we like to think. We often think of the Bible as a fixed collection of books. However, the canonical history is complicated. In our discussions of inspiration and the canon of scripture, we forget about the human factor. The Scriptures did not just fall from the sky in finished form; instead, the writings and collections were a human effort. Karl Barth reminds us of this when he speaks of "the two humanly composed and selected collections which we call the Bible." (Barth, Church Dogmatics I.2 2004, 468) Christians rightly credit inspiration to the Holy Spirit, but sometimes forget holy men of God mediated this inspiration. (2Pe 1:21) Just as with inspiration of individual books, so too with the canon as a whole; the Holy Spirit works through human beings. Like all human endeavors, the canon of Scripture is messy. Some people credit Emperor Constantine with the creation of the Bible as we know it, but this is historically inaccurate. This position is expressed in Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code”, for example. The church fathers were less interested in defining what was in the canon as what was most definitely outside the canon. In Jesus day, the Old Testament canon was not well-defined. Hershel Shanks, writing for the Biblical Archaeology Society, writes of the canonical status of Jesus' day: "At this point in history there was no fixed canon, no authoritative list of sacred books." (Shanks 2007, 19) Karlfried Froehlich writes: At the time of Jesus, therefore, the later Pharisaic canon was by no means standard. If one considers that for the Sadducees scriptural authority rested in the five books of Moses only, while the canon of the Qumran sect or the Septuagint (the Greek Bible) included additional books often apocalyptic in nature, the Pharisaic canon appears as a compromise endorsing as normative neither a minimum nor a maximum of the available literature in use among Jews. It does reveal a bias against the newer apocalyptic and pseudepigraphic Pseudepigrapha are falsely-attributed works. The attribution may be intentionally misleading, or may mean the work is following in the tradition of an earlier authority. literature and its use in sectarian circles, perhaps including the Christians. (Froehlich 1984, Kindle Locations 67-70) Canonically speaking, the most conservative group within Judaism was the Samaritan sect who, it is often stated, considered only the five books of Moses to be Scripture. Some scholars (like Karlfried Froehlich) think the Sadducees only accepted the Pentateuch as Scripture, which would explain why Jesus answered the Sadducees' question on resurrection using the Pentateuch. (Matt 22:23-32) Most modern scholars think the Sadducees and Pharisees used roughly the same authoritative writings, although they by no means considered them all to be Scripture. (McDonald 2007, 139-141) There is a difference between writings considered authoritative and writings considered to be scripture. For example, most Lutherans consider the Book of Concord to be an authoritative interpretation of Scripture, but not itself a Scripture. The Pharisees considered the Law, the Prophets, and other writings The phrase ‘other writings’ refers to an amorphous group. The three-fold division of the Hebrew scriptures was created by later Rabbinic Judaism in response to the fall of Jerusalem and the rise of Christianity. It is only by reading this later development into earlier history that some find evidence for a closed canon. as Scripture; then also added oral traditions and interpretations as authoritative. According to the popular view (based on the supposed association of the Dead Sea Scrolls with the Essenes), the Essenes had an even larger group of inspired and authoritative texts. The Dead Sea Scrolls include different versions of the same text, implying the text of certain Old Testament books were not yet standardized. (Shanks 2007, 19) The association of Qumran with the Essenes is based on archeological digs by a Dominican monk named Roland de Vaux, as interpreted through the translation (by a Polish scholar named Jozef Milik) of a scroll called "The Rule of the Community". Roland de Vaux's views were widely accepted in the academic community in the 1970s and fired the popular imagination. More recent archeology has cast doubt upon the identification of the Qumran community with the Essenes, and suggests that the texts hidden away in the caves of Qumran were deposited by the Jews of Jerusalem in anticipation of the Roman's capture of Jerusalem. This view is bolstered by the inclusion of a copper scroll comprising a list of possible second temple treasures hidden away in anticipation of the Roman advance. (Lawler 2010) However, Dennis Mizzi shows that this view, popularized by Norman Golb, has its own problems — chiefly that there are plenty of caves in the vicinity of Jerusalem, such that no one would have had to make the journey to Qumran to hide their libraries. (Mizzi 2017, pp. 23-25) The Septuagint was the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures used by the Jewish diaspora, The Jewish Diaspora consists of the Jews spread throughout the Greco-Roman world and beyond. the contents of which had not yet been settled by the Jews. The Septuagint contains additional historical and wisdom literature as well as alternate versions of some other books. Some synagogues even used the Septuagint in Jerusalem. (Lawler 2010) The typical Protestant understanding of the Old Testament canon assumes a closed catalog of books was established well before Jesus’ day. F. F. Bruce provides a succinct description of the Protestant view in his book, The Canon of Scripture when he writes about the Scriptures used by both Jews and Christians in the time of Christ. Our Lord and his apostles might differ from the religious leaders of Israel about the meaning of the Scriptures; there is no suggestion that they differed about the limits of the Scriptures. ‘The Scriptures’ on whose meaning they differed were not an amorphous collection: when they spoke of ‘the Scriptures’ they knew which writings they had in mind and could distinguish them from other writings which were not included in ‘the Scriptures.' (Bruce, The Canon of Scripture 2010, 28-29) I am using F. F. Bruce as a foil — as someone whose views are emblematic of and stand in for an entire movement. Many think of F. F. Bruce as one of the shapers of the modern Evangelical movement, and his writings on the Canon are still source material for today's Evangelical scholars. (Grass 2012, 39) F. F. Bruce argues the Canon of the Old Testament was closed before Jesus’ day. He supports his premise with specious arguments from Scripture. His arguments are not consistent with the historical evidence, which suggests the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures took shape around 300 years after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Bruce also fails to mention how the Apocrypha heavily influenced the New Testament documents. As we shall see, the Apocrypha are consistent with the New Testament. Sometimes the authors of the New Testament quote the Apocrypha, paraphrase it, or simply condense the Apocryphal material. In still more cases the authors merely alluded to the Apocrypha, assuming their reader would be familiar with the source material. Jesus often used a single comment as a means of bringing an entire passage to his hearer's minds. For example, while on the cross, Jesus cried out: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" His hearers should have been aware he was quoting the first phrase from Psalm 22, and eventually some understood the entire Psalm was a depiction of what they had seen taking place on the cross. And finally, as we shall see, the New Testament fulfills prophecies found in the Apocrypha. None of this necessarily means the Apocrypha are scripture. Different groups of Christians hold different views regarding the authority and value of the Apocrypha. For some the Apocrypha is of no value and should not be read; for others, the Apocrypha is worth reading, but not authoritative; a few claim the Apocrypha to be authoritative, yet not on the same level as Sacred Scripture. The arguments for why the Apocrypha is not part of Sacred Scripture are weak. I hope you, dear reader, will appreciate the value of the Apocrypha to the authors of the New Testament. I also hope you will find the Apocrypha of value to you as well, even if you do not accept them as scripture. The Judaic Old Testament Canon  The idea of the canon as a list of authoritative books would have been strange to Jews of the Second Temple period. For them, the Temple was the center of their religion. Lester L. Grabbe, Emeritus Professor of Hebrew Bible and Early Judaism at the University of Hull, England, writes: It is natural that people often assume that Judaism in the Second Temple period was more or less like contemporary Judaism, in which people meet weekly or even more frequently in synagogues to pray, worship, and hear the Bible read. The written scripture and its reading and study are assumed to be the focus of Judaism at all times. …Yet the Judaism of pre-70 times was formally structured in a quite different way from the Judaism of later times. The main religious institution was the Jerusalem temple, and temple worship went back many centuries in Jewish and Israelite history. …The main activity in the temple was blood sacrifice. (Grabbe 2010, Kindle Locations 536-538; 540-541) Lester L. Grabbe goes on to discuss the issue of the supposed canon during Second Temple Judaism. When and how the present canon became finalized is still not known, despite a number of studies on the subject. Some Jewish groups seem to have accepted a different set of books as authoritative compared to other groups. (Ibid, Kindle Locations 561-562) Jaroslav Pelikan agrees with Grabbe, and writes: Not only is the use of the word canon as a designation for an authoritative list of sacred books a rather late phenomenon within the history of the Jewish community, but even the idea of a fixed and final list came about only after a long evolution. (Pelikan 2005, 39) Julio Trebolle Barrera notes the idea of a canon was foreign to the Jewish mind. He notes the word canon is a term connected to “New Testament studies,” and Jews did not use it until “the 4th cent. CE.” He writes: To apply the term «canon» to the Hebrew Bible, therefore, is quite unsuitable. Hebrew has no term which corresponds to Greek «canon». Rabbinic discussions concerning the canonical or apocryphal character of certain biblical books such as Song of Songs and Qoheleth, turn on the expression «defiles the hands». The supposition is that books of which it is said that «they defile the hands» were considered as canonical, whereas books to which this expression was not applied were excluded from the biblical canon. However, the expression «defile the hands» may have no more significance than to refer to ritual purification to be performed after having used such books and before starting any other secular activity. (Barrera 1998, 148) Saying Hebrew has no term corresponding to the Greek word ‘canon’ is not precisely true. The Greek word ‘canon’ is itself a loan word from the Semitic languages. In Hebrew, the word is קָנֶה (qaneh) meaning 'tube' or 'reed'. The Hebrew word qaneh is related to the Assyrian word qanu and the Arabic word qanah, meaning 'hollow stick' or 'reed'. From Greek philosophy came the idea of canon in the sense of a rule or measuring stick, an idea expanded upon by the ancient church to mean the rule of faith, which rule measured truth from error. The concept of canon as the rule of faith is a Christian idea that developed rather late. The Jews eventually adopted the idea of a canon as the rule of faith and applied it to the Hebrew Scriptures, but such an idea was unknown in Jesus’ day. There were different Jewish groups with competing ideas as to the extent of their Scriptures. More importantly, the concept of a canon was a gentile concept; as such it is unreasonable to think the term would have been used in Second Temple Judaism to limit their Scriptures to a specific set of books. The Swiss Protestant theologian Robert Hanhart, writing in the introduction to Martin Hengel’s “The Septuagint as Christian Scripture,” says the introduction to Sirach (aka Ecclesiasticus) “assumes the three divisions transmitted by the Masoretes.” Hanhart draws a distinction between the material described by these divisions and that of his translation of his grandfather’s commentary on Scripture. (Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture 2002, 2-3) He, therefore, concludes Second Temple Judaism distinguished between canon and Apocrypha. By stating this, Robert Hanhart is reading the medieval Masoretic traditions back into the Second Temple period, two periods separated by nearly a millennium. Lutheran professor and theologian Emil Schürer differs with Robert Hanhart: “The most ancient testimony to the collocation of both collections with the Thorah [sic] is the prologue to the Book of Wisdom. …We cannot, however, determine from it that the third collection was then already concluded.” (Schürer, A History of the Jewish People, Second Division, Volume 1 1890, 308) The disagreement between Robert Hanhart and Emil Schürer illustrates the manner in which scholars disagree regarding the boundaries of the Old Testament canon in the second temple period and reflects the wide range of perspectives among Jews of the second temple period. The Baptist Professor Jeff S. Anderson writes about the diversity existing within Second Temple Judaism. What flourished in the Second Temple Period was not a single, fixed, “normative” Judaism, but a developing, evolving religion… No straight evolutionary line of the Jewish faith emerges. Consequently, it is preferable to speak of multiple Judaisms rather than a monolithic ideology that views one brand of Judaism as orthodox and the rest as “sects.” All Judaisms, consequently, competed for an audience and for the authority that accompanies broad-based acceptance. (Anderson 2002, 5-6) Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 310–320 – 403 CE) describes twelve specific sects of the Jews: the Samaritans, the Essenes, the Sebuaeans, the Gorothenes, the Dositheans, the Sadducees, the Scribes, the Pharisees, the Hemerobaptists, the Nasaraeans, the Ossaeans, and the Herodians. (Epiphanius of Salamis 2012, Book 1, Section 1, Parts 9-20) The Jerusalem Talmud (c. 200 – 400 CE) quotes Rabbi Johanan as saying there were twenty-four heretical sects of Judaism in the time of Ezekiel. (Bowker 1973, 161) The Jerusalem Talmud was written well into the Christian era, in a period after many of the competing Judaisms had died out. Thus, the reference to them as ‘heretical sects.’ With different Judaisms competing for acceptance, it is no wonder there was no consensus on the limits of the Hebrew Scriptures. The scholar April D. DeConick writes: “Judaism and Christianity are companion expressions of Second Temple Judaism, sibling religions that developed simultaneously within comparable historical contextures.” (DeConick 2006, 3) The Protestant scholar of Second Temple Judaism, Martin Hengel, writes: We cannot prove the existence of a genuine Jewish, pre-Christian collection of canonical value, unambiguously and clearly delimited, distinguishable through its greater scope from the canon of the Hebrew Bible in the realm of the historical books and wisdom writings and written in Greek. Nor, especially, can it be shown that such a ‘canon’ was already formed in pre-Christian Alexandria. One can only proceed from the fact that the five books of Moses’ Torah, the so-called Pentateuch, were translated into Greek under Ptolemy II Philadelphus (282-246), at the latest toward the middle of the third century [BC]. (Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture 2002, 19) The picture of Second Temple Judaism is much more complex than is commonly thought. There was the temple cult centered in Jerusalem, and there was the law which Jews agreed was scripture. Most Jews accepted the Prophets as well. Beyond that, we know different branches of Judaism accepted a varying list of writings as authoritative, and possibly as scripture. The canon of the Hebrew Scriptures was open until well into the Christian era, something described by Margaret Barker as follows: There were many possible books, and yet only 24 became Scripture. The others were not just set aside; they were firmly forbidden. Rabbi Akiba, teaching some 50 years after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, said that anyone who read the excluded books had no part in the world to come. The context of this teaching was the second Jewish revolt against Rome, but also the decision about the Hebrew canon. Since the non-canonical Jewish books surviving from that period have been preserved by Christian scribes, R. Akiba's firm prohibition must have concerned the distinction between Jews and Christians. A few years later, Justin was claiming that the Jews had even altered their Hebrew texts in order to remove material important to Christian claims, Justin Martyr’s list is too extensive to list here; you can find it in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1, Chapters LXXI - LXXIII and this ‘altered’ text is the one now used for translations of the Old Testament. (Barker, The Mother of the Lord, Volume 1 2012, Kindle Locations 697-704) The early church adopted the broadest possible set of Jewish writings as their Scriptures. As John Barton writes: The formation of the Christian Bible is a story with neither beginning nor end. The first Christians already had a scripture, inherited from Judaism, whose origins time has concealed; while still today the edges of the biblical canon are blurred, with old disputes about the ‘deuterocanonical’ books asleep perhaps, but by no means dead. (Barton 1997, 1) The term ‘deuterocanonical’ is used by Roman Catholics, and means ‘second canon.’ This does not mean it is less authoritative. The books of the first canon are contained in the Hebrew Scriptures, a collection finalized well after the time of Christ. The second canon are those books which were not included in the Hebrew Scriptures. The idea of a biblical canon whose edges are blurred should come as a surprise to most Western Christians. Since the Reformation, the idea of a fixed canon has been an article of faith for both Roman Catholics and Protestants. The idea of the "fixed canon,” meaning a catalog of authoritative, inspired books, had originally developed in response to heresy. However, the Protestant idea of the Old Testament consisting only of those books found in the Hebrew Scriptures is a recent development, one that cannot be supported in light of recent archeological discoveries — to say nothing of the church fathers (Jerome excepted) and (as we shall see) the witness of the New Testament. When the Protestants drew up their truncated list of approved Scriptures, the Latins responded by dogmatically defining a list of Scriptures and approved texts. The Eastern Orthodox, having never experienced a Reformation, have never felt the need to define the canon dogmatically. For them, the common consensus is enough. Protestants often misunderstand which books the east considers to be Scripture. For example, Philip Schaff writes: “[O]pinion in the Orient was mostly against making any books not in the Hebrew canon of canonical authority, and from the fourth century the Eastern Fathers used them less and less. They were, however, officially recognized as a part of the canon by numerous medieval and modern synods until 1839, when the larger Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church, the most authoritative standard of the Graeco-Russian Church, expressly excluded them.” This is incorrect, as the Church lectionary in the East makes extensive use of the so-called Apocrypha. (Schaff, NPNF2-01 1890, 244) The 20th-century discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Library have prompted a reexamination of the issues of canon and canonicity among Protestants. Lee McDonald provides the following list of assumptions which were once widely accepted and taught in Protestant seminaries, but which are now questionable. Recent scholarly research has challenged some of the most widely held views on the origins and formation of the Bible, including the following: (1) the Hebrew Scriptures reached their canonical acceptance among the Jews in a three-stage development beginning around 400 B.C.E. for the Pentateuch, around 200 B.C.E. for the Prophets, and around 90– 100 C.E. for the Writings; (2) the early Christians received from Jesus a closed or fixed collection of OT Scriptures; (3) most of the collection of NT Scriptures was fixed by the end of the second century C.E.; and (4) evidence of the latter is provided by a late second-century canonical list called the Muratorian Fragment. (McDonald 2007, Kindle Locations 987-992) Despite the 20th-century discoveries, a significant number of evangelicals and fundamentalist still hold to a pre-20th-century view of canonical development. Among Protestants F. F. Bruce's book, The Canon of Scripture is a widely-cited source even though his methods and conclusions cannot withstand scholarly examination. Much of Bruce's argument is based on outdated assumptions; when Bruce writes of the canon of Sacred Scripture as closed, we need to examine the premise more closely. The words ‘to which nothing can be added ... and from which nothing can be taken away’, whatever they precisely meant in this context, seem certainly to imply the principle of a closed canon. There are some scholars who maintain that the word ‘canon’ should be used only where the list of specially authoritative books has been closed; and there is much to be said in favour of this restrictive use of the word (a more flexible word might be used for the collection in process of formation), although it would be pedantic to insist on it invariably. (Bruce, The Canon of Scripture 2010, 22) F. F. Bruce also tries to have it both ways, to argue for the sanctity of the canon while arguing that it is the contents of the canon that matter, not the text itself. It is from the contents, the message, of the book that it derives its value, whether we think of the gospel in particular or the Bible as a whole. It is therefore important to know what its contents are, and how they have come to be marked off from other writings— even holy and inspired writings. That is the point of examining the growth of the canon of holy scripture. (Bruce, The Canon of Scripture 2010, 24) F.F. Bruce claims support for his idea of the canon from various sources but fails to note the ancients did not think of a canon as a list, but as a rule or guide. Bruce cites from the Old Testament, (Deut 4:2; cf 12:32) the New Testament, (Re 22:18 ff ) the Didache, and Josephus. Of all these citations, Bruce says: "This language can scarcely signify anything other than a closed canon." (Ibid, 23) F. F. Bruce misstates the evidence. Only Josephus supports the idea of a closed canon and, as he was writing after the fall of Jerusalem, was reading the newfound importance of the texts back into Jewish history. F. F. Bruce’s other citations are even more problematic. Aaron Milavec notes the Didache “is older than the canonical gospels.” (Milavec, The Didache 2003, Kindle Location 41) In F. F. Bruce's Deuteronomy citation we read: "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." (Deut 4:2) If God intended this statement to close the canon, how are we to account for the rest of Deuteronomy, to say nothing of the remainder of the Old Testament? Apart from the book of Job and the Torah, none of the Old Testament existed. Moreover, if the Deuteronomy text implies a closed canon, how do we account for the New Testament? The Christian Church accepted the canon of the Old Testament (including the Apocrypha) until the time of the Reformation. The Anglican Henry Wace, in his commentary on the King James Version, admits as much when he writes: When the Reformers denied the inspired authority of the books of the Apocrypha, it was by no means their intention to exclude them from use either in public or in private reading. The Articles of the Church of England quote with approbation the ruling of St. Jerome, that though the Church does not use these books for establishment of doctrine, it reads them for example of life and instruction of manners. (Wace 1811, xxxvi) The ruling of St. Jerome was his private theological opinion, was contrary to the practice of the wider Christian Church, and was not accepted as dogma anywhere. Having already truncated their canon, some Protestants look back to the ancient church for support, citing various church fathers who seemingly support their position. The ‘ruling of St. Jerome’ falls into this category. St. Jerome was not a bishop, and his opinion was not authoritative. St. Jerome ultimately accepted the ruling of his bishop, something noted by the scholar Martin Hengel: “Jerome himself, who was not only a great and combative scholar but also a smooth diplomat, largely abandoned any effort to defend the Hebrew original in the Apocrypha question.” (Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture 2002, 49-50) Bishops devised lists of books approved for use in the church. These lists were authoritative within the Bishop’s jurisdiction. These lists are occasionally similar to the canon used by Protestants today, but these individual lists were not authoritative in the wider church. Even where the lists of Old Testament books matched those of the Protestant canon, these lists wouldn't match the New Testament books — and vice versa. (We will provide more detail on this later). St. Athanasius (c. 296-373) is widely cited as having provided the first complete listing of the 27 books of the New Testament. Matt Slick, the President and Founder of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM), cites Festal Letter 39 (c. 367 AD) as proof that Athanasius condemns the Apocrypha, which is incorrect. (Slick 2014) First of all, St. Athanasius was speaking for his own diocese, not the entire Church. Second, alternate lists were created for centuries afterward. While St. Athanasius did not approve of all the so-called Apocrypha, his festal letter approved several of them. For example, his list contains “the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book”; “Jeremiah with Baruch”; “Lamentations, and the epistle, one book”; Esther; and Daniel. Baruch is one of the so-called Apocrypha, as is the Epistle of Jeremiah. The versions of 2 Chronicles, Esther, and Daniel judged by St. Athanasius as genuine contain material Protestants judge to be Apocryphal. The Masoretic text favored by many conservative Protestant scholars did not exist at this time. The favored text in the Church was the Septuagint (see chap. 4). In the unabridged King James Version, these are called “The Prayer of Manassas” (placed at the end of 2 Chronicles); “The rest of Esther” (material found throughout Esther in the Septuagint); “The History of Susanna” (comes before Daniel chapter 1); “The Song of the Three Holy Children” (comes in the middle of Daniel chap. 3); and “Bel and the Dragon” (comes after Daniel chap. 12). If Protestants want to claim Festal Letter 39 of St. Athanasius as sealing the canon of the New Testament, they should also be prepared to accept all the Old Testament Apocrypha cited by Athanasius. In his book The Divine Names, the author known today as Pseudo-Dionysius (late 5th to early 6th century) quotes from the Wisdom of Solomon, describing it as “introductory Scriptures.” (Pseudo-Dionysius, the Areopagite 1987, 81) Some might think this supports the general Protestant view. However, Paul Rorem and John Lamoreaux say the term “introductory Scripture” merely means that the Old Testament was an introduction to the New; in other words, the entire Old Testament could be termed “introductory Scripture.” (Rorem and Lamoreaux 1998, 48) The question, then, is how extensive that introduction is. Among early Protestants, there was substantial disagreement and confusion as to the extent of the Old Testament. For example, John Wycliffe's Bible translation, first hand-printed in 1382 AD, contains 48 Old Testament books, as opposed to the 39 contained in the Protestant Old Testament. The various eBooks and online sources like Bible Gateway only reproduce the part of Wycliffe’s translation that are acceptable to the Protestants. Wycliffe's complete Old Testament contained the following books considered unacceptable after the Reformation: 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, 3 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom (Wisdom of Solomon), Syrach (Sirach, a.k.a. Ecclesiasticus), Preier of Jeremiah (Epistle of Jeremiah), Baruk (Baruch), along with 1 Machabeis & 2 Machabeis (1st and 2nd Maccabees). John Wycliffe's New Testament also contains Paul's letter to the Laodiceans, a contested document found in no generally accepted version or translation. (Wycliffe 2008) We should note the Bibles printed following the Protestant Reformation also include what Protestants call the Apocrypha. When asked if The Online Bible (www.onlinebible.net) would be providing a copy of the original King James Version with the Apocrypha, Larry Pierce, (the founder) responded: “We have no intention of mixing Jewish fables with the infallible Word of God.” (Pierce 2014) Pierce is quoting Titus 1:14 here, equating Paul’s reference to ‘Jewish fables’ with the Apocrypha, an interpretation that cannot be found in the text. Pierce chooses to use an abridged version of the King James Version rather than provide it as it was originally printed. In an email to Pastor EJ Hill, Larry Pierce admitted to redacting and editing other people’s work when they do not agree with his theology (such as Thayer's 1889 Greek-English Lexicon). (Hill 2012) For example, Martin Luther's German translation of 1522 contained the Apocrypha. The English Language Matthew-Tyndale Bible, published by John Rogers in 1537, contained the Apocrypha. The Matthew-Tyndale Bible, generally known as the Matthew Bible, contains the following books not found in the Protestant Bible: 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Rest of Esther, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 3 Holy Children, Suzanna, Bel & the Dragon, Prayer of Mannesah, 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees. (Rogers and Coverdale 1537) Both the Geneva Bible of 1560 and the original King James Version (KJV) of 1611 contained the Apocrypha. Unabridged editions of the KJV with the Apocrypha are still available today, although printed versions are rare in the United States. An excellent resource is the Official King James version online which contains the American truncation of the King James Version, the Apocrypha, and the original 1611 version with the apocrypha. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/ Abridged Bibles without the Apocrypha are an American invention. The Continental Congress approved and funded the printing of Bibles without the Apocrypha. Rev. Dr. Will Gafney writes: Many are unaware that the shorter Protestant bible was created in the new America, during the revolutionary war when a printer took it upon himself without the authority of a church council to print a bible whose contents he chose. That bible, The Aitken Bible http://www.theworldsgreatbooks.com/Aitken Bible.htm is also significant for having been printed with the authority of the Continental Congress. (Gafney 2013) F. F. Bruce raises the issue of the Liturgical Relevance of the Sacred Scriptures. In Liturgical services, the priest, pastor, or rabbi raises the Scriptures before the congregation before being read. Bruce describes the special treatment accorded to the Scriptures among the Jews, the Eastern Orthodox, the Catholics, the Anglicans, and the Reformed. (He omits the Lutherans, some of whom also have this practice). In his description of the Eastern Orthodox tradition, F. F. Bruce does a good job of describing the difference between venerating the Scriptures as text vs. the venerating the content of the Sacred Scriptures. In the liturgy of the Orthodox Church the gospel book is carried in procession, and the reading from it is preceded by the call: ‘Wisdom! All stand; let us hear the holy gospel.’ The veneration thus paid to the gospel book is not paid to the materials of which it is composed nor to the ink with which it is inscribed, but to the Holy Wisdom which finds expression in the words that are read. (Bruce, The Canon of Scripture 2010, 23) The place of the Sacred Scriptures as part of worship is complicated by lectionary history. Lectionaries are the scripture readings appointed for a particular day of the Church year, and (as David Parker notes) date back as early as the 4th century. (Osburn 2013, 94) The “formal Byzantine lectionary system” appears to have been standardized by the “late seventh or early eighth Century.” (Ibid, 97) Complicating things further, “patristic citations” often treat lectionary readings as biblical citations, meaning they treat the lectionaries as biblical manuscripts. (Parker 2012, 53) Since the ancient lectionary readings include the Apocrypha, the removal of the Apocrypha from Protestant lectionaries is troubling. The King James Bible with Commentary by Henry Wace describes the gradual elimination of the Apocrypha from the Anglican Lectionary. The Anglican Lectionary did not include readings from Maccabees. Henry Wace notes: So small a portion of the apocryphal books has been retained in the present [Anglican] Lectionary that the retention of any would seem intended for little more than an assertion of the Church's right to use these books if she pleases in public reading. This [diminution] is still more true of the American Church, which entirely discontinued the use of lessons from the Apocrypha on ordinary week-days; but still uses such lessons on two or three holy days. The Irish Church on its last revision of the Lectionary has not even retained so much as this. (Wace 1811, xxxviii) The complete elimination of the Apocrypha from the Protestant Church turns out to be a recent innovation. As such, it deserves a second look. Canon and Canonicity  The Greek word canon (κανών) contains shades of meaning lacking in English. In his Excursus on the Meaning of the Word “Canon,” Fr. Vasile Mihai writes: The word was originally a Semitic word (qanneh) borrowed into the Greek language and understood as a “straight rod,” “line” or “yardstick” used in mundane activities as carpentry, tailoring and construction. Then a metaphorical use of the word in ancient Greek philosophy and science brought to it the sense of “criterion” or “norm”, and eventually it was used in Hellenistic thought with notions close to “order” and “discipline.” The Roman equivalent stressed mostly those notions of order and discipline through the use of the terms <<norma>> and <<regula>>. (Mihai 2014, 449) As we discussed in chapter 2, the early Church used the term canon to mean the regula fidei (rule of faith). The apostle Paul captures this idea when he says of the Scriptures: they are "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2Ti 3:16-17) This idea of a canon as the regula fidei, the rule of faith, does not include a list of authoritative writings. However, the idea of a canon as the rule of faith could lead to the canon being thought of solely as a means of separating truth from error. William J. Abraham writes: Construing the canon of Scripture as a criterion may drastically diminish what it means to perceive Scripture as canonical. The impression given in this interpretation is that the provision of the canon of Scripture is the provision of a criterion to settle contested questions. (Abraham 1998, 6) William J. Abraham says viewing the canon solely as a criterion diminishes the revelation, and must also be viewed as “a sophisticated means of grace which is related to formation in holy living.” (Ibid, 6) This “formation in holy living” is the meaning the Apostle Paul provides Timothy when describing all the ways the Scriptures profit us. When we think of the canon today, we think about a comprehensive list. However, the idea of a canon as a list is a fairly recent development; the ancients used a different term (pinakes or katalogos) for a catalog of writings. Stephen Voorwinde, writing for Vox Reformata, explains the use of the word canon from the early church through the Reformation, and into the time of the Enlightenment. While the Greek word <<kanon>> does occur in the New Testament it cannot be translated by ‘canon’ in English. In each case it is more suitably translated ‘rule’ or ‘standard’ (2 Cor.10:13,15,16; Gal.6:16; Phil.3:16). It will be noted that all the occurrences of the word are in Paul's writings, and in none of these instances is he referring to the canon of Scripture. That was to be a much later development. Movement in this direction occurred when ‘in the second century in the Christian church <<kanon>> came to stand for revealed truth, rule of faith.’ It was not until the fourth century that the church began to refer to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as <<ho kanon>> (‘the canon’). …The term ‘canon’ as we use it when referring to the canon of Scripture is therefore not a use of the term in its biblical sense, but conforms to ecclesiastical usage from the fourth century onwards. This is also the way the word was used at the time of the Reformation. Particularly in the Reformed confessions the term is used almost exclusively of the ‘rule,’ ‘norm’ or ‘established list’ of the Scriptures. In these doctrinal statements it is closely conjoined to such concepts as ‘inspiration,’ ‘authority’ and ‘the regulation, foundation and confirmation of our faith.’ The idea of normativity comes very much to the forefront. (Voorwinde 1995) Martin Hengel notes that Christians of the second century began to explore the breadth of material which might have a claim to inspiration. In doing so, they began to decide which books were not useful, and perhaps not inspired. The uncertainty with respect to the delineation of the ‘Scriptures of the Old Covenant’ …which is perceptible throughout the second century may be related to the fact that Christian theologians (including the Gnostics) in this period attempted for the first time to work carefully through the rich Jewish literature which was originally Greek or had been translated into Greek and to investigate its usefulness for church doctrine and practice and theological speculation. (Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture 2002, 55) Fr. John Behr says by the end of the second century the term “canon” referred to the inspired Scriptures as well as the writings of the church fathers. (Behr 2001, 73) It should be noted, however, that the inclusion of the writings of the church fathers means the ancients used the term canon in the sense of the rule of faith. That a canon did not mean a list is demonstrated by Martin Hengel, who notes there was still no commonly agreed upon list of the inspired Scriptures in the third century. (Ibid, 74) Even into the fifth century we see the canon used in the sense of a rule of faith rather than a catalog of texts, meaning Athanasius’ Festal Letter 39 (c. 367) did not decide the issue. As evidence, consider the Acts of the Fourth Ecumenical Council (451 A.D) which contains the following statement: Let each one of the most reverend bishops of the present synod, hasten to set forth how he believes, writing without any fear, but placing the fear of God before his eyes; knowing that our most divine and pious lord believes according to the <<ecthesis>> Ecthesis is the use of a thesis to state a belief.of the three hundred and eighteen holy fathers at Nice, and according to the <<ecthesis>> of the one hundred and fifty after them, and according to the Canonical epistles and <<ectheses>> of the holy fathers Gregory, Basil, Athanasius, Hilary, Ambrose, and according to the two canonical epistles of Cyril, which were confirmed and published in the first Council of Ephesus, nor does he in any point depart from the faith of the same. [Extracts from the Acts, Session I] (Schaff, NPNF2-14 2005, 370) The Council of Chalcedon did not use the term ‘canon’ to mean a list of Sacred Scriptures. The council referred to councils, authors, and writings which were in accord with the apostolic faith as ‘canon.’ This meaning of ‘canon’ can be demonstrated by 1) the failure to expressly list the canonical works, and 2) the description of two epistles of Cyril as canonical. If the word “canon” originally referred to the rule of faith and indicated normative truth, how then did our modern understanding of the term develop? In his book The Conservative Reformation and its Theology, Charles Porterfield Krauth draws a distinction between the rule of faith of the Apostles (before the closing of the Canon) and the rule of faith of the Church (following the closing of the canon). He writes: While the Apostles lived the Word was both a rule of faith, and in a certain sense, a confession of it; when by direct inspiration a holy man utters certain words, they are to him both a role of faith, and a confession of faith — they at once express both what he is to believe and what he does believe; but when the Canon was complete, when its authors were gone, when the living teacher was no longer at hand to correct the errorist who distorted his word, the Church entered on her normal and abiding relation to the Word and the Creed which is involved in these words: the Bible is the rule of faith, but not the confession of it; the Creed is not the rule of faith, but is the confession of it. (Krauth 1875, 184-185) Charles Porterfield Krauth is drawing a false distinction. The early church recognized no such division between the regula fidei of the Apostles and the regula fidei of the Church. There was no generally agreed upon (or ecumenical) Creed for the first three hundred years of the Church. His distinction between the Apostolic and post-Apostolic church does not stand up to historical scrutiny. Interestingly, by the time Charles Porterfield Krauth published his work on the Conservative Reformation (c. 1875 A.D.), the idea of a Canon as a “closed collection of writings” was barely one hundred years old. Its use in a theological context was younger than that. Lee McDonald writes: The word canon was not regularly used in reference to a closed collection of writings until David Ruhnken used it this way in 1768. In his treatise entitled <<Historia critica oratorum Graecorum>>, he employed the term canon for a selective list of literary writings. …In antiquity [the Greek word] <<pinakes>> is more commonly used of catalogues or lists. (McDonald 2007, 51) When we consider the use of the term canon to mean a closed list, we are giving the word a meaning it did not originally have in the ancient church. Fr. Stephen Freeman writes: “The creation of a ‘canon’ of Scripture was never more than a declaration of what a general consensus of the Church treated as authoritative.” (Freeman, There Is No “Bible” in the Bible 2014) For the Orthodox, Holy Tradition is the general consensus of the Church. Fr. Freeman furthers his argument by noting that even the term “Bible,” meaning a book, would have been foreign. The early church used the term “Holy Scriptures” and St. John Chrysostom (c. 347-407 AD) sometimes referred to “the books,” (Schaff, NPNF1-11 2002, 865) but never did they consider these sacred writings to be a single book. (Constantinou, Introduction to the Bible Lesson 9 2008) More importantly, the ancient church did not have our obsession with New Testament manuscripts. As mentioned previously, patristic citations sometimes quote the lectionaries, treating them as scripture. David Parker writes: The modern concept of a New Testament manuscript is based upon the theological model of canonicity. As is well known, the idea of a canon emerged over the course of many years, and the list with which we are familiar was first given by Athanasius in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter, written in 367. Until then there evidently could not be any manuscript whose contents intentionally corresponded to this list, and in fact there is precious little evidence that many copies did so for centuries thereafter, and rarely then until the advent of printing. Even when Greek-speaking Christianity came to agree [upon] a canon, it did not really occur to anyone that such a canon should be the basis for the contents of a manuscript. (Parker 2012, 61) Early on the church began cutting scrolls into sheets and binding them into a codex, the predecessor of today’s books. Martin Hengel writes: “The thorough Christian appropriation of the LXX also manifests itself in the external form of the documents. Long before there was a ‘New Testament’, the Christian LXX was distinguished by the use of the codex rather than the Jewish scroll.” (Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture 2002, 41) The first codex consisted of the Gospels and was used during Christian worship. The Gospels were usually kept by the reader, and were brought in during the service and set upon the altar; later the priest would read a passage from these gospels. This same pattern is followed today in the Orthodox liturgy. Later the rest of the New Testament (except Revelation), was collected into a second codex. The Church used the codex in liturgical worship. Our conception of the Bible as a single book is an outgrowth of the printing press. (Freeman, There Is No “Bible” in the Bible 2014) The printing press not only created the conditions for Protestant ideas to spread, but it also created the first bibles as we know them today. The idea of a canon as something akin to a table of contents is a modern innovation. When modern theologians conceive of canon as a list, they speak solely of the text; when ancient theologians speak of the rule of faith, they speak of the revelation contained within the text. The two thoughts are not in opposition. A book becomes part of a list of Scriptures texts because of the revelation it contains. However, when we conceive of canon solely as a list, we wind up arguing over the side issues of canon and canonicity. Arguments over the canon keep us from focusing on the revelation of Jesus Christ — which is the whole point of the Sacred Scriptures. F. F. Bruce writes: The Christian church started its existence with a book, but it was not to the book that it owed its existence. It shared the book with the Jewish people; indeed, the first members of the church were without exception Jews. The church owed its distinctive existence to a person — to Jesus of Nazareth, crucified, dead and buried, but ‘designated Son of God in power ... by his resurrection from the dead’ (Rom. 1: 4). This Jesus, it was believed, had been exalted by God to be universal Lord; he had sent his Spirit to be present with his followers, to unite them and animate them as his body on earth. The function of the book was to bear witness to him. (Bruce, The Canon of Scripture 2010, 27) The Christian church owes its existence to Christ. The Christian church interprets the Old Testament Scriptures by reading Christ into the Old Testament. The Christian Church began its normative functioning with the descent of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost — to the descent of the Comforter, who guides us into all truth. Moreover, the Holy Spirit guided the Church for several decades before the apostles wrote a single book of the New Testament. Fr. Stephen Freeman draws our attention to the importance of this latter point. The Christian community predates its own texts (the New Testament) and is not described as in any way having a foundation on the Scriptures – the Apostles and Prophets are described as the foundation of the Church. And though the Tradition does not describe the Scriptures as somehow inferior to the Church, neither do they consider the Scriptures to exist apart from the Church. They are the Church’s book. (Freeman, Has Your Bible Become a Quran? 2014) Alexis Stepanovich Khomiakoff (Khomyakov), from his Essay on the Church (c. 1850) continues this point for us. The Spirit of God, who lives in the Church, ruling her and making her wise, manifests Himself within her in divers manners; in Scripture, in Tradition, and in Works; for the Church, which does the works of God, is the same Church which preserves tradition and which has written the Scriptures. Neither individuals, nor a multitude of individuals within the Church, preserve tradition or write the Scriptures; but the Spirit of God, which lives in the whole body of the Church. Therefore [sic] it is neither right nor possible to look for the grounds of tradition in the Scripture, nor for the proof of Scripture in tradition, nor for the warrant of Scripture or tradition in works. To a man living outside the Church neither her scripture nor her tradition nor her works are comprehensible. But to the man who lives within the Church and is united to the spirit of the Church, their unity is manifest by the grace which lives within her. (Palmer 1895, 198) Fr. Boris Bobrinskoy, former Dean and Professor at St Sergius Institute in Paris, writes: A living theology cannot be severed from the living environment that forms the body of the Church, where the Spirit of knowledge and truth breathes. A theological reading of Scripture cannot be made outside the great Tradition which, generation after generation, searches the Bible in order to discover within it the presence of Christ, and, in Him, the face of the Father. Thus, we will be led to read Scripture on different levels: that of a historical, literal reading — but also that of the typological or prophetic reading (the “type” being the “figure” of Christ, or the Spirit, or the Church, or the Mother of God, symbolized, prophesied by the Old Testament). The typological dimension discloses the quintessence of the Old Testament; it detects its correspondence with the new, which forms its fulfillment and its key. (Bobrinskoy 1999, 7) Given that “tradition” is a loaded word for Protestants, it is time for a brief discussion of the subject. Tradition does not stand apart from Scripture but is necessary for the proper understanding of Scripture. Each Protestant denomination (or sect) has its own interpretive tradition, and each sect uses that tradition as the framework for understanding Scripture. Each sect believes its tradition to have been handed down by means of the Holy Spirit, and believes the Holy Spirit has guided it unto all truth. Historically, both the Church and the heretics appeal to scripture in support of their views. To defeat the heretics, the Church appealed to the apostolic tradition over against the interpretations of the heretics. For example, Georges Florovsky writes regarding Marcion: In the Second century the term “Scriptures” denoted primarily the Old Testament and, on the other hand, the authority of these “Scriptures” was sharply challenged, and actually repudiated, by the teaching of Marcion. The Unity of the Bible had to be proved and vindicated. What was the basis, and the warrant, of Christian, and Christological, understanding of “Prophesy,” that is — of the Old Testament? It was in this historical situation that the authority of Tradition was first invoked. Scripture belonged to the Church, and it was only in the Church, within the community of right faith, that Scripture could be adequately understood and correctly interpreted. (Florovsky 1972, 75) The Russian theologian and philosopher Aleksei Khomyakov provides an Orthodox understanding of the relationship between Scripture and Tradition. The whole Church wrote the Holy Scriptures and then gave life to them in Tradition. To put it more accurately, Scripture and Tradition, as two manifestations of one and the same Spirit, are a single manifestation. Scripture is nothing but written Tradition, and Tradition is nothing but living Scripture. (Khomyakov 1977, 53) The role of Scripture is to reveal Jesus Christ. The revelation of Jesus Christ exists within His Church. Scripture describes the Church as both Christ’s body and the pillar and ground of the truth. Given all this, it is odd that the idea of canon has shifted away from the rule of faith to a simple catalog of inspired books. The modern understanding is of canon as a list of authoritative and inspired books, and canonicity as the process by which an individual text became part of a said collection of books. As we mentioned previously, these understandings have come into question following the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gnostic writings contained in the Nag Hammadi library. These discoveries have fueled the imagination of biblical scholars and have added detail to the background of our Sacred Scriptures — all of which have sparked a renewed interest in the subject of canon and canonicity. The debates over canon and canonicity are taking place between the Protestant and Roman Catholic Churches as opposite poles of modern Christianity. This phenomenon is recent and does not involve the Eastern Orthodox, as it raises questions and uses methods that are foreign to the Eastern Orthodox Church. For the Eastern Orthodox, the fall of Constantinople in 1453 A.D. is recent history. In the 16th century, theological conversations took place between the Protestants and the Orthodox. In the discussions, the issues of canon and canonicity didn't come up at all — in part because the Lutherans never mentioned their use of a different canon. In the late 17th century, a group of Lutheran theologians sent a Greek translation of the Augsburg Confession to Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople. What followed is an intriguing correspondence which took place over a period of years. While this theological correspondence is well known among the Orthodox, surprisingly few Lutherans and Protestants know anything about it, and fewer still have read the actual texts. It is unclear what the Lutherans were trying to do. Some think the Lutherans were trying to convert the Ecumenical Patriarch (unlikely). Some think the Lutherans were trying to become part of the Orthodox Church (also unlikely). The text seems to indicate that the Lutherans merely wanted the Ecumenical Patriarch to accept that the Lutheran doctrine was consistent with that of the Orthodox Church; the position of the Ecumenical Patriarch was that Lutherans were heterodox. Instead, the Lutherans argued for the authority of Scripture, an issue then Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremiah II accepted without comment. The discussion between the Lutherans and the Orthodox involved matters of faith and practice. The Lutherans kept bringing up Scripture as the authority, and the Patriarch accepted their position but included Holy Tradition as part of that discussion. In a sense, neither of them understood the other's position, and they simply talked past one another. (Mastrantonis 1982, passim) Another excursus on the meaning of tradition is in order. Georges Florovsky writes: Tradition [is] …an hermeneutical principle and method. Scripture could be rightly and fully assessed and understood only in the light and in the context of the living Apostolic Tradition, which was an integral factor of Christian existence. It was so, or course, not because Tradition could add anything to what has been manifested in the Scripture, but because it provided that living context, the comprehensive perspective, in which only the true “intention” and the total “design” of the Holy Writ, of Divine Revelation itself, could be detected and grasped. (Florovsky 1972, 79) Among Protestant commentaries and introductions to the Scriptures, the issues of canon and canonicity are common and are often of first importance. The Orthodox, by way of contrast, largely ignore the issue. For example, the two-volume Introduction to the Old Testament by the Very Rev. Paul Nadim Tarazi, Professor of Old Testament at St Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary, does not discuss the issues of canon and canonicity at all. The Very Rev. Paul Nadim Tarazi is a controversial and polarizing figure, so perhaps we should not read too much into his failure to deal with the issue of canonicity. Dumitru Staniloae's Orthodox Dogmatic Theology discusses the nature of revelation and its relationship with the world, the Church, and Holy Tradition. However, Staniloae’s books do not deal in any substantive manner with canonicity. Fr. John Breck's book Scripture in Tradition avoids the subject of the canon altogether, instead focusing on the person and work of the Holy Spirit. Georges Florovsky’s book Bible, Church, Tradition, which covers these issues, has been out of print for many years. John Behr’s book The Way to Nicaea discusses the issues of canon and canonicity but from a different point of view than that of Protestant and Catholic scholars. Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev’s book Orthodox Christianity: Doctrine and Teaching of the Orthodox Church only briefly discusses the issue of scriptural canon. How do we account for the difference between these approaches? What impact do these issues have on the regula fidei, the faith once delivered to the saints? While the use of canon to mean a catalog of inspired Scriptures is modern, the issues of canon and canonicity have their roots in Roman Catholic medieval scholasticism. Fr. John Breck writes: Scripture determines what constitutes genuine Tradition, yet Tradition gives birth to and determines the limits of Scripture. To many people's minds, this way of envisioning the circular relationship between Scripture and Tradition appears untenable. The Protestant Reformers attempted to break this form of the hermeneutic circle by advancing the teaching known as sola scriptura [Scripture alone], holding that Scripture alone determines faith and morality… This was to a large extent in reaction to medieval Roman Catholicism which had separated Scripture and Tradition into separate domains, giving priority to the latter. (Breck 2001, 11) It is helpful to discuss the canon and canonicity of the Old and New Testaments separately, as they each took different paths in their development. The authors of the New Testament called the Old Testament scripture. There is little evidence the New Testament’s authors or the apostolic church considered the New Testament to be scripture. Two passages suggest some parts of the New Testament were scripture (1 Tim 5:18 and 2 Pet 3:15-16), but these are by no means convincing. The apostle Paul did not refer to his writings as scripture, but instead classed his teachings as "traditions,” and referred to his books as letters. (2Th 2:15) The Revelation of St. John describes itself as scripture but has a contentious canonical history. Nowhere in the New Testament do we have a catalog of canonical books — neither of the Old Testament books (which are explicitly called scripture) nor of the writings of the New Testament. Therefore, it behooves us to examine the development of the Christian Old and New Testament separately. Septuagint History & Purpose  The Septuagint is generally thought of as a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. As professor Peter Gentry writes, this is imprecise. What is meant by the term Septuagint? A lack of precision is common in both popular and scholarly use of the word. Mainly responsible for this lack of precision are uncertainties about the history of the process of translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. (Gentry, The Great Code: Greek Bible and the Humanities 2014, 51) The Pentateuch (also known as the five books of Moses), was translated sometime between 285-240 BC. Alfred Edersheim says the Septuagint contained only the Pentateuch, Edersheim 1993, 17-18. Martin Hengel describes Septuagint studies as a “realm [for] Old Testament and Patristics scholars.” He also says it is “one of the most exclusive — because it is so complicated — specialties of theology of philologia sacra.” (Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture 2002, 19) We will not be delving that deeply into the subject. but scholars differ on this point. The Letter of Aristeas describes the supposed miraculous origins of the Septuagint, but only mentions the Pentateuch. (Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture 2002, 76) Although a number of church fathers from Justin Martyr held to the miraculous origins of the Septuagint, the historical evidence suggests the translation of the obscure Hebrew text into Greek was a product of the Jewish diaspora. We do not know whether translating the Pentateuch alone was the original intent, but the translation work continued. Alfred Edersheim cites evidence from the prologue to the Wisdom of Solomon and argues the Septuagint was completed by 221 BC. In 2009, Peter J. Gentry claims the Septuagint was completed by 130 B.C.E.; just five years later he claims it was completed by 100 B.C.E. (Gentry, The Text of the Old Testament 2009, 24) (Gentry, The Great Code: Greek Bible and the Humanities 2014, 51) Scholars differ in their assumptions about where the task of translation ends and recension begins — in part due to differing assumptions about the extent of the canon. Alfred Edersheim, for example, is arguing for the truncated Protestant canon and therefore claims an earlier date. There are differences of opinion as to the origin of the Septuagint. As described by Peter Gentry, there are five reasons given for the translation. Five major hypotheses have been advanced: (1) a generation of Greek-speaking Jews in the Hellenistic period begun by the conquest of Alexander the Great (333-323 B.C.E.) required Greek scriptures for their liturgy, or (2) for the education of their young; (3) the translation was required as a legal document or (4) as cultural heritage for the royal library being assembled in Alexandria; (5) Aristarchus’ new edition of Homer around 150 B.C.E. employed textual criticism to produce an authoritative text and served as a model to produce an authoritative text of the Bible for Alexandrian Jews (hence early revisions and The Letter of Aristeas). (Gentry, The Great Code: Greek Bible and the Humanities 2014, 52) It should be clear that these five reasons are not mutually exclusive. Like all human endeavors, there were likely many reasons for the translation. What is clear is that the Jewish diaspora needed the translation, as many of them no longer spoke Hebrew. Even in Palestine, where Hebrew was the sacred language, The scriptures clearly state that Jesus spoke Hebrew (Acts 26:14), and Paul spoke Hebrew (Acts 21:40). The charge against Jesus, which Pilate had affixed to Jesus’ cross, was written in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew (Lu 23:38). While Aramaic was the language spoken immediately after the Jews returned from Babylon, the Hasmonean dynasty appear to have changed the language back to Hebrew. (Bivin and Blizzard Jr. 1994, Chapter 2) Alfred Edersheim explicitly states of Jesus: “He spoke Hebrew, and used and quoted the Scriptures in the original.” (Edersheim 1993, 175) the "diaspora synagogues" (Hengel, The 'Hellenization' of Judea in the First Century after Christ 1989, 13) used the Septuagint and considered it authoritative. (Edersheim 1993, 20) One side effect of the Septuagint was that Jewish religion and culture became part of the mainstream and available to anyone who spoke Greek. Of the period before the existence of the Septuagint, the scholar Jaroslav Pelikan writes: The Jewish religion was enshrined, but therefore was also locked, in a sacred book, in a code of conduct, and in a liturgical ritual that were purposely being kept hidden from the outside world in one of the most esoteric of all those exotic languages and therefore virtually unavailable, except in bits and pieces, to anyone who did not know Hebrew. (Pelikan 2005, 46) From an obscure religion of a backwater country, Judaism became well known and respected, even gaining a special legal status in the Roman Empire. The term religio licita is a term attributed to Tertullian, but is not a term derived from Roman law. The equivalent Roman term is collegia licita, which designated religious groups authorized to organize and hold services. The Jews were collegia licita, and Christians were not. (Askowith 1915, 173) This rise to respectability came about because the Septuagint made the Jewish faith accessible to the Gentiles. Jaroslav Pelikan observed: It had long been part of the hope of Israel, voiced by the prophets, that peoples “far and remote” would finally come to Mount Zion and learn the Torah, which was intended and revealed by the One True God for all peoples, not only for the people of Israel. Yet without their learning to read Hebrew, that hope was largely beyond realization. But when we read the account of Pentecost in the New Testament, we hear of “devout Jews drawn from every nation under heaven, Parthians, Medes, Elamites; inhabitants of Mesopotamia, of Judaea and Cappadocia, of Pontus and Asia, of Phrygia and Pamphylia, of Egypt and the districts of Lybia around Cyrene; visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs.” Many of the “Jews” in this mouth-filling catalog must have been Gentiles by birth but were now converted Jews, “proselytes,” by faith and observance. From an obscure sect turned inward, huddled around its Torah and reciting its Shema, Judaism had now become a world religion, a significant force in the civilization of the Mediterranean world. (Pelikan 2005, 54) Table SEQ Table \* ARABIC 1: The American KJV and the Septuagint King James Bible Septuagint Genesis Genesis Exodus Exodus Leviticus Leviticus Numbers Numbers Deuteronomy Deuteronomy Joshua Joshua Judges Judges Ruth Ruth 1 Samuel 1st Kingdoms 2 Samuel 2nd Kingdoms 1 Kings 3rd Kingdoms 2 Kings 4th Kingdoms 1 Chronicles 1 Chronicles 2 Chronicles 2 Chronicles - Prayer of Manasseh 1 Esdras (the Greek Ezra) Ezra 2 Esdras Nehemiah Tobit Judith Esther Esther with additional material 1 Maccabees 2 Maccabees 3 Maccabees Job Job Psalms Psalms Psalm 151 Proverbs Proverbs Ecclesiastes Ecclesiastes Song of Solomon Song of Solomon or Canticles Wisdom, or Wisdom of Solomon Sirach or Ecclesiasticus Psalms of Solomon The Psalms of Solomon are contained in the Septuagint, but are not generally considered to be Jewish or Christian Scripture. There are some Orthodox clergy who consider them to be Scripture, but the wider Orthodox community does not. Isaiah Isaiah Jeremiah Jeremiah Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy Lamentations Lamentations Ezekiel Ezekiel Daniel Daniel with additions - Susanna - Prayer of Azariah - Song of the Three Holy Youths - Bel and the Dragon Minor Prophets (The Twelve) Hosea - Hosea Joel - Joel Amos - Amos Obadiah - Obadiah Jonah - Jonah Micah - Micah Nahum - Nahum Habakkuk - Habakkuk Zephaniah Zephaniah Haggai Haggai Zechariah Zechariah Malachi Malachi The Septuagint was a boon for the Jewish people, as the Septuagint resulted in large numbers of Gentile adherents known as the God-Fearers. The sociologist Rodney Stark describes the God-Fearers as gentiles who admired "the moral teachings and monotheism of the Jews, but who would not take the final step of fulfilling the law [circumcision, dietary restrictions, and the like]." (Stark 1996, 58); “The finance minister of the Ethiopian kingdom of Napata-Meroe (Acts 8.27), presumably a godfearer, was one example.” (Hengel, The 'Hellenization' of Judea in the First Century after Christ 1989, 13-14) We may also presume Cornelius the Centurian (Acts 10) was a godfearer. Even today, one may be an adherent of Judaism without being a convert. Stories abound of rabbis who attempt to dissuade converts on the grounds that adherents have to keep the 10 commandments, but converts have to keep the entire 613 commandments of the Law. The Septuagint used by the New Testament authors and the church fathers contained the books Protestants now call the Apocrypha. (Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture 2002, 22-23) J.N.D. Kelly writes: It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. …It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was not the original Hebrew version, but the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. (Kelly 1976, 53) We now know the Septuagint better represents the original text of the Hebrew Scriptures, as demonstrated by the existence of texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls which match the Septuagint version. Judaism made use of the Septuagint for 250 years before it passed into the hands of Christians, and it only became a problem for Jews after Christians adopted it as scripture. There were multiple textual variants (or traditions) circulating in the time of Christ. After the rise of Christianity, and the fall of Jerusalem, everything changed. Dempster writes: After the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE changes within Judaism led to the ascendancy of one tradition—what has come to be known as rabbinic Judaism. …One of the accompanying results was the ascendancy of the form of the Jewish Scriptures used by that group. In the second century CE, revisions of the older [Greek] texts were made by Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and others. Their goal was apparently to bring the translations into line with the authoritative textual stream of their day, the rabbinic text. (Dempster 2008, Kindle Locations 2599-2602; 2628-2633) The Evolutionary History of the Hebrew Text Robert Alter notes: “It is an old and in some ways unfair cliché to say that translation is always a betrayal.” (Alter, The Hebrew Bible 2019, xiii) This is because the translator is presented with a text that contains shades of meaning, and has to choose one of those shades to represent in the translated text. In some cases, the translation changes the meaning of the text. Robert Alter notes: The unacknowledged heresy underlying most modern English versions of the Bible is the use of translation as a vehicle for ‘explaining’ the Bible instead of representing it in another language, and in the most egregious instances this amounts to explaining away the Bible. This impulse may be attributed not only to a rather reduced sense of the philological enterprise but also to a feeling that the Bible, because of its canonical status, has to be made accessible — indeed, transparent — to all. (Ibid, xv) The Septuagint is unlike modern English versions of the Bible as the modern concept of canonicity did not exist, nor the modern obsession with understandability. The translation of the Septuagint was not meant for the illiterate masses, but for educated scribes who could read and explain the scriptures. Moreover, as scholars know, today’s Hebrew Scriptures are modified versions of the original texts. Even the alphabet has changed from the original Paleo-Hebrew to the so-called Square Script used today. The Jewish Virtual Library notes: The square script belongs to the Aramaic branch of Semitic writing. …[By] the second century C.E. it is already possible to speak of the square script proper (figure 7). By the seventh century (figure 8) almost every letter of the alphabet had either a top bar or a head, while many had a base as well. (The Gale Group 2008) The Babylonian Talmud mentions there being different scripts: Paleo-Hebrew is called “Ivri,” and the script brought back from Babylon by Ezra is called “Ashuri.” The Talmud states: Mar Zutra or, some say, Mar Ukba said: Originally the Torah was given to Israel in Ivri (Paleo-Hebrew) letters and in the sacred Hebrew language. Later, in the times of Ezra, the Torah was given in Ashuri script and Aramaic language. Finally, they selected for Israel the Ashuri script and Hebrew language, leaving the original Hebrew characters and Aramaic language for the ignorant people. Rebbe Yose said: Why is it called Ashuri (Assyrian) script? Because they brought it with them from Assyria. (Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin n.d.) Robert Alter cites the Israeli linguist Abba ben David (in a work available only in Hebrew) as saying that a “new kind of Hebrew” emerged in the “pre-Christian” (or Second Temple) period. It is widely recognized that this new Hebrew reflected the influence of the Aramaic vernacular in morphology, in grammar, and in some of its vocabulary, and that, understandably, it also incorporated a vast number of Greek and Latin loanwords. …Ben David, observing, as have others before him, that there are incipient signs of an emergent rabbinic Hebrew in late biblical books like Jonah and the Song of Songs, makes the bold and, to my mind, convincing proposal that rabbinic Hebrew was built upon an ancient vernacular that for the most part had been excluded from the literary language used for the canonical texts. (Alter, The Hebrew Bible 2019, xxv) The alphabet changed, the spelling changed, the language changed, and in some cases, the meaning changed. These language changes are important to understand both the Septuagint and the importance of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The scholar Martin Hengel notes some Dead Sea Scrolls are manuscripts written in the “paleo-Hebrew script” which dates from the early third century B.C. and seems to be the earliest biblical manuscript in existence. Hengel also notes the Masoretic text is “significantly inferior …to the LXX exemplar.” (Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture 2002, 84-85) The Masoretes wrote using a different script than was used to write the Old Testament; if Moses were alive today, he would be unable to read the Pentateuch. Not only did the alphabet change, but scribes had altered the texts. First, the spelling changed; second, the manuscripts slowly began using consonants to represent vowels; third, the meaning itself changed. (Barrera 1998, 60-64) Of the textual recensions, one of the more noticeable examples is Psalm 14:3. In the King James Version, this verse reads: “They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” The Septuagint, by contrast, is much longer. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become good for nothing, there is none that does good, no not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; their feet are swift to shed blood: destruction and misery are in their ways; and the way of peace they have not known: there is no fear of God before their eyes. (Brenton n.d.) (Ps 14:3) [English translation by L.C.L. Brenton] Deacon Joseph Gleason notes: “In Romans 3:10, St. Paul writes, ‘It is written,’ a common indicator in the biblical literature that the Scriptures are being referenced. Then, in verses ten through eighteen, he offers an extended quotation from the Psalm.” (Gleason, The Apostle Paul’s Reading of Psalm 14 2014) This extended quotation, which the apostle Paul cites as Scripture, is quoting the longer passage from the Septuagint, rather than the shorter passage found in the Masoretic text. Fundamentalists and Evangelicals may find this problematic. Because they read modern notions of literacy, authorship, and textual authority back into the ancient world, they are unable to comprehend a world in which an author was merely a person whose authority was the basis for which a text was written and maintained. They fail to realize the primacy of oral transmission of knowledge and the inferiority of the written text. They fail to understand a religion where sacred rituals took precedence over sacred text. People often notice the New Testament quotations usually don’t match the Old Testament source texts, as we made clear in the examples cited above. What they don’t know is the manuscripts used to create the English translations did not exist; the Masoretic Text was created later. Scholars trace portions of the Masoretic Text back to textual variants within the Dead Sea Scrolls, (Barrera 1998, 284) but the Masoretic Text is an edited version of those texts. One of the more curious differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text is in the ages of the patriarchs. The Oxford scholar James Barr notes the ages of the patriarchs, “at the time when the first son was born …were different, and in most cases 100 years higher at each birth.” Barr goes on to say that the generations of the patriarchs are about 1,000 years longer in the Septuagint than in the Hebrew text. (Barr 1985, 582) The version of Ezra in the Masoretic text begins with the last two verses of 2 Chronicles. By contrast, the Septuagint version of 1 Esdras begins with the last two chapters of 2 Chronicles. 1 Esdras also contains the story of the three youths (1 Esdras 3:4 to 4:4), which turns the core of 1 Esdras into literary chiasmus. 1 Esdras 3:4 to 4:4. A chiasm (or chiasmus) is a symmetric literary structure whereby a series of ideas are presented (A and B), with variant ideas (A’ and B’) being presented in reverse order (A, B, B’, A’). Sometimes you might have a central idea (X) around which the other ideas are arranged (A, B, X, B’, A’). Since chiastic structures were a common feature of ancient literature, this suggests the Masoretic text has been artificially truncated. Table SEQ Table \* ARABIC 2 Chiastic Structure of 1 Esdras EZRA AND I ESDRAS COMPARED Masoretic Text Septuagint Summary (II Chr. 35) (I Esd. 1:1-33)  Continuation of Paralipomenon (i.e., "Things Set Off" from Esdras) (II Chr. 36) (I Esd. 1:34-58)     Begin Ezra Ezr. 1 I Esd. 2:1-14 Cyrus's edict to rebuild the Temple Ezr. 4:7-24 I Esd. 2:15-30a Flash forward to Artaxerxes’ reign (prolepsis)     Core:  Chiasm of Celebration — I Esd. 2:30b     Inclusio:   Work hindered until second year of Darius’s reign — I Esd. 3         A  Feast in the court of Darius with Darius contest — I Esd. 4             B  Darius vows to repatriate the exiles — I Esd. 5:1-6                 X  The feast of those who returned to Jerusalem Ezr. 2 I Esd. 5:7-46             B'  List of former exiles who returned Ezr. 3 I Esd. 5:47-65         A'  Feast of Tabernacles Ezr. 4:1-5 I Esd. 5:66-73     Inclusio:   Work hindered until second year of Darius’s reign     Conclusion Ezr. 5 I Esd. 6:1-22 In the second year of Darius's reign Ezr. 6 I Esd. 6:23 — 7 The temple is finished Ezr. 7 I Esd. 8:1-27 In Artaxerxes’ reign Ezr. 8 I Esd. 8:28-67 List of latter exiles who returned Ezr. 9 I Esd. 8:68-90 Repentance from miscegenation Ezr. 10 I Esd. 8:91-9:36     Putting away of foreign wives and children (Neh. 7:73-8:12) (I Esd. 9:37-55)    Translation Styles and the Authoritative Text R. H. Charles states that the Masoretic Text is the result of “conscious recension” and “unconscious change.” He writes: Both before and after the Christian era the Hebrew text did not possess any hard and fast tradition. It will further be obvious that the Massoretic [sic] form of this text, which has so long been generally assumed as conservative of the most ancient tradition and as therefore final, is after all only one of the many phases through which the text passed in the process of over 1,000 years, i.e. 400 B. C. till A. D. 600, or thereabouts. (Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English Vol 2 1913, 5) The Masoretes selected and established a particular strain of Jewish interpretation, and created what Adam Clarke describes as a "gloss" on the text. (Clarke 1833, iii) A “gloss,” in this context, is an interpretation or explanation. We will examine this contention further in Part III of this book. A curious historical anomaly is that the manuscripts for the Septuagint are older than the manuscripts for the Hebrew Scriptures, and therefore represent the Old Testament text as it existed during the early Second Temple period. By contrast, the Hebrew Scriptures, being the product of the Masoretic tradition, represents the Old Testament as it existed for the Jews during the medieval period. The Septuagint represents the earlier text and is closer to the original text. The existence of earlier alternate texts presents a problem for those who claim the English language translations are accurate representations of the Scriptures. Bruce Metzger comments: The importance of the Septuagint as a translation is obvious. Besides being the first translation ever made of the Hebrew Scriptures, it was the medium through which the religious ideas of the Hebrews were brought to the attention of the world. It was the Bible of the early Christian church, and when the Bible is quoted in the New Testament, it is almost always from the Septuagint version. Furthermore, even when not directly quoted in the New Testament, many of the terms used and partly created by the Septuagint translators became part and parcel of the language of the New Testament. (Metzger 2001, Kindle Locations 302-306) As Bruce Metzger points out, the Septuagint was the Bible for the earliest Christians. The existence of an earlier and substantially different text pose problems for those who assume their Bible represents the original text, and also presents a problem for scholars who prefer a literal, word for word English translation. The Septuagint is based on an earlier text and represents a grab bag of translation techniques. Bruce Metzger informs us the translators "avoided literalistic renderings of phrases congenial to another age and another language." (Ibid, Kindle Locations 266-267) Peter J. Gentry describes the translation styles as follows. Individual books [of the Septuagint] vary in character and quality of translation and exhibit a full spectrum from extreme formal correspondence and literal translation to dynamic and functional translation and even paraphrase. (Gentry, The Text of the Old Testament 2009, 24) Bruce Metzger gives us a list Septuagint books falling into the literal vs. paraphrastic translation styles. The various books in the Septuagint vary as to literal and free translation. Examples of free (or even sometime paraphrastic) translations are Job, Proverbs, Isaiah, Daniel, and Esther; literal translations are the books of Judges (the B text), Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles. (Metzger 2001, Kindle Locations 285-287) Oxford professor Jan Joosten writes concerning the conflicting exegetical tendencies in the Septuagint. Even within each individual translation unit, a multiplicity of factors comes into play. While most Septuagint translators basically attempt to give a faithful rendering of their Hebrew source text in the target language, several other elements determine the outcome in the translation. To begin with the translators’ comprehension of the source text is in many places predetermined by existing interpretative traditions. In many instances, the traditions surfacing in the Septuagint later turn up in Rabbinic sources, which led Zecharia Frankel to speak of the influence of Palestinian exegesis on the hermeneutics of the Septuagint. Another factor influencing the work of the translators is their knowledge of the biblical context in the largest sense of the word. Many renderings reveal the more or less unconscious working of an enormous web of intertextuality, of which the harmonization of parallel passages is only the most prominent symptom. A third factor is the culture, world view and theology of the Diaspora Jews among whom the version came into being. Admittedly, little is known about the culture, world view and theology of Alexandrian Judaism – making it difficult to determine influences with any degree of certainty. The multiplicity of factors – several others could be thought of – leads to a layering of meanings in the Septuagint as a whole. The plain meaning of a passage may stand in contrast to the vocabulary used; different meanings may emerge according to whether a phrase is read in light of the near or the larger context; a simple and straightforward passage may contain one puzzling expression throwing the meaning of the whole into doubt. (Joosten 2008) It is not always clear why the translators chose one style over another; within each category of styles, we find historical books and wisdom literature. The translators paraphrased some of the Major Prophets (Isaiah and Daniel) while translating the Psalms literally. Jesus, the apostles, and the early church used a bible translated using methods that would not pass muster with most scholars today. The New Testament authors referred to the Septuagint as Scripture, and the Septuagint was the Bible of the early church. The style of translation is not as important as we think it is, which suggests problems with the modern idea of verbal, plenary inspiration. Plenary is a term that means unqualified and absolute. Leaving aside the issue of translation style (or exegetical tendencies), the Septuagint is not a book in the modern sense, but instead a collection of scrolls. Christians began cutting the scrolls into sheets and sewing them together to form what we call a codex. Many examples of codices exist, but they are not books in the modern sense. As Fr. Stephen Freeman notes, these were liturgical items, intended for use in and by the “worshipping Church.” The Orthodox still use the Scriptures in this form - the Gospels as a book (it rests on the altar), and the Epistles as a book (known as the Apostol). They are bound in such a manner for their use in the services of the Church, not as private "Bibles." These are outstanding examples of the Scriptures organized in their liturgical format for their proper use: reading in the Church. They are Churchly items - not “The Book” of later Protestantism. They are the Scriptures of the worshipping Church. (Freeman, The Church and the Scriptures 2014) The formal name for the Apostol is the Apostolos, and it contains the New Testament with markings indicating the lectionary readings — the readings appointed for that day. The Old Testament lectionary readings, which includes what Protestants call the Apocrypha, are contained in a third volume called the Prophetologion. The Psalter contains the text of the Psalms, along with other texts appropriate to their use both in Church and in prayer.  The Septuagint & its Manuscripts Since the manuscripts of the Septuagint were copied by hand and by people of differing abilities, there were different versions of the Septuagint in existence. The translation of the book of Daniel was so poor that the second-century translation attributed to Theodotion replaced it. (Metzger 2001, Kindle Location 298) For a variety of reasons, scholars now doubt that Theodotion was the actual source of the translation of Daniel we find in the later versions of the Septuagint. By the 3rd century, the textual problem had become so bad that Origen collected all the existing versions of the Septuagint and created a six-column work called the Hexapla. The Hexapla was such a massive work that it seems unlikely the entire work was ever copied. The original was maintained in the library of Pamphilus at Caesarea of Palestine, where it existed until 638 when the city was conquered by the Muslims (Saracens). (Metzger 2001, Kindle Locations 326-330) The Hexapla compares different Septuagint texts against the Hebrew texts and other Greek translations. Bruce Metzger (and others) claim the fifth column of the Hexapla was Origen's "corrected" text of the Septuagint. (Metzger 2001, Kindle Locations 311-323) Martin Hengel writes: Origen created the Hexapla to obtain an overview of the confusing chaos. But he too defended the LXX text as approved by the church since it represented the translation that had come into existence by God’s providence and was binding in the churches. (Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture 2002, 36) In the early 4th century Pamphilus and Eusebius published Origen's corrected text; there were other 4th century recensions of the Septuagint as well. (Barrera 1998, 330-334) Andrew Louth claims that Origen’s purpose was not to determine the correct text of the Septuagint. Instead, its purpose was: “to lay bare the richness of meaning contained in the Scriptures of the Old Testament.” As evidence, he points to the following: Passages from the other columns of the Hexapla found their way into Christian copies of the Septuagint — so-called ‘Hexaplaric’ readings — and it is these readings that we often find in patristic commentaries on Scripture, as well as in the texts included in the services in the Byzantine liturgy. (Louth 2013, 12) Our modern bibles are products of a manuscript tradition. Some, like Martin Hengel, draw different conclusions from the Hexapla, conclusions that are unsupported by the evidence, and are based on a preexisting bias. Nevertheless, he never mentions the [Septuagint] translation or even the inspiration legend. For him, the Hebrew original gained a certain importance once again. Indeed, the first two columns of his magnum opus were devoted to it. Thereby the church was continually reminded that the LXX is only a translation that can never exceed the Hebrew original in dignity, but must, rather, always succeed it.” (Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture 2002, 34) There is no single authoritative text of the Old Testament, at least not in the sense used by Evangelical Protestants. Instead, Andrew Louth indicates that part of the manuscript tradition is an exploration of everything contained in the various texts. (Louth 2013, 12) Constantine Siamakis writes: The ancient manuscripts of a text, together with quotations from it in other texts of similarly ancient or later date, and any surviving ancient translations of it which are also in ancient manuscript form, constitute the manuscript tradition of that text. Every printed edition of an ancient text derives directly or indirectly from its manuscript tradition. (Siamakis 1997, 8) While we can speak of the manuscript tradition as a whole, there are different ways of interpreting that tradition. These methods of interpreting the manuscript tradition use various criteria, leading to variant authoritative texts. Today there are three families of texts used to translate the New Testament: the Textus Receptus, the Critical Text, and the Majority Text. The Textus Receptus was created by the 16th-century scholar Erasmus using the best texts available at the time and is the basis for most of the vernacular translations produced during the Reformation, including the King James Bible. (Samworth n.d.) Later manuscript discoveries and scholarship resulted in the Critical Text, which nearly all modern translations and scholarship uses. The Critical Text is based upon Alexandrian manuscripts which constitute only about 10% of the manuscripts in existence. By contrast, the Majority Text, also known as the Byzantine Majority text, is supported by around 90% of the existing manuscripts. (Fores 1996) The Textus Receptus is based on the Byzantine Majority family of texts but uses the Masoretic texts as opposed to the Septuagint. There are two basic textual families within the Old Testament manuscript tradition. The Masoretic Text is the text produced by medieval Jewish scholars and is the basis for their Hebrew Scriptures as well as the Protestant Old Testament. The Septuagint, as we have been discussing, was the Greek Translation of earlier editions of the Hebrew Scriptures; this was the text used by most New Testament writers for their quotations from the Old Testament. There are some Fundamentalists who dismiss the importance of the Septuagint. Samuel C. Gipp, Th. D. calls the Septuagint: “A figment of someone’s imagination.” Gipp considers the Letter of Aristeas to be: “the sole evidence for the existence of this mystical document. [emphasis in the original]” He dismisses the textual evidence for the Septuagint as follows: “There are absolutely NO Greek Old Testament manuscripts existent with a date of 250 BC or anywhere near it. Neither is there any record in Jewish history of such a work being contemplated or performed. [emphasis in the original]” He claims Origen’s Hexapla is the sole evidence for the existence of the Septuagint. Gipp’s arguments are widespread among the King James Only movement. (Gipp 2016) Our KJV is not the original 1611 version. Benjamin Blayney’s Oxford edition of 1769 is a reworking of Francis Sawyer Parris’ Cambridge edition. The King James Only movement praises the King James Version of 1611 as being inspired, but uses the Oxford edition of 1769. They claim the Oxford edition merely corrected errors, but never address how an inspired text can be edited to correct errors. Beginning with the proposition that the King James Version is the only inspired translation, they must then discredit all others, including the biblical manuscripts used by other translations. We need not address his issues point by point, as the contents of this chapter have already done that. However, we should note that the test of an ancient document’s authenticity is not the existence of manuscripts from the time of the document’s creation. If that were the case, we would have to dismiss the entire Old Testament. If we dismissed the Septuagint because we have no examples dating to the time of their writing, we would also have to dismiss most of the Bible. The Hebrew Scriptures are among the best-attested ancient documents, with more than ten thousand manuscripts. However, because the Jews destroy worn out scrolls, few manuscripts exist earlier than the 13th century, and most of those exist in fragments. By way of contrast, Homer’s Iliad is preserved in 647 manuscripts; the history of Rome composed by Velleius Paterculus survived in a single incomplete copy which was lost after being copied; the only manuscript of the Epistle to Diognetus was destroyed in a library fire. The oldest manuscript evidence for the Masoretic text is from the 9th and 10th century AD, while the manuscript evidence for the Septuagint dates from 150 BC – 70 AD. When Samuel C. Gipp says there are no Greek manuscripts going back to the 3rd century BC, the same is also true of Hebrew manuscripts. Samuel C. Gipp is arguing against the King James Version. Even Protestants who accept the importance of the Septuagint generally choose not to use it for their bible texts. When I was Lutheran, I raised the question of why we didn't use the Septuagint instead of the Masoretic text as the basis for our new Lutheran Study Bible, to which one pastor replied: "Which Septuagint?" This is a reasonable question for a Protestant to ask, especially given what we now know about the translation and copying of the Septuagint during the first four centuries of the Christian era. The answer, which no right-thinking Protestant would accept, is to use the version of the Septuagint delivered to us by the Church. This is, however, the basis upon which Protestants accept their canon — it is the canon delivered to them. But we could just as well ask which Bible, as there are multiple canons in use among the different Christian communities. Moreover, there are differing textual families, each with seemingly valid arguments for their use. When confronted by multiple Old Testament canons, each authoritative for different Christian communities, the standard question is which canon is correct? But instead, what if we asked ourselves why the question of canon is so important? It may help to examine the question of how the canon(s) were formed in the first place.  Flavius Josephus and the Canon  The Jewish historian Josephus is often cited as providing the first written canon of the Hebrew Scriptures. Conservative Bible scholars approvingly cite Josephus as evidence of a settled canon of Scripture among the Jews. However, as we shall see, things are not quite as simple as they appear. In “Flavius Josephus Against Apion” we read: For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another [as the Greeks have], but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind until his death. ...The prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life. It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time. (Josephus 1987, Against Apion, 1.8.42) Gleason Archer, in his "A Survey of Old Testament Introduction,” provides the following points regarding the above quote: Note three important features of this statement: (1) Josephus includes the same three divisions of the Hebrew Scriptures as does the MT [Masoretic text] (although restricting the third group to 'hymns' and hokhmah), and he limits the number of canonical books in these three divisions to twenty-two. (2) No more canonical writings have been composed since the reign of Artaxerxes, son of Xerxes (464-424 B.C.), that is, since the time of Malachi. (3) No additional material was ever included in the canonical twenty-two books during the centuries between (i.e., from 425 B.C. to A.D. 90). Rationalist higher critics emphatically deny the last two points, but they have to do with the witness of such an early author as Josephus and explain how the knowledge of the allegedly post-Malachi date of sizable portions, such as Daniel, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and many of the psalms, had been kept from this learned Jew in the first century A.D. It is true that Josephus also alludes to apocryphal material (as from 1 Esdras and 1 Maccabees); but in view of the statement quoted above, it is plain that he was using it merely a historical source, not as divinely inspired books. (Archer 1974, 71) The conclusions of Archer are incorrect. There were different canons in use among the Jewish people at the time of Christ, from the truncated canon of the Samaritans to the expansive canon represented by the Dead Sea Scrolls. Alfred Edersheim mentions that the Septuagint, including its Messianic implications, was widely accepted as Scripture 250 years before the Christian era, and that it was accepted for use in Jewish worship in Palestine at the time of Christ. (Edersheim 1993, 16) Francis Ernest Charles Gigot describes the larger Alexandrian canon as follows: [B]efore Our Lord's time the Jews of Alexandria—and indeed all the Greek-speaking Jews—numbered among their sacred writings both proto-and deutero-canonical books, can hardly be doubted. For on the one hand, all the extant manuscripts of the Septuagint Version comprise both classes of books without the least trace of difference of authority between them, and on the other hand, as we shall see later, both deutero-and proto-canonical books stood on the same footing at the very beginning of the Church, that is at a time when no deviation from Jewish tradition can seriously be supposed. (Gigot 1900, 32) Historically, it is clear that the Jews did not reject the Septuagint until it was taken up by Christians. In place of the Septuagint, Judaism chose a newer Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures by Aquila the Proselyte, a translation which reflected the change in Judaism in response to the destruction of the temple and the challenge of Christianity. (Edersheim 1993, 20-21) Alfred Edersheim notes that just as the Septuagint was the product of Hellenistic Jews (and could provide the date for the start of the Hellenistic era), so too was the Apocrypha the result of or response to Hellenism. (Ibid, 16-20; 22- 24) The Apocrypha were either written in Greek or, as we know from certain of the Dead Sea Scrolls, were written in Hebrew or Aramaic and translated into Greek. Alfred Edersheim writes: [The] general object [of the Apocrypha] was twofold. First, of course, it was apologetic — intended to fill in gaps in Jewish history or thought, but especially to strengthen the Jewish mind against attacks from without, and generally to extol the dignity of Israel. …But the next object was to show that the deeper and purer thinking of heathenism in its highest philosophy supported — nay, in some respects, was identical with — the fundamental teaching of the Old Testament. This, of course, was apologetic of the Old Testament, but it also prepared the way for a reconciliation with Greek philosophy. (Ibid, 22) The canon of the LXX was itself quite fluid, being a collection of scrolls including books the Protestants now consider Apocryphal. Whoever deposited the Dead Sea Scrolls (popularly identified as the Essenes, although more likely to have been Jews from Jerusalem), also appears to have used the Septuagint canon (with the possible exception of the book of Esther). Given all this, what are we to make of the following statement from Josephus? How firmly we have given credit to those books of our own nation, is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything to them, to take anything from them, or to make any change in them; but it becomes natural to all Jews, immediately and from their very birth, to esteem those books to contain divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be, willingly to die for them. (Josephus 1987, Against Apion, 1.8.42) F. F. Bruce cites the first half of this quote approvingly, and states: "This language can scarcely signify anything other than a closed canon." (Bruce, The Canon of Scripture 2010) Unfortunately, F. F. Bruce is writing from within his Evangelical framework and fails to note the importance of the second half of what Josephus said. Josephus is not writing about the text of Scripture, but the "divine doctrines" contained therein. No one can add to the divine doctrine, nor take anything from them, nor change anything in them. Moreover, Josephus is writing after the destruction of Jerusalem and is reading the new importance of the texts back into Jewish history. It is important to examine the quote from Against Apion in context and to compare that context with other of Josephus’ writings. First, Josephus was writing to correct Apion, a man who claimed that since the Greek historians didn’t mention the events of the Old Testament, the Old Testament was untrustworthy. It was within this context that Josephus defined the proto-canonical books. However, it should be noted that the books Josephus cites include Esdras instead of Ezra and Nehemiah. Also, at the end of The Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus writes: I shall now, therefore, make an end here of my Antiquities; …I have also carried down the succession of our kings, and related their actions, and political administration, with [considerable] errors, as also the power of our monarchs; and all according to what is written in our sacred books; for this it was that I promised to do in the beginning of this history. (Josephus 1987, The Antiquities of the Jews, 20.9.22) Francis Gigot notes that The Antiquities of the Jews freely uses 1 Maccabees, and quotes from the version of Esther found in the Septuagint instead of the version included by the Masoretes. (Gigot 1900, 33) It seems Josephus used a different and larger canon than that admitted by Protestants. We know the current Hebrew canon was established in response to the Christian's use of the wider canon of the Jewish diaspora. But if Josephus is speaking about Jewish doctrine, he clearly was arguing against the Christian writings — especially as they introduced new doctrines which diverged from the interpretations of Judaism developed in response to Christianity. Therefore, any argument from Josephus is an argument against Christianity itself. We cannot, then rely upon Josephus to delimit the Christian catalogue of Sacred Scriptures. The Christian Old Testament  F. F. Bruce believes the canon of the Old Testament was closed by the time of Christ; he argues that our Lord and His apostles knew what they meant when they used the term scripture. (Bruce, The Canon of Scripture 2010, 28-29) However, we can say with confidence that our Lord and His apostles did not equate Scripture with a list of inspired texts. Nowhere in the New Testament writings do we come across anything resembling a list or catalog of books. And even if — for the sake of argument — even if we assume our Lord and his apostles had anything resembling a list, is there any way to recover that list? To put it another way: when was the canon of the Old Testament closed, and by whom? Peter J. Gentry, professor of OT Interpretation at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, provides the standard argument for the closing of the canon before the time of Christ. The text of the OT in arrangement, content, and stability was fixed by the time of Ben Sira or more probably, at the end of the fifth century BC by Ezra and Nehemiah. According to 2 Macc 2:13–14, Judas collected the books as a library after the war, following the example of Nehemiah before him. (Gentry, The Text of the Old Testament 2009, 19) This sounds convincing until you realize that having a library of religious texts does not imply a standard catalog. Two pastor's libraries may contain many of the same books, but no two pastor's libraries are identical. As we shall discuss later, the culture at the time of Christ was primarily a scribal one. Scribes kept libraries for use in the temple and the government. Scribes wrote material for other scribes and not for public consumption. The function of a Jewish scribe was the study of “the law, the prophets, and the other books,” and the “translation and explication” of same. (Lim 2012, Kindle Locations 2340, 2344) The libraries of Nehemiah and Judas Maccabaeus would have been reference libraries containing materials useful for the ministration to and administration of the people. The establishment of a scribal library in no way implies a fixed canon. The focus of Judaism during Christ’s day was temple rather than text; Jews were not yet "people of the book.” The idea of being a people of the book would not make sense until after the temple was destroyed. The Jewish Encyclopedia, in its article on Jesus of Nazareth, makes the following comment: “It is doubtful whether he received any definite intellectual training, the great system of Jewish education not being carried into effect till after the destruction of Jerusalem.” (Jewish Encyclopedia 1906) Thus formal education of the scriptures, that which became Talmudic Judaism, did not begin in earnest until after the destruction of the Temple. During Jesus' day texts were read in the synagogue and temple worship used portions of the text, but it was the temple liturgy itself that was the center of Judaism. Subdeacon Gabe Martini describes the relationship between text and temple in ancient Judaism in this way. Despite the advent of synagogues across both the diaspora and Palestine, the primary focus of Judaism—even in the diaspora—was the temple cult. Anyone that lived remotely near Jerusalem would make pilgrimage several times a year for the festal celebrations. The temple was at the heart of the Jewish faith. And as a result, there was not the same level of textual study as seen in both Christianity and Judaism today. Scriptural commentary was just beginning to take shape by the first century, and still only the scribes and priests could actually make sense of the ancient, Hebrew language. (Martini 2014) The earliest evidence for the current list of Old Testament books comes from the period after the fall of Jerusalem. The Babylonian Talmud contains the first statement of the three divisions of the Hebrew Scriptures: The Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. F. F. Bruce writes: One of the clearest and earliest statements of these three divisions and their respective contents comes in a baraitha (a tradition from the period AD 70—200) quoted in the Babylonian Talmud, in the tractate Baba Bathra. This tradition assigns inspired or authoritative authors to all twenty-four books, and discusses their order. (Bruce, The Canon of Scripture 2010, 29-30) One problem with this reference to the Babylonian Talmud is the timing. A tradition dating from between the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the 2nd century can scarcely be used to describe the state of Judaism in Christ’s day. This is especially true because Judaism changed in response to the destruction of the temple. After the fall of Jerusalem, the center of Judaism could no longer be the temple but instead focused on the sacred texts. The texts themselves changed in response to the growth of Christianity as a rival sect, a sect that used the Septuagint as its own Sacred Scriptures. This change in the Hebrew Scriptures was well underway in the mid-2nd century, as showed by Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew. (Schaff, ANF01 1884, Chapters LXXI - LXXIII) Another problem is that the baraitha (independent oral tradition) quoted in the Babylonian Talmud was not authoritative. The baraitha was one of many voices in an ongoing discussion. This particular baraitha was not included in the Mishnah (completed ca. 200 – 220 AD). Also, the Christian community did not adopt the threefold division of the Scriptures and devised their own ordering and division of books. (McDonald 2007, 164-165) Christians can hardly argue for the canonicity of the three-fold division of the Hebrew Scriptures when we reject that division in our Old Testament. We cannot derive the pre-Christian status of the Jewish canon from post-Christian Jewish sources. Post-Christian sources are all arguing a point of view influenced both by Christianity and Jewish hostility to Christianity. Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 170-235 AD) is another important source of Jewish canonical information. In his Panarion (aka Adversus Haereses, or Against Heresies), Epiphanius provides a list of the books accepted by the Jews. This list contains all the books now accepted in the Hebrew Scriptures, but also includes Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon as “books of disputed canonicity.” (Epiphanius of Salamis 2012, Book 1, Part 8, Section 8, 6:1 - 6:4) The reference to “canonicity” can only be a reading of our current usage of the word back into antiquity. This list represents the works accepted by the Jews in the 3rd century, and should not be used to describe either the Hebrew Scriptures in the time of Christ, or to describe the Christian Old Testament. However, it does indicate that even in the 3rd century some of the Apocryphal books were still in use with in Judaism. There was no early Christian consensus on the canon of Old Testament Scriptures. The scholar Martin Hengel notes the canonical limits were fluid at least up to the 3rd century. He writes: The uncertainty with respect to the delineation of the ‘Scriptures of the Old Covenant’ …in this period attempted for the first time to work carefully through the rich Jewish literature which was originally in Greek or had been translated into Greek and to investigate its usefulness for church doctrine and practice and theological speculation. (Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture 2002, 55) Henkel also says there was a disagreement between using only those Scriptures written in Hebrew and those supported by the “LXX legend”. (Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture 2002, 56) The Jewish translation legend is first seen in the Letter of Aristeas, likely written sometime between 150-100 B.C.; the purpose of Aristeas, according to Martin Hengel, is to “legitimize a certain version of the LXX as solely valid.” (Ibid, 25) According to Aristeas, six men were chosen from each of the twelve tribes of Israel and sent to Egypt to translate the law into Greek. These seventy-two men completed their task in seventy-two days. This legend was spoken of by the Jewish scholar Philo of Alexander (c. 25 B.C. to 50 AD), and also paraphrased by Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews. It is perhaps interesting to note that a number of early Christian writers used the LXX legend of Aristeas to show the Christian Scriptures of the Old Covenant were at least the equal of their Hebrew counterparts, and potentially superior. The first Christian author to lay this out clearly is Justin Martyr. In his The First Apology, Justin Martyr uses the translation legend to suggest the entire Old Testament was translated into Greek. (Schaff, ANF01 1884, 266) Then, in his Dialogue, Justin Martyr uses the Septuagint translation legend to indicate it was as authoritative as the Hebrew originals. (Ibid, 377) Other Christian additions to the LXX legend include the idea that the seventy (the customary way of referring to the seventy-two) not only translated the Law, but also the entire Old Testament. Christians also added a miraculous element to the story, such that the translators were kept in individual seclusion, but at the completion of their work all their translations agreed down to the smallest detail. Epiphanius of Salamis writes: For while they were seventy-two in number and on the Pharian island, but called Anoge, opposite Alexandria, they were in thirty-six cells, two in each cell. From morning to evening they were shut up, and in the evening they would cross over in thirty-six small boats and go again to the palace of Ptolemy Philadelphus and dine with him. And each pair slept in (one of) thirty-six bedchambers, so that they might not talk with one another, but might produce an unadulterated translation. Thus they conducted themselves. …And when they were completed, the king sat on a lofty throne; and thirty-six readers also sat below, holding thirty-six duplicates of each book, and one had a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures. Each reader read alone, and the others kept watch. No disagreement was found, but it was such an amazing work of God that it was recognized that these men possessed the gift of the Holy Spirit, because they agreed in translation. (Epiphanius of Salamis 1935, 18-22)  The LXX legend developed from a historical event and combining the historical with elaborate fictions to such an extent that we may never know what actually happened. After the coming of Jesus Christ, the Jews created elaborate fictions of their own, such as the legend that the skies were darkened and the sun failed to shine for three days upon the completion of the translation. (Wasserstein and Wasserstein 2006, Kindle Locations 2837ff; 3483ff) Some ancient scholars, reacting against the LXX legend, decided the Hebrew manuscripts were the most reliable. Protestant scholars such as Martin Hengel approvingly cite how individuals such as Origen and St. Jerome (Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture 2002, 41) preferred Hebrew manuscripts, and particularly those texts originally written in Hebrew. However, as Protestants, these scholars fail to understand the importance of the bishops in this process. While great scholars in their own right, neither Origen Origen was under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Alexandria, but was ordained to the clergy in Caesarea. The Bishop of Alexandria convened a synod which declared his ordination invalid. However, the Alexandrian synod had no jurisdictional authority in Caesarea, and Origen appears to have performed priestly duties until his martyrdom. or Jerome were bishops, and therefore their opinions were subject to the judgement of their respective ruling bishop. St. Jerome believed Hebrew was a sacred language and that only those books whose originals were written in Hebrew were Scripture. However, when Jerome was engaged by the Bishop of Rome to translate the Scriptures into Latin, the Bishop of Rome disagreed, and the Vulgate includes Jerome’s Latin translations of books Protestants call the Apocrypha. People of the Book  The Koran (Quran) defines Jews, Sabians, The term Sabians seems to refer to a variety of monotheistic faiths that are neither Jewish nor Christian, although they appear to have more in common with Christianity than with Judaism. and Christians as being fellow peoples of the book, The term ‘People of the Book’ is used throughout the Koran, but there is no single passage that defines who the People of the Book are. Instead, we have a few passages where these peoples are specifically addressed (as in Quran 5:69), and it is understood that this reference is to the ‘People of the Book.’ which makes sense in an Islamic context. Muslims consider the Koran to be the Word of God made text. When Gabriel revealed the Koran to Mohammed, both Jews and Christians already had collections of inspired literature. Jews and Christians both had a way to preserve the inspired text relatively uncorrupted from additions and errors. Most modern Christians have no trouble with thinking of themselves as people of the book; modern Christians have the Bible, a book which they refer to as the Word of God. Yet it is unlikely either the ancient Jews or the earliest Christians would have defined themselves as people of the book, for they had no such book. Judaism was in flux at the time of Christ, with multiple canons and textual traditions. The Jews did not agree upon a single list of Hebrew Scriptures until the 3rd century AD. Moreover, the differing textual traditions were not merged into a single text until the 9th century AD. Apostolic Christianity described the Septuagint as Sacred Scripture, and the various New Testament writings only gradually became thought of as Scripture. Christians did not agree upon the canon of the New Testament until the 9th century. This seems odd to us now, but in the ancient world, the oral word was primary; the written word was of little importance, useful only to a small class of people in government, religion, or business. John H. Walton and D. Brent Sandy write: After the discovery of writing, whether for the Egyptians or Sumerians, the Greeks or Romans, it was often only the priestly or commercial elites that acquired enough literacy to carry out their duties (or they purchased slaves who had been trained to read and write on behalf of their masters). Beyond that, the wealthy may have been educated enough to be literate. For the general populace literacy was rare, for it was almost never a necessity. (Walton and Sandy 2013, 90) We grew up in a literate culture, and we think of the illiterate as uneducated, backwards, and unintelligent. For more on literacy and the ancient world, see chapter 19. And yet our children learn to speak before they learn to write. We spend hours watching television and listening to the radio, both of which are primarily oral means of communication. The government funded the creation of the Internet as a tool to transfer and display text, yet the Internet did not become a phenomenon until it began to display audio and video. Speaking and hearing are fundamental; reading and writing are specialized skills. Walton and Sandy write: Fundamentally, speaking is primary; writing is derivative. So it is in the Bible: nothing in the biblical creation accounts suggests that God wrote or created writing. Speaking was the focus; writing would come later. So it is for children: learning to speak is essential and comes first; learning to write is helpful and comes second. So it has been in history: a society that does not speak to one another has never existed; a society that does not write to one another has always existed. (Walton and Sandy 2013, 89-90) This may be hard for us to grasp, but the Bible was primarily oral before it became the written text we know today. In the synagogues, the reader would translate the written text on the fly into ordinary language. In the early church, Christians would gather to hear the Gospels and the epistles read to them. Even today, we gather to hear the Scriptures read to us, after which we hear a sermon or a homily based on the text we just heard. The distinction between an oral and a textual culture revolves around the question of authority. Walton and Sandy write: "For oral communication, authority focuses on the persons who transmit the tradition. In written communication, authority shifts to the words on the page." (Ibid, 89) In an oral culture, the speaker transfers the tradition; the speaker controls what is said and how it is understood. This is why the apostle Paul reminded the Thessalonians to “stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” (II Th 2:15) However, in a textual culture, readers approach the text with their own ideas and create their own meaning from the text irrespective of any interpretive tradition. (Ibid, 91-92) Tertullian, the father of Latin theology, understood this long ago. Karlfried Froehlich explains that for Tertullian, the issue was not that scripture could be interpreted differently, but rather that those outside the apostolic church have no “right to use the Scriptures at all.” Tertullian’s argument is interesting in that he died outside the church, having joined the Montanist heresy. This is why the Orthodox do not count Tertullian as a church father. According to Tertullian, arguing with Gnostics about scriptural interpretation is useless. Even an agreed canon and common exegetical methods do not guarantee unambiguous results for there is always room for heretical intentions to dictate the agenda. Thus, the true battlefield is not interpretation but the very right to use Scriptures at all. Apostolic Scriptures belong to the apostolic church. (Froehlich 1984, Kindle Locations 210-212) Protestants developed at the same time as the Gutenberg press. It is no wonder that Protestants are in thrall to the written word, and are compelled to disregard the apostolic tradition. (2Th 3:6) It is no wonder that each reader, having discovered some new interpretation of the text, is compelled to create some new denomination, leading directly to the confusion of the tower of Babel. If, as the Scriptures state, "God is not the author of confusion," could it be that we are approaching Sacred Scripture incorrectly? (1Co 14:33) Is it possible that the God who spoke the worlds into existence, who commanded the prophets to speak the words of God unto the people, and that the God who gave prophets, evangelists, and teachers unto the church, also expects the oral transmission of tradition — including the interpretation of Sacred Scripture? Literacy and the Canon  The economist Michael Hudson describes the problem we have with understanding ancient cultures. In the context of economics, he says we modern people read our ‘anachronistic fables’ back into these ancient eras. He writes: “The Bronze Age Near East was organized on principles so different from those of today that it seems unconnected to modern civilization.” (Hudson 2018, xx) What Michael Hudson says of economics is also true when we try and understand the Old Testament scriptures by reading modernity into them. What Jews call the Hebrew Scriptures is primarily a set of Bronze Age writings, gathered together and maintained by an early Iron Age people. The Bronze Age in the Near East is dated from 3300 – 1200 B.C.; The Iron Age began in the Near East around 1200 B.C. The end of the Bronze Age and the start of the Iron Age is dated differently in different parts of the world, and depends on the spread of iron smelting technology. Bronze Age cultures are responsible for year-round systems of agriculture, for writing systems, for legal codes, for systems of government, for organized religion, and the beginnings of science and mathematics. We can trace much of our world back to its Bronze Age foundations, but we would be wrong to read our circumstances back into their world. In our modern culture, illiteracy is rare. We tend to read our circumstances into the ancient world. It is hard for us to imagine a society without modern technology, to say nothing of a culture that does not require literacy. Bart Ehrman writes: Studies have shown that what we might think of as modern literacy is a modern phenomenon, one that appeared only with the advent of the Industrial Revolution. …This applies even to ancient societies that we might associate with reading and writing — for example, Rome during the early Christian centuries, or even Greece during the classical period. The best and most influential study of literacy in ancient times, by Columbia University professor William Harris, indicates that at the very best of times and places — for example, Athens at the height of the classical period in the fifth century B.C.E., — literacy rates were rarely higher than 10-15 percent of the population. (Ehrman 2005, 37) The ancient world had a remarkably different concept of literacy than we do. While the scribes and others had a remarkably high standard of literacy, the idea of literacy was rather broad, encompassing people who could do no more than sign their name. The most famous example of this is a story from 184 AD and involves two “scribes” named Petaus and Ischyrion. As often happened, Petaus was assigned to duties in a different village, Ptolemais Hormou, where he was given oversight of financial and agricultural affairs. In the year 184 C.E., Petaus had to respond to some complaints about another village scribe from Ptolemais Hormou, a man named Ischyrion, who had been assigned somewhere else to undertake responsibilities as a scribe. The villagers under Ischyrion's jurisdiction were upset that Ischyrion could not fulfill his obligations, because, they charged, he was "illiterate". In dealing with the dispute Petaus argued that Ischyrion wasn't illiterate at all, because he had actually signed his name to a range of official documents. In other words, for Petaus "literacy" meant simply the ability to sign one's name. (Ibid, 38-39) Things were much the same for Jesus' apostles, some of whom were illiterate. The book of Acts describes Peter and John as “unlearned and ignorant,” meaning unschooled and illiterate. (Ac 4:13) In another well-known example, the apostle Paul reminds the Corinthians that most of them are illiterate. He writes: “For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called.” (1Co 1:26) Some of them were educated and literate, but not many. In the ancient world, reading and writing was the province of the scholar, the scribe, of clerks working in government, and of slaves who managed their master's affairs. When the Old Testaments speaks of reading it envisions a situation in which few were literate and the act of reading was communal; the Scriptures were read aloud to and within the community. Chris Rollston, writing for the Society of Biblical Literature, notes that reading was not a solitary and individual enterprise. Sometimes scholars will refer to the number of times "reading" and "writing" is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible and assume that this demonstrates that elites and non-elites could read and write. However, I would contend that the Hebrew Bible was primarily a corpus written by elites to elites. That is, it would be difficult to suggest that statements in the Hebrew Bible could be used as a basis for assuming the literacy of non-elites. Significantly, in this connection, Young wrote two seminal articles on the subject of literacy in ancient Israel. Among the most important of his findings is the fact that those referred to in the Hebrew Bible as writing and reading were primarily scribes, royal officials, kings, priests, and prophets. Some skilled craftsmen may have also been able to write and read (Young 1998a; 1998b). Ultimately, Young's analysis demonstrates in a convincing manner that the Hebrew Bible itself attests to literacy of elites, not the non-elite populace. Young's conclusions about "writing in the Hebrew Bible" dovetail with the Old Hebrew epigraphic record quite nicely: elites wrote and read, non-elites did not. (Rollston 2010, 133) Because literacy was rare in the ancient world, the concept of reading a book was (apart from the scribal community) necessarily communal, and books were read aloud. Bart Ehrman writes: [C]ommunities of all kinds throughout antiquity generally used the services of the literate for the sake of the illiterate. For in the ancient world "reading" a book did not mean, usually, reading it to oneself; it meant reading it aloud to others. One could be said to have read a book when in fact one had heard it read by others. There seems to be no way around the conclusion that books—as important as they were to the early Christian movement—were almost always read aloud in social settings, such as in settings of worship. (Ehrman 2005, 41-42) This situation reflects the Hellenistic world — that is to say, the world as it existed after 300 B.C.; before that time, there were no books as such. Professor Karel van der Toorn, a scholar of ancient religions, says that before the Hellenistic era there existed "documents, literary compilations, myths, collections of prayers, ritual prescriptions, chronicles, and the like, but no books, no trade in books, and no reading public of any substance." (Van der Toorn 2007, 5) If it is true that there were no books as such before the Hellenistic era, then we have a problem with stating Moses was the author of the Pentateuch, at least an author in the modern sense. Even during the Hellenistic period, reading was still primarily oral and communal. To have read a book was to have heard someone reading a book aloud. Bart Ehrman writes: We should recall here that Paul instructs his Thessalonian hearers that his "letter is to be read to all of the brothers and sisters" (1 Thess. 5:27). This would have happened out loud, in the church community. Paul also instructed the Colossians: "And when you have read this epistle, be sure that it is read in the church of the Laodiceans, and that you read the letter written to Laodicea" (Col. 4:16). Recall, too, Justin Martyr's report that "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" (I Apol. 67) The same point is made in other early Christian writings. For example, in the book of Revelation we are told, "Blessed is the one who reads the words of the prophecy and blessed are those who hear the words" (1:3)—obviously referring to the public reading of the text. In a lesser-known book called 2 Clement, from the mid second century, the author indicates, in reference to his words of exhortation, "I am reading you a request to pay attention to what has been written, so that you may save yourselves and the one who is your reader." (S Clem. 19.1) (Ehrman 2005, 42) Part of our problem is that books, as we know them today, did not exist. Instead, of a book, think of a scroll — a single, long piece of paper rolled around a pair of spindles. Not only was the paper expensive, but the reproduction of the manuscript was a long, laborious, and all too human process. Bart Ehrman writes: [Books] could not be produced en mass (no printing presses). And since they had to be copied by hand, one at a time, slowly and painstakingly, most books were not mass produced. Those few that were produced in multiple copies were not all alike, for the scribes who copied texts inevitably made alterations in those texts—changing the words they copied either by accident (via a slip of the pen or other carelessness) or by design (when the scribe intentionally altered the words he copied). Anyone reading a book in antiquity could never be completely sure that he or she was reading what the author had written. The words could have been altered. In fact, they probably had been, if only just a little. (Ibid, 46) Because the technology for printing did not exist, the concept of book publishing was unknown. A manuscript was widely copied because people found it to be valuable enough to spend the time, energy, and money to make, preserve, and share their copy. Bart Ehrman notes the difficulties inherent in publishing manuscripts in the ancient world. In the ancient world, since books were not mass produced and there were no publishing companies or bookstores, things were different. Usually an author would write a book, and possibly have a group of friends read it or listen to it being read aloud. This would provide a chance for editing some of the book's contents. Then when the author was finished with the book, he or she would have copies made for a few friends and acquaintances. This, then, was the act of publication, when the book was no longer solely in the author's control but in the hands of others. If these others wanted extra copies …they would have to arrange to have copies made, say, by a local scribe who made copies for a living, or by a literate slave who copied texts as part of his household duties. (Ibid, 46) Because copying manuscripts was a laborious, manual process, errors were inevitable and even expected. The written word was not as trustworthy as the word that came directly from the mouth of a teacher. Papius writes on the relative value of books vs. oral teaching: “For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice.” (Schaff, NPNF2-01 1890, Eusebius, Church History 3.39.4; pp. 312-333) The spoken word was the preferred method of transmitting information. Fr. Maximos Costas describes the situation like this: An essential element of this [living] experience was the oral transmission of doctrine from master to disciple, for which written texts were but material supports for the spoken word, comprising intermediary moments between two dialogical events. The written logos as such was neither the focus nor the goal of such a life, but rather the living logos, for which written texts were but preparations and complements: mnemonic devices ancillary to the concrete and practical experience of dialogue. (Constas 2018, 20) Because of the inherently error-prone process of copying scrolls, the written word was not as valued as it is today. Written copies could not be trusted. Bart Ehrman relates some interesting examples of the way the ancients viewed the written word. In a famous essay on the problem of anger, the Roman philosopher Seneca points out that there is a difference between anger directed as what has caused us harm and anger at what can to nothing to hurt us. To illustrate the latter category he mentions "certain inanimate things, such as the manuscript which we often hurl from us because it is written in too small a script or tear up because it is full of mistakes." …A humorous example comes to us from the epigrams of the witty Roman poet Martial, who, in one poem, lets his reader know "If any poems in those sheets, reader, seem to you either too obscure or not quite good Latin, not mine is the mistake: the copyist spoiled them in his haste to complete for you his tale of verses. But if you think that not he, but I am at fault, then I will believe that you have no intelligence. "Yet, see, those are bad." As if I denied what is plain! They are bad, but you don't make better." (Ehrman 2005, 46-47) The all-too-human act of copying scrolls rendered those texts less trustworthy. This problem was compounded by the few people who were literate enough to be able to read, interpret, and teach the scrolls. For the great mass of humanity, reading was a communal and participatory process, one that both entertained and enlightened. In this environment, the idea that the Hebrew Scriptures consisted of a closed catalog of manuscripts is absurd. Scribal Culture  How are we to determine the development of the Old Testament canon, to say nothing of the development and preservation of the Scriptures themselves? The first difficulty is our tendency to view antiquity through the lens of the modern age — to assume that people lived, thought, and acted much as we do. But this is a tremendous error, for the ancients were quite unlike us. For one thing, the ancients did not have our fascination with the printed word and with individual authorship. The ancients had a much different view of the individual than we do — not individual as a means of distinguishing one person from another, but rather as a person occupying a social role. Professor Karel van der Toorn expounds upon this. We think of a human person as a unique individual distinct from all other human beings. This view is the outcome of a long historical process. Earlier cultures put much greater emphasis on the social role of the individual. In ancient civilizations, such as Mesopotamia and Israel, the human person is understood as a character (personage) rather than as a personality (personne). The individual is indistinguishable from his or her social role and social status. (Van der Toorn 2007, 46) Since the ancients didn't have our fascination with the individual, our concept of authorship doesn't fit. The ancient author was unconcerned with issues that concern modern publishing such as "authenticity, originality, and intellectual property." (Ibid, 47) Instead, the name attached to a document had to do with the authority of the document rather than authorship in the modern sense. The actual author, in the modern sense, may have been an anonymous scribe. (Ibid, 47) The role of the scribe in antiquity was in part a function of that era's widespread illiteracy. In the last chapter, we mentioned a case where a scribe was considered literate since he knew how to sign his name. (Ehrman 2005, 38-39) With few people knew how to read, there could be no trade in books. Scrolls, therefore, were primarily a matter for governance and religion and were kept in the palace and temple libraries. Scribes used manuscripts as an aid to memory rather than a means of passing on knowledge. The writings themselves were largely incomprehensible without prior knowledge of their contents. Paul J. Achtemeier notes: The written page consisted entirely of lines each containing a similar number of letters, lines that ended and began irrespective of the words themselves. Documents were written without systematic punctuation, without indications of sentence or paragraph structure, indeed without separation of letters into individual words. As a result, no visible indications presented themselves to the ancient readers that would have rendered them aid in their attempt to discern the structure, and hence the meaning, of the piece of literature they confronted. (Achtemeier 1990, 10-11) Reading ancient manuscripts was difficult, and required a person to be acquainted with its contents, to have heard the manuscript read before, and likely to have been taught its contents. Even for manuscripts, we must presume their orality. Paul J. Achtemeier writes of late antiquity: “The oral environment was so pervasive that no writing occurred that was not vocalized.” [emphasis in the original] (Ibid, 15) This means that people didn’t read silently, to themselves; instead, they read out loud. Because of the difficulties in reading the texts without already knowing their contents, the transmission of knowledge was primarily oral. Professor Karel van der Toorn writes: Scribes wrote scrolls (rather than books) for the benefit of other scribes (rather than for private readers). A book market did not exist, nor were there public libraries; in fact, there was no reading public of any substance. Texts reached the people by being read out loud by someone from the literate elite. Writing and reciting were complementary facets of the scribal craft, and the Bible came into being through the agency of the scribes. In many respects, then, the Bible is the fruit of scribal culture. (Van der Toorn 2007, 51) Conditioned as we are by Hellenism, this scribal culture is foreign to us — so much so that we read our Hellenistic understandings into the Scriptures, seeing in them the things that fit our Hellenistic mental model. We are like someone learning a foreign language and whose brain cannot 'hear' the phonemes that don't occur in our native tongue. Paul J. Achtemeier describes the period of early Hellenism, where the trade in books coexisted with scribal culture: "We have in the culture of late Western antiquity a culture of high residual orality which nevertheless communicated significantly by means of literary creations." (Achtemeier 1990, 3) In other words, while they had written manuscripts, communications were still primarily oral. Scribes were needed to read the texts aloud. Andrei A. Orlov describes the secular role of the scribe as follows. Besides writing, this occupation also presupposes the ability to understand various scripts and languages, since scribal duties required proficiency in copying, i.e., duplicating written materials. (Boccaccini 2007, 116) 116) While not disregarding the function of the scribe in antiquity, scribes also occupied a special place in post-exilic Judaism. Protestant theologian Emile Schürer writes: The law which Ezra had introduced was essentially a ceremonial law. The religion of Israel is there reduced to strictly legalized forms, in order that it may be made more secure against the influences of heathenism. In the form of a law given by God Himself, the Jew was told what he had to do as a faithful servant of Jehovah, what festivals he should celebrate, what sacrifices he should offer, what tribute he should pay to the priests who conduct the services, and generally what religious ceremonies he should perform. Precision in the observance of all these prescribed rites was to be made henceforth the gauge and measure of piety. And in order to make this precision as exact as possible, it was necessary that an authentic interpretation be supplied. A special order under the name of “Scribes” devoted themselves to the study of the law as a profession, and engaged upon a subtle and refining exposition of it. (Schürer, A History of the Jewish People, First Division, Volume 1 1890, 193-194) Rabbi Jacob Neusner, one of the great scholars of 1st century Judaism, describes the scribal profession for us. The scribes practiced a profession and were responsible for teaching the Torah, from preparing the documents that made official actions in conformity with the Torah. For example, a woman was entitled to a marriage contract, which specified the husband’s responsibilities to her while she was married and also in the event of a divorce or the death of the husband. The scribes would write such a document. …The scribe on earth was a partner of heaven both in his teaching of the Torah and also in many of the documents that he prepared. (Neusner 1993, 101) The 2nd century BC scribe Ben Sira (a.k.a. Joshua ben Sira, or Jesus son of Sirach), describes the function of the scribe: But he that giveth his mind to the law of the most High, and is occupied in the meditation thereof, will seek out the wisdom of all the ancient, and be occupied in prophecies. He will keep the sayings of the renowned men: and where subtil parables are, he will be there also. He will seek out the secrets of grave sentences, and be conversant in dark parables. (Sir 39:1-3) The Book(s) of Enoch and other Second Temple manuscripts such as Jubilees describes Enoch as performing scribal functions. Andrei A. Orlov notes the scribal functions of Enoch operate at both the celestial and terrestrial levels. The important aspect of the early portrayals of Enoch as a scribe is that they depict him in the capacity of both celestial and terrestrial scribe, as the one who not only records messages from his heavenly guides, but also composes petitions as the request of the creatures from the lower realms. (Boccaccini 2007, 115) The ideal scribe’s primary interest is the law of the Lord. The meditation upon the law of it “requires study of other kinds of knowledge and writings.” (Lim 2012, Kindle Locations 2276-2277) These other writings were likely limited to Jewish scribal writings. Timothy H. Lim writes: The phrase σοφία πάντων ἀρχαίων should be understood as “the wisdom of all Israelite ancestors” and not the wisdom of the ancient ancestors of other peoples in general. Understood in the context of the grandson’s Greek usage, [Sirach] 39: 1– 3 is likely to be a reference to Israelite literature. (Ibid, Kindle Locations 2297-2300) Andrei A. Orlov mentions the task of the legal scribe as “settling disputes and writing petitions.” (Boccaccini 2007, 116) Ben Sira describes the life of the scribe as appearing before great men and princes, of traveling through foreign countries, of spending his life in prayer and meditation, and of glorying in the law of the Lord. From the descriptions of Emil Schürer, Rabbi Jacob Neusner, Andrei A. Orlov, Timothy H. Lim, and Ben Sira, we gather that the scribe spent his life in study, in working amongst ordinary people drawing up legal documents, and also guiding the wealthy and powerful to conduct their affairs according to the Law of Moses. There is a curious similarity between the function of the scribe in the ancient world and the professional parliamentarian today. The parliamentarian supposedly applies parliamentarian procedure in an impartial manner. As a practical matter, the parliamentarian is charged with finding a way to allow the leaders to do what they want to do — with enforcing the status quo. Likewise, the position of the scribe was to explain and encourage the rule of Mosaic law, but as a practical matter appears to have enabled and enforced the privileges of the elites. The scribe also appears to have been a revealer and explainer of sacred mysteries, something central to the Enochian traditions as developed in the Second Temple period. Andrei A. Orlov writes: One must not forget that the great bulk of information about Enoch’s scribal roles and honorifics found in Enochic literature may implicitly point to the social profile of the authors of these writings. Collins notes that the description of Enoch as “scribe of righteousness” suggests that the author and his circle may have been scribes too. He observes that although we know little about the authors of the Enochic writings, the books of Enoch “often speak of a class of the ‘righteous and chosen’ and Enoch, the righteous scribe, must be considered their prototype. (Boccaccini 2007, 118) Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 310 – 403 AD) lists the Scribes as one of twelve Jewish sects. He describes their peculiarities of Jewish belief and practice, which helps us to understand Jesus’ condemnation of them. Epiphanius informs us that among their peculiarities was the wearing of borders of purple cloth (phylacteries) on their clothing and fringes on the corners of their garments during their periods of celibacy to inform others of their sanctity and to thereby prevent accidental defilement. But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments (Mt 23:5). Epiphanius of Salamis writes: Scribes were persons who repeated the Law as though they were teaching it as a sort of grammar. They observed the other Jewish customs but introduced a kind of extra, quibbling teaching, if you please. They did not live just by the Law but in addition observed the 'washing of pots, cups, platters Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess (Mt 23:25).' and the other vessels of table service as though they were bent on the pure and holy, if you please—'washing their hands thoroughly,' and also thoroughly cleansing themselves, in natural water and baths, of certain types of pollution. …Scribes had four 'repetitions.' One was in circulation in the name of the prophet Moses, a second in that of their teacher called Aqiba or Bar Aqiba, another in the name Addan or Annan, also called Judas, and another in the name of the sons of Hasmonaeus. Whatever customs they derive from these four traditions under the impression that they are wisdom—they are unwisdom mostly—are boasted of and praised, and celebrated and acclaimed as the teaching to be given first place. (Epiphanius of Salamis 2012, Book 1, Section 1, Part 15) The mixture of celestial and terrestrial roles described previously, plus the scribe’s self-identification as the ‘righteous and chosen’, is important for an understanding of the scribal hostility towards Jesus Christ in the Gospels. Jesus Christ is not only usurping their societal role as a revealer and explainer of sacred mysteries but is doing so as the lower-class son of a rustic peasant worker. Scribes could also be priests. Priests performed their priestly duties only when their allotted times came up and served in other capacities during the rest of the year. One of the occupations open to priests was that of the scribe. The book of Enoch not only describes the patriarch as a scribe but also shows him performing the functions of a priest. One passage in particular (1 Enoch 14:9-18) shows Enoch passing “through three celestial constructions: a wall, an outer house, and an inner house,” (Boccaccini 2007, 119) corresponding to the arrangement of the temple with its vestibule, the Holy Place, and the Holy of Holies. Another passage in Jubilees has Enoch burning incense — as in the incense offered in the Holy Place upon the Altar of Incense. “He [Enoch] burnt the incense of the sanctuary, even sweet spices acceptable before the Lord on the Mount.” (Lumpkin, The Book of Jubilees 2006, 39) That many scribes were also priests helps us understand their hostility to our Lord — to one who usurped their role by proclaiming forgiveness of sins. The scribal response to the Babylonian captivity helps explain why the book of Psalms seems so disorganized. Although there are five books, they are not arranged in a manner befitting the Jewish liturgical cycle, nor do they seem to have any thematic scheme. The arrangement of the Psalms seems almost random. Karlfried Froehlich, the emeritus professor at Princeton Theological Seminary, explains why the current order likely doesn’t match the original order of the Psalms. The psalms suffered much displacement because the book was accidentally lost during the Babylonian captivity. Afterwards, about the time of Ezra, it was rediscovered, though not the whole book at once but piecemeal-one, two, or perhaps three psalms at a time. These were then reassembled in the order in which they were found, not as they were arranged originally. (Froehlich 1984, Kindle Locations 1069-1071) Following the return of the exiles from Babylon, the individual psalms were found in various scribal libraries and collections. Rather than attempt to recreate the lost order (if we can presume there was one), the psalms were assembled in the order they were found. Thus, the arrangement of the Psalms is arbitrary. Even so, the book of Psalms is inspired. Another example of the influence scribal culture had upon the content of Sacred Scripture is the passage in Deuteronomy providing regulations for the behavior of the king once the people enter the land. (De 17:14-20) This passage is peculiar because it suggests that God was not opposed to Israel having a king, yet it was normative during the period of the Judges for Israel not have a king. (Jg 18:1; 19:1; 21:25) The prophet Samuel was serving as the last judge of Israel when the people asked for a king. And God said to Samuel: "Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them." (1Sa 8:7) What follows is a passage that details the behavior of the king — his taxation, and the manner of his rule — and describes this behavior in a negative light and much greater detail than the passage in Deuteronomy. Given this, we may well ask why the passage in Deuteronomy exists if Israel was not meant to have a king. The Mosaic law explicitly permits something that, under Samuel, was a considered to be a rejection of God. We could discuss this in light of God's perfect will vs. his permissive will, but wouldn't it be easier to suggest the passage in Deuteronomy is a later scribal addition? That perhaps the regulations for the behavior of the king were a later addition to the text of Deuteronomy? If so, the idea that only the original author was inspired and not the community of the faithful who received and transmitted the writings is flawed. A historical understanding of scribal culture shocks our sensibilities. We are wedded to an understanding of authorship as an individualistic, creative act. But in the scribal culture, authors didn't exist as such. An author provided the authority for that which was written; the author was not necessarily the person who actually wrote the text. Scribes collected, copied, edited, and maintained reference libraries for use in the temple and in governmental administration. It is reasonable to assume that once Israel had a king, scribes added rules and regulations for having a king to the law, rules which were consistent with the Mosaic tradition. We should note that while Saul was king, he functioned more like a tribal leader. Under Saul, there was no government as such. The same can be said for David. It wasn't until Solomon that a government existed, one in which the power of the king was delegated to government functionaries whose exercise of power was in accordance with the law. We should understand the books of Moses as the books compiled and maintained under Moses' authority, rather than the books Moses personally authored by his own hand. Moses would likely have used an amanuensis to transcribe his thoughts. Given the scribal culture, we should expect the original Mosaic material to have been compiled and edited over the centuries, yet still maintaining the basic structure and authority of the original. To illustrate just one problem with applying the modern concept of authorship to the Old Testament, let us examine the Deuteronomic account of the death of Moses. As a boy, I was taught that Moses included this account as a prophecy. This idea has no scriptural foundation; there is no suggestion of this anywhere in the Hebrew Scriptures nor in the Christian New Testament. There is no reason to assume Moses wrote this account of his death unless you are wedded to later Hellenic ideas of authorship. The Curious Case of Jeremiah  Having examined the idea of authorship in scribal cultures, let us now examine the curious case of Jeremiah. The Septuagint version is 3,097 words shorter than the Masoretic text and is organized differently. (de Ward 2003, xviii) Bruce Metzger points out that the Greek version of Job is also shorter than the version contained in the Hebrew Scriptures. (Metzger 2001, Kindle Locations 297-298) The material forming chapters 46-51 of the Masoretic text is placed after Jeremiah 25:13 in the Septuagint. The oracles against the nations are ordered differently in the Septuagint than in the Masoretic text. Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, some scholars believed the translators of the Septuagint had redacted and edited the text during the translation process. However, in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 4QJerb,d is more closely aligned to the Septuagint than the Masoretic text. (Anonymous, Old Testament: Dead Sea Scrolls 2014) The Manuscript numbering system for the Dead Sea Scrolls is relatively simple. In this case we are dealing with manuscript number 4QJerb,d. 4Q represents Qumran Cave Four. After that we either have a number representing the manuscript number from that cave, or we have an abbreviation for the book, with the superscript representing the different texts. So here we are dealing with Jeremiah texts "b" & "d" from Qumran cave four, also known as 4Q71 and 4Q72. For more information see the Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls digital library at http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il. The Dead Sea Scrolls prove that Jeremiah exists in two basic versions; the Septuagint and the Masoretic text. A shorter, earlier, and closer to the original version was used for the Septuagint. The Masoretic text is a longer and reworked version of the original. Regarding the additional material in the Masoretic text, the scribes added "headings to prophecies, repeated sections, added new verses and sections, new details, new arrangements, and clarification of unclear passages." (Ibid) Table SEQ Table \* ARABIC 3: Jeremiah in the LXX and MT Versions (B. Davidson 2012, 2) LXX MT 1–25:13a 1–25:13a 25:14–20** Elam 49:34–39 Elam 26:2–25 Egypt 46:1–26 Egypt 26:27–28 46:27–28 27–28** Babylon 50–51 Babylon 29 Philistines 47 Philistines 30:1–16 Edom 49:7–22 Edom 30:17–21/22 Ammon 49:1–6 Ammon 30:23–28 Kedar 49:28–33 Kedar 30:29–33 Damascus 49:23–27 Damascus 31* Moab 48 Moab 32:13b–38* 25:13b–38 33 26 34* 27 35 28 36* 29 37* 30 38 31 39 32 40* 33 41 34 42 35 43 36 44 37 45 38 46* 39 47 40 48 41 49 42 50 43 51:1–30 44 51:31–35 45 52* 52 NOTE: *verses missing | **variation in order Chapter 36 of Jeremiah not only mentions the name of Jeremiah's amanuensis but records the suggestion of the scribes and princes that perhaps Baruch had edited the manuscript. Then, after Jehudi burns the scroll in the presence of the king, it is recorded how Jeremiah once again dictated the book to Baruch and that additional material was added as well (Jer 36:32). Professor W. H. Bennett suggests Baruch may have had a hand in the composition of the book. It has often been supposed that our present Book of Jeremiah, in some stage of its formation, was edited or compiled by Baruch, and that this book may be ranked with biographies — like Stanley's Life of Arnold — of great teachers by their old disciples. He was certainly the amanuensis of the roll, which must have been the most valuable authority for any editor of Jeremiah's prophecies. And the amanuensis might very easily become the editor. If an edition of the book was compiled in Jeremiah's lifetime we should naturally expect him to use Baruch's assistance; if it first took shape after the prophet's death, and if Baruch survived, no one would be better able to compile the Life and Works of Jeremiah than his favourite and faithful disciple. The personal prophecy about Baruch [Jer 45:1-5] does not occur in its proper place in connection with the episode of the roll, but is appended at the end of the prophecies, possibly as a kind of subscription on the part of the editor. These data do not constitute absolute proof, but they afford strong probability that Baruch compiled a book, which was substantially our Jeremiah. (Bennett 1895, 57-58). Our likely reaction to the discussion of Baruch as the possible editor and author of Jeremiah is an example of how we read our modern concept of authorship back into a culture where authorship was not a creative act, but an assertion of the authority under which something was written. To put it another way, Jeremiah may not have been the author in the Hellenic sense, but the person under whose authority Baruch wrote. We now know the Jeremiah of the Septuagint represents an ancient text, one that underwent several centuries of scribal expansion and revision to become the edited version found in the Masoretic text. Given this, which version of Jeremiah is scripture — the version extant in the time of Christ, or the later Masoretic text? If you asked a Roman Catholic, a Copt, or an Eastern Orthodox Christian that same question, they would likely say both are, because the Church considers them to be inspired scripture, profitable for doctrine, for reproof, and instruction in righteousness. In its liturgy, the Orthodox Church uses the Scriptures preserved in its lectionary. The four Gospels form the Gospel Book, known as the Evangélion. The rest of the New Testament (except Revelation) Revelation is not included in the Eastern Orthodox lectionary readings because it was not considered to be inspired when, in the 4th century, the lectionary readings were created. form the Apostolos, and the Old Testament readings form the Prophetologion. There is currently no authoritative translation of the Prophetelogion into English, and the Old Testament liturgical readings come from a variety of sources, including the very Bibles used within the Protestant Churches. Ideally, the Old Testament lectionary would be read from a translation that matches the Septuagint, but if that is not available other translations will do. When we read from the book of Jeremiah, some may read from bibles translated from the Masoretic text, and others may read from bibles translated from the Septuagint. The two texts are organized differently, but both are inspired. The Development of the NT Canon  The development of the New Testament was substantially different from that of the Old Testament. For one thing, the New Testament was written over a much shorter period. The New Testament was written in a different language and uses literary types not found in the Old Testament. And then we come to the literary influences of the New Testament writers. Joseph Lumpkin notes: “Even more extensively than in the Old Testament, the writers of the New Testament were frequently influenced by other [non-canonical] writings.” And of course, the canon (so-called) developed differently than that of the Old Testament. The modern conception of canon as a list began with the dispute between the Church of Rome and the Protestants, each of whom made the issue of the canon part of their dispute. But as there has never been a Reformation among the Orthodox, the issues of canon and canonicity are of no dogmatic importance. Schisms among the Orthodox were about Christology, including the departure of the non-Chalcedonians and the Great Schism between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics. Each collection of authoritative writings arose by common consent among the different groups rather than as part of a formal dogmatic stance. The Ecumenical Councils were uninterested in the issues of canon and canonicity. Dr. Eugenia Constantinou writes: By that time, certain books were unquestioned, while most apocryphal works were recognized as such and universally rejected. But individual churches and bishops exercised their own discretion among disputed works. Clearly the issue was not resolved at [the first council of] Nicea because no pressing need to create a definitive canon was perceived: the question of the canon was simply not a divisive issue. This lack of concern among the participants of the Nicene council with respect to the canon indicates that opinions about the canon were not essentially dogmatic. Two persons could disagree about the canon and both could be entirely orthodox in doctrine. (Constantinou, Andrew of Caesarea and the Apocalypse 2008, 38) How were the limits of our current canon determined? At first, Christian writings were shared between the churches. The title of Scripture was reserved for what we call the Old Testament while the boundaries of the Old Testament were left undefined. (McDonald 2007, 22) Dr. Eugenia Constantinou writes: Until the end of the second century, the term "Scriptures," referred exclusively to the Jewish Scriptures. The “Jewish scriptures” used in the 2nd century refers to the Septuagint, not the collection of “Hebrew scriptures” that were edited and redacted by the Masoretes in the early-to-mid Medieval period. As Christianity spread, Christians used the Septuagint in the increasingly gentile and Greek-speaking Church. Just as they had been the sole Scriptures for Christ and the apostles they remained the only Holy Scripture of the Church for many decades. Christ himself had quoted them, appealed to them, interpreted them and, most of all, fulfilled them. The Law and the Prophets had been normative for so long that it was difficult to conceive of any other writings achieving such high status. Although it appears that Christian documents were read within the context of Christian worship services by the early second century, another hundred years passed before they were recognized as possessing a level of authority that placed them on par with the Old Testament. (Constantinou, Andrew of Caesarea and the Apocalypse 2008, 32) Consider the writings of Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 50 AD – between 98 and 117 AD). Ignatius was the third Bishop of Antioch when the Romans arrested him and transported him to Rome for execution. Ignatius of Antioch is said to have been (along with Polycarp) a disciple of the Apostle John. (O'Connor 1910) In his Dialogues, Theodoret of Cyrrhus says that Ignatius was ordained as bishop of Antioch by the Apostle Peter (Schaff, NPNF2-03 1892, 308), while The Apostolic Constitutions (3rd and 4th century) say that Ignatius was ordained as bishop of Antioch by the Apostle Paul. (Schaff, ANF07 2004, 714) During his journey, Ignatius wrote several letters to various churches to encourage them in the faith. In none of his letters does Ignatius refer to the New Testament writings as Scripture. Ignatius scarcely makes use of them. Fr. John Behr writes: Rarely, however, does Ignatius intimate the source for his proclamation. He knows the letters of Paul, and refers to them in the plural (Eph 12.2), perhaps even as a collection, and his writings are certainly imbued with the thought and vocabulary of both Paul and John, though this is only to be expected, given that they are dealing with the same proclamation. However, Ignatius never appeals to their writings to substantiate his own theological affirmations. (Behr 2001, 84-85) Over time, various churches considered certain writings from the New Testament period to be Scripture. Bishops created lists of books that were acceptable to read during the liturgy. These lists applied only to the churches they were responsible for. A preposition at the end of the sentence is perfectly acceptable in English. We don’t speak Latin. Sometimes that status was granted by one bishop and then taken away by his successor. Some bishops thought the Didache (also known as The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) should be appended to the Gospel of Matthew. Some bishops accepted The Shepherd of Hermas for liturgical reading; others accepted some of the letters of Clement and Ignatius. Lee McDonald writes: When a particular writing was acknowledged by a religious community to be divinely inspired and authoritative, it was elevated to the status of Scripture, even if the writing was not yet called “Scripture” and even if that status was only temporary. For example, the noncanonical writings Eldad and Modad, Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Clement, and the letters of Ignatius were initially given this status in the church, but in time that practice ceased. There was limited discussion or agreement in the early church on such matters, and in the first two centuries only selective agreement on books acknowledged as Scripture took place. (McDonald 2007, 23-24) As the Nicene Creed came into existence to counter the Arian heresy, so too the New Testament canon did not become an issue until Marcion. The heretic Marcion is the first person known to devise a list of (so-called) Christian Scriptures. Some recent scholarship suggests that Marcion’s editing of extant texts and the robust opposition this incited suggests the importance of the texts, thereby implying their canonical importance. (Ward n.d.) I find this argument unconvincing, as there is no evidence for any authoritative list of NT scriptures prior to Marcion. Marcion’s list did not include the Old Testament and included only a truncated Gospel of Luke and the non-pastoral letters of Paul as Scripture. (Kirby 2014) While Marcion spurred the interest of the early church in canonical matters, the early church did not take this opportunity to resolve the issue. Instead, the debate continued. Even the four Gospels, while important in worship and the transmission of the Gospel, were likely not considered to be Scripture until around the end of the 2nd Century. Let us consider Tatian the Assyrian, whose Diatesseron harmonized the four gospels into a single book — a book which replaced the four Gospels in the Syriac churches until the 5th century. Eusebius reports that Tatian also tried to rewrite the gospels. (Constantinou, Andrew of Caesarea and the Apocalypse 2008, 32-35) Had the New Testament been considered Scripture, it is unlikely that Marcion’s errors would have drawn so many away from the orthodox faith. Had the New Testament been considered Scripture, it is unlikely that Tatian would have would have tried to rewrite them. Had the New Testament been considered Scripture, the Syriac Church would not have accepted the Diatesseron for use in the liturgy. In the following centuries, the canon of Scripture gradually coalesced around a common core of books. A few other books remained in dispute, with different bishops and regional councils weighing in. Eugenia Constantinou writes: It can only be said that by the end of the fourth century a consensus existed in both the East and West for the core of the canon: our present fourfold gospel corpus, Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of Paul, 1 John and 1 Peter. However, Hebrews, James, 2 and 3 John, Jude, 2 Peter, and Revelation remained disputed at least to the extent that they were not universally accepted. (Ibid, 39) The Book of Revelation is unique among the New Testament books. Revelation alone claims divine inspiration, yet has a strange canonical history. In the 2nd century, Revelation was widely accepted as authoritative because of its authorship and apostolicity. However, by the 4th century, Revelation had fallen out of favor because of the influence of the Montanist heresy. Eugenia Constantinou writes: Montanist prophecy was primarily eschatological in orientation. The message contained chiliastic and apocalyptic expectations which were associated with the Revelation of John, such the promise of a New Jerusalem. The three prophets proclaimed the imminent coming of the end of the world and professed to be the divinely appointed agents sent to warn Christians that the second coming of Christ was at hand. (Ibid, 65) The Montanist heresy was so pervasive as to have attracted the founder of Latin Christianity, Tertullian. The response of the Christian Churches to the Montanist heresy was to discredit the Book of Revelation. (Ibid, 68-71) Revelation also lost its appeal because the symbolism was mysterious and no longer understood. John wrote the Revelation to the seven churches of Asia Minor. Those seven churches were presumably familiar with the Jewish apocalyptic genre and with the author’s cryptic imagery. Later generations lacked the intimate connection with the author and, being largely gentile, with the Jewish apocalyptic genre. The author’s intent was lost, and the book’s meaning was easily misinterpreted. (Ibid, 72-73) Around 332 AD, the Roman emperor Constantine the Great commissioned Eusebius to provide fifty copies of the Scriptures for the churches in Constantinople. Unfortunately, none of these copies exist today, and Eusebius does not tell us which books he included in these copies. Some authorities contend they only contained the Gospels; others think they would have contained only the books Eusebius considered canonical. Since Eusebius did not consider Revelation to be Scripture, Revelation likely would not have been included. (Ibid, 92) F. F. Bruce believes the Bibles provided by Eusebius would have contained our current 27 book canon but provides no convincing evidence. (Bruce, The Canon of Scripture 2010, 204) Bruce fails to mention the western Church disputed the canonicity of Hebrews (due to its unknown author) for at least another hundred years. (Constantinou, Andrew of Caesarea and the Apocalypse 2008, 92) Moreover, Bruce fails to provide convincing evidence for the inclusion of the Revelation, supposing that it would have been included because Emperor Constantine the Great used its imagery as "imperial propaganda." (Bruce, The Canon of Scripture 2010, 204) Bruce also fails to mention the Byzantine lectionary dating from the 4th century did not include the book of Revelation. A convincing argument can be made for both Hebrews and Revelation not being part of the bibles produced by Eusebius. Wishful thinking is no substitute for scholarship. Some Protestants point to works such as the Synod of Laodicea (363 A.D)., the festal letter of Athanasius (367 A.D)., or the Third Council of Carthage (397 A.D). to prove the catalog of New Testament was complete. Instead, what this shows is the matter was in some dispute, leading various bishops and regional councils to weigh in on the issue. The Council of Trullo (c. 692 A.D)., also known as the Quinisext Council, approved the conflicting lists of the previous councils and apostolic fathers without clearing up the conflicts between them. Eugenia Constantinou writes: With regard to the canon of Scripture, rather than creating clarification, the Council of Trullo only compounded the confusion. The question of the New Testament canon of the East remained hopelessly muddled and even contradictory because the Quinisext synod did not compose its own list of canonical Scripture but only ratified earlier decisions, ignoring the fact that the canons of Scripture enumerated by earlier councils and various Fathers were not in agreement, especially with respect to Revelation. For example, Athanasius, Basil the Great and the Synod of Carthage accepted Revelation, while the Council at Laodicea and the 85 Apostolic Canons rejected it. They ratified Aniphilochios' canon, but it is unclear whether he accepted or rejected Revelation or the catholic epistles. On the other hand, the 85 Apostolic Canons accepted 1 and 2 Clement as Scripture, something which earlier synods and the ratified Fathers did not. All of these synodal decisions and patristic canons of Scripture were ratified at Trullo. Metzger concludes, and he may be correct, that the representatives at Trullo had not even read all of the texts they ratified. (Constantinou, Andrew of Caesarea and the Apocalypse 2008, 107) When I was a boy, I remember being taught that the New Testament canon was closed with the death of the apostle John; that before his death, the apostle John supposedly granted his apostolic seal of approval to all the New Testament books. However, the historical evidence does not support this idea. Unlike what seems reasonable to the Protestant understanding of the canon, the development of the list of New Testament books took many centuries. The Church gradually came to a consensus on the limits of the New Testament canon, a process guided by the still, small voice of the Holy Spirit. The early church had the regula fidei, the rule of faith, as their guide. This guide led them to accept certain books as Scripture over the centuries. In like manner, they rejected other books as not consistent with the rule of faith and therefore not inspired. No formal agreement settled the issues of the New Testament canon. In the Western Church, the problem was compounded by the standard medieval commentary on Sacred Scripture, the Glossa Ordinaria. The Glossa Ordinaria originally began as Walafric Strabo’s written notes in the margins of the Latin Vulgate. In the 12th century Anselm of Laon published an interlinear version. These were expanded upon through the years. The Glossa Ordinaria was the Ordinary Glosses, the “normal tongue” of scripture. The primary contributor was Jerome, including his introductions to the various books. These introductions included Jerome’s thought that those books the Jews consider apocryphal are not to be considered canonical. Many people, who do not give much attention to the holy Scriptures, think that all the books contained in the Bible should be honored and adored with equal veneration, not knowing how to distinguish among the canonical and non-canonical books, the latter of which the Jews number among the apocrypha. … Here, then, we distinguish and number distinctly first the canonical books and then the non-canonical, among which we further distinguish between the certain and the doubtful. The canonical books have been brought about through the dictation of the Holy Spirit. It is not known, however, at which time or by which authors the non-canonical or apocryphal books were produced. Since, nevertheless, they are very good and useful, and nothing is found in them which contradicts the canonical books, the church reads them and permits them to be read by the faithful for devotion and edification. Their authority, however, is not considered adequate for proving those things which come into doubt or contention, or for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogma, as blessed Jerome states in his prologue to Judith and to the books of Solomon. But the canonical books are of such authority that whatever is contained therein is held to be true firmly and indisputably, and likewise that which is clearly demonstrated from them. Biblia cum glosa ordinaria et expositione Lyre litterali et morali (Basel: Petri & Froben, 1498), British Museum IB.37895, Vol. 1, On the canonical and non-canonical books of the Bible. Translation by Dr. Michael Woodward. (Webster n.d.) While Jerome’s ideas were never formally accepted, his Romish status as a Doctor of the Church lent his ideas a great deal of influence. The Roman Catholics waited until the Council of Florence (1422) before declaring which books were considered Scripture, a statement lacking dogmatic significance. Martin Luther, schooled as he was in the Glossa Ordinaria, could thus claim the authority of Jerome in support of these eliminating books from the corpus of the New Testament. In Luther’s day, the idea of a formal catalog of books was new and was a product of what Luther considered a corrupt church. When Martin Luther came into conflict with the Roman Catholic Church, he deferred to the authority of Jerome and the medieval traditions contained in the Glossa Ordinaria when deciding which books should be in the canon. (Swan 2011) In response to the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church held the Concilium Tridentinum or Council of Trent. In its fourth session (8 April 1546 A.D)., the council published a catalog of biblical books, essentially ratifying the list produced at the Council of Florence in 1422 AD. Since the Latins convened the Council of Trent in response to the Protestant Reformation, this list had dogmatic significance for Catholic and Protestant alike and hardened the positions of each. The Self-Authenticating Scriptures  Modern Protestant scholars are fond of saying the Bible is "credible in itself, having credibility from itself." (Gerhard 2006, 68) The Sacred Scriptures are "self-authenticating": they are whole unto themselves, and need nothing outside themselves as proof of inspiration. Protestants teach the Scriptures as being the Word of God; as the Word of God, they have the power to convince us of their truth. The idea of the self-authenticating Scriptures arose in the context of the reformer’s conflict with Rome. Specifically, the reformers objected to the Roman Catholic claim that it alone had the authority to interpret Scripture and determine the canon. However, the reformers fail to deal with the implications of their counter-claim, which are two-fold: first, the concept of the self-authentication of Scripture confuses the ideas of authority and revelation as canonical norms; second, the concept of self-authentication effectively divinizes the Scriptures. Christians often appeal to the Scriptures as an authority. For most Christians, this appeal to authority stands in for an appeal to a “network of claims about special revelation.” (Abraham 1998, 6) The source of the Scripture’s authority is traced through the witness of “holy tradition, the Church, councils, prophets, reformers, bishops, and the like.” Ultimately the source is traced back to God, with the Scriptures as the revelation of God. (Ibid, 8) Protestant academic William J. Abraham describes the Protestant view of the self-authenticating Scripture as the confusion or separation of canon and revelation. The idea that Scripture functions “primarily or exclusively as an epistemic norm of morality and theology” (Abraham 1998, 7) Epistemology has to do with the difference between a justified belief and an opinion. In logic, an epistemic norm is a rule guiding the acquisition of beliefs. diminishes the value of Scripture as the divine revelation and as a means of Grace. Of the concept of Scripture as a means of grace, William J. Abraham writes: On this alternative reading, Scripture functions to bring one to faith, to make one wise unto salvation, to force one to wrestle with awkward questions about violence and the poor, to comfort those in sorrow, and to nourish hope for the redemption of the world. (Ibid, 6-7) William J. Abraham says there has been a transition from “ecclesial canonicity” to “epistemic normativity.” Ecclesial canonicity has to do with the involvement of the apostles and prophets, council and community, bishops and reformers — all summed up as the Church’s involvement in declaring writings to be inspired and approved for use in the Church. Protestant scholar John C. Peckham dismisses this as the Community-Canon approach. (Peckham 2011, 204-205) As described by Abraham, epistemic normativity has to do with Scripture having an autonomous justification. Simply put, the question is whether the Scriptures alone testify to their inspiration, or whether we know the Scriptures are inspired because of the testimony of Christians throughout the ages. The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy further describes the ‘Foundational’ view of Epistemic Normativity: “The foundational propositions have autonomous justification that does not depend upon any further justification which could be provided by inferential relations to other propositions.” This means the Scriptures are self-authenticating in that they do not require the witness of the apostles and prophets, council and community, or bishops and reformers. (Klein 2005) The idea that Scripture witnesses to itself has consequences, and is contrary to Scripture. In the Gospel of John, Jesus says: “If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true. Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth.” (Jn 5:31-33) Jesus Christ did not self-authenticate Himself but instead followed the principle that truth is determined by multiple witnesses. How then can the Scriptures authenticate themselves? The appeal to the self-authenticating Scriptures has the unfortunate effect of turning the Scriptures into a created god. Not God in essence, not a fourth person of the Trinity, but much more than a created being. The Gnostics (and others) described this lesser god as a demiurge. The idea of the self-authenticating Scriptures is mystical, subjective, irrational, and bad theology. Descriptions of the self-authenticating Scriptures often include the Holy Spirit, but the idea of Scripture authenticating itself is a denial of the person and work of the Holy Spirit. Why do we need the Holy Spirit if the Scriptures authenticate themselves? The term “self-authenticating” is false if it is accomplished by the Holy Spirit. But if the Holy Spirit authenticates the Scriptures, we need to know whether that happens within the community of faith or in the heart of the individual believer. If in the heart of the individual believer, then what need is there of the church, the community of the faithful? The author of Hebrews says: "The word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (He 4:12) Unfortunately for Protestants, the Word of God referenced in this passage is not the Scriptures as text. This passage references the Logos (λογος) of God, a term the apostle John uses as a reference to Jesus Christ. This is affirmed in John’s Revelation, where we read of the rider on a white horse, one who is called Faithful and True, one clothed in a vesture dipped in blood, and one whose name is called the Word of God. (Re 19:11-13) We should understand the earlier passage from Hebrews 4:12 as a description of the work of the Holy Spirit testifying of Christ to the world and within the Church. Our Lord Jesus Christ spoke to His disciples concerning the work of the Holy Spirit. "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (Jo 14:26) And again: "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me." (Jo 15:26) The Scriptures are the Word of God because they tell us about Jesus Christ. When we speak of the Word of God, we are speaking about Jesus Christ. When Protestants connect the idea of the self-authenticating Scripture with a formal concept of the Scriptures as the Word of God, this equates Jesus Christ with Sacred Scripture, making scripture into an entity partaking of the divine nature. In this context, the use of the Word of God as a reference to the Scripture contains a hint of polytheism. It is one thing to use the Word of God (in its secondary sense) as a shorthand for Sacred Scripture. However, the idea that scripture is self-authenticating is to ascribe to Scripture a characteristic contrary to the humility expressed within the Holy Trinity. The Holy Spirit does not draw attention to Himself. Instead, the Holy Spirit draws our attention to Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ draws attention to the God the Father, and fortells the coming of the Comforter. Yet somehow we are told that the Sacred Scriptures attest to themselves in a way foreign to the nature of God. While the Holy Spirit ministers to each person, pointing each person to the Christ, this is done in the context of the Church. When Jesus promised the Comforter, he was speaking to His disciples. The apostle writes that the apostles and prophets make up the Church’s foundation, with Jesus as its cornerstone. (Ep 2:20) Also, the Holy Spirit was given to “All with one accord in one place,” meaning the fullness of the Church at Pentecost. (Ac 2:1-4) Vladimir Lossky writes: The first communication of the Holy Spirit was made to the whole Church, to the Church as a body; or, rather, the Spirit was given to the college of the apostles, on whom, at the same time, Christ bestowed the priestly power of binding and loosening. This is a presence of the Holy Spirit which is not so much personal as functional in relation to Christ, by whom the Spirit is given — the bond of unity in the Church, according to St. Gregory of Nyssa. Lossky provides the following citation: ‘In Cant., Hom. XV’, P.G. XLIV, 1116– 7. Here the Spirit is bestowed upon all in common as a bond of unity and as sacerdotal power: He remains unknown to persons and imparts to them no personal holiness. (Lossky 1958, 167) Lossky is not saying the Holy Spirit does not minister to each Christian; instead, that the personal ministry of the Holy Spirit takes place within the context of the Church — as the Church’s bond of unity. Vladimir Lossky writes: The Holy Spirit communicates Himself to persons, marking each member of the Church with a seal of personal and unique relationship to the Trinity, becoming present in each person. How does this come about? That remains a mystery— the mystery of the self-emptying, of the κένωσις [kenosis] of the Holy Spirit’s coming into the world. (Ibid, 168) The Church is not only the body of Christ, but it is also the temple of the living God. (2Co 6:16) The Church is made up of living stones, stones given life by the Holy Spirit. (2Pe 2:5) Thus, the Holy Spirit works within the Church using specific persons. Vladimir Lossky writes: If Christ is ‘Head of the Church which is his body’, the Holy Spirit is He ‘that filleth all in all’ (Eph. i, 23). Thus, the two definitions of the Church which St. Paul gives show two different poles within her which correspond to the two divine persons. The Church is body in so far as Christ is her head; she is fullness in so far as the Holy Spirit quickens her and fills her with divinity, for the Godhead dwells within her bodily as it dwelt in the deified humanity of Christ. We may say with Irenaeus: ‘where the Church is, there is the Spirit; where the Spirit is, there is the Church.’ (Lossky 1958, 156-157) With all that in mind, we say the Holy Spirit inspires the authors of Scripture and authenticates the Scripture within the Church, the body of Christ. In his book The Theology of Martin Luther, Paul Althaus says the idea of the self-authenticating Scriptures involves their main focus, which is Christ. The Law serves as a preparation for Christ, and the Gospel speaks of the person and work of Christ. Althaus notes: "Since Christ is its content, this means that in the Holy Spirit Christ authenticates himself to men as the truth and thereby authenticates the Holy Scripture." (Althaus 1966, 74-75) In quoting Althaus on Luther’s theology, I am not endorsing his support for Adolf Hitler. Note well the role the Holy Spirit plays in authenticating the Sacred Scriptures, which is a wholly orthodox position. The issue is how the Holy Spirit works to authenticate Sacred Scriptures — whether individually (outside of the Church), or corporately (within the Church, through the communion of saints). As pre-modern people did not think of themselves as individuals, but always as part of a community and the social role they played within that community, the idea that the Holy Spirit spoke to individuals apart from and outside the Church would have been anathema to the ancient church. In Luther’s view, the Holy Spirit always works through means. Althaus writes: Both Scripture and the spoken word however are external words; that is, they are not primarily a direct mystical communication from God's spirit to man's spirit but a word which comes to men from the outside and is brought and mediated to them by other men. This is closely connected to the fact that Christ in his humanity, that is, in his historicity, is God present with us. Just as he became man bodily, so he also comes to men through the human and historical means of the “external word.” (Ibid, 35-36) Althaus explains the connection between the external word and the Holy Spirit for us. God's word, however, is never merely an external word, spoken by human lips and heard with human ears. On the contrary, at the same time that this word is spoken, God speaks his truth in our hearts so that men receive it not only externally but also internally and believe it. This is the work of the Spirit of God. …God does not give his Spirit until the external word has preceded. Thus he does not give his Spirit directly, “without means,” but rather through means. (Ibid, 36) Luther directed his argument against the “spiritualists and enthusiasts,” those who felt the Holy Spirit spoke to them directly. Althaus writes: The content of the Spirit's speaking is therefore also completely bound to the word. If God would speak without means, as the spiritualists thought he should, and if the Spirit were free from the word, he could inspire anything that one might think of. (Ibid, 37) The later Luther’s argument is completely at odds with the early Luther. The Roman Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong writes the following concerning the early Luther: Luther gives the most varied expression to the principle of the free interpretation of Scripture: He declares that the Bible may be interpreted by everyone, even by the “humble miller’s maid, nay, by a child of nine if it has the faith.” “The sheep must judge whether the pastors teach in Christ’s own tone.” (Armstrong 2014, 190-191) While the idea that the Holy Spirit works through means is entirely reasonable, the problem is Luther’s artificial restriction of the Holy Spirit to the preached word of a single pastor as opposed to the proclaimed word of the body of Christ. In Luther’s view, the Church is not one of the means the Holy Spirit uses to point us to Christ. Paul Althaus tells us Luther is reacting against a Roman Catholic idea: That the earthly church be related to, and connected with, both the heavenly church and the church suffering in purgatory. This takes place through the veneration of the saints and the use and application of merits. (Althaus 1966, 297) Luther reacted against this by dividing the Church into the visible Church on earth and the invisible Church made up of all the saints in heaven. This division between the visible and the invisible was originally a Marcionite position, as was Luther’s division of Scripture into Law and Gospel. The visible Church is not the Church in its fullness, a fullness found only in the invisible church. Luther’s radical ecclesiology is unsupported by Scripture; search as you will, holy writ expresses no such division of the body of Christ. The Orthodox position is that each local Church (or Eucharistic assembly) is the Church in its fullness. The Orthodox position is connected to the idea that Christ can be fully present within you, fully present within another, and fully present within the Church. The Reformed (i.e., the spiritual children of Calvin and Zwingli) promote the idea of the self-authenticating Scripture as the way the canon of Scriptures was created and validated. John Calvin admits the role of the Holy Spirit in this process. Let it therefore be held as fixed, that those who are inwardly taught by the Holy Spirit acquiesce implicitly in Scripture; that Scripture, carrying its own evidence along with it, deigns not to submit to proofs and arguments, but owes the full conviction with which we ought to receive it to the testimony of the Spirit. Enlightened by him, we no longer believe, either on our own Judgment or that of others, that the Scriptures are from God; but, in a way superior to human Judgment, feel perfectly assured—as much so as if we beheld the divine image visibly impressed on it—that it came to us, by the instrumentality of men, from the very mouth of God. We ask not for proofs or probabilities on which to rest our Judgment, but we subject our intellect and Judgment to it as too transcendent for us to estimate. (Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion 2005, I.7.5, p.78) What John Calvin describes is the manner in which the Holy Spirit works within the individual to authenticate the Scriptures as divinely inspired. We do not deny the person and work of the Holy Spirit in the life of each person; in fact, we insist on it. We also remember the Holy Spirit reveals himself as a still, small voice. Each person can ignore this voice, just as our passions can quench it. The Holy Spirit does not force himself on us, just as He did not force Himself on the Virgin Mary. See my book Why Mary Matters for more information. The Holy Spirit, working through the communion of saints, cannot be ignored. It is for this reason that the Church — and not the Sacred Scriptures — is called the pillar and ground of the truth. (1Ti 3:15) Church history shows us the work of the Holy Spirit in forming the canon is not as simple as Calvin makes it appear. Different individuals had widely varying ideas of what formed Sacred Scripture. Calvin’s idea works only if we argue that anyone who disagreed with Calvin was not enlightened by the Holy Spirit. Another less charitable argument is that Calvin (along with the other reformers) set himself up as the regula fidei, the rule of faith, the plumb bob used to determine deviations from the truth. What John Calvin described is different from how other theologians described the self-authenticating Scriptures. For example, the Lutheran scholar Johann Gerhard writes: "Because it is God-breathed, published, and spread by divine inspiration, therefore it is credible in itself, having credibility from itself." (Gerhard 2006, 68) Professor David Scaer simplifies this thought: "Because the biblical writers were recipients of immediate illumination, the Bible possesses a self-authenticating authority." (Scaer, Baptism as Church Foundation 2003, 118) Thus, the Bible is "credible in itself, having credibility from itself"; thus, the Sacred Scriptures are "self-authenticating": they are whole unto themselves, and need nothing external to prove their inspiration. However believable the idea of the self-authenticating Scriptures may sound, this is not a useful principle for settling canonicity. The self-authenticating principle can draw one astray into all manner of enthusiasms, allowing an individual or group to fix their own canon of Scripture. The attempt at creating one’s own canon was the error of Marcion — the first person to devise a Christian canon that "self-authenticated" his preexisting heresies. We must determine the principle (or principles) by which the the Church determines the scope of the canon. Regarding this process, Dr. Eugenia Constantinou writes: On what basis were certain books accepted and others rejected? What criteria were used? Did the authority of the book precede its canonization or was it recognized as authoritative because of its history or a particular quality that ultimately rendered it officially canonical? Which qualities were most important? Apostolicity? Prophecy? Spirituality? Perceived inspiration of the writer? Inspired reaction in the reader? Dogmatic importance? Orthodoxy of doctrine? Use by the community of faith? Didactic usefulness? Resonance with Christian experience? (Constantinou, Andrew of Caesarea and the Apocalypse 2008, 31) Protestants do not look at the problem historically; they do not use the principles used by the Early Church. Instead, Protestant scholars define two mutually exclusive alternatives. The scholar John C. Peckham defines these as the Community-Canon approach and the Intrinsic-Canon approach. Peckham describes the Community-Canon as “a collection of books deemed authoritative by a given community,” and the Intrinsic-Canon as “a collection of authoritative books that are authoritative because God commissioned them.” (Peckham 2011, 204-205) If we use the Community-Canon alternative, the text is canonical because the community declared it to be so. If we use the Intrinsic-Canon alternative, the text is canonical apart from the community's declaration of the text to be Scripture. In the minds of some, any acceptance of the Community-Canon approach amounts to a denial of the Protestant Reformation. We will discuss these two approaches in the following chapters. The Community-Canon Approach  According to John C. Peckham, when using the Community-Canon approach, the community says the Scriptures are Scripture because the community declares them to be so. A more extreme description would be to say a text becomes Scripture only after the community defines them as Scripture. The pure Community-Canon approach is something of a straw man. First, there is no evidence for the Community-Canon approach among the early Christian communities. In particular, the early church was more interested in declaring certain books to be outside the canon than to decide the limits of the canon. When pressed by outside forces, and out of necessity, the bishops as spiritual overseers authorized a collection of writings for use in liturgical services. However, the early church as a whole had no interest in defining the extent of the canon. Second, the rhetoric of the Roman Catholic Church in the time of the Reformers may well have argued for the authority of the church to declare which books made up Sacred Scripture. However, even the Council of Trent claimed to be acting under the authority and influence of the Holy Spirit. For any Church to determine a set of writings to be Scripture, we must first accept the existence of the community, the writing of said books as a witness to the community, and the use of said books within the community. We must also remember Jesus Christ said when the Comforter comes, He will guide us into all truth. We must therefore accept the Holy Spirit’s work within the Church as the body of Christ. (Jo 14:26, Ac 4:31) We are not lively stones existing individually apart from the Church, but lively stones building up a spiritual house. (1Pe 2:5) If we accept this, then the organizational Church is only approving what the Church as a community has already decided upon. The Reformer John Calvin denies the work of the Holy Spirit within the Roman Catholic Church, but his rationale denies the Holy Spirit works in any way except through individual members of the elect who are members of the body of Christ. (Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion 2005, I.7 passim) In effect, John Calvin denies that the Holy Spirit works within the body of Christ. Following the Reformers, Protestants generally believe that if the church fixes the canon of Scripture, it is the work of the Church as an institution rather than the Holy Spirit working within and through the Church. In Book One of his Institutes of Christian Religion, John Calvin writes as though the institutional Church was different than the Church as the body of Christ. A most pernicious error has very generally prevailed; viz., that Scripture is of importance only in so far as conceded to it by the suffrage of the Church; as if the eternal and inviolable truth of God could depend on the will of men. With great insult to the Holy Spirit, it is asked, Who can assure us that the Scriptures proceeded from God; who guarantee that they have come down safe and unimpaired to our times; who persuade us that this book is to be received with reverence, and that one expunged from the list, did not the Church regulate all these things with certainty? On the determination of the Church, therefore, it is said, depend both the reverence which is due to Scripture, and the books which are to be admitted into the canon. (Ibid, I.7.1) Calvin’s argument is flawed in that he presumes the Holy Spirit does not work through the Church, the body of Christ. The elimination of the Church as an authority leads us inevitably to the dogma at the heart of the Reformation, which is Sola Scriptura, or Scripture Alone. According to the Reformers, the institutional Church has no say in what books are or are not Scripture. Lewis W. Spitz, Sr. writes of Martin Luther: His study of church history convinced him that councils and popes had erred. Replying to the Dialogue Concerning the Powers of the Pope, prepared by Silvester Prierias in 1518, Luther insisted that only the Holy Scriptures were without error. (Spitz, Sr. 1960, 740) When Martin Luther was called before to the Diet of Worms, he defended himself with the most famous statement in Reformation history: The Diet of Worms was a council presided over by the Holy Roman Emperor, called to decide the fate of Martin Luther. Unless I am convinced by the testimonies of the Holy Scriptures or evident reason... (for I believe neither in the pope nor councils alone, since it has been established that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures adduced by me, and my conscience has been taken captive by the Word of God, and I am neither able nor willing to recant, since it is neither safe nor right to act against conscience. God help me. Amen. (Spitz, Sr. 1960, 740 - 741) This statement replaces the Roman Catholic triad of Scripture, Tradition, and the Teaching Magisterium with the Protestant triad of Scripture, Reason, and Conscience. We should note that while Luther’s statement lacks any mention of the Holy Spirit, other of Luther’s writings indicate the Holy Spirit’s role in guiding the believer’s reason and conscience. Luther’s view aligns well with John Calvin, suggesting we need to examine the role of the Holy Spirit in the inspiration of Scripture. The apostle Peter writes: "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2Pe 1:21) Calvin’s argument depends on the writing of the various books before the Church existed, meaning the Church had no role in recognizing their inspiration. However, even Calvin recognizes the Church’s existence before the writing of the New Testament. In his Commentary on Acts, Calvin states Christ first introduced the Church, but that Luke’s description of Pentecost reveals the “best form of the Church.” Hyperdispensationalists, like E.W. Bullinger, claim the Church did not begin until sometime near the end or after the book of Acts. (Bullinger 1909, Appendix 181, pp. 643-646) Now, here is most lively painted out the beginning of Christ’s kingdom, and as it were the renewing of the world; for although the Son of God had gathered together, by his preaching, a certain Church, before such time as he departed out of the world, yet, nevertheless, that was the best form of the Church which began then, when as the apostles, having new power given them from above, began to preach that that only Shepherd did both die and also rise again, that through his conduct all those which were dispersed, far and wide, (upon the face of the whole earth,) might be gathered unto one sheepfold. Here is, therefore, set down both the beginning and also the increasing of the Church of Christ after his ascension, whereby he was declared to be King both of heaven and earth. (Calvin, Commentary on Acts Volume 1 1585, 14-15) According to Calvin, Christ revealed the existence of the Church, which then assumed its final form at Pentecost. Thus, the Son of God established the Church, and the Holy Spirit empowered the Church. John Calvin credits the “best form of the Church” to the Holy Spirit, but then denies the continued work of the Holy Spirit within and through that Church. Calvin’s hostility to the Roman Catholic Church colors his understanding of Scripture and the Church as the body of Christ. He writes: These ravings are admirably refuted by a single expression of an apostle. Paul testifies that the Church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets,” (Eph. 2:20). If the doctrine of the apostles and prophets is the foundation of the Church, the former must have had its certainty before the latter began to exist. Nor is there any room for the cavil, that though the Church derives her first beginning from thence, it still remains doubtful what writings are to be attributed to the apostles and prophets, until her Judgment is interposed. For if the Christian Church was founded at first on the writings of the prophets, and the preaching of the apostles, that doctrine, wheresoever it may be found, was certainly ascertained and sanctioned antecedently to the Church, since, but for this, the Church herself never could have existed. (Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion 2005, I.7.2) Calvin’s argument is in error due to his faulty Christology. In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin provides an orthodox understanding of the Incarnation, of the two natures in Christ, and the communication of attributes. When Calvin deals with the implications of the Incarnation, however, it is clear Calvin is no orthodox theologian. In the orthodox theology of the Incarnation, God becomes a man by assuming humanity into Himself; thus, orthodox Christology recognizes the human nature of Christ does not diminish His divine nature. The idea that God became a man is certainly true, but it is not the whole truth. When we speak of the sun rising and setting, we know the Earth is spinning on its axis, and that the earth is moving about the sun. Likewise, when we say God became a man it is a shorthand encompassing the way God took humanity into Himself while remaining fully God and fully man, yet without diminishing either nature or confusing their attributes. Because neither nature is diminished by the other, Christ can be locally present and yet everywhere present and filling all things. According to Calvin, Christ is forever limited by His humanity. Our Lord is bodily present “at the right hand of the Father” while His kingdom “is not limited by any intervals of space, nor circumscribed by any dimensions.” In this manner, Calvin distinguishes the presence of Christ and the Kingdom of God. Calvin distinguishes between God’s economy and God’s actual presence in this fashion: Christ can exert his energy wherever he pleases, in earth and heaven, can manifest his presence by the exercise of his power, can always be present with his people, breathing into them his own life, can live in them, sustain, confirm, and invigorate them, and preserve them safe, just as if he were with them in the body. (Ibid, IV.17.18) The Christ of Calvin is not everywhere present and filling all things, meaning His human flesh diminishes his essence; His humanity is a dimunition of the Son of God. As the Christ, the Son of God is no longer everywhere present, meaning He is no longer co-equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. The grace of Christ, being separate from His physical person, must, therefore, be created. (Created grace is a Roman Catholic position, by the way). Calvin indicates this is “only for a time”; that ultimately, we will “enjoy the immediate presence of his Godhead.” (Ibid, II.14.3) Let us examine how Calvin’s rationalism affects his understanding of the Church. Calvin admits that Christ set up a “certain Church.” This Church then assumed its intended form at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended with power on the apostles. Here is the problem with Calvin’s argument. Christ’s calling of the apostles and His proclamation of the Kingdom of God did not merely occur at the same time but were the same thing. Jesus made many statements about His kingdom: “the kingdom of God is come unto you” (Mt 12:28); “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand” (Mr 1:15); “The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you” (Lu 17:20-21). The followers of Jesus made up a community of faith; for them, Jesus was “God with us” (Mt 1:23). During His ministry on earth, our Lord restrained the exercise of His power; He voluntarily hid his power and His glory within His human flesh. However, Jesus also spoke of a time when some would see “the kingdom of God come with power” (Mr 9:1). Peter, James, and John witnessed this power on the mount of Transfiguration (Mt 17:2); the entire community witnessed this power when the Holy Spirit descended on the Church at Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4). Jesus’ calling of His disciples and the beginning of the Church is the same event. When Paul says, the Church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets,” he is not saying the apostles and prophets came before the Church. Instead, the apostles and prophets are consanguineous with the Church, meaning they share the same blood, the same kinship, the same origin. The apostle Peter writes: “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” (1Pe 1:21) These "holy men of God" were part of a community. The community of faith was the source from which the prophets and apostles came and the community to which they witnessed. The Church existed before the writing of Scripture, and the Scriptures existed before their recognition by the Church as Scripture. Nonetheless, the Scriptures were created by, within, and for the Church. Decades passed between Pentecost and the writing of the first New Testament Scripture. More decades passed before all the books of our New Testament were written. Centuries passed before the list of New Testament Scriptures was accepted. The process of canonization in the modern sense of the term is the result of a long historical process culminating in a religious authority of some sort formally settling the content of the canon, a decision ratified by the common consent of the Church. The idea of a canon of Scriptures assumes a community to whom those Scriptures bear witness, a community bearing witness to those Scriptures, and an authoritative body which formalizes the witness on behalf of the community. Julio Trebolle Barrera writes: The final validation of a canon of sacred books is always the province of a religious authority which, by means of a «conciliar definition» or another form of authoritative decision, fixes the list of canonical books and at the same time excludes books not accepted into the canon. This is an historical event of a social nature, always determined and conditioned by circumstances of a very different kind. (Barrera 1998, 151) Despite this, there are those who chose to deny the historical and social nature of canonical development and in particular the idea of a religious authority deciding on such matters. In arguing for Sola Scriptura, the Reformers also chose to limit the canon of Scripture, a decision that cannot be justified by Scripture Alone. Nowhere in Scripture is the canon defined. Nor are there any canonical precepts in Scripture that would guide us in determining which books are and are not Scripture. Ultimately, Protestants rely upon their traditions in determining their 66-book canon. To put it another way, Protestants use their Community-Canon approach to justify their 66-book canon of Scripture. Objections to the Community-Canon Approach  Arguments against the Community-Canon approach include the hostile reaction of the community of faith to the prophets and the failure of the community to recognize and declare a text to be Scripture. Did not the Holy Spirit inspire the author to write it? Was the text Scripture before the community declared it to be so? In chapter 10 we discussed how the community did not immediately recognize Jeremiah’s writings as Scripture. Instead, the King burned Jeremiah’s first manuscript (Jer 36:21-25). If an inspired text can be destroyed, how then can that text be Scripture? The answer to all these questions is that inspiration is about the message, not the text. The prophet is God’s herald (the κηρύσσω, kerusso) while the message is the herald’s proclamation (the κήρυγμα, kerugma, or kerygma). The prophet is the herald who proclaims God’s message. The proclamation is made by a member of a community, to that community. This proclamation is later written down; the record of the prophetic proclamation is recognized by that community (perhaps at a later date) as Scripture. John C. Peckham argues differently: The biblical concept of a true prophet refers to one divinely authorized to speak for God (Jer 15:19; Acts 3:18, 21). There is then, by definition, a divinely appointed authority belonging to true prophets that is thereby inconsistent with the epistemological primacy of the community. Yet if the community is considered to be authoritative to determine the validity of prophets, such prophetic authority is logically (if not actually) compromised. (Peckham 2011, 209) Epistemology concerns the foundation, scope, and validity of knowledge. In layman's terms, John C. Peckham claims the prophet's authorization to speak for God exists independently and apart from any criteria the community might use to determine the prophetic authority of the prophetic writing. The individual is an authority by being a prophet; the prophetic authority, according to Peckham, is an essential part of the text. In this view, the text is authoritative because God authorized it, and its authority exists apart from the textual witness to and within the community. Peckham refuses to notice the prophet exists within a community, is a product of that community, and is inspired by the Holy Spirit as a witness to that community, and that the text is a record of the prior proclamation. Protestants in general (and John C. Peckham in particular) lack an understanding of the communion of saints and instead approaches inspiration as applying to individuals. In doing so thhe read the modern, western concept of individualism back into the ancient era, failing to notice that the ancients had no such concept. Reading individualism into the ancient era has profound implications for their understanding of the Church, whom they tend to view as a collection of individuals. The Scriptures, by contrast, describe each person as a member of the body of Christ (with Christ as its head). The individual member of the body of Christ has no life independent of the body. To use another biblical metaphor, Christians are but one of the living stones. It takes a community of living stones to build a spiritual house, and apart from the house the stone is not living. The prophets were but one member of the body of Christ and but one of the lively stones. Just as a flame cannot exist apart from the fire, the prophets (and the textual account of their message) cannot exist apart from the household of faith. The individual Christian is an oxymoron. John C. Peckham assumes the Holy Spirit either works with the prophet, or works with the community, but not both. By presenting us with only these two options, Peckham is forgetting the Holy Spirit is unbound by time and space, and that He blows where He pleases (Jo 3:8). The Holy Spirit can be simultaneously present with the prophet who speaks, the amanuensis who writes down the prophet’s words, and the community who receives the writing. When the prophet Habakkuk calls down God’s judgment on the nation of Judah, he is calling down judgment on himself as a member of that community. The prophet's use of the phrase "Thus saith the Lord" forms part of the witness of that community. Therefore, the question of the epistemological primacy of the community is a lot like asking which came first — the chicken or the egg. Perhaps the greatest problem with the Intrinsic-Canon approach (as defined by Peckham) is that it uses an epistemic criterion (one determined by propositional knowledge) to decide whether a book is suitable for the Canon. Epistemic criterion are the standards and rules used to determine the accuracy and validity of propositions claiming to be true, and are used to separate justified knowledge from belief. Propositional Knowledge may be described as knowledge-that. It is a proposition or declarative statement that need not be true. If the Biblical Canon is a list of authoritative and inspired books compiled by the Church through the Holy Spirit, then only the Church can recognize and define that list. If, however, canonicity is an epistemic criterion, then individuals and groups can each use different propositions and reason their way towards different lists. (This is exactly what the Reformers did, by the way). Protestant scholar William J. Abraham describes the key difference between these two views. The older way was prepared to leave scripture as both a gift of the Holy Spirit and as subject to the ongoing activity of the Spirit without worrying overmuch about epistemology. In my terms, the older way was content to leave scripture as a means of grace. The new fashion was to give primacy to ideas of revelation and inspiration as applying in some unique fashion to the Bible, and to limit scripture to the Bible. However, it is only someone already smitten by epistemology, and more precisely by the kind of epistemology furnished by Aquinas, who can accept the shift identified here so gladly and readily. (Abraham 1998, x-xi) For us to understand this argument, we must discuss the development of an epistemological role in theology — the foundation, source, and validity of revelatory truth. Richard Foley comments: "For the medievals, religious authority and tradition were seen as repositories of wisdom"; it was the Enlightenment views of men like Descartes and Locke who "regarded tradition and authority as potential sources of error and took reason to be the corrective.” (Foley 2001, 13) This view did not originate with Locke and Descartes but has its roots in the writings of Aquinas. William Abraham develops this thesis following this quote from the French theologian Yves Marie Joseph Cardinal Congar, who claims Thomas Aquinas inherited the following crucial assumptions from the Middle Ages: First, the attributing of all true (and holy determinations of the life of the Church, to a <<revelation, inspiration, suggestion,>> [revelation, inspiration, suggestion] of the Holy Spirit. Second, the practice of including the Fathers, the conciliar canons and even the pontifical decrees and (more rarely) the more outstanding treatises of the theologians, in the <<Scriptura Sacra>> [Sacred Scripture], or again, without distinguishing, in the <<divina pagina>> [interpretation of scripture]. Divina pagina refers to the interpretation of Scripture, (McGinn 1998, 127) and is one of the three early medieval terms used for theology, the other two being sacra doctrina and sacra scriptura (Fiorenza 1991) This is a practice of long standing; there seems no doubt but that it arises from the <<Decretum Gelasianum>> [Gelasian Decree] Tradition attributes the Decretum Gelasianum [Gelasian Decree ] to Pope Gelasius I, who was Pope from 492-496. The second part of the Decretum Gelasianum is a list of canonical scriptures. The list includes the Old Testament Scriptures which the Protestants consider to be Apocryphal, and the entire New Testament with the exception of 2 Corinthians. The third part discusses the authority of the Bishop of Rome. The fourth part makes the ecumenical councils authoritative and receives the works of a number of the church fathers. Finally, the fifth part contains a list of books compiled or recognized by heretics and schismatics, works which are not received by the church. It is possible that the list of Apocryphal books represents a tradition that can be traced back to Pope Gelasius, but was not actually written by him., which …had passed into canonical collections, and into those chapters which dealt with sources and rules. (Abraham 1998, ix) For William J. Abraham, and likely with Protestants in general, the implications are quite startling. 'Scripture' was not originally confined to the Bible; it had a much wider frame of reference. …What we see emerging in what follows is a quite different range of sense and reference. Over time, Scripture was cut back to apply materially to the Bible; and its primary function lay in that of operating as an authority. (Ibid, ix) According to William Abraham, Thomas Aquinas developed that "special kind of rigour in theology,” and was, therefore, the first to distinguish the authority of the Bible from that of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. (Ibid, x) Thomas Aquinas was merely one practitioner of the style of critical theology developed in the west. Andrew Louth writes in the Forward to John Behr’s The Way to Nicea: “The science of theology developed in the medieval universities, and then passed through the waves of cultural history that swept through the West.” This science of theology “had developed as an academic discipline, remote from the life of prayer.” (Behr 2001, ix) As a natural consequence, the Roman Catholic Church distinguishes between the ecclesia docens and ecclesia discerns, between the teaching church and the learning church. (Örsy, Foundations and Context of the Magisterium 1987) Everyone is a member of the learning church, but to some are given the special charism as the teaching church — in particular, the Pope of Rome and his “infallible magisterium.” (Pope Paul VI 1964) According to Aleksei Khomyakov, this “bifurcation of the Church …has passed into the Reform and is preserved in it as a result of the abrogation of legitimate tradition or the encroachment of knowledge on faith.” (Khomyakov 1977, 55) The rationalism of Thomas Aquinas laid the foundation for the Reformation's outright rejection of the Father's and the Councils and their replacement by Reason and Conscience. The Roman Catholic’s division between the teaching church and the learning church has become the division between the educated pastor passing on the Protestant tradition, and the less educated faithful who receive the Protestant tradition. To put it another way, Protestants are following in the footsteps of Aquinas and therefore are unwitting Thomists. John C. Peckham then raises another interesting question: “What Constitutes a Legitimate and/or Adequate Community?” This question is not as easy to answer as you might think. Multiple canons circulated in the early church; each Bishop seemingly had his own opinion. There were different communities of faith which considered themselves Christian. Many of these we consider heretical, and yet these heretical groups thought they had the authority to decide canonical issues. Prominent among these was the early heretic Marcion whose canon did not include the Old Testament and included only portions of the New Testament. The Gnostics also had their canon containing texts rejected by the Orthodox Christian community. Peckham writes: Perhaps one might posit that a later community, whether a community of a particular time and place or the collective early Christian community over a period of time, is authoritative to determine canonicity. Yet the same problems apply to later communities. On what grounds should one accept that a later community is more legitimate and/or adequate to determine canonicity? As was the case for the earliest Christian community, the “community” is not monolithic decades or even centuries later. There are now and have been in ages past numerous communities that differ regarding the scope of sacred writings as canon. Examples include the times of the early church (the so-called canon of Marcion and Irenaeus’ view of the Scriptures vs. his Gnostic opponents), over one thousand years later (the canon posited by the Council of Trent vs. the Thirty-Nine Articles), and more recent times (the Gospel revisions of the Jesus Seminar). Hence, asserting that a later community might be authoritative to determine the canon likewise raises the question, “which community?” (Peckham 2011, 210) If the community decides on the canon, the question of which community has that authority is valid. We must then ask on what basis the Protestant community assumes that authority. The most important Protestant objection to the Community-Canon approach is the authority of the Church. Their rationale is the Great Apostasy and the Protestant recovery of the true church. The Great Apostasy: the idea that the church apostatized either immediately upon the death of the apostles or sometime within its first few hundred years. This idea posits a righteous remnant of the true Church hidden within and alongside the apostate Church throughout the centuries leading up to the Reformation. This idea depends upon the Protestant notion of the visible and invisible church, the invisible (spiritual) church having primacy over the visible (material) church. There is no historical evidence for the Great Apostasy. The Great Apostasy is a myth, a rationale created to justify differences between Protestants and the post-Apostolic Church. Therefore, we must address the issue of the Great Apostasy and its relationship to the canon of scripture. Canonicity and the Great Apostasy  A great many Protestants think the Church apostatized shortly following the apostolic era, an apostasy the Protestant Reformation resolved. If this is the case, the question of the Community-Canon is moot. And yet history tells us the New Testament canon was not determined during the apostolic era, nor during the period before Emperor Constantine, nor the period of the Ecumenical Councils. The catalog of New Testament books was flexible well into the ninth century, and the book of Revelation’s canonical status was in flux between the 4th and the 15th century AD. If we accept the idea of the Great Apostasy, then the New Testament is a creation of that apostasy. The same apostates that determined the contents of the New Testament also determined the Apocrypha was inspired. If Protestants accept the apostate’s New Testament, they should logically accept both Testaments. If they reject the one, they should logically reject the other. The right of a community to authoritatively settle issues of inspiration and canonicity is as important an issue for Protestants as it is for all other Christians. Protestants who presume their Scriptures to be self-authenticating also presume their community to be both legitimate and adequate to the task of receiving those writings. The Protestant's self-identification as the true and legitimate Church provides their authority to settle the canon of Sacred Scripture. Other Church bodies presume the same authority as well. How do we decide which Church is the true Church? The question of canon closely related to the question of which Church is the legitimate successor to the Church of the Apostles. As it turns out, the criteria for deciding the boundaries of the scriptural canon are nearly the same as the criteria for deciding which Church is the true, legitimate Church of God on earth. The most important criterion for discovering the one, true Church is the witness of the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, our pride, arrogance, and self-satisfaction often drown out the still, small voice of the Holy Spirit. All Christian bodies are guilty of this whether they be Protestant, Roman Catholic, Coptic, Eastern Orthodox, etc. We allow our pride to get between ourselves and the Holy Spirit; we confuse our internal monologue for the witness of the Holy Spirit. The witness of the Holy Spirit is a still, small voice, to be sure, but rarely speaks to us directly, but rather speaks through means. In other words, the Holy Spirit brings the evidence before us and guides others to us, just as He guides our hearts and minds. We can use the tools that God created as a way of uncovering the truth. We can look at the witness of history, for example. We can test our assumptions and presuppositions against the historical record, just as we test everything against the record of God's revelation of Himself to humanity. We can use the canonical standards as a proxy for testing the claims if different Christian bodies to be the legitimate successors to the apostolic Church. Canonical Standards and the New Testament  The assertion that only the community of faith can determine the authoritative collection of inspired Scripture creates another problem: which criteria does the community use? John C. Peckham writes: If each community is authoritative to determine their own canon, then since mutually exclusive canons of sacred writings are posited by various communities, the “Christian canon” is not authoritative over and against the canon of any other community but is authoritative only within the community or communities that determine and/or recognize it. This amounts to a canonical relativism that is mutually exclusive to a universally authoritative biblical canon (cf. Mt 24:14; 28:19–20; Acts 17:30; 1 Thes 2:13; 2 Tm 3:16). (Peckham 2011, 210) Modern Christians are unaware that the New Testament has a history. The Christian understanding of New Testament writings as Scripture developed gradually, with some books accepted in one place while rejected in others. Rarely did these lists agree with each other, let alone with our current list of the New Testament books. For several centuries, there were multiple canons in use. Various bishops published canonical lists for the churches under their authority, and canonical lists were published by various church fathers. While some argue the New Testament canon was finalized in the fourth century, there continued to be different lists published into the eighth century, as shown by the following list. Canonical Lists (Marlowe, Ancient Canon Lists n.d.) I added the Damasine List, a.k.a. the Decretum Gelasianum, or Decree of Pope Damascus. The Muratorian Fragment (c. 170) Melito (c. 170) Origen (c. 240) Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 324) The Damasine List (c. 328) Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 350) Hilary of Poitiers (c. 360) The Cheltenham List (c. 360) Council of Laodicea (c. 363) Letter of Athanasius (367) Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 380) Amphilocius of Iconium (c. 380) The "Apostolic Canons" (c. 380) Epiphanius (c. 385) Jerome (c. 390) Augustine (c. 397) Third Council of Carthage (397) Rufinus of Aquileia (c. 400) Codex Claromontanus (c. 400) Letter of Innocent I (405) Decree of Gelasius (c. 550) Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae (c. 550) John of Damascus (c. 730) These lists differ regarding the makeup of the canon. As late as 730 AD, St. John of Damascus included the Canons of the Holy Apostles in his list of New Testament Scripture. The first complete list of our New Testament canon as we know it today was in the 367 AD Easter Letter of St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria. (Schaff, NPNF2-04 1892, 1126) Unlike what many say, the list was authoritative only for the Alexandrian see. Moreover, the fact that Athanasius felt compelled to create a list is evidence of the unsettled nature of the canon. In the West, some scholars cite the Third Council of Carthage (397 AD) as fixing the complete canon of the New Testament. However, this council was only authoritative for the regional Church in Northern Africa. Also, the council’s canon of Sacred Scripture begins with the Old Testament and includes what Protestants now refer to as the Apocrypha. It should be impossible to accept the New Testament list without accepting the Old Testament list created at the same council. Michael D. Marlowe provides us with a list of Canonical Scriptures from the Third Council of Carthage that includes much of what Protestants call the Apocrypha. It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings [I & II Samuel; I & II Kings], two books of Paraleipomena (Chronicles], Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, and Sirach, also known as Ecclesiasticus], the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras [1 Esdras and 2 Esdras being the longer Greek versions of Ezra and Nehemiah], two books of the Maccabees. Of the New Testament: four books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, one epistle of the same [writer] to the Hebrews, two Epistles of the Apostle Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, one book of the Apocalypse of John. Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon, because we have received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church. Let it also be allowed that the Passions of Martyrs be read when their festivals are kept. (Marlowe, Third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) n.d.) Between the apostolic era and the establishment of the New Testament canon, there were controversies over which books were inspired and which were not. The Eastern Church rejected Revelation because of the propensity of heretics to weave apocalyptic fantasies from its strange imagery. The Western Church rejected Hebrews because no one knew who wrote it. Many rejected Jude because it quotes from the apocryphal book of Enoch. S. Jerome, in his account of Jude in «De Viris Illustribus», says that inasmuch as in the Epistle a testimony is quoted from “Enoch,” an apocryphal Book, it is rejected by most. …Part of the reason that led some distinguished scholars to put the Epistle of Jude in the 2nd century A.D., and to question the right of its author to call himself the brother of James, was derived from the approval with which it seemed to stamp an ‘apocryphal’ writing. (Burkitt 1914, 17) Some thought II Peter was spurious, along with II and III John, and rejected them on that basis. The canon of Alexandria always included James, but few knew of the book elsewhere. The late fourth century Codex Sinaiticus includes the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas. In his account of the discovery in 1844 of the Codex Siniaticus, Lobegott Friedrich Constantin (von) Tischendorf (c. 1815 – 1874) notes that the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd (Pastor) of Hermas had “an extensive authority” in the 2nd through the 4th centuries, and were placed “side by side” with the inspired writings. What Tischendorf does not say, but should have said, is that many Christians of the 2nd through the 4th centuries considered both to be scripture. (Vincent 1899, 16-17) The early fifth Century Codex Alexandrinus contains I and II Clement. (Lieuwen 1995) The idea of the self-authenticating Scriptures doesn't square with the history of the New Testament canon. Far from being self-authenticating, it turns out the process of determining an authoritative list of inspired scriptures was a long, arduous, and all-too-human process. Given that the Holy Spirit works through human beings, why would we expect this to happen any other way? The NT use of the OT Scriptures  Jesus Christ rarely uses the term "scripture." Matthew’s Gospel does not use the term. In Mark's Gospel, Jesus uses the term once when he says: "And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner" (Mk 12:10; Psa 118:22). In Luke's Gospel, Jesus reads from the prophet Isaiah and then states: "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears" (Luk 4:21). Mark's Gospel contains an editorial comment on Jesus' crucifixion between two thieves: "And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors" (Mk 15:28; cf Isa 52:9, 12). The Gospel of John, which contains eleven references to "scripture,” only contains four places where Jesus references the Scriptures. The rest are editorial comments by the apostle John or comments by the crowd. Jesus Christ treats the Old Testament as Scripture in some places, but never represents Scripture as a list of books. What we have instead are a few places where Jesus cites or alludes to this book or that text as Scripture — what we would today call the Old Testament. But which Old Testament is Christ using? As we shall see, often he quotes or alludes to the Apocrypha in the same manner as he quotes or alludes to the books contained in the Protestant Old Testament. F. F. Bruce writes: "Jesus, according to all the strata of the gospel tradition, regularly appealed to the Hebrew Scriptures to validate his mission, his words and his actions." (Bruce, The Canon of Scripture 2010, 27) We should note that Jesus primarily quoted from the Septuagint. We have already established that Jesus rarely used the term Scripture. In what way, then, did Jesus appeal to the Jewish writings and assume their authority for Himself? Consider how Jesus Christ announced the beginning of his ministry: "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel" (Mk 1:15). According to F. F. Bruce, the Jews would have understood this as a reference to the book of Daniel; specifically, to its apocalyptic reference to Nebuchadnezzar’s vision of the kingdom of God. The vision of Nebuchadnezzar ends as follows: And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever (Dan 2:44). While Jesus Christ is alluding to the Kingdom mentioned by Daniel, He does not use any introductory formulae indicating the scriptural nature of the passage. Jesus does not use the phrase "It is written,” although the phrase is used 26 times in the gospels alone. Nor does he use the related terms "it was written" (3 times), "it was said" (3 times), "it is said" (1 time), and "it hath been said" (4 times). And finally, Jesus does not quote the book of Daniel. Instead, Jesus makes use of its themes and phrases. In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus Christ says to His disciples: "It is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom" (Lk 12:32). Jesus uses no introductory formulae, nor is He directly quoting any specific passage. Jesus expects His disciples to make the connection between His words and the thematic material provided by the prophet Daniel, as follows: And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. …But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever. … Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom. … And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him. (Dan 7:14, 18, 22, 27) Jesus alludes to Daniel, indicating the Father’s kingdom is an everlasting kingdom. This everlasting kingdom, dominion, and judgment will be given to the saints of the most High. If Jesus alludes to the book of Daniel in this manner, how do we to differentiate this from His allusions to the books Protestants call the Apocrypha? Although exegetes claim Jesus is alluding to Daniel, he could very well be alluding to prophetic material in the Apocrypha. Jesus could also have been alluding to the general understanding of the kingdom that was expressed in the wealth of Second Temple literature. See Appendix A for more information. We will discuss this subject more in Part IV; however, now would be a good place for a preview. Mt 16:18 - Jesus' reference to the "power of death" and "gates of Hades" references Wisdom 16:13 – “For thou hast power of life and death: thou leadest to the gates of hell, and bringest up again.” Mt 24:15 - the "desolating sacrilege" Jesus refers to is taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 – “Now the fifteenth day of the month Casleu, in the hundred forty and fifth year, they set up the abomination of desolation upon the altar, and builded idol altars throughout the cities of Juda on every side”; see also 2 Macc. 8:17. Mt 24:16 – Jesus warning to let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Macc. 2:27-28 – “And Mattathias cried throughout the city with a loud voice, saying, Whosoever is zealous of the law, and maintaineth the covenant, let him follow me. So he and his sons fled into the mountains, and left all that ever they had in the city.” Mk 4:5, 16-17 - Jesus' description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15 – “The children of the ungodly shall not bring forth many branches: but are as unclean roots upon a hard rock.” Lk 13:29 - Jesus' description of men "come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God" follows Baruch 4:37 – “Lo, thy sons come, whom thou sentest away, they come gathered together from the east to the west by the word of the Holy One, rejoicing in the glory of God.” Lk 21:24 - Jesus' usage of the phrase "fall by the edge of the sword" follows Sirach 28:18 – “Many have fallen by the edge of the sword: but not so many as have fallen by the tongue.” Jn 3:13 – Jesus' usage of the phrase "who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven" references Baruch 3:29 – “Who hath gone up into heaven, and taken her, and brought her down from the clouds?” (This is a reference to the personification of Wisdom, which is commonly an adumbration or foreshadowing of Christ, which belies the contention that the Apocrypha contain no prophecies about Christ). Jn 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor. 12:12 - Jesus', Luke's and Paul's usage of the phrase "signs and wonders" follows Wisdom 8:8 – “If a man desire much experience, she knoweth things of old, and conjectureth aright what is to come: she knoweth the subtilties of speeches, and can expound dark sentences: she foreseeth signs and wonders, and the events of seasons and times.” Jn 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16 – “We are esteemed of him as counterfeits: he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness: he pronounceth the end of the just to be blessed, and maketh his boast that God is his father.” None of the preceding matters if scholars can prove the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures was closed at the time of Christ and that the canon did not contain the books considered as apocryphal. As we have previously demonstrated, this is not the case, which presents a problem for the Protestant understanding of Scripture. The Intrinsic-Canon Approach  The Intrinsic-Canon approach is the accepted method in Protestant churches. John C. Peckham provides the following definition. God determines the scope of the canon, and the community recognizes it. The canon is a collection of authoritative books that are authoritative because God commissioned them. Recognizing the canon does not bear on its canonicity but determines only whether that given community will allow the canon to function as authority. (Peckham 2011, 205) A difference exists between what Peckham is describing here and the pure Intrinsic-Canon approach. The pure Intrinsic-Canon approach says the God inspired the texts, the texts are self-authenticating, and the texts need no recognition by the community to certify their inspiration. The pure approach has radical implications: it is a denial of the Church as a community, as the body of Christ, as the building fitly framed together on the foundations of the apostles and the prophets. The pure Intrinsic-Canon approach is a denial of the person and work of the Holy Spirit within the Church and a denial of the Church as the pillar and ground of the truth. Peckham describes a hybrid approach when he gives the community the role of recognizing the canon. Peckham defines the Intrinsic-Canon approach as “a collection of authoritative books that are authoritative because God commissioned [inspired] them.” Peckham fails to explore the practical implications of his approach. Conservative scholars believe the Old Testament came together over 1,000 years. It is difficult to speak of a canonical collection of authoritative books when the canon itself was incomplete and (seemingly) open-ended. Practically speaking, the inspiration of a book is meaningless apart from its witness to and within a community. There can be no collection of canonical books apart from the community who accepted the authority of the books and who preserved them, copied them, and used them in worship. Regardless of a book’s inspiration, it wouldn’t exist for long unless the community thought enough of it to go to the expense of copying it so that it could be shared within the community and across the centuries. Likewise, there can be no inspired writings without a community to receive them. God does not reveal Himself for His own sake, but ours. We should also note that John C. Peckham’s arguments against the Community-Approach apply to the Intrinsic-Canon approach as well. Peckham’s explanation of his hybrid Intrinsic-Canon approach argues for the community’s recognition of certain texts as authoritative. The inspiration of the text is pointless until the text is recognized and used. The Holy Spirit inspires the author and bears witness to the inspired text, and this witness takes place within and to the community of believers — the Church. The Holy Spirit works both within persons and within the Church. The Church is an entity, not an organization or assembly of individuals. The metaphors used of the Church speak of its organic unity. The Church is made up of persons distinguished by their particularity, but united in their essence. This is a true hypostatic union. If your conception of the Church is different, you will likely not agree with the idea that the Holy Spirit works within persons and within the Church; you will likely say that the Holy Spirit’s working within the Church is merely an amalgam of the Holy Spirit’s work within individuals. If we independently deal with the two views, they seem like alternate and opposing approaches. However, we have already noted that hybrid Intrinsic-Canon approach does not preclude the community’s involvement in recognizing that a particular book is authoritative and inspired. In practical terms, the two approaches are related, and any attempt to separate them is shortsighted at best. Objections to the Intrinsic-Canon Approach  Some say the scriptural text is inspired apart from and before the community's recognition of said inspiration. This pure Intrinsic-Canon approach is conceptually flawed. An inspired text has never existed apart from the community for whom it serves as a witness. Historically a prophet from a community would speak to that community. Afterward, either the prophet, his amanuensis, or his followers would write down he had said. From that point, the continued existence of the text depended on the community copying it by hand; the community undertook this expensive and laborious process when the manuscript’s worth was recognized. Therefore, a text's continued existence is dependent upon its recognition by and usefulness within the community. The idea that the preservation of a text is related to the community's acceptance of the text leads to the idea that the number of preserved or extant manuscripts reflects the importance of that manuscript to the community. Michael J. Kruger describes this as "Extant Manuscript" evidence, which concept us used to demonstrate the canonicity of the New Testament books over against the New Testament apocryphal writings — in particular, the gnostic texts recently discovered in the Nag Hammadi library. (Kruger 2013) The history of the book of Jeremiah is important in this regard. As previously discussed, Jehoiakim, king of Judah destroyed the original text of Jeremiah; Jeremiah then dictated another scroll to his scribe, Baruch (Jeremiah 36). If we accept the intrinsic-canon approach, we now have a problem. Which manuscript was inspired: the first scroll or the second? There is a reason to think both of them were inspired, but only one is canonical. The proclamation (the κήρυγμα, kerugma, or kerygma) convicted Jehoiakim who destroyed the original manuscript. The destruction of the first edition of Jeremiah does not invalidate Jeremiah as the Herald (the κηρύσσω, kerusso), and suggests the first text of Jeremiah was inspired. Therefore, a pure Intrinsic-Canon approach will not do, as it does not account for the problem of the two Jeremiahs — in particular, the destruction of an inspired revelatory text. The pure Intrinsic-Canon approach has other problems, the most important of which is that the community uses certain guidelines or standards to judge whether a book is canonical or not. According to F.F. Bruce, the community decided that “the teaching of the apostles in the Acts and Epistles was regarded as vested with His [Christ’s] authority.” (Bruce, The Canon of Scripture 2008) The realization that a book was vested with Christ’s authority became the standard used to judge against the disputed books of Hebrews, II Peter, and II & III John. Eventually, the community recognized the disputed books as authoritative and inspired despite their not meeting the community’s initial guidelines. The idea of an inspired text existing apart from the community's recognition of its inspiration presents a serious textual problem. The same standards which argue for and against certain books being part of the canon can be used to argue that other books should also be part of the canon. Take, for example, the idea that if a book of Scripture references another book, that book may be assumed to be Scripture as well. However logical this may appear, it nonetheless false. The Old Testament names several authoritative books, yet these books are not part of the canon. Despite being mentioned and used as reference material, none of these books are part of the Old Testament. It is clear that most of them are government records and were authoritative on that basis without requiring inspiration. Others of these are records that were likely useful to the priestly class but did not rise to the level of Scripture, much like the books that fill a pastor’s library. Table SEQ Table \* ARABIC 4: Books Referenced in the Old Testament (Lumpkin, The Books of Enoch 2011, 7-8) Book Citation The Book of Records (Book of the Chronicles of Ahasuerus) Est 2:23; 6:1 Samuel’s Book 1 Sm 10:25 The Book of Jasher 2 Sm 1:18 The Acts of Solomon 1 Kgs 11:41 The Chronicles of King David 1 Chr 27:24 The Chronicles of Samuel, Nathan, Gad 1 Chr 29:29 The Records of Nathan the Prophet 2 Chr 9:29 The Prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite 2 Chr 9:29 The Treatise of the Prophet Iddo 2 Chr 13:22 The Annals of Jehu 2 Chr 20:34 The Book of the Kings 2 Chr 24:27 The Sayings of Hozai 2 Chr 33:19 We also know of epistles referenced in the New Testament but not accepted as Scripture. One such is Paul’s epistle to the Laodiceans, There are various spurious versions of this Epistle to the Laodiceans, one of which became part of Wycliffe’s translation of the New Testament. referenced in his epistle to the Colossians: And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea. (Col 4:16) While the primitive church did not have a fixed canon of New Testament writings, the post-apostolic church quickly divided books into those that were read in church and those that were not. For Paul to tell the Colossians to read his letter to the Laodiceans in church suggests the idea of canonicity. And yet the letter to the Laodiceans was lost. Paul may have written four letters to the Corinthians, of which only two remain. In 1 Corinthians, Paul references an earlier letter (1 Cor 5:9). Then in 2 Corinthians, we have a reference to another letter, the details of which are not clear (2 Cor 2:3-4). This letter, coming between 1 and 2 Corinthians, is different from the pseudepigraphical 3rd Epistle to the Corinthians, which was composed sometime in the mid-to-late 2nd century. We also have the Book of Enoch, a Jewish text that is quoted in the book of Revelation and which the book of Jude cites . Thus, four extra-biblical texts are either cited, quoted, or mentioned in five different New Testament Scriptures. At least two of those books have a troubled canonical history, which suggests the difficulty with using a rules-based approach to determining canonicity. A related canonical standard is that if a suspect book references a book that is acknowledged not to be scripture, the suspect book is therefore assumed not to be scripture. While not a hard and fast rule, the latter idea kept the book of Jude from being widely acknowledged as part of the canon, as it cites the Book of Enoch. Another example of a canonical standard is the argument of some that the canon of the Old Testament was closed around 400 B.C. — after the reign of Artaxerxes, according to Flavius Josephus, and after the book of Malachi was written, according to any number of Protestant authors. Unfortunately, this canonical standard is wholly arbitrary. The argument seems to be that no canonical books were written after 400 B.C., so any book written after 400 B.C. is not canonical. This is kind of like saying all swans are white, so any swan that isn’t white isn’t a swan. Another way of stating the previous argument is that Malachi was the last prophet and ushered in the intertestamental period. Even people who argue for this position recognize its weaknesses. Rabbi Hayyim Angel writes: Even if Malachi were the last of the biblical prophets, there is no statement at the end of his book or anywhere else in the Bible stating categorically that prophecy had ceased. For example, Nehemiah battled false prophets (Neh. 6:5–7, 11–13) but did not negate the existence of prophecy in principle. (Angel 2011) Nevertheless, Rabbi Angel assumes a definite end to the prophetic era. Protestants tend to borrow this Jewish line of thinking, saying the prophetic witness ended with Malachi and did not begin again until to the coming of John the Baptist. We will return to this argument further in chapters 20 & 40. For now, it is enough to mention the argument I heard as a youth — that the intertestamental period was typologically connected to the Old Testament period when prophecy had ceased, the period before the coming of Samuel the Prophet. This is a rather weak argument as analogies do not constitute proof. The Verbal Icon and the Holy Spirit  Karl Barth, the most important Protestant theologian of the twentieth century, states: "the Bible is the witness of divine revelation." Barth thus draws a distinction between the revelation of God and the Bible as the witness to that revelation, a distinction that should apply to the Intrinsic-Canon approach. Barth goes on to state: "there is a Word of God for the Church: in that it receives in the Bible, the witness of divine revelation." (Barth, Church Dogmatics I.2 2004, 462) Thus, the Bible is the Word of God for the Church precisely because of its witness to divine revelation. Regarding this proposition, Barth writes: A witness is not absolutely identical with that to which it witnesses. This corresponds with the facts upon which the truth of the whole proposition is based. In the Bible we meet with human words written in human speech, and in these words, and therefore by means of them, we hear of the lordship of the triune God. Therefore when we have to do with the Bible, we have to do primarily with this means, with these words, with the witness which as such is not itself a revelation, but only — and this is the limitation — the witness to it. (Ibid, 463) Barth is careful to say that the Bible mediates the original revelation; that it is the means by which the revelation comes to us, the means by which the revelation accommodates itself to us, and the means by which the revelation of God becomes "an actual presence and event." (Ibid, 463) In other words, the revelation of God is primary; the text of the Bible is absolutely dependent upon the initial revelation. The text is a faithful witness to that revelation, but must be distinguished from it. Georges Florovsky, Emeritus Professor of Eastern Church History at Harvard University, (c. 1972) has a related but different take on this subject. In reaction to liberalism, and to some extent neo-orthodoxy, Florovsky notes that we cannot separate the message from the manuscript. It has recently been suggested that we should radically “demythologize” Scripture, meaning to replace the more antiquated categories of the Holy Writ by something more modern. Yet the question cannot be evaded: Is the language of Scripture really nothing else than an accidental and external wrapping out of which some “eternal idea” is to be extricated and disentangled, or is it rather a perennial vehicle for the divine message, which was once delivered for all time? (Florovsky 1972, 10) In another passage, Florovsky says: The message is divine; it comes from God; it is the Word of God. But it is the faithful community that acknowledges the Word spoken and testifies to its truth. The sacred character of the Bible is ascertained by faith. The Bible, as a book, has been composed in the community and was meant primarily for its edification. The book and the Church cannot be separated. (Ibid, 18) There is a connection between the message and the text. The text is inspired because of the message, yet the message cannot be removed from the text. The two are separate, yet the two are bound together in such a way that even though the text is translated or transmuted into other forms, the reader finds the revelation of God within the text. The revelation of God is found in its purest form in the original language and explained most clearly using the original idiom. Georges Florovsky writes: “How can we interpret at all if we have forgotten the original language? Would it not be safer to bend our thought to the mental habits of the biblical language and to relearn the idiom of the Bible?” (Ibid, 10) In the same way, there is a connection between the message and the Church. The message was written for the Church and is properly understood by and within the Church. The revelation is not subject to private interpretation (2Pe 1:20). Both the holy men of God and the false prophets spoke: “among the people” (2Pe 2:1). The false prophets beguile “unstable souls” (2Pe 2:14) away from the community of faith while the community remains “mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour (2Pe 3:2). The message, text, and Church: the three are inextricably interwoven, such that neither can be properly understood without the other two. St. Irenaeus (c. 130-202 AD], in Book I of Against Heresies, demonstrates this using his famous metaphor of Scripture as a mosaic. He writes: By transferring passages, and dressing them up anew, and making one thing out of another, they succeed in deluding many through their wicked art in adapting the oracles of the Lord to their opinions. Their manner of acting is just as if one, when a beautiful image of a king has been constructed by some skilful artist out of precious jewels, should then take this likeness of the man all to pieces, should rearrange the gems, and so fit them together as to make them into the form of a dog or of a fox, and even that but poorly executed; and should then maintain and declare that this was the beautiful image of the king which the skilful artist constructed, pointing to the jewels which had been admirably fitted together by the first artist to form the image of the king, but have been with bad effect transferred by the latter one to the shape of a dog, and by thus exhibiting the jewels, should deceive the ignorant who had no conception what a king’s form was like, and persuade them that that miserable likeness of the fox was, in fact, the beautiful image of the king. In like manner do these persons patch together old wives’ fables, and then endeavour, by violently drawing away from their proper connection, words, expressions, and parables whenever found, to adapt the oracles of God to their baseless fictions. (Schaff, ANF01 1884, Against Heresies, I.8.1, pp. 534-535) Irenaeus is arguing against the near-universal tendency towards proof-texting. Our natural tendency is to search for ways to validate our own opinions or to interpret things according to our pre-existing mental framework. Many of the things we think we know are influenced by tacit knowledge, which is knowledge absorbed without conscious knowledge, and without our ability to verbalize how we know what we know. According to the philosopher Michael Polanyi, many of the propositions we assume to be true are the product of tacit knowledge. We attend from our tacit knowledge to something else; from the proximal to the distal. (Polanyi 1966, 10) In this way, we use our mental framework to incorporate new facts. Suppose someone uses a set of Scrabble® tiles to create a quote from Shakespeare, while someone else mixes up those tiles and uses them to create a quote from Bruce Springsteen. The individual tiles are the same, but it would be wrong to assume that the second quote is equivalent to the first. Here would be a good place to develop the idea of the "Verbal Icon.” William Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley write: The term icon is used today by semeiotic writers to refer to a verbal sign which somehow shares the properties of, or resembles, the objects which it denotes. The same term in its more usual meaning refers to a visual image and especially to one which is a religious symbol. The verbal image which most fully realizes its verbal capacities is that which is not merely a bright picture (in the usual modern meaning of the term image) but also an interpretation of reality in its metaphoric and symbolic dimensions. Thus: The Verbal Icon. (Wimsatt and Beardsley 1953, Kindle Locations 35-38) The icon is an image of a thing and not the thing itself. Thus, the icon is symbolic of the object to which it refers; the icon interprets and illumines reality. The icon is not less than real; its reality is reinforced by its referent. When God says "Let us make man in our image" (Gen 1:26), the Hebrew word used is צלם (tselem, pronounced tseh’- lem). The Greek translation of that term is εικων (eikon, pronounced i-kone’), which is the source for our English word icon. Thus, an icon is not, as is often thought, merely a visual symbolic representation. Humans are the created icon of God; paintings may be icons of Jesus, of saints, and angels; and the Bible may be a "verbal icon" of God. (Constantinou, Introduction to the Bible Lesson 2 2008) Georges Florovsky writes of the Evangelists and Apostles as not writing histories, but creators of verbal icons. The Evangelists and Apostles were no chroniclers. It was not their mission to keep the full record of all that Jesus had done, day by day, years by year. This is why the Evangelists present the events of Christ’s life in different ways and in different orders. The Gospels are arranged theologically, not chronologically. The Gospels are teaching tools rather than biographies. They describe his life and relate his works, so as to give us his image: an historic, and yet a divine image. It is no portrait, but rather an ikon — but surely an historic ikon, an image of the Incarnate Lord. (Florovsky 1972, 25) The Scriptures are written in human language. Words are not the thing itself; words are symbols of the thing itself. The word "running" represents the act of running; the word "love" represents an abstract concept but is not the essence or experience of love; the word "God" represents many things, none of which capture the essence of divinity. The writer Frank Schaeffer says, “The problem with theology is its words to describe stuff, and the words are never as valuable as the thing they are trying to describe.” (Schaeffer 2014) Because of the consideration and condescension of God, we have this verbal icon called Sacred Scripture. As St. John Chrysostom says in his Homily 17 on Genesis: Let us follow the direction of Sacred Scripture in the interpretation it gives of itself, provided we don't get completely absorbed in the concreteness of the words, but realize that our limitations are the reason for the concreteness of the language. Human senses, you see, would never be able to grasp what is said if they had not the benefit of such great considerateness. Robert C. Hill, the translator of Chrysostom's Homilies on Genesis 1-17, writes of Chrysostom’s theology of the Word as displaying: “the delicate balance of the two correlatives[:] …divine transcendence and considerateness for human limitations." (St John Chrysostom 1999, 228) Sacred Scripture represents both the immanence and transcendence of God through the limitations of human language. Using an idea from C.S. Lewis (or Dr. Who), the inside is larger than the outside. (Lewis 1970, 180) St. John of Damascus writes of the "womb in which the Uncontained dwelt." (Cunningham 2011, Kindle Location 1458) Germanos of Constantinople describes infant Jesus as being "wider than the heavens." (Ibid, Kindle Location 3328) Our Lord Jesus Christ was both locally present according to his humanity, and at the same time everywhere present and filling all things according to his divinity. We should therefore not be astonished at the idea that God, who is ineffable, inconceivable, invisible, incomprehensible, ever existing and eternally the same, nevertheless shows consideration of human weakness by allowing His divinity to be circumscribed in human language, just as He allowed his divinity to be contained in human flesh. The Bible is the verbal icon of Christ, just as Christ is the icon of God the Father. If we accept the idea that the initial revelation of God is separate and distinct from the capture of that witness in the pages of Sacred Scripture, then we have a problem, for the Bible is witness to that revelation, and therefore not that revelation itself. Thus, the Intrinsic-Canon approach to canonicity will not work. But the Community-Canon approach will not work either, for the revelation of God predates the community's recognition of its witness in the text. Professor John Behr, writing in The Way to Nicaea, describes the problem with both the Community-Canon and the Intrinsic-Canon approach. If we are to understand the particular contours of this debate and its resolution, we must avoid reading its terms in the manner set by the polemics of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, in which Scriptures is opposed to tradition, as two distinct sources of authority. Separating Scripture and tradition in this way introduces an inevitable quandary: if the locus of authority is fixed solely in Scripture, and “canon” is understood exclusively in the sense of a “list” of authoritative books, then accounting for that list becomes problematic; if, on the other hand, Scripture is subsumed under tradition, on the grounds that the Church predates the writings of the New Testament (Conveniently forgetting, in a Marcionite fashion, the existence of Scripture — the Law, the Psalms and the Prophets), then again a problem arises from the lack of a criterion or canon, this time for differentiating, as is often done, between “Tradition” and “traditions” — all traditions are venerable, though some more so than others, yet the basis for this distinctions is never clarified. (Behr 2001, 12-13) The two descriptions of canonicity have similar difficulties. The Intrinsic-Canon approach does not provide a means for differentiating between different canonical lists, nor evaluating the truth claims of each. Likewise, the Community-Canon approach provides no basis for differentiating between different traditions, nor evaluating the veracity and value of differing traditions. Both approaches to canonicity give lip service to the person and work of the Holy Spirit. If we accept the Holy Spirit's role as working with "holy men of God" (2 Pet 1:21) apart from their witness to the community as a whole, then we must accept the possibility of an inspired text existing apart from its recognition as Scripture by the community. We know that it took time after a book was written and in use by the community before the community began to refer to it as Scripture. In nearly every case (with the possible exception of 2 Pet 3:15-16 and Revelation), what the New Testament authors speak of as Scripture is the Old Testament, even while using the books that would become the New Testament in their services. And, as we have mentioned previously, Paul referred to his writings as "traditions" and "epistles" (meaning letters), rather than as Scripture (2 Th 2:15). The recognition that Paul did not refer to his own writings as Scripture is significant. Paul was forced to defend his apostleship as he was not one of the original twelve. We might expect Paul to defend his epistles as scripture, but he does not. The account of the Holy Spirit working with "holy men of God" might indicate that the primary work of the Holy Spirit is with individuals. However, the thesis that the Holy Spirit's ministry is primarily individual is a problem. The very concept of the individual is a recent western phenomenon. The ancients considered themselves to be persons, but persons who were part of a larger whole. Their identity as persons, their self-worth and reason for living, was tied to the community they were part of and their position within that community. Thus, the prophet was moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Pt 1:21) to be a witness to the community. Eventually, the prophet’s witness was accepted as such by that same community, as influenced by that same Holy Spirit. The Protestant conception of the Holy Spirit's working primarily through individuals was unknown to the biblical authors, for whom inspiration developed within a community, and functioned as a witness to that community. Thus, the inspiration of Sacred Scripture was the Holy Spirit's witness to the community using the prophets and the inspired record of the original revelation of God. The Holy Spirit doesn't work solely at the one level, through the individual, but within and through the community as well. Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 1 The Prophetic Cycle The prophet speaks The prophet writes The community accepts The community fails The prophet speaks The prophet writes The community accepts The community fails If we accept the idea that the Holy Spirit works within the community, and in a special way to persons as a witness to that community, then a text can be inspired apart from the community's initial recognition of such. However, the Holy Spirit works within the community towards its recognition of the Scriptures. While the western idea of time is linear, the people who wrote the bible had a more cyclical view of time. The prophet’s writing and the community’s acceptance are one half of the cycle, the other half being the community’s failure to live up to the prophecy, and God’s raising of another prophet. Moreover, although we are limited by time, the Holy Spirit is not. From God's perspective, it is unlikely there is any difference between the Scripture's recording of revelation and the community's recognition of that record as inspired. Although God created time and is aware of its effect upon us, God is apart from time, seeing the particular moment and the sweep of history all at once. In his argument against the Community-Canon approach, John C. Peckham fails to notice his point also applies to the Reformation. The idea that the Reformers could determine for themselves the canon of Scripture raises the question of their authority to do so. Did the Holy Spirit reveal Himself to the Reformers in a way that He had not revealed Himself to the previous 1,500 years of the body of Christ? By what authority were the Reformers able to make that decision on behalf of themselves and their followers, over against the authority of the witness of the Holy Spirit to the Church of the first millennium? What were the criteria the Reformers used to determine which books the Holy Spirit inspired? It is hard to see how the Reformation’s recognition and reception of books as inspired is any different from that of the historical Church. The terms are different, but the process is the same — making it an act of sophistry to assert such a difference. The Confession of Patriarch Dositheos (c. 1672) references this issue. He writes: We believe the Divine and Sacred Scriptures to be God-taught; and, therefore, we ought to believe the same without doubting; yet not otherwise than as the Catholic Church When Patriarch Dositheos mentions the Catholic Church, he is referring to the Orthodox Catholic Church (or church catholic), not the Roman Catholic Church (which left Orthodoxy in 1054 A.D). hath interpreted and delivered the same. For every foul heresy receiveth, indeed, the Divine Scriptures, but perversely interpreteth the same, using metaphors, and homonymies, and sophistries of man's wisdom, confounding what ought to be distinguished, and trifling with what ought not to be trifled with. For if otherwise, each man holding every day a different sense concerning the same, the Catholic Church would not by the grace of Christ continue to be the Church until this day, holding the same doctrine of faith, and always identically and steadfastly believing, but would be rent into innumerable parties, and subject to heresies; neither would the Church be holy, the pillar and ground of the truth, without spot or wrinkle; but would be the Church of the malignant as it is manifest that of the heretics undoubtedly is, and especially that of Calvin, who are not ashamed to learn from the Church, and then to wickedly repudiate her. Wherefore, the witness also of the Catholic Church is, we believe, not of inferior authority to that of the Divine Scriptures. For one and the same Holy Spirit being the author of both, it is quite the same to be taught by the Scriptures and by the Catholic Church. (Trenham 2015, 318-319) The question of which community has the authority to decide can be difficult for some. There are a variety of ways to approach the issue. For myself, the question was answered when I became convinced through the pages of Scripture, the witness of the church fathers, and the evidence of Church history that the fullness of the Church was to be found only in Eastern Orthodoxy. Your response is between you and the Holy Spirit. Once you prayerfully examine the evidence, it may well be that the Holy Spirit wants you to stay where you are. I do not believe that to be the case, but I dare not presume to tell the Holy Spirit what to do. The question of which community determine the canon was answered in different ways by different communities in the early church. Some churches used books that were later dropped from the canon by the larger community. Other books that were later included in the canon which had been rejected at some point by large parts of the Christian world. Different bishops produced different canonical lists, lists which in some cases were changed by their successors using different criteria. What criteria were used? Georges Florovsky writes: Whatever the origin of particular documents included in the book may have been, it is obvious that the book, as a whole, was a creation of the community, both in the old dispensation and in the Christian Church. The Bible is by no means a complete collection of all historical, legislative and devotional writings available, but a selection of some, authorized and authenticated by the use (first of all liturgical) in the community, and finally by the formal authority of the church. And there was some very definite purpose by which this “selection” was guided and checked. (Florovsky 1972, 17-18) How then was this canonical process guided and checked? What were the criteria used? The primary criterion was apostolicity. Not every New Testament book was written by an apostle, but every New Testament book was consistent with the witness of the apostles. While this may seem a highly subjective assessment, it was considerably more objective in the primitive church, as it contained people who had been taught by the apostles themselves. As the earliest canonical testimonies contained the core of the New Testament as we know it today, we can safely say these books were confirmed by those who were taught by the apostles. Part of apostolicity has to do with orthodoxy, with the regula fidei — the rule (or deposit) of faith. When the apostle Paul reminded the Thessalonians of all that he had taught them concerning the Gospel, he used the term "traditions,” which is a way of referring to the apostolic deposit, the rule of faith. But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. (2 Th 2:13-15) Paul uses a similar line of thought when he addresses the Corinthians, telling them he is sending Timothy to remind them of "his ways" which he teaches everywhere, and to every church. A brief discussion of the church is necessary. The church is not a voluntary community of like-minded individuals who adhere to the church out of custom, family ties, or common doctrinal understandings. Scripture tells us the Church is the body of Christ. Scripture does not distinguish between the visible and the invisible church, as some Protestants define it. The Church is an entity, a “corporate reality”, a community. No one is a Christian by themselves, but only as part of the community. Christianity is a life shared with the community. Christ Himself is a member of this community; He is the head, we are the members of the body, all knit together through the abiding and dwelling of the Holy Spirit. (Florovsky 1972, 59-60) In this extended passage he tells them not to follow the teachings of men, but to follow the rule of faith which is held in common among the churches — the faith which we call orthodox doctrine. I beseech you, be ye followers of me. For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church. (1 Cor 4:16-17) Related to the criterion of the rule of faith is the criterion that the text must be consistent and free of contradiction. We are speaking of more than mere internal consistency; more important was that the writing did not contradict other writings considered to be Scripture. In this vein, Justin Martyr argues that Scripture does not contradict itself. If a Scripture which appears to be of such a kind be brought forward, and if there be a pretext [for saying] that it is contrary [to some other], since I am entirely convinced that no Scripture contradicts another, I shall admit rather that I do not understand what is recorded, and shall strive to persuade those who imagine that the Scriptures are contradictory, to be rather of the same opinion as myself. (Schaff, ANF01 1884, 370) Another element of apostolicity is its antiquity. One of Tertullian's arguments against the truncated canon of Marcion is that it doesn't pass the test of antiquity. Tertullian argues the Church had accepted unedited version of Luke from the time Luke wrote it, while Marcion's edited version was unknown to the Church. In his writing, he links apostolicity with antiquity. That Gospel of Luke which we are defending with all our might has stood its ground from its very first publication; whereas Marcion’s Gospel is not known to most people, and to none whatever is it known without being at the same time condemned. It too, of course, has its churches, but specially its own—as late as they are spurious; and should you want to know their original, you will more easily discover apostasy in it than apostolicity, with Marcion forsooth as their founder, or some one of Marcion’s swarm. Even wasps make combs; so also these Marcionites make churches. The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence to the other Gospels also, which we possess equally through their means, and according to their usage — I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew — whilst that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter’s whose interpreter Mark was. For even Luke’s form of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul. (Schaff and Menzies, ANF03 2006, 581-582) Another important criterion was authorship. Was the author of a particular book known and accepted as an authority? The book of Hebrews was troubling because the book does not state who wrote it; moreover, the book's authorship has been lost. Some, such as Eusebius, attribute the book of Hebrews to the apostle Paul. The Pauline authorship is doubtful, and the Western Church did not include the book in its list of approved texts because of its disputed authorship. Eventually, Hebrews was accepted as Sacred Scripture. The important thing to note is that authorship is a criterion while the status of a book is in doubt. Once the general consensus of the Church declares this or that book to be Scripture, the issue of authorship is no longer relevant. Today various books of the Old and New Testament are disputed. Many scholars believe that II Peter was not written by Peter, but instead by Peter's disciples after his death. Some scholars believe the Revelation and the Gospel of John were written by different people. The authorship (in the modern sense) of the five books of Moses is in dispute. All this is troubling to the Protestant mind, and some have even lost their faith over issues such as these. These issues are unimportant to the Orthodox, and indeed to other non-Protestant Christians. For them, the Church settled these issues. The books of Hebrews, II Peter, Revelation, and the Pentateuch are Scripture no matter the author. Another important canonical criterion is that the writings churches read these books during worship. Texts read in Church needed to be authoritative. For example, Paul's letters were written to be read aloud in the church; they were then copied and passed on to other churches, who found them to be valuable and worthy of being read in church. The material regularly used in Church became our New Testament. Steve Rudd writes: The regular use of writings in the ancient churches was also an important factor in their selection for the New Testament canon. This is what Eusebius had in mind when he mentioned that certain writings were "recognized" (homolegoumena) among the churches and became "encovenanted" (endiathekoi = "testamented" or "canonical"). (Rudd n.d.) (Schaff, NPNF2-01 1890, III, XXV, 3) One criterion applied to the book of Jude was that inspired writings should not cite books that were not part of the canon. Since Jude quotes the Book of Enoch, some argued that the book of Jude should not be read in church. Eventually, this argument was deemed unpersuasive; Jude became part of the New Testament canon. These different criteria were not applied one at a time as part of some algorithmic process. There are books that seemingly meet these criterions yet did not make it into the canon. The Didache was written before 70 AD and the destruction of the temple. For a number of reasons, some date the Didache as early as 50 AD. First, its discussion of the two ways is Jewish in origin, suggesting a composition date before gentiles were a majority (see Deut 30:19; Jer 21:8; and Mt 7:13-15). Paul and Barnabas were not sent to the Gentiles until 47 AD, and reported to the council in Jerusalem in 49 AD, after which Christianity slowly began to be a Gentile phenomenon. The thesis proposed by Aaron Milavec (and others) is that the Didache is a program of catechesis for gentile converts. (Milavec, The Didache 2003, passim) Second, Christianity was first called “The Way”, and only later called Christianity (Acts 9:2; 11:26). Third, the Didache mentions the “Gospel of our Lord”, but fails to mention or quote the Gospels, indicating it was written before the Gospels themselves. (The supposed citations of Matthew are contextually different). (Milavec, The Didache 2003, Kindle Edition Kindle Location 2053 ff) Fourth, there is no indication the writer knows anything about Paul’s epistles or any of the rest of the New Testament. Fifth, the baptismal and Eucharistic rites are quite primitive. And sixth, there is no hint of the fall of Jerusalem. Some wanted to attach it to the end of the Gospel of Matthew where it seems a natural fit. Matthew appears to have functioned as an early catechesis, organized as it is around the five discourses. (Scaer, Discourse in Matthew: Jesus Teaches the Church 2004) Aaron Milavec makes a persuasive argument that the Didache was a Gentile catechesis. (Milavec, The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life 2003, 53) The two catechetical writings may have seemed a natural fit. As it describes the regular functioning of the church, its use was normative in the early church. It certainly does not contradict any other Scripture text, and yet it did not make it into the canon. Some books like Clement 1, the epistles of Ignatius, and the Shepherd of Hermas were fully orthodox in doctrine, were often read in church, and yet were left out of the canon. The process of canonical formation is not a smooth, logical process. The rules were applied loosely and sometimes were bent or ignored. The only rules applied across the board were that a document had to be consistent with other Scripture and be fully orthodox in doctrine. The rest of the rules were applied in a seemingly haphazard fashion, a process that suggests a supra-rational approach, following the leading of the Holy Spirit working within the community of faith. John C. Peckham asserts the difficulty in determining which community has the authority to determine the bounds of Sacred Scripture, particularly as different communities decide upon very different things. He also asserts, with the apostle Peter, that inspiration of the holy men of God is the work of the Holy Spirit. Thus, we have two positions, seemingly opposed to one another. Peckham writes of the “division between those who believe that the canon is a community-determined construction and those who believe that the canon is divinely appointed and thus merely recognized, but not determined, by any given community." (Peckham 2011, 203) While the terms Peckham uses may be his own, the distinction between these two positions is at the heart of the Protestant argument. I submit that we have here an example of the logical fallacy known as the "false dilemma,” where an issue is described as having only two possible solutions when in fact there may be others. I also submit that the description of the position Peckham disagrees with — the Community-Canon — is wholly artificial, and an example of the logical fallacy known as the "straw man.” As mentioned before, the issue of canon and canonicity is peculiar to Protestants. The solution to Peckham’s dilemma is found in the person and work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not limited to working linearly; first this, then that. God is everywhere present and filling all things; this includes time as well as space. The Holy Spirit inspires the prophet to write and inspires the community of faith to respond. The witness of the Holy Spirit comes as a still, small voice, working within the heart of the community, just as He is at work in the heart of the prophet. As dripping water bores a hole through rock, so also the voice of the Holy Spirit bears witness to the Scriptures, leading the community of faith to their recognition. The question of Community-Canon vs. Intrinsic-Canon is an example of Systematic Theology (or Dogmatics) run amuck. The Church has a long history of organizing its dogma around various themes, but the Western Church has taken this to extremes. The Western way of doing theology, going back further than Aquinas, has promoted the use of one's reasoning faculties as the way to the truth. This tendency has increased with the Protestant Reformation and its insistence on the primacy of reason and the individual conscience as a means of interpreting Scripture. What began as a way to organize dogma around simple themes has developed into uncountable definitions of terms and increasingly complex theological taxonomies. The question of canonicity is part of that pattern. The question of canonicity is not interesting for the Eastern Orthodox. In the second volume of his book, Orthodox Christianity, Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev discusses the differences between the Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox canons. He describes the differences between the canons and the reasons why they might be different. But the issue of canonicity itself, being primarily a Protestant issue, is mentioned not at all. (Alfeyev, Orthodox Christianity Vol. II 2012, 33-41) The church settled these issues long ago, and there is no need to justify the Orthodox canon. The New Testament Witness  Peter writes approvingly of Paul’s epistles: And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction” (2 Pet 3:15-16). What Peter refers to as “other Scriptures” clearly refers to the Old Testament. Dr. Benjamin B. Warfield, the late professor of theology at Princeton Seminary, makes an argument that Peter was indeed declaring Paul’s epistles to be Scripture. (B. B. Warfield 1882, passim) Although this may be inferred from the link between the “other Scriptures” and Paul’s writings, it is not certain that Peter intends to place Paul’s writings into that category. Peter does not say which of Paul’s many epistles were Scripture; we know that Paul wrote more letters than just the ones preserved in the New Testament. Indeed, we can say that Peter refers to Paul’s epistles, but does not directly call them Scripture. Even if we were to suppose that Peter meant to lump Paul’s epistles in with the “other Scriptures, that does not mean they were part of the Church’s “collection of authoritative books.” He may have been first among the apostles, but that does not equate to primacy — first among equals is more like it. (Roman Catholics would beg to differ, of course). We note from both Acts and Galatians that Peter was led astray and was rebuked for his error by the apostle Paul. Given that, we need not assume any pronouncement of Peter was, on that basis alone, accepted by the Church at large. Dr. Benjamin B. Warfield claims the apostle Paul as a witness to Luke's gospel when he writes: “Beyond what witness one apostolic book was to bear to another — as Paul in 1 Tim. v. 18 authenticates Luke — and what witness an apostolic book may bear to itself, we cannot appeal at this day to immediate apostolic authorisation.” (Ibid, 45) Warfield’s citation is in error; the cited passage has nothing to do with Luke’s writings: “For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward” (1 Tim 5:18). Warfield likely meant 2 Tim 2:8: “Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel.” Paul’s reference to “my gospel” could be an endorsement of the Gospel According to Luke. The Church Fathers sometimes refer to Luke as “Paul’s gospel” because Luke was Paul’s disciple. Even if we accept that the apostles Peter and Paul are bearing witness to the inspiration of some of the New Testament books, what does that say about the self-authenticating Scriptures? We note that neither Peter nor Paul is authenticating their work, but rather the work of another. Neither is Peter or Paul authenticating the entire corpus of the New Testament, but at best only a limited and uncertain portion. What are we to make of the many references of the New Testament to the Scriptures? Clearly, when Jesus and others speak of the Scriptures, they are referring to the Old Testament. While the Canon as a regula fidei [rule of faith] existed, the Canon as a catalog of books did not. Therefore, although the reference is clearly to the Old Testament, it does not help us define the contents of the catalog. Ultimately, if the self-authentication of the Sacred Scriptures is based on epistemological criteria, initial assumptions, and subjective reasonings, then the idea of self-authentication falls apart. John Calvin, the Church, and the Canon  John Calvin, in his argument against the role of the Church in the canonical process, does discuss the role of the Holy Spirit. However, he indicates that the Holy Spirit works in the individual rather than in and through the Church. Calvin writes: “A most pernicious error has very generally prevailed—viz. that Scripture is of importance only in so far as conceded to it by the suffrage of the Church.” (Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion 2005, I.7.1) Please note that while Paul references the “foundation of the apostles and prophets”, it is Calvin who assumes this references “the writings of the prophets”, as though the preaching of the prophets was not inspired until it was written down. Calvin then argues that since the apostles and prophets existed before the Church, that the inspiration of the Scriptures is intrinsic apart from the Church. These ravings are admirably refuted by a single expression of an apostle. Paul testifies that the Church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets,” (Eph. 2:20). If the doctrine of the apostles and prophets is the foundation of the Church, the former must have had its certainty before the latter began to exist. Nor is there any room for the cavil, that though the Church derives her first beginning from thence, it still remains doubtful what writings are to be attributed to the apostles and prophets, until her Judgment is interposed. For if the Christian Church was founded at first on the writings of the prophets, and the preaching of the apostles, that doctrine, wheresoever it may be found, was certainly ascertained and sanctioned antecedently to the Church, since, but for this, the Church herself never could have existed. Nothing therefore can be more absurd than the fiction, that the power of judging Scripture is in the Church, and that on her nod its certainty depends. (Ibid, I.7.2) John Calvin notes that the inspiration of the Scriptures precedes its recognition by the Church. Since the Church’s determination of the canon is invalid, John Calvin replaces the Church with the Holy Spirit who enlightens the individual believer’s heart. Let it therefore be held as fixed, that those who are inwardly taught by the Holy Spirit acquiesce implicitly in Scripture; that Scripture, carrying its own evidence along with it, deigns not to submit to proofs and arguments, but owes the full conviction with which we ought to receive it to the testimony of the Spirit. Enlightened by him, we no longer believe, either on our own Judgment or that of others, that the Scriptures are from God; but, in a way superior to human Judgment, feel perfectly assured—as much so as if we beheld the divine image visibly impressed on it—that it came to us, by the instrumentality of men, from the very mouth of God. We ask not for proofs or probabilities on which to rest our Judgment, but we subject our intellect and Judgment to it as too transcendent for us to estimate. Such, then, is a conviction which asks not for reasons; such, a knowledge which accords with the highest reason, namely knowledge in which the mind rests more firmly and securely than in any reasons; such in fine, the conviction which revelation from heaven alone can produce. I say nothing more than every believer experiences in himself, though my words fall far short of the reality. I do not dwell on this subject at present, because we will return to it again: only let us now understand that the only true faith is that which the Spirit of God seals on our hearts. (Ibid, I.7.5) It is curious that John Calvin reason’s his way to a dismissal of human reason and posits some ephemeral, mystical revelation of inspiration to the individual believer. Of course, John Calvin then modifies this by reference to the “children of the renovated Church” made up of the “elect only,” who “shall be taught of the Lord” (Isaiah 54:13). Calvin’s argument isn’t so much against the Church bearing witness to the canon of Scripture, but against the Roman Catholic Church doing so. In essence, John Calvin's predisposition against the Roman Catholic Church colors his view of canonicity. We can break down his argument like this: 1) The Holy Spirit works within His true church. 2) The Roman Catholics do not constitute a true Church. 3) Therefore, the Holy Spirit does not work within the Roman Catholic Church. Calvin makes another argument: 1) The Holy Spirit works upon the hearts of the elect. 2) The Roman Catholic Church contains none of the elect. 3) Therefore, the Holy Spirit does not work within the Roman Catholic Church. Regarding the canon of Scripture, Calvin’s argument goes: 1) The Holy Spirit works to reveal the canon of Scripture to the elect. 2) The Church is the assembly of the elect and not an entity. 3) Therefore, the Holy Spirit works through an assemblage of individuals rather than through the Church as an entity. Of course, a syllogism can be logically true and yet be false. In these syllogisms, the middle statement, known as the minor premise, must be true for the conclusion to be true. But these minor premises are not themselves evidence, nor are they self-evidentially true. An Anti-Catholic bias has no evidentiary standing. The Eastern Orthodox do not consider Roman Catholicism to be the true Church either, but for different reasons than the Protestants. More importantly, Calvin fails to reckon that the prophets and apostles were members of the Church, the mystical body of Christ and that the Church was a continuation of the covenant people. In the 1970s and 80s, Protestant theologians developed a concept called Supercessionism to describe the historic position that the Church supercedes, replaces, and/or is the fulfillment of Judaism. As such, it is difficult to separate the inspiration of scripture from its ministry to and within the church. Indeed, the inspired Scriptures bore witness to divine revelation before that witness was formally recognized. The same Holy Spirit who inspired the prophets and apostles to write also inspired the bride of Christ to recognize what John Calvin calls “the testimony of the Spirit” when examining the Sacred Scriptures. When discussing issues of inspiration and canonicity, John Calvin denies the existence of the Church as an entity, or at least as an entity that supersedes the individual. Regarding theological anthropology and ecclesiology, John Calvin is arguing for the primacy of the individual over against the institutions to which the individual may belong. John Calvin is known to have declared those who disagreed with him to be heretics, making himself the infallible Pope of his Church. The ascendancy of the individual over against the Church is the spirit of the Protestant Reformation. Canonicity and the Holy Spirit  Protestant discussions of canonicity largely ignore the role of the Holy Spirit in creating and maintaining the canon of Scripture. The concept of the self-authenticating Scripture provides little room for God to act. John C. Peckham’s description of the Intrinsic-Canon approach, when carried to its logical conclusion, would seem to deify the Scriptures themselves. John Calvin makes a different claim when he argues the Holy Spirit works in the hearts of the elect, allowing them to mystically and individually recognize the Scriptures. Both claims are problematic. The first claim leads to the de facto divinization of Scripture; the second claim is a prescription for a highly individualistic religion, one which marginalizes the idea of the Church as the body of Christ. How might we begin to properly describe the role of the Holy Spirit in the canonical process? With the idea of Inspiration, as described in the Bible. The apostle Peter writes: "Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Pet 1:21). The Holy Ghost is described in the Old Testament as the breath of God, giving us the idea of inspiration, or "God-breathed.” Ruach Elohim (Spirit or Breath of God) Of the inspiration of Scripture, the apostle Paul writes: But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Pet 3:14-17) All Scripture is "given by inspiration of God." It is the spiration or breath of God, the manifestation of the Holy Spirit. The function of scripture is to "make us wise unto salvation,” which salvation comes "through faith which is in Christ Jesus." Peter’s description of role of scripture aligns well with Christ's description of the Holy Spirit’s role: "When the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me" (Jn 15:26). Just as Jesus reveals the Father to us, the Holy Spirit reveals to us the person and work of Christ Jesus. Jesus calls the Comforter "the Spirit of Truth" (Jn 14:17). To the Father, Jesus prays: "Thy word is truth" (Jn 17:17). Of the Holy Spirit, Jesus says: "He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you" (Jn 14:26). The Holy Spirit both inspires the Hebrew Scriptures and teaches us all things within the Church. Jude writes: These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit. But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life" (Jude 19-21). From this, we understand that those who separate themselves from the Church separate themselves from the Holy Spirit. As they have not the Spirit, they are unable to pray in the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, works in and through the Church, which is Christ's body, just as He works in and through the Scriptures to minister to the people of God. Christianity is not a matter of the individual’s relationship with God apart from the Church; no, Christianity makes the individual part of the Church. The apostle Paul writes to Timothy of the Church: "These things write I unto thee, …that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim 14-15). The "church of the living God" is "the pillar and ground of the truth." We need to unpack this a bit. The pillar and ground both refer to the metaphor of the church as a building made up of living stones, with Christ as the cornerstone and the apostles as the foundation (1 Pet 2:5-7; Eph 2:20). We should understand the ground as providing stability; it does not shift, which would cause the edifice to collapse (Mt 7:24-27). The ground also refers to the "good ground" that brings forth much fruit (Mt 13:23). The role of a pillar is to hold up and support the roof and refers to God's "upholding all things by the word of his power" (Heb 1:3). Thus, the idea of the pillar and the ground refers to the role of the Church in providing stability, support, and a structure within which persons may bring forth much fruit. We cannot ignore or otherwise diminish the existence of the Church in our discussions of the formation of the canon. Returning to the subject of canonicity, we see the Holy Spirit working in and through the Scripture (the Intrinsic-Canon), just as we see the Holy Spirit working in and through the Church (the Community-Canon). These two explanations of canonicity are not mutually exclusive; neither makes any sense apart from the person and work of the Holy Spirit. So how does the Holy Spirit work through Scripture and the Church to produce and maintain the canon? The work of the Holy Spirit is a mystery. We can't define it, we can't categorize it, and we can't explain it. As Jesus said to Nicodemus: "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit” (Jn 3:8). When we try to define, categorize, and explain canonicity apart from the person and work of the Holy Spirit, we are raising human reason to a place of primacy. We are telling God how to do His job. As the Church is the pillar and ground of the Truth, it is certain that the Holy Spirit works in and through the Church to preserve the Truth, such that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Mt 16:18). More than that we ought not to say.  Bibliography Abraham, W. J. (1998). Canon and Criterion in Christian Theology. New York: Oxford University Press. Achtemeier, P. J. (1990). Omne verbum sonat: The New Testament and the Oral Environment of Late Western Antiquity. Journal of Biblical Literature, 109(1), 3-27. Retrieved October 31, 2016, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3267326?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Alfeyev, H. (2012). Orthodox Christianity: Doctrine and Teaching of the Orthodox Church (Vol. II). (A. Smith, Trans.) Yonkers: St Vladimir's Seminary Press. Alter, R. (2019). The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary (First Edition ed., Vol. 1). New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Althaus, P. (1966). The Theology of Martin Luther. (R. C. Schultz, Trans.) Philadelphia: Augsburg Fortress Press. Retrieved 2016, from http://www.questia.com/read/117335795/the-theology-of-martin-luther Anderson, J. S. (2002). The Internal Diversification of Second Temple Judaism: An Introduction to the Second Temple Period. Lanham: University Press of America, Inc. Angel, H. (2011, February 25). The End of Prophecy: Malachi's Position in the Spiritual Development of Israel. Retrieved January 16, 2014, from Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals: http://www.jewishideas.org/articles/end-prophecy-malachis-position-spiritual-developmen Anonymous. (2014, March 4). Old Testament: Dead Sea Scrolls. Retrieved March 4, 2014, from Institute for Biblical & Scientific Studies: http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/sources/deadseascrolls.htm Archer, G. L. (1974). A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Chicago: Moody Press. Armstrong, D. (2014). Bible Conversations: Catholic-Protestant Dialogues on the Bible, Tradition, & Salvation. Raleigh: Lulu Press, Inc. Askowith, D. (1915). The Toleration and Persecution of the Jews in the Roman Empire (Part I). New York: Columbia University. Barker, M. (2012). The Mother of the Lord, Volume 1 (Kindle Edition ed., Vol. 1). London: Continuum UK. Barr, J. (1985). Why the World Was Created In 4004 B.C.: Archbishop Ussher And biblical Chronology. Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 67(2), 575-608. Barrera, J. T. (1998). The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible; An Introduction to the History of the Text. (W. G. Watson, Trans.) Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Barth, K. (2004). Church Dogmatics I.2: The Doctrine of the Word of God. New York: T&T Clark. Barton, J. (1997). Holy Writings, Sacred Text: The Canon in Early Christianity. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Behr, J. (2001). Formation of Christian Theology, Volume 1: The Way to Nicea (Vol. 1). Crestwood: St Vladimir's Seminary Press. Bennett, W. H. (1895). The Book of Jeremiah Chapters XXI – LII. New York: A. C. Armstrong and Son. Bivin, D., & Blizzard Jr., R. (1994). Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus: New Insights From a Hebrew Perspective (Revised Edition ed.). Shippensburg: Destiny Image Publishers. Bobrinskoy, B. (1999). The Mystery of the Trinity. (A. P. Gythiel, Trans.) Crestwood: St Vladimir's Seminary Press. Boccaccini, G. (Ed.). (2007). Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Bowker, J. (1973). Jesus and the Pharisees. New York: Cambridge University Press. Breck, J. (2001). Scripture in Tradition: The Bible and Its Interpretation in the Orthodox Church. Crestwood: St Vladimir's Seminary Press. Brenton, L. (n.d.). Psalms 13. Retrieved October 12, 2014, from Elpenor's Bilingual (Greek / English) Old Testament: http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/chapter.asp?book=24&page=13 Bruce, F. F. (2008, March). The Canon of Scripture. (R. I. Bradshaw, Ed.) Retrieved January 4, 2014, from BiblicalStudies.org.uk: http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/canon_bruce.pdf Bruce, F. F. (2010). The Canon of Scripture (Kindle Edition ed.). Downers Grove: IVP Academic. Bullinger, E. W. (1909). The Dispensational Position of the Book of Acts (Appendix 181). Retrieved January 9, 2016, from www.markfoster.net: http://www.markfoster.net/rn/companion_bible_appendices.pdf Burkitt, F. C. (1914). Jewish and Christian Apocalypses. London: Oxford University Press. Retrieved March 28, 2015, from https://archive.org/details/jewishandchristi00burkuoft Calvin, J. (1585). Commentary on Acts Volume 1 (Vol. 1). (C. Featherstone, Trans.) Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Calvin, J. (2005). The Institutes of the Christian Religion. (H. Beveridge, Trans.) Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Charles, R. H. (1913). The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English: Volume I, The Apocrypha (Vol. 1). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Charles, R. H. (1913). The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English; Volume II, Pseudopedigrapha. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Clarke, A. (1833). The Holy Bible: containing the Old and New Testaments, with a commentary and critical notes (Royal Octavo Stereotype Edition ed., Vol. I). New York: B. Waugh and T. Maxon. Constantinou, E. S. (2008). Andrew of Caesarea and the Apocalypse in the Ancient Church of the East: Studies and Translation. (E. S. Contantinou, Trans.) Laval: Faculté des études supérieures de l'Université Laval. Retrieved from http://www.theses.ulaval.ca/2008/25095/25095.pdf‎ Constantinou, E. S. (2008, Jun 14). Introduction to the Bible - Lesson 2: Inspiration and inerrancy. Search the Scriptures. Ancient Faith Ministries. Retrieved July 25, 2014, from http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/searchthescriptures/introduction_to_the_bible_lesson_2_inspiration_and_inerrancy Constantinou, E. S. (2008, August 02). Introduction to the Bible - Lesson 9: The Canon part 1. Search the Scriptures. Ancient Faith Ministries. Retrieved October 22, 2014, from http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/searchthescriptures/introduction_to_the_bible_lesson_9_the_canon_part_1 Constas, M. (2018). On Difficulties in Sacred Scripture: The Responses to Thalassios. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press. Davidson, B. (2012, November 13). MT and the “Oldest Text” of Jeremiah. Retrieved March 2, 2014, from Academia.edu: https://www.academia.edu/2476942/MT_and_the_Oldest_Text_of_Jeremiah de Ward, J. (2003). A Handbook on Jeremiah. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. DeConick, A. D. (2006). What is Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism? Retrieved August 7, 2017, from Jewish Roots of Eastern Christian Mysticism: http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/definition.pdf Edersheim, A. (1993). The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah: New Updated Edition. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. Ehrman, B. D. (2005). Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. (Kindle Edition ed.). San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco. Epiphanius of Salamis. (1935). Epiphanius' Treatise on Weights and Measures. (J. E. Dean, Ed.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Retrieved August 28, 2016, from https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/saoc11.pdf Epiphanius of Salamis. (2012, April 25). The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: A Treatise Against Eighty Sects in Three Books. Retrieved October 22, 2016, from Masseiana Home Page: http://www.masseiana.org/panarion_bk1.htm Epstein, I. (Ed.). (n.d.). Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin. Retrieved January 27, 2015, from Come and Hear: http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_21.html#PARTb Fiorenza, F. S. (1991). Systematic Theology: Tasks and Methods. In F. S. Fiorenza, & J. P. Galvin, Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives (Vol. 1, pp. 1-88). Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press. Florovsky, G. (1972). Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View (Vol. 1). Belmont: Nordland Publishing Company. Foley, R. (2001). Intellectual Trust in Oneself and Others. New York: Cambridge University Press. Fores, V. (1996, December 9). The Majority Text vs. The Critical Text. Retrieved January 25, 2015, from Teoria Universitat de València Press: http://www.uv.es/~fores/programa/majorityvscritical.html Freeman, S. (2014, October 1). Has Your Bible Become a Quran? Retrieved October 1, 2014, from Glory to God for All Things: http://blogs.ancientfaith.com/glory2godforallthings/2014/10/01/bible-become-quran/ Freeman, S. (2014, October 10). The Church and the Scriptures. Retrieved October 13, 2014, from Glory to God for All Things: http://blogs.ancientfaith.com/glory2godforallthings/2014/10/10/church-scriptures/ Freeman, S. (2014, September 28). There Is No “Bible” in the Bible. Retrieved September 28, 2014, from Glory to God for All Things: http://blogs.ancientfaith.com/glory2godforallthings/2014/09/28/bible-bible/ Froehlich, K. (1984). Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church (Kindle Edition ed.). Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Gafney, W. C. (2013, March 17). Jesus’ Bible and the History Channel’s Bible. Retrieved December 7, 2014, from The Rev. Wil Gafney, Ph.D.: http://www.wilgafney.com/2013/03/17/jesus-bible-and-the-history-channels-bible/ Gentry, P. J. (2009). The Text of the Old Testament. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 52(1), 19-45. Gentry, P. J. (2014). The Great Code: Greek Bible and the Humanities. Midwestern Journal of Theology, 13(1), 50-80. Gerhard, J. (2006). On the Nature of Theology and Scripture. (R. J. Dinda, Trans.) St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House. Gigot, F. E. (1900). General introduction to the study of the Holy Scriptures. New York: Benziger Brothers. Gipp, S. C. (2016). What is the Septuagint? Retrieved October 28, 2016, from http://samgipp.com/answerbook/?page=09.htm Gleason, J. (2014, October 1). The Apostle Paul’s Reading of Psalm 14. Retrieved October 12, 2014, from On Behalf of All: http://blogs.ancientfaith.com/onbehalfofall/apostle-pauls-reading-psalm-14/ Grabbe, L. L. (2010). An Introduction to Second Temple Judaism (Kindle Edition ed.). New York: T&T Clark. Grass, T. (2012). F. F. Bruce: A Life. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Halnon, D. (n.d.). Early Christian History. Retrieved December 23, 2008, from The Reality of the Biblical Canon: http://www.earlychristianhistory.info/canon.html Hengel, M. (1989). The 'Hellenization' of Judea in the First Century after Christ. Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers. Hengel, M. (2002). The Septuagint as Christian Scripture. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Hill, E. (2012). Did Larry Pierce abridge Thayer's Lexicon? The Online Bible Forum. Winterbourne: Online Bible. Hudson, M. (2018). ...and forgive them their debts: Lending, foreclosure and Redemption From Bronze Age Finance to the Jubilee Year. Dresden: ISLET-Verlag. Islamic Awareness. (n.d.). Canon of the Bible. Retrieved December 23, 2008, from Islamic Awareness: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Canon/ Joosten, J. (2008). To See God: Conflicting Exegetical Tendencies in the Septuagint. Retrieved February 6, 2018, from www.academia.edu: https://www.academia.edu/35581776/To_See_God._Conflicting_Exegetical_Tendencies_in_the_Septuagint Josephus, F. (1987). The Works of Josephus Complete & Unabridged. (W. Whiston, Trans.) Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. Kelly, J. N. (1976). Early Christian Doctrines (5th Edition ed.). San Francisco: Harper & Row, Publishers. Khomyakov, A. S. (1977). On the Western Confessions of Faith. In A. Schmemann, Ultimate Questions: An Anthology of Modern Russian Religious Thought (A. E. Moorhouse, Trans., pp. 31-69). Crestwood: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press. Kirby, P. (2014). Marcion. Retrieved January 4, 2014, from Early Christian Writings: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/marcion.html Klein, P. D. (2005). Epistemology. Retrieved May 3, 2016, from Routledge Encylopedia of Philosophy: https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/epistemology/v-2 Krauth, C. P. (1875). The Conservative Reformation and its Theology. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. Kruger, M. J. (2013, March 13). The Gospel Coalition. Retrieved July 13, 2014, from Apocrypha and Canon in Early Christianity: http://thegospelcoalition.org/article/apocrypha-and-canon-in-early-christianity/ Lawler, A. (2010, January). Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls? Retrieved December 7, 2013, from Smithsonian.com: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Who-Wrote-the-Dead-Sea-Scrolls.html Lewis, C. S. (1970). The Last Battle. New York: Collier Books. Lieuwen, D. F. (1995). The Emergence of the New Testament Canon. Retrieved January 15, 2014, from St Nicholas Russian Orthodox Church, McKinney (Dallas area) Texas: http://www.orthodox.net/faq/canon.htm Lim, T. H. (2012). The Formation of the Jewish Canon (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library) (Kindle Edition ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press. Lossky, V. (1958). The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. Crestwood: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press. Louth, A. (2013). Introducing Eastern Orthodox Theology. Downers Grove: IVP Academic. Lumpkin, J. B. (2006). The Book of Jubilees: The Little Genesis, The Apocalypse of Moses (Kindle Edition ed.). Blountsville: Fifth Estate. Lumpkin, J. B. (2011). The Books of Enoch: The Angels, The Watchers and The Nephilim (with Extensive Commentary on the Three Books of Enoch, the Fallen Angels, the Calendar of Enoch, and Daniel’s Prophecy) (2nd Edition ed.). Blountsville: Fifth Estate Publishers. Marlowe, M. D. (n.d.). Ancient Canon Lists. Retrieved January 16, 2014, from Bible Research: http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon8.html Marlowe, M. D. (n.d.). Third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397). Retrieved January 15, 2014, from Bible Research: http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html Martini, G. (2014, March 13). A Book of the People: Judaism and the Canon of Scripture. Retrieved March 14, 2014, from http://onbehalfofall.org/a-book-of-the-people-judaism-and-the-canon-of-scripture/ Mastrantonis, G. (1982). Augsburg and Constantinople: The Correspondence between the Tübingen Theologians and Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople on the Augsburg Confession. (N. M. Vaporis, Ed.) Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press. McDonald, L. M. (2007). The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority (3rd ed.). Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. McGinn, B. (1998). Visions of the End: Apocalyptic Traditions in the Middle Ages. New York: Columbia University Press. Metzger, B. M. (2001). The Bible in Translation (Kindle Edition ed.). Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing Group. Mihai, V. (2014). Orthodox Canon Law Reference Book. Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press. Milavec, A. (2003). The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: Newman Press. Milavec, A. (2003). The Didache: Text, Translation, Analysis, and Commentary (Kindle Edition ed.). Collegeville: Liturgical Press. Mizzi, D. (2017). Qumran at Seventy: Reflections on Seventy Years of Scholarship on the Archaeology. Strata: Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archeological Society, 35, 9-45. Retrieved March 17, 2018, from www.academia.edu: https://www.academia.edu/36090740/Qumran_at_Seventy_Reflections_on_Seventy_Years_of_Scholarship_on_the_Archaeology_of_Qumran_and_the_Dead_Sea_Scrolls Neusner, J. (1993). A Rabbi talks with Jesus: an intermillennial, interfaith exchange. New York: Doubleday. Örsy, L. (1987). Foundations and Context of the Magisterium. Retrieved December 26, 2016, from Wijngaards Instutute for Catholic Research: http://www.churchauthority.org/resources1/lorsy_1.asp#teaching Osburn, C. (2013). The Greek Lectionaries of the New Testament: Essays on the Status Quaestionis. In Boston, B. D. Ehrman, & E. J. Epp (Eds.), The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research (Second Edition ed., Vol. 42, pp. 93-113). Brill. Palmer, W. (1895). Russia and the English Church During the Last Fifty Years (Vol. I). (W. J. Birkbeck, Ed.) London: Rivington, Percival & Co. Parker, D. C. (2012). Textual Scholarship and the Making of the New Testament (First Edition ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Peckham, J. C. (2011, August). Intrinsic Canonicity and the Inadequacy of the Community Approach to Canon-Determination. Themelios, 36(2), 203-215. Pelikan, J. (2005). Whose Bible Is It: A Short History of the Scriptures (Kindle Edition ed.). New York: Penguin Group US. Pierce, L. (2014, May 5). "email conversation". Online Bible Tech Support. Winterbourne: Online Bible. Polanyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc. Pope Paul VI. (1964, November 21). Lumen Gentium. Retrieved December 26, 2016, from The Holy See: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html Pseudo-Dionysius, the Areopagite. (1987). Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works. (C. Luibheid, Trans.) New York: Paulist Press. Rogers, J., & Coverdale, M. (1537). 1537 Matthew's Bible. Retrieved September 1, 2014, from Bibles-Online.net: http://www.bibles-online.net/1537/ Rollston, C. A. (2010). Writing and Literacy in the World of Ancient Israel. Williston: Society of Biblical Literature. Rorem, P., & Lamoreaux, J. C. (1998). John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus: Annotating the Areopagite. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Rudd, S. (n.d.). Criteria used by apostolic fathers to determine canon. Retrieved September 6, 2014, from http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-criteria-of-apostolic-fathers.htm Samworth, H. (n.d.). What is the Textus Receptus? Retrieved January 25, 2015, from Sola Scriptura: http://www.solagroup.org/articles/faqs/faq_0032.html Scaer, D. P. (2003, April). Baptism as Church Foundation. Concordia Theological Quarterly, 67(2), 109-129. Retrieved September 13, 2014, from http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/scaerpbaptismchurchfoundation.pdf Scaer, D. P. (2004). Discourse in Matthew: Jesus Teaches the Church. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House. Schaeffer, F. (2014, November 20). Author Talk: Frank Schaeffer. Vimeo.com. Colorado Springs: PPLD TV. Retrieved November 22, 2014, from https://vimeo.com/112396778 Schaff, P. (1884). ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1). (A. Roberts, & J. Donaldson, Eds.) Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Schaff, P. (1890). NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine (Vol. 1). (P. Schaff, H. Wace, Eds., A. C. McGiffert, & E. C. Richardson, Trans.) Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Schaff, P. (1892). NPNF2-04. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters (Vol. 4). (P. Schaff, Ed.) Grand Rapids: Copyright Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Retrieved from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.html Schaff, P. (2002). NPNF1-11. Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Schaff, P. (2004). ANF07. Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries: Lactantius, Venantius, Asterius, Victorinus, Dionysius, Apostolic Teaching and Constitutions, Homily, and Liturgies (Vol. 7). (P. Schaff, Ed.) Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Schaff, P. (2005). NPNF2-14 The Seven Ecumenical Councils (Vol. 14). Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Schaff, P., & Menzies, A. (2006). ANF03 Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian (Vol. 3). Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Retrieved from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03 Schürer, E. (1890). A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Christ (Vols. First Division, Volume 1). (J. MacPherson, Trans.) Edinburgh: T & T Clark. Schürer, E. (1890). A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Christ (Vols. Second Division, Volume 1). (S. Taylor, & P. Christie, Trans.) Edinburgh: T & T Clark. Shanks, H. (2007). The Dead Sea Scrolls—Discovery and Meaning. Retrieved January 30, 2014, from Biblical Archaeology Society: http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/free-ebooks/the-dead-sea-scrolls-discovery-and-meaning/ Siamakis, C. (1997). Transmission of the Test of the Holy Bible. (A. Gerostergios, Ed., & A. Hendry, Trans.) Belmont: Institute for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies. Slick, M. (2014, November 1). Apocrypha. Retrieved June 23, 2016, from CARM: http://carm.org/early-church-fathers-apocrypha Spitz, Sr., L. W. (1960). Luther's Sola Scriptura. Concordia Theological Monthly, XXXI(12), 740 - 745. St John Chrysostom. (1999). Homilies on Genesis 1-17 (Vol. 74). (R. C. Hill, Trans.) Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press. Stark, R. (1996). The Rise of Christianity. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. Swan, J. (2011, June 7). Why Luther Removed 2 Maccabees from the Bible. Retrieved March 4, 2017, from Beggars All: Reformation & Apologetics: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/06/why-luther-removed-2-maccabees-from.html The Gale Group. (2008). Hebrew: History of the Aleph-Bet. Retrieved January 27, 2015, from Jewish Virtual Library: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/hebrewhistory.html Trenham, J. (2015). Rock and Sand: An Orthodox Appraisal of the Protestant Reformers and Their Teachings. Columbia: Newrome Press LLC. Van der Toorn, K. (2007). Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Vincent, M. R. (1899). A History of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. (S. Matthews, Ed.) New York: The MacMillan Company. Retrieved January 12, 2014, from https://archive.org/details/historyoftextual00vinc Voorwinde, S. (1995). The Formation of the New Testament Canon. (F. o. College, Ed.) Retrieved September 6, 2014, from Reformed Theological College: http://www.rtc.edu.au/site/DefaultSite/filesystem/documents/The%20Formation%20of%20the%20NT%20Canon%20(SV)%2060-1995.pdf Wace, H. (1811). Holy Bible According to the Authorized Version (A.D. 1611). (Vol. 1). (H. Wace, Ed.) London: John Murray. Walton, J. H., & Sandy, D. B. (2013). The Lost World of Scripture: Ancient Literary Culture and Biblical Authority. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. Ward, H. C. (n.d.). Marcion and His Critics. Retrieved January 7, 2019, from Academia.edu: https://www.academia.edu/38072080/Marcion_and_His_Critics_for_Oxford_Handbook_on_Early_Christian_Biblical_Interpretation_eds._Blowers_and_Martens_ Warfield, B. B. (1882, January). The Canonicity of Second Peter. The Southern Presbyterian Review, 33(1), 45-75. Retrieved from http://www.bible-researcher.com/warfield2peter.pdf Wasserstein, A., & Wasserstein, D. J. (2006). The Legend of the Septuagint: From Classical Angiquity to Today (Kindle Edition ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. Webster, W. (n.d.). The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha Part 3: From Jerome to the Reformation. Retrieved March 4, 2017, from Christian Resources: http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/Apocrypha3.html Wider Than Heaven: Eighth-century Homilies on the Mother of God (Kindle Edition ed.). (2011). (M. B. Cunningham, Trans.) Yonkers, New York: St Vladimir's Seminary Press. Wimsatt, W. K., & Beardsley, M. C. (1953). The Verbal Icon: Studies in the Meaning of Poetry (Kindle Edition ed.). The University Press of Kentucky. Wycliffe, J. (2008, January 14). John Wycliffe's Translation. Retrieved September 1, 2015, from Wesley Center Online: http://wesley.nnu.edu/fileadmin/imported_site/wycliffe/wycbible-all.pdf Hidden in Plain Sight Which Bible? Which Canon? Hidden in Plain Sight The Judaic Old Testament Canon Hidden in Plain Sight Canon and Canonicity Hidden in Plain Sight Septuagint History & Purpose The Evolutionary History of the Hebrew Text The Septuagint & its Manuscripts Flavius Josephus and the Canon Hidden in Plain Sight The Christian Old Testament Hidden in Plain Sight People of the Book Literacy and the Canon Hidden in Plain Sight Scribal Culture Literacy and the Canon The Curious Case of Jeremiah The NT Use of the OT Scriptures The Development of the NT Canon The Self-Authenticating Scriptures The Community-Canon Approach Objections to the Community-Canon Approach Canonicity and the Great Apostasy Canonical Standards and the New Testament The NT Use of the OT Scriptures The Intrinsic-Canon Approach Hidden in Plain Sight Objections to the Intrinsic-Canon Approach The Verbal Icon and the Holy Spirit The New Testament Witness Flavius Josephus and the Canon John Calvin, the Church, and the Canon The New Testament Witness ? 6 101