An example of this is the Church proclaiming a certain canon of scriptures. What was the rule used to deem some inspired and true and others not and can we not use this same rule in areas like the veracity of Mary’s ever-virginity?The Jews were split on the OT canon some only taking the first five books and others taking the entire OT. I accept their selection of the entire OT without becoming a Jew myself. I don’t go and get circumcised because I accept that Genesis is part of the canon.
Same with the NT canon. A particular set of early Christians selected the canon from among a number of competing books. I accept the NT canon while not accepting their Deuterocanonical choices (Macabees, Tobit, Bel and the Dragon, etc). That doesn’t mean that I have to accept everything they believed any more than I have to become a Jew today because I accept the OT canon.
6 comments:
Why accept the selection of some Jews and not others? If your basis for selection is Jewish acceptance, then you need another criteria to decide which group of Jews to favor. What is that criteria?
If you accept a canon on the basis of Jewish testimony and authority, then it seems ad hoc to accept their judgment which is supposed to be authoritative here,but not there. Again, another criteria is at work, in which case Jewish acceptance is irrelevant.
I would put the testimony of Jesus as the criteria. He rejected the Sadducees teachings and accepted the Pharisees on subjects such as life after death and resurrection. The Sadducees accepted only the first five books and the Pharisees accepted the Law and Prophets. Add to that Jesus said that His own story was fortold in the Law and Prophets, again lending credibility to them both.
If so, then the selection by the Jews is irrelevant. You really aren't making the choice because of Jewish testimony,but by the testimony of Jesus. So the original criteria did no work. Hence the point has been condeded.
Second, some Jews accepted the testimony of Jesus and some didn't. Why favor the testimony of some Jews but not others?
Third, doesn't this assume we already know in the case of the NT which works are canonical and inspired? So it seems the case falls back to the NT and so the problem has just been moved.
Fourth, if we go with the testimony of the early church on the NT canon, why not with the OT canon?
Fifth, some of the Pharasees had a wider canon than Protestants do. With the LXX in use manuscript evidence seems to show that some of the LXX books were not only greater in number but shorter or longer versions. How will Jesus' testimony and the pharasees help us here exactly?
There has to be some degree of continuity from the Old Testament to the New Testament. Jesus described that continuity on a number of occasions such as when He said that the Law and Prophets testified of Him. His reference to David as well adds credence to the Psalms. The OT would be sitting in the pile of "scriptures" along with many others if it wasn't for the Gospel witnesses to them.
It's as if the situation has reversed from what it was originally. Early on the OT was "proof" of the contents of the Gospel. Now, I believe in the OT because of the testimony of the NT.
None of what you write addresses the point I made. Just because the Jews accurately protected and canonicalized the scriptures doesn't make them authoritative in their interpretation today.
Just because Paul addressed two letters to the people of Corinth doesn't give their descendants in Corinth the sole right to interpret those letters. Similarly, the Eastern church may have preserved the Scriptures, but that doesn't give them some unique rights to interpret them.
I can agree that there must be some degree of continuity between the two, but I am not sure how you get from that to your conclusion. You need to spell that out.
It is true that Jesus talks about the law and the prophets, but can you point out where Jesus delimits what constitutes the law and the prophets? And second, doesn’t this assume that the NT canon is already known and formally fixed? How exactly was that done?
If the OT would be a pile of writings if it weren’t for the Gospel witness, then this seems to imply that it was a pile prior to the advent of Christ. In which case, the claim that the Jews canonized the OT seems dead.
Second, the NT does not bear witness to everything in the OT canon you accept so then we again need some other criteria than a NT witness. And again, we’d need to know what the NT canon was to begin with. If we need the NT to identify the OT, what do we need to identify the NT canon? It can’t be the OT.
Everything I wrote addresses the point you attempted to make. You assert that the Jews canonized the OT. When was this done? How did they do it in terms of authority? If so, why was the early church then not uniform on the OT canon from the get-go? If they canonized it after the Advent, then did they make an authoritative judgment based on the then vacated Aaronic priesthood? If before, when did they do this?
And I am not clear why if Christian tradition, which is also Jewish, is not acceptable and normative, why pre-Advent Jewish tradition is. If tradition isn’t what norms scripture, then Jewish tradition certainly can’t do so.
There are reasons why Jewish testimony post the Advent is not taken as authoritative.Are there such reasons in the case of the early church?
You write that the descendants of Corinth aren’t in a better position in terms of normative interpretations. This is true, but that is not the argument. The argument is not about physical descent, but a kind of socio-theological descent. If the claims such churches founded by the apostles have made for themselves are in fact true, then they do in fact seem to be in a better position in terms of giving a normative interpretation of the texts. Just as Jesus’ claims to be from the Father put him in a better normative position to interpret tests, so churches sent out from the apostles would also enjoy the same qualities in due measure.
Post a Comment