Why I Believe the Canon is Fallible . . . And am Fine with It!

mbaker:

That’s the kind of question I’m asking in my post #26 (slightly corrected in #28):

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/01/why-i-believe-the-canon-is-fallible-and-am-fine-with-it/#comment-24061

sorry I can’t be too involved here guys. But I think most of your questions concerning evidence and such can be answered in sessions 4 and 5 in Bibliology and Hermeneutics of The Theology Program: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/?page_id=8

@Margeaux Klein

Much to admire in your post. Our eye and our faith must be focused on all three members of the Godhead. Scripture points to God and it is the best pointer humanity has, but it is God that communicates, and he is not limited to scripture, though he is limited by scripture, in that any communication by God will not conflict with scripture.

@ John

“The OT Canon is primarily preserved for us by Israel and they rejected the Apocrypha.”

‘Reference please.’

“Jesus affirms the OT as Scripture and never quote from any of these books”

‘The problem I have is the presupposition that there are two groups, the proto-canon and the deutero-canon, and if Jesus quotes the proto canon, its in and if doesn’t quote the deutero they’re out. But these groupings are designations added much much later. We could easily exclude many proto canon books by the same criteria.’

John,

A very strong argument that Jesus rejected the Apocrypha as canon comes from Luke 11:49-51.

Luk 11:49-51
(49) Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,’
(50) so that the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation,
(51) from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be required of this generation.

Here Jesus says that the blood of ALL the prophets from the foundation of the world that will be required of this generation span from Abel to Zechariah. Abel is martyred in Genesis 4. Zechariah in 2 Chronicles 24.

What’s initially perplexing about this statement is chronologically there were other prophets in the OT that were martyred after Zechariah. Jesus seems to be leaving them out. His declaration becomes clear, however, when you realize that Jesus wasn’t referencing the chronological order of the martyrs but rather the order that the accounts of their martyrdom appeared in the in the Scriptures which He considered to be canon.

The Greek Septuagint (which included the Apocrypha as canon) is ordered the same way our modern bibles are today: Genesis through Malachi. However the Jewish Tanach (which rejected the Apocrypha) is ordered from Genesis through . . . guess what . . . Chronicles (1 and 2 combined as one book).

This reveals concretely that the Bible Jesus used was the Jewish canon, and His declaration that ALL of the prophets span from Genesis to 2 Chronicles seems to me a devastatingly strong inference of His rejection of the Apocrypha.

Jesse G

@Rick

As Ben Witherington states, the early church had to consider what was considered a “sacred” text.
So that, “the canon was closed of necessity by the end of the NT era, because no apostles or eyewitnesses survived beyond that period of time…What happened in the 4th Century was the recognition of the books which had already and indeed always been considered apostolic with very little debate…”

I agree with Witherington’s statements above, except maybe the comment “very little debate”. Based on what the early church history records about the debate I might have said something like “with some debate”. However as I tried to note in another comment – the number of books being debated is very small.

So then, John Frame writes,
“…the Spirit has certainly played an important role in the history of the canon. By illumining and persuading the church concerning the true canonical books, He has helped the church to distinguish between false and true. He has motivated the church to seek out reasons for what He was teaching them in their hearts.”

In regards to the HS helping the church distinguish the canonical books – I can certainly accept that – especially at the onset where churches like Ephesus in the first century had to determine whether to accept a letter as authentic Paul’s vs. the false letters they were warned about. Nor do I rule out the HS having a role in the ensuing debates regarding the canon identification. However since we have no explicit claim from God regarding the canon, no manuscript of a list of Biblical books that we would point to and say that was inspired or was approved by an apostle, and the debate lasted nearly 400 years I do not assume that this process was infallible. I allow for it to be a fallible process.

Regarding the distinguishing of the canon two questions:
1. Do you accept the Apocrypha as part of the Scriptures? Regarding this see Bryan’s questions above.
2. What do you think happened at a church where all/most of the NT Canon was accepted but also included the Didache or 1 Clement?

BTW: Thanks for the good discussion and questions. It has helped me think through these things again! While the process is certainly “messy”, it is encouraging to know that the early church was careful to test the books before accepting them. That gives me confidence that these were the words God wrote through His apostles to let us know He loves us and offers us forgiveness in Jesus.

Jesse G wrote:

John,

Luk 11:49-51
(49) Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,’
(50) so that the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation,
(51) from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be required of this generation.
Luk 11:49-51

So… what was Jesus quoting when He said this?

“probably the best references would be Romans 3:1-2; Rom 9:4.”

Actually the reference I was looking for was to the bit about “they rejected the apocrypha”.

“However I would think that a good majority of them would be represented in terms of quotations or referring to events in them”

Whoa, most people agree that Hebrews makes reference to the events mentioned in Macabees. (Hebrews 11:35 if memory serves me). So that criteria just is a major problem for your argument.

“especially if one considers the 12 minor prophets a single book as is often done in OT canon listings.”

Unless you prove that this grouping is finalized by Jesus’ time, then you just beg the question.

“Josephus is one of the earliest attestations to a Jewish canon. He also lived in Palestine during the first century and can provide historical information regarding the Jewish canon at the time of Jesus and the apostles.”

This assumes there was one Jewish canon, even in that one place and time, which isn’t normally assumed to be the case. cf Jerome who said the Saducees only recognized the 5 books of Moses. And that’s before we start to consider the diaspora.

Futhermore, why do we need to assume this was settled by the Jews in a particular year? How long did it take for the Church to get even a lot of consensus about 2 Peter, James etc? Given the Syriac church, I’m not sure it ever did, but we know it was after Chrysostom since he refused to quote those books. We might assume gathering consensus might take 500 years. So if the process wasn’t done by Josephus’ time, and he happens to fall against the wind of a different tradition – the one the Church inherited, who is to say one date is set in stone as when the Jews finalised their canon?

“Eusebius Ecc His 4.26 also shows that an OT canon that does not include the Apocrypha (nor all of the 39 books we have today) existed.”

I believe he refers to Melito whose Canon includes Wisdom, but excludes Esther. Which comes back to my point that there is really no cause for assuming Wisdom is deutero canon, and Esther is proto-canon. One might just as well assume the reverse and have a different canon. There is no fixed line between the two. There is far better early and widespread support for including say Wisdom and Baruch than there is for including Esther. If Esther is the minimum criteria, we might easily include at least half the so-called deutero canon, or maybe more.

[…] and understanding the Scripture and theological truths. Interestingly enough, a blog I frequent, Parchment & Pen, has recently posted an article along the lines of this […]

“His declaration becomes clear, however, when you realize that Jesus wasn’t referencing the chronological order of the martyrs but rather the order that the accounts of their martyrdom appeared in the in the Scriptures which He considered to be canon.”

Major major problems here:

1) It completely begs the question. If we assume Jesus here is referring to the Jewish canon, you still beg the question about what that canon is! If I say that canon includes the deuteros, you have no comeback.

2) I don’t think most scholars agree that Chronicles is the last book. The major codices of the Hebrew scriptures have Chronicles first, not last, and this position is supported by the fact that the last paragraph of Chronicles is identical to the first paragraph of Ezra. Furthermore, Josephus does not have an ordering with Chronicles last. And wherever you happen to think Chronicles fits in the list, it doesn’t prove what books might come before it, since the whole argument presupposes that the order is not chronological.

3) If you are able to make assumptions about what you think Jesus’ Jewish manuscripts contained, and in what order, then certainly I can do the same by noting the apostles used the Septuagint, and making my own educated guesses about what that contained.

MikeB-

I too appreciate the conversation.

I do think Protestants need to rethink the role of the Apocrypha, Didache, 1 Clement, etc.., although not in terms of Scripture. As history has shown, and some of the other conversations on this post are showing, there is much disagreement. As one who leans towards paleo-orthodoxy, I do put much value on how the EO’s and RC’s look at this issue. However, I tend to see those writings as important to the church, but not sacred. As Witherington says, in regards to 1 Clement, it was “valuable Christian literature that was not heretical.”

Christianity as a whole has at least accepted the list of Athenasius. Again, quoting Witherington:
“The church in Africa, Asia, and the West recognized these 27 books as our NT, which is pretty amazing since they disagreed on other important issues such as church polity. But they did so because they understood the proper criteria for recognition was that these source books are either apostolic or eyewitness in origins. And as such they had to come from the very beginnings of Christianity, and could not include later fictions and forgeries.”

CMP,

Is there someplace that addresses the questions #John, mbaker, and I have asked about where one can draw the line on fallibility, given the statements you made in your lede? (See comments #3, 48 and 51.)

One of the reasons I don’t agree with the probability theory per se, regarding the infallibility of scripture is that we can look at weather forecasting as a prime example of how hit and miss this process can be. For instance, let’s say there is a 90% chance of rain forecast, yet it does not rain, but is partly cloudy instead.

Does that mean the 90% prediction, based on what was known at the time, was not true? No, it was only true as far as what could be determined in the future with some certainty. However, in the canonizing of the scripture we are talking about about events that had already happened, and the methodical process of determining and separating relevant theological truth from that which was probably true, but not necessary to make the canon more viable.

Thus, I do not see how the use of probability is a primary determining factor in infallibility at all, if we are already discussing known facts. We either decide them to be true or we don’t, based upon their individual merit and relevance. Probability, in this case, should only come into play when something can’t be decided 100% conclusively. And since there is a pattern of continuing themes in the OT, which point to the coming of the New Covenant and what it entails, we should be able to pretty well gauge how well these themes are borne out in the books which do come under some question by using all the methods of deduction.

To go to the extreme of probability type thinking in trying to determine truth, as it relates to the Bible at least, would be to engage in the same kind of Robert Schuller type ‘possibility’ thinking that we know has lead to so much relativism in the modern church. Relative possibilities, no matter how the percentage toward the good do not not establish truth, they merely point out the chances of it, one way or another.

Thanks Eric W for the book recommendations.

You might be interested in an article I just posted on my blog.

Are you RC or EO?

One of the problems when discussing the issue of probability is that it is a technical term. We have skepticism, doubt, belief, assurance, certianty, and absolute certianty all making up this scale. With the evidence that we have, both theological and material, I think that we can be high on the scale of certianty concerning our canon. In other words, I am not advocating skepticism or doubt.

In the end, all of our beliefs fall short of absolute certianty by the simple fact that we are fallible. Even if you were to entertain that the church was infallible in this one area of deciding the canon or that the Roman Catholic position was correct, that belief could not be infallibly certian and would have to look to the evidence to prove it! All one would have done at this point is push the argument up one level. But the same problem (that we all fall short of absolute certianty) remains no matter how you handle this issue.

However, this does not make our beliefs unfounded or unsecure. Just as I have a belief that the sun will rise tomorrow and it is not infallible, this does not mean that it is likely at all to be wrong.

People’s search for infallibility is a vestage of a Modernistic methodology. It is not only irrational to require such assurance, it is impossible.

To punt to the Holy Spirit’s conviction is problematic when one does this individualistically. There is a personal conviction of the Holy Spirit, but it must be tempered against the corperate conviction of the history of the church. This provides a peice of the theological evidence that we need to confirm our convictions concerning such matters.

ScottL on 26 Jan 2010 at 2:19 pm #
Thanks Eric W for the book recommendations.
You might be interested in an article I just posted on my blog.
Are you RC or EO?

ScottL:

I was non-denom charismatic/protestant for more than 25 years, and then became EO for 3+ years – 2 as an inquirer/catechumen (during which time I largely kept the fasts, attended the weekly Divine Liturgy and many of the other special services, vespers, etc.), and 1+ as a baptized and chrismated communing member, during which time I definitely kept all the fasts, services, etc.

There came a time, though, where, among other things, I realized I no longer believed and could no longer profess/confess the Orthodox doctrine of the Eucharist, nor could I support the concept of the priesthood and the role of the priest, etc., and my further studies of church history and the development of the Liturgy, as well as my study of the Scriptures, were not able to convince me otherwise or bring me back to my previous acceptance and profession of these things. So I am no longer Orthodox.

(I still have lots of icons and incense, though. 🙂 )

FWIW, I suspect I could not ever become RC, though it was a serious consideration at the time I was exploring both it and the EO Church. But my present views of the Eucharist and the priesthood would definitely preclude doing so now.

“What was that odd sound? It sounded like a can opener.”

“That? Don’t worry about it…it was just Michael Patton opening up a huge can of worms.”

“Oh. I was worried for a second.”

“He likes to do it occasionally, just to get people to examine their faith a little more closely. It’s how he rolls.”

“He’s a braver man than I!”

“I know. Funny, they said the same thing about Cranmer before he plunged his arm into the flames…”

LOL! You got my number Cory.

“All one would have done at this point is push the argument up one level. But the same problem (that we all fall short of absolute certianty) remains no matter how you handle this issue.”

Except that allowing the Church to be the one who speaks to this issue has one thing other arguments don’t: agreement and consensus.

And since the Protestant claim is that scripture is meant to be THE rule of faith in the church, that kinda needs agreement and consensus, which can’t be guaranteed if everyone decides for themselves.

Individually deciding the canon may (or at least so you argue) have the same kind of epistemological certainty, but it doesn’t have the right kind of attributes for scripture to fulfill he purpose it needs to.

EricW: I’m curious what things about the priesthood and eucharist you found so troubling, but this may not be the right forum. If you want to mail me at: xpusostomos at gmail.com feel free.

John:

Okay, I’ve emailed you my email address so you can share your thoughts/questions.

EricW

“Luk 11:49-51
(49) Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,’
(50) so that the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation,
(51) from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be required of this generation.
Luk 11:49-51

So… what was Jesus quoting when He said this?”

My guess is He was stating what He knew God’s providential plan to be. Matthew records these words simply as part of Jesus’ own rebuke. Why is this relevant to the argument?

I’m sure I remember that there is a verse analogous to Luk 11:49-51, that implies a Septuagint ordering and boundary of books, but I can’t remember what it is.

John

“1) It completely begs the question. If we assume Jesus here is referring to the Jewish canon, you still beg the question about what that canon is! If I say that canon includes the deuteros, you have no comeback.”

I’m starting from the premise of the Jewish canon today, a canon which rejects the detueros. If your argument is that Jewish canon included the deuteros in the first century but at some point in history rejected it, the burden of proof, I think, would be on you to provide the evidence of that denunciation.

“2) I don’t think most scholars agree that Chronicles is the last book. The major codices of the Hebrew scriptures have Chronicles first, not last, and this position is supported by the fact that the last paragraph of Chronicles is identical to the first paragraph of Ezra. Furthermore, Josephus does not have an ordering with Chronicles last. ”

To which codices are you referring? And where is Chronicles in Josephus’ ordering? I wasn’t aware that Josephus had recorded an order. Only that the canon included 22 books.

“And wherever you happen to think Chronicles fits in the list, it doesn’t prove what books might come before it, since the whole argument presupposes that the order is not chronological.”

So just to be clear, you’re passing off Jesus’ reference to the blood of all the martyred prophets being from Abel to Zechariah – Genesis to Chronicles – which are the first and last books of the Tanach that rejects the apocrypha in every list I’ve seen . . . as coincidental? Logic argues simply from Jesus’ “from/to” language that He had some kind of an order in mind. We know it wasn’t chronological, given the later martyrdoms which He would have had to have been intentionally excluding. . . so that doesn’t leave much left. To much there for mere coincidence in my opinion.

“3) If you are able to make assumptions about what you think Jesus’ Jewish manuscripts contained, and in what order, then certainly I can do the same by noting the apostles used the Septuagint, and making my own educated guesses about what that contained.”

The difference would be the context. I’m not aware of any of the apostles making sweeping, comprehensive statements of men – first to last – considered to be martyred prophets. The argument isn’t just that Jesus referenced the Tanach, it’s the manner in which He did so. You’re also dealing with an improvable assumption that because the apostles quote from the Septuagint and the Septuagint includes the apocrypha that the apostles necessarily accepted the apocrypha. That A agrees with B and B is a part of C does not infer that A will always agree with C. That’s a burden that is not shared with the Tanach, which to my knowledge never included the deuteros.

” I’m sure I remember that there is a verse analogous to Luk 11:49-51, that implies a Septuagint ordering and boundary of books, but I can’t remember what it is.”

I would be interested in this if you can think of it.

Jesse G

EricW –

So now which circle do you fellowship with. I’m still a charismatic. Couldn’t leave what I have seen and known, though I am not always happy with some evangelical beliefs and viewpoints. 🙂

I currently meet with a rather informal and small non-denom charismatic/charismatic-friendly group. And like you, esp. with my exposure to and study of the early church and the liturgical tradition, I’m uncomfortable with some Evangelical beliefs, viewpoints and practices.

Also, I’m pretty much an egalitarian re: what women can do in church leadership and ministry, though that persuasion came after I left the EO Church and was not a factor in my leaving; i.e., it wasn’t that only men could be priests that caused me to leave the EO Church. If that topic also interests you, Philip B. Payne’s new book Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters http://www.pbpayne.com/?page_id=98 discusses the relevant texts and current arguments re: Paul’s writings. Though he expects the reader to know some NT Greek, that shouldn’t dissuade you from buying and reading it, as there are large parts that a non-Greek reader can understand and benefit from reading.

Thanks Eric. I too have egalitarian leanings, though I don’t like the word, as it carries a lot of baggage.

I’m glad we are on a journey and don’t have all these things figured out. But I am secure in God and His faithfulness to reveal Himself in Christ.

@Dave Z

As a lay person, who has listened to The Theology Program on ITunes and just started to study, I don’t know if I should post here. I really have no one at my church who likes to study the word in this way or talk about apologetics, history etc… so I hope its ok to ask questions here? I feel like I am watching a tennis match though. Its good, but in the end you are back where you started…you can’t really know for sure.

I recently have been listening to a podcast on C.S. Lewis and I got a spiritual ah-ha moment about the timelessness of God. If God created time along with space then as created beings we never can know or understand absolutely because we were created “in time” Yet God has given us the ability to wrap our minds around the “idea” of timelessness. This, to me, seems why there is a lot of circular discussions.

Maybe we were not meant to see the whole picture yet. (1 Cor 13:12, 1 Jn 3:2) Which makes me ask, what should I be focusing on? I could spend all day studying the Bible. I want to know God more and more, but yet I have four teenage girls who are now rebelling against going to church and being pulled toward the world. They could care less about the authority or infallibility of the Bible. I put scripture and quotes from Blaise Pascal on my refrigerator just to get them to get a little heavenly education.

I yearn for more than application in my church. I want to know more, but when I read posts like this I feel as though I am in the movie Lentil.

I appreciate those who have been blessed by God to be gifted as teachers and historians in Theology, but how far should you spend in contemplation in these discussions as a lay person? If they increase your faith by learning more and being able to see God more clearly then great! What if they confuse you more and cause you to doubt?

@Margeaux
I appreciate those who have been blessed by God to be gifted as teachers and historians in Theology, but how far should you spend in contemplation in these discussions as a lay person? If they increase your faith by learning more and being able to see God more clearly then great! What if they confuse you more and cause you to doubt?

I would say your #1 goal is to model Christ to your family and focus on the issues that matter to your daughters regarding faith, doubts, etc. They are your #1 mission and discipleship battle ground. If this area is not it than spend time on those that are. That would be my advice.

I understand why some of the history behind the Bible, theology etc can cause confusion or doubt. It is far more complex than we like and not all the questions raised are easily answered. But for me it is important to understand the historic truth – because Christianity is a faith based on history. I also encounter many who are familiar with works like the DaVinci Code, Misquoting Jesus, etc. that present the information so that it will cause doubt (see latest blog entry from me). So I like to understand these issues to try to help diffuse doubt.

” If your argument is that Jewish canon included the deuteros in the first century but at some point in history rejected it, the burden of proof would be on you to provide the evidence of that denunciation”

If it just comes down asking for the burden of proof for who changed it, I might say you have the burden of proof for showing who systematically changed all the church’s manuscripts to include the deuteros and thereby change the canon.

You see, we’ve got two traditions here, and simply appealing to one and forcing the burden of proof on the other is a game both sides can play to equal effect.

And in fact, since pretty much every source for the early Jewish canon has differences, I would furthermore put the burden of proof on you to show the Jewish canon was settled at that time. If you can’t establish that then all talk of someone changing the canon is moot anyway.

“To which codices are you referring? ”

In the Leningrad codex (the oldest complete one we have), Chronicles is the first book in the Writings: Chronicles, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ruth, The Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah. And Zechariah is not the last martyr in that list. Another one is the Aleppo Codex which is almost as old.

“you’re passing off Jesus’ reference to the blood of all the martyred prophets being from Abel to Zechariah – Genesis to Chronicles – which are the first and last books of the Tanach in every list I’ve seen . . . as coincidental?”

Just because I suggest other interpretations, doesn’t imply coincidence. I mean in the parallel verse (Mt 23:35) he is called Zachariah, the son of Barachiah. However the Zachariah in Chronicles is son of Jehoiada. i.e. prima facie evidence does not point to it being the same person. For this reason, many have thought it refers to Zacharias, son of Baruch who was a righteous man condemned by the Jews in times more contemporary with Jesus. They gave him a mock trial; and, when no evidence could be brought against him of his being guilty of the crime they laid to his charge, viz. a design to betray the city to the Romans, and his judges had pronounced him innocent, two of the stoutest of the zealots fell upon him and slew him in the middle of the temple. (See Josephus, WAR, b. iv. chap. 5. s. 5). That would mean Jesus is bringing the blood guilt all the way from Abel right up to the minute. Not a coincidence, but not your explanation either. Others imagine that Zachariah, one of the minor prophets, is meant, who might have been massacred by the Jews; for, though the account is not come down to us, our Lord might have it from a well known tradition in those times.

“You’re also dealing with an improvable assumption that because the …apocrypha that the apostles necessarily accepted the apocrypha.”

No more unprovable that your completely unfounded assumption about what book order Jesus was familiar with, or even that this implies he accepted all the books contained therein or only those.

I appreciate your thoughts, John. Just to add one more thought, the phrase “son of Berechiah” isn’t present in codex Sinaiticus which makes it possilby/likely a later scribal addition.

Jesse G

It’s pretty ironic that someone who believes God controls the lives of each and every person on the face of the Earth to the point that He determines who will be saved and who won’t be saved without regard to their decisions would then turn around and believe that God loses control of His Words to the world at large.

Interesting arguments, but the contradiction is astounding.

Russ

Some criticisms.

First certainty is not a necessary or sufficient condition on knowledge so it is irrelevant for knowing. The question is not so much about knowing but about normativity. Since the canon is fallible on your account, it is not ultimately authoritative and hence can be revised over time. The canon has a provisional status.

Since the question is about the normative status of the canon, it seems you are mistaken to say that we all are floating down the same river. Everyone may start from the ame place with respect to knowing but that doesn’t imply that we are all in the same position with respect to forming normative judgments. We all may be in the same position to know what the Constitution means, but we are all not supreme court justices.

Lastly, no confessional statement then has the normative status of revealed truth, even if it is correct since it is put forward as and on a provisional and reconstructive basis. Formally, it is the teaching f men which is why it cannot bind the conscience.

“son of Berechiah” isn’t present in codex Sinaiticus which makes it possilby/likely a later scribal addition.”

One manuscript only, even Sinaiticus is not normally considered weighty, especially as in this case when omitting it could be considered an attempt to correct an error, whereas there seems like no motivation for adding it.

But the point is, nobody can neatly know who is right about the canon, simply by appealing to Luke, because of all the uncertainties of various issues, textual issues with Sinaiticus only complicates it further.

Perry, are you fallible?

CMP,

Yes, I sure am, but I don’thave to be infallible to know. The relevant point is not about knowledge though but about the normative status of doctrinal statements. A judgment can be true but the normativity of divinely taught and promulgated statements outruns that of accuracy, otherwise by analogy there’d be no legal difference between the judgments of say a law professor and a court judge or more directly, there’d be no difference in the level of obligation between when an Apostle taught and a first century layman.

So there are two levels at work. In order to know that such and so is infallible doctrine is quite different than the conditions for such and so to *be* an infallible doctrine. At best the Protestant position may get biblical teaching right, but it can only put it forward as the best human re-construction and hence as provisional of divine teaching. Which is why no Protestant doctrine is beyond possible revision, including the canon.

Are you fine with the canon always being in principle in flux?

So you have a fallible belief about the canon too?

CMP,

Sure and I never claimed otherwise.The question isn’t about fulfilling the conditions on knowledge but rather normative statements. I am sufficient to fulfill the conditions on knowledge, but I am not sufficient to do so for a normative statement on what the canon is in fact is. So someone else is only obligated to adhere to what I claim to know if they know it too, if we are limited to the level of knowledge. But the normativity of doctrinal statements, and especially of truths taught with divine authority outrun the normativity attached to true propositions. That is, divine truths are more than just accurate, they are authoritative.

The skeptical worries expressed about knowing which books are canonical are meant to serve to show that the canon cannot be normative on your principles since a sufficiently normative judgment, that is one in which the canon would be in principle non-revisable, entails knowledge. If you don’t or can’t know, then the canon might be revisable. It strikes people as counter intuitive that the final word is revisable and that which requires an absolute committment and not a probabilistically grounded one is revisable. This masks what the real issue is in discussions, which is not about knowing, but about the revisability of the canon and whether it is a human construction or a divine one.

The doctrine of the right of private judgment then is not that everyone is in a position to know that X is canonical, the right interpretation, etc., but that no one can be obligated to adhere to a doctrine unless they so judge it to be correct. The question on the table then is about the normative status of the canon and not if you know if the books are inspired or not. And no Protestant ecclesiology can in principle produce a statement on the canon that is beyond possible revision.

In the end we both have a fallible belief about the canon, yet we feel justified in our belief about the canon.

The next issue is the epistemic justification for our beliefs. But that is not the subject here.

If the canon of Scripture is a fallible collection of infallible books, then why believe any particular book belongs in the canon? And if a particular book does not belong in the canon (which is possible since of course the collection is “fallible”) then that just shows that a particular book are fallible. Something infallible cannot be a subset of something fallible. It makes no sense.

CMP,

As I noted from the start, the issue isn’t epistemological. Epistemological worries only motivate the concern over normativity and this is because epistemology entails a certain degree of ethical content.

So the conclusion is, your canon is revisable. The canon and all other doctrines are taught in principle as the best or most probable approximation or human reconstructions of divine material. These seems like an insufficient basis to ground a a judgment in favor of an absolute committment.

Moreover, the canon is just as open and subject to challenge as any other doctrine in Protestant confessions since there is no ecclesial authority that can obligate the conscience of any individual that is external to the individual.

On the other hand, adherence to various doctrines put forward by Protestants is done so in a way that seems to require an absolute committment even if such persons fail to know that such and so doctrines are true. (Perhaps they have mere true belief for example.) And Protestants put forward the canon as a settled matter, which in principle, it really isn’t. Protestantism then seems to imply a more robust conservatism and that in the sense of an unwillingness to make dogmatic claims than is usually or historically the case. If such and so is the best we can do, it seems warranted not to try obligate anyone to believe much of anything. ANd yet the biblical witness as understood by Protestants seems to entail something quite the opposite.

Consequently, I don’t think you’ve engaged the actual problem.

Well, you have conceded all that need be for this post Perry. That is the only point that I was trying to make. We all have a fallible belief about an infallible source.

Not that you are represenative of anything. I don’t know anything about you. So I don’t want to act as if your representation is conclusive for the point I was trying to make.

Others may want to engage this differently.

David, I can’t engage in this thread any more. Normally when a post is two days old, I cannot comment on them anymore.

The only thing I can do is ask you what I asked the gentleman above: are you fallible or infallible? If you are fallible, then you belief about the infallible cannon is fallible. So we are in the same boat.

That is the point of the post. No more no less. Hope that makes sense.

CMP.

I think you’re mislead about how rigid the Orthodox are about the canon. I find most Orthodox find the issue so trivial they don’t want to risk carpal tunneling debating it.

There wasn’t a consensus among some Orthodox Fathers, and the issue wasn’t pronounced enough on the radar for them to consider communal separation from others to further their personal opinions. Here’s some trivia for you:

1. St. Athanasius’s 39th Festal Letter of 367 lists his opinion on the canon, which was binding for his diocese. There are minor variations with everybody’s list in use today, which everybody is quick to dismiss in their rush to claim unity with him because of his historical stature.

2. In modern ecumenical discussion with the Copts and the Orthodox, the issue is barely raised, despite the more extensive list of the Copts.

3. In the contacts between the 17th century Lutherans and Patriarch Jeremiah II the issue wasn’t raised by either side. The discussions never got past how each view God Himself, centering on the procession of the Holy Spirit.

4. There is silence in all 7 Ecumenical Councils on the issue of canonicity.

5. Revelation isn’t used in the Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox Church.

6. The establishment of a closed canonical list was originated by the heretic Marcion, which necessitated a Church response.

7. The Orthodox believe we recieved doctrine from Christ Himself and it is preserved in the Tradition of the Church. Meaning, we don’t get our doctrine from texts; they are the witness to the doctrine we already have. IOW, we have different starting points.

8. The West pushed the issue (namely Augustine), and the East followed along on this issue because there really was no point in making a fuss about it. IOW, passive acceptance.

BTW, I think I read somewhere on one of your sites attributing a quote to Sproul; that we have a fallible list of infallible books. I believe that comes from his mentor Gerstner.

IMHO, since there is no Ecumenical pronouncement on the issue, I hold to an open canon. I know it’s open. I am certain my Bishop would have a strongly different opinion, and his is what counts concerning my churchmanship, so I defer to those wiser than myself. My point is it’s not pushed. There are bigger fish to fry, such as the dilemna Perry presented to you.

CMP,

I thought the point of the post was to engage the supposed problematic nature of a fallible canon and not a demonstration that everyone’s beliefs about the canon were fallible.

So no, we are not in the same boat.

Don, you are right. As far as my studies have taken me, I have never seen anything that would lead me to believe that the Orthodox church is definitive about the inclusion or exclusion of the Deuterocanonical books. It has cause some frustration from some Orthodox.

C. Michael Patton, how does it follow from the fact that my knowledge is fallible that therefore the canon is fallible? That needs to be demonstrated via deduction, not just assumed. It contains a hidden premise somewhere, that if a belief is fallible the source of those beliefs is likewise. So if I believe what God says, yet my belief COULD be wrong, is it possible therefore for God to be wrong? It says more about me than it does about the source of my beliefs. So you really have not engaged my point nor have you made a persuasive argument for how the canon can be a fallible collection of infallible books. If the collection is fallible, then any of the books could be cut out and hence would not be INfallible.

CMP,

Let’s be honest, shall we? I love St. Athanasius like he was my own father, so much so I took him as my name-saint in joining the Orthodox Church. But look at his 39th Letter: it reads more like it comes from the Book of Common Prayer from Thomas Cramner than an Orthodox Saint. He’s like, “These books are like OK, cool, I’m down with that.” Not really a hearty endorsement.

But I think you’re still not getting it. A book’s reading in an Orthodox liturgical setting tells you where we are on that book (Revelation excluded, long story there). Inclusion in the Liturgy is what we’re talking about when we use the word “canon”, not personal usage or personal doctrinal research. In the Liturgy, Tradition is paramount, and not open to debate. I am strongly disposed to deuterocanonical inclusion.

Why the Orthodox angst? Look at the situation. You are dealing with mostly Orthodox converts unwilling to give up philosophical “certainty”. But it’s larger, something that permeates our entire culture; the need to prove minutia, especially to our own skeptical minds. There are elements of fundamentalism that have seeped so deep into our culture that even those who despise it embrace it unknowingly. Foregoing a rigidly closed canon goes contrary to what has been drilled into all of us from the cradle.

David, you are assuming that your canon is “the” canon. The correct canon is not infallible, all would agree. What I am talking about is your BELIEF about the canon is fallible seeing as how you are fallible. All your beliefs are fallible. Therefore, as I have been saying, saying that I believe in a fallible canon of infallible books is the same position that everyone is in out of necessity due to their own fallibility.

Don, not sure I know what you are saying, but my latest post may have bearing? Check it out.