 |
Two points. First, the oldest manuscripts available of the Septuagint provide no evidence that these books were included in the 1st century Septuagint.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Second, many books have been provided as reference material (though not canonical in Bible translations. Inclusion does not mean that they are part of the canon.
You asked Fred what text exists that was written by the Apostles but is not part of Scripture. Answer: the Didache. And it was part of the canon of Scripture for quite some time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I have no problem with Tradition, as you know. How do you justify your canon of Scripture? Since the Scriptures themselves do not provide a list of canonical books, you have no choice but to appeal to some extra-Biblical source. What is that source? Why, in particular, do you include the Gospel of Mark but exclude the Didache? It can't be that Mark was included and the Didache excluded at the Council of Nicaea, since the Council of Nicaea is extra-Biblical and to rely upon its decision would be to rely upon Tradition. It would, in fact, be to place Tradition above Scripture on account of the fact that the Council decided what is Scripture.
So, you cannot reject the Didache on the grounds that it was rejected by Nicaea. And you cannot accept Mark on the grounds that it was accepted by Nicaea. Either way, doing so would be a recognition of the authority of something extra-Biblical, i.e. Tradition. But neither can it be that the provenance of the Gospel of Mark is somehow loftier than that of the Didache: The Didache itself says that it was written by the Twelve Apostles; the Gospel of Mark does not claim to have been written by Mark--its attribution to Mark dates from the second century and is itself extra-Biblical. So by rights, you ought to be more comfortable with the Didache than with Mark.
And you can't claim to know that Mark was inspired but the Didache was not, since the Didache says that it was written by the Twelve while Mark doesn't say that it was written by Mark. Moreover, the mss. Of the Didache give us a much more certain picture of its intended content than do the mss. Of Mark which, as I explained, don't even agree about where the Gospel is supposed to end (is it ch.16, v.8 or is it ch.16, v.20?).
Since there isn't one universally recognized canon of Scripture, you must have some principled reason for using the canon that you do and rejecting all other books as non-canonical. What could that reason be, I wonder.
First, it is not know who the author or authors of this document are, and second, no it is not part of the canon, and never was. I don't know where you are getting your information from, but your source is faulty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Actually, you've got it exactly backwards: the earliest complete mss. Of the Septuagint are the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Codex Vaticanus includes all the books I listed with the exception of 1 & 2 Maccabees. Codex Sinaiticus includes Maccabees, along with Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, and Sirach. As you may know, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are the oldest extant mss. Of the Bible, including the NT. Included in the NT canon of Codex Sinaiticus are the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here. If you mean that some translations of the Bible list these books as apocryphal or deuterocanonical, that's true. Those translations of the Bible which do not recognize the canonicity of these books nevertheless sometimes include them a reference material. But that just takes it for granted that those canons are correct. So, if this is what you are saying, it really isn't to the point. If I've misunderstood what you meant to say then perhaps you could reformulate your point.Quote:
Second, many books have been provided as reference material (though not canonical in Bible translations. Inclusion does not mean that they are part of the canon.
Check the dates of these manuscripts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
BTW, as I said, simple inclusion with another book does not make something canonical. I have a study Bible beside me which has many reference documents included - are you saying simple inclusion makes all those document canonical? I know of no scholar who would agree.
It isn't known who the author or authors of the Gospel of Mark were, either. The text of the Gospel itself doesn't tell us and, as with the other Gospels, it wasn't until the second century that it came to be associated with Mark. So the fact that we cannot verify authorship shouldn't pose any problem for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
No, the Didache is not part of the canon. But it was regarded as canonical by many early Christians, a fact attested to by John Damascene and the Apostolic Constitutions. We have historical evidence that it was regarded at canonical by many early Christians (prior to Nicaea), a fact which you can easily verify if you like. Some of it is available online. You can also read Metzger's books on the early canon. (BTW, Bruce Metzger was not Catholic. He was the leading scholar on the canon of the NT and taught at Princeton Theological Seminary for decades. If you haven't read his work you really should.) Or you can go to a good library and have a look at early canons of Scripture and see for yourself what was and what was not included by different people at different times. So while the Council of Nicaea regarded it as spurious, that shouldn' give you any grounds for rejecting it since you don't recognize the authority of the Council.
There is also this interesting fact: The Didache bears many striking similarities to the Gospel of Matthew (remember, we don't know who really wrote Matthew since the Gospel itself doesn't tell us and it wasn't known by this title until the second century). There is growing scholarly consensus that the Gospel of Matthew and the Didache were composed in proximity to each other (both in time and place). If the Gospel of Matthew was written by the Apostle, then this supports the idea that the Didache was written by the Apostles. Besides, the Didache tells us that it was written by the Apostles, while the Gospel of Mark does not tell us that it was written by Mark. Why are you suspicious of the claim of the Didache to apostolic authorship but credulous about the attribution of the Gospel of Mark to Mark when the Gospel itself doesn't tell us that he was its author? This attribution is itself a matter of Tradition, dating as it does to the second century.
There I disagree, but that is not the point - you claimed that this was written by the Apostles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Then the second part of the point being made by Fred and yourself dies.Quote:
No, the Didache is not part of the canon.
Interesting. So, you don't believe that there are atoms that make up matter? You don't believe in electrons? You don't believe that George Wahington or Winston Churchill existed?Quote:
Originally Posted by starbright200
They both date to the fourth century. As I've pointed out to you before, they are the oldest extant mss. Do you have some earlier mss. Squirreled away that no one knows about? Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are the earliest mss. We have, with the exception of a few short fragments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Which scholars have you been talking to? I don't know of anyone who takes the view that these texts weren't part of the canon of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Or do you suppose that ancient copyists included them for kicks, intermingling them with other recognizably canonical books. Let's see: They both include the Gospel of Matthew. Do you suppose that the Gospel of Matthew was not part of the canon? After all, it's just sitting there, included right alongside other books such as Mark and Tobit with nothing to indicate that the different books had varying status. Does your study Bible indicate that some books are apocryphal or deuterocanonical? Mine all do. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that they weren't considered canonical. They aren't set apart (you can verify this by checking the list in which the books appear in the mss.) as a group but are intermingled with books that we now recognize as canonical.Quote:
BTW, as I said, simple inclusion with another book does not make something canonical. I have a study Bible beside me which has many reference documents included - are you saying simple inclusion makes all those document canonical? I know of no scholar who would agree.
I said that it's authorship is no more in doubt than the authorship of any of the Gospels. You asked for a book written by the Apostles that isn't part of Scripture. I offered the Didache as a candidate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
How do you figure?Quote:
Then the second part of the point being made by Fred and yourself dies.
Agreed. Which verifies what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
I fear that you may in fact be telling the truth when you say that you don't know anyone who takes the view that these text weren't part of the canon.Quote:
Which scholars have you been talking to? I don't know of anyone who takes the view that these texts weren't part of the canon of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
But once again, and perhaps you missed the point - simple inclusion does not make it part of the canon, and I know of no credible scholar who would disagree.
Where do you go to investigate?Quote:
Originally Posted by starbright200
What does it verify, Tom?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I'm saying that they were part of the canon of those two mss. Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. There is no scholarly debate about this: It is universally regarded to be the case. Have you anything to offer that is dispositive? Can you cite any reputable Biblical scholars who take the view that they were not part of the canon of Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus?Quote:
I fear that you may in fact be telling the truth when you say that you don't know anyone who takes the view that these text weren't part of the canon.
Inclusion in the canon of Scripture does make them part of the canon. As I say, and you can easily verify this for yourself, they are included intermingled with other books (and not set aside from other, recognizably canonical books), with nothing to indicate that they have any different status than the other books. You didn't answer my question: Does your study Bible produce these books together in a section titled something like "apocrypha" or "deuterocanonical books"? You see, by your reasoning we could just as easily claim that the Gospel of Matthew of the Book of Genesis weren't part of the canon either. They appear in both codices, without any explicit mention of their canonical status. Since the codices indicate no difference in canonical status among the books they include, and since we have considerable historical and documentary evidence that many Christians included these books among their canons, there are no rational grounds for supposing that their inclusion indicates anything other than their canonicity. What grounds have you for supposing that they were not regarded as canonical?Quote:
But once again, and perhaps you missed the point - simple inclusion does not make it part of the canon, and I know of no credible scholar who would disagree.
Did you forget what we were discussing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
And I am sure that you believe that top be true, but believing it and having evidence of it are two different things. So far you are assuming that inclusion with it means that they are canonical. An assumption that is a stretch as I already showed.Quote:
I'm saying that they were part of the canon of those two mss. Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.
I was not aware that you were making decisions for the world on this.Quote:
There is no scholarly debate about this: It is universally regarded to be the case.
Did you? You asserted that the oldest mss. Of the Septuagint do not contain that books I mentioned (Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom). I corrected you: The oldest mss. Are the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus and they do contain these books.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
What point of yours did you take the date of these codices to verify?
The evidence is as I have described it: The inclusion of these books intermingled with other canonical books and the absence of any indication that they were regarded as anything other than canonical. Have you any evidence that they were not regarded as canonical?Quote:
And I am sure that you believe that top be true, but believing it and having evidence of it are two different things. So far you are assuming that inclusion with it means that they are canonical. An assumption that is a stretch as I already showed.
Oh, yeah, that's right, you have a study Bible. Well, to reiterate: All the study Bibles I have seen indicate that a book is not canonical, typically by grouping it together with other non-canonical books under a heading that reads something like "apocrypha" or "deuterocanonical books". I've asked you, and you have refused to answer, whether your study Bible indicates that some book or books are not canonical. Does it? Or is the reader left to guess which books are canonical and which are not?
Again, there is no reason to believe that these books were not part of the official canon of these codices. If we are to follow your rather quixotic line of reasoning, then there would be no reason to regard any of the books contained in the codices as canonical, since they are all intermingled without any indication that some are and some are not canonical. You might just as well ask why we think that these codices are Bibles at all. It would be no more reasonable to suppose that these texts were not regarded as canonical than it would be to suppose that the Gospels were not regarded as canonical.
So, absent any evidence that one or more of the books contained in these codices of the Bible were regarded as uncanonical, it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that all of the books contained in them were regarded as canonical. After all, this situation with these codices is not at all like the situation with the Nag Hammadi texts.
More of the same, huh? By all means, provide references to reputable Biblical scholars who deny that these books were part of the canon of Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. I am trying to have an intelligent conversation with you. I have kept up with the scholarly literature in several languages on these and other early codices for decades. I have worked on them myself. I have seen them and studied them. I am unaware of any reputable scholar who denies that they belonged to the canon of these codices. Please, if you know of any reputable scholars who hold the contrary view, provide the references.Quote:
I was not aware that you were making decisions for the world on this.
Really, Tom, given your evident interest in this stuff, you really should read some serious scholarly studies of the early Christian canon and mss. Traditions.
Not true. I asked you for evidence that they did. I also pointed out to you that just inclusion is not adequate to claim canonicity. And you failed to provide that evidence of your claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
The onus is on the person claiming canonicity, not for me to prove that they were not.Quote:
The evidence is as I have described it: The inclusion of these books intermingled with other canonical books and the absence of any indication that they were regarded as anything other than canonical. Have you any evidence that they were not regarded as canonical?
I have read far more than you could imagine. That is why I know that you are off base on your claims. Perhaps you should spend more time doing your own research than trying to put down others.Quote:
Really, Tom, given your evident interest in this stuff, you really should read some serious scholarly studies of the early Christian canon and mss. Traditions.
Then there must equally be no evidence that they included the Gospels in the canon. Odd that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
If you choose not to accept what I have provided as sufficient evidence of canonicity that is your choice. So long as you acknowledge that there is, then, no evidence that Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus regard the four Gospels as canonical either. If you wish to do so, I have no quarrel with that.Quote:
The onus is on the person claiming canonicity, not for me to prove that they were not.
Why, then it should be as easy as pie to provide the names of those reputable Biblical scholars who take the view that these books were not part of the canon of Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. If you could provide the book and article titles in which they make this claim that would be good too, as I would like to read them.Quote:
I have read far more than you could imagine. That is why I know that you are off base on your claims.
Interesting - I was not aware that you were also denying the gospels as canonical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
I don't - I don't see you as having the authority to define canonicity.Quote:
If you choose not to accept what I have provided as sufficient evidence of canonicity that is your choice.
Did you go and forget that we were talking about the canon as it is found in two codices, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus? Had I been made aware of your confusion earlier I would have attempted to help you remedy it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I accept the authority of Tradition to determine matters of canonicity. What do you use? To be clear, I am asking how you decided upon the particular canon that you use, in preference to the many others that have been and are today in use? Since none of the books of the Bible contains a list stating which are the genuinely inspired canonical books, and since you do not recognize any authority outside the Bible as determinative in such matters, how did you decide which canon to use? Did you select among those that were already in use, or did you decide one book at a time? And by what means did you certify that your choice or choices were correct, i.e. in accordance with God's will?
Akoue, are you having a senior's moment? You questioned whether the gospel were part of the canon - did YOU forget? Let me remind you by quoting you:Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
" Originally Posted by Akoue View Post
Then there must equally be no evidence that they included the Gospels in the canon. Odd that."
You place your faith in your denomination therefore. I don't. That is a key difference. When the canon was determine, your denomination did not exist. I accept that the Bible, as God's word, was defined in whole, both in scope and content by God alone.Quote:
I accept the authority of Tradition to determine matters of canonicity.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:42 PM. |