Up for Discussion | Deuterocanonical Texts
Yesterday, there was a pretty good discussion on my facebook regarding the employment of deuterocanonical scripture in Christian edification. I thought, if anyone wanted to jump into this more now or in the future, I'd throw it up on here. The content, which you'll find in the Comments, was catalyzed by this status update of mine:
"Reminded of the seriousness of our faith through this morning's meditation. The 1 Maccabees reading hits you in the gut. http://bit.ly/IhHgY"
"Reminded of the seriousness of our faith through this morning's meditation. The 1 Maccabees reading hits you in the gut. http://bit.ly/IhHgY"
posted by matthew at
8:57 AM
@matthewjmoore
matthewjmoore
the (re)public house
32 Comments:
Luther's biases may have done the Protestant canon an extreme disservice. (I know I'll catch some flack for this)
Haha... Classic! Only you would dare post your devotional out of Maccabees. I'm grateful for it though and will now read it.
i support reading the Bible that Christians have been reading for the vast majority of Christendom...and that most Christians still do.
...oh, and of course, the readings that Jesus, Himself, and the Apostles studied and formed their own theologies on.
What do the Macabees say about Christ?
about the same thing that Esther does.
How God protects people on dispersion? I think it is a valid question. I'm not asking for the theological implications the book had on first century Jews. What does it say about Christ?
Could one also argue that Jesus and his apostles formed thier theology despite these same old testament scriptures...in saying that I do like the message from your link.
well no, i was making a point. but to answer your question, 1 Maccabbees is a historical deuoterocanonical book. it's not really about Christ so much as the history of God's people during struggle prior to Christ (so yeah, sort of like Esther). It is, specifically, the conflict of the Jewish people holding onto the the law and commandments in the face of persecution and the struggle to overcome and be delivered from those desecrating the Temple, God's Law, and His people. It is regarded as one of the best sources for Jewish history and highly influential in the time of Christ. Again, it is a deuterocanonical historical book. What is says about Christ might be a question, but not really the point. It's more about what it says about God, His people & law, and how it informed Christ and the Apostles. This is a better question.
Blake: true...again, it depends which Maccabean text we're talking about - I think Chip confused this point, as Maccabean texts all different and each recognized differently by Jews, Protestants, Rome and the Orthodox. As for the first 2, there are more influences found within Christianity..specifically with the relation of 2 Maccabees and Hebrews, but I guess it is confusing to say "formed their theologies on." Apologies for my confusing language. Really, they were influential and relevant texts of study during the formation period of their theology. Again, we know the historical significance, and we see some bleeding into the NT. We also know that they were important enough to be placed within the Septuagint and considered important enough to be studied by the majority of Christendom through time and space. Where it sits among inspired Scripture and in conversations of infallibility has always been up for debate, but it's historical significance has never been...it has, though, been forgotten by many over the last 400 years.
blake 2 - and yes, one could argue to a degree...esp on parts of 2 Maccabees. 3 & 4, most Christians don't acknowledge as anywhere in the cannon, so I'd have to defer to my Orthodox friends.
For an interesting question though, what are your thoughts on 2 Peter? Do you think it'll stay in the Canon?
I would argue that its theological significance may be more valuable than the historical aspect, since it frames history from a particular religious perspective, as do Josephus and Philo. However, one can discerningly use these texts together to gain insight into the Second Temple period that few other sources provide. In addition, the degree of inspiration and infallibility (though few, other than protestant evangelicals, use that kind of language) is not up for debate by many Christians in the world. Deuterocanonical does not mean 'non' canonical from a Catholic perspective. Rather, it refers to another or a 'second' canon. They are still considered canonical, and therefore, just as inspired as the other books of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. Moreover, the Ethiopic Bible also contains Jubilees and 1 Enoch, two texts that were widely circulated and with which most NT writers demonstrate some contact.
Yes second canon. You guys should also read the second gospel where Jesus meets the Native Americans. I jest... A little. I agree that it is useful for studying the traditions of the second temple, but Jesus was not "influenced" by their theology. Nor was He influenced by the Pharisees. He came to set the record straight. He was the true temple. He was destroyed and rebuilt in three days. He was never desecrated by the Greeks and never sanctified by the acts of insignificant kings with no right to claim a throne.
And by the way Matt I wasn't confused on any point, I justbwondered if you saw an organic connection between the books and Christ. I've read them and Judit and Tobit and the rest of the deuterocanon as well as parts of the narrow canon. My favorite is the story of bell and the dragon, but I want to know Christ and the power of His ressurection. I want to know if reading those books transforms you into his likeness and if so how. I'm not looking for a fight friend. I save the fighting for my adversary. Do those texts draw you closer to His throne than the rest of the canon can without them nd how.
Mark - agreed. I miss hanging out with you - such good points. Also, yeah, I try to avoid words like infallibility, but I think they make sense to the facebook audience. I think the historical debate on their inspiration is more tied to the fact that they were not universally (though indeed in majority) accepted by early Christians...thus being in the "second canon." So for those who did not recognize them in the early church, they were not seen, obviously, as inspired. Agreed as to those who do accept them, but historically there has not been agreement..both initially (up until Trent, really) and then (obviously) even now among the wider spectrum of faith (Prot, Cath, Ortho). Does that make sense in what I'm saying? Certainly those who accept them believe them as inspired - thus they accept. Good points on the Ethiopic Bible. Excellent.
I do understand your point Matt, and I must say, I also miss hanging out with you. When I come to Dallas next summer we'll go have a drink.
Of course, there are many problems with the debate over canon, since a few of the now received NT documents were questioned, 2 Peter and Revelation (two of my favourites), though eventually were acknowledged as 'genuine' (whatever that means). Hebrews was received largely because it was 'written by Paul!' Go figure. Not that I think it shouldn't be in the canon. On the contrary, it's just that the debate isn't as simple and clean as some would like it to be.
The other texts I mentioned, Jubilees and the Enochic tradition, as well as the testamentary literature and much of the pseudepigrapha was actually transmitted and comes down to us through early Christian circles. While they (the documents) may be Jewish (an identity the early church considered itself to be) they were actually preserved by Christian communities (or what we call Christian). Thus, the issue I think at times may not be whether a text is inspired, but whether these communities considered them to be authoritative (I know I'll catch flack for that one).
In that sense, I think they felt like these texts did 'draw them closer to the throne.' Just as Christian music, or non-Christian music for that matter, can draw one closer to God or perhaps even have some transforming power, the early church was shaped by these writings and thought they were very important for worship and I think we should acknowledge that and practice the same.
Chip, have you grown closer to Christ and His throne by reading anything other than the 66 books of the Protestant Bible. I think it is a huge knee jerk reaction to think that such texts are opposed to growing towards Christ (which is the assumptive position I've gathered...apologies if I am mistaken). Have you read any John Piper that has changed you or brought you closer to God? What about N.T. Wright or John Stott? Perhaps C.S. Lewis? Calvin or Luther? What of Thomas Merton or Søren Kierkegaard? Samuel Wells? Yeah. I have too. So, I think that just as these authors and their books are great and worth reading for the edification of the believer, so do I glean from those writings that the historical church has viewed so highly as to throw them within the bindings of Scripture. You don't have to even believe them to be worthy of such a spot...I'm not sure I do. Still, no one ever debated whether Augustine, Irenaeus, or Justin Martyr's writings should be thrown within the spectrum of Inspiration or Scripture...nor in more recent history that Calvin or Horton should. Such a thought is ridiculous, and yet their content is great. So, even if I don't believe them to be canonical and inspired, the fact that it was even debated whether to put them in the canon probably means that they have value towards the edification of the believer. Furthermore, the fact that they were thrown in and have stayed in for the majority of Christendom to the blessing of many other Christians just further presses the point that they might edify me in growing closer to Christ. So to answer your question after all this:
I do see a connection. I honestly read them right now in a sort of hybrid perspective: Not quite how I would read the writings we have of Paul or Moses, yet on a higher level than I would read Keller or Schaeffer. That's just where I'm at right now - I'm not ready to pull the trigger to read them on the level of John's writings, etc. Because of my earlier reasoning, I have to place them above the writings of Chrysostom, etc. How can one not?
Mark - you commented as I was writing - good point...i think that is along the line (yet more succinct and clearer) of what I just tried to write. Greatness on the point that such writings were preserved by Christians. I love this line: "the early church was shaped by these writings and thought they were very important for worship and I think we should acknowledge that and practice the same." Money.
Good answer.
I don't really have much to add. Mark, I want to meet you when you and Matt have drinks.
I'm not informed enough to have an opinion, but I was really encouraged by Sirach 2:1-2:11. Here's a link: http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/sirach/sirach2.htm
That said, there is, I think, a good conversation to be had about the means by which God can build, mold and move people. I used to feel really guilty that Camus, Kierkegaard and Plato meant more to be than the Bible. And then, throw in the transcendent beauty of nature... and well, the Bible just flogged me.
I think God teaches through different channels at different times... Have to run to a haircut. More later...
Mark, good distinction on inspiration vs authority. One follow up discussion could be on the inspiration of the new testament (certainly Paul's letter to Timothy was speaking of the old testament) vs simply the authority of the new testament writers. 2 Peter does claim that many of Paul's writings, at least, were seen as scriptural...though 2 Peter itself remains much in doubt. I'm curious as to when 2 Peter was acknowledged as genuine...you would know much better than I - it was just under my impression that the tide had not turned on this one. Let me know. A second follow up would be on other sources of authority. Anyway, all this to say, agreed that things are much more complicated than most seem to think, and I think your distinction on inspiration and authority is brilliant. We must follow up on this when you are in town.
I have enjoyed reading all of the comments on this thread. Very engaging and brilliant, at times. I guess I would just add that this conversation has continued to confirm what I have long thought on the issue of canonicity...in the end, you have to finally trust someone other than yourself...unless you just want to be like Marcion or Thomas Jefferson and throw it all out...wouldn't recommend that one.
Well said. I think that is the nature of faith though...you must, in the end, trust the providential nature of God to preserve His revelation to His people through time.
Matt, 2 Peter shows up in some early canon lists, Muratorian Fragment, Cheltenham Canon Codex Claromontanus and Cyril of Jerusalem (350 CE). Origen seems to think it is genuine though mentions the debate. Eusebius also mentions it is spurious but this does not mean non-canonical. Overall, I think some 'overly' critical scholars make it out to be a bit worse than it may have actually been. Jerome and Augustine both accepted it and from that point there is not much question again until around the time of the Reformation. Calvin mentioned he thought it 'proceeded from Peter' but may not have been by his own hand. As you may know, I have argued that it may be more likely to be by Peter's own hand than 1 Peter!
Anyway, concerning other texts, I find it interesting that Jude quotes 1 Enoch without reservation as if what he quotes was actually prophesied by Enoch himself! This suggests that very early on the Christian community that 1 Enoch (or some Enochic traditions) were already circulating. This of course is preserved in its entirety only in Ethiopic, and only through Christian communities.
To John (and Matt), let it be known that I accept the canon whole-heartedly, you both know I do. I think perhaps I am now willing to be more inclusive, in the sense of the deuterocanonical books, though I can't quite bring myself to state they are canonical. I think, however, there is much conversation to be had, though I don't intend to, nor is it my goal, to change what I already believe. I think it just makes for interesting talk! And John, I do trust someone other than myself on this issue (thank God). On the one hand, I'm taking about 1600 years of tradition on board, while at the same time holding fast to my Protestant stance. So I'm certainly not trying to re-frame the canon. I just like talking about it. Evangelicals in particular get all riled up over the topic. Got to love it!
Matt: Exactly.
Mark: I appreciate your scholarly brilliance, brother. I certainly assumed throughout this conversation that your theological commitments were as you have just articulated. But even if you did bring yourself to the point of admitting full canonical status to the deutero books, I certainly wouldn't shoot you for it. We've had enough personal conversations on these things for me to know where you stand and why. And even if you did move to the Catholic position on the canon, I would understand why and would certainly respect it. You could certainly move to a lot of other places theologically that would be much worse!
Yeah, like going KJV Only. Haha
Mark: Our drink has now turned into a requirement of at least two or three. I want to hear as well (adding to our list of John's sectarian ideology of wealth vs. his nt contemporaries & the definitions and applications of authority) more about your thoughts on Peter possibly the author of 2 Peter INSTEAD of 1 Peter. Radical, my friend. I love it. I'll try to study up...I've heard rumors of a book by one of our old profs (as a rumor, I'll not say) coming out on this (arguing against 2 Peter). Are these just rumors? I'm excited to read it if so, but I heard about it from a friend of a friend sort of thing.
Mark Mathews commented on your status:
"Matt, if you're speaking of Wallace, he mentioned this to me last year at SBL. I'm not sure that he is arguing against 2 Peter but is considering the nature of the debate and what it means in current discussions of the NT canon. As you may know, many conservative scholars are now getting on board with Bauckham's thesis that 2 Peter is of the letter/testament genre, suggesting this is why it was received as pseudonymous by the early church. In addition, later 'framers,' if you will, of the canon did not recognize this genre and received it as genuine.
I am reading a paper at SBL this year that argues both of these theses are untenable. ALL testaments are written as third person narratives. There is no such animal as a testament written in the first person. Thus, testaments are really anonymous more than they are pseudonymous. At the same time, scholars believe that the testamentary literature we have (pseudepigrapha, Test 12 Patr, etc.) was transmitted in its earliest forms by Christian communities. SOme even say they are the product of early Christian communities. In either case, this suggests that very early on Chritians would have recognized testaments. Moreover, it suggests if they had detected 2 Peter as a testament, it would have stood out in that it is written int he first person. This kind of literature was rejected. In fact, the very document Bauckham compares it to, Epistle of Enoch, actually denigrates writing 'scriptures' in one's own name. Thus, I think the argument is flawed. The letter is either genuine or a fake, by Peter or a flagrant forgery."
Yeah, it was Wallace. What I heard is that it was arguing on the side of forgery and removal from the canon...but of course, I can be mistaken. I need to read Bauckham.
Unless he has changed his mind, and he may have, he mentioned having a number of contributors on the subject. He also asked me to contribute a chapter based on the research in my thesis and I think he was going to have Bauckham provide a chapter as well. Again, things may have changed since last year and I hope to get an update this year and I hope he attends the session where I'm presenting. So I don't think it will be an argument against authenticity since his treatment of the topic on bible.org tends toward genuineness. I think what he is trying to do is force the hand of those who are receiving Bauckham's thesis so readily to consider the repercussions of that position. As far as he is concerned, if it's pseudepigraphal, it needs to be removed. To Bauckham's credit, however, there are times where he alludes to the weaknesses of his own thesis. It is the way it has been received as a settled issue that I would challenge.
Interesting, and that makes sense...and is coherent with his site. Perhaps there was confusion down the telephone chain until it came to me, or perhaps I misunderstood...both very likely. It'll be a very interesting read, no doubt. any idea on when it's coming out?
I really don't know right now. As I said, he mentioned it last year at SBL and at the time he was on some serious meds after his back surgery. We discussed it and he said he would get back to me, though I've not heard anything at this point. Perhaps we'll be able to discuss it over the coming days. I would really like to contribute to the discussion.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home