Canon and Documentary Hypothesis

[mindlight]

Do you believe that there are good reasons for the canon to be only 66 books?

Are churches that add extra books simply wrong about this?

What do you think of the Documentary Hypothesis. Can the Pentateuch be traced to JEPD or to Moses?

 

[ebia]

Do you believe that there are good reasons for the canon to be only 66 books?

I'm not scared of the idea that the "canon" might have blurred boundaries and fuzzy edges.

Are churches that add extra books simply wrong about this?

Do they add, or do others take away, or does the truth not fit into that dichotomy?

What do you think of the Documentary Hypothesis.

Which version? The details are debatable, but it seems certain that a development something along those lines is what historically happened.

Can the Pentateuch be traced to JEPD or to Moses?

I woudl say that the chance that Moses directly wrote any substantial proportion of the Torah is just about zero.

 

[mindlight]

I'm not scared of the idea that the "canon" might have blurred boundaries and fuzzy edges.

Fear has nothing to do with this. Which books would you add and why?

it seems certain that a development something along those lines is what historically happened.

So you accept a version of the hypothesis that the account we have now does not date from Moses.

I would say that the chance that Moses directly wrote any substantial proportion of the Torah is just about zero.

Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch (excepting the account of his death)is affirmed by Christ in the NT , it is the overwhelming tradition of the church and the Jews before them.

“Moses wrote this law and delivered it unto the priests...” (Deuteronomy 31:9)(Exodus 24:4).(Exodus 34:27)(Numbers 33:2).
NT (John 1:17)
“For if ye believed Moses, ye would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:46-47

Moses being the busy MD type probably dictated the Pentateuch to a secretary - hence the third person style and account of his death. The same scribe may then have added the last passage about his death.

Most objections are based on reading the writing style with a modern western mindset, an antisupernatural bias and sometimes a straight forward misreading of the text.
Those closer to the texts were in universal agreement this was by Moses and Christ Himself affirms this. I would not be surprised if you also think that Shakespeare did not write his own plays or Solommon Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs.

 

[ebia]

Fear has nothing to do with this. Which books would you add and why?

I didn't say I wanted to add any books. I said I'm happy that there are blurred boundaries. That some books are clearly part of scripture (Luke, say), some are clearly not (Lord of the Rings, say), and a few lie in a fuzzy space in between (Wisdom of Solomon, say).

So you accept a version of the hypothesis that the account we have now does not date from Moses.

Yes.

Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch (excepting the account of his death)is affirmed by Christ in the NT

I don't read Jesus using a traditional way of referring to Torah as affirming that Moses actually wrote it.

Most objections are based on reading the writing style with a modern western mindset, an antisupernatural bias and sometimes a straight forward misreading of the text.

Obviously I don't agree, but I posted in response to the question in the OP. I'm not particularly interested in debating the point.

 

[ittarter]

Do you believe that there are good reasons for the canon to be only 66 books?

The Protestant Bible was born in the aftermath of Renaissance values, and so it skipped over the traditional Catholic Old Testament and went back to the Jewish or "Hebrew" Bible. I find it ironic that, in order to "reform" Catholicism, they had to borrow the scriptures of a wholly different religion!

Of course, as opposed to the Old Testament, the New Testament didn't change, and the books themselves have never differed between Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, etc.

An easy solution to this problem is to advocate a tiered canon. In other words, the canon isn't an "in or out" question, but some books constitute the core (i.e. the Pentateuch, the gospels), some a close layer around it (i.e. the Prophets, the Pauline epistles) and some an outer layer (i.e. the Writings, the general epistles and apocalyptic literature). This isn't really compatible with the doctrine of inerrancy, but honestly, who cares? It's realistic, it matches how we've historically treated scripture, and it doesn't originate from the Islamic conception that God wrote the scriptures IN heaven and then floated them down from the sky.

Another interesting aspect to this question is, What is a "book"? Do the twelve minor prophets together make a single book (since before the invention of the codex they were all together in one scroll)? Should we talk about 1 and 2 Samuel as one book or two? And so on. My opinion is, the fewer the better. I like Josephus' count for the OT, something around 22 books I think.

Are churches that add extra books simply wrong about this?

No. Nothing about this is simple.

What do you think of the Documentary Hypothesis. Can the Pentateuch be traced to JEPD or to Moses?

Most biblical scholars still admit that the basic tenet of the documentary hypothesis is correct, namely, that the Five Books are a composite work stitched together through a very complex historical and literary process. How much we are able to detect in what way that happened, or determine the "original" documents that a supposed "editor" or "redactor" compiled, is another matter.

If you believe that all or most of the Pentateuch was written by Moses, it is a matter of faith, and one that is not stipulated by the Bible itself.

 

[wildboar]

As a Lutheran I would make a distinction between the disputed and undisputed books. If you are going to deny the infallibility of the Hebrew Bible, the Gospels, or the letters of Paul then you can no longer consider yourself an historic Christian. I accept the rest of the New Testament as infallible as well but do not place it on the same level as the other books. These other disputed books should be interpreted through the lens of the undisputed books and not the other way around. When it comes to the issue of the additional books found in the Septuagint or apocryphal books I think there should be freedom with these as well, whether or not they are considered to part of the Christian canon. I would put them at a level below the disputed books of the New Testament.

I don't buy into the JEPD theory and even most liberal Biblical scholars don't either now. There's always going to be some sort of fad like this floating around without real proof. It helps sell books.

 

[mindlight]

The Protestant Bible was born in the aftermath of Renaissance values, and so it skipped over the traditional Catholic Old Testament and went back to the Jewish or "Hebrew" Bible. I find it ironic that, in order to "reform" Catholicism, they had to borrow the scriptures of a wholly different religion!

The Protestant selection in the OT is more like the overall attempt of the Reformation to get back to the passion , values and clarity of the early church. The books they selected are present in all the canons of all the churches and are uncontroversially authoritative.

Of course, as opposed to the Old Testament, the New Testament didn't change, and the books themselves have never differed between Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, etc.

Another affirmation of their authority. So to summarise the Protestant canon is the uncontroversial OT list and the uncontroversial NT list.

An easy solution to this problem is to advocate a tiered canon. In other words, the canon isn't an "in or out" question, but some books constitute the core (i.e. the Pentateuch, the gospels), some a close layer around it (i.e. the Prophets, the Pauline epistles) and some an outer layer (i.e. the Writings, the general epistles and apocalyptic literature). This isn't really compatible with the doctrine of inerrancy, but honestly, who cares? It's realistic, it matches how we've historically treated scripture, and it doesn't originate from the Islamic conception that God wrote the scriptures IN heaven and then floated them down from the sky.

Sorry what was the problem the Protestant canon is the unproblematic books. Not sure I agree even in terms of usage. There were times in my life when Ecclesiastes was the most helpful book. Another time Revelation stirred me most, another time Joshua, another time Mark or John.

Another interesting aspect to this question is, What is a "book"? Do the twelve minor prophets together make a single book (since before the invention of the codex they were all together in one scroll)? Should we talk about 1 and 2 Samuel as one book or two? And so on. My opinion is, the fewer the better. I like Josephus' count for the OT, something around 22 books I think.

True , but I am not sure that has any content choices impllications

Most biblical scholars still admit that the basic tenet of the documentary hypothesis is correct, namely, that the Five Books are a composite work stitched together through a very complex historical and literary process. How much we are able to detect in what way that happened, or determine the "original" documents that a supposed "editor" or "redactor" compiled, is another matter.

If you believe that all or most of the Pentateuch was written by Moses, it is a matter of faith, and one that is not stipulated by the Bible itself.

Mosaic authorship was the default position up to C17. The Wellhausen hypothesis has been largely worked through in my view and I disagree that the Documentary hypothesis is now broadly accepted. The situation has changed radically over the last 100 years. I personally believe that Moses was responsible for the text and indeed Jesus seems to affirm this and the text itself in many places, but he may have dictated parts of it to a secretary or a scribe close to him may have written down his oral teachings with his approval- hence the third person style. Its also possible that parts of it were recovered from attempts to change or distort it during the reigns of the Kings and scholars like Ezra may have therefore made inspired attempts to restore it to its original inerrant state. I am broadly happy as are most Christians in the church that whatever credence we give to textual source criticism the text we have now is broadly what was originally given and in so far as it is the original text is inerrant.

 

[mindlight]

As a Lutheran I would make a distinction between the disputed and undisputed books. If you are going to deny the infallibility of the Hebrew Bible, the Gospels, or the letters of Paul then you can no longer consider yourself an historic Christian. I accept the rest of the New Testament as infallible as well but do not place it on the same level as the other books. These other disputed books should be interpreted through the lens of the undisputed books and not the other way around. When it comes to the issue of the additional books found in the Septuagint or apocryphal books I think there should be freedom with these as well, whether or not they are considered to part of the Christian canon. I would put them at a level below the disputed books of the New Testament.

I don't buy into the JEPD theory and even most liberal Biblical scholars don't either now. There's always going to be some sort of fad like this floating around without real proof. It helps sell books.

I agreed with a lot of this but would go with the view that the Protestant selection of the original texts is inerrant rather than merely infallible. Also which books in the NT are in your view disputable?

 

[wildboar]

I agreed with a lot of this but would go with the view that the Protestant selection of the original texts is inerrant rather than merely infallible. Also which books in the NT are in your view disputable?

The problem with the term "inerrant" is that it always has as its referrent, the autographa (the original autographs) that nobody has. It was originally an astronomical term used to speak of fixed stars and became popularly used in theology only in the 19th Century when B. B. Warfield was doing battle with the liberals. He answered the difficulties and apparent contradictions brought by the liberals by appealing to inerrant autographs. In this way he shifted away from the historic position of putting authority in the infallible apographa (extant manuscripts that we actually have) inerrant autographa (original autographs that we do not have) and in an attempt to claim that the Scriptures are trustworthy, directed that trust to something that nobody can actually read.

Eusebius provides a helpful listing of the disputed and undisputed books:

Among the disputed writings, [των αντιλεγομένων] which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books. [των αντιλεγομένων]

It should be noted that the first draft of the Westminster Confession of Faith did not include the book of Revelation. The Council of Trent was the first attempt to produce a fixed list of books that were considered to be part of the authoritative canon of Scripture. I consider James and the Book of Revelation and the other books listed to be Scripture but they are not as important as the Gospels or the letters of Paul and should be interpreted in light of the Gospels and letters of Paul and not the other way around. Historically during worship, special reverence has been given to the Gospel reading and I believe that the Gospels should govern our interpretation of the rest of Scripture. Historically also Matthew has been viewed as the interpretive key to understanding the rest of the Gospels. I don't think we should excommunicate those who have doubts about the disputed books since many Christians have throughout history. I would argue that the whole issue of whether or not the Epistle to the Hebrews is part of the Canon hinges on whether or not Paul is the author. I do not believe that a person can legitimately claim that it is part of the canon but not written by Paul since Pauline authorship was the determining factor in the formation of the canon as it relates to the Epistle to the Hebrews.

 

[ittarter]

Mindlight, thanks for your in-depth response. I really appreciate the quality of your thoughts, and I hope that we can continue this discussion for a little while.

The Protestant selection in the OT is more like the overall attempt of the Reformation to get back to the passion , values and clarity of the early church. The books they selected are present in all the canons of all the churches and are uncontroversially authoritative.

Agreed. But my point was simply that the idea of "getting back" to something purer correlates and (in my view) originates in the Renaissance movement.

Another affirmation of their authority. So to summarise the Protestant canon is the uncontroversial OT list and the uncontroversial NT list.

Well, I'd have to make a small caveat the numerous books were disputed over the first few hundred years, and in the early canonical lists books like 2 Peter and Revelation were marked as "disputed." By the time of Constantine, however, that variance was basically eliminated.

Sorry what was the problem the Protestant canon is the unproblematic books.

Can you fix your sentence grammatically, so I can understand your question, please? Not meant as a slight -- I'm honestly baffled.

Not sure I agree even in terms of usage. There were times in my life when Ecclesiastes was the most helpful book. Another time Revelation stirred me most, another time Joshua, another time Mark or John.

Glad to hear it. However, I'm not referring to personal preference. Obviously many books, both inside and outside the canon, may "speak" to someone. However, if we look at (for example) the Dead Sea Scrolls, and count how many copies of Deuteronomy or the Psalms were found vis-a-vis the number of copies of Esther or Chronicles, we begin to see the shape of what has been called "a canon within the canon." If you are interested in this, I can provide some bibliographical ideas for further reading.

True , but I am not sure that has any content choices impllications

You're right. I was just looking at the idea of the NUMBER of books (which you quoted at sixty six) at a different angle. You don't have to follow this one up.

Mosaic authorship was the default position up to C17.

Agreed. However, the real question is whether or not it means the same thing now to say "Moses was the author." Before the 18th century, the biblical literature was sacred and people believed that the tools they used on other literature could not be used to garner "secular" information about biblical literature. In most conservative churches this belief persists.

The Wellhausen hypothesis has been largely worked through in my view and I disagree that the Documentary hypothesis is now broadly accepted.

What do you mean, "Documentary hypothesis"? And what do you mean, "broadly accepted?" I suspect we are talking about different things -- the main reason being that in the sentence of yours that I just cited, you seem to use "Wellhausen hypothesis" as synonymous with "Documentary hypothesis," whereas I would define the former as a subcategory of the latter. Let me explain.

Wellhausen had very specific conjectures about the historical identity and religious perspective of the sources, namely, the Jehovist, Elohist, Priestly, and Deuteronomistic writers/redacotrs, and complex process of their interactions, and clearly defined source documents that he acquired by cutting and pasting all the literary pieces he saw in the Pentateuch.

When I say that most scholars accept the basic tenets of the Documentary hypothesis, I'm NOT saying is that all scholarship still follows Wellhausen. For a long time, in fact as late as the 1970's, divinity schools and seminaries in the US and the UK generally taught the JEPD theory, but now, while most scholars still agree that (as I said before) the Pentateuch is a composite work, they rarely advocate the four-source Wellhausen theory. German biblical scholarship still pursues this line of thought, with (I think) some fruitful results, but not as much as one would hope, given all the work they've put into splicing up the Pentateuch.

I'm also NOT talking about what popular Christianity believes about the authorship of the Pentateuch. Just the academic world of biblical criticism. Since I've studied the Bible at three different schools in both the UK and North America for six years altogether, I believe my opinion in this matter has some value. Does yours too? Or are we talking about something else?

I personally believe that Moses was responsible for the text and indeed Jesus seems to affirm this and the text itself in many places, but he may have dictated parts of it to a secretary or a scribe close to him may have written down his oral teachings with his approval- hence the third person style.

Writing in the third person has nothing to do with authorship. Only two books in the entire Hebrew Bible were wholly written in the first person. To assume Mosaic authorship because in Deuteronomy he speaks in the first person is to confuse wholly distinct categories of literature.

Jesus nowhere discusses the historical authorship of the Pentateuch, just like he doesn't affirm the historicity of the events in the book of Jonah. Just like I can call the Pentateuch the "five books of Moses" without in any way making a claim one way or the other about its authorship, so could Jesus. It is a short-hand way of referring to the books. There is no evidence whatever so suggest that authorship was an important issue to Jesus. We can dissect this further, if you'd like.

Its also possible that parts of it were recovered from attempts to change or distort it during the reigns of the Kings and scholars like Ezra may have therefore made inspired attempts to restore it to its original inerrant state.

Possible, yes, but there is no hard evidence for any of textual emendation, and furthermore, it is contrary to the portrait drawn by the Bible, namely, that the Torah was lost, forgotten or ignored at some point, and then a couple of the Judaic kings are attributed with "finding" it (many folks think it was a scroll of Deuteronomy that was found) and reinstituting the rituals and practices prescribed within. There is no evidence whatsoever of Ezra restoring the actual text of the Pentateuch or any other portion of the Hebrew Bible. From what we read in the book attributed to him, he was engaged in other very different practices.

I am broadly happy as are most Christians in the church that whatever credence we give to textual source criticism the text we have now is broadly what was originally given and in so far as it is the original text is inerrant.

Agreed. This very important point is often overlooked, and I'm glad you haven't. However, even here, the question remains -- which books are the "right" ones? And that, my friend, is one big can of worms

 

[mindlight]

The problem with the term "inerrant" is that it always has as its referrent, the autographa (the original autographs) that nobody has. It was originally an astronomical term used to speak of fixed stars and became popularly used in theology only in the 19th Century when B. B. Warfield was doing battle with the liberals. He answered the difficulties and apparent contradictions brought by the liberals by appealing to inerrant autographs. In this way he shifted away from the historic position of putting authority in the infallible apographa (extant manuscripts that we actually have) inerrant autographa (original autographs that we do not have) and in an attempt to claim that the Scriptures are trustworthy, directed that trust to something that nobody can actually read.

Infallibility may be the practical reality of the text in my pocket but inerrancy is an affirmation of the perfection and direction of the God who inspires the text.

Eusebius provides a helpful listing of the disputed and undisputed books:

Eusebius is an interesting read and his thoughts are worth listening to. He is the first church historian. But there are errors in his account. That there were debates going on on his day about these disputed books does not deny the NT canon that came to be accepted by all the Christian churches.

It should be noted that the first draft of the Westminster Confession of Faith did not include the book of Revelation. The Council of Trent was the first attempt to produce a fixed list of books that were considered to be part of the authoritative canon of Scripture. I consider James and the Book of Revelation and the other books listed to be Scripture but they are not as important as the Gospels or the letters of Paul and should be interpreted in light of the Gospels and letters of Paul and not the other way around. Historically during worship, special reverence has been given to the Gospel reading and I believe that the Gospels should govern our interpretation of the rest of Scripture. Historically also Matthew has been viewed as the interpretive key to understanding the rest of the Gospels. I don't think we should excommunicate those who have doubts about the disputed books since many Christians have throughout history. I would argue that the whole issue of whether or not the Epistle to the Hebrews is part of the Canon hinges on whether or not Paul is the author. I do not believe that a person can legitimately claim that it is part of the canon but not written by Paul since Pauline authorship was the determining factor in the formation of the canon as it relates to the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Pauline authorship of Hebrews is the clear tradition of the churches. An aversion to James is very Lutheran. Luther called them an epistle of straw. I suppose they rub against the grain of justification by faith. In practice I would elevate the gospels higher but I wonder if that's a correct view to take if all these NT scriptures are in effect God breathed like the OT.

 

[mindlight]

Mindlight, thanks for your in-depth response. I really appreciate the quality of your thoughts, and I hope that we can continue this discussion for a little while.

I feel like I am being buttered up for the kiill!

Agreed. But my point was simply that the idea of "getting back" to something purer correlates and (in my view) originates in the Renaissance movement.

Interesting perception. The renaissance followed the recovery from the ravages of the bubonic plague in the late C14, the final recovery of European civilisation to Roman and Greek levels of civilisation, art and technology, the application of insights gained from the crusades from more advanced civilisations with whom we had warred. A new level of trade and sharing ideas across Europe. A flowering of the Christian universities.To some extent I suppose it was a looking back but even more it was a surging forward into new realms for the first time in a thousand years.

Well, I'd have to make a small caveat the numerous books were disputed over the first few hundred years, and in the early canonical lists books like 2 Peter and Revelation were marked as "disputed." By the time of Constantine, however, that variance was basically eliminated.

Agreed

Can you fix your sentence grammatically, so I can understand your question, please? Not meant as a slight -- I'm honestly baffled.

Excuse me but what is the problem here? The Protestant canon includes an unproblematic selection of bible books which are regarded as authoritative by the majority of the churches.

Glad to hear it. However, I'm not referring to personal preference. Obviously many books, both inside and outside the canon, may "speak" to someone. However, if we look at (for example) the Dead Sea Scrolls, and count how many copies of Deuteronomy or the Psalms were found vis-a-vis the number of copies of Esther or Chronicles, we begin to see the shape of what has been called "a canon within the canon." If you are interested in this, I can provide some bibliographical ideas for further reading.

I accept that books from the Essenes sects collection at Qumran included considerable deviations from the standard text and have raised all sorts of scholarly questions. It is clear that the Jews had their own favourite texts. Many of these questions will probably take a while to work through. I see this process as the progress of the church towards an appreciation of the inerrancy of the original autographs if we ever reach them. In the end the Bible has authority to challenge and overthrow our personal opinions about it.

Agreed. However, the real question is whether or not it means the same thing now to say "Moses was the author." Before the 18th century, the biblical literature was sacred and people believed that the tools they used on other literature could not be used to garner "secular" information about biblical literature. In most conservative churches this belief persists.

The bible has been criticised in an unprecedented fashion over the last few centuries. But many of these assaults have been worked through in my view. The text itself affirms Mosaic authorship as quoted earlier and Jesus seems to affirm this in the John quote I provided.

What do you mean, "Documentary hypothesis"? And what do you mean, "broadly accepted?" I suspect we are talking about different things -- the main reason being that in the sentence of yours that I just cited, you seem to use "Wellhausen hypothesis" as synonymous with "Documentary hypothesis," whereas I would define the former as a subcategory of the latter. Let me explain.

Wellhausen had very specific conjectures about the historical identity and religious perspective of the sources, namely, the Jehovist, Elohist, Priestly, and Deuteronomistic writers/redacotrs, and complex process of their interactions, and clearly defined source documents that he acquired by cutting and pasting all the literary pieces he saw in the Pentateuch.

When I say that most scholars accept the basic tenets of the Documentary hypothesis, I'm NOT saying is that all scholarship still follows Wellhausen. For a long time, in fact as late as the 1970's, divinity schools and seminaries in the US and the UK generally taught the JEPD theory, but now, while most scholars still agree that (as I said before) the Pentateuch is a composite work, they rarely advocate the four-source Wellhausen theory. German biblical scholarship still pursues this line of thought, with (I think) some fruitful results, but not as much as one would hope, given all the work they've put into splicing up the Pentateuch.

I'm also NOT talking about what popular Christianity believes about the authorship of the Pentateuch. Just the academic world of biblical criticism. Since I've studied the Bible at three different schools in both the UK and North America for six years altogether, I believe my opinion in this matter has some value. Does yours too? Or are we talking about something else?

Writing in the third person has nothing to do with authorship. Only two books in the entire Hebrew Bible were wholly written in the first person. To assume Mosaic authorship because in Deuteronomy he speaks in the first person is to confuse wholly distinct categories of literature.

Jesus nowhere discusses the historical authorship of the Pentateuch, just like he doesn't affirm the historicity of the events in the book of Jonah. Just like I can call the Pentateuch the "five books of Moses" without in any way making a claim one way or the other about its authorship, so could Jesus. It is a short-hand way of referring to the books. There is no evidence whatever so suggest that authorship was an important issue to Jesus. We can dissect this further, if you'd like.

Wellhausen is just the most powerful expression of a view that is both older than him and which has variations following him. I went to Bible College and did a PhD on an apologetic theme also but not sure these things are as important as the arguments at the end of the day. Documentary hypothesis was taught where I went but people were more sceptical of it than they would have been in more liberal institutions. Jesus appears to affirm Moses as author but I grant you it might not have been his primary concern to do so.

Possible, yes, but there is no hard evidence for any of textual emendation, and furthermore, it is contrary to the portrait drawn by the Bible, namely, that the Torah was lost, forgotten or ignored at some point, and then a couple of the Judaic kings are attributed with "finding" it (many folks think it was a scroll of Deuteronomy that was found) and reinstituting the rituals and practices prescribed within. There is no evidence whatsoever of Ezra restoring the actual text of the Pentateuch or any other portion of the Hebrew Bible. From what we read in the book attributed to him, he was engaged in other very different practices.

You sound convincing to me on these points

 

[ittarter]

I feel like I am being buttered up for the kiill!
lol. I've found that actually saying this stuff, not just thinking it, goes a long way toward a discussion where both sides listen instead of just "waiting for their turn to speak."

Interesting perception. The renaissance followed the recovery from the ravages of the bubonic plague in the late C14, the final recovery of European civilisation to Roman and Greek levels of civilisation, art and technology, the application of insights gained from the crusades from more advanced civilisations with whom we had warred. A new level of trade and sharing ideas across Europe. A flowering of the Christian universities.To some extent I suppose it was a looking back but even more it was a surging forward into new realms for the first time in a thousand years.

Absolutely. I see that same paradox.

I accept that books from the Essenes sects collection at Qumran included considerable deviations from the standard text and have raised all sorts of scholarly questions. It is clear that the Jews had their own favourite texts. Many of these questions will probably take a while to work through. I see this process as the progress of the church towards an appreciation of the inerrancy of the original autographs if we ever reach them. In the end the Bible has authority to challenge and overthrow our personal opinions about it.

If you take issue with the sectarian perspective of Qumran, then perhaps you might be more convinced by a survey of OT citations in the NT itself. Some books are quoted regularly and others are never even alluded to. I believe this demonstrates the "canon within the canon" principle operative even for the early Jewish Christians. I suspect the same is true of the early fathers.

The bible has been criticised in an unprecedented fashion over the last few centuries. But many of these assaults have been worked through in my view. The text itself affirms Mosaic authorship as quoted earlier and Jesus seems to affirm this in the John quote I provided.

I agree that, on many occasions, the Bible was wrongly believed to be in contradiction to the so-called "historical facts" and that many of these have been corrected over the years. However, I maintain that most biblical scholarship is STILL not convinced of true Mosaic authorship. Baptist theologians, maybe but not scholars who write for, say, JBL.

Wellhausen is just the most powerful expression of a view that is both older than him and which has variations following him. I went to Bible College and did a PhD on an apologetic theme also but not sure these things are as important as the arguments at the end of the day. Documentary hypothesis was taught where I went but people were more sceptical of it than they would have been in more liberal institutions. Jesus appears to affirm Moses as author but I grant you it might not have been his primary concern to do so.

At the University of Edinburgh there was little interest in determining "sources" or traditions behind the Pentateuch; however we had one memorable lecturer from Germany who presented a paper on a posited Egyptian Yahwist community behind some of the Joseph story. Thought-provoking, and a number of my professors said that it was a strong thesis -- as far as that sort of thesis goes, they said! From my conversations with them and my own readings of the Pentateuch it seems pretty clear to me that the text as a whole is a composite work, but has been interwoven so masterfully that it is impossible, from internal evidence alone, to determine where one tradition ends and another begins.

Thanks for this discussion. Anything you'd like to talk about further?

 

[wildboar]

Infallibility may be the practical reality of the text in my pocket but inerrancy is an affirmation of the perfection and direction of the God who inspires the text.

But if you don't have the text, what good does it do to focus on inerrancy? The shift from infallibility to inerrancy is 19th century phenomenon. Up until this time people generally trusted the text in front of them and were not appealing to inerrant autographa.

Eusebius is an interesting read and his thoughts are worth listening to. He is the first church historian. But there are errors in his account. That there were debates going on on his day about these disputed books does not deny the NT canon that came to be accepted by all the Christian churches.

It really depends what you mean by "over time" and what you mean by "all the Christian churches." The Lutheran confessions do not give a list of canonical books. On a practical level the vast majority of conservative confessional Lutherans accept the Protestant Canon but they are not required to. As I said before the Book of Revelation was not included in the first draft of the Westminster Confession. The Eastern Church took much longer to accept the Book of Revelation than the West did and it is the only New Testament book that is not read by the Eastern Orthodox in their lectionary readings. Jerome and others in the West continued to question the book of Revelation.

Pauline authorship of Hebrews is the clear tradition of the churches. An aversion to James is very Lutheran. Luther called them an epistle of straw. I suppose they rub against the grain of justification by faith. In practice I would elevate the gospels higher but I wonder if that's a correct view to take if all these NT scriptures are in effect God breathed like the OT.

I don't have an aversion to James, I just think it is wrongly interpreted if not read through lens imposed upon it by the very ordering of the canon and I don't believe that people should be excommunicated for doubting its authenticity. The church has always accepted the Gospels and letters of Paul. It has not always been so with James. Just because all of the Scriptures are God-breathed does not mean that they are all equally clear and all function in the same way. The Gospels for the NT Christian ought to function in a similar way to the way that the Pentateuch functioned for the Old Testament Jew. There were disputes among the Jews about the canon but nobody who would have wanted to be thought of as an historical Jew would question the Pentateuch. It formed the backbone for interpretation of the rest of Scripture. The Book of Revelation has been taken to teach a wide variety of ridiculous things. But it becomes much clearer if you have a firm grasp on the undisputed books and you realize that it's all about Jesus and not about reading newspaper headlines. The Book of Revelation assumes an understanding of the rest of Scripture and instead people jump to Revelation because it's so weird and they find it interesting and full of hidden secrets. They develop an interpretation of it, and then read that interpretation into the rest of Scripture.

 

[mindlight]

lol. I've found that actually saying this stuff, not just thinking it, goes a long way toward a discussion where both sides listen instead of just "waiting for their turn to speak."

Thanks for the interesting insights.

If you take issue with the sectarian perspective of Qumran, then perhaps you might be more convinced by a survey of OT citations in the NT itself. Some books are quoted regularly and others are never even alluded to. I believe this demonstrates the "canon within the canon" principle operative even for the early Jewish Christians. I suspect the same is true of the early fathers.

Pentateuchal books , Isaiah and the Psalms were the top books at Qumran and I understand they probably rank as highly in Jewish thought. The influence of Moses is paramount here even for a Saducean sect like the Essenes with the wider variety of more dubious magical texts etc that were also found there. The New Testament speaks of Jesus as a New Moses who surpasses him and the references are not just quotes but themes. Jesus is the Bread of life where Moses gave mannah in wilderness. Jesus gives the teachings from the mountain where Moses came from Sinai. The Passover is replaced by Last Supper, bronze snake by cross , sacrifice system by the ultimate sacrifice of the cross. Moses is 40 years in wilderness coming out of Egypt. Jesus was also in Egypt and had 40 days being tempted in the wilderness. But the Jewish obsession with Moses and unbalanced reading of their canon meant that other books e.g. about David and Solommon and the Kings of Israel were less well read. Jesus was not just a priest and a "Teacher of Righteousness" but also a King and Prophet

I agree that, on many occasions, the Bible was wrongly believed to be in contradiction to the so-called "historical facts" and that many of these have been corrected over the years. However, I maintain that most biblical scholarship is STILL not convinced of true Mosaic authorship. Baptist theologians, maybe but not scholars who write for, say, JBL.

In the account of the Transfiguration Luke 9 v 28-36 Jesus meets with two heavenly inhabitants who discuss the impending events of his death and departure from Jerusalem. The two who are chosen for this conversation were Moses and Elijah. Moses representing the Law and Elijah the Prophets. Both it seems are transcended and surpassed by Jesus in his glory on the mountain and to come. Even the citizens of heaven sought to interpret the path Jesus would take but he was greater than they. He brings a new revelation and when they depart he remains to complete his mission and to achieve his greater purpose. Since the person of Moses is so heavily identified with the Law by Jewish tradition and by the NT itself why should we doubt his authorship of the books in which his teachings come down to us.

At the University of Edinburgh there was little interest in determining "sources" or traditions behind the Pentateuch; however we had one memorable lecturer from Germany who presented a paper on a posited Egyptian Yahwist community behind some of the Joseph story. Thought-provoking, and a number of my professors said that it was a strong thesis -- as far as that sort of thesis goes, they said! From my conversations with them and my own readings of the Pentateuch it seems pretty clear to me that the text as a whole is a composite work, but has been interwoven so masterfully that it is impossible, from internal evidence alone, to determine where one tradition ends and another begins.

There are some very deep thinkers who have spent years researching these socalled sources, Its possible that Moses himself is the key to understanding how oral traditions, direct experiences and on occasions writings now lost to us may have been woven together in an inspired fashion into the text of the Pentateuch. The NT seems to attribute Moses as the glue holding the various themes it seizes on. Also that he may well have composed the books over many years , possibly even starting when herding sheep in Midian on Genesis for instance while trying to understand the people he had murdered for. His different experiences the length of his life and the changes he experienced in himself could account for a great deal of the textual diversity.

 

[mindlight]

But if you don't have the text, what good does it do to focus on inerrancy? The shift from infallibility to inerrancy is 19th century phenomenon. Up until this time people generally trusted the text in front of them and were not appealing to inerrant autographa.

Psalm 119 in answer to that. People have believed the scriptures to be trustworthy for thousands of years. What textual criticism has done is raise questions which should drive people deeper into the scriptures to determine their true meaning and intent. To say infallibility rather than inerrancy is enshrine doubt about the text in front of us. I believe by faith that God can lead me to the inerrant meaning of the text with or without the perfect wording that may have existed in an original autograph someone would have had to translate for me anyway.

It really depends what you mean by "over time" and what you mean by "all the Christian churches." The Lutheran confessions do not give a list of canonical books. On a practical level the vast majority of conservative confessional Lutherans accept the Protestant Canon but they are not required to. As I said before the Book of Revelation was not included in the first draft of the Westminster Confession. The Eastern Church took much longer to accept the Book of Revelation than the West did and it is the only New Testament book that is not read by the Eastern Orthodox in their lectionary readings. Jerome and others in the West continued to question the book of Revelation.

I don't have an aversion to James, I just think it is wrongly interpreted if not read through lens imposed upon it by the very ordering of the canon and I don't believe that people should be excommunicated for doubting its authenticity. The church has always accepted the Gospels and letters of Paul. It has not always been so with James. Just because all of the Scriptures are God-breathed does not mean that they are all equally clear and all function in the same way. The Gospels for the NT Christian ought to function in a similar way to the way that the Pentateuch functioned for the Old Testament Jew. There were disputes among the Jews about the canon but nobody who would have wanted to be thought of as an historical Jew would question the Pentateuch. It formed the backbone for interpretation of the rest of Scripture. The Book of Revelation has been taken to teach a wide variety of ridiculous things. But it becomes much clearer if you have a firm grasp on the undisputed books and you realize that it's all about Jesus and not about reading newspaper headlines. The Book of Revelation assumes an understanding of the rest of Scripture and instead people jump to Revelation because it's so weird and they find it interesting and full of hidden secrets. They develop an interpretation of it, and then read that interpretation into the rest of Scripture.

Setting aside the more ridiculous ways in which Revelation has been misused over time I believe very strongly that Revelation and James have a very special place in the canon and have proven their enduring worth over time. Revelation for the suffering and persecuted church reveals the prevailing Power and majesty of the glorified Christ and inspires worship to Him and confidence about the future. James challenges a complacent church that panders to rich people and has a form of godliness without acting it out in practice. Both are crucial texts for the church today and if people do not always use them as much as the gospels very often it might be because they are more challenging in some ways.

Usage may reflect distortions in the church. The canon within the canon of the Jews may explain their blindness to their King when he came to them. In what sense are we also blinded by our preferences? The Documentary hypothesis in this sense is the product of a scientific and rationalistic approach , a symptom of a change of intellectual climate rather than a serious challenge to the authenticity of scripture.

 

[wildboar]

Psalm 119 in answer to that. People have believed the scriptures to be trustworthy for thousands of years. What textual criticism has done is raise questions which should drive people deeper into the scriptures to determine their true meaning and intent. To say infallibility rather than inerrancy is enshrine doubt about the text in front of us. I believe by faith that God can lead me to the inerrant meaning of the text with or without the perfect wording that may have existed in an original autograph someone would have had to translate for me anyway.

Infallibility is the historic theological language to use when speaking of the Scriptures and should not leave a person in doubt unless they are using a non-historic liberal definition of the word. The New Testament shows that Jesus and the Apostles were utterly certain of the infallibility of the Old Testament Scriptures were completely unconcerned with the original autographs. Jesus and the Apostles quote freely from various textual traditions. Most often the tradition behind the Septuagint is quoted and the Septuagint is not the original autographs of the Old Testament. Other times the textual tradition behind the Hebrew Masoretic text is quoted. At other times some unknown textual tradition is quoted. They quoted from manuscripts that they were familiar with and referred to them as the Word of God.

Setting aside the more ridiculous ways in which Revelation has been misused over time I believe very strongly that Revelation and James have a very special place in the canon and have proven their enduring worth over time. Revelation for the suffering and persecuted church reveals the prevailing Power and majesty of the glorified Christ and inspires worship to Him and confidence about the future. James challenges a complacent church that panders to rich people and has a form of godliness without acting it out in practice. Both are crucial texts for the church today and if people do not always use them as much as the gospels very often it might be because they are more challenging in some ways.

Historically Christians have I believe rightly been focused upon the Gospels because of their clarity and because they contain the very Words of Christ that He spoke while He walked on this earth and I believe a Christ-centered approach to the Scriptures should rightly follow this practice. Modern evangelical Christianity is more concerned about what we should be doing and so is more comfortable preaching from James or looking for secret messages in Revelation. Don't get me wrong, I think these are wonderful books if used rightly but they do not have the same clarity that other books do. It's easier to get to the wrong place by using Revelation as your starting point than it is to get to the wrong place by using Matthew as your starting point. Martin Luther said that all Christian doctrine can be found in the Gospel according to Matthew and I believe he is right. There are other books of the Bible that emphasize certain teachings contained within the Gospels but the Gospels have them all.

I don't think that the Jewish problem was their emphasis in the Canon. It was their failure to understand that the law was given to show them their sinfulness and need of a Savior. Sectarians used the prophetic books to go off into all kinds of goofy directions.

 

[johnd]

There are 70 books in the Bible (when you count all 5 books of Psalms).

 

[ittarter]

Pentateuchal books , Isaiah and the Psalms were the top books at Qumran and I understand they probably rank as highly in Jewish thought. The influence of Moses is paramount here even for a Saducean sect like the Essenes with the wider variety of more dubious magical texts etc that were also found there. The New Testament speaks of Jesus as a New Moses who surpasses him and the references are not just quotes but themes. Jesus is the Bread of life where Moses gave mannah in wilderness. Jesus gives the teachings from the mountain where Moses came from Sinai. The Passover is replaced by Last Supper, bronze snake by cross , sacrifice system by the ultimate sacrifice of the cross. Moses is 40 years in wilderness coming out of Egypt. Jesus was also in Egypt and had 40 days being tempted in the wilderness. But the Jewish obsession with Moses and unbalanced reading of their canon meant that other books e.g. about David and Solommon and the Kings of Israel were less well read. Jesus was not just a priest and a "Teacher of Righteousness" but also a King and Prophet

Excellent overview of the "another like me" motif in the NT.

Yes, Isaiah was the centerpiece for true eschatological thought in OT religion. It is often said that he is the first prophet to achieve a full vision of the imminent and cataclysmic return of God to his throne, Zion/Jerusalem. Of course, before Isaiah there was little reason to think in that direction, because in Jerusalem there still operated the temple of YHWH, not to mention the palace of the king.

The Psalms are obviously the liturgical or spiritual heart of the Bible; however it is well known that different versions of the Psalter were discovered at Qumran -- and this is hardly surprising, given its nature.

But of course, the teachings of Moses are at the root of both Isaiah and the Psalter. Both later texts are responding to the earlier teachings etc. of the first and greatest leader of the Hebrew people.

In the account of the Transfiguration Luke 9 v 28-36 Jesus meets with two heavenly inhabitants who discuss the impending events of his death and departure from Jerusalem. The two who are chosen for this conversation were Moses and Elijah. Moses representing the Law and Elijah the Prophets. Both it seems are transcended and surpassed by Jesus in his glory on the mountain and to come. Even the citizens of heaven sought to interpret the path Jesus would take but he was greater than they. He brings a new revelation and when they depart he remains to complete his mission and to achieve his greater purpose.

Absolutely.

Since the person of Moses is so heavily identified with the Law by Jewish tradition and by the NT itself why should we doubt his authorship of the books in which his teachings come down to us.

I suppose I distinguish between the "person" and the "authorship" of Moses. I have no reason to doubt that a historical person by the name of Moses is responsible for unifying the Hebrew people, not only as a military and political force but also as a cultural and religious phenomenon.

At the same time, I understand how normal it is for a society to "write backwards" and attribute to a saint or great figure teachings and doings that he didn't actually do, in the sense of historiography. This is part of the process of building tradition that is relevant to the present day, and for cultures that have a less stringent view of what constitutes "true history" -- that is, cultures outside of or prior to the scientific revolution in human thought -- it is not deceptive, misleading or "wrong" to do this. As far as they are concerned, because they are his true followers, any practice or ritual they engage in is as good as having been instituted by their ancient leader, because it is a given that there is complete continuity between them and him.

Thus, I submit that Moses didn't write the Pentateuch, but he is its ideological (and perhaps even literary?) inspiration in a far more crucial sense than us "moderns" find it easy to understand.

There are some very deep thinkers who have spent years researching these socalled sources, Its possible that Moses himself is the key to understanding how oral traditions, direct experiences and on occasions writings now lost to us may have been woven together in an inspired fashion into the text of the Pentateuch. The NT seems to attribute Moses as the glue holding the various themes it seizes on. Also that he may well have composed the books over many years , possibly even starting when herding sheep in Midian on Genesis for instance while trying to understand the people he had murdered for. His different experiences the length of his life and the changes he experienced in himself could account for a great deal of the textual diversity.

Yes, yes, all possible, but I still have no reason to default to the position of Mosaic authorship. I have no good reason for starting there.

Fact 1. No one claims authorship of the Pentateuch. This is true of almost the whole OT canon -- vis-a-vis comparable Canaanite and Ugaritic literature from the same period.

Fact 2. Documents who accredit the Pentateuch to Moses are not making historiographical claims. The common association of the Torah with Moses has other kinds of significance.

Fact 3. According to the internal evidence of writing style and literary technique, most linguists date the majority of the Pentateuch -- besides unusual elements like the Song of the Sea (Exod. 15) -- to hundreds of years after Moses' life.

I'm sure there are others, but these seem pretty important, and they're the first ones I thought of.

 

[wildboar]

There are 70 books in the Bible (when you count all 5 books of Psalms).

Of course in the Hebrew Bible Ezra and Nehemiah are one book and...