POST THREE OF FOUR
t’s not just TEXTS containing opposing doctrines that can be excluded, but individuals who step away from the party line regarding a popular canon were excluded from religious influence as well. For example : In Geneva, Sebastian Castellio, an Erasmian in the court of the Lord, was denied ordination to the ministry on the ground among others that he rejected the inspiration of the Song of Songs. The ministers of Geneva (including Calvin) gave this account of the incident : "Castellio said that it was a lascivious and obscene poem in which Solomon described his indecent amours. [...]we told him also that he should not trust so to his own judgment, especially when he advanced nothing which had not been obvious to everyone before he was born...[...] When this did not weigh with him we considered what we should do. We were all agreed that it would be dangerous and set a bad example if he were admitted to the ministry on this condition. To begin with, good people would be not a little offended if they heard that we had ordained a minister who openly rejected and condemned a book accepted as Scripture by all the churches. Further the door would be open to adversaries and detractors who seek to defame the gospel and disrupt this church. Finally, we should be without any answer for the future to anyone who wanted to repudiate Ecclesiastes or Proverbs or any other book, unless we wanted to debate whether or no the book were worthy of the Holy Spirit (Cal. Op. XI, 674-6 (Corpus Reformatorum 39)
5) REFORMATION DISCUSSIONS : ARE THEY A PROVISIONAL MODEL FOR ANCIENT CANONICAL DISPUTATIONS?
Since we do not HAVE many clear records describing specific ancient discussions and disputations as the Old Testament “ur-texts” were written and came to be either included or excluded from an increasingly stabilizing group of popular Jewish texts, we cannot know exactly how the ancient Jews came to accept one text over another in the gradual production of what came to be the western Old Testament. We don’t have many extant records from the production period of New Testament texts that specifically record discussions and disputations regarding the specific popular Christian texts that ultimately became the western New Testament.
However, we DO have later discussions and disputations where influential protestant leaders discuss the canon. I believe that these discussions help us form an fairly accurate “provisional models” as to what ancient discussions and disputations were like; the very discussions and disputations and principals involved in forming the various ancient Judeo-Christian Canons. An analysis of these discussions may help us understand WHY some books came to be included in a canon and why others were excluded AND, perhaps serve to correct some of our erroneous assumptions regarding the genesis of sacred canons themselves. For example :
AUTHORSHIP DID NOT DETERMINE THE POPULAR CANON FOR REFORMERS
It was long known by Protestant reformers that Moses could not have written the account of his own death and Carlstadt pointed this out, yet again when the issue of false authorship came up as an issue. (Herman Barge, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, 2 vols (1905), 1, 193.) Luther admitted that this portion of Genesis must have been added by someone else, but felt that we should accept Moses as partial author of the text preceding his death. Luther, in his own right, did not believe Revelation was apostolic nor that Hebrews was Pauline. However, In Luther’s translations, he kept both of them in his Canon despite making significant changes in his translation of the text.
There was and is still a lot of confusion regarding the texts of the New Testament : For example, the early traditions fixed upon Clement of Rome as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (On Origen’s authority, ap. Euseb, H.E. vi.25). Some later traditions attribute it to Paul. Others disagree with them. No one can confirm WHO wrote it. Thus the text was involved in on-going controversy as to whether it should be included in the “canon” or not. We still do not know who it's author was. However, since all New Testament books are apocryphal or pseudographic to the extent that they could not prove the authorship of any of them other than the deep tradition gleaned from early writers, then the ability to PROVE authorship was NOT a criteria for inclusion into the biblical text.
6) THE VIEWS REGARDING SPECIFIC AUTHORITY OF BOOKS WERE DRIVEN BY DOCTRINAL PREFERENCES AND UPON THEIR VALUE AS DOCTRINAL SUPPORT
I believe that when one looks and the underlying motives and criteria, one finds that these influential players viewed texts as authoritative to the degree that the texts agreed best with their own religious notions and beliefs rather than a dependence upon an arbitrary catholic derived canonicity, or traditional inclusion.
For example : In their controversy over the freedom of the will, Erasmus argued with Luther by citing Sirach (from Old Testament apocrpha). He believes it authoritative and says: “I think no one should detract from the authority of this book Because Saint Jerome indicated that it should not belong to the Hebrew canon, since Christians received it into their canon, and I cannot see why the Hebrews excluded it when they included the Parables of Solomon[presumably Ecclesiastes rather than Proverbs] and the amatory Canticles . (Weimar edition (W), 18, 666, lines 18-22; Tishreden (TR), 1, no. 475. 208)
Luther, having his own scriptural dislikes said : “I so hate Ester and II Maccabees that I wish they did not exist. There is too much Judaism in them and not a little heathenism.”
However, Luther’s reasons for dislike of Maccabees was because it contains the scripture on which the Catholics based the doctrine of purgatory (Xii 40-6). Ester, however, was in the canon.
Luther loves Paul’s writings on Faith because Luther’s faith is so dependent upon them, however, the writings of James which is used so often to counter Luther’s doctrine, is NOT accepted to readily by Luther. The Epistle of James Luther characterizes as an ‘epistle of straw’. In 1522 Luther declares regarding the Book of Revelation that he : “...could not regard it as prophetic or apostolic or even as the work of the Holy Ghost because it was so replete with visions and images.” The worst was that in this book ‘Christ was neither taught nor known’. Luther would not impose his own opinion upon others, but for himself his spirit "could not find its way into this book” (Erlangen edition (EA), 63, 115, 169.)
Luther could find only pretend enough palliation towards the book of James so as not to “forbid it”. He says regarding James : “... His book is not to be forbidden, because it does contain some good sayings.” (EA, 63, 157) Still, his view on the minimal value and authority of James for doctrine is clear. It is also clear from such sayings that, for such influential individuals, (who affected both the canons and biblical texts of millions of others), THEIR PERSONAL BELIEFS DETERMINED THEIR PERSONAL CANONS, that is, if the text agreed with their beliefs, it was viewed as authoritative. If the text did not agree with their views, it either was NOT viewed as authoritative, OR, it was views as LESS authoritative. It is a two edged sword that both uses some text and avoids other texts just as we see from the ways scriptures are used in debates on the forums nowadays.
An important criteria for Luther was whether a book, (in HIS PERSONAL ESTIMATION) “proclaimed Christ”. He proclaimed: “That which does not preach Christ is not apostolic though it be the work of Peter or Paul and conversely that which does teach Christ is apostolic even though it be written by Judas, Annas, Pilate, Herod.” (Luther in EA, 63, 156f)
Thus, again we see that the religious ideology of individuals affects the types of text they as sacred. If the Bible tells us anything, it tells us that it is always more difficult to change ones current dogma to match a living prophet than it is to “listen selectively” or to cull from a speaeh or text, that which does not match our personal theology. The problem with such an arbitrary criteria and the actions which follow it, is that it is dependent upon background and understanding and a host of purely personal characteristics. This is what I mean when I say that ANCIENT INCLUSIONS INTO THE CANON WERE DRIVEN BY DOCTRINAL PREFERENCES of influencial individuals and groups.
If issues such as personal and popular doctrine determined which texts the influential individuals choose as authorized scripture for CHRISTIANS, then can one assume that similar issues and arguments affected ancient influential Jews anciently in their attitudes and in their editing and translations of texts they selected to include in an arbitary canon anciently?
We sometimes hear that a Jewish council at Jamnia determined the Jewish canon, but this is not so. The council was convened to discuss which books “defiled the hands” in the view of the specific type of Jews *attending this meeting. (“defiling the hands” was is a euphemism for which books were so sacred as to require one to wash ones hands to be read, and other, less respected books did not require the washing of the hands). Their discussions and disputations concerned a level of respect that is being described and I imagine their disputations occurred in their meetings regarding their canon were similar in nature to the disputations among the reformers regarding the reformers’ canon. (*By “specific type of Jews” I mean this in the sense that such determinations, would have been dominated by the dominate type of Judaism controlling the Jamnian conference.)
If Jewish apostates (from original ancient Judaism) are the dominant religion, then apostate Judaism would dominant such discussions, would determine the popular canon and would affect the text and translation that went into that canon. One must remember that Jamnia came on the tail end of any number of such discussions comprised of any number of individuals and groups who would have both included and culled texts and who would have edited those texts according to some standard, and that standard would have been THEIR personal beliefs, and/or the beliefs of the religious community of which they were a part.
It is partly because this principle the translator Jim Sanders comments “Whenever one says canon, one has to be clear which community one is talking about. It one says canon, one has to say which canon. There are many canons. The Ethiopian Orthodox canon has 81 books in it.....Professor VanderKam said this morning that we don’t really know the limits of what would have been thought of an authoritative traditional literature at Qumran. . (Lecture, Oct 27, 1990 BAR)
POST FOUR OF FOUR FOLLOWS
