Progressive Revelation (2)

“Now it is not with you alone that I am making this covenant and this oath, but both with those who stand here with us today in the presence of the Lord our God, and with those who are not with us here today.  Deuteronomy 29:14-15  NASB

Not with us – Yesterday we explored the idea of revelation and canonization.  We discovered that there are two streams of thought in Judaism (and in Christianity).  The first is the more popular, that the canon is closed and no new revelation will ever come along to change any of it.   The second is progressive revelation, that God from time to time reveals more of His will and, consequently, past revelation can be reinterpreted or changed based on new information.  We didn’t settle this issue because it raises another, more fundamental question.  Which canon?  What body of sacred material are we talking about?  For an answer to that question, I provide an analysis from Kristopher Carlson (it’s a bit long, but worth it):

Hidden in Plain Sight, Part 1: The Development of the Canon

Kristofer Carlson

https://www.academia.edu/38285305/The_Development_of_the_Canon_docx

1:  Which Bible? Which Canon?

Protestants say the Bible contains 66 books: the 39 books of the Old Testament (OT) and the 27 books of the New Testament (NT). They might even be able to name them. Roman Catholics say the Sacred Scripture consisted of 77 books while the Eastern Orthodox say there are 81. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church has an even larger canon. There are other groups, like the Syriac and the Coptic churches which have different canonical criteria.[1] Rev. Dr. Wil Gafney writes:

The Protestant Bible is the shortest and newest of Christian bibles and used by the fewest number of Christians around the world, yet its adherents — particularly in the American context – are the loudest. Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and Episcopal bibles like the original 1611 King James Version of the bible, Martin Luther’s revolutionary translation and the earliest manuscript with both testaments, Codex Sinaticus [sic], have 72 to 80 books or more and are read by the vast majority of Christians on the planet, more than a billion and a half people. There is perhaps the most diversity among the Orthodox with Ethiopian Orthodox including Jubilees and the Books of Enoch and some Slav churches including all four Esdrases.[2]

The books which Protestants do not accept they call the Apocrypha. F.F. Bruce uses the term Apocrypha to mean ‘spurious works’;[3] however, the etymology of the term suggests it means ‘hidden books.’ Robert Henry Charles writes concerning the development of the term Apocrypha.

How the term ‘Apocryphal Books’ (άπόκρυφα βιβλία) arose has not yet been determined. It did not, as Zahn (Gesch, des Neutestamentlichen Kanons I. i. 123 sq.), Schurer, Porter, N. Schmidt, and others maintain, originate in the Late Hebrew phrase, ספרים נסתרים, ‘hidden books.’ But Talmudic literature knows nothing of such a class. The Hebrew word ganas (גנו) does not mean to hide’, but ‘to store away’ things in themselves precious. Indeed, so far is it from being a technical term in reference to non-Canonical writings, that it is most frequently used in reference to the Canonical Scriptures themselves. When writings were wholly without the pale of the Sacred books—such as those of the heretics or Samaritans—they were usually designated hisonim, i.e. ‘ outside.’[4]

The ancients did not use the term ‘Apocryphal’ in the way we use it today; indeed, Apocryphal never referred to what Protestants today call the Apocrypha. There were books in the Hebrew Scriptures (such as the Song of Solomon) which were considered to have hidden meanings; these books come closer to the idea contained in the ancient term ‘Apocryphal.’

As far as the canon goes, the group Islamic Awareness provides an interesting look into the canonical problem. They list eight different canons of scripture: the Anglican Church, the Armenian Church, the Coptic Church, the Ethiopian (Abyssinian) Church, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Protestant Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Syriac Church.[5] How curious that it takes the Muslims to tell us the canon of Scripture is not as settled as we like to think.

We often think of the Bible as a fixed collection of books. However, the canonical history is complicated. In our discussions of inspiration and the canon of scripture, we forget about the human factor. The Scriptures did not just fall from the sky in finished form; instead, the writings and collections were a human effort. Karl Barth reminds us of this when he speaks of “the two humanly composed and selected collections which we call the Bible.”[6] Christians rightly credit inspiration to the Holy Spirit, but sometimes forget holy men of God mediated this inspiration. (2Pe 1:21) Just as with inspiration of individual books, so too with the canon as a whole; the Holy Spirit works through human beings. Like all human endeavors, the canon of Scripture is messy.

Some people credit Emperor Constantine with the creation of the Bible as we know it, but this is historically inaccurate.[7] The church fathers were less interested in defining what was in the canon as what was most definitely outside the canon. In Jesus’ day, the Old Testament canon was not well-defined. Hershel Shanks, writing for the Biblical Archaeology Society, writes of the canonical status of Jesus’ day: “At this point in history there was no fixed canon, no authoritative list of sacred books.”[8] Karlfried Froehlich writes:

At the time of Jesus, therefore, the later Pharisaic canon was by no means standard. If one considers that for the Sadducees scriptural authority rested in the five books of Moses only, while the canon of the Qumran sect or the Septuagint (the Greek Bible) included additional books often apocalyptic in nature, the Pharisaic canon appears as a compromise endorsing as normative neither a minimum nor a maximum of the available literature in use among Jews. It does reveal a bias against the newer apocalyptic and pseudepigraphic[9] literature and its use in sectarian circles, perhaps including the Christians.[10]

Canonically speaking, the most conservative group within Judaism was the Samaritan sect who, it is often stated, considered only the five books of Moses to be Scripture. Some scholars (like Karlfried Froehlich) think the Sadducees only accepted the Pentateuch as Scripture, which would explain why Jesus answered the Sadducees’ question on resurrection using the Pentateuch. (Matt 22:23-32) Most modern scholars think the Sadducees and Pharisees used roughly the same authoritative writings, although they by no means considered them all to be Scripture.[11] The Pharisees considered the Law, the Prophets, and other writings[12] as Scripture; then also added oral traditions and interpretations as authoritative.

According to the popular view (based on the supposed association of the Dead Sea Scrolls with the Essenes), the Essenes had an even larger group of inspired and authoritative texts. The Dead Sea Scrolls include different versions of the same text, implying the text of certain Old Testament books were not yet standardized.[13] The Septuagint was the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures used by the Jewish diaspora,[14] the contents of which had not yet been settled by the Jews. The Septuagint contains additional historical and wisdom literature as well as alternate versions of some other books. Some synagogues even used the Septuagint in Jerusalem.[15]

The typical Protestant understanding of the Old Testament canon assumes a closed catalog of books was established well before Jesus’ day. F. F. Bruce provides a succinct description of the Protestant view in his book, The Canon of Scripture when he writes about the Scriptures used by both Jews and Christians in the time of Christ.

Our Lord and his apostles might differ from the religious leaders of Israel about the meaning of the Scriptures; there is no suggestion that they differed about the limits of the Scriptures. ‘The Scriptures’ on whose meaning they differed were not an amorphous collection: when they spoke of ‘the Scriptures’ they knew which writings they had in mind and could distinguish them from other writings which were not included in ‘the Scriptures.’[16]

I am using F. F. Bruce as a foil — as someone whose views are emblematic of and stand in for an entire movement. Many think of F. F. Bruce as one of the shapers of the modern Evangelical movement, and his writings on the Canon are still source material for today’s Evangelical scholars.[17]

1. F. Bruce argues the Canon of the Old Testament was closed before Jesus’ day. He supports his premise with specious arguments from Scripture. His arguments are not consistent with the historical evidence, which suggests the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures took shape around 300 years after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Bruce also fails to mention how the Apocrypha heavily influenced the New Testament documents.

As we shall see, the Apocrypha are consistent with the New Testament. Sometimes the authors of the New Testament quote the Apocrypha, paraphrase it, or simply condense the Apocryphal material. In still more cases the authors merely alluded to the Apocrypha, assuming their reader would be familiar with the source material.[18] And finally, as we shall see, the New Testament fulfills prophecies found in the Apocrypha.

None of this necessarily means the Apocrypha are scripture. Different groups of Christians hold different views regarding the authority and value of the Apocrypha. For some the Apocrypha is of no value and should not be read; for others, the Apocrypha is worth reading, but not authoritative; a few claim the Apocrypha to be authoritative, yet not on the same level as Sacred Scripture. The arguments for why the Apocrypha is not part of Sacred Scripture are weak. I hope you, dear reader, will appreciate the value of the Apocrypha to the authors of the New Testament. I also hope you will find the Apocrypha of value to you as well, even if you do not accept them as scripture.

____________________________

Aside from Carlson’s plea about the Apocrypha, we should note the fluidity of the canon.  “Canon” really means “a body of text accepted and authorized by officials of a believing community.”  It does not mean “the only true word of God,” although that’s how the accepting community usually treats it.  In other words, “canon” is a human invention.  How God communicates is up to Him, not us.  How we treat His communication is another question.

Topical Index: canon, Apocrypha, Deuteronomy 29:14-15

[1]  (Halnon n.d.)

[2] (Gafney 2013)

[3] (Bruce, The Canon of Scripture 2010, 77)

[4] (Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English Vol 1 1913, vii)

[5] (Islamic Awareness n.d.) They neglected the canon of the Orthodox Tewahedo Church, which is perhaps the largest of all the canonical collections.

[6] (Barth, Church Dogmatics I.2 2004, 468)

[7] This position is expressed in Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code”, for example.

[8] (Shanks 2007, 19)

[9] Pseudepigrapha are falsely-attributed works. The attribution may be intentionally misleading, or may mean the work is following in the tradition of an earlier authority.

[10] (Froehlich 1984, Kindle Locations 67-70)

[11] (McDonald 2007, 139-141) There is a difference between writings considered authoritative and writings considered to be scripture. For example, most Lutherans consider the Book of Concord to be an authoritative interpretation of Scripture, but not itself a Scripture.

[12] The phrase ‘other writings’ refers to an amorphous group. The three-fold division of the Hebrew scriptures was created by later Rabbinic Judaism in response to the fall of Jerusalem and the rise of Christianity. It is only by reading this later development into earlier history that some find evidence for a closed canon.

[13] ^{(Shanks 2007, 19)} The association of Qumran with the Essenes is based on archeological digs by a Dominican monk named Roland de Vaux, as interpreted through the translation (by a Polish scholar named Jozef Milik) of a scroll called “The Rule of the Community”. Roland de Vaux’s views were widely accepted in the academic community in the 1970s and fired the popular imagination. More recent archeology has cast doubt upon the identification of the Qumran community with the Essenes, and suggests that the texts hidden away in the caves of Qumran were deposited by the Jews of Jerusalem in anticipation of the Roman’s capture of Jerusalem. This view is bolstered by the inclusion of a copper scroll comprising a list of possible second temple treasures hidden away in anticipation of the Roman advance. (Lawler 2010) However, Dennis Mizzi shows that this view, popularized by Norman Golb, has its own problems — chiefly that there are plenty of caves in the vicinity of Jerusalem, such that no one would have had to make the journey to Qumran to hide their libraries. (Mizzi 2017, pp. 23-25)

[14] The Jewish Diaspora consists of the Jews spread throughout the Greco-Roman world and beyond.

[15] (Lawler 2010)

[16] (Bruce, The Canon of Scripture 2010, 28-29)

[17] (Grass 2012, 39)

[18] Jesus often used a single comment as a means of bringing an entire passage to his hearer’s minds. For example, while on the cross, Jesus cried out: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” His hearers should have been aware he was quoting the first phrase from Psalm 22, and eventually some understood the entire Psalm was a depiction of what they had seen taking place on the cross.