Antilegomena & Canonicity ft. The Other Paul
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 жов 2024
- I am joined by Paul Facey @TheOtherPaul in an epic conversation, discussing the problems with the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox canons of Scripture, the reason why the antilegomena books were disputed by the Early Church, and why they were ultimately accepted, why the spurious books were rejected, what our thoughts on the Deuterocanon is, and finally, what to do about 1 Clement.
Sources:
Muh Epistemic Certainty video:
• Muh Epistemic Certaint...
Ljubica Jovanović, “A Contemporary Orthodox Approach to the Bible,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 62 (2017): 257-282.
Eugen J. Pentiuc, The Old Testament in the Eastern Orthodox Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 129-131.
Pulling out the Orthodox Study Bible to preemptively rebuke the Dyerites made me chuckle.
I so appreciate this video. I grew up in an Anabaptist tradition that used the books of James and Hebrews in particular to deny Paul's gospel.
I distinctly remember one preacher when preaching on Romans 10 said I know it sounds like we are saved only by believing but we know what James said. He then used James 2 to refute the plain meaning of Paul in Romans. Understanding the distinction between homo... v anti... was helpful because now I know I was right to trust Romans and Galatians for example in the clear testimony of Salvation by grace through faith and then come to understand the proper interpretation of James and Hebrews as I grew. It's great to know that the letters of Paul have never been questioned while the Scriptures that were used to undermine the Gospel were questionable.
The Novatian heresy was connected to bad interpretation of Hebrews for example, but Calvin does a great job explaining why that was a misunderstanding of Hebrews.
And the point of value is great. Genesis and John and Romans have much more value than Ester James etc...
Good stuff, boys. Helps to advance the discussion at large.
Hebrews goes too hard to not be directly from God.
I agree!
@@newkingdommedia9434 Hebrews 11 is easily top 5 chapters in the Bible.
Love this comment
All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical. 39 Articles of Religion
Excellent take on the canon! Really appreciate this video!
In AD 367, St. Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria, provided lists to his congregations as to the books that constituted the Old and New Testaments. Those lists are the same as the books that appear in our modern Bibles. After providing the lists, he stated: “These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these.”
Modern Christians should strongly consider accepting Athanasius’s conclusions. He is one of the most outstanding and brilliant Christian leaders in history. He was a student of another great saint, St. Anthony (and wrote his biography which influenced St. Augustine and is still an excellent book to read), influenced the creation of the Nicene Creed while serving as secretary to his predecessor in the See of Alexandria (St. Alexander), and battled the Arians for decades in a life or death struggle to keep the Roman Empire trinitarian.
Love this guy's! Thank you
This was a well-done video and I applaud you both for your clarity. I think touching on the lack of absolute epistemic assurance regarding the canon is a very good point and one that ultimately exposes that no matter what we trust to be infallible, our knowledge of that thing as infallible is going to be fallible. Even someone who-supposedly-solves the issue of Scriptural ambiguity by pointing to the infallible teachings of Rome has to wrestle with the reality that they (ultimately) have a fallible collection of infallible church teachings. No one escapes this issue.
One question I would ask, given your position and contrast between the antilegomena and homologoumena books: do you believe that dogma should be established using books like James, 2nd Peter, and Jude? It would seem that in order to be consistent with the idea that these books could possibly NOT be Scripture, you would also have to err on the side of caution and forsake using those books to establish dogma; unless of course, everything within them can be seen and expounded in the homologoumena.
I would also add, that despite my agreement with the lack of epistemic certainty regarding the canon, because the New Testament canon, as it stands today, has been affirmed by Rome (dogmatically), the East, and Protestants, I would equate the universality of modern acceptance with the necessary affirmation of the entire N.T. canon-no exceptions. Thus, I would depart from you both in saying that certain books of the N.T. can be questioned while remaining a Christian in good standing. I believe that the established N.T. canon must be affirmed, and to deny any part of it is to deny the authority of the catholic consensus and fall under the condemnation of Article XXXIV.
I don't think you can be an Anglican in good standing and deny the NT canon, for the reasons you've outlined. And just to clarify I do not question the canon myself.
@@newkingdommedia9434 I knew that. It was just unclear in the video whether you would have issues if someone questioned them. Paul seemed to indicate that it wouldn't be a big deal if someone denied James, for example.
@@merecatholicity I think it's a more complicated situation than anyone would like to admit. How do we deal with the Fathers who rejected it? Or with Reformers like Luther? Even scholars like Cardinal Cajetan? I think that since all denominations list it in their canon, it is unlawful to publically deny it, but what about private doubts?
@@newkingdommedia9434 I mean private doubts are private doubts. But if someone told me they reject James, that is no longer a private doubt, and I would not view them as standing within accepted orthodoxy. That's all I'm trying to say. I fully concede that the canon has no dogmatic definition.
@@merecatholicity Yeah I would probably agree with you on that. Though I wouldn't see it as a massive deal either. Totally unorthodox interpretations of the homologoumena would be worse for me than an orthodox person not believing in James' canonicity if they had legitimate concerns about it.
13:24, really interesting here. Marking for follow up.
Rome, Carthage likely similar, but not eccunumencial, some scholarship questions on Esdras boundaries via labeling issues.
John of Damascus’ canon, Luther’s canon and Cajetan.
By your own argument, some Catholics, the church was in chaos. Similar issue with defining of Canon in Vatican I.
EO don’t have a canon; when they say it’s a problem for Prots, they’re not dealing with their own logs.
24:09 on counters to Dyer
29:39 on receiving the canon of your tradition, and creating a foundation for subsequent ethics
31:40- Eusebius, Bk 3, Ch 25, Meyer Ed. “Homologomena/Antilegomena/Spurious books”
Great video
Idk if you read comments this old, but I would love to see a discussion on the cannon status of James (duetero/full canonicity), going through all of the sauces. An exegesis of James from a Protestant perspective would also be helpful. thanks!
I've been thinking about doing this for a while. Hopefully will do something this year
Interesting discussion guys. Apropos to nothing in particular, the Orthodox Study Bible does a thoroughly poor job responding to Protestanism in general and Reformed theology specifically. Mostly, strawmen are presented and the entire tone is very pugilistic. I compare this to the ESV Study Bible which I believe gives a much more charitable, honest presentation of Eastern Orthodoxy, simply showing where there are commonalities and differences. That said, I think the Orthodox IN PRACTICE follow more of a dynamic vs rigid approach to Holy Scripture, which yields in some cases incredibly profitable and profound insights almost entirely absent from Protestantism. At the same time, it yields a lot of very weird and frankly unhelpful stuff too. Anyway, God bless your ministries!
I in principle don't have a problem with accepting some uncertainty in the canon, but my only concern is: how do we define the parameters of toda scriptura if we don't know what the exact canon is? Do we only count the homolegomena? If so, why does it even matter whether any of the antilegomena are inspired or not?
They can’t answer this question and consequently missed the actual critique being leveled against Protestantism. Despite Other Paul’s continual snark and condescension, the issue of the cannon is an internal critique and not applicable to Orthodoxy; thus, his time spent on leveling the same critiques on the lack of an orthodox cannon don’t matter.
@@sillysyriac8925 lmao you seem to be deluded and living in a fantasy land if you don't think the issue of the canon is an internal critique not applicable to Apostolic Christians. You guys are claiming infallible authority and yet this authority was useless and nothing as it did not solve the issue of the canon since apostolic Christians were claiming to have apostolic success by themselves and refused to submit to someone to have the one canon. If the Church had the ability to teach without error then any statement of the canon "the Church" makes should be equivalent to 1+1=2 where everyone can see this statement objectively clear with no room for subjective judgment.
I love the Epistle of Clement, but yeah, the phoenix thing really rules out any chance of it being Inspired, in my opinion. It just does not sit right in my soul, at all. Now, that could be my flesh, and pride, but I just can't bring myself to seeing it as Scripture. Now that being said, I do hold it in very high regard, and grant it a high level of authority (under the authority of Scripture), as being written by such an early Bishop, and disciple of the Apostles. But although Clement himself may have been filled with the Spirit, and led and taught by the Spirit so that he had great wisdom, and a knowledge of the truth, I don't think that equates to his writings being Inspired.
Saint Clement wrote Hebrews, at least as a cowriter...solved ;)
If you think that, would you be open to 1 Clement being Scripture?
I tend to think that Luke wrote Hebrews.
@@newkingdommedia9434 Personally yes, it is one of the ecumenical canon lists too. 1 Clement does not make for devotional reading, but I don't know any serious Christian who does not find what it teaches to be absolutely authoritative. It definitely gets held in higher regard in practice than Esther perhaps.
I favor LXX Esther BTW and I think the typology in Esther is essential reading.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology I would say the LXX Esther should be seen as the definitive version
@@newkingdommedia9434 yes. I also believe God in a non scrupulous way preserves translations and interpretations. If we look historically at the defects in some popular text types of the scriptures which people had access to, for example lxx of job or mt/vt of Esther, one must trust the Holy Spirit overcomes these things and even permits improvements. So if I found out the Esther lxx was not matching an unearthed 4th century bc copy, I'd simply conclude the lxx included oral glosses that the scribes knew we're supposed to be read or expounded upon when the text was read liturgically. We have to have a real big view of God and the Scriptures, seeing that His Spirit works concurrently with what is available and in so doing works His will, the salvation of mankind.
@The Other Paul Sorry if my comment in the side chat was confusing
My point is that it seems clear from scripture (using prophecy as our example) that God clearly was comfortable with His infallible word coming to and through fallible people with epistemic certainty not being a concern. Especially because Paul directs the idea of having an interpretation of a tongue and the weighing of words to "brothers and sisters", "someone" and "others", meaning Paul was teaching that Gods infallible word is perfectly comfortable coming to lay people who may not always "get it right". Am I making sense? So why when discussing His written word is epistemic certainty required from the RCC. I believe they reject prophecy for today, but they at least would have to admit this was true at one point in time. Does this argument work?
Isaiah 55:11“So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.”
@@jamessheffield4173 That passage has nothing to do with the prophetic gifting of spirit filled believers. Notice how it says that it is going forth from His mouth? Prophecy goes forth from our mouth, meaning it has a medium, a fallible one. There would be no purpose in telling believers to test and weigh prophecy if we should just expect it will always be correct
@@TKK0812 Notice: it shall accomplish that which I please Isaiah 64:8“But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.”
@@jamessheffield4173 He's. Not. Talking. About. Prophecy.
You can't just combine "like" things because you need to make a point. You need to do the hard work of exegeting the passages.
@@TKK0812 God is saying His Word will achieve what God wills, interpretations or people's prophecies don't affect that fact.
What the Apostle James is talking about is Good Works complete our Faith and keep it Alive
he can't possibly be saying that at all if you look at the proper context. He is clearly saying true faith can only be identified by good works. He quotes a passage from Genesis 15 where Abraham was justified only by faith no works at all, why would he bring that passage if he believed that faith alone cannot justify someone?
@@junkim5853 Abraham was first Justified in Genesis 12 also recorded in Hebrews 11:8. Genesis 15:6 also recorded in Romans 4 is the second time Abraham was Justified Genesis 22 also recorded by James the third time he was justified.
Protestantism literally split sanctification and justification made them into two entirely different things even though scripture records Sanctification and Justification happening simultaneously.
@@DanielWard79 you are being off topic here James quoted Genesis 15:6 where Abraham was justified without works he just simply believed. He specifically said what Abraham did was counted as righteousness but that language can only be found in Genesis 15:6. Again why is he referencing a page where Abraham was justified by faith alone with 0 works? Explain that first rather than go to Genesis 12.
@@junkim5853 well Genesis 14:16 he freed Lot and his women so using your proof text stupid argument we must conclude Abraham was Justified by works. Or we Go with When Abraham was first Saved Hebrews 11:8 By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going. 9 By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. 10 For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God.
Clearly Abraham was already saved in Genesis 15:6
Good to see 2 aussies talking theology
Although I'm a New Zealander, not a dirty Aussie like Paul.
@@newkingdommedia9434 silence k*wi
@@TheOtherPaul No.
Easy way to see if you have a correct version of the Bible or not: compare 1 Chronicles 21:12 and 2 Samuel (2 Kingdoms) 24:13; if the 1 Chronicles passage says "7 years" in disagreement with 2 Samuel/Kingdoms "3 years", your Bible includes errors.
Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee.
In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased.
But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help.
This is a legit Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit.
This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.".
:)
:)
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
-Acts 3:19
:)
:)
Is it fair to say that the books of james is written to believers in Christ hence there is no need to present the gospel when they are in fact Christian part of the church.
I mean I could be wrong but when reading james in this context it it to me makes all the sense that faith without works is dead
Yeah I agree with this
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
-Acts 3:19
:)
:)
I think both these boys are close to becoming Catholics
Sadly, I agree. I think the apologetics mindset lends itself to the scholastic or post-modernist approach of RC thinkers. When people imbibe to hard they swim the Tiber.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology Can I say, from what I'm hearing, you have taken a statement of mine, and vented some frustrations you have. The boys are seeking truth, and emersing themselves in history. This should only be applauded
Not a chance
@@newkingdommedia9434 ...apart from the grace God...
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology Indeed! I do agree with you that apologetics can lead to scholasticism, which leads to Rome. However, in my case, these videos I've made regarding the canon actually move me closer to an Eastern Orthodox understanding of canonicity than a Papist one, and, I'm really not interested in scholasticism, I don't even like Aquinas.
Esoteric solo scripturalism