Divorce No, Murder Yes? part two

July 8 is the commemoration of St. Kilian, martyr of Wurzburg. The 7th-century Irish-born saint made the mistake of converting Duke Gosbert from paganism to Christianity. He continued his travels to Rome, met with Pope Conon, who supported his missionary work in Bavaria. On his return, Kilian discovered that Gosbert had married his deceased brother's wife, Geilana. Kilian explained that he couldn't do that, and Gosbert agreed to separate fromm his wife. Geilana was not happy, and found some hitmen to take care of Kilian, along with two other monks, Colman and Totnon for good measure. Like John the Baptist, Kilian paid the price for explaining a tough bit of the moral order to upper class folks with ways and means to live as they please.

Comments

[Irenaeus]

"Gosbert had married his deceased brother's wife, Geilana. Kilian explained that he couldn't do that"

Why? Is that still the rule in Catholicism? I'm neither a medievalist nor a Catholic...

[Stuart Koehl]

Aristocrats ditching their wives was quite common in the early Middle Ages. According to Aries, Duby et al., "A History of Private Life, Vol. II, Revelations of the Medieval World", many took advantage of the Church's prohibition of marriage within six degrees of consanguinity (almost impossible to meet, given the close relationship among aristocratic families) to ditch their wives for new models, either putting them aside, or forcibly sending them to convents. The Church later changed its rule to just three degrees of consanguinity, to make this dodge harder. But they also outline many cases in which the disgruntled husband just killed his wife and married again. There was little the Church could do to rein in such behavior in an age of endemic violence.

On the prohibition of marrying his brother's widow, I for one am not sure if this was a general teaching of the Western Church, or just a local ruling (perhaps to avoid confusion with Levirate marriage?). In its earliest Tradition, the Church prohibited remarriage altogether, but by the seventh century, at least, that should have gone by the boards. Under Byzantine law, second marriages were allowed, but only by economy, not as a sacrament. Even then, there does not seem to have been a prohibition on widows marrying their late husband's brother, even though there was a prohibition on a godfather or godmother marrying a godson or goddaughter.

[Irenaeus]

"In its earliest Tradition, the Church prohibited remarriage altogether."

Really? For all, not just once-married clergy? Interesting. I had no idea.

[Memphis Aggie]

How odd. Under Jewish law he would be required to marry his deceased brothers wife, or find her a suitable husband, especially if she was childless.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>.Really? For all, not just once-married clergy? Interesting. I had no idea.<<<

The Church understood marriage as a once-in-a-lifetime sacrament, and did not bless second marriages for any reason, until well into the 7th century. In the East, this is still the rule: second marriages are non-sacramental, and involve an extended period of penance, including exclusion from communion. The Eastern Churches only began allowing second marriages because the Byzantine state made the Church responsible for oversight of all marriages, civil as well as sacramental. It was because of the Church's civic responsibilities that it had to devise a rite of second marriage. it also limited the total number of marriages in a lifetime to just three.

In the West, attempts at enforcing the indissoluability of marriage in its most rigorous form foundered against economic and actuarial realities. In contrast to the East, though, it came to view marriage as a lifetime contract, dissolved by the death of one party, and allowed for unlimited sacramental remarriage as long as there was no living spouse.

[Irenaeus]

Thanks! That's really interesting.

[labrialumn]

So St. Kilian was martyred for making the same point that Henry VIII did and the Pope, under the Spanish thumb, refused?

Stuart, how odd. The New Testament is so clear that marriage is a covenant, which cannot be disolved except by death, and that it -is- disolved by death and it is not a sin to then remarry. I wonder how the odd unBiblical view you describe, got into the Church

[Stuart Koehl]

You will find that the "dissolved by death" part came much later. The early Church was unanimous in believing one could marry just once in a lifetime, because marriage was considered a true sacrament--and all true sacraments perdure beyond the grave. Therefore, we find the early Church giving great honor to widows who remain in that state, for they are living up to the ideal of the two flesh becoming one in Christ. There are many councils and canons that wrangle with the issue of remarriage, the opening premise being remarriage after the death of a spouse is adultery, the Church taking the episode of the Samaritan woman as its cue. When the eschatological expectation of the Church was strong, i.e., when the Parousia was considered immanent, then there was a real effort to enforce the ideal. By the time of Basil the Great in the mid-4th century, the discipline was being loosened to accommodate human frailty, so that a famous canon of Basil's states that if a man or woman should remarry after the death of a spouse, this should not be considered adultery, but insofar as it fell short of the ideal, the couple should abstain from receiving the Eucharist for several years while undergoing a penitential period of fasting and prayer. This canon later became the basis from which the Orthodox Church developed its own marital regulations: i.e., that one sacramental marriage is permitted in a lifetime; that second (and occasionally third) marriage are allowed to widows and widowers as a concession to human weakness; but that such marriages are not sacramental, and involve use of a penitential rite; that remarriage is permitted after divorce for a very narrow set of reasons, available only to the innocent party, and again, subject to oikonomia using a non-sacramental rite. Fourth marriages are prohibited under all circumstances, a prohibition written in stone after Emperor Leo VI got a dispensation from the Pope of Rome to marry his niece (his fourth wife) to legitimize his heir. After that imbroglio, what had been an informal practice was formally written into the canons of the Church.

[Thomas Storck]

1 Timothy 5:14 and 1 Corinthians 7:39 certainly suggest that the early Church had no such prohibition.

[Stuart Koehl]

Take it up with the Fathers of the Church. They read Scripture more fully and comprehensively than we do, and what is more, they did so in the original language AND were closer to the original time and place it was composed. A certain intellectual and spiritual humility on our part is warranted.

[Bill R]

"Take it up with the Fathers of the Church. They read Scripture more fully and comprehensively than we do, and what is more, they did so in the original language AND were closer to the original time and place it was composed. A certain intellectual and spiritual humility on our part is warranted."

Fair enough. But what was the exegesis of 1 Timothy 5:14 and 1 Corinthians 7:39 by the Fathers? Did the Western church differ from the East in this regard?

[Thomas Storck]

For Mr. Koehl,

If you could supply some patristic texts on the subject, that might help. I'm aware that there was a negative attitude toward second marriages, but an absolute prohibition? Could we see the texts please?

And of equal importance: If some of the Fathers did support an absolute prohibition, were there others who did not?

[Stuart Koehl]

A useful synopsis can be found in Fr. John Meyendorff's "Marriage-An Orthodox Perspective". It covers all the major patristic texts, the relevant canons, and the theological arguments underlying them, together with a history of Church praxis.

See in particular his chapter on Judaism and the New Testament, in which he outlines the differences between marriage under the Old and New Covenants, and in particular, the sacramental (and therefore eternal) nature of Christian marriage. For instance:

****
Christ's teaching prohibiting divorce reflects, more positively, the nature of Christian marriabge. It is expressed in the direct opposition to the Jewish Dueteronomy, which allowed divorce (Matt 5:32; 19:9; Mk 10:11; Lk 16:18). the very fact that Christian marriage is indissoluable excludes all utilitarian explanations. The union between husband and wife is an end in itself; it is an eternal union between two unique and eternal personalities which cannot be broken by such consequences as "posterity" (the justification for concubinage) or family solidarity (the basis for the Levirate).

Indissoluability, however, is not a requirement that is LEGALLY absolute. The famous exception mentioned in Matthew ("save for the cause of fornication"--5:32) is there to remind us that the Kingdom of God is never legally compelling, that it presupposes free human response, and therefore that the gift of Christian marriage needs to be freely accepted, freely lived, but can eventually be rejected by man. In general, the Gospel never reduces the mystery of human freedom to legal precepts. . .

When he speaks of widowhood, St. Paul; presupposes that marriage is not broken by death, for "love never fails" (1 Cor 13:8). In general, Paul's attitude towards marriage is clearly distinct from the Jewish rabbinic view in that--especially in 1 Corinthians--he gives such strong preference to celibacy over marriage. Only in Ephesians is this negqtive view corected by the doctrine of marriage as a reflection of the union between Christ and the Church--a doctrine which became the basis of the entire theology of marriage as found in the Orthodox tradition.

However, on one issue--the remarriage of widowers--Paul's view, as it is expressed in 1 Corinthians, is strictly upheld by the canonical and sacramental tradition of the Church: "If they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn" (i Cor 7:9). Second marriage--either of a widower or a divorcee--is only tolerated as better than "burning"/ Until the tenth century, it was not blessed in church and, even today, it remains an obstacle for entering into the clergy. Our contemporary rite of for blessing second marriages also shows clearly that it is admitted only by condescension. In any case, Scripture and Tradition both agree that faithfulness of the widower or the widow to his or her deceased partner is more than and "ideal"--it is a Christian norm. Christian marriage is not only an earthly sexual union, but an eternal bond that will continue when our bodies will be "spiritual", and Christ will be "all in all".

***

Also of great value is the chapter examining the attitudes of the early Church to Roman civil law on marriage, and how the Church transfigured that concept even while accepting the terminology of Roman law; and the chapter on "Marriage as a Sacrament or Mystery". All are littered with patristic citations that show what was summarized above: that the Church did not accept as sacramental any second marriages, and, until the tenth century, did not bless such marriages in church, thereby underlining their non-sacramental status. That the Church in the East accepted as legally binding second civil marriages is true, but these were not considered to be sacramental, or in any way consistent with the Christian norm. Indeed, only when in the 10th century the Church in the East was put in charge of civil marriages did a rite of second marriage develop, and even then, it was not considered a sacrament (there are no crowns, and there is no sealing of the mystery with the Eucharist), but there is a lot of penitential prayer).

As I noted, the Church in the West developed in a different way, through a different interpretation of Scripture and a different pastoral situation. It is also noteworthy that, although the two Churches have very different theologies of marriage, this never became a matter of contention between them, except once: when Leo VI got a dispensation from the Pope to make his niece his fourth wife, a controversy that resulted in the explicit prohibition of fourth marriage into the Orthodox canons. Today, many Eastern Christians find the Western theology of marriage problematic (and vice versa), but thankfully few on either side want to make a major issue out of it.

[Thomas Storck]

"However, on one issue--the remarriage of widowers--Paul's view, as it is expressed in 1 Corinthians, is strictly upheld by the canonical and sacramental tradition of the Church: "If they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn" (i Cor 7:9). Second marriage--either of a widower or a divorcee--is only tolerated as better than `burning'".

Hm, not quite a prohibition.

[Bill R]

"The union between husband and wife is an end in itself; it is an eternal union... ."

How does this square with Matthew 22:30:

"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels in heaven."

The context, of course, being the question posed to Christ, asking whose wife a woman might be where she has had seven husbands. Shouldn't Jesus have said, "The first one, of course."

[Clifford Simon]

The translation that I usually read (NIV) has the following for Romans 7:2-3 --

2For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. 3So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.

To highlight the apparent contrast, here is from Stuart's post:

You will find that the "dissolved by death" part came much later. The early Church was unanimous in believing one could marry just once in a lifetime, because marriage was considered a true sacrament--and all true sacraments perdure beyond the grave. ... remarriage after the death of a spouse is adultery, the Church taking the episode of the Samaritan woman as its cue.

So I'm curious, how did the Fathers read that passage of Romans? Perahps some commentary on the Greek (if anyone here knows and if I would understand it) would do.

[Clifford Simon]

As I'm thinking about it just now, it occurred to me that another resolution is possible even if the NIV translates correctly. The legal metaphor is true for grace. He gets the metaphor from what people know (or think they know) about marriage. Now the assumption, that this view of marriage is not only legal but also true, can perhaps be removed, without doing violence to the meaning of the text. What people happen to think wrongly in the case of marrige, is actually true in the case of grace.

But I'm still curious, what is the real answer?

[Bill R]

"What people happen to think wrongly in the case of marrige, is actually true in the case of grace."

So, Cliff, people have LESS freedom under grace than they do under the law?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>How does this square with Matthew 22:30:

"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels in heaven."<<<

Strangely enough, Meyendorff addressed that, too--and I recounted it in another (extremely long and tedious) thread. But, I will simply quote him:

All three synoptic Gospels (Matt 22:23-32; Mark 12:18-27, Luke 20:27-37) report Jesus' attitude towards the Levirate. it is important to notice that the question is related to Christ's teaching on the resurrection and immortality, which cancels worries about survival through posterity. When the Sadducees ("which say that there is no resurrection") asked who, among the seven brothers who successively married the same woman, will have her to wife "in the resurrection", Jesus answers that "in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven".

This text is often understood to imply that marriage is only an earthly institution, and that its reality is dissolved by death. Such an understanding prevailed in the Western Church, which never discouraged remarriage of widowers and never limited the number of remarriages permitted to Christians. However, if this were the right understanding of Jesus' words, they would be in clear contradiction to the teaching of St. Paul and to the very consistent canonical practice of the Orthodox Church throughout the centuries. In the Christian understanding, marriage is absolutely unique and quite incompatible with the Levirate. never would the Christian church encourage a man to marry his brother's widow. In fact, as Clement of Alexandria already noted, "The Lord is not rejecting marriage, but ridding their minds of the expectation that in the resurrection there will be carnal desire" (Miscellanies, III, 12, 87). Jesus' answer to the Sadducees is strictly limited by the meaning of their question. They rejected the resurrection because they could not understand it otherwise than as a restoration of earthly human existence, which would include the Judaic understanding of marriage as procreation through sexual intercourse. Jesus says they "err", because life in the Kingdom will be like that of the "angels". Jesus' answer is, therefore, nothing more than a denial of a naive and materialistic understanding of the resurrection, and it does not give any positive meaning to marriage. He speaks of the levirate, and not of Christian marriage, whose meaning is revealed--implicitly and explicitly--in other parts of the New Testament.

[Bill R]

"However, if this were the right understanding of Jesus' words, they would be in clear contradiction to the teaching of St. Paul..."

What teaching of St. Paul would that be, Stuart? I Cor. 13:8, as you note above? Anything else?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>2For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. 3So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.<<<

The law of which Paul speaks is the Law of Moses, which does not apply to Christian marriage. Paul is, in any case, speaking by analogy not of marriage, but of how the Law applies to man and differs from grace. Go back to Rom 7:1: "Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives?" Also look at the conclusion of the passage in verse 4: "Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another--to Him that was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God".

I think the new Orthodox Study Bible has a useful interpretation of the whole passage (Rom 1:1-4): "Paul has affirmed that justification, our ongoing communion with God, comes by faith in Christ and not by following works of the Law. These verses use examples from the law to prove our ultimate need to be free from the Law. Under the Law of Moses, only death releases a person from marriage (v.2), while divorce does not (v.3). Likewise, Christ death brings about our death to the Law so that we may be married to another, that is, to Christ (v.4).

Interpreted in this light, the passage does not contradict the notion of Christian marriage that perdures through eternity, but rather tends to support the notion that, as a true Sacrament of Christ, Christian marriage can only be understood in light of the promise of eternal life.

[Sodbuster]

The dissolved by death part is inherent in the nature of covenants, and is why Jesus Christ had to die on the Cross that we might be saved.

Did they not have the Scriptures?

What did Jesus teach the Samaritans? We don't even have to go into goofy readings of other passages that have been used to promote celibacy as superior to marriage contrary to the rest of Scripture - by which we can know that they were not sent by God.

Mind you, eternal marriage sounds wonderful to this unmarried guy. But where is it written? What valid, grammatical-historical exegesis can support it?

Stuart, we Christians believe in the resurrection of the body, it is the neo-platonists who do not, and who reject the value of the material - which God has made (1 Tim. 4:1-5). Jesus was raised in that same body, and our bodies too will be raised. It is the renewed heavens and Earth that we will live on (anakainaw, IIRC).

Your comments are interesting, but they lack visible support. Show me that the text teaches this, not that someone influenced by neo-platonism or similar beliefs re-imagined it that way.

[Sodbuster]

And of course, read Sadducees for Samaritans, and I don't mean, Stuart, that your sources were such, but please show me that they weren't and that they read the text faithfully to the text?

[Stuart Koehl]

They are not my comments, they are the teaching of the Orthodox Church, as reflected in the works of the Fathers, the canons of the Church, and one of their most profound and influential modern interpreters. So, if you have a problem, take it up with them. The life of the Church is a matter of historical record, and not subject to change because of someone's individual interpretation of Scripture. Scripture can only be interpreted within the matrix of the Church's Tradition, for the Church made Scripture, Scripture did not make the Church.

[David Gray]

>So, if you have a problem, take it up with them.

I'll have to remember that when quoting Luther or Calvin or the Augsburg or Westminster Confessions to Stuart.

>Scripture can only be interpreted within the matrix of the Church's Tradition, for the Church made Scripture, Scripture did not make the Church.

Given that the Scriptures predate the Church that is an odd position.

[Rob G]

"Given that the Scriptures predate the Church that is an odd position."

Really? And all this time I've been laboring under the misapprehension that it was members of the Church who wrote the New Testament! Silly me.

[David Gray]

>Really? And all this time I've been laboring under the misapprehension that it was members of the Church who wrote the New Testament! Silly me.

If you think the Scriptures are the New Testament alone that might be a bit silly...

[Rob G]

"If you think the Scriptures are the New Testament alone that might be a bit silly."

Obviously not. The OT books predate the Church. But we are dealing here with NT passages, correct? The Church predates the NT.

Likewise, the Church in a sense does 'make' the Scriptures since she has decided which books are in and which are out, both OT and NT.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>If you think the Scriptures are the New Testament alone that might be a bit silly...<<<

It was, in fact, the Church that decided the Old Testament was indeed divinely inspired Scripture (the issue wasn't settled from the beginning, and Marcion demonstrated). Moreover, it was the Church that decided which of the many versions of the Old Testament in circulation was normative (it was the LXX, not the Masoretic Text, which only entered its final form in the 9th century AD). And, more importantly, it was the Church that decided HOW the Old Testament was to be interpreted; i.e., the Church determined that the Old Testament could only be interpreted in light of the New, as a Typos of the Incarnation, death and Resurrection of Christ.

So, I do not think that Scripture is the New Testament alone, but I stand by my position that the Church made Scripture, not vice versa.

>>>I'll have to remember that when quoting Luther or Calvin or the Augsburg or Westminster Confessions to Stuart.<<<

Forgive me if I don't really endow a bunch of 16th and 17th century parvenues with the same gravity I accord to the Fathers of the Church.

[Joe Long]

Wait a minute...if the Church predates the NT but the OT predates the Church, does that make the Church apocryphal?!

(Sorry, it's Friday. I have no other excuse.)

[Rob G]

"if the Church predates the NT but the OT predates the Church, does that make the Church apocryphal?!"

Only to Dispensationalists.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>if the Church predates the NT but the OT predates the Church, does that make the Church apocryphal?<<<

Just optional for non-denominationalists.

[David Gray]

>Just optional for non-denominationalists.

Lots of them around here...

>Only to Dispensationalists.

Pre, post or a?

[David Gray]

>Forgive me if I don't really endow a bunch of 16th and 17th century parvenues with the same gravity I accord to the Fathers of the Church.

Yes but you were quoting some Johnny-come-lately, not the Fathers.

And, as is too often the case for someone as bright as you, you missed the point.

[Stuart Koehl]

Enough, David. You're not going to make a Presbyterian out of me, and I am not going to make an Orthodox out of you. But if you want constantly to recourse to Scripture, you should at least have the decency to use a canon that has all its books in it.

[GL]

>>>Enough, David. You're not going to make a Presbyterian out of me, and I am not going to make an Orthodox out of you. But if you want constantly to recourse to Scripture, you should at least have the decency to use a canon that has all its books in it.<<<

And whose canon would that be or, alternatively, which books comprise the full canon?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>And whose canon would that be or, alternatively, which books comprise the full canon?<<<

Why, mine, of course. Though I am willing to allow the Peshetta for those whose Churches use Aramaic and Syriac. I kind of frown on the Latin Vulgate as being a translation of a translation, though.

[Bill R]

I'm probably out of pocket for much of the next few days, but before I disappear and before this thread goes too far astray, I wanted to follow up on Stuart's last comment to me, above. Are there two traditions (East and West) within the church as to whether sacramental marriage is eternal or dissolved upon death? If so, do both traditions claim to be apostolic in origin?

[GL]

>>>Why, mine, of course.<<<

That's what I thought. ;-)

Whenever one of my Roman Catholic friends brings up the argument that we wouldn't know what comprised the canon had the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church not compiled it, I remind them that the RC canon differs from the EO canon, which differs from the Coptic canon, which also differs from Rome's, and all of them differ from the Peshita. And I believe that Armenian Orthodox have a slightly different canon from other Orthodox as well. My proposal then is that when all of the self-proclaimed One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Churches agree on a common canon, then they should come back to the subject and we can talk.

[Peter Gardner]

The differences are (almost) entirely in the Old Testament, though. The New Testament is pretty thoroughly agreed upon, though the Armenians only dropped 3 Corinthians in the last couple centuries, and the Ethiopians, true to form, have a massive New Testament as well. The practice in ancient times is that every town would use those books they had; standardization came once the NT books were widely distributed.

Also, at least in EO practice (I can't speak for RC), the definitive OT passages are the ones in the service books; we don't read the whole OT in church; all the books that we have that the RC don't (Prayer of Manasses, Psalm 151, # Ezdras, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees for the Greeks, but not the Russians) aren't appointed to be read in any services, with the sole exception of the Prayer of Manasses, unannounced, at Great Compline, as far as I know.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Are there two traditions (East and West) within the church as to whether sacramental marriage is eternal or dissolved upon death?<<<

Yes, for all intents and purposes, East and West diverged on the matter relatively early, probably before the sixth century. As to why the West saw the same texts differently, there is no consensus. Both are considered to be Apostolic, and, as I noted, it has never been a bone of contention between the Churches (except when the Pope tried to meddle in the practices of the Orthodox Church in the case of Emperor Leo VI). Regarding the different presuppositions behind the two Traditions, Meyendorff writes:

***
The Roman Catholic traditional view and canonical regulations on divorce and remarriage are based on two presuppositions: 1) that marriage is a legal contract, and that for Christians, this contract is legally indissoluable; 2) that the marriage contract concerns only earthly life, and that, therefore, it is legally dissolved by the death of one of the partners . The Orthodox approach starts, as we have seen earlier, from different presuppositions:

1) That marriage is a sacrament conferred upon the partners in the Body of the Church through the priest's blessing [in the Latin Church, the sacrament is conferred by the partners upon themselves, the priest is just a witness-SLK]; that, as in any sacrament, it pertains to the eternal life in the Kingdom of God; and that it is, therefore, not dissolved by the death of one of the partners, but creates between them--if they so wish and if "it has been given to them" (Matt 19:11)--an eternal bond.

2) That, as sacrament, marriage is not a magical act, but a gift of grace. The partners, being human, may have made a mistake in soliciting the grace of marriage when they were not ready for it; or they may prove to be unable to make this grace fructify. In those cases, the Church may admit the fact the grace was not "received", tolerate separation, and allow remarriage. But, of course, she never encourages any remarriage--we have seen that even in the case of widowers--because of the eternal character of the marriage bond; but it tolerates it when, in concrete cases, it appears as the best solution for a given individual.

****

On how the Fathers interpreted the diverse statements of Scripture on marriage and remarriage, he writes:

****

The Fathers, in their great majority, followed St. Paul in discouraging any form of remarriage, either after widowhood or after divorce. Anthenegoras, an Athenian philosopher and convert who wrote an "Apology of the Christians" around the year 177, is the spokesman of al the ancient Fathers of the Church when he, after specifically calling a remarried divorcee "adulteress", adds also that "He who rids himself of his first wife, ALTHOUGH SHE IS DEAD [caps added-SLK], is an aulterer in a certain disguised manner (PG 6, col. 968).

But, at the same time, the Church never considered the Gospel AS A SERIES OF LEGAL PRESCRIPTIONS [caps added] which human society could adopt overnight. The Gospel was to be accepted as a commitment, a pledge of the Kingdom to come; it presupposed a constant personal struggle against sin and evil, but it never could be reduced to a system of legal "obligations" or "duties"

Thus, the Christian Empire continued to admit divorce and remarriage as a regular social institution. . . .

No Father of the Church ever denounced these imperial laws as contrary to Christianity. There was an evident consensus of opinion that considered them as inevitable. . . but [no theologian] opposed . . . legislation on divorce. "He who cannot keep continence after the death of his first wife", writes Epiphanius of Cyprus (d.403), "or who has separated from his wife for a valid motive, as fornication, adultery, or another misdeed, if he takes another wife, or if the wife takes another husband, the divine word does not condemn him nor exclude him from the Church or the life, but she [the Church] tolerates it rather on account of his weakness". (Against Heresies, 69, PG 41, col. 1024C-1025A)

. . . Was this simple lenience or a capitulation? Certainly not. During this entire period, without a single known exception, the Church remained faithful to the NORM set by the New Testament Revelation: ONLY THE FIRST AND UNIQUE MARRIAGE WAS BLESSED BY THE CHURCH DURING THE EUCHARIST.

We have seen above that second and third marriages, after widowhood, were concluded at a civil ceremony only, and implied a penance of one to five years of excommunication. After this period of penance, the couple was again considered as fully members of the Church. A more prolonged penance was required for married divorcees, i.e., seven years: "He that leaves the wife given him and shall take another is guilty of adultery by the sentence of the Lord. And it has been decreed by our Fathers that they who are such must be 'weepers' for one year, 'hearers' for two years, 'prostrators' for three years, and in the seventh year to stand with the faithful and thus be counted worthy of the Oblation" (Sixth Ecumenical Council, Canon 87).

****

I also recommend to you the Appendices I-III of the book, which provide citations to Scripture on the meaning and discipline of marriage, and the Tradition of the Church Fathers, and canonical legislation respectively.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>My proposal then is that when all of the self-proclaimed One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Churches agree on a common canon, then they should come back to the subject and we can talk.<<<

Not really. The differences between the respective canons of the Apostolic Churches are relatively minor, and involved mainly the organization of materials. There are some additional materials in the Orthodox canon that are missing from the Vulgate, and some materials in the Peshetta that are slightly different from those in the Orthodox canon. But these pale into insignificance when one takes into account the wholesale mangling to which Luther subjected the canon of the Old Testament. For one thing, the ancient canons of the Apostolic Churches developed organically--nobody, contrary to the beliefs of some people, actually sat down and said, "This book is in, that book is out (or even, these chapters are in and those chapters are out)". A consensus grew over centuries based on the usage of local Churches which was sanctified as the canon.

In contrast, Luther actually did sit down and determine, based upon his own arbitrary and personal criteria, what should be included in the canon, and what should be omitted (thankfully, he lost his nerve when he got to the New Testament). In so doing, he abandoned some 1200 years of tradition and usage in the Western Church, at the same time managing to denigrate the canons of all the Eastern Churches (though I doubt he gave us a second thought), because all the apocryphal books he removed are integral parts of ALL the canons of the Eastern Churches.

Finally, Luther made a serious methodological error in assuming that the Masoretic Hebrew Text of the Old Testament should have precedence over the Septuagint Greek Text. Not only is the LXX the version of the Old Testament most often cited in the New (more than 90% of the time), but it predates the Masoretic text by anywhere from 600 to 1000 years. Finally, the Masoretic Text as it evolved to Luther's day was NOT in circulation in the time of Christ and the Apostles. There were Hebrew texts similar to the Masoretic, but also Hebrew texts closer to the LXX; conversely, there are also Greek texts that resemble the Masoretic. In short, there was no single canon of Scripture for Second Temple Judaism, and it was the Church that determined, through the divine grace of the Holy Spirit, which version it would use. It chose the Septuagint, and considered it to be divinely inspired in its own right (which is why we don't lose sleep over the differences between the Hebrew and Greek texts). Luther, on the other hand, presumed that the Hebrew text used by the Jews in his day was identical to that used by Christ and the Apostles (a mistake he extended to other aspects of Judaism, such as assuming that rabinical Judaism and Second Temple Judaism were much the same).

So, in short, Luther messed up first by superseding the Tradition of the undivided Church with his own prejudices; and second, by making fundamental errors in biblical scholarship which would get him drummed out of any theology or religion department today.

I'm willing to tolerate canonical diversity caused by minor variations in the organic development of different Churches; I won't tolerate arbitrary butchery of the canon to sustain one individual's theologumena on Scripture. In this, Luther acted more pontifically than any Pope in history. I am sure the irony was lost on him.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The New Testament is pretty thoroughly agreed <<<

Though the Roman Catholics prefer the Western Text, while the Orthodox use Textus Receptus. The scholars tell us that the Western Text should have priority, but in my opinion both variants are divinely inspired and each should be used in support of its respective rite. Which is one reason I would prefer to see the Eastern Catholics in America reject the New American Bible (a truly awful translation, but one based on the Western text as well) in favor of some variant of the KJV, whose translators were working with the Textus Receptus.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> we don't read the whole OT in church<<<

Of course, there are the Psalms, which are at the heart of Vespers and Orthros, not to mention comprising significant portions of the Antiphons, Prokimena and Alleluias. And we do read a lot of Old Testament in the Festal Liturgies, particularly for Nativity, Great Week, and Pascha. On top of which, the entire Divine Liturgy is essentially nothing more that a florelegia of Scriptural passages, Old and New Testament, held together with connecting material. My old annotated Service Book for the Eparchy of Passaic shows no fewer than 169 different references.

[GL]

>>>Not really. The differences between the respective canons of the Apostolic Churches are relatively minor, and involved mainly the organization of materials. There are some additional materials in the Orthodox canon that are missing from the Vulgate, and some materials in the Peshetta that are slightly different from those in the Orthodox canon. But these pale into insignificance when one takes into account the wholesale mangling to which Luther subjected the canon of the Old Testament. For one thing, the ancient canons of the Apostolic Churches developed organically--nobody, contrary to the beliefs of some people, actually sat down and said, "This book is in, that book is out (or even, these chapters are in and those chapters are out)". A consensus grew over centuries based on the usage of local Churches which was sanctified as the canon.<<<

Well, not quite. The R.C. did formalize a canon in response to Luther and that canon does differ -- it is a matter of opinion how significant those differences are -- from the EO canon, the Armenian canon, the Coptic canon, and the Peshita. (And doesn't the Slavic canon differ from the Greek canon.)

I would agree that until after the Reformation, "[N]obody [in any of the self-proclaimed* One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Churches] actually sat down and said, "This book is in, that book is out (or even, these chapters are in and those chapters are out.)" In fact, that fact is a rather significant blow to the claim that without the "Church" we wouldn't know what comprised the canon because, in fact, the Church (unless one claims that only one of the follow: RC, EO, AO, OO or Church of the East is the True Church and all the other claimants are not) has never agreed to a single, common and definitive canon. Thus, no "consensus [among all the self-proclaimed* One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Churches] grew over centuries based on the usage of local Churches which was sanctified as the canon."

By the way, I read those other books from time-to-time and make no judgment one way or the other as to whether they should be considered part of the canon. Doesn't that make me more consistent with the Early Church than those Christians (be they Protestant, Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Syrian, etc.) who insist on a definitive canon?

* I do not mean "self-proclaimed One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Churches" as a pejorative, but only as a descriptor of the RCs, EOs, OOs, Churches of the East, etc. to avoid having to list each them every time I intend to refer to them as a group.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Well, not quite. The R.C. did formalize a canon in response to Luther and that canon does differ -- it is a matter of opinion how significant those differences are -- from the EO canon, the Armenian canon, the Coptic canon, and the Peshita. (And doesn't the Slavic canon differ from the Greek canon.)<<<

The canon formalized at Trent was the canon the Church of Rome had been using at least since the 5th century, so this was more or less in the matter of closing a loophole: "You guys don't have an official canon, so if I want to make my own, who are you to say I can't? In addition, as I pointed out, the differences between the Greek canon, the Armenian canon, the Coptic canon and the Peshitta are minor--mainly a matter of how the material is organized (how many Psalms are there, anyway?) as well as the inclusion or exclusion of portions of certain parts of some books. On the other hand, Luther excised entire books that were recognized as canonical by everyone else--and had been for more than 1000 years. That's real chutzpah.

>>>In fact, that fact is a rather significant blow to the claim that without the "Church" we wouldn't know what comprised the canon because, in fact, the Church (unless one claims that only one of the follow: RC, EO, AO, OO or Church of the East is the True Church and all the other claimants are not) has never agreed to a single, common and definitive canon.<<<

That only works if you view the Church as an earthly institution, instead of the communion of the baptized and a sacrament of the Kingdom. It only works if you don't believe in the existence of Holt Tradition as the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon all the faithful. It also includes a very mechanistic and modern understanding of what 'agreement" means, to say nothing of what "canonical" means in the context of the Church.

>>>I do not mean "self-proclaimed One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Churches" as a pejorative, but only as a descriptor of the RCs, EOs, OOs, Churches of the East, etc. to avoid having to list each them every time I intend to refer to them as a group.<<<

It doesn't matter. They are ALL the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, for the Eucharist makes the Church (as John Zizoulis put it, echoing Ignatios of Antioch), and in all of these Churches the Eucharist is celebrated by bishops ordained in the Apostolic Succession, assisted by their priests and deacons and surrounded by the faithful, all of them contain the fullness of the Church, and all are fully sufficient for the salvation of their members. Because they are all one, the minor differences in their canons (unavoidable in an age before mechanical printing in any case) fade to insignificance as compared to all that they share.

[Bobby Winters]

>>>In short, there was no single canon of Scripture for Second Temple Judaism, and it was the Church that determined, through the divine grace of the Holy Spirit, which version it would use. It chose the Septuagint, and considered it to be divinely inspired in its own right (which is why we don't lose sleep over the differences between the Hebrew and Greek texts). Luther, on the other hand, presumed that the Hebrew text used by the Jews in his day was identical to that used by Christ and the Apostles (a mistake he extended to other aspects of Judaism, such as assuming that rabinical Judaism and Second Temple Judaism were much the same).<<<

Isn't it the idea that there is one text, perfect it is autographs, that is behind the phenomenon of fundamentalist-turned-antifundamentalist-turned-atheist folks like Bart Ehrman? In my days of fighting it out in the message boards over on Christian Debate, I wasted many hours striving with them. They couldn't seem to grasp the concept that while an acorn is perfect, an oak tree is perfect too, and they are the same.

[David Gray]

>Isn't it the idea that there is one text, perfect it is autographs, that is behind the phenomenon of fundamentalist-turned-antifundamentalist-turned-atheist folks like Bart Ehrman?

The idea that inerrancy of Scripture is wrong lies behind the phenomenon of the liberal Protestant who in turn will embrace ordaining women and then homosexuals...

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Isn't it the idea that there is one text, perfect it is autographs, that is behind the phenomenon of fundamentalist-turned-antifundamentalist-turned-atheist folks like Bart Ehrman? <<<

Pretty much, though I get the impression that Ehrman had long been looking for the exit, and took what looked to him like the path of least resistance: Hey, look--in this manuscript it says "Rejoice and be glad", and in that one it says, "Shout and be happy", so obviously there is no way these books could be divinely inspired (on the other hand, over here I have a long-lost manuscript of dubious provenance that says Jesus was a drag queen--so OBVIOUSLY this will give us new insights into the early history of the Church, and if you dismiss it because it's so obviously ludicrous, well then, you're just part of a conspiracy by the established Church to suppress the truth).

It's interesting that people whose opinions I really respect (e.g., Bruce M. Metzger), were almost contemptuously dismissive of Ehrman's recent books. Most of them sounded either sad or appalled that Ehrman would prostitute himself in such a manner, particularly as they had high regard for his earlier scholarship.

[GL]

>>>That only works if you view the Church as an earthly institution, instead of the communion of the baptized and a sacrament of the Kingdom. It only works if you don't believe in the existence of Holt Tradition as the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon all the faithful. It also includes a very mechanistic and modern understanding of what 'agreement" means, to say nothing of what "canonical" means in the context of the Church.<<<

I agree, of course, but that begs the question of whether *WE* know what comprises the canon because the Church has told *US*. You have, to my recollection, never made such a specious argument, but I know many other Catholics who have. To them, I believe it is fair to say the the Roman Catholic Church is *THE* One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and none of the other claimants are and the RCC formalized the canon at Trent, which, as you say, merely formalized what had been the informal, but accepted canon for at least a millennium. However, if one holds that "[t]hey are ALL the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church," then however insignificant one may find the differences -- e.g., is Enoch part of the canon as the Copts would have it?, is Third Maccabees (I book I enjoy reading from time-to-time)? -- it must be admitted that to this date there is no single, common, definitive canon. That is not a problem for me (after all, that Presbyterian scholar with whom I have some affinity, R.C. Sproul, Sr., has noted that the canon is a fallible list of infallible books and I think I agree with what Bobby is saying here), but it is for some.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The idea that inerrancy of Scripture is wrong lies behind the phenomenon of the liberal Protestant who in turn will embrace ordaining women and then homosexuals...<<<

Depends on how you define "inerrancy" doesn't it? Too many people seem to think it means "true in an absolutely literal sense", which of course, is nonsense--nobody believed that even in the early Church--and so easily disproven as to make anyone who believes such seem intensely naive. No wonder, then, that people brought up in that tradition, when confronted with obvious incongruities between the words of Scripture and matters of geography, physics and history, have a tendency to toss the baby out with the bathwater--or, alternatively, to avert their eyes from any and all contradictions of this sort, and pretend they don't exist.

[GL]

Bobby,

If David understood you correctly, then I misunderstood you. I do believe that there was an inspired, inerrant autograph of each book. I also recognize that we no longer have access to those autographs and that we must rely to some degree on "the Church" to not only teach us what Scripture means but what it contains. On the other hand, again like R.C. Sproul, Sr., I believe we must admit that even "the Church's" definition of the canon is subject to error.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

It would be interesting to consult InterVarsity's Ancient Christian Commentary series on the Matthew 22:30.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I agree, of course, but that begs the question of whether *WE* know what comprises the canon because the Church has told *US*.<<<

Of course we know, and of course the Church has told "us". But it is up to each and every one of us to receive what the Church has taught. To be frank, as an historian it seems to me hard to reject the Tradition of the Church as compared to the pseudo-scholarship employed by Luther and the other Reformers to make the case for a truncated canon. Metzger makes an excellent case for understanding the development of the Canon of Scripture in a way similar to Sproul's, though he rejected the Protestant conclusion (still seen on some fundigelical web sites) that there is overwhelming evidence for the early Church accepting ONLY the Hebrew New Testament (i.e., the Masoretic, which did not exist at the time), and that "the Church" later corrupted the canon by adding the Apocrypha.

Truth be told, Luther was a bit of an intellectual snob, and the intellectual fashion of his day said Hebrew was classy and Greek declasse--on top of which, Luther, like the Rabbis at Jamnia and the later Masoretes, wanted to use the definition of the canon to make polemical points. The rabbis did not like the way in which the Christians were using certain passages in the LXX for their apologetics and evangelization, so they removed those books and passages from their canon. Similarly, Luther did not like the way in which the Catholic Church was using the Apocrypha (notably 2 Maccabees) to support doctrines (such as purgatory) with which he disagreed. He would have done a similar redaction of the New Testament (e.g., let's get rid of James, that "Epistle of Straw") but lost his nerve or was told it would never fly. Luther's instincts were pretty much the same as those that drove Marcion--the need to prune Scripture so it would support his own idiosyncratic doctrines and no others.

[David Gray]

>Too many people seem to think it means "true in an absolutely literal sense", which of course, is nonsense--nobody believed that even in the early Church--and so easily disproven as to make anyone who believes such seem intensely naive.

But in point of fact nobody actually believes that. People say they believe it but when you listen to them interpret scripture they don't. For example I'm not aware of anyone who actually believes that people should hate their parents. Or that all the creatures who make appearances in Revelations actually exist in a literal form (which would be rather bizarre).

[David Gray]

>I do believe that there was an inspired, inerrant autograph of each book. I also recognize that we no longer have access to those autographs and that we must rely to some degree on "the Church" to not only teach us what Scripture means but what it contains. On the other hand, again like R.C. Sproul, Sr., I believe we must admit that even "the Church's" definition of the canon is subject to error.

Spot on in every way...

[Bobby Winters]

>>If David understood you correctly, then I misunderstood you. I do believe that there was an inspired, inerrant autograph of each book. I also recognize that we no longer have access to those autographs and that we must rely to some degree on "the Church" to not only teach us what Scripture means but what it contains. On the other hand, again like R.C. Sproul, Sr., I believe we must admit that even "the Church's" definition of the canon is subject to error.<<

I won't speak for what he understands. I will say there are a lot of folks who come in with their own ideas of inerrant and inspired. They will strain out the gnat of variations of between Greek infinitives and participles, but they will swallow the camel of chopping out Maccabees with a meat-axe.

Inspired autographs is a way of saying what we have now isn't because you are afraid of the text in front of you. Writers can be inspired, but editors (especially the ones at Touchstone!) can be too.

[David Gray]

>Inspired autographs is a way of saying what we have now isn't because you are afraid of the text in front of you.

So how are GL and Dr Warfield afraid of the text in front of them?

[GL]

>>>Inspired autographs is a way of saying what we have now isn't because you are afraid of the text in front of you. Writers can be inspired, but editors (especially the ones at Touchstone!) can be too.<<<

I believe that many scholars hold that Ezra edited the text of Scripture which existed at his time. If so, I believe such editing was inspired and the results were inerrant. As a consequence, none of the changes he made contradicted the substance of the works he edited -- indeed, assuming he lacked the original autographs, he may have correct errors which had creeped in over time. On the other hand, I disagree that "[i]nspired autographs [must be] a way of saying what we have now isn't because you are afraid of the text in front of you." It could be simply an acknowledgment that copying errors were made, which seems incontrovertible in light of the ancient manuscripts which we have and the differences among them. Thus, like "inerrancy," "inspired autographs" has a proper meaning which is perfectly consistent with the facts as we know them and possible improper meanings by those who jump on the term to justify their particular interpretation of Scripture.

>>>Of course we know, and of course the Church has told "us". But it is up to each and every one of us to receive what the Church has taught.<<<

Sorry, Stuart, that begs the question of whose canon is the correct one. However minor the differences may be, there are differences. If you decide that one of the canons accepted by one of the churches claiming apostolicity is correct and definitive, you are implying that errors, however slight, were made by the other Churches. That is unavoidable. You are, then, ultimately declaring that the Church whose canon you accept as definitive is the True Church and the others are not. If you "receive" the RC canon as the one which "the Church has told 'us'" is correct, you are rejecting the EO canon to the extent of the differences.

[Rob G]

**On the other hand, again like R.C. Sproul, Sr., I believe we must admit that even "the Church's" definition of the canon is subject to error.**

Sproul's 'fallible collection of infallible books' is simply an attempt to get around granting the Church any authority. Furthermore, if that definition is true, then it's possible either that A) there are books in the canon that shouldn't be there or B) we're missing some books that should be. Both of these are rather problematic, to say the least.

I've yet to hear a convincing explanation as to the good of an infallible text when it is also claimed simultaneously that all interpretations of that text are necessarily fallible.

[GL]

>>>Sproul's 'fallible collection of infallible books' is simply an attempt to get around granting the Church any authority. Furthermore, if that definition is true, then it's possible either that A) there are books in the canon that shouldn't be there or B) we're missing some books that should be. Both of these are rather problematic, to say the least.

I've yet to hear a convincing explanation as to the good of an infallible text when it is also claimed simultaneously that all interpretations of that text are necessarily fallible. <<<

I assume, Rob, that you reject Stuart's view that the RC, EO, OO, Church of the East, etc. are ALL the Church and that the differences between their canons are insignificant. Wouldn't you agree that to the extent of the differences in their canons, only one -- if any -- can be correct and it is to that Church and no other that we should turn for final authority?

The problem for folks like me is that I haven't determined which, if any, are correct and am not at all convinced that any is. If I were, I would take steps today to become a member of that Church. Until then, I must remain a Protestant.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>But in point of fact nobody actually believes that. <<<

Did Joshua make the sun stand still?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> I do believe that there was an inspired, inerrant autograph of each book.<<<

Since most of the books had to be redacted to get to their present form, WHICH autograph would you consider to be inspired and inerrant. Also, define inerrant.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>However minor the differences may be, there are differences. If you decide that one of the canons accepted by one of the churches claiming apostolicity is correct and definitive, you are implying that errors, however slight, were made by the other Churches.<<<

That's just soooo. . . Latin. Have you considered becoming a Roman Catholic?

[DGP]

GL: >>Well, not quite. The R.C. did formalize a canon in response to Luther and that canon does differ -- it is a matter of opinion how significant those differences are -- from the EO canon, the Armenian canon, the Coptic canon, and the Peshita. (And doesn't the Slavic canon differ from the Greek canon.)

No, no. Here, and later, you are assuming that Trent is applicable to the East. In some cases, this was explicitly denied, and now is now more generally retracted: All of the Tridentine formulae were intended as corrections of the Western Reformers, and none should be construed as prejudicial against the East. No sane RC theologian invokes the Counterreformation against the EOs. If you want to insist that the formulae should be so applied, I supppose you are free to do so, but please know that you are citing RC documents against the manifest intention of the RCC.

[GL]

>>>Since most of the books had to be redacted to get to their present form, WHICH autograph would you consider to be inspired and inerrant.<<<

See my post of Posted by: GL | Jul 11, 2008 3:08:19 PM. I think I answered your first question there.

>>>Also, define inerrant.<<<

Without error.

[Rob G]

"Wouldn't you agree that to the extent of the differences in their canons, only one -- if any -- can be correct and it is to that Church and no other that we should turn for final authority?"

No. I believe that the EOC is the true Church, but it's got little or nothing to do with the fact that I believe its canon to be correct. It's precisely the other way around, actually -- I believe the EOCs canon to be correct because I believe she's the true Church.

[Rob G]

"Wouldn't you agree that to the extent of the differences in their canons, only one -- if any -- can be correct and it is to that Church and no other that we should turn for final authority?"

Actually I believe precisely the opposite: I accept the EOCs canon because I believe she's the true Church, not the other way around.

[David Gray]

>Did Joshua make the sun stand still?

Believing something is literally true does not mean believing everything is literally true. I am not aware of anyone who believes everything in scripture is literally true. I am not aware of anyone who believes nothing in scripture is literally true.

[David Gray]

>No. I believe that the EOC is the true Church, but it's got little or nothing to do with the fact that I believe its canon to be correct. It's precisely the other way around, actually -- I believe the EOCs canon to be correct because I believe she's the true Church.

I may disagree with this but it is a much more coherent position than Stuart's...

[GL]

>>>I believe the EOCs canon to be correct because I believe she's the true Church.<<<

I understand that. And I assume that the corollary of that belief is that no other Church is the True Church, be it Rome, the Copts, the Church of the East, etc.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Without error.<<<

So, Joshua DID make the sun stand still? The sky is a vast crystal bowl?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> but please know that you are citing RC documents against the manifest intention of the RCC.<<<

But off course, Catholics do that all the time.

[Bobby Winters]

Jesus Christ is the Alpha and the Omega; He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Yet he was born as a little baby, he grew to manhood, he died on the Cross, and he rose again on the third day. But He's the same.

The truth of scripture is also eternal even though the words of the Bible have changed. "True in the autographs" is failure to embrace the power of the Holy Spirit working through the church.

[GL]

>>>So, Joshua DID make the sun stand still? The sky is a vast crystal bowl?<<<

That is such a specious question that I am surprised you would ask it. Now you are just being silly.

"It is raining cats and dogs." Does that mean that cats and dogs are falling from the sky?

"Those to camp on the east side toward the sunrise shall be of the standard of the camp of Judah by their companies, the chief of the people of Judah being Nahshon the son of Amminadab." Numbers 2:3 (ESV). Does that mean that the Bible teaches that the sun rises rather than that the earth rotates.

The Bible can speak of sunrise without teaching that the sun literally rises. I can speak about it raining cats and dogs without fear of being hit on the head by a falling poodle. And the Bible can speak of the sun standing still without my having to believe that it is the sun which moves around the earth and not the earth which rotates. I haven't the slightest idea of the physics behind this miracle in Joshua. I do believe that it appeared to those at the battle that the sun stood still just as it appears that the sun rises in the east every morning. Beyond that I won't speculate and I won't add to what the text actually says by opining about the physics involved.

[GL]

>>>"True in the autographs" is failure to embrace the power of the Holy Spirit working through the church.<<<

Bobby,

I like you a great deal, so I hope you are not saying that the Scriptures are subject to change in the same sense that some jurists believe in a living constitution. Scripture is living in a sense, but it is also unchanging in the truth it teaches, just as its ultimate Author is unchanging.

[GL]

Bobby,

Saying that the autographs were inerrant is simply acknowledging that copyists errors have occurred, which is manifest in the manuscripts which survive, and that translations can never capture precisely the meaning the original author intended to convey. It doesn't mean that some fundamental error has crept in for I believe and those who I trust on this matter believe, that God has preserved the truths of Scripture from serious error. Of course, one must use discernment in what translation(s) to use and scholars must use their education and experience in understanding how the variant manuscripts should be understood in terms of conveying to us from times past what was in the original lost autographs. I agree that some do precisely what you accuse them of with the concept. That the concept is misunderstood and misapplied does not make the concept itself invalid.

[Matthias]

And if you trust that the Holy Spirit has insured that existing copies are without serious error, then what does it matter whether perfect originals existed? It seems an entirely superfluous hypothesis. What we need to know is that the scriptures as received by the church are reliable. How this was accomplished we don't need to know.

[Clifford Simon]

As for Joshua, I am attracted a hypothesis that Stuart mentioned earlier (if he remembers), namely that what Joshua actually said to the sun was just the same as what the second Joshua said to the storm. "Be still." To continue this perhaps foolishly, I would think that the heavans, sun, and moon are always pouring forth speech continually (Psalm 19) except on Joshua's day when they shut up and stood back for the LORD.

If anyone would know the physics of sun-stopping, I ought to. Sorry, I don't. My opinion is that concordism - the view that attempts to read science into the biblical texts - would be great, if it were simple. Unforunatly, given the way science actually is, it is not simple. I don't say it's impossible, or illogical, or in any way doomed to fail - just not simple. To me, then, concordism looses its main virtue.

---

On the question of canon, grant that there were many canons during Second Temple Judaism. Grant that the Tradition of the church chose the LXX. Jesus did not - at least not loudly and obviously - list the proliferation of canons as an error of the Pharisees and Saducess, while he did proclaim some of their other errors. What I would like to see is what DOCTRINAL reason there was why the church had to narrow the canon choices to one.

Put this in perspective: When you print or hand-copy a bible, you choose one canon, of necessity. When you worship with another Christian, it's different. Just because I am an NIV-carrying Baptist doesn't mean that I have to walk out of R.C. church I might be visiting, the moment I discover that the homily will be on Sirach.

When I read Justin Martyr's dialog with Typhro, for example, the question is, what is Justin really doing when he refutes Typhro's quotations from the Jewish canon using differing quotations from the LXX? Is he refuting Typhro on the basis that the LXX is THE correct canon? Or is he merely undercutting Typhro's confidence, by showing that Typhro's opinion cannot be authoritative since it is not the only one? (I have not really read the dialog in depth, but I only skimmed it. Someone who knows, if that's anyone here, can tell me the answer.)

Finally on Luther. Stuart is not fair if he means, "...therefore Protestants are wrong." If that is where he is going, then instead of targeting Luther, he should get to know some criticisms of the contemporary scholarship from a place like Wheaton. If not, I might as well say that all of Constantine's faith could not stop him from murdering his wife, therefore the Orthodox are wrong.

[GL]

>>>And if you trust that the Holy Spirit has insured that existing copies are without serious error, then what does it matter whether perfect originals existed? It seems an entirely superfluous hypothesis. What we need to know is that the scriptures as received by the church are reliable. How this was accomplished we don't need to know.<<<

Because if we believe, as we confess, that the Holy Spirit spoke through the prophets and that, as Scriptures teach, that all Scripture is God breathed, then we must hold that all Scripture as inspired (i.e., the original autographs) are without error because God cannot err. I am surprised that I have to defend this principle against attacks from those who claim to be the true heirs of the Early Fathers and especially against Catholics.

St. Jerome: "It would be wholly impious to limit inspiration to only certain portions of Scripture or to concede that the sacred authors themselves could have erred."

St. Augustine, in a letter to St. Jerome, wrote:

On my own part I confess to your charity that it is only to those books of Scripture which are now called canonical that I have learned to pay such honor and reverence as to believe most firmly that none of their writers has fallen into any error. And if in these books I meet anything which seems contrary to truth, I shall not hesitate to conclude either that the text is faulty, or that the translator has not expressed the meaning of the passage, or that I myself do not understand.

The Council of the Vatican (1869-1870) determined:

The books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, as enumerated in the decree of the same Council [Trent] and in the ancient Latin Vulgate, are to be received as sacred and canonical. And the Church holds them as sacred and canonical not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without errors, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their Author.

Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical letter Providentissimus Deus, wrote:

For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church.

Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu wrote: "For as the substantial Word of God became like to men in all things, except sin, so the words of God, expressed in human language, are made like to human speech in every respect, except error."

He condemned the concept of limited inerrancy, writing:

The sacred Council of Trent ordained by solemn decree that 'the entire books with all their parts, as they have been wont to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old vulgate Latin edition, are to be held sacred and canonical.' ... When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the 'entire books with all their parts' as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as obiter dicta and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus ... justly and rightly condemned these errors.

The Second Vatican Council declared, "[W]e must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."

Section 107 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church reads as follows:

The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.

How sad that a Protestant has to defend the teachings of the Catholic Church against attacks by Catholics.

[Bobby Neal Winters]

>>>I like you a great deal, so I hope you are not saying that the Scriptures are subject to change in the same sense that some jurists believe in a living constitution. Scripture is living in a sense, but it is also unchanging in the truth it teaches, just as its ultimate Author is unchanging.
<<<

Hell no.

I am saying that the part of it that changed by so-called errors in transmission are not what the text was saying to begin with.

The truth of the scriptures is deeper than that. Far deeper than that of a science text, but let's not digree there because I am leaving on vacation tomorrow.

My understanding of those who say "inerrant in the autographs" are those who read the word but do not discern it.

[Stuart Koehl]

By the way, the decisive argument against Greg's case for ONE definitive canon of Scripture is the fact that the differences in the canons were known throughout the first millennium, and were never considered to be a rationale for schism or anathema. Since the Church determines Scripture, it was in fact the prerogative of every family of Churches to decide what would and would not be read in Church. The desire for unity in faith drove a high degree of convergence based on principles of divine inspiration and (in the case of the New Testament) apostolic origins (hence the eventual dropping of the Didache, the Shepherd, and the Epistles of Clement), but there was enough toleration for diversity that the minor differences among the Western, Greek, Armenian, Coptic and Syrian canons had no impact upon communion. When there were radical changes to the canon, they occurred within Churches, not across them. Thus, in the fifth century, the Diatessaron of Tatian was suppressed by the Syrian Church itself in favor of the Peshetta translation, not because there was pressure from other Churches, but because it was felt that maintaining the fullness of the four-fold witness of the Gospels had an overriding value.

Now, had Scripture defined the Church, as some here would have it, any variation in the canon would of necessity require the breaking of communion. But since Christians did not, until the Reformation, consider that Scripture had an absolute authority over and outside of Tradition, that never happened. Moreover, today there is nobody (other than a few isolated integrist lunatics) who believes that the variations in the canon of Scripture among the Apostolic Churches in any way impugns the authority or legitimacy of any Church. How could it, when, in the first millennium, when all these Churches were in full and visible communion, these differences were not considered sufficient cause for schism?

[DGP]

>>But off course, Catholics do that all the time.

We also drink, swear, and fornicate, but I don't recommend the swearing and fornicating. ;-)

[David Gray]

>My understanding of those who say "inerrant in the autographs" are those who read the word but do not discern it.

That is a bizarre understanding at war with reality.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>And the Bible can speak of the sun standing still without my having to believe that it is the sun which moves around the earth and not the earth which rotates. I haven't the slightest idea of the physics behind this miracle in Joshua.<<<

How about this: it's a metaphor--the sun did not stand still, nor did the earth cease to rotate on its axis, but to those who were there as witnesses to the Israelite victory, it SEEMED as if the sun stood still. The real miracle is in the victory, rightly attributed by the author of Joshua to the Lord Sabaoth; there was no need for a cheap parlor trick like stopping time. Anyone who has fought in or studied battles knows the phenomenon of time dilation--the world slows down, everything stands in sharp relief, and it appears as though the sun has stopped in its tracks. Since the people who wrote Joshua, and those who read it, shared firsthand in the reality of battle, they recognized the metaphor for what it was. Later interpreters, not enmeshed in the same cultural matrix as the Israelites, perhaps missed the point.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>What I would like to see is what DOCTRINAL reason there was why the church had to narrow the canon choices to one.<<<

But, as we have seen, the Church did not narrow down the canon to just one--it tolerated a plurality of canons, and continues to do so. Take, for example, the Orthodox Church, which comprises both Slavic and Greek particular Churches. Though both use the same broad canon, there are indeed differences between the Slavonic Bible and the Greek Bible, both in regard to content and the ordering of the material. Within the Catholic communion, all of the Eastern Catholic Churches employ the canon of Scripture appropriate to their own Tradition--whether this is Greek, Slavic, Syrian, Coptic or Armenian. Yet they remain in full communion with the Church of Rome, which has never asked them to change to the Western canon. Indeed, as we have seen the Churches of the first millennium, fully aware of differences in their respective canons, accepted these as legitimate differences, just as they accepted differences in liturgical practice and ecclesial discipline. It is only in our own "tolerant" era that we make mountains out of molehills and demand a degree of uniformity which the early Church never knew and upon which it never insisted.

[David Gray]

>The real miracle is in the victory, rightly attributed by the author of Joshua to the Lord Sabaoth; there was no need for a cheap parlor trick like stopping time.

Asserting dogmatically that it was a cheap parlor trick is not something a Christian should do...

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Asserting dogmatically that it was a cheap parlor trick is not something a Christian should do...<<<

Reading the text with the eyes of the people who wrote it and of the people for whom it was written is something that every Christian should try to do. And another good rule of hermeneutics is "Never needlessly proliferate miracles if a mundane explanation is available", because, when a REAL miracle comes down the pike, it loses its sign value. There is no need for the sun LITERALLY to stand still. If you read enough Mesopotamian and even Greek epics, you find similar imagery (after all, they shared a common Eastern Mediterranean late Bronze/early Iron Age culture. Are you saying that God also made the sun stand still for all those pagan heroes and demigods? Or were they just using some literary license?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Asserting dogmatically that it was a cheap parlor trick is not something a Christian should do...<<<

Reading the text with the eyes of the people who wrote it and of the people for whom it was written is something that every Christian should try to do. And another good rule of hermeneutics is "Never needlessly proliferate miracles if a mundane explanation is available", because, when a REAL miracle comes down the pike, it loses its sign value. There is no need for the sun LITERALLY to stand still. If you read enough Mesopotamian and even Greek epics, you find similar imagery (after all, they shared a common Eastern Mediterranean late Bronze/early Iron Age culture. Are you saying that God also made the sun stand still for all those pagan heroes and demigods? Or were they just using some literary license?

[GL]

>>>By the way, the decisive argument against Greg's case for ONE definitive canon of Scripture<<<

Boy, you are good at misunderstanding what others post, aren't you?

You are the one who wrote to David, "[I]f you want constantly to recourse to Scripture, you should at least have the decency to use a canon that has all its books in it." That not only implies that their is a canon, but that it is definitive. How else could you demand that David use on that "has all its books in it." If it were indefinite, how would he or you know whether he was using "a canon that has all its books in it."

I, on the other hand, clearly wrote, "By the way, I read those other books from time-to-time and make no judgment one way or the other as to whether they should be considered part of the canon. Doesn't that make me more consistent with the Early Church than those Christians (be they Protestant, Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Syrian, etc.) who insist on a definitive canon?" That clearly show that I do not hold to a definitive canon. If there were not enough to prove that I did not believe in a definitive canon, I then wrote, "On the other hand, again like R.C. Sproul, Sr., I believe we must admit that even "the Church's" definition of the canon is subject to error."

So, once again, you have failed to follow the argument, this time confusing your earlier position that there was a definitive canon to which David should resort with my disavow of such a definitive canon, which I proved by citing the various canons from the churches which claim apostolic descent.

[GL]

>>>How about this: it's a metaphor--the sun did not stand still, nor did the earth cease to rotate on its axis, but to those who were there as witnesses to the Israelite victory, it SEEMED as if the sun stood still.<<<

Perhaps it was a metaphor and perhaps it was something more. In any event, your statement that "but to those who were there as witnesses to the Israelite victory, it SEEMED as it the sun stood still" appears remarkably similar to my statement that "I do believe that it appeared to those at the battle that the sun stood still just as it appears that the sun rises in the east every morning." You really need to bone up on your reading comprehension.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>You are the one who wrote to David, "[I]f you want constantly to recourse to Scripture, you should at least have the decency to use a canon that has all its books in it." <<<

Indeed, yes. You missed my point, which is that the canon of Scripture is not an artifact to be altered at the whim of one man in response to an abstract set of propositions. Each family of Churches developed its own canon of Scripture over the course of centuries, through an organic process of reception, which is a manifestation of the working of the Holy Spirit within that Church. That the Spirit allowed for slightly different outcomes from the process of discernment does not surprise or disturb me at all, any more than it would surprise or disturb me that the Spirit caused each family of Churches to develop its own liturgy, spirituality, or modes of theological expression. Since God is a mystery, how can we expect the human mind and human speech to capture it in just one particular form?

On the other hand, Martin Luther sat down at his desk, and coldly determined--on false assumptions, by the way--that certain books universally accepted by all had to be removed from the canon of Scripture. If nothing else, this shows a certain lack of respect for the invisible clouds of witnesses who over the ages had compiled and affirmed that canon. From any objective perspective, the Protestant canon of the Old Testament is definitely a few books short, and there is no justification for their omission, either on historical or theological grounds.

[GL]

By the way, Stuart, I notice that you have failed to respond to my defense of inerrancy by quoting from centuries of Church Fathers and documents promulgated by your own Popes. As with your demand that David resort to a definitive canon, you are once again taking a position rejected by the Early Church in belittling the doctrine of inerrancy.

[GL]

>>>Indeed, yes. You missed my point . . . .<<<<

Either I did not or you were inarticulate, for in demanding that David resort to a canon with all the books in it, you are asserting, at least implicitly, that such a canon exist and, if such is the case, it is, by definition definitive.

[Rob G]

Me: "I believe the EOCs canon to be correct because I believe she's the true Church"

GL: "I assume that the corollary of that belief is that no other Church is the True Church, be it Rome, the Copts, the Church of the East, etc."

That would be true as far as it goes. But it doesn't imply that all other Churches are equally in error, or that the Holy Spirit doesn't work in them, or that grace isn't present in them. It's an issue of fullness vs. non-fullness, rather than an "in or out" thing.

"And if you trust that the Holy Spirit has insured that existing copies are without serious error, then what does it matter whether perfect originals existed? It seems an entirely superfluous hypothesis. What we need to know is that the scriptures as received by the church are reliable. How this was accomplished we don't need to know."

Exactly. The faith truths of the Scriptures are absolutely reliable. Whether there were 87,000 men slain at a given battle on a certain day hardly matters. This is the problem with the strict inerrancy idea. While ostensibly making the reliability of the Scriptures stronger, it actually results in a house of cards, since if one "error" or contradiction can be found, the whole thing collapses into unreliability and thus, worthlessness.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Me: "I believe the EOCs canon to be correct because I believe she's the true Church"<<<

But of course, you would be hard pressed to find any of the Fathers, let alone an Ecumenical Council, that condemned any Church because its canon was different from another. Apparently the Fathers did not think this was an issue, nor did they think that any one canon was "right", because, for the most part, all the canons were in fundamental agreement. But they most certainly would have been appalled if one man, acting on his own authority, discarded the version of the Old Testament that had been in use for more than 1500 years and replaced it with one written in a different language and missing a significant portion of the agreed text.

[GL]

>>>That would be true as far as it goes. But it doesn't imply that all other Churches are equally in error, or that the Holy Spirit doesn't work in them, or that grace isn't present in them. It's an issue of fullness vs. non-fullness, rather than an "in or out" thing.<<<

Agreed.

>>>Exactly. The faith truths of the Scriptures are absolutely reliable. Whether there were 87,000 men slain at a given battle on a certain day hardly matters. This is the problem with the strict inerrancy idea. While ostensibly making the reliability of the Scriptures stronger, it actually results in a house of cards, since if one "error" or contradiction can be found, the whole thing collapses into unreliability and thus, worthlessness.<<<

No. You cannot confess that the Holy Spirit spoke through the prophets and that all Scripture is God breathed and also believe that God cannot err and, at the same time, believe Scripture can err. That some may misunderstand, misapply or even abuse the doctrine of inerrancy does not make the doctrine itself invalid. If, to avoid those abuses, you reject the doctrine of inerrancy, you are throwing out the baby with the bath water. You should not allow fundamentalist excesses to cause you to reject the doctrine of inerrancy any more than Protestants should allow what we perceive as excesses by at least some Catholics to cause us to deny the proposition that Mary is the Theotokos.

[William Tighe]

If I may make a few comments -- but where to begin? Well, first, with what DGP wrote:

*************************

GL: >>Well, not quite. The R.C. did formalize a canon in response to Luther and that canon does differ -- it is a matter of opinion how significant those differences are -- from the EO canon, the Armenian canon, the Coptic canon, and the Peshita. (And doesn't the Slavic canon differ from the Greek canon.)

No, no. Here, and later, you are assuming that Trent is applicable to the East. In some cases, this was explicitly denied, and now is now more generally retracted: All of the Tridentine formulae were intended as corrections of the Western Reformers, and none should be construed as prejudicial against the East. No sane RC theologian invokes the Counterreformation against the EOs. If you want to insist that the formulae should be so applied, I supppose you are free to do so, but please know that you are citing RC documents against the manifest intention of the RCC.

Posted by: DGP | Jul 11, 2008 3:44:46 PM

and with what Stuart wrote, more than once:

"But, as we have seen, the Church did not narrow down the canon to just one--it tolerated a plurality of canons, and continues to do so ..."

"But of course, you would be hard pressed to find any of the Fathers, let alone an Ecumenical Council, that condemned any Church because its canon was different from another."

***********************************

To all of which I respond:

So far as I know, the Council of Florence is still held for ecumenical by the Apostolic See. And it was the Council of Florence, not the Council of Trent, that first "dogmatized" the Canon of Scripture, in the 1442 "Decretum pro Jacobitis," otherwise known (from its initial words when promulgated as a papal decree) as "Cantate Domino." This was actually a decree of union between the Catholic Church and the Egyptian Copts (which lasted only a few years, although a copy, taken to Egypt by a pair of friars, was subscribed by the Coptic patriarch -- the other friar went on to Ethiopia with another copy, and was never heard from again, although the Portugese found his papers in an Ethiopian monastery 150 years later) -- and the Copts, unlike the Chalcedonian Orthodox, never formally repudiated the Council of Florence), and it "dogmatizes" precisely the same OT and NT Canon that Trent was to reaffirm in 1547.

"Cantate Domino" doesn't explain why it was felt necessary to "dogmatize" the Canon, and so any explanation can be no more than speculative. Nevertheless, the best speculation seems to me to be implicitly to exclude from the Canon those books that the Copts and the Ethiopians included with their OTs and NTs that the Roman Church did not accept. I do not know how much anybody outside of Ethiopia could have known in the 15th century about the Ethiopians, but it is the fact that prior to "Cantate Domino" the Abbot and a couple of monks from the Ethiopian monastery in Jerusalem turned up in Rome, and so it strikes me as not impossible (in the case of the Ethiopians) and even probable (in the case of the Copts) that the Fathers at Florence became aware of this divergence, and decided to do something about it (just as they decided to set the Armenians straight about sacramental theology in the decree of reunion that Florence proclaimed in 1441 with the Armenian Catholicos -- a decree which promptly led to the division of the Armenian Church into a unionist half under the Catholicos of Sis and an anti-unionist half under the Catholicios of Etchmiadzin). The Tridentine decree of 1547 simply reasserted the same traditional Catholic (Roman) Canon, on this occasion in the face of Protestant denials.

So I think that it is prima facie the case that the Canon of Scripture defined at Trent was meant to apply as much to the East as to the West. And I would find myself in entire agreement with Rob Grano's statement that:

"No. I believe that the EOC is the true Church, but it's got little or nothing to do with the fact that I believe its canon to be correct. It's precisely the other way around, actually -- I believe the EOCs canon to be correct because I believe she's the true Church."

save that, in both instances where he wrote "EOC" I would write, either RCC or, more precisely, "the churches in communion with the Apostolic see constitute the true Church."

However, I have to ask for corroboration or correction on one point: before Florence and Trent, insofar as the Canon was defined at all by the Eastern and Western Church(es), whether before or after the mythological divided of 1054, it was defined by a series of local councils, in both the East and the West, between the 380s and 420s (Laodicea, Rome, Carthage, Hippo, Carthage again and Rome again), all of which enumerated a canon identical with that defined at both Florence or Trent. Perhaps "enumerated" is better than "defined," since while the purpose of any such enumeration is as much to exclude as to include, none of these councils went on to condemn any other books by name, and so I supppose that this would justify any Eastern Church that wished to include other books like Psalm 151, 4 and 4 Maccabees or the Prayer of Manasseh in their OTs, since Eastern churches might well claim that the Canon of Scripture had never been definitively closed by any council authoritatively accepted as ecumenical.

As to Luther, it was at the Leipzig Disputation of 1519, when his Catholic opponent, Johann Eck, replied to Luther's denial of both Purgatory and the efficacy of prayer for the dead, citing against him 2 Maccabees 12: 40-45. Luther admitted the citation, but rejected the authority of the book. His rationale was that canonicity was to be determined by orthodoxy of contents, and that 2 Maccabees was unorthodox -- and he invoked Jerome's rejection of the "deuterocanonical" books (those books accepted by the local councils of the period 380-420 as withi the OT Canon, but rejected by the Jews) as a corroboration of his views (even though Jerome's views were not determined on the basis of a qualitative judgment about their contents, but rather based on an erroneous belief that only those books that had been written in Hebrew were inspired and only those books that formed part of the Jewish Canon in his dat had been written in Hebrew). It was a later generation of Reformers that hitched their canonical wagon to the idea that the Jewish OT Canon was authoritative, and that it had been determined and closed by Ezra and Nehemiah in the Fifth Century BC.

[Philip R]

Dear GL,

I am not Catholic or Orthodox, though I am quite possibly drifting in that direction (it’s hard not to be drifting somewhere if you attend an Anglican (ACC) church in Canada right now).

However, I think your understanding of scriptural authority is flawed. When Rob G. says that it doesn’t matter whether or not 87,000 people actually died in a particular battle, he does not mean (and doubtless he will correct me if I misunderstand him) that scripture is allowed to err in small ways as long as it doesn’t err in ways that really count. What he means (I think) is that the term “inerrancy of scripture” properly understood is a very limited concept, and refers only to our belief that scripture will not teach heresy. Thus “inerrancy of scripture” has nothing whatsoever to do with geographical or numerical consistency or lack thereof.

I actually tend to believe that the facts in the Bible may be more accurate than many take them to be. I don’t see why, if Jesus could feed 5000 people with 5 loaves and 2 fish, the earth’s rotation could not somehow have been stopped – it makes no sense to allow physical ‘impossibilities’ in Jesus’ case but not in the Old Testament. I am not even completely convinced that Genesis is not in some sense scientifically accurate. There are certainly prophecies in the Old Testament that, against the odds, were fulfilled quite literally by Christ (for instance, the Messiah riding on a donkey) while others (“My cheeks to those who plucked out the beard” Is.50:6) don’t appear to have been fulfilled in the same literal sense.

But be that as it may, I don’t think those questions have anything to do with scriptural inerrancy, at least as I understand it to be understood by both Catholics and Orthodox.

Respectfully,

Philip

[GL]

>>>However, I think your understanding of scriptural authority is flawed.<<<

Undoubtedly it is, but not in the way you indicate. I am objecting to allowing the fundamentalists's definition of the doctrine of inerrancy to supplant the true doctrine of inerrancy and to, therefore, deny the true doctrine inerrancy. It is Stuart, with Bobby and Rob following his lead, which insist that one who holds the traditional doctrine of inerrancy holds the fundamentalists' view of Scripture. I will no more allow fundamentalists to hijack the meaning of inerrancy than I will allow dispensationalists to hijack the term rapture or homosexuals to hijack the term gay.

>>>What he means (I think) is that the term “inerrancy of scripture” properly understood is a very limited concept, and refers only to our belief that scripture will not teach heresy. Thus “inerrancy of scripture” has nothing whatsoever to do with geographical or numerical consistency or lack thereof.<<<

If that is what he means then, I believe, he is adopting a view which earlier popes condemned as limited inerrancy. If, on the other hand, he means to say the Scriptures, like many works of literature, contain hyperbole and metaphors, is not meant to be a scientific text, and should be held to the historigraphical conventions of the time of its writing and not of our own time, then I agree with him. To accept these premises is not to deny inerrancy, it is to deny the fundamentalists' view of inerrancy -- which I do.

Thus, we have Stuart positing silly questions about the sun standing still in the book of Joshua. Were I new to this blog site, I might understand his posing such a question. I am not new here. He knows full well that I understand that Scripture uses metaphor, hyperbole, symbolism, types, etc. Indeed, I am not dogmatic as to whether some of the books of the OT were works of fiction, though I would object to classing the historical books, including Joshua, in that category. Rob, who has also participated in such discussions in the past, should also know I reject the fundamentalists' view of inerrancy.

Thus, to post replies that imply that David Gray (another frequent poster here) and I believe such a view on inerrancy is an attempt to discredit our disagreement with them by engaging in ad hominem attacks and creating strawmen. They are attempts to make it seem we are saying what we are not saying and they should know we are not saying that from our past posts. But, as has become increasingly the case on this blog site, it is easier to mischaracterize another's posts than to engage in thoughtful debate.

In your case, it apparently worked. You will search in vain for any post by me on this thread that shows that I hold the fundamentalists' view of inerrancy. You apparently have come to that conclusion by reading what others said about my posts rather than reading my posts and drawing your own conclusions from what I said, not what others said I said.