Comments on: Defending the sufficiency of Scripture, part 4 http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz/defending-the-sufficiency-of-scripture-part-4/ developing the mind of Christ Thu, 02 Sep 2010 22:29:35 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: Lucian http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz/defending-the-sufficiency-of-scripture-part-4/#comment-230 Lucian Sat, 24 Nov 2007 12:33:00 +0000 http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz/?p=44#comment-230 Needless to say, what You're implying about the OT Scriptures could be done as easily to the NT. Yet, You refrain from applying the same strain of thought as regards them. Question: why? <br/><br/>Likewise: --and please pardon me for asking this-- : have You ever <b>actually read</b> the Fathers? (the ones You quote, at least...) Needless to say, what You’re implying about the OT Scriptures could be done as easily to the NT. Yet, You refrain from applying the same strain of thought as regards them. Question: why?

Likewise: –and please pardon me for asking this– : have You ever actually read the Fathers? (the ones You quote, at least…)

]]> By: orthodox http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz/defending-the-sufficiency-of-scripture-part-4/#comment-229 orthodox Fri, 02 Nov 2007 08:54:00 +0000 http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz/?p=44#comment-229 Bnonn: The answer to this question is that an infallible definition only took place at the fourth session of the Council of Trent, in 1546; which is obviously problematic for anyone living before that time.<br/><br/>O: Which is irrelevant. Prior to that time, (for catholics) knowledge of the canon came from tradition. An authority that you do not have.<br/><br/>Bnonn: However, the knowledge of the distinction between the canon and the pseudepigrapha was certainly never lost, even though it was not practiced in church tradition. Hugh of St Victor, around 1133-1141, specifies the canon of the Old Testament as that of the Hebrew Bible, while acknowledging that there are other books which are read in church for edification, though not being canonical<br/><br/>O: Assuming what you haven't proven, namely that these books are "pseudepigrapha".<br/><br/>It's easy when you can just assume what you have to prove, isn't it?<br/><br/>Bnonn: At the same time that Jerome, in Antioch, followed the tradition of many earlier fathers in holding only the Hebrew Old Testament<br/><br/>O: Assuming that Jerome's list was "the" Hebrew canon, which again conflicts with other evidence.<br/><br/>Bnonn: In addition to these questions, I must ask about 1 Esdras (what Trent calls 3 Esdras). Both Carthage and Hippo declared this book to be canonical; yet Trent did not.<br/><br/>O: I'm happy if Carthage and Hippo considered it canonical, since Orthodoxy does too. I agree it is slightly more likely that they did. However it is by no means certain since we find Jerome and Origen naming the books according to an older naming scheme.<br/><br/>"Origen writes "Esdras, first and second in one, Ezra, that is, 'an assistant'". St. Jerome in his Preface to Samuel and Kings lists this book as "the eighth, Ezra, which itself is likewise divided amongst Greeks and Latins into two books"<br/><br/>Now if Ezra/Nehemiah was considered two books as early as Origen among Christians, then there is no certainty that Hippo didn't mean the same.<br/><br/> Bnonn: Now, since Trent was drawing up an exclusive list of which books are canonical, it is evident that by not explicitly including 1 Esdras, it implicitly excluded it from the canon.<br/><br/>I presume you mean exhaustive. It doesn't seem certain to me that it is meant to be exhaustive. Bnonn: The answer to this question is that an infallible definition only took place at the fourth session of the Council of Trent, in 1546; which is obviously problematic for anyone living before that time.

O: Which is irrelevant. Prior to that time, (for catholics) knowledge of the canon came from tradition. An authority that you do not have.

Bnonn: However, the knowledge of the distinction between the canon and the pseudepigrapha was certainly never lost, even though it was not practiced in church tradition. Hugh of St Victor, around 1133-1141, specifies the canon of the Old Testament as that of the Hebrew Bible, while acknowledging that there are other books which are read in church for edification, though not being canonical

O: Assuming what you haven’t proven, namely that these books are “pseudepigrapha”.

It’s easy when you can just assume what you have to prove, isn’t it?

Bnonn: At the same time that Jerome, in Antioch, followed the tradition of many earlier fathers in holding only the Hebrew Old Testament

O: Assuming that Jerome’s list was “the” Hebrew canon, which again conflicts with other evidence.

Bnonn: In addition to these questions, I must ask about 1 Esdras (what Trent calls 3 Esdras). Both Carthage and Hippo declared this book to be canonical; yet Trent did not.

O: I’m happy if Carthage and Hippo considered it canonical, since Orthodoxy does too. I agree it is slightly more likely that they did. However it is by no means certain since we find Jerome and Origen naming the books according to an older naming scheme.

“Origen writes “Esdras, first and second in one, Ezra, that is, ‘an assistant’”. St. Jerome in his Preface to Samuel and Kings lists this book as “the eighth, Ezra, which itself is likewise divided amongst Greeks and Latins into two books”

Now if Ezra/Nehemiah was considered two books as early as Origen among Christians, then there is no certainty that Hippo didn’t mean the same.

Bnonn: Now, since Trent was drawing up an exclusive list of which books are canonical, it is evident that by not explicitly including 1 Esdras, it implicitly excluded it from the canon.

I presume you mean exhaustive. It doesn’t seem certain to me that it is meant to be exhaustive.

]]>