Papacy built on pious fiction and forgery 5

Here are some earlier links in this series:

Papacy built on Pious Fiction and Forgery 1

Papacy built on Pious Fiction and Forgery 2

The Integrity of the New Testament Canon

How the Fictional Early Papacy Became Real

Sorry if there's a bit of "mission creep" in the original naming of these posts. No doubt I am missing a few things, and getting a few things out of order. But there is a tremendous amount of information to cover on this topic, and my hope is more to "put it out there" for everyone to see, rather than to try and organize it at this time. Lord willing, that will come later.

Catholics will try to minimize the importance of this material by saying such things as "we knew the papacy developed" or "of course the early church wasn't the same as it is today," except that, the things are presented here are of such a totally different nature from what the Catholic Church believes today, that it is just incredible even to think of the notion that what we have here is a "seed" for what later developed. What we have here is not a seed of any kind. What "developed" into the "papacy" started off as a grotesque caricature of what really happened in the earliest church, and it got worse from there.

Much, though not all, of what follows is largely from Daniel Wm. O'Connor, "Peter in Rome, the Literary, Liturgical, and Archeological Evidence" Columbia University Press 1969.

In summary, it appears more plausible than not that: 1) Peter did reside in Rome at some time during his lifetime, most probably near the end of his life. 2) He was martyred there as a member of the Christian religion. 3) He was remembered in the erection of a simple monument near the place where he died. 4) his body was never recovered for burial by the Christian group which later, when relics became of great importance for apologetic reasons, came to believe that what originally had marked the general area of his death also indicated the precise placement of his grave. (209)

With the study of history, in putting together the reconstructions of "what actually happened," it's important to trace "what they knew, and when they knew it." That said, having made the claim that "the most sober minds in church history passed along pious fiction as if were sober history," I wanted to give a kind of overview of what was actually known. In an earlier posting, I provided New Testament evidence for what we knew about Peter's later life. Here, I want to provide what was known, what was "sort of known," and what was made up.

1 Clement
Significantly, O'Connor, whose investigation follows closely with the title of the work, does not cite 1 Clement. After all, 1 Clement knows very little of Peter. But here's what he says. After a very brief overview of "jealousy" in the Old Testament -- probably a paragraph -- Clement then shifts to "our time":

"But to pass from the examples of ancient times, let us come to those champions who lived nearest to our time. Let us consider the noble examples that belong to our own generation. Because of jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars were persecuted and fought to the death. Let us set before our eyes the good apostles. There was Peter, who because of unrighteous jealousy endured not one or two but many trials, and thus having given his testimony went to his appointed place of glory. Because of jealousy and strife Paul showed the way to the prize for patient endurance. After he had been seven times in chains, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, and had preached in the east and in the west, he won the genuine glory for his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world and having reached the farthest limits of the west. Finally, when he had given his testimony before the rulers, he thus departed from the world and went to the holy place, having become an outstanding example of patient endurance." (Cited from Michael Holmes, "The Apostolic Fathers, Greek Texts and English Translations, Third Edition," (pgs 51-53).

What I've provided here is the sum total of what Clement reports about Peter. Some will say that Peter was so widely known that there was no need to mention him further. That may be the case. But Paul also suffered "many trials," and Clement saw fit to explicate those to a far greater degree, and with far greater precision. Now, were Peter's works so much greater known than Paul's, that there was no need to mention them? For a doctrine that is so foundational as the papacy, and one upon which so much weight is resting, (and especially given the absolute silence about Peter's later life in the NT), one has to question, what was known about Peter. We don't have an answer.

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans:
It is said that Ignatius wrote seven letters on his way to his martyrdom. In each of these, he stressed "the bishop," but without having described what that meant. It is most likely that "the bishop and presbyters" were on par with a senior pastor and associate pastors at a church of moderate size.

I do not give you orders like Peter and Paul: they were apostles, I am a convict; they were free, but I am even now still a slave. But if I suffer, I will be a freedman of Jesus Christ and will rise up free in him. In the meantime, as a prisoner I am learning to desire nothing. (Cited from Michael Holmes, "The Apostolic Fathers, Greek Texts and English Translations, Third Edition," (pgs 229-231)

This is the only mention of Peter (and Paul) in Ignatius's letters. Other writers look to the early history of the early church to try to decide on what was happening there. One writer puts it this way:

"Ignatius and Hermas provide evidence that even in the first decades of the second century Rome was not centrally organized under the administrative authority of a single bishop. In six of his seven letters, Ignatius insists on the importance of the office of bishop. His silence in regard to this pastoral concern in the Letter to the Romans (ca. 110 c.e.) is best explained by the absence of a monarchical bishop in Rome. Hermas refers only to "the elders who preside over the church" (Herm. Vis. 2.43; 3.9.7). The existence of several house churches only loosely connected with one another throughout Rome suggests why diversity, disunity, and a tendency toward independence were persistent problems in the early history of the CHristian communities in Rome. (William L. Lane, "Social Perspectives on Roman Christianity during the Formative Years from Nero to Nerva: Romans, Hebrews, 1 Clement," cited in "Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome," Ed. Karl Donfried etc., 1998, pg 213).

[Consider further, the two separate data, that Ignatius, writing to Romans and mentioning Peter and Paul, does not mention the name either of a bishop, or a "successor".]

Eusebius on the topic of Peter in Rome
Eusebius, "Ecclesiastical History" (A.D. 326) 3:2 -- "After the martyrdoms of Paul and Peter [note that Paul is first], the first to be appointed Bishop of Rome was Linus. Paul mentions him when writing to Timothy from Rome in the salutation at the end of the epistle."

[2 Tim 4:21: "Eubulus sends greetings to you, as do Pudens and Linus and Claudia and all the brothers." -- if Paul had recognized some kind of clear succession, why is Linus in the middle of the pack?]

Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, to the Romans

Important information is contributed by the fragments of the lost letters of Dionysius. In them we find the oldest witness to the book of Acts, the persecution in Athens, the theory that Dionysius the Areopagite was converted by Paul, [he "traveled" with Paul, but Acts 17:34 does not specifically say he was converted] and finally that 1 Clement was read during this period (A.D. 170) during this period in the services of worship at Corinth. Eusebius later describes Dionysius the Areopagite as a shepherd at Corinth and a bishop at Athens. (All derived from Eusebius 4:22-4:23).

Dionysius also passed along a significant historical error: That "Peter as well as Paul founded the Church at Corinth" (23).

[Speaking of forgery, the name "Dionysius the Areopagite", from Acts 17:34, appears later in history. Beginning in the fifth and sixth centuries, there are pseudepigraphical documents circulated under the name "Dionysius the Areopagite," but during the renaissance era, when other forgeries were uncovered, these documents too were discovered to have been written by an anonymous fifth-century neoplatonist. Today he is known as "Pseudo-Dionysius". Significantly, Thomas Aquinas thought this individual was genuine, and cited his work as such.]

Justin Martyr

One naturally would look in the works of Justin Martyr [who died in Rome in 165 A.D.] for the first of the later testimonies. A search in the Apologies and in the Dialogue with Trypho, however, is rewarded only by a surprising silence on the subject of Peter's stay in Rome. The absence of any reference is particularly strange when it is remembered that Justin refers to Simon Magus on three separate occasions. (26)

[Simon Magus was the anti-hero who contended with Peter in Acts 8. And Justin mentions the "original tradition of Simon Magus' activity in Rome." In much of the pseudepigraphical material that follows, Peter's "white whale," so to speak, is Simon Magus. Peter follows and tracks down the villain Simon Magus and contends with him in various ways.]

Victor in the Easter Controversy

Victor (A.D. 189-98) followed Eleutherus (A.D. 174-89 as bishop of Rome in the tenth year of Commodus (A.D. 189). At this time, and perhaps related to the election of Victor, there arose a controversy (A.D. c. 190) with Polycrates of Ephesus over the Easter celebration. It is not necessary to rehearse the debate here, for what is important in this study is not what was said but what was not said. In an argument of this type, in which it would seem natural for both sides to appeal to all available authorities for support of their position, Victor makes no mention of the practice of Peter and Paul concerning Easter. Polycrates, on the other hand, recalls that both Philip and John as well as Polycarp observed the season in such a way as to support his position. (25)

[It's noteworthy, too, here, that in addition to the imbalance in mentions of "apostolic tradition," that it was a bishop of Rome who intended to squash what was known to be a genuine Apostolic tradition: the practice of Easter by John and Philip. (Eusebius 5.23)

Aside from the "papal lists," which I hope to treat more fully in a later posting, this is the end of O'Connor's "literary evidence" for Peter's stay in Rome. He now moves on to "the Apocryphal literature," which, he says, is "without exception, too untrustworthy and too late to offer any information which might be considered as reliable and independent. Interest in the apocryphal details is justified only to the extent that they indicate a trend in the development of the tradition. The following documents are the earliest of those which take into consideration the Roman residence and activity of Peter." (35)

I'll take this up in a later post.

Just as an aside, I'm going to a school picnic with my kids today, and so I won't be able to respond to any comments. But I'll try to respond to as many comments as I can overnight tonight and into tomorrow. - JB

Canon Links of Note

Not that either of these blogs needs advertising, but here's two interesting links related to the canon of sacred scripture:

1 Enoch 1:9 (Triablogue)

The Jews Knew the Old Testament Canon (Thoughts of Francis Turretin)

How the fictional early papacy became real

Historically, Catholics have argued that the papacy was a divinely-given institution papacy (Matt 16:17-19) etc., and they have relied on the notion that there have been bishops of Rome extending all the way back to the time of Peter.

This notion of bishops extending all the way back was thought to be actual history. In fact, as Shotwell and Loomis pointed out, in the General Introduction to their 1927 work "The See of Peter":

With reference to the Petrine doctrine, however, the Catholic attitude is much more than a "pre-disposition to believe." That doctrine is the fundamental basis of the whole papal structure. It may be summed up in three main claims. They are: first, that Peter was appointed by Christ to be his chief representative and successor and the head of his Church; second, that Peter went to Rome and founded the bishopric there; third, that his successors succeeded to his prerogatives and to all the authority thereby implied. In dealing with these claims we are passing along the border line between history and dogmatic theology. The primacy of Peter and his appointment by Christ to succeed Him as head of the Church are accepted by the Catholic Church as the indubitable word of inspired Gospel, in its only possible meaning. That Peter went to Rome and founded there his See, is just as definitely what is termed in Catholic theology as a dogmatic fact. This has been defined by an eminent Catholic theologian as "historical fact so intimately connected with some great Catholic truths that it would e believed even if time and accident had destroyed all the original evidence therefore. (xxiii-xxiv, emphasis in original).

So, if the history of the early papacy is disrupted, it should, by all rights, disrupt the dogmatic definition of the papacy. And this is what we have come upon in our era: the most widely accepted historical accounts of the period -- which are now almost universally accepted among legitimate historians of the era -- is that Peter did not "found a bishopric." There was no "bishopric" in that city for 100 years after his death. The history completely contradicts what the "dogmatic fact" has held for more than 1000 years. Now, according to Eamon Duffy, among others, what was thought to be historical accounts were actually fictitious accounts that became passed along as history:

These stories were to be accepted as sober history by some of the greatest minds of the early Church -- Origen, Ambrose, Augustine. But they are pious romance, not history, and the fact is that we have no reliable accounts either of Peter's later life or the manner or place of his death. Neither Peter nor Paul founded the Church at Rome, for there were Christians in the city before either of the Apostles set foot there. Nor can we assume, as Irenaeus did, that the Apostles established there a succession of bishops to carry on their work in the city, for all the indications are that there was no single bishop at Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the Apostles. In fact, wherever we turn, the solid outlines of the Petrine succession at Rome seem to blur and dissolve. (Duffy, pg 2.)

Briefly, on Peter and "the tradition," Reymond talks about the further lack of information about Peter in Scripture:

The Peter died in Rome, as ancient tradition has it, is a distinct possibility (see 1 Peter 5:13, where "Babylon" has been rather uniformly understood by commentators as a metaphor for Rome), but that he ever actually pastored the church there is surely a fiction, seven some scholars in the Roman communion will acknowledge. Jerome's Latin translation of Eusebius (not Eusebius's Greek copy) records that Peter ministered in Rome for twenty-five years, but if Philip Schaff (as well as many other church historians) is to believed, this is "a colossal chronological mistake." Paul write his letter to the church in Rome in early A.D. 57, but he did not address the letter to Peter or refer to him as its pastor. And in the last chapter he extended greetings to twenty-eight friends in Rome but made no mention of Peter, which would have been a major oversight, indeed, an affront, if in fact Peter was "ruling" the Roman church at that time. Then later when Paul was himself in Rome, from which city he wrote both his four prison letters during his first imprisonment in A.D. 60-62 when he "was welcoming all who came to him" (Acts 28:30), and his last pastoral letter during his second imprisonment around A.D. 64, in which letters he extend greetings to his letters' recipients from ten specific people in Rome, again he made no mention of Peter being there. Here is a period of time spanning around seven years (a.d. 57-64) during which time Paul related himself to the Roman church both as correspondent and as resident, but he said not a word to suggest that Peter was in Rome. (Reymond, "Systematic Theology," pg 814)

Schaff, who is cited by Reymond, explicates a little bit further. "The time of Peter's arrival in Rome, and the length of his residence there, cannot possibly ascertained. The above mentioned silence of the Acts and of Paul's Epistles allows him only a short period of labor there, after 63. The Roman tradition of a twenty or twenty-five years' episcopate of Peter in Rome is unquestionably a colossal chronological mistake."

In a footnote, Schaff says, Some Catholics, following the historian Alzog and others, "try to reconcile the tradition with the silence of the Scripture by assuming two visits of Peter to Rome with a great interval." (fn1, pg 252). The operative verse here, Acts 12:17, says only, 'He departed, and went into another place." This gives no details at all, and to posit that Peter took a trip to Rome at this time is irrational, given that just two chapters later (Acts 15) Peter is present back in Jerusalem again for a council.

Schaff continues his work in Vol 1 with two sections: The Peter of History, and the Peter of Fiction.

I won't get into the "history" at this point, other than to say, all that we know about Peter, we know about him from the pages in Scripture, as outlined by Reymond. The summary statement from Duffy, of any further details about Peter's life being "pious romance" is true.

D.W. O'Connor, in his 1968 work "Peter in Rome," looks at the absence of a Petrine presence in the second half of Acts and largely Paul's letters, and gives a reason for why all of this "pious romance" developed:

It has been suggested that Acts is a "selective" history, a fragmentary history, which simply did not include the facts pertaining to the last days and martyrdom of Peter and Paul. This is not acceptable, for such information would have been of great moment in the early church, which a century and a half before the rise of the cult of martyrs, only thirty-two years after the death of the apostles, remembered their martyrdom vividly (1 Clement 5). [But] the Early Church was so eager for details that within another century it created the full accounts which are found in the apocryphal Acts. (O'Connor, 11).

In my next post, I'll provide a catalog of some of these.

The Top 200 Roman Catholic Blogs

Here's a personal eye opener.

I read mostly Roman Catholic blogs. This website was able to calculate the top two hundred most subscribed Roman Catholic blogs.

Out of the top ten, I read only one: Patrick Madrid's blog (#7). I've never read any of the other top ten, nor do I think I've ever heard of any of them.

Out of the top twenty, including Madrid, I read only two. The other would be Mark Shea's blog (#15).

Out of the top fifty, I read only four. The next pick up is Jimmy Akin's blog, (#42) and Catholic News Service (#43).

Then after the first fifty, I pick up another three. All in all, that's seven out of two-hundred, and even of those seven, a few I only read occasionally. I looked at the other blogs in the top ten, and frankly, they're a bit dull, at least for my taste.

Luther's Opinion of the Book of Judith

Previously I mentioned this Catholic Answers question:

I know why Martin Luther removed the book of Macabees because of its support for praying for the dead, but I'm trying to find something that explains the reasons he took out the other 6 books in the OT. Does anyone know his reasons????

This information really isn't all the hard to track down. I realize most of us have recently grown accustomed to having primary source material seconds away via a Google search. Sometimes though, you may actually have to venture out and buy a book or go to a library (imagine that). If you search around the Internet a bit, you could actually find helpful information like this:

[Luther's] judgment on the different Books [of the Bible] is given in detail in his Prefaces. These are so full of life, and so characteristic of the man, that they can never lose their interest; and as a whole they form an important chapter of the history of the Bible. It will be sufficient to quote fragments from his remarks on the controverted books of His judgment the Old and New Testaments. 'If the truth of the history of Judith, ' he says, ' could be established by satisfactory evidence, it would be a noble and beautiful book, which might well find a place in the Bible...As it is there are errors and doubts both as to dates and names which I cannot in any way clear up. [But if we look at it as a Divine Allegory] it is a beautiful, good, holy, profitable book, which we Christians shall do well to read. For we must so understand it, as if a spiritual, holy poet or prophet spoke by the Holy Ghost, who presents such characters [as the book describes] and through them preaches to us.'

Luther's Works volume 35 contains Luther's Prefaces to the Apocrypha. The above description of Luther's attitude toward Judith is accurate, though greatly condensed. His comments date from 1534. Luther begins,

If one could prove from established and reliable histories that the events in Judith really happened, it would be a noble and fine book, and should properly be in the Bible. Yet it hardly squares with the historical accounts of the Holy Scriptures, especially Jeremiah and Ezra. For these show how Jerusalem and the whole country were destroyed, and were thereafter laboriously rebuilt during the time of the monarchy of the Persians who occupied the land. [LW 35:337]

He then goes on to provide evidence to support this statement:

Against this the first chapter of Judith3 claims that King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon was the first one to set about conquering this territory; it creates the impression that these events took place before the captivity of the Jews, and before the rise of the Persian monarchy. Philo, on the contrary, says that they happened after the release and return of the Jews from Babylon under King Ahasuerus, at which time the Jews had rebuilt neither the temple nor Jerusalem, and had no government. Thus as to both time and name, error and doubt are still present, so that I cannot reconcile [the accounts] at all. [LW 35:337]

Luther then describes attempts to understand Judith as an allegory, and he himself is keen on such an approach:

Such an interpretation strikes my fancy, and I think that the poet deliberately and painstakingly inserted the errors of time and name in order to remind the reader that the book should be taken and understood as that kind of a sacred, religious, composition.[LW 35:338]

It may even be that in those days they dramatized literature like this, Just as among us the Passion and other sacred stories are performed. In a common presentation or play they conceivably wanted to teach their people and youth to trust God, to be righteous, and to hope in God for all help and comfort, in every need, against all enemies, etc. [LW 35:338]

Luther concludes:

Therefore this is a fine, good, holy, useful book, well worth reading by us Christians. For the words spoken by the persons in it should be understood as though they were uttered in the Holy Spirit by a spiritual, holy poet or prophet who, in presenting such persons in his play, preaches to us through them. Next after Judith, therefore, like a song following a play, belongs the Wisdom of Philo, a work which denounces tyrants and praises the help which God bestows on his people. The song [that follows] may well be called an illustration of this book [of Judith].[LW 35:338]

Elsewhere Luther calls Judith a beautiful religious fiction [LW 35:353]. One can find examples of Luther quoting from Judith throughout his writings, most often in a positive way. Despite his positive attitude though toward Judith, he did still classify it as Apocrypha. When Luther says "the words spoken by the persons in it should be understood as though they were uttered in the Holy Spirit by a spiritual, holy poet or prophet who, in presenting such persons in his play, preaches to us through them"- I don't think this should be understood to mean divine canonical revelation, but rather as something similar to a well-preached sermon.

I think it should be obvious that Luther's opinion of the Apocrypha isn't as is often portrayed by Roman Catholics. Consider this statement from Roman Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin: "The deuterocanonicals teach Catholic doctrine, and for this reason they were taken out of the Old Testament by Martin Luther and placed in an appendix without page numbers" [source].

How To Get Back To Where You Once Belonged

I'm not nearly as creative as Hays, but here's a plan.

Say you were a public figure caught lying about your conversion story from Islam. Say you happened to be a respected guy in charge of a seminary. Here's a workable plan:

1. Admit to all your lies.

2. Step down from your position of authority.

3. Write a book about your troubles and epiphany of your own flaws.

4. Do the talk show circuit, promote the book.

5. Gain back credibility for your integrity of admitting your sins.

6. Live happily ever after again. You'll then be considered a respected sincere person again. Use the line: We all have flaws, but God still uses us. You'll be able to reinvent your career. You may not get the seminary back, but you'll get the microphone back. You'll be able once again to stand on a stump or your head.

On assuming RCC is right about everything, and weird ways to argue such

Jae, occasional RC commenter, said on CatholicNick's blog:

Rho,

You keep harping about the total insignificance of the Apostolic Tradition/Teaching which is so irrelevant and not even related to the Bereans in Acts 17:1-12 teaching "Sola Scriptura".

Let's get real again, afterwards few questions. Your church (I guess Reformed) in the 30's was one who agreed, actually ALL christian churches that artificial contraception is against the Will of God - what happened since the Anglican Lambeth conference 80 years ago? Does your Church TEACH what is otherwise FALSE? What happened to Unchangeability of Truth? These are real hard facts, that most if not all protestant churches (in their assertion to each his own) have followed historically the footsteps of Anglicanism. (google Humanae Vitae).

How about gay-marriage? Many evangelical churches had already succumbed, again history is repeating itself....one by one.

Without the Apostolic Teaching which Christ ordained and founded upon His Apostles and successors that are BINDING to Christians without which we are lost. That is a fact! Now if you think otherwise that it is Biblically ok (the use of contraception) then from what authority do you say so?

Jae,

the total insignificance of the Apostolic Tradition/Teaching which is so irrelevant

Where have I "harped on" that?  Or even said anythg of the kind?
Rather, I've merely asked you and all other RCs and EOx to prove that what you claim is Apostolic Tradition really is Apostolic Tradition.  The way Jesus told us to examine such things to find out is to examine them in light of Scripture (Mark 7:1-13), and the Bereans here in Acts 17 follow that example.
When I ask you to prove that your alleged ApTrad actually came from the apostles, you retreat to "we're the church founded by Christ!" and "we have bishops going back to Peter!" and other irrelevancies.  Try actually answering the challenge sometime.  It'd be a refreshing change.


what happened since the Anglican Lambeth conference 80 years ago?

A better question is:  Why should I care?



What happened to Unchangeability of Truth?

What happened to judging Truth by what God has said, rather than what people think and agree on?


How about gay-marriage? Many evangelical churches had already succumbed

Oh, so other churches' succumbing means that I am wrong for holding to Sola Scriptura.  All you need is a connecting argument!


Now if you think otherwise that it is Biblically ok (the use of contraception) then from what authority do you say so?

If you insist on your bizarre and questionably-healthy obsession with opposing contraception loudly and openly all the time, fine - show me in the Bible where Jesus or the apostles gave us commands with respect to never using contraception.  Don't show me psgs where we're commanded not to murder people - I absolutely oppose abortion, RU486 and other morning-after pills, birth control pills of all kinds (since all contain an abortifacient functionality), and other abortifacient methodologies.  Don't quote the psg about Onan, since his problem was clearly that he refused to provide offspring for his brother.  I don't see a biblical problem with barrier methods.  Prove me wrong, if you (notice, you brought it up, not me) insist on talking contraception.
Also, for purposes of instruction, show me Apostolic Tradition opposed to barrier methods of contraception.  Do not quote it unless you prove that it came from an apostle, and describe specifically how you know it came from an apostle, and which one, and whether this is just your private opinion or whether this has been infallibly stated by the RCC; if the latter, state where and when and how you know it was infallible.  Thanks!

(PS - It should go without saying, but I would like to iterate clearly that I speak only for myself in this post; opinions I express are not necessarily those of anyone else on the highly-paid and highly-trained Beggars All team.)

The Roman Catholic Hermeneutic

Tim Prussic, whose name I've seen in various comments, and who seems to be a fan of Richard Muller's "Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics," is commenting on his own blog on a very long "Called to Communion" posting by Tim Troutman on the topic of "Holy Orders and the Sacramental Priesthood." So far he has done Part 1 and Part 2 of his analysis, and he promises more.

About half way through part two of Tim Prussic's analysis, he comes to this conclusion:

[Tim Troutman's] stated purpose, as it comes to the text of God’s Word, is simply to “demonstrate that the concept of Holy Orders is consistent with the biblical evidence.” Passing by Tim [Troutman]’s lack of definition of the phrase “Holy Orders,” and consequential lack of clarity as to the consistency of it with the biblical evidence, the statement itself is telling. Tim spends some time on the text of Scripture, but it appears that his interests really lay elsewhere. Mere consistency is his aim. Discovering and obeying what God’s Word teaches and requires regarding the government of Christ’s church is not Tim’s aim.

In the process, Tim Prussic comes to an understanding of Tim Troutman's hermeneutic (at least in Part 2) which makes some sense:

Not only has Tim [Troutman] not proved that the Apostles had the power to confer their same authority upon other, but it would appear he didn’t even try to prove it. When it comes to handling the biblical data, Tim’s article (thus far) is full of “proof texts,” but does not interact with the text or even really seek to understand it. It appears that he’s far more eager to move onto what the church has to say. I suspect that a great deal of our disagreement really stems from this: my authority is the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture and Tim’s is something different. I will not presume to speak for him, to specify his authority, but I think he’d agree that our concepts of authority differ. Because our authorities differ, our doctrine differs. (Emphasis added).

Tim Prussic really is very kind not to try to say what that different authority is. But we do need to know what it is and where it comes from. I've described some of that here:

With regard to the Catholic Church, [their hermeneutic] is a blatant form of revisionism. This is evidenced by Pius IX’s method articulated in his Letter, “Gravissimas inter,” to the Archbishop of Munich-Freising, Dec. 11, 1862, reiterated in Pius XII’s statement in Humani Generis, “theologians must always return to the sources of divine revelation: for it belongs to them to point out how the doctrine of the living Teaching Authority is to be found either explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures and in Tradition.”

This is further explained in a variety of sources. One Roman Catholic theologian wrote, “We think first of developed forms for which we need to find historical justification. The developed forms come first and the historical justification comes second.” (“Ways of Validating Ministry,” Kilian McDonnell, Journal of Ecumenical Studies (7), pg. 213, cited in Carlos Alfredo Steger, “Apostolic Succession in the Writings of Yves Congar and Oscar Cullmann, pg. 322.) Steger calls this type of historical revisionism “highly questionable if not inadmissible.”

Aiden Nichols, “The Shape of Catholic Theology” (253) notes that for the last several hundred years, according to these popes, “the theologian’s highest task lies in proving the present teachings of the magisterium from the evidence of the ancient sources.” One internet writer called this method “Dogma Appreciation 101” (related in a discussion of his studies in a Catholic seminary.) Nichols calls this, “the so-called regressive method,” and notes that Walter Kasper (now a Cardinal) has traced the origins of this method to the 18th century.

Prior to Newman’s “theory of development,” it was the practice of Catholic apologists (see Bossuet) to argue that the church had never changed: “semper eadem.” But in the course of further historical research, it became necessary for someone like Newman to explain the huge scope and number of the changes that Rome had effected on the church over the centuries.

In the Orwell novel, 1984, it was the job of the main character, Winston Smith, “to rewrite historical documents so they match the constantly changing current party line. This involves revising newspaper articles and doctoring photographs — mostly to remove ‘unpersons,’ people who have fallen foul of the party.”

To find precedence for this practice, Orwell had to travel no further than the Roman Catholic Church, which had made this its practice for centuries. In describing how we have come to know about the genuine teachings of Nestorius, Friedrich Loofs wrote, “The church of the ancient Roman Empire did not punish its heretics merely by deposition, condemnation, banishment and various deprivation of rights, but, with the purpose of shielding its believers against poisonous influence, it destroyed all heretical writings ... a similar fortune was prepared for Nestorius.” (Loofs, “Nestorius,” 2-11).

Of course, according to Orwell, “If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say this or that even, it never happened—that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and death.” (Book 1, Chapter 3)

This is precisely what the Catholic Church, at an official level, to a greater or lesser degree, has been doing for centuries, and it is the type of thing that its modern apologists continue to do today. (Especially adherents to Newman’s “theory of development.”)

If one thing is clear about Romanism's view of God's revelation, it's that it isn't clear

Here's a worthy read: Ratzinger, Material Sufficiency?

Ratzinger:
And [Geiselmann] further concludes that consequently even a Catholic theologian can argue the material sufficiency of Scripture and can also, as a Catholic, hold the opinion that Holy Scripture transmits a material sola scriptura thoroughly acceptable even for a Catholic—indeed, he believes he can show that this has much the stronger tradition in its favor and that the Council of Trent, likewise, intended to point us in this direction.

The Romanist theologian does indeed argue this or that. For all their talk about certainty, when it comes right down to the essential nature of God's revelation, it all becomes a bit foggy in Romanism. Ironically, this ambiguity speaks loudly and clearly to how far the sect of Romanism has strayed from the truth, in that, it can't even consistently explain the nature of revelation. Depending on which Romanist one is in conversation with, one will get different explanations on the interaction of Tradition and Scripture, as well as the meaning of Tradition. If one thing is clear about Romanism's view of God's revelation, it's that it isn't clear.

Does Romanism, by and large, care? No, I don't think so. Even her most zealous self-appointed apologists have balked about doing in-person debates on the nature and meaning of Tradition. Sure, they've jumped all over sola scriptura over the years, but when Tradition is mentioned, they back away as fast as possible. This has happened time after time in Dr. White's debates with Roman apologists. It would be interesting to listen back to these debates as a whole, and isolate each Roman apologist's response and definition of Tradition. They can tear down that which they despise, but they can't (or won't) provide a meaningful explanation as to what their position is. They won't subject themselves to the same scrutiny that they go after sola scriptura with.

Planting Confessional Reformed Churches in Italy

Believe it or not, there is now a total of one Confessionally Reformed church in Italy.

It's a church plant from Christ United Reformed church in Santee, CA. And they're telling the story of their effort.

Pastor Andrea Ferrari is a missionary and pastor ordained in the United Reformed Churches in North America. He is an Italian national and serves as pastor of Chiesa Evangelica Riformata ‘Filadelfia’ (CERF) in Milan (Novate), Italy.

Pastor Ferrari has begun a series of short biographical posts based on what appears to be a book about the life of John Diodati (1576-1649) and his doctrine of Scripture. The first two posts are here and here.

The nature of Geneva’s Academy casts much light on Diodati’s life and work. Its basic aim was declared in 1637 by the pastors and professors of Geneva, among whom was Diodati: ‘It is not good that our students should be vain disputants, or that they should be learned in a theory without savour or strength. The true aim which we should set before ourselves . . . is to provide a holy nursery-garden of devout pastors, pure in their faith, strong in their zeal to teach, well conducted and sober, keeping guard with a clear conscience over the grand mystery of piety, and administering with justice the Word of Truth.’ This statement reflects perfectly the original vision of John Calvin himself. According to the Ecclesiastical Ordinances of 1541, the College he wished to see established was to serve the purpose of preparing children ‘for both the ministry and civil government.’ …

Both at the College and the Academy, young people were educated in the so-called humanities. Although ‘the education offered in the College and Academy was in many ways typically humanistic’, from the very beginnings, in Geneva as in Calvin’s own life, ‘humanistic studies were to be directed to the service of the Word of God.’ Calvin did not disregard ‘secular’ human learning, as is evident from reading his Institutes and commentaries. One of the sources of the Reformation had been the scholarly, critical study of the Bible, and each Calvinist minister was expected to be well equipped for the continuing task of biblical study and exegesis . . . Only a man with a high degree of linguistic and philological ability could be entrusted with the task of interpreting to less learned and otherwise occupied people the very words of Almighty God.

I hope you'll take a few minutes to check out this tremendously bold work (both in the 16th century and today).

Where to Stay in Tel Aviv

We interrupt the regularly scheduled program for a light-hearted chuckle, unless of course you're going to this hotel in Tel Aviv.

I was in the process of booking a hotel room in Boston MA, and I was curious about a particular rabbit trail about "sabbath observant rooms." This lead me to this hotel in Tel Aviv. Here were the titles of the first five reviews, in order:

"DIRTIEST HOTEL WE HAVE EVER SEEN."

"never again..."

"Israel's answer to Fawlty Towers but not so funny..."

"Awful Experience"

"Never Never Never - Just Awful"

From Augustine on the Unity of the Church

Pastor David King has been a friend of mine for some years now, and I know that many of us who know him think very highly of his work, ”Holy Scripture: the Ground and Pillar of our Faith”.

Just this morning, Pastor King posted the following at Green Baggins, from Augustine’s work “On the Unity of the Church.” As he notes, this is the one work of Augustine’s that has never been fully translated into English. But as he notes, the method of argumentation is completely different from the argumentation that we find from today’s Catholic apologists:

Any reader of his Pastoral Letter to the separated Donatists on the Unity of the Church, must find it inexplicable, on the Jesuit theory, that in these seventy-five chapters there is not a single word on the necessity of communion with Rome as the centre of unity.

The entire posting is here:

Whitaker on the Canon, Part 1

I’ve provided this significant selection of Pastor King’s comments, for the benefit of those here who don’t regularly read Green Baggins:

Most of the Augustinian corpus has been translated, and New City Press is in the process of providing new translations of all of his works. But of all the works of Augustine that have been translated, there is one work, De Unitate Ecclesiae that has never been fully translated into English; and although New City Press plans to do so, it has been postponed for some five years now due (I’m told) to the prolonged illness of the translator. May the Lord be pleased to give him the health to finish. But in his controversy with the Donatists, Augustine wrote this work to refute their schism from the Church Catholic. Notice how Augustine does not lodge his argument in an appeal to apostolic succession in this particular work, in fact he bids his adversaries not to look in the direction of human testimonies. Over and over, he argues with the Donatists that the church is to be found in and defined by the Scriptures. Obviously, Augustine did not share the skeptical pessimism of our present day opponents with respect to the testimony of Holy Scripture.

Of Augustine’s writings and this one in particular, Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger observed: “St. Augustine has written more on the Church, its unity and authority, than all the other Fathers put together. Yet, from all his numerous works, filling ten folios, only one sentence, in one letter, can be quoted, where he says that the principality of the Apostolic Chair has always been in Rome,—which could, of course, be said then with equal truth of Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria. Any reader of his Pastoral Letter to the separated Donatists on the Unity of the Church, must find it inexplicable, on the Jesuit theory, that in these seventy-five chapters there is not a single word on the necessity of communion with Rome as the centre of unity. He urges all sorts of arguments to show that the Donatists are bound to return to the Church, but of the Papal Chair, as one of them, he knows nothing. See Janus, The Pope and the Council, trans. from the German, 2nd ed. (London: Rivingtons, 1869), pp. 88-89.

I suppose, perhaps, that not many of my Reformed brethren have had the opportunity of reading the following list of citations from this particular work of Augustine, collated and organized in this manner, but where translations have been provided, I have arranged them in the following order in which they appear in this single work of Augustine. I think that when one can read them in this way, it gives something of a feel for the flow of this ancient African bishop’s argument. Bear in mind that this is how Augustine argued to call the Donatists back to the unity of the Church. And again, as Döllinger noted, never once does he posit that unity in the papal chair of Rome, or in its succession of bishops. There is an obvious difference in the modus operandi that Augustine employed in this work, and how our Roman disputants proceed with their contentions. Moreover, he does not ground his argument in the teaching authority of the church, but in Holy Scripture itself.

Augustine (354-430): Let us not hear, You [i.e., the Donatists] say this, I say that; but let us hear Thus saith the Lord. There are the Dominical books, whose authority we both acknowledge, we both yield to, we both obey; there let us seek the Church, there let us discuss the question between us. For trans., see William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd ed., (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), Vol. 3, p 164.

Augustine (354-430): Therefore let those testimonies which we mutually bring against each other, from any other quarter than the divine canonical books, be put out of sight. For trans., see William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd ed., (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), Vol. 3, p. 164.

Augustine (354-430): I would not have the holy Church demonstrated by human testimonies, but by divine oracles. For trans., see William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd ed., (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), Vol. 3, pp. 164-165.

Augustine (354-430): Whoever dissents from the sacred Scriptures, even if they are found in all places in which the church is designated, are not the church. For trans., See Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 Vols., trans. George Musgrave Giger and ed. James T. Dennison (Phillipsburg: reprinted by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1992), Vol. 3, pp. 109-110.

Augustine (354-430): We adhere to this Church; against those divine declarations we admit no human cavils. For trans., see William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd ed., (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), Vol. 3, p. 165.

Augustine (354-430): I have the most manifest voice of my pastor commending to me, and without any hesitation setting forth the church, I will impute it to myself, if I shall wish to be seduced by the words of men and to wander from his flock, which is the church itself, since he specially admonished me saying, “My sheep hear my voice and follow me”; listen to his voice clear and open and heard; who does not follow, how will he dare to call himself his sheep? Let no one say to me, What hath Donatus said, what hath Parmenian said, or Pontius, or any of them. For we must not allow even Catholic bishops, if at any time, perchance, they are in error, to hold any opinion contrary to the Canonical Scriptures of God. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1992),Vol. 3, pp. 91-92 and William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd ed., (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), Vol. 3, p. 165.

Augustine (354-430): All such matters, therefore, being put out of sight, let them show their Church, if they can; not in the discourses and reports of Africans, not in the councils of their own bishops, not in the writings of any controversialists, not in fallacious signs and miracles, for even against these we are rendered by the word of the Lord prepared and cautious, but in the ordinances of the Law, in the predictions of the Prophets, in the songs of the Psalms, in the words of the very Shepherd himself, in the preachings and labours of the Evangelists, that is, in all the canonical authorities of sacred books. Nor so as to collect together and rehearse those things that are spoken obscurely, or ambiguously, or figuratively, such as each can interpret as he likes, according to his own views. For such testimonies cannot be rightly understood and expounded, unless those things that are most clearly spoken are first held by a firm faith. For trans., see William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd ed., (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), Vol. 3, p. 165.

Augustine (354-430): We ought to find the Church, as the Head of the Church, in the Holy Canonical Scriptures, not to inquire for it in the various reports, and opinions, and deeds, and words, and visions of men. For trans., see William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd ed., (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), Vol. 3, p. 165.

Augustine (354-430): For we do not say that we ought to be believed because we are in the Church of Christ, or because that Church to which we belong, was commended to us by Optatus, Ambrose, or other innumerable Bishops of our communion; or because miracles are everywhere wrought in it. . . . These things are indeed to be approved, because they are done in the Catholic Church, but it is not thence proved to be the Catholic Church, because such things are done in it. Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, when He rose from the dead, and offered His body to be touched as well as seen by His disciples, lest there should be any fallacy in it, thought it proper to convince them, rather by the testimony of the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, showing how all things were fulfilled which had been foretold; and so He commanded His Church, saying, that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His Name, among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. This He testified was written in the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms; this we hold, as commended from His mouth. These are the documents, these the foundations, these the strong grounds of our cause. We read in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 17:11), of some believers, that they daily searched the Scriptures if these things were so. What Scriptures? but the canonical books of the Law and the Prophets; to which are added the Gospels, the Apostolical Epistles, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Revelation of St. John, Search, then, all these, and bring forth something manifest, by which you may prove the Church to have remained only in Africa, or come out of Africa in order that it might be fulfilled which the Lord said, “And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.” For translation, see Charles Hastings Collette, Saint Augustine: A Sketch of His Life and Writings, A.D. 387-430 (London: W. H. Allen & Co., 1883), pp. 48-49.

To see Pastor King’s complete posting, to view the original Latin from which this is taken, or to post a comment on the original thread, see this link:

Whitaker on the Canon, Part 1

# # #

Marian Apparitions

I haven't had a chance to listen to this yet- Chris Arnzen interviewed Andrew Mayfield on the subject of Marian Apparitions on the Iron Sharpens Iron program. The mp3 can be found here. I don't know anything about Mr. Mayfield, but Chris usually puts forth a good interview. Considering how many people think Mary is appearing, this topic is quite relevant.

Daniel's Susanna: Why Isn't it Biblical?

One of the Roman Catholic additions to the book of Daniel is Susanna. It's the story of the virtuous and beautiful Jewish wife of a rich man in Babylon. She is approached by two elders who lust after her. They give her a choice: she can either yield to their sexual desires or be falsely accused as an adulteress. She chooses the false accusation and is condemned. A young Daniel protests and cries out against this injustice. In a second trial, the woman is exonerated by Daniel cross-examining the men and exposing their lie. You can read this story here.

I thought it would be interesting to take a quick look at some of the extra apocryphal material Roman Catholics say Protestants wrongly excluded from the Bible. Remember, the common complaint is that Protestants don't have writings like Susanna in the Bible because Luther took it out. The doctrines taught in the apocrypha were said to contradict his teachings, so he removed them. Then, the rest of Protestantism followed him like sheep.

Luther's View
Of course, Luther did give his reason for not accepting Susanna and the other additions to Daniel: "We have uprooted such cornflowers (because they do not appear in the Hebrew versions of Daniel...)". But he translated it anyway and included it in his Bible saying, "And yet, to keep them from perishing, we have put them here in a kind of special little spice garden or flower bed since much that is good..." For Luther, Susanna "seem[ed] like beautiful religious fiction." If someone wanted to use it, Luther said "it can all be easily interpreted in terms of the state, the home, or the devout company of the faithful" [LW 35:353]. Luther being consistent with this either quotes or refers to Susanna in LW 11:112; 12:201; 18:330; 37:322; 44:223.

Jerome's View
That's outrageous isn't it? No not really. "The history of Susanna is certainly a Greek original, as was inferred by Julius Africanus and Porphyry from plays on words possible only in Greek" [source]. "Jerome places it at the end of Daniel, with a notice that it is not found in the Hebrew Bible" [source]. When it comes right down to it, Susanna is left out of the Bible because it appears to be a later addition to Daniel. It's questioned by Protestants on historical and textual grounds. It wasn't part of the Hebrew Bible. It's a later addition written in Greek, not Hebrew.

Roman Catholics were given a chance many years ago to come to terms with these facts. In responding to Porphyry's claims against the entire book of Daniel, Jerome grants he's made some good points in regard to the apocryphal additions:

But among other things we should recognize that Porphyry makes this objection to us concerning the Book of Daniel, that it is clearly a forgery not to be considered as belonging to the Hebrew Scriptures but an invention composed in Greek. This he deduces from the fact that in the story of Susanna, where Daniel is speaking to the elders, we find the expressions, "To split from the mastic tree" (apo tou skhinou skhisai) and to saw from the evergreen oak (kai apo tou prinou prisai), a wordplay appropriate to Greek rather than to Hebrew. But both Eusebius and Apollinarius have answered him after the same tenor, that the stories of Susanna and of Bel and the Dragon are not contained in the Hebrew, but rather they constitute a part of the prophecy of Habakkuk, the son of Jesus of the tribe of Levi. Just as we find in the title of that same story of Bel, according to the Septuagint, "There was a certain priest named Daniel, the son of Abda, an intimate of the King of Babylon." And yet Holy Scripture testifies that Daniel and the three Hebrew children were of the tribe of Judah. For this same reason when I was translating Daniel many years ago, I noted these visions with a critical symbol, showing that they were not included in the Hebrew. And in this connection I am surprised to be told that certain fault-finders complain that I have on my own initiative truncated the book. After all, both Origen, Eusebius and Apollinarius, and other outstanding churchmen and teachers of Greece acknowledge that, as I have said, these visions are not found amongst the Hebrews, and that therefore they are not obliged to answer to Porphyry for these portions which exhibit no authority as Holy Scripture...

But even Origen in his Vulgate edition (of the Greek Old Testament) placed asterisks around the work of Theodotion, indicating that the material added was missing (in the Septuagint), whereas on the other hand he prefixed obeli (i.e., diacritical marks) to some of the verses, distinguishing thereby whatever was additional material (not contained in the Hebrew). And since all the churches of Christ, whether belonging to the Greek-speaking territory or the Latin, the Syrian or the Egyptian, publicly read this edition with its asterisks and obeli, let the hostile-minded not begrudge my labor, because I wanted our (Latin-speaking) people to have what the Greek-speaking peoples habitually read publicly in the regions of Aquila and Symmachus. And if the Greeks do not for all their wealth of learning despise the scholarly work of Jews, why should poverty-stricken Latins look down upon a man who is a Christian? And if my product seems unsatisfactory, at least my good intentions should be recognized. [source].

Commenting on Daniel 13:54 Jerome says,

'Tell me under which tree thou sawest them conversing with each other.' And he answered, 'Under the mastic tree.' And Daniel said to him, 'Well hast thou lied against thine own head; for behold, the angel of God, having received His sentence from Him, shall cleave thee in twain.' And a little while later the other elder said, 'Under the holm tree.' And Daniel said to him, 'Well hast thou lied against thine own head; but the angel of the Lord waiteth with a sword to sever thee in twain.'" Since the Hebrews reject the story of Susanna, asserting that it is not contained in the Book of Daniel, we ought to investigate carefully the names of the trees, the skhinos and the prinos, which the Latins interpret as "holm-oak" and "mastic-tree," and see whether they exist among the Hebrews and what their derivation is ---- for example, as "cleavage" [Latin (scissio) is derived from "mastic" [Greek skhinos], and "cutting" or "sawing" [Latin sectio, serratio] is derived from "holm tree" [Greek prinos, which resembles the Greek word for "to saw": prio] in the language of the Greeks. But if no such derivation can be found, then we too are of necessity forced to agree with the verdict of those who claim that this chapter [Greek pericope] was originally composed in Greek, because it contains Greek etymology not found in Hebrew. [That is, because Daniel twice makes a sinister wordplay based upon the Greek names of these two trees, and a similar pun could not be made out from the Hebrew names, if any, of these trees, the story itself could never have been composed in Hebrew.] But if anyone can show that the derivation of the ideas of cleaving and severing from the names of the two trees in question is valid in Hebrew, then we may accept this scripture also as canonical.

Commenting on chapter 14, Jerome says:

"And as soon as he had opened the door, the king looked upon the table and cried out with a great voice: 'Great art thou, O Bel, and there is no deceit with thee.'" The statement of Scripture in this passage, "He cried out with a great voice," may seem, because of its reference to an idolator ignorant of God, to refute the observation put forth a little previously, that the expression "great voice" is found only in connection with saints. This objection is easily solved by asserting that this particular story is not contained in the Hebrew of the Book of Daniel. If, however, anyone should be able to prove that it belongs in the canon, then we should be obliged to seek out some answer to this objection.

Dead Sea Scroll manuscript fragments have been found of the book of Daniel. To my knowledge, these fragments do not contain any of the Greek additions (the Prayer of Azariah, the Song of the Three Young Men, and the Story of Susanna). Jerome's appeal for proof has yet to be answered.


The Debate: Africanus versus Origen
"On the History of Susanna there is an interesting correspondence between Julius Africanus and Origen, in which the former denies the genuineness of the story and the latter defends it" [source]. You can read that debate here. Africanus notes similar textual problems expressed by Jerome above, as well as inconsistencies within the story itself. His letter is a quick read.

Origen's response is quite lengthy, but one argument in particular is worth noting:

But probably to this you will say, Why then is the “History” not in their Daniel, if, as you say, their wise men hand down by tradition such stories? The answer is, that they hid from the knowledge of the people as many of the passages which contained any scandal against the elders, rulers, and judges, as they could, some of which have been preserved in uncanonical writings (Apocrypha).

Origen goes on to describe those Jews that hid the books as "the rulers of Sodom." Schaff states, "Origen tried at great length to refute these objections, and one of his arguments is that it would be degrading to Christians to go begging to the Jews for the unadulterated Scriptures" [source].

Roman Catholic apologist Gary Michuta questions "just how many third century Christians Africanus may reasonably be supposed to represent" and that his opinion was based on his own "private study". Couldn't the same be easily said about Origen's view as well? Michuta says Origen's opinion is based on "an appeal to near-universal acceptance in all the churches of God" [Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, pp. 91-92]. Simply because the church read Susanna, doesn't make it canonical.

Michuta appears to embrace Origen's argument that "it is an offense against God to consider that the Jews, who rejected Christ, could somehow have preserved the true collection in pristine purity over and against the Spirit-filled Church" [Ibid. p.90]. A response to both Origen and Michuta was given by Paul in Romans 3: Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.


Conclusion
"whatever may be thought concerning these literary or historical questions [about the extra-chapters of Daniel], there cannot be the least doubt that in decreeing the sacred and canonical character of these fragments the Council of Trent proclaimed the ancient and morally unanimous belief of the Church of God" [The Catholic Encyclopedia].

That really is the bottom line- when it comes right down to it, the reason Susanna is part of Daniel in a Roman Catholic Bible is because Trent infallibly said so. The Protestant takes Romans 3 quite seriously. The Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. Their Bible does not have Susanna. Linguistic problems show the book was not of Hebrew origin, but Greek. It was a later addition to the text, rejected by the Jews.

The Integrity of the New Testament Canon

(or, the Papacy was built on forgeries, part 3)

In response to my recent postings, to the effect that the papacy was built on forgeries and “pious fictions,” (here and here) one commenter said, “The same thing can be said (and *HAS* been said) about the NT, by those of a skeptical bent...”

Well, yes, many things are “said.” But it’s up to those who “say” things to prove them; it’s also for those who have things *said* about them to argue against them.

Carson and Moo, in their “Introduction to the New Testament” (2005), discuss issues of pseudonymity and pseudipigraphy (“the practice of ascribing written works to someone other than the author”), as these issues have been brought up in connection with the New Testament (pgs 337 ff.)

First, a couple of definitions:

Pseudonymity: Works that are falsely named.

Pseudipigraphy: Works that are falsely attributed.

Literary Forgeries: Works written or modified with the intent to deceive.

Anonymity: No formal claim is made to authorship (e.g., Matthew, John, and Hebrews are all anonymous).

So, even though some New Testament writings are said to be pseudepigraphical (and that case is not proven, it is clear that many scholars consider all of the potentially pseudepigraphical works in the NT to be authentic, on a case-by-case basis, there is very good attestation for each of the individual books.

While some New Testament works are held to be pseudepigraphical, (including Ephesians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and 2 Peter), there are very strong arguments to the contrary. For example:

The Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus): While these are held by some to have been written pseudonymously, according to Thomas Schreiner, recent commentators who have defended their authenticity include J.N.D. Kelly, Joachim Jeremias, Donald Guthrie, Gordon Fee, George Knight III, Philip Towner, L.T. Johnson, and William Mounce.

Ephesians: Harold Hoehner traces sources historically and, as Carson and Moo say, “his detailed work demonstrates that [Raymond] Brown’s assertion that 70-80% of scholars have adopted the view that this letter was not written by Paul is impressively mistaken.”

2 Peter: According to Scrheiner, “if one were inclined to doubt the authenticity of any letter in the New Testament, it would be 2 Peter. … Indeed, Petrine authorship is still the most credible position,” and he begins with 16 pages of analysis to say why this letter is authentic (260-276).

Schreiner goes further: “I am persuaded that evidence is lacking that any canonical document is actually pseudonymous" (“1, 2 Peter, Jude,” New American Commentary, pg 273). He cites R.L. Donelson, “Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epistles,” saying “there is no evidence that pseudonymous documents were ever accepted as authoritative.”


The fate of early extrabiblical Christian examples
Some of what I’m about to cite from Carson and Moo has a direct relation to the process of canonization, that is, determining whether or not a writing was to be included in the Canon of the New Testament.

“About the middle of the second century AD, pseudonymous Christian works began to multiply, often associated with a great Christian leader. We are not here concerned with works that purport to tell us about esteemed Christian figures without making claims as to authorship, but only with those that are clearly pseudepigraphical. Some of these are apocalypses (e.g., the Apocalypse of Peter, the Apocalypse of Paul); some are gospels (e.g., Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Thomas, which is really no gospel at all, but mostly a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus). Several are letters claiming to be written by Paul: 3 Corinthians, Epistle to the Alexandrians, Epistle to the Laodicians. The latter was almost certainly written to provide the document mentioned in Colossians 4:16. It is a brief and rough compilation of Pauline phrases and passages (primarily from Philippians). The largest collection of pseudonymous epistles from the early period of the church’s history is the set of fourteen letters fo correspondence between the apostle Paul and Seneca. They are referred to by both Jerome (De vir. ill. 12) and Augustine (Epist. 153). The Muratorian Canon (c. AD 170-200) refers to the Epistle to the Alexandrians and the Epistle to the Laodiceans as “both forged in Paul’s name (Mur. Can. 64-65) and thus will not allow them to be included (“Introduction to the New Testament,” 341).

Regarding the process of determining the Canon, the case may be pressed further. According to Schreiner:

Paul specifically criticized false writings in his name in 2 Thess 2:2 and ensured the authenticity of the letter in 2 Thess 3:17. The author of Acts of Paul and Thecla was defrocked as bishop even though he wrote out of love for Paul (Tertullian, De Bapt. 17). In addition, Gospel of Peter was rejected in A.D. 180 in Antioch because the author claimed to be Peter and was not. Serapion the bishop said, “For our part, brethren, we both receive Peter and the other apostles as Christs, but the writings which falsely bear their names we reject, as men of experience, knowing that such were not handed down to us” (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 6.12.1-6). Evidence that early Christians accepted pseudepigraphic documents as authoritative Scripture is completely lacking. Some argue that Acts of Paul and Thecla and Gospel of Peter were only rejected for deviant teaching, not for pseudepigraphy. But both of the texts [cited] say otherwise, specifically indicting the writers for falsely ascribing the writings to another. (Schreiner, 270-271).

Carson and Moo say, "all sides agree ... that pseudepigraphy was common in the ancient world." They also cite Donelson, saying "No one ever seems to have accepted a document as religiously and philosophically prescriptive which was known to be forged. I do not know a single example." This is virulently the case in early Christian circles" (342).

For any of you recent or would-be Tiber-jumpers who are impressed with such arguments as “we needed an infallible Church to give us an infallible canon" -- or the vagueness and generality that goes along with such a statement -- I hope that you will consider the specific ways that individuals in the early church worked to defend the integrity of the canonical Scriptures. In my next posts, Lord willing, I’ll go into some detail about the forged and pseudepigraphic documents that were pressed into service to support the papacy. (And following that, d.v., there’s a lot more to report on the spurious documents that went to support various Marian doctrines, too.)

Admittedly, the information that I’ve provided here is not a complete survey. But I wanted to give a start, some places to follow up with, and to provide examples of the integrity that went into the protection of the New Testament Scriptures. For any of you young and devout Reformed and Evangelical seminarians who are inclined, I think this information provides a starting point for an excellent thesis.

As If The Pope didn't Have Enough To Deal With...

Pope urged to change vow on celibacy by Italian women who have had affairs with priests, Daily Mail, 5/28/2010

Italian priests' secret mistresses ask pope to scrap celibacy rule Forty women send unprecedented letter to pontiff saying priests need to 'experience feelings, love and be loved'

Here's an interesting related blog: Rentapriest- A conversation about the married Catholic priesthood and church reform. There's a blog for everyone, that's for sure. I found this blog via Jimmy Akin's recent article: What Do Italian Priests' Mistresses Want You To Know?

Melito of Sardis and the Old Testament Canon: Overview & Arguments

Melito of Sardis (D. 170) is one of the earliest voices on the canon. In fact, his Old Testament list is the oldest Christian list extant. Melito actually went to Palestine from Sardis to determine the precise Old Testament canon. His list is preserved as a fragment in Eusebius's Church History:

But in the Extracts made by him the same writer gives at the beginning of the introduction a catalogue of the acknowledged books of the Old Testament, which it is necessary to quote at this point. He writes as follows: “Melito to his brother Onesimus, greeting: Since thou hast often, in thy zeal for the word, expressed a wish to have extracts made from the Law and the Prophets concerning the Savior and concerning our entire faith, and hast also desired to have an accurate statement of the ancient book, as regards their number and their order, I have endeavored to perform the task, knowing thy zeal for the faith, and thy desire to gain information in regard to the word, and knowing that thou, in thy yearning after God, esteemest these things above all else, struggling to attain eternal salvation. Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song off Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books.” Such are the words of Melito. [source]


Melito's Old Testament Canon

I.The five books of Moses

II.The second group:
Joshua of Nun
Judges
Ruth
4 books of Kings
2 books of Chronicles

III.The third group:
The Psalms of David
Wisdom
Ecclesiastes
The Song of Songs
Job

IV.The Prophets:
Isaiah
Jeremiah
The Twelve in one book
Daniel
Ezekiel
Ezra

Exclusions to Melito's Old Testament Canon
Nehemiah
Lamentations
Proverbs
Esther
The Apocrypha


Possible Solutions For The Excluded Books
Based on earlier lists, it is within the realm of possibility that Nehemiah is included in Ezra. Lamentations could be a part of Jeremiah.

"Wisdom" is the alternate name for the book of Proverbs (F.F. Bruce: "According to Eusebius, Hegessipus and Irenaeus and many other writers of their day called the Proverbs of Solomon 'the all-virtuous Wisdom'" [F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988), p.71].

Esther: "The four categories of Melito’s list may correspond to the familiar Masoretic division into the Torah, Former Prophets, Latter Prophets and Writings. But if so, the inclusion of the two books of chronicles among the Former Prophets is worthy of comment. If the four books of Kings and the two books of Chronicles are each taken as single categories in Melito’s list the total number of books would be twenty-one, suggesting the possibility that the omission of Esther may be accidental. Origen makes explicit reference to a canon of twenty-two books for the Hebrew Scriptures and then proceeds to list only twenty-one, omitting the book of the Twelve so-called minor prophets. But that omission is clearly an error in the transmission of Origen’s testimony as witnessed by the fact that Rufinus, in his translation of Origen, includes the prophets in question. The restoration of Esther to Melito’s list would produce a list of twenty-two books. Inclusion of Esther within his second category along with Ruth would result in a curious symmetry in the arrangement: 5 + 6//5 + 6. But the same result could also be achieved with the omission of Esther by dividing his category of the “four books of Kings” into the more familiar canonical categories of the books of Samuel and Kings, which is more likely. Melito is apparently not concerned with the number twenty-two as an organizing principle for the canon of Hebrew Scripture. And though his four categories may reflect the fourfold arrangement of Masoretic tradition, his distribution of Ruth, Chronicles, Daniel and Ezra among the Prophets suggests another conclusion. The Writings as a division of the canon of Hebrew Scripture was in flux. The reason for this state of affairs may be the book of Esther" [Duane L. Christensen, "Josephus And The Twenty-Two-Book Canon Of Sacred Scripture" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Volume 29 (29:41]).

Counter Arguments
Contrary to these suggestions, Roman Catholic apologist Gary Michuta argues,

"We ought to take a closer look at Melito's list, as well, before moving on. A moments reflection reveals that it does not line up with the protestant canon at all. It omits the books of Lamentations, Nehemiah, and Esther - and includes the Book of Wisdom. Even if Lamentations and Nehemiah are present, as some have argued, under the other titles broadly defined, the omission of Esther remains unaccountable. We do know that there were disputes among rabbis in this area concerning Esther's inspired status. Melito's list, therefore, is not identical to the Protestant canon" (Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, pp. 75-76].

Michuta's opinion seems to be based on an uneven scale when he says the Protestant canon does not line up to Melito's "at all." It certainly does, especially if one compares Melito's canon to that dogmatized by Trent. Michuta also has no clear factual evidence that Lamentations and Nehemiah were not included in other books. Granted, the burden of proof lies on those who claim they do, however, based on previous ways the books were counted in earlier lists,this suggestion is not far-fetched. Michuta even quotes F.F. Bruce on the Wisdom/Proverbs solution, but leaves out Bruce's evidence from church history affirming this solution. True, Esther is missing, but it is common knowledge that the book of Esther was considered antilegomena: a book previously disputed but ultimately considered canonical. Therefore, the book of Esther is simply proving that there were in fact those who doubted its canonicty, both within Judaism and the church. In other words, Esther is living up to its pedigree of antilegomena. So in essence, the Protestant canon lines up with Melito's with the exception of one book. The Roman Catholic Old Testament canon pales in comparison.

Infuriating Factoid: Melito Excludes the Apocrypha
There's really only one response to Melito's exclusion of the Apocrypha. Roman Catholics typically question Melito's integrity: why would Melito go to Palestine for information about the canon when excavations have revealed there was a Jewish population and temple in his immediate area? Some counter that there could have been tension with the Jews or extenuating circumstances provoking Melito's journey. Roman Catholics respond that despite antagonism between Jews and Christians, dialogues did still go on during that time period.

William Webster speculates Melito's list came from a Christian Church near Palestine- thus Melito's list reflects "a Christian perspective and a consciousness of the Hebrew numeration and canon" (Holy Scripture vol. II, p. 336].

The simple fact of the matter is we only have Melito's testimony of where he received his list from: "Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament...". Or as another translation says,

"you [Onesimus] have been desirous to obtain an accurate account of the ancient books, both as to their number and their order; I have taken pains to accomplish this, knowing your earnestness in respect to the faith, and your desire for instruction in regard to the word; and most of all, that you, while striving after eternal salvation, through desires after God, give a preference to these things. Making a journey therefore into the east [Palestine], and having arrived at the place where these things [i. e. scriptural events] were proclaimed and transacted, I there learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, which I here arrange and transmit to you."

Does this sound like the words of an untrustworthy man? If he says he went to Palestine for an accurate list, then he did. For a Roman Catholic to question the integrity of Melito ignores the testimony of Church history. Moses Stuart comments:

My first remark on this testimony of Melito is, that it comes from a very distinguished and enlightened man. Cave says justly of him: "Vir pietate non minus quam doctrina clarus;'' and Tertullian (a contemporary) testifies of him, that most Christians called him a prophet; in Hieron. de Script, c. 2, 4. His knowledge was acquired, moreover, by a special effort and much caution; for he was not content with what he learned at Sardis, but must needs go to Palestine itself, in order that he might know the exact truth, of the whole matter respecting the Jewish Scriptures.[source]

Luther Celebrated The Feast of the Assumption?

I followed a rabbit trail from a CARM discussion about Martin Luther observing the Marian feast day of the Assumption. My journey begins here:

The Lutheran pastor and scholar, Charles Dickson, notes that “the feast [of the Assumption] celebrated by the Church on August 15, dates from the forth century, when numerous festivals honoring our Lady were common practice.” The history of Church feasts demonstrates that these celebrations grew from beliefs that existed long before the feasts themselves were formally inaugurated. “Interestingly enough, the sixteenth-century Protestant reformer, Martin Luther, included this feast on a list of liturgical celebrations that should, in his words, ‘be observed among Evangelical Catholics as a sign of continuity and order’ Charles Dickson, A Protestant Pastor Looks at Mary (Huntington, Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., c. 1996), pp. 83-84.[source]

I don't have A Protestant Pastor Looks at Mary, nor do I plan on purchasing it. That doesn't mean the trail ends. Here's my next stop: New Book of Festivals and Commemorations: A Proposed Common Calendar of Saints By Philip H. Pfatteicher. On page 397 comes the following:

Here's "Concerning the order of public worship" (1523). Anyone familiar with this time period knows that the church of Wittenberg was going through a structural crisis. Karlstadt had been far more radical in seeking to immediately overhaul the church. Luther though wanted subtle change to occur. Luther wrote this treatise as guide to church order, both daily and annually. He states:

All the festivals of saints are to be discontinued. Where there is a good Christian legend, it may be inserted as an example after the Gospel on Sunday. The festivals of the Purification and Annunciation of Mary may be continued, and for the time being also her Assumption and Nativity, although the songs in them are not pure. The festival of John the Baptist is also pure. Not one of the legends of the apostles is pure, except St. Paul’s. They may either be transferred to the [closest] Sunday or be celebrated separately, if one so desires.[LW 53:13]

According to Eric Gritsch, Luther then went on to abandon the festival of Mary’s Immaculate Conception and her Assumption:

“He rejected the festivals of Mary's Immaculate Conception, December 8, and her Assumption, August 15.” [Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VII, 240].

“According to Luther Mary should be honored in festivals that focus on Christ, which is why he eventually rejected the celebrations of her Immaculate Conception (December 8), her birth (September 8), and her Assumption (August 15). He did honor her in the festivals of the Annunciation (March 25), the Visitation (July 2), and Purification (February 2), since these are connected with the birth of Christ. "We dare not put our faith in the mother but only in the fact that the child was born."[Ibid. 241]

“Luther continued to preach on these festivals, but stopped preaching on the other three festivals after 1523.”[Ibid. 382]

Stephen Wurth 19th century books on eBay

Here.

HT: Wayne on Puritanboard