JTR
Showing posts with label canon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label canon. Show all posts
Friday, July 18, 2025
Monday, November 25, 2024
Saturday, March 04, 2023
Monday, December 12, 2022
Thursday, November 10, 2022
Saturday, February 22, 2020
WM 153-157: 2019 Text and Canon Conference Audio
Many who have been following the development of the Confessional Text movement are already aware of the Text and Canon Conference, held on October 25-26, 2019 at Christ Reformed Church in Atlanta.
For those who have not yet listened to the lectures I gave at that conference, I have now posted them to CRBC's sermonaudio.com page, along with the Q & A session. Here are links:
Blessings!
JTR
Monday, February 17, 2020
Eusebius, EH.6.23-25: Origen's Commentaries & Canon
This is an occasional series of readings from and brief notes
and commentary upon Eusebius of Caesarea’s The
Ecclesiastical History: Book 6, chapters 23-25. Listen here.
Notes and Commentary:
These chapters describe Origen’s
various commentaries on Scripture and on the canon of Scripture.
Chapter 23 notes that
Origen’s commentaries on Scripture were instigated by his friend and patron Ambrose
of Alexandria. Ambrose provided him with seven scribes and seven copyists, as
well as girls “skilled in penmanship,” to write down his commentaries, in turn, as he
dictated them.
Mention is made of Pontianus succeeding
Urban in Rome, and Zebennus following Philetus in Antioch.
It is noted again how Origen came
to Palestine and was ordained an elder in Caesarea, and how this led to controversy.
Chapter 24 traces
various of Origen’s writings, noting how some were began while he was in
Alexandria and completed after the left. These include his Expositions on
the Gospel according to John and On Genesis. Other works are noted as
having been completed in Alexandria, including his commentaries on the first 25
Psalms and on Lamentations, as well as the works On the Resurrection, De
Principiis, and Stromateis.
Chapter 25 offers
insights on Origen’s understanding of the canon.
It is noted that in his exposition
on Psalm 1 he states that the OT consisted of 22 books, matching the number of
letters in the Hebrew alphabet. A list is then given of these books, with a transcription
of their Hebrew titles. Beyond these, there is mentioned the Maccabees.
Next it is noted that in his
commentary on Matthew, he describes the four canonical Gospels, written in the
order of Matthew-Mark-Luke-John and affirms the traditional view of their
authorship.
And in his expositions on John, he
discusses the NT epistles of Paul, and the epistles of Peter. It is noted that
1 Peter was acknowledged as genuinely Petrine, but some doubted the
authenticity of 2 Peter. John is credited with the Apocalypse (Revelation) and
1 John, but questions are raised about the authenticity of 2-3 John. No mention
is made of James or Jude.
Origen is cited as saying that
Hebrews did not have Paul’s typical “rudeness of speech.” Origen said the
thoughts of Hebrews were Pauline but not the style. He offers his famous
assessment: “But who wrote the epistle, in truth God knows.” He also conveys
traditions that suggest Clement or Luke as the author of Hebrews.
Conclusion:
These chapters are helpful in
sketching Origen as a Scripture commentator under the support of Ambrose of
Alexandria. Especially valuable are his insights on canon in approving the
standard Jewish OT canon (without the apocrypha) and the traditional NT canon,
with questions raised about 2 Peter, and 2-3 John, while James and Jude are not
mentioned. Of interest as well are his comments on the authorship of Hebrews.
JTR
Tuesday, November 19, 2019
Eusebius, EH.5.8: Irenaeus on the Canon of the NT and the Septuagint
Notes and Commentary:
In this chapter Eusebius discusses Irenaeus’s comments on the
canon of Christian Scripture.
First, he cites Irenaeus’s description of the four Gospels and
their Evangelists:
Matthew is described as a “written” Gospel, first published among
the Jews in their own language. This reinforces the traditional view that Matthew
was first written for a Jewish audience.
Mark is described as “the disciple and interpreter (herméneutés) of Peter.”
Luke was a “follower of Paul” and conveyed Paul’s understanding
of the gospel.
John was disciple of the Lord and the one who rested on his
breast (thus the “beloved” disciple), who later lived at Ephesus.
Next, he cites Irenaeus’s reference to Revelation and the
number of the Antichrist (Rev 13:18). Irenaeus noted that the proper number (presumably
666) is found in all the “good and ancient copies [antigraphoi].”
Reference is also made to Irenaeus’s citation of 1 John and 1
Peter.
Next, however, Eusebius notes that Irenaeus held some
non-canonical books to be “Scripture.” This included the Shepherd of Hermas and
perhaps the Wisdom of Solomon.
Eusebius also notes that Irenaeus cited the Apostolic Fathers
Justin Martyr and Ignatius, and he mentions that Irenaeus “promised” to refute
Marcion.
Finally, Eusebius discusses Irenaeus’s treatment of the Greek
OT. He makes references to conflict over the proper translation of Isaiah 7:14,
noting that rather than “virgin [parthenos]”,
some translators (Theodotian and Aquila) used “young woman [neanis]”, a rendering preferred by the
Ebionites, who denied the deity of Christ.
Eusebius then relays Irenaeus’s account of the legend of the
origins of the Septuagint, as produced by seventy Jewish scholars for the library
at Alexandria by Ptolemy.
He closes by noting Irenaeus’s statement that it was little
wonder for the Lord to so inspire Scripture, since he had also inspired Ezra the
priest to restore the Scriptures after the time of the Babylonian exile.
Conclusion:
This chapter continues Eusebius’s periodic interest in the EH of giving accounts of how the canon of Scripture came to be recognized by the early
church (cf. earlier descriptions of Papias of Hierapolis and Melito of Sardis).
According to Eusebius, Irenaeus acknowledged, most importantly, the Gospels, as
well as Revelation, 1 Peter, and 1 Joh, but no mention is made of the rest of
the canonical books of the NT (especially Paul’s letters), and it is noted that
he also accepted non-canonical works (at least the Shepherd). This emphasizes the
fact that the canon was only slowly recognized among early Christians This
account also stresses the value of the Septuagint among some early believers as
the preferred translation of the Greek OT.
JTR
Wednesday, October 23, 2019
Eusebius, EH.4.26: Melito of Sardis
Image: Remains of the synagogue of ancient Sardis, c. AD third century, Manisa Province, Turkey
This is an occasional series of readings from and brief notes
and commentary upon Eusebius of Caesarea’s The
Ecclesiastical History. Here is Book 4, chapter 26. Listen here.
Notes and Commentary:
This chapter focuses on Melito of Sardis, though brief reference is also made at the start to Apolinarius of Hierapolis, whose work will be
covered in 4.27.
It is noted that both Melito and Apolinarius wrote apologies
to the Emperor (Marcus Aurelius, who ruled from 161-180).
A summary is given of Melito’s writings, the titles of which Lake
notes are sometimes hard to decipher.
The works cited include:
On the Passover
On Christian Life and
the Prophets
On the Church
On the Lord’s Day
These seems to be primary, and then there is added:
On the Faith of Man
On Creation
On the Obedience of
Faith
On the Senses
On the Soul and Body (Lake notes the text is uncertain for
this title)
On Baptism and Truth and Faith and Christ’s
Birth (Lake says these may be chapters in the same book)
An unnamed treatise of prophesy
On Soul and Body (same title as above?)
On Hospitality
Key
On the Devil
The Apocalypse of John
On God Incarnate
And To Antoninus (To Antoninus Verus or Marcus
Aurelius)
So, Melito was a prolific author. The interest in the Old
Testament and Jewish practices seems to belie the fact that Melito was a Jewish
Christian.
Eusebius offers a quote from the book On the Passover and notes it was cited by Clement of Alexandria.
He also gives several longer extracts from the apology to the
emperor. In them Melito refers to Christianity as a “philosophy” noting that it
had originated during the time of Augustus and that it was “an omen of good” to
the Romans. He suggests that the Roman Empire had flourished under Augustine,
because he did not persecute Christians. He says that only Nero and Domitian
had persecuted believers and with them had begun the practice of falsely accusing
Christians.
Eusebius also cites the preface to his six-volume
work called the Extracts (Eklogai) in which he quotes a letter from Melito to a brother named
Onesimus in which he provides a list of the canon of the Old Testament, as accepted
by Christians. Here are the OT books as he lists them in this letter:
The five books of Moses:
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy,
Joshua, the son of Nun, Judges,
Ruth,
Four books of Kingdoms [1-2
Samuel, 1-2 Kings], two books of Chronicles,
The Psalms of David,
The Proverbs of Solomon and his
Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job,
The prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, the
twelve in a single book,
Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra
Some point of interest in this OT canon list:
1. The book of Esther is not
mentioned.
2. The book of Lamentations
is not mentioned, but it is likely included with Jeremiah.
3. The book of Nehemiah is
not mentioned, but it might have been included with Ezra.
4. The ordering shows the
influence of the LXX. For example: Ruth is listed with the historical
works and Chronicles is listed with Kingdoms rather than at the end with a
grouping of “the writings” in the tri-partite Hebrew Bible ordering.
5. The listing is
distinctive, however, in that it does not include the apocryphal books.
The one exception could be the Wisdom of Solomon, but it might be that the
phrase “The Proverbs of Solomon and his Wisdom” simply refers to the book of
Proverbs.
Conclusions to be drawn from this
list:
1. This list shows that the early Christians
accepted the OT as part of the Christian Scriptures, contra Marcion.
2. Melito’s OT canon excluded the
apocryphal works of the LXX, showing that at least some early Christians
rejected these works as canonical and, instead, received the same books as
those of the Hebrew Bible.
3. Melito’s OT canon also gives
evidence that there was still some apparent controversy about which books were
canonical, especially with regard to the book of Esther.
Overall
conclusion:
Melito of Sardis was an important
figure in early Christianity, another of the “writing bishops.” This
description is especially valuable for the insights it provides on the early Christian
view of the Old Testament.
JTR
Tuesday, September 10, 2019
Eusebius, EH.3.39: Papias of Hierapolis
Image: Colonnade in the ruins of ancient Hierapolis ("holy city") near the modern town of Pamukkale in western Turkey.
A new episode is posted to the series on Eusebius of Caesarea’s The
Ecclesiastical History: book 3, chapter 39. Listen here.
Notes and Commentary:
The focus in this chapter is on the writing of Papias of
Hierapolis (c. AD 60-130).
Eusebius says that Papias was the author of five treatises
under the title, “Interpretation of the Oracles of the Lord.” This work is no
longer extant except in quotations from Eusebius and Irenaeus.
He notes that Irenaeus described Papias as “the hearer of
John, who was a companion of Polycarp and one of the ancients.”
Eusebius notes, however, that Papias himself did not say he
was “a hearer and eyewitness of the sacred apostles” but that he had learned
from those who knew them.
He cites a passage in which Papias says he was diligent in
learning from the followers of the apostles and other disciples of Jesus,
mentioning Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, and Matthew, but also
Aristion and the presbyter (elder) John.
He quotes a controversial statement of Papias in which he
says he did not consider that he would profit so much “from books” as from “the
word of a living and surviving voice.”
Eusebius also notes the mention of two Johns by Papias: John
the Apostle and John the Elder, suggesting the possibility that the latter,
John the Elder, was the author of Revelation.
He relays other traditions, including one related to the daughters
of Philip the Apostle (Confusion with Philip the Evangelist?) at Hierapolis and
the raising of a corpse, as well as an account of a tradition of Justus
Barsabas drinking poison but suffering no harm (cf. Mark 16:18).
He also notes “unwritten tradition” conveyed by Papias that
included “some strange parables and teachings of the Saviour, and some more
mythical accounts.”
Among these accounts he mentions the teaching of a millennial
kingdom. Eusebius accuses Papias of misreading mystical and symbolic accounts
of the apostles, since he was a man “of very little intelligence.” Yet, he influenced
others to hold such views, including Irenaeus.
He also records Papias’s description of the evangelist Mark
as “Peter’s interpreter” who recorded the apostle’s remembrances accurately but
not “in order.”
Of Matthew, Papias says, the evangelist “collected the
oracles in the Hebrew language [dialect], and each interpreted as best he could.”
This has led to questions about whether Matthew’s Gospel was originally written
in Hebrew or Aramaic.
He adds that Papias cited from 1 John and 1 Peter.
Finally, he refers to a story of a woman “accused before the
Lord of many sins” recorded in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. It has been
speculated that this refers to the pericope
adulterae (John 7:53—8:11) and lends credence to this as a popular Jesus
tradition “floating” about in early Christianity, but this is not substantiated.
Conclusion:
Eusebius recognizes Papias as an important early historical
source but also raises questions about his reliability, especially with regard
to his millennial views.
JTR
Saturday, August 03, 2019
Eusebius, EH.3.25: The Canon of the NT
Image: A section from Papyrus 75 showing the ending of Luke and the beginning of John.
I've added another episode to the series on Eusebius of Caesarea’s The
Ecclesiastical History: book 3, chapter 25. Listen here.
Notes and Commentary:
The chapter is one of the most important writings from early
Christianity related to the recognition of the New Testament canon.
Eusebius famously outlines what could be called four categories of writings:
First, the “Recognized
Books [homologoumenoi]”:
The holy tetrad of the Gospels
Acts
The epistles of Paul (presumably including Hebrews)
1 John
1 Peter
Revelation of John (though he notes misgivings by some)
Second, the “Disputed
Books [antilegemenoi]”:
James
Jude
2 Peter
2-3 John (whether by the Evangelist John or another John)
Third, the rejected
works:
The Acts of Paul
The Shepherd (of Hermas)
The Apocalypse of Peter
The Epistle of Barnabas
The Teachings of the Apostles (Didache)
He also mentions here the dispute over Revelation.
The Gospel According to the Hebrews
Fourth, heretical works:
These works, says Eusebius, are put forward by heretics under
pseudonyms of the apostles. He calls them “forgeries of the heretics.”
Gospel of Peter
Gospel of Thomas
Gospel of Matthias
Acts of Andrew
Acts of John
These are not part of “true orthodoxy.”
Conclusion:
By the early fourth century there is a clear consensus on the
recognition of 22 of the 27 books of the NT canon as “true, genuine, and recognized.”
The remaining five (James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2-3 John) are disputed but seen as clearly distinct from non-canonical rejected and heretical works.
JTR
Wednesday, July 17, 2019
Eusebius, EH.3.9-10: Josephus and the OT Canon
This is an occasional series of readings from and brief notes
and commentary upon Eusebius of Caesarea’s The
Ecclesiastical History: book 3, chapters 9-10. Listen here.
Notes and Commentary:
Eusebius here offers a sketch of the life and writings of
Josephus, the Jewish historian whose works he uses throughout the EH. He also
includes Josephus’s description of the canon of the Hebrew Bible.
In chapter 9, he provides the sketch of Josephus.
He notes that Josephus was among the most famous Jews of the
first century, having first fought against the Romans and then having joined
with them in the Jewish war.
Among his literary works he notes the Antiquities of the Jews in 20 volumes and the Jewish War in 7 volumes.
He also notes another work in 2 books which he calls On the ancientness of the Jews, and which
Lake notes is better known as Against
Apion.
In chapter 10, Eusebius cites a passage in Against Apion in which Josephus describes
the Jewish canon as consisting of 22 books (the same number as the letters of
the Hebrew alphabet, though Josephus does not make this point). This number is
presumably the same as the 39 books of the OT made by joining books into one
volume.
He notes three parts of the Hebrew Bible:
First, 5 books of the law of Moses.
Second, 13 books of the prophets, covering the time from
Moses to Artaxerxes.
Third, 4 books of “hymns to God and precepts for the life of
men.” This would presumably be the Psalms and wisdom books.
He adds that there have been more recent works of history
from Artaxerxes to his present (presumably 1-2 Maccabees, etc.) but that these “are
not considered worthy of equal credence with the rest.”
He notes especially that the Jews do not dare to make “additions,
omissions, or changes” to their Scripture and that they know this innately and
are then taught from birth to regard the Scriptures as the decrees of God.
Finally, he notes that Josephus is also credited with writing
a work titled “The Supremacy of Reason” or “Maccabees” (Lake: 4 Maccabees).
Josephus’s works are indeed a very important historical
source for Eusebius in reconstructing the record of early Christianity. He remains
an important source today.
JTR
Thursday, June 20, 2019
WM 125: Q & A:: Text, Translation, Preservation, Canon
I have posted WM 125: Q & A: Text, Translation, Preservation, Canon. You can listen here. In this episode I respond to three recent sets of questions sent to me by podcast listeners. Below are the questions (in italic) and my response notes (in bold):
Question
one:
Hello
Dr. Riddle,
Might
you consider this Q/A for a Word Magazine broadcast (unless you’ve already addressed
it; I don’t recall coming across this anywhere yet)? When one holds to
the Traditional/Confessional Text, how should we view and interact with: (i)
the Critical Text (i.e. text(s) resulting from Reasoned Eclecticism); (ii)
English translations from the CT? This, particularly in light of the
reality that, if one holds to the TT one would presumably view the CT as being
an “adding to or taking away from” Scripture, which is a most serious
thing. Thus, do we view the CT and translations thereof still as
Scripture, as parts of Scripture, as study resources only, or in some other
type of category?
Response:
See
Confession 1:8
I
can use critical texts and translations based upon them as study tools.
As
far as translations go, I can consider them the Word of God to the degree that
they reflect the Hebrew and Greek original. In places where they depart from
the original, they are deficient.
For
authoritative study, preaching, and teaching I will prefer to study the
received text and translations based upon it.
Will
this be a test of fellowship? I can have fellowship with those who disagree but
I reserve the right to advocate for my position.
Practically
speaking I think it is wise for a local church to have an agreed upon text for
its liturgical and doctrinal ministries. I prefer the traditional text.
Question
two:
Hope
this finds you well!
I
want to get a better understanding of your view of the preservation of
scripture. I've been thinking about what we can both agree it's not. Do we
agree on these bullet points?
Response:
I am not a fan of this format. Rather than offer some interpretation of what
you think I may or may not agree with why not simply take something I have
written or said and note your own agreement or disagreement?
Preservation
does not mean a guarantee that God's people somewhere on earth will have the
perfectly preserved word at any given point in time. The Textas Receptas
[Textus Receptus?] did not exist until the 16th century. There was no Greek
manuscript that perfectly matched the TR prior to the TR. Thus, if the TR is
the perfectly inspired and preserved Word of God, then no single person
[manuscript?] contained the perfectly inspired word of God prior to the 16th
century. And moreover, it was centuries after Christ before any Christians had
the full cannon in possession anyway.
Response:
I
disagree with every sentence in this statement.
Preservation
means that God’s Word has been “kept pure in all ages” (confession 1:8).
The
received text did not come into existence only in the sixteenth century. It is
identical with the divine original.
Since
it is identical with the divine original, there were Greek mss. that “matched
the TR” from the beginning. Thus, there were mss. that contained the inspired
and preserved Word of God from the beginning.
Christians
had the “full canon” the moment the last canonical book was written.
Preservation
does not mean a guarantee that translations won't mess things up. No
translation is perfect. Theological
Propaedeutic [Philip Schaff, 1892] on page 193 gives a list of
places where the KJV mistranslates things, for instance, including a place
where it gets the gender wrong, being imprecisely gender-neutral instead of
masculine.
Response:
On
translations, see again Confession 1:8.
I
am not familiar with this Schaff work but know he was a modern critical text
advocate.
I
would have to review his perceived KJV “mistranslations” one by one to see if
they have any merit or if, as I suppose, they might be contested.
By
extension, preservation does not mean a guarantee that meaningful numbers of
Christians will have access to the perfectly preserved Word. Most people cannot
read Greek and Hebrew. Therefore the overwhelming majority of Christians in
church history have not had meaningful access to the perfectly preserved word
of God
Response:
I
disagree with the first sentence. See again Confession 1:8.
I
agree with sentence two but disagree with sentence three. Muslims believe you
must know Arabic to read and understand the Koran, but Christians do NOT believe
that you must know Hebrew and Greek to read and understand the Bible.
Preservation
does not guarantee that the Bible does not change from one generation to the
next. The TR changed much in the 16th century, and conjectural emendations such
as the TR's reading of Luke 2:22, based purely on theological reasons, were
later found to have (admittedly very narrow) manuscript evidence. I don't think
it's putting words in anyone's mouth to say that a TR advocate would point to
this as a divine attestation that the conjecture was providential and
well-founded; but underlying this conviction betrays the admission that new
manuscript discoveries can indeed influence our position and that this need not
be shied away from.
Response:
I
disagree with every sentence in this paragraph.
Preservation
does guarantee that the Bible does not change.
The
printed TR tradition did not change much (i.e., it was not wildly unstable) in
the sixteenth century and Luke 2:22 is not an example that proves a defeater
for the Confessional Text position (see Agros podcast #12). Please note the
distinction made by Jan Krans between an emendatio ingenii ope (‘emendation by
means of reasoning’) and an emendatio codice ope (‘emendation
by means of manuscripts’).
You
talk about how your disagreements with modern textual critics are a fundamental
disagreement about the preservation of God's word. You also talk about the fact
that maybe there are impurities in the TR or slight changes that ought to be
made. Please correct me if I'm overstating the case of our agreement in these
above tenants. I'm struggling to understand what a TR-only advocate's view of
preservation is.
As
a point of reference, this is what I've mentally constructed, based on our
areas of agreement, as to what a TR advocates' view of preservation looks like.
"For the first 15 centuries nobody had the Word of God in its full purity.
There were editions that came close, but none of them fully hit the mark, for
none of them matched the TR. And then through a one hundred years of editing
through textual criticism of liberals who denied justification by faith and who
in their doctrinal impurity are similar to modern 20th and 21st century textual
critics, we went through the process of getting the TR. The changes were
evolutionary and demonstrably based on scientific study of the available texts
when we read these scholars in their own words. Lots of changes were made
throughout this 100 years, many of them speculative, many of them seemingly in
error, but through God's providence, what emerged is the closest thing we're
ever going to get, nay, even the perfect Word of God. And any attempt to
revisit this (including the efforts of Maurice A. Robinson at assembling
a Byzantine priority text that seeks to fix the perceived problems in the TR) are unnecessary
and should be decried as a rejection of the Received Text and a waste of
time."
Is
that woefully missing the mark? How off am I? I want to fairly understand the
case as best as possible.
Response:
Your
“reconstruction” of the TR position is not something I recognize. What is this
100 year process? Who were the scholars working on this who rejected
justification by faith and held other doctrinal errors similar to those held by
modern text critics of the nineteenth century? Are you talking about Erasmus?
This was not true of the Protestant orthodox (like Stephanus and Beza) who produced
the printed editions of the TR.
What
is the TR advocate's view of preservation? If we agree on the bullets, where
does the disagreement lie, exactly? It seems we both agree that things were
messy for the first 15 centuries — failing to do so is to deny history,
inasmuch as the TR has important deviations from the majority text and has no
full support of any single manuscript. It seems we disagree on whether that
messiness has continued for the past 5 centuries or not. But for two people to
have a disagreement about something that occurred 75% into New Testament
history does not require a fundamental disagreement about the nature of the
preservation of scripture, which tells me that there's something more here.
Something I'm missing or misunderstanding. Can you help me here?
Thanks
Response:
As
noted above I have little, if any, agreement with the points you noted above.
The
confessional text is NOT that “things were messy for the first 15 centuries.”
No, God’s Word was “by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages.”
The true text has not been “messy.” It has always been challenged, abused,
ridiculed, and attempts have been made to alter and distort it. This has been
true since the time of the apostles (2 Peter 3:15-16; Rev 22:18-19). The
printing, editing, and promulgating the traditional text was of providential
importance in the sixteenth-seventeenth century, but God’s word has always been
kept pure. Christ’s sheep have always heard his voice in it.
Question
three:
Hello
Pastor Jeff,
As
time may allow you…
1. Thx for your post Audio
and Video available from SEBTS's 2019 "Linguistics and New Testament
Greek" Conference at http://www.jeffriddle.net/2019/06/audio-and-video-available-from-sebtss.html.
Just wondering whether to dip in or not… my objective at present is to form a
more solid understanding of text criticism and understand the key aspects to
the “two sides”… will listening to the link(s) contribute to that personal
objective in your view? Was this conference curved toward reasoned
eclecticism (deliberate or otherwise)?
2. Would you hold to the canon being closed at the Reformation
rather than by, or toward the end, of the 300’s AD? I’ve heard Pastor
Truelove’s several sermons on this now and taking pause for thought… I think I
understand the historical nature of canonicity, but it strikes me that closure
of same late provides historically challenges if not practical textual ones
(i.e. if the canon closed late why can’t the text similarly ‘settle’ late?).
Response:
On
#1: Though a few of these lectures are pitched at an introductory level, most
are pitched to those who hold at least an intermediate level of Greek. Much of
this is relevant for text criticism and all speakers would likely support the reasoned
eclectic view.
On
#2: I would say the canon was closed when the last canonical book was written.
The question is: When do we have the first instance when the canon was recognized/acknowledged?
This was not defined confessionally until the Reformation era. Canon is still a
dividing line between RC, Orthodox, and Protestants.
JTR
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)