The Nature of Divine Revelation, Canonicity, and the Dead Sea Scrolls

[wildboar]

In another thread it is suggested that the Revelation of God continued within the writings of the Dead Sea Scrolls. If this were true we would expect the same infallibility found within the rest of the Biblical canon but I see nobody claiming this. Existence of a somewhat purer or theology in some areas and perhaps weaker in other areas in a document does not make for infallible divine Revelation. I truly enjoy reading Robert Reymond's Systematic Theology but it does not approach the same level as Scripture. The logical conclusion of the approach laid out in the other thread is really that we should follow the same path as those who watch the History channel and become convinced that the church has supressed some document and we really need to get the infancy Gospels back in our Bible. Whereas in the Biblical canon we find that God preserved His Word in the midst of persecution, we find that the DSS were lost until fairly recently. Recovery of the documents gives us some more helpful information about what certain people believed but it does not give us any infallible teaching.

There is also a rather dogmatic statement in the thread that the Pharisees included the apocrypha in their canon. The fact of the matter is that there is much debate as to when exactly the canon was fixed. For a brief article see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon Scholars say that the canon was fixed in its present form anywhere between 200BC to 200AD. There is record that the Pharisees debated the canonicity of the extra-canonical books. Some editions of the Septuagint included the books of the Maccabees but some omitted them.

[Robert R. Higby]

Scholars say that the canon was fixed in its present form anywhere between 200BC to 200AD.

Well, they are all wrong! As far as the OT is concerned, an official closing of the exact list of 39 (no less and no more) that men elected to put in our current Bibles does not exist from that era. I'm still waiting for documentation of the 'ecumenical' council that fixed the 66 books as we have them--the closest I have found so far is the Diet of Regensburg! It was certainly after being hounded by the Catholics at Ratisbon that the Protestants officially established the 66-book canon.

No one here is claiming high-canonicity for any of the Dead Sea Scrolls; inspiration is a different matter for discussion--since scripture is not necessarily contained only in complete books that we have. What we have in certain portions of the scrolls is a record of what the more ancient doctrine of predestination was, in harmony with the Old Testament revelation, before it was bastardized by Augustine. That is the main jewel. No doubt the scrolls are full of dross on other matters--the writings are from many different sects. Even the Sectarian Charter and Damascus Document are obviously two different community 'rule books' for two entirely separate Yahad sects that were not in harmony.

[wildboar]

Well, they are all wrong! As far as the OT is concerned, an official closing of the exact list of 39 (no less and no more) that men elected to put in our current Bibles does not exist from that era. I'm still waiting for documentation of the 'ecumenical' council that fixed the 66 books as we have them--the closest I have found so far is the Diet of Regensburg! It was certainly after being hounded by the Catholics at Ratisbon that the Protestants officially established the 66-book canon.

Come on, this is petty. This is the same type of stuff we are hearing from people like Dan Brown and the Muslims. Councils merely stated the general consenus, they did not create canon and what I took issue with was your statement that the Pharisees accepted the apocryphal books of the Old Testament as canon without providind proof for such a statement. There is no proof that the Palestinian Jews every seriously considered bringing any of the apocryphal books into the canon. If the scholars are wrong show me the proof. It merely fits your presuppositions to assume that the Pharisees accepted the apocrypha as canon. The fact of the matter is that very little extrabiblical writing remains from the Jews just before and just after the birth of Christ and so if there was a council which declared a canon we probably would not have record of it. The apocyrphal books were probably originally written in Hebrew but they were not perpetuated in Hebrew. The Protestants accepted the Old Testament Hebrew Bible.

No one here is claiming high-canonicity for any of the Dead Sea Scrolls; inspiration is a different matter for discussion--since scripture is not necessarily contained only in complete books that we have.

So what is to keep from your own subjective method the writings of Robert Higby from being regarded as inspired? It would seem that anyone could really meet your criteria and especially if you make yourself the judge of the issue and you try your best to faithfully represent Scripture then you would have to regard yourself as inspired? Get out the magic spectacles.

[Robert R. Higby]

Charles, in case any have not figured it out by now, we are not going to agree on this! Our positions on revelation, inspiration, and illumination are very different--so there is no point on even trying to find basic harmony on these matters.

The point on which we do agree is that direct revelation ended with the apostles. God gave his final Word to them and nothing can be added. But in spite of all of your cheap polemics, you have still not supplied me with the 'ecumenical' council (along the order of Nicea on Christology in 325) where the 66 book canon was officially accepted for the 'whole church(?)'. Even if you could I would not accept it as authoritative (since James in the canon was pushed by works-mongers) but you can't.

Jamnia in 69 A.D. ff was not a 'council' at all and it was engaged by unregenerate Jews who rejected Christ. Even so, they disputed the same books that had been historically disputed--Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon. So what's the point? We are not talking about the apocrypha only.

You are correct in asserting that I and others here (Luther also) reject the Reformed doctrine of inspiration as limited to the biblical authors. Revelation certainly brings about inspired writing, however, it is definitely not the only working of God that accomplishes such. I include all writing in all ages that speaks with the authority of the Holy Spirit as inspired. It is just that writings outside of the Old and New Testaments are not generated from direct revelation. But not all writings WITHIN the Old and New Testaments were either: did John Mark and Luke experience direct revelation? No one can assert this with certainty.

Writings outside of the Old and New Testaments of scripture (whether confessed to be 58, 60, 63, or 66 books) are not proposed to be infallible and innerrant. Nonetheless, portions of such writings may be God-breathed--and if they are deemed to be so when judged by the gospel, they are authoritative and men reject them out of unbelief and rebellion against God's truth.

[wildboar]

Creeds and councils only met when there was some issue in the church which was causing division. They did not meet to just proclaim everything that a church believes on every issue. The issue of canon was decided over time until in this case the Jews reached a general consensus without the need for an official council since agreement had already been reached (or there could in fact have been an official council whose records have been lost). So what is determined as canon has to be determined by what books were quoted as Scripture and what books were transmitted as Scripture. There is certainly evidence that some Hellenic Jews regarded some of the apocryphal books as Scripture based upon certain editions of the LXX, but others did not based upon other editions of the LXX. Lack of transmission in Hebrew of the apocryphal books aside from in some fragments from Qumran shows that the Palestinian Jews did not regard the apocrypha as canonical. Disputation and a desire to make the canon smaller over the books of Ecclesiastes, Esther, and Song of Solomon does not mean that the apocrypha was accepted which is the real issue here anymore than me writing a post against Hal Lindsey would mean that I support Tim LaHay.

[wildboar]

The point on which we do agree is that direct revelation ended with the apostles. God gave his final Word to them and nothing can be added.

What is the basis for this assertion within your paradigm? How do we know this to be true? Why are the writings of Robert Higby not on the same level as a pre-apostolic era, non-canonical inspired writing?

I include all writing in all ages that speaks with the authority of the Holy Spirit as inspired. It is just that writings outside of the Old and New Testaments are not generated from direct revelation. But not all writings WITHIN the Old and New Testaments were either: did John Mark and Luke experience direct revelation? No one can assert this with certainty.

If you are going to invoke the cartesian doubt you can't assert anything including the fact that you even exist or that you aren't just some brain in a jar. Just because a document claims direct revelation does not make it so and just because a document does not claim but merely assumes it does not make it not so. If you were logically consistent you would have to doubt every single book of the Bible and pick and choose those Scriptures which are in conformity to your own view of God. The liberals have their Jesus seminar and perhaps you could start the 5 solas seminar.

[Robert R. Higby]

Ecclesiastes, Esther, and Song of Solomon does not mean that the apocrypha was accepted which is the real issue here anymore than me writing a post against Hal Lindsey would mean that I support Tim LaHay.

In one sense, I don't think any of these books are the real issue. Some of the apocryphyl books and Esther, for instance, were accepted in some circles and that is pretty much it. It was all disputed. Many followed the core teaching in certain apocryphal books even if they did not view them as infallible.

None of the Dead Sea sects accepted Esther--on that we can be sure. Purim and Hanukka are both missing from their sacred calendars and no copies of any portion of Esther have have been found. A few snippets of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon as well as some books of the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha. Also some missing Psalms of David. Anyway, even this does not prove that the majority of Jews considered Eccl. and the Song of Songs to be infallible scripture in their entire content.

Moving on, I want to restate my position on these things:

1. The core canon books of the Old and New Testament that we all accept came to us from the interaction of direct revelation from God to the authors OR their immediate teachers--AND Holy Spirit inspiration to the authors.

2. Other writings outside of this core canon may contain Holy Spirit inspired scripture, though they are not to be regarded as infallible in their entirety. These writings were/are not the product of direct revelation interacting with inspiration.

3. No church or council has the authority to 'close' the canon or mandate belief in a massive creedal system of doctrinal unity. Books may yet be discovered that fill the criteria of 'canon'; in addition, writings now believed to be in harmony with God's revelation may yet prove to be false.

I think that is about it.

[wildboar]

In one sense, I don't think any of these books are the real issue. Some of the apocryphyl books and Esther, for instance, were accepted in some circles and that is pretty much it. It was all disputed. Many followed the core teaching in certain apocryphal books even if they did not view them as infallible.

None of the Dead Sea sects accepted Esther--on that we can be sure. Purim and Hanukka are both missing from their sacred calendars and no copies of any portion of Esther have have been found. A few snippets of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon as well as some books of the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha. Also some missing Psalms of David. Anyway, even this does not prove that the majority of Jews considered Eccl. and the Song of Songs to be infallible scripture in their entire content.

So does this mean that you are retracting your previous statement that the Pharisees would have regarded the apocryphal books as canonical? If everything is disputed as you say then at best you would have to be agnostic about what the Pharisees considered Scripture to be. Of course the real issue is not what the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls regarded as canonical but what the Palestinian Jews in general regarded as canonical, especially the Pharisees and I have not seen you produce any evidence yet that they in fact would have regarded the apocrypha as canonical, only that they may have argued over the canonicity of books which would eventually be accepted as canonical by Jews at large.

Protestantism does not invest authority in any council to close the canon. But due to its belief in the doctrine of divine preservation (in distinction from some of the earlier reformers) it rightly states that God's Word has been preserved and we do not need to sit by the latest archaeological dig to discover some book to be added to the canon. Protestantism has not invested it's faith in councils on the issue of the extent of the canon but in the Holy Spirit. Even the acceptance of post-Warfieldian textual criticism in Protestant circles is a severe departure from the doctrine of divine preservation once clearly taught and leads to the abyss of agnosticism if taken to its logical terminus. All attempts to construct some fail-safe list of criteria for determining canon have failed.

The church did not force the canon upon the church. The canon forced itself upon the church. It is effectively closed but it was not closed by man. The canon formed the church. The church did not form the canon.

If the idea that God has preserved the canon within the church is abandoned then nothing is left but agnosticism.

I think it should be clear to every believer who reads through the documents unique to the Dead Sea Scrolls that they are quite different from what we find in Holy Scripture. They do not bear the marks even in part of being God-breathed. We find midrash, dogmatic treatises of sorts, lots of communities rules, but nothing like we find in Scripture. I think it would be profitable to people on this forum to pick up a copy of Vermes' edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

[GraceAmbassador]

The church did not force the canon upon the church. The canon forced itself upon the church. It is effectively closed but it was not closed by man. The canon formed the church. The church did not form the canon.

That's the strangest statement that I ever read! If the Canon rules and foreced itself upon the church (if it is the church I believe it is, then perhaps...) then why the "church" judges the canon selectively as to what portions are "for today" and others that are "not for today". The "church" indeed rules over the canon, decides portions that are valid and what is the timing of their validity.

If the canon formed the "church" then we have all the more reasons to say that the "church" is totally afar, apart, and far away from the canon and undeserving of credibility and fellowship. Where is the "church" that the canon formed? Where is the "church" that is RULED by the canon? The "church" as we know it today rules over the canon and indeed teaches it the way it pleases its own traditions, cultural background, likes and dislikes.

St. Jerome, considered the father of all teachers by the Roman Catholic Church, interestingly enough, did not believe the canon as the RCC believes today and neither the one that the Reformed accepted today. It does not seem that the canon formed the "church".

Do you believe in the idealistic notion that the canon should RULE the "church"?

Milt

[Robert R. Higby]

Latest responses to WB:

So does this mean that you are retracting your previous statement that the Pharisees would have regarded the apocryphal books as canonical? If everything is disputed as you say then at best you would have to be agnostic about what the Pharisees considered Scripture to be. Of course the real issue is not what the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls regarded as canonical but what the Palestinian Jews in general regarded as canonical, especially the Pharisees and I have not seen you produce any evidence yet that they in fact would have regarded the apocrypha as canonical, only that they may have argued over the canonicity of books which would eventually be accepted as canonical by Jews at large.

It is a mixed bag; I can only recommend to you the books of Gabriele Boccaccini on the subject of 2nd Temple Era Jewish thought. Of course, you have to ignore the fact that he is a Roman Catholic! I don't agree with all of his conclusions, of course. But his basic conclusion is sound that most Jews from that era had their favorites among the extra-biblical sources--depending on the particular school of thought endorsed. Belief in the inspiration of Enoch, however, was very widespread and seemed to cut across the lines of philosophical differences (with the exception of the later Sadducees).

Protestantism does not invest authority in any council to close the canon. But due to its belief in the doctrine of divine preservation (in distinction from some of the earlier reformers) it rightly states that God's Word has been preserved and we do not need to sit by the latest archaeological dig to discover some book to be added to the canon.

This means nothing to me. I go by the deeds of the centuries, not by confession. At Regensburg the Protestants agreed with the Catholics as to what would constiute our current Bible--and that is the end of the story. Not too long after the 66-book canonical list started appearing in the confessions. Luther took his objections to certain books out of his NT introductory notes--but I personally don't believe his core convictions or hermeneutic ever changed.

Protestantism has not invested it's faith in councils on the issue of the extent of the canon but in the Holy Spirit. Even the acceptance of post-Warfieldian textual criticism in Protestant circles is a severe departure from the doctrine of divine preservation once clearly taught and leads to the abyss of agnosticism if taken to its logical terminus. All attempts to construct some fail-safe list of criteria for determining canon have failed.

The Holy Spirit annexes himself to the full-corn gospel as revealed to Paul by the Holy Spirit. The writings of John, Peter, Luke, Mark, Matthew and the OT prophets agree with Paul's testimony. In Galatians he explains why the OT law is also a part of this testimony (as a schoolmaster to testify that all are shut up under sin). All of us who accept that scripture was given by infallible revelation and inspiration also have to believe in the divine preservation--that does not fully resolve the issue in and of itself. Most do not know the difference between modern or neo-orthodox skepticism and the issue of the canon--they are not one and the same.

I, for one, do not believe that Carthage is superior to Nicea on the issue of the canon--Nicea gives us 22 undisputed NT books and Carthage 27. But Nicea was a universal council and Carthage was limited to those who agreed with Athanasius. So when considering divine 'preservation' we have to take into account the reasons that Athanasius--a devout neo-legalist and sacramentalist--wanted to change the status of James to universally accepted and binding on the whole 'church.' We also have to take into account the motives of the Catholic church for forcing the Protestants to confess the binding authority of James against Luther. Before the Reformation, the Catholics were divided on James (since Carthage was not an ecumenical council) and Luther was taught against it where he studied.

The church did not force the canon upon the church. The canon forced itself upon the church. It is effectively closed but it was not closed by man. The canon formed the church. The church did not form the canon.

The true gospel contained in the scriptures formed the ekklesia. That is all I will say here. We do not owe the formation of the ekklesia to the books of James, 3 John, Esther, and the Song of Solomon.

If the idea that God has preserved the canon within the church is abandoned then nothing is left but agnosticism.

No one is denying that here; we're proposing that the organizations who arrogate to themselves the title 'church' have forced the views of some on what constitutes the canon upon believers who are priests unto God and should decide the issue for themselves by the Holy Spirit annexed to the true gospel. Of course we should have unity on the issue-- but it needs to be GOSPEL unity and not ecclesiastical unity.

I think it should be clear to every believer who reads through the documents unique to the Dead Sea Scrolls that they are quite different from what we find in Holy Scripture. They do not bear the marks even in part of being God-breathed. We find midrash, dogmatic treatises of sorts, lots of communities rules, but nothing like we find in Scripture. I think it would be profitable to people on this forum to pick up a copy of Vermes' edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

There you go again, lumping all of the scroll writings into a mass that is almost like one book of scripture that we vote 'in' or 'out'. Of course there is a mass of nonsense contained therein. I do believe that the Hodayot Psalms bear the marks of the same gospel truths taught throughout the Old Testament. But our view of 'scripture' is different anyway; I do not limit it to the whole books that we agree constitute the superior canon ('high' scripture) preserved through the centuries. In addition to that, those portions of ANY other writings that we use for edification of the saints we deem to be given by the Holy Spirit breathing inspired truth into them--otherwise they would not be worth using. My convictions on the difference between this type of inspiration and that given to the apostles/prophets (to write whole books of infallible scripture) I have outlined previously.