Floor Committee 12 - Ecclesiastical Supervision and Dispute Resolution

[Mbecker]

I don't have Eusebius in front of me but I recall reading that he notes one of the biggest reasons the Epistle to the Hebrews was not universally accepted is because it was not written by Paul. The idea that something was not written by Paul, and then discredited to a degree, was already in place at the time of Eusebius (and we would have to figure earlier).

Well, the issue really isn't so much that it "wasn't written by Paul" but that it wasn't written by an apostle or someone with apostolic connections--indeed, it was anonymous. That was the criteria for determining canonicity: a way to argue apostolicity.

Right, my point was it seems there was already a standard for what was, and what was not, written by Paul. I think modern scholarship thinks itself too original sometimes.

But the standard was not only, "because Paul said he wrote it." There is "The Apocalypse of Paul" that didn't make the cut. Many of the writings that were left out are attributed to apostolic sources. These are the names of the writings Eusebius says are rejected: note the many apostolic names:

Gospel of Peter

Acts of Peter

Preaching of Peter

Revelation of Peter

Acts of Paul

Shepherd of Hermes

2 Clement

Epistle of Barnabas

Teaching of the Apostles

Gospel of Thomas

Gospel of Matthias

Gospel of the Hebrews

Acts of Andrew

Acts of John

There had to be other criteria beyond the writing saying that it was written by an apostle.

There were other criteria, all implicit in the process and never fully and explicitly articulated by anyone in the ancient church. (I discuss these criteria in my book on fundamental theology.) Beyond "apostolicity" (the claim to have been written by an apostle or someone very close to an apostle), they included the antiquity of a document (the older, the better), the catholicity of a document (the more widely used, the better), and the orthodoxy of a document (largely determined by what was considered "orthodox doctrine" taught by the principal patriarchs/bishops [Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Rome]). There are seven documents in the NT that ran afoul of one or more of these criteria: Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. It is possible that the Pastorals were ultimately included in the canon because they were produced by the person who wrote Luke-Acts, and that individual, though not an apostle, was viewed as being in close proximity to the Apostle Paul. This hypothesis has been discussed among scholars over the past couple of decades.

Peter Ochs' way of bridging the academy and the synagogue is admirable, but it is not the only way to have one foot in each community. Many modern Christian theologians have tried to do the same, starting with Schleiermacher himself and extending into several other "mediating" theologians. Each of the figures treated in the recent books on nineteenth- and twentieth-century Lutheran theologians, in his own way, attempted to do the same, that is, to bridge "Athens" and "Jerusalem."

Addendum: Most, if not all, of the scholars who have judged the Pastorals to have been written by someone after the death of Paul, did their scholarship from within the church and in service to the church. Check the list of names in my earlier post (Jeremias, Dibelius, Kelly, et al.). That is, they, too lived within both communities. Their status as church scholars of the Bible is no different from that of church scholars in the early church. Their judgments should be weighed alongside those of Origen, Jerome, and other ancient scholars. Just as no one individual Bible scholar or bishop in the ancient church spoke on behalf of "the whole church," so no one scholar today (or group of scholars) could ever speak on behalf of "the whole Ecumene." The fact that individual Bible scholars in the ancient church spoke against the seven documents led to their being considered "antilegomena," "spoken against" by one or more Bible scholars in the ancient church. That Bible scholars today, from within the church, speak against the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals, leads to the conclusion that today the Pastorals are also "spoken against."

Matt Becker

[peter_speckhard]

Not to dip my toe too deeply into this discussion and at the risk of being reductive, but the modern academic community does not regard the Christian Bible as "Scripture" (and largely** should not, depending upon how you would characterize the beast) in that it does not understand itself to be the community formed by the proclamation of the Gospel to which the Bible gives authoritative witness, nor does it look to the Bible as a norm for its communal life, nor does it regard it as a source of further reflection into how the community should think and act in the future.  Saying that the investigations of such a non-churchly community could (not would) place the Pastorals into the category of "antilegomena" is to make a category mistake, as that distinction is one that the Church made as a way to norm its own life with respect to the Bible, which it takes as its "Scripture."


** I make these qualifications because Scriptural Reasoning of the Ochsian variety self-consciously seeks to find a way to live within both the academy and the various communities of faith of its practitioners at the same time and therefore may be regarded as an exception to the rule.

And this is exactly why all the way at the start of this I said it was not a big surprise if you let pagans vote on Christian Doctrine you get pagan practices.  It is also why pointing at R. Brown, an interesting Scholar, and other Roman Catholics in the academy, is not greatly interesting or persuasive because they are not the church magisterium because they don't operate as the church.  As Pr. Speckhard said, the academy has made all of scripture antilegomena.  An academician might be able to do that, but a pastor cannot.  At least not and be part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church made up of the saints of all times and all places.

If there is objective truth, why would the searchers' beliefs make any difference? If the truth is out there, folks will find it (or perhaps better, the Truth will find them). If the truths we believe are in scriptures are really there, secular folks should also find it through their study of the Word of God. (We do believe it's the Word of God regardless of what the reader/study-er may think about the words.)

There are objective truths that those without eyes to see or ears to hear cannot discern.

[scott9]

Peter Ochs' way of bridging the academy and the synagogue is admirable, but it is not the only way to have one foot in each community.

The reason I pull out Ochs and Scriptural Reasoning is because I believe that approach to be more successful than other attempts to engage both the academy and the church in that it recognizes the situatedness of reasoning without denying its possible generality in more sophisticated and nuanced ways than, say, the mediating theologians do and whom I judge to be largely unsuccessful in their bridging attempts.  Why I judge their attempts unsatisfactory is a long story as is the philosophical grounding for my conclusory comment above, so I'm just going to stick with that claim and let folks take it FWIW.

[Mark Brown]

Not to dip my toe too deeply into this discussion and at the risk of being reductive, but the modern academic community does not regard the Christian Bible as "Scripture" (and largely** should not, depending upon how you would characterize the beast) in that it does not understand itself to be the community formed by the proclamation of the Gospel to which the Bible gives authoritative witness, nor does it look to the Bible as a norm for its communal life, nor does it regard it as a source of further reflection into how the community should think and act in the future.  Saying that the investigations of such a non-churchly community could (not would) place the Pastorals into the category of "antilegomena" is to make a category mistake, as that distinction is one that the Church made as a way to norm its own life with respect to the Bible, which it takes as its "Scripture."


** I make these qualifications because Scriptural Reasoning of the Ochsian variety self-consciously seeks to find a way to live within both the academy and the various communities of faith of its practitioners at the same time and therefore may be regarded as an exception to the rule.

And this is exactly why all the way at the start of this I said it was not a big surprise if you let pagans vote on Christian Doctrine you get pagan practices.  It is also why pointing at R. Brown, an interesting Scholar, and other Roman Catholics in the academy, is not greatly interesting or persuasive because they are not the church magisterium because they don't operate as the church.  As Pr. Speckhard said, the academy has made all of scripture antilegomena.  An academician might be able to do that, but a pastor cannot.  At least not and be part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church made up of the saints of all times and all places.

If there is objective truth, why would the searchers' beliefs make any difference? If the truth is out there, folks will find it (or perhaps better, the Truth will find them). If the truths we believe are in scriptures are really there, secular folks should also find it through their study of the Word of God. (We do believe it's the Word of God regardless of what the reader/study-er may think about the words.)

Voeltz actually takes that up using reader response type thinking.  The scriptures were written for a particular audience, i.e. one that was thinking with the Spirit.  That is something very similar to Paul in 2 Corinthians that without Christ any reading of the scriptures is done with a veil.  Reading with secular presuppositions can be interesting and can even find what natural truth is present, but the primary purpose and truth - that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God - is hidden from their thinking.

[Dave Benke]

Not to dip my toe too deeply into this discussion and at the risk of being reductive, but the modern academic community does not regard the Christian Bible as "Scripture" (and largely** should not, depending upon how you would characterize the beast) in that it does not understand itself to be the community formed by the proclamation of the Gospel to which the Bible gives authoritative witness, nor does it look to the Bible as a norm for its communal life, nor does it regard it as a source of further reflection into how the community should think and act in the future.  Saying that the investigations of such a non-churchly community could (not would) place the Pastorals into the category of "antilegomena" is to make a category mistake, as that distinction is one that the Church made as a way to norm its own life with respect to the Bible, which it takes as its "Scripture."


** I make these qualifications because Scriptural Reasoning of the Ochsian variety self-consciously seeks to find a way to live within both the academy and the various communities of faith of its practitioners at the same time and therefore may be regarded as an exception to the rule.

And this is exactly why all the way at the start of this I said it was not a big surprise if you let pagans vote on Christian Doctrine you get pagan practices.  It is also why pointing at R. Brown, an interesting Scholar, and other Roman Catholics in the academy, is not greatly interesting or persuasive because they are not the church magisterium because they don't operate as the church.  As Pr. Speckhard said, the academy has made all of scripture antilegomena.  An academician might be able to do that, but a pastor cannot.  At least not and be part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church made up of the saints of all times and all places.

If there is objective truth, why would the searchers' beliefs make any difference? If the truth is out there, folks will find it (or perhaps better, the Truth will find them). If the truths we believe are in scriptures are really there, secular folks should also find it through their study of the Word of God. (We do believe it's the Word of God regardless of what the reader/study-er may think about the words.)

Voeltz actually takes that up using reader response type thinking.  The scriptures were written for a particular audience, i.e. one that was thinking with the Spirit.  That is something very similar to Paul in 2 Corinthians that without Christ any reading of the scriptures is done with a veil.  Reading with secular presuppositions can be interesting and can even find what natural truth is present, but the primary purpose and truth - that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God - is hidden from their thinking.

I guess what you/Jim are saying is partly true.  Which would make the Scriptures hortatory - that is, urging whoever read to stick with it.  However, there's another strand which is evangelical - that is, to present the narrative of salvation to readers like the Ethiopian eunuch heard Isaiah 53, and so to believe.  Of course, that belief is a function of the Spirit, but it is a function of the Spirit through the Word for those who are not on the inside but on the outside of the community.  And the question of Pauline intention has been taken up by recent scholars in terms of his late life understanding of who might be reading what he'd written, not only insiders in Rome or wherever, but those to whom Roman Christians, for example, might read the letter.


The Broadway production of The Gospel of Mark was a contemporary example in my life.  A man who had memorized and could present with great clarity the Gospel of Mark, and a chair.  And an hour and a half later, the audience had heard those sixteen chapters.  This being New York, that audience was not composed of Lutherans, Missouri Synod variety, with the exception of two of us, or of Christians.  It was a compelling Broadway play at its simplest.  And headed toward whoever was within earshot.

Dave Benke

[Weedon]

The Ethiopian was already a hearer of the Word. He had been to Jerusalem to worship and invested in a copy of Isaiah. He was a believer in the Word, but had not yet known its fullfilment in the Word made flesh. That's what Philip proclaimed: Jesus. And so he landed in the water, where the One whose Word had first begun to attract and call him surprised him with the joy of adoption and everlasting life. It's a great, great story. But the man was no stranger to the narrative of the OT.

[Mark Brown]

The Ethiopian was already a hearer of the Word. He had been to Jerusalem to worship and invested in a copy of Isaiah. He was a believer in the Word, but had not yet known its fullfilment in the Word made flesh. That's what Philip proclaimed: Jesus. And so he landed in the water, where the One whose Word had first begun to attract and call him surprised him with the joy of adoption and everlasting life. It's a great, great story. But the man was no stranger to the narrative of the OT.

I think that is part of a large theme in Acts.  James' saying in Acts 15 "For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues" assumes that the OT is known.

After Pentecost the Spirit has been poured out.  To the ends of the world if you will.  The Scriptures aren't hortatory; They are revelatory.  The Word is the means by which the people of God are revealed. They hear His voice and are lead into all truth.

[Dave Benke]

The Ethiopian was already a hearer of the Word. He had been to Jerusalem to worship and invested in a copy of Isaiah. He was a believer in the Word, but had not yet known its fullfilment in the Word made flesh. That's what Philip proclaimed: Jesus. And so he landed in the water, where the One whose Word had first begun to attract and call him surprised him with the joy of adoption and everlasting life. It's a great, great story. But the man was no stranger to the narrative of the OT.

I think that is part of a large theme in Acts.  James' saying in Acts 15 "For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues" assumes that the OT is known.

After Pentecost the Spirit has been poured out.  To the ends of the world if you will.  The Scriptures aren't hortatory; They are revelatory.  The Word is the means by which the people of God are revealed. They hear His voice and are lead into all truth.

I agree with you that the Scriptures are not hortatory but revelatory.  The way you explained it coming from Jim V. it sounded as though you were taught that the purpose is hortatory, an insider's trail through known territory.

Dave Benke

[Mark Brown]

The Ethiopian was already a hearer of the Word. He had been to Jerusalem to worship and invested in a copy of Isaiah. He was a believer in the Word, but had not yet known its fullfilment in the Word made flesh. That's what Philip proclaimed: Jesus. And so he landed in the water, where the One whose Word had first begun to attract and call him surprised him with the joy of adoption and everlasting life. It's a great, great story. But the man was no stranger to the narrative of the OT.

I think that is part of a large theme in Acts.  James' saying in Acts 15 "For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues" assumes that the OT is known.

After Pentecost the Spirit has been poured out.  To the ends of the world if you will.  The Scriptures aren't hortatory; They are revelatory.  The Word is the means by which the people of God are revealed. They hear His voice and are lead into all truth.

I agree with you that the Scriptures are not hortatory but revelatory.  The way you explained it coming from Jim V. it sounded as though you were taught that the purpose is hortatory, an insider's trail through known territory.

Dave Benke

Honestly, I don't even understand where the hortatory comment comes from.  Voelz's point on the reader-response theory is a much longer complicated one including that the text forms the reader in the process creating the reader intended.  But one of the points along the way is simply that a community that rejects part of the text or comes with presuppositions that are opposite of those assumed by the text is not the intended reader.  Some rejections or presuppositions, like making all of scripture antilegomena, are especially harmful to the ability to correctly read that text.  The simple man with naive presuppositions will be a better reader, meaning understanding and living its intended truths, than those however learned who have made themselves impervious to certain formation by the text through such preconditions.  "I will follow just, just let me go say farewell."

The modern academy can be an interesting reader, but its hardened presuppositions make it a poor intended reader.

[Weedon]

Mark,

I think it's really at the heart not a new insight, but simply the one Irenaeus referred to so long ago with the mosaic: the heretics take the same "texts" but arrange them in such a way that they get a picture of "fox" instead of the picture of the "great King." It's not the raw texts per se, but how they are experienced that marks the Church's use of the Scriptures: we are the community that sees the stones arranged in such a way that the image of the great King, of Christ the Lover of Mankind, shines through them. All the great controversies have always been about the arrangement of the stones, but the NT itself gives you the key: "They testify of me" "He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures...that the Christ should suffer and die and that repentance unto the forgiveness of sins be proclaimed in His name..."

[Brian Stoffregen]

The Ethiopian was already a hearer of the Word. He had been to Jerusalem to worship and invested in a copy of Isaiah. He was a believer in the Word, but had not yet known its fullfilment in the Word made flesh. That's what Philip proclaimed: Jesus. And so he landed in the water, where the One whose Word had first begun to attract and call him surprised him with the joy of adoption and everlasting life. It's a great, great story. But the man was no stranger to the narrative of the OT.

I think that is part of a large theme in Acts.  James' saying in Acts 15 "For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues" assumes that the OT is known.

After Pentecost the Spirit has been poured out.  To the ends of the world if you will.  The Scriptures aren't hortatory; They are revelatory.  The Word is the means by which the people of God are revealed. They hear His voice and are lead into all truth.

I agree with you that the Scriptures are not hortatory but revelatory.  The way you explained it coming from Jim V. it sounded as though you were taught that the purpose is hortatory, an insider's trail through known territory.

Dave Benke

Honestly, I don't even understand where the hortatory comment comes from.  Voelz's point on the reader-response theory is a much longer complicated one including that the text forms the reader in the process creating the reader intended.  But one of the points along the way is simply that a community that rejects part of the text or comes with presuppositions that are opposite of those assumed by the text is not the intended reader.  Some rejections or presuppositions, like making all of scripture antilegomena, are especially harmful to the ability to correctly read that text.  The simple man with naive presuppositions will be a better reader, meaning understanding and living its intended truths, than those however learned who have made themselves impervious to certain formation by the text through such preconditions.  "I will follow just, just let me go say farewell."

The modern academy can be an interesting reader, but its hardened presuppositions make it a poor intended reader.

The other side of the modern academy's approach is the simplified approach that a member stated about his view of Bible study: "God said it. I believe it. That's that." When I state, "Jesus said to cut off our hand if it causes us to sin, and to pluck out our eye if it causes us to sin. Do you believe that we should do what Jesus said?" He quickly changes his approach and talks about "spiritual meaning". The academy is necessary to help us understand the meaning of the texts, which can be different from what they say.

[Daniel L. Gard]

The academy is necessary to help us understand the meaning of the texts, which can be different from what they say.

There goes Scripturae perspicuitate..................<sigh>

[Dave Benke]

The Ethiopian was already a hearer of the Word. He had been to Jerusalem to worship and invested in a copy of Isaiah. He was a believer in the Word, but had not yet known its fullfilment in the Word made flesh. That's what Philip proclaimed: Jesus. And so he landed in the water, where the One whose Word had first begun to attract and call him surprised him with the joy of adoption and everlasting life. It's a great, great story. But the man was no stranger to the narrative of the OT.

I think that is part of a large theme in Acts.  James' saying in Acts 15 "For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues" assumes that the OT is known.

After Pentecost the Spirit has been poured out.  To the ends of the world if you will.  The Scriptures aren't hortatory; They are revelatory.  The Word is the means by which the people of God are revealed. They hear His voice and are lead into all truth.

I agree with you that the Scriptures are not hortatory but revelatory.  The way you explained it coming from Jim V. it sounded as though you were taught that the purpose is hortatory, an insider's trail through known territory.

Dave Benke

Honestly, I don't even understand where the hortatory comment comes from.  Voelz's point on the reader-response theory is a much longer complicated one including that the text forms the reader in the process creating the reader intended.  But one of the points along the way is simply that a community that rejects part of the text or comes with presuppositions that are opposite of those assumed by the text is not the intended reader.  Some rejections or presuppositions, like making all of scripture antilegomena, are especially harmful to the ability to correctly read that text.  The simple man with naive presuppositions will be a better reader, meaning understanding and living its intended truths, than those however learned who have made themselves impervious to certain formation by the text through such preconditions.  "I will follow just, just let me go say farewell."

The modern academy can be an interesting reader, but its hardened presuppositions make it a poor intended reader.

While I don't have a problem with your statement about the "hardened presuppositions" of the modern academy, stating that the lens of Scripture is for those who are thinking with the Spirit leads to the hortatory presupposition.  Scripture is less revelatory/transformational, then, and more instructional/catechetical for insiders - and of course that is a purpose which is utilized at Everybody on the Planet's Bible Class.  What would happen, though,  if someone just picked up a Bible and read it?

I have given that experience to people through the years who professed interest in Christianity - read the New Testament and bring your questions and comments to me.  Scripture proved revelatory to those folks on its own merit.  And transformational. 

Dave Benke

[peter_speckhard]

The Ethiopian was already a hearer of the Word. He had been to Jerusalem to worship and invested in a copy of Isaiah. He was a believer in the Word, but had not yet known its fullfilment in the Word made flesh. That's what Philip proclaimed: Jesus. And so he landed in the water, where the One whose Word had first begun to attract and call him surprised him with the joy of adoption and everlasting life. It's a great, great story. But the man was no stranger to the narrative of the OT.

I think that is part of a large theme in Acts.  James' saying in Acts 15 "For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues" assumes that the OT is known.

After Pentecost the Spirit has been poured out.  To the ends of the world if you will.  The Scriptures aren't hortatory; They are revelatory.  The Word is the means by which the people of God are revealed. They hear His voice and are lead into all truth.

I agree with you that the Scriptures are not hortatory but revelatory.  The way you explained it coming from Jim V. it sounded as though you were taught that the purpose is hortatory, an insider's trail through known territory.

Dave Benke

Honestly, I don't even understand where the hortatory comment comes from.  Voelz's point on the reader-response theory is a much longer complicated one including that the text forms the reader in the process creating the reader intended.  But one of the points along the way is simply that a community that rejects part of the text or comes with presuppositions that are opposite of those assumed by the text is not the intended reader.  Some rejections or presuppositions, like making all of scripture antilegomena, are especially harmful to the ability to correctly read that text.  The simple man with naive presuppositions will be a better reader, meaning understanding and living its intended truths, than those however learned who have made themselves impervious to certain formation by the text through such preconditions.  "I will follow just, just let me go say farewell."

The modern academy can be an interesting reader, but its hardened presuppositions make it a poor intended reader.

The other side of the modern academy's approach is the simplified approach that a member stated about his view of Bible study: "God said it. I believe it. That's that." When I state, "Jesus said to cut off our hand if it causes us to sin, and to pluck out our eye if it causes us to sin. Do you believe that we should do what Jesus said?" He quickly changes his approach and talks about "spiritual meaning". The academy is necessary to help us understand the meaning of the texts, which can be different from what they say.

Of course, the whole point is that your hands and eyes do not cause you to sin, so there is no problem taking the words at face value. But even in those instances when the literal meaning is not the intended meaning it usually doesn't take an academy to figure it out. We reason with the church, which includes but is not limited to scholars. And scholars have proven themselves just as apt as anyone else to miss the meaning of a text. 

[Rob Morris]

My mindset toward present-day academicians was forever changed while attending a regional meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature hosted at Andover-Newton Theological Seminary. I can vividly recall hearing the keynote speakers' roundtable openly discuss with the audience the most effective way to "subvert" the beliefs of their incoming students who believed the Scriptures to be inspired or inerrant.

"Subvert" - their word, not mine. Not "instruct", not "inform", not "refine", not "develop"... "Subvert."

The panel included both Collins (JJ and Adela Yarbro), Amy Jill Levine, a very displeased Doug Stuart (the Biblically-conservative representative) and one or two lesser lights whose names I can't recall off the top of my head. I am sure a little internet digging could confirm the date and the exact participants - it must have been around Fall of 2006 or so.

Ever since, I have been emptied of the idea of an impartial and open-minded academy.

I love the frank and open exchange of ideas. I loathe guerrilla tactics. Both are happening in the current academy, so caveat lector.