Which Old Testament Canon is Right? With John Meade

How do we adjudicate between different views among Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant Christians on the question of the Old Testament canon? Dr. John Meade lays out how Christians have approached this question historically, and how we know we have the correct Bible today.

Truth Unites is a mixture of apologetics and theology, with an irenic focus.

Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai.

My books:

[TextandCanonInstitute]

Hi All, I had some technical difficulties earlier today but I think I've replied to many of the good and respectful questions and comments on here this evening. Feel free to continue to leave comments and I'll address them as I'm able. Thanks.

[jg]

It's amazing how many Books that are even mentioned in the Bible itself that we don't even have today (The Acts of Solomon, The Acts of Uziah, The Sayings of The Seers etc.)

[ryanward]

I think one thing we can definitely say is that these books are definitely worth reading. The Deuterocanonicals are fantastic books that have edified Christians throughout the centuries. It's a shame that so few people read them now.

[hettinga]

Was writing a ST paper on the canon around the time this video came out and it was an invaluable summary of a complicated subject. John Meade’s book on ancient canon lists is a great resource for those curious about how the early church viewed scripture and its parameters!

[aGoyforJesus]

Btw the argument isn't that the books first popped up as canonical in 1546. It's that Rome didn't have a dogmatic decree until 1546. This is what Catholic academic sources say.

[nametheunknown_]

Very informative, thank you both for your time and work.

[gardengirlmary]

This is an excellent video for a topic that needs more discussion. Personally, i would love to read more. Thank you for the great conversation

[cultofmodernism]

EO here. The earliest list of the canon (both NT and OT), that's authoritative at least, is defined in the Apostolic Canons (canon #85). Most of the Apostolic Canons were not received by the west, and that includes the Canon of Scripture/Canon #85, and there's some variation. This is the list that, for the part, most Orthodox Septuagint's conform to (included 3 Maccabees). The more familiar list is defined and accepted at the Council of Jerusalem 1672 and corresponds to the list in the Catechism of St. Peter Mogila (question 3, "The extent of the canon of scripture").

That said, there is certainly some ambiguity. St. Philaret, in his catechism (as alluded to), aligned with what's commonly referred to as the "Protestant Canon." However, this canon list goes back much further, to at least St. John of Damascus (defined in his De Fide, book 4 chapter 17). It's also the list defined in a later, widely received catechism by Father Pomazansky ("Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, " on page 32).

Of course, there's also variation among other, Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox (such as the Ethiopians).

[benjaminker]

Thank you so much Dr. Meade for sharing your research with us. I have been grappling with this issue of canon for about six months now and this is the strongest Protestant position I have found so far. You really lay it out clearly. Having said that, with all respect, I due have some concerns based on what I have studied on this topic.

Firstly, I am not sure it is possible to separate Old Testament and New Testament in these discussions. I know this video was only focused on the Old Testament but the danger for me is that there ends up being different criteria for the different canons which may seem like special pleading. For example, you say we should accept the Melitus and Bryennios OT canons from the second century. But we get the New Testament canons from Athanasius's 39th Festal letters and the councils of Rome, Carthage and Hippo in the fourth century. It seems like it would more natural to say that there was a lot of different canons and confusion in the second and third century but then we come to consensus in the fourth century (with the exception of Jerome). But obviously Protestants don't want to say that since fourth century consensus included the deuterocanon. But this ends up looking like special pleading. It is not just contrasting Jerome with Augustine but rather Jerome with the whole church at the time. Similarly with Origen versus Julianus Africans - Origen makes it clear that the deuterocanon is what is accepted as Scripture in the church. So my criteria would be "what canon was accepted by the faithful as a whole?". In fact I think we could use the Calvin's view of the self-attestation of Scripture to support this. What canon did the church eventually receive because of the Spirit's attestation to it? It seems clear to me that this included the deuterocanon.

Secondly, we see the majority of the early Fathers - Didache, 1 Clement, Epistle of Polycarp, 2 Clement, Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, Athenagoras, Ireneaus, the Muratorian Fragment, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Clement, Cyprian and Origen - either formally cite deuterocanonical books as Scripture or quote them right next to quoting protocanonical books, with no distinction. This is strong evidence to me that the deuterocanon was part of the deposit of faith in addition to the point that the deuterocanon was confirmed as Scripture in the fourth century councils.

Thirdly, I think it would have been helpful for you to acknowledge there is debate about what canon lists mean precisely. Athanasius' 39th Festal letter is a good example. He relegates Esther and some of the deuterocanon to the secondary tier. Does this mean he did not view them as sacred scripture, as holy writ? We know this is not what it means because he clearly quotes deuterocanon as Scripture. There is a danger of reading our modern definition of canon as "inspired books" into the canon lists. But at least from the example of Athanasius we know this is not necessarily the case. And I think this is a good way of explaining other lists of people who we know accepted deuterocanon books as Scripture but did not say certain of them were "canonical", such as Origen. So I don't think canonical lists are the most helpful for knowing what books people thought were sacred scripture unless it is said that the books which are not canonical are not Scripture.

These are just some of my initial thoughts, would love to hear what you think.

[simonfinley]

Sorry for slow reply David and Tony. I’ve been caught up. But finally got a chance to respond.

1. The way Athanasius used the Deuteros does not mean he thought them to be on the same level as canonical scripture. a) Athanasius clearly implies 2nd div books *shouldn't* be in the canon or used as canonical scripture, and yet, he occasionally calls them “scripture”. This tells us that ‘scripture’ can refer to both canonical scripture, and useful ‘scripture’ not belonging in the canon. I suspect some of the Deuteros came to be referred to as ‘scripture’ by non-Jewish Christians because they were kept alongside canonical scripture in Greek translations of the OT. b) Saying the Son/Spirit speaks through a particular passage in a Deutero book is not a strong argument for inspiration. With Paul, it’s possible to speak of the Spirit speaking through someone without implying it is on the same level as inspired scripture (cf. 1 Cor 12:3, 8). c) Looks can be deceiving when it comes to the way Athanasius used the Deuteros. 2Pet 2:22 reminds us that non-inspired scripture can be used alongside scripture to express, support, and apply scriptural truth. d) It doesn’t matter that Athanasius was writing in the context of controversies and defending the orthodox faith. Using non-inspired writings that were read by your opponents to express and support the truth was good enough for Paul (Acts 17:28). Furthermore, Athanasius is not merely writing for the benefit of his opponents, but for Christians to read ‘over his shoulder’. Thus, Athanasius’s is still using them for the purpose of edification. e) The Jehovah Witnesses analogy is not water-tight. The arguments against Arianism were not simply from Deutero books. They were mainly from canonical books. The role of the Deuteros was to express and support the truth because they were still held in high regard by his opponents. It’s a bit like a Catholic referencing an ECF to back up their interpretation of the Bible against a Protestant. The ECF isn’t thought to be on the same level as inspired scripture, but still carries weight. It shows what has been believed in the past and strengthens the Catholic’s interpretation. And the Catholic references the ECF not just for the Protestant, but for his fellow Catholics to show them that they stand in the tradition of truth.

2. Athanasius clearly says that books in his 1st and 2nd division should be used differently. If Athanasius seemingly does not use them differently, then the burden is also on you to explain why. Now, maybe Athanasius was being inconsistent between theory and practice, or maybe he changed his mind about how they should be used by the time he wrote his 39th festal letter much later on. These are not my arguments, but they remain logical possibilities. However, as already outlined, looks can be deceiving (cf. 2Pet 2:22). I think Athanasius is simply using well known and useful ‘scripture’ to express and support the truth alongside inspired canonical scripture. To be sure, when Athanasius says his 2nd division books “have been prescribed [or appointed] by the ancestors to be read for those who newly join”, he is speaking about how to use them within a *church* context, while he himself was often using them in a different context. However, the principle behind both contexts is the same: Athanasius says of his 1st division books, “in these books *alone* the teaching of piety is proclaimed”, while his 2nd division books are only to be read for instruction in the word of piety. The 2nd division books take the teaching of piety from the 1st division books and illustrate it, exhort others to follow it, and apply it (which includes imitating how to observe wisdom). In regards to use within the church, I suggest the difference in function here is similar to the modern-day difference between scripture and a sermon/homily (whether spoken or written). One is the rule or measure of faith used to define doctrine, the other is the illustration, exhortation, and application of that rule/measure of faith for the purpose of instruction and edification. The sermon/homily is perfect as a way to express and support inspired scripture, and still caries some sort of authority because it is expressing and applying biblical truth, but is itself, not on the same level as inspired scripture. Please note, I am not saying the Deuteros are merely sermons or homilies. That would be to miss my point.

3. Your re-definition of ‘canon’ in Athanasius’s letter isn’t supported by the evidence. a) For instance, when the Council of Rome at a similar time, lists the Deutero books as part of the ‘canon’, it isn’t simply describing the books that are universally recognised—unless you want to say that either the Council or Athanasius got it very wrong which books were universally recognised. No, the Council is prescribing which books *should* be recognised as canon because they are believed to be inspired. It is a contrast to Athanasius. b) Likewise, Athanasius isn’t simply describing which books are universally accepted as inspired, but prescribing which books should be universally accepted since “in these books *alone* the teaching of piety is proclaimed”.

4. Likewise, Athanasius isn’t simply saying his 2nd division books are not universally accepted, and therefore, should only be used in-house in the church and not to confirm doctrine universally. a) If he was saying this, then you have implied that Athanasius used the Deuteros in the very way he prescribes against. b) If you think Athanasius is simply saying the 2nd division books aren’t universally accepted *by the church*, then you’re being inconsistent when you claim at least some of them were universally accepted. c) If you think Athanasius is saying that because the 2nd division books aren’t accepted *by the Jews* they shouldn’t be used in relation to evangelism, then it doesn’t make sense of why Athanasius instructs his readers to restrict their use *within* the church. d) In actual fact, Athanasius is implying the 2nd division books *shouldn’t* be canonised, since he has already said his 1st division books shouldn’t be added to. He clearly does not personally think them to be inspired, at least at this particular stage of his life.

5. There is no need to assume a conspiracy theory. With the gradual distancing of Christians from Jews and Jewish history, and the inclusion of different Deutero books in different Greek translations of the OT, it’s not hard to see the logical progression of then referring to particular Deuteros as ‘scripture’, to then thinking them to be inspired. While I believe the earliest evidence excludes the Deuteros from the canon, it is well recognised among many Catholic scholars that both traditions existed side by side from very early on, right up to the eve of the Reformation. Hence, as we move away from the Apostles in time, there arose accepted disagreement and ignorance over the OT canon among patristic Christians. And thus, there was no uproar when one or the other tradition was affirmed—except perhaps by those who were seeking to correct the other tradition. I have no intention of defending every ECF, but it’s hard to know what a particular ECF thought of a Deutero book simply because they referred to it as ‘scripture’. And likewise, when a particular Deutero book was said to be handed down and accepted by the whole church, it’s hard to know if they meant that it was accepted only as a 2nd division book, as people like Athanasius and Jerome maintain, or something more.

6. The quote from Jerome does not help your argument. His quote assumes that the Church does not admit Judith, Tobit, and Maccabees among the canonical scriptures. His quote also assumes that the Church only reads these books for edification purposes, and not to give authority to doctrines of the Church. Thus, Jerome cautions the church to read Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus in the same way. Why? Because, as explained above, it was easy to make the mistake of reading these non-canonical books as canonical scripture. Jerome is saying don’t make that mistake.

7. I stand by what I said on Hebrews 11. If you think all the “testimony” in 11:4-38 is preserved in the pages of scripture, then you would need to accept the Ascension of Isaiah, which preserves the testimony of Isaiah being sawed in two, and which is recognised by as many scholars who recognise 11:35b alludes to 2 Macc. I totally agree that 11:2 and 11:29 form an inclusio—of all those who are attested to (by God). But the point of 11:4-38 is not to say *where* these heroes are directly and divinely attested to (as is the case in 7:17 and 10:15). 11:4-38 simply records *why* they are attested to (i.e. because of their faith demonstrated by their deeds). If it was to show *where* they are attested to by God, then again, it would also need to include the Ascension of Isaiah. And since Hebrews is not showing *where* the heroes are attested to, there is no basis to assume they are exclusively biblical figures either. I can’t see that any of those commentators conclude that 2 Maccabees is inspired scripture? And if they don’t, then the real challenge is on you to understand why they don’t conclude that. It may be that you have either misunderstood or misrepresented what they are trying to say. In any case, I agree that Hebrews 11 gives a lovely summary of OT history and OT figures. However, I think it’s clear that Hebrews 11 is presenting *more* than that.

This debate has been very stimulating, and so thank you, and I hope to hear from you soon. Grace and peace.

[albertmaksel]

Great presentation, especially for text and canon geeks. Thanks

[jmschmitten]

To arrogantly speak on behalf of Latins, I am grateful to you both for your esteem-able irenicism.

[caleb.lindsay]

This is pretty awesome. Really enjoyed this. Always love your channel’s stuff anyway, but this was really a good little lecture of sorts.

[aGoyforJesus]

In a weird bit of providence, Steve Christie and I just recorded a video on the Cessation of Prophecy between the Old Testament and New Testament eras and its bearing on the topic. Hopefully out soon. I'll be watching your video at some point.

[jonbeazley]

Great stuff! I enjoyed this episode very much. 🙌🏻

[r.c.champagne]

This is one of the best cases for the Protestant Old Testament I have ever heard! I would put this up there with Calvin's argument for the self-attestation of scripture for the top 2 reasons to believe the Protestant Canon over the Catholic.

What I struggle with is this: if we are going to take the consensus/lowest common denominator of church history to determine the canon, why wouldn't we then use it to determine other doctrines?

My understanding is that there is a similar if not greater consensus on things like Baptismal Regeneration and the Real Presence among early church writers. It seems to me we ought to apply this principle to help us understand what we should believe today in other areas of doctrine.

I know it's beyond the scope of this interview but it's what makes it hard for me to fully accept the premise of this case for the Protestant Old Testament.

Dr. John and Gavin, if you have something on this (maybe it's in Theological Retrieval, Gavin) I'd be more than willing to try to understand it.

Thanks for both of your great work and charitable presentation!

[sonicrocks]

I am always amazed how both new and old testiment quote and use deutrocanon so much. From Paul to Revelation. Joining intertextual groups it isn't merely like once but up to hundred times a deutrocanon book is quoted. It is crazy how much the deutrocanon is quoted considering NT doesn't use much of Esther or Ruth

[AltonJ]

Great video! The guest's voice sounds like Jeff Durban

[nomir]

This is exactly what I have been looking for. Thank you.

[massimomollica]

@Text & Canon Institute
Thanks so much for this incredibile helpful interview. I apologize for writing so many months after the original video, but I just watched it. In about minute 39:07 Dr. Meade refers to an article that he said was helpful, I believe possibly in understanding some of the background history of the Council of Trent. Is it possible to get a reference or name for that article? Thanks.