The People's Court

I have some friends on Facebook (add me!). Many of them are Catholic, and there's this guy, Glenn Peoples, whom I've had some brief exchanges with. He's not a FB friend of mine, but we have a lot of mutual friends. I don't know much about him, but he seems like a nice and respectable dude (from exploring his website, I was impressed to see that he had too get through Edward Feser to receive his degree). So, on more than one occasion, I have seen him post this one post about the Canon when debating my Catholic friends. It's long, and somewhat detailed, and from what I can tell, none of my friends have bothered to actually respond to it. So, I put it off and put it on my list of things I've wanted to set aside some time for and respond to. Well, I found some time, and here it is.

Glenn makes his mission clear. He writes, 

“I’m going to simply demonstrate that there is an historical foundation within Christianity – indeed, within catholic Christianity – for the Canon that Protestants use. ... I’m not trying to convince you to accept my view of the canon. I’m only trying to show you that it is a view with roots that go all the way back....Remember that my objective is simply to show that in fact there is a very clear historical precedent for the canon used by Protestants.”

There are six, or so, reasons or evidences he gives for his position. 

#1: Lack of NT Quotation 

Glenn argues that lack of quotation from the Deuterocanon suggests, even if somewhat weakly, that it was not accepted. Granting for the sake of argument that it is true that the Deuterocanon is not quoted, yes, it is weak. I myself don't like playing the quoting game. As Glenn rightly notes, even pagans were quoted in Scripture, yet we don't take that an endorsement of inspiration. So, if quoting is not necessarily an endorsement of inspiration, then I'm not sure how not quoting it is a way of endorsing that it is not scripture. So, either way, it just doesn't seem to suggest anything. 

However, when Scripture in the New Testament quotes what it recognizes as scripture from the Old Testament, then that is significant, and we should never discount that if we want to maintain a proper view of scripture. And indeed there does seem to be times where the New Testament does quote, or at least make reference to, the deuterocanon. Like Glenn, I do not claim that these are definitive, but they do add some significance to the case. 

• Tobit 12:12 is referred to in Revelation 2:8-4. 
• Judith 6:19 parallels Luke 1:51-52 and Judith 8:32 parallels Luke 1:48, and these passages in Judith are more so significant because Judith seems to be a precursor to Mary. 
• Wisdom 2:12-20 is referred to in Matthew 27:41-44
• Sirach 27:6 is found in Matthew 7:16-20
• Maccabees is quoted in Hebrews, and here is a Protestant that finds this likely

Robert Sungenis, in his book Not By Scripture Alone, lists plenty more, but this sampling should suffice to show that it is certainly controversial that the NT never quotes from the Deuterocanon. 

#2: First and Last Martyrs 

Glenn presents Luke 11:49-51 as an endorsement of the Protestant canon. It reads, 

Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,’ so that the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be required of this generation.

The reasoning here is, Abel was the first person murdered in the Old Testament, and Zechariah was the last (the order isn't like the way we have it now. Glenn has a chart demonstrating the order of the Protestant canon, and I refer you to that to clarify the force of the argument), and this indicates a particular canon.

But Glenn recognizes an obvious problem with that, which is, in the parallel text in Matthew, the Zechariah there isn't identified as the same Zechariah that died in 2nd Chronicles. Matthew 23:35 reads, 

so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.

In order for Glenn's argument to go through, the Zechariah that this needs to be is the son of Jehoiada, not the son of Barachiah. But this is son of Barachiaha, not Jehoiada, so the argument doesn't work. Glenn has some attempts to explain this. 

First, he deals with a way that Catholics try to explain this, which is to say that this means this Zechariah died later, which puts the book in a different order, one similar to the Septuagint, and so defeats the ideas that this represents a protestant canon. I agree with Glenn that this doesn't seem too persuasive, but for different reasons. Glenn says that Zechariah of Barachiaha wasn't murdered, but this is a leap in logic, for Glenn says earlier in the same paragraph, "...there is no reference in Scripture or any other source to indicate that he was murdered in the temple." So, it's a fallacy of ignorance to say that we don't know how he died, so he wasn't murdered. 

I myself am not sure too sure of who this Zechariah is. Jesus names this Zechariah as the son of Barachiaha, however, strictly speaking, this does not seem identical to the other Zechariah that is often invoked, for he was the son of Berechiaha, which is a slightly different spelling of the name. Now, maybe this could be explained away by appealing to the languages and translations, but I think it's more than that, as there does seem to be a controversy among the Church fathers as to who this particular Zechariah was, so I remain agnostic about the issue. And because I remain agnostic, I cannot really say where this book belongs in the order of the canon. But all that aside, whomever he is, we know he is not the son of Jehoiada. 

Second, because the deaths of Abel and Zechariah son of Jehoiada seem to be similar, this lends credence, Glenn argues, that this is the Zechariah Matthew intends to communicate. This runs into an immediate problem, that Matthew is in error. Surprisingly, Glen bites the bullet! Glen denies inerrancy, which is not going to convince any faithful Catholic that there is a historical foundation for his view. It seems to be that the priorities here are just out of order. Why not just accept that this is not a reference to the canon, and fall back on some other argument for the protestant canon (and they are out there), and still hold onto inerrancy? 

Glenn considered one defense of this, which is the claim that since many people were named Zechariah, we shouldn't be surprised that there was more than one who died in such a manner. Glenn replies, 

Really? It’s not surprising that of maybe a couple of dozen people, two of them were prophets who were murdered in the temple? Just how common a fate are we supposed to think this is? But the problem of knowledge simply re-presents itself: Is there any evidence anywhere prior to this saying in Matthew’s Gospel that there was another Zechariah who died this way? There is not. This is a fairly contrived move to preserve the doctrine of inerrancy.

Actually, it was pretty common, and we do have sources prior to Matthew that confirm Zechariah of Barachiaha died in such a manner.

First, this is part of the rhetorical force of Jesus' point, that he had sent so many people only to have them be murdered by the people they were sent to communicate with. So, the immediate context suggests that these murders were in fact common.

Second, the Jewish historian Josephus describes the murder of another Zachariah, son of Baruch, as being murdered in the temple. He writes, 

And now these zealots and Idumeans were quite weary of barely killing men, so they had the impudence of setting up fictitious tribunals and judicatures for that purpose; and as they intended to have Zacharias the son of Baruch, one of the most eminent of the citizens, slain.... So two of the boldest of them fell upon Zacharias in the middle of the temple, and slew him; and as he fell down dead, they bantered him, and said, "Thou hast also our verdict, and this will prove a more sure acquittal to thee than the other." They also threw him down from the temple immediately into the valley beneath it.

Third, a rabbinical commentary used during the Second Temple period does in fact seem to record the death of Zechariah, son of Barachiaha dying this way. Chapter 2, verse 20 reads, 

Is it right to kill priest and prophet in the Temple of the LORD, as when you killed Zechariah son of Iddo, the High Priest and faithful prophet in the Temple of the Lord on the Day of Atonement because he admonished you not to do evil before the Lord?

Iddo was Zechariah's grandfather, and saying identifying him as his son was a common way ancients identified someone. So, this is the same Zechariah. Glenn says no such thing exists, a pre-Matthean source that shows Zechariah died in the Temple, yet here it is. 

The final appeal to make this Zechariah son of Jehoiada is that Jerome identifies him as so. And it seems he does (I looked for Jerome's commentary online, but couldn't find it). But as I will discuss later, Jerome was a weird dude. As Glenn notes, Jerome seems to try to correct what he finds is an error. But at least Jerome tries to do it while keeping inerrancy intact, by appealing to some language translation, and saying the two are in fact the same people. So, because it was an attempt to correct, it was a novelty. And because it was a novelty, it cannot be said that this is part of Catholic tradition, with roots going all the way back, which is what Glenn is trying to show. 

Grant, for the sake of argument that this is indeed the Zechariah Glenn believes it to be. If that were the case, would it mean that Jesus was endorsing this canon? Probably not. While controversies existed about the identity of this Zechariah, I don't recall there being a controversy as to whether or not this was a reference to the canon. And it seems like Jesus doesn't really settle the issue, when he could have. 

The Sadducees didn't believe in a resurrection, and held to a different canon of the Bible, that is, only the first five books of the Bible. Here's how it went down in Matthew 22:23-33, 

The same day Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection, and they asked him a question, saying, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies having no children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother.’ Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died, and having no offspring left his wife to his brother. So too the second and third, down to the seventh. After them all, the woman died. In the resurrection, therefore, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had her.” 

But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.” And when the crowd heard it, they were astonished at his teaching.

Here, Jesus could have said, "You know, if you just had the right books, like Daniel, you would see that there is a resurrection. So, just add it, and there's your resurrection. Q.E.D." But instead, Jesus says that they don't know the scriptures, and instead of correcting their canon, he uses Exodus, still within their own canon, which adds force to his reply. So, when in the next scene in the next chapter, he is confronted with the Pharisees, he is still using their own canon against them. So, even if this is reference to a canon, it doesn't necessarily endorse it.

#3: Melito

Glenn cites Melito as giving a protestant canon, and Melito is significant because he seems to be the first one to try to define a canon. So, if Melito gives a canon that is identical to the Protestant canon, then Glenn's claim that the protestant canon can be traced all the way back may have some merit. Unfortunately for Glenn, Melito doesn't give that canon, as even Glenn admits that Melito excludes Esther. Glenn tries to emphasize that there are no deuterocanonical books, but so what? That's not the aim of his post. His aim is to try to prove the roots of the protestant canon, not disprove the deuterocanon. 

But maybe Melito does list a deuterocanonical book, which is Wisdom. Glenn tries to dismiss it as some explanatory note to Proverbs, but even some protestants don't find that convincing. 

#4 Origen 

Glenn cites Origen, but he cites him as a Church Father, and this isn't entirely correct. As Jimmy Akin explains, he was not a Church Father, though he was very influential. This is significant because if it were to be shown that Origen gives a protestant canon, this would count for little as he is not counted among the tradition and died in a state that casts doubts as to whether he is was in grace. 

Glenn notes that in the list set forth by Origen, "the epistle" refers to the letter of Jeremiah, which is regarded as the last chapter of Baruch. So if there is a deuterocanonical book in Origen's list, it can't be considered as evidence for a historical protestant canon. Further, Origen seems to include Maccabees in his list. Glenn doesn't think so. 

If Glenn says there are twenty two books, and recognizes only twenty one are listed, then why not accept Maccabees as the twenty second book? That would make sense, and you don't have to believe there is an error. Although, I have a feeling that if Glenn is willing to deny inerrancy, he will have no more a problem here in not giving the benefit of the doubt to the writer. I think it is better to assume one has not made a mistake, but I suppose that's another issue. 

Also, if Glenn wants us to believe that Maccabees was not intended to be included in this list, then why give the Hebrew name for it, Sarbeth Sabanaiel? After all, Origen is trying to hand down the Hebrew scriptures, so it seems unlikely that he would not consider them canonical, then list it, and then give the Hebrew name for it. 

Finally, there is an inconsistency in Glenn's use of "besides" to distinguish Maccabees as non-canonical. Glenn says that Origen separates Maccabees from the canon by preceding it with, "Besides these...". However, in his next appeal of Athanasius, Athanasius uses the same phrase, "And besides, the Revelation of John." But Glenn accepts the Revelation of John as canonical, presumably. So, which is it? If Origen excludes Maccabees, then Athanasius excludes Revelation. If Athanasius includes Revelation, then Origen includes Maccabees. Either Origen excludes Maccabees or Athanasius includes Revelation, therefore either Athanasius excludes Revelation or Origen includes Maccabees. 

So, because Origen counts the concluding epistle of Baruch, and probably includes Maccabees, this isn't a root for the protestant canon, if Origen could even be properly counted as part of the Christian tradition. 

#5: Athanasius

Athanasius is cited, and already Glenn, in his admirable efforts to be objective and fair, sees that Baruch may be cited as canonical. This is likely since I mentioned with Origen, the Epistle refers to the last chapter of Baruch. And in fact, it seems like Glenn actually admits as much in a comment in response to another commentator. That commentator Glenn was responding to also notes, correctly, that Esther was excluded. And indeed she is, and explicitly so, and Glenn quotes the relevant section for that. Glenn tries to explain this by saying there is more than one version of Esther. Okay, so which was Athanasius excluding? If there was a difference, why didn't Athanasius make that clear and include it in the canon? Whether or not there were alternate versions, we should still expect the genuine version on his list, yet we don't. So, once again, we do not have a protestant canon in history, which is what Glenn is trying to show. 

There are other comments Glenn makes about Sola Scriptura, and while they're interesting and probably deserve a response, it's just not what I'm here to do. But I do acknowledge he made these points, and I don't want the reader to think I'm just ignoring it. 

#6: Jerome 

Jerome excludes anything that isn't Hebrew, which is, really, more or less what the protestant canon is all about. But as Glenn has reminded us a few times already, some different versions were out there. So, were there any Catholic versions that Jerome endorsed? It seems so. Jerome endorses the longer Catholic version of Daniel. In his reply to his friend Rufinus, he writes, 

We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches (emphasis mine)? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us.

There are two points to be made here. First, as I said, Jerome defended the use of the longer Catholic version of Daniel, which is enough to say he didn't endorse the protestant canon which means no root for the canon can be found here. Second, even as Jerome held his own personal opinion, he still deferred to the authority of the church. And if he deferred to the authority of the Church, he would want us to disregard his own views in favor of what the Church had taught. 

In retrospect, we see his wisdom. In a reply to Rufinus, he writes, 

Wherever the Seventy agree with the Hebrew, the apostles took their quotations from that translation; but, where they disagree, they set down in Greek what they had found in the Hebrew. And further, I give a challenge to my accuser. I have shown that many things are set down in the New Testament as coming from the older books, which are not to be found in the Septuagint; and I have pointed out that these exist in the Hebrew. Now let him show that there is anything in the New Testament which comes from the Septuagint but which is not found in the Hebrew, and our controversy is at an end.

And so, the controversy is at an end because we do find such examples, like in Hebrews 10:5-7, and a few others examples laid out here. So, we see now why Jerome preferred the Hebrew bible, and we now know he was in error in doing so. Despite not being justified in his beliefs, and not seeing what was wrong with them, still, he leaned on the wisdom of the church, preferring their position over his own. Why? Because of history. Sure, we look back and think of Jerome as history, but Jerome himself knew that the church believed what it did because it was part of the deposit of faith, that is, it was rooted in tradition. It is strange to view Jerome as part of history, of held beliefs in defiance of the church he remained obedient to. He himself tried to be obedient to the church and what it had always believed. A faith seeking understanding sort of thing, I suppose. 

Glenn goes on to criticize the claim that the Church confirms what it always believed. There's a lot to be said there, but that's not the point of the post. Remember, Glenn's main point is to show that there is a historical root or foundation for the protestant bible. And it was my job here to show that his examples showed no such thing. Sure, there can be controversies about whether or not the Catholic canon was indeed the same throughout history, but what cannot be said is that there was, at some time, a protestant canon. That does indeed seem like a novelty of the 16th century.  

A big shout out to the Shameless Popery blog, which was able to supply, through multiple posts, most of the information here.