"Romerica" or America, the Reincarnation of Rome

The period of Roman expansion began in the 3rd century BCE—but the height of their magnificent imperialism was cresting immediately proceeding and occurring during the life of history’s most famous carpenter, Jesus Christ. One cannot possibly begin to understand Jesus and His message without first familiarizing themselves with the religious/historical/political culture into which he was born.

As I was getting to know this setting via L. Michael White’s From Jesus to Christianity, I felt a strange connection with this ancient force. After contemplation, I realized I knew the Roman Empire in reincarnated form…America. I was excited. Keep in mind, I am no historian. So seeing this correlation was exciting to me. But alas, the bubble burst in conversation with a friend. As I shared my “findings,” my friend pointed out that a book had already been written on the subject—the book (unread by this blogger) will be the first book tackled by the up-and-coming Ivan’s Book club (see previous post).

A few initial observations:
The Romans insisted upon occupation of the “world.” The Greek term for the Roman Empire was oikoumene—lit. world. The US has more embassies than any other nation. Our present is felt nearly everywhere under the auspice of “keeping the peace,” rather than, “imperialism.”
The Romans allowed and encouraged syncretism of seemingly contradictory cultures (art, language, religion). Had the term “melting pot” existed at the dawn of the first millennia, the Romans would have cherished and employed as national policy.
Nothing solidified the correlation more than Roman foreign policy; at least the public portrayal thereof. What follows is an example of one of many inscriptions prominent throughout the Roman Empire during the reign of Augustus. These inscriptions were found on statues of the great leader. Consider them, “political ad campaigns,” or “the Emperor’s address to the nation,” in ancient form:

On land and sea I undertook wars, both civil and foreign,
throughout the whole world, and when victorious I spared all citizens who sued for pardon. Foreign nations what could safely be pardoned I preferred to save rather than destroy.

When I returned from Spain and Gaul, in the consulship
of Tiberius Nero and Publius Quintilius, after successful operations in those provinces, the senate voted in honor of my return the consecration of an altar to Pax Augustus in the
Campus Martius, and on this altar if ordered the magistrates and priests and Vestal Virgins to make annual sacrifice.
[The temple of] Janus Quirinus (gate keeper of “times’, so to speak) which our ancestors ordered to be closed whenever there was peace, secured by victory, throughout the whole imperium of
the Roman people on land and sea, and which, before my birth is recorded to have been closed but twice since
the very foundation of the city, the senate ordered closed three times while I was princeps.
I extended the boundaries of all the provinces that were
bordered by races not yet subject to our imperium. The
provinces of the Gauls, Spain, and Germany I reduced to a state of peace.
The Alps I brought to state of peace without waging unjust
war on any tribe.
When I had extinguished the flames of civil
war, after receiving by universal consent the absolute control
of public affairs, I transformed the republic from my own control the
will of the senate and Roman people. For this service I was given decree of the senate title Augustus, and the doorposts
of my house were covered with laurels by public act, and a civic crown was fixed above my door, and a
golden shield was placed in the curia Julia, the inscription on which
testified that the senate and roman people gave me this
recognition in honor of my valor, my clemency, my justice, and my
piety. (White, 43-44)

Wow. Read this. Reread this. Preemptive strikes to secure world peace and democracy? Stepping in to settle foreign civil wars? Extending boundaries unselfishly (enculturation of foreign races for their own good—for peace?

Sounds a lot like America, post industrial revolution! What a heritage...But Rome fell.

Canonical Dilemma III

Luther was no slouch…after all, he was a catholic. He was trained as a monk, knew his biblical languages…in fact, he translated all of scripture including the seven extra books Trent affirmed. Luther knew the history of the formation of venerable books better than I ever will. Luther loved God. Luther loved the Roman Catholic Church, thus the term “reformer.” Luther had no intentions of starting a new branch of Christianity called Protestantism. In seminary I grew to love the quirky Luther. My major, Biblical Languages would have been right up the alley of the guy who coined the term Sola Scriptura…certainly that guy had strong historical and intellectual reasons for breaking from tradition.

In Canonical Dilemma II I focuses primarily on the councils of the RCC and not much on the individuals that led up to them, simply with the assumption that the individuals (church fathers) formed the historical premise for combating heresy at each occasion.

But there are discrepancies, and Luther knew this. The generation or two following the earthly life of Jesus accepted the Old Testament as scripture, but certainly not the New Testament. How could they? It had not yet been compiled. Books found within the New Testament certainly were used and taught…but so were books not included in the New Testament canon accepted by the RCC (Hermas, Barnabas, Didache, and 1 and 2 Clement, to name a few). So if figures early in the history of the Christian church, the church fathers, who, mind you were a part of the catholic (lit. greek, according to the whole) and not the RCC, and even some apologists who followed this group of men who directly connect the church with apostles could have made some mistakes about the New Testament (which were eventually corrected by the RCC) couldn’t they have made mistakes as well regarding the Old Testament?

In 1534 Luther finished his copy of scripture. His copy was similar to ours today, except the apocryphal books were placed after the Old Testament as an appendix with a note stating that these books were held as not equal to scripture, but valuable to read. Trent, the council that OFFICIALLY canonized what the RCC would hitherto call scripture, did not occur until 1545-1563.

Before Luther RCC scholars had called into question the legitimacy of the same books Luther had. Desiderius Eerasmus had his own doubts, and was even vocal about them. The difference being Erasmus did not take issue with the church, nor have a following of unruly seminary students rallying behind him like Luther had. There are circles of thought out there that suggest that Luther, had it not been for Zwingli and Calvin, would have promoted his canon with the apocrypha.

Why Luther ultimately decided the seven apocryphal books were substandard to the rest of scripture.

1) They added nothing new to
developing themes throughout scripture.
2) Luther interpreted scripture through Christological lenses…if any book of the
Bible did not have overwhelming historical acceptance AND distorted the Christ
event and the intertwined grace, it was on thin
ice.
3) They promoted ideas/practices that
disagree with scripture as a whole.
I can sympathize with points one and two,
but three, if taken seriously, would decimate many books accepted by Luther and
Trent. (i.e. the proto Gnostic tendencies of John).

I could go on forever, but this is a blog post, not a dissertation. Where am I left personally when it comes to this canonical conundrum? Only time, study, and dependence on the Holy Spirit will tell.

Canonical Dilemma II

Recapping the previous blog: as an evangelical protestant I have taken for granted the formation of the sole foundation of my faith—the Bible. As an evangelical protestant I have hypocritically disdained tradition/oral tradition. Why is this hypocritical? Because as I mentioned yesterday, Jesus, the One upon which Christianity is based, never gave me, nor any of His early followers a list of canonical books. In fact, the recountings of Jesus life, the gospels, were written after the majority of the New Testament. So, inadvertently in my ignorance, I have relied on tradition, actions of men, to decipher what writings belong in the book I call the Bible. I will be focusing on the two main streams of Christianity and their canons: Protestantism and Catholicism (hereafter, RCC).

There are two preconceived ideas on canonization that may be false:

1) Martin Luther wished to purge the RCC of
practices that were clearly unbiblical, i.e. praying for the dead. The
RCC, in order to justify these practices added books to the canon at the Council
of Trent to justify such practices. 2 Maccabees 12:38-46 justifies praying
for the dead. How many times have you heard that the RCC canon has “extra”
books. Josh McDowell on this subject: It cannot be overemphasized
that the Roman Catholic Church itself did not officially declare these books
Holy Scripture until 1545-1563 at the Council of Trent. The acceptance of
certain books in the apocrypha as canonical by the RCC was to a great extent a
reaction to the Protestant Reformation. By canonizing these books, they
were able to legitimize their reference to them in doctrinal
matters.
2) The early RCC decided to close the
canon and allow only the book of the Bible as they appear in the protestant
canon. Later, the RCC reneged and allowed the seven extra books to be
included.

Books, volumes…libraries have been written on this subject. I will only be scratching the surface of this historical giant as I give a brief history of the formation of the canon up to Luther, and let me forewarn you, it will be disorganized.

Did a reactionary RCC have to defend their doctrine and thus canonize illegitimate books (Trent)? Well, the reactionary part is true. Isn’t this what councils always served as? Protestants (most) accept every council as God ordained. The reactionary Council of Nicaea had to settle Alexandrian schism between Arius and Athanasius. This council affirmed what the catholic church had always held as truth. Nicea did not “add” anything new to belief and practice. The function of Trent was exactly the same as Nicea. It did not add to the cannon, just affirmed that the cannon was not going to change for the RCC as it did for Luther.

So this seven book heavier canon existed before Trent? F.F. Bruce (conservative, evangelical, protestant scholar) in “The Canon of Scripture”

In 405 AD Pope Inocent I embodied a list of canonical books in a letter
addressed to Exsuperius, bishop of Toulouse; it too included the
Apocrypha. The 6th Council of Carthage (419AD) Re-enacted the ruling of
the 3rd Council, again with the inclusion of the apocryphal
books…
The
6th Council of Carthage repromulgated (in canon 24) the resolution of the 3rd
council regarding the canon of scripture, and added a note directing that the
resolution be sent to the bishop of Rome (Boniface I) and other Bishops:
‘Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to
other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon [canon 47
of the 3rd council], because we have received from our fathers that these books
which are to be read in church.

Now, let’s go to the Council of Florence…41 years BEFORE the birth of Martin Luther, 75 years BEFORE the Protestant Reformation. Here is what the council decreed before the hint of a schism arose:

This sacred ecumenical council of Florence…professes that one and
the same God is the author of the OT and the NT—that is, the law and the
prophets, and the gospel—since the saints of both testaments spoke under the
inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates (see here Pete,
they VENERATE it. Because a controversy has not arisen like that of
Luther, there is no need for the church ‘canonize’) their books as
follows. Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 4 books of kings [1&2 Samuel, 1&2
Kings], two of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of
David, Proverbs, Ecclesiaties, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezzekiel, Daniel; The 12 minor prophets and the 2 books of
Maccabees, (then they go on to name all 27 books of the NT.

The Synod of Hippo, also ruled pre-Luther in favor of these books as inspired and venerable. Are you noticing a pattern here? Just like the councils of Florence and Trent, the Synod of Hippo also included the “deuterocanonical” books as books of the “canon”. In case you are keeping track, this synod published its canon of Scripture 1,086 year BEFORE Luther was born, 1,120 years BEFORE he nailed his 95 Theses to Castle Church, and 1,149 years BEFORE the council of Trent that supposedly manipulated scripture to accommodate doctrine.

What about the Jewish OT…it doesn’t have the seven extra books.

However, one group of Jews rejected Jesus. The other group openly accepted Him as their Messiah and became members of the growing sect not yet termed Christianity. The Hebrew Canon of the majority of today’s Jews is the canon that was settled upon by a group of Rabbis meeing in Jamnia {or Javneh} in 90 AD (hmmm…pretty close to the explosion of Christianity). However, these rabbis were exclusively those who rejected Jesus. Keep in mind, MANY Christian Jews maintained their ties with their community and heritage. This same group also rejected the NT. At this same meeting all present were required to curse the name of Jesus Christ. The other group of Jews, Christians, ACCETPED THE DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS AS EQUALLY INSPIRED. This can be seen in their writings where they quote from these books and call them HOLY SCRIPTURE. This begs the question—“Do I look to the Jews, the Scribes and Pharisees, who did not recognize the Incarnated Word of God when He walked in their midst? Do I trust these people to tell me what the inspired written word of God is? Or, do I trust the witness of the early church. Or, did God give Luther insight to save is Bride from unfaithfulness?

Love or hate the RCC, the institution can and, in my humble opinion, be seen as God’s tool for sustaining His people from 313 till, depending on your viewpoint, at least the day a passionate monk with grace flowing through his enraged veins nailed a series of theses to an unsuspecting church door. This institution is a witness. If I accept Nicea, I must at least consider Trent and the historical backdrop of its outcome.

Canonical Dilemma

This blog will be the first in a small series of at least three blogs on a subject near and dear to my heart. I have a feeling some might lose interest—or may not take interest at all for that matter. So, if that happens to be you, check back in a few days. So, let me dig into this topic by means of introduction.

I remember when I first was confronted with that uncomfortable uncertainty that can only come when one realizes they may have based their life on error/ignorance. I had just met The Surveyor. It had to be two in the morning, and we were flexing our hermeneutical muscles. Actually, The Surveyor was firing off problem texts and I was doing my best to make sense of them. He mentioned he preferred to use the New Revised Standard Version of scripture. Apart from my Nestle-Aland GNT, I tended to side with the New American Standard Version. The most observable difference between the two: the NRSV contains the “extra” apocryphal works. Since then my growing unrest with theories of canonization has only gotten stronger.

Why? Besides the fact that I had just spent six years immersed in this text, learning the intricacies of its original languages, as a protestant, my theological matrix is shaped by reverence for this book we call that Bible—from the Greek, biblios, meaning book. Simply put, I as a protestant don’t accept the authority of the pope. Instead, as a rebellious offspring of Martin Luther, I accept the authority of scripture, and my God-given right to interpret it—Solo Scriptura (lit. scripture only).

I would be willing to guess that most of you reading this sing the same reformed tune. So let me pose a few hypotheticals: How did you get your Bible? Why is the Protestant canon of scripture right, and the Catholic canon wrong? Who gave us our canon?

Here is the dilemma…we (I) base our belief system on Sola Scriptura, and we are sure our Bible is the right Bible, but we no clue why. We don’t know how it was compiled, or what governing bodies handed it down to us. Certainly Jesus didn’t! If I am going to base my life on a book, namely the protestant canon, I had better make sure it is the right canon. I had better be sure that I am not missing out by neglecting the apocryphal books. By the way, I read 4 Maccabees 1 today, my inspiration for this blog.