Responding to Wes Huff on the Canon - CourtneyR.dev's 2nd Brain

Responding to Wes Huff on the Canon ![rw-book-cover](https://img.youtube.com/vi/fWAHHS-c5Oo/maxresdefault.jpg) 🔗 **Source:** [Responding to Wes Huff on the Canon](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWAHHS-c5Oo) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: #biblical-canon #septuagint #dead-sea-scrolls #early-christianity #textual-criticism > author: [MISSING] > source: YouTube > reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWAHHS-c5Oo > date created: 2024-12-28 21:30 > > # 🏷️ Title: Responding to Wes Huff on the canon >  ## 🧰 Action Inbox - [H1] Investigate manuscript evidence for First Enoch and Jubilees in Dead Sea Scrolls — academic research needed #textual-criticism - [H2] Compare early church fathers' positions on Septuagint authority — patristic study #early-christianity - [H3] Examine Ethiopian Orthodox canon development — historical analysis #biblical-canon ## 🧭 Table of Contents - [[#📝 Summary]] - [[#📖 Main Content]] - [[#🗒️ Notes]] - [[#📚 References]] - [[#🗣️ Paraphrase]] - [[#📰 Newsletter]] - [[#✅ Action Items]] - [[#🧪 Hypotheses]] - [[#📊 Methodology]] - [[#❓ Questions]] - [[#🔮 Future Research]] - [[#💡 Implications]] - [[#🧠 Learning Styles Assessment]] - [[#📊 Accessibility Assessment]] - [[#🌍 DEIB Assessment]] - [[#✅ Logical Validity]] - [[#🛡️ DARVO Analysis]] - [[#🎯 Conclusion]] ### 🔗 References - [Responding to Wes Huff on the canon](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWAHHS-c5Oo) ## 📝 Summary - A biblical scholar responds to Wes Huff's arguments about biblical canon formation, challenging claims about the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls - The video critiques Huff's sectarian rather than academic approach to determining scriptural authority - Key issues include the complexity of Septuagint manuscript traditions, evidence for broader canons in early Judaism and Christianity - The speaker argues against Huff's claim that Jewish canon was settled by the first century CE - Bottom line: Canon formation was a complex, contested process extending well into the early centuries CE ## 📖 Main Content The speaker challenges Wes Huff's arguments about biblical canon, particularly regarding the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls. The core dispute centers on whether these collections prove certain texts were considered scripture by ancient Jews and early Christians. The Septuagint, contrary to popular assumption, was not a single, clearly defined collection but varied significantly across manuscripts. The great uncial codices (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus) from the 4th century CE show different contents, particularly regarding the books of Maccabees. Regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls, the speaker notes that texts like First Enoch and Jubilees appear in more manuscripts than many accepted biblical books, suggesting these communities considered them authoritative. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church, whose canon likely derives from early Septuagint traditions, includes both texts as scripture. The scholarly consensus contradicts Huff's claim that Jewish canon was settled by the first century CE, with most experts dating canonization to the 2nd-5th centuries CE. ## 🗒️ Notes #### ⏱️ [00:00](https://youtu.be/fWAHHS-c5Oo?t=0) — [H1] Misconception about Dead Sea Scrolls and Septuagint - Key idea: Being in these collections doesn't automatically make something scripture - Evidence: "It's in the Dead Sea Scrolls, therefore it is scripture" is oversimplified #### ⏱️ [01:30](https://youtu.be/fWAHHS-c5Oo?t=90) — [H2] Sectarian vs Academic Arguments - Key idea: Huff presents dogmatic rather than scholarly arguments about canon - Evidence: "What actually is scripture" implies detectable qualities rather than community consensus #### ⏱️ [02:45](https://youtu.be/fWAHHS-c5Oo?t=165) — [H1] Septuagint is not a single collection - Key idea: No unified "Septuagint" existed in antiquity as a clearly delineated collection - Evidence: Legend of Aristeas only refers to Torah, not entire Hebrew Bible #### ⏱️ [04:20](https://youtu.be/fWAHHS-c5Oo?t=260) — [H2] Great uncial codices show variation - Key idea: 4th century manuscripts contain different apocryphal books - Evidence: Sinaiticus has 1st and 4th Maccabees, Vaticanus has none, Alexandrinus has all four #### ⏱️ [06:15](https://youtu.be/fWAHHS-c5Oo?t=375) — [H1] First Enoch and Jubilees manuscript evidence - Key idea: These texts appear more frequently in Dead Sea Scrolls than many canonical books - Evidence: "More manuscripts than 34 or 35 other books of the Hebrew Bible" #### ⏱️ [08:30](https://youtu.be/fWAHHS-c5Oo?t=510) — [H2] Tertullian's defense of First Enoch - Key idea: Early church fathers explicitly defended non-canonical texts as scripture - Evidence: Tertullian argues for First Enoch's scriptural status in "On the Apparel of Women" #### ⏱️ [10:45](https://youtu.be/fWAHHS-c5Oo?t=645) — [H3] Ethiopian Orthodox canon includes disputed texts - Key idea: Some Christian communities preserved broader canons including First Enoch - Evidence: Ethiopian church canon likely based on early Septuagint manuscripts #### ⏱️ [12:20](https://youtu.be/fWAHHS-c5Oo?t=740) — [H1] Scholarly consensus on canon dating - Key idea: Jewish canon not settled until 2nd-5th centuries CE, contrary to Huff's claims - Evidence: "Strong majority of scholars" reject first-century canonization #### ⏱️ [15:10](https://youtu.be/fWAHHS-c5Oo?t=910) — [H2] Huff's rhetorical strategy with Maccabees books - Key idea: Argument about 3rd and 4th Maccabees is sectarian, not academic - Evidence: "You're a hypocrite" approach rather than engaging on merits #### ⏱️ [18:45](https://youtu.be/fWAHHS-c5Oo?t=1125) — [H3] Special pleading in First Enoch arguments - Key idea: Huff applies different standards to exclude First Enoch than to include canonical texts - Evidence: Quotation standards never applied to accepted biblical books #### ⏱️ [22:30](https://youtu.be/fWAHHS-c5Oo?t=1350) — [H2] Library analogy critique - Key idea: Great uncial codices were carefully curated, not random collections - Evidence: "Very carefully chosen and very meticulously transcribed in expensive process" #### ⏱️ [25:15](https://youtu.be/fWAHHS-c5Oo?t=1515) — [H1] Apocrypha woven into Hebrew Bible - Key idea: Apocryphal texts integrated into scriptural collections, not separate - Evidence: Texts "woven into the Hebrew Bible" in early manuscripts ## 📚 References - [Responding to Wes Huff on the canon](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWAHHS-c5Oo) - Letter of Aristeas (legendary account of Septuagint translation) - Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus - Tertullian's "On the Apparel of Women" ## 🗣️ Paraphrase - The traditional view that biblical canon was settled early and uniformly is historically inaccurate based on manuscript evidence - Different ancient communities preserved different collections of texts they considered authoritative scripture - Modern debates about canon often impose later dogmatic categories onto ancient literary collections that were more fluid ## 📰 Newsletter Biblical canon formation was far messier than many assume! New research into ancient manuscripts reveals that early Jewish and Christian communities disagreed significantly about which books counted as scripture. The famous Septuagint wasn't a single collection but varied between manuscripts, and texts like First Enoch appear more frequently in the Dead Sea Scrolls than many books we consider canonical today. This reminds us that determining religious authority involves ongoing community discernment rather than discovering pre-existing categories. Resources: [Digital Dead Sea Scrolls](https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/), [Early Christian Writings](http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/), [Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts](https://www.csntm.org/) ## ✅ Action Items #### DevRel - Education: Workshop on manuscript traditions and textual criticism methods - Community management: Moderate discussions about religious authority claims #### Community - Contributors: Source criticism training for evaluating historical claims - Ecosystem: Cross-traditional dialogue on authority and canon ## 🧪 Hypotheses - Early Jewish and Christian communities had more diverse scriptural canons than later standardization suggests - Manuscript frequency in collections correlates with perceived textual authority - Geographic isolation preserved alternative canonical traditions (Ethiopian Orthodox example) - Sectarian arguments about canon often misrepresent academic consensus ### 📊 Methodology - Manuscript analysis: Compare contents across early codices and scroll collections - Patristic survey: Catalog early church fathers' references to disputed texts as scripture - Citation frequency: Count manuscript copies as proxy for community valuation ### ❓ Questions - How do we distinguish between texts valued for historical vs scriptural reasons in ancient collections? - What explains the persistence of broader canons in certain Christian traditions? - How should modern communities navigate competing claims about ancient scriptural authority? ### 🔮 Future Research - Digital humanities analysis of citation patterns across early Christian literature - Comparative study of canon formation across religious traditions - Investigation of transmission routes for alternative canonical traditions ### 💡 Implications - Practice: Approach canonical debates with awareness of historical complexity - Education: Teach nuanced understanding of ancient textual authority - Policy: Avoid oversimplified claims about "what ancient people believed" - Funding: Support interdisciplinary manuscript and historical studies ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment Reading level estimate: 14-16 (Graduate level) #### 👀 Visual learners - Present: References to specific manuscripts and codices - Improve: Manuscript comparison charts, timeline of canon development #### 🔊 Aural learners - Present: Video format with detailed verbal explanations - Improve: Podcast version with enhanced audio quality #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - Present: Technical terminology explained with examples - Improve: Glossary of manuscript and canonical terms #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - Present: Step-by-step argument analysis - Improve: Interactive manuscript comparison tools #### 🧠 Logical learners - Present: Systematic critique of opposing arguments - Improve: Decision trees for evaluating canonical claims #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - Present: Scholarly debate and dialogue format - Improve: Discussion guides for study groups #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - Present: Self-contained argument structure - Improve: Reflection questions on authority and tradition #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - Present: Historical development and evolution of ideas - Improve: Ecosystem metaphors for textual transmission ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment #### Screen reader semantics - Present: Clear verbal presentation in video - Improve: Structured transcript with proper headings #### Keyboard navigation - Present: Standard video player controls - Improve: Chapter markers for navigation #### Contrast and readability - Present: Clear audio narration - Improve: High-contrast transcript formatting #### Text resizing and reflow - Present: Scalable video player - Improve: Responsive transcript layout #### Media and captions - Present: Full transcript provided - Improve: Synchronized captions with timestamps #### Forms and interactions - Present: Basic video controls - Improve: Accessible annotation system ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth - Present: References to Ethiopian Orthodox tradition - Improve: More diverse Christian and Jewish traditions #### Inclusive language - Present: Academic rather than sectarian terminology - Improve: Define technical terms for broader audience #### Neurodiversity support - Present: Systematic argument structure - Improve: Visual argument mapping, shorter segments #### Representation - Present: Focus on historical evidence over identity - Improve: Acknowledge diverse scholarly perspectives #### Psychological safety - Present: Respectful critique of opposing views - Improve: Community guidelines for religious discussions ### ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - Deductive strength: Manuscript evidence clearly contradicts uniform canon claims - Inductive strength: Multiple examples build case for canonical diversity - Causal reasoning: Links manuscript practices to community beliefs about authority - Analogical strength: Library analogy effectively illustrates manuscript curation #### Fallacies - Ad hominem: Occasional personal criticism of Huff rather than focusing purely on arguments - False analogy: Huff's library comparison doesn't account for manuscript curation processes #### Tone of voice - Overall tone: Academic but passionate, occasionally dismissive of opposing scholar ### 🛡️ DARVO Analysis - Deny: No significant denial patterns - Attack: Mild attacks on Huff's scholarly competence rather than arguments - Reverse victim/offender: No victim/offender reversal present - Emotional cues and rhetoric: Passionate defense of academic standards against dogmatic claims ## 🎯 Conclusion The formation of biblical canon was a complex, contested process extending well beyond the first century CE. Modern arguments about scriptural authority often impose later dogmatic categories onto ancient collections that were more fluid and diverse. Scholars should engage this complexity honestly rather than retrofitting evidence to support predetermined theological positions. The manuscript evidence suggests early Jewish and Christian communities maintained significantly more diverse understandings of scriptural authority than later standardization might suggest. ## 🧱 Refactor Appendix ### 📚 Literature Split Pad Purpose: Stage CEE units that become Literature notes. Split level: H3 ### [H1] Septuagint manuscript traditions varied significantly across early codices > [!quote] [Responding to Wes Huff on the canon](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWAHHS-c5Oo) by [MISSING] via YouTube. Published [MISSING]. Accessed 2024-12-28. > "Codex Sinaiticus has first and fourth Maccabees, Vaticanus has none, Alexandrinus has all four." Evidence contradicts claims of uniform early Septuagint tradition. [view highlight](https://youtu.be/fWAHHS-c5Oo?t=260#H1) #textual-criticism #septuagint ID:rw_[MISSING] ### [H2] First Enoch manuscript frequency exceeds many canonical books > [!quote] [Responding to Wes Huff on the canon](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWAHHS-c5Oo) > "More manuscripts of First Enoch found than 34 or 35 books of Hebrew Bible." Dead Sea Scrolls community valued certain non-canonical texts highly. [view highlight](https://youtu.be/fWAHHS-c5Oo?t=375#H2) #dead-sea-scrolls ID:rw_[MISSING] --- ### 🔖 Atomic Split Pad (Zettel Candidates) Purpose: Promote reusable claims into Atomic notes. Split level: H4 #### [Z1] Canon formation extended well beyond first century CE - Contradicts fundamentalist claims about early closure - Timestamp: 12:20 and throughout video - Links: [[Textual-Criticism]] [[Early-Christianity]] #### [Z2] Manuscript curation differs from random collection - Great uncials represent careful selection, not accident - Timestamp: 22:30 - Links: [[Manuscript-Tradition]] [[Biblical-Authority]] --- ### ✏️ Fleeting Queue Purpose: Capture quick actions for Fleeting notes. - [F1] Research --- ## Full Transcript [00:00] I want to clear up a misconception that [00:01] I keep seeing online when I see people [00:03] talk about the Septuagent and the Dead [00:05] Sea Scrolls. [00:06] >> All right, let's see it. [00:08] >> Because I've seen at least three videos [00:10] today that have said things like it's in [00:12] the Dead Sea Scrolls, therefore it is [00:14] scripture. You don't have it in your [00:16] Bible. Therefore, you're excluding what [00:18] the ancient Jews thought was scripture. [00:19] And you're picking, you're editing, you [00:22] are choosing and selectively putting [00:24] together what you want to be scripture [00:26] rather than what actually is scripture. [00:28] So the way Wes is presenting this claim, [00:30] it does not sound like it is an academic [00:32] argument. It sounds like it is a [00:34] sectarian argument, a dogmatic argument. [00:37] Academics usually don't talk about what [00:40] actually is scripture that makes it [00:42] sound like there is some kind of quality [00:44] that is possessed by books that are [00:47] actually scripture that we have some way [00:49] of detecting or determining or [00:52] measuring. And the simple fact is that [00:54] we do not. All determinations of what [00:57] actually is scripture are going to be [00:59] dogmatic claims are going to be based on [01:01] the consensus of a specific congregation [01:05] or religious community or social [01:07] identity. So right off the bat, Wes [01:10] doesn't seem to be presenting an [01:11] academic argument and I imagine is not [01:14] going to be responding in an academic [01:16] way but is going to be responding in [01:19] kind in a sectarian way. Now before [01:22] moving on I want to address this [01:23] reference to the Septuagent and the Dead [01:26] Sea Scrolls and the claim that if it's [01:29] in the Dead Sea Scrolls or the [01:30] Septuagent then it's scripture. This is [01:33] a rather naive claim and the features of [01:37] the collection of texts we call the Dead [01:39] Sea Scrolls and the collection of texts [01:40] we call the Septuagent are very very [01:42] different. Uh, and there are a lot of [01:44] things that are in the Dead Sea Scrolls [01:47] that I think even the people who [01:48] collected the Dead Sea Scrolls wouldn't [01:50] say they considered scripture. But [01:53] there's no such thing as the Septuagent [01:56] in the sense of a clearly delineated [01:59] collection of ancient Greek translations [02:01] of the Hebrew Bible that everybody [02:02] agreed were the Septuagent. We do have [02:06] the legend of Aristas which talks about [02:10] where the Septuagent came from. And this [02:12] is appealed to by a number of early [02:15] Christian fathers. Uh but that's a [02:18] reference only to the Torah, the first [02:20] five books of Moses. The term Septuagent [02:23] came to refer more broadly to the Greek [02:26] translations of all of the biblical [02:28] books as we get into early Christianity. [02:32] But it was not a bound collection of [02:34] texts or at least not a clearly bound [02:37] collection of texts. So when we talk [02:39] about thus septuagent as indicating what [02:43] was considered scripture versus what was [02:45] not, we have to go down to the 4th [02:48] century CE with the great unial cotices [02:51] of early Christianity like siniticus [02:54] like Vaticanis like Alexandrinus if we [02:57] want to begin to speak of the Septuagent [03:00] as a clearly delineated collection of [03:02] texts. And if we do that then those [03:05] three great unseals actually have [03:07] different collections of texts because [03:10] siniticus has first mcabes and fourth [03:13] mcabes and then all three of them have [03:15] four other apocryphal texts that it [03:18] sounds like early Christians largely [03:20] agreed on at least up until the 4th [03:22] century CE. Judith, Tobit, wisdom of Ben [03:26] Sira and the wisdom of Solomon. Those [03:28] are in all three of those great unsealed [03:31] cotices. Codex Vaticanist does not have [03:33] any of the books of Mcabes but has those [03:35] other four books. Codex Alexandrinus has [03:38] all four books of Mcabes and those other [03:41] four texts as well. So we can see just [03:44] from those three great unial cotices [03:46] that there was some disagreement. We see [03:48] areas of consistency at least when it [03:51] came to Judith Tobbitz the wisdom of Ben [03:54] Sira and the wisdom of Solomon they all [03:55] agreed on that. But when it came to the [03:57] books of the Mcabes, one had none of [03:59] them, one had 50% of them, another had [04:02] all of them. So obviously there is [04:04] disagreement. And this is the main point [04:06] to make when it comes to the development [04:09] of the concept of a formal canon. There [04:13] was disagreement within early Judaism [04:16] and within early Christianity all the [04:18] way down into the 4th century CE. Within [04:21] Christianity, it is more or less settled [04:25] by the time we get to the fifth century [04:27] CE where it seems like the authoritative [04:30] voices are accepting a specific [04:32] collection of 39 Hebrew Bible or Old [04:36] Testament texts. The Apocrypha is [04:38] recognized as valuable is recognized as [04:40] something to read that is historically [04:43] accurate and to some degree [04:45] authoritative. But it is also recognized [04:47] as somewhat different from the other [04:50] texts of the Hebrew Bible. Now we don't [04:53] have that in these great unseal cotices [04:57] because the texts that are called [05:00] apocryphal are just interspersed within [05:03] the Old Testament or the Hebrew Bible. [05:05] and the Septuagental additions to texts [05:09] like Esther and Daniel and first Ezras [05:12] and things like that are just referred [05:14] to as if they are widely accepted as [05:17] scriptural. So when it comes to the [05:19] Septuagent, we can't say this is the [05:21] Septuagent and these are the books that [05:24] the Septuagent contains. It differs from [05:27] manuscript to manuscript. But when we [05:30] look at early Judaism and early [05:32] Christianity, what we can say is that [05:35] there were an awful lot of Christians [05:37] including some of the authoritative [05:40] representatives of Christianity. Folks [05:42] like Irenaeus, folks like Augustine, [05:45] folks like Ucius, folks like Tertullian [05:48] and many others who spoke about and [05:51] quoted Septuagental texts as [05:54] authoritative, as inspired, and even in [05:56] some occasions explicitly as scripture. [05:59] So there is a shifting idea of what is [06:03] and is not included in the Septuagent [06:05] and what is and is not considered [06:08] scripture as part of the Septuagent. So, [06:11] the waters are a little murkier than Wes [06:13] is going to make it sound like. When it [06:15] comes to the Dead Sea Scrolls, [06:17] uh, just being in the Dead Sea Scrolls [06:19] doesn't necessarily make something [06:21] scriptural. However, there are some [06:22] texts that are repeatedly copied among [06:25] the Dead Sea Scrolls in a way that [06:28] indicates they were considered [06:30] authoritative and inspired and probably [06:32] scriptural. So for instance, first Enoch [06:34] and Jubilees, we have more manuscripts [06:37] of each of those texts found in the Dead [06:40] Sea Scrolls than we do for 34 or 35 [06:45] other books of the Hebrew Bible that are [06:49] considered canonical by Protestants [06:51] today. They copied first Enoch and [06:54] Jubilees more than they copied Jeremiah [06:57] or Daniel or 1 and 2 Samuel or Hosea or [07:02] Micah. They copied those texts an awful [07:05] lot. And so that is a pretty strong [07:07] indicator that the people who gathered [07:10] and collected the manuscripts of the [07:12] Dead Sea Scrolls considered those texts [07:13] authoritative, inspired, and probably [07:16] scriptural. And we can even look into [07:18] the early Christian writings and find [07:21] people explicitly defending the inspired [07:24] and scriptural nature of texts like [07:26] first Enoch. For instance, Tertullian [07:28] toward the end of the 2 century CE in [07:31] his text on the clothing or the apparel [07:33] of women [07:35] commits a whole chapter to arguing that [07:38] we ought to consider first Enoch [07:40] scriptural and inspired. And we can look [07:43] at the Ethiopian Orthodox Toakado Church [07:45] which is probably based on a version of [07:47] the Septuagent or at least Septuagent [07:50] manuscripts that were brought down to [07:51] the kingdom of Oxum current day Ethiopia [07:54] and became their cannon which included [07:56] first Enoch and Jubilees. So in that [07:59] sense when we talk about well if it's in [08:01] the Septuagen it must be scripture. [08:04] When whoever brought those texts down to [08:06] the kingdom of Vum brought them down [08:08] there, they seem to have been received [08:10] as scripture, provided they were in the [08:14] Septuagent. So there are a lot of [08:16] different data to consider that Wes [08:18] either doesn't want to consider or [08:20] doesn't know about that make the [08:22] question a lot more complex. And Wes has [08:25] repeatedly shared his opinion that he [08:27] thinks the Jewish cannon of scripture [08:29] was already settled by the first century [08:31] CE. And that is rejected by a strong [08:33] majority of scholars who deal with the [08:36] question of scripture and canon. [08:38] Overwhelmingly scholars are in agreement [08:40] that we don't have a settled cannon of [08:43] scripture within Judaism until second or [08:46] third maybe even the fourth century or [08:48] fifth century CE. There is still debate [08:51] after the first century CE. And when it [08:54] comes to what was accepted into [08:55] Christianity from Judaism, the debate is [08:58] even more complex. So it's not something [09:01] that is so easily settled. But now that [09:04] we've set those terms, let's see what [09:06] Wes has to say. [09:08] >> Same thing with the Septuagent. [09:09] One-third of all the citations in the [09:11] New Testament of the Old Testament are [09:12] subtent. And therefore, the Septuent is [09:15] the Bible of the early church. [09:16] >> So the Septuagent was absolutely the [09:18] Bible of early Christianity. It was [09:20] considered preferred over and directly [09:22] against the Hebrew all the way up until [09:25] the end of the 4th century CE. We have a [09:27] number of Petristic authors who talk [09:29] about how it's better and how Jewish [09:31] scribes have corrupted the Hebrew [09:33] because it is not as messianic. We even [09:35] have Irenaeus, one of the most [09:37] authoritative voices of early [09:38] Christianity and against heresies [09:40] dedicating quite a bit of real estate to [09:42] appealing to the legend that is found in [09:45] the letter of Arista to establish the [09:47] inspired nature of the Septuagent Greek [09:51] translation of the Hebrew Bible. So it [09:53] was absolutely the Bible of early [09:55] Christianity. [09:56] >> And so if they have first and second [09:58] makabes in their collection and you [10:01] don't today, it's because you have taken [10:03] them out. The problem with this is that [10:04] if a Roman Catholic is arguing against [10:06] me that I don't have first and second [10:08] makabes in my Bible and their [10:10] methodology is that first and second [10:12] Mcabes are in the Septuagent, therefore [10:14] I must include them. What they fail to [10:16] realize is that third and fourth Mcabes [10:19] is also in the Septuagent and is not in [10:21] their Bible. So, here's where I get the [10:24] idea that Wes is not addressing an [10:26] academic argument, but a dogmatic one. [10:28] Because this part of Wes's argument is [10:31] not really engaging the argument on its [10:33] merits. It's kind of laying a rhetorical [10:36] snare uh based on the accusation of [10:39] hypocrisy because this argument only [10:41] really works if you're addressing a [10:43] Catholic who's going to say, "I don't [10:44] want to acknowledge third and fourth [10:46] Mcabes as scripture." It's really just [10:49] saying, "Well, you're a hypocrite." if [10:51] you want to assert first and second [10:52] Mcabes but don't want to accept third [10:54] and fourth Mcabes. But this brings up [10:56] again that when we're talking about the [10:58] Septuagent we really have to be talking [11:01] about the great unseal cotices of early [11:03] Christianity specifically cinaticus [11:07] and Alexandrinus one of which doesn't [11:09] have any of the books of the Mcabes one [11:11] of which only has first and fourth and [11:12] one of which has first second third and [11:15] fourth. So there's not really a single [11:17] witness to which of the books of the [11:20] Mcabes were considered inspired [11:22] scripture by the collators of these [11:24] Septuagent manuscripts. So we can't [11:26] really say for sure that the Septuagent [11:28] definitely included all four books of [11:30] the Mcabes. But even if it does, this [11:33] argument again only works on dogmatic [11:37] sectarian grounds. It does not actually [11:39] address the argument on its merits. So [11:42] if the standard is if the argument is if [11:45] it is in the septuent it must be [11:47] scripture they themselves need to reject [11:49] the Roman Catholic cannon that was [11:52] declared such at the council of Trent [11:55] and go against the magisterium and [11:57] include books that were never considered [11:59] scripture by either the ancient Jews or [12:03] the Roman magisterian. Now Wes doesn't [12:05] have any evidentiary grounds on which he [12:08] can build the case that third and fourth [12:10] Mcabes were never considered scripture [12:12] by any ancient Jewish folks. They [12:15] certainly were by some ancient Jewish [12:17] folks. Fourth Mcabes was probably [12:19] written around the first century CE and [12:22] it was certainly considered historical [12:25] by certain ancient Jewish folks and even [12:27] by some early Christians and almost [12:29] certainly considered authoritative and [12:31] inspired by some of them as well. Now, [12:34] I'm not going to make the case that I [12:36] can prove that, but I can say just as [12:39] conclusively that Wes is unable to make [12:41] the case that there were no ancient [12:43] Jewish folks who accepted them as [12:45] scripture. And they're not going to do [12:47] that because it reflects that they don't [12:49] actually understand what the Septuent [12:51] is. And I say this with all due respect. [12:53] I want you to argue understandably, and [12:56] I want you to make good arguments, not [12:58] arguments based on misunderstanding. And [13:00] I would like to see the same from Wes. [13:03] But it looks like we're still going to [13:04] get this dogmatic assumption that the [13:08] Jewish and Christian cannons were closed [13:10] and agreed upon centuries earlier than [13:13] the overwhelming majority of scholars [13:15] agree they were. [13:16] >> So if you are talking about the Dead Sea [13:18] Scrolls, you are talking about a [13:19] library. If you talking about the [13:21] Septuent, you are talking about a [13:22] library. Some of it is scripture, some [13:24] of it isn't. Now certainly this is true [13:27] and also certainly there would not have [13:29] been unilateral agreements within first [13:32] and second century Judaism and [13:34] Christianity. There would have been [13:35] disagreement regarding which texts were [13:37] inspired scriptures and which texts were [13:39] not. But Wes refuses to allow the [13:42] available data to operate on their own [13:44] terms and instead imposes dogmatic terms [13:47] upon the data in order to configure them [13:49] in a way that serves his own dogmas and [13:52] rhetorical interests. And we've seen [13:55] this in a number of different ways. For [13:57] instance, when it comes to First Enoch, [13:59] Wes has published a number of videos in [14:01] the last couple years trying to argue [14:04] that we should not take the direct and [14:06] explicit quotation of a passage from [14:08] First Enoch in the letter of Jude, which [14:11] is introduced as prophecy, [14:14] as an indication that the author of the [14:16] letter of Jude thought that the passage [14:17] from First Enoch was inspired scripture. [14:20] And the argument strains to try to stack [14:25] up a bunch of considerations to generate [14:28] the illusion of a cumulative strong case [14:32] against understanding the author of the [14:34] letter of Jude to be presenting at the [14:37] very least the book of watchers as [14:39] inspired scripture. For instance, West [14:41] will suggest that well the text as we [14:44] have it in the quotation in the letter [14:46] of Jude does not exactly match the [14:49] manuscripts that we have witnessing to [14:50] that passage in first Enoch. And that's [14:54] a pretty silly argument because there [14:56] are a number of places in the New [14:58] Testament where there are passages [14:59] quoted from the Hebrew Bible that don't [15:02] match either the Hebrew or the [15:04] Septuagent that don't even match at all. [15:06] For instance, in Matthew 2:22, the [15:08] notion that Jesus would be called a [15:10] Nazarene as declared by the prophets. [15:12] There's no such passage anywhere in any [15:15] prophet that says that. But we still get [15:18] this argument that well, if not [15:20] verbally, at least conceptually, this is [15:22] referring to the inspired prophecy of [15:25] the Hebrew Bible. And so therefore, it's [15:28] not wrong for Matthew to quote this as [15:31] coming from the prophets. or we'll even [15:33] have folks appealing to Isaiah that that [15:35] is Netzer in in Hebrew. So that must be [15:38] what is being quoted as prophecy when [15:42] Matthew 2:23 says he shall be called a [15:44] Nazarene. So when it comes to texts that [15:47] we accept as inspired scripture, we will [15:50] go to incredibly great lengths to try to [15:54] assert connections even where no [15:57] connections can plausibly be asserted. [16:00] But when it comes to an explicit [16:02] quotation of First Enoch, we will take [16:06] any excuse we can to deny that [16:09] connection and say, "Well, it doesn't [16:11] exactly match." Well, we don't have very [16:13] many manuscripts of this, and the [16:15] manuscripts that we do have come from [16:17] other languages or from a thousand years [16:20] plus later. So, that argument is kind of [16:23] silly. Another argument is that well the [16:26] author of the letter of Jude could know [16:29] that this particular passage in first [16:32] Enoch is a true and inspired prophecy [16:35] but that doesn't mean the entire book is [16:37] therefore inspired prophecy. But again [16:40] this is a standard that is never applied [16:42] to books that are accepted by [16:45] Protestants or even Catholics today as [16:47] inspired scripture. you would never go [16:49] through and say, "Okay, unless and until [16:53] we have an inspired text formally [16:57] endorsing every last passage of another [17:00] text, we cannot determine that it is [17:02] inspired scripture." That standard is [17:04] never applied to canonical texts from [17:08] the Bible. That is special pleading. And [17:11] then we'll have the idea that well first [17:14] Enoch must have gotten it from an oral [17:16] tradition and that oral tradition could [17:19] have come down from Enoch the 7th from [17:22] Adam and everybody could have known that [17:23] that was prophecy and it's only in first [17:26] Enoch because an author wiggled it in [17:28] there secondarily. And what the author [17:31] of the letter of Jude is doing is [17:33] actually quoting that prophecy as the [17:36] oral tradition and not drawing it [17:38] directly from first Enoch, which is even [17:41] more laughable because it's another [17:43] standard that is never applied to the [17:45] interrogation of other quotations from [17:47] the Hebrew Bible. And also there are no [17:49] evidence that point in that direction. [17:51] Very clearly that is just an ad hoc [17:55] excuse. It's just a way to say, can I [17:58] convince myself that it's not impossible [18:01] that the author of the letter of Jude [18:03] did not think of first Enoch as [18:06] inspired? So, when you stack up a bunch [18:09] of these facious considerations, you get [18:12] the illusion of a strong cumulative [18:15] argument. But when you actually look at [18:17] the fact that these are standards that [18:18] are never applied to any other text and [18:21] that these standards don't really make [18:22] much sense in and of themselves, the [18:24] argument falls to pieces. Because if you [18:27] believe, and here I'm going to be [18:29] leveraging Wes's own dogmas against him, [18:32] similar to what he did to the Catholics, [18:34] but this is in addition to the academic [18:37] case I've already made. If you believe [18:39] that the author of the letter of Jude [18:41] was inspired [18:43] and spoke inherently [18:46] and they quoted this passage from first [18:49] Enoch as prophecy that came from the [18:52] historical Enoch the 7th from Adam, then [18:55] very clearly the author of the letter of [18:57] Jude thought of that passage in first [19:00] Enoch and therefore the context the [19:03] literary the textual context of at least [19:05] the book of watchers probably I don't [19:08] think we can speak of all of First Enoch [19:10] being a single text yet, but the book of [19:12] watchers certainly the author believed [19:15] that the book of watchers was inspired [19:18] scripture and presents it in their own [19:22] inspired composition as inspired [19:24] scripture. And I would love to have the [19:26] opportunity to talk with Wes directly [19:28] about this, but I don't get the sense [19:29] that he's going to be up for that [19:30] discussion. Let me finish by saying [19:32] this. If you walked into my office, you [19:34] would find close to 2,000 books, maybe a [19:37] little above that, closer to 2500. If [19:40] you were then to look around, do a [19:41] survey, see that I have lots of Bibles. [19:44] I have lots of uh Greek New Testament, [19:46] Hebrew Old Testaments, and I have Bibles [19:48] in English, multiple ones, and in other [19:50] languages, and I have a whole bunch of [19:52] other books, and then conclude, look, [19:53] Wes considers so many books really [19:55] important. Therefore, he he thinks that [19:57] all of these are scripture. He has over [19:59] a thousand books within his scriptural [20:01] cannon. That's a mistake because by [20:04] nature of them being in my library that [20:06] does not then denote that they are [20:08] actually scripture. And so the same [20:09] thing is going on with the Dead Sea [20:11] Scrolls and with the Septuagent. These [20:12] are libraries. We put them in single [20:14] bound volumes like this or this today. [20:19] But in the ancient world they were [20:20] independent books and they are [20:22] representative of collections that we [20:24] now put together and we give them these [20:27] helpful titles. But that doesn't mean [20:29] that they are or aren't scripture. [20:31] >> And if the case were built entirely and [20:33] exclusively on the foundation of the [20:35] observation that some of these other [20:38] books are included in the Septuagent and [20:40] in the Dead Sea Scrolls, then yeah, that [20:43] would be a relevant point to make. [20:45] However, that's really not the entire [20:48] case, not even remotely. The case is [20:50] built primarily on the observation that [20:53] these texts are frequently quoted as [20:56] scripture within early Judaism and early [20:58] Christianity and that we see debate [21:01] about whether or not they should be [21:03] considered inspired texts or should be [21:05] considered scripture. And we see some [21:07] people listing them among the texts that [21:10] are considered by specific congregations [21:13] or collections of congregations to be [21:16] inspired scriptures. So the case is [21:18] actually a lot more complex and the [21:20] earlier we get the stronger the case is [21:24] that many of these texts were considered [21:26] inspired scripture by Jewish people as [21:29] well as early Christian folks. And we [21:31] can even see early Christians explicitly [21:34] and clearly saying yes this is inspired [21:36] scripture and people who argue that it [21:38] is not are wrong as in the case of first [21:41] Enoch in Tertullians uh on the apparel [21:44] of women. and I believe it's chapter 3. [21:46] I don't remember off the top of my head. [21:49] So the argument is a lot more than just [21:52] well it's in the Septuagent and it's in [21:53] the Dead Sea Scrolls. However, one can [21:56] observe that it is included in some of [21:59] these collections and when it comes to [22:00] the Septuagent just saying well this is [22:02] like coming into my office and seeing [22:04] all the books that I have on my shelf [22:06] and saying they're all scripture. No, [22:07] it's not. The early great unseal cotices [22:12] are texts that were very carefully [22:15] chosen and very meticulously transcribed [22:19] in a very expensive and very long-term [22:23] process that would not have just been [22:25] done for any and all books that happened [22:26] to wiggle their way into somebody's [22:28] office. Those books that were included [22:31] were very intentionally chosen. And when [22:35] it comes to the text of the Apocrypha, [22:37] they are woven into the Hebrew Bible. [22:41] They are very clearly supposed to be in [22:43] the Hebrew scriptures. They are supposed [22:45] to be considered part of Jewish [22:47] scripture. When it comes to like first [22:50] and second Clement is included in one of [22:51] the great unsealed cotices. The shepherd [22:53] of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas [22:56] are included in another. [22:58] There's a different case to make for [23:00] those because they are placed after the [23:02] book of Revelation. And we don't know [23:04] for sure whether that means these are of [23:07] a different kind or these are later than [23:11] Revelation. So, we're going to place [23:13] them after Revelation. I think you can [23:15] probably make a slightly stronger case [23:16] that these are supplemental texts. And [23:19] so, at least when it comes to the New [23:20] Testament, I think you could say these [23:22] are probably not as canonical. These are [23:25] probably not considered as authoritative [23:28] as the New Testament texts that come [23:29] before. But to just dismiss any argument [23:32] based on the observation that early [23:34] Jewish folks and early Christian folks [23:36] either collected them in great numbers, [23:38] greater numbers than almost all other [23:41] texts of the Hebrew Bible or included [23:43] them within very carefully chosen [23:46] collections of texts that were [23:48] considered scriptures. I think the [23:49] argument is a lot more complex than just [23:52] saying, "Well, I've got Harry Potter on [23:54] the shelf in my library. That doesn't [23:55] make it scripture." Like, that is a that [23:57] is a false analogy. So, I think the [24:00] argument is a little more complex than [24:02] this. But I recognize that Wes is [24:04] probably just engaging a rather thin [24:07] argument that is coming from a sectarian [24:09] perspective and is being presented in a [24:11] more sectarian and dogmatic way than a [24:14] strictly academic one. However, the [24:16] arguments that Wes has tried to perform [24:19] more academically for the same [24:22] conclusion uh fall to pieces just as [24:26] swiftly when they are exposed to the [24:28] light of scrutiny and the data that are [24:30] actually out there. And the fit for this [24:33] video has been Romans go  📄 **Full text:** ![[Full Document Contents/Articles/Responding to Wes Huff on the Canon.md|Responding to Wes Huff on the Canon by YouTube]] ## Highlights - Septuagent then it's scripture. This is a rather naive claim and the features of the collection of texts we call the Dead Sea Scrolls and the collection of texts we call the Septuagent are very very different. Uh, and there are a lot of things that are in the Dead Sea Scrolls that I think even the people who collected the Dead Sea Scrolls wouldn't say they considered scripture. But there's no such thing as the Septuagent in the sense of a clearly delineated collection of ancient Greek translations ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kqmvvyz5fp0tp9qmg4e3sbe5)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - cannon. That's a mistake because by nature of them being in my library that does not then denote that they are actually scripture. And so the same thing is going on with the Dead Sea Scrolls and with the Septuagent. These are libraries. We put them in single bound volumes like this or this today. But in the ancient world they were independent books and they are representative of collections that we now put together and we give them these helpful titles. But that doesn't mean that they are or aren't scripture. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kqmvvz1tnmxm4sc2m41dffbn)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - about whether or not they should be considered inspired texts or should be considered scripture. And we see some people listing them among the texts that are considered by specific congregations or collections of congregations to be inspired scriptures. So the case is actually a lot more complex and the earlier we get the stronger the case is that many of these texts were considered inspired scripture by Jewish people as well as early Christian folks. And we ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kqmvvz60cpnnd6thqfqcrdkt)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - can even see early Christians explicitly and clearly saying yes this is inspired scripture and people who argue that it is not are wrong as in the case of first Enoch in Tertullians uh on the apparel of women. and I believe it's chapter 3. I don't remember off the top of my head. So the argument is a lot more than just well it's in the Septuagent and it's in the Dead Sea Scrolls. However, one can observe that it is included in some of these collections and when it comes to ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kqmvvz8styjbcan0jrafmc1s)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted