Tuesday, June 08, 2010

The Jews Knew the Old Testament Canon - Guest Post by David King

(the following is a guest post by my friend, David King)

One frequent myth often propounded by those who prefer a 4th century Greek canon of the Old Testament (OT) to the Hebrew canon of the OT is the idea that the first century Jews did not know the canon of OT Scripture. The Scriptures abundantly discredit this myth.

Our Lord’s own words (Matt. 21:42; 22:29; 26:54; Mk. 12:10, 24; 14:49; Lk. 4:21; Jn. 5:39; 7:38; 10:35; 13:18; 17:12; ), as well as those of his apostles (Matt. 26:56; Mk. 15:28; Lk. 24:27, 32, 45; Jn 2:22; 7:42; 19:24, 28, 36-37; 20:9; Acts 1:16; 8:32, 35; 17:2, 11; 18:24, 28; Rom. 1:2; 4:3; 9:17; 10:11; 11:2; 15:4; 16:26; 1 Cor. 15:3-4 Gal. 3:8, 22; 4:30; 1 Tim. 4:18; 2 Tim. 3:15-16; Jam. 2:8, 23; 4:5; 1 Pet. 2:6; 2 Pet. 1:20; 3:16), presuppose a recognized OT canon in their day.

Moreover, the Apostle Paul informs us implicitly that the canon of the OT was bequeathed to the NT Church from the OT Church (Rom. 3:2). Many of the early church fathers themselves affirm this to be the case. In other words, if an epistemological crisis concerning an OT canon existed in the time of Christ and His apostles, not only do their own words reveal nothing of it, but the same actually presuppose its identity.

To the contrary, would not such a claim of epistemic uncertainty strip the Jewish people of all responsibility whom our Lord engaged with His indictments of their faithlessness in the face of the testimony of Holy Scripture otherwise (Jn 5:39, Matt. 12:3ff; 19:4; 22:31; Mk. 12:26)? Do not his words presuppose their culpability for not knowing the Scriptures (Matt. 22:29)?

In short, even the apostolic church itself was never without a functioning canon (e.g., Acts 17:2, 11; 18:24, 28; 24:14). Thus, the OT canon of Holy Scripture was commonly recognized in their day, without the aid of any authoritative, conciliar declaration. When then should we entertain the alleged need for such in our day, when already in the time of the apostles themselves the NT canon was being recognized (1 Cor. 14:37; 1 Tim. 5:18 and 2 Pet. 3:16) apart from the same? How does the alleged apologetic against this revealed state of affairs avoid the charge of what amounts to a self-serving agenda of special pleading?

Again, what is being called into question is not simply the sufficiency of Scripture, but the sufficiency of God Himself to reveal and make Himself known in Holy Scripture.

It seems rather difficult to avoid the conclusion posited by Warfield:

The early churches, in short, received, as we receive, into their New Testament all the books historically evinced to them as given by the apostles to the churches as their code of law; and we must not mistake the historical evidences of the slow circulation and authentication of these books over the widely-extended church, for evidence of slowness of “canonization” of books by the authority or the taste of the church itself.
B. B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, reprinted 1970), p. 416.

70 comments:

John said...

So... anybody who merely refers to "the holy scriptures" must have a settled, final and agreed canon?

And we are given among myriad of verses, one from 2 Peter. And then we're ALSO given the SAME quote from 2 Peter 3:16 to support NT recognition in NT times. So how can Peter be recognising a proto and incomplete canon in 3:16 AND a final, settled and already known canon in the very same verse? Talk about schizophrenia.

We are told that Christ's citing of scripture pre-supposes that everybody has an agreed canon. This of course goes counter to the traditional interpretation that Christ cited only the Law to the Saducees because that's all THEY recognised. Whether one agrees with that interpretation, it certainly shows there are radically different ways of looking at the data.

Then we are told that the OT canon was bequeathed to the NT church, citing Ro 3:2 and the Church Fathers. Yet half the early Church Fathers exclude Esther. Most seem to include Baruch. Either the thesis of a widely known settled canon is rubbish, which is the obvious answer that the data speaks to us, or else we can't historically know what their canon was, which is no more helpful to the apologetic position argued for.

And what does this Warfield quote even mean? We shouldn't take the slowness of authentication as evidence of the slowness of canonisation? Seems to be an argument that black is actually white.

ChaferDTS said...

"And we are given among myriad of verses, one from 2 Peter. And then we're ALSO given the SAME quote from 2 Peter 3:16 to support NT recognition in NT times. So how can Peter be recognising a proto and incomplete canon in 3:16 AND a final, settled and already known canon in the very same verse? Talk about schizophrenia. "

It shows as each individual books of the NT were being written it was seen by the people of God as inspired Scripture. God determined what the OT and NT would be. The church merely collected what was alrady determined by God as Scripture. Scripture is inspired by God and not made to be inspired by the church. 2 Peter was written prior to 67ad. And according to 2 Pet. 3:16 Peter was evidently aware of Paul's epistles and indentified them as Scripture. It was believed to be as such by those who first received them as such.

"Then we are told that the OT canon was bequeathed to the NT church, citing Ro 3:2 and the Church Fathers. Yet half the early Church Fathers exclude Esther. "

Esther was received by such church fathers as Saint Jerome and others. Your claim seems to be an overstatement of the reality and facts surrounding it. The OT Canon canon is the law , the prophets and the writings. It was included in it. There were a small number of questioned Esther. Just because a few individuals may doubt it does not mean that it is not Scripture. God determined it when it was written. The OT Canon was determined by if was written by a prophet of God by office or one who had the prophetic gift or was a prophet by office and had the prophetic gift.

"Most seem to include Baruch. Either the thesis of a widely known settled canon is rubbish, which is the obvious answer that the data speaks to us, or else we can't historically know what their canon was, which is no more helpful to the apologetic position argued for. "

The OT Canon was settled as far as God is concerned. The law, the prophets and the writings is our OT as well. What is rejected is the apocrypha was being claimed as inspired Scripture when it is not. They were written in a period of time when no prophet of God was around or one with the prophetic gift. The concept that the church " determined " or " made " the Canon is a myth which is nothing more than Sola Ecclesia at work.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

"In short, even the apostolic church itself was never without a functioning canon (e.g., Acts 17:2, 11; 18:24, 28; 24:14). Thus, the OT canon of Holy Scripture was commonly recognized in their day, without the aid of any authoritative, conciliar declaration."

If I can distill that into practical terms that I can use, it means that the slogan "The Church gave us the Bible and the Canon of the Bible" where Church means the Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church can be rejected, yes?

I think the One True Church apologetic is "The Church gave you the Bible. And that being the case, Sola Scriptura is Protestant falsehood."

And this post upholds the validity of Sola Scriptura against those charges, yes?

John Bugay said...

Parker, what's your agenda?

Truth -- yes, the Warfield quote is saying that the New Testament Scriptures were Scriptures the moment they were written. There is good evidence that the letters of Paul and also the Gospels were collected and "canonized" immediately as they became known.

It's not like "the infallible church" at one point sat down with a bunch of scrolls and codicies one day in the year 400 and said, "ok, guys, now how do we put these together?"

Because of the way that books had to be hand-copied, there were already in place rules for such things as "the binding of collections of letters" and things like that. Consider this:

“There is reasonable evidence to see the origin of the Pauline corpus during the latter part of Paul’s life or some time after his death, almost assuredly instigated by Paul and/or a close follower or followers, and close examination of the early manuscripts with Paul’s letters and of related documents seems to support this hypothesis.” (Stanly E. Porter, “Paul and the Process of Canonization,” in “Exploring the Origins of the Bible, Craig A. Evans and Emanuel Tov, Editors, pg. 202.)

The same thing was happening for the Gospels and the other letters, from the moment they were written and began to be circulated.

This is why virtually all of the NT manuscripts that have been found and catalogued have Paul's letters virtually in the same order: Romans is always first, 1 and 2 Corinthians, etc. Very, very few of the manuscripts don't follow that ordering. Such things were decided very early on.

Rhology said...

Hays isn't our Pope!!! He's our living Prophet! Sheesh, get it right.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Parker: "Why not go ask your Pope, Steve Hays, so he can show you how to obfuscate, and then you can mindlessly accept it, and then pretend he has taught you something."

In addition to the responses made by John Bugay and Rhology to you (thanks guys), why do you say that Steve Hays obfuscates?

If anything, it's quite the opposite. And the folks that he's engaged in discussion/debate with, well, they really react badly when he blasts through their obfuscation.

Second, I don't know why you think that any of us "mindlessly" accepts what Steve says. Trust me when I tell you that we "roughhouse" with each other, and we roughhouse with each other precisely because we don't mindlessly accept what the other person says.

Turretinfan said...

Parker:

Your comment has been deleted, although it is preserved in some of the following comments.

I have no idea what your issues with TU&D are, but perhaps you can take them elsewhere.

-TurretinFan

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

"I have no idea what your issues with TU&D are, but perhaps you can take them elsewhere."

I don't even know who this Parker is, or why this Parker person is being insulting.

And why is Parker taking swipes at Steve Hays?

dtking said...

And what does this Warfield quote even mean? We shouldn't take the slowness of authentication as evidence of the slowness of canonisation? Seems to be an argument that black is actually white.

It means, in short, that God's word does not stand in need of the sanction of men. God's word is God's word no matter how many or great men receive or reject it as such.

But your complaint is duly noted, and thanks for sharing.

natamllc said...

Pastor King:

"... How does the alleged apologetic against this revealed state of affairs avoid the charge of what amounts to a self-serving agenda of special pleading?....".

Me: Depends on who is reading that question. Me, there is no self-serving agenda of special pleading. However, that leads right into my explanation for what followed that question:::>


Pastor King again:

"...Again, what is being called into question is not simply the sufficiency of Scripture, but the sufficiency of God Himself to reveal and make Himself known in Holy Scripture.".

Me: The question I would ask anyone who is asking that question is, "define Eternal Life"?

Of course, Pastor King, for you to make the point by raising the question of one's self-serving agenda of special pleading, you have equally established already the presupposition of the definition of the "Gift of Eternal Life".

I have to say, "you are a smart fella"! :)

I will maintain that one who goes about questioning the settled opinion of the 66 books God inspired and by a process He looked after, doesn't have Eternal Life, yet, if ever?.

Why would anyone who "knows" the Only True God and Jesus Christ "Whom He sent" have a question about His "work", the Scriptures that He guides us to accept unequivocally by the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit?

I maintain, there would be no reason to question His "work" seeing He and His "work" are one:::>


Act 20:32 And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.

Does anyone, of the historical past, or now, doubt that Adam, Abraham, Moses, Job, one of the Prophets, one of the original twelve disciples or Matthias or Paul, Barnabas, Judas called Barsabbas, Silas, Timothy, Titus or or or, any of those names within the 66 books, knew " or know Who" the Only True God or Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit is?

Yes, some, how many, God only knows, do doubt Him and what He gives us so that we might know Him and know which Words are His Words for our learning and admonition upon whom the ends of the ages has now settled!

For me, the Apostle Paul laid to rest that question by a "test" he administered that we can take and by this same test, anyone of the writers of the Scriptures can be tested to be authentic or found out to be the "real deal":::>

Php 4:9 What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me--practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.

Even this guest post can be tested to see if the "God of Peace" endorses it! :)

I say by way of a witness, "He does"!

natamllc said...

Geeesh TF, I guess I didn't get in here in time to read Parker's words.

:(

But, with the responses I have read, it probably was a good fact I didn't? :)

But, most of the time when I read TUAD, I can see why he stirs up so much trouble! :) :)

Turretinfan said...

"And we are given among myriad of verses, one from 2 Peter. And then we're ALSO given the SAME quote from 2 Peter 3:16 to support NT recognition in NT times. So how can Peter be recognising a proto and incomplete canon in 3:16 AND a final, settled and already known canon in the very same verse? Talk about schizophrenia. "

The schizophrenia only arises from misrepresenting the argument. As I've frequently said, you should read more carefully.

John said...

"It shows as each individual books of the NT were being written it was seen by the people of God as inspired Scripture."

I see. So what is the thesis here: that the canon was settled in the minds of the people of God almost immediately upon it being written? Except that goes against what we know of church history and the various conflicting canon lists. So either your thesis only applies to a few individuals like Peter, or else it only applies to some books, or else the thesis is bunk, or else maybe the real church was hiding in a cave somewhere, and all the church fathers were heretics. None of these options are favorable to the overall position being pushed here.

"Esther was received by such church fathers as Saint Jerome and others. Your claim seems to be an overstatement of the reality and facts surrounding it."

How so? There is no trace of it at Qumran, and that community did not celebrate the festival of Purim whose only scriptural basis is Esther. When the Rabbis of the 2nd C justified Purim, they never even mentioned Esther, instead appealing to Megillat Taanit (1st C CE), showing that they didn't consider Esther canonical. As late as the3rd of 4th century some rabbies did not consider Esther as "defiling the hands" (i.e. canonical). e.g. the Babylonian Talmud says "Esther does not make the hands unclean". Rabbi Samuel ben Judah in the 3rd C says "O, this Scroll of Esther does not require a mantle", meaning the scroll doesn't require a cover like the canonical books.

Melito omits it, as does Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Stichometry of Nicephorus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, the Synopsis of Sacred Scriptiure, Leontius, and the List of the Sixty Books. Those are sources that go from 160AD through to about 650AD. Amphilochius (d. 394), bishop of Iconium, observed that Esther was “accepted only by some.”

"What is rejected is the apocrypha was being claimed as inspired Scripture when it is not."

Highly anachronistic of you to project back in time your idea of an "apocrypha" back on to people who didn't know about such a division.

Baruch seems to be accepted by Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, the Council of Laodicea, Athanasius, the Stichometry of Nicephorus, Hilary of Poitiers, the Cheltenham list, Augustine, the 3rd council of Carthage, Rufinus, Codes Claromontanus, Innocent I, the Decree of Gelasius, Cassiodorus, and Isidore of Seville.

Why is that less impressive that what you can muster for Esther? There is no compelling reason for you to draw the line between canonical and apocryphal in the particular place that you choose to, other than of course, the historical tradition of your peculiar bit of Christendom.

"They were written in a period of time when no prophet of God was around or one with the prophetic gift."

Nonsense.

" The concept that the church " determined " or " made " the Canon is a myth"

"Determined" has active and passive senses. I can determine who the president is without being the ultimate cause. A court of law can rule who the president is in a more authoritative way, but still being subject to even higher principles and authorities.

ChaferDTS said...

"I see. So what is the thesis here: that the canon was settled in the minds of the people of God almost immediately upon it being written?"

The people of God hear their Master which is in this case God himself in Scripture. God's sheep hears his voice. And you are now telling people they can't You simply ignore 2 Peter 3:16.

"Except that goes against what we know of church history and the various conflicting canon lists. So either your thesis only applies to a few individuals like Peter, or else it only applies to some books, or else the thesis is bunk, or else maybe the real church was hiding in a cave somewhere, and all the church fathers were heretics. None of these options are favorable to the overall position being pushed here."

The fact is Peter viewed Paul's epistles as Scripture all without the Council of Trent and other claimed councils such as Hippo and Cartage. Besides the concepts of so called " ecumenical councils " is a later church formulation after 300ad. Which is several hundred years after the lifetime of the apostles. What you are telling me I can't know what is Scripture apart from a claimed infallible church authority. What that is really is what is called " Sola Ecclesia " . Your post is filled with misrepresentations on top of everything else.

ChaferDTS said...

"There is no trace of it at Qumran, and that community did not celebrate the festival of Purim whose only scriptural basis is Esther. When the Rabbis of the 2nd C justified Purim, they never even mentioned Esther, instead appealing to Megillat Taanit (1st C CE), showing that they didn't consider Esther canonical. As late as the3rd of 4th century some rabbies did not consider Esther as "defiling the hands" (i.e. canonical). e.g. the Babylonian Talmud says "Esther does not make the hands unclean". Rabbi Samuel ben Judah in the 3rd C says "O, this Scroll of Esther does not require a mantle", meaning the scroll doesn't require a cover like the canonical books."

A simple reading of Josephus would have saved your much error and confusion in your claims. According to Josephus the OT Canon for the Jews was already settled. It was included in the OT Canon of Jesus and the Apostles and received it's sanction. It was included in the Law and the Prophets and the law, the Prophets and the Pslams ( this third section is knowned as the writings ) . The OT Hebrew consisted in either 22 books or 24 depending on the method of their way of counting the books. It appears that you yourself exclude it from the OT Canon.

"Melito omits it, as does Athanasius "

While these did exclude it. But there is more to things there than what you think and being misleading on it. But their OT Canon listing is far more closer to the Protestant listing than it is towards Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox. They fall under the few who had doubts on it.

ChaferDTS said...

"Gregory of Nazianzus, Stichometry of Nicephorus, Theodore of Mopsuestia,"

I can't recall on the top of my head but care to provide proof of your claim on them anyway since you said they rejected Esther from the OT Canon.

"the Synopsis of Sacred Scriptiure,"

That claim is false .

Thus the canonical books of the Old Testament are twenty-two, corresponding with the number of letters in the Hebrew, for they have this many elementary signs. But aside from these there are moreover some other books with the Old Testament, which are not considered canonical, but which are only read to catechumens, which are these: The Wisdom of Solomon, which begins, "Love righteousness, ye rulers of the earth"; The Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach, which begins "All wisdom cometh from the Lord, and is with him forever"; Esther, which begins "In the second year of the reign of King Artaxerxes the Great, on the first day of Nisan, Mardochaeus the son of Jairus, the son of Semeias, the son of Cisaeus, of the tribe of Benjamin"; Judith, which begins, "In the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who ruled over the Assyrians in the great city of Nineveh, in the days of Arphaxad, who ruled over the Medes in Ecbatana": Tobit, which begins, "The book of the words of Tobit the son of Tobiel, son of Ananiel, son of Aduel, son of Gabael, of the seed of Asiel and the tribe of Naphtali, who in the days of Enemessarus king of the Assyrians." Again, books such as these are not canonical. However, some of the ancients have said that, ****among the Hebrews, Esther is held to be canonical; and that, even as Ruth is included with the book of Judges, so Esther is also included with some other book, and by this means they would still complete the number of their canonical books at twenty-two. ***


The only thing done is later on wrote down the disputed books but that still does not overide the above where it is directed placed to the Canon. You did a gross misuse of below. Maybe a case of dishonesty through misuse or you misstated the fact through lack of knoweledge of it or being selective.

Among the disputed books of the Old Testament, of which we spoke previously, such as the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach, and Esther and Judith and Tobit, also these are to be counted: the four books of the Maccabees, Ptolemaic books, the Psalms and Odes of Solomon, Susanna. These are disputed books of the Old Testament.

ChaferDTS said...

"Leontius, and the List of the Sixty Books. Those are sources that go from 160AD through to about 650AD. Amphilochius (d. 394), bishop of Iconium, observed that Esther was “accepted only by some.”

Care to provide proof of that ? Overall you are using selective data. Those are men seperated over a period of time from one another. Each must be judged seperately from the period of time each lived in and in which case you ignored the ones who did include Esther in their OT Canon. Basically bad misuse of history there. You are using a minority to overrule a majority when you intentionally leave out men in those same time periods who did hold to the Protestant and Jewish Old Testament Canon.

ChaferDTS said...

"Highly anachronistic of you to project back in time your idea of an "apocrypha" back on to people who didn't know about such a division. "

The Jewish Canon had a threefold division and a twofold division. The threefold division was the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. The Twofold division was the Law of Moses and the Prophets. That is what constituted as their Old Testament Canon as a rule of faith. The one who is reading back Trent would be you. I am supported by such men like Saint Jerome and Cardinel Cajetan. Basically Hippo, Cartage and Saint Augustine and others are subject to the correction or clarification of Saint Jerome on the matter.

ChaferDTS said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John said...

"The fact is Peter viewed Paul's epistles as Scripture all without the Council of Trent"

Peter knew a lot of things you don't. Since he mentioned only Paul's epistles, and even then didn't enumerate them, this doesn't actually help you.

"Besides the concepts of so called " ecumenical councils " is a later church formulation after 300ad."

The Church deciding things by council is in the bible.

"What you are telling me I can't know what is Scripture apart from a claimed infallible church authority."

Fine - explain to me how you know. Or is it the Mormon burning in the bosom theory you are propounding, because it sounds like it.

ChaferDTS said...

"Baruch seems to be accepted by Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, the Council of Laodicea, Athanasius, the Stichometry of Nicephorus, Hilary of Poitiers, the Cheltenham list, Augustine, the 3rd council of Carthage, Rufinus, Codes Claromontanus, Innocent I, the Decree of Gelasius, Cassiodorus, and Isidore of Seville."

In numerous cases you are being misleading as if their OT Canon listing matches up exactly as that defined by the Council of Trent or that of present day Eastern Orthodox when they do not. In several cases their Canon listing is more closer to that of Protestants than to Trent and Eastern Orthodox today. Bad misuse of history there again.

"Why is that less impressive that what you can muster for Esther? There is no compelling reason for you to draw the line between canonical and apocryphal in the particular place that you choose to, other than of course, the historical tradition of your peculiar bit of Christendom."

I stand in the majority position of that of Saint Jerome. The OT Canon listing consist of the law , the prophets and the writings. I have the OT Canon of Jesus and the Apostles. That is the authority I have on that point. Just because Esther was questioned by some individuals does not mean that it is not part of the OT Canon. And I do not need a claimed infallible church to tell me either. I can just as easy quote church fathers for my view of the OT Canon but you will ignore them . The historical tradition of Christianity ? Not sure what you meant by that. I was not raised or born in Protestantism. I grew up in the catholic church. Before making biased comments of me please make sure you know enough information about me to maybe mae a reasonable conclusion on me.And read the church fathers who were qualified on the subject for myself and concluded that Trent's OT Canon listing was unhistorical and contrary to the unanimous consent of the church fathers. I had held to Saint Jerome's Old Testament Canon listing even before I embraced essential Protestanism. His OT listing matched up under proper study of the mattter. When all is said and done what you are doing is a red herring as the OT was given to Israel and not the church and therefore the Christian church were not the ones who collected the OT. Alot of your statements are basically biased of anything objective at this point.

ChaferDTS said...

"Nonsense."

That is simply a biased rejection. And not a rebuttle. See you are unstudied on how the OT was placed in the specified listing in the OT Hebrew Bible. You will notice that the OT was written by a prophet of God by office or one who had the prohectic gift or was a prophet by office and had the prophetic gift.


"Determined" has active and passive senses. I can determine who the president is without being the ultimate cause. A court of law can rule who the president is in a more authoritative way, but still being subject to even higher principles and authorities."

God is supreme and hence there is no higher authority than God Himself. The Church does not have equal authority to or with God in that regard. God determined what is inspired Scripture since He through the Holy Spirit moved chosen men of God to write as they were carried along by His Spirit. Scripture is not made inspired by the Church which is the point I am making. The Church is not the supreme court at all. The Church is merely a wittness to the fact of the Canon as inspired by God and collected by the church. Your major issue is you confused the collection of the Canon with that of the formulation of the Canon. The inspired Scripture were collected because they are Scripture and not made Scripture because the church collected them.

John said...

"According to Josephus the OT Canon for the Jews was already settled."

So ONE Jew says it is settled, and meanwhile all the Jews contemporary with him are disagreeing with the canon. So one might ask, why should we not see Josephus for what it is: a polemical and apologetical work which exagerates the real situation.

And if per-se we accepted what Josephus said, that still doesn't tell us if Esther is in or out, since he makes no reference to it, and we have no way of knowing if it was included in the books he refers to.

"But their OT Canon listing is far more closer to the Protestant listing than it is towards Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox."

Which proves what exactly? That your canon is partly wrong, but closer than most people's?

"but care to provide proof of your claim on them anyway since you said they rejected Esther from the OT Canon."

See here for Gregory see here for the Stichometry of Nicephorus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, see Anchor bible dictionary under Esther.

"the Synopsis of Sacred Scriptiure,"

That claim is false . "

Uh, no. It says that Esther is NOT canonical

"which are not considered canonical, but which are only read to catechumens, which are these: The Wisdom of Solomon, ... Sirach, Esther, Judith..."

but that "SOME of the ancients have said that, among the Hebrews, Esther is held to be canonical", but the author of the SoSS did NOT thus agree with that minority. Why on earth would you say this is supportive of Esther?

" that still does not overide the above where it is directed placed to the Canon"

Read it again, you got it wrong.

"Maybe a case of dishonesty through misuse"

Dishonesty? Nonsense. I can simply read. Go and read here where it agrees with what I said that the SoSS clearly omits Esther.

ChaferDTS said...

"Peter knew a lot of things you don't. Since he mentioned only Paul's epistles, and even then didn't enumerate them, this doesn't actually help you."

It does help me. The RCC and Eastern Orthodox want to claim I can't know what Scripture without their claimed teaching authority. Peter did not have Hippo, Cartage or Trent telling him what Scripture was. You are basically telling me that you know what Scripture is because the " church said so " based on a claimed infallibly dogma. Peter stated Paul's writings as Scripture that is all the proof I need. He knew what Paul write what Scripture is the main point here and you are avoiding that.

"The Church deciding things by council is in the bible."

Acts 15 is hardly proof for your claims.That was a special circumstances in which the apostles were present. Whereas we dont find any " church councils " of any importances for hundreds of years after they died. I would hope you agree there are no present day prophets or apostles. Since there are none around today no church council is infallible. I am sure you must know you can't apply Eph 2:20 to church councils after the apostles died off.

"Fine - explain to me how you know. Or is it the Mormon burning in the bosom theory you are propounding, because it sounds like it."

I explained part of it. Each book was written by chosen men of God which was confirmed during their times by their workings for God. In the OT the writers was either a prophet of God by office or had the prophetic gift or was a prophet by office and had the prophet gift. The NT had a similar pattern. And discussed other factors as well. As there are some books in Scripture which it's writter is unknown and yet is Scripture.Things such as the receiving of it at the time it was written by the people of God whom were familiar with them considered them. No burning bush as you distorted and misrepresented me and others on here. You have more in common with mormons since they have a claimed infallible authority like you do and added claimed new writings such as the BOM. What you are doing is playing the role of an atheist or agnostics who rejects Scripture and then turns around and claim he has an infallible authority than can tell me for certain what Scripture is. I am sorry but I am not a brainwashed or weakminded person with that type of mindset. You have not been paying attention to what is being said here. And then draging your own presupositions in to it and maybe causing you to fail to see things on how others are.

John said...

" You are using a minority to overrule a majority when you intentionally leave out men in those same time periods who did hold to the Protestant and Jewish Old Testament Canon. "

Firstly, if its hardly clear which side is in the majority.

Secondly, the majority of surviving witnesses does not equate to a majority opinion in the early church.

When textual critics consider the problem of Mark 16, they give a lot of weight to Eusebius and Jerome who both mention the majority of texts available to them omitted the longer ending, not withstanding that only about two surviving witnesses omit it. Surviving evidence is not the same as the original situation. That's why when Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium, observed that Esther was “accepted only by some.” that's a more valuable opinion than doing a head count today of what writings are left, since he was actually around at the time.

In any case, are you proposing the head count must always win? If that's the case, your canon still loses. But then it loses under every possible objective criteria.

"The Twofold division was the Law of Moses and the Prophets. That is what constituted as their Old Testament Canon as a rule of faith."

Which doesn't tell you anything about what is contained within those divisions.

"I am supported by such men like Saint Jerome"

Uh yeah, except for all the various times Jerome cites these books as scripture, then you suddenly disagree with him:

still our merriment must not forget the limit set by Scripture, and we must not stray too far from the boundary of our wrestling-ground. Your presents, indeed, remind me of the sacred volume, for in it Ezekiel decks Jerusalem with bracelets, (Eze. 16:11) Baruch receives letters from Jeremiah,(Jer. 36, Bar. 6) and the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove at the baptism of Christ.(Mt. 3:16) Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 31:2 (A.D. 384), in NPNF2, VI:45

Jerome, Letter 51, 6, 7, NPNF2, VI:87-8: "For in the book of Wisdom, which is inscribed with his name, Solomon says: "God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity."[Wisdom 2:23]...Instead of the three proofs from Holy Scripture which you said would satisfy you if I could produce them, behold I have given you seven"

"Do you expect me to explain the purposes and plans of God? The Book of Wisdom gives and answer to your foolish question [Sir 3:21] "Look not into things above thee and search not things too mighty for thee" "Jerome, "Against the Pelagians, NPNF2, VI:464-5"

"And in the proverbs Solomon tells us that as "the north wind driveth away rain, so doth an angry countenance a backbiting tongue.(Prov. 25:23)" It sometimes happens that an arrow when it is aimed at a hard object rebounds upon the bowman, wounding the would-bewounder, and thus, the words are fulfilled, "they were turned aside like a deceitful bow," (Psalm 128:57) and in another passage: "whoso casteth a stone on high casteth it on his own head." (Sir. 27:25) Jerome, To Rusticus, Epistle 125, 19 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:251

John said...

"Appears so but he would be in error on that."

So every father who disagrees with you is in error, and everyone who agrees is to be cited as evidence for your position. This is hardly an approach that actually leads you to a defensible position.

"Yet is his OT Canon list match yours ? He did include Esther there. "

Many make the mistake you are making. Origen cites his perception of the canon as understood by Jews he is in contact with, but that is not the same as his own canon or the canon of his church. Origen in various places argues that the canon of Jews is of no concern to the Church, and he accuses Africanus's suggestion that Susanna should be omitted as subjecting the church to the synagogue. (See Ep Afr 8).

So in answer to your question, yes I think his canon seems to have matched mine.

ChaferDTS said...

"So ONE Jew says it is settled, and meanwhile all the Jews contemporary with him are disagreeing with the canon. So one might ask, why should we not see Josephus for what it is: a polemical and apologetical work which exagerates the real situation."

You mispresented what I was saying there. I never claimed that at all. He was a historian and familiar with the back ground regarding it. Otherwise one is playing a selective game with history. Hence you are using double standards towards others here. I can quote church fathers for what I believe to be the correct OT Canon and yet you ignore them and yet want to be be one sided and follow yours instead of viewing them altogether to formulate an reasonable conclusion with the presented facts. And then again I do not believe the church fathers are infallible either. I only give them due consideration and yet when they are wrong I provide the necessary correction .

"And if per-se we accepted what Josephus said, that still doesn't tell us if Esther is in or out, since he makes no reference to it, and we have no way of knowing if it was included in the books he refers to."

That is not true. He included Esther in it. He followed the 22 book division and was included in it. Dishonesty with history there by you. I am sure you are unaware on the counting method used for the OT Canon book listing.

"Which proves what exactly? That your canon is partly wrong, but closer than most people's?"

That you were being misleading with the true facts of history. You were not giving an unbiased opinion to the matter.

"Uh, no. It says that Esther is NOT canonical"

My quote from my previous post says it was part of the Canon. Selective reading is what you have. You are playing a game with what all that is being stated. I wil recheck it tomorrow again to double check. But you are still being misleading with everything thus far discussed and selective with material.

ChaferDTS said...

Nice misuse of Jerome there. Selective quoting does not prove your case there. In none of those is he quoting them as Scripture. Him quoting them and using them does not mean that he held them as Scripture hence the fallacy in what you are saying. Then there is the possibility of maybe a changed position to a later mature position in which he rejected the apocrypha. Or more simple like I read the apocrypha for example but that does not equate me believing them to be inspired Scripture when they are not. Your quotes from Jerome appear to still be in line with what he said with regard to the OT Canon. Evidently you do not understand the position he held and you do not understand my position either. :(

As for Oriegen he did list what the OT Canon of the Jews. That is proof of a OT Canon for the Jews. I did not claim he himself held it but he correctly said what the OT Canon of the Jews were. Which contradicts what you have claimed.

I am having a hard time on trying to determine if you are an atheist argueing againist Scripture or not. The reason I say that is because of your manner of argumenation. 1 ) We without question agree on what the NT Canon is regardless of the specific manner which convinced us of it. 2 ) RCC, EO and Protestants agree with the law, the prophets and the writings. 3 ) The only debated aspects really of a most serious nature is the apocrypha. And you going off all around is a red herring to that. What you have wanted to do was to deny Esther as part of the OT Canon and to be uncertian of what is Scripture when I am certain of it already. The other aspects of discussion is the level and role of authority the church played part in the collection of Scripture. All in the meanwhile no proof has been put forth by you on why I should accept the claims of whatever church you are part of be that RCC or Eastern Orthodox.

ChaferDTS said...

Several questions that should be answered by a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.

Does the RCC or Eastern Orthodox use all the books of the Apocrypha ? If not, why exclude some and read others of it ?

John said...

"In several cases their Canon listing is more closer to that of Protestants than to Trent and Eastern Orthodox today. Bad misuse of history there again."

My epistemology doesn't require that at some arbitrary cut off point, somebody or other had the finally settled canon. All I have to demonstrate is that you have no objective basis for claiming a final or settled canon. You can't tell me that Esther is in or Baruch is out. If I think differently to you, all you can do is play citation wars, but without reaching any conclusion.

"I stand in the majority position of that of Saint Jerome".

Assuming you are in the majority, and assuming you stand with Jerome, both of which are disputed points, so what? If majority rules, your canon still loses.

"I have the OT Canon of Jesus and the Apostles."

Don't assume it, prove it. Oh, except you can't.

" I grew up in the catholic church. Before making biased comments of me please make sure you know enough information about me to maybe mae a reasonable conclusion on me."

Irrelevant. You are following the traditions of one particular sect within christendom. Whether you were born into it, or chose to go into it is neither here nor there.

"I had held to Saint Jerome's Old Testament Canon listing even before I embraced essential Protestanism. His OT listing matched up under proper study of the mattter."

Proper study? We're still waiting on you to outline how one conducts proper study. Is it majority head counts? If so, on what date are we to conduct said head count? And why is Esther in but Baruch out. Enquiring minds want to know.

"When all is said and done what you are doing is a red herring as the OT was given to Israel and not the church"

Oh, so you're a dispensationalist then, arguing for a hard break between the people of God pre and post 33 AD? Odd, since the bible says the earliest Christians worshipped in the temple and the synagogues. Why should we assume a particular number of years for Israel to settle all questions of the canon, when the Christian church took upwards of 500 years?

"Nonsense."

That is simply a biased rejection. And not a rebuttle."

What is there to rebut in a bare faced assertion??? Bare faced assertions can be fully and forcefully rebutted with the expression "bull".

"See you are unstudied on how the OT was placed in the specified listing in the OT Hebrew Bible."

What "specified listing"?

"You will notice that the OT was written by a prophet of God by office or one who had the prohectic gift or was a prophet by office and had the prophetic gift. "

Yah... and the point is what?

"God determined what is inspired Scripture since He through the Holy Spirit moved chosen men of God to write as they were carried along by His Spirit. "

Oh, so you agree with everyone in Christendom then? Bully.

That doesn't help in the exercise of helping YOU to know what that list is.

"Scripture is not made inspired by the Church which is the point I am making."

Oh, the pain those straw men are enduring!

parker said...

Hey, TUAD

my insults against you were unwarranted. my apologies.

John said...

"Peter did not have Hippo, Cartage or Trent telling him what Scripture was."

So let's explore this line of thinking. If Peter knew something without Hippo, then I don't need Hippo.

How did Peter know what God wants in the New Covenant? Without scripture. He defied the circumcision laws in Acts 15. In Acts 10 he overturns the food laws without scripture. Paul overturns the entire law in Romans. Therefore I as an individual have the exact same abilities as what Peter had?

Does this argument actually make sense to you that you are claiming the same abilities as the apostles as a great argument?

"You are basically telling me that you know what Scripture is because the " church said so " based on a claimed infallibly dogma."

Infallibility dogma? Don't know what that is. I'm saying that the church is what God set up to figure out the rule of faith, as we see in Acts 15. If that means something you call "infallibility dogma" I guess that means you claim for yourself infallibility since you claim to do what the church does which is make binding judgments about what books to follow.

"Acts 15 is hardly proof for your claims.That was a special circumstances in which the apostles were present."

It says that their judgement is binding because the "apostles and elders" looked into it. If only apostles matter, it would only say the apostles looked into it. Unfortunately you won't let the text speak, but insist upon eisegesis.

"Whereas we dont find any " church councils " of any importances for hundreds of years after they died. "

Nonsense. When do you think the apostles died? Assuming John died around 100AD which is a date commonly cited, and to pick just one well known council, the one called by the bishops of Proconsular Asia to discuss the date of Easter in 189AD as discussed by Irenaeus, that is 89 years, not "hundreds of years. From there we have various councils, the ones called in Carthage by Cyprian in 251AD and so on.

"I would hope you agree there are no present day prophets or apostles. Since there are none around today no church council is infallible. I am sure you must know you can't apply Eph 2:20 to church councils after the apostles died off."

The apostles carried on Christ's ministry when Christ was gone, and the church carries on the apostolic ministry when the apostles are gone. The apostles didn't lack Christ's authority when he was gone and the church doesn't lack apostolic authority when they are gone.

"Things such as the receiving of it at the time it was written by the people of God whom were familiar with them considered them."

So the testimony OF THE CHURCH? Hallelujah, there is hope for you yet. Now once you've accepted the proposition you need the testimony of the church you're going to have to firm down a bit your methodology for figuring out where the church is, so you can ask for its testimony.

John said...

"I can quote church fathers for what I believe to be the correct OT Canon"

Err, you can quote precisely ONE church father for the 66 book canon: Jerome. And even he can be cited against you as well. Not exactly a compelling record, huh?

"I I only give them due consideration and yet when they are wrong I provide the necessary correction."

Oh, YOU provide the necessary correction. And who exactly are YOU to be doing that?

"That is not true. He included Esther in it. He followed the 22 book division and was included in it. Dishonesty with history there by you."

Back to your old methodology, bare faced assertions, and accusing others of dishonesty (ad-hominem).

Now pray tell, how do you know what is in the 22 book canon when all the historical sources disagree about the content of said list? Read "The Canon Debate", P180, by Lee Martin McDonald. Neither the content of the 22 (or 24) books was universally accepted, nor was even the existence of 22 or 24 books in the canon universally accepted by the Jews. Even the tripartite division wasn't universally accepted by the Jews. Athanasius, Cyril and Gregory reference the idea of 22 books, and yet they omit Esther.

"My quote from my previous post says it was part of the Canon."

Which part of "not canonical" are you confused about? Yes, it says that "SOME ancients" are reckoned to have disagreed, but the author of SoSS is not among them. Ridiculous to call me dishonest for reading the text for what it says and agreeing with bible-researcher.com

"Nice misuse of Jerome there. Selective quoting does not prove your case there. In none of those is he quoting them as Scripture. "

1. He purports to give seven SCRIPTURAL proofs, and Wisdom is one of them.

2. He refers to Wisdom as prophesy that was fulfilled.

3. He says if you want to know the PLANS AND PURPOSES OF GOD you need to read Wisdom.

4. He assumes that Solomon wrote Wisdom.

"Nice misuse of Jerome there. Selective quoting does not prove your case there. In none of those is he quoting them as Scripture. "

Other way around. These are his later statements. There is also the famous quote where he submits his opinion to the church. ""What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant." Against Rufinus 11:33

"As for Oriegen he did list what the OT Canon of the Jews. That is proof of a OT Canon for the Jews."

It proves only that he came into contact with Jews who had a canon, which by the by disagrees with your one, since it includes the Epistle of Jeremiah. The nice thing about canons is everybody has got one, but not necessarily the same one as the other guy. If you want to run with Origen, fine. That would indicate your canon is wrong.

"We without question agree on what the NT Canon is regardless of the specific manner which convinced us of it."

How do you know? How do you know I am not Ethiopian orthodox, or non-Chalcedonian Syrian?

"What you have wanted to do was to deny Esther as part of the OT Canon and to be uncertian of what is Scripture when I am certain of it already. "


Zzzzz. I never denied Esther to the canon. Please cite where I did that. All I said is that there is far more evidence for various books in the so-called apocrypha than there is for Esther.

" All in the meanwhile no proof has been put forth by you on why I should accept the claims of whatever church you are part of "

Well, we are trying to stick to the topic of this blog article, right? That being how we know the canon.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Thanks for the apology Parker.

God bless you.

Truth Unites... and Divides

ChaferDTS said...

"Err, you can quote precisely ONE church father for the 66 book canon: Jerome. And even he can be cited against you as well. Not exactly a compelling record, huh?"

No he can't be cited againist me. False assumption. None of your quotes proved your case. The fallacy in what you said as because he knew of them and used them that it equates them with Scripture. A false premise. That is seen by the fact the NT quotes from sources outside of the Old Testament and yet not as Scripture. When all is said and done you are telling me Christians do not know for certain what the OT and NT Canon is what I am getting from you. Meanwhile you play the role of the hypocipte when Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have their own listings which outside of the apocrypha are in agreement with it. The only difference would be between the shorter listing of the OT Hebrew and Protestant listing or the extended book listing of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox. Your arguments work againist you as well. Your whole confusion lies in your apparent failure to define its composing, writing period, then it's collecting and gathering , then it's comparing, sifting , and then finally it's completing and recongnising that are factored in to the process involved. And then using that to claim we don't no one can know what is Scripture. I have to be blunt here. You in practice are an atheist or agnostics which does not believe in Scripture or God functionally. You are trying to cast doubt and then claim later on " hey my church has the infallible authority to tell you what is Scripture " . Yet not subject your own churches claimed authority to the objections which you use againist Scripture. I do not know if that is your intention to come across like this but that is how it looks like to me at least.

"Oh, YOU provide the necessary correction. And who exactly are YOU to be doing that?"

I am a child of God who " test all things and hold fast to what is good " . I sure hope you are not implying that the church fathers were infallible are you ? Unless you believe they were infallible in teaching than this objection holds no water. Do you believe that Origen was correct when he at some pointed denied a future second coming of Jesus Christ ? If not, why not ? See how it breaks down there.

ChaferDTS said...

"Back to your old methodology, bare faced assertions, and accusing others of dishonesty (ad-hominem)."

I can throw that right back at you. You made a claim without proof. I checked out his writing on that and he indeed included it. Where is proof he excluded it ? It does not exist. It is a myth. If we followed your standarded other OT books are to be rejected as well. He combined Esther with other OT books in his listing in reality. He made sections of it and when all was said and done he counted 22 books. Besides he claimed a fixed canon in the days of Artaxerxes around the time of Ezra. You were misleading in it.

"Now pray tell, how do you know what is in the 22 book canon when all the historical sources disagree about the content of said list? Read "The Canon Debate", P180, by Lee Martin McDonald. Neither the content of the 22 (or 24) books was universally accepted, nor was even the existence of 22 or 24 books in the canon universally accepted by the Jews. Even the tripartite division wasn't universally accepted by the Jews. Athanasius, Cyril and Gregory reference the idea of 22 books, and yet they omit Esther."

Where is proof of this ? Jesus Himself used the twofold division and the threefold division. Luke 24:27 has the twofold division used and in Luke 24:44 has the threefold division used. Looks like to me at least both of those were used in the days of Jesus Christ and the apostles since they understood what Jesus was referring to. You again indicated that Esther is not part of the OT Canon to me and yet later on say you believe it is part of the OT Canon. Which is it ? And from what ever source you use it is a twisting of history since at the most that can be said is that Esther was debated or questioned by some.If you believe Esther is part of the OT then you are being inconsistant in your own arguments and standards.You are not holding yourself to the standards you setted on others. My whole thing is that it is Scripture when it was written and not depended on when the people of God are fully certain of it.Being fully aware of it does not make it Scripture or not. You confuse the inspiration and writings of Scripture with that of the collection of individual books to placing them together as a whole. And then use that to claim that we had no Scripture for so and so years.

Rhology said...

John et al,

What does it tell us when CFs disagree about the Canon?

Rhology said...

Here's a hint if you need one.

ChaferDTS said...

Most of your later post are really circular and dispution in interpretation of Jerome. The fact is that once he made his clear cut following and statements concerning what the OT Canon was he did not change his mind afterwards. Oddly we have some like you and Roman Catholics who claim he subjected himself to the authority of the church. That part is not true.He was clear of the distinction between rule of faith books for doctrine and that read for the edification of the believer.

Since you want to bring in Rufinus read this:

37. Of the Old Testament, therefore, first of all there have been handed down five books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; then Joshua the son of Nun; the book of Judges together with Ruth; then four books of Kings, 2 which the Hebrews reckon two; Paralipomenon, 3 which is called the book of Days [Chronicles], and two books of Ezra, 4 which the Hebrews reckon one, **and Esther;** of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; moreover of the Twelve [minor] Prophets, one book; Job also and the Psalms of David, each one book. Solomon gave three books to the churches, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs. These comprise the books of the Old Testament.

"How do you know? How do you know I am not Ethiopian orthodox, or non-Chalcedonian Syrian?"

Then what are you then ? The Orthodox Study Bible ( representing Eastern Orthodox ), The New American Bible ( representing Roman Catholicism) and the KJV , NKJV, NASB and NIV ( representing Protestants ) have the same exact New Testament Canon listing. I am unaware of any church or denomination which has a different NT Canon listing from that held by Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholicism, Protestantism and Old Catholics. If there are some that do reject the present NT Canon listing that still does not prove the existance of an open Canon concept you appear to imply. I was under the impression that Christianity as a whole were unified with regard to the New Testament at the present time. The only ones to my knowledge that has added books are Mormons in this day and age.

"Zzzzz. I never denied Esther to the canon. Please cite where I did that. All I said is that there is far more evidence for various books in the so-called apocrypha than there is for Esther."

Your post indicates otherwise. That is how you are coming across to me. The issue of the apocrypha takes a different thing altogether due to the fact they are found only in Christian copies of the LXX and not in the Hebrew OT. We have no copies to my knowledge of any copies of the LXX that are Hebrew in orgin much less that has those extra books. Men such as Saint Augustine incorrectly those that the LXX was an inspired translation much as a present day KJV Onlyist believes that regarding the KJV . I reject the apocrypha because they are not found in the original Hebrew nor written by an prophet by office or one who had the prophetic gift and the fact that it contains historical errors within them. Then there is the question if we accept all of the apocrypha or parts of them which would lead to another problem.

John said...

" I checked out his writing on that and he indeed included it. "

No he didn't ever refer to Esther as scripture. Everybody knows that. But feel free to provide the quote if you want to overturn what everyone knows.

"He combined Esther with other OT books in his listing in reality. "

Nobody knows what he included with what. It's all speculation.

"Besides he claimed a fixed canon in the days of Artaxerxes around the time of Ezra. "

Doesn't help you if you can't show what is contained therein.

"Where is proof of this ? Jesus Himself used the twofold division and the threefold division."

Sure, but not all groups agreed with that. Qumran (1QS V8,9) has initiates swearing allegence to the Torah of Moses and that which has been revealed to the Sons of Zadoq, the priests. In 4th Ezra there is a pre-rabbinic story that God re-reveals 24 books plus he re-reveals another 70 books. What these books are which were re-revealed is unknown.

"You again indicated that Esther is not part of the OT Canon to me and yet later on say you believe it is part of the OT Canon. Which is it ?"

Zzzzz, I never said it isn't part of the canon. If you're going to make these crazy bare faced assertions, at least quote something to justify them.

"If you believe Esther is part of the OT then you are being inconsistant in your own arguments and standards.You are not holding yourself to the standards you setted on others. "

Nonsense. I'm just demonstrating to you that the evidences against Esther are larger than those against books like Baruch. That makes YOU the one with an inconsistent standard, since I accept BOTH.

"Being fully aware of it does not make it Scripture or not. "

Irrelevant, everybody knows that. The only interesting question is always how YOU know what it is. Look at the title of this blog entry. See the word "knew" there in the title? That's the interesting bit.

"And then use that to claim that we had no Scripture for so and so years."

Never said one thing about having "no scripture". You need to read more carefully. What I said is you have no basis for claiming final and settled knowledge of the canon.

"No he can't be cited againist me. False assumption."

More bare faced contradictions of the facts. Jerome says he cites seven SCRIPTURES, one of which is Wisdom. See that word: SCRIPTURES. Get it? SCRIPTURES. SCRIPTURES. SCRIPTURES.

"And then using that to claim we don't no one can know what is Scripture."

Never said that no one can know what is scripture. Again with the crazy ludicrous claims. I said YOU as a protestant have no basis for claiming knowledge of a settled canon.

"I sure hope you are not implying that the church fathers were infallible are you ? "

Is this somehow relevant? Why would I want to wander down this rabbit trail? I never claimed they were infallible, and don't see a reason to start now.

John said...

"I am unaware of any church or denomination which has a different NT Canon listing from that held by Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholicism, Protestantism and Old Catholics."

Don't stay ignorant of the rest of Christendom, that's all I can recommend.

" If there are some that do reject the present NT Canon listing that still does not prove the existance of an open Canon concept you appear to imply."

I never said anything about an open canon. I said that you as a protestant have no basis for knowing anything about any final canon list.

"The issue of the apocrypha takes a different thing altogether due to the fact they are found only in Christian copies of the LXX and not in the Hebrew OT."

Christian copies came from Jewish copies. I could just as much point out that no Christian bible ever omitted these books until around the 18th century.

"I reject the apocrypha because they are not found in the original Hebrew"

Quite a few of the books are available in the "original Hebrew". Sirach is available as חכמת בן סירא. Another bad argument shot down.

"nor written by an prophet by office or one who had the prophetic gift"

That's assuming what you have to prove...

"and the fact that it contains historical errors within them."

Show that every single one of them has an historical error. Then show that these claims are of a different kind than those already leveled against the other books that you accept. If you can't do that, then you have no argument.

"Then there is the question if we accept all of the apocrypha or parts of them which would lead to another problem. "

That is exactly your problem. You can't start out from the position that there is a neat division between your 66 books and other ones such that they are all in or out. You have to prove every one on its own merits.

ChaferDTS said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ChaferDTS said...

Let's see Judith 2 claims that Nebuchadnezzaer was " King of the Assyrians and reigned in Nineveh" . That is a clear cut historical error found. This is found in The Orthodox Study Bible on pg. 578-580. He was King of Babylon historically speaking in reality.

2 Mac. 15:38 disclaims inspiration for itself. It reads " If I have written well and made my point in the narrative, this is what I myself desired.But if it was done poorly and is just average, this is the best I could do. " ( Cited from The Orthodox Study Bible, pg. 666 )

ChaferDTS said...

Jesus settled that the threefold division was correct. Jesus is the law giver and hence overrules what you said as He is our great God and Savior. That is the OT Hebrew and Protestant OT Canon. This alone shows that in the days of Jesus Christ a settled OT Canon existed and used by Him and the apostles.

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

You are the one claiming Esther is not in OT Canon listings. That speaks for itself there. All of which serves no logical purpose since you also say it is part of the OT Canon. It shows that something is wrong from your end. You are ending up using special pleading or double standards. Since our disagreement is over the Apocrypha only makes no sense on the issue of Esther not in OT Canon listings . Otherwise you are liable to be accused of denying it as part of Scripture. You brought that up remember that. My Eastern Orthodox friend would be shocked of the manner of which you are using here on the OT Canon.

You are coming across as denying it as part of the OT Canon. You may not intend to but that how it is appearing to me. You have no understanding of the method used in the discovery of the Canon. You are looking through things with your " Eastern Orthodox presupositions " which blinds you to see what we are saying. You biased are very evident there. Protestants are wrong no matter what is how you come across to me as. What you are doing is called a red herring.

You have not understood what David King wrote in the Article of the thread. That is the problem when you start making comments like a " burning bosom of mormonism " to me or others it shows that you are not being objective in how you are looking at things from our perspective. Do you believe Jesus Christ " knew " what the OT Canon was ? Yes or no ?


The problem lies on your lack of understanding of the Protestant view of the Canon. All you seem to be doing is just disagreeing with anything and everything said no matter what. Jesus Christ confirmed the books most attacked by those who doubt them or reject. Many of those are dealt with in the Gospel Of Matthew.

What you are saying is we can't know what is Scripture without an infallible church authority. You have no proper understanding of the Protestant position is displayed in your post. I can say you as an Eastern Orthodox have no idea what the Canon is since according to your own standards have not defined what the Canon is by means of an Ecumenical Church Council. None of your seven Ecumenical Church Councils dealt specifically with that in dogmatically defined a Canon. You have proved what David King has correctly pointed out in the article. A person such as yourself must resort to special pleading. What is intresting is not once you have told me at how one can know what the Canon of Scripture is.

You appeared to dislike what I said concerning the church fathers on correcting them when they are in error. So yes it is relevant to me. We are to test the teaching of Pastors in the church and church fathers and church councils by Scripture. We are to hold fast to what is good and reject something when it is in error. And you questioned who I am to do this . Evidently it hit a nerve with you.

ChaferDTS said...

Since The Orthodox Study Bible has a listing of the Canon of them, Roman Catholicism and Protestants. Would you care to say that towards those who wrote the article in The Orthodox Study Bible in their listing of the Canon on Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant ? You appear to be ignorant of Protestantism from what I can tell.

You are not reading what David King wrote in his clear article on this here. I say you as an Eastern Orthodox have no basis for knowing anything of a final canon list as none of your own seven ecumenical church councils dogmatically defined it's own Canon listing. You keep saying I can't know the Canon which does indicates an open canon in your mind.

Where are the Jewish copies of it which contains them all ? The LXX is a translation of the OT Hebrew made for Greek speaking Jews. What is rejected is the idea that the apocrypha is inspired Scripture. Your claim is based on a false understanding. While they were still contained in Protestant Bibles they were still not regarded as inspired Scripture. So what you said is misleading concerning the information there. The Thirty-Nine Articles of Anglicanism. Westminster Confession of Faith , London Baptist Confession and other Protestant confessions states their Canon listing. So just because they were read and used by them in their translations they still did not believe the apocrypha was inspired Scripture as I said. You are basically following the false understanding based on the LXX which confused some church fathers on this matter.

You dont have any completed copies of all the apocrypha in Hebrew at all. There is no proof of them as being held as inspired Scripture by the Jews. Where are the Hebrew copies of the book of Daniel for example that have the added sections to it that are found in the LXX ? The apocrypha are generally dated around 200bc . Why add material to the original book of Daniel that were not originally there when it was first penned by him ? It is stuff like this I have in mind .

Care to show me what prophets or those who had the prophetic gift wrote in the Old Testament wrote any of the books of the apocrypha then ? Jesus Himself referred to the " Law and the Prophets " which in line with what I had stated. If you dont believe Luke 24:27 there is really nothing I can say or do to change your mind.

Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

"Show that every single one of them has an historical error. "

I provided 1 clear cut example. And I quoted one that denied what he wrote was inspired Scripture.

"Then show that these claims are of a different kind than those already leveled against the other books that you accept. If you can't do that, then you have no argument."

The example I provided can not be leveled againist inspired Scripture.

"That is exactly your problem. You can't start out from the position that there is a neat division between your 66 books and other ones such that they are all in or out. You have to prove every one on its own merits."

I dealt with the issue of the Old Testament with Jesus Christ who settled that issue. Any issue relating to the NT is irrelevent since we agree with the NT Canon listing and would be a red herring.

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

John said...

"Let's see Judith 2 claims that Nebuchadnezzaer was " King of the Assyrians "

2 Mac. 15:38 disclaims inspiration for itself. It reads " If I have written well and made my point in the narrative, this is what I myself desired.But if it was done poorly and is just average, this is the best I could do. " ( Cited from The Orthodox Study Bible, pg. 666 ) "

That's all you could come up with, 2 books? That leaves you with about a dozen left to go.

Now for Judith, have you considered all the apologetic arguments used to justify contradictions in the 39 books?

In Acts 5:36 Paul’s former teacher Gamaliel is quoted as citing the unhappy example of Theudas, who led a band of four hundred men against the Roman government, only to be destroyed along with all his followers. This account has been treated with skepticism, on the ground that Josephus (Antiquities 20.5.1) refers to a Theudas who raised a revolt against the Roman government in A.D. 44 but was caught by the forces of Cuspius Fadius near the banks of the Jordan and thereupon decapitated. This would be too late for the context of Acts 5, indicating that Luke inserted the wrong story into the narrative. However it is possible that Theudas mentioned by Gamaliel may have been an earlier rebel of the same name (which is probably a short form of Theodores) who raised a futile revolt back in A.D. 6

So have you considered another king of the same name? Kings with the same name as other kings happened all the time in that part of the world.

Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign... II Chronicles 36:9
Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign... II Kings 24:8

There's another possibility, a problem with the textual transmission of the book.

Re 2 Mac, are you assuming that an author with the humility to raise the possibility that his narrative may be average or poor can't be inspired? Do all the limitations of the author that find their way into the text somehow impinge on the inspiration of God?

What then do we make of 1 Corinthians 1:14-16, where Paul first says he baptised ONLY Crispus and Gaius, then he corrects himself that he baptised also the Stephanas household. Then he corrects himself that he can't even remember who he baptised. Do these foibles in the recollection of Paul as he is writing and his final inability to recall what actually happened impinge on inspiration?

John said...

"Jesus settled that the threefold division was correct."

I don't think there's anything right or wrong about divisions in the bible. If I want to talk about the Pauline books versus the Lukan books, I don't need Christ's sign-off on that because he only sanctioned three divisions. The point is that the Jews of that time had many ways of thinking about the books. Some talked about 2 divisions, some 3, some other things. Some talked of 22 books, some 24, some didn't talk in those terms at all.

"This alone shows that in the days of Jesus Christ a settled OT Canon existed and used by Him and the apostles. "

Settled in whose mind? You accused me of confusing the canon in God's mind and the canon in our mind. If Christ is God, you can't cite him for the former as evidence for the latter. In any case, merely citing scripture does not indicate a closed and settled canon. Otherwise we would have no New Testament would we now.

"You are the one claiming Esther is not in OT Canon listings. That speaks for itself there. "

Err, I said Esther is not in many listings. But what does your quote got to do with anything? Jesus refers to the law, prophets and Psalms therefore Esther is in? what kind of crazy logic is that? In any case, Jesus said those three categories speak of Him, yet Esther never even mentions God. If anything, that quote is a reason to omit it.

" Since our disagreement is over the Apocrypha only makes no sense on the issue of Esther not in OT Canon listings . Otherwise you are liable to be accused of denying it as part of Scripture."

What a lot of rubbish. I'm just pointing out that all the problems you cite for so-called apocryphal books also exist for books in your canon. I'm dragging you by the neck and demanding you apply consistency. I realise this is painful for you to have a mirror put up to your face about how inconsistent you are, but there you have it. I'll stop talking about Esther if you admit the problems of Esther being in the canon are no greater than the so-called apocrypha. Deal?

"You have no understanding of the method used in the discovery of the Canon."

Really. I've asked you to tell us what this great method is because enquiring minds want to know, but you won't tell us.

"None of your seven Ecumenical Church Councils dealt specifically with that in dogmatically defined a Canon."

Irrelevant. I've said that the knowledge we have about the canon, such as it is, comes from the tradition of the church. Whether that knowledge is good, bad or indifferent, that's where it comes from. It didn't come from you, sitting under a tree and suddenly shouting Eureka, I've decided upon a canon, and it just happens to match the same one as the people at my local church. No, you took it from the tradition of your church.

John said...

"Since The Orthodox Study Bible has a listing of the Canon of them, Roman Catholicism and Protestants. Would you care to say that towards those who wrote the article in The Orthodox Study Bible in their listing of the Canon on Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant ? You appear to be ignorant of Protestantism from what I can tell."

Yes, obviously, Protestants have a canon. What I said was is you have no basis for claiming this list is the final canon. The Orthodox Study bible observes what you refuse to admit: your church has a tradition about this, but you have no epistemological foundation for saying this particular index is the last word on the matter.

"I say you as an Eastern Orthodox have no basis for knowing anything of a final canon list as none of your own seven ecumenical church councils dogmatically defined it's own Canon listing."

We have a pretty good idea from the tradition of the church. To the extent we may or may not be certain, we're not worried about it. David King is the one asserting that all the Jews had a final, certain and settled canon, and the world cannot continue if that is not true.

"You keep saying I can't know the Canon which does indicates an open canon in your mind. "

Open canon and knowledge of the canon are not the same thing.

"Where are the Jewish copies of it which contains them all ?"

Jewish? The true Jews joined the church. Church copies are Jewish copies.

"The Thirty-Nine Articles of Anglicanism. Westminster Confession of Faith , London Baptist Confession and other Protestant confessions states their Canon listing. "

Well, those documents are the result of a lot of political manoeuvrings that the people on the ground didn't always agree with. The Book of Common Prayer has lectionary readings from the apocrypha, and the KJV has cross references between the apocrypha and the other books as if there was no distinction. I don't think the general people in the pews had much idea of these claims for many centuries after the reformation. The bibles had the apocrypha, the church services read the apocrypha. Who would know any different except the academics at the top? And those people often didn't agree with the 39 articles anyway. The 39 articles was a document produced because of a lack of consensus about so many issues, so some positions were written down for the sake of unity, and pushed out. Over time, they gained traction because they had the force of king and country, and ultimately the apocrypha was removed from most bibles, contrary to what had gone on for the previous 1700 or so years.

John said...

"You dont have any completed copies of all the apocrypha in Hebrew at all. "

Right... because the NT was written in Greek, and some of the apocrypha too. That was the Judaizers' argument against the NT - it wasn't written in Hebrew. You are not a Judaizer are you?

"There is no proof of them as being held as inspired Scripture by the Jews."

There is no proof of them NOT being held as inspired. They are in all the copies of the LXX as part of Daniel. Jews used the LXX, why would they make it part of the same book if not thought to be inspired? Would they intermix inspired and non-inspired work? It is found in the Theodotian version of Daniel which is another Jewish version of the OT. It is found at Qumran among the Dead sea scrolls. The only rational explanation for these facts is that Jews held them to be inspired. Quite possibly not all Jews thus held them, but obviously many did.

"The apocrypha are generally dated around 200bc."

Here you go again treating these books as one lump, when they are not.

According to the Anchor bible dictionary about the main book of Daniel, "All but the most conservative scholars now accept the conclusion that the book of Daniel reached its present form in the 2d century B.C.E."

Concerning the LXX additions to Daniel it says they "may date from the 3rd C BCE".

I have no idea what the dates are for composition, nor do I see the point of your mentioning it. Was there a point?

"Why add material to the original book of Daniel that were not originally there when it was first penned by him ?"

I don't know. Why not add material? The periscope of the adulterer seems to have been added to the Gospel of John. Some people think Mark 16 was an addition to Mark. Many people think that Daniel being written in both Hebrew and Aramaic is an indication that it didn't start out as one work. The Jews often have Ezra and Nehemiah as one book. I don't know all the answers about why things are as they are. Do I need to know to say it is scripture?

"Care to show me what prophets or those who had the prophetic gift wrote in the Old Testament wrote any of the books of the apocrypha then ?"

Wha....? This assumes a-priori that none of the books of the so-called apocrypha should be considered part of the Old Testament or considered prophets. It also assumes a-priori that all the books you consider in the Old Testament are written by prophets. Assuming what you wish to prove is not a great argumentation technique. Jesus in Luke 24 does not enumerate what persons he has in mind.

Turretinfan said...

John wrote: "That was the Judaizers' argument against the NT - it wasn't written in Hebrew."

What evidence can you present to back up this claim?

-TurretinFan

Turretinfan said...

And in case you, John, think you don't need to, I quote your own words: "If you're going to make these crazy bare faced assertions, at least quote something to justify them."

-TurretinFan

John said...

Jews believe that only Hebrew is a holy language, chosen by God to reveal himself. In the Talmud Rabbi Yehudah opines that one must recite prayers in the original Hebrew. Angels only understand Hebrew. The Septuagint, was rejected by the Jews even the parts which were a translation of books they accepted. Does this sound like people open to the idea that scripture can be in Greek?

Turretinfan said...

Modern Jews and the Judaizers are two different groups. Are you aware of that?

John said...

Judaize. v. to conform to the spirit, character, principles, or practices of Judaism. - Random house dictinoary.

"To bring into conformity with Judaism. " - American Heritage

"1 make Jewish. 2 follow Jewish customs or religious rites." - Oxford.

BTW, do you think the modern Jews only who rejected the Septuagint?

Turretinfan said...

Are you really this stupid, John?

Turretinfan said...

I'll take your extended silence to mean that you are not that stupid. So then, are you ready to admit that your claim, "That was the Judaizers' argument against the NT - it wasn't written in Hebrew," was a fabrication?

natamllc said...

I have listened to two arguments for why the "Talmud" is unbelief and does not originate from the basis of the Faith once delivered to the Saints.

One was from a "Messianic" Jew, converted to Biblical Faith in Christ Jesus, thus one can make the same conclusion of them as any Gentile can claim, God gave them the gift of Faith to believe Jesus is the Christ the Son of the Living God.

Two was from a Dr. of Theology, a Lutheran nevertheless, a Dr. nevertheless. The Talmud, they assert, is what you end up with when you are drawn away from the "mystery" of the Faith once delivered to the Saints.

The Talmud was concocted by a bunch of Jewish scholars dealing with major mysterious issues like personal sin and justification for it instead of just accepting the "Truth"/the "Torah". That is a very simplistic definition. It took the Jewish Rabbinical scholars lifetimes to come up with this self justification so that by the time of Jesus He could confront it and those holding to it and not to the Torah, the Law of Righteousness brought into existence by the work of the Holy Spirit upon the hearts and minds and souls of the writers of the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms.

I have to admit I have sinned and there is absolutely nothing I can do to change that or to escape the consequences of my personal sins "by my own justification for them".

God has concluded something already and before the very first sin of Eve and Adam, in that order. This is a mystery indeed not easily reconciled by self-righteous Jewish leaders ruling the nation of Israel then or now.

The Talmud, however sincere and genuine it is, still is not the Torah; which parenthetically is the work of God produced through Moses and the Elect Prophets! The Torah will stand the test of fire while the Talmud will burn up! :)

We are left here at the end of the day. I would not rely upon the Talmud for much more than a fanciful document of human wisdom and error. You?

Rom 11:28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.
Rom 11:29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
Rom 11:30 For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience,
Rom 11:31 so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy.
Rom 11:32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

This saying most certainly will become truth if the prophesies of the Jewish Prophets come true:

"Do you know how to get a dog to let go of his dry bone? You throw him a lamb chop!"

For those of us slow of heart to believe, ah, stupid, dry bone=talmud, lamb chop=law and Gospel/Jesus Christ, the Law, Jesus Christ, the Gospel!

Hungry?

John said...

"you're not that stupid" is not a rational statement that I would respond to.

Turretinfan said...

John:

a) There's nothing irrational about calling your bluff.

b) Since you're refusing to admit that you fabricated when everyone can see you did, you should not feel welcome to continue to post comments here.

-TurretinFan

Turretinfan said...

ChaferDTS:

You put a lot of effort into responding to John, so I'm inclined to let your and John's interaction stand.

I'll just add one thing to the discussion at this point:

John asked: "So how can Peter be recognising a proto and incomplete canon in 3:16 AND a final, settled and already known canon in the very same verse?"

The answer, of course, is that he's not correctly identified the claim.

- TurretinFan

ChaferDTS said...

1. Regarding the 22 and the 24 book count of the Hebrew Canon, they all contained the same books. Their only difference was in their method of how they counted it. It contained Esther contrary to what you claim. Since Eastern Orthodox in The Orthodox Study Bible includes it in their article on the Canon of EO, RCC and Protestants what you are doing is basically a red herring since it is conceded by your own church as part of the Old Testament Canon. Any raising of the book of Esther is a distraction of the real issue.

2. Regarding the Law and the Prophets and The Law, the Prophets and the Psalms these are referring to the very same Old Testament Hebrew Canon expressed in two different manners and yet have the very same books included in them. The Old Testament Hebrew Canon are called both the Law of Moses and the Prophets or the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms and are interchangable terms. Esther was included in it. Using the Law , the Prophets and the Psalms it is located within the third section the " Psalms " which itself is subdivided within it as follow : a) poerical books- Psalms, Proverbs, Job; b) the Rolls- Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther.; and c) prophetical-historical books- Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles. So your claim that Esther is not there is without foundation. Like it or not, Jesus authorized this as the Old Testament Hebrew Canon. Jesus Christ is God incarnate and in his ministry confirmed the two ways of referring to the Hebrew Old Testament Canon. My exact claim was only on the Old Testament Hebrew Canon. You bring up the New Testement is irrelevent since it was not written at that time and my claim had nothing at all to do with the New Testament.

3. Jesus did have in mind a specific listing of books. In Matthew 23:35 which covers the first until the last book of the Hebrew Old Testament. When we include also the two manners of which it was referred to as we have the same thing.

Here is a listing of the Old Testament Canon of the Jewish people.

DIVISION of the Old Testament Books. : The thirty-nine books of the OT were anciently divided by the Hebrews into three distinct classes: ( 1 ) The law ( Torah ) , which consisted of the five books of Moses- Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. These are the oldest of the biblical books, Mosaic in origin but incorporating much earlier material. ( 2 ) The Prophets ( Nevi'im ) , Which embraced the four earlier Prophets, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings and the four later prophets, Isaiah, Jermiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve- Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah. These were believed to have been written by those who had the prophetic office as well as the prophetic gift. ( 3 ) The Writings ( Kenthuvim ) , which consisted of ( a ) poetical books- Psalms, Proverbs, Job; ( b ) the Rolls- Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther; and ( c ) prophetical-historical books- Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles. The Heb. books number twenty-four and are identical in content with the thirty-nine of the English order, the difference being made up by the division of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles into two books respectively instead of one, and by counting the twelves minor prophets individually instead of as one. ( THE NEW UNGER'S BIBLE DICTIONARY, 169-170 )

ChaferDTS said...

4 . You said there is no proof of Hebrew Old Testement Canon that was settled. I had listed Jerome earlier but you rejected him . Due to space limiations in the post I can't post it. But I direct anyone reading to go to Jerome's Preface to the book of Kings.

5. You claim " your church has a tradition " with respect to the Canon. But you have no idea of me or my background at all and made false assumptions. I did not grow up and raised in Protestantism. I once held to Roman Catholicism prior to June 1992 when I left it. The only thing that can be said of me is a change of opinion on the Old Testament Canon. And you likewise misrepresented Protestants with regard to how they come to believe and embrace the Canon listing that they hold to. Your comments on that were one of ignorance and personal bias againist them on it.

6. Your comments regarding the thirty-nine articles are false. For that I would recommand you read The Principles Of Theology: An Introduction To The Thirty-Nine Articles by the late Anglican Scholar / theologian the late Dr. W.H. Griffith Thomas which deals directly on the issues involved. It's articles was form to show it's contrast between itself over againist Roman Catholicism in the English reformation. Due to space limitations I can't type it all up for you and post it. Point being they hold to the same OT Hebrew Canon as I do and of Jerome. It is Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholicism in reality that are out of step historically on the Old Testament Hebrew Canon. It was Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholicism which added books offically after 1500's . By the way, those who wrote the various confessions of faith were generally trained in Roman Catholicism . And knew their church history. Just because they used and read the apocrypha does not mean they equated it as being inspired Scripture as you incorrectly stated. Their views are defined very clearly on what they held to be the OT Canon on that.

7. The LXX is a translation much as the KJV, NKJV , NIV and others are english translations. The apocrypha came forth from the LXX which is a Greek translation of the Old Testament. The problem is the apcrypha did not come forth from the Old Testament Hebrew Canon. Hence your basis for having it in your Bible is due to the LXX and not based on the Hebrew original OT Canon. Translations are not to add to Scripture with material not included in it such as what the LXX done. Translations do not correct the original languages or the material in it.

8. The OT Hebrew Canon was written by those who were prophets of God by office or had the prophetic gift or were a prophet by office and had the prophetic gift. We find them located in the Old Testament as spokemen for God . And it is from them which the Old Testament came about. It is the period of when there were no one around who were prophets or had the prophetic gift is when the apocrypha were written. Which is the basis of my question for you if the apocrypha books were written by a prophet of God or one with the prophetic gift. The proof of my belief there is in the Old Testament itself. :) And your did not really answer my question regarding it at all.

ChaferDTS said...

"You put a lot of effort into responding to John, so I'm inclined to let your and John's interaction stand."

I am almost done with him. I realized that he is an " unorthodox " Eastern Orthodox who appears to reject the inerrancy of Scripture. He is at the point of attacking books which we agree on is in Scripture in order to make his case for the apocrypha. I see something very dangeriously wrong with him doing that. All that because I noted the historical error in Judith 1 and 2 on what it says of Nebuchadnezzar. Then he turns around with Acts 5:36, 1 Cor. 1:14-16 and 2 Chron. 33:9 & 2 Kings 24:8 tries to say them being in error. I expect and seen something like that from an atheist or agnostic and not from John a claimed Eastern Orthodox. I do thank you for the original article form this thread though which was posted written by your guest.

ChaferDTS said...

1 ) In Acts 5:36 Luke is not copying from Josephus's account since Acts was written around 62ad which predates what Josephus wrote which shows he did not borrow from him. There is no error of historical fact to be found in what Luke wrote. Nothing is known of Theudas that is in that verse at all. All we do know is what is told by Luke. Theudas was a common name during that time. All we know if this Theudas did lead a revolt with 400 people. Anything else is speculation. Luke's event and that mention by Josephus are different events and contains different details from within it. There is nothing of a wrong story written by Luke in Acts 5:26. I see that you deny the inerrancy of Scripture. That makes you an " unorthodox " Eastern Orthodox. I will email my Eastern Orthodox friend and question him about Eastern Orthodox on the matter.

2 ) Regarding 2 Chronicles 39 & 2 Kings 24:8. That is a error in the copy of 2 Chron. 36:9 which says 8 years old. In the copy of that it is the number that is incorrectly copied. I hold that the correct age is found in the originals. The error came from the copies. And not from the inspired inerrant text itself.Copies and translations can make mistakes and not the original text itself. It is to be noted that you were being deceptive as well in that since 1 Chron. 36:9 in the NIV translation has it as 18 years old. By the way, I am not a KJV only type either. I use various translations. The mistake you pointed out is in some english translations.

3 )Paul included the names he remembered only as his examples.He was unsure of the rest. What Paul wrote there is correctly recorded. He stated the reality of whom he remembered he baptized personally. As an apostle Paul wrote the Word of God and made no errors in it. But Paul himself was not omniscient. God protected the apostles and writers of Scripture from error in their writing and prevented Scripture from being in error. The only ones who have problems are atheist, agostics and those who like yourself deny the inerrancy of Scripture. I record your misinterpretation of the text.

ChaferDTS said...

4 ) You did not deal with what I brought up on Judith 1 & 2 on that historically incorrect information that is there. You avoided that and ran to someone else and used the method of an atheist or agnostic again in your arguments on inspired Scripture. I may add on books which Eastern Orthodox and Protestants agree it Scripture !

5 ) I am not being inconsistant as you claim since I reject the apocrypha as Scripture. While I hold that the 66 books are inspired Scripture.

On a final note I will remain as I am in my beliefs on the Old and New testament Canon. And will always remain convinced that Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox are in error in the Old Testament Canon from the same common source namely the LXX. What you have done in your arguments have made me even more againist even the use of the apocrypha than before. The Apocrypha are mere human fallible writings and not inspired inerrant Scripture. My prayer for you is if you dont leave Eastern Orthodox to go to a Protestant church that you come to beliefs of the Eastern Orthodox the late Cyril Lucar of the 16th century who embraced essential Protestant beliefs who tried to correct the errors from within his own Church.

Turretinfan said...

John: let me put this in simpler English for you: since you're (to all appearances) an unrepentant liar, you're hereby banned from commenting. Repent or take your lies elsewhere.

-TurretinFan

ChaferDTS said...

"the late Cyril Lucar of the 16th century who embraced essential Protestant beliefs who tried to correct the errors from within his own Church."

I mispoke there. The correct time line of Cyril Lucar is the 17th century.

PeaceByJesus said...

Just came across this, and while it is old, I would like to say that given the abundant references (http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Bible/2Tim_3.html#Partial) to O.T. texts in the N.T. , often being referred to as Scripture or the Word of God, it is obvious that a canon existed by then, perhaps save for Esther, and without a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium declaring one.

And even if the whole canon was unsettled in the 1st century (as it was in R. Catholicism until the year Luther died), the issue is that Scripture evidences writings being recognized as Divinely inspired Scripture, and thus it provides for recognition of a canon.

Again, the establishment of writings as Scripture by the time of Christ was not due to infallible decrees (and the hypotheses that the Jewish Canon was closed at the theoretical "Council" of Jamnia is doubtful), nor is the authenticity of men of God necessarily dependent upon the sanction of those in power (though they should affirm such), as the church began in dissent from those who were, but the real cause behind the establishment of Holy Writ is that of their unique heavenly qualities and attestation. Men can recognize a book as a classic, but that is not what makes it one. And men of God were established as being so by conformity to that which is written from the time of Moses (whom God supernaturally confirmed), but which Rome is not.

PeaceByJesus said...

► We are told that Christ's citing of scripture pre-supposes that everybody has an agreed canon.

No, not all Jews agreed on one canon, and on all the books which the New Testament cites as Scripture, nor did they all agree with the Lord that “the scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat,” (Mt. 23:2) But the abundant references in the New Testament, with approx 250 quotations to Old Testament texts, besides the hundreds of allusions, support the premise of a canon of accepted books of Scripture, even if it was not completely settled.

► This of course goes counter to the traditional interpretation that Christ cited only the Law to the Saducees because that's all THEY recognised.

While that may have been all Christ cited to the Sadducees, though they likely were in company in Mt. 21:42 as the chief priests and the elders of the people (Mt. 21:23) when the Lord invoked Ps. 118:22,23, but the Pentateuch is certainly not all He cited, even to the disciples, while the devil also recognized Psalm 91 as Divine. (Mt. 4:4,7,10; Lk. 24:27,44) And the latter reference is seen indicating recognition of the tripartite Palestinian canon.

► Either the thesis of a widely known settled canon is rubbish, which is the obvious answer that the data speaks to us

The only way this conclusion can be supported is by restricting it a final, indisputable canon, but which Rome did not provide until 1546, while the issue, as i stated above, is that writings were recognized as Divine before RCs would claim that their self-asserted assuredly infallible magisterium was necessary to do so.

Anonymous said...

Of course your "widely recognized" criteria certainly does not exclude the deutero-canon. If that's your criteria, you should have no problem including it, right?