Protestant canon

[Erose]

C'mon folks.

Gamaliel

Gamaliel was a jewish teacher that has no authority over the Christian Church. Also is there evidence that Gamaliel established a list?

Paul

I have read all of his writings that we know of and no where does he provide a list. As I have shown in another post, Paul references 2 Macc in his letter to the Hebrews.

Josephus

Was a hellenized jewish historian and not a theologian or a rabbi. So where is his authority?

Melito

Eusibeus said this was the case and I won't go against that but you must understand that the official canon was not established at this point and even though Melito was a bishop, he by hisself had no authority to determine the scripture of the Church. Also in your quote nowhere does it say this is the full canon believed by the early church.

Jerome.

Yes Jerome preferred the Hebrew canon and was not a fan of some of the writings in what is now called the deuterocanonical writings, but as in the case of Melito Jerome did not possess the authority to establish the canon. And to give Jerome his due credit as a witness to the virtue of obedience, he translated and completed the task that his pope assigned him to do.

And of course IMO the delineation by Jesus of the OT (Abel to Zacharias) and NT (first and last apostles to die). Incidentally, to clarify a bit about prophets, it's like apostles, not all the NT was written by an apostle, but all of the NT was writtten during the time of apostles. Likewise, all of the OT scripture per se was written by prophets or during the time of genuine prophets.

Does this include Daniel in your mind as well? Many biblical scholars believe that Daniel was written relatively late and is younger than some of the DCs.

Lastely, even Maccabees says it was written during the time when there were no genuine prophets.

No there was no one filling the office of prophet during the time of Judas Maccabeus, but not all writings in the OT where written by prophets. Take Joshua, Judges, 1st and 2nd Samuel, 1st and 2nd Kings, most probably 1st and 2nd Chronicles, all of the wisdom books, except for some and not all of the psalms, Job, Ezra, & Nehemiah. So should we take these books out of the OT?

 

[Montalban]

Oh so typical.

I'm eternally grateful that I was present when this startling information, missed for 2,000 years was presented here. St. Josephus' commentaries will out.

 

[Montalban]

Gamaliel was a jewish teacher that has no authority over the Christian Church. Also is there evidence that Gamaliel established a list?

Wait now! Gamaliel rates there with Josephus for church commentary!

 

[BloodyRachel]

I'm eternally grateful that I was present when this startling information, missed for 2,000 years was presented here. St. Josephus' commentaries will out.

I don't get it.

 

[Montalban]

I don't get it.

StandingUp has presented a theory here that relies somewhat on the words of Josephus. (I say somewhat because the application of rules in this theory seem convoluted and highly selective).

Josephus, who's someone who's rejected Christ.

2,000 years of churchmen have blissfully ignored Josephus' directions on which books should be rejected.

 

[Montalban]

Eusibeus said this was the case and I won't go against that but you must understand that the official canon was not established at this point and even though Melito was a bishop, he by hisself had no authority to determine the scripture of the Church. Also in your quote nowhere does it say this is the full canon believed by the early church.

Absolutely. Never let facts get in the way of a theory, though.

We have seen Melito evoked as if he proves the theory and at no time does he do this.

IF he counts the same number of books as StandingUp's canon then Melito has excluded on book that StandingUp has, but included one that StandingUp doesn't.

 

[Erose]

Absolutely. Never let facts get in the way of a theory, though.

We have seen Melito evoked as if he proves the theory and at no time does he do this.

IF he counts the same number of books as StandingUp's canon then Melito has excluded on book that StandingUp has, but included one that StandingUp doesn't.

Also wasn't there one of the contested books in his list? I also find it interesting that honor his witness concerning the canon, but not his witness to the dormation/assumption of our Virgin Mary.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Here is an interesting anecdote from the 1st century AD doc sometimes called "Lives of the Prophets" or "Deaths of the Prophets".

Zechariah son of Jehoiada

1He was of Jerusalem, the son of Jehoiada the priest, the prophet whom Joash king of Judah slew beside the altar, whose blood the house of David shed within the sanctuary, in the court. The priests buried him beside his father.

2From that time on there were portentous appearances in the temple, and the priests could see no vision of angels of God, nor give forth oracles from the inner sanctuary; nor were they able to inquire with the ephod, nor to give answer to the people by Urim and Thummim, as in former time.

I had forgotten about this reference until this evening and how surprised I was upon re-reading it due to how it seems to feed into our discussion in so many ways...

I find this reference in "The Lives of the Prophets" ironic for this discussion for 3 reasons:

1. It has reference to the death of the Zechariah which we have been discussing. He is one of the prophets after all.

2. It also alludes to a diminution of the prophetic among the Jews from that time forward, something also under discussion here.

3. We find this quote which has bearing to our discussion in one of the books of a broader deuterocanon. In historic times, for centuries the book was a part of Bibles in Aremenian Orthodoxy. In other words, we would not be reading this quote in this thread except for my studies of the books in question.

 

[Montalban]

Also wasn't there one of the contested books in his list? I also find it interesting that honor his witness concerning the canon, but not his witness to the dormation/assumption of our Virgin Mary.

Well that would be yet another exemption to the rule, an exemption for no apparent reason.

 

[Standing Up]

.

 

[Standing Up]

Here is an interesting anecdote from the 1st century AD doc sometimes called "Lives of the Prophets" or "Deaths of the Prophets".

Zechariah son of Jehoiada

1He was of Jerusalem, the son of Jehoiada the priest, the prophet whom Joash king of Judah slew beside the altar, whose blood the house of David shed within the sanctuary, in the court. The priests buried him beside his father.

2From that time on there were portentous appearances in the temple, and the priests could see no vision of angels of God, nor give forth oracles from the inner sanctuary; nor were they able to inquire with the ephod, nor to give answer to the people by Urim and Thummim, as in former time.

I had forgotten about this reference until this evening and how surprised I was upon re-reading it due to how it seems to feed into our discussion in so many ways...

I find this reference in "The Lives of the Prophets" ironic for this discussion for 2 reasons:

1. It has reference to the death of the Zechariah which we have been discussing. He is one of the prophets after all.

2. It also alludes to a diminution of the prophetic among the Jews from that time forward, something also under discussion here.

3. We find this quote which has bearing to our discussion in one of the books of a broader deuterocanon. In historic times, for centuries the book was a part of Bibles in Aremenian Orthodoxy. In other words, we would not be reading this quote in this thread except for my studies of the books in question.

What?

 

[Montalban]

Here is an interesting anecdote from the 1st century AD doc sometimes called "Lives of the Prophets" or "Deaths of the Prophets".

Zechariah son of Jehoiada

1He was of Jerusalem, the son of Jehoiada the priest, the prophet whom Joash king of Judah slew beside the altar, whose blood the house of David shed within the sanctuary, in the court. The priests buried him beside his father.

2From that time on there were portentous appearances in the temple, and the priests could see no vision of angels of God, nor give forth oracles from the inner sanctuary; nor were they able to inquire with the ephod, nor to give answer to the people by Urim and Thummim, as in former time.

I had forgotten about this reference until this evening and how surprised I was upon re-reading it due to how it seems to feed into our discussion in so many ways...

I find this reference in "The Lives of the Prophets" ironic for this discussion for 3 reasons:

1. It has reference to the death of the Zechariah which we have been discussing. He is one of the prophets after all.

2. It also alludes to a diminution of the prophetic among the Jews from that time forward, something also under discussion here.

3. We find this quote which has bearing to our discussion in one of the books of a broader deuterocanon. In historic times, for centuries the book was a part of Bibles in Aremenian Orthodoxy. In other words, we would not be reading this quote in this thread except for my studies of the books in question.

I don't get why some reject the OT that Jesus quoted from ( - the Greek)

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Here is an interesting anecdote from the 1st century AD doc sometimes called "Lives of the Prophets" or "Deaths of the Prophets".

Zechariah son of Jehoiada

1He was of Jerusalem, the son of Jehoiada the priest, the prophet whom Joash king of Judah slew beside the altar, whose blood the house of David shed within the sanctuary, in the court. The priests buried him beside his father.

2From that time on there were portentous appearances in the temple, and the priests could see no vision of angels of God, nor give forth oracles from the inner sanctuary; nor were they able to inquire with the ephod, nor to give answer to the people by Urim and Thummim, as in former time.

I had forgotten about this reference until this evening and how surprised I was upon re-reading it due to how it seems to feed into our discussion in so many ways...

I find this reference in "The Lives of the Prophets" ironic for this discussion for 3 reasons:

1. It has reference to the death of the Zechariah which we have been discussing. He is one of the prophets after all.

2. It also alludes to a diminution of the prophetic among the Jews from that time forward, something also under discussion here.

3. We find this quote which has bearing to our discussion in one of the books of a broader deuterocanon. In historic times, for centuries the book was a part of Bibles in Aremenian Orthodoxy. In other words, we would not be reading this quote in this thread except for my studies of the books in question.

This is referring to the minor prophet, Zecharia, who wrote the book by the same name?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

C'mon folks.

Gamaliel, Paul, Josephus, Melito, Jerome.

And of course IMO the delineation by Jesus of the OT (Abel to Zacharias) and NT (first and last apostles to die). Incidentally, to clarify a bit about prophets, it's like apostles, not all the NT was written by an apostle, but all of the NT was writtten during the time of apostles. Likewise, all of the OT scripture per se was written by prophets or during the time of genuine prophets.

Lastely, even Maccabees says it was written during the time when there were no genuine prophets.

Obviously, the distinction is made by many, whether certain groups (LDS, RC, EO, OO) accept the distinction or not. Those that do not also include their own writings, traditions, councils as equal to God-breathed scripture.

Did you see those quotes I had from Jerome earlier? Thanks for including the LDS along with the others, a la CJ That seems to be catching on...

 

[Ortho_Cat]

C'mon folks.

Gamaliel, Paul, Josephus, Melito, Jerome.

And of course IMO the delineation by Jesus of the OT (Abel to Zacharias) and NT (first and last apostles to die). Incidentally, to clarify a bit about prophets, it's like apostles, not all the NT was written by an apostle, but all of the NT was writtten during the time of apostles. Likewise, all of the OT scripture per se was written by prophets or during the time of genuine prophets.

Lastely, even Maccabees says it was written during the time when there were no genuine prophets.

Obviously, the distinction is made by many, whether certain groups (LDS, RC, EO, OO) accept the distinction or not. Those that do not also include their own writings, traditions, councils as equal to God-breathed scripture.

What about the book of Enoch for the OT? And what about all those NT apocrypha (10+ books) which were written before the end of the first century?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Well that would be yet another exemption to the rule, an exemption for no apparent reason.

again, pick-and-choose coupled with hindsight to justify preconceived notions of what the canon should be...

 

[Montalban]

again, pick-and-choose coupled with hindsight to justify preconceived notions of what the canon should be...

There's just so many holes. From non-Christians as church fathers to 'times of no prophets' meaning something, but only selectively.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Also wasn't there one of the contested books in his list? I also find it interesting that honor his witness concerning the canon, but not his witness to the dormation/assumption of our Virgin Mary.

St. Melito taught many things. The only way to get proper context on what he says regarding one area of the faith (the scriptures) is to take into account and evaluate what he taught regarding other aspects of the faith. Why exclude one "teaching" of his, yet reject another? And based on what criteria?

 

[Montalban]

St. Melito taught many things. The only way to get proper context on what he says regarding one area of the faith (the scriptures) is to take into account and evaluate what he taught regarding other aspects of the faith. Why exclude one "teaching" of his, yet reject another? And based on what criteria?

Absoutely. It's not like he has to accept all Melito's teachings, but he should show why he chooses Melito here, who doesn't even have the same OT anyway.

 

[Rick Otto]

St. Melito taught many things. The only way to get proper context on what he says regarding one area of the faith (the scriptures) is to take into account and evaluate what he taught regarding other aspects of the faith. Why exclude one "teaching" of his, yet reject another? And based on what criteria?

All or nothing at all? Melito adds to the preponderance of circumstantial evidence even if you think he smelled bad.