Protestant canon

[SummaScriptura]

Sorry for taking so long to reply.

See Psalm 2, particularly ps 2:7. Although this is correctly used in the NT of Jesus, it was originally referring to the King of Israel. Cf 2 Sam 7:14. For Wisdom, you need to look at where the argument is going. As you follow it into Chap 3, it's pretty clearly talking about righteous people more broadly.

I don't think the passage can have two fulfillments. Those Psalms can only be referring to Messiah, not David.

The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He made Himself out to be the Son of God.” (John 19:7)

Can you harmonize John 19:7, with Psalm 2 referring to David?

In any case, even if it was messianic, I don't think we'd want to say that any Jewish literature referring to the messiah is automatically canonical.

No. But this one is not merely referring to Messiah, it nails down what the religious leaders of the Jews would say of Jesus in a later era. This Messianic passage shows evidence of the foreknowledge of God. The Jewish leaders accused Jesus of breaking the prohibition against calling oneself the son of God.

But I note yet again, that this whole argument is irrelevant. The Catholic Church didn't canonize books like Wis because they though the author was a prophet. I'm pretty sure that the discussions we're having are rationalizations on both sides, after the fact, and do not represent the actual reasons the decisions were made.

I care little about what the Catholic branch of the Church decided, after all, they tossed some books too. Apostolic tradition is more critical regarding the preserving and passing along what books are acceptable as Scripture. For this we need to look beyond Catholicism to Orthodoxy, being the earliest preserveers of the books.

The early Church used the Greek canon because they used the LXX, and they did that because the Church largely grew up in the diaspora, and that's the OT that was used there. There are some signs, although inconsistent, the the later books were seen as less central to the OT, much as Jews considered the Torah the core, and later books as less central. But given the way the Catholic tradition uses Scripture, that's not a problem.

ibid.

Similarly, the Reformers used the Hebrew canon because they used the Hebrew OT, feeling that they were safer to use the original language and its tighter canon.

But don't you see? No one before the 16th century used the Hebrew canon as the standard for the Church's Scriptures.

 

[SummaScriptura]

It's believed Ezra wrote Chronicles. But yes I hear the question and am looking at it.

Did you look at the Jewish link I cited pages ago?

No. I did not see a Jewish link. I've only seen your links to CCEL and eBible.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Resolved: No church before the 16th century used the Hebrew canon as the standard for the Church's O.T. Scriptures.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Resolved: No church before the 16th century used the Hebrew canon as the standard for the Church's O.T. Scriptures.

well that goes without saying, doesn't it?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

That would make the Book of Daniel a pseudepigraphon. What is particularly grievous about that appelation in Daniel's case, is the explicit statements in the book where the author writes "I, Daniel". I cannot countenance a book based upon a lie as the word of God.

The Book of Daniel very likely had a trajectory toward its acceptance that was quite different from many other O.T. books. Consider these oddities:

1. Daniel's book was sealed by him and not studied or read in his own lifetime and likely for some time after that.
2. Daniel's book was with the Jewish community in Babylon, where it may have remained until such time as it was opened, read, and studied. It may have taken some more time to then become disseminated back in Israel.

However, Jesus is very clear, Daniel is to be numbered among the prophets (see Mt 24:15), not a mere "writing" or poetry, as it was later categorized by the Jews who canonized the Hebrew Scriptures in the late first century, when they placed it in the last section of their Bible AFTER the prophets in the Ketuv'im instead.

Is it not possible that the author of the book maintained oral tradition and wrote it down? After all, we do not have to think that the people who's names are on the gospel actually wrote them, do we? Is it necessary, therefore, that no matter how small the minority who view this being written in a contemporary period with Daniel, that we must side with them regardless in order to maintain that the book was inspired prophecy? Is there not some middle ground here perhaps?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

See Psalm 2, particularly ps 2:7. Although this is correctly used in the NT of Jesus, it was originally referring to the King of Israel. Cf 2 Sam 7:14. For Wisdom, you need to look at where the argument is going. As you follow it into Chap 3, it's pretty clearly talking about righteous people more broadly.

In any case, even if it was messianic, I don't think we'd want to say that any Jewish literature referring to the messiah is automatically canonical.

But I note yet again, that this whole argument is irrelevant. The Catholic Church didn't canonize books like Wis because they though the author was a prophet. I'm pretty sure that the discussions we're having are rationalizations on both sides, after the fact, and do not represent the actual reasons the decisions were made.

The early Church used the Greek canon because they used the LXX, and they did that because the Church largely grew up in the diaspora, and that's the OT that was used there. There are some signs, although inconsistent, the the later books were seen as less central to the OT, much as Jews considered the Torah the core, and later books as less central. But given the way the Catholic tradition uses Scripture, that's not a problem.

Similarly, the Reformers used the Hebrew canon because they used the Hebrew OT, feeling that they were safer to use the original language and its tighter canon.

can you validate this statement above in bold with sources?

 

[Montalban]

That bolded affectation is getting downright creepy.

The amazing thing is when someone who provided evidence against their own position simply ploughs on regardless.

The theory that laid the egg.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Is it not possible that the author of the book maintained oral tradition and wrote it down? After all, we do not have to think that the people who's names are on the gospel actually wrote them, do we? Is it necessary, therefore, that no matter how small the minority who view this being written in a contemporary period with Daniel, that we must side with them regardless in order to maintain that the book was inspired prophecy? Is there not some middle ground here perhaps?

I have a high degree of skepticism of people's theories of oral traditions as the mode for preserving the message of the Bible. Sufficient for me is to note the Jews were long a highly literate people. They wrote stuff down and copied and kept annals and libraries. In that context oral traditions seem redundant or at best less trustworthy.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I have a high degree of skepticism of people's theories of oral traditions as the mode for preserving the message of the Bible. Sufficient for me is to note the Jews were long a highly literate people. They wrote stuff down and copied and kept annals and libraries. In that context oral traditions seem redundant or at best less trustworthy.

Fair enough. I don't see any reason why some of the deutero's which were said to have been written in the 1-3rd century bc couldn't have a similar backstory as well (take the book of Tobit for example, which is set in the 8th? century bc)

Of course, I don't buy into this idea of a 400 year dearth, but i'm just toying with the idea of them being recorded earlier for comparison's sake.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

So what happened to the valid criteria for a prophet? I provided the biblical criteria out of deuteronomy, and showed how the propechy in wisdom met this criteria. Does anyone object, or perhaps they would like to bring forth more biblical criteria which I may have possibly overlooked?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7559285-70/#post57554830

 

[Standing Up]

So what happened to the valid criteria for a prophet? I provided the biblical criteria out of deuteronomy, and showed how the propechy in wisdom met this criteria. Does anyone object, or perhaps they would like to bring forth more biblical criteria which I may have possibly overlooked?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7559285-70/#post57554830

That is the definition. Hence the issue of the "prophecy" in Wisdom. IOW, IF it is a prophecy (that God will deliver Him before death), it did not come true. Therefore, Wisdom is a false book.

IF it is not a prophecy, but opinion, then it doesn't matter if it came true or not. AND it has no bearing on whether Wisdom is scripture or not.

So, you have to decide, is it a prophecy or not?

 

[Montalban]

well that goes without saying, doesn't it?

You would think so.

 

[Rick Otto]

Ok, I was told there are several criteria in the bible for recognizing a prophet. This is what I was able to find. If anyone is aware of any other's, please let me know.

"If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, 'Let us follow other gods' (gods you have not known) 'and let us worship them,' you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. It is the Lord your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the Lord your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you" (Deuteronomy 13:1–5 NIV).

So basically, (1) what he says has to come true, and (2) he cannot say "let us follow other gods".

Now, let's look at the prophecy candidate in Wisdom. We know what he said came true (and in great detail). He didn't tell us to follow other foreign gods. So why is this not considered a true prophecy?

I don't see any criteria here which specifies valid lines of prophets or high priests, "full" temples (as opposed to "empty" ones), or any of that. Am I missing something here?

You're missing that it says he will be delivered from death & he wasn't.

 

[hedrick]

That is the definition. Hence the issue of the "prophecy" in Wisdom. IOW, IF it is a prophecy (that God will deliver Him before death), it did not come true. Therefore, Wisdom is a false book.

IF it is not a prophecy, but opinion, then it doesn't matter if it came true or not. AND it has no bearing on whether Wisdom is scripture or not.

So, you have to decide, is it a prophecy or not?

The Deut quotation doesn't say that anyone who makes a correct prediction is a prophet. To the contrary, it says that even if you make a correct prediction, if you're not teaching God's word you're not a prophet.

Prophets are not primarily people who predict things. They are people who explain God's will for the people. They are given a specific authority from God. I'd say ultimately, prophet is a specific office to which God calls people. While there are tests (they can't make false predictions, and they can't tell people to worship false gods), it's not a status that we bestow on people ourselves because they meet certain criteria.

There are modern examples of what I'd call "private revelation," some of which even involve predictions, but that still doesn't cause us to want to add their statements to Scripture as a new prophetic book.

Jewish and Christian tradition both seem to have the concept of an end of the prophetic era. The point isn't that the Holy Spirit stops talking to us, or that he stops working in history, but that there are a specific set of events, explained by Prophets or Apostles, which form the cornerstone of our understanding of him.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

You're missing that it says he will be delivered from death & he wasn't.

That is the definition. Hence the issue of the "prophecy" in Wisdom. IOW, IF it is a prophecy (that God will deliver Him before death), it did not come true. Therefore, Wisdom is a false book.

IF it is not a prophecy, but opinion, then it doesn't matter if it came true or not. AND it has no bearing on whether Wisdom is scripture or not.

So, you have to decide, is it a prophecy or not?

It seems that neither of you have addressed my response to this issue, and it isn't the first time. Again, here is what I posted regarding this issue. I don't care to keep repeating myself. If this isn't a satisfactory explanation, I really don't know what else I can provide you with. I suppose we will have to leave it be and let the readers decide for themselves whether it seems to be a convincing prophecy or not. Again, here are links to my rebuttal:

(1) http://www.christianforums.com/t7559285-63/#post57544430

(2) http://www.christianforums.com/t7559285-64/#post57544445

(3) http://www.christianforums.com/t7559285-70/#post57554469

(4) http://www.christianforums.com/t7559285-70/#post57554774

 

[Thekla]

It seems that both of you have missed my response to this issue, and it isn't the first time. Again, here is what I posted regarding this issue. I don't care to keep repeating myself. If this isn't a satisfactory explanation, I really don't know what else I can provide you with. I suppose we will have to leave it be and let the readers decide for themselves whether it seems to be a convincing prophecy or not. Again, here is a link to my rebuttal:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7559285-64/#post57544445

this:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7559285-70/#post57554469

and this:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7559285-70/#post57554774

Just curious; what term does "before" translate ?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I forgot to add one more link to wisdom rebuttal (first part, added to above link):

(1) http://www.christianforums.com/t7559285-63/#post57544430

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Just curious; what term does "before" translate ?

I'm sorry, I don't follow...

 

[Thekla]

I'm sorry, I don't follow...

I guess I don't understand the objection - except the poster indicated that it was said that God would deliver Him "before death" ???

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I guess I don't understand the objection - except the poster indicated that it was said that God would deliver Him "before death" ???

They are claiming that the passage in Wisdom says Jesus will be "protected", then they extrapolate this to mean that he will be "delivered from death". Therefore, they claim that because Jesus died and wasn't "protected" by God, it is a "false prophecy". I think the backstory will provide more info in the links i provided.

Again, this is providing a very distorted view of this prophecy. The prophet is clearly quoting what the mockers/unbelievers will say of Jesus during his life and throughout his passion, and the prophet then goes on to correct their distorted view of who the Messiah will be and what He will do by saying "...thus they reasoned, but they were led astray, for their wickedness blinded them, 22 and they did not know the secret purposes of God".