Protestant canon

[Montalban]

This is not completely fair.

Luther included James, Hebrews, and in fact the whole canon of the Vulgate in his translation of the bible.

His opinions about certain books as a doctor of sacred scripture notwithstanding.

I don't deny that in the end he included them.

However he considered leaving them out because they were more 'troubling' to his pre-conceived notions.

He also added 'alone' to the end of the phrase "...saved by faith" in one verse because he thought it best represented what he thought the scriptures meant to say

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

I don't deny that in the end he included them.

However he considered leaving them out because they were more 'troubling' to his pre-conceived notions.

He also added 'alone' to the end of the phrase "...saved by faith" in one verse because he thought it best represented what he thought the scriptures meant to say

The epistle of Saint James is in its entirety almost word- for-word reiteration of Christ's own statements from the gospel...yet Luther referred to James' letter as an"epistle of straw."

Enslavement to novel doctrines like 'faith ALONE' has its consequences. Thousands of multiplying heresies, for example.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

This is not completely fair.

Luther included James, Hebrews, and in fact the whole canon of the Vulgate in his translation of the bible.

His opinions about certain books as a doctor of sacred scripture notwithstanding.

Do you know how Martin Luther described The Apocalypse?

After I first read that I guess my view was a little dirtied.

 

[Standing Up]

I'm looking for a copy of his church history thinking it might be in there.
Did you see this at the CCEL site?:
"Jerome and Eusebius were of opinion, that Josephus was the author of the books of the Maccabees; but it has never been supposed by any, that he was an inspired man; therefore, if this opinion be correct, these books are no more canonical, than the Antiquities, or Wars of the Jews, by the same author."

That's not the quote he's asking about! This is another non-sequitur.

Dude, you have to slow down with your quippy one-liners. He asked a simple question about a different quote he found.

How do you spell 'doesn't follow'?

 

[Kristos]

There is no defintive pre-Christian source to sort this one out as far as I have found, but I will share with you my educated conjecture:

1. It was not excluded by the Jews. Rather, it was included by the Greek-speaking Jews. That is why it survives for us today in the Septuagint.
2. Different editions of the books were in circulation in different Jewish centers. Not all books and parts of books had a uniform circulation in all the major Jewish centers in ancient times. There were somewhat different collections in Babylon, Israel, Egypt and Ethiopia.
3. I think a good case can be made that certain sections of Esther and Daniel had a different provenance at first and were coalesced in different versions at a later time.
4. In the case of Daniel, the book we have in Hebrew and Chadee was a complete compostion which was sealed and not studied and read in Daniel's generation. Daniel had other writings though. These circulated independently for some time until the Book of Daniel was finally unsealed and entered into circulation as well. A later copyist, probably in Egypt decided it would be good if all of Daniel's writings were together, and so a "different", longer, edition of Daniel came into being.

I suppose that would explain why parts of Daniel were in Aramaic. Thanks for the summary!

 

[Anoetos]

I don't deny that in the end he included them.

However he considered leaving them out because they were more 'troubling' to his pre-conceived notions.

He also added 'alone' to the end of the phrase "...saved by faith" in one verse because he thought it best represented what he thought the scriptures meant to say

Ok, well, now you've descended from injustice to inaccuracy. He never considered "leaving them out". This is commonly assumed or suggested by non-Protestants, but there isn't any evidence to support the claim.

Before we descend into an exchange about what Luther said and what Luther meant, let me tell you that I am well versed on what he said about many of the books of the bible from the "epistle of straw" comment to his opinion about the probable authorship of Hebrews. I also know that none of them add up to a positive statement of intent to exclude them, even when he says, of James, "I would not have it" the context is that of a hypothetical decision; were he around in the first century and making decisions, he would not have included it. There is no indication that, at the time he was translating, he ever seriously considered altering the canon.

It is also interesting that he changed considerably in his opinions about a lot of the books. Later in life he extolled James as an excellent expositor and encourager of good works.

Luther is a convenient scapegoat for a lot of things. It is easy to pick and choose his sayings and writings (regardless of the recorder's biases). A fairer and more full orbed assessment is far less interesting and exciting to polemicists though.

 

[Standing Up]

These you have outlined along with the other rules of interpretation concernning canon and prophecy that have been spelled out in these first 92 pages presents quite a dizzying array of contradictory hermeneutics ---the mind boggles. It would be quite stupendous to behold the complete catalog of rules of interpretation as they touch on genre, the nature of prophecy and canonicity. The problem is, as far as I can tell, many of these hermeneutics did not exist prior to this thread. I am confident even Martin Luther would blush.

Even as folks disagree about things, that fact itself springs out from history. For example, the connection between Josephus and Maccabees saying basically the same thing, no valid prophets existed between Ezra and John the Baptist's conception, is well made. There is no prophesying per the gospels until after, even as Jesus ties the Malachi prophecy of Elijah to John. Plus, the 'it is written' or 'thus sayeth the LORD' is also established as missing from the detero books (if it is shown, it is quoting scripture). As well, the law/prophets and law/prophets/writings distinctions is established.

You had asked for a Jewish perspective on things; I cited one pages ago that may have shed some light.

Rather than dredge through Wisdom's so-called prophecy (or not a prophecy) or the quotes again from Macc/Josephus and Melito/Jerome versus Augustine, I'd like to bring up again the original thought behind the turns of this thread; that is, does Jesus provide the bookends to the NT (sons of thunder, first and last apostles to die) and the OT (blood of Abel to Zecharias, first and last books of the Hebrew canon).

The OT that RC, EO, OO, and P uses do not list the books in the same order as they were known in Jesus' time, perhaps contributing to the argument. Instead, at that time, they were shown from Genesis to Chronicles, from Abel to Zecharias.

Ezra is thought to be the author of Chronicles. This would be the last God-breathed scripture, corresponding to the aforementioned times (Malachi, Artaxerxes, Ezra, Nehemiah).

Granted that Zecharias is martyred some 400 years prior to Ezra is not to diminish the bookend assertion of Christ, if we keep in mind how the Hebrew OT was assembled at the time.

 

[RefCath]

I'd recommend The Canon Debate.

 

[Montalban]

I'd recommend The Canon Debate.

I prefer the Cannon Debate

 

[Montalban]

Dude, you have to slow down with your quippy one-liners.

ROFL

He asked a simple question about a different quote he found.

Which has nothing to do with the original question of where your quote came from - which YOU asked!

Let's look at this logically

You ask everyone where your quote comes from.

He offers one-liners and guesses - obviously meeting your approval because you've not commented on these.

And having not found this quote of yours then says "Well how about this quote, and then this one, and then this" firing off quote-mines.

That's not a discussion. It's not resolved the problem you first raised about where your mystery quote is from.

All it does is distract from that by offering even more quotes.

It doesn't follow that these quotes either
a) add to the debate - as they're just random quotes
and
b) actually addresses the problem you first raised

 

[Montalban]

Even as folks disagree about things, that fact itself springs out from history. For example, the connection between Josephus and Maccabees saying basically the same thing, no valid prophets existed between Ezra and John the Baptist's conception, is well made. There is no prophesying per the gospels until after, even as Jesus ties the Malachi prophecy of Elijah to John. Plus, the 'it is written' or 'thus sayeth the LORD' is also established as missing from the detero books (if it is shown, it is quoting scripture). As well, the law/prophets and law/prophets/writings distinctions is established.

You had asked for a Jewish perspective on things; I cited one pages ago that may have shed some light.

Rather than dredge through Wisdom's so-called prophecy (or not a prophecy) or the quotes again from Macc/Josephus and Melito/Jerome versus Augustine, I'd like to bring up again the original thought behind the turns of this thread; that is, does Jesus provide the bookends to the NT (sons of thunder, first and last apostles to die) and the OT (blood of Abel to Zecharias, first and last books of the Hebrew canon).

The OT that RC, EO, OO, and P uses do not list the books in the same order as they were known in Jesus' time, perhaps contributing to the argument. Instead, at that time, they were shown from Genesis to Chronicles, from Abel to Zecharias.

Ezra is thought to be the author of Chronicles. This would be the last God-breathed scripture, corresponding to the aforementioned times (Malachi, Artaxerxes, Ezra, Nehemiah).

Granted that Zecharias is martyred some 400 years prior to Ezra is not to diminish the bookend assertion of Christ, if we keep in mind how the Hebrew OT was assembled at the time.

Everything here has been addressed! All the points. I personally evidenced against the claim that the books don't claim to be inspired

I guess it was worth repeating?

 

[Standing Up]

I thought this interesting, to return to the bookend discussion:

"With the death of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi the latter prophets, the Holy Spirit ceased out of Israel. Despite this, they were made to hear through a bath kol’ (Tos. Sotah 13.2; baraita in Bab. Yoma 9b, Bab. Sota 48b and Bab. Sanhedrin 11a)."
Babylonian Talmud: Baba Bathra 12

That's to what Josephus referred and to what Maccabees attests (no valid prophets) and why Jesus jumps from Malachi to John the Baptist. And now Lightfoot:

"But why, I pray, was prophecy withdrawn, if heavenly oracles [bath kol] were to be continued? Why, also, was Urim and Thummim taken away? Or rather, why was it not restored after the Babylonian captivity? For "Five things (say they) [the sages] were wanting under the second Temple, which were under the first; namely, the fire from heaven, the ark, Urim and Thummim, the oil of anointing, and the Holy Spirit." It would certainly be a wonder, if God, taking away from his people his ordinary oracles, should bestow upon them a nobler oracle, or as noble; and that when the nation had degenerated, and were sunk into all kind of impiety, superstition, heresy. When the last prophets, Haggai and the rest, were dead, the Sadducean heresy, concerning the resurrection crept in, and the Pharisaical heresy also, weakening all Scripture, and making it of none effect by vain traditions. And shall I believe that God should so indulge his people, when they were guilty of so grievous apostasy, as to vouchsafe to talk familiarly with them from heaven, and to afford them oracles so sublime, so frequent, as the prophets themselves had not the like?"
From the Talmud and Hebraica | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

 

[Montalban]

Already gone over this too. The temple was still active.

I can't find the quote give at the site
Babylonian Talmud: Baba Bathra 12

What's amazing is that there's more evidence cited against the theory

"R. Abdimi from Haifa said: Since the day when the Temple was destroyed, prophecy has been taken from the prophets and given to the wise. Is then a wise man not also a prophet?"
Babylonian Talmud: Baba Bathra 12

It doesn't say prophecy has left, but been transferred. And it notes that wise men were prophets before it was destroyed.

I've no understanding of why someone keeps offering evidence against themselves

Who wrote the article that is quoted second?

 

[Standing Up]

R. Johanan said: Since the Temple was destroyed, prophecy has been taken from prophets and given to fools and children.

If I read these alternatives, they're referring to the bath kol (see quote above).

 

[Standing Up]

Thought this interesting along the same lines (400 years of silence) from Malachi to John the Baptist.

67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied [This his prophecy is the last of the old dispensation, and the first of the new, or Christian, era. It also is poetry, and is a hymn of thanksgiving for the time of Messiah's 21 advent], saying, 68 Blessed [the hymn gets its name from this word, and is called the Benedictus] be the Lord, the God of Israel; For he hath visited [Come back, in the person of his Spirit, to his people. After some four hundred years of absence the Holy Spirit, as the spirit of prophecy, had again returned to God's people. Malachi, the last of the prophets, had been dead about four centuries] and wrought redemption for his people,
Four-Fold Gospel | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

 

[Standing Up]

And this is very interesting about the Spirit's departure from the temple and return to the temple after the 400 years:

39. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
[For the Holy Ghost was not yet.] These words have relation to that most received opinion of the Jews about the departure of the Holy Spirit after the death of Zechariah and Malachi. To this also must that passage be interpreted, when those of Ephesus say, Acts 19:2, "We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost": that is, We have indeed heard of the Holy Ghost's departure after the death of our last prophets, but of his return and redonation of him we have not yet heard. O Lord, revive thy work in the midst of the years, in the midst of the years make known, Habakkuk 3:2. He calls the seventy years of captivity the midst of the years: for, on the one hand, it had been seven times seventy years from the birth of Samuel, the first of the prophets, to the captivity, and, on the other hand, it was seven times seventy years from the end of the captivity to the death of Christ. The prayer is, that the gift of prophecy might not be lost, but preserved, whiles the people should live exiled in a heathen country. And according to the twofold virtue of prophecy, the one of working miracles, the other of foretelling things to come, he uses a twofold phrase, revive thy work, and make known. Nor indeed was that gift lost in the captivity, but was very illustrious in Daniel, Ezekiel, &c. It returned with those that came back from the captivity, and was continued for one generation; but then (the whole canon of the Old Testament being perfected and made up) it departed, not returning till the dawn of the gospel, at what time it appeared in inspiring the blessed Virgin, John Baptist and his parents, &c.: and yet "the Holy Ghost was not yet come," that is, not answerably to that large and signal promise of it in Joel 2:28.
From the Talmud and Hebraica | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

 

[Montalban]

I see we're only going to get quote mines from now on.

This work is by President J. W. McGARVEY, LL. D. and PHILIP Y. PENDLETON, A. B.
Four-Fold Gospel | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

So modern era Protestants believe that there was an abscence of prophecy! Wow. Why?

 

[Standing Up]

I see we're only going to get quote mines from now on.

This work is by President J. W. McGARVEY, LL. D. and PHILIP Y. PENDLETON, A. B.
Four-Fold Gospel | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

So modern era Protestants believe that there was an abscence of prophecy! Wow. Why?

From the quotes given, it appears the norm during the second temple period for 400 years, including Jesus and the apostles, was that the Spirit had departed. Even Maccabees says the same thing. To be cleqr, there were books written during that time, but evidently no one accepted them as God-breathed.

From there, the earliest Christian witness c175ad, Melito, asserts the same OT scripture as the latest witnesses (Protestants), less Esther. It wasn't until a few hundred years later that the other books were thought scripture, even in contradiction to what they say about themselves.

Lightfoot provides a pretty good explanation. IMO the reason is to show that the third and last indwelt temple was the body of Christians.

 

[RefCath]

In her study of the Hebrew Psalter, Nancy L. DeClaisse-Walford argues that

Based on the evidence from Qumran, the Talmud, Josephus, Ecclesiasticus, and the New Testament, we can trace a development from ‘scripture’ – at least the law and the prophets in the second century BCE – to ‘canon’ – at most the books listed in Bava Batra in the second century CE.
​

 

[SummaScriptura]

We're going to look to the Babylonian Talmud to help us determine the the contents of the Church's Old Testament?

I think not.

(Tell me, isn't it the Babylonian Talmud where it says Jesus of Nazareth was a sorcerer?)