The Bible - 73 or 66 Books?

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Jerome was one of the few of his day that could actually "read" both Hebrew AND Greek and in a position to create a Latin text.

Augustine translated no Bible - created no new translation in any language at all. He never mastered Greek and could not read Hebrew. Jerome could read both and new from the historic records and the original languages the that the apocryphal books did not belong to the accepted Canon of the OT text.

A text not at all authored by Catholics.

Most of the fathers didn't translate the scripture. It doesn't make them less of an authority on it. Despite Jerome's ability to read Hebrew he would have likely considered you among the heterodox despite your agreement with him over the canon. We should also take into consideration that there were Hebrew originals of the deuterocanons which were simply lost by the time of Jerome due to a lack of use of them by the Jews. The dead sea scrolls have confirmed there were Hebrew originals for Tobit and Enoch and certainly the Maccabees (the first book) was written in Hebrew. Beyond this i see no basis for this rule that before the New Testament Scripture could only be written in Hebrew. Truth is not limited to one language at one time.

No one ever denied that those works 'existed'.

But they are not NT text... they are not authored by Christians -- and the Jews did not retain them in their canon which they held to be fixed for over 300 years before Christ - and kept in that fixed form in the Temple in Jerusalem.

Clearly the Jews of Christ's day accepted the 5 books of Moses - and more. "The Law the Psalms and the prophets". And the Jews themselves admit to more than 5 books in scripture. Josephus is not the only one who knew that.

You have to demonstrate that the canon was decisively solved at the time of Christ before you can claim it so. I see no reason to assume there was a set list of authoritative books which one had to absolutely adhere to. There were common books, as you mention like the the Torah, Psalms and Prophets but where do we find an absolute list which is binding for all Jews regardless of religious differences? Where is the evidence that the modern Jewish Canon was kept in the temple? I have no doubt the Torah was kept there, since the temple was in the hands of the Sadducees but the whole Old Testament? I'm going to need to see some evidence.

To mention that the Old Testament was not written by Christians doesn't exactly help you either. The Old Testament community and the Church of Christ are one in the same. Why don't Christians have the authority or ability to sort out their own canon of scripture independently of the Jews who rejected Christ?

Apocryphal works cannot be inserted into the Jewish Bible "For them". They would have had to have done that.

And they did not as Josephus notes.

As for the Jews referring to those books as "a second canon" -- "deuteroncanonical" -- well... "they did not"

The idea of there being a singular Jewish canon at the time of Jesus is a contentious point as I discussed in my previous reply to Bob Ryan. Judaism was not a monolithic thing at the time of Christ and there is certainly reason to doubt that the canon was a settled thing. Josephus speaks for one particular strain of Jewish tradition which became dominant but he is not the end all source. The word Deuterocanon is obviously a roman Catholic term which in no way invalidates the meaning. It simply recognises these books are on a lesser level than the others.

 

[BobRyan]

Most of the fathers didn't translate the scripture. It doesn't make them less of an authority on it.

The ones that DID translate - that COULD "read" Hebrew and Greek were in a much better position to speak with authority about what was said in those texts and what was already known to be canonical in the OT text for century upon century prior to their time.

Despite Jerome's ability to read Hebrew he would have likely considered you among the heterodox despite your agreement with him over the canon.

Only if you stray far from our subject -- to get him there. On the subject of whether or not the OT text should include the apocrypha he is already on record as agreeing with the position that I also am taking. The details in this case show him differing with those who wish to insert the Apocrypha in the OT text.

We should also take into consideration that there were Hebrew originals of the deuterocanons which were simply lost by the time of Jerome

Which did not prevent him in the least from reading historic texts to find out that the Jews had not been viewing those books as canon. Jerome did not say "I don't see this text surviving currently in its Hebrew form so now I imagine that the Jews did not accept it in their Bible at the time of Christ:"

That is an argument he never made.

 

[Rhamiel]

Protestants

can you point out any Early Church Father, Church Council or just any historical Christian church that used only the same 66 books you now use for your Cannon?
anything at all before the year 1,000?

not someone who rejected the Deuterocannon along with a bunch of other books
not someone who rejected one or two of the Deuterocannon but kept the others
anyone with the SAME cannon as you now have?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The ones that DID translate - that COULD "read" Hebrew and Greek were in a much better position to speak with authority about what was said in those texts and what was already known to be canonical in the OT text for century upon century prior to their time.

Only if you stray far from our subject -- to get him there. On the subject of whether or not the OT text should include the apocrypha he is already on record as agreeing with the position that I also am taking. The details in this case show him differing with those who wish to insert the Apocrypha in the OT text.

Which did not prevent him in the least from reading historic texts to find out that the Jews had not been viewing those books as canon. Jerome did not say "I don't see this text surviving currently in its Hebrew form so now I imagine that the Jews did not accept it in their Bible at the time of Christ:"

That is an argument he never made.

Jerome's opinion being very well known, why is it correct exactly? Yes I am aware of Josephus' accounting of the books of the Jews of his time (a time subsequent to the destruction of the temple and the disappearance of two prominent Jewish sects, Essenes and Sadducees) and Jerome relied on Jewish tradition. The question remains, is the Jewish tradition actually reflective of the Judaism of Jesus' day or the Judaism of Jerome's own day which developed as a result of the temple's destruction? I don't doubt the continuity but I do doubt that the details were exactly the same. Much like it's a mistake to confuse the Ante Nicene Church for being Nicene in theology the same could be said of Judaism before the second temple's destruction and after.

Jerome was part of the Church, the Church ultimately rejected his opinion and he conceded to it by translating more books than he would have preferred. To suggest that because he knew the original biblical languages only means that he would have insights that others would not. What should make us think his opinion was special while the rest of the Church was wrong?

 

[JacksBratt]

So why does the Catholic Bible have 73 books, while the Protestant Bible has only 66 books? Some protestants believe that the Catholic Church added 7 books to the Bible at the Council of Trent in response to Luther’s Reformation, but that couldn’t be further from the truth.

In about 367 AD, St. Athanasius came up with a list of 73 books for the Bible that he believed to be divinely inspired. This list was finally approved by Pope Damasus I in 382 AD, and was formally approved by the Church Council of Rome in that same year. Later Councils at Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) ratified this list of 73 books. In 405 AD, Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse reaffirming this canon of 73 books. In 419 AD, the Council of Carthage reaffirmed this list, which Pope Boniface agreed to. The Council of Trent, in 1546, in response to the Reformation removing 7 books from the canon (canon is a Greek word meaning “standard”), reaffirmed the original St. Athanasius list of 73 books.

So what happened? How come the King James Bible only has 66 books? Well, Martin Luther didn’t like 7 books of the Old Testament that disagreed with his personal view of theology, so he threw them out of his bible in the 16th Century. His reasoning was that the Jewish Council of Jamnia in 90 AD didn’t think they were canonical, so he didn’t either. The Jewish Council of Jamnia was a meeting of the remaining Jews from Palestine who survived the Roman persecution of Jerusalem in 70 AD. It seems that the Jews had never settled on an official canon of OT scripture before this. The Sadducees only believed in the first 5 books of the Bible written by Moses (the Pentateuch), while the Pharisees believed in 34 other books of the Old Testament as well. However, there were other Jews around from the Diaspora, or the dispersion of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity, who believed that another 7 books were also divinely inspired. In fact, when Jesus addressed the Diaspora Jews (who spoke Greek) he quoted from the Septuagint version of the scriptures. The Septuagint was a Greek translation by 70 translators of the Hebrew Word. The Septuagint includes the disputed 7 books that Protestants do not recognize as scriptural.

Initially, Luther wanted to kick out some New Testament Books as well, including James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation. He actually said that he wanted to “throw Jimmy into the fire”, and that the book of James was “an epistle of straw.” What is strange is that Luther eventually accepted all 27 books of the New Testament that the Catholic Pope Damasus I had approved of in 382 AD, but didn’t accept his Old Testament list, preferring instead to agree with the Jews of 90 AD. Luther really didn’t care much for Jews, and wrote an encyclical advocating the burning of their synagogues, which seems like a dichotomy. Why trust them to come up with an accurate canon of scripture when you hate and distrust them so much? And why trust the Catholic Church which he called “the harlot of Babylon” to come up with an accurate New Testament list? Can you imagine the outrage by non-Catholics today if the Pope started throwing books out of the Bible? But strangely, Luther gets a pass on doing that exact same thing.

For the record, Jesus took the Kingdom away from the Jews (Matthew 21:43), and gave it to Peter and His new Church (Matthew 16:18), so the Jewish Council of Jamnia had no Godly authority to decide anything in 90 AD. They used 4 criteria for deciding whether or not certain books were canonical –

1. The books had to conform to the Pentateuch (the first 5 books of the Bible- ......Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy);

2. They could not have been written after the time of Ezra (around 400 BC);

3. They had to be written in Hebrew;

4. They had to be written in Palestine.

So this method employed by first century Jews would automatically exclude all of the Gospels, and the Epistles of the New Testament, which were also written in the first century. But there were other books written before Christ, after Ezra, and some in Greek as well. These 7 books were accepted by the Diaspora Jews (the Alexandrian Canon) who were not in Palestine. These 7 books are Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach, First Maccabees, and Second Maccabees, as well as additional verses of Daniel and Esther. These books are called the “deuterocanon”, or second canon, by Catholics, and the “apocrypha”, or hidden/obscure, by Protestants (Christians who protest against the Catholic Church).

There are several objections to these 7 books, besides not being approved at the Jewish Council Jamnia. Some say that since the New Testament never references these disputed books, then that proves that they are not canonical. But that isn’t right, because the non-disputed books of Ecclesiastes and Ezra aren’t mentioned in the New Testament at all, not even once. By this standard then, Ecclesiastes and Ezra aren’t canonical either. On the other hand, there are many references indeed from the deuterocanonicals in the New Testament. Anybody who reads the book of Wisdom 2: 12-20 would immediately recognize that this is a direct reference to the Jews who were plotting against Jesus in Matthew 27:41-43:

Wisdom 2:12-20: "Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training. He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; for if the righteous man is God's son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected."
Matthew 27: 41-43: So also the chief priests, with the scribes and elders, mocked him, saying, "He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him; for he said, `I am the Son of God.’”

Another similar instance of this is Hebrews 11:35 being a direct reference to 2 Maccabees 7, where the mother and her 7 sons were slaughtered by the evil King for not forsaking the Jewish law. Romans 1:19-25 is also referenced in Wisdom 12-13. The clincher, of course, is that Jesus Himself observed the feast of Hannukah, or the Dedication of the Temple, in John 10. This can be found in the Old Testament book of First Maccabees, Chapter 4, which is in the Catholic Bible, but not in the Protestant Bible.

Additionally, there are some unscriptural books referenced in the New Testament, like Enoch and the Assumption of Moses (in the book of Jude), so if the standard is that books referenced in the New Testament are canonical, then Enoch and the Assumption of Moses would be in the Old Testament, but they are not.

Some people object to these 7 books because they claim some of the early church fathers like St. Jerome didn’t think they were divinely inspired. While it’s great that all of a sudden so many non-Catholics start quoting the early Church Fathers, it’s not right to quote them on this and then not on the Eucharist, the papacy, or the supremacy of Rome, all which prove that the Catholic Church was the only Church around in those days. St. Jerome initially had some concerns about these books, saying that the Palestinian Jews didn’t consider them canonical, but St. Jerome was not infallible, and later agreed that they were. All of the early Church Fathers accepted these disputed books as divinely inspired.

Still others object to some of the disputed 7 books because of historical or geographical errors in them. And there are some, but it has to be remembered that not all stories in the Bible are historical. For instance, was there really a rich man who died and went to hell, and then saw his poor servant in the bosom of Abraham? Was there really a young man who sold his inheritance and went off to a faraway country and squandered it, and returned home as the prodigal son? Was there really a vineyard where the workers who showed up late got paid the same as the workers who worked all day? Or is it rather not more important that these parables teach important theological lessons than it is for them to be 100% historically accurate? In other words, books of fiction that relate Biblical truths can be divinely inspired.

It’s important also to note that the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls included the book of Tobit and the book of Sirach, proving that the people back then thought them canonical, because they were found with the book of Isaiah and other Old Testament books.

And you can check all of this out for yourself. The first bible ever printed was the Gutenberg Bible, in the century BEFORE Luther started his Reformation. And the 7 books are indeed in that Bible. To see for yourself, click here.

And an interesting numerology coincidence occurs here as well. In the bible, the number 7 denotes perfection (God rested on the 7th day, 7 spirits that minister to God, 7 sacraments), and the number 3 represents the Holy Trinity. On the other hand, the number 6 represents imperfection (as in 666). Therefore, 73 books sure sounds a lot better than 66 books!

To check out a great list of all of the New Testament references to the deuterocanonicals by Catholic genius and all around good guy Jimmy Akin, click here.

Some of the more interesting items in these 7 books are as follows:

In 2 Maccabees 12:39-45, we learn how Judas Maccabees prayed for the dead and made atonement FOR THEM by sending money to the temple as a sin offering (purgatory).

In 2 Maccabees 6:12-14, we learn how God punishes nations.

In 2 Maccabees 2:4-7, we learn the final resting place of the Ark of the Covenant and when it will be found (Sorry Indiana Jones!).

In 2 Maccabees 15:12-17, we learn about how saints in heaven pray for us and help us out here on earth.

In Wisdom 7, we see a biblical type of the Blessed Virgin Mary known as "wisdom."

In Sirach 38:1-15, we learn about the role of the physician and how God uses him/her to cure us.

In Tobit, we learn about the Archangel Raphael (a name which means God Heals), the only place in the entire bible where he is mentioned. We also learn about the anti-marriage demon Asmodeus.

In Judith, we see a biblical type of Mary crushing the head of the serpent; Judith cuts off the head of the evil General Holofernes, and saves Israel.

www.Catholicbible101.com

There are books that are questionable as to whether they should be part of the canon. I believe that they should be held in high value but any part that is not parallel to or contradicts the accepted canon, should be recognized with some scrutiny.

If you are going to add or include the books in question, in this thread, you should also include the books of Enoch as well. These books are in parallel to, are quoted by, mentioned in the canon and do not contradict the books generally accepted as God's word.

 

[Rhamiel]

Whose accepted canon? You say it like there is only one

 

[Albion]

Protestants

can you point out any Early Church Father, Church Council or just any historical Christian church that used only the same 66 books you now use for your Cannon?
anything at all before the year 1,000?

How does one define "used?" These are some who said that these books are not inspired and so ought not to be included in the canon--

Jerome

Athanasius

Origen

Cyril

 

[JacksBratt]

Whose accepted canon? You say it like there is only one

Well, considering that you are Catholic, I understand that you may have a different view. As to who decided, that is a huge amount of study to go through it all.

Having said that, I understand that the general consensus is that the King James version contents is recognized as the canonized scripture.

When someone say's "The Bible" they are, in the majority of the cases, referring to the Books that are contained in the KJV and other translation based on the same content.

Anytime that someone discusses such a topic they include mention of the Apocrypha as a disputed portion.

Like I said, other places include the book of Enoch as well. If you have an argument for the Apocrypha, they have one for the book of Enoch.

Personally, and I'm not saying this is for anyone to take as the last word or that I am stating that I am correct........I take the KJV content as the canon... I take the book of Enoch as a very important work and a must read for anyone who is serious about biblical study. I would hold the Apocrypha in the same light. However, neither are worthy of being called the Word of God. IMO.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

It's not as if any other books are needed, as if YHWH did not watch over His Word and Guard it as He Pleased.

There may even be variations( < shrugs > reasons are YHWH'S) around the world, as He Pleases, for a time,

until the TRUTH is REVEALED by HIM, to HIS children.

What not to accept is anything in any of the other books that contradicts

SCRIPTURE - each and every part of YHWH'S WORD is in complete and total HARMONY with every other WORD of HIS - never a contradiction, never a conflict -

Like HE SAYS of TORAH, it is Perfect when rightly used.

Mankind just messes up everything.

 

[bbbbbbb]

This whole issue is really a tempest in a teapot. There is nothing of any doctrinal significance in the deutercanonical books which adds to or contradicts what is set out in the canonical books. Catholic dogmas which differ from those of other branches of the Christian tree are not from the Bible as defined by them, but from their Magisterium. It is part of their Tradition, which stands above the Bible.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

It is part of their Tradition, which stands above the Bible.

Only in their own eyes, and the eyes of those who put their trust in men/ tradition/ over God, as they readily confess, admit, and teach it so.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Only in their own eyes, and the eyes of those who put their trust in men/ tradition/ over God, as they readily confess, admit, and teach it so.

Isn't this a double standard, considering you trust in the New Testament canon which is only really attested by the 'tradition of men'?

 

[Albion]

Isn't this a double standard, considering you trust in the New Testament canon which is only really attested by the 'tradition of men'?

It's not what it is because of tradition.

That's a popular slogan in certain quarters, but it's not theologically or historically true. By the way, the Roman Catholics who favor that line don't say that the Eastern churches had anything to do with the Bible, either. What do they say in your church?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

It's not what it is because of tradition.

That's a popular slogan in certain quarters, but it's not theologically or historically true. By the way, the Roman Catholics who favor that line don't say that the Eastern churches had anything to do with the Bible, either. What do they say in your church?

I believe you are mistaken. The critique lobbied against the historical view is that we are following the traditions of men in having a larger canon of scripture than the Protestant canon. We are putting our tradition before God in having 1 maccabees and Wisdom in our bibles. Let's test this standard for the New Testament. On the basis of the bible alone without recourse to "the tradition of men" as certain protestants understand it, how do we have a New Testament? How can we say from the basis of the text of the bible alone without appeal to a subjective experience of the Spirit, that this is scriptural and must be obeyed? You can't without looking quite foolish for throwing out one of the chief basis' of why we have a bible in the first place, namely it's use in the church since the beginning, being demonstrated in the first, second and third centuries to today.

As an Anglican I suspect you don't consider the putting together of the canon a mere tradition of men, but the church's faithful preservation and fulfilment of it's duty to ensure that we adhere to what we have received. That is the bible. What I am responding to is the idea that we in trusting the tradition we have received concerning which books belong in the bible are followers of men rather than of God. To me that's much like saying those who followed the apostles were followers of men rather than of God.

 

[Albion]

I believe you are mistaken. The critique lobbied against the historical view is that we are following the traditions of men in having a larger canon of scripture than the Protestant canon. We are putting our tradition before God in having 1 maccabees and Wisdom in our bibles. Let's test this standard for the New Testament. On the basis of the bible alone without recourse to "the tradition of men" as certain protestants understand it, how do we have a New Testament?

How we have it isn't the critical issue. We have it. The church recognized the Bible books and put their stamp of approval on them. No council wrote them, based upon traditions or anything else. And they were already accepted as Scripture by the Christian churches before the councils at Hippo and Carthage.

As an anglican I suspect you don't consider the putting together of the canon a mere tradition of men, but the church's faithful preservation and fulfilment of it's duty to ensure that we adhere to what we have received. That is the bible.

All you're saying there is that the church acknowledged God's word. Tradition didn't create it.

And, BTW, who did whatever it was? Do you agree that the Roman Catholic Church created the Bible as Catholics here say? You're using their argument without giving the conclusion they say is the most important part of it.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

How we have it isn't the critical issue. We have it. The church recognized the Bible books and put their stamp of approval on them. No council wrote them, based upon traditions or anything else. And they were already accepted as Scripture by the Christian churches before the councils at Hippo and Carthage.

All you're saying there is that the church acknowledged God's word. Tradition didn't create it.

How is ignoring how we received the scripture even an option? Do we simply trust in all books we see on the shelf of a bookstore and use our intuition to determine which is false and which is true? I never said a council wrote the bible but I did say the Church preserved the bible and fulfilled it's duty in giving it to us today. I take that to mean we have it in the form we have received it by before the reformation took place. Catholics and Orthodox are being accused of by some of ignoring God and preferring men, yet I can see no divine basis for why the Protestant canon is God breathed while ours is not since we ultimately have to rely on the same methodology of putting our trust in those before us to hand the scripture down to us. Do you honestly believe you could determine the canon of scripture among the many books which claimed to be authoritative in the first and second centuries of the Church without appeal to the Church? If no, then we are in agreement in which case I don't know what your principal argument against my opinion is. Also I never said tradition created the bible but I will say that the bible was formed within the great tradition of the Church and was never an independent entity. The church and the bible go hand in hand. Christianity is not an intellectual idea sprouted from a book, but a community of faith.

 

[Albion]

How is ignoring how we received the scripture even an option?

No one's ignoring it. The point is simply that tradition didn't create scripture and the church didn't create scripture.

I never said a council wrote the bible but I did say the Church preserved the bible and fulfilled it's duty in giving it to us today.

Oh sure. Like a librarian. That's quite a different matter from that which we started with--

...you trust in the New Testament canon which is only really attested by the 'tradition of men'?

I take that to mean we have it in the form we have received it by before the reformation took place. Catholics and Orthodox are being accused of by some of ignoring God and preferring men, yet I can see no divine basis for why the Protestant canon is God breathed while ours is not since we ultimately have to rely on the same

Wait. We don't make the same claims as Catholics do about that. We accept that the Bible stands on its own and do not consider it to be just another piece of tradition, and we certainly do not claim that we invented it.

Do you honestly believe you could determine the canon of scripture among the many books which claimed to be authoritative in the first and second centuries of the Church without appeal to the Church?

You're saying what I said--the church acknowledged or recognized the scriptures as the word of God. She did not create the Bible, although that's often claimed by certain people.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

No one's ignoring it. The point is simply that tradition didn't create scripture and the church didn't create scripture.

Oh sure. Like a librarian. That's quite a different matter from that which we started with--

Wait. We don't make the same claims as Catholics do about that. We accept that the Bible stands on its own and do not consider it to be just another piece of tradition, and we certainly do not claim that we invented it.

You're saying what I said--the church acknowledged or recognized the scripture. It did not create scripture, although that's often said by certain people.

I would say the Church created the scripture in that the Apostles and their followers wrote it. Perhaps you think of the latter church of the ante Nicene and Post Nicene as not being part of that same Church. As for the idea that scripture stands alone, it does not since we require attestation of it and when we see how the bible was compiled we realise that it was not done in some grand act of instantaneous divine inspiration but over the course of centuries. The earliest full New Testament canon is Athanasius after all and he was in the fourth century.

I think we are talking past each other to a certain extent. My only critique was against that reactionary type of SOLO scriptura which equates anything non biblical, anything that looks catholic, the Church fathers and etc with the traditions of men. I assume as an Anglican you would align with the SOLA Scriptura model since your church confesses the Nicene creed and professes to be in continuation with the historical Church.

If however you want to say that the bible's canon can stand by itself, without reference to the historic Church you ought make your case for that presumption. I for one cannot justify the canon of scripture without reference to it's use within the Church.

 

[Albion]

I would say the Church created the scripture in that the Apostles and their followers wrote it.

In that sense, sure, but the claim is always made on behalf of those men who codified the books over 300 years later. But now that I think of it, I hope you weren't using the word tradition in a different sense than I was. Oh, well.

I think we are talking past each other to a certain extent.

Yes, I was thinking that, too.

My only critique was against that reactionary type of SOLO scriptura which equates anything non biblical, anything that looks catholic, the Church fathers and etc with the traditions of men. I assume as an Anglican you would align with the SOLA Scriptura model since your church confesses the Nicene creed and professes to be in continuation with the historical Church.

Quite a few Anglicans don't even go for that, although it's pretty much what I would say of myself. Not to the exclusion of tradition and reason, of course, but seeing Scripture as the ultimate guide to doctrine.

If however you want to say that the bible's canon can stand by itself, without reference to the historic Church you ought make your case for that presumption.

It seems as though I've explained it several times already and with a variety of different words! But maybe it's a case of that 'talking past each other' thing you mentioned before.

 

[BobRyan]

Protestants

can you point out any Early Church Father, Church Council or just any historical Christian church that used only the same 66 books you now use for your Cannon?

And Jerome counts - who created the Latin Bible -- and stated emphatically that the Apocrypha was not OT canon.