Sola Scriptura circa 700 AD

[Erik Nelson]

• They divided their sacred writings into three parts: the law, the prophets, and the writings (which were canonized in that order).

Which tripartite canon is what we see being referred to in the Lord's instruction to His disciples in Luke 24:

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. (Luke 24:44)

yes, Jesus affirmed the Jewish TaNaKh ordering of Scripture

the ancient 1st century Jewish historian Josephus numbered as 22 books... Answering the charges of an anti-Semite named Apion at the end of the first century A.D., Josephus says:

Josephus was a Jesus-denying Jew. From a purely Christian perspective, doesn't that warrant a grain of salt or two?

"...the pseudepigraphical work 4 Ezra (probably written about A.D. 1208)...admits that only twenty-four Scriptures have circulated publicly since Ezra's time." — Robert C. Newman, "THE COUNCIL OF JAMNIA AND THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON," Westminster Theological Journal 38.4 (Spr. 1976) 319-348

what?

how can you base anything on 13th century pseudepigraphical fiction?

if PSEUDEPIGRAPHICAL works are so authoritative... Why not accept the DEUTEROCANONICAL APOCRYPHA, too?

And which means that the 39 book Protestant canon is more ancient than that of Rome's, as it corresponds to a ancient canon held by Palestinian Jews from before the third century

exactly NONE of whom accepted Jesus as Christ

you're basing your Christian doctrine on pseudepigraphical works, non Christian Jewish authorities...

basically everybody BUT Christians and the Church

when will non Christian Jewish authorities start basing their doctrines off of gentile and or Christian sources?

The earliest existing Greek manuscripts which contain some of them date from the 4th Century and are understood to have been placed therein by Christians.

as opposed to Josephus, pseudepigraphical 4 Ezra, and non Christian Palestinian Jews who are more trustworthy
sources of authority for Christians?

Philo of Alexandria (1st c A.D.) states that only the Torah (the first 5 books of the O.T.) was commissioned to be translated, leaving the rest of the O.T. following in later centuries, and in an order that is not altogether clear, nor do all LXX manuscripts have the same apocryphal books and names.

please provide a source? You're saying, that Philo of ALEXANDRIA said only the Torah of Moses was translated into Greek in the 3rd century BC?

the rest of the TaNaKh was translated later, evidently in the 2nd-1st centuries BC... Because every diaspora Jew had everything by the time of Christ

Philo of Alexandria's writings show it to have been the same as the Palestinian. He refers to the three familiar sections, and he ascribes inspiration to many books in all three, but never to any of the Apocrypha....The Apocrypha were known in the church from the start, but the further back one goes, the more rarely are they treated as inspired. (Roger T. Beckwith, "The Canon of the Old Testament" in Phillip Comfort, The Origin of the Bible [Wheaton: Tyndale House, 2003] pp. 57-64).

again, Philo was an extremely knowledgeable and well educated man, surely one of the most so in the Roman empire.

for all his worldly knowledge, he still missed (or at least denied) that Jesus was Christ.

i accept, on the strength of your words, that "proto Rabbinical" Judaism, from Josephus and Philo, through 3rd century Palestinian Jews, to modern Rabbinical Judaism ...

has long rejected the Apocrypha as being inspired

so?

what are you trying to get me to accept?

they also reject the NT as being inspired!

are they 2 for 2?

but, if you now backpedal, and acknowledge that they are only 1 for 2...

then you admit that they are not infallible judges of scriptural inspiration? they can claim something is not inspired, but be wrong?

in the second century AD the Jews seem largely to have discarded the Septuagint…there can be no real doubt that the comprehensive codices of the Septuagint, which start appearing in the fourth century AD, are all of Christian origin.

and that is a problem because...

This underlines the fact that the LXX, although, itself consisting of a collection of Jewish documents, wishes to be a Christian book.” (Martin Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture [Baker 2004], pp. 57-59)

oh no??

for shame for shame??

The Targums did not include these books, nor the earliest versions of the Peshitta, and the apocryphal books are seen to have been later additions,

fine I accept that non Christian Jews may never have accepted the Apocrypha

they don't accept the NT either, guess they're right about that too, being, as they are, such infallible authorities on inspiration of scripture?

• When the Christians claimed that they had written new scriptures, Jews from a rabbinical school in Javneh met around year 80 and, among other things, discussed the canon. They did not include the New Testament nor the seven Old Testament works and portions of Daniel and Esther. This still did not settle the Pharisee canon, since not all Jews agreed with or even knew about the decision at Javneh.

This also indicates ignorance. As WP documents, The theory that Jamnia finalised the canon, first proposed by Heinrich Graetz in 1871,[2] was popular for much of the 20th century. However, it was increasingly questioned from the 1960s onward, and the theory has been largely discredited.[3] (Council of Jamnia - Wikipedia) Sid Z. Leiman made an independent challenge for his University of Pennsylvania thesis published later as a book in 1976, in which he wrote that none of the sources used to support the theory actually mentioned books that had been withdrawn from a canon, and questioned the whole premise that the discussions were about canonicity at all, stating that they were actually dealing with other concerns entirely. Other scholars have since joined in and today the theory is largely discredited.[28]

Some scholars argue that the Jewish canon was fixed earlier by the Hasmonean dynasty.[5]
(Development of the Hebrew Bible canon - Wikipedia)

Next, Part 2

fine I accept that non Christian Jews, from Palestine, may never have accepted the Apocrypha, from the Hasmoneans until today...

just to clarify, though... Are there any better books about the Maccabees and their dynasty, other than the biblical books of the Maccabees ?

you have seemingly shown that there were many flavors of LXX circulating during the early Church era, some with or without this or that book

but, you have to admit, yes, that all 73 books were in circulation, during that time?

Christians didn't write or invent or make up or concoct or fabricate ANY of the Apocrypha, yes?

they just took from what was available at the time?

you appear to be denying, that the Christian community can define it's own canon... Without Rabbinical Jewish oversight... On the grounds that Christians (including you?) aren't good judges of which writings are or are not inspired

 

[redleghunter]

how could diaspora Jews be studying their Scriptures, in Greek, in the early first century AD, unless the Scriptures had been translated into Greek earlier, beforehand...

BC ?

I think the point was the various and many manuscripts and whether or not the early fathers actually had versions of the LXX the apostles and Jesus quote from.

 

[Barney2.0]

Gregory gave an extensive Scriptural dissertation before even mentioning the word “tradition.” He used the word once in the entire of book 4 you quoted from.

Yet quoted from at least 4 Pauline epistles and the Gospel of John.

Once again noting the “tradition” he speaks of is creedal and derived from the earlier rule of faith. Which of course was derived from the Scriptures.

Actually he uses it a couple of other times in his many writings, I just didn’t quote the rest. Tradition is distinct from scripture.

 

[Barney2.0]

• If anything is certain, it is that there was no common canon among the Jews at the time of Christ.

Which is simply deceptive, for while there was also variant views as there are today on many things, the manifest reality is that an authoritative body (canon) of wholly inspired writings had been established by the time of Christ, and without an infallible magisterium, which Rome presumes is essential for ascertaining that is of God.

Therefore the Lord and disciples repeatedly quoted from, referenced, and referred them and others to the Scriptures as authoritative, (Matthew 21:42; 26:54,56; Mark 14:49) including reading from one of the established books in the synagogue as Scripture, (Luke 4:21) and men such as Paul reasoned with Jews likewise "from the Scriptures," and men "searched the Scriptures" in order to ascertain his veracity, (Acts 17:2,11) and there were souls who were "mighty in the Scriptures," (Acts 18:34,28) and the Lord substantiated His mission to the disciples by the Scriptures (as a tripartite canon), and opened their minds to the understanding "of the Scriptures." (Luke 24:44,45)

Yet Catholics argu that there was no authoritative canon of sacred writings! And note that those who sat in the seat of Moses, whom the Lord enjoined conditional (only Scriptural) obedience to, (Mt. 23:2) never made the canonical status of the Scriptures the Lord and His prima NT church invoked as issue, this implicitly affirming there accepted status.

• At the Council of Rome in 382, the Church decided upon a canon of 46 Old Testament books and 27 in the New Testament. This decision was ratified by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546).

None of which were ecumenical councils that settled the canon so that disagreement was disallowed. Thus as even the Catholic Encyclopedia states,

In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome's depreciating Prologus (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Canon of the Old Testament)

• Further, if Catholics added the deuterocanonical books in 1546, then Martin Luther beat us to the punch: He included them in his first German translation, published the Council of Trent...
they had been included at least in an appendix of Protestant Bibles. It is historically demonstrable that Catholics did not add the books, Protestants took them out.

Which is more deception, for the issue is not whether the Deuteros can be read, but the canonical status of them. And as they are were not considered canonical, Luther translated them but placed them in a separate section, as did typical Protestant Bibles, as per an ancient tradition. Thus it is historically demonstrable that Catholics did not the books as Scripture, while Protestants followed the more ancient canon, out of which the NT shows Lord referenced writings as authoritative Scripture.

• Luther had a tendency to grade the Bible according to his preferences. In his writings on the New Testament, he noted that the books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation were inferior to the rest, and they followed "the certain, main books of the New Testament."

Which was nothing novel or unCatholic, for in reality, scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries, and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon after the death of Luther.

Thus Luther was no maverick but had substantial RC support for his non-binding canon, and which did not determine the canon for Protestantism.

• In 1519, this same attitude fueled his debate against Johannes Eck on the topic of purgatory. Luther undermined Eck’s proof text of 2 Maccabees 12 by devaluing the deuterocanonical books as a whole.

And since the canon had not been settled then Eck had a problem which would not be rectified until after the death of Luther. Likewise, Luther's position on the canon could not be made a damnable issue, as it is with later Catholicism, until after Trent.

• Though there are no quotes, the New Testament does make numerous allusions to the deuterocanonical books. For one strong example, examine Hebrews 11:35: "Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release that they might rise again to a better life."

Even contemporary news can be referenced in Scripture, (Luke 13:1-3) which does not mean it is the latter, but, in contrast to the basis for Catholic oral tradition being the word of God, affirmation of such by inspired Scripture surely means it is true. And in contrast to canonical writings, the deuteros (Apocrypha) were never referred to as scripture as in "Search the scriptures" (John 5:39) and to Sadducees Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God (Matthew 22:29) or "It is written."(Mt. 4:4)

• "Early Christians read the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. It included the seven deuterocanonical books.

Which is a repetition of the deceptive statement which was dealt with earlier.

• Since there was disagreement between some Church Fathers, it became obvious that no individual could provide an infallible list of inspired books.The bottom line: "We have no other assurance that the books of Moses, the four Gospels, and the other books are the true word of God," wrote Augustine, "but by the canon of the Catholic Church."

Which presumption would logically mean that first century souls had no other assurance that the books of Moses were the true word of God," yet the manifestly did! And rather than the historical magisterium infallibly indisputably defining what and who was of God, the church began with common souls assuredly ascertaining that both men (such as the prohets and John the baptizer: "for all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed" (Mark 11:32) and writings were of God. (John 7:40-42)

So much for the presumption of Rome with her the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.

• One must either trust a rabbinical school that rejected the New Testament 60 years after Christ established a Church, or one must trust the Church he established.

Which is simply a reiteration of ignorance dealt with before, as well as pure propagada, For the fact is that the church of Rome (nor the EOs, if less aberrant) cannot claim to be the one true and apostolic church, since distinctive Catholic are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.

• Which deserves our trust? Martin Luther makes a pertinent observation in the sixteenth chapter of his Commentary on St. John "We are obliged to yield many things to the papists [Catholics]—that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it."

Which helps the RC argument how? The Catholic logic is that if one is indebted to Catholicism for the Bible then it means acknowledging and submitting to Catholicism as being the infallible authority on what it consists of and means.

However, this logically means that first century souls should have submitted to those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

Note also that whenever you see a Catholic quote Luther as this one , one should avail the research of James Swan a site search (site:beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com "We are obliged to yield many things" ..).

Thus once again the sophistry of (money-begging) Catholic Answers is once again exposed, but the grace of God.

The Jews had no defined canon that’s a fact. Certain people being hesitant on the canonicity of the Deuterocanonical books doesn’t change the fact the Church has always given them a Canonical status. In his original translation of the Bible Luther separated the books as Deuterocanonical books, he didn’t seperate them as apocrypha and non canonical books until much later. Many Church councils affirmed the Deuterocanonicals as inspired, way before the Roman Catholics decided to formally affirm them in the Council of Trent. Although you did give many sources you didn’t accurately refute the argument of Catholic Answers which still stands on Protestantism.

 

[Athanasius377]

The Jews had no defined canon that’s a fact. Certain people being hesitant on the canonicity of the Deuterocanonical books doesn’t change the fact the Church has always given them a Canonical status. In his original translation of the Bible Luther separated the books as Deuterocanonical books, he didn’t seperate them as apocrypha and non canonical books until much later. Many Church councils affirmed the Deuterocanonicals as inspired, way before the Roman Catholics decided to formally affirm them in the Council of Trent. Although you did give many sources you didn’t accurately refute the argument of Catholic Answers which still stands on Protestantism.

So how would a Jew in the first know whether the books of Isaiah and 2nd Chronicles are Scripture?

 

[Barney2.0]

Not really proof. You would need to show how the actual works of the Reformers advocated dismissing the dueterocanon books as opposed to making them part of the protocanon as did EO and Rome did.

Then show how refusing to make the dueterocanon books part of the protocanon was against any established church tradition.

Then after establishing that explain why there are differences between the OT canons of the EO and Roman Church. Then as an EO explain how even in your church tradition the Ethiopian Orthodox have more OT and NT books in their canon.

If you can address the above your assertions along with Catholic Answers become arguments worthy of response.

Martin Luther did dismiss 2 Maccabees because it disagreed to his rejection of a state of purification after death:

Lutheran biographer of Luther Julius Kostlin, gives a report of the Leipzig Debate with Eck:

During the discussion of the subject of purgatory, a quotation was made from the Books of the Maccabees (2 Macc 12:45), in which prayer for the dead is commended. Luther did not wish to reject the teaching of the passage, but he pronounced it insufficient as evidence, since the books in question do not belong to the canon.

(Theology of Luther in Its Historical Development and Inner Harmony, Vol. 1, 1897, 317)

The reason we have a different canon from the Roman Catholic Canon is the same reason we have different feast days and liturgies, as canon means what is acceptable to be read in the Divine Liturgy or Mass. Ethiopian Orthodox are not in communion with us, they are part of the Oriental Orthodox body of Churches not the Eastern Orthodox Church. As such I have no idea why they’re canon is different to ours as they have books I’ve never even heard of.

 

[Barney2.0]

So how would a Jew in the first know whether the books of Isaiah and 2nd Chronicles are Scripture?

Possibly with a tradition going back to Isaiah or Ezra.

 

[redleghunter]

Tradition is distinct from scripture.

We are told daily that Sacred Scripture is Tradition by Roman Catholics and EOs.

 

[redleghunter]

Martin Luther did dismiss 2 Maccabees because it disagreed to his rejection of a state of purification after death:

Yet in his 1534 German Bible it appears.

 

[Athanasius377]

Possibly with a tradition going back to Isaiah or Ezra.

So the Canon was fixed, yes? But you just said it wasn't .You can't have it both ways .

 

[Barney2.0]

So the Canon was fixed, yes? But you just said it wasn't .You can't have it both ways .

They know the books are inspired by oral tradition going back to Ezra or Isaiah, there still was no exact canon among the Jews.

 

[Barney2.0]

Yet in his 1534 German Bible it appears.

Yes, his first translation of the Bible in which he included the Deuterocanonical books.

 

[Barney2.0]

We are told daily that Sacred Scripture is Tradition by Roman Catholics and EOs.

I believe you have the words mixed up, we need Sacred Tradition to interpret Sacred Scripture, we can’t have one with out the other.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

The Jews had no defined canon that’s a fact.

That the "Jews" were not a monolithic community is a fact, yet it is also a FACT - based on the internal testimony of the NT - that by the time of Christ an extensive body (canon) of writings had been established as wholly inspired-of-God and authoritative, which as a body were referred to as Scripture. Obviously the hearers knew what this referred to.

And thus it is also a fact that upon which prophetic and doctrinal foundation a group of itinerant preachers and Preacher established the NT church, in dissent from the magisterial stewards of Scripture, but who never contended against the inspired writings that these preachers invoked as the authoritative word of God ("Scripture," it is written," etc.).

Certain people being hesitant on the canonicity of the Deuterocanonical books doesn’t change the fact the Church has always given them a Canonical status.

Certain non-ecumenical (non-infallible as per Rome) affirming a canon doesn’t change the fact that said Church had never given them undoubted, indisputable Canonical status.

In his original translation of the Bible Luther separated the books as Deuterocanonical books, he didn’t seperate them as apocrypha and non canonical books until much later.

Where are you getting this? What do you think this separation itself in his (he had help with the OT) translation of the whole Bible? Are you actually arguing that Luther he did not distinguish the Deuteros as non canonical booksin his Bible translation?
Many Church councils affirmed the Deuterocanonicals as inspired, way before the Roman Catholics decided to formally affirm them in the Council of Trent.[/QUOTE]
Which means many Church councils gave their fallible judgment that the Deuterocanonicals as inspired, leaving the issue disputable, right into Trent. Which means Luther was neither a maverick or villain for expressing a judgment like as many other Catholic scholars had and held to.

Many Church councils affirmed the Deuterocanonicals as inspired,] Although you did give many sources you didn’t accurately refute the argument of Catholic Answers which still stands on Protestantism.

Which is pure biased bombast. Its sophistry has indeed been exposed once more. Put not you trust in such men.

 

[redleghunter]

They know the books are inspired by oral tradition going back to Ezra or Isaiah, there still was no exact canon among the Jews.

Oral tradition? How so?

 

[redleghunter]

Yes, his first translation of the Bible in which he included the Deuterocanonical books.

And his last as well. He, like many before him in the Church did not view them as part of the protocanon.

 

[redleghunter]

I believe you have the words mixed up, we need Sacred Tradition to interpret Sacred Scripture, we can’t have one with out the other.

So the above is a "Sola Traditum" model?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Oral tradition? How so?

It means tradition as supported under SS, that of Scripture providing for men ascertaining what is of God, both men and writings (essentially due to their unique heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus being established as authoritative.

In contrast to oral tradition itself being the word of God as declared by an infallible magisterium, and thus, as in Catholic theology,

"the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities..." - Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium

"People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation. They have to be told by people who have received it from on high." - Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, "Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith, p. 72;

Which is untenable in the light of history and Scripture, but consistent with this Catholic reasoning, since believers are not able to discover the contents of the Bible apart from faith in her, in seeking to convert those without her, Catholic appeal is to be made to Scripture merely as a reliable historical document, under the premise that the soul can find warrant therein to believe in and submit to The Church®, and thus know that this reliable historical document in the wholly inspired word of God (but only as a second or third class authority).

Which premise means that the unconverted cannot discern Scripture as being Scripture, but can discern the RCC as being the one true church. Which means she thinks her Divine qualities are more more manifest than Scripture, and which attests to her arrogant self-exaltation.

 

[Barney2.0]

That the "Jews" were not a monolithic community is a fact, yet it is also a FACT - based on the internal testimony of the NT - that by the time of Christ an extensive body (canon) of writings had been established as wholly inspired-of-God and authoritative, which as a body were referred to as Scripture. Obviously the hearers knew what this referred to.

And thus it is also a fact that upon which prophetic and doctrinal foundation a group of itinerant preachers and Preacher established the NT church, in dissent from the magisterial stewards of Scripture, but who never contended against the inspired writings that these preachers invoked as the authoritative word of God ("Scripture," it is written," etc.).

Certain non-ecumenical (non-infallible as per Rome) affirming a canon doesn’t change the fact that said Church had never given them undoubted, indisputable Canonical status.

Where are you getting this? What do you think this separation itself in his (he had help with the OT) translation of the whole Bible? Are you actually arguing that Luther he did not distinguish the Deuteros as non canonical booksin his Bible translation?
Many Church councils affirmed the Deuterocanonicals as inspired, way before the Roman Catholics decided to formally affirm them in the Council of Trent.

Which means many Church councils gave their fallible judgment that the Deuterocanonicals as inspired, leaving the issue disputable, right into Trent. Which means Luther was neither a maverick or villain for expressing a judgment like as many other Catholic scholars had and held to.

Which is pure biased bombast. Its sophistry has indeed been exposed once more. Put not you trust in such men.[/QUOTE]
Then can you name me a canon of the Old Testament that didn’t vary regionally? Show me any canon universally established among the Jews of the time of Jesus Christ. The council of Carthage You haven’t exposed anything so far. The Church already gave the books the same status as any other book in about three councils Rome (A.D. 382), Hippo (A.D. 393), Carthage (A.D. 397), to claim anything else would be clear misinterpretation of the facts. Yes three fallible Church councils have their view that these books are part of the Bible, if they were wrong then there would be widespread opposition from the Church that these books shouldn’t be in the Bible, such a thing never occured which shows the councils were merely confirming an already held belief about the books. It’s very different to Martin Luther coming and saying “hey let’s remove these books because they’re forgeries and not inspired.” Both are fallible decisions yet one decision is not foreign to Church history while one is. Luther distinguished between Canonical books and Deuterocanonical books, Deuterocanonical books are classified as secondary to the Canonical books although both are inspired. Which is why Luther organized them differently, he didn’t include them in a sections of inspired and non inspired to suggest so would be pure absurdity.

 

[Barney2.0]

So the above is a "Sola Traditum" model?

Actually it’s a per solam Scripturam et Traditionem model.