Protestant canon

Montalban said:

You've not addressed the criteria relating to texts being only written in times of prophets. Can you do this?.

Click to expand...

They have to be written only when a prophet is alive. What's to address?

Montalban said:

I don't see that anyone's dealt with the fact that Jesus quoted from the Greek OT that Protestants don't accept.

Click to expand...

Jesus quoted from greek translations, or He quoted apocrypha as scripture?

why is 1 enoch not in the EO's bible?

ortho_cat said:

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

Click to expand...

What about the Cretan (sic?) poet? What about Clement of Rome?

Everyone acknowledges that other books were written during the 400 years of Jewish history from Malachi to John the Baptist. Just like other books written (maybe) during the NT period between James and John (first and last apostles to die).

Folks really can't understand that there is a distinction between God-breathed scripture and men's writings? Those who can't are typically in the LDS, EO, RC camps wherein they accept "infallible popes, patriarchs, and NT prophets".

Montalban said:

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

Click to expand...

It's the same canon as Protestants accept, less the oversight of Esther that may have been exlcuded because of political pressure. Melito wrote c175ad.

IMO the real problem is Melito is in a more ancient line defining scripture than the councils c400 or trent in c1550. We know the very early church would use that criteria (oldest teaching) as one proof of apostolicity.

PS. Melito was also a quartodeciman

Montalban said:

You've not addressed the criteria relating to texts being only written in times of prophets. Can you do this?

Click to expand...

A few posters already have, pointing to the Hebrew language.

That was dealt with last time you mentioned it. Another poster suggested your needed to look further into the chapter.

Click to expand...

There may have been ebb and flows of 'hearing from God' ala an OT prophet, but that is not the same as Maccabees itself saying there are no genuine prophets at this time when Macc and the other deteros were written.

This is almost silly. Obviously there was a distinction made over some 2400 years between God-breathed scripture and the deteros, else we wouldn't even be talking about it.

PS It's after John the baptist we see Anna and ? prophesying about Messiah.

Montalban said:

Next is the fact that Melito's direct evidence; his canon DOES NOT match StandingUp's claim because it includes a book StandingUp doesn't accept and excludes a book he accepts. The only thing though is that StandingUp keeps saying that Melito supports him. This of course may convince one or two.

Click to expand...

Melito's writing says proverbs also known as wisdom. Not two separate books, but the same with two names (like Peter and Cephas). I've shown all the quotes before on this.

Melito does exclude Esther. Simple oversight or political issue.

" Melito says nothing of the number twenty-two, and, in fact, his list, as he gives it, numbers only twenty-one. His list really differs from Josephus’ only in omitting the Book of Esther. This omission may be accidental, though it is omitted by Athanasius and Gregory Nazianzen. He makes no mention of Nehemiah, but that is doubtless included with Ezra, as in the case of Josephus’ canon. His canon purports to be the Palestinian one, and hence we should expect it to be the same as that of Josephus, which makes it more probable that the omission of Esther was only accidental. "
NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Standing Up said:

PS It's after John the baptist we see Anna and ? prophesying about Messiah.

Click to expand...

36 Now there was one, Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was of a great age, and had lived with a husband seven years from her virginity; 37 and this woman was a widow of about eighty-four years,[i] who did not depart from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day. 38 And coming in that instant she gave thanks to the Lord,[j] and spoke of Him to all those who looked for redemption in Jerusalem.

Luke 2

Montalban said:

I don't see that anyone's dealt with the fact that Jesus quoted from the Greek OT that Protestants don't accept.

Click to expand...

It's questionable whether He does or not. Maybe there are allusions, but to my knowledge, there are no direct quotes like He does Isaiah, for example.

And again, Paul quotes the poet, but no one is so dense to think the poem should be part of scripture.

Montalban said:

Not quite.
"Furthermore, the New Testament writers, when citing the Jewish scriptures or when quoting Jesus doing so, freely used the Greek translation, implying that Jesus, his Apostles and their followers considered it reliable"
Septuagint - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is, when they have Jesus quoting OT scripture they have him using the Greek text (the Septuagint), which "includes some books not found in the Hebrew Bible, see Development of the Jewish Bible canon for details"
Septuagint - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Therefore the writers of the Bible knowingly have Jesus quoting from the Greek text... the one Protestants don't accept because it contains aforesaid apocrypha

Click to expand...

Recognizing that the Apostles and (maybe) Jesus used the translation in the lingua franca of the period does not mean we have to automatically accept the full canonicity of every book included in that translation. The Septuagint was not a single book available in the store in one cover. The apostles did not have a choice between "the orthodox greek translation" and "the protestant greek translation" they just used the translation in the language they were writing and trying to prove a canon from that fact is severly stretching. Considering you do not include the Psalms of Solomon in your canon it doesn't exactly help you anyway.

The NT quotes both the LXX and the Masoretic, but in the majority the LXX.

ortho_cat said:

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

Click to expand...

Don't believe so.

2 Chron. 24:20-22 And the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, which stood above the people, and said unto them, Thus saith God, Why transgress ye the commandments of the LORD, that ye cannot prosper? because ye have forsaken the LORD, he hath also forsaken you. And they conspired against him, and stoned him with stones at the commandment of the king in the court of the house of the LORD. Thus Joash the king remembered not the kindness which Jehoiada his father had done to him, but slew his son. And when he died, he said, The LORD look upon [it], and require [it].

Lk. 11:51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

Brother against brother (Abel). Father against son (Zechariah).

SummaScriptura said:

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

Zechariah son of Jehoiada

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click to expand...

So, what do you think now about scripture identifying its own canon?

Can anyone quote Jesus citing Scripture that is not found in OT Scriptures excluding the LXX?

ortho_cat said:

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

Click to expand...

Apparently there are 2 prophets Zechariah. ONe the son of Iddo. Another the son of Jehoida and/or Berechiah. I'm still sorting this out...