Protestant canon

[Ortho_Cat]

Not too many have mentioned this, but even the books Josephus included are up for debate:

"Josephus refers to sacred scriptures divided into three parts: the five books of the Torah; thirteen books of the Nevi'im, and four other books of hymns and wisdom.[15] Since there are 24 books in the current Jewish canon instead of the 22 mentioned by Josephus, some scholars have suggested that he considered Ruth part of Judges, and Lamentations part of Jeremiah. Other scholars suggest that at the time Josephus wrote, such books as Esther and Ecclesiastes were not yet considered canonical.

Michael Barber agrees that although "scholars have reconstructed Josephus’ list differently, it seems clear that we have in his testimony a list of books very close to the Hebrew canon as it stands today." However, Barber avers that Josephus' canon is "not identical to that of the modern Hebrew Bible". He points out that it is debatable whether or not Josephus' canon had a tripartite structure. And thus, Barber warns that "one should be careful not to overstate the importance of Josephus." In support of this caveat, Barber points out that "Josephus was clearly a member of the Pharisaic party and, although he might not have liked to think so, his was not the universally accepted Jewish Bible—other Jewish communities included more than twenty-two books."[11]"

~wiki

 

[Standing Up]

It's like arguing about whether the books at hippo and carthage were really the ones picked at trent.

 

[Standing Up]

I forgot to mention that the witness of the earliest councils regarding the church canon don't agree with the protestant canon either (council of hippo/rome/carthage).

early christian documents which quote from the deuteros: letter of barnabas, didache, epistle of clement

ECF's who quote from the deutero's: {St.'s} Clement, Polycarp of Smyrna, Irenaeus of Lyons, Hippolytus, Cyprian of Carthage, Augustine, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Hilary of Poitiers, Basil the Great, Gregory Nazianzen, and Rufinus (not a saint). All of these witness are before 400 AD, and are just a sample.

These ECF's speak of the deutero's as scripture, by quoting them alongside proto's, by saying "it is written" when quoting from them, by using them to prove doctrines, and by referring to the inspiration of the writings in general.

Again, the fact that someone quoted something from someone is not proof of its "scriptureness".

One of themselves, [even] a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians [are] alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.

Even called a prophet, yet you think he spoke for God?

Again, as I mentioned before, the Jury on Jerome is still out:

"What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:24-90], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, `This is not the time to discuss such matters'" (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).

Submit or lose your head?

Melito

, when naming the canon, used the greek names for the books (and orders them according to the greek septuagint tradition), so it is most likely that his books of Daniel and Esther are longer than the protestant versions.

That's to what I alluded earlier. It is not so simple to say they in palestine used the masoretic text rather than the septuagint. Basically, it strengthens the protestant version of things, which is they have correctly identified scripture versus a canon.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Again, the fact that someone quoted something from someone is not proof of its "scriptureness".

Pause and let the epic irony sink in.

Goodnight, Josephus.
Goodnight, Melito
Goodnight, John Boy.

One of themselves, [even] a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians [are] alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.

Even called a prophet, yet you think he spoke for God?

Absolutely- regarding Cretans.

Submit or lose your head?

Oh I see- you are saying that Saint Jerome lied to save his skin. Of course, that's neither what he said there or even hinted at. And here he is, writing in the late 300s, saying the judgement of "the churches" plural is that the so-called apocrypha or DC are in fact scripture. At the very same time that these same churches, plural, are declaring the New Testament Canon. So they were right about the NT, but wrong about the Old. Somehow we have to believe that the churches were wrong (let's go with the "Constantine destroyed the Church" myth) but still able to define NT.

Arbitrary, capricious, illogical, and yes, foolish.

That's to what I alluded earlier. It is not so simple to say they in palestine used the masoretic text rather than the septuagint. Basically, it strengthens the protestant version of things, which is they have correctly identified scripture versus a canon.

Congratulations! You have proven nothing, and you are nevertheless drinking champagne out of the the trophy.

 

[Standing Up]

Pause and let the epic irony sink in.

Goodnight, Josephus.
Goodnight, Melito
Goodnight, John Boy.

Absolutely- regarding Cretans.

Oh I see- you are saying that Saint Jerome lied to save his skin. Of course, that's neither what he said there or even hinted at. And here he is, writing in the late 300s, saying the judgement of "the churches" plural is that the so-called apocrypha or DC are in fact scripture. At the very same time that these same churches, plural, are declaring the New Testament Canon. So they were right about the NT, but wrong about the Old. Somehow we have to believe that the churches were wrong (let's go with the "Constantine destroyed the Church" myth) but still able to define NT.

Arbitrary, capricious, illogical, and yes, foolish.

Congratulations! You have proven nothing, and you are nevertheless drinking champagne out of the the trophy.

Anytime you want to address the issues, let us know.

 

[Standing Up]

As mentioned, the reason the deteros were not considered scripture was there were no prophets between Malachi and John the Baptist's conception. Even Maccabees says the same thing (no genuine prophets) at the time it was written. And now this:

Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:
v 12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find [it].

And

Micah 3:6 Therefore night [shall be] unto you, that ye shall not have a vision; and it shall be dark unto you, that ye shall not divine; and the sun shall go down over the prophets, and the day shall be dark over them.

That would be scripture, God-breathed, valid, genuine prophets who prophesied of silence.

In contrast, we now have groups who not only claim Macc is scripture (though it denies it of itself), we have them denying what scripture does say.

 

[Sidheil]

As mentioned, the reason the deteros were not considered scripture was there were no prophets between Malachi and John the Baptist's conception. Even Maccabees says the same thing (no genuine prophets) at the time it was written.

Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:

v 12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find [it].

That would be scripture, God-breathed, a valid, genuine prophet who prophesied of silence.

In contrast, we now have groups who not only claim Macc is scripture (though it denies it of itself), we have them denying the real prophet's prophesying.

One of the criteria for Scripture is that it had to be written by a prophet or other Spirit filled person, right? So if the Deuterocanononical books were written when no one was inspired by/filled with the Spirit, they could not be Scripture. Is this what you are saying? And, were all the DC books written after Malachi?

 

[Standing Up]

One of the criteria for Scripture is that it had to be written by a prophet or other Spirit filled person, right? So if the Deuterocanononical books were written when no one was inspired by/filled with the Spirit, they could not be Scripture. Is this what you are saying?

Yes. It's what Macc says too.

1 Macc 14:41
"'The Jewish people and their priest have, therefore, made the following decisions. Simon shall be their permanent leader and high priest until a true prophet arises.

9:27 There had not been such great distress in Israel since the time prophets ceased to appear among the people.

When was the time that prophets ceased to appear among the people? Malachi. Jesus points from Malachi to John the Baptist (elijah prophecy).

And, were all the DC books written after Malachi?

Far as I know, though it doesn't particularly matter.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Anytime you want to address the issues, let us know.

That bolded affectation is getting downright creepy.

 

[Standing Up]

That bolded affectation is getting downright creepy.

Like I said ...

 

[ivebeenshown]

We don't hold to any one canon without accepting someone else's word about it. Whose word do the Protestants accept?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Again, the fact that someone quoted something from someone is not proof of its "scriptureness".

Didn't say that. I anticipated this retort, which is why I included this:

"These ECF's speak of the deutero's as scripture, by quoting them alongside proto's, by saying "it is written" when quoting from them, by using them to prove doctrines, and by referring to the inspiration of the writings in general."

It is clear from the context of their quotes that they regarded them as scripture. That's alot of adverse testimonies that P has to deal with regarding their canon.

 

[Rick Otto]

We don't hold to any one canon without accepting someone else's word about it. Whose word do the Protestants accept?

What about us X-Protestants? Anyone who speaks the truth in righteousness is worth a listen to.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Question for Standing Up:

What if scholarly consensus were to show that one (or possibly more) of the books which are among the protocanonicals were written during this "period of silence"?

For example:

The traditionalist view dates Daniel to the 6th century. However, in the critical view, "there would be few modern biblical scholars ... who would now seriously defend such an opinion."[2][3] Modern biblical scholarship dates the book to the 2nd century BC:[4][4] "The arguments for a date shortly before the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 164 are overwhelming."[2] Opinions continue to differ, however, in light of apparently early forms of Aramaic language used in the Aramaic portions.[5]

Book of Daniel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How does this affect your theory?

And if you respond by saying "Daniel was historically set in a period before the dearth of prophecy" what would you say if I told you that some of the deutero's are as well? Would you then have to re-evaluate their canonicity based upon their historical setting?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

What about us X-Protestants? Anyone who speaks the truth in righteousness is worth a listen to.

There is only One who is Righteous.

Sorry... had to joke a little, everyone needs to loosen up a little sometime.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Question for Standing Up:

What if scholarly consensus were to show that one (or possibly more) of the books which are among the protocanonicals were written during this "period of silence"?
For example:
The traditionalist view dates Daniel to the 6th century. However, in the critical view, "there would be few modern biblical scholars ... who would now seriously defend such an opinion."[2][3] Modern biblical scholarship dates the book to the 2nd century BC:[4][4] "The arguments for a date shortly before the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 164 are overwhelming."[2] Opinions continue to differ, however, in light of apparently early forms of Aramaic language used in the Aramaic portions.[5]
Book of Daniel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
How does this affect your theory?
And if you respond by saying "Daniel was historically set in a period before the dearth of prophecy" what would you say if I told you that some of the deutero's are as well? Would you then have to re-evaluate their canonicity based upon their historical setting?

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.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Question for Standing Up:

What if scholarly consensus were to show that one (or possibly more) of the books which are among the protocanonicals were written during this "period of silence"?

For example:

The traditionalist view dates Daniel to the 6th century. However, in the critical view, "there would be few modern biblical scholars ... who would now seriously defend such an opinion."[2][3] Modern biblical scholarship dates the book to the 2nd century BC:[4][4] "The arguments for a date shortly before the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 164 are overwhelming."[2] Opinions continue to differ, however, in light of apparently early forms of Aramaic language used in the Aramaic portions.[5]

Book of Daniel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How does this affect your theory?

And if you respond by saying "Daniel was historically set in a period before the dearth of prophecy" what would you say if I told you that some of the deutero's are as well? Would you then have to re-evaluate their canonicity based upon their historical setting?

So much for Dispensationalism. At least wrt canon

 

[SummaScriptura]

About Abel and Zechariah being the "bookends" of the prophets, that would put the author of the The Book of Chronicles himself in the mythical "silent years" wouldn't it? It would make Ezra, who likely wrote the The Book of Chronicles, outside of the era of prophets, therefore not inspired and not authoritative as a source for determining the delimiters of the age of the prophets. The Book of Chronicles ends before the era of Ezra.

 

[Standing Up]

Question for Standing Up:

What if scholarly consensus were to show that one (or possibly more) of the books which are among the protocanonicals were written during this "period of silence"?

For example:

The traditionalist view dates Daniel to the 6th century. However, in the critical view, "there would be few modern biblical scholars ... who would now seriously defend such an opinion."[2][3] Modern biblical scholarship dates the book to the 2nd century BC:[4][4] "The arguments for a date shortly before the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 164 are overwhelming."[2] Opinions continue to differ, however, in light of apparently early forms of Aramaic language used in the Aramaic portions.[5]

Book of Daniel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How does this affect your theory?

And if you respond by saying "Daniel was historically set in a period before the dearth of prophecy" what would you say if I told you that some of the deutero's are as well? Would you then have to re-evaluate their canonicity based upon their historical setting?

What Summascriptura said.

You realize what is going on with this "redating" of Daniel? It's to spear the veracity of God-breathed scripture in its prophetical heart. I mean how could Daniel know about those 4 empires to come? Oh, it was written after. 'Course there goes 2 Peter and Revelation, etc. May as well just ... well you get the picture. OTOH, for those who equate scripture with tradition, it's probably no big deal; after all, the voice of the bishop is supreme. They picked scripture, tradition, doctrine, etc. as they maintained their priesthood lineage.

 

[Standing Up]

About Abel and Zechariah being the "bookends" of the prophets, that would put the author of the The Book of Chronicles himself in the mythical "silent years" wouldn't it? It would make Ezra, who likely wrote the The Book of Chronicles, outside of the era of prophets, therefore not inspired and not authoritative as a source for determining the delimiters of the age of the prophets. The Book of Chronicles ends before the era of Ezra.

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?