Protestant canon

Standing Up said:

Wouldn't that nail down the disagreement, if we could understand that?

They (EO and RC) believe Wisdom is a prophecy---God will deliver Him from/before death. Didn't happen though, hence Wisdom is not God-breathed.

Psalms, however, says the enemies say, let God deliver Him. This is not to say God will deliver Him.

OTOH, if it is enemies (not the Book of Wisdom writer) who say, God will deliver Him, then it's not a prophecy by the writer. In which case, it's not a prophecy. So, there may be other merits to Wisdom, but as a God-breathed scripture, proof must lay elsewhere.

Click to expand...

Honestly, I do not see a difference in conceptual content (and just to describe my background, I was a Lit. major and am an avid reader).

* different recountings, or different points of view demonstrated by different narrators discussing the same event does not constitute different content, but the use of different descriptive method or even rhetorical conceit.

Thekla said:

This is your conjecture; which is fine, the scholars conjecture too.

Click to expand...

Not mine. We've seen the historical quotes from Eusebius, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Melito, Firmillian, etc. But what's missing from those is the scripture basis. As we saw in the other thread, some believe Luke taught error as a way to explain the "contradiction" in times/events between the Synoptics and John. If you can reconcile that accurately, the rest, the skewing away, is clear as crystal.

If the dating was dogmatic (necessary for salvation), what is the fate of all those after the 4th c. who do not practice Q method (whatever that was, as no one is sure of what it was), and as the 1st c. dating method was lost after the 1st c., how did the Qs practice the proper reckoning (which was supposedly secret and done by the Sanhedrin) ?

Click to expand...

Don't believe anyone has claimed it necessary for salvation. The real question is what about those before the c1850 dogma of the assumption of Mary

The issue is apostolic teaching. Folks go around asserting they follow apostolic teaching. Not. It's like what Firmillian said, Rome vainly pretends the authority of apostles; they don't follow apostolic teaching as regards "easter" or other divine sacraments. Anyone may know.

Now, since I know what he is saying, I also believe the rest of his statement (fell away as regards other divine sacraments). Lo and behold, we find no very early separate office of priest (orthowiki agrees!), and we find martyrs like Blandina going to her death denying eating flesh and blood and other witnesses against "developed doctrine".

Thekla said:

Honestly, I do not see a difference in conceptual content (and just to describe my background, I was a Lit. major and am an avid reader).

* different recountings, or different points of view demonstrated by different narrators discussing the same event does not constitute different content, but the use of different descriptive method or even rhetorical conceit.

Click to expand...

Well, perhaps it could be understood like salvation. A) Let God save me or B) God will save me. Which camp do you want to be in? Do you understand the difference (regardless of its rightness or wrongness)?

Quartodecimans are merely props in the self - aggrandizing Remnant ideology of the Landmarkists and their ilk.

They have a romanticized, poorly informed view of historical dissenting groups because the facts don't matter, so long as they were sticking it to the man, so -to-speak.

Standing Up said:

Not mine. We've seen the historical quotes from Eusebius, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Melito, Firmillian, etc. But what's missing from those is the scripture basis. As we saw in the other thread, some believe Luke taught error as a way to explain the "contradiction" in times/events between the Synoptics and John. If you can reconcile that accurately, the rest, the skewing away, is clear as crystal.

Click to expand...

Well then, you are more knowledgeable than any scholar thus far who has written on the matter.

Don't believe anyone has claimed it necessary for salvation. The real question is what about those before the c1850 dogma of the assumption of Mary

The issue is apostolic teaching. Folks go around asserting they follow apostolic teaching. Not. It's like what Firmillian said, Rome vainly pretends the authority of apostles; they don't follow apostolic teaching as regards "easter" or other divine sacraments. Anyone may know.

Now, since I know what he is saying, I also believe the rest of his statement (fell away as regards other divine sacraments). Lo and behold, we find no very early separate office of priest (orthowiki agrees!), and we find martyrs like Blandina going to her death denying eating flesh and blood and other witnesses against "developed doctrine".

Click to expand...

As the apostles are described as always wearing a blue cord when baptizing, would you consider the fact that this is no longer done anywhere that I know of to be an abrogation of apostolic teaching ?

As we have discussed before, your understanding of the St. Blandina issue seems well off the mark to my reading.

As for the offices, and the other issues, we have discussed them before.

Your positions seems to presume a functional rigidity cast onto everything you see. Or, to make the same point another way, how did you ever survive reading Dr. Seuss

Rdr Iakovos said:

Quartodecimans are merely props in the self - aggrandizing Remnant ideology of the Landmarkists and their ilk.

They have a romanticized, poorly informed view of historical dissenting groups because the facts don't matter, so long as they were sticking it to the man, so -to-speak.

Click to expand...

Got that backwards. It was Chrysostom sticking it to them.

I'd still like to know what you folks will do with Jesus, Mary, the apostles, and very early Church who followed that apostolic teaching after excommunicating and declaring them heretical at one of your fine councils.

Thekla said:

Your positions seems to presume a functional rigidity cast onto everything you see. Or, to make the same point another way, how did you ever survive reading Dr. Seuss

Click to expand...

The sentiment of the don't confuse me with the facts, ad hominem.

Standing Up said:

The sentiment of the don't confuse me with the facts, ad hominem.

Click to expand...

It wasn't meant as an attack; it is an analysis of the way you "read" described in two different ways (demonstrating the idea that the same content can be described in two dissimilar ways).

As for facts, the facts that have been presented thus far are insufficient to support an actual full descriptive of the issue - which is why thus far scholars have used conjecture to "fill the gaps".

Standing Up said:

I've posted it all before, and one more time.

As you have often, prompted by your regard for the word of God, expressed a wish to have some extracts made from the Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour, and concerning our faith in general, and have desired, moreover, to obtain an accurate account of the Ancient Books, as regards their number and their arrangement, I have striven to the best of my ability to perform this task: ...

I accordingly proceeded to the East, and went to the very spot where the things in question were preached and took place; and, having made myself accurately acquainted with the books of the Old Testament, I have set them down below, and herewith send you the list.

The five books of Moses—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua,36233623 ᾽Ιησοῦς Ναυῆ. Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, the two of Chronicles, the book of the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, also called the Book of Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job, the books of the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, of the twelve contained in a single book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From these I have made my extracts, dividing them into six books.
ANF08. The Twelve Patriarchs, Excerpts and Epistles, The Clementia, Apocrypha, Decretals, Memoirs of Edessa and Syriac Documents, Remains of the First | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

That was written c175ad. Today we have people who claim from a much later tradtion c400ad to have a more accurate account of the Old Testament.

It is the same as the Protestand canon, less Esther.

PS The Church didn't like Melito for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that he was a witness to the Apostolic teachings about the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ Jesus.

Click to expand...

Interestingly enough, it can also be translated like this:

Melito's canon is found in Eusebius EH4.26.13–14[3]:

So what about Daniel? Those "extra" chapters...

Is Daniel part of the Prophets or the Writings?

Kristos said:

So what about Daniel? Those "extra" chapters...

Is Daniel part of the Prophets or the Writings?

Click to expand...

You might be "swimmin' beyond the buoys" on this one.

for some reason it has struck me as intriguing lately...

the hymn of the three youths is used extensively in EO services. why would the EOC put such great emphasis on it, yet many reject it?

I don't know the answer, it just something that popped into my brain

Standing Up said:

Well, perhaps it could be understood like salvation. A) Let God save me or B) God will save me. Which camp do you want to be in? Do you understand the difference (regardless of its rightness or wrongness)?

Click to expand...

Wow, we are really parsing language here. I wouldn't expect any less though, because obviously much is at stake here. Let's look at the verse again:
Look at verse 17. This is the conlusion being drawn by the scoffers. If the man is truly God's son, God will help him, and deliver him. That is their test for authenticity.

Now let's look at verse 20. Using the information we have from verse 17, if Jesus himself claims to be the son of God, then what is the logical conlusion you would draw based on the inference from verse 17?

First, they made the assumption, "if he is God's son, he will be protected"

Then they say, by what he says, he will be protected"

What did Jesus say? That he is God's son. Therefore, according to the logic of the scoffers, if he is truly God's son, then he will be protected. Yet, we know this was not to be the case, as the author of wisdom is fully aware of:

Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray, for their wickedness blinded them, 22 and they did not know the secret purposes of God, nor hope for the wages of holiness, nor discern the prize for blameless souls; 23 for God created man for incorruption, and made him in the image of his own eternity, 24 but through the devil's envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his party experience it.

Ok, now we look at the verse in Psalms:

7All who see me sneer at me;
They separate with the lip, they wag the head, saying, 8“Commit yourself to the LORD; let Him deliver him;
Let Him rescue him, because He delights in him.”

Again, what is their criteria here? He trusted on the Lord. If he God delights in Him, then God will rescue him. That is the criteria that the scoffers applied towards Jesus. If he is truly the Son of God, then he will be able to come down off the cross. Since Christ didn't save himself (or God didn't save him), they rejected Him as the Messiah. Can you not see how this verse and the one in Wisdom are saying precisely the same thing?

Kristos said:

So what about Daniel? Those "extra" chapters...

Is Daniel part of the Prophets or the Writings?

Click to expand...

As it turns out, this question is indeed "within the bouys" for the discussion of this thread.

According to Jesus, (MAt. 24:15) Daniel is to be numbered among the prophets. According to the much-vaunted (Protestant) canon developed within post-Apostolic-era Judaism, it is merely a "writing" and not to be considered on the same level as the prophets. Jesus contradicts the judgment of a Messiah-rejecting Judaism here. I'll go with Jesus' judgment on that one.

SummaScriptura said:

According to Jesus, (MAt. 24:15) Daniel is to be numbered among the prophets. According to the much-vaunted Protestant canon of post-Apostolic-era Judaism, it is merely a "writing" and not to be considered on the same level as the prophets. I'll go with Jesus' judgment on that one.

Click to expand...

Do you think Christians have been adversely influenced by the relegation?

That verse in Matthew strikes me as odd. Why mention the "reader" when most people would be a "hearer" - no?

Would you put Daniel with the "major" prophets, along with Jeremiah, Isaiah & Ezekiel? Or with the minor?

Kristos said:

Do you think Christians have been adversely influenced by the relegation?

That verse in Matthew strikes me as odd. Why mention the "reader" when most people would be a "hearer" - no?

Would you put Daniel with the "major" prophets, along with Jeremiah, Isaiah & Ezekiel? Or with the minor?

Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, he should be one of the major prophets, (although that is a bit of an artificial category, no?)

The twelve minor prophets were indeed viewed as a group within pre-Christian Judaism, ("May the bones of the twelve prophets revive from where they lie, for they comforted the people of Jacob and delivered them with confident hope." Sirach 49:10). So, Daniel is not of the 12. What is left? The rest.

Just like the EO and RC canons, the canon used by most Protestants formed over a very long time.

The question at hand though, seems to be about the exclusion of the OT Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha. There are a couple of scholastic reasons usually offered for this:

1. They were rejected by the Jews of Palestine

2. They were, apparently, composed in Greek significantly later than many of the events they describe and of questionable authorship.

Now, neither of these spell certain doom; afterall, we have no idea who wrote the Book of Hebrews and we all agree on it's canonicity.

Another wrinkle is that Protestants do not approach the issue of canonicity the way Catholics and Orthodox do. There is no idea that these things must be defined by an authoritative establishment. The opinions of scholars do carry weight though, and historically classical Protestantism has been a magisterial faith which looks to properly formed and biblically informed scholarship for guidance (especially in theologically extraneous matters).

For this reason, in the 15th and 16th century, the great heyday of biblical translation and scholarship, a great many churchmen (to my knowledge, exclusively in the west), both Catholic and Evangelical, were coming to the conclusion that the "extra books" did not belong there. Famous Catholics who believed this were Erasmus, Ximines and Contarini. Nearly all Protestant scholars agreed.

Protestant Biblical translations, beginning with Luther's, contained the books although not intralibrated with the rest of the canon. They were most often included in an appendix to the OT. This is also true of the King James version of the Bible. The decision to leave them out of common printings was probably one that was arrived at over time, implemented by printers eager to satisfy the preferences of their clientele.

What this means practically is at least three things:

1. There is very little truth to the idea that they were excised because Protestants just didn't like them, or considered them "too Popish" although that may very well have prompted the "preferences of (some of) the clientele" printers were interested in catering to.

2. There is no truth to the idea that Protestants excluded them ex nihilo; i.e. that they just decided one day without reason to chop them out of the text.

3. The eventual decision to exclude them, and the point at which the vast majority of "Protestant printings" of the whole bible no longer carried them cannot be determined with any accuracy, but it was probably by the late seventeenth century.

Standing Up said:

Wouldn't that nail down the disagreement, if we could understand that?

They (EO and RC) believe Wisdom is a prophecy---God will deliver Him from/before death. Didn't happen though, hence Wisdom is not God-breathed.

Psalms, however, says the enemies say, let God deliver Him. This is not to say God will deliver Him.

OTOH, if it is enemies (not the Book of Wisdom writer) who say, God will deliver Him, then it's not a prophecy by the writer. In which case, it's not a prophecy. So, there may be other merits to Wisdom, but as a God-breathed scripture, proof must lay elsewhere.

Click to expand...

those men do not have the spirit of God, they have the spirit of the devil. they are mocking Christ. God pointed that out. if you continue to show all of us that you can not even understand this scripture, then you highly discredit yourself. which is great for us, because we at least will know that you are in error. people have explained it much better than me and I just do not get why you do not understand.

SummaScriptura said:

As far as I can tell, he should be one of the major prophets, (although that is a bit of an artificial category, no?)

The twelve minor prophets were indeed viewed as a group within pre-Christian Judaism, ("May the bones of the twelve prophets revive from where they lie, for they comforted the people of Jacob and delivered them with confident hope." Sirach 49:10). So, Daniel is not of the 12. What is left? The rest.

Click to expand...

True - it is a bit artificial, but I think it puts the disparity in context. We are not talking about relegating a "minor" prophet, but a "major" one. It's a bigger demotion

So, how about that hymn of the three youths? Why was that so threatening to the Jews that they decided to exclude it? And even demote the rest of the book to the Writings?