Protestant canon

[Ortho_Cat]

They didn't write anything. And 'valid line of prophets' is here also:

"4. From the time of Artaxerxes to our own day all the events have been recorded, but the accounts are not worthy of the same confidence that we repose in those which preceded them, because there has not been during this time an exact succession of prophets."
NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Josephus is reiterating what Maccabees says, no genuine prophets during its writing. Keep in mind that folks argue for apostolic succession; likewise, prophetical succession. End result should be we are built on OT prophets and NT apostles (aka God-breathed Scripture).

To your last comment, I don't think so. IIRC: Malachi was last; they called him the cap (or something like that). Chronicles wherein is mentioned Zecharias is the entire span (Abel to Zacharias).

Your task here is to prove from scripture what scripture is. Relying on traditions of 1st century historians and other selected church fathers is an exercise in futility...at least as far as defending SS is concerned. That is, unless your goal is to show that the canon of scripture is not binding (i.e. not found in scripture), which I doubt is the case.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Your task here is to prove from scripture what scripture is. Relying on traditions of 1st century historians and other selected church fathers is an exercise in futility...at least as far as defending SS is concerned. That is, unless your goal is to show that the canon of scripture is not binding (i.e. not found in scripture), which I doubt is the case.

It does seem futile trying to prove Sola Scriptura using ECFs when the ECFs placed so much trust in Apostolic Succession and knowing that the church they attended was founded by an Apostle of the Church. In all the reading I have done it seems that when someone quotes an ECF in support of Sola Scriptura that we must ignore their writings in their fullness or else be left with the realization that the quote is taken out of context.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

msipost.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Alright, well, anyways, Jesus called John the Baptist a prophet, and Luke wrote that John's dad, Zacharias, prophesied. So I don't buy your whole 'valid line of prophets' thing. Not to mention, Jesus just said something about their blood. He never said 'there only valid prophets from Abel to Zacharias.' In fact, some of the OT books you include were written after Zacharias' death.

Didn't Jesus refer to John the Baptist as Elijah?

When I think of John the Baptist I think of how John leaped for joy in his mother's womb at six months as a fetus and then how Jesus and John are related by blood (closely too) because Mary and Elizabeth are family. Kind of cool.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

It does seem futile trying to prove Sola Scriptura using ECFs when the ECFs placed so much trust in Apostolic Succession and knowing that the church they attended was founded by an Apostle of the Church. In all the reading I have done it seems that when someone quotes an ECF in support of Sola Scriptura that we must ignore their writings in their fullness or else be left with the realization that the quote is taken out of context.

Indeed, and it is also worth noting that even Jerome (who is supposed to be a hallmark defender for the protestant canon) later mentioned certain deutero's as divine and as scripture:

"Does not the SCRIPTURE say: 'Burden not thyself above thy power' [SIRACH 13:2] Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:207

"Do not, my dearest brother, estimate my worth by the number of my years. Gray hairs are not wisdom; it is wisdom which is as good as gray hairs At least that is what Solomon says: "wisdom is the gray hair unto men.’ [Wisdom 4:9]" Moses too in choosing the seventy elders is told to take those whom he knows to be elders indeed, and to select them not for their years but for their discretion (Num. 11:16)? And, as a boy, Daniel judges old men and in the flower of youth condemns the incontinence of age (Daniel 13:55-59, or Story of Susannah 55-59, Jerome, To Paulinus, Epistle 58, (A.D. 395), in NPNF2, VI:119

"I would cite the words of the psalmist: 'the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,’ [Ps 51:17] and those of Ezekiel 'I prefer the repentance of a sinner rather than his death,’ [Ez 18:23] AND THOSE OF BARUCH,'Arise, arise, O Jerusalem,’ [Baruch 5:5] AND MANY OTHER PROCLAMATIONS MADE BY THE TRUMPETS OF THE PROPHETS." Jerome, To Oceanus, Epistle 77:4 (A.D. 399), in NPNF2, VI:159

"Wherefore, though you are already running in the way, I urge a willing horse, as the saying goes, and implore you, while you regret in your Lucinius a true brother, to rejoice as well that he now reigns with Christ. For, as it is written in the book of Wisdom, he was "taken away lest that wickedness should alter his understanding...for his soul pleased the Lord...and he...in a short time fulfilled a long time." [Wis. 4:11-14] We may with more right weep for ourselves that we stand daily in conflict with our sins, that we are stained with vices, that we receive wounds, and that we must give account for every idle word (Mt. 12:36) St. Jerome, Letter LXXV, 2 Schaff, Vol. 6, 399 AD, p. 155.

Certainly, when some fathers speak of a particular book as "non-canonical," they do not necessarily mean that it is not inspired or considered to be scripture. Here, Jerome uses biblical phrases, such as "it is written" and even more directly, "scripture says" when quoting the deutero's. Are we to think the Jerome is speaking out of both sides of his mouth, or more likely, he is not implying what many protestants think he is implying (i.e. deutero's are not scripture or inspired).

 

[JacktheCatholic]

ortho_cat those are some excellent examples.

 

[sensational]

Indeed, and it is also worth noting that even Jerome (who is supposed to be a hallmark defender for the protestant canon) later mentioned certain deutero's as divine and as scripture:

"Does not the SCRIPTURE say: 'Burden not thyself above thy power' [SIRACH 13:2] Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:207

"Do not, my dearest brother, estimate my worth by the number of my years. Gray hairs are not wisdom; it is wisdom which is as good as gray hairs At least that is what Solomon says: "wisdom is the gray hair unto men.’ [Wisdom 4:9]" Moses too in choosing the seventy elders is told to take those whom he knows to be elders indeed, and to select them not for their years but for their discretion (Num. 11:16)? And, as a boy, Daniel judges old men and in the flower of youth condemns the incontinence of age (Daniel 13:55-59, or Story of Susannah 55-59, Jerome, To Paulinus, Epistle 58, (A.D. 395), in NPNF2, VI:119

"I would cite the words of the psalmist: 'the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,’ [Ps 51:17] and those of Ezekiel 'I prefer the repentance of a sinner rather than his death,’ [Ez 18:23] AND THOSE OF BARUCH,'Arise, arise, O Jerusalem,’ [Baruch 5:5] AND MANY OTHER PROCLAMATIONS MADE BY THE TRUMPETS OF THE PROPHETS." Jerome, To Oceanus, Epistle 77:4 (A.D. 399), in NPNF2, VI:159

"Wherefore, though you are already running in the way, I urge a willing horse, as the saying goes, and implore you, while you regret in your Lucinius a true brother, to rejoice as well that he now reigns with Christ. For, as it is written in the book of Wisdom, he was "taken away lest that wickedness should alter his understanding...for his soul pleased the Lord...and he...in a short time fulfilled a long time." [Wis. 4:11-14] We may with more right weep for ourselves that we stand daily in conflict with our sins, that we are stained with vices, that we receive wounds, and that we must give account for every idle word (Mt. 12:36) St. Jerome, Letter LXXV, 2 Schaff, Vol. 6, 399 AD, p. 155.

Certainly, when some fathers speak of a particular book as "non-canonical," they do not necessarily mean that it is not inspired or considered to be scripture. Here, Jerome uses biblical phrases, such as "it is written" and even more directly, "scripture says" when quoting the deutero's. Are we to think the Jerome is speaking out of both sides of his mouth, or more likely, he is not implying what many protestants think he is implying (i.e. deutero's are not scripture or inspired).

This I believe is one of the reasons canon historians differentiate between the terms "scripture" and "canon". It seems the early church viewed inspiration more broadly than many do today. Most canon scholars agree that inspiration wasnt one of the main criteria for the canon. Orthodoxy, Apostolicity and traditional usage are cited much more. At any rate this brings up a interesting issue, Sunberg convincingly showed IMO that Harnack and Zahn's views that used "it is written" or "scripture says" as criteria would lead to the acceptance of a larger Bible than what Protestants currently accept.

In Christ,
JMS

 

[SummaScriptura]

You find reference to him, but it is to Zechariah the prophet who wrote the book Zechariah:

(Zech. 1:1) 1 In the eighth month, in the second year of Darius, came the word of the LORD unto Zechariah the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo, the prophet..."

In fact, no one really knows for sure which Zechariah Jesus is referring to here in Mt. There are at least 6 different possible explanations. It's a rather storied controversy in fact. To base a canon on such a controversial verse would be risky indeed.

Regardless of the outcome of said controversy, I fail to see how this is to be taken as a "proof-text" for a protestant OT canon...Jesus mentions the martyrdom of two righteous men who's blood fell on the hands of the jews. Trying to extrapolate the entire OT canon from this verse is reaching at best.

Bottom line, the scrolls Jesus read and quoted from most of the time were in greek. We know that the deutero's were included in the earliest copies of the greek OT's we have. It's not hard to do the math.

Thank you for that reference. I did not realize the minor prophet Z. was the son of B.

However, the 2 Cron. proof text is not that Z.

Even if one were to concede that 2 Chron is the treminus of the OT, that does not define the contents of said OT.

 

[SummaScriptura]

How many prophets named Zechariah were there, six?

Jesus did not say Zecariah the prophet, just Zechariah. There were many, including Christ's own uncle on his mother's side.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

This I believe is one of the reasons canon historians differentiate between the terms "scripture" and "canon". It seems the early church viewed inspiration more broadly than many do today. Most canon scholars agree that inspiration wasnt one of the main criteria for the canon. Orthodoxy, Apostolicity and traditional usage are cited much more. At any rate this brings up a interesting issue, Sunberg convincingly showed IMO that Harnack and Zahn's views that used "it is written" or "scripture says" as criteria would lead to the acceptance of a larger Bible than what Protestants currently accept.

In Christ,
JMS

Also, the New Testatment canon was meant for use with the Divine Liturgy (Mass). This weighs in on their decisions. When the Bible was put together all Christians had writings that were known to be inspired and good for use in reading for the Divine Liturgy.

I know there were at least several councils in the Early Church regarding this and that The Apocalypse (Revelation) was not used by all for some time.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Actually the Jewish use of the term "prophet" was/is much broader than the present Christian use; not all Jewish prophets "prophesied".

To add: considering both the broader understanding of "prophet", and the prophesy of Zechariah father of John the Baptist recorded in Luke, this Zechariah would indeed be a candidate for the Zechariah mentioned by Christ ...

Its a red herring. Jesus did not say the prophet Zech, just Zech.

 

[Rick Otto]

Its a red herring. Jesus did not say the prophet Zech, just Zech.

Maybe not... how about we look @ context?:
[47] Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them.
[48] Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres.
[49] Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:
[50] That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
[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.
[52] Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.
[53] And as he said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things:
[54] Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him.

I'm gettin' 'prophet' for some reason.

 

[Rick Otto]

Originally Posted by ortho_cat

Your task here is to prove from scripture what scripture is. Relying on traditions of 1st century historians and other selected church fathers is an exercise in futility...at least as far as defending SS is concerned. That is, unless your goal is to show that the canon of scripture is not binding (i.e. not found in scripture), which I doubt is the case.
​

It does seem futile trying to prove Sola Scriptura using ECFs when the ECFs placed so much trust in Apostolic Succession and knowing that the church they attended was founded by an Apostle of the Church. In all the reading I have done it seems that when someone quotes an ECF in support of Sola Scriptura that we must ignore their writings in their fullness or else be left with the realization that the quote is taken out of context.

I would call that a convenient asessment, given typical ideas about "fullness" in writing.

 

[Standing Up]

First of all, Can you prove to us that the books of Maccabbees were not written/originally authored by a jew?-snip-

Macc says nothing (that I'm aware of ) about its language; not the point. The point is it says it was written in the time when there were no prophets, unlike scripture (law, prophets, writings). Macc 9:27, 14:41.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Here's some reference:


People's New Testament

23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood. Thus would they fill the measure full and become guilty of all the righteous blood shed by the whole army of martyrs. The blood of Zacharias. The reference is probably 2Ch 24:20. He was slain in the court of the house of the Lord by the people, and died exclaiming, The Lord look upon this and require it (2Ch 24:22). He was the son of Jehoiada. The Siniatic manuscript omits Barachias in this place, and the error is supposed to have crept in from the mistake of some early copyist who confused this Zacharias with Zechariah the prophet, who was the son of Barachias.
Matthew 23:35 Bible Commentary

The United Bible Societies 4th edition of the Greek text, despite an extensive textual aparatus cites NO significant variant to Zechariah the son of Berechiah. In other words, there is no serious question that Zechariah the son of Berechiah is the original reading for Matthew 23:35.

 

[Standing Up]

Didn't Jesus refer to John the Baptist as Elijah?

Yes,

That's the point too. Jesus quotes Malachi, jumps over 400 years of history, and ties the valid prophecy to John the baptist.

 

[Standing Up]

Even if one were to concede that 2 Chron is the treminus of the OT, that does not define the contents of said OT.

Why not? 2 Chron. terminates with Malachi's, Ezra/Neh. times. Blood of Abel to Z.

Just like NT is between the bookends of the sons of Zebedee James and John first and last apostles to die. Last I checked, protestants don't submit to the "infallible" pope and his words, eh? But, you could ask yourself why not? He's the bishop of bishops who can supposedly trace his lineage to Peter and Paul and he may speak perfectly as God Himself.

Now, I know why I don't. Because he (and Tradition and Councils, etc) are not eyewitnesses who wrote between James and John. Buy why not you? And if so, then why not apply the same reasoning to the OT?

 

[SummaScriptura]

Maybe not... how about we look @ context?:
[47] Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them.
[48] Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres.
[49] Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:
[50] That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
[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.
[52] Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.
[53] And as he said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things:
[54] Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him.

I'm gettin' 'prophet' for some reason.

So, you see Abel as a prophet?

 

[SummaScriptura]

Why not? 2 Chron. terminates with Malachi's, Ezra/Neh. times. Blood of Abel to Z.

Just like NT is between the bookends of the sons of Zebedee James and John first and last apostles to die. Last I checked, protestants don't submit to the "infallible" pope and his words, eh? But, you could ask yourself why not? He's the bishop of bishops who can supposedly trace his lineage to Peter and Paul and he may speak perfectly as God Himself.

Now, I know why I don't. Because he (and Tradition and Councils, etc) are not eyewitnesses who wrote between James and John. Buy why not you? And if so, then why not apply the same reasoning to the OT?

The Bible of Jesus' time was a mass of scrolls, in no fixed order. How do you determine its contents?

 

[file13]

Your task here is to prove from scripture what scripture is. Relying on traditions of 1st century historians and other selected church fathers is an exercise in futility...at least as far as defending SS is concerned. That is, unless your goal is to show that the canon of scripture is not binding (i.e. not found in scripture), which I doubt is the case.

Still beating that same ol strawman eh?

I have to ask, are you deliberately repeating this lie for polemical effect or is it possible that you're still unable to grasp that sola scriptura does not discount tradition?

In a similar manner, would you like it if I were to continue to repeat the untrue accusation that EO Christians worship wood, even though I've been corrected about this view numerous times?

Is it really that hard to grasp the concept that if one is going to follow the teaching of the apostles, one must recognize that a shift must occur in the early church as it transitions from an mixture of tradition and scripture to giving scripture alone the highest authority once the apostolic canon is established? This isn't rocket science nor is it hard logic. It's a historical development and casting it into an alleged logical dilemma is inappropriate, in addition to the fact that it's also a false dilemma. If we move historically farther and farther away from the apostles and oral tradition becomes harder and harder to verify as the opinions become more and more diverse, if one is going to follow the teachings of the apostles, one must give the earliest written documents that everyone agrees do represent the teachings of the apostles the highest authority. Once the canon is established, the epistemology shifts and Scripture is given the highest authority, not tradition, which takes a back seat in difference to the written teachings of the apostles. This is historically what happened and if one reads the early Fathers, one will see that they affirm this by their constant appeals to Scripture.

Why do you keep repeating the same old lie that sola scriptura cannot appeal to tradition? We absolutely can and do, and still remain consistent with out own definitions. For you to say that we don't and can't, is simply an absurd lie. We judge your doctrine by what your doctrine teaches, not by what we think it teaches. Please return the favor and stop the polemics brother....