Protestant canon

[SummaScriptura]

<snip>I'm not built on that foundation, but on OT prophets and NT apostles with Christ as the cornerstone.

The context of Paul's usage of the term "prophets" in the Epistle to the Ephesians points to living prophets who were operating at the time in the first century Church, not to the canon of the Old Testament.

Ephesians 2:19-21
19So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord.

Ephesians 3:4-5
4 When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit.

Ephesians 4:11-13
11And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,

 

[Erose]

I understand. The deal is we all know supposedly why Jesus renamed Peter, but why did He rename James and John to sons of thunder? They ended up being the first and last apostles to die. Between them was written NT scripture.

Interesting equating the sons of thunder to when they die. Could it have possibly been Jesus calling them that for they wanted to rain down fire upon a town that would let them enter? I think that one would be more plausible explanation. Still very interesting though.

Likewise is IMO the inference of Abel to Zechariah.

The key term here is "inference". You nor the original leaders of the Protestant movement did not have this passage that has been heavily misrepresented to prove the Masoretic canon. No where in this passage is it talking about the proper canon of scripture.

You may want to warp this passage to try to refer to the canon of scripture but the original question still remains: Who decided that the Protestant Canon was going to be the same as the Masoretic text?

Again, some will want to use Tradition, Councils, Infallible Popes as equal to the rule of faith (scripture); and they typically include the deteros. But are the deteros really God-breathed scripture?

I guess history should be ignored. How do you think the Hebrew canon was established? Did God come down and hand the Hebrew Rabbis the Hebrew OT and tell them this is what it is? No. Either the rabbis got together and determined the canon as in the case of the possible council of Jamni or they referred to tradition and liturgical usuage to determine the canon.

IMO, that is selective picking and inconsistent. Why don't you follow Pope Benedict or EC 8 or canon ** of EC 1?

Inconsistent? So I guess the current NT should be thrown out of Protestant churches since the same process used to determine the Christian OT canon was used in determining the NT canon. I do not recall that the Jewish rabbis got together and determined the NT canon as well for the future Protestants.

I know why I don't. I'm not built on that foundation, but on OT prophets and NT apostles with Christ as the cornerstone.

Which neither you would have without the leaders and/or traditions of the Jewish and the early Catholic Church.

 

[hedrick]

1) Why reject the Vulgate since it for the most part was a translation from the original languages? Was it an occurance already at the time of Luther that there was a moving away from Latin back to cultural languages?

The Vulgate had a few wrong or at least misleading translations, e.g. of "do penance" for repent. The text was also not as good as 16th Cent scholarship could produce. The move back to original languages was common to scholars during this period, even those who remained Catholics. The most prominent example is probably Erasmus, on whose Greek NT scholarship the Reformers depended. (There was actually a better Greek text produced by a different set of Catholic scholars. It is thought that parts of Erasmus' edition was rushed because he wanted to publish before the competition. Indeed in part of Rev he apparently back-translated from the Vulgate. But this was unusual. Most of his edition was pretty good for 16th Cent scholarship, although he didn't have easy access to even all of the Greek manuscripts that were available at the time. Using Erasmus' text was still a significant improvement over using the Vulgate.)

2) Why the Masoretic texts instead of the earlier Hebrew texts? Was it for convenience sake, since, I assume here, it was easier to get ahold of the Masoretic OT or was it ignorance?

During most of his life, Luther respected Jews and depended upon Jewish scholarship for access to the OT. (He got weird late in life, not just on Jews but other things.) Luther was not himself a Biblical scholar. He depended upon others for Hebrew and Greek, although he did know the languages. (See e.g. III MARTIN LUTHER'S USE OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE) For the NT he, like most at the time, depended upon Erasmus' scholarship. For the OT as far as I know (and I've been unable to find any details) he depended upon Jewish scholarship and Christian scholars who were largely dependent upon them. One of the most well-known was Reuchlin, who I believe was a converted Jew. According to The Text of the Hebrew Bible , he used Gerson's text, printed in 1594. I doubt that he knew much about OT textual criticism. I actually don't know whether there were other Hebrew texts available during the 16th Cent, but in any case Luther depended upon a standard printed Hebrew OT, as he depended upon a standard Greek NT. Of course most modern Bible translations follow pretty much the same approach.

3) What language was Luther translating from for his Bible and how did he learn Hebrew?

Hebrew. See III MARTIN LUTHER'S USE OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. He didn't consider himself competent in Hebrew, and would have depended upon other scholars. However he had learned a fair amount about it, and no doubt made some judgements for himself. (I'm speaking of the OT. Obviously Greek for the NT.)

 

[Montalban]

Summascriptura found a reference to Zech of 2 Chron. 24:22 that the Spirit departed the temple after that time.

You can have a temple with no spirit. Protestants are always telling me that the church is not a building. You're also the one who claims no prophets were around for a particular time. So, I don't know how it helps. What would the presence or abscence of the spirit mean??? And, why do you think this?

Clearly wrong regaarding on the 'book-ends' but that's not the only hole in your theory.

I've not yet seen how Josephus is to be followed, except by adding an extra 'rule' that you've not shown why you follow it - one on prophets. You've not shown why this is important at all.

I've waited weeks now for an explanation. All you do is repeat that these things add up, like continually claiming Melito supports you and he doesn't... as I demonstrated by a book list from his canon.

Your theory has so many holes in it that when you start applying rules, with exceptions and then more rules with exceptions it looks all rather a mess.

It's not helped by the fact Jesus uses the Greek text you reject. Perhaps you know better?

 

[SummaScriptura]

<snip>You noted that the Spirit departed from the temple about the time of 2 Chron. 24:22. It was then destroyed 100 years later, no? Yet for another 400 years there were genuine prophets. But, Ezra supposedly penned Chronicles.

I did? No, I cited a 1st-c. Jewish tradition to the effect that priests operating in the prophetic within the temple ceased at that time. I beleive it was Ezekiel who saw the Spirit depart, but that would have been some 200 years later.

Lastly, the concensus was there were no genuine prophets for the 400 years from Malachi to John the baptist. Again, even Macc notes that. No 'thus sayeth the LORD' during that time.<snip>

I would like to see that concensus. I've been asserting there wasn't one but I am open. I made an effort to bring out references which would be relevant concerning this, but a couple of quotes from 1 Maccabees about a 40-year period in the 2nd-c. does not a concensus make.

 

[Standing Up]

I did? No, I cited a 1st-c. Jewish tradition to the effect that priests operating in the prophetic within the temple ceased at that time. I beleive it was Ezekiel who saw the Spirit depart, but that would have been some 200 years later.

Sorry if I misunderstood.

I would like to see that concensus. I've been asserting there wasn't one but I am open. I made an effort to bring out references which would be relevant concerning this, but a couple of quotes from 1 Maccabees about a 40-year period in the 2nd-c. does not a concensus make.

Josephus asserts it.

Melito agrees.

Origen agrees.

Hbr. 1:1 asserts it.

Macc. agrees.

Jerome agrees.

Augustine acknowledges the difference, yet plows right ahead to assert contrarily.

No doubt there are others who say the same thing. But what we haven't seen is anyone at that early stage (pre c400) assert that during the 400 year period from Malachi to John the Baptist were God-breathed scripture on par with God-breathed scripture.

Who c200bc to 200ad asserted that Judith or Tobit or Macc was God-breathed scripture? The fact of someone alluding to or even quoting from a book, like the Cretan poet, does not equate to an argument that the poet's works, or the deteros, were divine. Where is the early concensus that speaks otherwise against the lineage of Gamaliel, Paul, Josephus, Melito, Jerome? (Or again, even what Macc says about itself and the times it was written!)

 

[Standing Up]

You can have a temple with no spirit.

No kidding. It was known as Herod's Temple. No prophets, no Spirit, and finally, no high priest (he was appointed by Rome), yet the appearance was maintained.

And aren't they trying to maybe construct another? But why?

-snip-
It's not helped by the fact Jesus uses the Greek text you reject. Perhaps you know better?

I've briefly looked at this and it's not the big problem some folks think. The delineation between the two is not that different.

 

[sunlover1]

There are many apocryphal writings (10+) which claimed to be Christian and have apostolic ties written before John died, yet they were rejected by the church. Why reject these? .

Why do 'you' reject them?

 

[Standing Up]

The context of Paul's usage of the term "prophets" in the Epistle to the Ephesians points to living prophets who were operating at the time in the first century Church, not to the canon of the Old Testament.-snip-

We disagree on this.

 

[Standing Up]

This point is irrelevant. No one is asserting that books written after John died are canonical, and this inference made here is not mentioned in scripture. However, consider this. NT scripture was not all written by apostles. (Luke, Acts, for example).

Yes, I've mentioned before it was either apostles or their associates (Luke-Paul, Mark-Peter). It was during the time of apostles.

There are many apocryphal writings (10+) which claimed to be Christian and have apostolic ties written before John died, yet they were rejected by the church. Why reject these? They were written around the same time as the Gospel of John (or before), and claimed to have been written by the apostles or someone who was associated with them.

About the only book that is fairly well identified to be written at that time was Clement of Rome. He wasn't an eyewitness and wasn't an associate. Though, some thought it apostolic. I have no idea why because he compares the resurrection of Christ to the phoenix, altars, priests, and sun worship.

 

[Standing Up]

Another question, did any of the reformers use the Abel to Zecharia reference to defend the Protestant canon that we know of?

Not that I know of.

But, there is this:

5. In this the death of Christ agrees exactly with the death of Zechariah; that, although the city and nation of the Jews did not perish till about forty years after the death of Christ, yet they gave themselves their death's wound in wounding Christ. So it was also in the case of Zechariah: Jerusalem and the people of the Jews stood indeed many years after the death of Zechariah, but from that time began to sink, and draw towards ruin. Consult the story narrowly, and you will plainly find, that all the affairs of the Jews began to decline and grow worse and worse, from that time when "blood touched blood," (the blood of the sacrificer mingled with the blood of the sacrifice), and when "the people became contentious and rebellious against the priest."
From the Talmud and Hebraica | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

I'll have to look up that reference from Summascriptura, but that's the unfolding of the close of the OT, not over 40 years, but 400 from Zecharia to Malachi, the cap end of the prophets.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Lastly, the concensus was there were no genuine prophets for the 400 years from Malachi to John the baptist. Again, even Macc notes that. No 'thus sayeth the LORD' during that time.<snip>

I would like to see that concensus. I've been asserting there wasn't one but I am open. I made an effort to bring out references which would be relevant concerning this, but a couple of quotes from 1 Maccabees about a 40-year period in the 2nd-c. does not a concensus make.

Josephus asserts it.
Melito agrees.
Origen agrees.
Hbr. 1:1 asserts it.
Macc. agrees.
Jerome agrees.
Augustine acknowledges the difference, yet plows right ahead to assert contrarily.

A persuasive concensus for me would be Jewish writers from the period of 2nd-Temple Judaism. The Church fathers, I'm not convinced, were always very knowledgable about 2nd-Temple Judaism.

I just went over Heb 1:1 again and it says nothing about a dearth of prophecy before Christ. Maccabees is only of value in commenting on a narrow sliver of time, and as I've shown, 1 Mac. 14, specifically disallows a doctrine for the cessation of prophecy.

Let me make this clear, if there are sources from 2nd-Temple Judaism which confirm a dearth of prophecy from the time of Malachi forward, I am unaware. I have often heard the claim made but when I seek to find the sources which support the claim, I've not yet found any.

The whole "inter-testamental" / "silent years" / end of "the-time-of-the-prophets" model seems like a Christian convenience.

 

[Standing Up]

Here is the oldest single source I can find for Jewish tradtion regarding two of the Biblical prophets named Zechariah.

The name of the document, as mentioned earlier is "Lives of the Prophets". The date of its composition/compilation is about 100 AD, though its probably based upon much older oral traditions. I posted the "son of Jehoida" passage before but not the "son of Iddo".

Zechariah son of Iddo
1He came from Chaldea when already advanced in age. While there, he prophesied often to the people, and did wonders in proof of his authority. 2He foretold to Jozadak that he would beget a son who would serve as priest in Jerusalem; 3he also congratulated Shealtiel on the birth of a son and gave him the name Zerubbabel. 4In the time of Cyrus he gave the king a sign of victory, and foretold the service which he was destined to perform for Jerusalem, and he praised him greatly.

5His prophecies uttered in Jerusalem had to do with the end of the nations, with Israel and the temple, with the laziness of prophets and priests, and with a double judgment. 6After reaching great age he was taken ill, and dying, was buried beside Haggai.

The minor prophet.

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.

Is this the timeline:

100 years and the northern kingdom is taken by Assyria.

Babylon takes the southern kingdom when?

70 years of captivity. Then some rebuilding, but no Spirit, no prophets. Until the time of Messiah.

400 years of downhill from Zechariah's martyrdom, until Ezra, Malachi's time, no?

 

[Montalban]

No kidding. It was known as Herod's Temple. No prophets, no Spirit, and finally, no high priest (he was appointed by Rome), yet the appearance was maintained.

All Herod did was rennovate it.

Herod did this well after the period you claim there were no prophets. You've not yet shown why a time of 'no prophets' matters. This is the key thing it seems in your argument. You just continue to re-state your position. It's based on Josephus saying it is so, because it is. You accept Josephus, because you do. And it's still not saying how a non-prophet's book can't also be inspired.

After several weeks of you maintaining this position no one, save for RickOtto is any closer to understanding why you believe certain things are significant.

And it's also ignoring the vast amount of prophecies posted to you from those books you reject.

You're still wrong about the 'bookends'

You're still wrong about Melito supporting your theory.

I am hoping to develop a conversation with you. As is the very many people who are engaging you in discussion over this time.

However I see no progress from you re-stating an opinion on a time of prophets that's significant for you, based on only Josephus.

Remember the ancient Jews accepted those books when they made the Greek translation. Granted they may not have had the access to "Church Father" Josephus that you do

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Yes, I've mentioned before it was either apostles or their associates (Luke-Paul, Mark-Peter). It was during the time of apostles.



About the only book that is fairly well identified to be written at that time was Clement of Rome. He wasn't an eyewitness and wasn't an associate. Though, some thought it apostolic. I have no idea why because he compares the resurrection of Christ to the phoenix, altars, priests, and sun worship.

Naw, there's alot of them that could potentially fall within the 90-120 AD range (St. John's Gospel). Check 'em out:

Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

 

[Standing Up]

A persuasive concensus for me would be Jewish writers from the period of 2nd-Temple Judaism. The Church fathers, I'm not convinced, were always very knowledgable about 2nd-Temple Judaism.

I just went over Heb 1:1 again and it says nothing about a dearth of prophecy before Christ. Maccabees is only of value in commenting on a narrow sliver of time, and as I've shown, 1 Mac. 14, specifically disallows a doctrine for the cessation of prophecy.

Let me make this clear, if there are sources from 2nd-Temple Judaism which confirm a dearth of prophecy from the time of Malachi forward, I am unaware. I have often heard the claim made but when I seek to find the sources which support the claim, I've not yet found any.

The whole "inter-testamental" / "silent years" / end of the time of the prophets model seems like a Christian convenience.

1Mac 14:41And that the Jews, and their priests, had consented that he should be their prince, and high priest for ever, till there should arise a faithful prophet:

They appointed Simon, but had there been a genuine prophet, they might have appointed someone else. IOW, the prophet was to annoint the king and high priest, not the people.

But again, flip it around. I have witnesses to the 400 years of silence. Where does Tobit say, thus sayeth the LORD? Where does Macc say, the LORD spoke?

Instead, all the witnesses that we have are to the contrary; that is, Malachi was the cap.

Take a look at this for Jewish thought: The End of Prophecy: Malachi's Position in the Spiritual Development of Israel | Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals

 

[Ortho_Cat]

No kidding. It was known as Herod's Temple. No prophets, no Spirit, and finally, no high priest (he was appointed by Rome), yet the appearance was maintained.

And aren't they trying to maybe construct another? But why?



I've briefly looked at this and it's not the big problem some folks think. The delineation between the two is not that different.

Wait, Joshua (c. 515-490 bc) wasn't a valid high priest? Who says?

 

[Standing Up]

Naw, there's alot of them that could potentially fall within the 90-120 AD range. Check 'em out:

Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

If so, then they have had to be with John on the Isle of Patmos so he could "edit" them.

It's a dead end to assert that the gospel of thomas for example should have been handed down as divine, and was, except for church tradition.

 

[Standing Up]

Wait, Joshua (c. 515-490 bc) wasn't a valid high priest? Who says?

Dude, you're skipping over what I'm saying and jumping in with preconceived notions. C30bc Rome began appointing the high priest. The "finally" part of my sentence.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

1Mac 14:41And that the Jews, and their priests, had consented that he should be their prince, and high priest for ever, till there should arise a faithful prophet:

They appointed Simon, but had there been a genuine prophet, they might have appointed someone else. IOW, the prophet was to annoint the king and high priest, not the people.

But again, flip it around. I have witnesses to the 400 years of silence. Where does Tobit say, thus sayeth the LORD? Where does Macc say, the LORD spoke?

Instead, all the witnesses that we have are to the contrary; that is, Malachi was the cap.

Take a look at this for Jewish thought: The End of Prophecy: Malachi's Position in the Spiritual Development of Israel | Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals

What about the verified prophecy in the book of wisdom? This is one of the most descriptive prophecies of Christ's passion we have in writing. If it is indeed valid, what does that say about the supposed absence of prophets? Can God not prophesy anywhere and through anyone he chooses? Or does there have to be a valid lineage for him to work through?