Protestant canon

[Standing Up]

.

 

[Standing Up]

Actually the true summary is that their seems to be an inability for Protestants to generate an answer to the original OP. This I truly find very interesting.

Besides you haven't answered the Psalm 21 question. Do you view Psalm 21 as a prophecy of Christ's passion or not?

21 or 22? If 22, a prophecy.

As to the OP, we're talking about it.

We all (right?) agree that the NT was written between James and John, the renamed sons of thunder (God's voice metaphor), the first and last apostles to die. Written by apostles or 'supervised' thereby (Mark-Peter, Luke-Paul).

OT---written between the times of Abel to Zacharias (blood of the prophets).

We've been looking at that.

1) What do the deteros say about themselves?

2) What is the lineage in the church?

3) Why are the deteros rejected by some?

4) Who is Zacharias and how does that unfold in history?

So,

Josephus, and others, acknowledge a 400 year silence from Malachi to John the Baptist conception that there were no prophets (no traceable succession).

Macc agrees with this.

The bible witnesses to this (all NT prophecies begin after conception). Luke doesn't point to XYZ in the year 100bc about Messiah. In fact, the witness (Jesus) is clear that Malachi's prophecy (last OT scripture) relates to and is picked back up with John and now the NT begins.

The church from Palestine (Paul, Melito, Jerome) trace essentially the same scriptures.

OTOH, Augustine apparently successfully argued for the deteros. But I don't know if he traces lineage, doctrine, apostles, or what.

 

[ivebeenshown]

OT---written between the times of Abel to Zacharias (blood of the prophets).

Who said the OT had to be written between 'Abel and Zacharias'?

Who is Zacharias and how does that unfold in history?

Yeah, who is Zacharias? If it's the one killed in Chronicles, then we know there were prophets after him that wrote OT books.

Josephus, and others, acknowledge a 400 year silence from Malachi to John the Baptist conception that there were no prophets (no traceable succession).

Who cares what Josephus says? He was not a Christian. Which Christians denied the deuterocanon prior to the Council of Carthage?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Who said the OT had to be written between 'Abel and Zacharias'?

Yeah, who is Zacharias? If it's the one killed in Chronicles, then we know there were prophets after him that wrote OT books.

Who cares what Josephus says? He was not a Christian. Which Christians denied the deuterocanon prior to the Council of Carthage?

Apparently Jesus did...still trying to figure out how that is relevant to the canon itself, and how we know for certain which Zacharias he is referring to...

 

[ivebeenshown]

Apparently Jesus did...still trying to figure out how that is relevant to the canon itself, and how we know for certain which Zacharias he is referring to...

Hmmm... I am just particularly intrigued by the constant reference to Josephus, a Jewish historian who denied Christ and wrote about a closed Hebrew canon after a council that took place around 90AD defined the Jewish canon (for most Jews, but not the Ethiopian Jews.)

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Hmmm... I am just particularly intrigued by the constant reference to Josephus, a Jewish historian who denied Christ /snip

Yes, intriguing, isn't it?

Our Holy Father Among the Saints, Josephus the Christ Rejecting.

 

[Erose]

22

Sorry, I forgot that PB psalms have a different numbering than Catholic ones. Psalm 22 in yours and Psalm 21 in mine.

 

[SummaScriptura]

When was the Protestant canon form/formalised? And, by whom?

Resolved:

We can definitively say the Protestant canon was established by Martin Luther in the 16th century in his German translation of the Bible. Martin's lineup of books was never formalized, but Martin Luther's judgment in this matter was followed by the Protestant reformers who came after.

Among the innovations in Martin Luther's Bible was the removal of certain disputed books of the Greek (and Latin) O.T. to an appendix to the Old Testament before the New Testament. Though this practice was foreshadowed by a not a entirely dissimilar innovation (regarding Esther) in Jerome's Vulgate, the particular way Martin handled those books was novel to Luther's Bible.

By labelling his appendix to the O.T. as containing books "good to read" but "not inspired", Martin Luther virtually ensured the day when editions of the Bible would be printed which no longer carried that appendix as we see is the norm among Protestants today.

 

[Montalban]

Yes, intriguing, isn't it?

Our Holy Father Among the Saints, Josephus the Christ Rejecting.

I thought this matter was settled days ago when StandingUp provided evidence that was convincing, and forthright, and happened to demolish his own argument

 

[Montalban]

Resolved:

We can definitively say the Protestant canon was established by Martin Luther in the 16th century in his German translation of the Bible. Martin's lineup of books was never formalized, but Martin Luther's judgment in this matter was followed by the Protestant reformers who came after.

Among the innovations in Martin Luther's Bible was the removal of certain disputed books of the Greek (and Latin) O.T. to an appendix to the Old Testament before the New Testament. Though this practice was foreshadowed by a not a entirely dissimilar innovation (regarding Esther) in Jerome's Vulgate, the particular way Martin handled those books was novel to Luther's Bible.

By labelling his appendix to the O.T. as containing books "good to read" but "not inspired", Martin Luther virtually ensured the day when editions of the Bible would be printed which no longer carried that appendix as we see is the norm among Protestants today.

By-and-large I agree with that. And that this matter is resolved. Thanks to StandingUp's provision of argument from CCEL site that shows Melito and Origen were not in agreement with a canon that Martin Luther would later develop

Game over

 

[Standing Up]

Who said the OT had to be written between 'Abel and Zacharias'?

Yeah, who is Zacharias? If it's the one killed in Chronicles, then we know there were prophets after him that wrote OT books.

Who cares what Josephus says? He was not a Christian. Which Christians denied the deuterocanon prior to the Council of Carthage?

One more time.

12. But in the Extracts13081308 ἐν δὴ ταῖς γραφείσαις αὐτῷ ἐκλογαῖς. Jerome speaks of this work as ᾽Εκλογῶν, libros sex. There are no fragments of it extant except the single one from the preface given here by Eusebius. The nature of the work is clear from the words of Melito himself. It was a collection of testimonies to Christ and to Christianity, drawn from the Old Testament law and prophets. It must, therefore, have resembled closely such works as Cyprian’s Testimonia, and the Testimonia of Pseudo-Gregory, and other anti-Jewish works, in which the appeal was made to the Old Testament—the common ground accepted by both parties—for proof of the truth of Christianity. Although the Eclogæ of Melito were not anti-Jewish in their design, their character leads us to classify them with the general class of anti-Jewish works whose distinguishing mark is the use of Old Testament prophecy in defense of Christianity (cf. the writer’s article on Christian Polemics against the Jews, in the Pres. Review, July, 1888, and also the writer’s Dialogue between a Christian and a Jew, entitled ᾽Αντιβολὴ Παπισκου καὶ φίλωνος, New York, 1889).

On the canon which Melito gives, see Bk. III. chap. 10, note 1. made by him the same writer gives at the beginning of the introduction a catalogue of the acknowledged books of the Old Testament, which it is necessary to quote at this point. He writes as follows:
13. “Melito to his brother Onesimus,13091309 This Onesimus is an otherwise unknown person. greeting: Since thou hast often, in thy zeal for the word, expressed a wish to have extracts made from the Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour and concerning our entire faith, and hast also desired to have an accurate statement of the ancient book, as regards their number and their order, I have endeavored to perform the task, knowing thy zeal for the faith, and thy desire to gain information in regard to the word, and knowing that thou, in thy yearning after God, esteemest these things above all else, struggling to attain eternal salvation.
14. Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus,13101310 Some mss., with Rufinus, place Leviticus before Numbers, but the best mss., followed by Heinichen, Burton, and others, give the opposite order. Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David,13111311 ψαλμῶν Δαβίδ. Literally, “of the Psalms of David” [one book]. the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also,13121312 ἣ καὶ Σοφία: i.e. the Book of Proverbs (see above, p. 200). Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book13131313 Literally, “in one book” (τῶν δώδεκα ἐν μονοβίβλ&#8179. ; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras.13141314 ῎Εσδρας: the Greek form of the Hebrew name עֶזְרָא, Ezra. Melito refers here to the canonical Book of Ezra, which, among the Jews, commonly included our Ezra and Nehemiah (see Bk. III. chap. 10, note 1). From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books.” Such are the words of Melito.
NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

That was written c175 and then quoted by Eusebius. It is the same as the protestant OT, except it does not mention Esther. Some have argued that it was included with Ezra.

 

[Standing Up]

Hmmm... I am just particularly intrigued by the constant reference to Josephus, a Jewish historian who denied Christ and wrote about a closed Hebrew canon after a council that took place around 90AD defined the Jewish canon (for most Jews, but not the Ethiopian Jews.)

I'm intrigued that no one is able to provide proof that Josephus got it wrong. Either the books (same as protestant OT scripture) or the reason (no "genuine" prophets/ no lineage of prophets).

The best so far that anyone is able to achieve is to insult him, you know, ad hominems.

 

[Montalban]

well justin martyr saw it as prophesy. and I will have to agree with him on that. in fact, a lot of the psalms are about Jesus. and justin martyr proves it.

One of my favourites is one Jesus himself refers to on the cross when he says "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani"

He's referring to Psalm 22:1

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I'm intrigued that no one is able to provide proof that Josephus got it wrong. Either the books (same as protestant OT scripture) or the reason (no "genuine" prophets/ no lineage of prophets).

The best so far that anyone is able to achieve is to insult him, you know, ad hominems.

The fact that the 99% of the ecf's contradict his canon is enough proof for me...

 

[Montalban]

The fact that the 99% of the ecf's contradict his canon is enough proof for me...

Apparently if you score 1% you've passed!

 

[mark46]

Grade inflation has been steep. The bar is now ver low indeed.

Apparently if you score 1% you've passed!

 

[Montalban]

Can you imagine that in a court.

Prosrcuting Barrister: Your Honour the DNA evidence matches to the accused with an accuracy of 1%
Magistrate: I find that conclusive proof

 

[Standing Up]

The fact that the 99% of the ecf's contradict his canon is enough proof for me...

Which ones? Those c400ad? EO canon doesn't agree with them. To which ECFs does EO point?

Like I said, I'm intrigued no one is able to show otherwise until c400 or later and in contradiction to Jerome (and others who trace back to what was 99% most likely the one Jesus used).

 

[Montalban]

Which ones? Those c400ad? EO canon doesn't agree with them. To which ECFs does EO point?

Like I said, I'm intrigued no one is able to show otherwise until c400 or later and in contradiction to Jerome (and others who trace back to what was 99% most likely the one Jesus used).

Graciously you've already provided some who don't agree with Josephus; viz. Melito and Origen.

Why you now ask for the names of those that disagree with him is puzzling.

You either recognise that they didn't argee with him, or you recognise that they do despite your own evidence.

Anyway, it's a very confused theory presented. It's now difficult to tell which evidence you've presented that you now agree with. Arguing aginst yourself doesn't help

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Which ones? Those c400ad? EO canon doesn't agree with them. To which ECFs does EO point?

Like I said, I'm intrigued no one is able to show otherwise until c400 or later and in contradiction to Jerome (and others who trace back to what was 99% most likely the one Jesus used).

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, 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]).

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.