St. Paul Demonstrating Sola Scriptura In Scripture

[sculleywr]

Like I said, we've been over this and disagree.

Doesn't matter. You can still be wrong about basic historical facts. And when it is you versus the collected evidence of history, I'm going to go with history, because youare more likely to be wrong than the people who LIVED IN THE TIME AND PLACE.

It is an easily proven fact that the early Church overwhelmingly supported the use of the Septuagint OVER the Hebrew texts. On top of that, there is NO list of the Hebrew texts prior to the Masoretes, and a total of three Hebrew Texts with literally centuries between them, and none of them are older than the Greek Old Testament texts we have available.

In the game of history bingo, that crosses two or three rows. So please, show the evidence of a list of books that precedes the time of Christ. Don't have one? Then as far as this discussion is concerned, the canon was NOT finalized before Christ. To disagree with that is akin to disagreeing with the statement that George Washington was not a Hip Hop dancer.

 

[sculleywr]

Of course. I'd have to dig around some to find the reference, which I'm not inclined to do. Don't worry. Believe EO had 28 too at one time.

Introducing an assertion that would upset the claim of his opponent without introducing a shred of evidence cliche *ding!*
Refusing to provide evidence after evidence is requested cliche *ding*
Introducing a secondary assertion that another opponent has the same problem as the first without introducing a shred of evidence cliche *ding!*

This has been Debate Sins episode 1.

If you're going to be part of the discussion, be part of the discussion. So far, you've just been a troll. It's frivolous for you to enter a discussion about a serious topic without adding to it. If you wouldn't do it to people in the mall, don't do it here. If you would do the kind of things you do in this thread to people in the mall, it's a wonder you don't have a dozen restraining orders.

 

[Standing Up]

Doesn't matter. You can still be wrong about basic historical facts. And when it is you versus the collected evidence of history, I'm going to go with history, because youare more likely to be wrong than the people who LIVED IN THE TIME AND PLACE.

It is an easily proven fact that the early Church overwhelmingly supported the use of the Septuagint OVER the Hebrew texts. On top of that, there is NO list of the Hebrew texts prior to the Masoretes, and a total of three Hebrew Texts with literally centuries between them, and none of them are older than the Greek Old Testament texts we have available.

In the game of history bingo, that crosses two or three rows. So please, show the evidence of a list of books that precedes the time of Christ. Don't have one? Then as far as this discussion is concerned, the canon was NOT finalized before Christ. To disagree with that is akin to disagreeing with the statement that George Washington was not a Hip Hop dancer.

"Rabbinic Judaism recognizes the twenty-four books of the Masoretic Text, commonly called the Tanakh or Hebrew Bible.[3] There is no scholarly consensus as to when the Hebrew Bible canon was fixed: some scholars argue that it was fixed by the Hasmonean dynasty (140-40 BCE),[4] while others argue it was not fixed until the second century CE or even later.[5]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Old_Testament_canon

Josephus cites 22-24 books. Same as Melito.

 

[sculleywr]

"Rabbinic Judaism recognizes the twenty-four books of the Masoretic Text, commonly called the Tanakh or Hebrew Bible.[3] There is no scholarly consensus as to when the Hebrew Bible canon was fixed: some scholars argue that it was fixed by the Hasmonean dynasty (140-40 BCE),[4] while others argue it was not fixed until the second century CE or even later.[5]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Old_Testament_canon

Josephus cites 22-24 books. Same as Melito.

Still not a LIST. You know, something that looks like this:

the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. After these, The Acts of the Apostles, and the seven epistles called Catholic: of James, one; of Peter, two, of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, written in this order: the first, to the Romans; then, two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians, then, to the Philippians; then, to the Colossians; after these, two of the Thessalonians; and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John. (Athanasius, 367, Thirty Ninth Festal Epistle)
​

It is quite interesting that the Hebrew Canon of 22 books also lines up with the 22 book canon of Athanasius, which reads like this:

There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the Twelve [minor prophets] being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle, one book; afterwards Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament. (see last citation)
​

As I said, it is not set in stone WHAT that canon was. Ezra's second letter is NOT the book of Nehemiah. This list of 22 books also includes Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah.

As it is the ONLY list of 22 books even CLOSE to the time of Christ, it is as likely that the list Josephus and Melito spoke of looked similar to this. For all we know, those books could have been written in Hebrew and been lost to time due to major events like the destruction of the Temple.

We have a list. Now where is your LIST? Don't have one? Then why should we even bother with your canon? It has no relevance because its only REAL foundation is the Masoretes of 5th century Europe

This is why you don't trust Wikipedia over actual historical inquiry. The guy who edited the wiki article could have as easily been a guy pounding down Mountain Dew and trolling the internet as be a professor. He could also be a biased person who believes his way is the best, something easily noticed on pages like the Audism article, where hearing people who know nothing of Deaf Culture edit things they find offensive that are descriptive of the actions of hearing people who know nothing of Deaf Culture toward Deaf people. Meanwhile, the list which is available to history was written by a man who was exiled four times because he refused to renounce the divinity of Christ.

Whose side is better?

 

[Hoghead1]

\


I'm new here and I sense there is come confusion about the history of the canon. I'll share what I know. I don't want to add to the confusion, I'm just trying to clarify matters.

As far as the NT goes, it would be naïve to assume there were only four gospels ever written. the early Christian community was very divisive, each sect probably having its own gospels. There could have been 50, 100 gospels written. Who knows? We do have 42 gnostic gospels alone, which tell a very different story about Christ, but nevertheless they are gospels and n illustration of the divisiveness in the early church. And there is also extra-biblical material that one wonders why it was never included n the canon. One major example is "Paul and the Acts of Teekel." It was quite popular in the East, to the extent that Teekel became sainted. But, alas never made it into the canon. It is not clear why. So some degree of arbitrariness was going on in selecting what's canon and what's not. Also, as I recall, "Revelations" was not canonized by the East until the sixth century. And, as we will see, there always was debate and controversy as to what books are canon and what not, all down though the ages. Luther, for example, called "James" a "straw epistle" and put it in a kind of appendix, separate from the other NT books, in his Bible. Incidentally, he also said that "Ester" should be thrown in the river.



The OT is a good example of such debate. There were at least two different versions of the OT, one in Hebrew, and one in Greek. The latter is called the Septuagint, as legend his it that 72 scribes all translated it from the Hebrew, with the exact, same wording. It differend from the Hebrew, because it contained more books, commonly known as the Apocrypha. In the 19th century, a theory was advanced that somewhere between 90 to 110AD, there was a major conference, in Jamnia, to decide which version to go with. Result? No agreement. The Alexandrian Jews stuck with their Greek. The eastern Hebrew Jews, their Hebrew. However, there is no definitive evidence such a conference ever took place.



When Jerome wanted to produce what is sometimes called the Vulgate Bible, meaning in the language of the people, he debated over which source to translate from. Initially, he chose the Hebrew, as it is,after all, the original language. But it proved very difficult to translate fro Hebrew into Latin. It's far easier with Greek, so he went for the Seotuagint. He did have reservations about whether this was the right way to go, however. All this was in the midst of an ongoing controversy over the canon. Marcion, for example, is said to have taken a pair of scissors and cut out the entire OT. Augustine cheered on Jerome, but sais other fathers might not agree.

When the Reformation came along, there was concern about whether the Protestant Bibles should contain the Apocrypha, as it was a major part of the Catholic Bible, and no Protestant wanted t to trust Catholics, plus the Apocrypha was not in the original language. Luther included it in his Bible. The KJV originally contained it, too. However, given that it wasn't in the original language and given that the clerics were in a witch-hunt mentality, by the 1640's, it is pronounced a thing of the devil and dropped. During the Counterreformation, the Council of Trent again ratified it as holy, in the Catholic Church.

So again, as you can see, there always was controversy and some arbitrary human decision-making over what is canon and what not.

I don't know what Wikipedia said. I don't always trust it. I recommend students avoid it, except for quick references. I'm pretty sure I got it right on the history of the canon. I better. I have an earned doctorate in theology and teach on the university level.

 

[Standing Up]

Still not a LIST. You know, something that looks like this:

the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. After these, The Acts of the Apostles, and the seven epistles called Catholic: of James, one; of Peter, two, of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, written in this order: the first, to the Romans; then, two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians, then, to the Philippians; then, to the Colossians; after these, two of the Thessalonians; and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John. (Athanasius, 367, Thirty Ninth Festal Epistle)
​

It is quite interesting that the Hebrew Canon of 22 books also lines up with the 22 book canon of Athanasius, which reads like this:

There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the Twelve [minor prophets] being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle, one book; afterwards Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament. (see last citation)
​

As I said, it is not set in stone WHAT that canon was. Ezra's second letter is NOT the book of Nehemiah. This list of 22 books also includes Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah.

As it is the ONLY list of 22 books even CLOSE to the time of Christ, it is as likely that the list Josephus and Melito spoke of looked similar to this. For all we know, those books could have been written in Hebrew and been lost to time due to major events like the destruction of the Temple.

We have a list. Now where is your LIST? Don't have one? Then why should we even bother with your canon? It has no relevance because its only REAL foundation is the Masoretes of 5th century Europe

This is why you don't trust Wikipedia over actual historical inquiry. The guy who edited the wiki article could have as easily been a guy pounding down Mountain Dew and trolling the internet as be a professor. He could also be a biased person who believes his way is the best, something easily noticed on pages like the Audism article, where hearing people who know nothing of Deaf Culture edit things they find offensive that are descriptive of the actions of hearing people who know nothing of Deaf Culture toward Deaf people. Meanwhile, the list which is available to history was written by a man who was exiled four times because he refused to renounce the divinity of Christ.

Whose side is better?

Does your EO canon follow Athanasius' list?

Here's Eusebius quoting Melito c175

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 μονοβίβλῳ).; 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.

Here's a commentary on it all:
675675 Against Apion, I. 8. The common Christian tradition (since the first century, when it was stated in the fourth book of Ezra xiv. 44 sq.) is that Ezra was the compiler of the Old Testament canon. This, however, is a mistake, for the canon was certainly not completed before the time of Judas Maccabæus. Josephus is the earliest writer to give us a summary of the books of the Old Testament; and he evidently gives not merely his own private opinion but the commonly accepted canon of his day. He does not name the separate books, but he tells us that they were twenty-two in number (the number of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet), and gives us the three divisions, so that we are able to ascertain his canon in detail. It was doubtless as follows:—
1–5. Books of Moses.
6. Joshua.
7. Judges and Ruth.
8. Samuel.
9. Kings.
10. Chronicles.
11. Ezra and Nehemiah.
12. Esther.
13. Isaiah.
14. Jeremiah and Lamentations.
15. Ezekiel.
16. Daniel.
17. Twelve Minor Prophets.
18. Job.
19. Psalms.
20. Proverbs.
21. Ecclesiastes.
22. Song of Songs.
The earliest detailed list of Old Testament books is that of Melito (given by Eusebius, IV. 26), which is as follows:—
Books of Moses
Genesis.
Exodus.
Leviticus.
Numbers.
Deuteronomy.
Joshua Nave.
Judges.
Ruth.
Four of Kings.
Chronicles.
Psalms.
Proverbs.
Ecclesiastes.
Song of Songs.
Job.
Isaiah.
Jeremiah.
Twelve Minor Prophets.
Daniel.
Ezekiel.
Ezra.
Melito says nothing of the number twenty-two, and, in fact, his list, as he gives it, numbers only twenty-one. His list really differs from Josephus’ only in omitting the Book of Esther. This omission may be accidental, though it is omitted by Athanasius and Gregory Nazianzen. He makes no mention of Nehemiah, but that is doubtless included with Ezra, as in the case of Josephus’ canon. His canon purports to be the Palestinian one, and hence we should expect it to be the same as that of Josephus, which makes it more probable that the omission of Esther was only accidental. Origen (in Eusebius, VI. 25) tells us that there were twenty-two books in the Hebrew canon; but his list differs somewhat from that of Josephus. It is as follows:—
1–5. Books of Moses.
6. Joshua.
7. Judges and Ruth.
8. Samuel.
9. Kings.
10. Chronicles.
11. Ezra I. and II.
12. Psalms.
13. Proverbs.
14. Ecclesiastes.
15. Song of Songs.
16. [Twelve Minor Prophets (Rufinus).]
17. Isaiah.
18. Jeremiah, Lamentations, and Epistle.
19. Daniel.
20. Ezekiel.
21. Job.
22. Esther.
“Besides these also the Maccabees.”
The peculiar thing about the list is the omission of the Twelve Minor Prophets and the insertion of the Epistle of Jeremiah. The former were certainly looked upon by Origen as sacred books, for he wrote a commentary upon them (according to Eusebius, VI. 36). There is no conceivable reason for their omission, and indeed they are needed to make up the number twenty-two. We must conclude that the omission was simply an oversight on the part of Eusebius or of some transcriber. Rufinus gives them as number sixteen, as shown in the list, but the position there assigned to them is not the ordinary one. We should expect to find them in connection with the other prophets; but the various lists are by no means uniform in the order of the books. On the other hand, the Greek Epistle of Jeremiah (Baruch vi.) did not stand in the Hebrew canon, and can have been included by Origen here only because he had been used to seeing it in connection with Jeremiah in his copy of the LXX. (for in ancient mss. of the LXX., which probably represent the original arrangement, it is given not as a part of Baruch, but as an appendix to Lamentations), and hence mentioned it in this book without thinking of its absence from the Hebrew canon. Origen adds the Maccabees to his list, but expressly excludes them from the twenty-two books (see Bk. VI. chap. 25, note 5). Meanwhile the Talmud and the Midrash divide the canon into twenty-four books, and this was probably the original Jewish division. The number twenty-two was gained by adding Ruth to Judges and Lamentations to Jeremiah. The number thus obtained agreed with the number of letters in the alphabet, and was therefore accepted as the number sanctioned by divine authority, and the division was commonly adopted by the early Fathers. This is Strack’s view, and seems better than the opposite opinion, which is advocated by many, that the number twenty-two was the original. It is easier to see how twenty-four might be changed to twenty-two than how the reverse should happen. So, for instance, Jerome in his preface to the translation of Samuel and Kings, makes the number twenty-two, and gives a list which agrees with the canon of Josephus except in the three general divisions, which are differently composed. It will be seen that these various lists (with the exception of that of Origen, which includes the Epistle of Jeremiah and appends the Maccabees) include only the books of our canon. But the LXX. prints with the Old Testament a number of Books which we call Apocrypha and exclude from the canon. It has been commonly supposed, therefore, that there was a regular Alexandrian canon differing from the Palestinian. But this is not likely. An examination of Philo’s use of the Old Testament shows us that his canon agreed with that of Josephus, comprising no apocryphal books. It is probable in fact that the LXX. included in their translation these other books which were held in high esteem, without intending to deliver any utterance as to the extent of the canon or to alter the common Jewish canon by declaring these a part of it. But however that was, the use of the LXX., which was much wider than that of the Hebrew, brought these books into general use, and thus we see them gradually acquiring canonical authority and used as a part of the canon by Augustine and later Fathers. Jerome was the only one in the West to utter a protest against such use of them. Both Athanasius and Cyril of Jerusalem added to the canon Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah; but opinion in the Orient was mostly against making any books not in the Hebrew canon of canonical authority, and from the fourth century the Eastern Fathers used them less and less. They were, however, officially recognized as a part of the canon by numerous medieval and modern synods until 1839, when the larger Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church, the most authoritative standard of the Græco-Russian Church, expressly excluded them. The Latin Church, meanwhile, has always regarded the Apocrypha as canonical, and by its action at the Council of Trent has made them a part of the official canon. See Strack’s article in Herzog, translated in Schaff-Herzog; also Harman’s Introduction to the Holy Scripture, p. 33 sqq. The subject is discussed in all Old Testament introductions.“We have not, therefore, a multitude of books disagreeing and conflicting with one another; but we have only twenty-two, which contain the record of all time and are justly held to be divine.

2. Of these, five are by Moses, and contain the laws and the tradi145tion respecting the origin of man, and continue the history676676 Literally, “the tradition respecting the origin of man (ἀνθρωπογονίας) down to his own death.” I have felt it necessary to insert the words, “and continue the history,” which are not found in the Greek, but which are implied in the words, “down to his own death.” down to his own death. This period embraces nearly three thousand years.677677 Among the Jews in the time of Christ a world’s era was in use, dating from the creation of the world; and it is this era which Josephus employs here and throughout his Antiquities. His figures are often quite inconsistent,—probably owing, in large part, to the corrupt state of the existing text,—and the confusion which results is considerable. See Destinon’s Chronologie des Josephus.

3. From the death of Moses to the death of Artaxerxes, who succeeded Xerxes as king of Persia, the prophets that followed Moses wrote the history of their own times in thirteen books.678678 These thirteen books were:—
1. Joshua.
2. Judges and Ruth.
3. Samuel.
4. Kings.
5. Chronicles.
6. Ezra and Nehemiah.
7. Esther.
8. Isaiah.
9. Jeremiah and Lamentations.
10. Ezekiel.
11. Daniel.
12. Twelve Minor Prophets.
13. Job.
As will be seen, Josephus divided the canon into three parts: first, the Law (five books of Moses); second, the Prophets (the thirteen just mentioned); third, the Hagiographa (Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles). The division of the canon into three such parts is older than Josephus; at the same time, his division is quite different from any other division known. Jerome’s is as follows:—
1. Law: five books of Moses.
2. Prophets: Joshua, Judges and Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Lamentations, Ezekiel, Twelve Minor Prophets (eight books).
3. Hagiographa (Holy writings): Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Daniel, Chronicles, Ezra, Esther (nine books).
The division which exists in our Hebrew Bibles differs from this of Jerome’s only in transferring Ruth and Lamentations to the third division, and thus making twenty-four books. This is held by many to be a later form, as remarked above, but as Strack shows, it is rather the original. In the LXX., which is followed in our English Bible, the books are arranged, without reference to the three divisions, solely according to their subject-matter. The peculiar division of Josephus was caused by his looking at the matter from the historical standpoint, which led him to include in the second division all the books which contained, as he says, an account of events from Moses to Artaxerxes. The other four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the regulation of the life of men.

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.679679 The Artaxerxes here referred to is Artaxerxes Longimanus who reigned b.c. 464 to 425. It was under him that Ezra and Nehemiah carried on their work and that the later prophets flourished. Malachi—the last of them—uttered his prophecies at the end of Artaxerxes’ or at the beginning of Darius’ reign. It was commonly held among the Jews that with Haggai, Zachariah and Malachi the prophetical spirit had departed from Israel, and the line was sharply drawn, as here by Josephus, between them and the writers of the Apocrypha who followed them.

5. How much we are attached to our own writings is shown plainly by our treatment of them. For although so great a period has already passed by, no one has ventured either to add to or to take from them, but it is inbred in all Jews from their very birth to regard them as the teachings of God, and to abide by them, and, if necessary, cheerfully to die for them.”

 

[sculleywr]

Does your EO canon follow Athanasius' list?

Here's Eusebius quoting Melito c175

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 μονοβίβλῳ).; 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.

Here's a commentary on it all:
675675 Against Apion, I. 8. The common Christian tradition (since the first century, when it was stated in the fourth book of Ezra xiv. 44 sq.) is that Ezra was the compiler of the Old Testament canon. This, however, is a mistake, for the canon was certainly not completed before the time of Judas Maccabæus. Josephus is the earliest writer to give us a summary of the books of the Old Testament; and he evidently gives not merely his own private opinion but the commonly accepted canon of his day. He does not name the separate books, but he tells us that they were twenty-two in number (the number of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet), and gives us the three divisions, so that we are able to ascertain his canon in detail. It was doubtless as follows:—
1–5. Books of Moses.
6. Joshua.
7. Judges and Ruth.
8. Samuel.
9. Kings.
10. Chronicles.
11. Ezra and Nehemiah.
12. Esther.
13. Isaiah.
14. Jeremiah and Lamentations.
15. Ezekiel.
16. Daniel.
17. Twelve Minor Prophets.
18. Job.
19. Psalms.
20. Proverbs.
21. Ecclesiastes.
22. Song of Songs.
The earliest detailed list of Old Testament books is that of Melito (given by Eusebius, IV. 26), which is as follows:—
Books of Moses
Genesis.
Exodus.
Leviticus.
Numbers.
Deuteronomy.
Joshua Nave.
Judges.
Ruth.
Four of Kings.
Chronicles.
Psalms.
Proverbs.
Ecclesiastes.
Song of Songs.
Job.
Isaiah.
Jeremiah.
Twelve Minor Prophets.
Daniel.
Ezekiel.
Ezra.
Melito says nothing of the number twenty-two, and, in fact, his list, as he gives it, numbers only twenty-one. His list really differs from Josephus’ only in omitting the Book of Esther. This omission may be accidental, though it is omitted by Athanasius and Gregory Nazianzen. He makes no mention of Nehemiah, but that is doubtless included with Ezra, as in the case of Josephus’ canon. His canon purports to be the Palestinian one, and hence we should expect it to be the same as that of Josephus, which makes it more probable that the omission of Esther was only accidental. Origen (in Eusebius, VI. 25) tells us that there were twenty-two books in the Hebrew canon; but his list differs somewhat from that of Josephus. It is as follows:—
1–5. Books of Moses.
6. Joshua.
7. Judges and Ruth.
8. Samuel.
9. Kings.
10. Chronicles.
11. Ezra I. and II.
12. Psalms.
13. Proverbs.
14. Ecclesiastes.
15. Song of Songs.
16. [Twelve Minor Prophets (Rufinus).]
17. Isaiah.
18. Jeremiah, Lamentations, and Epistle.
19. Daniel.
20. Ezekiel.
21. Job.
22. Esther.
“Besides these also the Maccabees.”
The peculiar thing about the list is the omission of the Twelve Minor Prophets and the insertion of the Epistle of Jeremiah. The former were certainly looked upon by Origen as sacred books, for he wrote a commentary upon them (according to Eusebius, VI. 36). There is no conceivable reason for their omission, and indeed they are needed to make up the number twenty-two. We must conclude that the omission was simply an oversight on the part of Eusebius or of some transcriber. Rufinus gives them as number sixteen, as shown in the list, but the position there assigned to them is not the ordinary one. We should expect to find them in connection with the other prophets; but the various lists are by no means uniform in the order of the books. On the other hand, the Greek Epistle of Jeremiah (Baruch vi.) did not stand in the Hebrew canon, and can have been included by Origen here only because he had been used to seeing it in connection with Jeremiah in his copy of the LXX. (for in ancient mss. of the LXX., which probably represent the original arrangement, it is given not as a part of Baruch, but as an appendix to Lamentations), and hence mentioned it in this book without thinking of its absence from the Hebrew canon. Origen adds the Maccabees to his list, but expressly excludes them from the twenty-two books (see Bk. VI. chap. 25, note 5). Meanwhile the Talmud and the Midrash divide the canon into twenty-four books, and this was probably the original Jewish division. The number twenty-two was gained by adding Ruth to Judges and Lamentations to Jeremiah. The number thus obtained agreed with the number of letters in the alphabet, and was therefore accepted as the number sanctioned by divine authority, and the division was commonly adopted by the early Fathers. This is Strack’s view, and seems better than the opposite opinion, which is advocated by many, that the number twenty-two was the original. It is easier to see how twenty-four might be changed to twenty-two than how the reverse should happen. So, for instance, Jerome in his preface to the translation of Samuel and Kings, makes the number twenty-two, and gives a list which agrees with the canon of Josephus except in the three general divisions, which are differently composed. It will be seen that these various lists (with the exception of that of Origen, which includes the Epistle of Jeremiah and appends the Maccabees) include only the books of our canon. But the LXX. prints with the Old Testament a number of Books which we call Apocrypha and exclude from the canon. It has been commonly supposed, therefore, that there was a regular Alexandrian canon differing from the Palestinian. But this is not likely. An examination of Philo’s use of the Old Testament shows us that his canon agreed with that of Josephus, comprising no apocryphal books. It is probable in fact that the LXX. included in their translation these other books which were held in high esteem, without intending to deliver any utterance as to the extent of the canon or to alter the common Jewish canon by declaring these a part of it. But however that was, the use of the LXX., which was much wider than that of the Hebrew, brought these books into general use, and thus we see them gradually acquiring canonical authority and used as a part of the canon by Augustine and later Fathers. Jerome was the only one in the West to utter a protest against such use of them. Both Athanasius and Cyril of Jerusalem added to the canon Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah; but opinion in the Orient was mostly against making any books not in the Hebrew canon of canonical authority, and from the fourth century the Eastern Fathers used them less and less. They were, however, officially recognized as a part of the canon by numerous medieval and modern synods until 1839, when the larger Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church, the most authoritative standard of the Græco-Russian Church, expressly excluded them. The Latin Church, meanwhile, has always regarded the Apocrypha as canonical, and by its action at the Council of Trent has made them a part of the official canon. See Strack’s article in Herzog, translated in Schaff-Herzog; also Harman’s Introduction to the Holy Scripture, p. 33 sqq. The subject is discussed in all Old Testament introductions.“We have not, therefore, a multitude of books disagreeing and conflicting with one another; but we have only twenty-two, which contain the record of all time and are justly held to be divine.

2. Of these, five are by Moses, and contain the laws and the tradi145tion respecting the origin of man, and continue the history676676 Literally, “the tradition respecting the origin of man (ἀνθρωπογονίας) down to his own death.” I have felt it necessary to insert the words, “and continue the history,” which are not found in the Greek, but which are implied in the words, “down to his own death.” down to his own death. This period embraces nearly three thousand years.677677 Among the Jews in the time of Christ a world’s era was in use, dating from the creation of the world; and it is this era which Josephus employs here and throughout his Antiquities. His figures are often quite inconsistent,—probably owing, in large part, to the corrupt state of the existing text,—and the confusion which results is considerable. See Destinon’s Chronologie des Josephus.

3. From the death of Moses to the death of Artaxerxes, who succeeded Xerxes as king of Persia, the prophets that followed Moses wrote the history of their own times in thirteen books.678678 These thirteen books were:—
1. Joshua.
2. Judges and Ruth.
3. Samuel.
4. Kings.
5. Chronicles.
6. Ezra and Nehemiah.
7. Esther.
8. Isaiah.
9. Jeremiah and Lamentations.
10. Ezekiel.
11. Daniel.
12. Twelve Minor Prophets.
13. Job.
As will be seen, Josephus divided the canon into three parts: first, the Law (five books of Moses); second, the Prophets (the thirteen just mentioned); third, the Hagiographa (Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles). The division of the canon into three such parts is older than Josephus; at the same time, his division is quite different from any other division known. Jerome’s is as follows:—
1. Law: five books of Moses.
2. Prophets: Joshua, Judges and Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Lamentations, Ezekiel, Twelve Minor Prophets (eight books).
3. Hagiographa (Holy writings): Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Daniel, Chronicles, Ezra, Esther (nine books).
The division which exists in our Hebrew Bibles differs from this of Jerome’s only in transferring Ruth and Lamentations to the third division, and thus making twenty-four books. This is held by many to be a later form, as remarked above, but as Strack shows, it is rather the original. In the LXX., which is followed in our English Bible, the books are arranged, without reference to the three divisions, solely according to their subject-matter. The peculiar division of Josephus was caused by his looking at the matter from the historical standpoint, which led him to include in the second division all the books which contained, as he says, an account of events from Moses to Artaxerxes. The other four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the regulation of the life of men.

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.679679 The Artaxerxes here referred to is Artaxerxes Longimanus who reigned b.c. 464 to 425. It was under him that Ezra and Nehemiah carried on their work and that the later prophets flourished. Malachi—the last of them—uttered his prophecies at the end of Artaxerxes’ or at the beginning of Darius’ reign. It was commonly held among the Jews that with Haggai, Zachariah and Malachi the prophetical spirit had departed from Israel, and the line was sharply drawn, as here by Josephus, between them and the writers of the Apocrypha who followed them.

5. How much we are attached to our own writings is shown plainly by our treatment of them. For although so great a period has already passed by, no one has ventured either to add to or to take from them, but it is inbred in all Jews from their very birth to regard them as the teachings of God, and to abide by them, and, if necessary, cheerfully to die for them.”

You missed one in the very first list: "The proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also". That in and of itself is one book not in your canon. For another, none of the canons you have listed are the same canons, for they all have different books. In point of fact, every single one of your lists includes books not found in your canon or else excludes one or more books found in your canon.

Considering that my statement was that there were several competing canons, and that the Septuagint was the canon finally accepted by the Church, as evidenced by its heavy usage in both the New Testament and the writings of the Church fathers, you're only adding fuel to my claim that your canon is from the Masoretes, in the fifth century, by giving evidence of the very claim that I am making. I do love that you outright avoid including the Wisdom of Solomon in your first list when it is very clearly named, and the translation even capitalizes it for you so that you can know it is there.

 

[Standing Up]

You missed one in the very first list: "The proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also".

It was explained. Reread the quote.

That in and of itself is one book not in your canon. For another, none of the canons you have listed are the same canons, for they all have different books. In point of fact, every single one of your lists includes books not found in your canon or else excludes one or more books found in your canon.

Considering that my statement was that there were several competing canons, and that the Septuagint was the canon finally accepted by the Church, as evidenced by its heavy usage in both the New Testament and the writings of the Church fathers, you're only adding fuel to my claim that your canon is from the Masoretes, in the fifth century, by giving evidence of the very claim that I am making. I do love that you outright avoid including the Wisdom of Solomon in your first list when it is very clearly named, and the translation even capitalizes it for you so that you can know it is there.

Does EO use the OT list from Athanasius?

In any event, the whole point is simply to use scripture. SS does not define its canon. So, to move along, let's say we agree to use EO's canon. Does this mean you are SS?

 

[Rick Otto]

\


I'm new here and I sense there is come confusion about the history of the canon. I'll share what I know. I don't want to add to the confusion, I'm just trying to clarify matters.

As far as the NT goes, it would be naïve to assume there were only four gospels ever written. the early Christian community was very divisive, each sect probably having its own gospels. There could have been 50, 100 gospels written. Who knows? We do have 42 gnostic gospels alone, which tell a very different story about Christ, but nevertheless they are gospels and n illustration of the divisiveness in the early church. And there is also extra-biblical material that one wonders why it was never included n the canon. One major example is "Paul and the Acts of Teekel." It was quite popular in the East, to the extent that Teekel became sainted. But, alas never made it into the canon. It is not clear why. So some degree of arbitrariness was going on in selecting what's canon and what's not. Also, as I recall, "Revelations" was not canonized by the East until the sixth century. And, as we will see, there always was debate and controversy as to what books are canon and what not, all down though the ages. Luther, for example, called "James" a "straw epistle" and put it in a kind of appendix, separate from the other NT books, in his Bible. Incidentally, he also said that "Ester" should be thrown in the river.



The OT is a good example of such debate. There were at least two different versions of the OT, one in Hebrew, and one in Greek. The latter is called the Septuagint, as legend his it that 72 scribes all translated it from the Hebrew, with the exact, same wording. It differend from the Hebrew, because it contained more books, commonly known as the Apocrypha. In the 19th century, a theory was advanced that somewhere between 90 to 110AD, there was a major conference, in Jamnia, to decide which version to go with. Result? No agreement. The Alexandrian Jews stuck with their Greek. The eastern Hebrew Jews, their Hebrew. However, there is no definitive evidence such a conference ever took place.



When Jerome wanted to produce what is sometimes called the Vulgate Bible, meaning in the language of the people, he debated over which source to translate from. Initially, he chose the Hebrew, as it is,after all, the original language. But it proved very difficult to translate fro Hebrew into Latin. It's far easier with Greek, so he went for the Seotuagint. He did have reservations about whether this was the right way to go, however. All this was in the midst of an ongoing controversy over the canon. Marcion, for example, is said to have taken a pair of scissors and cut out the entire OT. Augustine cheered on Jerome, but sais other fathers might not agree.

When the Reformation came along, there was concern about whether the Protestant Bibles should contain the Apocrypha, as it was a major part of the Catholic Bible, and no Protestant wanted t to trust Catholics, plus the Apocrypha was not in the original language. Luther included it in his Bible. The KJV originally contained it, too. However, given that it wasn't in the original language and given that the clerics were in a witch-hunt mentality, by the 1640's, it is pronounced a thing of the devil and dropped. During the Counterreformation, the Council of Trent again ratified it as holy, in the Catholic Church.

So again, as you can see, there always was controversy and some arbitrary human decision-making over what is canon and what not.

I don't know what Wikipedia said. I don't always trust it. I recommend students avoid it, except for quick references. I'm pretty sure I got it right on the history of the canon. I better. I have an earned doctorate in theology and teach on the university level.

Thank you.

 

[sculleywr]

It was explained. Reread the quote.



Does EO use the OT list from Athanasius?

In any event, the whole point is simply to use scripture. SS does not define its canon. So, to move along, let's say we agree to use EO's canon. Does this mean you are SS?

No. SS was impossible for nearly 400 years after Christ.

Kind of hard to use Scripture alone if you can't answer the question of what Scripture even is. It's also hard to use Scripture alone if you don't have Scripture in your language, if your language isn't written, or if you aren't able to read, which encompasses the majority of the Church in the first few centuries.

BTW, the canon of the Orthodox Church Old Testament is the Septuagint. It is the oldest extant COMPILATION of Old Testament Scripture. It is the one which was used by the massive majority of the Early Church, and it is quoted heavily in the New Testament, including books you don't include in your Bible. Also, I read through the entire post again, no explanation of the exclusion of the obvious inclusion of the book of the Wisdom of Solomon in the list by Eusebius, who, by the way, was a historian, not establishing the Church's canon, but recording what he knew of the history of the Canon in a time when the canons were still up for debate.

 

[Rick Otto]

Well, St. Paul demonstrated it in Acts at Berea, without a Catholic Canon, and scripture was memorized much more commonly back then because of illiteracy.
"Massive majority"? lol

 

[sculleywr]

Well, St. Paul demonstrated it in Acts at Berea, without a Catholic Canon, and scripture was memorized much more commonly back then because of illiteracy.
"Massive majority"? lol

He also somehow managed to practice Sola Scriptura without the rest of Scripture being there, while teaching statements of Christ that directly contradicted the law of the Torah, and teaching a boatload of things which weren't taught in the Old Testament, such as the eating of the Messiah in the Eucharist, the end of animal sacrifices commanded in the Scripture, and many other things.

Sola Scriptura my third foot.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

He also somehow managed to practice Sola Scriptura without the rest of Scripture being there, while teaching statements of Christ that directly contradicted the law of the Torah, and teaching a boatload of things which weren't taught in the Old Testament, such as the eating of the Messiah in the Eucharist, the end of animal sacrifices commanded in the Scripture, and many other things.

Sola Scriptura my third foot.

Don't forget circumcision:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7411038/
Galatians,still stands today against the circumcision.

John 5:45
"No be ye supposing that I shall be accusing of-ye toward the Father, is the one accusing of-ye, Moses into whom ye have hoped" [Reve 12:10]

Acts 21:21
"They were instructed yet about the apostasy/apo-stasian <646> thou are teaching from Moses,
the according to the nations/gentiles all Judeans saying 'no to be circumcising the offsprings,
no yet to the customs/eqesin <1485> to be waking about'". [2 Thess 2:3]






.

 

[Standing Up]

Does your EO canon follow Athanasius' list?

I take it the answer is no. So what's the point?

 

[Standing Up]

No. SS was impossible for nearly 400 years after Christ.

Funny. C/u around.

 

[Standing Up]

Kind of hard to use Scripture alone if you can't answer the question of what Scripture even is.

Like I said, let's use EO scripture. Now can you practice SS? If not, why not?

 

[sculleywr]

Like I said, let's use EO scripture. Now can you practice SS? If not, why not?

We cannot, because SS is an innovation and Scripture is not always clear or self-interpreting, two major assumptions of SS. Besides that, with the fact that there is no inerrant translation of Scripture, practice of SS makes the foundation an errant translation or copy of Scripture, and not an inerrant source of authority. This is why the Pillar and Ground of Truth must be something that is not finite or limited. The only thing which is infinite or unlimited is Christ, and He is the Head member of the Church. He is the source of authority in the Church, and He is the One Who empowers the Church to fulfill its role as stated in I Timothy 3:15.

 

[sculleywr]

I take it the answer is no. So what's the point?

The answer was given. You just ignored it.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

Nothing wrong with the older traditions of the church that predate the established canon as we know it. It can't be that wrong when these are traditions started by the very foundations of the apostles in some churches or the very first disciples of the apostles who are doing exactly as they were taught by the said the apostles. Any traditions created post canonizations of the scriptures should be tested for sure by scriptures. The stuff that pre-dates it doesn't need to be tested because.. while I do not know all of them.. should pass with flying colors. We're talking about sola scriptura, not solo scriptura.

 

[sculleywr]

Nothing wrong with the older traditions of the church that predate the established canon as we know it. It can't be that wrong when these are traditions started by the very foundations of the apostles in some churches or the very first disciples of the apostles who are doing exactly as they were taught by the said the apostles. Any traditions created post canonizations of the scriptures should be tested for sure by scriptures. The stuff that pre-dates it doesn't need to be tested because.. while I do not know all of them.. should pass with flying colors. We're talking about sola scriptura, not solo scriptura.

So where is Iconography, which predates the canon, in your church? Or perhaps the liturgy, incense, and the doctrine of Synergism, which predates the canon.

This statement is nice in its concept, but having been a Baptist before converting to Orthodoxy as a result of reading and studying Church History in the first four centuries, I can say for certain that much of the Baptist dogma does not find its source in anything prior to the canon. In fact, many of their doctrines find their source in the 19th century Pietism movement.