Which Old Testament Canon is Right? With John Meade
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 04. 2021
- How do we adjudicate between different views among Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant Christians on the question of the Old Testament canon? Dr. John Meade lays out how Christians have approached this question historically, and how we know we have the correct Bible today.
Dr. Meade's book: www.amazon.com/Biblical-Canon...
More about Dr. Meade: ps.edu/faculty-staff/john-meade/
The Text & Canon Institute: ps.edu/academics/institute/
Truth Unites is a mixture of apologetics and theology, with an irenic focus.
Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai.
Website: gavinortlund.com/
Twitter: / gavinortlund
Facebook: / truthunitespage
Become a patron: / truthunites
My books:
--Why God Makes Sense in a World That Doesn’t: The Beauty of Christian Theism: www.amazon.com/Makes-Sense-Wo...
--Retrieving Augustine’s Doctrine of Creation: Ancient Wisdom for Current Controversy: www.amazon.com/Retrieving-Aug...
--Anselm’s Pursuit of Joy: A Commentary on the Proslogion: www.amazon.com/Anselms-Pursui...
--Finding the Right Hills to Die On: The Case for Theological Triage: www.amazon.com/Finding-Right-...
--Theological Retrieval for Evangelicals: Why We Need Our Past to Have a Future: www.amazon.com/Theological-Re...
Hi All, I had some technical difficulties earlier today but I think I've replied to many of the good and respectful questions and comments on here this evening. Feel free to continue to leave comments and I'll address them as I'm able. Thanks.
Regarding the topic, I have an issue with Melito and the Bryennios list. First, Melito was asked by Onesimus to inquire about the OT books. As McDonald points out, why traveling to Jerusalem instead of searching for the answer in Sardins in the local synagogue. This makes sense only if it is true that the Hebrew canon changed after Rabbi Akiva´s decision to proclaim the books written after ben Sira (including) as well as the Gospels (t.Yad. 2:13) as heretical. I think Gary Michuta is making a good point here. Why grouping the Gospels with these other books, if not because of the Christians who utilized both the deuterocanon and the Gospels? Also, I just can´t understand how a bishop like Melito would be so ignorant not knowing the books of the OT, and traveling to Jerusalem just because Onesimus asked him. As Philipp Shaff points out, this only makes sense if this was important to engage in dialogue with the Jews in order to have a common ground for evangelisation. So basically my problem with Melito is that without a doubt he is providing a Jewish list, not a Christian list of the OT. Perhaps the same could be said about the Bryennios list as the introduction to the list says: "Names of the books among the Hebrews". So ultimately I think we have to ask our selves, what these lists represent. Are these truly "Christian lists of the OT" or lists of books of the Hebrew bible. I personally would not commit my faith to a 2nd century Jewish list of canonical books in light of the debates going on on some protocanonical books among the Jews in the 2nd century.
And by the way Melito in his Treatise on the Passover quotes or alludes to Wisdom and Sirach.
On the other hand, when we look at the earliest list of christian canon from the 2nd century, like the list of NT books according to Iranaeus and the Muratorian fragment (if we accept it as a 2nd century list), there is an agreement between these two lists that the book of Wisdom is mentioned here as canonical without any distinction from the other NT books (which cannot be said about the Shephard of Hermas, as the Muratorian Fragment makes it clear that this books cannot be read publicly). Moreover it was Iranaeus who argued with the gnostics on the matter of the correct scripture. He is strongly relying on what was taught and read by the apostles, and as we know, Iranaeus knew Polycarp, who knew the apostle John. So Iranaeus is I think a strong support for the book of Wisdom. I know it is weird that the book of Wisdom is in the NT category (because of the date of its composition?), nevertheless it is held as inspired by the earliest christians according to these list, and that is what is important.
As we look at the lists of the fathers I agree with McDonald that in general the eastern fathers seem to tend to a shorter canon, while on the west the larger canon was prefered. In my opinion this is due to the fact that in the east the church was more exposed to the Jews. Therefor they started to prefer a shorter canon, this culminates with the synod of Laodicea. However lets not forget that this was a local synod, and the decrees were not ratified by the pope (in contrast with North African councils). Moreover the 60th canon of the synod of Laodicea is considered to be doubtful. I think it is much more plausible that the eastern churches tended to detract from the inspiration of some books due to the exposition to the Jews, rather than providing a reasonable explanation to the theory that the western fathers implemented the deuterocanon much later, just out of nowhere. On what basis would they do this? How would they defend their position?
In light of this I am not surprised that Jerome wrote in his prologue to the books of Solomon, that the Eclessiastical books are not meant to confirm doctrine. If the church in the east had this tendency to depart from the deuterocanonicals, Jerome´s words might just reflect this fact. However that was not the case in the west. Also the categories „canonical“ and „eclessiastical“ just might reflect the same thing what Sixtus of Sienna intended to describe by the words „proto- and deuterocanon“, and that some books (canonical) are universally accepted and never debated, while some (eclessiastical) are accepted and read in the church, but not accepted by every christian. Nevertheless Sixtus and the catholic church doesn´t make any distinction regarding the inspiration of both of these groups of books. From a catholic perspective it is important to note, that whatever book was utilized and read in the liturgy of the word was always held as inspired. So the word „eclessiastical“ does not mean nothing less for a catholic as „canonical“.
Some other thoughts:
1. I think Josephus didn´t meant to say that only those books are inspired which were written till the reign of Artarxerxes. He didn´t deny that prophecy was going on, he only says that there wasn´t an exact succession of prophets.
2. Bava Bathra (BB) gives a list of the canonical books of the Jews. However, BB12b also says that the prophecy ceased with the destruction of temple in 587 BC. That would exclude the inspiration of some protocanonical books.
3. Also there is a problem with the book of Daniel as it´s latest redaction is produced in the 2nd century BC. There is a wide consensus among scholars that chapters 2-6 are pre-Maccabean.
4. Plenty of catholic and protestant commentaries ackowledge that the passage in Hebrews 11:3 is making a referrence to 2 Maccabbees. Honestly I don´t know about any other explanation, what other book this passage might be alluding to. The fact that Hebrews 11 is introduced with a metonym makes a strong case for the inspiration of 2 Maccabbees:
William Lane who cites A.A. Trites (who has a whole in depth publication on the ,,witness-terminology in the NT“) wrote: „As a result of their firm faith they “received attestation” (ἐμαρτυρήθησαν) from God himself (see Form/Structure/Setting on 11:1-40; cf. vv 4, 5, 7, 39). The verb μαρτυρεῖσθαι occurs seven times in Hebrews (7:8, 17; 10:15; 11:2, 4, 5, 39), and in EACH INSTANCE the reference is to the WITNESS OF THE BIBLICAL RECORD. The exemplar of faith to whom reference is made in the pages of the OT “enjoy the approving testimony of Scripture, and consequently of God himself, who speaks by his Spirit through the written word”. Ref: Trites, A. A. The New Testament Concept of Witness. SNTSMS 31. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1977. Lane William, Hebrews 9-13, Vol 47b, Word Biblical Commentary
@@davidszaraz4605 To your first paragraph: Melito and Bryennios represent Christian lists that arose from the early Jewish-Christian milieu. As you point out, Melito could have simply checked with the prominent synagogue in Sardis, if he simply wanted a Jewish list of books for debate. I don't think R. Akiva had that kind of authority. In fact, no Rabbi did. Melito would have to go back East to check with the earliest church, not on the names of the books, but on their number and order. In the second century, there was probably some confusion in Asia Minor on these questions. After his trip back East, he learns from the church in Jerusalem what are the number and order of the books. This list lacks an obvious Jewish component for Melito: while listing only the books of the Jewish canon (except Esther), he does not number them as 22 or 24 as Jews from this time did. So it both shares and contrasts with Jewish canonical views from the time, which indicates that his list comes from Christians who have already adopted and adapted the Hebrew canon as their Old Testament. Christians had adopted the Hebrew contents but were unsure about their number and order. The Bryennios list has a similar explanation which I won't give in full here. See the Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity for commentary on it.
What canon list from Irenaeus? Sometimes apologists try to create a canon list based on quotations of books in Irenaeus' writings, but there is no list composed by him of which I'm aware. The Muratorian Fragment is debated of course. But in any case, one would have to admit that seeing Wisdom at the end of a list of NT canonical books is a little strange. Scholarship on the question notes that the author of MF is consistent with wider patristic practice of putting the useful NON-canonical books, like Wisdom, at the end. Wisdom's presence in this list is very strange but its placement at the end is expected.
If I understand your third paragraph, you're reiterating the idea by McDonald who got it from Sundberg that the Eastern fathers introduced an innovation by restricting the canon to the more or less Hebrew canon. Again, because the Hebrew canon criterion was operating from at least the second century (the church's canon had to include the books of the Jewish canon), it's far more plausible to see the Eastern fathers and synods simply maintaining the earliest tradition. It's a far more convoluted and difficult explanation to think that all of those Eastern Fathers and synods at a single point in time just decided to reduce the inspiration of some books and omit them from the canon. It seems to me that the simplest explanation is that ancient tradition explains the overall agreement of the Eastern lists, and we can even show from Melito and Bryennios that they indeed preserved the earliest tradition. This is the same tradition as Hilary, Jerome, and Rufinus in the West.
No need to debate Laodicea's date. The main point is that the canon list was approved and absorbed into Byzantine CANON LAW by the Council of Chalcedon. So regional council or not, it was approved by the ecumenical council. That's why we have its canons and its canon list today. The deuterocanonical books were always at the fuzzy edges of the canon as significant works of spirituality. They were read and received in the churches, especially in the West (City of God 17.20). Augustine and others would defend their position precisely on this basis: the (western) churches have used and read them. That's the ecclesiastical criterion for canonicity. As it is, the first Latin list that these books appear in is Codex Claromontanus (ca. 350 AD) usually thought to be from North Africa. They were then listed in the Mommsen Catalogue and from there Hippo, Augustine, and Innocent. It's a strong North African tradition that eventually made its way to Innocent I.
You're point might hold with Jerome except for what the Latin Father Hilary (in far western Gaul, modern-day France) in the 360's says, "They [the 22 books of the OT] are reckoned according to the traditions of the ancients." That is, the Hebrew canon criterion that limited the Church's canon is said to go back to ancient tradition. This is all Jerome is saying in the 390's. I see no innovation on Hilary's or Jerome's part.
Sixtus is fascinating. How do you translate his work? I read him as saying that the Deuterocanon (a word he coined, by the way) is not lesser in authority or dignity since inspired by the Holy Spirit, but it is second in time. It was not recognized by the early fathers as it is now in time recognized by the church. If I'm right about this, then I'm not sure why Catholics argue for the antiquity of the recognition of the deuterocanon at all. Sixtus is correct that the Deuterocanon was not immediately recognized as the Protocanon was. So I would be interested in your thoughts on this one.
To your other points:
1. Josephus says the line of prophets failed which means that Jews have only 22 books that are rightly trusted with other books coming later that are not afforded the same trust. Josephus maintains a distinction between the 22 and all others. The line of prophets that wrote down the books does not equal inspiration to him. For these prophets, see the ones lists in Samuels, Kings, Chronicles who wrote down the acts of each of the kings.
2. Numerous places in the Mishna and Talmud have inspiration ceasing out of Israel after Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, that is, the time of Ezra. But it is the nature of Talmud to list a lot of options.
3. I'm not going to engage with critical views of Daniel. I find them wanting for the most part. Clearly, Jesus calls Daniel a prophet in Matt 24:15.
4. I acknowledge that Heb 11: 35 alludes to 2 Macc 6-7. To argue from an allusion and even a word like ἐμαρτυρήθησαν that the book was BIBLICAL or CANONICAL is simply circular reasoning. Especially so because we have no indication from wider Judaism that 2 Macc was received as canonical or even scriptural. To my memory, there's a thin record of its early reception at all.
@@TextandCanonInstitute
Thank you Dr. Meade for your reply. However, not surprisingly I have to disagree.
Actually Akiva was very influencial. He was responsible for the written composition of the oral tradition - Mishna, for the transition of the religion from cultic Judaism to rabbinic Judaism which included the interpretation of scripture, for that he adopted the inclusion and exclusion method.
But don´t take his central position from me, take it from him from Yadaim 3:5. And also, why were they debating the inspiration of Song of Songs and Eclessiastes? I thought it was always canon, … so what is going on here? These debates were going on between the two revolts. Akiva´s predecessor already ruled that both books were sacred. So why only Akiva could end this disputation?
Also Akiva was the one who identified Bar Kokhba as the messiah according to the book of Numbers, which ultimately led to the second revolt. So Akiva´s decisions were very influential.
And my question still stands. Why rejecting the Gopspels and the „apocrypha“ all together? The Jews didn´t embrace it right? According to you the apostles didn´t embrace the „apocrypha“ and they didn´t hand them down to the Christians, and subsequently the early christians didn´t embrace them. So why is Akiva making this point, if there is no religious group utilizing the „apocrphya“? I propose let us the Jews explain their own decisions. A jewish sholar named Louis Ginzberg says:
„The desire to disarm Christians - especially Jewish christians - who drew their proofs from the Apocrypha.“ (Louis Ginzberg - Akiba Ben Joseph, The Jewish Encyclopedia).
The list of Irenaeus is from Eusbius: Hist. Eccl 5.8.2-8.
So you scholars expect Wisdom as a non-canonical book among canonical books? And why Wisdom, why not other book? Why are they adding non-canonical at the end of canonical lists?
Regarding Melito, you say his list comes from „Christians who already adopted the Hebrew contents, they were just unsure about their number and order“.
If that is the case, why is Esther missing? Clement well before Melito read Esther. Melito´s list makes no sense, if he adopted a well defined and adopted canon from Christians (who utilized Esther), who adopted the canon from the Hebrews.
Moreover, why were some Christians „unsure“ only about the OT, and yet they were super clear about the NT? We know from history that some NT books were doubted (like Revelation in the east). Irenaeus was strugling with the Gnostics, who also claimed to have the correct NT books. So why not giving an exact list of both OT and NT instead only of just OT?
More over, if the problem is only in the order and numbers, why is Melito making extracts from these books? He already knew the content, so what is the purpose of this?
Philip Shaff makes it clear: „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 resemled 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 Tesetament-THE COMMON GROUND ACCEPTED BY BOTH PARTIES-FOR PROOF OF THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. Although the Eclogae of Melito were not anti-Jewish in design, their character leads us to classify them with the general class of anti-Jewish works whose distinguishing mark is the use of OT prophecy in defense of Christiantity.“ (NPNF, p-206, FN. 6)
Furthermore, why is Melito still using Sirach and Wisom for his Treatise on the Passover after getting the „accurate“ Christian OT canon?
But if Melito was getting his list from Jews who debated Esther for years and years, than it should not surprise us that he ommited Esther. The Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, Meg. 7a says:
„Rab Judah (c. 2nd Century AD) said in the name of Samuel: (the scroll of) Esther does not make the hands unclean. Are we to infer from this that Samuel was of the opinion that Esther was not composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit? How cant his be, seeing that Samuel has said that Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit? - It was composed to be recited (by heart), but not to be written“.
But even in the subsequent centuries there seems to be a problem with Esther:
The Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 100 says:
„Levi ben Samuel and Rabbi Huna ben Hiyya were repairing the mantles of the Scroll of Rabbi Juddah´s College. On comming to the Scroll of Esther, they remarked, „ O this scroll of Esther does not regquire a mantle.“ Thereupon he reproved them, „this too savours of irreverence.“
In the light of this, it makes sense that Melito had to travel to the east, if there was a shift in the canon. Therefor the Synagogue in Sardis was not aware of these changes.
If the Jews were debating their own canon in the 2nd century and doubting the inspiration of Esther, it doesn´t surprise me that Melito´s list doesn´t fit the 22 book canon. Evidently the rabbis didn´t even bring up the argument, that without Esther they will have a 21 book collection. Moreover, that the list doesn´t give a number of 22 books is problematic for Chritian list as well, if you (and church fathers) asert that the 22 is the correct collection that the Christians inherited. By the way, how does Sirach fit in a 22 or 24 collection? It is cited as scripture in the Babylonian Talmud and we have archeology in Masada demonstrating that this books was just as important as other protocanonical books? Masada was the last place of the Jewish revolt, that the Romans had to conquer. Why did the Jews bring Sirach to such an important place?
Regarding the BL I read your book and yet you also cite authors, who tend to see this as a Jewish list. It seems to me that that there isn´t a general consensus (McDonalds thinks this as well). But even if, the list was composed by christians, it still doesn´t rule out that it is just trying to give the information, what the Hebrews accepted in thier OT (at the end of the day, the title of the list speaks for itself). Your interpretation is probably that, the title is because Christians knew that the Hebrew canon was never debated, it was always the same. My interpretation is that they needed to know, what the Hebrews accepted to be able to evangelise them. So it could be very well be the same case, what Melito did. And again, why is it missing the NT? So again, I would not commit my faith entirely just on a list (moreover, if there are doubts, and we are only on the level of probabilities). As always I have to see elswhere what Christians used, what Christians read. A list is a list, it´s useful, but let´s not dogmatise it.
You wrote:
„If I understand your third paragraph, you're reiterating the idea by McDonald who got it from Sundberg that the Eastern fathers introduced an innovation by restricting the canon to the more or less Hebrew canon.“
Actually McDonald makes no referrence to Sundberg at all. It is his own statement that the west in general prefered a larger canon and the east a shorter. (The Biblical Canon, 3rd ed., p206)
You wrote:
„It seems to me that the simplest explanation is that ancient tradition explains the overall agreement of the Eastern lists, and we can even show from Melito and Bryennios that they indeed preserved the earliest tradition. This is the same tradition as Hilary, Jerome, and Rufinus in the West.“
Actually Rufinus adds to the ecclesistical collection Wisom, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, 1-2 Maccabees. Hilary includes the Epistle of Jeremiah, and to the 24 collection ads Tobit and Judith.
I understand you say that ecclesisatical does not mean canonical. Where we two depart is that what „canonical“ and „ecclesiastical“ mean. The church always utilized only inspired scripture in the liturgy. The liturgy was always in the center of worship. When the reading and the Gospels are read, always God´s word is proclaimed, but not uninspired scripture. It is much more plausible as I said, that the term „ecclesiastical“ make the distinction that what is held by the given church as inspired, but you cannot use it for evangelisation for example.
Regarding Chalcedon adopting the canon list of OT books from Laodicea, I think you are presenting this from your own book. Where you wrote:
The making referrence to the Corpus canonum. However, this corpus is just a collection of conciliar decrees. First of all it is not a magisterial document, just a collection. Second of all, the fact that it contains decrees of local and ecumenical councils, doesnt mean that the decree of a local council was raised to an ecumenical level. I am not sure, whether I am correct by figuring out where did you get that „the canon list was approved and absorbed into Byzantine CANON LAW by the Council of Chalcedon“.
Honestly this is the first time I came across anybody saying that Chalcedon adopted the list of canonical OT books from Laodicea. For that you have to show it from the decree of Chalcedon itself. Please show me which canon of Chalcedon is demonstrating the adoption of list from Laodicea. I am very curious as the 60th canon of Laodicea is doubted to be genuine.
Regarding the North African Council, for me it is important that it was promulgated by the pope, this cannot be said about Laodicea.
And to the best of my knowledge, it was not adopted by any Ecumenical Council. But please, prove me I am wrong.
Sixtus is not claiming that it was not recognized imediatelly, he says that „not immediately at the very times of the Apostles but long afterwards they came to the notice of the ENTIRE Church, there was at times among Catholics an undecided opinion“. So essentially he says, there were times when some catholics doubted they inspiration. And I absolutelly agree, I have no problem with this. But Sixtus is not claiming that the deuterocanonicals weren´t there since the begining, and just later came into use. That is a huge difference. Also notice that in the same group of deuterocanonicals he adds some from the NT, because some of the NT books were also doubted in some time by some catholics. Actually I like Sixtus very much as he was a former Jew, he knows what he is talking about. Having said that, since there were also some NT books on the „fuzzy edges“, according to your logic, shouldn´t you treat those books (like Revelation, etc.) the same way as those OT on the „fuzzy edges“? In fact the longer ending of Mark or the woman caught in adultery (which Sixtu also brings up among the deuterocanonical group) is still debated among protestants even today. Interestingli enaugh nobody dares to debate James Snapp who provided very strong evidence from manuscripts that both passages should be regarded canonical.
Regarding Josephus, I would go with Steve Mason, who is quite an expert and nert (if I may say this) into Josephus. In his latest article he concludes:
„Josephus makes no distinction among different kinds of prophecy. The impression that he does rests on a shifting use of modern language. Suppose that a university has a class of people called full professors, that a department of sixty faculty members includes twenty-five full professors, that it has two important standing committees (hiring and promotion and curriculum), and that the rules require at least two full professors to serve on each. One would easily discover that some professors had served on the two committees and others had not. This would not mean that there were “two kinds of professors.” Likewise, some of Josephus’ (and the Bible’s) prophets wrote books, and others (e.g., Elijah and Elisha) did not. This does not mean that Josephus conceives of two (or more) kinds of prophet. Prophets were such because of their UNIQUE ACCESS TO GOD, WHO SPOKE DIRECTLY THROUGH THEM. (Prophecy in Roman Judaea: Did Josephus Report the Failure of an ‘Exact Succession of the Prophets’ (Against Apion 1.41)? , 2019.
Yes you have different timline´s for the cessation of prophecy in the Talmud and Mishna. That just makes a point I think, how unfounded the cessation is. But my point was that the exact same BB, which is providing us the canonical list says that the cessation ceased even before some canonical books were written.
With all respect, but the fact that Jesus calls Daniel a prophet has nothing with the composition of books itself. There is a wide consensus that the last redaction and some chapters of Daniel are not older as 2nd century BC. That is a problem for those accepting the cessation prophecy.
I wonder how is my claim circular regarding Heb 11:35. Are you saying William Lane and Trites are using circular arguments? Can you show me an alternative book to which Heb 11:35 is referring to?
As I said, lists are useful, but to have a full spectrum of what was used and why was used, we need to understand, why were those „apocryphal“ books so important. For example as McDonald says: Origen did not however , restrict himself to the biblical canonof the Jews or reject the use of deuterocanonical literature. Origen includes IN HIS CANON Epistel of Jeremiah, 1-2 Maccabees … recomends that a Christian´s intellectual diet should begin with Esther, Judith, Tobit, Wisdom.“
I think that your approach - focusing only on those which are commonly accepted, necessarily neglects these very imporant information (like from Origen) and does not give you the full scope of how early christians treated these books. And as I said, why not treating the NT books the same way?
As a medical doctor and researcher I can tell you, those signs on the „fuzzy edges“ in my field of expertise are very often very important and crucial.
I still think it is much more plausible, that some fathers and churches were influenced by the Jews, while there was a paralell in utilizing the deuterocanon since the begining. On the other hand your theory that the „apocrypha“ poped up out of nowhere in a certain time is I think simply untenable. Just by looking at history, all kinds of heresies the church was strugling with, the schisms (like the one as a result of Monophysitism) simply could not be missed by history and historians. And you are claiming that such an important field as the Canon of the Holy Scriptures was changed in the west, sometimes, somewhere, somehow, and eventually became canonical in the entire church. I am sorry but I am not buying this. If the jews didn´t utilize the apocrypha, the apostless didn´t hand them down, the earlies christians didn´t use them, how can you imagine the sudden implementation of these books in the church, … and only those 7, which consistently pop up among the fathers.
@@davidszaraz4605 Thanks again for your extensive response. Time runs short and so will my comments.
1. The scholarship you're using for Akiva (e.g. Ginzberg) is old. His scholarship is all from the 19th century, a time when canon scholars believed that the Hebrew canon was closed around 90 AD at a place called Jabneh/Jamnia. Read Jack Lewis' piece "What do we mean by Jabneh?" (1964). He dispels the notion that there was anything like a council at Jabneh where Akiva would be so influential. There were conversations about the scriptures like at a college or academy but this event was nothing like an ecclesiastical council. Ginzberg's comment, "In the first place, Akiba was the one who definitely fixed the canon of the Old Testament books." is laughable. No one believes this anymore. There were Jewish disputes over these books but they were neither authoritative nor settled at Jabneh. Most scholars have used Lewis' work to show that the Hebrew canon could have been closed earlier (Beckwith) or later (McDonald). In either case, Akiva is not as influential as Ginzberg or you suppose.
2. The "list" of Irenaeus is as I suspected. Of course Hist. Eccl 5.8.2-8 is no proper canon list, and you should know better. This is not Irenaeus' canon list. It's an (incomplete) list compiled by Eusebius based on some scattered sayings of Irenaeus and select quotations from ancient books. Still, it proves the point of scholars I raised earlier: The early part Eusebius' catalogue features canonical books: the Gospels, Revelation, 1 John, 1 Peter. Then the Shepherd, Wisdom, writings of Justin Martyr, and Ignatius before his apologetic work against Marcion. I doubt you would suggest that the latter two are canonical. The Shepherd is in no canon list from Late Antiquity. Rather, Eusebius cites a place or two in Irenaeus' writings where he quotes these books, showing he knew of them and accepted their teachings (without attribution or scriptural formula, mind you, in the case of Wisdom). This is all far away from ascribing canonical status to these books, especially on the part of Irenaeus. Throughout Eusebius' Church history, he doesn't give a list of OT books. Rather, he cites Josephus, Melito, and Origen's lists on this question and that solves the matter for him. None of these lists includes the deuterocanonical books.
3. Yes, Esther was disputed among the Jews. Melito's list reflects the Jewish opinion that omits Esther, while the Bryennios List accepts the opinion that includes it. Esther is also in Origen's list of books of the Hebrews written around 220 and of course Esther is included in Baba Bathra 14b written around 200. Based on this evidence, I would say most Jews included Esther. Schaff buries his own argument here, "Although the Eclogae of Melito were not anti-Jewish in design..." There is zero evidence that this list was set up to be a catalogue of the Jewish scriptures for the purpose of Jewish-Christian debate. That's a reality for the third century as Origen attests, and Cyprian seems to accede. At no place, does Melito or Eusebius present this list as anti-Jewish or polemical. That's an inference that the evidence does not necessarily support. That Melito makes unattributed use of some of the deuterocanonical books is inconsequential to my point. There are tiers in religious literature. I will return to this point below.
4. I'm not dogmatizing lists. I'm using them to show that early Christians didn't think that just any spiritual book they quoted had authority. Their authoritative books were limited to the Hebrew canon. You simply don't have a single canon list that includes more books than these till North Africa in the mid to late fourth century. This is not dogma. It's a trend of evidence. Once you follow it closely, then you must ask how and for what purpose those other books started to be listed in only one part of the Roman Empire. In Gaul in the 360’s, Hilary knows nothing of North Africa’s canonical theory nor is he situated to the East “to be influenced by Jews.” Rather he gives the early, traditional list of books as he sees them in Origen’s own work on the Psalms.
5. It's a minor point but see Sundberg who says the Eastern fathers created the narrow canon in the 4th century as a new practice (The Old Testament of the Early Church, p. 146). So McDonald has been somehow influenced by this idea.
It's amazing how many Books that are even mentioned in the Bible itself that we don't even have today (The Acts of Solomon, The Acts of Uziah, The Sayings of The Seers etc.)
The Annals of the Kings of Israel always had such a mistique to me.
For me that really demonstrates how God was actively preserving the true scriptures we have today. He will never let His uncorrupted Word disappear from the Earth, nor will He allow His Church to be defeated or broken.
The 1st letter to the Corinthians.
The letter to the Laodiceans.
We have many of the seers writings, gad the seer is amazing! And nathan is soon to come
I think one thing we can definitely say is that these books are definitely worth reading. The Deuterocanonicals are fantastic books that have edified Christians throughout the centuries. It's a shame that so few people read them now.
I agree. As a protestant I've thought about reading them for years. Now I want to make it a priority. Should I look for a RC Bible, or Deuterocanonical books stand alone? I'm leaning towards a Bible.
@@kurtgundy You won't necessarily need to buy a "Catholic" Bible. Most of the well known Bible publishers offer an edition that includes the Deuterocanonicals usually positioned between the OT and the NT. There are stand alone books with just the Deuterocanonicals though.
@@mj6493
I've downloaded a RC Bible app.
@@kurtgundyBuy any Bible made before 1829 when Protestants REMOVED them from the KJV🙃
They are to take them with a grain of salt . In the book of tobit there's a betsemari ritual taking place as kosher . And is not . Burning fish hearts to drive demos away is not kosher
Truth does unite.
Great stuff! I enjoyed this episode very much. 🙌🏻
This is exactly what I have been looking for. Thank you.
Very informative and detailed discussion! I’ll be purchasing a copy of Dr. Meade’s book for sure.
Hello Dr. Ortlund, very good channel. It has helped me to understand better the Protestant perspective in different topics. Have you considered to invite Dr. Brant Pitre to a friendly conversation on the Eucharist?
Good bless you.
Great presentation, especially for text and canon geeks. Thanks
Much better video explanations of Athanasius' "canon" and usage of the deuterocanonical books to confirm doctrine, esp book of Wisdom and esp for the Nicene Creed:
czcams.com/video/7ahiqtkRFZg/video.html
czcams.com/video/m-t2VtA2FKs/video.html&t
Very informative, thank you both for your time and work.
Much better video explanations of Athanasius' "canon" and usage of the deuterocanonical books to confirm doctrine, esp book of Wisdom and esp for the Nicene Creed:
czcams.com/video/7ahiqtkRFZg/video.html
czcams.com/video/m-t2VtA2FKs/video.html&t
Was writing a ST paper on the canon around the time this video came out and it was an invaluable summary of a complicated subject. John Meade’s book on ancient canon lists is a great resource for those curious about how the early church viewed scripture and its parameters!
This is pretty awesome. Really enjoyed this. Always love your channel’s stuff anyway, but this was really a good little lecture of sorts.
Much better video explanations of Athanasius' "canon" and usage of the deuterocanonical books to confirm doctrine, esp book of Wisdom and esp for the Nicene Creed:
czcams.com/video/7ahiqtkRFZg/video.html
czcams.com/video/m-t2VtA2FKs/video.html&t
Very edifying. Thank you. 🙏🏼
Much better video explanations of Athanasius' "canon" and usage of the deuterocanonical books to confirm doctrine, esp book of Wisdom and esp for the Nicene Creed:
czcams.com/video/7ahiqtkRFZg/video.html
czcams.com/video/m-t2VtA2FKs/video.html&t
To arrogantly speak on behalf of Latins, I am grateful to you both for your esteem-able irenicism.
Top quality content, thank you, much better than Prof.Michael’s session
Much better video explanations of Athanasius' "canon" and usage of the deuterocanonical books to confirm doctrine, esp book of Wisdom and esp for the Nicene Creed:
czcams.com/video/7ahiqtkRFZg/video.html
czcams.com/video/m-t2VtA2FKs/video.html&t
Great info. Thank you. This makes me, as a protestant, want to buy a RC Bible. I've already thought about it. Now I want to make it a priority.
But now a question for RCs. What about that "to be deep in history is to cease to be protestant" argument?
You should buy the universal Bible. It covers Protestants, EO and RC in one bible
Btw the argument isn't that the books first popped up as canonical in 1546. It's that Rome didn't have a dogmatic decree until 1546. This is what Catholic academic sources say.
Exactly; otherwise how would the Orthodox Church have essentially the same canon as the RCC with very mild variation?
So are you saying both traditions existed in the church from a very early age?
@@joekingjoekingjoeking Actually, no. As far as I can tell, no Christians accepted the Jewish Canon of the Old Testament as *the Christian Canon* that all people must agree with. Frankly, there were, and are, various Old Testament Canons and it was not an issue at all.
@@HyperdoxOG But aren’t both Catholics and Protestants saying there was a particular Jewish canon (such as the Pharisaic/Palestinian or the Hellenistic canon, etc.) that agreed with them and was adopted early on?
@@joekingjoekingjoeking Protestants can claim that, but I wouldn’t even say that the so called “Palestinian Canon” was finalized by the time the Church was Established. There was disagreement concerning the book of Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon in the first century amongst Jews.
EO here. The earliest list of the canon (both NT and OT), that's authoritative at least, is defined in the Apostolic Canons (canon #85). Most of the Apostolic Canons were not received by the west, and that includes the Canon of Scripture/Canon #85, and there's some variation. This is the list that, for the part, most Orthodox Septuagint's conform to (included 3 Maccabees). The more familiar list is defined and accepted at the Council of Jerusalem 1672 and corresponds to the list in the Catechism of St. Peter Mogila (question 3, "The extent of the canon of scripture").
That said, there is certainly some ambiguity. St. Philaret, in his catechism (as alluded to), aligned with what's commonly referred to as the "Protestant Canon." However, this canon list goes back much further, to at least St. John of Damascus (defined in his De Fide, book 4 chapter 17). It's also the list defined in a later, widely received catechism by Father Pomazansky ("Orthodox Dogmatic Theology," on page 32).
Of course, there's also variation among other, Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox (such as the Ethiopians).
Is the apostlic canons genuinely going back to the apostles?
In a weird bit of providence, Steve Christie and I just recorded a video on the Cessation of Prophecy between the Old Testament and New Testament eras and its bearing on the topic. Hopefully out soon. I'll be watching your video at some point.
wow, very cool! Great topic.
@@TruthUnites our video is up as of yesterday if you want to check it out
thank you
This was helpful!
Thanks Gabe! Dr. Meade is terrific.
@@TruthUnites agreed- you were both very helpful!
@Text & Canon Institute
Thanks so much for this incredibile helpful interview. I apologize for writing so many months after the original video, but I just watched it. In about minute 39:07 Dr. Meade refers to an article that he said was helpful, I believe possibly in understanding some of the background history of the Council of Trent. Is it possible to get a reference or name for that article? Thanks.
Sorry for slow reply David and Tony. I’ve been caught up. But finally got a chance to respond.
1. The way Athanasius used the Deuteros does not mean he thought them to be on the same level as canonical scripture. a) Athanasius clearly implies 2nd div books *shouldn't* be in the canon or used as canonical scripture, and yet, he occasionally calls them “scripture”. This tells us that ‘scripture’ can refer to both canonical scripture, and useful ‘scripture’ not belonging in the canon. I suspect some of the Deuteros came to be referred to as ‘scripture’ by non-Jewish Christians because they were kept alongside canonical scripture in Greek translations of the OT. b) Saying the Son/Spirit speaks through a particular passage in a Deutero book is not a strong argument for inspiration. With Paul, it’s possible to speak of the Spirit speaking through someone without implying it is on the same level as inspired scripture (cf. 1 Cor 12:3, 8). c) Looks can be deceiving when it comes to the way Athanasius used the Deuteros. 2Pet 2:22 reminds us that non-inspired scripture can be used alongside scripture to express, support, and apply scriptural truth. d) It doesn’t matter that Athanasius was writing in the context of controversies and defending the orthodox faith. Using non-inspired writings that were read by your opponents to express and support the truth was good enough for Paul (Acts 17:28). Furthermore, Athanasius is not merely writing for the benefit of his opponents, but for Christians to read ‘over his shoulder’. Thus, Athanasius’s is still using them for the purpose of edification. e) The Jehovah Witnesses analogy is not water-tight. The arguments against Arianism were not simply from Deutero books. They were mainly from canonical books. The role of the Deuteros was to express and support the truth because they were still held in high regard by his opponents. It’s a bit like a Catholic referencing an ECF to back up their interpretation of the Bible against a Protestant. The ECF isn’t thought to be on the same level as inspired scripture, but still carries weight. It shows what has been believed in the past and strengthens the Catholic’s interpretation. And the Catholic references the ECF not just for the Protestant, but for his fellow Catholics to show them that they stand in the tradition of truth.
2. Athanasius clearly says that books in his 1st and 2nd division should be used differently. If Athanasius seemingly does not use them differently, then the burden is also on you to explain why. Now, maybe Athanasius was being inconsistent between theory and practice, or maybe he changed his mind about how they should be used by the time he wrote his 39th festal letter much later on. These are not my arguments, but they remain logical possibilities. However, as already outlined, looks can be deceiving (cf. 2Pet 2:22). I think Athanasius is simply using well known and useful ‘scripture’ to express and support the truth alongside inspired canonical scripture. To be sure, when Athanasius says his 2nd division books “have been prescribed [or appointed] by the ancestors to be read for those who newly join”, he is speaking about how to use them within a *church* context, while he himself was often using them in a different context. However, the principle behind both contexts is the same: Athanasius says of his 1st division books, “in these books *alone* the teaching of piety is proclaimed”, while his 2nd division books are only to be read for instruction in the word of piety. The 2nd division books take the teaching of piety from the 1st division books and illustrate it, exhort others to follow it, and apply it (which includes imitating how to observe wisdom). In regards to use within the church, I suggest the difference in function here is similar to the modern-day difference between scripture and a sermon/homily (whether spoken or written). One is the rule or measure of faith used to define doctrine, the other is the illustration, exhortation, and application of that rule/measure of faith for the purpose of instruction and edification. The sermon/homily is perfect as a way to express and support inspired scripture, and still caries some sort of authority because it is expressing and applying biblical truth, but is itself, not on the same level as inspired scripture. Please note, I am not saying the Deuteros are merely sermons or homilies. That would be to miss my point.
3. Your re-definition of ‘canon’ in Athanasius’s letter isn’t supported by the evidence. a) For instance, when the Council of Rome at a similar time, lists the Deutero books as part of the ‘canon’, it isn’t simply describing the books that are universally recognised-unless you want to say that either the Council or Athanasius got it very wrong which books were universally recognised. No, the Council is prescribing which books *should* be recognised as canon because they are believed to be inspired. It is a contrast to Athanasius. b) Likewise, Athanasius isn’t simply describing which books are universally accepted as inspired, but prescribing which books should be universally accepted since “in these books *alone* the teaching of piety is proclaimed”.
4. Likewise, Athanasius isn’t simply saying his 2nd division books are not universally accepted, and therefore, should only be used in-house in the church and not to confirm doctrine universally. a) If he was saying this, then you have implied that Athanasius used the Deuteros in the very way he prescribes against. b) If you think Athanasius is simply saying the 2nd division books aren’t universally accepted *by the church*, then you’re being inconsistent when you claim at least some of them were universally accepted. c) If you think Athanasius is saying that because the 2nd division books aren’t accepted *by the Jews* they shouldn’t be used in relation to evangelism, then it doesn’t make sense of why Athanasius instructs his readers to restrict their use *within* the church. d) In actual fact, Athanasius is implying the 2nd division books *shouldn’t* be canonised, since he has already said his 1st division books shouldn’t be added to. He clearly does not personally think them to be inspired, at least at this particular stage of his life.
5. There is no need to assume a conspiracy theory. With the gradual distancing of Christians from Jews and Jewish history, and the inclusion of different Deutero books in different Greek translations of the OT, it’s not hard to see the logical progression of then referring to particular Deuteros as ‘scripture’, to then thinking them to be inspired. While I believe the earliest evidence excludes the Deuteros from the canon, it is well recognised among many Catholic scholars that both traditions existed side by side from very early on, right up to the eve of the Reformation. Hence, as we move away from the Apostles in time, there arose accepted disagreement and ignorance over the OT canon among patristic Christians. And thus, there was no uproar when one or the other tradition was affirmed-except perhaps by those who were seeking to correct the other tradition. I have no intention of defending every ECF, but it’s hard to know what a particular ECF thought of a Deutero book simply because they referred to it as ‘scripture’. And likewise, when a particular Deutero book was said to be handed down and accepted by the whole church, it’s hard to know if they meant that it was accepted only as a 2nd division book, as people like Athanasius and Jerome maintain, or something more.
6. The quote from Jerome does not help your argument. His quote assumes that the Church does not admit Judith, Tobit, and Maccabees among the canonical scriptures. His quote also assumes that the Church only reads these books for edification purposes, and not to give authority to doctrines of the Church. Thus, Jerome cautions the church to read Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus in the same way. Why? Because, as explained above, it was easy to make the mistake of reading these non-canonical books as canonical scripture. Jerome is saying don’t make that mistake.
7. I stand by what I said on Hebrews 11. If you think all the “testimony” in 11:4-38 is preserved in the pages of scripture, then you would need to accept the Ascension of Isaiah, which preserves the testimony of Isaiah being sawed in two, and which is recognised by as many scholars who recognise 11:35b alludes to 2 Macc. I totally agree that 11:2 and 11:29 form an inclusio-of all those who are attested to (by God). But the point of 11:4-38 is not to say *where* these heroes are directly and divinely attested to (as is the case in 7:17 and 10:15). 11:4-38 simply records *why* they are attested to (i.e. because of their faith demonstrated by their deeds). If it was to show *where* they are attested to by God, then again, it would also need to include the Ascension of Isaiah. And since Hebrews is not showing *where* the heroes are attested to, there is no basis to assume they are exclusively biblical figures either. I can’t see that any of those commentators conclude that 2 Maccabees is inspired scripture? And if they don’t, then the real challenge is on you to understand why they don’t conclude that. It may be that you have either misunderstood or misrepresented what they are trying to say. In any case, I agree that Hebrews 11 gives a lovely summary of OT history and OT figures. However, I think it’s clear that Hebrews 11 is presenting *more* than that.
This debate has been very stimulating, and so thank you, and I hope to hear from you soon. Grace and peace.
McDonald's book on the canon, was helpful for me to see how unclear the OT canon was both for Jews and the Early Church, though we clearly see 2 views on the canon even if it was a matter of debate exactly which books.
The 22/24 book canon view, vs the broader canon view. It seems clear to me that the 22/24 book canon view was the dominant view (Josephus, 4 Esdras), and was affirmed by Christians who inquired of the Jews on the matter. This does not make absolutely clear the status of which 22 books eg, Ruth, but the majority of them seem to be settled.
Just discovered your channel here - Thank you so much for the topics you are treating, like this one. But I left this wondering how one of the most interesting/crucial issues was not discussed, or I went to sleep: That the Hebrew-language 'canon' which is included in christian bibles not formed [in the stage John mostly discusses here] at the time of Christ's earthly ministry and the composition of our NT 'canonized' writings. So pardon the misuse of term, but what "Canon" did the literate among Jews/God-fearers have at that time, to which the many references in the NT refer? Please do a program on just That. The average christian alive today has no idea [or worse, does have a totally inaccurate idea] of this - regardless of faith tradition.
The point I was making was just acknowledging that RC ( that is to say Roman Catholics Cajetan and Jiminez just before Trent held a Canon that matched Protestant). The assertion was not that RCC officially held to Protestant Canon as their official position was declared at Trent. I think our Roman Catholic friend Matthew Broderick understood but decided to misrepresent or obfuscate.
Sad to not hear much on the Ethiopian canon. I would have been very interested in seeing that discussed as well. The ancient Assyrian Church of the East also has some interesting views on the canon. I understand it's a lot to cover all of these in one episode, but I'd love to see you address them in the future.
The Muratorian Fragment is often dated to the second century by scholars and includes both Wisdom of Solomon and the Apocalypse of Peter, so Irenaeus is not the only one mentioning any of the so called apocrypha/deuterocanonical books as scripture.
Quick response to the Synod that did not include the deuterocanonical books. Synods are not binding on the whole church, they are local decisions that can be and often are overruled by councils and popes. I would also point out that an absence of affirmation of certain books is not the same as a rejection of them.
I'm also curious how you deal with the same issue of lack of evidence for books like Esther and Joshua being recognized as canon in the first few centuries. You acknowledged they had the same lack of evidence as the Catholic deuterocanonical books, but you didn't say why you include them in your canon. Hebrews is another book with similar issues and even explicit rejections from some in the early Church before it was affirmed by later councils.
These problems of a lack of evidence for various books being accepted by the early Church along with evidence of early disputes do not seem to prove your canon as much as they prove the need for an infallible authority to settle the issue. You also seem to fail to mention the many varying Jewish canons when talking about accepting the canon of the Jews. Let's also not forget that if we are using the standard of books that were in Hebrew for our old testament canon them Tobit and Sirach are now confirmed to have been written in Hebrew and others of the deuterocanonical list may have been as well. But the method of only using books found in Hebrew seems arbitrary to me since the standard is not in scripture and the early Church disputed the criteria. Again, all this seems to prove is the desperate need for an authority to settle the matter more than it proves the protestant canon.
Very interesting video just the same and I appreciate the tone and attempt to be fair. I'm still very convinced of the Catholic canon, but I like hearing the opposition and sharpening my understanding of both sides from a source trying to honestly make sense of the evidence as you seem to be trying to do. Your tone, attitude, and honesty are refreshing amidst a sea of voices like James White who seem to not be intellectually honest in their presentation of the evidence. I may not agree with you, but I definitely respect what you're trying to do. I pray your seeking the truth where it leads finds you your way home to the Catholic Church.
Final thought, if we are trying to make a canonical list that only includes the books accepted by all Christians everywhere in all times and places then even the protestant canon needs to drop a number of books from the old and new testament. This criteria wouldn't make many people happy if they really followed it through. Even many groups today, like the Syrian Orthodox, still don't accept all of the books in the protestant canon, so this criteria really see!s problematic to me and wouldn't create the mere Christianity bar that you're looking for.
It's also not accurate to say that protestants have the canon of the Jews since Jews at the time of Jesus had many different canons depending on which sect you look at, some more and some less. Even today, Ethiopian Jews have way more old testament books than even Catholics while some sects only have the Torah, so to say Protestants have the canon of the Jews is also a bit innacurrate and the reality is far more complicated, which to me all the more illustrates the need for an authority like the Catholic Church to settle the matter. The canon was and is open and disputed by the Jews, but the Church established by Chirst has the authority to close it and settle the dispute.
@@HerotPM the council of rome was a synod.....
@@ttff-bd2yf it's list was accepted by popes, the Church as a whole, at least one later ecumenical council that was affirmed in both east and west, and another ecumenical council that was at least accepted in the west. The canon of 382 is the most widely accepted canon in the world today since East and West accept it to this day. Protestants are in the minority for rejecting it, but even some of them have it and accept it.
Thank you so much Dr. Meade for sharing your research with us. I have been grappling with this issue of canon for about six months now and this is the strongest Protestant position I have found so far. You really lay it out clearly. Having said that, with all respect, I due have some concerns based on what I have studied on this topic.
Firstly, I am not sure it is possible to separate Old Testament and New Testament in these discussions. I know this video was only focused on the Old Testament but the danger for me is that there ends up being different criteria for the different canons which may seem like special pleading. For example, you say we should accept the Melitus and Bryennios OT canons from the second century. But we get the New Testament canons from Athanasius's 39th Festal letters and the councils of Rome, Carthage and Hippo in the fourth century. It seems like it would more natural to say that there was a lot of different canons and confusion in the second and third century but then we come to consensus in the fourth century (with the exception of Jerome). But obviously Protestants don't want to say that since fourth century consensus included the deuterocanon. But this ends up looking like special pleading. It is not just contrasting Jerome with Augustine but rather Jerome with the whole church at the time. Similarly with Origen versus Julianus Africans - Origen makes it clear that the deuterocanon is what is accepted as Scripture in the church. So my criteria would be "what canon was accepted by the faithful as a whole?". In fact I think we could use the Calvin's view of the self-attestation of Scripture to support this. What canon did the church eventually receive because of the Spirit's attestation to it? It seems clear to me that this included the deuterocanon.
Secondly, we see the majority of the early Fathers - Didache, 1 Clement, Epistle of Polycarp, 2 Clement, Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, Athenagoras, Ireneaus, the Muratorian Fragment, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Clement, Cyprian and Origen - either formally cite deuterocanonical books as Scripture or quote them right next to quoting protocanonical books, with no distinction. This is strong evidence to me that the deuterocanon was part of the deposit of faith in addition to the point that the deuterocanon was confirmed as Scripture in the fourth century councils.
Thirdly, I think it would have been helpful for you to acknowledge there is debate about what canon lists mean precisely. Athanasius' 39th Festal letter is a good example. He relegates Esther and some of the deuterocanon to the secondary tier. Does this mean he did not view them as sacred scripture, as holy writ? We know this is not what it means because he clearly quotes deuterocanon as Scripture. There is a danger of reading our modern definition of canon as "inspired books" into the canon lists. But at least from the example of Athanasius we know this is not necessarily the case. And I think this is a good way of explaining other lists of people who we know accepted deuterocanon books as Scripture but did not say certain of them were "canonical", such as Origen. So I don't think canonical lists are the most helpful for knowing what books people thought were sacred scripture unless it is said that the books which are not canonical are not Scripture.
These are just some of my initial thoughts, would love to hear what you think.
Thank you for these good comments. I'm going to split up your first paragraph which dealt with a lot of issues. I really recommend looking at my book on the Biblical Canon Lists for your questions because I think there's some misinformation mixed with otherwise good reasoning.
1. Splitting up OT and NT Canons
Perhaps, you will need to clarify your position on this. In the 4th century, Epiphanius of Salamis gives three OT canons without NT canons. Jerome lists OT canon w/out NT canon once. It doesn't appear to be a major problem. Again, in the 2nd century, Melito of Sardis and the Bryennios List contain only OT Books. In the 3rd, Origen gives a NT canon list and he also gives an OT canon list of books of the Jews (see point 3 below).
Thus, I don't see much confusion here. When the majority of lists in the fourth largely mirror the second-century lists more or less (leaving room for questions over Esther, Jeremiah-Baruch), it seems we could simply see a continuity rather than a deep development.
2. The Deuterocanon in the 4th Century
This is where you need to look at the 4th century canon lists more closely. The misinformation out there (and what I thought initially before I really looked deeply at this) is that Jerome was the outlier against all the rest. I could not have been more wrong. Rather the following do not include the Big Six (some include Baruch w/Jeremiah): Melito, Bryennios, Origen (but see below), Cyril of Jerusalem, Laodicea, Athanasius, Amphilochius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Epiphanius of Salamis (3 lists), Apostolic Canons (in some MS traditions but this one is complicated textually at points). Thus, some 12 Greek Canon lists do not include the deuterocanon among the canonical books.
Just so we're clear, I need to quote Athanasius who does list some of them in a middle category (Ep. fest. 39.20), "But for the sake of greater accuracy, I add this, writing from necessity. There are other books, *outside of the preceding, which have not been canonized*, but have been prescribed by the ancestors to be read to those who newly join us and want to be instructed in the word of piety: the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, the book called Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. " Athanasius could not be more clear that these books are outside of the preceding (the canonical books) and are not canonical.
If one adds the Latin OT canon lists of Hilary of Poitiers (he gives two options but only assigns "some" to the list of 24 books including Judith and Tobit; it's not his list), Jerome, and Rufinus it appears that the early lists that exclude the deuterocanon far out number those that include it. I'll come back to some issues regarding this in the last point, but I think you need to reckon with more of the data before claiming, as I've done in the past, that Jerome is the outlier. Actually, he's closer to the mainline than Augustine.
3. Scholarly Debates about Origen's Canon
I'll be brief here. Scholars continue to debate Origen's canon. In the list of books he provides, he only lists the books of the Hebrew canon. Eusebius (from whom we have this list in the first place) believes that this was Origen's canon. Perhaps it was, but Origen says some things elsewhere that should make us pause. I've gone back and forth on this complicated question. At the moment, I think Origen probably thought books like Tobit, Judith, and Wisdom were in the church's canon. But he doesn't ever put in those kind of clear terms, which is why there's good debate over that particular question.
4. "Quotes" from Deuterocanon in Early Fathers
First, my only claim is that the New Testament and SECOND-CENTURY sources (except for the citations of Baruch in Irenaeus who attributes them to Jeremiah) do not cite these books with AS SCRIPTURE SAYS or with AS IT IS WRITTEN or some such. Beginning with Clement of Alexandra at the very end of the 2nd century, that trend begins to change.
The verbal correspondences between deuterocanonical books and unattributed quotations in the Apostolic Fathers are interesting but at the end of the day they neither prove nor disprove canonicity. Citations of books even as scripture is no guide to canonicity. So I'm not sure where this leaves us. Even in parallel citations of a book in the canon and one that's not, the author may only be trying to illustrate from popular writings the same truth found in the canonical book. At the end of the day, we need a canon list from an author to know for certain what books are in or out of his canon.
continued...
5. Debate about what Canon Lists Mean
I'm not sure I follow you here, but I'll try by my best lights. Athanasius calls the canonical books in his list the "Springs of Salvation...Let no one add or substract anything from them." Gregory of Nazianzus says, "Concerning the genuine books of divinely inspired Scripture...You have all.
If there is any outside of these, they are not among the genuine," clearly signaling a closed canon of divinely inspired Scripture. There are more examples which link divine inspiration to canon.
At times, a father like Origen will need to hold a private opinion about the Shepherd of Hermas, which he thought was divinely inspired, but he knew the majority of churches did not. So he might say something like "and the Shepherd says (if one accepts it)." But a canon list usually represents an author's or council's list of authoritative, divinely inspired scriptures.
But a father who gives a list of canonical books might cite books outside of it as scripture. That is, a father's Scriptural corpus spills over the boundaries of his canon. The canon would be a smaller circle of scriptures than the father's overall corpus of scriptures. Remember, the church read more books in church and in private than it confessed as in the canon (see Jerome's Preface to the Solomonic Books which I've cited a few times in other comments). Thus, I think we need to reconceive how the fathers viewed scripture in relation to canon. If they say a book is divinely inspired, it might be a private opinion not consistent with his own canon or the recognized list of books by the majority of churches.
Anyways, this will probably give us some more to chat about.
@@TextandCanonInstitute Thanks for pointing out some more avenues for me to research. I will definitely get your book and learn about the canon lists.
My main difficulty here is that I do not really understand how Athanasius or Origen could think their canon lists contained every single book of Scripture while also formally quoting/saying other books are Scripture in their writings. It seems more natural to me to interpret the category "canon" as not being an exclusive list of Sacred Scripture, at least in some obvious cases. In the case of Athanasius' first and second tier it seems like more of a functional distinction in the case of Athanasius's than an ontological one.
I think we may be approaching this from very different angles because you say "citations of books even as Scripture are no guide to canonicity". How would you define canon then if not those books which are Sacred Scripture? And if you define canon as something different then I would not be as bothered with that definition and instead seek those books which are Sacred Scripture. Am I missing something? Probably this terminological issue is causing confusion.
@@benjaminker2056 Lots of terminological confusion here.
Athanasius is super clear in Ep. fest. 39.19 that his list of canonical books is exclusive "don't add or take away from these." Can we agree on this? Greg. Naz. and Augustine think the same of their lists as do others. The secondary list of books simply shows some of the more important books that were to be read to new converts. My guess is that Athanasius probably had more books in this category but he only listed the more prominent ones.
BUT they cite other books as scriptures or writings. So the canon was exclusive but their concept of scripture was not the same as ours, for it extends beyond the canon. They had useful scriptures which were they read but they did not consider authoritative. That statement is about as fair to THEM as I can be.
They had canonical and useful scriptures. Because of this phenomenon, it's more important to identify and isolate which books they called canonical than it is to catalogue the ones they cite as scripture. I can show you where Athanasius cites the Shepherd of Hermas as Scripture and even quotes it next to Genesis. But his canon list makes clear he didn't consider the book canonical but only as an important book in the middle tier. We must pay attention to patristic biblical theory as we wade through all of the data that presents itself.
It's interesting that in 1566, Sixtus of Siena recognized this. He noted that the churches in the past held these books as edificatory and not canon. Now, after Trent, he coined the term DEUTEROCANON to describe books now in time recognized as fully canonical. These books are not inferior according to Sixtus, but now in time recognized as canon.
@@TextandCanonInstitute Ah okay. So I was assuming their concept of Scripture was the same as ours so their concept of the canon must be different but you are saying their concept of Sacred Scripture did not necessarily mean "God's inspired word"?
Also on the first point about taking the New Testament and Old Testament together, my concern is that different criteria are being used in an ad hoc way. I know you've talked about it but could you please state in a simple way what your criteria would be for identifying the New Testament and what your criteria would be for identifying the Old Testament? And how that fits together? That might help me understand.
The phrase "light from light" in the Nicene Creed makes a lot more sense in the context of Athanasius and his use of the deuterocanon to confirm/define Christological/Trinitarian doctrine: "For she is a reflection of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image of his goodness." Wis 7:26
Confirming/Defining Doctrine:
On the Opinion of Dionysius, 9 & 15: Wis 7:25-26
Defense of the Nicene Definition, 12: Bar 3:12 (among "sacred writers", "the Word chides/says", among "Scripture")
Defense of the Nicene Definition, 20: Wis 7:26 (Michuta: "...against Arians in defense of the Nicene Creed. I don't think you can find a more important, more august example of confirmation of doctrine.")
Defense of the Nicene Definition, 6, 25: Wis 7:25-26
On the Incarnation of the Word, 4, 6; 5, 1-2: Wis 6:18, 2:23-24
"[God the Son] teaches and says"
Against the Heathen 3, 44: Wis 13:5
"words spoken by the Spirit"
Letter to the Egyptian Bishops, 3: Sir 15:9
"Scripture(s)" & "it is written"
Four Discourses Against the Arians 2, 45: Wis 9:2
"Scripture(s)"
On the Opinion of Dionysius, 9: Wis 7:25-26
Against the Heathen 1, 17, 3: Wis 14:21
Defense Against the Arians, 3: Wis 1:11
Four Discourses Against the Arians 2, 32 & 35: Wis 13:5; Judith 8:16
"it is written"
Defense Against Constantius, 17: Tob 4:18
Defense Against the Arians, 11: Tob 12:7
Works by Athanasius listed have the context of controversies and defending the orthodox faith/doctrines, not for instruction of new believers or mere edification or pious example.
Hi Gavin, do you have a video on doctrines from the Deutero canonical books? If those doctrines contradict the Canon it's another argument against those extra 7 books.
This is one of the best cases for the Protestant Old Testament I have ever heard! I would put this up there with Calvin's argument for the self-attestation of scripture for the top 2 reasons to believe the Protestant Canon over the Catholic.
What I struggle with is this: if we are going to take the consensus/lowest common denominator of church history to determine the canon, why wouldn't we then use it to determine other doctrines?
My understanding is that there is a similar if not greater consensus on things like Baptismal Regeneration and the Real Presence among early church writers. It seems to me we ought to apply this principle to help us understand what we should believe today in other areas of doctrine.
I know it's beyond the scope of this interview but it's what makes it hard for me to fully accept the premise of this case for the Protestant Old Testament.
Dr. John and Gavin, if you have something on this (maybe it's in Theological Retrieval, Gavin) I'd be more than willing to try to understand it.
Thanks for both of your great work and charitable presentation!
Hello RC Champagne, I agree this is a really strong case. But I actually think Calvin's attestation criteria favours the deuterocanon as Scripture when applied to the first millennium of Christianity. I mention it in my comment on this video, would be interested to hear what you think.
I think the points you raise about a double standard for canon versus other doctrines is valid but I will leave that for Dr. Ortlund or Dr. Meade, who I am sure have a good reply.
@@benjaminker2056 Thanks for the reply!
I think Calvin's attestation position is one of the best out there because I don't see how it can be "proven" wrong.
The issue with it for me is that it seems to land one on the "no true Scotsman" fallacy (if you disagree with my canon then you're not a real Christian with the Holy Spirit in you). So I think Calvin's criteria can be used equally well for both sides because there is evidence in church history for both canons. I'm no expert on Calvin though so I'd be happy to hear more on why you think it gets you the Catholic Canon, especially since Calvin thought the opposite.
As to your comment on the video itself - I'm 50/50 on whether considering a Father's NT and OT canon together is important. Personally, I think they should be considered together but I think Dr. Meade alludes to why it shouldn't matter - because no one is disagreeing on it right now. I think that's a fair point too.
I think your point about reading our own definition of "inspired books" into ancient canon lists is well taken and I'd agree. However, I don't know enough of what the Fathers said specifically about what these books "mean" when they are in the list. I'd assume they don't make it clear enough since we're still discussing it :D.
@@r.c.champagne5891 Thanks for the great reply. I think there are two versions of the self-attestation principle. There is one version I reject, which is the one you are speaking about, which is highly individualistic, unfalsifiable and falls under the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. But as I understand it, Calvin and no Reformed theologian after him have said that the Holy Spirit just tells the believer what the canon is. So I think a more accurate version would be to say that we still need specific criteria for identifying the canon, but then the Holy Spirit merely confirms this subjectively. And on this weaker view, the subjective experience is defeasible, so it is possible that you find a more consistent and accurate set of criteria which leads you to believe there are a few more or less books (the deuterocanon question). And I think all Christians could accept this second, weaker version of self-attestation. We all agree the Holy Spirit confirms the canon to the church but we can still have conversations about criteria and be corrected by these criteria. I would like to think Calvin takes this latter view, and at least John Frame interprets him in this way. This also gets to what Dr. Ortlund often says about current evangelicalism versus classical Protestant theology. The more individualistic version of this is widespread in practice today but perhaps not the one that the Reformed tradition has affirmed. But Dr. Ortlund or someone else in the comments will have more information on this than me
But if we are going to use the weaker principle and say that generally the Holy Spirit attests Scripture to the church, I think this supports the deuterocanon because we see the deuterocanon quoted as Scripture or quoted right next to the protocanon without distinction by really most church fathers up to the fourth century, where it is accepted at the regional councils. The only dissenters as far as I know are Julianus Africanus and Jerome, and the argument used against them was that the deuterocanon was accepted everywhere as Scripture. So if we ask what canon the Spirit attested to the early church, we would say it included the deuterocanon. And then we can also use other criteria like the fact that the deuterocanon was viewed as part of the deposit of faith from the apostles. And when we get after the fourth century, as far as I have studied basically all the people in the West like Cajetan who cast doubt on the deuterocanon are explicitly drawing on Jerome, his prefaces in the Vulgate, and his Hebrew Verity principle. So if we say Jerome is wrong in the fourth century since he is going against the mind of the church, then we can also exclude the people up to the time of the Reformation who are merely repeating his view. Additionally, if we use Jerome's own standard of Hebrew Truth we should include most of the deuterocanon in the canon, because we now know they were originally written in Hebrew. But it just seems very odd for me to think that we should take Jerome's view over the canon the whole church accepted. So I agree an individualistic version of self-attestation does not make sense, and my version is primarily an ecclesial/corporate focus. This means the individual attestation of the Spirit just confirms what the Spirit has attested to the church as a whole. This may not be quite what Calvin meant but as far as I can tell this is the most coherent version of the self-attestation principle
Sorry for talking so much but I just have one more comment. I think why it is so important to consider both New and Old Testament together is because our knowledge of the canon only exists in a certain Christian paradigm. Catholics have certain criteria, Protestants have others etc. Dr. Ortlund's recent video on New and Old Atheists provides a good illustration. Sam Harris might say to a Christian - I agree with all your morality except certain things like homosexuality. However this does not give him a free pass on those things we agree on - he has to show how his moral system is consistent and follows from his worldview. Christians have a basis for objective morality whereas we would say atheists don't. It is the same with canon - Protestants cannot just assume we know what the New Testament is because everyone agrees. We still have to show what our criteria are for arriving at this canon within sola scriptura. And if we cannot, then perhaps we need a new paradigm. And it seems like special pleading to me to say, "Let us just accept the New Testament the church eventually came to accept and which is very clear in the fourth century" but not use that same principle for the Old Testament, and instead say, "Let us go with some lists in the murky second century, one of which (Bryennios) may be from a much later date and the other of which (Melito) does not have Esther and probably includes deuterocanonical book Wisdom". That seems like inconsistent criteria to me. I think we should actually use the principle Protestants use for the New Testament, but use it consistently. Thus we can say that after the very murky and confusing second and third century the church comes to clarity on the Christian canon in regional councils of the fourth century, which is the canon accepted by East and West until the Reformation (except for those who followed Jerome). This clear fourth-century canon is the one we should accept. In my view, this is just using the Protestant New Testament criteria and extending it to the Old Testament.
God bless you brother and I hope this is intelligible.
The idea of canon is tricky. While it's important to have a defined boundary of books that have been proved by the progression of Christian history to be "Holy Scripture" (for lack of a better term), I think it can also be dangerous to ignore (or even worse, denigrate) other edifying Christian works. If Sirach speaks to truths found in "canon", then despite it not being within the lines that were drawn, it can still be edifying for the reader.
As Reformed Christians we are okay reading theologians in our Christian walk, even though they are not Biblical canon. I think it's therefore also important to not disregard those works that Christians have been reading and have found value in since the first centuries after Christ. There were mixed feelings amongst the Church Fathers on whether certain books should be read in Church, but much agreement on books that are still valuable for Christians.
I'm partial to the Anglican interpretation of this (although I am not Anglican). Most Anglicans have the deuterocanonical books in their Bibles, but in a separate section from the Old and New Testaments. I don't believe those books come up in the Church readings, but they are in the Daily Office readings.
I got this from William Albrecht, also Gary Michuta is the go to man on this subject.
Contra Rufinus:
I also told the reader that the version read in the Christian churches was not that of the Septuagint translators but that of Theodotion. It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact, but that of those who read the version. We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. I did not reply to their opinion in the Preface, because I was studying brevity, and feared that I should seem to he writing not a Preface but a book. I said therefore, “As to which this is not the time to enter into discussion.” […] Still, I wonder that a man should read the version of Theodotion the heretic and judaizer, and should scorn that of a Christian, simple and sinful though he may be.
Emphasis on his “following the judgement of the Churches”
Also:
"..for does not the Scripture say: Burden not yourself above your power? Sirach 13:2 "
Great question. I don’t believe we broached this issue in the interview because I don’t think Jerome and Rufinus disagreed on the canon but only on the matter of textual form, Rufinus arguing for the LXX while Jerome argued for the Hebrew (see p. 221 in Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity). In fact, those two agreed not only on the canon but also on the ecclesiastical books. But they disagreed on whether the LXX or the Hebrew textual form was correct, and this disagreement become acute over a book like Daniel.
Apology against Rufinus II.33 doesn’t appear to say Jerome will defer to the church’s decision on this matter but that he agrees with the church's decision on the matter of rejecting the Septuagint text form of Daniel. More context to the Prologus Galeatus might help here. This is the list where he lays out the Hebrew Canon. Jerome probably wrote this Prologue around 393 in response to the Synod of Hippo's canon list which included the deuterocanonical books. This is probably what explains why Jerome calls the deuterocanonicals “apocrypha” there. It’s the only place where those specific books are called apocrypha, and in Jerome’s other writings, he never refers to them as such. His Epistles 53 (395 AD) and 107 (405 AD) clearly after Hippo (and Carthage in 397 AD) do not conform to the conciliar list. Thus, Jerome doesn't work within the church's judgment on this question, it seems to me. So whatever Jerome says in the Apology Against Rufinus (402 AD) about the judgment of the church, he doesn’t appear to think his canon is outside of their decision or he’s not really interested in the judgment of the church on this question. Just some more fodder to ponder on this particular question.
Furthermore, when later theologians and scholars cite Jerome, they no where interpret Jerome as out of line with an official decree of the church on this question. They think he epitomized the early church’s views. They continued to try and read Augustine according to Jerome, that is, to read Jerome’s distinction between books into Augustine’s treatment of the matter. That’s how convinced they were that Jerome had best expressed the earliest church’s perspective. No one in history criticizes him for his canon, it seems to me.
Yes, Jerome sometimes cited the deuterocanonical books as "scripture." He thought these books were useful for edification of the churches (see his Prologue to the Solomonic Books on this point). But he's very clear that even though they have an edificatory value for Christians, they were not used to establish points of the faith or doctrine. "Scripture" in early Christianity describes both useful and canonical books. Make sense?
@@TextandCanonInstitute Yet, Jerome submitted to the Church authority and confirmed these books as Holy Scripture. To deny Wisdom 2 and Matthew 27 as not being fulfillments and direct quotes together, takes way too much effort to deny! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
A.D. 367 Oldest Complete List of the Biblical Canon: 39th Epistle of St. Athanasius of Alexandria. Also happens to be the exact Biblical Canon of the Catholic Church.
It wasn’t. The Shepperd of Hemas and the Didache ? No Maccabes ?
Dr. Ortlund. I just finished pt. 1 of your Sola Scriptura discussion with Jimmy Akin. You mentioned Jimmy’s “The Bible Is A Catholic Book”. Have you ever looked into Jimmy’s argument for why he believed that Jerome deferred to “the church” in accepting the Deuterocanonical portions of Daniel? It’s found in Chapter 4.
Jimmy Akin:
Nevertheless, Jerome shows deference to the judgment of the Church. In the prologue to Judith, he tells his patrons that “because this book is found by the Nicene Council [of A.D. 325] to have been counted among the number of the sacred scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request (or should I say demand!)” to translate it. This is interesting because we have only partial records of First Nicaea, and we don’t otherwise know what this ecumenical council said concerning the canon. Jerome’s deference to the Church is also illustrated by his defense of the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel. He wrote: “What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches?”54 In the same place, he stated that what he said concerning Daniel in his prologues was what non-Christian Jews said but that it was not his own view. This may indicate that Jerome changed his mind or that his reporting of Jewish views doesn’t indicate his own opinion. Jerome’s deference to the Church is correct. The guidance of the Holy Spirit is given to the Church as a whole. No one Father, however prominent, can settle the canon of Scripture, and on this subject Jerome was in the minority. Despite his ambiguous attitude toward the deuterocanonicals, Jerome did perform an extremely valuable service for the Church.
21:38 Jerome’s view.
Short answer? The Old Testament Canon mentioned in Luke 24:27, Moses, the prophets and the writings. The Thorah, the Nebi'im and the Ketubim.
What a great episode. As a 30 something year old brought up in a Baptistic tradition, until a few months ago I thought reading from the longer Canon would make me lose my faith :-(
But I've always loved big heavy bibles. Now I can have one even bigger and heavier :-)
glad you enjoyed it!
@@TruthUnites Gary Michuta is THE authority on this topic of the canon. Watch his dissection/rebuttal of this interview of Meade by Ortlund: czcams.com/video/VAGWJDutE9Q/video.html
@@tonyl3762 I have watched this. I also debated Gary Michuta on the canon in 2020. Some of his arguments are a bit misleading, and he makes a lot of assumptions in his books, such as the NT citing books from the Deuterocanon AS SCRIPTURE, when in reality, they are citing EARLIER books from the Hebrew Bible, which I brought up in our debate. I will be interviewing Jonathan Sheffield soon on the canon & his recent debate against Trent Horn recently on my channel.
@@BornAgainRN "citing EARLIER books from the Hebrew Bible, which I brought up in our debate"
Would you be willing to list examples here? Otherwise, I'll have to go back and listen to your debate with him to find your claims.
"makes a lot of assumptions"
Any other assumptions you'd like to point out?
"Some of his arguments are a bit misleading"
I'm open to hearing any examples.
I really appreciate the genuine truth-seeking tone and conversation in this video, though I'm somewhat puzzled by Dr. Meade's conclusion at the end. The core of my puzzlement is basing one's decision on this matter by sourcing isolated church fathers, rather than the consensus of episkopoi (overseers/bishops) in councils. I understand the desire to reach back to the most ancient precedent, but only two isolated churchmen from the 2nd century were mentioned. Clearly, there were many, many more episkopoi and presbyeroi (elders/priests) at that time, that we haven't heard from. Likewise, Augustine and Jerome are cited, pointing out the differences between them, but, again, though weighty church fathers, they are only two sources of the many possible. Does it make more sense to make a decision on a few isolated sources than church leaders in councils?
I really appreciated, too, pointing out the synods of Hippo, Carthage, and Laodicea, and Laodicea's opposition to the other synods. However, that seems to point to the need to make our decision not upon isolated church fathers, or synods, but larger councils of episkopoi and presbyteroi, such as Florence and Trent that go with a 46 book Old Testament canon, rather than a 39 book one.
Historically, the Church has not based her important decisions upon the teachings of isolated church fathers or synods, but upon many counselors in councils. That seems to make more sense. Again, thank you for this excellent video.
Alrighty, a few comments. Overall, this was much much better than the previous fellow - of whom I can only say; he mislead your audience.
Jerome:
As for this interview, let's begin at 22 minutes: I said earlier that if he cites Jerome without mentioning the letter to Rufinus, then he hasn't accurately represented Jerome's view on the canon. And alas, he neglected this very important part of Jerome's thought. While Jerome may held the personal opinion that the Hebrew text was the true canonical text, he later expressed that his opinion was subordinate to the Church. In book two of his letter to Rufinus, he defended the use of the non-Hebrew portions of Daniel on the basis that it was in use by the Church.
Mr. Meade relies heavily upon the Jerome vs Augustine framework in this discussion, returning to it again in his summary at 48 minutes. Again, if one wishes to fully explicate Jerome's mind, this detail is essential. Leaving it out gives one the idea that Jerome's opinions on the Hebrew canon were set in stone, but they weren't. Jerome's true opinion was that one was be willing to give way to the ecclesiastical authorities.
Biblical Allusions:
Now let's talk allusions and citations. First, he is rightly circumspect about the "no citations" argument, noting that Joshua isn't cited either. What I think needs to be made more clear is that it isn't just Joshua which lacks a citation. It is Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Chronicals, Ezra, Nehemia, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Lamentations, Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah. In light of this, the "no citations" argument is one which Protestants need to stop bringing up. Mr. Meade (as I noted) was rightly cautious about it, but seemed to still want to attribute some kind of importance to the argument. Citations are sufficient to establish canonicity. But the lack thereof proves absolutely nothing.
That said, I think he underestimates what we can know about the sacred authors' mind by way of allusions. You have to take a case by case basis. One could say of the 2Maccabees7:1-9 allusion in Hebrews that the author was only thinking of it as a historical resources. That's feasible. However, there are other allusions by which the author seems to be attributing to it some doctrinal weight.
For instance, the reference between Hebrews 1:1-4 and Wisdom 7:18-27, wherein the author flat-out lifts the description of divine wisdom and applies it to Christ. Or in Romans 1:18-23, where Paul lifts and summarizes Wisdom 13:1-9 regarding the spiritual condition of the Gentiles. Or, the most striking one, the allusion to Wisdom 2:12-20 which is made in Matthew 27:38-43. An allusion which is clearly using the text as a messianic prophecy(!).
And it was recognized by ancient authors as a messianic prophecy. The epistle of Barnabas contains a quote from the Wisdom prophecy [see 6:8]. [www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/barnabas-lightfoot.html] That reference was the one which convinced my neighbor, who is a Baptist pastor. He couldn't abide treating Wisdom as non-Canonical when it contains one of the explicit Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament.
Other century citations: At 34 minutes he brings up the witness of Clement's letter to the Corinthians. True, Clement may have been referring to Judith only by way of historical reference. However, Mr. Meade missed the reference to Wisdom 12:12 found in chapter 27. And in that section, the allusion follows the pattern of the way early Church fathers commonly quoted Scripture by memory. So that wasn't the only allusion.
A similar thing is done in the letter of Polycarp, as he uses Tobit 4:10 when talking about what almsgiving. So I think there's more to the early witness on these matters than he estimates.
One last thing to bring up here: In my studying of the matter, I was not able to find any Christian source which rejected Baruch. Laodecia had it. Cyril of Jerusalem had it. Athanasius had it. Rome, Hippo, Carthage, and Augustine had it. Mr. Meade seems to write off the acceptance of Baruch as a kind of mistake, because it was lumped in with Jeremiah. OK, but that doesn't mean said Christians were wrong. I would present this as a challenge to Mr. Meade: When it comes to Baruch, is there a better tradition for Christians accepting it or rejecting it? Because I think the rejection of Baruch was a 16th century innovation.
Laodicea:
At 53 minutes: He cites the synod of Laodicea and says there are no Deuterocanonical books in it. This does not appear to be true, as one finds Baruch in Canon 60. This goes a bit outside my area of expertise regarding canon law. But my understanding of this synod's importance in the long run is simply that it took place in 363AD, and subsequent councils decided to include the other Deuterocanonicals. And that tradition is ultimately what won the day (under the providence of the Holy Spirit)
Overall: A far superior interview to the previous one on the subject. He acknowledged that there are Deuterocanonical allusions in the New Testament. He didn't assert that these books were adopted at the Council of Trent. Didn't rely on the assertion that the Jews at the time of Jesus were united under a single, codified canon. The biggest miss is on Jerome's willingness to submit to ecclesial authorities on the canon.
But this gets me to big meta-level question: Say you have both canonical traditions in play. Whose job is it to decide which one is correct? Is this something which each Christian is supposed to discern for himself? If not, what is the mechanism for sorting it out? This is where Jerome's witness because vital, because following his answer is precisely what leads one to adopt the Deuterocanon.
Thanks for the characteristically thoughtful comment! I believe Dr. Meade has responded to the issue of Jerome's "submission to the churches" in another comment somewhere; perhaps he will comment on it here as well.
Acts, Excellent points!
Thanks for this very thoughtful comment. I'll try my best in this mode to answer.
1. My understanding of Apology against Rufinus II.33
Great question. I don’t believe we broached this issue in the interview because I don’t think Jerome and Rufinus disagreed on the canon but only on the matter of textual form, Rufinus arguing for the LXX while Jerome argued for the Hebrew (see p. 221 in Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity). In fact, those two agreed not only on the canon but also on the ecclesiastical books. But they disagreed on whether the LXX or the Hebrew textual form was correct, and this disagreement became acute over a book like Daniel.
Apology against Rufinus II.33 doesn’t appear to say Jerome will defer to the church’s decision on this matter but that he agrees with the church's decision on the matter of rejecting the Septuagint text form of Daniel. More context to the Prologus Galeatus might help here. This is the list where he lays out the Hebrew Canon. Jerome probably wrote this Prologue around 393 in response to the Synod of Hippo's canon list which included the deuterocanonical books. This is probably what explains why Jerome calls the deuterocanonicals “apocrypha” there. It’s the only place where those specific books are called apocrypha, and in Jerome’s other writings, he never refers to them as such. His Epistles 53 (395 AD) and 107 (405 AD) clearly after Hippo (and Carthage in 397 AD) do not conform to the conciliar list. Thus, Jerome doesn't work within the church's judgment on this question, it seems to me. So whatever Jerome says in the Apology Against Rufinus (402 AD) about the judgment of the church, he doesn’t appear to think his canon is outside of their decision or he’s not really interested in the judgment of the church on this question. Just some more fodder to ponder on this particular question.
Furthermore, when later theologians and scholars cite Jerome, they no where interpret Jerome as out of line with an official decree of the church on this question. They think he epitomized the early church’s views. They continued to try and read Augustine according to Jerome, that is, to read Jerome’s distinction between books into Augustine’s treatment of the matter. That’s how convinced they were that Jerome had best expressed the earliest church’s perspective. No one in history criticizes him for his canon, it seems to me.
2. Biblical Allusions
Yes, I wasn't trying to hide that those other books weren't cited either but you're also inflating the numbers. Jews had a canon of 22 books, and they included Ruth with Judges, the 12 Minor Prophets were one book, Lamentations with Jeremiah. So it's not fair to count those out individually to try and make the list longer than it is. But your point is well taken and I didn't try to hide that fact. Citations aren't enough to establish canonicity, only scriptural status. Furthermore, lack of citation on its own isn't necessarily enough to show the book wasn't canonical (e.g. 2-3 John aren't cited for a very long time in the record). I'm happy to say that allusions show a later author's awareness of an earlier book but nothing more than that. At this point, allusions are going to work in the eye of the beholder and that's why other kinds of evidence are needed to adjudicate.
The NT authors nor Barnabas mention Wisdom by name nor quote it as scripture. Why do they cite the core Hebrew canonical books as scripture but not Wisdom or the others? I mentioned 1 Clement 55's reference to Judith because that's the only mention of one of these books by name that I know of. Polycarp doesn't mention a title or cite them as scripture. That's still important on my view. The value of allusions is going to be appraised by the viewpoint. I've seen this not only in apologetics but in the work of scholars on this question. Paul's supposed use of Wisdom in Romans could simply be a known trope. We need to expand the circle of evidence from this period to show that Philo, the Dead Sea Scrolls, nor Josephus cites these books as scripture and the latter clearly narrowed the canon to only 22 books which didn't include any of these books.
3. Baruch
The canon lists (including Laodicea) you mention include Baruch *with* Jeremiah. Irenaeus quotes Baruch 3 attributing it to Jeremiah a couple of times. Even by the time of Augustine in City of God 18.33, "Some attribute this testimony not to Jeremiah, but to his secretary, who was called Baruch; but it is more commonly ascribed to Jeremiah." In actuality, the quote is from Baruch 3, but Augustine is still unclear on the answer to this question. The first time Baruch is separated from Jeremiah in a canon list is the list of Nicephorus I (ca. 850), on my understanding. It's not clear exactly when Baruch was "rejected" nor even what that means. Jerome obelized the book. Origen's Hexapla/Tetrapla obelized the book. They both did so because it was not in the Hebrew. So there was early precedent to what 16th century authors did. Again, when Cardinal Ximénes put the Complutensian Polyglot together, it clearly had no Hebrew text, and therefore, it was neither attributed to the Septuagint or in the Church's canon. Baruch had a strong life attached to Jeremiah but after it was shown not to be part of it, dispute arose over it. Once dispute arose over the book, its status was questioned.
4. Meta-Level Question
The canon was never decided by early council. The Protestants were concerned to establish authoritative church doctrine on books without dispute. All through, the record shows that individuals held personal opinions on certain books distinct from what they acknowledged to be the canon of the church. Before Trent, scholars and fathers on this question began to answer the question differently. Many answered the question according to the historical sources which showed a core of indisputable books with some books (edificatory ones) at the fuzzy edges. Others began to appeal to a limited number of councils and popes on the question and removed the ancient distinction between those books as Carthage had done. Since Jerome doesn't say or move like you think he did, it seems the Hebrew canon criterion was thought to trump the ecclesiastical criterion for the canon in his mind and most early fathers' minds on this question.
Thus, as a Protestant, I say the majority and most ancient canon should be what's adopted today. That in combination with intrinsic arguments for a book's inspiration (what makes this book different from that book) lead to the canon we have. Thanks for your engagement. I'm sure we're gonna disagree on many points but hopefully we don't disagree on the facts themselves.
@@TextandCanonInstitute yet, the fact is Jerome submitted to the Church authority and translated these 7 books as well, and not by force did Jerome do so!
To deny Wisdom 2 and Matthew 27 being complete parallels, takes way too much work, as well as Hebrews 11 and 2 Maccabees 7, and Sirach 3 and Luke 11. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
@@matthewbroderick8756 Thanks again. Unless you read an author carefully or closely, it will be difficult to see the point. Here's Jerome on these books in his own words:
"Therefore, just as the Church also reads the books of Judith, Tobias, and the Maccabees, but does not receive them among the the canonical Scriptures, so also one may read these two scrolls [Wisdom and Sirach] for the strengthening of the people, (but) not for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas" (Prologue to the Solomonic Books).
This was the preface before the translation of these books. But since Jerome believed these books were edificatory scripture, why wouldn't he translate them? A later example is from the Reformers themselves. Luther translated the Apocrypha into German but left a clear preface: Apocrypha: Though not equal to Scripture, nevertheless they are good and useful to read. The mere inclusion or even translation of these books does not mean an author or translator thought they were canonical. Make sense?
The argument from allusions is tired. I don't think we're gonna get anywhere. If the allusions were strong evidence for *canonicity* why do early Christians no indicate so in their early canon lists? Thanks.
Also, two more important points seemed to be missed:
1. If we go with whatever is the "oldest" tradition to decide our canon, then for the NT we'd be leaving out some books! A number of them weren't settled for centuries, meaning lists prior to this didn't include them. So if we use that argument, we need to be consistent here as well.
2. It ignores the influence of the holy spirit. We (Orthodox Christians) trust that ultimately the Holy Spirit guides the Church to all Truth. So it's perfectly fine for what is read in church and considered authoritative to have been decided somewhat later (as with the NT canon). This isn't a scandal, but rather showing the process working as intended.
Although it's true RC at Trent pulled their Canon from early 4th century lists I think the point is that their official pronouncement as to their Canon came at Trent 16th century(quite late considering they love to say Protestantism is not old and "to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant").
Thanks, Adam. You might be right, but again, the fathers at Trent were committed to approving Florence's prior list of books. They viewed that as binding on some level. But there was a lot of debate over the anathema and whether the distinction between books was going to be included or not. So the list was thought to be formal but other elements still required further debate. I hope this interview showed that the Protestant view is absolutely deep in history :).
Thank you...very impressed by your scholarship and excellent presentation.
Actually, the Catholic Church declared a list of inspired books at the Council of Florence. Admittedly it was late in the process. However, between between the Council of Rome in 382 and Luther, there seems to be little conflict over which books are canonical. All churches which trace their existence before Luther, with the possible exception of the Ethiopian Orthodox accept the deuterocanonical books in their canon.
@@charleskramer8995 Remember, Luther's German translation of the bible included the deuterocanonical books. He simply didn't regard them as equal to the other writings.
Trent is a reaffirmation of the canon because of the protestant reformation. Council of rome was the first council to canonized the Bible same list witj council of trent.
23:30. Nineteen canon lists from 100 to 850 AD (Timestamping this for later). 😊
A couple questions if Dr Ortlund or Dr Meade have time....
Did the Council of Hippo then affirm that those books were completely canon or not? Online sources say yes, but Dr Meade said they are still then considered lesser in a say? So was Council of Florence when they affirmed them as Canon, and then Trent affirms this?
Secondly, why did the Synod include Baruch, yet also remove Revelation from the NT?
Good information. This elicits important questions: who is the Church, the one Body of Christ? how does She affirm definitively by the power of Jesus what the canon is?
Depends on how you define “one”. The Christianity worships one God in three persons. It is a wonderful divine mystery. I believe the church is similar in that the word “one” is not to be confined to numerical “one”, but mystical “one” because it was purchased by Christ with his blood. The church is the body of divine and human nature Jesus Christ. By grace, the body received a divine gift that we did not merit because of what Christ has done. Protestants call this the “invisible” church.
While the truth of canon is important for the church, so the research must continue, the dispute between Protestants, RC, EO, and OC are not about which canon is the true one, but on interpretations of books that we all agree should be on the canon list. God chose not to preserve his book by transmuting into an indestructible golden book, but through the Holy Spirit that moves his people to treasure his book. In the end, we are people of faith. We believe that God by his divine providence preserved his word, so all sides can treasure their bibles through that trust.
@@thomasc9036 Thanks for responding. I take the “one” to be the “one body” who has “one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” Or as the Creed says, “one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.” This is the Church that binds/loosens, practices discipline, defines dogmas, and proclaims the Gospel in every century. As one looks at these various canon lists, councils, and church fathers who wrote about the Bible, one thing is certain: these writers were not Protestant but had received the Deposit of Faith and were connected organically to the Apostles through doctrine and authority from Jesus.
@@lhinton281 These terms "Protestants", "Roman Catholic, "Eastern Orthodox" aren't something that the Apostles knew. They wouldn’t even recognize the word “trinity” if we did not explain in detail of the concept, so not sure what your point is.
If we go down this rabbit hole, we need to ask what do "catholic" and "apostolic" mean just like what does “one” mean. We all agree that "Catholic" doesn't mean single gathering, city, nation, or language group because the Nicene Creed was written by many bishops from all over. Even Semi-Arians were part of "one catholic" church. What does Apostolic mean? All Apostles are dead, so does the Apostolic authority transmute from person to person or from their teachings, or from both? There were heretics from all three branches even at the top like Popes and Patriarchs, so can we trust these Christian leaders with the souls of our families? Frankly, isn’t this why we have three branches?
This is so beyond the scope of the original discussion of the old testament canon, I find continuation to be unfruitful especially on CZcams.
@@thomasc9036 Can you name these alleged Popes that taught heresey? Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
@@matthewbroderick8756 He might be thinking of Vigilius and Honorius. Or some of Francis’ comments in some places. This is where personal association with a heresy/questionable comments is different that defining and binding the entire Church ex cathedra. The latter is protected by the Spirit. Unfortunately, only about a third of the popes are considered Saints. I brought up the idea of Church/authority because knowing who has the authority of Christ and ability to define dogma is crucial to the discussion of canon.
Very good point that RC in early 16th century before trent Cajutan and Jiminez held to Protestant Canon that Jerome held.
Adam, no, the Catholic Church did not hold to the old testament Protestant Canon ever. The first edition of the King James Bible included these 7 books later removed by Protestants. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
@@matthewbroderick8756 the standard learned view in the West from any source I’ve seen, including what was presented in the Glossa Ordinaria and the Ximenez’s Bible, was the same as a Luther’s view. Pope Leo X gave that Bible his stamp of approval btw.
@@aGoyforJesus The Catholic editions of Holy Scripture, which provided over 13 translations of High and low German, for the laity to have access to, way before Martin Luther was even born, included those seven Deuterocanonical books later removed by Protestants. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
@gaetan villeneuveagain, Jesus Christ and His Apostles quoted from the Seven Deuterocanonical books, later removed by Protestants. The first edition of the King James Bible included these 7 books as well, as had been the norm of the Church. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
@gaetan villeneuve Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, built His Church on Peter the rock, way before the new testament was even written and before the later development of the orthodox church. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
Dr. Ortlund, I think you need to just go ahead and accept that you are going to be the official unofficial Protestant legate to the Council of Gentlemanly Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox Dialogers.
Ha! Does this mean people will start spelling my name correctly?
@@TruthUnites Hah! Btw, I was working out with my Catholic gym partner this morning. We joked that we have to solve the Canon issue now so that we know which Bible version to use for the Bible study when we're in jail together for violating the culture's new Woke orthodoxy.
@@DrBob-gr5ru maybe this is how schisms will be finally healed....
I think it good that you point the grey areas of canon, but Jude citing of the Book of Enoch, quoting it, and acceptance of Enoch as writer gets hard for everyone outside the Ethiopian Church. It doesn't have to be in the canon to be a type of authority. It predicted it's own disappearance, but it is authority enough to dismiss the "Sethian myth" interpretation of Gen. 6:4. Writing seems to be a post-Flood creation...but since Enoch didn't die, he could have returned to give his book in a later era.
Can some one spell the names for those two earliest canon lists he mentions at the 49:17 minute mark
So many times Protestant pastors taught that the Council of Trent added deuterocanonical. I didn't know it was false till a year ago myself. I taught my kids that, so I need to repent of lies and set the record straight.
I hear you Thomas! I've needed to be more careful about this as well.
@@TruthUnites This discussion was so good, I have to buy his book now. So many things to read.
@@thomasc9036 awesome! It is super good
Just bought it. There goes my project...need to read it!!!
@@TruthUnites Gary Michuta is THE authority on this topic of the canon. Watch his dissection/rebuttal of this interview of Meade by Ortlund: czcams.com/video/VAGWJDutE9Q/video.html
I have watched the debate on the Deuterocanon between James White and Gary Michuta. I then watched Trent Horn rebutting Allen Parr's video on this subject. I will now finally watch this video and then put this matter to rest, unless any further new points come up :-D
What's your current view?
@@TextandCanonInstitute 1. I stand with Athanasius.
2. Because of 1 above 👆I really don't think there was a good reason to completely eliminate them from the protestant Bible. They should have been left right there in between as intertestamental books, for our education /edification. Just not for doctrine.
3. The catholic church shouldn't have made it anathema to not believe in their inspiration, seeing as there's no 100% concession amongst the early church fathers. The books were put into question at an early time and debated over and over.
@@msmutola682 Ah, makes sense to me. Thanks.
@@msmutola682 I like how much you respect the early Church. There are a few points though, that I think John Meade overlooked in this discussion. I left a comment on this video. Since it seems like you have interest in the topic, let me know what you think about my comment!
@@msmutola682They were removed from Protestant Bibles in the 1800s by Bible publishers in order to save on ink.
At 18:40, he mentions the two major criteria being whether the Jews accepted the books, and whether Christian churches accepted the books.
Can I use this approach with other doctrines in the early Church? The role of baptism, the Eucharist, ecclesiology, liturgy, prayers, etc?
Really bad take IMO. The scriptures which the Jews were judged by are to be regarded as scripture. Not additions and books that existed during the time but were not regarded by God himself (Christ) as scripture.
Great point Ryan Pope.
I don't think so. Them accepting the books provides evidence that those books are authentic and reliable (ie the truth in those books)
(Some) Doctrines are derived or interpreted from those books, and we can differ from those interpretations
@@sathviksidd By “them” you mean the Pharisees? And not the other sects?
Following the argument we should take the Pharisees’ other beliefs as well right? Circumcision?
@@ryanpope7891 no, the early church and Jews in general
You should look up the discussion I had with Steve Christie after his debate with Trent Horn on this topic.
link?
@@TruthUnites oh hey, I'm going to provide a link below. If you don't see it that's because CZcams usually automatically filters out comments with links
czcams.com/video/Z2kVhBs7btM/video.html
If you don't see it the "watch" parameter is Z2kVhBs7btM.
I also recommend some of the videos mentioned in the description. I did a fair amount of work recently on the pertinence of the "Abel to Zechariah" passage on this topic. It should be in the description and I have a playlist for that as well.
@@TruthUnites Gary Michuta is THE authority on this topic of the canon. Watch his dissection/rebuttal of this interview of Meade by Ortlund: czcams.com/video/VAGWJDutE9Q/video.html
I have been trying to find out exactly how many lost books there are that were not canonized.....so far I have found there are more than Two hundred and fifty.....
Books from A.D or B.C?
And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; 39 Articles of Religion
I think the disagreements probably boils down to like any other disagreements. People want to be right rather than bring peace to one another. I think what is important is people get a full scope of the big picture to come into the knowledge of the truth. I mean think of it like this, how many people who have success in their life can become bitter if all of that was stripped away from them? How many people do you think could have a life like Job? Probably not many without just letting it get to the best of them. People think it matters which church you go to, the kind of life you live, or whether you are rich or poor. When what should matter is we lay ourselves to God. If we know who God is, that no matter what state we are in that we cannot be separated from God. This is sort of why I get annoyed with the denominational stuff at times. Because it sort of misses the forest for the trees. I would admit the church does not help in this fact, but at the same time I think we all just forget that God is greater than any right or wrong we do. There is not enough room to be 100% correct in this life. Which is what many forget. Forgetting that whether we are successful or a failure that is God is greater than that.
According to the Bible taking out or putting in things into the word of God would be heretical, so either protestants are or catholics and orthodox so you tell me..
I thought the canon of scripture was nothing more than the list of Scriptures that each church read during the liturgy, not necessarily the total of scripture?
i want to learn more about those "secret" books but i'm worried about getting some weird theology from them
The crystallising event in determining the Canon of the Bible is its mass-production as a codex on long-lasting paper or vellum. That favours the 73 book Gutenberg Bible of the 1450s. We still have some 21 complete bibles.
We can come back 100 years from now and they will still be arguing this issue.
And whether the Earth is round or flat. I guess the answer is impossible to know.
The Masoretic text came later. The Septuagint predates the Masoretic text and was used as Scripture by the Christian believers in the early church. The Deuterocanical books are part of the Septuagint, so they are part of Scripture. The Orthodox Cannon was established in Nicea and includes the Deuterocanonical books. Protestants are in error because they use the Masoretic text as a basis for Cannon. The text of the Greek Old Testament is quoted more often than the original Hebrew Bible text in the Greek New Testament (particularly by Paul in his letters and the early Church Father's.)
Again, Melito of Sardis, Cyril of Jerusalem, the Laodicean Synod, Athanasius, Nazianzen and many others disagree with the canonicity of the Deuterocanon.
Also, you your Nicea claim is a myth. Read the First Council of Nicæa (A.D. 325) on the newadvent site. You'll find no list of books.
The Catholic Church had defined the list of the canon at the Council of Florence in 1442.
Unum atque eundem Deum veteris ac novi testamenti hoc est legis et prophetarum atque evangelii profitetur auctorem, quoniam eodem Spiritu sancto inspirante utriusque testamenti sancti locuti sunt, quorum libros suscipit et veneratur qui titulis sequentibus continentur. Quinque Moysi id est Genesi, Exodo, Levitico, Numeris, Deuteronomio; Iosue, Iudicum, Ruth, Quatuor Regum, Duobus Paralipomenon, Esdra, Neemia, Tobia, Iudith, Hester, Iob, Psalmis, David, Parabolis, Ecclesiaste, Canticis Canticorum, Sapientia, Ecclesiastico, Isaya, Ieremia, Baruch, Ezechiele, Daniele, Duodecim Prophetis Minoribus id est Osee, Iohele, Amos, Abdia, Iona, Michea, Naum, Abachuc, Sophonia, Ageo, Zacharia, Malachia; Duobus Machabeorum, Quatuor Evangeliis, Mathei, Marci, Luce, Iohannis; Quatuordecim Epistolis Pauli, Ad Romanos, Duabus ad Corinthios, ad Galatas, ad Ephesios, ad Philipenses, Duabus ad Thesalonicenses, ad Colocenses, Duabus ad Thimotheum, ad Titum, ad Philemonem, ad Hebreos; Petri Duabus; Tribus Iohannis; Una Iacobi Una Iude; Actibus Apostolorum, et Apocalipsi Iohannis.
Good video. Usually @Truth Unites videos are a bit better about the facts and important points though. I hope these make sense:
At 21:32 pretty sure the vulgate had the deuterocanonical books. This would be an inaccuracy, and definitely weakens John Meade's argument. This is a very, very significant point. Jerome personally didn't agree with the decision, but he was still faithful to the Catholic Church in the end. Weighing it evenly and just looking at Augustine and Jerome alone, this fact would definitely seem to indicate that history heavily favored the Catholic cannon.
Another fact that wasn't analyzed in depth was the nature of the "reading" or "edification of believers" category of cannon. These books, even from the most conservative father's point of view, were encouraged to be read at Church. This is also a significant point, knowing how now I'm guessing most Protestants don't do that.
Now talking about Trent, John leaves off the fact that Luther himself places the Deuterocanonical books in an apocryphal section in his German Bible. It is a bit disingenuous to compare Luther's reasoning and conclusion with a handful of Catholic bishops who believed that the DC shouldn't be used to formulate doctrine. Like John explained himself, this would be an example of confusing the other "reading" category of cannon with "Apocrapha." If Mr. Meade wanted to make an argument like this, he should have mentioned important scripture scholars who believed the DC belongs in the Apocrypha. That way, he could pose that Luther wasn't making his decision in opposition to the beliefs at the time. Either way, though, defining the DC as Apocrypha was only earliest popularized by Jerome.
If you want a Catholic view on this, check out why Catholic Bibles are Bigger by Gary Michuta.
@Truth Unites. As a Catholic, I have a lot of respect for you. You seem to always be seeking Truth nomatter what! I think you are a good representation of Protestantism at its best, and I'm always interested to hear the points you make. I'd appreciate clarification about these things in another video. Please correct me if you think I'm mistaken about any of this, or why they shouldn't matter.
Thanks for your comments. Let's look at them in order.
1. "The Vulgate had the deuterocanonical books."
Yes, but Jerome did not consider the edificatory books on the same tier as the canonical books. I have cited his Preface to the Solomonic Books twice already in the comments to the video but here's a third:
"Therefore, just as the Church also reads the books of Judith, Tobias, and the Maccabees, but does not receive them among the the canonical Scriptures, so also one may read these two scrolls [Wisdom and Sirach] for the strengthening of the people, (but) not for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas" (Prologue to the Solomonic Books).
This was the preface before the translation of these books. But since Jerome believed these books were edificatory scripture, why wouldn't he translate them? Furthermore, these are some of the same books that Athanasius and other early Christians would have said were "to be read" or "useful" or some such but they were not in the canon.
2. The nature of the "reading" or "edification of believers" category of canon
See above for Jerome's description. The point is that all Christians believed these books could be read in church or privately. But mere reading of them did not make them canonical as Jerome and even Rufinus later says. The issue is: does the church read AND accept them? Augustine in On Christian Teaching 2 makes clear his position that the churches read and accept these books, that is, accepts them into the canon. In this, he was different from the Eastern and members of the Western traditions.
3. "It is a bit disingenuous to compare Luther's reasoning and conclusion with a handful of Catholic bishops who believed that the DC shouldn't be used to formulate doctrine."
Why? Before Trent, I'm simply showing that there was an agreed upon position among early 16th century scholars. Ximenes, Cajetan, Erasmus, and Luther (along with some of the fathers at Trent itself) upheld the ancient distinction between the canonical and edificatory books. But perhaps I don't understand your point in that paragraph. Let me know.
@@TextandCanonInstitute I appreciate the reply. I have no doubt that you've done more research than me. I've basically just read Gary Michuta's book. I don't see any problem with the facts you present. I could use a bit more clarification. I made my first point because I believe you indicated in the video that Jerome didn't include the DC in the Vulgate. That's why I wanted to bring it up. Kind of along the same lines, I find the Prologue to the Solomonic Books to be one of Jerome's milder quotes regarding the DC. I agree that Jerome doesn't value the DC on the same level as scripture, but wouldn't you say that it is more than that? In some of his other writings, like the Preface to the Book of Ezra and Esther, and his letter to Laeta, he seems to indicate that the DC books should be avoided. Yet, he still performed all of the extra work gathering the Greek manuscripts and translating them. I think there's definitely a Catholic point to be made about this. It seems to me that Jerome is feeling pressure to make his translation include the DC, whether that is from the CC, or from consensus at the time. What are your thoughts?
Regarding this third category of cannon. I don't think Jerome and Athanasius would have agreed on where the DC belong (Athanasius after all had his own unique list for the cannon). Jerome seemed to have a strong desire to avoid the DC, very much like treating it like Apocrypha, where Athanasius in his 39th Festal Letter contrastingly encourages believers to read the books. Athanasius and Origin also seem to agree upon the importance of teaching new converts from the DC (see Homily on the Book of Numbers). It seems that in general, until Jerome, the Early Church in the very least highly respected the DC. I don't see this in modern Protestant Churches. To me, the Catholic Church seems to be the favorable position in this case. Since it seems to be almost a consensus hold the DC in high regard. There are, after all, Church fathers who didn't distinguish the DC from authentic scripture. Maybe I'm wrong though, I know this channel has surprised me about how deep in history Protestants can be!
For the third point, I was trying to note that Luther put the DC in the Apocryphal section of his German Bible. I think there's more of an important distinction there between Apocryphal and edificatory. Historically Apocrypha would have had very negative connotations. This is not the position Ximenes, Cajetan, or Erasmus held, though I would argue that Jerome would have agreed with Luther.
I definitely agree that Catholic/Protestant positions are a lot more gray than they seem. I hope at least that I got my facts right here.
@@thecatholicblender5877 That's helpful. I only know of one place where Jerome calls these books apocrypha and that is his Prologus Galeatus. In fact, that's the only place among early authors that calls those books (and the Shepherd) apocrypha. That shows me it's an outlier and not the norm. Actually, Epiphanius calls Wisdom and Sirach useful and beneficial (not apocryphal) but does not list them among the canonical books. Rufinus lists them among books called Ecclesiastical, neither canonical nor apocryphal. Amphilochius alludes to these books as "intermediate, neighbors to the truth," between canonical and pseudonymous/apocryphal. You see, I think many early Christians conceived of three tiers: canonical-intermediate-apocryphal/dangerous. All of these texts are in the Biblical Canon Lists book if you want to track them down. Again, because these books occupied an intermediate position, the Christian view was not to "reject" them. It was to read them and be edified by them and at the same time not establish doctrine on them. So why not translate these important books in the Vulgate, called that much later?
So given what I laid out above, I think Jerome and Athanasius were very close to each other's opinion on the matter. The 16th century Protestants continued to maintain this position (see article 6 of 39 Articles; Belgic Confession, etc.). Even the King James (1611) printed the Apocrypha as good and useful to read but didn't call them canon.
Ximenes, Cajetan, and Erasmus all allude to or quote Jerome directly. Their position is clear. In 1519 at Leipzig, Luther echoes Jerome by saying Maccabees is not in the canon but it is a book for believers (sounds like edifying but not authoritative work like Jerome said), and in 1534, Luther's preface before the Apocrypha section certainly echoes Jerome's: "Apocrypha: Not equal to Scripture; nevertheless these are good and useful to read." So he calls them "Apocrypha" because there was some historical precedent for doing so, but ultimately Luther holds them as good and useful to read. That's not disparaging them anymore than a number of sources I've cited throughout this discussion. Luther and the rest of the Reformers are not prepared to base a theological argument on ancient books that were disputed, that is, not found in all canon lists. Luther could boil down Jerome's and Augustine's lists to the shared books of the Hebrew canon and arrive at a wider consensus. This is why Luther was unprepared to argue for Purgatory on the basis of 2 Maccabees 12:43ff. Make sense?
Again, I hope we're at least moving to closer agreement on the evidence. I realize we will probably end up disagreeing on the interpretations of it. Thanks again for the dialogue.
@@TextandCanonInstitute No doubt we will end up disagreeing in the end, but nonetheless, I'd like to hear a bit more clarification from your perspective. I think you have been missing my point where clarification is needed. I think we can agree that there's existed a three tier distinction of cannon. Although this 3 tier description was not universally understood to be the case, and the books that belonged to each category varied greatly from person to person. Let me know if you disagree.
Going back to the points made in my previous comment, it seems to me that Jerome personally considered the DC to be Apocryphal. The use of the word "Apocrypha" to describe the DC, was almost unique to him so far. Like you said in the comment and the video, "Apocrypha" indicates that the books were dangerous. Not only this, but his critical regard for books in the DC was quite unique among the fathers. His tone seems to agree with the "Apocryphal/dangerous/pseudepigraphic" sentiment about the books, taken from the Preface to the Book of Ezra and Esther, and his letter to Laeta. From what I see, this negative tone wasn't matched by any preceding fathers. The consensus of fathers believed that the DC deserved at least this second tier status of canon (edification of believers), as you have mentioned yourself.
The key point that I'm trying to make is that it seemed Jerome didn't *really* deem the DC useful for edification of the faithful, because he more commonly wrote about how the DC books should be avoided, and that they were dangerous (Apocryphal). This is significant, since it seems that Jerome would have rather not translated the DC to begin with. When Jerome brings up the Church in the Preface to the Book of Proverbs, it certainly seems to me like Jerome was submitting his true opinions in light of some looming outside influence (maybe the CC, maybe just public consensus). What do you make of this analysis?
I agree that all of the 16th century scripture scholars were influenced by Jerome. I would argue, however, that Jerome believed the DC to be apocryphal/dangerous, which I think contrasts the views of all 3 scholars. I would agree with you. Ximenes, Cajetan, and Erasmus probably would have held the opinion that the DC belongs in the edification category.
This is where I have an issue with your chain of logic. I don't believe you can conflate Luther's Apocryphal language with the "edification" classification of canon. I think that the historical context from Jerome's point of view was clearly negative: "Let her shun all Apocrypha, and if ever she should read them, not for confirmation of dogmas, but out of reverence for the words, let her know that they are not of those who appear in the titles, and that there are many false things intermingled in them, and that one has need of great prudence to seek the gold in the slime." - Jerome's Letter To Laeta. This certainly doesn't seem like Jerome was encouraging believers to read the Apocrypha. Now, I'm not sure about Luther's views of the DC. If you could give me a quote of him indicating that he believed that the DC was useful for the edification of believers, I'd appreciate it. Same for KJV. It is just when I see or hear that buzz word "Apocrypha," I can't help but put a very dangerous/heretical connotation with it because of Jerome and other church fathers.
Regarding how Luther could discount Purgatory without "removing" the DC makes sense, yeah. The conclusion would be warranted if I followed your logic. Very interesting. Maybe by the end of this I'll be left with a pebble in my shoe.
@@thecatholicblender5877 I'm not sure I can address much of this further, since I think I already have. Luther says "these books are good and useful to read" and printed them in his German Bible of 1534. I think you need to listen to what he's saying rather than try and explain what he's not saying. His inclusion and description of these books does not fit the narrative you're telling, that he thought they were dangerous writings. So I'm not sure there's more I can say about this.
Regarding Jerome's Epistle 107, my coauthor Ed Gallagher writes:
"Jerome surely did not intend Laeta to understand this passage as a warning
against the deuterocanonical books. We have just seen, for instance, that Jerome praises the widow Judith as a model of virtue worthy of imitation. Though Judith goes unmentioned in his proposed reading list for Laeta’s daughter, it seems doubtful that he would warn her away from it because of the difficulty of finding gold in mud. Rather, in Ep. 107 and in all the other passages we have surveyed, Jerome is using the term “apocrypha” in the sense common among his contemporaries and predecessors." Gallagher then cites Augustine's City of God 15.23:
"We omit the fables of those writings which are called “apocrypha” because their origin is hidden and was not clear to the fathers, from whom the authority of the true Scriptures came down to us by a most certain and known succession. Now, although in these apocrypha some truth is found, still they have no canonical authority on account of their many falsehoods." Gallagher then concludes (rightly!):
"That Augustine included the deuterocanonicals among the “apocrypha”
is out of the question, for he assigns to them full canonical status (Doct. chr. 2.13). Instead, Augustine and Jerome’s use of the term “apocrypha” corresponds to the modern Roman Catholic definition of the term, or what often now goes under the title “pseudepigrapha.” (Source: Edmon L. Gallagher, "The Old Testament 'Apocrypha' in Jerome's Canonical Theory," JECS 20.2 (2012): 213-233.)
So I'm not sure what else to say. I think Jerome used "apocrypha" pejoratively one time of these books to underscore his Hebrew canon theory. Otherwise, all of the other times he uses the term seems to fit normal 4th-early 5th century usage of the term to mean something like pseudepigraphical/dangerous writings.
I'll give you the last word on this one. Thanks for the exchange.
Gary Michuta is THE authority on this topic of the canon. Watch his dissection/rebuttal of this interview of Meade by Ortlund: czcams.com/video/VAGWJDutE9Q/video.html
czcams.com/users/ApocryphaApocalypsevideos
Gary Michuta is a talk show host with no academic credentials, he isn't an authority on anything. John Meade is a PhD and specialist on the biblical canon at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
@@grantgooch5834 lol, idolatry of the PhD and of your pet seminary, eh? Have you even actually read Michuta's books or browsed his analysis on YT where he goes back to the ancient sources and examines them line by line and in their proper context??
Ever had a course in logic? Ever heard of the "credentials fallacy"? Ever thought about engaging actual arguments rather than arrogantly dismissing people based on arbitrary credentials? I don't see you engaging Michuta's analysis in the video I posted.
I appreciate some of his points but the fundamental flaw Protestants seem to have when discussing what is canonical is they have the wrong definition of canonical...ot at least in a-historical definition. Canonical just means it is on a list. The question is what does that list represent? Historically it was not that a book is true or perfect, per se, but that it was something that could or would be read within the church services. So there can be things that are true that are not part of the canon simply because they were not commonly read within services. Different eras or regions having different canons of scripture simply meant that different ones would be read from during services. Also, something to be dutero canonical does not mean it is not authoritative but that it simply is something that is not commonly read but is okay to read. Of course, if something is not true, it would not be read and therefore not on the canon.
This is, I think, critical to understand what earlier Christians meant by something being canonical or not and also should help inform how we think of it now.
Syriac Orthodox here.
What was said at minute 4:30 is not correct. We syriac orthodox also use all of the 27 books of the New Testament.
The correct Old Testament Canon is that which was infallibility declared by the Church under the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit.
This is not a useful statement. All traditions think this and here we are
@@Papasquatch73 I don’t think that is true. What tradition can point to a statement that declares this to be the case
@@Papasquatch73 For instance, the Council of Trent infallibly states that “these truths and rules are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand.
Following, then, the examples of the orthodox Fathers, it receives and venerates with a feeling of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and New Testaments, since one God is the author of both; also the traditions, whether they relate to faith or to morals, as having been dictated either orally by Christ or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church in unbroken succession….If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.”
I am not sure there is a similar claim among other Christian denominations that claim the canon was given to the Church by the Holy Spirit and preserved in the Church through unbroken Apostolic Succession, which is itself a gift of the Holy Spirit
If one does not have the Orthodox study Bible, the reader is missing out
Not only does it have the “extra books” it also has commentary by the church fathers
Serious question. Does this mean that the council of Trent considers those who attended the council of Laodicea to be anathema for having a different canon?
Serious answer. Anathemas or Dogmas aren't enforced upon all faithful backwards to the past because that would be illogical and unreasonable - it would be like the government outlawing vaping and locking you up because you vaped five years prior
Actually Wynn, Sirach was recognized as Holy Scripture. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True
Something really important that was not mentioned here is that the Catholic canon of scripture was first listed as far back as the year 382 at the regional council of Rome.
Also, something crucial that was not mentioned is that St. Jerome CHANGED his view later on accepted the deuterocanonical books as inspired works that belong in the canon. And his reason for doing so was simply that the authoritative pronouncement of the Catholic Church settled the matter.
So we have the canonical books, the seven books AKA apocrypha of the Roman Catholic Canon, and then there were the heretical books. Can you list all the heretical books?
The Roman Catholic Church accepted the apocrypha as canon in the 4th century only as reading material but not doctrinal material. After the Reformation they accepted the apocrypha books as canon for doctrine. No?
I don't think that's quite right. It appears that churches in North Africa (think Augustine and regional synods like Hippo/Carthage) accepted the books on the same level of authority from the 4th century. But many other Christians did as you described all the way till the 16th century when the debate over the distinction between books resumed.
I like his pronunciation of Naziansus. :D
Me too
Has he looked at eusebius's church history?
😎👍🏽
I’m Matthew 1:22-23 when it’s said a virgin will conceive. Why is it okay to go to the Septuagint here but then say the canon must be from the Hebrew ? Isn’t that cherry picking ?
I wish to congratulate you on organising a much more accurate and truthful discussion than the discussion presented with Michael Krugar. I have given this video a like. You may wish to add some vital points to this discussion which you can put in another video. The first is that it is incorrect to say the "Jewish Canon" as the Jews have never actually determined a canon. The second is that you do not discuss the Council of Rome in 382 which is actually when the Christian Canon was formally declared which does contain 73 books including the 7 Old Testament books that some Protestant bibles omit. Only the Catholic Church has ever determined the Canon. The third point is that the use of the term "Protestant Canon" is indeed a perpetuated falsehood. This is because no Protestants have ever actually declared it as Canon and it is not universally agreed to amongst Protestants. For instance the Anglican/Episcopalian bible officially contains the same 73 books as the Catholics which is in reality half of all Protestants. The fourth point is that at the time of Jesus the Jews did not speak Hebrew. They spoke Aramaic and Greek. Hebrew was then a dead language. The fifth point is that at the time of Jesus the Old Testament scriptures were not written down in Hebrew. They were written in Greek. Greek was at this time the international language of the Mediterranean. When Jesus went to the temple and read from the scriptures he read in Greek, not Hebrew. It is incorrect to say that Jesus read in Hebrew and that the scriptures were in Hebrew. There is no record of any scriptures, at the time of Jesus, being in existence written in Hebrew. The 'Hebrew' myth comes from what I call Martin Luther's big mistake. While it is true that the Jews around Luther had an Old Testament scripture written in Hebrew Luther, not knowing the history of the bible made the mistake of thinking the Jews then knew the bible better than the Church and that he should follow their scripture mistakenly believing that the Hebrew scripture would be more accurate. Of course this also suited him as it rid his bible of books that disagreed with his personal beliefs. The truth is that after the disbursement, the Jews who had rejected Jesus, re-learnt Hebrew and rewrote Greek scriptures back into Hebrew. They did not re-write The 7 deutero-canonical/ apochraphal books into Hebrew because these books were never written in Hebrew. They were first written in Greek. These Jews also didn't know their bible history as they mistakenly re-wrote Daniel into Hebrew thinking it was an earlier Hebrew book when it was actually first written in Aramaic and then in Greek. Daniel was written about 160BC. So the whole idea of "Jewish Canon" comes from people who didn't accurately know the history of how the bible was made and this error perpetuates itself still today in many, but by no means all, Protestant circles.
Thanks for your comments, but I think your a bit confused on a number of fronts.
1. The Jews were certainly reading and copying the scriptures in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek at this time. Here's a popular level article I wrote on this: tyndalehouse.com/storage/files/00-think06.pdf#page=20)
2. The Jews certainly had a closed canon. They limited the same books to either 22 (Josephus) or 24 (4 Ezra). Even the Gospel of Thomas 52 speaks of the 24 Prophets in Israel who spoke of Jesus. Babylonian Talmud Baba Bathra 14b lists the books of the traditional Hebrew Canon. So I would say they certainly had a canon. It's true that the Jewish canon was never established by a council so maybe that's the confusion. But the question is whether there needs to be a conciliar decision for there to be a canon.
3. Protestant Formulae include canon lists. Read Article 6 of the Anglican 39 Articles carefully. They follow Jerome and don't count the apocryphal books as part of the canon. The Belgic Confession in 1561 decided similarly. To my knowledge, Protestants have clung basically to the Jewish canon with a different order of books.
4. Luther's Mistake
You're simply mistaken about the Hebrew text and Luther. Luther arrived at the Hebraica Veritas via Jerome, who came to this conclusion while living and working in Bethlehem in the 4th century. It had been a firmly rooted position in the church for quite a long time.
5. I've never heard the view that Jews relearned Hebrew and rewrote Greek scriptures back into Hebrew. I don't think there's any evidence for such a position but I'll let you and others correct me on that point.
Thanks again.
Hi @@TextandCanonInstitute, Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I read your article but I disagree with your conclusion about language used at the time of Christ. It is a common assumption that because the Jew's original language was Hebrew and because later, after around 200AD, the Jews started to speak again in Hebrew and they re-wrote their scriptures in Hebrew that the Jews have always spoken and written in Hebrew. However, I think you will find if you do further research that this is not correct. The Jews lost the use of Hebrew when they were taken to Babylon in 587BC. They were there for two generations and when they returned to Israel they then spoke Aramaic which continued to the time of Christ. After the Greek conquest around 330BC Greek became the international language and the Jewish people knew Greek in Jesus time to do business and communicate as the non-English world does with English today as English is the current international language. Jesus's first language was Aramaic and he would also have been able to speak Greek. There is no record that he would have spoken Hebrew. Some Hebrew words remained in common usage, such as "rabbi", but this does not mean that the Hebrew language was spoken or known. I live in an English speaking country where a Polynesian language was originally spoken. Today very few people speak this language but certain of this language's words are used in common every day use here because they have continued and better convey a meaning that English may not. It was the same at the time of Christ. While there may have been some Hebrew scholars left at the time of Christ this does not mean that the Hebrew language was used by the Jewish people. There is no evidence of any Hebrew scriptures left at the time of Christ. If you have evidence please show me. The Old Testament books written before the Babylonian Exile were firstly spoken and then written in Hebrew. By around 250BC these had all been translated into Greek and later Old Testament books, including the 7 deuterocanonical / apocryphal books were all firstly written by the Jews in Greek. The Jews did not write them in Hebrew because Hebrew was no longer used. 90% of the New Testament quotes are directly from the Greek version of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint which was the most common version of the Old Testament used by the Jews at the time of Christ. It is believed that the apostles had a copy of this with them as they traveled around with Jesus and certainly with them after Jesus's resurrection.
The Septuagint then included the 7 deuterocanonical / apocryphal books and this is the most common scripture of the Jews in Jesus time. This was Jesus's scripture. It was not an original Hebrew only collection. It included the newer books and was all in Greek. This was the Old Testament mostly likely read by Jesus in the synagogue. Other Jewish Old Testaments in use at this time were the Textus Receptus and the Masoretic used by the Sadducees which were all in Greek. The oldest archeological evidence in existence today of the Old Testament is the Septuagint.
Because of the success of the early Christians using the Septuagint to explain Jesus as the promised messiah to Jewish people, the Jews dropped the Septuagint and re-wrote their scriptures in Greek with much weakened messianic texts. For instance Isaiah no longer said in their new texts that the messiah would be born to a virgin but now said born to a young woman. The Masoretic Hebrew texts today were mostly written in Hebrew around 900-950AD from the later Jewish Greek texts written after the time of Christ. The Hebrew version that Martin Luther viewed is this later Hebrew version which was then only 550-600 years old. The Hebrew texts people look at today is also this version. It is not the original Hebrew text but people do so because they mistakenly believe a falsely perpetuated idea of them being the original texts.
The Jews have never and still today have never had a closed or official Canon. If you think they do then where and when did it occur? I don't believe you can answer this question. In Jesus's time the Old Testament accepted by the Jews and which he used included more that the 22 or 24 books that you quote above. A list by Josephus is not a canon. In fact, lets be honest here, just because anyone makes list does not make it a canon. You are stretching the truth here to make it so which I assume is because you don't want to admit the truth that is that only the Catholic Church in 382Ad at the Council of Rome that declared the Canon of the Old and New Testament.
Protestantism has never declared a Canon of scripture. Protestants can't because, as with everything else, they don't ever agree on anything. The canon of scripture is a good example of this. First lets be clear that Jerome did include the 7 deuterocanonical / apocryphal as scripture. Although he partook in discussion about this questioning these books he did later accept these books. He accepted the declaration of the Council of Rome. Funny how few of the many Protestors who quote St Jerome often leave out this fact. I don't agree that you are quoting the Anglicans correctly. The Anglicans do accept these books as Canon. That is why they are in their bibles. If I remember correctly this article is the one that talks about them being less important than other bible books. You will probably be surprised to learn that the Catholic Church agrees with this. For Catholics some books in the bible are more important than other books of the bible. For instance the most important is the four gospels, then the rest of the New Testament, then the Torah and certain prophets such as Isaiah. Most of the 7 deuterocanonical / apocryphal books are at the end of this hierarchy.
Luther did make this mistake. So to did the Jews at his time as they included Daniel which never was a Hebrew book. As mentioned above, Luther also misquoted Jerome by selectively quoting his initial opposition and selectively ignoring Jerome's later acceptance of these books as scripture. Sometimes leaving a pertinent fact out is just as bad as deliberately stating a lie.
I also once thought as you do that there had always been the Hebrew scriptures. However once I was told this I did the research and found it not to be true. There are many excellent documentaries on youtube about the Septuagint (mostly from Protestant Sources) that lay this history out. This is important because in the end Luther's mistake is repeated over and over and this leads to bad scripture study. For instance the change mentioned above in Isaiah pushes the Protestant views on Mary and her role as the mother of Jesus away from the Catholic view but the truth is the Catholic view is based on the oldest available Old Testament record which is the Septuagint whereas often the Protestant view is more from later Hebrew scripture study where the authors have deliberately diminished the messianic texts. Or for instance knowing that Jesus's scripture did include the 7 deuterocanonical / apocryphal books. Or knowing that when Jesus spoke to Simon in Matthew 16:18 that the Aramaic word used as Jesus spoke "kepha" directly translates into "rock in English. When you get into the nitty gritty of studying scripture Knowing the correct history of the making of the bible is important. Hope this helps. God Bless
@@TextandCanonInstitute first, the link you pasted, to your pdf, is showing as malware, so not for the faint of heart. Secondly, your point 2 above, which may speak to my longer comment, needs dating. When? My guess is that you would assert the Dead Sea fragments, in Hebrew, constitute a solid-enough basis for a pre-christian Hebrew-language protocanon if not 'canon' ?
So the apostols read the 7 books, how come protestants don't? The Apostols and Saint Agustin used them and read those should not all Christians read them as well?
There is one aspect to this discussion which is often overlooked by Protestants, which is that the early church was entirely Magisterial. This is to say that the Church played the most essential role in the canonization process; it was never a matter of, "Oh this one guy said so-and-so, so let's follow him."
I think, too, that we should be careful to not divorce the formalization of the OT canon from the formalization NT canon, as they're inextricably bound together. For the church, the NT canon was formalized at the same time as the OT canon, at the 4th Century Council of Rome; these lists were subsequently ratified/endorsed at the regional councils of Carthage, & Hippo.
So, with these two concepts in mind - the Magisterial nature of the early church, and the fact that early councils codified both the NT and OT -- the question for the Protestant becomes: On what basis does one consistently accept the decrees of these councils on the NT canon, but reject their decrees on OT canon (which included the so-called Apocrypha) ?? If that's the route one takes, then it seems logically inescapable to conclude that if one questions the integrity of these councils on their formalization of the Christian OT canon, then one is necessarily calling into the question the stability of the NT canon.
Thanks for your comment. I answered that pretty clearly in the video. I'm wondering, as even some of the Fathers at Trent wondered, how can conciliar precedent be the only guide here? The council of Laodicea doesn't include any of the extra books. And the Apostolic Canons explicitly says that Sirach is outside of the canon. So the narrative is not so neat unless you're limiting the number of councils.
Furthermore, we only know about the canon list from the Council of Rome from the "Gelasian Decree." This document with its canon list probably does not come from the fourth century, but sometime in the mid-fifth century. So I wouldn't base much on it. Furthermore, we must consider OT and NT canon formations and histories separately because the evidence simply demands that we do. I'm not sure I can add more than I've already said on that question on this thread and in the video. Thanks.
@@TextandCanonInstitute
Thank you for your reply. Admittedly, I was only ~10 minutes into the video when I was inspired to write my comment, so forgive me. :)
Still, I'd like to offer a few clarifying points:
I wasn't intimating that councils are the /only/ guide. Rather, I think a safer proposition would be that they are the safest or most consistent guides.
As to Laodicea, was not this council held ~30 years before Rome (AD 382) ? If so, then I wouldn't attach as much weight to it as the post-Roman councils of Carthage & Hippo. If, as the theory goes, that the See of Rome has pre-eminence, and if Rome issued a 73-book canon list, I think that the standard that the early church would have looked to would have been the 73-book list.
It would seem, too, that the canonical lists given at Laodicea are also quite dubious. Even such Protestant church historians as Schaff have questioned the veracity of the Laodicean "canon list," so...
I think that the argument against the decrees of the Council of Rome (AD 382) being given to us in the 'Gelasian Decree' is mind-bendingly weak. At mid-fifth century, that's still barely ~75 years after the events in question.
When are the earliest extant attestations to Plato, Alexander the Great, or Hannibal ?
If one's standard is that we need the manuscript autographs, then they will be forced to throw out the entire New Testament.
I'm not trying to be salty. Rather, I'm just trying to adopt the most consistent hermeneutic, which doesn't need to be stretched or flexed to meet any body of data.
Thanks for replying, though. Perhaps we'll get to chat more in the future. :)
God Bless.
The Codex Amiatinus is the oldest complete bible. Just look at what’s in that. It’s not that difficult.
Would a Christian reading Paul's letter to the Church of Laodicea and know it was not Holy Scripture?
Would that same Christian read Paul's several letters to the Philippians, and know only one of these letters was Holy Scripture?
Would that same Christian read the letters of Matthias and Gamaliel and Barnabas, and also know they were not Holy Scripture?
"We must concede the Church of Rome has given us the Scriptures ", ( Martin Luther, works. Vol. 40). Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
Help me understand the force of your argument for a minute. Is the force something like this: since there were so many books written by Apostles, how could the churches/Christians possibly know which books were canonical without the help of the Church of Rome? Is that what you intend?
@@TextandCanonInstitute Exactly, as many of the Church Fathers debated over the many letters written, ( there were over 75), as to which were inspired.
Paul's letter to the Church of Laodicea and Paul's several letters to the Philppians, and the letters of Matthias and Gamaliel and Barnabas and Clement, and the Acts of Paul, etc., were all being debated.
The first official canon as to which of the over 75 letters written, were to be included as canon was by Pope Damasus in 382 in Rome. "We must concede the Church of Rome has given us the Scriptures ", ( Martin Luther, works. Vol. 40). Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
@@matthewbroderick8756 Thanks. So it doesn't matter if Origen had already listed the 27 books of the NT canon by 250? Or Athanasius listed them by 367? Or that the Pauline collection had already been largely settled by 200 (see Tertullian's Against Marcion Book V) and the many attributed quotations to all 14 letters of Paul by Clement of Alexandria (d. 215), except for Philemon due to its brevity? That is, I would only see future councils affirming the already, long-established 14-letter collection of Paul not creating the 14-letter collection of Paul. There's far too much evidence that shows a settled collection that precedes and 4th century conciliar action. That's how I read the evidence.
@@TextandCanonInstitute my point exactly, as there were still disagreements over which letters among the orthodox Church Fathers themselves as to which were inspired. An authority was needed to validate which of the over 75 letters written, were to be included in the new testament and which were not, as settled by Pope Damasus. . "We must concede the Church Of Rome has given us the Scriptures ", ( Martin Luther, works. Vol. 40). Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
@@matthewbroderick8756 Can you give me a more precise reference to Luther's works for this quote?
Many of the Church Fathers disagreed with the old testament canon.
Jesus Christ and the Apostles quoted from the Deuterocanonical books. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
Can you show me one place where Jesus or the Apostles quoted/cited from a deuterocanonical book *as scripture*?
@UC9lMbSiawjpJcrNrAoIcP7w Ok, thanks. But where does Jesus or the Apostle introduce those passages with "As it is written" or "the Scripture says" or "the prophet says" or something similar? At best, those are allusions to Sirach and I'm not sure they are clear ones. Contrast this with the way the NT authors quote and cite from the other books (not all of them, mind you). Does my claim make sense?
@@TextandCanonInstitute Yes, I see your point, but Jesus and the Apostles dont even say, as it is written in Ruth, or as it is written in Nehemiah or Obidiah either, correct? Both of these Holy Scripture passages in the new testament refer to atoning for the temporal punishments as spoken of in Sirach and Tobit. Both confirm giving alms and love for others, will make one clean before God.
@@matthewbroderick8756 But neither of them calls Sirach or Tobit "scripture" so we can't know precisely what Jesus and the Apostles think about these books. All Jews and Christians thought those books were useful and significant but I don't see Christian teaching for redemptive alms giving made until Cyprian of Carthage in the early 3rd AD, and those books are not cited as scripture until the 3rd century AD.
Right. My claim is that not all the books of the Hebrew canon are quoted or even alluded to in the NT (is Esther anywhere alluded to? Not that I see). My only point is that books that were part of the Hebrew canon are the only ones that were cited as scripture. If we extend the evidence set, Philo and the Dead Sea Scrolls make no use of the deuterocanonical books making it further unlikely that Jesus and the Apostles did. Also, Josephus around 100 AD says the Jews have only 22 books rightly trusted. So there are a lot of factors that go into showing whether those books were considered canon in the first century or not. The earliest Christian canon lists in the second century do not include them and I think that's strong evidence.
I learned some new sources, but overall this presentation solidified how untenable Sola Scriptura really is. If throughout early history there were so many lists and uncertainty around which books were in the canon, Scripture logically cannot be the Sole infallible rule of faith.
Was the Bible authoritative or non-authoritative before the Church’s official recognition of the canon? If it is the former, I’m not sure how Sola Scriptura is invalidated. If it is the latter, then I think you are going against even RCC and EO teachings.
Also, for an example, did the Church in Rome likely have any other NT texts before Paul’s epistle? Probably not. Yet was his letter still authoritative? Of course. In the same way, the fact that there was dispute over less than 20% of the whole Bible and only 4 letters of the NT does not invalidate Sola Scriptura, given that a majority of the text was recognized as inspired by the Spirit.
@LLFT100 just because the books of Scripture were authoritative regardless of whether or not they were included in a list or codex does not prove anything. The point is, from the historical evidence we have, it is clear that no one knew for sure which writings were authoritative... meaning it was not important enough to the first Christians pass on to the next generation, and it is also clear that they could discern which works were authoritative by reading the Scriptures they had. Therefore, Scripture could not be the sole infallible or authoritative rule of faith.
P1: the earliest lists and codices do not contain the same canon
P1: the earliest lists and codices include letters and books that we no longer consider Scripture
C1: the actual canon of Scripture was not very important to the earliest Christians
C2: If the canon was not passed on from the Apostles to the earliest Christians then Scripture could not be the Sole rule of faith
Thoughts?
@@daddydaycareky Sola Scriptura is not invalidated by a lack of consensus over the canon in this early period. The point is, whether the whole Church recognized all 66 books or not, if they held authority, they held authority. It does not hold that the practical limitation of Scriptural accessibility somehow diminishes their authority. Both Catholics and Orthodox would wholeheartedly reject that the epistle to the Romans was somehow not authoritative when the church received it.
I also do not agree that the "Actual canon of Scripture was not very important to the earliest Christians" as though Scripture was treated with laxity. I do not understand why the Church needed an explicit list of texts the second that John wrote his Revelation. The fact that the canon took time to develop and understand does NOT invalidate Sola Scriptura because the Church remained under the authority of those texts inspired by the Spirit. If I were to give a person in China a copy of the Gospel of John, does that Gospel lack inspiration from the Holy Spirit because that person does not have the other 65 books? In the same way, did Scripture lack authority because a small number of NT books (1-2 John, 2 Peter, Jude, Revelation, Hebrews) were contested?
@LLFT100 the argument I am proposing does not deny the authority of Scripture or presume that this authority was somehow established by the Church. As you say, Paul's letter to the Romans was Scripture as soon as pen touched paper.
But, the question is, did anyone know this was Scripture? How do you propose that they knew Romans was Scripture? A common argument is that everything the Apostles wrote is Scripture, however we are not told this anywhere in Scripture and we also know that Paul wrote letters that are not Scripture, so this does not seem plausible.
The second part of the argument that infers, from the evidence, that the "actual canon of Scripture was not very important to the earliest Christians " does not necessarily imply that Scripture was treated with laxity, simply that the list of books (besides the 4 Gospels) were not that important to pass on to all Christians and all Churches. If the list of books was not of high importance, how can someone say Scripture is the Sole or even the highest authoritative rule of faith? I cannot logically get there with the historical data and archeological evidence I found nor through the evidence presented in this video.
@@daddydaycareky These are both reasonable and fair arguments, and I appreciate the dialogue.
In response to the first challenge, I, as well as Dr. Ortlund, believe that the missing letters from Paul were likely Holy Spirit-inspired yet, for whatever reason God deemed necessary, were not given for the Church Universal. But for the remaining texts, it seems clear that the early Church deemed the writings of Paul and Peter, minimally, as authoritative (2 Pet 3:15-16 indicates this). So though likely not every single Christian believed these letters were Scripture, it was the consensus. But admittedly, I am not sure if we can know exactly how the earliest Christians received Scripture, except that they appear to consider them canonical because of the Church’s widespread transmission of the texts. I am still am not convinced that the fallibility of the Church in recognizing the canonicity of infallible Scripture invalidates Sola Scriptura, nor do I believe that the fallibility of the Church also meant that the eventual canon was incorrectly recognized.
Second, and similarly, I do not think that the earliest receivers of the NT needed to have an official canon, especially since not all the books had been written. It seems odd to expect that the church in Rome necessarily needed to know about the epistles to Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, and so on for their understanding of the authority of Paul’s letter to be legitimate. The practical need for a canon did not really come until after the death of the apostles.
I do admit that for both of these questions, I feel my answers are probably less than satisfactory for you. I just really believe that the later Church’s testimony as to the inspiration of the NT canon, which was relatively uncontroversial for 80% of it, is sufficient. I don’t think having to understand all the mechanics of the early Church’s initial reaction to these texts contradicts Sola Scriptura.
Poor line of argumentation, hinging the Canon "on the Jewish canon" the current Jewish canon is the medieval rabbinical canon, other Jewish diasporas had different canons, the Ethiopian Canon is larger than any other and it's because that's what the Jewish diaspora in Ethiopia used in the synagogue. It's obvious if you read the apostles they had no such idea and quote "non-canonical" books in their very Epistles.
I will point out The Orthodox don't have an idea of the Canon outside of what is read inside the liturgical life of the Church, the Russian Church has 4th Macabbees, and this is historically how this developed where the Jewish diaspora in a nation converted to Christianity, the church used the existing texts used in synogogues liturgy.
You can think of it in a three tier categorization of books
1) read in the Church
2) okay to read in private devotion
3) heretical and should not be read.
Good argument cause Paul says the Jews were entrusted with the Oracles of God. Romans 3:2.
The Jewish Canon before Christ was established as 22 books correspondent to 39 books protestant.
Jews unanimously, Before after and during Paul and Jesus, The apocrypha books.
Modern rabbinical Canon basically is the same
@@jenex5608 yea and St Paul quotes stuff outside of the medieval Jewish canon as scripture. Lmk when you find in the old testament where it says angels delivered the Torah to Moses 😂
@@jenex5608 Respectfully, when Paul says that in Romans 3:2 , the Septuagint had definitely been written. So at best that's a toss up. The authors of the Septuagint were still Jews though they wrote in Greek
How can he make the claim that there is historical precedent for his canon, like there is for the Catholic Canon. There isn't even a single Church Father who held to the Protestant list of Scriptures. You can maybe say that Melito comes close, but then even if we say he doesn't quote Wisdom, he is demonstrably not giving a Christian, but Jewish list of Scriptures.
He makes the claim that the Church Fathers had a similar view to Josephus, namely that books written after Artaxerxes I reign (424BC) were excluded. This is demonstrably false. Every single canon list from the first four centuries we know of contradicts that. In addition, you have multiple citations of the deuterocanon dating back to the apostolic fathers and writings...
He then says that Jerome (21 minutes) in all of his canon lists advocates for only the hebrew books to be in the Old Testament, and yet he explicitly advocates for Daniel 13, Dan 3:29-68 and Dan 14 despite them not being in the Hebrew Canon. Why? Because his criteria for belief was NOT what the Hebrew books were, but ultimately what the judgement of the Church was. Let's not forget that when he translates the vulgate, he includes the deuterocanon into his translation of scripture. Augustine's list is NOT at odds with Jeromes list as he claims (22 mins), by the time Augustine has the Council of Hippo in 393, Jerome had long since accepted the Deuterocanon. (Council of Rome was 382, he had already started writing up the Vulgate). There wasn't any discussion on the Council of Rome in 382 AD.
He mentions Melito who includes Wisdom in his canon and then argues later that Wisdom is not actually Wisdom. And yet the Muratorian Fragment written in the second century includes Wisdom which definitively undermines the argument that no canon list quotes deuterocanon "In the first 12 canons that are before 400, they are never cited as Scripture?" Now even if we agree that he means Proverbs, there is still the scholarship on Melito that takes the view that "Okay, let's say he doesn't quote Wisdom" it is not surprising given that many second-century
Jews rejected the deuterocanonical books. The Protestant citation of Melito would only help their case if Melito was listing the Christian canon of the Old Testament. But because Melito was composing a defense of Christ from sources Jews would accept, we would expect Melito’s canon in his Extracts to reflect what Jews in his time accepted. In Hebrew Scripture in Patristic Biblical Theory, Edmon Gallagher says, “Most scholars have been willing to attribute [Melito’s] list ultimately to Jewish Sources.”
He says no one cites the deuterocanon in the 2nd century as Scripture? Excuse me!? (27:20!?) He quotes Daniel 13 as the "words of the prophet himself", and simply saying that he quotes Baruch but attributes it to Jeremiah is irrelevant, he treats Baruch as Scripture.
Let's not forget the first century quotations. Barnabas quotes Wisdom as Scripture. Polycarp quotes Tobit. Clement quotes Wisdom. The Didache quotes Sirach. And we are going to say that Josephus believes that the canon of the Old Testament has as a criterion that it must be written before 424BC and that is reliable? We have disciples of the Apostles explicitly contradicting that.
He says that Athanasius quotes from the Deuterocanon as Scripture but doesn't inclue them in the canon because he doesn't use them for doctrine... And yet in his 46 quotations of the Deuterocanon, numerous ones are used for arguments against Arians, i.e for doctrine.
This is wrong also, citations from Athanasius on Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, and the Deuterocanonical portions of Daniel can all be found. He calls the books Scriptures, calls the books as written by prophets, and uses it in proving doctrine. What is actually happening when he lists his canon in Epistle 39 is describing the books that are read in the liturgy in Alexandria, but he explicitly calls those aforementioned books Scripture and uses them to prove doctrine, which contradicts the information giving in the video which says they aren't given for doctrine.
For the Old Testament ? It seems Ignatius because he doesn’t quote from them. And Ireneas defending the Old Testament from Marcion, his defense parameters are only the protestants opinion of the set of books. And Jerome had the same list.
Where is Sirach in the Didache ? And wisdom in Barnabas? I know Barnabas quotes Enoch.
And yes the attendees of the Nazareth Synagog, Mary, Jesus, James, Jude and John, know the books of, Sirach, Enoch, Tobias, Judith and the Assumption of Moses.
90% of the time, when Jesus quotes the old testament, he quotes the LXX. And guess what books were in the LXX? 🙃 I'm going to read what Jesus was reading, not the canon the Jews canonized 400 years after Jesus.
That relies on the assumption that it was Jesus Himself who quoted the Septuagint, not that the NT writers used it for the purposes of writing in Greek. It is far more likely that Jesus, a Hebrew and Aramaic speaking Jew, would quote from Hebrew, not Greek. Now, is it noteworthy that the translation used by the NT writers was the Septuagint? Sure, but that is not the same thing as Jesus directly quoting from the Greek translation.
@@AshtonSWilson So you question the Holy Spirit? If God wanted the Holy Spirit to influence the NT writers to use the Hebrew, it would have. I don't think the Holy Spirit is lying about what Jesus is saying. Plus the Masoretic texts used in protestant bibles is not the same Hebrew used in Jesus's day. Its based off of the Septuagint, which Jesus read and knew, with some changes to help the Jews later argue against Jesus being God.
@@MasterKeyMagic I do not question the Holy Spirit, I am merely challenging your assertion that Jesus quoted the LXX directly. Jesus did most of His teaching in Aramaic and he certainly knew Hebrew, yet the LXX is Greek. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that He used a Hebrew version of the OT. Also, the consensus seems to be that the LXX was NOT used in synagogue worship, so it is unlikely that Jesus, while likely familiar with the Greek translation and very possibly knew Greek, was more familiar with the Greek form. So it is NOT correct that the LXX was Jesus’s OT.
Instead, it seems more likely that the NT writers, led along by the Holy Spirit, used the LXX translation to communicate the same verses that Jesus referenced. That is NOT in conflict with the doctrine of inspiration.
You are also assuming that the standard for truth demands that the Bible 100% word-for-word records Jesus’s words. However, when we compare the accounts described in the four Gospels, we see the same scenes with slightly different wording between them, and the Gospels even admit that the original language used by Christ was Aramaic, not Greek. Therefore, the Gospel writers flip between recording the exact words, the “voice” of Jesus, or the general idea (when writing indirect discourse; for example, “Jesus told His disciples to not tell anyone about this.” That’s not what He said directly, it was a description of the idea).
As I said, the NT writers’ and early Church’s use of the LXX is noteworthy and a part of this discussion. However, regarding the claim that Jesus quoted the LXX, I am telling you that that is not correct.
Also, not to be nitpicky, but it is incredibly important that we refer to the Spirit as a He, not an it. He is the third person of the Trinity, not an impersonal “it.”
@@AshtonSWilson You assume the Jews of then were the same Jews of today. They were not. There were many different types of Jews in Jesus's day like the pharisees and Sadducees, who didnt even believe in life after death. The Essenes, who hid the Dead Sea scrolls, recorded what you call the Apocrypha, in Hebrew, so it absolutely could have been used in temple. John The Baptist may have been a Essene btw.
You haven't addressed that even if you are correct, the hebrew OT protestants used doesn't match the Hebrew in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which is much closer to the LXX in Catholic Bibles. Why do Protestants use the Hebrew translation used to argue against Jesus's divinity?
@@MasterKeyMagic with all respect, you are saying a lot of things unrelated to my argument. All I said was that Jesus most likely did not read the LXX and likely did not quote from it. The merits of the Hebrew text are not really my point.
However, to answer your charge: the existence of the Apocrypha in the Dead Seas Scrolls does not mean that these were held to be Scripture. The apocryphal texts were, as stated in the video, often used as non-inspired texts for personal reading before Christ and in the early Church. Just because the texts were present in these translations does not tell us definitively whether they were held to be inspired, authoritative Scripture. Second, Protestants believe that Jesus is divine, so I’m not sure why it matters whether the Hebrew version has been used by non-Christians to argue this point.
I would suggest addressing my specific point about Jesus quoting the LXX or not. The other issues are really beyond the scope of this interaction.
I'm not sure why you refer to protestantism as a monolith or a unit at all, as compared with Rome or especially the Orthodox Christians. Protest- ism is more accurate, not Catholic, not Orthodox. Just other.
When the Pope changed his title from 1st amongst equals to pontifex maximus he became the 1st protester and from his side burst out millions of pontiffs that we now call protestants. The Orthodox love to study these things also but it is guaranteed you will never ever deeply understand these things outside of the Sacramento and Liturgical life of the body of Christ, the ongoing apostalic Orthodox ethos and mindset. It is like trying to become Japanese from studying books.