The Case for the Protestant Old Testament Canon (w/ Steve Christie)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 чер 2024
- This video is sponsored by Logos. For 10% off their incredible resources, visit: logos.com/gospelsimplicity logos.com/gospelsimplicityort...
verbum.com/gospelsimplicity
In this video, I'm joined by Steve Christie, a Protestant convert from Roman Catholicism. In it, we discuss the perennial issue of the canon. Do Protestants have the right Old Testament, or did the Reformers remove inspired books from the canon?
Steve's book on the canon: amzn.to/4avaXkR
Support Gospel Simplicity:
Patreon: / gospelsimplicity
One Time Donation: www.paypal.me/gospelsimplicity
Merch: shop.gospelsimplicity.com
Follow Gospel Simplicity on Social Media:
Facebook: / gospelsimplicity
Instagram: / gospelsimplicity
About Gospel Simplicity:
Gospel Simplicity began as a UA-cam channel in a Moody Bible Institute dorm. It was born out of the central conviction that the gospel is really good news, and I wanted to share that with as many people as possible. The channel has grown and changed over time, but that central conviction has never changed. Today, we make content around biblical and theological topics, often interacting with people from across the Christian tradition with the hope of seeking greater unity and introducing people to the beautiful simplicity and transformative power of the gospel, the good news about Jesus.
About the host:
Austin Suggs holds a BA in Theology from Moody Bible Institute and is currently pursuing an MA in Liberal Arts with a focus in Theology and Philosophy from St. John's College, Annapolis. He has served in the local church in a number of ways, including as a full-time staff member,, teacher, church planter, and more. Today, he resides outside of Baltimore with his wife Eliza.
Video Stuff:
Camera: Sony a6300
Lens: Sigma 16mm F1.4 amzn.to/2MjssPB
Edited in FCPX
Music:
Bowmans Root - Isaac Joel
YODRSIYIVB5B6QPM
*Links in the description may include affiliate links in which I receive a small commission of any purchases you make using that link.
Chapters:
00:00 - Introduction
01:09 - Conversion from Catholicism to Protestantism
04:08 - Importance of the Canon
10:26 - Contradictions in Extra Books
12:34 - The Canon at the Time of Christ
28:33 - Conflating Zechariah in Scripture
32:47 - Conclusion: The Shorter Canon
41:40 - The Canon of the Old Testament
42:14 - The Argument from the Septuagint
46:21 - Quotations from Non-Canonical Books in the New Testament
47:44 - Early Church Fathers and the Canon
48:54 - Jewish and Christian Lists of the Canon
49:47 - The Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage
52:07 - The Canon in the Temple and Tabernacle
54:33 - The Fourth Century and the Canon
01:01:14 - The Council of Trent and Later Councils
01:05:35 - The Protestant Canon and the Catholic Church
01:10:50 - The Practical Value of Reading the Deuterocanonical Books
01:13:33 - Final Four
OERNFF59LU4GEU5K
HHQQFUFIBM8K6UIK - Розваги
If Jesus and the Apostles adopted the Jewish/Protestant canon, then why do we find so many of citations from the early Church quoting the Deuterocanon as Scripture or using to confirm doctrine?
Here's a sampling:
Epistle of Barnabas (ch 6) - Wis 2:12
Clement of Rome - Wis 12:12
Shepherd of Hermas - 2 Mac 7:28
Athenagoras - Baruch 3:36
Irenaeus - Wis 6:18-19; Baruch generally and specifically 3:39-4:1
Tertullian - Wis 1:6, 2:12; Maccabees generally
Clement of Alexandria - Sir 21:7, 20, 23:19, 39:26-27; Wis 3:1-6, 6:17-19, 16:26; Tob 4:15
Hippolytus - Baruch 3:36; Wisdom as a whole; 2 Mac 2:6ff; Tobit; Daniel/Susanna
Cyprian - Wisdom at least 3 times; Sirach at least 4 times; Tob 4:5-11, 12:8-9, 12-15; 2 Mac 6:30
Origen - Wisdom at least 9 times; Sirach at least 13 times; 2 Mac 7 and then generally once as "Scripture history"; Susanna (book of Daniel) as part of "divine catalog"; Judith (9:2); Tobit; "they summon the book of Baruch the prophet to bear witness to this assertion" -De Principiis (Book II)
( *The whole Deuterocanon apparently!* )
Athanasius - Wisdom at least 8 times; Sir 15:9; Judith 8:16; Bar 3:12; Tob 12:7
Source: mostly Michuta's _The Case for the Deuterocanon_ with over 100 pages of such citations/quotations
The same reason we find many of these same ECFs citing books NOT in Catholic OTs as Scripture too. There were different versions in the Septuagint with different books in the early church, unlike the Hebrew Bible which was settled BEFORE the time of Christ. Gary Michuta conceded the Septuagint was a liturgical text which continued to get ADDED to, which happened after the first century. This too, we addressed during the discussion.
Obviously the Pharisees had more authority to canonize the scriptures than the Church (who received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost).
@@BornAgainRN You think you can wave away all that evidence all because of a few canonical anomalies among the ECFs??
@@tonyl3762if your argument is that these Deuteros are Scripture because ECFs cite them as Scripture, then to be consistent, you need to include these non Deuteros since many of these same ECFs cite non Deuteros as Scripture too. Some are Doctors of the Church. You can’t have it both ways: validate their authority for the Deuteros but then reject them for the non Deuteros. Again, this is because they utilized different versions of the Deuteros with different books in them.
@@BornAgainRN Why can't you just answer my original question head-on? You do realize that your attempt to accuse the Catholic position of incoherence/inconsistency (through strawmanning it) does NOT make your own position any more coherent or help you reconcile your own position with the overwhelming reception of the Deuteros in the early Church, among the successors of the Apostles, right??
You only show your ignorance of the Catholic position if you think it is "Deuteros are Scripture because ECFs cite them as Scripture." The ECFs are WITNESSES to what the Church received, accepted, and recognized. Popes and councils are the authoritative Church organs. Shouldn't you already know this, being a former Catholic and debating so many Catholics? So less than a handful of anomalies/false positives among the ECFs (less than 1% of citations?) is no problem for the Catholic case.
*How many specific instances can you actually name of ECFs explicitly quoting writings outside the Catholic canon (non-deuteros) as Scripture?* 2? 3? You make it sound like there are so "many," but I wonder if you even need two hands to count them?
And since you seem to be conceding the ECFs to the Catholic position, are you not going to admit that your interpretations of early "Christian canon" lists from Origen, Athanasius, etc. are wrong because all of these ECFs with "lists" either quote Deuteros as Scripture or to confirm doctrine (or both)?? You want to talk about consistency? You can't have it both ways.
*Do you really think the ECFs (and the early Church as a whole) got the OT canon wrong?? Then how on earth can you trust anything about the Bible and NT canon we have today??* Do you not understand that they are responsible for preserving and handing EVERYTHING down to us regarding the Christian faith, including Scripture and the canon?? You think you can saw off the branch that you sit on without falling?
Notably, I met your unreasonable standard of finding a single ECF who cites all of the Deuteros, more or less. Of course, the volume of citations is roughly proportional to the overall volume of writings for each ECF, so no surprise Origen gets the closest. I wouldn't be surprised if Augustine meets the same standard.
Over 100 pages of Gary Michuta's book _The Case for the Deuterocanon_ includes citations of the early Church fathers quoting deuteros explicitly as Scripture or to confirm doctrine. The blogspot blog Practical Apologetics also has an article "Early Church Fathers on Apocrypha/ Deuterocanonical Books" that contains citations.
@tonyl3762 and he ignores the fact that many of these ECFs ALSO quote non-deutero books as Scripture too, and many of those quotes are actually from EARLIER books from the Hebrew Bible. What Gary DOESN'T tell you is that there are ZERO citations from ECFs who cite ALL the books from the Deuterocanon, let alone the Catholic OT. But there are SEVERAL who produce IDENTICAL canons of the Hebrew Bible.
@@BornAgainRNwhat do u mean by “earlier books from the Hebrew Bible”? And could u pls give an example of an ECF quoting a non-Biblical source as scripture?
@@BornAgainRN *How many specific instances can you actually name of ECFs explicitly quoting writings outside the Catholic canon (non-deuteros) as Scripture?* 2? 3? You make it sound like there are so "many," but I wonder if you even need two hands to count them?
And since you seem to be conceding the ECFs to the Catholic position, are you not going to admit that your interpretations of early "Christian canon" lists from Origen, Athanasius, etc. are wrong because all of these ECFs with "lists" either quote Deuteros as Scripture or to confirm doctrine (or both)?? You want to talk about consistency? You can't have it both ways.
*Do you really think the ECFs (and the early Church as a whole) got the OT canon wrong??* Then how on earth can you trust anything about the Bible and NT canon we have today?? Do you not understand that they are responsible for preserving and handing EVERYTHING down to us regarding the Christian faith, including Scripture and the canon?? You think you can saw off the branch that you sit on without falling?
That’s correct. For example, Athanasius includes a list with none canonical but read books for Christianity and doctrine, and even that second list Doesn’t include the Maccabes. Curiously enough, in the same region as Athanasius of Alexandria, the Canon of the Ethiopian church in its list doesn’t include the Maccabes. We also see Barnabas, the founder of the Coptic church’s uncle then, quotes Enoch as scripture, and so does Tertullien a hundred years later, church in the bordering country west of Alexandria, and the Etheopian church, south of Alexandria accepts Enoch in the canon.
In other words it’s not ckear cut Council of Trent simple.
@@isaakleillhikar8311 And yet Athanasius includes Baruch in his "canon," and groups Esther with Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Tobit, etc. into the NON-APOCRYPHAL 2nd tier of his 3 tiered system. And yet he also often quotes Deuteros explicitly as Scripture or to confirm doctrines (esp the Trinitarian doctrines he is famous for defending!): Wisdom at least 8 times; Sir 15:9; Judith 8:16; Bar 3:12; Tob 12:7.
Additionally, apparently the evidence leans toward Athanasius having an affinity for the Maccabees. In his Espositiones in Psalmos, line 05667, he praises the righteous shedding of blood by the Maccabees.
*So which side/position really gains the most advantage from ALL the evidence from Athanasius? How can it not be the Catholic side?*
What does pointing out how Enoch is apparently quoted as Scripture ("it is written") once in the Letter of Barnabas actually do for anyone? How is that actually remotely comparable to the voluminous citations of Deuteros as Scripture or as confirmation of doctrine?
In my mind, as with the inconsistencies of the Athanasian lists, all that does is further confirm the need for Church authority to settle the canon rather than people thinking they are smart enough to rationalize a completely clear-cut rationale. It doesn't actually help the Protestant case or even disprove the Catholic case, even though people like Christie apparently think of it that way for some reason.
The case of Tertullian and Enoch is very different in that he himself admits his awareness of the disputed status of Enoch. Can't say I've laid eyes recently on the actual text of the huge volume of ECF citations of Deuteros to see if there are any similar qualifications and admissions, but I'm pretty confident it is rare to none for the Deutero citations that can be found in Michuta's book. So I don't see the relevance.
Moreover, in the same passage, Tertullian (like Justin Martyr) makes reference of how the Jews rejected/removed Scriptures in reaction to Christianity: " By the Jews it [Enoch] may now seem to have been rejected for that (very) reason, just like all the other (portions) nearly which tell of Christ. Nor, of course, is this fact wonderful, that they did not receive some Scriptures which spoke of Him whom even in person, speaking in their presence, they were not to receive."
This is just more evidence that the Christian OT canon was NOT the Jewish canon. And that the Deuteros were rejected by later Jews because of how they foretold of Christ.
We get it that you want to hear him out and be charitable, but it is painful to hear him say things that are so grossly misleading, such as Jimmy Aiken, Gary M, etc., all “concede” that the Pharisees “canon” matched the Protestant canon without pointing out that has nothing to do with them agreeing that the Protestant canon is correct as they all cite that as an example of one of multiple “canons” among the Jews and EVIDENCE against there being a single recognizable canon at the time of Christ. Also, isn’t at least one question about the Septuagint used by Jesus and the apostles worthy of asking. Peace
Good point
This
Yup. Considering the Apostles directly quoted from the Septuagint 300 times. And the Catholic OT isn’t just the Septuagint there is a blending of the Hebrew canon there as well and some areas of the Septuagint that were not used.
i've heard this guy debate Catholics before, he's a little weaselly when it comes to Catholic claims. For instance he'll say rulings on the immaculate conception or assumption of mary are not in the bible, implying that the Catholic claim is that they are. That is not the Catholic claim. we claim to get those dogma's from the oral tradition. he misleads.
I'm not saying that his misleading on what Catholic Claims are means that there is not a case for a smaller canon but it undermines his credibility as it shows he is willing to stawman or misinterpret a claim or counter claim to "prove" his point. It makes him and his case he presents unreliable. Gavin has a stronger argument for the shorter canon.
at 22:09 he just got done saying something that sounds correct until you think about it. At the heart of Christianity is a mystery, is a paradox, that Jesus is both God and Man, both mortal and divine (immortal), always co-existent but born in chronological time.
It is not that God is lying by inspiring a larger canon it is that we are not wise enough to understand what God is telling us with the mystery He presents to us.
Much more explicit than Luke's "full of grace" and comparisons to Eve and the Ark for the Immaculate Conception, Rev 12 seems to strongly imply the Assumption since it refers to Mary's body being crowned and clothed in heaven.
I wouldn’t say the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Most Blessed Virgin are strictly from non-written tradition, in a sense that they are supposedly not from Scripture. They, like all dogmas, come from the one source (divine Revelation), making for a single “depositum fidei” which is transmitted through written or oral word for the Church to be its custodian. They are all equally from Scripture and ‘Traditio’ but some are more scripturally evident than others. For example, in my humble opinion the hypostatic union (not that Jesus is both human and divine, which is kind of “easy”, but that he is simultaneously perfectly human and perfectly divine in Chalcedonian terms) is less evident with the mere search of Scriptural verses than that of apostolic succession. It is kind of evident that a pre-Chalcedonian Oriental Orthodox (who believe the latter but not the former) would agree with me, but a Protestant (who believe the former but not the latter) would disagree. So I think the case for the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption from Scripture is pretty solid, as long as one has the key to interpret it as a 1st century Jew would understand the history of salvation and the soteriological connection to the promises made to Israel, not as a modern Protestant “sola Scritpura” interpreter would. God bless!
@@masterchief8179 I agree that if Catholics knew the Scriptural support of the Marian dogmas they wouldn't say things like the OP. At the same time, it takes a lot more work to tease out the Scriptural support for such dogmas than other doctrines or dogmas. And even then, some only have Scriptural support whereas some have more like Scriptural proof/demonstration.
Which church in the first 1,500 years had the canon that Steve Christie uses today?
Also, I appreciate this interview. I've been looking for a defense of the Protestant canon so that I can better understand the point of view of my diehard Presbyterian friend, with whom I sometimes debate.
The inspiration of the Deuterocanon speaks for itself:
"Let us therefore lie in wait for the just, because he is not for our turn, and he is contrary to our doings, and upbraideth us with transgressions of the law, and divulgeth against us the sins of our way of life. He boasteth that he hath knowledge of God, *and calleth himself the son of God.* He has become a censurer of our thoughts. He is grievous unto us, even to behold: for his life is not like other men's, and his ways are very different. We are esteemed by him as triflers, and he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness, and he preferreth the latter end of the just, *and glorieth that he hath God for his father.* Let us see then if his words be true, and let us prove what shall happen to him, and we shall know what his end shall be. *For if he be the true son of God, he will defend him, and will deliver him from the hands of his enemies. Let us examine him by outrages and tortures, that we may know his meekness and try his patience. Let us condemn him to a most shameful death:* for there shall be respect had unto him by his words." - Wisdom 2:12-20.
I discuss this passage in my book. This is referencing back to books in the Hebrew Bible like Psalm 2, Psalm 22, & others, which are prophesying forward to Matthew 27. Wisdom 2 is not prophesying forward. I addressed this during my debates with Gary and Trent as well:
@BornAgainRN the prophecy in Wisdom is more specific than any of those in the Scriptures you cite. None of those other passages specifically reference the Jewish plot to test, torture and kill the Son of God.
Nevertheless, your argument doesn't make sense. The prophesy of Isaiah is not made invalid because of the prophecy in the Psalms. The prophecy in the Psalms is not made invalid because of prophecy in the book of Numbers. God's revelation and Scripture tie together. The prophecies of Christ became more explicit as the world approached the Incarnation.
So you're not really addressing the inspiration of Wisdom. Rather, you're trying to hand-wave it away by highlighting its consistency to prior Scriptures. But that's really an argument for, and not against, the DC.
@@cultofmodernism8477 Ha! Yeah, he's saying it can't be scripture because it's too coherent with the Old and New Testament! 😆😆😆
« This war was not for my glory, but for the salvation of the people. Therefore, either kill me yourself or deliver me up the the Roman’s. It may be that the wrath of Cesar will be appeased against you » - The words of Vercingetorix in The Gallic Wars by Julius Caesar.
There is nothing incoherent about a true prophesy not making it into the canon. I don't hold to the deuterocanon as being fully inspired, but I have no problem acknowledging that Wisdom 2 contains a truly inspired Messianic prophesy. -Peace
@10:50 really man … I guarantee you can work through any Deuterocanonical “contradiction” with infinitely less mental gymnastics than it takes to reconcile Romans 4 or Hebrews 11 with James 1.
Jerome was NOT speaking on behalf of Rome or the 382 council in his Prologue to Jeremiah. He had no authority to do so, and there is no real evidence that he was trying to do so. That Prologue was not approved by any council or pope, nor does it mention any council or pope, despite the "we," which we were likely his assistants who we know Jerome had in his translation work! Jerome speaks merely of his private opinion and that of his assistants, KNOWING it to be contrary to the universal Church because he then states he is "standing ready, because of these things, for all the curses from the jealous, to whom it is necessary for me to respond...."
"...unless, perhaps, Esdras is to be understood as prophesying of Christ in that passage..."
How on earth is that Augustine "clearly stating 3 Esdras was 'prophesying of Christ'"? Seems very theoretical/propositional and uncertain, yes?
Most Protestant scholars like Schaff, Bruce, and others realize this argument is bogus. Merely sloppy William Webster re-tread.
Who the heck cares what the New Catholic Encyclopedia says? It is not a magisterial document.
Drinking Game: Take a shot every time it is insisted that the Jews at the time of Jesus had a single, unified canon of Scripture.
At least wait to watch it until after lent then
@@GospelSimplicity ; I'll just take shots of apple juice, then. :)
@@actsapologist1991You’re not drinking during Lent. Well it’s very clear that you’re not Russian Orthodox.
@@bman5257Pretty judgmental blanket statement. We take Lent far more seriously than the Papacy. Roman Catholics are well known for drinking. Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
@@ElonMuskrat-my8jy I was just making a joke. It wasn’t a criticism, I agree that both Catholics and Orthodox drink. An Eastern priest joked with me about Russians and dinking.
Just started watching. Really curious to see how they handle the Dead Sea Scrolls which are a collection of ancient biblical texts that INCLUDES the Deuterocanonical books of the Bible.
DSS proves the legitimacy of the LXX.
@@ElonMuskrat-my8jy actually, I do bring this up in the discussion. The DDSs only include TWO of the Deuteros (Sirach & Tobit) and a Greek translation of the epistle of Jeremiah. But it does not include the other five books. So far from supporting the deuterocanonical books, it actually has a much larger library. Plus, they do not treat even those books the same way they do the books of the Hebrew Bible and particularly the Torah. There’s a specific manner in which they organize the columns, rows, and headers and footers, that they don’t do for the rest of their library, including those Deuteros books. So you can’t really go by the DDSs for what their canon was. This is even something Roman Catholics concede to.
@@BornAgainRN Translation of the DDS is closer to the LXX than the MT.
@@ElonMuskrat-my8jy I'm no scholar on the DSS, the LXX, or the Masoretic Text (MT), but I find them all fascinating. I have done some armchair research and have two things for you to consider.
First, collections into a codex, like we have for the LXX, or into libraries, like the DSS, are not canons. Both require judgement calls, otherwise we should have the Psalms of Solomon, Enoch, Jubilees, and all kinds of other works in our Bibles.
Second, many are familiar with the longer Greek versions of Esther and Daniel associated with the LXX, but fewer realize that Greek versions of Ezra and Job are shorter than the MT.
Finally, I hear there are at least two versions of Jeremiah among the DSS and one matches the MT more closely and the other the LXX. Like I said, fascinating.
I think Steve briefly pointed out that only three Deuterocanonical works have been found so far among the DSS (Sirach, Tobit, and the Letter of Jeremiah). The Deuterocanon is not a well defined collection and having or even quoting one does not endorse them all. What did you think?
Sorry but Neither Steve Christie or anyone else has the authority to deturmine the canon. Only the Church has the authority.
In the livestream chat, I directly asked him: "Who is your authority?" because he disclaimed Luther and Beckwith as his authority. He never answered that question. Can any Protestant answer that question with anyone but himself?
@@tonyl3762 Exactly. They are sola scriptura. Ask them were does it say individual christians can interpret scripture and then teach against what the Church teaches and by what authority. Where's that in scripture. All they can do is dance.
Brother, there's one mediator between God and humankind, and that is the human one, Christ jesus. His holy spirit not only aids us in discovering truth, but it's the only entity that can righteously bind our conscience. Our pastor, our tradition, our understanding, and the magisterium all must be subjugated to the Word of God and the testimony of the Spirit in the honest seeker willing to be taught and if necessary be corrected. Give respect and honor to the magisterium, brother, but obedience to the Holy Spirit of God through His Word.
@@keelyemerine-mix1051 "holy spirit... only entity that can righteously bind our conscience"
lol, you just contradicted Scripture in Mt 16:19 and Mt 18:18
Which church? Considering Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Protestants have different canons,. Your over simplification and declaring your own dogma doesn't help.
It is, therefore, a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. 2 Maccabees 12: 46
This discussion isn’t about praying for the dead, or even purgatory, which technically 2 Maccabees does not teach Purgatory since those soldiers who had possession of the pagan amulets committed a “mortal” sin according to Rome. It’s about what was the actual old testament canon of Jesus and the apostles? And if you take the time to watch our discussion you’ll see why it’s the “smaller” protestant canon.
@@BornAgainRN Masses for the Dead - Readings from the Old Testament
the Lectionary for Mass, no. 1011
2 Maccabees 12: 43-
46
He doesn't know what a mortal sin is. Why should we entertain discussions with people who don't even bother to learn important distinctives about the side they're arguing against?
I Corinthians 15:29 " Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?"
Mr Christie keeps referring to "the Jewish canon" but there was more than one Jewish canon. The Pharisees had a canon which was identical to the Protestant canon but the Sadducees only recognized the Pentateuch as canonical. The Jews of the Diaspora used the Septuagint which has all of the books recognized by the Eastern Orthodox and is the version quoted in the New Testament when the NT quotes the OT. The Essenes canon was similar to the canon of the Pharisees but lacked Esther and contained some books that all reject today. There were a couple of others also.
Something tells me you didn’t watch the interview in full before commenting.
@@thewiseandthefoolishHe did. Everyone commenting did.
@@MeanBeanComedy if he did he probably would not have said that the Pentateuch is the canon of the Sadducees so casually but okay
@garyibio4195 made it abundantly clear that where the belief that the Sadducees only embraced the Torah was based on those, like Origen & Pseudo-Tertullian in the 3rd century who assumed (falsely) that since the Sadducees met up with the Samaritans in the second or third century, that this means they only embraced the same 5 books of Moses that the Samaritans did. But not only are Origen & Tertullian heretics according to Rome, there is zero evidence before their time that the Sadducees only embraced the Torah. As I mentioned in the discussion, I was able to find from Scripture & outside of Scripture that the Sadducees embraced at least 13 out of the 22 books, and we know they embraced all 22, since Sadducees - not the Pharisees - were the Jewish sect that laid Scriptural books up in the Temple. And we know they laid up 22 books, know they were limited to the books of the Hebrew Bible, and the Sadducees would not have laid up books they didn't believe were Scripture. So, the Catholic belief the Sadducees only embraced the Torah is based on Origen & Pseudo-Tertullian...but not based on Scripture nor verifiable history.
@@BornAgainRN The fact that he refers to "the Jewish canon" and admits that the Sadducees only accepted the Torah only shows his inconsistencies. He is admitting, in essence, that the so-called Jewish canon is a myth. Even if it were true that only Origen and Tertullian mention the canon of the Sadducees, and I'm not sure he is, that means nothing. Yes, they are heretics but that doesn't prove that they were wrong on every single statement they ever made. Origen was a heretic because he believed in Universalism. He was wrong there but that doesn't mean that he was wrong everywhere. Tertullian was originally an orthodox believer. Later on in life he became a Marcionite. Interestingly the problem with the Marcionites was that they denied the inspiration of some of the books of the Bible just as Mr. Christie does.
Steve Christie has this bad habit - I say it as respectfully as I can - of citing one Catholic apologist’s opinion against another (Catholic apologist)’s opinion and then poking at “the magisterium”, whatever he means by it. I suggest everyone reads Fr. Christiaan Kappes and William Albrecht’s _”A Complete History of the Biblical Canon in the Christian East and West: Vol. 1: Greek, Latin, and Slavic Biblical Canon from the New Testament until AD 1500”_ as a great resource.
First of all, the canon under pope St Damasus, either it is a canon from the Council of Rome (382) or from a hypothetical sole papal magisterial decree, is certainly described as a closed catalogue of books, as put into the _“Decretum Gelasianum”_ (compilation of papal decrees and some condensed canon law up to the time of Pope St Gelasius, probably written by an unknown canon lawyer in the 500s), in which one could read a particular topic: _Incipit Concilium Vrbis Romae sub Damaso Papa de Explanatione Fidei._ At least in that document, it’s both a theme concerning the regional council of Rome and a papal decreeing something with solemnity: it says the Biblical canon was defined in the Council of Rome (382) under Pope Damasus, who decreed it as such. And among the many things underneath the title of the topic, there comes a formed Biblical canon. We can easily check it online in Latin (by the way). That means the _Decretum Gelasianum_ must have assumed, since Pope Damasus was the one who commissioned the translation and the diffuse usage of the “Vulgata”, that it was Damasus’ decision to enforce a particular set of books which spread throughout the West (at the very least), whereas modern scholars tend to think that the Biblical canon was only enforced by Pope St Innocent I (mostly known to have condemned Pelagianism) in ratifying some of the dogmatic parts of the Carthaginian councils, particularly the ones of 397 and 415, being the Biblical list of books one of their primordial issues. Steve Christie should have known the latter is the position Gary Michuta takes.
Either way - that’s the center of the argument -, having coming from a decree of Pope St Damasus (366-384) due to the Council of Rome (382), or from a decree of Pope St Innocent I (401-417) due to the Councils of Carthage (particularly 397 and 415), the compilation known as the _Decretum Gelasianum_ NECESSARILY provides certainty on four things: that 1) the Catholic Biblical canon received a solemn definition in a regional council that happened in the late 4th century; 2) that it got papal ratification, otherwise it wouldn’t be into the _Decretum Gelasianum,_ 3) its usage spread throughout the so-called Latin world at the very least (not only Rome, Gaul, North Africa, but also Spain, Germany, the British Islands, etc) and, finally, 4) if we check the exact wording of the _Decretum Gelasianum_ concerning Pope St Damasus and all the Carthaginian Councils (393, 397, 415, 419, etc), it leaves no doubt that they dealt with a closed, NOT an open Biblical canon.
Therefore, it’s absolutely incorrect to state that the first solemn Catholic definition to a Bible content was given at the Council of Trent or the Council of Florence. It’s to gravely misunderstand how the Church operates in her magisterial authority to think so. To discuss universality (catholicity) and how she operates at the universal level should take us to another topic, so I’ll stick to the issue of the canon.
With that being said, the one piece apparently missing is how the content of the Bible must be presented in the separate East for an integral manifestation of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that Our Lord built upon Peter, due to the elasticity of concepts and the apparent lack of dogmatic uniformity in those lands (despite a fair uniformity in Byzantine customary practices concerning prayer and liturgy). Even though some people think the Ecumenical Council of Trent didn’t really close the canon, they can only possibly think that way because its wording states that those who take listed books OUT of the Bible would incur in anathema - but contextually, that was exactly what was happening indeed during the disputes of the Protestant Reformation, either concerning the Deuterocanonicals (OT), either concerning the book of Revelation and the Epistle of James (NT), for example. It was NOT intended to leave the Biblical canon open, as it was to address the particular circumstance for the extraordinary magisterium of an Ecumenical Council to operate. It’s core Catholic dogmatic theology concerning Councils, by the way.
I know some Catholic apologists that went Byzantine (like Trent Horn or Michael Lofton) have somehow defended the possibility of adding books to the Bible and they refer to the language of Trent. But, in my humble opinion, that may represent a type of reductionism that tries too hard to better accommodate Eastern susceptibilities at the expense of much better dealing with the fact that the _Decretum Gelasianum_ and the Councils
Of Carthage undoubtedly manifested a closed Biblical canon (the language is explicit in condemning both adding and taking books of the list, one can EASILY check it online), so the Magisterium made inadmissible either the inclusion or the exclusion of books into the concept of the Sacred pages. By the way, that document was one of the PRECISE historical sources for both Florence and Trent - in the dialogue with the Greeks and Copts, who had argued for more books, and in the dialogue with Protestants, who had argued for less books (respectively). In a brief summary: the papal ratification given (either in Damasus/Rome 382 or in Innocent/Carthage 415) must be efficiently dealt with in any explanations here, and they must be magisterially consistent. For me, the closed canon is obviously the most solid position.
As far the Eastern issue goes, it must always start by accepting the indefinite response to how the regional Council of Trullo (692), convened by the Emperor and self-organized by the Church of Constantinople, dealt with its Second Canon (that received the ‘African Code’ compiled in the Council of Carthage (419), among them the Biblical content of books) and the arguable incorporation of the Biblical canon of Africa - if it was progressively abandoned through time, or if it happened on a particular set of time, due to the perception of the Greek-Latin schism or any other possible reason. Second, in the process of definition and formation of the Biblical canon, it’s true that readability along liturgical acts in the very seminal state of the living Church was seen as the primary criteria for accepting the canonicity of books, and that criteria, therefore, gave orientation to solemn definitions that started to be given by the ecclesiastical authority; yet in that sense, considering the very fact of given existing definition inside the magisterium, the compatibility comes from accepting the very definition of the canon to be binding through an act of ecclesiastical definition (papal ratification + Decretum Gelasianum, Florence and Trent) and, in the case of any Eastern existing tradition of reading books outside of that list, consider it only - inversely - admissible through permissibility, not strict canonicity, since the Church has formally spoken. That’s the position of the best Catholic canonist worldwide, either Western or Eastern Catholics. It’s what already happens in Eastern Catholicism, particularly with the Ethiopian Catholic Church of the Ge’ez Alexandrian rite and their enormous Bible.
Fr Christian Kappes is a Byzantine Catholic huge theologian (not to despise the great work of apologists, but a scholar could be a better source to explain historical and theological subtleties) and he could be heard to take on the issue, so that misrepresentation or misunderstandings - whatever they are - of East and West comprehension about the Biblical canon don’t spread without a fair check, I guess, coming also from someone who can positively state the case for a dogmatic magisterial definition.
God bless you all!
Just to illustrate, one can read the Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures of Trent and see why some apologists understand it only condemns the rejection of canonical books, not the inclusion (that’s merely reading the anathema, therefore is the wrong reading of the very Council’s documentation):
_"The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent,-lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding therein,-keeping this always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and 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 even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament-seeing that one God is the author of both -as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession._
_And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one's mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below:_
_Of the _*_Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second._*
_Of the _*_New Testament: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle._*
_But _*_if any one RECEIVE NOT, as SACRED AND CANONICAL, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; LET HIM BE ANATHEMA._*_ Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church”._
As I said above, even though some people think the Ecumenical Council of Trent didn’t really close the canon, they think that way because its wording states that those who take listed books OUT of the Bible would incur in anathema - but, all again, contextually, that was exactly what was happening during the disputes of the Protestant Reformation. It was NOT intended to leave the Biblical canon open, as it was to address the particular circumstance for the extraordinary magisterium of an Ecumenical Council to operate.
@@masterchief8179 just a couple of brief comments.
One, the Decretum Gelasianum (~AD 550) omitted the book of Baruch & the epistle of Jeremiah. That's because it was reflective of the Council of Rome in AD 382 which also omitted them. That's why as late as the 7th & early 8th centuries, Baruch is still not consistently in the canon.
Two, Trent only anathematizing the REMOVAL of books, not the "addition" books was my whole point, as well as the point of Michael Lofton, Trent Horn, & Jimmy Akin. Based on the wording of the Council of Trent that you reproduced, theoretically, there is nothing from the Council itself that would prevent a future ecumenical council or magisterium from adding books from the EO Bible (like 3 Esdras), if they even decided to reconcile. So, theoretically, the canon is still open.
Three, the Councils IN Trullo affirmed several canon lists, and not all of them were identical, including Carthage that affirmed 3 Esdras. The confusion comes from the nomenclature of the book. Back then it was called "1 Esdras," and it WAS in Florence, because as I quoted from the New Catholic Encyclopedia from 1967 (1 year after Vatican II concluded), Trent REMOVED 1/3 Esdras from the canon. We know 1/3 Esdras was in Carthage, since Augustine was a key member & bishop at Carthage, and he was still affirming this book as Scripture around AD 397, which is AFTER Hippo & the same year as Carthage.
Plus, Trent anathematized anyone who removed any book from the "old Latin Vulgate." Considering Hippo & Carthage included 1/3 Esdras, and since early versions of the Vulgate included it, and Florence had it (because Trent "removed" it), Trent ends up anathematizing itself by removing a book previously recognized as canonical Scripture in both previous local & ecumenical councils.
@@BornAgainRN First, anyone acquainted with this very topic wouldn’t come with the supposed “missing” of Baruch as a ‘gotcha’ moment, since it was also not put in the list of canonical books of the first Protestant Reformers (who wrote about it), like John Calvin, for instance, for the same reason, yet he had an inclusive (not exclusive) perspective on the matter. Protestant perspectives were the ones changing over time, not the other way around. The reason is because there was an ancient tradition that puts Baruch, Lamentations and Jeremiah into one single book. As you should have known, Baruch served as the prophet Jeremiah’s scribe, so the books of Baruch and ‘Lamentations’ (also known as “The Lamentations of Jeremiah”) were sometimes referred to collectively as “Jeremiah” in some canonical lists of the early Church, as it happened in the North African Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 415 and 419). That’s not a missing but an inclusion, just like the so-called “Letter of Jeremiah”, which appeared in an appendix is some other lists, is deemed as non-canonical by those very acts of magisterial authority under discussion.
Steve, I’m coming back later to respond to the other claims you make, but I just need to be with my baby son and go home now 😊. If I can, I’m responding by now.
From Brazil 🇧🇷 with love.
@@BornAgainRN Second, it’s incorrect to say that the Council of Carthage (397) had 3 Esdras as a canonical book on its list. One can easily check the Denzinger here:
_”[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, _*_TWO BOOKS OF EZRA,_*_ two books of the Maccabees. Moreover, of the New Testament: Four books of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles one book, thirteen epistles of Paul the apostle, one of the same to the Hebrews, two of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, the Apocalypse of John._
_Thus [it has been decided] that _*_THE CHURCH BEYOND THE SEA may be consulted regarding the CONFIRMATION of that CANON;_*_ also that it be permitted to read the sufferings of the martyrs, when their anniversary days are celebrated”_ (From Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, translated and published in English as The Sources of Catholic Dogma).
So I guess your information is simply wrong at this point, my friend. Please notice that the very Council of Carthage (397) - where St Augustine was the greatest theological genious - says that the “Church overseas” need to confirm the canon they themselves defined. What should the church “beyond the sea” - in reference to Carthage - be according to you? Absolutely every scholar and every good willed interpreter know it was a cultural and geographical reference to Rome, typical of the Carthaginians (since the time of the Punic Wars, Rome vs Carthage - from 264 BC on), therefore a deference to the Petrine role of the Roman church in approving/ ratifying the very decisions of the African council. Either way, and in light of what is said, even if a regional council (like the Donatist councils, for example) has a particular list of books or other definitions, one should check under what conditions it was overruled by Rome (like many of the Carthaginian canons throughout history), partially or entirely, and understand under which conditions the canons received ratification from Rome. Pope St Innocent I, in 405, reaffirmed the African canon (Carthage 397) in a letter to Bishop Exsuperius of Toulouse. What do you think the Biblical canon of OT books was? The Pharisaical one? It was EXACTLY the Catholic of Florence, Trent and the _Decretum Gelasianum._ Do you honestly believe history is on your side? I don’t know how come you miss it entirely but I’ve got to say - respectfully, yet vehemently - that you seem to lack important notions on both ecclesiology and ecclesiastical canon law (that shouldn’t have been left out of the table in the first place), Steve, or maybe you are glossing them over.
@@BornAgainRN Third, even Philip Schaff, a Protestant top scholar, notices your claim about a so-called divergent Augustinian list (that was supposedly modified in Trent) to be unsustainable, since the convergence of the canonical books of the North African (since Hippo [393]) and the Tridentine canons (more so, the unequivocal and glowing consistency of authoritative lists of books from late 4th century on) is a historical undisputed fact:
_”The council of Hippo in 393, and the third (according to another reckoning the sixth) council of Carthage in 397, _*_under the influence of Augustine, who attended both, fixed the catholic canon of the Holy Scriptures,_*_ including the Apocrypha of the Old Testament (…). This decision of the transmarine church however, was subject to ratification; and the concurrence of the Roman see it received _*_when Innocent I and Gelasius I (414 AD) REPEATED the same index_*_ of biblical books. _*_This canon REMAINED UNDISTURBED till the sixteenth century, and was SANCTIONED by the council of TRENT_*_ at its fourth session”._
(Schaff, Philip, "Chapter IX. Theological Controversies, and Development of the Ecumenical Orthodoxy", History of the Christian Church, CCEL).
On the Council of Trent allegedly leaving the canon open (merely by the written formulation of the anathema), that very argument is valid on its face but it would be hard to swallow if we understand the Tridentine canon in comparison to the Council of Florence’s list (the immediate previous Ecumenical Council), since Florence defined - already in 1442, that means earlier than the Protestant “disputatio” concerning the canon - in “Cantate Domine” (the bull on the union with the Copts and the Ethiopians), all over again, the exact same list of books held by Trent and the _Decretum Gelasianum,_ only without the contextual anathema directed at the Protestant (= Luther, Calvin, etc) and Humanist (= Erasmus, etc) luminaries, who argued for the exclusion of canonical books. Taking these facts under consideration, what (arbitrary) argument would be left for the case of a Florentine canon also being open, meaning one produced - undoubtedly - by an Ecumenical Council too, only without the anathema addressing the “rejection” but not the “inclusion” of books, if it does not make a reference to the redaction of an anathema at all? I can only say, therefore, that the so-called theoretical possibility of the Tridentine canon to be open - when the Florentine canon didn’t even leave space for that argument - is a theological speculation that ignores the magisterial and historical consistency within Catholicism, as far as I understand it, even though it is arguably more effective for the ecumenical dialogues with Oriental and Eastern Orthodox interlocutors (I would disagree here for a lot of reasons). As you should have known by this point, the infallible doctrine proclaimed by an Ecumenical Council and an “ex cathedra” papal definition is not the objective anathema that the extraordinary magisterium aims to address, but the very doctrinal proposition defined, to which the anathema itself alludes, in the ‘corpus’ of the magisterial act.
Heard all his arguments. They do not stand up to any level of scrutiny.
Edit after premiere: Well, that’s about exactly what I expected. Oh well.
I feel this is misleading because of what other historians and even Fr. Stephen DeYoung explained in The Religion of the Apostles that the Judaisms were so diverse that one specific Jewish Canon can not be said to speak for all, much less the one that Christ Himsefl used during His ministry.
When something asserts that the apostles got it wrong - in this case look to the Septuagint, the Bible that the apostles carried, which had the deuterocanonical books - I’m out.
No one is claiming that the apostles got the canon wrong. And we address the Septuagint in our discussion.
Fascinating. 🧐
One may uphold the Septuagint as a faithful translation without endorsing the entire collection.
Cyril of Jerusalem is an excellent example of just such a view (Catechetical Lectures 4.33-36).
Also, to refer to it as a collection with a set table of contents is a historical oversimplification.
Some of the earliest codices include works that no current Christian traditions consider part of Holy Scripture (e.g. Psalms of Solomon).
Finally, as an interesting side note, many are familiar with the longer Greek versions of Esther and Daniel associated with the Septuigent, but unaware that Greek versions of Jeremiah and Job are shorter than the Masoretic/Hebrew.
The Septuagint translation would not have been standardized into a codex with a single canon at that time
Arguments that don't take into account naming convention confusion with Esdras/Ezra and naming convention consolidation with Jeremiah/Baruch are very weak.
"Baruch wasn’t left out. Besides being a prophet himself, Baruch served as the prophet Jeremiah’s scribe. The books of Baruch and Lamentations-which also known as “The Lamentations of Jeremiah”-were sometimes referred to collectively as “Jeremiah” in canonical lists of the early Church. We see the close relationship between these biblical books in canon 60 of the Council of Laodicea, which scholars estimate took place between A.D. 343 and 380. Jeremiah is listed with Baruch and Lamentations, though all three are named.
In the 39th Festal Letter of St. Athanasius (A.D. 367), Athanasius lists “Jeremias, and along with it, Baruch, Lamentations, and the Letter.” The “Letter” refers to the Letter of Jeremiah, which is appended as the sixth chapter of Baruch in Catholic Bibles and other Bibles, including the King James Version, although the latter doesn’t place it in the biblical canon. In addition, in St. Cyril of Jerusalem’s 4th Catechetical Lecture (circa A.D. 350), Jeremiah is treated as one book: “of Jeremias, one, along with Baruch, Lamentations and the Letter.”
J.E. Steinmueller notes that the prophet Daniel “states explicitly that he read in Jeremias the number of the years of the captivity” and “then in the same context he literally depends upon Baruch” (A Companion to Scripture Studies, vol. I, A General Introduction to the Bible 77). The passage is Daniel 9:2. In addition, Steinmueller says: “Modern scholars also point out that one and the same translator translated Jeremias, Baruch, and the Epistle of Jeremias from the Hebrew into the Greek, and thus these three books had been considered as one, a fact that is also confirmed by early church documents” (Ibid., emphasis added)."
"The confusion is caused by the fact that some of the books of the Bible and the apocrypha (those which do not belong in the Catholic Bible) have changed names over the last few centuries. You have put your finger on the most confusing name change there has been. Read carefully, because this is tricky.
There have been four books associated with the prophet Ezra (also spelled Esdras). In some circles these became known as 1, 2, 3, and 4 Esdras. In other circles, the first two of these (1 and 2 Esdras) became known as Ezra and Nehemiah, while the second two (3 and 4 Esdras) became known as 1 and 2 Esdras.
The first two of the four books belong in the Bible and are accepted by both Catholics and Protestants as canonical. In older Catholic Bibles they were called 1 and 2 Esdras, but now they are more commonly called Ezra and Nehemiah. The second two of the four books (sometimes known as 3 and 4 Esdras, sometimes known as 1 and 2 Esdras) do not belong in the Bible at all and are not accepted by either Catholics or Protestants.
When we said that the Church councils did not accept 1 and 2 Esdras, we were using the modern system of book names and were referring to the two formerly known as 3 and 4 Esdras.
One final note to the confusion: While 3 and 4 Esdras are not accepted by Catholics or Protestants, some Eastern Orthodox accept one or the other of them."
The Patheos article "1 Esdras & The Canon Of Hippo, Carthage, & Trent" by Dave Armstrong (6/16/20) soundly refutes Christie's attempt to muddy the waters.
@@tonyl3762if you paid attention to the discussion, you wouldn't be bringing up topics that I already covered! Seriously, go back & listen. Plus, this wasn't an exhaustive discussion. The topic of the canon can take hours. This was just a brief discussion. But the point to take away is that Jesus didn't CREATE the canon. He affirmed & ADOPTED a pre-Christian Jewish canon, which He expected the Jews to know what it was when He asked them, "Have you not READ?" And there are NO Jews & Jewish sects who had the IDENTICAL Catholic OT canon, while the Jews DID possess the identical Protestant OT canon, which were the Scriptures laid up in the Temple. Seriously, go back & listen to the ENTIRE discussion this time.
@@BornAgainRN I already listened to the whole thing again. You merely muddied the waters by claiming Catholic "discrepancies" with Esdras and Baruch instead of acknowledging the confusing naming conventions for Esdras/Ezra and well-known consolidation of Baruch into Jeremiah. Dave Armstrong in particular already addressed your Esdras "discrepancy"/objection in a blog post.
I am simpleton. The authority that gave us the new testament had the same authority to determine the old testament books. For the same spirit that guide the people to the new is also the one for the old. If you want to let the pharisee authority (the people that rejected Jesus) decide the scriptures for the Christians then you need to reject the new testament books along with it, because they rejected all the new testament books.
It is so absurd to me that Jesus and his followers didn't know all the true inspired writing, until a man named Luther came along 1500 years later. To believe this, one must hold that Luther is superior to Jesus and his apostles in giving the world the truth of his words.
@johnlee6780 just out of curiosity, did you watch the discussion? Because no one is making these claims that Jesus & the apostles didn't know what the Scriptures were. I would encourage you watch the discussion. It will clear things up.
@@BornAgainRNI unfortunately did. Yes, though you didn't say it out right, but you implied it. The early Christians that gave us the new testament failed to give us the correct books of the old testament. The people (pharisee) that studied/read the correct old testament books (whom came to reject Jesus by their study of the scriptures) were the people that are correct.
You believe that the church that Jesus founded - for 1500 years - was incapable of giving us the correct scriptures and finally your man, Luther, gave us the right list. Subsequently, began the fracturing of Christendom. Thus to today, where Christians doesn't know what the truth is anymore. because one can just find a Protestant church that agrees with what one believes. Isn't this what Protestantism do for you?
@@johnlee6780no, again, there weee several correct lists by both Jews and the ECFs in the early church. Again, the problem was different versions of the Septuagint had different books. This is why they are all identical. Those who were familiar with the Hebrew Bible from before the time Christ which Jesus and the apostles adopted had smaller canons, as did the early Jews who adopted the same canon.
@@BornAgainRNSteve, are you up to date on the latest finding from the dead sea scrolls? You should check them out. A tip for you - they discovered Hebrew versions of the old Testaments books you and Luther rejected.
@@BornAgainRNAgain Steve, the questions is not which Jewish group accepted what books as scripture - for none of them with their scripture accepted Jesus, our Lord and savior. The real question is what authority can declared what books belong in the bible. The church people whom meet in council to decide the books of the new and old testaments or the Pharisee whom reject Jesus and the books of the new testament. Of course, the Pharisee had a list of books that they considered scripture. So does the other different sects. Who cares what they consider, because they failed to ID and rejected Jesus. Do you believe that the Holy Spirit that guided the bishops on deciding on the books of the new testament failed to guide them on the books old testament? If you do, how come you can't say that the new testament may be wrong - because the authority you hold to have the right old testament rejects the books of the new testament?
Gary Michuta's Apocrypha Apocalypse channel video titles:
Blood of Abel "Bookends" Argument Part 1 (systematically shows how Zechariah of Chronicles is not likely candidate for Jesus' reference based on Jesus' own words)
Blood of Abel Argument Pt 2 (shows the evidence that Chronicles was not considered last of "the writings")
I watched this video a couple of years ago. He uses a subjective numbering system in order to arrive that the Zachariah Jesus is talking about is not the one in 2 Chronciles. He somehow argues this being a Zachariah that is not known to history. And he completely ignores the Rabbinic name conflation argument made by Beckwith, and Dr Rydelnik’s messianic/eschatological argument as to “why” the Hebrew Bible ends with 2 Chronicles.
The lives of the saints teach us that the Zechariah slain between the altar and the temple was the father of St. John the Forerunner and Baptist. That's why you need Holy Tradition and not just Holy Scripture.
@@BornAgainRN There is no necessity to think that this statement of Jesus has anything to do with the canon to begin with. The context is merely martyred prophets, not prophets who wrote Scripture. Prophets can and did exist without writing anything. It is quite reasonable to believe Jesus just picked out an early egregious example and a more recent egregious example without any relation to or comment on the content or extent of the OT canon. Heb 11, as a hall of fame of OT saints, has a much better claim to a canonical statement than Abel to Zechariah.
"Subjective numbering system"? It is a systematic comparison of 6 identity markers given by Jesus to 6 possible Zechariahs based on early source evidence of each Zechariah. And each marker is given the same weight in the system. And he gives his own reasons and evidence for how each person is scored for each marker.
Why not just engage specific ID markers and/or specific scorings in the analysis rather than dismissing it with the epithet "subjective"?
Notably, you didn't mention the specific ID marker of Mt 23:35 that Gary points out, which is that the Zechariah appears to be someone that Jesus' contemporaries killed.
Michuta does address name conflation theories, though not specifically the one you mention. But the theory you mention doesn't actually help us narrow down which Zechariah it is, let alone to Chronicles; it just opens up more possibilities by its very nature.
No comment on the 2nd video in that series?
@@tonyl3762because the numbering system was created by Gary himself! THAT is what makes it subjective. And Hebrews 11 has nothing to do with the canon. Gary assumed that because a word that normally is used as a metonym to INTRODUCE Scripture is used at the beginning & ending of Hebrews 11, that it follows it is affirming the entire chapter that quotes OT ERA books as Scripture. However, Gary doesn't understand how a metonym works: it QUOTES the actual Scripture. But this isn't how Hebrews 11 is using the term by placing it before & at the end of the chapter. That's not how metonyms are utilized in the NT.
What Matthew 23 & Luke 11 are doing are addressing ALL of the prophets who were martyred, and they expect the readers to know who Abel & Zechariah are. The problem is most people, including Gary, don't quite grasp HOW a rabbinic name conflation is used in Scripture & rabbinic literature. It also explains why Matthew uses it with his Jewish audience who would have been familiar with it, and why Luke doesn't since his audience was primarily Jewish.
But since you were posting so many comments in the live chat, and since this was a detailed explanation from Jewish antiquity, you couldn't have possibly heard everything that was said during the discussion, including Dr. Rydelnik's explanation of WHY 2 Chronicles was the last book in the TaNaKh despite it not being the last CHRONOLOGICAL book written in the Hebrew Bible. Seriously, go back & listen to EVERYTHING.
@@BornAgainRN If you want to persuade others, you have to actually engage your opponent's questions/arguments, not just repeat your own talking points.
Again, I'll ask you (since you didn't answer): Why not just engage the specific ID markers and/or specific analysis rather than dismissing it with the epithet "subjective"? Not that hard to ignore the numbers and scores and just engage the points and arguments being made.
I'll put it in the form of a question since you didn't address it: what about the statements of Jesus that seem to imply that His audience murdered the Zechariah in question recently (making him a contemporary of Jesus)?
"...that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of *Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.* " Mt 23:35
Again, how does a name conflation theory support your position on the canon? Do you understand the meaning of "conflation"? Even supposing the theory is true/applicable, conflation does not provide clarity, so it does not actually help you prove your specific position.
lol, Heb 11 has no relation to the canon but Mt 23 does?? Heb 11 encompasses OT saints from Abel to the Maccabean martyrs, whether they were martyred or not. Mt 23 has the narrow focus of martyred prophets, not every prophet who wrote Scripture.
Again, Gary has a whole video (Blood of Abel Argument Pt 2) showing that Chronicles was hardly ever listed last until 13th and esp 14th century. Can you name someone before Johann Eichorn in 1780 who held this canonical interpretation of Mt 23:35 ??
As I've said before elsewhere, I did listen to the whole video discussion over again before posting comments below the video. You expect someone familiar with Michuta's arguments to just accept everything you have to say?
There is no necessity to think that the statement of Jesus about "from Abel to Zechariah" has anything to do with the canon to begin with. The context is merely martyred prophets, not prophets who wrote Scripture. Prophets can and did exist without writing anything. It is quite reasonable to believe Jesus just picked out an early egregious example and a more recent egregious example without any relation to or comment on the content or extent of the OT canon. Heb 11, as a hall of fame of OT saints, has a much better claim to a canonical statement than Abel to Zechariah.
EDIT: Just rewatched Gary Michuta's Apocrypha Apocalypse channel video "Blood of Abel Argument Pt 2". Apparently this argument from the end of Mt 23 to the OT canon didn't even exist until the year 1780 by Johann Eichorn.
Guess who is mentioned in the Hebrews 11 hall of fame? The Maccabean martyrs.
I actually thought that to be a VERY bad argument. Steve defends Christ Jesus Himself was endorsing the Pharisaical OT canon (I mean the reference he makes to “from Abel to Zechariah” in the Gospel of Matthew as a supposed reference of the OT being not only closed in the minds of the Pharisees, His interlocutors, as if Abel was a cryptic reference to the _BOOK_ of Genesis and Zechariah the last _BOOK_ the very Pharisees - whom Jesus is harshly condemning in the very passage - would recognize, but also that Our Lord arguably endorsed that assumption as the correct one). It’s very, very out of context just to begin with. People can be passionate in defending a cause, but wherever passion is, caution needs to be doubled.
Honestly, I say some bad presentation of a true argument can cause harm to truth itself, but never would a good presentation (if so) of a terrible false argument make anything in the cause of the pursuit of truth but harm too. The argument is TERRIBLE because it twists the obvious context of the dialogue. What Jesus is pointing out to the Pharisees in Matthew 23, 33-37 is a connection with 2 Chronicles 36, 15-16 (alerting God’s wrath upon them: “But they mocked God’s messengers, despised his words and scoffed at his prophets until the wrath of the Lord was aroused against his people and there was no remedy”) with the aggravation of murdering the true messengers of God and connecting it with the prediction of His own death on the cross by murder.
How could he one even make a case for the Pharisaical canon of the OT from this Biblical passage is beyond my intellectual capacity to decipher.
@@masterchief8179 Just rewatched Gary Michuta's Apocrypha Apocalypse channel video "Blood of Abel Argument Pt 2". Apparently this argument from the end of Mt 23 to the OT canon didn't even exist until the year 1780 by Johann Eichorn.
@@tonyl3762 Thanks Tony! I’m going to watch it! I never knew it was actually some Protestant “ancient” (as ancient as it can get) thesis. God bless!
@@masterchief8179😆😆😆
Steve Christie must have a discussion with Jimmy Akin and Gary Machuda on this interesting topic
“THE CANON DEBATE - GARY MICHUTA VS. STEVE CHRISTIE PART 1” ua-cam.com/users/liveRD8OQbWbeT8
“THE CANON DEBATE - GARY MICHUTA VS. STEVE CHRISTIE PART 2” ua-cam.com/users/liveHVr_GU6UsfY
“TRENT HORN VS. STEVE CHRISTIE DEBATE” ua-cam.com/users/livemlCFhtSGK_w
“APOCRYPHA DEBATE - STEVE CHRISTIE VS. DAVID PRESTON” ua-cam.com/users/livebccWH8AxmPM
He did. It didn't go well for him. That's why he's here now.
God bless out protestants brothers and sisters, and their love of scripture. Many catholics like me came to Christ thanks to Protestant scholars, and their great study bibles. Happy Easter, Christ is Risen alleluia alleluia!
Amen Brother!
Tried to come at this with open mind. But I THINK there are protestant arguments that may be more powerful. I am quite interested in how anyone can wrap their head around the protestant positions because there are intelligent ppl on all sides; it boggles my mind but am always interested in learning how one gets to a certain POV!
The OT books were laid up in the Temple. We know what those books were, which were limited to the Hebrew Bible, not the Deuterocanon. That's why we don't find identical Catholic OTs until centuries later, but we DO find Protestant canons enumerated as early as the second century.
@@BornAgainRNThe canon for both the Old and New Testaments were disputed in the Orthodox Church for centuries before there was a consensus.
@@ElonMuskrat-my8jy agreed! And that’s because they were different versions of the Septuagint in the early church with different books. This explains why he you find even councils in early church fathers having different lists. That’s why we have to go back to the source the apostle Paul affirmed, which was the Jews prior to the time of Christ, who God and trusted them with the old testament scriptures. And no Jew from antiquity embraced the same books that are in Catholic old testaments today, like there are for the Protestant Old Testament, again from before the time of Christ.
@@BornAgainRN The Jews WERE entrusted with Scripture. They translated it into Greek which was used to spread the gospel. Seventy separate scribes were separated when translating it and all of them had the exact same translation. It's divinely inspired. The Orthodox Church accepts the Septuagint, not the Masoretic Text which is only 1000 years old and edited by Christ denying rabbis. We have no existing Paleo-Hebrew manuscripts. The Orthodox Church is the authority on the canon, not Bible scholars.
@@ElonMuskrat-my8jy the reason Paul stated the WERE, because he was referring to the pre-Christian Jews who laid the books up in the Temple, which were limited to the Hebrew Bible. And it was THESE books that Jesus held the Jews accountable for knowing, not the Deuteros since they were neither laid up there, nor were the pre-Christian Jews accountable to know they were Scripture, since they were not laid up there.
The 70 scribes only translated the Torah into Greek, not the rest of the OT. This took place around 260 BC. The remainder of the LXX was completed around 134 BC. This would include ALL the books of the Hebrew Bible, but NONE of the Deuteros, since they were either not written or translated into Greek BEFORE 134 BC.
The Masoretic Text has nothing to do with this discussion. This is strawman to my argument. All the MT does is possess the same books that the PRE-CHRISTIAN Jews embraced. The Orthodox church doesn't have a settled canon, and not all of them embrace the Deuteros. Some do, some don't. And even their "smallest" canon is not the same as the pre-Christian Jews. Therefore, they have no authority on the canon. That is why what books the pre-Christian Jews possessed is what the canon is, because that is the time period that would be relevant, not hundreds of years later.
First, thank you for moving the date of publish. I had originally not planned on watching this video at all, but after your simple gesture, I felt compelled to.
Now, my thoughts on Steve's arguments. Obviously, I'm not going to go point by point. Even if I did a video response, that video would have to be at least 6 hours long to even approach being sufficient.
1. Steve is obviously very intelligent and has spent a lot of time researching this topic. If he and I got into a debate on this topic, he'd beat me and he wouldn't even need to do any debate prep. Dare I say, had Steve been present at the Council of Trent, the Protestant faction there would have benefitted from his research. For this reason alone, I think you can call this video a success.
2. The argumentation seems to be far too obscure to be compelling to the Catholic viewer. Christianity isn't merely for the scholar, but also for the beggar. I don't think a beggar could ever come to these conclusions. Jesus says in Matthew 5:14 "You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden." And all of these arguments seem to have a sort of pelagian gnostic undertone. If you do enough WORK, you will eventually find the HIDDEN TRUTH. I strongly believe that God is far more merciful and would make the Truth far more obvious so that even the poor could live in the fullness of the Faith.
3. This point will not be at all compelling to a Protestant, but it's an obstacle that's relevant to the Catholic perspective that I've never heard a Protestant address online. Why should we listen to Steve at all? He possesses neither ordinary nor extraordinary mission. We know he possesses no ordinary mission because no bishop sent him with this message (ie, the Church did not send him). Extraordinary mission can really only be proved with miracles. To my knowledge, I don't think Steve (or any Protestant apologist that's worth taking seriously) claims to have performed any miracles.
Steve is heavy on information and light on the logic and argumentation.
Thank you for the bullet points! They were a pleasure to read. The tension, in my opinion, between Catholics and Protestants is how do we know authority. So as a Protestant, he’s arguing that the Old Testament scriptures had to be canonical before the coming Church. He’s not relying on tradition, in the Catholic sense, but the tradition of history it self. But this makes the question, how do we know when history is accurate the heart of the debate. The tension of “this is what tradition says”, and “this is what history shows”. So when he argues that history shows a different tradition than what Catholics say, there is a tension that needs to be resolved.
For Protestants, it’s always been a challenge of “discerning the spirit” and testing that against reality, which we assume is a tradition that God has to give (referring to his world).
Glad you took the time to watch the video, and thanks for bringing the timing of it to my attention. Regarding point three, and I ask this out of genuine ignorance, do many online Catholic apologists have ordinary mission in the sense of a Bishop sending them to do their work?
@@GospelSimplicity The point Kyle is making is relevant to authoritative teaching, revelation (esp private relevation), sacraments, and starting new church communities, not merely defending what the Church has already taught. No Catholic apologist needs their bishop's express permission to defend what the Church has already taught. However, many Catholic apologists (e.g. Dave Armstrong's _A Biblical Defense of Catholicism_ ) will have their books reviewed by a diocese/bishop (i.e. imprimatur, nihil obstat).
Implicit in Kyle's point is that this Protestant canon (and all the beliefs supporting it) argued by Christie and the first Protestants is novel and unauthoritative, that it doesn't come from the Church but individual research. Inspiration is not determined by individual research or what Jewish sects thought but by real authority, by the apostles and their successors.
Kyle: 1. Thanks for the compliment! I generally mean that because from our past discussions, I am certain you are being sincere. Thank you for that. It's been the product of years of research, including a ton since I wrote my book five years ago. I also owe you for submitting my question to Michael Lofton on Pints With Aquinas about the EO, when he conceded that the Council of Trent didn't close the canon (also conceded by Trent Horn & Jimmy Akin), and more books from the EO could "theoretically" be added to it later, and also when he conceded not all EO embrace the Deuteros are inspired Scripture.
2. I would agree that when the Scriptures were written, the Jewish readers would have understood certain phraseologies that go over our heads in America in English in the 21st century. IOW, "some" things are less obvious to us than to a Jew living in Israel in the first century. That is where apologetics come in.
3. I would certain hope that no one would simply take my word for anything, but do their own research & look into all this themselves. And not merely, compare it to what Roman Catholic apologists believe. That could obviously lead to subjectivity, which we would expect them to disagree, since they disagree on the canon. Saying, "To my knowledge, I don't think Steve (or any Protestant apologist that's worth taking seriously) claims to have performed any miracles," is ad hominem when it comes proving the canon in the church age, especially in the 21st century. The time period that would be relevant would be prior to and contemporary with the time of Christ. And do we find any Jew or any Jewish sect during these time periods who embraced the identical Roman Catholic OT canon? No. Do we find those who embraced the identical Protestant OT canon? Yes. The Pharisees AND the Sadducees (since they were the sect that laid books up in the Temple, and we know what those "only 22 books from Moses to the death of Artaxerxes were).
This is why I said Jesus & the apostles ADOPTED a pre-Christian Jewish canon, rather than establishing one & then passing it down. So, me not performing any miracles TODAY is irrelevant to the time period when the canon would be relevant. So, at the end of the day, we have to ask ourselves, "Since Jesus & the apostles passed down the OT canon to the early church, why don't we find a identical canon until centuries later - even in councils?" Even Rome, Hippo, & Carthage are not identical, which I demonstrated in this discussion.
Do yourselves a favor and go watch his debate with Trent Horn on the Canonicity of the Deuterocanonical books.
And as I mentioned during the discussion, this debate was from four years ago. Many of the arguments I make in this discussion were not brought up during the debate. Debates are limited in scope. This was much more exhaustive. So the best thing to do is to listen to this discussion and then weigh the arguments.
The current beard/hair combo looks good man! I think you found your look
Appreciate it!
He looks like a guy I used to know who was a real jerk with that haircut and beard! But I won't hold it against him, because it isn't him. 😁👍🏻
At the end of the day, how would it affect my theology if, as a protestant, I were simply to accept the RC or EO canon for historical reasons? Not so sure that it would affect my theology at all.
The RC Doctrine of Purgatory would find one of its biblical roots within Maccabee’s; furthering biblical evidence by a piece of scripture or two.
@@genieinthelavalamp6097 Oh yes, it's a passage on prayer for the dead, right? I don't have a problem with purgatory understood the right way - as sanctification process rather than a justification process, and one that is acheived through grace rather than merit. Interestingly though, Eastern Orthodox also have Maccabees in their canon and I understand that they don't believe in purgatory as such. If I'm not mistaken, they believe in an intermediary resting place between death and the final judgment, but not in moral progress of the soul before the final judgment. I think the passage can be understood as offering prayers for atonement (pleas for God's mercy in judgement).
Creating their own canon of scripture is the number one way Protestants drew their line in the sand to distinguish themselves from the Early Church/Catholics.
Catholics insist you would start praying to Saints because one guy prayed to a dead person in the apocrypha books. That's all of Catholicism so you're all set! Get your Mary statue on preorder now after what you read in the apocrypha. And start worshipping the communion bread.
@@genieinthelavalamp6097I love how Catholics want to go the scriptural route when trying to make their case with the apocrypha. The truth is, Catholics look to their church, not scripture. If protestants took the apocrypha with them in their canon, everything would be exactly the same and Catholics couldn't say, ah HA! That's why you're not Catholic. So you Catholics should be thankful you have that to blame it all on.
Watch Fr. Stephen de Young’s interview here in the Apocrypha…Austin is such a capable interviewer!
I think it very appropriate that this was postpone to 4/1. Doesn't the early church referenced Mary as the new Eve? The old Eve of conceived immaculate? Why does Christie believed in the authority of the Pharisees whom reject Jesus's claimed to divinity?
Here is a video from a Protestant that believe that Protestant got it wrong - ua-cam.com/video/82FzsP6vFzY/v-deo.html
for one thing, I'm not entirely sure that it's accurate to say Eve was "conceived" at all really. She was taken from Adams side (the hebrew means something more like Adam was split in half). If being born without sin looming over her was possible, and that allowed God to dwell in her, then you run into a bit of a different problem. If God could just make someone born immaculate, not be born with sin, and that Christ came to remove sin from us, then it doesn't really make sense why Christ had to come at all. God could've just decided to make everyone born without sin.
I don't think the point being made here is that Mary was born without sin. She was born and never sinned the way Eve did in the garden. Because of that, her womb was an immaculate dwelling place. Because of this, God drew near to her and dwelt inside of her. Her womb became paradise because of God's presence. This "immaculate state" does not mean that she wasn't generally subject to the consequences of sin (Orthodox Dormition says that she died before she ascended into heaven) but she may have been during her pregnancy in a special state of blessedness where she wasn't subject to those consequences (like labor pains) due to her being so close to God's presence that it was like being in paradise where there was no sickness, toil, nor sorrow or death.
There is no case for the protestant Old Testament canon, period.
Even the Catholics call it deuterocanonical though...
@@Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr, it's still part of the Old Testament canon as determined by the Church, the only body with the authority to determine the corpus of her liturgical book.
@@brucebarber4104 We address this during the discussion
@@BornAgainRN, I have no desire to listen to anything a person who has turned his back on Jesus Christ and His Church, the Catholic Church, has to say.
@@Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr
“Deutero” means second. “Deutero”nomy is received as being Canon of Scripture. It is the “second” law or retelling of the law. “Deutero” Canon doesn’t mean anything negative…
Because the British Bible Society wanted to save money. Simples!
Yeah bibles are freaking long enough, don't you think?
Actually, that’s not the reason why. It’s much earlier than the British Bible Society.
@BornAgainRN no it wasn't. Prior to the removal the Deutrocannonicals were placed in a separate section within the Bible, but not removed! There is a significant difference.
@@mickyfrazer786I am referring to why Protestants didn't recognize these books as Scripture. The infant church, and the Jews of antiquity, did not recognize them as Scripture, which I explained in the discussion.
@BornAgainRN the early Church did.
The Jews did not because of wisdom and ecclesiasticus depictions of the prophecies of the messiah.
Luther et al did notvremovevthem from the Bible but displaced them within it. They also held to many of the Dogmas that modern protestants reject.
You are a good and honest man, Austin. You're going to get some slings and arrows because of this, and whether I agree with you or not, you have brought to bear some really excellent theology and scholarship. The fact that you do what you do and remain as gracious as you are is a testimony to the Holy Spirit working within you. I'm glad you do this, and I hope that you continue as the Lord, wills for a very, very long time ❤
It’s pretty sad to see this many negative comments on a video that hasn’t come out yet. Let’s remember to be slow to speak and quick to listen.
It has come out...?
@@MeanBeanComedy I posted this comment before the video was released. Obviously now that the video is out if people want to comment critiquing his arguments that’s fine. My original comment was aimed at those who were dismissing the video entirely before it had been released. Hope that provides some helpful context! God bless
Why remove books from an infallible authority?
You are question begging. Try again.
@@MrCharlesMartelthe real Charles Martel was Catholic, read from a 77 book Canon, and submitted to the Church’s infallible authority
How do you even know it's infallible? I heard that Judith has some major problems lining up with the historical reality. Might call infallibility into question.
@@MrCharlesMartel All Christians beg the question. They all assume this is God's Word at the start of it all. "Why is it ok that this being kills so many people? Why would I even believe someone like this would be God?" "Because he's God, he can do whatever he wants."
@@Volleyball_Chess_and_GeoguessrYou seem to not be very charitable to the argument, seeing as you're presenting a straw man.
Austin, the more I watch your videos, the more incoherent it seems that Christ let the church flounder for 1500 years until a random German priest came and “corrected” everything.
Seems more coherent than the reasons why the Roman Catholic Church is so different in theology than the early church. But still, it wasn’t a single man, it was a joint effort of the church, ministers, and faculty.
@@thewiseandthefoolishIt's not. Read the Didache.
@@MeanBeanComedy where can I find the treasury of merits, the cult of saints, and indulgences in the didache?
@@thewiseandthefoolish cult of the saints is shown in the Martydom of Polycarp and 2nd century archeological evidence.
@@calebstarcher4934 right. Lutherans don’t deny the validity of honouring the saints and martyrs. But I don’t think such honour looks like a treasury of merits being transferred by the pope through indulgences etc. So I think the didache proves my case even more
What did the ancient Church really have, if the 'canon' wasn't easily accessible for all Christians (Lay and Bishop)? The ancient Church prescribed certain readings on certain celebrations (solemnities/events e.g. Lent) for the Lay person to hear. For example, on Easter Friday they had a set of scriptural readings, every single Good Friday. They didn't read different readings on different Good Fridays. It was always the same readings on every single Good Friday. Again, on Pentecost, they read some other prescribed passages from scripture, every single Pentecost. They didn't read different readings on subsequent Pentecost feasts. All of the Sunday's were allocated prescribed scriptural readings, from Rome, or their local Metropolitan/Bishop (in the West). Given that there are many liturgical celebrations that occur throughout the year, and the fact that there are only 50 odd Sundays in any given liturgical cycle, it's easy to imagine that people only ever heard the same readings over and over again, and rarely anything different, except that the prescribed readings got altered for whatever reason (something that happened from time to time). So, the answer to the original question, 'What did the ancient church really have, if not the 'canon'?, is, 'the Lectionary.' The Lectionary, remains today, the official list of prescribed readings. That is what people hear, when they attend 'ancient Churches.' That's all they ever hear, when they regularly attend 'high church' liturgies. The Lectionary was what people heard, and then so, for all practical purposes, the canon of scripture, or the canon of the ancient church, was the Lectionary. And, the contents of the Lectionary changed somewhat over time. And, the contents of the Lectionary was always slightly different from region to region. And the Lectionary has always been a 'piece-meal' approach to Scripture readings. It's always been, a bit here, a bit there, leave that verse out, include this verse, but not the next. Just look at the Lectionary Readings for the Psalms. They often do this approach. It was impossible to ensure every single parish church had a whole Bible. It was just too expensive. It was impossible to ensure all Christians heard the whole Bible. That takes too much time, they also have families to care for. They have fields to till. It wasn't only that the Bishops didn't want the Lay to be reading the whole canon (if such a thing exists). It was also that they couldn't make that a reality. Now, with all of this in mind. Let us ask the question, 'was there really two canons in contention?' I don't think so, not before the printing press, not at the 'grass roots' level.
Otherwise, I appreciated this episode and thumbs up for having addressed this topic.
@gospelsimplicity It would be interesting to have an EO take on this. Maybe from Fr. Stephen DeYoung or Presvytera Jeannie Constantinou.
Yuck no. EO rhymes with BO for a reason
I've already had Fr. Stephen DeYoung on to talk about the apocrypha actually!
@@traviswilson36LOL how childish of a joke. Your brain hasn't matured past middle school?
@@GospelSimplicity Definitely going to check that out!
My man Gary Michuta already buried this argument like St. Ireneaus burried the gnostics.
BURN
Says a guy commenting on the video before it has even been made public. Great integrity.
@@MrCharlesMartel I’m pretty familiar with Steve’s material and the apologetic for a shorter canon. I stand by my comment.
@@tbojai still seems suspicious that there is so much damage control being done before the video has even played. I tend not to trust people’s bare say so, especially in such a climate. Moreover, even if we pretend that you are well informed about Steve’s approach, since you haven’t watched this video yet, how do you know your comment is even going to be accurate? Perhaps he has additional arguments and supports for previous arguments?
@@tbojai 🎯
I still need to get Steve's book to read his fleshed out arguments, but just based on his debate with Trent, I just can't expect much
There's actually a lot in this discussion not covered during my debate with Trent...which was from four years ago.
@BornAgainRN Fair enough, I'll probably get it after this premiers. Nice to see you in the comments again Steve. I also want to apologize for my tone when we had a comment spat a while ago. You probably don't remember, but I was pretty rude, which I apologize for. Look foward to watching the interview.
@@aaronmueller5802 No worries. If it’s any consolation, I don’t even remember it. So it’s water under the bridge. 😁
let me guess: josephus out of context, Abel to Zechariah out of context, a few out of context lists
There’s much more to discussion than Josephus and Abel to Zechariah. But they do get covered during the discussion and in context.
@@BornAgainRN copium
No, this isn’t Garry Michutas channel.
@@josephlambert5413 if this was the beautiful intellectual paradise for historically-literate people called Apocrypha Apocalypse, nothing would be out of context, nor laughably false like this video
@@calebstarcher4934
Melito of Sardes' context : "Since thou has often , with thy zeel for the word, wished to have extracts from the Law and the Prophets concerning our Savior and concernng ou entire faith and desire to ave an accurate statement of the ancient book, I have endeavoured to perform the task for you." Sounds like Paul talking to Timmothy abbout the scriptures that he is aquainted with that have made him wise unto salvation.
Athanasius: " In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the Evangelist, saying on my own account: 'Forasmuch as some have taken in hand Luke 1:1,' to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine; to the end that any one who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led him astray; and that he who has continued steadfast in purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance. There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two bo..."
And I go through this on my channel.
Martin Luther himself says very clearly that his problem with Catholicism was that he, personally, didn't feel confident about his salvation. Thus, his whole project was to formulate a theology that he felt--"felt" being the key word here--provided him this confidence. Having done that, he then read out of the Bible those books which threatened this theology (while, of course, reinterpreting the rest of the Bible to conform to it). The end. It's no more complicated than that. That is, indeed, the whole Protestant game: decide what you want to have be true, and then interpret the Bible accordingly.
Over simplification does not help. Luthers feelings is not the answer considering it led to his excommunication and therefore damnation or the feeling of thousands across Europe who had the same feelings. Perhaps it also had to do with what they were seeing and they started to actually read for themselves what the Bible taught.
@@jotink1Or they were just plucking things out they wanted to believe. Luther really hated James and Esther.
@@MeanBeanComedy Pluckng things out on the basis of damning your own soul dosn't cut it. We believe and use the argument that the Apostles wouldn't die for a resurrection story. Do you think Luther really didn't have confidence in his salvation and therefore just plucked things out and in so doing damned his own soul? It was much deeper than just his own feelings but a deeper spiritual anxiety coupled with what he was seeing around him. Whatever you think of Luther we have the Bible and the arguments of the reformers. It is up to you and your soul to be bold like Luther to be honest with yourself with what the Bible teaches. All traditions have the same NT so on that basis I use it as my benchmark.
Why would we trust the Successor to Peter and the Church that Christ founded for our canon whem we can trust the people who had Him executed and removed books that prophesies about Him instead?
I can tell you did not watch our discussion, because protestants do not trust in the canon of the Jews who rejected Christ. We trust in the Scriptures that God entrusted to the Jews prior to the time of Christ, which pointed to Him. Having said that, it would be a benefit to watch the discussion now.
@@BornAgainRN They didn't remove many of those books until much later, centuries after.
@@MeanBeanComedy if you are referring to the Jews, no, the pre-Christian Jews did not include them in their canon. We know this, because the Jews laid their books up in the Temple, which was destroyed in AD 70, and they were limited to the books of the Hebrew Bible, not the Deuterocanon.
@7:20 I’ve convinced 2 Protestants of the error of their cannon and they’re still just a Protestant as they were before. It takes a lot more than that to jump ship.
There's no "convincing" with regard to the canon. There is only opinion. We all ultimately must take an educated guess at what is the inspired canon based on the evidence available.
True. I convinced my father. He started reading the Deuterocanon and remains a Prot. And Evangelical, too!
@@MeanBeanComedy The deuterocanon and even the book enoch can at least given insight into the context of the acient near east. Im a prot and they're on my bookshelf 🤷♂️
@julianwage the errors & contradictions was only ONE argument against the Deuterocanon. It wasn't even a major argument, and you chose to focus on that?? This is a Motte & Bailey fallacy. There was a ton more arguments I made from antiquity that supports the Protestant canon, more than the lack of irreconcilable errors & contradictions in the Deuteros. To focus on that & ignore everything else I argued does not do any justice to the discussion, and to miss the major arguments being made in it.
I'm guessing it will be a bunch of, "my opinion is x based on my understanding of the evidence." There won't be any appeal to an infallible way to know for sure. So really he will give us a strongly held opinion.
What is the infallible way to know for sure about any of this.
@@Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr I defer to one of the churches that claims to be able to infallibly know and declare faith and doctrine.
@@jonathanbohlWe address this during the discussion
@@BornAgainRN Sounds good. Looking forward to it.
Saint Ireneaus wrote in the second century he himself, and the apostles used the Septuagint. Why would we follow the Pharisees? Didn’t Jesus say not to follow them.
@CPATuttle, we addressed this during the discussion. Did you listen to it? If not, then why ask a question we covered that you didn't listen to FIRST???
@@BornAgainRN If I follow your logic here, it was all Jews before Jesus, more importantly Jesus hemself that rejected dueterocannon books, and the apostles rejected the books, and Christians after the apostles also all rejected the dueterocannon books, only in error Christians later on, thought the dueterocannon books were scripture. No Septuigint had the dueterocannon books. But if they did they were added in error much later. Because they were mistakened that the Septuigint had the dueterocannon books
@@CPATuttle This is partially correct. Prior to the time of Christ the Jews knew what books were scripture because they were laid up in the temple. We know what books were laid up in the temple because Josephus enumerated them as “only 22 books.” And it was the Sadducees, not the Pharisees, who were the Jewish sect that laid these 22 books up in the temple. And both protestants and Catholics agree that the Sadducees did not embrace the deuterocanonical books. This also demonstrates the Sadducees were not limited to the five books of Moses, since they laid these books up in the temple, and they would not have laid up books in the temple they did not consider to be scripture.
This also demonstrates that the version of the Septuagint that Jesus and the apostles utilized did not include the deuterocanonical books back then, because they were not laid up in the temple. However, after the destruction of the temple, and after the first century, the septuagint began to include books that were not originally in it. And as it got spread out, different versions of the Septuagint began to add different books. This is why we find different versions of the Septuagint with different books in it in the church age. As Gary Michuta even conceded, the Septuagint was a liturgical book so it never stopped growing after the first century.
But the period of time with the Septuagint that would’ve been relevant would’ve been prior to in contemporary with the time of Christ. And the only books we can prove we’re included in the Septuagint - back then - were the books of the Hebrew Bible.
@@BornAgainRN So is your position on the Codex’s with dueterocannon books and any Christian listings that are other than the 66 books. It’s because they were wrong. And they didn’t have the resources you have today and anyone before you with the same 66 biblical cannon list?
@@CPATuttle no, I did not even insinuate this assumption of yours. Again, if you watch the video, there were different versions of the Septuagint that had different books in it in the early church. This is why different codices had different books - some omitting some of the Deuteros, some including books not found in Catholic Bibles. Codex Vaticanus & Codex Sinaiticus omitted books that are in Catholic Bibles, while including others that are not. The version the Council of Rome used omitted Baruch, which was later omitted in Jerome's Vulgate, which Jerome was a key member of the council of Rome. Later Vulgates like Codex Amiatinus & Leon Palimpsest also omitted it as late as the 7th & 8th centuries. Hippo & Carthage included a book not in Catholic Bibles, which Augustine was a key member of these councils, who also affirmed it calling it a "prophecy of Christ."
Also, we weren't discussing the entire Bible (ie: "66 book Biblical canon list.") We were strictly discussing the OLD Testament canon. BTW, we can find identical enumerated OT canon Protestant lists as early as the second century, and the entire Protestant Bible as early as the third. But we don't find an identical Catholic OT canon list until the 16th century. And you would have known this if you had watched the discussion, because you keep asking me questions we covered in the discussion.
OK, now that Holy Week is over, and there’s been so many assumptions and accusations about what we discussed in this video about the canon, before it even went live, how about spending the same amount of effort and listen to the actual arguments and topics we actually made? You might be surprised, and they may be thought-provoking. Hope everyone had a blessed Easter with their family and friends. He is risen!!
Hey Steve, when you said that christ said that the Pharisees contain the correct canon. To which verse are you referring to?
Thanks and God bless
Sorry you covered it. Thanks steve
He is risen indeed!
lets worry about this during Holy Week.
😂
Gary Michuta's Apocrypha Apocalypse channel video titles regarding NT references to Deuteros:
Episode 2 - Does the New Testament Quote the Apocrypha?
Did Jesus Quote from Baruch?!
Jesus' Commentary on Tobit in Matthew 6?
Holes in the Protestant OT Narrative: The NT DOES Reference the "Apocrypha" as Scripture!
Sirach, Jesus, and the Gospel of John (and his First Epistle)
If Sirach was Good enough for Jesus, why isn't it good enough for his followers?
Did Jesus Use the Deuterocanon? John 6 35 / Sirach 24:20
@tonyl3762 no one is arguing the NT doesn't quote from the Deuterocanon. But, one, not all of them. Two, NONE specifically as Scripture. Three, often a NT book is quoting a PREVIOUS book from the Hebrew Bible, rather than a LATER Deuterocanonical book. Four, the NT quotes books NOT found in the Catholic OT, and many even more frequently. I addressed much of this in the discussion.
@@BornAgainRN #1 is already a concession on your part. #2 is irrelevant when a clear connection/dependence can be easily demonstrated. I'd be interested in seeing examples of #3.
#4 is irrelevant because the Catholic canon is not built upon NT references to the OT, though many Protestants argue for their canon based upon NT references (which doesn't work either). The Catholic point is not to prove the Catholic canon based on NT references but to undermine Protestant arguments based on NT references. When debating others, you often seem not to grasp these important distinctions of argumentation between providing a positive case for one's position and undermining an opponent's own arguments (even though you do try to employ both).
Ayayayayay.....how does this help one find the path to salvation? Isn't this new world full of confusion already we needed more of it lol I guess to each their own...we all focus on what matters to us and this definitely does not matter to me. But it is hard for me to understand ones mind set if we're not of the same one. This is why it is hard to follow a protestant perspective as their mindset and their purpose/path differ from person to person; it is not of one mind (fronima) as Christ requested of His followers. I really tried to follow with an open mind and I could not :(
This is a complex subject, so my listening to it while doing household chores was not very productive 😅
I'd rather follow the scriptural tradition of the Jews that translated the Septuagint, dating to before Christ's ministry and Church Fathers that affirm them over the jews that rejected Christ after the resurrection and aim to throw out as much as they can (unfortuantely for them, the old testament is very Christian) and date a complete manuscript only back to the middle ages.
Preserved by Christians dating to during and before early church vs "preserved" by non-christians dating a thousand years after and outside the Church. If Christians couldn't preserve their own scriptures enough to rely soley on them for a complete canon that'd be a big blow to Christianity and our claim of having the complete truth of the faith and everything necessary for salvation. To dictate Christian canon and consequentially doctrine on the basis of what 'hebrew canon' says is to say those against Christ have a better understanding and truth than His actual Church.
To not be apostolic in scriptural tradition is to side with literal antichrists, as in those descending from the actual Pharisees that crucified Him and continue to deny His divinity and His church.
The first Bishop was James the Just in Jerusalem. The Orthodox still largely worship in his manner. The primacy of the Pope and Peter is a very bizarre concept.
Mr Christie also errs regarding the meaning of anathema. It does not mean condemned and Paul does not use it that way for the simple reason that condemning anyone is above any human's pay grade. Anathema means excommunicated, separated from the church and the sacraments. The Catholic Church doesn't claim the authority to condemn anyone.
Austin, Austin! You know your speaker does not know what he is talking about and you are very kind not to interrupt him. But his ranting sounds like: "Confusion will be my Epitaph." Bless your heart. In pre-schsm times the Western Church helped Orthodoxy not stray. Afterwards, what chaos and loss.
While Protestants will look to the Jewish Tanakh, they disregard the Oral Tradition and disregard that Jewish people have always put the books outside of the Pentetauch / Torah on a lesser tier. Fundamentalists still approach the Tanakh as something very different than Jews do, but will be die hard on just the selection itself when they're really talking apples and oranges. The Tanakh as a complete whole was never viewed as a complete and closed rule book for someone to use to individually have a relationship with God through.
@ContemplativeSoul unfortunately, nothing you wrote has any bearing on the discussion about the canon. Did you even watch it?? Because it doesn't sound like you did. It would be of benefit for you to watch it, because then you would have a better understanding of the arguments actually being made.
@BornAgainRN just because you don't understand what I'm saying doesn't mean I didn't listen to it fully before responding.
There's much said implicitly from his arguments, and it's the implications of his arguments that I'm pointing out.
Now if you think anything I've said is not his position, that I misunderstood him, and then please do tell me. But me pointing out what I believe he's implying vs a direct explicit statement said, only shows the opposite: that I was closely listening to what he said and trying to understand his hermaneutic and why he believes this topic is important to him
@BornAgainRN I personally don't believe the canon really matters that much and that it was a human decision on how it was compiled. I believe he holds a very different position.
“THE CANON DEBATE - GARY MICHUTA VS. STEVE CHRISTIE PART 2” ua-cam.com/users/liveHVr_GU6UsfY
Wow this has triggered a lot of Catholics
“APOCRYPHA DEBATE - STEVE CHRISTIE VS. DAVID PRESTON” ua-cam.com/users/livebccWH8AxmPM
“THE CANON DEBATE - GARY MICHUTA VS. STEVE CHRISTIE PART 1” ua-cam.com/users/liveRD8OQbWbeT8
The canon wasn't fixed in the first couple of centuries.
You didn’t watch the discussion, did you? Because if you had, you would have discovered that there was a settled cannon of the Jews, prior to, and contemporary with, the time of Christ, which Jesus and the apostles adopted.
@@BornAgainRN Between the Jews, there wasn't a settled canon until later. In any case, my comment was in reference to the Church. That means, that amongst Christians, in the first few centuries it wasn't fixed.
@@mancal5829 the early church canon wasn't fixed because throughout Christendom, different churches used different versions of the Septuagint that included different books in it. But the pre-Christian Jews DID have a settled canon, which books were laid up in the Temple, limited to the books of the Hebrew Bible, which was the canon Jesus & the apostles adopted. This is what I covered in this discussion...which would be of benefit for you to watch.
It seems to me once Luther removed the six books of the old testament that this created a huge question on authority. If anyone one individual by his own authority can manipulate or alter the cannon of scripture and make it authoritative brings into question the authority of the scriptures as a whole. This seems to be relativism plane and simple. Once the reformers went down this path they created a real problem that has grown exponentially and been at the heart of the multiple divisions that exist within Protestantism. If the bible is the inerrant word of God and the Catholic church was the authoritative instrument God used to receive and determine the cannon of scripture then the entire cannon must be accepted no matter what anyone may reason otherwise. As we are all aware of, Luther also wanted to remove James, Hebrews, and Revelation. Left to his own devices Luther single handedly would have brought many into heresy and endangered there immortal souls. The whole idea of supporting a shorter cannon must be rejected.
You obviously did not watch the discussion, because Luther didn’t remove anything from the Old Testament. In fact, he included a book that was not in the Vulgate, nor in the council of Rome in the fourth century. It would be a benefit to you to watch the discussion, so you don’t keep making these mistakes, which a lot of Roman Catholics make when it comes to the Canon.
@@BornAgainRN The Christian Bible contained these deuterocanonical books until Martin Luther, assuming the Masoretic text to be the original, removed them to match this new Jewish canon. Rabbinic Judaism is a newer form of Judaism that created the Masoretic text in part to deter a Christian reading of the Old Testament. While Luther's translation did include the deuterocanonical books, he labeled them as the Apocrypha and stated that those books where not equal to sacred scripture, but are useful reading. For all intensive purposes by stating these books are not equal to sacred scripture he removed them from sacred scripture. This can be found simply by checking Wikipedia. This is common knowledge, along with it was Calvin who argued and prevailed that kept Luther from removing Hebrews, James, and Revelation.
@@Motomack1042 this is why you shouldn't use Wikipedia as a source on the canon. Again, it is obvious you didn't watch the discussion, because if you had, you would have realized the canon has nothing to do with Luther or any of the Reformers. It has to do what we can learn from antiquity - meaning before, contemporary, & after the time of Christ - what books JESUS and the apostles ADOPTED, since they didn't "create" the OT canon. And there is ZERO evidence of any Jew or Jewish sect embracing the identical Catholic or EO canon, like there are for the Protestant OT canon. Again, watch the discussion. It's not that long.
@@BornAgainRN I did not need to check Wikipedia to know this. The question of the deuterocanonical books never arose until Luther. St Jerome questioned 2 Maccabee as support for the doctrine of purgatory. Additionally, Catholics do not consider the early Church Fathers infallible. Therefore, one should expect to find some Fathers teaching things that are not consistent with later defined teachings.
Second, there is evidence that Jerome later accepted the deuterocanonical parts of Daniel despite the belief of the Jews of his day that they were not Scripture. In his response to Rufinus (11:33, A.D. 402), Jerome makes explicit that it is the judgment of the Church by which the canon is to be settled. He writes, “What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches?”
Jerome would also eventually include all the deuterocanonicals in his Vulgate edition of the scriptures.
So, rather than Jerome’s initial denial of 2 Maccabees’ canonicity undermining the Church’s acceptance of the deuterocanonicals into the canon, the story that his denial is a part of actually supports it.
The Church accepted the Septuagint OT cannon, the was widely used in the Hellenistic Jewish community that existed outside of Jerusalem. The Church only officially closed the cannon at the council of Trent because of Luther's meddling. You cannot defend this position in any way shape or form, Steve Christie is not the authority on the issue.
@@Motomack1042 again, you didn't watch the video, because nothing you wrote is supported historically. Again, if you watch the video, you'll see the Deuterocanon were never in the OT, because they were not in the canon of the pre-Christian Jews, nor were they laid up in the Temple, which is the canon Jesus & the apostles would have adopted. Again, watch the video, and you will see this.
I'll summarize this guy's argument for everyone:
The apostles and their disciples got it wrong and we should trust the guys who killed Jesus.
Then he gives a self own at the very end by saying the Pharisees observe Hanukkah which is in Maccabees but it isn't in the canon so it's edifying to read it. But how are they observing a religious holiday which is not in the canon but they've got the canon right?
Protestantism is a helluva drug!
😂 good ☝️
I'll never understand the people who defend trusting the Masoretic over the Septuagint.
Septuagint: Scriptures that were used by Christ, the apostles and all Greek-speaking early Christians, and that the entire Greek speaking Jewish world would have been looking to for signs of the Messiah.
Masoretic: Created specifically because the Jews literally couldn't respond to the Christian arguments and interpretations, so they intentionally removed and altered verses that referred to Messianic prophesy.
Cos they also had oral tradition along with written tradition.
This all stems from the heresy of Sola Scriptura...and as long as that heresy exists...these things are gonna fester
@@thehammared5972 I’d say even the Septuagint had different copies throughout history. Some of them had the Psalms of Solomon, 1 Esdras, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, the Letter of Jeremiah, the Book of Odes, the Prayer of Manasseh and Psalm 151 included. Other versions didn’t go as far. So the problem would only get bigger if we only make this a case too far as to oppose the Masoretic text and the Greek OT. With the Dead Sea Scrolls, we know for a fact that all of the protocanonical books of the Old Testament are represented at Qumran except for Esther and Nehemiah; however, some apocryphal books like 1 Enoch and Jubilees are better represented than most biblical books, and just as many copies of the deuterocanonical Tobit (six) were discovered as of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, or Job. For this reason, most scholars believe the Essene canon was significantly different than that of the Pharisees (and modern Rabbinic Judaism) and it’s not necessarily true that the Essenes used the Septuagint. For example, the manuscripts of Esther are completely absent in the findings of Qumran, likely because of their opposition to mixed marriages and the use of different calendars. So without a Christian authority, the problem is NOT solved.
@liquiddw2 except that isn't even close to my argument, and you demonstrated you didn't listen to anything I said. It had nothing to do with the Jews who killed Christ, but the the books the PRE-CHRISTIAN Jews embraced long before Christ was even BORN. At the very least try to attempt to accurately represent my argument, rather than such as blatant strawman & misrepresentation of it!
Sorry, this fellow is entirely wrong about the 16th-century usage of the word _anathema._ Sometimes words can shift in meaning over the span of _1.5 thousand years,_ and this is one of those occasions. In this case, Trent says, "If a man say [X, Y, Z] in such a way that he means [A, B, C], then _let him be_ anathema." Notice the legal imperative: "let him be." Trent is commanding the offender's bishop or "ordinary" to impose the _canonical sanction_ called "anathema" upon the offender. Used in this sense, "anathema" is -- or rather, _was_ -- a formalized major-excommunication intended to suspend the offender's access to the sacraments and deprive him of the exercise of any office in the Church. The code specified rights, limitations, and an appeal process for "anathema" which differed from a minor excommunication.
Interestingly, later versions of canon law _eliminated_ the penalty of anathema, such that it no longer exists in the code. Consequently, anyone who claims that the "anathemas of Trent" apply to modern Protestants doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. And neither does anyone who claims that the word "anathema" is used in a piece of 16-century Latin-rite legislation the same way that St. Paul uses it 1st-century Koine!
However, there is _one_ aspect of an "anathema" which, even in the 16th-century Code of Canon Law, _does_ still apply to modern Protestants. One purpose of an "anathema" was to formally declare that the offender was, _officially,_ not holding the Catholic faith. So, although the penalty of anathema no longer exists in the Code, it _remains true_ that anyone who holds one of the ruled-out propositions "does not hold the Catholic faith." Among the ruled-out propositions are various propositions that modern Protestants typically hold (e.g., that there's no point praying for the dead).
So, it remains true, in spite of the removal of anathemas from the Code, that Protestants don't hold the Catholic faith.
(Please, contain your astonishment. 😉)
And like you said, the term was softened over the centuries. But both Florence & Trent referred to EO as "heretics & schismatics" which was later applied to Protestants.
The Masoretic text according to Encyclopedia Brittanica was begun in the 6th AD century and completed in the 10th century AD. Seems very late and coincides with the ever-widening division between the Church and the newly created Talmudic Judaism innovated by Yohanan Ben Zakkai after the destruction of the Temple in 70AD codified in 90AD by his followers. This would make Modern Judaism in all its forms (except maybe Karaite Judaism) a later development than Christianity (or the "Way") which continued from 30-33AD on.
Zakkai created a new manmade religion by cherry picking Scripture as temple sacrifices were impossible to perform. His goal appears to be perpetuation of ethnic traditions. Yohanan's actions haunted him on his death bed as he was about to face his Maker. His disciples were stunned and asked why he was so fearful and in essence he told them he could not bribe his way out of the possible eternal consequences of his actions.
I would have a difficult time fully trusting Talmudic scribes or Rabbinic scholars who hate the Lord Jesus Christ and have made blasphemous statements about him in their Talmudic writings. I have heard that they purposely altered some prophetic verses because of this animosity toward Him and the Church. Maybe someone could elaborate on this?
Rabbi Tovia Singer on UA-camr is an example of the animosity that exists as he states that it was not Jesus Christ that Isaiah 53 proclaims as the Suffering Servant, but all Jews or the nation of Israel are referred. Another Rabbi stated (I personally saw it) something to the effect "You Christians worship one Jew... when you should be worshiping us all."
Steve said so many things that have been proven false. Watch my debate on Standing For Truth against him for proof!
Austin, I just wanted to publicly thank you for agreeing to do this interview. There was a LOT of new & fresh information that I didn't cover during my debates with Gary Michuta & Trent Horn from 4 years ago. Hope everyone watches all the way through to the very end. Very concise, but thorough.
My pleasure!
Goodness, gracious. Quite a stew we got bubbling, here. Let me just put a shout for the Septuagint. I like to read my whole Bible in Greek. Don’t have much faith in those pharisees, who knows how they edited that Masoretic text? If the Greek was good for the Church’s first 1500 years, it’s still good, now. Besides, the number 66 for the books of the pharisaic canon is a squirrelly one, 73 books (Catholic), 79 books (Orthodox), and 81 books (Ethiopian) are much better numbers, without slightest whiff of sulphur about them..
😮 Two questions for your guest who apparently justified leaving the Catholic Historic Church. 1) Do you believe the Pope was or is the Antichrist? 2) Do you believe in Sola Scriptura?
I ask these because at the time of the "Reformation", individuals revolted and protested against the Historic Church, their Mother...the two questions above had to be a Yes to justify such a radical breach of Church headship and ecclesiastical reality. The exact thing Jesus prayed against...a Bishop of local Church might fall away, but the Historic Church of Jesus Christ will never fall away, the gate of hell shall not prevail, He sent the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into the Truth and to safe guard the deposite of Fath once delivered unto the Saints!
No, I do not believe any pope was the end times antichrist, and yes, I do believe in sola scriptura. But that is not what we are discussing in this video. Just out of curiosity, did you take the time to watch it? Because comments in the comment section of the video or to respond to things said in the video. It would be a benefit to you to watch it, because this is a vitally important issue to get right. At least take the time to watch it.
@@BornAgainRN I listened to the interview while driving. For me a cradle Catholic who wandered away, was a staunch Calvinist and the returned after teaching a series on the ecumenical council's and by the life of Padre Pio was also a catalyst. Basically I believe in 3 essential "H"s... The Holy Spirit, The Historical Church and The Holy Scriptures. You can't have one without the other.
@@gregvanblair9096 well, the historical church did not embrace the Deuterocanon, let alone the entire Roman Catholic canon. The Holy Spirit guided the Biblical writers to write down the God-breathed Scriptures, which we only have evidence for the books of the Hebrew Bible, not the Deuterocanon. We don't have a "defined" Roman Catholic canon until 1546, while we do for the books of the Hebrew Bible. There was a lot covered in this interview. You might want to listen to again at home, and when you are not driving. It was very detailed.
Thank you for your reply...despite the OT documents embraced or secondary writings...there is a historical church which the NT documents flow out of by Gods Spirit. We might have different views, but this shouldn't divide the Church. Btw, I do know Augustine entered the Septuligent canon in his writing On Christian Doctrine, though he could've been wrong, but honored the Church he served. Though i also know how Jerome viewed them not exactly in the same light as Augustine.
I suppose you left the Catholic Church for other reasons as you stated briefly. I too had a list of 10 heresies of Roman, years later I reviewed and realized how my bias and presuppositions skewed my conclusions. So I went back to Scripture and Catholic Doctrine and came up with a different conclusion. The Reformation breaks my heart. Catholics see Protestants as separated Brethren, but they see the RCC as a false church. My first reply referenced their view of the Pope and Scripture. Btw, I believe that strictly speaking Sola Scriptura is an impossibility...Scripture is Scripture, but does not and cannot stand alone. It is a Covenant Document which belongs to the Church by the Grace of God thru the Holy Spirit.
Thank you for your reply...despite the OT documents embraced or secondary writings...there is a historical church which the NT documents flow out of by Gods Spirit. We might have different views, but this shouldn't divide the Church. Btw, I do know Augustine entered the Septuligent canon in his writing On Christian Doctrine, though he could've been wrong, but honored the Church he served. Though i also know how Jerome viewed them not exactly in the same light as Augustine.
I suppose you left the Catholic Church for other reasons as you stated briefly. I too had a list of 10 heresies of Roman, years later I reviewed and realized how my bias and presuppositions skewed my conclusions. So I went back to Scripture and Catholic Doctrine and came up with a different conclusion. The Reformation breaks my heart. Catholics see Protestants as separated Brethren, but they see the RCC as a false church. My first reply referenced their view of the Pope and Scripture. Btw, I believe that strictly speaking Sola Scriptura is an impossibility...Scripture is Scripture, but does not and cannot stand alone. It is a Covenant Document which belongs to the Church by the Grace of God thru the Holy Spirit.
Remember when this channel use to be fun and informative?
I would check out the debate where Gordon debated Christie. Gordon exposed his presuppositions arrogancy ect in his protestant view point. . Didn’t turn out well for Christie. Look forward to the conversation.
in fairness there seemes to be confusion about the topic
@@MrPeach1yes, and if people listen to that debate, Trent Horn jumps in and clarifies the debate parameters, clarifying that I had the correct understanding of the debate parameters.
@@BornAgainRN yeah talking past each other is a waste for sure. it happens though. I am guilty of it myself
@@MrPeach1 same here. To err is be human. I’m seeing a lot of this in the comments section, before the video is even out. Always amazes me how people come to assumptions and accusations about something they haven’t even heard yet. Hopefully, they will spend at least as much time listening to the discussion and the actual being made.
@@BornAgainRN This is a tough field to operate in. I live in southern united states as a Catholic. most of my theological commentary is immediately dismissed. With comments about child molesters in the church...So I feel you on people not dealing with the actual arguments.
I will keep studying this topic and yes it might behoove me to re-listen to the Gospel Simplicity interview. Though I'd don't agree with your "acid test" for what certifies "The Church". I believe you are setting up a rhetoric paradigm about the OT Canon which I have no doubt you believe is true, but your view isn't the final word on the topic. If it was then you become the voice of authority? Note, many Protestants are anti "Pope" or Magisterium of a real physical church verse a invisible church (which is quite convenient), but as they denied one voice of authority they or their denomination became the new voice of authority. Chat more later...and yes I'm listening to the interview...even as I type.
Hi Greg. Just to clarify, protestants believe in both a visible and invisible church. Unfortunately, the caricature is that Protestants only believe in an invisible church, which is not true and unfortunate. The visible part is when they gather together visibly in locally for corporate worship, not an ecclesiastical hierarchy with a pope and a magisterium. That is not how the Bible defines “church.“ Rather, the church is every single sinner who God redeems from the world and draws to his son to worship him. That is the invisible part of the visible church.
In regards to the canon, no protestant believes he is his own authority to define it. That is another caricature. Rather, when it comes to the Old Testament, the New Testament affirms that the Jews, not the church, was entrusted by God for the old testament scriptures. And we know what those old testament scriptures were, because they were laid up in the temple by the Jews, specifically the Sadducees, which is how we know they embraced more than just the five books of Moses. That belief didn’t occur until the third century by people like Origen and Pseudo-Tertullian who are both heretics in the Roman Catholic church.
There is a lot in this discussion, which I only gave the “highlights“ but still enough information to see that the canon was indeed settled prior to the time of Christ. This is a problem for Roman Catholics, but not for protestants, because Catholics know that no Jew or Jewish sect embraced all of the books of the Catholic Old Testament, like they did with the Protestant Old Testament, which Jesus and the apostles simply adopted.
Yes, I would encourage you to go back and listen to it again with all this in mind. Sadly, most people leaving comments here are not doing this and simply bringing up arguments we addressed in the discussion, and not actually listening to them.
@@BornAgainRN I just finished an excellent book on the Essene's and library of Qumran by Frank Moore Cross. I had wished reviewed the canon, but hard to be truly complete with the scattered scrolls, but still it shed light.
What are your thoughts on the Greek Eastern Orthodox Church and their Old Testament Hebrew Canon.?
We can chat later about the church, though the Essene's do shed light as a precursor to the Church...twelve individuals and a head teacher. So, a combination of a monarch/democratic ecclesiastical "church" structure as we see in the 1st Century Church. Since I've been on both side of the fence as Protestant & Catholic, my honest observation is most Protestants have a low view of The Church...some liturgical, but also its ecclesiastical structure. We don't go to the New Testament only, but also history to confirm this reality.
This video needs to be viral everywhere. Welcome home, brother.
Austin, I’m sorry about this comments section. It’s frustrating when your guests are Catholic or Orthodox, your channel is incredibly well received, and yet the moment you have a Protestant on, the comments turn into the same toxic cesspool they always are. You deserve better from your followers
There certainly is a remarkable difference any time I have a Protestant on. I don't mind substantive disagreements - of which I've seen several - but I do find the knee-jerk reactions of many to be tiring.
@@GospelSimplicityI appreciate you keeping cool throughout all of it, you're a class act.
P.S. Moody is a great school, im from the west chicago burbs, and one of my best childhood friends went there.
Well we could sit back and appear to agree that the Apocrypha means nothing and that the Church up until his argument on Protestantism is correct… but no.
You know me too well.
I was patted on the head way too many times as a Protestant and told not to ask questions. I’m not angry, but it’s true for a lot of people that end up here. People with questions who weren’t heard.
As for beating up Protestants? You mean us the Orthodox idol worshipping non-Christians?
These are just mature rebuttals.
Galatians 1:8,9
"though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed"
The Question is what is the good news, "The Gospel"
Does the Catholic Church teach the Gospel or does the Protestant Reformation teach the Gospel?
Is it one verses the other?
I admit their are vast differences between the two...so what is my conclusion?
We'll they both teach Christ Crucified, his Atonement, Resurrection and Ascension into heaven with Authority...basically, the Apostles and Nicene creed.
So from study of Church history and Scripture I believe the Latin & Greek Churches represent the Apostolic deposit of Faith. Were as 1500 years later the Protestant Reformation rejected this Historic Church and reduced Christianity to a truncated Faith, though with the essence of the Gospel...who Jesus is and did for mankind.
So basically Protestantism doesn't have the fullness of the Christian Faith. If I was forced to decide which one has a different Gospel i would have to say that it is Protestantism and that yes those who broke away from the Church and played the roll of "headship" in their Renaissance spirit of individualism are the true heretics, because they teach heresy contrary to the what the Church taught since the first century. They were the disrupters of the Church Jesus established, something St. Paul warned strongly against such individuals. This attack upon Christendom started from the beginning with gnosticism, but continued with different heretical sects.
As for the scope of the Jewish covenant books I will leave that to the Christian Catholic Church to decide verses for me or any individual. Maybe I should be more concerned, but I'm not, in fact I'm fine with of without the Septuligent...and either the shorter or longer OT Canons. Though I do believe in the critical importance of the Apostolic writings of the New Testament. These writtings are the fruit of the Spirit filled/moved Church of Jesus Christ. They came from the Church and in turn help guide the Church. The NT is the fulfillment, The New Covenant which clarifies and promotes The Gospel Message. This Historic Catholic "universal" Church has been faithful to the NT Covenant Canon. It has embraced, protected, promoted and lived according to its directives. (Btw, I don't seek a "perfect" Church, just the authentic one, the Apostolic visible one Jesus established upon Peter and the other Apostles.
I thank you for encouraging me to study and discern the OT Hebrew Canon. I've already ordered a book to start my "Deep Dive" into the subject.
Please don't feel you need to respond...in an ideal situation we would engage on a personal level as both Christian men with different opinions. For four decades I've been studying Holy Scripture & The Church. My ministry when I was a Presbyterian Deacon was the topic of benevolence with a heart for Christians to be mature and faithful to their Lord and Savior. My studies were much on Christian history, the Church, the Kingdom of God with an optimist eschatology.
My greatest blessing was knowing RJ Rushdoony and understanding the scope of Christian Reconstruction...basically the balance of Faith & Faithfulness. Also, understanding presuppositional apologetics and the reality of no neutrality from Cornelius Van Til.
God bless you as you honor and serve our Lord in Faithfulness obedience,
Greg VB
@gregvanblair9096 this discussion wasn't about the Gospel nor the New Testament. It was about the Old Testament canon. Just out of curiosity, did you watch it BEFORE commenting, or did you even watch it at all? The reason this is important is because if the Catholic church didn't adopt the OT canon that Jesus & the apostles adopted from the Jewish pre-Christian era, then they can't be the church that Jesus built. I would encourage you to watch the discussion with this thought in mind.
Apparently you believe the Roman Catholic Church to be a false Church, if so then you tell me where is the True Church?
Echo is not the same as Exo... Why would you make that comparison? It's a Different language. Echo comes from paganism... someone who was cursed to only have the power to repeat the last word said to them. Exo means I possess... has nothing to do with an echo.
@spartanastas5560 I never said that the contemporary English word "echo" is the same as the transliterated word "echo" from the Greek is the same. I was using an analogy that just as we yell into a well or cave and our exact words "echo" back to us, likewise when Jesus stated the Pharisees "echo" Moses & the Prophets, the context is that Jesus is conceding the Pharisees "have possession" of the Old Testament Scriptures, meaning the OT canon. I was attempting to convey what Jesus meant when He said, "They have [Greek: "echo"] Moses & the Prophets." I'm afraid you missed the point.
Where is your original Comment? I guess you don't need that to prove what you said. You did compare Echo to Exho. If you follow the Old Testament and live by their laws, then you shall be judged by their laws.
@@spartanastas5560 I just explained this. Again, I never said the MEANING of "echo" in Greek means the same thing in English. Again, I was making a comparison.
And for one last time. Living in one's head is the most misguiding thing a Christian can do
Sort of like what you're doing by writing multiple posts?
Imagine trusting the manuscript compiled by the disciples of the Pharisees over the manuscript compiled by the disciples of the Apostles.
pr*ts constantly worship rabbinic judaism over the Church.
Wait, are you saying a prots should worship the church rather than the rabbis? What a Freudian slip.
@@MrCharlesMartel Only someone with a poor reading comprehension or someone intentionally dishonest would interpret my words that way.
@@MrCharlesMartel You're the delusional fanatic that rides Anthony Rogers' nuts in his comment section.
My comment was to the one that followed your original comment. As you can see, I read quite well.
Also, your Catholic charity is showing. Tell me again that Justification means the eradication of sin in the soul and the infusion of charity! Lol
Great interview, Austin! 👏
I find the sheer amount of preemptive damage control by Roman Catholics flooding the comment section PRIOR to the video's release absolutely staggering.
Makes sense though, given just how well-read on this topic Steve is! If anyone is curious to hear Steve dive into these topics at further length, the entire month of April on my channel will be dedicated to videos with Steve laying out his case for the 66-book canon.
Ask Steve what he thinks about freedom of speech!
Would you then go to my post here on this very topic (please, it’s easy to search) and try to help Steve out? Thanks!
So why does Steve think “the Jews” all used a single cannon when Jesus was alive?
@JJ-cw3nf we covered this in the discussion. I will never understand why so many people are asking questions & not listening to the discussion FIRST, where their questions are addressed. SMH!
@@BornAgainRN I see you admitted that Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria didn't have the 66 Protestant books but were "closer", why didn't they know those Protrestant 66 books were the correct list?
@@JJ-cw3nf again, I covered this in our discussion. It would help if you listened! The Septuagint continued to grow after the first century, this is why we find different versions of the Septuagint in the church age with different books. The point about Cyril is that he is pointing out the Old Testament only included 22 books. Because he was a fourth century gentile, not a first century Jew, he may not have realized that Baruch was not originally part of Jeremiah. So he had to arrive at the 22 books a little differently. That’s because by the mid-4th century, the book of Baruch was accepted in the east as part of the canon, while it was not accepted in the West based on the Council of Rome, Jerome’s Vulgate, the Galasian Decree, and later versions of the Vulgate.
And I was referring to Cyril of Jerusalem, not Cyril of Alexandria. And we’re dealing with the old testament, not all 66 books of the Protestant Bible, which includes the New Testament. The New Testament is a completely separate issue, because it was not settled before the time of Christ like the old testament was.
so again, I would go back and listen to this again before asking any more questions, because I likely addressed it in this discussion.
@@BornAgainRN So Cyril was wrong. And Athanasius was wrong. Because they didn’t have the knowledge you have
@@JJ-cw3nf again, we covered this in the discussion.
This subject played a large role in my remaining Protestant after seriously investigating Newman’s claim that “to be deep is history is to cease to be Protestant.” I dug in for over a decade (what a treasure trove of sources we have!) with a desire to follow the truth wherever it led and a genuine openness to convert.
I think Steve overstates the case for a settled collection of Scripture for the people of Israel by the time of Jesus or even a Pharisaic option. He also overly relies on later Jewish understandings to get back to earlier ones when the early patristic consensus is so strong.
Here are the 3 strongest points that I think he has in favor of his conclusion and 1 layer of emphasis I found helpful for my own understanding.
First, when Jesus refers to “the Scriptures” he surely has some sort of collection in mind. Also, and this is the layer I mentioned, since the Gospel was proclaimed in accordance with the Scriptures (Luke 24:27), they can minimally be identified as those referenced as such and for that purpose by the Apostle in the New Testament.
Second, there is a concept of a collection of Scriptures with a threefold shape before, during, and after the time of Jesus (Sirach’s prologue, Jesus in Luke 24:44, and Josephus in Apion 1.8), in which the 3rd group gets increasingly more precise, moving from the “others” or the “rest,” to the “Psalms,” to “hymns to God” and “precepts for the conduct of human life” (likely the wisdom books).
Finally, Josephus numbers but does not name 22 books associated with this shape. However, Christians like Patriarch Cyril of Jerusalem do name them as those of the Protocanon* and claim they are the very same handed down from the Apostles to the Church (Catechetical Lectures 4.35).
By requiring the faithful to uphold the “Deuterocanon” as on par with the Protocanon the Council of Trent disregarded the traditions of fellow Christians, especially in the East, who not only held to the shorter “Protestant” canon but saw these other works as “worthy to be read” (Athanasius’ 39th Easter Letter), but “secondary in rank” (Cyril’s Lecture 4.33-36) to the 22.
*Some include Baruch and the Letter as part of Jeremiah along with Lamentations, which is oddly not listed by the Council of Trent.
Thanks for such a thoughtful comment!
You can just feel the Christ-like love and compassion overflowing from the Catholic commentators. Austin, I admire your courage in doing the unthinkable; having a Protestant guest.
Truly though thank you for your attmept at ecumenical dialogue.
How dare they rebut him?!
Oh my why would you have this guy on? He is a liar!
@lindahernandez8693 what in the discussion did I lie about specifically? Did you even bother to WATCH it, or did you just come here to insult me? How about LISTEN to the specific arguments being made & THEN DEMONSTRATE explicitly what I supposedly "lied" about. Be specific, don't just make baseless accusations. That is bearing false witness. Why such hostility & vitriol language?
Have you made up your mind yet?
This man said so many myths on this video it’s honestly a shame
@JJ-cw3nf and yet you did not give a single example.
@@BornAgainRN Like the Jerome's Latin Vulgate you said does not contain dueterocannon scrolls. The Codex Amiatinus does. It's in a museam. As well as a long list of codexes and manuscripts from Jerome's Latin Vulgate. Long before Martin Luther came.
@@JJ-cw3nf I didn't say Jerome's Vulgate didn't contain the deuteros, which demonstrates you were not listening. I said Jerome didn't include the book of BARUCH, because he wrote in his Prologue to Jeremiah, the church didn't include it. Jerome was also a key member of the Council of Rome, which also did not include it. If you made this mistake, I can only image what other things he didn't hear correctly.
@@BornAgainRN Gutenberg Bible contains Baruch. It’s Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. It also has Jerome’s prologue. From 1455. First book printed. Not far from the Protestant reformation. You can view photocopies online at the Morgan Museum if you search for it. The table of contents is easily accessible
I’ll say the quiet part out loud “because the deuterocanonical scriptures contained dogmas that Christian’s rebels with their “enlightened” sensibilities willed to reject to “plant their own churches”
Yeah that’s not why. That’s an assumption. Take some time to watch the video, and you might be surprised to the actual reasons.
My background coming out of Catholicism is similar to Steve's. There certain doctrines I could no longer stand by once I studied them more in depth. There are some that I am on the fence in but none I see as essential.
"Because the Masoretes made their Bible smaller. So they must be right. Even though we're antisemitic". There I answered it for you.
Oof.
I don’t know of many better examples of German higher criticism and humanistic rationalism run amok than this fellows utterly confusing casuistry.
Most of his historical claims only apply to Rome. He has no answer for the Orthodox position.
You obviously didn’t watch this discussion, or even my past discussions and debates, because I have repeatedly brought up the problem with the canon in terms of Eastern Orthodoxy.
@@BornAgainRN I most definitely watched the video, but admit that I haven’t seen (or even heard of) any of your other work. Obviously.
@@cassidyanderson3722 then you would have heard in this discussion that the Orthodox doesn't have a settled canon they all agree on. That is problematic for the Orthodox in terms of a settled agreed upon canon with the same books.
@@BornAgainRN It only appears to be a problem for those who aren’t Orthodox.
Attacking Scripture on Good Friday? Man, I love your channel, but this leaves an extremely bad taste in my mouth.
No one is attacking scripture. Austin just happened to upload it this week, because it was pre-recorded. If anything, it affirms what scripture is communicating to us about the boundaries of the canon. So rather than attacking scripture, this discussion is affirming it. Why would you accuse us of attacking scripture during holy week? That’s a false accusation, unnecessary, and condescending.
So rather than make false assumptions about our intent, if you don’t want to watch it on Good Friday, then wait until next week to watch it. Problem solved.
Hey Kyle, thanks for bringing that to my attention. While I don't think Steve (or myself for that matter) intends to attack Scripture, I understand how it could come across that way from the other side. I must confess, when I scheduled this, I didn't think of the date. I've shifted it to Monday, not because I think it attacks Scripture, but because I think we could all do with thinking of things other than apologetics on Good Friday.
Would it be attacking scripture to make a video about whether Enoch is inspired? That's canon in the Ethiopian Orthodox church. Bad taste?
Kyle is joking, don't take it serious.@@GospelSimplicity
Brains are smaller. Can only fit so much.
Was this your best shot at showing the charity of Catholicism?
@@MrCharlesMarteldidn’t know Prots were so sensitive, like to dish it out but can’t take it
@@specialteams28 🎯 you are on fire, excellent replies! God bless.
Wow