So thankful for your channel! Started my journey at an EO church and learned a lot but was always convinced of regenerate church membership. Really didn’t know how to handle a lot of the questions I would get about church history and how to defend my Protestant leanings. I really would have benefited from your channel 5 years ago but still grateful for it now. Hope it helps others that are working through these questions!
@@TruthUnites I read Dr Kruger’s book “Canon Revisited” last year. Excellent work. It really gives the most objective explanation for the self authenticated canon, without employing circular reasoning. I want to read his other book as well at some point. Just out of curiosity, how does one become a guest on your UA-cam program? I also wrote a book on the canon, but on the Old Testament. I debated Gary Michuta and Trent Horn. I also debated Trent recently on the Marian dogmas as well. I have had discussions with Dr. Michael Brown, Dr. Tony Costa, and TurretinFan, just to name a few. I would like the opportunity to discuss either the canon or the Marian dogmas with you as well. I sent you an email about this recently. In His service, Steve Christie. John 17:17
The Lord will “redeem the years…..”? I’m encouraged by your reaction. I heard of Michael Kruger a year or two ago and have subscribed to “canon folder”- look it up. Someone dear to me has been questioning the authority of the Bible and I have sent him Michael’s links with solid teaching and praying that the Lord, in His mercy will remove the scales from His eyes. There is hope only in the gospel of our precious Savior, the Lord Jesus and the Bible is ALL about Him. God has spoken clearly in the His Word. God bless.
@@BornAgainRN I never understood this belief of self authenticated canon, if you understand this properly can you maybe show me how you derive a truth as “St. Mark’s Gospel is inspired Scripture and to be included in the Church’s canon. Also, Mark wrote it, or at least stands behind it as the source of its apostolic material.” from St. Mark's gospel alone?
In Catechism of the Catholic Church pp120: "It was by the Apostolic Tradition that the church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books". There is no claim that the councils "made" writings canonical.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is filled with things is passes off as “apostolic tradition” that they have zero evidence for and can’t prove. Anything Rome claims for herself as authoritative is suspect to say the least
about things like the canon, yes.. The EO churches have almost the same canon. Only the Protestants threw out the Deuterocanonicals, 1500 years later.. On grounds of doctrine. So it's not clear by what criteria they accept some conciliar teachings but not others.
14:10 As a protestant I have to say that this idea that the protestant OT is the same as Jesus and the apostles is a bad argument that should not be used. Any protestant seminary will teach that the LXX Septuagint was the OT of Jesus and the Apostles and is quoted from the vast majority of the time in the NT and the LXX included the apocraphal books. We need to be honest about this fact. Their OT included the apocrapha.
Hey Gavin! Just wanted to say how much I appreciate your channel! I am young in my walk with the Lord and your content shows me how much I love all things Theology!
“Not a single time in all those hundreds of citations, and probably into the thousands of allusions, is there a single instance where a New Testament writer cites a book from the apocrypha as scripture.” “They cite from all kinds of books from the Old Testament, and they always match the current Old Testament we have… we can just argue it’s the Original Jewish Old Testament” I don’t really understand how he says this. Maybe he misspoke? There’s examples of maccabees in respect to the book of Hebrews about people being tortured in hopes of a better resurrection. And many more.
He is purposely being misleading he says cites “as scripture”. He leaves this ambiguous so he can say yes there were references but they weren’t seen as scripture. We would have to be extremely blind and biased to take what he says as helpful here
@@tookie36 Why? In Sirach 13, it references Aesops Fables... if Sirach is scripture, are you saying Aesops Fables is scripture because it was referenced in scripture?
As a convert to Catholicism, I enjoy your content, and most especially the charity in which you address controversial issues. Great job Dr. Gavin. If you are looking for people to have on your channel, particularly on the topic of canon, Gary Michuta, author of various books on the topic would be a good one to represent the Catholic view. I appreciate the name of the channel Truth Unites being that we have an obligation to assent to truth. These are the conversations that should be mainstream. God bless!
I will add my disappointment onto what Cathpocalypse said. First, your guest claims (13:42) that the canonicity of the Deuterocanon only became a thing at the Council of Trent. A simple Google search will reveal that the same canon was being put forward by the Council of Florence a century earlier. But there is also no interaction with the synods of Rome (382), Hippo (393), and Carthage (397) putting forward these books as canonical. Not even a mention. Just a false claim about Trent adding them. Then at (14:45) we get the old, bad argument about references. First, he states his argument with a bit of slight of hand. He says, "Not a single time in all those hundreds of citations and allusions, is there a single instance where a New Testament writer cites a book from the Apocrypha as Scripture." Note that he quickly and slyly shifts from "citations and allusions" to just "citations" when referencing the Deuterocanon. Now, first, if a lack of direct citations is enough to disqualify a book from the New Testament, then I'd be curious to know if his personal copy of the Bible has Ruth, Judges, 2Kings, Chornicles, Ezra, Esther, Nehemia, Ecclesiastics, Obadiah, Lamentations, Nahum, or Zephaniah. None of those books have direct citations. If he does think they are canonical despite their lack of citations, then why bring up the "no citations" argument? That aside, there's a good reason why he suddenly shifted to "citations" for the Deuterocanon. Because if we're willing to accept allusions, then those can be provided. Hebrews 11:32-35 alludes to 2 Maccabees 7:1-9. Hebrews 1:1-4 alludes to Wisdom 7:18-27. Matthew 27:38-43 alludes to Wisdom 2:12-20. And Romans 1:18-23 alludes to Wisdom 13:1-9. If one goes by "allusions and citations", there is a better argument for Wisdom and 2Maccabees than there is for Esther. (I can understand why the "no allusions or citations" argument might have flown in the 80's and early 90's. But in the age of the Internet? It's kind of unbelievable that they persist.) At 17:00, he begins relying very heavily on an argument that there was a defined canon at the time of Jesus. He does not interact with the common understanding that the Sadducees had a more restricted view of what books were canonical, resulting in their disbelief in the immaterial soul and the resurrection. (Which is also why Jesus only quoted the Pentatuch at them). And if the Jews were all unanimous, why are there records of discussions of which books were canonical extending past the ministry of Christ? No acknowledgement of that. Lastly, there are two arguments which are made regarding the Canon by Catholics when it comes to epistimology. First, even if one wants to ignore the role of the Magisterium in forming the Canon, he basically acknowledges that it is something which falls into the realm of Tradition. Sure, 2Peter says Paul's corpus is inspired. But who says 2Peter is inspired? That fact was actually debated well into the 4th century. So the canon falls into the realm of Tradition. But if one is to hold to Sola Scriptura in a doctrinal way, then this raises problems about how authoritative the canon can be, since it belongs to tradition. But in regard to the Magisterium, the Catholic claim is not that without the Magisterium people are utterly clueless about which books belong. Rather, its claim is that in order to establish the canon as something well-defined and authoritative qua canon, the list needs to be discerned and promulgated by a competent authority. Until that happens, people might be confident about 80% of it, but the edges are still blurry. So... there you go. Mr. Kruger should probably read some books by Gary Michuta. If not to change his mind, but to at least be aware of the arguments on the other side. Or if he doesn't want to spend the money, he can just Google some NT allusions to the Deuterocanon.
Are you saying that the Jews before the 1st century couldn’t know that any OT book were in the canon? If there were books that were recognised as canonical in the 1sr century (e.g the Pentateuch) then how were these books known to be part of the canon?
@@Bewareofthewolves : It seems to me to be generally true that if a person says, "Are you saying..." the answer is always, "No". There is a big difference between saying these two things: > "The ancient Hebrews did not have a single canon with clearly defined boundaries." > "The ancient Hebrews were utterly clueless about what books may or may not be inspired." I said the first. I did not say the second. There was consensus on the Pentateuch. Beyond that there were different schools of thought among the Pharisees, Essenes, Samaritans, Sadducees, and Greek speakers in the diaspora.
@@actsapologist1991 Thank you for the response. Could the Jews back then know that the Pentateuch was canonical? If yes, then how? If no, then when was it that they could know? I appreciate your interaction and just for the sake of clarity and openness, I am a reformed Protestant.
@@Bewareofthewolves : To the best of my knowledge, their knowledge would be formed by the consistent and universal witness of their shared heritage about the books which were not in question due to their traditional attribution to Moses. Outside of that core collection of undisputed books would be one which different schools of thought had different opinions on.
ActsApologist Thanks for the reply. My purpose in asking the question is to try to find some consistency within the Roman Catholic position. When the topic of canon is raised Protestants are consistently told that we are unable know the contents of the canon unless we hold to the view of an infallible tradition-and then by necessity-an infallible teaching body (the magisterium) to interpret that tradition. But it seems to me that the Old Testament saints could know the canon (or, for arguments sake, at least part of it) without the need for an infallible tradition or magisterium. So it seems that the giant epistemological conundrum that Protestants are so often accused of not being able to answer, also applies to Roman Catholics regarding the formation (of at least part) of the OT canon. I would like to hear your thoughts on this. I hope I have been clear in my attempted argument.
Thank you Dr. Ortlund, really appreciated this one. Going through Prayer by Keller and Church History by Eusebius right now. I'll be getting into Kruger's "The Question of Canon" in the next few days. This video, interestingly, came at the right moment for me.
Council of Rome “Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]). Council of Hippo “[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]). Council of Carthage III “[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, Judges, 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, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).
It's incorrect to imply that he "extra books" were adopted by the Council of Trent. They were confirmed by Trent but were part of the canon well before Trent.
I’m a Protestant and I love Gavin’s channel, but I expected more from this guest. His responses on the Catholic vs Protestant canon were embarrassingly misleading or outright false.
Look at how Jesus quoted from the book of 2 Esdras: Matthew 23:37-38 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! See! Your house is left to you desolate; 2 Esdras 1:30 & 33 “I gathered you together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings: but now, what shall I do unto you? I will cast you out from my face.” “Thus saith the Almighty Lord, Your house is desolate, I will cast you out as the wind doth stubble.”
Regarding 2 Esdras: "There is fairly general agreement that chs. 3-14 were composed near the end of the 1st cent. a.d., and that chs. 1, 2 and 15, 16 were added during the next cent. or two. What follows is a representative view, indicating the position of scholars as Oesterley, Metzger, Eissfeldt and others: chs. 1, 2, about a.d. 150; chs. 3-10, about a.d. 100; chs. 11, 12, about a.d. 69-96; ch. 13, about a.d. 66; ch. 14, about a.d. 100-120; and chs. 15, 16, between a.d. 240-270"
The 7 books not included in the protestant bible were not introduced at the Council of Trent, but towards the end of the 4th century. And saying the deuterocanon is found nowhere in the NT isn't necessarily true. And finally saying that a book was/wasn't mentioned in the NT isn't a good argument for it's canonical status. Cool discussion nonetheless.
Council of Rome “Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]). Council of Hippo “[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]). Council of Carthage III “[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, Judges, 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, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).
15:00 He is greatly mistaken. The New Testament does make many illusions to the Apocrypha and Enoch. And there is even an explicit prophecy in the Wisdom of Solomon of the words that the Pharisees would say as they mocked Christ on the cross. (I'm Protestant btw, but I don't have to accept the smaller canon of "Protestantism")
He doesn't say the NT authors never quote/allude to the Apocrypha, he says they never quote them "as Scripture." There is a difference. Such quotations are never introduced with the formula, "It is written..." nor are they referred to as "Scripture" (graphē) or "the Law" (nomos). The is true of Jude's reference to 1 Enoch. Of course, somebody might claim that if 1 Enoch contained a prophecy regarded by Jude as legitimate, the entire book must be considered inspired and part of the OT canon. But this doesn't logically follow. Firstly, 1 Enoch is pseudepigraphical. Enoch did not write it. Secondly, it is quite likely that the pseudonymous author of the book included a record of an authentic prophecy from Enoch that had been preserved through oral tradition. If this is the case, then Jude's reference of 1 Enoch should not be taken as a wholesale endorsement of the entire book.
@@mikedawson975 A counter-argument to this might be that that isn't a negative signal against their canonicity (there are places where other OT books are quoted, but do not use this formula). It's rather a missing positive signal, which doesn't have any effect -- in a strictly Bayesian sense -- on the probability that they were considered Scripture or not.
29:29 thanks for discussing the vital issue of our time, keeping the faith as a college student. This issue of exclusivity really did a number on me - I thought I was raised in an indoctrinated way, to believe all other religions were demonic. I fell into attraction to the occult & various spiritual practices around the world. I’m glad Jesus found me again, and I found Him and chose Him back ❤😢 And yes, the moral code issue - another reason I thought I was indoctrinated & that my upbringing was bigoted. This acceptance of lgbt and the like led me down a road of iniquity. Thank God for His grace & redemption ❤ Voddie Baucham mentioned this topic of preparing our kids for this secular university environment. It’s so important 😢
Good discussion but a few clarifications from a Catholic perspective: 1) agree that the books in the canon were widely circulated, that was one criteria of making the canon. However, you admit that only 22/27 were core books…this makes the point that there wasn’t obvious acceptance of all of the current NT books. It took much deliberation over the books that made the Bible, and others that didn’t (Shepherd, Clement, Didache). The entire NT isn’t as self revealing as you make it sound, Revelation almost didn’t make the cut. It took the Holy Spirit through the Church to make final infallible decisions on the final canon. 2) Councils were necessary to refute heresy and define dogma. Nicea in 325AD for example refuted Arianism and defined the Trinity. These councils actually helped influence the final canon, weeding out books like Shepherd that, while widely embraced, didn’t quite align theologically. You may say “the Trinity is self evident in the Bible”, but tell that to Unitarians, Mormans, and Jehovah Witness who will disagree. The Trinity is right because the Holy Spirit through infallible councils determined it to be true. 3) the RCC has accepted the deuterocanonical books since the start of the church. They were not introduced at Trent. You make it sound like an add, but in reality Protestants (led by Luther) removed these books. And Luther wanted to remove others too like James because they didn’t align with his man-made theology. Luther actually wrote many horrible and scandalous things (supported adulterous behavior, etc.), not sure why anyone would name a denomination after him. 4) Jesus didn’t write the Bible or even call for one to be written. He founded a Church, with an episcopal structure empowered to create doctrine (“bind and loose”), and by his own words said the gates of hell would not prevail against it. The traditions and councils of the church are valid, under the authority given to the Church by Jesus Christ.
Bad argument. Your popes executed "heretics" and came up with false doctrines of indulgences. On top of doing unbiblical practices. Not sure why people would follow catholicism blindly. Dad history 😮
I love this channel but the title is misleading, this is one side of a debate and did not give a fair representation of the other side. And I am a protestant. For example, this notion that the OT is to be quoted as scripture as criteria for canonicity should be inclusive but if it's exclusive (by lack thereof) we'd have to remove Esther and other books. All sides agree on this point but the latter information was left out which signals stronger evidence for Protestantism than it actually is. Likewise the point that the deuterocanonical books are referenced hundreds of times was glossed over quite quickly, I think it's better to really address this than dismiss it... Just my thoughts, hopefully others understand this is a one sided video (which is fine if not misrepresented).
Having listened to your interview with Dr. Meade on the Old Testament canon, I was hopeful that I wouldn't just hear traditional Protestant/Evangelical rhetoric on the New Testament canon. Unfortunately, I did not hear the same genuine truth-seeking tone from this guest. Respectfully, if you are genuinely interested in truth-seeking and diving deeply into these issues, for your sake and your listener's sakes, it might be worth considering finding highly specialized Catholic and Orthodox scholars, and not just apologists or You-Tuber's. Again, I write this respectfully. I really appreciate your demeanor and truth-seeking approach. For that reason, it seems best to seek out actual specialists from more than one side, and definitely not just apologists who specialize in using rhetoric to persuade others into their position. Just a thought. Thanks for your work.
They talk as if the canon can come into existence on its own. Yeah no need for councils or tradition, the canon can just fall from the sky or just appear out of nowhere.
They came into existence from God through his Apostles. The church brought them together. The OT was already canonised. Isn't the Church a steward for God, so why take a victory lap if indeed the Catholic Church was used by God to preserve scripture for all christians. That is PRIDE.
@@addjoaprekobaah5914 Pride? Or Bride? Here are some historical facts waiting for refutation… History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, not only did they not agree but their list of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time. So, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 5th century, just 75 years AFTER the council of Nicaea which began the Trinitarian doctrine, and then with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and preserved these scriptures by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us, show us, who did? And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself? Peace!!!
The real question for Protestants is: how do you know ANY of the aforementioned books are inspired to begin with? This basic epistemological question is critical. Spoiler alert: because of the Councils.
No. They are self authenticating. Also, even if the council brought them together, what victory do they get? They are working for God. They are stewards.
@@addjoaprekobaah5914 Help me understand how are they self authenticating? Can you name one book that self authenticates itself as the infallible inspired work of God or tells us about another specific book that is the inspired infallible work of God?
What about the rationale that Jesus and the apostles used the Septuagint, which did include those books now referred to as deuterocanonical (Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, etc)? I would be very interested to hear Dr. Kruger or a future guest interact with this idea. Dr. Ortlund, I greatly appreciate your work, thank you for what you do and the incredibly gracious and charitable way you do it.
Truth unites is a wonderful name for your channel, I appreciate that you live up to it. When jesus said to peter I will build my church on this rock I cannot see how this excludes any biblical churches
Dr. Kruger is a fine guest, and I have a great deal of respect for him, and his work on the canon. But it would be really helpful if he would address Lee MacDonald's work.
Craig Allert has been extremely helpful for me. He holds MacDonald and Everett Kalin's work in high regard. I've learned so much that I've never realized before. This discussion transcends the whole Roman Catholic/Protestant debate. It's really about what the actual evidence is.
Continuing to appeal to Trent as formally recognized the deutrocanon as part of Scripture as evidence against it is a disingenuous argument, lacks nuance and implies an dismissal of large swaths of evidence from church history as to how the deutrocanon was recognized (formally and informally), used liturgically, was received by the faithful and utilized in scriptural study by the theologians. I do not think it helps move the discussion forward to appeal to Trent in such a way as it is withholding significant historical evidence that the councils of Rome (382), Carthage (418) and Hippo (393-4), the latter two especially, which all indicate that much of the deutrocanon, with differences between each council, was part of scripture at those councils. This also is ignoring historical evidence of usage and recognition of particular books of the deutrocanon in the various codexes (Vaticanus, Alexandrinus), the Ethiopian bible (the longest by far), as well as the historical developments of receptivity even within Protestantism regarding the deutrocanon (the Lutherans, for instance, maintaining the deutrocanon as part of published bibles all the way up until the 1850's). In the end, it seems the arguments around Trent can mean one of two things concerning the deutrocanon: 1. It creates problems for the authority of the deutrocanon because it came so late and was therefore a de facto "addition" to the Bible 2. It was a response to a movement in Christianity where it was starting to be questioned and Trent was a formal re-affirmation of it as scripture. Logically, #2 seems the more plausible of conclusions when you consider the overwhelming presence of the deutrocanon in all facets (codifications of scripture, patristic references and appeals, ante-Nicene references, Doctors of the Church reference, use in the liturgy, and community acceptance) of Church history. God bless.
Man, that's what I thought. Im now discerning what church to be a part of and this misleading narrative about deuterocanon made me sad. I think it should anger catholics as well as protestants. We should aim at truth and help everybody see the whole picture. I really like Dr Gavin's attitude, I admire him for that. God bless!
The presenter also forgets that the Church had previously declared the deuterocanonical books as inspired at the Council of Florence decades before Luther drew breath.
It was not until Trent that it became unacceptable for Catholics to hold any other view on the deuterocanonical books. Before then there were clearly different views within the church. There were Christians in the early church who recognised them as inspired. However, there was also a large segment in the church who didn't hold them as Scripture. Likewise, there was a segment who thought them to be useful, helpful, and true, though, not inspired.* Many Protestants still hold this later view today. The reformers certainly weren't the first in church history to questions different deuterocanonical book's authority. *See for example, Athanasius, Rufinus, Jerome, Cardinal Cajetan, Gregory the Great, Walafrid Strabo, Radulphus Flavicencius, Hugh of St. Victor, Richard of St. Victor, John of Salisbury, Honorius of Autun (Augustodunensis), Hugh of St. Cher (Hugo Cardinalis), Nicholas of Lyra, Alonso Tostado, Jean Driedo, John Ferus, and Jacobus Faber Stapulensis. See also, the preface to both The Glossa Ordinaria and the Biblia Complutensia. Both sources were widely regarded and endorsed.
Trent's canon isn't new, what Trent does that's new is formally rule out canons lists that exclude the deuterocanon, and views of multiple levels of canonicity, which both have a long history in the CHurch, arguably older than the view of Trent
It's interesting that Kruger says Christ couldn't hold his listeners accountable for what "the Scriptures say" without a defined Canon.....and yet Christianity operates without a defined canon for hundreds of years, and as he admits, that development is fine, since there was a general understanding in place? This seems contradictory. There were several Jewish canons in play, btw - the Saducees famously held to only the Penteteuch, while the Essenes include the deuterocanon as well. It seems fairly well established that Christ and the apostles used the septuagint, which would have included the deuterocanonical books, which the Catholic Church has defined since the 380s AD.
If you merely mean that the LXX Greek is the word of God, then fine. Melito of Sardis, Cyril of Jerusalem, the Laodicean Synod, Athanasius, Nazianzen and many others disagree if you mean the Deuterocanon.
Really good video, I’m really interested in the development of the canon. A bit disappointing though the claim the deuterocanonical books were added at Trent, this seems a bit disingenuous. These books were in canon lists West (Rome 380s) and East (Hippo 390s). I feel as Protestants we need, and no doubt have, good arguments that address the historical realities and was looking forward to learning more about those.
If there are good arguments, I wasn't able to find them. I spent the better part of 10 years searching frantically for a good argument for excluding these books from the canon, but what I found is that most Protestants assume that good arguments exist but aren't personally aware of them. Frankly, this very issue started my spiral towards Catholicism.
The Council of Rome was a local council. Them including the Deuterocanonical is like Ethiopian including Enoch in their council. Count Trent officially declared the Deuterocanonical as Equal with Scripture
@@jenex5608 The council of Rome, the Synod of Hippo, the church practice for her time (with some debate around it to be fair). To claim Trent is the moment when this is truly established is historical revisionism in the extreme.
@@willb5548 ill agree with u it was probably the majority view in Rome, Hippo and Carthage. But nonetheless other Councils didn't consider it Canonical. The dispute of Canonical books have been going. Many Christians supporting only jusy the hebrew Canon like Cyril of Jerusalem. And others supporting the Cyril of Jerusalem plus Apocrypha. I think we should stick with what Paul says In Romans 3:2 where he says the Oracles of the God have be entrusted with Jews. The Jews universally right from the time before after and during Jesus time rejected the apocrypha as Scripture.
Thats is 100% facts right there brother, this man Not only was disingenuous, but he straight-up lied, it's a big fat lie, and if you're going to lie about something as big as Canon of our Bibles, then what else are you going to lie about, how can people trust teachers who main principle of the conversation is based upon a lie. Even true Protestant Christians historians who have study the cannon will tell you the apocrypha was not added in the Council of Trent, Lee McDonald's is one of them. So You're right, and do you know how many books were in the original KJV 1611?
Around 20 minute mark he made an interesting point about the Scripture being recognised organically within the church. However it is the same church that went onto recognise the books of the New Testament formally. He seems to want the organic recognition but not the formal recognition. Surely the organic recognition of the NT (i.e the Scriptures being used in teaching and liturgy by the church) led to the formal recognition of the NT. We needed both to know the authority of the NT books.
It would have helped, I think, if the formal declaration came before the reformation. The idea he proposed is that they were trying to counter the reformation. That undermines the decision as being biased. I'm not saying that's what I think. It's just the outflow of what the man said.
Did they have a formal mechanism through which to recognise the organic canon (the 'ontological' canon)? Later in Church history (1st - 16th centuries), there were many lists produced of what constituted the 'canon', and lots of methods were used to compile this canon. Broadly, they are the same - and that should be encouraging.
Also to his point near the end 1 John 4:1 "BELOVED, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." 1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good".
I haven't finished the video so forgive me if this is explained later; Kruger mentions that the book of Enoch was probably seen as a book with some prophecy or some "truth" in it and some false things in it. He mentioned how maybe other books were viewed that way. My question is how do we know that isn't what Jesus thought of the books he was quoting? Specific texts are quoted and referenced throughout the NT, but why would we count those whole books as truth rather than only what Jesus says?
I think Jesus statements are only part if the puzzle, pretty much for the reason you say. The other part is the mind of the Church. Probably another piece is survival of the fittest as other canons and tgjsr who advocated lost the political battle
Council of Rome “Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]). Council of Hippo “[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]). Council of Carthage III “[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, Judges, 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, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).
I have no idea if it's ghost banning or just comments being put under spam or something. However, seems like I cannot make a reference here. Which isn't even including links.
Which canon? Look to the Church 1600 years ago and not the opinion of any man who disagrees today. God's Written Word says the Church is the pillar of truth, the bulwark of truth, where the manifold wisdom of God is made known, and that Christ PROMISED to lead to ALL TRUTH: *Council of Rome, Decree of Pope Damasus (A.D. 382)* “The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [ie., 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book. Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book,…lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee … Nahum … Habacuc … Sophonias … Aggeus … Zacharias … Malachias … Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books.” *Council of Hippo, Canon 36 (A.D. 393)* “That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture. Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis. Exodus. Leviticus. Numbers. Deuteronomy. Joshua the Son of Nun. The Judges. Ruth. The Kings, four books. The Chronicles, two books. Job. The Psalter. The Five books of Solomon. The Twelve Books of the Prophets. Isaiah. Jeremiah. Ezechiel. Daniel. Tobit. Judith. Esther. Ezra, two books. Macchabees, two books.” *Council of Carthage III, Canon 397 (A.D. 397)* “[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, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach], twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees.” *Council of Florence nearly 750 years ago.* "It [the Church] professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament - that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel - since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows. Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John." Who is Michael Kruger compared to the Church established by Jesus Christ 2000 years ago? What authority does he say that the Church - Catholic Bishops meeting together - repeatedly errored and didn't know it?
Except not as part of the canon :). It was decided pretty promptly that they were not inspired, but remained in protestant bibles anyway until for cost saving they were removed. The canon did not change. @@fantasia55
@@fantasia55On no authority. Because the canon is decided by God, it is by reason that we can try to know what the true canon is. Of course I used language like "the canon was decided", but it is apparent when we talk of the canon that we are speaking of two separate entities: the list of writings which were inspired by God, and the list of writings we have which we think were inspired by God.
So it’s organic except for the organic use of the deuterocanonical books? How is this not “man made traditions” used by Protestants to form the canon they individually believe to be true?
I was literally about to buy Krugers book Canon Revisited while watching this video. Then Mr. Kruger made the statement that the Catholics included the Dueterocanonical books at Trent! Lol even I knew that to be false and I’m not even Catholic. I guess these never took place? Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) Council of Carthage (A.D. 417) Council of Florence (A.D. 1442) Let’s not play make believe that Trent was where these books were “added”. Us Protestants can at least refrain from putting out blatant false information.
Are the Deuterocanonical books in the Muratorian Fragment (not a trick question, but one that points to the limits of evidence)? In Athanasius’s Festal Letter? The understanding of Melito of Sardis? Did those local councils in Carthage have bearings over communities in Jerusalem? In Antioch? Rome? No, no, and no. The precision of language from Kruger comes from taking for granted an historical acknowledgement of the different kinds of councils. I highly recommend that you research that as well.
I would put out there that the Latin Vulgate, the official Bible of the Catholic church, completed in 405, includes those books as scripture Moreover, Luther's first translations had them. It would be foolish to say the Catholic church 'added' the books, if they were affirming a widely used canon to the contrary of a less-used one promulgated by Luther.
@@9box906 The collection of texts included in the Vulgate you reference, which was translated by Jerome who himself did not trust those same books later excluded by Protestants, was not an artifact of canonization in the same way books are today else the Council of Trent would not have had to debate the issue and bishops even during that time would not have been on opposing sides. The Vulgate contained books that some felt were useful for teaching but not for doctrine, the same as there were prayer books that were mainly consulted (eventually) before the Bible ever was during liturgy (and in some styles still remains the method today). It is more an artifact of what books were counted among the general mass as a collective as useful rather than any official stance on the books themselves that had been decided.
@@KMANelPADRINO I don't think you can make an argument towards noncanonization with the Vulgate, considering that it was the Bible commissioned to be translated in the common language at the time by Rome, and was the main Bible used in the Catholic church since it was created. Luther himself was certainly not one to be opposed to removing books of the Bible that opposed his ideas, considering that he tried to remove Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation, as well as Esther. He was able to convince the reformers to remove the deuterocanon, since it wasn't included in the Masoretic Text, but the Catholics make a fair claim when they point out that it's included in the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation that would most likely have been used by Jesus and the Apostles
This shouldn't be an issue. The Catholic Church decided the canon of scripture. The reason the New Testament is written in Greek is because Greek was a commonly spoken language among Jews especially in the diaspora. The apostles used the Septuagint "Greek" Old Testament.
Hi Dr. Ortlund, I just want to thank you for this channel it’s been a true blessing. Q- How would you answer someone who believes that because Jesus and the apostles quoted mainly from the Septuagint which contained the deuterocanonical books that therefore they should be part of the Canon.
I'd agree that the Council of Nicea isn't the only and final place Canon gets determined. But were not the books protected and produced by the early Church? The Orthodox Church? The one that held the councils and canons?
The Ecumenical Council of Nicea never addressed the canon. Council of Rome “Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]). Council of Hippo “[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]). Council of Carthage III “[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, Judges, 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, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).
If the argument that the canon is binding because the Church gradually came to a consensus on this issue,doesn't that give some meaningful authority to the Church, however you define "the Church?" Seems to me if you're going to make this move, you get really close to, if not arrive at, denying sola scriptura.
Sola Scriptura doesn't rule out meaningful authority of the Church though. All it rules out is infallible sources of revelation outside of Scripture. I think modern American Evangelicalism has a lot to blame for this ,isunderstanding, but also low level discussion on this issue from catholics really should stufy this better rather than coming to conclusion like sola scriptura means you cant beleive anything that isnt in the bible, or that Christian tradition shouldn't impose authorative interpretations of scripture onto the individual, you have to look at scripture with no outside influence at all, and other ludicrous positions that get called "sola scriptura"
I'm so sick of the anti-church-authority mindset we are having in evangelicalism. What they are propagating is solus scriptura. The reformed position was never that the church has no meaningful authority. Don't let you blind by evangelical folks today...
Council of Rome “Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]). Council of Hippo “[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]). Council of Carthage III “[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, Judges, 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, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).
@@internetenjoyer1044 Council of Rome “Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]). Council of Hippo “[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]). Council of Carthage III “[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, Judges, 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, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]). Is Scripture the sole rule of faith for Christians? Not according to the Bible. While we must guard against merely human tradition, the Bible contains numerous references to the necessity of clinging to apostolic tradition. Thus Paul tells the Corinthians, “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6). To make sure that the apostolic tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession-his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach. “With great zeal and closest attention, therefore, I frequently inquired of many men, eminent for their holiness and doctrine, how I might, in a concise and, so to speak, general and ordinary way, distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity. “I received almost always the same answer from all of them-that if I or anyone else wanted to expose the frauds and escape the snares of the heretics who rise up, and to remain intact and in sound faith, it would be necessary, with the help of the Lord, to fortify that faith in a twofold manner: first, of course, by the authority of divine law [Scripture] and then by the tradition of the Catholic Church. “Here, perhaps, someone may ask: ‘If the canon of the scriptures be perfect and in itself more than suffices for everything, why is it necessary that the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation be joined to it?’ Because, quite plainly, sacred Scripture, by reason of its own depth, is not accepted by everyone as having one and the same meaning. . . . “Thus, because of so many distortions of such various errors, it is highly necessary that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be directed in accord with the norm of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning”- St. Vincent of Lerins (The Notebooks [A.D. 434]).
How we got the bible is important to know, but the question of why is a much better question. And that is because the Catholic Church wanted a common canon of scripture to be read from during the liturgy of the word during every holy mass throughout the entire world which was celebrated from the very beginning of Christianity following Pentecost.
Hebrews 11:35 is a reference to 2 Maccabees 7. Also, when he talks about the Jews in Jesus time, which Jews? The Sadducees who only accepted the first five books or the Hellenistic Jews which used the LXX or the Pharisees who used the books that the current Jews use? And there were many other sects. The OT canon was far from canonized during Jesus’ time.
@Caleb Daniel You miss the argument. Kruger said out of all the instances of the NT writers quoting the OT, there's not a single instance of a New Testament writer citing from the "apocrypha". He's either ignorant or misleading people as I have demonstrated with Heb 11:35.
Watch it again, he says there’s nowhere where it’s quoted as “inspired scripture” The deuterocanonical books where in circulation at the time, whether Jesus and the apostles viewed them as scripture or not wouldn’t necessarily prevent them from citing them merely because they are part of the Jewish corpus of literature.
@@etheretherether He didn't say "inspired scripture" but just "scripture". And, how does he know it isn't quoted as scripture? There are many OT books that aren't quoted in the NT, but that doesn't mean they aren't scripture.
@@markrome9702 That's true about some books not being quoted, but to answer your other question. There are places where the Apostles and Jesus quote scripture using the phrase "Is it not written" or "does scripture not say" or some variation of that. That doesn't mean they don't quote other books, and that they don't quote the deuterocanonical works, but they quote them like literature, without specifically appealing to them as divine. If I recall correctly, a couple of the earliest "canon" lists from the ECFs included the deuterocanonical OT as necessary reading for all literate Christians, but not as scripture. You're mistakenly viewing Gavin's arguments as binary "should Christians read these books or not" that's not the case. In the earliest Canon lists different books both OT and NT where treated like a tier list. For example the Gospels where considered of the utmost importance (hence why they're read every liturgy) and the epistles where after those, then non-apostolic epistles (those written by Polycarp etc) after those.
Thanks for this great interview! Regarding his opinion on the formation of the Old Testament Canon, I just would like to say that Dr Kruger's opinion diverges quite a bit from another important expert in the field, namely Prof L.M. MacDonald, who claims (and makes a compelling case) that there was no OT canon formed at the time of Jesus. He gave an interesting interview on Mike Licona's channel about that exact topic.
Do you plan on having a scholar come on to talk about the OT Canon? If I'm not mistaken, Dr. Kruger hasn't addressed the OT Canon in his scholarly work. At least in length.
we get into that a little bit here, though it's not the main focus. I'm open to having someone on regarding OT canon more specifically - any suggestions?
@@TruthUnites It would be great if you can get both Dr. Kruger and Dr. Lee MacDonald on together for a discussion. That would be totally awesome. You can probably contact Mike Licona to see if MacDonald would be up for it.
The Holy Spirit in our heart is the Gospel. The authority comes from the Church, not from scriptures whom are testimonies of the authority of the apostles by The Holy Spirit. "Whoever listens to you listens to me" and "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God", not by reading... We have a bible, because first we had a Church. We don't have the Church because first we had the bible...
My catholic friend doesn't believe anything his church teaches but won't leave because he's convinced Martin Luther invented our Bible. Hopefully this helps him get out of there!
Council of Rome “Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]). Council of Hippo “[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]). Council of Carthage III “[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, Judges, 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, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).
I think the point of @richlopez5896 is that if you accept, for example, the Nicene Creed, established at the Council of Nicaea in the year 325, why wouldn't you also accept the canonicity of the so-called Apocrypha, whose canonicity was also established by 4th Century church councils?
Dr. Ortlund, I’d be really interested to see a video of you responding or commenting on Grace to You’s “critical analysis” of your brother Dane’s book “Gentle and Lowly”.
17:31 Jude quotes a writing known as "the Assumption of Moses" in verse 9. He didn't only quote from Enoch. Enoch isn't part of the Catholic canon, but if I remember correctly, the Orthodox churches, including the oriental orthodoxies, have Enoch in their canon, and the Ethiopian canon actually has 2 and 3 Enoch as well.
I searched that too but many other books where quoted that weren't part of the apocrypha. Books we no longer have. The book of Enoch we have today cannot be verified that it was the same one they had quoted. I have read that it is not the same one.
Woah woah. 13:35ish he says the "old testament apocrypha" was a group of books "adopted later" by the RCC at the council of Trent in the 16th century. I was going to charitably going to assume he misspoke, but he doubles down on this statement at 15:35ish. This is not correct and I'm thankful Gavin (sorta) pointed this out at 21:57. Kruger's response was that there remained a "very large segment" of the church that did not receive these books as canon, and that the first "official" declaration of canonicity was Trent. I'm not sure what he means by "official"? I am currently reading a book by a catholic priest written in the late 16th century and he is clear in stating the church considered all these books as canon for ~1,200 years. The 7 disputed books were listed as canon in the council of Rome I believe in 382 and were ratified in several subsequent councils over the centuries, including the council of Trent. It seems like Kruger is "protestant-splaining" the catholic church. I bring this up as a born and raised Protestant, who believed and was taught this misconception my whole life, that the Catholics just willy-nilly added books to scripture. I've only recently learned that actually it was the Reformers who decided to remove books from scripture - books which had been accepted as scripture by the entire church for many many many years and accepted by many early church fathers. As far as using the OT that "matches the one used by Jesus and the Apostles," The Septuagint *includes* these 7 disputed OT books, and the Septuagint is the version most frequently quoted by the new testament authors. He fails to mention this fact when he says that the NT writers never quote from the apocryphal books themselves. In fact, A nineteenth century study of 275 New Testament passages by D. M. Turpie (Turpie, DH, The Old Testament in the New 1868) concluded that the New Testament, the Septuagint and the Hebrew text all agree in only about 20% of the quotations. Of the 80% where some disagreement occurs, fewer than 5% agree with the Hebrew against the Septuagint. I'm obviously only newly studying this, so maybe something is getting lost in translation here, but it doesn't seem that Kruger is painting a good-faith picture here of the facts of the matter, which is very disappointing.
I was a bit disappointed in the fact that Dr. Kruger continues to misrepresent the Catholic position (as he did in his book) and as always argues against the unbelieving position. His view also does not engage the fact that certain books were in dispute because of the uncertainty of their authenticity. It took years before certain books were received as canonical and his view, I argue, does not account for that. You need a magisterial authority of some type to decide for The Universal Church.
Completely agree, still have not heard a good protestant objection to some of the claims offered. It is also quite telling when you look at every branch of Christianity that is apostolic, they all have deutrocanon. The fact that our earliest copies of the old testament contain the Septuagint shows that his argument is very flawed. Plus most of the quotes in the new testament are better attributed to the Greek translations.
@@andrewthomastaylor Because the Magisterium doesn’t follow the Canon Stablished by the Oracles of God (Jews) The earliest septuagint is not evidence since it’s a christian Bible not Jewish.
@@internautaoriginal9951 well if you look at the earliest biblical books found it seems to discount that argument. For example the Dead Sea scrolls had books that are in the deutrocanon present. What you also fail to account for is that different groups of Jews had different books which they considered scripture. For example the Pharisees the Sadducee’s and the essense all had different canonical books. This can even be seen in the Bible depending on who Jesus is talking to he only talks about certain portions of the canon that they know to be canon. Also, the earliest Old Testament writings are all written in Greek and it wasn’t until the 900s until we find the editions Protestants hold to. Seems to me you need to research a little more because you are just factually incorrect.
Nonsense same narrative , parroting same regarding your Catholic Stance. What is the anti Christ Spirit then not belonging to the full authority of your pope's.
@@amenbekele6128 I think that's like asking do you need a working car to get somewhere. You might do it with a broken car too, but it's certainly easier with a good and proven car.
@Truth Unites Hello Mr. Ortlund. I was wondering in one of your upcoming videos you could maybe do a series on the Marian Dogmas. Specially on the Perpetual virginity of Mary. I would love to hear your thoughts on what you think the Bible reveals on this issue and what the early Christians believed on this issue thanks.
sure thing! I address it briefly here: ua-cam.com/video/p2upKk_5Bhk/v-deo.html And also here: ua-cam.com/video/Bq1z44GVBcA/v-deo.html& hope this helps!
@@TruthUnites I appreciate that Mr. Ortlund. The first link takes me to the video " Which Canon is Right? With Michael Kruger" I watch the entire video. Is there something where in the video you address Mary?
@@TruthUnites I read this and just wanted to wish Mr. Antwain Gurley warmly for his devotion in finishing the video. I hope it was encouraging and beneficial to you, AG!
To suggest that it is good to read the OT Apocryphal books as beneficial is thoroughly wrong, except for the mature believer or as a student of the canon. These are full of doctrinal errors, and where the RCC gets its evil dogmas from. For example, praying for the dead, purgatory, etc., and Revelation 22 places a direct curse on these additions. Tobet, for example, even teaches the occult. These are certainly not spiritually ,beneficial‘, but rather unspiritually beneficial.
Council of Rome “Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]). Council of Hippo “[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]). Council of Carthage III “[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, Judges, 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, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).
The Septuagint, completed in the second century BC contained the deuterocanonical books. The council of Rome in 382 AD also included the deuterocanonical books as scripture. The assertion that the inclusion of these books was somehow the invention of the Roman Catholic Church is the 16th century is misleading.
This guy doesn’t know what he is talking about. The 7 deuterocanonical books weee already in the Latin. İlgiye not in the council of Trent. Do more research!
So how the Protestants know exactly if they got the wrong books ? As they came 1500 hounded years later ?? How do they know that the 4 authors of the gospels were indeed written by st John / st Luke / and so on there is no one single signature to say me St. John wrote this letter when there were so many copies around at the time ?? Paul letters when you read it was never finish it end up suddenly with no definite end ?? For to say that that Jesus and the apostles
Consider gospel of john chapter 1 v 1. The logos made flesh. Thats the most overlooked verse that explains the other scripture by john also, the anti Christ Spirit, those who deny the word made flesh.
By my count, there are, at least, 85 NT references to the OT Apocrypha, some of which are nearly exact quotes. The most obvious one was the episode of the Sadducees asking Jesus who would be a woman's husband in heaven if seven of her husbands should perish, a reference to Tobit. Jesus quotes the OT Apocrypha several times. You're basically saying the writings that Jesus and Paul read and quoted from are non-canon. Well, okay then. The quote from Paul about a worker is deserving of his wages in 1 Timothy 5 that matches Luke 10:7 refer to Tobit 4. It's hard to say, from this vantage point, whether the presenter is ignorant of his profession or dishonest. You could, at least, counter the 85 with reasonable arguments rather than simply stating there's no connection at all.
Paul quotes the Greek philosopher Aratus in Acts 17, the Greek dramatist Menander in 1 Corinthians 15, and the Greek philosopher Epimenides in Titus 1. Nobody thinks the writings of Aratus, Mendander, or Epimenides are scripture.
@@grantgooch5834 The Greek philosophers mentioned here supplement an already existing Biblical truth to evangelize to the Greek populations. They are referenced to evangelize, not as an authority in apologetics. The Apocrypha have far more references and entire NT theological concepts are derived from them. More importantly, specifically, Jesus is quoting from them rather than Paul, a man. An important piece of Christian apologetics is finding references to NT concepts in the OT and vice versa. So, how far are you going to take this line of logic?
Bart Erman should not be taken seriously.. he was and is part of the new athiest movement. Basically Bart is trying, in every class and every interview, to disprove the bible.
Everyone arguing over the Hebrew Bible and they are Christian. Sad. The New Testament was canonized by Bishops. Western/Eastern. Absolutely No protestant.
While I agree the Gospel of Thomas is not canonical, and I certainly would not treat it as scripture, I feel it gets a lot of flack compared to the real "off grid" gospels of say Judas. The Gospel of Thomas includes many of the stories that are a riff on Gospel stories, and other sayings that to me are so brilliant I find it hard to think Jesus did not say them.
I will describe the definitive Bible, which is the Catholic Bible. It has 73 books, 46 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New. There is also a tiny apocryphal section with just the Prayer of Manasseh in it. The Tetragrammaton is not translated as "Yahweh", which is blasphemous. It is not translated as "Jehovah", which is a silly mistake. It has approval from a Catholic bishop, typically the Archbishop of Westminster in England. Bibles which refer to "Yahweh" or "Jehovah" throughout should be pulped at once. Some Old Testament books are translated from Greek, and are called "Deuterocanonical". Bibles which shunt these books into the Apocrypha should be pulped. Bibles which are missing these books should be pulped. Hebrew versions of these deuterocanonical books may turn up in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but they may be back-translations. The jury is out on this. If your bible has just a few references to "Jehovah" in the Old Testament, then have a last read round the New Testament before disposing of it, assuming that the New Testament is OK. So we have a definitive Bible which serves to anchor our beliefs. There's no guarantee that the modern Catholic Church follows its guidance, but it is futile to argue about this if we cannot agree on the canon of the bible in the first place. Someone will certainly be able to produce a Bible with "Yahweh" which is signed off by a Catholic bishop. You have made an error My Lord ! I am not sure about "Jehovah". I had the hymn "Guide me O Thou Great Redeemer" for a relative's funeral chosen by me.
Why at 13:40 does the guest lie saying the Catholic Church added 7 apocryphal books at the Council of Trent and then the further lie at 15:05 that the New Testament doesn't ever quote form these 7 books. He clearly isn't a genuine bible scholar and you are not living up to your name - truth unites; as you are broadcasting untruths. The canon was set by Pope Damasus at the Council of Rome in 382 and contains 73 books. Many Protestants, eg Anglicans and Episcopalians, have the 73 books. Some Protestants follow Martin Luther who threw out 11 books being 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Sirach and Wisdom from the Old Testament and from the New Testament James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation. Only later after Martin Luther's death did his followers put back the missing New Testament books. This is factual history. There are quotes in the New Testament from each of the seven apocryphal books. It is hard to know this if you are a Protestant who follows Luther with an incomplete bible of 66 books. If anyone wants to know the truth about how the bible was made watch ua-cam.com/video/puM4RPY4kCk/v-deo.html. Then test what is said to history. Jesus and the apostles had the Old Testament version called the Septuagint. This is a main set of Old Testament writings used by the Jews at this time and it contains the seven apocryphal books so yes they were in the scripture used by Jesus and the apostles.
From watching I am surprised he didn’t interject as well. The guest speaks about these large groups of the early churches supporting the Protestant Bible but never states whom. To my knowledge it is a minor viewpoint. Valid but minor. I think the issue isn’t which cannon is wrong or right. Clearly we have 5-7 different cannon in all of global Christianity. Only the Protestants make the claim that only the 66 and no their cannon is valid. I think the better claim is to say the 66 is what “ we” subscribe to but we don’t not invalidate other cannons as historical.
Regarding 13:40, Kruger is correct when he says that the Catholic church added the deuterocanon at Trent, if he means Trent added these books as canon in a binding sense. And I'm sure that what he meant. Before Trent, Catholics were allowed to hold diverse opinions on the extent of the canon, and many Catholic scholars, including saints and Popes held to the same canon as protestants. The council of Rome was not an ecumenical council, and thus not a binding council for dogmatizing the canon. At 15:05, he says that the New Testament authors did not cite or allude to the deuterocanonal books as scripture. This is true. Not one allusion anywhere in the New Testament has the usual designations such as "as the scriptures say" or "according to the scriptures" in relation to a deuterocanonal book.
Hi @@slow2speak, It is called the Council of Rome, It is in the name. Of course it was ecumenical. It is only Protestants who claim otherwise which is contrary to history. Protestants have to, to justify the removal of these books which were in the bible from its inception for over 1100 years before the Protestant reformation. Somehow, to be a Protestant, you have to believe that for over 1100 years the Holy Spirit made a mistake in guiding the people who made the canon of scripture. No popes or Catholic scholars to my knowledge debated there inclusion after the bible was formed. It is true that this was debated before the biblical cannon was determined. The determination was by Pope Damasus at the Council of Rome in 382AD. For instance, though Saint Jerome questioned the 7 deuterocanonical books before the Council, what you won't have been told is that he did, in obedience, translate them into Latin and once the decision was made he accepted this. The truth is that all the books of the bible, including the four gospels, had been debated over before this. Also your last comment is false. Applying this logic, that new testament authors must cite or allude to the deuterocanonical books for them to be accepted as scripture to make them valid then you must apply this rule to the other old testament books that are not cited or alluded to. That would mean you would throw out more than 50% of the Old Testament! All of the seven deterocanonical books are quoted in the new testament Trent introduced nothing new in regards to the canon of scripture. It simply re-affirmed the original canon of scripture. Also, as a last point to consider, did you know that the Old testament book most quoted by Jesus is Sirach? Of course you wouldn't know this if your bible is incomplete and missing this book. Personally I don't think Jesus makes mistakes. God bless.
@@cathpocalypse6895 Please cite an authoritative Catholic source that classifies the Council of Rome in 382 as one of the 21 Ecumenical councils. Not even Karl Keating does this, nor does the Catholic Encyclopedia, nor does Jimmy Akin in "The Father's Know Best", nor dozens of other catholic sources. Your other claims are demonstrably false. Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Hillary of Poitiers, Rufinus, Jerome, Primasius, Pope Gregory the Great, The Venerable Bede... I could keep going with more... these all held to an old testament canon which excluded deuterocanonicsl books.
Would a Christian in the early Church, who was reading Paul's letter to the Church of Laodicea, know that Paul's letter was not Holy Scripture? Would a Christian in the early Church know that not all of Paul's letters to the Phillipans were not Holy Scripture? Who had the authority to leave out the letters of Matthias and Gamaliel and Barnabas? Who has the final authority to interpret "My Flesh is True food and Blood True drink ", and " This is my Body ", ( John 6:53-55, Matthew 26:26)
This attitude is the same radical skepticism of liberal critics like Bart Ehrman. Ergo, Romanists have the same view as the wildly skeptical liberals but have a different conclusion because of the magical "Magisterium"? Read Dr. Kruger's book "Canon Revisited". It thoroughly answers the skeptical claims (and inadvertantly Rome's).
@@DrBob-gr5ru Dr. Kruger clearly didn't answer the questions, at all neither did you! So, go ahead, make my day! Would a Christian in the early Church reading Paul's letter to the Church of Laodicea, know it was not Holy Scripture? Would a Christian in the early Church reading Paul's several letters to the Philippians know not all the letters were Holy Scripture? Would a Christians in the early Church know the letters of Matthias and Gamaliel and Barnabas were not Holy Scripture? Again, who has the final authority to interpret "This is my Body ", and " My Flesh is True food and Blood True drink ", ( Matthew 26:26, John 6:53-55). The man made tradition of Scripture alone, like faith alone, are no where practiced by Jesus or the early Church, or taught in Holy Scripture itself! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
@@grantbenson7458 Yes. I agree. Jesus Christ never practiced Scripture alone, nor did the Apostles, nor does Holy Scripture teach Scripture alone! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
@@DrBob-gr5ru All that we Catholics are pointing out is the fact that if the Catholic Church was fallible when it declared the NT canon that both Prots and Catholics have, then it’s anyone’s guess to what the canon might be. Protestants will try and vaguely paint together the canon in the first century. Jesus never told any of the apostles to write anything down in the first place. If Jesus’ intention was to have the apostles write down the ultimate authority for the church, there was clearly a miscommunication because no scripture was written for 20 years after the ascension, and there was nowhere near a closed concrete 27 book canon after the apostles died. The first proposed NT canon didn’t appear until the 140’s with Marcion’s list, which only included 10 of Paul’s epistles and a shorter version of Luke. What does a Protestant appeal to to say that Marcion’s list was incomplete?
The Jews didn't have a dispute over which books where in the canon? Didn't the pharisees believe in the law (pentateuch), prophets and writings (never giving a list of which books where in this, execpt for the law). The Saduccees only believed the Law was scripture right? And then you had the esscences, their canon seems to be all over the place, when looking at the dead sea writings. The jews canon was established way after Chrst. Some of the longer versions also appear in the dead sea scrolles. The book of wisdom (Sirach) especially is the most prophetic about Jesus in all of the old testament. I mean he is called the son of God. Almost step by step the whole new testement is mentioned in that one book... It is such a same that protestants dont read that book. it is the most shocking book in all of the canon.
The English word BIBLE means the compilation of Spiritual Books and Epistles (Letters) done by the People of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit... The Holy Scriptures (Word of God) were written by hand (manuscripts) individually in the papyrus scrolls... in 325 A.D. thru the Council of Nicene, Emperor Constantine ordered to make the Compilation of ALL manuscripts from the Old and New Testament called BIBLIA in Latin or Bible in English... In Conclusion, there were already individual Scriptural Manuscripts since the Time of Prophet Moses for the O.T. and in the time of Christ's Apostles and Disciples for the N.T., but NO COMPILATION yet till the 4th Century A.D. done by the Catholics Church (Romans & Greeks) under Emperor Constantine and translated the Bible into LATIN LANGUAGE called LATIN VULGATE...
This is what Sola Scriptura means: Matthew 1:1 Matthew is Scripture. Mk 1:1 Mark is Scripture. Luke 1:4 Scripture is what gives certainty of doctrine. Luke is Scripture. John 5:39 We have eternal life from the Scriptures only because they bear witness about Christ. John 10:35 Scripture cannot be broken or invalidated. John 15:20 No one may contradict or neglect the Apostles and be a Christian. John 17:20 The word of the Apostles is the source of true faith. John 20:31 The Gospel of John alone is enough to tell us what to believe so that we can have life in Jesus' name. John 22:24 The Gospel of John is a true testimony. No authority may contradict it. Acts 17:11 We are to examine the Scriptures daily to see if anything taught as doctrine is true. Acts 24:14 We are to believe everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets. Romans 15:4 Scripture was written for our instruction to encourage us and give us hope. 1 Corinthians 12:28 All other teachers and servants in the Church come after the Apostles in priority. 1 Corinthians 14:37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he must acknowledge that the things Paul wrote to us are a command of the Lord. 2 Corinthians 1:13 Paul did not write anything other than what lay people of Corinth and Achaia could read and understand. Some partially understand; some fully understand. Paul will boast of all on the day of the Lord. Galatians 1:8 No one may contradict what the Apostles preached. Galatians 1:20 Paul did not lie in what he wrote. Galatians 3:22 The Scripture imprisoned everything else under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Eph 2:20 The Apostles and Prophets are the foundation of the Church and the faith with Christ as cornerstone. All other authorities must build on that foundation and no other. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 We are to firmly hold to the teachings of the Apostles. They are the only true standard by which other teachers and doctrines are to be judged. I challenge anyone to identify an oral Apostolic teaching that is not written in the New Testament. 1 Timothy 3:14-15 This letter tells us who may and may not become overseers and deacons, and how the Church is to be godly. This godliness is unchanging. 1 Timothy 4:13 We are to devote ourselves to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching. 2 Timothy 3:15 The scriptures are able to make us wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. 2 Timothy 3:16 Scripture is profitable for correction in righteousness. No doctrine that isn't supportable by scripture may correct scripture or render it unprofitable. Scripture is the only true standard by which all teachers and doctrines are to be judged. 2 Timothy 3:17 Scripture makes preachers (men of God) complete. Scripture fully equips preachers for every good work. 1 Peter 5:12 This letter is the true grace of God. We must stand firm in it. 2 Peter 3:2 We are to obey the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through his apostles. 2 Peter 3:16 The ignorant and unstable who twist the scriptures do so to their own destruction. Paul's Epistles are Scripture. 1 John 1:3-4 The eye-wittness writings of the Apostles are what give us fellowship with the Apostles, with the Father, and with His Son. 1 John 4:6 The Apostles are from God. Whoever knows God listens to the words of the Apostles; whoever is not from God does not believe the Apostles. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error. Hebrews 4:12 The word of God judges the reader and the Church, not vice versa. The Epistle to the Hebrews has done this since the first time it was read. James 2:8 Love of neighbor as taught by scripture is enough to keep us busy for the rest of our lives.
@@Mygoalwogel thanks to the church! Not only for providing those words but for preserving them by their works by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press for the rest of the world to enjoy.👍🏻
@@srich7503I totally understand your point but thanks be to God, not the physical institution of the church. God protected His word. Your comments seem to be extremely prideful concerning the church when the focus should be on God. God gave us scripture. God preserved His word. God achieved this through His Church, but the glory be to God.
This guy has no idea what he’s talking about, he is clueless and in way over his head. 1. He said there’s not a single instance where the NT authors cite to the deuterocanonical books (DB) as scripture, not even one. First, that’s just blatantly wrong. Second, it’s a fallacy and a bad argument. Assuming arguendo the NT doesn’t cite the DB, so what? The NT never cites to Song of Solomon, Esther, Ezra, or Nehemiah, either. So are those excluded now too? It’s just a dumb argument and a fallacy. 2. He says the Protestant OT is the same as the “old testament” used by Jews at the time of Christ. But this is either misleading, dishonest, or dumb because he’s excluding the diaspora Jews. Palestinian Jews used the Tanakh, the diaspora Jews and early Christians used the Septuagint. This is uncontroversial and takes literally two minutes of scholarship, both FF Bruce and Lee McDonald agree on this, and it makes me think this guy is very unaware of his bias, is dishonest, or has just taken it upon himself to speak about a topic he knows nothing about. 3. This actually leads into the next thing he says-he asserts the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Jesus all agreed on the same canon. Again, this is just plain wrong. The Sadducees rejected the Talmud, while the Pharisees thought the Talmud was binding. That was the defining feature of the Sadducees, rejection of the oral tradition. To say they all agreed on canon is so wrong and dishonest. 4. This guy also says there was no normative authority that established the “hebrew scriptures.” This is also wrong, the Tanakh was compiled by the Great Assembly in 450 BCE. 5. He also says the first time there was an official declaration of canon was at Trent, which is again wrong. It was the council of Hippo 393 AD and the council of Carthage 397 AD. Take a look at Philip Schaff’s history of the Christian church volume 3 (fifth edition, 2002) at pp. 609-610. This guy is actually so clueless, his language is so vague and inaccurate (“Jewish Old Testament” ???). If he would’ve bothered to go through Schaff, FF Bruce, and Lee McDonald, for two minutes, he would’ve avoided looking like an idiot.
So thankful for your channel! Started my journey at an EO church and learned a lot but was always convinced of regenerate church membership. Really didn’t know how to handle a lot of the questions I would get about church history and how to defend my Protestant leanings. I really would have benefited from your channel 5 years ago but still grateful for it now. Hope it helps others that are working through these questions!
Thank you James, so glad it’s been of use to you!
@@TruthUnites I read Dr Kruger’s book “Canon Revisited” last year. Excellent work. It really gives the most objective explanation for the self authenticated canon, without employing circular reasoning. I want to read his other book as well at some point.
Just out of curiosity, how does one become a guest on your UA-cam program? I also wrote a book on the canon, but on the Old Testament. I debated Gary Michuta and Trent Horn. I also debated Trent recently on the Marian dogmas as well. I have had discussions with Dr. Michael Brown, Dr. Tony Costa, and TurretinFan, just to name a few. I would like the opportunity to discuss either the canon or the Marian dogmas with you as well. I sent you an email about this recently. In His service, Steve Christie. John 17:17
@@BornAgainRN Thank you!
The Lord will “redeem the years…..”? I’m encouraged by your reaction. I heard of Michael Kruger a year or two ago and have subscribed to “canon folder”- look it up. Someone dear to me has been questioning the authority of the Bible and I have sent him Michael’s links with solid teaching and praying that the Lord, in His mercy will remove the scales from His eyes. There is hope only in the gospel of our precious Savior, the Lord Jesus and the Bible is ALL about Him. God has spoken clearly in the His Word. God bless.
@@BornAgainRN I never understood this belief of self authenticated canon, if you understand this properly can you maybe show me how you derive a truth as
“St. Mark’s Gospel is inspired Scripture and to be included in the Church’s canon. Also, Mark wrote it, or at least stands behind it as the source of its apostolic material.”
from St. Mark's gospel alone?
I have heard Dr. Michael J. Kruger few years before but forgot most, so will be good to hear again. He was an amazingly organized and precise teacher.
In Catechism of the Catholic Church pp120: "It was by the Apostolic Tradition that the church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books". There is no claim that the councils "made" writings canonical.
Yeah he is being misleading on purpose. Unfortunate Gavin gave no push back.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is filled with things is passes off as “apostolic tradition” that they have zero evidence for and can’t prove. Anything Rome claims for herself as authoritative is suspect to say the least
Because Rome said it, it must be true.
about things like the canon, yes.. The EO churches have almost the same canon. Only the Protestants threw out the Deuterocanonicals, 1500 years later.. On grounds of doctrine. So it's not clear by what criteria they accept some conciliar teachings but not others.
@@paulmitchell2916 some catholics did too, like cardinal cajetan
14:10 As a protestant I have to say that this idea that the protestant OT is the same as Jesus and the apostles is a bad argument that should not be used. Any protestant seminary will teach that the LXX Septuagint was the OT of Jesus and the Apostles and is quoted from the vast majority of the time in the NT and the LXX included the apocraphal books. We need to be honest about this fact. Their OT included the apocrapha.
Hey Gavin! Just wanted to say how much I appreciate your channel! I am young in my walk with the Lord and your content shows me how much I love all things Theology!
“Not a single time in all those hundreds of citations, and probably into the thousands of allusions, is there a single instance where a New Testament writer cites a book from the apocrypha as scripture.”
“They cite from all kinds of books from the Old Testament, and they always match the current Old Testament we have… we can just argue it’s the Original Jewish Old Testament”
I don’t really understand how he says this. Maybe he misspoke? There’s examples of maccabees in respect to the book of Hebrews about people being tortured in hopes of a better resurrection. And many more.
He is purposely being misleading he says cites “as scripture”. He leaves this ambiguous so he can say yes there were references but they weren’t seen as scripture.
We would have to be extremely blind and biased to take what he says as helpful here
@@tookie36 Why? In Sirach 13, it references Aesops Fables... if Sirach is scripture, are you saying Aesops Fables is scripture because it was referenced in scripture?
This was a great discussion! Our protestant canon makes so much sense♥️
As a convert to Catholicism, I enjoy your content, and most especially the charity in which you address controversial issues. Great job Dr. Gavin.
If you are looking for people to have on your channel, particularly on the topic of canon, Gary Michuta, author of various books on the topic would be a good one to represent the Catholic view. I appreciate the name of the channel Truth Unites being that we have an obligation to assent to truth. These are the conversations that should be mainstream. God bless!
thanks, glad you enjoyed it!
@@TruthUnites What would it take to schedule a Kruger/Michuta canon debate? Probably a pipe dream, but would love that!!!
@@Coins1985 interesting idea! I don’t really host debates but I’m open to it.
Just found this channel and I’m loving it!
Glad to be connected!
I will add my disappointment onto what Cathpocalypse said.
First, your guest claims (13:42) that the canonicity of the Deuterocanon only became a thing at the Council of Trent. A simple Google search will reveal that the same canon was being put forward by the Council of Florence a century earlier. But there is also no interaction with the synods of Rome (382), Hippo (393), and Carthage (397) putting forward these books as canonical. Not even a mention. Just a false claim about Trent adding them.
Then at (14:45) we get the old, bad argument about references. First, he states his argument with a bit of slight of hand. He says, "Not a single time in all those hundreds of citations and allusions, is there a single instance where a New Testament writer cites a book from the Apocrypha as Scripture." Note that he quickly and slyly shifts from "citations and allusions" to just "citations" when referencing the Deuterocanon.
Now, first, if a lack of direct citations is enough to disqualify a book from the New Testament, then I'd be curious to know if his personal copy of the Bible has Ruth, Judges, 2Kings, Chornicles, Ezra, Esther, Nehemia, Ecclesiastics, Obadiah, Lamentations, Nahum, or Zephaniah. None of those books have direct citations. If he does think they are canonical despite their lack of citations, then why bring up the "no citations" argument?
That aside, there's a good reason why he suddenly shifted to "citations" for the Deuterocanon. Because if we're willing to accept allusions, then those can be provided. Hebrews 11:32-35 alludes to 2 Maccabees 7:1-9. Hebrews 1:1-4 alludes to Wisdom 7:18-27. Matthew 27:38-43 alludes to Wisdom 2:12-20. And Romans 1:18-23 alludes to Wisdom 13:1-9. If one goes by "allusions and citations", there is a better argument for Wisdom and 2Maccabees than there is for Esther. (I can understand why the "no allusions or citations" argument might have flown in the 80's and early 90's. But in the age of the Internet? It's kind of unbelievable that they persist.)
At 17:00, he begins relying very heavily on an argument that there was a defined canon at the time of Jesus. He does not interact with the common understanding that the Sadducees had a more restricted view of what books were canonical, resulting in their disbelief in the immaterial soul and the resurrection. (Which is also why Jesus only quoted the Pentatuch at them). And if the Jews were all unanimous, why are there records of discussions of which books were canonical extending past the ministry of Christ? No acknowledgement of that.
Lastly, there are two arguments which are made regarding the Canon by Catholics when it comes to epistimology. First, even if one wants to ignore the role of the Magisterium in forming the Canon, he basically acknowledges that it is something which falls into the realm of Tradition. Sure, 2Peter says Paul's corpus is inspired. But who says 2Peter is inspired? That fact was actually debated well into the 4th century. So the canon falls into the realm of Tradition. But if one is to hold to Sola Scriptura in a doctrinal way, then this raises problems about how authoritative the canon can be, since it belongs to tradition.
But in regard to the Magisterium, the Catholic claim is not that without the Magisterium people are utterly clueless about which books belong. Rather, its claim is that in order to establish the canon as something well-defined and authoritative qua canon, the list needs to be discerned and promulgated by a competent authority. Until that happens, people might be confident about 80% of it, but the edges are still blurry.
So... there you go. Mr. Kruger should probably read some books by Gary Michuta. If not to change his mind, but to at least be aware of the arguments on the other side. Or if he doesn't want to spend the money, he can just Google some NT allusions to the Deuterocanon.
Are you saying that the Jews before the 1st century couldn’t know that any OT book were in the canon? If there were books that were recognised as canonical in the 1sr century (e.g the Pentateuch) then how were these books known to be part of the canon?
@@Bewareofthewolves : It seems to me to be generally true that if a person says, "Are you saying..." the answer is always, "No".
There is a big difference between saying these two things:
> "The ancient Hebrews did not have a single canon with clearly defined boundaries."
> "The ancient Hebrews were utterly clueless about what books may or may not be inspired."
I said the first. I did not say the second.
There was consensus on the Pentateuch. Beyond that there were different schools of thought among the Pharisees, Essenes, Samaritans, Sadducees, and Greek speakers in the diaspora.
@@actsapologist1991 Thank you for the response. Could the Jews back then know that the Pentateuch was canonical? If yes, then how? If no, then when was it that they could know? I appreciate your interaction and just for the sake of clarity and openness, I am a reformed Protestant.
@@Bewareofthewolves : To the best of my knowledge, their knowledge would be formed by the consistent and universal witness of their shared heritage about the books which were not in question due to their traditional attribution to Moses.
Outside of that core collection of undisputed books would be one which different schools of thought had different opinions on.
ActsApologist Thanks for the reply.
My purpose in asking the question is to try to find some consistency within the Roman Catholic position. When the topic of canon is raised Protestants are consistently told that we are unable know the contents of the canon unless we hold to the view of an infallible tradition-and then by necessity-an infallible teaching body (the magisterium) to interpret that tradition. But it seems to me that the Old Testament saints could know the canon (or, for arguments sake, at least part of it) without the need for an infallible tradition or magisterium.
So it seems that the giant epistemological conundrum that Protestants are so often accused of not being able to answer, also applies to Roman Catholics regarding the formation (of at least part) of the OT canon.
I would like to hear your thoughts on this. I hope I have been clear in my attempted argument.
Thank you Dr. Ortlund, really appreciated this one.
Going through Prayer by Keller and Church History by Eusebius right now. I'll be getting into Kruger's "The Question of Canon" in the next few days. This video, interestingly, came at the right moment for me.
wonderful to hear! Glad it was useful for you!
Council of Rome
“Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).
Council of Hippo
“[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]).
Council of Carthage III
“[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, Judges, 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, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).
This interview is a gold mine. Thanks.
It's incorrect to imply that he "extra books" were adopted by the Council of Trent. They were confirmed by Trent but were part of the canon well before Trent.
I’m a Protestant and I love Gavin’s channel, but I expected more from this guest. His responses on the Catholic vs Protestant canon were embarrassingly misleading or outright false.
Indeed, I was very disappointed
Revisited this. Wonderful. Ordered two of his books.
Look at how Jesus quoted from the book of 2 Esdras:
Matthew 23:37-38
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! See! Your house is left to you desolate;
2 Esdras 1:30 & 33
“I gathered you together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings: but now, what shall I do unto you? I will cast you out from my face.”
“Thus saith the Almighty Lord, Your house is desolate, I will cast you out as the wind doth stubble.”
Regarding 2 Esdras: "There is fairly general agreement that chs. 3-14 were composed near the end of the 1st cent. a.d., and that chs. 1, 2 and 15, 16 were added during the next cent. or two. What follows is a representative view, indicating the position of scholars as Oesterley, Metzger, Eissfeldt and others: chs. 1, 2, about a.d. 150; chs. 3-10, about a.d. 100; chs. 11, 12, about a.d. 69-96; ch. 13, about a.d. 66; ch. 14, about a.d. 100-120; and chs. 15, 16, between a.d. 240-270"
The 7 books not included in the protestant bible were not introduced at the Council of Trent, but towards the end of the 4th century. And saying the deuterocanon is found nowhere in the NT isn't necessarily true. And finally saying that a book was/wasn't mentioned in the NT isn't a good argument for it's canonical status.
Cool discussion nonetheless.
Council of Rome
“Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).
Council of Hippo
“[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]).
Council of Carthage III
“[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, Judges, 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, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).
15:00 He is greatly mistaken. The New Testament does make many illusions to the Apocrypha and Enoch. And there is even an explicit prophecy in the Wisdom of Solomon of the words that the Pharisees would say as they mocked Christ on the cross. (I'm Protestant btw, but I don't have to accept the smaller canon of "Protestantism")
He doesn't say the NT authors never quote/allude to the Apocrypha, he says they never quote them "as Scripture." There is a difference. Such quotations are never introduced with the formula, "It is written..." nor are they referred to as "Scripture" (graphē) or "the Law" (nomos). The is true of Jude's reference to 1 Enoch. Of course, somebody might claim that if 1 Enoch contained a prophecy regarded by Jude as legitimate, the entire book must be considered inspired and part of the OT canon. But this doesn't logically follow. Firstly, 1 Enoch is pseudepigraphical. Enoch did not write it. Secondly, it is quite likely that the pseudonymous author of the book included a record of an authentic prophecy from Enoch that had been preserved through oral tradition. If this is the case, then Jude's reference of 1 Enoch should not be taken as a wholesale endorsement of the entire book.
@@mikedawson975 A counter-argument to this might be that that isn't a negative signal against their canonicity (there are places where other OT books are quoted, but do not use this formula). It's rather a missing positive signal, which doesn't have any effect -- in a strictly Bayesian sense -- on the probability that they were considered Scripture or not.
29:29 thanks for discussing the vital issue of our time, keeping the faith as a college student. This issue of exclusivity really did a number on me - I thought I was raised in an indoctrinated way, to believe all other religions were demonic. I fell into attraction to the occult & various spiritual practices around the world. I’m glad Jesus found me again, and I found Him and chose Him back ❤😢
And yes, the moral code issue - another reason I thought I was indoctrinated & that my upbringing was bigoted. This acceptance of lgbt and the like led me down a road of iniquity. Thank God for His grace & redemption ❤
Voddie Baucham mentioned this topic of preparing our kids for this secular university environment. It’s so important 😢
Good discussion but a few clarifications from a Catholic perspective:
1) agree that the books in the canon were widely circulated, that was one criteria of making the canon. However, you admit that only 22/27 were core books…this makes the point that there wasn’t obvious acceptance of all of the current NT books. It took much deliberation over the books that made the Bible, and others that didn’t (Shepherd, Clement, Didache). The entire NT isn’t as self revealing as you make it sound, Revelation almost didn’t make the cut. It took the Holy Spirit through the Church to make final infallible decisions on the final canon.
2) Councils were necessary to refute heresy and define dogma. Nicea in 325AD for example refuted Arianism and defined the Trinity. These councils actually helped influence the final canon, weeding out books like Shepherd that, while widely embraced, didn’t quite align theologically. You may say “the Trinity is self evident in the Bible”, but tell that to Unitarians, Mormans, and Jehovah Witness who will disagree. The Trinity is right because the Holy Spirit through infallible councils determined it to be true.
3) the RCC has accepted the deuterocanonical books since the start of the church. They were not introduced at Trent. You make it sound like an add, but in reality Protestants (led by Luther) removed these books. And Luther wanted to remove others too like James because they didn’t align with his man-made theology. Luther actually wrote many horrible and scandalous things (supported adulterous behavior, etc.), not sure why anyone would name a denomination after him.
4) Jesus didn’t write the Bible or even call for one to be written. He founded a Church, with an episcopal structure empowered to create doctrine (“bind and loose”), and by his own words said the gates of hell would not prevail against it. The traditions and councils of the church are valid, under the authority given to the Church by Jesus Christ.
Bad argument. Your popes executed "heretics" and came up with false doctrines of indulgences. On top of doing unbiblical practices. Not sure why people would follow catholicism blindly. Dad history 😮
I love this channel but the title is misleading, this is one side of a debate and did not give a fair representation of the other side. And I am a protestant. For example, this notion that the OT is to be quoted as scripture as criteria for canonicity should be inclusive but if it's exclusive (by lack thereof) we'd have to remove Esther and other books. All sides agree on this point but the latter information was left out which signals stronger evidence for Protestantism than it actually is. Likewise the point that the deuterocanonical books are referenced hundreds of times was glossed over quite quickly, I think it's better to really address this than dismiss it... Just my thoughts, hopefully others understand this is a one sided video (which is fine if not misrepresented).
I don't think the video was necessarily intended to be part of a debate. To me, it's just a discussion of the history
Having listened to your interview with Dr. Meade on the Old Testament canon, I was hopeful that I wouldn't just hear traditional Protestant/Evangelical rhetoric on the New Testament canon. Unfortunately, I did not hear the same genuine truth-seeking tone from this guest. Respectfully, if you are genuinely interested in truth-seeking and diving deeply into these issues, for your sake and your listener's sakes, it might be worth considering finding highly specialized Catholic and Orthodox scholars, and not just apologists or You-Tuber's. Again, I write this respectfully. I really appreciate your demeanor and truth-seeking approach. For that reason, it seems best to seek out actual specialists from more than one side, and definitely not just apologists who specialize in using rhetoric to persuade others into their position. Just a thought. Thanks for your work.
🎻🎻
They talk as if the canon can come into existence on its own. Yeah no need for councils or tradition, the canon can just fall from the sky or just appear out of nowhere.
They came into existence from God through his Apostles. The church brought them together. The OT was already canonised. Isn't the Church a steward for God, so why take a victory lap if indeed the Catholic Church was used by God to preserve scripture for all christians. That is PRIDE.
@@addjoaprekobaah5914 Pride? Or Bride? Here are some historical facts waiting for refutation…
History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, not only did they not agree but their list of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time. So, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 5th century, just 75 years AFTER the council of Nicaea which began the Trinitarian doctrine, and then with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and preserved these scriptures by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us, show us, who did? And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself?
Peace!!!
The real question for Protestants is: how do you know ANY of the aforementioned books are inspired to begin with? This basic epistemological question is critical. Spoiler alert: because of the Councils.
No. They are self authenticating. Also, even if the council brought them together, what victory do they get? They are working for God. They are stewards.
@@addjoaprekobaah5914it means God worked through them so they would make an infallible decision
@@addjoaprekobaah5914 Help me understand how are they self authenticating? Can you name one book that self authenticates itself as the infallible inspired work of God or tells us about another specific book that is the inspired infallible work of God?
What about the rationale that Jesus and the apostles used the Septuagint, which did include those books now referred to as deuterocanonical (Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, etc)? I would be very interested to hear Dr. Kruger or a future guest interact with this idea.
Dr. Ortlund, I greatly appreciate your work, thank you for what you do and the incredibly gracious and charitable way you do it.
Truth unites is a wonderful name for your channel, I appreciate that you live up to it. When jesus said to peter I will build my church on this rock I cannot see how this excludes any biblical churches
Dr. Kruger is a fine guest, and I have a great deal of respect for him, and his work on the canon. But it would be really helpful if he would address Lee MacDonald's work.
Craig Allert has been extremely helpful for me. He holds MacDonald and Everett Kalin's work in high regard. I've learned so much that I've never realized before. This discussion transcends the whole Roman Catholic/Protestant debate. It's really about what the actual evidence is.
Dr. James R. White has a video called The Canon
Continuing to appeal to Trent as formally recognized the deutrocanon as part of Scripture as evidence against it is a disingenuous argument, lacks nuance and implies an dismissal of large swaths of evidence from church history as to how the deutrocanon was recognized (formally and informally), used liturgically, was received by the faithful and utilized in scriptural study by the theologians. I do not think it helps move the discussion forward to appeal to Trent in such a way as it is withholding significant historical evidence that the councils of Rome (382), Carthage (418) and Hippo (393-4), the latter two especially, which all indicate that much of the deutrocanon, with differences between each council, was part of scripture at those councils. This also is ignoring historical evidence of usage and recognition of particular books of the deutrocanon in the various codexes (Vaticanus, Alexandrinus), the Ethiopian bible (the longest by far), as well as the historical developments of receptivity even within Protestantism regarding the deutrocanon (the Lutherans, for instance, maintaining the deutrocanon as part of published bibles all the way up until the 1850's).
In the end, it seems the arguments around Trent can mean one of two things concerning the deutrocanon:
1. It creates problems for the authority of the deutrocanon because it came so late and was therefore a de facto "addition" to the Bible
2. It was a response to a movement in Christianity where it was starting to be questioned and Trent was a formal re-affirmation of it as scripture.
Logically, #2 seems the more plausible of conclusions when you consider the overwhelming presence of the deutrocanon in all facets (codifications of scripture, patristic references and appeals, ante-Nicene references, Doctors of the Church reference, use in the liturgy, and community acceptance) of Church history. God bless.
Man, that's what I thought. Im now discerning what church to be a part of and this misleading narrative about deuterocanon made me sad. I think it should anger catholics as well as protestants. We should aim at truth and help everybody see the whole picture. I really like Dr Gavin's attitude, I admire him for that. God bless!
The presenter also forgets that the Church had previously declared the deuterocanonical books as inspired at the Council of Florence decades before Luther drew breath.
It was not until Trent that it became unacceptable for Catholics to hold any other view on the deuterocanonical books. Before then there were clearly different views within the church. There were Christians in the early church who recognised them as inspired. However, there was also a large segment in the church who didn't hold them as Scripture. Likewise, there was a segment who thought them to be useful, helpful, and true, though, not inspired.* Many Protestants still hold this later view today. The reformers certainly weren't the first in church history to questions different deuterocanonical book's authority.
*See for example, Athanasius, Rufinus, Jerome, Cardinal Cajetan, Gregory the Great, Walafrid Strabo, Radulphus Flavicencius, Hugh of St. Victor, Richard of St. Victor, John of Salisbury, Honorius of Autun (Augustodunensis), Hugh of St. Cher (Hugo Cardinalis), Nicholas of Lyra, Alonso Tostado, Jean Driedo, John Ferus, and Jacobus Faber Stapulensis.
See also, the preface to both The Glossa Ordinaria and the Biblia Complutensia. Both sources were widely regarded and endorsed.
Trent's canon isn't new, what Trent does that's new is formally rule out canons lists that exclude the deuterocanon, and views of multiple levels of canonicity, which both have a long history in the CHurch, arguably older than the view of Trent
@@simonfinley864 Researching this topic now. Can you point me to those sources who held the Deuterocanon to be just helpful but not inspired?
It's interesting that Kruger says Christ couldn't hold his listeners accountable for what "the Scriptures say" without a defined Canon.....and yet Christianity operates without a defined canon for hundreds of years, and as he admits, that development is fine, since there was a general understanding in place? This seems contradictory.
There were several Jewish canons in play, btw - the Saducees famously held to only the Penteteuch, while the Essenes include the deuterocanon as well. It seems fairly well established that Christ and the apostles used the septuagint, which would have included the deuterocanonical books, which the Catholic Church has defined since the 380s AD.
This looks fantastic! I was hoping that you would get him on your channel.
He was so great! We covered so much in a short span of time! It's available on patreon now, for anyone interested. www.patreon.com/truthunites
Excellent guest for you to get!
This is very helpful. Blessings for sharing!
The Old Testament Cannon should follow the Septuagint as this predates the Masoretic text and has more concordance with the New Testament.
If you merely mean that the LXX Greek is the word of God, then fine. Melito of Sardis, Cyril of Jerusalem, the Laodicean Synod, Athanasius, Nazianzen and many others disagree if you mean the Deuterocanon.
All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical. 39 Articles of Religion
RTS app has an awesome course on Canon which Michael Kruger teaches, awesome course
Found it thanks for letting us know
Dr. Gavin Ortlund is pretty good
Really good video, I’m really interested in the development of the canon. A bit disappointing though the claim the deuterocanonical books were added at Trent, this seems a bit disingenuous. These books were in canon lists West (Rome 380s) and East (Hippo 390s). I feel as Protestants we need, and no doubt have, good arguments that address the historical realities and was looking forward to learning more about those.
If there are good arguments, I wasn't able to find them. I spent the better part of 10 years searching frantically for a good argument for excluding these books from the canon, but what I found is that most Protestants assume that good arguments exist but aren't personally aware of them. Frankly, this very issue started my spiral towards Catholicism.
The Council of Rome was a local council. Them including the Deuterocanonical is like Ethiopian including Enoch in their council.
Count Trent officially declared the Deuterocanonical as Equal with Scripture
@@jenex5608 The council of Rome, the Synod of Hippo, the church practice for her time (with some debate around it to be fair). To claim Trent is the moment when this is truly established is historical revisionism in the extreme.
@@willb5548 ill agree with u it was probably the majority view in Rome, Hippo and Carthage. But nonetheless other Councils didn't consider it Canonical.
The dispute of Canonical books have been going. Many Christians supporting only jusy the hebrew Canon like Cyril of Jerusalem. And others supporting the Cyril of Jerusalem plus Apocrypha.
I think we should stick with what Paul says In Romans 3:2 where he says the Oracles of the God have be entrusted with Jews. The Jews universally right from the time before after and during Jesus time rejected the apocrypha as Scripture.
Thats is 100% facts right there brother, this man Not only was disingenuous, but he straight-up lied, it's a big fat lie, and if you're going to lie about something as big as Canon of our Bibles, then what else are you going to lie about, how can people trust teachers who main principle of the conversation is based upon a lie.
Even true Protestant Christians
historians who have study the cannon will tell you the apocrypha was not added in the Council of Trent, Lee McDonald's is one of them.
So You're right, and do you know how many books were in the original KJV 1611?
Around 20 minute mark he made an interesting point about the Scripture being recognised organically within the church. However it is the same church that went onto recognise the books of the New Testament formally. He seems to want the organic recognition but not the formal recognition. Surely the organic recognition of the NT (i.e the Scriptures being used in teaching and liturgy by the church) led to the formal recognition of the NT. We needed both to know the authority of the NT books.
It would have helped, I think, if the formal declaration came before the reformation. The idea he proposed is that they were trying to counter the reformation. That undermines the decision as being biased. I'm not saying that's what I think. It's just the outflow of what the man said.
Did they have a formal mechanism through which to recognise the organic canon (the 'ontological' canon)? Later in Church history (1st - 16th centuries), there were many lists produced of what constituted the 'canon', and lots of methods were used to compile this canon. Broadly, they are the same - and that should be encouraging.
@@TheB1nary RCC still has same books chosen at Council of Rome in 382AD so canon probably wasn't 'fluid'.
Also to his point near the end
1 John 4:1 "BELOVED, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world."
1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good".
Brilliant, thank you so much 😊
I haven't finished the video so forgive me if this is explained later; Kruger mentions that the book of Enoch was probably seen as a book with some prophecy or some "truth" in it and some false things in it. He mentioned how maybe other books were viewed that way. My question is how do we know that isn't what Jesus thought of the books he was quoting? Specific texts are quoted and referenced throughout the NT, but why would we count those whole books as truth rather than only what Jesus says?
I think Jesus statements are only part if the puzzle, pretty much for the reason you say. The other part is the mind of the Church. Probably another piece is survival of the fittest as other canons and tgjsr who advocated lost the political battle
Council of Rome
“Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).
Council of Hippo
“[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]).
Council of Carthage III
“[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, Judges, 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, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).
I have no idea if it's ghost banning or just comments being put under spam or something. However, seems like I cannot make a reference here. Which isn't even including links.
Which canon? Look to the Church 1600 years ago and not the opinion of any man who disagrees today. God's Written Word says the Church is the pillar of truth, the bulwark of truth, where the manifold wisdom of God is made known, and that Christ PROMISED to lead to ALL TRUTH:
*Council of Rome, Decree of Pope Damasus (A.D. 382)*
“The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [ie., 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book. Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book,…lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee … Nahum … Habacuc … Sophonias … Aggeus … Zacharias … Malachias … Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books.”
*Council of Hippo, Canon 36 (A.D. 393)*
“That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture. Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis. Exodus. Leviticus. Numbers. Deuteronomy. Joshua the Son of Nun. The Judges. Ruth. The Kings, four books. The Chronicles, two books. Job. The Psalter. The Five books of Solomon. The Twelve Books of the Prophets. Isaiah. Jeremiah. Ezechiel. Daniel. Tobit. Judith. Esther. Ezra, two books. Macchabees, two books.”
*Council of Carthage III, Canon 397 (A.D. 397)*
“[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, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach], twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees.”
*Council of Florence nearly 750 years ago.*
"It [the Church] professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament - that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel - since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.
Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John."
Who is Michael Kruger compared to the Church established by Jesus Christ 2000 years ago? What authority does he say that the Church - Catholic Bishops meeting together - repeatedly errored and didn't know it?
the Protestant biblical canon wasn't settled until the 1840s.
Yikes. Maybe read some history bud
@@SaltyApologist Protestant Bibles contained the deuterocanonical books until the 1840s.
Except not as part of the canon :). It was decided pretty promptly that they were not inspired, but remained in protestant bibles anyway until for cost saving they were removed. The canon did not change. @@fantasia55
@@edward3320 It was decided...by whom? On what authority did they change the original biblical canon?
@@fantasia55On no authority. Because the canon is decided by God, it is by reason that we can try to know what the true canon is. Of course I used language like "the canon was decided", but it is apparent when we talk of the canon that we are speaking of two separate entities: the list of writings which were inspired by God, and the list of writings we have which we think were inspired by God.
So it’s organic except for the organic use of the deuterocanonical books? How is this not “man made traditions” used by Protestants to form the canon they individually believe to be true?
I was literally about to buy Krugers book Canon Revisited while watching this video. Then Mr. Kruger made the statement that the Catholics included the Dueterocanonical books at Trent! Lol even I knew that to be false and I’m not even Catholic. I guess these never took place?
Council of Hippo (A.D. 393)
Council of Carthage (A.D. 397)
Council of Carthage (A.D. 417)
Council of Florence (A.D. 1442)
Let’s not play make believe that Trent was where these books were “added”. Us Protestants can at least refrain from putting out blatant false information.
I was evangelical and today I'm Catholic. I love your honesty about those books.
Are the Deuterocanonical books in the Muratorian Fragment (not a trick question, but one that points to the limits of evidence)? In Athanasius’s Festal Letter? The understanding of Melito of Sardis?
Did those local councils in Carthage have bearings over communities in Jerusalem? In Antioch? Rome?
No, no, and no.
The precision of language from Kruger comes from taking for granted an historical acknowledgement of the different kinds of councils. I highly recommend that you research that as well.
I would put out there that the Latin Vulgate, the official Bible of the Catholic church, completed in 405, includes those books as scripture
Moreover, Luther's first translations had them. It would be foolish to say the Catholic church 'added' the books, if they were affirming a widely used canon to the contrary of a less-used one promulgated by Luther.
@@9box906
The collection of texts included in the Vulgate you reference, which was translated by Jerome who himself did not trust those same books later excluded by Protestants, was not an artifact of canonization in the same way books are today else the Council of Trent would not have had to debate the issue and bishops even during that time would not have been on opposing sides. The Vulgate contained books that some felt were useful for teaching but not for doctrine, the same as there were prayer books that were mainly consulted (eventually) before the Bible ever was during liturgy (and in some styles still remains the method today). It is more an artifact of what books were counted among the general mass as a collective as useful rather than any official stance on the books themselves that had been decided.
@@KMANelPADRINO I don't think you can make an argument towards noncanonization with the Vulgate, considering that it was the Bible commissioned to be translated in the common language at the time by Rome, and was the main Bible used in the Catholic church since it was created.
Luther himself was certainly not one to be opposed to removing books of the Bible that opposed his ideas, considering that he tried to remove Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation, as well as Esther. He was able to convince the reformers to remove the deuterocanon, since it wasn't included in the Masoretic Text, but the Catholics make a fair claim when they point out that it's included in the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation that would most likely have been used by Jesus and the Apostles
This shouldn't be an issue. The Catholic Church decided the canon of scripture. The reason the New Testament is written in Greek is because Greek was a commonly spoken language among Jews especially in the diaspora. The apostles used the Septuagint "Greek" Old Testament.
Hi Dr. Ortlund, I just want to thank you for this channel it’s been a true blessing. Q- How would you answer someone who believes that because Jesus and the apostles quoted mainly from the Septuagint which contained the deuterocanonical books that therefore they should be part of the Canon.
@truthunites
The comments on this channel are as interesting and informative as the content. That's quite something
I'd agree that the Council of Nicea isn't the only and final place Canon gets determined. But were not the books protected and produced by the early Church? The Orthodox Church? The one that held the councils and canons?
The Ecumenical Council of Nicea never addressed the canon.
Council of Rome
“Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).
Council of Hippo
“[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]).
Council of Carthage III
“[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, Judges, 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, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).
Hebrews references Maccabees. Also, some of the protocanonical books are not quoted by Jesus or the apostles. Should we chuck these too?
If the argument that the canon is binding because the Church gradually came to a consensus on this issue,doesn't that give some meaningful authority to the Church, however you define "the Church?" Seems to me if you're going to make this move, you get really close to, if not arrive at, denying sola scriptura.
Sola Scriptura doesn't rule out meaningful authority of the Church though. All it rules out is infallible sources of revelation outside of Scripture. I think modern American Evangelicalism has a lot to blame for this ,isunderstanding, but also low level discussion on this issue from catholics really should stufy this better rather than coming to conclusion like sola scriptura means you cant beleive anything that isnt in the bible, or that Christian tradition shouldn't impose authorative interpretations of scripture onto the individual, you have to look at scripture with no outside influence at all, and other ludicrous positions that get called "sola scriptura"
I'm so sick of the anti-church-authority mindset we are having in evangelicalism. What they are propagating is solus scriptura.
The reformed position was never that the church has no meaningful authority. Don't let you blind by evangelical folks today...
Council of Rome
“Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).
Council of Hippo
“[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]).
Council of Carthage III
“[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, Judges, 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, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).
@@internetenjoyer1044
Council of Rome
“Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).
Council of Hippo
“[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]).
Council of Carthage III
“[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, Judges, 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, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).
Is Scripture the sole rule of faith for Christians? Not according to the Bible. While we must guard against merely human tradition, the Bible contains numerous references to the necessity of clinging to apostolic tradition.
Thus Paul tells the Corinthians, “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6).
To make sure that the apostolic tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession-his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.
“With great zeal and closest attention, therefore, I frequently inquired of many men, eminent for their holiness and doctrine, how I might, in a concise and, so to speak, general and ordinary way, distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity.
“I received almost always the same answer from all of them-that if I or anyone else wanted to expose the frauds and escape the snares of the heretics who rise up, and to remain intact and in sound faith, it would be necessary, with the help of the Lord, to fortify that faith in a twofold manner: first, of course, by the authority of divine law [Scripture] and then by the tradition of the Catholic Church.
“Here, perhaps, someone may ask: ‘If the canon of the scriptures be perfect and in itself more than suffices for everything, why is it necessary that the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation be joined to it?’ Because, quite plainly, sacred Scripture, by reason of its own depth, is not accepted by everyone as having one and the same meaning. . . .
“Thus, because of so many distortions of such various errors, it is highly necessary that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be directed in accord with the norm of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning”- St. Vincent of Lerins (The Notebooks [A.D. 434]).
How we got the bible is important to know, but the question of why is a much better question. And that is because the Catholic Church wanted a common canon of scripture to be read from during the liturgy of the word during every holy mass throughout the entire world which was celebrated from the very beginning of Christianity following Pentecost.
Just love when one Protestant scholar ive listened to contradicts another Protestant scholar ive listened to. Who is right?
Hebrews 11:35 is a reference to 2 Maccabees 7. Also, when he talks about the Jews in Jesus time, which Jews? The Sadducees who only accepted the first five books or the Hellenistic Jews which used the LXX or the Pharisees who used the books that the current Jews use? And there were many other sects. The OT canon was far from canonized during Jesus’ time.
And was not Jesus' mention of the Feast of Dedication also a reference to Maccabees?
@Caleb Daniel You miss the argument. Kruger said out of all the instances of the NT writers quoting the OT, there's not a single instance of a New Testament writer citing from the "apocrypha". He's either ignorant or misleading people as I have demonstrated with Heb 11:35.
Watch it again, he says there’s nowhere where it’s quoted as “inspired scripture”
The deuterocanonical books where in circulation at the time, whether Jesus and the apostles viewed them as scripture or not wouldn’t necessarily prevent them from citing them merely because they are part of the Jewish corpus of literature.
@@etheretherether He didn't say "inspired scripture" but just "scripture". And, how does he know it isn't quoted as scripture? There are many OT books that aren't quoted in the NT, but that doesn't mean they aren't scripture.
@@markrome9702 That's true about some books not being quoted, but to answer your other question. There are places where the Apostles and Jesus quote scripture using the phrase "Is it not written" or "does scripture not say" or some variation of that.
That doesn't mean they don't quote other books, and that they don't quote the deuterocanonical works, but they quote them like literature, without specifically appealing to them as divine.
If I recall correctly, a couple of the earliest "canon" lists from the ECFs included the deuterocanonical OT as necessary reading for all literate Christians, but not as scripture.
You're mistakenly viewing Gavin's arguments as binary "should Christians read these books or not" that's not the case. In the earliest Canon lists different books both OT and NT where treated like a tier list. For example the Gospels where considered of the utmost importance (hence why they're read every liturgy) and the epistles where after those, then non-apostolic epistles (those written by Polycarp etc) after those.
Thanks for this great interview!
Regarding his opinion on the formation of the Old Testament Canon, I just would like to say that Dr Kruger's opinion diverges quite a bit from another important expert in the field, namely Prof L.M. MacDonald, who claims (and makes a compelling case) that there was no OT canon formed at the time of Jesus. He gave an interesting interview on Mike Licona's channel about that exact topic.
MacDonald is an outstanding scholar in this field.
Thanks for this. I'll look that up
15:13 not really true.
Do you plan on having a scholar come on to talk about the OT Canon? If I'm not mistaken, Dr. Kruger hasn't addressed the OT Canon in his scholarly work. At least in length.
we get into that a little bit here, though it's not the main focus. I'm open to having someone on regarding OT canon more specifically - any suggestions?
@@TruthUnites maybe Andrew Steinmann? Lutheran Scholar. Other than him I don't know of many that aren't Catholic.
@@StayFaithful13 thanks for the suggestion!
@@jameswillison7195 Dr. Meade would be a great pick!
@@TruthUnites It would be great if you can get both Dr. Kruger and Dr. Lee MacDonald on together for a discussion. That would be totally awesome. You can probably contact Mike Licona to see if MacDonald would be up for it.
Does Dr. Kruger interact with Craig Allert and Everett Kalin more in his books or papers?
The Holy Spirit in our heart is the Gospel.
The authority comes from the Church, not from scriptures whom are testimonies of the authority of the apostles by The Holy Spirit.
"Whoever listens to you listens to me" and "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God", not by reading...
We have a bible, because first we had a Church. We don't have the Church because first we had the bible...
My catholic friend doesn't believe anything his church teaches but won't leave because he's convinced Martin Luther invented our Bible. Hopefully this helps him get out of there!
Interesting situation! He may be particularly interested in future videos I will be doing that will focus more specifically on the Old Testament.
You mean “Catholic” not “catholic”?
Council of Rome
“Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).
Council of Hippo
“[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]).
Council of Carthage III
“[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, Judges, 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, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).
@@richlopez5896 Whats your point ?
I think the point of @richlopez5896 is that if you accept, for example, the Nicene Creed, established at the Council of Nicaea in the year 325, why wouldn't you also accept the canonicity of the so-called Apocrypha, whose canonicity was also established by 4th Century church councils?
Dr. Ortlund, I’d be really interested to see a video of you responding or commenting on Grace to You’s “critical analysis” of your brother Dane’s book “Gentle and Lowly”.
17:31 Jude quotes a writing known as "the Assumption of Moses" in verse 9. He didn't only quote from Enoch.
Enoch isn't part of the Catholic canon, but if I remember correctly, the Orthodox churches, including the oriental orthodoxies, have Enoch in their canon, and the Ethiopian canon actually has 2 and 3 Enoch as well.
I searched that too but many other books where quoted that weren't part of the apocrypha. Books we no longer have. The book of Enoch we have today cannot be verified that it was the same one they had quoted. I have read that it is not the same one.
1611 KJV has patterns of numbers that are miraculous.
Great conversation. Any chance this will become a podcast?
I'm working on it! Thanks.
Woah woah. 13:35ish he says the "old testament apocrypha" was a group of books "adopted later" by the RCC at the council of Trent in the 16th century. I was going to charitably going to assume he misspoke, but he doubles down on this statement at 15:35ish. This is not correct and I'm thankful Gavin (sorta) pointed this out at 21:57. Kruger's response was that there remained a "very large segment" of the church that did not receive these books as canon, and that the first "official" declaration of canonicity was Trent. I'm not sure what he means by "official"? I am currently reading a book by a catholic priest written in the late 16th century and he is clear in stating the church considered all these books as canon for ~1,200 years. The 7 disputed books were listed as canon in the council of Rome I believe in 382 and were ratified in several subsequent councils over the centuries, including the council of Trent. It seems like Kruger is "protestant-splaining" the catholic church. I bring this up as a born and raised Protestant, who believed and was taught this misconception my whole life, that the Catholics just willy-nilly added books to scripture. I've only recently learned that actually it was the Reformers who decided to remove books from scripture - books which had been accepted as scripture by the entire church for many many many years and accepted by many early church fathers. As far as using the OT that "matches the one used by Jesus and the Apostles," The Septuagint *includes* these 7 disputed OT books, and the Septuagint is the version most frequently quoted by the new testament authors. He fails to mention this fact when he says that the NT writers never quote from the apocryphal books themselves. In fact, A nineteenth century study of 275 New Testament passages by D. M. Turpie (Turpie, DH, The Old Testament in the New 1868) concluded that the New Testament, the Septuagint and the Hebrew text all agree in only about 20% of the quotations. Of the 80% where some disagreement occurs, fewer than 5% agree with the Hebrew against the Septuagint. I'm obviously only newly studying this, so maybe something is getting lost in translation here, but it doesn't seem that Kruger is painting a good-faith picture here of the facts of the matter, which is very disappointing.
Agreed. This video only sounds intelligent if you’ve never heard of these topics.
I was a bit disappointed in the fact that Dr. Kruger continues to misrepresent the Catholic position (as he did in his book) and as always argues against the unbelieving position. His view also does not engage the fact that certain books were in dispute because of the uncertainty of their authenticity. It took years before certain books were received as canonical and his view, I argue, does not account for that. You need a magisterial authority of some type to decide for The Universal Church.
How come every time someone disagrees with Roman Catholicism, it’s always the excuse of misrepresentation or not understanding 🙄
Completely agree, still have not heard a good protestant objection to some of the claims offered. It is also quite telling when you look at every branch of Christianity that is apostolic, they all have deutrocanon. The fact that our earliest copies of the old testament contain the Septuagint shows that his argument is very flawed. Plus most of the quotes in the new testament are better attributed to the Greek translations.
@@andrewthomastaylor Because the Magisterium doesn’t follow the Canon Stablished by the Oracles of God (Jews) The earliest septuagint is not evidence since it’s a christian Bible not Jewish.
@@internautaoriginal9951 well if you look at the earliest biblical books found it seems to discount that argument. For example the Dead Sea scrolls had books that are in the deutrocanon present. What you also fail to account for is that different groups of Jews had different books which they considered scripture. For example the Pharisees the Sadducee’s and the essense all had different canonical books. This can even be seen in the Bible depending on who Jesus is talking to he only talks about certain portions of the canon that they know to be canon. Also, the earliest Old Testament writings are all written in Greek and it wasn’t until the 900s until we find the editions Protestants hold to. Seems to me you need to research a little more because you are just factually incorrect.
Nonsense same narrative , parroting same regarding your Catholic Stance. What is the anti Christ Spirit then not belonging to the full authority of your pope's.
One of the reasons I converted from Protestantism to Eastern Orthodoxy.
How?
@@amenbekele6128 To be an Orthodox, you need baptism.
@@Glypt0d0n Do you need to be an Orthodox to be saved ?
@@amenbekele6128 I think that's like asking do you need a working car to get somewhere. You might do it with a broken car too, but it's certainly easier with a good and proven car.
@@Glypt0d0n if you actually believe the analogy you wrote, it is against the teachings of Orthodoxy, exclusionism.
It would be very insightful a friendly conversation with Dr. Brant Pitre regarding the canon.
I can't figure out how Peter's statement in 2 Peter 1:15 doesn't refer to the book of remembrance in Malachi 3
@Truth Unites Hello Mr. Ortlund. I was wondering in one of your upcoming videos you could maybe do a series on the Marian Dogmas. Specially on the Perpetual virginity of Mary. I would love to hear your thoughts on what you think the Bible reveals on this issue and what the early Christians believed on this issue thanks.
sure thing! I address it briefly here: ua-cam.com/video/p2upKk_5Bhk/v-deo.html
And also here: ua-cam.com/video/Bq1z44GVBcA/v-deo.html&
hope this helps!
@@TruthUnites I appreciate that Mr. Ortlund. The first link takes me to the video " Which Canon is Right? With Michael Kruger" I watch the entire video. Is there something where in the video you address Mary?
@@antwaingurley8753 wow sorry, my copy and paste skills are a little lacking. I meant this one: ua-cam.com/video/qmG4YRiuIFk/v-deo.html
@@TruthUnites I read this and just wanted to wish Mr. Antwain Gurley warmly for his devotion in finishing the video. I hope it was encouraging and beneficial to you, AG!
To suggest that it is good to read the OT Apocryphal books as beneficial is thoroughly wrong, except for the mature believer or as a student of the canon. These are full of doctrinal errors, and where the RCC gets its evil dogmas from. For example, praying for the dead, purgatory, etc., and Revelation 22 places a direct curse on these additions. Tobet, for example, even teaches the occult. These are certainly not spiritually ,beneficial‘, but rather unspiritually beneficial.
Apostolic tradition, Bishop teaching authority and everything is Catholic. Simple.
Council of Rome
“Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).
Council of Hippo
“[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]).
Council of Carthage III
“[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, Judges, 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, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).
The Septuagint, completed in the second century BC contained the deuterocanonical books. The council of Rome in 382 AD also included the deuterocanonical books as scripture. The assertion that the inclusion of these books was somehow the invention of the Roman Catholic Church is the 16th century is misleading.
Jasher? It was cited, so where is that?
Enoch was quoted.
This guy doesn’t know what he is talking about. The 7 deuterocanonical books weee already in the Latin. İlgiye not in the council of Trent. Do more research!
Canon is a sort of anthology of judeo-christian books
So how the Protestants know exactly if they got the wrong books ? As they came 1500 hounded years later ?? How do they know that the 4 authors of the gospels were indeed written by st John / st Luke / and so on there is no one single signature to say me St. John wrote this letter when there were so many copies around at the time ?? Paul letters when you read it was never finish it end up suddenly with no definite end ?? For to say that that Jesus and the apostles
Consider gospel of john chapter 1 v 1. The logos made flesh. Thats the most overlooked verse that explains the other scripture by john also, the anti Christ Spirit, those who deny the word made flesh.
By my count, there are, at least, 85 NT references to the OT Apocrypha, some of which are nearly exact quotes. The most obvious one was the episode of the Sadducees asking Jesus who would be a woman's husband in heaven if seven of her husbands should perish, a reference to Tobit. Jesus quotes the OT Apocrypha several times. You're basically saying the writings that Jesus and Paul read and quoted from are non-canon. Well, okay then.
The quote from Paul about a worker is deserving of his wages in 1 Timothy 5 that matches Luke 10:7 refer to Tobit 4. It's hard to say, from this vantage point, whether the presenter is ignorant of his profession or dishonest. You could, at least, counter the 85 with reasonable arguments rather than simply stating there's no connection at all.
Paul quotes the Greek philosopher Aratus in Acts 17, the Greek dramatist Menander in 1 Corinthians 15, and the Greek philosopher Epimenides in Titus 1.
Nobody thinks the writings of Aratus, Mendander, or Epimenides are scripture.
@@grantgooch5834 The Greek philosophers mentioned here supplement an already existing Biblical truth to evangelize to the Greek populations. They are referenced to evangelize, not as an authority in apologetics. The Apocrypha have far more references and entire NT theological concepts are derived from them. More importantly, specifically, Jesus is quoting from them rather than Paul, a man. An important piece of Christian apologetics is finding references to NT concepts in the OT and vice versa. So, how far are you going to take this line of logic?
I enjoyed the interview, but If you truly wanted to be fair to Catholics you should have Dr. Brant Pitre or Dr. John Bergsma.
Bart Erman should not be taken seriously.. he was and is part of the new athiest movement.
Basically Bart is trying, in every class and every interview, to disprove the bible.
Everyone arguing over the Hebrew Bible and they are Christian. Sad. The New Testament was canonized by Bishops. Western/Eastern. Absolutely No protestant.
Was Moses a Catholic? Do you read his books?
While I agree the Gospel of Thomas is not canonical, and I certainly would not treat it as scripture, I feel it gets a lot of flack compared to the real "off grid" gospels of say Judas.
The Gospel of Thomas includes many of the stories that are a riff on Gospel stories, and other sayings that to me are so brilliant I find it hard to think Jesus did not say them.
I will describe the definitive Bible, which is the Catholic Bible. It has 73 books, 46 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New. There is also a tiny apocryphal section with just the Prayer of Manasseh in it. The Tetragrammaton is not translated as "Yahweh", which is blasphemous. It is not translated as "Jehovah", which is a silly mistake. It has approval from a Catholic bishop, typically the Archbishop of Westminster in England.
Bibles which refer to "Yahweh" or "Jehovah" throughout should be pulped at once. Some Old Testament books are translated from Greek, and are called "Deuterocanonical". Bibles which shunt these books into the Apocrypha should be pulped. Bibles which are missing these books should be pulped.
Hebrew versions of these deuterocanonical books may turn up in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but they may be back-translations. The jury is out on this.
If your bible has just a few references to "Jehovah" in the Old Testament, then have a last read round the New Testament before disposing of it, assuming that the New Testament is OK.
So we have a definitive Bible which serves to anchor our beliefs. There's no guarantee that the modern Catholic Church follows its guidance, but it is futile to argue about this if we cannot agree on the canon of the bible in the first place.
Someone will certainly be able to produce a Bible with "Yahweh" which is signed off by a Catholic bishop. You have made an error My Lord ! I am not sure about "Jehovah". I had the hymn "Guide me O Thou Great Redeemer" for a relative's funeral chosen by me.
How can "Christian" colleges hire people like Bart Erman? Pretty disappointing really. Are the headship really saved? I can only think no.
Why at 13:40 does the guest lie saying the Catholic Church added 7 apocryphal books at the Council of Trent and then the further lie at 15:05 that the New Testament doesn't ever quote form these 7 books. He clearly isn't a genuine bible scholar and you are not living up to your name - truth unites; as you are broadcasting untruths. The canon was set by Pope Damasus at the Council of Rome in 382 and contains 73 books. Many Protestants, eg Anglicans and Episcopalians, have the 73 books. Some Protestants follow Martin Luther who threw out 11 books being 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Sirach and Wisdom from the Old Testament and from the New Testament James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation. Only later after Martin Luther's death did his followers put back the missing New Testament books. This is factual history.
There are quotes in the New Testament from each of the seven apocryphal books. It is hard to know this if you are a Protestant who follows Luther with an incomplete bible of 66 books.
If anyone wants to know the truth about how the bible was made watch ua-cam.com/video/puM4RPY4kCk/v-deo.html. Then test what is said to history.
Jesus and the apostles had the Old Testament version called the Septuagint. This is a main set of Old Testament writings used by the Jews at this time and it contains the seven apocryphal books so yes they were in the scripture used by Jesus and the apostles.
Right! Surprised Gavin didn't interject on the blatantly erroneous claims. It's not just difference of opinion at that point, it's misinformation.
From watching I am surprised he didn’t interject as well. The guest speaks about these large groups of the early churches supporting the Protestant Bible but never states whom. To my knowledge it is a minor viewpoint. Valid but minor.
I think the issue isn’t which cannon is wrong or right. Clearly we have 5-7 different cannon in all of global Christianity. Only the Protestants make the claim that only the 66 and no their cannon is valid. I think the better claim is to say the 66 is what “ we” subscribe to but we don’t not invalidate other cannons as historical.
Regarding 13:40, Kruger is correct when he says that the Catholic church added the deuterocanon at Trent, if he means Trent added these books as canon in a binding sense. And I'm sure that what he meant. Before Trent, Catholics were allowed to hold diverse opinions on the extent of the canon, and many Catholic scholars, including saints and Popes held to the same canon as protestants. The council of Rome was not an ecumenical council, and thus not a binding council for dogmatizing the canon. At 15:05, he says that the New Testament authors did not cite or allude to the deuterocanonal books as scripture. This is true. Not one allusion anywhere in the New Testament has the usual designations such as "as the scriptures say" or "according to the scriptures" in relation to a deuterocanonal book.
Hi @@slow2speak, It is called the Council of Rome, It is in the name. Of course it was ecumenical. It is only Protestants who claim otherwise which is contrary to history. Protestants have to, to justify the removal of these books which were in the bible from its inception for over 1100 years before the Protestant reformation. Somehow, to be a Protestant, you have to believe that for over 1100 years the Holy Spirit made a mistake in guiding the people who made the canon of scripture. No popes or Catholic scholars to my knowledge debated there inclusion after the bible was formed. It is true that this was debated before the biblical cannon was determined. The determination was by Pope Damasus at the Council of Rome in 382AD. For instance, though Saint Jerome questioned the 7 deuterocanonical books before the Council, what you won't have been told is that he did, in obedience, translate them into Latin and once the decision was made he accepted this. The truth is that all the books of the bible, including the four gospels, had been debated over before this.
Also your last comment is false. Applying this logic, that new testament authors must cite or allude to the deuterocanonical books for them to be accepted as scripture to make them valid then you must apply this rule to the other old testament books that are not cited or alluded to. That would mean you would throw out more than 50% of the Old Testament! All of the seven deterocanonical books are quoted in the new testament
Trent introduced nothing new in regards to the canon of scripture. It simply re-affirmed the original canon of scripture.
Also, as a last point to consider, did you know that the Old testament book most quoted by Jesus is Sirach? Of course you wouldn't know this if your bible is incomplete and missing this book. Personally I don't think Jesus makes mistakes. God bless.
@@cathpocalypse6895 Please cite an authoritative Catholic source that classifies the Council of Rome in 382 as one of the 21 Ecumenical councils. Not even Karl Keating does this, nor does the Catholic Encyclopedia, nor does Jimmy Akin in "The Father's Know Best", nor dozens of other catholic sources. Your other claims are demonstrably false. Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Hillary of Poitiers, Rufinus, Jerome, Primasius, Pope Gregory the Great, The Venerable Bede... I could keep going with more... these all held to an old testament canon which excluded deuterocanonicsl books.
Would a Christian in the early Church, who was reading Paul's letter to the Church of Laodicea, know that Paul's letter was not Holy Scripture? Would a Christian in the early Church know that not all of Paul's letters to the Phillipans were not Holy Scripture? Who had the authority to leave out the letters of Matthias and Gamaliel and Barnabas? Who has the final authority to interpret "My Flesh is True food and Blood True drink ", and " This is my Body ", ( John 6:53-55, Matthew 26:26)
Exactly. There is no way to get around this dilemma for a Protestant.
This attitude is the same radical skepticism of liberal critics like Bart Ehrman. Ergo, Romanists have the same view as the wildly skeptical liberals but have a different conclusion because of the magical "Magisterium"? Read Dr. Kruger's book "Canon Revisited". It thoroughly answers the skeptical claims (and inadvertantly Rome's).
@@DrBob-gr5ru Dr. Kruger clearly didn't answer the questions, at all neither did you! So, go ahead, make my day! Would a Christian in the early Church reading Paul's letter to the Church of Laodicea, know it was not Holy Scripture? Would a Christian in the early Church reading Paul's several letters to the Philippians know not all the letters were Holy Scripture? Would a Christians in the early Church know the letters of Matthias and Gamaliel and Barnabas were not Holy Scripture? Again, who has the final authority to interpret "This is my Body ", and " My Flesh is True food and Blood True drink ", ( Matthew 26:26, John 6:53-55). The man made tradition of Scripture alone, like faith alone, are no where practiced by Jesus or the early Church, or taught in Holy Scripture itself! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
@@grantbenson7458 Yes. I agree. Jesus Christ never practiced Scripture alone, nor did the Apostles, nor does Holy Scripture teach Scripture alone! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
@@DrBob-gr5ru All that we Catholics are pointing out is the fact that if the Catholic Church was fallible when it declared the NT canon that both Prots and Catholics have, then it’s anyone’s guess to what the canon might be. Protestants will try and vaguely paint together the canon in the first century. Jesus never told any of the apostles to write anything down in the first place. If Jesus’ intention was to have the apostles write down the ultimate authority for the church, there was clearly a miscommunication because no scripture was written for 20 years after the ascension, and there was nowhere near a closed concrete 27 book canon after the apostles died. The first proposed NT canon didn’t appear until the 140’s with Marcion’s list, which only included 10 of Paul’s epistles and a shorter version of Luke. What does a Protestant appeal to to say that Marcion’s list was incomplete?
Very weak argument against the use of the Deuterocanonics. By the way, I am Protestant.
Riiiiiight 🙄
The Jews didn't have a dispute over which books where in the canon? Didn't the pharisees believe in the law (pentateuch), prophets and writings (never giving a list of which books where in this, execpt for the law). The Saduccees only believed the Law was scripture right? And then you had the esscences, their canon seems to be all over the place, when looking at the dead sea writings. The jews canon was established way after Chrst. Some of the longer versions also appear in the dead sea scrolles. The book of wisdom (Sirach) especially is the most prophetic about Jesus in all of the old testament. I mean he is called the son of God. Almost step by step the whole new testement is mentioned in that one book... It is such a same that protestants dont read that book. it is the most shocking book in all of the canon.
The English word BIBLE means the compilation of Spiritual Books and Epistles (Letters) done by the People of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit... The Holy Scriptures (Word of God) were written by hand (manuscripts) individually in the papyrus scrolls... in 325 A.D. thru the Council of Nicene, Emperor Constantine ordered to make the Compilation of ALL manuscripts from the Old and New Testament called BIBLIA in Latin or Bible in English...
In Conclusion, there were already individual Scriptural Manuscripts since the Time of Prophet Moses for the O.T. and in the time of Christ's Apostles and Disciples for the N.T., but NO COMPILATION yet till the 4th Century A.D. done by the Catholics Church (Romans & Greeks) under Emperor Constantine and translated the Bible into LATIN LANGUAGE called LATIN VULGATE...
Didn't this guy act the professor in God's not dead
Jesus gave us a Church, not a Bible
This is what Sola Scriptura means:
Matthew 1:1 Matthew is Scripture.
Mk 1:1 Mark is Scripture.
Luke 1:4 Scripture is what gives certainty of doctrine. Luke is Scripture.
John 5:39 We have eternal life from the Scriptures only because they bear witness about Christ.
John 10:35 Scripture cannot be broken or invalidated.
John 15:20 No one may contradict or neglect the Apostles and be a Christian.
John 17:20 The word of the Apostles is the source of true faith.
John 20:31 The Gospel of John alone is enough to tell us what to believe so that we can have life in Jesus' name.
John 22:24 The Gospel of John is a true testimony. No authority may contradict it.
Acts 17:11 We are to examine the Scriptures daily to see if anything taught as doctrine is true.
Acts 24:14 We are to believe everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets.
Romans 15:4 Scripture was written for our instruction to encourage us and give us hope.
1 Corinthians 12:28 All other teachers and servants in the Church come after the Apostles in priority.
1 Corinthians 14:37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he must acknowledge that the things Paul wrote to us are a command of the Lord.
2 Corinthians 1:13 Paul did not write anything other than what lay people of Corinth and Achaia could read and understand. Some partially understand; some fully understand. Paul will boast of all on the day of the Lord.
Galatians 1:8 No one may contradict what the Apostles preached.
Galatians 1:20 Paul did not lie in what he wrote.
Galatians 3:22 The Scripture imprisoned everything else under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
Eph 2:20 The Apostles and Prophets are the foundation of the Church and the faith with Christ as cornerstone. All other authorities must build on that foundation and no other.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 We are to firmly hold to the teachings of the Apostles. They are the only true standard by which other teachers and doctrines are to be judged. I challenge anyone to identify an oral Apostolic teaching that is not written in the New Testament.
1 Timothy 3:14-15 This letter tells us who may and may not become overseers and deacons, and how the Church is to be godly. This godliness is unchanging.
1 Timothy 4:13 We are to devote ourselves to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching.
2 Timothy 3:15 The scriptures are able to make us wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.
2 Timothy 3:16 Scripture is profitable for correction in righteousness. No doctrine that isn't supportable by scripture may correct scripture or render it unprofitable. Scripture is the only true standard by which all teachers and doctrines are to be judged.
2 Timothy 3:17 Scripture makes preachers (men of God) complete. Scripture fully equips preachers for every good work.
1 Peter 5:12 This letter is the true grace of God. We must stand firm in it.
2 Peter 3:2 We are to obey the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through his apostles.
2 Peter 3:16 The ignorant and unstable who twist the scriptures do so to their own destruction. Paul's Epistles are Scripture.
1 John 1:3-4 The eye-wittness writings of the Apostles are what give us fellowship with the Apostles, with the Father, and with His Son.
1 John 4:6 The Apostles are from God. Whoever knows God listens to the words of the Apostles; whoever is not from God does not believe the Apostles. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
Hebrews 4:12 The word of God judges the reader and the Church, not vice versa. The Epistle to the Hebrews has done this since the first time it was read.
James 2:8 Love of neighbor as taught by scripture is enough to keep us busy for the rest of our lives.
You should pick up a bible and read.
@@Mygoalwogel thanks to the church! Not only for providing those words but for preserving them by their works by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press for the rest of the world to enjoy.👍🏻
All scripture is God breathed. Jesus did give us the bible.
@@srich7503I totally understand your point but thanks be to God, not the physical institution of the church. God protected His word. Your comments seem to be extremely prideful concerning the church when the focus should be on God. God gave us scripture. God preserved His word. God achieved this through His Church, but the glory be to God.
The is no THE BIBLE. I have 5 different ones myself. There are many others.
You have 5 different translations. He is referring to the original manuscripts, written in Hebrew and Greek.
I was interested until we started pretending Paul wrote the pastorals and Peter wrote 2 Peter.
This guy has no idea what he’s talking about, he is clueless and in way over his head.
1. He said there’s not a single instance where the NT authors cite to the deuterocanonical books (DB) as scripture, not even one. First, that’s just blatantly wrong. Second, it’s a fallacy and a bad argument. Assuming arguendo the NT doesn’t cite the DB, so what? The NT never cites to Song of Solomon, Esther, Ezra, or Nehemiah, either. So are those excluded now too? It’s just a dumb argument and a fallacy.
2. He says the Protestant OT is the same as the “old testament” used by Jews at the time of Christ. But this is either misleading, dishonest, or dumb because he’s excluding the diaspora Jews. Palestinian Jews used the Tanakh, the diaspora Jews and early Christians used the Septuagint. This is uncontroversial and takes literally two minutes of scholarship, both FF Bruce and Lee McDonald agree on this, and it makes me think this guy is very unaware of his bias, is dishonest, or has just taken it upon himself to speak about a topic he knows nothing about.
3. This actually leads into the next thing he says-he asserts the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Jesus all agreed on the same canon. Again, this is just plain wrong. The Sadducees rejected the Talmud, while the Pharisees thought the Talmud was binding. That was the defining feature of the Sadducees, rejection of the oral tradition. To say they all agreed on canon is so wrong and dishonest.
4. This guy also says there was no normative authority that established the “hebrew scriptures.” This is also wrong, the Tanakh was compiled by the Great Assembly in 450 BCE.
5. He also says the first time there was an official declaration of canon was at Trent, which is again wrong. It was the council of Hippo 393 AD and the council of Carthage 397 AD. Take a look at Philip Schaff’s history of the Christian church volume 3 (fifth edition, 2002) at pp. 609-610.
This guy is actually so clueless, his language is so vague and inaccurate (“Jewish Old Testament” ???). If he would’ve bothered to go through Schaff, FF Bruce, and Lee McDonald, for two minutes, he would’ve avoided looking like an idiot.
Just extremely severe misinformation from this guest.
This is such a major foundation to Protestants and they have zero grounding. I think more people will figure it out tho once they start looking
Since when were local councils infallible
@@Apologetics1Peter315 no one said they’re infallible, but they’re binding
@ binding for whom
Wow nice video