Very comprehensive, but I still think a video with a more focused/sharp dismantling of opposition claims would be very helpful, even if it requires some caveats to not overstate the Catholic case.
I want to recap Augustine here because some people from the other side insist that Augustine accepted the story of the three bodyguards (the guardsman story) as prophecy. 1. Augustine makes it clear that "Esdras is a historical work, rather than prophetical" ... this already stipulates his position 2. "unless perhaps it is to be understood as a prophecy" is actually ambiguous. If he accepted this passage as prophecy, why didn't he say "this is a prophecy about Christ" or something like that. Rather I would say the "unless perhaps" shows his hesitance to accept this passage from the Esdras book. I give you and example, lets say that I proclaim: "Josephus did not present the canon of the Hebrews in his works, unless perhaps the 22 books in Against Apion represents the Hebrew canon". Question: Do I believe that Josephus presents the canon of Hebrews in his works? No, I already said I don´t believe so. What I am only saying, is that if it can be proven that the 22 books matches the canon, then I would change my mind, but currently I don´t believe it. This is the very same thing Augustine is doing. He already stipulated that Esdras is a historical work, not prophetic. That is what he actually says in the City of God. Whoever wants to claim the opposite, has the burden of proof. What he says by the "unless perhaps" I think is that there were some who viewed this passage as a prophecy, but not Augustine himself. Just as Jerome would quote the Shepherd, but he himself did not accept it. And its interesting that it is the very same book (City of God), where he accepted the Hebrew as well, so both the Hebrew and Septuagint are divine. But he also conceded that the Septuagint is not always presenting the original. So my theory is that the reason why Augustine is not accepting this passage as prophecy, is because he became convinced or at least he is not sure whether this passage is authentic to the Esdras book. Otherwise I don´t see a reason why would he reject this as a prophecy, when others did. ... Nevertheless he would still read it BUT just as a variant translation of Ezra.
So looking forward to this! Thanks David for your astounding degree of hard work and research in Part 1. I'm sure that the 'Steve Christies' of the world are 'gunning' for you! SO to address what what no doubt will be/was his objection, it IS true that Augustine references 1 Esdras 4:41 (Esdras A in the LXX). But a] just that 'stray' citation isn't enough to throw open the whole Tridentine Canon debate. And b] Augustine may have seen Esdras A (KJV 1 Esd, Vg. 3 Esd) as just a 'parallel' version of Ezra, as you lengthily have argued, and NOT as a separate Biblical book on it's own. So that 'version' [period] of Ezra would indeed contain the 'Story of the Three Guardsmen' and the famous "Great Is Truth" quotation (allegedly predicting Christ). It is to be noted that Thomas Aquinas likewise referenced the Prayer of Manasseh (Summa. Theo. 3a. 84.5). Same 'defense'- a stray reference is not ENOUGH to shake the Canon, at least for [You] Catholics. Best, HJ
Thank you, I appreciate it. Yes I agree, if there is no definitive way to know that the person himself accepted that book / part of the book as inspired, then we cannot say he did. 1. Augustine makes it clear "Esdras is a historical work, rather than prophetical" ... this already stipulates his position 2. "unless perhaps it is to be understood as a prophecy" is actually ambiguous. If he accepted this passage as prophecy, why did not he say "this is a prophecy about Christ" or something like that. Rather I would say the "unless perhaps" shows his hesitance to accept this passage from the Esdras book. I give you and example, lets say that I say this sentence: "Josephus did not present the canon of the Hebrews in his works, unless perhaps the 22 books in Against Apion represents Hebrew canon". Question: Do I believe that Josephus presents the canon of Hebrews in his works? No, I already said I don´t believe so. What I am only saying, is that if it can be proven that the 22 books matches the canon, then I would change my mind, but currently I don´t believe it. This is the very same thing Augustine is doing. He already stipulated that Esdras is a historical work, not prophetic. That is what he actually says in the City of God. Whoever wants to claim the opposite, has the burden of proof. What he says by the "unless perhaps" I think is that there were some who viewed this passage as a prophecy, but not Augustine himself. And its interesting that it is the very same book (City of God), where he accepted the Hebrew as well, so both the Hebrew and Septuagint are divine. But he also conceded that the Septuagint is not always presenting the original. So my theory is that the reason why Augustine is not accepting this passage is a prophecy, is because he became convinced that this passage is not authentic to the Esdras book. Nevertheless he would still read it as a variant of Ezra. And I agree with your assessment with Aquinas. Just as Jerome would quote the Shepherd, he himself did not accept it.
@@davidszaraz4605 Thanks David. Back to my 'stray reference' comment. I was rewatching a 'heavy' UA-cam debate by conservative and charismatic black evangelical pastor Gino Jennings (con) and one Harry Knox (pro) on the 'normalcy' of homosexuality as to the Bible. Oddly Rev. Jennings referenced Ecclesiasticus (aka Sirach) 26:14-16 "A silent and loving wife..". Herein, the Protestant conservative quoted an Apocryphal book (Horrors), as authoritative to the detriment of his Gay visitor, who notably rejected the book's scriptural position. This pastor's 'stray reference' was probably just a gaffe by an otherwise '66-Book-Only-er'. HJ
Great job, David, but OMG it's early... 😆
I look forward to the next part...
Very comprehensive, but I still think a video with a more focused/sharp dismantling of opposition claims would be very helpful, even if it requires some caveats to not overstate the Catholic case.
I want to recap Augustine here because some people from the other side insist that Augustine accepted the story of the three bodyguards (the guardsman story) as prophecy.
1. Augustine makes it clear that "Esdras is a historical work, rather than prophetical" ... this already stipulates his position
2. "unless perhaps it is to be understood as a prophecy" is actually ambiguous. If he accepted this passage as prophecy, why didn't he say "this is a prophecy about Christ" or something like that. Rather I would say the "unless perhaps" shows his hesitance to accept this passage from the Esdras book.
I give you and example, lets say that I proclaim: "Josephus did not present the canon of the Hebrews in his works, unless perhaps the 22 books in Against Apion represents the Hebrew canon".
Question: Do I believe that Josephus presents the canon of Hebrews in his works? No, I already said I don´t believe so. What I am only saying, is that if it can be proven that the 22 books matches the canon, then I would change my mind, but currently I don´t believe it.
This is the very same thing Augustine is doing. He already stipulated that Esdras is a historical work, not prophetic. That is what he actually says in the City of God. Whoever wants to claim the opposite, has the burden of proof. What he says by the "unless perhaps" I think is that there were some who viewed this passage as a prophecy, but not Augustine himself. Just as Jerome would quote the Shepherd, but he himself did not accept it.
And its interesting that it is the very same book (City of God), where he accepted the Hebrew as well, so both the Hebrew and Septuagint are divine. But he also conceded that the Septuagint is not always presenting the original. So my theory is that the reason why Augustine is not accepting this passage as prophecy, is because he became convinced or at least he is not sure whether this passage is authentic to the Esdras book. Otherwise I don´t see a reason why would he reject this as a prophecy, when others did. ... Nevertheless he would still read it BUT just as a variant translation of Ezra.
41:34 which book of Wisdom is being referred to as inspired Scripture here ?
The Wisdom of Solomon or the Wisdom of Sirach ?
@@animallover7072 Wisdom of Solomon.
@@davidszaraz4605 oh ok, thanks. I’m just now seeing your message.
So looking forward to this! Thanks David for your astounding degree of hard work and research in Part 1. I'm sure that the 'Steve Christies' of the world are 'gunning' for you! SO to address what what no doubt will be/was his objection, it IS true that Augustine references 1 Esdras 4:41 (Esdras A in the LXX). But a] just that 'stray' citation isn't enough to throw open the whole Tridentine Canon debate. And b] Augustine may have seen Esdras A (KJV 1 Esd, Vg. 3 Esd) as just a 'parallel' version of Ezra, as you lengthily have argued, and NOT as a separate Biblical book on it's own. So that 'version' [period] of Ezra would indeed contain the 'Story of the Three Guardsmen' and the famous "Great Is Truth" quotation (allegedly predicting Christ). It is to be noted that Thomas Aquinas likewise referenced the Prayer of Manasseh (Summa. Theo. 3a. 84.5). Same 'defense'- a stray reference is not ENOUGH to shake the Canon, at least for [You] Catholics. Best, HJ
Thank you, I appreciate it. Yes I agree, if there is no definitive way to know that the person himself accepted that book / part of the book as inspired, then we cannot say he did.
1. Augustine makes it clear "Esdras is a historical work, rather than prophetical" ... this already stipulates his position
2. "unless perhaps it is to be understood as a prophecy" is actually ambiguous. If he accepted this passage as prophecy, why did not he say "this is a prophecy about Christ" or something like that. Rather I would say the "unless perhaps" shows his hesitance to accept this passage from the Esdras book.
I give you and example, lets say that I say this sentence: "Josephus did not present the canon of the Hebrews in his works, unless perhaps the 22 books in Against Apion represents Hebrew canon".
Question: Do I believe that Josephus presents the canon of Hebrews in his works? No, I already said I don´t believe so. What I am only saying, is that if it can be proven that the 22 books matches the canon, then I would change my mind, but currently I don´t believe it.
This is the very same thing Augustine is doing. He already stipulated that Esdras is a historical work, not prophetic. That is what he actually says in the City of God. Whoever wants to claim the opposite, has the burden of proof. What he says by the "unless perhaps" I think is that there were some who viewed this passage as a prophecy, but not Augustine himself.
And its interesting that it is the very same book (City of God), where he accepted the Hebrew as well, so both the Hebrew and Septuagint are divine. But he also conceded that the Septuagint is not always presenting the original. So my theory is that the reason why Augustine is not accepting this passage is a prophecy, is because he became convinced that this passage is not authentic to the Esdras book. Nevertheless he would still read it as a variant of Ezra.
And I agree with your assessment with Aquinas. Just as Jerome would quote the Shepherd, he himself did not accept it.
@@davidszaraz4605 Thanks David. Back to my 'stray reference' comment. I was rewatching a 'heavy' UA-cam debate by conservative and charismatic black evangelical pastor Gino Jennings (con) and one Harry Knox (pro) on the 'normalcy' of homosexuality as to the Bible. Oddly Rev. Jennings referenced Ecclesiasticus (aka Sirach) 26:14-16 "A silent and loving wife..". Herein, the Protestant conservative quoted an Apocryphal book (Horrors), as authoritative to the detriment of his Gay visitor, who notably rejected the book's scriptural position. This pastor's 'stray reference' was probably just a gaffe by an otherwise '66-Book-Only-er'. HJ
41:34
Do you have any videos on the Jews and the Deuteralcanon canon? Did they use it, for example?
Oh yes. I will release one on the Jewish reception of Baruch. Maybe next month. Stay tuned.
Sound is quiet
Sorry for that