Biblical argument for Protestant canon?

[James248]

Just because certain books are referenced in the NT is meaningless for canonicity. The book of Enoch is referenced in Jude, but is non-canonical. The NT has to say that they’re “Scripture” (which Jude doesn’t for the book of Enoch), or they have to meet the criteria of canonicity. If not, reference is meaningless.

That’s fair.

However, 300 of the 350 OT quotations in the NT are from the Septuagint, the Scriptures translated into Greek.

 

[adf417]

Not really. There’s something called “criteria of canonicity.” It would be silly to consider something Scripture just because it gets translated with something else. A writing has to meet certain criteria in order to be considered Scripture. The question is, what are your criteria of canonicity for the Old Testament?

For Catholics, the criteria are simply what the Catholic Church says. For Protestants, it’s what the Jews say. That’s for starters: we could argue about the contents of the deuterocanonical books themselves, but I think Catholics will keep reverting to the statements of their church. Protestants, of course, do not accept the statements of the Catholic Church, so using those sorts of arguments on a Protestant usually doesn’t work.

Hi Achilles,
I dont think anyone here will dispute the claim there are two paradigms from which the canon is realized but the questions which always remain is - which paradigm is the correct one and more importantly how does one know?

Peace!!!

 

[jcrichton]

Not really. There’s something called “criteria of canonicity.” It would be silly to consider something Scripture just because it gets translated with something else. A writing has to meet certain criteria in order to be considered Scripture. The question is, what are your criteria of canonicity for the Old Testament?

For Catholics, the criteria are simply what the Catholic Church says. For Protestants, it’s what the Jews say. That’s for starters: we could argue about the contents of the deuterocanonical books themselves, but I think Catholics will keep reverting to the statements of their church. Protestants, of course, do not accept the statements of the Catholic Church, so using those sorts of arguments on a Protestant usually doesn’t work.

Hi!

…have you noticed how your arguments continues to evade the truth of the historical Church (use of the Septuagint which predates the Incarnation of the Word), Jewish rejection of Christ, and historical findings that places the Septuagint in the hands of Jews (Alexandrian) and even in the Jews in Jerusalem, and in the hands of the Apostles?

…have you also noticed how you reject Catholic Understanding which reaches back into Apostolic times in favor of Protestant understanding which reaches into the protestant spirit of Luther and the thousands who followed him?..

…you continue to cite Jews, Jews, Jews; yet, you reject the Jews that worked with and accepted the Septuagint, why is that?

…in your fervor to defend your position you have actually place the Jews (all Jews) in the position of pack rats who basically held on to all sorts of writings and pooled them together with Sacred Scriptures:

The Septuagint

An ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible dating to before the time of Jesus Christ, and used extensively by New Testament writers and the early church. (religionfacts.com/judaism/texts

)
…all the sources keep placing the Septuagint as Sacred Writings… but you presuppose that the Jews just simply gathered together all sorts of writings because all writings seem equally Sacred or non-Sacred to them… at least this is my understanding, from your argument.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Just because certain books are referenced in the NT is meaningless for canonicity. The book of Enoch is referenced in Jude, but is non-canonical. The NT has to say that they’re “Scripture” (which Jude doesn’t for the book of Enoch), or they have to meet the criteria of canonicity. If not, reference is meaningless.

Hi!

…can you cite that passage of New Testament Scriptures that list the books that are “Scriptures?”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Achilles6129]

Protestants are kind of in the the wrong boat following the canon of the Jews, especially since they were the ones who rejected Jesus in front of Pilate.

Paul is in the wrong boat then, too:

"Then what [a]advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God. " Rom. 3:1-2 (NASB)

I am aware that the Jews rejected Christ, but that doesn’t mean that they were wrong about everything. Obviously both Protestants and Catholics use Jewish books.

That’s fair.

However, 300 of the 350 OT quotations in the NT are from the Septuagint, the Scriptures translated into Greek.

I am aware that many of the citations in the NT are from the LXX. However, I don’t see how that proves the Deuterocanonicals are Scripture, as the Deuterocanonicals were not considered Scripture in the LXX. I would love to see a source that proves otherwise. You are basing your argument off of inference.

 

[jcrichton]

Paul is in the wrong boat then, too:

"Then what [a]advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God. " Rom. 3:1-2 (NASB)

I am aware that the Jews rejected Christ, but that doesn’t mean that they were wrong about everything. Obviously both Protestants and Catholics use Jewish books.

I am aware that many of the citations in the NT are from the LXX. However, I don’t see how that proves the Deuterocanonicals are Scripture, as the Deuterocanonicals were not considered Scripture in the LXX. I would love to see a source that proves otherwise. You are basing your argument off of inference.

Hi!

…your problem remains: the Septuagint contained the books rejected by some Jews and Protestants; the Septuagint contained the books accepted and cited by some Jews, including Jesus and the Apostles… you reject the Jews that used the Septuagint… and demand to see a list of the Septuagint canon which does not exists…

Every post in which I have included the info on the Septuagint demonstrates that Jesus and the Apostles did in deed use the Septuagint… your problem is in not accepting the Church’s Authority…

…it’s like that protestant thing of “show me in Scriptures.” Once it is shown, they quickly turn to “that’s not what it means!”

I reiterate, you will remain in your quest because the Truth is not the answer you seek.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Achilles6129]

…have you noticed how your arguments continues to evade the truth of the historical Church (use of the Septuagint which predates the Incarnation of the Word), Jewish rejection of Christ, and historical findings that places the Septuagint in the hands of Jews (Alexandrian) and even in the Jews in Jerusalem, and in the hands of the Apostles?

As I said to James, please show a citation that proves that the Deuterocanonicals were considered Scripture by the Jews during any period, BC or AD. As I have said before, just because something is translated with something else does not mean it’s Scripture.

Interestingly, here are a couple of references that say that the Jews rejected the Deuterocanonicals. They are from the 1st century AD:

earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/apion1.html

1. For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,]** but only twenty-two books**

Here’s a listing of passages for you:

biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=NASB&quicksearch=Scripture&startnumber=1&searchtype=all&bookset=2

 

[James248]

Paul is in the wrong boat then, too:

"Then what [a]advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God. " Rom. 3:1-2 (NASB)

I am aware that the Jews rejected Christ, but that doesn’t mean that they were wrong about everything. Obviously both Protestants and Catholics use Jewish books.

I am aware that many of the citations in the NT are from the LXX. However, I don’t see how that proves the Deuterocanonicals are Scripture, as the Deuterocanonicals were not considered Scripture in the LXX. I would love to see a source that proves otherwise. You are basing your argument off of inference.

Paul goes on to say:

9 What then? Are we Jews any better off?[a] No, not at all; for I** have already charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin, 10 as it is written:

“None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands, no one seeks for God.
12 All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong;
no one does good, not even one.”
13 “Their throat is an open grave,
they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
14 “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood,
16 in their paths are ruin and misery,
17 and the way of peace they do not know.”

So going by the opinion of Jews according to the flesh ultimately doesn’t serve you well, because they are still under the power of sin.

And as to your second claim, here are the words of Clement and Polycarp, both contemporaries of Peter and John:

Clement

“By the word of his might [God] established all things, and by his word he can overthrow them. ‘Who shall say to him, “What have you done?” or who shall resist the power of his strength?’ [Wis. 12:12]” (Epistle to the Corinthians 27:5 [ca. A.D. 80]).

Polycarp

“Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood [1 Pet. 2:17]. . . . When you can do good, defer it not, because ‘alms delivers from death’ [Tob. 4:10, 12:9]. Be all of you subject to one another [1 Pet. 5:5], having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles [1 Pet. 2:12], and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed [Isa 52:5]!” (Epistle to the Philadelphians 10 [ca. A.D. 135]).**

 

[po18guy]

1. Neither Martin Luther nor any of the reformers used any such argument. The Pharisees had no New Testament to base this on. Neither did the Sadducees. It is clearly an innovation, and a superstitious one at that. From Fr. John Hardon, S.J.'s Catholic Dictionary:

SUPERSTITION. The unseemly or irreverent worship of God, or giving to a creature the worship that belongs to God. Rendering unbecoming worship to God may stem either from false devotion or from a tendency toward magic. Giving divine worship to a creature is either idolatry, divination, or vain observance. The term “superstition” more commonly means unbecoming worship to God.

When superstition arises from false devotion, it is really superfluous worship of God, which may take on a variety of forms. Their common denominator is an excessive concern that unless certain external practices, such as multiplication of prayers, are performed God will be displeased.

When superstition stems from a tendency toward magic, it reflects a false mentality that may or may not be the root of false devotion. Behind the false mentality is the notion that certain ritual practices, such as chain prayers or veneration of unapproved objects, carry with them an efficacy that is contrary to sound reason or the teaching of the Church.

 

[adf417]

Interestingly, here are a couple of references that say that the Jews rejected the Deuterocanonicals.

They reject the complete NT as well but you dont consider that to be relevant do you?

Peace!!!

 

[De_Maria]

Not really. There’s something called “criteria of canonicity.”

Where is it? What is the criteria? And, when did the Jews apply that criteria?

Oh, you just made it up, didn’t you?

The Catholic Church used criteria. But then, you don’t accept Catholic Church authority. So, you’re in a pickle.

It would be silly to consider something Scripture just because it gets translated with something else.

But it’s not silly to translate all the books that are considered Scripture, with the OTHER Scriptures.

A writing has to meet certain criteria in order to be considered Scripture.

What is it?
Where is it?
And who first applied that criteria?

The question is, what are your criteria of canonicity for the Old Testament?

Actually, we’re not considering that question at all. But since you mentioned it, I have only one. Whatever the Catholic Church considers Scripture.

The question we’re considering is what did the Jews consider Scripture. Since 77 Jews got together to translate the Scriptures in Old Testament days and they came up with the Septuagint. Then, you can see in the Septuagint, that which Old Testament Jews considered Scripture.

Now, if they didn’t leave a list of their criterion behind, then you’re out of luck.

For Catholics, the criteria are simply what the Catholic Church says.

Correctomundo.

For Protestants, it’s what the Jews say.

Kinda wierd, but there is some truth to that.

That’s for starters: we could argue about the contents of the deuterocanonical books themselves,

If you’re game, I’m game.

but I think Catholics will keep reverting to the statements of their church.

The only Church established by Jesus Christ. The only Church through which God speaks. The one, holy, infallible Church which is the House of God and Pillar of Truth.

Yeah.

Protestants, of course, do not accept the statements of the Catholic Church, so using those sorts of arguments on a Protestant usually doesn’t work.

Huh? It works just fine to me. I’m here to present the truth. And Catholic Teaching is the Wisdom of God and thus, it is the Divine Truth.

Unless, of course, you don’t want to hear the truth. Then, I suppose, it doesn’t work.

 

[De_Maria]

Just because certain books are referenced in the NT is meaningless for canonicity. The book of Enoch is referenced in Jude, but is non-canonical. The NT has to say that they’re “Scripture” (which Jude doesn’t for the book of Enoch), or they have to meet the criteria of canonicity. If not, reference is meaningless.

What is the so called, “criteria of canonicity” that you keep bringing up? Show us a copy and point to the authoritative source where you found it. No fair making it up out of thin air.

 

[Thom18]

What is the so called, “criteria of canonicity” that you keep bringing up? Show us a copy and point to the authoritative source where you found it. No fair making it up out of thin air.

I’d like to know this as well. It seems so far that the criteria is simply, “whatever helps Protestantism”.

 

[Achilles6129]

The criteria of canonicity for the OT has already been mentioned (that the Jews accepted it as Scripture - Rom. 3:1-2), but we could also add that anything mentioned as Scripture in the NT or OT is Scripture as well.

As far as the NT is concerned, it has to be apostolic.

 

[po18guy]

The criteria of canonicity for the OT has already been mentioned (that the Jews accepted it as Scripture - Rom. 3:1-2), but we could also add that anything mentioned as Scripture in the NT or OT is Scripture as well.

As far as the NT is concerned, it has to be apostolic.

Hold on just a minute! You rely on the canon of the Pharisees? Those who demanded the death of Christ? Those who believed that Jesus of Nazareth was not the Messiah? Remember that there was no universal Jewish agreement on the OT canon. The Sadducees rejected the prophets, and thus held to the Torah but - and this is crucial - they were not condemned seven-fold by our Lord (Matthew 23). They were mislead, but not condemned - at least in the written record.

For some odd reason, the entire sola scriptura world explicitly and completely trusts Martin Luther (and the Pharisees) on the OT canon, but then turn around and distrust him on virtually all other doctrinal matters. I find this very strange. If Luther got the ‘disagreeable’ doctrines wrong, then he very likely also got the ‘agreeable’ canon wrong. Christ was explicit that the hearts and judgment of the Pharisees could not be trusted. That Luther would defy Christ’s counsel and go to the Pharisees’ descendants for a canon is surreal.

 

[adf417]

The criteria of canonicity for the OT has already been mentioned (that the Jews accepted it as Scripture - Rom. 3:1-2), but we could also add that anything mentioned as Scripture in the NT or OT is Scripture as well.

As far as the NT is concerned, it has to be apostolic.

Im not sure it HAS to be but certainly think it would be a great idea if it was. But if it does HAVE to be then you have a big problem…how do you know definitively the book of Hebrews is? I don’t know if there are any scholars who have declared its authorship.

Peace!!!

 

[Achilles6129]

By apostolic I mean approved by the apostles, not necessarily written by an apostle. Therefore Luke would be considered apostolic. Regarding Hebrews, my position is that it was written by an associate of the apostles and was approved by them and is thus apostolic.

 

[Darryl_B]

Personally I believe Hebrews was scribed by St Peter. That is when I compare Hebrews to Peters writings. If that were true, Hebrews would be Apostolic.

 

[adf417]

By apostolic I mean approved by the apostles, not necessarily written by an apostle. Therefore Luke would be considered apostolic. Regarding Hebrews, my position is that it was written by an associate of the apostles and was approved by them and is thus apostolic.

But you dont know this first hand. You are taking someones word you trust that this criteria has been filled and that someone took someone eles word they trust and so on. Do you see where this takes you? Achilles, connect the dots all the way back. Who was it that the generation in the year 280 AD was trusting?

Peace!!!

 

[De_Maria]

The criteria of canonicity for the OT has already been mentioned (that the Jews accepted it as Scripture - Rom. 3:1-2),

We’re talking about the Deuterocanon remember? And I already mentioned that it was considered scripture that’s why it was translated into the Septuagint. But you deny this, so you need to provide some other criteria.

but we could also add that anything mentioned as Scripture in the NT or OT is Scripture as well.

But in a previous entry, you said this was insufficient. Remember the book of Enoch.

As far as the NT is concerned, it has to be apostolic.

We are talking about the Deuterocanon.