Watched this yesterday and it was a beat down on the Protestant writer. Michael and William’s questions and responses were so strong. It did of course resort back to the real objection, that is the Church’s authority to determine which books are to be considered canonical or as William says “holy writ”.
Well, to be fair, it was 2 on 1. And like I mentioned above, he kept getting interrupted by both of them. And like Steve said, there were many in the early church that specifically defined non-deuteros as “holy writ” too, including Irenaeus. Michael & William kept insisting that there was a “consensus” in the early church on the deuteros, but never actually backed it up, and both agreed that you don’t find a list of all 7 books until at least the 4th century, while Steve stated you can find the “smaller” lists as early as the second & third centuries.
Give us a list of the canonical books in the Pharisee’s canon from the first century, either first and second hand, but from the first century. And we just don’t have one.
It’s true there is no actual “list” in the first century - either way (Catholic or Protestant). But what it seems what Steve was trying to get across is that both Irenaeus & Josephus referred to the collection of books of their forefathers as “to the time of Artaxerxes,” which would have ended around 400 BC before any of the Deuteros were written, which included all the books in Protestant OTs. He also brought up about 22 books being laid up in the Temple that “made the hands unclean,” which would exclude the deuteros but include the rest. But, unfortunately that argument didn’t get explored.
Josephus affirmed the inspired status of the longer version of Esther and gave no list of the “22” books of Jewish canon.
I listened to this twice. And what he was saying was when Josephus was talking about the 22 book list, he was referring to the particular list of his ancestors, which did not include any of the deuteos in this “22 book list.” But when he cited the additions to Esther, because he was writing at the very end of the first century, this writing may have been included in a later version of the LXX, and cannot assume it was in the LXX in the beginning of the first century.
He also asked if they knew of any Jewish leader, sect, or council before or during the time of Jesus who accepted any of the Deuteros, and if there was any church father or council prior to the 4th century that accepted all 7 of the deuteros. Michael & William conceded that there are none.
Really great discussion though. Can’t wait for more, especially with an EO on.
Most definitely. I find it fascinating that the CC & EO can say that a book can be inspired, but not necessarily canonical. It seems in Protestantism, if a book is inspired, it is also canonical & vice versa. The Biblical canon for Protestants has been closed since the 16th century, and cannot be added to.
