Deuterocanon Round Table Discussion

[adf417]

So, are you saying that Jesus - being God - did not know what the OT canon was? And neither did the apostles who were with Him 24/7 for 3 years?

Not necessarily. I do not know what Jesus (God incarnate) knew or didn’t know. I know he didn’t know everything - see Mt 24:26.

What i was referring to was your question about whether or not Jesus told his disciples what the OT canon was. No, the apostles did not know what the canon was even being with Jesus for all that time.

What was discussed in the roundtable was although there was no formalized JEWISH canon, there was indeed a formalized PHARISAIC canon, which Jesus affirmed in Luke 16:29. Essentially, the argument went like this…:

That is a very good argument. Here is another one…

1. Jesus is the Word of God and as I alluded to earlier the Word of God has been in existence forever therefore the OT and the NT existed pre-incarnation (in an omnipresent sense).
2. If Jesus (God incarnate) knew what the OT canon was he also would have known what the NT canon was/will be/would have been.
3. If Jesus knows this he would have also known the OT would have not been sufficient for the new covenant.
4. Telling his apostles what the OT canon was he (Jesus) would have also had to tell them at the same time - “but don’t consider this the complete canon of scripture boys because you guys have not written the NT portion yet that will someday be added to this canon for your complete Christian canon”.
5. Since there was no formalized OT canon and the apostles did not begin to write the first letter of the NT for 20 years and the last letter near John’s death, another 50 years, it is a solid conclusion that “canon of scripture”, Christian or otherwise, was not being thought of during the apostle’s lives.

The biggest difference in your argument and mine is that yours presupposes the church had it wrong, except for where it didn’t, for longer than it has it right. If you change your supposition it fits much better and, more importantly, you can say the church didn’t fail.

But it was, & since Jesus knew what it was & held the Jews accountable for knowing what it was, then it would not follow that Jesus kept the apostles in the dark about it, since He held them accountable for knowing what it was also.

Jesus quoting scripture has absolutely nothing to do with a canon. Jesus can quote scripture simply to back up his teaching position without expecting the hearer to know what the full canon of scripture is. And when He quotes scripture, it doesn’t mean that scripture is the “reason” for the teaching.

So, comparing the written & completed OT during Jesus’ time with the unwritten NT is not the same.

Since there was no formal OT canon, yes it is. They (OT & NT) came together in the same process.

Peace!!!

 

[adf417]

But the version of the LXX that Jesus used & affirmed is obviously the correct list.

The list is a basis only. Since there was no OT canon you are having to project a canon. There was no canon.

In terms of the NT, this 27 book canon was around prior to the councils, which was not in dispute by the time the councils convened.

Wrong and misleading-

The 27 books were around. MOST were being considered scripture. And many other books were also. There were disputes which is the reason for the councils.

The problem with the councils with the OT is that instead of using the version of the LXX from the early first century, they used a later 4th century version that was not identical with the first century edition.

If this is true I do not have a problem with it, since there was no OT canon in the 1st century.

Again, because unlike the OT canon which was written prior to the time of Christ which He affirmed, the NT canon had not been written yet. So, the two canons do not have the same issues.

Yes it was written prior to the time of Christ but not introduced into a canon till later. If this were an issue then the timeline of the writings of the NT are an issue also. One could say things like “no writings after the 1st apostle died can be considered scripture since all 12 were not there to testify to them”.

Peace!!!

 

[RaisedCatholic]

The Lutheran reformers would disagree that sola fide came out of the Reformation. They would say it came out of the early Church and scripture.

100% agree. I never implied that sola fide or sola scriptura, let alone the “smaller” Biblical canon first came out of the Reformation. When I said these things came out the Reformation, I was referring to the fact that Catholicism - as a whole - rejected all of these things. It was Reformers who rediscovered them.

And regarding the canon of scripture, the same kind of diversity of usage exists.
None of these are prerequisites to be a “Protestant”.

Again, what I was referring to, is that Protestants do not believe the Deuterocanon is God-breathed. If a person calls themselves “Protestant,” but believes these books are just as much inspired as the Protocanon (the Hebrew Bible) they are not sharing the rejection of these books by the earliest Protestant Reformers, including Luther, nor sharing this rejection with Protestants over the past 500 years.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Not necessarily. I do not know what Jesus (God incarnate) knew or didn’t know. I know he didn’t know everything - see Mt 24:26.

This had to do with His Second Coming, and this was specific. We cannot deduce from this that Jesus was not Omniscient, because that would mean that Jesus would not be God. In this single example from Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus simply restrained His Omniscience in order to glorify the Father. This doesn’t mean He “didn’t know everything,” such as what the OT canon boundaries were, since He - being God - is the Author of it, which is when He corrected the religious leaders, He asked them “Have you not read?” among 300 other metonyms like this which describe OT books, not just merely quoting or alluding to a passage, which simply states that particular verse, not the book itself, is inspired.

the apostles did not know what the canon was even being with Jesus for all that time

Is that your opinion? If so, how do you know objectively? Again, when Phillip found Nathanael, he was able to identify that Jesus was the long awaiting Jewish Messiah, by “the Law of Moses” as well as from “the Prophets.” Jesus not only rebuked the Jewish leaders for not knowing what the Scriptures with by saying “Have you not read?” & “It is written” etc, but He used these same metonyms with His disciples.

• If Jesus knows this he would have also known the OT would have not been sufficient for the new covenant.

Jesus knowing what the OT canon was doesn’t have anything to do with the New Covenant. The OT pointed towards Him, and He used it to correct those whose religious views were deviated from it.

• Telling his apostles what the OT canon was he (Jesus) would have also had to tell them at the same time - “but don’t consider this the complete canon of scripture boys because you guys have not written the NT portion yet that will someday be added to this canon for your complete Christian canon”.

Why would He have to do this? The whole point of Jesus referring back to the OT was that it pointed towards Him, and it was the source of Israel’s theology. Only OT God-breathed Scripture in Jesus’ time originated from God.

it is a solid conclusion that “canon of scripture”, Christian or otherwise, was not being thought of during the apostle’s lives.

That is opinion only. Again, while there was no formalized OT canon that ALL JEWS agreed on, that has never been the argument, since - again - the PHARISEES did agree on their canon, and it was their canon that Jesus affirmed in Luke 16.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

The biggest difference in your argument and mine is that yours presupposes the church had it wrong

No, that is not my argument at all. My argument is that Jesus & the apostles knew what the OT canon was, which can be demonstrated from the NT, and since the apostles were part of the original early first century church, they would have passed on to that early first century church what the OT canon was to demonstrate it prophesied Who the Messiah was, and that Jesus fulfilled those OT prophesies from that particular canon of the Pharisees. This also explains why it was the Pharisees in particular who came to Christ, like Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, etc. because they saw Jesus was fulfilling THEIR prophecies from THEIR OT canon. So, I believe the first century church “got it right.”

Since there was no formal OT canon, yes it is. They (OT & NT) came together in the same process.

What I meant by they were “not the same,” is because the OT was written before the time of Christ, while the NT wasn’t. Yes, they came by the same process - under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. But the NT wasn’t around during the time of Jesus, while the OT canon was.

Wrong and misleading-

The 27 books were around. MOST were being considered scripture.

Athanasius in AD 367 espoused to the exact same 27 books that were in the councils, which was about 20 years before the first of the fourth century councils convened.

If this is true I do not have a problem with it, since there was no OT canon in the 1st century.

Again, a formalized JEWISH canon - no. A formalized OLD TESTAMENT canon - yes, the canon of the Pharisees that Jesus affirmed.

Yes it was written prior to the time of Christ but not introduced into a canon till later.

You are confusing the formalization of an agreed Biblical canon in the later church at councils vs. the canon that existed in the first century but not agreed upon by all Jews, but affirmed by Jesus Himself.

 

[JonNC]

Again, what I was referring to, is that Protestants do not believe the Deuterocanon is God-breathed. If a person calls themselves “Protestant,” but believes these books are just as much inspired as the Protocanon (the Hebrew Bible) they are not sharing the rejection of these books by the earliest Protestant Reformers, including Luther, nor sharing this rejection with Protestants over the past 500 years.

Again, anyone can call themselves Protestant because it has no connotation of beliefs or doctrines. It is simply a category.
But using the baseline that what the reformers believed determines what is Protestant, IIRC, all of the leaders for the reformation era believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity.
Does that mean that no one can say they are Protestant if they do not hold to semper Virgo?

I am not aware of any of the reformers holding to pre- or post- millennialsm, or Darby style dispensationalism. Are those who hold these views therefore not Protestant?

 

[adf417]

Is that your opinion?

Not just mine…

…although there was no “Jewish canon” back then…

Jesus not only rebuked the Jewish leaders for not knowing what the Scriptures with by saying “Have you not read?” & “It is written” etc, but He used these same metonyms with His disciples.

Already addressed this. Jesus quoting scripture is not the same as Jesus affirming or claiming a canon. No matter how many times you allude to it.

Jesus knowing what the OT canon was doesn’t have anything to do with the New Covenant.

Nor does his not knowing.

Why would He have to do this?

Why would he have to do what? Fulfill my argument? Why would he have to fulfill yours? They are arguments of logic are they not. He, Jesus, dont HAVE TO do anything.

That is opinion only.

It is certainly an opinion as is yours.

Again, while there was no formalized OT canon that ALL JEWS agreed on, that has never been the argument, since - again - the PHARISEES did agree on their canon , and it was their canon that Jesus affirmed in Luke 16.

I dont know if Jesus did or did not affirm the canon of the Pharisees but lets assume he did. Are you asserting that this affirmation is confirmation that the Pharisees were the only Jews in the land and other Jews that held a different canon were not real children of God? That those who hold to the Protestant 66 book canon constitutes the only Christians? You do know we Catholics agree that your canon is scripture, right?

Peace!!!

 

[adf417]

No, that is not my argument at all.

I will wait for response on previous post…

What I meant by they were “not the same,” is because the OT was written before the time of Christ, while the NT wasn’t. Yes, they came by the same process - under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. But the NT wasn’t around during the time of Jesus, while the OT canon was.

And what i meant was they “became canon” in the same process. Yes by the Holy Spirit AND at the same time by the church guided by the Holy Spirit.

Athanasius in AD 367 espoused to the exact same 27 books that were in the councils, which was about 20 years before the first of the fourth century councils convened.

And i would speculate Athanasius was not the only one but the vast majority of the church had a different canon which defines “dispute”.

Again, a formalized JEWISH canon - no. A formalized OLD TESTAMENT canon - yes, the canon of the Pharisees that Jesus affirmed.

Which is only a partial canon as is the Protestant canon is today, maybe even the Catholic canon.

You are confusing the formalization of an agreed Biblical canon in the later church at councils vs. the canon that existed in the first century but not agreed upon by all Jews, but affirmed by Jesus Himself.

And you are confusing the fact that a Pharisaic canon is just not an OT canon. Why do you insist that the Pharisaic canon is the only OT canon to consider and at the same time say there was no formal OT canon?

Peace!!!

 

[RaisedCatholic]

But using the baseline that what the reformers believed determines what is Protestant, IIRC, all of the leaders for the reformation era believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Theological differences, like the Marian dogmas, are not the same as the formation of the canon itself. One could be “Protestant” and reject the PVM, but not embrace the Deuterocanon. Either something is God-breathed or it isn’t. And NONE of the Reformers, nor any Protestant in the last 500 years, ever believed they were inspired.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

I dont know if Jesus did or did not affirm the canon of the Pharisees but lets assume he did. Are you asserting that this affirmation is confirmation that the Pharisees were the only Jews in the land and other Jews that held a different canon were not real children of God?

You do know we Catholics agree that your canon is scripture, right?

As we would agree, a particular writing is either God-breathed or it is not. There is no “middle ground.” If Jesus affirmed that a particular writing, like 1 Enoch, was Inspired & it is not, then Jesus would be misleading His disciples, which is impossible. And what we would agree on is even if no one knew what the OT boundaries were, it existed during the time of Jesus. Some writings were God-breathed, the rest weren’t, but Jesus knew what it was. And while there “might” have been Jews, besides the Pharisees, who only embraced the exact same books Protestants share today, it doesn’t change the fact that Jesus affirmed that the OT boundaries were those of the Pharisees, not the Sadducees who embraced only the 5 books of Moses, & we don’t know what the Essenes embraced. We only know their library - in part.

Yes, I am well-aware that Catholics “agree” with the same books that Protestants embrace. But Catholics also believe Protestants are “missing” 7 books. However, there is no evidence of this from the NT, nor from early Jewish or Church history prior to the 4th century.

And you are confusing the fact that a Pharisaic canon is just not an OT canon. Why do you insist that the Pharisaic canon is the only OT canon to consider and at the same time say there was no formal OT canon?

Because as you correctly stated, not all Jews embraced the exact same books, like the Sadducees who only embraced the 5 books of Moses, while the Pharisees embraced them AND the Prophets which were the same as Protestant OTs. Therefore, there was no formalized JEWISH OT canon that all Jews agreed on. But the Pharisaic canon is the only one Jesus affirmed. In Matthew’s gospel, not only does He refer to the OT as “the Law AND the Prophets” but also “the Law OR the Prophets,” demonstrating that the Sadducees were “missing” the Prophets, thus their canon was incomplete. But the Pharisees embraced not only “the Law” but ALSO “the Prophets” too. And it was this canon of the Pharisees that Jesus embraced. And any Jew - even if they were not a Pharisee - who embraced this exact same canon, embraced the one that Jesus affirmed.

 

[JonNC]

You seem to have a remarkably narrow prerequisite here. You are welcome to it.
At least we agree that doctrine and practice are not such prerequisites. They never were.

 

[adf417]

Jesus affirmed that the OT boundaries were those of the Pharisees, not the Sadducees who embraced only the 5 books of Moses, & we don’t know what the Essenes embraced. We only know their library - in part.

No! Jesus does not affirm the OT boundaries. That would be the same as saying there was an official OT canon which you have also said there was not.

Again, by Jesus referring to the writings of the Pharisees does nothing for the “canon of scripture“. Also, by Jesus not referring to the writings of the Essenes does not mean He didn’t affirm those writings. And not only do “we know their library”, God did preserve it for a long time.

But Catholics also believe Protestants are “missing” 7 books. However, there is no evidence of this from the NT, nor from early Jewish or Church history prior to the 4th century.

:+1:t3: as there is no evidence of a NT canon itself as well which is why i have said, they are connected.

But the Pharisaic canon is the only one Jesus affirmed.

Well, you say you dont know what the Essenes had as canon so you dont know if Jesus, at the same time, doesn’t affirm the Essenes canon as well. Even if the Essenes have 81 book canon, Jesus affirming the Pharisees OT canon (in the manner you propose) is also affirming the Essenes canon at the same time.

Round and round we go RC. Not sure i can continue going in circles much longer, but in the mean time-
Peace!!!

 

[C.Longinus]

I ca,e ate to the party,

Here’s a link that should help with this: Protestant Myths About the Deuterocanon – Orthodox Christian Theology

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Jesus does not affirm the OT boundaries. That would be the same as saying there was an official OT canon which you have also said there was not.

Again, by Jesus referring to the writings of the Pharisees does nothing for the “canon of scripture“. Also, by Jesus not referring to the writings of the Essenes does not mean He didn’t affirm those writings. And not only do “we know their library”, God did preserve it for a long time

I think you are conflating two separate things: Yes, there was no official JEWISH OT canon which not ALL JEWS agreed on. But that is not the same thing as there being an official PHARISAIC OT canon. When Jesus affirmed the PHARISAIC canon in Luke 16:29, He did more than merely “referring” to them. The specific Greek for “have” in that verse (“echo”) means to “have possession” of something. Since Jews did not use the words “Old Testament” like we do today to discern between the “New Testament” which had not been written in the days of Jesus, in order to describe those “Old Testament” books, Jews like Philip the apostle used terms like “Moses & the Prophets” (John 1:45), like Jesus did in Luke 16:29, to describe this collection of books. So, by Jesus saying “They [the Pharisees] have [have possession of] Moses & the Prophets [the Old Testament],” Jesus was affirming their canon, which He did not do with the Sadducees, nor the Essenes, nor any other Jewish sect. He ONLY did this with the Pharisees.

This is what made their rejection of Jesus as their promised Jewish Messiah so heinous. They “had possession” of the complete OT canon. This is why their judgment - specifically by Jesus - was so great (Matthew Ch.23). Notice, He doesn’t give this kind of rebuke to the Sadducees or anyone else. This is why it was Pharisees - specifically - who were curious about him, like Simon the Pharisee who dined with Jesus (Luke 7:36,40), & Nicodemus the Pharisee (John 3:1), & Joseph of Arimathea, & the Pharisees who converted to Christianity who were present at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, who became followers of Christ. They all saw that Jesus was fulfilling the OT canon - specifically - of the Pharisees.

Regarding the Essenes, they had HUNDREDS of writings - most of which are not found in any Bible, including Catholic, Eastern & Oriental Orthodox Bibles. So, obviously, Jesus wasn’t referring to the OT canon of the Essenes, which was astronomically “bigger” & we don’t even know what it all encompassed, nor did Jesus even mention anything about the Essenes or their canon (assuming they had one), like He did when He mentioned the canon of the Pharisees in Luke 16:29.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

as there is no evidence of a NT canon itself as well which is why i have said, they are connected.

Because the NT wasn’t written yet, unlike the OT that was. That’s the point! Yes, they are “connected” as they are both inspired Scripture, but - again - the NT hadn’t been written yet. So, Jesus had no WRITTEN OT canon for Jesus to affirm like He did with the OLD Testament (ie: “it is WRITTEN”).

Not sure i can continue going in circles much longer,

No worries. But it’s because you keep conflating a JEWISH canon that not all Jews agreed on, with the PHARISAIC canon that Jesus affirmed. Again, not all Jews agreed on the same canon, but the Pharisees did. And it was the Pharisaic canon that Jesus affirmed, even though not all Jews embraced it.

I ca[m]e [l]ate to the party,

Better late then never! Much of what is in the article you posted was covered in the round table discussion. But the difference is that the discussion did not involve the later Masoretic Text, but the much earlier Hebrew Bible & what was included in its boundaries. Plus, Michael Lofton, the host of the show, and William Albrecht both acknowledged that they could not find a single Jewish source or council from antiquity who espoused to ALL 7 of the Deuterocanonical books. They also acknowledged that they could not find even ONE early church father or Christian writer or church council prior to the 4th century that espoused to ALL 7 books of the Deuterocanon. And even the 4th century church councils were not “universal” in the exact same books (Hippo & Carthage included 3 Esdras).

Yes, you can find ECFs who included “one or more” of the Deuterocanon, but not all 7. But as mentioned in the discussion, the Septuagint (LXX) had books ADDED TO it after the first century (source: Catholic author Gary Michuta, “Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger”), which is why you find “one or more” of these books in later editions of the LXX in the second century onward.

The argument in the round table surrounded the Pharisaic canon, which was identical to later Protestants (source: Jimmy Akin, Catholic Answers), and that Jesus affirmed the Pharisaic canon in Luke 16:29. So, when Paul talked about the “oracles of God” (Romans 3:2) which is a Biblical term to describe the OT Scriptures (Nahum 1:1; Habakkuk 1:1; Malachi 1:1; etc.), he was referring to the Pharisaic “oracles” since he himself was a Pharisee, not a Sadducee who were “missing” most of these “oracles.”

The discussion also addressed that Josephus referred to this canon of the Jews as a “22 book” collection that “made the hands unclean” which were “laid up in the Temple.” Origen defined this “22 book” canon as that of the books in the boundaries of the Hebrew Bible. But the host quickly cut off the speaker who was bringing up these important points.

 

[adf417]

Regarding the Essenes, they had HUNDREDS of writings -

Including the law and the prophets which is what Jesus actually said in Luke 16:29. Not “the canon of the Pharisees”.

But it’s because you keep conflating a JEWISH canon that not all Jews agreed on, with the PHARISAIC canon that Jesus affirmed.

Or its because you keep implying the “law and the prophets” were only in the Pharisaic canon. But then again maybe you know better about why i do what i do.

Peace!!!

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Including the law and the prophets which is what Jesus actually said in Luke 16:29. Not “the canon of the Pharisees”.

If you look back to Luke 16:14, it states the Pharisees were “LOVERS OF MONEY who were listening to EVERYTHING Jesus was saying.” Jesus then described TO THEM the OT as, “the Law & the Prophets” (v.16). He then describes a parable of a RICH MAN & his 5 brothers, who represented the MONEY LOVING Pharisees who were listening to everything He was saying. At the end of this parable, Jesus stated “they [the 5 brothers of the RICH MAN] have [have possession of] Moses & the Prophets [the OT]” (v.29). Jesus’ parable was about the Pharisees, which He did frequently in His parables & they knew He was talking about them (Luke 20:19).

So, when Jesus said “they have Moses & the Prophets,” He was referring to the Pharisees AND affirming their canon that they “possessed” that was identical to that of later Protestants. The Pharisees would have understood “the Law (or Moses) & the Prophets” the same way Philip did (John 1:45) - limited to that “smaller” canon.

But then again maybe you know better about why i do what i do.

No, it’s not that. It’s just that you keep meshing a “Jewish canon” that not all Jews agreed on, with a specific “Pharisaic canon.” Again, yes, not all JEWS agreed on the same canon, but the PHARISEES did. And it was the Pharisaic canon that Jesus affirmed when He described the OT as “the Law (or Moses) & the Prophets” which He stated the PHARISEES “had possession” of (Luke 16:29).