Gary Michuta to debate OT canon

[RaisedCatholic]

we don’t have a definition of who exactly all the Pharisees considered inspired. Don’t ever assume that any group of Pharisees agreed with other Pharisees. It’s quite likely that they varied in opinions on this.

Yet, Jimmy Akin right here from Catholic Answers stated the Pharisaic canon & the Protestant canon were identical. Christie quoted NewAdvent.org that the differences between the Pharisaic schools of Shammai & Hillel were “theoretical differences” but not enough to count any of these books out of their canon. And by the time of Jesus, even He affirmed the Pharisaic canon, which Christie brought up both in the debate & in his book, by quoting Jesus from the Gospel of Luke, which demonstrates by that time, there was a fixed Pharisaic canon. Assuming there wasn’t is merely speculation.

Another consideration is the the term Moses and the Prophets is just a way to say “ the Bible “… an everyday term without a specific definition

But as Christie pointed out in the debate, they wouldn’t have said “Old Testament,” because there was no “NEW Testament” back then. Terms like “Moses & the Prophets” & “the Law & the Prophets” were terms they used instead of “Old Testament.” And Christie pointed out that the “Bible” of the Pharisees were identical that of later Protestants, which is why Jesus used that these two terms with them & stated “They have Moses & the Prophets” - meaning having possession of the OT canon, which Jesus did not say about any other Jewish sect, including the Sadducees or the Essenes.

another is that the diaspora Jews may not agree with the Jerusalem Jews. Quite likely, in fact. Which books would they have disputed or had disagreement with? The books in the Deutero most likely.

Agreed. There is no evidence prior to the second century AD that ANY Jew embrace ALL 7 books of the Deuterocanon. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls have only produced TWO books from the Deuterocanon, while listing virtually every book from the Protocanon, except Esther. But Christie even points out in his book that a writing called “Proto Esther” - which was a commentary on Esther - WAS found in the DSS, so they were certainly aware of the book, despite not being found.

While books like Esther were in dispute even into the church age, like Christie pointed out in the debate, that is the exception that proves the rule because both Jews & early Christians enumerated the OT books as “only 22 books” which are the same books in Protestant OTs, only grouped differently. And we can only get to “22 books” if Esther is included. And that the time frame of these “only 22 books” are from the time of Moses to the death of Artaxerxes which would end around 400 BC. And this is when the last of the Protocanon (Nehemiah) was written.

So, while these are popular arguments which I have heard as well, Christie did a good job addressing them, & bringing up others, which Gary did not seem to be able to answer.

 

[JohnR77]

While books like Esther were in dispute even into the church age, like Christie pointed out in the debate, that is the exception that proves the rule because both Jews & early Christians enumerated the OT books as “only 22 books” which are the same books in Protestant OTs, only grouped differently. And we can only get to “22 books” if Esther is included. And that the time frame of these “only 22 books” are from the time of Moses to the death of Artaxerxes which would end around 400 BC. And this is when the last of the Protocanon (Nehemiah) was written.

I finally was able to work all the way through to the end of the debate yesterday.

Please state clearly what is the exception.

Please state clearly what is the rule.

Please state clearly how the exception proves the rule.

Thank you.
John

 

[Pattylt]

I’m not sure this link will prove or disprove either side of the debate but it is interesting in that the author shows that authority was a developing process. While Christianity developed the NT Canon from top down, the Jews developed the Canon more from the bottom up. It was community developed, not a Magesterium and differing communities had different authoritative texts.
Anyway, here’s the link…

https://www.ancientjewreview.com/articles/2015/12/1/understanding-the-emergence-of-the-jewish-canon

I’m not sure there is any “proof” of either when exactly or which books were closed before the second century. There are arguments both ways.

 

[adf417]

Just out of curiosity, since you read Gary’s, are you going to be objective & read Christie’s too

Sure am but i dont think that constitutes me being objective.

Peace!!!

 

[Dan_Defender]

The Dead Sea Scrolls have more in common with the Septuagint than with the Masoretic Text. That is good enough for me.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

I finally was able to work all the way through to the end of the debate yesterday.

Please state clearly what is the exception.

Please state clearly what is the rule.

Please state clearly how the exception proves the rule.

Christie demonstrated that the “22 books” that were written “from Moses to the death of Artaxerxes” (before 400 BC) must include Esther, because when this number is calculated by Josephus in the first century (and then by later early catholic fathers), it MUST include Esther to arrive at that number. Josephus begins by mentioning “the 5 books of Moses,” & then lists “13 books” plus “4 hymns of God.” The way Josephus comes to 13 books is by organizing & merging these “pre-Artaxerxes”" books back to their original form:

Joshua, (Ruth-Judges), (I & II Samuel), (I & II Kings), Isaiah, (Jeremiah-Lamentations), Ezekiel, Job, Esther, Daniel, (Ezra-Nehemiah), (I & II Chronicles) = 12 books
(Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi) = 1 book

12 books + 1 book = 13 books

The only “4 hymns of God” that were written prior to 400 BC were the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, & Song of Solomon. (All of the Deuteros were written a couple hundred years later).

So, when you add the 5 books of Moses + the 13 books (including Esther) + 4 hymns of God = 22 books. This number comes up in later lists, which includes Esther. So, when you find lists that omit Esther, that is the exception that proves the rule (like Melito who only lists 21 books, because he omits Esther). This seems to be what Christie was getting across in the debate, just not in this detail by individualizing every single book, due to the time crunch in the debate & the fact that is is more difficult to visualize lists broken down like this verbally.

RaisedCatholic:

Just out of curiosity, since you read Gary’s, are you going to be objective & read Christie’s too

Sure am but i dont think that constitutes me being objective.

The fact that you are willing to read it, and compare his arguments written in his book to Gary’s, rather than just reading Gary’s without also reading Christie’s demonstrates your objectivity.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

While Christianity developed the NT Canon from top down, the Jews developed the Canon more from the bottom up. It was community developed, not a Magesterium and differing communities had different authoritative texts.

As Christie pointed out, while the Jews - as a whole - did not have a set canon, the Pharisees…at least by the time of Jesus…did. This is significant, since Christie stated that the Pharisees - specifically - had possession of the OT canon, which he brought up in the debate & his book. So, the fact there were “differing communities” with “different authoritative texts,” doesn’t affect Christie’s argument, since he is not arguing that ALL Jews agreed on the exact same books.

Anyway, here’s the link…I’m not sure there is any “proof” of either when exactly or which books were closed before the second century. There are arguments both ways.

Thanks. I will check it out later & share my thoughts. Again, as far as “proof” of an agreed upon JEWISH canon. No, even Christie acknowledged this. As far as a defined PHARISAIC canon, this is what he is arguing for, which even Jimmy Akin agreed, because he said they had the same OT canon as later Protestants. Ergo, there apparently was a “defined” Pharisaic canon back then.

By the first century, it is clear that the Pharisees held to the twenty-two or twenty-four book canon, and it was this canon that eventually became the canon of Rabbinic Judaism because the majority of those who founded the Jewish faith after the destruction of Jerusalem were Pharisees.

This ending from the article you posted is the argument Christie is making.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

The Dead Sea Scrolls have more in common with the Septuagint than with the Masoretic Text. That is good enough for me.

In terms of the much LATER Septuagint that included not only the books in the Hebrew Bible & the Deuterocanon, but ALSO HUNDREDS of Apocryphal writings, this is true. But the DSS included virtually every book from the Hebrew Bible (except Esther, even though Proto Esther WAS found in the DSS, which demonstrates the Essenes were aware of Esther & most likely embraced it). And only TWO books from the Deuterocanon were found in the DSS, & a Greek translation of the epistle of Jeremiah (which is only one chapter).

So, in terms of the books found in the DSS, they aren’t good evidence for either the Protestant nor Catholic OT canons, since they lack most of the Deuteros & include hundreds of books not found in either canon. Yet, they do include virtually all the books from the Hebrew Bible, which is something to ponder on.

 

[adf417]

The fact that you are willing to read it, and compare his arguments written in his book to Gary’s, rather than just reading Gary’s without also reading Christie’s demonstrates your objectivity.

Not really. All it demonstrates is my willingness to read it and compare, right. One can read and compare without being objective, correct? Examples of this can be witnessed here on CAF everyday.

Peace!!!

 

[adf417]

And for the record, im certain my “comparison” is not worth much either. I just googled Christie’s book so i could buy it and this was my google search - “gary christie book why protestant bibles are bigger”. Thank God for google. Even google knows protestant bibles are “smaller” and Christie dont like Gary THAT much.

 

[JohnR77]

As far as a defined PHARISAIC canon, this is what he is arguing for, which even Jimmy Akin agreed, because he said they had the same OT canon as later Protestants. Ergo, there apparently was a “defined” Pharisaic canon back then

.
.

If Jimmy Akin said what you think he said in regards to the Pharisees at the time of Jesus then Jimmy Akin was Most likely wrong. There is physical evidence to the contrary and there is no good supporting argument That could be made that it is likely to be true.

However most likely you misunderstood Jimmy Akin.
He sometimes does speak and use unprecise terms on the Canon.

John

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Not really. All it demonstrates is my willingness to read it and compare, right. One can read and compare without being objective, correct? Examples of this can be witnessed here on CAF everyday.

Well, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt & attempting to be civil & charitable with you.

Even google knows protestant bibles are “smaller” and Christie dont like Gary THAT much.

I don’t know about the latter. They both seemed to be pretty civil with each other during the debate. And Christie stated more than once between the two debates that he considered it a privilege to debate Gary, which Gary returned in kind. That doesn’t sound like they didn’t like each other. Debates can get heated sometimes, but I don’t know if it’s fair to say debaters don’t “like” each other, just because they disagree on the topic they are debating.

If Jimmy Akin said what you think he said in regards to the Pharisees at the time of Jesus then Jimmy Akin was Most likely wrong.

However most likely you misunderstood Jimmy Akin.

I watched the video that Jimmy Akin made on Catholic Answers regarding the development of the OT. You can watch it on YouTube. It’s titled “How did the Old Testament canon develop?” In the video, Jimmy explicitly stated that the Pharisees honored a more broader canon than the Sadducees (who only held to the 5 books of Moses) that contained everything today we find in the Protestant OT. Gary’s reason for saying this seemed to be to defend the Catholic OT, because he goes on to state that Jesus & His disciples held to the Septuagint, which he stated (and assumed) included the Deuterocanon. IOW, he was saying the reason the Pharisees/Protestant canon was smaller was because they weren’t using the Septuagint. However, when Jesus corrected the Pharisees on one occasion, he asked them “Have you not read?” & then quoted the Septuagint. Therefore, we know the Pharisees did utilize it. So, the question is: since the Pharisees espoused to a “smaller” canon than Catholics to, & since they did utilize the Septuagint, is it fair to say the Septuagint in Jesus’ day also “smaller” than later versions of the Septuagint that were “bigger” & closer to the modern-day Catholic OT? This is one of the arguments in Christie’s book & in the debate.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

There is physical evidence to the contrary and there is no good supporting argument That could be made that it is likely to be true.

I don’t know. When I read through the NT, when it specifically cites the Septuagint as Scripture (“It is written” / “the Scriptures say” etc) it never once cites the Deuterocanon AS Scripture, including books alluded to over 100 times, such as Sirach & Wisdom. And Christie’s argument is that there is historical evidence that the Pharisees espoused to this smaller canon, despite the different Pharisaic schools questioning certain books. For example, Shammai questioned some of the Writings, while Hillel did not. In a recent interview with Catholic Matt Fradd, Gary even admitted Hillel included the Writings (including Esther, Ecclesiastes, & Song of Songs). And the apostle Paul was from the Pharisaic school of Hillel, not Shammai. And as Christie pointed out in their debate questioning something is not the same thing as rejecting it, as these books from the Writings were still included in the school of Shammai - meaning they never removed these books from the canon. Christie even cited NewAdvent.org (a Catholic online encyclopedia that Catholic Answers utilized extensively) where it affirms this.

Let me know your thoughts on the book once you get it & finish reading it.

 

[adf417]

I don’t know about the latter. They both seemed to be pretty civil with each other during the debate. And Christie stated more than once between the two debates that he considered it a privilege to debate Gary, which Gary returned in kind. That doesn’t sound like they didn’t like each other. Debates can get heated sometimes, but I don’t know if it’s fair to say debaters don’t “like” each other, just because they disagree on the topic they are debating.

I think you missed the pun. See: my google search above.

 

[Mintaka]

Too much going on here to respond to everything… but there are a lot of references to Baruch in early sources that use the name “Jeremiah” to mean Baruch. Also, there are a ton of early rabbinical sources that seem to say that Sirach was in their canon, and that there were a lot of rabbis upset about him being taken out.

The 22 books thing was “oh, yeah, let’s make sure we have the same number of books as there are letters in the Hebrew alphabet.” So there were a lot of cases where people were cramming books together and counting them as one book (especially if you could write really small and cram it onto one scroll). I think this is silly, but it was meaningful to ancient people, and it was a sort of incentive for cutting the number of books in the Jewish canon.

And the same thing happened with Greek speaking Jews. They were happy to say there were 24 books in the Septuagint, just as there were 24 letters in the Greek alphabet. Any Christians saying there were 22 books were kind of a throwback.

I find it hilarious that anyone uses “same number as the letters in the alphabet” as a serious point of fact, when we know the numbers were fudged all the time!

 

[RaisedCatholic]

there are a lot of references to Baruch in early sources that use the name “Jeremiah” to mean Baruch. Also, there are a ton of early rabbinical sources that seem to say that Sirach was in their canon

Yes, but as Christie mentioned in the debates these references to Baruch being included with Jeremiah are later in the church age, because by then it was in later versions of the Septuagint. But in Christie’s book, he points out that in the Dead Sea Scrolls there is a Greek version of the epistle of Jeremiah, and the books of Jeremiah and lamentations, but not Baruch. This seems to imply that Baruch was not originally part of the book of Jeremiah and neither was the epistle.

And we do find examples of this such as the list of Origen which separates lamentations from Jeremiah, and even the epistle of Jeremiah, but not Baruch. And his point about the Council of Rome is that it separates each individual book from the Protocannon and Deuterocanon Including lamentations. But it doesn’t mention Baruch. His point being that lamentations was originally part of Jeremiah, but the council separated it as a separate book from Jeremiah, but the council doesn’t do this with Baruch even though it was not originally part of Jeremiah like lamentations was.

As far as Sirach, the Rabbis that you speak of may be Jews in the early church era. But the only collection of writings that Sirach was included in prior to the time of Christ were the Essenes, but they included hundreds of writings not found in any Old Testament. And the DSSs did not include most of the Deuterocanon.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

The 22 books thing was “oh, yeah, let’s make sure we have the same number of books as there are letters in the Hebrew alphabet.”

This was really no different then early Christians in the second century who said there were four Gospels just as there are four directions of the wind: north east south and west. They were using hyperbole, not that there had to be 22 books because there are 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet, or that there had to be four Gospels because they were for directions of the wind. Like you said, they grouped certain books together like the 12 minor prophets, which even Sirach acknowledges was one original book. Christie’s point was that these 22 books were the same writings that are in protestant old testaments today, just some books were grouped together like the 12. And you see this number 22 books pop up by early Jews and Christians in early church age, which only include the books that are in promised an old testament today, with the exception of Baruch, but not consistently.

I do think Christie made a valid point in the Debate though. Since Jesus is God, He knew whether or not books in orthodox Bibles like third and fourth Maccabees were scripture. And Gary did admit that the apostles also knew because Jesus passed that down to them who walked with Him 24/7 for 3+ years, and they were the leaders of the early first century church. So they knew too. So why did the ecumenical council of Trent pass over in silence these same books, rather than stating they are or are not scripture, if they are the same church from the first century that Jesus and His apostles passed this information down to? I think it’s a valid question, and Gary never gave him an answer. In fact I don’t think he even attempted to. And so far no one on this forum has given a really good reason why Trent didn’t know. I would really be curious to hear a good argument for that.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

but there are a lot of references to Baruch in early sources that use the name “Jeremiah” to mean Baruch.

One other really relevant point Christie made in the debate: when Jerome translated the Latin Vulgate, he utilized the Septuagint, & he could not find Baruch in it, indicating that early versions of the Septuagint did not originally include Baruch, which means it was added to later versions. Thought that was an interesting point.

 

[JohnR77]

Christie Seems to misunderstand
“the exception proves the rule”
Principal.
I will explain more later
John

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Please do. I am making a comment to keep the thread open so you can explain. Based on the debate, Christie seems to be saying when lists of ECFs mention the OT books, they list them as “only 22 books” which includes Esther which is how Josephus would have categorized them. When those like Melito omitted Esther it resulted in 21 books instead of 22. That seems to be what Christie meant by this is the exception that proves the rule - 22 books includes Esther, not 21.