In one talk I heard on the Canon, when Luther presented his position against purgatory - and his claim to stand on the Biblical authority - the Catholic quoted 2 Maccabees. He said Luther’s response was just shock. He was proven wrong. Luther’s jaw just dropped.
I did not but i did see where Michuta did state the same in his new book. (With no reference)
I am afraid this is a bit of revisionist history, as I have read a lot about Luther & his Leipsic debate against Eck. By the time Luther got to the debate, he had been convicted from his research that the Jews of antiquity did not embrace 2 Maccabees, nor the other Deuteros specifically as Scripture. That is why he did not allow the 2 Maccabees into the discussion, because he had not recognized it as inspired Scripture by then. Plus, Christie points out that the 2 Maccabees passage does not teach Purgatory the way we understand it today, because their act would have resulted in a grave sin, which they would have ended up in Hell, not Purgatory. And there is no evidence that Luther’s response resulted in “shock” or “jaw dropping.” I am afraid that is the embellishment of much later non-Protestants. @adf417
After listening to the debate again, Christie goes onto to say that the Jews from antiquity embraced an “only 22 book” canon, which would have included not only “the Prophets” but also “the Writings” when merged back to their original form (like the 12 “minor” Prophets in one book), which would have to include Esther, otherwise, you only get TWENTY-ONE books like in Melito’s list that omits Esther, unlike Origen’s “only 22 book” list which INCLUDES Esther. Eusebius, citing Irenaeus, states the this time period was from Moses to the death of Artaxerses, which was before 400 BC, which would have included ALL the books from the Hebrew Bible (including Esther, because it was written before 400 BC), but not the Deuteros. This same “only 22 books” Josephus also states was from Moses to Artaxerses. This is what Christie is saying that “the exception proves the rule.” He is referring to this “only 22 book” OT canon “from Moses to Artaxerxes,” which INCLUDED Esther, which despite not being found in “some” OT lists in the early church isn’t the “rule” since you can only get 22 books by INCLUDING Esther. Otherwise, you get TWENTY ONE books, not 22. So, where Esther is not listed (like by Melito), that is not the “rule,” but the EXCEPTION that proves the rule. [CONTINUED] @Pattylt
Again, the context of Christie’s statement is in Origen’s OT list, he does not mention any of the 12 “minor” prophets. And that’s because the Jews of antiquity would have included them under “Jeremiah” since he was the first of the OT prophets in their “lists.” It would be extremely odd that Origen would not have mentioned ANY of them, especially Zechariah, Malachi, Jonah, & Joel, since Jesus & the NT writers cited them specifically as OT prophecies about Jesus. All Christie is saying is that by including the minor prophets under Jeremiah the way the Jews of antiquity did, that would explain why lists (like Origen’s) omitted them…not because he didn’t consider them as inspired Scripture…but because Origen was including them under Jeremiah, much the way Lamentations is included under Jeremiah, even if it is not mentioned specifically, such as in the 4th century church councils of Hippo & Carthage, but IS at Rome.
See above. Christie’s point was that although Baruch is found in some ancient LATER lists in the 4th Century, like in Cyril of Jerusalem & Augustine, it isn’t found in EARLIER lists, like Melito & Origen. And unlike Baruch, Lamentations was originally part of the book of Jeremiah, which is why it is enumerated in Origen’s list as well as in the Council of Rome, apart from the book of Jeremiah, while Baruch is not. Christie’s other point is if Baruch was ORIGINALLY part of Jeremiah, like Lamentations was, they “why” does the Council of Rome enumerate Lamentations apart from Jeremiah, but not Baruch too, if they were BOTH part of Jeremiah? And why does the Council of Rome enumerate EVERY Deuterocanonical book, except for Baruch? Why does it enumerate EVERY Protocanonical book, including EVERY ONE of the twelve “minor” prophets BY NAME, but doesn’t enumerate Baruch, despite enumerating Lamentations & EVERY Protocanonical book? So, there is no “double standard” by Christie. His case must be understood in “ALL” of his arguments put together, not just a snippet here & there from the debate taken what he said out of context. [CONTINUED]
Not sure what “website” you are referring to. But after listening to the debates again, Christie stated that the book of BARUCH couldn’t have been written by the scribe Baruch mentioned in Jeremiah, who also wrote Lamentations, since they were ORIGINALLY a single book (they were divided into two separate writings much later), because Baruch had been long dead by the time the book of Baruch was written. Christie even affirmed this by citing Jewish sources that dates the book of Baruch “before 164 BC,” which was hundreds of years after Baruch the scribe had died. So, there are no double standards here. Whenever we see apparent “different standards” by someone we don’t agree with theologically, we must not take individual statements they say, without taking the WHOLE of their argument into consideration. Otherwise, we risk taking what they say out of context, & accuse them of saying things they either didn’t say, or accuse them of things they aren’t doing.
I will offer my opinion on this again-
I don’t know why either but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t know Or have an opinion.
While that is a popular opinion, when Jesus said “Have you not read?” and then only cited books from the Hebrew Bible, He was expecting them to know what it was. The apostles, like Philip, knew what they were, because they were able to recognize Jesus as their promised Jewish Messiah based on the OT Scriptures (John 1:45). Likewise, the “full & definitive doctrine of the Trinity” & Mary being the mother of Jesus, Who is God, is easily discernible from the NT Scriptures, which were taken from the words of Jesus Himself, and then written down later. So, the first century church knew that Jesus was God & that Mary gave birth to Jesus Who was/is God, and they knew that the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit were all co-equally & co-eternally God. Likewise, the apostles, who were the leaders of the early church, knew what was and was not OT Scripture. So, the early church did know. This is what Christie was asking in the debate, when he asked “How can the Catholic Church not know what the OT canon is, since Jesus, His disciples, and the first century church did know, since He expected them to know?” Especially, since the church of Rome is dated back to the first century, which the apostle Paul even wrote to, who also knew what the OT canon was. I think it’s a fair question, which I don’t understand why Gary was not able to answer it.
Yet, Christie asked him numerous times, including in the Q&A session, but he remained silent. I am sure he has an opinion, which may be the same as yours & others, but he was given ample time to answer it, but didn’t. This is odd, since he has written extensively on the subject. It would seem if anyone would know, it would be him.
I have too. And Christie addressed some of the problems with it, like his assumption that NT books are referencing later Deuterocanonical books, when in reality they are referencing earlier Protocanonical books, including Wisdom 2:13-20. Even these verses are citing books from the Protocanon. Christie even addressed that Hebrews 11 isn’t addressing the boundaries of the OT canon, since - among other reasons - 2 Maccabees isn’t the last of the Deuterocanonical books, and it even cites the Martydom & Ascension of Isaiah, which is not in Catholic OTs. Or that it isn’t actually citing 2 Maccabees specifically as Scripture, since it doesn’t use a metonym, like it does with the books from the Protocanon.