The Protestant Canon

[Circle_Master]

While I am visiting this board I am learning more about Catholicism. I was thinking you guys could learn a little more about protestantism as well. I posted an article on the NT Canon before, however, it was not written to issue the apocryphal books so was not very helpful. This article here is written for that purpose, and you can see some of the arguments we use.

http://www.bible.org/docs/theology/biblio/bib.htm

I can already see people disagreeing about some things, but I would suggest that if you do disagree, don't just say it, come back with your example that proves it wrong. It is easy to make lists, but hard to find a single example sometimes.

oh yeah.. read the entire thing too. It will be more helpful :)

Edited December 31, 2003 by Circle_Master

[beng]

This is all tried and done. Anyway

Some quick response (I'll work on more later)

1. Though there are some allusions to the apocryphal books by New Testament writers (Hebrews 11:35 compares with 2 Maccabees 7, 12) there is no direct quote from them. Also, no New Testament writer ever refers to any of these fourteen or fifteen books as authoritative. Quotes from the accepted books are usually introduced by the phrase, “It is written,” or the passage is quoted to prove a point. But never do the New Testament writers quote the Apocrypha in this way.

If Protestants want to be consistent with "Not directly quoted in New Testament, not canonical" then Protestants have to scrap:

1. Joshua

2. Judges

3. Ruth

4. 2 Kings

5. 1 Chronicles

6. 2 Chronicles

7. Ezra

8. Nehemiah

9. Esther

10. Ecclesiastes

11. Song of Solomon

12. Lamentation

13. Obaja

14. Nahum

15. Zephaniah

Protestant would have a very thin Bible.

2. There is no evidence that the books were in the Septuagint as early as the time of Christ. Remember, the earliest manuscripts that have them date back to the fourth century A.D. Even if they were in the Septuagint at this early date, it is noteworthy that neither Christ nor the apostles ever quoted from them.

As of now, I'm not going to research on evidence of Septaguint in the earlier years. I know I read them somewhere (this topic is old, so there are alot of apologist discussing it). However I could give one word "Josephus".

Now, about how Christ and the apostle NEVER quoted Deutero-canonical. Well, it must be admited that Christ and the apostles never DIRECTLY quoted Deutero-canonicals books. But if we're willing to maintain this requirement to judge which OT book is canonical, then we would have to scrap books from the above list. They're never directly quoted.

However to say that Christ and the Apostle NEVER quoted (not directly quoted) Deuterocanonical, then it seems a little investigating is in order.

1. Relation between Sirach 4:1 and Mark 10:19-21

One day a young man came to Christ and ask what should he do to earn eternal life. To him, Christ said, "Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother." (Mark 10:19).

The problems we have is with the underline verse. In the Greek New Testament the underline words are not written in bold, indicating that they are not quotes from Old Testament.

Some people try to reconcile the underline quote by saying:

a. It's actually the 10th commandment restated

b. It's a different way to phrase the 8th commandment

These objections have serious flaws (to save time, it will not be discussed).

However, it would be alot easier to reconcile if Christ quoted the defraud not from Jesus ben Sirach (Sirach). The commandment defraud not on Mark 10:19 used "me apostereses" as with Sirakh 4:1, which is "SON, defraud not (me apostereses) the poor of alms"

The relationship between Sir 4:1 and Mark 10-19 is not only about the similiarity of the word used (me apostereses), but also the similiarity of the theme. Both verse talk about Justice and generousity/modesty to the poor, which, more often than not, receive unjust treatment from the rich. If in Sir 4:1 there's one advice for a son (young man) to: "SON, defraud not (me apostereses)the poor of alms", in Mark 10:21 Jesus said to a young man, "One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me."

Now, let examine verse by verse:

Sirach 4:1

teknon, ten zoen tou ptochou me apostereses

SON, defraud not the poor of alms, and turn not away thy eyes from the poor.

Mark 10:19-21

...me apostereses... upagehosa echeis poleson kai dos ptochois

"Thou knowest the commandments...Defraud not..."

"...sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven:"

This little experiment shows how Christ acknowledged Sirach's authority as Exodus' (10th commandment is in exodus), which is obviously protocanonical.

2. Relationship between Sirach 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 2:6-9

In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul said that to the mature he speaks of wisdom of God that none of the princes of this world knew. A "wisdom" that which God ordained before the world. Concerning this "wisdom" Paul wrote:

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard,

neither have entered into the heart of man,

the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. (1 Cor 2:9)

We might wanna ask, from which Paul quoted the underline word? Now this is important because in the begining Paul said But as it is written, so he got to be quoting from the Old Testament!!!!.

The phrase, "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard," comes from Isiah 64:3 and 53:15. The phrase "neither have entered into the heart of man," is probably a rephrase from Jeremiah 3:16, "neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it. Both have the same idea.

But where did Paul quote the last phrase from, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.??

In Sirach 1:10 we have, And he poured her out upon all his works, and upon all flesh according to his gift, and hath given her[wisdom] to them that love him. This will provide plausible reconciliation to what Paul said!!!

Both Sirach 1:1-10 and 1 Cor 2:6-9 are talking about God's wisdom and the characteristic of this wisdom. According to Sirach 1:1-10 God's wisdom hath been created before all things, and God hath given her[wisdom] to them that love him.. Also in 1 Cor 2:6-9 Paul was talking about a wisdom that God ordained before the world which God hath prepared for them that love him.

Let examine the verse by verse:

Sirach 1:1-10

Wisdom hath been created before all things,...

...And he poured her out upon all his works, and upon all flesh according to his gift,

and hath given her to them that love him (tois agaposin auton)

1 Cor 2:6-9

But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man,

the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. (tois agaposin auton)

Examine the similiarity of the two pericopes, both in the word "tois agaposin auton or the theme about God's wisdom and its characteristics.

Again, to repeat, it is important to note that initially, Paul started with "as it is written". Meaning that he's quoting from scriptures (Old Testament). Not only that, but Paul considered Sirach is of equal authority with the book of Isaiah and the book of Jeremiah!!!.

If anyone has any objection, then I suggest he looks, in protocanonical OT, book that has "the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." (tois agaposin auton). Not only that, the protocanonical verses should have the same theme, and that is describing God's wisdom and its characteristic.

There many many other similiarties. I just mentioned two of the most important one. They are important because:

1. Christ regarded Sirach has the same authority as Exodus.

2. Paul CLEARLY stated that he's quoting scriptures, thus Sirach WAS and IS scripture.

OK, this is all that I could conjure (well, I'm gonna see ROTK tomorrow so ). It's late. All of the above I got from my little handy apologetic books.

As for other objections... well, this is a tired and tried debate (do I get the saying right?). If you search the net you would find millions of answer to those Apocrypha claims. I just hope that my little labor help you to see that Catholic position is not without reason.

Edited December 31, 2003 by beng

[jasJis]

Why do Protestants insist that Jesus' Authority that was given to the Apostles and instructed to pass it on, would be so inconsistent? :seesaw: Wasn't the Authority that determined the Canon of God's Word 1700+ years ago really wasn't "authorized" and God waited :birds: until just 500+ years ago to finally bestow Authority to determine what really is His Word? :deal:

Where is Bruce's desire for consistency that he says doesn't exist in the Catholic Church and the reason why he holds it as in error? hmmm

:haha:

[Circle_Master]

Beng... the article said ONE of the ways was a direct quotation and he put several disclaimers on that showing that some were quoted and were not Scripture. You are taking the article out of context... your entire post is worthless. Please read critically so we can get decent discussion.

[jasJis]

Beng... the article said ONE of the ways was a direct quotation and he put several disclaimers on that showing that some were quoted and were not Scripture. You are taking the article out of context... your entire post is worthless. Please read critically so we can get decent discussion.

::

Circle_Master

Now I know why you picked that name. :wall:

[beng]

Beng...  the article said ONE of the ways was a direct quotation and he put several disclaimers on that showing that some were quoted and were not Scripture.  You are taking the article out of context... your entire post is worthless.  Please read critically so we can get decent discussion.

I did say that I'm not finished yet.

It's 8 points. And refuting two already took me so much.

Edited December 31, 2003 by beng

[Circle_Master]

I'm glad you aren't done then. And your reference to Josephus doesn't help you either. I've read large chunks of Josephus and at least in everything I read he doesn't reference any of them being in the Septuagint.

1. Christ regarded Sirach has the same authority as Exodus.

2. Paul CLEARLY stated that he's quoting scriptures, thus Sirach WAS and IS scripture.

You can not say clearly from any of them. Saying that Christ reguarded it as having authority, well, He doesn't say He is quoting does He? He is just regurgitating them. If you think finding a pattern of two words somewhere means without a doubt that it is quoted, then we're going to have to have things such as Genesis 1 completely quoted from Egyptian poems as well.

As for the Paul statement, if you read the past verse in Isaiah 64:4, it can fit the last quotation. The Sirach one itself is not a perfect match-up either.

[ironmonk]

So many protestants... all with very different doctrines... you should be more specific when you say "we" in regards to protestants...

We've got:

Lutherean

Presbyterian

Protestant Episcopalian

Baptist

Weslyan

Church of Christ

Church of God

7th Day Adventists

Mennonite

Congregationalist

Non-Denoms - thousands upon thousands of them

Methodist

Salvation Army

Christian Science

Pentacostal

etc....

.... all under the umbrella of 'protestant'... all with different teachings... so, just because someone says "protestant churches teach this..." and if your group doesn't believe that, then don't get in a big huff over it... because there are other protestant churches that have the teachings.

Now, in regards to Catholic Teaching, there is only one official teaching... if there are heretical priests teaching contrary to what the Vatican (Magisterium) says to teach, then they are breaking a vow to God - or - they are ignorant of the teaching.

To fully understand what we mean when we say "Magisterium", please see this link... http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

If you don't feel like reading and would prefer to listen to what the Church teaches, you can find Real Player/Windows Media Player files at:

http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/intro.asp

Other Audio:

http://www.catholicity.com/maryfoundation/previewtapes.html

http://www.maxbrackett.com/audio01.asp

Your Servant,

ironmonk

[Circle_Master]

that is why I wrote "some of the arguments we use". I cannot claim to speak for all protestants, but as one, and since I am using these arguments, they are some that protestants use.

thanks.

now back to topic, beng, please continue when you get time.

Edited December 31, 2003 by Circle_Master

[ironmonk]

You can not say clearly from any of them. Saying that Christ reguarded it as having authority, well, He doesn't say He is quoting does He? He is just regurgitating them. If you think finding a pattern of two words somewhere means without a doubt that it is quoted, then we're going to have to have things such as Genesis 1 completely quoted from Egyptian poems as well.

As for the Paul statement, if you read the past verse in Isaiah 64:4, it can fit the last quotation. The Sirach one itself is not a perfect match-up either.

Christ and the Apostles only had the Septuagint as Scripture.

It wasn't until 90 AD when the Massorah was completed. The Jews had the authority taken away from them, what gave them the right to take books out?

How did we come to have the New Testament canon? because of the Councils of the Catholic Church. Hippo and Carthage... by what authority? the authority given to the Church by Christ. Did Christ take away that authority, no... the Church will never be overcome. "Circle master"... Circular arguments... funny.

All Christians used the Septuagint up to 1611 AD.

That says it all.

First Letter of John 2,18-21.

Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that the antichrist was coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. Thus we know this is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not really of our number; if they had been, they would have remained with us. Their desertion shows that none of them was of our number. But you have the anointing that comes from the holy one, and you all have knowledge. I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth.

Acts 20:30

And from your own group, men will come forward perverting the truth to draw the disciples away after them.

2 Peter 3:15

And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you,

16 speaking of these things 12 as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.

17 Therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, be on your guard not to be led into the error of the unprincipled and to fall from your own stability.

All who left the Catholic Church are not "the church". They are doctrines of men... founded on beliefs that contradicted what the Church believed since 33 AD.

Your Servant,

ironmonk

[Circle_Master]

Christ and the Apostles only had the Septuagint as Scripture.

Really! So what were the other 1/3 verses quoted from? Were they just made up?

All Christians used the Septuagint up to 1611 AD.

Did not Jerome translate from the Hebrew texts? Did not greek get forgotten for much of the time between 400 A.D. and the turn of the millennium when the surge of humanism and return to Roman ways began and only the latin vulgate was used? Even in Mass?

All who left the Catholic Church are not "the church". They are doctrines of men... founded on beliefs that contradicted what the Church believed since 33 AD.

How can you say that based on those three verses? The first is speaking of men who did not believe, not who did not understand. The second is saying that men will do it to draw disciples, that is from a motive of sin. I study Scripture so I can learn who God is and worship Him fuller, I do not lead speaking seminars to gain a following. Your third verse speaks of one unstable and ignorant. To be both is what James speaks of, one who is tossed about by the doctrines of men. All who left "THE CHURCH" are not "THE CHURCH". To say the Catholic Church is to put your incorrect idea of a specific institution at the fore of your arguments again. And the premise of your arguments.

[frozencell]

Maybe not completely on the topic, but still I think relevant:

I was raised Protestant all my life. I have recently converted to Catholicism, although it's not really "convert". Anyhow, one of the major things that I have been tossing around is how the Catholic Church hold the Eucharist so sacred. The same with all the observations of the Christmas season and during Lent. It seems these things are more along the lines of the deep devotion and relationship Christ was talking about when He walked the earth. It seems the taking communion with Welch's, celebrating only Dec. 25th, and not really sacrificing anything in rememberance of Christ's life and sacrifice for us is a little superficial.

Christ died for us. He was punished and beaten for us. He was born in a dirty trough for us. All these things were so real to the Apostles back then there's no reason to think that since we're living in A.D. 2000 and not A.D. 2 that we have to render everything aloof and symbolic.

Why can't we still partake of the relationship that Christ had with the Apostles? Why can't it still be that real? Why does everything have to be invisible and personally interpreted? It doesn't, because He is just as alive on earth as He was back then. I think the Catholic Church shows so much more reverance to that relationship and practices such a more real Christian interaction with God that it has made me fall in love with Him all over again.

Jesus can still walk through the dirty streets with us and not go back into His Book when we close it, only to talk about Him.

[RJS]

Maybe not completely on the topic, but still I think relevant:

I was raised Protestant all my life. I have recently converted to Catholicism, although it's not really "convert". Anyhow, one of the major things that I have been tossing around is how the Catholic Church hold the Eucharist so sacred. The same with all the observations of the Christmas season and during Lent. It seems these things are more along the lines of the deep devotion and relationship Christ was talking about when He walked the earth. It seems the taking communion with Welch's, celebrating only Dec. 25th, and not really sacrificing anything in rememberance of Christ's life and sacrifice for us is a little superficial.

Christ died for us. He was punished and beaten for us. He was born in a dirty trough for us. All these things were so real to the Apostles back then there's no reason to think that since we're living in A.D. 2000 and not A.D. 2 that we have to render everything aloof and symbolic.

Why can't we still partake of the relationship that Christ had with the Apostles? Why can't it still be that real? Why does everything have to be invisible and personally interpreted? It doesn't, because He is just as alive on earth as He was back then. I think the Catholic Church shows so much more reverance to that relationship and practices such a more real Christian interaction with God that it has made me fall in love with Him all over again.

Jesus can still walk through the dirty streets with us and not go back into His Book when we close it, only to talk about Him.

Well Said!!

[Circle_Master]

Why can't we still partake of the relationship that Christ had with the Apostles? Why can't it still be that real? Why does everything have to be invisible and personally interpreted? It doesn't, because He is just as alive on earth as He was back then. I think the Catholic Church shows so much more reverance to that relationship and practices such a more real Christian interaction with God that it has made me fall in love with Him all over again.

We can partake of the relationship. I am sorry that communion was so .. weak at your old church, and maybe you'll be happy to know when I gave communion, it was a celebration with food and lots of laughs and smiles. We celebrated and praised God for what He did. I taught straight through from the first passover in Egypt to the passover we celebrate today and it is an amazing journey.

If you find you draw closer to Christ through the Church, sobeit, however never forget that you were saved by grace, through no strength of your own. For when we think that, we put ourselves under the law, and partly under the law, we will be judged by the law.

[littleflower+JMJ]

:thinking: