Trent Horn is planning on debating the OT canon against a Protestant on Friday, November 13 beginning at 12pm PST (3pm EST) on Matt Fradd’s YouTube channel. Matt Fradd is a Catholic apologist who will be hosting the live two hour debate.
Thanks for the notice RC but i dont understand what could differ from the debate on this same topic that aired less than 6 months ago with Michuta and Christi. Do you think Christi might have new information and the outcome of this debate may differ? Why would Christi need to debate this same subject with a diferent Catholic?
I haven’t seen the previous debate you mentioned.
I do watch Fradd’s show though, so I look forward to seeing this new one!
Marking this for later, could you remind us oldies again close to the time.
It seems Trent mentioned him and his book at the Catholic Answers conference last year, where Christie cites Trent in his book.
“ I’m actually going to try to have Steve Christie on my podcast so we can discuss this one on one like gentlemen.”
It sounds like Trent wanted to reach out to Christie to have him on his podcast and it ended up turning into an actual debate.
The previous ones with Gary were on the Reason and Theology YouTube channel back in July. This one against Trent is going to be on Matt Fradd’s channel.
. Will do!
Just a reminder to everyone, Trent Horn’s debate on the old testament canon is tomorrow Friday, November 13 from 3 PM to 5 PM EST. Below is the link to Matt Fradd’s YouTube channel where are the debate will be live online.
I plan to watch but maybe not live. Hopefully over the weekend.
I’ve been looking forward to it, love Pints With Aquinas and Counsel of Trent
Just out of curiosity, did anyone watch the debate?
I watched it and really have nothing more to add from the last debate. I heard nothing new. I think these gentlemen, as did Michuta on the last debate, articulated their points very well. I just dont see what else there is to discuss. Its all been asked and answered.
Actually there was quite a bit more. For example, the explanation of Abel to Zechariah being a name conflation, which Christie gave an example of Psalm 34, and being a familiar and accepted rabbinic practice before and during the time of Christ, was explained in more depth, which Horn didn’t seem to quite understand and didn’t really comment on, beyond his usual argument that the text says “son of Berechiah.” But by doing this, Horn ignores and didn’t address the name conflation argument, which is found in later rabbinic literature such as the Targum of Lamentations and the Talmud. Christie also added the New Catholic Version and the NAB identifies Zechariah as the son of Jehoiada.
Christie also pushed on Rome not knowing the identity of the Zechariah, despite claiming to be the One True Church from the first century which did know. Both Jesus’ and Matthew’s audiences were Jewish and they expected them to know who it was. Yet, Rome does not know to this day. The best Horn could say is “we don’t have the ancient material to know for certain,” which was kind of lame, and avoided the problem.
Christie also addressed Horn’s argument of Wisdom 2:13 where it adds “God will rescue Him,” is not found in the passage of Matthew 27, nor in Psalm 22. And the NCV and NAB reference Matthew 27 to Psalm 22. Same with Wisdom 2:13 to Psalm 22.
And in Hebrews 11:35, Christie pointed out the author is nowhere addressing the canon itself, but those who demonstrated their faith in the OT era, since the author does not use a metonym in that verse to say it’s Scripture.
I also thought Christie did a good job addressing Melito’s and Origen’s canons omitting Esther and the Minor Prophets. For example, he cited Beckwith and Webster who explained Esther may have either been included under a different prophet or the Jews of that era may have been familiar with the Essenes from antiquity who had a solar calendar that could not celebrate Purim on the Sabbath as reason for not including Esther. And that Origen omitting the Minor Prophets was most likely a mistake either by Eusebius who preserved Origen’s list, or even Origen himself since Origen comments on the Minor Prophets later as Scripture, and Hilary of Poitier comments on Origen’s list later with the exact same books, in the exact same order, but includes the Minor Prophets before Isaiah. That really shows the Protestant/Hebrew Bible list much earlier than the later Roman one.
Christie also pushed the smaller Sadducee canon wasn’t discussed in antiquity until at least the third century by Origen, which Horn’s response was “this is an accepted belief,” which again was avoidant. Trent could not demonstrate from antiquity that the Pharisees and Sadducees AS A WHOLE espoused to different canons. The best he could do is the possibility that individual Jews may have believed in different books, which is meaningless.
And Christie’s mention that the NAB states the three-fold division of Sirach include the same books in the present Hebrew Bible, which lists 17 of the 22 books (including most of the Writings), while other writings are included in other intertestamental books like 1 and 2 Maccabees.
Overall, Christie did present new information and expanded in more detail from his debate with Michuta, which Horn did not seem to know how to respond to, beyond his usual comments. And Horn’s rebuttals either ignored or overlooked some of the points in Christie’s opening statements, rebuttals, and closing statements. Horn also didn’t seem to know how to respond during the cross examination, while Christie did.
Lastly, Horn saying we must first determine a book is inspired first THEN we deal with the apparent errors was a bit circular, which Christie capitalized on, and explained this is something Protestants don’t do when approaching a particular text, whether it be Catholic, Protestant, or something else.
As i said - its all been asked and answered. One may not like the answer or agree that what was given was an answer but i will leave it up to that person to decide for themselves what was and what was not answered or the validity, substance, and soundness of each answer. Nothing i can say will change that. I find it silly to debate the debate. The debate is over.
Didn’t you find any part where Horn ‘raised a good point’?
Horn did mention that around 1 BC that there were Pharisees who seemed to embrace Sirach and may have been in the Septuagint. But there are too many “ifs” in that assumption. And he did mention that the Essenes did celebrate Purim found in an old wineskin. But that would seem to strengthen Christie’s argument of a closed canon that the Essenes would have shared the book of Esther with the Pharisees.
Yet, I just saw that Horn, Michuta, and Albrecht had a post debate discussion on the debate. So, apparently, they don’t feel the debate is “over.”
Which is bogus.
There are many takes from the Fathers on which Zachary Jesus spoke of.
Some say it is John the Baptist’s dad.
Others say it is Zachary the “son” of Jehoida, and give the explanation that son can just mean descendant. Like with Nebuchadnezzar.
And the commentary you reference was made by both Catholic and Protestant scholars.
I love Trent Horn but I think he lost this one in the sense that he wasn’t able to pick apart the other argument as much as he has done in previous debates. Horn did well debating Alex O’Connor, both did amazing honestly. This one though I think Horn lost.