We differ only in the books of OT. The canon was closed two hundred years before Jesus was born. Jesus constantly referred to it and never hinted that even one word was wrong. What I want to know is how did the Jews get it right without the Catholic Church to instruct them?
Which Canon are you talking about? I assume you mean OT, but are you talking about the Hebrew Canon of the Pharisees, or the Canon of the Greek speaking Jews?
Jesus constantly referred to it…
Referred to the Canon? Or referred to books of the OT Scriptures (books within a Canon which He did not list out for us)?
I have read a great deal of the Bible, some of it several times, and have never once seen Christ refer to a Canon of OT Scripture. Can you show me where He did?
… and never hinted that even one word was wrong.
What’s that got to do with the OP? Was this an intentional strawman, or did you accidentally misrepresent the OP?
What I want to know is how did the Jews get it right without the Catholic Church to instruct them?
Which Jews? The Hebrew Jews and the Hellenist Jews had different Canons. Those who spoke Greek had a Canon which included the Deuterocanon (which are the books that Catholics have in our OT Canon and have been removed from some non-Catholic Bibles after the 16th century).
Not to mention the Jews themselves, did not consider their canon closed until well after Christ. they aren’t sure when, its somewhat lost to history, but sometime between the First and 9th century AD the Jewish Canon was closed.
Usually, one or more of the following:
*]My church (when they handed me a Bible);
*]My pastor (when s/he handed me a Bible);
*]My parents (when they handed me a Bible)
*]The Westminster Confession of Faith, 1646
*]Jerome, c.405 (in his comments about the deuterocanonical texts in the Vulgate)
The first three, whilst somewhat facetious, are actually accurate in their operation, which is to say that quite a lot of Protestants simply never go into the history of the Church and thus do predicate the canon upon the views of their church, parents, etc.
As for Jerome, his role is very serious, and he is cited by some Protestants as justification for the omission of the deuterocanonical texts.
Can we say that all protestants defend the infallible canon Bible was established in 1646 in the Westminster Confession of Faith? Or only some protestants ( (“Reformed Protestant”)?
Can we say that anything is done by all Protestants? As mentioned in regard to the first three options, quite a few Protestants know nothing about church history, and thus have never heard of the WCF, despite its significant role in forming the theology of their churches.
If you are looking for a universal Protestant bibliology, there is, in so far as I am aware, no such thing.
It’s clear that as late as the first century, the OT canon was recognized as Inspired Scripture, since the apostle Paul states “ALL Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16) which in context of that particular passage Paul was referring to the OT Scriptures. Of course, we also have to take into consideration that Paul is saying that Scripture is Inspired, or God-breathed. Earlier, in his first epistle to Timothy, Paul quoted Luke 10:7 & referred to it as Scripture, so we know from Paul that Luke’s Gospel is God-breathed Scripture as well. We also know from Peter’s epistle that that ALL of Paul’s epistles are God-breathed, because Peter refers to them as Scripture as well. We also know that Luke wrote Acts which is simply a continuation of Luke’s Gospel that records the history of the apostles & the early Church, so we know that is God-breathed Scripture also. We also know from Luke 1:1-4 that much of his God-breathed Scripture was from other sources. When we examine the synoptic Gospels (Matthew & Mark), much of what is written in Luke is also in Matthew & Mark, which was written prior to Luke’s Gospel. Revelation is self-authoritative Inspiration from Jesus Himself (Revelation 1:1,19). As far as the rest of the NT epistles, they have the exact same godly criteria found in the recognized Inspired Scriptures of both the OT & NT (inerrancy, lack of contradictions, etc) that aren’t found in any other religious or secular text. This is why Catholics, Protestants, & Greek Orthodox all agree on the same 27 books of the NT canon.
As far as the OT canon, unfortunately, because the Greek Septugint was a translation of the OT Hebrew/Aramaic Scriptures, as well as the 7 Apocrypha (ie: “deuterocanonical” books) plus the “additions” to Daniel & Esther, it is “assumed” that because the NT writers quoted from the Septuagint, that that somehow “proves” that the “DC’s” & “additions” are God-breathed as well. However, when we hear from our Lord Jesus Himself, when he refers to the OT Scriptures in Luke 24:44-45, He refers to them as “the Law…and the Prophets…AND the Psalms.”) Jesus divides the OT Hebrew/Aramaic Scriptures into the THREE-fold “division” because the Psalms was the first OT book listed in this THIRD division of the OT called the “Ketuvim” (“the Writings” - which is why Jesus refers to this THIRD division as "all the Scriptures (or “Writings”) earlier in Luke Ch.24) at “The Great Synagogue” under the leadership of Ezra around 400 B.C., which closed the OT canon long before the 7 Apocrypha books & “additions” to Esther & Daniel were ever written. Also, as CA Jimmy Akin points out, the OT Scriptures the Pharisees recognized were the Hebrew/Aramaic Scriptures, not the 7 “D/C”/Apocrpyha writings. This is significant because whenever Jesus corrected the Pharisees, He corrected them using their own Scriptures, by quoting them “As it is written” & “Have you not read?”, but not the 7 “D/C”/Apocrypha. So, when Paul states "ALL Scripture is Inspired (“GOD-breathed”)(2 Timothy 3:16), he’s referring the Hebrew/Aramaic Scriptures, not the 7 Apocrypha nor the “additions” to Daniel & Esther. You also have to consider when Protestants are accused of “removing” these writings from the Catholic OT because they were in the Septuagint, it also has to be noted that the Catholic church did the SAME THING, because there were other books in the Septugint that “also” didn’t make the Catholic OT canon as well. But most Catholics don’t hear about that.
Also, the reason they aren’t Inspired, is because unlike the Hebrew/Aramaic OT Scriptures & the NT Greek Scriptures, the 7 Apocrypha & “additions” to Daniel & Esther contain historical and/or theological errors & contradictions that conflict with previous & later Inspired Scripture. So, the comments you hear about why Luther wanted them removed & why St. Jerome didn’t consider them Inspired isn’t the “actual” reason why they aren’t Inspired. And the strawman arguments like “their pastors don’t believe they are so ‘they’ don’t believe they are” are utter nonsense. If you want to know the “real” reason they aren’t, ask a Protestant, not a Catholic who “thinks” they “know” why Protestants don’t. You’ll more than likely not get an accurate answer - just their unfounded “opinion.”
the 7 Apocrypha & “additions” to Daniel & Esther contain historical and/or theological errors & contradictions that conflict with previous & later Inspired Scripture.
Theological errors according to who???
The Orthodox, Catholics, Coptics, and some Protestants don’t seem to think so.
Who is the final authority to say it is a contradiction or error? I know lots of atheists and non Christians who point out “contradictions” in the 66 book canon. We manage to explain those…perhaps your presumed “errors” are just that you are outside looking in and choosing to not seek understanding?
[quote=thetazlord]Also, the reason they aren’t Inspired, is because unlike the Hebrew/Aramaic OT Scriptures & the NT Greek Scriptures, the 7 Apocrypha & “additions” to Daniel & Esther contain historical and/or theological errors & contradictions that conflict with previous & later Inspired Scripture. So, the comments you hear about why Luther wanted them removed & why St. Jerome didn’t consider them Inspired isn’t the “actual” reason why they aren’t Inspired.
Not my “presumed errors” - just trying to get a handle how to respond to the objections, particularly when Jerome is cited. Totally agree with your point, though.
Hi thetazlord, all of this seems well and good until you consider cold hard fact that the early church considered many other writings also as inspired and canonical. I do not dispute what you say above, for the most part. Surly you see it was not agreed upon 100%, right?
Even if they did agree 100% on the 27 books you still have to consider the other books/writings that some insisted on. By agreeing on the 27 books does not mean that other books were automatically dismissed from the liturgy.
To say “Catholics, Protestants, & Greek Orthodox all agree on the same 27 books of the NT canon” is true but this statement would be false if said in the 2nd and 3rd centuries and I do not mean it in the sense that there were no Protestants or other divisions back then.
Because I’m interested to understand the protestant position I’d only want to know if you can clarify us where and when was established the canon of Scriptures that protestants believe.
If you can, also tell us approximate period of time (century or better decade, year, date), and the concrete person or the community who established this canon.
Note that I’m not denying the possibility that protestants had received the assistance of the Holy Spirit to determine the Bible canon. I only want to know when and whom.
In the context of your question, for all practical purposes Martin Luther is credited as being the “author” of the greatly edited and 7 book shorter version of the bible, now known as the King James Bible. Its publication was in the early 17th Century.
The then deleted books are now known as “the Apocrypha”
By comparing them to the non-apocrypha OT & NT Scriptures (ie; the Hebrew/Aramaic OT & Greek NT Scriptures). When you compare their historical/theological claims to them, the 7 Apocrypha books contain errors & contradict the OT/NT Scriptures. Since the Bible is God-breathed, then God-breathed Scripture is the “canon” (or “rod”) used to measure whether something is an error or contradiction. As far as the “alleged” errors & contradictions in the 66 book canon, most of these are either strawman, or the inability of the critic to comprehend the text - or not read all of it, & are easily reconciliable. With the 7 Apocrypha books, they can’t be. That’s why Protestants accept the 66 book canon, because there cannot be error in God’s Word, because that would be the same as God Himself being in error, which is impossible.