JFJ Forums

Melito (about A.D. 170). Melito was bishop of the church in Sardis, an inland city of Asia Minor. His list gives the Hebrew canon minus Esther, and makes no mention of any of the disputed books. This list was published abroad and recommended by Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea.

But in the Extracts made by him the same writer [i.e. Melito] gives at the beginning of the Introduction a catalog of the acknowledged books of the Old Testament, which it is necessary to quote at this point. He writes as follows: "Melito to his brother Onesimus, greeting! Since you have often, in your zeal for the Word, expressed a wish to have extracts made from the Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour, and concerning our entire Faith, and have also desired to have an accurate statement of the ancient books, as regards their number and their order, I have endeavored to perform the task, knowing your zeal for the faith, and your desire to gain information in regard to the Word, and knowing that you, in your yearning after God, esteem these things above all else, struggling to attain eternal salvation. Accordingly when I went to the East and reached the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and I send them to you as written below. These are their names: Of Moses five, Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four of Kingdoms, 1 two of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, Solomon's Proverbs or Wisdom, 2 Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of the Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, 3 the Twelve [minor prophets] in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. 4 From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books." Such are the words of Melito.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/melito.html

Chafer, it’s good to hear from you again, but you still have not answered any of my questions.

Regarding your 3-point “positive case”:
1)  We both fully acknowledge the threefold division of the O.T. scriptures.  But please tell me how this three-fold division identifies the O.T. canon.  The Jews of the Diaspora and Ethiopian Jews recognize the 3-fold division yet their canon differs from the one established by the Pharisees in 90 A.D.
2) The fact that you’ve made a list of O.T. scriptures and it matches the proclamation of the Pharisees at the Council of Jamnia provides no evidence whatsoever to support your claims.
3) Some of the books which comprise “the Writings” are historical books for which there are one or more unknown authors.  Judges, Chronicles, and Kings are examples.  While these contain prophecy, they were not written by prophets.  So this obviously is not a criteria for inclusion in the O.T. canon.

So you really haven’t proven anything at all.  And remember, the canon of scripture isn’t a debate exclusively between Roman Catholics and Protestants.  Eastern Orthodox, all of the other Rites within the Catholic Church, and even some branches of Judaism also disagree with the Protestant canon of scripture.

Let’s again turn to the questions you continue to ignore.  I’ve narrowed them down so they should be fairly easy to answer:
- Why do over 2/3 of the O.T. quotes found in the N.T. come from the LXX if it was considered uninspired and the N.T. authors had the Hebrew scriptures at their finger tips?
- Why did St. Jerome include the deuteros in his Latin translation?
- Out of the thousands of “useful but not inspired” writings throughout salvation history, why did the original KJV (and most translations until ~1800) contain the EXACT same deuterocanonical books in an appendix?
- Why does every single Church Council that proclaims a canon include deuterocanonical books, yet the Protestant canon contains none?
- Out of the 2000 year history of the Church, why is there not one single Church Council that affirms the Protestant canon?

(Though not a question relevant to the canon of scripture, I’m still interested to find out the secret details of your RCC education and your seminary training)

That is totally a false claim. Go reread my replies that is where my answers are. Don't make claims such as that which can't be shown at all when the evidence of me answering it is already posted.




I believe your two canon theory is false and historically incorrect. They never involved your extra books within the threefold canon listing. It was placed outside of it. That alone disproves your claim. The threefold division excludes the Apocrypha from that.Each book in the OT was placed according to the listing of which I said. It was placed according to if they were a prophetic by office, or had the prophetic gift or had both. That of course was already answered in my previous replies.




You erred again in your false argument. Your erecting a strawman argument there. Learn to deal with my position and not things such as you presently do in your arguments. I exclude the Council of Jamnia from all of my arguments period. My exact claim was Jesus Christ Himself followed this threefold division of the Old Testament and thus gave his stamp of approval of it. The Law of Moses, the prophets and the psalms which is included in the Writers covers the entire Jewish Old Testament and excludes the Apocrypha from within that.

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

This is another false claim that is not historically supported at all. Judges was written by Samuel the prophet, Chronicles was written by Ezra. Kings was written by Jeremiah the prophet. For detailed information concerning this see The New Unger's Bible Dictionary by Dr. Merrill F. Unger.




This debate is an exact result of the Council of Trent in 1546 ad. The Jewish Canon is settled with the threefold division amoung them. So that is another false claim. It is to be noted that those who add the Apocrypha do not at all have the same exact ones listed for themselves. Their Apocrypha listing are different from one another. So please do not blow smoke where there is no fire. Don't claim unity on this issue when there  is none. Catholics such as Anglicans exclude the Apocrypha as Scripture. For that detailed information see THE PRINCIPLES OF THEOLOGY : AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES by Dr. W.H. Griffth Thomas. This is an Anglican systenmatic theology book based on the thirty-nine articles of the Anglican Church.

That is a lie. That question was not ignored at all. In my previous replies I specifically answered it. Don't resort to this type of false claim with me when in fact I had answered it.




They were used as historical books covers a period of some 300 or so years prior to the appearing of John the Baptist. They were never included in Jeromes specific OT Canon listing. That is you being dishonest and misleading with the historical facts concerning Jeromes. Including them does not support the claim of the Church of Rome since he rejected them as part of the OT Canon. Your basically begging the question regarding the Apocrypha.




This is not only irrelevent but is also begging the question and a red herring. Sorry but the KJV is an Anglican Translations and they rejected the Apocrypha as part of the OT Canon. The problem lies in the fact that the Church of Rome at the Council of Trent never affirmed the entire Deuterocanicals. So are being dishonest and misleading on that important fact. Trent only apprroved a certain limited number from within it and not all of them. Your blowing smoke where there is no fire.

That is a false claim you are making. The Deuterocanonicals were never approved of by the Universal Church. As none of the Seven Ecumentical Councils affirmed them as Scripture. Nor listed it as Scripture. Secondly, appealing to Local Councils in the West does not support your case at all since none of them approved of the same exact listing of the Apocrypha. And did not approve of the entire Deuterocanonicals at all. Your blowings smoke where there is no fire.





That is not a claim I had made at all. The problem is worse for you as you have not one of the Seven Ecumentical Councils approved of and made the OT Canon listing of the Church of Rome / Roman See. The Protestant OT Canon was held by many early Church Fathers as stated before. Yet you ignore that fact. Your blowing smoke where there is no fire at all. Trent claims the unanimous consent of the early church fathers and yet we see that this is not so at all.




I already made brief statements concerning it. And  won't be providing any more detailed information. As I do not post personal information such as what is included in it on the internet. Your asking me to post specific personal information over the internet and that is a no no. I provided basic facts and general details already and no further information will be given on that.

The real basis of the threefold division of  the Heb. Scriptures is evidently the offical position of the individual authors. Moses was the writer of the books of the Law in the first division. The writers in the second division were those who had the prophetic office, that is, the offical status and calling of a prophet, as well as the prophetic gift  ( the enduement of inspiration ) . The authors in the third category had the prophetic gift but not the prophetic office. They were not offically prophets. David and Solomon were kings; Ezra was a scribe; Daniel, a governor. This view seems to be the be the simplest and most satisfactory of all. ( The New Unger's Bible Dictionary, pg. 208, by Dr. Marrill F. Unger )