JFJ Forums

Chafer et al –

The existence of the Septuagint and the Hebrew scriptures is  proof that there was dispute among the canon of scripture at that time.  The Septuagint is more than just a Greek translation of Hebrew – it contains several additional writings that are not in Catholic or Orthodox canon and even more that are not in Protestant canon.  And this DOES have very much to do with the role of tradition in revelation.  There can be no validity to Sola-Scriptura unless we can accept the entire contents of scripture as exactly no more and exactly no less than what God intended and unless we can trust the means by which this was revealed to us.

My point isn’t to dispute when the various books of the bible were written.  My point is that there was disagreement among both Jews and Christians as to what was and was not inspired scripture.  This disagreement lasted well beyond when the last book of each Testament was written. Of course God new all along, but when and how did God reveal the canon to his people?  If scripture is infallible, then there must be an infallible mechanism by which God revealed the canon to us.

A majority (~2/3) of the O.T. quotations found in the N.T. are from the Septuagint version of scripture.  This would imply that the Holy Spirit guided the N.T. authors to reference the Septuagint in their writings and that the Apostles were using the Greek version in their evangelization  The early church fathers also site these books.

If you look at the history of the canon described in councils, starting from ~380 A.D., a consistent canon begins to form and is reaffirmed at subsequent councils.  The canon is the same as the Catholic canon. The issues was raised again and reaffirmed at the Council of Trent because the canon was once again being disputed by the Reformers.  We already know that Luther was trying to get James (what he considered an “epistle of straw)  and Revelation out of the canon.  If you look at the original KJV you will find it included these books in the appendix, albeit as uninspired but “useful”.  (Chafer, I think this answers your question as whether the people of God new what the canon was prior to 1546)

The Greek portions of the Septuagint not found in Hebrew text were not officially rejected by Jews until the Council of Jamnia in 90 A.D.  It is my opinion that God’s revelation in the Christian Councils addressing the canon of scripture is authoritative and not the Jewish Councils.

To say that the N.T. does not reference the Deuterocanonical books is wrong.  Heb 11:35 refers to events recorded in 2Macabees. And there are many others.  Protestant scholars (N.T. Wright in particular and there are many others) also point this out.  Here is a link to other verses in the N.T. that draw from the Deuterocanonical books.
http://scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

The Jews in Palestine had a canon about the 5th Cent. BC when it was collected. They rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture.
  



That is plainly false. Tradition is not an infallinble source. Which tradition I might add you appeal to ? Written or unwritten ?




The issue of Sola Scripture is different than the issue of the collection of the Canon. This shows how confused you really are when you and Roman Catholics attempt to combine these issues as if they are the same thing when they are not.




I reject all that because when each book in Scripture was written that was when it became part of the Canon. The  fact is that the Jews in Palestine had a canon that was collected about the 5th cen. BC.

The New Testament never quotes the Apocrypha as Scripture. And secondly, the Apocrypha as not regarded as Scripture by Jews of Palestine . What you fail to tell others here is the fact the early church fathers were divided on the Apocrypha. For example, Athansiusm Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen and Saint Jerome rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture.




That is totally false and historical revisionism at work. There are no ecumentical councils which deal with the issue of the Canon at all. There were 7 such ecumentical and none of which dealt with this issue. You also fail to tell people here that Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, Jude and Revelation were book still debated until past the Reformation. You fail to mention that Roman Catholic Scholar Cardinal Cajetan who opposed Martin Luther rejected the Apocrypha. There was historically not as much unity as you claimed. Not one of the seven ecumentical councils affirmed the Apocrypha as Scripture.

We already know that Luther was trying to get James (what he considered an “epistle of straw)  and Revelation out of the canon.  

All of that is irrelevent since I am not a Luthearan. And once again shows your double standards. At the time of Trent even some RCC theologians questioned the following books in the NT such as Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, Jude, 2& 3 John and Revelation. Likewise several early church fathers rejected the Apocrypha., Yet you only finger point at Matin Luther on that. I find no problem with James 2 at all with regard to Sola Fide. As James 2 teaches justification in the eyes of men in which it has works as evidence of one's faith. Works are the result of one's faith. And must be pointed out works are not a condition to eternal life but are rather the fruit of eternal life instead. You once again show that you do not understand what Sola Fide teaches at all.

That is irrelevent since they rejected it as Scripture. They did not believe it was on equal authority with Scripture. Basically that is a red herring by appealing to the KJV having it in it originally.




That is false. It was always rejected by orthodox Jews of Palestine as being part of the OT Canon. With respect to the OT Canon the Jews were accountable and responsible to find and collect each Scripture as it was being written in the OT. It was to them that the OT was given to. It was not the NT Church which collected the OT but rather Israel did in the 5th cen. BC. The Apostle Paul confirmed this.

Rom. 3:1-2 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

It is to be noted your once again confusing the canonity of Scripture with the collection of it. They were collected because they were Scripture and not made Scripture by reason of collecting of it. God alone determined the Canon of the OT and NT and Israel in the OT collected the OT Canon while the Church in the NT collected the NT canon. They once again were collected because they were Scripture.




That is not true at all. As stated by Dr. William Hendriksen stated " They are never quoted by our Lord; in fact, it is almost certain that they are never quoted in the entire New Testament "  ( SURVERY of the BIBLE, pg. 21, Dr. William Hendriksen )  We have here a noted Reformed Protestant Scholar directly contradicts you. There is nothing in 2 Mac cited in Heb. 11:35 as you incorrectly claimed. What it has in view is what is in 1 Kings 17:8-23; 2 Kings 4:18-37. It is as plain as day the NT never quotes it as Scripture.

Those are mere claims that are basically false. The important issue is that they are never cited or quoted as Scripture in the New Testament. Due to time limitations I can't deal with what is in there. But there are Protestant whichs have refuted those claims which deals with those text the RCC claims.

SOLA SCRIPTURA as held by Evangelical Protestants.

Sola scriptura  teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church.  The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace.  It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture.  This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures.  The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church.  It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority.

Here are several facts in which renders your claims as false.

1 ) The Council of Hippo and Carthage were local councils and had no ecumentical authority and not binding on the universal church.  Therefore are not evidence at all againist the Protestant canon of Scripture.

2 ) Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem , Origen and Jerome all rejected the Apocrypha. Therefore you lack the unanimous consent of the early church fathers on this specifically. Since the Council of Trent claims it's view of the OT has always been the position of the church when in reality it was not.

3 ) None of the great Greek manuscripts ( Aleph, A , and B ) contain all of the apocrypha books. Only Tobit, Judith, Wisdom and  Sirach are found in all of them and in the oldest manuscripts ( B or Vaticanus ) totally exclude the books of Maccabees. No Greek manuscript has the same list of Apocryphal books accepted by Trent. Therefore are not evidence for the position affirmed by the RCC at the Council of Trent.

The position you are affirming here is that which is called Sola ecclesia. what sola ecclesia is ? It means that the Church as the final authority in all things. That is the position you hold, if you are a member of the orthodox Roman Catholic claims to infallible teaching authority.  What you are doing citations is attacking sola scriptura so as to establish sola ecclesia.  It is vital that everyone see that there are two positions being presented.

Do you hold to the partim-partim view or to ‘material sufficiency? I assume that you know partim-partim was the offical position at Trent while material sufficiency is post Vat II though it is not " the RCC " position.

Chafer,

You said: “Which tradition I might add you appeal to ? Written or unwritten ?”
I say: Like our Jewish brethren, I appeal to both written and authoritative oral tradition.  On this side of the Cross, we have the promises of the Holy Spirit breathed upon the Church at Pentecost to lead us unto all truth and to make the Church, the House of the Living God, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.

You said: “The issue of Sola Scripture is different than the issue of the collection of the Canon.”
I say: Nonsense.  We both believe that the scripture we share in common is infallible and breathed by God.  Sola Scriptura, quoting directly from you, “teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church”.  The obvious question that follows then is “What are the Scriptures?”.  How can I apply the principles of Sola-Scriptura unless I know what is inspired scripture and what is not?  Then the next question becomes, “How do I know whose canon is inspired?”  These are all related.  There is absolutely no confusion on my part, only denial on yours.

You said: “The Jews in Palestine had a canon about the 5th Cent. BC when it was collected. They rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture.”
I say: Nonsense.  Most of the Deuterocanonical books were not even written by then.  How can they reject something that does not yet exist? And who is to say that the scriptures used by the Sanhedrin and Palestinian Jews were more authoritative than the scriptures used by the Jews of the Diaspora?  

You said: “The New Testament never quotes the Apocrypha as Scripture.””
I say: Wrong and I’ll address later.  But you raised this point as a diversion from the point I’m making regarding which version of the O.T. scriptures are quoted from in the N.T.  A majority (~2/3) of the quotes come from the Septuagint.  In other words, as the Holy Spirit inspired the N.T. authors, they more often referenced the Septuagint writings.  Why would the N.T. authors, of all people, reference the Septuagint if the Hebrew only version was the only inspired version?

You said: “What you fail to tell others here is the fact the early church fathers were divided on the Apocrypha.”
I say:  I never said there was unanimity.  We do see a consensus form though and it is many centuries before the Council of Trent.   I’ll write more about this in a subsequent post complete with dates, quotes, lists, recent archeological evidence, references …..  In other words, I won’t just claim my point of view, and claim you are wrong, I will provide evidence.

(cont …)

(… cont)
You said: [Regarding the original KJV of scripture having the Deuterocanonical books] “That is irrelevent since they rejected it as Scripture. They did not believe it was on equal authority with Scripture. Basically that is a red herring by appealing to the KJV having it in it originally.”
I say:  No, it’s not a red herring at all.  It is evidence that it was understood as part of the cannon to begin with, albeit as a “deutero” (i.e. second canon).  Why would they include these books but not any of the many other writings?

You said: “It was always rejected by orthodox Jews of Palestine as being part of the OT Canon. With respect to the OT Canon the Jews were accountable and responsible to find and collect each Scripture as it was being written in the OT. It was to them that the OT was given to. It was not the NT Church which collected the OT but rather Israel did in the 5th cen. BC. The Apostle Paul confirmed this. Rom. 3:1-2 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

I say: Again, not all of the Deuterocanonical books were written by 5 B.C.  How do they reject something that does not yet exist?  Amen – the O.T. comes to us through our Jewish brethren.  So I fully agree with your quotation from Rom 3:1-2.  Now the question again is, how do we know if it is the Hebrew only or the Septuagint version?  If it’s the Hebrew only, why are over 2/3 of the N.T. quotations from the Septuagint?  Is there a God-inspired table of contents written somewhere or was the proper collection revealed to us from God working through an authoritative, Pillar and Foundation of Truth?

You said: [regarding my N.T. references to the Deuterocanonical books] “That is not true at all. As stated by Dr. William Hendriksen stated … We have here a noted Reformed Protestant Scholar directly contradicts you.  …. Those are mere claims that are basically false…. Due to time limitations I can't deal with what is in there….”
I say: Who is “Dr. Hendriksen” and why should I believe him?  I can just as easily reference other “noted” Protestant scholars who agree with me.  In fact, it is from noted Protestant Scholars that I found out over 2/3 of the O.T. quotes in the N.T. are from the Septuagint.  And besides, Joshua, Judges, and Esther are not quoted from in the N.T. Does this mean the Reformers should have taken them out too?

(cont …)

(… cont)
You said: “The Council of Hippo and Carthage were local councils and had no ecumentical authority and not binding on the universal church.  Therefore are not evidence at all againist the Protestant canon of Scripture.”
I say: “binding on the universal church”??????  Careful!!!! You are beginning to raise more issues on authority and the universality of the church.  Can you explain what would have made these councils “binding on the universal church”?  Was there some office in the universal church granted the authority to “bind and loose”?  Or was the church already in complete disarray by this point and in no hope of resolving issues such as this?

You said: “The position you are affirming here is that which is called Sola ecclesia …. What you are doing citations is attacking sola scriptura so as to establish sola ecclesia.”
I say: Nonsense.  My position is not either/or.  It is both/and.  I believe exactly what you do about the infallibility of scripture and that it is God-breathed.  What I reject is that Scripture is “the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church”.  Nowhere in scripture is this claim made.  Paul doesn’t even say this but instead calls “the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth” (1Tm3:15).  It is not man that determined the canon of scripture, it was God and he revealed this to us through the Kingdom his Son established.  Now I’m quoting the definition of Sola-Scriptura directly from you so please don’t say I don’t understand it.  I do understand it and I reject Sola Scriptura based on scripture itself. This position doesn’t diminish anything.  In fact it glorifies Jesus Christ even more.  You claim the only infallible truth he left us with is scripture.  I claim he left us with the infallible truths of scripture AND a Kingdom that he promised to be with until the end of time.

You said: “Do you hold to the partim-partim view or to ‘material sufficiency?”
I say: I have no clue what you are talking about.  If it’s relevant to this post, explain it and I can tell you what I believe.  If it’s another diversion, please start a new thread.  ( I did a quick internet search and wasn’t able to find much on “partim-partim”.  I did get a hit that referenced Francis Beckwith which I thought was interesting)

The problem is that Jesus directly condemned claimed unwritten oral traditions which were claimed to be of divine authority. Jesus taught that Scripture is above tradition in authority. Scripture is infallible while tradition is fallible. Secondly, the local church proclaimed the gospel and the teachings of Scripture and does not invent " truths " which are not found in Scripture for doctrine.

Matt. 15:1-9  Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying,  “Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.” He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?  For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’  But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God”— 6 then he need not honor his father or mother.’[c] Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: ‘ These people draw near to Me with their mouth,And honor Me with their lips But their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me,Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”