The Dead Sea Scrolls contain the Deuterocanonical books and the 10th century AD Masoretic is the first Jewish text to exclude them. Since the Enlightenment, it was wrongly believed that the Masoretic Text was the "original" Hebrew Bible when this was in fact a medieval version created by the Masoretes.
@@theologicalwebbfragments of every deuterocanonical book is attested to in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Dr. John Bergsma’s book “Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls” is a good resource for this. However, the Book of Esther has not been found (but it’s so short that it could just be lost).
@@theologicalwebb Using your logic, ancient Egyptians had the wireless technology because no wire was found or not finding a gun is a proof of innocence.
@@theologicalwebbthere is great value in admitting you’ve been schooled. Socrates, one of most profound thinkers of all time, was fond of admitting when he was wrong and was thrilled by being shown up by others (it allowed him to grow in knowledge). It was those who put him death, however, who could not accept a simpleton like Socrates to show the flaws in their doctrine.
@@carsonianthegreat4672It is simply not true that every Deuterocanonical book has been found in the dead sea scrolls. We have only found Sirach, Tobit, and the Epistle to Jeremiah.
It just makes more logical sense to accept deuterocanon because the 'Hebrew bible' was maintained by people that rejected Jesus (Rabbinicists are the admitted succession of the Pharisees), likely removing as much as they could in reference to His prophecy and dates back only a millenium after the church was established while the Septuagint, Vulgate and Peshitta were maintained by the Church, have stronger manuscripts which are dated earlier than the masorectic text and for the OT in the LXX, date before the church was even established. Who are you going to trust, the people that rejected and killed Jesus or the literal body of Christ?
Austin, I'm truly impressed by the quality of your questions in this interview! They're incredibly well-thought-out and engaging. Your respectful demeanor throughout the conversation is admirable too. And Gary, you shine as brilliantly as ever with your insights. Kudos to both of you for creating such an informative and enjoyable interview! Great episode!
@Gospel Simplicity thanks for having @Gary Michuta and Gary thanks for accepting I'm hooked on @Gary's YT channel @Apocrypha Apocalypse I've learned so much from him. Thanks Robert from Puerto Rico 🇵🇷
Here are some examples of Jesus referring to deuterocanon: Matt. 2:16 - Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wisdom 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents. Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation. Matt. 9:36 - the people were “like sheep without a shepherd” is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd. Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers. John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16. Luke 21:24 - Jesus’ usage of “fall by the edge of the sword” follows Sirach 28:18. St. Paul quotes Judith and says it was written for our correction. And Paul says elsewhere that scriptures were written for our correction. So Paul in scripture refers to Judith as scripture.
Judith, viii, 14, in I Cor., ii, 10 (cf. also I Cor., x, 10, with Judith, viii, 25). In the early Christian Church we find Judith quoted as part of Scripture in the writings of St. Clement of Rome (First Epistle to the Corinthians, lv), Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian
@@stevenhazel4445 thanks for your contribution! The most relevant verses are Wisdom 2:11-22 (I just looked it up, thanks to you pointing me in the right direction).
Another excellent interview Austin. First time I've encountered Mr. Michuta. He is obviously very knowledgeable of this topic and seems to be a genuinely nice guy.
@Gospel Simplicity off topic i know you were wondering about a prayer for Mother Mary a couple days ago i would recommend you invite @William Albrecht or Rev. Dr. Kappes, Rev. Dr. Daley, Kelly Powers, Father Pacwa,Tim Staples, Dr Brant Pitre on they know they've helped so many understand Mama Maria more.
Could you please provide that prayer? Or the video where Austin discusses it? If it's the one I think it is, I've been looking for it for a while now to explain it.
@j.g.4942 Things are more complex than that, I guess. If there is one thing complex in the history of the Greeks (particularly of the Church of Constantinople) is how to effectively weigh the Council of Trullo (692 AD) as far as canon law/ disciplines/ practices, doctrine and dogma go. We won’t know for sure how a spirit of anti-Latinism could have conditioned the abandonment of some ecclesiastical and canonical realities when they were deemed “too Latin” to stand, whereas other canons were treated almost as dogmatic absolutes when they dealt with mere Greek practices and disciplines that were different in the West. The point is the arguable formal/ documented adoption of the biblical canon of Carthage when the canons of Carthage (419) were translated into Greek, to be put under the consolidated canons of Trullo. As we know: _”(…) These canons were not at first adopted in Greek but in Latin (…). It is uncertain when the canons of this Carthaginian synod were done into Greek. This only is certain, that they had been translated into Greek before the Council in Trullo by which, in its Second Canon, they were received into the Greek Nomocanon, and were confirmed by the authority of this synod; so that from that time these canons stand in the Eastern Church on an equality with all the rest”._ (Catholic Encyclopedia, “Council of Carthage 419”). Please notice that the word “canons” here is referential not to the Biblical canon but to all types of canonical regulations (more than 100, for sure) compiled in the Council of Carthage (419) and later translated to Greek in order to be compiled into Trullo, many of which even having received papal abrogation (therefore, without enforceability), like the prohibition to appeal overseas, one that is at odds - by the way - with the Eastern council of Serdica [343] in modern-day Bulgaria, for just one example. But one of those canons of the Carthaginian canons internalized in the Greek church through Trullo (r. Canon 2) was precisely the very canon 24, which defines the Biblical canon: _”(…) That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture”_ and there goes the list of books, which happens to be *identical* to the list of both the Ecumenical Councils of Florence and Trent, for instance (that’s Canon 24 of Carthage-419). It is was there, ‘rectius’, it is there in Trullo. Curiously enough the Church of Constantinople even thought of Trullo (692) to be Ecumenical during important periods of her history, yet this issue of the biblical canon was put to rest, apparently.
@@lucidlocomotive2014 Jerome thought that the Deuterocanonicals could not be Scripture because they were not written in Hebrew or because there were no Hebrew copies of them available to him at his time. His premise for his theory was disproven by the finding of the DSS.
@@tonyl3762 That is a necessary consequence for the ones that originated in Greek (e.g. 2 Macc) but not what Jerome meant by "Hebraica veritas." With Judith and 1 Maccabees, he specifically says they were in "Chaldean words" and Hebrew, respectively, and still rejects their canonicity.
The Dead Sea Scrolls contain the Deuterocanonical books and the 10th century AD Masoretic is the first Jewish text to exclude them. Since the Enlightenment, it was wrongly believed that the Masoretic Text was the "original" Hebrew Bible when this was in fact a medieval version created by the Masoretes.
Curious that the Protestant canon contains “66” books. A number used within the Bible which indicates incompleteness. 73 contains the number of completeness and the number of the trinity. Definitely not a proof but interesting nonetheless as I believe there are no coincidences.
A couple questions for Gary (or anyone who has thoughts): 1 -- I recently went to go buy one of Gary's books and couldn't figure out the difference between Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger and The Case for the Deuterocanon. Is there one he recommends first? 2 -- This conversation focuses on Protestant v Catholic OT, but what are his thoughts on the additional books in the Orthodox OT?
These are good questions. If Gary doesn’t address the EASTERN ORTHODOX Bible, I am currently having a discussion with Anthony Rogers on his channel about the old testament canon. We have done part one, and we will be scheduling part to pretty soon. I even quote Gary a couple of times.
I would read Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger first, its more of a history of the issue from a Catholic perspective. Case for the Deuterocanon is more of a straight apologetic work that just goes through various arguments. As for the Orthodox canon, Gary was interviewed on the channel Catholic Truth in a video titled "Catholic or Orthodox?" and I'm sure he has stuff on his own channel as well.
Depends on which Orthodox as they have canons that divurge from one another. However they all affirm deuterocanonical books. The extra books they have if pressed on it would probably say they are Scripture and good for teaching but not inspired
The difference is that “Why Catholic Bible are Bigger” is more of a historical analysis of all the evidence, whereas “The Case for the Deuterocanon” is more specific in that it deals with arguments for the Deuterocanon as well as addressing some objections.
Get both. They compliment each other and are great resources. In “The Case…”, Gary catalogues the use of the deuteros by the church fathers. ~50 church fathers quote the deuteros ~450 times as scripture or to establish doctrine or both.
I always saw it as weird. When I was a kid really young adult and read the Bible, and the New Testament starts and I spent hundreds and hundreds of years since the last Old Testament chapter. It feels like you’re missing an entire basically movie of a series.
Right? It’s such a shock to the system. Then going back and reading the deuterocanonical books it makes so much more sense. Like a missing puzzle piece the Protestants swept under the rug
The only reason discussions like these go on forever is disobedience, the sin of Satan, and most detestable sin, because it tears apart God's Church. The canon is 73 books because the Church defined it that way, and the Church did so because Christ gave her authority. To question Church's authority is to question Jesus' promise. It is as simple as that! Even though the explanation of why and how the current cannon came to be is enlightening of the ways of God in the Church.
Jnd Kelly in his book EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES An Oxford professor of Christian history Dedicates A chapter or 2 on the Canon of the Bible and he lists 73 books
No he doesn't. Kelly states that the east preferred to relegate the deutero-canonical books to a subordinate position, while the west preferred to view them all as scripture, except for people like hilary and jerome. You can read this on pages 54-56, chapter 2 of the yellow paperback revised addition.
@@JacksonScott-os7kj Were those 46 books of the old were they canonized and accepted as a whole . If the Eastern churches do not vote for those largely They would not have become canonized. This is not to say that some did not accept those because obviously some probably did not. But those 46 books of the Old Testament would not have become canonized had they not voted for it
@@JacksonScott-os7kj On page 55 of Kelly's book, Almost near the bottom of the page it says for the great majority Of Eastern fathers however the dueterocanon writings ranked as scripture in the fullest sense. You didn't go into completely what he said in that particular chapter
@@stanyukica382 that paragraph is talking about the west. The sentence after the one you mentioned discusses augustine's influence on the west helping along the majority in the west to accepting them as full scripture. The sentences prior are all about Hilary and Jerome, how both of them relate to the eastern position. The preceding paragraph discusses the east, even stating at the top of the page that Cyril of Alexandria was a particular hardliner in the subordination of the deutero-canon teaching the deutero-canon should not even be studied in private. Kelly discusses how other easterners were more flexible, while still maintaining the subordination opinion. I am just pointing out, the eastern position is not in the paragraph you were thinking it was in. afaik, the Orthodox Church canon law still does not view the deutero-canonicals as equal to the 66 books. I don't think they use them for primary doctrine, they are still in a supplementary and subordinate role. That doesn't mean they are the same as any ole random book though.
All the reformers had 73 books in their bibles that were agreed upon in the counsel of Rome in 382 AD. It wasn't until 1825 that the British and Foreign Bible Society that decided to only print 66 books in the bible. For 1500 years all Christians had the same bible, but for the last 198 years some Christians decided 66 books were sufficient. The Septuagint included all seven books which the Disciples carried around for teaching. If these books were used by the 12 disciples they should be used today.
*All the reformers had 73 books in their bibles* And? They still weren't considered inspired but apocryphal. That view goes back before Jerome. *that were agreed upon in the counsel of Rome in 382 AD* The council of Rome in 382 did no such thing. Charles Hefele wrote 5 volumes called A History of the Councils of the Church. Vol 2 starting on pp 378 he gives details of Rome 382 and doesn't mention scripture one time. He says all the acts have been lost and 'we know very little about the proceedings of the council.' All the late 4th century councils; Rome, Hippo and Carthage were local, not ecumenical. As far as the rcc is concerned, they aren't binding on anyone. *For 1500 years all Christians had the same bible* You really need to read more. That is not even remotely true. Codex Siniaticus included the epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. Some copies of the Vulgate contained the Epistle to the Laodiceans and the Peshitta only had 22 of 27 n.t. books. Hardly 'the same bible.' *If these books were used by the 12 disciples they should be used today.* They weren't considered inspired.
@ContendingEarnestly We Catholics don't agree. The church Jesus started has spoken, 73 books as it was in 382 AD. All Catholics adhere and some Protestants. You are in a minority. The Prots changed the word of God and took out 7 books. This is historical and true.
@@mfjh505 Just because you agree with the rcc doesn't mean its right. There was no declared canon at rome 382. The first dogmatic declaration for the canon for the rcc was at Trent, 4th session, April 8 1546. Not before. And no, prots didn't take anything out. You can't take out what was never there in the first place. The apocrypha was never considered inspired. Good for reading? Yes. God breathed? No.
@ContendingEarnestly A simple google search will generate proof of the Counsel of Rome. Below is the first ecclesiastical decree on the Church’s canonical books of the Sacred Scriptures. It is exactly the same canon used today by the Catholic Church Martin Luther removed seven of those books, plus portions to Daniel and Esther. “Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon [i.e. Chronicles] two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus [i.e. Sirach] one book. Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book, with Ginoth, that is, with his Lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books [i.e. Ezra & Nehemiah], Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books. Likewise the order of the writings of the New and Eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book. The Epistles of Paul the Apostle in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one. Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle one epistle.” - Decree of the Council of Rome (AD 382) on the Canon of Scripture during the reign of Pope Damasus I (AD 366-384).
@markhart5050 Google? Hefele, a Roman Catholic bishop wrote on this and doesn't say squat about any declarative statement regarding the canon. Again all the acts were lost. A north African group had a list. Not binding on anyone. And when people say Luther removed books you know automatically they haven't researched anything. Luther removed nothing. But it's your claim, prove it.
For many of the reasons Michuta listed, I tend to think that the Roman Catholic OT is the minimum viable OT. However, I don't think Jesus gave a canon. That seems to have arisen later. The early Christians seemed more open, used more books than almost anybody today, and it narrowed over time. Were it otherwise, we wouldn't have so many local deviations in book lists. The variations in local usage, and the fact that books not in the canon are cited as Scripture in the NT, might be a caution that we should rethink the idea of canon altogether.
The choice made by the rabbis was deliberately an anti-Christian choice, to throw out the original "two powers in Heaven" theology of many Jews in Jesus' time, as much as possible, as was the Protestant canon, in many ways. When Jews read the missing books, they often also become rightfully upset, as some Protestants do, when they discover them.
We can see from the books of Acts that Jewish followers who were baptised by John the Baptist had not received the Holy Spirit until they later got baptised into Jesus. It really seems odd to me to appeal to Jewish leaders who have not received the Holy Spirit to discern the Cannon. I mean they would leave out all the New Testament books while they are at it. Seems like a bold strategy cotton.
Right for whom .. or what? Lists have that kind of limitation, even in settling disputes over revisions of the Latin translations of the selected texts. The texts officially listed as All Scripture for use in the Catholic Church came down to a choice between Jerome's preference for a short List (Canon), as per scholarly ideas about the texts accepted by the Rabbinical Jewish traditions, and Augustine's decision for the traditional list(s) used in the Latin Rites of the Roman Communion, as affirmed previously at local Synods. Augustine's decision was authoritatively accepted as definitive - liturgically, etc, Jerome's scholarly efforts provided an accepted basis - educationally (for the Jewish texts and their Greek translations). Therefore a Long Canon was dogmatised as all the accepted texts, with some appended extras (the 'Apocrypha' = texts that could have been accepted as 'All Scripture' but, by custom, were not, Enoch, Esdras II/ III, or Barnabas and The Shephard, etc, yet a good read notwithstanding), while a Short(er) Canon was deemed sufficient for scholarly purposes (examinations, Commentaries, commentary on the Commentaries, and such like). Indeed a similar Short List and Long List expedient was used across the Catholic Church, e.g. for imperial orthodoxy, Coptic and Syrian orthodoxies; indeed the approved English (Calvinised Lutheran Cranmerist episcopalian) version - for use in the Church of England, the 'King James Version', followed a liturgical custom (The Book of Common Prayer) - rather than the scholarly procedural manner - that is, containing the Long Canon but having it distinguished from the Short Canon; here the 19th-century expediencies and tastes edited the Long Canon down to the Short Canon format exclusively (making the mass production cheaper, having a more securely Calvinist purity about it, and thus suiting the requirements of the Bible Society movements (a major financial player in 'Bible' production at that time, originally for the English language market). Keep the Faith; tell the truth, shame the devil, and let the demons shriek. God bless. ;o) P.S. If you want a Bible with as long a list of accepted texts as possible, try the Slavonic or Ethiopic customary listings. Or just go to somewhere like the Catholic Encyclopedia for the Church Fathers, having many of the spurious, doubtful, misattributed, unused, non-recognised or just plain old secondary or tertiary level texts listed. A few of them nearly made it into the accepted listings, others were very popular light devotional reading, quite outside 'all scripture', and some rather more influential on Christian thought than might otherwise be considered (though 'apocryphal' with no claim whatever to be canonised) cf 'The Protoevangelium of James' et al : www.newadvent.org/fathers/
6:30 I find it stunning Gary Michuta told that Jew that the problem for them not accepting the trinity because they have the Tanakh and not those other books. If you look at Athanasius to the arians, his proof texts and Old Testament scriptural basis are mostly and unadulteratedly from Proverbs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Psalms. There’s one in Baruch and then he has two quotes from Wisdom. Plus he has a moment when he shows Isaiah, Suzanna and Baruch saying the same statement. His main arguement revolves around Proverbs 8. And what Gary is talking about is a case he makes for the wisdom eternal and same as God and none création is Proverbs, Isaiah, Psalms.
@@briansardinas1359 yes Brian you are correct but Protestants have a hard time going back so the reason I said the Council of Florence it’s right before the heretic Martin Luther in the 1,500’s.
22:40. “Akiba being a Pharisee of the Hillel school.” Here is where Gary concedes that Rabbi Akiba was from the Pharisaic school of Hillel, which had the same books that protestants have today. What Gary is demonstrating here is that Akiba inherited the shorter canon from the school of Hillel, rather than setting the shorter canon later. Gamaliel and the apostle Paul were also students of the same school of Hillel, which means they too inherited this shorter canon, which was the same that Protestants have today. So the OLDER canon was the shorter Protestant canon, not the larger Roman Catholic canon which came centuries LATER.
In your statement, you concede that Rabbi Akiva is in a faction (Hillel school) within a sect of Judaism (Pharisee). Look at Sanhedrin 100b from the Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi Akiva prohibits reading "external literature" also referred to as books of "heretics" (aka Christians) proving that those books were already circulating within the Pharisaical canon but had to be removed due to their problematic implications.
@@slyth150 if you’re referring to Rabbi Akiva stating that both the apocrypha books and the New Testament books “don’t make the hands unclean,” keep in mind that he’s saying this for two different reasons. He did not believe the apocrypha was scripture, because the Jews never accepted them and they were not laid up in the temple, which is where the scriptures were kept. But the reason why he did not believe the New Testament books were scripture was because they pointed to Jesus as the promised Jewish Messiah. So he had different reasons for believing the apocrypha and the New Testament books were not scripture.
Honest question - why is a Roman Catholic claiming that the biblical canon is the most fundamental question in his religion? Of course it's incredibly important but the way I see it wouldn't the visible church be the foundation of the faith? The canon came from the church, no? Not the other way around.
Good question. Books got accepted because they commended themselves. The Roman Catholics can have the traditional canon of course but a way needs to be found for Protestants like me to appreciate the value of these books. My aim is to get Protestants to read these books according to Luther's and the 39 Articles of Religion (Anglican) usage. Let's see things from a broader perspective and enhance common ground. These books belong to all of us.
It should be noted that the Apocrypha was kept in Luther's German translation of the Bible. He followed the thought of Rabbis at the time that since there was not a Hebrew original version only a Greek version. It was thought the books did not have the same standard as the true word of God compared to other books in the Old Testament of the Bible that had original Hebrew text. The Apocrypha was thought to be more of an auxiliary guide or set of books, but not the same standard as the 66 books of the post Reformation churches.
That would be a poor argument on two fronts: 1) If the true word of God is signified exclusively by Hebrew, then please throw out the entire New Testament. 2) Since when do Christians, as the true Israel, defer judgement and decision making to the very Pharisees who rejected our Lord God Jesus?
@@alisterrebelo9013 That is why religion is so debatable on all of its points. So many view points. As they find more ancient texts, will the Bible change again?
Is it just me or does this whole conversation open up a whole new can of worms? I’m not even talking about the books of the Bible… Just the fact he brought up how there different sects of Jews with different cannons. I think as Christians we ( or maybe it’s just me lol) just naturally assume everyone in the Jewish world prior to Jesus was mostly united in their beliefs. Usually when you think of theological disputes your mind mainly just goes to the Protestant reformation or church councils post Christ…Never really thought of the Jewish people having the same situation going on. Really gives you something to think about 🤔
@@arathihighlands2683Yeah, I know the New Testament mentions a division amongst Jews but I never really thought about it relating back to the Old Testament at least regarding to the scriptures. 🤔
@@arathihighlands2683 Oh, interesting 🤔 Thanks for pointing that out. Never really understood those passages in light of that. This whole conversation is really making me think.
Most Protestants, don't pray for the dead. If only they recognised this in Sacred Scripture they reject addressing this. Many more would be praying for them.
@@Jerome-72 Lutherans commend the dead to God because He loves them. EO, I've heard, pray for the dead for their salvation, they don't believe in purgatory.
@@Jerome-72 You're right, there's not much on Christian funerals in the NT either. Every funeral procession Jesus comes to, He says stop crying. The only thing close to an instruction or example is Paul instructing against mourning and reminding that we're are commended to God's care (the whole 'Rest In Peace' thing)
Books such as Tobit and Judith are obviously fiction. They might be intended as pious fiction, parable/allegory, but there is a blasphemous allegation in Tobit, alleging that the holy angel Raphael would deceive Tobit by telling him the lie that he was the son of Tobit's relative. St Jerome had the right opinion about the unacceptability of that book as inspired.
I'll never wrap my head around why any Christian could look at Wisdom 2, see one of the clearest prophecies of Christ, and then go "welp, I really won't be needing this for scripture." Seems reckless and more in keeping with "following the traditions of men" than what Catholics and Orthodox Christians are often accused of. Truth is you can be a Protestant and accept books like Sirach and Wisdom. Who's stopping you? Some long dead Scottish Presbyterian who wrote some tracts two hundred years ago?
We don’t make that call as individuals. The OT scriptures were entrusted to the Jews by God. It’s not the church’s responsibility or right to come along and make decisions about what their canon should contain. The passage you mentioned is clearly influenced by the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22. As with much of later Jewish literature written prior to Christ it is a beautiful reflection on themes from the OT without really bringing anything new. Luther actually translated the apocrypha and included it in his German edition but taught that these books are good for edification but not for establishing doctrine -and I agree
@@hettinga359 Thx for your thoughtful reply. I differ on the Church not being an authority...we can banter about that later but I'd like to focus on two things and it's going to take up two comments (Sorry about that.) 1. My assertion that a Protestant is not obliged to demote or remove books that were read aloud in the Church for centuries before Trent was addressed to Protestants basically because Luther is just a man; what he taught can even be disputed amongst Lutherans (former Lutheran here.) This point is less interesting to me because Luther (and others) changed their mind a lot. We can find a time where he cited some as scripture and then his opinion would change later. Same with the Church of Rome being "The Church of God" to "papacy is antichrist" ...he was belligerent haha but we all do this as our thinking develops. Let me get to the more interesting point in a follow up...
@@hettinga359 The more interesting (to me) point I'd like to make: Isaiah 53 and Ps 22 don't use the "very strong" language that almost got Jesus stoned a few times. This isn't to say that Wis 2 is somehow a "better prophecy" than those, but it's more developed. You said it's "clearly influenced by" those earlier prophecies of our Lord and I absolutely agree. Being later and closer in time to His coming, it starts using clarifying language that is as shocking as Christ's words were to the Scribes and Pharisees: his claim of Sonship and divinity. I would personally hate to discard this just because of the opinions of a few men. I have a theory and I could be right or wrong: I think this prophecy purposely "missed" the Hebrew texts and stayed in the BC Septuagint because it's obvious they couldn't bear to hear it (whereas Sirach would have been fine.) They couldn't even accept such "blasphemy" from God incarnate when the time had been fulfilled.
@@jayguevara6153 are you saying that you believe the Jews prior to Christ excluded Wisdom from their canon because they were hardened against the idea of a divine Messiah? If so I don’t see a lot of evidence for that theory. Rom 3:2 says that the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. A necessary condition for guarding something is knowing the identity/parameters of the thing you’ve been entrusted with. I think the description in this video of the ignorance and disagreement among Jews of the first century is way overstated. Jesus and the apostles frequently quote scripture to back up their claims in the context of debates with a wide range of opponents and are never met with the response “well we don’t believe that’s sacred scripture.” The authority of the texts is assumed by both parties. Jesus said that his sheep hear his voice and follow him. The church came to a consensus on the NT canon very early and all major branches of the church remain in agreement on its contents. I think the best explanation for this is that Christ’s flawed sheep are able to recognize the voice of their perfect shepherd in the pages of scripture. I believe that God also worked providentially among his people in the OT. It’s not the churches job to retrospectively decide what the Jewish scriptures should contain.
Your theory (if I’m understanding you correctly) reminds of Origen’s reason for accepting the apocrypha as sacred scripture. He argued that because the books had been read and accepted as scripture in many churches they must therefore be inspired scripture because Christ promised to guide and build his church and would not allow his people to fall into error on this point. Then in the same letter Origen points out how the accounts of the martyrdom of the prophets have not been preserved in scripture and theorized that Jews who were involved in the persecution of the prophets must have removed those accounts to protect their own reputations. He clearly did not have the same trust in God’s preservation of the OT scriptures through his OT people -the Jews. As I said above, I agree that God moved the church to adopt the NT canon we hold in common. But I also believe that God did the same thing with the OT. We didn’t save a bunch of sacred texts from god-hating people who had messed with them and altered things to suit their fancy. We are the recipients of a priceless gift of revelation which Jews faithfully preserved through the centuries. Sorry that was a lot. Stuff I’m passionate about lol
a) Most Christian denominations believe you need a Church. Only Protestants don't. b) The original Church was supposed to stay *UNITED* . Except Catholics and Orthodoxes broke it in 2, so they failed too. Conclusion : Everyone messed up ! It's a tie ! 😅
@@nathanmagnuson2589Sounds like a great case for why we need Catholicism. Without authority, how does anyone know what is true and what’s heresy? Protestantism made separation and schism mainstream; divisions before were not nearly as wide spread or accepted.
Another thing, it’s not just the Trinity but just on how Judaism works. But this do you have books being written all up to about 50 years before Christ. Then Christ crucified and there’s no more books according to Judaism, which shows a sudden drop off in their conversation or relationship with the Lord. Well the Protestant versions have a 400 something year making that argument weaker.
He cites plenty of primary and secondary scholary sources in his books. You can also listen to a discussion he had with Dr. Lee Martin Mcdonald, a canon scholar, that affirms pretty much everything he said in regards to the historical canon.
Where this conversation goes wrong with this: if you are appealing to the deuterocanon your thesis must question the 66 books (of the kjb) as not being enough for salvation as the 39 articles (n.6) clearly states they can read the deuterocanon but it isnt necessary for salvation. Thusly, if you are for the 73 books (or realistically more since some of the other books also have close references in some of the NT) then you are going to take the position that you cannot get to salvation without the deurterocanon. after reading and listening to arguments for the deuterocanon there isnt anything new in them compared to whats already in the NT and OT, this is where the argument should be. learning about dec. 25th is christmas from macabees isnt going to save someone, and that history is recorded in several other places outside the deuterocanon (Josephus and the Romans wrote about it). Last time I checked, celebrating christmas isnt necessary for salvation
Catholics believe they have the fullness of the faith. They acknowledged all can be saved by god through gods grace. You can be saved with the Protestant Bible. You can be saved reading the Bhagavad Gita. That is up to god. But the church is on mission and it’s presenting the fullness of divine revelation
You need to think differently about the canon. I speak as a Protestant. Whst is the canon? Various books are written and are good and interesting. The book of Enoch is quoted by Jude. Yet it's not included in the Bible. I'd still encourage people to read it. The canon is always found. That is the Church took up the books for our use and edification, our instruction. The early Church was going on from the Greek text. That includes the deuterocanon. The problem goes back to St Jerome who translated from the Hebrew. Hebrew manuscripts don't contain these books. They are though Jewish books written by Jews for Jews in the inter-testamental period. The Protestant view of the Bible has to be wrong (again I am a Protestant). The Church isn't founded on the Bible, the Church created the Bible and received different manuscripts and made judgements about it. So of course the canon is always determined by the Church at the highest levels, universal councils and so on. That is how we get/got our Bible. I favour the partition started by Luther and the Church of England with the so called Apocrypha in a separate section. As it happens i don't like the term Apocrypha and prefer a fuller explanation, books found in Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament and accepted by Roman Catholics and Orthodox. I favour all Bibles containing these books for our instruction and edification.
It was reading Gary Michuta's "Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger" that made me realize that Protestant canon is the correct canon thus making me a stronger Protestant. Iron sharpens iron. I have many answers to Michutas's arguments but the most weakest argument he proposed to claim that apocrypha is canon is that th early Fathers quote the apocrypha and called them Scripture. He spent 3 chapters in his book quoting Fathers that use the apocrypha as Scripture. But we see that these early Fathers quote many apocryphal books that the Catholic reject as canon. For example: Clement of Alexandria quote 3 and 4 Maccabees as though it is scripture. (I can quote many Fathers.) The NT canon for example quote the Book of Enoch. Paul quote many Pagan Greek philosophers. "Quotation does not equate canonicity" - William Albrecht to Bart Ehrman, Reason and Theology.
Who in protestantism who has the authority decide canon? We aren't Muslims (who believe the Quran always existed) we know at a certain point in time it was decided upon in the Churches of the Episcopal system of governance which books should and shouldn't be included. What would stop an individual protestant from adopting say the "war scroll" from the dead sea scrolls as canon? We can't say we rely on the Jewish canon because rabbinic Judaism is on the same playing field as Christianity, both are descended from Second Temple Judaism. Authority is the big issue for me, because again, we aren't like Muslims with their view of the Quran's origin.
@@RestingJudge If you say authority I know you are referring to church councils. The earliest Christian church council to have OT canon is the Council of Laodicea (363 AD) and its OT canon is 98 percent identical to the Protestant canon it only has Baruch and Epistle of Jeremiah the rest is identical to Protocanon. This council also prohibits from reading books that not mentioned in its canon. (the 5 books of RCC now) The official teaching of the Catholic church is that the OT canon was ONLY INFALLIBLY decided at the Council of Trent 1546. "According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Chruch at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent "(The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon). Hippo and Carthage lacks Baruch and Lamentations and according to Michuta this councils or synods (specifically) has no ecumenical authority for it is not an ecumenical council but a regional synod.
@@RestingJudge You will be judged by the Witness Stone that Jesus Himself set, Peter (Mat 16:18), who will witness whether YOU have kept God's Word or not! No human (Neither Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Joseph Smith, Charles Russel, Ellen White, etc etc) gets to set a Stone different than the one Our Lord set! If you don't know what I'm talking about perhaps you should review Joshua 24:26-27 .
@@javesuanif you discredit early Church fathers for including non canonical books then why not discredit Laodicea since it includes Baruch, another non canonical book to you. If the fathers are inadmissible than so is that council under your logic
@@tonywallens217 As I said the Fathers were quoting many non-canonical book that the Catholic rejected. Gregory of Nyssa quote 3 Maccabees 2:14 as though it is part of scripture. Apostolic Constitution accepts 3 Maccabees as Scripture. Ireneus quote Enoch as though it is part of scripture and also the epistle of Barnabas. But Fathers in th East like Melito of Sardis, Athanasius, Origen etc. rejected the aporcypha of the Papists. And no, I don't accept the council of Laodicea (363) the Jews the chosen race by God who gave us scriptures (Romans 3:2) knows the boundary of the OT canon and it is just 22/24 book that is 100 percent identical to the Protestant. Josephus a 1st century Jewish historian attested to this truth.
It's worth noting that this was because Cajatan treated Jerome as basically infallible: "Nor should you be disturbed, O novice, if you should anywhere find those books reckoned among the canonical books, either in the holy councils, or in the holy Doctors. For the words of the councils, as well as of the Doctors, are to be submitted to the correction of Jerome"- Commentary on Esther
@@aaronmueller5802 certainly demonstrates that the issue was sufficiently unresolved such that there were elites within the church prior to the reformation who held to the smaller canon.
I wonder if Austin is going to ask Gary if he can produce an identical Catholic OT canon prior to the end of the fourth century, like Gary has produced identical Protestant OT canons in the early church era from both ancient Jewish and Christian lists from Gary’s videos. And I will be curious if Gary will claim there was no set Jewish canon until at least the Bar Kohkba Revolt, which this claim has been debunked.
@@roddumlauf9241 first, there was no single “Septuagint” in the early church. They were different versions of it with different books in it. The original was only come posed of the five books of Moses translated into Greek, the Pentateuch. According to John Martingnoni who is a Roman Catholic scholar, the completion of the pre-Christian era Septuagint was around 134 BC. This would have included all of the books from the Hebrew Bible, including Esther, since they were written before 400 BC and translate it later in Greek. But it would’ve excluded every other book from the apocrypha, including the so-called deuterocanonical books. They did not get translated or written in Greek until after 134 BC. And these books slowly got added to the old testament sometime after the first century AD. And we know more books were included in the completed Septuagint, because these were the same books that would’ve been laid up in the temple. It two would’ve included all the books from the Hebrew Bible, and excluded the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books.
It comes down to what men want to use to support their theories. Example...Catholics included 1 and 2Esdras but reject 3 and 4 Esdras because it has a verse that seems to go against the theory of purgatory.
That argument maybe (just maybe) would have some force if the Protestant Bibles had them, as it would seem to make the arguably “suspicious” abandonment of it due to incompatibility of doctrines, as you state. But it doesn’t even make sense, since it’s not the case for Protestantism. More so, it’s not in the canon of the Syriac Orthodox and the Coptic Orthodox (pre-Chalcedonian Oriental Orthodox), despite being in the Ethiopian Orthodox (also pre-Chalcedonian Oriental Orthodox) - known to have the largest biblical canon. Also, 3 Esdras and 4 Esdras are not in the Assyrian Church of the East canon. Just pointing this out to show the argument doesn’t make any sense. God bless!
This is just not correct. Catholics (as well as protestants and Orthodox) accept Ezra and Nehemiah (1 and 2 Esdras in older translations). 3 Esdras (also referred to as 1 Esdras) is just a retelling of Ezra and Nehemiah with one extra story that has nothing to do with purgatory. 4 Esdras is a late Latin apocalypse that was never considered scripture by the fathers, and it has nothing to do with purgatory either.
Can John Meade cite a source? According to Irenaeus. Who was one removed from the apostle John. The Apostles used the Septuagint. And the Septuagint was divinely translated. And used to argue with Jews. (‘Against the heresies’ book III. Chapter 21)
@@CPATuttleWhat's called the septuagint was originally just five books. Nobody knows when or how the term came to be associated with other books. To say "the apostles used the septuagint" is a gross oversimplification.
@@ReformingApologetics so you’re calling Irenaeus “grossly oversimplification” on his writing. Which five books did the Septuagint have? And cite your source
How so? The Apostles uses the Septuagint Canon and quoted from It directly 300 times. Certainly they considered the deuterocanonical books to be Scripture
Gary does not express what the foundation of the gospel is. Yes we must and can be united to Christ, but it is only possible because Jesus has paid it all and that is great good news.
@@yalechuk6714 Don't know what you're implying, but the very foundation of everything is the sacrifice of Jesus, without which we have nothing and indeed we would all perish.
@@thechristianpodcastingnetw8458 That contained many more texts than are part of the Old Testament. And, it contained Hebrew and Aramaic originals of texts Luther removed from the Bible for supposedly being only in Greek.
rome likes to pretend no one knew anything when it comes to the canon so this brings reason to why we need the councils etc however Jesus held people accountable in the new testament for knowing what is scripture how could He if the canon was not well known, also the NT writers quote what is considered ot canon with so it is written peter affirms paul paul affirms luke etc plus the new testament is all independent eye witness statements or a summery of someone's experience like luke its not hard
You like to parrot James White? Jesus held EACH SECT accountable to its own canon. That's why Jesus quotes Genesis to the Sadducees to prove the resurrection rather than much more explicit texts like Ezekiel's vision of dry bones taking on flesh. Maybe take a look at both sides' arguments before using somebody else's talking points.
@@tonyl3762 alot of assumptions tony, even if i did get this from james white ( i did not) you finding where i learned the argument is not a refute to the argument, does this make sense? here is an example, the Kalam cos argument universe came to exist therefore has a cause- atheist, you learned that from WLC, so tony does this mean the kalam argument isn't valid? Jesus met his audience He also used fishing analogies to fishermen so what, truth is He corrected based upon a known canon, Ezekiel's dry bones is about being remade through the blood of Christ with living water (Holy Spirit). Maybe you shouldn't assume i haven looked at both sides, how on earth could you come to this conclusion because I have a conclusion contrary to yours? this same logic applied tony i would say you need to check both sides cause u dont agree with me, this of course is a logical fallacy, btw Steve Christie @bornagainrn is who i get my argument's from after nearly turning roman cathoic i know him personally, hopefully he will be on here, because what gary brought to the argument was begging the question, not enough paper for protestant translations, and we dont know so there for we need rome, which is ridiculous. i promise you these arguments wont hold up in a debate this was weak i think you know this this is why your emotional and appealing to emotional claims
@@John2028Apologetics Had a distinctly James White flavor/style, the way you put it. That's why I asked, but maybe Steve Christie borrowed it from him too. Doesn't really matter. I've heard both of them. Never said the fact that you were borrowing from one person or another made your assertion false. You just repeated the talking points as if Catholics don't have a response. If you had heard and seriously considered both sides, you would have been able to answer my objection/response to you. Your response does nothing to demonstrate that the Catholic response is incorrect, that Jesus was not merely holding each Jewish sect to its own canon, regardless of size. You have also not demonstrated that Jesus was appealing to one common and known Jewish canon instead of the canon of each sect He was talking to in each instance (like any good debater appealing to common ground). Do you and Christie deny that there were SEVERAL Jewish sects (Pharisees (Hillel vs Shammai), Sadducees, Essenes, Samaritans? If not, you think all those sects had the same canon?? Ezekiel's bones taking on flesh is a prophecy of the general Resurrection of the human body. Do you not agree with that? Is it not clear that Jesus could have used much more explicit and direct OT citations to prove the Resurrection? So then why did He use Genesis and roundabout implicit (but still solid) logic?
Nuance is a positive when dealing with a complex and highly disputed topic. The history of the scriptural canon is not simple. If you look throughout Church history you will see many positions one what books are a part of the canon. Eusebius talks about the different opinions people have on the canon of the New Testament all the way in the 300s. Many early church fathers made lists of the scriptural canon and variously included or excluded specific books without explanation. If you are not getting a nuanced perspective explaining the biblical canon then either that person is quite possibly lying to you or they don't know what they are talking about. And all that's not even mentioning the fact that people in the ancient world had a different understanding from us of what the words canon, scripture, and authoritative mean. As a post script, catechetical material doesn't need to be nuanced because that's not the point. I'm saying this as an orthodox Christian, not trying to defend Roman Catholicism.
Having read some of the deut canon I can say that I do not miss it. Maybe the Macabees but other books have a very distinctly other feel to me. Very mystic without God sort of way like many fake books of the time.
Some of it, yes, but Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon are generally good. I generally take the Anglican/Reformer view towards them, at least useful for wisdom but not necessarily at the level of Scripture.
What’s a “fake book?” Why does your feelings have any precedence? What about those who would say the same thing about books you accept? This is just mushy relativism?
BornAgainrn don't strike me as honest seeker of truth. He is more interested in maintaining a tribal line than dealing with the actual history. Watched his debate with both Gary and Trent. He was just repeating his talking point rather engaging his opponents directly. He seems to me he is more afraid that he might be wrong than dealing with the actual truth. At least Gospel Simplicity is willing to directly acknowledge reality of complexity of the situation. I can even tell what his repetoire is going to be 1- The Rabbanic Jews said 2 - Jerome said 3- Cajetan said 4 -The books of Deuteroncanons don't match 'Christian' Theology which simply demonstrates he started with his theology and read into it what canon is. 5) The errors in Deuterocanons which if he consistent with will leave him with no Bible. 6) Just ask him to stop fixating with list and deal with the usage of books question. Finally Whatever criteria he always comes up with he never consistently applies to his own canon
@@yalechuk6714 "Just ask him to stop fixating with list and deal with the usage of books question" Anglicans and Lutherans use the apocrypha, but we know they don't accept them as canonical. Since quotation does not equal canonicty as admitted by Catholic Scholas, then it is impossible for usage to ever construct a canon. (Even NT quotations of the OT cannot be used to demonstrate canonicity).
This is like watching a competition for World's Friendliest Person 😂. Great conversation guys!
The Dead Sea Scrolls contain the Deuterocanonical books and the 10th century AD Masoretic is the first Jewish text to exclude them. Since the Enlightenment, it was wrongly believed that the Masoretic Text was the "original" Hebrew Bible when this was in fact a medieval version created by the Masoretes.
@@theologicalwebbfragments of every deuterocanonical book is attested to in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Dr. John Bergsma’s book “Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls” is a good resource for this.
However, the Book of Esther has not been found (but it’s so short that it could just be lost).
@@theologicalwebb
Using your logic, ancient Egyptians had the wireless technology because no wire was found or not finding a gun is a proof of innocence.
@@theologicalwebbthere is great value in admitting you’ve been schooled. Socrates, one of most profound thinkers of all time, was fond of admitting when he was wrong and was thrilled by being shown up by others (it allowed him to grow in knowledge). It was those who put him death, however, who could not accept a simpleton like Socrates to show the flaws in their doctrine.
@@carsonianthegreat4672It is simply not true that every Deuterocanonical book has been found in the dead sea scrolls. We have only found Sirach, Tobit, and the Epistle to Jeremiah.
Very interesting and enlightening conversation.
-An Orthodox brother in Christ.
Glad you enjoyed it!
It just makes more logical sense to accept deuterocanon because the 'Hebrew bible' was maintained by people that rejected Jesus (Rabbinicists are the admitted succession of the Pharisees), likely removing as much as they could in reference to His prophecy and dates back only a millenium after the church was established while the Septuagint, Vulgate and Peshitta were maintained by the Church, have stronger manuscripts which are dated earlier than the masorectic text and for the OT in the LXX, date before the church was even established. Who are you going to trust, the people that rejected and killed Jesus or the literal body of Christ?
I've never thought of this but thank you for the info.
Austin, I'm truly impressed by the quality of your questions in this interview! They're incredibly well-thought-out and engaging. Your respectful demeanor throughout the conversation is admirable too. And Gary, you shine as brilliantly as ever with your insights. Kudos to both of you for creating such an informative and enjoyable interview! Great episode!
God bless you, Austin and Gary
@Gospel Simplicity thanks for having @Gary Michuta and Gary thanks for accepting I'm hooked on @Gary's YT channel @Apocrypha Apocalypse I've learned so much from him. Thanks Robert from Puerto Rico 🇵🇷
Here are some examples of Jesus referring to deuterocanon:
Matt. 2:16 - Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in
Wisdom 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.
Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows
Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.
Matt. 9:36 - the people were “like sheep without a shepherd” is same as
Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.
Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of
Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.
John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.
Luke 21:24 - Jesus’ usage of “fall by the edge of the sword” follows Sirach 28:18.
St. Paul quotes Judith and says it was written for our correction. And Paul says elsewhere that scriptures were written for our correction. So Paul in scripture refers to Judith as scripture.
Oooh, thanks for those references. What verse of Judith did Paul reference? I've read the deuterocanon but I'm not well acquainted with it.
Judith, viii, 14, in I Cor., ii, 10 (cf. also I Cor., x, 10, with Judith, viii, 25). In the early Christian Church we find Judith quoted as part of Scripture in the writings of St. Clement of Rome (First Epistle to the Corinthians, lv), Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian
How interesting!
Also wisdom 2 depicts the unrighteous who kills the righteous son of God while saying “let God save him” is clearly in mind in Matthew 27:43.
@@stevenhazel4445 thanks for your contribution! The most relevant verses are Wisdom 2:11-22 (I just looked it up, thanks to you pointing me in the right direction).
Austin is a fabulous interviewer! Thank you for clarifying the conversation as it went along. Great for us non scholars!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Excellent discussion, Austin. Gary is such a generous man. I thoroughly enjoyed your conversation.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Another excellent interview Austin. First time I've encountered Mr. Michuta. He is obviously very knowledgeable of this topic and seems to be a genuinely nice guy.
@Gospel Simplicity off topic i know you were wondering about a prayer for Mother Mary a couple days ago i would recommend you invite @William Albrecht or Rev. Dr. Kappes, Rev. Dr. Daley, Kelly Powers, Father Pacwa,Tim Staples, Dr Brant Pitre on they know they've helped so many understand Mama Maria more.
Could you please provide that prayer? Or the video where Austin discusses it?
If it's the one I think it is, I've been looking for it for a while now to explain it.
@chidmania8485 it's was on his community page of YT couple days ago.
I've actually had William and Dr. Kappes on already! The others would be great though
@@robertotapia8086 thanks. I hope I'll find it
@@GospelSimplicitythird time watching this video and still taking notes Thanks @Austin & Gary. Your Catholic Brother Robert from Puerto Rico 🇵🇷
The correct canon is the Catholic canon and has been 73 books for 1600 years. It's absolutely undeniable. I've studied it endlessly.
Why do the Greeks and Slavs have different canons?
The Catholics haven't been right since 1054.
Orthodox Canon is the correct canon, but we can agree that the Protestants aren’t even close.
@j.g.4942 Things are more complex than that, I guess. If there is one thing complex in the history of the Greeks (particularly of the Church of Constantinople) is how to effectively weigh the Council of Trullo (692 AD) as far as canon law/ disciplines/ practices, doctrine and dogma go. We won’t know for sure how a spirit of anti-Latinism could have conditioned the abandonment of some ecclesiastical and canonical realities when they were deemed “too Latin” to stand, whereas other canons were treated almost as dogmatic absolutes when they dealt with mere Greek practices and disciplines that were different in the West. The point is the arguable formal/ documented adoption of the biblical canon of Carthage when the canons of Carthage (419) were translated into Greek, to be put under the consolidated canons of Trullo. As we know:
_”(…) These canons were not at first adopted in Greek but in Latin (…). It is uncertain when the canons of this Carthaginian synod were done into Greek. This only is certain, that they had been translated into Greek before the Council in Trullo by which, in its Second Canon, they were received into the Greek Nomocanon, and were confirmed by the authority of this synod; so that from that time these canons stand in the Eastern Church on an equality with all the rest”._ (Catholic Encyclopedia, “Council of Carthage 419”).
Please notice that the word “canons” here is referential not to the Biblical canon but to all types of canonical regulations (more than 100, for sure) compiled in the Council of Carthage (419) and later translated to Greek in order to be compiled into Trullo, many of which even having received papal abrogation (therefore, without enforceability), like the prohibition to appeal overseas, one that is at odds - by the way - with the Eastern council of Serdica [343] in modern-day Bulgaria, for just one example. But one of those canons of the Carthaginian canons internalized in the Greek church through Trullo (r. Canon 2) was precisely the very canon 24, which defines the Biblical canon: _”(…) That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture”_ and there goes the list of books, which happens to be *identical* to the list of both the Ecumenical Councils of Florence and Trent, for instance (that’s Canon 24 of Carthage-419). It is was there, ‘rectius’, it is there in Trullo. Curiously enough the Church of Constantinople even thought of Trullo (692) to be Ecumenical during important periods of her history, yet this issue of the biblical canon was put to rest, apparently.
@@xpictos777which Orthodox Canon? They are not all in alignment sorry
I've listened to both Catholic and Protestant appologists on this issue and this is the first time I've heard some info. Great conversation!
The Dead Sea Scrolls debunk Jerome's Hebrew Verity/Truth theory. We found Hebrew copies of Tobit and Sirach, at least, among the DSS.
What is that theory? What does it claim?
@@lucidlocomotive2014 Jerome thought that the Deuterocanonicals could not be Scripture because they were not written in Hebrew or because there were no Hebrew copies of them available to him at his time. His premise for his theory was disproven by the finding of the DSS.
@@tonyl3762 That is a necessary consequence for the ones that originated in Greek (e.g. 2 Macc) but not what Jerome meant by "Hebraica veritas." With Judith and 1 Maccabees, he specifically says they were in "Chaldean words" and Hebrew, respectively, and still rejects their canonicity.
@@tonyl3762 ah okay I see. I wish he could have seen the dss I wonder what he’d think
The Dead Sea Scrolls contain the Deuterocanonical books and the 10th century AD Masoretic is the first Jewish text to exclude them. Since the Enlightenment, it was wrongly believed that the Masoretic Text was the "original" Hebrew Bible when this was in fact a medieval version created by the Masoretes.
Any Bible without Wisdom lacks wisdom, no pun intended.
Curious that the Protestant canon contains “66” books. A number used within the Bible which indicates incompleteness. 73 contains the number of completeness and the number of the trinity. Definitely not a proof but interesting nonetheless as I believe there are no coincidences.
A couple questions for Gary (or anyone who has thoughts):
1 -- I recently went to go buy one of Gary's books and couldn't figure out the difference between Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger and The Case for the Deuterocanon. Is there one he recommends first?
2 -- This conversation focuses on Protestant v Catholic OT, but what are his thoughts on the additional books in the Orthodox OT?
These are good questions. If Gary doesn’t address the EASTERN ORTHODOX Bible, I am currently having a discussion with Anthony Rogers on his channel about the old testament canon. We have done part one, and we will be scheduling part to pretty soon. I even quote Gary a couple of times.
I would read Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger first, its more of a history of the issue from a Catholic perspective. Case for the Deuterocanon is more of a straight apologetic work that just goes through various arguments.
As for the Orthodox canon, Gary was interviewed on the channel Catholic Truth in a video titled "Catholic or Orthodox?" and I'm sure he has stuff on his own channel as well.
Depends on which Orthodox as they have canons that divurge from one another. However they all affirm deuterocanonical books. The extra books they have if pressed on it would probably say they are Scripture and good for teaching but not inspired
The difference is that “Why Catholic Bible are Bigger” is more of a historical analysis of all the evidence, whereas “The Case for the Deuterocanon” is more specific in that it deals with arguments for the Deuterocanon as well as addressing some objections.
Get both. They compliment each other and are great resources. In “The Case…”, Gary catalogues the use of the deuteros by the church fathers. ~50 church fathers quote the deuteros ~450 times as scripture or to establish doctrine or both.
Really instructing! A question which I already longed to get answered a long time.
I always saw it as weird. When I was a kid really young adult and read the Bible, and the New Testament starts and I spent hundreds and hundreds of years since the last Old Testament chapter. It feels like you’re missing an entire basically movie of a series.
Right? It’s such a shock to the system. Then going back and reading the deuterocanonical books it makes so much more sense. Like a missing puzzle piece the Protestants swept under the rug
Fantastic content.
Thanks!
Thank YOU!
This was a really good discussion!
The only reason discussions like these go on forever is disobedience, the sin of Satan, and most detestable sin, because it tears apart God's Church.
The canon is 73 books because the Church defined it that way, and the Church did so because Christ gave her authority.
To question Church's authority is to question Jesus' promise.
It is as simple as that!
Even though the explanation of why and how the current cannon came to be is enlightening of the ways of God in the Church.
It really is a matter of obedience. You are 100% correct about this.
It’s wild that so many people today think of the Bible when they think of Christ. Instead of the church, the Eucharist, his mother, etc.
Jnd Kelly in his book EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES An Oxford professor of Christian history Dedicates A chapter or 2 on the Canon of the Bible and he lists 73 books
No he doesn't. Kelly states that the east preferred to relegate the deutero-canonical books to a subordinate position, while the west preferred to view them all as scripture, except for people like hilary and jerome. You can read this on pages 54-56, chapter 2 of the yellow paperback revised addition.
@@JacksonScott-os7kj Were those 46 books of the old were they canonized and accepted as a whole . If the Eastern churches do not vote for those largely They would not have become canonized. This is not to say that some did not accept those because obviously some probably did not. But those 46 books of the Old Testament would not have become canonized had they not voted for it
@@JacksonScott-os7kj On page 55 of Kelly's book, Almost near the bottom of the page it says for the great majority Of Eastern fathers however the dueterocanon writings ranked as scripture in the fullest sense. You didn't go into completely what he said in that particular chapter
@@stanyukica382 that paragraph is talking about the west. The sentence after the one you mentioned discusses augustine's influence on the west helping along the majority in the west to accepting them as full scripture. The sentences prior are all about Hilary and Jerome, how both of them relate to the eastern position. The preceding paragraph discusses the east, even stating at the top of the page that Cyril of Alexandria was a particular hardliner in the subordination of the deutero-canon teaching the deutero-canon should not even be studied in private. Kelly discusses how other easterners were more flexible, while still maintaining the subordination opinion. I am just pointing out, the eastern position is not in the paragraph you were thinking it was in.
afaik, the Orthodox Church canon law still does not view the deutero-canonicals as equal to the 66 books. I don't think they use them for primary doctrine, they are still in a supplementary and subordinate role. That doesn't mean they are the same as any ole random book though.
Apparently St Nicholas had a right hand cannon back in Nicea days.
just ask Arias!
LOL
Lol😂
I chuckled heartily which is a lot for this type of joke 😂
All the reformers had 73 books in their bibles that were agreed upon in the counsel of Rome in 382 AD. It wasn't until 1825 that the British and Foreign Bible Society that decided to only print 66 books in the bible. For 1500 years all Christians had the same bible, but for the last 198 years some Christians decided 66 books were sufficient. The Septuagint included all seven books which the Disciples carried around for teaching. If these books were used by the 12 disciples they should be used today.
*All the reformers had 73 books in their bibles*
And? They still weren't considered inspired but apocryphal. That view goes back before Jerome.
*that were agreed upon in the counsel of Rome in 382 AD*
The council of Rome in 382 did no such thing. Charles Hefele wrote 5 volumes called A History of the Councils of the Church. Vol 2 starting on pp 378 he gives details of Rome 382 and doesn't mention scripture one time. He says all the acts have been lost and 'we know very little about the proceedings of the council.' All the late 4th century councils; Rome, Hippo and Carthage were local, not ecumenical. As far as the rcc is concerned, they aren't binding on anyone.
*For 1500 years all Christians had the same bible*
You really need to read more. That is not even remotely true. Codex Siniaticus included the epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. Some copies of the Vulgate contained the Epistle to the Laodiceans and the Peshitta only had 22 of 27 n.t. books. Hardly 'the same bible.'
*If these books were used by the 12 disciples they should be used today.*
They weren't considered inspired.
@ContendingEarnestly We Catholics don't agree. The church Jesus started has spoken, 73 books as it was in 382 AD. All Catholics adhere and some Protestants. You are in a minority. The Prots changed the word of God and took out 7 books. This is historical and true.
@@mfjh505 Just because you agree with the rcc doesn't mean its right. There was no declared canon at rome 382. The first dogmatic declaration for the canon for the rcc was at Trent, 4th session, April 8 1546. Not before. And no, prots didn't take anything out. You can't take out what was never there in the first place. The apocrypha was never considered inspired. Good for reading? Yes. God breathed? No.
@ContendingEarnestly A simple google search will generate proof of the Counsel of Rome. Below is the first ecclesiastical decree on the Church’s canonical books of the Sacred Scriptures. It is exactly the same canon used today by the Catholic Church Martin Luther removed seven of those books, plus portions to Daniel and Esther.
“Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon [i.e. Chronicles] two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus [i.e. Sirach] one book.
Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book, with Ginoth, that is, with his Lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books [i.e. Ezra & Nehemiah], Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books.
Likewise the order of the writings of the New and Eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book.
The Epistles of Paul the Apostle in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one.
Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle one epistle.”
- Decree of the Council of Rome (AD 382) on the Canon of Scripture during the reign of Pope Damasus I (AD 366-384).
@markhart5050 Google? Hefele, a Roman Catholic bishop wrote on this and doesn't say squat about any declarative statement regarding the canon. Again all the acts were lost. A north African group had a list. Not binding on anyone. And when people say Luther removed books you know automatically they haven't researched anything. Luther removed nothing. But it's your claim, prove it.
For many of the reasons Michuta listed, I tend to think that the Roman Catholic OT is the minimum viable OT. However, I don't think Jesus gave a canon. That seems to have arisen later. The early Christians seemed more open, used more books than almost anybody today, and it narrowed over time. Were it otherwise, we wouldn't have so many local deviations in book lists.
The variations in local usage, and the fact that books not in the canon are cited as Scripture in the NT, might be a caution that we should rethink the idea of canon altogether.
But Luther was so consistent on everything else! 😂
Excellent, enjoyed this! The historical realities are unavoidable, but sadly most are aware of them.
The choice made by the rabbis was deliberately an anti-Christian choice, to throw out the original "two powers in Heaven" theology of many Jews in Jesus' time, as much as possible, as was the Protestant canon, in many ways. When Jews read the missing books, they often also become rightfully upset, as some Protestants do, when they discover them.
We can see from the books of Acts that Jewish followers who were baptised by John the Baptist had not received the Holy Spirit until they later got baptised into Jesus. It really seems odd to me to appeal to Jewish leaders who have not received the Holy Spirit to discern the Cannon. I mean they would leave out all the New Testament books while they are at it. Seems like a bold strategy cotton.
For those who are interested in a basic introduction to the controversy surrounding this issue, check out the debate between Gary and James White.
Evangelicals have to review their use of the shorter OT canon and rejection of the Deuterocanonical books. Luther's Big mistake.
Right for whom .. or what? Lists have that kind of limitation, even in settling disputes over revisions of the Latin translations of the selected texts. The texts officially listed as All Scripture for use in the Catholic Church came down to a choice between Jerome's preference for a short List (Canon), as per scholarly ideas about the texts accepted by the Rabbinical Jewish traditions, and Augustine's decision for the traditional list(s) used in the Latin Rites of the Roman Communion, as affirmed previously at local Synods.
Augustine's decision was authoritatively accepted as definitive - liturgically, etc, Jerome's scholarly efforts provided an accepted basis - educationally (for the Jewish texts and their Greek translations). Therefore a Long Canon was dogmatised as all the accepted texts, with some appended extras (the 'Apocrypha' = texts that could have been accepted as 'All Scripture' but, by custom, were not, Enoch, Esdras II/ III, or Barnabas and The Shephard, etc, yet a good read notwithstanding), while a Short(er) Canon was deemed sufficient for scholarly purposes (examinations, Commentaries, commentary on the Commentaries, and such like).
Indeed a similar Short List and Long List expedient was used across the Catholic Church, e.g. for imperial orthodoxy, Coptic and Syrian orthodoxies; indeed the approved English (Calvinised Lutheran Cranmerist episcopalian) version - for use in the Church of England, the 'King James Version', followed a liturgical custom (The Book of Common Prayer) - rather than the scholarly procedural manner - that is, containing the Long Canon but having it distinguished from the Short Canon; here the 19th-century expediencies and tastes edited the Long Canon down to the Short Canon format exclusively (making the mass production cheaper, having a more securely Calvinist purity about it, and thus suiting the requirements of the Bible Society movements (a major financial player in 'Bible' production at that time, originally for the English language market).
Keep the Faith; tell the truth, shame the devil, and let the demons shriek.
God bless. ;o)
P.S. If you want a Bible with as long a list of accepted texts as possible, try the Slavonic or Ethiopic customary listings. Or just go to somewhere like the Catholic Encyclopedia for the Church Fathers, having many of the spurious, doubtful, misattributed, unused, non-recognised or just plain old secondary or tertiary level texts listed. A few of them nearly made it into the accepted listings, others were very popular light devotional reading, quite outside 'all scripture', and some rather more influential on Christian thought than might otherwise be considered (though 'apocryphal' with no claim whatever to be canonised) cf
'The Protoevangelium of James' et al :
www.newadvent.org/fathers/
6:30 I find it stunning Gary Michuta told that Jew that the problem for them not accepting the trinity because they have the Tanakh and not those other books. If you look at Athanasius to the arians, his proof texts and Old Testament scriptural basis are mostly and unadulteratedly from Proverbs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Psalms. There’s one in Baruch and then he has two quotes from Wisdom. Plus he has a moment when he shows Isaiah, Suzanna and Baruch saying the same statement.
His main arguement revolves around Proverbs 8. And what Gary is talking about is a case he makes for the wisdom eternal and same as God and none création is Proverbs, Isaiah, Psalms.
If you haven’t already seen it, you should watch Gary’s debate with James White on this topic. It was a VERY one-sided debate.
Just look at the Council of Florence in the 1,400’s that Council listed every book in the Council by name and it was 73 books .
Even earlier, you can also look at the 4th century councils of Rome and Carthage.
@@briansardinas1359 yes Brian you are correct but Protestants have a hard time going back so the reason I said the Council of Florence it’s right before the heretic Martin Luther in the 1,500’s.
22:40. “Akiba being a Pharisee of the Hillel school.” Here is where Gary concedes that Rabbi Akiba was from the Pharisaic school of Hillel, which had the same books that protestants have today. What Gary is demonstrating here is that Akiba inherited the shorter canon from the school of Hillel, rather than setting the shorter canon later. Gamaliel and the apostle Paul were also students of the same school of Hillel, which means they too inherited this shorter canon, which was the same that Protestants have today. So the OLDER canon was the shorter Protestant canon, not the larger Roman Catholic canon which came centuries LATER.
In your statement, you concede that Rabbi Akiva is in a faction (Hillel school) within a sect of Judaism (Pharisee). Look at Sanhedrin 100b from the Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi Akiva prohibits reading "external literature" also referred to as books of "heretics" (aka Christians) proving that those books were already circulating within the Pharisaical canon but had to be removed due to their problematic implications.
@@slyth150 if you’re referring to Rabbi Akiva stating that both the apocrypha books and the New Testament books “don’t make the hands unclean,” keep in mind that he’s saying this for two different reasons. He did not believe the apocrypha was scripture, because the Jews never accepted them and they were not laid up in the temple, which is where the scriptures were kept. But the reason why he did not believe the New Testament books were scripture was because they pointed to Jesus as the promised Jewish Messiah. So he had different reasons for believing the apocrypha and the New Testament books were not scripture.
How to know you're talking with a young one:
"I want to double click on one of those ideas"
:)
Honest question - why is a Roman Catholic claiming that the biblical canon is the most fundamental question in his religion? Of course it's incredibly important but the way I see it wouldn't the visible church be the foundation of the faith? The canon came from the church, no? Not the other way around.
Good question. Books got accepted because they commended themselves. The Roman Catholics can have the traditional canon of course but a way needs to be found for Protestants like me to appreciate the value of these books. My aim is to get Protestants to read these books according to Luther's and the 39 Articles of Religion (Anglican) usage. Let's see things from a broader perspective and enhance common ground. These books belong to all of us.
Gary's youtube link is broken.
youtube.com/@ApocryphaApocalypse
Just search for Apocrypha Apocalypse
Thanks for the heads up! I'll take a look at it
Fixed!
It should be noted that the Apocrypha was kept in Luther's German translation of the Bible. He followed the thought of Rabbis at the time that since there was not a Hebrew original version only a Greek version. It was thought the books did not have the same standard as the true word of God compared to other books in the Old Testament of the Bible that had original Hebrew text. The Apocrypha was thought to be more of an auxiliary guide or set of books, but not the same standard as the 66 books of the post Reformation churches.
That would be a poor argument on two fronts:
1) If the true word of God is signified exclusively by Hebrew, then please throw out the entire New Testament.
2) Since when do Christians, as the true Israel, defer judgement and decision making to the very Pharisees who rejected our Lord God Jesus?
@@alisterrebelo9013 That is why religion is so debatable on all of its points. So many view points. As they find more ancient texts, will the Bible change again?
Was these books written ny holy men
What do you mean by that ?
Is it just me or does this whole conversation open up a whole new can of worms? I’m not even talking about the books of the Bible…
Just the fact he brought up how there different sects of Jews with different cannons. I think as Christians we ( or maybe it’s just me lol) just naturally assume everyone in the Jewish world prior to Jesus was mostly united in their beliefs.
Usually when you think of theological disputes your mind mainly just goes to the Protestant reformation or church councils post Christ…Never really thought of the Jewish people having the same situation going on.
Really gives you something to think about 🤔
@@arathihighlands2683Yeah, I know the New Testament mentions a division amongst Jews but I never really thought about it relating back to the Old Testament at least regarding to the scriptures. 🤔
@@arathihighlands2683 Oh, interesting 🤔
Thanks for pointing that out. Never really understood those passages in light of that. This whole conversation is really making me think.
Most Protestants, don't pray for the dead. If only they recognised this in Sacred Scripture they reject addressing this. Many more would be praying for them.
All Protestants I know pray for the dead, at the very least we commend the dead to God for mercy.
We just don't make a habit of it
@@j.g.4942 Catholics pray for the dead because they believe they need to help souls in purgatory.
@@Jerome-72 Lutherans commend the dead to God because He loves them.
EO, I've heard, pray for the dead for their salvation, they don't believe in purgatory.
there is no hint of it in the NT
@@Jerome-72
You're right, there's not much on Christian funerals in the NT either.
Every funeral procession Jesus comes to, He says stop crying. The only thing close to an instruction or example is Paul instructing against mourning and reminding that we're are commended to God's care (the whole 'Rest In Peace' thing)
Books such as Tobit and Judith are obviously fiction. They might be intended as pious fiction, parable/allegory, but there is a blasphemous allegation in Tobit, alleging that the holy angel Raphael would deceive Tobit by telling him the lie that he was the son of Tobit's relative. St Jerome had the right opinion about the unacceptability of that book as inspired.
I'll never wrap my head around why any Christian could look at Wisdom 2, see one of the clearest prophecies of Christ, and then go "welp, I really won't be needing this for scripture." Seems reckless and more in keeping with "following the traditions of men" than what Catholics and Orthodox Christians are often accused of. Truth is you can be a Protestant and accept books like Sirach and Wisdom. Who's stopping you? Some long dead Scottish Presbyterian who wrote some tracts two hundred years ago?
We don’t make that call as individuals. The OT scriptures were entrusted to the Jews by God. It’s not the church’s responsibility or right to come along and make decisions about what their canon should contain. The passage you mentioned is clearly influenced by the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22. As with much of later Jewish literature written prior to Christ it is a beautiful reflection on themes from the OT without really bringing anything new. Luther actually translated the apocrypha and included it in his German edition but taught that these books are good for edification but not for establishing doctrine -and I agree
@@hettinga359 Thx for your thoughtful reply. I differ on the Church not being an authority...we can banter about that later but I'd like to focus on two things and it's going to take up two comments (Sorry about that.) 1. My assertion that a Protestant is not obliged to demote or remove books that were read aloud in the Church for centuries before Trent was addressed to Protestants basically because Luther is just a man; what he taught can even be disputed amongst Lutherans (former Lutheran here.) This point is less interesting to me because Luther (and others) changed their mind a lot. We can find a time where he cited some as scripture and then his opinion would change later. Same with the Church of Rome being "The Church of God" to "papacy is antichrist" ...he was belligerent haha but we all do this as our thinking develops. Let me get to the more interesting point in a follow up...
@@hettinga359 The more interesting (to me) point I'd like to make: Isaiah 53 and Ps 22 don't use the "very strong" language that almost got Jesus stoned a few times. This isn't to say that Wis 2 is somehow a "better prophecy" than those, but it's more developed. You said it's "clearly influenced by" those earlier prophecies of our Lord and I absolutely agree. Being later and closer in time to His coming, it starts using clarifying language that is as shocking as Christ's words were to the Scribes and Pharisees: his claim of Sonship and divinity. I would personally hate to discard this just because of the opinions of a few men. I have a theory and I could be right or wrong: I think this prophecy purposely "missed" the Hebrew texts and stayed in the BC Septuagint because it's obvious they couldn't bear to hear it (whereas Sirach would have been fine.) They couldn't even accept such "blasphemy" from God incarnate when the time had been fulfilled.
@@jayguevara6153 are you saying that you believe the Jews prior to Christ excluded Wisdom from their canon because they were hardened against the idea of a divine Messiah? If so I don’t see a lot of evidence for that theory. Rom 3:2 says that the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. A necessary condition for guarding something is knowing the identity/parameters of the thing you’ve been entrusted with. I think the description in this video of the ignorance and disagreement among Jews of the first century is way overstated. Jesus and the apostles frequently quote scripture to back up their claims in the context of debates with a wide range of opponents and are never met with the response “well we don’t believe that’s sacred scripture.” The authority of the texts is assumed by both parties. Jesus said that his sheep hear his voice and follow him. The church came to a consensus on the NT canon very early and all major branches of the church remain in agreement on its contents. I think the best explanation for this is that Christ’s flawed sheep are able to recognize the voice of their perfect shepherd in the pages of scripture. I believe that God also worked providentially among his people in the OT. It’s not the churches job to retrospectively decide what the Jewish scriptures should contain.
Your theory (if I’m understanding you correctly) reminds of Origen’s reason for accepting the apocrypha as sacred scripture. He argued that because the books had been read and accepted as scripture in many churches they must therefore be inspired scripture because Christ promised to guide and build his church and would not allow his people to fall into error on this point. Then in the same letter Origen points out how the accounts of the martyrdom of the prophets have not been preserved in scripture and theorized that Jews who were involved in the persecution of the prophets must have removed those accounts to protect their own reputations. He clearly did not have the same trust in God’s preservation of the OT scriptures through his OT people -the Jews. As I said above, I agree that God moved the church to adopt the NT canon we hold in common. But I also believe that God did the same thing with the OT. We didn’t save a bunch of sacred texts from god-hating people who had messed with them and altered things to suit their fancy. We are the recipients of a priceless gift of revelation which Jews faithfully preserved through the centuries. Sorry that was a lot. Stuff I’m passionate about lol
a) Most Christian denominations believe you need a Church. Only Protestants don't.
b) The original Church was supposed to stay *UNITED* . Except Catholics and Orthodoxes broke it in 2, so they failed too.
Conclusion : Everyone messed up ! It's a tie ! 😅
You are ignoring much earlier schisms like the Nestorians and Miaphysites.
@@nathanmagnuson2589 You are more knowledgeable than I am. 😊
@@nathanmagnuson2589 And the gnostic "christians" left the church way before the Nestorians and Miaphysites (see 1 John).
No one likes authority. And there’s more than one Orthodox Church communions
@@nathanmagnuson2589Sounds like a great case for why we need Catholicism. Without authority, how does anyone know what is true and what’s heresy? Protestantism made separation and schism mainstream; divisions before were not nearly as wide spread or accepted.
Gary forgot about the AD 382 Council of Rome!
Another thing, it’s not just the Trinity but just on how Judaism works. But this do you have books being written all up to about 50 years before Christ. Then Christ crucified and there’s no more books according to Judaism, which shows a sudden drop off in their conversation or relationship with the Lord. Well the Protestant versions have a 400 something year making that argument weaker.
Ya know Joseph Smiths testament in his reception of visions is awfully similar to Mohammed story
I really want that t-shirt, but I just cannot get over the use of the Greek sigma as the letter "E" in "ET." You gotta fix that.
That's a good catch
What is Gary's academic background?
Credentials fallacy. Michuta analyzes the primary sources. You should do the same.
He cites plenty of primary and secondary scholary sources in his books. You can also listen to a discussion he had with Dr. Lee Martin Mcdonald, a canon scholar, that affirms pretty much everything he said in regards to the historical canon.
@@tonyl3762 It is not a fallacy to ask someone's academic background. 😆
@@Forester- He seems well informed on the topic but struggled with a few of the historical context questions.
@@pigetstuckAsking, no. The notion that the absence of academic credentials in itself invalidates his arguments, yes.
This is not a good place to start for one like me that knows little about this topic.
"The old testament isn't important for Christians" ..... Andy Stanley has entered the chat
That’s a really old heresy
Hm, right on the heels of Anthony Roger's video with Steve. I love this topic, so I'm not complaining.
Where this conversation goes wrong with this: if you are appealing to the deuterocanon your thesis must question the 66 books (of the kjb) as not being enough for salvation as the 39 articles (n.6) clearly states they can read the deuterocanon but it isnt necessary for salvation. Thusly, if you are for the 73 books (or realistically more since some of the other books also have close references in some of the NT) then you are going to take the position that you cannot get to salvation without the deurterocanon. after reading and listening to arguments for the deuterocanon there isnt anything new in them compared to whats already in the NT and OT, this is where the argument should be. learning about dec. 25th is christmas from macabees isnt going to save someone, and that history is recorded in several other places outside the deuterocanon (Josephus and the Romans wrote about it). Last time I checked, celebrating christmas isnt necessary for salvation
Catholics believe they have the fullness of the faith. They acknowledged all can be saved by god through gods grace. You can be saved with the Protestant Bible. You can be saved reading the Bhagavad Gita. That is up to god. But the church is on mission and it’s presenting the fullness of divine revelation
Gary needs to get some new headshots to celebrate his physical fitness journey.
Ethiopian Christians enter the chat
Every book in the Bible not Council.
You need to think differently about the canon. I speak as a Protestant. Whst is the canon? Various books are written and are good and interesting. The book of Enoch is quoted by Jude. Yet it's not included in the Bible. I'd still encourage people to read it.
The canon is always found. That is the Church took up the books for our use and edification, our instruction.
The early Church was going on from the Greek text. That includes the deuterocanon. The problem goes back to St Jerome who translated from the Hebrew. Hebrew manuscripts don't contain these books. They are though Jewish books written by Jews for Jews in the inter-testamental period.
The Protestant view of the Bible has to be wrong (again I am a Protestant). The Church isn't founded on the Bible, the Church created the Bible and received different manuscripts and made judgements about it.
So of course the canon is always determined by the Church at the highest levels, universal councils and so on.
That is how we get/got our Bible. I favour the partition started by Luther and the Church of England with the so called Apocrypha in a separate section.
As it happens i don't like the term Apocrypha and prefer a fuller explanation, books found in Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament and accepted by Roman Catholics and Orthodox. I favour all Bibles containing these books for our instruction and edification.
The biblical canon was established by the Catholic Church, at the Council of Rome in AD 382.
@@fantasia55 I'm not entirely certain that's correct
not to you @@cpnlsn88
@cpnlsn88 Protestants must deny historical facts in order to uphold Protestantism.
@cpnlsn88 Protestants sometimes deny that the Council of Rome took place or that Pope Damasio existed, because to quote Cardinal Newman...
protestant, rcc or eo in the bible just believers..
It was reading Gary Michuta's "Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger" that made me realize that Protestant canon is the correct canon thus making me a stronger Protestant. Iron sharpens iron.
I have many answers to Michutas's arguments but the most weakest argument he proposed to claim that apocrypha is canon is that th early Fathers quote the apocrypha and called them Scripture. He spent 3 chapters in his book quoting Fathers that use the apocrypha as Scripture.
But we see that these early Fathers quote many apocryphal books that the Catholic reject as canon.
For example:
Clement of Alexandria quote 3 and 4 Maccabees as though it is scripture.
(I can quote many Fathers.)
The NT canon for example quote the Book of Enoch. Paul quote many Pagan Greek philosophers.
"Quotation does not equate canonicity" - William Albrecht to Bart Ehrman, Reason and Theology.
Who in protestantism who has the authority decide canon? We aren't Muslims (who believe the Quran always existed) we know at a certain point in time it was decided upon in the Churches of the Episcopal system of governance which books should and shouldn't be included. What would stop an individual protestant from adopting say the "war scroll" from the dead sea scrolls as canon? We can't say we rely on the Jewish canon because rabbinic Judaism is on the same playing field as Christianity, both are descended from Second Temple Judaism. Authority is the big issue for me, because again, we aren't like Muslims with their view of the Quran's origin.
@@RestingJudge If you say authority I know you are referring to church councils.
The earliest Christian church council to have OT canon is the Council of Laodicea (363 AD) and its OT canon is 98 percent identical to the Protestant canon it only has Baruch and Epistle of Jeremiah the rest is identical to Protocanon. This council also prohibits from reading books that not mentioned in its canon. (the 5 books of RCC now)
The official teaching of the Catholic church is that the OT canon was ONLY INFALLIBLY decided at the Council of Trent 1546.
"According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Chruch at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent "(The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).
Hippo and Carthage lacks Baruch and Lamentations and according to Michuta this councils or synods (specifically) has no ecumenical authority for it is not an ecumenical council but a regional synod.
@@RestingJudge You will be judged by the Witness Stone that Jesus Himself set, Peter (Mat 16:18), who will witness whether YOU have kept God's Word or not!
No human (Neither Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Joseph Smith, Charles Russel, Ellen White, etc etc) gets to set a Stone different than the one Our Lord set!
If you don't know what I'm talking about perhaps you should review Joshua 24:26-27 .
@@javesuanif you discredit early Church fathers for including non canonical books then why not discredit Laodicea since it includes Baruch, another non canonical book to you. If the fathers are inadmissible than so is that council under your logic
@@tonywallens217 As I said the Fathers were quoting many non-canonical book that the Catholic rejected.
Gregory of Nyssa quote 3 Maccabees 2:14 as though it is part of scripture.
Apostolic Constitution accepts 3 Maccabees as Scripture. Ireneus quote Enoch as though it is part of scripture and also the epistle of Barnabas.
But Fathers in th East like Melito of Sardis, Athanasius, Origen etc. rejected the aporcypha of the Papists.
And no, I don't accept the council of Laodicea (363) the Jews the chosen race by God who gave us scriptures (Romans 3:2) knows the boundary of the OT canon and it is just 22/24 book that is 100 percent identical to the Protestant.
Josephus a 1st century Jewish historian attested to this truth.
Cardinal Cajatan's list of canonical books did not include the deuterocanonicals.
Neither did Luther’s.
It's worth noting that this was because Cajatan treated Jerome as basically infallible:
"Nor should you be disturbed, O novice, if you should anywhere find those books reckoned among the canonical books, either in the holy councils, or in the holy Doctors. For the words of the councils, as well as of the Doctors, are to be submitted to the correction of Jerome"- Commentary on Esther
@@aaronmueller5802 certainly demonstrates that the issue was sufficiently unresolved such that there were elites within the church prior to the reformation who held to the smaller canon.
I wonder if Austin is going to ask Gary if he can produce an identical Catholic OT canon prior to the end of the fourth century, like Gary has produced identical Protestant OT canons in the early church era from both ancient Jewish and Christian lists from Gary’s videos.
And I will be curious if Gary will claim there was no set Jewish canon until at least the Bar Kohkba Revolt, which this claim has been debunked.
Where has Gary shown OT canon list from before the 4th century that are IDENTICAL to the Protestant OT?
What about the OT Orthodox Canon ( Eastern Church) based on the Septuagint ??
@@roddumlauf9241 Or the Armenian or Tewahedo canons?
@@Vaughndaleoulaw He has shown this on his Apocrypha Apocalypse channel.
@@roddumlauf9241 first, there was no single “Septuagint” in the early church. They were different versions of it with different books in it. The original was only come posed of the five books of Moses translated into Greek, the Pentateuch. According to John Martingnoni who is a Roman Catholic scholar, the completion of the pre-Christian era Septuagint was around 134 BC. This would have included all of the books from the Hebrew Bible, including Esther, since they were written before 400 BC and translate it later in Greek. But it would’ve excluded every other book from the apocrypha, including the so-called deuterocanonical books. They did not get translated or written in Greek until after 134 BC. And these books slowly got added to the old testament sometime after the first century AD. And we know more books were included in the completed Septuagint, because these were the same books that would’ve been laid up in the temple. It two would’ve included all the books from the Hebrew Bible, and excluded the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books.
It comes down to what men want to use to support their theories. Example...Catholics included 1 and 2Esdras but reject 3 and 4 Esdras because it has a verse that seems to go against the theory of purgatory.
That argument maybe (just maybe) would have some force if the Protestant Bibles had them, as it would seem to make the arguably “suspicious” abandonment of it due to incompatibility of doctrines, as you state. But it doesn’t even make sense, since it’s not the case for Protestantism. More so, it’s not in the canon of the Syriac Orthodox and the Coptic Orthodox (pre-Chalcedonian Oriental Orthodox), despite being in the Ethiopian Orthodox (also pre-Chalcedonian Oriental Orthodox) - known to have the largest biblical canon. Also, 3 Esdras and 4 Esdras are not in the Assyrian Church of the East canon. Just pointing this out to show the argument doesn’t make any sense. God bless!
This is just not correct. Catholics (as well as protestants and Orthodox) accept Ezra and Nehemiah (1 and 2 Esdras in older translations). 3 Esdras (also referred to as 1 Esdras) is just a retelling of Ezra and Nehemiah with one extra story that has nothing to do with purgatory. 4 Esdras is a late Latin apocalypse that was never considered scripture by the fathers, and it has nothing to do with purgatory either.
According to canon scholar John Meade, the earlier you go back, the closer the canon lists look to the Protestant canon.
Can John Meade cite a source? According to Irenaeus. Who was one removed from the apostle John. The Apostles used the Septuagint. And the Septuagint was divinely translated. And used to argue with Jews. (‘Against the heresies’ book III. Chapter 21)
@@CPATuttleWhat's called the septuagint was originally just five books. Nobody knows when or how the term came to be associated with other books.
To say "the apostles used the septuagint" is a gross oversimplification.
@@ReformingApologetics so you’re calling Irenaeus “grossly oversimplification” on his writing.
Which five books did the Septuagint have? And cite your source
I will take St. Ireneus over John Meade.
How so? The Apostles uses the Septuagint Canon and quoted from
It directly 300 times. Certainly they considered the deuterocanonical books to be Scripture
Gary does not express what the foundation of the gospel is. Yes we must and can be united to Christ, but it is only possible because Jesus has paid it all and that is great good news.
I can also say the same of your definition of gospel
Does the gospel need to be defined with every conversation?
@@yalechuk6714 Don't know what you're implying, but the very foundation of everything is the sacrifice of Jesus, without which we have nothing and indeed we would all perish.
@@jeremysmith7176 well, that was the question.
Neither of you have the right Canon
Catholics use the original canon, from AD 382.
what command showed them having authority to create a canon, and why wasn't the library of scrolls good enough. Step away from the box
@@thechristianpodcastingnetw8458 What library of scrolls?
The one the true priests retreated to Qumran with
@@thechristianpodcastingnetw8458 That contained many more texts than are part of the Old Testament. And, it contained Hebrew and Aramaic originals of texts Luther removed from the Bible for supposedly being only in Greek.
rome likes to pretend no one knew anything when it comes to the canon so this brings reason to why we need the councils etc however Jesus held people accountable in the new testament for knowing what is scripture how could He if the canon was not well known, also the NT writers quote what is considered ot canon with so it is written peter affirms paul paul affirms luke etc plus the new testament is all independent eye witness statements or a summery of someone's experience like luke its not hard
Rome is not a church.
You like to parrot James White? Jesus held EACH SECT accountable to its own canon. That's why Jesus quotes Genesis to the Sadducees to prove the resurrection rather than much more explicit texts like Ezekiel's vision of dry bones taking on flesh. Maybe take a look at both sides' arguments before using somebody else's talking points.
@@tonyl3762 alot of assumptions tony, even if i did get this from james white ( i did not) you finding where i learned the argument is not a refute to the argument, does this make sense? here is an example, the Kalam cos argument universe came to exist therefore has a cause- atheist, you learned that from WLC, so tony does this mean the kalam argument isn't valid?
Jesus met his audience He also used fishing analogies to fishermen so what, truth is He corrected based upon a known canon, Ezekiel's dry bones is about being remade through the blood of Christ with living water (Holy Spirit). Maybe you shouldn't assume i haven looked at both sides, how on earth could you come to this conclusion because I have a conclusion contrary to yours? this same logic applied tony i would say you need to check both sides cause u dont agree with me, this of course is a logical fallacy, btw Steve Christie @bornagainrn is who i get my argument's from after nearly turning roman cathoic i know him personally, hopefully he will be on here, because what gary brought to the argument was begging the question, not enough paper for protestant translations, and we dont know so there for we need rome, which is ridiculous. i promise you these arguments wont hold up in a debate this was weak i think you know this this is why your emotional and appealing to emotional claims
James is filled with Sirach.
@@John2028Apologetics Had a distinctly James White flavor/style, the way you put it. That's why I asked, but maybe Steve Christie borrowed it from him too. Doesn't really matter. I've heard both of them. Never said the fact that you were borrowing from one person or another made your assertion false. You just repeated the talking points as if Catholics don't have a response.
If you had heard and seriously considered both sides, you would have been able to answer my objection/response to you. Your response does nothing to demonstrate that the Catholic response is incorrect, that Jesus was not merely holding each Jewish sect to its own canon, regardless of size. You have also not demonstrated that Jesus was appealing to one common and known Jewish canon instead of the canon of each sect He was talking to in each instance (like any good debater appealing to common ground).
Do you and Christie deny that there were SEVERAL Jewish sects (Pharisees (Hillel vs Shammai), Sadducees, Essenes, Samaritans? If not, you think all those sects had the same canon??
Ezekiel's bones taking on flesh is a prophecy of the general Resurrection of the human body. Do you not agree with that? Is it not clear that Jesus could have used much more explicit and direct OT citations to prove the Resurrection? So then why did He use Genesis and roundabout implicit (but still solid) logic?
Many catholic arguments seem to be quite nuanced and cumulative. It doesn't mean they are false, but it does make them weaker.
Disagree it proves the case cumulatively. Within theology nuance is necessary, the same goes with understanding Scripture
Nuance is a positive when dealing with a complex and highly disputed topic. The history of the scriptural canon is not simple. If you look throughout Church history you will see many positions one what books are a part of the canon. Eusebius talks about the different opinions people have on the canon of the New Testament all the way in the 300s. Many early church fathers made lists of the scriptural canon and variously included or excluded specific books without explanation. If you are not getting a nuanced perspective explaining the biblical canon then either that person is quite possibly lying to you or they don't know what they are talking about. And all that's not even mentioning the fact that people in the ancient world had a different understanding from us of what the words canon, scripture, and authoritative mean. As a post script, catechetical material doesn't need to be nuanced because that's not the point.
I'm saying this as an orthodox Christian, not trying to defend Roman Catholicism.
Lol it’s better to be nuanced than just inventing a new reality based on strong feelings which is what Protestants have been doing for 500 yrs…
@@campomambo Do you understand my point?
That’s precisely what makes them stronger.
Having read some of the deut canon I can say that I do not miss it. Maybe the Macabees but other books have a very distinctly other feel to me. Very mystic without God sort of way like many fake books of the time.
Some of it, yes, but Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon are generally good. I generally take the Anglican/Reformer view towards them, at least useful for wisdom but not necessarily at the level of Scripture.
What’s a “fake book?” Why does your feelings have any precedence? What about those who would say the same thing about books you accept? This is just mushy relativism?
@@samueljennings4809I mean you could say the same about books people regard as canonical, I love how it comes down to feelings here
So it’s based on your subjective feelings. Got it
@@brianfarley926 in all fairness, “based on my feelings” is kinda just the Protestant method.
@gospel simplicity have @bornagainrn on discuss the evidence for a closed canon
BornAgainrn don't strike me as honest seeker of truth. He is more interested in maintaining a tribal line than dealing with the actual history. Watched his debate with both Gary and Trent. He was just repeating his talking point rather engaging his opponents directly. He seems to me he is more afraid that he might be wrong than dealing with the actual truth. At least Gospel Simplicity is willing to directly acknowledge reality of complexity of the situation.
I can even tell what his repetoire is going to be
1- The Rabbanic Jews said
2 - Jerome said
3- Cajetan said
4 -The books of Deuteroncanons don't match 'Christian' Theology which simply demonstrates he started with his theology and read into it what canon is.
5) The errors in Deuterocanons which if he consistent with will leave him with no Bible.
6) Just ask him to stop fixating with list and deal with the usage of books question.
Finally Whatever criteria he always comes up with he never consistently applies to his own canon
@@yalechuk6714 "Just ask him to stop fixating with list and deal with the usage of books question"
Anglicans and Lutherans use the apocrypha, but we know they don't accept them as canonical. Since quotation does not equal canonicty as admitted by Catholic Scholas, then it is impossible for usage to ever construct a canon.
(Even NT quotations of the OT cannot be used to demonstrate canonicity).
@@yajunyuan7665 I'm not talking about you and how it is used by you today . I'm talking of how church fathers used them.