The videos of the debate involving Peter Gurry, James Snapp, and Jeff Riddle are here ( th-cam.com/video/1OjIPmwoL4U/w-d-xo.html ) and here ( th-cam.com/video/U2_hVQmx0nk/w-d-xo.html ).
Catholic Apologist Steve Ray, mentioned in one of his videos that while still an evangelical during a weekly Bible Study, they conducted an experiment similar to the one you mentioned at the end of your video (with a poem they wrote). There were 50 people involved. Five of them were asked to leave (because they were the translating committee). The other 45 people had to copy the poem and make a mandatory 2 mistakes (they could make 10 if they wanted). So 45 flawed copies were given to the selected translating committee and they reconstructed the poem that was identical to the original. - Not a scientific study but still edifying.
Interesting! I'd like to see that done with only a few copies available to the group charged with reconstructing the original. It would also be good if the errors were compounded through a few generations.
Very interesting book on New Testament textual criticism. One thing that has happened recently is that, in my humble opinion, more and more people are seemingly more interested in proving that this particular version of the Bible is the best or if you read that other one your going to burn in hell, e.g. KJV onlyists, rather than reading the one you have access to and to the best of your ability, live it. Especially when the deffernces in the schools of Manuscripts don't affect any major doctrines that I know of. You see for people like me living in Jamaica, we don't have access to varying multiplication of Bible translations that say, Americans have, so the ones we can get we tend to try to use it. Of course we can buy them online or use youversion Bible app, but for buying hard copies, it's very expensive. So I appreciate a book like this. Books like this does help in the discussion on the topic. I personally have a liking for the nkjv translation, to me it strikes a balance between the byzantine and critical texts when you have an edition with the full set of transaction notes. Although there could be an argument fir the updating of the notes. Bibles like the ESV are updated too often for my liking.
Your Red Team-Blue Team reference made me chuckle. You served in the military, yes? The Air Force, I think. I'm randomly watching your past videos, and they are, in word, excellent. I've already made several purchases based on your reviews.
Great Video Dr. Jones! This book seems like it would be helpful for me to read since I have a lot of atheist friends who ask me this stuff a lot. And I used to be an agnostic too and I would hear some questionable things from Christians too that would enforce my agnosticism. Let’s just say I ended up watching a lot of Dr. William Lane Craig and that helped a lot haha. But praise be to God that he has brought you to faith and had used you in great ways your channel is very informative and has helped me find better bibles and other books for my faith. Also I remember we had that lengthy back and forth on Dr. Jordan Coopers channel a while back haha, I noticed he put out a video on Original Sin you were asking about last time. I’m not sure if it would help you with the question you had regarding Bishop Schneider but I’d thought I’d let you know nonetheless. But it seems to me that Ludwig Ott in his “ Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” does give a somewhat similar argument against Luther regarding Grace and human nature but not exactly the same and not in the same points the Bishop made. I understand more of where he was coming from but I still agree with the position of Sola Gratia and Luther’s view ( in large part) on the corruption of our nature ( Genesis 8:21, Psalm 51:5, Psalm 116: 8-11, Isaiah 64:6, Jeremiah 17:9, Ezekiel 36:26, Mathew 15:19, Romans 5:9-15, Romans 8:7-8, Ephesians 2:1-3, Ephesians 2: 8-10, 1 Corinthians 2:14, 1 John 2:29,) but if I am a filthy heretic according the bishop for believing the word on these matters in agreement with Luther then so be it. And if we have interrupted them wrong then may God have mercy on me on the last day. Augustine used similar texts against Pelagius as well. Also I think the Reformed concept of Common Grace ( I mean to cite this in a way that teaches the idea of Grace in nature as the scriptures clearly teach: Psalm 95: 3-5, Psalm 104:21, Colossians 1:16, but not in the way that would deny universal grace in a salvific way to all people since I’m a Lutheran who embraces paradox who believes in predestination and universal grace haha) helps make some sense of the controversy to me I think. Sorry for the long message just wanted to get back with you on that and thank you for your channel keep up the Great work! P.S. you don’t need to read all those bible verses just put them as a witness and you are a bible expert and probably know all of them anyways!
Thanks for the comment, Tony! I watched Dr. Cooper's second Augsburg Confession video, and I don't think he touched upon my question. I wasn't surprised. My sense is that Bishop Schneider likely doesn't understand Lutheranism, and so Dr. Cooper -- if he saw my question -- considered Schneider's remarks so far out in left field that he didn't have a ready response, nor did he have time to research the issue to discover what might have been behind them. Because others sometimes come along and read these comments, I'll re-post here the question I had for Dr. Cooper: "To better understand the 'recognize and resist' movement within Roman Catholicism, I've been reading Bishop Athanasius Schneider's Christus Vincit . On page 108, in response to an observation that 'Luther also regarded human nature as fundamentally corrupt', Schneider replied: "He despised nature. And so, in despising nature with his doctrine of sola gratia , he destroyed the foundation of grace. Grace has its foundation in nature. Grace beautifies nature, transforms it from within, elevates it, and brings it to perfection. Here we can see a basic error in Luther's thought: by despising nature, he ultimately despised the reality of the Incarnation and the objective power of the sacraments." It isn't clear in the context what aspect of Luther's thought Schneider has in mind. It may be that he's referring to original sin, which you're about to deal with in Article 2. Can you shed any light on where Schneider might be coming from when he claims that Luther despised the reality of the Incarnation and the objective power of the sacraments?" I wonder at the bishop's statement that "grace has its foundation in nature." Isn't the foundation of grace God himself?
R. Grant Jones Yeah I agree is it Gods Grace that sustains all things and it is from him alone that grace is given. It’s interesting to me that Lutherans do actually believe in the infusion of grace in the sacraments, theologians like Johan Gerhard speak about this and we confess it in our Liturgy when we received the Eucharist the Pastor will say “ may the body and blood of our Lord Jesus strengthen you and keep you in his grace amen.” But where we disagree with Rome is that they attach the infusion of grace in the sacraments to Justification. So I think it really boils down too the capacity of man to keep Gods law and I would say, along side people like Justin Martyr, that Gods law requires perfection and we cannot in any capacity even with the help of grace be able to get to a point to uphold it will all holiness of heart. Scripture teaches that we will always sin, “ he who says he has no sin devices himself and the truth is not in him” 1 John, and to have sin means to be lacking in love which is the chief requirement of Gods law and this is Why St. Paul in Galatians speaks of Gods law as a curse to those who are under it and says “cursed are those who do not hold to the entire book of the law” which would require Love. Therefore Paul concludes by “the works of the law shall no flesh be justified” because that would require perfect acts of love on our part to God and neighbor which is not possible in this life since we are still in the sinful flesh, which is why Christ became a curse for us and we are saved by his merits in fulfilling the law and his work is received by faith and thus are justified apart from the deeds of the law. Romans 3:28. We also confess this with the free gift of reconciliation, forgiveness of sins and justification in our liturgy which Christ words in the supper “given for you” he says come eat and drink for the forgiveness of sins, this is a gift. And as Martin Luther has said who ever received it and believes on those words truly receive all the benefits of the sacrament including free forgiveness, ( Funny enough the Council of Trent curses us for saying the chief fruit of the Eucharist is the forgiveness of sins, so I’m not sure how they explain that exactly) so we maintain the sufficiency of Christ sacrifice as Hebrews 10 clearly teaches while still holding to the infusion of grace but not in the way The catholic mass presents it which I do think clouds over the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice but I digress. Thanks for responding but I guess I would say that the Bishop most likely just didn’t understand our position.
Hello, R. Grant Jones. Have you read "Scribes & Scriptures" by John D. Meade and Peter J. Gurry? I am currently reading the work, and it cites "Myths and Mistakes" often. This reminded me that you did this video review, so I was curious if you had read "Scribes & Scriptures"
Another fine review. I didn't know you did reviews on books other than bibles. I think this is worth purchasing, I will look for other reviews of Bible related topics,
I was not impressed by "Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament" by Daniel Wallace as it felt like the reader had just walked into a battle of the minds between Wallace (and his pupils) and Bart Ehrman. For some reason I had thought I was getting a book with a broad scope of information when I ordered it. Seeing Wallace's name attached to this book and mentions of Ehman in the text that you showed causes hesitation. Do you find it to be broad in coverage or limited to arguments against Ehrman's ideas?
Ehrman clearly was in the background for several of the essays, and his name came up frequently. But, no, I don't think the book was limited to arguments against Ehrman. Much of it seems designed to prevent apologists from making inappropriate claims in defense of the New Testament.
Great video. Thank you so much for the review and letting us know about the FB group, I'd recommend you to get "The clear Quran" translation by mustafa khattab and look into Islam as well.
The essay ‘myths about patristics’ especially would tempt me to buy the book. The notion that the Fathers quote passages such as the longer ending of Mark or the woman caught in adultery, along with the emergence of the majority text, have been preventing me from having greater trust in the critical text. Though I’d be happy to be proven wrong, relieved even.
Thanks for the comment, Ryan. I doubt that chapter would be of great value to you. It is focused on the myth that we could reconstruct the New Testament from patristic quotations, and I didn't see much that has a direct bearing on the value of early citations in establishing the original (or ausgang/outgoing) text. The author (Andrew Blaski) mentions Burgon's collection of quotations on pages 231 and 232, and he notes that Frederic Kenyon was critical of Burgon because the latter relied on uncritical editions. On pages 249 and 250 he points out that patristic citations "can be helpful in determining when and where a certain textual variant became prevalent or was being read." There follows a brief discussion of Luke 3.22 and the variant ending "today I have begotten you", and how patristic use shows how early the variant is. He also mentions Irenaeus's discussion of the variant reading '616' in Rev 13.18. But, as Blaski points out, both examples are discussed in Metzger and Ehrman's _Text of the New Testament_ .
As someone who evidently knows much more on the topic of textual criticism than myself, I am curious as to what your preferred English translation is and why. I’ve always preferred the ESV up to this point but I feel like I’m starting to realize how much I might not know about textual criticism.
Thanks for the view and comment! I don't have a favorite translation. I usually read Scripture from at least two translations, a relatively literal one (like the ASV, NKJV, KJV, NASB, or ESV) along with a more interpretive translation (e.g., Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible). If you're interested in seeing the extent to which various translations follow different Greek New Testaments in their textual choices, take a look at my Four-Dimensional Perspective in Bible Translations video.
Good stuff! May I make a suggestion... I’m sure, especially based on the comments, that you could receive some financial help by providing links for the books you discuss. (You’d have to set it up with amazon). It would certainly help you in providing your videos. It’s way better than giving in to commercials during the video which many despise. thank you again God Bless and Protect you.
Bible is the Greek text of both Testaments, including the beau texts of the Septuagint Plus. The Hebrew is the Tanach. And this does not include the beau Septuagint Plus nor the New Testament. All critters than exclude the beau Septuagint Plus, exclude in the same way all the New Testament. A pleasure to comment, R. Grant Jones.
At 09:40 -- There are a few issues here: First, to correct an error: You mention the First Letter of Clement in the Septuagint (LXX). That is not correct. The LXX represents the Greek translation of the Jewish canon of scripture -- what we call, the "Old Testament" -- made at ca. 130 years before Christ. As such, it is pre-Christian, and could not have included Pope Clement I's letter to the Corinthian church, which was composed ca. 90 A. D. Second, as point of fact: The Eastern Orthodox churches *do* accept all of the books of scripture contained in the Septuagint, precisely because they *are* in the Septuagint, which is considered the inspired version. (You mention, for example, 1 Esdras. First Esdras is most certainly to be found in the Eastern Orthodox Old Testament!) So, your point is actually moot in the case of those churches. I think, you have in mind the Roman church, which accepts some books found in the LXX -- but, not all. This is probably because -- at least, in the West -- the Greek LXX was not the basis for that church's Old Testament; rather, the Vetus Latina was. In the West, the LXX as a translation does not seem to have been the governing norm for which books should be in the Old Testament. Rather, the normative standard for which books were ultimately accepted in the West was the list of books accepted by the Church of Rome. So, since, for example, Rome accepted certain books (e. g., Tobit, Judith, etc.) and not others (e. g., 1 Esdras, Odes of Solomon, etc.), other Western churches followed the example of their "Mother Church". Third, as a point of logic: I think, you have missed the point of the argument. The point is not that, since something appears in the LXX, it must simply be accepted as inspired and canonical. The Orthodox would say that, but (as I have just pointed out) the Roman Catholic Church would not. It is not whether one church decided to accept III Maccabees, while another did not. Rather, the point is that III Maccabees is even there in the first place! The LXX demonstrates that the Biblical canon of the Old Testament was significantly larger than what was ultimately decided upon by the Jewish community. And, so, the "ancient churches" of Rome and the East represent a more authentic instance of the Church's scriptural canon than was (wrongly) devised later by the Protestant Reformers. No -- Tobit, Judith, Baruch, etc.: These books were not added later to the Bible by Catholics. On the contrary, they were part of a canon that was regarded as inspired scripture by: Jews before Jesus, by (apparently) the Apostles of Jesus who cite the LXX version of scripture, by Paul, by the Apologists, and on and on.
In response, I'll simply quote what I said in the video, and leave it at that: "I've seen apologetic arguments, or at least heard them from certain parties, that argue that, because books were included in the Septuagint -- that is, in the codices of the Septuagint -- therefore that they must be considered canonical. But that really does prove too much, because those same codices include books that those people wouldn't have considered canonical, like First Esdras or First Clement."
Find the answers inside yourself. The ancient Christians did not have study bibles, yet they were spiritually more evolved. True faith can only take birth from the ground of logic. Read the bible, think why the verses were written so, meditate on them. Unless you yourself can get your hands dirty, you can never understand the bible, not by reading someone else's research. Always remember what Jesus said - The Kingdom is within Us.
It's not true, lots of church fathers are influenced by Greek philosophy and natural theology. Only a handful like Athanasius, Augustine, Capedocians rely more on scripture than Greek philosophy.
The videos of the debate involving Peter Gurry, James Snapp, and Jeff Riddle are here ( th-cam.com/video/1OjIPmwoL4U/w-d-xo.html ) and here ( th-cam.com/video/U2_hVQmx0nk/w-d-xo.html ).
Catholic Apologist Steve Ray, mentioned in one of his videos that while still an evangelical during a weekly Bible Study, they conducted an experiment similar to the one you mentioned at the end of your video (with a poem they wrote). There were 50 people involved. Five of them were asked to leave (because they were the translating committee). The other 45 people had to copy the poem and make a mandatory 2 mistakes (they could make 10 if they wanted). So 45 flawed copies were given to the selected translating committee and they reconstructed the poem that was identical to the original. - Not a scientific study but still edifying.
Interesting! I'd like to see that done with only a few copies available to the group charged with reconstructing the original. It would also be good if the errors were compounded through a few generations.
Very interesting book on New Testament textual criticism. One thing that has happened recently is that, in my humble opinion, more and more people are seemingly more interested in proving that this particular version of the Bible is the best or if you read that other one your going to burn in hell, e.g. KJV onlyists, rather than reading the one you have access to and to the best of your ability, live it. Especially when the deffernces in the schools of Manuscripts don't affect any major doctrines that I know of. You see for people like me living in Jamaica, we don't have access to varying multiplication of Bible translations that say, Americans have, so the ones we can get we tend to try to use it. Of course we can buy them online or use youversion Bible app, but for buying hard copies, it's very expensive. So I appreciate a book like this. Books like this does help in the discussion on the topic. I personally have a liking for the nkjv translation, to me it strikes a balance between the byzantine and critical texts when you have an edition with the full set of transaction notes. Although there could be an argument fir the updating of the notes. Bibles like the ESV are updated too often for my liking.
Thanks for the view and comment, Edward!
TH-camr & Christian Urban Apologist MissTytus2 interview with Christian Apologist Vada Hedgeman bought me here! Looking forward to reading the book.
Your Red Team-Blue Team reference made me chuckle. You served in the military, yes? The Air Force, I think. I'm randomly watching your past videos, and they are, in word, excellent. I've already made several purchases based on your reviews.
Thanks for the kind words, dubarnik! Yes, I was in the Air Force.
Thanks for the review. I purchased the book because of it.
Thanks for commenting. I hope you find it worthwhile.
Great Video Dr. Jones! This book seems like it would be helpful for me to read since I have a lot of atheist friends who ask me this stuff a lot. And I used to be an agnostic too and I would hear some questionable things from Christians too that would enforce my agnosticism. Let’s just say I ended up watching a lot of Dr. William Lane Craig and that helped a lot haha. But praise be to God that he has brought you to faith and had used you in great ways your channel is very informative and has helped me find better bibles and other books for my faith. Also I remember we had that lengthy back and forth on Dr. Jordan Coopers channel a while back haha, I noticed he put out a video on Original Sin you were asking about last time. I’m not sure if it would help you with the question you had regarding Bishop Schneider but I’d thought I’d let you know nonetheless. But it seems to me that Ludwig Ott in his “ Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” does give a somewhat similar argument against Luther regarding Grace and human nature but not exactly the same and not in the same points the Bishop made. I understand more of where he was coming from but I still agree with the position of Sola Gratia and Luther’s view ( in large part) on the corruption of our nature ( Genesis 8:21, Psalm 51:5, Psalm 116: 8-11, Isaiah 64:6, Jeremiah 17:9, Ezekiel 36:26, Mathew 15:19, Romans 5:9-15, Romans 8:7-8, Ephesians 2:1-3, Ephesians 2: 8-10, 1 Corinthians 2:14, 1 John 2:29,) but if I am a filthy heretic according the bishop for believing the word on these matters in agreement with Luther then so be it. And if we have interrupted them wrong then may God have mercy on me on the last day. Augustine used similar texts against Pelagius as well. Also I think the Reformed concept of Common Grace ( I mean to cite this in a way that teaches the idea of Grace in nature as the scriptures clearly teach: Psalm 95: 3-5, Psalm 104:21, Colossians 1:16, but not in the way that would deny universal grace in a salvific way to all people since I’m a Lutheran who embraces paradox who believes in predestination and universal grace haha) helps make some sense of the controversy to me I think. Sorry for the long message just wanted to get back with you on that and thank you for your channel keep up the Great work! P.S. you don’t need to read all those bible verses just put them as a witness and you are a bible expert and probably know all of them anyways!
Thanks for the comment, Tony! I watched Dr. Cooper's second Augsburg Confession video, and I don't think he touched upon my question. I wasn't surprised. My sense is that Bishop Schneider likely doesn't understand Lutheranism, and so Dr. Cooper -- if he saw my question -- considered Schneider's remarks so far out in left field that he didn't have a ready response, nor did he have time to research the issue to discover what might have been behind them. Because others sometimes come along and read these comments, I'll re-post here the question I had for Dr. Cooper:
"To better understand the 'recognize and resist' movement within Roman Catholicism, I've been reading Bishop Athanasius Schneider's Christus Vincit . On page 108, in response to an observation that 'Luther also regarded human nature as fundamentally corrupt', Schneider replied: "He despised nature. And so, in despising nature with his doctrine of sola gratia , he destroyed the foundation of grace. Grace has its foundation in nature. Grace beautifies nature, transforms it from within, elevates it, and brings it to perfection. Here we can see a basic error in Luther's thought: by despising nature, he ultimately despised the reality of the Incarnation and the objective power of the sacraments." It isn't clear in the context what aspect of Luther's thought Schneider has in mind. It may be that he's referring to original sin, which you're about to deal with in Article 2. Can you shed any light on where Schneider might be coming from when he claims that Luther despised the reality of the Incarnation and the objective power of the sacraments?"
I wonder at the bishop's statement that "grace has its foundation in nature." Isn't the foundation of grace God himself?
R. Grant Jones Yeah I agree is it Gods Grace that sustains all things and it is from him alone that grace is given. It’s interesting to me that Lutherans do actually believe in the infusion of grace in the sacraments, theologians like Johan Gerhard speak about this and we confess it in our Liturgy when we received the Eucharist the Pastor will say “ may the body and blood of our Lord Jesus strengthen you and keep you in his grace amen.” But where we disagree with Rome is that they attach the infusion of grace in the sacraments to Justification. So I think it really boils down too the capacity of man to keep Gods law and I would say, along side people like Justin Martyr, that Gods law requires perfection and we cannot in any capacity even with the help of grace be able to get to a point to uphold it will all holiness of heart. Scripture teaches that we will always sin, “ he who says he has no sin devices himself and the truth is not in him” 1 John, and to have sin means to be lacking in love which is the chief requirement of Gods law and this is Why St. Paul in Galatians speaks of Gods law as a curse to those who are under it and says “cursed are those who do not hold to the entire book of the law” which would require Love. Therefore Paul concludes by “the works of the law shall no flesh be justified” because that would require perfect acts of love on our part to God and neighbor which is not possible in this life since we are still in the sinful flesh, which is why Christ became a curse for us and we are saved by his merits in fulfilling the law and his work is received by faith and thus are justified apart from the deeds of the law. Romans 3:28. We also confess this with the free gift of reconciliation, forgiveness of sins and justification in our liturgy which Christ words in the supper “given for you” he says come eat and drink for the forgiveness of sins, this is a gift. And as Martin Luther has said who ever received it and believes on those words truly receive all the benefits of the sacrament including free forgiveness, ( Funny enough the Council of Trent curses us for saying the chief fruit of the Eucharist is the forgiveness of sins, so I’m not sure how they explain that exactly) so we maintain the sufficiency of Christ sacrifice as Hebrews 10 clearly teaches while still holding to the infusion of grace but not in the way The catholic mass presents it which I do think clouds over the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice but I digress. Thanks for responding but I guess I would say that the Bishop most likely just didn’t understand our position.
Hello, R. Grant Jones. Have you read "Scribes & Scriptures" by John D. Meade and Peter J. Gurry?
I am currently reading the work, and it cites "Myths and Mistakes" often. This reminded me that you did this video review, so I was curious if you had read "Scribes & Scriptures"
No, that's one I haven't read.
Another fine review. I didn't know you did reviews on books other than bibles. I think this is worth purchasing, I will look for other reviews of Bible related topics,
I was not impressed by "Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament" by Daniel Wallace as it felt like the reader had just walked into a battle of the minds between Wallace (and his pupils) and Bart Ehrman. For some reason I had thought I was getting a book with a broad scope of information when I ordered it. Seeing Wallace's name attached to this book and mentions of Ehman in the text that you showed causes hesitation. Do you find it to be broad in coverage or limited to arguments against Ehrman's ideas?
Ehrman clearly was in the background for several of the essays, and his name came up frequently. But, no, I don't think the book was limited to arguments against Ehrman. Much of it seems designed to prevent apologists from making inappropriate claims in defense of the New Testament.
Great video. Thank you so much for the review and letting us know about the FB group, I'd recommend you to get "The clear Quran" translation by mustafa khattab and look into Islam as well.
The essay ‘myths about patristics’ especially would tempt me to buy the book. The notion that the Fathers quote passages such as the longer ending of Mark or the woman caught in adultery, along with the emergence of the majority text, have been preventing me from having greater trust in the critical text. Though I’d be happy to be proven wrong, relieved even.
Thanks for the comment, Ryan. I doubt that chapter would be of great value to you. It is focused on the myth that we could reconstruct the New Testament from patristic quotations, and I didn't see much that has a direct bearing on the value of early citations in establishing the original (or ausgang/outgoing) text.
The author (Andrew Blaski) mentions Burgon's collection of quotations on pages 231 and 232, and he notes that Frederic Kenyon was critical of Burgon because the latter relied on uncritical editions. On pages 249 and 250 he points out that patristic citations "can be helpful in determining when and where a certain textual variant became prevalent or was being read." There follows a brief discussion of Luke 3.22 and the variant ending "today I have begotten you", and how patristic use shows how early the variant is. He also mentions Irenaeus's discussion of the variant reading '616' in Rev 13.18. But, as Blaski points out, both examples are discussed in Metzger and Ehrman's _Text of the New Testament_ .
@@RGrantJones thanks for that, I shall have to check out Kenyon’s critique.
As someone who evidently knows much more on the topic of textual criticism than myself, I am curious as to what your preferred English translation is and why. I’ve always preferred the ESV up to this point but I feel like I’m starting to realize how much I might not know about textual criticism.
Thanks for the view and comment! I don't have a favorite translation. I usually read Scripture from at least two translations, a relatively literal one (like the ASV, NKJV, KJV, NASB, or ESV) along with a more interpretive translation (e.g., Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible). If you're interested in seeing the extent to which various translations follow different Greek New Testaments in their textual choices, take a look at my Four-Dimensional Perspective in Bible Translations video.
How do you compare thus book to Bart ehernan ‘s book misquoting Jesus ?
Good stuff! May I make a suggestion... I’m sure, especially based on the comments, that you could receive some financial help by providing links for the books you discuss. (You’d have to set it up with amazon). It would certainly help you in providing your videos. It’s way better than giving in to commercials during the video which many despise. thank you again
God Bless and Protect you.
Bible is the Greek text of both Testaments, including the beau texts of the Septuagint Plus. The Hebrew is the Tanach. And this does not include the beau Septuagint Plus nor the New Testament. All critters than exclude the beau Septuagint Plus, exclude in the same way all the New Testament. A pleasure to comment, R. Grant Jones.
Thanks for the comment, Rafe!
At 09:40 -- There are a few issues here:
First, to correct an error: You mention the First Letter of Clement in the Septuagint (LXX). That is not correct. The LXX represents the Greek translation of the Jewish canon of scripture -- what we call, the "Old Testament" -- made at ca. 130 years before Christ. As such, it is pre-Christian, and could not have included Pope Clement I's letter to the Corinthian church, which was composed ca. 90 A. D.
Second, as point of fact: The Eastern Orthodox churches *do* accept all of the books of scripture contained in the Septuagint, precisely because they *are* in the Septuagint, which is considered the inspired version. (You mention, for example, 1 Esdras. First Esdras is most certainly to be found in the Eastern Orthodox Old Testament!) So, your point is actually moot in the case of those churches. I think, you have in mind the Roman church, which accepts some books found in the LXX -- but, not all. This is probably because -- at least, in the West -- the Greek LXX was not the basis for that church's Old Testament; rather, the Vetus Latina was. In the West, the LXX as a translation does not seem to have been the governing norm for which books should be in the Old Testament. Rather, the normative standard for which books were ultimately accepted in the West was the list of books accepted by the Church of Rome. So, since, for example, Rome accepted certain books (e. g., Tobit, Judith, etc.) and not others (e. g., 1 Esdras, Odes of Solomon, etc.), other Western churches followed the example of their "Mother Church".
Third, as a point of logic: I think, you have missed the point of the argument. The point is not that, since something appears in the LXX, it must simply be accepted as inspired and canonical. The Orthodox would say that, but (as I have just pointed out) the Roman Catholic Church would not. It is not whether one church decided to accept III Maccabees, while another did not. Rather, the point is that III Maccabees is even there in the first place! The LXX demonstrates that the Biblical canon of the Old Testament was significantly larger than what was ultimately decided upon by the Jewish community. And, so, the "ancient churches" of Rome and the East represent a more authentic instance of the Church's scriptural canon than was (wrongly) devised later by the Protestant Reformers. No -- Tobit, Judith, Baruch, etc.: These books were not added later to the Bible by Catholics. On the contrary, they were part of a canon that was regarded as inspired scripture by: Jews before Jesus, by (apparently) the Apostles of Jesus who cite the LXX version of scripture, by Paul, by the Apologists, and on and on.
In response, I'll simply quote what I said in the video, and leave it at that: "I've seen apologetic arguments, or at least heard them from certain parties, that argue that, because books were included in the Septuagint -- that is, in the codices of the Septuagint -- therefore that they must be considered canonical. But that really does prove too much, because those same codices include books that those people wouldn't have considered canonical, like First Esdras or First Clement."
No mistakes in the A K.J. B.
Focus on jesus.not the bible. A relationship with God the father and jesus is eternal life.
Find the answers inside yourself. The ancient Christians did not have study bibles, yet they were spiritually more evolved. True faith can only take birth from the ground of logic. Read the bible, think why the verses were written so, meditate on them. Unless you yourself can get your hands dirty, you can never understand the bible, not by reading someone else's research. Always remember what Jesus said - The Kingdom is within Us.
Thanks for commenting!
It's not true, lots of church fathers are influenced by Greek philosophy and natural theology. Only a handful like Athanasius, Augustine, Capedocians rely more on scripture than Greek philosophy.