I am a protestant who was a former Roman Catholic, and I wrote a book “Why Protestant Bibles are smaller.” It defends the Protestant Bible includes the same books the Jews accepted from the Old Testament, which excludes the apocrypha. I’ve debated Catholic apologists such as Gary Michuta and Trent Horn from Catholic Answers. If you ever want to discuss this more in depth, tag my name and let me know, and I’ll be happy to share with you what I’ve learned.
I'm sorry, but Huff is incorrect about the canon being settled by the time of the 1st century. Scholars know that Josephus was overstating his case and outright lying at times to try to make Jewish history appealing to the Romans. The cannon wasn't settled even within Josephus' Rabbinical circles and continued to have some level of debate, let alone being settled the wider schools of thought within Judaism of the Jesus' day. Lee McDonald and F.F. Bruce have provided a lot of good scholarly resources on this.
The Jewish canon in itself is a tricky issue, because there was dispute about this among the Jews themselves. When Josephus talks about the canon all Jews agree on, he significantly overstates his case. As recorded in the Bible, the Sadducees only accepted the Torah as canon. The Phariseeic canon was similar to the modern Jewish canon and Protestant Old Testament (though notably exclusing Esther). The Essenes included books like Enoch and Jubilees (and seem to have excluded Esther as well). All the Jewish communities shared the Torah, but there were disagreements beyond that. Historically, the early Christian communities adopted the canon of whatever their local Jewish community had, which is why you had variance. And still have variance: the Old Testament for Protestant, Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, and Ethiopian Orthodox are all different. The Ethiopians for example were notably influenced by Enochic Judaism, which is why they have 1 Enoch and Jubilees. Before the rise of Christianity, the Jews accepted the reading of Scriptures in either Hebrew or Greek unaccompanied. In reaction to Christianity, the Jews restricted Greek readings, as well as any Scriptures they could not find in Hebrew (thus Sirach for example was excluded, even though it was written in Hebrew). This resulted in controversy over the centuries about what exactly were the Hebrew Scriptures. Fast forward to the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther did not trust the Catholic Church or the Vulgate, and sought to root authority in the original text of the books he believed were rightly Scripture. As such, he went to the local Rabbinic Jews for their Old Testament and to the Greeks for their New Testament, and rejected the books written in Greek between the Old and New Testament. The Catholic Church responded in the Council of Trent by declaring their own canon list at Trent. Contrary to popular belief, Trent did not close the canon; rather, it cemented the listed books as canon and said that they must be accepted as such. The different canons between the East and West came up in the debates, but the East had all of the same books as Rome, just with some additional books (and an additional Psalm). As such, Trent opted to pass over these books in silence, leaving open the possibility that they could be included later, but cementing the ones in controversy with the Protestants.
Catholic and Orthodox accept different dueterocannonical books because the Catholics went with which ever was historically correct and Orthodox went with traditional value (1&2 Maccabees vs prayer of manasseh). Early Christians were jewish and all knew enoch, jubilees, and jasher, but never accepted them as scripture. When the bible and other writtings arrived in ethiopia, they just included everything (even their own history I believe).
@jaytoven7 I would respectfully disagree. I believe the Church was united around a core canon, but some books are more important than others, even in the shared canon, and historically this was not an issue because the Church never practiced _sola scriptura,_ and the different canons were not doctrinal issues. I do not believe the West's issue was historical accuracy per se, because the West accepted Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon, both wisdom literature and the latter likely not written by Solomon, but the West had no issue with this. The West's canon was effectively the vulgate, but in spite of the differences this was not seen as an issue for communion. Even today some Eastern Catholics use a larger canon than what Trent establishes, but Trent deliberately left the door open for this matter so it is no violation of Trent's precepts.
Martin Luther in no way "rejected" the apocrypha but in fact included them in his Bible translation as books that are "helpful and good to read" but not at the same level as the rest.
Actually some of the Deuterocanonical books have been discovered in Hebrew or Aramaic among the Dead Sea Scrolls: - Sirach (Ecclesiasticus): Fragments of this book were found in Hebrew. - Tobit: Fragments of Tobit were also discovered in both Hebrew and Aramaic.
@@acem82Wess claims that the Deuterocanonical books have their origin in Greek. He explicitly mentioned Tobit with no manuscripts in Hebrew. That it is laughably wrong.
@@morlewen7218 1. He claims that the Dead Sea scrolls included all the OT, minus Ruth. He makes no statement about if the Dead Sea scrolls included other books. 2. He said, "In fact *I think* it's all of the other writings, is that they only exist in Greek". 3:14 3. He said no copies of Tobit exist in anything other than Greek. Well given the preface in #2, and the fact that these are fragments, not full copies, that's still a (technically) true statement. 4. We didn't have the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1500 AD, so these points still stand to answer the question he was actually asked. Now, did he say these things extremely carefully? No. Could he have done better? Yes. I'm just pointing out that he didn't claim that the other books weren't found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The issue is about books that are IN the Bible versus books that ARE Bible. The Apocryphal books were IN the Bible, but not declared to BE Bible, until ~1550. At that time, the Roman Catholic Church unilaterally declared them to BE Bible versus because it was the only way they could defend many practices that prompted the Reformers. The Apocryphal books weren’t dropped from Protestant Bibles until the 1800s. So, the Books IN the Protestant Bible are the same as what Catholics considered to BE Bible until 1550. Protestants didn’t take Bible books out; Catholics added books to BE Bible.
1550 is too late. The Council of Florence in 1442 included the deuterocanonical books among the books of the Old and New Testaments: "[The holy Roman Church] professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament - that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel - since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows. "Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John" (Session 11).
The Catholic Church canonised all 73 books at the Council of Rome (AD 382), reaffirmed at the Synod of Hippo (AD 393), two of the Councils of Carthage (AD 397 and 419), the Council of Florence (AD 1431-1449) and finally, as an article of faith, by the Council of Trent (AD 1545-1563).
You are stuck in 16th century polemics. You agree with the Jews that reject Christ and the whole New Testament. Catholics agree with the Jews who are the Christ and wrote the New Testament.
The Septuagint was the Scriptures that Christ used. The so called Apocrypha was disregard by Jews long after Christ since Christians were using those books to convert Jews. Additionally those books were in many Protestant Bibles until the 1820’s when the British Bible Association took them out on their own authority mind you to make it cheaper to print more Bibles
That’s wrong. It was never in the Torah and the first believers were Jews and if they removed it cause Christians were converting them wouldn’t they have removed Isaiah as well. This is historically very inaccurate
@primusreborn keep learning. Read more into the early Church. The Jewish secs where seperated. They didn't even hve there own bible Canon or agreed in one. Plus your trusting the Jewish sec that dont even believe in OUR LORD CHRIST rather that the early Jewish Christians that gave you the REAL BIBLE CANON IN 367 AD. It was 72 books. 🔑⛪️🍷🍞✝️🕊📖
@@AngelGonzalez-ng9ve There were no apostles or “Jewish Christians” by 367. The definition given in Acts as to who could be an apostle was one who had shared in the ministry from the beginning. None after the 1st century could qualify.
While I like Wes, he, and many Protestants, completely ignore the Canon at the time of Christ. They also ignore that most of the 7 books they removed were part of the Canon and affirmed later as well. After leaving Protestantism, I completely understand why Catholics and Orthodox seemed so frustrated talking to me. I was willfully ignorant, even though I knew so much.
@@MajorMustang1117 You are a man of integrity to admit that. So many times I will quote pretty plain Scripture. The response I almost always get is "That's not what it means." My response is then what does it mean? 2 things happen. Either I get no response or some nonsensical response out of the prot playbook. Very frustrating. It's like they can't read what's in front of them
@@InitialPC It was the common form of Scripture in the time of Jesus, Paul quotes from the Septuagint and the early Church used as well. I doubt the Apostles would use something different than Jesus. Also, you can research it on line. Also, all of the ancient Codices have that as the Old Testiment. It also shows up in the Dead Sea scrolls. What's really a tragedy for you is that there can never be enough evidence that the Catholic Church is the real deal. Luther was a fraud. The day will come when you and all the others will find out!
@@richardounjian9270 "It was the common form of scripture at the time" So what you have is an assumption. Pharisaic philosophy was also the common form of Judaism at the time, "it was common" does not equate to "it was true". Furthermore, reading form the septuagint does not equate to recognizing the extra books as scripture. Even after the protestants supposedly "removed" the deuterocanon, they continued to include it in their Bibles. Does this mean they secretly thought it was true? No. Same with the Dead Sea Scrolls, it also included books not even catholics consider canon such as Enoch and Jubilees, and unlike the deuterocanon Enoch is actually quoted in he Bible. Does this mean Enoch is canon? you would probably say no, but this logic goes out the window I guess when it comes to the books YOU think are true. "What's really a tragedy for you is that there can never be enough evidence that the Catholic Church is the real deal." You do realize the exact same thing can be hypocritically said about you right? Why not join the Orthodox church or the Oriental churches? They also have apostolic lineage and also follow the traditions of early church fathers, how convenient that the only traditions you consider true are the traditions you think validate your beliefs, while bashing others for doing the same.
@InitialPC You can easily do your own research as to why Enoch and Jubilees aren't found in the Septuagint. I'm not playing that game. I take no issue with the Orthodox. I recognize that the Apostolic Church: Oriental, Orthodox, Catholic all have Apostolic succession despite disagreements. So you need to understand, it's not what I think. It's all about what the Church teaches. I trust what Jesus said. Apparently, you don't
Better yet: which jews? none of the jews had the same canon of scripture until rabinic jews, and even then- why do we accept what they pick over Christ's church?
@@markgilrosales6366 the demons know scripture and can twist it. Why would I trust a bunch of Pharisees with an agenda over the early Church that gave their lives for Christ. Early on, in the hands of the very people you consider the authority to make our cannon
@markgilrosales6366 different Jewish groups had different canons. Some jews did have the Canon catholics and orthodox have. It is just fell out favor over time
@@markgilrosales6366 What relevance does that have to their authority over our church? No group of Jews until rabbinic Jews 200-300 years AD had a commited canon. Not to mention, they’re not their writings-they’re our writings.
The extra books or the apocrypha books were are not considered canon by the early Christian forefathers. Not only that the apocrypha popped out in the 3rd and 4th centuries after the first accounts witnesses on the life of Jesus Christ.
How intellectually dishonest that he did not mention that Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagent as their Old Testement. The Tenach was used by the pharasies while the other branches of judiasm used the septuagent
Agree with you that it is intellectually dishonest, I think he is a great scholar but like most people, wes allows his faith bias to come up with his conclusions.
Where is it said anywhere in scripture or tradition that Jesus ad the apostles specifically used the septuagint. "Tanakh was used by pharisees" You say hat as if the tanakh was some completely separate text, it comprises the same books found in the Old Testament today.
It's not intellectually dishonest because it literally doesn't matter at all. My Bible has Reformation-era confessions in it. Does literally anyone think that makes those confessions scripture? Just because tobit was in a translation of the Bible doesn't mean it is Scripture.
Shortish answer is the Greek translation of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible known as the Septuagint included additional books not part of the traditional Hebrew canon, and the Septuagint saw widespread use among Greek-speaking Jews and Christians. While producing the Vulgate, Jerome used the Septuagint to translate the Old Testament into Latin, and the Vulgate become the predominant version of the Bible used in the Western/Catholic church for centuries. During the Protestant Reformation, reformers like Martin Luther wanted to “go back to the roots” of Christianity and moved those extra Greek-only Old Testament books to a separate section called the Apocrypha. The original King James Version included the Apocrypha, but when the American Bible Society began mass-producing KJVs in the late 1800s, it was cheaper for them to exclude the Apocrypha to save on printing costs, and since most Protestants considered those books non-canonical by then anyway. This became the norm for all Protestant Bibles by the 20th century.
@@apel.ogetika yeah Wes started to go on a tangent, that’s why I wanted to bring up the Vulgate as it’s really the answer to the Protestant/Catholic Bible differences.
Why be delusional? Josephus was a Pharisee. Not a Christian. We don’t care about his books. Rabbinic are descended from Pharisees. Dead Sea scrolls written by Jews has the dueterocannon. Written by Essenes. And has the dueterocannon in both Hebrew and Greek. The oldest Christian bibles Codex Vatinanus, Codex Sanaiticus, Codex Alexandrus all have dueterocannon books. This is Christianity. Zero Christian bibles existed that matched the Protestant Bible that match the Protestant 66 books Bible. It’s irrelevant any Jewish group that rejects Jesus, what books they have.
To add to that, scholars (including Protestants such as James Charlesworth and Lee McDonald) are aware that even within his own Pharesaic school of thought other Jews disagreed with Josephus with respect to the canon; so even if a Jewish group could determine the Christian canon, Josephus wouldn't get you there.
Many of the deuterocanonical books were found in the Dead Sea scrolls and they were in Hebrew many of the books in the Dead Sea Scrolls that are considered deuterocanonical were written in Hebrew, including parts of Daniel and fragments of Jubilees and the Wisdom of Sirach: Daniel: The deuterocanonical parts of Daniel were originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Esther: The deuterocanonical parts of Esther were partly written in Hebrew or Aramaic and partly in Greek. Jubilees and the Wisdom of Sirach: Fragments of these books were written in Hebrew.
Not sure where you're going with that. Neither Jesus nor Paul quoted a single one of the disputed seven books. For example, of the 39 books of the Old Testament, Jesus is only known to have quoted from 13: Genesis; Exodus; Leviticus; Numbers; Deuteronomy; Psalms; Isaiah; Daniel; Hosea; Jonah; Micah; Zechariah; and Malachi and to have alluded to another 16: 1 & 2 Samuel; 1 & 2 Kings; 2 Chronicles; Ezra; Esther; Job; Proverbs; Jeremiah; Ezekiel; Joel; Amos; Habakkuk; Zephaniah; and Haggai. That leaves 10 books Jesus isn't known to have referenced: Joshua; Judges; Ruth; 1 Chronicles; Nehemiah; Ecclesiastes; Song of Solomon; Lamentations; Nahum; and Obadiah. It doesn't seem to me that, other than confirming the 13 books Jesus actually quoted from as being Scripture, it says anything one way or the other about the rest. If you're referring to New Testament quotations from the Old Testament, I don't think a case can be made for or against either the Septuagint or the Masoretic text. The Old Testament is quoted 283 times in the New Testament. Those quotes differ from the Septuagint about 185 times (65%). Hardly a ringing endorsement of it. Departures from the Masoretic text (which didn't exist at the time) are 10% worse, at 212 (75%), which only goes to show that the writers of the New Testament didn't rely exclusively on either the Septuagint as we now have it or on the Hebrew text used by the Masoretes.
@@Berean_with_a_BTh When people say this, I think they're more familiar with the New Testament than the Old Testament, because there are many places where Jesus' teaching parallels the Wisdom of Sirach. Unless you've read Sirach, you won't be aware of these parallels. Here are just a few - there are dozens more. If you're familiar with the Gospels, you'll recognize these teachings. But if you're not sure what this might parallel I can point them out for you. “Lose your silver for the sake of a brother or a friend, and do not let it rust under a stone and be lost. Lay up your treasure according to the commandments of the Most High and it will profit you more than gold.” (Sirach 29:10-12) “Forgive your neighbour the wrong he has done, and then your sins will be pardoned when you pray. Does anyone harbor anger against another and expect healing from the Lord? If one has no mercy toward another like himself, can he then seek pardon for his own sins?” (Sirach 28:2-4) “Do good to the devout, and you will be repaid - if not by them, certainly by the Most High” (Sirach 12:2) “Do not babble in the company of elders, and do not repeat yourself when you pray.” (Sirach 7:14) “Its fruit discloses the cultivation of a tree, so does speech the thoughts of the human mind.” (Sirach 27:6) A person becomes rich through diligence and self-denial, and the reward allotted to him is this: when he says, “I have found rest, and now I shall feast on my goods!” he does not realize how time passes by; he will leave them to others and will die. (Sirach 11:18-19) “Come to her (the Wisdom of God) like one who plows and sows … with all your soul … for at last you will find the rest she gives and she will be changed into joy for you. Then her fetters will become for you a strong defense, and her collar a glorious robe. Her yoke is a golden ornament…” (Sirach 6 paraphrased) “Search out and seek, and she (the Wisdom of God) will become known to you.” (Sirach 6:27)
@Berean_with_a_Bth Have you heard of the "Lord's Prayer"? You know the one Jesus taught His disciples. Yeah, He was quoting from the Deuterocanonical books. Any time that Jesus or the Apostles say, "It is written," "The Scriptures say," etc. and the reference isn't in the OT, they are quoting from the Greek Septuagint Deuterocanonical books. Jesus and the Disciples used the Greek Septuagint as their Scriptures as many other Jewish sects. The Pharisees did not use the Greek Septuagint, they only used the Hebrew. Most Bibles today use the Masoretic Hebrew text created in 1009 AD. The Greek Septuagint was written in 200 BC. There were 70 different Jewish scribes that translated the Hebrew into Greek separately and they all were exactly consistent with each other. The Greek Septuagint spread across all of the Greek and then Roman Empire. The early Christians used the Greek Septuagint for their Scriptures too. Since Jesus quoted from the Deuterocanonical books they are inspired. The Masoretic text is a poor censored version of God's Word by the Christian hating Pharisees.
@@kylepatrick5135 Yeah, us Catholics should really lay off on honoring those who are alive in heaven and made invaluable contributions to the faith and lived pious lives. “Just Paul” who was the apostle to the gentiles, who helped keep the early church afloat, who was a martyr for Jesus Christ, who was a big part of the reason you or I even know about Christianity and it didn’t just remain a Jewish sect. But yeah he’s “just Paul”, who cares right. Expected from protestants though since you’re about as far from apostolic Christianity as you can get
I'm Protestant, so I don't have any skin in this game. Hmm... Wasn't Hebrew mostly a dead language when Jesus lived? I thought the Alexandrian Jews were using the Septuagint since Hebrew wasn't the primary language in that region. Also, much of northern first century Palestine was heavily Hellenized, and the Jews of that region primarily spoke Greek. So, they, too, would have been familiar with the Septuagint. In addition, although there are not any quotes from the Apocryphal books of the Septuagint in the New Testament, there do seem to be various allusions to them. Revelation, for instance, includes allusions to Tobit and 2 Esdras. Then, too, the majority of Old Testament quotes in the New Testament are from the Septuagint. Furthermore, the canonization of the Jewish scriptures at Jamnia was most likely a reaction to the early church, which was using the Septuagint. All of this says to me that the Jewish scriptural canon before Jamnia was pretty wide open. To claim that the Jewish canon was limited to the books we now have in our Bibles is, to me, something of a stretch.
There is debate about whether the "council of Jamnia" is a real thing. It appears that Jamnia was a centre of Jewish scholarship at the time, but stories about the council and what it decided may be much later inventions.
there is nothing in the NT about purgatory, it’s a lie that they taught you. Scary how people believe these Catholic deceptions so easily. Do your research. At this point I’m doubting your sincerity. You didn’t even glance at the video I shared with you of Hitchens. You’re probably scared of the truth.
Depends by what you mean when you say dead language. If you mean nobody used it then you are completely wrong. It was still the primary language in Palestine for religious activities. For example, at the temple or synagogue they would still usually read in Hebrew. It wasn't used conversationally in the market or something, but that's the way they thought best to read the Bible. As for the Canon, Jesus said all the scriptures pointed to him and then he went to all the old testament books that protestants use today and none of the apocrypha, so...
There were 5 main sects of Jews at the time (Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Samaritans & the Jews of the Diaspora) and before the time of Jesus they did not all agree on a canon of the Hebrew Scriptures, some believed only 39 were inspired and some 46. After the first few centuries after Christ came, the Jewish Rabbis (by this time it was predominately just the Pharisees who existed since the Romans had wiped out the others) saw that they needed to separate themselves from the growing Christian sect and decided to reject the 7 books that the Christians had in their Septuagint and agreed upon 39 books in the OT.
Catholics adopted the popular Septuagint scriptures of the Alexandrian Jews who migrated from Palestine to Egypt and its surrounding Greek speaking neighborhood before the fall of the second temple. Protestants adopted the Canon of later Palestinian Jews after the ascension of our Lord and the establishment of a Christian magisterium.
There were 5 main sects of Jews at the time (Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Samaritans & the Jews of the Diaspora) and before the time of Jesus they did not all agree on a canon of the Hebrew Scriptures, some believed only 39 were inspired and some 46. After the first few centuries after Christ came, the Jewish Rabbis (by this time it was predominately just the Pharisees who existed since the Romans had wiped out the others) saw that they needed to separate themselves from the growing Christian sect and decided to reject the 7 books that the Christians had in their Septuagint and agreed upon 39 books in the OT.
The Deuterocanon does NOT originate exclusively in Greek, although 2 Maccabees and Wisdom were both most likely written in Greek, at the dead sea scrolls 5 manuscripts of Tobit were found, (1 in Hebrew and 4 in Aramaic), and 3 manuscript fragments of Sirach in Hebrew, Saint Jerome translated Judith into the Latin Vulgate from Aramaic manuscripts. And Baruch and 1 Maccabees, although only surviving in Greek, both almost certainly have their origin in Hebrew because of Hebraisms in the books and a semitic writing style. Edit: another mistake later in the video, Esther was also not at the dead sea scrolls...
Some points for my Protestant brothers to consider: 1) Both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have the same canon. It’s not just the Catholics. 2) There was no consensus on the canon among 2nd temple Jews. The Sadducees only accepted the Books of Moses. 3) There is only 1 objective way to determine whether a text is the inspired word of God: if God tells you it is either directly or indirectly. The Catholic claim is that the Holy Spirit guided the magisterium of the Church to a complete and correct canon of Scripture. How do you (Protestants) derive certainty that your canon is complete and correct?
The apocrypha shouldn't be considered scripture for the simple fact that it contains historical errors. Go ahead and read it if you want, but it shouldn't be central to anyone's faith.
3) "The Catholic claim is that the Holy Spirit guided the magisterium of the Church to a complete and correct canon of Scripture." And we believe He lead the Church and Israel in general to accept the correct books. It´s the same sort of belief, we just trust in different sources. You are not certain which books belong, you trust the Magisterium. But God never said the Magisterium couldn´t err. It might be the case, but you have no more certainty than anyone else. The advantage of being a protestant is that these books have so many things speaking against them; - They have always been disputed, which is not true for the other biblical books. - They are never cited by Jesus or the apostles as Scripture. - They are not part of the earliest canon lists. - Many leaders in the Church warned against using these books for doctrine. Warned. - The apocrypha are very different in style from the rest of the Bible in several respects; just to name one; the books of the maccabées is very unlike biblical history in that they are much less honest about the flaws of the people involved. When you read about David and Abraham etc they are presented along with their flaws, sins and mistakes. The Maccabées are not, they are presented as almost perfect. It is one of the most striking features of biblical history, and it´s not present here. - The Maccabées also ends with a sort of apology from the author that if the book isn´t great at least he did the best he could. He was very aware he wasn´t writing inspired text. And I believe he was right in that.
Wes said the apocryphal books only exist in greek, and that they never existed in hebrew (which is one of the primary reasons the jews didnt consider them to be on the same level as the other old testament books) but also that they were translated to greek at the same time as the old testament hebrew scriptures and thats why some folks think they should have been included. So, what language were they translated from? Thanks so much. God bless you both.
Presumably, the "Apocrypha" was not translated, but originally written in Greek, because that was the predominant language during the 400-year interim between Malachi and Matthew. That is, Genesis to Malachi was written in Hebrew (and considered cannon during Jesus' time), and these newer historical and philosophical works were written after a language shift but not considered to be "God-breathed" (2 Tim 3:16).
@@adambachert9405 In addition to what Steve mentioned, we have fragmentary evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrating that other 'apocryphal' books were originally written in Hebrew as well. Regardless, there was debate among different Jewish schools of thought as to which books were and weren't "God Breathed" among basically all the books of the Bible other than the 5 books of Moses. It wasn't uniformly decided in the way that Huff presents.
You have to wonder on what authority these apologists make all these claims. Did they get someone's blessing? Kinda important considering all the genealogies in the Bible, a whole first Chapter revolving around Blessings and following Chapters dealing with Kings. But I guess mr Martin Grievance Luthor knew it better...
@@universalflamethrower6342 You had asked about the authority apologists use to make their claims. It's possible I misunderstood you. My apologies. Then my response which could satisfy you should have been, First, God. His word written by the authors of the Bible on His guidance and inspiration. Next, the historians and scholars over the centuries who fought to keep the truth of the Word of God from being warped. Their faithfulness to preserve the Word has led to present day apologists' confidance in declaring the Truth. What may also be added is the work of archaeologists continuing to discover Biblical sites. Their findings keep proving the truth of the Bible also. That is my expansion on how I believe your question of whose authority today's apologists are working under should be answered. Thanks for the time.
So this is where Wes gets it wrong! Love how he defended the Gospel against Billy Carson but from the catholic perspective this is where we bump heads a lot. I think this is a better question to ask in this conversation about what is canon- who has authority to list canon? Catholics and orthodox will say the church meaning the bishops have the final say in who has authority to canonize scripture. Protestants will say the Jews and this is why all Protestants, and I’m including evangelicals into this group for this video reply, will all say that our Old Testament canon matches the Jewish Bible. But which Jewish group are you matching? The Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes all had different canons of scripture at the time of Jesus. The council of Jamnia in the late 1st century was a group of Pharisees who provided a more authoritative list of books but this was in response to Christianity. The masorite Rabbis helped create the masoretic text which from what many sources say between 9th and 15th century, a text Marin Luther used to translate the Old Testament into German. What do all these Jewish examples have in common? None of them believed Jesus was the messiah and none of them still don’t. So back to my question did Jesus tell the Pharisees on this rock I will build my church and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven? No, he gave that authority to the Apostles and at the council of Rome 382 these men who were bishops of Christs church decided which books to use for our New Testament canon and Old Testament canon.
Basic answer would be the Holy Spirit preserved the Word. The ones which survived are the ones who are inspired. Another thing is that the Word came from the Jews. So any supposed canon from Gentiles are funny. What do all these Jewish examples have in common? None of them believed Jesus was the messiah and none of them still don’t. //// Belief in Jesus is irrelevant for the OT canon. The Jews know their Scriptures.
@ I have to respectfully disagree with all those points. Belief in Jesus Christ is the number 1 litmus test when it comes to anything biblical for me. If there’s going to be an agenda, I’ll err on that side of caution over a Jewish agenda that denies our Lord. Also, the Septuagint we have is older than any of the surviving Hebrew manuscripts the Jews use. Also you say the Jews know their scriptures. According to the Bible, so do the demons. That’s not calling all Jewish people evil, it’s simply an example that “knowing their scriptures” doesn’t necessarily equate to honesty. I will also ask you, have you ever read these books in question?
If we look at the 4 Great Uncial Codices, the oldest known complete manuscripts of the Christian Bible dating from the early 4th to the 5th century, we see that they include all or at least some of the Deuterocanonical Books. For example, the Codex Alexandrinus contains all the Deuterocanonical books plus some additional ones, the Codex Vaticanus contains all except 1 and 2 Maccabees, the Codex Sinaiticus includes five Deuterocanonical books, and the Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus has only six books from the Old Testament. Based on this, we can conclude that Early Christians were fine with including them in the Bible.
🕊️The quotes provided below are historical facts in reference to our early church which existed prior to Romes adoption of Christianity in 313 A.D. Church: 📖"Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” [St. Ignatius of Antioch - Letter to the Smyrneans 8 (c. A.D. 110)] Bishop, Priest & Deacon: 📖“Since, then, I have had the privilege of seeing you, through Damas your most worthy bishop, and through your worthy presbyters Bassus and Apollonius, and through my fellow-servant the deacon Sotio, whose friendship may I ever enjoy, because he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ [St. Ignatius of Antioch- Letter to the Magnesians 2 (c. A.D. 110)]. Eucharist: 📖“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ, which have come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Ash that suffered for our sins and that the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.” [St. Ignatius of Antioch - Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6-7 (c. A.D. 110)]. Scripture: 📖“[W]hoever perverts the sayings of the Lord for his own desires, and says that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, is the firstborn of Satan. Let us leave the foolishness and the false teaching of the crowd and turn back to the word that was delivered to us in the beginning.” [St. Polycrap of Smyrna - Letter to the Philippians 7 (c. A.D. 135)]. Sunday: 📖“But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead.” [St. Justin Martyr - First Apology 67 (c. A.D. 151)]. Actions/Works: 📖“We have learned from the prophets, and we believe it is true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man's actions. If it is not so, then all things happen by fate, and nothing is in our own power. If it is fated that this man be good, and this other evil, the former is not meritorious nor the latter blameworthy [St. Justin Martyr - First Apology 43 (c. A.D. 151)]. Apostolic Succession: 📖“It is within the power of all, in every church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the Tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were instituted bishops in the churches by the apostles, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew anything these [heretics] rave about.” [St. Irenaeus of Lyons - Against Heresies 3:3:1 (c. A.D. 189)] Baptism: 📖“The children shall be baptized first. All the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family.” [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 21 (c. A.D. 215)]. Confession: 📖“After this, one of the bishops present, at the request of all, laying his hand on him who is ordained bishop, shall pray this way: O God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. pour forth the power that is from you, of "the princely Spirit' that you delivered to your beloved Child, Jesus Christ, and that he bestowed on your holy apostles, who established the Church that hallows you everywhere, for the endless glory and praise of your name. Father, "who knows the hearts [of all]” grant this servant, who you have chosen for the episcopate, to feed your holy flock and serve as your high priest blamelessly night and day, and unceasingly turn away wrath from your face and offer to you the gifts of the holy Church. And that by the high priestly Spirit he may have authority "to forgive sins" according to your command.” [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 2-3 (c. A.D. 215)]. Confirmation: 📖“The bishop will then lay his hand upon them, invoking, "Lord God, you who have made these worthy of the removal of sins through the bath of regeneration, make them worthy to be filled with your Holy Spirit, grant to them your grace, that they might serve you according to your will, for to you is the glory, Father and Son with the Holy Spirit, in the holy Church, now and throughout the ages of the ages. Amen." After this he pours the oil into his hand, and laying his hand on each of their heads, says, "I anoint you with holy oil in God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus, and the Holy Spirit." Then, after sealing each of them on the forehead, he shall give them the kiss of peace and say, "The Lord be with you." And the one who has been baptized shall say, "And with your spirit." So shall he do to each one [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 21-22 (c. A.D. 215). Peter’s Authority: 📖“The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you,' he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. [Mt 16:18-19]. On him he builds the Church, and commands him to feed the sheep [Jn 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed the others were also what Peter was [apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, by which it is made clear that there is one Church and one chair.... If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he think that he holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he be confident that he is in the Church?.” [St. Cyprian of Carthage - Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition (Treatise 1:4) (A.D. 251)]. These few topics (but a glimpse) were not only discussed but settled BEFORE Rome adopted Christianity (The Catholic Church) and eventually became The Roman Catholic Church as it also adopted its name after 313 A.D. 🚨Lukewarm Catholics left the true church of our Lord & Savior Jesus Christ in the 10th century and created the Orthodox Church, then again lukewarm Catholics left in the 16th century and created the Protestant church… by historical and biblical default, any Christian denomination outside the Catholic Church is in fact a FALSE church‼️ Is the Catholic Church Jesus’ original church❓Yes❗️ Does this excuse all its mistakes and sins from the record❓Of course not❗️As Christians, we are called to hold the church accountable, not leave it and let evil flourish within it. How are we called to hold our Christian religion accountable❓ 🕊️”Take heed to yourselves; if your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him;” Luke 17:3 🕊️”Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Look to yourself, lest you too be tempted. Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. For if any one thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself.” Galatians 6:1-3 🕊️”As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without favor, doing nothing from partiality.” 1 Timothy 5:20-21 🕊️”For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the Church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Drive out the wicked person from among you.” 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 Does anyone within the Christian religion supersede our Father’s words❓ 🕊️“And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest questioned them, saying, “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and you intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.” Acts 5:27-29 Are we called to follow the Christian religion blindly❓ 🕊️”Then the disciples came and said to him, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?” He answered, “Every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up. Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” Matthew 15:12-14 This refusal of accountability within every Christian has led to over 40,000 diferente Christian denominations and the ignorance which has flourished from it. 🕊️”And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed back and forth and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ,” Ephesians 4:11-15 We are called by God to unite! What better church to do it under than the one he started.
Lengthy but excellent response, I've always held that comment sections don't help to convert anyone , yet yours ( if one takes the time to try and prove you wrong ) may just very well set someone straight.
Michuta makes many assumptions. Catholics need the Deuterocanonical books to defend the imaginary purgatory for example. Michuta would do more for the Catholic Church if he can explain how they prohibited the reading in the Dark Ages and legalizing torture and murder by the Catholic church.
Surely Wess is one the better Protestant apologist I've heard , but I've seen better Catholic apologist. I pray for Wess to have success in bringing folks to Christ , that way the Holy Spirit can lead them to the Catholic Church.
Two of the most biased people. Modern Bibles including the KJV use the Masoretic Hebrew Scriptures from 1009AD. The Greek Septuagint which includes the Deuterocanonical books was translated in 200BC. This is the Scriptures Jesus and the Disciples used and quoted. The Greek Septuagint and Deuterocanonical books are divinely inspired.
“12 Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training. 13 He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child[a] of the Lord. 14 He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; 15 the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. 16 We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. 17 Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; 18 for if the righteous man is God’s child, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. 19 Let us test him with insult and torture, so that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. 20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected.” Wisdom 2:12-20
They had the Tanakh, which was considered scripture. But also, the NT writers knew of other Jewish texts, such as the Enoch writings, to explain their views and had no problem quoting from them. Just as Paul had no problem quoting from Greek poets when speaking to the Greeks. The focus was on taking the good news of Jesus to all who would hear, and using whatever means were available.
@@sonicrocks2007 The NT writers referenced the Tanakh repeatedly and also had their own prophets, such as Agabus. As per the Jewish tradition in which Jesus and the disciples birthed the church, covenantal scripture was limited to the Tanakh. It was dispositive for all important matters. The apocrypha have had their place within the wider church, but are not deciding on matters of sin and salvation.
There are different bibles because those old texts were written & translated by different people or organizations and that’s easily done when any composition is worded so nebulously as to be wide open to different interpretations. And that’s one reason to be skeptical of biblical claims. A reader can’t be very confident about what’s TRUE !!
So please tell me, when the veil of the temple was ripped in two after Christ’s death, the Holy Spirit left the temple and would not return until Pentecost in Acts upon the Apostles. The Hebrew Scriptures were finally decided upon 100-200 hundred years after Pentecost. Jesus breathed upon the Apostles and told them the Spirit will lead them into all truth. The Apostles now having the oral teachings of Christ and the Septuagint from which Christ sometimes taught from , discerned by the Holy Spirit the truth they eventually passed down to us until this day in both oral and written form. I cannot fathom for a moment that the Holy Spirit would inspire Christ hating Jews (of that time) to discern correctly (without ant-Christian bias ) the Old Testament cannon. “The Church is the pillar and bulwark of Truth “ (1 Tim 3:15) not the first and second century Rabbis . Therefore it is the Church namely the Catholic Church (at that time) who discerned by the power of the Holy Spirit what the canon of scripture is in the late 4th century. It Is 73 Books period. No more no less.
The Septuagint describes the Messiah as being born of a virgin, while the Masoretic (Hebrew) text describes the Messiah being born of a "alma" or young woman.
Those who argue that, if Isaiah 7:14 meant a virgin, he would have used בְּתוּלָה (bethulah) haven't paid much attention to how עַלְמָה (almah) and בְּתוּלָה (bethulah) are used in Scripture. Anyone who has studied the use of בְּתוּלָה (bethulah), for example, will know it can be applied to married women (Deuteronomy 32:25; Joel 1:8) and harlots (Ezekiel 23:3; 23:8), and of בְּתוּלָה (bethulah) needing the qualification of "whom no man had known" (Genesis 24:16), "who had not known a man by lying with him" (Judges 21:12), and so on, a qualification that is never applied to עַלְמָה (almah). In Exodus 2:8, עַלְמָה (almah) is applied to Moses' 9yo sister, undoubtedly a virgin. Indeed, there isn't a single instance of עַלְמָה (almah) referring to a woman who was _not_ a virgin. Had Isaiah wanted to say only that she was a young woman, he could have used נַעֲרָה (naarah), but didn't. There is only one passage where עַלְמָה (almah) and בְּתוּלָה (bethulah) are found together (Genesis 24:1-67). There, Rebekah is initially described as a בְּתוּלָה (bethulah) - with the qualification "whom no man had known" (Genesis 24:16) - but, in his later discussion with Laban (Genesis 24:43), Abraham's servant (Eliezer?) described her simply as an עַלְמָה (almah). Referring to Rebekah in discussion as an עַלְמָה (almah) is thus shown to be more honoring and respectful than referring to her as a mere בְּתוּלָה (bethulah). Critics of Matthew’s use of παρθένος (parthenos) in reference to Isaiah 7:14 fail to properly account for why the Israelites who translated the Hebrew text into Greek chose παρθένος (parthenos) as the most suitable equivalent for עַלְמָה (almah) there.
You are very confused. The Septuagint is a Koine Greek translation of the Hebrew text. The Masoretic text is Hebrew and no translation is required. It simply uses the original word. The word transliterated almah in english can mean young woman or virgin. Hebrew didn't have as many specific words as newer languages do. The New Testament clearly indicates that Mary was a Virgin. Hope this helps.
One of the Deuterocanonical books contains one of the most extraordinarily accurate prophecies alluding to Jesus being the Messiah and the Son of God. As profound as Isaiah 53. Protestants agree with Jews who reject Christ and the whole NT.
@@TheKingdomWorks Sure thing. Book of Wisdom 2:12-20. I highly recommend exProtestant Joshua Charles’ channel that goes through this. Eternal Christendom channel: #11 The Prophecy that convinced me the “Apocrypha” was part of the Bible
Wess got it wrong. Amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls you find parts of Sirach in Hebrew and Tobit in Aramaic and Hebrew. I have to check whether other Apocrypha were also found in one of the caves. Keep also in mind that prior to the destruction of the second temple there several sects of Jews with different canons. Even today Ethiopian Jews have a different canon of scripture including books like Enoch and Jubilees.
@@getgnomed6179 There was only the letter of Jeremiah as third apocryphal books found amongst the scrolls - written in Greek and only a tiny fragment. All other books are not present so far.
@@morlewen7218 the Epistle of Jeremiah is apart of Jeremiah, not a separate book, and it is one very small fragment comprising a verse, so not impressive. Again, where are the other 5 apocryphal books such as Wisdom, Maccabees, Judith, etc?
@@getgnomed6179 Not present amongst the fragments found and identified so far. Maybe lost forever the authors of the DSS did not copy them. Reason not known to me.
Wes wiped the floor with Carson, but now he is up against the Catholic Church. I have seen many hours of experts explaining the arguments for the Deuterocanon, and I think Wes' case against them is way too simple. Sirach was undoubtedly written in Hebrew first, and if you read chapter 28 (if I recall correctly), you'll see a phrase so similar to what is used in the Lord's Prayer, that it's very reasonable to believe Jesus was familiar with the text.
Jews had different canons. Samaritians and Saducees had 5 books. Pharisees had a longer version similar to catholics and shorter version similar to protestants, essenes had longest canon similar to orthodox.
Jesus made it very clear the Pharisees were correct about the canon by quoting from the prophets and talking about the seat of moses. 22 books in the Jewish canon (which we arrange differently and number 39) seems to be the most likely number since the Essenes were a fringe sect outside of the Jewish authority.
He assumes the deuterocanon was not scripture. Why??? Because they were written in Greek? Who cares? They were part of the Old Testament of Jesus’s day.
Answer- because the majority representative 4th Century Jews removed the 7 books very popular with Jewish & Gentiles Christians in the Middle East. Luther followed their, not the Christian canon. -The Septuagint has the books. -The King James Bible had the books until 1823. This is so lame and disingenuous- it’s simply reaction to Catholicism.
Athanasius of Alexandria (367) likewise produced a list of canonical Old Testament books, omitting Esther. He also said the apocryphal books were non-canonical. That's a 4th-century _Christian_ for you.
KJV should be the only Bible you study. The other translations change too much and in some cases remove entire verses. NKJV is passable but KJV is the best translation. It's mathematically perfect.
The actual answer: The removal of the Apocrypha from the Bible occurred gradually over time and was largely shaped by historical and theological developments, particularly during the Protestant Reformation. 1. Early Christian Church: The Apocryphal books were included in the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament), which was widely used by early Christians, particularly in the Eastern Orthodox Church. They were also included in the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible by Jerome in the 4th century, though Jerome himself expressed reservations about them. 2. Protestant Reformation: The key event in the removal of the Apocrypha from many Protestant Bibles came during the Reformation in the 16th century. Reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin rejected the Apocrypha as canonical, arguing that these books were not part of the Hebrew Bible and were not accepted by the Jewish community. Luther, in his 1534 German translation of the Bible, placed the Apocryphal books in a separate section, calling them "useful" but not equal in authority to the canonical books. 3. The Council of Trent (1545-1563): In response to the Protestant Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church affirmed the inclusion of the Apocrypha as part of the canon of Scripture at the Council of Trent. This decision further solidified the Apocryphal books' place in Catholic Bibles. 4. Protestant Bibles Post-Reformation: Following the Reformation, Protestant Bibles generally omitted the Apocrypha, beginning with the English translations of the Bible. The King James Version (KJV), published in 1611, included the Apocrypha, but later editions (from the 19th century onward) omitted them. The 19th-century rise of Bible societies that promoted Protestant translations without the Apocrypha contributed to their removal from Protestant Bibles.
The Catholic old testament was in the Septuagint. The 4th Century majority Jewish sect removed the 7 books (othets didn’t) because they were popularly used by Christians to justify their faith. Luther copied the Jews canon not the Christians but even up to the mid 1820’s the King James Version comprised the complete 73 books. When it’s all said and done, Catholics follow 2000 years of Christian Authority, Protestants follow Luther’s Authority. I’ve never heard one theological reason for removing them apart from “the Jews said”….. p.s Without doubt, the greatest prophecy of Jesus was in the book Wisdom and the best understanding of the cultural and political state of Judea in the first century comes from Maccabees.
Apart from appealing to Jewish authority to determine the canon, Protestants I've encountered will cite apparent errors in the Deuterocanon. Of course, in doing so, they are playing the part of the atheist skeptic who says that the entire Bible has thousands of errors (e.g. The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy). If you already trust that the works are inspired, you can find a satisfying resolution to the what appears to be an error, but if not it can come off as a stretch in many cases.
This guy gets some fame, and then he starts speaking dishonestly on the Canon of the Bible. Catholic/Orthodox read the 73 books for 1200 years before Protestants came around. Luther moved the Deuterocanonical books to the back of the Bible because they didn't fit his theology. The truth is in the 1830's to save paper/money, they started printing the Protestant Bible without the Deuterocanonical books. How does a so-called Bible scholar get the history of the canon so wrong and dishonest.
The Septuagint was Not written in BC. It is post Christ. Possibly 3rd or 4th centuary. Only the Levites were allowed to handle Scripture and there is absolutely no way the would have translated their holy scriptures into a barbaric tongue. The sSptuagint text was taken from Origins Hexapla. The Stuttgart text is also flawed as it is mostly a product of the German enlightenment.( I believe, and has Nazi leanings.
How did writers quote from the Septuagint in the writing of the New Testament if it had not been written yet? Hebrew was not commonly being used during the time of Christ. Aramaic and Koine Greek were the languages of the time. The oldest fragments (Dead Sea Scrolls I believe) were dated in the first and second century BCE so I'm afraid you are in error.
This is more an issue about authority than anything else. Who gets to be final arbiter of what is considered the Canon of Scripture? Catholics believe that the Church established by Christ Himself, headed by the successor of Peter, is the authority. Most Protestants believe that they get to be a personal arbiter of what they want to consider Scripture. I’ll trust the Church (the Catholic Church) rather than men.
And you're the personal arbiter of which church you choose to trust. You can't escape making personal judgments about truth claims. You personally choose to believe the teachings of the RCC to be true. When they tell you what the RCC or Scripture teaches, you decide personally whether or not you will believe it. Yet, you criticize Protestants for making the same kind of personal judgments. You don't see the hypocrisy in that?
I think Wess needs to be introduced to a Catholic who has more facts and understands these issues. Poor guy is simply regurgitating what the Canada Evangelical Coalition allows, concerning the Protestants answers to these tyoe questions.
Doesn't answer the question, though. I guess you have to pay for a subscription to find out. Yes, all this Wes stuff is being recommended to me, just because I watch Rogan.
Luther, whom I'm not a huge fan of, wanted to reform the Roman Catholic church of the many heresies that had cropped up. He had no intention of creating a new religion.
@@orangemanbad Luther was right in posting his 95 thesis as the indulgences being sold were a con and only designed to raise more money for the Pope and his palace.
The Old Testament is quoted 283 times in the New Testament. Those quotes differ from the Septuagint about 185 times (65%). Hardly a ringing endorsement of it.
Modern Bibles (KJV, etc) use the Masoretic Hebrew Scriptures to translate the OT. They were created in 1000AD. The Greek Septuagint was translated in 200 BC and used throughout the Roman Empire by Christians and Jews. Jesus and His disciples quoted from them all the time. They are inspired.
Because the Reformers (the Rebellers, if we’re being honest) didn’t want them around countering their new personal and fallible interpretations. It’s not any deeper than that. Nothing to do with the Jews and everything to do with getting rid of books that counter Prorestantism (though, they didn’t go far enough since many of the remaining books still refute it)
@Spuckley. my brother, God gave you free will. Believe what you will. It doesn't matter to me. No one needs to prove anything to you, that is your journey . What's important is that you believe Jesus is your Lord and savor. May the Triune GOD bless you and your family.
The Masoretic Hebrew Scriptures from 1009AD is used to translate most modern OT. The KJV is an example. The Masoretic text does not include the Deuterocanonical books. The Greek Septuagint goes back to 200BC. It was the Greek Septuagint that spread through the Greek and then Roman Empires. Jesus and the Disciples quoted from the Greek Septuagint. Whenever they say, "It is written," "They Scriptures say," etc. and the quotes are not found in the OT, they are quotes from the Deuterocanonical books. The Lords Prayer is from these books. Many Jewish sects accepted the Deuterocanonical books as part their canon of Scripture. The Pharisees did not accept the Deuterocanonical books as Scripture. After Rome killed most of Jews in 72AD, the Pharisees were the only sect to continue and influence the Jewish religion. The Deuterocanonical books are God inspired. Jesus spoke and taught through them. The most blatant OT prophesy of Jesus is included in Wisdom 2. The Greek Septuagint
So happy to see so many educated Christians telling these Protestants that they are wrong about the canon. I know they both know the truth and trying to spin it a more protestant view isn't honest.
I am a protestant who was a former Roman Catholic, and I wrote a book “Why Protestant Bibles are smaller.” It defends the Protestant Bible includes the same books the Jews accepted from the Old Testament, which excludes the apocrypha.
I’ve debated Catholic apologists such as Gary Michuta and Trent Horn from Catholic Answers. If you ever want to discuss this more in depth, tag my name and let me know, and I’ll be happy to share with you what I’ve learned.
Wes Huff is going viral, and appearing on my favorite Channels.
This can only be good for Christian apologetics.
Well, hearing him so obviously lying about the dead sea scrolls on Rogan was pretty pathetic. As an atheist even I know better.
@@kevinkelly2162 What is the truth about the Dead Sea Scrolls?
@@kevinkelly2162
What is the truth about the Dead Sea Scrolls?
Pbd next
@@kevinkelly2162 How are they false?
I'm sorry, but Huff is incorrect about the canon being settled by the time of the 1st century. Scholars know that Josephus was overstating his case and outright lying at times to try to make Jewish history appealing to the Romans. The cannon wasn't settled even within Josephus' Rabbinical circles and continued to have some level of debate, let alone being settled the wider schools of thought within Judaism of the Jesus' day. Lee McDonald and F.F. Bruce have provided a lot of good scholarly resources on this.
FF Bruce’s book on the canon is a solid one
Protestant expert will do anything to make Catholics look bad
so basically "all the historical sources that refute my beliefs are all wrong"
The Jewish canon in itself is a tricky issue, because there was dispute about this among the Jews themselves. When Josephus talks about the canon all Jews agree on, he significantly overstates his case. As recorded in the Bible, the Sadducees only accepted the Torah as canon. The Phariseeic canon was similar to the modern Jewish canon and Protestant Old Testament (though notably exclusing Esther). The Essenes included books like Enoch and Jubilees (and seem to have excluded Esther as well). All the Jewish communities shared the Torah, but there were disagreements beyond that.
Historically, the early Christian communities adopted the canon of whatever their local Jewish community had, which is why you had variance. And still have variance: the Old Testament for Protestant, Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, and Ethiopian Orthodox are all different. The Ethiopians for example were notably influenced by Enochic Judaism, which is why they have 1 Enoch and Jubilees.
Before the rise of Christianity, the Jews accepted the reading of Scriptures in either Hebrew or Greek unaccompanied. In reaction to Christianity, the Jews restricted Greek readings, as well as any Scriptures they could not find in Hebrew (thus Sirach for example was excluded, even though it was written in Hebrew). This resulted in controversy over the centuries about what exactly were the Hebrew Scriptures.
Fast forward to the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther did not trust the Catholic Church or the Vulgate, and sought to root authority in the original text of the books he believed were rightly Scripture. As such, he went to the local Rabbinic Jews for their Old Testament and to the Greeks for their New Testament, and rejected the books written in Greek between the Old and New Testament.
The Catholic Church responded in the Council of Trent by declaring their own canon list at Trent. Contrary to popular belief, Trent did not close the canon; rather, it cemented the listed books as canon and said that they must be accepted as such. The different canons between the East and West came up in the debates, but the East had all of the same books as Rome, just with some additional books (and an additional Psalm). As such, Trent opted to pass over these books in silence, leaving open the possibility that they could be included later, but cementing the ones in controversy with the Protestants.
Catholic and Orthodox accept different dueterocannonical books because the Catholics went with which ever was historically correct and Orthodox went with traditional value (1&2 Maccabees vs prayer of manasseh). Early Christians were jewish and all knew enoch, jubilees, and jasher, but never accepted them as scripture. When the bible and other writtings arrived in ethiopia, they just included everything (even their own history I believe).
@jaytoven7 I would respectfully disagree. I believe the Church was united around a core canon, but some books are more important than others, even in the shared canon, and historically this was not an issue because the Church never practiced _sola scriptura,_ and the different canons were not doctrinal issues. I do not believe the West's issue was historical accuracy per se, because the West accepted Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon, both wisdom literature and the latter likely not written by Solomon, but the West had no issue with this. The West's canon was effectively the vulgate, but in spite of the differences this was not seen as an issue for communion. Even today some Eastern Catholics use a larger canon than what Trent establishes, but Trent deliberately left the door open for this matter so it is no violation of Trent's precepts.
Martin Luther in no way "rejected" the apocrypha but in fact included them in his Bible translation as books that are "helpful and good to read" but not at the same level as the rest.
What's your source for claiming the Essenes accepted Enoch and Jubilees as Scripture?
@@getgnomed6179 I don’t know for sure. Usually I have hear it attached to The Qumran Dead Sea scrolls.
Actually some of the Deuterocanonical books have been discovered in Hebrew or Aramaic among the Dead Sea Scrolls:
- Sirach (Ecclesiasticus): Fragments of this book were found in Hebrew.
- Tobit: Fragments of Tobit were also discovered in both Hebrew and Aramaic.
Right. Wess seems to make bigger blunders quite frequently back then and now.
He didn't state they weren't found there. Watch it again.
@@acem82Wess claims that the Deuterocanonical books have their origin in Greek. He explicitly mentioned Tobit with no manuscripts in Hebrew. That it is laughably wrong.
@@morlewen7218- Debate him, Mr. expert.
@@morlewen7218 1. He claims that the Dead Sea scrolls included all the OT, minus Ruth. He makes no statement about if the Dead Sea scrolls included other books.
2. He said, "In fact *I think* it's all of the other writings, is that they only exist in Greek". 3:14
3. He said no copies of Tobit exist in anything other than Greek. Well given the preface in #2, and the fact that these are fragments, not full copies, that's still a (technically) true statement.
4. We didn't have the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1500 AD, so these points still stand to answer the question he was actually asked.
Now, did he say these things extremely carefully? No. Could he have done better? Yes. I'm just pointing out that he didn't claim that the other books weren't found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
15 seconds since posted! Thankful for both of you!!!
The issue is about books that are IN the Bible versus books that ARE Bible. The Apocryphal books were IN the Bible, but not declared to BE Bible, until ~1550. At that time, the Roman Catholic Church unilaterally declared them to BE Bible versus because it was the only way they could defend many practices that prompted the Reformers. The Apocryphal books weren’t dropped from Protestant Bibles until the 1800s.
So, the Books IN the Protestant Bible are the same as what Catholics considered to BE Bible until 1550. Protestants didn’t take Bible books out; Catholics added books to BE Bible.
1550 is too late. The Council of Florence in 1442 included the deuterocanonical books among the books of the Old and New Testaments:
"[The holy Roman Church] professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament - that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel - since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.
"Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John" (Session 11).
The Catholic Church canonised all 73 books at the Council of Rome (AD 382), reaffirmed at the Synod of Hippo (AD 393), two of the Councils of Carthage (AD 397 and 419), the Council of Florence (AD 1431-1449) and finally, as an article of faith, by the Council of Trent (AD 1545-1563).
You are stuck in 16th century polemics. You agree with the Jews that reject Christ and the whole New Testament. Catholics agree with the Jews who are the Christ and wrote the New Testament.
You agree with the Jews that reject Christ and the whole New Testament. Catholics agree with the Jews who are the Christ and wrote the New Testament.
You agree with the Jews that reject Christ and the whole New Testament.
The Septuagint was the Scriptures that Christ used. The so called Apocrypha was disregard by Jews long after Christ since Christians were using those books to convert Jews. Additionally those books were in many Protestant Bibles until the 1820’s when the British Bible Association took them out on their own authority mind you to make it cheaper to print more Bibles
Yeah, the OG KJV had the Apocrypha between the OT and NT.
That’s wrong. It was never in the Torah and the first believers were Jews and if they removed it cause Christians were converting them wouldn’t they have removed Isaiah as well. This is historically very inaccurate
@primusreborn keep learning. Read more into the early Church. The Jewish secs where seperated. They didn't even hve there own bible Canon or agreed in one. Plus your trusting the Jewish sec that dont even believe in OUR LORD CHRIST rather that the early Jewish Christians that gave you the REAL BIBLE CANON IN 367 AD. It was 72 books. 🔑⛪️🍷🍞✝️🕊📖
@@AngelGonzalez-ng9ve There were no apostles or “Jewish Christians” by 367. The definition given in Acts as to who could be an apostle was one who had shared in the ministry from the beginning. None after the 1st century could qualify.
@@AngelGonzalez-ng9ve 🎯
While I like Wes, he, and many Protestants, completely ignore the Canon at the time of Christ. They also ignore that most of the 7 books they removed were part of the Canon and affirmed later as well.
After leaving Protestantism, I completely understand why Catholics and Orthodox seemed so frustrated talking to me. I was willfully ignorant, even though I knew so much.
@@MajorMustang1117 You are a man of integrity to admit that. So many times I will quote pretty plain Scripture. The response I almost always get is "That's not what it means." My response is then what does it mean? 2 things happen. Either I get no response or some nonsensical response out of the prot playbook. Very frustrating. It's like they can't read what's in front of them
Show me the evidence that Jesus read from the septuagint specifically
@@InitialPC It was the common form of Scripture in the time of Jesus, Paul quotes from the Septuagint and the early Church used as well. I doubt the Apostles would use something different than Jesus. Also, you can research it on line. Also, all of the ancient Codices have that as the Old Testiment. It also shows up in the Dead Sea scrolls. What's really a tragedy for you is that there can never be enough evidence that the Catholic Church is the real deal. Luther was a fraud. The day will come when you and all the others will find out!
@@richardounjian9270 "It was the common form of scripture at the time"
So what you have is an assumption.
Pharisaic philosophy was also the common form of Judaism at the time, "it was common" does not equate to "it was true".
Furthermore, reading form the septuagint does not equate to recognizing the extra books as scripture. Even after the protestants supposedly "removed" the deuterocanon, they continued to include it in their Bibles. Does this mean they secretly thought it was true? No.
Same with the Dead Sea Scrolls, it also included books not even catholics consider canon such as Enoch and Jubilees, and unlike the deuterocanon Enoch is actually quoted in he Bible. Does this mean Enoch is canon? you would probably say no, but this logic goes out the window I guess when it comes to the books YOU think are true.
"What's really a tragedy for you is that there can never be enough evidence that the Catholic Church is the real deal."
You do realize the exact same thing can be hypocritically said about you right? Why not join the Orthodox church or the Oriental churches? They also have apostolic lineage and also follow the traditions of early church fathers, how convenient that the only traditions you consider true are the traditions you think validate your beliefs, while bashing others for doing the same.
@InitialPC You can easily do your own research as to why Enoch and Jubilees aren't found in the Septuagint. I'm not playing that game.
I take no issue with the Orthodox. I recognize that the Apostolic Church: Oriental, Orthodox, Catholic all have Apostolic succession despite disagreements.
So you need to understand, it's not what I think. It's all about what the Church teaches. I trust what Jesus said. Apparently, you don't
It was the book of Esther that is missing in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Great explanation. Thanks for putting it together and sharing.
Relearning this with your help makes me appreciate this extra reading even more.
Again, thank you
What defines Scriptural Jewish Canon? What is their standard for Canonicity?
Better yet: which jews? none of the jews had the same canon of scripture until rabinic jews, and even then- why do we accept what they pick over Christ's church?
@@BoricuaSamurai97 Because they know their writings?
@@markgilrosales6366 the demons know scripture and can twist it. Why would I trust a bunch of Pharisees with an agenda over the early Church that gave their lives for Christ. Early on, in the hands of the very people you consider the authority to make our cannon
@markgilrosales6366 different Jewish groups had different canons. Some jews did have the Canon catholics and orthodox have. It is just fell out favor over time
@@markgilrosales6366 What relevance does that have to their authority over our church? No group of Jews until rabbinic Jews 200-300 years AD had a commited canon. Not to mention, they’re not their writings-they’re our writings.
I have a KJV 1611 edition which has the Deuteroconical books. The question should be who removed these extra books.
The extra books or the apocrypha books were are not considered canon by the early Christian forefathers.
Not only that the apocrypha popped out in the 3rd and 4th centuries after the first accounts witnesses on the life of Jesus Christ.
How intellectually dishonest that he did not mention that Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagent as their Old Testement. The Tenach was used by the pharasies while the other branches of judiasm used the septuagent
Modern Bibles including the KJV use the Masoretic Hebrew Scriptures from 1009AD. The Greek Septuagint was translated in 200BC.
Agree with you that it is intellectually dishonest, I think he is a great scholar but like most people, wes allows his faith bias to come up with his conclusions.
Where is it said anywhere in scripture or tradition that Jesus ad the apostles specifically used the septuagint.
"Tanakh was used by pharisees"
You say hat as if the tanakh was some completely separate text, it comprises the same books found in the Old Testament today.
It's not intellectually dishonest because it literally doesn't matter at all. My Bible has Reformation-era confessions in it. Does literally anyone think that makes those confessions scripture? Just because tobit was in a translation of the Bible doesn't mean it is Scripture.
Wes Huff COOKED Billy Carson 🔥
I think Wes meant to say Esther, and not Ruth in his comment about the "canon" of the Dead Sea Scrolls
Think it was Esther rather than Ruth that wasn't found in the Dead Sea Scrolls?
Didn’t really answer the question, gave minor background.
This was video from years ago. Go look the full version
Shortish answer is the Greek translation of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible known as the Septuagint included additional books not part of the traditional Hebrew canon, and the Septuagint saw widespread use among Greek-speaking Jews and Christians. While producing the Vulgate, Jerome used the Septuagint to translate the Old Testament into Latin, and the Vulgate become the predominant version of the Bible used in the Western/Catholic church for centuries. During the Protestant Reformation, reformers like Martin Luther wanted to “go back to the roots” of Christianity and moved those extra Greek-only Old Testament books to a separate section called the Apocrypha. The original King James Version included the Apocrypha, but when the American Bible Society began mass-producing KJVs in the late 1800s, it was cheaper for them to exclude the Apocrypha to save on printing costs, and since most Protestants considered those books non-canonical by then anyway. This became the norm for all Protestant Bibles by the 20th century.
@@Haloredvblue-that’s a fairly concise summary. (Btw, I’m Anglican and still have those extra books between the OT and NT)
@@Haloredvblue I don't remembered Wes Huff bring this point.
@@apel.ogetika yeah Wes started to go on a tangent, that’s why I wanted to bring up the Vulgate as it’s really the answer to the Protestant/Catholic Bible differences.
This is a clip from a full vid stamped 4 years ago. So if you want to see the full video, you can find it! :)
Every time Wes looks back at his bookshelf, I get prepared for what's coming. Here we go.
Why be delusional? Josephus was a Pharisee. Not a Christian. We don’t care about his books. Rabbinic are descended from Pharisees. Dead Sea scrolls written by Jews has the dueterocannon. Written by Essenes. And has the dueterocannon in both Hebrew and Greek. The oldest Christian bibles Codex Vatinanus, Codex Sanaiticus, Codex Alexandrus all have dueterocannon books. This is Christianity.
Zero Christian bibles existed that matched the Protestant Bible that match the Protestant 66 books Bible. It’s irrelevant any Jewish group that rejects Jesus, what books they have.
To add to that, scholars (including Protestants such as James Charlesworth and Lee McDonald) are aware that even within his own Pharesaic school of thought other Jews disagreed with Josephus with respect to the canon; so even if a Jewish group could determine the Christian canon, Josephus wouldn't get you there.
Many of the deuterocanonical books were found in the Dead Sea scrolls and they were in Hebrew
many of the books in the Dead Sea Scrolls that are considered deuterocanonical were written in Hebrew, including parts of Daniel and fragments of Jubilees and the Wisdom of Sirach:
Daniel: The deuterocanonical parts of Daniel were originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic.
Esther: The deuterocanonical parts of Esther were partly written in Hebrew or Aramaic and partly in Greek.
Jubilees and the Wisdom of Sirach: Fragments of these books were written in Hebrew.
If it was good enough for Jesus and St Paul, it is good enough for me.
Not sure where you're going with that. Neither Jesus nor Paul quoted a single one of the disputed seven books.
For example, of the 39 books of the Old Testament, Jesus is only known to have quoted from 13: Genesis; Exodus; Leviticus; Numbers; Deuteronomy; Psalms; Isaiah; Daniel; Hosea; Jonah; Micah; Zechariah; and Malachi and to have alluded to another 16: 1 & 2 Samuel; 1 & 2 Kings; 2 Chronicles; Ezra; Esther; Job; Proverbs; Jeremiah; Ezekiel; Joel; Amos; Habakkuk; Zephaniah; and Haggai. That leaves 10 books Jesus isn't known to have referenced: Joshua; Judges; Ruth; 1 Chronicles; Nehemiah; Ecclesiastes; Song of Solomon; Lamentations; Nahum; and Obadiah.
It doesn't seem to me that, other than confirming the 13 books Jesus actually quoted from as being Scripture, it says anything one way or the other about the rest.
If you're referring to New Testament quotations from the Old Testament, I don't think a case can be made for or against either the Septuagint or the Masoretic text. The Old Testament is quoted 283 times in the New Testament. Those quotes differ from the Septuagint about 185 times (65%). Hardly a ringing endorsement of it. Departures from the Masoretic text (which didn't exist at the time) are 10% worse, at 212 (75%), which only goes to show that the writers of the New Testament didn't rely exclusively on either the Septuagint as we now have it or on the Hebrew text used by the Masoretes.
@@Berean_with_a_BTh When people say this, I think they're more familiar with the New Testament than the Old Testament, because there are many places where Jesus' teaching parallels the Wisdom of Sirach. Unless you've read Sirach, you won't be aware of these parallels. Here are just a few - there are dozens more. If you're familiar with the Gospels, you'll recognize these teachings. But if you're not sure what this might parallel I can point them out for you.
“Lose your silver for the sake of a brother or a friend, and do not let it rust under a stone and be lost. Lay up your treasure according to the commandments of the Most High and it will profit you more than gold.” (Sirach 29:10-12)
“Forgive your neighbour the wrong he has done, and then your sins will be pardoned when you pray. Does anyone harbor anger against another and expect healing from the Lord? If one has no mercy toward another like himself, can he then seek pardon for his own sins?” (Sirach 28:2-4)
“Do good to the devout, and you will be repaid - if not by them, certainly by the Most High” (Sirach 12:2)
“Do not babble in the company of elders, and do not repeat yourself when you pray.” (Sirach 7:14)
“Its fruit discloses the cultivation of a tree, so does speech the thoughts of the human mind.” (Sirach 27:6)
A person becomes rich through diligence and self-denial, and the reward allotted to him is this: when he says, “I have found rest, and now I shall feast on my goods!” he does not realize how time passes by; he will leave them to others and will die. (Sirach 11:18-19)
“Come to her (the Wisdom of God) like one who plows and sows … with all your soul … for at last you will find the rest she gives and she will be changed into joy for you. Then her fetters will become for you a strong defense, and her collar a glorious robe. Her yoke is a golden ornament…” (Sirach 6 paraphrased)
“Search out and seek, and she (the Wisdom of God) will become known to you.” (Sirach 6:27)
@Berean_with_a_Bth
Have you heard of the "Lord's Prayer"? You know the one Jesus taught His disciples. Yeah, He was quoting from the Deuterocanonical books. Any time that Jesus or the Apostles say, "It is written," "The Scriptures say," etc. and the reference isn't in the OT, they are quoting from the Greek Septuagint Deuterocanonical books. Jesus and the Disciples used the Greek Septuagint as their Scriptures as many other Jewish sects. The Pharisees did not use the Greek Septuagint, they only used the Hebrew.
Most Bibles today use the Masoretic Hebrew text created in 1009 AD. The Greek Septuagint was written in 200 BC. There were 70 different Jewish scribes that translated the Hebrew into Greek separately and they all were exactly consistent with each other. The Greek Septuagint spread across all of the Greek and then Roman Empire. The early Christians used the Greek Septuagint for their Scriptures too.
Since Jesus quoted from the Deuterocanonical books they are inspired. The Masoretic text is a poor censored version of God's Word by the Christian hating Pharisees.
St. Paul lol it’s just Paul man. You Catholics are exhausting and sometimes you worry me as brothers and sisters. Check your pope to he’s a disaster.
@@kylepatrick5135 Yeah, us Catholics should really lay off on honoring those who are alive in heaven and made invaluable contributions to the faith and lived pious lives.
“Just Paul” who was the apostle to the gentiles, who helped keep the early church afloat, who was a martyr for Jesus Christ, who was a big part of the reason you or I even know about Christianity and it didn’t just remain a Jewish sect.
But yeah he’s “just Paul”, who cares right. Expected from protestants though since you’re about as far from apostolic Christianity as you can get
I'm Protestant, so I don't have any skin in this game.
Hmm...
Wasn't Hebrew mostly a dead language when Jesus lived?
I thought the Alexandrian Jews were using the Septuagint since Hebrew wasn't the primary language in that region.
Also, much of northern first century Palestine was heavily Hellenized, and the Jews of that region primarily spoke Greek. So, they, too, would have been familiar with the Septuagint.
In addition, although there are not any quotes from the Apocryphal books of the Septuagint in the New Testament, there do seem to be various allusions to them. Revelation, for instance, includes allusions to Tobit and 2 Esdras.
Then, too, the majority of Old Testament quotes in the New Testament are from the Septuagint.
Furthermore, the canonization of the Jewish scriptures at Jamnia was most likely a reaction to the early church, which was using the Septuagint.
All of this says to me that the Jewish scriptural canon before Jamnia was pretty wide open.
To claim that the Jewish canon was limited to the books we now have in our Bibles is, to me, something of a stretch.
Respectfully, you sound like a Catholic brother, God bless 🙏
There is debate about whether the "council of Jamnia" is a real thing. It appears that Jamnia was a centre of Jewish scholarship at the time, but stories about the council and what it decided may be much later inventions.
If you are indeed Protestant, and not Catholic , your comment is one of the best I've heard from a Protestant.
there is nothing in the NT about purgatory, it’s a lie that they taught you. Scary how people believe these Catholic deceptions so easily. Do your research. At this point I’m doubting your sincerity. You didn’t even glance at the video I shared with you of Hitchens. You’re probably scared of the truth.
Depends by what you mean when you say dead language. If you mean nobody used it then you are completely wrong. It was still the primary language in Palestine for religious activities. For example, at the temple or synagogue they would still usually read in Hebrew. It wasn't used conversationally in the market or something, but that's the way they thought best to read the Bible.
As for the Canon, Jesus said all the scriptures pointed to him and then he went to all the old testament books that protestants use today and none of the apocrypha, so...
Doesn’t matter. What was widely recognized by the Christian Church? The 73 book canon
why not 78, why did the catholics remove the books that the orthodox church consider canon?
@ that’s a great question. By whose authority can you remove and keep? The teaching office, which the orthodox rejected implicitly
There were 5 main sects of Jews at the time (Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Samaritans & the Jews of the Diaspora) and before the time of Jesus they did not all agree on a canon of the Hebrew Scriptures, some believed only 39 were inspired and some 46. After the first few centuries after Christ came, the Jewish Rabbis (by this time it was predominately just the Pharisees who existed since the Romans had wiped out the others) saw that they needed to separate themselves from the growing Christian sect and decided to reject the 7 books that the Christians had in their Septuagint and agreed upon 39 books in the OT.
Catholics adopted the popular Septuagint scriptures of the Alexandrian Jews who migrated from Palestine to Egypt and its surrounding Greek speaking neighborhood before the fall of the second temple.
Protestants adopted the Canon of later Palestinian Jews after the ascension of our Lord and the establishment of a Christian magisterium.
There were 5 main sects of Jews at the time (Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Samaritans & the Jews of the Diaspora) and before the time of Jesus they did not all agree on a canon of the Hebrew Scriptures, some believed only 39 were inspired and some 46. After the first few centuries after Christ came, the Jewish Rabbis (by this time it was predominately just the Pharisees who existed since the Romans had wiped out the others) saw that they needed to separate themselves from the growing Christian sect and decided to reject the 7 books that the Christians had in their Septuagint and agreed upon 39 books in the OT.
The Deuterocanon does NOT originate exclusively in Greek, although 2 Maccabees and Wisdom were both most likely written in Greek, at the dead sea scrolls 5 manuscripts of Tobit were found, (1 in Hebrew and 4 in Aramaic), and 3 manuscript fragments of Sirach in Hebrew, Saint Jerome translated Judith into the Latin Vulgate from Aramaic manuscripts. And Baruch and 1 Maccabees, although only surviving in Greek, both almost certainly have their origin in Hebrew because of Hebraisms in the books and a semitic writing style.
Edit: another mistake later in the video, Esther was also not at the dead sea scrolls...
Some points for my Protestant brothers to consider:
1) Both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have the same canon. It’s not just the Catholics.
2) There was no consensus on the canon among 2nd temple Jews. The Sadducees only accepted the Books of Moses.
3) There is only 1 objective way to determine whether a text is the inspired word of God: if God tells you it is either directly or indirectly. The Catholic claim is that the Holy Spirit guided the magisterium of the Church to a complete and correct canon of Scripture. How do you (Protestants) derive certainty that your canon is complete and correct?
1 isn't correct, there are a number of other books within the different Orthodox groups as well.
@@John_Fisher thanks, I didn’t realize the Orthodox had a superset of the Deuterocanon.
The Ethiopians have the most books
The apocrypha shouldn't be considered scripture for the simple fact that it contains historical errors.
Go ahead and read it if you want, but it shouldn't be central to anyone's faith.
3) "The Catholic claim is that the Holy Spirit guided the magisterium of the Church to a complete and correct canon of Scripture."
And we believe He lead the Church and Israel in general to accept the correct books.
It´s the same sort of belief, we just trust in different sources. You are not certain which books belong, you trust the Magisterium. But God never said the Magisterium couldn´t err. It might be the case, but you have no more certainty than anyone else.
The advantage of being a protestant is that these books have so many things speaking against them;
- They have always been disputed, which is not true for the other biblical books.
- They are never cited by Jesus or the apostles as Scripture.
- They are not part of the earliest canon lists.
- Many leaders in the Church warned against using these books for doctrine. Warned.
- The apocrypha are very different in style from the rest of the Bible in several respects; just to name one; the books of the maccabées is very unlike biblical history in that they are much less honest about the flaws of the people involved. When you read about David and Abraham etc they are presented along with their flaws, sins and mistakes. The Maccabées are not, they are presented as almost perfect. It is one of the most striking features of biblical history, and it´s not present here.
- The Maccabées also ends with a sort of apology from the author that if the book isn´t great at least he did the best he could. He was very aware he wasn´t writing inspired text. And I believe he was right in that.
Wes said the apocryphal books only exist in greek, and that they never existed in hebrew (which is one of the primary reasons the jews didnt consider them to be on the same level as the other old testament books) but also that they were translated to greek at the same time as the old testament hebrew scriptures and thats why some folks think they should have been included. So, what language were they translated from? Thanks so much. God bless you both.
Presumably, the "Apocrypha" was not translated, but originally written in Greek, because that was the predominant language during the 400-year interim between Malachi and Matthew. That is, Genesis to Malachi was written in Hebrew (and considered cannon during Jesus' time), and these newer historical and philosophical works were written after a language shift but not considered to be "God-breathed" (2 Tim 3:16).
@mr.marvin2672 thank you for clarifying!
@@mr.marvin2672 Not entirely true: Sirach was originally written in Hebrew, it says so in the prologue. But no Hebrew version survives.
@@adambachert9405 In addition to what Steve mentioned, we have fragmentary evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrating that other 'apocryphal' books were originally written in Hebrew as well. Regardless, there was debate among different Jewish schools of thought as to which books were and weren't "God Breathed" among basically all the books of the Bible other than the 5 books of Moses. It wasn't uniformly decided in the way that Huff presents.
You have to wonder on what authority these apologists make all these claims. Did they get someone's blessing? Kinda important considering all the genealogies in the Bible, a whole first Chapter revolving around Blessings and following Chapters dealing with Kings. But I guess mr Martin Grievance Luthor knew it better...
????????😂
Every Protestant is their own Pope.
Is there a problem with the work of scholars and historians who have been doing this work for centuries?
Is that authority not good enough?
@@kathyd456 no, if you have read the Bible you would know that, Something about the letter, The Spirit and The Fruits.
@@universalflamethrower6342
You had asked about the authority apologists use to make their claims.
It's possible I misunderstood you. My apologies.
Then my response which could satisfy you should have been,
First, God. His word written by the authors of the Bible on His guidance and inspiration.
Next, the historians and scholars over the centuries who fought to keep the truth of the Word of God from being warped. Their faithfulness to preserve the Word has led to present day apologists' confidance in declaring the Truth.
What may also be added is the work of archaeologists continuing to discover Biblical sites. Their findings keep proving the truth of the Bible also.
That is my expansion on how I believe your question of whose authority today's apologists are working under should be answered.
Thanks for the time.
So this is where Wes gets it wrong! Love how he defended the Gospel against Billy Carson but from the catholic perspective this is where we bump heads a lot.
I think this is a better question to ask in this conversation about what is canon- who has authority to list canon?
Catholics and orthodox will say the church meaning the bishops have the final say in who has authority to canonize scripture.
Protestants will say the Jews and this is why all Protestants, and I’m including evangelicals into this group for this video reply, will all say that our Old Testament canon matches the Jewish Bible.
But which Jewish group are you matching?
The Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes all had different canons of scripture at the time of Jesus. The council of Jamnia in the late 1st century was a group of Pharisees who provided a more authoritative list of books but this was in response to Christianity.
The masorite Rabbis helped create the masoretic text which from what many sources say between 9th and 15th century, a text Marin Luther used to translate the Old Testament into German.
What do all these Jewish examples have in common?
None of them believed Jesus was the messiah and none of them still don’t.
So back to my question did Jesus tell the Pharisees on this rock I will build my church and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven?
No, he gave that authority to the Apostles and at the council of Rome 382 these men who were bishops of Christs church decided which books to use for our New Testament canon and Old Testament canon.
Amen
The papist cannot answer how a Jew in 50 BC was supposed to know Isaiah was Canon
@@spartybuck7215I feel like that’s actually a question for the Protestants of anything
Basic answer would be the Holy Spirit preserved the Word. The ones which survived are the ones who are inspired. Another thing is that the Word came from the Jews. So any supposed canon from Gentiles are funny. What do all these Jewish examples have in common?
None of them believed Jesus was the messiah and none of them still don’t. //// Belief in Jesus is irrelevant for the OT canon. The Jews know their Scriptures.
@ I have to respectfully disagree with all those points.
Belief in Jesus Christ is the number 1 litmus test when it comes to anything biblical for me. If there’s going to be an agenda, I’ll err on that side of caution over a Jewish agenda that denies our Lord.
Also, the Septuagint we have is older than any of the surviving Hebrew manuscripts the Jews use. Also you say the Jews know their scriptures. According to the Bible, so do the demons.
That’s not calling all Jewish people evil, it’s simply an example that “knowing their scriptures” doesn’t necessarily equate to honesty.
I will also ask you, have you ever read these books in question?
Whose subjective assertions about the alleged divine origin of the excluded texts should be believed?
If we look at the 4 Great Uncial Codices, the oldest known complete manuscripts of the Christian Bible dating from the early 4th to the 5th century, we see that they include all or at least some of the Deuterocanonical Books. For example, the Codex Alexandrinus contains all the Deuterocanonical books plus some additional ones, the Codex Vaticanus contains all except 1 and 2 Maccabees, the Codex Sinaiticus includes five Deuterocanonical books, and the Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus has only six books from the Old Testament. Based on this, we can conclude that Early Christians were fine with including them in the Bible.
🕊️The quotes provided below are historical facts in reference to our early church which existed prior to Romes adoption of Christianity in 313 A.D.
Church:
📖"Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” [St. Ignatius of Antioch - Letter to the Smyrneans 8 (c. A.D. 110)]
Bishop, Priest & Deacon:
📖“Since, then, I have had the privilege of seeing you, through Damas your most worthy bishop, and through your worthy presbyters Bassus and Apollonius, and through my fellow-servant the deacon Sotio, whose friendship may I ever enjoy, because he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ [St. Ignatius of Antioch- Letter to the Magnesians 2 (c. A.D. 110)].
Eucharist:
📖“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ, which have come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Ash that suffered for our sins and that the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.” [St. Ignatius of Antioch - Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6-7 (c. A.D. 110)].
Scripture:
📖“[W]hoever perverts the sayings of the Lord for his own desires, and says that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, is the firstborn of Satan. Let us leave the foolishness and the false teaching of the crowd and turn back to the word that was delivered to us in the beginning.” [St. Polycrap of Smyrna - Letter to the Philippians 7 (c. A.D. 135)].
Sunday:
📖“But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead.” [St. Justin Martyr - First Apology 67 (c. A.D. 151)].
Actions/Works:
📖“We have learned from the prophets, and we believe it is true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man's actions. If it is not so, then all things happen by fate, and nothing is in our own power. If it is fated that this man be good, and this other evil, the former is not meritorious nor the latter blameworthy [St. Justin Martyr - First Apology 43 (c. A.D. 151)].
Apostolic Succession:
📖“It is within the power of all, in every church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the Tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were instituted bishops in the churches by the apostles, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew anything these [heretics] rave about.” [St. Irenaeus of Lyons - Against Heresies 3:3:1 (c. A.D. 189)]
Baptism:
📖“The children shall be baptized first. All the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family.” [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 21 (c. A.D. 215)].
Confession:
📖“After this, one of the bishops present, at the request of all, laying his hand on him who is ordained bishop, shall pray this way: O God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. pour forth the power that is from you, of "the princely Spirit' that you delivered to your beloved Child, Jesus Christ, and that he bestowed on your holy apostles, who established the Church that hallows you everywhere, for the endless glory and praise of your name. Father, "who knows the hearts [of all]” grant this servant, who you have chosen for the episcopate, to feed your holy flock and serve as your high priest blamelessly night and day, and unceasingly turn away wrath from your face and offer to you the gifts of the holy Church. And that by the high priestly Spirit he may have authority "to forgive sins" according to your command.” [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 2-3 (c. A.D. 215)].
Confirmation:
📖“The bishop will then lay his hand upon them, invoking, "Lord God, you who have made these worthy of the removal of sins through the bath of regeneration, make them worthy to be filled with your Holy Spirit, grant to them your grace, that they might serve you according to your will, for to you is the glory, Father and Son with the Holy Spirit, in the holy Church, now and throughout the ages of the ages. Amen." After this he pours the oil into his hand, and laying his hand on each of their heads, says, "I anoint you with holy oil in God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus, and the Holy Spirit." Then, after sealing each of them on the forehead, he shall give them the kiss of peace and say, "The Lord be with you." And the one who has been baptized shall say, "And with your spirit." So shall he do to each one [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 21-22 (c. A.D. 215).
Peter’s Authority:
📖“The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you,' he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. [Mt 16:18-19]. On him he builds the Church, and commands him to feed the sheep [Jn 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed the others were also what Peter was [apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, by which it is made clear that there is one Church and one chair.... If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he think that he holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he be confident that he is in the Church?.” [St. Cyprian of Carthage - Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition (Treatise 1:4) (A.D. 251)].
These few topics (but a glimpse) were not only discussed but settled BEFORE Rome adopted Christianity (The Catholic Church) and eventually became The Roman Catholic Church as it also adopted its name after 313 A.D.
🚨Lukewarm Catholics left the true church of our Lord & Savior Jesus Christ in the 10th century and created the Orthodox Church, then again lukewarm Catholics left in the 16th century and created the Protestant church… by historical and biblical default, any Christian denomination outside the Catholic Church is in fact a FALSE church‼️
Is the Catholic Church Jesus’ original church❓Yes❗️
Does this excuse all its mistakes and sins from the record❓Of course not❗️As Christians, we are called to hold the church accountable, not leave it and let evil flourish within it.
How are we called to hold our Christian religion accountable❓
🕊️”Take heed to yourselves; if your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him;” Luke 17:3
🕊️”Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Look to yourself, lest you too be tempted. Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. For if any one thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself.” Galatians 6:1-3
🕊️”As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without favor, doing nothing from partiality.” 1 Timothy 5:20-21
🕊️”For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the Church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Drive out the wicked person from among you.” 1 Corinthians 5:12-13
Does anyone within the Christian religion supersede our Father’s words❓
🕊️“And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest questioned them, saying, “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and you intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.” Acts 5:27-29
Are we called to follow the Christian religion blindly❓
🕊️”Then the disciples came and said to him, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?” He answered, “Every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up. Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” Matthew 15:12-14
This refusal of accountability within every Christian has led to over 40,000 diferente Christian denominations and the ignorance which has flourished from it.
🕊️”And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed back and forth and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ,” Ephesians 4:11-15
We are called by God to unite! What better church to do it under than the one he started.
Wonderful response!
This comment has won the Internet.
Lengthy but excellent response, I've always held that comment sections don't help to convert anyone , yet yours ( if one takes the time to try and prove you wrong ) may just very well set someone straight.
Wes needs to talk with Gary Michuta.
Gary is the MAN!! hes already made a video on the jre talk with Wes. Mr Michuta is the absolute top dog on the canon.
YESSSSSS
Michuta makes many assumptions. Catholics need the Deuterocanonical books to defend the imaginary purgatory for example. Michuta would do more for the Catholic Church if he can explain how they prohibited the reading in the Dark Ages and legalizing torture and murder by the Catholic church.
@ministeriobibliahabla217 arguments from old lies and anticatholic misinformation do not hold water anymore. Do some more reading.
@@jessebartunek3195 you can only deceive people that don’t know history. Nice try
Two of the most brilliant minds in Christian apologetics today!
🤣
Surely Wess is one the better Protestant apologist I've heard , but I've seen better Catholic apologist.
I pray for Wess to have success in bringing folks to Christ , that way the Holy Spirit can lead them to the Catholic Church.
Two of the most biased people.
Modern Bibles including the KJV use the Masoretic Hebrew Scriptures from 1009AD. The Greek Septuagint which includes the Deuterocanonical books was translated in 200BC. This is the Scriptures Jesus and the Disciples used and quoted. The Greek Septuagint and Deuterocanonical books are divinely inspired.
@@classicalteacher I take it that you're Catholic or Eastern Orthodox?
“12 Let us lie in wait for the righteous man,
because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions;
he reproaches us for sins against the law,
and accuses us of sins against our training.
13 He professes to have knowledge of God,
and calls himself a child[a] of the Lord.
14 He became to us a reproof of our thoughts;
15 the very sight of him is a burden to us,
because his manner of life is unlike that of others,
and his ways are strange.
16 We are considered by him as something base,
and he avoids our ways as unclean;
he calls the last end of the righteous happy,
and boasts that God is his father.
17 Let us see if his words are true,
and let us test what will happen at the end of his life;
18 for if the righteous man is God’s child, he will help him,
and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries.
19 Let us test him with insult and torture,
so that we may find out how gentle he is,
and make trial of his forbearance.
20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death,
for, according to what he says, he will be protected.”
Wisdom 2:12-20
They had the Tanakh, which was considered scripture. But also, the NT writers knew of other Jewish texts, such as the Enoch writings, to explain their views and had no problem quoting from them. Just as Paul had no problem quoting from Greek poets when speaking to the Greeks.
The focus was on taking the good news of Jesus to all who would hear, and using whatever means were available.
Difference is apocraphal was called prophetic and refrenced like 30x times more
@@sonicrocks2007 The NT writers referenced the Tanakh repeatedly and also had their own prophets, such as Agabus. As per the Jewish tradition in which Jesus and the disciples birthed the church, covenantal scripture was limited to the Tanakh. It was dispositive for all important matters.
The apocrypha have had their place within the wider church, but are not deciding on matters of sin and salvation.
@@sonicrocks2007No-one in the New Testament cited any of those apocryphal books.
@Berean_with_a_BTh except all of them do
@@sonicrocks2007 So name them - NT book, chapter, and verse, with the corresponding RCC apocryphal book, chapter, and verse.
I just ordered my first bible, the ESV. I tried listening to the king james version but i just can’t understand it.
Happy reading!
My ESV Oxford does have those books !
There are different bibles because those old texts were written & translated by different people or organizations and that’s easily done when any composition is worded so nebulously as to be wide open to different interpretations. And that’s one reason to be skeptical of biblical claims. A reader can’t be very confident about what’s TRUE !!
So please tell me, when the veil of the temple was ripped in two after Christ’s death, the Holy Spirit left the temple and would not return until Pentecost in Acts upon the Apostles. The Hebrew Scriptures were finally decided upon 100-200 hundred years after Pentecost. Jesus breathed upon the Apostles and told them the Spirit will lead them into all truth. The Apostles now having the oral teachings of Christ and the Septuagint from which Christ sometimes taught from , discerned by the Holy Spirit the truth they eventually passed down to us until this day in both oral and written form. I cannot fathom for a moment that the Holy Spirit would inspire Christ hating Jews (of that time) to discern correctly (without ant-Christian bias ) the Old Testament cannon. “The Church is the pillar and bulwark of Truth “ (1 Tim 3:15) not the first and second century Rabbis . Therefore it is the Church namely the Catholic Church (at that time) who discerned by the power of the Holy Spirit what the canon of scripture is in the late 4th century. It Is 73 Books period. No more no less.
The Septuagint describes the Messiah as being born of a virgin, while the Masoretic (Hebrew) text describes the Messiah being born of a "alma" or young woman.
Those who argue that, if Isaiah 7:14 meant a virgin, he would have used בְּתוּלָה (bethulah) haven't paid much attention to how עַלְמָה (almah) and בְּתוּלָה (bethulah) are used in Scripture. Anyone who has studied the use of בְּתוּלָה (bethulah), for example, will know it can be applied to married women (Deuteronomy 32:25; Joel 1:8) and harlots (Ezekiel 23:3; 23:8), and of בְּתוּלָה (bethulah) needing the qualification of "whom no man had known" (Genesis 24:16), "who had not known a man by lying with him" (Judges 21:12), and so on, a qualification that is never applied to עַלְמָה (almah). In Exodus 2:8, עַלְמָה (almah) is applied to Moses' 9yo sister, undoubtedly a virgin. Indeed, there isn't a single instance of עַלְמָה (almah) referring to a woman who was _not_ a virgin.
Had Isaiah wanted to say only that she was a young woman, he could have used נַעֲרָה (naarah), but didn't.
There is only one passage where עַלְמָה (almah) and בְּתוּלָה (bethulah) are found together (Genesis 24:1-67). There, Rebekah is initially described as a בְּתוּלָה (bethulah) - with the qualification "whom no man had known" (Genesis 24:16) - but, in his later discussion with Laban (Genesis 24:43), Abraham's servant (Eliezer?) described her simply as an עַלְמָה (almah). Referring to Rebekah in discussion as an עַלְמָה (almah) is thus shown to be more honoring and respectful than referring to her as a mere בְּתוּלָה (bethulah).
Critics of Matthew’s use of παρθένος (parthenos) in reference to Isaiah 7:14 fail to properly account for why the Israelites who translated the Hebrew text into Greek chose παρθένος (parthenos) as the most suitable equivalent for עַלְמָה (almah) there.
You are very confused. The Septuagint is a Koine Greek translation of the Hebrew text. The Masoretic text is Hebrew and no translation is required. It simply uses the original word. The word transliterated almah in english can mean young woman or virgin. Hebrew didn't have as many specific words as newer languages do. The New Testament clearly indicates that Mary was a Virgin. Hope this helps.
One of the Deuterocanonical books contains one of the most extraordinarily accurate prophecies alluding to Jesus being the Messiah and the Son of God. As profound as Isaiah 53. Protestants agree with Jews who reject Christ and the whole NT.
Could you give the reference please?
Protestantism is a creation of Jewry.
@@TheKingdomWorks Sure thing. Book of Wisdom 2:12-20. I highly recommend exProtestant Joshua Charles’ channel that goes through this.
Eternal Christendom channel: #11 The Prophecy that convinced me the “Apocrypha” was part of the Bible
@ thank you
@@TheKingdomWorks No worries. All the best.
Wess got it wrong. Amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls you find parts of Sirach in Hebrew and Tobit in Aramaic and Hebrew. I have to check whether other Apocrypha were also found in one of the caves.
Keep also in mind that prior to the destruction of the second temple there several sects of Jews with different canons. Even today Ethiopian Jews have a different canon of scripture including books like Enoch and Jubilees.
Why only two apocryphal books, what about the other five?
@@getgnomed6179 There was only the letter of Jeremiah as third apocryphal books found amongst the scrolls - written in Greek and only a tiny fragment. All other books are not present so far.
@@morlewen7218 the Epistle of Jeremiah is apart of Jeremiah, not a separate book, and it is one very small fragment comprising a verse, so not impressive. Again, where are the other 5 apocryphal books such as Wisdom, Maccabees, Judith, etc?
@@getgnomed6179 Not present amongst the fragments found and identified so far. Maybe lost forever the authors of the DSS did not copy them. Reason not known to me.
@morlewen7218 written in greek in septuigent tho. Idk why the criteria is that God speaks a certain language
Joe Rogan interview went *Viral*
Sigh. Wes is wrong. Joe Heshmeyer has several videos out already about the canon that proves him wrong.
Wes wiped the floor with Carson, but now he is up against the Catholic Church. I have seen many hours of experts explaining the arguments for the Deuterocanon, and I think Wes' case against them is way too simple. Sirach was undoubtedly written in Hebrew first, and if you read chapter 28 (if I recall correctly), you'll see a phrase so similar to what is used in the Lord's Prayer, that it's very reasonable to believe Jesus was familiar with the text.
Jews had different canons. Samaritians and Saducees had 5 books. Pharisees had a longer version similar to catholics and shorter version similar to protestants, essenes had longest canon similar to orthodox.
Jesus made it very clear the Pharisees were correct about the canon by quoting from the prophets and talking about the seat of moses. 22 books in the Jewish canon (which we arrange differently and number 39) seems to be the most likely number since the Essenes were a fringe sect outside of the Jewish authority.
@StevenAakre he quoted apocraphal too
Interesting.
He assumes the
deuterocanon was not scripture. Why??? Because they were written in Greek? Who cares? They were part of the Old Testament of Jesus’s day.
Read “Canon Revisited” by Michael Krueger
Answer- because the majority representative 4th Century Jews removed the 7 books very popular with Jewish & Gentiles Christians in the Middle East.
Luther followed their, not the Christian canon.
-The Septuagint has the books.
-The King James Bible had the books until 1823.
This is so lame and disingenuous- it’s simply reaction to Catholicism.
Athanasius of Alexandria (367) likewise produced a list of canonical Old Testament books, omitting Esther. He also said the apocryphal books were non-canonical. That's a 4th-century _Christian_ for you.
One can figure out that the order of the books was the Tanakh ordering, not the LXX ordering.
@donj2222 so true. I tried to tell that to a Roman Catholic and I didn't get any mature responses.
KJV should be the only Bible you study. The other translations change too much and in some cases remove entire verses. NKJV is passable but KJV is the best translation. It's mathematically perfect.
The actual answer:
The removal of the Apocrypha from the Bible occurred gradually over time and was largely shaped by historical and theological developments, particularly during the Protestant Reformation.
1. Early Christian Church: The Apocryphal books were included in the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament), which was widely used by early Christians, particularly in the Eastern Orthodox Church. They were also included in the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible by Jerome in the 4th century, though Jerome himself expressed reservations about them.
2. Protestant Reformation: The key event in the removal of the Apocrypha from many Protestant Bibles came during the Reformation in the 16th century. Reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin rejected the Apocrypha as canonical, arguing that these books were not part of the Hebrew Bible and were not accepted by the Jewish community. Luther, in his 1534 German translation of the Bible, placed the Apocryphal books in a separate section, calling them "useful" but not equal in authority to the canonical books.
3. The Council of Trent (1545-1563): In response to the Protestant Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church affirmed the inclusion of the Apocrypha as part of the canon of Scripture at the Council of Trent. This decision further solidified the Apocryphal books' place in Catholic Bibles.
4. Protestant Bibles Post-Reformation: Following the Reformation, Protestant Bibles generally omitted the Apocrypha, beginning with the English translations of the Bible. The King James Version (KJV), published in 1611, included the Apocrypha, but later editions (from the 19th century onward) omitted them. The 19th-century rise of Bible societies that promoted Protestant translations without the Apocrypha contributed to their removal from Protestant Bibles.
The Catholic old testament was in the Septuagint.
The 4th Century majority Jewish sect removed the 7 books (othets didn’t) because they were popularly used by Christians to justify their faith.
Luther copied the Jews canon not the Christians but even up to the mid 1820’s the King James Version comprised the complete 73 books.
When it’s all said and done, Catholics follow 2000 years of Christian Authority, Protestants follow Luther’s Authority.
I’ve never heard one theological reason for removing them apart from “the Jews said”…..
p.s Without doubt, the greatest prophecy of Jesus was in the book Wisdom and the best understanding of the cultural and political state of Judea in the first century comes from Maccabees.
Apart from appealing to Jewish authority to determine the canon, Protestants I've encountered will cite apparent errors in the Deuterocanon. Of course, in doing so, they are playing the part of the atheist skeptic who says that the entire Bible has thousands of errors (e.g. The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy). If you already trust that the works are inspired, you can find a satisfying resolution to the what appears to be an error, but if not it can come off as a stretch in many cases.
The 1st Century Jews didn’t have a close canon of Scripture.
This guy gets some fame, and then he starts speaking dishonestly on the Canon of the Bible. Catholic/Orthodox read the 73 books for 1200 years before Protestants came around. Luther moved the Deuterocanonical books to the back of the Bible because they didn't fit his theology. The truth is in the 1830's to save paper/money, they started printing the Protestant Bible without the Deuterocanonical books. How does a so-called Bible scholar get the history of the canon so wrong and dishonest.
The Septuagint was Not written in BC. It is post Christ. Possibly 3rd or 4th centuary. Only the Levites were allowed to handle Scripture and there is absolutely no way the would have translated their holy scriptures into a barbaric tongue. The sSptuagint text was taken from Origins Hexapla. The Stuttgart text is also flawed as it is mostly a product of the German enlightenment.( I believe, and has Nazi leanings.
not true. Spetuagint is before christ even ethiopian jews use it.
How did writers quote from the Septuagint in the writing of the New Testament if it had not been written yet? Hebrew was not commonly being used during the time of Christ. Aramaic and Koine Greek were the languages of the time. The oldest fragments (Dead Sea Scrolls I believe) were dated in the first and second century BCE so I'm afraid you are in error.
This is more an issue about authority than anything else. Who gets to be final arbiter of what is considered the Canon of Scripture?
Catholics believe that the Church established by Christ Himself, headed by the successor of Peter, is the authority. Most Protestants believe that they get to be a personal arbiter of what they want to consider Scripture.
I’ll trust the Church (the Catholic Church) rather than men.
Seeing as you deliberately misrepresent "most Protestants" then you were either being deliberately disingenuous or don't know the truth
And you're the personal arbiter of which church you choose to trust. You can't escape making personal judgments about truth claims. You personally choose to believe the teachings of the RCC to be true. When they tell you what the RCC or Scripture teaches, you decide personally whether or not you will believe it. Yet, you criticize Protestants for making the same kind of personal judgments. You don't see the hypocrisy in that?
I think Wess needs to be introduced to a Catholic who has more facts and understands these issues.
Poor guy is simply regurgitating what the Canada Evangelical Coalition allows, concerning the Protestants answers to these tyoe questions.
Doesn't answer the question, though. I guess you have to pay for a subscription to find out. Yes, all this Wes stuff is being recommended to me, just because I watch Rogan.
Deuterocanon was part of the Bible until the 16th century when the protesters wanted to make a new religion.
Luther, whom I'm not a huge fan of, wanted to reform the Roman Catholic church of the many heresies that had cropped up. He had no intention of creating a new religion.
@ he says himself in the 95 thesis whoever denies papal indulgence is anathema to Christianity. He also upheld Marian dogma until he died.
Luther wanted the religion of Luther, not the religion of Christ.
@@orangemanbad Luther was right in posting his 95 thesis as the indulgences being sold were a con and only designed to raise more money for the Pope and his palace.
Jesus himself referenced the Septuagint in the New Testament.
The Old Testament is quoted 283 times in the New Testament. Those quotes differ from the Septuagint about 185 times (65%). Hardly a ringing endorsement of it.
Narrative?
Total non-answer. But even so “The Jews didn’t include them” … so what! They deny Jesus as well!
Try actually listening to the video
OMG! The new poster boy for apologetics is Wes!! He's so hott!! Does anyone know if he's a top or bottom!!?!
Which gospel are you a fan of speaking such filth? Clearly, not the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Jesus quotes them. Stop being protesters. Come home to Rome.
@@synanthony Paul quotes from non-Biblical texts, so that argument really doesn't work.
@ jesus celebrated Chanukah. He called himself the light of the world because of that. Trust Jesus or not. Your choice.
The Lord's Prayer is from the Greek Septuagint Deuterocanonical books. The most blatant prophesy of Jesus is from Wisdom 2. They are inspired.
Modern Bibles (KJV, etc) use the Masoretic Hebrew Scriptures to translate the OT. They were created in 1000AD. The Greek Septuagint was translated in 200 BC and used throughout the Roman Empire by Christians and Jews. Jesus and His disciples quoted from them all the time.
They are inspired.
Because the Reformers (the Rebellers, if we’re being honest) didn’t want them around countering their new personal and fallible interpretations. It’s not any deeper than that. Nothing to do with the Jews and everything to do with getting rid of books that counter Prorestantism (though, they didn’t go far enough since many of the remaining books still refute it)
@@zacharyboudreau9127 it's a good thing your comment is neither honest or true. Don't parrot fallacies
Because Martin Luther is their prophet, just like Mohammad is the prophet of muslims.
By that logic that means the pope is your prophet 🤦♂️💀
@@Spuckley.classic Catholic brain fart 😂
@Spuckley. wrong, the pope has no power to omit any books from the bible.
@@MiguelCruz-st9nr so does Luther.
@Spuckley. my brother, God gave you free will. Believe what you will. It doesn't matter to me. No one needs to prove anything to you, that is your journey . What's important is that you believe Jesus is your Lord and savor. May the Triune GOD bless you and your family.
FOCUS ON CHRIST'S MESSAGE & CHARGE! THE MORE WE FOCUS ON DOGMA, THEOLOGY, & DIFFERENCES THE MORE THE ENEMY WINS! 🙏🕊️
The Masoretic Hebrew Scriptures from 1009AD is used to translate most modern OT. The KJV is an example. The Masoretic text does not include the Deuterocanonical books.
The Greek Septuagint goes back to 200BC. It was the Greek Septuagint that spread through the Greek and then Roman Empires. Jesus and the Disciples quoted from the Greek Septuagint. Whenever they say, "It is written," "They Scriptures say," etc. and the quotes are not found in the OT, they are quotes from the Deuterocanonical books. The Lords Prayer is from these books. Many Jewish sects accepted the Deuterocanonical books as part their canon of Scripture. The Pharisees did not accept the Deuterocanonical books as Scripture.
After Rome killed most of Jews in 72AD, the Pharisees were the only sect to continue and influence the Jewish religion.
The Deuterocanonical books are God inspired. Jesus spoke and taught through them. The most blatant OT prophesy of Jesus is included in Wisdom 2.
The Greek Septuagint
So happy to see so many educated Christians telling these Protestants that they are wrong about the canon. I know they both know the truth and trying to spin it a more protestant view isn't honest.
It’s absurd - we absolutely agree with the ones who reject Jesus !!!
😢😢😢😢
I’m Orthodox.
Proof of god?
Can you prove to me that you have a rational mind?
NO! I did not……..