Excellent video and excellent series! I have benefited immensely from listening through it. One of the more interesting notes was how many voices on the Roman Catholic side affirm that the apocrypha is not on the same level as scripture and that the trend is that books were added to the cannon not removed - so Protestantism is absolutely not guilty of removing books from the Bible. Rather, Rome has added them.
"The church of Rome once in times of old was for the great glory of her piety, her heavenly doctrine, her divine service, Christian discipline and constancy in the faith against all heretics, most famous. And as the sun in the firmament shines far brighter than all stars, so she shined far above all churches on earth by example of her exceeding Christian piety, that well and fittingly she deserved to be generally called the mother of all churches. But into what and into how great darkness and blindness did she after sink by God’s just judgment, being as it were cast out of heaven and in the same still lies buried and drowned? He that in such great light of the Gospel sees this not is blinder than a mole. Neither is it any new thing, seeing the same happened first to the church of the Israelites, afterward to the churches in the East and to them in Greece." -Girolamo Zanchi, Confession of the Christian Religion, Dedicatory Epistle, pg. 2
When Steve mentioned the "closing of the Septuagint" he quotes Martignoni, who is not a scholar, he was just a founder of a society (anyone can establish a society) and president of a radio. I showed and cited multiple scholars on the Septuagint and showed it was not closed before the turn of the era. In fact Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes were not translated until the 1st century AD (long after the deuterocanon was translated), Song of Songs according to Atiken even possibly as late as 2nd century AD. This is what I was talking about. Its not about only primary vs. secondary sources. The problem is that even the "secondary sources" Steve uses are terrible and unreliable without scholarly foundation. Regarding the Kaige, he does indeed cite a scholar - Sundberg. Unfortunately he cites only what he wants to cite. Sundberg says this as well: "We cannot press the date of the fixation of the Pharisaic canon earlier than the time of Hillel, as an occasional scholar has attempted to do. Our evidence comes from the so-called Kaige Recension ... Since the recensional labors in the Kaige Recension can be dated to about the turn of the Common Era, and its *Pharisaic bias is clear* , it follows that as late as the end of the first century B.C., an authoritative, canonical list had not yet emerged, at least in its final form, even in *Pharisaic circles* . Thus, the revisions to Baruch and the extended Daniel in the Kaige Recension in Alexandria provides another firm piece of evidence that the *Writings were not yet, at the turn of the era* , formed into a fixed collection either in fact, i.e., canonized, or de facto. " Further, its fine to quote Sundberg, but since his work, many research was done. Here is one of the most recent articles that confirms that the Kaige has a Palestinian origin: "As to location, our new evidence strongly confirms Thackeray’s and Barthélemy’s notion that the kaige group must have been active in Palestine. The Psalms of Solomon were almost certainly composed in Jerusalem. To all appearances, the connection between the Psalms of Solomon and the kaige group was established there." (New light on Proto-Theodotion The Psalms of Solomon and the Milieu of the Kaige Recension, Jan Joosten, Oxford, pages 11-12) And I could go on and on and on.
To be honest, from what I heard in this presentation I'm not really certain Steve actually understands what the Kaige Recension/Revision is and what it actually means in canonical studies.
David, I think you’re missing my point about the closing of the Septuagint. The whole point is the argument from Roman Catholics that Jesus utilized the Septuagint, and since the so-called deuterocanonical books are found in later versions of the Septuagint, then it follows that it was in the Septuagint in Jesus day. This is a non sequitur and it’s also a strawman, because there’s no evidence all of the deuterocanonical books were in the Septuagint in Jesus day. And as far as Baruch and the Greek additions to Daniel, I laid out multiple reasons why it is a false assumption that Jesus and the apostles accepted these books. None of the so-called deuterocanonical books were laid up in the temple, including the Greek additions to Jeremiah, Esther, and Daniel. And if you would stop addressing individual arguments, and see how multiple arguments fit together, it might prevent you from strawmanning us to death. End it would be nice for once if you would spend the exact amount of effort critiquing your fellow Roman Catholics on the canon and the Marian dogmas that you do with protestants. But you’re not willing to do this, because you’re not interested in truth. You’re only interested in trolling and passing an agenda. For example, you were live with Gary and William when William stated that protestants believe the Catholic Church could add some random book nobody ever heard of to the canon later in an ecumenical council. That’s not what anybody including myself has ever said. You had the opportunity to correct him, but you remain silent. Your silence demonstrates your lack of objectivity and your true intentions.
@@johnmb69Well then you’re not understanding my understanding of the Chi gave her a sanction. The problem is guys like David complete misrepresent what I have stated, because he only addresses parts of an argument, he doesn’t understand or demonstrate how multiple arguments work together, including the Kaige Recension.
David, and pointing out Martingnoni is not a “scholar” is irrelevant. Scholars disagree with each other and can be subjective. The validity of the argument is what is relevant. And even in your two presentations you cherry pick even the scholars you used, including Beckwith and McDonald based on whether they agree with you or not, as well as ECFs such as Jerome. Again, you are nitpicking individual arguments and ignoring multiple arguments and how they work together.
@@BornAgainRN You actually did not offer one single counter argument now. You did not show one single scholar who agrees with Martignoni. This shows you are the one who is ignorant of scholarship and you just use whatever fits you. Now you say scholars disagree. Steve, I quoted multiple scholars, not one. If you think there is anyone who think what Martignoni thinks, why don´t you quote them? You know why? Because you can´t, that is why. So when you debated Preston, you brought up multiple scholars, and now when I bring them up, you dismiss them? So why do you believe Martignoni in the first place? Why do you think he is right and not the consensus of scholarship? If I am the one who is cherry picking Bekckwith, then all you need to do is to prove it. Where does Beckwith agree with you on the Esdras books? He clearly stated the issue of the canon is not involved and Esdras and Ezra are two variants of the same books. You are the one misrepresenting Beckwith.
We covered the Dead Sea Scrolls in another part of our series. The Qumran Community had a large array of books in their library, but they did not consider all of them to be scripture. we know this because the treated certain books as scripture based on the way they organized the columns headers and footers of the page they were writing on. And they only did this with the books from the Hebrew Bible. Plus, they were only two so-called deuterocanonical books in their collection and a Greek translation of the letter of Jeremiah. In other words, they did not include all of the so-called deuterocanonical books in their library, and they did not consider them to be scripture. This is why we made a four part series with timestamps so you could see this.
Steve Chrstie: "we know this because the treated certain books as scripture based on the way they organized the columns headers and footers of the page they were writing on. And they only did this with the books from the Hebrew Bible." Emanuel Tov: "In the Judean Desert texts, a special arrangement of poetical units is known almost exclusively for biblical texts (INCLUDING Ben Sira [2QSir and MasSir]), but not for any of the nonbiblical poetical compositions from the Judean Desert, such as 4QNon-Canonical Psalms A, B (4Q380, 4Q381), the Hodayot from caves 1 (1QHa,b) and 4 (4QHa-f), 4QBarkhi Nafshia-e, 4QShirShabba-f, 4QSelf-Glorification Hymn (4Q471b; 4QMa [4Q491] 11 [4Q491c]), and the various sapiential compositions (mainly 4Q415-426)." (Source: Emanuel Tov, SCRIBAL PRACTICES AND APPROACHE S REFLECTED IN THE TEXTS FOUND IN THE JUDEAN DESERT, third edition, published by Brill in 2018, page 156). Who are you going to believe? Steve Christie who makes this statement of his without showing the evidence or citing anyone, or Emanuel Tov, a leading scholar on the Dead See Scrolls who actual examined them?
@@BornAgainRN who said so? the fact is deuterocanon written in hebrew language if they not consider deuterocanon as scripture or not ,that nothing to do with christianity, because church father agree deuterocanon are holy scripture do you believe anti-christ jews more than church father?
@@davidszaraz4605 you can believe both, because the part you conveniently didn’t point out was this only applied to Sirach in the first century A.D. not to how they viewed it prior to the time of Christ, which is when it would’ve been significant. Is David Preston likes to say “it’s not what you say, but what you don’t say.” McDonald, your favorite protestant scholar on the canon, even quotes Tov and points this out. By the way, I see that David Preston and William Albrecht are playing and having a discussion on my debate that David and I had back in February on the canon. I noticed that I keep asking if William is going to bother to point out that David believes that 3 & 4 Esdras and prayer of Manasseh are not scripture, because the Roman Catholic Church does not believe it is? because David believes that the Roman Catholic Church is wrong for excluding them from the canon, because he believes they are scripture. Or is William going to completely ignore this rather important detail, since it is it a significant part of part of the discussion, as well as our debate. And I know that you have correspondence with William, so don’t sit here and pretend that you don’t have anything to do with it. David even believes in Jesus quoted 4 Esdras AS SCRIPTURE, and believes “ theological liberals“ both Catholic and Protestant believe that this was written after the time of Christ, not before. He said this during our debate. This is who you and William’s ally is for this upcoming discussion. Personally, I’m not holding my breath, but I don’t know how he can be on your side
Excellent video and excellent series! I have benefited immensely from listening through it. One of the more interesting notes was how many voices on the Roman Catholic side affirm that the apocrypha is not on the same level as scripture and that the trend is that books were added to the cannon not removed - so Protestantism is absolutely not guilty of removing books from the Bible. Rather, Rome has added them.
"The church of Rome once in times of old was for the great glory of her piety, her heavenly doctrine, her divine service, Christian discipline and constancy in the faith against all heretics, most famous. And as the sun in the firmament shines far brighter than all stars, so she shined far above all churches on earth by example of her exceeding Christian piety, that well and fittingly she deserved to be generally called the mother of all churches. But into what and into how great darkness and blindness did she after sink by God’s just judgment, being as it were cast out of heaven and in the same still lies buried and drowned? He that in such great light of the Gospel sees this not is blinder than a mole. Neither is it any new thing, seeing the same happened first to the church of the Israelites, afterward to the churches in the East and to them in Greece."
-Girolamo Zanchi, Confession of the Christian Religion, Dedicatory Epistle, pg. 2
When Steve mentioned the "closing of the Septuagint" he quotes Martignoni, who is not a scholar, he was just a founder of a society (anyone can establish a society) and president of a radio. I showed and cited multiple scholars on the Septuagint and showed it was not closed before the turn of the era. In fact Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes were not translated until the 1st century AD (long after the deuterocanon was translated), Song of Songs according to Atiken even possibly as late as 2nd century AD. This is what I was talking about. Its not about only primary vs. secondary sources. The problem is that even the "secondary sources" Steve uses are terrible and unreliable without scholarly foundation.
Regarding the Kaige, he does indeed cite a scholar - Sundberg. Unfortunately he cites only what he wants to cite. Sundberg says this as well:
"We cannot press the date of the fixation of the Pharisaic canon earlier than the time of Hillel, as an occasional scholar has attempted to do. Our evidence comes from the so-called Kaige Recension ... Since the recensional labors in the Kaige Recension can be dated to about the turn of the Common Era, and its *Pharisaic bias is clear* , it follows that as late as the end of the first century B.C., an authoritative, canonical list had not yet emerged, at least in its final form, even in *Pharisaic circles* . Thus, the revisions to Baruch and the extended Daniel in the Kaige Recension in Alexandria provides another firm piece of evidence that the *Writings were not yet, at the turn of the era* , formed into a fixed collection either in fact, i.e., canonized, or de facto. "
Further, its fine to quote Sundberg, but since his work, many research was done. Here is one of the most recent articles that confirms that the Kaige has a Palestinian origin:
"As to location, our new evidence strongly confirms Thackeray’s and Barthélemy’s notion that the kaige group must have been active in Palestine. The Psalms of Solomon were almost certainly composed in Jerusalem. To all appearances, the connection between the Psalms of Solomon and the kaige group was established there."
(New light on Proto-Theodotion The Psalms of Solomon and the Milieu of the Kaige Recension, Jan Joosten, Oxford, pages 11-12)
And I could go on and on and on.
To be honest, from what I heard in this presentation I'm not really certain Steve actually understands what the Kaige Recension/Revision is and what it actually means in canonical studies.
David, I think you’re missing my point about the closing of the Septuagint. The whole point is the argument from Roman Catholics that Jesus utilized the Septuagint, and since the so-called deuterocanonical books are found in later versions of the Septuagint, then it follows that it was in the Septuagint in Jesus day. This is a non sequitur and it’s also a strawman, because there’s no evidence all of the deuterocanonical books were in the Septuagint in Jesus day. And as far as Baruch and the Greek additions to Daniel, I laid out multiple reasons why it is a false assumption that Jesus and the apostles accepted these books. None of the so-called deuterocanonical books were laid up in the temple, including the Greek additions to Jeremiah, Esther, and Daniel. And if you would stop addressing individual arguments, and see how multiple arguments fit together, it might prevent you from strawmanning us to death.
End it would be nice for once if you would spend the exact amount of effort critiquing your fellow Roman Catholics on the canon and the Marian dogmas that you do with protestants. But you’re not willing to do this, because you’re not interested in truth. You’re only interested in trolling and passing an agenda. For example, you were live with Gary and William when William stated that protestants believe the Catholic Church could add some random book nobody ever heard of to the canon later in an ecumenical council. That’s not what anybody including myself has ever said. You had the opportunity to correct him, but you remain silent. Your silence demonstrates your lack of objectivity and your true intentions.
@@johnmb69Well then you’re not understanding my understanding of the Chi gave her a sanction. The problem is guys like David complete misrepresent what I have stated, because he only addresses parts of an argument, he doesn’t understand or demonstrate how multiple arguments work together, including the Kaige Recension.
David, and pointing out Martingnoni is not a “scholar” is irrelevant. Scholars disagree with each other and can be subjective. The validity of the argument is what is relevant. And even in your two presentations you cherry pick even the scholars you used, including Beckwith and McDonald based on whether they agree with you or not, as well as ECFs such as Jerome. Again, you are nitpicking individual arguments and ignoring multiple arguments and how they work together.
@@BornAgainRN You actually did not offer one single counter argument now. You did not show one single scholar who agrees with Martignoni. This shows you are the one who is ignorant of scholarship and you just use whatever fits you. Now you say scholars disagree. Steve, I quoted multiple scholars, not one. If you think there is anyone who think what Martignoni thinks, why don´t you quote them? You know why? Because you can´t, that is why. So when you debated Preston, you brought up multiple scholars, and now when I bring them up, you dismiss them? So why do you believe Martignoni in the first place? Why do you think he is right and not the consensus of scholarship?
If I am the one who is cherry picking Bekckwith, then all you need to do is to prove it. Where does Beckwith agree with you on the Esdras books? He clearly stated the issue of the canon is not involved and Esdras and Ezra are two variants of the same books. You are the one misrepresenting Beckwith.
dead sea's scroll destroy protestant's argument about scripture
We covered the Dead Sea Scrolls in another part of our series. The Qumran Community had a large array of books in their library, but they did not consider all of them to be scripture. we know this because the treated certain books as scripture based on the way they organized the columns headers and footers of the page they were writing on. And they only did this with the books from the Hebrew Bible. Plus, they were only two so-called deuterocanonical books in their collection and a Greek translation of the letter of Jeremiah. In other words, they did not include all of the so-called deuterocanonical books in their library, and they did not consider them to be scripture. This is why we made a four part series with timestamps so you could see this.
Steve Chrstie: "we know this because the treated certain books as scripture based on the way they organized the columns headers and footers of the page they were writing on. And they only did this with the books from the Hebrew Bible."
Emanuel Tov: "In the Judean Desert texts, a special arrangement of poetical units is known almost exclusively for biblical texts (INCLUDING Ben Sira [2QSir and MasSir]), but not for any of the nonbiblical poetical compositions from the Judean Desert, such as 4QNon-Canonical Psalms A, B (4Q380, 4Q381), the Hodayot from caves 1 (1QHa,b) and 4 (4QHa-f), 4QBarkhi Nafshia-e, 4QShirShabba-f, 4QSelf-Glorification Hymn (4Q471b; 4QMa [4Q491] 11 [4Q491c]), and the various sapiential compositions (mainly 4Q415-426)."
(Source: Emanuel Tov, SCRIBAL PRACTICES AND APPROACHE S REFLECTED IN THE TEXTS FOUND IN THE JUDEAN DESERT, third edition, published by Brill in 2018, page 156).
Who are you going to believe? Steve Christie who makes this statement of his without showing the evidence or citing anyone, or Emanuel Tov, a leading scholar on the Dead See Scrolls who actual examined them?
@@BornAgainRN who said so?
the fact is deuterocanon written in hebrew language
if they not consider deuterocanon as scripture or not ,that nothing to do with christianity, because church father agree deuterocanon are holy scripture
do you believe anti-christ jews more than church father?
@@davidszaraz4605 Ah yes, I'd forgotten about Tov & Sirach on this. Thanks, David!
@@davidszaraz4605 you can believe both, because the part you conveniently didn’t point out was this only applied to Sirach in the first century A.D. not to how they viewed it prior to the time of Christ, which is when it would’ve been significant. Is David Preston likes to say “it’s not what you say, but what you don’t say.” McDonald, your favorite protestant scholar on the canon, even quotes Tov and points this out.
By the way, I see that David Preston and William Albrecht are playing and having a discussion on my debate that David and I had back in February on the canon. I noticed that I keep asking if William is going to bother to point out that David believes that 3 & 4 Esdras and prayer of Manasseh are not scripture, because the Roman Catholic Church does not believe it is? because David believes that the Roman Catholic Church is wrong for excluding them from the canon, because he believes they are scripture. Or is William going to completely ignore this rather important detail, since it is it a significant part of part of the discussion, as well as our debate. And I know that you have correspondence with William, so don’t sit here and pretend that you don’t have anything to do with it. David even believes in Jesus quoted 4 Esdras AS SCRIPTURE, and believes “ theological liberals“ both Catholic and Protestant believe that this was written after the time of Christ, not before. He said this during our debate. This is who you and William’s ally is for this upcoming discussion. Personally, I’m not holding my breath, but I don’t know how he can be on your side