Lindsay Harold consented to the following:
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- Did you know that Lindsay's Logic and Rational Abolitionist are being blocked by malware control when you have the www. in front of what's in front of blogspot?
Either way, as a defender of the Catholic canon 72~73 books (in the former case Baruch or Lamentations is counted as part of Jeremias), I'd like to copy paste your post from March 8, 2023, inlcude it in a blog post of mine with answers about the OT canon, you'd be OK with that?
- Lindsay Harold
- You're welcome to copy/paste with attribution and a link.
When she gave her consent, she may have been thinking of a blog post from March 20, 2023, on Lindsay's Logic:
The Biggest Mystery in the Bible. That's supposing she thought I meant a post on her blog, which I had mentioned. I actually meant a post on her FB wall, so attributing,
Lindsay Harold, link within attribution is to her FB page. After the copy-paste, I will also give my reply.
- Lindsay Harold
- March 8, 2023
- How can we know that the Protestant canon of scripture is the correct one? Why only those 66 books and no others?
-Because the New Testament books are the group of books used and accepted by the early church as scripture.
-Because the Jewish canon never included the apocryphal books. They were set aside as useful Jewish history, but not inerrant scripture. That's what the word apocrypha means - "hidden" or "set aside."
-Because the Jewish people knew and admitted in their writings that there had been no new revelation since the Book of Malachi around 400 BC, so the books written during the period from 400 BC until the NT books (~40 AD and later) were not scripture and not considered scripture.
-Because Jesus Himself referred to all the blood shed from Abel to Zacharias the son of Berechias to refer to all the innocent deaths from Genesis to Malachi, thus affirming that these and only these books were scripture in His time.
-Because Jesus and the apostles quoted the canonical books as scripture and no others.
-Because the apocryphal books and other books (e.g. gnostic gospels) contain errors and often contradict scripture.
-Because no book which falsely attributes its authorship to someone we know did not write it (e.g. Book of Enoch, Gospel of Peter) can be scripture as it's lying about itself.
-Because the apocryphal books were canonized by the Catholic Church in the 1500's as a power play in response to the Protestant Reformation, not because they had ever been considered scripture by the church as a whole throughout history.
-Because the apostles were given direct authority by God to set doctrine for the church, but this authority did not pass down to others not commissioned directly by God. Thus, only those books written or supervised by the apostles during their lifetimes are authoritative scripture in the NT era. The NT books we have are the only 1st century works with this pedigree. Later books were not apostolic.
- My Answer
- I'll quote and answer bit by bit:
-Because the New Testament books are the group of books used and accepted by the early church as scripture.
Not all of them, by all of the Church and not exclusively by all of the Church. As late as the council of Laodicaea, the Apocalypse was excluded. As late as the Muratorian fragment the Apocalypse of Peter is included.
-Because the Jewish canon never included the apocryphal books. They were set aside as useful Jewish history, but not inerrant scripture. That's what the word apocrypha means - "hidden" or "set aside."
We would promote, you and Jews would deny that certain parts of Daniel were in the original Jewish canon for Daniel and all of Baruch in the original Jewish canon for Jeremias. By the way, a single Jewish book being broken up into two in the Christian canon, that's not unique. First to Fourth Kings are in the Jewish Bible the two books "Samuel" and "Kings" (the Protestant mention is a compromise).
As to the other ones, they are not prophecy, the canon of the "writings" (ketuvim) was not yet decided among Jews when Christians took over both First to Fourth Kings and ... Tobit.
-Because the Jewish people knew and admitted in their writings that there had been no new revelation since the Book of Malachi around 400 BC, so the books written during the period from 400 BC until the NT books (~40 AD and later) were not scripture and not considered scripture.
The presence of a prophet is not necessary for a writing where the divine revelation is considered as residing in the historic events, like most of Genesis (not chapter 1 obviously), the four books of Kings, Luke's two books. I and II Maccabees do not state the absence of divine inspiration for themselves, but they do state the absence of a prophetic figure.
-Because Jesus Himself referred to all the blood shed from Abel to Zacharias the son of Berechias to refer to all the innocent deaths from Genesis to Malachi, thus affirming that these and only these books were scripture in His time.
He could have known that certain bloodsheds in the Maccabees era were not on the hands of the Pharisees He was talking to. He could also have known that (as I vaguely recall some have said) the Zacharias in question is the father of John the Baptist. Or He could have avoided the Ketuvim, as the canon wasn't fixed for them yet.
-Because Jesus and the apostles quoted the canonical books as scripture and no others.
In debates with Sadducees, they were quoting the Torah only, and in debates with Pharisees the books accepted by them.
Also, not all are quoted.
-Because the apocryphal books and other books (e.g. gnostic gospels) contain errors and often contradict scripture.
You cannot compare Wisdom of Solomon (accepted in the Muratorian fragment) to Gnostic Gospels. The ones accepted in the Catholic canon do not contain errors nor contradict Scripture.
-Because no book which falsely attributes its authorship to someone we know did not write it (e.g. Book of Enoch, Gospel of Peter) can be scripture as it's lying about itself.
Of Enoch, we can be reasonably sure Enoch didn't write it in its present shape, but it could have been written by Enoch and badly observed. My best argument against it is, it describes the natural year as 364 days. Perhaps a passage is missing which would make the total 365 and some more, and given the complexities, that could be the reason for the omission. St. Augustine considered it as "not canon" because it was so old the risk for errors in transmission was too big.
-Because the apocryphal books were canonized by the Catholic Church in the 1500's as a power play in response to the Protestant Reformation, not because they had ever been considered scripture by the church as a whole throughout history.
Book of Enoch and Gospel of Peter certainly weren't on the Trentine list of canonic books. The 72~73 book canon (depending on whether Baruch is counted separately from Jeremias or as a part of it) had been if not undisputed at least pretty standard since the councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage in the late 4th C. AD.
Also, canonicity of II Maccabees is not necessary to prove that Jesus approved of prayers for the dead (chapter 12) and apparitions by deceased saints (chapter 15). It is sufficient this idea was widely accepted by Jews, and if Jesus didn't contradict it (which we don't find Him explicitly doing in the canonic Gospels, that means He approved of it.
-Because the apostles were given direct authority by God to set doctrine for the church, but this authority did not pass down to others not commissioned directly by God. Thus, only those books written or supervised by the apostles during their lifetimes are authoritative scripture in the NT era. The NT books we have are the only 1st century works with this pedigree. Later books were not apostolic.
This is true only to a limited degree. We agree that later books are not Apostolic. C. S. Lewis' Mere Christianity cannot be added to the canon. However, the books and book parts disputed by Protestants and affirmed by Catholics are in the OT, all of them written before Jesus arrived. They were only disputed later and at that time confirmed by successors of the Apostles, but they were written by prophets and writers of the Old Covenant.
In another sense, it is not true that the authority by God to set doctrine did not pass down. They commissioned successors. Apostolic Succession in the sense usually meant by Catholics (and not the Series Pastorum given by some early Church Fathers with the name Apostolic Succession) is found in the Bible. Acts 1:26 gives a general principle, but not the detail of imposition of hands. However, we know Apostles did impose hands on new bishops (Acts 8), the power Simon Magus asked for was the power of a consecrated bishop. We also know that a group in Antioch, not exclusively the twelve, none of the twelve except Peter, and just possibly Peter if he went under the pseudonym Simon Niger, imposed hands on Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13), we can interpose that those imposing hands on these two and not part of the original twelve had their imposition by the twelve, directly or indirectly. St. Paul imposed hands on Timothy (II Tim 1:6), and Timothy was supposed to impose hands on even more other people but very selectively (I Tim 5:22). We have no indication that this was supposed to cease, and we have a contrary indication, in the promise of Jesus in Matthew 28:20, given that we learn in verse 16 that the people receiving this promise were the eleven, this means the office of the eleven / twelve, at least on some plane, was to continue to the end of time. So, this finishes the rebuttal.
