Transcription
[music] [music] [music] [music] Heat. Heat. [music] >> [music] >> And welcome everybody to the pacifa apocalypse. I'm Gary Machuda. I am here with Dr. Triple Dave and we're here. Yeah. So, how you doing Dave?
>> Fantastic as always, Gary. Looking forward to it. And yeah, I just went through the video. you know, we're going to critique and already had a lot of fun. I'm really, really excited to do this with you. What about you, Garrett?
>> Well, I'm thrilled and pumped. I I've been working on this. I, as usual, I over prepared, so I have a giant PowerPoint and things like that, which is totally unnecessary, but still, that's just what how things work. Um, yeah, we might have to break it up into a couple of parts maybe. um because I I can only maybe be on for about an hour and a half or so today.
>> And um so yeah, I we I've been working on this for a little while. This interview uh took place I think uh about a week ago, maybe a little more than a week ago. And I've been trying I've been hoping, you know, William would join too and we could work this out, but whatever.
>> Um and I'd like to do it with William because uh I think some of this touches on solos scriptor Torah. In fact, I don't know how he can concede some points and still hold on to soul scriptor. Did you get that impression just listening real quick to the
>> Yeah. I mean, I had a feeling we're talking about sacred tradition in this video.
>> Yeah. Yeah. It seems all about [clears throat] sacred tradition. Of course, they're focusing almost entirely on the New Testament cannon,
>> which isn't like a [clears throat] big focus on this channel,
>> but um and neither related. Yeah, but it's related, right? So, uh, so welcome aboard everybody. Uh, see Lo is in the house. Good to have you. Uh, Matthew Davis is also here. Happy Tuesday to you as well. We got Andy and, uh, Daniel Hayes is here. Welcome aboard. And Joe, uh, Joe for JC is here as well. Gary and the ninja. The ninja. Are you Is that the new name for Dr. David? Is the ninja and Orthodox Phillips? Well, welcome aboard Orthodox Phillip. By the way, uh just FYI, I sent you an email inquiring on when we can get you on board to do the icon presentation. So, just let give me some days and times and I'll check with uh David and William and we'll get you here rolling. Yeah, by the way, Philillip, if this time or around this time is fine for you, any weekday, I'm I'm on board. Uh, certainly, but if later, no problem. Probably I won't be joining, but I I will I will catch up later. And by the way, guys, keep your prayer uh keep William in your prayers so he gets better.
>> Oh, is his voice is that why he had to bow out?
>> I think. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Yeah. He sounded pretty rough. Uh, I heard him on a show the other day and uh, he almost sounded like a different person. Hey,
>> Ronin is thrilled and pumped to be here as am I. And uh, got the email. Thanks, Gary. Very excited about it. Are you thrilled and pumped though about it? That's the question. Um, got Soel Preston in the house. Uh, Soel, welcome aboard. By the way, guys, show some love to SoCal's channel. Friend of the channel. Just go to SoCal Preston, give him some likes and thumbs up. Uh, I don't know if you caught this, David. I think SoCal mentioned this on a chill stream or maybe it was the last stream. He might do a debate with Tfan again part two.
>> Oh, really?
>> Yeah,
>> that sounds good. That sounds good. You know, I was just last night I was thinking, you know, it would be an interesting stuff because, you know, Protestants are saying that, oh, we never want to affirm the Catholic position or something. Well, we don't even have to. We can have like a neutral thesis like was there a single closed cannon of the Jews in the first century? I mean that's already interesting, right?
>> Yeah. Right. That would be cool.
>> That's not something what you have to affirm as a Protestant per se or as a Catholic, but it would be an interesting because of course it does influences how you view the canon and where you start off, right? So that's that's important.
>> That's true. Or you know, I would I guess it would be controversial though, but I I would actually if I debated on the canon, it had I would like to do like did Josephus give a canon or did Josephus affirm,
>> you know,
>> right?
>> A Catholic.
>> Was his collection the same, you know?
>> Yeah, exactly.
>> Or something like that. Yeah.
>> Or Pho, you know, the pho cannon. In fact, uh just to give a tease for you guys, Dr. David is working on digging deep in the Pho of Alexandria in one of the few places he talks about something that could hinge on the canon.
>> Yeah.
>> So, uh, it sounds really good. And we're just discussing before the show whether he uses both books of Ezra or Ezekiel, excuse me. Uh, I see David. I think Ezra immediately. Oh, Gary, hope you and David get to check out my debate recap video. You know, I haven't had a chance to look at it. Have you, David?
>> I don't think so because I was so overwhelmed overwhelmed since then, you know.
>> Yeah. With the everything
>> with the thesis and Yeah. And and finishing my residence and everything, but I will certainly check it out, David.
>> Yep. Yeah. There you go. Yeah, I do, too. It's just it's been crazy over here. Well, okay. Let's jump into the meat and potatoes of today's uh presentation. That is uh let's see if I can add this to stage. Remove add. This is a interview that Shawn Mcdow did with a Michael Krueger. I I watch Shawn McDall's channel quite a bit and of course when this popped up I thought it was very intriguing. Let's see if I can make this bigger. Um, okay. And, um, so we're just going to go through bits and pieces and just pick out some interesting thoughts. Um, and like I said, it he touches on all sorts of things. Uh, some of which I I don't know how someone who holds the Soloscript Toro would uh could follow that. Also, I got PowerPoint, so I'll add that, too. So, we're looking at 307 at this point. And okay, good. Okay. So, let's do our first part. By the way, those in the chat room, please uh if you could let me know if you could hear the sound of the video, just give me a one if you hear it, two if you don't.
>> in the narrative and theology of the Old Testament that should make us anticipate these new kind of books that are also authoritative for us.
>> Yeah, that's that's a great question. So, one of the one of the things that secular scholars will say is that is that yeah, there was an Old Testament canon, but Christians never thought there'd be a New Testament cannon and a New Testament cannon was a late imposition on the church. It was it was seen as this artificial thing that was forced on Christianity and that Christianity just wanted to be an oral religion without books. Um and and you know, Constantine comes along and says, "No, you're going to have books." And sort of forces books on the church. And so this is sort of the the classic traditional retelling of the story. And that whole retelling gives the impression that that that Christians had no sense that there would be new books or there no reason to expect new books or no anticipation that there would be another uh deposit from God of of scriptural books. But I think that's entirely out of sync with what we see in the Old Testament and what we see in early Christianity. So there are several things early Christians believe and these are facts. These these aren't disputed.
>> There are several things that early Christians believed I think would naturally lead uh to um a new canon of scripture.
>> Okay, I'm just going to stop it there just because I didn't see 48. Oh yeah, I went way over. Okay, so um anything in the Old Testament that cause you to anticipate um a formation of New Testament? Actually, you know, I don't know if he brings up in this clip, but he he points to covenants.
>> Mhm. Uh would Christians anticipate that there would be a closed fixed cannon of books? That's really the question. But um and again this idea of a closed fixed cannon um for the Old Testament of course there there wasn't a closed fixed cannon. You have the Sadducees the Samaritans only had the Pentatuk. You had Kuman had protocononical books minus Esther possibly also Sarak Tobit first Enoch. Yeah, the Pharisees, Shmayan, hell, disputing over Ecclesiastes, Songs, Esther, you know, all these other books. Like, if there wasn't a fixed cannon of the old covenant, would there be necessarily anticipation of a fixed cannon in the new covenant? That's another question. I don't know. Just throwing thoughts out there.
>> Um, but let's let's continue a little bit. Yeah, just just a little uh note here. So, of course, uh Dr. Krueger would disagree here with us. He would say the Sadducees had the same cannon like the Pharisees. Actually, that's what I heard in the video today.
>> Mhm.
>> Um but he is not backing it up, which of course I'm not even uh thinking he would do because, you know, the lack of time and everything. I totally understand but I don't know how did he arrive at that conclusion in the first place because when we look at ancient testimonies then of course we cannot just dismiss the early church fathers especially someone like origin who did dialogue with the Hebrews and does say that the Sadducees only accepted the Torah
>> right
>> and when he says he he They had the same cannon as the Pharisees. Then you have the problem which Pharisees again.
>> Yeah.
>> Right. So
>> yeah, I know. It's uh it's it's like um it just unravels from that point on. So
>> yeah.
>> Yeah, you're right. Um
>> yeah, let's I just want to really quickly run to the next. This it's not that important, but it's it's important enough to mention
>> concept of covenant. When God makes a covenant with his people like he does in the nation of Israel, it comes with written texts. When God gave a covenant to Israel on Mount Si, it was initially the ten commandments, written texts, but eventually expanded into more written texts. So when God comes along and says, "I'm going to make a new covenant with you," and Jesus says, "I'm inaugurating a new covenant," you would expect new covenant documents. So that's one thing Christians believed that I think would have naturally led to this expectation of new books. You know, here's the problem that I had with that is not all covenants have books. Like, of course, he focuses on the Mosaic covenant, but what about the covenant with Noah, right? Where are the text for that covenant or the covenant with Abraham? Like, did Abraham did God give Abraham books for that covenant? There's covenant Isaac and Jacob. There's David's covenant. Of course, you have Moses covenant, which does have books, ten commandments, and of course, Deuteron Deuteronomy, second covenant. Uh then, so if there's a new covenant, would there necessarily be an anticipation of books that would go along with it?
>> No, that doesn't follow. Of course, you laid it up very, very fancifully. [laughter]
>> Yeah, I know. Yeah, it went crazy with the powerpoints, guys. Uh, yeah, present. Uh, okay. Yeah, I mean, you know, a covenant does why should we think that it necessates some kind of documents in written form? Um, of course it's useful but is it necessary in order to have a covenant
>> right?
>> No I don't think so. No,
>> what you need is two uh you know I don't want to say you know subjects between who you know the covenant is happening at least of course no we got god and the church or god and Moses and god and the elected people god and so forth but there's no necessation of you know having some kind of uh let's say you know a law or you drawing a signature or some kind of document or anything like that,
>> right? Yeah. Yeah. So, I I don't know if that necessarily follows, but um
>> um like you said, um so it's it's kind of weird that he would say, well, they anticipate it because of that. Well, certainly the Mosaic Covenant has books, but but like I said, that was a minor point, but I thought it was kind of weird, you know, like I'm not sure how he could make that claim. And of course, I I think they probably did anticipate author, you know, authoritative writing, but
>> I think led to this is they had a a theological conviction about the role of the apostles. When the apostles spoke, they spoke for Jesus. They were, as Paul's own words, the ministers of the new covenant. So if you had official agents who were ministers of the new covenant and new covenant expect new covenant documents and then they started writing things down, you you it doesn't take a lot to put the put the pieces together to that, right? They're not they're not thinking, "Oh, what's going on here? This is so strange." No, they would have been like, "Well, yes, of course. God's chosen agents, the ministers of the covenant, they administer his his covenantal documents." And so when they received letters from these apostles or books from apostles, there had been a natural built-in authority within those books by virtue of them coming from from apostles. So So okay. Yeah. So any thoughts on that one, David?
>> Uh not not really.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. It's it's see here's where he starts tapping into sacred tradition, right? That the apostles are magisterial, right? They're teaching authority. They have uh their their instructions, covenantal instructions are authoritative and so their writings would be authoritative. But where do you get the point where suddenly like the their oral instructions become null and void and then you just go by your interpretation of what they wrote? You know, doesn't it seem like there would be a covenantal community that would persist in time carrying along not only the written documents but also the the instructions and interpretations of those documents and that they would have some sort of jeritical authority to legislate and apply the covenant. You know, I I think in a way, I mean, this is just the beginning of he really does lean very heavily on what we would call sacred tradition, right?
>> Mhm.
>> For it. And this is just the beginning. The opening or that's why when I was re I was watching this, I I was really struck by um wow, he he really needs apostolic oral tradition. Okay, next one's 1523. By the way, guys, uh, welcome aboard. Uh, please like, subscribe, hit the bell. Uh, it's great to have you with us. We're critiquing Shawn McDow's interview with Michael Krueger, not to be confused with Freddy Krueger. U, yeah, I don't know. It's just that's always the name that pops into my head when I see it. But uh anyway uh let's see here. I think this is the next clip. 1523. I I think I probably I should open up there. Okay. So let's listen to this
>> for for centuries before those final books were sort of uh solidified. Um and I think that's a valid argument. I would back it up even more. I would say a lot of the major theological uh freight of Christian theology was already in place because the Old Testament was there.
>> In other words, There's certain things that were never going to be accepted by early Christians because the Old Testament theology was already in place that told them the Gnostic vision of creation or the lack of it. The Gnostic vision of this of the God of the Old Testament being a false god was never going to be a contender for the canon because it was so contrary to the books that Christians already had, namely the Old Testament. So, you have to realize by the time you get to the fourth century, Christians not only have the Old Testament, which they've had for generations, but they have a core collection of New Testament books, 22 out of 27. So, the theology is set. the trajectory is set regardless of the results of these peripheral books. So I think that's a great
>> Okay. So, that's an interesting admission, right? Um, that the theological trajectory of the faith was already set uh before those final books were solidified. Okay? And he says there's a lot of major theological freight of Christian theology was already in place in the Old Testament was there. Right? In other words, there were certain things that were uh never going to be accepted by Christians. He brought up the Gnostics because they're so contrary to uh that contrary that Christians had already, namely the Old Testament. So, theological freight, right? And this I think is important because Shawn McDow will kind of downgrade like how important the canon issue is. But it's important for us to remember that it was precisely the theological freight of these books that Protestants got rid of these books. For example, John Kelvin in his antidote to the council of Trent. So here he's responding to Trent. Notice what Kelvin says. He says, "Out of second Mcabes they prove purgatory and the worship of saints. of the Tobit satisfactions, exorcisms and whatnot and from ecclesiasticos they will uh borrow not a little.
>> So you know if this was part of the canon in which uh was inherited by Christianity that's part of the theological freight and part of the theological trajectory right that would ultimately even affect the New Testament. Mhm. In fact, here's one of my favorite quotes from Bruce Mezer's book, The Introduction to Apocrypha. He says, "It appears that Luther first led to disparage the books of the Apocrypha when his opponents appealed to passages in them as proof of doctrine of purgatory and of the efficacy of prayers and masses for the dead." 2 Mcabes 12:43:45. Likewise, the emphasis on certain apocryphal books upon merit acquired through good works. Okay. Now, so what was it that led Luther to get rid of these books? It was theological freight, right?
>> Mhm.
>> So, it's interesting how there's like a circular argument going on where theology determines canon, but then canon determines theology. Right.
>> Um, and I don't know if you're a solos script tourist, like how can you get out of that vicious circle, right?
>> Uh, so I I think um here I got the wrong thing up. So yeah, I I um that's what I see going on here is uh you know, he's trying to say there's this set theology already with this Old Testament. Of course, that's why he he emphasizes later on that there was a fixed Old Testament cannon already before the New Testament was even written. And uh that's why really
>> yeah I mean it's it assumes a lot already. Right.
>> Right.
>> For example, that you have a single Jewish collection of sacred books that was universally accepted by the Jews. There were no discrepancies whatsoever. But even if that would be true, you know, [clears throat] and and let's say every let's just grant for the sake of the argument what he says. Hey, you already have the Old Testament cannon and you have he said the 22 out of the 27 from the New Testament works. Does that necessarily mean that the theology is set just because you have these books, you know?
>> Right. Well, what came immediately into my mind is just a basic basic thing. Let's say John 6, right? I mean,
>> right?
>> You know, the the disciples of Jesus, they were like shocked. I mean, we have to eat your body and drink your blood. I mean really you know so you already have this problem of interpretation of the scriptures because to be honest uh Dr. Krueger's theology is going to defer a lot in many aspects even if we share the same New Testament. So um you know, that's to me a huge conjecture or a stretch if you're going to say that just because you have the books you have a set theology no you still need this interpretive church or magisterium and a tradition through which you can interpret the scriptures. So uh this is this this is a huge stretch to me, you know, and yeah, yeah, basically it so I I mean, of course, you can draw some conclusions certainly one would claim that Christians or the you know uh they're going to be monotheists of course because of the old testament it's a natural conclusion but then you have other things which are not so really obvious just from the scriptures. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, very good. We have a reason belief is here. Reason, welcome as always. By the way, guys, go to his channel, Reason Belief. Show some love.
>> And he asked he hopes your presentation. Your defense of your thesis went well, I guess.
>> Very well. Very well. Thank you. At the end of the day, I enjoyed it and I was relaxed and everything and everything went smooth. Thank you.
>> You were thrilled and pumped for the
>> Exactly. Exactly. Krueger's nightmare on Tome Street. Yeah, that's that's a good way to put it. Uh, okay, we got another clip here. Uh, let's see. Actually, we're doing pretty good on getting through this material.
>> that have has been raised by a number of scholars about whether there was a way to define heresy and orthodoxy in these earliest stages, right? And that's really what you're getting at. So, some scholars will say,
>> you know, heresy and orthodoxy wasn't wasn't even a defined category until say 4th century. And so, Christians are flying blind. You know, what what's true about Jesus? what's not true about Jesus. We don't know till the 4th century. What do we say about salvation and how you're saved? We don't know till the 4th century, says the argument.
>> But that implies there's no other there's no other way to know um uh what these theological truths are. And and I said already, well, we have the Old Testament books, we have we have the core New Testament books, and we have early creedle statements, which later morphed into what we call the rule of faith. The rule of faith was something that existed even past the first century where Christians would summarize the entire Christian system in a in in a few statements. It could be a form of an early creed but was sort of a a theological summation of what Christians believed and those those are consistent across the empire. We can see the rule of faith being articulated and repeated and affirmed uh across a wide range of of locations.
>> Wow,
>> that's pretty crazy. Uh so so the the apostolic tradition unwritten tradition oral tradition e extends beyond the first century and it um what was it they said uh the uh these theological truths were propounded by this rule of faith that's found everywhere. It's ubiquitous and
>> that's why you have so many heresies because heresies are just as old as the church. [laughter]
>> Yeah. So, how can he hold on to soul script Torah though? That's what I don't understand. Right. Um, very weird. Uh, it existed past the first century. So, after the New Testament was penned, you still have access to these theological truths. What are the truths? truth about Jesus, what he is, what he isn't. Truth about salvation and how you're saved.
>> How can See, that's where I I think William would this would be uh we would set the table for William here because uh how could you concede that and still be a soul scripturist and a Protestant,
>> right? Um because you have baptismal regeneration, you have the substantial presence of the Eucharist, you have uh episcopal order, episcopal authority, teaching on uh sacred tradition. I mean, you name it. Not to mention, you also have data about the the Old Testament being different than the Protestant Old Testament, right? You have evidence of the duderoconical books being authoritative.
>> Yeah. It seems to me like you know this as if you know in the first let's say second century like every Christian believe the same thing you know I mean duh yeah sir sure but at the same time you have these different heresies pumping you know uh brought up here and there and the church was always struggling with these heresies. So um what determined orthodoxy? The scriptures. Well, everybody the scriptures,
>> right?
>> So I mean [snorts]
>> Yeah. Exactly. So they weren't operating on the Bible alone for those centuries. They had credle statements that morphed into the rule of faith. You know, it's very interesting stuff. I just don't know how you square that with soul scriptor. Uh here's let's do our next quote
>> that besides this well the criteria language can give that impression and I and I I think that's really not what's what happened. I think what what what Christians were doing is they were persuaded these books were from God for reasons. Of course they had reasons but it wasn't as if they were the standing over these books. Rather there was already an ingrained theological sense among Christians that if you were going to have a book that came from God it had to come from someone who has an has a position that could speak for God. In other words, not just anybody could write a divine book. Not just anybody can speak for God. Not just anybody could come along and write a really good book and get it in the Bible. Um, even the the first century Christians would have understood that based on the Old Testament, the books that that that we would count as author authoritative have to come from people who are authorized to speak for God. In the Old Testament, those people were called prophets. But what were they called in the New Testament? They were called apostles. So I think the the sort of central backbone of the canon is is this idea that these books come from Jesus's authorized spokespeople, his spokesman, his his his apostles. They they could speak for him. So why would the early Christians think that something like First John should be in the canon or the Gospel of Matthew should be in the canon? Not because they they they sat around and had a committee that voted on criteria, because it's a built-in theological part of the matrix of their faith, starting with Judaism and on that you you look to God's authorized spokesman to to speak for him. And there's they're the only ones that can speak for him. And
>> okay, so okay, boy, there's lots of things that I I'd love to comment on.
>> you know, this whole idea of authorized spokesman, right?
>> Mhm.
>> Um, and then there's prophets and apostles. Of course, prophets, there are some books that we we in the Old Testament, we don't know who the author is, right? So, we can't establish that it was written by an a prophet, and they likely wouldn't have that information in the first century either.
>> And then we have people writing Old Testament books who are not described as a prophet like Ezra, right? Or
>> Right.
>> Nehemiah.
>> Right. Exactly. And then what do you do with uh Luke, right? Luke is not an apostle. He's not a spokesman. Uh he wrote Acts and Gospel of Luke. Of course, they'll say, "Well, Paul affirms them." And we'll talk about that later. But he was not an apostolic man. So obviously there had to be apostolic approval for the community to say this non-apostpostle gentile uh his writing is scripture and same thing with Mark too. Mark uh wrote uh Peter's discourse you know recorded it but he wasn't an apostle. So what do you do with that? I'm not sure. But um interesting stuff. And what about you know other associates like Clement who was associated with Paul?
>> Yeah.
>> Why isn't his letter to the Corinthians inspire scripture if you know Luke who isn't an apostle but but is you know an associate to apostles that is okay that isn't affirmed as inspired. But then why Clement is not? And by the way, Clement guys, I think it it claims to be inspired. [laughter]
>> Yeah, right. That's true. Uh, yeah, so Lo says uh maybe try to score away uh with soul scriptor by applying rule for thee and not for me. Yeah, nicely said. Uh, yeah, nice story. Um, totally concedes apostolic authority. I don't get his argument for soul script Torah. Am I missing something? Well, he's not arguing for soul script Torah. He's arguing for the New Testament cannon, but the stuff that he he conceds in trying to establish the New Testament cannon. I don't know how you could hold on to soul script Torah at the same time without it being a very weird mix or I I just don't know. I I don't know. Uh SoCal says soul scriptor is impossible. I agree. Uh Gary 2.0 is with us. Hi, Gary 2.0. 0 authorized spokesman code for apostolic tradition knew the apostles and were ordained by them. Yeah, exactly. And we'd agree with that and that's what's so troubling about this.
>> Yeah.
>> It's like, yeah, we can affirm that, but how do you affirm it? That's weird.
>> And just another problem to it, you know, uh the New Testament doesn't tell you who can write in spy scripture. Uh there are no limits to it. And so if you're a cessationist, why so? You know, if there's nothing about cessation.
>> Exactly. Yeah. I didn't know this. Uh Basil Jet. Hey, nice to Welcome to the channel, by the way. By the way, guys, if you're new to the channel, please do us a favor. Like, subscribe, hit the bell. If you want to be members to support us, that would be great. Also, Patreon as well. Uh the Orthodox claimed that Luke was one of the other disciples on the road to Emmas would give him apostolic credibility. I I haven't wasn't familiar with that. But where is that in the New Testament, right? I mean for a solos scriptorrist they would say yeah that would be a possibility but that's tradition.
>> Yeah. maybe subscribes to fellable collection of infallible books theory. Uh, no. You know what? Krueger doesn't really do that at least. Well, he does. I actually I can't speak for him. I I don't know, but I know he he does respect the historical evidence for the canon. That was Polycarp quoted Tobit. Yeah, that's true. Um, let's see. I'm just looking here. Prayers for Apocrypha apocalypse. Thank you for putting that up, Gary 2.0. I have never heard the Luke theory. So, what's the sort? Yeah, I haven't heard that one before either.
>> Me neither. Uh, but I think if if you actually argue that in academia without some pretty substantial evidence, they would probably not accept even though if you're arguing for a canon in a Protestant uh seminary, I think they would not accept that.
>> Yeah. But okay, let's move on to our next cult.
>> Yeah. So, it's interesting there there were discussions in some of these peripheral books and there's a there's a few books floating around from time to time that some Petristic authors really seem to like and you have a couple very small snippets here and there where they they seem to indicate that some some church fathers may have have viewed them as scriptural from time to time but this is very minimal. The Shepherd of Hermas is the classic example. The Shepherd of Hermas is a second century production. Uh probably comes out of the Roman context in the middle of the second century. um is is really an apocalyptic style book where this person has visions from from uh an angel. Um and it was it was quite orthodox and quite well-loved and quite well-liked. Um but never really was a serious contender for the cannon,
>> but at least was popular enough for one of our earliest canonical lists to mention it. Uh this earliest canonical list we have is called the Merritorian Fragment or the Merritorian Cannon is sometimes referred to. And the author of the Murtorian cannon, we don't know who this person was, lists all the the the received books, but then makes a few comments about other books. And one of those books is The Shepherd of Hermas. And what's really telling is that it's it's obvious by the context the Shepherd of Hermas is popular and well-loved and well-liked. But the author of the Meritan Fragment says it's not to be seen as part of the canon. And the reasoning is really interesting. The reason given is it was uh written recently in our own time. That's why the shepherd of Hermas could not be seen as scriptural. So what's lurking behind that? Not not written or written recently in our own time. Well, the obvious context is is that the shepherd of her doesn't come from the time of the apostles. It doesn't come from the first century when the apostles could have been could have been the author. So it may be an orthodox book. It may be a helpful book, maybe a useful book, but it could never be a real contender for the canon because it doesn't go back to the authorized spokesman. And by definition, if it's written in the second century, it could never be written by one of the authorized spokespeople for Jesus. So, so that particular example just solidifies what we said a minute ago, which is apostolicity was the the backbone of the canonical enterprise. And the same thing.
>> Okay. So, um I have the the fragment here um or the the pertinent area for the fragment. Um so, Shepherd of Hermas, why wasn't that accepted? again.
>> So, um, hold on a second. Did I skip the slide? Nope, I'm behind. That's what I am. There we go. I'll have to make this a little bigger. So, some of the things he said about the murder fragment, I'm not sure really checks out. Okay. For example, um, first, uh, I'll just read it for everybody since it's quite small. says, "There is also circulated one by the Lodessans and another by the Alexandrians forged under the name of Paul in regards the heresy of Marcion. And there are several others which cannot be received by the church, for it is not suitable that g be mixed with honey." And the Epistle of Jude indeed and the two ascribed to John are received by the Catholic Church. both the wisdom written by the friends of Solomon in his honor and the apocalypse of John and that of Peter we receive which lasts however some do not wish to be read in church it's interesting the duderoonical book of wisdom is mentioned in the New Testament which is very strange and then he says the shepherd moreover which was written by Hermas quite recently in our time in the city of Rome while his brother Bishop Pas sat on the chair of the church of the city of Rome and therefore it too should certainly be read. Now in this context this sounds like it should be read in church.
>> Mhm.
>> I mean just like John's read in church and wisdom and Jude. Um, but he says it's not canonical because it's recently written. Um, I don't know how that works. uh yeah, you know, and the problem is also that he is drawing his conclusion from this single document the murder fragment whereas and you know me Gary um I I do think many people did uh think that the shepherd is scripture for example Araneas of Leon I I do think he does cited a scripture And I don't see any, you know, difference when he's going to argue that revelation was accepted very early on. Then I don't know why shepherd not, you know, because it seems to me it's like the same story with the two. They're they both uh sided early on and they got re they got in controversy later on. It seems to be the very same thing, you know,
>> right? and and and yeah, as you pointed out here in the on the slide, the dating is also a little bit controversial. I think the consensus it comes from the second century, but there are scholars who are contesting that as well.
>> Yes. Yep. Yeah. And some of the things see I I think the the problem of its canonicity is a bit more uh sharper than I think Dr. Krueger realizes uh he kind of disses it as well this is an apocalyptic document. Well, so is revelation right? Uh he he says that um this is not apostolic but he did see Jesus right in the her claims that Jesus he had visions right including the shepherd who is Jesus hence the name the shepherd.
>> So if Paul you know his apostolicity is affirmed by his vision of Jesus on the way to Damascus.
>> Yeah. Um, couldn't the early church say, "Well, maybe this guy, you know, had a vision of Jesus. Maybe it's somehow apostolic." But the thing is, like, I agree with them. It's not canonical, right? But we do it for two different reasons. Like, it wasn't part of the deposit faith.
>> Yeah.
>> And that's how we can make the cut off. But I think if you kind of put those aside and just say, okay, if I'm just looking at the the data, even as a non-atholic with a critical eye, I think it's actually a much more difficult thing to say shepherd is not in the New Testament. And like I said, at least how I read this, it sounds like Mertorian fragments affirming it. So I I don't know. That's very strange.
>> Yeah. And that's what I also said previously. I mean, why are you even a cessationist? Like, why couldn't the author of Shepherd of Heras write inspire scripture? And I think that's a very good example with Paul. Like, Paul wasn't an an apostle originally. So then, I mean, why do we accept Paul but not the shepherd? Like, just because a century of difference? I don't know.
>> Yeah. Yeah. where exactly is the cut off? And that I think that really is the difficulty with the New Testament canon is since disciples can write inspired books that are canonical. Uh when does that cut off, right?
>> Yeah.
>> And uh I don't think he really has an answer. Okay. To the 49th part. Okay. Let's take this down. Let's go back to the video. By the way, welcome everybody to Pocket of Apocalypse. Um, let's go.
>> And Jude and James had a little bit of conversation about them. Don't think that's 50/50 either. Um, it took time for some of the dust to settle on those books. This is a really key point. People People tend to think that if there's ever a book that's disputed, they always assume in their mind I I found this in many conversations over the years. They always assume in their mind that it's like a it's like a 50-50 dispute. You know, if you if you say there's disputed books, they have this impression that it's like, well, half the church thought it should be in and half the church thought it should be out. What I want to remind people of is that even the books we say were on the edges,
>> they were never actually real contenders. I mean, The Shepherd of Hermas, like you said, had a few spatterings of comments, but it was never really a serious contender. And then on the flip side, books like Second Peter and and Jude and James and had a little bit of conversation about them. Don't think that's 50/50 either. um it took time for some of the dust to settle in on those books, but we still see a very strong movement in favor of those books alongside the denters uh from a
>> Okay. So, I found this to be a interesting point of his that um don't assume that when something is disputed that it's a 50-50 dispute. [laughter]
>> Yeah,
>> that sounds a lot like some of the stuff we've been putting on the channel, right? when you get these lists right and uh some fathers may qualify like Jerome you know
>> uh does that you know, do we imagine it to be half of the church is with Jerome and half the church is against Jerome I mean actually John Kelvin says something like that in his antidote where he says that uh since Augustine and Jerome differed on the canon we should assume that the church didn't make up its mind on the cannon in the 4th century Um, so that's sounds like a 50/50 spot, but I actually thought that was a a pretty insightful, you know, that our imagination often looks at disputes as being some it could be a lot more than meets the eye.
>> Yeah. Yeah. And when you ask me, I think, you know, the problems with lists and whether it was 50/50 is much more serious with a book like Revelation than with the duo cannon actually because uh Gary, you just did this phenomenal. And by the way, guys, if you haven't seen that, please check it out. Gary's video on Philis. It was brilliant. And of course, also thanks to Father Capus, whose Greek is just phenomenal.
>> [laughter]
>> Yeah.
>> Uh that was great. Uh so this is why I wanted to say so Anilokia says that and isn't it true Gary? Enilia says that the majority rejects revelation.
>> So it's not even 50/50. It's the majority.
>> Yeah. [laughter]
>> So you don't even have something like that for the dud cannon saying, "Oh, it's the majority who are rejecting these books." But when it comes to revelation that's what empoius says. Now of course you can interpret that okay majority where right? So like majority in the whole church majority in iconium where envelopius lived or what what did he mean by majority? Yeah, that's that's that's a good question. But then you have guys like Jerome in letter 129 who says for the east and now that's quite explicit. It says for the east revelation is not canonical and for the west Hebrews is not canonical. That's a lot right? If you're going to stick to the word canonical because we are not interpreting this word a word canonical as you know, most of the Protestants do. I think we laid it out pretty uh pretty obviously that there was a different concept of the word canon or canonical and it meant something else what we mean today. But if we go with the word canonical, how Protestants interpreted that it means inspired, then you have a huge problem because was general making this up and if not then then it's really 50/50, right?
>> Right. Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. Um, yeah, that's what Yeah, you uh you read my mind because uh I I was thinking about Infilioas as well uh on that point. Uh, what did I do? Here we go. All right, let's continue. Here's why. One of the things we know about the the the order of these books in the canon is significant. Um, the fact is, yes, these these these these cotices included books like the the uh uh first encyclment, for example, at the tail end, but the fact that they were at the tail end is significant. You know, if you would have taken those letters and put them inside the the typical 27 book corpus and slotted them in alongside the letters of Paul, I think we could have a conversation about that and think, okay, well, what did the scribe intend by putting them there? But by putting at the end I think is not at all indicative of the canonical status because when we look in the early church and we look at canonical lists in the early church which is another form of ordering books often at the end they put useful books or other books that were part of the conversation that aren't in the canon but still are seen as valuable or profitable. Um and I think that's what's happening in these cotices. These are these are not seen as equal to the gospels or Paul but yet still valuable and useful books.
>> Okay. So I thought this was kind of a example of dudo duplicity in a way. Uh now of course they're talking about the cotices, the great cotices and um yeah, so basically by having first and second clement at the end that that would entail that they're just uh um edifying literature, right? And there's some truth to that. I I agree with it. You know, I'm not totally against what he's saying. You know, you could also say that maybe it's chronological, right? that the the last books to be written would be at the end and so you'd have Revelation and first and second Clement, right? So I don't know if that necessarily follows that it's extra canonical. Um, but he notice he says here um I tried to do it word for word as I was typing so excuse my typos and whether this is not entirely accurate but he says if now if these books were slotted in the corpus then we can have a discussion right remember he said that so um I thought wouldn't it be fun to look at some of the u the order of the the corpus new testament old testament So left-hand side the Old Testament list, right hand side, New Testament list. This is from Lee McDonald's book biblical cannon. So I want to get a hat tip to him. You have the the Vaticanis synacticus fashita actually the Alexandrianist and Clare Montis. Now notice at the end you see first and second Clement also the Psalms of Solomon. Now that may be an indication that it's not accepted Psalm of Solomon. It's kind
of weird that it's there. Uh, then you have Hermas at the end, and Synacticus, um, and Barnabas as well. You have Revelation at the end of Vaticanis, and Hebrews at the end of U Claramontinus. So, yeah, maybe, you know, that would be a clue. But remember how he said it. Now, if they're slotted in, then that would show that maybe they did accept these books.
And, uh, oh, where's that slide? Don't tell me I lost the slide. Here we go. So, here's the Old Testament. Look it, guys. It's slotted in. The very same thing that he said. You know, that would show, you know, we could have a discussion then as far as how order speaks to canonicity, right?
>> Yeah.
>> Um, yeah. So, what do you do with this? Um, yeah, exactly.
>> So, it would make sense with the New Testament, well, yeah, we could reject these books because they're they make up an appendix at the end, like, you know, other helpful books do in other lists. But when you look at the Old Testament, you don't see the slotted in thing. And which is weird, especially if what he says is true, that the Old Testament canon was closed and fixed before the time of Christ. You think we'd have all of this ironed out by the 4th century? I don't know. What's your thoughts on that, David?
>> Yeah. Uh, duplicity. [laughter]
>> Due duplicity indeed. Yeah. Somebody's Well, I should come up with a t-shirt. Dudo duplicity. Uh, that's folks, if you aren't following the channel, that's when you have one set of criteria for the New Testament or the Protestant canon, Protestant Old Testament, and entirely different criteria for the the deuterocanonical cannon. Um, so, uh, it's basically different weights and measures being used. And I thought it's interesting with Krueger because he's trying to defend the New Testament, and he's laying out all this stuff first that seemed to go way beyond sola scriptura, and then, uh, you know, then he says something like this, that if it's slotted in, it's evidence that the the scribe perhaps saw it as equal to the um, uh, the um, New Testament stuff. Um, you know, there's also this other aspect, too. Actually, let's, let's continue a little bit. Let me make sure I got, uh, this up here. Yes, I do. Okay. I I I have like three screens I'm trying to maneuver through, and I'm behind on the chair.
>> Um, one thing I do point out is that, you know, take the Gospels, for example. If, in fact, the canon was as in disarray as people often claim, why don't we ever find a codex that has a mix of canonical Gospels and apocryphal Gospels? Never happens. Every time we see a codex with multiple Gospels, it's always Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Um, and never is it Matthew, Mark, and Thomas and Peter, or Matthew, Mark, and Philip and Mary. It's always Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. So there is a sense in which Christians had, uh, you know, a pretty tight sense of which books belong. But that didn't keep them from time to time from putting these other books at the back end of the codex as useful for reading. So the idea that that tack-on could override all the other other evidence we have, I just think isn't a fair use, uh, of what we're seeing historically.
>> Okay. So I agree with that. Right. Mhm.
>> Um, on the other hand, you know, that also brings up the question of why is it that we don't have any major codices of the Old Testament that that um omits the entire deuterocanonical canon? Why is it that no codices conform to the Protestant canon?
>> Yeah.
>> Because I think his line of reasoning here, kind of that would be your expectation, right? It's pretty tightly knit. There's no added material. Well, if there So, how do you explain the deuterocanonical canon? Why isn't there any codices that reflect the Protestant Old Testament? Why are they never assigned to an appendix like they are in early Protestant Bibles? Your thoughts, David?
>> Yeah. Yeah, that that were exactly my thoughts. I mean, just as you said, you would expect the same, you know, format or pattern in the Old Testament, uh, content, just as in the New. Uh, you can expect them being there, but then you would apply the same, same, you know, order of the books. I think.
>> Right. Yeah. Absolutely. Okay. Now, this, now they get into the Dead Sea Scrolls.
>> In these codices or codices that they have other functions for this community, maybe teaching functions, but doesn't imply they're equally authoritative or or canonical.
>> Yeah. I mean, I always tell my students, you know, if what if what if your what if your personal library at home got buried in the sand for a thousand years and they found your personal library? What would they conclude your books of scripture were? You know, could they say, "Well, this person, we can tell in this person's library he really loves C.S. Lewis. So he has a bunch of books by C.S. Lewis, so he must have thought C.S. Lewis was scripture." I mean, that's that's crazy. You don't just look at a library and conclude that everything in it is equally valuable. Um, and you have to look at other factors to determine what a what a person views as scripture versus something else. Um, and that's the Dead Sea Scrolls is exactly like that. Of course, we find a library, and a library is going to contain, you know, going to contain biblical books. It's also going to contain extra-biblical books, but we don't just by virtue of finding them in the same locale, put them all in the same level of authority.
>> Okay, hang on. Okay. Okay. So that's perfectly reasonable, right? We just because a book is present at Qumran doesn't mean the the community there accepted it as canonical scripture, right?
>> Yeah.
>> Um, but it's, it's not all up for grabs at Qumran, is it? Because, uh, David, both you and I, we've done things on the channel here where we talked about the special formatting.
>> Right. Mhm.
>> And there is, there is text, um, by the way, there are deuterocanonical texts at Qumran. You have, uh, Hebrew and Aramaic Sirach. You have Hebrew and Aramaic, uh, I think you have Hebrew, uh, Aramaic Tobit.
>> You have,
>> you have Jeremiah, Epistle of Jeremiah, which is the sixth chapter in Baruch. So three deuterocanonical books are present. By the way, Esther is not present at, uh, in Qumran, but the, uh, the, uh, copy of Sirach is actually formatted in a way that seems to be exclusively for biblical books.
>> So, it's true that simply because you find something in a library, right, it doesn't necessarily mean that it affirms it as, uh, scripture or canonical, right? But there's a lot more evidence, isn't there, David, in terms of that formatting?
>> Yeah. Yes. That's, uh, and and by the way, the one who actually made this point was Emanuel Tov, one of the prominent scholars of the on the, uh, scriptures from the Judian desert. And in fact, this is not, you know, related only to Qumran, but also this, the same thing is true for the scriptures that were found in Masada. So, yet we have another location where we have Sirach in this same special format reserved for biblical books. So we have two, two locations where we have Sirach in the same format.
>> Yeah. And also Cairo Genizah for later ones too, seem to have that same format.
>> Um, so, yeah, so it's, you know, what they, their point in general is is true. It's interesting, but, you know, that also is very interesting in terms of the Old Testament canon. Um, let's continue.
>> Tell us that they're necessarily on equal status as one another, similar to what we see in these codices or codices that they're they have other functions for this community, maybe teaching functions, but doesn't imply they're equally authoritative or or canonical.
>> Yeah. I mean, I always tell my students, you know, if what if what if your what if your personal library at home got buried in the sand for a thousand years and they found your personal library? What would they conclude your books of scripture were? You got the wrong timestamp there.
>> to something else. Um, and that's the Dead Sea Scrolls is exactly like that.
>> I'm sorry.
>> By the way, what what if you have missing books in the codices?
>> Yeah. Right.
>> Your functional canon is just the books you use. And by the way, this is true inside the Bible. There's the functional canon. What is everyone going to read? The Gospel of John, Romans, Galatians, you know, and a few others.
>> Is their functional canon. But then also functionally, you know, no slide on Lewis sometimes people read extra-biblical books.
>> Talking about Lewis, sorry.
>> The words. So do we have less confidence in those books than we do some of the other books and what is the evidence they really should be included in the canon?
>> Yeah. So each of those has its own story. Uh, and this is the thing I always tell people is that, you know, it's easy to take a group of books that have some level of dispute about them and and put them in a pile and say, "Oh, yeah, look at all these disputed books." But each has their own story.
>> A good example, this is is the book of Hebrews.
>> Um, the the ongoing discussion you're describing about the book of Hebrews actually was not about its canonical status. It was actually about its authorship.
>> Um, there wasn't actually a movement in the in the later church that says, "We're going to kick this out of the canon." Actually, there was quite a bit of unity around Hebrews quite early, um, in terms of its canonical status. What there was is an ongoing dispute about who the actual author was. Now, people will hear that and go, "Well, how could you have certainty of canonical status but uncertainty about author?" Um, because of the apostolic links again, why, why was Hebrews regarded as canonical even though the author was unclear? Because we knew enough about the author, uh, to know that this was an apostolic person. And if someone goes back and reads Hebrews chapter 2, it's very clear that the author positions himself as an apostolic man, so to speak. He's in the apostolic orbit and gets his, uh, his his information from the apostolic community. And so the the author of Hebrews actually positions himself a lot like Luke, interestingly.
>> In fact, there's a number of folks that think Luke is actually behind Hebrews. That was true in the ancient world, originally floated by Clement of Alexandria, suggested that maybe Luke was the translator of Paul here, and that, yeah, it's sort of Paul, but it's really Luke. And then in the recent years, David Allen, a more modern scholar, has made a full case for Luke and authorship of Hebrews. Um, I'm not necessarily [clears throat] convinced of that, but but
>> Okay, I guess that's far enough. Um,
>> so Hebrews, uh, the dispute was over authorship, not canonicity. Um, correct me if I'm wrong, Gary, but I don't think Hebrews is in the Muratorian fragment, but you know, just for comparison because he brought up the Muratorian fragment for shepherd.
>> Yeah, that's interesting.
>> And Hebrews is not there.
>> That's right. Yeah. Let's see. I could probably bring that up to you if you don't mind me flipping through this really quick because
>> because he might he might argue of course Hebrews is cited very early on and we're going to say sure and the deuterocanonical canon is cited very early on. Right.
>> Right.
>> So he's he has to bring something additional to that. Now he cannot bring the Muratorian fragment if I'm correct. I don't think it's on the list.
>> Right. Yeah. Yeah. Very good. Um, also, um, the, so there was no disputes with Hebrews as far as its canonicity.
>> Uh, [laughter] yeah, remember, didn't we just, was it Jerome that said, is it Revelation or Hebrews that it's not accepted in the West?
>> Can?
>> Hebrews.
>> Yeah. Okay. So that's that doesn't
>> Hebrews, like Jerome says, Hebrews is not in the canon. Now, it might be due to authorship, but it's not in the canon. That's definitive. That's what Jerome says. And isn't also Anastasius saying that Hebrews is disputed?
>> Yes. Yes. Um, although he believed it was genuine.
>> Yeah.
>> Um, so that's that's interesting, right? Okay. So, I'm not quite sure that's, you know, he's given a general spitball generalization, but, you know, somebody could push back on that. How about the apostolic wink that it's canonical? In other words, it's kind of like, we know it's canonical because the church presents it as canonical. Basically, the apostolic church. Then you'd have to ask yourself, well, how do you know the apostolic church winks, right? And, uh, you know, that through the rule of faith, right, oral tradition, and, and to claim that Hebrews presents itself as the author who had apostolic contact is weak, right? Because any document could claim authority, right?
>> Yeah. But, you know, the other thing too is, and this is a little bit duplicity, is if authorship doesn't necessarily prevent something from being canonical, then like Wisdom is attribution to Solomon. You know, some early church fathers believed it was, uh, Pho, um, maybe the Muratorian fragment might have alluded to that. And then you have Baruch, who's sometimes quoted as Jeremiah. That shouldn't affect the canon question, should it?
>> Yep. Yep. Exactly. Yeah, that's a very good comparison, Gary. And yes, actually Baruch, for the first two centuries at least, was known as Jeremiah. It, it all started with Origen, you know, calling it Baruch, but it was always Jeremiah. It was attributed to Jeremiah. Then you have books attributed to or or stories attributed to Daniel or Esther, of course, and, and, yeah, and you made a very good point that of course, any, uh, letter can claim to have an apostolic authorship. So that's not going to resolve the whole problem. And there's another thing, just I don't want to forget. Uh, I'm, I was, uh, surprised he didn't bring up Second Peter because Dr. Krueger wrote a whole article on Second Peter.
>> >> And I think he knows this is the weakest link, you know, weakest, weakest.
>> >> That's that's the next clip, David. [snorts]
>> >> Okay.
>> >> It's the next clip. So, so you're, you're already anticipating it. So let's hear what he has to say. By the way, AB, hey, thank you so much for the super chat, my friend. No, it's not a party until you come, AB. So thanks for turning this into a party. Boy, I got so much in the chat room I got to catch up on. Uh, no, actually, it's a lot of internal discussions. Okay, guys. Yeah, please click, do a thumbs up, subscribe if you haven't subscribed, please. And also, we appreciate your support on Patreon and memberships, too. Having a lot of fun with our, uh, uh, get-togethers that we have.
>> Um, okay, here we go. David, I think this is the clip.
>> On the concept we talked about earlier, which is this idea of of evidence within early Christianity that would have given us a reason to think the canon grew up organically, innately, intrinsically. And one of the pieces of evidence of this is in fact the the the interconnections between New Testament books where one book views another book as scripture within, uh, the New Testament itself.
>> Now, okay, so this is duplicity. Okay, you ready? [laughter] So he's going to give evidence of how the New Testament affirms certain books within its corpus. Okay? So pay close attention to the indications that the, uh, writers in the New Testament believe something is inspired scripture.
>> And the examples of that are obvious. You mentioned a couple of them. Second Peter 3, where Paul's letters are right alongside the Old Testament as scripture and called graphē. I think that's tremendous evidence that by the mid-60s, if you date Second Peter to the mid-60s, which I do, that you've got a sense that apostolic books are scriptural books. Peter seems to affirm that about Paul.
>> What's interesting in that context is that it's multiple Paul's books. There's clearly a Pauline letter collection. It's not just, uh, one letter of Paul. We don't know how many are in this collection in Peter's mind, but it's clearly a Pauline letter collection.
>> The other thing that's interesting about the way Peter sets that up in Second Peter is he mentions it sort of off the cuff. He doesn't he doesn't say, "Have you heard of this guy Paul? He's really great." Or, "You know, we really ought to consider Paul's letters to be scripture. I know you probably don't agree, but let me make my case for it." It's, it's he doesn't he doesn't present it like the audience would be shocked by it. He presents it to his audience that as if they know Paul, they have Paul's letters, and they already agree at scripture. It's, it's an incidental sidebar comment that he makes, which I think shows you that it's already a widespread thing by then, uh, that Paul's letters are scripture.
>> Okay? So, that's how he knows something is scripture. When it's quoted as the scripture, graphē in, uh, Greek, and it's quoted as if it's not at all controversial. It just throws, you know, Paul's letters as what, like the rest of the scriptures, right? Um, and that type of stuff. So if that's true, if that is true, that that indicates an affirmation of the authority and inspiration of Paul's writings, whatever those are, because he, he says it's not indicated how many or which, then, you know, why can't we use the same criteria for the deuterocanonical canon? So, let's see here, guys, sorry, I'm way behind on my slides. Okay, here we go. So I just listed some instances where the deuterocanonical canon is cited as scripture, graphē, if it was Greek father, scriptor, if it was a Latin father. So we got these, these, got these, got these. [sighs] Got these, right? All these instances where deuterocanonical books are being cited, quoted as scripture. Yeah. Trying to squeeze even more. Um, wouldn't that count as evidence that this is authoritative scripture? I don't know. Um, and again, it's when they cite these books, they're not citing them as, well, you know, there's this book here that you might not be familiar with. It's, it's called Sirach, and some like it. So I'm just going to cite it, right? No, they just assume the audience accepts it. A lot like Second Peter, uh, Second Peter, where Peter just speaks about Paul's letters as just, I mean, so upon what basis can, why is it the New Testament therefore affirms Paul, but the early church, when it uses the same kind of affirmations, doesn't count?
>> Right.
>> That's why I don't understand.
>> Yeah. And it's the very same church he is establishing the New Testament canon. Right.
>> Right. [laughter] Exactly. Which adds like a whole new level. So when, so it's not just the New Testament, you know, quoting previous scriptures, but even like church fathers, you know, oh, but they quote Revelation very early on. They quote Hebrews very early on. Yes. And they quoted Sirach very early on.
>> Right.
>> So where's the problem? I don't understand. Right.
>> Right. Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. Uh, let's continue. Uh, here we go. And and and just, just what this last thing, notice what he says, this organic, you know, development. Um, you know, the first time I heard this is was from Dr. Ortonland, or it's very the canon, how it develops, it's organic. These guys never explain what does that mean, organic. [laughter]
>> That's right.
>> What's an organic development and what is not organic development? I, I, I don't really know because Second Peter pops up the very first time in Origen. That's third century, guys. Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> How do you know it's apostolic? It doesn't tell you. And, and everybody knows that, you know, it's written in a very, you know, different style than First Peter. And, and if Origen is the first guy, and even Origen conceded it's disputed, then how is Second Peter, you know, organically became scripture? I don't know. [laughter]
>> Right.
>> Of course, I'm not attacking this. It, I do affirm it's scripture. And, of course, we have different standards for what is scripture and what is canon, but, uh, I'm just, you know, trying to understand what he tries to say. As I said, he wrote an entire article, and I don't see anything organic behind Second Peter.
>> Right. Yeah. You know, I think what it is, is, you know, what's organic is where it doesn't depend on church authority.
>> And he, he makes a big straw man about the church, uh, having a criteria and saying this book's in, this book's out, and then here, accept these books only. And that's what he thinks is artificial. The organic thing is that they knew this through apostolic tradition, which is actually exactly what the Catholic Church teaches. It's like the biggest straw man in the world about, you know, that Catholics, and we'll, we'll get to those clips, God willing, um, coming up. But, uh, here's another clip I want to get to. By the way, guys, if you're new to the channel, you haven't subscribed, please consider subscribing. If you wouldn't mind hitting the like button, we'd appreciate that as well.
>> So there's less built-in need to convince the audience in a way we feel the need to be convinced given the milieu in which they're being raised.
>> That's right. I mean, it's almost like someone wants to say, unless Paul waves his hand and goes, "Guys, I'm writing scripture. I'm writing scripture as I write these words," that I won't understand that his books have authority. But he didn't have to speak that way. Um, it was clear that he's writing as, as an inspired spokesman for Jesus. He's writing as an apostle, as you indicated, Galatians and other places, Paul goes out of his way to say, "Hey, what I'm writing to you, this is really important because it comes from Jesus himself." And then there are passages where Paul basically does effectively equate his written words with the authority of Jesus. I mentioned one of those passages in 1 Corinthians 14, where Paul basically says, "The words I'm writing to you are the commandments of the Lord." Um, and so there I'm like, yeah, he didn't call it graphē, but I'm like, that you're missing the point. That's a nomenclature game. The question is, how would those words have been received? And what's interesting is that the earliest Christians, when they're talking about Paul's letters, Paul's letters were scary. Like the Corinthians,
>> So did you catch that? It doesn't say graphē. It doesn't say scripture. They don't call it scripture. These these liberal theologians, right? They're saying, "Well, he doesn't call Luke scripture, so you can't say it's scripture." And he says, "That's just the nomenclature game, right?" What's more important is how it's received. So, you know, let's talk about the nomenclature game for a second. Okay. [laughter] So, yeah, this is, uh, we've been really punching this book a lot. Not necessarily intentionally, but it's just, you know, it's, it's on the radar screen.
>> Sure. And it, so here's an example of the nomenclature game, right? Note that, uh, I think this is talking about maybe even Amphilochius. He alluded that to Sirach, Ecclesiasticus, and Wisdom of Solomon in his extant writings. Yes, this is Amphilochius. He found the teachings in the books useful for exhorting or exorting the church, but he did not refer to him as scripture. Boom. [snorts] There we go. Nomenclature game,
>> right?
>> >> And then, uh, and then we find this as well. This is, uh, I forgot what he's citing here, but same thing, right? Note that his 16 citations of Baruch are given without the label of scripture. So in the New Testament, see, when when Paul is quoting Luke, it doesn't need to say it's scripture. That's just nomenclature game. But in the early church, if they don't say scripture when they're quoting the deuterocanonical canon, then it's not canonical.
>> Yeah. Uh, by the way, if you go back to that Gallagher slide, if you can, please.
>> Yeah, sure.
>> Uh, is this about Origen?
>> It probably is. I'm sorry. I should have had the context here for you guys. This is a footnote.
>> Yeah. So it's interesting because it says none of his 16 citations of Baruch give it the label scripture, but he does use the formula "it is written." I noticed this and I emailed this to you, Gary, that I, I, um, I know this is not about Gallagher right now, this, this whole presentation, but I noticed this very inconsistent approach when it comes to these little notes in Gallagher and me's book, you know?
>> Because elsewhere where he points out, oh, but that book is, and that was, by the way, a protocanonical book, I think, or or a New Testament book, and I don't know if it, I think it was in Irenaeus, I'm not really sure. He says it's cited with the formula "it is written." Oh, then it's obviously scripture. And when it comes to Baruch in Origen, he has to point out, oh, well, it is true that it's cited as "it is written," but not as scripture. You know?
>> Right. [laughter] Yeah.
>> >> And, and then when it comes to, you know, the deuterocanonical canon elsewhere, he says, "Well, it is cited as scripture, but since it's not on the list, then it doesn't matter." So,
>> >> Exactly. Yeah. Right. It goes, goes flip-flops both ways. Yeah. I, I saw the same thing, too. Yep. And it gets confusing.
>> Now, go ahead.
>> Yeah. And last thing, you know, as he said, well, you know, he is the Lord is speaking through me. Like, how many times have you seen the fathers, you know, they cite the deuterocanonical canon with words like, such, you know, "the Lord says through," you know, "the book of Wisdom," or something like that, many, many times.
>> Exactly. Um, yeah, in fact, [laughter] you anticipated, David. This is scary. You're like reading my mind. I have some quotes that I'd like to share with you. For example, it's like, for he says, "Now, this is, I believe, the Lord." Yeah. "The Lord says," and then it quotes Wisdom. So the Lord is speaking in the book of Wisdom. It says, "Now, on account that Solomon called Wisdom the artificer of all things, since God is in no respect poor, but richly able to create and make it very increasing all things." So, uh, let's see, "for," says, "the Wisdom of God." So the Wisdom of God is speaking. Okay.
>> Um, next slide. Uh, if you can read this, it says, "Our instruction comes from the porch of Solomon." That's a quote. Um, you have over and over again. Um, we read of God as being the searcher, witness of souls. Cut from the prophet's voice. The scale comparison of God citing Baruch, uh, over and over again, it's like, "The Holy Spirit says through Solomon," the, yeah,
>> son, speak, you know, um, the prophet teaches, Solomon established in the Holy Spirit testifies and teaches.
>> Divine scripture testifies and it says, "From the Holy Spirit teaches also through Solomon that those who please God." Over and over again, you have these attributions where, just like Paul says, you know, "I'm writing the commandments of the Lord," we have the early church fathers citing deuterocanonical books, um, as the Wisdom of God is speaking, the Son is speaking, uh, Holy Spirit.
>> Holy Spirit. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Over and over again. Um, let's see. Uh, yeah, "The creator decreed that should be required to help one another as it is written." So the creator decrees in Sirach. So again, if what Dr. Krueger is saying about the New Testament, if Paul presents himself as speaking or giving his writings as the commandment of the Lord, then how are we supposed to interpret the early church fathers when they use these books this way?
>> Yeah. The very same church fathers he is dependent on
>> when, you know, trying to figure out what the canon is.
>> Okay, guys, I need to bug out. There's like a minor emergency here. So I'm sorry. But we'll have to do part two, David.
>> Sure. And we can have William on so you can enjoy this.
>> All right. So, please remember to subscribe, like, hit the bell, and we will talk to you later. Bye-bye, everyone. [music] [music] Heat. Heat. [music] Heat. [music] [music] [music] Heat. Heat. Heat.