How was the Old Testament Canon Formed?

How was the biblical canon formed? Who chose the books and why were some excluded? In Part-1 of this 5-Part series, Mike Licona interviews the foremost expert on the topic of canon formation, Lee Martin McDonald. In this video, they discuss how the Old Testament literature was chosen and when. Was there an Old Testament canon when Jesus was alive?
LEE’s BOOKS
Keep It Simple: amzn.to/36GsUPO
Intermediate: amzn.to/33Ci3El
Advanced: amzn.to/2GC42xP
Expert: amzn.to/3nu3BGm
On the literature that did not make the cut: amzn.to/3d98tfj
Mike Licona is associate professor of theology at Houston Baptist University. HBU offers a fully accredited Master of Arts degree in apologetics that may be completed entirely online or on the HBU campus in Houston. For more information, visit bit.ly/2Wlej6Z.
WEBSITE: www.risenjesus.com
FACEBOOK: / michael.r.licona
TWITTER: / drmikelicona
Buy "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus": amzn.to/38vTfNU
Buy "The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach": amzn.to/2NOOZkT
Buy "Paul Meets Muhammad": amzn.to/2RdEFoB
Buy "Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?": amzn.to/36dzc5C
If you like Mike's work, become a patron by visiting his new Patreon page at / risenjesus
#canon

[@henriquecaldeira]

Great stuff! Professor McDonald is an exemple of intellectual honesty!

[@MuraleetharanKanagalingam]

Providentially I ran into your U tube and then subscribed. Wonderful. To God be the glory. greetings from Sri Lanka, Dr Muralee

[@flamingswordapologetics]

This was excellent Mike. Looking forward to the rest of them, great interview, great information!

[@josiahwatson728]

Mike you are an absolute rockstar. I have greatly enjoyed all the content you've put out!

[@T_Mike]

This was a lovely discussion. Thank you both :). Will be checking out Lee’s books

[@seekingagnostic3962]

Thank you very much for this interview and the exchange in the chat. I'll definitely check out Dr. McDonald's books.

[@MikeLiconaOfficial]

You're welcome, Seeking Agnostic!

[@IslamCritiqued]

Hey Mike, the “default” setting for ads makes watching difficult. This video has at least 13 ad breaks- and each break has two ads. Thanks for the content! Much appreciated.

[@MikeLiconaOfficial]

Thanks for letting me know. I just changed the settings. Hopefully, that will reduce the number. Of course, the video is 43 minutes. So, there will be more than in the shorter videos.

[@IslamCritiqued]

Mike Licona thank you sir

[@MikeLiconaOfficial]

@@IslamCritiqued I just noticed how many there were. I didn't know I could change the number of video ads. I just did and now there are about half of what you experienced. Thanks again for the alert!

[@highlighter609]

@@IslamCritiqued Can’t believe you’re here, love your content!

[@albusai]

Love your content brother

[@bibletruth187]

Mike, I love what you do,thank you so much ,Great Job -) I've found you by watching Gary Habermas.

[@ThoughtDecoder]

Dr. Licona, I just love your setup. Your video quality is ultra clear, transitions between your shots are neat, and the side-by-side shot of you and your guests are really clean. How are you doing this? Software? Hardware? What do you use?

[@MikeLiconaOfficial]

I'm glad you like it! I had a donor a few months ago who provided funds for us to get some quality equipment. I'm using a Fuji XT4 camera with f/1.4 23mm lens. Cameron Bertuzzi of Capturing Christianity gave me advice (he's a pro photographer as well as a popular KZbinr). For the software, I'm recording with Ecamm Live and editing in FCPX.

[@ThoughtDecoder]

@@MikeLiconaOfficial Thank you. I figured you were using products from Apple (Ecam and FCPX). Your picture clarity is clearer than Cameron's, maybe because you have more light. But I haven't seen anyone with as clear a live video picture. I'm using a Gh5, OBS, and streaming live to KZbin. It's okay I guess. Thank you for responding.

[@andreewendel5048]

Thank you very much for this interesting conversation!

[@LetsFindOut1]

this was a good interview thanks. can i ask what camera you're using here if you recall? the auto focus is so good.

[@user-xz4bd5do3w]

Hello sir. I just have a suggestion regarding the live videos. If after every talk you could give 10 to 20 min on questions maybe on the live chat it would be wonderful. God bless you and your work

[@d.torrent1822]

Mike, there's a point where the camera focuses on your books behind you, I spotted Birger Gerhardsson's Memory and Manuscript. GREAT BOOK! 💪🙌

[@MutsPub]

Excellent. Thank You. Looking forward to the other segments.

[@MagdalenaLilla]

This is going to be very interesting. Can't wait to see it. 📖📚📝

[@RoomThreeEleven]

Very good, looking forward to this series of videos. Dr McDonald said that there was no list recorded by the Jews of a canon until the end of the second century, however, Josephus makes a list in Against Apion 1.8. This might not fit Dr McDonald’s conception of a canon list and that’s why he didn’t include it, but I think it’s worth mentioning that this is an early reference to a list of 22 books and Josephus gives a description of the different categories and how many books are in each category.

[@MikeLiconaOfficial]

Nice point. I'll ask Lee about that and post his reply.

[@MikeLiconaOfficial]

David: I heard back from Lee. Here's his reply: LEE: “The text he has in mind is Ag. Apion 1:37-43. The text does not identify the books in the list but only mentions Moses, which everyone assumes reasonably means the Torah or Pentateuch, but there are 13 prophets that are not identified and four others that he calls the "hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of life. Everyone knows that there are not 13 prophetic books in the subsequent listing of the books by category and the four others do not fit the Writings that comprise the third part of the Hebrew Bible. The specific books are not listed in Josephus and scholars often guess which ones he had in mind from his other writings, but there is considerable uncertainty over that collection since Josephus also praises some now identified "non-canonical" books. Essentially only Josephus lists the genres and not the specific books. The first listing of the specific books in the Hebrew canon is in the b. Baba Bathra 14b text that dates from 180-200 CE/AD. MIKE: Although Josephus did not provide a list, he does say there are “only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine” (Apion 1:38). Doesn’t that suggest there was a Jewish canon in the first century? LEE: Actually no. He is the first to cite 22 books and as you will see in my discussion of the 22 or 24 books, both are the numbers of the Hebrew and Greek alphabets respectively and in neither case is the exact number of books 22 or 24 since both combine books to come to that number. The numbers were holy numbers and focused on that which was divinely complete and authorized. More importantly, when the status of several biblical books and Sirach was questioned by the rabbis in the second to the fifth century, no one brought up how that would affect the specific number of sacred books. The number was that which was holy as in Revelation where the alpha and omega are mentioned in reference to God and to Jesus, but without anything related to a specific number. The question of the 24 elders in Revelation is later mentioned in Gospel of Thomas, as you know. Always, it is a reference to what is holy and not the specific books involved. Were most of the books of the HB determined by the end of the first century. Likely yes, but not clearly since the listing varies, as in the case of Josephus, and the specific books vary in Josephus' Antiquities and Jewish Wars. The first time we see a specific number is in b. Baba Bathra 14b (ca. 180-200 CE) and after that there is no regular use of a tripartite division of those books until the fifth and sixth centuries. The most frequent designation is Law (or Moses) and the Prophets for the rabbinic sages with only occasional references to the Ketuvim. The long time questioning of Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Ezekiel, Sirach, and others without any reference to a specific number suggests the move toward accepting sacred books as 22 or 24, both divinely ordered collections. As you know, Homer's Iliad and Odyssey each has twenty-four chapters and each beginning with a different letter of the Greek alphabet. That is the only classical collection so divided. The Jews eventually followed the 24 number following the Greeks.

[@RoomThreeEleven]

Thank you very much Dr Licona, this is helpful and really interesting. I’m looking forward to the next videos.

[@GoProHdHero2Camera]

@@RoomThreeEleven Hey David, I want to thank you for bringing this to my attention. I am looking forward to the upcoming videos and am listening to this one right now. I appreciate our discussions about the canon and their order over time. They have just mentioned the protestant bibles containing the same thing the Hebrews had except the order. This would be the Masoretic text. What about the Septuagint that our Lord and the apostles used? You mentioned the changes in the pronouns. Are these changes in the Septuagint?

[@DrKal-qd1ls]

An awesome discussion

[@javiermendieta446]

Thank you very much Mike, I enjoy a lot listening your podcast, but It is a real plesuare to see you on video. God bless you

[@MikeLiconaOfficial]

Thanks much, Javier. I'm glad you're enjoying them. Be looking for a very cool video where I interview a top NT scholar. I anticipate it being posted within the next 2 weeks!

[@javiermendieta446]

Thank you Mike, from Santa Cruz de la Sierra

[@BornAgainRN]

@@MikeLiconaOfficial I was raised Catholic and graduated from a Catholic college, which is where I converted to being a Protestant. One of the first topics I was interested in was the formation of the canon. A few years ago, you had recommended Dr. McDonald’s book to me, “The Biblical Canon,” which I used among other scholarly resources (F.F. Bruce, Bruce Metzger, etc.) while I was compiling my own book, “Why Protestant Bibles Are Smaller,” in response to Gary Michuta’s book, “Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger.” I debated Gary, as well as Trent Horn from Catholic Answers, last year on the OT canon, which I used predominantly Catholic resources to defend the Protestant OT canon both in the debates and in my book. I was wondering if you would be interested in a similar discussion like this, from the perspective of someone who was raised Catholic, and used Catholic resources including from the Vatican to support the Protestant OT canon. Because of my background as a Catholic, as well as utilizing other scholarly resources that Dr. McDonald did not cover in his book, I believe I could share with you some additional historical, as well as fresh, perspectives on the canon formation. I would be happy to send you a complimentary copy of my book.

[@blueorangeblossom]

Hello; I really appreciate this content was wondering if you can add captions..I’m not sure how it is done but you can usually hit captions and they pop up. You can also add them manually but I think there is a way to do it automatically (but I’m not sure) anyway I’m struggling to follow because it’s new information to me and I sometimes put on captions to follow things like this. Thank you I am currently studying the reliability of the gospels. Much appreciated information and wonderful guest. Thank you.

[@marsman1211]

Interesting topic!

[@jdiaz4877]

Amazing stuff! I learned alot from this video, sometimes people use the language barrier as a motive to destroy the Word but we know we have God's word in our hands!

[@melissamelgoza6621]

Dr. Licona, which version of the Bible do you think is most accurate (Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant)?

[@Unknown_Disciple_Of_Christ]

Definitely have to purchase his books

[@angelcasillasjr4779]

Awesome video

[@juliescheving7951]

This is fascinating!!! I’m going to trust God’s timing in why I say/hear this is 2 years after it’s post. Absolutely fascinating stuff!!! Thank you for posting…always! Always brings me to deeper thought.

[@SupremeSkeptic]

I am quite a few decades younger than Lee... but he has much better memory than me.

[@arthurofalbion]

Dr. Licona's advice to accept many translations is good, but I suspect that he would apply it even to 'translations' like the popular NIV, which prioritise conveying what the 'translator' thinks the original text _means_ over conveying what the original text _seems to say._ It is the latter that a true translation seeks to convey, above all else. Genuine translations include the NASB and the ESV.

[@MikeLiconaOfficial]

James: I think you'd find this discussion on English translations with Dan Wallace helpful: kzbin.info/www/bejne/kJu2c6GQiMZkpbM

[@johnnyhaigs243]

More interview less advertisements would be nice.

[@MikeLiconaOfficial]

Thanks for your patience, Johnny. I'm learning as I'm going. After reading your comment, I played around and saw the number of times KZbin had video ads on this vides. Yikes! I just deleted several of them. So, now there are half of what you experienced.

[@johnnyhaigs243]

@@MikeLiconaOfficial aha I really enjoyed the talk so far. But I couldn't blink without having to see another advert on top of another! I'm guessing KZbin have the maximum number of ads as the default or something? They are very $$$ driven.

[@mjt532]

16:35 We're not talking about the Book of Enoch, which is a movie with Denzel Washington. Mike, it's the Book of Eli... which I believe is in fact canonical. ;-)

[@MikeLiconaOfficial]

Ha! Yep, my mistake about the Book of Enoch rather than Book of Eli! :-)

[@BrightFrame]

@@MikeLiconaOfficial i think you can put connotations in the video signifying the error you made

[@str.77]

"which I believe is in fact canonical" ... depends on which canon you mean

[@machuscarabias1876]

Thank you

[@tigistyiheyis5737]

You know Miki God with you !!

[@jamalkhan3708]

Great show 👌👍❤️

[@gregorytremain4086]

Would the Muratorian Fragment be an early New Testament Canonisation?

[@aaronmonroe7932]

He said that there was no Canon of old testament in Jesus time. So when Jesus kept saying it is written, what was he referring to? Or did the author of the gospels put those words in Jesus’s mouth?

[@johnsix.51-69]

The Jewish sects read from the Torah, but some did not go beyond that like the Sadducees. That is why Jesus doesn't quote anything outside of the Torah when He tells the Sadducees about the resurrection. He could have easily used another book to prove the resurrection, but He didn't because they didn't hold those books as authoritative.

[@jasonrichards1982]

Mike, great video as usual. I love discussions on this topic. I'm wondering when it was said that there was no set old testament canon until after Christ I understand that means that there was no formal listing of such but didn't Jesus affirm the Jewish collection of books when he spoke of the first and last martyrs of the Hebrew bible? Abel and Zechariah? from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.’ - Luke 11:51

[@MikeLiconaOfficial]

That's a good question, Jason. I've asking Lee the same on behalf of David Ross and will post an answer when he gets back to me. Check later with David Ross's comment below.

[@jasonrichards1982]

@@MikeLiconaOfficial Great! Thanks Mike 👍

[@aaronmonroe7932]

We don't know who wrote Luke and Luke was written much later than the other gospels. It is very possible that the unknown author of Luke inserted words into Jesus mouth.

[@sdjnjferri]

9:50 This is coming from a lay person here, but there had to be an Old Testament Canon before Christ; how on earth could they decide what books to include in the Septuagint? He is saying that because we don't have a documented list in the Mishna (or even the Talmud for that matter) that they didn't have an accepted canon, but I'm not sure we can say they didn't have a accepted canon in the time of Jesus. They had something! My question is, do we have a Septuagint that has any non canonical books?

[@johnsix.51-69]

Different sects only read from certain books. The Sadducees only read from the Torah.

[@user-gr3oo5ux9x]

Thou art that which incarnates into the dreamstate always

[@user-gr3oo5ux9x]

Both sides of the debate are convincing.you are suggested to go within and seek out what is true for yourself.reality itself is very convincing yet reality has no reality.reality exist in the human mind and nowhere else.we make it all up.we dream it all up. Unreal dreamers in an unreal dream

[@REDRAGON12345]

Interesting interview! Although I tend to disagree that there was not already an agreed upon list of Old Testament books, from which Jesus and his opponents argued from and about. There may have been a few books which were still somewhat in question, but the large majority was agreed upon as being God's word. F.F. Bruce and Craig Blomberg, among others, make this point

[@malcolmdavid722]

The 24 ‘public’ books were formally adopted by Judaism @ Jamnia 90ad as their OT canon, (same as the Roman 39) They then added their talmud (or traditions of the elders) in preference to the other 70 Hebrew books which were rejected. So Christians read the Jewish canon and not the Hebrew scriptures. The question is are you ok with that ?

[@REDRAGON12345]

@@malcolmdavid722 Thanks for sharing your opinion on the matter, Malcolm. It should be noted form the outset that the so-called "Council of Jamnia" is a hypothetical construct, which has been challenged and largely discredited by scholarship. Jack Lewis writes, "These ongoing debates suggest the paucity of evidence on which the hypothesis of the Council of Jamnia rests and raise the question whether it has not served its usefulness and should be relegated to the limbo of unestablished hypotheses. It should not be allowed to be considered a consensus established by mere repetition of assertion." And F.F. Bruce states, ""probably unwise to talk as if there were a Council or Synod of Jamnia which laid down the limits of the Old Testament canon." The article on Wikipedia goes as far as to say, "Other scholars have since joined in and today the theory is largely discredited." The question is, are you okay with this? I will go with Craig Blomberg on this, "“The most important thing to say at the outset is that all the first followers of Jesus were Jewish so that they already had a uniquely sacred Scripture, the Hebrew Bible, or what Christians would come to call the Old Testament” divided up as the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (646). While virtually all the Old Testament was already set and agreed upon, there were still some debates about certain books, including Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon. Blomberg notes, “…nothing before or after the rise of Christianity would ever supplant or supplement the 39 works (counting according to English book divisions) of the Old Testament" (647). Continue to study the issue, friend, and follow the evidence where it leads! Go ahead and take the last word, if you want.

[@malcolmdavid722]

@@REDRAGON12345 Thanks Justin. Modern scholars can decide what was deemed history for many years [ie Jamnia] is now not correct. That may or may not be right, I haven't researched it in detail, plus I am equally challenging the 'perceived' mainstream history given to us re 'the scriptures'. I disagree that the followers of 'Jesus' were all Jewish, we cant possibly know that, although many undoubtedly were, some may have been from the other tribes or even non-natives, eg Samaritans etc who were converted. Did the term Jewish even exist then, or were they called Yehudim, or 'of Judah', being the only Hebrew Israelite group that returned from the Babylon exile? Do you not agree ? The 'scriptures' are then equally not conclusive. We know Judaism [of Judah] adopted the 24 and Rome copied them into what I now call the 24OT39. But there is considerable evidence of the other 70 scrolls/books around at that time. The 2 Esdras 14:20 account written in 1240ad, recounts the 24 'public' books and 70 hidden 'for the wise amongst the people' held in the 2nd temple, so forget Jamnia as it would appear the 24 were around in 516bc anyway ! .... also later endorsed by Epiphanius 'weights and measures' very detailed account of the Greek translation of 24+70 books and Nicodemus both of which confirm the 70 'hidden' books held exclusively in the 2nd temple. Jamnia was then perhaps just a 'rubber stamp' job of the status quo for the Jews and their 24 books in 90ad ?? For me the evidence of the 'hidden 70' later explained away by the Roman LXX story [on which the Hebrew source is conveniently lost] is overwhelming in the light of the DSS reality, which nobody wishes to explain how these fit in ? You can now see why Eisenman said "The DSS are a time capsule from the primordial past, resurfaced to HORRIFY modern day theologians" and why the truth regarding them is still not out, 70+ yrs after their discovery ! To my mind..... the 94 books then, are the FULL set of 'Hebrew Scriptures', not just the sub-set 24OT39 used in the Judeo/Roman canons.

[@REDRAGON12345]

For those interested to learn about the purely speculative so-called "Council of Jamnia," you can read about it below. The majority of scholars (both conservative and liberal) agree that the theory of this council is vacuous. Most likely the OT canon was established and finalized in 140-40 BCE en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia

[@malcolmdavid722]

​@@REDRAGON12345 Justin - Are you then suggesting there were no books at all from 516 BC to your assumed dates and Jamnia 90ad didn't happen ? As according to 2 Esdras 14:20 the 24+70 books were re-written in 516 BC after the Babylonian captivity as all the books had been destroyed in the exile. Or do you mean they had the books, but not necessarily in an OT canon of 24 ? What about the 70 other books ? Are you disputing Esdras and Epiphanius ?

[@PatrickPease]

the idea of variants is fascinating: if you only had 1 copy of a text then there are zero variants if you have 2 copy's of "book A" then any place where even the spelling of the same word differs then all those places are called "variants" well if you have 4 copies of book A then certainly there will be approximately 2x as many variants compared to only 2 copies. similarly if book B is 2x the size of book A then it's a safe bet that 2 copies of book B would have 2x the variants our guest mentioned approximately 500 NT manuscripts (with the NT totalling about 30% of the scriptures) with a "very conservative" quarter million variants, but failed to mention how many copy's of the Hebrew scriptures (Which are approx 2x the size of the NT) those nearly 1million variants are from. He also left us in the dark as to how conservatively that number is estimated. We have at least 10,000 Hebrew manuscripts so I wouldn't be too impressed by the number of variants. I also hear scholars downplay the variants as No Big Deal when defending the NT so if they're NBD when it comes to NT how big a deal are the variants in the Hebrew? the concept of "variants" is very fascinating

[@marcusee1234nation]

The Masoretic text came later. The Septuagint predates the Masoretic text and was used as Scripture by the Christian believers in the early church. The Deuterocanical books are part of the Septuagint, so they are part of Scripture. The Orthodox Cannon was established in Nicea and includes the Deuterocanonical books. Protestants are in error because they use the Masoretic text as a basis for Cannon.

[@erichenkel4393]

Yeah that last part is wrong. The canon was not established nor discussed at Nicea. And the orthodox canon was never the canon of the early church, it was largely the Catholic one

[@mochamarie9741]

Could you all address the rumors of 777 Books total? This is totally floating around online in the Truther Communities.

[@paulkabore]

It was a serious matter for the early believers. And the copies of the Jews at that time seemed to have been somehow different from the Septuagint in some important points like the prophecy on the virgin birth. It is visible in many of the writings of the early believers in their dialogues with the Jews. ----------- Dialogue with Trypho, Justin Martyr, Pre-Nicene Church Writings, Vol. 1 "And Trypho answered, “The Scripture has not, ‘Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,’ but, ‘Behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son,’ and so on, as you quoted. But the whole prophecy refers to Hezekiah, and it is proved that it was fulfilled in him, according to the terms of this prophecy." Justin Martyr: “But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the inter- pretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy [king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying; but since I am aware that this is denied by all of your nation, I do not address myself to these points, but I proceed 453 to carry on my discussions by means of those passages which are still ad- mitted by you. For you assent to those which I have brought before your attention, except that you contradict the statement, ‘Behold, the virgin shall conceive,’ and say it ought to be read, ‘Behold, the young woman shall conceive.’ And I promised to prove that the prophecy referred, not, as you were taught, to Hezekiah, but to this Christ of mine: and now I shall go to the proof.” Here Trypho remarked, “We ask you first of all to tell us some of the Scriptures which you allege have been completely cancelled.”

[@cuthbertmweemba6850]

❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤

[@soccerlife5041]

Let’s be honest Protestants adopted the anti Christian canon adopted by Anti Jesus Jewish Rabbi Akiba Ben Joseph who rejected duetro canonical books along with Gospels. The Apostles and Jesus used Septuagint which consisted of all 7 duetero canonical books. So Protestants removed books from bible. Martin Luther had to reject deuteo canonical books or else he would have to accept purgatory. So I would recommend my Protestant brothers not to lie about the canon. Untill 19th century even Protestants had 73 books in Bible untill the British and foreign bible society removed the 7 books. So you guys removed books from bible and the Catholics didn’t add any. We have 73 books from beginning and didn’t change anything.

[@slow2speak]

You've obviously been listening to catholic answers and Gary Michuta. It's not quite as simple as you claim. There were dozens of Catholic scholars before Luther that also rejected the deuterocanon. Some even in Luther's own day. Peace.

[@jenex5608]

Here's a few Church fathers in history who rejected the Deuterocanonical. Cyril of Alexandria John of Damascus Athanasius of Alexandria Few other. The council of Laodicea rejected the books as Canon.. The earliest Canonical lists produced by the early church virtually didn't contain its entirety. Catholic Accept this books cause Trent declared so. Orthodox later accept this books cause council of Jerusalem said so. Protestant rejected this book in keeping with early tradition

[@jenex5608]

For your knowledge the septuagint contains more than 7. Some don't contain all of the 7. In other words if ur going to use the septuagint as your authority. Then u must accept books Catholic don't recognize As Scripture. Jesus didn't use the septuagint

[@marcusee1234nation]

@@jenex5608 Jesus did use the Septuagint. That was the de-facto Scripture of that time. The Masoretic text came later. The Septuagint predates the Masoretic text and was used as Scripture by the Christian believers in the early church. The Deuterocanical books are part of the Septuagint, so they are part of Scripture. The Orthodox Cannon was established in Nicea and includes the Deuterocanonical books. Protestants are in error because they use the Masoretic text as a basis for Cannon.

[@fachriP]

Subtitle please ?

[@barbeeska]

Settings Caption English

[@fachriP]

@@barbeeska thanks

[@FriendOfChrist]

I often wonder what would happen if scholars could travel in time and visit Judea, Samaria, and Galilee at the time of Jesus and ask the Lord about "Palestine." Do you think He would know what you are talking about? And if He did, would He reprimand you? As you and Dr. McDonald well know, there was no first-century "Palestine." The very name was a slap in the face of all Jews by Hadrian in the second century. Jesus was a Jew. So why do you use it? It's a sincere question. I also wonder sometimes if all academics really love Jesus. I remember how Dr. James Tour chastised Nabeel Quereshi at the ends of his life because Christianity had become all about scholarship and apologetic minutiae and not Jesus. I know these things are important, but is there a risk of them ever replacing Christ in a person's heart? They did for a long time with Nabeel -- for which he repented at the end of his life. I apologize, but I'm editing to add this. I'm really worked up by this particular video. I was disturbed by Dr. McDonald's respect for the Book of Enoch (btw, the movie was Book of Eli). Dr. McDonald seems to think the BOE should be canon in this video. The problem I have with the BOE, besides its laughable cosmology, is the 4500 feet tall giants mating with human women. Also, Dr. McDonald stated that Matthew 24:30 was only found in the Book of Enoch. What of Daniel 7:13? Is it a reference to Daniel or not? Jesus spoke of the prophet Daniel just 15 verses earlier in that passage, but He didn't mention Enoch by name anywhere. It seems more likely to me Jesus was referring to Daniel and not Enoch -- and certainly not Enoch's ludicrous 4500 feet giants who took human wives. If all pseudepigrapha were rejected, why would any scholar accept or respect anything about the Book of Enoch? Enoch had been gone for millennia when the BOE was written.

[@bushiseishin]

why is professor mcdonald mentions palestine not israel???

[@sidharthagautama5010]

Catholic/Orthodox have the Book of Sirach, Stat Trek Fans!

[@samuelimmanuel718]

If Enoch is the one who walked with God and was no more ...then that Enoch would not have written a book...reason.. //If at all he had written a book, Enoch would have written the secret tips as to how his children should walk with God and be translated into heaven. //Secondly, since Moses or other prophets were unaware of such a book, plus such extensive writings were absent in that period of human development, I mean, 3500 BC or earlier. However, the Christian Bible having Ecclessiastes and Song of Solomon as sacred scriptures are bit too much to spiritually digest after we understand the teachings and priorities of Christ Jesus and His Apostles.

[@maxiomburrows2099]

Enoch 1:1-2 kinda explains why it is not in the Bible The words of the blessing with which Enoch blessed the righteous chosen who will be present on the day of tribulation, to remove all the enemies; and the righteous will be saved. And he took up his discourse and said, “Enoch, a righteous man whose eyes were opened by God, who had the vision of the Holy One and of heaven, which he showed me. From the words of the watchers and holy ones I heard everything; and as I heard everything from them, I also understood what I saw. Not for this generation do I expound, but concerning one that is distant I speak. It may be presumptuous of me to think that it was Gods plan for what "scripture" the book of Enoch contains be hidden away until it is important for it to be revisited.

[@malcolmdavid722]

Many books, many theologians, many qualifications..... However ..... The true story of the 94 Hebrew Books can be found in 2 Esdras 14:20 and Epiphanius record which both confirm that in the time of Yeshua [Jesus] there were 94 books. 24 'public' books and 70 'hidden'. [The 24 were formally adopted by Judaism at Jamnia in 90ad, the same 24 books were adopted by Rome 325ad, but counted as 39]. The 70 'hidden' books, held in the 2nd temple were used primarily by the priests. The only other copies of the 70 being held at Alexandria by Ptolemy Philadelphus from 267bc and Dameshek [Arabic name Khirbet Qumran] from about 164bc by the exiled Zadokites [Greek name Essenoi]. The hidden Hebrew 70 were 'lost' when the temple was destroyed in 70ad. Alexandrian library was also destroyed by Rome 3x and books moved to Constantinople, but after a family feud Rome instigated a war to recover them back to Rome and the new Vatican library around 900ad. The LXX story was 'invented' to explain away the TRUE missing Hebrew 70, some of which had been used by Rome for their ITB 14, with content also used for the later NT. All ref available. This is why nobody wants to explain the DSS and the full set of Hebrew scriptures used by the Messiah.

[@bungeebones]

It always baffles me how the Pharisees (who couldn't recognize the Living Word Of God when He was right in front of them) could recognize what was the written word of God (or not) and could be trusted not to lie!

[@malcolmdavid722]

Robert Lefebvre Yes and the 24 books read by the Pharisees are same at the Roman OT of 39..... The books formally adopted by Judaism 92ad are the Jewish canon and not the full set of Hebrew scriptures used by Yeshua which had 94 books before the NT was even written... No wonder people are in the dark with half the storey !!

[@str.77]

In addition to what I wrote elsewhere, there were no Ottomsns around 900 and no Holy War to recover anything at that time, not by the Western Emperor (then a local Italian ruler) nor by the Pope (who has his worst days then). How can the LXX be a cover-up o the supposed 70 hidden books when this would raise the number of books to 94? The "Roman OT" has more than 39 books.

[@malcolmdavid722]

@@str.77 The history I read was Constantine’s 2 sons divided the empire after his death and one got the library in Constantinople and wouldn’t let his brother have his share of the books, or let his brothers children study there, So after a lengthy dispute the one in Rome raised an army to get them back. So not a holy war, or with the Ottomans, but they did end up in Rome, presumably the Vatican today. Hence my point, the 70 hidden books from the 2nd T >went to Alexandria, >to Constantinople >to Rome. There is then a direct causal link of the hidden 70 right from the 2nd temple as testified by Nicodemus / Act of PP ! I believe the LXX is not so much a cover up, more an incorrect accounting of the LXX contents on which scholars today even differ. Some even saying the ITB 14 were 200 yrs added later because of Esdras dating, when there was clearly a hebrew original in 247bc. The 24 public became the Roman 39 as a defined canon and everyone had them, but the hidden 70 were sub-divided by Rome into the ITB 14 eg Tobit etc... and the others like ‘Testament of the 12 Patriarch’ were held apart, but clearly used as source material by Paul as per RH Charles comment. Perhaps by this time the true 70 were incomplete anyway The Aristeas document doesn’t mention the 70, but all the Appendices do with a narrative supporting my investigation and theory. So the hidden 70 are the “true” LXX and what it originally contained, which explains the DSS which were duplicates of the original 70 at the temple, the Zadokites being exiled at Qumran. The cover up, if there is one, is more an unwillingness to recognise the truth that there were 94 books total in the time of Esdras and Ptolemy, but only 24 were used by Pharisees and adopted by Judaism 90AD, and not the hidden 70 of the patriarchs. The Jews captured and exiled in Babylon only took a few books hence the rabbis writing from memory. Jude 1:3 written 41ad was warning them to read the ancient books but instead they chose just the 24 public + ToE. If Rome had all 94 it begs the question why publish just a few ? Like everything originally in Latin perhaps being Apocrypha they were considered not public for use by priests only and fell into obscurity with the term LXX also becoming muddled over time with the number of translators. Until now .... that is !! My book is in progress.

[@thecircle4life]

because bible is not authoritative it is suggestive and writings are comparative for a direction. not to be foolishly demanded by denominations

[@PulsechainX]

Thanks for moving away from 'crazy' phd students. Prefer these world class academics.

[@bungeebones]

I've never found even a hint in the Bible that there would be a list or "Canon" nor any instruction from God to create one. My conclusion, then, is that the idea of a Canon is totally and entirely a man-made one and has no basis.

[@malcolmdavid722]

Agreed but.... The only instruction I have found is 2 Esdras 14:20 where the Most High told Esra to re-write 24 public books and 70 hidden for the “wise amongst the people”. The 24 became the Jewish OT same as the Roman OT of 39 Judaism rejected the 70 and Rome invented the LXX as some were used by them for the 14 ITB and some for the NT DSS are also some of the ‘lost’ 70

[@bungeebones]

@@malcolmdavid722 I believe the most reasonable explanation for there not being any predictions or edicts in any of the books is that God knew He would be placing His Holy Spirit in His people which would equip them with the ability to discern true scripture themselves. Someone with the Holy Spirit bearing witness doesn't need a "council of men" to determine what is or isn't "inspired" and that is, indeed, the way the early Church functioned before the councils organized by the controversial Constantine formed them. While we hear alot about the litmus tests they created to form the Cannon we here little to nothing of any Litmus tests that Constantine used to determine who would sit at that council. If they weren't filled with the Holy Spirit it was a council of the lost and separated from God determining what was inspired.

[@malcolmdavid722]

@@bungeebones Absolutely ! ... and the reference books I have say ‘that even money changed hands’ during their nefarious arbitrations conducted over many weeks. Thats hardly an endorsement by the holy spirit when Timothy says ALL, not just some scripture ! So why were the 70 temple books excluded ? or the DSS today ? The bible as we have it is full of inconsistency, contradiction and duplicitous theology, and not then the ‘undivided’ word of God, but the undoubted corruption of man ! The NT is not even in chronological order with Jude 41ad and Rev 64-66ad put last when considering the 1st C turmoil, they should have been first ! Not to mention the temple, Massada, or the Essenes Thankfully there were enough pious men who included random exhortations to be: Wise, seek, question, discern. be Berean, divide, test all things etc for us to decide real truth from obvious fiction for ourselves. Have you ever seen a floating tablecloth ? Me neither. Trust no man, Rabbi, Pope or Plasterer, is a very safe starting point !

[@str.77]

Without a canon you simply have no Bible. Even when you only assume that Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy are one big work, you have created a canon. PS. Isn't this idea of distinguishing "man-made" from something else a man-made idea?

[@str.77]

@@malcolmdavid722 The LXX was translated by Jewish scribes in the 3rd century BC, even a hundred years before the first Roman ship arrived in the East.

[@clarkbates6177]

Accept that Jude doesn't say that Enoch is a prophet, in the same way that Jesus says that Isaiah was. Jude says that Enoch "prophesied". Saul is also said to have prophesied, as does Zachariah in Luke 1, and numerous others who are not considered to be speaking or writing Scripture. This would suggest that just because an individual is said to prophecy, does not make them a prophet in the same sence that the major and minor prophets are. Enoch seems to fall more into this category for Jude than Macdonald's view, given the way it is presented. It's not disputable that 1 Enoch was a popular book, but again, popularity does not equate to canonicity.

[@Iamwrongbut]

Was David a prophet?

[@clarkbates6177]

@@Iamwrongbut not in the sense that the major and minor prophets were, no.

[@Iamwrongbut]

@@clarkbates6177 What about all of the psalms that David wrote that became scripture? Especially Psalm 16 which the NT claims was a prophecy about Jesus?

[@clarkbates6177]

@@Iamwrongbut what about them? Writing a book or contributing to scripture doesn't make one a formal prophet. But to stick with the point, McDonald says repeatedly that Jude calls Enoch a prophet. Jude does not do this. Arguing for the canonicity of 1 Enoch on the basis of Jude is question begging.

[@clarkbates6177]

@@benjamind547 I'm not question begging, I'm acknowledging a pattern of the usage of the phrase "X prophesied ...." There are multiple biblical accounts of men and women prophesying who are not considered prophets. Likewise, only the statements made in those instances are considered prophetic. Given that 1 Enoch is never addressed as the writings of a prophet like Isaiah and Jeremiah and others are, but only a piece of something he said that aligns with Jude's argument is mentioned, it requires far more internal evidence to believably claim that 1 Enoch was considered inspired Scripture by Jude or any other NT. Partial inspiration certainly applies to instances where someone is given a prophetic word for a moment.

[@jannmutube]

---- > The Old and New Testament were ordained by God through the Holy Ghost. ... Numbers 2: 5-10, "5 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 6 Bring the tribe of Levi near, and present them before Aaron the priest, that they may minister unto him. 7 And they shall keep his charge, and the charge of the whole congregation before the tabernacle of the congregation, to do the service of the tabernacle. ...... Jeremiah 36, "27 Then the WORD OF THE LORD came to Jeremiah, after that the king had burned the roll, and the words which Baruch wrote at the mouth of Jeremiah, saying, 28 Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah hath burned." . ... John 14: 26, ".... John 14: 26, Jesus said, "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."

[@malcolmdavid722]

That doesn’t prevent people changing it In fact Jeremiah 8:8 talked about “the lying pen of the scribes” in most translations... plus no two versions are the same... History demonstrates many scrolls have been burnt so we have no absolute certainty todays version(s) are correct.

[@jannmutube]

​@@malcolmdavid722 ---- > Your knowledge of history is lacking. The Dead Sea Scrolls validate the Old Testament to about the 2nd century B.C. The Apostle John is believed to have lived until about 100 A.D. The Ryands p52 fragment from the New Testament Gospel of John carbon dates between 90- 150 AD. P52 includes John 18: 31-33 and 37 -38. So, what can we understand from that? It shows 1) the death Jesus would die was because of his testimony that he was is be the Son of God, the prophesied Son the Blessed (Mark 14:61-62, Daniel 7: 13-14). 2) The truth, Jesus came to bear witness to in John 18: 37-38, is the testimony of God's promise and witness of the Old Testament prophets(in large part, Isaiah) that God would provide a seed, a sacrifice to redeem mankind. www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+18%3A31-38&version=KJV Papyrus 52 - a Fragment of John's Gospel - Bible Research www.bible-researcher.com/papyrus.52.html Qumran Text from Isaiah Scroll: .... Isaiah 53: 11, "Out of the suffering of his soul he will see light*, and find satisfaction. And through his knowledge his servant, the righteous one, will make many righteous, and he will bear their iniquities." www.hebrew-streams.org/works/qumran/isaiah-53-qumran.pdf . ----- > Jeremiah 8:8 doesn't say the scribes corrupted the scrolls, only that what they were teaching was corrupt. Also, God personally protected the scrolls during that time. ... Jeremiah 36, "27 Then the WORD OF THE LORD came to Jeremiah, after that the king had burned the roll, and the words which Baruch wrote at the mouth of Jeremiah, saying, 28 Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah hath burned." .

[@malcolmdavid722]

@@jannmutube I don’t disagree with any of that in terms of content, except you are quoting and verifying accepted books, not books that were excluded, such as the missing Hebrew 70, the first of which were the books of Adam & Eve. Many OT versions quote Jer 8:8 as the ‘lying pen’ etc and I have proved by my own research that words, passages and whole books have been corrupted, taken out and or totally changed. Im just pointing out indisputable facts. All bibles are different and God is not the author of this confusion, mankind is !

[@jannmutube]

@@malcolmdavid722 ---- > I don't koow waht all books you're referring to but The Word of the Lord (Jeremiah 36, "27-28) and the Dead Sea Scrolls say otherwise. You believe apocryphal books but not the inspired word of God. Our main concern is about God's plan of redemption not whether ants talked to Solomon or a rock took Moses' clothes and ran with them.

[@malcolmdavid722]

@@jannmutube I decide what is inspiring to me, not what somebody apparently authorised a long time ago. That's just plain stupid. PLUS the OT is only part of the story, the other 70 books being equally valid. You should read the 'Testament of the 12 Patriarchs', truly inspiring stuff, but excluded from the Jewish OT presumably because 11 of them were not Judah ? .... What do you think ? Logic dictates I actually trust the extra-biblical books more, because the Masoretic Text on which the OT is based was written a 1000 yrs after the DSS and was corrupted 5x with dubious practises. If your conscience raises questions, then you are probably right because the books were corrupted a long time ago.

[@IowaRonin]

Septuagint was what Jesus and the Apostles primarily used. Dead sea scrolls confirm that the Septuagint was from a couple hundred years before Jesus. The post Jesus Jews changed many of the verses that were being used to prove He was the Messiah. Protestants prefer the OT from the anti-Jesus Jews versus the OT used by the earliest Christian churches. SMH Orthodox and Catholics didn't add anything. Protestants rejected some because of their anti-Catholic bias.

[@luizverdecanna8023]

Hit the nail on the head.

[@waynetrains8693]

The Orthodox have more OT books than the Roman Catholic OT canon. Both Roman Catholics and Orthodox agree that ALL the OT books in the Protestant canon are inspired by God, but they can't say the same for each others OT canon. Nice try pretending you two denominations have unity on this subject in order to bash Protestants tho

[@IowaRonin]

@@waynetrains8693 The Eastern Orthodox have a slightly different canon of Scripture. Everything in the Catholic canon is included in the Eastern Orthodox canon, but they have some additional parts: 3 & 4 Maccabees Psalm 151 The Prayer of Manasseh in Chronicles 1 Esdras The reason for this is that while the New Testament canon was essentially universally agreed upon by the fourth century, minor variations in the Old Testament persisted through the Great Schism (c. 1054). These differences, as you can see, were relatively minor and nothing close to the later difference between the Protestant Old Testament and the Catholic/Orthodox Old Testament. Another reason for the difference is that the Eastern Orthodox do not hold the same legalism as the Catholic Church when it comes to inspiration and canonical status. For them, it is a bit more fluid of an understanding; canonical simply means that something is acceptable to be read in liturgy. Even today there are some slight differences between the Eastern Orthodox Churches in regard to what each Church considers canonical (i.e. to be used in liturgy). For example, some Eastern Orthodox Churches do not read from the book of Revelation at divine liturgy. Hence they would not call it canonical, but they would still consider it to be divinely inspired and morally binding. In this fluid approach the Eastern Orthodox are very similar to ancient Judaism. In Western Christianity the Catholic Church makes no distinction between canonical and inspired. We also have with exactness defined what books and parts of books we accept. In eastern Christianity the Orthodox Churches have have not made such exact definitions and see the differences amongst themselves as so minor as to not require any further action. Watch the Brant Pitre video on the Jewish council in Jamnia (90 AD).

[@waynetrains8693]

@@IowaRonin Thanks for confirming that Roman Catholics and Orthodox have no unity on the OT canon.

[@IowaRonin]

@@waynetrains8693 Let us all pray together. 🙏 O God, Who wills that all men should be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, send, we beseech You, laborers to Your harvest, and give them to speak Your word with all confidence, that Your message may run and may be made plain, and that all peoples may know You, the only true God, and Him Who You have sent, Jesus Christ our Lord, Who with You lives and reigns in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, world without end. O God, Who sets straight what has gone astray, and gathers together what is scattered, and keeps what You have gathered together, we beseech You in Your mercy to pour down on Christian people the grace of union with You, that putting aside disunion and attaching themselves to the true shepherd of Your Church, they may be able to render Your due service. Through our Lord, Jesus Christ, your Son, Who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, one God, forever and ever.

[@dalex60]

Christians discussing ancient Jewish mythology...