First, I will give the basic arguments of reformed theologian Dr. Ian Paisley as they were presented to me, and I will respond, demonstrating that each argument is entirely false with specific responses exclusively from noted Protestant scholarly sources. The following points of Dr. Paisley are the strongest standard arguments most Protestants give. If someone has others they are welcome.
1. First argument of Paisley: The Jews never accepted the DB and they were not part of the oracles committed unto them (Rom. 3:2) Furthermore, they are not written in Hebrew.
Response:
This is totally false. Paisley makes no distinction between Jews of the diaspora and Palestinian Jews. Palestinian Jews rejected the DB, but the Septuagint, which is the Greek version of the OT composed in the 2nd-3rd century B.C. at Alexandria, Egypt by 70 or 72 Jewish scribes, was used by non-Palestinian Jews. It is a well known fact that the Septuagint (LXX) was both the Bible of the diaspora Jews and the Bible of all the early Christians, as will be proven below. Further, it’s also a fact that the LXX contained the DB, as will also be proven below.
Protestant scholars admit the LXX was the bible of the diaspora Jews who were far more numerous at the time of Christ than Palestinian Jews.
1. Oxford University church historian Paul Johnson, in his book A History of Christianity, writes:
“There was already [in the first century] a huge Jewish diaspora, especially in the great cities of the eastern Mediterranean-Alexandria, Antioch, Tarsus, Ephesus, and so forth…The Greek adaptation of the Old Testament, or the Septuagint, which was composed in Alexandria was widely used in diaspora communities…” (pg. 10-11).
2. Baptist textual scholar Lee McDonald, in his book The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon, writes:
“It is most likely that these [DB] books were considered by the Jewish community holy or sacred well before the time of Christ, and that they were simply received by the early Christians as part of the sacred collection they inherited from Judaism. There is evidence that at least some non-canonical books had their origin in the land of Israel and were translated and transported from Israel to Alexandria and probably wherever Jews lived in significant numbers in the Roman Empire . The grandson of Ben Sirach [the writer of the deuteroncanonical book Ecclesiasticus]…lets us know he was translating for the Jews in Alexandria . The NT also has many allusions to some [deuterocanonical] literature found in the LXX, and the oldest Christian collections of OT scriptures contain much of that literature” (page 90).
3. Furthermore, the Protestant Fausset’s Bible Dictionary, under “Apocrypha” states:
Apocrypha= “…the writings added in the LXX, I and II Esdra, Tobit, Judith, the sequel to Esther, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Song of the Three Children, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon…” (page 42)
4. Furthermore, the Protestant Nelson’s New Christian Dictionary, under “Apocrypha” says:
“The Septuagint incorporates all of them (with the exception of 2 Esdras), and they are not differentiated in any other way from the other books of the OT” (page 40).
5. Renowned evangelical scholar F.F. Bruce writes also of this well known point in his The Canon of Scripture:
“However much the wording of Stephen’s defense in Acts 7 may owe to the narrator, the consistency with which its biblical quotations and allusions are based on is the Septuagint is true to life….As soon as the gospel was carried into the Greek speaking world, the Septuagint came into its own as the sacred text to which preachers appealed. It was used in the Greek-speaking synagogues of throughout the Roman Empire ” (page 49).
6. Renowned Protestant patristics scholar, J.N.D. Kelly, wrote in his well-known Early Christian Doctrines:
“It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the 22 or 24 books of Hebrew Palestinian Judaism. It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition the so-called Apocrypha, or deuterocanonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was not the original Hebrew version, but the Greek translation known as the Septuagint…most of the scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew” (page 53).
7. As to whether any were ever written in Hebrew, which Paisley denies, scholarship says quite different:
F.F. Bruce writes:
“…Yeshua ben Sira…in Egypt in 132 B.C, translated his grandfather’s book of wisdom, commonly called Ecclesiasticus or Sirach from Hebrew into Greek” (Canon, page 31).
Baptist Lee McDonald quoted above (no. 2) agrees the DB were transported from Israel and translated from Hebrew into Greek at Alexandria.
Furthermore, it is well known that the Dead Sea Scrolls found at the Qumran community contain DB books that are in Hebrew, as Charles Pfeiffer’s book The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible demonstrates (pages 16-17), as does McDonalds Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon on page 81, where he notes that Ecclesiasticus was found in Hebrew in caves 2 and 11 (page 81).
Besides, it wouldn’t matter if there were no DB in Hebrew at all (though there are), since I can simply ask upon what grounds does Paisley and the Protestant say that a book “must be written in Hebrew to be canonical”? Says who? Does the Bible say that? Of course not, and it’s obviously an assumption that is totally irrelevant. Dr. Paisley: the New Testament is not written in Hebrew, so does that disqualify it? Of course not.
2. Second argument of Paisley : the New Testament never quotes the DB and early Christians never used it.
Response:
This is totally false, and can be shown to be incorrect by a few simple examples:
1. Ecclus. 11:31 and 2 John 10.
2. Ecclus. 11:18-20 compared with Christ’s parable of the wealthy farmer in Luke 12:19.
3. Further, Jesus’ statements about the eye making the whole body dark in Matthew 6:22 seem to clearly refer to Ecclus. 14:8-11.
4. Further, Wisdom 12-13 is almost exactly parallel with Romans 1.
5. Wisdom 2 contains a lengthy, clear prophecy of Christ.
6. Hebrews 11:35 refers to women and children who refused to be delivered from death (martyrdom) that they might receive a better resurrection. Now, there is nothing like this in the Protestant canonical OT (based on the Palestinian Jewish canon), where a woman refuses to have her children saved in order to merit for them a more glorious resurrection. But there is exactly that situation in 2 Maccabees 7, where the mother and her seven sons refuse to be delivered so that they might obtain a better resurrection.
There are several more examples than these, but these suffice to prove Paisley and the Protestant wrong.
Furthermore, a book’s being quoted in the New Testament cannot be a criterion of canonicity, since Song of Solomon, Esther, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah are never quoted in the New Testament, yet Protestants accept them. Aside from that, the Book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses are quoted in the canonical book of Jude, and no Protestant accepts these two as canonical. Thus, New Testament citation is not the end all criterion.
As to whether early Christians after the Apostles ever used them, note Kelly again:
“It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative n the church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the 22 or 24 books of Hebrew Palestinian Judaism. It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition the so-called Apocrypha, or deuterocanonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was not the original Hebrew version, but the Greek translation known as the Septuagint…most of the scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew” (Early Christian Doctrines, page 53).
And the Protestant Nelson’s New Christian Dictionary:
“…the early church Fathers, including Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen cite them [the DB] frequently. Christians made extensive use of them for apologetic purposes, because some of the texts referred to the Incarnation, Logos, and the Son of God. But the reformation leaders were instrumental in completely rejecting them, and refused to ascribe to them the status of inspired word of God” (page 41).
Anyone who spends a few hours in the post apostolic fathers sees very quickly that each of them (Clement, Ignatius, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Irenaeus and others) clearly cites various DB texts as authoritative.
3. Final Paisley argument: the synod of Laodicea (341-381) did not accept the DB and that the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451) supposedly ratifies Laodicea.
Response:
Once again Paisley is entirely incorrect and does not know what he is talking about. The Synod of Laodicea was a regional, and therefore not universally binding, series of mini-synods that took place over a period of several years. Laodicea ‘s canons are quoted at least 3 or 4 times in Chalcedon ‘s canons, but what is the evidence of Chalcedon defining a non-Deuterocanonical canon, as Paisley attempts to say? There is none.
But these points aren’t the most devastating on this issue: Paisley apparently hasn’t read what the canon of Scripture Laodicea lists is: it’s a canon that no one follows: it excludes Revelation and Esther, while it includes Baruch! No one—Protestant, Orthodox or Catholic–accepts this list of books, so Laodicea provides absolutely no support for the Protestant canon whatsoever. Anyone who doubts these claims can look up online the “Synod of Laodicea” and see what Scriptures it lists. Paisley really should have done this.
This terrible argument is further blown away when one actually reads the Letters of Pope St. Leo the Great: the Pope who presided at the Council of Chalcedon. In St. Leo’s letters you find him frequently citing the DB as Scripture. Furthermore, he quotes the book of Revelation as Scripture, which Laodicea also omits. So, clearly, St. Leo and Chalcedon afford Paisley no evidence.
Why do Protestants quote Chalcedon , as if they hallowed it? Session III calls the Bishop of Rome the “universal patriarch,” in tandem with the Patriarchate of Alexandria. In other words, Apostolic Sucession. The canons of that council teach Apostolic Succession, hierarchical church government, monasticism, tradition, vows of celibacy, etc. Need I say more?
In conclusion, then, the Protestant is the one who violates the written Word of God. I am speaking specifically here to my reformed acquaintances who want to talk all day long about Greek exegesis. One can throw “sola scriptura’s” all day long, but this is meaningless when your policy for canonicity is the drunk monk (Luther) who cast seven books out of the Bible because he didn’t feel they “preached the Word.” One must admit that if this is correct, then Protestantism is built on a faulty foundation. The summits of conservative Protestant scholarship support these facts.
Bruce, as I argued in my response, is noting that Liturgy was involved in the formation of the canon. If the Churches of God established by Apostles and holding the Apostolic Tradition read these, and had them passed on to them, then this was an important testimony to their authenticity. St. Irenaeus noted:
“2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.” (Citation)
Clearly, in contrast to Keith Mathison and other Protestant thinkers, St. Irenaeus was not calling Scripture the only tradition. Mathison argues this in The Shape of Sola Scriptura. In the last line, St. Irenaeus distinguishes the two. The Oral Tradition here is the rule in the sense of a hermeneutic, passed on by the Apostles, an example of which is the Apostles Creed. It is preserved by means of Apostolic Succession via the Holy Spirit, and it is this three-legged stool which refutes the Gnostics (Apostolic Succession, Tradition, and Sacred Scripture), which is the Church, and which is filled with the Holy Spirit. St. Irenaeus goes on to argue against the Gnostics on the basis of Apostolic Succession in the next few chapters.
St. Irenaeus is not unique in his view, either. He is standard among the early Church. Bruce goes on to note about the Church’s acceptance of the LXX (the Septuagint):
“Indeed, so much did they make the Septuagint their own that, although it was originally a translation of the Hebrew into Greek for Greek-speaking Jews before the time of Christ, the Jews left the LXX to the Christians…” (pg. 26)
As I also argued, the knowledge of Apostolic Authorship is not and cannot be derived from many of the Gospels themselves. Instead, for Matthean authorship, almost all turn to the following Tradition in Eusebius:
“1. There are extant five books of Papias, which bear the title Expositions of Oracles of the Lord. Irenæus makes mention of these as the only works written by him, in the following words: “These things are attested by Papias, an ancient man who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book. For five books have been written by him.” These are the words of Irenæus.
2. But Papias himself in the preface to his discourses by no means declares that he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles, but he shows by the words which he uses that he received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their friends.
3. He says: “But I shall not hesitate also to put down for you along with my interpretations whatsoever things I have at any time learned carefully from the elders and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those that speak much, but in those that teach the truth; not in those that relate strange commandments, but in those that deliver the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and springing from the truth itself.
4. If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders—what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice.” (Bk. III, Chpt. 39)
Conservative Protestant textual scholar Craig Blomberg, in his new work, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, Second Edition, also agrees:
“Toward the end of that same century, Irenaeus affirmed that ‘Mark the disciple of Peter also transmitted to us what he had written about what Peter had preached,’ while St. Clement of Alexandria adds that this occurred during Peter’s lifetime. …This conclusion concurs with Jerome’s later declaration that Mark died in Alexandria, Egypt, in AD 62. Regarding Matthew, Irenaeus wrote that Matthew produced his work while Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel and founding the Church of Rome (Against Heresies, 3.1.1) , a reference that most naturally fits a date within the 60’s. Papias agrees that Matthew was the author of this Gospel, alleging that he initially wrote the ‘sayings’ of Jesus in a Hebrew dialect (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.16). If accurate, this tradition could suggest an earlier draft on the part of Matthew as early as the 50’s.” (pg. 26)
That Eusebius quote above is as follows:
“16. But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: “So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.” And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has been already stated.” (Citation)
So, the knowledge of apostolic authorship is based on a Patristic Tradition, and authorship is key to canonicity, as Blomberg writes:
“The conviction that apostles or close associates of the apostles penned four Gospels already in the first century led Christians throughout most of church history to believe that they recorded historically reliable as well as theologically authoritative material.” (pg. 27)
Thus, Tradition is not mutually exclusive as opposed to Scripture; it’s necessary to it, and vice versa. It’s inescapable, and top Protestant thinkers admit as much. I conclude with the words of Anglican Scholar, Bishop Westcott (of the Westcott-Hort Text fame), in his older, The New Testament Canon:
“Words and rites [Liturgy] thus possess a weight and authority quite distinct from the casual references or deliberate judgments of individuals, so far as they convey the judgment of the many….It will be reasonable to conclude that the coincidence [of Scripture and Liturgy] implies a common source: that the written books and the traditional words equally represent the general sum of essential Apostolic teaching: and in proportion as the correspondences are more subtle and intricate, this proof of the authenticity of our books will be more convincing.” (pg. 13) He goes on in the footnote to agree that Tradition and Scripture are, in a sense, independent, but complementary. That’s Westcott’s point. Scripture can also be seen as an aspect of Apostolic Tradition, as St. Paul speaks in 2 Thess. 2:15.
