Transcript for:
Debating the Canon of Scripture

glory to Jesus Christ you are listening to the voice of reason and my Patron Emmanuel sent me a video that he want me to respond to it's a video from Protestant apologist Dr Gavin Orland who is actually responding to me he's responding to my appearance on L the Roses podcast in which I talk about the canid of scripture in the early church now Dr Orland has actually made a follow-up video to his original video so in this video responding to him I'm actually going to interact with both of his videos now let me get into some observations that I made as I was watching Gavin's first video in his first video he only responds to about 60 seconds of what I said on Lila's podcast now I don't know if Dr ortland watched the entire thing I don't know if he watched the entire segment in which I talked about the cannon perhaps he was only responding to an Instagram clip or a YouTube short in which I talked about it because he only responded about 60 seconds of what I said so there was a lot of really important information that I said on L's podcast that he just didn't address and I'm not saying that he was ignoring it perhaps maybe he just didn't see it but in his video responding to me he actually agrees with the Catholic position the points that I was making on L podcast he actually agrees with and perhaps he's not aware because he didn't watch the entire thing but he actually agrees with the Catholic position and I'll go in and I'll explain how that's the case now in Gavin's first video which is just under half an hour long he spends a vast majority of time trying to prove his case from the early church fathers the only problem is that he actually wasn't addressing the heart of the Catholic argument and I will show how this is the case although in his video both in the original video and in the follow-up video he actually does touch on the Catholic argument and when he does do this it actually shows that the Catholic side of this argument is correct and he would actually agree with the argument that we make and I'll go on to demonstrate that as well and also want to show that the very quotes and citations that he uses in his videos actually don't prove the point that he's trying to prove and how many of those citations actually prove the Catholic position also it's important to note that my original video from ller Rose's podcast in that I was actually responding to Wesley Huff so Dr orland is responding to me responding to Wesley huff and then Wesley Huff actually shared Dr White's first video response to me but I actually I'm not sure if Wesley Huff actually watch that video because Dr orland's video actually disproves Wesley Huff's original position and I'm going to get into all of these things that Dr ortland addresses and how ultimately his critiques fail so there are two things that I said In that 60-second clip that Dr Orton objects to which are I just want to address these claims I think that it's very problematic to say things like your Canon the Protestant Canon can't be found anywhere in the first 1500 years of church history that's the claim that they make and the way that I respond to that is I say okay how come your Cannon cannot be found anywhere in the first 1500 years because the 66 book Cannon of scripture that Protestants use today is not found anywhere in the early church there was almost no dispute about the Old Testament in the early church there was almost no dispute over the Old Testament which is what we you know Catholics and Protestants dispute now but in the early church there was a lot of dispute over the New Testament and I'm just very jealous for the truth to be known about these things so there are two things that I said said In that 60-second clip that Dr oron objects to and in Dr oron's attempt to disprove the two things that I that I said he is going to try and prove three things on his part there was dispute in the early church about the Canon now I'm going to demonstrate in this video that there was no dispute in the early church about the Old Testament books you can find lots of Canon lists identical to or similar to the Protestant Canon now notice the words he said exact or Sim IL cannons to the Protestant Cannon but as we'll see in Dr orin's video he fails to provide a single instance of anyone that ever held to the 66 book Cannon of scripture and we'll see it for ourselves as we move forward and the third thing he tries to prove and the Roman Catholic Cannon was not settled until the Council of Trent I'm also going to show in this video that this claim actually isn't true either so let's Dive Right In so let me be clear about my position about the Old Testament canand in the early church and for these purposes when I say early church I'm talking about the first 300 years of Christian history see in the first 300 years there was no dispute amongst Christians about the books of the Old Testament and that's not just me saying it that's what the scholarship says in Dr orin's video he uses the Catholic encyclopedia which is a legitimate scholarly source that Catholics and Protestants both use but this is what the Catholic encyclopedia has to say about the Old Testament in the first 300 years of the Christian church and I quote the sub Apostolic writings of Clement polycarp the author of The Epistle of Barnabas and the pseudo Clementine homes and The Shepherd of heras contain implicit quotations from or Illusions to all of the dudal canonical except baroo which anciently was often United with jeremias and first mbes and the additions to David no unfavorable argument can be drawn from the loose implicit character of these citations since the apostolic fathers quote the protoc canonical scriptures in precisely the same manner so right here the Catholic encyclopedia says that the apostolic fathers used the protoc canonical books and the dudo canonical books in precisely the same way there was no distinction between them the encyclopedia goes on to say coming down to the next age that of the AP ologist we find baroo cited by athenagoras as a prophet St Justin Martyr is the first to note that the church has a set of Old Testament scriptures different from the Jews and also the earliest to intimate the principle proclaimed by later writers namely the self-sufficiency of the church in establishing the Canon that is its independence of the synagogue in this respect so the Catholic encyclopedia is telling us that the Christians did not have an Old Testament list of scriptures that match what the Jews used and right there that alone it actually disproves Wesley Huff's original claim because his position was that the Jews had a finalized candid of scriptures by the time of Jesus and that Jesus and the apostles use that finalized list the scholarship actually says otherwise that the Jews and the Christians had different lists for the Christian Old Testament and the Hebrew scriptures the encyclopedia goes on to say that St arenus vouches that baroo was deemed on the same footing as Jeremiah and that the narratives of Susanna and Bell and the dragon were ascribed to Daniel St holus in the 3r century May fairly be considered as representing the Primitive Roman tradition he comments on the Susanna chapter often quotes wisdom as the work of Solomon and employs as sacred scripture baroo and the macbes for the West African church the larger CET has two strong Witnesses in tertullian and St cyprian all the dudos except Tobias Judith and the addition to Esther are biblically used in the works of these fathers that is tertullian and cyprian so right here the Catholic encyclopedia is clear that in the first 300 years in the first three centuries of the Christian church the protoc canonical books and the dudok canonical books were used in the exact same matter there was no distinction so it wasn't until the second half of the 4th century when we started to see the distinction which is what we're going to get into uh in this video and what that distinction actually means and how it does not prove the Protestant position now Dr Orland also uses the Catholic encyclopedia in his video now really quick let me just point out that what I had said in the original clip is that there is no dispute in the early church but the uh quote that Dr oron is using from the Catholic encyclopedia isn't about the early church it's about the meval church really important to note that now remember the Catholic position is that the Cana of scripture that the Catholic Church uses today has existed in its entirety going all the way back as far back as the late 4th century and we always quote the Council of Rome in 382 the North African councils of 393 and 397 and also 419 but we also go to Pope St Dames in the year 382 and guess what the Catholic encyclopedia agrees with the Catholic position because if you go to the Catholic encyclopedia in the section the Roman Church the Senate under Dames in St Jerome it says this the damine catalog presents the complete and perfect Cannon which has been that of the church Universal ever since so that right there Cuts against this idea that Dr Orland espouses and that most Protestants espouse when they say that it wasn't until the Council of Trent that the Catholic church had that definitive Cannon well the Catholic encyclopedia which Dr Orton is using in his video actually says something else it says that it goes back to damasus Pope St damasus at the end of the 4th Century for this discussion it is of the highest importance to understand that the way that we use the word Canon today that is both Catholics and Protestants does not match the way that the early church used the word Canon going as far back as St an thetion of Alexandria who was the first one to use that word the church fathers do not use the word canon in the same way that we use the word Canon now but more on that here in a little bit I want to address the quote from the Catholic encyclopedia used by Dr Orland it mentions uh St Thomas aquinus and it makes it seem Dr oron made it seem like St Thomas aquinus was maybe shaky on the candada of scripture as well in the medieval times but we know that that's just not true now when Protestants try to appeal to St Thomas aquinus to try and prove that even Aus was Shi on the Canon of scripture they appealed to a work from him called the Commendation of and division of sacred scripture now here's the big irony about using this work from Thomas aquinus is that if you actually go to that work and you can find a PDF of it online for free which is what I'm using right now the funny thing is that the very beginning the very introduction of this work from Thomas aquinus he actually quotes and cites baroo one of the seven dudal canonical books as scripture and actually when you read this work it's not long you can read it really fast it actually quotes all of the almost all of the dudical books It quotes Baro wisdom sirak Tobit Judith it mentions all of them and it uses them as inspired scripture Thomas aquinus makes no distinction whatsoever between the protoc canonical books and the dud canonical books he uses them all in the same way just like the early Church of the first 300 years used them all in the same way but uh the relevant quote from St Thomas aquinus actually doesn't prove what Protestants try to prove because this is what Thomas aquinus actually says in this work he's actually talking about Jerome so he's appealing to what Jerome said back in the 4th Century uh which we're going to talk a lot about here in this video here in a moment but I just want to point out that St Thomas aquinus in the Middle Ages all he's doing here is pointing out how Jerome divided up the scripture rures but he says something fascinating uh here in this work this is what he says he says the Old Testament is subdivided into three parts according to Jerome in his prologue to the book of Kings so the first part is contained in the law which is proposed by the king himself the second is contained in the prophets who were as it were ambassadors and Heralds of God the third is contained in the works of the hagiographers writers who were inspired by the Holy Spirit and spoke as for themselves and not for God hence they are called the saintly writers because they were writers of the Sacred uh agios meaning the sacred and graphia meaning scripture thus the precepts found in them are paternal as is evident in Proverbs my son keep the Commandments of thy father so here all St Thomas is saying is that the hagiographers which were those who actually wrote like the history uh the history of the Jews that those writings are sacred scripture and then he goes on to say something incredible he says that Jerome mentions a fourth kind of book namely the apocryphal so-called from APO that is especially and cryon that is obscure because there is doubt about their contents and authors the Catholic Church includes among the books of secret scripture some whose teachings are not doubted but whose authors are not that the authors are rown but because these men were not of known Authority hence they do not have the force from the authority of the authors but rather from their reception by the church so right here St Thomas aquinus is saying that his standard for these books being part of sacred scripture is that the church received these books and he goes on to say because there is the same manner of speaking in them and in the hagiographical works they are for now counted among them so this is the quote that uh you know some Protestant apologists will will use from St Thomas aquinus where he says that for now they are counted among them to make it seem like those seven dudal canonical books are right now part of the Bible but that doesn't necessarily mean that they'll always be considered part of the Bible but as you just uh saw yourselves that's actually not what St Thomas Aquin has said he is clear that these writings are sacred scripture but what he is saying is that for now they're counted Among The hagiographical Works that is the historical works so he's not St Thomas acquin isn't commenting on whether these books are uh belong in the Bible or don't belong in the Bible he is clear that they're sacred scripture he's just talking about the division and where they belong in the Old Testament so St Thomas acinus agrees that these books are indeed inspired so that's why it it's very rare that you hear Protestants actually quote St Thomas I'm actually kind of surprised that Dr ortland well he he wasn't trying to make that argument he was just quoting the uh the Catholic encyclopedia but now if any of you ever hear Protestants make the argument even from St Thomas aquinus you'll know that what they're saying isn't true they just haven't read uh what he's talking about which is the division of the books in the Old Testament and in this entire writing he literally quotes from almost all of the D canonical books as sacred scripture and he uses it in the same way he uses those books in the same way as he uses the protoc canonical books of the Old Testament too so St Thomas aquinus isn't a problem for the Catholic whatsoever but it's a huge problem for uh that try to use him to try and bolster their claims about the sacredness of the dur canonical books now Dr Orin is going to go on to try and prove that it wasn't until the Council of Trent that uh the Catholic church has a defined list of books evees Kar put puts it like this an official definitive list of inspired writings did not exist in the Catholic church until the Council of Trent he also doubles down on this in his second video the new Catholic encyclopedia a work of Catholic scholarship is not wrong when it writes the following St Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books the latter he judged were circulated by the church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative scripture the uh the situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries for example John of Damascus Gregory the Great wried Nicholas of L and tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the dudo canonical books according to Catholic Doctrine the approximate Criterion of the biblical Canon is the infallible decision of the church this decision was not given until rather late in the history of the church at the Council of Trent the Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon that this had not been done previously is Apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent now here's the problem with this remember that the already quoted from the Catholic encyclopedia the same source that Dr Orin is using in this video that says that the damine catalog presents the complete and perfect Canon which has been that of the church Universal ever since that is ever since the time of Pope damis in the late 4th Century so how could it be that the Catholic encyclopedia says one thing here and then it says another thing over here well it's simple there is a distinction between what is uh received by The Universal Church which is indeed infallible and what is confirmed by the extraordinary and Universal magisterium so how could it be that the uh same document the Catholic encyclopedia says one thing here but it says another thing here is there a contradiction the answer is no there is no contradiction I actually brought this in my debate against Dr James White who said the same thing he said that uh the Catholic Church didn't have an infallible list of books until the Council of Trent and what I pointed out was that the Canada of scripture was a teaching of the ordinary and Universal magisterium and it was confirmed by the extraordinary Universal magisterium at Trent meaning that uh from that moment forward there were canonical penalties associated with rejecting the Canada of scripture so just because the extraordinary Universal magisterium taught the Canon of scripture dogmatically at Trent doesn't mean that it didn't believe that those books were inspired scripture before that because again the Catholic encyclopedia shows us that the cannon was exactly the same and you know for Protestants to argue that to say that you know the those books weren't considered inspired until the Canon of Trent that's like when non-christians will argue and say that the Divinity of Jesus Christ wasn't a teaching until the Council of NAA in 3 25 300 years after the time of Christ and the apostles so if you know if Protestants want to you know hang on to that to that argument about the Council of Trent then they're even throwing the Divinity of Jesus under the bus because if they're being consistent they will have to say that Christ Divinity was not taught into Trent but I know that Protestants are going to want to say that they will say no the Divinity of Jesus Christ was taught from the very beginning in fact Dr Orton at the time that I'm recording this actually today he put out a video where he talks about how Jesus was venerated as God how he was worshiped as God how he was adored as God um in the in the 50s in the first century so if Protestants you know know that Jesus was worshiped as God 300 years before the Council of NAA then they should have no problem with the fact that the Canada scripture did indeed exist in its the form that it was presented in at the Council of Trent they should have no problem with saying that that same cand and existed going all the way back as early as the 4th Century because that's what the Catholic encyclopedia says and that's actually what the Council of Trent itself actually says as well in the Council of Trent's uh decree on the Canon of scripture it says this it also clearly perceives that these truths and rules are contained in the written books and in the unwritten Traditions which received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ himself or from the apostles themselves the Holy Ghost dictating have come down to us transmitted as it were from hand to hand following then the examples of the Orthodox fathers it receives and venerates with a feeling of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and New Testaments since one God is the author of both so right here what the Council of sh is telling us that what it is defining at the council is actually something that uh was handed down from Jesus Christ and the apostles and that is the Cannons of both the Old and New Testament so the Council of Trent says the Council of Trent tells us that the Council of Trent did not come up with the cannon that it was always believed and it was always handed down and we know that the Council of Trent is true because we actually have the works of Pope St damus I 1 from the year 382 in which he said likewise it has been said now indeed we must treat of the Divine scriptures what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun and then Pope damasus goes on to list the books of the Old Testament and the books of the New Testament and those books match exactly with what the Council of Trent dogmatized in the 16 Century that's why the Catholic encyclopedia can make both claims because they're both true now there are some Protestants that try to argue that the uh list that was given to us at the Council of Trent doesn't exactly match the list that were given to us at the late 4th Century councils like in Rome and in North Africa Dr ortland actually makes this argument as well in his video but if the criteria is being the exact same then we can also point out that there are also smaller differences between the Old Testament Canon accepted by Augustine and the councils of hippo and Carthage in the 4th Century versus the later Old Testament accepted by the Council of Trent they weren't identical they were close but not identical because the fourth Century councils worked with the sepagan version of first Eis which is not included in the Canon list at the Council of Trent so let me explain this and show why Dr Orton is actually incorrect about this claim so in the Old Testament in the protoc Canon which is the books that both Catholics and Protestants agree upon there are two books side by side there was the book of Ezra and the book of Nehemiah now Ezra and Nehemiah are two distinct books in our Bibles but in the Hebrew Bible Ezra and Nehemiah are actually one book and that one book is called ezras and that's how it was from the beginning now when the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek there were actually multiple ways in which the one book of ezras was translated one way in which it was translated was that it was actually split in half into first ezras and second ezras we call First ezras Ezra and we call second Ezra Nehemiah now there was another way in which the one Hebrew Book of ezras was translated and that is that it was kept as one book Ezra and Nehemiah but the translators of that one book added extra stuff to it there were two extra chapters that were added that are actually apocryphal meaning they're not inspired so that one is actually also called first ezras so what that means is that when the Hebrew scriptures were translated there were two different Greek books called first ezras that were different one first ezras was just the book of Ezra and another first ezras was the book of Ezra and nemiah and two extra apocryphal chapters so in order to avoid the confusion by the time we get to the fourth Century uh one of those first ezras the one that is Ezra Nehemiah and two apocryphal chapters they started calling that one third ezras to avoid any confusion between that book and the the one Greek book of the book of Ezra so anyway and by the way this is what the scholarship actually tells us as a matter of fact John me who is one of the scholars that drin cites a lot in this video he tells us the same thing in one of his works but so what Dr Orland and what many Protestants will point out is they will claim that when the Catholic Church uh gave us the list of scriptures at the North African councils that they actually used this third ezras or also called Greek ezras which included two extra apocryphal chapters however we know that this just isn't the case this can't be true the reason we know that is because if you actually go to the lists that were given to us at the North African councils the way that it's actually enumerated it just says in all the list it says the book erra two books so there are two books of ezras right so what that means is that we know that it cannot include third ezras like the Protestants say because if that were the case what that means is that the church actually canonized the book of Nehemiah twice why is that because those lists say two books of Ezra's well so it's first ezras and second ezras but if first ezras is actually third ezras the Greek ezras that would mean that the Catholic Church canalized uh the book of Ezra in Nehemiah and the Apocrypha work and then the book of Nehemiah in second ezras so that doesn't make sense whatsoever so we know for a fact that the third ezras was not part of the canonized list of the North African councils especially because by the time we get to the Council of Carthage in 419 they actually specify that it's not Greek ezras or third EAS that it is um the uh first and second edras that correspond to the books of Ezra in Nehemiah in Mar Bibles today and that's not just me saying it that's what the scholarship says the Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church says this a council held in Rome in 382 under St damus gave a complete list of the canonical books of both the Old Testament and the new testament which is identical with the list given at Trent so Protestants please stop using this bad argument that the North African councils canonized topography books cuz it's just not true and the scholarship disagrees so let's move on so so far on this video I think we've been able to disprove number three on Dr orland's list which is that the cannon was not settled until Trend I think we've been able to disprove that right now now let's go on to disprove the other two points number one that uh there was a dispute in the early church about the cannon and number two that the Protestant Cannon actually is present in the early church as I will go on to demonstrate well Dr Orland actually isn't able to prove either of those two things in either of his two videos on this subject now let's move on to Jerome now it's important to understand that the reason that Dr Orin had to make a follow-up video to his original video responding to me is because his follow-up video was actually a response to a video from cin berzi on capturing Christianity in which he had William albr and Gary Machuda on to actually explain what is going on with Jerome so Dr Orland made a response to them to try and actually disprove them prove his position but if you actually just go back and watch the capturing Christianity video it's conclusive Protestants are just wrong about Jerome and I am going to prove that here as well so let's do a quick overview of Jerome and why he's so important in this discussion about the Canon between Catholics and Protestants see a lot of Protestants will uh appeal to Jerome on the cannon because Jerome is the first and only person in the early church he is the only one that ever calls the seven dudal canonical books Apocrypha St Jerome did not think that these seven books were inspired scripture for a period of time because when you look at Jerome you see that early Jerome in his you know earlier Life as a theologian he did use these dudal canonical books and he calls them inspired scripture he cites them as sacred scripture and he uses them to confirm Doctrine but it wasn't until after he was hired by Pope St damus to translate the Bible into Latin is when he realized ized that the Hebrews the Jews of his day did not have versions of these seven Dural canonical books in Hebrew and because they didn't have these books in Hebrew he thought that perhaps those books were not originally in uh the Canon so he rejected them as canonical he rejected them as inspired but here's the problem St Jerome did indeed change his mind later in life because he actually starts using those seven books once again as sacred scripture so we have early Jerome that used the Duro Canon's sacred scripture we have Jerome in the middle of his life that rejected those books and said they were not sacred scripture that they were apocryphal meaning they weren't inspired and then Jerome at the end of his life again starts using these books as sacred scripture now I know that this is something that Dr oron would disagree with which is why he made his follow-up video but I'm going to demonstrate here in this video that it is indeed the case that Jerome did change his mind twice on the cannon now I'm not going to get into the Weeds on this go and watch uh C B's video go watch the capturan Christianity video on this it is masterful but let me quickly summarize the points that Dr Orin made in his original video and show that I'm sorry he and all proant that appeal to Jerome are just wrong on this issue so let's get into it really fast so St Jerome in the vgate in his prologue to the books of Samuel and Kings um that's where he first tells us that the dur canano books are apocryphal but he tells us that the reason for this is because the dudo Canon could not be found in Hebrew with the exception of uh first mbes and he also tells us that he was able to find the books of Tobit and Judith in Hebrew and that's why Jerome actually did translate Tobit and Judith into Latin was because he thought that hey uh these books it's possible that they are inspired scripture but he just wasn't sure something really interesting that a lot of people actually leave out as well is that in his prologue to the book of Judith which is one of those D canonical books he says that the Council of NAA actually considered this book to be part of scripture he says this book is found by the 19 Council to have been counted among the number of Sacred Scriptures I have acquiesced to your request to translate it so Jerome translated Tobit and Judith in the Vulgate because he thought that there was a chance that they were scripture because he said that an acumenical Council called Judith at Le scripture and that he found Hebrew versions of Tobin also in St Jerome's prologue to the Book of Solomon which Dr Orton uses in his original video he actually says St Jerome says in the quote that the churches used the dudo Canon also something that's really important is that St Jerome in his letter to to rufinus he says he actually affirms the canonicity of uh Susanna the hymn of the three children and Bell and the dragon which are the Catholic versions of Daniel so here's the thing even if Protestants want to appeal to St Jerome for their Cannon they don't mask Jerome exactly because St Jerome actually tells us that the dudal canonical version of Daniel is actually true that it is what the churches were using so Jerome affirmed the dudal canonical Daniel and that's something that Protestants can't account for if they are appealing to Jerome Dr Orland also points to St Jerome's prolor Daniel and it's really important to note here as well that in this quote that Dr Orton is using that that uh St Jerome is actually talking about two different versions of Daniel that Nei but neither of them are the Hebrew version he's talking about the sepian version versus the theodocian version and he says that the sepagan version is better because the sepan version is actually more faithful to the Hebrew but he doesn't say that the sepian version of Daniel is non-canonical the suban version of Daniel is Apocrypha he actually affirms the Catholic version of The Book of Daniel also it's important to point out that in this work in uh St Jerome responding to rufinus um that their whole argument is actually about origin and origin is actually really important for candada discussions as well but we're going to get to him a little bit later now Dr ortland he points to a letter that was written by Jerome in the year 403 where he gives a Bible reading plan and he doesn't include any of the Dural canonical but just three years later in the year 406 St Jerome in letter 118 he calls Sak Holy scripture in 406 he's calling sirak Holy Scripture even though in the late 4th Century he is saying that it's not inspired that it doesn't belong in the Canon that it doesn't belong in the Bible but in 406 he calls it scripture in his commentary on Jeremiah in the year 414 he calls the book of wisdom scripture in his commentary on Ezekiel he says it is written and scripture says in reference to the book of sirak so he is qu quoting it he's citing it the way that all of the church fathers cite like the protocal books and that's in the year 416 in the year 417 in St Jerome's work against the pelagians he quotes sirak with no qualifications alongside other protoc canonical scriptures he also quotes Ecclesiastes and he mentions about Ecclesiastes that it cannot be denied because as Dr Orin points out in his video that the Christians the early Christians point out that there was controversy among the Jews about the canonicity of books like Ecclesiastes and also Ruth so it's interesting that St Jerome has to point out that Ecclesiastes cannot be denied but he just takes uh the book of sirak for granted and says nothing about its canonicity he uses it in the same way that he used uses the Book of Ecclesiastes so Dr ortland goes all the way back to the year 394 for St Jerome's letter 53 to try and prove that you know St Jerome um didn't accept the dudo cannon but in the same year in the year 394 in the very next letter that he wrote that's letter 54 he actually says that it is a matter of opinion as whether the book of Judith is canonical or not so before the year 394 uh Jerome would say that Judith is not canonical but then in 394 he says that it's a matter of of opinion as to whether it's canonical or not and then the very next year in the year 395 in his letter uh 66 he says he quotes sirak with the preface it is written so you can clearly see that Jerome in his later life actually did indeed change his mind on these Duru books because the St Jerome that Protestants appealed to he would never call Sak or wisdom or Tobit or any of these books scripture but late Jerome does indeed quote these books as sacred scripture and the reason for it is because St Jerome submitted to the authority of of the church and I'm I'm very surprised about this because in Dr Orton's first video he seemed to be very confused about uh St Jerome submitting to the church saying that it wasn't true that Jerome never submitted to the church but I don't know how Dr or can be confused about this because there's actually a very common quote that Catholics like to use uh citing Jerome to show that he did indeed uh submit to the authority of the church and I'm very surprised that Dr Orin didn't mention this because it's a very commonly used quote and that's from his uh letter 130 written in the year 414 in this letter St Jerome says this I think therefore that I ought to warn you in all kindness and affection to hold fast to the faith of the saintly innocent the spiritual son of anastasius and his successor in the apostolic sea and not to receive any foreign Doctrine however wise and Discerning you may make make yourself to be so right there in black and white St Jerome is submitting to the authority of Pope Innocent and guess what Pope Innocent was a huge supporter of the dudo cannon when you go and you read Pope Innocent Pope Innocent also gave us a list of the inspired scriptures and it includes the seven Duro canonical books and here St Jerome in 4:14 is saying that we need to submit to Pope Innocent and then you can see in his writings like in 4:15 416 and 417 that he is once again using the dudo Canon as sacred inspired scripture so yes it is conclusive St Jerome did indeed change his mind about the inspiration of these books the inspiration you cannot deny that it's also important to note that uh in Jerome's prologue to the books of Solomon he shows that there were Jews at that time in the time of Jerome in the late 4th Century that did have serak in their Bibles and that the church read Judith Tobit and mabes and baroo is not mentioned because it's included with Jeremiah and Lamentations and wisdom is the only mentioned book to have not to have been written in Greek that it wasn't originally written in Hebrew so St Jerome actually tells us even when he was against the dudo Canon even when St Jerome was calling the dudal Canon Apocrypha when he was saying that it wasn't inspired he was still saying that the churches used the dudo cannon what I'm trying to say is that there are three major problems with appealing to jome problem number one he changed his mind twice on the inspiration of these books problem as I've demonstrated problem number two the standard that he used we now know was false because again going back to his prologues that he wrote in the Latin vate he says that the reason that these Dural books should be rejected is because they were not written in Hebrew although he does mention that there were a couple of Hebrew versions that were floating around of some of these D canonical books but he says that because the Jews didn't accept them he thought that perhaps those uh Hebrew versions weren't original that they weren't authentically Hebrew so that's why they should not be considered inspired but we now know that St Jerome was wrong and this is actually one of the things that I did mention in the podcast with li the rose I mentioned that the in the Dead Sea Scrolls we do find Hebrew and Aramaic versions of a few of the Duro canonical books but that's something that Dr oron didn't address in either of his videos but the third problem with appealing to St Jerome is this inconsistency because Jerome is the only one in the early church whoever called the Dural canonical books Apocrypha he is the only one not a single person not a single Church Father ever says that of the Duro canonical books so the question that we Catholics would have for Protestants is why do you accept what St Jerome said in this part of his career of his life as a theologian sandwiched in between two periods where he did accept these books why do you only uh accept uh the St Jerome from the very end of the 4th Century but you ignore the St Jerome from the middle of the 4th century and from the start of the fifth century why why do Protestants single out only this specific period in St Jerome's life where uh he is saying that these books are not inspired scripture when he changed his mind twice and why only on the use of the cannon and not all of the other things that St Jerome said that were distinctively Catholic for example St Jerome taught that salvation comes through the sacrament St Jerome taught that uh Mary was a Perpetual virgin and that she was sinless St Jerome taught the ministerial Christian priesthood St Jerome taught all of these distinctively Catholic beliefs and Protestants ignore all of those yet they want to appeal to what he said about these seven dudal canonical books not being inspired scripture even though he did change his mind again so it is a huge inconsistency so appealing to Jerome just doesn't work now Dr Orin also tries to appeal to other figures in the west like he appeals to like rufinus in his Exposition on the Creed but it turns out that rufinus actually calls baroo a prophet in that same work and he also calls sirak Holy Scripture so again rufus's Cannon didn't match the Protestant Cannon either he will also try to appeal to Hillary in his exposition of the Psalms but this also doesn't show the Protestant Cannon because Hillary mentions that some Jews alongside the Greeks in Rome had toid and Judith in their cannons as well so again Dr Oran thus far has failed to demonstrate the Protestant Old Testament in the early church there are always wrinkles which he himself actually admits Dr Orland also appeals to a medieval Theologian named Cardinal kotan now I don't know why Protestants keep appealing to cardinal kayatan cardinal kayatan is not the Ally that Protestants think he is Cardinal kayatan is actually going to lead to more problems for the Protestant position and let me show why I would like to read the full quote uh that Dr ortland used in his video because it shows something very very problematic and it will expose why Protestants should not be relying on Cardinal kayatan because carinal kayatan says this we conclude the commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament for the rest Judith Tobit and the books of the macbes are reckoned by Divine Jerome as outside the canonical books and he places them among the Apocrypha with the book of wisdom and ecclesiasticus that is sirak as is clear in the prologue to a galus nor ought you be disturbed if you find somewhere those books reckoned among the canonical whether in the sacred councils or among the sacred teachers for the words of both counsels and teachers ought to be brought back to the revision of Jerome and according to his opinion this is huge what is cardinal kaan saying here Cardinal kayen is admitting that these seven books are found in Canon lists of the Sacred councils of the Sacred teachers that is the church fathers he is telling us that this View is not the normative view in the church even during his time because a lot of Protestants will say that even in the in the medial times there was a big controversy over whether the dudal canonical books should be in the Bible or not but it's not true they will appeal to kayatan but kayatan himself tells us that it's not the case kayatan himself tells us that the sacred councils and the sacred teachers use these books canonically as Canon and what is it that he is saying he is literally what he is saying here in this quote he just said in this quote that Jerome is divine Cardinal kayatan believed that Jerome was infallible infallible and that's why he was appealing to Jerome even over the councils because he thought Jerome was infallible and by the way I'm not the only one saying this the scholarship actually says this as well so the scholar Michael OK Conor uh in writing about Cardinal katan's rejection of the dudal canonical books he says say this kayatan recognizes that for his day this is an unusual line to take that uh and one that raises serious questions he is not aware that the circumstances of the argument have developed since the time of Jerome he persists however in urging that Jerome's determination is the me is the measure to which the teaching of the fathers and even the councils of the church must be aligned the issue of canonicity had conventionally suggested an element of initiative for the church over scripture writing just a few years earlier in the year 1525 kayatan had expressed precisely this view he says I only know that John's gospel is canonical as opposed to Bartholomew's because the church has told me so Cardinal kayatan in the year 1525 said that he only knows that the Gospel of John is a canonical gospel because the church said so and then by the year 1531 he has totally rejected what the church has said and he is appealing only to Jerome because as we already saw kotan thought that Jerome was divine that he was inspired that he was infallible even over the Church of Jesus Christ so here's why Protestants don't want to be aing to kayatan not only does he tell us in his writings that his view the view that he claims to be getting from Jerome he tells us in his writings that that's not the view of the church that that's not the view of the universal church at that time or even ever because he says that all of the Sacred councils and the holy teachers were enumerating the D canonical books among the canonical books among the canonical Works meaning among the inspired scriptures so he's saying that everyone else uh was against him so it was a minority view he was the only one that had it you don't want to appeal to kayatan because he also flip-flopped because kayatan in his earlier career like before the year 1521 kayatan was using the Dural canonical books in his writings in his scholarly work as sacred scripture so the scholar Michael ' Conor in his work on katan's biblical commentaries says that the book of wisdom was uh katan's favorite book to quote from he goes on again to say that at least uh for the early period of his life Catan's favorite verse from the Old Testament was from wisdom 81 that it was the verse that kayatan quoted more than any other Old Testament verse and it is from one of the seven Duro canonical books so up until 1521 kayatan did use the dudo cannon so he changed his mind so if Protestants appealed to him they're going to have to explain why kayatan post 1521 and why not the kayatan before 1521 but then it goes from bad to worse for those Protestants that appealed to kayatan it gets even worse because a lot and I think a lot of Protestants don't know this I don't know if Dr Orland knows this kayatan not only did he reject the Dural Canon of the Old Testament but kayatan rejected the dudo Canon of the New Testament as well a lot of people don't know this a lot of people don't even know that the New Testament also has a dudal cannon but it's true the dudal Canon of the New Testament is actually also seven books just like the Old Testament the New Testament dudo Canon is are the book of Hebrews James Jude second Peter second and thirr John and Revelation those seven books are part of the dudo Canon of the Old Testament and sometimes you might be able to throw in First Peter and first John as well and guess what Cardinal kayatan rejected almost all of those books Cardinal kayatan rejected Hebrews James Jude First Peter 1 John second John he rejected almost all of those books as well not only did he did he reject those uh New Testament books he also rejected the final 11 verses of the Gospel of Mark and he rejected the story of the adulterous woman from uh the eth chapter of the Gospel of John he rejected Ed all of that from the New Testament and that's not just me saying that that's what the scholarship says in his work koten responds The Scholar Jared Wick says this reservations and doubts that he had expressed about the apostolic origin of the final 11 verses of Mark's gospel and the story of the adulterous woman in John 8 and five whole Epistles of the New Testament that's Hebrews James Jude and first and 2 John these views were especially serious in katan's case since since he had laid down the rule that Apostolic authorship or direct approval by an apostle was normative for inclusion in the New Testament Cannon following Jerome kayatan also relegated the dudal canonical books of the Old Testament to a secondary place where they could serve piety but not the teaching of revealed Doctrine so Cardinal kayatan rejected all of those books from not just the Old Testament but also the New Testament a guy that is alone in the Middle Ages saying that the dur iCal books of the Old Testament should be rejected because he thought that Jerome was divine meaning that Jerome was infallible that he was higher than all of The ecumenical councils and all of the church fathers and then he also wanted to reject the Doral Cannon of the New Testament that's the guy that Protestants are appealing to why it makes no sense whatsoever but I have to say something and this is really important it seems to me like kayatan it seems like kayatan is actually more consistent than Protestants today when it comes to the Canon of scripture because kayatan he understood that all of the reasons that you would reject the dudo Canon of the Old Testament that all of those reasons actually apply to the dud Canon of the New Testament so if kayatan rejected the dud Canon of the New Testament he's actually just being consistent the question for Protestants is why why do you reject the Old Testament D Canon but you don't reject the New Testament D Canon why and that's a question that I would have for Dr Orland or for any Protestant apologist scholar Theologian can anybody answer that question for me why reject the Old Testament dudo Canyon but accept the New Testament dudo Canyon because when Protestants appealed to cardino Kayan well if you're going to go all the way with it then you need to remove all of those books from your new testament as well it is inconsistent and I know that a lot of Protestants are going to be shocked about what I said about the New Testament Doral Cannon again this is just in the scholarship going back to the Catholic encyclopedia it says this like the Old Testament the new has its dter canonical books and portions of books their canonicity having formerly been a subject of some controversy in the church these are for the entire books the Epistle of the Hebrews that of James the second of St Peter and the second of third the second and third of John Jude and the apocalypse giving seven in all as the number of the New Testament contested books the formerly disputed passages are three the closing section of St Mark's gospel uh verses 9-20 about the apparitions of Christ after the Resurrection The verses in Luke about the bloody sweat of Jesus from Luke 22 uh the and the uh narratives of the woman taken in adultery from John 7 through John 8 since the Council of Trent it is not permitted for a Catholic to question the inspiration of these passages okay so here you go there was just as much controversy over these New Testament books even going as far back as the early church as there was about the Old Testament books why do Protestants reject one set the Old Testament set of the D Canon but not the New Testament set because the exact same arguments against the the Old Testament dudo Canon can be made for the New Testament dudo Canon so why huge inconsistency but this is the part where we finally get to the actual Catholic argument about these books but this is where we get to the good part this is where we actually see what the Catholic argument about the Duro canonical books in the early church actually is so Protestants please listen closely this is what we Catholics are actually arguing what we argue is that the early Christians of from the 4th Century onward when they use the word Canon they are not using the word canon in the way that we Catholics and Protestants use the word Canon today because today when Catholics and Protestants talk about the Canon what we mean when we use the word Canon for us Canon equals the complete list of inspired writings that make up the Bible That's how Catholics and Protestants use the word Canon today that's not how the early church used the word Canon starting with st atanus who was the first one to use that word for the scriptures that's not how the early church fathers use that word they used it in a different sense and even though starting in the the 4th Century the early Christians had canonical and non-canonical books they agreed that both sets of books both the canonical books and the non-canonical books are inspired scripture they are the same in inspiration and do you know who agrees with me Dr ortland Dr Orin agrees with me many early Christians had a two tier Canon tier one scripture and tier 2 scripture with the uo canonical books often classified as tier 2 scripture now the exact nature of the distinction you know what makes something tier one and tier two how do you regard tier two that is some there's some variation on that and some ambiguity on that at times we saw rufus's distinction between canonical versus ecclesiastical sometimes it'll be the tier one books are for Dogma tier two are for edification well we'll see how athanasius in the East cashes out this distinction in in just a second but what we have to see here is that many times the tier 2 books can still be cited can still be read can still be used and even cited as scripture even while they are excluded from tier one cannon that establishes Dogma okay so I'm just flagging this because what happens is this you'll find the same Church Father who will be citing a dudo canonical book like toit or something like that they might even cite it as scripture but then they won't include it in in their canonical list and they'll explicitly State this is not a part of the canonical scriptures and people get thrown off by this and both sides appeal to their point and and we talk past each other people need to know that a lot of times these citations are talking about tier 2 scripture this distinction between scripture and Canon is often admitted in these discussions you can find Catholic websites who will argue for their view but they're acknowledging this distinction between Canon and scripture and I'll put that up on the screen now look at this SL that Dr Orland shows he is showing us that even the scholarship also says this it says nowadays we see no difference between the term Canon and scripture however we will see that except Jerome himself those who had reservations about their canonical status still considered them as scripture even though they turned them noncanonical this is the entire debate right here when Catholics argue from history and when I said that all of the Christians believed that these seven dudo canonical books were inspired scripture this is what I'm referring to because even though you can find early Christians that had a distinction between the protoc canonical books and the non-canonical books the ecclesial books as they're called by some of the church fathers they still conc they still believed that both sets the protoc Canon and the dudo Canon as we call them now that they were all inspired scripture and drland acknowledges that in his videos and he even shows that that's what the scholarship proves so Dr Orland and the scholarship agrees with the Catholic position that all of these Church fathers with the exception of Jerome for a period of time in his life that they all use these books as inspired scripture now even though Dr ortland agrees with the Catholic position here he is still going to try and prove that the Protestant Cannon of the Old Testament was found in the early church he tries to do this but he fails because he himself even acknowledges right before he he he tries to show this that the Protestant Canon is found in the East he actually acknowledges that actually the Protestant Cannon is not found in the East and the Council of Trent comes along and and takes that distinction off the table so bear that in mind with Jerome and with these Eastern voices as we go the best way go is to look at their Canon lists and just see what they explicitly tell you about these deuterocanonical books we've seen that with Jerome let's look to the east so in the East you actually have much more strong support for a shorter Old Testament Cannon however it is not exactly identical to the Protestant Canon though it's very close this is from the Senate of leoda sirel of Jerusalem Gregory of nanis uh who else I'm forgetting someone athanasius uh and then all the way up to John of Damascus Us in the 7th Century you'll find again this 22 book Hebrew Canon based upon the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet the only exceptions and wrinkles in this are that baroo is included as a part of Jeremiah and then you'll sometimes get uh little minor additions as well like Susanna and the other additional material and Daniel included and sometimes Esther is omitted so you get these little wrinkles but the majority of the dudo canonical books are excluded in this Eastern tradition but somebody might say but yeah but this tradition in the East has little minor variations like baroo infolded and so on and so forth so that's not the exact same as the Protestant Cannon even if it's closer to that than the Catholic Cannon Fair Point granted we're not saying it's the exact same now Dr ortland is going to go through all of these Eastern fathers and he is going to try and argue that they held to the Protestant Canon of scripture although he admitted not exactly that it was similar that it was close but not exact but as we're going to see none of these Church Brothers help the Protestant case here when it comes to the cannon and before we get into it I do want to uh address something that Dr ortland said in his second video where he says that if Jerome changed his mind on the cannon which we've already demonstrated not just me but William Au and Gary Machuda on capturing Christianity and the scholarship has demonstrated that uh Jerome did change his mind about these books he says that that means that all of the other Church Fathers flip-flopped as well basically the claim on the table that they're making uh is that Jerome changed his mind about the cannon twice so early on he changed it his mind to reject them and then he changed it again later in his life to receive and accept the dudo canonical books as canonical scripture and I think this is wrong such a view requires that Jerome not just Jerome was flip-flopping in his view of the cannon but the same method of argumentation requires that basically all the major patristic voices in this conversation like athanasius and C Jerusalem and about four or five others are also flip-flopping on their view in the cannon now this is false this claim from Dr oron this argument that he's making is false because he doesn't understand that St Jerome's position is not the position of any of these other Church fathers St Jerome is unique St Jerome is the only one he is the only one in history that ever calls the dudal canonical books apocryphal he is the only one that says that these books are not INSP fired even all of these early church fathers that Dr Orin is going to appeal to not a single one of them actually would agree with Jerome how do we know because every single one of them every single one of these Church fathers that Dr Orin just mentioned they all use the D canonical books as inspired scripture now I was did my homework and I looked into this so I could see just how often the Dural canonical books are used as scripture by these Eastern Church fathers I got overwhelmed I'm not even going to be able to show like specific quotes on the screen but what I am going to do is go through all of these Church fathers and show all of the times that they use the dur canonical books as scripture and the audience you guys can pause and you guys can go and look these up for yourselves it's extraordinary so let's start with st serel of Jerusalem so St serel of Jerusalem used the dudo Cannon as scripture in his catac in his catechetical lectures and he actually affirmed the septu agent explicitly um so he says don't read the Apocrypha but then he goes on to quote the dudo Canon uh which means that he did not think that the dudo Canon was apocryphal he includes baroo and the epistle which is the last chapter of of baroo uh in lectures 9 and 10 and 12 and in 16 he quotes wisdom and in lecture 13 He quotes sirak let's go to Gregory naanis in his Cara dogmatica he doesn't include revelation in his cand first of all which just goes to further show that the book of of Revelation was one of the Doral canonical books but in oration 7 he quotes sirak and calls it part of the law in oration 45 he calls Judith scripture in oration 28 um he says it is written for Jeremiah and wisdom together without distinction in oration 32 he calls sirak scripture in ration 44 he quotes wisdom to prove that Jesus is the son suffering servant in oration 24 he quotes wisdom again in oration 29 he quotes wisdom alongside other Old Testament and New Testament canonical books and says that they are all of the same force in oration 30 he quotes baroo to refute the misuse of the Gospel of John by Aryans so St Gregory of naanis had no problem whatsoever using the dudo Canon to airm Doctrine and even fight Heretics let's go on to aanus acius in his 367 letter and and again it shows that the Protestant canet of scripture does not match a single Church Father because in St athanasius's um uh fesal letter from 367 his cannon that Protestants are always appealing to well it includes baroo and it excludes Esther so here is a challenge for Protestants why does your Protestant uh Canon have Esther but not baroo because sayat thees he had baroo but he didn't have Esther a challenge for Protestants is can you prove that Esther belongs in the Bible can is there any Protestant out there that can do that that can prove that Esther belongs in the Bible because the irony is that the Protestant version of Esther actually doesn't even include God there is no mention of God in the Protestant version of Esther why in the Catholic version of Esther there is but not in the Protestant version and why is it that athanasius uh excludes it but includes baruk but the Protestants exclude baroo and athanasius he makes a distinction between the dudo Canan and the Apocrypha he uses the dudo Canan to affirm Doctrine and against the heathens he quotes wisdom as scripture and uh on dionysius he quotes wisdom as scripture and against the Aryans he quotes wisdom as scripture in uh four discourses against the Aryans he quotes wisdom in scripture in his defense against uh stanus and his defense um and in his defense against the Aryans he says it is written for Tobin in his letter to the Egyptian Bishops he quotes sirak as being spoken by the spirit in his four discourses against the Aryans he quotes wisdom as Divine scripture alongside protoc canonical books in his defense of the nyine definition he quotes baroo alongside protoc canonical books and calls all of the authors sacred writers let's move on to epiphanius epiphanius in his work on weights and measures he includes wisdom and sirak with qualifications but in his paneria on section one he includes baroo and mentions that the Jews were in dispute about wisdom and sirak and this is in the 4th Century so again this also disproves Wes Huff because here epiphanous is telling us that the Jews even in his day were fighting over the books of wisdom and sirak whether they should be in the Bible or not in his panion heresy 76 he calls wisdom uh and scripture Divine writings alongside the New Testament in panion section 2 heresy 26 he says that the Holy Spirit spoke prophetically in the book of wisdom in section 2 heresy 13 he calls um sirak scripture in section 4 heresy 44 he calls wisdom in sirak scripture in section 4 heresy 43 he says that the Lord taught in the book of wisdom in section 4 heresy 37 he uses baroo against a modalist in section 6 heresy 51 he uses baroo to prove that the son pre-existed in his work paner on deid he calls baroo scripture in um in anarat chapter two he calls wisdom scripture in chapter 12 he calls sirak Divine scripture and in chapter 18 he calls sirak Divine scripture alongside the protocon of the Old Testament and the New Testament so these are all of the Eastern Church fathers that Dr ortland and other Protestant apologists claim that had almost the exact um Old Testament Canon that Protestants do today but why is it that all of these early uh Church fathers over and over and over and over again utilize the seven Doral canonical books as sacred Divine scripture then Dr Orin goes on back to the early church and again the early church I already read um from the Catholic encyclopedia to show that the early church does not agree with Dr orland's Canon of scripture but again let's just go to what the Catholic encyclopedia has to say on the matter he brought up Meo of Sardis and let me just say the Malo of Sardis when he gave uh his list of Old Testament books he excludes Esther and he includes wisdom so why do Protestants include Esther and exclude wisdom when M of Sardis excluded Esther and included wisdom let's go back to what the Catholic encyclopedia has to say about Malo of Sardis it says this St Malo Bishop of Sardis first Drew up a list of the canonical scriptures of the Old Testament while maintaining the familiar engagement of the septu agent he says that he verified his catalog by inquiry among Jews jewry by that time had everywhere discarded the alexandrian books and malo's Cannon consists exclusively of the protoc canonical minus Esther it should be noticed however that the document to which this catalog was prefixed is capable of being understood as having an anti-jewish pical purpose in which case malo's restricted Cannon is explicable on another ground so what that means what what the Catholic encyclopedia just said and again Dr Orland quotes the Catholic encyclopedia as a legitimate Authority it says that St Malo because he's the bishop of Sardis that when he gave us that list he was not referring to the Christian Old Testament he was referring to the list that the Jews were using at that time because he was trying to compile extracts what he was trying to do is that he was trying to compiled all of the quotes from the books that the Jews were using that proved Jesus Christ that's what Malo of stardus was doing Malo of Sardis was not giving a list of the Christian Old Testament Dr Orin also goes on to quote origin and origin is also no friend to the Protestant position here because origin actually says that the Jews reject Tobit in Judith but the Christians read them and he says this in his letter against Africanus in section 13 He says this I know not unless it is from Tobias and tobas as also Judith we ought to notice the Jews do not use they are not even found in the Hebrew Apocrypha as I learned from the Jews themselves however since the churches use Tobias you must know that even in the Captivity some of the captives were rich and well to do so origin tells us that the churches use the Book of Tobit and Judith let's go back to what the Catholic encyclopedia has to say about origin and the cannon it says this the alexandrian tradition is represented by the weighty authority of origin influenced doubtless by the alexandrian Jewish usage of acknowledging and practice the extra writings as sacred while theoretically holding to the narrower Cannon of Palestine his catalog of the Old Testament scriptures contains only the protoc conical books though it follows the order of the sepagan nevertheless so right here the Catholic encyclopedia is actually acknowledging what Protestants try to argue when they try to say that Origins Cannon uh was the narrow cannon that was used in Palestine but the Catholic encyclopedia also says that origin also U utilized the books of the broader cannon from Alexandria and it goes on to say this nevertheless origin employs all of the Duro canonical as Divine scriptures and in his letter of Julius Africanus defends the sacredness of Tobias Judith and the fragments of Daniel at the same time implicitly asserting the autonomy of the church in fixing the cannon in his hexapla edition of the Old Testament all of the dudal find a place the 6th century biblical manuscript known as the Codex Claris contains a catalog to which both harach and Zan assigned in An alexandrian Origin about about contemporary with origin at any rate it dates from the period under examination and comprises all of the D canonical books with four mabes besides it so right here the Catholic encyclopedia is telling us that origin used the Duro canonical books as sacred scripture just like all of the other Church fathers that Dr oron was trying to appeal to not a single Church Father that Dr oron has appealed to is actually on his side whether it's in the early church or whether it's a figure from the medieval church not a single one the only one that you could say is on the side of the Protestant would be Cardinal kayatan and we already explained why that is problematic and why that doesn't work this is everything that Dr Oren tried to argue and this is why none of it works now again I don't know if Dr Orin watched the entirety of of my interview with with lla rose or if he watched the entirety of of the segment where we talk about the Canon of scripture but there are things that I mentioned in that podcast that Dr or just didn't address so here's something that I would like him or any Protestant who would like to to address the one thing that I mentioned was that Martin Luther he was the one that flip-flopped because earlier we saw that Dr ortland was saying that if we say that Jerome flip-flopped then that means that all of the early church fathers flip-flopped even though that's not true because the the Eastern Church fathers did not have the same opinion as Jerome on the D canonical books but the person who really did flip flop was Martin Luther because Martin Luther for his entire career as a theologian up until the year 1519 he had no problem whatsoever using the Duro canonical books of scripture as scripture calling them scripture citing them as scripture using them to confirm to confirm Doctrine Martin Luther did all of that up until the year 1519 then after /19 is when he stopped doing it so Martin Luther is the one that flip-flopped on the dudo canonist scripture why why do Protestants appeal to Martin Luther and why do they uh take what he said about the cannon after the year 1519 but not before also another thing that I mentioned in my interview with L the rose was that the Duro Canon actually did remain in Protestant Bibles until about the year 1823 and that's not just me saying it the scholars say the same thing so in his work seven things I wish Christians knew about the Bible the scholar Michael F bird actually lists all of the different early Protestant uh translations of the Bible that included these seven Doral canonical books he uh says that the tendel Matthew's Bible the great Bible The Bishop's Bible the Geneva Bible the king uh James Bible that they all included these Duro canonical books which he calls Apocrypha in his work and he says this too he says fun fact the King James version the kgv uh included the Old Testament New Testament and the Apocrypha and it was not until the 1880s that Bible societies began to omit the Apocrypha from printings of the KJV of the King James Bible so up until the 1880s the King James Bible included these books and that's according to a Protestant scholar and then they were removed that's something that I would like Dr Orland or any Protestant apologist or scholar to address why is it that they were removed 300 years after the Reformation began and why is it that these printing you know these Bible societies have the authority to remove them especially because we know that uh Martin Luther he didn't reject the authority of these books he just said that we weren't sure if they were inspired or not so Martin Luther said he wasn't sure why do Protestants just reject them and why are they so sure that they're not inspired because we've already demonstrated all of the evidence tells us it's conclusive that these books are inspired and if they are inspired then they do belong in the Bible they are part of the Canon according to how we use the word Canon so let's weigh the overall evidence this is everything that we've concluded everything that we've that we've seen number one the church fathers that Protestants appealed to do not present Old Testament lists that match the Protestant Old Testament and Dr Orton agrees so in the East you actually have much more Str wrong support for a shorter Old Testament Cannon however it is not exactly identical to the Protestant Cannon though it's very close this is from the Senate of leoda sirel of Jerusalem Gregory of nanis uh who else I'm forgetting someone athanasius uh and then all the way up to John of Damascus in the 7th Century you'll find again this 22 book Hebrew Cannon based upon the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet the only exceptions and wrinkles in this are that baroo is included as a part of Jer Jah and then you'll sometimes get uh little minor additions as well like Susanna and the other additional material and Daniel included and sometimes Esther is omitted so you get these little wrinkles but the majority of the dudo canonical books are excluded in this Eastern tradition but somebody might say but yeah but this tradition in the East has little minor variations like baroo infolded and so on and so forth so that's not the exact same as the Protestant Canon even if it's closer to that than the Catholic Canon Fair Point granted we're not saying it's the exact same number two the church fathers use the word canon in a different way than we do Dr ortland agrees many early Christians had a two tier Canon tier one scripture and tier 2 scripture with the dudo canonical books often classified as tier 2 scripture now the exact nature of the distinction you know what makes something tier one and tier two how do you regard tier two that is some there's some variation on that and some ambiguity on that at times we saw rufus's distinction between canonical versus ecclesiastical sometimes it'll be the tier one books are for Dogma tier 2 are for edification we we'll see how athus in the East cashes out this distinction in in just a second but what we have to see here is that many times the tier 2 books can still be cited can still be read can still be used and even cited as scripture even while they are excluded from tier one cannon that establishes Dogma okay so I'm just flagging this because what happens is this you'll find the same Church Father who will be citing A deuterocanonical Book Like Tobit or something like that they might even cite it as scripture but then they won't include it in their canonical list and they'll explicitly State this is not a part of the canonical scriptures and people get thrown off by this and both sides appeal to their point and and we talk past each other people need to know that a lot of times these citations are talking about tier 2 scripture this distinction between scripture and Canon is often admitted in these discussions you can find Catholic websites who will argue for their view but they're acknowledging this distinction between Canon and scripture and I'll put that up on the screen number three the church fathers who present a two-tier system say that both tiers are inspired scripture Dr ortland agrees in so far as the two-tier proposal that I made was addressed when Cameron brought it up in their video it was misunderstood so they were saying you know several times that uh you know tier 2 scripture is also inspired as though that contradicted what I'm saying but that's exactly what I'm saying many early Christians treat tier 2 scripture as inspired and they'll cite it as scripture and as Divine scripture and at the very same time they will hold them to be less author ative and in my video I stated there's some variation and some ambiguity from one patristic figure to another about how exactly you know athanasius and Jerome were not the exact same so it's not an argument against my view to say that tier 2 scripture was spoken of as inspired that's part of what I'm saying number four the church fathers that Protestants appealed to still use the Dural canonical books as Divine scriptures as the word of God and Dr ortland agrees what I was discussing there is that many early Christians had a two tier Cannon or two different registers of Cannon I'm not particular about the details of what you call this um and I said you can find in the same Church Father they'll cite a Doral canonical book as scripture or with it is written or you know the holy spirit says through this or something like this and then they'll at the same time not included in their Canon list because all these other figures do the exact same thing they cite from the dter canonical books sometimes as scripture and then they exclude them from the Canon lists so this is all of the evidence this is everything that Dr ortland agrees with us on so now here's the challenge for Dr Orland for any Protestant apologist can anybody please explain the inconsistency between rejecting the Old Testament dudo Canon but not rejecting the New Testament dudo Canon because all of the same reasons as to why the Old Testament dur Canon would be rejected apply to the New Testament D Canon as well number two when we consider that there was no dispute in the first 300 years about these books and that the church universally read them and the fathers called them scripture and used them to affirm Doctrine even if they categorize them differently than the protoc cannon if the cannon itself is not rule of Faith how can Protestants condemn Catholics for using the Duro Cannon of the Old Testament if Sol the scripture is true and you don't find the cannon of scripture in the scriptura that means necessarily that the cannon of scripture is not a rule of faith if the Canon of scripture is not a rule of Faith why are Protestants criticizing Catholics and Orthodox for using these books in their Bible and what gives them the right to say that we're wrong when we see that Christians from the very beginning always use these books as scripture can Dr Orin or anybody else respond and explain those are the two questions now let me just say that I think Dr Oren is a heck of a guy I actually really like him and I would actually love to even have a conversation with him if if he'd like to I would be honored to talk to Dr ortland I know that Dr ortland personally knows rusan Ruslan is my boy rusan is a really good friend of mine and rousan has expressed to me that he would love to get me and Dr Orland together for a discussion it could be a formal debate it could be a discussion I would love to do that so if Dr oron would love to talk to me I would be honored also if Wesley Huff would like to have a debate with me I would love to do that on Lyla Rose's podcast so I'm I'm throwing out an invitation an invitation to talk to Dr Gavin ortland on rouson and to talk to Wesley Huff on L the rose it could be just a cool conversation just two Christians you know or three Christians in this case having a conversation sharing notes or if they wanted to do a formal debate we could do a formal debate too I know that Wesley Huff has said that he's very very busy and he doesn't really have time to do formal debates but if he'd like to just have a discussion I'd love to I think that Wesley Huff is great by the way I am so happy that he ended the career of that grifter uh Billy Carson so what's up my heads off to you my friend thank you for for doing that service and Dr Orland I think he's great so I would love to talk to both of those guys let's see if we can make it happen this has been a really long video and I'm already starting to lose my voice I got really excited and passionate about this thank you all for watching Remember to like share and subscribe and we'll see you in the next one glory to Jesus Christ