Refutation Rick Brennan JR Protestant Apologetic on the Biblical Canon

Refutation of the Presented Protestant Apologetic on the Biblical Canon

The article (https://rickbrennanjr.substack.com/p/the-canon-of-scripture) provided offers a detailed Protestant perspective on the biblical canon, emphasizing a 66-book Bible, the rejection of the deuterocanonical books (often called the Apocrypha by Protestants), a "bottom-up" organic recognition process guided by the Holy Spirit, and the supremacy of sola scriptura. It portrays the early Church as gradually acknowledging an already self-evident canon, with councils merely ratifying what was obvious, and contrasts this with Roman Catholic views on Church authority, Tradition, and the inclusion of seven additional Old Testament books.

This narrative, while internally coherent within a Reformed framework, contains significant historical inaccuracies, selective interpretations, and theological overreach. Below is a structured refutation addressing the core claims, drawing on historical evidence from early Church sources, councils, and scholarly consensus.

 1. The Claim of a Fixed Jewish Canon in the First Century, Excluding the Deuterocanonicals

The text asserts that by the time of Christ, the Jewish canon was closed at 39 books (equivalent to the Protestant Old Testament), fixed around 435 BC after Malachi, and that Jesus and the apostles affirmed only these, never citing the deuterocanonicals as Scripture.

This is historically unsubstantiated. Scholarly consensus holds that the Jewish canon was not definitively fixed until the second century AD or later. There was no single, universally agreed-upon Jewish canon in the first century; different Jewish communities (Palestinian Pharisees, Hellenistic Diaspora Jews, Essenes at Qumran) used varying collections. The Pharisees' tradition, which became dominant rabbinic Judaism post-70 AD, favored a narrower canon, but even this was debated into the second-third centuries (e.g., disputes over Esther, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes).

Evidence:

- Fragments of deuterocanonical books (Tobit in Aramaic/Hebrew, Sirach in Hebrew) were found at Qumran and Masada, indicating acceptance in some Jewish circles.

- The Septuagint (LXX), widely used by Hellenistic Jews and quoted extensively in the New Testament (over 300 times, often diverging from the Hebrew Masoretic Text), included the deuterocanonicals.

- No pre-Christian Jewish source lists a fixed 22/24/39-book canon excluding them. Josephus (late first century) mentions 22 books but does not enumerate them precisely matching the Protestant canon.

- Jesus references the Scriptures broadly (Luke 24:44: Law, Prophets, Psalms) without excluding deuterocanonicals; New Testament allusions (e.g., Hebrews 11:35-36 to 2 Maccabees 7; Romans 1:18-32 to Wisdom 13-14) suggest familiarity.

The idea of a "Council of Jamnia" (c. 90 AD) closing the canon is a 19th-century myth; it was a rabbinic academy discussing disputed books like Ecclesiastes, not issuing a binding canon.

Jesus and the apostles used the LXX, which included these books, reflecting the broader canon of many first-century Jews.

 2. The Process of Canon Formation: "Recognition" vs. Church Authority

The text describes canonization as a "bottom-up" organic recognition of inherently authoritative books, with councils (Hippo 393, Carthage 397) merely confirming what the undivided Church already acknowledged under the Spirit's guidance. It denies that councils "created" or "conferred" authority, contrasting this with alleged Roman Catholic claims.

This minimizes the Church's role. While the canon emerged gradually through usage, disputes persisted, requiring authoritative discernment:

- The Muratorian Fragment (c. 170-200 AD) includes most NT books but excludes Hebrews, James, 1-2 Peter, and 3 John; it accepts the Apocalypse of Peter and Wisdom of Solomon.

- Eusebius (c. 324 AD) categorizes books as accepted, disputed (including Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, Revelation), and spurious.

- Athanasius' 39th Festal Letter (367 AD) is the first list matching the 27 NT books exactly, but he places Baruch with Jeremiah and excludes Esther from the canon while listing deuterocanonicals as "readable."

- Regional variations continued; Revelation was disputed in the East longer.

Councils like Hippo and Carthage (influenced by Augustine) explicitly listed and affirmed the canon, including deuterocanonicals, stating these alone should be read as divine Scripture in church. These were local but influential; later councils (Florence 1442, Trent 1546) reaffirmed them ecumenically for Catholics.

The process involved Church discernment, not pure "recognition" of self-evident books. Disputed books (antilegomena) required resolution through ecclesiastical authority guided by the Spirit.

 

3. The Deuterocanonical Books: Early Rejection vs. Acceptance

The text claims Jesus/apostles never cited deuterocanonicals as Scripture, early fathers preferred the Hebrew canon, and Reformers rightly excluded them for lacking apostolic origin, containing errors, and not being quoted by Christ/NT.

Early Christianity predominantly accepted deuterocanonicals:

- Most pre-Nicene codices (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus) include them.

- Fathers like Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Augustine quoted them as Scripture.

- Councils of Rome (382), Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419) included them in the OT canon.

- Jerome resisted but deferred to Church judgment, including them in the Vulgate.

NT allusions are numerous (e.g., Matt 7:12 to Sirach 31:15; Heb 1:3 to Wisdom 7:26). No direct quotes do not prove rejection; many protocanonical books (e.g., Ruth, Ezra) are not quoted either.

"Errors" claims are subjective; alleged inconsistencies exist in protocanonicals too. Reformers removed them partly because they supported doctrines like purgatory/prayers for the dead (2 Macc 12:38-46), contradicting emerging Protestant theology.

Trent (1546) did not "add" books but reaffirmed longstanding Church usage against Protestant removal.

 4. Authority: Scripture Self-Authenticating vs. Church/Tradition

The text promotes a self-authenticating canon (inner Spirit testimony + divine qualities), rejecting Church magisterium as conferring authority, and critiques Catholic "living tradition" as ongoing revelation eclipsing Scripture sufficiency.

This faces circularity: How do we know which books are self-authenticating without external criteria? Disputed books required Church resolution.

Catholic teaching (Dei Verbum, CCC 80-100): Scripture and Tradition form one deposit of revelation; Magisterium interprets authentically but serves, not rules over, the Word. Public revelation ended with apostles; "living tradition" transmits unchanging truth.

Examples like Mary's Assumption (1950) draw from apostolic deposit, not new revelation.

Protestant self-authentication leads to subjectivity; historical disputes show no unanimous "self-evident" canon without Church guidance.

 5. Modern Implications and "Incompatible Religions"

The text equates liberal denial of Scripture with Catholic Tradition/Magisterium, calling the latter "sola ecclesia" obscuring the gospel.

This is polemical overstatement. Catholicism affirms Scripture's inspiration/sufficiency (for salvation, with Tradition) but not sola scriptura, which lacks biblical warrant and led to interpretive fragmentation.

Both traditions uphold core gospel truths; differences on authority do not make them "incompatible religions."

The presented view idealizes a historically unattested first-century closed canon, downplays Church authority in resolving disputes, and misrepresents Catholic teaching on revelation. The 73-book canon reflects early Christian usage; Protestant removal was a 16th-century innovation driven by doctrinal needs.

Christians should approach these differences charitably, recognizing shared faith in Christ while honestly engaging history.

No one can dispute the role of the Catholic Church in the formation of the Bible.  This is why Protestants can never answer the following questions:

• Where in the Bible's inspired texts can we find the canon of inspired books, and in what order should they be placed?
• Where in the Bible's inspired texts does it say who wrote the Gospels and what Paul wrote?
• Where in the Bible's inspired texts does it refer to the Bible as the "Word of God?"
• Where in the Bible does it call itself the "Bible?"
• Where in the Bible's inspired texts does it say "Sola Scriptura?"
• If the Bible was already compiled before the Council of Carthage, why don't we see direct quotes and citations of the Gospels in New Testament books?
• Who had the authority to decide the Canon of Scripture before the Bible was completed?

It is no wonder why Rick Brennan blocked our Sacerdotus account from posting on his Substack. What is he afraid of?

 Sources

1. Edmon L. Gallagher and John D. Meade, The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity: Texts and Analysis (Oxford University Press, 2017).

2. Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Clarendon Press, 1987).

3. F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (InterVarsity Press, 1988).

4. J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (HarperOne, 1978).

5. Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd ed., 1997), paragraphs 74-100.

6. Vatican II, Dei Verbum (1965).

7. Lee Martin McDonald, The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority (Hendrickson, 2007).

8. David Brakke (ed.), The Canon Debate (Hendrickson, 2002).

9. Michael J. Kruger, Canon Revisited (Crossway, 2012) – for Protestant perspective and critique.

10. Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger (Grotto Press, 2017) – for Catholic perspective.

11. Josephus, Against Apion 1.37-43.

12. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.25, 6.14.

13. Athanasius, 39th Festal Letter (367 AD).

14. Council of Trent, Session 4 (1546), Decree on Canonical Scriptures.

15. Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), Canon 36/24.

16. Jerome, Prologue to Kings (Vulgate).

17. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine 2.8.

18. Pontifical Biblical Commission, "The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures" (2001).

19. R.T. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (Eerdmans, 1985).

20. Britannica and Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church entries on "Biblical Canon" and "Jamnia."