Summary

In a clipped Q&A exchange with the Cleave to Antiquity host, Fr. Stephen De Young corrects the popular "Septuagint canon" talking point (there was never one fixed Greek Old Testament corpus), traces the pre-Reformation West's own internal canon split (Augustine's Alexandrian list vs. Jerome's Palestinian list), and argues the Old and New Testaments are better understood as living, plural manuscript traditions than as a single urtext to be reconstructed — using the Dead Sea Scrolls' two Hebrew Jeremiahs and St. Paul's own flexible citation practice as evidence. He also candidly names the tension between this pluriform model and sola scriptura without resolving it, since he does not hold to sola scriptura himself.

Key Points

• "The Septuagint" as commonly invoked does not exist: properly, "Septuagint" names only the Torah's Alexandrian Greek translation (c. 250 BC); the wider Greek Old Testament corpus is correctly called the "Old Greek," assembled piecemeal over centuries by different hands, including books composed originally in Greek (Wisdom of Solomon, 1st c. AD).
• Local churches inherited the canon of their local Jewish community, not a single universal "Greek canon" — Ethiopia's expansive Old Testament reflects the Ethiopian Jewish canon; the so-called "Septuagint canon" is really the Alexandrian Jewish canon generalized.
• The "canon conundrum" apologetic (a fallible list of infallible books) is not a strong argument, even for Orthodox use — regional councils (Trullo) affirm different, non-identical lists, and confessions like Dosithean's Jerusalem confession name "the Maccabees" without specifying how many books, so there is no single infallibly defined Orthodox canon either.
• The canon debate long predates the Reformation: Latin North Africa (St. Augustine) followed the wider Alexandrian Old Testament canon; Western Europe (St. Jerome) followed the narrower, Hebrew-aligned Palestinian canon — an in-house Western dispute running for centuries before 1517, which the Reformation and Trent then hardened onto opposite sides.
• Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople's 9th-century canon list shows the Deuterocanon — and even the New Testament's Book of Revelation — were still regionally disputed in the East eight centuries after Christ, undercutting any narrative of an early, tidy canonical settlement.
• Textual criticism reveals real, ancient pluriformity, not corruption: the Dead Sea Scrolls preserved Hebrew copies of both the long (Masoretic-type) and short, differently-arranged (LXX-type) Jeremiah side by side — the Qumran community held both as legitimate collections, not one authentic and one corrupt.
• St. Paul's own citation practice models this pluriform approach: he quotes the Greek Old Testament, produces his own fresh Greek translation from the Hebrew, blends both, and folds in extrabiblical Jewish tradition (Midrash, Aramaic Targums) without ever flagging the material as non-scriptural.
• Deliberate Hebrew wordplay carries into New Testament Greek: the Hebrew habit of words holding two meanings at once continues into Greek composition by Semitic-first-language authors — most famously the anōthen ambiguity ("again" / "from above") in Christ's exchange with Nicodemus.
• De Young names, without resolving, the tension with sola scriptura: this pluriform-tradition model sits uneasily with a single-determinate-text assumption; he notes a professor was fired from Westminster Seminary for arguing something similar, while stating plainly that reconciling it with sola scriptura is not his problem to solve.

Details

Q&A Analysis

Exchange 1: The "Septuagint Canon" Urban Legend and the Pre-Reformation Roots of the Canon Debate

• Question: Luca asks (paraphrased from a live audience submission): "How can Protestants claim sola scriptura yet reject books from the Septuagint, the scriptures of Christ and the early church?"
• Question Context: This is the standard popular-apologetics framing heard constantly in Orthodox and Catholic online spaces — that "the Septuagint" names one fixed, bounded first-century Greek canon that the Reformers later trimmed down. De Young opens by rejecting the premise before answering the question as asked, which reframes the whole exchange.
• Background Significance: The premise matters because if it's imprecise, the popular apologetic built on it ("Protestants cut books out of the Septuagint") is imprecise too — a live example of a talking point that is directionally right (the LXX-based Old Testament is larger than the Protestant canon) but factually oversimplified in a way that, De Young says, "can be kind of misleading" if run with uncritically.
• Answer: De Young distinguishes "Septuagint" properly speaking — the translation of the Torah alone, made in Alexandria around 250 BC — from the "Old Greek," the correct umbrella term for the whole corpus of Greek Old Testament translations assembled over subsequent centuries by different translators, including books composed originally in Greek (Wisdom of Solomon, written in the 1st century AD — evidenced by the earliest canon lists that include it, which group it with New Testament books precisely because they knew it was both Greek and late). He then explains canon formation as a local, not universal, process: a local church generally inherited the Old Testament canon of the local Jewish community it emerged from — Ethiopia's unusually large Old Testament canon reflects the equally large Ethiopian Jewish canon; the "Septuagint canon" popularly invoked is really the Alexandrian Jewish canon, generalized past what the evidence supports.
• Underlying Assumptions: De Young rejects the assumption — which he treats as a specifically Western habit of mind — that "canon" must name one settled, bounded, universally agreed corpus fixed at a single moment. He treats canon formation instead as a genuinely regional and historically contingent process, unfolding differently in different Christian centers.
• Biblical Principles: No specific verse is invoked in this segment; the argument is historical-critical, establishing the textual and ecclesiastical background against which the New Testament authors' own scriptural practice (developed in Exchange 2) becomes intelligible.
• Argument Advancement: This premise-correction is load-bearing for everything that follows in the clip — the Deuterocanon/canon-conundrum critique, the pre-Reformation West split, and the Old Testament/New Testament "tradition" framework in Exchange 2 all depend on having first dismantled the idea that there was ever one determinate textual corpus to compare against.
• Broader Implications: This also functions as an in-house caution to Orthodox and Catholic apologists: reaching for "the Septuagint canon" as a rhetorical cudgel against sola scriptura is imprecise on its own side's terms, since (as the rest of the exchange shows) the Orthodox Church itself never possessed one clean, uniformly defined Old Testament canon either.
• Analogy: It is like asking "why did the metric reformers reject the imperial system," as though "the imperial system" had always been one single, fixed, universally used standard — when in reality pre-metric units varied by region, era, and trade guild. The target of the objection didn't actually exist in the tidy, unified form the objection assumes.
• Supporting Sub-Points:
  • The "canon conundrum" objection ("a fallible list of infallible books") is a popular Orthodox/Catholic apologetic against sola scriptura — the claim that Protestants need an infallible list of which books are inspired but have no infallible authority to produce one. De Young states plainly he has never found it a strong argument, even having "picked it apart" as a Protestant himself before converting, because it proves too much: regional Orthodox councils (e.g., Trullo) ratify differing, non-identical canon lists, and confessional statements like the Confession of Dositheus name "the Maccabees" without specifying how many books count, meaning there is no single point where the Orthodox canon itself is infallibly and exhaustively defined either.
  • The objection is weaker still against Rome specifically: the early Church, including the early Latin West, held a tiered distinction between the "Deuterocanonical" books and the rest of the Old Testament — a distinction the Council of Trent (1545–63) collapsed into flat, undifferentiated canonicity, meaning modern Roman Catholicism cannot appeal to "the early Church's canon" without contending with its own post-Trent departure from that earlier tiered structure.
  • The West's canon split predates the Reformation by over a millennium: Latin-speaking North Africa (St. Augustine) followed the wider Alexandrian Old Testament canon, while Western Europe (St. Jerome) followed the narrower Palestinian canon aligned with the Hebrew Bible — a documented disagreement between Jerome and Augustine themselves, continuing as a live, unresolved in-house Western debate through the medieval period. Even Pope Gregory the Great, De Young notes, leaned toward preserving Jerome's tiered distinction rather than Trent's later flattened one.
  • When the Reformation happened, "what previously was an in-house debate gets split": the Protestant reformers settled on one side of this pre-existing Western dispute (Jerome's narrower canon) while the Roman Catholic Church retrenched on the other (Trent's expanded, undifferentiated canon) — De Young names this as a recurring Reformation-era pattern, citing the Eucharist debate with the Lutherans as a parallel case of a prior in-house question hardening into a cross-confessional divide.
  • Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople, a 9th-century confessor-saint, compiled a list of canonical, disputed, and apocryphal books that documents continuing regional disagreement in the East — some churches still disputed what is now called the Deuterocanon eight centuries after Christ, and some Eastern churches still did not accept the Book of Revelation into the New Testament canon at that late date, which De Young connects to Revelation's continued absence from the standard Orthodox liturgical lectionary today.
• Orthodox Theological Lens:
  • The Father's Reading: St. Athanasius of Alexandria's 39th Festal Letter (367 AD) is the closest thing the early Church has to a canon list moment, yet even Athanasius distinguishes a tier of books "appointed by the Fathers to be read" for edification (Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Tobit) from the strictly canonical Old Testament proper — a tiered structure that anticipates exactly the distinction De Young says the early Church held and Trent later erased. Athanasius is not producing a flat, closed list so much as recording a living, still-differentiated practice.
  • Ascetic Movement: Correcting a popular but imprecise talking point — even one that superficially favors one's own tradition — is itself an ascetic labor of nepsis applied to argument: watchfulness against the comfortable oversimplification, resisting the passion of wanting one's side's rhetorical weapons to be stronger than the evidence actually supports.
  • Orthodox Practice Connection: This grounds the Orthodox Study Bible's own practice of footnoting LXX/MT and even LXX-recension divergences rather than silently harmonizing them, and it explains why different autocephalous Orthodox churches (Greek, Slavic, Ethiopian) still use somewhat different Old Testament canons and lectionary cycles in ordinary liturgical life today, rather than one uniform table of contents.

Exchange 2: Textual Criticism, LXX vs. MT Proverbs, and the "Old Testament Tradition" Model

• Question: An audience member asks: "Proverbs differ notably between the LXX and MT with chapter variations, omissions, editions. Which textual tradition is more reliable? How does textual criticism from the OT impact sola scriptura?"
• Question Context: This question moves from canon (which books) to text (which wording) — a sharper, more technical version of the same underlying issue, asking De Young to adjudicate between two divergent textual traditions of a single book rather than between two different tables of contents.
• Background Significance: The question assumes a framework — inherited, De Young says, "from the West" — in which there must be one single correct original text that later manuscripts either preserve or corrupt, and that the interpreter's job is to reconstruct that one true text and discard the rest as error.
• Answer: De Young rejects that framework directly, proposing instead that it is more accurate to speak of an "Old Testament tradition" and a "New Testament tradition" — plural, living streams of text, translation, and interpretation that the Church has received in their fullness rather than needing to be reduced to one authoritative version. He grounds this historically in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew copies of Jeremiah were found at Qumran in both a long form (matching the later Masoretic Text) and a short form (about two-thirds the length, with the shared material differently arranged, matching the Greek/LXX form) — found side by side, suggesting the ancient community regarded both as legitimate collections of Jeremiah's prophecies rather than one authentic original and one corrupted derivative. He extends this into the New Testament: St. Paul, across his large body of writing, sometimes quotes the existing Greek Old Testament, sometimes produces his own fresh Greek translation directly from the Hebrew, sometimes blends the two, and freely incorporates material from outside the biblical text altogether — extrabiblical Jewish tradition — without ever marking it off as non-scriptural. Concrete examples: 1 Corinthians's "rock that followed them" (drawing on the rabbinic Midrashic tradition that the rock which gave Israel water in the wilderness accompanied them, since Scripture records water from the rock at both the beginning and the end of the forty years); and the Aramaic Targum tradition supplying the names of Pharaoh's magicians, Jannes and Jambres, which Paul references casually as though it required no special flag. On this same theme, De Young notes that biblical Hebrew is saturated with intentional wordplay — words used ambiguously on purpose to carry two meanings simultaneously — and that the New Testament's authors, thinking natively in Hebrew and Aramaic while composing in Greek, try to reproduce the same effect: Christ's exchange with Nicodemus in John 3 turns on the Greek word anōthen, which means both "again" and "from above" at once, and the text lets both readings stand rather than resolving the ambiguity.
• Underlying Assumptions: The answer assumes that textual and canonical richness is a positive inheritance to be received rather than a problem to be solved — "all of this richness is ours and part of our heritage," in De Young's own words — reversing the more common assumption that manuscript variation is primarily evidence of corruption requiring correction.
• Biblical Principles: The implicit scriptural pattern is the apostolic authors' own demonstrated freedom in handling the Old Testament text and extrabiblical Jewish tradition (1 Corinthians 10:4's "spiritual Rock that followed them," which was Christ; 2 Timothy 3:8's naming of Jannes and Jambres, drawn from non-biblical Jewish tradition; John 3's Nicodemus dialogue) — used as evidence for how the New Testament writers themselves related to their Scriptures, rather than as isolated proof-texts argued from first principles.
• Argument Advancement: This is the constructive payoff of the whole exchange: having spent Exchange 1 dismantling the idea of one fixed Old Testament canon, De Young now dismantles the parallel idea of one fixed Old Testament text, replacing both with a single unifying picture — the Church's Scripture as an inherited, plural, living tradition rather than a single document to be isolated and purified.
• Practical Implications: For textual questions like "which Proverbs is right, LXX or MT," the practical answer is not adjudication but reception: read both, take the differences as potentially edifying rather than merely as a problem to be resolved, and expect that studying the underlying Hebrew wordplay will surface meanings a single translation cannot carry alone.
• Analogy: It is like a family's oral history existing in two elders' differently detailed retellings of the same events — neither version is "the fake one"; both preserve genuine memory, emphasize different details, and are more fully understood read together than either alone.
• Supporting Sub-Points:
  • The Dead Sea Scrolls' double-Jeremiah is offered as direct physical, pre-Christian evidence (not a later theological rationalization) that a real ancient Jewish community held two divergent Hebrew textual traditions of the same book as simultaneously legitimate — undercutting any account in which the shorter Greek-aligned Jeremiah must be a corruption or paraphrase of a single "real" long Hebrew original.
  • De Young frames Paul's flexible quotation practice as evidence Paul himself did not operate with a "one true text" anxiety — quoting Greek, retranslating Hebrew, blending both, and citing extrabiblical tradition within the same body of writing without distinguishing their epistemic status, a working method modern debates over "which manuscript tradition is authoritative" rarely account for.
• Orthodox Theological Lens:
  • The Father's Reading: St. John Chrysostom's homilies routinely move between the Greek Old Testament text before him and freely drawn Jewish and Hellenistic background material to illuminate a passage, without pausing to justify the move or flag one source as more authoritative than another — a patristic habit of mind that already assumes the plural, layered inheritance De Young describes centuries before modern textual criticism named it.
  • Ascetic Movement: Releasing the demand for one clean, singular, fully resolved text is a form of tapeinosis (humility) before a tradition larger than any single reader can master or adjudicate alone — trusting the Church's received plurality rather than insisting one's own preferred version must be the only legitimate one.
  • Orthodox Practice Connection: This grounds the Orthodox Study Bible's practice of translating primarily from the Greek Old Testament while still noting Masoretic divergences, and it grounds the broader Orthodox comfort with multiple patristic commentaries on the same passage reaching different, sometimes untidy, but not mutually exclusive conclusions — theoria (contemplative insight) is understood to deepen through this plurality rather than being obstructed by it.

Thematic Synthesis: Scripture as Living Tradition, Not Single Urtext

Theme: The unifying idea across both exchanges is a single reframing — that "the canon" and "the text" of Scripture are not fixed, singular objects awaiting discovery or correction, but living, plural traditions received, used, and handed on by the Church across centuries and regions.

• Initial Introduction: Introduced implicitly in Exchange 1's correction of "the Septuagint canon" (one corpus assumed, many corpora found) and made explicit in Exchange 2's proposed language of "Old Testament tradition" and "New Testament tradition."
• Progressive Development: Moves from canon (which books belong) to text (which wording is authoritative) to apostolic practice (how the New Testament authors themselves actually used this plural inheritance) — three escalating layers of the same argument.
• Biblical Support: St. Paul's demonstrated citation flexibility and the Nicodemus wordplay in John 3 function as internal New Testament evidence that the apostolic authors themselves operated inside this plural-tradition model rather than a single-urtext model.
• Historical Context: The Dead Sea Scrolls' twin Jeremiahs and Patriarch Nicephorus's 9th-century disputed-canon list both function as hard, external historical evidence — not theological assertion — that plurality was the lived reality of the pre-modern Church, not a later scholarly discovery imposed on a formerly tidy tradition.
• Speaker's Unique Contribution: De Young's distinctive move is refusing to let this plurality become a partisan talking point in either direction — he applies the same critical rigor to popular Orthodox apologetics (the canon conundrum, the "Septuagint canon" myth) that he applies to sola scriptura, and he explicitly declines to resolve the tension this creates for sola scriptura rather than forcing a tidy apologetic conclusion.
• Practical Application: For a catechumen doing Bible study, this licenses reading both Greek and Hebrew Proverbs, consulting the Orthodox Study Bible's footnoted textual variants, and treating patristic commentators' differing readings of the same verse as complementary rather than as a problem requiring one to be declared wrong.
• Connection to Broader Theology: This resonates with the Orthodox understanding of Holy Tradition itself as a living, Spirit-guided process rather than a fixed deposit frozen at one moment — the same theological instinct that resists treating any single council, Father, or manuscript as the sole and final word applies here to the biblical text's own transmission history.
• Orthodox Theological Lens:
  • The Father's Reading: St. Basil the Great's distinction in On the Holy Spirit (ch. 27) between kērygmata (publicly proclaimed teaching) and dogmata (the fuller mystery carried in liturgical and unwritten practice) offers a structural parallel: just as Basil resists collapsing the Church's living inheritance into only its written, codified form, De Young resists collapsing Scripture's own transmission into only its most reducible textual form.
  • Ascetic Movement: This whole reframing calls for diakrisis (discernment) practiced as an ongoing discipline rather than a one-time verdict — learning to hold multiple legitimate readings, texts, or canon lists in view at once without either collapsing them into false uniformity or despairing of any stable truth at all.
  • Orthodox Practice Connection: This is lived out every time a parish reads the Old Testament paremia at Vespers from the Septuagint/Old Greek tradition while a catechumen's study Bible footnotes the Masoretic variant beside it — the liturgical and study life of the Church already practices exactly the plural reception this exchange describes, usually without comment.

Orthodox Synthesis

Orthodox Reading of This Video:

This clip calls you to hold your Scripture the way the Church herself has always held it — as a rich, plural inheritance rather than a single object you must first purify before you can trust it. It is tempting, especially early in catechesis, to want one clean answer: one true canon, one true text, one true translation. What De Young shows you instead is that even the Fathers, even the councils, even the Apostles did not work that way — St. Paul himself moved fluidly between Greek and Hebrew and oral tradition without anxiety, and the Church received that fluidity as apostolic practice rather than as a problem to be fixed. This does not mean truth is unstable; it means truth is larger and more generously given than a single document can hold, and the Church's task has always been reception and discernment, not reduction. Where this teaching most directly challenges you is its honesty about your own side's apologetics: the "canon conundrum" and "the Septuagint canon" are popular weapons that do not survive close historical scrutiny any better than the doctrines they are aimed at, and a catechumen who wants intellectual integrity has to be willing to set down a convenient argument once it is shown to be imprecise, however useful it once felt.

Ascetic posture: When you next reach for a tidy apologetic point, especially one that flatters your own side, pause and test it against the actual historical record before you repeat it — that pause is nepsis applied to argument, not just to prayer.

Referenced Bible Verses Summary

• 1 Corinthians 10:4 (implied, not directly quoted) — "that Rock was Christ," background for the Midrashic "rock that followed them" tradition De Young cites as an example of Paul incorporating extrabiblical Jewish tradition.
• 2 Timothy 3:8 (implied) — Jannes and Jambres, Pharaoh's magicians, named via the Aramaic Targum tradition rather than the Old Testament text itself.
• John 3 (implied, Nicodemus dialogue) — the Greek anōthen ("again"/"from above") wordplay in Christ's statement that one must be born anōthen, cited as an example of deliberate Hebrew-style semantic ambiguity carried into New Testament Greek.

Key Concept Highlights

• Primary Concepts: "Old Greek" vs. "Septuagint" (terminology precision); the local-canon-adoption model; the "canon conundrum" objection and its limits; pre-Reformation West canon split (Augustine vs. Jerome); Old Testament/New Testament as plural "traditions" rather than single texts.
• Historical Insights: Patriarch Nicephorus's 9th-century disputed-canon list; the Dead Sea Scrolls' two Hebrew Jeremiahs found side by side; Pope Gregory the Great's leaning toward Jerome's tiered distinction; Trent's 1545–63 flattening of the earlier tiered Deuterocanon distinction.
• Theological Principles: Canon and text as living ecclesial reception rather than fixed objects; apostolic freedom in citing Scripture and tradition as a model for the Church's own ongoing relationship to its textual inheritance.
• Practical Applications: Read both Greek and Hebrew textual traditions (e.g., LXX and MT Proverbs) as complementary; treat manuscript and canon variation as potentially edifying rather than as a problem requiring resolution; hold popular apologetic talking points (on either side of a debate) to the same historical scrutiny as the positions they critique.

Section Summary
This short but dense Q&A clip does real corrective work on two fronts at once: it dismantles a popular but historically imprecise Orthodox/Catholic talking point ("the Septuagint canon"), and it replaces the more common Western assumption of a single authoritative biblical text with a positive account of Scripture as a plural, living tradition the Church has always received rather than needed to purify. Its historical evidence — the pre-Reformation Augustine/Jerome split, Patriarch Nicephorus's 9th-century list, and the Dead Sea Scrolls' twin Jeremiahs — gives concrete, checkable weight to what could otherwise be an abstract theological claim.

What makes this exchange significant for long-term understanding is its refusal to let historical rigor serve only one side of the sola scriptura debate: De Young applies the same critical eye to Orthodox apologetics that he applies to Protestant assumptions about textual singularity, modeling a kind of intellectual honesty that is rarer than it should be in online theological debate.

Learning Reflection Questions

• Before this clip, did you assume "the Septuagint" named one fixed ancient Greek Bible? How does the "Old Greek" distinction change how you'd use that term going forward?
• The canon-conundrum objection is popular in Orthodox apologetics, yet De Young argues it doesn't actually work even for Orthodoxy. What does it mean for a catechumen to hold a critique of your own side's weaker arguments alongside genuine conviction in the tradition itself?
• How does the Dead Sea Scrolls' double-Jeremiah change how you might read LXX/MT footnotes in the Orthodox Study Bible going forward?
• St. Paul quotes Scripture in at least four different modes (Greek, fresh Hebrew translation, blended, extrabiblical). What would it look like to bring that same freedom, rather than anxiety, to your own study of divergent translations?

Progressive Understanding Check
Now that we understand Scripture and canon as plural, received traditions rather than single fixed texts, how might this inform your reading of comparison_sola_scriptura_orthodox_critique's "canonical" argument (Level 4) — does treating the Old Testament as one determinate "which Bible" question hold up as well once local-canon adoption and the pre-Reformation Augustine/Jerome split are taken into account?

Cross-References

• comparison_sola_scriptura_orthodox_critique — deepens and complicates this page's own Level 4 "canonical" argument (Masoretic vs. LXX, ~80% NT quotation) with the local-canon-adoption model, the pre-Reformation West split, and Nicephorus's 9th-century list; this page's material is a direct, more granular expansion of that single paragraph
• source_sorin_sola_scriptura_opening_closing — same underlying sola scriptura debate approached from a different angle (judicial-succession authority rather than textual/canonical history); both pages independently name the historical-anachronism theme (no single fixed text/canon before late antiquity)
• source_sorin_dyoung_gospel_debate — another De Young appearance already in the wiki (a justification debate debrief with Alex Sorin); together the two pages give a fuller picture of De Young's recurring themes (sola scriptura, "church gave you the Bible," apostolic-era textual practice)
• concept_covenant_theology — the Septuagint/Masoretic canon question already cross-referenced there gets its full historical treatment here rather than the single summary line currently on that page
• source_patristic_exegesis_reading_list — Florovsky's Bible, Church, Tradition and the Antiochene/Alexandrian exegetical schools are the natural next-step reading for the "Scripture as living tradition" theme this page develops
• concept_orthodox_catechesis — Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition as co-equal, jointly-received forms of the apostolic deposit; this page supplies the textual-critical evidence underneath that broader catechetical claim
• source_uoc_01_early_church_afterlife — 2 Maccabees and the Septuagint deuterocanon as canonical basis for prayer for the dead; this page supplies the historical background for why that book's canonical status was ever contested at all
• source_dyer_bible_reading_icons_tucker — a second, independent source naming liturgical lectionary practice as the mechanism behind Orthodox canon recognition (there: a specific 6th–7th century solidification date), corroborating this page's broader "canon as regional, historically contingent process" argument from a different speaker and angle

Source

Video: Fr. Stephen De Young on the formation of the Canon of Scripture — clip via @Pseudo-Stephen, from a longer discussion with @CleavetoAntiquity (full stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgSYk9pM8LA)
Clip URL: https://youtu.be/AVu08lfRUdQ
Speaker: Fr. Stephen De Young — Orthodox priest, host of Ancient Faith Radio's Whole Counsel of God podcast; patristics, biblical theology, church history