So what is the justification argument that might show the Protestant Canon as superior?
The true canon must first have the true new testament canon. Whatever the orthodox church was using is the new testament canon. That just so happens to be the same as the protestant new testament canon. To determine what makes up the old testament canon, it must be referenced in the true new testament canon. The protestant old testament canon is the only one that has all the books referenced by the true new testament canon and the books that are not referenced are also in the majority of all the other known old testament canons. This is what makes the protestant canon superior to all others.
Er, no. The canon of every other Christian tradition includes everything in the Protestant canon plus some books. So if the Protestant OT canon has "all the books referenced by the true new testament canon", then so do all the others.
Besides which, as has been pointed out, the Protestant OT canon doesn't contain the Book of Enoch, which is referenced in the book of Jude. And the book of Jude is in the Protestant NT canon. So if it was true that "the protestant old testament canon is the only one that has all the books referenced by the true new testament canon", then the Protestants have the wrong NT canon, since the book of Jude is in the Protestant NT canon but the book of Enoch isn't.
Jude is not referencing the book of Enoch. The book of Enoch was not around when Jude was written. Jude is referencing a common theme throughout the Old Testament and is more likely referencing Deuteronomy 33:2 but the idea is also found in Zechariah 14:5, Isaiah 66:15, and Psalms 96:3. In reality, both Jude and the book of Enoch are referencing the same idea listed in the verses above, mainly Deuteronomy 33:2.
While it is true that all other canons include the books of the protestant canon and the protestant canon contains a few books not referenced in the New Testament, a criteria must be established for books not referenced in the New Testament. All of the apocryphal books never make a claim to divine inspiration or make a claim to divine authority. All the books of the protestant Old Testament DO either make a claim to divine inspiration or a claim to divine authority either explicitly such as "Thus saith the Lord", or implicitly such as the book of Esther when it provides authority for the celebration of the Jewish feast of Purim.
Only the protestant canon has all the books referenced in the New Testament and does not contain any books that do not make a claim to divine inspiration or authority.
In addition to the issues pointed out in the two replies above, why must a true Canon contain the New Testament?
The Law and the Prophets was good enough for Jesus, must man add more?
Second, what the hell is the "True" New Testament?
Where's 1 Enoch?
Who decides what is the "True" New Testament?
By Orthodox Church do you mean the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Church, the Samaritan Orthodox Church or the Roman Catholic Church?
The topic is the superiority of the protestant canon. You are disputing the very idea of a canon. You cannot make an argument against the superiority of the protestant canon if you don't even acknowledge the legitimitacy of the idea of a canon in the first place.