Adding to the Bible and Taking away from the Bible

[Tanner9188]

**“The Apocrypha Contradicts Scripture” tile of article.
If anyone wants to look at some of the errors contained in the Apocrypha.

justforcatholics.org/a109.htm
johnankerberg.org/ankerberg-articles/apocrypha.html (Scroll down to article)
biblequery.org/Bible/BibleCanon/WhatAboutTheApocrypha.htm

I’m out of here; so enjoy your conversations concerning the validity of the Apocrypha.

God bless all and Lord willing; we will see you all soon. A new thread coming soon in the Apologetic section may be titled OSAS versus OLAL (Once Lost Always Lost); tentative title.

Tanner out!**

 

[Tanner9188]

Tanner? We were talking about Genesis, remember?

I said that if you’re going to dismiss the deutero-canonicals because they’re not accurate historically or geographically, then you ought to dismiss Genesis as well because it’s not accurate scientifically–unless, of course, you believe the earth is flat and has a dome covering it.

So, which is it–do you believe the earth is flat, or are you going to dismiss Genesis because the earth is a sphere and Genesis is not correct? You can’t have it both ways.

And, if you accept Genesis, even if it’s not scientifically accurate, then you have no argument for dismissing the deutero-canonicals!

**Is there a specific passage in Genesis you are speaking of? You were speaking of Genesis; I was speaking of what the Bible said about the earth; why you assumed Genesis; I don’t know. The Bible is not a scientific book.
Sounds like you are implying the Bible contains error; if that is true, then you show your unbelief IMO. Send me a PM if you had a specific question about Genesis; I’m out of this thread; looks like we all agree to disagree. **

 

[PRmerger]

**Is there a specific passage in Genesis you are speaking of? You were speaking of Genesis; I was speaking of what the Bible said about the earth; why you assumed Genesis; I don’t know. The Bible is not a scientific book.
Sounds like you are implying the Bible contains error; if that is true, then you show your unbelief IMO. Send me a PM if you had a specific question about Genesis; I’m out of this thread; looks like we all agree to disagree. **

I understand that Tanner’s out of here…

But I want to respond: Tanner and I were speaking of books of Scripture (Genesis, the deutero-canonicals) which contain geographical, historical and scientific errors. ( I don’t know why he went off track citing Job and Isaiah…)

Clearly, Tanner is being contradictory with his criteria for what is considered inspired. On the one hand, he claims that the deutero-canonicals cannot be inspired because they contain “historical and geographical” error; on the other hand he accepts Genesis, which states the world is flat and covered with a dome.

One must see that Genesis is True–it is a love letter from the Creator to the creature, but it is not a scientific exposition on the creation of the world. The same must be said for the deutero-canonicals.

 

[wmscott]

**Hello;

Thanks for bringing this error to my attention LXX is 70 to begin with**; what I should have said is the Jewish Council at Jamnia excluded from the Old Testament all but the writings Jews and Protestants accept today. In other words the completed and accepted Jewish canon rejected the Deuterocanonical books.

Anyway, it is obvious why the 2nd canon was added in haste.

God bless!

Tanner

PART ONE

And herein lies your problem and those who put stock in the council of Jamnia, and by the way a red herring that some protestants like you Mr. Tanner that use this tired, fallacious, and debunked argument as a pure anti-Catholic attack on the Church and Sacred Scripture.
The council of Jamnia was not even a Christian council, Jamnia was a Jewish, not a Christian, “council” consisting of Pharisees some 40 years after the Resurrection of our Lord. So why would a “Christian” like yourself palce any stock into it? I will tell you why, to attack the Catholic Church and Catholics. You will use any means such as lies, deceptions, and fallible interpretations to attack “Christianity” in its pureist form.
Do you have so little Christian charity that you attack the very thing you profess to be? AMAZING and sad. It is sad to think that you will not read any farther because you have your mind already made up as to what you fallible think is the truth. However, if by some strange luck you do decide to read on let us have a little history lesson.
Many non-Catholic Christians like to accuse Catholics of “adding” Books to the Bible at the 16th c. Council of Trent. This is absolutely, 100% false. This Council, among other things, simply affirmed the ancient accepted books in the face of Protestant tinkering. How could Luther have relegated the deuterocanonical books to an appendix if they hadn’t already been accepted in the first place? The Gutenberg Bible was printed in 1454 – and it included the deuterocanonical Books. How could the Church have “added” them at the Council of Trent that began 91 years later? I defy any Protestant to find a Bible in existence before 1525 that looked like a modern Protestant Bible! Most Protestant Bibles included the deuterocanonical Books until about 1815, when the British and Foreign Bible Society discontinued the practice! Moreover, note that Jews in other parts of the world who weren’t around to hear the Council of Jamnia’s decision in A.D. 100 include to this day those “extra” 7 books in their canon. Do some research on the canon used by Ethiopian Jewry.

 

[wmscott]

**Hello;

Thanks for bringing this error to my attention LXX is 70 to begin with**; what I should have said is the Jewish Council at Jamnia excluded from the Old Testament all but the writings Jews and Protestants accept today. In other words the completed and accepted Jewish canon rejected the Deuterocanonical books.

Anyway, it is obvious why the 2nd canon was added in haste.

God bless!

Tanner

PART TWO

You hold to a council that was not even Christian to define your beliefs, but let’s look at the actual Christian councils that did convene.

1.Council of Rome
“Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).

2.Council of Hippo
“[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]).

3.Council of Carthage III
“[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . .” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).
Protestants, Catholics, and most Orthodox agree now that the New Testament should consist at least of the 27 Books (Matthew through Revelation/Apocalypse) that the Catholic Church determined were canonical, but the Protestant Old Testament is lacking 7 entire books (Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus/Sirach, Baruch, I Maccabees, and II Maccabees), 3 chapters of Daniel and 6 chapters of Esther, leaving them with 66 incomplete books while Catholic Bibles have 73 books. How did this come to be?

 

[wmscott]

**Hello;

Thanks for bringing this error to my attention LXX is 70 to begin with**; what I should have said is the Jewish Council at Jamnia excluded from the Old Testament all but the writings Jews and Protestants accept today. In other words the completed and accepted Jewish canon rejected the Deuterocanonical books.

Anyway, it is obvious why the 2nd canon was added in haste.

God bless!

Tanner

PART THREE

Background
The canon of the Old Testament that Catholics use is based on the text used by Alexandrian Jews, a version known as the “Septuagint” (also called “LXX” or “The Seventy”) and which came into being around 280 B.C. as a translation of then existing texts from Hebrew into Greek by 72 Jewish scribes (the Torah was translated first, around 300 B.C., and the rest of Tanach was translated afterward).

It was a standard Jewish version of the Old Testament, used by the writers of the New Testament, as is evidenced by the fact that Old Testament references found in the New Testament refer to the Septuagint over other versions of the Old Testament. Let me reiterate: the then 300+ year old Septuagint version of Scripture was good enough for Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul, etc., which is evident in their referencing it over 300 times (out of 350 Old Testament references!) in their New Testament writings – and the Septuagint includes 7 books and parts of Esther and Daniel that were removed from Protestant Bibles some 1,500 years after the birth of Christ.

Some Protestants claim that the “Apocrypha” (i.e., the Deuterocanonical Books) are not quoted in the New Testament so, therefore, they are not canonical. First, this isn’t true; see Relevant Scripture below. Second, going by that standard of proof, we’d have to throw out Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah because none of these Old Testament Books are quoted in the New Testament.

The Septuagint is the Old Testament referred to in the Didache or “Doctrine of the Apostles” (first century Christian writings) and by Origen, Irenaeus of Lyons, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, Justin Martyr, St. Augustine and the vast majority of early Christians who referenced Scripture in their writings. The Epistle of Pope Clement, written in the first century, refers to the Books Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, analyzed the book of Judith, and quotes sections of the book of Esther that were removed from Protestant Bibles.

Bottom line: the Septuagint was the version of the Old Testament accepted by the very earliest Christians (and, yes, those 7 “extra” books were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls which date between 168 B.C. and A.D. 68, and which by the way, support both the Septuagint and the 6th - 10th c. A.D. Masoretic texts in various ways, but supporting the Septuagint on average). By the way, “Masoretic texts” refers to translations of the Old Testament made by rabbis between the 6th and 10th centuries; the phrase doesn’t refer to ancient texts in the Hebrew language. Apparently, some people think that the Masoretic texts are the “original texts” and that, simply because they are in Hebrew, they are superior.
In any case, the Latin Church in no way ignored the post-Temple rabbincal texts. Some Old Testament translations of the canon used by the Latin Church were also based in part on rabbinical translations, for example St. Jerome’s 5th c. Latin translation of the Bible called the Vulgate.

The deuterocanonical books were, though, debated in the early Church, and some Fathers accorded them higher status than others (hence the Catholic term for them: “deuterocanonical,” or what St. Cyril of Jerusalem called “secondary rank,” as opposed to the other books which are called “protocanonical”). But all the Fathers believed as did St. Athanasius, who, in one of his many Easter letters, names the 22 Books all Christians accept and then describes the deuterocanonicals as “appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness.” Church Councils listed and affirmed the present Catholic canon, which was only formally closed at the Council of Trent in the 16th century.

So what happened?
In the 16th c., Luther, reacting to serious abuses and clerical corruption in the Latin Church, to his own heretical theological vision (see articles on sola scriptura and sola fide), and, frankly, to his own inner demons, removed those books from the canon that lent support to orthodox doctrine, relegating them to an appendix. Removed in this way were books that supported such things as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45), Purgatory (Wisdom 3:1-7), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14), and intercession of angels as intermediaries (Tobit 12:12-15). Ultimately, the “Reformers” decided to ignore the canon determined by the Christian Councils of Hippo and Carthage (and reaffirmed and closed at the Council of Trent), and resort solely to those texts determined to be canonical at the Council of Jamnia.
Luther even wanted to remove from the New Testament the Epistle of James, Esther, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation. Calvin and Zwingli also both had problems with the Book of Revelation, the former calling it “unintelligible” and forbidding the pastors in Geneva to interpret it, the latter calling it “unbiblical”. The Syrian (Nestorian) Church has only 22 books in the New Testament while the Ethiopian Church has 8 “extra.” The first edition of the King James Version of the Bible included the “Apocryphal” (ie, Deuterocanonical) Books.

 

[wmscott]

**Hello;

Thanks for bringing this error to my attention LXX is 70 to begin with**; what I should have said is the Jewish Council at Jamnia excluded from the Old Testament all but the writings Jews and Protestants accept today. In other words the completed and accepted Jewish canon rejected the Deuterocanonical books.

Anyway, it is obvious why the 2nd canon was added in haste.

God bless!

Tanner

PART FOUR

The Council of Jamnia?
Now we have to back up a bit: around A.D. 90-100, after the Temple fell, a rabbinical school was formed by Johanan ben Zakkai. The “Council of Jamnia” (also called “Jabneh” or “Javneh”) is the name given to the decisions made by this pharisaic school. I repeat: the gathering at Jamnia was a Jewish, not a Christian, “council” consisting of Pharisees some 40 years after the Resurrection of our Lord. At that time, Jews were being scattered, and the very existence of Jewry per the Pharisees’ vision of “Jewry” was being threatened. At this time, too, Christianity was growing and threatening that same Jewish identity, resulting in severe persecution of Christians by Jews. In reaction to these things and to the fact that “Nazarenes” (i.e., “Christians”, who at that time were overwhelmingly Hebrew) used the Septuagint to proselytize other Jews, Zakkai convened the Jamnian school with the goals of safeguarding Hillel’s Oral Law, deciding the Jewish canon (which had theretofore been, and possibly even afterward remained, an open canon!), and preventing the disappearance of Jewry into the Diaspora of the Christian and Roman worlds. So, circling their wagons, they threw out the Septuagint that they had endorsed for almost 400 years. Note that at the time of Christ, most Jews spoke Aramaic, Latin (the official language of the area), and/or Greek (the lingua franca at that time), not Hebrew, which was a sacred language used by priests for the Hebrew liturgy. In any case, a new Greek translation was created by Aquila – but one without the ancient Septuagint’s language that proved more difficult for the Jews to defend against when being evangelized by the Christians, the point being that any idea that a book “had” to have been written in Hebrew to be “Biblical” wasn’t the issue.

Moving along: in other words, the Protestant “Reformers” decided against the canon held dear by the Apostles in favor of a canon determined by Pharisees some 40 years after Jesus rose from the dead – the same Pharisees who denied the Truths of the entire New Testament, even accusing the “Nazarenes” of stealing Jesus’ body from the tomb and lying to the world! (Interestingly, it was Zakkai’s successor, Gamaliel, who forced the “Nazarenes” out of the synagogues. Gamaliel also made it obligatory for Jews to pray the “Prayer of Eighteen Petitions,” the 12th petition, which is still prayed today, known as the birkat, being “For apostates may there be no hope, and may the Nazarenes and heretics suddenly perish.”)

And do you know why the Book of Maccabees was thrown out by the Jewish Council? Because the Council was conducted under the auspices of the Flavian Roman Emperors and they decided that that particuar book, which tells of the Maccabean Revolt, might be inflammatory and incite rebellion by the Jews. So, all those Protestant Bibles are lacking the Book of Maccabees, which speaks clearly of praying for the dead, because a pagan emperor pressured the Pharisees, around 40 years after the Resurrection of Christ, to exclude it. And lest anyone is still tempted to think that it was the “Roman Church” that came up with these books and that they were not written by pre-Christ Jews (an assertion I’ve actually read at “Messianic” websites), Jews in other parts of the world who didn’t get news of the Council of Jamnia’s decisions still use those “extra” 7 books to this very day (research the canon used by Ethiopian Jewry).

Conclusion
We must trust the version of the Old Testament that was loved by Peter and Paul.

But there is a bigger lesson in all this confusion over not only the canon but proper translation of the canon (see footnotes), especially considering that even within the Catholic Church there have been differing opinions by individual theologians about the proper place of the deuterocanonicals (not that an individual theologian’s opinions count for Magisterial teaching!). The lesson, though, is this: relying on the “Bible alone” is a bad idea; we are not to rely solely on Sacred Scripture to understand Christ’s message. While Scripture is “given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16-17), it is not sufficient for reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness. It is the Church that is the “pillar and ground of Truth” (1 Timothy 3:15)! Jesus did not come to write a book; He came to redeem us, and He founded a Sacramental Church through His apostles to show us the way. It is to them, to the Church Fathers, to the Sacred Deposit of Faith, to the living Church that is guided by the Holy Spirit, and to Scripture that we must prayerfully look.

Reference Link

 

[SemperReformada]

We must trust the version of the Old Testament that was loved by Peter and Paul.

Please tell us precisely how you know which OT was loved by Peter and Paul? BTW, the whole concept of the so called council of Jamnia has pretty much been abandoned.

You can go to handsonapologetics.com/deuterocanon.htm and read the articles by Gary Michuta and Steve Ray on Jamnia or search for Mr. Ray’s article here at CAF. I think it’s entitled “The Council That Wasn’t”.

 

[SemperReformada]

PART THREE

Background
The canon of the Old Testament that Catholics use is based on the text used by Alexandrian Jews, a version known as the “Septuagint” (also called “LXX” or “The Seventy”) and which came into being around 280 B.C. as a translation of then existing texts from Hebrew into Greek by 72 Jewish scribes (the Torah was translated first, around 300 B.C., and the rest of Tanach was translated afterward).

It was a standard Jewish version of the Old Testament, used by the writers of the New Testament, as is evidenced by the fact that Old Testament references found in the New Testament refer to the Septuagint over other versions of the Old Testament. Let me reiterate: the then 300+ year old Septuagint version of Scripture was good enough for Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul, etc., which is evident in their referencing it over 300 times (out of 350 Old Testament references!) in their New Testament writings – and the Septuagint includes 7 books and parts of Esther and Daniel that were removed from Protestant Bibles some 1,500 years after the birth of Christ.

Some Protestants claim that the “Apocrypha” (i.e., the Deuterocanonical Books) are not quoted in the New Testament so, therefore, they are not canonical. First, this isn’t true; see Relevant Scripture below. Second, going by that standard of proof, we’d have to throw out Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah because none of these Old Testament Books are quoted in the New Testament.

The Septuagint is the Old Testament referred to in the Didache or “Doctrine of the Apostles” (first century Christian writings) and by Origen, Irenaeus of Lyons, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, Justin Martyr, St. Augustine and the vast majority of early Christians who referenced Scripture in their writings. The Epistle of Pope Clement, written in the first century, refers to the Books Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, analyzed the book of Judith, and quotes sections of the book of Esther that were removed from Protestant Bibles.

Bottom line: the Septuagint was the version of the Old Testament accepted by the very earliest Christians (and, yes, those 7 “extra” books were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls which date between 168 B.C. and A.D. 68, and which by the way, support both the Septuagint and the 6th - 10th c. A.D. Masoretic texts in various ways, but supporting the Septuagint on average). By the way, “Masoretic texts” refers to translations of the Old Testament made by rabbis between the 6th and 10th centuries; the phrase doesn’t refer to ancient texts in the Hebrew language. Apparently, some people think that the Masoretic texts are the “original texts” and that, simply because they are in Hebrew, they are superior.
In any case, the Latin Church in no way ignored the post-Temple rabbincal texts. Some Old Testament translations of the canon used by the Latin Church were also based in part on rabbinical translations, for example St. Jerome’s 5th c. Latin translation of the Bible called the Vulgate.

The deuterocanonical books were, though, debated in the early Church, and some Fathers accorded them higher status than others (hence the Catholic term for them: “deuterocanonical,” or what St. Cyril of Jerusalem called “secondary rank,” as opposed to the other books which are called “protocanonical”). But all the Fathers believed as did St. Athanasius, who, in one of his many Easter letters, names the 22 Books all Christians accept and then describes the deuterocanonicals as “appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness.” Church Councils listed and affirmed the present Catholic canon, which was only formally closed at the Council of Trent in the 16th century.

So what happened?
In the 16th c., Luther, reacting to serious abuses and clerical corruption in the Latin Church, to his own heretical theological vision (see articles on sola scriptura and sola fide), and, frankly, to his own inner demons, removed those books from the canon that lent support to orthodox doctrine, relegating them to an appendix. Removed in this way were books that supported such things as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45), Purgatory (Wisdom 3:1-7), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14), and intercession of angels as intermediaries (Tobit 12:12-15). Ultimately, the “Reformers” decided to ignore the canon determined by the Christian Councils of Hippo and Carthage (and reaffirmed and closed at the Council of Trent), and resort solely to those texts determined to be canonical at the Council of Jamnia.
Luther even wanted to remove from the New Testament the Epistle of James, Esther, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation. Calvin and Zwingli also both had problems with the Book of Revelation, the former calling it “unintelligible” and forbidding the pastors in Geneva to interpret it, the latter calling it “unbiblical”. The Syrian (Nestorian) Church has only 22 books in the New Testament while the Ethiopian Church has 8 “extra.” The first edition of the King James Version of the Bible included the “Apocryphal” (ie, Deuterocanonical) Books.

The deutero’s are never, ever, not once quoted in such a way as to lead someone to believe that any of the NT authors believed them to be inspired. There aren’t even that many quotes…if any…some allusions at best perhaps?

Which version or manuscript of the LXX did Jesus and the apostles use? If you don’t know the answer to this question, how do you know which books were contained within the version they were using?

 

[SemperReformada]

PART ONE

And herein lies your problem and those who put stock in the council of Jamnia, and by the way a red herring that some protestants like you Mr. Tanner that use this tired, fallacious, and debunked argument as a pure anti-Catholic attack on the Church and Sacred Scripture.
The council of Jamnia was not even a Christian council, Jamnia was a Jewish, not a Christian, “council” consisting of Pharisees some 40 years after the Resurrection of our Lord. So why would a “Christian” like yourself palce any stock into it? I will tell you why, to attack the Catholic Church and Catholics. You will use any means such as lies, deceptions, and fallible interpretations to attack “Christianity” in its pureist form.
Do you have so little Christian charity that you attack the very thing you profess to be? AMAZING and sad. It is sad to think that you will not read any farther because you have your mind already made up as to what you fallible think is the truth. However, if by some strange luck you do decide to read on let us have a little history lesson.
Many non-Catholic Christians like to accuse Catholics of “adding” Books to the Bible at the 16th c. Council of Trent. This is absolutely, 100% false. This Council, among other things, simply affirmed the ancient accepted books in the face of Protestant tinkering. How could Luther have relegated the deuterocanonical books to an appendix if they hadn’t already been accepted in the first place? The Gutenberg Bible was printed in 1454 – and it included the deuterocanonical Books. How could the Church have “added” them at the Council of Trent that began 91 years later? I defy any Protestant to find a Bible in existence before 1525 that looked like a modern Protestant Bible! Most Protestant Bibles included the deuterocanonical Books until about 1815, when the British and Foreign Bible Society discontinued the practice! Moreover, note that Jews in other parts of the world who weren’t around to hear the Council of Jamnia’s decision in A.D. 100 include to this day those “extra” 7 books in their canon. Do some research on the canon used by Ethiopian Jewry.

Again, the whole concept of Jamnia has pretty been much dismissed.

Roger Beckwith has this to say:
beckwith:

The theory that an open canon was closed at the Synod of Jamnia about AD 90 goes back to Heinrich Graetz in 1871, who proposed (rather more cautiously than has since been the custom) that the Synod of Jamnia led to the closing of the canon. Though others have lately expressed hesitations about the theory, its complete refutation has been the work of J.P. Lewis and S.Z. Leiman. The combined results of their investigations is as follows:

(a) The term ‘synod’ or ‘council’ is inappropriate. The academy at Jamnia, established by Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai shortly before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, was both a college and a legislative body, and the occasion in question was a session of the elders there.
(b) The date of the session may have been as early as AD 75 or as late as AD 117.
(c) As regards the disputed books, the discussion was confined to the question whether Eccelsiastes and the Song of Songs (or possibly Eccelsiastes alone) make the hands unclean, i.e. are divinely inspired.
(d) The decision reached was not regarded as authoritative, since contrary opinions continued to be expressed throughout the second century.

Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), p. 276.

FF Bruce confirms this stating that Jamnia changed nothing at all regarding the Jewish canon:
Bruce:

So far as the scriptures are concerned, the rabbis at Jamnia introduced no innovations; they reviewed the tradition they had received and left it more or less as it was. It is probably unwise to talk as if there was a Council or Synod of Jamnia which laid down the limits of the Old Testament canon.

F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988),
p. 34.

As to your challenge to produce one bible before 1525 that laced the deutero’s, I’m not sure I can produce a bible that lacks the deutero’s. However, just because they were included within the binding of a particular version of the bible means absolutely nothing. The Vulgate was sent out complete with Jerome’s negative prologues regarding the canonocity of each of the deutero’s. So the Vulgate contaiend the deutero’s but it would be obvious to anyone reading the Vulgate that the deutero’s were not to be considered as inspired.

Can you produce a version of the bible before Trent that didn’t disparage the canonocity of the deutero’s? I honestly don’t know if there is one or not so I would be curious to see what you can come up with.

 

[wmscott]

Please tell us precisely how you know which OT was loved by Peter and Paul? BTW, the whole concept of the so called council of Jamnia has pretty much been abandoned.

You can go to handsonapologetics.com/deuterocanon.htm and read the articles by Gary Michuta and Steve Ray on Jamnia or search for Mr. Ray’s article here at CAF. I think it’s entitled “The Council That Wasn’t”.

Then why do so many Protestants continue to cite Jamnia as an authoritative source to try and discredit the Duetero’s? i will tell you why, they so dislike the CC that they will use anything they can in the hopes of winning a point.

 

[SemperReformada]

Then why do so many Protestants continue to cite Jamnia as an authoritative source to try and discredit the Duetero’s? i will tell you why, they so dislike the CC that they will use anything they can in the hopes of winning a point.

From what I can tell the Council of Jamnia didn’t discuss the deutero’s. If a Protestant uses the council to somehow bolster their arugment I would say they are as mistaken as a Catholic would be should he use Jamnia.

 

[wmscott]

The deutero’s are never, ever, not once quoted in such a way as to lead someone to believe that any of the NT authors believed them to be inspired. There aren’t even that many quotes…if any…some allusions at best perhaps?

Which version or manuscript of the LXX did Jesus and the apostles use? If you don’t know the answer to this question, how do you know which books were contained within the version they were using?

PART ONE
So if the NT is inspired would not the references that they use also be inspired or are you suggesting that only some of the NT is inspired. here are about 80 NT quotes that correspond to the Deuterocanonical Books:

Matt. 2:16 - Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.

Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus’ statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.

Matt… 7:12 - Jesus’ golden rule “do unto others” is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.

Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Matt. 9:36 - the people were “like sheep without a shepherd” is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.

Matt. 11:25 - Jesus’ description “Lord of heaven and earth” is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.

Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus’ reference to the “power of death” and “gates of Hades” references Wisdom 16:13.

Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

Matt. 24:15 - the “desolating sacrilege” Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.

Matt. 24:16 - let those “flee to the mountains” is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.

Matt. 27:43 - if He is God’s Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.

Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus’ description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.

Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.

Luke 1:42 - Elizabeth’s declaration of Mary’s blessedness above all women follows Uzziah’s declaration in Judith 13:18.

Luke 1:52 - Mary’s magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.

Luke 2:29 - Simeon’s declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9.

Luke 13:29 - the Lord’s description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37.

Luke 21:24 - Jesus’ usage of “fall by the edge of the sword” follows Sirach 28:18.

Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 - Luke’s description of the two men in dazzling apparel reminds us of 2 Macc. 3:26.

John 1:3 - all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1.

John 3:13 - who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven references Baruch 3:29.

John 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor. 12:12 - Jesus’, Luke’s and Paul’s usage of “signs and wonders” follows Wisdom 8:8.

John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.

John 6:35-59 - Jesus’ Eucharistic discourse is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21.

John 10:22 - the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Macc. 4:59.

John 10:36 – Jesus accepts the inspiration of Maccabees as He analogizes the Hanukkah consecration to His own consecration to the Father in 1 Macc. 4:36.

John 15:6 - branches that don’t bear fruit and are cut down follows Wis. 4:5 where branches are broken off.

Acts 1:15 - Luke’s reference to the 120 may be a reference to 1 Macc. 3:55 - leaders of tens / restoration of the twelve.

Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6 - Peter’s and Paul’s statement that God shows no partiality references Sirach 35:12.

Acts 17:29 - description of false gods as like gold and silver made by men follows Wisdom 13:10.

Rom 1:18-25 - Paul’s teaching on the knowledge of the Creator and the ignorance and sin of idolatry follows Wis. 13:1-10.

Rom. 1:20 - specifically, God’s existence being evident in nature follows Wis. 13:1.

Rom. 1:23 - the sin of worshipping mortal man, birds, animals and reptiles follows Wis. 11:15; 12:24-27; 13:10; 14:8.

Rom. 1:24-27 - this idolatry results in all kinds of sexual perversion which follows Wis. 14:12,24-27.

Rom. 4:17 - Abraham is a father of many nations follows Sirach 44:19.

Rom. 5:12 - description of death and sin entering into the world is similar to Wisdom 2:24.

Rom. 9:21 - usage of the potter and the clay, making two kinds of vessels follows Wisdom 15:7.

 

[wmscott]

The deutero’s are never, ever, not once quoted in such a way as to lead someone to believe that any of the NT authors believed them to be inspired. There aren’t even that many quotes…if any…some allusions at best perhaps?

Which version or manuscript of the LXX did Jesus and the apostles use? If you don’t know the answer to this question, how do you know which books were contained within the version they were using?

PART TWO

1 Cor. 2:16 - Paul’s question, “who has known the mind of the Lord?” references Wisdom 9:13.

1 Cor. 6:12-13; 10:23-26 - warning that, while all things are good, beware of gluttony, follows Sirach 36:18 and 37:28-30.

1 Cor. 8:5-6 - Paul acknowledging many “gods” but one Lord follows Wis. 13:3.

1 Cor. 10:1 - Paul’s description of our fathers being under the cloud passing through the sea refers to Wisdom 19:7.

1 Cor. 10:20 - what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God refers to Baruch 4:7.

1 Cor. 15:29 - if no expectation of resurrection, it would be foolish to be baptized on their behalf follows 2 Macc. 12:43-45.

Eph. 1:17 - Paul’s prayer for a “spirit of wisdom” follows the prayer for the spirit of wisdom in Wisdom 7:7.

Eph. 6:14 - Paul describing the breastplate of righteousness is the same as Wis. 5:18. See also Isaiah 59:17 and 1 Thess. 5:8.

Eph. 6:13-17 - in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.

1 Tim. 6:15 - Paul’s description of God as Sovereign and King of kings is from 2 Macc. 12:15; 13:4.

2 Tim. 4:8 - Paul’s description of a crown of righteousness is similar to Wisdom 5:16.

Heb. 4:12 - Paul’s description of God’s word as a sword is similar to Wisdom 18:15.

Heb. 11:5 - Enoch being taken up is also referenced in Wis 4:10 and Sir 44:16. See also 2 Kings 2:1-13 & Sir 48:9 regarding Elijah.

Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.

Heb. 12:12 - the description “drooping hands” and “weak knees” comes from Sirach 25:23.

James 1:19 - let every man be quick to hear and slow to respond follows Sirach 5:11.

James 2:23 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness follows 1 Macc. 2:52 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness.

James 3:13 - James’ instruction to perform works in meekness follows Sirach 3:17.

James 5:3 - describing silver which rusts and laying up treasure follows Sirach 29:10-11.

James 5:6 - condemning and killing the “righteous man” follows Wisdom 2:10-20.

1 Peter 1:6-7 - Peter teaches about testing faith by purgatorial fire as described in Wisdom 3:5-6 and Sirach 2:5.

1 Peter 1:17 - God judging each one according to his deeds refers to Sirach 16:12 - God judges man according to his deeds.

2 Peter 2:7 - God’s rescue of a righteous man (Lot) is also described in Wisdom 10:6.

Rev. 1:4 – the seven spirits who are before his throne is taken from Tobit 12:15 – Raphael is one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints before the Holy One.

Rev. 1:18; Matt. 16:18 - power of life over death and gates of Hades follows Wis. 16:13.

Rev. 2:12 - reference to the two-edged sword is similar to the description of God’s Word in Wisdom 18:16.

Rev. 5:7 - God is described as seated on His throne, and this is the same description used in Sirach 1:8.

Rev. 8:3-4 - prayers of the saints presented to God by the hand of an angel follows Tobit 12:12,15.

Rev. 8:7 - raining of hail and fire to the earth follows Wisdom 16:22 and Sirach 39:29.

Rev. 9:3 - raining of locusts on the earth follows Wisdom 16:9.

Rev. 11:19 - the vision of the ark of the covenant (Mary) in a cloud of glory was prophesied in 2 Macc. 2:7.

Rev. 17:14 - description of God as King of kings follows 2 Macc. 13:4.

Rev. 19:1 - the cry “Hallelujah” at the coming of the new Jerusalem follows Tobit 13:18.

Rev. 19:11 - the description of the Lord on a white horse in the heavens follows 2 Macc. 3:25; 11:8.

Rev. 19:16 - description of our Lord as King of kings is taken from 2 Macc. 13:4.

Rev. 21:19 - the description of the new Jerusalem with precious stones is prophesied in Tobit 13:17.

Exodus 23:7 - do not slay the innocent and righteous - Dan. 13:53 - do not put to death an innocent and righteous person.

1 Sam. 28:7-20 – the intercessory mediation of deceased Samuel for Saul follows Sirach 46:20.

2 Kings 2:1-13 – Elijah being taken up into heaven follows Sirach 48:9.

I am sure I can find more if you like. However I get the feeling nothing will satisfy you. In you fallible beliefs you feel that the CC is wrong, so there is no convincing you. But I will continue to search for the answer.

 

[wmscott]

Please tell us precisely how you know which OT was loved by Peter and Paul? BTW, the whole concept of the so called council of Jamnia has pretty much been abandoned.

You can go to handsonapologetics.com/deuterocanon.htm and read the articles by Gary Michuta and Steve Ray on Jamnia or search for Mr. Ray’s article here at CAF. I think it’s entitled “The Council That Wasn’t”.

It is here in these posts, you need to read them because it is stated quite clearly which OT was loved by Peter and Paul. You do not want to see it and I am not going to hand hold you in this because you have not applied due diligence in reading the posts.

 

[SemperReformada]

PART ONE
So if the NT is inspired would not the references that they use also be inspired or are you suggesting that only some of the NT is inspired. here are about 80 NT quotes that correspond to the Deuterocanonical Books:

Matt. 2:16 - Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.
.

The list you just published, lengthy though it is, is complete bunk. I’m not sure if it is listed anywhere else but it’s usually taken from scripturecatholic.com

Let’s look at the above supposed quote.
Matthew 2:16-18:

16Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men. 17(T) Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah:
18(U) “A voice was heard in Ramah,
weeping and loud lamentation,
Rachel weeping for her children;
she refused to be comforted, because they(V) are no more.”

Jeremiah 31:15:

15Thus says the LORDAL) “A voice is heard in(AM) Ramah,
lamentation and bitter weeping.
(AN) Rachel is weeping for her children;
she refuses to be comforted for her children,
(AO) because they are no more.”

Since Matthew says the event was spoken of by the prophet Jeremiah, why in the world should we turn to the book of Wisdom? Let’s do it anyway and see what happens.
Douay Rheims Wisdom 11:6-8:

6 By the same things they in their need were benefited. 7 For instead of a fountain of an ever running river, thou gavest human blood to the unjust. 8 And whilst they were diminished for a manifest reproof of their murdering the infants, thou gavest to thine abundant water unlooked for:

I think Mark Bonocore is reaching when he makes the claim that Matt 2:16 was prophesied in Wisdom 11:7…seems the Holy Spirit thinks the event was foretold by Jeremiah.

The rest of your list fairs no better.

 

[SemperReformada]

It is here in these posts, you need to read them because it is stated quite clearly which OT was loved by Peter and Paul. You do not want to see it and I am not going to hand hold you in this because you have not applied due diligence in reading the posts.

Is it that I don’t want to see it or is it that you are seeing a mirage? I think the latter is more probable. You don’t seem to understand the issues surrounding the LXX. Whether or not Jesus and the apostles used the LXX is of little benefit to your argument and is completely irrelevant unless you can somehow demonstrate which manuscripts they used and what books were contained in that particular manuscript.

So, please hold my hand and tell me what version or manuscript of the LXX Jesus or the apostles used? What books were contained within it’s bindings and how do we know which books it contained? You made this rather bold claim and I would like to see you somehow back it up.

 

[juliamajor]

The deutero’s are never, ever, not once quoted in such a way as to lead someone to believe that any of the NT authors believed them to be inspired. There aren’t even that many quotes…if any…some allusions at best perhaps?

Which version or manuscript of the LXX did Jesus and the apostles use? If you don’t know the answer to this question, how do you know which books were contained within the version they were using?

Quoting from the OT by the Apostles or Jesus is not a criteria for canonicity. Many books from OT are not quoted in the NT.Esther,Song of songs, etc are not quoted.
Jewish canon and Hebrew Canon are different . There was a canon for Hellenistic Jews- the LXX. MT is The Hebrew canon because the writings are all in Hebrew or Aramaic, written in Palestine .

 

[wmscott]

Is it that I don’t want to see it or is it that you are seeing a mirage? I think the latter is more probable. You don’t seem to understand the issues surrounding the LXX. Whether or not Jesus and the apostles used the LXX is of little benefit to your argument and is completely irrelevant unless you can somehow demonstrate which manuscripts they used and what books were contained in that particular manuscript.

So, please hold my hand and tell me what version or manuscript of the LXX Jesus or the apostles used? What books were contained within it’s bindings and how do we know which books it contained? You made this rather bold claim and I would like to see you somehow back it up.

It is there read it for your self. The problem is you will never accept the canon of the Bible that the CC established.

 

[SemperReformada]

Quoting from the OT by the Apostles or Jesus is not a criteria for canonicity. Many books from OT are not quoted in the NT.Esther,Song of songs, etc are not quoted.
Jewish canon and Hebrew Canon are different . There was a canon for Hellenistic Jews- the LXX. MT is The Hebrew canon because the writings are all in Hebrew or Aramaic, written in Palestine .

I agree that quotation of a OT in the NT isn’t a requirement for canonocity.

I disagree that there was an Alexandrian canon. Can you list the books contained within the supposed Alexandrian canon and explain how you derived the identity of the books? Is there an existing manuscript? Does a Jewish source such as a Josephus list the books? This of course is all centered around the LXX which the first century Jews accepted as canonical.