Bible Origins

[mo3]

Thus the writings of the Apocrypha should not be regarded as part of Scripture: (1) they do not claim for themselves the same kind of authority as the Old Testament writings; (2) they were not regarded as God’s words by the Jewish people from whom they originated; (3) they were not considered to be Scripture by Jesus or the New Testament authors; and (4) they contain teachings inconsistent with the rest of the Bible. We must conclude that they are merely human words, not God-breathed words like the words of Scripture. They do have value for historical and linguistic research, and they contain a number of helpful stories about the courage and faith of many Jews during the period after the Old Testament ends, but they have never been part of the Old Testament canon, and they should not be thought of as part of the Bible. Therefore, they have no binding authority for the thought or life of Christians today.

This is a great statement of your position because it clearly provides your reaoning for accepting “your Bible.”

The problem is these statements are not grounded in facts. So let’s break them down:

(1) they do not claim for themselves the same kind of authority as the Old Testament writings

There are no claims in the OT for themselves. So what. There are no claims for your version of the OT either.

(2) they were not regarded as God’s words by the Jewish people from whom they originated;

Are you going to trust the Jews who rejected Jesus Christ?

When the Christians claimed that they had written new scriptures, Jews from a rabbinical school in Javneh met around year 80 and, among other things, discussed the canon. They did not include the New Testament nor the seven Old Testament works and portions of Daniel and Esther. This still did not settle the Pharisee canon, since not all Jews agreed with or even knew about the decision at Javneh. Rabbis continued to debate it into the second and third centuries. Even today, the Ethiopian Jews use the same Old Testament as Catholics.

If anything is certain, it is that there was no common canon among the Jews at the time of Christ.

(3) they were not considered to be Scripture by Jesus or the New Testament authors

Of the places where the New Testament quotes the Old, the great majority is from the Septuagint version. Protestant authors Archer and Chirichigno list 340 places where the New Testament cites the Septuagint but only 33 places where it cites from the Masoretic Text rather than the Septuagint (G. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, 25-32).

By the first century, the LXX was the Bible of Greek-speaking Jews and so was the most frequently used version of the Old Testament in the early Church. For this reason, it was natural for the authors of the New Testament to lift quotes from it while writing in Greek to the Church.

But, while the New Testament authors quoted the LXX frequently, it does not necessarily follow that Christ did. We know for certain that Jesus quoted the Hebrew Old Testament at times, since he read from the scrolls in the synagogue. But Jesus could have only quoted from the Hebrew, and the New Testament authors later used the Greek translation to record the fact.

Either way, it doesn’t matter, because the Greek New Testament is inspired, and the Holy Spirit chose to have the sacred authors repeatedly cite the LXX. It doesn’t really matter if Jesus was quoting Scripture in Hebrew or Aramaic if the Holy Spirit chooses to use the Septuagint when translating his words into Greek. The importance of the Septuagint is demonstrated no matter which of these is the case.

Here is an example where the Greek gospels present Jesus as quoting the Septuagint: In Mark 7:6–7, Jesus quotes the LXX of Isaiah 29:13 when he says, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’”

Of course, the reason people usually ask about the New Testament authors’ use of the Septuagint is because it contains the seven deuterocanonical books that are now omitted from Protestant Bibles. Showing that the New Testament authors quoted from the LXX argues in favor of (though does not in itself prove) the inspiration of these seven books.

Did you know that Protestant and Catholic scholars agree that the first Christians used a version of the Old Testament called the Septuagint as their Scripture? It is also known as LXX. A respected Protestant Bible dictionary says this: “The early Christian church . . . took over the LXX as their Bible. Their use of it, to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, caused a change in the Jews’ attitude toward it. Soon after 100 A.D. the Jews completely gave up the LXX, and it became a Christian book. The Jews sponsored new translations of the OT [Old Testament].” (New International Bible Dictionary, based on the NIV, Douglas and Tenney, eds., Zondervan Publishing House, 917).

Arguments for the canon which reject the authority of the Church must rely on one’s subjective feelings or the witness of other fallible men. As the well-respected evangelical Protestant, Dr. R. C. Sproul, once said, Protestants have “a fallible collection of infallible books.” [Tape series on Roman Catholicism, Ligonier Ministries.]

God bless.

 

[james62]

The Tanak. The Jewish Scripture which became the Christian OT. There is really no need to distinguish. As I have said, since the OT came from the Jews, then it is just but right that we follow the canon of the Jews. On the other hand, the NT being written after Christ, then it is Christian Scripture. In this regard then should the canon of Church be followed.

From what i understand at this point in my research about this point, i think your second sentence is confusing, because as i understand it, it was the Greek Septuagint which was the “scriptures” of the Jewish Jesus, the Jewish disciples, and then the early Christian Church. It was these Greek scriptures which contained a few newer books that never originated in Hebrew (which later became known as the deuterocanonicals), and were thus rejected by the Jews AFTER the time of Christ, i believe at the Council of Jamnia.

So, in the first century, the Jews were reading the Greek Septuagint. It was accepted as “scripture.” Some Jews believed Jesus to be the Messiah - and were then at some point, called, “Christians.” These Christians continued to read the Greek scriptures, and eventually more were written, decided upon, and eventually added into a section called the New Testament. The Jews who rejected Christ then decided to go back to the Hebrew-only texts, thus rejecting what was at the point the Christian bible - but which contained only the “OT”.

Thus my question: to which “OT” were you referring - the Jewish (Hebrew-only), the early Christian (Greek Septuagint), or the Protestant (Hebrew-only). Again, to side with the post-Christ Jews on what they would call ‘scripture’, we must remember that at the same time they were going back to the Hebrew only, they were also rejecting Christ AND all “New Testament” writings - that existed at that point and anything in the future - as well.

At least, that is my understanding of it today…

 

[mo3]

Thus the writings of the Apocrypha should not be regarded as part of Scripture: (4) they contain teachings inconsistent with the rest of the Bible. We must conclude that they are merely human words, not God-breathed words like the words of Scripture. They do have value for historical and linguistic research, and they contain a number of helpful stories about the courage and faith of many Jews during the period after the Old Testament ends, but they have never been part of the Old Testament canon, and they should not be thought of as part of the Bible. Therefore, they have no binding authority for the thought or life of Christians today.

They do not contain inconsistent teachings. This is your personal interpretation of their meanings.

Even Martin Luther included them in his first German translation. They can also be found in the first King James Version (1611) and in the first Bible ever printed, the Guttenberg Bible (a century before Trent). In fact, these books were included in almost every Bible until the Edinburgh Committee of the British Foreign Bible Society excised them in 1825. Until then, they had been included at least in an appendix of Protestant Bibles. It is historically demonstrable that Catholics did not add the books, Protestants took them out.

God bless.

 

[inkaneer]

If Peter was the first pope, what function had Paul and James (the Just), the brother of Jesus? We cannot say about such function as pope at that time. Early Christianity was not an episcopal church then. There was no single main center for Christians. All Christian churches (or communes) were more or less independent, lead by elders (for example in Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antiochia, later also in Rome).

Well that is historically incorrect. The early church was hierarchial based on bishops [episcopoi], priests [presbuteroi] and deacons [diakonai] and there wwas a functioning papacy from Pentecost onward. It was Peter who addressed the crowds on Pentecost not James or any other Apostle. At the council of Jerusalem scripture records there was much debate over the situation in Antioch but when Peter stood everyone shut up. Why? Because the boss was speaking. Even after Peter’s death we see the church in different locales going to Rome for guidance. For instance, in 80 AD the church in Corinth appealed to Clement, Bishop of Rome to settle a dispute in Corinth [Shades of Antioch] Why Clement in Rome? Why not the Apostle John in Ephesus? Because the early church knew what you do not know. They knew that the successor of Peter, Clement, was the head of the church, not John. Again, approx 90 years later we see the very same thing happening where an appeal is made to the bishop of Rome to settle a dispute. There is historical evidence to document this. Did your pastor tell you about it in Church history class??? I wonder why not.

You cannot also say the authors of Gospels were Catholics. They did not even know such a word. They were Christians, the followers of Jesus Christ. The term Catholic was introduced later, I am not sure, but probably in the third or fourth century. It has been in general use since the Reformation to identify the faith and practice of Christians in communion with the pope.

The first time that we are aware of the term Catholic being used was in a letter written about 110 AD by Ignatius, the third bishop of Antioch. He uses it in his letter matter of factly giving one the impression that he is not coining the term for the first time but using a term that is already in use. Here is what Ignatius wrote:

“Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains *. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

Again in 155 AD we find the term applied again in the "Martyrdom of Polycarp:

“And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. For every word which came forth from his mouth was fulfilled and will be fulfilled” (Martyrdom of Polycarp 16:2 [A.D. 155]).

The term "Catholic Church appears in scripture also. Acts 9:31 in the Greek the words are ‘ecclesia kata holis’ That is the same term used by Ignatius. The term was used then as it is used now to denote the church established by Jesus as the the one, true church which all must be in communion with.*

 

[james62]

…and don’t forget the first century use of the word “catholic” in the Apostle’s Creed…

 

[inkaneer]

These books were never accepted by the Jews as Scripture, but throughout the early history of the church there was a divided opinion on whether they should be part of Scripture or not. In fact, the earliest Christian evidence is decidedly against viewing the Apocrypha as Scripture, but the use of the Apocrypha gradually increased in some parts of the church until the time of the Reformation.

Tell me something. If the Church used the Septuagint version for the Bible’s OT and thus the deuteros were included and the Septuagint was a prechristian translation of the Jewish scriptures into Greek then how can you say the deuteros were never in the Jewish scriptures? Totally illogical

The fact that these books were included by Jerome in his Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible (completed in A.D. 404) gave support to their inclusion, even though Jerome himself said they were not “books of the canon” but merely “books of the church” that were helpful and useful for believers. The wide use of the Latin Vulgate in subsequent centuries guaranteed their continued accessibility, but the fact that they had no Hebrew original behind them, and their exclusion from the Jewish canon, as well as the lack of their citation in the New Testament, led many to view them with suspicion or to reject their authority. For instance, the earliest Christian list of Old Testament books that exists today is by Melito, bishop of Sardis, writing about A.D. 170. . . .

It is noteworthy here that Melito names none of the books of the Apocrypha, but he includes all of our present Old Testament books except Esther. Eusebius also quotes Origen as affirming most of the books of our present Old Testament canon (including Esther), but no book of the Apocrypha is affirmed as canonical, and the books of Maccabees are explicitly said to be “outside of these [canonical books].” Similarly, in A.D. 367, when the great church leader Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, wrote his Paschal Letter, he listed all the books of our present New Testament canon and all the books of our present Old Testament canon except Esther. He also mentioned some books of the Apocrypha such as the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Judith, and Tobit, and said these are “not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness.”15 However, other early church leaders did quote several of these books as Scripture.

You quoted Jerome saying [your words], “Jerome himself said they were not “books of the canon” but merely “books of the church” that were helpful and useful for believers.”
But you did not give a reference where Jerome said this. Are these in fact the words of Jerome himself or words which you or someone else want Jerome to say. Please give a proper reference. Here is an example of something Jerome did say about the deuteros with the proper reference:

"“What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:29–68, RSV-CE], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, ‘This is not the time to discuss such matters’” (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).

As for Melito let me ask you if he is your pope or what? Are you preepared to accept everything he said as the truth? I don’t think you are because Melito was very Catholic. You hang on his opinion only because it supports your version but you are willing to discard all of Melito’s other teachings. You guys are real good at Cafeteria Christianity. But back to the discussion at hand. So why the discrepancy in the Church’s canon and Melito’s? Simple, Melito gives us the answer. He says that he verified his catalogue by inquiry among Jews. But the Jews by that time [170 AD] had discarded the Alexandrian books, and Melito’s canon therefore consisted exclusively of the protocanonicals. That is why Melito does not list the deuteros. His source of information is bad. The old “garbage in, garbage out” at work in the second century. But enter Justin Martyr into the fray. Justin Martyr claimed in his debate with Trypho the Jew that the Jews removed scriptures,

"And I wish you to observe, that they [Jews] have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy…

Trypho then remarks, “Whether[or not] the rulers of the people have erased any portion of the Scriptures, as you affirm, God knows; but it seems incredible.”
(Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho, Chapters 71,73).

So even Trypho, who was a Jew, was not aware that the Jews had removed some scriptures. So Melito in Sardis got bad information from the Jews

 

[inkaneer]

It was not until 1546, at the Council of Trent, that the Roman Catholic Church officially declared the Apocrypha to be part of the canon (with the exception of 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh). It is significant that the Council of Trent was the response of the Roman Catholic Church to the teachings of Martin Luther and the rapidly spreading Protestant Reformation, and the books of the Apocrypha contain support for the Catholic teaching of prayers for the dead and justification by faith plus works, not by faith alone. In affirming the Apocrypha as within the canon, Roman Catholics would hold that the church has the authority to constitute a literary work as “Scripture,” while Protestants have held that the church cannot make something to be Scripture, but can only recognize what God has already caused to be written as his own words.18 (One analogy here would be to say that a police investigator can recognize counterfeit money as counterfeit and can recognize genuine money as genuine, but he cannot make counterfeit money to be genuine, nor can any declaration by any number of police make counterfeit money to be something it is not. Only the official treasury of a nation can make money that is real money; similarly, only God can make words to be his very words and worthy of inclusion in Scripture.)

The canon was formally defined in 1546. So what? The majority of doctrines in the church have never been formally defined. That does not make them any less valid. The canon was not defined earlier because there was no need to define it earlier. It was only when the heretical protestants questioned it that formal definition became a necessity. The same is true of the doctrine of the Trinity and the natures of Christ. These were all defined at council because of false teachings that arose. Also it should be pointed out that the OT canon from the start was 46 books and the Council of Trent made no changes but only affirmed the books as were contained in the Vugate of Jerome. The counterfeit canon here is the protestant one.

Thus the writings of the Apocrypha should not be regarded as part of Scripture: (1) they do not claim for themselves the same kind of authority as the Old Testament writings; (2) they were not regarded as God’s words by the Jewish people from whom they originated; (3) they were not considered to be Scripture by Jesus or the New Testament authors; and (4) they contain teachings inconsistent with the rest of the Bible. We must conclude that they are merely human words, not God-breathed words like the words of Scripture. They do have value for historical and linguistic research, and they contain a number of helpful stories about the courage and faith of many Jews during the period after the Old Testament ends, but they have never been part of the Old Testament canon, and they should not be thought of as part of the Bible. Therefore, they have no binding authority for the thought or life of Christians today.

Rubbish! Matthew 16 is claer that Jesus institutted a church with authority that whatever it binds or looses on earth will be bound or loosed as well in heaven. Thus the canon of the OT has been bound by the church at 46 books on earth and in heaven. Your attempts to rationalize your heretical doctrines are worthless.

 

[Bengoshi]

re: #72 - so begoshi,

are your final earthly ecclesial authorities St. Jerome, and Melito? i understand your post, and while it was well-written and well-researched, it seems more like you - like most of us! : ) - are simply looking into the past to see which early fathers agree with the canon you use today. i used to do the same thing. most all of these questions come down to who a person sees as their ultimate EARTHLY authority (because we all know and agree that Jesus is THE head of His Church, His Body, His Bride.)

so, do you accept all of Jerome and Melito’s other ideas regarding the Christian faith? do you agree with their thoughts on the sacraments, the bishop of Rome, etc.?

In all humility, I do not claim to kow ALL of their teachings or ideas. Moreover, what they did was to merely reflect the accepted OT canon during their time and to prove that the Apocrypha was not considered part of it. They are not speaking as auhtoritatively on their own. This just proves that the usage of the apocrypha as scripture was only done later on in the history of the RCC.

 

[Bengoshi]

This is a great statement of your position because it clearly provides your reaoning for accepting “your Bible.”

The problem is these statements are not grounded in facts. So let’s break them down:

There are no claims in the OT for themselves. So what. There are no claims for your version of the OT either.

Are you going to trust the Jews who rejected Jesus Christ?

When the Christians claimed that they had written new scriptures, Jews from a rabbinical school in Javneh met around year 80 and, among other things, discussed the canon. They did not include the New Testament nor the seven Old Testament works and portions of Daniel and Esther. This still did not settle the Pharisee canon, since not all Jews agreed with or even knew about the decision at Javneh. Rabbis continued to debate it into the second and third centuries. Even today, the Ethiopian Jews use the same Old Testament as Catholics.

If anything is certain, it is that there was no common canon among the Jews at the time of Christ.

Of the places where the New Testament quotes the Old, the great majority is from the Septuagint version. Protestant authors Archer and Chirichigno list 340 places where the New Testament cites the Septuagint but only 33 places where it cites from the Masoretic Text rather than the Septuagint (G. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, 25-32).

By the first century, the LXX was the Bible of Greek-speaking Jews and so was the most frequently used version of the Old Testament in the early Church. For this reason, it was natural for the authors of the New Testament to lift quotes from it while writing in Greek to the Church.

But, while the New Testament authors quoted the LXX frequently, it does not necessarily follow that Christ did. We know for certain that Jesus quoted the Hebrew Old Testament at times, since he read from the scrolls in the synagogue. But Jesus could have only quoted from the Hebrew, and the New Testament authors later used the Greek translation to record the fact.

Either way, it doesn’t matter, because the Greek New Testament is inspired, and the Holy Spirit chose to have the sacred authors repeatedly cite the LXX. It doesn’t really matter if Jesus was quoting Scripture in Hebrew or Aramaic if the Holy Spirit chooses to use the Septuagint when translating his words into Greek. The importance of the Septuagint is demonstrated no matter which of these is the case.

Here is an example where the Greek gospels present Jesus as quoting the Septuagint: In Mark 7:6–7, Jesus quotes the LXX of Isaiah 29:13 when he says, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’”

Of course, the reason people usually ask about the New Testament authors’ use of the Septuagint is because it contains the seven deuterocanonical books that are now omitted from Protestant Bibles. Showing that the New Testament authors quoted from the LXX argues in favor of (though does not in itself prove) the inspiration of these seven books.

Did you know that Protestant and Catholic scholars agree that the first Christians used a version of the Old Testament called the Septuagint as their Scripture? It is also known as LXX. A respected Protestant Bible dictionary says this: “The early Christian church . . . took over the LXX as their Bible. Their use of it, to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, caused a change in the Jews’ attitude toward it. Soon after 100 A.D. the Jews completely gave up the LXX, and it became a Christian book. The Jews sponsored new translations of the OT [Old Testament].” (New International Bible Dictionary, based on the NIV, Douglas and Tenney, eds., Zondervan Publishing House, 917).

Arguments for the canon which reject the authority of the Church must rely on one’s subjective feelings or the witness of other fallible men. As the well-respected evangelical Protestant, Dr. R. C. Sproul, once said, Protestants have “a fallible collection of infallible books.” [Tape series on Roman Catholicism, Ligonier Ministries.]

God bless.

Man, this is long! Whew! I agree that the NT authors mostly used the LXX. I am knowledgeable of that particular historical fact and do not deny it. However, as Dr. Douglas Kelly in his lectures on Systematic Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary, said, the use of the LXX was more because of the wide use of Greek during that time due to the eminence of the Roman Empire and the hellenization of the known world. Moreover, a lot of Jews were scattered across the western world and did not even know the Hebrew language anymore. However, as you yourself admitted, it is still by no means conclusive proof to the canonicity of the Apocrypha. In spite of the wide use of the LXX, not one book of the Apocrypha was quoted as Scripture by the NT authors.

 

[Bengoshi]

Tell me something. If the Church used the Septuagint version for the Bible’s OT and thus the deuteros were included and the Septuagint was a prechristian translation of the Jewish scriptures into Greek then how can you say the deuteros were never in the Jewish scriptures? Totally illogical

You quoted Jerome saying [your words], “Jerome himself said they were not “books of the canon” but merely “books of the church” that were helpful and useful for believers.”
But you did not give a reference where Jerome said this. Are these in fact the words of Jerome himself or words which you or someone else want Jerome to say. Please give a proper reference. Here is an example of something Jerome did say about the deuteros with the proper reference:

"“What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:29–68, RSV-CE], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, ‘This is not the time to discuss such matters’” (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).

As for Melito let me ask you if he is your pope or what? Are you preepared to accept everything he said as the truth? I don’t think you are because Melito was very Catholic. You hang on his opinion only because it supports your version but you are willing to discard all of Melito’s other teachings. You guys are real good at Cafeteria Christianity. But back to the discussion at hand. So why the discrepancy in the Church’s canon and Melito’s? Simple, Melito gives us the answer. He says that he verified his catalogue by inquiry among Jews. But the Jews by that time [170 AD] had discarded the Alexandrian books, and Melito’s canon therefore consisted exclusively of the protocanonicals. That is why Melito does not list the deuteros. His source of information is bad. The old “garbage in, garbage out” at work in the second century. But enter Justin Martyr into the fray. Justin Martyr claimed in his debate with Trypho the Jew that the Jews removed scriptures,

"And I wish you to observe, that they [Jews] have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy…

Trypho then remarks, “Whether[or not] the rulers of the people have erased any portion of the Scriptures, as you affirm, God knows; but it seems incredible.”
(Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho, Chapters 71,73).

So even Trypho, who was a Jew, was not aware that the Jews had removed some scriptures. So Melito in Sardis got bad information from the Jews

I’ve just read a book giving the reasons for the exclusion of the Apocrypha. Check out the Book THE NEW EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT by Josh McDowell. He discusses the OT canon on pp. 26-32. Citing Geisler and Nix, he lists ten historical testimony of their exclusion from tha canon by the early church by Philo, Josephus, Jesus and the NT writers, Jewish scholars at Jamnia, Absence of any Christian council recognizing the apocrypha as inspired for nearly 4oo years, Origen, Cyril and Athanasius, Jerome, saying that the church reds them “for example of life and instruction of manners,” but does not “apply them to establish any doctrine.” He also outlined samples from the Apocrypha to show its inaccuracy and errancy, as cited from Ralph Earle’s How We Got Our Bible.

It would be too lengthy for me to

 

[Bengoshi]

The canon was formally defined in 1546. So what? The majority of doctrines in the church have never been formally defined. That does not make them any less valid. The canon was not defined earlier because there was no need to define it earlier. It was only when the heretical protestants questioned it that formal definition became a necessity. The same is true of the doctrine of the Trinity and the natures of Christ. These were all defined at council because of false teachings that arose. Also it should be pointed out that the OT canon from the start was 46 books and the Council of Trent made no changes but only affirmed the books as were contained in the Vugate of Jerome. The counterfeit canon here is the protestant one.

Rubbish! Matthew 16 is claer that Jesus institutted a church with authority that whatever it binds or looses on earth will be bound or loosed as well in heaven. Thus the canon of the OT has been bound by the church at 46 books on earth and in heaven. Your attempts to rationalize your heretical doctrines are worthless.

Again, the Roman Catholic Church is not representative of ALL Christianity, but that is out of topic for this thread.

A detailed historical survey of the differing views of Christians regarding the Apocrypha is found in F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1988), pp. 68–97. An even more detailed study is found in Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (London: SPCK, 1985, and Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), esp. pp. 338–433. Beckwith’s book has now established itself as the definitive work on the Old Testament canon. At the conclusion of his study Beckwith says, “The inclusion of various Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in the canon of the early Christians was not done in any agreed way or at the earliest period, but occurred in Gentile Christianity, after the church’s breach with the synagogue, among those whose knowledge of the primitive Christian canon was becoming blurred.” He concludes, “On the question of the canonicity of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha the truly primitive Christian evidence is negative” (pp. 436–37).

 

[Bengoshi]

They do not contain inconsistent teachings. This is your personal interpretation of their meanings.

Even Martin Luther included them in his first German translation. They can also be found in the first King James Version (1611) and in the first Bible ever printed, the Guttenberg Bible (a century before Trent). In fact, these books were included in almost every Bible until the Edinburgh Committee of the British Foreign Bible Society excised them in 1825. Until then, they had been included at least in an appendix of Protestant Bibles. It is historically demonstrable that Catholics did not add the books, Protestants took them out.

God bless.

Including them in their own respective translations still does not prove that they are canonical. Luther translated from Jerome’s Vulgate, which included the Apocrypha, so it is but natural to translate everything as well. As I have pointed out in my other posts herein, even Jerome and the early church fathers did not consider it to be scripture. Please don’t make me repeat them. Just read my earlier posts. Most of them I just quoted from noted church history professors and theologians. They are not infallible of course. Only Scripture is.

 

[inkaneer]

I’ve just read a book giving the reasons for the exclusion of the Apocrypha. Check out the Book THE NEW EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT by Josh McDowell. He discusses the OT canon on pp. 26-32. Citing Geisler and Nix, he lists ten historical testimony of their exclusion from tha canon by the early church by Philo, Josephus, Jesus and the NT writers, Jewish scholars at Jamnia, Absence of any Christian council recognizing the apocrypha as inspired for nearly 4oo years, Origen, Cyril and Athanasius, Jerome, saying that the church reds them “for example of life and instruction of manners,” but does not “apply them to establish any doctrine.” He also outlined samples from the Apocrypha to show its inaccuracy and errancy, as cited from Ralph Earle’s How We Got Our Bible.

It would be too lengthy for me to

Again I say so what? McDowell, Geisler and Nix are modern day protestants who are biased by their beliefs. They are trying to justify their beliefs. How can you expect them to treat the subject honestly? As for Philo, Josephus and the Jewish scholars of Jamnia they aren’t even christian. All the christian people you mention do not speak for the church. They do not speak infallibly. What you fail to realize is that before a matter is formaly defined it is quite proper to debate, discuss, state your opinion on the matter or whatever else you want to call it. But once a formal definition is made then the debate stops. That is what occurred at the Council of Jerusalem in the book of Acts. Did you know that Thomas Aquinas, one of the greatest Catholic Theologian that ever lived, held views on some matters that were contrary to how they later were formally defined? But in Thomas’ day they were not defined and were open to debate. But today they are not. In the case of the Bible canon there were differing ideas on the canon of both the OT as well as the NT. We haven’t discussed the NT canon but not every locality agreed with the 27 books we all share today. There was also a NT deuterocanon just like the OT. The point is that in quick succession between the years 380 - 408 AD four local synods at Rome, Hippo and two at Carthage ratified the same 73 books. Pope Innocent answers a question on the canon posed to him in a letter from a bishop in France and gives the same 73 books and Jerome’s Vugata is published with the same 73 books. From then on there is no more debate on the canon until Luther 1100 years later. No question is raised in those 1100 years therefore no formal definition is needed. Until Luther.

 

[Bengoshi]

Again I say so what? McDowell, Geisler and Nix are modern day protestants who are biased by their beliefs. They are trying to justify their beliefs. How can you expect them to treat the subject honestly? As for Philo, Josephus and the Jewish scholars of Jamnia they aren’t even christian. All the christian people you mention do not speak for the church. They do not speak infallibly. What you fail to realize is that before a matter is formaly defined it is quite proper to debate, discuss, state your opinion on the matter or whatever else you want to call it. But once a formal definition is made then the debate stops. That is what occurred at the Council of Jerusalem in the book of Acts. Did you know that Thomas Aquinas, one of the greatest Catholic Theologian that ever lived, held views on some matters that were contrary to how they later were formally defined? But in Thomas’ day they were not defined and were open to debate. But today they are not. In the case of the Bible canon there were differing ideas on the canon of both the OT as well as the NT. We haven’t discussed the NT canon but not every locality agreed with the 27 books we all share today. There was also a NT deuterocanon just like the OT. The point is that in quick succession between the years 380 - 408 AD four local synods at Rome, Hippo and two at Carthage ratified the same 73 books. Pope Innocent answers a question on the canon posed to him in a letter from a bishop in France and gives the same 73 books and Jerome’s Vugata is published with the same 73 books. From then on there is no more debate on the canon until Luther 1100 years later. No question is raised in those 1100 years therefore no formal definition is needed. Until Luther.

I see… So I guess there really is no point in presenting arguments and other historical data with papists who know nothing better than to appeal to the “Authority of Rome.” “Thus says Rome” = “Thus says the Lord”.

No wonder other Protestants consider the RCC as the largest cult ever! Others do, but I don’t, okay?

 

[juliamajor]

I see… So I guess there really is no point in presenting arguments and other historical data with papists who know nothing better than to appeal to the “Authority of Rome.” “Thus says Rome” = “Thus says the Lord”.

No wonder other Protestants consider the RCC as the largest cult ever! Others do, but I don’t, okay?

PAPISTS!what other bigoted terms do you use?
Biblical Archaeology has come to the conclusion that Judea, Palestine was way more Hellenized then any one thought…The use of the LXX was more widespread then considered and was probably more well read than the Hebrew.The Jews of that time and ours have a great deal of respect for what is termed the Apocrypha.Just take a gander at the Jewish encyclopedia.Just because they weren’t included in the Hebrew doesn’t mean they had no value.They were mainly omitted because of their common use among the Christians.

 

[Bengoshi]

PAPISTS!what other bigoted terms do you use?
Biblical Archaeology has come to the conclusion that Judea, Palestine was way more Hellenized then any one thought…The use of the LXX was more widespread then considered and was probably more well read than the Hebrew.The Jews of that time and ours have a great deal of respect for what is termed the Apocrypha.Just take a gander at the Jewish encyclopedia.Just because they weren’t included in the Hebrew doesn’t mean they had no value.They were mainly omitted because of their common use among the Christians.

Hey, that’s not bigotry! Bigotry is such a strong word to use considering the word “papist.” In fact, older Protestant writings made wide use of the term to refer to Roman Catholics. In no way is it bigoted. It is a mere adjective to describe the Roman Catholics’ blind obedience to Rome even in the face of unbiblical pronouncements and teachings.

I don’t hate Catholics, in fact, I have a lot of priest friends who I have coffee with from time to time. One of them is even a seminary professor who teaches Sacred Scripture in Jerusalem and is now in Rome pursuing his doctorate studies.

Anyway, yes, even Israel (There is no such State as Palestine) was greatly hellenized at that time, and yet, Jewish scholars remained faithful to the hebrew text. The Greek version was adopted so as to reach more people because it was the colloquial language then.

 

[inkaneer]

I see… So I guess there really is no point in presenting arguments and other historical data with papists who know nothing better than to appeal to the “Authority of Rome.” “Thus says Rome” = “Thus says the Lord”.

No wonder other Protestants consider the RCC as the largest cult ever! Others do, but I don’t, okay?

Your use of the word “papists” reveals your bigotry. You are not here to search for truth or understanding. You came here seeking justification for your own beliefs and found that your beliefs can not be justified. And yes when Rome speaks and the conditions of infallibility are met then the matter is bound. Unlike protestantism we don’t have to constantly reinvent the wheel. But every protestant generation has to redefine sola scriptura. Your lack of a guiding force in protestantism creates the division and fracturing that is evidenced by the thousands and thousands of protestant denominations that have been created in just 500 years. Protestants claim they are led by the Holy Spirit. They may be led by a spirit but whether it is holy or not is another question. Your doctrines are no more than moving targets. Look at how the doctrine of sola scriptura has changed since Luther first stated it.

Your historical arguments are insufficient. They only tell part of the story. Why for instance in the first three centuries there was debate on the canon but after 400 AD there was none? The canon had not been formally bound. That didn’t occur until 1546. But the church had decided informally and that decision was accepted by the whole church. For 1100 years, that is over a millenium, the canon stood at 73 books. Then comes a victim of child abuse who suffers from an induced poor self image caused by his childhood experiences with abusive parents. That causes him to reject all authority except that which he can control. Luther loved to be the one to say what this or that meant but he necame violently angered when others interpreted scripture differently from him. If you read what this “Father of Protestantism” really wrote you might sing a different tune.

 

[inkaneer]

Hey, that’s not bigotry! Bigotry is such a strong word to use considering the word “papist.” In fact, older Protestant writings made wide use of the term to refer to Roman Catholics. In no way is it bigoted. It is a mere adjective to describe the Roman Catholics’ blind obedience to Rome even in the face of unbiblical pronouncements and teachings.

The word “papist” is bigotry. It was coined as a derogatory name for Catholics. And yes early protestant writings made use of the term but it was in a derogatory sense. The fact that it is still used by protestants 500 years later shows protestantism does not possess the christian values of charitable love.

I don’t hate Catholics, in fact, I have a lot of priest friends who I have coffee with from time to time. One of them is even a seminary professor who teaches Sacred Scripture in Jerusalem and is now in Rome pursuing his doctorate studies.

Wow! you have priest friends who you have coffee with. Do you call them “papists” too? Do you have any black friends? What do you call them?

Anyway, yes, even Israel (There is no such State as Palestine) was greatly hellenized at that time, and yet, Jewish scholars remained faithful to the hebrew text. The Greek version was adopted so as to reach more people because it was the colloquial language then.

All the more reason why the christian OT should be the Septuagint version and not the Hebrew.

 

[mo3]

Man, this is long! Whew!

I agree, too long. I will keep it simple.

In spite of the wide use of the LXX, not one book of the Apocrypha was quoted as Scripture by the NT authors.

There are plenty of books of the OT that are not quoted in the NT. Should we reject Obadiah as non-canonical because there is no direct quotation?

There are 340 NT text that cites the OT Septuagint (which has 46 books) and only 33 places where it cites Masoretic Text.

.

 

[mo3]

Including them in their own respective translations still does not prove that they are canonical. Luther translated from Jerome’s Vulgate, which included the Apocrypha, so it is but natural to translate everything as well.

This is your speculation. Luther would never translate something he didn’t think was inspired text. He changed his mind later.

even Jerome and the early church fathers did not consider it to be scripture.

Jerome accepted the Jewish Masoretic canon, but it was never an individual Father that made binding decisions for the Church; only the councils could do so. This does not mean Jerome rejected the Septuagint as inspired.

Do you accept most of Jerome writings as accurate? If so, you will become Catholic.

Most of them I just quoted from noted church history professors and theologians. They are not infallible of course. Only Scripture is.

You just admitted your sources are infallible. Therefore, you cannot rely on them to determine which books of the Bible are truly inspired.

God bless.