Bible

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!
Luke1:48:

YAQ, my bro, we seem to be ignorant, could you explain some things for us? I always thought Jesus was the Word of God. I’m so confussed here.

Don’t be confused. Just remember that this topic is about the Bible, and you will know that we are not talking here about the incarnated Word of God.

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[Luke1_48]

My bro, if Jesus is the Word, then how did the word make itself known? Peace out!

 

[steve_b]

YAQUBOS:

Peace be with you!

Friends, let’s remember that we are now thinking about the following question:

What is the WORD OF GOD?

So let’s concentrate on this, instead of talking about other writings. If we really understand this, we will very easily see how those human writings are not the WORD OF GOD.

My reply #45 contains some important questions and answers to think about. Read it again please.

Your questions were answered. Stop with all the questions as if they weren’t answered, and just come out with what you believe.

 

[Psalm45_9]

YAQUBOS:

By the way: the so called “Orthodox” did never give any official decision concerning those 7 human writings.

Pax Vobiscvm!
‘The Orthodox Christians use the Septuagint (often abbreviated as LXX) as their “official” text of the Old Testament. This is a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek that was begun in the third century B.C. The Septuagint is about a thousand years older that the oldest complete Hebrew manuscript of the Old Testament, and it is the “text of choice” for quotes from the Old Testament by the New Testament writers. Because of that, it must not be lightly dismissed, as many well-meaning Christians do today. The books of the Old Testament referred to in Western Christianity as the Apocrypha are included in the Septuagint, and the Orthodox Church accepts the books in the Septuagint as Scripture. True, a Jewish council in 95 A.D. rejected these books in question as part of the Old Testament. However, this should have little or no bearing on how the Church sees these books. The Church decides what is Scripture, not any individual, nor any denomination or other religion – not even Judaism.’ (St. Anthony’s Orthodox Christian Church)

st-anthony.org/apocrypha.htm

‘Looking back over history, there were various “lists” of the canonical “books” comprising the Bible:

• The Muratorian Canon (130 AD) cities all the books we considered as parts of the Bible today, except for Hebrews, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation/Apocalypse
• Canon 60 of the local Council of Laodicea (364 AD) cited Revelation/Apocalypse
• A festal Epistle by Saint Athanasius (369 AD) lists all of them.

Even so, there was no official, authoritative “canon” listing all the books until the Sixth Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople in 680 AD. Canon II of that Council ratifies the First through the Fifth Ecumenical Councils, as well as the local councils at Carthage (255 AD), Ancyra (315 AD), Neocaesaria (315 AD), Gangra (340 AD), Antioch (341 AD), Laodicea (364 A), Sardica (347 AD), Constantinople (394 AD), and Carthage (419 AD).

When the Council at Laodicea specified the content of the bible as we know it - 39 years after the First Ecumenical Council (325 AD) and 17 years before the second Ecumenical Council (381 AD) - the Liturgy was pretty much well-defined and established and had been “canonized” by common usage the reading from these books.’ (c)2000 Father Demetrios Serfes]

http://www.serfes.org/orthodox/scripturesinthechurch.htm

 

[michaelp]

Maybe this will help everyone to understand where both side are coming from.

Arguments for their inclusion (Orthodox Traditions):

**1. **These works were included in the LXX (B.C. 300-150) from which the N.T. writers often quoted. Paul quoted from the LXX many times. It was the writer of Hebrews primary text.

**2. **Several Deuterocanonical works were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls (although this argument is not used too often).

**3. **Early Christians reflect some knowledge of the Deuterocanonical books.

**4. **Certain early Church fathers used them authoritatively.

a. Clement of Alexandria (Tobit, Sirach, Wisdom)

b. Origen (Epistle of Jeremiah)

c. Irenaeus (Wisdom)

**5. **Many church counsels included them (Carthage 393; Hippo 397)

**6. **Council of Trent officially included them in 1546.

 

[michaelp]

Arguments for their exclusion (Evangelicals):

**1. **It is disputed whether or not these books were included in the LXX since the earliest copies that we have are fourth-century. Even if they were, this does not necessarily prove that the Alexandrian community believed them to be inspired since people would often include writings on one scroll that were both canonical and those that contained general religious value. And even if the Alexandrian community did believe them to be inspired, this does not prove that they were.

**2. **Many works were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls which are not canonical.

**3. **Knowledge of a work does not make it authoritative. Many people know of the Deuterocanonical books, and may even quote from it, but this does not mean that they believe it to be inspired.

**4. **The earliest Christians showed no evidence of its acceptance (this does not mean that they did not quote from it from time to time). It was only when the Christian community began to break ties with the Jews that its inclusion became questioned. The earliest Christian list of the Old Testament we have is that of Melito, bishop of Sardis (A.D. 170) does not contain the Deuterocanonical books.

**5. **N.T. never directly quotes from the Deuterocanonical books (often when people claim that it does, the references are a stretch to get them to match the Deuterocanonical books).

**6. **The Palestinian Jews (those who lived in Israel) never accepted it (key point that Protestants use. The basic idea is that if Christ did not recognize it, it is not canonical). Josephus (born c. A.D.), a jewish historian, plainly writes about the accepted canon of his day which is the same as the current Proestant canon. He makes no mention of the Apocrypha and does not hint at a canon controvery in his day (Against Apion 1.41).

**7. **From a Protestant perspective, there are significant theological and historical inaccuracies in the Deuterocanonical (works-based salvation, Tobit 12:9; cruelty, Sirach 22:3; 42:14, 2; doctrine of purgatory, 2 Maccabees 12:41-45).

**8. **One Deuterocanonical book itself attests to the absence of prophets in its own time (1 Maccabees 9:27).

**9. **Many Church fathers, including Jerome, spoke against its inclusion.

**10. **Many are pseudepigrapha (writings that are falsely attributed to an author). Esdras (Greek name for Ezra) was attributed to Erza who lived about 450 B.C. The book dates to 90 B.C.

**11. **Many Orthodox theologians do not recognize the Deuterocanonical books as being inspired like that of the first canon. It is hard to imagine what this means.

1. It did not officially become canonized until the Council of Trent.

 

[michaelp]

I would say on a scale of 1-10 how certain am I about the inclusion of these books?

I am about a “5” right now that they should not be included.

 

[Katholikos]

Protestant arguments against the Septuagint are spurious, invented in or after the 16th century.

Encyclopedia of Early Christianity (a Protestant publication)
Article: Septuagint (LXX), pages 1048-49:

QUOTE

The Septuagint was the Bible of the earliest church. The parting of the church from the synagogue was a bitter one. The Septuagint had been regarded as the inspired Word of God; . . . The church spread the Septuagint, together with its own writings contained in the New Testament throughout the world in its missionary activities. . . Until the Protestant Reformation, the canon of the church was the larger canon of the Septuagint; only then did the Hebrew text of the Old Testament replace the Septuagint.

END QUOTE

Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, Second Edition, Everett Ferguson, Editor, Garland Publishing, New York, 1998

JMJ Jay

 

[michaelp]

Oh, now I am a 2. Sorry, had to do it. What does spurious mean? That is kinda ad hoc isn’t it. I am certianly open to the inclusion of these books. Honestly. But just saying they are spurious does not help me. I honestly struggle with these issues. This is the evidence I have found and, from an unbiased perspective (I do try), their exclusion seems valid. What am I missing . . . really. You will be surprised. If you give me a good argument, I really will change. I am not bound by my traditions to such a degree that I cannot.

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!
Luke1:48:

My bro, if Jesus is the Word, then how did the word make itself known? Peace out!

My friend, if Jesus is the Word, then why are you calling the Scripture WORD OF GOD?

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!

Are we talking here about how we received the Bible or about those human writings?

Well, when you finish discussing those vanities, we return to our topic.

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[Psalm45_9]

The Gospel came to the Early Christians by the oral teachings of the apostles. Apostolic Tradition is the Word of God.

 

[Katholikos]

Part l

michaelp:

What does spurious mean? That is kinda ad hoc isn’t it. I am certianly open to the inclusion of these books. Honestly. But just saying they are spurious does not help me. I honestly struggle with these issues. This is the evidence I have found and, from an unbiased perspective (I do try), their exclusion seems valid. What am I missing . . . really. You will be surprised. If you give me a good argument, I really will change. I am not bound by my traditions to such a degree that I cannot.

Two synonyms for spurious are “counterfeit” and “illegitimate.” I’m not trying to change you – or anyone. I’m just presenting the truth. Whether or not you believe it is your choice. The proof is in the historical record.

The Catholic Church inherited the 46 ‘books’ of the Septuagint containing the so-called “Apocrypha” from Jesus and the Apostles. That’s how they happened to be in her possession. These are the same 46 writings from Judaism that she canonized at the Council of Rome (A.D. 382) and named the Old Testament.
At the very same time she canonized 27 from among many early Christian writings and named them the New Testament. She put her complete collections together – OT and NT – and named them ta Biblia – the Bible. At that time, the Catholic Church was nearly 400 years old. Subsequent councils reiterated the same canon (Hippo, 393; Carthage, 397, approved by Pope Innocent I in 405).

Facts:

There was no OT canon for the Jews at the time Jesus lived. There were two collections of writings sacred to the Jews – one in Hebrew and one in Greek. The Greek was a translation from the Hebrew, made for Greek-speaking Jews in the Diaspora. Both were considered the “inspired Word of God” and were used in Jewish synagogues in the first century A.D.

1. The Septuagint (LXX) containing 46 writings was the Bible of Jesus and the Apostles.

2. The LXX containing 46 writings was preferred by the sacred writers of the NT. Of 350 quotations of the OT in the NT, it is estimated that about 300 (86%) are the same as the LXX and that the LXX was the principal source of these quotations. 14% are from the Hebrew. Clearly, the sacred writers consider both the Greek and the Hebrew texts as Scripture, but they preferred the Greek translation. (The NT was, after all, written in Koine Greek.)

Continued

 

[Katholikos]

Part 2

3. The Apostles spread the Good News of Christianity throughout the entire Greek-speaking Mediterranean world, using the LXX.

4. The LXX containing 46 writings was the Bible of the first Christians.

**5. Some of the the Hebrew texts were later lost and the writings were preserved only in the Greek (Tobit, Judith, Baruch, 1 Maccabees, Ecclesiasticus aka Sirach). Two writings of the Septuagint were originally written in Greek (Wisdom of Solomon and 2 Maccabees). **

**6. The Palestinian rabbis (Pharisees) held a council at Jamnia c. 100 A.D. They were concerned about 3 things primarily: (1) the destruction of their temple in 70 A.D., (2) many Jews had become Christians, and (3) the Catholic Church had adopted the LXX as their scriptures. So the rabbis disowned the LXX and canonized the Hebrew Scriptures (that contained only 39 books, since some Hebrew texts had been lost since the LXX was translated). **

**7. The 46 writings of the LXX remained the Scripture of all Christians until the 16th century. **

8. The LXX is still the Bible of the two ancient Churches – Catholic and Orthodox. Only the come-lately Protestants reject it.

**9. Martin Luther removed ELEVEN writings from his German translation of the Bible (1522 - 1534) – four from the NT (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation); and seven from the OT (Tobit, Judith, Ecclesiasticus aka Sirach, Baruch, Wisdom, 1 and 2 Maccabees and parts of Esther and Daniel). He took them out of the “Scripture” section and placed them in a separate appendix at the back of his Bible, leaving the pages unnumbered so no one would make the mistake of confusing them with the “inspired Word of God.” He wrote a preface for each of the NT writings, giving his reason for rejecting them from the canon. **

**9. The NT books were later restored to their rightful place among the Scriptures by Luther’s followers, but not the OT writings. ****The OT books that Luther removed are still missing from Protestant Bibles. **

**10. Rabbis have no authority to determine what is authoritative for Christians. These same rabbis – at this same council – condemned and cursed Jesus and all of the Christian writings concerning him and the Church He founded. Why would any Christian accept the rabbis’ decision **to reject the LXX?

**11. Luther wanted to get rid of Maccabees, in particular, because it supported the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory; it didn’t fit his new doctrines. So he used as his excuse the decision of the Palestinian rabbis in 100 A.D. to disavow those writings in Greek that had no Hebrew counterpart. **

12. First Luther subtracted part of the Bible; then he declared that the sole rule of faith and morals was the Bible Alone (that is, his cut version of it) – Sola Scriptura.

The original KJV contained all 27 books of the NT plus the so-called “Apocrypha.” The translators used Luther’s strategy of separating them at the back of the Bible in an appendix. Later editions of the KJV omitted these writings altogether.

So it is that Protestant Bibles are incomplete. They owe it all to Martin Luther, hero of the Deformation. Catholics didn’t add books to the Bible; Luther subtracted them and all Protestants follow Luther.

JMJ Jay

 

[michaelp]

Thanks, but this really does not help, and provides nothing new. I already know what people who accept the Apocypha SAY (as I presented it above). But my problem is that many seem to force the evidence (presented above) to fit with what they already believe or what the Mother Church has affirmed. Confirming prejudices does no one any good. And just believing something because someone else says it is checking your brains in and working off “already been chewed theology.” I cannot do this (expecially since I don’t have much brains to begin with!).

When I look at both sides and the studies of liberal scholars (who really don’t care one way or another), all the evidence points to the conclusion (not “fact” because I am not sure) that Christ and the Palestinian Jews did not accept the Apocrypha. Where has the evidence gone wrong.

BTW: This does not help.
Rabbis have no authority to determine what is authoritative for Christians. These same rabbis – at this same council – condemned and cursed Jesus and all of the Christian writings concerning him and the Church He founded. Why would any Christian accept the rabbis’ decision to reject the LXX?
It is a speculative argument because all the evidence says that they did not ever accept the LXX. How can that reject what they never accepted? This is the case of going against all the evidence to confirm something you already believe. At least, that is what it seems to me.

The two copies of the LXX that we have date to about 350 and do not even contain the exact canon of the Apocrypha that the Roman Catholic Church has (to say nothing of the Greek Church). Therefore, even if it did represent the LXX 500 years later (which is a large leap of faith for the reason #1] presented above), they don’t even have the same Deuterocanonical books.

These are the problems that I have. Mainly that it does not seem like Jesus believed it to be inspired, and the LXX argument is weak. What am I missing? I am truly trying to be faithful to our Lord.

Have a great day all,

Michael

 

[Katholikos]

Protestants:

Since the so-called Apocrypha were the scriptures of Jesus and the Apostles, the sacred writers of the NT, and the first Christians, shouldn’t they be your scriptures also?

Was Martin Luther appointed by God to cut certain writings out of the Bible – in the 16th century???

The ancient Jews had a concept of the cleansing of the soul after death, though they didn’t have a name for it . They still, to this day, pray for their dead. The Apostles, being Jews like their Master, taught the concept to the first Christians. The Church called it “Purgatory” from the Latin purgare – to cleanse, to purify, to clear away.

2 Maccabees 12:44-45: “For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.”

Thus, Maccabees had to go. Luther couldn’t tolerate anything that contradicted his novel doctrine of Sola Fide. That’s why Hebrews,
James, Jude, and Revelation had to go also – especially James.

Protestants would have had a NT of only 23 writings if Luther had had his way. And they’re stuck with a cut version of the OT because of him.

JMJ Jay

 

[michaelp]

Again, this does not really help. I wonder if you came to these conclusions by your own study or because someone has told you these things.

To say “Since the so-called Apocrypha were the scriptures of Jesus and the Apostles, the sacred writers of the NT, and the first Christians, shouldn’t they be your scriptures also?” shows that you have not struggled with the evidence. Saying something over and over again does not make it right. I could just respond by saying “They were not the Scripture of the Apostles and Christ.” And we could go on like this for quite some time.

Honestly, I have yet to find a Roman Catholic can defend the statements that you have been making concerning the Apocrypha (yes, I have read many books and Roman Catholics with a VERY open mind). I am open to change, but I just need something more than quick, pithy, unsubstantiated statements. If you could refer me to someone (a book or website) who deals with the issue openly and graciously, without setting out to prove the issue one way or another, that would be great. If not, please don’t send me to places that already have their agenda. It really waists my time.

But, like I said, I have read these books and they are highly persuasive that Jesus and the Apostles did not accept the Apocypha.

You may not be able to do this and that is fine. I do thatk you for taking the time to write.

Have a great day,
Michael

 

[Katholikos]

michaelp:

Thanks, but this really does not help, and provides nothing new. I already know what people who accept the Apocypha SAY (as I presented it above). But my problem is that many seem to force the evidence (presented above) to fit with what they already believe or what the Mother Church has affirmed. Confirming prejudices does no one any good. And just believing something because someone else says it is checking your brains in and working off “already been chewed theology.” I cannot do this (expecially since I don’t have much brains to begin with!).

I’m assuming that you accept Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Hebrews, Acts, the 13 letters of Paul, the 2 letters of Peter, the 3 letters of John, the letter of James, the letter of Jude, and Revelation. Correct? On what authority do you accept them?

Why do you not accept the Epistle of Barnabas, the Epistle of Clement, and the 200 or so other early Christian writings that circulated among the local churches during the first four centuries of Christianity? By what authority do you reject them?

How do you know which of the many Christian writings are the “inspired Word of God” and which are not?

JMJ Jay

 

[michaelp]

Actually, I would not make too many assumptions about me. At this point, I accept them because I believe that God is not sitting on His throne in heaven saying “How in the world could the my people be reading to wrong book?”

But, ultimately, I think that there is a different method for that of the Old Testament and that of the New.

Here is the method with the Old Testament: Whatever Bible Christ used, we should use and accept, since there was obviously no canon controversy in His day. He referred to the Scriptures as if everyone believed in the same canon. The overwhelming amount of evidence by unbiased research says that Christ and the Apostles did not use the Apocrypha. Now anyone can scew the evidence to fit whatever scheme they would like. But intellectual honesty must be our guide, not folk theology (which we all have alot of!).

Here is my method with the New Testament: Whatever books that were written by an Apostle, written in the first century, contain religious value, and/or were accepted by the majority of the Body of Christ, I accept. I do not see the Body of Christ as an institutional authority, but as a Spirit led body that has both individually and collectively the witness and power of the Holy Spirit within them. I get that from Scripture, not post 4th century tradition.

Do you have any suggestion on a book where the person comes out in favor of the Apocrypha, yet conducts his or her research unbiasedly? I would really appreciated it. I am going to teach on this and I want to accurately represent both sides.

Thanks,

Michael

 

[Katholikos]

Part 1

Michael wrote:

When I look at both sides and the studies of liberal scholars (who really don’t care one way or another), all the evidence points to the conclusion (not “fact” because I am not sure) that Christ and the Palestinian Jews did not accept the Apocrypha. Where has the evidence gone wrong.

There is historical evidence that the Palestinian rabbis rejected the LXX about 100 A.D. when they established the first-ever canon of Jewish scriptures for Jews. Although these rabbis were not an authoritative body, their decision was eventually adopted by all Jews everywhere. There is no evidence that the LXX containing the so-called “apocrypha” was rejected by any Jew before that.

Would the Apostles have used the LXX if Christ had rejected it? Uh uh. Luke recorded in his Gospel that Christ read from the LXX and called it “scripture” (4:14-21).

What does it matter whether the Palestinian Jews ever accepted the LXX or not? The Apostles accepted it – and it became the Bible of the first Christians and the early Church. If Jesus and the Apostles didn’t know what was “scripture,” forget Christianity!

BTW: This does not help.
Rabbis have no authority to determine what is authoritative for Christians. These same rabbis – at this same council – condemned and cursed Jesus and all of the Christian writings concerning him and the Church He founded. Why would any Christian accept the rabbis’ decision to reject the LXX?

It is a speculative argument because all the evidence says that they did not ever accept the LXX. How can that reject what they never accepted? This is the case of going against all the evidence to confirm something you already believe. At least, that is what it seems to me.

What evidence do you have that any rabbis ever rejected the LXX before 100 A.D.? And even if they did, what possible difference should it make to a Christian? The Catholic Faith comes to us not from the rabbis but from the Apostles, for whom the LXX was the Word of God.

Continued