Biblical argument for Protestant canon?

[jcrichton]

As I said to James, please show a citation that proves that the Deuterocanonicals were considered Scripture by the Jews during any period, BC or AD. As I have said before, just because something is translated with something else does not mean it’s Scripture.

Interestingly, here are a couple of references that say that the Jews rejected the Deuterocanonicals. They are from the 1st century AD:

earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/apion1.html

Josephus gives the number of books in the Jewish canon as twenty-two. There are actually 24 books in the Jewish canon, so he may have divided his canon differently, or perhaps not. Regardless, it is clear the Josephus claims that the Jews rejected the Deuterocanonicals.

pseudepigrapha.com/apocrypha_ot/2esdr.htm

Here we have a citation, again from the 1st century, that gives the number of books in the Jewish canon as twenty-four. This corresponds to the 24 books of the Jewish canon today.

Here’s a listing of passages for you:

biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=NASB&quicksearch=Scripture&startnumber=1&searchtype=all&bookset=2

Hi!

…and the battle continues… too bad it’s a circular one…

Final offer:

Rabbinic Judaism (Hebrew: יהדות רבנית) recognizes the twenty-four books of the Masoretic Text, commonly called the Tanakh (Hebrew: תַּנַ"ךְ) or Hebrew Bible.[7] Evidence suggests that the process of canonization occurred between 200 BC and 200 AD, and a popular position is that the Torah was canonized c. 400 BC, the Prophets c. 200 BC, and the Writings c. 100 AD[8] perhaps at a hypothetical Council of Jamnia—however, this position is increasingly criticised by modern scholars.[9][10][11][12][13][14] According to Marc Zvi Brettler, the Jewish scriptures outside the Torah and the Prophets were fluid, different groups seeing authority in different books.[15]

The Book of Nehemiah suggests that the priest-scribe Ezra brought the Torah back from Babylon to Jerusalem and the Second Temple (8–9) around the same time period. Both I and II Maccabees suggest that Judas Maccabeus (c. 167 BC) likewise collected sacred books (3:42–50, 2:13–15, 15:6–9), indeed some scholars argue that the Jewish canon was fixed by the Hasmonean dynasty.[17] However, these primary sources do not suggest that the canon was at that time closed; moreover, it is not clear that these sacred books were identical to those that later became part of the canon.

In addition to the Tanakh, mainstream Rabbinic Judaism considers the Talmud (Hebrew: תַּלְמוּד ) to be another central, authoritative text. It takes the form of a record of rabbinic discussions pertaining to Jewish law, ethics, philosophy, customs, and history. The Talmud has two components: the Mishnah (c. 200 AD), the first written compendium of Judaism’s oral Law; and the Gemara (c. 500 AD), an elucidation of the Mishnah and related Tannaitic writings that often ventures onto other subjects and expounds broadly on the Tanakh. There are numerous citations of Sirach within the Talmud, even though the book was not ultimately accepted into the Hebrew canon.

The Talmud is the basis for all codes of rabbinic law and is often quoted in other rabbinic literature. Certain groups of Jews, such as the Karaites, do not accept the oral Law as it is codified in the Talmud and only consider the Tanakh to be authoritative. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

)
…compared with:

There is no scholarly consensus as to when the Hebrew Bible canon was fixed: some scholars argue that it was fixed by the Hasmonean dynasty (140–40 BCE),[5] while others argue it was not fixed until the second century CE or even later.[6] The Catholic Pontifical Biblical Commission says that “the more restricted Hebrew canon is later than the formation of the New Testament”.[7]

The Septuagint (LXX) is a Koine Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, translated in stages between the 3rd to 2nd century BCE in Alexandria, Egypt.

According to Michael Barber, in the Septuagint, the Torah and Nevi’im are established as canonical, but the Ketuvim appear not to have been definitively canonized yet. The translation (and editing) work might have been done by seventy (or seventy-two) elders who translated the Hebrew Bible into Koine Greek but the historical evidence for this story is rather sketchy. Beyond that, according to him, it is virtually impossible to determine when each of the other various books was incorporated into the Septuagint.[11]

Philo and Josephus (both associated with first century Hellenistic Judaism) ascribed divine inspiration to its translators, and the primary ancient account of the process is the circa 2nd century BCE Letter of Aristeas. Some of the Dead Sea Scrolls attest to Hebrew texts other than those on which the Masoretic Text was based; in some cases, these newly found texts accord with the Septuagint version.[12] Strong evidence exists that the Septuagint was the canon in place in first century Palestine. “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.”[13] (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Hebrew_Bible_canon

)
…you can accept these findings or reject them.

If Jesus and the Apostles cited from the Septuagint, why do you refuse to accept their source–check under that for the reason to your quest.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

They reject the complete NT as well but you dont consider that to be relevant do you?

Peace!!!

Hi!

…it bewilders the mind… ‘see how right they are… even though they reject Christ and the New Covenant?.. those other Jews that accepted the Septuagint… well, they don’t count.’

…talk about throwing out the Baby with the bathwater!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

What is the so called, “criteria of canonicity” that you keep bringing up? Show us a copy and point to the authoritative source where you found it. No fair making it up out of thin air.

Hi, De Maria!

…it is conceivable that the Protestant have such “criteria.”

…it goes to authority; they reject the Catholic Authority so they formed their own… consider if you will the Jehovah Witness, the Mormons, the Masons… all of these have engineered their own construct… once Luther stated that ‘that’s what St. Paul meant to convey…’ (paraphrasing) the construct-your-own-criteria schools were founded.

…the one single element found in these schools is that they negate the Church, her Authority, and her history–remove Apostolic Teaching and Apostolic Succession and you’ve invented H2O!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

The criteria of canonicity for the OT has already been mentioned (that the Jews accepted it as Scripture - Rom. 3:1-2), but we could also add that anything mentioned as Scripture in the NT or OT is Scripture as well.

As far as the NT is concerned, it has to be apostolic.

Hi!

…so the Protestant understanding of Romans 3:1-2 is that the Jews that rejected the Septuagint were Inspired by the Holy Spirit to form the correct Old Testament Canon but that the Alexandrian Jews and the Jews in Jerusalem (these include Christ and the Apostles) that used and quoted from the Septuagint were in error and did not hold to the Holy Spirit’s Inspiration of the Word of God?:

1 What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2 Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.

…Protestants get that from the above New Testament Sacred Scriptures passage?

…no wonder there are over 38,000 Protestant denominations worldwide (…and growing)!

…basically Protestants are saying that the Jews that reject Christ and the New Covenant have been entrusted with the Word of God… since they have determined that the New Covenant does not exists, that makes all of the New Testament Scriptures not the Word of God… and Christians (which by default would include Christ) were left holding an empty bag (no New Covenant Sacred Writings for them).

…can you understand that unless all of the above is correct you must do some sort of hyper Chinese acrobatics (almost as good as the Jehovah Witnesses’) in order to reconcile: Jews have the Word of God, but not the Alexandrian Jews or the ones in Jerusalem who followed the Septuagint, and there is a New Covenant with a New Revelation that those who do not exist (they are rejected by the first said Jews) were Inspired to Write?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[adf417]

We are talking about the Deuterocanon.

Hi De Maria,
Achilles6129 was probably responding to my reference to the NT as I was trying to approach his/her logic from a different angle.

Peace!!!

 

[De_Maria]

Hi, De Maria!

…it is conceivable that the Protestant have such “criteria.”…

There were Protestants around in the Old Testament times? I don’t think so.

See, he’s denying the canonicity of the Deuterocanon based upon a so-called “criteria for canonicity”. He claims that the OT Jews rejected them based upon this criterion. So, I’d like him to show us that criteria.

Here are the facts.

1. The OT Jews did not reject the Deuterocanon. They included them in the Septuagint. Thus, they recognized that they are Scripture.
2. The NT Jews rejected the Deuterocanon, ostensibly because they were not written in Hebrew. But actually because they were included in the Septuagint which is the Greek version of the OT and was the version of Scripture used by Christ and the Apostles.
3. The NT Jews had no other criteria.

Unless, of course, he can provide it.

 

[jcrichton]

There were Protestants around in the Old Testament times? I don’t think so.

See, he’s denying the canonicity of the Deuterocanon based upon a so-called “criteria for canonicity”. He claims that the OT Jews rejected them based upon this criterion. So, I’d like him to show us that criteria.

Here are the facts.

1. The OT Jews did not reject the Deuterocanon. They included them in the Septuagint. Thus, they recognized that they are Scripture.
2. The NT Jews rejected the Deuterocanon, ostensibly because they were not written in Hebrew. But actually because they were included in the Septuagint which is the Greek version of the OT and was the version of Scripture used by Christ and the Apostles.
3. The NT Jews had no other criteria.

Unless, of course, he can provide it.

Hi, De Maria!

…you’ve just used a Protestant formula: ‘select an excerpt and base the argument on that one portion alone.’

…you have to take the whole post into consideration… I was arguing in your favor… my inference was that they reject the Church’s Authority; by rejecting the Church’s Authority they are, by default, rejecting Apostolic Teaching and Apostolic Succession; remove the Church’s history and you have created a vacuum… now what can bridge a time gap as huge as 1500 years if not personal criteria–which is what Luther, his peers, and their followers have continue to do during the past 500 years or so…

…and because these schools of “criteria” do not always conform with each other they must constantly be reinvented… sometimes even within the same body (Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, 1st, 2nd, etc. “xyz,” and the beaut “non-denominational”); the one thing that they do hold in common is the rejection of the Church’s Authority… which is, in of itself, a major “criterion.”

…so you see, they in deed base their belief on certain “criteria;” this of course means pretty much what it is meant to mean… that is, it reflects what the intent is: protestation.

Hope this clears my previous statement/s.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[De_Maria]

Hi, De Maria!

…you’ve just used a Protestant formula: 'select an excerpt and base the argument on that one portion alone…Hi, J.

No, I haven’t. I’m trying to keep my discussion focused. I’m having a discussion with Achilles and I’m trying to get him to focus on the fact that we are talking about the criteria which he claims the OT Jews used for selecting the OT canon and denying the DEUTEROCANON.

He keeps changing the subject to the NT and you are doing the same thing. So, no, you’re not arguing in my favor. You’re helping him change the subject.

All the stuff you mentioned, although correct, is beyond the scope of the discussion I’m having with Achilles.

No disrespect intended.

 

[jcrichton]

Hi, J.

No, I haven’t. I’m trying to keep my discussion focused. I’m having a discussion with Achilles and I’m trying to get him to focus on the fact that we are talking about the criteria which he claims the OT Jews used for selecting the OT canon and denying the DEUTEROCANON.

He keeps changing the subject to the NT and you are doing the same thing. So, no, you’re not arguing in my favor. You’re helping him change the subject.

All the stuff you mentioned, although correct, is beyond the scope of the discussion I’m having with Achilles.

No disrespect intended.

Hi!

…point taken!

Maran atha!

Angel