Canon of Scripture

[Pwrlftr]

What basis do you have on this? The Eastern Orthodox have the Alexandrian Canon or rather the LXX which contains the Deutrocanonical Books.

Beckwith and Bruce are the basis. I’ll post something more on this later today.

 

[Ginger2]

Lets not forget Tradition and reason as well.

What I have discovered over time, is that sometimes what seems to make sense to the human mind is incorrect.

Reason has its place, but trusting God stands above reason.

Sometimes we have to do what does not makes sense because God is calling us to do so. If we truly trust God, it always turns out well. It’s truly amazing.

The same is true for tradition. It has its place, but sometimes God calls us to forget about tradition to fulfill a greater purpose. It’s hard to let go of tradition, but we must always follow God.

 

[HailMary]

What I have discovered over time, is that sometimes what seems to make sense to the human mind is incorrect.

Reason has its place, but trusting God stands above reason.

Sometimes we have to do what does not makes sense because God is calling us to do so. If we truly trust God, it always turns out well. It’s truly amazing.

The same is true for tradition. It has its place, but sometimes God calls us to forget about tradition to fulfill a greater purpose. It’s hard to let go of tradition, but we must always follow God.

If you are talking about Protestant tradition, like this, let it go; that is man-made, unbiblical, absent from early Christian history. But Tradition, like the Mass, is part of the DEPOIST OF FAITH.

Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

 

[Ginger2]

So, do you test every word of the Bible for yourself, to ensure that it is, in fact, “Biblical?” And by what standard do you judge it, if so?

That’s kind of a tricky question.

I have read corrupt materials that seemed to make good sense. I am a gullible person by nature. I have never understood the concept of lying unless it is to avoid some ill consequence. But I’ve learned that people lie for many reasons.

Anyway, I am sure I would have been deceived by such solid “facts” as are presented in corrupt materials on God, if not for asking God to keep me from being deceived.

I always pray. There is always something in even the most corrupt writings that points back to the truth.

So I guess my answer is I trust God and that is the measure by which I judge what is true.

 

[Ginger2]

If you are talking about Protestant tradition, like this, let it go; that is man-made, unbiblical, absent from early Christian history. But Tradition, like the Mass, is part of the DEPOIST OF FAITH.

Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

I don’t want to talk about Sola Scripture. Catholics have a different definition than Protestants so we would be talking about two different things.

 

[HailMary]

I don’t want to talk about Sola Scripture. Catholics have a different definition than Protestants so we would be talking about two different things.

Now thats a bit deceptive wouldn’t you think?

You speak as if protestants actually agree what it is!

 

[Pwrlftr]

If you are talking about Protestant tradition, like this, let it go; that is man-made, unbiblical, absent from early Christian history. But Tradition, like the Mass, is part of the DEPOIST OF FAITH.

Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

This may sidetrack the thread, but what the heck.

If you guys could trace back all of your traditions to the apostles it might be more convincing. For example, if you could somehow show that Paul taught about the assumption or the immaculate conception it would be more convincing, but you have no way of doing that.

Right now, there is no way of knowing what those “traditions” are.

 

[Ginger2]

Now thats a bit deceptive wouldn’t you think?

You speak as if protestants actually agree what it is!

I haven’t met one that has a differing view, yet. However, I don’t spend much time talking about it in real life - only cyberspace.

 

[HailMary]

This may sidetrack the thread, but what the heck.

If you guys could trace back all of your traditions to the apostles it might be more convincing. For example, if you could somehow show that Paul taught about the assumption or the immaculate conception it would be more convincing, but you have no way of doing that.

Right now, there is no way of knowing what those “traditions” are.

That thought process you suggest is not neccessary. When Christ said, “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” to Peter, that authority doesn’t expire when Peter dies.

When Christ said, “, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name–he will teach you everything and remind you of all that (I) told you.” that word of Jesus doesn’t expire when the last apostle died…

“Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.” If we are to believe this, then these things Jesus said above must have some real meaning in our personal lives. Dogmas, like the IC, are formally defined at some point in time, but were revealed much earlier on anyhow. The Church of the living God, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, is alive and it teaches until this day.

 

[mercygate]

This may sidetrack the thread, but what the heck.

If you guys could trace back all of your traditions to the apostles it might be more convincing. For example, if you could somehow show that Paul taught about the assumption or the immaculate conception it would be more convincing, but you have no way of doing that.

Right now, there is no way of knowing what those “traditions” are.

Paul did not teach the Assumption or the Immaculate Conception. A dogma is, by definition, a teaching that is not specifically outlined in the early kerygma but that derives logically from other truths in the Tradition, and that is subsequently discerned to be divinely revealed by the Holy Spirit for the building-up of the Church.

Tradition is not a cluster of secret “oral” teachings that Jesus whispered to the 12, who then handed them down in secret to their successors, only to have them brought to light as history requries . . . Tradition is a living thing, and develops in consistency as we achieve a deeper understanding of the mysteries of our faith.

Now: back to topic!

 

[mgrfin]

The lastest from a Protestant church that I am aware of was last month: The Rev. Donald Armstrong of Colorado Springs.

I think both Catholics and Protestants are too reluctant to remove unfaithful preachers.

We all need to be on guard. The Catholic Church has those who want to change its foundation as well as protestant churches.

Protestant excommunication? That’s a good one.

I don’t know what Catholics are out to ‘change its foundation’ means???

peace

 

[anthony022071]

“Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testaments, and what those of the New.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 4:33 (A.D. 350).

“For the blessed apostle Paul himself, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes only by name to seven Churches in the following order–to the Corinthians afirst…there is a second to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians, yet one Church is recognized as being spread over the entire world…Howbeit to Philemon one, to Titus one, and to Timothy two were put in writing…to be in honour however with the Catholic Church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline…one to the Laodicenes, another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul’s name to suit the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the Catholic Church…But of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Militiades we receive nothing at all.” The fragment of Muratori (A.D. 177).

“The authority of our books [Scriptures], which is confirmed by agreement of so many nations, supported by a succession of apostles, bishops, and councils, is against you.” Augustine, Reply to Faustus the Manichean, 13:5 (c. A.D. 400).

 

[Pwrlftr]

ALEXANDRIAN CANON:
FF Bruce's "The Canon of Scripture":

It has frequently been suggested that, while the canon of the Palestinian Jews was limited to the 24 books of the Law, Prophets, and Writings, the canon of the Alexandraian Jews was more comprehensive. There is no evidence that this was so: indeed, there is no evidence the Alexandrian Jews ever promulgagted a canon of scripture. The reason for thinking that they did, and that it was a more comprehensive canon than that acknowledged in Palestine, is that the Greek speaking Christians, who naturally took over the Greek OT that was already in existence, took over the Greek version of a number of other books and gave some masure of scriptural status to them also.

With a few and fragmentary exceptions, the Septuagint manuscripts now in existence were produced by Christians.

Philo of Alexandria evidently knew the scriptrues in the Greek version only. He was an illustrious representative of Alexandrian Judaism, and if Alexandrian Judaism did indeed recognize a more comprehensive canon than the Palestinaian Judaism, one might have expected to find some trace of this in Philo’s voluminous writings. But in fact, while Philo has not given us a formal statement on the limits of the canon such as we have w/ Josephus (who excluded the deuterocanonicals) , the books which he acknowledged as holy scripture were quite certainly books included in the traditional Hebrew Bible.

He (Philo) shows no signs of accepting any of the books which we know as tehe Apocypha.

Beckwith "OT Canon In The NT Church":

With some variations, such as the contention prevailing among Roman Catholic scholars that the Apocrypha were at one time accepted as canonical in Palestine as well as in the Dispersion,1 this is the view generally held at the present time. However, as the Introduction went on to note on p. 6f., various fresh developments have begun to disturb the current consensus. Thus the theory of the wider Alexandrian canon has been strongly attacked, the importance of the decision at Jamnia has been queried, and a very significant recent study by S. Z. Leiman, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture, has contended that the third section of the Hebrew Bible was accepted as canonical not in the late first century ad but in the mid second century bc.** In the course of the present volume we have reviewed each of these three questions, and have concluded that the theory of the Alexandrian canon is indeed groundless**,2 that the decision at Jamnia was indeed of very limited importance,3 and that it may even be an understatement to say that the third section of the Hebrew Bible was accepted into the canon as early as the mid second century bc, since the evidence appears to indicate that what happened in the mid second century bc was the division of an already existing collection of non-Mosaic Scriptures into the familiar second and third sections of the Hebrew Bible.4
Beckwith, Roger T.: The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism. London : SPCK, 1985, S. 434

 

[jmcrae]

If the Palestinian canon contained only 24 books, and the Protestant canon is justified on account of the Palestinian canon, then why does the Protestant canon of the Old Testament contain 39 books?

 

[Pwrlftr]

If the Palestinian canon contained only 24 books, and the Protestant canon is justified on account of the Palestinian canon, then why does the Protestant canon of the Old Testament contain 39 books?

In the literature you will see 22 or 24 books listed. Either way, it matches the Hebrew canon as we know it today.

Figure 1. The 22 Books
The Law

1. Genesis
2. Exodus
3. Leviticus
4. Numbers
5. Deuteronomy

The Prophets
6. Joshua
7. Judges–Ruth
8. Samuel
9. Kings
10. Isaiah
11. Jeremiah–Lamentations
12. Ezekiel
13. The Twelve Prophets

The Hagiographa
14. Job
15. Psalms
16. Proverbs
17. Ecclesiastes
18. Song of Songs
19. Daniel
20. Chronicles
21. Ezra–Nehemiah
22. Esther

Beckwith, Roger T.: The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism. London : SPCK, 1985, S. 254

Figure 2. The 24 Books
The Law

1. Genesis
2. Exodus
3. Leviticus
4. Numbers
5. Deuteronomy

The Prophets
6. Joshua
7. Judges
8. Samuel
9. Kings
10. Jeremiah
11. Ezekiel
12. Isaiah
13. The Twelve Prophets

The Hagiographa
14. Ruth
15. Psalms
16. Job
17. Proverbs
18. Ecclesiastes
19. Song of Songs
20. Lamentations
21. Daniel
22. Esther
23. Ezra–Nehemiah
24. Chronicles
Beckwith, Roger T.: The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism. London : SPCK, 1985, S. 255

 

[anthony022071]

DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

< Some people have reasoned that since the Christians are of the New Testament era that they should determine the canon of the New Testament and since the Jews are of the Old Testament era that they should determine the canon of the Old Testament. However logical this may sound on the surface there is a problem with this idea. Namely, that there are two groups of Jews.

One group of Jews rejected Jesus. The other group accepted Jesus Christ as their Messiah and became completed Jews, or in other words Christians. The Hebrew Canon of the majority of today’s Jews is the canon that was settled upon by a group of Rabbis meeting in Jamnia [Javneh] in 90 AD. However, these Rabbis were exclusively those who rejected Jesus. They also rejected all of the New Testament. At this same meeting they also required all Jews to curse Jesus Christ and all other Jewish people who became Christians. >

members.aol.com/johnprh/deuterocanonical.html

< So, the bottom line is that, before the time of Christ, the Septuagint canon was approved for use by the reigning Jerusalem establishment (the legitimate “Chair of Moses”). It’s subsequent rejection by the Jews under Rabbi Akiba (after A.D. 90) was not the act of a legitimate Chair of Moses, since that Chair had ceased to exist, both because of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70 and by the Old Covenant’s replacement by the New Covenant in Christ --a Covenant overseen, not by the “Chair of Moses,” but by the subsequent “Chair of Peter.” --the teaching authority of the Church. >

catholic-legate.com/qa/chairofmoses.html

 

[Pwrlftr]

DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

< Some people have reasoned that since the Christians are of the New Testament era that they should determine the canon of the New Testament and since the Jews are of the Old Testament era that they should determine the canon of the Old Testament. However logical this may sound on the surface there is a problem with this idea. Namely, that there are two groups of Jews.

One group of Jews rejected Jesus. The other group accepted Jesus Christ as their Messiah and became completed Jews, or in other words Christians. The Hebrew Canon of the majority of today’s Jews is the canon that was settled upon by a group of Rabbis meeting in Jamnia [Javneh] in 90 AD. However, these Rabbis were exclusively those who rejected Jesus. They also rejected all of the New Testament. At this same meeting they also required all Jews to curse Jesus Christ and all other Jewish people who became Christians. >

members.aol.com/johnprh/deuterocanonical.html

< So, the bottom line is that, before the time of Christ, the Septuagint canon was approved for use by the reigning Jerusalem establishment (the legitimate “Chair of Moses”). It’s subsequent rejection by the Jews under Rabbi Akiba (after A.D. 90) was not the act of a legitimate Chair of Moses, since that Chair had ceased to exist, both because of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70 and by the Old Covenant’s replacement by the New Covenant in Christ --a Covenant overseen, not by the “Chair of Moses,” but by the subsequent “Chair of Peter.” --the teaching authority of the Church. >

catholic-legate.com/qa/chairofmoses.html

a.) Other than Mark B., do you have any other sources for the Palestinian Jews accepting the Septuagint and exactly which books did the Septuagint canon consist of?

b.) Which books did the rabbi’s at Jamnia discuss?