Deutero-canonical / Apocryphal Books

[Pwrlftr]

The LXX of the time of Christ did not contain the Deuterocanonical books. If you believe it did, please provide proof. This whole Martyr quote does nothing to disprove or prove your view. It actually does…nothing.

How do you know what the LXX contained at the time of Christ? Or, more specifically, how do you know the deutero’s were missing from the LXX?

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Rightlydivide
The LXX of the time of Christ did not contain the Deuterocanonical books. If you believe it did, please provide proof. This whole Martyr quote does nothing to disprove or prove your view. It actually does…nothing.

Amazing! How you expect proof and yet you NEVER gaves us the proof clearly proving the OT canon was set before Jesus. Just as you claim the Martyr quote does not prove anything,well neither does your weak Josephus quote-again for the 10,000th time.Actaully you are adding to what he says because again he never confirms the Jews set the canon and as usual you give no creditentials supporting Josephus.

So far your entire argument is a biased view and pure conjecture.

 

[Nicea325]

I know, but I"m kind of curious to see what his claim for “point 3” will be.

I’ll make it very simple. Rightlydivide is only concerned with his argument and his evidence and really has no interest what others have to say and provide. The fact he failed to answer numerous questions is a confirmed fact he has not concrete evidence proving the OT was established before Jesus. It is a victory for us and history,not the revisionist history and perversions of it.

 

[WFS5801]

I’ll make it very simple. Rightlydivide is only concerned with his argument and his evidence and really has no interest what others have to say and provide. The fact he failed to answer numerous questions is a confirmed fact he has not concrete evidence proving the OT was established before Jesus. It is a victory for us and history,not the revisionist history and perversions of it.

This just shows one of the weaknesses of “sola scriptura” as a Rule of Faith. There are several others.

 

[WFS5801]

I’ll make it very simple. Rightlydivide is only concerned with his argument and his evidence and really has no interest what others have to say and provide. The fact he failed to answer numerous questions is a confirmed fact he has not concrete evidence proving the OT was established before Jesus. It is a victory for us and history,not the revisionist history and perversions of it.

Yeah, I’m figuring that out. I’ll try to take a “back seat” and drop off from this for a while – (unless I let myself get drawn back in). For one thing I don’t see any progress in this debate – one side is only providing opinion and conjecture – and, it would probably be more fair for “Rightly” if he had one less person to oppose. But I plan to continue reading the thread.

 

[Nicea325]

This just shows one of the weaknesses of “sola scriptura” as a Rule of Faith. There are several others.

It is a major weakness and SS advocates are spiritually prideful & blind to accept it.

 

[Nicea325]

Yeah, I’m figuring that out. I’ll try to take a “back seat” and drop off from this for a while – (unless I let myself get drawn back in). For one thing I don’t see any progress in this debate – one side is only providing opinion and conjecture – and, it would probably be more fair for “Rightly” if he had one less person to oppose. But I plan to continue reading the thread.

I am telling I dealt with this whole ordeal a few months back and got nowhere because Rightlydivide refusal to answer: WHEN,WHERE,BY WHOM,BY WHAT AUTHORITY.

The only thing I heard were the crickets…:tiphat:

 

[Rightlydivide]

The prologue of Ecclesiasticus by the grandson of Jesus ben Sirah, stated:

Whereas many and great things have been delivered unto us by the law and the prophets, and by others that have followed their steps, for the which things Israel ought to be commended for learning and wisdom: and whereof not only the readers must needs become skillful themselves, but also they that desire to learn to be able profit them which are without, both by speaking and by writing: my grandfather Jesus, when he had much given himself to the reading of the law, and the prophets, and other books of our fathers, and had gotten therein good judgment, was drawn on also himself to write something pertaining to learning and wisdom; to the intent that those which are desirous to learn, and are addicted to these things, might profit much more in living according to the law. Wherefore let me entreat you to read it with favour and attention, and to pardon us, wherein we may seem to come short of some words, which we have laboured to interpret; for the same things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into another tongue, have not the same force in them. And not only these things, but the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language

I will expound on this later. I want people to google the Anti Protestant websites first to see how they try to wiggle out of this one!

 

[UnityofTrinity]

The prologue of Ecclesiasticus by the grandson of Jesus ben Sirah, stated:

I will expound on this later. I want people to google the Anti Protestant websites first to see how they try to wiggle out of this one!

Isn’t this quote is only about the work of Ben Sira in general? Tell me, who is Jesus’ grandson speaking to? Obviously it can’t be the general people who cannot read these works because the printing press had not yet invented, not even paper.

 

[Salvatore123]

Rightly?

Would you please answer the questions I posed to you? They are, I believe, only four.

If you have the proof at your fingertips - and you intimate that you do - it would not take more than 10 minutes to respond.

I sincerely ask - please.

 

[dje101]

Rightly?

Would you please answer the questions I posed to you? They are, I believe, only four.

If you have the proof at your fingertips - and you intimate that you do - it would not take more than 10 minutes to respond.

I sincerely ask - please.

OOh, 20 minutes and nothing.

 

[Poco]

The prologue of Ecclesiasticus by the grandson of Jesus ben Sirah, stated:

I will expound on this later. I want people to google the Anti Protestant websites first to see how they try to wiggle out of this one!

Rightly, your last post has absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing here! There is nothing to “wiggle out of”! You have consistently failed to provide any evidence of a “closed” Judaic canon at the time of Jesus Christ while others, including myself, have consistently provided evidence that the Judaic canon was still open until at least the time of the Councils of Hippo or Carthage!

I know you don’t want to admit it but regardless, the first canon was listed by the Christian church in the late 4th century and includes the 73 books in the current Catholic Bible.

 

[Nicea325]

The prologue of Ecclesiasticus by the grandson of Jesus ben Sirah, stated:

I will expound on this later. I want people to google the Anti Protestant websites first to see how they try to wiggle out of this one!

But I am wondering when you are going to wiggle out this one:

WHEN,WHERE,BY WHOM,BY WHAT AUTHORITY?

 

[Nicea325]

Rightly?

Would you please answer the questions I posed to you? They are, I believe, only four.

If you have the proof at your fingertips - and you intimate that you do - it would not take more than 10 minutes to respond.

I sincerely ask - please.

Sal…if he has not provided us what we have been asking for a long duration now;then it is very EVIDENT this guy has ZILCH evidence to rebuke our arguments. If anything,I think he is trying to convince himself the OT canon was closed before Jesus.

 

[Mintaka]

Isn’t this quote is only about the work of Ben Sira in general? Tell me, who is Jesus’ grandson speaking to? Obviously it can’t be the general people who cannot read these works because the printing press had not yet invented, not even paper.

The ancient Egyptians invented papyrus paper. (“Paper” comes from “papyrus”.) The ancient Chinese invented various sorts of rag and mulberry paper, IIRC, and the ancient Romans wrote on parchment and other hides, strips of wood, and all sorts of other things (though papyrus paper was cheapest). Books were somewhat expensive, but bookstores existed that sold copies written out on scrolls or in codex form by professional copyists. Short cheap books were not above the reach of ordinary people, at least in big cities in Roman Egypt. (Because we’ve found their books and letters and curses in the trashpits in the sand there. Elsewhere, they tended to decay.) One copy of a book could be loaned out to a lot of people to read (or copy, if they were really really enthused). There were public and private libraries, small and large, and the Greeks and Romans liked to learn about weird foreign religions (exotic!). And I’m not saying every Jew who spoke Greek could also read and write, but there seems to have been a fair percentage, especially in big cities outside Judea and Galilee.

 

[Byzman]

The prologue of Ecclesiasticus by the grandson of Jesus ben Sirah, stated:

I will expound on this later. I want people to google the Anti Protestant websites first to see how they try to wiggle out of this one!

Rightlydivide,
I am so sorry that you are failing to see things that have already been pointed out to you in previous posts.

In fact I brought this up first, not you. If you look back and re-read post #206 you can see this for yourself.

There is no need to go on websites that are Anti-Protestant, because even protestant scholars realize that at the time when Sirach was translated into Greek, the “other writings” mentioned do not refer to a closed Canon, but instead the “other writings” were deing disputed still at this time period and into the 1st and 2nd Centuries A.D. In fact, do the “other writings” mean other writings that are canonical, or other writings that are being circulated around this time period mentioned.

Again, in the Talmud…Sirach, or ben Sira, is mentioned as being among the “Hagiographa.”

 

[Nicea325]

Rightlydivide,
I am so sorry that you are failing to see things that have already been pointed out to you in previous posts.

In fact I brought this up first, not you. If you look back and re-read post #206 you can see this for yourself.

There is no need to go on websites that are Anti-Protestant, because even protestant scholars realize that at the time when Sirach was translated into Greek, the “other writings” mentioned do not refer to a closed Canon, but instead the “other writings” were deing disputed still at this time period and into the 1st and 2nd Centuries A.D. In fact, do the “other writings” mean other writings that are canonical, or other writings that are being circulated around this time period mentioned.

Again, in the Talmud…Sirach, or ben Sira, is mentioned as being among the “Hagiographa.”

I am done with this topic.

 

[Salvatore123]

Last time, Rightly, and then I “retire” from this thread as well:

Would you please respond to the last set of questions I posed to you above? I believe I asked only 4, and as I said earlier, you should be able to answer them - with the evidence you claim to have readily available to you - in 10 minutes or less.

I do not believe it is unfair to ask you to answer these questions.

If you choose to not answer them, then I certainly understand why . . . I would not want to answer them, either, if I had taken YOUR position on the closure of the OT canon.

 

[WFS5801]

The prologue of Ecclesiasticus by the grandson of Jesus ben Sirah, stated:

I will expound on this later. I want people to google the Anti Protestant websites first to see how they try to wiggle out of this one!

What, exactly, are we supposed to be “wiggling out of?” The fact that it’s hard to keep the exact sense of another language when translating? Every Bible translator knows that.

Quotes are not magic “totems” – you need to make a point when you use them.

The King James Version of this prologue (which you quote) is very close to the 1609 Douay Old Testament. Here’s the Douay version of the prologue (retaining the old spelling from 1609).

THE PROLOGVE VPON ECCLESIASTICVS OF IESVS THE SONNE OF SIRACH. The knowlege of manie and great thinges hath bene shewed vs by the Law, and the Prophetes, and others that folowed them: in which we ought to prayse Israel for doctrine & wisdom: because not onlie they in speaking must nedes be cunning, but strangers also both lerning & writing, may become most lerned. My grandfather Iesus, after he gaue himselfe more amply to the diligence of reading the Law, and the Prophetes, and other Bookes, that were deliuered vs from our fathers: himself also would write some of those thinges, which perteyne to doctrine and wisdom: that such as are desirous to lerne, and to be made counning in the same thinges, may more and more be attent in minde, and be confirmed to the life that is according to the law. I exhort you therfore to come with beneuolence, and to read with attent studie, and to pardon vs for those thinges, wherein we seming to folow the image of wisdom, may fayle in the composition of wordes: for the Hebrew wordes also fayle when they shal be translated to an other tongue. And not onlie these, but the Law also itself, and the Prophetes, and the rest of other bookes, haue no smal difference, when they are spoken within themselues. For in the eight and thirteth yeare, in the time of Ptolomee Euergetes the king, after I came into Ægypt: and when I had bene there much time, I found there bookes leaft, of no smal nor contemptible doctrine. Therfore myself also thought it good, and necessarie ta adde some diligence and labour to interprete this booke: and with much watching I brought forth this doctrin in space of time, that men may lerne those thinges which teach them, that wil applie their minde, how they ought to order their maners, them that purpose to lead their life according to the Law of our Lord.

This quote is longer than yours because you left off the last third (or so) of the King James version of it.

Image of the original 1611 King James prologue below:
tinyurl.com/4cb23l7

 

[Rightlydivide]

The translator distinguishes ‘these things’ (i.e. Ecclesiasticus) from ‘the Law itself and the Prophets and the rest of the Books.’ I take this at face value. He regards the Hagiographa as ‘ancestral’ (patrivwn) books, long enough esteemed to have been translated into Greek, and their number as complete (‘the others that have followed in their steps’, ‘the other Books of the fathers’, ‘the rest of the Books’). And he states that in his own day there was this threefold canon, distinguished from all other writings, in which even the Hagiographa formed a closed collection of old books, but he implies that such was the case in his grandfather’s time also.